Re: [tied] Bader's article on *-os(y)o

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 12:27:33 -0700 (PDT),
enlil@... wrote:

>On the idea of 2ps *tu/*tun and plural *ti/*tit:
>> In what language?
>>
>> Eskimo-Aleut, as I said, has lost the original free
>> pronouns, but if we assume a common Uralo-Eskimo stage, they
>> must have been similar to the Uralic free pronouns, which
>> are PUralic *mi, *ti (oblique *mi-nä, *ti-nä; plural *m'äd
>> (or *m'än), *t'äd (or *t'än), oblique *m'äj, *t'äj).
>
>Of course the pronouns cannot be recovered in EA although the
>endings still preserve some former affairs as I've stated
>them. At any rate, the same pronouns you cite in Uralic show
>exactly what I'm saying.
>
>Ur *mi and *ti is to be connected to *mu(n) and *tu(n).

So what happened to the /u/? How can your so-called plural
forms actually be singulars?

>We
>see the *n-forms in Finnish oblique cases like the genitive
>/min-un/ and this oblique nature of the *n-forms is even
>confirmed in IndoTyrrhenian by both IE and Etruscan which
>has /mi/ for the nominative and /mini/ for the accusative.

Again, no /u/.

>The plural forms as I said are either ending in simple *-i,

No, that's the singular, both in Uralic *mi, *ti, and
Etruscan mi.

If the singular is *mi, *ti, how can you claim that it's the
plural?

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...