2,710
edits
Aryan: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Personal Pronouns [...]
| Line 3,112: | Line 3,112: | ||
*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". | *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''>. | **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. | **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" ( | ***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''. | *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>. | **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>. | ||
| Line 3,121: | Line 3,121: | ||
***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". | ***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). | *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)" ( | **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)" (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 the same spot in the dual of the 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. ( | **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)). | ||