Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 96. kötet (1998-1999)

Tanulmányok - Dezső László: Typological Comparison of Root Structuring in Uralic and Early Indo-European. [Az uráli és korai indoeurópai tőstruktúrák tipológiai összevetése] 3

24 LÁSZLÓ DEZSŐ The demonstrative roots: *e 'this' LI (cf. A, IE e, -0(67-68); Greenberg I ~ E (ibid. 24) *o ~ *u 'that' U (cf. Turk, IE) (332); Greenberg A ~ E (ibid. 30-31) *tä (~ *te ~ *ti) 'this'(cf. Yuk, A, IE) (513-5); Greenberg T (ibid. 37) *to 'that' U (cf. Yuk, A, IE) (526-8); Greenberg T (ibid. 37) *ce ~ *ci 'this, that' U (33-4) *nä (~ *ne ~ ?*ni) 'this, that' EB, ?U (300-1) *wo'that'm,?U (306) The interrogative roots: *ke (*ki) 'who' ELI, ?U (140) (cf. Yuk, A, IE) (140-1); Greenberg K (ibid. 167-8) *ku- (~ *ko) 'who, which, ?what' U (cf. Yuk, A, IE) (191-2); Greenberg K (ibid. 167-8) There is a differentiation between demonstrative pronouns with front and back vowels indicating close and non-close distance. It is a characteristic of the area and is absent in ce ci 'this, that' which is of a later origin in Uralic (see 4). A similar distinction in interrogatives seems to separate persons from nonpersons accompanied by further differentiation: 'who' vs. 'who, which ?, what'. Both groups of pronouns express the fundamental oppositions with front and back vowels. The form of certain close demonstratives and interrogatives shows a twofold differentiation of form: e ~ ?i and o ~ u or ke ~ ki and ku ~ ko. A threefold differentiation can be found in close demonstratives: tä vs. te ~ ti and nä vs. ne ~ ?ni, but the corresponding distant demonstratives do not show such a distinction according to UEW. There may be typologically possible alternative explanations for the différent expression of close demonstratives. For instance, the twofold distinction may reflect an early stage when e stood for both ex (= e) and e2 (= ä), the threefold distinction shows the clear séparation of e and ä. It is also possible that the threefold distinction was originally twofold: e2 and /' where e2 stood for e which later became ä, then e] and i constituted a new opposition. It is a question for Uralic reconstruction to choose one of the typologically possible alternatives. The fact that two forms of distinction (twofold or threefold) exist is a typologically relevant characteristic of Uralic. The analysis of pronouns should be complemented by other lexical parallels in the protolanguages of the area which UEW makes référence to in the treatment of dozens of etymons. This leads to typological characterization and comparison of the évolution in the proto-languages of the area. 3.2. Vowels in Pre-Indo-European Roots I shall deal with the phenomena of PrelE only as much as is necessary for its typological characterization and comparison with Uralic, which was the dosest language in the Northern Eurasian area. The phonological comparison of these