PERSPRO3B.htm (2/10/98)

published in

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

PROTO-LANGUAGE "HE" AND "IT"

IE -l/-n Nouns

by Patrick C. Ryan

9115 West 34th Street

Little Rock, AR 72204

(501) 227-9947

April 1994

PART TWO

Excursus

Finally, the ascription of meaning of a definite article to n elucidates the Egyptian term for 'king`, ns/zw. The element s/zw is written

the 'scirpus-reed` or 'sedge`; 'sedge` is derived from IE 1. sek-, 'run off, dry up, subside (water)`. It is tempting to see a connection between sek- (perhaps from 'suck`-'reed` [PL (")sé-kx^h(a)[??]] and (")sèf(a), 'sucked`/'suck-plant`, IE sau(s)-, 'dry, dried out`. The 'sedge` was written 'zw.t`, and was the symbol of Upper (Southern) Egypt. In Pyramid text 814, 'king` is spelled out 'n-z-w` so we can presume the earliest reading of the 'sedge`-sign was zw rather than sw; we emend ns/zw to nzw.

The Egyptian term for 'South` is rs/zw, written also with the 'sedge`; so we emend it to rzw.

If zw meant 'sun`, we could interpret rzw as a compound of the common Egyptian preposition r, 'to(ward)`, and the ensuing phrasal compound as meaning 'toward the sun`, an apt description for the idea of 'south`. From the -en stem of the IE word sá:wel-, 'sun`, many derived languages (including English) have developed words for 'south` (OHG sundar, 'south`). We posit the underlying form of IE sá:wel- as PL sa-"f<sup>h</sup>o-n<sup>h</sup>(a), 'the (animate) strong (sinew) spider (weaver)`, a theromorph of the sun familiar from Amerind legend. In addition, Egyptian has sw.w, 'dates`, which is often abbreviated to a picture of the sun-disk. We emend *sw, 'date, *day`, to zw (syawáwa [correction: sawáwa(!)] becomes swâu).

The weapon of Utu, the Sumerian sun-god, was the net; this correlates with the web of a spider. The spider was associated with the sun through ideas like the comparability of sunburn and a bite from a poisonous spider.

For (")saf^hw(o) as a name of the sun, it is suggestive but not conclusive to remember Sumerian šu-4, a reading of a sign that means '(descending) sun` (sa-"f<sup>h</sup>o-H(o)[??]; Hó means 'star, sun`).

The prenomen part of the Egyptian king's titulary (written n-zw-bi.t) is, according to Sir Alan Gardiner, "almost always compounded with the name of the god Rê'", whose intimate connection with the sun is never doubted, and adds "The principal name is the prenomen, and this is often found alone". Egyptian R(e)` is derived from PL (")róts<sup>hw</sup>(o) [correction: (")ró¿(e)tshw(o)(!)], 'lip-circle around, wheel`.

For the king as sun in Middle Eastern societies, cf. Sumerian u-4-a-2-g~al-2, 'king`, in which u-4 means 'sun`, a-2 means 'strong`, and g~al-2 means 'he who resides with`; and the Amarna letters, where Amenophis IV (Akhnaten) is addressed as 'my sun`. Cf. also Hurrian šaue/i, 'regent?, administrator?`, among many other examples.

Hence, n-zw-bi.t is 'the sun of the Bit(ii) ('warriors? dibblers? diggers?; but cf. also the Hurrian land-name Biai), with the ancient pre-nominal positioning of the article as adjective retained because of the sanctity of the term.

Proto-Indo-European

N^Há

Proto-Language n^há is found in the PIE demonstrative 1. al, 'other`, which is composed of PL ?á, 'forehead, place of focus` + PL n^há.

-lo-, -la:-, -Llo-, -Lla:-

On pages 198-213, Brugmann (1888: II) thoroughly investigates the suffixes named above.

Whatever the origin of -o and -a: (singular/masculine; feminine/collective), we will consider -l the integral element of these compositions.

He characterizes as follows: "In its primary use -lo- serves especially to form nouns of the agent and instrument (underlining added); as a secondary suffix it is used especially to form diminutives..."

If PIE -l derives from PN n^h(á), and n^h(á) is the mark of an animate noun, we could easily expect that it would be employed to designate "nouns of the agent and instrument" since it is natural for us to regard tools as pseudo-animate forces; e.g. we use the same suffixes (-er) for agentive nouns and tools (singer, hammer).

PIE thus supports the idea that Proto-Language n^há designated an animate (definite) noun.

Diminutive

The diminutive nuance stems from another Proto-Language word altogether: n^hó, 'snail, little`. This element can frequently be distinguished by the stress-accent: cf. Greek túlos, 'swelling` against kaulós, 'stalk`; Old Indian vRSa-lá, 'mannikin`.

Ná

Proto-Language ná is found in the PIE demonstrative 2. an, 'there, on the other hand`, which is composed of PL ?á, 'forehead, place of focus` + PL ná.

-no-, -na:-, -Nno-, -Nna:-

On pages 138-160, Brugmann (1888: II) treats a number of suffixes which contain -n-.

We will consider -n the integral element of these compositions.

Brugmann sums up by saying: "The form -no- is found especially in verbal adjectives...These are chiefly passive in meaning". Typical of those cited are Greek stugnós, 'hated`, sparnós, 'scattered`, and stegnós, 'covered`.

It seems that whenever -n directly follows a root ending in a consonant, a passive meaning can be confidently anticipated.

If Proto-Language ná was a definite, inanimate article, and survived into PIE as -n, it is precisely a passive (reified) nuance we would expect.

Brugmann also discusses forms containing thematic vowels: e.g. Old Indian ro:caná-, the meaning will often be intransitive or active ('shining`); cf. also Greek steganós, 'covering`.

Beginning on page 150, Brugmann (1888: II), treats suffixes containing n that he reconstructs with a vowel: either -e- or -o-. Of these, he says: "This is almost entirely primary, and it occurs chiefly in participles and abstract nouns...-eno- is in active use as a participial suffix in A.S., Norse (O.Icel.) and Slavonic".

These apparent exceptions should not unduly affect our argument since we can see analogous developments in Sumerian and Arabic that help to explain these seeming contradictions, which are discussed under Final Comments.

Additional Evidence in the Derived Languages

The more 'primitive` (i.e. earlier in time or preserved structure) the language, the greater emphasis on concreteness. Professor Lehmann and others have observed that there is no structural difference between the earliest PIE nominal and verbal roots.

In fact, I assume for Proto-Language that nouns functioned in ways that were semantically equivalent to later "verbs", and that verbs as a separate grammatical category did not exist.

For example, the word kx^hé meant 'deer`. But since, for the speakers of Proto-Language, the definitive characteristic of deer was speed, it also meant 'runner`.

For this reason, a sentence like:

kx^hé ?à

which literally could be translated 'deer (is) here`, came to be understood as 'I am fast`, a stative.

On the other hand, sentences were possible like:

"¿é/fó kx^hè

which was literally, 'voice/ear (is a) deer`, which conveyed 'I am/shall run(ning)`, was active; and

¿é/fó "kx^hè

which was literally, 'voice/ear (has a) deer`, which conveyed 'I have/can run`.

The falling inflection was the mark of the predicate as the rising inflection was of the topic. The unaccented (really falling accented) verbs in earliest Sanskrit in independent clauses carry on that ancient pattern.

The articles we have identified for Proto-Language could also modify the "verbal" idea:

"¿é/fó kx^hèn^h

which was literally, 'voice/ear (is) the deer`, was interpreted to mean 'I start to run, spring forward`. PL kx^h becomes PIE k(h)V:. And so we can connect PIE 5. kel- (for k^(h)e/e:ley-; cf. Old Indian ka/a:láyati, 'drives`; and Greek kéllo:, 'drive`, where the -y-element adds the transitivity); and better, (s)k^el- (for k^(h)e/e:l-), 'jump, start up`, where the ingressive/intransitive interpretation is more discernible<sup>17</sup>. The ingressive/transitive nuance was formed by -n(á); and PIE 4. ken- (for k^(h)e/e:n-), 'make an effort, diligently strive`, is its reflex (cf. Greek egkonéo:, 'hurry, apply myself to something`). This is a distant reflex of a sentence like:

"¿é/fó kx^hèn

which was literally, 'voice/ear (is) the deer-thing`, i.e., interpreted as 'I am a thing caused to start running, speeded up, made to go fast`.

So, at the deepest levels, PIE gives indications of this early contrast of -l and -n linked with concepts of animacy and inanimacy.

Final Comments

The earliest Proto-Language had only lexical means to indicate singularity, duality, or plurality. Many languages find it only occasionally necessary to specify the plural, or to indicate it at all. This was most probably the case with Proto-Language.

What we have identified as 'articles` were, originally, independent words, sometimes used as "adjectives", i.e. nouns which preceded and modified other nouns.

However, when a need began to be felt to express plurality as an integral part of the nominal concept in some of the derived languages, phonetic changes had reduced the semantic recognizability of some of these elements so that new, more phonetically stable forms were felt to be needed.

In , we have an animate plural in (-e/i)-ne, which can be easily derived from Proto-Language Há/¿á + n^há/ná. The latter of these has an analog in the PIE endings -ino-, -ina:-, -i:no-, -i:na:-, which are used to form secondary adjectives meaning 'made or consisting of, springing from`. That these are plural formations specialized for this use is conclusively shown by the description (Brugmann 1888: II, 125) for -y(o) as a secondary suffix: "possession, origin...other ways in which one thing may be connected with another".

PIE -y(o) is the Proto-Language inanimate plural ending -¿á which has been specialized by the addition of -o; it can be seen in the -i:-plurals of Latin, Celtic, and Illyrian-Messapian.

The inanimate form of this formant can also be seen in Arabic regular duals and plurals -âni, -aini, -ûna, -îna,.

This is paralleled by the Sumerian ending -eš, used for the third person plural of verbs except transitive presents (which use (-e/i)-ne), which corresponds to the normal PIE -es-plural. I derive both from Proto-Language Há ('many`) + s<sup>h</sup>é ('individual`).

5. Summary

In the case of sa/a:wel, 'sun`, we have the personified sun. As a living thing, this form naturally lent itself to employment as a nominative in PIE where the nominative subject was the actor of the verb.

For the oblique case stem-form swen-, we have the sun regarded as an object in the sky, which leads naturally to its employment first as an accusative and then in the other oblique cases.

For k^emel, 'heaven`, we are dealing again with the personified sky as opposed to k^emen-, 'heaven` in its physical hence non-animate sense.

The evidence justifies the assumption of a animate singular definite article, n^ha, and an inanimate singular definite article, na, for Proto-Language, which were also used as neutral definite pronouns of the third person singular.

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

ACTIVE MODE18 Superior to Inferior Inferior to Superior 1st person (singular), ¿é 1st person (singular), fó 2nd person (singular), fó 2nd person (singular), ¿é Neutral Definite 3rd person (singular) animate, nhá 3rd person (singular) inanimate, ná

PASSIVE (INACTIVE) MODE19 Status Indifferent 1st person (singular), ?a 2nd person (singular), ?o 3rd person (singular), ?e

6. NOTES

(these appear at end of document)

7. 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 Publishing Company

................................Forthcoming. Lexical Parallels between Proto-Indo-European and Other Languages

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

Brugmann, Karl. 1888. A Comparative Grammar of the Indo-Germanic Languages. 2nd reprint 1972. Varanasi, India: Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office

Edel, Elmar. 1955/64. Altägyptische Grammatik. Rome: Pontificum Institutum Biblicum

Faulkner, Raymond O. 1962. A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian. Oxford: University Press

Gardiner, Sir Alan. 3rd edition, revised 1973. Egyptian Grammar: being an Introduction to the Study of the Hieroglyphs. London: Oxford University Press

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

Lehmann, Winfred P. 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

....................................1989. Problems in Proto-Indo-European Grammar: Residues from Pre-Indo-European Active Structure. General Linguistics, Vol. 29, No. 4, 1989. University Park and London: Pennsylvania State University Press

....................................1989(b). Earlier Stages of Proto-Indo-European. Indogermanica Europaea: Festschrift für Wolfgang Meid. Karin Heller, Oswald Panagl, Johann Tischler. Grazer Linguistische Mongraphien 4. Graz: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Graz

Pokorny, Julius. 1959. Indogermanisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch. Volume I. Bern and Munich: Francke Verlag

Ryan, Patrick C. 1990. Pre-Nostratic "Pronouns" Early Noun Substitutions. Mother Tongue 11. September 1990.

............................1993. An Inquiry or Thought Paper. Mother Tongue 19. Spring 1993.

............................Manuscript 1. Proto-Language "I" and "You" Early Evidences of Social Hierarchy.

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

Wind, Jan (Pulleyblank, Edward G.; de Grolier, Eric; Bichakjian, Bernard H.). 1989. Studies in Language Origins, Volume I. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company

additional copies of this file are available at

HTTP://WWW.GEOCITIES.COM/Athens/Forum/2803/PERSPRO3B.htm

Patrick C. Ryan * 9115 West 34^th Street - Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 * (501)227-9947

PROTO-LANGUAGE@email.msn.com

17. Similar meanings can be reconstructed for other PIE roots in -l(and -n): 3. bhel- (for *p?fàn^h, 'start to protrude`), 'blow up, swell up, bubble, puff up`; 1. del-(for *t?àn^h, 'start to line up side by side`), 'aim at, reckon, tell, etc.`; 3. dhel- (for *t?sàn^h, 'start to make long`), 'tremble, trip, shamble, dawdle`; 2. gal- (for k?àn^h, 'start to use the jaw`), 'call, cry`; 2. gel-, g^wel- (for *xèn^h, 'start to use the pharynx`), 'devour`; g^hal- (for k?xàn^h, 'start to hang`) [correction: (for k?xèn<sup>h</sup>, 'start to become bare`)(!)], 'injury, damage`; ghel- (for *k?xòn<sup>h</sup>, 'start to use the oral cavity`), 'call, cry`; k<sup>w</sup>el- (for *x<sup>h</sup>èn<sup>h</sup>, 'start to curl one's self up`; from PN x^hé, 'hedgehog`), 'turn, turn one's self, move around something, caringly be around someone, dwell`; lel- (for *(")n^hàn^h(a), 'start a wavelike motion`), 'lull/rock to sleep, swing back and forth`; 1. mel- (for 'mèn^h, 'start to be smooth`), 'grind up, beat, mill`; 1. pel- (for *p^hòn^h, 'start to puff up`; from PL p<sup>h</sup>ó, 'toad`), 'fill`; 1. pel- [correction: delete(!)] (for *p<sup>h</sup>èn<sup>h</sup>, 'start to get small`; from PL p^hé, 'mouse`); 3. a. pel- (for *p<sup>h</sup>àn<sup>h</sup>, 'start to get flat`; from PL p^há, 'flea`), 'fold`; 3. sel- ( for s^hèn^h, 'start to be separate`; from PL s<sup>h</sup>é, 'solitary male`), 'take, grab`; ta:l- (for *ts<sup>h</sup>àn<sup>h</sup>, 'start to stand`), grow, 'become green, growth, young shoot`; and, 8. wel- (for f<sup>h</sup>àn<sup>h</sup>, 'start to savage like a wolf`; from PL f^há, 'wolf(pack)`, 'seize, seize upon, rob, seize = rip, wound`.

18. Ryan 1994

19. Ryan 1990; "passive" in the sense of "inactive" (Klimov 1977)

20. Gardiner (1973): 463

21. This word can also be seen in (P)IE las- (for *la:s-), 'eager, wanton, be unrestrained`; i.e. 'licking (the lips) in anticipation`.