Re: But where does *-mi come from?

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
wrote:

> >
> > > > 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

> > > 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.
> >
> > The observation that *-m marks the object in a non-ergative

syntax

> > in IE and Uralic alike is not a very good basis for supposing

the

> > languages were any different when they separated.
> >
>
> Yes. And when did I make it a basis for that hypothesis?

In the above quote. You are toying with the idea that the language
was ergative at the time of the separation of IE and Uralic. That's
what I criticize.

Jens