Proper methodology (was: RE: [tied] Re: Mother of all IE languages)

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

> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 12:44:00 +0000, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...>
> wrote:
>
> >Alright, let's assume for the moment that you are right and that

the

> >pronouns in Nostratic are inherited, not borrowed.
>
> Given the exceptionally low incidence of pronoun borrowing, that

should

> indeed be the null hypothesis.
>

Once a language has that category, yes. But there's got to be a first
time for everything.

> >How do you explain
> >then the occurrence of the "extra" 1 sg. *eg(h)-o-m in some

languages

> >(IE, AfroAsiatic, Chukchi)
>
> *eg^(h)-o-m of course occurs in IE. To the best of my knowledge,

it has

> nothing to with anything in Chukchi or Afro-Asiatic.
>
> The Chuckchi independent pronuns are:
>
> 1. G&m pl. 1. muri
> 2. G&t 2. turi
>
> In the singular, the possessive endings -m and -t have been added

to an

> element G-. I don't have extensive information on Chukchi, so I

have no

> idea where that element comes from. Perhaps it canm be associated

with the

> element t-/tx- that is found in the Aleut personal pronouns 1. t-

ing, 2.

> tx-in.
>

I would relate it to -k in Gothic mi-k, Ti-k.

> The Afro-Asiatic (Semitic) 1st. person pronon *?ana:ku consists of

an

> element *?an- ("here"?) + the 1sg. stative ending -a:ku "I am". Cf.
> *?an-ta/*?an-ti/*?an-ka/*?an-ki "you" < *?an *t-kV here-you-are(?).
>
>

Subtract *?an- which no one knows what means and you're left with 1
sg -a:ku, 2 sg -ta/-ti etc. And to the best of your knowledge PIE *eg^
(h)o-(m) and AA -a:ku (and Proto-Austronesian *aku are not related)?
Coincidence strikes again?

Torsten