Latin mecum, tecum, etc.

[Lionel Bonnetier]

Eduard Selleslagh wrote:

>> It's funny that Latin suffixed -cum in mecum, tecum, etc.
>> has created some special -go case marker in Spanish with
>> conmigo, contigo, consigo.

[Ed]
> Why do you call Sp. -go a case marker? Isn't 'contigo' simply a popular
> formation based upon 'tecum' (>tigo), with 'con' added when people became
> unaware of the meaning of -go?

Sure, but intuitively, by comparison with other
prepositions, there's a feeling of a -go mark:

para mi     con mi go
para ti     con ti go
para si     con si go

One may say it's felt like a con-go circumfix
because they write them as single words.

> In Brabant Dutch dialects you have a similar phenomenon with the duplication
> of the 2sg. pronoun when it was forgotten that -de was originally 'du' (a
> lost word in later Dutch, like 'thou' in English. 'Gij' corresponds to
> 'you', originally a plural):

> Du. 'hebt gij...?' (Have you ...?) , dial. 'hedde-gij?' < hebst du gij?
> 'Gij' is clearly superfluous like 'con-' in 'contigo', as long as you still
> understand the original formation (quod non, for all, except a few
> linguists).

Maybe the m-s-t... personal endings in IE verbs
crunched previous marks the same way?

> I'm really looking forward to the answers to your question about
> cum/cis/-que.  We already had an informative discussion about *kom (Lat.
> cum/con-, but also Germanic ge-).

I'll dig for it. I hope it explains why *ke/o went
ge- instead of he-... (Heschwister, tohether...)