Re: [tied] Demonstratives

>>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

> 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