On Fri, 30 Nov 2001 00:47:31, "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...
>>Since genitives usually develop out of adjectives, [...]
>Not "usually". If they are so "usual" as you say, you'll probably
>be able to list at least 20 of these languages out of the thousands
>that have existed throughout time in your next post. I'll wait...
Since I have other things to do, I'll offer five from memory. More
can easily be found.
1. The Latin and Celtic gen. in -i(:) is usually explained as comong
from the adj. suffix *-iy-(os).
2. The Sumerian genitive in -a(k) may be identical to the -a(k) found
suffixed to certain adjectives (e.g. kalag ~ kalagga)
3. The Hittite pronominal genitive -el is usually compared to the PIE
adj. suffix *-il-(is).
4. The Armenian gen.pl -c` is derived from the PIE adj. suffix
5. The Tocharian gen.sg. -epi (B), -(y)a:p (A) is from the PIE adj.
>>it is interesting to note that Luwian has no genitive, and uses
>>the i-stem adjective -assi-s to make pseudo-genitives.
>How can you tell if they are "pseudo-genitives" if they're being
>used as proper genitives... You wanna talk about "circular"??
Sorry, I assumed you were familiar with the way this works in Luwian
(and Lycian, Lydian). From the noun <massana-> "god", an adjective
<massanassi-> "godly, belonging to a god" is derived. To translate a
genitive like "the god's hand", Luwian would use: <massanassis
issaris> (nom.), <massanassin issarin> (acc.), <massanassija issarija>
>>Note also that the Etr. gen. in -s can be reconstructed as *-si,
>>on the basis of the compound endings Gen+Gen=Abl and Gen+Loc=Dat:
>Yet another unsubstantiable assumption à la Miguel. Again, the
>most common and level-headed view is that the Etruscan genitive
>is simply a genitive, probably ultimately related to the
>IndoEuropean genitive in *-ós/*-s because of many other parallels
>that exist between the two languages.
Yes, the Etruscan genitive *is* a genitive. Who says differently?
The claim that it can be reconstructed as *-si is by R.S.P. Beekes,
and makes complete sense.
>>We have the thematic root aorist, with root in zero grade:
>>*bhr-ó-m, *bhr-é-s, *bhr-é-t
>>*bhr-ó-me, *bhr-é-te, *bhr-ó-nt
>Yes, that's the one. Although, in hindsight, I think it should
>be *bhebhrét, with reduplication, no?
Not for *bher-. The vary rare aorist with reduplication generally has
reduplicative vowel -i- (or -i:-) in Skt., e.g. <si-s.vap-> (occurs
both thematic and athematic), but -e- in Greek. The type is AFAIK
only attested in Indo-Iranian and Greek, and seems to be semantically
related to the causative.
>> >>root in long grade: *bho:r-os, *swe:kur-os
>>The thematic vowel does [have everything to do with accent].
>>The question is why?
>I fail to understand what you're getting at.
That the thematic vowel may cause lengthening of the [first vowel of]
the preceding word. The types *bhóros and *bhorós show a more ancient
layer of this lengthening (with *o < *a:), while the forms with *o:
and *e: are more recent cases of the same phenomenon. It's something
that needs to be explained. I have no idea what causes it.
>>No, it's the regular development of the thematic vowel in final
>>position. Vocative *-e, Imperative 2sg. *-e.
>But the imperative is formed via the same analogy. Even in
>English, we hear "Hey there!" (vocative) and "Play another tune,
>there" (imperative). At least that's heard in Manitoba. Not sure
>about BC though.
>At any rate, the connection with the locative *e for both the
>above is obvious and so your statement remains, at best, an
>equally likely possibility. Unfortunately, given *-osyo which
>ends cheekily in *-o, your theory falls flat on its face and mine
Well, so now you too analyze the form *-osyo as *-o-sy-o? In any
case, the final -o is *not* the thematic vowel.
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal