Linguifex

Aryan: Difference between revisions

Page Discussion

Aryan (view source)

Revision as of 01:15, 5 June 2025

508 bytes added ,  5 June 2025
→‎Pronouns [...]
Line 3,110: Line 3,110:
|-
|-
|}
|}
*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, 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>.
*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".
*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 dual products of this process 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)" (Aryan) ⇒ ''*wéy'' "we (plural)" (PIE); ''*ūs'' "you (plural)" ⇒ ∅, replaced by ''*ūi̯ū́'' "you (dual)" (Aryan) ⇒ ''*yū́'' "you (plural)" (PIE)), while their oblique inflections for example would assume the same spot in the dual of the Indo-European languages (i.e. ''*noh<sub>0</sub>(m)'' 1.DU.ACC. (Aryan) ⇒ ''*n̥h<sub>1</sub>wé'' ~ ''*nōh<sub>1</sub>'' 1.DU.ACC. (PIE); ''*i̯uh<sub>0</sub>(m)'' 2.DU.ACC. (Aryan) ⇒ ''*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. (Aryan) ⇒ ''*n̥sméy'' 1.PL.DAT. (PIE))  would become contaminated, but also singular ones (e.g. ''*iai̯'' "to him" (Aryan) ⇒ ''*h<sub>1</sub>esmōy'' "to him" (PIE)); including verbal affixes (e.g.''*-nas'' 1.PL.VB. (Aryan) ⇒ ''*-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;"
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;"
Line 3,137: Line 3,173:
|}
|}


*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, 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>.
*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'').
*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. ''*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 dual products of this process 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)" (Aryan) ⇒ ''*wéy'' "we (plural)" (PIE); ''*ūs'' "you (plural)" ⇒ ∅, replaced by ''*ūi̯ū́'' "you (dual)" (Aryan) ⇒ ''*yū́'' "you (plural)" (PIE)), while their oblique inflections for example would assume the same spot in the dual of the Indo-European languages (i.e. ''*noh<sub>0</sub>(m)'' 1.DU.ACC. (Aryan) ⇒ ''*n̥h<sub>1</sub>wé'' ~ ''*nōh<sub>1</sub>'' 1.DU.ACC. (PIE); ''*i̯uh<sub>0</sub>(m)'' 2.DU.ACC. (Aryan) ⇒ ''*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. (Aryan) ⇒ ''*n̥sméy'' 1.PL.DAT. (PIE))  would become contaminated, but also singular ones (e.g. ''*iai̯'' "to him" (Aryan) ⇒ ''*h<sub>1</sub>esmōy'' "to him" (PIE)); including verbal affixes (e.g.''*-nas'' 1.PL.VB. (Aryan) ⇒ ''*-mos'' 1.PL.VB. (PIE)).


====Demonstrative Pronouns====
====Demonstrative Pronouns====
Veno
2,711

edits

Retrieved from "https://linguifex.com/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/456294"