H1 and t??

[Patrick C. Ryan]

Dear Jens and IEists:

 ----- Original Message -----
From: Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen <jer at cphling.dk>
Sent: Friday, April 16, 1999 12:50 PM

 <snip>

> The IE system has been basically correctly reconstructed by Cowgill in
> Evid.f.Laryng. as

> *eg' *tu    *we:   *yu:   *wey  *yu:s (nom.)
> *me  *t(w)e *nH3we *uH3we *nsme *usme (acc.)

> I have some difficulty only with the 2du acc. for which the Skt. stem
> yuva- (with y- from the nom.) rather points to *uH3e, probably with
> dissimilatory loss of the *-w-.

> The other cases are formed from the acc. by the addition of postpostions,
> cf. Vedic dat. asma-bhyam 'to us', abl. ma-t, tva-t, asma-t, yuSma-t etc.

> The disyllabic acc.'s have enclitic variants consisting in the first
> (underlying) syllable, *noH3, *woH3, *nos, *wos, for med a time when there
> was a vowel /o/ in that syllable.

> Possessive adjectives are formed from the acc. by vrddhi: *tew-o-s,
> *no:H3-o-s, *wo:H3-o-s, *no:s-o-s, *wo:s-o-s. The 1sg *me had to prefix
> the vrddhi vowel because there was only one consonant, *emo-s 'my'. The
> reason is that there is no variant *mwe parallel with *t(w)e and *s(w)e,
> but that is obviously due to simple sound change, *mwe > *me completed
> before the poss.adj. was derived.

One of the greatest problems in linguistic studies is the overeager facility
with which anomalies are explained with an unjustified mechanism like that
above: "simple sound change".  There is not the slightest shred of evidence
for *mwe in IE.

And, in fact, suggesting its (*mwe) former presence obscures a better
analysis of the existing facts.

Is it not true that the majority of IEists would subscribe to the idea,
which has been advanced by Beekes, that the IE nominal nominative developed
out of an earlier ergative, in form derived from the genitive? And that,
therefore, the nominal accusative, earlier an absolutive, represents the
basal form?

Now I know some will quibble over whether or not the same logic should apply
to pronouns, and yes, I am aware of what seems to be a more conservative
retention of older inflections in the pronouns, but, based on the experience
we have we languages around the world, there is, IMHO, absolutely no
justification for separating nominal and pronominal developments absolutely.

On this basis, it is rather easy to see that the *basal* forms of the 1st
and 2nd persons, in the singular and plural, are *me, *te, *ne, *ye.  There
is no necessity of reconstructing dual forms for earliest IE.

Apparently before this inflection (or particle),  an alternative form for
the first person, analyzable as *He (demonstrative) + *g{^}V (meaning
unknown or disputed), suppleted *me for the ergative or later nominative,
making a *mwe totally unnecessary as a nominative/ergative although we can
surely see it in zero-grade as the Hittite enclitic -mu --- an additional
reason for regarding a "simple sound change" (*mew -> *me) as unnecessary
and ill-advised.

It is also rather easy to see that the pronouns have retained an inflection
of -w (or attachment of -w) of which only dubious traces remain in IE nouns.
The 2nd person dual and  plural are particularly indicative: these forms
(*yu: / *yu:s [both built on *yew)

I must confess I am completely at a loss to understand a reconstruction of
the first and second person accusatives (formerly absolutives) of  *nsme and
*usme when *-sme is clearly nothing more that an asseverative particle
particularly in view of *ne. How can we blithely accept *nsme in view of
forms like Homeric no{^}i which is almost certainly simply derived from
*ne/o + *wi:?

These are not my only objections to the analysis Jens has provided but I
will address the other issues later if it seems there is interest.

<snip>

Pat

PATRICK C. RYAN (501) 227-9947; FAX/DATA (501)312-9947 9115 W. 34th St.
Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 USA WEBPAGES:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803 and PROTO-RELIGION:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803/proto-religion/indexR.html "Veit
ek, at ek hekk, vindga meipi, nftr allar nmu, geiri undapr . . . a ~eim
meipi er mangi veit hvers hann af rstum renn." (Havamal 138)