Gripla - 01.01.1975, Qupperneq 203

THE EAST TOCHARIAN PERSONAL PRONOUN
199
In order to examine whether borrowing is at all possible in this
case it will be necessary to look at some further aspects of the
problem:
(1) The borrowing of pronouns is, no doubt, very rare and it may
be assumed that three prerequisites are necessary to make such a
borrowing possible:
(a) Closely related languages or dialects.
(b) A considerable number of bilinguals.
(c) One of the languages or dialects enjoys a higher prestige and this
language or dialect provides the pronouns.
In this connection it is of interest to look at Norwegian. Until
about 1400 the 2nd p. pl. pronouns þér, yðer, yðers etc. were used
in honorific address to one person in Norwegian. But from that time
onwards the pronouns I, Er, Ers are found in honorific address,
gradually superseding þér etc. in this function.8 The latter pronouns
are, no doubt, borrowed from Danish or Swedish and this is in com-
plete agreement with the three prerequisites set out above.
It is, of course, of primary importance to note that in Norwegian
not only the nom. but also the obl. and gen. forms are borrowed.
Another example is also of interest here. The English pronouns
they, them, their are, as is well known, loan-words from Scandinavian,
dating from the time of Scandinavian settlement in England.10 Again
nom., obl. and gen. are all borrowed.11
arian -fii, without difference in gender, Tocharisches Elementarbuch I, 162-163.
In that case the East Tocharian fem. gen. nahi would be secondary, formed after
the introduction of the distinction feminine/masculine.
8 The Pronominal Dual in Icelandic, 121, with references.
10 Albert C. Baugh, A History of the English Language, London 1968, 120.
11 There are more cases of borrowed pronouns, some rather surprising, as
Albanian ‘une “ich”. Aus lat. ego + ne,' Gustav Meyer, Kurzgefasste albanesische
Grammatik, Leipzig 1888, 103. The Modern Icelandic pers. pron. lst p. sg. jeg,
in modern orthography ég, shows an irregular development when compared with
the Old Icel. ek which has a short vowel; the modern form dates from the six-
teenth century, see Björn K. Þórólfsson, Um íslenskar orðmyndir, Reykjavík 1925,
41. It seems therefore possible that the form in question has developed under
influence from the corresponding Danish jeg. Similarly, Danish influence is con-
sidered to account for the East Norwegian jeg, see Einar Haugen, ‘Norwegische