On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 21:26:10 +0400, Âàäèì Ïîíàðÿäîâ
<ponaryad@...> wrote:
>I had not recognized that here s- < *k^-, and so failed to find corresponding forms with *s-. But with the declension of *k^i-s a question appeares. Is there any explanation of the *i/*e alternation (that exists also in *i-s)?
There are several. I believe that the anaphoric pronoun *is
is suffixed to all (non-personal) pronouns. As is the case
in the ordinary nominal paradigms, where the stress can be
on the root/suffix (proterodynamic type) or on the
suffix/desinence (hysterodynamic type), the pronominal also
have two accentual types: one with stress on the
(monosyllabic) pronominal root, one with stress in
"suffixed" *ís. The former type is also the type of the
thematic nouns.
We have:
nom. *-os (e.g. pronoun *kW-os, thematic noun *h1ek^w-os)
acc. *-om
n. *-od (thematic nouns: *-om)
gen. *-osyo
dat. *-o:i
loc. *-oi
ins. *-o(:)h1
abl. *-o:t
pl.
nom. *-o:s, *-o:ses
acc. *-o(:)ms
gen. *-oy-s-om (thematic nouns: *-o:m)
dat. *-oy-os (*oy-bhi-os)
loc. *-oy-su
ins. *-o:y-s
I would derive this from:
nom. *kWá-iz
acc. *kWá-im
n. *kWá-id
gen. *kWá-asy + a: (or *-a-ás + ya:)
dat. *kWa-á + -i
loc. *kWá-a + -i
ins. *kWa-át
abl. *kWá-a:t
pl.
nom. *kWa-átW
obl. *kWa-aty + pl. oblique endings,
in other words, thematic vowel *-a- + the inflected forms of
*is. The basic soundlaw is that *i gets deleted immediately
after (or before) the stressed thematic vowel *-á:
nom. *-á-iz > *-áz
acc. *-á-im > *-ám
n. *-á-id > *-ád
gen. *-á-asya:
dat. *-a-ái
loc. *-á-ai
ins. *-a-át
abl. *-á-a:t
pl.
nom. *-a-átW
obl. *-á-aty-,
And then, with the normal rules (lengthening of thematic
vowel before voiced segment, deletion of unstressed *a,
etc.):
nom. *-áz > *-á:z > *kW-ós, *h1ek^wos
acc. *-ám > *-á:m > *kW-óm, *h1ek^wom
n. *-ád > *-á:d > *kW-ód
gen. *-á-asya: > *-á:sya: > *kW-ósyo, *h1ek^w-osyo
dat. *-a-ái > *-a:ái > *-oéi > *kWo-sm-ó:i, *h1ek^w-o:i
loc. *-á-ai > *-á:ai > *kWo-sm-ói, *h1ek^w-oi
ins. *-a-át > *-a:át > *-oéh1 > *kW(osm)ó:h1, *h1ek^w-o:h1
abl. *-á-a:t > *-á:a:t > *-óot > *kW(osm)ó:t, *h1ek^w-o:t
pl.
nom. *-a-átW > *-a:ásW > *-oés > *h1ek^w-ó:s(es)
obl. *-á-aty- > *-á:ay-' > *kW-óy, *kW-oy-, *h1ek^w-oy-
The thematic voc. sg. *-a > *-e and n.pl. *-a-h2 > *-e-h2
are forms without suffixed *is.
The same rule (deletion of *i before *á-) also explains the
feminine forms:
nom. *-á-ih2 > *-á-h2
acc. *-á-ih2-m > *-á-h2-m
voc. *'-a-ih2
gen. *-a-íh2-as
dat. *-a-ih2-ái
dat. *-a-íh2-ai
ins. *-a-ih1-át
pl.
nom. *-á-ih2 + átW > *-á-h2-àtW
obl. *-á-ih2- > *-á-h2- + oblique pl. endings,
and then:
nom. *-á-h2 > *-éh2 > *-á:
acc. *-á-h2-m > *-éh2m > *-á:m
voc. *'-a-ih2 > *'-a:-ye(h2) > *-oy
gen. *-a-íh2-as > *-a:yéh2a:s > *-oyéh2os > *-oyá:s
dat. *-a-ih2-ái > *-a:yeh2ái > *-oyh2ái > *-oyyái
dat. *-a-íh2-ai > *-a:yéh2ai > *-oyáh2ai > *-oyá:i
ins. *-a-ih1-át > *-a:yeh2át > *-oyh2áh1 > *-oyyá:
pl.
nom. *-á-h2-àtW > *-áh2asW > *-á:s
obl. *-á-h2- > *-á:-
The type with accent on *ís is exemplified by *k^is:
nom. *k^(a)-íz
acc. *k^(a)-ím
n. *k^(a)-íd
gen. *k^(a)-ásy + a:
dat. *k^(a)-a + sm + -ái
loc. *k^(a)-á + sm + -i
ins. *k^(a)-át
*k^(a)-a + sm + át
abl. *k^(a)-á-a:t
*k^(a)-á + sm + a:t
pl.
nom. *k^(a)-átW
obl. *k^(a)-aty + pl. oblique endings,
Becoming:
nom. *k^íz
acc. *k^ím
n. *k^íd
gen. *k^ésyo
dat. *k^esméi
loc. *k^ésmi
ins. *k^éh1
*k^esméh1
abl. *k^éot
*k^ésmot
pl.
[nom. *k^ésW]
obl. *k^éy, *k^ey-
Perhaps then the same *i-deletion rule can also explain the
alternation *i ~ *e in the pronoun *is itself:
strong forms (root *i-)
nom. *í-z
acc. *í-d
n. *í-m
f. *í-ih2 > *íh2
oblique (root *i-a-)
obl. *í-a > *íya > *éy (e.g. Skt. ay-am)
gen. *iá-si, with i-deletion *ási, further *ésy-o
dat. *iá-?a > *áa > *é + i (and *e-sm-éi)
loc. *iá-?a > *áa > *é + i (and *é-sm-i)
ins. *iá-ta > *áta > *éh1 (and *e-sm-éh1)
abl. *iá-ta > *áta > *éh1 (and *é-sm-ot, *é-ot)
pl.
nom. *iá-tu > *átu > *ésW (> nom. plural marker)
obl. *iá-ti > *áti > *éy(-)
>>> Proto-Altaic had a suppletive system, where the nominative
>>> had *b-, and the oblique cases had *m- (and perhaps also
>>> *ng-, attested in Mong. na- and Old Jap. a).
>
>> Why assume suppletion, when the soundlaw is staring one in
>> the face?
>
>
>Where does this soundlaw exist, except for pronouns? There are many Proto-Altaic words that have initial *m- and no nasal as a second consonant (e.g. *miak'o "frog", *morV "horse" - all examples from the database on http://starling.rinet.ru), and in Mongolic and Tungus the *m- does not cange into *b- (cf. Mong. *mekelei ~ melekei, *mori; Tung. *moko-, *murin). Also there are words with initial *b- and a nasal as a second consonant, and *b- does not change into *m- (e.g. *bu:Ne- "to howl" > Mong. *bu"Nsi-, Tung. *bu:ni-).
Yes. And Proto-Altaic *m corresponds to Proto-Nostratic *m,
Proto-Altaic *b corresponds to Proto-Nostratic *b.
This is what led Sasha Vovin ("Nostratic and Altaic", in:
Salmons/Joseph "Nostratic: Sifting the evidence") to state
that "... the inescapable conclusion is that PA personal
pronouns are unrelated to Indo-European and Uralic personal
pronouns".
Vovin is of course right: if the Nostratic pronouns were *mi
and *ti, Altaic *bi and *si must be unrelated.
However, the pronouns as we must reconstruct them for PIE
are not *mi and *ti, but *mu and *tu. If we derive the
Altaic pronouns from the same base, the problem of the
Altaic 1/2 personal pronouns disappears. The etyma now
become *mu- and *tu- (extended in the sg. with a vowel,
probably *i: *mu-i, *tu-i). We can now state a soundlaw to
the effect that the clusters *mw, *tw (or the labialized
consonants *mW, *tW) give *b and *s in Altaic (*b and *t in
Mongol), except when a nasal (at least *n) follows, when the
result of *mW is *m.
sg.
1. *mu-i > *mWi > *bwi > *bi
obl. *mu-i-n- > *mWin- > *mWin- > *min-
2. *tu-i > *tWi > *si / *ti
obl. *tu-i-n- > *tWin- > *sin- / *tin-
pl.
1. *mu-an > *mWan > *mun/*man
obl. *mu-ati > *mWad^ > *bWar^ > *bir2/*buri
2. *tu-an > *tWan > *sun/*tan
obl. *tu-ati > *tWad^ > *tWar^ > *sir2,
with non-oblique 1/2 pl. Tungus *bu, *su; Mongol *ba, *ta
backformed on *mun/*man, *sun/*tan and the singular forms
[-n being reanalyzed as oblique -n instead of plural -n, as
it is historically].
The same development *mW > *b can be seen in the
demonstrative (Turk. bu) and the accusative *-ba [both from
(oblique) *mu-a]. It would of course be nice to also have
some additional lexical items with the correspondence
PIE/Ural *m ~ Alt. *b[W], or with Turkic/Tunguz *s ~ Mongol
*t (PA *tW), but it's not essential. I have no doubt that
the correspondences as demonstrated by the personal pronouns
are correct.
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...