Talk:Proto-Indo-European pronouns

This is an export from List of Proto-Indo-European roots and needs serious cleanup and expansion.

Very true; but there is really no settled opinion as to the details of the pronouns, and many of the divergent opinions are pretty profound (i.e., can't be conveyed by means of a few letters in parentheses). That said, a measure of cleaning up could be done, e.g. either removing Gothic wit altogether or taging it as dual, not plural.

Cognates often have semantic shifts, if wit is derived from the root, it should stay, albeit perhaps with an explanation. 惑乱分からん 15:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Particles: *ap(o)-?

I don't know if this qualifies as a particle, because I'm not so familiar with PIE grammar, but it seems to be used the same way as many of the other words in the "Particles" section in the daughter languages (see here). I was wondering whether it merited inclusion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.43.99.248 (talk) 14:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Probably. The list is far from complete... 惑乱分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 17:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For instance, the list currently has *upo, bat lacks *uper, (Cf Gk. hypo/hyper, Lat sub/super etc). 惑乱分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 14:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Particles: with, together

pe with, together Hitt. pe-

This has many cognates between more modern languages, so I think that using old Hittite in this table is unfair. Such as Lat cum, Russ s(n) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.243.111 (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But Latin cum and Russian s are not related to or derived from *pe. —An gr 21:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Split proposal

This article should be split into Proto-Indo-European pronouns and Proto-Indo-European particles. There is no reason why these two should be treated together while verbs, nouns and numerals have their own articles. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Split --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reflexes: Citations needed

I cross-checked the reflexes against Fortson 2004, referenced all that I found there and marked the others with {{Fact}}. Please add references and move them into the upper part of each table cell if you can. Note that your sources need to confirm that the words in question are actually reflexes of the PIE forms (i.e. derived from these via sound laws), it does not suffice if they merely have the same meaning. A number of reflexes could be deleted in my opinion (one example per branch would probably do), but I left them for the time being.

Preferred order to sort referenced reflexes into the list (to maintain some sort of system):

Anatolian – Indic – Iranian – Greek – Italic – Germanic – Celtic – Armenian – Tocharian – Baltic – Slavic – Albanian

Thank you --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 20:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many Russian examples. Maybe someone could check out Max Vasmer. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 00:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disjunctive pronoun

Did I understand correctly? PIE language had no disjunctive pronouns, hadn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.167.116.138 (talk) 23:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the stressed forms of the acc, dat and gen had more or less that function. And PIE could express a lot with word order, so you probably just had to place a pronoun in a stressed position. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And no possessive pronouns? --83.167.116.138 (talk) 23:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains the sentence "Possessive pronominal adjectives have also been reconstructed", but I can't find such a reconstruction. There were, of course, the genitive forms of the personal pronouns for that purpose (at least for the 1st and 2nd persons). --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No vocatives?

Shouldn't there be any vocative pronouns or have I misunderstood something? 83.226.206.82 (talk) 16:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, no vocatives have been reconstructed because there are none in the older IE languages (at least I know this for Latin and Greek). 1st person vocatives would be pretty useless (although I seem to recall there once - I think in the Middle Ages - there was a lengthy discussion about the 1st sg voc in some sentence like "O I! Have I acted rightly?"; but this was a joke, I think). Latin went without a 2nd voc, you just had to use the imperative mood to convey the meaning. I suppose this also holds for the other IE languages and PIE itself. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

It might hel[p to have some idea of the evidence for this, as proposed by the different linguists. DGG ( talk ) 16:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you have in mind? There is consensus that the pronouns did exist, and the differences between Beekes and Sihler in the Personal pronouns section should give the reader an idea to what extent scholars disagree. The Reflections section presents the evidence, i.e. the words in attested languages from which the PIE words are reconstructed. Would you like to see more comparisons between different reconstructions? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]