Re: Pronouns again

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...>"
<tgpedersen@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
> > On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 15:33:55 -0000, "tgpedersen
> > <tgpedersen@...>" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> >
> > >C. Boisson: The Sumerian Pronominal system in a Nostratic
> Perspective
> > >in: V. Shevoroshkin (ed.) Nostratic, Dene-Caucaian, Austric and
> > >Amerind
> > >
> > >has for the roots of pronouns in the two dialects of Sumerian
> > >
> > >Emegir
> > >1st sg. g~á
> > >2nd sg. za, zé
> > >
> > >Emesal
> > >1st sg. me
> > >2nd sg. ze
> > >
> > >He hypothesizes that Emesal was the more archaic of the two
> dialects
> > >and that it was a woman's language.
> >
> > "eme-sal is the Sumerian term for the language used in certain

texts

> > such as hymns and laments. It thus seems to be a sort of literary
> > dialect. Emesal may, however, also occur in shorter passages of
> other
> > literary compositions and then especially in direct speech of

women"

> > (Thomsen, The Sumerian Language, p. 285)
> >
> > Compare:
> > "By now Sanskrit was not a mother tongue but a language to be
> studied
> > and consciously mastered. This transformation had come about
> through a
> > gradual process, the beginnings of which are no doubt earlier than
> > Pa:n.ini hinmself. Something of the true position must be

refelected

> > in the drama, where not merely the characters of low social

status

> but
> > also the women and young children speak some variety of Prakrit"
> > (Coulson, Sanskrit, xxi)
> >
> > In my opinion, Emesal stands to Emegir as Prakrit to Sanskrit, and
> > represents a later stage of Sumerian.
> I've seen that theory too. But if both Emesal and Prakrit were

spoken

> by badly assimilated groups, they might contain flotsam of the
> substrate language. Or?
>
> >
> > The differences between Emesal and Emegir are mainly phonetical,

and

> > one of the differences is that Emegir g~ corresponds to Emesal m
> (and
> > usually Akkadian m as well). The transcription symbol /g~/ is
> usually
> > interpreted as standing for a labialized velar nasal /ngw/,
> Why labialized?
>
> > =======================
> > Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> > mcv@...
>
> BTW Indonesian 'aku' "I", 'megaku[kan]', 'mengakui' "to

acknowledge,

> admit, recognize" suggests that 'aku' didn't start out as a pronoun.
>
> Torsten

Bomhard (in Nostratic: Sifting the Evidence) has
Chukchi-Kamchatkan
xxx sng. plur.
1st G&-m mu-ri
2nd G&-t tu-ri

1st sg. from 'aku' and 'man' again, almost like Skt aham, or,
reversely Germanic 'mik'. If 'aku' meant only "spirit" or "self" or
the like and originally had nothing paticularly 1st sg. about it,
might it not be responsible for the -k of 'mi-k', 'Ti-k' etc of
Germanic?

Torsten