Thread:User talk:CodeCat/Finnish declension/reply (7)

The Uralic -m didn't disappear, I don't know where you got that from. It simply became -n through regular sound change, just like in many other words. Some examples where a former -m has become -n:
 * Nouns like, which still have -m- when it's not final.
 * The superlative forms of nouns. Here, too, the -m- resurfaces when it's not final; the -p- was transferred from the comparative form, so it wasn't there originally.
 * The first-person singular verb ending -n. The first and second-person verb endings actually align with the plural forms and with the pronouns:
 * -n, -mme, minä, me'.
 * -t, -tte, sinä (an example of the ti > si change I mentioned on your talk page), te.

Kotus is simply wrong there. There is an accusative case, it just looks the same as the genitive. Since it's clear that the current accusative wasn't originally the same as the genitive, there must have been an accusative originally. So if there is no accusative anymore, then when did it disappear? Did the ancestor of Finnish just suddenly no longer have an accusative case when the -m ending became -n? That's nonsense.

And what about this sentence you quoted: "The problem with this interpretation is, however, that genitive and the accusative which in modern language looks like genitive are both etymologically and by meaning separate cases." This is exactly the point I am making. If Wikipedia can make it, why can't I?