Re: [tied] Re: Some questions

From: Andrew Jarrette
Message: 40115
Date: 2005-09-18

OK, I got more of a response than I bargained for.  I must admit here that I haven't paid as close attention to many of the discussions on cybalist as have the heavyweights like you.  Your discussion of Pre-PIE is far beyond my ken, and I can only accept what you say at this point, without delving into the reams of Nostratic and other PIE research, which I will have to do to stay current with the level of discussion in this group.  I tend to rely too heavily on all the old "classical" descriptions of IE, being nothing but an amateur.  But I will try to listen to more of the discussions on the highly speculative Nostratic and other Pre-PIE theories.  Nevertheless, thanks for the explanation.
 
Andrew

Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 13:54:07 -0400 (EDT), Andrew Jarrette
<anjarrette@...> wrote:

>>Miguel has explained it as a  mere merger of  former abl.
>**-abhí-âtu and dat. **-abhi-á-atu.
>
>What are you talking about here, pray tell?  What are -a:tu and -atu? 
>They are not Proto-IE, are they Hittite?  Are they plural
>(if so what of *-bh(y)os/*-mos?)?

They are pre-PIE.

A brief explanation.  My theory is that Proto-Nostratic had
the plural markers -at- (pronominal, perhaps adjectival) and
-ab- (nominal).  The dual suffix was -ik-.  These could
occur with zero case marking (in which case they become -an,
-am(?) and -ing) or with nominative -u, oblique -i,
resulting in:

     pron.   nom.   du.
     -an     -am    -iN
nom. -atu    -abu   -iku
obl. -ati    -abi   -iki

In pre-PIE, the first form was limited to verbal endings
(e.g. 1pl. -mén), so needn't concern us here.  The
pronominal endings ca be seen in the personal pronouns:

1pl. *mu-átu > *mWésW > *mésW
     *mu-áti > *mWéy  > *wéy(-esW)
2pl. *tu-átu > *(s)wésW > *(y)úsW
     *tu-áti > *sWéy(-esW)

In the thematic nouns, the thematic vowel preceeds these
endings: *-a-atu > *-o:sW(-esW), oblique *-a-ati > *-oy.
From the oblique are formed the acc.pl. *-oy-m-s > *-o:ns,
gen.pl. *-oy-m > *-õm, dat.pl. *-oy-o-sW (abl.pl. *-oy-ot-sW
> *-oyos), loc.pl. *-oy-sW-i > *-oysu, ins.pl. *-oy-it-sW >
*-oys.

The nominal nominative plural *-abhu would have merged with
the oblique, and was replaced by an absolute form followed
by the plural article (*h1ésW).  The oblique, however,
remained in use as an accusative/genitive plural, with
stress-conditioned variants *-ém, *'-om, *-m (the accusative
plural was later distinguished by adding a reduced form of
the plural article *-m-sW > *-ns).  The other plural forms
were built on the plural oblique *-abhi (after zero grade
*-bh(y)/*-m [the alternation *-bhy- ~ *-bh- ~ *-m- indicates
that the additional endings were added at a time when final
palatalized *-bhy was in the process of becoming
unpalatalized *-m]), with addition of the plural article:

Dat. *-abhi-á-atu   > *-bhyá:sW > *-bhyós
Ins. *-abhi-át-atu  > *-bhyéts  > *-bhí(:)s
Abl. *-abhí-ât-atu > *-bhía:ts > *-bhyós

The loc.pl. (*-abhí-a-atu) should also have given *-bhyós,
but instead we have *-0-sW-í > *-sú.

The case endings are the same as in the singular, i.e. Dat
*-á, Loc *'-a; Ins *-át, Abl. *'-a(:)t.

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