Personal Pronouns

Patrick C. Ryan proto-language at email.msn.com
Sat May 1 16:56:18 UTC 1999


Dear Jens and IEists:

 ----- Original Message -----
From: Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen <jer at cphling.dk>
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 1999 10:42 AM

> On Tue, 27 Apr 1999, Patrick C. Ryan wrote:

>> [...]
>> (JER:)

>>> 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.

> But you can't deny the existence of *te and *se along with *twe and *swe,
> a variation for which there seems to be no tangible reason.

If you ever find anything really "tangible" in our speculations, please let
me know. If I cannot bottle it, I would at least like to photograph it.

What is so "intangible" about supposing that *te is the basal form, that
there was an inflection - *-wV which produced -*twe, and that the original
significance of -*twe being lost, both forms came into use as bases for
other forms but with a bias towards the form with -*wV for the nominative
(through its former topical use): -*tu/u:?

> Nor can one
> deny that *me *te *se look parallel (and inflect in very parallel
> fashion). Is the non-occurrence of a **mwe to join the w-forms *two *swe
> then not a thing to be noted and explained? What if we do have rules to
> explain it - isn't it then worth talking about?

I cannot but agree with the anticipation of both your questions but, it
seems, that *mwe probably never got as well established as a topical because
of the suppletion of *eg^-.

> [On Gk. mo:^mar : amu:'mo:n as reflecting *mwoH-/*muH-:]

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

> Because the Gk. full-grade form is not **mow(V)-, but /mo:-/.

And, are you asserting, that IE *mow(V)- could *not* result in Gk. mo:{^}-?

<snip>

>> Why do you not give us your best
>> arguments for proposing a non-Hittite <m/w> alternation *outside of the
>> pronoun series*?

> I am not sure there was such an alternation elsewhere. I have found two
> cases where in-depth analysis leads me to postulate *-G-m- (G being the
> dual marker, I suggest a voiced velar fricative, but do not insist on it)
> as an older form of what I find surfacing as *-w- or *-H3w-. In one case
> the *-m- is the 1st person marker, in the other it is the marker of the
> accusative. Since I cannot believe that the 1st person and the accusative
> was one semantic entity, the homonymy must be accidental, so that the
> covariation can only be due to real phonetic change, i.e. a sound law
> *-Gm- > *-Gw- (~ *-w-).

This is where it would be very helpful to extend your view beyond IE. Even
though Nostratic and early IE might have a vowel system similar to Sanskrit
(basically monovocalic), the language that preceded Nostratic may not have
been so structured.

And, I think it was not. I think it had a *me, in which the <e> was not
subject to apophony, and thus was truly phonemic --- which meant
'converser', and generally covered the semantic range of the 1st person.

I think it also had a *ma, in which the <a> was not subject to apophony, and
thus was truly phonemic --- which meant 'on', and was transfered to serve as
an accusative for animates.

<snip>

> Your task is to demonstrate the youth of the dual. You could do this by
> showing us that its forms are derived according to rules of younger
> periods than those of the plural. In that case the dual should be more
> directly transparent than the plural. If anything, the dual is more
> _opaque_ than the plural. If the y's of some dual forms are there to
> differentiate, then demonstrate that such is their business elsewhere and
> that they have been implemented by the pertinent rules.

> [...]

>>>> 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?

Whether you agree with my reasons for those assumptions or not, until I find
better reasons, and make other assumptions, I will have to stick to what I
have said.

And, although you do not seem tofeel that Egyptian evidence is very
significant, one of my reasons is the Egyptian pattern of (for the second
person singular) -T, for possessive and verbal affix vs. Tw, an "accusative"
and stative "subjective".

 <snip>

> I would be serious even over a beer. The "benefits" I'm talking about
> comprise the possibility to explain more in a coherent and principled way,
> in general experience no bad measure for closeness to the truth, if not
> without its pitfalls.

I learned a long time ago not to be "too" serious when drinking.

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)



More information about the Indo-european mailing list