Miguel:
> Yes there is. I see no reason to assume that *mu and *tu
> would have given Uralic *mi and *ti just like that.
> Especially if we take into account the whole picture of
> Proto-Nostratic 1/2(/3) sg. pronouns.
It's not as if *u is immune to becoming *i. Hardly. It's the product
of simple fronting and unrounding, and that's quite common. First off,
there is too much controversy regarding the exact vowel system in
AfroAsiatic to even dare use that as evidence. Sumerian has /-mu/ 'my'
and /-zu/ 'your' so it seems unlikely that a previous *i rounded
to *u for no reason. The reverse however is probable.
As is clear after any investigation of IndoEuropean and Tyrrhenian,
Etruscan /i/ hardly says anything about the original state of affairs.
At the very least, an obvious arguement against doing such a thing
is the fact that Etruscan postdates Nostratic by 12,000 years or more.
Do you have anything to say about pre-Etruscan? Did you look into it?
Did you bother getting your hands dirty with Proto-Tyrrhenian? No.
I have, but what I've found shows that the vocalism is not original
because of what happened to the vowel system in IndoTyrrhenian, that
is the collapse of the Proto-Steppe system into something more
centralized.
You state Uralic *mi and *mäj in the same breath so I hardly think
that it's unlikely that it represents *mu and *mi via vowel shifting
and I've already stated why Altaic needs a rounded vowel to explain
*b-. Kartvelian doesn't show original vocalism either. It's clear to
me that its vowel system was reduced in much the same way as
IndoTyrrhenian, hence the various labialized stops in that language
after [+round] was stripped from the neighbouring vowel and stuck on
the consonant.
> PIE, Altaic and Chukchi *do* have *mu and *tu, just like
> Afro-Asiatic has 2sg. m. *ka and 3sg. masc. *s^u.
Thanks for being honest. And as I said, Sumerian is added to that,
so stop arguing already!
> These are variations that were already possible in the proto-language,
> by superimposing the case markers *-u (active), *-a (inactive) on the
> personal pronouns (as well as other pronouns).
I rely on readily observable patterns, not empty assertions. I don't
acknowlege these suffixes nor does any other Nostraticist as far as
I'm aware. I don't even care to ask what 'active' is supposed to mean
because I can see that you're just splicing words that are by all
evidence atomic into make-believe stems and pseudofixes.
> What I envisage is an original system which was simply:
>
> 1. *mi pl. *mu
> 2. *ki *ku
> 3. *si *su
Of course, basically the opposite of what I'm saying.
> All Nostratic forms can be derived from this, if we
> understand that IE, Altaic and Chukchi generalized *mu-,
There's no need. The pronouns are all as expected simply by paying
attention to regular sound changes.
= gLeN