On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 12:40:18 +0000, Rob <magwich78@...> wrote:

>Here is my reconstruction of the PIE pronominal bases:
>
>1st *me(i)
>2nd *te(i)
>3rd *sa
>
>PIE used an ancient postposition *wa, originally
>meaning "concerning," to mark the nominative (< ergative) forms of
>these pronouns:
>
>*me(i) wa > meu > mu
>*te(i) wa > teu > tu
>*sa wa > sau > so
>
>This *wa formant was also the origin of the Proto-Semitic nominative
>(< ergative).
>
>The oblique stem of the 3rd person pronoun was suppleted by *to-
>(from *ta wa).

Where does that leave *swe/*sewe, which look like they're structured
exactly like *twe/*tewe?

>PU did not use *wa as an ergative/nominative formant, but it does
>appear in the oblique stems of the 1sg and 2sg pronouns.

Can you be more specific?

>1sg *mi nA > minä
>2sg *ti nA > tinä
>3sg *sä nA > sänä
>
>1pl *mi jA > mijä
>2pl *ti jA > tijä
>3pl *sä jA > säjä

Where are mijä, tijä, säjä attested?

>Also possible is that both languages had a 1pl stem in n- (cf. Arabic
>naHnu, Latin nos);

Latin nos is derived from the plural oblique *n.s-mé, which is from *mes(W)
"we". The *n- is not original (cf. vos < *wos < *ws-mé < *us(W) "you").
There is no 1 pl. *n- in (pre-)PIE.

>While certainly attested in the IE languages, it does not
>appear to be attested in the Uralic languages, unless the Mordvin 1pl
>possessive suffix -na comes from that stem.

I think that's Mari. Mordvin has -nok, -ta-no. Nenets plural possessum
-i-na?. All these forms (possessive and verbal) can be derived from
posessives with plural possessum ( = verbs with plural object), where the
mark of the plural possessum/object is *-t- + 1pl. possessor/subject *-mat
/ *-mak > *-t-mat ~ *-t-mak > *-nnat ~ *-nnak > -na, -nok.

The complete paradigm must have been something like:

1. *-t-m& > *-n&
2. *-t-d& > *-t&
3. *-j-sa > *-jsa
1. *-t-m&t > *-n&t
2. *-t-d&t > *-t&t
3. *-j-san > *-jsan

The same alternation -t-/-j- in the plural possessum forms is also found in
Eskimo-Aleut, e.g. Yupik:

1. -nka (*-t-m + -ka)
2. -ten (*-t&-d)
3. -j (*-j(a))
1. -pput (*-t-put < *-t-m&t)
2. -cci (*-t-ci < *-t-d&t)
3. -it (*-j(a)-t)

It can also be compared to the alternation -o:s (*-t-), -oi- (*-j-) in the
PIE o-stems.


In Samoyed, the *-j- of the 3rd. person forms was extended to the other
forms:

1. -j-n& -j-n&t (Nenets: -in& -ina?
2. -j-t& -j-t&t -it& -ita?
3. -j-ta -j-tan -ita -ito?~)

Elsewhere the *-n- of the 1st persons was analogically extended:

1. -n-n&/-n-m& -n-n&k/-n-m&k (Finnish: -ni -mme(k)
2. -n-t& -n-t&k *-nti -nne(k)
3. -n-sa -n-sak -nsä -nsä(k))

>When it
>was deemed necessary to distinguish grammatical number in pronouns,
>typically a plural formant was added to the preexisting personal
>suffixes (this was often the same as the plural formant for the
>plural pronouns).

You mean plural nouns?


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