Re: [tied] Re: But where does *-mi come from?

From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 38801
Date: 2005-06-20

 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 9:53 AM
Subject: [tied] Re: But where does *-mi come from?

<snip>

You are deriving the syntax that used the -m about the object from
an antipassive construction, since only that justifies the use of
your presumed absolutive *-s and your presumed allative *-m used of
the object. If you are so sure, please tell us, where is the
antipassive marker in IE?

> The same argument applies to the FU languages, of course.
Therefore,
> the fact that they are accusative does not imply they always were,
> specifically not all the way back to the split between them and IE.

If *-m marks the object in Uralic and Indo-European, what is it most
likely to have marked the day they split from each other? Something
completely different?

I do not see a PIE ergative system lying around in ruins. I do not
see an ergative system in the deep structure of the other families
either. Where I do see an ergative system, as in Eskimo-Aleut, it is
plainly secondary.

The *-m is used about the object in IE and Uralic. In EA it is used
of the agent of transitive verbs. Now, the verb is an active
participle in IE and Ur., but a passive participle in the EA
transitive sentence. The case in *-m is genitive in EA, which can
very well be the original function for all three:

"The bear's killer" is the one who has shot the bear; the use of an
active participle (agent noun) puts the patient in the genitive.

"The bear is the hunter's killed (one)" elaborates on the same, only
now using a passive participle. In that case the genitive marks the
agent.

Therefore, both the IE & Ur. use of accusative *-m of the object of
a verb derivable from an active participle and the EA use of
ergative *-m of the agent of a transitive verb derivable from a
passive participle are fully explained as functions of an original
genitive. That function ís synchronically alive in EA. This analysis
makes sense and sheds light on things; calling the transitive
agent "ergative" instead is cryptic and spreads darkness.

Jens

***
Patrick:
 
It is truly nice to see highly informed speculation like this. Very stimulating.
 
I proceed from a little different set of assumptions than Jens.
 
I believe that all languages had to experience an ergative stage (Klimov); therefore, we can safely assume that, with or without discernible traces, PIE had to, also.
 
My first question is, could Jens elaborate on a EA (presumably, Eskimo Aleut not Eurasiatic) nominative in -*m (agent of transitive verbs)? Greenberg, who mentions everything but the kitchen-sink, does not seem to know of it. Could this be his locative in -*m?
 
If there is a trace of the absolutive, I believe it is in the neuter nominative and accusative, i.e. -*Ø. Presumably, these are mostly nouns which would be unlikely (because inanimate) to form an ergative case in a transitive verbal sentence.
 
Therefore, it is a bit misleading to say that -*m forms the objective case in PIE. It does, however, form the objective case of what we presume were mostly _animate_ nouns.
 
Of course, you have some some support for your 'genitive' hypothesis in the PIE genitive plural.
 
I am inclined to think that -*m was Greenberg's "LOCATIVE M", and attribute a meaning like 'on' for it.
 
In a two-element sentence, (Animate) Noun +m Verb would have signalled a passive meaning for the verb whereas (Animate) Noun + Verb, an active (or stative) meaning.
 
I also think it quite possible that Noun + m may have indicated an imperfective nuance, similar to English "I am eating _on_ the loaf" with the absolutive conveying perfective nuance, something like definite and indefinite usages in Uralic.
 
***
 
 
 
 





 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    cybalist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/