On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 15:15:50 +0000, Glen Gordon <
glengordon01@...>
wrote:
>Miguel:
>>>Anyone can play phonetic games and come up with convenient
>>>"dissimilatory processes" to get rid of the *t that is "supposed" to be
>>>there because of a groundless, preconceived notion. "Supposed" by
>>>whom? Not by me.
>>
>>False. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pieml/message/734
>
>No, sorry, Miguel. I won't allow you make such an unjust comparison.
>
>There's a Grand Canyon of a gap between expecting a plural *-s at
>the end of *-te based on the 1pp *-me-s versus ASSUMING based on
>NOTHING that *tu and *yus must be based on the same root.
It's exactly the same. You assume that *-tVt was dissimilated to *-tV in
the 2pl. ending. I agree with that. I further assume that the independent
pronoun *tVtV was similarly dissimilated to *VtV (more exactly: the 2pl.
independent pronoun is based on 2sg. *tu + plural *-atu, and *tuátu > *uátu
> *ús(W)).
>The only thing you base your conclusion on is yet another ASSUMPTION
>that *me and *wei must be related too. Yet what is THAT based on??
>Yet another ASSUMPTION that *m and *w alternated willy-nilly because
>of actual instances of the *-ment-/*-went- alternation. Yet the rules
>behind this involve *-ment- following *u.
I assume you're referring to the Hittite soundlaw -uw- > -um-. That has
nothing to do with it.
The alternation m ~ w in the first person is general:
The 1sg. verbal ending is *-m(i), but it is -wi in Luwian.
The 1pl. verbal ending is *-men/*-mes, but it is *-wen(i) in Hittite.
The 1du. ending is *-w(h2)á(s) everywhere.
The 1sg. pronoun is *me in the oblique (the nominative has been replaced by
*h1ég^-)
The 1pl. pronoun is *mes(W) or *wey-es, oblique *n.smé or *nos.
All the variants can easily be derived from a root *mu. This gives:
nom gen/acc
indep.pron. *mú > [*mú(:)] *mu-ma > *méme ~ *(m)mé
pl. *mu-átu > *mWésW > *més *mu-atu-má > *msWmé > *n.smé ~ *nos
pl.obl. *mu-áti > *mWéy > *wéy(es)
verbal *-mu > *-mW > *-m (*-w)
*-mu-án > *-mWén > *-mén ~ *-wén
*-mu-átu > *-mWésW > *-mes
As can be seen, whenever two labialized consonants are present in a form,
one of them is delabialized. That's why we have 1pl. *mWésW > *mésW (=
Arm. mek`) besides 1pl. *mWéy > *wéy.
The second person is based on *tu, with dissimilation of a sequence tu..tu:
nom gen/acc
indep.pron. *tú > *tú(:) *tu-ma > *téwe ~ *twé
pl. *[t]u-átu > *wésW > *(y)ús *[t]u-atu-má > *usmé > *usmé ~ *wos
pl.obl. *tu-áti > *sWéy > *swéy(es)
verbal *-tu > *-sW > *-s
*-tu-án > *-tWér > *-tér
*-tu-á[tu] > *-tWé > *-té
There was also a third person pronoun *su, which became a reflexive (only
used in the oblique cases):
gen/acc
sg. *su-ma > *séwe ~ *swé
pl. *su-atu-má > *ssmé > *smé
du. *su-iku-má > *sh3wé (= Grk. sphe-)
In this way, nearly all the forms of the personal pronoun and active
personal endings (the perfect and middle are a different story) can be
derived from a simple regular paradigm in pre-PIE, consisting of the
elements:
1st person *m-
2nd person *t-
3rd person *s-
To accomodate enclitic unaccented *me, *te, *se, I assume oblique **ma,
**ta, **sa, besides nominative **mu, **tu, **su:
sing. nom. *-u
sing. obl. *-a
plural nom. *-atu (verbal *-an)
plural obl. *-ati
dual nom. *-iku (verbal *-ik ?)
dual obl. *-iki
gen./acc. *-ma
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...