On 9/7/2018 5:49 PM, Daniel Dadap wrote:
I had always thought that the distinction between {'oH} and {ghaH} was the same as the distinction between {bIH} and {chaH}, i.e., that {ghaH} is reserved for beings capable of language. It would seem natural that the singular and plural third-person pronouns would be divided up the same way, but it was recently pointed out to me that TKD never actually says that {‘oH} is for things and beings that are incapable of languages, or that {ghaH} is exclusively for language-capable beings. But just because that would seem natural doesn’t mean that it is so.
It's an interesting observation. If correct, what's the difference between *ghaH* and *'oH? * To support the idea, you need to find somewhere in canon that uses *ghaH* or *'oH* in a way that shows that difference: some being capable of using language being referred to as *'oH,* or something not a being capable of using language being referred to as *ghaH.* Personally, I think Okrand just assumed that the difference between /it/ and /he/she/him/her/ showed up the difference well enough. It's the fact that English /they/them/ can cover plural /it/ as well as /he/she/him/her/ that warrants special mention of the difference between *bIH* and *chaH,* not the exclusivity of the capable-of-using-language status of the words. ** -- SuStel http://trimboli.name