Miguel:
>>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?
I think you're too ready to reject what I say before understanding
what I've said and contemplating the evidence.
The forms you cite for Uralic, *mi and *ti, are reflexes of *mu and
*tu, there's no doubt. The *u is found clearly in IE since we
find *tu: and *twe. Since *tw is from former labialized dental stop
*tW and since labialization is indicative of round vowels in Steppe,
we know full well that the previous form was *tu, not *ti (which
is the plural). In the reconstructions you cite, obviously *ti shows
up as *täj, when *tu surfaces as *ti, so the relationships are
straightforward and there's little to argue.
Pronouns were given zero-grade in early Late IE as the pattern shows
and so we may presume that *tau was the MIE counterpart of *tu:. At
the very least ProtoSteppe *tu is substantiated by IndoTyrrhenian.
One might also consider that *t may have been sibilantized before
labials in Altaic, hence the *s-. We are now in alignment that we
should otherwise find *t- for earlier *t- so something must explain
the *s-. Many Nostraticists lamely brush it aside by inventing a
new 2ps pronoun or connecting it with a third person demonstrative
in a completely ad hoc fashion.
Now it goes to reason that if Steppe *tu > Ur *ti (assuming that the
Uralic reconstruction is correct) then *mu > Ur *mi as well. The *u in
the 1ps is also indirectly proven by *b- in Altaic. Afterall nasals, for
whatever reason, appear to harden before labial vowels. The same thing
happens in the word for four, which starts with *d- in Altaic, but
*n- in Uralic, all from one and the same ProtoSteppe root *nilu.
To explain, it becomes pre-Altaic *nülu by way of regressive labial
harmony followed by the nasal hardening (thus *dülu) and then later by
progressive frontal harmony (> *dülü). It eventually produces *dör- as
expected by the universal lowering of a short vowel *ü to *ö and the
typical rhoticization of intervocalic *l.
In IndoTyrrhenian, we don't have any cues to show what underlies *e
in IE *me. Honestly, it may be either *i or *u. If one thinks that
Etruscan /mi/ is evidence enough for *i though, let me explain that the
proper reflex of *me should have simply been Etr *me or *ma. Rather, I
suspect that *men became the standard form of the 1ps in early
Tyrrhenian, spreading from the oblique forms. The later nasalization,
which almost obliterated any trace of the earlier accusative *-n (< *-m)
that nonetheless still survived in the demonstrative declension, had
raised the resulting long vowel *e: to *i. Hence, *men > *mi in the
nominative with *menen > *meni > *mini (by analogy with the nominative).
> No, that's the singular, both in Uralic *mi, *ti, and
> Etruscan mi.
Yes, as I suspected. Read above. There is no accounting for IE *tu:
without accepting that the earliest form was with *u. Delabialization
is far easier to explain than unmotivated labialization. And please
don't come up with more ad hoc labial phonemes to explain this away
in your next post. I'm as disinterested in that as I am answering the
phone to a telemarketer.
> If the singular is *mi, *ti, how can you claim that it's the
> plural?
As I said, *mu > *mi and *mi > *mäj according to the forms you cite.
What can't you understand? Everything works fine and accounts for
_all_ the facts, including those found in IE where traces of the
earlier labial vowel are indeed there.
= gLeN