2,710
edits
Aryan: Difference between revisions
→Personal Pronouns [...]
| Line 3,116: | Line 3,116: | ||
***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)). | ***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''. | *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>. | **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 a marker of the 2.SG ''*túH'' (i.e. ''*t(e)-eǵ'' ⇒ ''*tī́ǵ'' (PA))<ref name=Szemerényi>Oswald Szemerényi (1990); [https://archive.org/details/szemerenyieinfuhrungindievergleichendesprachwissenschaft4thedition1990/mode/2up ''Einführung in die vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft'']</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''). | *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. | **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. | ||