Uralic and IE

[Glen Gordon]

MIGUEL:  Well, I maintain that **-t > *-H1.
ME (GLEN):
  This would mean that IE *-H1 becomes Hittite -t?
MIGUEL:
  No.  -t becomes -H1.  We have **-et (Hitt. -it) > *-eH1, but
  **-od (Hitt. -az < *-od-s) remains as *-od.

Ah, I think I understand now. This means that IE (IndoAnatolian) *-t >
CentumSatem *-H1. Hmmm. Alright, that's a little better. I can live with
that peacefully.

MIGUEL:
  In the secondary verbal endings -(e)t and -(e)nt, -t has probably
  been restored analogically from -(e)ti, -(e)nti, but we also have
  lautgesetzlich -e:r < **-ent.

Yes, thus justifying **-nD becoming *-r, not **-n > *-r. If I have this
right, **-ent would first become **-e:n before becoming *-e:r because
according to you **-n > *-r. So, the change of **-VCs to **V:C (such as
**-Vns to *-V:n) must occur later:

           1.  *-n > *-r
           2.  *-ns > *-:n   (: indicates lengthening of prec. vwl)
               *-rs > *-:r

Wait a minute, how do *-ter endings react in Hittite nominative then??
Why would **-nC (in this case, **-nt) be simplified to *-:n FIRST before
the *-n>*-r change? This would mean that the simplification of the cons.
plus neuter *-d/*-t occured well before the cons. plus animate *-s
changes instead of concurrently! Thus:

           1.  **-nD > *-:n    (inanimate simplification)

           2.  **-n  > *-r     (heteroclitic)

           3.  **-ns > *-:n    (animate simplification)
               **-rs > *-:r

Saying that **-nD > *-r and **-n > *-n is much simpler because you have
this scenario instead:

           1.  **-Cs > *-:C    (inanimate/animate simplification)
               **-nD > *-:r

See? Animate, inanimate AND heteroclitic can be explained in one big
swoop.

MIGUEL:
  Final -s remains after a vowel, but **-Cs also becomes the
  equivalent of *-H1C (lengthened nominatives).

Alright we basically agree on this change here.

MIGUEL:
  While some traces of *-t have remained, we have no trace at all
  of *-k and *-p in PIE.  It is tempting to reason by analogy and
  hypothesize that if **-t > *-H1, then **-p > *-H3 and **-k >
  *-H2.  In the case of *k ~ *H2 we have just a few interesting
  clues, such as Grk. gune:, pl. gunaikes "women".

I don't find it so tempting. I think there's a very good reason why *-k
and *-p don't exist in IE. Simply put, words either end with pronominal
endings of some kind or with a declensional suffix - none of these
possible suffixes have *-p or *-k and exposed roots are non-existant as
well. Words would have originally ended with *-k and *-p before the
nominative endings were established many millenia before Common IE.
Verbs would have been free to be made into nouns by taking extensions
like **-k and **-p without nominative endings (gee, kind of like Uralic
as in *tumte-pa "knowing" and the *-ka "non-past"-ending).

If you're saying that IE *-t > CS *-H1 then you have to say that IE *-k
> CS *-H2 and IE *-p > CS *-H3. This means that we should see Anatolian
languages with a cornucopia of *-k's and *-p's. Is this what we find?

--------------------------------------------
Glen Gordon
glengordon01 at hotmail.com