Re: [tied] PIE suffix *-ro - 'similar-with'

> > > > How about this: -r is the endingless locative of n-stems.

That

> > takes
> > > > care of the Germanic 'locatives' in -r (here, there etc) too.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Torsten
> > >
> > > ***
> > > Patrick:
> > >
> > > If it is 'endingless', in what sense can it be a 'locative'?
> >
> > 'locative' is meant to designate function, not the

form. 'endingless

> > locatives' are well-known in IE.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Take your choice: an 'indefinite' or a 'definite'. What works

better?

> > >
> >
> > ???
> >
> >
> > Torsten
>
> ***
> Patrick:
>
> If a change from *-n to *-r is used for a locative, does that not,

is some

> small way, suggest an 'ending'?

But the change is supposedly phonetic, not semantic in nature,
originally conditioned by the end of the word: *-n# > *-r# .

BTW the interesting thing (I think) is the occcurrence of a
*-(t)-e/or suffix (with a "detachable" *-t-, ie. the suffix occurs
both with and without it in its various environments) in
1. the agent suffix *-(t-)e/o(:)r
2. the family suffix *-(t-)er (cf. levir)
3. adverbial suffixes: in-ter, prae-ter, and up, over
4. middle 3rd suffixes -(-t)or

These contexts must somehow sometime all have had the same syntactic
type for this to work:
1. is (I assume) a nominal form of the verb
2. is too (I hope)
3. adverbs are old nouns
4. is the same as 1.

But many of the adverbs are imported. So what are the implications
for the other instances of this suffix?

> I have toyed with the idea that the *-r/*-n variation is not

phonological

> but rather semantic: 'any' vs. 'the'.
>

So you have. Evidence?


Torsten