Aryan: Difference between revisions
| Line 3,095: | Line 3,095: | ||
|- | |- | ||
! Nominative | ! Nominative | ||
| *h<sub>5</sub>ih<sub>1</sub>ṓn || *tū́ || *aī́h<sub>0</sub>i<br>*aī́h<sub>0</sub><br>*aī́ts || *ōi̯ṓn || *ūi̯ū́ || * | | *h<sub>5</sub>ih<sub>1</sub>ṓn || *tū́ || *aī́h<sub>0</sub>i<br>*aī́h<sub>0</sub><br>*aī́ts || *ōi̯ṓn || *ūi̯ū́ || *aīaī́<br>*īu̯ī́h<sub>0</sub><br>*īu̯ī́ || *ṓns || *ū́s || *aī́s<br>*ī́h<sub>0</sub>s<br>*ī́s || *ṓna || *ū́a || *aī́a<br>*ī́h<sub>0</sub>a<br>*ī́a | ||
|- | |- | ||
! Accusative | ! Accusative | ||
| *nh<sub>0</sub>(m) || *tu̯h<sub>0</sub>(m) || *im<br>*ih<sub>0</sub>m<br>*its || *noh<sub>0</sub>(m) || *i̯uh<sub>0</sub>(m) || *aim,<br>* | | *nh<sub>0</sub>(m) || *tu̯h<sub>0</sub>(m) || *im<br>*ih<sub>0</sub>m<br>*its || *noh<sub>0</sub>(m) || *i̯uh<sub>0</sub>(m) || *aim,<br>*aih<sub>0</sub>m,<br>*aits || *nsh<sub>0</sub>(m) || *u̯sh<sub>0</sub>(m) || *ism<br>*ih<sub>0</sub>sm<br>*is || *nah<sub>0</sub>(m) || *u̯ah<sub>0</sub>(m) || *iam<br>*ih<sub>0</sub>am<br>*ia | ||
|- | |- | ||
! Genitive | ! Genitive | ||
| Line 3,145: | Line 3,145: | ||
*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''). | *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 of PIE, being evident in forms such as Latin ''is'' "he", ''ea'' "she", and ''id'' "it", whose anaphoric use prohibts them to stand by themselves. | **As a result, the clitic counterparts gained a sense as proximal demonstratives of 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"; ''* | ***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''). | *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. | **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. ''* | *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 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 absolute particle ''*ts'' (this contamination was likely encouraged due the presence of ''*m'' in the accusative). Later in PIE, singular forms too would become contaminated (e.g. ''*iai̯'' "to him" (Aryan) ⇒ ''*āi̯'' "to him" ⇒ ''*h<sub>1</sub>esmōy'' "to him" (PIE)). | **The particle <''*m''> gains the property of the serial particle <''*s''> when the latter conflates with the absolute particle ''*ts'' (this contamination was likely encouraged due the presence of ''*m'' in the accusative). Later in PIE, singular forms too would become contaminated (e.g. ''*iai̯'' "to him" (Aryan) ⇒ ''*āi̯'' "to him" ⇒ ''*h<sub>1</sub>esmōy'' "to him" (PIE)). | ||