--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <miguelc@...>
wrote:
>
> 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?
One example is Estonian
(M. V. Hove: Dansk-Estisk Ordbog)
xxxxxxxxxx sg. pl.
Nominative vihik vihikud
Genitive vihiku vihikute
Partitive vihikut vihikuid
Illative vihikusse vihikutesse or vihikuisse
Inessive vihikus vihikutes or vihikuis
Elative vihikust vihikutest or vihikuist
Allative vihikule vihikutele or vihikuile
Adessive vihikul vihikutel or vihikuil
Ablative vihikult vihikutelt or vihikuilt
Translative vihikuks vihikuteks or vihikuiks
Essive vihikuna vihikutena or vihikuina
Terminative vihikuni vihikuteni or vihikuini
Abessive vihikuta vihikuteta or vihikuita
Comitative vihikuga vihikutega or vihikuiga
As you can see, the Npl. *-t (> -d) has been used as a base on which
to form the new pl. oblique forms. The old-fashioned ones with -i- are
optional.
Another is Mordvin
(Gabor Szaicz: Mordva in: The Uralic Languages, as in the examples
earlier)
"
Secondary and tertiary declension.
Metadeclensional forms may be obtained by attaching definiteness
strings such as sN -s´, sGA -n´t´, sDAll -n´t´en´ to most
already-inflected case forms. Thus to the indefinite inessive form of
moda 'earth, ground', moda-so, one can add the definite sN ending -s´,
yielding modasos´ 'that which is in the ground', the definite inessive
ending -son´t´, yielding modasoson´t´ 'in that which is in the
ground', and so on. Each of the eleven definite case strings can be
added to forms inflected for at least six of the cases (genitive,
inessive, elative, translative, abessive, comparative). Such metaforms
are built to genitive bases by the addition of a reduplicative: sN
-s´es´, sG -s´en´t´, sDAll -s´en´t´en´, and so on, e.g. secondary
lative form of the genitive vir´-en´-s´es´t´en´t´ 'out of that of the
forest'.
Parallel to secondary forms such as the secondary inessive moda-sos´
cited above there exist tertiary, essentially synonymous, forms in
which the -s´es´ (-s´en´t´, -s´en´t´en´, etc.) endings are added to an
inflected form augmented by -n´-, e.g. sN moda-so-n´-s´es´, sG
moda-so-n´-s´en´t´ (Erdó´di 1968: 233).
"
(´ = superscript j, palatalization)
When I first saw that, I thought "PIE, n-declension, definiteness".
That's the direction my earlier remarks came from.
Torsten