Personal Pronouns

[Patrick C. Ryan]

Dear Jens and IEists:

 ----- Original Message -----
From: Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen <jer at cphling.dk>
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 1999 5:12 PM

Jens wrote:

> I have yet to see a really cogent argument for an IE (or pre-IE) ergative.
> One is constantly served mere descriptions of what the system would be
> like if it is accepted, but nothing to convince one that it _must_ be
> accepted. I'm not saying that pre-PIE was _not_ ergative, just that we
> cannot really know. Practically all the literature on the subject simply
> boasts that the author knows what an ergative is and so is without
> scholarly interest. It is as if I would claim that PIE had a definite
> article, just because I know what that is.

Pat responds:

The argument of Beekes on pp. 193-4 of his book seems strong to me.

However, there is also the typological angle. It is my impression that most
typologists believe that nominative-type languages developed from
ergative-type languages.

Jens continued:

> I'm sure it is, as far as function goes, but I'm also rather sure that the
> IE pronoun (for *se) did not have a nominative form to fulfil this function.
> What was the nominative form in your opinion, and what are its reflexes in
> the daughter languages on which the reconstruction is based? - Are you
> _denying_ that Latin se, Greek he, German sich and Russian sebja have no
> nominative? And is this fact - if so it is - to be ignored in a
> reconstruction of the protolanguage?

Pat responds:

These are not easy questions, and I can only offer suggestions of
possibilities rather than assert convincedly:

The first datum to notice is that *se, although it frequently refers to
animates, and often is logically employed as an accusative, does not show
*-m, which we might expect.

Instead we find simply *se, suggesting what has been speculated as an
ergative-stage of IE where -*0 marks the absolute.

We also do not find the pattern which Beekes (and I) think might have been
the basis for a nominative formed from a genitive of the ergative-stage:
namely, a nominative (and genitive) in *-s. Instead, we find that
employments of *se in contexts that would suggest a nominative overwhelming
have the form *s(e)we, and that like *tu/u:, apparently have been modeled on
a genitive of a different form: *s(e)we and *t(e)we.

So, a partial answer to your question is that, if I had to designate a
nominative form, I would have to opt for *s(e)we.

I suppose you already know that I would favor the additional idea that the
genitives in *-we probably were derived from a lost topical inflection.

Pat wrote:

>> I reject unequivocally your H{3} as a part of the reconstruction.

Jens concluded:

> I feel we are about to reach the borders of how far this subject can
> be taken.

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)