Re: But where does *-mi come from?

From: tgpedersen
Message: 38890
Date: 2005-06-23

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "elmeras2000" <jer@...> wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
wrote:
> >
> > Now you got me confused; when and where did I say that -so was
added
> > to the nominative at the time it was something else? I believe it
> > was added after; believing otherwise and even construing that to
be
> > an indication that the nominative once was something else would
make
> > absolutely no sense, so why do you impute that to me?
>
> Sorry if I got your message wrong. Before I impute new wrong things
to
> you, maybe you would do well to explain in clear language what it is
> you do claim.
>

I notice I've worked myself into believeing that the mi-conjugation
began 1) as an antipassive and 2) as a dependent construction. I'll
have to reread the relevant chapters of Dixon, before these things
(possibly) come together in my head.


Torsten