Re: The personal pronouns of PIE (and other families) are loans

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham" <richard@...>
wrote:

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "etherman23" <etherman23@...>

wrote:

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

wrote:

>
> > > OK then. For 'inherited from Nostratic', read 'inherited'. The

thing

> > > that interested me was whether an 'agricultural package' in

PIE was

> > > loaned or inherited, and whether that package included the

pronouns.

> >
> > I would think that *h1eg'(H)om would more likely be a borrowed

pronoun

> > (perhaps also *yuHs). Don't the Austronesians have a pronoun

something

> > like *aku?
>
> Torsten made this point way back at
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/17214 and
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/17923 .
>
> Richard.

***
Patrick:

Quite frankly, it amazes me that anyone could _seriously_ maintain
that personal pronouns are ever borrowed.

There has to be a good reason why _anything_ is borrowed; or, when
there was contact between any two language families, there would be
a wholesale exchange of vocabulary.

*e[:]g(h)o is a perfect example of a PIE word whch is easily
analyzable from PIE constituents:

*e[:]-, 'this' +
*g^e/o-, 'male' +
*e[:]m, existential
=
'here is this male' = 'it is I who . . .'

To derive *e[:]g(h)om from any other language is globalistic rather
than scholastic.

***