[tied] Re: Thematic vowel etc

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:

> On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 10:04:27 +0000, tgpedersen
> <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> >--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...>

wrote:

> >> On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 09:59:41 +0000, tgpedersen
> >> <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> >>
> >> >>We cannot reconstruct any sentence connectives
> >> >> for PIE,
> >> >So? Latin _si_? Then?
> >>
> >> They are derived from the pronominal stems *swe and *to, not
> >> the other way around.
> >
> >No, the other way around.
>
> You derive *swe and *to- from *swo:, *swei and *ton(V)?

No, I want to derive them from sentence connectives *s(W)- and *t-.
Sorry for my elliptic ways.

>
> >> >>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_.
> >>
> >> Sturtevant forgets that Hittite has got demonstrative
> >> pronouns too, and kas, kan, apas, apan certainly aren't
> >> decomposable into a sentence connective + enclitic pronoun.
> >>
> >
> >We hereby declare that there existed a PIE sentence connective *k-

,

> >which survived only in compositions as demonstratives.
>
> You're missing the point. If the demonstrative froms derive
> from sentence connective + enclitic pronoun, and Hittite
> still maintains that construction synchronically (ta-an "and
> him"), then Hittite <ka-an> should mean "and/but him", which
> it obviously doesn't: it's simply the accusative of <kas>.
> Whatever the origin of the case forms of the PIE
> demonstratives, they were formed long before Hittite started
> combining sentence connectives with enclitic pronouns.
>

I could just as well claim that *k- ceased to use as a sentence
onnective in Hittite, unlike *s- and *t-, which are used that way,
and with which *k- is used in ina similar fashion to compose
pronouns. Now, your next point would be to question why to give *k-,
*s- and *t- the status of sentence connective in OPIE, to which I'll
answer that Wackernagel's position is the only meeting place of all
the syntactic catefgories, members of which I want to compose from
*k-, *t-, *s- (yuck, what a sentence). And the most reasonable
original function of something in Wackernagel's position is that of
sentence connective.

> >
> >> >"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_."
> >>
> >> There's no attempt at all to explain why ta and su differ in
> >> vocalism. The Latin use of s-forms in the accusative is
> >> atypical,
> >
> >Translation: this fact is rather inconvenient.
>
> Not at all. The combined evidence of Indo-Iranian, Greek,
> Tocharian and Germanic establishes beyond the shadow of a
> doubt that the *s- was only present in the nominative
> animate, and that all the other forms were based on *to-.
> The creation of analogical nominatives *tos and *ta: (e.g.
> Slavic) is unsurprising. In Italo-Celtic, the analogical
> creation of a neuter *som (instead of *tod) besides m. *so
> and f. *sa: (*si:), led to the creation of oblique forms in
> s-, which is also unproblematic.
>

I have never cast a shadow of a doubt on that fact that *so-/*to-
formed a suppletive paradigm in PIE. The question is what came
before that.

> >>and we reconstruct PIE (Sturtevant's IH)
> >> nominative *so, accusative *tom.
> >>
> >Who we? I reconstruct two, namely *s- plus enclitic pronoun, and

*t-

> >plus etc. When the accusative of the *s- demonstrative, *som,
> >aquired a (or several) special meaning(s) ("one", "alone", "the
> >same")
>
> Nonsense. The accusative was *tom, and a shift frpom
> accusative of "this/that" to "one", "alone", "the
> same" is semantically absurd.
>

'He did it himself' vs 'He did it to himself'. You're saying you
can't confuse an object with a an adverb? The Germans say:
'Er hat es selbst getan' vs. 'Er hat es sich selbst angetan'. Now
why are the English confusing what the Germans can keep apart? And
further, Russian 'On sam sdelal'

> >from its use in reflexive sentences, the *s- demonstrative
> >became defective and merged with the *t- demonstrative (but the

*t-

> >demonstrative survived in its entirety in some languages, eg.
> >Slavic).
>
> A better explanation, which doesn't ignore the evidence from
> Sanskrit, Germanic, Greek, Tocharian, etc. was given above.
>

An explanation pertaining to pre-PIE was given before that.

> >> >>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.
> >>
> >> Exactly. We cannot even reconstruct the pre-forms of ta and
> >> su for Proto-Anatolian, let alone for PIE.
> >>
> >
> >Let me see if I got this right: A Hittite word is IE only if it

has

> >cognates in the other Anatolian languages?
>
> Or other IE languages.
>

That's not what you just said.

> >Given the size of the
> >corpus of text in those languages?. You're joking, right?
>
> No. The HLuwian corpus is big enough to establish that the
> sentence connectives, which usually make an appearance in
> every sentence, are (a)wa, -ha and -pa, which are unrelated
> to the Hittite ones.
>

That was not the point. The point was whether they were PIE. You're
dodging the subject.

Torsten