View source for -l(a)

{{morpheme
|type_morpheme=inflectional
|meaning='of/for'
|function=genitive
|language=Raetic, Etruscan
|checklevel=1
|problem=Semantik
}}
== Commentary ==
It is unclear what exactly is the Raetic equivalent of the Etruscan genitive II ({{bib|Rix 1985}}: 126 f., {{bib|Wallace 2008}}: 46). The existence of a genitive in *-{{p||l(a)}} would be expected because this must be the historical basis of the pertinentive II {{m||-le}}. The genitive II poses some difficulties even in Etruscan. In Archaic Etruscan inscriptions, the ending appears as -{{p||a}} (examples in Wallace). Since -{{p||l}} must be historical – after all, it is part of the pertinentive and ablative endings, and also appears in Neo-Etruscan – its lack in Archaic Etruscan remains to be explained. Most probably, -{{p||l}} was lost in this position (which indicates a velar allophone), and then reintroduced in a form of paradigmatic levelling under the influence of the ablative and pertinentive endings. The second irregularity of the genitive II is its allomorph ''-al'' (with stems not originally ending in *-{{p||a}}) in Neo-Etruscan. The context of this allomorph appears to be determined both phonotactically (stems in -{{p||l}}) and semantically (names); Rix (p. 126) assumes that {{p||a}} is a generalised stem vowel. Cp. the contexts of {{m||-le}} vs. ''-ale'' of the pertinentive II. The pre-apocope auslaut *{{m||a}} can, like *{{m||i}} in the genitive I *{{m||-s(i)}}, be inferred from the form of its derivatives, the endings of the pertinentive and ablative.

While the genitive I *{{m||-s(i)}} is very well documented in Raetic, no instances of the genitive II – in any form – can be securely identified. The Archaic Etruscan form -{{p||a}} can essentially be argued for any word ending in -{{p||a}} – this is in most cases reflected in TIR to simplify reviewing the cases. The only possible case of a genitive in ''-(a)l'' is {{w||kaial}} on [[index::PA-1]], somewhat modified by the word {{w||aχvil}} (with stem-final {{p||l}}) appearing in the same inscription.

It is possible that genitives originally were adjectives of possession, which enabled them to serve as bases for cases (pertinentive, ablative), see  {{bib|Rix 1985}}: 127.
{{bibliography}}