> >> >As you probably know, Sturtevant thinks of the IE
demonstratives
> >as
> >> >composed of sentence connective + enclitic pronoun (*so- + *-
os ->
> >> >*sos, *to- + *-om -> *tom etc).
> >>
> >> I didn't know that, but it strikes me as an utterly
> >> unhelpful proposal.
> >>
> >Erh, I see.
>
> Sentence connectives are not a very stable part of the
> vocabulary.
That's right. They combine with enclitic pronouns and jump to
another category.
>We cannot reconstruct any sentence connectives
> for PIE,
So? Latin _si_? Then?
>while we can reconstruct most of the demonstrative
> pronouns in detail.
That's true if demonstratives aren't composed of sentence
connectives plus enclitic pronouns. Otherwise it isn't, since we can
reconstruct most of the demonstrative pronouns in detail, and they
in turn can be taken apart in that way.
Let me quote Sturtevant "A Comparative Grammar of the Hittite
Language" (p. 100):
"If we search for a possible contrast in use between _nu_ and _ta_,
we shall scarcely find another than to assume that _ta_ originally
meant "then, next" and was used particularly in narrative. Whereas
the Indo-European languages present an excellent etymon for the
connective _nu_ and none for the combined _na-as^_, nothing could be
neater that the comparison of _ta-an_"et eum" and _ta-at_ "et id"
with the IE _tom_ and _tod_. While the early texts of Sanskrit,
Greek, and Germanic do not confine the _to_-stem to the initial
position in the sentence, the pronominal forms do gravitate towards
that position, and there they sometimes introduce clusters of
enclitics. Particularly significant is the so-called relative use of
the artticle in Homer, in certain later Greek dialects, and in
Germanic."
"The conglomerate of _s^u_ with the enclitic pronoun gives
_s^a-as^_, acc. _s^a-an_ etc. We may safely identify it with the
defective pronoun see in early Lat. _sum_, _sam_, and _so:s. That is
to say, we reconstruct IH _so_ beside _to_."
Another point, ibidem:
"As far as we can tell, the connectives I[ndo-]H[ittite] _to_ and
_so_ both served to introduce a new item in narrative, the former if
there was a change of subject, the latter if there were not
(Footnote:) We may illustrate with Latin forms except that we shall
_to_, _tos_, _tom__, _so_, _som_ for the connectives and pronouns.
Caesar ve:nit, _so_ vidit.
Caesar ve:nit, _to_ exercitum Ariovistus vi:dit.
Caesar ad Ariovistum ve:nit, tos Caesarem vi:dit.
Caesar ad Ariovistum ve:nit, som vi:dit.
"
It struck me as amusing that in Danish, the last sentence is
Caesar kom til Ariovist, som han så.
using the Danish relative pronoun _som_ which is preferably used to
refer to the object (but may be used for the subject).
>Besides Hitt. nu, -ma, -ya, and archaic
> ta, su, Hieroglyphic Luwian for instance has (a)wa, -ha and
> -pa. Not a single match.
Of sentence connectives within Anatolian.
Torsten