Re: [tied] Re: PIE athematic neuters

----- Original Message -----

From: tgpedersen

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 6:26 AM

Subject: [tied] Re: PIE athematic neuters

 

<snip>
 
I saw a side remark in an article by Kordtland that Holger Pedersen
proposed that animate nominatives (in -s) were originally genitives
and inanimate ones were instrumentals. But then they must have ended
in -h1, or?

 

***

Patrick:

 

Kordtland and Pedersen made good use of strictly internal PIE materials but any analysis of theirs suffers from myopia by their not being able to look beyond PIE for greater understanding of PIE origins.

 

PIE is the result of a contact between a Caucasian-speaking group with one speaking PAA.

 

The earliest PIE "genitive" (really 'relational') will have been -*y (Pre-Nostratic -*yi), seen in zero-grade PAA -*i.

 

To consider *-s a "genitive" is absurd considering its uses as a nominative/ergative/singular and plural marker. With this range of uses, it could have marked nothing unambiguously.

 

Two Caucasian languages we know were spoken in this general area: Hurrian and Urartian. Urartian has ergative singular -še (and Hurrian, -S {s superior bar}). This corresponds perfectly to pre-Nostratic *sî, 'one, unique'. I propose that its core semantic significance is 'one certain X'; and this came to be used as the marker of an ergative noun in the singular, and was borrowed (or retained) by PIE.

 

Inanimate nouns were athematic because the thematic vowel derives principally from pre-Nostratic -*yu, originally the marker of a male agent (contrasting with pre-Nostratic -*ha for females).

 

The -*m of inanimates is secondary as it designates a 'place' or 'tool' of/for a given activity. Its tertiary use as an animate accusative is to locate the target(-place) of a transitive activity.

 

The absolute form was -*Ø; this is shown conclusively by the bare form of the noun in the oldest OV compounds.

 

***