> > 1) VERB-w (subjective)
> > VERB-n (subjective)
> > VERB-i (subjective)
> >
> > 2) VERB-m (objective)
> > VERB-t (objective)
> > VERB(-s) (objective)
>
>But my point was that we don't find that in Nenets, or anywhwere else
>in Uralic.
That is your interpretation. My interpretation is that it's very easy for
*-w to assimilate to *-m, especially when there exists a full *m- pronoun
for 1ps but no longer the absolutive *w- pronoun. Therefore, *-w would seem
odd and without apparent meaning because the original meaning was lost long
ago. This state of affairs would be ripe for analogical change and
assimilation.
Languages closely related to Uralic are Chuckchi-Kamchatkan, EskimoAleut and
especially Yukaghir. EskimoAleut lost [Steppe *-xW/*-n/*-i]. The 2ps *-n
however does survive, so I've heard, amidst some siberian languages.
Unfortunately, Altaic lost the intransitive suffixes too.
However, right outside the Steppe group, the intransitive pronominal
suffixes are attested as full words in Dravidian *ya:n (*u) "I" and *ni:n
(*nu) "you" (Note also McAlpin's ElamoDravidian *i "I", *ni "you").
>So you're claimimg that in Semitic:
>
>1. *?an-?a (*?an-?a-ku, *?an-i:)
>2m. *?an-ta
>2f. *?an-ti
>
>the first *?an- is a 1st. person marker, while in the other two it's
>not?
No. I don't think I said that. I just mentioned AA *?ana for 1ps, is all.
The *?an- part might be analysed in the same way as Kartvelian *c^wen/*tkwen
with an original meaning of "it is I" for *?ana and "it is you" for *?anta.
Thus *?an- might be seen as another demonstrative (The *a demonstrative,
with or without, *-n is seen throughout Nostratic). So, it would be *?an-na
and *?an-ta from earlier forms *an-nu and *an-tu. The pronouns used here are
ergative.
I also am lately suspicious of that *-i 1ps. suffix. I wonder if we might
reconstruct AA *-iya as being derived from *-i-nu. The *n here would have
been palatalized to *y because of *i. My Nostratic reconstruction for "four"
which is *lil(mu), almost would appear to survive in Semitic, if it were
that *lil- became *lir- (dissimilation) and then *(y)ir- (palatalisation).
But it's just a hunch so far.
>So you're claiming that in Kartvelian:
>
>1pl. *c^-wen "we"
>2pl. *tk-wen "you"
>
>the first *w is a 1st.p. marker, while in the other it's not?
No, you missed the point, look carefully:
1pl. *c^-wen < preKart *ti-wen < Nostratic *ti un
2pl. *t-kwen < preKart *ti-kWen < Nostratic *ti kun
The *w in *t-kwen is inseperable from the previous *k. You put the dash in
the wrong place.
- gLeN
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
http://www.hotmail.com
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com