>In Uralic (and Eskimo-Aleut), we find, as is plain to see from
>the paradigms I posted, two sets of first person markers *-m
>and *-ka, two sets of second person markers *-t and *-n and two
>sets of third person markers *-0 and *-sa.

First off, there is no such **-ka in Boreal. You are totally
misunderstanding Inuktitut /-Na/ where the final vowel is NOT
original. This is proven by Aleut (note /ti-N/ "I (am here)").
We must reconstruct EskimoAleut *-N for the first person, which
clearly has developed out of final *-m. Medial *-m- survives
unchanged in EA.

Second, the element *-sa is a demonstrative affixed to the
original Steppe ending. There is indeed justification in
reconstructing the Boreal 3ps subjective as *-(i)sa but it
derives from earlier *-i.

Lastly, the Boreal reflex of Steppe *-ux is *-u and _is_ attested
in Uralic.

The complete Boreal endings are to be properly reconstructed as

subj. obj.
1ps *-u *-m
2ps *-n *-t
3ps NULL *-sa

1pp *-wi *-mi
2pp *-ni *-ti
3pp NULL *-isa

Since Samoyed shows *-n in the subjective and *-t in the 2ps
objective as you say, you've only proven my point about the 2nd
person. We also bluntly see Nenets /-v/ in the first person

It's most logical to accept that if both *m- and *w-sets of
endings exist in both Boreal and IndoTyrrhenian, clearly they must
derive from two sets with differing function. There is no such
thing as mindless phonetic alternation without some underlying
grammatical function, whether recent or in the past.

- love gLeN

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp