2,711
edits
Aryan: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Personal Pronouns
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 3,141: | Line 3,141: | ||
**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. | **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. the Aryan form ''*nh<sub>0</sub>(m)'' "me" became ''*mh<sub>0</sub>'', then PIE ''*me''). | ***This sound change affected all other inflections of the first person singular (e.g. the Aryan form ''*nh<sub>0</sub>(m)'' "me" became ''*mh<sub>0</sub>'', then PIE ''*me''). | ||
*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. | *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 ''*tā́u''. | ||
**In PIE, the pronoun ''*túH'' is extremely conservative, found as ''tu'' in Latin, ''σύ'' in Greek, and ''त्वम्'' in Sanskrit, for example. | **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''). | *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. | ||