--- In Nostratica@yahoogroups.com, "John" <jdcroft@...> wrote:

> "etherman23"
> wrote:

> > Isn't the connection obvious? A few simple sound change laws
> applied
> > to Basque gives the Egyptian pronouns.
> >
> > n /V [+front] > nw > w
> > Hence ni > wi
> >
> > z /_V [+back] > d > t
> > u has w as al allomorph
> > Hence zu > tw
> >
> >
> > g /_V [+back] > n
> > u /C_# [+nasal] > 0
> > Hence gu > n
> >
> > Finally zuek > tn through analogy.
> >
> > This is all pretty basic stuff you know.
>
> OK, now lets look at English
>
> ni (Egyptian) with the shift from n --> m makes "mi" (me) English
>
> tw (Egyptian) becoming an affrictive th thus tw --> "thou" English
>
> sy (Egyptian) with the s --> sh and a shortening of y to i
> makes "shi" (she)
>
> We could use exactly the same "Basic stuff" between any two
> languages. The question is doe these transformations hold

elsewhere

> or are they in the mind of the beholder. The transformations are
> possible but are they probable? For this we need repetition on
> sufficient scale to show the pattern is real (rather than

invented,

> as is my case with Egyptian to English).

Didn't you feel your leg being pulled? Check the quote on Trask's
opinion.

Richard.