4,741
edits
User:Chrysophylax/put: Difference between revisions
m
→Number
Chrysophylax (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
Chrysophylax (talk | contribs) m (→Number) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
====Consonants==== | ====Consonants==== | ||
PU possessed at least 16 distinctive consonant units: | PU possessed at least 16 distinctive consonant units: | ||
{| | |||
|- | |||
|colspan="3"| | |||
|labial | |||
|dental | |||
|cacuminal | |||
|palatal | |||
|velar | |||
|- | |||
|colspan="3"|plain stops | |||
|p | |||
|t | |||
| | |||
| | |||
|k | |||
|- | |||
|colspan="3"|affricates | |||
| | |||
| | |||
|c | |||
| | |||
| | |||
|- | |||
|colspan="3"|sibilants | |||
| | |||
|s | |||
| | |||
|ś | |||
|- | |||
|colspan="3"|nasals | |||
|m | |||
|n | |||
| | |||
|ń | |||
|ŋ | |||
|- | |||
|colspan="3"|spirants | |||
| | |||
|ð | |||
| | |||
|ð’ | |||
|- | |||
|colspan="3"|laterals | |||
| | |||
|l | |||
|- | |||
|colspan="3"|vibrants | |||
| | |||
|r | |||
|- | |||
|colspan="3"|glides | |||
|w | |||
| | |||
| | |||
|j | |||
|- | |||
|} | |||
labial | labial | ||
| Line 35: | Line 93: | ||
Similarly, for the sake of system symmetry, additional phonemes could be proposed in the palatal series. A couple of uncertain etymologies suggest the reconstruction of a palatal lateral ''*l’'' but even other palatal phonemes (stop, affricate) may well have existed in PU, though they must have been of low frequency. | Similarly, for the sake of system symmetry, additional phonemes could be proposed in the palatal series. A couple of uncertain etymologies suggest the reconstruction of a palatal lateral ''*l’'' but even other palatal phonemes (stop, affricate) may well have existed in PU, though they must have been of low frequency. | ||
Synchronically the status of the “spirants” ''*ð'' and *'' | Synchronically the status of the “spirants” ''*ð'' and *''ð’'' appears to be problematic. These phonemes may have originally been related to either the dental stop or the liquids. | ||
====Vowels==== | ====Vowels==== | ||
| Line 89: | Line 147: | ||
As for further classification, morphological criteria are not sufficient to serve as a basis for distinguishing any subclasses (such as “adjectives” and “numerals”). Also, no evidence exists of any separable group of indeclinable words (“adverbs”). For instance, space relationships were expressed by regularly declined spatial nouns, used both independently and in postposition constructions (as nominal postpositions). Undoubtedly, however, there existed in PU some kind of extra-grammatical group of utterances (“interjections” and the like). | As for further classification, morphological criteria are not sufficient to serve as a basis for distinguishing any subclasses (such as “adjectives” and “numerals”). Also, no evidence exists of any separable group of indeclinable words (“adverbs”). For instance, space relationships were expressed by regularly declined spatial nouns, used both independently and in postposition constructions (as nominal postpositions). Undoubtedly, however, there existed in PU some kind of extra-grammatical group of utterances (“interjections” and the like). | ||
===Nominal categories=== | |||
====Derived stems==== | |||
Practically all possible phonological shapes were used in the large stock of PU denominal and deverbal nominal suffixes. The most common and most reliably reconstructable types comprise such as : stop, stop+vowel, stop+stop+vowel (possibly incl. geminate stop+vowel), nasal, nasal+vowel, nasal+stop+vowel, sibiliant+vowel, liquid+vowel, glide. However, except for some of the verbal noun suffixes, the exact function of the derivative elements remain largely obscure. For most of the denominal suffixes only a vague "diminutive meaning" can be reconstructed. Among the few functionally clear cases are: ''*-mpå/-mpä'' for denoting local contrast (later becoming the comparative suffix in Finnic-Lapp and Hungarian), ''*-mtV'' for order (ordinal numbers and pronouns), and the complex caritive suffix ''-*ktåmå/-ktämä''. | |||
The suffixes for intensification of deixis in pronouns, such as ''*-m, *-n, *-mV, *-nV'', are a special case, since these may have had an additional function. By adding a syllable to the monosyllabic pronoun stem, it was possible to remove the structural difference between the deictic elements and the rest of the lexicon. | |||
Grammatically the derived stems did not differ in any way from the stems without derivative elements. | |||
====Number==== | |||
The absolute form of the noun could probably be used collectively for indefinite number. The use of a suffix for denoting non-singular number may in Pre-U have originally had an additional defining or individualizing function. However, in PU, at least the plural suffixes were obviously often used without regard to this limiting condition. | |||
Plural was expressed by two alternative suffixes: ''*-t''for the absolute form and ''*-j'' for the conjunctive form. The absolute form was used independently in the sentence, mainly as the subject, while the conjunctive form was used in subordinate position, both adnominally as an attribute (corresponding to the function of a plural genitive case) and adverbally as an object (in the function of plural accusative). The conjunctive form was also used before further suffix morphemes (such as the possessive suffixes). | |||
The dual also existed as a separate category in Pu, marked by the suffix ''*-kɘ(-)''. However, the dual nowadays only exists on the peripheries of the language family (Lapp, Ob-Ugrian, Samoyed), and the PU dual suffix has been materially preserved only in the eastern groups (Ugric, Samoyed). THese facts sugges that the use of the dual in PU was dialectally restricted. Furthermore, the individualizing function of the number morpheme was probably more distinct in the dual, and the ose of the suffix may have tended to be restricted to nouns semantically marked +animate or +human. | |||
Number in personal pronouns was expressed irregularly: cf. sg. 1. ''*mun'', 2. ''*tun'' vs. pl. 1. ''*me-'', 2. ''*te-'' (probably combined with the ordinary plural suffixes). Whether dual pronouns existed at all, is not known for certain, but some evidence points to the possibility that these may have been formed by adding to the plural stems specific pronominal dual formatives (cf. the possessive suffixes). | |||
====Case==== | |||