Re: [tied] Nominative: A hybrid view

On Thu, 29 May 2003 03:52:51 +0200, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...>
wrote:

>It seems to me that verbal -mmek and -ttek can be explained in a
>similar manner: there were separate forms in Proto-Baltic-Finnic (PBF)
>for transitive verbs with singular, dual and plural object, something
>like:
>
> sg du/pl
>1. -m > -n -k/t-m > -nn
>2. -t -k/t-t > -tt
>1. -mek -k/t-mek > -mmek
>2. -tek -k/t-tek > -ttek
>
>This is the way Samoyed and Ob-Ugric work, so it would make sense if
>PBF had the same thing.
>
>When the distinction between sg/du/pl. objects in the verb was given
>up (as well as that between transitive and intransitive forms) the two
>(three, if the intransitive was different) series merged as -n, -t/-d;
>-mmek, -ttek.

OK, I see the problem. If the Uralic verb agrees with the _object_ in
number (as it certainly does in Samoyed and Ob-Ugric, and in my
analysis of PBF), the same as in Eskimoan, then the given analysis of
the accusative *-m can't be right: "the man is the dog's killer" ~
"the men are the dog's killers" would imply number agreement with the
_subject_.

We can get it to work if the analyze : "the killing of the dog by the
man" ~ "the killings of the dogs by the man". This requires a marking
on the subject as well as on the object, which is OK in IE (*-m, *-s),
but not in Uralic, where the subject is not marked (of course the
marking, being redundant, may have been lost there).


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...