Also there's possibly the Etr. neuter plural -chva and IE collective *eh2 (which later became the feminine).WeepingElf wrote:The pronoun in question is Etr. mi, Geo. me (1sg.); the case marker is Etr. -s (earlier -si), Geo. -(i)s (genitive).MrKrov wrote:So, uh, which ones? Out of mere curiousity.WeepingElf wrote:The morphological similarities boil down to just one pronoun and one case ending, and that's simply not enough to rule out chance resemblance. The same pronoun and the same case ending are also found in Kartvelian -
WeepingElf's Europic thread
OK, thanks for the feedback!WeepingElf wrote:I couldn't read that file (and many others he has produced) because I don't have the right software on my machineTaylorS wrote:So I take you you reject Glen Gordon's Indo-Aegean hypothesis?WeepingElf wrote:Bump again.
Research on the Europic hypothesis keeps me (somewhat) busy. Currently, I am writing a preliminary grammar sketch of Proto-Europic, based on internal reconstruction from PIE. (There is too little known about Hesperic to be of much help here.) Another project is cataloguing and mapping the Old European Hydronymy - I haven't seen a good map of it anywhere yet, so I'll take Krahe's data and piece one together all by myself.
On the topic of Etruscan, I no longer see any reason to connect it to Europic. The morphological similarities boil down to just one pronoun and one case ending, and that's simply not enough to rule out chance resemblance. The same pronoun and the same case ending are also found in Kartvelian - which, like Etruscan, is otherwise so unlike IE that a relationship (at least, one closer than Uralic) seems very unlikely (there are some vague resemblances in phonology between Kartvelian and IE - but not Etruscan - , but that may be areal, and doesn't really say anything about genealogy). Also, lexical cognates appear to be completely absent.
But what I have seen of his hypothesis is utterly unconvincing. He doesn't establish an IE-Etruscan connection, he assumes it. He often rejects the mainstream scholarly opinion on the meanings of Etruscan words, assigning them different meanings based on similarities with IE words - and then adduces the "cognate pairs" obtained that way as "evidence" for Etruscan being related to IE. That's circular reasoning.
It also doesn't help that Glen Gordon behaves pretty much the same way as Octaviano. I remember him from the Nostratic-L mailing list before I withdrew from that list because it was full of crackpots. He accused his critics of ad hominem attacks, called the entire academic mainstream names, and even invoked comparisons with the Nazis. Eventually, he decided to withdraw from Nostratic-L and similar fora, and instead started ranting away on his blog. That alone does not falsify his hypothesis, but I have pointed out the main problems with it, and if someone acts up that way, you can take it as a sure sign that you are dealing with a crackpot.
The agentive endings look cognate, but the patientive endings show no visible connection to the IE ones (singular *-h2a, *-th2a, *-e). In fact, they look like the stative (or whatever) endings in Glen Gordon's reconstruction of Nostratic, which appear to be based on Dravidian. In my opinion, there is no reason to assume a relationship between IE and Dravidian.TaylorS wrote:BTW, you can see the cognate-ness between the PIE active-stative verbal endings (or objective-subjective as Gordon calls them, something I disagree with since what he is describing is just an active-statve variant) in Alpic.
Here is my current verbal ending system for Alpic:
Code: Select all
AGREEMENT | Agentive S | Patientive S | Reflexive S | --------------------------------------------------------- 1SG | -m | -ch | -gu | --------------------------------------------------------- 2SG | -t | -n | -du | --------------------------------------------------------- 3SG | -s | -Ø | -su | --------------------------------------------------------- 1PL | -me | -he | -ge | --------------------------------------------------------- 2PL | -te | -ne | -de | --------------------------------------------------------- 3PL | -se | -je | -sje | --------------------------------------------------------- Impersonal | -p | -pa | ---------------------------------------------------------
OK, here are Alpic's revised verbal endings:
Just to note, <ch> represents coda /x/, which is <h> elsewhere.
and here is the ending of Proto-Danubian, Alpic's ancestor, in X-SAMPA. P-D was spoken around 6000 BCE
The 3rd Person ending is derived from a demonstrative. The plural forms developed from the addition of the plural morpheme *-ta, cognate with the Uralic and early PIE plural morpheme. Then the reflexive endings developed when the Agentive endings were attached to the Patientive endings. Then syncope in unstressed syllables, analogy, final consonant erosion, and assimilation go to work.
Code: Select all
AGREEMENT | Agentive S | Patientive S | Reflexive S |
---------------------------------------------------------
1SG | -m | -ch | -gi |
---------------------------------------------------------
2SG | -t | -ta | -tji |
---------------------------------------------------------
3SG | -s | -Ø | -si |
---------------------------------------------------------
1PL | -me | -ha | -ge |
---------------------------------------------------------
2PL | -te | -ka | -de |
---------------------------------------------------------
3PL | -se | -da | -se |
---------------------------------------------------------
Impersonal | -p | -pa |
---------------------------------------------------------
and here is the ending of Proto-Danubian, Alpic's ancestor, in X-SAMPA. P-D was spoken around 6000 BCE
Code: Select all
AGREEMENT | Agentive S | Patientive S |
----------------------------------------
1 | -m@i | -ka |
----------------------------------------
2 | -t@i | -t@ka |
----------------------------------------
3 | -sai | -Ø |
----------------------------------------
I'm hope I'm not straying too far off topic by giving my own reconstruction for the Proto-Nostratic (or as I prefer to call it, Proto-Siberian) personal pronouns. I'll use V to stand for any vowel. There appears to have been some kind of ablaut which has obscured the vowels (perhaps something like *a when bound and *i when unbound).
Active:
1. *phV
2. *sV
3. *tV
Stative:
1. *khV
2. *tV
3. *i
Oblique:
1. *NV (N is the velar nasal)
2. *nV
3. *sV
The 3rd person pronouns all function as demonstratives or deictics. I also assume that as a prosodic feature, all unbound pronouns were pre-glottalized.
My 1P reconstrcution of *phV might look strange, but it actually explains a number of otherwise problematic details. I do however assume that when the unbound pronoun was extended with *-n the *ph assimilated to *m. In unassimilated form the following changes took place:
1) *ph > *w in IE, Uralic, Kartvelian (and Yukaghir if it's related)
2) *ph > *b in Altaic
3) *ph > *v in Chukchi-Kamchatkan and Eskimo-Aleut
Uralic has completely eliminated the 1P forms in *w in favor of those in *m, but ever other language preserves traces of both (Altaic is most transparent in this regard). The oblique pronouns are the worst preserved, but traces are found in most, if not all, of the languages.
What's striking is that the oblique set is the same set that's reconstructed for Proto-Sino-Tibetan. I don't know if it's a weird coincidence, an areal effect, or if there's a deep genetic relationship there.
Active:
1. *phV
2. *sV
3. *tV
Stative:
1. *khV
2. *tV
3. *i
Oblique:
1. *NV (N is the velar nasal)
2. *nV
3. *sV
The 3rd person pronouns all function as demonstratives or deictics. I also assume that as a prosodic feature, all unbound pronouns were pre-glottalized.
My 1P reconstrcution of *phV might look strange, but it actually explains a number of otherwise problematic details. I do however assume that when the unbound pronoun was extended with *-n the *ph assimilated to *m. In unassimilated form the following changes took place:
1) *ph > *w in IE, Uralic, Kartvelian (and Yukaghir if it's related)
2) *ph > *b in Altaic
3) *ph > *v in Chukchi-Kamchatkan and Eskimo-Aleut
Uralic has completely eliminated the 1P forms in *w in favor of those in *m, but ever other language preserves traces of both (Altaic is most transparent in this regard). The oblique pronouns are the worst preserved, but traces are found in most, if not all, of the languages.
What's striking is that the oblique set is the same set that's reconstructed for Proto-Sino-Tibetan. I don't know if it's a weird coincidence, an areal effect, or if there's a deep genetic relationship there.
So the IE 1PL pronoun in *w- would have come from the bare *ph-, while the 1SG *mi would have come from *phn?Etherman wrote:I'm hope I'm not straying too far off topic by giving my own reconstruction for the Proto-Nostratic (or as I prefer to call it, Proto-Siberian) personal pronouns. I'll use V to stand for any vowel. There appears to have been some kind of ablaut which has obscured the vowels (perhaps something like *a when bound and *i when unbound).
Active:
1. *phV
2. *sV
3. *tV
Stative:
1. *khV
2. *tV
3. *i
Oblique:
1. *NV (N is the velar nasal)
2. *nV
3. *sV
The 3rd person pronouns all function as demonstratives or deictics. I also assume that as a prosodic feature, all unbound pronouns were pre-glottalized.
My 1P reconstrcution of *phV might look strange, but it actually explains a number of otherwise problematic details. I do however assume that when the unbound pronoun was extended with *-n the *ph assimilated to *m. In unassimilated form the following changes took place:
1) *ph > *w in IE, Uralic, Kartvelian (and Yukaghir if it's related)
2) *ph > *b in Altaic
3) *ph > *v in Chukchi-Kamchatkan and Eskimo-Aleut
Uralic has completely eliminated the 1P forms in *w in favor of those in *m, but ever other language preserves traces of both (Altaic is most transparent in this regard). The oblique pronouns are the worst preserved, but traces are found in most, if not all, of the languages.
What's striking is that the oblique set is the same set that's reconstructed for Proto-Sino-Tibetan. I don't know if it's a weird coincidence, an areal effect, or if there's a deep genetic relationship there.
Yeah, but it was probably *phina > *mina. This *-na suffix was a genitive marker (which implies that the stative pronouns were used in the genitive case). In some languages this suffix lost productivity but remained in fossilized forms. The paradigmatic alternation is seen most clearly in Altaic languages.TaylorS wrote:So the IE 1PL pronoun in *w- would have come from the bare *ph-, while the 1SG *mi would have come from *phn?
Tatar: min "I" bez "we"
Uzbek: men "I" biz "we"
Tuva: men "I", bis "we"
Middle Mongolian: bi "I" mino "mine"
Khalkha: bi "I" minij "mine"
Ordos: bi "I" mini "mine"
Udighe: bi "I" minti "we"
In Tungus-Manchu the -n is a plural marker (which also goes back to Proto-Nostratic).
- WeepingElf
- Smeric
- Posts: 1630
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:00 pm
- Location: Braunschweig, Germany
- Contact:
This alternation is the main reason why I believe in Altaic; while most of the other similarities between the Altaic languages can easily be ascribed to contact, the /b/~/m/ alternation in the first person pronouns is striking, and not easily explained by borrowing or convergence. The relationship between the three Altaic families, however, is not close; it may be as deep as that between IE and Uralic.Etherman wrote:Yeah, but it was probably *phina > *mina. This *-na suffix was a genitive marker (which implies that the stative pronouns were used in the genitive case). In some languages this suffix lost productivity but remained in fossilized forms. The paradigmatic alternation is seen most clearly in Altaic languages.TaylorS wrote:So the IE 1PL pronoun in *w- would have come from the bare *ph-, while the 1SG *mi would have come from *phn?
Tatar: min "I" bez "we"
Uzbek: men "I" biz "we"
Tuva: men "I", bis "we"
Middle Mongolian: bi "I" mino "mine"
Khalkha: bi "I" minij "mine"
Ordos: bi "I" mini "mine"
Udighe: bi "I" minti "we"
In Tungus-Manchu the -n is a plural marker (which also goes back to Proto-Nostratic).
Which languages do you consider related through your "Siberian", and what is your subgrouping like?
In my opinion, Europic is related to Uralo-Siberian (Uralic, Yukaghir, Chukotko-Kamchatkan, Eskimo-Aleut; as proposed by Michael Fortescue); this "Indo-Uralic" group (I should think of a better term for it) is about 10,000 years old and in turn more distantly related to Altaic. I call that "Mitian", after the characteristic shapes of the personal pronouns.
...brought to you by the Weeping Elf
Tha cvastam émi cvastam santham amal phelsa. -- Friedrich Schiller
ESTAR-3SG:P human-OBJ only human-OBJ true-OBJ REL-LOC play-3SG:A
Tha cvastam émi cvastam santham amal phelsa. -- Friedrich Schiller
ESTAR-3SG:P human-OBJ only human-OBJ true-OBJ REL-LOC play-3SG:A
What about "Euro-Siberian"?WeepingElf wrote:In my opinion, Europic is related to Uralo-Siberian (Uralic, Yukaghir, Chukotko-Kamchatkan, Eskimo-Aleut; as proposed by Michael Fortescue); this "Indo-Uralic" group (I should think of a better term for it)
Blog: audmanh.wordpress.com
Conlangs: Ronc Tyu | Buruya Nzaysa | Doayâu | Tmaśareʔ
Conlangs: Ronc Tyu | Buruya Nzaysa | Doayâu | Tmaśareʔ
I agree with this.WeepingElf wrote:This alternation is the main reason why I believe in Altaic; while most of the other similarities between the Altaic languages can easily be ascribed to contact, the /b/~/m/ alternation in the first person pronouns is striking, and not easily explained by borrowing or convergence. The relationship between the three Altaic families, however, is not close; it may be as deep as that between IE and Uralic.Etherman wrote:Yeah, but it was probably *phina > *mina. This *-na suffix was a genitive marker (which implies that the stative pronouns were used in the genitive case). In some languages this suffix lost productivity but remained in fossilized forms. The paradigmatic alternation is seen most clearly in Altaic languages.TaylorS wrote:So the IE 1PL pronoun in *w- would have come from the bare *ph-, while the 1SG *mi would have come from *phn?
Tatar: min "I" bez "we"
Uzbek: men "I" biz "we"
Tuva: men "I", bis "we"
Middle Mongolian: bi "I" mino "mine"
Khalkha: bi "I" minij "mine"
Ordos: bi "I" mini "mine"
Udighe: bi "I" minti "we"
In Tungus-Manchu the -n is a plural marker (which also goes back to Proto-Nostratic).
Which languages do you consider related through your "Siberian", and what is your subgrouping like?
In my opinion, Europic is related to Uralo-Siberian (Uralic, Yukaghir, Chukotko-Kamchatkan, Eskimo-Aleut; as proposed by Michael Fortescue); this "Indo-Uralic" group (I should think of a better term for it) is about 10,000 years old and in turn more distantly related to Altaic. I call that "Mitian", after the characteristic shapes of the personal pronouns.
Interestingly, IE and Altaic share an important feature, the lentition of final *t to *s, which then became *r_j (IIRC) in Proto-Altaic. This is why the Early PIE 2SG.ACTIVE ending and the Early PIE plural have an *s and not a *t.
- WeepingElf
- Smeric
- Posts: 1630
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:00 pm
- Location: Braunschweig, Germany
- Contact:
Yes, that's a good, handy name, and actually one I consider.cedh audmanh wrote:What about "Euro-Siberian"?WeepingElf wrote:In my opinion, Europic is related to Uralo-Siberian (Uralic, Yukaghir, Chukotko-Kamchatkan, Eskimo-Aleut; as proposed by Michael Fortescue); this "Indo-Uralic" group (I should think of a better term for it)
...brought to you by the Weeping Elf
Tha cvastam émi cvastam santham amal phelsa. -- Friedrich Schiller
ESTAR-3SG:P human-OBJ only human-OBJ true-OBJ REL-LOC play-3SG:A
Tha cvastam émi cvastam santham amal phelsa. -- Friedrich Schiller
ESTAR-3SG:P human-OBJ only human-OBJ true-OBJ REL-LOC play-3SG:A
- WeepingElf
- Smeric
- Posts: 1630
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:00 pm
- Location: Braunschweig, Germany
- Contact:
Yes. There are some instances where an IE *s corresponds to a Uralic *t, such as the 2sg. active ending and the plural marker. A parallel correspondence between IE *H (i.e., any laryngeal) and Uralic *k is also found, e.g. in the 1sg. stative ending.TaylorS wrote:Interestingly, IE and Altaic share an important feature, the lentition of final *t to *s, which then became *r_j (IIRC) in Proto-Altaic. This is why the Early PIE 2SG.ACTIVE ending and the Early PIE plural have an *s and not a *t.
...brought to you by the Weeping Elf
Tha cvastam émi cvastam santham amal phelsa. -- Friedrich Schiller
ESTAR-3SG:P human-OBJ only human-OBJ true-OBJ REL-LOC play-3SG:A
Tha cvastam émi cvastam santham amal phelsa. -- Friedrich Schiller
ESTAR-3SG:P human-OBJ only human-OBJ true-OBJ REL-LOC play-3SG:A
I think Tungus-Mongolian is about as old as Indo-Uralic, which makes Altaic (which includes Japanese and Korean, IMO) very deep.WeepingElf wrote:This alternation is the main reason why I believe in Altaic; while most of the other similarities between the Altaic languages can easily be ascribed to contact, the /b/~/m/ alternation in the first person pronouns is striking, and not easily explained by borrowing or convergence. The relationship between the three Altaic families, however, is not close; it may be as deep as that between IE and Uralic.
IE, Uralic, Kartvelian, Eskimo-Aleut, Chukchi-Kamchatkan, and Altaic. I'm warming up to the idea of including Yukaghir, but I'm not convinced that it's especially close to Uralic. Etruscan seems likely, but I don't know if they'll ever be enough evidence to demonstrate it.Which languages do you consider related through your "Siberian", and what is your subgrouping like?
As for subgroupings Indo-Uralic looks like the most solid candidate. Kartvelian would then be related to Indo-Uralic. I guess you could call this group Western Siberian (which would probably include Yukaghir). Altaic would be it's own node. EA and CK would form Eastern Siberian.
Dating this is fraught with difficulties. 10-12K is probably a good guesstimate though. It's clearly pre-Neolithic.In my opinion, Europic is related to Uralo-Siberian (Uralic, Yukaghir, Chukotko-Kamchatkan, Eskimo-Aleut; as proposed by Michael Fortescue); this "Indo-Uralic" group (I should think of a better term for it) is about 10,000 years old and in turn more distantly related to Altaic. I call that "Mitian", after the characteristic shapes of the personal pronouns.
-
- Avisaru
- Posts: 807
- Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 2:58 pm
I propose *-s_hi as a plural. In almost all languages this *s_h merged with *r, but it remain distinct in Turkic (> *z , except in Chuvash > r) and Eskimo-Aleut (> *R). This has a pretty widespread distribution though it may originally only applied to stative pronouns (later extended in some languages). Possibly had a collective connotation, but that might be secondary.TaylorS wrote: Interestingly, IE and Altaic share an important feature, the lentition of final *t to *s, which then became *r_j (IIRC) in Proto-Altaic. This is why the Early PIE 2SG.ACTIVE ending and the Early PIE plural have an *s and not a *t.
Kartvelian *-ar
IE *-r but limited to 3rd person plurals in the stative conjugation (but later expanded elsewhere in some languages)
Uralic *-r but limited to Nenets and Mari.
Altaic *-r'
CK *-ri, found only in plural pronouns
Etruscan *-r
Note: It's possible that my *s_h was really /z/ but since I don't reconstruct any voice contrast I interpret it as an aspirated fricative (I do have phonemic aspiration in the stops).
Interesting alternative hypothesis! I'll have to look into it.Etherman wrote:I propose *-s_hi as a plural. In almost all languages this *s_h merged with *r, but it remain distinct in Turkic (> *z , except in Chuvash > r) and Eskimo-Aleut (> *R). This has a pretty widespread distribution though it may originally only applied to stative pronouns (later extended in some languages). Possibly had a collective connotation, but that might be secondary.TaylorS wrote: Interestingly, IE and Altaic share an important feature, the lentition of final *t to *s, which then became *r_j (IIRC) in Proto-Altaic. This is why the Early PIE 2SG.ACTIVE ending and the Early PIE plural have an *s and not a *t.
Kartvelian *-ar
IE *-r but limited to 3rd person plurals in the stative conjugation (but later expanded elsewhere in some languages)
Uralic *-r but limited to Nenets and Mari.
Altaic *-r'
CK *-ri, found only in plural pronouns
Etruscan *-r
Note: It's possible that my *s_h was really /z/ but since I don't reconstruct any voice contrast I interpret it as an aspirated fricative (I do have phonemic aspiration in the stops).
I forgot to mention Eskimo-Aleut *-R which is a singulative (from an earlier collective?). This one is ambiguous because in word final position *R and *q were not distinguished. Alternatively the singulative could have been *q which could match with IE *eh2 collective (> feminine in the non-Anatolian languages).TaylorS wrote:Interesting alternative hypothesis! I'll have to look into it.
- WeepingElf
- Smeric
- Posts: 1630
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:00 pm
- Location: Braunschweig, Germany
- Contact:
How does a singulative evolve from a collective, which has pretty much exactly the opposite meaning? Also, I feel that EA *R is a development of PES *g, not *r. Also, how do you account for the *t-plurals in Uralo-Siberian?Etherman wrote:I forgot to mention Eskimo-Aleut *-R which is a singulative (from an earlier collective?). This one is ambiguous because in word final position *R and *q were not distinguished. Alternatively the singulative could have been *q which could match with IE *eh2 collective (> feminine in the non-Anatolian languages).TaylorS wrote:Interesting alternative hypothesis! I'll have to look into it.
...brought to you by the Weeping Elf
Tha cvastam émi cvastam santham amal phelsa. -- Friedrich Schiller
ESTAR-3SG:P human-OBJ only human-OBJ true-OBJ REL-LOC play-3SG:A
Tha cvastam émi cvastam santham amal phelsa. -- Friedrich Schiller
ESTAR-3SG:P human-OBJ only human-OBJ true-OBJ REL-LOC play-3SG:A
A collective takes a bunch of objects and treats them as a singular whole. So there's a sense of a plurality becoming a singularity.WeepingElf wrote: How does a singulative evolve from a collective, which has pretty much exactly the opposite meaning? Also, I feel that EA *R is a development of PES *g, not *r. Also, how do you account for the *t-plurals in Uralo-Siberian?
As for the t-plurals they certainly existed in Proto-Siberian. I don't think they survived into IE.
- WeepingElf
- Smeric
- Posts: 1630
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:00 pm
- Location: Braunschweig, Germany
- Contact:
Hmm, perhaps.Etherman wrote:A collective takes a bunch of objects and treats them as a singular whole. So there's a sense of a plurality becoming a singularity.WeepingElf wrote: How does a singulative evolve from a collective, which has pretty much exactly the opposite meaning? Also, I feel that EA *R is a development of PES *g, not *r. Also, how do you account for the *t-plurals in Uralo-Siberian?
I disagree, which, however, doesn't mean that you are wrong; I could just as well be wrong.Etherman wrote:As for the t-plurals they certainly existed in Proto-Siberian. I don't think they survived into IE.
...brought to you by the Weeping Elf
Tha cvastam émi cvastam santham amal phelsa. -- Friedrich Schiller
ESTAR-3SG:P human-OBJ only human-OBJ true-OBJ REL-LOC play-3SG:A
Tha cvastam émi cvastam santham amal phelsa. -- Friedrich Schiller
ESTAR-3SG:P human-OBJ only human-OBJ true-OBJ REL-LOC play-3SG:A
A couple things make me suspicious of the IE s-plural coming from an earlier t-plural. First, it requires word final lenition, but fortition is more common in word final position. Not that word final lenition can't happen, but it's not as common. Second, the difference between the nominative singular and plural is not the presence of *-s (which occurs in both) but the presence of *-e- in the plural. This suggests to me that *-s is a nominative marker but *-e- is the plural marker. In most of the plural cases it's ambiguous whether the plural is caused by *-s or *-e/o-. In the cases where it's not ambiguous some of them suggest *-s while others suggest *-e/o-. Third, word final *-t is found so one has to come up with additional assumptions to explain their existence.WeepingElf wrote:I disagree, which, however, doesn't mean that you are wrong; I could just as well be wrong.
- WeepingElf
- Smeric
- Posts: 1630
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:00 pm
- Location: Braunschweig, Germany
- Contact:
Sure, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Also, there are good correspondences for IE *H ~ Uralic *k, to which IE *s ~ Uralic *t would be excatly parallel. Of course, the original consonant may have been something else than /t/. Adam Hyllestad reconstructs */x/ for the *H ~ *k correspondence set; I don't remember now what he reconstructs for *s ~ *t.Etherman wrote:A couple things make me suspicious of the IE s-plural coming from an earlier t-plural. First, it requires word final lenition, but fortition is more common in word final position. Not that word final lenition can't happen, but it's not as common.WeepingElf wrote:I disagree, which, however, doesn't mean that you are wrong; I could just as well be wrong.
The IE plural case endings are not agglutinative, and most seem to be post-Anatolian formations as they are totally different in Hittite, so they do not reflect a Proto-Indo-Uralic (or whatever) situation. It is indeed hard to say what morpheme expressed the plural in Proto-Europic.Etherman wrote:Second, the difference between the nominative singular and plural is not the presence of *-s (which occurs in both) but the presence of *-e- in the plural. This suggests to me that *-s is a nominative marker but *-e- is the plural marker. In most of the plural cases it's ambiguous whether the plural is caused by *-s or *-e/o-. In the cases where it's not ambiguous some of them suggest *-s while others suggest *-e/o-. Third, word final *-t is found so one has to come up with additional assumptions to explain their existence.
...brought to you by the Weeping Elf
Tha cvastam émi cvastam santham amal phelsa. -- Friedrich Schiller
ESTAR-3SG:P human-OBJ only human-OBJ true-OBJ REL-LOC play-3SG:A
Tha cvastam émi cvastam santham amal phelsa. -- Friedrich Schiller
ESTAR-3SG:P human-OBJ only human-OBJ true-OBJ REL-LOC play-3SG:A
He has a number of good H~k correspondences. I think it's also possible that in inflectional endings *k > *h1 and *kh > *h2 (it's often difficult to distinguish *k from *q and *kh from *qh because they only survive as uvulars in Eskimo-Aleut, Chukchi-Kamchatkan, and possibly Kartvelian but that data is inconsistent suggesting secondary developments). I don't know what he reconstructs for s~t. I agree with Kortlandt that *ti > *si (>*sei in open syllables not followed by a resonant) in IE, at least in initial position. There are almost no IE roots of the form *tei and where they do appear the distribution is severely restricted.WeepingElf wrote: Sure, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Also, there are good correspondences for IE *H ~ Uralic *k, to which IE *s ~ Uralic *t would be excatly parallel. Of course, the original consonant may have been something else than /t/. Adam Hyllestad reconstructs */x/ for the *H ~ *k correspondence set; I don't remember now what he reconstructs for *s ~ *t.
The IE cases are fusional, but fusional inflections generally derive from earlier agglutinating cases. The IE cases appear to be made from recurring elements: *m, *s, *e/o, *i (probably a grammaticalized form of *h1ei "to go" which was related to the pronoun *h1i), *u, *d, *h1, *h2, and *bhi (which was a grammaticalized adverb). There's probably no such thing as the Proto-Europic plural.The IE plural case endings are not agglutinative, and most seem to be post-Anatolian formations as they are totally different in Hittite, so they do not reflect a Proto-Indo-Uralic (or whatever) situation. It is indeed hard to say what morpheme expressed the plural in Proto-Europic.
- WeepingElf
- Smeric
- Posts: 1630
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:00 pm
- Location: Braunschweig, Germany
- Contact:
I am bumping this thread for two reasons.
1. I am referring to it in the "European languages before Indo-European" thread. Obviously, this matter is relevant to that.
2. I have recently picked up my research into Europic again. My next project is a map of the Old European hydronymy, which will eventually appear on my web site.
1. I am referring to it in the "European languages before Indo-European" thread. Obviously, this matter is relevant to that.
2. I have recently picked up my research into Europic again. My next project is a map of the Old European hydronymy, which will eventually appear on my web site.
...brought to you by the Weeping Elf
Tha cvastam émi cvastam santham amal phelsa. -- Friedrich Schiller
ESTAR-3SG:P human-OBJ only human-OBJ true-OBJ REL-LOC play-3SG:A
Tha cvastam émi cvastam santham amal phelsa. -- Friedrich Schiller
ESTAR-3SG:P human-OBJ only human-OBJ true-OBJ REL-LOC play-3SG:A
- WeepingElf
- Smeric
- Posts: 1630
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:00 pm
- Location: Braunschweig, Germany
- Contact:
Re: WeepingElf's Europic thread
Europic is obsolete
I have abandoned the Europic hypothesis in its "classic" form as a family consisting of Indo-European and the (unknown) languages of the Linearbandkeramik, Vinča and Cucuteni-Trypillia cultures, spread by refugees of the Black Sea Flood in the early Neolithic. The latter cultures probably had nothing to do with the Proto-Indo-Europeans, neither archaeologically nor genetically, so why should they speak related languages? The closest modern relatives of the LBK people seem to be the Georgians - which invites the speculation that the LBK people and their southeastern relatives may have spoken a language related to the Kartvelian languages: a rocking cool idea for a lostlang, but I don't know enough about Kartvelian (it's difficult: most of the relevant literature is in Georgian) to build a good para-Kartvelian language.
I still think the Old European Hydronymy preserves traces of a language related to IE (or rather, an early diverging branch of IE) which I now call Aquan, but that has nothing to do with LBK but originated in the first wave of Kurgan expansions ca. 4500 BC (Anatolian would be Kurgan II ca. 3500 BC, Nuclear IE Kurgan III ca. 3000 BC).
The Black Sea Flood, if that happened at all which most geologists doubt, is also out of the game.
I have abandoned the Europic hypothesis in its "classic" form as a family consisting of Indo-European and the (unknown) languages of the Linearbandkeramik, Vinča and Cucuteni-Trypillia cultures, spread by refugees of the Black Sea Flood in the early Neolithic. The latter cultures probably had nothing to do with the Proto-Indo-Europeans, neither archaeologically nor genetically, so why should they speak related languages? The closest modern relatives of the LBK people seem to be the Georgians - which invites the speculation that the LBK people and their southeastern relatives may have spoken a language related to the Kartvelian languages: a rocking cool idea for a lostlang, but I don't know enough about Kartvelian (it's difficult: most of the relevant literature is in Georgian) to build a good para-Kartvelian language.
I still think the Old European Hydronymy preserves traces of a language related to IE (or rather, an early diverging branch of IE) which I now call Aquan, but that has nothing to do with LBK but originated in the first wave of Kurgan expansions ca. 4500 BC (Anatolian would be Kurgan II ca. 3500 BC, Nuclear IE Kurgan III ca. 3000 BC).
The Black Sea Flood, if that happened at all which most geologists doubt, is also out of the game.
...brought to you by the Weeping Elf
Tha cvastam émi cvastam santham amal phelsa. -- Friedrich Schiller
ESTAR-3SG:P human-OBJ only human-OBJ true-OBJ REL-LOC play-3SG:A
Tha cvastam émi cvastam santham amal phelsa. -- Friedrich Schiller
ESTAR-3SG:P human-OBJ only human-OBJ true-OBJ REL-LOC play-3SG:A