--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
> A brief review of the evidence:
>
> Afro-Asiatic
> Hausa
> 3masc. p.p. <shi:>, verbal prefix <shi>, <sa>, ...
> 3pl. p.p. <su:>, verbal prefix <su>, <sun>, ...
>
> Berber
> 3masc. suffix -s
> 3pl. suffix -s&n
>
> Egyptian
> 3masc. suffix -f < *-su, p.p. (old) swt, (new) nt-f
> 3fem. suffix -s < *-si, p.p. (old) stt, (new) nt-s
> 3pl. suffix -sn, p.p. nt-sn
> 3su. suffix -snj, p.p. nt-snj
>
> Cushitic (Beja)
> 3masc. suffix -s
> 3pl. suffix -s-na
>
> Semitic
> 3masc. p.p. Akk. s^u:, Arab. *s^uwa > huwa
> 3fem. p.p. Akk s^i:, Arab. *s^iya > hiya
> pl.masc. Akk. s^unu, Arab. *s^unu > hum(ma)
> pl.fem. Akk. s^ina, Arab. *s^ina > hin
In Afroasiatic the forms of the 3rd person do in fact appear to be
fully parallel with those of the other persons. However, what the
3rd person sibilant is parallel with is a 2nd person -k-. This does
not look like a very close relative of IE, if it is a relative at
all.
I should be allowed to overstate my case as much as you. For this
once I will therefore suggest that it was the use of the sibilant
morpheme for 3rd person, not the reflexive, in Semitic that caused
Anatolian to change its use of the sibilant enclitic from reflexive
to third person.
> Kartvelian
> There is only the 3sg. (present/conjunctive) 3sg. marker -s
(common to
> Georgian/Zan and Svan).
Vogt says and shows that the Georgian 1./2. persons have their own
system, while the 3rd person has another. I can't make out any
system in the verb.
>
> Altaic
> The Turkic 3rd. person possessive is *-sI after vowels, *-I after
> consonants. The third person imperative ending is *-sin.
I fail to see the beautiful parallelism between the possessive
endings
1sg -im, 1pl -imiz
2sg -in, 2pl -iniz and
3sg -i, 3pl -leri
[...]
> Uralic
[lots]
>
> Eskimo-Aleut
[...]
> The idea is that 3sgxpl -i comes from *-i-a < **-i-sa (sort of like
> Hungarian), and that the sg.xpl. paradigm was once something like:
>
> 1. *-d-m > *-n > -n+ka
> 2. *-d-(&)t > *-ten > -ten
> 3. *-j-sa > *-ia > -i,
>
> quite like the (pre-)Proto-Samoyed paradigm.
Indeed Eskimo and Hungarian are intriguingly similar in the 3rd
person possessive:
Esk.:
3sg: sg -a pl -i
3pl: sg -at pl -i(t)
Hung.:
3sg: sg -a pl -ai
3pl: sg -uk, pl. -aik
However, if a major point in the analysis of Uralic and Eskimo-Aleut
is to bring out this subsystem as a common core, then the 3rd person
morphemes are certainly being divorced from the reflexive which is a
totally different set in Eskimo. And the Eskimo reflexive *does*
show a sibilant-like morpheme, and *is* structured in a way
completely parallel with the 1./2. person companions, i.e. in a away
very different from the 3rd person markings.
Still, it would be unfair of me to press this argument, for it is
based on ignorance. If the dual forms and the case inflections are
brought into the picture, the Eskimo -a and -i reveal that they are
in fact made of consonantal material, a revelation that makes them
very different from anything one can read about the Uralic 3rd
person morphemes.
We are getting too far outside for IE for my taste. If you take it
to Nostratic-L I shall be happy to play along, to the extent I can
find the resources.
Jens