Personal Pronouns

[Patrick C. Ryan]

[ moderator re-formatted ]

Dear Jens and IEists:

 ----- Original Message -----
From: Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen <jer at cphling.dk>
Sent: Sunday, April 25, 1999 9:15 PM

First, please let me apologize for misspelling your first name in an earlier
posting. It was entirely unintentional.

>On Fri, 23 Apr 1999, Patrick C. Ryan wrote:

>>[...] 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.

>Even so, the non-occurrence of the very FORM *mwe (in any function) does
>look as strong evidence for a rule *mw- > *m-.

Not strong! Not evidence! This seems completely illogical to me.

>The rule, however, has a broader foundation, cf., e.g., Gk. mo:^mar
>'blemished' vs. amu:'mo:n 'unblemished' where /mo:-/ : /mu:-/ can only be
>seen as a regular alternation if derived from *mwoH-/*muH-.

Irrelevant to the question of the pronominal form *mwe but, in any case, why
not *mouH-/*muH?

>>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.

>We do have *swe'so:r and *swe'k^s without the *-w- in some languages.

One sallow does not a swallow make.

>[On the "nominative lengthening":]

>>I do not believe that I have ever seen this kind of lengthening mechanism
>>asserted. [...]

>You have now. It goes back a long way in the literature, over a century
>actually. I have given it a twist of my own, but only a little.

The twist makes it very difficult to recognize.

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

>This part of it is, whether assertion to this effect proves successful or
>not.

Unless "assertion to this effect (does) proves successful", I feel
comfortable in not considering it a viable factor.

>[...]

>>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.

>I'd like to, of course, and I have let you in on the indications I know.
>But all indications are to the effect that the two - if ever opposed -
>have merged in PIE. It may be like *o and *a in Germanic which used to be
>different, but have merged. Nostratic, though definitely on a productive
>track, is in its infancy, and the time may not have come for giving
>Nostr. evidence priority over the testimony of IE itself. I admit,
>however, that I would probably have welcomed external evidence, had it
>been postitive.

Well, if you are maintaining that pre-IE had both <s> and <z> then it would
seem to me that that Nostratic evidence through, e.g. Arabic, where <s> and
<z> have been maintained, would be crucial. But I can give you a little
nudge: I am sure that the <s> of the IE genitive could *not* have been <z>.

>[... Further on the length of nominatives:]

>>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).

>The nominative lengthening also works on stops: *ne'po:t-s, *wo:'{kw}-s.

Why can you not accept that *ne'po:t-s is the result of  *nepoH-t-s?

<snip>

>But what is the probability that morphological differentiation not based
>in phonetic change gets to LOOK so much like the result of phonetic change
>that its variation can be stated in terms of consistent phonetic rules?

That is a tough one. I have not ready answer.

>>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.

>It would be if it explained the facts as they are. The trouble with
>Leiden-style IE morphology is that so much of the material has to be
>explained as secondary. I want to respect the material - or at least the
>parts of it that I cannot explain away.

No one can be faulted for that.

 <snip>

>>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.

>I would of course change my mind if I got to know external evidence well
>enough to be able to control it and to see its relevance, and then found
>it to be in conflict with my present views. Such events would consitute
>quite big surprises, for the IE amount of co-variation is not exactly
>negligeable, but some of it could of course still be illusory. - That an
>m/w alternation is not established for IE is precisely the reason why I
>write about it, for it seems to be there.

Well, let us chew on a smaller bite. Why do you not give us your best
arguments for proposing a non-Hittite <m/w> alternation *outside of the
pronoun series*?

>- BTW, I find it difficult to see that -w- expresses the dual in Egyptian,
>if the plural ends in -w and the dual in -wy - and the dual personal
>suffixes simply add -y to the plural forms where (outside of the 3rd person)
>there is no -w-.

Before we go to far afield on the IE list, let us restrict our view to the
simplest and most transparent case: the nominal dual and plural in Egyptian.
Here, we find -w as the regular masculine plural ending. I consider that a
collective suffix. When the need for a dual came to be felt, the plural
(from collective) suffix was simply differentiated by -j. I propose an
analogous process of differentiation and suffixation provides an economical
explanation for the main thrust of dual formation in IE. By the way, it is
customary to distinguish between <j> (one reed leaf) and <y> (two reed
leaves) in Egyptian transcriptions.

[ moderator snip ]

>I was saying that, in the personal pronouns, the oblique cases are all
>built on the acc.: Skt. dat. asma-bhyam, abl. asma-t, loc. asme /asma-y/
>parallel to ma-hyam, ma-t tva-t, tve /tva-y/, even instr. tva: and
>yuSma:-datta- 'given by you', the underlying acc. being found in Skt. in
>the extended form ma:m /ma + -am/, tva:m /tva + -am/ and the normalized
>acc.pls. asma:n, yuSma:n - unextended forms seen in Avestan ma, thwa,
>ahma. That IS a system like that of Modern Indic where case-forming
>postposition are added to the old accusative.

Well, does this not suggest the primacy of the accusative? before the
addition of -m to designate animate accusatives?

>>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.

>That is no valid reason for considering the IE dual forms as we find them
>younger than the sg. and pl. forms we find.

I have tried to show that that is exactly the case: that the dual forms
incorporate -y, which is not specifically dual but only differentiating.
And, we may even be getting a glimpse of the collective -w I propose in the
locative plural ending -su.

>The real weight of the actual evidence rather tips the balance the other
>way: If a dual category is superfluous, and the IE dual forms are not
>characterized by productive elements, the dual looks like a cumbersome
>luxury present only because the older generations had it, and not for any
>important purpose of its own.  That spells archaism if anything does.

Yes, but there is different archaic horizons --- some earlier than others.

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

>If its forms could be in an archaic state, it must have been old enough to
>allow me to take it seriously in my analysis of the IE personal pronouns.
>That was all it was mentioned for.

Perhaps it is just a question of emphasis?

>[...On 'me' and 'my':]

>>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.

>If that is so, you cannot use the same system to account for the
>occurrence of /w/ in *tewe 'of thee' (Skt. tava, Lith. poss.adj. tava-)
>and /n/ in *mene 'of me' (Av. mana, OCS mene, Lith. poss.adj. mana-).

I do not see why I cannot. Some uses of the genitive are very close to being
topical: "of thee let me say that . . ."  The forms for "of me" are simply
an alternative method of composition: *me- + *-nV, nominalizer. Or would you
not agree that there was some variation of formation in IE --- even at its
earliest. The Acade{'}mie Indo-Europe{'}enne was not around in those days.

>>>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.

>Then why not change your assumption about 'thou' and get the benefits?

If this were a friendly drinking bout, I would be accomodating and agree.
But are we not both trying to approximate the truth as closely as we are
able?

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

>Fine with me, that makes it even older and more deeply rooted when we
>find it in the pronouns, where it is then definitely a component to be
>accounted for in the underlying forms.

>>> 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.

>Sorry, I misread you. But why "maleness"? Did women not say *eg^?

Only Valkyries. Other women, probably *em-.

>Thank you for your trouble with rethinking this intricate question. We
>cannot expect full agreement to be right around the corner.

I am always interested in new ideas, and while I may not accept them, they
stimulate all of us to rethink our reason for accepting other assumptions
so, IMHO, they are always welcome as long as they are not purely frivolous,
and I do not believe your ideas are.

Actually, this discussion has benefited my thinking because I have always
wanted to connect Arabic -t with IE -t (which, on the basis of a plentitude
of other cognates, is impossible), but, on the basis on the neuter personal
pronouns in -d, and the possibility that neuter and feminine were once a
combined non-male classification, the smoke is starting to clear a little.

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)