Re: [tied] Re: 3rd. person *-s(V)

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 15:19:08 +0000, elmeras2000 <jer@...> wrote:

>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>
>[...]
>> > But the Eskimo //c// is
>> >quite safe, really. It surfaces in the refl.dual and the
>refl.plural
>> >which end in -z&k/-t&k and -z&ng/-t&ng
>>
>> Is that du. *-c-g and pl. *-c-k?
>
>Actually they were *-c-g and *-c-d. The old form of the pl. is
>retained in Aleut (East -din, West -dis with -n/s from *-t from *-d
>as usual). The form in -ng must reflect interference from added
>material in the ergative, where we have Esk. -m&ng and Aleut -mang
>from what must once have been *-m-c-d.

Ergative plural? (*m = erg, *c = reflexive *d = plural?)

> But I seem to be missing
>> the data on the rest of the Aleut intransitive:
>[...]
>> (Please fill in the ?'s...)
>
>The question appears to be a mistake: Aleut does not mark non-third
>person object in transitive verbal endings. It just places an object
>pronoun (and uses the intransitive form of the verb).

Sorry, how was my question a mistake? I just didn't have the forms of the
Aleut _intransitive_ (except for the 2nd. person forms you had just
provided).

>The Aleut intransitive verbal endings are (including final uvular
>spirant -X of verbal stem):
>
>1sg -q(ing) (1du -s) (1pl -s)
>2sg -Xt 2du -Xtxidix 2pl -Xtxicix
>3sg -X 3du -x 3pl -s

Thanks.

The endings in the sg. seem to be: 1. (*-k > -ng), 2. *-t, 3. *-0.
The plural seems to have 1. (*-d > -s), 2. *-txi-ci-(g), 3. *-d > -s.
The 3.du. is *-(q-)g > -x, the 1.du. is the plural form. But what is -di-
in the 2du.?

>The pronouns are
>1sg ting
>2sg tin
>2du tidix
>1pl timas/tuman
>2du ticix

Is the 1du. the same as the 1pl.?

>> >> In any case, I don't see an /s/ there.
>> >
>> >Right, this is underlying //t//.
>>
>> The question is then, does the reflexive -c- also have
>underlying /t/?
>
>No, that alternates in a different way, as seen in the second person
>which has a marking with //t// as opposed to the reflexive which is
>marked with //c//.
>>
>> Or, to put it more generally, perhaps Eskimo-Aleut */c/ is always
>derived
>> from **/t/. I have seen no reason yet to think not.
>
>You *must* think not, for the two are in full-fledged opposition to
>each other in Eskimo and Aleut. These are two different
>morphophonemes, being opposed to each other on all levels of
>analytic abstraction we can reach.

Obviously. But that wasn't my question really. The question was: if we
"know" that the PEA 2pl. ending *-ci (containing the PEA phoneme */c/,
which is different from */t/, or */d/) derives from something with **t
higher up (we can get this result by internal reconstruction, and/or by
comparison with Uralic), then is there a reason *not* to think that other
items containing */c/, such as the reflexive suffix *-c (> -ni), *also*
derive from something with **t "higher up"?

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