Re: [tied] *-m-, *-men-

> More Pulleyblank:
>
> "
> Chinese quan EMC kHwen', Tib. khyi, Burm khwè....Benedict

explains

> the final *-n of the Chinese form as a 'collective' suffix, also
> found in min EMC mjin 'people'.
> "
>
> That must be the suffix of the Chinese personal pronouns
> wo "I", wo men "we"
> ni "thou", ni men "ye"
> ta "he", ta men "they"
>
> and if the PIE pronouns are ultimately loaned, we have an
> explanation for the PIE 1pl. *-me(n)- (and for 1sg.?)
>
>
> And perhaps the -n of the n-stem PIE *kwo(n)- "dog" has a new
> explanation? Perhaps it never had -n in nom.sg.?
>
>
> Torsten
>
> ***
> Patrick:
>
> I am taking the liberty of re-routing this to Nostratic-L, where

it belongs.

It would if your claim that they are not loans was true.

> Do you work for a branch of the IMF? Why does every similar

form have to be a "loan"?

Because the cognate forms I've seen so far are too few and too
similar to be part of a common parent language.

> I wrote an essay making an argument for the common origin of

Nostratic and Sino-Tibetan five years ago, and posted it to my
website:

>
> http://www.geocities.com/proto-language/c-SINO-TIBETAN-

10.htm<http://www.geocities.com/proto-language/c-SINO-TIBETAN-10.htm>

>
> Have you ever read it?

No.

> If you disagree with it, have you ever expressed your specific

reservations?

I wouldn't know, see above.

> These elements, -*n(o), 'collective', have been identified in

_recent_ postings for PIE (and Nostratic). They have an even earlier
provenance.

In Old Chinese?

> What is to be gained explanatorily by considering them "loans"?

That they are explained better.

> In my opinion, nothing.

Aha.

> As for 'dog', *k^ew- means 'wag';

Why?

*k^we-n-, means 'the (tail) wagger' = 'dog'.

-*n(a) is the individualizing formant.

>

> -*me has been identified and discussed many times here and on

Nostratic-L.

>

And therefore...?


Torsten