The Indo-European Elements in Hurrian

9. Before Proto-Indo-European and Hurrian 157
earlier deictic elements: (a) *-m-, (b) *-w-, (c) *-t-, and (d) *-s-. The relationship of the first
three elements to the personal pronoun stems is obvious: (a) *me-, stem of first person singular,
used to form the oblique cases; (b) *we-, stem of first person, singular and plural (later also
dual); and (c) *te-, stem of second person singular. The last element is related to the deictic stem
*so-, which developed into a demonstrative pronoun in the daughter languages: ‘this, that’. The
later second person personal ending *-s- may also have been related to an independent personal
pronoun stem *si- ‘you’, which no longer existed in the later stages of Proto-Indo-European,
having been completely replaced by *tu-/*te-. Finally, the third plural ending *-(e)n is related to
the anaphoric pronoun stem *ne-/*no- found, for example, in: Hittite na-aš ‘that’; Armenian na
‘that; he, she, it; him, her’.
In active verbs, the plural was distinguished from the singular by an intraparadigmatic
accent shift (cf. Beekes 1995:234; Clackson 2007:124; Fortson 2004:87; Meillet 1964:241;
Szemerényi 1996:314). In the singular, the root was accented and had full-grade, while the
endings had zero-grade. In the plural, the position of the accent was shifted to the ending, with
the result that the root had zero-grade, while the endings had full-grade. This patterning has been
most clearly preserved in Sanskrit, which is particularly archaic in this regard. The patterning
was as follows, using the verbal root *H÷es- ‘to be’ for illustration:
Singular Plural
1 *H÷és + *me > *H÷és-m *H÷es + *mé > *H÷s-mé
*H÷és + *we > *H÷és-w *H÷es + *wé > *H÷s-wé
2 *H÷és + *te > *H÷és-t *H÷es + *té > *H÷s-té
3 *H÷és + *(H÷)e > *H÷es-Ø *H÷es + *(H÷)é > *H÷s-é
Note: There may have been alternative endings for the first person.
An important assumption here is that the original ending of the third person was *-(H÷)e
— the same ending found in the stative verbs. This assumption is based upon the observation
that the form of the third plural is anomalous. Had *ne- been added directly to the root, the
expected form would have been as follows: *H÷es- + *né > *H÷s-né, just like in the first and
second persons plural. However, the actual form was *H÷s-én (> *H÷s-én-t-i, after *-t- and *-i
were added [cf. Sanskrit sánti ‘they are’]). This indicates that *ne- was not added directly to the
root but, rather, to *H÷s-é, thus: *H÷s-é + *ne > *H÷s-é-n. Here, the accent was kept on the
ending *-é-, and, consequently, the element *ne had zero-grade. By the way, the same patterning
may be observed in the third plural of stative verbs, where *-ér is to be derived from *-é + *re.
The personal endings of stative verbs are to be analyzed in the same way. The first
person singular ending *-Høe is to be seen as an earlier deictic element. The same element was
added to the second person singular ending *-te: *-te + *-Høe > *-tHøe. The third person
singular ending *-e was probably originally the deictic element *-(H÷)e. Finally, the third person
plural ending is probably to be derived from an earlier deictic element *re.
Unlike the active verbs, there was no intraparadigmatic accent shift in the stative verbs.
Here, the accent remained on the ending throughout the paradigm: