Miguel:
> A postposition in PIE is added to a case form of a
> noun, so we would expect *p&2tros-bhi, not
> p&2tr.-bhi-os, *p&2tris-bhi, not p&2tr.-bh-is.
Does the fact that the accusative plural *-ns (from
*-m-s obviously) shows a contrary order make it any
less the accusative singular with plural attached?
No.
Likewise, the incorporation of *bHi into the case
system shouldn't be a shocker either. In this
case, it looks as though *-bHi is treated as part
of the stem to be inflected. "Of (*-os) that which
is amongst the fathers (*pxtr.-bHi)".
What this implies is that there was once a more
generic 'weak case plural' of the form *pxtr.-bHi,
but such a form is afterall confirmed by *xen-bHi,
*?e-bHi, etc. You're barking up the wrong tree with
this one.
It is the nuance of *bHi here that makes it plural
without the need for explicit marking by *-es.
And afterall, it's pretty clear that the plural wasn't
originally marked in weak cases anyway.
A similar pre-IE locative origin of the genitive
plural *-om can also be posited as well. There is
no plural in the weak cases in pre-IE and no support
for a Nostratic plural marker in *-bH-. No sensible
linguist will respect half-assed connections between
IE and Elamite either.
It suffices to reconstruct Steppe nominoaccusative
plural *-it (> IE *-es), oblique plural *-i and
inanimate collective *-hu (> IE *-x).
> There are no postpositions that attach exclusively
> to athematic nouns.
Um, postpositions aren't even supposed to attach in
Proto-IE! That's why we call them 'postpositions' and
not 'suffixes'. What are you talking about? Can we
really even reconstruct *-bHi-os in the most
ancient 'Indo-Anatolian' case system of IE? Please
enlighten me.
= gLeN
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com