Print

Print


2012/12/21 David McCann <[log in to unmask]>:
> 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.

Very interesting!

First person m- seems to be common in Bantu languages as well. All
these coincidences are indicatives of common origin or just a kind of
convergence similar to the "mama and papa" phenomenon?