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?