From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 31603
Date: 2004-03-29
>Firstly, some more thoughts on pronominal j-stems."that"
>
>Miguel wrote:
>> The Anlaut of Goth. <jains>, German <jener>, Eng. <yonder>
>> suggests a development out of the relative/interrogative
>> stem *yo-.
>
>Really, German <jener> "this"
>is to be devided as je-n-er, cf. je-d-er "that"."every". There's no etymological connection between jener
>Also traces of *sI are still in use in Russian, perhaps under Church Slavonic influence. They are considered as archaic, of course, but are still well understood, and new expressions with them can freely be bilt, for example, even in modern poetry, where they have a certain stylistic function. Does anybody know: where is this *sI from? I could not find any connected demonstrative forms in other IE branches, although in other Nostratic ones they surely exist (e.g., in Uralic).PIE *k^i-s, *k^i-d, obl. *k^esyo etc. (*k^o-s only in
>In litterary Russian prothetic <v-> doesn't exist anywhere.vosem'.
>It is found in some dialects, of course, but I don't think that <vot>, <von> could have been borrowed from them. So, there is no reason to assume, as Miguel does, that "the v- is not etymological".Given the Slavic cognate terms (e.g. Pol. oto), there is
>Miguel:Why assume suppletion, when the soundlaw is staring one in
>> I wasn't trying to establish any law on denasalization of
>> initial consonants. I was merely noting the fact (shown
>> above), that initial *m- in the 1st. sg./pl. pronoun and in
>> the demonstrative (*bu) only occurs if an /n/ follows. The
>> Proto-Altaic etyma had *b(w)-.
>
>Proto-Altaic had a suppletive system, where the nominative had *b-, and the oblique cases had *m- (and perhaps also *ng-, attested in Mong. na- and Old Jap. a).