rgative to Nominative Transition
|From:||Anthony M. Miles <theophilus88@...>|
|Date:||Thursday, September 28, 2000, 16:00|
>"Anthony M. Miles" wrote:
> > Does the following transition seem likely?
>Only one problem - how'd the nouns acquire the nominative and accusative
>endings?I was thinking on analogical terms with Greek, in which pronominal endings
'infected' the nominal cases.
>Another likely change would simply be the ergative being extended in use
>to the subject of intransitive verbs, thus becoming a nominative
>function.If I understand you correctly, in this model the steps for Proto-Gweinic
1. VEAB replaces VAB and thus becomes N, creatng:
VN1AB, VN1, VN2, VN2AC, where N2 is the pronominal ending for the
2. AB is now functionally identical to AC; the animate preserves the AC
(ken, gen, M.en), which is similar to the other oblique declensional forms,
while the inanimate preserves the AB (towr, dowr, mejr), which is not.
The basic problem is my Gweinic paradigm has anomalous nominative and
accusative forms in the inanimate (lej, ze:, ze:, and to:r, do:r, ne:r,
respectively). The locative and instrumental endings ((pa/o, ba/o, ma/e;
pja/o, bja/o, ma/e are not anomalous because they were originally enclitic
postpositions, like the Greek locative -t<h>i.
>Dievas dave dantis; Dievas duos duonos
>God gave teeth; God will give bread - Lithuanian proverbEarly Lahabic:
Dyama'man La'rkhe khomite'ze' ned dyama'mi'n khemitauanto'r.
Dyama'man La'rkh khonte'ze' ned dyama'mi'n khemitauanto'r.
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at