Origin of deictics

> One way or another, we'll have to account for the fact that these
> deictics seem to come apart at a seam, with initial *kW-, *k-, *s-
> and *t-. I suggested earlier that the the relative/interrogative
> pronoun started in the relative function, in constructions of the
> type
>
> <subordinate clause>-*kW <neutral deictic><VP>
> (where the <neutral deictic> is the ancestor of Latin is)
>
> cf Hittite
> <subordinate clause>-*kWis <VP>
> "whosoever <subordinate clause>, he <VP>"
>
> in other words that *-kW was a relative clause finaliser (cf.
> Basque -ko); *-k, *-s, *-t would then have been definite suffixes,
> which could be appended to whole clauses.

Actually the <subordinate clause> is a sentence short one NP.
The semantics of '<subordinate clause>-*kW-'is "the x, such that
<subordinate clause>'", where <subordinate clause>' is the <subordinate
clause> with an 'x' inserted for the missing NP.

Both Hittite and Basque are SOV. *-kW (and -ko) are therefore verbal
suffixes. That being so, *-k, *-s and *-t must be too.

Nom. *-(n)s, Oblique *-nt is a PIE verbal suffix (and also nominal),
participal. So perhaps we would have

<subordinate clause>-*-s <neutral deictic in the Nom.>
<subordinate clause>-*-(n)t <neutral deictic in the Obl.>

falsely divided as

<subordinate clause> *s-<neutral deictic in the Nom.>
<subordinate clause> *t-<neutral deictic in the Obl.>

explaining the nom. s-, obl. t- of the IE demonstrative.


Torsten