On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 16:42:53 +0100 (MET), Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen
<
jer@...> wrote:
>At this point I feel the need for a proper presentation of the presumed
>/sW/ on the descriptive level of PIE. What protoforms cannot do with /s/
>or /w/ but must have /sW/? And what does /sW/ yield in the different
>branches?
I would reconstruct *sW for the following morphemes and lexemes:
1) The plural morpheme *-sW:
a) nom.pl. *-esW [also pp. 1pl. *mésW, 2pl. *yúsW]
b) the element *-sW- in the
- acc.pl *-ns < *-m-sW
- dat./abl.pl *-bhiosW
- ins.pl. *-bhisW
- loc.pl. *-su < *-sW-i
c) the element *-ésW in verbal plural and dual forms:
- 1pl. *-mWésW
~ [analogical, in some branches] 2pl. *-t(W)ésW
- 1du. *-m(W)h2ásW > *-wásW)
- 2du. *-th2ásW > *-th2ásW
- 3du. *-(h2)tésW > *-tésW
2) Second person *sW:
a) 2sg. verbal endings
- athematic primary/secondary *-sW, *-sW-i
- thematic primary/secondary *-e-sW, *-e-sW-i
b) 2pl. pronoun
- nom. (< obl.) *sWéy- [besides *yú(:)sW]
- acc. by-form *sW(s)-mé [besides *us-mé]
c) 2du. pronoun
- acc. by-form *sWh3-wé [besides *uh3-wé]
3) Third person (reflexive) *sW:
a) plural reflexive pronoun acc. *sW(s)-mé
b) dual reflexive pronoun acc. *sWh3-wé
c) [?] preterite 3sg. verbal ending *-sW
d) [?] s-aorist morpheme *-sW-, if derived from (c)
4) A modest number of lexemes with initial *sW-. Roots with alternation
*sVw-/*sw- are of course excluded. For other roots, it depends on the
reflexes in the different languages. A provisional inventory would be
(roots as in IEW): *sward-, *swei-, *swe:(i)-/*kseip-, *swe:id-, *swek^s-,
*swi:-, *swombhos-, *kseubh-, *kseud-.
5) We can assume, on theoretical grounds, medial **-sW- in all cases of
alternation *t ~ *s (*méh1no:ts, *meh1nésos; ptc. *-wo:t-s, *-ús-os <
**mátnût-s, **matnúcWa:s; **-ût-s, **-úcW-a:s), but the distinction between
*sW and *s (like *tW and *t) in medial position had been given up before
the break-up of PIE.
6) Finally, the nominative (animate) of the demonstrative pronoun *to
remains unclear. Whether the nom. animate of *to was replaced by the 3rd.
person pronoun **su, or there was a special nom. animate form **tu (versus
inanimate/oblique **ta), the expected result in either case would have been
nom. masc. **sW-o-s [fem. *sWah2]. In actual fact, we encounter *so,
without labialized initial, and without nominative marker *-s. I think the
two irregularities are related, the more so because I think that the
nominative marker *-s itself is etymologically related to the element *s(o)
itself [*].
The usual results of *sW in the different branches are:
Arm. Welsh Slavic Greek Av. Skt.
sW- k`- chw- x-/s^- s- xs^v- ks.v-
-sW -k` -0 -0 -s -h -s (> -h./-r)
sw- k`- chw- sv- h(F)- hv- sv-
Secondary -sW- (e.g. 2sg. present -e-sW-i) gives -s^- in Slavic, -0- in
Arm., Welsh, Greek, -h- in Av., -s- in Skt.
In a consonant cluster -CsW-/-sWC-, the labiality of *sW is usually lost
(Arm. acc.pl. -s < *-ns; 2sg. -es < *es-si; OWelsh s-aorist -ss- (< -s-s,
-s-t)), and this can perhaps already be dated to PIE.
Data (I don;'t have the OWelsh morpological data at hand, but -s/-sW > -0,
so largely irrelevant):
Arm. Welsh Slavic Av. Skt. Grk.
- nom.pl. -k` -e -ah -as -es
- acc.pl -s -y -ah -as -as
- dat.pl -mU -byah -bhyas
- ins.pl. -bk`,-wk` -mi -bi:s^ -bhis.
- loc.pl. (-s) -xU -su -su -si
- vb.1pl. -mk` -me -mahi -masi -mes
- vb.2pl -yk` -te
- vb.1du. -vê -vah -vas(i)
- vb.2du. -ta -thah -thas
- vb.3du -te -tah -tas
- vb.2sg.II -(e) -(a)h -(a)s -(e)s
- vb.2sg.I -si,-es^I -(a)hi -(a)si -si,-ei
- 1pl.pp. mek` my
- 2pl.pp. (duk`) chwi vy yu:s^ yu:yám
- 2/3pl.acc. xs^ma
- 2/3du.acc. sphe-
- s-aorist -ss- -x-/-s^- -s-/-s^- -s- -s-
- *sward- chwarddu sardánios
- *swei- chwythu xvistati ks.ve:dati sizo:
- *swe:(i)- chwid s^ybkyj xs^viwra- si:mós
- *swe:id- xs^vid ks.ve:date:
- *swek^s- (vec`) chwech s^estI xs^vas^ (s.at.) (heks)
- *swi:- si:gé:
- *swombhos- somphós
- *kseubh- chyba xs^aob ks.úbhyati
- *kseud- xudU xs^udra- ks.udrá-
Armenian secondarily labialized a sequence *ú:s > *ú:sW > *ú(:)k`, as in
*mu:s-(s) > muk-n "mouse", *dhg^húh1-s > juk-n "fish". This cannot go back
to PIE.
[*] I've already conjectured **[t]uatu > *(y)úsW for the 2pl. pronoun and
**-tua[tu] > *-té for the verbal ending. Perhaps the nom.sg.masc. of the
demonstrative (nom.animate stem *tu- + thematic vowel *-a- + nom. marker
*-tu) was dissimilated as *tu-a-[t]u > *sWow > *so(w) [= Av. hau (written
<hvo:>); Skt. a-sa:u] > *so ?
The nominative ending *-s itself derives from *-z(W), by final voicing from
the nom. animate demonstrative *tu (or perhaps the 3rd. person pronoun
*su).
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...