"Aquila Grande" wrote:
>As far as I remember both the verbal endings and the possesive
>suffixes at some time had the forms (I do not remember them
>exactly): -me, te, -sa, mek, tek, sek?
>This is just an example to show how complicated history apparently
>simple elemants can have.

No doubt. So now explain Hungarian 1ps /-k/ and 2ps /-l/. So
far, I haven't come across a good explanation. Instead, a bunch
of narrowminded Nostraticists casually connect /-k/ to IE *-xa
(*-H2a) or with Greek "ka-perfects" or with some other faraway
similarity and yet ignore the origins of the 2ps or even of the
origins of the Hungarian system as a whole in a more closer-to-home
_Uralic_ context.

Miguel states that *N can't occur word-finally... but if we really
think about it, one is hard-pressed to find words with final *-t,
yet it exists as a plural marker. Similarly then, I don't see
why *-N and *-n can't exist as 1ps and 2ps to explain Hungarian
/-k/ and /-l/. While *-N- becomes /g/ or /j/, what if there were
such a word-final *-N as a suffix.

- love gLeN

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