It is argued in this brief paper that the so-called Indo-European 'contrastive' suffix *-(t)er(o)- of adjectives and adverbs derives ultimately from the contamination and subsequent grammaticalization of deictic particles in *(e/o)t and *(e/o)r. The original function of this suffix was, therefore, not contrastive, but rather locational, in nature. It is also proposed here that although the comparative suffix *-tero- of Greek and Sanskrit can be traced etymologically to the contamination of the same deictics, it is the result of a very different evolutionary process.
In this article an attempt is taken to prove that the Indo-European heteroclite declension may be explained through the typological comparison with the possessive and definite declensions in Finno-Ugric languages.
In many languages, existential sentences form a separate type, not only in a semantic sense, but also in their formal aspect (surrounded by a belt of transitional phenomena). In Indo-European, the verb *es- expressed the meaning of existence and was opposed to zero copula. As this verb attained the function of copula (e.g. in West European languages), in many cases the need for new means of earmarking the existential meaning appeared. This led to the formation of constructions of the type there is, il y a, es gibt, hay; this process supported the tendency opposing the prevailing direction of movement towards unification of syntactic structures. Delbrueck, for example, expressed doubts as to where the real subject was in the sentence es ist ein Gott. These facts arouse a special interest from the standpoint of a theory which seeks the dialectical unity of analogising and anomalistic tendencies in the development of languages.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.