From: Andrew Jarrette
Message: 40107
Date: 2005-09-18
**-abhí-âtu and dat. **-abhi-á-atu.>Miguel has explained it as a mere merger of former abl.
What are you talking about here, pray tell? What are -a:tu and -atu? They are not Proto-IE, are they Hittite? Are they plural (if so what of *-bh(y)os/*-mos?)? >Whichever, there is no need for an opposition between
separative/ablative and the one(s) benefitting from the action of
the clause.
Then why have a separate ablative singular if there was no semantic need to distinguish ablative from dative?
Still curious,
Andrew
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Jarrette <anjarrette@...>
wrote:
> 3. Is there any evidence at all for an ablative plural/dual
ending in Proto-IE? Was it always identical to the dative
plural/dual? Does this state of affairs not lead to confusion?
>
It might be that it was the dative that was identical to the
ablative having the ending os.
In athematic singular os is a genitive-ablative like Romance "de",
except in Hittite where there is a difference (-as, -ats).
Confusion?
It might appear that dative and ablative are opposites. But the
opposite of ablative is rather the directive/allative (a case fallen
into disuse with only some traces left).
For indirect object no marker is needed in English:
"I gave those from (the circle of) the ship-crew (*naxw-tax-mbhy-os,
i.e. the sailors) a sheep."
In this scenario os is added to the the postposition * (a)mbhi-.
Miguel has explained it as a mere merger of former abl.
**-abhí-âtu and dat. **-abhi-á-atu.
Whichever, there is no need for an opposition between
separative/ablative and the one(s) benefitting from the action of
the clause.
Lars