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
1. Introduction
Proto-Language as used here designates that language from which all of the world's languages
are descended at a point in time just prior to the dispersal of evolving humanity, leading to
ethnic and linguistic differentiation.
2. The Problem
A phenomenon that has successfully resisted explanation since the inception of Indo-European
studies is the odd variation of final -l in the nominative-accusative case stem-form opposed by
-n in the oblique cases stem-form of a few important nouns.
Probably the most notable of these is (P)IE sa/a:wel, 'sun`, which has the oblique case stem-form
swen-.
Another probable example of the same phenomenon (though other interpretations may be
possible) is to be found in k^emel, 'heaven` (opposed to k^emen-).
This specific type of variation is so rare that it is not really discussed in Brugmann (1888: I-V),
which is so complete in most other regards, though, of course, -r/-n variations are described1.
3. The Hypothesis
I will demonstrate that the Proto-Language had an animate definte article, nhá, which underlies
PIE final -l in sa/a:wel, and that the Proto-Language also had an inanmate definite article, ná,
which underlies PIE final -n in swen-. In the derived languages, these articles became pronouns
of the third person singular in a neutral social context for active verb constructions.
4. Discussion
General Phonology
I substantially agree with Bomhard (1994) in his latest reconstruction of Proto-Nostratic
phonemes. However, I assume that the nasals of Proto-Language (from which Proto-Nostratic
was evolved through Proto-Pontic), appeared in unaspirated (m, n, ng) and aspirated forms (mh,
nh, ngh), the aspirates leading to Proto-Nostratic sequences of nasal + long vowel (mV:, nV:, and
(n)k[h]V:), using Bomhard's notation.
This contrast of aspirated against unaspirated phonemes was fundamental to Proto-Language,
and was based on the association of aspiration with animate concepts and lack of aspiration
(glottalization) with inanimate concepts, circumstances which I have discussed at length
elsewhere2.
Bomhard, having now added a dorsal nasal (ng) to his inventory of Proto-Nostratic phonemes,
has informed me that he is not yet convinced that a dorsal nasal could also occupy a
syllable-initial position. If it could not, it would be the only phoneme reconstructed for
Proto-Nostratic (or PIE) that could not occupy any position an oddity of itself. If Bomhard
rejects ng in initial positions, surely a reflex of it (e.g. g / k[h] / k' / G / q[h] / q') should be
reconstructed for Proto-Nostratic.
Also, Bomhard posits Proto-Nostratic l as well as additional laterals of the type tl. If Bomhard
means simply a voiceless l à la the Nahuatl spelling convention, I could, perhaps agree since I
believe his Proto-Nostratic l/tl could only have developed from Proto-Language from or as
allophones of r(h) or n(h) through Proto-Pontic.
The reflexes of these Proto-Language nasals are as follows:
unaspirated: Proto-Pontic m(y/-/w)6, n(y/-/w)6, ng(y/-/w)6;
Proto-Nostratic m(y/-/w)a, lya(from PP ny6)/n(-/w)a, ng(y/-/w)a;
aspirated: Proto-Pontic mh(y/-/w)a, nh(y/-/w)a, ng(hy/-/w)a;
4. a. Proto-Language Definite Singular Elements
Origin
Proto-Language nhá, 'wave`
Egyptian
A Proto-Language word of the form nha, meaning 'wave`, is indicated by the Egyptian sign for n
(Gardiner 1973: Sign N35: "ripple of water") (nâ), which contrasts with the sign for 'nose` (na)
[see below]:
Sumerian
Sumerian offers some support through na-3, *flow [??] (Jaritz Sign 159, which pictures a
cultivated field with water for irrigation (Jaritz 1967:50). But cf. also Sumerian nab/p, 'river,
ocean` (PL nhá + p?fó, 'leg, place`).
Proto-Indo-European
The reconstruction of the vowel -a for nha is based primarily on the PIE reflexes: e.g. 1. la:-,
'roar of waves, swing back and forth (motion of waves)`; lab- (for *la:b-), 'wet a little, lap`
(cf.Egyptian np(3), 'be wet`); laku- (for *la:ku-), 'collection of water`; la:ma/a:, 'wet place,
marsh`; and, lat- (for *la:t-), 'wetness, marsh` (cf. Egyptian nt, 'water`), among the obvious
choices.
Proto-Language ná, 'nose, stone`
Egyptian
Nose
Egyptian has a series of demonstratives on the base n, which are construed as neuters. They are nn, nw, nf, n3 (-i and -ii formants, which occur with the masculine base p and feminine base t, are not attested with n).
The form nw is written the 'jar` ([i]nw) + chick (w) + a sign which has been misinterpreted as an
earlier form of the 'adze`-sign, which is
The sign which is written (often in addition (!) to the 'adze`-sign) is
which is a 'nose in profile (my characterization)`, albeit in a horizontal orientation; accordingly,
we assume Egyptian *na, '*nose`, and hence, Proto-Language ná, 'nose`.
Stone
Egyptian n meaning 'stone` can probably be identified in inr, 'stone`, which is cognate with PIE
ond-, 'stone` (cf. in Old Indian ádri-, 'stone`; and Akkadian nar, 'stele', a borrowing from
Sumerian na ru-2-a, 'erected stone'). See also below under Usage.
Sumerian
Nose
It does not seem possible to identify Proto-Language ná, 'nose`.
Stone
We have na-4, 'stone` (Jaritz 1967: Sign 453). The sign (Jaritz 1967: Sign 970) which reads
nig-2, 'thing, something`, also reads ni-3, which may represent Proto-Language ná¿, 'stonelike
(thing)`. See also below under Usage.
Proto-Indo-European
Nose
Proto-Language ná, 'nose`, occurs in the compound PIE nas-, 'nose`, and had originally the
meaning 'nasal passage`, which Pokorny confirms. The reconstructed PIE form is derived from
Proto-Language "ná-so (PL só, 'skin`), a designation of its outward form.
This Proto-Language word occurs in numerous compounds listed in Pokorny without final
-s under sna:-, 'flow` (Germanic sna/ub-, sna/up-, sna/ud-, sna/ut-, sna/ug-, sna/uk-). Since s- is
a recognized prefix with a rather neutral (or undefined meaning), it seems clear that, from the
variety of root formatives (b p d t g k) all combined with na or nu (from *nau; PL náf, 'group
of noses`), that the main nominal/verbal idea of 'nose` resides in na.
Stone
This meaning can, perhaps, be seen in PIE ond-, 'stone` (cf. in Old Indian ádri-, 'stone`, which is
cognate was Egyptian inr, 'stone`; and monu-, '(hu)man-stone(s : dual), testicle(s), male` (see
below under Usage). Although only a lexicographic mention, we do have Old Indian na,
meaning 'jewel, pearl`, which compares with Sumerian na-4, 'stone, jewel'. Notice also Old
Indian nu, 'weapon` ('stones?`), also lexicographic only.
Phonological Reflexes
The reflexes of PL -nh(a) are
in PP, nha;
in PN, na:;
in Egyptian, -n(/l?)(â);
in Sumerian, -n(â);
in PIE, -l(a:);
and in Proto-Semitic, -l/n(â);
and of PL -na are
in PP, n6;
in PN, na;
in Egyptian, -n(a);
in Sumerian, -n(a);
in PIE, -n(e);
and in Proto-Semitic, -n(a).
Usage
In Proto-Language, -nha, conveyed a definite animate singular nuance (cf. Sumerian na-6, 'man`;
ni-4, 'lady`); -na conveyed a definite inanimate singular nuance. Both, however, retained their
original meanings of 'wave` and 'nose/stone` as well. When they were used as adjectives
(classifiers), they stood with stress-accent before the nouns which they modified or without the
stress-accent after the nouns by which they were modified.
1. "nhá mho, 'the (known) human`
2. "mhó nha, 'humanoid one (animate)'
3. "mhó na, 'humanoid stone = testicle`
4. "phé nha, 'mousey one (animate)`
At a later stage of Proto-Language, compounds were formed by the combination of two
syllables, with the stress-accent of the first syllable producing elision of the final vowel but
retention of the glide:
1. b. (")nhámhw(o), 'name`
2. b. (")mhwónh(a), 'the human`
3. b. (")mhón(a), 'testicle, male`
4. b. (")phénh(a), 'the mouse`
Combined, these latter can probably be seen in PIE en(o)mN, 'name` (cf. Hittite la-a-ma-an,
'name`), Sumerian nam, 'something, status of ...` (1. b.); Egyptian m(i)n, 'someone` (2. b.); and
PIE monu-s, 'man, human`, Egyptian *mn, 'male` (the 'phallus`-sign, reads mn); *mn, 'bull`;
Sumerian man, '*male` (Jaritz 1967: Sign 822 pictures two testicles, reads man (for *mûn [??]),
and means 'comrade, brother`) (3. b.); and PIE pel-, '*mouse`6.
The simplex, Proto-Language mhó can be seen in Egyptian m, 'who, what?` and Sumerian mu-9,
'(hu)man`.
An early compound of three elements is Proto-Language ?e-"mén (PIE me:n-) from
*?e-"mé-n(a), which meant 'the called out (measured) thing`, used for 'moon` as the measurer of
time (from Proto-Language ?e, 'away from`, and mè, 'tongue, converse`)7.
Evidence in the Derived Languages
Sumerian
Since Proto-Language nhá and na both evolved into Sumerian na/â, it was not possible to use na
to distinguish definite singular animate and inanimate concepts. Therefore, a selection was made
so that PL nhá as -n- appears for the animate third person prefix in verbal forms and in the third
person personal pronoun an-e and in the possessive -a-ni (and in the nominal animate plural [see
Final Comments below]); PL p?á, 'piece, one (indefinite inanimate) as -b- appears in lieu of
ná for the inanimate third person prefix in verbal forms and in the possessive -bi.
This interpretation is further supported by na-6 (Jaritz 1967: Sign 611), '(hu)man`; and ni-4
(Jaritz 1967: Sign 921), 'lady` from PL nhá¿, '(hu)manoid`.
We also have Sumerian an(a) (Jaritz 1967: Sign 831), 'one`, which reflects PL ?án(a), 'one here
(inanimate)`; and ana-3 (Jaritz 1967: Sign 1), 'one`, PL ?ánh(a), 'one here (animate)`.
That a selection was made is made virtually certain by the forms of the Sumerian interrogatives:
a-na, 'what?`, and a-ba, 'who?`, which represent Proto-Language ?a-ná and ?a-phá (from phá,
'flea, feeder, (married) male`), compounded with the PL interrogative ?a, 'forehead, place of
focus, here?`8.
Egyptian
Though it is not generally acknowledged by Egyptologists, the simplest explanation for the
so-called Egyptian genitival particle is that it is a definite article which follows and agrees with
the noun that precedes: -n (feminine -n.t; plural -(i)nw). It is, therefore, in the normal
post-ancient position for an Egyptian nominal modifier.
Thus, a phrase like pr-n z, 'the house (of) (the) man`, is somewhat analogous to Arabic
baitu-r(l)-rajuli.
There is an acknowledged relationship between Arabic and Egyptian through their common
parent, Afro-Asiatic.
The l of the Arabic article, ?al, can only correspond to demonstrative forms in Egyptian n since
only r and n can represent l in Egyptian; and no demonstrative-formative/stem containing r exists
in Egyptian. Egyptian 3 never corresponds to Proto-Semitic or Proto-Indo-European l, whatever
some may have supposed.
The element n is readily identifiable as a demonstrative adjective element in Old Egyptian in
masculine pn / feminine tn / dual and plural ipn/itn (also iptn), 'this/these`. In these variously
compounded demonstratives, p (Proto-Language phá, 'flea, feeder, (married) male`) bears the
masculine idea (or possibly pá, 'buttock, piece` [gender indifferent {??}])while t (Proto-Language
thó, 'accompanier, large group, herd`) provides the feminine one.
In these combinations, n may be replaced by -w9, -f10, -311, -i12, and -ii13, with some exceptions.
The prefixed i-element is the Egyptian reflex of the Proto-Language indefinite plural elements
Há, 'many` / ¿á, 'much`, which are used to designate a few relic plural forms in oldest Egyptian.
Since Egyptian n reflects both Proto-Language nhá and na, it is not possible to specify exactly
which it represents.
Egyptian n also serves as a base for demonstrative pronouns In Egyptian contrasting with p/t,
which are mostly used for demonstrative adjectives.
One of the forms is usually transcribed nn. If nn represents a form parallel to pn and tn, it would
be redundant unless n has some other meaning in addition to those described above.
Ordinarily, we assume that doubled letters in Egyptian represent two similar syllables, but with
the 'wave`-sign, we already have the precedent that
is usually read mw, and means 'water`, which almost certainly is related to Arabic yammun, 'sea`,
and should be emended to read *im.w, which we analyze as derived from the now familiar
indefinite plural elements Há, 'many` + mh, 'human, wanderer, pond` + fhá, 'wolf(-pack)`,
animate definite plural14.
I will show that the doubled 'wave`-sign
reads not nn but *in, and thus corresponds in form to theoretical *ip and *it, representing
Proto-Language á, 'many` + ná, 'stone, nose, one (inanimate definite singular)`.
Firstly, the doubled 'wave`-sign is also used to signify one of two Egyptian negatives: nn, which
contrasts with n.
Coptic, the last spoken stage of Egyptian, knows two related negatives: n and an. While it is
possible that an older *nan could develop into an, it is more natural to think that an developed
from a form which would normally have been written in Egyptian as *in.
Secondly, though the negative was early written n-n, it also was written with a sign which is
probably the doubled form (though connected) of 'forearm`, which latter is:
The doubled sign is described as 'arms in gesture of negation`, and has the form:
Since this sign was also used for the preposition n, which had the recorded early form of *i-n,
with other prepositional analogs (ir, im), it seems relatively probable that it represented *in not
*nn as presently widely held
15.
Further support for the idea that the doubled 'wave`-sign reads *in rather than nn is found in the
fact that the demonstrative pronoun, nn, in Middle Egyptian, is frequently written with a special
doubled sign representing 'two rushes with shoots` which singly is used almost exclusively as a
determinative:
Aside from the demonstrative pronoun, the most familiar words using this doubled sign are
nn(ii), 'be weary`, and nn.t, '(lower) heaven`.
In Arabic, we have ¿ulla, 'be sick, ill`, ¿alyâ?un, 'sky`, ?alâ, 'be unable`, and ?ulâ, 'these
(masculine/neuter)`.
Sequences of Afro-Asiatic ¿l and ?l would both result in Egyptian in; and it seems probable that
the Arabic words above are cognate with the Egyptian *in, 'weary, inert`, *in.t, '(lower) heaven`,
*in, 'not`, and *in, 'this (better '*these`)`16.
Though plurals in PIE have ceased to be (or never were) formed by a prefixed Há, 'many`, or ¿á,
'much`, it appears that the earliest Egyptian (dual-)plural, indicated simply by doubling or
tripling of word-signs, was formed with prefixed i-, and so was roughly analogous with Arabic
"broken" plurals.
An interesting example of this oldest method of forming plurals is found in Proto-Semitic yad-,
'hand`, which represents Proto-Language ¿á, 'much` + ts?é, 'finger` (cf. plural ?ayâdin). "Broken"
plurals with initial ?ay- may be dissimulations from an earlier ¿a¿- but other "broken" plural with
?a- are unexplained unless they are copies of the stress-accentual pattern which has been
separated from its proper morpheme.
additional copies of this file are available at
HTTP://WWW.GEOCITIES.COM/Athens/Forum/2803/PERSPRO3A.htm
Patrick C. Ryan * 9115 West 34th Street - Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 * (501)227-9947
PROTO-LANGUAGE@email.msn.com