--- In conlang@yahoogroups.com, Jörg Rhiemeier
<joerg_rhiemeier@W...> wrote:
> Hallo!
>
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:11:37 -0800,
> Costentin Cornomorus <elemtilas@Y...> wrote:
> > > And to make things even more complex, I fancy
> > > that Proto-Elvish
> > > is remotely related to Indo-European, and
> > > explore the common
> > > ancestor of both, which involves some rather
> > > speculative internal reconstruction work on
> > > Proto-Indo-European!
> >
> > Interesting! I didn't know that. Talarian is in a
> > similar boat, being placed somewhere between IE
> > and IH.
>
> I assume that by "IH", you mean "Indo-Hittite".
> Hence, Talarian would occupy a position similar to that of
Tocharian.
> Quendic (to use the provisional name of the family) is even farther
> from the main IE stock than Anatolian, though closer than Uralic
> (if the latter is related to IE at all).
And I presume more closely related to IE than to Etruscan and its
relatives ('Tyrrhenian'), if you believe in the Indo-Tyrrhenian
grouping. Have you given it any credence?
>
> > Do you have any sketch of these endings
> > or anything you can show us?
>
> Yes!
>
> The PQ noun had eight cases:
>
> agentive AS-0
> genitive AS-s
> dative AS-na
> objective OS-0
> instumental OS-i
> locative OS-as
> allative OS-ana
> ablative OS-ada
Richard.