On Tue, 27 Nov 2001 03:20:29, "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>
wrote:

>Miguel:
>>I'm following Seefloth here, who reconstructs *-Na < *-m + -ka,
>>on the basis of the 1sg pl. object form -n-ka < *-t-m-ka (pl.obj
>>- 1 subj 2x).
>
>As I say, Aleut has /-N/ without the final vowel and I don't
>remember there being any velar nasals in final position in
>Inuktitut, strongly suggesting that the language has come to
>avoid this.

I wasn't quoting Seefloth quite correctly: while the Yupik first
person marker is clearly *-ka (we have:

intr. tr.sg.obj tr.du.obj. tr.pl.obj.
-Na, -ka, -kka -nka,

with subsitution of expected *-m with *-ka in the objective form with
singular object, and affixation of *-ka in the subjective (*-m-ka >
*-Na) and the objective with dual/plural object (*-k-m-ka > *-kka,
*-t-m-ka > *-nka)), the affix itself is reconstructed by Seefloth as
*-k, based on Aleut and Uralic (where *-k appears as a 1sg. marker in
Southern Samoyed, Hungarian (sub.conj., 1sgx2 -lak), Permic (neg.
aux.)) and Chuckchi-Kamchatkan (intr.conj.). The -a is an Eskimo
addition. As to Aleut, 1sg. -N derives from *-k (not from *-m, which
is reflected as -m, as in the genitive(/ergative, Uralic accusative)
case ending). For Eskimo-Aleut in general it is the case that nasals
remain as nasals in absolute final position (*-m, *-n, *-N, *-RN),
that fricatives become stops (*-v- ~ *-p, *-d- ~ *-t, *-g- ~ *-k, *-G-

> *-q), and stops become nasals (*-p- ~ *-m, *-t- ~ *-n, *-k- ~ *-N,

*-q- ~ *-RN).

In fact this is one major objection which was raised against
Seefloth's theory by Jens E. Rasmussen (who besides Indo-Europoeanist
is also an Eskimologist): the plural morpheme in Eskimo-Aleut is *-t
(< *-d), while the 2sg. morpheme is *-n (< *-t), so they are in fact
not identical, as the theory requires. A solution would be to derive
the EA plural morpheme from *t (> *-d- ~ *-t), while the 2sg. is
derived from something more complex *tt (> *-t- ~ *-n), probably the
old 2sg. stative ending *-tk, which we find in Afro-Asiatic and
Indo-European, and which is probably also reflected in the Aleut
personal pronoun (tiN "I" < *ti-k, txin "you" < *tki-t, tin "he/she" <
*ti-t), etc.

>>The *-i- is the plural object marker.
>
>In Steppe, it is the _pronominal_ plural. The suffix *-it was
>used for nouns and is more common as a plural suffix in Steppe
>languages (IE *-es, Tyr *-r, Alt. *-r, Uralic *-t, EA *-t).
>In verbs, *-i is the Steppe 3ps transitive marker. The 3ps
>suffix *-sa is only seen in Boreal because it has been added
>later.

In fact, Seefloth's theory is that *t and *i alternated as "status
absolutus" and "status constructus" of the plural mopheme, a theory
which I have difficulty accepting. In Uralic, *-j is the gen.pl.
marker in Old Lapp (acc.pl. *-i + part.), the acc.pl. of Proto-Samoyed
(gen.pl. *-i-q), while *-t is the nom. pl. So Uralic and
Eskimo-Aleut reflect the same state of affairs as Semitic and
Indo-European, where we have an old plural marker *-atu (nom.), *-ati
(acc./gen.) (> *-es, *-oi- in PIE). The objective conjugation with
plural object can thus be reconstructed as follows:

1 *-ti-m(u) > *-t-m > *-nn
2 *-ti-t(u) > *-t-t > *-t(&)t
3 *-ti > *-j + sa > *-isa
1 *-ti-mu-tu > *-t-m-t > *-nn(&)t, *-pp(&)t
2 *-ti-tu-tu > *-t-t-t > *-tt&t
3 *-ti > *-j + sa-t > *-isat

>>>Lastly, the Boreal reflex of Steppe *-ux is *-u and _is_ attested
>>>in Uralic.
>>
>>Where?
>
>Again, I have modified this suffix to *-ëG...
>
>It is found in Samoyedic (Nenets -v)

That's from *-m.

>and EskimoAleut (Inuk. -gut "we" < *-ëGët).

According to Fortescue, these (Yupik du. kuk, pl. kut) are to be
derived from the t-/tk- base we see in Aleut (tiN, txin, tin), plus
*-m- plus the du./pl. markers *-k, *-t. (*tk&mk, *tk&mt). Another
possibility adduced by Seefloth is analogy from 1sg. *-m-ka.

>And plus, one has to wonder where Hungarian -k
>came from.

*-k

>Explain why Hungarian has 1ps -k in contrast with -m. Explain
>why Nenets has 2ps -n as opposed to 2ps -r. Explain for what
>purpose each and every language in Uralic and beyond shows the
>SAME phonemic contrasts. Finally, explain how such contrasts can
>survive for thousands of years in each branch without having
>any differing morphological function, Miguel!

What I deny is that these forms had anything to do with the genesis of
the Uralic(-Eskimo-Aleut) subjective vs. objective conjugations,
which, if we take the Samoyed-Yupik paradigms as basic, are simply
derived from 1. *-m, 2. *-t, 3 *-0 or *-sa, with dual and plural
markers *k and *t ~ *i.

Besides these forms (whose derivation from the personal pronouns (*-m,
*-t), demonstrative pronouns (*-sa) and nominal number markers (*-k,
*-t ~ *-i) is obvious), we had, as in Afro-Asiatic and Indo-European,
a different set of endings, derived from an old stative/perfective
paradigm (not exclusively intransitive). For the singular, we have
Semitic *-k, *-t ~ *-k, *-0, A.Egyptian *-k, *-t, *-0, IE *-h2, *-th2,
*-0. Uralic and Eskimo-Aleut *-k is clearly identical to AA *-k, PIE
*-h2. Eskimo-Aleut *-n (< *-tt), *tx- may reflect AA *-k ~ *-t, PIE
*-th2, Kartv. tk- (in 2pl. tk-ven "you"), etc. The origin of Uralic
2sg. *-n (maybe comparable to PIE middle *-r < *-n, as a 2sg. dative
suffix [in IE, it occurs everywhere except in the 2nd. person middle
forms]), must remain obscure.

In Uralic and Eskimo-Aleut, the stative was lost as such, but some of
the forms infiltrated the active paradigms, perhaps initially to
disambiguate subjective forms from singular object forms, where this
was felt to be a need. But we find *-k and *-n, besides *-m and *-t,
both in Uralic subjective and objective paradigms.

>And you can't simply say that Nenets -v < *-m without backing that
>up with evidence elsewhere showing this change truely took place.
>The fact that *-m- and *-w- alternate in IndoTyrrhenian
>pronominal endings and in the rest of Boreal makes it terribly
>unlikely that what you say can possibly be true. Your view ignores
>all the facts.
>
>>That's Tundra-Nenets -w, -m'i, Forest-Nenets -m, -j, from
>>Proto-Samoyed *-mV (see Sinor et al. "The Uralic Languages":
>>Tibor Mikola "Geschichte der Samojedischen Sprachen", p. 241).
>
>Forest-Nenets -j is from *-mV??? You're funny.

Read Mikola.


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