Re: [tied] The 1ps pronoun *ego:... or is it *eg?

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham
<richard.wordingham@...>" <richard.wordingham@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen

<jer@...>

> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 10 Dec 2002, Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
> >
> > > [Glen]
> > > >What on earth does *eg come from, by the way? Certainly not

from

> *e-ge,
> > > >an emphatic form of *e "here" since we _still_ have to

conclude

> that
> > > >the word has eroded from *e-ge to *eg. And perhaps I'm

mistaken,

> > > >but I recall no language that has come to use "here" as a
> reference
> > > >to the 1ps, even though the semantics might seem vaguely
> possible.
> >
> >
> > > [Miguel]
> > > Japanese <anata> "on that (other) side" -> "you".
> > > Korean <i mom.i> "this body (this)" -> "I".
> >
> > And American journalist style <this reporter> "I".
> >
> > Jens
>
> But all these forms contain substantives, rather than a mere 'here'.
>
> Richard.

'Here' is not necessarily mere.

http://www.angelfire.com/rant/tgpedersen/krn.html

Maybe it is the bad spot of everyone' nightmares.
A rather cynical doctor I met at a wet dinner pondered why patients
were so much more frightened of cancer (also in the above link) than
heart failure since both would kill them equally dead. "Chaos vs.
order" I said, but he was no philosopher.

Question: weren't all pronouns once nouns?

Torsten