From: tgpedersen
Message: 63620
Date: 2009-03-20
>Erh, okay.
>
> --- On Thu, 3/19/09, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> . . .
> > I don't think a language would need an impersonal and a
> > passive both.
> >
> Why not? Spanish has both.
>
> Se vendió el carro. impersonal
> Ha vendido el carro. passive
> > Anyway, here's my version.'Nu', 'sa' and 'ta' are conjunctions in Hittite. The Armenian demonstratives are based on n- , s- and d- (strangely, so are those of Estonian and "now" is 'nüüd'). The idea of a personal participle is from Finnish. Hungarian nouns are inflected like verbs for number and person.
> >
> > PIE verb stems were originally also nominal (there might
> > have been nominalizing now lost suffix). To nominal
> > elements, thus also to verb stems, could be added the three
> > deictic particles PPIE 'nu' "at me",
> > 'sa' "at thee" and 'ta' "at
> > him/her/it".
>
> Kinda Celtic looking
> > The latter, in PIE -tó-, gave theExactly.
> > impersonal 3sg preterite. PIE forms presents from that by
> > adding either -i or -r, I suspect both are the postposition
> > *en, so that present forms are originally participial, cf
> > French 'en parlant ...', which by some creolizing
> > stage became finite, cf. those sub-standard Englishes which
> > leave out the copula in the progressive tenses, making -ing
> > a finite suffix.
> >
> Substandard or superstandard? Whachu talkin' 'bout? 'p