Re: [tied] Pronouns again

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:

> On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 15:33:55 -0000, "tgpedersen
> <tgpedersen@...>" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> >C. Boisson: The Sumerian Pronominal system in a Nostratic

Perspective

> >in: V. Shevoroshkin (ed.) Nostratic, Dene-Caucaian, Austric and
> >Amerind
> >
> >has for the roots of pronouns in the two dialects of Sumerian
> >
> >Emegir
> >1st sg. g~á
> >2nd sg. za, zé
> >
> >Emesal
> >1st sg. me
> >2nd sg. ze
> >
> >He hypothesizes that Emesal was the more archaic of the two

dialects

> >and that it was a woman's language.
>
> "eme-sal is the Sumerian term for the language used in certain texts
> such as hymns and laments. It thus seems to be a sort of literary
> dialect. Emesal may, however, also occur in shorter passages of

other

> literary compositions and then especially in direct speech of women"
> (Thomsen, The Sumerian Language, p. 285)
>
> Compare:
> "By now Sanskrit was not a mother tongue but a language to be

studied

> and consciously mastered. This transformation had come about

through a

> gradual process, the beginnings of which are no doubt earlier than
> Pa:n.ini hinmself. Something of the true position must be refelected
> in the drama, where not merely the characters of low social status

but

> also the women and young children speak some variety of Prakrit"
> (Coulson, Sanskrit, xxi)
>
> In my opinion, Emesal stands to Emegir as Prakrit to Sanskrit, and
> represents a later stage of Sumerian.
>
> The differences between Emesal and Emegir are mainly phonetical, and
> one of the differences is that Emegir g~ corresponds to Emesal m

(and

> usually Akkadian m as well). The transcription symbol /g~/ is

usually

> interpreted as standing for a labialized velar nasal /ngw/, but
> perhaps Emegir g~ / Emesal m [remember that Akkadian <m> can stand

for

> /w/] represent an earlier Pre-Sumerian *w (which allows for some

nice

> comparisons, such as Sum. dag~al/damal "wide" <-> Semitic t.awal
> "wide", Basque zabal (< *dawal?) "wide", Hittite tuwala "far away";

or

> Sum. s^eg~3 "to rain", s^eg~6 "to boil" <-> PIE *seu- "to rain",

*seu-

> "to boil"; or dig~g~ir/dingir "god" <-> PIE *diw- "sky" + *wir =

g~ir2

> "to lighten, flash").
>
> If so, g~a-/ma- (gã-e, ma-e > me.e) would go back to *wa.

Possessive

> g~u10 "my" (< *wu) vs. 1pl. -me "our".
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...

One could save the nasality of -g~- in g~a by claiming a
prefixed 'me', I suppose.
On your propsed cognates: Would you suggest that they are original
cognates, or that they are borrowed, and in that case in which
direction (or are you only making the observation)? In case they are
borrowed, which "borrowed semantic complex" would you think they are
part (meaning that their meanings are pretty basic: "wide", "far
away")? BTW I recall that Hermann Mo¨ller has the "boil" root with a
kind of Schwebeablaut *s-wd- "seethe", *sw-d "sweat", Pol. swad
(excuse the spelling) "Brandgeruch", thus he has AfroAsiatic cognates
fot that too. You might want to look it up.

Torsten