Aryan: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Aryan (view source)

Revision as of 01:59, 6 July 2025

8,047 bytes added ,  6 July
→‎?
(47 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 26: Line 26:
Naturally, the origin of the [[w:Indo-European languages|indo-european family]] has attracted the curiosity of thousands of researchers in the last centuries, since [[w:William Jones (philologist)|William Jones']] presidential discourse to the Asiatic Society in 1786<ref>https://www.britannica.com/topic/Sanskrit-language</ref>, which famously addressed the similarity between [[w:Sanskrit|Sanskrit]] and [[w:Languages of Europe|european languages]]. '''Further works that [...]'''
Naturally, the origin of the [[w:Indo-European languages|indo-european family]] has attracted the curiosity of thousands of researchers in the last centuries, since [[w:William Jones (philologist)|William Jones']] presidential discourse to the Asiatic Society in 1786<ref>https://www.britannica.com/topic/Sanskrit-language</ref>, which famously addressed the similarity between [[w:Sanskrit|Sanskrit]] and [[w:Languages of Europe|european languages]]. '''Further works that [...]'''


In the hybrid model, Aryan must have been spoken somewhere near the Caucasus Mountains in compliance with the [[w:Armenian hypothesis|Armenian Hypothesis]], which in its current form holds that the speakers of "Pre-Proto-Indo-European" pertained to the genepool of the [[w:Caucasus hunter-gatherer|Caucasian Hunter-Gatherers]] (CHG)<ref name="Lazaridis et al-2022">Lazaridis et al (2022), ''The genetic history of the Southern Arc: a bridge between West Asia and Europe''</ref>, who would eventually contribute to the formation of the [[w:Yamnaya culture|Yamnaya Culture]] and the dispersion of "Core Proto-Indo-European" as detailed in the [[w:Kurgan hypothesis|Kurgan Hypothesis]]. The age of the language is more controversial, being set between 12,000 and 10,000 years Before Present (BP), or the double of its daughter-language's, to coincide with the notion of [[Linguistic Modernity]].
In the hybrid model, Aryan must have been spoken somewhere near the Caucasus Mountains in compliance with the [[w:Armenian hypothesis|Armenian Hypothesis]], which in its current form holds that the speakers of "Pre-Proto-Indo-European" pertained to the genepool of the [[w:Caucasus hunter-gatherer|Caucasian Hunter-Gatherers]] (CHG)<ref name=Lazaridis>Lazaridis et alii (2022); ''The genetic history of the Southern Arc: a bridge between West Asia and Europe''</ref>, who would eventually contribute to the formation of the [[w:Yamnaya culture|Yamnaya Culture]] and the dispersion of "Core Proto-Indo-European" as detailed in the [[w:Kurgan hypothesis|Kurgan Hypothesis]]. The age of the language is more controversial, being set between 12,000 and 10,000 years Before Present (BP), or the double of its daughter-language's, to coincide with the notion of [[Linguistic Modernity]].


==History==
==History==
Line 2,492: Line 2,492:
==Historical and Geographical Distribution==
==Historical and Geographical Distribution==


Since Lazaridis et al's paper<ref name="Lazaridis et al-2022">Lazaridis et al (2022), ''The genetic history of the Southern Arc: a bridge between West Asia and Europe''</ref>, absence of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern%20hunter-gatherer Eastern European Hunter-Gatherer] (EHG) ancestry in the Anatolian component of the Indo-European speaking populations has suggested a caucasian homeleand for earlier stages of PIE rather than a pre-Yamnaya pontic continuance. Recent studies<ref>Brami (2019), ''Anatolia: from the origins of agriculture to the spread of Neolithic economies''</ref><ref>Ulas et al (2024), ''Drawing diffusion patterns of Neolithic agriculture in Anatolia''</ref>, furthermore, point to a total farming economy by the Zagros around 6,000 BC, which tempts an older dating for a Transitional Dialect such as Aryan.
Since Lazaridis et al's paper<ref name=Lazaridis>Lazaridis et alii (2022); ''The genetic history of the Southern Arc: a bridge between West Asia and Europe''</ref>, absence of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern%20hunter-gatherer Eastern European Hunter-Gatherer] (EHG) ancestry in the Anatolian component of the Indo-European speaking populations has suggested a caucasian homeleand for earlier stages of PIE rather than a pre-Yamnaya pontic continuance. Recent studies<ref>Brami (2019), ''Anatolia: from the origins of agriculture to the spread of Neolithic economies''</ref><ref>Ulas et al (2024), ''Drawing diffusion patterns of Neolithic agriculture in Anatolia''</ref>, furthermore, point to a total farming economy by the Zagros around 6,000 BC, which tempts an older dating for a Transitional Dialect such as Aryan.


==Phonology==
==Phonology==
Line 2,654: Line 2,654:
|
|
|}
|}
*The most promiment feature of the Aryan inventory is the presence of laryngeals [...] it possessess 7 in total: <''*h''><sub>0</sub> /ʔ/, <''*h''><sub>1</sub> /h/, <''*h''><sub>2</sub> /ħ/, <''*h''><sub>3</sub> /x/, <''*h''><sub>4</sub> /ɦ/, <''*h''><sub>5</sub> /ʕ/, <''*h''><sub>6</sub> /ɣ/


===Vowels===
===Vowels===
Line 2,741: Line 2,743:


[...]
[...]
DILUVIAN PARTICLES ... -n (gen), -pʰa (dat)
When inflected, lemmas become obliques (weakened).
masc/fem | neut in adjectives
fem masc/neut in verbs




Line 3,061: 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 3,067: Line 3,081:
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;"
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;"
! rowspan="3" |
! rowspan="3" |
! colspan="12" | PRONOUN DECLENSION
! colspan="12" | PERSONAL PRONOUN DECLENSION
|-
|-
! colspan="3" | Singular
! colspan="3" | Singular
Line 3,088: Line 3,102:
|-
|-
! Nominative
! Nominative
| *aiǵṓn || *tū́ || *aíh<sub>0</sub>i<br>*aī́h<sub>0</sub><br>*aíts || *ōi̯ṓn  || *ūi̯ū́ || *aī́<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
| *h<sub>5</sub>ih<sub>1</sub>ṓn || *tū́ ~ *táu || *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) || *ím<br>*íh<sub>0</sub>m<br>*íts || *noh<sub>0</sub>(m) || *i̯uh<sub>0</sub>(m) || *aím,<br>*aíh<sub>0</sub>m,<br>*aíts || *nsh<sub>0</sub>(m) || *u̯sh<sub>0</sub>(m) || *ísm<br>*íh<sub>0</sub>sm<br>*ís || *nah<sub>0</sub>(m) || *u̯ah<sub>0</sub>(m) || *íam<br>*íh<sub>0</sub>am<br>*ía
| *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
| *ni̯a || *tu̯i̯a || *ítsi̯a<br>*íh<sub>0</sub>tsi̯a<br>*ítsi̯a || *noi̯a || *i̯ui̯a || *aítsi̯a,<br>*aíh<sub>0</sub>tsi̯a,<br>*aítsi̯a || *nsi̯a(m) || *u̯si̯a(m) || *ítsi̯am<br>*íh<sub>0</sub>tsi̯am<br>*ítsi̯am || *nai̯a || *u̯ai̯a || *íai̯a<br>*íh<sub>0</sub>ai̯a<br>*íai̯a
| *ni̯a || *tu̯i̯a || *itsi̯a<br>*ih<sub>0</sub>tsi̯a<br>*itsi̯a || *noi̯a || *i̯ui̯a || *aitsi̯a,<br>*aih<sub>0</sub>tsi̯a,<br>*aitsi̯a || *nsi̯a(m) || *u̯si̯a(m) || *itsi̯am<br>*ih<sub>0</sub>tsi̯am<br>*itsi̯am || *nai̯a || *u̯ai̯a || *iai̯a<br>*ih<sub>0</sub>ai̯a<br>*iai̯a
|-
|-
! Locative
! Locative
| *ni || *tu̯i || *ítsi<br>*íh<sub>0</sub>tsi<br>*ítsi || *noi || *i̯ui || *aítsi<br>*aíh<sub>0</sub>tsi<br>*aítsi || *nsi(m) || *u̯si(m) || *ítsim<br>*íh<sub>0</sub>tsim<br>*ítsim || *nai || *u̯ai || *íai<br>*íh<sub>0</sub>ai<br>*íai
| *ni || *tu̯i || *itsi<br>*ih<sub>0</sub>tsi<br>*itsi || *noi || *i̯ui || *aitsi<br>*aih<sub>0</sub>tsi<br>*aitsi || *nsi(m) || *u̯si(m) || *itsim<br>*ih<sub>0</sub>tsim<br>*itsim || *nai || *u̯ai || *iai<br>*ih<sub>0</sub>ai<br>*iai
|-
|-
! Dative
! Dative
| *nai̯ || *tu̯ai̯ || *íai̯<br>*íh<sub>0</sub>ai̯<br>*íai̯ || *noai̯ || *i̯uai̯ || *aíai̯<br>*aíh<sub>0</sub>ai̯<br>*aíai̯ || *nsai̯(m)  || *u̯sai̯(m) || *ísai̯(m)<br>*íh<sub>0</sub>sai̯<br>*ísai̯(m) || *naai̯ || *u̯aai̯ || *íaai̯<br>*íh<sub>0</sub>aai̯<br>*íaai̯
| *nai̯ || *tu̯ai̯ || *iai̯<br>*ih<sub>0</sub>ai̯<br>*iai̯ || *noai̯ || *i̯uai̯ || *aiai̯<br>*aih<sub>0</sub>ai̯<br>*aiai̯ || *nsai̯(m)  || *u̯sai̯(m) || *isai̯(m)<br>*ih<sub>0</sub>sai̯(m)<br>*isai̯(m) || *naai̯ || *u̯aai̯ || *iaai̯<br>*ih<sub>0</sub>aai̯<br>*iaai̯
|-
|-
|}
|}


'''reflexive pronoun'''
*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


etymology
compare the translation for "my man"


*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. ''*íai̯'' "to him" (Aryan) ⇒ ''*āi̯'' "to him" ⇒ ''*h<sub>1</sub>esmōy'' "to him").
''*nh0(m)ás h0naī́r'' (A) > ''*h1mós h2nḗr'' (PIE) > ''ἐμός ἀνήρ'' (G)
**Vide the genitive plural of the third-person:
 
***''*ítsi̯am'' (Aryan) > ''*éysom'' (PIE) ⇒ ''eum'' (Latin)
 
**The PIE emphatic''*h<sub>1</sub>eǵHóm'' is more archaic than ''*h₁eǵH'', as Homeric Greek ''ἐγών'' and Sanskrit ''अहम्'' suggest. The primordial form of ''*aiǵṓn'' (PIE ''*h<sub>1</sub>eǵHóm'') is ''ˈʕɨ̀ː-ɔː'' (Codex), which would regularly yield ''*aíō'', yet it is observed that in Aryan the consonant <''*ǵ''> is inserted, plus the affixation of <''*n''>, a borrowing from Diluvian ''nao'' "I".
 
***Thus another sense was rendered, the emphatic particle ''*-om'' (PIE).
-as -ah0 -am | -aī -ah0ī -aī
*The nasal in ''*aiǵṓn'' "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.
-ias -i | -īas īs
**This sound change affected all other inflections of the first person singular.
-h0i -ih0 -its | -h0ias -ih0as -itsas
***e.g. the Aryan form ''*nh<sub>0</sub>(m)'' "me" became ''*mh<sub>0</sub>'', then PIE ''*me''.
 
*The dual is formed by erasing sounds of the singular, then reduplicating it (e.g. ''*aiǵṓn'' ⇒ ''*ōi̯ṓn''; ''*tū́'' ⇒ ''*ūi̯ū́''; ''*aíh<sub>0</sub>i'' ⇒ ''*aī́''), while the plural is formed by erasing the reduplication of the dual, then adding the serial particle ''*-s-'' (e.g. ''*ōi̯ṓn'' ⇒ ''*ṓns''; ''*ūi̯ū́'' ⇒ ''*ū́s''; ''*aī́'' ⇒ ''*aī́s''), and the collective simply does the latter but with the suffix ''*-a'' (e.g. ''*ōi̯ṓn'' ⇒ ''*ṓna''; ''*ūi̯ū́'' ⇒ ''*ū́a''; ''*aī́'' ⇒ ''*aía''). Medial ''*i̯'' ~ ''*u̯'' is inserted to avoid diphthongs between reduplicated vowels, and ''*ts'' is applied in all other cases when two bordering vowels are similar.
 
**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)).
====Reflexive Pronouns====
*In Aryan, third-person pronouns possess a shorter form when complemented by a noun (e.g. ''*aíh<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.
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;"
***e.g. ''*h<sub>0</sub>í'' "he" ⇒ ''*éy'' "this/he"; ''*íh<sub>0</sub>'' "she" ⇒ ''*íh<sub>2</sub>'' "this/she"; ''*íts'' "it" ⇒ ''*íd'' "this/it".
! rowspan="2" |
! colspan="4" | REFLEXIVE PRONOUN DECLENSION
|-
! Singular
! Dual
! Plural
! Collective
|-
! Nominative
| *tsū́r ~ *tsáur || *ūi̯ū́r || ū́rs || *ū́ra
|-
! Accusative
| *su̯h<sub>0</sub> || *ruh<sub>0</sub> || *u̯rsh<sub>0</sub> || *u̯rah<sub>0</sub>
|-
! Genitive
| *su̯i̯a || *rui̯a || *u̯rsi̯a || *u̯rai̯a
|-
! Locative
| *su̯i || *rui || *u̯rsi || *u̯rai
|-
! Dative
| *su̯ai̯ || *ruai̯ || *u̯rsai̯ || *u̯raai̯
|-
|}
 
*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.


====Demonstrative Pronouns====
====Demonstrative Pronouns====
Line 3,158: Line 3,219:
|-
|-
! Locative
! Locative
| *tai || *tah<sub>0</sub>i || *tai || *atai || *atah<sub>0</sub>i || *atai || *tasi || *taih<sub>0</sub>si || *tasi || *taai || *tah<sub>0</sub>ai || *taai
| *tai || *tah<sub>0</sub>i || *tai || *atai || *atah<sub>0</sub>i || *atai || *tasi || *tah<sub>0</sub>si || *tasi || *taai || *tah<sub>0</sub>ai || *taai
|-
|-
! Dative
! Dative
Line 3,182: Line 3,243:




DILUVIAN PARTICLES ... -n (gen), -pʰa (dat)
 
When inflected, lemmas become obliques (weakened).
 
masc/fem | neut in adjectives
fem masc/neut in verbs
h0tā́a > h1etṓa > tóy
h0tā́a > h1etṓa > tóy
táa > téa > teh2
táa > téa > teh2
h0 may become h1 as <e> or h2 as <a>
h0 may become h1 as <e> or h2 as <a>
*aī́h0i, *aī́h0, *aíts > *h0i, *ih0, *its
*h5ílias, *h5íli > *lis, li
specialized/not
as this segment results in 6 possibilities
ʕih > ~  h5ī ~ aī ~ aih1 ~  h5ih1 ~ ai ~ i
*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===
===Verb===
[...]
====Aspect====
The Origin of Aspect in the Indo-European Languages  Oswald Szemerényi
====?====


''*gaínōm'', ''*gígnmi'' "I generate"
''*gaínōm'', ''*gígnmi'' "I generate"
Line 3,387: Line 3,480:
[...]
[...]


By examining a large corpus of hellenic texts, Jakob Wackernagel stated in his essay how enclitics in Greek sentences are mostly located in the second position<ref name=Wackernagel>Wackernagel, Jakob (1892), [https://archive.org/details/indogermanischef01berluoft/page/332/mode/2up ''Über ein Gesetz der indogermanischen Worstellung'']</ref>. For example, he contrasted specifically the accusative of the first-person pronoun in the isolated (''ἐμέ'') and enclitic (''με'') forms:
By examining a large corpus of hellenic texts, Jakob Wackernagel stated in his essay how enclitics in Greek sentences are mostly located in the second position<ref name=Wackernagel>Jakob Wackernagel (1892); [https://archive.org/details/indogermanischef01berluoft/page/332/mode/2up ''Über ein Gesetz der indogermanischen Worstellung'']</ref>. For example, he contrasted specifically the accusative of the first-person pronoun in the isolated (''ἐμέ'') and enclitic (''με'') forms:


<blockquote>Besonders belehrend sind aber die paar Inschriften mit ''ἐμέ''. Zweimal steht dieses ''ἐμέ'' auch an zweiter Stelle: IGA. 20,8 (Korinth) ''᾿Απολλόδωρος ἐμὲ ἀνέθ[ηκε]'' und Gazette archéol. 1888 S. 168 ''Μεναΐδας ἐμ’ ἐποί(ϝ)εςε Χαρόπ(ι)''. Aber sechsmal steht ''ἐμέ'' anders: Klein S.39 ''Ἐξηκίας ἔγραψε κἀπόηςε ἐμέ'' (Vers?) 5. 40 ''Ἑξηκίας ἔγραψε κἀ(ι)ποίης᾽ ἐμέ'' (Vers?). S.''ΟῚ Χαριταῖος ἐποίηςεν ἔμ᾽ εὖ''. 8. 82 ''Ἑρμογένης ἐποίηςεν ἐμέ''. 8.85 ''Ἑρμογένης ἐποίηςεν ἐνέ'' (liess ''ἐμέ''). S. 85 ''Σακωνίδης ἔγραψεν ἐμέ''. Diese Stellen zeigen, dass die regelmässige Stellung von ''με'' hinter dem ersten Wort nicht zufällig und dass sie durch seine enklitische Natur bedingt ist. [Vgl. noch die Nachträge.]</blockquote>
<blockquote>Besonders belehrend sind aber die paar Inschriften mit ''ἐμέ''. Zweimal steht dieses ''ἐμέ'' auch an zweiter Stelle: IGA. 20,8 (Korinth) ''᾿Απολλόδωρος ἐμὲ ἀνέθ[ηκε]'' und Gazette archéol. 1888 S. 168 ''Μεναΐδας ἐμ’ ἐποί(ϝ)εςε Χαρόπ(ι)''. Aber sechsmal steht ''ἐμέ'' anders: Klein S.39 ''Ἐξηκίας ἔγραψε κἀπόηςε ἐμέ'' (Vers?) 5. 40 ''Ἑξηκίας ἔγραψε κἀ(ι)ποίης᾽ ἐμέ'' (Vers?). S.''ΟῚ Χαριταῖος ἐποίηςεν ἔμ᾽ εὖ''. 8. 82 ''Ἑρμογένης ἐποίηςεν ἐμέ''. 8.85 ''Ἑρμογένης ἐποίηςεν ἐνέ'' (liess ''ἐμέ''). S. 85 ''Σακωνίδης ἔγραψεν ἐμέ''. Diese Stellen zeigen, dass die regelmässige Stellung von ''με'' hinter dem ersten Wort nicht zufällig und dass sie durch seine enklitische Natur bedingt ist. [Vgl. noch die Nachträge.]</blockquote>
Line 3,395: Line 3,488:
A riddle in German:
A riddle in German:
: ''Der Vater ist noch nicht geboren,''
: ''Der Vater ist noch nicht geboren,''
: ''der Sohn ist schon auf dem Dache.''<ref name=Aarne>Anti Aarne; [https://digitalisate.sub.uni-hamburg.de/recherche/detail?tx_dlf%5Bdouble%5D=0&tx_dlf%5Bid%5D=48996&tx_dlf%5Bpage%5D=32&tx_dlf_navigation%5Baction%5D=main&tx_dlf_navigation%5Bcontroller%5D=Navigation&cHash=7cd75d7f3224787416091debb4db9c9a Vergleichende Rätselforschungen] (1918-1920)</ref>
: ''der Sohn ist schon auf dem Dache.''<ref name=Aarne>Anti Aarne (1918-1920); [https://digitalisate.sub.uni-hamburg.de/recherche/detail?tx_dlf%5Bdouble%5D=0&tx_dlf%5Bid%5D=48996&tx_dlf%5Bpage%5D=32&tx_dlf_navigation%5Baction%5D=main&tx_dlf_navigation%5Bcontroller%5D=Navigation&cHash=7cd75d7f3224787416091debb4db9c9a Vergleichende Rätselforschungen]</ref>
:: The father is not yet born,
:: The father is not yet born,
:: the son is already on the roof.
:: the son is already on the roof.
Line 3,403: Line 3,496:
: ''noire est la semmence,''
: ''noire est la semmence,''
: ''l'homme qui le semme,''
: ''l'homme qui le semme,''
: ''est de très grand science.''<ref name=Aarne>Anti Aarne; [https://digitalisate.sub.uni-hamburg.de/recherche/detail?tx_dlf%5Bdouble%5D=0&tx_dlf%5Bid%5D=48996&tx_dlf%5Bpage%5D=32&tx_dlf_navigation%5Baction%5D=main&tx_dlf_navigation%5Bcontroller%5D=Navigation&cHash=7cd75d7f3224787416091debb4db9c9a Vergleichende Rätselforschungen] (1918-1920)</ref>
: ''est de très grand science.''<ref name=Aarne>Anti Aarne (1918-1920); [https://digitalisate.sub.uni-hamburg.de/recherche/detail?tx_dlf%5Bdouble%5D=0&tx_dlf%5Bid%5D=48996&tx_dlf%5Bpage%5D=32&tx_dlf_navigation%5Baction%5D=main&tx_dlf_navigation%5Bcontroller%5D=Navigation&cHash=7cd75d7f3224787416091debb4db9c9a Vergleichende Rätselforschungen]</ref>
:: White is the field,
:: White is the field,
:: black is the seed,
:: black is the seed,
Line 3,447: Line 3,540:


какой-то сказал
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 ...
Ja vot tut ...
Line 3,454: Line 3,552:
==References==
==References==


Einleitung in die Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft (Pott)


hermann hirt Indogermanische Grammatik
Franz Bopp
Schleicher
Calvert Watkins
Jochem Schindler
Helmut Rix
Kuryłowicz
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


"Some remarks about the personal pronouns of indo-european", Kenneth Shields (1986)
"Some remarks about the personal pronouns of indo-european", Kenneth Shields (1998)


Bergaige, Abel; Du Rôle de la dérivation dans la déclinaison indo-européenne: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k57721099.texteImage#
Bergaige, Abel; Du Rôle de la dérivation dans la déclinaison indo-européenne: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k57721099.texteImage#
Line 3,465: Line 3,596:
>
>


Einleitung in die Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft (Pott)
 




Line 3,483: Line 3,614:
*Priscianus (6th Century), ''Institutiones Grammaticae''
*Priscianus (6th Century), ''Institutiones Grammaticae''
*Sütterlin, Ludwig (1908), ''Die Lehre von der Lautbildung''
*Sütterlin, Ludwig (1908), ''Die Lehre von der Lautbildung''
'''*Szemerényi, Oswald (1970), ''Einführung in die vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft'''''
 
 
 
 
*Sommerstein, Alan (1973), ''Sound Pattern of Ancient Greek''  
*Sommerstein, Alan (1973), ''Sound Pattern of Ancient Greek''  
*Thomasus Erfordiensis (13th Century), ''Tractatus de Modis Significandi seu Grammatica Speculativa''  
*Thomasus Erfordiensis (13th Century), ''Tractatus de Modis Significandi seu Grammatica Speculativa''  
Veno
2,710

edits

Retrieved from "https://linguifex.com/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/456132...461782"

Navigation menu