Re: [tied] Re: Accusative was allative

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 21:50:57 +0300, Âàäèì Ïîíàðÿäîâ
<ponaryad@...> wrote:

>> Indo-Iranian ava-, Slavic ovU, are generally derived from
>> the root *h2au- ~ *h2u-, which otherwise gives words and
>> particles largely denoting binary opposition (and..and,
>> or..or, also, etc.: Ved. u "also", va: "or", Av. uta "also",
>> Grk. aû "on the other hand", aûte "again", Lat. aut "or",
>> -ve "or", German auch "also", etc.)
>
>The connection of the Slavic demonstrative and these particles is very possible, but inside Slavic o-vU is surely made of two pronominal stems (cf. o-nU), and here the -vU expresses the 1st person deixis. Cf. Maced. kniga-va "the book (near me)" vs. kniga-na "the book (near you)"; also Serb. evo meni, eto tebi, eno njemu "this is for me, that is for you, that is for him".

But Polish ów expresses 3-deixis.

In any case, these are all innovations. The original Slavic
system was sI "this", tU "that", onU (oblique je-) "that
yonder". The pronoun ovU.. ovU ( = Greek ho mèn .. ho dé,
"the one .. the other", "this one .. that one") stood
outside of the system, and was by its nature available to
substitute for a lost <sI> (as in Serbo-Croatian or
Macedonian), or for a lost [=> personal pronoun] <onU> (as
in Polish).

>> The usual development *mw- > *b(w)- is reversed or blocked
>> by a following /n/.
>
>Only in Terkic. In all other Altaic (and, further, Nostratic) groups the suppletive w/bV : mV cannot be explained phonetically.

Yes it can. Once again, Aleksandr Vovin reconstructs:

Proto-Manchu-Tungus:
1. *bi, *min-
2. *si, *sin-
1. *bu, *mun-
2. *suu, *suun-
(1 incl. *bï-t, *mïn-t-)

Proto-Mongolian:
1. *bi, *min- (also *na-, cf. PK)
2. *ti > *ci, *tin- > *cin- (also *cim-)
1. *ba, *man-
2. *ta, *tan-
(1 incl. *bi-da, *bi-da-n-)

Proto-Turkic:
1. *bän ~ *män-
2. *sän
1. *bir2
2. *sir2

Proto-Korean:
1. *na
2. *ne
1. *(b)uri
2. *nehuy

Proto-Japanese:
1. *ban
2. *sO-, na

>K.Ye.Maytinskaya ("Mestoimeniya v yazykax raznyx sistem", Moskow, 1969) has investigated the typology of diachronical changes in pronominal systems of different languages deeply, and her conclusion is that there can be only a change of demonstratives into interrogatives ("Did you see that?" > "What did you see?").

The Anlaut of Goth. <jains>, German <jener>, Eng. <yonder>
suggests a development out of the relative/interrogative
stem *yo-.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...