Re: [tied] Morphology 19 update

From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 17006
Date: 2002-12-04

On Wed, 04 Dec 2002 02:37:37 +0000, "Glen Gordon"
<glengordon01@...> wrote:

>>PIE *é-g^, from deictic *e- + emphatic *-g^ (*-g^h in Indo-Iranian).
>For many obvious reasons, "I" is to be reconstructed as *égo:.
>One of those obvious reasons, besides being fully attested as such,
>is that it quite assuredly meant "I am here". The most important
>element is the 1sg ending because without it we only have the
>meaning "here", and then we can't explain why it eventually was
>conjugated like a thematic verb.

"I" was never conjugated, it's a pronoun.

>The obvious solution is that *eg-
>WAS a verb meaning "to be here" and we have the support of a
>parallel in Inuktitut, /uva-nga/ "I am here". Semantically
>equating "here" with "I" is hardly as likely

Excuse me? What do you think "here" means if not "close to me"? In
Spanish, as in many other languages, we have aquí (close to me), ahí
(close to you), allí/allá (close to neither speaker nor hearer), with
full three person deixis (also in the demonstrative: este, ese,
aquel). "Here" _already includes_ the concept of "I". That's why in
PIE, the person marker *-m(u) was optional in the 1sg. pronoun (basic
*eg^ or extended *eg^om/*ego:).

Inuktikut uvanga apparently contains the 1sg. verbal subject and
possessive marker -nga (= 1sg. *-k + deictic *-a), affixed to a stem
*u-a- consisting of deictic particles *u- and *-a (one might translate
"voici" or "ecce hic"). It does not contain the copula. But if the
*-k represents the pronominal base *-tk-, it may in theory not even
contain a 1st person affix at all: uvanga/xwanga < *u-a-tk-a or
*u-a-tk-k-a (deictic-deictic-base-[1st.p.?]-deictic), cf. du.
uvaguk/xwangkuk < *u-a-tk-m-k (deictic-deictic-base-1st.p.-dual), pl.
uvagut/xwangkut < *u-a-tk-m-t (deictic-deictic-base-1st.p.-plural).

>Further, the emphatic particle (not an ending, a particle!) is
>vowel-final as attested in languages such as Greek and Sanskrit,
>so this emphatic **-g^ of yours, together with **eg^ is a shameful

We have different Ablaut grades *g^e, *g^o, *g^ (*g^he, *g^ho, *g^h).
In word final, *-g^ (> *-k^) is attested in Hittite u-k, ammu-k, zi-k,
tu-k, Germanic *i-k, *mi-k, *Tu-k/*Ti-k, Armenian e-s, i-s, Lithuanian
e-s^, Tocharian ñä-s'.

>>PIE *méne dissimilated from *méme (except in Sanskrit).
>There was no disimilation, which is not even possible for
>your **tuma anyway!

Which is why there is no assimilation or dissimilation in 2sg. gen.

>The *-n- is found in Tyrrhenian (Etruscan /mi/
>versus /mini/) and even in Uralic (Finnish /minä/ and /minun/).
>It was used in singular pronominal paradigms for cases other than
>the nominative.

Etruscan mini, mine, mene (acc. of mi "I") presumably has the same
accusative morpheme as demonstrative ec-n, et-n. It must derive from
*-m(V) if we further assume it's the same accusative morpheme as in
PIE or Uralic. Whether mini is *mi-m > *min + deictic -i or the
result of a dissimilation *mi-me > mine (as in the case of PIE *méne),
I cannot tell.

Finnish mi-nä (2sg. ti-nä) is a nominative.

>(Mid IE nom *meu, acc *ménem, gen *menése)

How do you get the actual Acc. *mé and Gen *méne from such forms as
**ménem, **menése? Is there any factual basis for such

>>PIE *wey (*mWey) and *mesW (*m(W)esW) from oblique *mu-át(i)
>> > *mWéy and nominative *mu-át(u) > *mWésW, respectively.
>Uh, not even close. Actually, *ns "us" is derived from Mid IE
>*mes, which is merely the 1ps + plural ending.

Yes, as I said (except the acc. form is actually *n.smé, derived from

>The variant *nos
>is a strengthened form of *ns which obtained *n in the first
>place via assimilation of earlier zero-grade *ms.

Basically, as I said (except of course I would avoid the use of the
unfortunate term "strengthened" in discussing an enclitic form).

>The nominative
>form however is ancient and reconstructable in Mid IE as *wei.
>It has nothing, in fact, to do with MIE *meu "I" and more to
>do with the 1ps perfect ending, if anything.

Please explain what possible connection there could be between *-h2a
and *wei-, and why that's phonetically more plausible than my proposal
*mú ~ *mu-éy > *wéy ~ *mu-ésW > *mésW.

Miguel Carrasquer Vidal