On Wed, 31 Oct 2001 12:57:19 -0000, "Sergejus Tarasovas"
<
S.Tarasovas@...> wrote:
>--- In cybalist@..., Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <mcv@...> wrote:
>
>> This presupposes that */sW/ gives
>> Slavic *x, as in <s^est'> "six".
>> I have of course suggested that the *x in the loc.pl. (*-sW-i ~
>> *-sW-u) and the 2sg.pres.them.act. -es^I (*-e-sWi) have the same
>> explanation.
>
>An interesting idea (though a bit speculatory, and what about other
>RUKI-influenced branches?). *x in Loc. pl. can be, more or less,
>explained as an analogical development, but this *-es^I just have
>been keeping me from sleeping for years. I'll sleep more easily from
>now on . :)
I hope so. But as you say, the whole thing is speculative. I just
don't believe the /s^/ was transferred from the i-stems (-is^I,
-is^i), especially since the i-stems are themselves orginally thematic
verbs in -ei-e / -e:i-e.
An added benefit of my theory is that it explains the PIE active
conjugation as simply the agglutination of verbal stem and personal
pronoun (*mu "I", *tu "you"):
sg. -(a)-mu, -(a)-tu, -(a)-0
pl. with -ánV: -(a)-mu-ánV, -(a)-tu-ánV, -(a)-0-ánV ->
-(a:)mW, -(a)tW, -(a)(t) ; -(a:)mWan, -(a)tWan, -(a)án(t) ->
past tense:
-(o)m(W), -(e)s(W), -(e)t;
-(o)m(W)en, -(e)t(W)er, -er(t) / them. -or(t)
present tense (with -i):
-(o)m(W)i, -(e)s(W)i, -(e)ti ; -(o)m(W)eni, -(e)t(W)eni, -enti / them.
-onti
Resulting in:
past:
athematic: -m., -s, -t, -men [-wen in Hitt., sometimes replaced by
-mes], *-ter [replaced by -te, -tes or -ten, -te:r in Tocharian], -e:r
[< -erh1, sometimes replaced by -ent]
thematic: -om, -es, -et [maybe also -eh1], -omen [-awen in Hitt.,
-omes, etc.], -eter [replaced by -ete, -etes or -eten], -o:r [replaced
by -ont]
present:
athematic: -mi [-wi in Luwian], -si, -ti, -meni [-weni in Hitt., also
-mes etc.], -teni [also -te etc.], -enti
thematic: -o: [from -omWi > -owu > -o:w, -awi in Luwian], -esi [-esWi
in Slavic], -eti, -omeni [etc.], -eteni [etc.], -onti
>> I would also want the dem. pronoun *so ~ *to- to have
>> been originally *sWo- ~ *to-, but of course Slavic offers no
>> evidence
>> for that, because the nom.sg.masc. has been regularized to <tU>. Or
>> does it? Slavic is known to have used postfixed pronouns as a kind
>> of
>> definite article (e.g. OCS rodU-sI > rodosI, rabU-tU > rabotU, and
>> of
>> course novU-jI > novyj).
>
>*so- might have been preserved in compounds (like *sI (acc. sg.) in
>*dInIsI 'today'), most likely in complex pronouns and subjunctives.
>I'll signal if I come across something of the kind.
But OCS <sI> is from the *k^i pronoun. If my theory is correct, and
the alternation *so ~ to- comes from *sWo ~ *to (and ultimately from
*tW- ~ *t- < *tu ~ *ta), then the only clues can be in Slavic (*s- >
s-, *sW- > s^-/x-, *k^- > s-) and Armenian (*s- > h-, 0-, *sW- > k`-,
*k^- > s-). In Baltic, for instance, I would expect *s- > s-, *sW- >
s- and *k^- > s^-, so even if there were a relict form with *sW > s^,
it would be hard to separate it from *k^ > s^. Neither Slavic nor
Armenian have unfortunately preserved the pronoun with ++xU / ++k`- in
the nom. sg. animate, so I'm forced to look for indirect clues in
Slavic postfixed -xU and/or Arm. postfixed -k`.
But wait a minute... Avestan!! I didn't know until just now that
Gathic Avestan had nom.sg.masc. <hvo:> (one would have preferred
<xvo:> or <xs^vo:>, but it's probably good enough).