Re: [tied] Re: PIE i- and u-stems again

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 19:41:30 -0000, "tgpedersen"
<tgpedersen@...> wrote:

>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <miguelc@...>
>wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 12:52:04 -0000, "tgpedersen"
>> <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>>
>> >>[mcv]
>> >> I can't do anything with pecus, pecudis
>> >
>> >How about a 'pronominal ending' *pek^ud-. If Slavic can do it, so
>> >can Latin.
>>
>> The ending *-d is strictly neuter NA sg. It is highly
>> unlikely that it would be transferred to the oblique
>> (pecudis) or that nominative and accusative endings would be
>> added to it (pecus, pecudem).
>
>If you take a look at the Erzya Mordvin paradigms in
>http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/47389
>you will notice that in the indefinite the paradigm has only one case
>in the plur., which is the nominative. Finnish has the same suffix -t
>in the nominative, but uses a suffix -i- in the pl. oblique cases
>(this state of affairs goes back to PFU). In Estonian, the -t (> -d)
>has spread to the oblique pl. cases, the oblique pl. -i- suffix is
>falling out of use. One might prefer to see it as if the Npl. wasn't a
>case of the pl., but of the sg., and that the extension of the concept
>of plurality to the oblique cases was a later idea.

As you say yourself, the concept of plurality in the oblique
cases goes back at least to PFU (and PU), with *-t the
plural nom., *-j the plural acc./gen. (oblique). If I'm
right, and these PU endings are cognate with Altaic *-r ~
*-r^, PIE *-es ~ *-ej, Afro-Asiatic *-atu ~ *-ati, etc.,
then the concept goes much further back than that.

>Now suppose the PIE *-(u)d was a case (singulative? partitive?) among
>others in a paradigm (in the sg.); once it became an independent word,
>it would have to base its oblique cases on whatever stem was
>available, ie. the nom. one in *-(u)d. So it's pretty likely.

Can you give an example of a word built upon a former case
form?

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
miguelc@...