c-HURRIAN-URARTIAN-9_morphology.htm

PL / IE / HURRIAN-URARTIAN
MORPHOLOGICAL ELEMENTS

4. Proto-Language/Proto-Pontic Formants

(4)Ic. Hurrian -d-, the sign of the imperfective aspect; Urartian -d-, sign of the imperfective aspect; from PP t?/hw6 and then PL t(?/h)ó, distributive (see 4. h. below); Old Egyptian sdm.t.f form27; Sumerian -e(d)-, mâru-form, which Thomsen finely characterizes as "actions which have not yet taken place...actions which are in progress"28; PIE -d- in -nd, future passive participle (gerundive) [this has been replaced in PIE mostly by -t-, the reflex of the animate distributive]; Akkadian -t-infix for perfect (Lehmann's sense, i.e. "-momentary") (N.B. PAA t derives from PP t?; seen most clearly in the imperatives of the ntn-stem (???), which theoretically should have the form intan-; we find instead ita- (with no doubling of the t nt!), e.g. itaplas, 'look again and again!'; and the stative of the same form, e.g. itaddu, 'is put down again and again' from nadûm, 'to lay down' (dd nd).

(7) P[?]FE-¿E ("foot-like=(place)below"); H: (a)bi, 'before (postposition)'; U: , 'under (postposition)'; ('around', circumessive); (IE bhi, 'around', listed under ambhi, 'all around, on both sides'; and in Greek "locative" in -phi); (cf. E: only in combination: m b(w), 'in the place of'); (cf. A: bi, 'by, at, in, with'); RATIONALE:

(7) T[?]SA-¿E ("body-like=matter"); H: edi, 'body, matter' (the initial e/i may have been added simply to create a disyllabic root or possibly has been borrowed from the postpositional form with preceding PP ?6¿, 'over there-like'; -t/da, allative; U: -(y)(e)de/i, allative; also reflexive; (IE, as postposition in Greek -thi, 'toward(s)'; in several forms of the middle: 1st person plural -medh6/-mezdh6; 2nd person plural -dhve:/-dhvam/-zdhe; 2nd person singular imperative -dhi [i-dhi, 'go', rather '**move yourself']); (cf. A: dhâ-tun {from **dya-tun}, 'self'); RATIONALE:

(?) K[?]XE-¿E, ("face/front-like")Ik. Hurrian, egi/igi, 'in (postposition)'; Urartian -kai, 'before (postposition)'; PP ?y6, 'over there' + k?xy6¿, 'oral cavity-under (at/in the face of ...'; PIE, only in further combination, eg[^]hs, 'out' (the majority of PIE adverbial adpositions are compounded with PL ?é-, 'over there', ?ó, 'there', and ?á, 'here' (see Ryan MS. 2), e.g., 2. an, 4. an, anu, ano:, anti, anta, antyos (an); abhi, ebhi, obhi (bhi); 1. ad, ed, e:d, o:d (*da/do); adhi (dhi {cf. Greek -thi), eg[^]hs (3. g[^]he/2. g[^](h)i); 1. al, el?, ol (*le {from PL ne; cf. Greek ablative -n in -phin and -then show the traces of an ancient exlative in ne which lost its vowel before the change of PP ny6 to PIE l}); ambhi, ambho:(u), em (*ma); en, eneu, on, eno, ono (*na/ne/ni/no); apo, apu epi, opi (pi/po/o:/pu); 4. ar, er, or (ro); at(i), ato, et(i), eto, etos (*ti/to); 3. au, awe, 4. au (*wa/we/e:); as can readily be seen, almost every consonant is represented in this patterning which is in perfect accord with the semantic origin of the PL primitive monosyllables, e.g. PL ne, 'from inside'; na, 'inside'; and no, 'to inside'. Therefore, we can analyze eg[^]hs, 'out', as 'away from (shé) the immediate presence (face) of the ... (k?xé) over there (?é).

(51)Xb. Hurrian (-)(i)ya/ei-, relative pronoun, third person singular possessive; Urartian (- )(i)ya/e/i-, third person singular possessive; PP ¿w6 from PL ¿ò, 'hold', through ¿ó, 'fist'; PIE yo, relative pronoun. The similarity of reflexes between the first and third persons singular may be the original cause of the introduction of suppletive forms.
I strongly suspect, though it will be almost impossible to convincingly prove, that the i-3/i/e-prefix of Sumerian verbal forms reflects this element also: ud-dam i-3-e-3, 'by day (is) his going'; g[~]eštug-2 i-3-g[~]a-2-g[~]a-2, the ear (is) his thing-to-be-set', i.e. 'he will set his ear, listen'. To discuss all the ramifications of this would take us too far afield; Arabic 3rd person perfective ya-.

(52)Xc. Hurrian-Urartian -i/e, derivative, in eši-, 'heaven', and many other examples in this essay; PP ya from PL ¿e '-like'; PIE -y-, former of adjectives (in Brugmann 1888, listed -yo-; but as we have shown, the -o- is, in itself, a formative; Egyptian -j, derivative.

(53)XIa. Hurrian -(u)h(h)e/i, derivative, 'going to'; Urartian -(u)hi/e/a; PP H^ya(j) from PL HHE(¿) 'go' (+ imperfective); PIE -e:y-, former of adjectives (in Brugmann 1888, listed -iyo-; as we have shown, the -o- is, in itself, a formative; the -e:- has been shortened and raised to i; E: -(j)j, derivative; A: -iyy(u)-.

(9) Hurrian a(k)ku, 'other'; Urartian, probably in akuki, '*other'; from PP ?y6, 'eye, over there': + khy6, 'shadow, grey, other' + fy6, 'male' (see 4. j. below); in PIE with prefix: *ek[^]ei-, 'there', in Greek ekeî, 'there', listed under k[^]o-, k[^]e (see below), with additional PP r6, 'scratch, any', cf. Arabic ?âkhru, 'other' [PP kh PAA x, written kh]; without prefix: k[^]e,'*other', listed under k[^]o-, k[^]e, 'pronominal stem "this", originally I-deictic, later also "that"' [correct to "originally you-deictic": cf. Armenian k'ez, 'to you'; Egyptian probably K?E -k, second person singular ending]; with suffixed NO! ¿A, 'tooth, pertaining to'/hh6¿, 'be going (to)' (see 4. i. below): k[^](e)i-, 'this', listed under k[^]o-, k[^]e (see above), to which Chinese ga:i, 'this, that' and Egyptian kjj, 'other', may be compared; Urartian gi(e)(i), 'something', is probably related to Egyptian kjj, and should probably be corrected to mean 'other(wise)', e.g. aluše giei inukani esinini šiule, presently translated 'whoever takes away something from this monument', or 'which other person (anyone else who) removes this monument'?

(17)IId. Hurrian ikki, 'not', the negative of indicative mode sentences; Urartian, not attested; PIE k in Greek ou(k/kh), 'not', a double negative (see below): "empty + otherwise" (see above).

(24)IIIb. Hurrian uja, 'negative particle'; -wa-, verbal negation; Urartian ui/e, 'not'; from PP f6h(¿), 'empty(-like), out of PL fà, 'empty' + ha, stative + ¿a, derivative; PIE wa:, 'lack, empty', listed under 1. eu-, in Greek negative ou(k/kh); or, alternatively, from PP ¿y6f, 'taken from under'; Old Egyptian negative (i)w(i); Arabic ¿aiya, 'be unable to, sick' (from *¿iwa? cf. ¿âha, 'be smitten by a plague'); compounded with PP nh6¿, 'the(animate)-like', in Sumerian (dialect) ul-2, 'not(-one)' from (*u, 'not' + *na, 'the' + *i, derivative); Hurrian uli, 'other'; Urartian uli/e, 'other'; PIE ol-, '*not this, other', listed under 1. al, 'above and beyond'.

(25)IIIc. Hurrian -š-, suffixed sign of the perfective aspect; Urartian uses 0@/-marking for perfective aspect (this shows that -š- did not originally have perfective meaning); PP s6 from PL sá, 'sinew, strong'; this was originally an intensive which has been re-interpreted as a perfective in Hurrian. We see it in both uses in PIE: 1) intensive: s-mobile, a very common phenomenon, has been characterized as imparting no particular meaning to the verbs it begins; a meaning that would be nearly undetectable is a simple emphatic nuance; what has not been generally appreciated is that s-mobile apparently can be added to any verbal stem but that it unvoices voiced stops (simple and aspirated), depalatalizes palatal dorsals, delabializes labialized stops, denasalizes dorsal nasals, and before r, it becomes st, e.g. bhel-, 'shiny, white' + s- = (s)p(h)el-, 'shine, shimmer'39; in addition, we have -s added as a root-formative where a state of repeated or vigorous activity seems indicated, e.g. Old Indian dve:STi, 'he hates'; 2) perfective: -s- perfectives, which as Lehmann has so convincingly argued, are "-momentary" 26, where it implied persistence, and s-aorists, which are "+momentary" 26, where it emphasized the vigor or quickness of the action. Interestingly, Sumerian and Egyptian share an isogloss for this morpheme but with the additional formant PP f6, i.e. s6f6, 'strong number', which results in the Sumerian prefix šu, which seems to be a perfective (cf. Sumerian šu-2, 'totality'; Egyptian s represents PP s(6)f6 sw6; we find it as a causative and factitive prefix; it is a reduction from s-w6; oddly, we find the causative nuance in the uncompounded Akkadian ša-form of the verb; it is not hard to see how an emphatic: "he eats it voraciously" could become a perfective: "he eats it up" which, in turn can be conceptualized as "he causes it to be eaten", resulting finally in a re-direction to "he causes someone to eat". The compounded form exists in PIE in its original emphatic sense: su/u:-, 'well, good', i.e. 'energetically to completion'.
In those languages for which ná and nhá had different reflexes (PIE and PAA n/l), to which Hurrian-Urartian is to be counted, we find a separation into plural (from a re-interpretation of inchoative/ingressive as durative or prospective) and definite-singular ideas: nhá -l, definite article (PIE and PAA) but ná n, definite article (Hurrian-Urartian -ni, -na [plural]) opposed to nhá -l, plural-prospective (Hurrian-Urartian intransitive 1st p. pl.: -t/dilla/-dila; 3rd p. pl. -lla/-la; Urartian transitive plural object-marker(s) -(a)li32) but ná n, definite article (Hurrian-Urartian -ni, -na [plural]).

32 It is very doubtful that the transitive "past" personal endings postulated by Melikišvili and Diakonoff for "objectless" endings have any validity. Firstly, in an ergative language, we should expect that the elements most closely attached to the verb are the objects of the verbal action conceived passively. The forms cited can be analyzed as follows: -bi, PP p?6¿, 'piece-like', a general referent for any object; -(a)li, PP nh6¿, 'the one(s) - animate', a general referent to plural objects (although, it may be that a causative nuance is indicated: Urartian ieše šidištuli inili É.GAL ^MESH, 'I built these fortresses' or 'I had them build these fortresses', preserving the animate character of li [usually we have kings speaking, who would hardly turn their hands to build anything themselves but would gladly incorporate an expression of their powers by describing their ability to command others to fulfil their objectives]; -ni, PP n6¿, 'stone-like, the one - inanimate', referring to a definite object: ...ini pili aguni, '... this canal (was) built'; as for -me, it functions as a dative of interest meaning 'for me', proved by its employment in both singular and plural (as -itume); its use in the first person would be a bit arrogant. We have also a postulated 1st person plural ending -še, which occurs in a sentence in which several named builders inform us: ...^DHalde suse šidištuše. I believe the proper interpretation of this še is that it means 'single, one', a meaning attested for Urartian, and serves the purpose of emphasizing to the reader that only one 'holy place for Haldi was built' although several builders contributed to it.

If we assume, as I do, that all Hurrian-Urartian verbs are formally third person, we can understand the facts of the endings of the intransitive verb with a clearer understanding: 3rd person singular -b(i), is nothing more than a reflexive object-marker in the singular balanced by -li in the plural but since -(n)na/-(e)n exists also in this use, we can see a fine distinction is being made between objects generally considered and reflexive objects that are definite because their subjects are definite.

For -tta/-dda/-di and its plural -t/dil(l)a for the first person, we again have a reflexive object marker, this deriving PP t?s6(¿), 'body, long, self (-like)', which can be glimpsed in Egyptian d.t, 'body, self' ; ds and dd (Arabic dhâtun [from *Zyaitun?]), 'self'; presumably, this marker could have been applied to any "person".

1)) PL hhá shows up in PIE as the collective in -a:; ¿á as -oi in neuter nominal plurals; either or both in Old Egyptian as i-, a prefix forming collectives (igp, 'clouds`; ipn, 'these`); and again as a suffix in -i, forming active participles; we have the same process in Hurrian where tad-i means 'he who loves`; 1)) PL f(h)á shows up in PIE as the dual ending in -o:u; fá as -u in nominal plurals; either or both in Egyptian as -w, the sign of the nominal plural; and again as -w, forming perfective participles; we have the same process in Hurrian where tad-u means 'he who is loved`; i. feminine (nominal); stative (verbal); animate h6; inanimate, ?6; from PL há, 'air, who surrounds, hollow, female`; ?a, 'forehead, front, here`; although PP h6 shows up nominally as the PIE feminine in -a: and PAA feminine in -ha, Hurrian-Urartian seems to be using a combination of PP h6 and ¿6, the PIE i/y of differentiation, if we can analyze Urartian al-u-se, 'ruler` as the masculine counterpart of al-ae, 'lady`. For example, all handbooks will assure that PIE o@v becomes Latin and Old Bulgarian o. However, the nominal ending -o appears in Latin as u and in Old Bulgarian as u@v. This is only understandable if PIE nominal ending contained a u/w-element, i.e. if o was not original. In addition, -o functioned as a marker of nomina actionis and nomina agentis, in which cases it also appears as -u- in Latin and Old Bulgarian (Old Church Slavonic)19. Coupled with this is the existence of nomina actionis and nomina agentis in Egyptian marked by -w20. We can only conclude that a w-element underlies them all. Since we are suggesting a common link through Proto-Pontic, it will not be amiss to remind that many Caucasian languages with class-markers use w/v as a marker for the masculine class21. In view of all this, I propose that the nomina actionis and nomina agentis of Egyptian and PIE, as well as the o-stems, derive from a masculine class-marker of the form PP fy6 from PL fé, 'sinew, strong`, which was added to Hurrian nouns ending in a consonant (but not Urartian nouns) before the actual case endings in the ergative (-(u)s@-) and genitive (-we/i) [exactly those cases where the noun is thought of as a person acting or possessing] but not in the absolute, directive, ablative, locative, stative, and comitative cases; and also not in the dative (-wa) since it is the uncompounded circumlative fh6, 'around`, the proof being that the Urartian dative plural is -a-wa; cf. also the PIE locative plural in -su, i.e. /s/-plural + /u/. This circumlative also appears in Egyptian as -w, the only nominal case inflection in Egyptian, preserved only in the oblique forms of the personal pronoun: iw (old), 'me` from -i, *I, my); kw (old), 'thee` (from -k, 'thou/thy (masculine); Tw, 'thee` (from -T, 'thou/thy (feminine); zw, 'him/her/it` (from lost *z, '*he/his` [z, 'individual, man`])23; cf. also PIE *k^ew-, *thee, in Armenian k'o, 'of you`; in addition, cf. the Sumerian possessive pronouns g[~]u-10, 'my` and zu, 'thy`; cf. also the PIE pronominal stem forms tewe-, 'thee`, newe-, 'us`, and sewe, 'self`; PAA nominative -u and possibly imperfective -u. From this distribution, it appears that perhaps the oldest discernible "case-ending" of languages derived from Proto-Pontic (and, by inference, from Proto-Language) will be the circumlative fhà, 'circling, around`, which was used to mark the active case when the language was still in the "active-type"41 phase. The Hurrian dative of interest is the final uncompounded reflex of this active case, which designated the beneficiary of transitive verbs and active intransitive verbs. The object of both and the patient of stative verbs will have been marked by Ø. At the same time, or thereabouts, the lative will have been developed with the ending PP hh6. We see it/them in the Hurrian-Urartian locatives in -a, and in the Sumerian locative in -a and probably in the PIE locative and instrumental singulars in -a:. As the ergative construction was being developed, two alternative courses were pursued. A subablative, from PL hhè, 'come up from`, was used to designate the new ergative in Sumerian (-e); this can also be seen in Old Georgian narrative case-ending -i. The second method derived the ergative from abitative shè, 'go away from` which can been seen in Urartian šia, 'go`, and šu, 'take away`; in Egyptian (j)z, 'go!'; this can also be seen in PIE se, 'to one side, separated`, and verbally in 2. se:(i)-, 'send out, throw, let fall, sow`; as well as the Hurrian-Urartian ergative in -š. Thus, we have the Hurrian ergative -(u)š, which exactly corresponds to the PIE nominative -os. The PIE genitive in -(e)s ((hhè +) shè), dative in -ei (-?á¿), instrumental in -is (¿à + shè), locative in -i (¿à), can be analyzed and understood. For a fuller treatment of the case-endings, see Note 38. Hurrian-Urartian and Proto-Indo-European resemble each other in the following significant ways, among others: a. the presence of -y- and -w- as formants of the first and second persons; b. the presence of -e(y)- as a formant in the third persons (Hurrian-Urartian -i@-/(y)e; PIE 3. e-, ei-, i-); c. similar markings of nomina actionis and nomina agentis with a -w-derived formant; d. -m- and -w- and -k-based negatives; e. correspondences among various nominal case-forms; f. nominal and verbal formants, employed analogously; g. vocabulary cognates.

(33)Va. Hurrian -ma, negative suffix, 'not'; mi...mi, 'neither...nor'; Urartian me(i), 'may not, let not'; PIE 1. me:-, '(that) not, prohibitive'; Egyptian m, negative imperative particle; im, negative verb; Chinese méi, negative particle. All derive from PL mè, 'take off, remove' in the sense of 'remove the intention of ... -ing'. Egyptian im is PIE em-, 'take', from which 'empty' is derived (PL "?è-m(e), 'away-remove'; PP ?y6my(6)); Arabic mâ, 'not'.

(34)Vb. Hurrian and Urartian -(a)n-, 'causative/factitive'; although the original PL distinction of ná and nhá was between inanimate and animate, the derived languages tended towards separating this original complementarity into related but distinct related functions. In Sumerian and Egyptian, where ná and nhá presumably had the same reflex (n[a]), we see a confusion of uses.

Thus, in Egyptian, we see -n (for nhá) forming an ancient plural for the personal pronouns (-n, -tn, -sn) but also as a demonstrative element in (pn, 'this'). In the sdm.n.f form (sdm.n.f sn.t, 'the sister has been heard by him', i.e., 'the sister is his heard- thing'), it presumably represents ná [this might also be construed as 'the sister, she (n) caused him (f) to hear', with a reversal of the usual order of the elements].

In Sumerian, we find an-e, 'he, she, it (ergative)' and -en in the intransitive singular and plural, transitive imperfective singular and plural, and the transitive perfective plural only, which, presumably, is nhá; however, we also find ana, 'what?', opposed to aba, 'who?', where it must stem from ná.

I)) A characteristic of Hurrian and Urartian is the use of endings to indicate transitive and intransitive.

Transitive is associated with u (Old Hurrian; later i) and i; intransitive (Hurrian u/o, according to Diakonoff; but even he mentions that the stative participle ending is a) with a. I assume that the common language had only -Ø originally, and that the employment of -a, -i, and -u originated from aspectual nuances created by stative (PP -?/h6), imperfective (PP ¿/hh6), and perfective (PP f/fh6), as reflected in the Hurrian stative participle in -a, Hurrian imperfective participle in -i (Egyptian -i), and the perfective participle in -u (Egyptian -w).

II)) There is some relationship between these endings and the PAA endings exhibited in Arabic nominal nominative (-u), genitive (-i), and accusative (-a) and verbal imperfect indicative (-u) and subjunctive (-a), which remains to be defined [possibly the circumlative (fh6), the derivative (¿6 or hh6¿), and the lative/subessive (h6/?6)].

(38)VIc. The PP animate definite article (plus derivative) is seen in Urartian -li, plural (indefinite) and -ni-li, plural (definite). Urartian has specialized the inanimate definite article (n6¿) as a definite article for both inanimate and animate, and selected the animate definite article (nh6¿) to indicate the plural.

Further compounded with ?6, 'here', PP -nh6 can be compared to PIE 1. al-, 'above and beyond', from which alyos, 'other'.

Hurrian, on the other hand, uses the inanimate definite article (possibly expanded by PP hh6, animate indefinite plural, i.e. nâ) -na to indicate the definite plural; and the inanimate definite article + ¿6, derivational, i.e. ni, to indicate the definite singular.

A final object referent to be discussed is -ri, found in Urartian only in negative sentences; this is PP ry6(¿), 'fingernail(-like), scratch, indefinite singular'; it is also found in Sumerian in -ri in the phrase ud ri-a, translated 'in those remote days' but better translated 'an unknown (any) number of days ago'.

38 The insight that emerges from these analyses is that selected formants of stem-classes, including gender designations and markers of definiteness, personal fé [PIE o-stems; Hurrian "ergative" {really personal} -u-]; feminine há [PIE feminine -a:]; derivative ¿á [PIE i/i:/e~a~oi-stems]; derivative ¿á + feminine h(a)) [PIE -ya:-stems]; indefinite animate plural hhá [PIE nominative-accusative-vocative neuter plural of o-stems -a:; lengthened vowels of genitive plural -o:m, instrumental plurals -o:is and V:bh/mis; nominative-accusative-vocative plural i- and u-stems -i: and -u:; Urartian plural -a- (-a:-)]; indefinite inanimate plural ¿á [PIE nominative-accusative-vocative plural of consonantal stems -6 (better -i)]; definite inanimate/animate plural f/fhá [PIE u/u:/e~a~ou-stems]; unique inanimate/animate singular s/shé [PIE s-stems]; mó, 'surface, overall' [PIE m-stems]; inanimate definite singular ná [PIE n-stems; Hurrian-Urartian (o/a/e)na-stems]; inanimate definite article ná + derivative ¿(a) [Hurrian-Urartian (o/a/e)ne/i-stems; Hurrian-Urartian singular definite article -ne/i]; inanimate definite article ná + indefinite animate plural hhá [Hurrian plural definite article -na {-nâ}]; indefinite inanimate/animate singular r/rhé [PIE r-stems; Hurrian-Urartian (o/a/e)ra-stems]; indefinite inanimate/animate singular r/rhé + derivative ¿(a) [Hurrian-Urartian (o/a/e)re/i-stems]; indefinite singular ré // definite singular ná [PIE r-/n-stems]; animate definite singular nhá [PIE l-stems; Hurrian-Urartian (o/a/e)la-stems]; animate definite singular nhá + derivative ¿á [Hurrian-Urartian (o/a/e)le/i-stems; Urartian plural definite article -le/i];

and all case-endings in languages derived from Proto-Language originated in combinations of apposed nominals in phrases of noun + apposed nominal,

?á, 'here' [PIE locative -Ø; Hurrian-Urartian locative -a]; ?é, 'there' [PIE vocative singular -e (of o-stems); PIE vocative dual (of consonantal stems) masculine-feminine -e]; subessive ¿á [PIE locative -i; Hurrian locative in -ya]; sublative hhá [PIE locatives with heavy-grade; Hurrian-Urartian stative -a:]; comessive t?á, 'hand, side' [Sumerian comitative -da]; comitative t?sá, 'body, (a)long' [Hurrian directive -ta; Sumerian ablative-instrumental -ta]; exessive né [Urartian ablative-instrumental -ne/i]; collective shó, 'herd' [Hurrian nominal plural -(a)š-; Urartian in archaic directive-allative plural -ašte- and directive-ablative plural -aštane/i-]; superessive má, 'breast, surface' [PIE accusative -m; cf. Egyptian (i)m, 'in, on'; not attested in Hurrian-Urartian]; inessive ná, 'nasal passage, interior' [PIE in 4. an-, 'onto, in'; cf. Egyptian (i)n, 'to, for, in'; not attested in Hurrian-Urartian];

or of doubled apposed nominals in phrases of noun + apposed nominal + apposed nominal,

proessive -?á¿ [PIE dative -ei; Hurrian-Urartian postposition a(w)i/aie, 'in front of']; circumessive -p?fé¿ [PIE bhi, 'around', listed under ambhi, 'all around, on both sides', and in Greek "locative" in -phi; instrumental singular -bhi; the dative-ablative-instrumental dual bhya:m- is a simple metathesis of am- and -bhi in ambhi, 'around'; PIE in instrumental plural -bhis; Hurrian-Urartian postposition abi, 'before'/-pei, 'under']; collective shó, 'herd' + circumlative fhà [PIE in instrumental (active) plural -su]; sublative hhá + comessive t?á, 'hand, side' [PIE ablative singular -e:/o:d]; comitative t?sá, 'body, (a)long' + derivative ¿(a) [PIE *-dhi - Greek -thi, 'at, in'; archaic Urartian directive -te/i; cf. Egyptian dr, 'until']; comitative t?sá, 'body, (a)long' + exessive né [PIE *-dhen - Greek -then, 'from (along); Hurrian directive-ablative -tan; with additional formant ¿(a): Urartian directive-ablative -dane/i; cf. Egyptian dr, 'until']; k?xé, 'oral cavity' + subessive ¿(a) ('at the mouth of') [Urartian -kai, 'before (postposition)'; cf. Egyptian Hr, 'upon']; superessive má, 'breast, surface' + subessive ¿a [PIE instrumental singular -mi; PIE in instrumental plural -mis];

or of doubled apposed nominals and verb in phrases of noun + apposed nominal + apposed nominal + verb,

?e, 'over there' + k?xé, 'oral cavity' + subessive ¿(a) ('over there at the mouth of') [Hurrian egi/igi, 'in (postposition)' cf. Egyptian Hr, 'upon']; ?e, 'over there' + comessive t?á, 'hand, side' + subablative hhè [Urartian directive -(y)ede/i]; or of tripled apposed nominals in phrases of noun + apposed nominal + apposed nominal + apposed nominal,

?e, 'over there' + k?xé, 'oral cavity' + abitative shè ('over there away from the mouth of') [PIE eg[^]hs, 'out' cf. Egyptian Hr, 'upon'];

or of noun + apposed nominal + verb,

comessive t?á, 'hand, side' + subablative hhè [PIE Greek -de, 'to(ward the side of)'; Urartian directive -(y)de/i]; comessive t?á, 'hand, side' + abitative shè [PIE Greek -ze, '(away) to( the side of)];

or of verbs in subjectless phrases of object + verb,

abitative shè [PIE nominative (ergative) -s; Hurrian-Urartian ergative -sv(e/i) {cf. also PIE se-, 'to one side, separated, for itself'}; with a shift in meaning of 'away to', PIE Greek -se, 'toward' and Sumerian directive -še-3]; lative hhà [PIE locative and instrumental singulars -a:; Hurrian-Urartian stative -a:; Sumerian locative -a]; subablative hhè [PIE nominative-accusative dual masculine-feminine -e of consonantal stems; Sumerian locative-terminative and ergative -e, which should be re-assigned the meaning 'from']; circumlative fhà [PIE in Greek genitive -ou; Hurrian dative -wa/Urartian *-wa (plural -awe/i) in -i: (<*ewa), -a: (<*awa), -u: (<*uwa)]; ¿ò, 'hold, retain' [Hurrian-archaic-Urartian genitive -(w)e/i / Urartian genitive -(e)i; Sumerian genitive -a {Sumerian genitive -ak is PL hhá-kxh(o), 'water-mollusc, sea-shell, wealth, possession'; cf. Sumerian ak(a), 'possess' and PIE e:ik-, 'as own, be able to' and Egyptian (i)h@v.t, 'possessions'}]; r(h)ó, '(raise) up to' [PIE 4. ar-, 'now, also' {?á, 'here' + r(h)ó = 'hereto'}; cf. Tocharian B ra-, emphatic particle; PIE in Old Irish pre-verb and intensive ro- (not from 2. per-!), and in Latin re:-, 'back, against, again'; Sumerian dative -ra; Egyptian (i)r, 'to'; Hurrian comitative -ra; not attested in Urartian;

or of verbs in subjectless phrases of object + verb + verbal formant,

¿ò, 'hold, retain' + durative ¿a [PIE Latin and Celtic genitives -i:];

or of verbs in subjectless phrases of object + verb + apposed nominal,

abitative shè + subessive ¿á [PIE Greek -si, '(away) at, in]; sublative hhá + comessive t?á, 'hand, side' [PIE ablative singular -e:/o:d];

or of doubled verbs in subjectless phrases of object + verb + verb,

subablative hhè + abitative shè [PIE genitive -(e)s];

or of apposed nominals and verbs in subjectless phrases of object + apposed nominal + verb,

subessive ¿à + abitative/abessive shè [PIE instrumental -is]; personal fé + abitative/abessive s(h)è [PIE ablative singular o/o:s of non-o-stems; Hurrian ergative -uš];

N.B. For Proto-Language and Proto-Pontic, for greater precision, I use a special adpositional terminology in which compounds with -essive denote a position, those with -lative indicate a position with reference to change of position, and those with itative to designate motion in a certain direction; in- and ex- are 'within' and 'without'; ad- and ab- and 'towards' and 'away from'; super- and sub- are 'above' and 'below'; pro- and pon- are 'front' and 'back'; circum- is 'around'; trans- is 'along'; and com- is 'with'; e.g. 'within' is inessive; 'from within' is inablative; 'to within' is inallative; i.e. the pattern is position (in- / ex- / super- / sub- / pro- / pon- / circum- / trans- / com- ), direction (ad- / ab-)/rest (Ø), motion (-lative)/position (-essive); but simple 'rest at' remains locative; simple 'motion at' is re-defined as lative; 'in a state of' is essive. I have retained the terminology used by authors of quoted languages for the sake of simplicity.

As a matter of interest, this marker shows up in PIE as -dhi in the imperative, which I interpret as reflexive [the various classes of verbs listed in Brugmann will be related to the PL verbal formatives I have described --- an easy one to identify is the reflexive meaning of Class XXV: Old Indian yo:dhati-, 'I put myself into motion'.

In Sumerian forms like Sumerian -te/i- in ni-2-te-a-ni, 'him/herself'; and ni-2-te-a-ne-ne, in-eye-te/i-body 'themselves' etal. (t is the normal Sumerian reflex of PP t?-,w but z from t?y). The final element to be related is Urartian -(i)tu(ni/li/me), which appears in the 3rd person plural of the "past"; this is PP thw6fh(6), a petrified circumlative case of PL thó, 'large group, definite large plural'; where -tu- is used by itself, we can translate it as 'one', i.e. partu, 'a group/one was driven away'; in combination, it is a dative of interest: šidištituli, 'they had built for themselves', effectively identifying a plural ergative subject.

This can be found in Egyptian also where t(w) functions as an indefinite subject, 'one'.

This is the source for PIE neuters in -r(/n) where 'any' is implied, and for verbal 3rd person plural in -r; as well as for the Hurrian-Urartian nominal forms in -ri.

In Egyptian, the demonstratives compounded with -3 (p3, n3) are probably reflexes of r6(¿) also.

PP thw6 is found in PIE as the -t of the 3rd person plural form -nt, which shows that the earlier 3rd person singular formant was n, familiar from Hurrian-Urartian.

Therefore, a sentence like inuki badusini (s)ui šida(g)uri giei should be translated 'so this kind of great thing had never (not other[wise]) been desired to be built for anyone'.

PL mé/è, for example, meant 'tongue/converse', extended to 'conversational partner/group'. It can be easily understood that the original semantic reference is person- indifferent for the first and second persons. Only the third person would be semantically excluded. Assignment of forms based on mé/è to either the first or second persons is, therefore, whollly arbitrary and language(-family)-dependent. In fact, we find me-based forms for the second person in some Caucasian languages, as mentioned, and again in American Indian languages, among others. On the other hand, me-based forms for the first person are more commonly found in American Indian languages also, and in many others.

45. PIE in Old Irish s, infixed pronoun of the 3rd persons singular feminine and 3rd person plural; se/sa (1st person emphasizing particles); sio/so/su (2nd person); si (2nd person plural); si (3rd person feminine); sem/som/sium/sum (3rd person masculine/neuter and 3rd person plural for all genders), listed under so(s), sa:.

(A1v) verbal: "?A ("I" = "here"); (Egyptian in jn {?A-NA, ("here-thing"), "presence"}, interrogative particle, ‘**here/the presence (is . . . ?)' [cf. Arabic ?anaiya, ‘how?, whence?, where?']; also, ‘indeed' ('**here is . . .') [cf. Arabic ?inna, ‘indeed']); (Arabic interrogative particle ?a-, ‘**here (is . . . ?)'); (IE *1. e/e:, o/o:, ‘near by, together with', in expanded form, *2. an-, ‘there, on the other hand', *secondary interrogative particle (cf. Latin an, which also preserves the affirmative meaning, e.g. annon?, ‘or is it not so?' (‘indeed [or] not?')^1.) but with a basal meaning of ‘here' (cf. Old Irish an-d, ‘here'); in lengthened final vowels: e.g. in *g[^]he(:)-, emphatic particle); (cf. Basque -a-, present tense prefix (see Trask 1997:223)); (cf. Beng *-:, stative); (cf. Japanese a-, copula ( MJ á-ru, ‘be at, exist'; in combination: ni a na; de a da))

(A1n) nominal: ?A ("I" = "here") / ?E ("he/she/it" = "over there") / ?O ("you" = "there"); (Egyptian in independent pronoun basis for 1^st p. pronouns, jn- {?A-NA, ("here-thing"), "presence"} in jn.k, 'I, **my presence', and jn.n, 'we, **our presence'; for 2^nd and 3^rd p. pronouns, jnt- {?A-NA-T[?]O, ("here-thing-torso"), "physical presence"; cf. Old Irish an-d, ‘here'}, in jnt.f, 'he, **his physical presence'); (Arabic ?a-, 1^st p. imperfect prefix); ?an-, basis for 1^st p. sing. pronoun: ?ana {for **?anâ from **anaya}, 'I, **my presence'; ?ant-, basis for 2^nd and 3^rd p. pronouns: e.g. ?anta, 'you, **physical presence'); (IE *-H₂e (-a), 1^st p. sing. perfect; *-H₄e (-e), 3rd p. sing. perfect; *3. e-, ‘this, he'; also in *ei- ["?E-¿E or ?E-¿A {see below}], ‘this, he', listed under *3. e-; and *4. au- ["?E-FA{see below}], ‘that'); (cf. Basque -a-, -e-, -o-, direct object (see Trask 1997:220)); (cf. these early pronouns are present in Old Japanese a(re), ‘I'; o(:)(re), ‘you'; and a(ti) [for *e(ti)], ‘he, she, it); (cf. Uralic e, ‘this'); (cf. Beng [Southern Mandé] O, ‘he/she/it' - with present tense [ ?E-FA {imperfective}; cf. IE *4. au-, ‘that']; (cf. Beng E, ‘he/she/it' - with past tense [ ?E-¿A {perfective}; cf. IE *ei-, ‘this, he']); (in Ryan (1990), I demonstrated the existence of an early set of deictic elements that were used as personal pronouns for the 1^st (?A), 2^nd (?O), and 3^rd persons (?E)).

(A2v) verbal: ?E- (non-concommitant time); (Old and Late Egyptian j-, verbal augment); (IE e/e:-augment of perfect and imperfect, ‘then'); (cf. Basque e-, Biscaian past tense prefix; combined with *za/o (SA or S[H]O) into ze- when no other agreement adfix is present (Trask 1997:223))

(A2n) nominal: ?E {see ?A above}

(A3v) verbal: ?O {not identified at present}

(A3n) nominal: ?O {see above}

(A4v) verbal: -"¿A(/HHA)("much [/ many]"= perfective [inanimate and animate]; (Egyptian -j(j), perfective ‘participle'); (IE -yo, future passive participles; participles of necessity; active or passive participles; the basis for the infinitive); (cf. Basque -i, perfective participle (Trask 1997:212)); (cf. Uralic -i, ‘past tense' marker (cf. Finnish annoin, ‘I gave', *antaim), which is really perfective); (cf. Beng past *-y (really: perfective)); (cf. Japanese -e(:)/i, infinitive); the idea behind the PL perfective is successful completion of a verbal activity; it was assumed that doing something ‘many' times or strongly (‘much') would lead to the successful completion of the activity)

(A4n) nominal: -¿A (/HHA)("much [/ many]"); (IE -i, plural in oblique cases and -i in neuter duals of o-stems).

(A5v) verbal: ¿E(-?A) ("say{-here}"); (AA vocative ya); (IE *a in an, interrogative particle [PL ¿E-NA, "say-not"]); (cf. OJ ya, interrogative particle)

*(A5v1) verbal: -"¿E (verbal differentiation only); (IE -i in primary verbal endings e.g. -mi); (cf. Beng *-y); (cf. Japanese -i, non-past indicative of adjectives)

(A5n) nominal: -¿E (" -like"); (AA -i [from *-ya], genitive); (IE -i, relationship of any kind to root; -i, genitive; in -yo / -iyo, adjectives of possession/origin; locative in -i is probably originally a genitive [if not from subessive ¿A, "under"]); (cf. Basque: 1) -i, "an ancient adjective-forming suffix (Trask 1997:212)", e.g. gazi, 'salty', from gatz, 'salt'; ari, 'active', from *ar, '*stack up'; Trask lumps Basque reflexes of PL ¿E, ¿A, and ¿O together: "I assume we are looking at a single suffix in all these cases (Trask 1997:212)" - but nothing could better illustrate the fallacy of considering Basque an "isolate"; 2)-e(from V + y), genitive (Trask 1997:201; "Michelena suggests (1972b) that -e might have been the original genitive ending"); (cf. Uralic -i, relationship of any kind to root); (the -i/? element of the Altaic forms: [cf. Sino-]Tibetan -yi, genitive [¿E-¿E], which has been supplemented by -q [QO, '*attached']); (cf. Beng *-y); (cf. Japanese -i/í [from *-ye] in MJ namí, 'wave'); the earliest PL "genitive" is -¿E, "-like"

*(A5n1) nominal: -¿E-¿E ("always-like"), gentilic; (AA -iya [Egyptian gentilic -jj {/ya:/}]); (IE -iyo, see above); ([cf. Sino-]Tibetan -yi, see above [unless from dissimilated HHE-HHE]).

(A6v) verbal: -"¿O(-¿E), ("what is held, object(-like)"), causative; (IE in -(e)yo {**H₃ey}, causative; -n-, causative [from PL NA, "one"]); (cf. Basque -i in itzal-i, 'obscure' ('cause to be shaded'), from itzal, 'shade' (Trask 1997:212; strangely, Trask does not recognize this as a causative formant, but characterizes it as "an identical -i . . . to derive participles from nouns and adjectives"; referring, of course, to Basque -i from PL ¿A); (cf. Japanese -*y in tate: ( *tatay) = taté-ru, 'erect' ('cause to stand'), from tata, 'stand'); in language after language, the causative/factitive has been simply formed by adding a formant to the verb which originally designated an inanimate object: factitive* ('I [cause] it {NA} [to be] V... -ed'); and the causative: ('I [cause] he {him} {¿O, originally inanimate} to V... it')

*(A6v1) verbal: -" ¿O ("hold"); (IE *-[y]e/o-, subjunctive?); (cf. Japanese yo, emphasis for statement or command [‘must'; cf. yu-u, ‘tie, bind' = IE *2. eu- {**H₃ew-}, ‘put on, bind (cf. ou-tla: 'bandage')' [¿O-FA, "holding"])

(A6n) nominal: ¿O, ("what is held, object"); (IE *yo (from H₃ey from ¿O- ¿E), ‘who, which', listed incorrectly under *3. e-); (cf. Altaic -i/?, 3rd p. sing.); (cf. Beng yo, ‘another')

(A7v) verbal: -"FA[/F[H]A], imperfective;(Egyptian -w, imperfective ‘participle'); (IE in nomina actionis in -we/o(n) and Old Indian active present participle in u for s-desideratives); (cf. Beng -w in bON, ‘black pagne leaf'); (cf. Uralic Nenets -wa (not -*ma!), imperfective infinitive); (cf. Japanese imperfect -u [imperfective]); the idea behind this formant is that a definite small number of repetitions implies activity without completion.

(A7n) nominal: -FA [F[H]A], definite inanimate small plural; (Egyptian in -(j)w, nominal plural; in -wj, nominal dual; -w, (Late?) 3^rd person plural suffix for nouns and verbs); (Arabic in -ûna, external masculine nominative nominal plural; in -û, 3^rd person plural verbal suffix); (IE dual in *-o(:)u); (cf. Beng -*w in gbO, ‘feces')

(A8/9v&n). verbal and nominal FE, ("energetic") / FO, ("ear, leaf"); not identified at present

(A10v&n) verbal and nominal -F[H]A {see FA above; and (A46) below}

(A11/12v&n). verbal and nominal F[H]E, ("weary") / F[H]O, ("wind") ; not identified at present

(A13v&n) verbal and nominal -HA {see ?A above}

*(A13n1) nominal: HA(-¿E); (Egyptian negative element j(j)); (IE: the negative represented by Greek and Old Indian a-, negative (considered incorrectly to be a vocalic reduction of *n-)); i.e. HA, "air" or "airy, empty"); (cf. Uralic e, ‘no, not'); (cf. Altaic negative e); (cf. Beng (Southern Mandé) é, ‘not' (though I reconstructed the PL base as ?E in the essay on Beng, it could represent an unusual response to HA-¿E [é from *E from *ay?])); (cf. Japanese hi, ‘error, fault' (‘omission[?]'); hi-, ‘non-‘).

(A14v&n) verbal and nominal -HE {see ?E above}

(A15v&n) verbal and nominal -HO {see ?O above}

(A16v&n) verbal and nominal -HHA {see ¿A above}

(A17v) verbal: HHE ("go"); in HHE- ¿E ("going"); (IE *-H₄[e]i, dative; *1. ei-, ‘come, go'); (cf. Basque dative -i (from *-ey) (Trask 1997:201); dative verbal marker -i- (from *-ey-) (Trask 1997:228)); (cf. Uralic Nenets -ye? [from *-ey?{?}], ‘toward'); (cf. Japanese (h)e, ‘to (of motion)' [cf. also heru, ‘decrease' {‘go away'; héru, ‘pass'}])

*(A17v1) verbal: HHE-HHE ("always going"), (IE -ye: {from *-e:y}, optative); (cf. Uralic Nenets -yi?, potential noun: xet-, ‘tell' xetyiq, ‘possibility to tell' {‘going to tell'}; HHE-HHE dissimilated to HHE-¿E [IE *-e:y]}; (cf. Nenets 3^rd p. optative -ya; conjunctive -yi); (not found in Japanese but probably present)

(A17n) nominal: -HHE {see ?E above}

(A18v&n) verbal and nominal -HHO {see ¿O above}

(A19/20/21v&n). verbal and nominal K[?]A, ("chew") / K[?]E, ("penis, male") / K[?]O, ("neck, twist"); not identified at present

(A22v) verbal: K[?]XA ("hair, hang, behind");(IE ghe in emphatic negations: Old Indian ná gha, ‘(strongly) not, **no hair, **no trace, not at all', listed under ghe-, emphatic particles)

(A22n) nominal: K[?]XA ("hair, hang, behind"); (Egyptian in H3 {K[?]XA-R[H]E, "hair- fall=back-of-head"}, ‘occiput, back of ear, behind')

(A23v) verbal: K[?]XE ("face, in front of, about to . . ."); ( Egyptian in Hr {K[?]XE-RO, "front-part"}, ‘face, *front'); (IE g[^]he-, "*before", cf. Old Indian tár-hi, ‘at one time' = ‘before then', listed under ghe-; cf. also in gher-, ‘*face', in Czech zrak, ‘face', listed under g[^]her-, ‘beam, glow, shimmer'; g[^]he: in emphatic personal pronouns: Greek eme- gé, ‘me, **my face, **myself' [K[?]XE-?A, ("face-here"), ‘self'], listed under ghe-, emphatic particles); (cf. Basque -ke, potential mood suffix (Trask 1997:224))

(A23n) nominal: K[?]XE ("bare, scrape"); (IE *1. g[^]he:-, ‘be empty'); (cf. Basque -ge, ‘lack of . . . , missing')

(A24v&n) verbal and nominal: K[?]XO ("throat, hole"); not identified at present

HU(A25v&n) verbal and nominal: K[H]A ("lust, desire strongly"); (Hurrian -(u)g-, which frequently occurs with -ar- following it; Diakonoff 1971 on page 114 classifies -ug- as a inchoative: "tad-ug-ar- '[anfangen zu] lieben'" but I believe it can also reasonably be interpreted as a volitive; Urartian -uj-ar-, same remarks; Diakonoff 1971 on page 49 writes: "Jedoch konnte das urartäische g vor und zwischen Vokalen in [j] übergehen."); (IE *ka/a:, *ke, *kom, 'particle, perhaps approximately "well"'; *ka:-, 'like, desire', from which *ka:r-, 'love', in Old Irish caraim, 'I love'); (cf. Egyptian k3, 'think about, plan, plot, **intend'; sDm.k3.f verbal form, future, according to Edel 1955/64); (Sumerian ga- [J. 594, which reads ga, also reads gar₉, which may correlate with Egyptian k3 and IE *ka:r- {PL K[H]A-RE(?)}], cohortative prefix [really volitive]); (cf. Chinese ga:n, 'sweet, pleasant, willingly, of one's own accord'; cf. IE ka:-mo-, 'desire', listed under ka:-, 'like, desire')

(A26v&n) verbal and nominal: K[H]E; not identified at present

(A27n) nominal: K[H]O; (IE *-ko, diminutive); (cf. Basque -ko, diminutive); (cf. Uralic -ka in pos-ka, ‘cheek'); (cf. Japanese ko-, ‘little, small'; ko, ‘child')

*(A27n1) nominal: K[H]O-F[H]A ("cover-ing"); (IE *2. (s)keu-, ‘cover, wrap up'); (cf. Basque -ko, ‘clothing')

(A28) nominal: KX[H]A-F[H]A ("hurting"); (IE ka:u-, ‘hew, beat'); (cf. Basque -ko (KO₂), ‘blow')

(A29v) verbal: KX[H]E ("fast, busy"); (IE in *4. ken-; in *-sk[^]-, former of presents, iteratives, distributive, repetitive, continuative, intensive; in Greek perfect -k); (cf. Uralic -cha, deverbative); (cf. Japanese -k-, perfect)

(A30v) verbal: KX[H]O ("closed up = close"); (cf. Egyptian sDm.xr.f, ‘he *must hear' [cf. xr, ‘with']); (IE k[^]e / k[^]o, "future particle [Greek]"); (cf. Basque -ko, future participle (Trask 1997:103)); (cf. Uralic -ka/ä, imperative [cf. Nenets -x, hortative])

(A30n) nominal: KX[H]O ("closed up = close"); (cf. Egyptian xntj, ‘in front'); (IE *ko(m-); *ko-, ‘this', listed under *k[^]o, which is properly K[H]E, ‘that'); (cf. Uralic -ka/ä, comitative (‘with')); (cf. Nenets locative -x-na; xi, ‘near'); (cf. Japanese ko:(re), used for third person proximate; contrasting with so:(re) [S[H]O-RE], semi-proximate; and ka(re) [K[H]E-RE], distal)

(A31) nominal: MA-?A ("full"); (IE *2. ma:-); (cf. Japanese ma-, intensive prefix)

*(A31n1) nominal: MA-¿E ("full-like"); (cf. Japanese mai-, prefix meaning ‘each, every')

(A32n) nominal: ME ("tongue = "converser"); (Egyptian in -w(jj)n (irregularly for **-m(jj)n), 1^st p. pl. of the Old Perfective); (IE *1. me-, 1^st p. sing. oblique pronoun ; *-me, 1^st person plural verbal inflection); (cf. Altaic in men, ‘I'); (cf. Beng (Southern Mandé) in mí, ‘you [sg. familiar]'); (cf. in Late Middle Japanese mi, ‘I'; corresponding to this, we also have kimi, ‘you, other converser' (K[H]E-¿E-"ME-¿E); K[H]E, 'other' is a common formant for the 2^nd person)

(A32v) verbal: ME(-HE) ("push away+move-across- from=reject"); (Egyptian m(j), negative imperative); (in Arabic tamahmaha {m-h}, 'to abstain from'; in mahmaha, 'to prevent from'); (IE *1. me:- (**meH₄), ‘(that) not', prohibitive); (cf. Japanese -m-, negative irrealis)

(A33n) nominal: MO (formant of nouns of place); (Egyptian m-, prefix forming nouns of place ); (Arabic ma-, prefix forming nouns of place ); (IE -mo, suffix forming nouns of place as in Greek keuthmós, ‘hiding place'

(A34n) nominal: M[H]A(-¿E); (Arabic mi-, prefix indicating nouns of instrument (miqbar)); (IE -m, accusative); PL M[H]A is "activity at"; it was originally used primarily with animate nouns to indicate — in the absence of an expressed animate subject — that they were targets of the action; obviously, it could also be used as a locative; neuters acquired -m secondarily, originally only as locatives; (cf. Uralic -ma/ä, accusative)

*(A34n1)nominal: M[H]A (activity); (Arabic ma-, prefix forming nouns of location); (IE -mo, formant of locations); (cf. Uralic -ma/ä, deverbal noun [Finnish kuolla, ‘die' kuolema, ‘death'); (cf. Japanese -ma(:), in MJ jama, ‘obstruction, restriction' [PL T[?]SO-¿A-M[H]A {"held-activity"} = OJ *dyama:])

(A35v&n) verbal and nominal: M[H]E ("thin, soft, smooth"); not identified at present

(A36n) nominal: M[H]O ("human"); (AA *man, ‘someone');(IE does not have this use presumably except as a constituent of *men, ‘someone'); (cf. Beng mo, ‘my, mine'; this word was used for "pronouns" in Amerindian languages.

*(A36n1) nominal: M[H]O ("overall"); (IE *-mo, superlative); (cf. Altaic - ma/e, augmentative in kap-kara, ‘entirely black' (from *kam-kara); (cf. Uralic -ma, superlative [cf. also Nenets ngar, ‘largeness' ngarm-, ‘become larger']); (cf. Japanese mo, ‘also, even')

(A37v) verbal: NA; (Egyptian sDm.n.f; ‘he heard', really a nominalization: ‘what he spoke was . . .'); (IE -no, perfect participle); (cf. Basque -(e)n, past tense (Trask 1997:224) {really a nominalization}); Basque -n, nominalizer (Trask, "complementizer"; Trask 1997:240))

(A37n) nominal: -NA (/N[H]A) (definite singular); (Egyptian n, "genitival particle[?]", shown to be an inflected article by its agreement with the foregoing noun, varying for feminine [n.t] and plural [{i}nw]); (Arabic -l [from animate N[H]A]); (not found in IE as a genitive per se, which has inherited *-y [from -¿E, "-like", an adjectivizer] but -n, nominal suffix; -l, Romance definite article base: -lo, agent; cf. also -ino, secondary adjectives; -ino, pronominal possessive); cf. Basque -n(a), refers to the absolutive subject of a subordinate clause / -la, refers to the ergative agent of the subordinate clause (see Trask 1997: 240-241); -ne, female first name (NA-¿E, a femininization of "the"); -le, agent, actor (N[H]A-¿E, "the [animate]"); (cf. also Uralic -n, genitive); -na/nä, de-nominal/verbal noun [Hungarian vad, ‘wild' vadon, ‘wilderness']); (cf. Beng in sON\, ‘person'); (cf. Japanese na in kana, ‘this (one)'; na, "copular connective(?)" in shizuka na hito, ‘a quiet man' (but perhaps simply the singular definite article [‘the man of quiet'], corresponding to genitive particle no [really the plural (article){NO}]).

(IE)*(A37n1) nominal: NA ("one" = "I / you"); (IE: not found as a 1^st or 2^nd p. pronoun unless in *3. ne- {*no:i [**neH₃ey-{?}]; could this form be related to Arabic naHnu, 'we', **from NO-HHO(-F[H]A, 'be inclined to'["feel(ings)-resting = agreeing[?]"]; IE *2. neu-, 'nod'; Arabic naHâ [n-H-w], 'incline towards', as 'those who agree = we'?}, ‘we {oblique}'); (cf. Basque in ni (from na-"yV PL NA-"¿E), "I" (Trask 1997:196)); (cf. Beng n, ‘I'); a frequent set of pronouns around the world for the first and second person are NA, "the one", and K[H]E, "the other"; Beng ka, 2^nd p. plural and polite); the a of ka (for *ke) and the syllabic n of *na show that these "pronouns" are stress-unaccented.

**(A37n2) nominal: "NA(-¿E) ("inside-like"); (IE nei- {Slavic *on[?]}, listed under *1. en, ‘in'); (cf. Basque -n, locative, ‘in' (Trask 1997:202)); (cf. Uralic -na/ä, illative [‘into']); (cf. Japanese ni, ‘in, into'

***(A37n3) nominal: NA/N[H]A in ?A+N[H]A(-FE) ("this-animate[-male]"'); (IE in *all- for **alw-, listed under *1. al-; 2. an-); (cf. Altaic ol, 3rd p. demonstrative nominative and ?E-NA("that", inanimate), -a/en, 3rd p. demonstrative oblique); Altaic is attempted to preserve the animate-inanimate distinction of N[H]A/NA, the nominative preferring the animate form); (cf. Beng aN, ‘we [past, imperative], us, our')

****(A37n4) nominal: NA-?A ("being inside, absent"), (IE 1. ne/e:, sentence negation); (cf. Japanese *na:-, ná-i, ‘there is not')

*****(A37n5) nominal: NA-"?A-¿E ("inside-like=not here=absent"); (Egyptian (j)n(n), negative); (IE *ne:i-, listed under *1. ne/ne:-, negative); (cf. Beng ní, ‘not'); (cf. Japanese -*na:i -nai, ‘not' — for this interpretation of the Japanese negative, cf. náibu, ‘inside, interior' [NA-?A-¿E-P[?]FO-FA])

******(A37n6) nominal: NA-¿E ("not-say"); (IE *nei, sentence negative, listed under *1. ne/e:); (cf. Japanese nee, particle asking for agreement)

(A38v&n) verbal and nominal: NE ("mucus, sticky"); not identified at present

(A39n) nominal: -NO ("basket"); (Egyptian -n, pronominal plural); (IE n in -nt, 3^rd p. pl.; in -men, 1^st p. pl.); (cf. Uralic -n, plural [originally inanimate]); (cf. Japanese plural -no in ono (see #6), and so(-)no, ‘that, those'; properly a marker of the definite plural)

(A40v)verbal: -N[H]A ("start to . . ."); (IE: not formally recognized but *-l, inchoative [cf. Armenian infinitive in -l{but possibly from R[H]O, "rise to . . ."}]); (cf. Basque l-, 3^rd person prefix for the irrealis (see Trask 1997:212-3); (cf. Uralic -l, inchoative (perhaps this has been weakened to mean only ‘move'); (cf. Beng -N, inchoative); (cf. Japanese: Miller 1967 -n- "perfect" but see p. 326, where it is clearly an inchoative)

AA(A40n) nominal: -N[H]A-¿E ("moving inside"), (cf. Afrasian *li, ‘[in]to'); (cf. Japanese ni, locative, [‘into'])

*(A40n1) nominal: -N[H]A ("move inside"); (Basque -la, forms adverbs of manner (‘moving like . . .'); {see also NA above}

IE**(A40n2) nominal: -"N[H]A-(¿E); (IE *-lo (*-li), nouns of the agent); (cf. Basque -le, agent)

(A41v&n) verbal and nominal: N[H]E ("slippery, slide "); not identified at present

IE(A42n) nominal: -N[H]O; (IE *-lo, diminutive)

(A43/44/45v&n). verbal and nominal P[?]A, ("partitive/diminutive") / P[?]E, ("pour out") / P[?]O, ("swell"); not identified at present

(A46v&n) verbal and nominal: P[?]FA ("protrude"); not identified at present

IE(A47n) nominal: P[?]FE-(¿E) ("foot-like = at the feet of, by, under"); (IE *bhi-, "by", listed under *ambhi-, ‘around'); (cf. Basque -b/pe, ‘under')

IE(A48n) nominal: P[?]FO-¿E, ("leg-like, on top of"); (IE (*ebhi[?]), ‘upon something, thereupon and overpowering it' [?E-, "there"+])

(A49n) nominal: P[H]A ("over"); (Egyptian p3, former of past perfects); (IE in *pero-s, ‘earlier'; *peri-, ‘before', listed under *2. per-, ‘lead out over'); (cf. Basque b-, prefix of 3^rd person jussive verbs; cf. ba, ‘already'; (cf. cf. Sumerian ba-, verbal prefix, glossed by Akkadian perfect in -t)

(A50/51v&n) verbal and nominal P[H]E, ("small") / P[H]O, ("sniff"); not identified at present

(A52/53/54v&n) verbal and nominal P[H]FA, ("fat") / P[H]FE, ("sting") / P[H]FO, ("puff"); not identified at present

(A55/56v&n) verbal and nominal QA, ("tubular") / QE, ("congeal"); not identified at present

(A57v) verbal: QO ("attached"); (cf. Uralic Nenets -ng?, essive); cf. Altaic -q in genitives [-i/?q = ¿E-QO or ¿E-QA; -ni/?q = NA-¿E-QO or NA-¿E-QA]); (cf. Japanese ga, emphatic subject [but Japanese a for o is unexplained])

IE(A57n) nominal: -QO ("skull, pot"); (IE *-ng collectives); (cf. Uralic -ka/ä, non-singular)

*(A57n1) nominal: QO ("skull = animate entity"); (cf. Sumerian ga-10, ‘I'); (cf. Beng qa, ‘they [with negatives]'; qO [*qo + va, imperfective], ‘they [with present/future]'); this use of QO is particularly frequent in Australian languages

**(A57n2) nominal: QO(-?A) ("be attached"); (Egyptian in [j]gr, ‘also'); (IE *(n)go:, 'behind, after, on account of', listed under *g[^]ho:; *eng- in *en-dh-, ‘and', listed incorrectly under *en-); (cf. Sumerian -(n)ga- [a better reading for J. #594 in my opinion is the attested Akkadian -(n)gu(-u), which I would indicate as -(n)gu/û_x], modal prefix, ‘also' [in texts older than Old Babylonian, the prefix is always written -ga- but in Old Babylonian and later, it is normally written in-ga. Thomsen 1984 says on page 170: "The form of this prefix is normally considered to be /inga/ or /nga/." If the initial i- is not derived from i₃, the normal sign of non-concomitant time (PL ?E), then it may represent the first element of IE *eng or Egyptian [j]gr.]); (cf. Uralic Nenets ngo?, ‘also'); (cf. [Sino-]Tibetan -ang in ky+ang, ‘also'); (cf. Japanese -go:, ‘after' [ MJ go])

(A58/59v&n). verbal and nominal Q[H]A, ("hard, humped, elevated") / Q[H]E, ("bustle"); not identified at present

(A60n) nominal: Q[H]O ("hooked"), (cf. Beng possibly in ?aaN, ‘hear now, well'; perhaps doubtful)

(A61v&n). verbal and nominal RA, ("tree"); not identified at present

IE(A62v) verbal: RE ("scratch, (any) one"); (IE in Latin -r, passive ending); (cf. Basque in ra-, causative prefix; -erazi, causative suffix (Trask 1997:231);(Japanese -r- , passive)

AA(A62n) nominal: -RE ("scratch" = indefinite number); (Egyptian in p-3, ‘**any one', as against p-n, ‘the' (P[?]A-N/N[H]A); *jp-, ‘ones' (¿A-P[?]A)); (cf. Japanese in so(-)re, ‘it, that'); (cf. [Sino-]Tibetan -re, ‘each', distributive); (cf. Altaic -a/er, distributive); properly, -RE is a marker of the indefinite singular

IE*(A62n1) nominal: "RE-¿E; (IE *re:i-, ‘number', listed incorrectly under *1. ar-); (cf. Japanese -ri, single (any one), in hito-ri, ‘single man')

(A63v) verbal: RO (augmentative); not identified at present.

IE(A63n) nominal: -RO (elative); (IE *-ro, comparative); (cf. Beng -l/r, augmentative); (cf. Japanese *-ro but not recognized as a suffix)

IE(A64n) nominal: R[H]A (color formant); (IE *-r, terminating color words); (cf. Beng -l in kala, ‘elderly person')

(A65v&n) verbal and nominal: R[H]E ("rain, fall"); not identified at present

IE(A66v) verbal: R[H]O ("rise"), (IE for *lo = ‘rise', cf. OHG ti-la, ‘women's breast', and Greek tú-lo-s, ‘swelling'; cf. *-lo, nouns of agent and instrument [this is from "give rise to"]); (cf. the Japanese imperfect ending -ru = either PL RE ("apply") + FA (imperfective) [cf. Egyptian -3] or R[H]O-F[H]A [Armenian infinitive in -l]; (cf. Japanese *-ro: ( MJ -roo), presumptive, ‘rise to . . . , intend to')

IE(A66n) nominal: -R[H]O; (IE -lo, augmentative)

IE(A67n) nominal: -SA(-¿E) or SA-FE ("strong[-like] {unbreakable}" or "strong-powerful"); (IE *-s, aorist; *s-mobile; or *su-, ‘well'); (cf. Old Basque *Z-, which has the effect of de-leniting initial consonants in a word; -tza, ‘abundance, large amount of, collectivity'; or -zu / *-tzu (-tsu [SA-¿E-FE [?]]), "full of"; Biscaian ze-, past tense prefix when no other agreement prefix present {see (A2) above}); (cf. Uralic Nenets -sy, "past tense" or so/wa, ‘good'); (cf. Japanese súu-, ‘several').

(A68n) nominal: SE ("individual", inanimate); see S[H]E below.

(A69v&n) verbal and nominal: NO ("skin, pull "); not identified at present

IE(A70n) nominal: S[H]A ("content = serene"); (IE desiderative / future in -*s); (cf. Japanese -*s(a:)-, marker of respect ( MJ -mas-u (MA-S[H]A, "fully happy"; cf. masáru, ‘surpass, excel'; Miller 1967:326)

IE*(A70n1) nominal: S[H]A ("rest, place"); (IE *-s, nouns of quality [cf. Old Indian tápa-s, ‘warmth']; Mediterranean place names in -isso); (cf. Basque -z, instrumental; in -zko, ‘made of . . .' (+ KX[H]O-F[H]A, "cutting"; IE *1. (s)keu-, ‘get ready, carry out'; *6. ske:u-(t-), ‘cut, separate, scratch, score, puncture, poke through'); -tz, *stative, in gaitz, ‘bad'; putz / futz, ‘puff of air'; -tza, stative, in bizitza, ‘life'); (cf. [Sino-]Tibetan -sa, ‘place of . . . ‘); (cf. Uralic -s(s)a, inessive); (cf. Japanese *-sa:, noun of quality or place)

IE**(A70n2) nominal: S[H]A ("rest, place"); (IE possibly *-s- in *-sk[^]o); (cf. Basque -tza, job or profession); (cf. Japanese -s-, adjectivizer, in aka-s-i, ‘be red')

IE***(A70n3) nominal: S[H]A ("female"); (IE *-sa in *-i-sa, feminine [cf. Latin -issa]); (cf. Basque -sa, female); (cf. Nama -s, female)

(A71v) verbal: S[H]E ("individual"); (cf. Japanese -se, causative); see (A6) verbal: ¿O above.

IE(A71n) nominal: S[H]E ("individual"); (IE singular in *-s); (cf. Altaic as -z, Turkish suffix of one of objects occurring in pairs); (cf. Beng in sia, ‘male')

IE(A72v) verbal: S[H]O ("clan-member=same=so"); (IE *swe-, ‘*same', listed incorrectly under *se-; *mes-, listed under *1. e:-); (cf. Japanese *-s in negative irrealis -z- (from *-n-i-s- [NA-?A-¿E-S[H]O = "not so"]; Miller 1967:327); and -mas [M[H]A-S[H]O = "hold so"]; Miller 1967:327)

*(A72v1) verbal: S[H]O ("clan-member=person"); (Egyptian s-, causative); (IE some *s-mobile may be causative rather than intensive); (cf. Basque z-, prefix of the third person past (really properly an intensive) {see also (A2) above})

IE**(A72v2) verbal: S[H]O-¿E ("follow-like"); (IE *se:i-, ‘so', listed under se-); (cf. Japanese shi, ‘and')

IE(A72n) nominal: S[H]O ("clan=good"); (IE in *su-, ‘good'); (cf. Basque -so, family relationship); (cf. Japanese OJ so:-, intensive prefix)

IE*(A72n1) nominal: S[H]O-¿E ("clan-member-like"); (Egyptian -s(j), ‘she'); (IE secondary *-s, 2nd p. sing. of active; *syo-, ‘this', listed under *so[s]); (cf. Altaic -si/?, 3rd p. sing.; in sen, ‘you [sing.]'); (cf. Uralic sä, ‘he/she/it'); (Beng in sO\N, ‘person, someone, somebody, body'); (cf. Japanese in so(-)re, ‘it, that'; so-no, ‘that, those')

IE**(A72n2) nominal: S[H]O ("clan[-member]"); (IE in *-es, nominative plural); (cf. Basque -z, plural absolutive verbal suffix (see Trask 1997: 221-2))

IE(A73n) nominal: T[?]A ("hand"); (. IE *de-, demonstrative stem, ‘I'-deictic in part; cf. Greek dé:, ‘even, now, just, certainly'); (cf. Basque d-- as a third person prefix for present tense verbs); (cf. Beng díN, ‘next to'); (cf. Altaic -de/a, locative; (a lative [‘at the side of, with'] in languages all over the world; seen dimly in IE ablative -e:/o:d, possibly a metathesis of *-d+e: (T?A+HHE, "go away from the hand") to facilitate pronunciation of vowelless stems); (cf. Uralic -t(Vogul), locative); (cf. Sumerian -da, locative); (cf. Japanese de (from "T[?]A-¿E), ‘at/in/on (the hand of); by means of (through the hand of)')

(A74/75v&n). verbal and nominal T[?]E, ("heel, spin around") / T[?]O, ("torso, put together"); not identified at present

(A76/77v&n). verbal and nominal T[H]A, ("dew, steal, damp") / T[H]E, ("star, shine, contract"); not identified at present

IE(A78v) verbal: -T[H]O, ("approach, gather"); (IE *2. to-); (cf. Uralic *-ta/ä, allative (‘toward') [cf. Nenets dative -n~to/-h]); (cf. Japanese to, ‘and, as soon as')

IE*(A78v1) verbal: -T[H]O (iterative); (IE *-to, perfective passive participle); (cf. Altaic -d/t, perfective); (cf. Japanese -ta, perfect [the a for expected o is unexplained]); also -t-, perfect (Miller 1967:326))

(A78n) nominal: T[H]O (definite animate plural); (IE *1. to-, ‘this'); (cf. Basque -to, augmentative)

IE*(A78n1) nominal: -"T[H]O-¿E ("tribesman-like"); (IE *-ti, nomina agentis and nomina actionis; [cf. IE *sru-ti-s, 'a flowing, streaming', from *sreu-); (cf. Basque -te, gerund); (cf. Uralic -tya in kun-tya, ‘urine'); (cf. Japanese -te, ‘one who performs . . .', gerund)

IE**(A78n2) nominal: -"T[H]O-¿E ("tribesman-like"); (IE *-ti, collective); (cf. Basque -te, ergative NP plural verbal suffix (see Trask 1997:221-2); -te, ‘abundance'; -ti, ‘group of men' (T[H]O-"¿E)

(A79v&n) verbal and nominal: T[?]SA ("long, body"); not identified at present

IE(A80v) verbal: T[?]SE-FA ("releasing=going away"); (IE *dheu-, listed under *3. dhe:-, ‘disappear'); (cf. Japanese -zu, negative)

(A81v&n). verbal and nominal T[?]SO, ("circling"); not identified at present

(A82/83v&n). verbal and nominal TS[H]A, ("rear up, excessive") / TS[H]E ("bristle up, frightened"); not identified at present

IE(A84n) nominal: TS[H]O (circle of animates); (IE in -*tu, forms abstract substantives (TS[H]O-F[H]A)); (cf. [Sino-]Tibetan -tsho, plural)

*(A84n1) nominal: TS[H]O ("circling"); (IE in *ter-, ‘there' [Egyptian '3], listed incorrectly under *1. to-); (cf. Uralic "essive" -ta); (cf. Sumerian -ta, instrumental); (cf. Japanese to, ‘[along] with')

IE**(A84n2) nominal: TS[H]O; (IE *to, ‘then', under *1. to-); (cf. Japanese to, ‘when')

(A85/86v&n). verbal and nominal XA, ("swallow, slit") / XE, ("fur, feather, prick"); not identified at present

AA(A87v)verbal: XO, ("squirt, below"); (Egyptian in *Xr {XO-RO, "below-part"}, ‘under')

IE(A88v)verbal: X[H]A-F[H]A ("resting=(be)come"); (IE *kwe- in kwey6-); (cf. Japanese -k[w] in forms of adjectives except non-past indicative, from kú-ru, 'come')

(A89v&n). verbal and nominal X[H]E, ("curl around, encircle"); not identified at present

(A90n) nominal: X[H]O (large indefinite animate plural); (cf. Egyptian S in jSzt, ‘what?' [S X]); (IE *kwo-, indefinite); (cf. Japanese ka, interrogative particle ('what?'); indefinite [the Japanese a for expected o is unexplained])

IE*(A90n1) nominal: X[H]O-HA ("at the quanity"); (cf. IE *kwei-, ‘as', listed under *kwo- [‘of the quantity of']); (cf. Uralic Nenets simulatives in -r-xa); (cf. Altaic -ca, aequativus) [‘at the quantity of']); (cf. Japanese koo, ‘this way')

IE(B1) nominal: HHA-¿E-KX[H]O ("water-like=sea+shell=property"); (IE *e:ik-, ‘have as one's own; be able to'); (cf. Basque ergative *-ek); (cf. Sumerian genitive -ak)

*(B2) (S)OV is the earliest Basque word-order, corresponding to OV established by Lehmann for earliest IE; S-OV (and possibly OV-S, which may have distinguished between imperfective and perfective aspects before singular and plural elements were applied to convey the same aspects) word-order stems from the language of the active-type phase, where the transitive subject is only loosely linked to the object-"verb", which is primary, and need not be expressed overtly, a characteristic which many active/ergative-type languages amply illustrate; Basque, Beng (Southern Mandé), Japanese and Sumerian also have SOV,which should also be assumed for Altaic and Uralic (proved by the invariable rectum-regensword order of Uralic and Altaic [except Northern Tungus]).

*(B3) verbal: REDUPLICATION indicates habituality; however, when the iterative -*to (-ta) began to be used for the perfective, reduplication was re-defined as iterative: e.g. in Japanese, when *ker-, ‘*run', is reduplicated, the vowel -a- represents a stress un-accented root -e-: *ke"ker- kakér-u, ‘run'; kák-u, ‘write'; stem: ka(i)-; (Egyptian reduplication, habitual: e.g. Ddd.t, ‘what has always been said').

*(B4) cf. Basque -u, circumlocative, in gu, "we, (to and for) us"; and zu, "(to and for) you (singular but formerly plural); (Japanese consevatively preserves archaic features of the Proto-Language (active-type) period, during which the transitive subject formed a separate sub-phrase of the sentence, and was frequently deleted. When the context required it to be included, the early ergative-type sub-phrases were formed: S + F[H]A, literally, (something) is 'circling around' the S, which is actually a topicalizer rather than a formative of the ergative subject; this element is very old; we can see it in *-su, the IE locative plural (*-s + *-u); and possibly the Latin nominative in -u; and in IE pronominal forms with *-w, e.g. *tewe; in -w, the Egyptian independent pronoun ending (zw, he [topic {subject} of stative]; him [topic {notobject} of transitive verb]); cf. Afrasian nominative in *-u; cf. Hurrian dative (of interest) -wa.

**(B5) (cf. Japanese: the direct object marker (*w)o is a relatively late innovation; according to Shibatani (1996:340), "it was more common not to mark the direct object at all" in the earliest records; this is the most archaic pattern; in spite of the Japanese orthographical details, this particle seems to mean "toward", which would suggest a derivation from PL HHO, "come down on" (cf. IE 1. o, to, with; [cf. Egyptian h3]); this correlates better with the Japanese vocative and hortative use of o (cf. IE 2. o:, vocative).

Combinatory Modifications

for modifications of the vowels and consonants in combination, see the

Table of Modifications