Proto-Indo-European

(Did you mean: "that suggests that the Indo-European and Uralic accusatives are cognate, since they both end in -m."?)

Yep, I've heard all about macro-language-family theories, though I don't believe nearly any of them are true. My personal favorite (the one I find most interesting) is Dené-Caucasian, combining Basque, Sino-Tibetan, Dené-Yenisian, and many others. As for Nostratic/Eurasiatic, I believe that the following language families were for a time in very close contact, even when grammatical elements were forming:

• Proto-Indo-European/Proto-Indo-Hittite,
• Proto-Pontic/Proto-Northwest Caucasian,
• Proto-Caspic/Proto-Northeast Caucasian,
• Proto-Kartvelian,
• Proto-Lyndian, and
• Proto-Uralic.
  

However, I believe that none of them are genetically or fundamentally derived from a single proto-language. I have heard of, and I do follow, the internal reconstructions you mention, both in Finnish and in PIE.

Hi again (sorry for bothering you so much), Can you give me some examples of third-person singular neuter pronouns in some Germanic languages (preferably more ancient ones)? Thanks,

You mean like those in *sa, *iz and *hiz?

Yes, but I forgot to add "personal" to my classification. It seems that *iz is the only one out of those widely used as an "animate" or "personal" pronoun. Is this correct?

The personal pronouns have four sources. West Germanic used *iz and *hiz, Gothic used *iz, while Old Norse used a combination of *sa/þ- and *hanaz which is unattested anywhere else.

Ok, so if you had to guess (or if you know), what would be the hypothetical reflexes of the masculine declension of *iz into Old English (and then to Modern English)?

Well if *hiz became hē, then presumably *iz would have developed into just ē?

I was thinking the same thing, but I thought that if such forms existed side by side then they would develop phonological changes to better distinguish them than the sole presence of the *h would have.

Either that or one or the other would have fallen out of use. Which is... well, what happened. :P

Unfortunately, yes :)
But as for the former, do you know what that process is called? I'm having trouble thinking of known examples.

I'm not sure if I know of any examples. When two words fall together and can no longer reliably distinguished, then either that single word takes on the meaning of both, or the old meaning is retained and new word is used to cover the gap. I'm not aware of a name for instances where another word was changed to make it less similar to another.

Can you give me an example of when a new word is used to cover the gap?

An example would be when the old Latin demonstrative ille became a definite article. New words like Catalan aquest were introduced to create new demonstratives.

I see. So, if a phonological change happened to **ē to make it dissimilar, could you guess what it potentially would become?

Phonetic changes almost never take such considerations into account. They are kind of at a lower, more basic level, and are not normally affected by the meanings of words. It does sometimes happen, though, that when sound changes make certain words too similar, a language borrows an alternative form from another dialect or even another language. they was borrowed from Old Norse in that way, to replace the original word which had become too similar to he.

Okay. Thank you for the insight; I learned a lot.