Re: But where does *-mi come from?

> > According to Dixon: 'Ergativity' the main way for ergative
> languages
> > to change into accusative languages is this:
> >
> > intransitive sentences
> > (subject in the absolutive + verb)
> > are not changed
> > If the verb agrees with the subject, nothing's changed in that
> respect
> > either.
> >
> > transitive sentences
> > (subject in the ergative + object in the absolutive + verb)
> > are gradually replaced by a competitor sentence type (the anti-
> passive)
> > (subject in the absolutive + object in some case like allative +
> verb)
> > Ex hypothesi the verb agreed with the subject in intransitive
> > sentences, so nothing's changed here either.
> >
> > Now the accusative has some remaining allative functions in IE:
> Latin
> > Romam etc. Finnish has a to-case in -n: Helsingin "to Helsinki",
> also
> > used as accusative, I believe. The PIE accusative might

therefore

> have
> > been a pre-PIE allative.
> >
> > PIE nominative is part endingless, part has -s, most likely from
> the
> > deictic *so. The PIE nominative might therefore have been a pre-
> PIE
> > absolutive.
>
> That is non sequitur.

Erh, how so?

> > In other words, nothing stands in the way of PIE being descended
> from
> > an ergative language with absolutive in *-Ø, and allative in *-

m,

> and
> > with the verb agreeing with the absolutive (what the verb agreed
> with
> > in the transitive sentence we will never know, since that

sentence

> > type has gone extinct).
>
> 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?

That's a problem, I admit.

>
> > 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?

If the language was ergative at that time, the question makes no
sense. Objects, along with subjects of intransive sentences, would
of course be 'marked' with nothing, since the absolutive was
endingless. And both languages would have an allative (or illative)
in *-m.

> 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.
>

OK.


Torsten