On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 21:55:23 +0000, elmeras2000 <
jer@...> wrote:
>> 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.
You'll have to explain it a bit more clearly for me to understand.
The ordinary reflexive (abslutive sg.) is -ni < *-n~ < *-c, so because of
its position in the Auslaut, the /c/ is difficult to compare directly with
the /c/ in the 2pl. suffix -/ci/. We have, however, the reflexive dual and
plural, which you said were -z&k ~ -t&k and -z&ng ~ -t&ng in C. Yupik, so I
assume *-c&g and *-c&d in PEskimo. I don't know what the forms with -/t/-
are. The 2pl. suffix in C. Yupik is -zi, I think, from *-ci.
So as far as I can see, the reflexive is *-c- in PEsk, -z- in C. Yupik, and
the 2pl is *-ci in PEsk., -zi in C. Yupik. I think I'm comparing Latin
with Latin and French with French. On the other hand, it worries me that
you gave Aleut abs.pl.refl. -din/-dis, whereas the 2pl. in Aleut is -c^i,
so there's a difference there.
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...