Re: [tied] Morphology (10/20)

Miguel:

>>Perhaps you didn't understand the first time. It doesn't matter
>>whether it's a direct or indirect marker. It's unlikely for an
>>ending that starts off being exclusive to the 1ps to spread to
>>all persons.
>
>*Except* the first...

... Which makes even less sense if *-m is supposed to be a 1rst person
marker! This is the opposite of sense.

>Do we have a 1st person suffix attached to a non-1st person subject form?
>Yes: Moksha -saman (Erza -samam) "he X-es me" is to be analyzed as *-sa-
>(3rd.p. subject) *-ma- (1st. person object) *-n (1st person subject).

That's certainly not a problem since the pronominal endings are in complete
alignment with the semantics of the conjugation, but this is not what you
are suggesting for the IE mediopassive...

>Do we have originally personal endings used to express temporal
>didtinctions? Yes: the 1st person object series, -samak, -saman, -samiz',
>-samiz' [...], incorporates a 3rd. person singular marker *-sa- which is
>used in the present tense only. The perfect has -mik, -mim, -miz', -miz'
>[...]

This example has NOTHING to do with what you just claimed for IE. Here,
*-sa- is being used exclusively for the ***3rd person***. It has not been
generalized at all. The fact that a different marker is used for the
perfect is again irrelevant because it is still a ***3rd person*** marker
that has NOT been generalized.

You're just not making any sense, Miguel.


- gLeN



_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com