Internal reconstruction and PIE

From: Glen Gordon
Message: 8549
Date: 2001-08-16

Internal Reconstruction of PIE
as gLeNny gEe sees it
------------------------------

Looking *only* at IndoEuropean, we can conclude some basic features
for previous stages of IE, and these features involve the following
areas:

Areal influence & contacts:
---------------------------
- Early Semitic/Semitic-like loans
- Early preNWC loans

Phonology & stress
------------------
- Penultimate-to-mobile accent shift caused by
loss of all final vowels
- Centralized two-vowel system (*& and *a)
- Fortis stop series (*t:/*k:)
- Allophonic uvularisation of velars and laryngeals
(This concerns later satemisation)

Morphology
----------
- Agglutination
- Paradigmatic allophony of unstressed *e and stressed *a
- Vowel harmony origins of active-stative ablaut

So, do you want me to explain one of the above points, Ed?


MidIE case system
-----------------

Based on the above findings, we can reconstruct the original forms
of MidIE case endings. While I'm certain now about these forms
phonetically, I'm still hazy about some of their functions...
Here are my present ideas (as of today):


ZERO [oblique] (as always)
*-m [definite accusative] (as always)
*-se [genitive-ablative] (as always)
*-le [translative] (changed)
*-ne [commitative] (changed)
*-te [partitive] (as always, sorta)


The unmarked oblique case was used for the animate nominative case,
the inanimate nominoaccusative case, and for anything else that
could not be expressed via the other cases. Dative-locatives, for
example, were expressed using the unmarked oblique followed by
postpositions like *dei "in, at" or *bei "by". The vocative
probably was part of the oblique as well. I'm certain about this
case.

The accusative *-m, used only for _animate_ nouns, was used for definite
objects (while the partitive was used for indefinite
animate and inanimate nouns). The usage of this case ending is
clear.

The genitive *-se was also used for ablative (and possibly as
the "agentive" in some passive sentence structures...?). At
any rate, it's clear that this is a true genitive and I have
little doubts here as well.

Now, I'm always hazy about *-le, I admit, but I'm starting to be
swayed by a new idea of mine that this ending functioned once
like Finnish /-ksi/, conveying transformation ("into"). I must
find more about instances and uses of this ending in Late IE.
My idea on this ending might soon change drastically...


Concerning Tyrrhenian
---------------------
Point is, there is no */as/ meaning "god" in Etruscan and even
so, reconstructing */as/ for EtruscoLemnian is down right idiotic
since it ignores the *attested* diphthong. The l-ending in
Etruscan is usually called a genitive, not a dative, and
Rhaetic is poorly understood, so, Ed, can you provide
justification for your claims using Rhaetic and Etruscan texts
showing that indeed the genitive is a dative?

>a) Core vocabulary in Etruscan is not IE. Explain the numbers, and
>numerical morphology, for instance.

In EtruscoLemnian, only numbers "one" to "five", and "nine",
have IndoTyrrhenian etymologies. The numerals /s'a/ "six", /semph/
"seven", /s'ar/ "ten" and the /-thrum/ in /zathrum/ "20" are of
Semitoid origin. The word /cezp/ "eight" (ELem *k:isappi) is a
compound meaning "three from (five)" (cf. /ci/ "three").

*t:eu, *t:e- "one"
OIE *t:e- "one", *t:e-kem "ten" (IE *dekm)
ELem *tu (Etr /thu/)

*t:Wei, *t:We- "two"
OIE *t:Wei, *t:Wa- (IE *dwo-, *dwo:u)
ELem *ce- (Etr /zal/ "two", /zathrum/ "twenty")

*k:Wel "three"
OIE *k:Wel-ei (MIE *k:Wel�i-es > IE *tr�ies)
(*-ei = [plural])
ELem *k:i (Etr /ci/)

*kWetWa "four"
OIE *kWetWa-n (IE *kWetw�r-es)
(*-(a)n = [inanimate ending])
ELem *xotta (Etr huth)

*mek:xe "to be large"
OIE *mek:xe (IE *meg^x-)
ELem *meke "five" (Etr /mach/)
*moxale-kon "fifty" (Etr /muvalch/)

*neura "nine"
OIE *neure (irregular IE *neun)
ELem *nurappi (Etr nurph)

>b) Etruscan appears to have an agglutinative typology,

Likewise, Middle IndoEuropean appears to have been more
agglutinative than Late IE... which would explain the origin
of some IE endings.

>c) and does not inflect verbs for person or number.

Funny. English doesn't do much of that either, yet it's from a
synthetic PIE. Tyrrhenian languages have evidently lost
many inflections but luckily they retain modal suffixes which
are relatable to IE. Perhaps they've also retained e/o ablaut in
a disguised form. Unfortunately for you, our lack of knowledge
on Etruscan conjugation can't be used to deny IE-Etruscan ties.
Let's just work with what we got, not with what we got not.

>If you do that, I promise to shut up.

Will you now? A little birdie tells me no... <:(


-------------------------------------------------
gLeNny gEe
...wEbDeVEr gOne bEsErK!

home: http://glen_gordon.tripod.com
email: glengordon01@...
-------------------------------------------------



_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp