[tied] Re: Pronouns again

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:

> On Sat, 22 Feb 2003 13:36:48 -0000, "tgpedersen
> <tgpedersen@...>" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> >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'.
>
> What _are_ you talking about? The 1st sg. is -m, 2sg. -t, with

plural

> forms mu-, tu- (quite in line with the Nostratic or "MiTi-an"
> pattern). In the singular, the (possessive) endings have been added
> to a "pronoun base" G&- < *kV- or *tkV- (cf. Aleut t&-ng, tx&-n,

with

> *-k and *-t added to a pronoun base *t-/*tk-).
>
> >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?
>
> That's simply the emphatic particle *-g(e) added to the personal
> pronoun, as in Hittite u-k, ammu-k, zi-k, tu-k, or Greek ego:-ge,
> eme-ge, etc.
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...

Simply is it? And where does that particle come from? _That_'s what
I'm talking about. And your term "pronoun base" reveals the same: to
you it is an analysable leftover from analysis. And _then_ I asked:
Are these two related?

Torsten