Re: Ideas on Proto-Uralic Syntax and Inflection

First off, I'd like to elaborate on my own ideas regarding Proto-
Uralic. I agree with you, Miguel, that (Pre-)Proto-Uralic made
little or no distinction between nominal and verbal roots. I would
furthermore say that this is because Pre-Proto-Uralic or earliest
Proto-Uralic was (mostly) an isolating language. That is, most roots
could be used as either nouns or verbs, and their function in a given
sentence was dictated by word-order. Proto-Uralic canonical word-
order is reconstructed as SOV, which means that it had postpositions
and modifiers preceding their heads. This is at odds, however, with
the fact that PU also had possessive suffixes, since its word-order
means that possessors would precede their possessions. I think that
it's possible, if not likely, that the speakers of (Pre-)Proto-Uralic
came to use pronouns as postpositions to indicate possession.

If I may point out my reconstructed PU sentences again, we have:

Weti ma elä mi, sä kala ma pexi.

A literal translation would be "Water at carry me, (s)he fish at
cook." Allowing for the possibility I mentioned above, and the use
of *ma as an object marker, we have a somewhat smoother
translation: "My carry(ing) water, (s)he cook(s) fish." From here, I
think it's just a short step to an even better translation: "As I
carry the water, she cooks the fish." Do you see the development
here? This is a different argument than I presented before, and I
think it's more plausible.

Regarding the development of possessive suffixes in the Uralic
languages, I readily admit that your reconstruction is certainly
possible. However, I still disagree that the Finnish plural
pronominal suffixes had an ending in *-k. The *-k suffix forms the
dual number; why would it also be employed as a pronominal plural
(assuming that both are the same suffix)?

I am still skeptical that PU had a separate stative paradigm.

- Rob

--- In Nostratica@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:56:10 +0200, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...>
wrote:
>
> >the transitive verb inflections (definite conjugation) obviously
> >originated as possessive constructions. There was no distinction
> >originally between the possessive and the definite verbal suffixes.
> >
> >The indefinite conjugation, however, was originally distinct.
> >
> >In most modern Uralic languages, the indefinite conjugation has
influenced
> >the definite, and viceversa, but the original state of affairs
must have
> >been something like:
> >
> > indefinite definite/possessive
> > (stative) sg.poss. du.poss. pl.poss.
> >1. *-k *-m& *-g(&n')-m& *-d-m& > *-n&
> >2. *-n *-d& *-g(&n')-d& *-d-d& > *-t&
> >3. *-0 *-sa *-g(&n')-sa *-j-sa
> >du.
> >1. *-g-m&n' *-m&n' *-g(&n')-m&n' *-d-m&n' > *-n&n'
> >2. *-g-d&n' *-d&n' *-g(&n')-d&n' *-d-d&n' > *-t&n'
> >3. *-k, *-g&n' *-san' *-g(&n')-san' *-j-san'
> >pl.
> >1. *-d-m&k *-m&t *-g(&n')-m&t *-d-m&t > *-n&t
> >2. *-d-t&k *-d&t *-g(&n')-d&t *-d-d&t > *-t&t
> >3. *-t *-san *-g(&n')-san *-j-san
>
> To expand on this:
>
> Proto-Uralic apparently did not make a big distinction between
nominal and
> verbal roots. Personal suffixes could indifferently be added to
nouns
> (resulting in stative / possessive) or to verbal roots (resulting in
> intransitive / transitive conjugations). The modern languages have
> introduced distinctions between nominal and verbal forms, and have
merged
> and/or eliminated some of the old categories:
>
> Finn. Saami Mari Mordv Udmurt Komi Hung Mansi Xanty
Nenets Selq
> stative x
x x
> possess. x x x x x x x x x
x x
> poss(du) x x
x x
> poss(pl) x x x x
x x
> vb (intr) x x x x x x x x x
x x
> vb trans x x x x
x x
> vb tr(du) x
x x
> vb tr(pl) x x
x x
>
>
> Finnish has only a possessive and a verbal comjugation. The
possessive
> forms are a mix of the old possessive w/ sg. possessum and w/ pl.
> possessum:
>
> 1. -ni (pl.poss. *-n-(m)i)
> 2. -si (sg.poss. *-ti)
> 3. -nsä (pl.poss. *-n-sa)
> 1. -mme (pl.poss. *-n-mek)
> 2. -nne (pl.poss. *-n-tek)
> 3. -nsä (pl.poss. *-n-sek)
>
> The verb has a mix of intransitive and transitive forms:
>
> 1. -n < *-m (tr. *-m)
> 2. -t (tr. *-t)
> 3. -0 (intr. *-0)
> -sen, -zen (tr. *-sa(n))
> 1. -mme (intr. *-t-mek)
> 2. -tte (intr. *-t-tek)
> 3. -t (intr. *-t)
> -zet (tr. *-sat)
>
> In Mari, possessive and verbal endings are virtually identical,
except in
> some 3rd. person forms:
>
> 1. *-Vm (tr/poss sg.poss)
> 2. *-Vt (tr/poss sg.poss)
> 3. *-s^V, *-z^V (tr/poss sg.poss)
> *-V (intr)
> 1. *-(V)na (tr/poss pl.poss.)
> 2. *-(V)ta, *-(V)Da (tr/poss sg.poss.)
> 3. *-(V)s^t (tr/poss sg.poss.)
> *-Vt (intr)
>
> Mordvin retains all categories except the dual:
>
> poss.sg. poss.pl. stat. intrans. trans.sg.obj. pl.obj.
> -m -n -n -n -0, -n -n'
> -t -nt -t -t -k, -t' -t'
> -zo -nzo -0 -0 -si -n'z'e
> -mok -nok -tano -tano,-tama -n'ek,-s'k -n'ek,-s'k
> -nk -nk -tado -tado,-d'ä -nk, -s't' -nk,-s't'
> -st,-sk -st,-sk -t -(i)t' -z' -z'
>
> There is also a whole grid of forms with 1/2 sg/pl object
agreement, which
> appear to be a development within Mordvin (there is considerable
variation
> between the main dialects). There is some syncretism in the forms
given
> above (2pl. -nk is a pl.poss./pl.obj. form transferred to the
> sg.poss./sg.obj. paradigms).
>
> Komi has a single possessive and a single verbal category:
>
> poss. vb
> 1. -&(j) < *-Vm (sg) -0 < *-m (tr)
> 2. -Id < *-Vd (sg) -n (intr)
> 3. -Is < *-Vs (sg) -s, -0 (tr; intr)
> 1. -nIm < *-n-Vm (pl) -m, -mnIm (tr; tr+poss.pl.)
> 2. -nId < *-n-Vd (pl) -d, -dnId (tr; tr+poss.pl.)
> 3. -nIs < *-n-Vs (pl) -nIs (poss pl.)
>
> Note the transfer of the plural possessum forms to the category of
plural
> possessor. Noteworthy is also verbal 2sg. -n, from the old
> stative/intransitive.
>
> Udmurt only has transitive/single possessum/object forms:
>
> poss/vb.
> 1 -(V)
> 2 -(V)d
> 3 -(V)z
> 1 -m(I)
> 2 -dI, -tI
> 3 -zI, -sI
>
> Hungarian has sg. and pl. possessum forms, and intransitive and
transitive
> conjugations:
>
> poss.sg. poss.pl. intrans. trans. 1>2
> 1 -m -im -Vk/-m -m -lak
> 2 -d -id -sz/-l -(V)d
> 3 -0 -i -0 -0
> 1 -nk -ink -Vnk -(u)k
> 2 -tok -itok -tok -tok
> 3 -k -ik -k -k
>
> Like Samoyed, Hungarian has generalized -i- (not -n-) in the plural
> possessum forms. The difference between intransitive -0 and
transitive
> *-sa in the 3rd. person has been obscured by the loss of -s- here.
> Noteworthy are the 1sg. intransitive -k (as in Selqup Samoyed), and
2sg.
> -sz/-l (< *-n', -r'?). There is a special form for 1st person
acting on
> 2nd person, -lak.
>
> For the Ob-Ugric and Samoyed forms, I refer to the Uralic chapter
of my
> "Nostratic Tour".
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...