Re: [tied] Morphology 19 update - Ego

From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 17013
Date: 2002-12-04

On Wed, 04 Dec 2002 14:18:10 -0000, "Richard Wordingham"
<richard.wordingham@...> wrote:

>> 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:).
>1) Close to us.

That's first person deixis too.

>2) First place considered? (I believe there's a Spanish analogy.)
>3) Last place considered? (Latin hic = 'latter')

I suppose you're referring to (to use Moliner's example): "Teníamos
un coche y una moto: ésta estropeada y aquél sin gasolina" [We had a
car and a motorcycle: this one (the motorcycle, the latter) broken,
and that one (the car, the former) without gas".

>I'm not sure if I've understood the semantic development. I think it
>might be,
>'I'm here, [so listen to what concerns me] {statement}'.
>But one can equally well have
>'You're here, [so you can't pretend you didn't know] {command}'.

You're referring to the semantic development of *e-g^ out of a deictic
and and an emphasizing particle? I would compare it to "same here"
for "I think so too".

As to "you're here [so...]", that's a bit of a dubious concept in
3-way deixis languages. Almost by definition, I'm here (hic) and you
are THERE (istic). You *can* say "estás aquí" in Spanish, but it
implies something of an inclusive 1st person plural, so to speak.

>In fact, in English 'here' is used to attract attention for peremptory
>commands or questions, e.g. 'Here, you pick up that rubbish!'.

English 'here' in this use is very similar to the Dutch usage of
'hoor' with commands, which makes we wonder if what we have is 'here'
or 'hear'.

>(This actually brings to mind the /k/ in the Lithuanian imperative.)
>Is this usage a reflection of having a 2-way deictic system?

I think the tell-tale sign is whether you answer the command "Come
here!" with "I'm coming!" (as in 2-way deixis languages) or "I'm
going!" (3-way deixis languages).

>Moving one segement back, is there any evidence that the replacement
>of *eg^- by *eg^H- occurred in Indo-Iranian rather than Indo-Aryan?
>(Why has 'Indic' gone out of fashion? It was so much easier to use!)

There's no way to tell in Iranian, so in principle it could be just

Miguel Carrasquer Vidal