Re: [tied] The *m/*w alternation and ergativity

On Wed, 15 Nov 2000 02:12:44 GMT, "Glen Gordon"
<glengordon01@...> wrote:

>[tada tada] This system can then easily develop into the
>Uralic system of subjective/objective conjugation, exactly as we find in
>Nenets:
>
> 1) VERB-w (subjective)
> VERB-n (subjective)
> VERB-i (subjective)
>
> 2) VERB-m (objective)
> VERB-t (objective)
> VERB(-s) (objective)

But my point was that we don't find that in Nenets, or anywhwere else
in Uralic.

>>I assume that by *?ana- you mean the first part of *?an-a(ku) "I".
>>The part it shares with *?an-ta "you".
>
>It's not the "first part" of *?anaku. Take note of Hebrew /ani/ without *-ku

From *?an- extended by the other 1st.p. marker -i:. Note also Aramaic
and Arabic <ana:> < *?an-?a.

>termination or a /-k/ found in both Coptic /ano-k/ and /nto-k/.

That's Old Kingdom Egyptian <jnk> (/?anak/) and 2m. sg. <t_wt> (<
*kuw-Vt), 2f. sg. <t_mt> (< *kim-Vt). The 2sg. forms <nt-k>, <nt-t_>
don't appear until Middle Egyptian.

So you're claimimg that in Semitic:

1. *?an-?a (*?an-?a-ku, *?an-i:)
2m. *?an-ta
2f. *?an-ti

the first *?an- is a 1st. person marker, while in the other two it's
not?

>> >and Kartvelian *c^-we-n- "our" (Nostratic *?u)
>>
>>The plural morpheme *-wen that it shares with *tkwen "you (pl.)"?
>
>[not responsive]

So you're claiming that in Kartvelian:

1pl. *c^-wen "we"
2pl. *tk-wen "you"

the first *w is a 1st.p. marker, while in the other it's not?

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...