[tied] Re: Thematic vowel etc

From: tgpedersen
Message: 33900
Date: 2004-08-28

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 09:59:41 +0000, tgpedersen
> <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> >>We cannot reconstruct any sentence connectives
> >> for PIE,
> >So? Latin _si_? Then?
> They are derived from the pronominal stems *swe and *to, not
> the other way around.

No, the other way around.

> >>while we can reconstruct most of the demonstrative
> >> pronouns in detail.
> >
> >That's true if demonstratives aren't composed of sentence
> >connectives plus enclitic pronouns. Otherwise it isn't, since we
> >reconstruct most of the demonstrative pronouns in detail, and
> >in turn can be taken apart in that way.
> >Let me quote Sturtevant "A Comparative Grammar of the Hittite
> >Language" (p. 100):
> >"If we search for a possible contrast in use between _nu_ and
> >we shall scarcely find another than to assume that _ta_
> >meant "then, next" and was used particularly in narrative.
> >the Indo-European languages present an excellent etymon for the
> >connective _nu_ and none for the combined _na-as^_, nothing could
> >neater that the comparison of _ta-an_"et eum" and _ta-at_ "et id"
> >with the IE _tom_ and _tod_.
> Sturtevant forgets that Hittite has got demonstrative
> pronouns too, and kas, kan, apas, apan certainly aren't
> decomposable into a sentence connective + enclitic pronoun.

We hereby declare that there existed a PIE sentence connective *k-,
which survived only in compositions as demonstratives.

> >"The conglomerate of _s^u_ with the enclitic pronoun gives
> >_s^a-as^_, acc. _s^a-an_ etc. We may safely identify it with the
> >defective pronoun see in early Lat. _sum_, _sam_, and _so:s. That
> >to say, we reconstruct IH _so_ beside _to_."
> There's no attempt at all to explain why ta and su differ in
> vocalism. The Latin use of s-forms in the accusative is
> atypical,

Translation: this fact is rather inconvenient.

>and we reconstruct PIE (Sturtevant's IH)
> nominative *so, accusative *tom.
Who we? I reconstruct two, namely *s- plus enclitic pronoun, and *t-
plus etc. When the accusative of the *s- demonstrative, *som,
aquired a (or several) special meaning(s) ("one", "alone", "the
same") from its use in reflexive sentences, the *s- demonstrative
became defective and merged with the *t- demonstrative (but the *t-
demonstrative survived in its entirety in some languages, eg.

> >>Besides Hitt. nu, -ma, -ya, and archaic
> >> ta, su, Hieroglyphic Luwian for instance has (a)wa, -ha and
> >> -pa. Not a single match.
> >Of sentence connectives within Anatolian.
> Exactly. We cannot even reconstruct the pre-forms of ta and
> su for Proto-Anatolian, let alone for PIE.

Let me see if I got this right: A Hittite word is IE only if it has
cognates in the other Anatolian languages? Given the size of the
corpus of text in those languages?. You're joking, right?