Dear Cybalisters:
----- Original Message -----From: Glen GordonSent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 3:26 AMSubject: [tied] Tyrrhenian and its relation to IEWell, it turns out that I made the whole thing up about Kerns.
Apparently, I'm thinking of Dolgopolsky and his *ma postclitic.
Unfortunately for me, he intended it to be the "marked
accusative".
In all, it would seem that I'm the alone in the belief that
Nostratic had an ergative rather than accusative *ma. Oh well,
I don't care![PCR]Credit where credit due. Recognizing mistakes is the first step towards correcting them.[GG]The fact that Sumerian, AA and Kartvelian have no
trace of an *m-accusative should demonstrate (along with other
grammatical peculiarities that I could bore the list with) that
the ending was only used as an accusative for a specific
sub-grouping of Nostratic.[PCR]In view of the fact that Sumerian is an ergative language, it is not at all surprising or significant that it has no ***accusative***-m.[GG]Plus, if we are to speak of an "ergative stage" in preIE, then
why can't this ergative stage be Nostratic itself? If not
Nostratic, when?? During the ProtoWorld stage? :P
Yes, fie with Nostraticists, fie, I say!
PatPATRICK C. RYAN | PROTO-LANGUAGE@...
(501) 227-9947 * 9115 W. 34th St. Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 USA
WEBPAGES: PROTO-LANGUAGE: http://www.geocities.com/proto-language/
and PROTO-RELIGION:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803/proto-religion/indexR.html"Veit ec at ec hecc, vindgá meiði a netr allar nío,
geiri vndaþr . . . a þeim meiþi, er mangi veit,
hvers hann af rótom renn." (Hávamál 138)