PROTO-LANGUAGE "I" AND "YOU"

Early Evidences of Social Hierarchy

by Patrick C. Ryan

9115 West 34th Street

Little Rock, AR 72204

(501) 227-9947

March 1995

1. Introduction

Proto-Language, afterwards abbreviated to PL, as used here designates that language from which all of the world's languages are descended ─── spoken at a point in time prior to the dispersal of evolving humanity from eastern Africa (circa 130,000-100,000 B.P.?), which was followed by dramatic ethnic and linguistic differentiation. I accept the view of many scientific investigators that there is a unitary origin of man and for human language, based on fossil evidence which indicates that the capacity for language is immeasurably old.

Recently, Merritt Ruhlen has written The Origin of Language (Ruhlen 1994), which is the most eloquent presentation of this point of view yet to appear.

In my article entitled Pre-Nostratic "Pronouns" ─── Early Noun Substitutions, which appeared in Mother Tongue 11 of September 1990, I addressed related questions. Proto-Language is an apter term for the language discussed there than Pre-Nostratic, I believe now, although Proto-Language was pre-Nostratic and pre-Pontic (circa 40,000-35,000 B.P.?), borrowing and redefining a term most recently used by John Colarusso (Phyletic Links between Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Northwest-Caucasian, Mother Tongue 21 of January 1994, pp. 8-22). Ruhlen's Mother Tongue is equivalent to the final stage of my Proto-Language. The major difference between these terms is that I am able to analyze Ruhlen's CVC roots into their constituent parts; e.g. Ruhlen's pal, 'two`, is a composition of PL p^ha, 'flea, flat` + n^ha, 'water-current, push`, yielding p^han^h, 'push flat, fold, double over, two`, found in IE 3. a. pel-, 'fold`. This can be seen in extended form in Arabic faljun, 'half`. On the other hand, in Ruhlen's other examples under this heading, those meaning 'half, twin`, another PL word is probably involved: p^?a, 'buttock, half`. The Sumerian sign reading bar is a conflation of two archaic signs, one of which clearly depicts a 'fold`; the other, shows the posterior of an animal with a tail. Sumerian bar means 'to halve`, and is a composite of p^?a + re, 'fingernail, scratch`; it can be seen in IE 7. wer-, 'tear up` (into halves). Of course, the shift of l to r and back again is quite common but I hope this example may serve to illustrate the usefulness of going back to an analysis of the monosyllabic components of Ruhlen's mostly CVC Mother Tongue roots.

The Proto-Language was composed initially of monosyllables of the form Ce/a/o. After palatal (before e) and velar (before o) glides became phonemic, all vowels were reduced to schwa. When some disyllabic compounds were formed, the stress-accent (and perhaps a certain Sprachgefühl for linking ideas with a monosyllabic expression [CV or CVC]) caused elision of the final vowels (CVCV -> CVC), after which developments, Proto-Pontic came into existence.

Before the emergence of Proto-Pontic (which may be as early as the branching of Cavalli-Sforza's non-African genetic group), the non-Afro-Asiatic African languages (Cavalli-Sforza's African) branched off from Proto-Language (circa 100,000 B.P.?), followed by the separation of the the Australoid and Austric languages (circa 92,000 B.P.?), comprising, among others, Cavalli-Sforza's Southeast Asia/Pacific genetic group. See the Excursus below for some comments on these languages and detail on Cavalli-Sforza's genetic organizational diagram.

Proto-Pontic

The phonological inventory of Proto-Pontic (which predates Proto-Nostratic as used by other scholars), retained the consonants of the Proto-Language, and included the following consonantal segments: p^?, t^?, k^?, f, s, x, p^?f, t^?s, k^?x, p^h, t^h, k^h, f^h, s^h, x^h, p^hf, t^hs, k^hx, ? (glottal stop), h, ¿ (Arabic 'ain), h: (Arabic Ha:), m, m^h, n, n^h, q (dorsal nasal [ng]), q^h, r, r^h ─── each accompanied by no glide (from following PL a), ^y (from PL e), or ^w (from PL o); and a single vowel 6 in final (CV) and medial (CVC) positions, with non-phonemic vocalic allophones depending on the stress and general phonetic environment.

W. P. Lehmann penetrated Proto-Indo-European to this depth in vocalic simplicity when he reconstructed a "pre-stress stage" for Proto-Indo-European with only the feature of syllabicity (Lehmann 1955:109-14).

With glides differentiating the original consonantal segments, the possibility of Ablaut variations of the vowels to indicate gender (Amerind), aspect (Indo-European), or voices (Afro-Asiatic) was opened.

The semantic inventory of Proto-Pontic consisting of CV syllables was for the nominal meanings:

p^?y6, urine; p^?6, buttocks; p^?w6, cheek; t^?y6, (underside of the) foot; t^?6, hand; t^?w6, breast, organ; k^?y6, penis, male; k^?6, jaw; k^?w6, neck; ?^y6, eye; ?6, forehead (here, nuclear family); ?^w6, mouth; f^y6, muscle; f6, palm; f^w6, ear; s^y6, bodily excretion(s); s6, sinew; s^w6, skin; x^y6, (body) hair; x6, (soft) palate; x^w6, intestine; p^?f^y6, toe; p^?f6, chin; p^?f^w6, leg; t^?s^y6, finger, teat; t^?s6, body; t^?s^w6, arm; k^?x^y6, face (not oral cavity as previously identified); k^?x6, hair; k^?x^w6, throat; m^y6, tongue; m6, (female) breast; m^w6, flesh; n^y6, mucus; n6, nasal passage; n^w6, stomach; q^y6, mother's milk; q6, bone(-marrow); q^w6, skull, testicle, male; ¿^y6, voice; ¿6, tooth; ¿^w6, fist; r^y6, fingernail; r6, spinal column (vertebrae); r^w6, lip; h^y6, river; h6, air (hollow, vagina, female); h^w6, odor; H^y6, smoke; h:6, water(-current); H^w6, otter, eel, snake?; p^hy6, mouse; p^h6, flea; p^hw6, toad, (later: venomous snake); t^hy6, heat; t^h6, dew; t^hw6, associate, herd(-member), tribe; k^hy6, shadow; k^h6, goat; k^hw6, young animal; f^hy6, wind; f^h6, wolf; f^hw6, spider; s^hy6, male, jackal; s^h6, swine; s^hw6, female(s), family; x^hy6, bear; x^h6, hedgehog; x^hw6, fish; pf^hy6, cattle; pf^h6, spark, flame; pf^hw6, sheep; ts^hy6, porcupine; ts^h6, ass; ts^hw6, circling insect; kx^hy6, deer; kx^h6, bee; kx^hw6, mollusk; m^hy6, hare; m^h6, ant; m^hw6, human, mole; n^hy6, worm; n^h6, wave, (insect) larva; n^hw6, snail; q^hy6, lizard; q^h6, cat; q^hw6, constrictor snake; r^hy6, rain; r^h6, bird; r^hw6, antelope.

Each monosyllable had associated verbal meanings, many of which are entirely straightforward and expected: r^y6, 'scratch` (from 'fingernail`); though some must be identified: kx^hy6, 'run` (from 'deer`).

From Proto-Pontic are descended at a minimum: Proto-Indo-European, Proto-Afro-Asiatic, Proto-Elamo-Dravidian, if the time of Proto-Pontic is to be equated with Cavalli-Sforza's genetic branching of North Africa/Eurasia <> Eurasia/Americas. If Proto-Pontic came into existence as early as Cavalli-Sforza's branching of Southeast SAsia/Pacific <> Eurasia/Americas, it will be ancestral to additional language families, such as Uralic, Altaic, Sino-Tibetan, and many others. If Proto-Pontic is yet earlier (the time of the branching of African <> non-African, all languages of the world excepting the non-Afro-Asiatic languages of Africa will be descended from it. It seems impossible at present to define the exact time of the emergence of Proto-Pontic.

In PIE, 6 (schwa) was fronted only to e, fronted and lowered to a (i.e. a@^v) in PAA, backed and lowered in Sumerian and Hurrian-Urartian to a (i.e. å). Generally, the other derived languages developed varieties of a from PP 6 (schwa).

In all PP(Proto-Pontic)-derived languages, i and u are not original vowels. In all but PAA, they are derived from y and w, derived either from PP ¿ and f/f^h or transfer of vowel-glide quality to vowel. E, in languages which had a variety of a as a reflex of PP 6 (schwa), can come from PP a¿ through ai/y; similarly, o/o: can result from af/f^h through a/a:u/w. In PAA, i and u are Ablaut variations analogous to PIE o.

In PIE, h: lowered PP 6 (schwa) to a; in PIE, a should be regarded simply as an allophone of e in a defined phonetic environment. The change of 6 to a in Kabardian (Eastern Adyghe) is instructive, where it has been demonstrated that ja, wa, and a: are results of h^y6, h^w6, and h6 (Kuipers 1960).

Therefore, a reconstruction of a language encompassing PIE, PAA and others (e.g. Bomhard's Proto-Nostratic¹), which reconstructs a vowel system of a, 6 (schwa), e, i, o, u (including lengthened varieties), is fundamentally in need of correction. PIE shows clearly a Grundvokal e (with Ablaut o) while PAA has unmistakably a Grundvokal a (with Abläute i and u).

Reconstructions of the parent language of PIE and PAA (as well as others) such as Bomhard's Proto-Nostratic¹ that include consonantal glides (^y and ^w) are not compatible within a languages showing full vocalism as a general rule since glides originated as phonetic accompaniments to following front and back vowels. The notable exceptions are PIE g^w/k^w (out of PP x/x^h), which were velarized to distinguish them from g/k (out of PP k^?/k^h). That PIE g^w/k^w had a spirantal origin is virtually assured by their correspondences: Sumerian š and h; Egyptian š and h; PAA š; and Hurrian-Urartian h(h).

Proto-Indo-European Phonological Changes

PP glottalized stops and affricates became PIE voiced unaspirated and aspirated stops except initial p^? and all p^?y -> w:

p^?, t^?, k^? -> b/w, d, g;

p^?f, t^?s, k^?x -> bh, dh, gh.

PP aspirated stops and affricates became PIE unvoiced stops with sporadic aspiration for the former affricates and lengthening of the following vowel (ts^hw appears as t^(h)w):

p^h t^h k^h -> p, t, k.

pf^h, ts^h [ts^hw], kx^h -> p^(h)(V:), t^(h)(V:) [t^(h)w(V:], k^(h)(V:).

PP unaspirated spirants remained but f and x were voiced; in addition, the resulting τ was despirantized and velarized:

f, s, x -> w, s, g^w.

PP aspirated spirants were de-aspirated and sporadically lengthened the following vowel but f was voiced; in addition, the resulting x was despirantized and velarized; s^hw appears as s^(h)w(V:):

f^h, s^h [s^hw], x^h -> w(V:), s(V:) [s^(h)w(V:], k^w(V:).

PP unaspirated nasals remained but initial q (ng) was frequently denasalized to g medially, and always reduced to g initially unless an epenthetic vowel preceded; this, apparently, was governed by the stress-accent. The exception was n^y, which became l^(y):

m, n [n^y], q -> m, n [l^(y)], (Vn)(n)g.

PP aspirated nasals developed similarly except q^h appears as (n)k, and aspirated n^h, before any vowel, becomes l. Aspirated nasals sporadically lengthened the following vowel:

m^h, n^h, q^h -> m(V:), l(V:), (Vn)(n)k(V:).

PP unaspirated r remained. Aspirated r^hw became l^(w). Aspirated r sporadically lengthened the following vowel:

r -> r.

r^h [r^hw] -> r(V:) [l^(w)(V:)].

Among the PP tectals, the "coloring" discovered in connection with lost PIE "laryngals", a singularly inappropriate designation, is due to the influence of the glides ^w and ^y principally.

?, the PP glottal stop, becomes

Øe+, 6+Øe+ or e+Ø.

h, the PP glottal (laryngal) fricative, becomes

Øe:/e+, e:/e+Ø+ or e:/e+Ø.

¿, the PP voiced pharyngal fricative, becomes

ye+, e+i+, e+y.

h:, the PP voiceless pharyngal fricative, becomes

Øa:/a+, a:/a+Ø+ or a:/a+Ø.

Lengthened schwa (6:) retained the "coloring" occasioned by the preceding PP glides:

^y6:, ^-6:, ^w6: become e:, 6: -> a:, o:.

The Grundvokal, representing PP 6, was e with later grammatically motivated variation with o.

Equivalents for PP f/f^h) and ¿/h: in the PP-derived languages will be given as needed.

2. The Problem

One of the most interesting phenomena observable in (P)IE is the circumstance that the base for the oblique cases of the personal pronoun for second person plural, 'you²`, has been reconstructed with the element we/e:-, wo/o:- (contained in we/e:s-, wo/o:s- ── where the suffixed -(e)s is almost certainly the normal sign of the plural ── that reoccurs as the basis for the non-oblique cases of the personal pronoun for the first person plural, 'we`³, in the forms for dual: we/e: and for the plural: wei- [woi- ?] and wey(e)s- [woy(e)s?]).

In Mother Tongue⁴, I wrote that "At a minimum, we should expect that among the substitutional nouns (those nouns used as what we should call 'pronouns`), ones designating the 'speaker` and 'listener` should be represented semantically" among the words employed for 'personal pronouns`.

3. The Hypothesis

I will demonstrate that the PL word fo, 'ear, hear`, underlies PIE we/o- in both the first and second persons; while ¿é⁵, 'voice, speak`, is the basis for PIE 1. yu-, the non-oblique form of the reconstructed second person plural 'you` (plural)², and should be considered as derived from an early singular form (*ye/o).

4. Discussion

If we reconstruct PL fo, meaning 'ear, hear(er)`, its PIE reflex would be we/o. As a neuter noun (inanimate) ending in a vowel, the regular PIE inflection for its dual non-oblique case is -i, yielding we/oi-. On the Hittite form, we:s, and the Gothic form, weis, Pokorny bases his reconstruction of PIE *wey-es, which is clearly a plural formation (-es) of the resulting i/y-stem, now regarded as masculine/feminine (animate).

If PIE we/o originally bore a plural meaning, -es would have been an unnecessary redundancy.

We can better understand this odd set of circumstances by first reconstructing PL plural inflections.

4. a. PL Plural Inflections

4. a. 1. Indefinite Plurals (Animate and Inanimate)

PL had an indefinite animate plural in -h:a⁶ and an indefinite inanimate plural in -¿a.

The reflexes of -h:a in PIE are a/a:/V:Ø; in Egyptian, i; in PAA, Ha (PAA -ha, feminine, is from PL ha, 'female`; and in Sumerian, â. The reflexes of -¿a in PIE are (y)a/e/o//i; in Egyptian, i; in PAA, ¿a/ya//i; and in Sumerian, (i)a/i.

Originally, h:a had the meaning 'water current(s), many`, seen in IE a/a:b/p-, 'water, river`, and ad(u)-, ad-ro-, 'water-course`; and in Egyptian it(w)r, 'river`. The meaning for ¿a was 'tooth, stone, much`.

Thus, a word of the form fo¿ (PIE we/oi) from *"fo-¿a would have meant 'ears`. With the addition of the element ma, 'breast, bounded area`, we would have fo-¿am (PIE we/oyam), 'area of ears, place of listening`, the basis for Old Indian vayám, 'we`, nominative plural.

4. a. 2. Definite Plurals (Animate and Inanimate)

PL had an definite animate plural in -f^ha and an definite inanimate plural in -fa.

The reflexes of -f^ha in PIE are we:/o://V:u; in Egyptian, w; in PAA, wa:/u:; and in Sumerian, û. The reflexes of -fa in IE are we/o//u; in Egyptian, w; in PAA, wa/u; and in Sumerian, u.

Originally, f^ha had the meaning '(wolf-)pack, group`; fa meant 'palm, number, flower-petal`.

We can see the PL definite animate plural in the PIE dual nominative-accusative-vocative ending of masculine-feminine (animate) o-stems, -o:u.

For PAA, the ending of third person plural form of the Arabic verb, -u:, and of the Egyptian verb, -w (late for the sdm.f form but regularly for the Old Perfective), shows that a plural was the original meaning of reflexes of PL f/f^h, not the dual (cf. also PIE 1. wi/i:-, 'two`)! It is easy to see how a definite plural could develop a dual nuance.

PIE 2. o:us- is a dual (PL fof(a)) which has been compounded with -s (PL s^he, 'alone`) to re-singularize it (or possibly PL so, 'skin`), with awkward fof (wow) being dissimilated to then o:u.

In both Egyptian and Sumerian, the earliest writings of plural nouns by tripling the signs or determinatives (or three strokes or dots in Egyptian) are the representation of an indefinite plural in PL -h:(a) or -¿(a), which had only the effect of lengthening (or diphthongizing) the final vowel of the word.

In Egyptian, when the PL definite plurals -f^h(a)/f(a) began to be used in place of the indefinite plurals, it became necessary to augment -w with (-i(i)) to indicate the dual (-wi(i)). This process is somewhat similar to PIE we/e:-, 'we two`, and wei-, 'we` (plural), discussed below.

For PL, we cannot assume a dual form as Lehmann (1974) and others have recognized for PIE except, I believe, insofar as it corresponds to a definite plural.

5. fo, 'ear, listener`

Only Sumerian among the derived languages has retained a reflex of the uncompounded form fo, 'ear` in wa, a (probably dialectal) reading of the sign which means 'ear, wisdom`.

However, many derived languages show compounded forms meaning 'ear, hear`, that correspond substantially⁷.

But if we are assuming that we can analyze these forms in terms of a base, fo plus plural inflections, there should be a singular form that we can identify.

5. a. fo, 'I`

Although an uncompounded first person singular form corresponding to fo cannot be found in PIE among the pronouns, we do have the thematic first person singular present in -o:. It requires no great leap of logic to imagine that -o: could develop from an earlier -wo. I here specifically reject the common view that verbal personal endings did not develop from (adverbial) pronominals. It is less visibly also a component of IE eg^o:, 'I`, which corresponds, in part, to the Egyptian Old Perfective first person singular -k(w)(i), with the same elements ordered differently (i-k-w). In Hittite ú-uk, 'I` , we can find k^?e, 'penis, male`, preceded by fo rather than ¿e, unless we are willing to accept Pokorny's explanation u has been drawn from tu-uk through am-mu-uk, which seems somewhat contrived.

Now we can better understand the circumstances around the forms listed under Pokorny's 1. we/e:-, 'we two`.

If we assume that PL had a word fo, which meant 'ear, listener`, which was in use as a first person singular pronoun in "active" (Klimov's sense⁸) contexts, we can see how it might have been augmented by -h:(a), the indefinite animate plural ending, to indicate 'listeners`, i.e. 'we`, yielding PIE we:/o:. After a need was felt for a dual, this form could be compounded with PL ma as above under 4.a.1 (yielding Old Indian v�:m, 'we two`; PL fo-"h:am) while the form we/oi-, properly 'ears` (inanimate plural), was substituted for the plural, with or without the addition of a plural sign (-(e)s).

There may be a correlation between employment of h:a, the animate plural, with non-oblique cases, and ¿a, the inanimate plural, with oblique cases of the plural since a major mechanism of forming the oblique (accusative) is objectivization. On the other hand, it is interesting to note Sumerian gi/e/š, 'ear`, which appears to be derived from PL fo¿ + s^he or so.

5. b. fo, 'you`

We also have the oblique forms listed by Pokorny under 1. yu-, you (plural), we/e://o/o:s. We can analyze these as consisting of fo (plus -h:(a)) plus PIE -(e)s, i.e. 'ears/listeners`. Latin vo:s, 'you` (nominative plural) suggests that we/e://o/o:s for the second person was not originally confined to the oblique cases.

The -s of the IE plural ending -(e)s can be related to Sumerian where it appears as a third person plural ending for all intransitives and the transitive hamTu-conjugation, -(e/i)š. It is derived from the PL animate s^ho, i.e. 'female, family.

Most interestingly, Colarusso reminds us that w- is to be found in (Proto-)Caucasian languages for the second person as an element in both singular and plural as well as a deictic element w6-, 'that (near hearer)`, e.g. w6-qa-s-łaΓ^w6-Γ, 'you-horizon of interest-I-see-past, i.e. I saw you` (Colarusso 1994:13). The reflex I would expect in Proto-Pontic from fo is *w^(w)6.

In a fuller treatment, wo: is identified as the basis for (Proto-)Caucasian form of the second person in Nikolaev and Starostin (1992), where it appears in various Caucasian languages with initial w or v from PL f.

Unfortunately, several Caucasian languages showing initial m- are also cited under wo:; and this variance is explained as due to "nasal assimilation". While this explanation may have some validity for attested forms like mi-n, mun, min, men, mene, me~, it hardly suffices to explain forms like m6, ma, mi, mi:, me, mo. Losing a feature (nasalization) is always commoner than acquiring one. Furthermore, why should they hesitate to accept an m-based stem for the second person, which we would derive from PL me, 'tongue, converse(r)`, when the Amerind languages very frequently (but not "diagnostically" as Ives Goddard demonstrates convincingly [Goddard 1995]) show an n-/m- pattern for the first and second persons as Ruhlen (and Greenberg) have demonstrated (recent summary: Ruhlen 1995)? PL me was used in a setting of social equality.

Buried in a footnote, the recognition of yet another basis for the second person in Proto-Lezghian is discussed, which Nikolaev and Starostin reconstruct as iu. This is most probably a derivate of PL ¿e, 'voice, speak(er)`, discussed under 7. below.

To make the picture complete, Nikolaev and Starostin cite Nakhish waj, 'we (inclusive). Whether this derives from a combination of w and y bases as they speculate, or it is parallel to IE we/oi, 'we`, discussed under 5.a. above, it is evidence for w-based forms being used in Caucasian for the first person.

So, in (Proto-)Caucasian, we have w- bases for both first and second persons, and an indication of an alternation of w- and y-based forms for the second person.

In Hurrian-Urartian, which I have shown to be related to the PL through Proto-Pontic (Ryan Manuscript 3), and a proposition that Nikolaev and Starostin also support, Diakonoff (1971) unhesitatingly reconstructs wV based on Hurrian we-s:, 'you (singular - ergative)` and possessive -w for the second person base. However, Urartian -uka-, the possessive for the first person, reminds us strongly of Hittite ú-uk, 'I`, and is likely to have been similarly formed.

Therefore, we have in Hurrian-Urartian sure indications of PL fo in the second person, and through Urartian -uka, a possible indication of its employment in the first person.

6. Semantic Overlap or Social Differentiation?

Why should PL have permitted derivatives of fo, 'ear, listener`, to designate both the first and second persons in both singular and plural?

Only one explanation seems likely: that in various contexts, the meaning to be conveyed was the same semantically but not situationally.

If the social context was of an inferior speaking to a superior, it would be natural for him to characterize himself as the 'listener`, saying, in effect, "you speak; I listen". Conversely, characterizing a superior as the 'listener` would be telling him "I speak; you listen", an attitude most surely to be unacceptable.

It would be natural, however, for a superior speaking to an inferior to characterize an inferior as the 'listener` and himself as the 'speaker`.

It seems that at some point in the development of PL, at least by the time of Proto-Pontic, an active socially inferior 'you` was characterized by a superior as the 'listener` and 'I` as the 'speaker` while the inferior characterized himself and his superior, echoing the same terms.

Of course, this only becomes plausible if we can show that the reverse was true; namely, that a PL word designating 'speaker` was applied by a social superior to himself when he spoke to his inferior, and was used by the inferior to refer to his superior.

7. ¿e, 'voice, speaker`

'Speaker` is the meaning we associate with PL ¿e, 'voice`.

A quite common word in Egyptian is i, 'say`, but nearly always found in the form sdm.n.f form indicating the past: i.n(.f), '(he) said`.

It is also apparent in Sumerian i, 'speech`; and in i-5, 'voice`, which is written with a sign that also means 'mouth, speak`.

It is present in PIE in the form listed in Pokorny as ya:-, 'speak excitedly, conjure, praise`, which is better reconstructed as *ye: followed by -h: which lowered and centered -e to -a, (from PL "¿eh:(a), 'be voicing`); the lengthening may be expressive. English words like 'yeah! (speak!?), yell, yelp, yip, yammer, yowl (cf. Arabic ¿a:la, 'lament`; ¿awwala, 'wail, weep loudly`)` show that this element was pervasive. Compare also PIE yek-, 'speak`, and Egyptian ik, 'lament`.

7. a. ¿e, 'I`

On the other hand, we have the Egyptian first person singular ending of the sdm.f conjugation, -i or -0, which either represents PL ¿e or ?a, the first person "passive" ending (Ryan 1990).

With Arabic -ya, -i:, 'my`, we see a form which can be related directly to Slavic ya, 'I`. The possibility of a loanword is so remote as to be not worthy of consideration. PL ¿ becomes Arabic y or remains as ¿. Which reflex it will have is still problematical.

Suggestive evidence for PIE is to compare e:g^-, 'speak, say` with eg^-/eg^o:, 'I`. Listed under e:g^- is Greek �:, 'he spoke`, which can only with very great difficulty be related to *e:g-t as Pokorny indicates⁹. However, it relates quite naturally to a PIE *ye:- (from PL "¿eh(a), 'be noisy`).

For Hurrian-Urartian, we can cite Hurrian is:te, 'I (absolute)`; Urartian yeše. 'I (absolute)`; the Urartian ergative 'I` is yeše also. We interpret these facts differently than Diakonoff (1971). The 'I`-element is based on PL ¿e, 'voice, speak(er)` (Hurrian-Urartian *i/y(e); and we see the normal development for the ergative in Urartian (ye + še, which has been improperly substituted for *ye in the absolute. In Hurrian, the more distinctive form *iz:, has been adopted as a base form, and so for the ergative, we see iz:as:.

Lest we assume that the Hurrian genitive z:owe, dative z:uwa and directive z:uda are only reductions from is:/z:-, the first person of (Proto-)Caucasian, zo: will disabuse us of this notion.

The entry under zo: is characterized by Nikolaev and Starostin (MS) as a "very complicated picture"; they have found one path through the maze and I have found another.

What is indisputable is that several other bases like so: for the first person are included under zo:, which others Nikolaev and Starostin identify as: forms on a dentals (d6/e/i/o/u-//t:u-), forms built around as/z, forms relating to is/z and ez along with those from ja/iz while in Khinalug we finally have ja:, 'I (ergative)`.

Khinalug ja: reflects PL ¿e faithfully while the variety of forms built on ja/ji/a/e/i-s/z are the same formation as Urartian yeše, also demonstrating PL ¿e as a basis for the first person singular in (Proto-)Caucasian.

The (Proto-)Caucasian forms based on d most probably relate to PL t^?sa, 'body` so that Hurrian is:te can also be interpreted as 'I (my)self`. As PL t^?s is PIE dh, we can also notice the many PIE verbal endings including the element -dh- (note particularly imperative -dhi). PL t^?sa, which is Egyptian d, is also an element in Old Egyptian reflexives (ds, 'self`, etal.). In addition, Sumerian reflexives including the element te/i show reflexes of t^?sa(¿). Other explanations are, however, possible. This may also be the basis for Khoisan ti, 'I`, and Yeniseian ?ad^z, 'I`. It may, however, derive from PL t^?a, 'side`. This seems more plausible as an explanation for Old Sumerian me-dè, 'we`, and some of the (Proto-)Caucasian forms.

For the forms based on (Proto-)Caucasian s/z and Hurrian-Urartian z:/š, the explanation can be traced through Urartian še, 'one`, which derives from PL s^he, 'male, jackal, separate`, also the basis for PIE s(iy)o, 'this` and se, 'alone`. This may also be the basis for Khoisan sa:, 'you`, although possibly from s^ho.

This corresponds to Egyptian -i, 'I`, 'my` amd Arabic -ya/i, 'my`.

7. b. ¿e, 'you`

PIE 1. yu-, 'you` (plural) is transparently PL ¿ef, 'voices`; and with the addition of ma as above, can be seen in Old Indian yuvám, 'you` (plural).

PL ¿e is found in Sumerian as the infix denoting the second person; e.g. mu-e-íl, 'you have raised`; and ig~i-bi mu-e-ši-g~�l, 'they look upon you`. Though the reflex I should expect from PL ¿e is Sumerian i(V), and most Sumerian signs reading e have other readings with i (è = i-10), the sign reading e does not have a known variant i-reading. How this can be resolved I do not presently know but we should keep in mind that Old Sumerian has e- for the verbal prefix as against Sumerian i-3.

A testimony to PIE -i as a second person singular element is perhaps to be found in Lithuanian dìrbi, 'you (singular) work` and more speculatively, in the second person singular ending of the Latin perfect, -isti:.

PIE (*y)eg^-(o:) is the result of PL ¿e, 'voice, speak(er)` plus k^?e, 'penis, male` (plus fo, 'ear, listener`).

The formative -g^ which occurs in connection with so many PIE pronouns is simply a suffix to indicate a masculine form, differing from Colarusso (1994:14). Interestingly, this element is detectable in Proto-Pontic as well in the form g^6, 'man` and k'6, 'arising from` (both reflexes from *k^?y6, I believe) (Colarusso 1994:17 and 14). This word is the basis for PIE 1. g^en-, 'produce`, i.e. 'engender`. PL glottalized voiceless stops become voiced stops in PIE and in Proto-Pontic in some phonetic environments, and are sometimes palatalized if followed originally by -e. Colarusso's w6-, male class marker, is probably from *w^y6, 'sinew, strong`.

Sumerian g~�, 'I`, is most likely a combination of this formative element plus fo, i.e. k^?ef from k^?ef(o), 'male-listener`, which has become *g^(y)o:.

Under 5.b., we discussed a derivate of ¿e used in (Proto-)Caucasian in a second person form, namely iu. Unfortunately, there seems to be no trace in Hurrian-Urartian of a reflex of ¿e for the second person. The possessive third person form (i)ja is not connected to PL ¿e but rather to PL ¿o, 'fist, hold, what is held`, which is cognate with PIE yo, the relative pronoun, and the deomonstrative particle i- listed under 3. e-, ei-, i-, fem. i:-, properly an inanimate third person. It corresponds to Arabic ya-, the third person imperfective prefix.

It has been demonstrated that derivatives of PL ¿e and fo occur in words associated with both the first and second persons in the singular and plural of PL-derived languages.

─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

8. EXCURSUS

In the foregoing, we have shown a set of relationships among Proto-Afro-Asiatic (Egyptian, Arabic), Proto-Indo-European, (Proto-)Caucasian, Hurrian-Urartian, and Sumerian, with regard to reflexes of PL fo, 'ear, hear(er)`, and ¿e, 'voice, speak(er)`.

Since the PL is ancestral to all human languages, the reflexes of these roots should be discernible in other language families as well.

On page 155 (Figure 11) of Ruhlen (1994a), a diagram of the relationships of the peoples of the world according to the findings of the geneticist L. L. Cavalli-Sforza (and Paolo Menozzi and Joanna Mountain), made in 1988, is shown. It can also serve quite well as a general outline of the relationships of the languages of the world, with some important exceptions.

The language of the genetic group at the apex of the diagram, Proto-Sapiens, is our reconstructed Proto-Language.

African

The first branching below Proto-Sapiens is African <> non-African. The languages we have heretofore cited all fall under the non-African branch.

The second branching under African is Khoisan <> Congo-Saharan; and the third branching under Congo-Saharan is Niger-Kordofanian <> Nilo-Saharan.

Nama is a Hottentot language of Southwest Africa, now classed in the Khoisan language-family, which includes languages spoken by the Bushmen. It is characterized by a large variety of "clicks" between which and the non-click consonants of the majority of the world's languages, no relationship has yet been established.

Stopa (1986) has demonstrated that the "clicks" represent affective modifications of the roots, which do not alter its basic semantic content. Whether "clicks" were present in the Proto-Language or not is by the by since they seem to have left no phonological traces.

Therefore, the "clicks" may be practically neglected in PL-Nama comparisons.

Although we cannot point to derivates of PL fo and ¿e in Nama at this time, we can see a number of cognates with other PL formants mentioned in this essay: PL h:a, 'water` - Nama a:, 'drink`; PL me, 'tongue` - Nama miⁿ, 'say`; PL s^he, 'separate` - Nama sî, 'send` and si:, 'go away`; PL ¿o, 'relative pronoun` - Nama ia, hîa.

However, at least seven member languages of the Khoisan family have a first person plural of i while five have a second person plural of u alternating in another six with i.

In Twi, a West African language, ‘you (singular)’ is w; ye is ‘we’.

Shilluk, an African language of the Niger-Kordofanian family, evidences reflexes of PL fó, 'ear, hear(er)`, and ¿é, 'voice, speak(er)`. Unless we cravenly assume borrowing or fantasize pure coincidence, its demonstration will validate the meanings assigned in the PL for fó and ¿é through Niger-Kordofanian -> Congo-Saharan -> African -> Proto-Sapiens = Proto-Language.

I assume that the reflexes of PP f and ¿ in Shilluk are the same as they are for Proto-Indo-European, w and y.

In a previous essay (Ryan 1990), I showed that the second compositional element for the Shilluk pronouns (following Westermann 1970) was (?)a, (?)o, (?)e for the first, second, and third persons in both singular and plural, corresponding to the PL matrix for "passive" pronouns.

Westermann reconstructed a singular marker of τ for the singular and kw for the plural as first bases. Whatever the origin of third person forms (yé:, é: (ò) and gé:, gò), we have first person singular yá:; second person singular yí:; and first person plural wá: and wó:; second person plural wú: and yú:.

It is obvious, differing with Westermann, that in the first and second persons at least, the singular basis is y, the plural basis w (and y). The alternation of w and y in second person plural is particularly of interest as it parallels PIE 1. yu- (non-oblique = nominative) and we/e:/o/o:s (oblique) in the same person.

A likely development is that, at a very ancient date, African speakers used both wV and yV in both the first and second persons, and that these forms were conflated with the "passive" (?)a-(?)o first and second person elements, and secondarily, at least in some language ancestral to Shilluk, y- was associated more closely with the singular forms and w- with plural forms though second person plural yú: recalls the early state of dual employment.

non-African

Under non-African, the next branching on the diagram separates Southeast Asia/Pacific from Eurasia/Americas. The speakers of the languages we have previously discussed outside of this Excusrus all come under the Eurasia/Americas branch.

The branching under Southeast Asia/Pacific is Pacific <> Austric, and the branching under Pacific is Indo-Pacific <> Australian.

Although it would be nice to cite derived examples from PL fó and ¿é as pronouns for this branch, I cannot at this time. However, we can mention Schmidt's reconstruction of Southeastern Tasmanian listing wayi, 'ear`, and wayi:, 'hear`, discussed by Susan FitzGerald and Geoff O'Grady in Six Greater Australian Modified Swadesh Lists, Mother Tongue 21 of January 1994, pp. 30-37, as a forerunner of relationships which will someday be clearer. Here, again, we see a development of PL f into w.

Under Eurasia/Americas, the next branching is North Africa/Eurasia <> Eurasia/Americas. The languages we have already looked at come under the North Africa/Eurasia branch.

A language family recognized by many linguists that falls under the speakers in the Eurasia/Americas branch is called Dene-Caucasian; and, one of its important components is Sino-Tibetan.

For Sino-Tibetan, we can mention Chinese yú, 'I`, and w�, 'I` (cf. also wú, 'I` or 'we`). We cannot provide detailed tables of equivalences between the PL sound-system and that of Proto-Sino-Tibetan (due, mainly, to the mutually contradictory reconstructions currently available for the earliest forms) but it seems very clear that, at least in general, PL (and Proto-Pontic) f/f^h and ¿ are equivalent to Proto-Sino-Tibetan w/f and y.

Here I must call attention to Ruhlen's acceptance of the reconstruction of the Sino-Tibetan first person as n_ja:. I believe this reconstruction from w� is in error and is a result of a remnant of the earlier Australian occupation of Southern Asia. In Australian languages, n_jo is often discussed as a basis for the first person. This would relate to PL qo, 'skull, sack, testicle, male`.

Based on these equivalences, we can call attention to (if not completely satisfyingly explain) Chinese wén, 'hear`, and yán, 'speak` as well as possibly wo:, 'a hollow part of the human body`, yán, 'pharynx`, yàn, 'saying`, ya:ng, 'entreat`, ya:o in ya:ohe, 'cry out, call`, ya:o, 'ask`, ya:o, 'request`, yào, 'ask`, yì, 'opinion`, yì, 'translate, interpret`, yì, 'talk in one's sleep`, yi:n in yi:nr, 'voice`, yín, 'chant, recite`, yi:ng, 'answer`, yíng, 'answer`, y�ng, 'chant, intone`, y�, 'language`, yù, 'explain`, yù, 'praise`, yue:, 'say, call, name`, and yún, 'say`.

In addition to the forms cited above, we can also point to Chinese yán, 'rock`, yá, 'tooth`, yáng, 'vast`, yi:n, 'abundant, rich`, yi:n, 'excessive`, yíng, 'be full of`, yú, 'surplus`, yú, 'exceed, go beyond`, and y�n, 'amplify`, pointing to PL ¿á, 'stone, tooth, much`; to wàn, 'a very great number`, w�i, 'numerous`, pointing to PL fá, 'finger, number, flower-petal`; and to fán, 'in great numbers`, fe:ng, 'abundant`, fù, 'abundant`, pointing to PL f^há, '(wolf-)pack, group`.

Under the classification North Africa/Eurasia, the following branches are found: Afro-Asiatic, Indo-European, and Dravidian. McAlpin (1981) has superbly demonstrated the relationship of Elamite and Dravidian, and reconstructs for the first person singular for Proto-Elamo-Dravidian i, for Proto-Elamite u, and for Proto-Dravidian ya:n/y-. He mentions on page 112, "The Elamite forms PEl *u, ME u, AE u, acc. un show the common, but sporadic, shift of *i to u."

And though we may be disappointed to see a Proto-Elamo-Dravidian ni in the singular and nim in the plural of the second person, Brahui preserves -ut/-un for the first persons singular and plural as well as -us and -ure (Proto-Dravidian -r is the human plural morpheme) as verbal endings for the second persons singular and plural.

With the advantage of knowledge of the common PL variation of fó, 'ear, hear(er)`, and ¿é, 'voice, speak(er)` to represent 'I` and 'you`, we can easily see that Proto-Elamite has retained a reflex of fó, namely u, which alternates sporadically with its reflex of ¿é, namely i, for its first person singular only; Proto-Elamite *nik6 for the first person plural is unrelated. Proto-Dravidian has settled for a first person derivation from ¿é, ya:n/y-, though the verbal endings of Brahui show that a derivative of fó was once also in use for both first and second persons, singular and plural. While the form cited for the Proto-Dravidian first person plural is *na:m, it is inclusive, and the exclusive first person plural is *ya:m (-m is another plural morpheme), thus demonstrating a derivate of ¿é for the plural as well. It is, of course, natural for a word originally meaning 'speaker(s)` to relate to the exclusive rather than inclusive first person plural.

However scholars decide to finally group the Indian languages of the Americas, there is ample evidence among them for pronouns and pronominal elements built on the themes we have discussed above: e.g. Macro-Tucanoan yii/yei?e/ya, 'I`. Ruhlen attempts to link this form with the commoner n-based first person elements found here (Ruhlen 1995: 61). While it is possible that these y-based forms are related to Kawaiisu (Uto-Aztecan) ñi@i@-, it is less likely than their being straightforwardly derived from PL ¿e. Ruhlen would require denasalization of ñ and subsequent phonemicization of the glide (!), a not very commonly demonstrated phenomenon.

Cognates in languages of the remaining divisions of North Africa/Eurasia, Afro-Asiatic (Egyptian, Arabic) and Indo-European, have been discussed above.

In addition, cognates in certain languages which do not fit neatly into the Cavalli-Sforza diagram, for various reasons, have also been discussed under the appropriate headings (Sumerian, (Proto-)Caucasian, Hurrian-Urartian). They, too, show reflexes of PL fó, 'ear, hear(er)`, and ¿é, 'voice, speak(er)`.

It is an inescapable conclusion that every major language family sounds echoes of PL fó, 'ear, hear(er)`, and ¿é, 'voice, speak(er)`, either nominally ('ear, hearer' / 'voice, speaker`), verbally ('hear` / 'speak`), or pronominally ('I` / 'you`); and that in many, a variation pronominally between first and second person meanings can be discerned that can most economically be explained by our hypothesis of variable hierarchical social relationships defining conversational terms¹⁰.

We must, first of all remember, that pronouns were not a word category in the Proto-Language. As a result, various nouns were employed in different contexts to fill the need for simple reference to the partners in the speech setting. The lack of agreement among pronouns in closely related language groupings is explained by the relaxation of social context as a determinant for 'pronoun` selection, and the consequential employment of 'pronouns` in generalized contexts which were not original.

Terms meanings 'speaker` and 'listener` (¿e / fo) are to be expected for the first and second persons; what is not expected is their employment in either the first or second person dependent on the social context.

Another natural scheme is 'the one (of several)` and 'the other` (na / k^he), which we see in its pure form in Basque (ni-, 'I`; -k, 'your`) and expanded in Kawaiisu (Uto-Aztecan) ni@-?i@- and Algonquian ke, 'you (intransitive verb marker)`. As can be imagined, na also lends itself to third person reference or second person in Proto-Elamo-Dravidian ni, 'you`.

The element 'converser`, me, can and has served as a first person (Uralic, Altaic, Japanese, Korean, Ainu, Chukchi-Kamchatkan, Eskimo-Aleut, Indo-European, and Sioux [ma~-, 'possessive/object/patient]) but also as a second person in Amerind languages¹¹.

PL s^he, '(one) alone`, serves as a first person in Caucasian (and Hurrian-Urartian) but as a second person in IE verbal forms.

PL ?a, 'forehead, here`, ?o, 'mouth, there`, and ?e, 'eye, over there`, serve as first, second, and third persons in many languages (IE, Mayan), and as elements in compositions in others.

Finally, there are rarer elements like t^?sa, 'body, self`, used as a first person (Khoisan, Caucasian; in composition: Yeniseian, Hurrian ─── if not from t^?a, 'side`), or for various persons (IE, PAA, Proto-Elamo-Dravidian ta, 'self`).

Accordingly, it is generally misleading to use pronoun selection as a diagnostic for language relatedness. As Goddard (1995) shows, many recognizable elements used pronominally are present in Almosan-Keresiouan for the first (n-, d-, k-, s-, l-, c-, w-, m-, y-, among others) and second (k-, n-, s-, č-, y-, r-, m-, t-, w-?, among others) persons, and only with athletic distortion can these be reduced to an n-/m- contrast.

Similarly, to characterize IE languages as m-/t- in the first and second persons merely masks the true complexity since transparently eg^(h)om/o: does not fit this scheme, nor does -o: of the thematic first person singular. And whether the second person singular -s(i) derives from PL s^he (or s^ho, '[extended] family-member`, another possibility; contrasting with t^ho, 'tribal member`), we err if we do not recognize their late 'pronominal` origins. Old Indian primary -tha for the second person singular points to another PL 'pronoun` derived from t^hsa, 'rearer, stander`, possibly used in the context of an archaic tribal gathering for the speaker (by a questioner or by the speaker himself). And secondary -i in Old Indian �:s-i, 'I sat`, shows us PL ¿e in the first person singular medium but as a second person formant in Lithuanian dìrb-i, 'you work`. Even re, 'scratch, number, (any/some)one` appears as a first person element in Latin sequor, 'I follow`. Finally, t^?sa, 'body, self`, is present as a second person element (IE -dh-) in a number of verbal forms. Its impersonality and its presence in the imperative (-dhi) suggests a context of great social distance.

How now is IE an m-/t- language?

We should realize that there was nothing inevitable about the any particular selection made since, until fixed as pronouns, each of these elements had meanings broad enough for various personal applications in the appropriate context.

We can, as a result, reconstruct the elements of the Proto-Language that were adapted in various languages for use as pronouns but we shall not ever be able to define Proto-Language pronouns absolutely by person, for they did not exist as a category per se, and cannot be specified outside of a given social context.

Diagnostic indications will need to be devised based on other vocabulary items for degrees of language relatedness. However, the recurrence of elements we can define and understand in almost every language family, even if out of their original conversational contexts, provides solid proof for the theory of the monogenisis of all language.

─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

9. Summary

We may, therefore, set up the following table for the Proto-Language:

╔═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╗

║ ║

║ ACTIVE MODE ║

║ ║

║ Superior to Inferior Inferior to Superior ║

║ 1st person (singular), ¿e 1st person (singular), fo ║

║ 2nd person (singular), fo 2nd person (singular), ¿e ║

║ ║

╟───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────╢

║ ║

║ PASSIVE MODE ║

║ ║

║ Status Indifferent ║

║ 1st person (singular), ?a¹² ║

║ 2nd person (singular), ?o¹² ║

║ 3rd person (singular), ?e¹² ║

║ ║

╚═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╝

10. NOTES

¹∙ Bomhard (1994)

²∙ Pokorny (1959), I, 513-14; 1173

³∙ Pokorny (1959), I, 1114

⁴∙ Ryan (1990)

⁵∙ the voiced pharyngal fricative of Arabic ¿ain

⁶∙ the voiceless pharyngal fricative of Arabic Ha:?; ?

indicates the voiceless glottal stop

⁷∙ PL fo(h:), 'listener(s)`, is seen in PIE wo:-, 'we two`; Chinese w�, 'I, we`; and Egyptian w(i), 'I, me`. PL fo¿, 'ears, ear-like` is seen in Sumerian dialectal wi, *ear, a reading of the sign that means 'ear`; and as a component of the Egyptian Old Perfective first person plural ending -w(ii)n, corresponding to Hittite u-e/a-ni.

A common compound of fo¿, 'ear-like`, is with so¿, 'skins, skin-like`. The same Sumerian sign that reads wa, wi is also probably read g~i/eš (Emesal muš), and means 'ear`. The Sumerian g~ is the reflex of PL f before a front vowel, analogous to the Armenian gini and Welsh gwin from PIE wein-.

This interesting sign (Jaritz 1967: 117 [Sign 688]), which depicts "a long-necked animal with prominent ears" (translated), is virtually identical with an Egyptian sign, described by E. A. W. Budge as "head and neck of canine animal". This seems to be a playful way of indicating a reflex of PL fo¿-so¿, 'ear-skin` by choosing the similar sounding name of the long-eared jackal, famous for its terrible stench, and called f^ha¿-s^(h)eh:, 'wolf-like` + 'sour(/urine)-smelling/jackal(s)`, relating to IE 3. weis-, 'stink, etc.` and wi:s-, 'strength`, listed under 3. wei-; in Egyptian, wa/a:is(i) vs. wa/a:ish(i), i.e. ws(r), 'strong, powerful` vs. wz in wzš, 'urine`.

From early Egyptian spellings. It seems relatively certain that the reading of this sign should be ws/z rather than ws/zr; ws/zr means 'rudder`, a concept that relates well to 'ear` (cf. English 'oar`, pole with ear-shaped end). A Sumerian word, gišal, exists, which Jaritz connects with the idea of a rudder-pole. The thought behind Egyptian wsr, usually translated 'powerful`, is rather, I believe, 'famous, greatly heard of`. The IE form, 2. o:u(s[i])- is clearly built on PL fof, 'pair of ears` plus -so¿, '*skin` (but perhaps s^he, a singularizer.

Long-rangers will probably be aware of Schmidt's reconstruction of Southeastern Tasmanian listing wayi, 'ear`, and wayi:, 'hear`, discussed by Susan FitzGerald and Geoff O'Grady in Six Greater Australian Modified Swadesh Lists, Mother Tongue 21 of January 1994, pp. 30-37. In the same list (Table 5), we can find pöle, 'hair(of head)`, cf. IE 3. b. pel-, 'pelt`; pawi, 'small`, cf. IE po:u-, 'small, etc.; mi:(na)/ma(na:), 'I`, cf. IE me-, 'me`; and poina, 'smell`, cf. IE 2. pu/u:- : pew6-, 'rot, stink`. This is a surprisingly large number of correspondences if purely coincidental. This list also contains ména, 'tongue`, which could be related to PL me, 'tongue`, and meh:, 'conversers`, which is the basis for the first person plural inclusive in verbal forms.

A compound of fo and re, 'apply`, seems likely to be found in IE 8. wer-, 'respect, pay attention`, echoed in Egyptian w3, 'plan`, and w3w3, 'ponder`.

⁸∙ Klimov (1977; 1983)

⁹∙ Pokorny (1959), I, 290

¹⁰. Ruhlen (1995b, pp. 252-260) presents first and second

personal pronouns from a wide selection of the world's

language families. Appearing as i/y and u/w, we can easily

see the the pattern of variation we have outlined in this

paper.

¹¹. Ruhlen (1995a)

¹²∙ Ryan (1990)

11. REFERENCES

Bomhard, Allan R. 1984. Toward Proto-Nostratic: A New Approach to

the Comparison of Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Afroasiatic.

Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: John Benjamins Publish

ing Company

──────────────── Forthcoming. Lexical Parallels between Proto-

Indo-European and Other Languages

──────────────── 1994. The Nostratic Macrofamily

Bush, Frederic William. 1964. A Grammar of the Hurrian Language.

Dissertation. Brandeis University, Department of Mediterra

nean Studies.

Colarusso, John. 1994. Phyletic Links between Proto-Indo-European

and Proto-Northwest-Caucasian. Mother Tongue 21. January

1994.

Diakonoff, I. M. 1971. Hurrisch und Urartäisch, Bernhard

Forssman, Karl Hoffmann, Johanna Narten. Münchener Studien

zur Sprachwissenschaft, Beiheft 6, Neue Folge. Munich: R.

Kitzinger

Faulkner, Raymond O. 1962. A Concise Dictionary of Middle

Egyptian. Oxford: University Press

Goddard, Ives. 1995. Regarding Native American Pronouns. Mother

Tongue 24. March 1995.

Jaritz, Kurt. 1967. Schriftarchäologie der altmesopotamischen

Kultur. Graz: Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt

Klimov, Georgij A. 1977. Tipologija Jazykov Aktivnogo Stroja.

Moscow: Nauka

──────────────── 1983. Printsipy Kontensivnoi Tipologij. Moscow:

Nauka

Kuipers, Aert H. 1960. Phoneme and Morpheme in Kabardian (Eastern

Adyghe). Janua Linguarum. Studiae Nicolai van Wijk Dedicata.

Nr. VIII., ed. by Cornelis H. van Schooneveld. 's-Gravenhage:

Mouton & Co.

Laroche, Emmanuel. 1976/1977 Glossaire de la Langue Hourrite. M.

E. Laroche. Revue Hittite et Asianique, Éditions Klincksieck,

Tome XXXIV (A-L) and XXXV (M-Z). Paris: Librairie C. Klinck

sieck

Lehmann, Winfred P. 1955. Proto-Indo-European Phonology. Austin,

Texas: University of Texas Press and Linguistic Society of

America

──────────────── 1958. On the earlier stages of the Indo-European

nominal inflection. Language 34.179-202.

──────────────── 1974. Proto-Indo-European Syntax. Austin, Texas

and London: University of Texas Press

──────────────── Forthcoming. Earlier Stages of Proto-Indo-

European

Lindeman, Dr. Fredrik Otto. 1970. Einführung in die Laryngaltheo

rie. Sammlung Göschen Band 1247/1247a. Berlin: Walter de

Gruyter & Co.

McAlpin, David W. 1981. Proto-Elamo-Dravidian: The Evidence and

its Implications. Transactions of the American Philosophical

Society, Volume 71, Part 3. Philadelphia: The American Philo

sophical Society

Melikišvili, G. A. 1971. Die Urartäische Sprache. A. Kammenhuber,

M. Salvini. Studia Pohl 7. Rome: Biblical Institute Press

Nikolaev, Sergei L. and Starostin, Sergei A. 1992. MS. A Cauca

sian Etymological Dictionary.

Pokorny, Julius. 1959. Indogermanisches Etymologisches

Wörterbuch. Volume I. Bern and Munich: Francke Verlag

Ruhlen, Merritt. 1994a. The Origin of Language ─── Tracing the

Evolution of the Mother Tongue. Mew York, Chichester, Bris

bane, Toronto, and Singapore: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

──────────────── 1994b. On the Origin of Languages ─── Studies

in Linguistic Taxonomy. Stanford: Stanford University Press

──────────────── 1995. A Note on Amerind Pronouns. Mother Tongue

24. March 1995.

Ryan, Patrick C. 1990. Pre-Nostratic "Pronouns" ─── Early Noun

Substitutions. Mother Tongue 11. September 1990.

Ryan, Patrick C. 1993. An Inquiry or Thought Paper. Mother Tongue

19. Spring 1993.

──────────────── 1994 Proto-Language "He" and "It" ─── IE -l/-n

Nouns. Dhumbadji! Vol. 1, No. 4. Winter 1994.

──────────────── Manuscript 2. Proto-Language Pronouns in a

Neutral Social Context ─── Ancient Democracy in Action.

──────────────── Manuscript 3. Who are the Hurrians? ── A Rela

tive Question.

Stopa, Roman. 1986. Schnalze: Ihre Natur, Entwicklung und Urs

prung. Bibliotheca Nostratica, Vol. 7. Ed. Gyula Décsy.

Bloomington: Eurolingua

Thomsen, Marie-Louise. 1984. The Sumerian Language: An Introduc

tion to Its History and Grammatical Structure. Copenhagen:

Akademisk Forlag

Vergote, J. 1971. Egyptian (40-67) in Afroasiatic: A Survey.

edited by Carleton T. Hodge. The Hague/Paris: Mouton

Westermann, Diedrich. 1970. The Shilluk People: Their Language

and Folklore. Negro Universities Press: Westport (reprint of

1912. Board of Foreign Missions of the United Presbyterian

Church of North America)

Wind, Jan (Pulleyblank, Edward G.; de Grolier, Eric; Bichakjian,

Bernard H.). 1989. Studies in Language Origins, Volume I.

Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company