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

From: elmeras2000
Message: 38815
Date: 2005-06-21

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-
language@...> wrote:

> 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.

You are giving a new, as yet unattested, meaning to the
word "safely": If I believe the earth is flat, I can safely assume
that you are not on the other side of the Atlantic.

> 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?

It is what he correctly calls the "relative case" marker in -p in
the eastern dialects, -m in the western dialects of Eskimo, -m in
Aleut (p. 26). He does not seem to have understood that the -m- case
is the basis of the local cases adding *-ni (loc.), *-nun (all.), *-
n&n (abl.), *-n&N ('by, with'), thereby forming *-mi, *-mun, *-m&n,
*-m&N. Thus his Aleut locative forms in -m (p. 143) are really
identical with Eskimo locatives in -mi, from underlying *-m-ni in
which the core of the locative marking is the *-i.

> 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.

That is of course what I meant.

> Of course, you have some some support for your 'genitive'
hypothesis in the PIE genitive plural.

For Esk.-Al., the genitive is not a hypothesis. Genitive is the
synchronic function of the form. If something belongs to someone,
the owner is marked by the -m case.

> I am inclined to think that -*m was Greenberg's "LOCATIVE M",
and attribute a meaning like 'on' for it.

I find that very poorly founded.

> 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.

But is it then definite or indefinite? I'm afraid you're painting
yourself into a corner here.

Jens