On Tue, 27 Nov 2001 09:29:15 +0100, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
<mcv@...> wrote:

>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.

Or rather (to avoid having to reconstruct -kk, -tt): tiN < *tin-k,
txin < *tkin-t, tin < *tin-0. Cf. also the Yupik intransitive/
possessive 2sg. (nom.) -ten (< *-ten-t), (acc.) -ken (< *-tken-t).



The grand scheme for Nostratic is the following:

PHONOLOGY: Probably 6 vowels *a, *i, *u, *a:, *i:, *u:. Consonants:
*p, *ph, *b; *t, *th, *d; *k, *kh, *g; *q, *qh, *G, *?, *h, *3; *s,
*x, *X; *m, *n, (*N), *l, *r; *w, *y;

NOUN: in the singular, Nostratic nouns had the endings *-u (nominative
or ergative), *-a (accusative or absolutive), *-i (genitive). This is
still the case in Semitic, but can also be surmised from PIE
alternations like nom. *s(W)o "this" (< *tWa: < < *tu + -a:) vs. acc.
*to-m (*ta + -a: + *-ma). The plural was formed:
1) or by shifting the stress and lengthening the vowel following the
stressed vowel of the plain form (Semitic broken plural, PIE
collective: sg. *CáCaC-, coll. *CaCá:C-)
2) or by adding the suffixes *-at- (inanimate?) or *-an- (animate?).

The plural inflection was diptotic: nom. *-atu, gen./acc. *-ati (resp.
*-anu, *-ani; *-u:, *-i:; *-u, *-i). This is still the situation in
the oldest Semitic, and in Ancient Egyptian. In PIE, *-atu > *-atW >
*-es(W) (labialization proved by Armenian -k` < *-(e)sW, etc.), while
*-ati > *-at^ > *-ai > *-oi, the pronominal plural. In Uralic and EA,
*-(a)tu > *-t (nom.pl.), while *-(a)ti > -t- (when followed by
pronominal suffixes), -j (in the Auslaut: Uralic gen./acc. pl.). The
plural *-an- survives in the PIE verbal active plural (*-mu-ánV,
*-tu-ánV, *-0-ánV) and also in Uralic.

A number of languages (PIE, Kartvelian, Uralic, EA) developed a new
definite genitive/ergative/accusative case based on *-mV (an affixed
demonstrative pronoun), as well as other new case-forms (genitive
*-sV, ablative/instrumental *-tV).


VERB: there was a static conjugation:
1. *-k
2. *-tk
3. *-0
This survives in Semitic, Ancient Egyptian, Berber, PIE (*-k > *-h2,
*-tk > *-th2), with traces in Uralic and Eskimo-Aleut.

The active paradigm cannot be reconstructed. A-A has:
1. *?a-
2. *ta-
3. *ya-

While PIE, Uralic and EA point to agglutinated personal prnns:
1. *-mu
2. *-tu
3. *-0

(The PIE paradigm is:
punctual progressive
1. *-mu > *-mW *-mW-i
2. *-tu > *-sW *-sW-i
3. *-0 + *-t *-0-t-i
1. *-mu-ánV > *-mWén *-mW-en-i
2. *-tu-ánV > *-tWér *-tW-en-i
3. *-0-ánV > *-ér *-0-en-t-i
)

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