--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Anders" <ollga_loudec@...> wrote:
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Torsten" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> > > For 2 & 3: NB that the Finnic partitiv also descends from an
> > > Uralic ablativ, so if we interpret this as influence it can go
> > > either way. Also the phonetical similarity (cognancy?) of these
> > > case-markers exists between IE and Uralic as a whole, not just
> > > Finnic and Slavic.
> >
> > IIRC, the -d/-t ablative suffix is documented only in Italic and
> > Indo-Iranian.
> >
>
> You can probably add Celtic to that. Celtiberian has an ablative in
> <-z>, from older *-d, as shown by Villar.
I started wondering if the *-d- (search sal-d- in
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/65616
), Gmc *salt-, "salt", Slavic *slad- "sweet" (cf. Da. syltetøj, Swedish sylt "jam, marmelade, preserves", nowhere in Pokorny etc) was an old partitive (<- ablative) in whatever language had that a/u alternation (note that OHG salzan "to salt" is class VI strong, ie. -a-/-o:-/-o:-/-a-).
And further whether the "salt" (<- *saN-l- ?) word should be understood as semantically related in its 'immortalizing' function with the *saN- of this collection
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/63586
which then wouldn't have started semantically from 'judged', but from 'sane, alive' (?)
Torsten