[tied] Re: 3rd. person *-s(V)

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

> Ergative plural? (*m = erg, *c = reflexive *d = plural?)

Exactly. The function is "belonging to those that are the subject of
the main verb". There is also a dual "belonging to the two that are
the subject of the main verb"; I have assumed a non-singular
reflexive pronoun for IE as the origin of Gk. sphó:.

[...]

> Sorry, how was my question a mistake?

My mistake, I got you wrong (this is not too easy, okay?).

>
> The endings in the sg. seem to be: 1. (*-k > -ng), 2. *-t, 3. *-0.
> The plural seems to have 1. (*-d > -s), 2. *-txi-ci-(g), 3. *-d > -

s.

> The 3.du. is *-(q-)g > -x, the 1.du. is the plural form. But what

is -di-

> in the 2du.?

The lenition product of *-t-, marker of 2nd person. Eskimo and Aleut
even share lenitions.

>
> Is the 1du. the same as the 1pl.?

Yes.

> The question was: if we
> "know" that the PEA 2pl. ending *-ci (containing the PEA phoneme

*/c/,

> which is different from */t/, or */d/) derives from something with

**t

> higher up (we can get this result by internal reconstruction,

and/or by

> comparison with Uralic), then is there a reason *not* to think

that other

> items containing */c/, such as the reflexive suffix *-c (> -ni),

*also*

> derive from something with **t "higher up"?

Yes, the compelling reason is that //t// and //c// do not show up
as /c/ on the same level. You are mixing French and Latin.

Jens