--- In
Nostratica@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
> Where does that leave *swe/*sewe, which look like they're structured
> exactly like *twe/*tewe?
I must admit that I am unsure as to the answer to this question.
Perhaps there was another pronominal stem *se(i)? However, I was
told on Cybalist that the root of Latin su- "self" was not a 3rd
person pronominal stem.
What is your origin for *so and *swe/sewe?
Also, I will certainly admit the possibility that earlier **wa became
*we.
> >PU did not use *wa as an ergative/nominative formant, but it does
> >appear in the oblique stems of the 1sg and 2sg pronouns.
>
> Can you be more specific?
Unfortunately, the only evidence I have for this is from Finnish: 1sg
oblique minu-, 2sg oblique sinu- (< tinu-). It appears likely that
it was a Balto-Finnic innovation.
Santeri Junttila has given me a table giving the pronominal paradigms
of many Uralic languages, including all of the major ones. It
appears that there was no one predominant pronominal declension
system at the time that Proto-Uralic broke apart, and that many of
the Ugric and Samoyedic languages (especially the latter) have wildly
different pronominal bases for 2nd and 3rd persons than are
reconstructed for the proto-language. In my opinion, the most likely
reason for this is that the speakers of such languages originally
spoke non-Uralic languages which then became contaminated by Uralic
(perhaps along the lines of Ago Künnap's ideas).
> Where are mijä, tijä, säjä attested?
North Saami: 1pl mii, 2pl dii, 3pl sii. East Saami: 1pl mij, 2pl
tij, 3pl sij. South Saami: 1pl mijjie-h, 2pl dijjie-h, 3pl sijjie-
h. The South Saami forms appear to be something like *mijä-k, *tijä-
k, and *säjä-k.
I also attest my reconstructed plural forms in Finnic. Presumably,
they were shortened at a very early date to *mij, *tij, and *säj,
respectively. These then became *mej ~ mei, *tej ~ tei, and *sej ~
sei (the last one either by sound-change like the first two, or by
analogy with them). In Finnish, the final [i]s were lost in the
nominative forms, but remain in the inflectional stems: mei-, tei-,
hei-. The [d]s are an analogical formation with the Eastern Finnish
genitive formation, e.g. kaloiden, which was itself a contamination
of the older type in -jen and the Western type in -ten
(
http://www.helsinki.fi/~tasalmin/cifu8.html).
> Latin nos is derived from the plural oblique *n.s-mé, which is from
*mes(W)
> "we". The *n- is not original (cf. vos < *wos < *ws-mé < *us
(W) "you").
> There is no 1 pl. *n- in (pre-)PIE.
Hmm. But doesn't PIE *-n.- give Latin *-en- (> -in-)?
> I think that's Mari.
Yes, you're right. I stand corrected. :)
> The same alternation -t-/-j- in the plural possessum forms is also
found in
> Eskimo-Aleut, e.g. Yupik:
What's the reason behind such an alternation?
> Elsewhere the *-n- of the 1st persons was analogically extended:
>
> 1. -n-n&/-n-m& -n-n&k/-n-m&k (Finnish: -ni -mme(k)
> 2. -n-t& -n-t&k *-nti -nne(k)
> 3. -n-sa -n-sak -nsä -nsä(k))
I disagree with the Finnish reconstructions. Your *-nti for 2sg
possessor would've given *-nsi via assibilation. The Finnish 2sg
possessive suffix is instead *-si, with no nasal element. Instead of
your reconstruction, I would say that in Proto-Finnic or earlier, the
sequence genitive + possessive suffix became the norm (probably to
distinguish possessive suffixes from personal verb inflections).
Thus, 1sg -n-mI > -nI, 2sg -tI > sI, 3sg -n-sä > -nsä, 1pl -n-mIj > -
nmei > -mme, 2pl -n-tIj > -ntei > -nne. Admittedly, I am unsure as
to the syncretism between the 3sg and 3pl possessive suffixes.
> You mean plural nouns?
Perhaps. Of course, glottochronology is hard to discern at such
great time-depths, and it is almost assured that the breaking apart
of Proto-Uralic into all its daughter families was not simultaneous.
There could have been some speakers of Proto-Uralic who broke off
before the solidification of plural pronouns, and thus used nominal
plural endings for the plural personal verb inflections. However, I
think it's also definitely possible that for those speakers who
remained a part of Proto-Uralic after the solidification of plural
pronouns, the most expedient device for plural personal verb
inflection was to either append the same pronominal plural suffix to
the pre-existing personal verb endings (which were likely still
transparent) or to append the plural pronouns directly to verbs.
Assuming that personal verb endings at this point were still
transparent (i.e., 1st *-mI, 2nd *-tI, 3rd *-sA), either method would
have yielded the same result, namely 1pl -mIj(A), 2pl -tIj(A), 3pl -
sAj(A).
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...
I appreciate your critique, Miguel, and I welcome any other criticism
you might have to offer. The exchange of ideas is very important to
any field of study, as it helps to focus one's reasoning and his
conclusions in the face of facts.I'd also like to say that I've read
your work regarding Pre-PIE morphology and I was very impressed;
furthermore, it was part of the inspiration for me to find
connections between PIE and other languages on my own.
- Rob