Re: [tied] But where does *-mi come from?

> Some nominal and verbal suffixes are identical, as Alscher has

noted,

> e.g.
>
> locative *-i and primary *-i
> dative *-ei and middle *-oi
> 'locative' *-r and middle *-r
> [endingless locative and secondary?]
>
> Latin has a "double ablative", a dependent construction where a
> subject and a past pasticiple (*-tó-) of its verb are given

ablative

> endings. Similar constructions exist in OCS (with dative) and

Sanskrit

> (several cases). Perhaps such a dependent construction is the

origin

> of the mi-conjugation?
>
> Torsten
>
> ***
> Patrick:
>
> OK, I see now where you are headed.
>
> Of course, this is TIED rather than Nostratic-L, but still let

me say that, with the exception of -*i (from -*ye), each of the
endings you list have a different origin:

>
> dative *-ei is from PN *hey-; middle -*(o)iH1- is from PN *ye?
> 'locative' -r* is from PN *ra; middle -*r is from PN *re
>
> PN=pre-Nostratic
>
>
> -*m is attested as -*m all over Greenberg's Eurasiatic (with the

denasalized variant -*b). There is no reason to doubt its
originality whatsoever.

>

Actually, I don't have to do deny the originality of the mi-
conjugation. It might have existed in dependent constructions in the
other Nostratic languages. Finnish has both 'building blocks' *min-
"me" and *t- "that" it needs to construct the 1st and 2nd persons
of verbal paradigm. Or perhaps Finno-Ugric speakers learning IE
might have copied their own dependent construction habit with the
*min- "me" and *t- "that" 'building blocks' of IE?


Torsten