Re: But where does *-mi come from?

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "elmeras2000" <jer@...> wrote:

> --- 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

> 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.
> > >
> > > 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.
>

"
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.
"

I thought that meant I can't base a theory that IE and Uralic were
once ergative on the fact that "*-m marks the object in ... non-
ergative syntax in IE and Uralic alike". I didn't do that. Perhaps
you meant that given the fact "*-m marks the object ..." etc will
disprove a claim that that IE and Uralic were once ergative. It
won't. It might make it less likely, it won't disprove it. Both
languages might already have had an antipassive construction
involving an allative in *-m.



Torsten