tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post8351308562909514190..comments2023-09-24T05:45:23.811-05:00Comments on Paleoglot: Nipping the PIE ergative *-s theory right in the budGlen Gordonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-26650856040688113052014-12-21T00:39:46.119-06:002014-12-21T00:39:46.119-06:00K1234567890y, I'm not sure why you removed you...K1234567890y, I'm not sure why you removed your question because it was a good one. Concerning the origin of the Indo-European accusative case ending in <b>*-m</b> which marked the grammatical object of a sentence, I believe that the Etruscan case ending <i>-n</i> (restricted to demonstratives) and Uralic accusative <b>*-m</b> (generalized to all nouns) are valid outside cognates which Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-67657946788058902302014-11-28T20:19:23.628-06:002014-11-28T20:19:23.628-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.k1234567890yhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08534910795446241970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-90638741113718699472010-03-21T17:43:34.684-05:002010-03-21T17:43:34.684-05:00"[...] and although the same suffix is relate...<b><i>"[...] and although the same suffix is related to the demonstrative and personal pronouns, that doesn't mean it's descended from them [...]"</i></b><br /><br />Despite any focus-derailing suppositions, my reference has clearly shown that the Korean nominative case marker, stripped of any nuance of deixis or definiteness, is <i>still</i> etymologically traced back to a Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-8390469734834820272010-03-21T16:58:19.259-05:002010-03-21T16:58:19.259-05:00Thanks for the information on Korean. From reading...Thanks for the information on Korean. From reading those pages, however, it looks like the nominative suffix there comes from a (resumptive?) subject pronoun which was formerly attached to the following verb; and although the same suffix is <i>related</i> to the demonstrative and personal pronouns, that doesn't mean it's <i>descended</i> from them; finally, it doesn't say that an <i>echristophersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02231286173511891124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-45204792950218900312010-03-21T15:06:19.822-05:002010-03-21T15:06:19.822-05:00echristopherson: "Do you mean to say 'def...<b>echristopherson: <i>"Do you mean to say 'definite article' here, or 'demonstrative'?"</i></b><br /><br />Old IE <b>*sa</b> was a definite *article*, neutral in deixis, like English 'the'.<br /><br /><br /><b><i>"Similarly, I'm not aware of a language where a formal definiteness distinction gives way to a lack of distinction."</i></b><br /><br />Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-29967634025015394192010-03-21T00:39:54.228-05:002010-03-21T00:39:54.228-05:00Glen, very interesting piece. I have a few questio...Glen, very interesting piece. I have a few questions that maybe you could answer:<br /><br /><i>The PIE nominative comes from an encliticized version of *so, formerly an independent, uninflected definite article (later absorbed into the paradigm of *to- 'that' only to mark the animate nominative).</i><br /><br />Do you mean to say "definite article" here, or "demonstrative&echristophersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02231286173511891124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-74248809529124184322009-10-26T20:04:22.492-05:002009-10-26T20:04:22.492-05:00Octavià Alexandre: "If, as I think, the nomin...<b>Octavià Alexandre: <i>"If, as I think, the nominative -s was originally an ergative *-sV, it would explain why it's only found in animates. The similarity with the HU ergative is an argument in favour of this theory."</i></b><br /><br />Multiplication of hypotheses.<br />Appeal to Hurro-Urartian is unwarranted and unnecessary.<br />You're in obvious violation of <a href="httpGlen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-40366771454907257422009-10-26T19:21:51.895-05:002009-10-26T19:21:51.895-05:00And restricting ourselves only to PIE and internal...And restricting ourselves only to PIE and internal reconstruction of PIE, I've also already stated that a deictic postclitic (with added support from real-world languages which do the same) sufficiently explains the marked nominative in PIE without contorting the entire declensional system to eke out an ergative suffix so that you can fantasize about Hurrian links.Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-40798650854252296152009-10-26T19:20:06.263-05:002009-10-26T19:20:06.263-05:00Octavià: "Wait a moment, my idea is that pre-...<b>Octavià: <i>"Wait a moment, my idea is that pre-PIE [...] was an ergative language which used an ergative marker *-sV related to the Hurro-Urartian one."</i></b><br /><br />... Which is wrong because, as I already explained, Proto-Indo-European, Etruscan <i>and</i> Lemnian all agree in a genitive suffix. THERE ARE NO ERGATIVE SUFFIXES IN THESE LANGUAGES.<br /><br />When you concoct Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-10456402407624054222009-10-26T16:31:55.362-05:002009-10-26T16:31:55.362-05:00"Hurrian has two distinct case markers of not...<b><i>"Hurrian has two distinct case markers of note:<br />- ergative -ž<br />(specifying agent of a transitive action) [...] <br /><br />Anyone with a modicum of knowledge of PIE and Etruscan knows that neither of these languages has such endings nor is there a distinct ergative case for transitive agency separate from the genitive case of origin, belonging and possession.</i></b><br /><br Octavià Alexandrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14569731729402710400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-67889016803902531572009-10-26T16:20:08.037-05:002009-10-26T16:20:08.037-05:00Octavià,
Facts often "make enemies" out...Octavià,<br /><br />Facts often "make enemies" out of the insane but we should care less about their fleeting love. I'm not here for immature popularity contests and threats by lonely, insane people. I have plenty of friends offline, living and in the flesh. I'm only here on the net to share and search out cold-hearted facts without being caught up in someone else's bad day.Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-40803194473682405742009-10-26T09:14:04.864-05:002009-10-26T09:14:04.864-05:00Getting back to the original point, I see no incon...Getting back to the original point, I see no inconvenient in accepting your theory to explain the PIE genitive and accusative cases, but not for the nominative.<br /><br />If, as I think, the nominative <b>-s</b> was originally an ergative <b>*-sV</b>, it would explain why it's only found in animates. <br /><br />The similarity with the HU ergative is an argument in favour of this theory.Octavià Alexandrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14569731729402710400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-39390898161676921132009-10-26T05:57:06.586-05:002009-10-26T05:57:06.586-05:00I see your own knowledge of Hurrian is limited, le...I see your own knowledge of Hurrian is limited, leading you to making improper jugdements on other people's theories. <br /><br />You'd better not to hurl insults like "crackpots" and "charlatans", Glen. In that way, you're going to make many enemies around the Internet.Octavià Alexandrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14569731729402710400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-64917028822647689222009-10-25T14:42:30.981-05:002009-10-25T14:42:30.981-05:00"Mr Arnaud Fournet, an amateur linguist, has ...<b><i>"Mr Arnaud Fournet, an amateur linguist, has written an article in partnership with Allan Bomhard defending a close relationship between PIE and Hurrian (he doesn't mention HU). This is 2009, not 1996!"</i></b><br /><br />While we should be relieved that you know what year it is, your selection of materials and pompous remarks lack substance. <a href="http://books.google.ca/Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-11646042403435390232009-10-25T06:34:12.280-05:002009-10-25T06:34:12.280-05:00Notice: my earlier post contained some typing erro...Notice: my earlier post contained some typing errors induced by this clumsy editor.<br /><br />"<i>Idle name-dropping. What are the facts Allan Bomhard's stated that you find pertinent to this debate? Indo-European circa 4000 BCE is by all facts remotely positioned from the Hurro-Urartian family. HU was surely situated in eastern Turkey near Lake Van and PIE in Eastern Europe.</i>"<Octavià Alexandrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14569731729402710400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-6414824530800055712009-10-25T06:16:43.061-05:002009-10-25T06:16:43.061-05:00"Besing[sic] suppressing my comment, you chan...<b><i>"Besing[<a href="http://www.answers.com/sic" rel="nofollow">sic</a>] suppressing my comment, you changed my words."</i></b><br /><br />Anyone with their own blog is hardly "suppressed" by another blogger. Be serious.<br /><br />In another's home, one obeys guest rules or one respectfully leaves. You must understand here and now that mutual commitment to accepting Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-10584988527694971512009-10-25T04:36:53.184-05:002009-10-25T04:36:53.184-05:00Don't kill the messenger, Glen! Besing suppres...Don't kill the messenger, Glen! Besing suppressing my comment, you changed my words. I didn't say "NWC" BUT "Hurrian" (or more properly, Hurro-Urartian).<br /><br />This idea is now supported by Allam Bomhard (you could ask him for more details), and DOESN'T include the genitive. BTW, do yiou seriously believe your quote to be a "refutation"? Come on, Octavià Alexandrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14569731729402710400noreply@blogger.com