Aryan: Difference between revisions

Aryan (view source)

Revision as of 01:59, 6 July 2025

4,478 bytes added , 6 July

→‎?

Veno

2,710

edits

@@ Line 3,068: / Line 3,068: @@
 [...]
-====Personal Pronouns====
+====Personal Pronouns [...]====
+[...]
+Brugmann; Grundriss [...] ⇒ Schmidt, Stammbildung und Flexion (argues in favor of eǵ as older tham eǵom) ⇒ P. Forchheimer, The category of person in language, Berlin 1953
+⇒ Benveniste, La nature des pronoms > https://www.academia.edu/1478874/Die_komplexe_Morphologie_der_urindogermanischen_Personalpronomina_draft_
+Stop Borrowing! Anatolian/Indo-European Stops, Voice, and Northwest Semitic Loans – With Notes on Ugaritic grdš, ztr, dġṯ and Other Words
 [...]
@@ Line 3,110: / Line 3,117: @@
 |-
 |}
+*The first-person singular ''*h<sub>5</sub>ih<sub>1</sub>ṓn'' (PIE ''*h<sub>1</sub>eǵHóm'') seems to be a descendent of the primordial form ''ˈʕih-ɔː'' "I" , which would regularly yield stress on the first syllable, yet it is observed that in PIE the consonant <''*ǵ''> appears (probably a consequence from the sound change '''*h<sub>1</sub> ⇒ *ǵ / V_V'''), plus the affixation of <''*n''>, a borrowing from Diluvian ''nao'' "this person".
+**In PIE, the emphatic ''*h<sub>1</sub>eǵHóm'' could be interpreted as more archaic than ''*h₁eǵH'', as Homeric Greek ''ἐγών'' and Sanskrit ''अहम्'' suggest. The emphatic particle ''*-om'' (PIE) likely arose due the contaminator <''*m''>.
+**The nasal in ''*h<sub>5</sub>ih<sub>1</sub>ṓn'' "I" became <''*m''> primarily due two distinct processes; one phonetic and other phonological. It was either subsequently labialized by the preceding vowel, shortening the nucleus (i.e. /oːn/ ⇒ /own/ ⇒ /om/), and/or swapped by the contaminator ''*m'' based on its inflected forms.
+***This sound change affected all other inflections of the first person singular (e.g. ''*nh<sub>0</sub>(m)'' "me" (A) ⇒ ''*mh<sub>0</sub>'' ~ ''*h<sub>0</sub>m'' "me" (?) ⇒ ''*me'' ~ ''*h<sub>1</sub>me'' "me" (PIE)).
+*The second-person singular ''*tū́'' (PIE ''*túH'') seems to be a descendent of Diluvian ''taocar'' "the person one refers to", with an unusual vocalic paradigm. If this is correct, a more conservative alternative might have been ''*táu''.
+**In PIE, the pronoun ''*túH'' is extremely conservative, found as ''tu'' in Latin, ''σύ'' in Greek, and ''त्वम्'' in Sanskrit, for example. In PIA, though, Hittite ''zīg'' and Palaic ''ti'' suggest Indo-Anatolian ''*tī́''<ref name=Kloekorst>Alwin Kloekorst (2007); [https://archive.org/details/etymological-dictionary-of-the-hittite-inherited-lexicon/mode/1up ''Etymological Dictionary Of The Hittite Inherited Lexicon'']</ref>; although it could also be pointed out that the Anatolitan counterparts might be mere rearrangements from the non-emphatic PIE 1.SG.NOM. ''*h<sub>1</sub>eǵ(ō)'' plus an accusative enclitic of the second-person singular (i.e. ''*te-eǵ'' ⇒ ''*tī́ǵ'' (PA))<ref name=Szemerényi>Oswald Szemerényi (1990); [https://archive.org/details/szemerenyieinfuhrungindievergleichendesprachwissenschaft4thedition1990/mode/2up ''Einführung in die vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft'']</ref><ref name=Petersen>Walter Petersen (1930); [https://www.jstor.org/stable/409118?read-now=1&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents ''The Inflection of Indo-European Personal Pronouns'']</ref>, or even the result of the palatalization of apical consonants due phonetic height (i.e. ''*tū'' (PIA) ⇒ ''*tyū'' (?) ⇒ ''*tī'' (PA))<ref name=Melchert>Craig Melchert (1983); [https://linguistics.ucla.edu/people/Melchert/2ndsingularpronoun.pdf ''The Second Singular Personal Pronoun in Anatolian'']</ref>.
+*The third-person singulars ''*aī́h<sub>0</sub>i'', ''*aī́h<sub>0</sub>'', and ''*aī́ts'' possess a shorter form when complemented by a noun (e.g. ''*aī́h<sub>0</sub>i'' "he" ⇒ ''*h<sub>0</sub>naī́r h<sub>0</sub>i'' "he, the man"). The reason for this is that in the Codex, pronouns used to be morphologically treated as affixes, and therefore couldn't stand by themselves except when linked to a root (e.g. ''ˈə-e̞ː'' "he/she/it", but not ''**e̞ː'').
+**As a result, the clitic counterparts gained a sense as proximal demonstratives in PIE, being evident in forms such as Latin ''is'' "he", ''ea'' "she", and ''id'' "it", whose anaphoric use prohibts them to stand by themselves.
+***e.g. ''*h<sub>0</sub>í'' "he" ⇒ ''*h<sub>1</sub>í'' "this/he"; ''*íh<sub>0</sub>'' "she" ⇒ ''*h<sub>1</sub>íh<sub>2</sub>'' "this/she"; ''*íts'' "it" ⇒ ''*h<sub>1</sub>íd'' "this/it".
+*Overall, the dual is formed by erasing sounds of the singular, then reduplicating it (e.g. ''*h<sub>5</sub>ih<sub>1</sub>ṓn'' ⇒ ''*ōi̯ṓn''; ''*tū́'' ⇒ ''*ūi̯ū́''; ''*aī́h<sub>0</sub>i'' ⇒ ''*aīaī́''), while the plural is formed by erasing the reduplication of the dual, then adding the serial particle ''*-s-'' (e.g. ''*ōi̯ṓn'' ⇒ ''*ṓns''; ''*ūi̯ū́'' ⇒ ''*ū́s''; ''*aīaī́'' ⇒ ''*aī́s''), and the collective simply does the latter but with the suffix ''*-a'' (e.g. ''*ōi̯ṓn'' ⇒ ''*ṓna''; ''*ūi̯ū́'' ⇒ ''*ū́a''; ''*aīaī́'' ⇒ ''*aī́a''''). Medial ''*i̯'' ~ ''*u̯'' is inserted to avoid diphthongs between reduplicated vowels, and ''*ts'' is applied in other cases when two bordering vowels are similar (except those involving schwas).
+**Rather than the nominative of the first and second-person dual/plural in PIE being prehistorical combinations (i.e. ''*u'' 2.SG + ''*e'' 1.SG. +  = ''we'' 1.DU./PL.; ''*i'' 3.SG. + ''*u'' 2.SG = ''*yu'' 2.DU./PL.)<ref name=Seebold>Elmar Seebold (1984); [https://annas-archive.org/md5/e8ece7cab77fe9adeae0052312aa3d89 ''Das System der Personalpronomina in den frühgermanischen Sprachen: Sein Aufbau und seine Herkunft'']</ref>, the dual products of the Aryan patterns would eventually substitute the plural forms of the first and second-person in their nominative equivalents (i.e. ''*ṓns'' "we (plural)" ⇒ ∅, replaced by ''*ōi̯ṓn'' "we (dual)" (A) ⇒ ''*wéy'' "we (plural)" (PIE); ''*ūs'' "you (plural)" ⇒ ∅, replaced by ''*ūi̯ū́'' "you (dual)" (A) ⇒ ''*yū́'' "you (plural)" (PIE)), while their oblique inflections for example would assume other spots in the ancestor of Indo-European languages (i.e. ''*noh<sub>0</sub>(m)'' 1.DU.ACC. (A) ⇒ ''*n̥h<sub>1</sub>wé'' ~ ''*nōh<sub>1</sub>'' 1.DU.ACC. (PIE); ''*i̯uh<sub>0</sub>(m)'' 2.DU.ACC. (A) ⇒ ''*uh<sub>1</sub>wé'' ~ ''*wōh<sub>1</sub>'' 2.DU.ACC. (PIE)).
+**The particle <''*m''> gains the property of the serial particle <''*s''> when the latter conflates with the particle ''*ts'' (e.g. third-person plural locative ''*itsim'' instead of ''*itsis''). This contamination was likely encouraged due the abundant presence of ''*m'' in the accusative, and produces an alternative explanation to the hypothesis that the oblique of the first-person plural was''*ms-'' before becoming ''*ns-''<ref name=Sihler>Andrew Sihler (1995); [https://archive.org/details/sihler-andrew-new-comparative-grammar-of-greek-and-latin/mode/2up ''New Comparative Grammar Of Greek And Latin'']</ref>. Later in PIE, not only plural forms (e.g. ''*nsai̯(m)'' 1.PL.DAT. (A) ⇒ ''*n̥sméy'' 1.PL.DAT. (PIE))  would become contaminated, but also singular ones (e.g. ''*iai̯'' "to him" (A) ⇒ ''*h<sub>1</sub>esmōy'' "to him" (PIE)); including verbal affixes (e.g.''*-nas'' 1.PL.VB. (A) ⇒ ''*-mos'' 1.PL.VB. (PIE)).
+====Possessive Pronouns====
+nás, tu̯ás, h0iás/ih0ás/i ... tsu̯á
+in Aryan possessive pronouns could be produced through the pure oblique or any inflected form, as long as it received the affix -ás.
+nás ~ nai̯ás ~ ni̯aás ~ niás
+nás h0naír
+compare the translation for "my man"
+''*nh0(m)ás h0naī́r'' (A) > ''*h1mós h2nḗr'' (PIE) > ''ἐμός ἀνήρ'' (G)
+-as -ah0 -am | -aī -ah0ī -aī
+-ias -i | -īas īs
+-h0i -ih0 -its | -h0ias -ih0as -itsas
+====Reflexive Pronouns====
 {| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;"
@@ Line 3,137: / Line 3,180: @@
 |}
-*The first-person singular ''*h<sub>5</sub>ih<sub>1</sub>ṓn'' (PIE ''*h<sub>1</sub>eǵHóm'') seems to be a descendent of the primordial form ''ˈʕih-ɔː'' "I" , which would regularly yield stress on the first syllable, yet it is observed that in PIE the consonant <''*ǵ''> appears (probably a consequence from the sound change '''*h<sub>1</sub> ⇒ *ǵ / V_V'''), plus the affixation of <''*n''>, a borrowing from Diluvian ''nao'' "this person".
-**In PIE, the emphatic''*h<sub>1</sub>eǵHóm'' could be interpreted as more archaic than ''*h₁eǵH'', as Homeric Greek ''ἐγών'' and Sanskrit ''अहम्'' suggest. The emphatic particle ''*-om'' (PIE) likely arose due the contaminator <''*m''>.
-**The nasal in ''*h<sub>5</sub>ih<sub>1</sub>ṓn'' "I" became <''*m''> primarily due two distinct processes; one phonetic and other phonological. It was either subsequently labialized by the preceding vowel, shortening the nucleus (i.e. /oːn/ ⇒ /own/ ⇒ /om/), and/or swapped by the contaminator ''*m'' based on its inflected forms.
-***This sound change affected all other inflections of the first person singular (e.g. ''*nh<sub>0</sub>(m)'' "me" (Aryan) ⇒ ''*mh<sub>0</sub>'' ~ ''*h<sub>0</sub>m'' "me" (?) ⇒ ''*me'' ~ ''*h<sub>1</sub>me'' "me" (PIE)).
-*The second-person singular ''*tū́'' (PIE ''*túH'') seems to be a descendent of Diluvian ''taocar'' "the person one refers to", with an unusual vocalic paradigm. If this is correct, a more conservative alternative might have been ''*táu''.
-**In PIE, the pronoun ''*túH'' is extremely conservative, found as ''tu'' in Latin, ''σύ'' in Greek, and ''त्वम्'' in Sanskrit, for example. In PIA, though, Hitite ''zīg'' and Palaic ''ti'' suggest Indo-Anatolian ''*tī́'' <ref name=Kloekorst>Alwin Kloekorst (2007); [https://archive.org/details/etymological-dictionary-of-the-hittite-inherited-lexicon/mode/1up ''Etymological Dictionary Of The Hittite Inherited Lexicon'']</ref>.
-*The third-person singulars ''*aī́h<sub>0</sub>i'', ''*aī́h<sub>0</sub>'', and ''*aī́ts'' possess a shorter form when complemented by a noun (e.g. ''*aī́h<sub>0</sub>i'' "he" ⇒ ''*h<sub>0</sub>naír h<sub>0</sub>í'' "he, the man"). The reason for this is that in the Codex, pronouns used to be morphologically treated as affixes, and therefore couldn't stand by themselves except when linked to a root (e.g. ''ˈə-e̞ː'' "he/she/it", but not ''**e̞ː'').
-**As a result, the clitic counterparts gained a sense as proximal demonstratives in PIE, being evident in forms such as Latin ''is'' "he", ''ea'' "she", and ''id'' "it", whose anaphoric use prohibts them to stand by themselves.
-***e.g. ''*h<sub>0</sub>í'' "he" ⇒ ''*h<sub>1</sub>í'' "this/he"; ''*íh<sub>0</sub>'' "she" ⇒ ''*h<sub>1</sub>íh<sub>2</sub>'' "this/she"; ''*íts'' "it" ⇒ ''*h<sub>1</sub>íd'' "this/it".
 *The reflexive pronoun ''*tsū́r'' derives from an older ''*ū́tsar'' (equivalent to Aryan ''*aítsar'' "this/that one", PIE ''*h<sub>1</sub>íteros'' "(an)other"), itself a borrowing from Diluvian ''aocar'', whose <''*ū́''> portion is still visible in another borrowing into Aryan (i.e. the second-person singular ''*tū́'').
 **In PIE, it was reanalyzed as its accusative form (i.e.''*su̯h<sub>0</sub>'' "themselves" ⇒ ''*swé'' "themselves"), thus degrading the dual, plural, and collective inflections.
-*Overall, the dual is formed by erasing sounds of the singular, then reduplicating it (e.g. ''*h<sub>5</sub>ih<sub>1</sub>ṓn'' ⇒ ''*ōi̯ṓn''; ''*tū́'' ⇒ ''*ūi̯ū́''; ''*aī́h<sub>0</sub>i'' ⇒ ''*aīaī́''), while the plural is formed by erasing the reduplication of the dual, then adding the serial particle ''*-s-'' (e.g. ''*ōi̯ṓn'' ⇒ ''*ṓns''; ''*ūi̯ū́'' ⇒ ''*ū́s''; ''*aīaī́'' ⇒ ''*aī́s''), and the collective simply does the latter but with the suffix ''*-a'' (e.g. ''*ōi̯ṓn'' ⇒ ''*ṓna''; ''*ūi̯ū́'' ⇒ ''*ū́a''; ''*aīaī́'' ⇒ ''*aī́a''''). Medial ''*i̯'' ~ ''*u̯'' is inserted to avoid diphthongs between reduplicated vowels, and ''*ts'' is applied in other cases when two bordering vowels are similar (except those involving schwas).
-**The products of this process would eventually substitute the plural forms of the first and second-person (i.e. ''*ṓns'' "we (plural)" ⇒ ∅, replaced by ''*ōi̯ṓn'' "we (dual)" (Aryan) ⇒ ''*wéy'' "we (plural)" (PIE); ''*ūs'' "you (plural)" ⇒ ∅, replaced by ''*ūi̯ū́'' "you (dual)" (Aryan) ⇒ ''*yū́'' "you (plural)" (PIE)).
-**The particle <''*m''> gains the property of the serial particle <''*s''> when the latter conflates with the particle ''*ts'' (e.g. third-person plural locative ''*itsim'' instead of ''*itsis''). This contamination was likely encouraged due the abundant presence of ''*m'' in the accusative, and produces an alternative explanation to the hypothesis that the oblique of the first-person plural was''*ms-'' before becoming ''*ns-''<ref name=Sihler>Andrew Sihler (1995); [https://archive.org/details/sihler-andrew-new-comparative-grammar-of-greek-and-latin/mode/2up ''New Comparative Grammar Of Greek And Latin'']</ref>. Later in PIE, not only plural forms (e.g. Aryan ''*-nas'' (1.PL.VB.) ⇒ PIE ''*-mos'' (1.PL.VB.)), but also singular forms would become contaminated (e.g. ''*iai̯'' "to him" (Aryan) ⇒ ''*h<sub>1</sub>esmōy'' "to him" (PIE)).
-***e.g. genitive plural of the third-person ''*itsi̯am'' (Aryan) ⇒ ''*éysom'' (PIE) ⇒ ''eum'' (Latin).
 ====Demonstrative Pronouns====
@@ Line 3,231: / Line 3,261: @@
 *All demonstratives of the ''*-ias'' paradigm transitioned from animate/inanimate to masculine/feminine/neuter declension.
 **Either through the tonic form (e.g. "other" ''*h<sub>5</sub>ílias'', ''*h<sub>5</sub>íli'' (Aryan) ⇒  ''*h<sub>2</sub>élyos'', ''*h<sub>2</sub>élyeh<sub>2</sub>'', ''*h<sub>2</sub>élyod'' (PIE)), or the clitic form (e.g. "this" ''*kis'', ''*ki'' (from Aryan ''*h<sub>5</sub>íkias'', ''*h<sub>5</sub>íki'') > ''*ḱís'', ''*ḱíh<sub>2</sub>'', ''*ḱíd'' (PIE)).
+====Interrogative Pronouns====
+[..]
+====Indefinite Pronouns====
+[..]
+====Relative Pronouns====
+[..]
 ===Verb===
+[...]
+====Aspect====
+The Origin of Aspect in the Indo-European Languages  Oswald Szemerényi
+====?====
 ''*gaínōm'', ''*gígnmi'' "I generate"
@@ Line 3,489: / Line 3,540: @@
 какой-то сказал
+in dem Anfang, hat Gott die Erde und den Himmel geschaffen
+Männer, deren Kinder gestorben haben,
+der Schicksal dessen, der gelitten habt
+der Schicksal derer, die gelitten haben
 Ja vot tut ...
@@ Line 3,496: / Line 3,552: @@
 ==References==
+Einleitung in die Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft (Pott)
+hermann hirt Indogermanische Grammatik
+Franz Bopp
+Schleicher
+Calvert Watkins
+Jochem Schindler
+Helmut Rix
+Kuryłowicz
-"Some remarks about the personal pronouns of indo-european", Kenneth Shields (1986)
-"Some remarks about the personal pronouns of indo-european", Kenneth Shields (1998)
+Boisacq : É. Boisacq, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque. Heidelberg, 1916.
+Brugmann, Griech. Gram?: Griechische Grammatik,
+Chantraine, GH: Grammaire homérique.
+Chantraine, Morphologie : Morphologie historique du grec. 1947. 2nd ed. 1961.
+Chantraine, Formation ` La formation des noms en grec ancien
+CIL : Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum.
+Collitz-Bechtel, D: Sammlung griechischer Dialektinschriften. 1884— 1915
+Egli, Heteroklisie im Griechischen: J. Egli, Heteroklisie im Griechischen, mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Fälle von Gelenkheteroklisie. Dissert. Zürich
+Ehrlich, Betonung ` Untersuchungen über die Natur der griechischen Betonung. 1912
+Ernout-Meillet, Dictionnaire étym.: Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine
+Evidence for Laryngeals : Evidence for Laryngeals — Work papers of a conference in Indo—European linguistics on May 7 and 8, 1959. Edited by Werner Winter. Austin, Texas, 1960
+Frisk, GEW ` Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg 1954
+Kuryłowicz, A pophonie ` L'apophonie en indo-européen. 1956.
+Kuryłowicz, Accentuation *: L'accentuation des langues indo—européennes. 2nd ed. 1958.
+Leumann-Hofmann :M. Leumann-]. B. Hofmann, Lateinische Grammatik, 5th ed. 1926-8
+Meillet, Zz£roduction 9: Introduction a l'étude comparative des langues indo-européennes. 8th ed. 1937
+Pokorny : Pokorny, /wdogermanisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch. 1948-
+Wackernagel (-Debrunner), AzGr. : Altindische Grammatik
 Bergaige, Abel; Du Rôle de la dérivation dans la déclinaison indo-européenne: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k57721099.texteImage#
@@ Line 3,507: / Line 3,596: @@
 >
-Einleitung in die Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft (Pott)
@@ Line 3,525: / Line 3,614: @@
 *Priscianus (6th Century), ''Institutiones Grammaticae''
 *Sütterlin, Ludwig (1908), ''Die Lehre von der Lautbildung''
-'''*Szemerényi, Oswald (1970), ''Einführung in die vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft'''''
 *Sommerstein, Alan (1973), ''Sound Pattern of Ancient Greek''
 *Thomasus Erfordiensis (13th Century), ''Tractatus de Modis Significandi seu Grammatica Speculativa''