On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 23:12:10 +0400, Âàäèì Ïîíàðÿäîâ
<
ponaryad@...> wrote:
>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") !!!
Greenberg reconstructs a diminutive K (Eurasiatic, p.
164-166), which I would analyze as *-iq (> PIE *-ih2/*-ik-).
He also gives examples from Mongolian, where this
diminutive, as in IE, has developed into a feminine. "An
example of feminine use is noya(n) "prince", noy-ika(n)
"princess".
>> 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!
Hitt. we:s and Gothic we:s are from *wey-es.
>> 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!
Ladefoged & Maddieson, "The sounds of the world's
languages", p. 356:
Labialization is the most widely found secondary consonantal
articulation, both with respect to the number of different
types of segments with which it co-occurs, and the number of
lanmguages in which it is found. It is especially common
with velar obstruents and, relative to their frequency, with
uvulars. Many languages, including such varied ones as
Amharic, Wantoat and Guaraní, permit labialization only of
such back consonants [] Other languages, including certain
Australian and Caucasian languages, permit labialization of
a much wider range of consonants, including those whose
primary place of articulation is labial. Examples from
Arrernte are given in table 10.10
Table 10.10 shows the labialized phonemes of Arrernte:
labial dental alv. postalv. retrofl. velar
stop pW t_W tW t^W t.W kW
nasal mW nW n^W n.W NW
prestop. pmW tn_W tnW tn.W kNW
prenas. mpW nt_W ntW nt^W nt.W NkW
lat. l_W lW l^W l.W
rhotic rW jW r.W
>> 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?
The rule is confirmed by H. Craig Melchert, "Anatolian
Hitorical Phonology", p. 84. There are no other cases of
-u:, so the rule is, as Melchert says, "unverifiable". It
is, however, the only logical explanation of Hitt. zi:- and
Palaic ti. Hitt. zi comes from *ti-. Hittite and Palaic ti
(acc. tu) must be connected with PIE *tu(:).
>> 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.
Georgian <s^en> (PK *s^win-) is originally the possessive
(Megr. skan-, Laz skan-, ckan-, Svan isgwi). The
independent pronoun is preserved in Megr. si, Laz si(n),
Svan si, PK *si (obl. *sin-).
This looks like good evidence for a 2nd. person stem *s-,
but a further analysis of the Kartvelian person markers
casts serious doubts on that.
The forms can be reconstructed as:
indep poss subject object
1sg. *ma(n) *c^wim- *xw- *m-
OGeo. me(n), c^em-, v-, m-
Zan ma(n), c^kim-, v-, m-
Svan mi, mis^gwi-, xw-, m-
2sg. *si(n) *s^win- *x- *g-
OGeo. (s^en), s^en-, x-, g-
Zan si(n), skan-/ckan-, 0-, k/g/r-
Svan si, isgwi, x-, 3^-
1pl. *c^win *c^win- *xw- *m-/*gw-
OGeo. c^uen, c^uen, v-, g-
Zan c^ki(n), c^kin-, 0-, m-
Svan (näj), ni-s^gwe:j/gu-s^gwe:j, (n-)/gw-
2pl. *tkwan, *tkwan-, *x-, *g-
OGeo. tkuen, tkuen-, x-, g-
Zan tkva(n), tkvan-, 0-, k/g/r-
Svan (sgäj, isgwe:j, x-, 3^-
Note the correspondences Geo c^(w) ~ Zan c^k ~ Svan s^gw and
Geo s^ ~ Zan sk/ck ~ Svan sg(w).
The 1st. person markers are *m(a), *c^wi-, *xw-.
The 2nd. person markers are *si, *s^wi-, *x-, *g-, *tkw(a)-.
The 1st. person marker *m(a) is unproblematical from a
Nostratic viewpoint. It is used in the independent pronoun
and in the verbal object marker. The verbal subject is
marked by *xw- (< *kw-?), which is perhaps relatable to the
1sg. form of the PNostratic copula/stative ending "I am"
(*?a-ku, Sem. -(a:)ku, PIE *-h2(a), Uralic -k, Esk-Al.
-k-/-ng, Turk. 1pl. -k?). The possessive and the plural are
then also based on *kw: *kw-i-m "my" > *c^wim, *kwin- "our"
(originally possessive only) > *c^win-.
If we assume the 2nd. person markers are structured
similarly, the independent 2sg. pronoun and the 2nd. person
object marker must have a common origin, which can only be
PN *ki "you", giving *ki > *si in the independent pronoun,
*-kV- > *-g- as the verbal object marker.
The 2nd. person form of the copula was *ta-kV "you are"
(Sem. -ka/-ki ~ -ta/-ti, PIE *-th2(a), Uralic -n (< *-ng),
Altaic -ng (< *-nk < *-tk)). This gives the Kartvelian 2nd.
person subject marker *x-, as well as the possessive forms
*tkw-i-n > *s^win- (OGeo. s^en-, Zan skan-/ckan-, Svan sg.
poss. isgwi, pl. sgäj, isgwe:j) and plural *tkw-an.
The Pre-Kartvelian reconstruction is then:
independent pronoun (singular):
1sg. *mi, object *ma-(n) > *ma(n), *m-
2sg. *ki, object *ka-(n) > *si(n), *g-
subject markers (sg. + pl.):
1. *kw- > *xw-
2. *tk(w)- > *x-
possessive (sg. + pl.):
1. *kw-in- > *c^win- (secondary sg. c^wi- + -m)
2. *tkw-in- > *s^win- (=> indep.pn. in Svan)
independent pronoun (plural):
1. *kw-an (replaced by *c^win- in GZ, by näj in Sv.)
2. *tkw-an > *tkwan (=> possessive in Geo/Zan)
We see that Kartvelian (*mi, *ki) occupies an intermediary
position between "South Nostratic" (PAA, Basque, 1/2
pronouns *ni, *ki) and "North Nostratic" (PIE, Uralic,
Altaic, EA, etc., 1/2 pronouns *mi, *ti or *mu, *tu).
>> 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.
The phoneme *tW must have been rare. I see the same in PIE,
where *tW > *sW is mostly found in morphological items
(plural, 2nd. person, demonstrative), and in only a handful
of lexical items.
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...