The personal pronouns of PIE (and other families) are loans

>
> > ***
> > Patrick:
> >
> > There would be no example of PIE *nu becoming *m if this is not
> it;
> > consequently, like the -*n-infix, I do not believe it is probable
> though, of
> > course, anything is possible.
>
> Miguel uses a suffix *-mu which he uses to derive forms in -m, -w-
> and -o: (if memory serves), but anything you can get get from *-mu,
> you can get from *-nu too, plus it matches an existing morpheme. As
> for the uniqueness, that's what you must expect in fused verbal
> constructions, cf. the Romance future and conditional.
>
> ***
> Patrick:
>
> When anyone utilizes a unique process to explain something, he

must be aware

> that others will consider probability in evaluating the

explanation -

> particularly when more probable explanations are available as

alternative

> explanations.
>
> Like your proposal, I think Miguel's is _possible_ but highly

improbable.

>

Actually, my proposal gets worse than that; I think my *-nu suffix
was once *mnu < *mVn-u, the 'me' root plus locative *-u, thus "at
me" (or "at mind".


Nostraticists want us to believe that personal pronouns are
inherited, not borrowed. What I can't understand then, is, how come
eg. the reflexes of *mVn- "me" (cf Etrusc. mini, Finnish minä)
aren't horribly disfigured by the phonetic developments in the
respective branches, given the time depth of the splits between the
member groups of Nostratic? Why are they still so similar?
Can we infer from the survival of *mVn- in those separate branches,
that Proto-Nostratic *m and *n have survived? I don't think so.


Torsten