tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post2851584765919729282..comments2023-09-24T05:45:23.811-05:00Comments on Paleoglot: Prehistoric isoglosses in Proto-SteppeGlen Gordonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-70440563982939471712010-01-08T02:02:45.742-06:002010-01-08T02:02:45.742-06:00Hi Glen.
Excellent work. Pls continue along thes...Hi Glen. <br /><br />Excellent work. Pls continue along these lines.<br /><br />Thoughts. <br /><br />To me, Gilyak is more in with Uralic - Eskimo-Aleut etc, not with Altaic.<br /><br />I feel that Ainu may be much more in line with Austroasiatic, in line with archeological data.<br /><br />To me, the closest relative, sister, to Altaic is Uralic. Not relation, sister.Robert Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16213140951444357431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-27146649765508663312009-10-18T12:37:52.001-05:002009-10-18T12:37:52.001-05:00Thanks. I thought a great deal about it and it rel...Thanks. I thought a great deal about it and it relates to the relationship of PIE and Aegean which share both <b>*ka</b> and <b>*ta</b>, as well as the accusative in <b>*-m</b> that comes with it. The accusative ending survives only in Aegean demonstratives as <b>*-n</b> (Etr. <i>ca</i> & <i>ta</i> with accusatives <i>can</i> & <i>tan</i>). In effect, accusative marking became restricted Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-4599735214527843442009-10-18T01:48:26.629-05:002009-10-18T01:48:26.629-05:00I reconstruct the MIE demonstratives as *ka 't...<i>I reconstruct the MIE demonstratives as *ka 'this', *ta 'that', *sa 'the' (for animates only) and *ei 'he, she, it'.</i><br /><br />Not a bad solution. I might take to liking this :)<br /><br />As far as "Nostratic roots" go I think I share the same concerns. The various versions of Proto-Nostratic phonology are very elaborate (reminiscient of Mordrigarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15905659012488502823noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-65625198621058823732009-10-17T16:29:23.609-05:002009-10-17T16:29:23.609-05:00I follow more or less what Allan Bomhard's bee...I follow more or less what Allan Bomhard's been saying except I add more detail. I personally divide PIE into three equal stages to make things easier to remember: Old IE (7000-6000 BCE), Mid IE (6000-5000 BCE) and Late IE (5000-4000 BCE). I would date Proto-Steppe to about 9000 BCE, centered in the Asian steppelands, again like Bomhard's position. Unlike Greenberg, Bomhard doesn't Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-10634384233505944862009-10-17T09:47:56.562-05:002009-10-17T09:47:56.562-05:00Hello! Just wondering that how are the groupings p...Hello! Just wondering that how are the groupings placed chronologically?Paddyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17541030455996393522noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-67417602653287256202009-10-16T19:21:02.141-05:002009-10-16T19:21:02.141-05:00The simple answer: The 3ps *-t derives from an old...The simple answer: The 3ps <b>*-t</b> derives from an older endingless 3ps in Mid IE (MIE) through the addition of the particle <b>*ta</b> 'that'.<br /><br />Now further explanation ensues... At the Mid IE stage, <b>*ta</b> was still used for **all genders and cases** (ie. used for 'that <i>person</i>' as well as 'that thing'). The paradigm was <b>*ta</b> (nominative), <bGlen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-17035317787075997282009-10-16T18:30:24.735-05:002009-10-16T18:30:24.735-05:00In that case how do you explain 3rd person verbal ...In that case how do you explain 3rd person verbal endings in *-t?Mordrigarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15905659012488502823noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-65904644276033411292009-10-16T15:54:17.150-05:002009-10-16T15:54:17.150-05:00Also crucial to remember is the 2nd person objecti...Also crucial to remember is the 2nd person objective singular: PIE <b>*-s</b> < Steppe <b>*-t</b>. This ending is in turn certainly due to agglutination of the pronoun <b>*tu</b>, something that I think happened long before Proto-Steppe.Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-1443374219745553332009-10-16T11:37:04.514-05:002009-10-16T11:37:04.514-05:00I used to support the hypothesis that *t# > *s#...I used to support the hypothesis that *t# > *s#, but I couldn't find anything to support the change aside from the supposed plural *-(e)s in PIE. What else points to this change?Mordrigarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15905659012488502823noreply@blogger.com