Re: *m for 1st & *t for 2nd person in PIE and Proto-Uralic

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "C. Darwin Goranson"
<cdog_squirrel@...> wrote:

> As regards this well-known connection,how did it arise? Is this
> something that dates back to the divergence of PIE and PU, or is

this

> the result of deeply intimate borrowing? Certainly such borrowing

can

> be seen with Finnish yheksän [sic] and kahdeksan )(something

akin to

> "kaksi" (Finnish "two) + dekm (PIE "ten") + san (less))
>
> If that string of logic has any breaks, please point them out.
>
> But would the use of *m- and *t- in PIE and PU be the result of
> borrowing or divergence?

**********
You may not like Greenberg's comparative methods, but on
something simple like *m- and *t-,I suspect he's reliable.
In his "IE and its Closest Relatives", he reports 1st pers. 'm'
"in every subgroup except Ainu", which I take it means in IE, Uralic,
Altaic, Gilyak, Korean-Jap.-Ainu, Chukotian, and Esk.-Aleut. Even if
he's wrong about half, that's too many for borrowing.
2nd person *t- is not quite so universal, but widespread
also.
Dan Milton