Re: But where does *-mi come from?

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

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

wrote:

> >
> > Now you got me confused; when and where did I say that -so was

added

> > to the nominative at the time it was something else? I believe it
> > was added after; believing otherwise and even construing that to

be

> > an indication that the nominative once was something else would

make

> > absolutely no sense, so why do you impute that to me?
>
> Sorry if I got your message wrong. Before I impute new wrong things

to

> you, maybe you would do well to explain in clear language what it is
> you do claim.
>

I notice I've worked myself into believeing that the mi-conjugation
began 1) as an antipassive and 2) as a dependent construction. I'll
have to reread the relevant chapters of Dixon, before these things
(possibly) come together in my head.


Torsten