Correction
> "
> Number
> Number in the protolanguage was marked with two different suffixes,
> but in all likelihood plurality was the salient semantic component
> of neither. One suffix, *-t, seems to have performed duties
> analogous to the absolutive (nominative) -Ø [zero] in the singular,
> but with additional meanings of definiteness and non-singularity.
Uralic has no ending in sg.nom.!
More from "The Uralic Languages"
on Finnish (Daniel Abondolo):
"
An indefinite subject is normally in the partitive, as in the
sentences levy-ssá o-n puhet-ta DISK-ine IS-s3 SPEECH-P 'there is
(some e.g. recorded or transcribed) speech on the disk', and levy-ssä
o-n puhe-i-ta DISK-ine IS-s3 SPEECH-plur-P 'there are (some e.g.
recorded or transcribed) speeches on the disk', both with
A[dverbial]-V-S order; note the lack of number agreement in the
latter, so-called existential, sentence.
"
on Estonian (Tiit-Rein Viitso):
"
A subject noun is in either the nominative or the partitive case. The
subject noun is in the singular or plural partitive (1) when the
predicate verb is in the third person singular and the subject noun,
usually in final position, refers to an indefinite amount (´metsas on
`loom-i FOREST-ine IS.s3pres ANIMAL-pP 'there are animals in the
woods') or (2) when the clause, with predicate verb in the third
person singular and with the subject noun in final position, is
negated (´metsas ´ei ole `hunt-e 'there are no wolves in the woods').
Otherwise the subject noun is in the nominative. A subject noun in the
partitive is called a partial subject; one in the nominative is called
a total subject.
"
In other words, the fact that IE *-d is nom.acc. of n. does not
preclude its being related to a Uralic partitive (through loan of
the particle *tV), since the roles of subject and object are not
new to the partitive.
Torsten