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

----- Original Message -----

From: elmeras2000

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 6:43 PM

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

--- 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.

***

Patrick:

 

"Safely" was too strong, I agree. Klimov is controversial.

 

***

 >   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.

***

Patrick:

 

Thank you for the page reference. As you, no doubt, know this formant is not listed in his index of formants pp. 315-17).

 

I still do not see a reference to the use of the relative case as an agent of transitive verbs. Is it buried away somewhere else non-obviously? Of course, he does mention that because of sandhi changing -p# to -m#, it is sometimes construed as a genitive.

 

You may well be correct in your suppositions concerning -*m-ni, etc. but do they not suggest that -*ma is, at essence, a locative?

 

***
>   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.
 

***

Patrick:

 

I thought as much. Please regard my comments as for clarification only.

 

***

>   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.

***

Patrick:

 

I will not dispute that. But would you agree that whatever its synchronic usage, the form was originally relative?

 

***

>   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.

***

Patrick:

 

Well, I do not mean this snidely, but I think a re-reading of that section might ameliorate your objection. It seems to me that it is one of his better documented proposals. Add to his evidence, Sumerian ma, 'land', and AA *m- forming nouns of place, and I believe a strong argument for a locative (really superlative) in -*m can be made.

 

***

 

>   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.

***

Patrick:

 

I shop at Corners 'R Us.

 

I think it is safe to say that generally, imperfective verbal ideas are connected with partitive nominal ideas. In spite of that, there is no guarantee that any original meaning could not have been displaced. Messy, but it happens.

 

Obviously, I would connect indefinite with partitive and imperfective.

 

***

Jens




 
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/