Re: [tied] Tyrrhenian and its relation to IE

From: Patrick C. Ryan
Message: 8686
Date: 2001-08-22

Dear Cybalisters:


----- Original Message -----
From: Glen Gordon
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 3:26 AM
Subject: [tied] Tyrrhenian and its relation to IE

Well, it turns out that I made the whole thing up about Kerns.
Apparently, I'm thinking of Dolgopolsky and his *ma postclitic.
Unfortunately for me, he intended it to be the "marked

In all, it would seem that I'm the alone in the belief that
Nostratic had an ergative rather than accusative *ma. Oh well,
I don't care!
Credit where credit due. Recognizing mistakes is the first step towards correcting them.
The fact that Sumerian, AA and Kartvelian have no
trace of an *m-accusative should demonstrate (along with other
grammatical peculiarities that I could bore the list with) that
the ending was only used as an accusative for a specific
sub-grouping of Nostratic.
In view of the fact that Sumerian is an ergative language, it is not at all surprising or significant that it has no ***accusative***-m.
Plus, if we are to speak of an "ergative stage" in preIE, then
why can't this ergative stage be Nostratic itself? If not
Nostratic, when?? During the ProtoWorld stage? :P

Yes, fie with Nostraticists, fie, I say!


(501) 227-9947 * 9115 W. 34th St. Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 USA

"Veit ec at ec hecc, vindgá meiði a netr allar nío,
geiri vndaþr . . . a þeim meiþi, er mangi veit,
hvers hann af rótom renn." (Hávamál 138)