Some Thoughts on the Structure of PIE Personal Pronouns and Related Forms.
While doing some PIE reconstruction stuff, I started working on the following. None of it is finished, polished, or particularly well thought through -- not sure if I will finish it. Anyway, TL;DR my musings -- and errors -- follow:
(1) Thematic Elements in Independent and Enclitic Personal Pronouns. First and Second Person PIE pronouns used two major thematic formants to distinguish person: (1) /*m-/ v. /*t-/ and (2) /*(-)u̯-/ v. /*(-)i̯-/. These formants were heavily utilized by daughter languages and often spread through the pronominal paradigms via analogy.
(1)(a)
/*m-/. An /*m-/ formant occurs in
non-nominative 1st sg forms. Further, this formant is echoed in the Athematic and copular 1st sg. verbal ending: /*-mi / and, perhaps, in the 1st plur /*-mes~mos/. As the verbal forms typically echo the oblique cases rather than the nominative, the latter suggests 1st plur obliques were formed in /*n̥s-/ < /**m̥s/. Beyond simple analogy, such a reconstruction
might help explain remnant /*(-)m-/ in forms such as:
Armenian 1st nom plural: /mekʰ/ < /*m-es/, 1st acc plur /mez/ < /?**me-ǵʱ-V/, 1st gen plur /mer/ (C.f. Armenian singulars, which do not have /m-/)
1st plural enclitic Tocharian A: /-m/ and Tocharian B: /-me/ (non-enclitics generalized the nominative) assuming this form generalized out of the first personal to all other plurals
The /*n̥s-/ < /**m̥s/ change appears early and general after referencing Hittite, which shows oblique plurals in /ants-/. Similarly, Luvian forms show: < ānts-a >, <ants-antsa> (reduplicated?), etc. At least in Anatolian, the affricate /-ts-/ even more strongly suggests a POA assimilation such as /*ants-/ < /**m̥t(s)-/. Anatolian /-ts-/ v. general PIE /*-s-/ in these forms is itself rather curious.
(1)(b)
/*t-/. A /*t-/ occurs in
nominative and non-nominative 2nd singular forms. The non-nominative forms are generally unremarkable -- even Classical Armenian /kʰ-/ forms reflect < /?*tɣ(ʷ)-/ < /*tu̯-/. It should be stressed that the thematic correspondence between nominative and non-nominative /*t-/ is very unusual amongst PIE pronouns and demonstratives as generally reconstructed. Perhaps late formed nominative singular might have once been /**uH-/ before a /*t-/ was analogized onto it from the oblique forms.
The non-nominative /*t-/ is also reflected in athematic verbal singular /*-si/ (Beekes, Sihler, Fortson, Ringe), which appears to be < /**-ti/ given active Hittite: /-si/ and /-ti/, Tocharian A: /-t/, Tocharian B: /-t(o)/, and a variety of /*-t(H)-/ forms throughout PIE in non-present-active. Dual showed /*-t-/ forms; Sihler: /*-tH1es/, Beekes: /-tHVs/, Fortson: /*-to-/, Ringe: /*-tes/. Plural forms show: /*-te/ (Sihler, Ringe, Fortson) or /*-tH1e/ (Beekes).
Note also that both nominative and non-nominative /*t-/ frequently take /-(e)u̯-/ extensions – i.e. the other second person formant. The nominative may have been prefixed /**t-/ to earlier forms, either 2nd plur thematic /**-i-/ (Anatolian) or a thematic /**-u(H)-/ stem shared with the dual and plural: /**-uH-/ (as seen in other PIE languages).
(1)(c)
/*u̯-/. The /*u̯-/ formant pervades the first person, particularly in the plural and dual but also extending into the singular in Anatolian and Tocharian. /*u̯-/ is most apparent in the nominative plural forms such as Tocharian B: /wes/ and Gothic /weis/ < /*u̯-ei-/ (Beekes, Sihler and M&A). Hittite forms suggest /*u̯-VHs/ paralleling 2nd plural nominative, while Tocharian forms appear enclitic in origin. In the dual, /*u̯-/ also characterizes the nominative in forms such as Tocharian B: /wene/ and Gothic: /wit/ < Sihler /*we-H1-/ but c.f. M&A /*nó-H1-/, the latter of which appears to be an oblique. Through analogy, Gothic obliques also oppose 1st dual /uŋ-/ v. an apparently later developed thematic 2nd dual /iŋ-/.
Note also, unlike most PIE verb forms, Hittite takes a 1st plural in /-
ue-ni/ (/-ni/ is also suffixed to the otherwise normal 2nd plural /-te-ni/). The Hittite forms match well with reconstructions of the dual (showing thematic / u̯/!): Sihler & Ringe: /*-wos/, Beekes: /*u̯es /, and Fortson: /*-we-/. Perhaps the Proto-Anatolian plurals had a plural form in line with the dual /-w-/ (odd that these Anatolian forms seem to follow the nominative rather than the oblique formant, perhaps explaining the odd /-hi/ forms as parallel to ? /**
H(e)-uḰ/ > /*a-uk/ -> /uk/.
Of particular interest are Hittite and Tocharian 1st Singular Nominative and Accusatives. Hittite Nominative/
uk/ and accusative /am(m)
uk/ v. the 2nd nominative /ts
ik(a)/ < /*t
ika/ (showing 2nd thematic /-i-/!) and the unremarkable/analogized 2nd accusative / t
uk(a)/. The highly aberrant Tocharian Nominative/Accusative forms show:
Basic form: /*N(?)-uK-/, here N is similar or identical to the formant producing Enclitic A: /-ɲi/ and B: /-ɲə/), /*-u-/ is a 1st person formant, and /K-/ is a demonstrative ("I here"). It seems that an enclitic /*n-/ form was prefixed to or merged with the case-form of the non-enclitic first person pronouns. The /n-/ enclitic seems odd comparatively; however, it logically seems to arise by dissimilation from the general plural enclitic of Proto-Tocharian in /-m-/ -- itself, perhaps, picked from the 1st plural.
Tocharian A: Masc. /nɨʃ/ < (?via de-palatalizing dissimilation or by analogy with non-palatal demonstrative nominatives) /?*ɲə- u̯çɨ/ < /**ne+uḰV(s)/and Fem. /ɲuk/ [ɲəu̯k] < /*ɲə-u̯ko/ < /**ne+uḰā/ (/*-eu-/ would have produced /-o-/)
Tocharian B: /ɲəç, ɲɨç/ [?ɲəçə, ɲɨçə] < /?*ɲə́çə ~ *ɲəçə / < /**ne+uKe/
C.f. Toch. A. enc. /-ɲi/, M. 1st Sing Gen: /ɲi/, and F. 1st Sing. Gen: /nāɲi/; Toch B. enc. /-ɲə/, 1st Sing. Gen: /ɲi/
A discussion of /*u̯-/ would not be complete without considering 2nd person plural obliques in /*us-/ and enclitics in /*u̯oHs /. These forms have developed /*(-)u-/ as part of the pronoun stem. C.f. Sihler’s representative reconstruction: nominative: /*y-ūs, y-uHs/ v. accusative /*us-mé/, enclitic /*wōs/, reflexive /*s-u̯é/.
(1)(d)
/*i̯-/. Similarly, the /*i̯-/ formant is found in the second person. It is most notable in the plural nominative reconstructed as: /*i̯-uH/ (Beekes), /*y-ūs, y-uHs/ (Sihler), and /*y-uHs/ (M&A) but C.f. also /*(u)swé/ (M&A). It appears in dual Tocharian B /y-ene/ and Gothic /y-ut/ and /i-ŋkʷ-/. As noted above, it appears in Hittite: /tsik(a)/.
(2) /*-Ḱ(-)/ extensions of PIE personal pronouns. Occurrences of /*-K(-)/ in PIE personal pronouns represent fossilized occurrences of the PIE demonstrative (?deictic adverb) /*ḱi/ (Beekes) -- perhaps /*ḱ(V)i/.
Background: 1st Sg Nom Personal Pronoun. PIE pronouns typically show a /*-Ḱ-/ formant in first person singular personal pronouns. This element has been reconstructed as follows:
Beekes PIE: /*H1eǵ-(oH/Hom)/;
Sihler PIE: /*eǵoH/;
M&A Pie: /H1eǵ-/.
Such reconstructions with /-ǵ-/ fit well for forms such as Gothic /i
k/ < /*é
gʲ/ and, as traditionally reconstructed, Sanskrit /a
ham/ < /*H1e
ǵHom/ (Beekes) among other languages.
On the other hand, a /*-ǵ-/ reconstruction does not necessarily fit well with the following forms:
Early Hittite: /uk/, latter Hittite /am(m)uk/ < /?*uḱ/;
Classical Armenian: /es/ < /*eḱ/;
Arguably, Tocharian A: Masc. /nɨʃ/, Fem. /ɲuk/ and Tocharian B: /ɲəç, ɲɨç/ (note, in particular, the gender distinction in Tocharian A); and
More tentatively, Indo-Iranian forms could be reconstructed as /*HéḱH3Vm/
/*-Ḱ(-)/ Elsewhere.
First Person Singular: Classical Armenian: accusative /z-is/ < later /*?z-/ + PIE /*-ikʲ/; Tocharian A & B accusatives as mentioned above; Hittite: /am(m)u-k/ < /*H1m-ukʲ/. Also, Germanic forms such as Gothic accusative /mik/ < /*mék~mik/ (Ringe) < /méǵ/. Venetic forms as well?
First Person Dual: paradigmatically for non-nominative Germanic duals such as Gothic accusative /uŋkis/ < /*uŋk-/ (Ringe) < /?*n̥̄ǵ-/. C.f. Sihler. PIE: /*n̥H1-wé/ and Toch B:/wene/.
Second Person Singular: Hittite, Germanic, and maybe Venetic (though analogy seems more likely in that case).
Second Person Dual: paradigmatically for non-nominative Germanic duals such as Gothic accusative /iŋkʷis/ < /*iŋkʷ-/ (Ringe) < PIE Dual/Plural 2nd person formant /*i̯-/ + /?*-ŋǵ-/ by analogy with 1st person dual. C.f. Sihler. PIE: /*uH1-wé/ and Toch B:/yene/, which also shows /i̯-/ + analogy with the first dual.