Print

Print


> while /m/ marks interrogative
> particles in Chinese (any other?)

Semitic.

matt


On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 9:52 AM, David McCann <[log in to unmask]>wrote:

> On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 23:36:10 -0500
> > From: [log in to unmask]
> >
> > Is it just an impression of mine, or do /k/ and /m/ really keep
> > interchanging its symbolic ideas from one language to another? /m/
> > is for 1st person in many languages and /k/ is for interrogative
> > pronouns/particle in Latin languages and Japanese ("Qual? Que?
> > ka?"), but /k/ marks 1st person in other languages (Austronesian,
> > proto-Germanic, and also /g/ in "ego") while /m/ marks interrogative
> > particles in Chinese (any other?).
>
> For Nostratic, Greenberg reconstructed
>
> 1. Personal interrogative k- and impersonal m-. Indo-European
> generalised k- and Chukotian m-, but the others keep the contrast as in
> the Hungarian quoted by Douglas.
>
> 2. First person stative, middle, or absolutive -k versus active or
> ergative -m. In Eskimo, the 1st person possessive is -ma on ergative
> nouns, -ka on absolutive ones. Hungarian has -k in the subjective
> conjugation, both -k and -m in the objective. Greenberg speculated that
> the IE *-H might derive from -k.
>