Miguel:
>You have misunderstood. Szemer�nyi doesn't claim *twes > *yus at all.
>Szemer�nyi argues that the original shape of the 2pl. pronoun was *wes
>(*wos), ultimately from *twes.
Alright, even still, this is assumptive. I hate phonemes that are just
theorized
out of convenience. The form of *wos (or *wes or whatever it is nowdays)
is just a derivative of zero-grade *us < *yus, just as *nos is a derivative
of zero-grade *ns < *mes. That is a far better explanation then inventing
consonants that just aren't there. I presume one's motivation for this is so
that these pronouns look more like Uralic or to fit some other preconceived
notion of how the pronominal system is "supposed" to look. But *yus is
just not **tus, no matter how much you whine, and that's a serious
problem for the theory.
>[Szemerenyi] has realized that the *y- in the nominative form is secondary,
>as is shown by the oblique forms *usm� and *wos.
No. That doesn't show *us > *yus -- If it were so, we'd have nothing to
explain the miraculously appearing *y without more baseless assumption.
Rather, it shows exactly what I'm saying: *yus > *us. Using 3p *i- to
explain a 2pp pronoun is senseless. As I said, *yus < *yeu- "to join,
group".
It explains the origin, the semantics and the phonetics in the most simple
way I can think of or have come across.
We don't need to explain anything. *y is *y.
>>Even worse. Again, highly speculative. It never can be good
>>when someone starts off with "On pourrait penser que". Non,
>>il ne faut pas "penser que", Miguel,
>
>Andr�.
Andr�, Miguel. N'importe quel nom suffirait :P
>The fact is that all three of them (four, counting my own), in some
>form or other, argue for loss of t- in the second person plural.
But amongst all four of *yus, it is based on nothing in the end. The
*t remains assumptive and merely assumed because of the singular.
But IE isn't the first language nor the last to have different stems
for the singular and plural. There's nothing to explain. They're as
seperate as Basque /hi/ and /zuek/ are.
>[...] I picked these three theories on purpose because of that, but merely
>because they were the only three attempts at internal
>reconstruction of the PIE personal pronouns that I found in my library.
Alright, I forgive. I know how hard it is to find any reasonable theories
of pre-IE anywhere. I myself have tried but have gone home unsatiated.
Hence my own crack at the pre-IE funhouse. Oh well, it's a fun hobby.
= gLeN
_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcomm&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca