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

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 23:25:04 -0000, "tgpedersen"
<tgpedersen@...> wrote:

>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <miguelc@...>
>wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 19:41:30 -0000, "tgpedersen"
>> <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>>
>> >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
>[...]

No, that's not an example of a word (<vihik>) built on a
former case form.

>Another is Mordvin
>[...]

And neither is this. The word <moda> is not built on another
case form.

Case forms built on other case forms (with definite markers
thrown in, if you will) are a dime a dozen. Your claim for
pecud- was something quite different.


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