H1 and t??

[Patrick C. Ryan]

[ moderator re-formatted ]

Dear Jens and IEists:

 ----- Original Message -----
From: Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen <jer at cphling.dk>
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 1999 12:42 PM

>On Mon, 19 Apr 1999, Patrick C. Ryan wrote:

[ moderator 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.)

>>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.

>Except that one expects it in the light of the alternants *te/*twe and
>*se/*swe, and that *mwe could not continue to live if it ever has.

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.

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

>Not if the analysis is done my way, in which case the form is needed.

I specifically deny that. And doing the analysis your way is what I am, of
course, questioning.

>>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?

>I don't know about opinion statistics in the population of IE-ists, nor would
>I be rank them higher than arguments based on facts. IE itself combines the
>nom. *-s with the thematic vowel to form *-os, but that of the gen. to form
>*-es +-yo, which indicates that the two sibilants were not identical;

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?

As far as nominative -o-s and genitive -es is concerned, Beekes and I would
consider the formulation genitive/ergative -e/os. Now we also know of
"genitives" in -y in some branches; I consider this inflection to simply be
a specialized use of adjectival -y. As for the "form *-es +-yo", which you
correctly segment, it seems very likely that adding -yV to the genitive is
an attempt to differentiate the genitive-ergative -e/os into
genitive -e/os+yV and ergative -e/os.

>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.

>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".

> - 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?

>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.

>This is not an ergative system, but there may or may not have been one
>elsewhere in the morphology beside it.

A quick look at  Lehmann's _Syntactic Typology_, one of his finest works,
will inform you that there is no "magic bullet" for ergative systems, no
universal pattern for marking. <0>for the absolutive is common but not
diagnostic.

>>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.

>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.

>>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.

>Then why are they there?

You tell me.

>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*.

>>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.

>Since -mu is the enclitic of ammuk 'me' it has every likelihood of having
>taken over the -u- from there; ammuk has it from the nom. /uk/, that in turn
>from *tu (variant of *tu: which gave Anat. *ti: >Hitt. zi-k with -k from 'I').

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.

>>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)

>Yes, there is a /w/ in the inflection of the pronouns, thanks for the support,
>intended or not.

I am always willing to support what seems to be the best answer of the moment.

>>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:?

>Confession accepted. The Gk. form is dual, its oldest form is believed to be
>/no:e/ (Whatelet); that would match Av. /a:va/ as *nH3we. To strain your blood
>pressure, I take the Skt. sma(:) 'verily' to be parallel with *nsme *usme,
>only made form the reflexive plural, IE *sme from **sweD-me, through invented
>stages like *sfeDme > *sfezme > *sfozme > *sphozme > *sphzme > *sphme > acc.
>*sme 'the ones mentioned', of which it may be the instr. *sme-H1 "per se".

Invention is the mother of comedy.

>>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.

>Some of the objections actually express agreement if you look.

Yes, I have looked, and we do agree on a -w inflection for IE pronouns.

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)