4,735
edits
User:Chrysophylax/put: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
→Number
Chrysophylax (talk | contribs) m (→Derived stems) |
Chrysophylax (talk | contribs) m (→Number) |
||
| Line 158: | Line 158: | ||
====Number==== | ====Number==== | ||
The absolute form of the noun could probably be used collectively for indefinite number. The use of a suffix for denoting non-singular number may in Pre-U have originally had an additional defining or individualizing function. However, in PU, at least the plural suffixes were obviously often used without regard to this limiting condition. | The absolute form of the noun could probably be used collectively for indefinite number. The use of a suffix for denoting non-singular number may in Pre-U have originally had an additional defining or individualizing function. However, in PU, at least the plural suffixes were obviously often used without regard to this limiting condition. | ||
Plural was expressed by two alternative suffixes: ''*-t''for the absolute form and ''*-j'' for the conjunctive form. The absolute form was used independently in the sentence, mainly as the subject, while the conjunctive form was used in subordinate position, both adnominally as an attribute (corresponding to the function of a plural genitive case) and adverbally as an object (in the function of plural accusative). The conjunctive form was also used before further suffix morphemes (such as the possessive suffixes). | |||
The dual also existed as a separate category in Pu, marked by the suffix ''*-kɘ(-)''. However, the dual nowadays only exists on the peripheries of the language family (Lapp, Ob-Ugrian, Samoyed), and the PU dual suffix has been materially preserved only in the eastern groups (Ugric, Samoyed). THese facts sugges that the use of the dual in PU was dialectally restricted. Furthermore, the individualizing function of the number morpheme was probably more distinct in the dual, and the ose of the suffix may have tended to be restricted to nouns semantically marked +animate or +human. | |||
Number in personal pronouns was expressed irregularly: cf. sg. 1. ''*mun'', 2. ''*tun'' vs. pl. 1. ''*me-'', 2. ''*te-'' (probably combined with the ordinary plural suffixes). Whether dual pronouns existed at all, is not known for certain, but some evidence points to the possibility that these may have been formed by adding to the plural stems specific pronominal dual formatives (cf. the possessive suffixes). | |||
====Case==== | |||