Re: [tied] Re: Nominative Loss. A strengthened theory?

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 21:36:32 +0000, elmeras2000
<jer@...> wrote:

>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 13:33:51 +0000, elmeras2000
>> <jer@...> wrote:
>>
>> >Greek has abolished the alternation so we have
>> >only /ho/ and /to-/ as far as can be seen through the noise of
>later
>> >contraction (the gen. is toû).
>>
>> But *kWesyo gives teo, teû, which proves that toû < *tosyo.
>
>It does not prove that *tosyo belongs to the IE protolanguage, only
>that *kWesyo was not levelled in Greek. Rather other attested forms
>shows that the PIE form was *tesyo.
>
>> >But Latin istum, istud forms the gen.
>> >isti:us which must be the same ending as in eiius.
>>
>> Or, rather, the same ending as quoios/cuius, huius.
>
>I do not think *-osyo-s could yield -i:us, though it could perhaps
>not be strictly proved.

The way I see it, *-osyo when stressed yields *-óyo and then
further -uius (*kwosyo > cuius, *[gh]osyo [ultimately, I
suspect, *k^osyo, with irregular voicing in the Anlaut, as
Arm. d- (*tu and *to-) or English ð- (thou, the/that)] >
huius), and *-esyo yields *-éyo (and further eius). In
unstressed position, they both yield -i:us (istius, illius,
unius, etc.), from earlier *-i:o. In the nouns, this
unetymological genitive -s was not added, and the form
became reduced to -i: (*h1ek^wosyo > equi:). The same goes
for Celtic. In Oscan, o-stem loc. sg. *-oi > -eí, so G.
-eís (identical to the i-stem G. sg. from *-eis) is probably
also *-oyo > *-ei(o) + -s.

>I had overlooked huius. Cuius is a special
>case, as Rix has shown: levelled *kWo- (gen. *kWosyo) means 'who',
>*alternating *kWe-/*kWo- (gen. *kWesyo) means 'what'.
>
>> >Gothic and the
>> >other Germanic languages agree on having e.g. thana, thata but
>gen.
>> >this. And Old Prussian combines stan, sta with gen. stessei,
>> >steisse, stesse, steisei with -e- as one of the few stable points
>of
>> >the spelling. The gen. of Slavic tU is togo and helps little,
>that
>> >of Lith. tàs is to~, the old ablative.
>>
>> Again, showing that the vowel here was /o/ [*to-od > to~,
>> togo], and not /e/ as we have in *e-od > jo~ / ego, *k^e-od
>> > s^jo~ / sego, and in the true genitive *kWe-syo > c^eso.
>> The difference between -os/-osyo and -is/-esyo is embedded
>> in Slavic grammar as *kU-to G. kogo "who?" vs. *c^I-to G.
>> c^eso (~ c^ego) "what?".
>
>I see that entirely differently. The prospects of reaching agreement
>on this are slim.

I fear so.

> Even if I surrender, it cannot be used to support
>Glen's theory, for it just shows /o/ before voice, not a case of non-
>alternating /o/.

I don't know if it supports Glen's theory or not, I haven't
been paying much attention to what it is.

If we have G. -osyo in the pronouns that have nom. -os, acc.
-om, n. -od, then that should mean that the thematic vowel
stood before a voiced segment. I think that voiced segment
was simply the vowel *e of *-esyo, so *kWé-esyo becomes
*kWó-esyo, and then after zero grade *kWó-syo.

>> >The Albanian possessive
>> >pronouns are inflected with accent on a preceding article, and in
>> >the gen.masc. we have ti-m, ti-t, ti-në, ti-j (the structure is
>seen
>> >in 2sg acc. tën-d, Geg tân); I see no way this could be *tosyo,
>> >while *tesyo looks fine.
>> >
>> >Whoever makes a case for an IE form "*tosyo" on this basis is
>> >distancing himself from the very idea of comparative linguistics.
>>
>> Oh come on. *-osyo is the thematic ending, *-esyo
>> athematic. Pronouns that are thematic in the nom/acc
>> (*so/*tom/*tod, *kWos/*kWom/*kWod, *yos/*yom/*yod) make the
>> Gsg. in *-osyo (*tosyo, *kWosyo, *yosyo), like the thematic
>> adjectives and nouns (*-os/*-om, G. *-osyo). Pronouns that
>> are athematic (*is/*im/*id, *k^is/*k^im/*k^id, *kWis/*kWim/
>> *kWid) make the Gsg. in *-esyo (*esyo, *k^esyo, *kWesyo).
>> It's as simple as that.
>
>Have I been pressing the point unduly? I tried to avoid doing just
>that, and I still find a gen. *tésyo inescapable. What you posit is
>not what the evidence shows in my eyes. To me it looks edited to
>suit preconceived ideas. The i-forms are very plainly enclitic
>variants of the thematic stems, this being a reduction that
>apparently works only on monosyllabic forms (or in final syllables).
>Are we to suppose that the -e- forms are enclitic forms also, only
>of longer forms? It does not appear so, if the augment *é is an
>accented variant of enclitic *-i, nor if there are such forms as
>*eti and Osc. etanto, Lat. equidem. Also Russian segó-dnja vs. Sl.
>*dInI-sI 'today' does not indicate reduced status for the e-forms.

I find it hard to believe that a forms like *kWid? is
enclitic while a form like *kWod? is not. It can't be a
metter of enclitic vs. non-enclitic.

What the evidence shows in my eyes is that there are two
declension models for pronouns, one with strong forms in
*-is, *-im, *-id (also f. *-ih2) and oblique *-e-, another
with strong forms *-os, *-om, *-od (f. *-eh2) and oblique
*-o-. Except for n. *-od, this last category is almost
identical to the thematic nouns and adjectives. Some
demonstrative/relative/interrogative pronouns can follow
either model (*kWis or *kWos, *k^is or *k^os [Hitt., Latin?]
others follow only the thematic model (*so[!]/*to-, *yos),
others only the athematic (*is [unless *yos is the
"thematic" version of *is]). The personal pronouns are
different still, but are on the whole more similar to the
"athematic" model (e.g. oblique plural in *-ey not *-oy).

Analogy has taken place in Germanic, where *-esyo in Gothic
(-is) even replaces o-stem *-osyo (-as).

There seems to be little trace left of a difference in
meaning: we only have *kWi-/*kWe- (usually "what") ~ *kWo-
(usually "who"). The situation reminds me of the difference
between proterodynamic and hysterodynanmic nouns, where we
have a difference in accentuation with some vague evidence
of it perhaps marking an inanimate (PD) / animate (HD)
distinction. The situation is similar, but reversed, for
animate(?) *kW(e)-íz > *kWís, stressed on the flexional
element, vs. inanimate(?) *kWé-(i)z > *kWós, stressed on the
theme. In any case, the flectional element is formally
identical to the simple anaphoric pronoun *is, *im, *is,
*ey, obl. *e-.


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