Re: [tied] Re: Origin of Thematic Neuter -om (was: 1sg. -o:)

On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 12:56:32 -0700 (PDT), glen gordon
<glengordon01@...> wrote:

>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.

It isn't. If the acc.pl. had been simply the acc.sg. with
-s added, we would have had Skt.:

acc.sg. acc.sg. (not)
*pódm. pá:dam *pá:das
*&1dóntm. adántam *adántas
*Hré:g^onm. rá:ja:nam *rá:ja:nas
*h2ák^monm. ás'ma:nam *ás'ma:nas
*k^wónm. s'vá:nam *s'vá:nas
*p&2térm. pitáram *pitáras
*mah2térm. ma:táram *ma:táras

Instead, the actual accusative plurals are:

*pedn.'s padás
*&1dn.tn.'s adatás
*Hre:g^nn.'s rá:jñas
*&2k^ménn.s ás'manas
*k^únn.s s'únas
*p&2trn.'s pitr.'n(s)
*mah2trn.'s ma:tr.'s

>> 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'.

We call them adpositions because they are attached to
something (in the case of postpositions, specifically
_after_).

>Can we
>really even reconstruct *-bHi-os in the most
>ancient 'Indo-Anatolian' case system of IE? Please
>enlighten me.

Anatolian has lost the plural forms containing *-bh(i)- (or
*-m-, except the OHitt. gen.pl. -an), but the evidence from
the other languages is quite clear. Anatolian has also lost
the loc.pl. in *-su.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...