PU *nimi / PIE *HneH3men- (was: Re: IE "Urheimat" and evidence from Uralic linguistics)

[Ante Aikio]

[Fabrice Cavoto wrote:]
(snip)
> As for the Uralic
> part, if the root itself is identical with IE, then the stem formation
> doesn't have to be. In the same way that IE has a productive *-men-suffix,
> Ural. has also different stem formations, more or less productive, and can
> simply have choosen another one, thus *-e.
(snip)

There is no reason to concider *-i (= your *-e) in PU *nimi 'name' a stem
formant. *-i is no known a PU morpheme, and *nim- couldn't even
theoretically be a PU morpheme, since all roots (except pronouns and the
two auxilaries) had to be of shape *(C)V(C)CV-.

[I wrote:]
> But you can't reconstruct PU *-ä for this item: the reconstruction must be
> *nimi (= traditional *nime).

[Adam Hyllested asked:]
> Why are you reconstructing an *-i for traditional *-e ? From what I know,
> *-e > Finnish -i, whereas Finnish -e < *-eC.

[Fabrice Cavoto:]
> I don't see why neither. *-e and *-a seem to be needed,
> but I don't see why *-i.

My *-i doesn't contrast with *-e; I simply rewrite non-initial syllable
*i for traditional *e. For the reasons, see my parallel mail to the list.

Regards,

Ante Aikio