On Sat, 10 May 2003 04:52:35 +0000, Glen Gordon
<
glengordon01@...> wrote:
>So, Jens chooses to promote his **-z solution even though I've
>already justifiably elaborated more than enough times
I was just thinkimg about the nominative forms of the Semitic personal
pronouns and it occurred to me that they all (1/2 person) have stative
endings. The Akkadian stative is:
1. -a:ku
2m. -a:ta
2f. -a:ti
3m. -(a)
3f. -at
1p. -a:nu
2pm. -a:tunu
2pf. -a:tina
3pm. -u:
3pf. -a:
The personal pronouns are:
1. ana:ku
2m. atta:
2f. atti:
1p. ni:nu
2pm. attunu
2pf. attina,
which can be explained as:
1. an-a:ku I am AN
2m. an-ta: you are AN
2f. an-ti:
1p. an-(H)-nu we are AN (I can't explain the /H/)
2pm. an-tunu you are AN
2pf. an-tina,
where AN can be taken as "here".
So perhaps PIE *h1é-g "I" has a structure similar to Akk. ana:ku. The
PIE stative ending is *-h2(a), which can easily be from **-k (we don't
have /k/'s in the Auslaut in PIE). So how do we get from *-k to *-g?
Then it occurred to me that there is no reason for Glen to go all
ballistic about Jens' reasoned proposal of a nominative sg. *-z. If
we can have the pronominal neuter marker *-d as derived from *to,
there is no reason why a nominative marker *-z couldn't ultimately be
derived from *so (among other possibilities).
What I think we may have here is an ancient soundlaw which turned
voiceless non-syllabic endings into voiced ones.
We have:
*-z nom.sg., perhaps associated with *so
*-d n.sg., perhaps associated with *to
*-g in *h1ég "I", perhaps associated with stative *-h2(a) (< **-k)
*-dh(w)- (< *-dg(W)??) 2pl. middle vs. 2sg. stative *-th2(a) (< **-tk)
It would be nice to know the exact conditions (2sg. *-s(i) and f.
*-(i)h2, as well as pf. *-h2(a), *-th2(a) are voiceless; coll. *-h2
could have both, as there is no way of knowing that **-G didn't give
*-h2, just like **-z gives *-s).
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...