On Sun, 04 May 2003 07:37:06 +0000, aquila_grande
<
aquila_grande@...> wrote:
>There is a theory that the IE genitive marker e(s) and the uralic
>ablative marker -ta originated from a steppe ablative marker -ta.
>
>(whether this marker at that time was a postposition or an ending,I
>think is irrelevant.)
>
>The theory is further connected to the theory that steppe t became s
>in IE, so that -ta became -s after this shift and the zero-grade
>period.
>
>According to this theory the ablative gradually developed into a
>genitive, but without loosing its former functions all together.
>
>As for the ending -ed, this is connected with another UR ablative
>ending, maybe the same as you find in the finnish abessive -tta.
>
>I think this theory maybe right, because it makes the UR and IE case
>systems fit very nicely together. There is also many examples of IE -
>s paired with UR -t elsewere, and and internal IE s/t-pairs,
>suggesting that IE -s- comes from a steppe -t-.
>
>Another thing that supports this theory, is the general tendensy of
>ablative elements (wether case endings, prepositions or
>postpositions) to develope into genitive elements.
My view is somewhat different. There is certainly some evidence for
an alternation t ~ s both within PIE itself, as well as if we compare
PIE with other language groups, such as Uralic. However, it cannot be
simply a case of **t > *s in general (there are plenty of PIE *t's in
initial and medial position) nor even of **-t > *-s in the Auslaut,
given the fact that *-t does occur in final position in PIE.
Moreover, not all final *-s's need to correspond with *-t's elsewhere.
Final *-t in PIE occurs in the 3rd. person sg. (*-t[-i) and pl.
(*-én-t[-i]). This *-t was probably a late addition (agglutinated
from the absolutive demonstrative pronoun *tV), so if the soundlaw
**-t > *-s was earlier than the agglutination, that needn't be an
obstacle. In the case of the ablative and instrumental, however, the
case endings seem to be ancient, and I see no reason to separate them
from the Uralic ablative (> inn. partitive) in *-TA (*-Da) or other
similar forms in other languages (e.g. the Georgian instrumental in
-it). The unstressed ablative ending **-at results in *-ot (in much
the same way as unstressed **-man gives *-mon- in e.g. *h2ák-man- >
*h2ák-mon-), the stressed instrumental ending *-át gives -ét in
Hittite, and then regularly *-éh1 elsewhere (the relevant soundlaw is
/t/ -> /h1/ / {é_# | é_C} ).
The preservation of final *-t can also be seen in nouns and suffixes
that end in *-t. The *t ~ *s alternation here is conditioned by the
vocalism and the stress. Original **t becomes *s when immediately
preceded by a stressed **ú (> *(w)é > *é medially, but > *wé > *ú
morpheme-initially), but not otherwise. The classical examples are:
N. *méh1-no:t-s, A. *méh1-not-m., G. *meh1-nés-os,
and the ptc.pf.:
N. *-wo:t-s, A. *-wot-m., n. *-wot, G. *-ús-os,
which I explain as:
N. *mát-nût-z, A. *mát-nût-m, G. *mat-nút-âs
(Soundlaws: **átC > *éh1C, **û > *o, Szemerényi lengthening *-ot-z >
*-o:ts, *út > *úcW > *(w)ésW > *és, *â > *o)
N. *-ût-z, A. *-ût-m, G. *-út-âs
(Soundlaws: **û > *o, Szemerényi lengthening *-ot-z > *-o:ts, *=út >
*=úcW > *=wésW > *=ús, *â > *o)
There are reasons to think the PIE genitive in *-s (with variants
*-os, *-és, *-s) is originally from **-Vsi and therefore has quite a
different vocalism from the Uralic ablative *-ta and the PIE ablative
**-at(a) (> *-ét, *-ot). Luwian has no genitive, but uses instead an
adjective in -assi-. The pronominal and thematic genitive in PIE is
*-esyo, *-osyo, with *-sy-. Outside IE proper, the Etruscan
s-genitive can also be reconstructed as *-si (the other Etr. gen. is
-l < *-la, probably related to the Hittite pronominal gen. in -l).
The cases where we have Uralic *-t corresponding with PIE *-s are the
following:
verbal 2sg. PIE *-s Finn. -t
(verbal 2pl. PIE *-té) Finn. -(t)te
(pro)nominal nom.pl. *-es Finn. -t
other pl. forms: (Finn. obl. -j-)
Dat./Abl. *-bhiós
Ins. *-bhí(:)s
Loc. *-sú (*-sí)
If we assume the 2sg. verbal form originally arose from the
agglutination of the personal pronoun to the verbal root, the origin
must be the 2sg. personal pronoun *tu. We can then have a soundlaw in
the Auslaut **-tu > **-tW > **-sW > *-s, parallel to the one given
before for *t in the position before stressed *ú (/tW/ > /sW/ being a
not uncommon development, attested in e.g. Greek, Armenian, Japanese
and indeed Twi). In the Inlaut, **tW remains as *t, as witnessed by
the 2pl. verbal ending *-té (from *-tu-á... > *-tWé > *-té).
If the origin of *-s corresponding to Uralic *-t is in original *-tu,
then the plural ending should also contain *-tu. A powerful clue that
this is indeed the case is provided by the Armenian plural in -k`
(where k` [= /kh/] is the regular reflex of PIE *sw, e.g. *swésor
k`oyr). This plural ending *-sW is also present in the oblique plural
forms *-bhios(W), *-bhis(W) and *-s(W)-í (Umlauted to -sú except in
Greek). The same plural *-sW can also be found in the 1pl. verbal
ending *-mésW (Arm. -mk`).
We can make one further link between the Uralic plural oblique in *-j-
and PIE, where *-oy- appears in the plural oblique of the o-stems and
*-ey is the pronominal plural base (anaph. pron. *h1éy-es, interr.
pron. *kWéy-es, 1pl. p.p. *wéy-es besides *més), 2pl. p.p. *swéy-es
(besides *(y)ús)). If *-ta gave *-t (or *-h1 after the stress), and
*-tu gave *-s(W), then what happened to *-ti? A clue can be found in
the numeral "three", which is PIE *tréy-es, with ordinal *tr.ty-ós.
If we reconstruct **tVráti > *tréy and *tVrati-á:z > tr.tyós, the
conclusion must be that *-ti gave *-y (perhaps through **-c^). The
same would have happened (independently or not) in Uralic, so that the
oblique plural form for both language groups can be reconstructed as
*-Vti. Indeed in Uralic we see that this form in *-j can function
independently (without oblique case suffixes) as an accusative plural
(Samoyed) or a genitive plural (Saami).
The reconstruction of a plural nominative in **-Vtu and an oblique in
**-Vti for both PIE and Uralic has some extremely interesting
ramifications for Nostratic as a whole, if we compare the Semitic
plurals nom. -utu/-a:tu; -a:nu, gen./acc. -uti/-a:ti, -a:ni, with
identical case marking.
Lots more can be said about all of this, but I'll stop now.
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...