--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
> I already gave my own account, so it should be clear that I agree
with none
> of them, although my own theory was certainly inspired by Jens'
attempt
> (which is far superior to those of Szemerényi and Martinet).
Why, thank you. A killing flu has kept me away for some days, and I
now find you have been fighting over the initial of "you".
Szemerényi must be credited with one major advance in the analysis
of the personal pronouns: He has insisted that many dual and plural
forms contain number markers so that a system of normal inflection
does underlie the main arrangement after all. For once, I have
supplied the syntax: The function of the non-singular numbers is
*elliptical*: The word for "we two" properly means "I and someone
else", "you (pl.)" is "you (sg.) and others", exactly as they are
used, this being in full agreement with rules already known.
On that basis it was relatively easy (surprisingly easy in fact) to
work out the algrebraic answer to the problem: What is the simplest
way in which this can reflect a regular system? I managed to avoid
inconsistencies, and I got the younger changes to be identical with
known rules, but the older part of the series of changes had to be
postulated ad hoc - though there is some internal support. I then
also got a principled account for the entire system, including
enclitics and possessives which seem to offer important clues. In
the end it was more or less a matter of drawing the shortest line
from A to B.
I still believe the system I arrived at has a very high degree of
plausibility, although it may of course well be over-simplified. The
older stages are only accessible via inspection of the traces they
have left in the later language. I do not find myself in a position
to evaluate Miguel's much more complicated (and, it did appear last
time I took the trouble to go into it, less pricipled) solution.
My own analysis stays completely within Indo-European. That may be
good or bad. I am sure the person and number markers are the same as
those known from other branches of Nostratic (better, perhaps,
Eurasiatic), but I do not find my system as such anywhere else, nor
do I find that the other branches match each other. In the system I
arrive at there is no place for a difference between inclusive and
exclusive, the candidates for such an opposition are easily
explained within the smaller system.
Jens