Re: [tied] The *m/*w alternation and ergativity

On Tue, 14 Nov 2000 07:21:20 GMT, "Glen Gordon"
<glengordon01@...> wrote:

>Miguel:
>>>What I had in mind was the PIE verbal system, where we find *m ~ *w
>>> >>alternations in the 1st person,
>
>Ah, I almost forgot. More stuff to ponder on, Miguel. As for the *m/*w
>alternation, this is seen also in Uralic's subjective/objective verb system:
>Nenets xadad?m versus xadav.

Unlikely, given that we have:

Nenets Nganasan
1sg.indet. -dm?, -tm -m
1sg.det. -w, -m -m@

It would seem that, in Samoyedic at least, /m/ alternates with /w/ as
much as it does in IE, and it has nothing to do with objective/
subjective conjugations.

>In fact, we also see IE *wei-, don't we.

We do!

>The Nostrative ergative 1ps was *nu/*mu while the absolutive was *?u. Before
>saying that this is poppycock, check out AA's prefixal stative conjugation
>in *?a- (Nostratic *?u) versus *?ana- (*nu/*mu)

I assume that by *?ana- you mean the first part of *?an-a(ku) "I".
The part it shares with *?an-ta "you".

>and Kartvelian *c^-we-n- "our" (Nostratic *?u)

The plural morpheme *-wen that it shares with *tkwen "you (pl.)"?

Can I say poppycock now?


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