Re: Some questions

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Jarrette <anjarrette@...>
wrote:

>
> Then why have a separate ablative singular if there was no

semantic need to distinguish ablative from dative?

>
> Still curious,
>
> Andrew

There are scenarios that oblique plural markers are of late date.
That the postposition -ambhi - or -ambh- (appearing as genitive
plural) + -i (the locative?)- was the only form for expressing
indirect object, separation and means. Example: **naxw-ax-&mbh-i
(those among/within the ship-crew).

In Hittite paradigms the nouns that have been identified as plurals
have completely different endings from those reconstructed in non-
Anatolian languages. They often look like the singular endings!

Dative singular itself seems to have evolved from a case form that
may well have been an allative adding locative -i.
Instrumental -?- (glottal stop) + -i is another possibility.

However, in a clause having a personal object and an object denoting
a thing, the personal object almost automatically comes to design
benefitter (or the opposite) of the action. No need to use
preposition marker in English to design who 'benefits' in the
sentence: "I gave my mother-in-law a cactus".

Lars

>
>
>
> squilluncus <grvs@...> wrote:
> --- 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> Visit your group "cybalist" on the web.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> cybalist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of

Service.

>
>
> ---------------------------------