[gothic-l] Re: anaks
> I don't think it's really a valid comparison: in the OE periodBut in Gothic, there is (at least one) adverbial genitive based
> it's still fairly obvious that the -es adverbial ending is from
> the gen. sg. masc./neut. n./adj. ending, although it has been
> sufficiently abstracted that it can be used with feminines too,
> e.g. nihtes, "by night" to go with daeges, "by day". It's only
> in the ME period, when some of these forms have been reduced, and
> appear side-by-side with similar forms without the terminal -s,
> that it comes to be regarded as a simple marker of adverbness.
> In Gothic, we have a similar, though I think less productive, use
> of the genitive, as in forms like gistradagis, but I don't see
> that it can have anything to do with the -s of anaks, because we'd
> have to account somehow for the missing -i-. So if you want to
> get the -s from the n./adj. system, I think you have to follow
> Kieckers and say it's from a nominative.
word for which you don't have to account for a missing -i-, 'nahts'
without even being *abstracted* for the feminine in this case. Do we
know exactly what noun root the -k- descends from in anaks though, and
thus its gender?
Sorry for picking nits, but in this way, I tend to learn.