Re: [tied] Demonstratives

From: Âàäèì Ïîíàðÿäîâ
Message: 31693
Date: 2004-04-03

>>So, I see, you reconstruct the original marker of feminine gender
as *-ih2. I like it very much, because it seems just excellent for external comparison. But why not *-h2 ?

> Because the athematic feminine marker
is *-ih2, as we see it
> in the de:vi: and vr.ki:s stems. 

> These behave like ordinary consonant stems, with
>
hysterodynamic, proterodynamic (as well as amphidynamic and
> static)
paradigms.

     PD         AD         HD
> nom.
*'-îh2-z   *'-ih2-z   *-íh2-z
> acc.
*'-îh2-m   *'-ih2-m   *-íh2-m
> voc.
*'-îh2     *'-ih2     *'-ih2
> gen. *-íh2-âs  
*-íh2-âs   *-ih2-ás
> DL. 
*-íh2-a(i) *-íh2-a(i) *-ih2-á(i)
> IAb.
*-íh2-ât   *-íh2-ât   *-ih2-át

> The lengthened vowel in the PD paradigm (*-î- > *-ye:-) is
> resolved in different ways.  *ye: is retained in
unstressed
> position in e.g. the Latin stems in -ie:s (materie:s
besides
> materia:).  Otherwise, unstressed *ye: is reduced to
*ye
>(and *-yeh2 > -ya:, as in Latin materia:).  But most
often,
> the reduction to *ye apparently took place when
unstressed
> *e was still capable of being reduced to zero, and
the
> result is *-ih2, as it is in the AD and HD types:

> nom.
*'-ye:h2(s) > *-ye:(s) *'-yh2 > *-i:  *-íh2s > *-i:s
     *'-yah2 > *-ya:
     *'-yh2 > *-i:
> acc. *'-ye:h2-m > *-ye:m  *'-yh2-m >
*-i:m  *-íh2-m > *íym.
     *'-yah2-m > *-ya:m
     *'-yh2-m > *-í:m
> voc. *'-ye:(h2) > *ye: *'-i(h2) > *-i  
*'-i(h2) > *-i
     *'-ya(h2) > *-ya
     *'-i(h2) > *-i

> The oblique forms
develop into:

> gen. *-yáh2-os > *-yá:s 
*-yh2-ós   *-yh2-ás  > *-iyás
>
DL.  *-yáh2-i  > *-yá:i  *-yáh2-i   *-yh2-ái  > *-iyái
>
IAb. *-yáh2-ot           *-yh2-ót   *-yh2-áh1 > *-iyá:

> Cf.
Sanskrit:
   de:vi:    vr.ki:s
> G.
-ya:s     -iyás
> D.
-ya:i     -iyái
> L. (-ya:m)  
--
> I. (-ya:)    -iyá: 

> The
plural forms:

> nom. *'-îh2-ès(W)   
*'-ih2-ès(W)  *-íh2-ès(W)
> acc.
*'-îh2-ms       *'-ih2-ms     *-íh2-ms
> gen.
*-íh2-âm        *-íh2-âm      *-ih2-á:m
>
DAb  *-ih2-bhi-á:sW  <<            <<
> loc. *-ih2-sW-í     
<<            <<
> ins. *-ih2-bhí-sW   
<<            <<

> becoming:

> nom.
*'-ye:h2-es     *'-yh2-es     *-íh2-es
     *'-yah2es
     *'-yh2es
     (> *-ye:s, *-ya:s, *-i:s)     (> *-íyes)
> acc.
*'-ye:h2-ns     *'-yh2-ns     *-íh2-ms
     *'-yah2-ns
     *'-yh2-ns
     (> *-yé:ns, *-yá:ns, *-i:ns)  (> *-íyn.s)
> gen.
*-yáh2-om       *-yh2-óm      *-yh2-óm
     (> *-yá:(o)m)                 (> *íyom)
> DAb  *-yh2-bhi-ós   
(> *-i:bhiós)
> loc.
*-yh2-s-ú       (> *-i:sú)
> ins. *-yh2-bhí-s     (>
*-i:bhís)

> The feminine marker *-ih2 is originally a
diminutive suffix,
> related to the thematized diminutive ending *-ik-os
(> Slav.
> -IcI, etc.).
 
With such good argumentation for reconstructing *-ih2, we may compare IE possessive adjectives (and particioles) ending in m. *-to-s vs. f. *-to-ih2 > *-ta: with Old Mongolic m. -tu vs. f. -tai (e.g. mori-tu "(man) who has a horse", mori-tai "(woman) who has a horse") !!!


> The PA ~ PIE correspondences, if confirmed, would support
my
> point: the regular outcome of *mW in PIE is *w (cf. 1pl.
>
*wey- < *mWéy "we", versus dissimilated *mWésW > *mésW >
> Lith. *mes, Arm. mek` < *mesW.
 
And what about Hitt. and Goth. <wes>? No dissimilation!
 
 
>  If in Uralic *mW > *w, taht
> would mean that Uralic
1sg. *mi and 2sg. *ti derive directly
> from PN *mi and *ti, and not
through *mwi, *twi.  The shape
> of the 1/2 pronouns *mu/*mu-i,
*tu/*tu-i would then be an
> exclusively Altaic-Indo-European isogloss
(perhaps also
> Chukchi-Kamchatkan [pl. muri, turi], and
--speculatively--
> Sumerian g~a-, za- < *wa, *tsa < mu-a,
*tu-a).
 
Really, initial *mW- is very unprobable for Uralic (and also Altaic), because these languages do not allow initial clusters at all. It is still possible to believe in *tW, understanding it as a single phoneme: such labialized <t> exists, e.g., in Abkhaz. But <m>, being labial itself, nowhere can have a additional feature of labialization!


> Hittite zi:k comes from *ti:-g (Palaic ti), and the acc.
tuk
> (Palaic tu), as well as all the other oblique forms (tuel,
>
tuedaz etc.) show that the pronominal root was *tu(:), as it
> is
everwywhere in IE.  Hittite/Palaic -i: in the nominative
> is a
special development of *-u: > *-y: > -i: in the Auslaut
> (there is
an exact duplicate of that soundlaw in Albanian).
> Hitt. zi- comes from
*ti- not from *si-.
 
As long as I know, the development *-u: > *-y: > *-i: does not exist in Hittite. Do you have more examples on it?
 

> I find no evidence for *s- as a 2nd. person morpheme in
>
Nostratic.  *s- is a demonstrative and a third person (or,
> as Jens
would have it, reflexive) pronominal stem.
> The second person morphemes
are *k- (Basque, Afro-Asiatic,
> Kartvelian) or *t- (PIE, Uralic,
Altaic).
 
In Georgian <shen> "you" (sg.). Also verbal 2 pp. h- < *s- exists there.
 
Further, do you include Basque to Nostratic? Others think it belongs to Na-Dene-Sino-Caucasian. Well, if you accept that comparison of these two macrofamilies is possible...
 
Nostratic:
A. 1 pp. *m-, 2 pp. *t-
B. 1 pp. *w-, 2 pp. *s-
 
East-North-Caucasian:
1 pp. *d-, 2 pp. *m-
 
West-North-Caucasian:
1 pp. *s-, 2 pp. *w-
 
So, in Caucasian we find the same personal elements as in Nostratic, but the system of persons is reversed: while in Nostratic *m- and *w- indicates the 1st person, in Caucasian they indicate the 2nd one. Also Nostratic 2nd person becomes Caucasian 1st person. And, of course, in each Caucasian branch only one of Nostratic A and B systems is found.
 

> The place to look for such correspondences is not in
>
Starostin's database. Starostin doesn't know the soundlaw
> *tW >
Turk/Tung. *s ~ Mong *t, so no examples of it are
> included (unless he
has found, as you say, alternative
> etymological connections).  The
place to look is in Turkic,
> Tungusic and Mongolian (etymological)
disctionaries, which I
> unfortunately have no access to.

I use not only Starostin's database (though it is the best we have today on Proto-Altaic). Really, Starostin does not mention the correspondence Turk. *s- ~ Mong. *t-/*c^- at all, but there were many altaists that did their best looking for it, in order to proove the common source of personals Turk. *se- and Mong. *ti. And the only additional example they've found is *so"Nu"k ~ *c^imu"gen! I tried to find some more myself, and failed.
 
==========
Vadim Ponaryadov