Re: [tied] Morphology 19 update - Ego

From: Richard Wordingham
Message: 17014
Date: 2002-12-04

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

Including inclusive 1st person!

> >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".

Interesting. I'd read it was the other way round in Spanish.
Traditional prescriptive grammars claim English has 'this' = 'latter'
(probably on the basis of Latin), but I think English has long been
confused. Certainly the examples did not sound right.

> >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
> and and an emphasizing particle? I would compare it to "same here"
> for "I think so too".

And if *e could do duty for many prepositional phrases, e.g. 'by means
of this', it might reinforce a gesture to oneself, perhaps to an
appropriate organ (eye, belly, heart?, hand), and so *e-g^ might be
interpreted as an emphatic first person pronoun.

I think there may be a small semantic problem with the scenario. Was
*e part of a 3-way deixis, or independent as Latin is, ea, id was of
hic ~ iste ~ ille? We assume *e means 'then' when it is used as the
temporal augment.

> 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
> are THERE (istic). You *can* say "estás aquí" in Spanish, but it
> implies something of an inclusive 1st person plural, so to speak.

Which is exactly what I had in mind - 'You and I are here together,

> >In fact, in English 'here' is used to attract attention for
> >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
> or 'hear'.

'Hear' doesn't seem right. But it could be a blend of many things. I
think "listen here" corresponds more literally with the Dutch, and
"here" could be aphetic of "listen here" (or rather, "listen 'ere").
Another source of influence is 'Here, boy' when you call a dog. That
might just be 'Hear, boy', but I don't think so.