1. In spite of the common practice of speaking of 'pronominal inflection' in explaining the origin of certain case endings in various Indo-European languages, and, in particular, when discussing the declension of adjectives in Germanic, it is generally recognized that the inflection of the pronoun, of all the categories of forms with which we have to deal in Indo-European grammar, is the most disparate and least tractable to reconstruction by the comparative method. It is indeed probable that there was no fixed pronominal declension in the parent speech-fixed, that is, to the same extent as the declension of the nouns. This too is generally recognized, especially in the instance of the personal pronouns of the first and second persons.l However, the same thing is only slightly less true of the demonstratives of the third person, and indeed of the demonstrative par excellence, Gk. ho, he, to, Skt. sa(s), sa, tad, Goth. sa, so, pata. The lack of agreement between the stems of the oblique cases of this pronoun in these three languages, especially between Greek on the one hand and Sanskrit or Gothic on the other, would seem to indicate clearly enough the striking lack of a settled inflection without need for further evidence-for example, the dative singular feminine, Gk. tii (<tdi), Skt. tasyai, Goth. pizai. The case endings, to be sure, are in agreement (and also with the fem. a-stem noun, for that matter), but the stem is t-/tosy-/tes-.2 Even within such a unified dialectal group as Germanic it is often impossible to reconstruct a Proto-Germanic form which will satisfy the testimony of the different historical forms, e.g. the dative singular masc. and neut. Goth. pamma with -mmbut OHG demu, OSax. themu with -m-; or OE psem, OIcel. ]eim with a diphthongal stem, PGmc. ai, vs. the simple e of the former. 2. The variety of stem formation and of case ending can of course to some extent be attributed to developments and reformations in the history of the several branches of Indo-European, but the result is the same as far as our reconstruction of the forms of the parent speech is concerned: we are eventually left with a few bare stems and recurring 'pronominal elements' attached to the stems, optionally it would appear, and a few case endings actually characteristic of the pronoun as opposed to the noun. 3. Significant for the prehistory of the Indo-European demonstratives is the documented history of demonstratives in modern languages. It is well known that by use a demonstrative tends to become weaker and weaker in its deictic force, and is therefore continually reinforced by being compounded with itself or with other demonstratives or with adverbs. These compounds furnish the
Read full abstract