On Sat, 24 Nov 2001 02:02:25, "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>
wrote:

>>In Uralic, -m and -t/-n are generally the 1 & 2 person subject
>>markers both in the subjective and objective conjugations.
>
>I want firm examples of what you're talking about, not lazy
>blanket statements.

In the Uralic languages, object agreement is shown in Mordvin, Ugric
and Samoyedic. In all these languages, as well as in a few where the
verbal object agreement has been lost, we find the system to be
largely a duplicate of the nominal possessive paradigm, i.e. that a
nominal form like HOUSE-PL.-1P "my houses" is usually/originally
identical to a verbal form SEE-PL.-1P "I see them".

The Mordvin system is the most elaborate in that it shows both number
and person of the direct object (although quite a few syncretisms have
taken place, reducing the total number of forms from 28 to 15):

subj.
1. -n
2. -t
3. -0, (past: -s')

1. -tano (past: -n'ek. Moksh.: -m'ä)
2. -tado
3. -it' (past: -s't')

obj.

1 2 3 1 2 3
1 -- -ta(n) -sa(n) -- -tadiz' -sin'
2 -(sa)mak -- -sak -samiz' -- -sit'
3 -samam -tanzat -si -samiz' -tadiz' -sinze

1 -- -tadiz' -sin'ek -- -tadiz' -sin'ek
2 -(sa)miz'-- -siNk -samiz' -- -siNk
3 -samiz' -tadiz' -siz' -samiz' -tadiz' -siz'

The objective conjugation shows agreement with the object through the
elements *m(a) 1p., *ta 2p., *sa 3p., while subject agreement is
expressed using *-n (< *-m) 1p., *-t or *-k 2p., *-zV (< *-se) 3p.

In Ob-Ugric, we have (Proto-Vogul):

subj.
sg 1 -m
2 -n
3 -0
du 1 -m&n
2 -n&n
3 -G&
pl 1 -w&
2 -n&
3 -t

The objective conjugation infixes the markers -l- (1 + 2p) / -t&- (3p)
(sg.), -(ya)G- (du.), -(ya)n- (pl.) before the intransitive endings in
Vogul; 0/t& (sg), -G&L- (du), -L- (pl.) in Ostyak.

Hungarian doesn't mark number or person of the (definite) direct
object, merely its presence:

subj obj.
1. -k, -m -m < *-m&
2. -sz, -l -d < *-t&
3. -0, -n -(j)a < *-s&

1. -unk -(j)uk < *-m&-k
2. -tok -(já)tok < *-t&-k
3. -(n)-ak -(já)k < *-s&-k

One form exists for 1sg subj -> 2person object: -la-k, where the -l-
marks 2nd. person object (cf. Vogul -l- in the objective conjugation),
and -k 1sg. subject.

The Samoyed system is probably the most interesting from a Nostratic
point of view, as it has recently been presented as proof of a genetic
link between Uralic and Eskimo-Aleut (and probably Chukchi-Kamchatkan
as well, though the details of that are too complicated to discuss
them here). The system has been reconstructed as follows:

subjective sg.obj/possessum du.obj./poss. pl.obj./poss.
1. -m -m& -kVC + Pl. -i-n& (< -i-t-m&)
2. -n(-t&) -r& (< -t&) -i-t& (< -i-t-t&)
3. -0 -ta (< -sa) -i-ta (< -i-sa)
1. -mi-ñ -mi-ñ -i-ni-ñ
2. -ti-ñ -ti-ñ -i-ti-ñ
3. -k&-ñ -ti-ñ (< -si-ñ) -i-ti-ñ (< -i-si-ñ)
1. -ma-t -ma-t -i-na-t
2. -ta-t -ta-t -i-ta-t
3. -0-t -to-n (<-so-n) -i-to-n (<-i-so-n)

The Yupik-Eskimo paradigm is:

subjective sg.obj/possessum du.obj./poss. pl.obj./poss.
1. -Na (-m-ka) -ka -k-ka -n-ka
2. -ten -n -ke-n -te-n
3. -0-q -a (< -sa) -k -i (< -i-sa)
1. -ku-k -pu-k -k-pu-k -(p)pu-k
2. -te-k -te-k -k-te-k -(t)te-k
3. -0-k -a-k(< -sa-k) -ke-k -(k)ke-k
1. -ku-t -pu-t -k-pu-t -(p)pu-t
2. -ci -ci -k-ci -(c)ci
3. -0-t -a-t (<-sa-t) -ke-t -i-t (<-i-sa-t)

For the details, I have to refer to Uwe Seefloth's article ("Die
Entstehung polypersonaler Paradigmen im Sibero-Uralischen"), but the
gist of it is that both the Samoyed (Uralic) and Yupik (Eskimo-Aleut)
point to an Eskimo-Uralic system (dual left out for simplicity):

subj. obj.sg. obj.pl.
1 -m(-ka) -0-m/-ka -t-m > -n(-ka)
2 -t/-n -0-t/n -t-t/n
3 -0 -0-sa -i-sa

1 -m&-t -0-m&-t -t-m&-t > -n&t/-pput
2 -t&-t -0-t&-t -t-t&-t
3 -0-t -0-sa-t -i-sa-t

The remaining irregularities (most notably the alternation in the
plural object marker -t-/-i-) are what prove the genetic link between
Uralic and Eskimo-Aleut.

>>>Since there is no such thing as an intransitive **bher-t without
>>>a supposedly transitive marker **-e- to prove Miguel's case,
>>>I'm not sure how he can logically justify this view.
>>
>>*bher-t is exactly Latin <fert>.
>
>Perhaps you're not good with reading. I just finished saying that
>*(e)bhert is not a special "INTRANSITIVE". It's a PAST
>tense form.

What you just said was that there was no intransitive *bher-t, and I
gave you the Latin PRESENT TENSE <fert>.

>>Opposition between definite and indefinite adjectives is a regular
>>feature of at least Slavic, Germanic and Tocharian.
>
>Meaningless. There are many languages with that feature. Your
>point was?

My point was that you said: "Again, it would be nice to see any sort
of hint at an original opposition between "definite" adjectives versus
"indefinite" ones in IndoEuropean. Instead, there is no such
opposition anywhere within the corpus of IE studies", which is
patently untrue.


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...