Personal Pronouns

[Patrick C. Ryan]

[ moderator re-formatted ]

Dear Jens and IEists:

 ----- Original Message -----
From: Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen <jer at cphling.dk>
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 1999 5:16 PM

> On Wed, 21 Apr 1999, Patrick C. Ryan wrote:

[ moderator snip ]

>> That is only if you assume that *te and *se developed from *twe and *swe,
>> which I specifically deny. And, *te/*twe are not, IMHO, true "alternants";
>> rather, they are the absolutive (*te) and w-inflection (*twe) of a
>> pronominal root *te.

> Where is the evidence for their differentiated use?

What kind of evidence would you accept?

> Does YOUR system not force YOU to assume that the "w-inflection" of *me
> changed from *mwe to *me by the rule you won't have? That also answers the
> following remark of yours:

No, actually it does not. My strong suspicion is that *mwe, *twe, *swe
designated topicality, and their use in other cases is transference of
function. I believe that *me, *te, and *se are original
absolutive/accusative forms, and there is no need to derive them from any
other form.

Secondly, for your idea to be even vaguely plausible, you should be able to
show Cwe   -> Ce in non-pronominal words, and, as far as I know, this is not
recognized in IE studies are as normal phonological developement.

>> I specifically deny that [viz., that earlier *mwe is need under "my
>> system"]. And doing the analysis your way is what I am, of
>> course, questioning.

> Everything should be questioned.

That is fair-minded of you, and no sarcasm is intended or implied.

[ moderator snip ]

>> I would be very interested to hear how you justify concluding that the
>> "two sibilants were not identical". I find that surprising since we know
>> only of one sibilant for IE. But if you believe IE had both <s>and <z>,
>> why not say so?

> I do say so, only in the variant, "IE had had both <s> and <z>", i.e. the
> opposition belong to the prehistory of the protolanguage in which they
> constitute two different morphophonemes for analyses of some depth. The
> sibilant marking the nominative in IE had two properties not shared by
> (most) other s's: (1) It causes lengthening of V in the environment
> VC(C)s#, e.g. nom. *dye:w-s as opposed to 2sg *k^lew-s;

I do not believe that I have ever seen this kind of lengthening mechanism
asserted. What is wrong with simply *dyVHw- for a lengthening mechanism?

[ Moderator's comment:
  There is no evidence for a laryngeal in this stem; the length is due to
  Ablaut ("apophony"), unexplained as yet.
  --rma ]

> (2) it causes a preceding thematic vowel to take on the form /o/, while
> other s's take /e/: nom. *yo-s 'he who' vs. 2sg *bhere-s (but *yo-m like
> 1sg inj.  *bhero-m and nom.pl. *to-y 'they' like opt. *bhero-yH1-t, etc.).

I am also not aware of any IE who has successfully asserted that apophony is
governed by specific consonants.

[ Moderator's comment:
  It appears to be current in some European schools, that *e/o is [e] before
  voiceless obstruents and [o] before voiced.  I find that there are too many
  exceptions to accept this.
  --rma ]

Frankly, I wish you could identify a <z> for IE; it would simplify my AA-IE
comparisons since, from all I can see, AA <z> and <s> correspond to IE <s>
with no indication of apophonic influence.

> The lengthening is also exhibited by some s's that just happened to occur
> root-finally (as all consonants could): *ters 'dryness' > *te:rs, reshaped
> to *te:r-os (like *men-s -> *men-os 'thought'), whence Celtic *ti:ros >
> OIr. ti:r 'land' (ntr. s-stem); also Ved. ma:s 'flesh' from *me:ms has
> undergone the further lengthening leading to a form rhyming with m-stem
> nominatives like Ved. ksa:s 'earth', Av. zii<ao> 'winter' - this must have
> been different from the form of the acc.pl. which once must have ended in
> stem + -m-s, in the o-stems *-o:ns, which therefore probably once had a
> different sibilant from the one marking the nominative.

I think the more likely explanation of these lengthenings is the presence of
a resonant; also, I am rather sceptical of IE <*z> exercising its
lengthening across an intervening consonant (if only a resonant).

> Lengthening is also seen in the s-aorist which then apparently had the
> lengthening s.  Now, the derivative present to go with the s-aorist appears
> too often to be the type in -sk^e/o- for this to be fortuitous (the
> arrangement of Ved.  prcchati : aor. apra:ksam).

I agree that this is an interesting congruity.

> Other derivative presents are formed with the suffix *-ye/o- (*-e-H2-[ye/o-],
> stative aor. *-eH1- vs. stative prs.  *-H1-ye/o-, denom.  in zero as opposed
> to denom. in *-ye/o- presumably reflecting the two aspect stems, desid. or
> "future" in *-H1s- vs.  *-H1s-ye/o-, etc.), therefore one would like to
> derive *-sk^e/o- from older *-s-ye/o-.

I think that is playing rather loosely with normal phonological developments.

> A change of "lengthening s + /y/" to -sk^- may (by only just MAY) be seen in
> the suffix *-isko-s "belonging to" which may simply be an old izafet-like
> construction in *-is + *yos with the relative pronoun tagged on to an old
> nom. in *-is (itself manifestly a reduced variant of *-os): Thus a word like
> Danish would have meant "Dane who (is", as indeed it does in "a Dane who is
> king" = "a Danish king".

*-ko by itself means 'belonging to'; the *-s is simply a plural formant.

> The (non- lengthening) s of the desiderative (future) does not change a
> follwoing /y/ into -k^-, cf. the cited desid. durative (Skt. future) in
> *-H1s-ye/o-.  It seems rather plain that IE /s/ has more than one source to
> it.

If your proposal of <z> lengthening foregoing vowels is based on such
unusual phonological developments (at least for IE), I can hardly put much
trust in it.

>>> in addition, the gen. morpheme had a vowel (*-os) and formed a weak case,
>>> while the nom.sg. ended in pure *-s (perhaps once voiced).

>> I am suspicious of all "pure" items. It seems to me that reality is
>> always slightly adulterated.

> If so, they are adulterated in two different ways under the same
> circumstances, and that spells opposition to an unbiased analyst, doesn't
> it?

I do not doubt that different results indicate different conditioning
factors but I see no major objection to supposing that the conditioning
factor is probably stress-accent if not simply a desire to differentiate
phonologically identical forms fulfilling gradually differentiated
functions.

> If you say no to that, investigation stops, and discussion becomes
> impossible.

I have not said "no".

> There is the open backdoor of "vanished variables". But one should not
> refrain from saying out loud what one observes in places where observations
> CAN be made, and that's all I'm doing.

I agree 100%.

>>> Even so, however, we cannot exclude that they are _ultimately_ two
>>> different variants of the same original entity.

>> Yes, here we are in agreement. But for "cannot", I would subsititute
>> "may not".

> If you would state a reason for this will of yours I just might take it
> seriously. BTW, the exact modality of "may not" escapes me in this
> context.

-may not- implies that we are not permitted to exclude --- even though we
might be able to.

You must know that I am merely accepting Beekes on this point. I also once
toyed with two different s'es but I am convinced that the explanation
offered by Beekes is the stronger and more economical explanation.

>>> - In the inflection of the IE pronouns the acc. plainly has a morpheme
>>> which is absent in the nom. -

>> And what plain morpheme is that if I may ask for clarification?

> The accusative-forming segment *-me (dual variant *-we).

You certainly seem to like "variants". A look at AA may convince you (e.g.
Egyptian -wj, dual) that, most likely, the dual -w has a separate origin.
After all, although a <m/w>  variation is attested is some IE languages like
Hittite, it is not, so far as I know, established for IE.

>>> but all the weak cases are based on the accusative. In this, PIE has a
>>> system differing from all other PIE inflection and looking more like
>>> Modern Indic or Tocharian.

>> Do not see this at all.

> Then look at the inflection of the Vedic pers.prons. in your Grassmann.
> They all go the same, and the simply add endings to the accusative - as it
> is, or as you can esaily unravel it if you're willing.

Not trying to be obtuse but I do not really understand your point here.

[ moderator snip ]

>>> In English you must: What's the "me-form" of _house_? What's the
>>> s-genitive of _I_?

>> I normally expand my view over more than English.

> Then I misunderstood you - as you me: This was restricted to IE, and that
> goes like English in the respect concerned.

English has been so buffeted by the winds of linguistic chance that I would
not feel comfortable asserting anything about IE from English patterns. And
this is to be expected. Apparently nearly every identifiable ethnic identity
in Western European has invaded the island at one time or another; and all
have left their marks.

>>>> There is no necessity of reconstructing dual forms for earliest IE.

>>> Then why are they there?

>> You tell me.

> What about this: To express dual number? Can't we accept the dual when we
> SEE it?

All I was saying is that most IEists do not believe (and I agree) that the
dual is as old as the singular and plural in IE. A dual is certainly not
necessary in any language to express "two of" something.

>>> Why does Old Germanic agree with Old Indic in this respect? By chance?

>> You are conflating two issues. I maintain, with most IEists I presume, that
>> dual inflection is later in time than singular and plural inflections, and
>> *is built on them*.

> That's not the way anything I know looks. On the contrary, the dual is
> everywhere in the process of being eliminated, and it just beats me why
> some scholars want that to reflect a stage of uncompleted creation.

Well, as we all know, the pendulum swings both ways.

> In addition, the dual has some morphemes all its own, that's not at all the
> way analogy works, but it IS the way archaisms look.

Obviously, after the dual *was* developed, its rather specialized (and less
frequent) use would tend to preserve its forms in an archaic state.

> You might as well explain the irregular inflections of the verb "to be" in
> most IE branches as due to new morphological trends that got cut off.

I would rather say generally that IE probably be not have a verb for "to
be", and that a verb "to sit"  (be at) was introduced in some dialects to
fill the need while others borrowing a root for "to grow" (come to be at)
and yet others liked "to stay" (persistently be at").  If "to be" existed in
earliest IE, the need for suppletion would be unmotivated.

> That is very definitely the wrong track, and I would not accept it even if
> there were unanimity about it.

Well, I have a few of those myself.

[ moderator snip ]

>> This is hopelessly muddled as far as I am concerned. Hittite ammuk is a
>> stressed form for 'me' fairly certainly combining IE *e-, demonstrative +
>> *me, 1st person + *-w, inflection (I believe its signficance is to mark
>> topicality) + *g^-, pronominal marker (I believe its original significance
>> is to mark maleness).  It is backassward to suggest that -mu has "taken over
>> the -u- from" ammuk. Rather, ammuk has incorporated mu into a fuller form
>> expanded by a- and -k.

> Nobody can _guess_ these things.

Correct. All we can do is offer explanations that are in concordance with
observed phenomena and common sense but, you are right, no absolute proof is
possible.

> But IF (1) Hittite is an IE language and so prone to contain elements
> corresponding to those found in other IE languages, (2) the vocalism /u/ is
> not found in these pronouns elsewhere except in the nom.sg. 'thou', and (3)
> enclitic and orthotone forms are sometimes found to influence each other,
> also in the direction I propose (a well-known case among many is Germanic
> *mi:na-z 'my' from *meyn-o-s, a reshaping of *emo-s based on the orthotone
> gen. *mene influenced by the enclitic gen. *moy; also Lat. meu-s from *meyo-s
> has taken the /y/ from the enclit. *moy),

This is, IMHO, a completely erroneous analysis. Germanic *mi:na-z is
composed of IE *me + -y, adjectival/genitive + -nV, nominalizer + -s (case
marker). *e-mo-s is an emphatic expansion of *me by *e-, in keeping with a
general tendency to expand monosyllables to disyllables + -s, case marking.
It has only the last two elements in common with *meynos.

> THEN you can link Hitt. to the rest of IE in a smooth and unforced way if you
> assume that the /u/ has propagated from 'thou' to 'I' and from 'I' to 'me',
> and finally from orthotone 'me' to enclit. 'me'.

I do not assume that the basal form is *tu(:), and so cannot justify
migrating <u>'s.

> All these steps of spread then occur between closely associate forms. Is
> that more "backassward" than an explanation based on a morphology the
> language does not otherwise have?

The basis for suspecting "topicality" for -w is not present in IE nouns. It
is necessary to reach beyond IE to "justify" it.

> BTW, what is the basis for taking the *-g^ to express topicality?

I do not take it so. I believe it expresses 'maleness', based on analysis of
IE roots containing <g{^}> and extra-IE morphemes.

[ moderator snip ]

>> Invention is the mother of comedy.

> Maybe so, but it is less amusing that some scholars - in this case
> not you - claim that there is no way from A to B just because they have
> not even tried to find one. I have shown how the IE system of pers.prons.
> MAY be seen as underlyingly regular, you may have a different way of
> achieving the same; but NOBODY should claim that there is NO conceivable
> way this system could be originally regular.

Again, I cannot help but willingly agree. The original system should have
been overwhelmingly "regular" but the pattern is difficult to see now ---
even in our reconstructions for earliest IE.

> My system, which was only a suggestion, may have its flaws, so don't stop
> criticizing it, just because I have ready answers to the things I have
> heard said about it over the years. This IS a dialectic business.

My! We agree more in this post than we ever have. I only hope that is an
omen for the future.

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)