From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 33893
Date: 2004-08-27
>>We cannot reconstruct any sentence connectivesThey are derived from the pronominal stems *swe and *to, not
>> for PIE,
>So? Latin _si_? Then?
>>while we can reconstruct most of the demonstrativeSturtevant forgets that Hittite has got 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_.
>"The conglomerate of _s^u_ with the enclitic pronoun givesThere's no attempt at all to explain why ta and su differ in
>_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_."
>>Besides Hitt. nu, -ma, -ya, and archaicExactly. We cannot even reconstruct the pre-forms of ta and
>> ta, su, Hieroglyphic Luwian for instance has (a)wa, -ha and
>> -pa. Not a single match.
>Of sentence connectives within Anatolian.