Frederik Kortlandt
Studies in Germani c, Indo-Eu ropean and Indo-U ralic
Studies in Germanic, Indo-European and Indo-Uralic
LE!DENSTUDIESININDO-EUROPEAN
Series edited by
R. S.P. Beekes A. Lubotsky J.J.S. Weitenberg
17
Studies in Germanic, Indo-European and Indo-Uralic
Frederik Kortlandt
Amsterdam- New York, NY 2010
The paper on which this book is printed meets the requirements of"ISO 9706: 1994, Information and documentation- Paper for documentsRequirements for permanence" ISBN: 978-90-420-3135-7 E-Book ISBN: 978-90-420-3136-4 ©Editions Rodopi B.V., Amsterdam- New York, NY 2010 Printed in The Netherlands
To the memoryofDirk Boutkan (1964-2002)
CONTENTS
PREFACE •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• xi INTRODUCTION
The spread of the Indo-Europeans ............................................................................. 1 General linguistics and Indo-European reconstruction ......................................... 7 On Russenorsk ............................................................................................................ 21 The origin of the Goths ............................................................................................. 27 C.C. Uhlenbeck on Indo-European, Uralic and Caucasian ................................... 31 An outline of Proto-Indo-European ........................................................................ 37 Schleicher's fable ........................................................................................................ 47 INDO-EUROPEAN PHONOLOGY
*H.o and *oH•.............................................................................................................. 51 Proto- Indo-European glottalic stops: The comparative evidence ........................ 53 Proto-Indo-European tones? .................................................................................... 67 An Indo-European substratum in Slavic? ................................................................ 73 INDO-EUROPEAN MORPHOSYNTAX
1st sg. middle *-H•....................................................................................................... 81 Proto-Indo-European verbal syntax ......................................................................... 91 GREEK
Greek numerals and Proto- Indo-European glottalic consonants ....................... 10 5 The Aeolic optative .................................................................................................... n1 The Greek 3rd pl endings ........................................................................................ 117 INDO- IRANIAN
Glottalic consonants in Sindhi and Proto- Indo-European ................................. 121 Archaic ablaut patterns in the Vedic verb .............................................................. 125 Accent and ablaut in the Vedic verb ........................................................................131 The origin of the Indo-Iranian desiderative .......................................................... 139
viii
Contents
TOCHARIAN
On the development of Proto-Indo-European fmal syllables in Tocharian ...... 143 The Tocharian word for 'woman' ............................................................................149 The fate of the sigmatic aorist in To char ian ........................................................... 151 A note on the Tocharian dual .................................................................................. 155 The To char ian imperfect ......................................................................................... 159 GERMANIC PHONOLOGY
Vestjysk st0d, Icelandic preaspiration, and PIE glottalic stops ........................... 165 Proto-Germanic obstruents ....................................................................................169 Kluge's law and the rise of Proto-Germanic geminates ........................................ 175 Labials, velars and labiovelars in Germanic .......................................................... 179 Preaspiration or preglottalization? ......................................................................... 185 Germanic *e, and *e•.................................................................................................189 Proto-Germanic obstruents and the comparative method ................................. 193 English bottom, German Boden, and the chronology of sound shifts ................ 197 GERMANIC VERB CLASSES
The Germanic first class of weak verbs .................................................................. 201 The Germanic third class of weak verbs ............................................................... 20 5 The Germanic seventh class of strong verbs ........................................................ 209 The Germanic fifth class of strong verbs ............................................................... 211 The Germanic sixth class of strong verbs .............................................................. 215 The Germanic fourth class of weak verbs .............................................................. 219 Old Norse taka, Gothic tekan, Greek rera:ywv...................................................... 221 GERMANIC VERBAL INFLEXION
The Germanic weak preterit ................................................................................... 227 The Proto-Germanic pluperfect ............................................................................. 235 GERMANIC NOMINAL INFLEXION
The inflexion of the Indo-European a- stems in Germanic ................................ 239 The inflexion of the Germanic n-stems ................................................................. 343 GERMAN
Old High German umlaut ...................................................................................... 2.47 The High German consonant shift. ....................................................................... 2.49 The origin of the Franconian tone accents ............................................................ 255
Contents
ix
ENGLISH
The origin of the 0 ld English dialects ...................................................................259 How old is the English glottal stop? ...................................................................... 265 The origin of the Old English dialects revisited................................................... 26 9 Anglo- Frisian ............................................................................................................ 275 SCANDINAVIAN
The Old Norse i-umlaut. .......................................................................................... 285 On breaking.............................................................................................................. 289 Glottalization, preaspiration and gemination in English and Scandinavian .... 293 Early Runic consonants and the origin of the younger fu thark ......................... 29 9 Bjorketorp and Stentoften ....................................................................................... 305 The origin of the vestjysk s1:0d ................................................................................ 313 Vestjysk st0d again ................................................................................................... 317 ALBANIAN
Proto-Indo-European *sin Albanian ..................................................................... 319 Proto-Indo-European *j in Albanian ..................................................................... 325 Reflexes oflndo-European consonants in Albanian ........................................... 329 ARMENIAN
Armenian ewl 'oif ..................................................................................................... 333 BALTO-SLAVIC
The Baltic word for 'in' ............................................................................................. 335 Alfs well that ends wel1 ............................................................................................ 337 Balto-Slavic accentuation revisited ......................................................................... 341 Lithuanian zinoti 'to know' ...................................................................................... 359 ITALO-CELTIC
More on the chronology of Celtic sound changes ................................................ 361 ANATOLIAN
Initiallaryngeals in Anatolian ................................................................................. 365 Hittite ammuk 'me' .................................................................................................. 369 Hittite hi-verbs and the Indo-European perfect ................................................... 373 Stative and middle in Hittite and Indo-European ................................................ 383
X
Contents
INDO- URALIC
Eight Indo- Uralic verbs? .......................................................................................... 387 The Indo- Uralic verb ............................................................................................... 391 Nivkh as a Uralo-Siberian language ...................................................................... 405 Indo- Uralic consonant gradation .......................................................................... 40 9 Indo-Uralic and Altaic ............................................................................................. 415 Indo- Uralic and Altaic revisited .............................................................................419 APPENDIX
A parasitological view of non-constructible sets ................................................. 429 The origin and nature of the linguistic parasite .................................................... 435 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 439 INDEX ......................................................................................................................... 493
PREFACE
This book contains most of what I have written about Germanic, IndoEuropean and Indo-Uralic. It is complementary to the earlier volumes on Armenian (K194), Celtic (K239) and Baltic (K263, see the references under Kortlandt). Together they represent the bulk of my scholarly output with the exception of studies on Slavic and general linguistics. The red thread which runs through my work is a quest for relative chronology of linguistic developments. A methodological advantage of this approach is that it offers the possibility of considering the compatibility of different solutions before assessing their correctness, which enhances the motivation to integrate different views. Moreover, the probability of a reconstruction can be judged against the background of the transitions which it implies for the linguistic system as a whole. This is of special importance when the gap between the results of internal reconstruction and the comparative evidence is huge, as it is in the case of Slavic accentuation or Indo- Uralic. Another point which I would like to emphasize here is that my reconstructions are always bottom-up, never top-down. Thus, my reconstruction of preglottalized stops in Proto-Germanic is based on preglottalization in English and Danish, preaspiration in Scandinavian, affrication in High German, and various types of gemination in all West and North Germanic languages. It is independent of any reconstruction of IndoEuropean. Similarly, my reconstruction of glottalic stops in Proto-IndoEuropean is based on glottalization in Indo-Iranian, Armenian, Balto-Slavic and Germanic and indirect evidence from Greek and Latin, not on typological or other general considerations. The same holds for my reconstruction of morphological systems in their chronological perspective. The method of "forward reconstruction" may be useful as a heuristic device but can easily put one on the wrong track and lead to circular reasoning. It follows that the chapters on Germanic can be read without reference to the Indo-European background and that the Indo- Uralic part of the book can be left out of consideration if one does not want to look beyond Proto-Indo-European. The initial chapters of the book may serve as an introduction to the background and methodology of my reconstructions. One point which deserves special attention is the necessity to limit the number of possibilities. It is easy to posit a distinction between palatovelars, plain velars and labiovelars for ProtoIndo-European. However, such a reconstruction does not explain why the plain velars are largely in complementary distribution with the other series (cf. Meillet 1894> Steensland 1973), nor why we fmd many dozens of examples of alternation
xii
Preface
between different series (e.g. Cekman 1974). These distributional properties of the system are explained by a reductionist approach. Similarly, it is easy to posit five short and five long vowels in the proto-language to cover any possible correspondence between the daughter languages. However, this way of reconstructing yields an enormous amount of complementary distribution in combination with the Indo-European laryngeals. If one takes the laryngeal theory seriously, it follows that *i and *u were resonants with vocalic and consonantal variants on a par with *r, *l, *n, *m, that the colored variants of *e before and after the laryngeals were distinct from later *a and earlier *o, and that the Proto-Indo-European long vowels originated as phonetic variants of short *e and *o (cf. Wackemagel 1896: 66-68). In a similar vein, it is pointless to reconstruct a large number of grammatical categories for the proto-language without considering the lack of evidence for the implied possibilities in the daughter languages. A fmal note on the transcription: following Oettinger (1979) I write h forb but s, not s in Hittite. For the Proto-Indo-European laryngeals I avoid the symbol *h, which suggests the wrong phonetics. In my earlier work I used to write *H, *H., *H3; I now prefer *l, "5, ?, which represent the most probable phonetic realization (at least for the non-Anatolian branch of Indo-European), or *q,, *q., *q3, which suggest any back articulation from post-velar to laryngeal In view of the different contexts, I have decided against a uniform transcription for all chapters. From a structural point of view, one might expect a larger number oflaryngeals on the basis of the number of velar obstruents, but there is no comparative evidence to support their reconstruction. For Old Norse I have most often followed Heusler's spelling (1967). In the course of the past decades I have profited much from scholarly discussions with Robert Beekes, Camelis Ruijgh, Alexander Lubotsky, Jorundur Hilmarsson, Dirk Boutkan, Rick Derksen, Leonid Kulikov, Michiel de Vaan, Martine Robbeets, Alwin Kloekhorst, Tijmen Prank. Guus Kroonen, Michael Peyrot, Lucien van Beek and other colleagues at various stages of my work. It goes without saying that they cannot be held responsible for any mistakes in the following pages. Leiden, April 1st, 2010
THE SPRJlAD OF THE INDO-EUROPEANS
The publication of Mallory's book (1989) has rendered much of what I had to say in the present contribution superfluous. The author presents a carefully argued and very well written account of a balanced view on almost every aspect of the problem. Against this background, I shall limit myself to a few points which have not received sufficient attention in the discussion. First of all, the relation between archaeology and linguistics is a precarious and asymmetrical one (cf. already Schmitt 1974). Mallory's lucid discussion of the problem (1989: 164-168) should be required reading for anybody who ventures into this realm of shadows. It is a methodologically legitimate activity to look for archaeological traces of a linguistic group, but the converse does not hold. Speculations about the linguistic affmity of a prehistoric culture are futile because it is reasonable to assume that the vast majority of prehistoric linguistic groups have vanished without leaving a trace. Thus, it is certainly attractive to assign the ancestors of the speakers of Proto-Tocharian to the Manasievo culture (cf. Mallory 1989: 62 and 225), but we must never forget that the very existence of the Tocharian texts which have survived is a purely accidental fact of history, due to a number of factors which happened to concur thousands of years after the eastward migrations of the Indo-Europeans. It is not merely possible, but very probable that many groups of Indo-Europeans migrated eastward before the ancestors of the Indo- Iranians, and that the distinguishing feature of the Tocharians is merely the preservation of their historical records. If the differences between East and West Tocharian lead us to date ProtoTocharian to the second half of the first millennium BC, this still leaves a gap of two or three millennia after the purported arrival of the Indo-Europeans in the area. Many things may have happened in the meantime. The real argument for an early eastward migration of the ancestors of the Tocharians is the remarkably archaic character of the attested languages (see Penney 1989 for a point of particular importance). It has often been argued that Tocharian has special connections with the western Indo-European languages. In my view, this is the result of a methodological bias in our way of reconstructing Proto-Indo-European. As Mayrhofer has noted (1983), the history of reconstruction can be described as a gradual shift away from the languages on which the reconstruction is primarily based. The similarities which link Tocharian to the western Indo-European languages reflect precious archaisms which were obscured by more recent developments affecting the dialectal area from which Greek and Indo- Iranian were to evolve. The bias is strengthened by the presence of later parallel innovations in the latter two
2.
Introduction
branches, e.g. in the development of the middle voice (cf. Ko44: 130 and K239: 151-157). Similarly, Mallory's inconclusiveness about the westward Indo-European migrations (1989: 257) appears to result from a search for archaeological evidence beyond what can be motivated from a linguistic point of view. If we follow the traditional opinion and assign the ancestors of the speakers of Celtic and Germanic to the La 'Thne and Jastorf cultures, respectively, this again leaves us with a gap of two millennia after the Corded Ware horizon to which the ancestors of the western Indo-Europeans may have belonged. Here again, we can be sure that a lot of things happened in the meantime, and it is most probable that many linguistic groups were irretrievably lost This leads me to the second point I want to make. There seems to be a general tendency to date proto-languages farther back in time than is warranted by the linguistic evidence. When we reconstruct Proto- Romance, we arrive at a linguistic stage which is approximately two centuries later than the language of Caesar and Cicero (cf. Agard 1984: 47-60 for the phonological differences). When we start from the extralinguistic evidence and identify the origins of Romance with the beginnings of Rome, we arrive at the eighth century BC, which is almost a millennium too early. The point is that we must identify the formation of Romance with the imperfect learning of Latin by a large number of people during the expansion of the Roman empire. Similarly, we may identify the formative period of Proto-Indo- European with the earliest expansions of the Indo-Europeans. The issue involved here is partly terminological. Elsewhere I have presented a relative chronology of 2.2. stages for the phonological developments which characterize the formation of Old Irish (K035; K239: 6-17 and 14of.). All of these developments are posterior to the Ogam inscriptions, which lack the characteristic features of the Old Irish language. If we use the term "Primitive Irish" for the period before the apocope (my stage 15) and the term "Archaic Irish" for the period between the apocope and the syncope (my stage 19), we may wonder about the applicability of the term "Irish" to the Ogam inscriptions; it may be more appropriate to speak of the variety of Insular Celtic spoken by the ancestors of the Irish. In any case, no reconstruction of Proto- Irish on the basis of Old Irish and later materials comes close to anything resembling the language of the Ogam inscriptions. Since the latter can hardly be older than the beginning of the Christian era and the syncope may be dated to the sixth century, it will be clear that I have little confidence in a theory which relegates Proto-Indo-European to the fifth or sixth millennium BC. The radical changes which embody the formation of Irish in the first half of the first millennium AD are probably due to imperfect learning by speakers of an unknown substrate language which was lost forever.
The spread of the Indo-Europeans
3
Perhaps the best example of a disintegrating proto-language is furnished by the Slavic materiaL Apart from the rise of x, all the major developments which differentiate Slavic from its Baltic prototype are usually dated to the first millennium AD (e.g. Shevelov 1964, Ko58). The earliest dialectal divergences within Slavic which have survived into historical times can hardly be older than the fourth century, and the last shared innovations of the entire group, such as the rise of the neo-acute tone, may be dated to the ninth century. The modem dialectal situation is essentially the same as it was in the twelfth century. When we reconstruct Proto-Slavic, the result can largely be identified with the language of the ninth century, apart from the dialectal differentiation which started half a millennium earlier, apparently in connection with the earliest expansion of the Slavic territory. It is reasonable to assume that many dialects arose and disappeared at earlier stages, but it is not obvious that the term "Slavic" is appropriate before the expansions of the frrst millennium AD. This brings me to the third point I want to make here. If a proto-language can be dated to the period of its expansion, the mechanism of this process must be examined in detaiL It comprises two phases, each of which has its own dynamics. First, a number of people have to move from their original homeland to a new territory. Second, a larger number of people must find it expedient to adopt the language of the intruders. Both developments are determined by specific social and economic circumstances. Population movements are determined by three factors. Firstly, there must be a reason to leave one's homeland. This factor has rightly been stressed by Anthony, who observes that people living along the boundary between the poorer lowland steppe and the richer upland forest "risked periodic exposure to severe stress, for small variations in precipitation, temperature, population density, or deforestation rate would dramatically alter the local distribution of critical resources in these fragile borderland communities" (1986: 292). This periodic exposure to severe stress prompted expansion when the opportunity presented itself. Secondly, there must be a place where life seems to be better in order to make the journey worth while. This is a reason to expect migrations toward rather than away from more developed areas such as Assyria in the third and second millennia BC. Thirdly, the cost of the journey must not be prohibitive. It is now generally recognized that the domestication of the horse played a crucial part in reducing the cost of physical mobility. The expansion of Indo-European presupposes not only the migrations of Indo-Europeans, but also the adoption of Indo-European languages by local populations. With respect to this issue Mallory refers to Barth's work (1981) in a discussion which is really too short The complexity of the problem is illustrated by the following passage, which I cannot refrain from quoting at some length (Mallory 1989: 26of.):
4
Introduction
"Barth examined the linguistic relations between the Pathans and Baluchi on the Afghan- Pakistan border. The Pathans were the more numerous, the wealthier, better armed, and even possessed a better military reputation. Nevertheless, it is the Baluchi who have been making the sustained linguistic assimilation of the Pathans. The Baluchi social structure is hierarchic and encourages vertical relationships between local leaders and clients. The various bands offer opportunities for social advancement within these hierarchies, and displaced Pathans in a frontier situation are attracted individually and in groups to join Baluchi communities. On the other hand, the more egalitarian society of the Pathans was ill-suited to absorb foreigners who could only enter it either in roles despised by the Pathans or by undertaking a more complicated process to being admitted as an equal in Pathan society. The nub of the issue here is not weapons, wealth or population size but the social permeability of the competing social organizations. As numerous historical instances testify, pastoral societies throughout the Eurasian steppe are typified by remarkable abilities to absorb disparate ethno-linguistic groups. Indo-European military institutions may have encouraged membership from local groups in the form of clientship which offered local populations greater advantages and social mobility." This must have been the decisive force in the spread of the Indo-European languages. Starting from the linguistic evidence and trying to fit the pieces into a coherent whole, we arrive at the following picture. The best candidate for the original Indo-European homeland is the territory of the Sredny Stog culture in the eastern Ukraine. The attested languages reflect a number of waves of migration to the east, north of the Caspian Sea (Tocharian, Indo-Iranian), to the south, west of the Black Sea (Anatolian, Greek, Armenian, Albanian), and to the west, south of the Baltic Sea (Italo-Celtic, Germanic). As Mallory notes, there may have been a fourth, abortive wave of migration to the southeast, west of the Caspian Sea, which is not reflected in the linguistic records, perhaps because the Indo-Europeans were assimilated to the local population at an early stage. The earlier migrations yielded the peripheral languages (Tocharian, Anatolian, ItaloCeltic), which did not take part in the late Indo-European innovations of the central dialects (Indo-Iranian, Greek, Germanic, Balta-Slavic, etc.). Some innovations affected only a part of the central dialects, such as the assibilation of the palatovelars (which did not reach Greek and Germanic). Other developments had a more local character. An interconsonantallaryngeal voiced the following stop in North Iranian (Avestan, Sogdian) dugdar- 'daughter, but not in its Persian and Indic cognates. This must have been a very early development It appears that Phrygian was rather closely related to Greek (cf. Lubotsky 1988b), Thracian to Armenian (cf. Ktm), and Venetie to Italic. The position of Illyrian remains unclear.
The spread of the Indo-Europeans
5
The Indo- Europeans who remained after the migrations became speakers of Balta-Slavic. If the speakers of the other satem languages can be assigned to the Yamnaya horizon and the western Indo-Europeans to the Corded Ware horizon, it is attractive to assign the ancestors of the Balts and the Slavs to the Middle Dnieper culture. If the origin of this culture "is to be sought in the Sredny Stog, Yamnaya and Late Tripolye cultures" and this phase is "followed by a middle period where the classic Corded Ware amphorae and beakers appear" (Mallory 1989: 2.48), the course of events corresponds nicely with the development of a satem language which was drawn into the western Indo-European sphere of influence. The disintegration of Balta-Slavic is closely parallel to that of IndoEuropean: the Slavs migrated to the west, the south, and the east, the Latvians to the north, and the Prussians were assimilated to the Germans. The deceptively archaic character of the Lithuanian language may be compared to the calm eye of a cyclone. The resulting picture can be summarized as follows. Eastward migrations: 1 Tocharian 2.a Indic 2.b South Iranian 2.C North Iranian (3 East Slavic) Southward migrations: 1 Anatolian 2.a Greek 2.b Phrygian 2.C Armenian 2.d Thracian 2.e Daco-Albanian (3 South Slavic) Westward migrations: 1a Italic 1b Venetie 1c Celtic 2. Germanic (3 West Slavic) Once again it must be emphasized that many linguistic groups may have vanished without leaving any historical record. We must now examine how the view developed here can be related to Gimbutas' theory of two homelands and three waves of migration into the Balkans. The main objection which can be raised against Gimbutas' scheme (e.g.
6
Introduction
1985: 198) is that it starts from the archaeological evidence and looks for a linguistic interpretation. As a consequence, the scheme does not fit the linguistic evidence very well. It seems to me that we arrive at a much better representation if we start from the linguistic side and try to fmd an archaeological corroboration. The natural solution then is to link Gimbutas' first wave (4400-4200 BC) to the ancestors of the Anatolians, her second wave (3400-3200 BC) to the ancestors of the Greeks and the Phrygians, and her third wave (3ooo-28oo BC) to the ancestors of the Armenians and the Thracians. If this identification is correct, the satemization process can be dated to the last centuries of the fourth millennium. It is possible that the speakers of Italo-Celtic must be assigned to the Globular Amphora culture, and that Germanic grew out of a later component of the Corded Ware horizon. Since the beginnings of the Yamnaya, Globular Amphora, Corded Ware, and Manasievo cultures can all be dated between 36oo and 3000 BC, I am inclined to date Proto- Indo-European to the middle of the fourth millennium, and to recognize Proto-Indo- Hittite as a language which may have been spoken a millennium earlier. If we can identify Indo-Hittite and Indo-European with the beginning and the end of the Sredny Stog culture, respectively, it will be clear that the linguistic evidence from our family does not lead us beyond Gimbutas' secondary homeland and that the Khvalynsk culture on the middle Volga and the Maykop culture in the northern Caucasus cannot be identified with the Indo-Europeans. Any proposal which goes beyond the Sredny Stog culture must start from the possible affmities of Indo-European with other language families. It is usually recognized that the best candidate in this respect is the Uralic language family, while further connections with the Altaic languages and perhaps even Dravidian are possible. The hypothesis that Indo-European is genetically related to a Caucasian language family or to Afro-Asiatic seems much less probable to me. What we do have to take into account is the typological similarity of ProtoIndo-European to the North-West Caucasian languages. If this similarity can be attributed to areal factors, we may think of Indo-European as a branch of UraloAltaic which was transformed under the influence of a Caucasian substratum. It now appears that this view is actually supported by the archaeological evidence. If it is correct, we may locate the earliest ancestors of the speakers of ProtoIndo-European north of the Caspian Sea in the seventh millennium (cf. Mallory 1989: 192f.). This is essentially in agreement with Gimbutas' theory (cf. also Kn2).
GENllRAL LINGUISTICS AND INDO-EUROPEAN RECONSTRUCTION
I Denmark has always been a superpower in linguistics. There is no need to list all famous scholars who worked in this country and left their imprint on the history oflinguistics, but there are two names which I want to mention here, viz. Otto Jespersen and Holger Pedersen. The point is that we have a lesson to learn from these two great scholars in connection with the relation between general linguistics and Indo-European reconstruction. Otto Jespersen was not only a great phonetician, but is regarded by some as the founder and by others as the forerunner of modern syntax. His Philosophy of Grammar is a classic for linguists of very different theoretical persuasions. The point I want to emphasize here is that Jespersen was very well informed about the comparative linguistics of his time, and was therefore in a very good position to hold strong views about what his colleagues were and were not doing. Holger Pedersen was perhaps the greatest comparative linguist of all time. But he also had a keen sense of scholarly atmosphere, as is evident from his history of 19th century linguistics. One of the characteristic features of his work is the insistence on comparison with what is actually observed in living languages, and on the role of naturalness in what is expected of linguistic development He simply was a very good general linguist. The fast-growing body of scholarly literature in the field of linguistics and the concomitant rise of specialization have led to a regrettable disintegration of the community of linguists. This is not to say that things were in all respects better in the past. Scholars were not always very nice to each other in former days, as can easily be gleaned from older issues of linguistic journals. There are many more jobs around nowadays. Yet I think that the discipline of linguistics has suffered from a fragmentation which could and should have been avoided. It is clear that nobody can read more than a very small percentage of the total scholarly output in linguistics nowadays. This raises a fundamental question: how to choose what to read? The answer is simple: there is no general way to choose, because you never can tell where to fmd the unexpected clue. One can only try and look. It is therefore most important to have a general idea of what colleagues are doing elsewhere in the field. A fair assessment of what general and comparative linguistics have to offer each other can only be reached if there is some consensus about the goals of the linguistic enterprise. The comparative linguist is in search of a picture which mirrors as closely as possible a historical reality, whereas the general linguist is primarily concerned with predicting the unknown. It is far from obvious that
8
Introduction
the former's reconstructions should conform to the latter's predictions. In the following I shall give a few examples of how these two lines of inquiry do not run parallel. Perhaps the most common objection against a proposed reconstruction which is raised time and again on general grounds, is that a linguistic form is impossible because it does not conform to typological expectations. The classic example is Brugmann's reconstruction of nasalis sonans in 1876, e.g. in the first syllable of *kmtom 'hundred~ Brugmann published his article in a journal of which Curtius had made him co-editor before going on a journey. When the latter read the article after his return, he became so enraged that he dissolved the journal and started a new one, without Brugmann (cf. Pedersen 1962: 293). The new reconstruction has now been part of the communis opinio for over a century. The case of the nasalis sonans is particularly instructive because the new theory soon gained general acceptance. The same cannot be said of the hypothesis that the Indo-European proto-language had no more than a single vowel. It is therefore important to compare the two cases in order to establish the reason for the different treatment. Note that I am not primarily concerned with the correctness of the reconstructions but with their reception by the scholarly community. If we can fmd out what motivates our colleagues to agree or to disagree, it may be possible to save a lot of time when trying to convince them. There are two types of objection against the reconstruction of a single vowel for Proto-Indo-European. On the one hand, it is claimed that not all of the material can be explained from such a reconstruction. On the other hand, it is argued that there can be no such thing as a language with no more than one vowel. Both arguments have their counterparts in the reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-European syllabic resonants. In the case of the nasalis sonans, there were two factors which rendered the new reconstruction more palatable. While the concept of syllabic nasal was an innovation, the syllabic liquids l and r were familiar from Czech and Sanskrit. The new theory did not therefore affect the idea of syllabicity as a vocalic property but only its distribution. Moreover, the class of possible reconstructed forms was not greatly affected because Brugmann recognized, beside the zero grade vocalism of the syllabic resonants, a reduced grade vocalism which could be invoked for those instances where others might see counter-evidence. It can be argued that the real victory of the Sonantentheorie was eventually achieved by the elimination of the reduced grade. That was a development which took much longer than the acceptance of the nasalis sonans. The reconstruction of a single Proto-Indo-European vowel is a natural consequence of the laryngeal theory. It differs from the Sonantentheorie in two respects. Firstly, it strongly reduces the class of possible reconstructed forms. As
General linguistics and Indo-European reconstruction
9
a result of this much higher predictive power, it much more easily generates a class of counter-examples. Secondly, the way out which the reduced grade offered in the case of the Sonantentheorie is blocked by the fact we are now dealing with the vowel system itself. What is remarkable here is not that the new reconstruction of the vowel system met with a lot of opposition, which is only natura~ but that it found any acceptance at all. The far-reaching consequences inherent in the new reconstruction of the vowel system render the impact of the typological argument all the more important. It has been claimed that languages with less than two vowels are unattested or even impossible. This objection has been countered by the observation that there is a consensus among specialists of North-West Caucasian languages about the existence of minimal vowel systems, matched by extremely large consonant inventories, in that area. This shows the weakness of the typological approach: it causes a bias toward what is regular, norma~ or frequent in the languages of the world and thereby renders the reconstruction of deviant patterns impossible (cf. Kuipers 1968: 78f.). The range of animal species living today would not allow us to reconstruct a dinosaur. The typological argument against the reconstruction of a minimal vowel system for Proto-Indo-European is particularly regrettable because typological evidence could actually be used to support such a reconstruction. According to what probably is the majority view, the original homeland of the IndoEuropeans must be situated in the South Russian steppe. The non-IndoEuropean language family which is closest to that area is precisely the NorthWest Caucasian. If we start from the assumption that the Proto-Indo-European sound system resembled that of its neighbours, with which it may have formed a Sprachbund, the North-West Caucasian system is as close as we can get from a typological point of view. Moreover, we know that the area around Majkop, which is Circassian territory, was a cultural center in the formative years of the Indo-European proto-language. It is therefore easily conceivable that the IndoEuropean sound system originated as a result of strong Caucasian influence. In fact, the typological argument is not only weak and ambiguous, but can even be harmfuL It has long been recognized that cognate languages tend to develop along similar lines after the dissolution of their ancestor. The Romance languages of today resemble each other much more closely than any of them resembles Latin. As a consequence, the history of Indo-European reconstruction shows a gradual shift away from the principal languages (cf. Mayrhofer 1983). If Bopp's Indo-European resembled Sanskrit, and Brugmann's Indo-European resembled Sanskrit no more than Greek, and Cowgill's Indo- European resembled Sanskrit and Greek no more than Hittite, it is to be expected that future reconstructions will diverge more widely from our traditional image of what an Indo-European language should look like, and thus move farther away from our typological expectations.
10
Introduction
What has just been said must not be taken as a plea against the use of typological evidence. On the contrary, I think that typological considerations are most useful as a heuristic device. They must never take the place of the evidence, however. In practice, the typological argument has too often served as a rationalization of traditional prejudice. Curtius' reaction to Brugmann's nasalis sonans is a case in point. I shall give two more examples of such unwarranted generalization about possible sound systems. In Bella Coola, a Salish language, there are words consisting entirely of voiceless consonants, e.g. t'xt 'stone'. When Boas reported about this hitherto unknown phenomenon, his article is said to have been rejected by the editor of a journal because everyone knows that it is impossible to have words without vowels (cf. Hockett 1955: 57). On the basis of my own fieldwork I can testify to the existence of the same word structure in Heiltsuk, an unrelated, Wakashan language, which is also spoken on the Canadian Pacific coast, e.g. qqs 'eye'. Here again, it appears that the typological argument can indeed be harmful According to Jakobson's Kindersprache, Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze, there can be no language without nasal consonants. The fundamental oppositions vowel- consonant and oral- nasal must be present everywhere: "sie sind die einzigen die nirgends fehlen diirfen" (Jakobson 1941: 34). Unfortunately, the existence of consonant systems without nasals has been reliably reported for Quileute and for Duwamish and Snoqualmie, languages which are spoken in the state of Washington and which belong to two different language families (cf. Hockett 1955: 119). This counter-evidence subsequently led Jakobson to replace his "universals" by "near-universals': without, incidentally, mentioning the languages which forced his theoretical retreat (Jakobson 1962: 526). Here again, typological reasoning had an adverse effect on the progress oflinguistics. Since the universal character of the opposition between oral and nasal consonants has been disproved, we may wonder if the same can be done for the opposition between consonants and vowels. This has actually been achieved by Pulleyblank in his analysis of Mandarin Chinese, which is not a minor language. Pulleyblank treats all vowels as syllabic variants of glides with which they alternate (1984: 57). Since the vowels are derived by rules of syllabification, all morpheme structures consist of consonants only. In comparison with this analysis, the reconstruction of a single vowel for Proto- Indo-European looks rather conservative. This raises the question whether our reluctance to admit certain possibilities may be a consequence of the tools we have been accustomed to use. In particular, is it possible that our conception of vowels and consonants is conditioned by our use of the Latin alphabet? Here it may be appropriate to have a look at the Japanese syllabary, which offers an instructive parallel Unlike the well-known Semitic and Indic scripts, the Japanese syllabary does not offer the possibility to denote a consonant without a following vowel
General linguistics and Indo- European reconstruction
11
Consequently, it is impossible to describe the language in terms of stems ending in a consonant followed by suffixes beginning with a vowel Thus, the paradigm of the verb 'to speal(, indicative hanasu, infmitive hanasi, imperative hanase, subjunctive hanasoo, negative hanasanai, cannot be described as a consonantal stem hanas- followed by a variety of suffixes, but only as an alternating stem hanasu, -si, -se, -so-, -sa-, which may be followed by other syllabic elements. This is indeed what is done in traditional Japanese grammar, where the verb belongs to the so-called godan-katuyoo, or five- step conjugation. The problem of notation as an obstacle to progress is not limited to linguistics, as any mathematician can testify. Consider the multiplication of 19 by 44. Accustomed as we are to the system of Arabic figures, we immediately see that 20 times 44 is 88o, and when you subtract 44 you get 836, which is the correct answer. But now suppose that you live in Rome, two thousand years ago, then you have to multiply XIX by XLII II in order to arrive at DCCC'VI. There can be little doubt that this is a more cumbersome procedure. Against this background, we may wonder if the difficulty of analyzing Japanese verbs with a consonantal stem in terms of the syllabary has a parallel in languages with an alphabetic script. In fact, it is not difficult to fmd examples. Take the English noun house and the verb to house. The latter is derived from the former by voicing the fmal consonant. It would therefore be appropriate to write the voicing feature as a suffix, if the writing system allowed us to do so. Conversely, the noun use is derived from the verb to use by devoicing the fmal consonant Note that the direction of the derivation is different here: we can have a house without housing someone, but we cannot do any housing without a house; however, the use of something presupposes somebody using it, whereas we may use something without invoking the abstract notion of 'use~ While a traditional analysis must treat these instances in terms of stem alternation, a generative analysis may postulate an underlying sufftx. Such a sufftx does not necessarily correspond to the sufftx which a comparative linguist would reconstruct. The example of house and use brings us to the problem of markedness. It is not always evident which of the two members of a pair must be considered the marked one. Since this may have consequences for linguistic reconstruction, it will be appropriate to look into the origin of the term. The concept of markedness as applied to the meaning of morphological categories can be traced back to Jakobson's essay Zur Struktur des russischen Verbums, which appeared in 1932. Jakobson's original example accompanying the introduction of the term is the Russian pair of words telenok 'calf' - telka 'heifer' (1932: 75). When he reprinted the article in his Selected Writings, Jakobson replaced these words by osel 'donkey' - oslica 'she-ass~ without, incidentally, drawing the reader's attention to the fact that he changed his prime example (1971: 4). There are two remarkable things about this. Firstly, it turns out that the example was not very
Introduction
12.
well chosen. It thus appears that the concept lacks the clarity which should render it applicable in an unambiguous way. Secondly, the ill-chosen example was evidently of no consequence to the theory because it was tacitly replaced by a different one. This does not inspire great confidence in the usefulness of the proposal. Since the Urheber apparently had a hard time making up his mind about the applicability of his theory to his own language, one can hardly blame others for avoiding the concept of markedness as a tool of analysis. To summarize our findings thus far, it appears that there is good reason to be ambivalent about the usefulness of general considerations in linguistic reconstruction. As a heuristic device, a theoretical framework can certainly be helpful but the negative potential of aprioristic considerations must not be underestimated. Since theory can easily embody the reflection of rationalized prejudice, it is important that comparative work be carried out inductively, as Holger Pedersen knew a long time ago. The accumulated experience of comparative linguistics offers a sound basis for a general theory of language change, which is part of a general theory oflanguage. II
We may now examine the hypothesis that the traditional voiced stops of the Indo-European proto-language were actually glottalic. Before the advent of the laryngeal theory, it was generally assumed that the proto-language had the same four series of stops as we fmd in Sanskrit, e.g. the dental series *t, *til, *d, *dh. When it turned out that the voiceless aspirate was rare and must in a number of cases be derived from an earlier sequence of *t plus a laryngeal consonant, the inductive generalization that no more than three series can be reconstructed for the proto-language left scholars with a typologically anomalous consonant system: *t, *d, *dh. There are two ways out of this intuitively unsatisfactory situation. On the one hand, one may return to the traditional reconstruction of four series of obstruents, in spite of the fact that there is insufficient evidence for the existence of original voiceless aspirates. This possibility does not offer an explanation for the peculiar asymmetry in the attested material. On the other hand, one can try to reinterpret the three series of *t, *d, *dh in such a way as to bring the reconstructed system into agreement with typological expectations. This research strategy invites scholars to look for additional evidence, which might change our views of the proto-language in a more radical way. The first to pursue the latter possibility in print was Holger Pedersen, at the age of 84. Pedersen argued that there are no reliable Indo-European etymologies which point to an initial voiced labial stop *b- (1951: 10-16). Since the voiceless labial stop p- is easily lost in a number of languages, he suggested that ProtoIndo-European *b was originally voiceless and weak, while the traditional voiced aspirate *bh may have developed from a voiceless aspirate. He compared
General linguistics and Indo- European reconstruction
13
the interchange of voiced and voiceless stops with the West Armenian consonant shift. The point to be noted here is the primacy of the empirical evidence. Typological considerations only served as a heuristic device for developing an explanatory hypothesis. Pedersen's article inspired Martinet to propose two years later in a footnote that the Proto- Indo-European voiced stops could be derived from an earlier glottalic series without a labial member (1953: 70). He compared the absence of the labial with the same phenomenon in Proto-Semitic, for which he reconstructed a glottalic series as the origin of the so-called emphatic stops. Here again, typological considerations served as a heuristic device. The problem was posed by the unexpected absence of empirical evidence for the reconstruction of a labial stop. A few years later, Andreev proposed an Indo-European proto-language without distinctive voicedness (1957: 7). He reconstructed voiceless fortes, voiceless lenes, and voiceless aspirates, corresponding to traditional t, d, dh, and suggested that this system is apparently preserved in Hittite. He introduced the incompatibility of fortes and aspirates in the root structure, which he (like Meillet) explained by an assimilation rule, into the discussion of the consonant system. His reinterpretation of the consonant shifts in the separate branches anticipates an argumentation which was put forward much later by the proponents of the glottalic theory. A proposal which looks like an integrated view of the hypotheses put forward by Pedersen, Martinet and Andreev is Swadesh's theory that ProtoIndo-European and its neighbours had simple, glottalic, and aspirated stops, and that the difference between voiced and voiceless articulation was a matter of local variation (1971: 127). Since this theory was published posthumously, its origin is difficult to determine. Swadesh remarks that the traditional IndoEuropean voiced stops are equivalent to the glottalic series of other language families with respect to sound symbolism (1971: 219). Twenty years after the publication of Martinet's suggestion that we may have to reconstruct glottalic stops for Proto- Indo-European, Gamkrelidze and Ivanov proposed the same (1972: 16), again on the basis of Pedersen's reasoning. Their proposal became much more widely known, probably because it was put forward time and again in different places. They explained the absence of roots with two glottalic stops by a dissimilation rule (1973: 153). They also reformulated Grassmann's Hauchdissimilationsgesetz as a Proto-Indo-European rule of allophonic variation (1980: 30-32). Here the primacy of the empirical evidence has been lost: the glottalic theory is not used to explain Grassmann's law, but Grassmann's law is adapted in order to serve as evidence for the glottalic theory. It seems to me that Latin fido 'I trust' < *bheidh- suffices to show that the argument cannot be used.
14
Introduction
Around the same time, a similar proposal was put forward by Hopper, who adduced not only the absence of *b and the root structure constraints, but also the absence of glottalic stops from inflectional afftxes (1973: 157). Here again, theoretical considerations evidently provided an obstacle to observation of the material, as is clear from the comparison of Latin quod with Old High German hwaz 'what; on the basis of which we have to reconstruct a Proto- IndoEuropean neuter ending *-d. On the basis of the proposals by Pedersen and Andreev, Rasmussen derived traditional *t, *d, *dh from earlier *T, *t, *d, where the first represents any emphatic stop, however phonetically realized: glottalized, pharyngealized, or just stronger (1974: n). The same reconstruction is implied in Illic-Svityc's Nostratic dictionary (1971: 147). The problem with this hypothesis is that there is no reason to assume an emphatic or otherwise strong character for a glottalic series. There are many varieties of glottalization, some of them weak, others strong. The relatively weak character of glottalization in Georgian and Armenian is evident from the fact that we often fmd glottalic rather than aspirated stops in loanwords from Russian. This suggests that we have aspirated fortes and glottalic lenes in these languages. In Avar, a North-East Caucasian language, there is an opposition between tense and lax voiceless consonants which is independent of the opposition between plain and glottalic stops and affricates, e.g. k, k:, k:, k:'. Moreover, there is also an opposition between geminate and single tense consonants, so that we have e.g. xcisel'winter' vs. tiis:a 'from above' vs. xcis:s:ab 'speciaf (cf. Ebeling 1966: 63). Thus, it appears that unwarranted generalization on the basis of theoretical considerations can easily interfere with observation of the facts and lead one astray in linguistic reconstruction. This can block scholarly progress for many years. Haudricourt reports (1975: 267) that as early as 1948 he arrived at the conclusion that the traditional voiced stops of the Indo-European protolanguage were in fact glottalic and that the original pronunciation has been preserved in East Armenian. His argumentation was based on the types of phonetic development attested in the Far East. The negative attitude of Bloch and Kurylowicz toward his view apparently kept him from publication. If Haudricourt, Pedersen, Martinet, Andreev and Swadesh had met at a conference in the late 'forties, the glottalic theory might have become popular a generation earlier than it actually did. I conclude that the typological argument has too often been invoked as a constraint on linguistic reconstruction rather than as a device to broaden the horizon of possibilities. As a result, our reconstructions tend to have a strong bias toward the average language type known to the investigator. The more deviant the structure of the proto-language actually was, the stronger the bias and the larger the difference between reality and reconstruction we should expect. We must therefore first and foremost pay attention to the comparative
General linguistics and Indo-European reconstruction
15
evidence, which remains the ultimate basis for choosing between alternative options in linguistic reconstruction. It is remarkable that the comparative evidence has largely been left out of consideration in the discussion of the glottalic theory.
III Glottalization is found in five out of the ten surviving branches of IndoEuropean, viz. Indic, Iranian, Armenian, Baltic, and Germanic. This is not the place to reconsider the comparative value of the evidence in the separate branches, which is very uneven (cf. Ko75). My point is methodological: can we establish the circumstances under which certain facts are admitted as evidence for a reconstruction? The answer to this question is far from obvious. There are two varieties of st0d in Danish. As a rule, standard Danish st0d appears in monosyllabic words which have pitch accent 1 in Swedish and Norwegian. Though the distribution of the st0d has partly been obscured by analogical developments, it seems clear that it developed from a falling tone movement. I shall leave the standard Danish st0d out of consideration in the following. The so-called vestjysk st0d is an entirely different phenomenon because it is characteristic of originally polysyllabic words, which have accent 2 in Swedish and Norwegian. It cannot possibly be connected with the Jylland apocope because it is also found in the northeastern part of vestfynsk dialects, where the apocope did not take place. While the vestjysk st0d is clearly linked to a following plosive which represents an earlier voiceless stop, it does not represent original gemination because it distinguishes e.g. the verbs dampe [dam'b] 'to steam', kante [kan'd] 'to border' from the nouns damp [damb] 'steam', kant [kand] 'edge, which never had a geminate (cf. Ejskjrer 1990: 64). As the glottalization in the infinitive vente [ven'd] 'to wait' is absent from the imperative vent [vend] 'wait!' (Ejskjrer 1990: 65), it looks like a feature of the following stop which was lost in word-fmal position. This leads us to consider the possibility that it may reflect some kind of Proto-Germanic glottalization. In his monograph on the vestjysk st0d, Ringgaard concludes that "the v-st0d is only found immediately before the plosives p, t, k, and that it is found wherever these stand in an original medial position, following a voiced sound in a stressed syllable. The exceptions to this are certain types ofloan-words from a later period" (1960: 195). He dates the rise of the vestjysk st0d to the 12th century because it is characteristic of "all then existing medial plosives" (1960: 199). The view that the vestjysk st0d is a spontaneous innovation of the westernmost dialects of Danish, which Jespersen had in fact proposed almost half a century earlier already (1913: 23), can hardly be called an explanation. Moreover, it does not account for the vestjysk st0d in the isolated pocket of dialects on the island
16
Introduction
of Fyn, which suggests that it is a retention rather than an innovation. The hypothesis of a local origin also neglects the parallel development of preaspiration in Icelandic. Preaspiration is not only found in Icelandic, but also in Faroese, Norwegian, and the Gaelic dialects of Scotland. Phonetically, the preceding vowel is cut short and continued as a whisper, while a preceding resonant is partly or wholly unvoiced. The distribution of preaspiration in Icelandic is the same as in the Norwegian dialect of Jreren (cf. Oftedal1947). We can therefore conclude that it is "an example of a feature taken to Iceland by the original settlers" (Chapman 1962: 85). Marstrander has argued that the preaspiration in Scottish Gaelic is due to a Norse substratum (1932: 298). He advances the hypothesis that the Norwegian preaspirated stops represent a retention of the clusters hp, ht, hk, which developed into geminates elsewhere (1932: 302). This theory implies three developments, viz. ht > tt in East Norse, tt > ht in West Norse, and t > ht in West Norse in those positions where the preaspirated stop does not reflect a cluster, e.g. Icelandic epli 'apple, vatn 'water: mikla 'to increase: hjalpa 'to helP, verk 'work'. Here the preaspirated plosives correspond to the traditional voiced stops of the Indo-European proto-language. Both the vestjysk st0d and the preaspiration receive a natural explanation if we assume that early Proto-Germanic possessed a series of preglottalized voiced stops 'b, ii, g (cf. Ko75: 196, K1o2: 8). Devoicing yielded a series of late ProtoGermanic sequences 'p, 't, 'k, the glottal element of which was lost under various conditions. Weakening of the glottal stop in West Norse yielded preaspiration while its assimilation to the following plosive gave rise to a series of geminates in East Norse, with the exception of Danish, where the sequences were subject to lenition and the glottal stop was preserved in the vestjysk dialects. It is difficult to escape the impression that the reluctance of earlier investigators to take the vestjysk st0d and the Icelandic preaspiration seriously as comparative evidence in the reconstruction of Proto-Germanic deprived them of an insight which could have changed our view of Proto-Indo-European. What was the cause of their restraint? What kept them from regarding preglottalization and preaspiration as evidence on a par with other features? Was it the Latin alphabet which constrained their thinking? Apart from the straightforward explanation of the vestjysk st0d and the Icelandic preaspiration, the reconstruction of Proto-Germanic preglottalized stops has the advantage of accounting in a principled way for the existence of several layers of gemination, which can now be viewed as retentions rather than innovations (cf. K1o2: 7). Firstly, it is possible that the unexplained gemination in Swedish, e.g. in vecka 'weel(, droppe 'drop: skepp 'shiP, reflects a dialect which escaped an early loss of the glottal stop, in contrast with Old Norse vika, dropi, skip, Old English wice, dropa, scip. Secondly, mp, nt, nk yielded pp, tt, kk in the
General linguistics and Indo- European reconstruction
17
larger part of Scandinavia. This development becomes understandable if we assume that the nasal consonant was devoiced by the preaspiration of the following plosive and subsequently lost its nasal feature. Thirdly, *k was geminated before *j and *w, e.g. in Old Norse bekkr 'brool(, rrakkr 'dark'. Similarly, *twas geminated before *j in a limited area, e.g. Swedish siitta 'to set'. (West Germanic geminated all consonants except r before *j and is therefore inconclusive.) Fourthly, the stops p, t, k were geminated before land r in West Germanic, e.g. English apple, bitter, cf. Gothic baitrs. The same development is found sporadically in Scandinavia, which suggests that we are dealing with the loss of an archaic feature rather than with an innovation. Here again, the geminate may have originated from the assimilation of a glottal stop to the following plosive. In fact, the evidence for Proto-Germanic preglottalized stops is not limited to Scandinavian, but can also be found in English and German. It is common knowledge that standard English inserts a glottal stop before a tautosyllabic voiceless plosive, e.g. sto'p, tha't, kno~k, wa'tch, also lea'p, soa'k, hel'p, pin'ch (cf. Brown 1977: 27). There is no reason to assume that this is a recent phenomenon. The High German sound shift yielded affricates and geminated fricatives, e.g. Old High German pfad 'path; werpfan 'to throW, affan 'oped, zunga 'tongue, salz 'sal~ wazzar 'watei, kind, chind 'child; trinkan, trinchan 'to drinl(, zeihhan 'token'. These reflexes suggest a complex articulation for the Proto-Germanic voiceless plosives from which they developed. The origin of the gemination is unexplained in the traditional doctrine. If we start from the assumption that the Proto-Germanic plosives were preceded by a glottal stop which is preserved in the vestjysk st0d and the English glottalization, the High German sound shift can be explained as a lenition of the plosives to fricatives with a concomitant klusilspring of the preceding glottal stop. Note that the High German sound shift has a perfect analogue in the English dialect of Liverpool, where we find e.g. [kx] in can't, back (Hughes and Trudgill 1987: 66), which again remains unexplained in the traditional doctrine. Thus, it appears that there is a whole range of phenomena which receive a natural explanation when we assume that glottalization is ancient in Germanic. The methodological question is: why have scholars been reluctant to identify the vestjysk st121d with the English glottalization, which according to Ringgaard gives the same auditory impression and apparently has the same articulation, as a historical reality which may have been inherited from the proto-language? Is there an implicit assumption that unwritten features must not be ancient? Is this the same factor which made Curtius reject Brugmann's nasalis sonans, in spite of the fact that we have a syllabic nasal in standard English words such as button and in the standard German infinitive ending of most verbs, e.g. lei ten 'to lead; where both examples end in [tn]? Is it all the result of our Latin upbringing,
Introduction
18
which Jespersen blamed for our lack of insight into the grammar of modem English?
IV It will be clear from what has been said that I am not particularly impressed by the contribution of theoretical reasoning to historical linguistics. Both Jespersen and Pedersen emphasized time and again that linguistics is an inductive enterprise, and I agree whole-heartedly. This does not mean that the comparative linguist can disregard what is going on in general linguistics, however. It rather means that we must look at those branches of linguistics which deal with language change in progress. Language is the interface between society and the individuaL and sociolinguistics is the area of research where we can expect results which may be of immediate relevance to linguistic reconstruction. Rapid linguistic change in bilingual communities of nomadic traders and ethnically mixed groups offers a test-case for historical linguistics. There is no reason to assume that the sociolinguistic conditions of prehistoric linguistic development were very different from what can be observed today among comparable groups. The remarkable spread of the Indo-European languages was determined by specific social and economic circumstances. It presupposes that a number of people moved from their original homeland to a new territory. As is now generally recognized, the domestication of the horse played a crucial role in the increase of physical mobility. However, the Indo-European expansions required not only the migration of Indo-Europeans, but also the adoption of IndoEuropean languages by local populations. This implies that a large number of people must have found it expedient to adopt the language of the intruders. As Mallory has pointed out, "pastoral societies throughout the Eurasian steppe are typified by remarkable abilities to absorb disparate ethno-linguistic groups. Indo-European military institutions may have encouraged membership from local groups in the form of clientship which offered local populations greater advantages and social mobility" (1989: 261). This must have been the decisive factor in the spread of the Indo-European languages. When we look at language interference in bilingual communities, it appears that there is a marked difference in the ease of linguistic borrowing between grammar and lexicon, between bound and free morphemes, and between verbs and nouns. As a result, the older strata of a language are better preserved in the grammatical system than in the lexical stock, better in morphology than in phonology or syntax, better in verb stems and pronouns than in nouns and numerals. The wide attestation of the Indo-European numerals must be attributed to the development of trade which accompanied the increased mobility of the Indo-Europeans at the time of their expansions. Numerals do
General linguistics and Indo- European reconstruction
19
not belong to the basic vocabulary of a neolithic culture, as is clear from their absence in Proto- Uralic and from the spread of Chinese numerals throughout East Asia. The inequality between different parts of the language in linguistic borrowing is of particular importance when we are dealing with distant affmity. In a beautiful and convincing article which appeared a number of years ago (1988), Michael Fortescue has demonstrated on the basis of case sufftxes, pronouns and verbal morphology that Eskimo and Aleut are genetically related to Yukagir, which is most probably related to the Uralic language family. His reconstructions support the possibility that Tungus and Japanese also belong to the same language stock. It is clear that such affmity could never be demonstrated by the mere comparison of words. In a study of the earliest contacts between the Indo-European and Uralic language families (1986), Redei lists 64 words which were supposedly borrowed from Indo-European into Uralic at an early date. The material is divided into three groups: 7 Indo-European words which are attested in both Finno- Ugric and Samoyedic, 18 Indo-European or Indo-Iranian words which are attested in Finno-Ugric but not in Samoyedic, and 39 Indo-Iranian words which are not found either in Ugric or in Samoyedic. Now it turns out that the number of verbs in the oldest material is too large to support the hypothesis that they were borrowed: verbs constitute 43% of the first group, 28% of the second group, and 5% of the third group. This is strong evidence for the thesis that the oldest layer was in fact inherited from an Indo- Uralic proto-language. Though the material is very small, the case for an original genetic relationship is particularly strong because we are dealing with basic verbs, meaning 'to give, 'to wash', 'to bring, 'to drive, 'to dO, 'to lead: 'to take' (cf. K112). Moreover, it is difficult to see how Proto-Indo-European words could have been borrowed into Proto-Uralic if the Indo-Europeans lived in the South Russian steppe when the ancestors of the Finno-Ugrians and the Samoyeds lived on the eastern side of the Ural mountains. The earliest contacts between Indo-European and Uralic languages must probably be identified with the eastward expansion of the Indo-Iranians and the simultaneous spread of the Finno-Ugrians to the southwest. Thus, it appears that we do not need a large number of obvious cognates, which cannot be expected in the case of distant linguistic affinity, in order to establish genetic relationship between languages. What we need to fmd are morphological correspondences and a few common items of basic vocabulary because these are the elements which are least likely to be borrowed. We can then try to match the linguistic evidence with what can be gathered from anthropological and archaeological sources. In my view, the last decade has brought decisive proof of genetic relationship between the whole range of languages from Indo-European to Eskimo. The next step should comprise an establishment of chronological layers in the material and a specification of the
Introduction
2.0
connections with the Altaic language family. The role of general linguistics in this enterprise is to provide an idea of what can be expected in linguistic development, not by theoretical reasoning but by inspection of what actually happens in situations of language contact. Language is a social phenomenon, and linguistic change must be examined in its social and historical context. NOTE
This is the revised text of a paper read at the Institute of general and applied linguistics, University of Copenhagen, on December 2., 1993.
ON RUSSENORSK
The concept of mixed language has recently gained some popularity, to my mind for no good reason. It is unclear how a mixed language can be distinguished from the product of extensive borrowing or relexification. I therefore think that the concept only serves to provoke muddled thinking about linguistic contact and language change. Note e.g. that Munske adduces German as an example "because the author is a professor of German linguistics and because the phenomenon oflanguage mixing can be explained better in relation to a language on which a large amount of research has been done than, for example, in relation to pidgin and creole languages" (1986: 81). Peter Bakker and Maarten Mous claim that "extreme borrowing never exceeds roughly 45% of the lexicon, whereas in some of the mixed languages discussed the proportion of 'foreign' lexical elements is closer to or over 90%, and this figure is the same whether one counts types or tokens. There do not seem to be languages with a proportion of borrowed items between 45% and 90%, so that there is no continuum between languages with heavy borrowing and mixed languages" and that "in the mixed languages most of the core vocabulary tends to be foreign" (1994: 5). When we look at the short text in Bakker's prime example of a mixed language, Michif (1994: 28-30), we fmd the following distribution of French and Cree items: - French elements: un vieux 'an old: un matin 'a morning, ses pieges 'his traps: une tem~te 'a storm: pas moyen 'no way' (2x), son shack 'his cabin' (2x), le vieux 'the old: d'un gros arbre 'at a big tree, une bonne place 'a good place, le loup de bois 'the timber wolf: le loup 'the wolf' (4x), sa bouche 'his mouth: son bras 'his arm: dans la queue 'by the tan: par la queue 'by the taif. - Cree stems: 'trap' (2x), 'wake uP, 'be sick' (2x), 'want-go-see; 'leave, 'be busY, 'bad-weather: 'find' (2x), 'be losf, 'walk' (2x), 'play ouf, 'sit uprighf, 'die' (2x), 'think of; 'see, 'ruti, 'wait for; 'look af, 'come-thus-run; 'sif, 'open' (2x), 'wanttake; 'push forward; 'take froni, 'pull inside ouf, 'run back go home'. -Cree words: 'and' (3x), 'stiiT, 'this' (4x), 'meantime, 'there' (2x), 'here; 'it is said: 'that' (2x), 'where, 'again'. -Cree affiXes: so instances (12 prefiXes and 38 suffiXes).
It is clear that Bakker's prime example does not fulfil his own criteria of mixed languages and that we are simply dealing with heavy borrowing of French nouns into Cree. French articles and possessives are treated as prefiXes which were borrowed together with the head noun.
2.2.
Introduction
In the following I shall discuss another example of a mixed language, viz. Russenorsk, a pidgin which was spoken by Norwegian and Russian fishermen along the Arctic coast of Norway in the 19th century. Our major source of information on this language is Brach & Jahr 1984; other important contributions are Lunden 1978 and Peterson 198o. Note that Russenorsk was a 'seasonaf language, not used continuously throughout the year but only during part of the summer fishing season (Lunden 1978: 2.13). It cannot therefore be compared with a natural language but illustrates the process of language mixing in a situation where creolization never had a chance. Following Olaf Brach, Lunden lists three salient features of Russenorsk which are frequently quoted in the literature: (1) the use of moja and tvoja as 1st and 2nd sg. personal pronouns, ( 2.) the use of the preposition polpa as a general marker of oblique relations, (3) the development of a verbal marker -om, e.g. kapitan paa kajuta slipom 'the captain is asleep in his cabin'. Since these features serve as a kind of shibboleth, they may reflect "a case of speaking "the way foreigners speak': rather than speaking "the other man's language"': as Lunden puts it (1978: 2.15). It follows that we must distinguish between a person speaking his own language, a person simplifying his own language in order to make himself understood, and a person trying to use his interlocutor's language. We should therefore expect to fmd six components of Russenorsk, depending on the nationality of the speaker and his three types of linguistic performance. The effort which goes into "speaking the way foreigners speak" beside "speaking the other man's language" accounts for the fact that both partners may believe that they are actually speaking each other's language. I shall now test this hypothesis by analyzing a dialogue recorded by A.WS. Brun, cited and translated by Peterson (1980: 253f.), and reproduced by Brach & Jahr (1984: 13of.). The speakers are abbreviated as Nor[wegian] and Rus[sian]; unambiguous Norwegian and Russian words are indexed by subscript N and R while German, Dutch, English and ambiguous words remain unmarked (in accordance with Peterson 1980); the orthography follows Brach & Jahr (1984) except for re and aa, which are replaced bye and o. Nor: Kjraf'N IN seika, treskaR> tiksa ON balduska? "Are you buying pollack, cod, haddock, and halibut?" The speaker uses his own language, except for the fact that the fish names are apparently language- independent Rus: DaR> daR - mojaR kopomR altsammaN, davaiR po skif'N komN. "Yes, yes - I'll buy all of it, come on board." The speaker adapts his own language moja kopom and switches to Norwegian altsamma, po skip kom.
On Russenorsk
23
Nor: SpasibaR! harN IN mokkaR, harN N groppaR? "Thank you! Do you have flour, do you have grain?" The speaker uses his own language, except for the word of thanks and for the names of the commodities he wants to purchase. Rus: DaR. daR! DavaiR po skiPN komN, bratR. po tjeiR drikiN. "Yes, yes! Come on board, brother, drink some tea." The speaker clearly tries to speak Norwegian, though the interjections da, davai, brat are Russian. Nor: BlagdaruR pokornaR! KokR tvojaR betalomN forN seika? "I humbly thank you! What are you paying for pollack?" The speaker now tries to adopt the simplified language of his interlocutor, tvoja betalom echoing moja kopom, but the main verb and focus of the message is still Norwegian betalom for seika. Rus: PetR pudofR seika flour:' This is Russian.
1
pudR mokiR- "Five poods of pollack for one pood of
Nor: KorN iN tykj~ ~ d~ lagaN? IN mON gjerN d~ billiarN! "How the hell is that figured out? You have to make it cheaper!" This is pure Norwegian. Rus: KakR sprek? Moj~ nietR forstON. "What did you say? I don't understand." Again, the speaker adapts his own language and uses verbs from the language of his interlocutor. Nor: DorgoR. dorgloR Rusmai~ - prosjaiR! "Expensive, expensive, Russian goodbye!" The speaker uses Russian words without any sentence structure. Rus: NietsjevoR! sjetiriR- gallN! "Okay! four- and a half!" This is Russian, except for the focus of the message, which is in Norwegian. Nor: DavaiR firN - nietsjevoR ve"igodN. "Make it four, okay, good." Apart from the interjections davai and nietsjevo, this is Norwegian. Rus: NjetR. bratR! KudaR mojaR selomN desjevliR? Grot djurN mokkaR po RusleienN deinN OtN. "No, brother! Where can I sell it cheaper? Flour is very expensive in Russia this year." The speaker adapts his own language and substitutes the Norwegian verb, then switches to Norwegian in the second sentence. Nor: TvojaR nietR sainferdiN sprek. "You're not telling the truth." The speaker imitates the simplified language of his interlocutor but the focus of the message is in Norwegian. Rus: Jes, grot sainferdiN, mojaR nietR lugomN, djurN mokkaR. "Yes, it's very true, I'm not lying, flour is expensive." The speaker tries to answer in Norwegian, adapts his own language and uses Norwegian words in the three foci of the message. Nor: KakR tvojaR kopomR - davaiR firN pudp,; kakR tvojaR nietR kopomR - soN prosjaiR! "If you want to buy - four poods; if you don't want to buy - then,
24
Introduction
goodbye!" The speaker imitates the simplified language of his interlocutor, but the focus of the message fir is still Norwegian. Rus: NON, nietsjevoR bratR> davaiR kladiR po dekN. "Wel~ okay brother, put the fish on the deck." This is essentially a Russian sentence. When we evaluate the evidence, it is clear that there is a substantial difference in linguistic behavior between the two parties of the dialogue. The Norwegian uses his own language; when he adopts simplified Russian expressions from his interlocutor, the focus of the message always remains Norwegian. The Russian on the other hand simplifies his own language for the sake of his interlocutor and switches to Norwegian all the time, the only exceptions being his first offer pet pudofseika 1 pud moki and his fmal consent nietsjevo brat, davai kladi po dek. There is no mixed language here but a dialogue between a Russian speaking foreigners' talk and limited Norwegian and a Norwegian speaking his own language and imitating the Russian's foreigners' talk. The focus of the messages is always in Norwegian, whether the speaker is Norwegian or Russian. It follows that Russenorsk is a variant of Norwegian with an admixture of Russian foreigners' talk. While the concept of mixed language seems to have originated from underanalysis of linguistic data, the putative grammar of Russenorsk appears to result from linguistic overanalysis. The alleged nominal suffiXes -a and -i (Brach & Jahr 1984: 43f., 63) are simply the Russian sg. and pl. endings which were borrowed as part of the names of the merchandise. When a Norwegian asks in Russian foreigners' talk:
Nogoli dag tvoja reisa po Archangel otsuda? "How many days did you travel from/to Archangel to/from here?" (nogoli dag < mnogo li dag, R. otsuda 'from here'), the Russian says in Norwegian:
/a po madam Klerck tri daga lige ne. "I lay three days at Mrs. Klerck's:: with the regular ending -a after the Russian numeral tri (Brach & Jahr 1984: 113, uS). The adjectival -a is the Russian feminine and unstressed neuter ending which was borrowed as part of the adjectives. The verbal ending -om represents the Scandinavian hortative ending -om, not only because the preceding verb stem is usually Germanic and because over so% of the instances are introduced by davai or vrersego (Brach & Jahr 1984: 47), but especially because it is pronounced [urn], as is clear from the manuscripts, and cannot therefore be of Slavic origin. There are only four Russian verbs in -om, viz. kopom 'buY, robotom 'worlc, smotrom 'see: kralom 'steal'; the isolated form podjom 'let's go' does not count because it is not attested in a sentence. Russian verb forms are usually imperatives or infmitives; the form vros '(you) lie' is not 2nd sg. but uninflected:
On Russenorsk
25
moja njet vros (lygom) 'I do not lie~ Thus, there is no trace of Russian grammar in the language. I conclude that Russenorsk is a variant of Norwegian with an admixture of Russian foreigners' talk and elements from the native language of the speaker. The concept of mixed language is misleading because there is a fundamental asymmetry between the two parties in the dialogue, both of whom essentially speak Norwegian. There is no Russian element in the grammar, which is Norwegian, though not limited by the standard language but full of pragmatic variation, especially topicalization. The attested material illustrates the regular mechanism of language change through imperfect learning.
THE ORIGIN OF THE GOTHS
Witold Manczak has argued that Gothic is closer to Upper German than to Middle German, closer to High German than to Low German, closer to German than to Scandinavian, closer to Danish than to Swedish, and that the original homeland of the Goths must therefore be located in the southernmost part of the Germanic territories, not in Scandinavia (1982, 1984. 19878-. 1987b, 1992). I think that his argument is correct and that it is time to abandon Iordanes' classic view that the Goths came from Scandinavia. We must therefore reconsider the grounds for adopting the latter position and the reasons why it always has remained popular. The reconstruction of Gothic history and the historical value of Iordanes' Getica have been analyzed in detail by Peter Heather (1991: 3-67). As he points out about this prime literary source (p. 5): "Two features have made it central to modern historical reconstructions. First, it covers the entire sweep of Gothic history. [...] Second, there is a Gothic origin to some of the Getica's material, which makes it unique among surviving sources." Iordanes' work draws heavily on the lost Gothic histories of Ablabius and Cassiodorus, who "would seem to have been in the employ of Gothic dynasts and had to produce Gothic histories of a kind that their employers wished to hear" (Heather 1991: 67). As to the origin of the Goths and their neighbours, the Gothic migrations and the great kings of the past, oral history is the most likely source of the stories. This material must therefore be handled with particular care: "Oral history is not unalterable, but reflects current social configurations; as these change, so must collective memory" (Heather 1991: 62). It appears that Iordanes knew of several alternative accounts of early Gothic history, and Heather concludes (1991: 66): "There was thus more than one version of Gothic origins current in the sixth century. Jordanes, as we have seen, made his choice because he found written confirmation of it, but this is hardly authoritative: the Scandinavian origin of the Goths would seem to have been one sixth-century guess among several. It is also striking that Jordanes' variants all contained islands: Scandinavia, Britain, 'or some other island'. In one strand of Graeco- Roman ethnographic and geographic tradition, Britain, Thule, and Scandinavia are all mysterious northern islands rather than geographical localities. 'Britain' and 'Scandinavia' may well represent interpretative deductions on the part of whoever it was that recorded the myths. The myths themselves perhaps referred only to an unnamed, mysterious island, which the recorder had then to identify. The Scandinavian origin-tale would thus be similar to much else in the Getica, depending upon a complex mixture of material from Gothic oral and GraecoRoman literary sources."
2.8
Introduction
If we are to maintain continuity between the Baltic Gutones of the tst and 2nd centuries and the Pontic Goths of the 3rd and 4th centuries, this only reflects the tradition of the ruling clans (cf. Wolfram 1979: 6-7). The historical evidence suggests that the Scandinavian Goths came from the south across the Baltic Sea rather than the other way round (cf. Hachmann 1970: 454-457 and 465). The Lithuanian name Gudai 'Byelorussians' < *-dh- has nothing to do with the Goths< *-t- but must be derived from Prussiangudde 'woods: like the Polish place names Gdansk and Gdynia (cf. Fraenkel 1950: 64). There is no archaeological evidence for a large-scale migration of Goths from the Baltic to the Black Sea (cf. Heather 1991: 6 and Hachmann 1970: 467). In fact, there are several reasons why such a migration is highly unlikely. First of all, there is a clear discontinuity between the Przeworsk culture in Poland and the Cernjahov culture in the Ukraine which are identified with the Goths before and after the migration, respectively (see the map of Green 1998: xiv). The only reason to assume that the Goths followed the rivers Bug or San and Dniestr is that "the terrain did not offer many alternatives between a common starting-point and a shared goal" (Green 1998: 166). Secondly, the territory between these two areas north of the Carpathian mountains is precisely the homeland of the Slavs, who do not appear to have stirred before the arrival of the Huns in the fourth century. This can hardly be reconciled with a major migration of Goths through their territory. Thirdly, the periodic exposure to severe stress in the fragile borderland communities of the steppe prompted westward population movements toward areas of more stable climatic conditions. An eastward migration of Goths from the richer upland forest into the poorer lowland steppe was both unmotivated and difficult to realize against the natural forces to be encountered. Fourthly, the expected direction of a migration is toward more developed areas where life seems to be better, which in the present context means toward the nearest border of the Roman Empire. We would therefore expect the Goths to move to the south through the Moravian Gate toward the Danube, as did the Slavs a few centuries later. Fifthly, there is little reason to assume that the Goths behaved differently from the Burgundians, the Vandals, the Marcomanns and the Langobards, all of whom crossed the upper Danube at some stage. It therefore seems probable to me that the historical Goths followed the course of the Danube downstream and entered the Ukraine from the southwest. The Gepids may have lagged behind on this journey, which accounts for Iordanes' etymology of their name (cf. Heather 1991: 5). Putting the pieces together, I think that the most likely chain of events is the following. The Gutones, like their East Germanic brethren, moved south toward Italy and the riches of the Roman Empire until they reached the river Danube. They may have adopted the speech of Alemannic tribes which had arrived there from the west, where these had been in close contact with the Romans for a longer period of time. It is possible that Gothic ethnogenesis actually took place
The origin of the Goths
29
in Lower Austria when East Germanic tribes from the north met with West Germanic tribes from the west and, having been prevented from entering the Roman Empire in large numbers, joined forces in their quest for a place to cross the lower Danube. This scenario is well-motivated in terms of pressures and attractions. It renders the southern origin of the Gothic language compatible with the northern origin of the name. The 'Gothicization' of large numbers of non-Goths was not brought about by "the predominance of 'true Goths"' (Heather 1991: 327) but by the absence of major linguistic differences between the Germanic tribes of the md century. It is only to be expected that the most prestigious Germanic dialect was spoken close to the border of the Roman Empire and largely taken over by the newcomers. The Gothic majority did not exist at the outset but came into being as a result of the process of assimilation as the groups adapted to one another. The scenario outlined here has the additional advantage of accounting for a number of peculiar characteristics of the Gothic language in comparison with its closest relatives. Gothic phonology resembles that of Latin and Romance more than that of the other Germanic languages ( cf. K1o2.: 8-9 and K138: 54). Though Gothic is more archaic than its sisters, its morphology appears to have been regularized to a large extent. The Latin sufftx -iirius was evidently productive in Gothic bokareis 'scribe, laisareis 'teacher: liupareis 'singer: motareis 'toll-taker: sokareis 'disputer'. The Gothic words siponeis 'disciple, kelikn 'tower, alew 'oif, lukarn 'lamp' were probably borrowed from the Celts in Moravia (cf. Green 1998: 156-158), which explains their limited distribution in Germanic. The word for 'vinegar' is of particular interest because it has seven different variants in Germanic (cf. Wollmann 1990: 52.6-542): Gothic aket, akeit; Swiss German (Wallis) achiss; Old High German ezzih; Middle Low German etik; 5· Middle Dutch edic; 6. Old English eced, Old Saxon ekid; 7. Icelandic edic, Swedish attika, which were apparently borrowed from Low German.
1.
2.. 3. 4.
It is clear that the Gothic word came from Alemannic in the 1st century before viticulture spread to the Palatinate and the middle Rhine in the 2nd century (cf. Wollmann 1990: 540). The words Kreks 'Greek' and datpl. marikreitum 'pearls' also betray the influence of an Upper German dialect without voiced obstruents (cf. K1o2.: 9). Furthermore, Greek words usually appear in their Latin form in Gothic (cf. especially Jellinek 192.6: 179-183 and 188-194), which points to a western origin of the Goths, e.g. aipistula 'letter' (but aipistaule 'Pauline epistle'), drakma
30
Introduction
'drachma: paurpura 'purple, gen.sg. sinapis 'mustard: dat.pl Rumonim 'Romans: Saurim 'Syrians: also aikklesjo 'congregation; aiwaggeijo 'gospet aiwaggelista 'evangelisf, diabulus 'devil' (but diabaulus in St. John), Marja 'Mary' (but Maria in St. Luke), and Jesus Xristus. It seems to me that gen.pl skaurpjono 'scorpions' almost suffices to show that the Goths entered the Balkans from the west, not from the north. Most important is that Greek o-stems are inflected as u-stems in Gothic, e.g. Iudaius 'Jew; gen.sg. -aus, datpl. -um, acc.pl. -uns, but as i-stems in nom.pl. Iudaieis, gen.pl. -e (Jellinek 1926: 108), which can only be explained by Latin transmission. Other pieces of evidence are cultural loans such as aurali 'napkin' and kubitus 'reclining (company) at a meal' and loan translations, e.g. armahairtei 'mercf, which were taken from Latin orarium, cubitus, misericordia, not from their Greek equivalents. A fmal point to be noted is that Baltic loanwords from Gothic were transmitted through Slavic (cf. Stender-Petersen 1927: 134 and Green 1998: 172-174), which suggests that the Balts never had direct contact with the Goths but were separated from them by the Slavs.
C.C. UHLENBECK ON INDO-EUROPEAN, URALIC AND CAUCASIAN
In his early years, C. C. Uhlenbeck was particularly interested in the problem of the Indo-European homeland (1895, 1897). He rejected Herman Hirt's theory (1892) that the words for 'birch; 'willoW, 'spruce, 'oal(, 'beech' and 'eef point to Lithuania and its immediate surroundings and returned to Otto Schrader's view (1883, 1890) that the original homeland must rather be sought in southern Russia and may have included some of the later Germanic and Iranian territories. It is clear that the Mediterranean region and the area around the North Sea can safely be excluded because the arrival of the Indo-Europeans was comparatively recent here, as it was in Iran and the Indian subcontinent. It is difficult to be more specific within the limits of central and eastern Europe and central Asia. Uhlenbeck was impressed by the lexical correspondences between Indo-European and Semitic which had been adduced in favor of an eastern homeland but pointed out that borrowings from Semitic may have reached the Indo-Europeans through an intermediary. He agrees that the Indo-European words for trees and animals point to a moderate climate but questions the possibility of a more specific localization as well as the concept of homeland itself. Uhlenbeck identifies the Slavic word for 'dog pt~Sb with the Indo-European word for 'livestock' *peR:u and its original meaning as 'domestic animaf. Unlike Hirt (1895), he recognizes that the Indo-Europeans were pastoralists before they became agriculturalists, as is clear from the absence of common words for 'plough: 'field; 'grain' and suchlike. While Armenian shares many agricultural terms with the languages of Europe, these are absent from Indo- Iranian. The common Indo-European vocabulary reflects a stage of development when weaponry was made of stone, wood, bones and hides (cf. Schrader 1890: 320-346). It includes words for 'cart' (oxoi;,), 'wheef (~<:odoi;,), 'axle' (~wv), 'yoke' ({vy6v), 'carpenter' (re~<:rwv), '(wooden) house' (86ftOi;,), 'vessef (vaiii;,), 'to plait' (me~<:w), 'to weave' (t}(patvw), 'to spin' (vew), 'garment' (elfta) and 'to clothe' (f.Vviiftl). The population of Denmark and Scandinavia did not speak an IndoEuropean language before the advent of pastoralism, which puts these countries beyond the original homeland. The introduction of the cart was evidently more recent than the domestication of cattle, which were used as draught animals. All Indo-European languages have the same words for 'o'x, 'sheeP, 'goa~ 'horse' and 'swine; but not for tame birds, which had not yet been domesticated, nor for 'donkeY, which came from the south. The ancient character of cattle-breeding is corroborated by the words for 'livestoclc, 'to herd; 'herd' (trwv), 'herdsman' (trOlft~V), 'cow' (floiii;,), 'to milk' (aft.€A.yw), 'butter' (lA.troi;,) and 'bulf. The word
32
Introduction
steer (ravpo~, Latin taurus) is probably an early Indo-European borrowing from Semitic denoting 'wild bult as is indicated by Lithuanian taiiras 'aurochs' and Old Prussian tauris 'wisenf, while ox is the old word for 'domesticated bulf. Cattle were the most important animals in prehistoric pastoralism, as is clear from such Vedic expressions as 'desire of cows' for 'struggle' and 'cattle-master of horses' for 'lord' and from the peculiar Greek word imrof3ovK.6Ao~ 'horsecowherd' for 'horse-herd'. Other domesticated animals included sheep, as is also clear from the words for 'woof and 'lamb; and goats and horses, but not donkeys, chicken, ducks and geese, which were domesticated more recently (cf. Schrader 1890: 390). While the Indo-European vocabulary contains an abundance of words reflecting a pastoral society, there is no common agricultural terminology. The Indo- Iranians evidently belonged to a different cultural unity when the languages of Europe, including Armenian, developed their agricultural terminology (cf. now Kuz'mina 2.007). The Latin word granum originally meant 'grain of coni, as is also clear from its Germanic, Baltic and Slavic cognates, while hordeum 'barley' may have designated a wild variety. The Sanskrit cognate of the word for 'field' ajras means 'plain' while the word vapati means both 'throws' and 'sows'. The European words for 'seed' (Latin semen), 'to mow' (apaw), 'to milf (Latin molere), 'to plough' (apow) and 'plough' (ltporpov) are absent from Indo-Iranian (cf. Schrader 1890: 410). These etyma can now be identified with Hittite sai- 'to throW, iins- 'to wipe, malla- 'to grind' and ha"a'to crush; respectively (cf. Kloekhorst 2.008). The word for 'wine' has an IndoEuropean etymology (cf. Beekes 1987) but was limited to the Mediterranean countries (Italy, Greece, Asia Minor), from where it spread to northern and eastern Europe and to the Middle East The original Indo-European word probably denoted 'vine' rather than 'wine' because this is the meaning of Basque ayen, aihen (cf. also Beekes 2.010: 1059). Though metallurgy was unknown to the Indo-Europeans, they had words for gold, which is cognate with yellow and has been preserved in Germanic, Baltic, Slavic and Indo-Iranian, 'silver' (Latin argentum), cognate with 'bright' and preserved in Celtic, Italic, Greek. Armenian and Iranian, 'copper' (Latin raudus 'piece of brass'), which is cognate with red and has been preserved in Italic, Germanic (where it may also be represented by lead), Slavic and IndoIranian, and ore, which became the word for 'brass, bronze' in Italic (Latin aes), Germanic and Indo-Iranian. There were no common Indo-European terms for 'iron; 'lead' and 'tin'. The original words for 'gold' and 'silver' were apparently replaced with the advent of metallurgy, the first in Italy (Latin aurum), from where the new term spread to Baltic, Celtic and eventually Basque, and the second in Spain (Celtiberian silapur, Basque zillar), from where the new term spread to Germanic, Baltic and Slavic. The latter word cannot be separated from Berber ap-ej'silver' and ~arif'alum', where a- is a nominal prefix. Here the word
C.C. Uhlenbeck on Indo-European, Uralic and Caucasian
33
for 'alum' is evidently a borrowing from Punic and can be derived from the Semitic root ~rp, Akkadian ~arapu 'to refme (metals by firing); Hebrew ~a rap 'to smelt (metal)' (see Boutkan & Kossmann 2001 for references). I conclude that Uhlenbeck was well ahead of his time in his discussion with Hirt and Schrader. He recognized that it is necessary to distinguish between two components of Indo-European language and culture, an older common inheritance which reflects a pastoral society and a later European complex with a common agricultural vocabulary, both of them dating from before the introduction of metallurgy. It is interesting that before the end of the 19th century he had already reached the position which has now become dominant among Indo-Europeanist scholars and is supported by the archaeological evidence (cf. Mallory 1989). The major point which he did not see is the crucial role of the domesticated horse in the Indo-European expansions (but see below). The tentative localization of the Indo-European homeland was logically followed by the question if the proto-language could be related to other language families. Uhlenbeck remarked that the identity between the nominative and the accusative in the neuter, both singular and plura~ points to an original absolutive case ("Passivus") which was identical with the bare stem (except in the o-stems), whereas the subject of transitive verbs was in an ergative case ("Aktivus"), marked by a sufftxed *-s which he identified with the demonstrative pronoun *so (1901). His student Nicolaas van Wijk argued that the nominal genitive singular in *-s was identical with the original ergative (1902). Among other things, he adduced such constructions as Latin miseret me 'I feel pity, pudet me 'I am ashamed: where the logical subject is in the genitive case. Uhlenbeck claimed that the Indo-European proto-language was characterized by polysynthesis, sufftxation and inftxation and drew attention to its typological similarity to unrelated languages such as Basque, Dakota and Greenlandic. He also observed that the Indo-European mediopassive voice is reminiscent of the verbal construction with an incorporated dative and an object in the absolutive case which is found in Basque and North American languages. In a later study (1904), he adduced the strong resemblance between Basque and Indo-European nominal composition as an example of typological similarity between unrelated languages ("Sprachen zwischen welchen man selbst keine entfernte Verwandtschaft nachzuweisen verma(, cf. also Uhlenbeck 1913). While he considered a common origin of Eskimo and Aleut with the Uralic languages probable (1905a), he rejected the possibility that Basque is related to Uralic and Altaic and suggested that it might rather be of Mro-Asiatic provenance (1905b). After a detailed examination of the available evidence, Uhlenbeck concluded that a genetic relationship between Basque and Caucasian languages cannot be established (1923), but later he changed his opinion and
34
Introduction
considered the latter to be highly probable (de onmiskenbare verwantschap met het Kaukasisch': 1946: 17), regarding the Afro-Asiatic elements as borrowings. Holger Pedersen has listed numerous examples of Russian impersonal sentences with an inanimate agent in the instrumental case, e.g. teleniem ego poneslo nazad 'the current carried him baclc, vetrom sneslo kryfu 'the wind blew off the roof~ and similar constructions in Iranian, Celtic and Germanic (1907: 134-140). He argues that this sentence type is older than the rise of grammatical gender in Indo-European and compares it with the ergative construction in North Caucasian languages, where the subject of a transitive verb is in the instrumental or in the genitive, as it is in Tibetan and Eskimo, and in the Armenian 1-preterit, where it is in the genitive. For the Indo-European protolanguage he proposes that the subject of an intransitive verb and the object of a transitive verb were in the absolutive (unmarked) case while the subject of a transitive verb was in the genitive when the agent was animate but in the instrumental when it was inanimate (1907: 152). Mter the differentiation between the ergative and the genitive, the former came to be used for the subject of intransitive verbs in the case of animate individuals, as distinct from collectives and inanimates. This three-way distinction was subsequently grammaticalized as masculine, feminine and neuter gender. In a later study, Pedersen argues that a comparison of the Indo-European and Uralic grammatical systems leaves no doubt about their genetic relationship ('Es liegt hier eine Summe von tJbereinstimmungen vor, die den Zufall ausschliesst': 1933b: 309) and proposes that athematic presents (rteruu 'I put') were originally transitive while thematic presents (rpepw 'I carry') and perfects (ol8a 'I know') were originally intransitive, which is reminiscent of Hungarian varom 'I wait for him' versus varok 'I waif. In the meantime, Uhlenbeck's doubts about the reality of an Indo-European proto-language had grown. He now defmed the proto-language as the group of dialects spoken by the original community of Indo-European conquerors. Since the conquests of non-Indo-European territories took place at different times, the language of the later conquerors was no longer identical with the original protolanguage. While the separate branches of Indo-European arose when the language of the invaders was adopted by local populations speaking quite different substratum languages, Uhlenbeck claims that Proto-Indo-European itself already consists of two unrelated groups of elements, which he calls A and B (1933, 1934a, 1937b). Here A contains pronouns, verbal roots and derivational suffixes whereas B contains isolated words which are not related to verbal roots, such as numerals, some kinship terms, and many names of body parts, animals and trees. Uhlenbeck compares A with Uralic and Altaic and attributes irregular features such as heteroclitic inflection and grammatical gender to B, for which one might think of Caucasian languages. The relation between Indo-European and Uralic can be extended to Eskimo (cf. Uhlenbeck 1905a, 1906, 1907, 1934b,
C.C. Uhlenbeck on Indo-European, Uralic and Caucasian
35
193/cl. 1941, 1942). This is in accordance with the view that the Indo-Europeans arrived in southern Russia from the Asian steppes east of the Caspian Sea, where they allegedly led a nomadic life with horses, chariots and large herds of cattle. Since such words as kinship terms and names of body parts are usually regarded as belonging to the basic vocabulary of a language, Uhlenbeck rejected the terms "genetic relationship" for A and "borrowing" for B and presented Proto-Indo-European as a "mixed language': an idea which had first been put forward by Sigmund Feist (1910). This is an unfortunate notion which is based on underanalysis of the data and can easily lead to muddled thinking about linguistic contact and language change (cf. K197). The point is that the two components A and B have an entirely different status. The situation is reminiscent of Michif, which has been adduced as a prime example of a mixed language. Here we fmd numerous French nominal stems which were borrowed together with their determiners, e.g. le loup 'the wolf; sa bouche 'his mouth', son bras 'his arm; while the verbal stems and grammatical elements are purely Cree (cf. K197: 123). Uhlenbeck himself adduces the Sanskrit influence on Indonesian, the French influence on English and the Romance influence on Basque as parallels (1941: 204f.). He appears to have realized his mistake because he later returned to an analysis in terms of genetic relationship and borrowing (1946). The two major fmdings which Uhlenbeck has contributed to IndoEuropean linguistics are the reconstructed ergative (which was established independently by Pedersen (1907: 157), who provided the comparative evidence) and the twofold origin of the vocabulary. Both discoveries have been slow in their acceptance by the scholarly community. Andre Vaillant has identified the Indo-European ergative in *-s as an original ablative, the animate accusative in *-mas a lative (casus directivus), and the neuter pronominal ending *-t with the instrumental ending in Hittite and the ablative ending of the o-stems in the other Indo-European languages (1936). The ending *-m was originally limited to animate individuals, like the preposition a in Spanish, e.g. veo a Pedro 'I see Peter' (see Pottier 1968 for details). Robert Beekes has shown that the entire paradigm of the o-stems was built on an ergative case form in *-os (1985). Blissfully ignorant of the data and unaware of the comparative evidence, Alan Rumsey has argued on typological grounds that there cannot have been a ProtoIndo-European ergative because this case is absent from the neuter paradigm (198/cl, 1987b). Since his objection was effectively answered by Pedersen a hundred years ago (1907), there is no reason to return to the matter here. It illustrates how a tool which in itself is useful becomes harmful in the hands of the unskilled (cf. also K130). The idea of a genetic relationship between Indo-European and Uralic has become fairly well accepted among specialists (e.g. Collinder 1965, 1974). Gimbutas's theory that the Indo-Europeans moved from a primary homeland north of the Caspian Sea to a secondary homeland north of the Black Sea (e.g.
Introduction 1985) is fully in agreement with the view that their language developed from an Indo- Uralic proto-system which was modified under the influence of a North Caucasian substratum, perhaps in the sixth millennium BC (cf. Mallory 1989: 192f., Km, Kw3). Johannes Knobloch has suggested that the thematic vowel "'-e!o- in the Indo-European verbal inflection represents an earlier object marker (1953). I have argued that the thematic present and the perfect originally had a dative subject, reflecting an earlier intransitive construction with an indirect object (K049). For Proto-Indo-Uralic we can reconstruct a genitive in "'-n, which is reflected in the oblique stem form of the Indo- European heteroclitics, a lative-accusative in "'-m, a dative-locative in "'-i, an ablative-instrumental in "'-t, which is reflected as both -t and-sin Indo-European, plural markers "'-t and "'-i, dual "'-ki, personal pronouns "'mi 'I~ *ti 'thou~ *me 'we~ *te 'you' and corresponding verbal endings, reflexive "'u, demonstratives, participles, derivational suffiXes of nouns and verbs, negative "'n-and interrogative "'k- (cf. K2o3). The rise of the ergative construction, grammatical gender and adjectival agreement can be attributed to North Caucasian influence and may have proceeded as indicated by Pedersen (1907). It is important to note that the accusative is of Indo-Uralic origin and therefore older than the ergative. This explains the peculiar construction of Russian vetrom sneslo kryfu 'the wind blew off the roof, where the inanimate agent is in the instrumental and the object is in the accusative. While the Indo-Uralic component of the lexicon (Uhlenbeck's A) has been a focus of research in the past, the identification of the non-IndoUralic component (Uhlenbeck's B) remains a task for the future. In view of the large number of consonants and the minimal vowel system of Proto-IndoEuropean, the northern Caucasus seems to be the obvious place to look (cf. Starostin 2007).
AN OUTLINE OF PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN
Indo-European is a branch of Indo- Uralic which was radically transformed under the influence of a North Caucasian substratum when its speakers moved from the area north of the Caspian Sea to the area north of the Black Sea (cf. K247). As a result, Indo-European developed a minimal vowel system combined with a large consonant inventory including glottalized stops, also grammatical gender and adjectival agreement, an ergative construction which was lost again but has left its traces in the grammatical system, especially in the nominal inflection, a construction with a dative subject which was partly preserved in the historical languages and is reflected in the verbal morphology and syntax, where it gave rise to new categories, and a heterogeneous lexicon. The Indo- Uralic elements of Indo-European include pronouns, case endings, verbal endings, participles and derivational sufftxes. In the following I shall give an overview of the grammar of Proto-Indo-European as it may have been spoken around 4000 BC in the eastern Ukraine, shortly after the ancestors of the Anatolians left for the Balkans (for more recent developments I refer to Beekes 1995). This stage preceded the common innovations of the non-Anatolian languages such as *mer- 'to die' < 'to disappear' , *tu « *ti 'thou: *se5- 'to satiate' < 'to stuff, *dhupter « *dhueptr 'daughter: *5er5W- 'to plough' < 'to crush: *mel 'don't!' < 'say no!; *lekuos « *leku 'horse' (cf. Kloekhorst 2008: 8-10). It also preceded the rise of the subjunctive and the optative and dialectal Indo-European developments such as the rise of distinctive voicedness (not shared by Tocharian), the creation of a thematic middle voice (cf. K239: 151-157), and the satemization of the palatovelars (cf. K263: 43). The lexicon included words for 'car~ 'wheel; 'axle, 'yoke: 'carpenter: 'house, 'vessef, 'to plai~ 'to weave: 'to spiiT, 'to clothe, 'ox, 'sheep; 'goa~ 'horse, 'swine; 'cow; 'dog, 'to herd; 'to mill(, 'butter; 'woof, 'lamb; 'gold: 'silver, 'copper, 'ore: but not for 'donkeY, 'caf, 'chicken; 'duel(, 'field: 'to soW, 'to moW, 'to milf, 'to plough: 'iron, 'lead; 'tin'. There was no agricultural or metallurgical vocabulary at this stage. PHONOLOGY
Proto-Indo-European had two vowels: *e [re] and *o [A], which had long variants *e and *o in monosyllabic word forms and before word-final resonants (cf. Wackemagel1896: 66-68). At a later stage, *e was colored by a contiguous *5 or? to *a or *o, respectively (cf. K194: 39-44, 54-56, 75-78 and K2o2, Lubotsky 1989, 1990). Even more recently, *o was colored by a contiguous *5 to *a in Greek (cf. Ko34). The vowel *a is widespread in borrowings from European substratum languages, e.g. Latin albus 'white, Greek aA.q~6<;, Hittite alpa- 'cloud'. PIE *e may represent any Indo-Uralic non-final vowel under the stress, e.g.
Introduction
*uef!'- 'carry' < *wiqi-, *uedh- 'lead' < *weta-, "5eg- 'drive' < *qaja-, *mesg- 'plunge' < *moski-, cf. Finnish vie- 'take; veta- 'pulf, aja- 'drive, Estonian moske- 'wash'. PIE *o has a twofold origin: it developed phonetically from unstressed *u and *e and was introduced by analogy in stressed syllables (cf. K203: 221, K213: 165). Proto-Indo-European had six resonants with syllabic and consonantal allophones: *i, *u, *r, *l, *m, *n. There were twelve stops, one fricative *s, and three laryngeal consonants *?, "5, "5"'. The distinction between the laryngeals was neutralized before and after *o (cf. K194> K2o2). The stops were the following:
labials dentals palatovelars labiovelars
fortis
glottalic
lenis
*p [p:] *t [t:] *R [It:] *kW [kW:]
*b [p'] *d [t'] *g [It'] *F: [kw']
*bh [p] *dh [t]
*f [It]
*i:h [kW]
Word-initial *b- had already become *p-, e.g. Vedic pfbati 'drinks; Old Irish ibid, Armenian ampem 'I drink' (with a nasal inftx, cf. K194: So), Luwian pappaJ- 'to swallow' (Kloekhorst 2008: 628) with analogical fortis *-p- and Latin bibO with restoration of initial *b-. A similar rule may account for the absence of PIE roots with two glottalic stops such as *deg- or *F:eid- because the fortes were almost as frequent as the lenes and the glottalics together. The opposition between palatovelars and labiovelars was neutralized after *u and *s and the palatovelars were depalatalized before *r, *s and laryngeal consonants (cf. Meillet 1894> Steensland 1973, Villanueva 2009), e.g. Luwian k- < *R- in kar5- 'cut'< *krs-, kis'comb' < *ks-, kattawatnalli- 'plaintiff' < *k5et- (cf. Kloekhorst 2008) and similarly in Vedic cyavate 'moves' < *kfieu-, Greek ae6oftal, Prussian etskl- 'rise' < *kliei-, Latin cieo (cf. K263: 176) and in Vedic lqayati 'rules'< *tklei-, Avestan x5-, as opposed to Vedic /qeti 'dwells' < *t!Cei-, Avestan s- (cf. Beekes 2010: 789, 791). It has been observed that PIE fortis and lenis stops could not co-occur in the same root, so that roots of the type *teubh- or *bheut- are excluded. It follows that the distinction between fortes and lenes was a prosodic feature of the root as a whole, which may be called "strong" if it contained a fortis and "weak" if it contained a lenis stop. This system can be explained in a straightforward way from an earlier system with distinctive high and low tones. Lubotsky has shown that there is a highly peculiar correlation between Indo-European root structure and accentuation (1988a: 170), which again points to an earlier level tone system. In any case, the PIE prosodic system was very close to the system attested in Vedic Sanskrit. I have proposed that the PIE distinction between fortis and lenis stops resulted from a consonant gradation which originated from an IndoUralic stress pattern that gave rise to strong and weak syllables (K213). It is probable that the whole inventory of PIE stops and laryngeal consonants can be
An outline of Proto-Indo-European
39
derived from the five Indo- Uralic stops *p, *t, *c, *k, *q with palatalization, labialization and uvularization under the influence of contiguous vowels (cf. K203: 220). Note that Proto-Uralic *q (=*x in Sammallahti 1988) is strongly reminiscent of the Indo-European laryngeals, being lost before a vowel and vocalized before a consonant in Samoyedic and lengthening a preceding vowel before a consonant in Finno- Ugric. NOMINAL MORPHOLOGY
There were four major types of nominal paradigm in Proto-Indo-European: static, proterodynamic, hysterodynamic and thematic. In the singular, the proterodynamic paradigm had radical stress in the nom. and ace. forms and suffixal stress in the loc. and abl forms whereas the hysterodynamic paradigm had radical stress in the nominative, suffiXal stress in the ace. and loc. forms, and desinential stress in the ablative, which later adopted the function of genitive in these paradigms. A comparative analysis of the non-Anatolian languages leads to the following reconstruction (cf. K263: 104). Here Rsd stands for radical stress, rSd for suffJ.Xal stress, and rsD for desinential stress; the accentuation of the inst.sg. forms was probably identical with that of the loc.sg. forms at an earlier stage. The examples are: Vedic sun(ts 'son~ Old Irish ainm 'name, Greek Ovyar11p 'daughter, Lithuanian piemuo 'shepherd~ and Old Norse
oxe'dx. nom.sg. acc.sg. gen.sg. loc.sg. datsg. inst.sg.
sun£ts sunum sun6s sun au sun ave sununii
Rsd *-s Rsd *-m rSd *-s rS *-121 rSd *-i Rsd *-f
ainm ainm an mae ainm
Rs *-121 Rs *-121 rSd *-s rS *-121 rSd *-i Rsd *-f
nom. pl. ace. pl. gen. pl. loc.pl. datpl. inst.pl.
sunavas sun an sununiim sun!4u sunubhyas sunubhis
rSd *-es Rsd *-ns rsD *-om rsD *-su rsD *-mus rsD *-bhi
an man an man an man
rSd *-5 rSd *-5 rsD *-om rsD *-su rsD *-mus rsD *-bhi
nom.sg. acc.sg. gen.sg. loc.sg. dat.sg. inst.sg.
evya'r'IP Ovycnepa Ovyarp6c; Ovyarpl
piemuo pfemenj piemefis piemenyje pfemeniui pfemeniu
axe oxa
anmanaib
oxa oxa
Rs *-121 rSd *-m rsD *-os rSd *-i rsD *-ei rsD *-el
Introduction
40
nom.pl. acc.pl. gen.pl. loc.pl. datpl. inst.pl.
8vyarepei;, 8vyarepai;, 8vyarpwv 8vyarpam
pfemenys pfemenis piemenfJ piemenyse piemenlms piemenimls
yxn yxn yxna yxnom
rSd *-es rSd *-ns rsD *-om rsD *-su rsD *-mus rsD *-bhi
It appears that these case endings largely originated after the split between Anatolian and the other Indo-European languages and that their common ancestor had no genitive, no dative, and no distinct oblique plural endings. The original situation has partly been preserved in Hittite, which has no number distinction in the case endings of the genitive (original ablative, which also replaced the locative in the plural) -aS< *-os, the instrumental -t, and the new ablative -z < *-ti (which is the instrumental with an added locative marker). Kloekhorst has shown that the acc.pl. ending -us reflects *-(o)ms (2oo8: 929), which became *-(o)ns in the non-Anatolian languages. It appears that the plural marker *-s was added to the case marker *-m here, as in the Indo- Iranian and Armenian inst.pl. ending *-bhis. The nom.pl. ending -d represents *-eies (cf. Kloekhorst 2008: 2.49). The Proto- Indo-European thematic paradigm was probably uninflected except for the accusative in *-om because the Hittite replacement of the ending *-os by all. -a < *-o (cf. Kloekhorst 2008: 161), loc. -i, inst. -it, abl. -az < *-oti, nom. pl. -d < *-eies is incompatible with the addition of pronominal endings to the thematic vowel in datsg. *-olei, loc.sg. *-oli, abl.sg. *-oled and the extensions in nom.pl. *-oses, later *-oles, inst.pl. *-olois in the other branches of Indo-European. Either of these sets of developments would render the other superfluous and incomprehensible. I propose to derive the inst.sg. ending *-l from *-d [t'] < *-t after the full grade suffiX *-en- in the n-stems because this consonant was phonetically lost word-finally after an obstruent but preserved after a vowel. The nominative had four different endings in Proto-Indo-European: *-s, *-d, *-i and zero. As Pedersen argued a long time ago (1907: 152), "bei transitiven verben stand das objekt in der grundform, das subjekt aber im genitiv [i.e. my ablative], wenn wirklich von einer thatigkeit desselben die rede sein konnte, also wenn es der name eines lebenden wesens war; dagegen stand es im instrumentalis, wenn es ein unpersonlicher begriff war." Thus, *-s and *-d < *-t represent the endings of the ergative of animate and inanimate nouns, respectively, while the zero ending continues the original absolutive case. When the ergative in *-os was reanalyzed as a sigmatic nominative, it gave rise to an accusative in *-om which was subsequently generalized as an absolutive form of inanimate nouns, supplying a singulative to a collective formation in *-5, and to an uninflected predicative nominal (which later adopted the function of a genitive pluraL cf. Ko3o: 294f.). This development was anterior to the split
An outline of Proto-Indo-European
41
between Anatolian and the other branches of Indo-European but more recent than the rise of the lengthened grade before word-fmal resonants. The ending *-i is found primarily in pronominal plurals, e.g. demonstrative *toi, anaphoric *lei, interrogative *k"'ei, also present 3rd pl. *-nti, which represents the original nom. pl. form of the nt-participle, and Latin quae, haec, Prussian fem.sg. quai, stai, where the feminine gender continues the earlier collective formation in *-5, perhaps also the Hittite neuter pl. ending -i. At an earlier stage, the ending *-i had been added to the Indo-Uralic plural suffiX *-t-, yielding the PIE nom.pl. ending *-es (cf. K203: 222). In Uralic we find e.g. Finnish talot 'houses: obl. taloi-, where *-i originally marked the dependent status of the noun (cf. Collinder 1960: 237, Janhunen 1982: 29f.). While the PIE endings nom. < abl. *-s, nom. < inst. *-d < *-t, ace. *-m, loc. *-i, and nom.pl. *-es and *-i have impeccable Indo- Uralic etymologies, this does not hold for the genitive, the dative, and the oblique plural endings. Genitival and adjectival relationships were apparently expressed by simple juxtaposition and partial agreement. Other syntactic and semantic relationships were expressed by a large number of particles. Pronouns never developed an animate ergative or an inanimate accusative and had not yet developed other oblique case forms in Proto- Indo-European, so that we can only reconstruct animate nom. *so, *le, *k"'e, ace. *tom, *im, *k"'im, inanimate abs. *to, *i, *k"'i, erg. *tod, *id, *k"'id < *-t. Mter the split between Anatolian and the other Indo-European languages, full paradigms were created by the addition of case endings in the former and by composition with the word for 'one' *si (cf. Kloekhorst 2008: 750), obl. *sm- in the latter. New adjectival paradigms originated from the thematicization of pronominal and adverbial forms, e.g. *k"'o-, *io-, Hittite a- < *lo-, kii- 'this' < *R:o- from *R:i 'here; apii- 'that' < *lobho- from *le-bhi 'at hi.nl, cf. Vedic inst.pl. ebhfs. For the personal pronouns, which probably used the accusative (Indo-Uralic allative) as a general oblique case form, I refer to my earlier treatment (K223, cf. also Kloekhorst 2008: m-n6). The creation of genitive, dative and oblique plural endings belongs to the separate histories of Anatolian and the other branches of Indo-European. After the rise of the thematic accusative ending *-om, Anatolian created a new oblique case in *-o, evidently on the analogy of the endingless locative forms of the consonant stems, to replace the allative function of the accusative. As *-s and *-d < *-t had become animate and inanimate nominative endings, respectively, and the former adopted the function of genitive in the consonant stems, the ablative ending was replaced by *-ti in Anatolian and by *-d in pronominal paradigms in the other languages, which then generalized *-l in the instrumental case. It follows from this scenario that the common development of final *-d < *-t, e.g. in Latin quod, Old High German hwaz, was not shared by Anatolian. The early loss ofword-fmal *-t after an obstruent in the non-Anatolian languages explains the removal of the root-final obstruent in Greek laf3Yf '(the fire) went out' <
Introduction
42
*g"'es(f) and the rise of the k-perfect in Greek and Latin (cf. K239: 155). The nonAnatolian languages also created a full grade dat.sg. ending *-ei and a full grade inst.sg. ending *-e(, probably after the reanalysis of abl.sg. *-d as *-ed in the pronoun (cf. K223). Anatolian created a pronominal genitive in *-el which is reminiscent of Greek qJf"Aoc; 'friendQy)' < 'own' < *bhi-1- 'belonging to the inner circle~ The other languages created a pronominal gen.sg. form by composition: *kwe-so, *(e-so, *to-si with addition of *-o from *-so, then loc.sg. *(esmi, *tosmi beside *(ei, *toi, feminine *(esie5-, *tosie5-, etc. In the plural we have new endings in ace. *tons < *toms, inst. *tois, later *to(ois from the thematic paradigm, abl *toios (cf. K194: so), gen. *toisom (cf. Ko3o), dat. *toimus (cf. K194: 49) and loc. *toisu. Since the endings *-mus and *-su are not found in the singular, they probably originated from distributive usage. Comparing these forms with Russian vsem po odnomu 'one each to all' and po-vsjudu 'everywhere, respectively, I would regard *-s as a plural marker (vs-), *-u as a distributive suffix (po), and *-m-as a reflex of the word for 'one' (odn-). The suffiX *-u may be compared with Greek 1ravv 'altogether: Vedic u 'als~ Hittite humant- 'every, each'. The inst. ending *-bhi was still an independent particle at the stage under consideration. VERBAL MORPHOLOGY
As I have treated the prehistory of the Indo-European verb in some detail elsewhere (K203, K241, K2.44), I can be brief here. There were six different sets of verbal endings (thematic and athematic present and aorist, perfect and stative) which originally corresponded with different types of syntactic construction. When the ergative became a nominative case, the formal distinction between transitive and intransitive verbs disappeared, but the construction of the thematic present and the perfect with a logical subject in the dative (or locative) was preserved, except in Anatolian. This gave rise to an expansion of the transitive middle paradigm, where the subject and the indirect object were identical. The Proto- Indo-European verb had an indicative, an injunctive, an imperative, a participle in *-nt-, verbal adjectives in *-lo-, *-mo-, *-no-, *-to-, and verbal nouns in *-i-, *-u-, *-m-, *-n-, *-s-, *-t- (cf. Beekes 1995: 249-251). The optative may originally have been a derived present in view of the 1st sg. ending -m < *-mi in Tocharian, both A and B. Derived verb stems were formed by reduplication and/or suffJXation. The PIE stem-forming suffiXes are: present *-(e)i-, *-(e)m-, *-(e)s-, *-n(e)-, *-dh(e)-, *-ske-, *-ie-, perhaps *-i(e)((optative), aorist *-s-, *-e(-, *-e5- (cf. K239: 71f., 134f., 152f.). While the aorists may represent original nominal formations (cf. Greek XP~ 'must' and K263: 57, 187), I have proposed to identify the derived presents as (Indo- Uralic?) compounds with the roots of Indo- European 'to go; 'to take; 'to be, 'to lead: 'to puf, 'to try, perhaps also *ie(- 'let' (K241 in fine).
An outline of Proto-Indo-European
43
Elsewhere I have argued that the Hittite hi-flexion comprises original perfects, new perfects created on the basis of derived presents, and transitive zero grade thematic formations corresponding to the Vedic 6th class presents (cf. K241; there were no full grade 1st and 1oth class presents at this stage). The original athematic i-presents are reflected in Latin capiO 'take; Old Irish gaibid, Gothic hafjan, and the Balto-Slavic i-presents. Slavic verbs in -eti (Lith. -eti) with an i-present continue four different formations: o-grade perfects, zero grade i-presents, e-grade statives, and verbs denoting processes which originally had a thematic present, e.g. goreti 'to burti, bbdeti 'to be awake, sedeti 'to sif, svt~teti s~ 'to shine' ( cf. K121, K228). The second type corresponds to the Vedic root-stressed 4th class presents and the third type to Gothic sitan and Old Irish saidid (cf. K105: 7f., K239: 135). While the derivation of Hittite hi-verbs from reduplicated and nasal presents belongs to the Anatolian developments, the creation of derived perfects from athematic i-presents evidently dates back to the common Indo-European proto-language, being reflected in Vedic 4th class middle presents such as bUdhyate. After the loss of the ergative construction, the stressed suffiX *-ie- which is still found in Vedic syati 'binds' could easily spread as a suitable device to derive new presents, primarily of transitive verbs. The introduction of full grade thematic stems gave subsequently rise to new imperfective presents, e.g. dayate 'distributes' beside dyati 'cuts' (cf. Kulikov 2ooo: 277f.). The new suffiX *-eie- then spread too-grade perfects, giving rise to the 1oth class causative presents (cf. K241). In Hittite, the ie- and ske-presents adopted the mi-flexion in prehistoric times. The statives in -iiri resulted from an Anatolian inovation which preceded the merger of the perfect with the transitive thematic flexion (cf. K244). POSTSCRIPT
Melchert and Oettinger have recently (2009) published an alternative reconstruction of the PIE case endings which may be compared with my reconstruction presented above. Here I shall point out the differences between the two analyses. On the basis of the Anatolian evidence Melchert and Oettinger start from a special dat.pl. ending *-os beside general abl. *-ti and inst. *-H,, for which I shall write *-l, and adverbial forms in *-ti, *-m, *-(a)d, *-is and *-bhi. Allowing for a separate development of the Proto-Anatolian case system, I start from abl. *-(o)s, inst. *-t, loc. *-i and ace. (Indo-Uralic allative) *-m(e) beside a separate particle *bhi 'near'. Moreover, I derive *-s from Indo- Uralic *-t-i.
1.
2. Melchert and Oettinger do not take the endings nom. *-(o)s, ace. *-m, nom.acc. *-d and loc. *-i into account in their analysis. In my view, these endings have the same Indo-Uralic origin as the oblique case endings *-os, *-m,
44
Introduction
*-d, *-ti and *-l. The nom.sg. endings *-s and *-d represent the ergative case endings of animates (ablative) and inanimates (instrumental), respectively (cf. already Pedersen 1907: 152), and the acc.sg. ending *-m represents the IndoUralic allative. 3. Melchert and Oettinger think that the ending *-d, which they identify with Latin ad 'to; replaced the original ablative ending *-ti frrst in the pronoun and later by addition of *ad to the thematic vowel in the noun. This is highly improbable for semantic (allative replacing ablative?), formal (*-d in the pronoun but *-ad after the thematic vowel?), structural (with thematic but not with athematic nouns?) and chronological (Univerbierung first in the pronoun and later in the noun?) reasons. In my view, the ending *-d developed phonetically from *-tin word-final position and the ending *-ti was created as a new local case marker when abl. *-s and inst *-t had adopted the function of ergative case endings. The development of *-ti into a regular case ending never took place in the non-Anatolian languages. The comparison with Armenian and Tocharian is spurious (cf. K194: 49). 4. Melchert and Oettinger propose that the gen.sg. and datpl. forms replaced the original ablative in the non-Anatolian languages. This is highly improbable because the generally attested development is a replacement of grammatical by local case forms, not the reverse. In my view, the gen.sg. and datpl. endings *-os represent the original ablative. 5· The dat.pl. ending of the non-Anatolian languages was *-mus, not *-mos or *-bhios, as is clear from Old Lithuanian *-mus, Slavic *-m11 (cf. Vermeer 1991), u-infection in Old High German tagum and Old Norse d9gom 'days' (cf. Van Helten 1891: 460-462), and the Armenian evidence (cf. K194: 49). The ending was replaced by the new ablative endings *-bhos in Italo-Celtic and *-bhios in Indo-Iranian which had replaced the earlier abl.pl. ending *-ios (which is still found in the Armenian pronoun, cf. K194: so). 6. The instrumental ending *-t was preserved in Proto-Anatolian (cf. Kloekhorst 2008: 232, 799) and became *-d [t'] in the non-Anatolian languages, where it was preserved after vowels and liquids and lost after obstruents. I have proposed to derive the ending *-l from *-d after the full grade suffix *-en- in the n-stems (see above). There is no evidence for an ending *-lin Anatolian. There is no reason to identify the verbal sufftx *-el with the non-Anatolian instrumental ending *-el. The Old Hittite clause conjunctive particle ta represents *to, not *tol (cf. Kloekhorst 2008: Sot). 7. Melchert and Oettinger assume a thematic ablative ending *-olad for which there is no evidence. The Lithuanian gen.sg. ending -o represents unstressed *-od < *-oled (cf. K263: 6, 184. 192), with addition of pronominal *-ed to the
An outline of Proto-Indo-European
45
thematic vowel. The creation of oblique case forms of thematic nouns was an independent development in the Anatolian and the non-Anatolian languages. 8. Melchert and Oettinger posit inst.pl. endings *-is, *-mis, *-oiis for which there is no evidence whatsoever. They were clearly influenced by the scrabble methodology still practiced in some quarters of the Indo-European scholarly community (cf. K239: 145f.). The thematic instpl. ending *-ois represents *-olois, with *-ois from the oblique plural form *tois found in gen. pl. *toisom, as is clear from Vedic -ai/:1, Greek -oft;, Lith. -als and Slavic (Slovene, Posavian, Czech, Slovincian) long -y. The particle *lfi replaced the instpl. ending in the athematic paradigm, where it had been lost phonetically after obstruents. The addition of final *-s after *-lfi on the analogy of dat.pl. *-mus and abl.pl. *-ios was probably an independent development of Insular Celtic and Indo- Iranian because it apparently did not take place in Greek and Gaulish and may have been recent in Armenian and especially in Balto-Slavic, where the ending *-mils adopted its laryngeal either from instsg. *-lor from acc.pl. *-lns. Note that the singular had thematic *-ol and athematic *-mi in Balto-Slavic, e.g. Lith. vilku 'wolf: sunuml 'so:d OCS vt~cera 'yesterdaY, syn'bmb.
SCHLEICHER'S FABLE
The first to compose a text in Proto-Indo-European was August Schleicher (1868). Emendations of his text were published by Hirt and Arntz (1939), Lehmann and Zgusta (1979), and others. Though these efforts must not be taken too seriously, they can serve as an illustration of the linguistic systems reconstructed by their authors. As my chief concern has always been the relative chronology of linguistic developments, it may be appropriate to present my version of Schleicher's fable for a number of successive reconstructed systems, viz. Proto- Indo-European, non-Anatolian Indo-European, Classic IndoEuropean (excluding To char ian), Central Indo-European (excluding ItaloCeltic), satam Indo-European (excluding Greek and Germanic), Balta-Slavic, East Baltic, and modern Lithuanian. As I have stuck as much as possible to Schleicher's and Hirfs versions, many of the choices made in the following are far from compelling. It must be emphasized that the purpose of this exercise is purely to illustrate the consequences of a systematic approach and to exemplify the cohesive nature of the reconstructions. For the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European I refer to my outline (K269). The absence oflengthening in Vedic avi~ 'sheep' shows that the coloring of *e to *o after ? was more recent than Brugmann's law in Indo-Iranian (cf. Lubotsky 1990). Since the distinction between the three laryngeals was preserved in Greek (Central IE) and Armenian (satam IE), it was not lost before Balta-Slavic times, when they merged with the glottalic feature of the PIE "unaspirated voiced" stops into a glottal stop (Winter's law, cf. K263: 44f.). The rise of the semivowels /j/ and /w/ resulted from the loss of the laryngeals in initial position. The relative pronoun *io- cannot be reconstructed for Anatolian and Tocharian, where the uninflected form *i may have survived at an early stage (cf. K263: 145). The word for 'woof is a 5-stem in Latin (Classic IE) and other languages, perhaps a collective of a ln-derivative, cf. Arm. gelmn, which appears as Hittite huliya- beside hulana-, pointing to an original form "5ueli (cf. Kloekhorst 2008: 357f., Beekes 2010: 858). If the reconstruction of a zero grade root vowel in Old Irish n{ 'is nof, Slavic ne is correct (cf. K239: 126), the vowel of the monosyllable *nelst was regularly lengthened in Proto-Indo-European (cf. Wackernagel 1896: 66-68) and the following laryngeal was lost in the satam languages (cf. K263: 52-57). The fmal *-twas lost after an obstruent in nonAnatolian Indo-European (cf. K269).
Introduction PROTO- INDO-EUROPEAN
NON-ANATOLIAN INDO-EUROPEAN
5Weuis i 5ueli nelst lek:ums ueit:, t:o k"''neum uokom ukent:m, t:o mke5m porom, t:o tkmenm lolk:u prent:m.
5Weuis i 5uelln nels le/C:uns le ueit', t:om kw'r5eum uokom ue/Cont:m, t:om mke5m porom, t:om tkmenm lolk:u peront:m. le ueuk: 5Weuis le/C:umus, 5etko lme k:ert' 5nerm uitent:i lek:uns 5ek'ont:m. le ueuk:nt' lik:ues, k:luti 5Wuei, 5etko nsme TC:ert' uitent:i, 5ner p:ot:is 5Wuiom 5ullenm sue kwermom uesti kw:rneut:i, 5Wuimus kw:e 5uelln nelsti. t:ot' k:e/C:luus 5Weuis ple5nom le peuk'.
ueuk:t 5•euis li!C:uos, 5etko lme TC:ert: 5nerm uitent:i lek:ums 5k'fmt:m. ueuk:nt: lik:ues, k:luti 5Wue, 5etko nsme k:ert: uit'ent:i, 5ner p:ot:is 5Wuiom 5ueli sue k"'ermom uesti kw:rneut:i, 5Wuei kw:e 5ueli nelsti. t:o k:ek:luus 5Weuis ple5nom peuk't. CLASSIC INDO-EUROPEAN
CENTRAL INDO-EUROPEAN
5Weuis ioi 5ullne5 nels le/Cuns le uei'd, tom swneum uogom uegontm, tom mge5m borom, tom dgmenm lolku berontm. le ueuk 5Weuis le/Cumus, 5edgo lmoi ker'd 5nerm ui'denti le/Cuns 5egontm. le ueukn'd li!Cues, kludi 5Wuei, 5edgo nsmi ker'd ui'denti, 5ner potis 5Wuiom 5ullne5m subi g"'ermom uesti kwrneuti, 5Wuimus kwe 5ullne5 nelsti. to'd kekluus 5Weuis ple5nom le beug.
5Weuis ioi 5ullne5 nels le/Cuns le uei'd, tom swnum uogom uegontm, tom mgiim borom, tom gmenm lolku berontm. le ueuk 5Weuis le/Cumus, 5edgoi lmoi !Cer'd 5nerm ui'denti lekuns 5e'gontm. le ueukn'd likues, kludi 5Wuei, 5edgoi nsmi ker'd ui'denti, 5ner potis 5Weuiom 5ullniim subi g"'ermom uesti kwrneuti, 5Weuimus kwe 5ullne5 nelsti. to'd kekluus 5Weuis ple5nom le beug.
The PIE word for 'horse' is attested in Hittite ekku- < *leku- (cf. Kloekhorst 2008: 237-239), of which Greek Tmrot; < *likuos represents the original ergative case, with reduction of pretonic *e to *i before a consonant cluster (cf. Ko65: 222 and Ko69). The u-stem must have been preserved in Balta-Slavic times in view of Lith. a5va because the cluster *kw was depalatalized before a back vowel in this branch of Indo-European (cf. K263: 43). The acc.pl ending *-ms was preserved in Anatolian (cf. Kloekhorst 2008: 929). The thematic aorist, e.g. Vedic avidat 'found; probably represents an earlier root aorist, cf. araik 'left' beside Greek lAme, Latin -ltquit, with regular lengthening in the monosyllabic injunctive forms (cf. K188: 14 and K239: 155). The word-fmal fortis stop became glottalic in the non-Anatolian languages (cf. K269). There is evidence for the augment *le in To char ian (cf. K149) and for its partial replacement by the enclitic particle *tu in Balta-Slavic (cf. K263: 285). The aorist sufftx *-el became *-e word-fmally in Balta-Slavic (cf. K239: 84 and K263: 187).
Schleicher's fable
49
SAT~M INDO-EUROPEAN
BALTO-SLAVIC
ioi 5ul(ne5 nes (e/Cuns (e uei'd, tom r'r5um uogom uegontm, tom megam borom, tom gmenm (o(ku berontm. (e ueuk 5Weu~ (ekum~, 5edgoi (moi ker(i5nerm ui(ienti (e/Cuns 5egontm. (e ueukni:l (e/Cues, kludi 5"'euei, 5edgoi nsmi ker(;l uii:lenti, 5ner pot~ 5Weuiom 5ul(nam subi g"'ermom uesti kwrneuti, 5Weuim~ kwe 5ul(ne5 ne(sti. toi:l kekluu$ 5Weui$ ple5nom (e beug.
bwi$ joi wi'lna' nes 'etuns wi(;le, i'nun tingun wojun welkontin, i'nun welln krowun, i'nun jmonin burju ndontin. ter tu ow~ 'etum~, bolei mini ter wi'run wii:lenti etuns genontin. tren tu 'etues, tludi bwei, bolei i'nm~ ter wi(ienti, wi'ros poti$ ij owiun wi'lnas subi teplan drobin kurneuti, 'a OWimU$ wi'lna' nesti. to tlu'$~ bw~ pla'nun bega'.
EAST BALTIC
LITHUANIAN
avis kuri neturi vi'lnas rege ii'rg9s, v¢'nq smag11s rat9s velkantj, v¢'nq didj kravq, v¢'nq im6nj gr~tai nesantj.
avis kurl netitri vllnos pamate arklius, vfenq sunkius ratits traukiantj, vfenq didelj kr6vinj, vfenq ZmOKif greitai nesantj. avis pasake arkliams, man sirdj skauda matant vfrq genantj arklius. arkliai pasake, klausyk avie, mums sirdj skauda matant, vyras viespats iS avies vllnos sau daro slltq drabitzj, {j avys vllnos neturi. iSgirdusi tai avis pabego j lygumq.
5Weu~
avis sake ii'rgamus, mani sa'pa si'rdls reginti virq genantj ii'rg9s. il'rgai sake, klausi' av~, mumus sa'pa si'rdls reginti, viras patls ii av~ vl'lnas sevi dara slltq dr6bj, a avies vi'lnas netitri. girdusi' ta avis be'ga j ligumq.
Pronominal *to, like *i, may have been uninflected at an early stage (cf. K269). The stem *in- developed an acute in Balta-Slavic times (cf. Derksen 2003). Word-final *-om became *-un in Balta-Slavic (cf. K263: 43f.). The ablaut in u-stem adjectives appears to have been preserved in Italo-Celtic and lost in Central Indo-European. The thematic nt-participle was an innovation of the non-Anatolian languages. Word-fmal *-e5m was probably preserved in !talaCeltic and became *-am in Central Indo-European (cf. K263: 23 and 132f.), e.g. Greek !iyav '(too) much'. Clusters of dental plus velar stops lost their initial element before a consonant in Central Indo-European or earlier (cf. K268). Greek dnax; 'fast' may be related to the word for 'horse'. The Vedic 3rd sg. subjunctive v6cati beside v6cati 'speak' points to an original athematic reduplicated aorist injunctive with a long vowel in the monosyllabic 3rd sg. form (cf. Kt88: 9f.). For Balta-Slavic I reconstruct *ter, cf. Hittite ter-, Lith. tarti, Prussian acc.sg. tarin 'voice' (=Latin vocem). The dat.pl
50
Introduction
ending *-mus is an innovation of the non- Anatolian languages, where it replaced the general oblique plural ending *-os which is still found in Anatolian (cf. Kloekhorst 2008: 214). For Greek lfXVV/«Xl 'grieve, lXxftoi«Xl 'be grieved; Hittite hatk- 'tighten' I reconstruct an original stative 'be tight' with reduction of the cluster *dhj' before the nasal suffiX in Greek. If Old Irish -agathar 'fears' is related, which seems probable, the conditioned reduction of the cluster can be dated to the Classic Indo-European period. The primary ending *-oi dates from the Central Indo-European period (cf. Ko44). The oblique case forms *fme 'me, *tue 'thee, *nsme 'us; *usme 'you' may have been uninflected before they adopted the dat.loc. ending *-i in Classic Indo-European times (cf. K223 and K269). The word for 'heart' had a long vowel in the monosyllabic nom.acc. form, where the final stop is preserved in Armenian sirt and lost in Balto-Slavic, e.g. Prussian seyr. The participial dat.loc. form in *-enti is coreferential with the oblique pronoun and developed into the Lithuanian gerund. The original nom.pl ending of the consonant stems was *-es (cf. K269). The vocative was marked by apocope before the particle *e and later restoration of the suffiX in the consonant stems (cf. Beekes 1985: 99-108), e.g. Lith. avie < *owe-i. The gen.pl form in *-om developed from an uninflected predicative nominal (cf. Ko3o and K269). The creation of the reflexive dat.sg. form *subhi beside the general oblique case form *sue can be dated to the Classic IndoEuropean period. The PIE locative form in *-ei may have been used for both singular and plural referents before the creation of separate case endings in the non-Anatolian languages (cf. K269). For Greek frpvye 'fled; Latinfogit I again reconstruct a root aorist (cf. K239: 155). Translation of the text (c£ Lehmann & Zgusta 1979: 456, 462): "A sheep that had no wool saw horses, one pulling a heavy cart, one carrying a big load, and one quickly carrying a man. The sheep said to the horses: My heart pains me seeing a man driving horses. The horses said: Listen sheep, our hearts pain us when we see that a man, the master, makes the wool of sheep into a warm garment for himself, and the sheep have no wool Having heard this, the sheep fled into the plain."
*H.o AND *oH. Since the early days of laryngeal theory there has been disagreement about the question whether a PIE *H. merged with *H, and *H3 in the neighbourhood of *o (e.g. Saussure, Kurylowicz, Cowgill, Beekes) or colored a contiguous *o to *a (e.g. Benveniste, Kurylowicz, Lejeune, Lindeman). In his review of Beekes' dissertation (1971), Ruijgh lists the following arguments in favor of the latter view:
1.
(t) Perfect trelrrfyct < rrbraya, J..EA.17ea < J..EJ..a(Ja, cf. lppwya, rrerrmea. These forms can hardly be explained otherwise than by assuming that -ii- developed phonetically from *-oH.-· They provide a model for the analogical introduction of the present tense vocalism in the perfect: "il est facile de rendre compte de formes telles que KEKevea (Kev(}w 'cacher') apartir du type )..EJ..a(Ja (Mew ·~tre cache'); noter 1a parente semantique entre les deux verbes" (p.190). (2) Compounds lrrrra!'oJ..yoc; < *-o-H.molg6-, cnparayoc; < *-o-11ogo-. This phonetic development created the model for the analogical introduction of the long vowel in such forms as hrrf!'Otf36c; < bra!'ot{36c; next to phonetically regular
errapmf36c;. (3) tst sg. ending -!'ctl next to 2nd sg. -am and 3rd sg. -rot. I think that we have to start from *-(m)ai, *-(s)toi, *-(t)oi. The problem is that *-ai does not necessarily continue *-H.oi (cf. now Ko44). (4) Expected o-grade in ayoc;, live!'oc;, apl(}~c;, 'P~l-'11 < rp&.~, cf. rporpoc;, rror!'Oc;, J..6XJl11· As for live!'Oc;, Latin animus, I am inclined to disagree both with Ruijgh's *H.onH,mos and with Beekes' *H.enH,mos and to posit *H.t~Remos, cf. KcXAct!'Oc; < *kJH.emos and v17vef1111 < *t~H.nH,em-. Armenian holm is probably of non-Indo-European origin. In apl(}!'6c; we may assume zero grade, as Ruijgh remarks himself, cf. OHG, ON, Olr. rim. The o-grade in ayoc; and 'P~l-'11 is a reasonable reconstruction. rrop(}~c;,
2.. Beekes has returned to the matter in a separate article (1972), where he regards the following cases as certain: (t) {3w~c;, cf.lf317v. (2.) rpw~, cf. 'P11fll· (3) rrot!'~v, rrwv, cf. Latin pasco. (4) ew{a:t, cf. (}~yw. (5) rrrwaaw, cf. rrr~aaw. ( 6) i'Jymc;, cf. ayKcfJ..17, ayKWV. (7) i'J~Cptc;, cf. lXKpoc;.
Indo-European phonology
52
(8) olwvoc;, cf. Latin avis. (9) oiX;, cf. Latin auris. ( 10) Skt. ayu, cf. alet. To these we may add oyftOc; (cf. ~yw, Skt. ajma- 'way'), ovap (PIE *H,onr, *H,ner-), aywy~, a~ew~e~ (cf. Mwo~, onwn~ < *HCoHC-). In view of the examples where *H, colors a neighbouring *o to *a, Ruijgh suggests: "11 vaut done mieux expliquer les cas isoles de mots tels que {3w-i«Jc;, rpw-~, oy-ftoc; comme resultat d'une apophonie plus recente, qui n'a pas reussi penetrer plus profondement dans le systeme de la morphologie grecque". Here I agree with Beekes: "It is not probable that isolated cases are due to a recent reshaping' and "for some good cases such an analogical secondary ablaut cannot possibly be taken into consideration" (p. 120). Beekes' examples appear to belong to an older layer.
a
Since both points of view rest upon considerable evidence, neither can be refuted: they must be integrated into a single consistent theory. I agree with Ruijgh that *H, colored a contiguous *o to *a in Greek. However, I agree with Beekes that the relevant instances do not date back to the Indo-European protolanguage. The simplest assumption is that the opposition between the laryngeals was neutralized in the neighbourhood of PIE *o, where they merged into *H,, and that *H. was restored in certain productive categories in Proto-Greek. Thus, we have ayoc; < *H,ogos, rp~fl'l < *bhoH,meH., {3ef311~ea < {3ef3a~ea < *-g"ol£- (cf. 8eoo1~ea) on the analogy of ~yw < *H.eg-, 'P'lfll < *~eH.-, {3lf3'1fU < *-g"eH.- next to oyftOc; < *H,og- < *H,og-, aywy~, rpw~, {3wi«Jc; < *-oH,- < *-oH,-. The analogical development must be dated before the loss of the laryngeals because the latter eliminated the motivation for it. Semantically, the restoration of *H. in rp~fl'l 'saying' and the preservation of the old ablaut in rpwv~ 'voice' is quite acceptable. The timbre neutralization of the laryngeals in the neighbourhood of *o has its analogue in Shuswap, which offers the closest typological parallel to the PIE laryngeals. In this language, all consonants which are members of pairs exhibiting the rounding correlation are rounded before and after the rounded vowel (cf. Kuipers 1974: 22). As in Shuswap, the opposition between *H3e- and *H3o- was apparently not neutralized in Proto-Indo-European: initial *H. and *H3 were preserved as h- before *e but lost before *o in Armenian, while *H, was always lost before a vowe~ e.g. hot < *H3ed- (originals-stem, cf. Latin odor), hoviw < *H3eui-peH,- (cf. Latin ovis, pastor), but orb, orjik', ork', ost (cf. oprpav6c;, opXJc;, oppoc;, o(oc;, OHG ars, ast). There is a zero grade in oskr < *HJStuer- (cf. 6areov). For Wft6c;, Arm. hum, Skt amah I would suggest PIE *H.eH3m6s, Latin amiirus < *HJ;I3 m-, Old Irish om < *HR3e/om-. 3.
PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN GLOTTALIC STOPS: THE COMPARATIVE EVIDENCE 1. THE TYPOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
According to the traditional view, the Indo-European proto-language possessed four series of stops, which correspond to Old Indic t, th, d, dh. The laryngeal theory has made clear that th does not reflect a unitary phoneme of the protolanguage but a sequence of t plus laryngeal. Many scholars have seen that this leaves the reconstructed proto-language with a typologically improbable system of obstruents. Some have concluded that we have to return to the traditional reconstruction, even if the available evidence offers insufficient support for this view. Others have tried to reinterpret the triad *t, *d, *dh in such a way that the reconstructed system becomes more in accordance with typological expectations. Holger Pedersen has argued that there are no reliable etymologies which point to PIE initial *b- (1951: 10-16). Since the voiceless labial stop *p- is easily lost in several languages (e.g. Celtic, Armenian, Japanese), Pedersen suggests that PIE *b was probably voiceless and weak, while *bh may have developed from a voiceless aspirate. He compares the interchange of voiced and voiceless stops with the West Armenian consonant shift
1.1.
Referring to Pedersen's view, Andre Martinet suggests in a footnote that the PIE unaspirated voiced stops can be derived from a glottalic series (1953: 70). The absence of the labial can be compared with the same phenomenon in ProtoSemitic, for which he reconstructs a glottalic series from which the emphatic obstruents are derived.
1.2..
In a neglected article, N.D. Andreev proposes a reconstruction of ProtoIndo-European without voiced obstruents: he reconstructs voiceless fortes, voiceless lenes, and voiceless aspirates, corresponding to traditional *t, *d, *dh (1957: 7). He explains the incompatibility of fortes and aspirates in the root by an assimilation rule.
1.3.
1.4. Morris Swadesh has suggested that Proto-Indo-European and its neighbours
had simple, glottalic, and aspirated stops, and that the difference between voiced and voiceless articulation was a matter of local variation (1971: 127). Since his book was published posthumously, the origin of his view is hard to determine. He remarks that the simple voiced stops oflndo-European are equivalent to the glottalic set in other language families with regard to ancient symbolism (p. 2.19).
54
Indo-European phonology
1.5. Gamkrelidze and Ivanov have proposed on the basis of Pedersen's reasoning that the PIE unaspirated voiced stops were glottalic (1972: 16). This interpretation allows them to explain the absence of roots with two glottalic stops by a dissimilation rule (1973: 153). They also reformulate Grassmann's law as a PIE rule of allophonic variation (1980: 30-32). This seems to be at variance with the Latin evidence, e.g.ftdo 'I trust'< *1/'eidh-. 1.6. A similar proposal was put forward by Paul Hopper, who pointed not only to the absence of *b and the root structure constraints, but also to the absence of the glottalic stops from inflectional afftxes (1973: 157). His view is repeated several times in later articles. 1.7. ]ens Rasmussen has proposed to derive traditional *t, *d, *dh from earlier *T, *t, *d, "T being a cover-symbol for any emphatic stop however phonetically realized (glottalized, pharyngealized, or just stronger)" (1974: n). The same reconstruction is implied in Illic-Svityc's Nostratic dictionary (1971: 147). It is based on the false assumption that glottalic or emphatic stops are stronger than others. 1.8. As early as 1948 Andre-Georges Haudricourt reached the conclusion that the PIE unaspirated voiced stops were glottalic and that the original pronunciation was preserved in East Armenian (1975: 267). His argumentation was based on the types of phonetic development attested in the Far East The negative attitude of Jules Bloch and Jerzy Kurytowicz toward his view apparently kept him from publishing it. 1.9. In my own exposition I have reinterpreted *t, *d, *dh as fortis, glottalic lenis, and aspirated lenis, respectively (Ko32: 107). The rephonemicization of either the aspirated or the glottalic stops (or both) as voiced provoked a number of consonantal mutations (or mergers) in the separate branches of Indo-European. In Indo-Iranian, Balto-Slavic, Celtic and Albanian, both *d and *dh became phonemically voiced. Greek has voiced *d and voiceless *dh, while the converse holds for Germanic. Italic, where *d is voiced, and East Armenian, where it is voiceless, have both voiced and voiceless reflexes of *dh. No rise of phonemically voiced stops took place in Anatolian and Tocharian. 1.10. George Dunkel has rightly pointed out the circularity of the typological argument (1981: 566). If our reconstructions are tailored to typological expectations, they acquire a bias toward the average language type. The more aberrant the structure of the proto-language is, the stronger the bias and the larger the difference between the real and the reconstructed proto-language becomes. In my view, the discussion suffers from an unfortunate lack of distinction between theory and method. Typological considerations are an extremely useful
Proto-Indo-European glottalic stops
55
heuristic device. They can never take the place of the evidence, however. It is therefore remarkable that so little attention has been paid to the comparative evidence, which is abundantly present for those who are ready to see it 2. BALTIC
Latvian preserves the glottalic feature of the unaspirated voiced stops as a glottalic tone on the preceding vowel in originally pretonic syllables, e.g. p~ds 'footstep: nu6gs 'naked: Vedic padam, nagnas (Ko25). The glottalic tone represents the merger of the glottalic feature with the reflex of the PIE laryngeals. Under the stress, it is preserved in the Zemaitian dialects of Lithuanian (Zinkevicius 1966: 34). The usual view that the glottalic tone is of secondary origin cannot be correct because it does not explain the rise of the glottalization. More probably, the Proto-Baltic acute was a glottal stop which was lost under rising and falling tone movements that originated in the separate languages (Ko25: 324-328). It is widely believed that the Proto-Baltic circumflex, like its Greek counterpart, resulted from early contractions while all other ancient long vowels are acute. This view is incorrect. & I have argued elsewhere, the acute is the phonetic reflex of the PIE laryngeals and the glottalic feature of the unaspirated voiced stops, whereas all other ancient long vowels are circumflex (Ko64). The latter include the following categories: (1) Long vowels from contractions, e.g. Lith. gen.sg. algas 'salary, cf. Greek aA.qJ~t;.
(2) Lengthened grade vowels in the nom.sg. form of stems in a resonant, e.g. Lith. akmuo 'stone: dukti'daughter, Greek lXKftWV, Ovyar'1P· (3) Long vowel preterits, e.g. Lith. ime 'tool(, bire 'strewed; like 'flew'. The acute of gere 'drank' reflects the root-fmallaryngeaL not the long root vowel. (4) Lith. 3rd person future forms, e.g. duos 'will give, kalbis 'will spea:tc. Since the long vowel is not shortened in polysyllabic stems, the metatony must be older than Leskien's law (K014: 86). Assuming that the PIE laryngeals were lost after lenghtened grade vowels, I connect the metatony in this category with the lengthened grade in the md and 3rd sg. active forms of the Vedic sigmatic aorist injunctive (Ko65). (5) Lengthened grade vowels in original root nouns, e.g. Lith. gela 'pai.ti, zoli 'grass; mesa 'meaf, cf. Slavic zaltJ, Prussian acc.sg. siilin, Vedic mas. ( 6) Latvian nom.sg. sdls 'salt' and gitovs 'coW, cf. Greek &A~;, f3oik;, Vedic gaus. Here again, I assume that the laryngeal was lost after a lengthened grade vowel The expected acute reflex of the laryngeal is found in Lith. s6lymas 'brine' (Buga 1959: 584). (7) Lith. nom.sg. -e. In my view, this ending originated from the loss of the laryngeal after a lengthened grade vowel in the nom.sg. form of the root noun
Indo-European phonology which is represented in arkllde 'stable, avlde, 'sheepfold; alude 'pu~ pelude 'chaff store, also tvaigtdi 'star; Vedic -dha, Latin -des, and the Greek passive aorist sufJX -8'1-· Thus, I conclude that the PIE laryngeals merged into a glottal stop, which merged with the glottalic feature of the unaspirated voiced obstruents. The Proto-Baltic circumflex is simply the absence of a glottal stop. 3.SLAVIC
Baltic and Slavic shared the merger of the PIE laryngeals with the glottalic feature of the unaspirated voiced stops into a glottal stop. Slavic subsequently lost the glottal stop with compensatory lengthening of a contiguous vowel in pretonic and post-posttonic syllables (Ko14: n). Under the stress and in the frrst posttonic syllable the loss of the glottal stop yielded the rise of the new timbre distinctions. As a result, the presence versus absence of the glottal stop is reflected as a difference between short and long reflexes of the "Ion( vowels. The difference is usually preserved in Serbo-Croatian and has left traces in the other languages. Thus, the short e, a of SCr. jltbuka 'apple; jt!dem 'I eaf, pltdnem 'I falt sjt!dnem 'I sit dowti, pobjegnem 'I flee, jltgnje 'lam~ jltgoda 'strawberry' reflects the glottalic feature of the following unaspirated voiced obstruent. Long vowels without a glottal stop were not shortened in Slavic, except under special conditions. Thus, lengthened grade vowels are generally long in Serbo-Croatian, e.g. in the following instances: (1) The word tt!riiv 'crane, Czech terav, reflects an original nom.sg. form *gerou, cf. Latin grfts (Vaillant 1958: 172). The long vowel is in agreement with the circumflex of Lith. akmuo 'stone' and Latvian abuols 'apple'. (2) Sigmatic aorist: 1st sg. donijeh next to donesoh 'broughf, and the isolated infmitive rfjet (Dubrovnik) next to reci 'to say' (Vaillant 1966: 6o). Similarly 1st sg. mrijeh, umrijeh 'died; kleh, zakleh 'swore'. (3) The tonal alternation between dlth 'I gave' and da 'he gave' is the same as between Lith. duosiu and duos 'will give'. I think that it reflects the loss of the laryngeal after a lengthened grade vowel in the aorist injunctive. (4) Original root nouns, e.g. rijel 'word; Tocharian B reki, cf. Vedic vak, Latin vox, Prussian acc.sg. tiirin. Other examples: tar 'live coals; tara 'nettles; p3tar 'fire, ilgiir 'fallow; gar 'soof, car 'magic' (Czech car and lara), nt!miir 'negligence, sam, sama, samo 'alone'. There is additional evidence for the view that the acute was a glottal stop in the fact that it blocked the progressive accent shift (Ko14: 14). This constraint has a significant parallel in Avar, where "stress shifted to the second syllable from the first non-pharyngealized one" (Dybo et aL 1978: 19). It seems to me that the
Proto-Indo-European glottalic stops
57
Balta-Slavic evidence suffices to shift the burden of proof onto the adversaries of the glottalic theory. 4.ARMENIAN
Shortly after the turn of the century, Pedersen challenged the obtaining views on the Armenian consonant system with the hypothesis that the voiced stops of the classical language were aspirated (1906: 336-342). This view was accepted by Vogt (1938: 327), who discussed the matter in detail in a separate study (1958), and later by Allen (1951: 134) and Benveniste (1959). Garibjan went a step further and surmised that the voiced stops in the western dialects which correspond to the voiceless stops of the classical language constitute an archaism (1959). Agajan has demonstrated that this view cannot be upheld (1960). The very sources from which Vogt and Benveniste drew their inspiration (Adjarian 1909, Allen 1950) permit entirely different conclusions, which are apparently supported by the newly discovered southern dialects (Garibjan 1958). The following analysis will be based on three principles:
(1) A reconstruction of the Common Armenian consonant system on the basis of the modem dialects must logically precede a comparison with material from other Indo-European languages. ( 2) If the consonant systems of two related dialects differ in more than a single feature, the historical connection between them involves at least two distinct developments. (3) If a single uninterrupted central area differs from the peripheral areas with respect to a specific feature, it is probable that the central dialect has innovated. In order to simplify the discussion, I number the modern dialects in such a way that the flrst digit reflects the correspondence with classical t and the second digit the correspondence with classical d, both in word-initial position, and that a minimum difference between numbers reflects a minimum difference between dialects in terms of features. In the following list I give, next to the number of each dialect, the reflex of classical t, d, f', the corresponding number in the classifications ofVogt (1958) and Garibjan (1959), and a typical representative. n 12 13 21 22
23 20
t t= t t d
d
d= d d
d dh f' =
t d dh
t
f' f' f' f' f' f' f' f'
Vogt
Garibjan
4 3 1
2
7 6 2 4 3 1
sb
5
sa
examples: Van Agulis Erevan Sasun Trabzon Sivas Malatia
58
Indo-European phonology
The dialects 11, 22, 20 have apparently come into existence as a result of the neutralization of a phonological opposition. According to Vogt, "il s'agit evidemment d'une simplification secondaire des systemes centraux" (1958: 148), i.e. 13 and 23. Should 11 indeed be derived from 13? Since these dialects differ in two features, we have to assume an intermediate stage. If the voicedness was lost earlier than the aspiration, the reflexes of classical d and th must have merged, which is not the case in 11. If the aspiration was lost earlier than the voicedness, the intermediate stage was identical to the system of dialect 12. But there is no reason why 12 should be derived from 13; both 11 and 13 may actually have to be derived from 12. Geographically, the area which 11 and 12 occupy together forms a semi-circle around the central dialects: Arces - Van - Xoy (11) - Agulis Meghri (12) - Karabagh - Kanaker (11) - Lori - Tiflis - Artvin (12). This situation suggests that 13 must be derived from 12. The dialects 22 and 20 may indeed be derived from 23, but either of them can also be derived from 21, a dialect which Vogt does not take into account because it is not covered in Adjarian's monograph. Moreover, 22 may be derived from 12 in the same way as 23 can be derived from 13. A choice can only be made by taking into account the geographical distribution of the dialects. Since the position ofTrabzon (22) with respect to the Artvin-Tillis area (12) is the same as that of Little Armenia (23) with respect to Central Armenia (13), it is reasonable to assume that the historical relationship between the Trabzon dialect and its eastern neighbour is the same as that between 23 and 13. The suggestion that 13 must be derived from 12 and the impossibility of deriving 12 from 22 then involve the consequence that the dialects ofTrabzon and Little Armenia must be derived from 12 and 13, respectively. If this is correct, the semi-circle discussed above can be extended to Trabzon. Other parts of 22 may have different historical connections. Thus, the isolated dialect of Maras ( 22) must probably be derived from the contiguous dialect of Hadjin-Zeytun (21). The Malatia-Urfa area (2o) is situated within the semi-circle Sasun- Dersim- Hadjin- BeylanSvedia (21) and must therefore be derived from the latter. Which distinctive features can be reconstructed for the oldest stage of the apparently archaic dialect 12? I think that the answer is provided by Allen's phonetic analysis of an East Armenian dialect (1950). The unaspirated voiceless plosives are glottalic ("ejective") in this dialect, whereas the voiced stops of the classical language are voiceless in initial position. Thus, it is a transitional dialect between 12 and 11, having lost the voicedness of d while retaining the opposition between d and t. Actually, the opposition between voiced and voiceless initial stops was restored by the introduction of the loan words beg and boy (Allen 1950: 202). The term "potential voiced aspirates" which Allen applies to the reflexes of classical d etc. has given rise to misunderstanding on the part of Benveniste, who inferred the existence of voiced aspirates from the description (1959: so). In fact, voicing and aspiration are mutually exclusive, the "potential
Proto-Indo-European glottalic stops
59
voiced aspirates" being voiced and unaspirated if preceded by a nasal, and lightly aspirated and voiceless in final position after -r-. These are precisely the positions where almost all Armenian dialects show unaspirated voiced and aspirated voiceless plosives, respectively (Pisowicz 1976a: 6t-62). In initial position, the "potential voiced aspirates" are voiceless. "They are distinguished from the ejectives by having pulmonic as opposed to glottalic plosion, and from the aspirates by the absence of voiceless breath on release. The most notable feature differentiating them from the ejectives, however, is to be found in a following vowel, which is articulated with markedly stronger breath-force and on a lower pitch than is general in other but comparable contexts" (Allen 1950: 200). The transfer of the distinctive feature to the following vowel is carried through completely in a part of the dialects 11 (Pisowicz 1976b: 215-216). In the original system, the glottalic articulation of the "ejectives" was apparently distinctive. Indeed, 19th century loan words from Russian showed aspirated plosives in Armenian, e.g. p'el', manet' from pel', moneta (Pisowicz 1976a: t8). Thus, I do not share the usual view that the glottalic articulation of the unaspirated voiceless stops in the Tiflis-Artvin area is due to a Caucasian substratum. It is more probable that the latter simply favored the preservation of a feature which was already present The newly discovered dialects 21 seem to corroborate the antiquity of the glottalic articulation. According to Garibjan (1959: 85-86) and Pisowicz (1976a: 78), these dialects must be derived from the western system 23. Since 21 and 23 differ in two features, we have to assume an intermediate stage. If the voicedness was lost earlier than the aspiration, the intermediate stage was identical to 20. If the aspiration was lost earlier than the voicedness, the intermediate stage was identical to 22. In either case two series would have merged, which is not the case in 21. I conclude that 21 must be derived from an eastern dialect. Since the geographical position of the southern dialects (21) with respect to the Van area (n) is the same as that of Little Armenia (23) with respect to Central Armenia (13), it is reasonable to assume that the historical relationship between 21 and 11 is the same as that between 23 and 13. We come to the conclusion that the southern dialects developed from the system of their eastern neighbour at a time when the latter had not yet lost the distinction between the original (glottalic) unaspirated voiceless stops and the ones that originated from the devoicing of the classical voiced stops. Indeed, the dialect ofSatax (between Van and Sasun) distinguishes between two series of unaspirated voiceless stops (Pisowicz 1976a: 66) and is in this respect transitional between 11 and 21. We can now connect the two semi-circles discussed above: together they constitute an uninterrupted line of dialects which are archaic with respect to the encircled areas.
60
Indo-European phonology We have now established the following relative chronology:
(1) Rise of aspiration in voiced stops (12 > 13). (2) Devoicing of unaspirated voiced stops (12 > n). (3) Voicing of glottalic stops (u > 21, 12 > 22, 13 > 23). (4) Elinlination of unaspirated voiceless stops ( 21 > 22, 21 > 20). The absolute chronology can only be established on the basis of loan words. Since loans from Arabic are subject to shifting while loans from Turkic are not (Agajan 1960: 44), we have to date (3) between the 7th and the 10th centuries. It is possible that (1) was in progress during the classical period, as Djahukian suggests (1967: 76). Thus far I have linlited the discussion to word-initial plosives because it is the position of maxinlal contrast in the Armenian dialects. The same type of analysis can be applied to other positions. The generalization of voiced stops after nasals and voiceless aspirates after prefmal -r- are probably early developments because they have affected the large majority of dialects. Intervocalically, the following types are found: wa na 12a 2oa 21a 23a
t t
d
t= t
t d
d d d
f'=
r r r r r r
r= r
t dh
examples: Karabagh, Lori Van Agulis Malatia, Trabzon, Erevan, Tiflis Sasun Sivas
The areas 12a and 23a are small islands within 1oa and 2oa, respectively, while ua and 21a are considerably smaller than u and 21. A large part of the eastern dialects have the western (voiced) reflex of intervocalic t etc. Almost all northern dialects have been subject to the aspiration of intervocalic d etc. Following the principles which have been put forward above, one arrives at the same reconstruction and the same relative chronology as have been established for initial plosives, plus one additional development: (5) Devoicing of voiced aspirates (13a > 1oa, 23a > 2oa). The reconstructed Common Armenian obstruent system now appears as follows: aspirated voiced voiceless
plain d
glottalic
t
Proto-Indo-European glottalic stops
61
The frrst Armenian consonant shift is seen to consist in the loss of the aspiration of PIE *dh, the rephonemicization oflenis PIE *d as voiceless, and the weakening of the occlusion of PIE *t. 5· VEDIC AND AVESTAN
The Balta-Slavic evidence points to a series of preglottalized voiced obstruents as the earliest reconstructible reflex of the PIE glottalic stops. Alexander Lubotsky has adduced Indo-Iranian evidence in support of this interpretation (1981: 137). The root of Greek mjyvVfU 'fasten' is represented in the Rgveda as follows: 3rd sg. papaje 'stiffened: pajra- 'frrm: pak$a- 'wing, pak$fn- 'bird: pak$as- 'side; pajas- 'frame; pajasya- 'flank'. The distribution of short and long root vowel can be explained by the assumption that the laryngeal was lost before a glottalic obstruent when the latter was followed by another consonant. Lubotsky adduces fourteen roots in laryngeal plus glottalic stop with short root vocalism in Old Indic, five of which have Avestan correspondences with a short root vowel. Thus, Lubotsky's law must be dated to the Indo-Iranian period. The development is understandable if a sequence of laryngeal plus glottalic stop was realized as a glottal stop plus preglottalized voiced obstruent 6. SINDHI AND PANJABI
The hypothesis that the unaspirated voiced stops of Old Indic were preglottalized is confirmed by immediate comparative evidence from Sindhi, which has preserved the glottalic articulation. This language has a threefold opposition between voiced stops: the unconditioned reflexes of the d and dh series are glottalic and aspirated, respectively, while dissimilation of the dh series before aspirates of recent origin has given rise to a plain voiced series, e.g. gahu 'baif < grasa-, gahu 'fodder'< ghiisa-. It can be shown that the glottalic stops are at least older than the loss of the PIE laryngeals (Ko38: 17-18). There is no reason to disclaim their PIE origin. The glottalic articulation cannot be attributed to external influence because the neighbouring languages do not present anything comparable. The Panjabi material also requires the former existence of preglottalized voiced obstruents at a recent stage. In this language, the voiced aspirates have become voiceless and unaspirated, yielding a low tone on the following vowel, e.g. kora 'horse, Hindi ghora. Since the voiceless aspirates have been preserved as a separate category, the dh series was not phonemically aspirated at the time of the devoicing (Haudricourt 1975: 271). It follows that the glottalic stops were preserved at that stage. Moreover, the d series did not lower the tone of a following vowel. This also points to the preservation of the glottalic feature.
62.
Indo-European phonology 7.GREEK
The usual reconstruction of the PIE word for '10o' *R:rrtt6m does not account for the initial vowel of Greek bcar6v. The comparison of this vowel with the word for 'one' *sem- is at variance with the indeclinability and the syntactic behavior of e~<:ar6v. The original character of the indeclinability is evident both from the preservation of the fmal nasal in composition and from the absence of a plural form. If the latter had existed at an earlier stage, it would hardly have been replaced with a derivative formation. Thus, I think that the Greek form and its syntax are more archaic than is generally assumed. The initial vowel of e~<:ar6v can be explained if we start from PIE *dR:rrtt6m and assume that the buccal features of the initial consonant were lost while its glottalic feature merged with the reflex of the PIE laryngeal *H, to yield e-, with subsequent adoption of the aspiration from the word for 'one' (Ko6o: 98). This explanation, which presupposes that *d was a glottalic obstruent at the time under consideration, has the additional advantage of accounting for the long vowel in the decades, e.g. 1revr~wvra 'so' < *penk"'e-dR:omt-. It also accounts for the coexistence of the southern form eT~<:om < *erf~<:om and the northern form rf~<:art '2.o; both of which can be derived from PIE *dwidR:rrtti if we assume that partial dissimilation of the initial consonant yielded *H,- whereas total dissimilation yielded zero. This again presupposes that the glottalic articulation of *d had been preserved at the time of dissimilation. When did *d merge with *H, in e~<:ar6v, erwm and 1revr~wvra? I think that rpta~<:ovra '3o' < *triH.-dR:omt- and West Greek rerpw~<:ovra '4o' < *k"'etwrdR:omt- allow us to date the merger of *d with the laryngeals to a stage which was posterior to the rise of colored epenthetic vowels, but anterior to the eventual loss of the laryngeals. Since the development of colored epenthetic vowels is specifically Greek, it follows that the PIE glottalic stops were preserved up to a comparatively recent stage. 8.LATIN
In Latin we fmd a long root vowel in actus 'driven, lectus 'gathered; where the velar stop belongs to the PIE glottalic series, and a short root vowel in factus 'made, vectus 'carried; where it belongs to the fortis or aspirated series. The Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian developments show that the glottalic feature characterized the initial part of the obstruent, whereas the aspiration characterized its fmal part in view of Bartholomae's law. When voicedness became phonemic, the aspiration in the cluster *-('t- was simply lost, but the glottalic articulation in *-gt- was preserved as a feature of the preceding vowel. As in the Greek and Balto-Slavic instances cited above, it merged with the reflex of*H,.
Proto-Indo-European glottalic stops The same development accounts for the long vowel in the decades, e.g.
vlgintl '2.o; quadriigintii '4o; septuiigintii '7o'. The voicing of *k to g in these words must be attributed to the preceding nasal in *septrrJdkont- '70' and *newtzdkont- '90' (Thurneysen 1883: 313). This voicing rule was Italo-Celtic, as is clear from Old Irish sechtmogo '7o; as opposed to cethorcho '4o'. The quantitative difference between Latin vlgintl and Old Irish fiche 'w: like the difference between Latin rectus 'straight' and 0 ld Irish recht 'laW, shows that the loss of the glottalic articulation was posterior to the disintegration ofltalo-Celtic. The glottalic feature was lost after a consonant, e.g. in the nasal presents stringo 'tighten: pingo 'paint' < *-g-, which merged with Jingo 'touch', mingo 'urinate'< *-('-.This accounts for the absence of a long vowel in strictus, pictus, which adopted the vocalism ofjictus, mictus on the analogy of the present tense. The glottalic feature was apparently absorbed by the preceding laryngeal in lassus 'tired' < *ll;Ldtos, just as the laryngeal was absorbed by the following glottalic obstruent in Vedic pajra- 'firm'. The initial syllable of sedeo 'sit' was prefixed to the form *sdtos in -sessus. Thus, the Latin evidence supports the reconstruction of a series of preglottalized obstruents. 9.GERMANIC
In his monograph on the West Jutland st0d, K. Ringgaard concludes "that the v-st0d is only found immediately before the plosives p, t, k, and that it is found wherever these stand in an original medial position, following a voiced sound in a stressed syllable. The exceptions to this are certain types ofloan-words from a later period" (1960: 10, 195). "The v-st0d is a complete occlusion of the vocal cords, combined with the diaphragm's movement of inhalation" (p. 199), i.e. a full-fledged glottal stop. Ringgaard dates the rise of the West Jutland st0d to the 12th century because it is characteristic of"all then existing medial plosives". His view that it is a spontaneous innovation of the westernmost dialects of Danish can hardly be called an explanation. Moreover, it does not account for the parallel development of preaspiration in Icelandic. Preaspiration is found not only in Icelandic, but also in Faroese, Norwegian, and the Gaelic dialects of Scotland. Phonetically, the preceding vowel is cut short and continued as a whisper; a preceding resonant (m, n, l, r) is partly or wholly unvoiced. The distribution of preaspiration in Icelandic is the same as in the Norwegian dialect of Jreren (Oftedal1947). We can therefore conclude that it is "an example of a feature taken to Iceland by the original settlers" (Chapman 1962.: 85). Carl Marstrander has argued that the preaspiration in Scottish Gaelic is due to a Norse substratum (1932.: 2.98). He advances the hypothesis that the Norwegian preaspirated stops represent a retention of the clusters hp, ht, hk, which developed into geminates elsewhere (p. 302.). This theory implies three
Indo-European phonology developments: tt < ht in East Norse, ht < tt in West Norse, and ht < tin West Norse in those positions where the preaspirated stop does not reflect a cluster, e.g. Icelandic epli 'apple: vatn 'water: mikla 'increase: hjalpa 'helP, verk 'work'. Here the preaspirated stop appears to be the phonetic reflex of a PIE unaspirated voiced obstruent. Both the West Jutland st0d and the preaspiration receive a natural explanation if we assume that Early Proto-Germanic, like Proto-Balto-Slavic and Proto-Indo- Iranian, possessed a series of preglottalized voiced stops. Devoicing yielded a series of Late Proto-Germanic sequences rp, ft, (k, the glottal stop of which was lost under various conditions. Weakening of the glottal stop in West Norse yielded preaspiration, while its assimilation to the following obstruent gave rise to a series of geminates in East Norse, with the exception of Danish, where the sequences were subject to lenition and the glottal stop was preserved in the western dialects. I wonder if Swedish vecka 'week; droppe 'drop: skepp 'ship' reflect a dialect that escaped the earliest loss of the glottal stop. One may wonder if preglottalization had been preserved in word-initial position in Late Proto-Germanic. There is positive evidence for this in the West Jutland st0d offattig
(1) mp, nt, nk yielded pp, tt, kk in the larger part of Scandinavia. The nasal consonant was apparently devoiced by the glottal feature which preceded the stop, and subsequently lost its nasalization. (2) k yielded kk before j and w. Similarly, t yielded tt before j in a limited area, e.g. Swedish satta 'sef. The development cannot easily be identified with the change of g into gg before j because the latter involves the transformation of a fricative into a stop. (3) p, t, k yielded pp, tt, kk before r and l in West Germanic. The same development is found sporadically in Scandinavia. Here again, the geminate may have originated from the assimilation of a glottal stop to the following buccal stop. It is possible that the theory put forward here has certain consequences for the interpretation of the West Germanic material. Firstly, the High German sound shift may have resulted from a lenition of the buccal stops with concomitant oralization of the preceding glottal stop. If this is correct, the glottalization must have been preserved at the time of the shift Secondly, the absence of aspirated stops from Dutch and Frisian may be due to an early loss of preglottalization in this area. Thirdly, the English glottal stop may be much more ancient than is
Proto-Indo-European glottalic stops commonly assumed. consideration.
It appears that these possibilities merit further
10. CONCLUSION
The Balto-Slavic, Indo-Iranian, Italo-Celtic and Germanic evidence points to the former existence of a series of preglottalized voiced obstruents. This reconstruction is supported by evidence from Greek and Armenian. In the modern languages, glottalization has been preserved in Latvian and Sindhi, and in dialects of Lithuanian, Armenian, and Danish. The preglottalized voiced obstruents may have originated from a common innovation of all IndoEuropean dialects except Anatolian and Tocharian, where voicedness never became a phonemically relevant feature. We may now reconsider the typological argumentation cited in the introduction. It will be seen that my own view is closest to the positions held by Andreev and Swadesh: the proto-language had simple fortes, glottalic lenes, and aspirated lenes stops, corresponding to traditional *t, *d, *dh. As in modern Icelandic and in the southern dialects of East Armenian, all stops were usually voiceless. This fits in with the absence of a voiced counterpart to the PIE fricative *s. The typological reinterpretation of the obstruent system was based on the poor attestation of the labial stop *b, the incompatibility of two glottalic stops in the root, and the incompatibility of fortes and aspirates in the root. The latter constraint has a notable parallel in Austronesian (Bradshaw 1979). The absence of initial *b- can hardly be explained by the loss of an earlier *p-, as Pedersen maintained (1951: 12). I think that the correct solution was indicated by Thumeysen (1908): *b- lost its glottalic feature and merged with *p-, cf. especially Vedic pfbati 'drinks: Old Irish ibid, Armenian iJmpem (with secondary nasal inftx), Latin bibo (with restored reduplication). Medial *-b- was preserved, e.g. in Latvian abuols 'apple' < *abOl-, Lith. obells < *abel-, Russian jabloko < *abl-, where the ablaut guarantees the Indo-European origin of the word. It has been conjectured that Germanic and Armenian preserve the original voicelessness of the PIE glottalic stops. I think that this is incorrect In the case of Germanic, the fact that the glottal feature precedes the buccal stop suggests that the latter was voiced at an earlier stage. In the case of Armenian, its close relationship with Greek, Albanian, Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian suggests that the voicelessness is secondary. Thus, I think that the original system was not preserved outside Anatolian and Tocharian.
PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN TONES?
1. Classical Indo-Europeanists assumed the existence of a distinction between acute and circumflex long vowels in the proto-language on the basis of evidence from Indo-Iranian, Greek, Balto-Slavic and Germanic (e.g. Hirt 1929). It will be argued that the attested differences arose in the separate branches after the dissolution of the proto-language. 1.1. The Indo-Iranian evidence for a circumflex tone is based on the disyllabic reading of certain long vowels in Vedic and Gathic, e.g. Vedic bhas-, bhaas'light.; prqfha-, pray~tha- 'dearesf, acc.sg. panthiim, panthaam 'path; Gathic acc.sg. pa8aam 'patli, mazdaam 'God; gen.pl. -aam, subj. -aa-. The disyllabic reading is regular in Gathic and sporadic in Vedic. It can be shown that in Gathic it occurs whenever we expect an intervocalic laryngeal (cf. Monna 1978: 97-103). It follows that intervocalically the laryngeals yielded a glottal stop in Indo- Iranian and that this glottal stop was preserved as a hiatus in the separate languages. This eliminates the evidence for tonal distinctions in Indo-Iranian and, consequently, the Indo- Iranian evidence for a Proto- Indo-European circumflex. 1.2. The Greek evidence for tonal distinctions is limited to the word-final syllable, where a long vowel or diphthong may be either rising = acute or falling = circumflex (cf. Risch 1975: 472). The same distinction on unstressed fmal diphthongs is reflected as the converse tonal distinction on a long vowel or diphthong in the preceding syllable. Since tonal distinctions on unstressed syllables are exceptional in a language with free stress, this suggests that the Greek tones are due to a secondary development. If we eliminate the cases where the circumflex is the result of recent contractions or analogical patterning (cf. Bally 1945: 42), we find that endings are circumflex whenever they were disyllabic at an earlier stage whereas original long vowels are acute. The following instances are of particular interest: 1) Acute ending in nom.pl. ol~em < *-oy 'houses' versus circumflex ending in loc.sg. oTICOl < *-o-i 'at home; cf. the dat.sg. ending of the consonant stems -i. 2) Circumflex 3rd sg. present ending in ~eclevet < *-e-i 'orders; where -i was taken from the athematic flexion as a tense marker and added to the original thematic present ending -e. 3) Circumflex 3rd sg. optative ending in ~eeA.evot < *-o-tt (cf. Ko97: 237). The distinction between acute and circumflex was lost in non-fmal syllables, cf. 1st pl. ICeAeVOlfU!V, md pl. 8vvato6e 'be able, ovata8e 'have profit'. The generalization of the root vowel before *+ yielded the accentuation of 1st pl. 8t8oifU!V 'give;
68
Indo-European phonology
iar«.TftEV 'set up, rt8eiftEV 'puf, 2nd pl. iamia8e 'stand; where the place of the stress points to earlier -oi~, -ai~, -ei"- (cf. ibidem).
I conclude that Greek offers no evidence for an inherited distinction between acute and circumflex tones. The attested distinction arose after the loss of the PIE laryngeals. 1.3. The tonal distinctions of Baltic and Slavic are extremely important for the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European. They do not, however, represent a tonal distinction of the proto-language. As I have argued in detail elsewhere (Ko64), the acute tone of Baltic and Slavic resulted from the phonetic merger of the PIE laryngeals with the glottalic feature of the unaspirated voiced stops into a glottal stop. It has been preserved unchanged in originally pretonic syllables in Latvian, e.g. peds 'footsteP, nu6gs 'naked; Vedic padam, nagnas, and under the stress in the Zemaitian dialects of Lithuanian. The original circumflex of Baltic and Slavic was simply the absence of a glottal stop. It is found in the following categories: 1) Long vowels from contractions, e. g. Lith. gen.sg. algas 'salary, Gr. aA.qJ~t;. 2) Lengthened grade vowels in the nom.sg. form of stems in a resonant, e.g. Lith. akmuo 'stone; duktl 'daughter, Latvian abuols 'apple; Serbo-Croatian z~rav 'crane, Czech zerav. 3) Sigmatic aorist, e.g. SCr. 1st sg. donijeh next to donesoh 'broughf, umrijeh 'died; Zlikleh 'swore~ 4) Long vowel preterit, e.g. Lith.lme 'tool(, hire 'strewed; like 'flew~ The acute of gere 'drank' reflects the root-fmal laryngeal not the lengthened grade root vowel 5) Lith. 3rd person future forms, e.g. duos 'will give; kalbls 'will speak'. Since the long vowel is not shortened in polysyllabic stems, the metatony must be older than Leskien's law. Assuming that the PIE laryngeals were lost after lengthened grade vowels, I connect the metatony in this category with the lengthened grade in the md and 3rd sg. active forms of the Vedic sigmatic aorist injunctive (cf. Ko6s). 6) The tonal alternation between SCr. 1st sg. d?lh and 3rd sg. da 'gave' is the same as between Lith. duosiu and duos 'will give~ I think that it reflects the loss of the laryngeal after a lengthened grade vowel in the aorist injunctive. 7) Lengthened grade vowels in original root nouns, e.g. Lith. gela 'pail\ toll 'grass; mesa 'meaf, SCr. rfjee 'word; car 'magic; sam 'alone~ 8) Latvian nom. sg. sdls 'salt' and gilovs 'coW, cf. Latin sal, Vedic gaus. Here again, I assume that the laryngeal was lost after a lengthened grade vowel The expected acute reflex of the laryngeal is found in Lith. s6lymas 'brine~ 9) Lith. nom.sg. -l. In my view, this ending originated from the loss of the laryngeal after a lengthened grade vowel in the nom.sg. form of the root noun
Proto- Indo-European tones? which is represented in arkllde 'stable, avlde 'sheepfold: alude 'pub: pelude 'chaff store, also ivaigzdi'stai, Vedic -dhti. Latin -des. Thus, the Balto-Slavic circumflex is the normal reflex of any long vowel of nonlaryngeal and non-glottalic origin. It provides no evidence for a Proto- IndoEuropean tonal distinction. 1.4. The Germanic evidence for tonal distinctions is limited to originally fmal syllables, where original long vowels and diphthongs have a short and a long reflex. In my view, the long reflex is regular before original word-fmal obstruents and analogical in the gen.pl. ending, while the short reflex is regular word-fmally and before word-final nasals. The following categories are of major importance: 1) Gothic undaro 'under' < *-ot, cf. Vedic adharat 'below~ and other adverbs in -o, e.g. Go. piubjo 'secretlY, papro 'thence, galeiko 'similarlY, OHG gillhho, OE gellce, as opposed to the word-final reflex of the same vowel in Go. giba 'giff, ON gi9f, OEgiefu, etc. 2) Go. hidre 'hither, OE hider, cf. Latin citra. This category apparently adopted the original ablative ending. The instrumental in *-e was preserved in dat.sg. daga 'daY, imma 'to him~ hindana '(from) behind: OE hindan. 3) Go. 3rd sg. weak preterit nasida 'saved' reflects the original final vowel *-e, not *-et, and can be identified with the Lithuanian preterit in -e, as I have argued elsewhere (Ko71). The other languages adjusted the preterit endings of the weak verbs to those of the verb 'to do'. 4) The Go. gen.pl endings -o and -e must be derived from Proto-Germanic *-oan and *-eian, as I have argued in detail elsewhere (Ko3o: 291-293). 5) The nom.sg. ending of the n-stems is phonetically regular in Go. guma 'mali, OE tunge 'tongue, eage 'eye~ OHG zunga, ouga, and analogical in Go. tuggo, augo, ON tunga, auga, OEguma, OHG gomo (ibidem). The ending of ON gumi was taken from the ion-stems (cf. Lid 1952). 6) Since fmal *-ai yielded -a in Go. bairada 'he is borne~ bairanda 'they are borne, faura 'before~ cf. Gr. rrapat 'beside, the preservation of the diphthong in the optative bairai 'he may bear' must be attributed to the original fmal *-t. The pronominal nom.pl. ending of the adjective, e.g. blindai 'blind: was taken from the monosyllabic demonstrative pronoun }Jai at a recent stage. Long final diphthongs had been preserved in Proto-Germanic, e.g. Go. ahtau 'eighf, dat.sg. gibai 'giff, anstai 'favor'. I conclude that the Germanic material is fully explained in terms of segmental features and offers no evidence for an inherited tonal distinction. 2. Though the distinction between acute and circumflex long vowels cannot be attributed to Proto-Indo-European, it does not follow that the proto-language
70
Indo-European phonology
had no distinctive tone. There are several indications that point to the existence of a tonal distinction at a stage in the development of Proto- Indo-European. (On the morphological nature of the tone cf. the literature cited under 2.3 below.) 2.1. The Old Indic accentual system is tonal in the sense that the feature which distinguishes stressed from unstressed syllables is inherent in the syllabic nucleus and independent of contiguous syllables. As a consequence, we find such sequences as RV 1.1.6 tavet tat satyam on the one hand and 10.75.5 imam me gange yamune sarasvati sutudri on the other. In principle, the number of high tones in a phrase may vary between one and the number of syllables, though it is never larger than the number of independent morphemes. The Indian grammarians leave no doubt about the tonal character of the accent (cf. Allen 1953: 87-91). Like its Japanese counterpart, which is to some extent comparable from a typological point of view, the Vedic accentual system can be derived from a system with a two-way level tone distinction on each syllable (cf. McCawley 1978: 301). The attested system may have developed through the loss of high tones following a high tone in the same syntactic unit and subsequent grammaticalization of the resulting tone alternations.
2.2. The accentual system of Greek can be derived from that of Vedic, but not conversely. It is characterized by a number of innovations, among which are the following:
1) Limitation of the place of the stress to the last three syllables of the word, and to the last two syllables if the final syllable contains a long vowel or diphthong. This implies a shift of the stress from the antepenult to the penult before a long ultima. 2) Wheeler's law: retraction of the stress from a short ultima to a short penult after a long antepenult, e.g. rrotK.{Ao~ 'spotted; f3ovi<.OJ.o~ 'cowherd~ These stress shifts have in common that a long syllable attracts the stress not onto itself, but onto the intervening syllable. They are best explained by the assumption that unstressed long vowels or diphthongs received a rising or falling tone movement in the neighbourhood of a high tone vowel, even if there was an intervening syllable, which in that case adopted the high tone of its environment. The assumption of a tonal assimilation which yielded (subphonemic) rising and falling tone movements on unstressed long vowels and diphthongs also provides a basis for understanding two more accentual developments in Attic:
3) Stressed long vowels and diphthongs in the penultimate syllable are falling before short and rising before long final syllables, e.g. gen.sg. awrijpo~ 'saviour;
Proto- Indo-European tones? gen. pl. awr~pwv. This is understandable if the short ultima was low whereas the long ultima was falling. 4) Vendryes' law: a short antepenult receives the stress from a long penult before a short ultima, e.g. eywye 'I at leasf, cf. tyw '1'. The stressed vowel had become falling as a result of the previous development and lost the stress to a preceding short syllable, which had apparently become high as a result of tonal assimilation, but not to a preceding long syllable, which had only become rising. The tonal assimilation surmised for Greek was probably posterior to and perhaps evoked by the loss of the PIE laryngeals, which gave rise to a large number of new long vowels. It presupposes the earlier existence of a level tone system. 2.3. It has recently been argued that the accentuation of Baltic and Slavic derivatives can be explained on the basis of inherent accentual properties of the constituent morphemes (cf. Dybo 1968, 1973, Garde 1976). If the separate morphemes are assigned "high" or "low" tone according to their accentual properties, the Balto-Slavic place of the stress can be identified with the leftmost high tone of a word form. The stress patterns can therefore be explained if we assume that late Proto- Indo-European possessed a tonal distinction between "high" and "low" morphemes. 2.4. The reconstructed Indo-European proto-language has a remarkable root structure constraint: a PIE root may not contain a voiced aspirate and a voiceless stop simultaneously, as in **bheut- or **teubh-, unless it is preceded by *s-, as in *steigh- 'mount' (e.g. Meillet 1937: 174). If we assume progressive voice assimilation after initial *s-, the distinction between voiceless stops and voiced aspirates was apparently a prosodic feature of the root as a whole. It can therefore be compared with the proposed tone distinction. If this is a meaningful comparison, we expect a correlation between voiceless stops and high tone on the one hand, and between voiced aspirates and low tone on the other. It follows that the incompatibility of voiceless stops and voiced aspirates in a PIE root is a corollary of the incompatibility of high and low tone on the same root This hypothesis has been investigated by Alexander Lubotsky (1988a). The actual state of affairs is complicated by the influence of the PIE laryngeals on the tonal patterns, as Lubotsky points out. The PIE obstruent harmony has a typological parallel in the Austronesian language JaMm, where obstruent voicing is actually correlated with a level tone distinction (cf. Bradshaw 1979). 2.5. It has long been recognized that the traditional reconstruction of the PIE obstruent system is typologically deviant in view of the double marking of the voiced aspirates. It must be noted that both voicing and aspiration are often accompanied by a low tone on the following vowel. We must therefore consider
72
Indo-European phonology
the possibility that voicing, aspiration and low tone all originated from a single phonological feature, e.g. "lax". Though it is generally assumed that "consonant types affect tone but tone does not affect consonant types" (Hyman 1975: 229), this does not account for the rise of distinctive tone in syllables which do not contain obstruents. It is therefore probable that the proposed PIE tones were older than the distinction between voiceless stops and voiced aspirates. The latter distinction may have arisen at the same time as zero grade vocalism, which points to a period of strong dynamic stress. It is remarkable that distinctive tone was apparently not eliminated at that stage but survived into the attested languages. The theory advanced here now suggests an explanation for the alternation of voiceless stops and voiced aspirates in root enlargements, where the original distribution may have depended on the accentual properties of the root It will be clear that the indications of a PIE level tone system listed above require further investigation. The point I want to stress here is their compatibility and mutual reinforcement. Indeed, it seems difficult to account in a principled way for the peculiarities of the Vedic accentual system, the Greek accent shifts, the accentuation of Baltic and Slavic derivatives, the PIE root structure constraint, and the markedness of the voiced aspirates in relation to the voiceless stops without the assumption of a PIE level tone system. The proposed tonal distinction has nothing to do with the traditional difference between acute and circumflex, which arose in the separate languages after the dissolution of Proto-Indo-European. 3.
AN INDO-EUROPEAN SUBSTRATUM IN SLAVIC!
I
Georg Holzer has argued for the prior existence of an unknown Indo-European substratum language from which Baltic and Slavic borrowed a collection of etyma with a distinctive consonant shift (1989). In this hypothetical language, which he calls "Temematic~ (1) the Indo-European voiceless plosives *p, *t, *k became voiced b, d, g whereas (2) the Indo-European voiced aspirates *11', *dh, *t became voiceless p, t, k. Since Winter's law did not operate in this hypothetical language, original *p, *t, *k merged with Indo-European *b, *d, *g, which remained distinct from *bh, *dh, *('. Moreover, (3) the original syllabic liquids *r, *l yielded ro, lo while (4) long vowels were shortened before resonants. Holzer adduces 45 etyma in his main text and 17 additional examples in an appendix. Since I have little to add to his full discussion of the material, I shall limit myself here to listing the 45 etyma with their new derivations (some of which were already proposed by Machek) and adding the main alternative etymologies (cf. also Brozovic 1989, Lorna 1990, Moszynski 1992). I shall follow his practice of omitting asterisks before obvious Slavic proto-forms. For the details I refer to Holzer's book. I. "ACKERBAU" 1.
borzda 'Furche' < *borg-dii- < *pork-tii-, Latin porca, OHG furuh; better than
Gr.
rpfxpo~
'Furche'.
proso 'Hirse' < *proso- < *bhrso-, Latin far 'Dinkel, Spelf, ON barr 'Gerste, OCS brast~no 'Mehl'; better than *per- 'schlagen'. 3. bbr?J 'Hirse' < *buro- < *puro-, Gr. rrvpo~ WeizeiT, OE fyrs 'Quecke, Lith. purai, RCS puro; better than *1:/'er- 'hervorstehen'. 4· zobt~ 'Hafer, Futter' < *gobi- < *kopi-, Lith. siipas 'Hal.m: ON hafri; better than zob'b 'Kropf, Schnabel'. 5· zona 'taube Komer' < *gonii- < *konii-, Gr. K£v(ef)6~ 'leer, eitel', Arm. sin; better than znobiti 'frieren lassen'. 6. loboda 'GansefuB, Melde' < *lo-bodii- < *1-podii-, Latin olor 'Schwan; pes 'FuB'; better than *alll'o- 'weiB'. 7. smt~rd'b 'Bauer' < *kmir-do- < *ftmer-to-, Av. zamar 'in der Erde, Vedic jman, 0 CS zemija; better than sm t~rd- 'stinken'. 8. Sflbr?J 'Bauer' < *kem-ro- < *ghem-ro-, same root; better than ORu. semt~ja 'Gesinde, Lith. seima. 2.
Indo-European phonology
74
testa 'Teig' < *toile-to- < *dhoif-dho-, Gr. roixo<; 'Mauer, Latin fin go 'forme: Gothic daigs 'Teig, ORu. deza 'Teigmulde'; better than Arm. t'rem 'knete Teig, OHG theismo, deismo 'Sauerteig'.
9.
II. "VmHZUCHT"
krot- 'gezahmt' (in derivatives) < *kroto- < *2/'rdho-, Gothic garda 'Hiirde, Viehhof: Lith. gardas 'Pfercb; OCS ograda; better than Gr. ~<.porew 'schlage: K.pcho<; 'Starke'. n. sverep'b 'ungezahmt' < *kwer- < *fwer-, Gr. 8~p 'wildes Tier; Latin ferus, Lith. tverls, OCS zven,; better than Lith. svarus 'schwer: Latin serius, severus. 12. za-tvoriti 'schlieBen' < *tworo- < *dhworo-, Gr. 8vpiX 'Tur: Latinfores, Gothic daur, 0 CS dvt~ri; better than tvoriti 'schaffen, bauen; Lith. tverti 'formen, schaffen'. 13. p9to 'Fessel, Strick' < *ponto- < *bhondho-, Vedic bandhtf- 'Binden, Band; Gr. Tteiaftot 'Seil, Striclc, Gothic bandi; better than p~ti < *penH- 'spannen'. 14. zvon- '*Hund' (in derivatives) < *gwon- < *kwon-, Vedic s(u)van-, Gr. K.VWV, Lith. suo, Gothic hunds; better than zvon'b 'Ton, Schall, Glocke'. 15. texa, tesiti 'saugen' < *toi-sii- < *dhoi-(sii-), Vedic dhtfyati 'saugt; Gr. 8~a8ott 'melkeO: OCS doiti 'saugen'; better than Lith. taisyti 'bereiteO: tiesa 'Wahrheif, tiesits 'gerade, teisus '(ge)recht, aufrichtig'. 16. toliti 'Durst stillen' < *tol- < *dhol-, Vedic dhiitit- 'saugend: Gr. 8~A.v<; 'nahrend: Latin filius 'SohO: Latv. d~ls; better than Olr. tuilid 'schlaff, OHG stilli 'still'. 17. tel~ 'Kalb' < *tel- < *dhel-, same root; better than Latin tollo 'hebe empor: OHG dolen 'ertragen'. 18. drev- 'alt' (in derivatives) < *drewo- < *trewo-, Av. 8raosti- 'Reife, Vollendung, Ende; OHG trowwen 'pubescere, crescere'; better than Gothic triggws 'treu: Lith. dratas 'stark, kraftig'. 19. bolna 'Fell, Haut' < *bol-nii- < *pol-nii-, Gr. acc.pl TtlU.iX<; 'Haute, Latin pellis 'Fell; OHG fel; better than Gr. qJOA.l<; 'Reptilschuppe, qJe..U.6<; 'Korlc. 20. golenb 'Unterschenkef < *gol- < *kol-, Gr. K.WA.~v 'HiiftknocheO: Latin calx 'Ferse, OCS koleno 'Knie'; better thangol'b 'nackf. 21. bedro 'Oberschenkef < *bed-ro- < *ped-ro-, Vedic pad- 'FuB; Gr. nov<;, Latin pes, Gothic fotus; better than Latin femen, femur 'Oberschenkef. 22. edro 'Busen, Eingeweide' < *edro- < *etro-, Gr. ~rpov 'Bauch, Unterleib; OE redre 'Ader; Olr. inathar 'Eingeweide'; better than *oid- 'schwellen'. 23. Z()br'b 'Wisent, *hornlos' < *gom-ro- < *!Com-ro-, Vedic sama- 'hornlos; Gr. ~<.eftlx<; 'junger Hirsch: ON hind 'Hirschkuh: Lith. (Zem.) smulas 'hornlos'; better than Z9b'b 'Zahn'. 24. bedr- (in derivatives) 'Feder, Fliigef < *bedro- < *petro-, Vedic patra-, Latin penna; better than bod9 'steche: bedro 'Oberschenkef, b'bdr-o 'wach'. 10.
An Indo-European substratum in Slavic?
Ill. "IMKEREI" 25. svepet'b 'Honigwabe' < *swep- < *(s)webh-, Gr. {up~ 'Webe:d Latin vespa Lith. vapsa, OHG weban; better than Latin sapa 'Saft: OHG saf, Vedic vapati 'streuf, Lith. siati. 26. tr9t'b 'Drohne' < *tron- < *dhron-, Gr. (}pwv~ 'Drohne~ OHG treno; better than *ter- 'reiben, bohren'. 'Wespe~
IV. "BEVORRATUNG" 27. proko 'Vorrat, Rest' < *proko- < *bhrf!'o-, Gothic bairgan 'berge:d Ru. beregu 'hiite, bewahre'; better than Gr. rrp6Ka 'sofort: Latin procul 'feme, weit'. 28. g'brn'b 'Topf, Kessef < *g"'ir-no- < *kwer-no-, Mir. cern 'Schiissel; ON hverna 'Kochgeschirr: Vedic caru- 'KesseL Topf'; better than gbrn'b 'Ofe!L
V. "GESELISCHAFT" 29. svobodb 'frei' < *swo-bodi- < *swo-poti-, Vedic sva-pati- 'sein eigener Herr: Latin sui potens 'unabhangig'; better than *swo-bh(w)o-, Gothic sibja 'Sippe~ 30. slobodb 'frei, konnend' < *slo-bodi- < *sl-poti-, ON salr 'SaaL Zimmer, OCS selo 'Feld, Acker, Orf, Lith. sala 'Dorf, Vedic pati- 'Herr'; better than Gothic silba 'selbsf, Olr. selb 'Besiti. 31. sin 'verwaist' < */Cei-ro- < 1}'ei-(ro-), Vedic hlyate 'wird verlasse:d Gr. mpa 'Witwe~ Latin heres 'Erbe, Gothic gaidw 'Manger; better than Av. sae- 'verwaist'. 32. tr9t'b 'Wache, Schar' < *trunk-to- < *dhrunf!'-dho-, Oir. drong 'Schar: OHG truht, OCS druzina 'Gemeinschaft'; better than German dringen, drangen. 33. gojb 'Ruhe, Friede' < *g"'ojo- < *kwojo-, Av. siiiti- 'Freude, Latin quies 'Ruhe: OCS pokoi; better than gojiti 'pflegen, masten, heile:d ziti 'lebe:d Vedic gaya'Haus, Hof'. 34. iz-gojb 'Freigekaufter' < *-g"'ojo- < *-kwojo-, Vedic cayate 'racht, straff, Gr. rlvw 'biiBe, bezahle, OCS cena 'Wert, Preis'; better than gojb 'Friede, gojiti 'ernahren'. 35· mt~sta 'Rache, Strafe' < *mistii- < *misdhii-, Av. miZda- 'Loh:d Gr. fllo66c;, Gothic mizdo, OCS mt~zda; better than *mei- 'wechseln, tauschen'. 36. p'btati 'achtgeben, fragen' < *putii- < *bhudhii-, Vedic b6dhati 'wacht, merkf, Gr. rreveofUXI '(er)frage~ ocs b'bdeti 'wachen'; better than Latin putiire 'rechnen, vermuten, meine:d Slavic p'bvati 'hoffen'. 37. ne-pt~tja 'Vorwand' < *-pit-jii- < *-bhidh-ja-, Gr. mf(}w 'iiberrede, Latin fido 'vertraue, glaube, Gothic bidjan 'bitte:d OCS bediti; better than p'bvati 'hoffe:d p'btati 'fragen'.
Indo-European phonology VI. "ZIMMEREI"
dolga 'Brett, FuJThoden' < *dol-ga- < *tol-ka-, Vedic tala- 'FHiche, Ebene; German Diele, OCS tt~lo 'Bodeti, OPr. talus 'FuJThoden'; better than Gr. 8tA.roc; 'Schreibtafel', German Zelge 'abgeschnittener Zweig'. 39. pork:b 'Turm, Katapulf < *porko- < *1/'ort'o-, Gothic baurgs 'Stadt, Turm; OHG burg, Ru. beregu 'hiite, bewahre'; better than *per- 'schlagen' oder 'fliegen'. 40. tvt~rdb 'eingeschlossen' < *twir-do- < *dhwer-to-, Gr. 8opiX 'Tiir; Latin fores, 0 CS dvt~ri; better than tvoriti 'schaffen'. 41. t'bk:b 'zusammenpassend' <*tuko- < *dhui'o-, Gr. reoxw 'mache zurecht; OE dugan 'niitzen, passeti, Lith. daag 'vief; better than Gr. roKOc; 'Hammer'. 38.
VII. "SONSTIGES" 42. gvezda 'Stern' < *gwoid-da- < */Cwoit-ta-, Vedic §veta- 'wei.B; Gothic Jueits,
OCS cvet'b 'Blume, Blute; svet'b 'Licht, Welt'; better than Gr. rpoif3oc; 'leuchtend, strahlend; rpa11c6c; 'klar, leuchtend~ 43. pojetb 'singf < *paje- < *bhiije-, Latin for 'spreche, sage, besinge: OE bOian 'prahleti, Slavic bajati 'erzahlen, besprecheti, Gr. rpYffd 'sage'; better than Gr. Jtatav 'Heil- und Lob gesang, Gothic faian 'tadehi 44. {ldro 'Kern, Hode' < *endro- < *entro-, Vedic antra- 'Eingeweide; Gr. ~vrepa, OCS j{ltro 'Leber'; better than Gr. &.8p6c; 'voll, ausgewachsen'. 45· golpbb 'Taube' < *golumbo- < *kolumbo-, Gr. ~e6A.vftf3oc;, Latin calumba; better than Lith. gulbe 'Schwan While some of these etymologies may tum out to be false, it is improbable that all of them will eventually be rejected. We must therefore reckon with the defmite possibility of a "Temematic"' substratum in Slavic, and perhaps in Baltic. Apart from the interchange of the tenues and the mediae aspiratae as a result of (1) and (2) discussed above and the absence of Winter's law, Holzer has proposed the following developments for his hypothetical substratum language (1989: 13):
(3) The syllabic liquids *r, *l became ro, lo. There are only five examples in Holzer's 45 etyma:
proso < *bhrso-, Latin far, loboda < *1-poda-, Latin olor; 10. krot- < *i'rdho-, Gothic garda; 27. prok:b < *bhri'o-, Gothic bairgan; 30. slobodb < *sl-poti-, ON salr. 2.
6.
None of these instances has an obvious zero grade. The assumption of an original zero grade in the compounds loboda and sloboda is no more than a theoretical construct. There is a zero grade in Vedic grha- 'Haus: which is clearly
An Indo-European substratum in Slavic? cognate with Gothic gards 'Haus: but the absence of zero grade in the immediate neighbourhood of the Slavic territory renders the idea rather arbitrary. The zero grade in Lith. birginti 'sparen' can easily be secondary. I therefore think that the alleged development is no more than a possibility. (4) Long vowels were shortened before resonants. In fact, there is only a single root where an original long vowel was NOT shortened: 22. edro < *etro-, Gr.
~rpov.
There is only one other etymon with an initial vowel, and this is an instance where the Slavic word has not preserved a vowel length contrast: 44·
~dro
< *entro-, Gr. ~vrepa.
Thus, we may just as well say that there is no trace of the original distinction between long and short vowels in the material. (5) Raising of *e to *i before tautosyllabic r. There are three examples in Holzer's 45 etyma: smt~rd'b < *fmer-to-, Av. zamar; 28. g?Jrn'b < *k"'er-no-, ON hverna; 40. tvbrd'b < *dhwer-to-, Gr. Ovpa.
7.
Since the number of examples is very small and raising of e to i before r is not a natural development, it is preferable to assume a morphological reduced grade in these derivatives. Note that the other derivatives usually have o- or zero grade (cf. Holzer 1989: 170-174). (6) Diphthongs became acute before single consonant plus vowel. This rule is reminiscent of the one that assigns acute tone to Slavic borrowings from Germanic (cf. Ko14: 70). It suggests that the "Temematic" language may have had an expiratory accent on the initial syllable. In his tentative identification of the substratum with the language of the Cimmerians, Holzer proposes two additional developments (1989: 179): (7) Unrounding of *o, *o to *a, *a, and (8) Raising of *e to *i before tautosyllabic nasals. These hypothetical changes fit the earliest Slavic developments after the end of the Balto-Slavic period very nicely (cf. Ko36: 264f. and Ko66: 46f.). We may therefore wonder if the "Temematic" substratum provoked the earliest developments of Slavic as a separate language, before the Scythian expansions took place.
Indo-European phonology II
The next question is: what was the position of the proposed substratum language between the surrounding Indo-European dialects? We find limited voicing of the tenues in Germanic (Verner's law) and total devoicing of the aspirates in Greek. These are precisely the two branches of Indo-European which share most lexical isoglosses with the newly proposed language (cf. Holzer 1989: 165). It is therefore reasonable to locate the new language between Germanic in the north and Greek in the south. The unaspirated voiced (or glottalic) plosives were devoiced in Phrygian (cf. Lubotsky 1998: 420""), Armenian, and Thracian, but not in Greek, Albanian, and Dacian. As Phrygian was close to Greek (cf. Lubotsky 1988b) and Thraco-Armenian to nacoAlbanian (cf. K1o1), it is probable that the new language was originally spoken to the west of the dialect continuum which connected Slavic with Albanian and Armenian. (A possible borrowing into Albanian is mjet 'Mittel, Trennwand' < *meti- < *medhi-, cf. Demiraj 1997: 274f.) This places the speakers of "Temematic" in the western Ukraine, which is precisely the most probable homeland of the Slavs, at the time when the ancestors of the Greeks moved into the Balkan peninsula. We must therefore consider the possibility that their language, like Anatolian and perhaps Greek, had not yet developed a distinction of voicedness in the plosives at that time. In my earliest discussion of the PIE system of obstruents (Ko32), I reconstructed plain fortes *T: (traditional *t etc.), glottalic lenes *T' (traditional *d etc.), and aspirated lenes *T' (traditional *dh etc.), and assumed that glottalization was lost at an early stage in Indic, Greek and Italic while aspiration was lost at an early stage in Balto-Slavic, Armenian and Germanic, yielding a complementary series of voiced lenes in opposition to the original voiceless fortes. Both glottalization and aspiration were lost yielding voiced lenes in Iranian, Albanian and Celtic, which occupied an intermediate position between the dialects just mentioned, while the original absence of voiced obstruents was preserved in Anatolian and Tocharian. I have now changed my view in two respects: (1) It has turned out that glottalization was preserved not only in BaltaSlavic and Armenian, but also in Indo-Iranian, Greek, Italic and Germanic (cf. Ko75: 192-197). It is therefore possible that the absence of distinctively voiced lenes was maintained much longer in Greek and Italic, which have voiceless reflexes of the aspirates. This opens the possibility of reconstructing a GraecoPhrygian proto-language with voiceless reflexes of both the glottalics (as in Phrygian) and the aspirates (as in Greek). Thus, we arrive at an outer ring of Indo-European dialects where the original system of obstruents was preserved, comprising Tocharian in the East, Anatolian and Graeco-Phrygian in the south, and Italic in the west, and a central area where voicedness arose as a distinctive
An Indo-European substratum in Slavic? feature in the aspirates, containing the satem languages and their western neighbours. ( 2) The evidence for aspiration in the aspirates is limited to Indic and Greek, which have very different types of aspiration and do not even share it with Iranian and Phrygian. The Italic fricatives can easily have developed from a lenition of voiceless plosives without an intermediate stage of aspirated stops. The Greek aspiration may be the result of delayed voice onset after the voiceless lenes. It now appears that Indo-Iranian shared the rise of distinctive voicedness with the central Indo-European dialects and that the rise of voiced aspirates in Indic was a secondary development, as it was in the central dialects of Armenian (cf. Ko75: 188-191). It follows that we must reconstruct fortes *T:, glottalics *T, and lenes *T for Proto- Indo-European, with neither voicedness nor aspiration as distinctive features. The phonetic distinction between fortes *T: and lenes *T was probably a matter of consonantal length, as is essentially the case in modern Germanic languages, where voicedness and aspiration are concomitant features (cf. Goblirsch 1994: u and passim). We may now reconsider the position of "Temematic" among its IndoEuropean neighbours. The absence of voicedness in the lenes ("aspirates") suggests that the language was originally close to Graeco- Phrygian. The subsequent loss of glottalization and rise of voiced obstruents was a development shared by Daco-Albanian. The distinctive merger of the fortes with the new voiced obstruents resulted from a weakening process which can be dated before this development because the merger of fortes with glottalics and subsequent rise of voicedness is a more natural chain of events than the unmotivated rise of voicedness in the fortes at a stage when the glottalics had become voiced and the lenes were voiceless. In the latter chronology, one would rather expect both fortes and lenes to remain voiceless, as in Greek, or the lenes to become voiced, as in Daco-Albanian. The weakening of the fortes has a counterpart in Germanic, where the details are quite different because we fmd voicing after unstressed vowels (Verner's law) and frication elsewhere (Grimm's law) and rise of new fortes from the original glottalics. These developments were probably more recent. Farther to the west we fmd lenition of the original fortes yielding voicing in British and frication in Irish. Though it is difficult to see a historical connection here, it is remarkable that there is no trace of lenition in Balto-Slavic languages. One therefore wonders if the various kinds of lenition were induced by a non- Indo-European substratum language spoken on the western border of the Indo-European homeland when successive waves of migration (Italic, Celtic, Germanic, "Temematic") passed through their territory. In any case, this hypothesis is compatible with the idea that after the migration of the Graeco- Phrygians into the Balkan peninsula, the speakers of "Temematic" moved from the southwestern part of the Indo-European homeland into the territory which was abandoned by the ancestors of Germanic
So
Indo-European phonology
speakers when these moved westwards. Though it is difficult to prove the former existence of a "Temematic" language in any strict sense of the word, it is important to note that it fits into our picture of the original Indo-European dialects very nicely.
1ST SG. MIDDLE *-H.
The athematic secondary indicative 1st sg. middle ending is -i in IndoIranian, e.g. Vedic natflfi, Gathic aojt, Old Persian adar5iy. I think that this ending continues PIE *-H. (cf. 1979a: 67). The 1st sg. middle forms akri (RV 10.159.4 = 10.174.4) < *e-kwri;I. and ajani (RV 8.6.10) < *e-gvH,J;I. have nothing to do with the 3rd sg. passive aorists akiiri < *e-kwori and ajani < *e-gonH,i. The latter are probably uninflected neuter i-stems which were incorporated into the verbal system. 1.
2. In spite of the fact that the corresponding thematic ending is *-ai in IndoIranian, Meillet suggested already that the 1st sg. middle ending -i may be an altemant of the long vowel in the Greek secondary ending -pav (1964: 234). If this is correct, the Indo- Iranian thematic ending must be due to analogical reshaping. 3. Conversely, Petersen assumed that the athematic secondary ending -i was due to analogy on the basis of the 1St pl. forms: impf. asi : pres. ase = impf. asmahi: pres. asmahe (1936: 162). This is an unnatural type of analogic change. The 1st sg. form is generally reshaped on the basis of other sg. forms, not on the basis of the 1st pl. form. Besides, it remains unclear why the proposed analogy affected neither the optative ending -a nor the thematic endings, where both the model and the motivation for analogic change should be the same. Moreover, the 1st pl. ending -mahe is of analogical origin itself. A subsequent analogic development would be expected to replace the secondary endings -i and -mahi with **-a and **-maha on the basis of 3rd sg. -(t)a, primary -(t)e, cf. also the subjunctive 1st pl. ending -mahai on the basis of 1st sg. -ai. 4. Following Meillet, Ruiperez assumes that the 1st sg. ending -i continues PIE *-a and concludes that the Indo-Iranian thematic ending *-ai is analogical (1952: 23). In his opinion, this *a yielded *a before and after nonsyllabic *i in the primary ending *-ai and the optative ending *-lya. The latter development can no longer be maintained, especially since Hoffmann's discussion of the athematic optative (1968: 5). A vocalized laryngeal never yielded anything different from i in Indo-Iranian. We must therefore assume that both the primary ending *-ai and the optative ending -a are of analogical origin. 5· Kurytowicz shares Petersen's view that the ending -i is analogical (1964: 59). He states that it replaced earlier *-a< *-H.o without specifying the motivation for the replacement or giving evidence for the reconstruction of the earlier ending. Conversely, earlier -i could easily have been replaced by **-a in Indo-
82
Indo-European morpho syntax
Iranian on the basis of 3rd sg. -(t)a. Ruiperez pointed out already that the Hittite 1st sg. ending -ha may have taken its vowel from the other persons (1952: 24). 6. Cowgill has given a detailed account of his views on the 1st sg. middle ending in Indo-Iranian (1968). Like Kurylowicz, he starts from a PIE ending *-H.o. He explicitly rejects Ruipereis suggestion that Hittite -ha represents PIE *-H. plus analogical -a from the other persons because in that case "'H. "would be the only Indo-European person marker that functioned equally in both voices, without the need of a specific voice marker in the mediopassive" (1968: 26). I conclude that we have to separate the laryngeal of the perfect and the middle from the one in the thematic present ending *-oH and that it cannot be regarded as a person marker. Elsewhere I have identified the laryngeal in the 1st sg. endings of the perfect and the middle with the one in 2nd sg. *-tH.e/o and 1st pl *-medhH. and the laryngeal of the thematic 1st sg. ending *-oH with the one in 2nd sg. *-eH,i (acute tone in Lithuanian) and 2nd pl. *-etH,e (aspiration in Indo-Iranian); if there ever was a laryngeal in the other 1st and md person endings of these paradigms *-m(H.)e, *-(H.)e, *-dh(H.)ue, *-om(H,)om, it was lost phonetically in the available material (1979a: 68). 7. The reconstruction *-H.o brings Cowgill into major difficulties because "'H. appears not to have affected the timbre of a neighbouring "'o, so that the Greek and Tocharian 1st sg. middle endings -fUXl, -,mv, A -mar, B -mar, -mai cannot be derived from *-H.o-. The postulate of an ablauting voice marker *e is unmotivated and offers no explanation, as Cowgill points out His suggestion that *-o- was analogically replaced with *-a- lacks a motivation if *o was characteristic of the middle: the converse development would be expected. In fact, there is no evidence at all foro-vocalism in the 1st sg. middle ending of the proto-language. 8. Cowgill sees the motivation for the introduction of -i in the athematic paradigm in the confusion of 1st sg. *-H.o and 3rd sg. *-o after the loss of postconsonantallaryngeals. It is unclear why the same confusion continued to be tolerated in the primary ending and in the perfect, where 1st sg. *-H.e and 3rd sg. *-e merged at the same stage. In the perfect, the homonymy was even extended to the middle endings and, in classical Sanskrit, to those cases where the 1st and 3rd sg. forms had not merged phonetically as a result of Brugmann's law.
9. The reconstruction *-H.o forces Cowgill to assume a substantial amount of remodelling in cases where I see phonetically regular forms (1968: 30f.): "akri (X 159,4 = 174.4), probably not to be read akuri, must be analogic, while avroi (X 33,4) can be explained as regular only by reading avrol < *avrniyi +- *avrniya < "'ewln~o~ where I reconstruct *e-k"'rl;l. and *e-tJlnRI;I•. Also, "huve, hinve, vroe, tasthe, etc. ought to be "'huve, "'hinuve, *vroiye, *tasthiye if they were
1st sg. middle *-H. faithful continuations of *ghuHAoy, *ghinuAoy, *wlni;IAoy, *stestMo)f, whereas in my opinion these forms reflect disyllabic *f!'uHJ;I., *f!'inuH., *IJlnH,I;I., *stestHJ:;I. with primary -e for secondary -i < *-I;I•. "Similarly Gatha Avestan has dade ry. 28.4) and varane ry. 46,3)': where I read !dadai/ and !vrnai/ with primary *-ai for secondary *-i in disyllabic *dhedhH,J;I. and *IJlnHJ;I•. Thus, I disagree with Cowgill's view that "it is not likely that the difference between 1st sg. tatane RV. VII 29,3 and 3rd sg. tatne RV. X 130,2 is due to the laryngeal originally present in the ending of the former": these forms reflect PIE *tetonH.e and *tetone with substitution of the Indo-Iranian primary middle ending *-ai for *-a and introduction of zero grade into the root 10. In his article on the origin of the Sanskrit passive aorist, Insler adopts Petersen's view that the 1st sg. middle ending -i was created on the analogy of the 1st pl. ending (1968: 323). He regards this 1st sg. middle ending as the only possible origin of the 3rd sg. passive ending -i and reconstructs a complicated chain of analogic developments to account for the different root vocalism and accentuation. Here I shall not enter upon a discussion of his theoretical constructs, which are not strictly relevant to the subject of the present study, but I want to draw attention to the distribution of the 3rd person middle endings which Insler establishes and which can be summarized in Table I (cf. 1968: 327). Table I: Vedic endings 3rd sg.
3rd pl.
deponent roots: present imperfect aorist
-e, -te -a(t), -ta -a(t), -ta, -i
-re, -ate -ra(n), -ata -ra(n), -ata
transitive roots: transitive present transitive imperfect/aorist passive present passive aorist
-te -ta -e -i
-ate -ata -re -ra(n)
It must be noted that the 3rd pl. passive ending -ran is limited to three roots: adr§ran 'have been seeO: ayujran 'have been yoked: asrgran 'have been discharged'. The endings -a and -ra were apparently confined to deponent roots at an earlier stage. In Avestan, the form in -i is limited to the passive of transitive roots: vacl 'was spoke:d sravl 'was heard/tried: jaini 'was slailt aranavl 'was allotted' (Insler 1968: 320). This was probably the earlier distribution. In the root aorist of the Sanskrit deponents we fmd 3rd sg. -ta after a root ending in a short vocalic element versus -i, replacing earlier -a, after a root ending in a consonant (including laryngeal), e.g. amrta, apadi, ajani. The older ending was preserved
Indo-European morpho syntax in the form -at in iidat 'too~ akhyat 'looked: and ahuvat 'called'. Unlike Insler, I think that this formal distribution is secondary and that we must assume a semantic opposition for the proto-language: PIE 3rd sg. *-o and 3rd pl. *-ro in deponents versus 3rd sg. *-to and 3rd pl. *-ntro in transitive middles.
n. Watkins' view is the exact opposite of Insler's: he assumes that the 3rd sg. passive aorist ending -i replaced earlier *-Ho in the 1st sg. middle aorist and imperfect, the older ending being preserved in the optative (1969: 138f.). Here again, both the model and the motivation for the analogic change lack sufficient justification. The 1st sg. middle and 3rd sg. passive forms did not belong to the same paradigm and differed in ablaut and accentuation. It remains unclear how and why the 1st sg. ending -i appeared in the imperfect and the transitive middle aorist, where the 3rd sg. ending was -a or -ta. In order to account for the ablaut difference Watkins changes avri /avuri! into **avari (RV 4·55·5) and assumes that the zero grade in RV ayuji (5-46.1), akri (zx), avrt~i is analogical. Thus, the only example in the Rgveda which can have served as a model is ajani (8.6.10), which is ambiguous for the determination of the original ablaut grade. 12. In his excellent article on the Vedic passive aorist in -i, Migron shows that this form is impersonal in the sense that it serves any person and number without generally specifying the agent, "not because the agent is unknown, but because it is either unimportant or too well-known to require mention" (1975: 299). He demonstrates that it really is a passive perfect, "i.e. that its aspectual r~le is to focus the hearer's attention on the moment at (or since) which the 'Einwirkung' has been accomplished, has become a fact of some consequence to him': e. g. vffvartt jlvartt tamaso nfr amoci 'Every living thing has been released from darkness' (RV 10.107.1). It follows from his observations that the connection between the "passive aorist" and the causative and the ya-passive is even closer than was hitherto assumed. I think that the latter were simply derivatives from a deverbative noun of the type *k"'ori, which could itself be used predicatively in the sense of a passive perfect, e.g. 'This is a construction'= 'This has been constructed: cf. English revolutionize as a factitive of revolution. There are remnants of this type in other languages, e.g. Slavic boltJ 'si~ naVtJ 'dead; factitive naviti (cf. Vaillant 1974: 23), and Gothic muns 'thought' (with zero grade taken from the verb munan). I think that it is also the origin of the Germanic weak preterit, e.g. Gothic 2nd sg. nasides '(you) saved'< *nosi dhes, cf. also Old Irish -suidigedar < *sodi sagitro. This type of nouns must not be confused with those i-stems which have lengthened grade in the root and continue sufftxless deverbative nouns in Slavic, e.g. rectJ 'speech' (Vedic vak), tvan 'creation' (cf. Vaillant 1974: 28). 13. Elsewhere I have presented my reconstruction of the PIE verbal endings, a part of which is reproduced in Table II (cf.1979a: 67).
1st sg. middle *-H. Table II: Proto- Indo-European endings
1st sg. 2ndsg. 3rd sg. 3rd pl.
secondary active
transitive middle
intransitive middle
-m -s -t -nt
-mH. -stHo -to -ntro
-H. -tHo -0
-ro
The 1st sg. transitive middle ending *-mH. yielded *-a after a consonant and *-mi after a vowel in Indo- Iranian. Thus, it was eliminated because it merged with the 1st sg. active ending of the thematic and athematic present, respectively. The corresponding intransitive middle ending survived as -i after a consonant. This ending was extended to the thematic flexion (subjunctive), where the 1st sg. active and intransitive middle endings had merged phonetically into *-a. The 2nd sg. middle endings *-stHo and *-tHo merged after an obstruent They also merged with the 3rd sg. transitive middle ending *-to if that obstruent was an aspirate. This was the motivation for remodelling these endings on the basis of the corresponding active forms. The 3rd pl. transitive middle ending *-ntro lost its *ron the analogy of the active endings. 14. In the optative, which had intransitive middle endings, the 1st sg. ending yielded Indo- Iranian *-aiyi < *-aiHi < *-ojHJ;I. in the thematic flexion and *-! < *-IH < *-iH,ll. in the athematic flexion, cf. Vedic nom.acc.du. devi < *daiviH < *dei!JiH.H, which cannot be analogical. The 3rd sg. ending yielded *-aiya and *-iya, respectively. The latter form was regularized to *-lya and substituted for the seemingly endingless 1st sg. form. Finally, the thematic 1st sg. ending was replaced with *-aiya. 15. When the 3rd person endings *-a and *-ra received additional clarity by the addition of the secondary active endings -t and -n, this created a problem in the optative, where the 3rd pl. active ending was *-iHat < *-iH,nt. The resulting ambiguity led to the substitution of 3rd sg. middle -ta for *-a and the creation of a 3rd pl. active ending *-iHr on the basis of the corresponding middle form. The ending *-r for earlier *-at < *-nt also spread to the athematic aorist and the reduplicated imperfect. 16. The primary middle endings were created in Indo-Iranian on the basis of the secondary endings: *-ai : -a = *-tai : -ta = -ti : -t. The 2nd sg. ending *-sai was apparently modelled after the primary 3rd sg. ending *-tai, not after the secondary md sg. ending *-(s)tha. The thematic secondary 1st sg. ending *-ai came to be used as a primary ending both in the thematic and in the athematic flexion. It was replaced with *-ai in the subjunctive in order to differentiate this mood from the indicative. I think that the Vedic 3rd sg. and pl. subjunctive
86
Indo-European morpho syntax
endings -ate and -anta replace earlier *-a and *-ara, respectively. On the coexistence of primary and secondary endings in the Indo- Iranian subjunctive paradigm see Beekes 1981. 17. In Greek, the 1st sg. transitive middle ending *-m.H, yielded *-mii after a consonant and *-ma after a vowel. The first variant was generalized and received an additional *-m for the sake of clarity. The corresponding intransitive ending *-H, yielded *-a after a consonant and lengthening after the thematic vowel. It was eliminated because it merged phonetically with the perfect and thematic present endings, respectively. The 2nd sg. intransitive middle ending *-tHo merged with the 3rd sg. transitive middle ending *-to, and after dental obstruents also with the 2nd sg. transitive middle ending *-stHo. This was the motivation for the replacement of the 2nd sg. endings with *-so, which was created on the analogy of the active endings. The 3rd person intransitive middle endings were lost, and the *r in the 3rd pl transitive middle ending *-ntro was eliminated on the basis of the active endings. 18. As in Indo-Iranian, the primary middle endings were created on the basis of the secondary endings in Greek: -f«XI : *-f«X = -o'OI : -O'o = -ro1 : -ro = -r1 : *-r, etc. This development cannot have been a shared innovation of Greek and IndoIranian because it depends crucially on the different vocalization of the syllabic resonants. Thus, the difference between the presence of a nasal in Greek -f«XI and its absence in the corresponding Sanskrit ending -e reflects ultimately the different vocalization of the syllabic nasal before *H in these languages, just as the difference between Greek -a- and Sanskrit -i reflects the different vocalization of the syllabic laryngeal Similarly, the difference between the Sanskrit 2nd sg. ending -thiis on the one hand and Iranian *-sa and Greek -ao on the other reflects the different development of PIE *tt, which yielded -tt- in Sanskrit and -st- in Iranian and Greek. The s in Sanskrit -se betrays the more recent origin of this ending. The dialectal Greek rise of -aa1 and - ra1 on the basis of 1st sg. -f«XI can be compared with the generalization of -ai in the Vedic subjunctive. 19. In Italic and Celtic, the 3rd pl. transitive middle ending *-ntro lost its *ron the analogy of the active endings. The 2nd sg. transitive middle ending was remodelled in the same way: *-so : -s = *-to : -t. On the other hand, *nt was introduced as a 3rd pl. marker into the intransitive middle ending, which became *-ntro. At this stage, the fmal *-ro of this ending was reinterpreted as a voice marker and spread to the other intransitive middle endings: 1st sg. *-oro (thematic ending), md sg. *-toro, 3rd sg. *-oro. Analogy created another 3rd sg. form: *-tro *-to = *-ntro *-nto. The addition of *-ro to the 3rd sg. and pl transitive middle endings yielded passive forms of transitive verbs in *-toro and *-ntoro. Thus, we arrive at the verbal system which is presented in Table III.
1st sg. middle *-H. Table III: Italo-Celtic endings
1st sg. 2ndsg. 3rd sg. 3rd pl.
secondary active
transitive middle
-m -s -t -nt
-ma -so -to -nto
passive
intransitive middle -a, -oro
-toro -ntoro
-o, -oro, -tro
-to, -toro -ntro
The 2nd sg. transitive middle ending has been preserved in Latin, the 3rd sg. ending in Venetie doto, donasto 'gave' and in the Old Irish imperfect and imperative endings, and the 3rd pl. ending also in the latter paradigms (cf. K239: 45-49). The passive and intransitive middle (deponent) endings have all been preserved in Old Irish with the exception of 1st sg. *-a and 3rd sg. *-o, which was replaced with *-to in the deponent imperative. The final *-o of 1st sg. *-oro and 2nd sg. *-toro explains the absence of palatalization in the absolute forms (cf. Ko35: 49). The palatalization in -ther originated from the syncope of a preceding front vowel. The passive endings are also found in Latin. From the intransitive middle paradigm, the 1st sg. ending *-oro is preserved in Latin -or and the 3rd person endings are attested in Umbrianferar 'feratur, Oscan sakarater 'sacratur, Marrucinian ferenter 'feruntur' (cf. K239: 156f.). It is beyond doubt that the r spread from the 3rd pl. ending because it is absent from the Latin 2nd sg. and pl. forms and from the entire deponent imperative paradigm in Old Irish with the exception of the 3rd pl. form (cf. already Pedersen 1938: 105). 20. The only attested 1st sg. middle form in Germanic is Old Norse heite 'am called: which belongs to the same paradigm as Old English 3rd sg. hatte and Gothic 2nd sg. haitaza, 3rd sg. haitada, 3rd pl. haitanda. These forms point to a Proto-Germanic middle present set of endings 1st sg. *-ai, 2nd sg. *-asai, 3rd sg. *-adai, 3rd pl. *-andai, which was apparently created on the basis of a paradigm *-a, *-asa, *-ada, *-anda by the addition of *-i from the athematic primary active endings. The vocalism of the 3rd sg. ending betrays the PIE intransitive middle ending *-o, which was apparently extended with *-to. The new ending *-oto served as a model for the creation of 2nd sg. *-oso and 3rd pl. *-onto, and for the optative endings *-oiso, *-oito, *-ointo, Gothic -aizau, -aidau, -aindau, and the imperative 3rd person endings *-otou and *-ontou, Gothic -adau, -andau, which can be compared with Vedic -tam, -ntam, Greek -rw, -vrw, all from the PIE transitive middle endings with lengthening of the fmal vowel before the added particle *u. Latin -to is apparently a merger of 2nd sg. active *-tad (Vedic -tat) and 3rd sg. transitive middle *-to. Greek created a new set of 3rd person middle imperatives on the basis of the 2nd pl. ending (cf. Chantraine 1967: 271f.). The fact that the Germanic 1st sg. form was not remodelled in the same way suggests that it did not end in *-oat that stage. Thus, it offers additional support for the
88
Indo-European morpho syntax
reconstruction *-H,. If the latter yielded *-a, it follows that *a and *o had not yet merged at the stage under consideration. 21. The Tocharian primary endings 1st sg. A -miir, B -mar, 2nd sg. A -tiir, B -tar, 3rd sg. AB -tar, 3rd pl. AB -ntiir suggest a Proto-Tocharian paradigm *-mar, *-tar, *-tr, *-ntr. The secondary endings 1st sg. A -e, B -mai, 2nd sg. A -te, B -tai, 3rd sg. A -t, B -te, 3rd pl A -nt, B -nte point to Proto-Tocharian *-ai, *-tai, *-to, *-nto. The terms "primary" and "secondary" have given rise to misunderstanding among Indo-Europeanists. The Tocharian primary active endings (which are found in the present, subjunctive, optative, and B imperfect) represent the PIE primary and secondary active endings: 1st sg. AB -m < *-mi, B -u < *-o, 2nd sg. AB -t < *tu (cf. Pedersen 1944: 5), which was added to the zero ending from PIE *-(e)s, 3rd sg. A-$ and B -rtt are pronominal eli tics which were added to the zero ending (which has been preserved in the B imperfect and optative) from PIE primary *-e and secondary *-(e)t, 3rd pl A -fie< *-nti, B -rtt < *-nt. The Tocharian secondary active endings (which are found in the preterit and usually in the A imperfect) correspond to the PIE perfect endings: 1st sg. A -ii, -wii, B -wa replace *-a < *-H,e, md sg. A -$t, B -sta replace *-ta < *-tH,e, 3rd sg. AB zero from PIE *-e, 3rd pl AB -r = PIE *-(€)r, B -re reflects *-ro. Thus, the endings were originally differentiated according to the voice (active or perfect) of the verb form. In the same way, the primary and secondary middle endings continue the PIE transitive and intransitive middle endings, respectively. 22. Unlike Italic and Celtic, Tocharian extended fmal *-ro to the 3rd sg. ending *-to of the transitive middle paradigm: *-tro : *-t = *-ntro : *-nt. The 3rd person intransitive middle endings *-o and *-ro were subsequently replaced with *-to and *-nto after the model of the active and transitive middle endings. The md sg. ending *-(s)to, which lost its *s after an obstruent (cf. in this connection Melchert 1977), adopted the vowel of the 1st sg. endings *-ma < *-mH, and *-a < *-H,. Tocharian appears to have developed real primary and secondary endings in the intransitive middle (mediopassive) paradigm: *-toi : *-to = *-ti : *-t, etc. Thus, we arrive at the system of verbal endings which is presented in Table N. Table N: Proto-Tocharian endings
1st sg. 2nd sg. 3rd sg. 3rd pl.
secondary active
transitive middle
secondary mediopassive
primary mediopassive
-m -s -t -nt
-rna -ta -tro -ntro
-a -ta -to -nto
-ai -tai -toi -ntoi
At this stage, the perfect and mediopassive endings spread to the active and transitive middle aorist, respectively. The merger of the perfect with the aorist
1st sg. middle *-H. yielded a preterit paradigm with perfect endings, as in Latin. The middle preterit received the secondary 3rd person mediopassive endings *-to and *-nto, but the primary 1st and 2nd sg. mediopassive endings *-ai and *-tai in order to avoid homonymy with the active preterit (perfect) endings *-a< *-H.e and *-ta < *-tH.e. This distribution is also reminiscent of Latin. I assume that the 1st sg. perfect ending *-ai in Latin served for differentiation from the deponent ending *-a, which was subsequently replaced with -or. Similarly, the Slavic ending -e < *-ai in vede 'I know' indicates the previous existence of a middle ending *-o < *-H,o (with added *-o from the other persons). The introduction of the fmal *-o from *-ro into the 3rd pl. perfect ending *-er in Latin and Tocharian was of course anterior to the introduction of *nt into the 3rd pl. intransitive middle ending. It did not affect the corresponding zero grade ending *-r, which is preserved in the Tocharian s-preterit, because the perfect and intransitive middle endings would otherwise have become homonymous. The 3rd person transitive middle endings *-tro and *-ntro lost their *-o, which became a marker of the preterit, and their *r was introduced into the 1st and 2nd sg. endings of the paradigm. Finally, the mediopassive adopted the transitive middle flexion. The new tense markers *-o and *-r were extended to the 1st pl. ending *-meta < PIE *-medhH., which was replaced with *-meto (A -mat, B -mte) in the preterit and with *-metr (AB -mtiir) in the present system. I think that the 2nd pl ending of the middle preterit, which is A -c and B -t, is the phonetic reflex of PIE *-dhue, cf. A sparcwatar, B sporttotar 'turns' from the Proto-Tocharian active stem *spartwe- with the thematic 3rd sg. middle ending *-otr. The final -r of the corresponding present ending A -car, B -tar was apparently added in the separate Tocharian dialects, cf. also the active ending B -cer next to A -c < *-te. The expected *-tt < *-twe in the B middle ending seems to have been extended to the 1st pl. endings -mtte, -mttar (but cf. Peyrot 2008: 155-157). The 1st pl active ending A -mas, B -m reflects PIE *-me(s) with a pronominal eli tic in the former dialect (cf. Pedersen 1941: 143). The 2nd pl. ending AB -s of the active preterit represents a clitic which was taken from the imperative and added to the zero ending that corresponds to the Sanskrit perfect ending -a. 23. In Anatolian, the spread of *nt in 3rd pl middle forms led to the coexistence of the endings *-nto, *-ntro, and *-ntoro. The introduction of final *-ro into the 3rd sg. forms in *-o and *-to gave rise to the endings *-oro and *-toro. The 1st sg. middle ending *-H. received a fmal *-o from the other members of the paradigm. Eventually *-ro became an optional clitic in all persons and was remodelled to -ri in the present and -ru in the imperative on the basis of the corresponding active forms. The vocalization of the 1st sg. middle ending *-H. after a consonant yielded *-a, to which the regular ending *-ho could be added. Restoration of the laryngeal yielded an ending *-ha, which could be extended to
90
Indo-European morpho syntax
*-haho. Thus, the assumption that the PIE 1st sg. middle ending was *-H, rather than *-H.o explains the origin of the surprising Hittite ending -hahari. 24. I conclude that the Indo- Iranian 1st sg. middle ending -i is the phonetic reflex of PIE *-H. and that the correctness of this reconstruction is supported by evidence from Greek, Germanic, Tocharian and Hittite. The primary middle endings originated as a result of parallel developments in the separate languages, as is clear from the formal and functional incongruities. The motivation for these parallel developments lies in the absence of a distinction between primary and secondary endings in deponent paradigms, the presence of a clear present tense marker in the athematic active flexion, and the asymmetrical status of *r in the PIE 3rd pl endings. Since the early substitution of *-nto for the transitive middle ending *-ntro is common to Indo-Iranian, Greek, Italic, Celtic and Germanic, it may be a dialectal Indo-European development which was not shared by Tocharian and Anatolian. On the other hand, the spread of *r in the transitive middle paradigm and its elimination from the intransitive middle paradigm in Proto-Tocharian is also found in Armenian. Thus, I think that Armenian, like Irish, preserves the transitive middle flexion in the imperfect and the middle imperative and the mediopassive flexion in the middle aorist: 2nd sg. -r < *-ro, 3rd sg. -(w)r < *-tro, md pl. -ruk' < *-ro-, aorist 3rd sg. -w < *-to, 3rd pl. -n (without loss of the preceding vowel) < *-nto, 2nd pl. -jik' < *-dhue- (cf. K194: 34-38). The active and mediopassive endings merged in the present tense as a result of the apocope. The prohibitive imperative in -r < *ra belongs to the present system and cannot be connected with the middle aorist imperative ending -r. Phrygian seems to have shared the Armenian development: a88aK.erop = a88aK.er 'afficit'.
PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN VERBAL SYNTAX
I
In 1901 C. C. Uhlenbeck concluded from the identity of the nominative and the accusative of the neuter in the Indo-European languages that the differentiation of these cases is secondary. For an early period of the proto-language he assumes the existence of an agentive case in *-s, which expressed the subject of transitive verbs, and a general case in *-m (after o-stems) or zero (in other flexion classes), which expressed the object of transitive verbs and the subject of passive and intransitive verbs. The sigmatic nominative developed from the original agentive case, while the accusative in *-m and the asigmatic nominative continue the general case. Uhlenbeck follows Bopp in the identification of the ending *-s with the PIE demonstrative pronoun *so. A few years later Holger Pedersen presented a much more elaborate view of PIE verbal syntax (1907: 148-157). His exposition seems to have fallen into total oblivion. In the handbook on ergativity (1979), K.H. Schmidt does not even mention Pedersen's article, which is for several reasons one of the most remarkable publications in the history of linguistics. As Pedersen's view has not lost any of its significance since it was written a hundred years ago, the following rather extensive quotation (1907: 152f.) seems to be justified: "In einer vorhistorischen periode haben, wie ich vermuthe, die folgenden regeln gegolten: bei intransitiven verben stand das subjekt in der (u. a. auch als objekt fungirenden) grundform (bei o-stiimmen die form auf -om, bei den -ii-, -n-, -r-stiimmen die historische nominativform); bei transitiven verben stand das objekt in der grundform, das subjekt aber im genitiv, wenn wirklich von einer thatigkeit desselben die rede sein konnte, also wenn es der name eines lebenden wesens war; dagegen stand es im instrumentalis, wenn es ein unpersonlicher begriff war. Die heiden satze: "der bruder rodtet das thier'' und "der baum rodtet das thier'' wurden also als "des bruders thiertodten" und "durch den baum thiertOdten" ausgedri.ickt Dabei ist der subjektsgenitiv natiirlich als possessiver genitiv aufzufassen [...]. Allmahlich differenzirt sich jedoch der subjektsgenitiv (der casus activus) von dem genitiv in seinen sonstigen Verwendungen [... ]. Nachdem sich in dieser weise ein selbstandiger casus activus entwickelt hatte, konnte dieser casus seine gebrauchssphare erweitern, sodass er auch bei intransitiven verben als subjekt fungirte; eine zeitlang wird er in dieser funktion mit der grundform regellos abgewechselt haben, bis schliesslich bei den o-stiimmen die grundform auf die nicht-subjektivische Verwendung beschrankt und dadurch zum accusativ gestempelt wurde. Die endung -m wurde dann als accusativendung auf die iibrigen stammklassen iibertragen; so trat
92.
Indo-European morpho syntax
beispielsweise eine form *ekuii-m 'die stute' (ace.) an stelle des alteren *e/Cuii, das nur noch als nominativ bewahrt blieb, in dieser verwendung aber den casus activus ganz verdrangte~ Concerning the original function of the ending *-m Pedersen remarks (1907: 156): "Ich dachte damals auch an die arabische nunation, die beim determinirten substantiv fehlt (jarasun 'ein pferd: al farasu 'das pferd'), und ich will jetzt diese vermuthung nicht verheimlichen. Falls das idg. -s des genitivs (und des casus activus) urspriinglich ein artikel war (was nicht ausgeschlossen ist, da eine verwendung des artikels beim genitiv, wahrend es beim regens fehlte, mit mehreren lebendigen sprachen parallel sein wiirde), so ware die indogermanische regel fiir das vorkommen des beweglichen -m mit dem Arabischen parallel". The next major step in the reconstruction of PIE verbal syntax was taken by Holger Pedersen in another article which modem investigators have ignored (1933b: 311-315). The title is not mentioned in Collinder's survey (1974), for example. Pedersen bases himself on the assumption that there were three series of personal endings in the Indo-European proto-language: 1. the "normal" endings, which are best preserved in the athematic flexion, 2.. the perfect endings, which are also found in the thematic present, and 3. the middle endings. He puts forward the hypothesis that the perfect endings belonged originally to the flexion of intransitive verbs, and the "normal" endings to the flexion of transitive verbs. The distinction between these two sets of personal endings thus corresponds to the difference of verbal government between intransitive verbs, where the subject was in the nominative, and transitive verbs, where it was in an oblique case. Pedersen points to the identity of the "intransitive" 1st sg. ending *-o with the ending of the nominative pronoun eyw, and to the identity of the "transitive" endings 1st sg. *-m and 3rd sg. *-t with the oblique pronominal stems *me- and *to-. He also points to the possibility of identifying 3rd pl. "intransitive" *-r and "transitive" *-nt with the formative suffix of nom. fJ8wp, obl. Mar- < *-nt-. In an article which has received more attention than Pedersen's studies, Andre Vaillant presented three arguments in favor of the hypothesis that the nom.sg. ending *-s is an ancient ergative ending, which he identifies with an original ablative ending (1936). First, there is a morphological opposition between animate and inanimate in Indo-European, which is reflected in nom. JroA~, ace. 1roA.vv, neuter 1roA.v. Following Meillet (1931a), Vaillant assumes that the rise of the feminine gender is a recent development, which did not reach the Anatolian languages. Second, there is a suppletive nominative in pronominal paradigms, which is reminiscent of the suppletive ergative in Chechen. Third,
Proto- Indo-European verbal syntax
93
there are two types of verbal flexion, which correspond to the Hittite conjugations in -hi and -mi. Vaillant assumes that the Hittite flexion in -hi corresponds to the Indo-European perfect, which is originally intransitive, while the flexion in -mi originated from the addition of pronominal elements to a verbal noun in -t-: 1st sg. *~henmi < *rent-m-i md sg. *~hensi < *~hent-t-i 3rd sg. *~hent-i 1St pl. *~henmes < *~hent-m-es 2nd pl. *~hentes < *~hent-w-es 3rd pl. *~hnont-i (participle) The final-i may be the vestige of a copula. In his monograph on Hittite (1938), Holger Pedersen repeated some of the considerations from his 1933 article. This account is again disregarded by K.H. Schmidt (1979). The cardinal point of Pedersen's theory is the existence of a relation between the two types of verbal flexion in Hittite (-hi and -mi) and the two types of nominative ending (with and without -s). The sigmatic nominative expressed the subject of transitive verbs, which correspond to the Hittite flexion in -mi, whereas the asigmatic nominative expressed the object of transitive verbs and the subject of intransitive verbs. The Indo-European perfect, which corresponds to the Hittite flexion in -hi, was originally intransitive. The original distribution of -hi and -mi has been obscured and cannot be recovered. I think that the principal flaw in the conception of Pedersen and Vaillant is the insufficient distinction between flexion types. The identification of the intransitive perfect with the thematic flexion, which is predominantly transitive at the earliest reconstructible stage, cannot be substantiated. The same unwarranted assumption, among others, is made by Watkins (1969: 107-112). Similarly, we have to make a strict distinction between transitive and intransitive middle paradigms. II
The status of the thematic flexion in the PIE verbal system has been the subject of much controversy. According to Meillet, the thematic type was originally limited to suffJ.Xed stems, e.g. in -ske- and -ne-, and to the subjunctive of athematic stems (1931b: 202). Vaillant assumed a twofold origin of the thematic present: on the one hand the sixth class of Sanskrit (tudati) corresponds to the thematic flexion in -mi of Hittite (wassezzi, lukezzi, -skezzi), and on the other the paradigm of rpepw, -eu;, -el can be identified with the Hittite flexion in -hi of denominative stems in a laryngeal, e.g. newahhi (1937). These theories must now be reconsidered in the light of the Hittite evidence, which has gained much
94
Indo-European morpho syntax
wider accessibility thanks to the publication of Norbert Oettinger's monograph (1979). It follows from Oettinger's analysis that the flexion in -mi is found with athematic stems, simple thematic stems, and derived stems in -ske- and -ie-, whereas the flexion in -hi is characteristic of old perfects, causatives and iteratives, denominative stems in -ahh-, and derived stems in -ie- after a rootfinal laryngeal In the course of the historical development, the flexion in -hi is gradually eliminated. Stems in -ahh- generally belong to the flexion in -mi after the Old Hittite period. In my opinion, the principal step toward a solution of the problem of the thematic flexion was made in 1953 by Johannes Knobloch, who identified the thematic vowel with an object marker. His article does not seem to have evoked any response in the literature, probably because he limited himself to a typological comparison with Circassian and did not adduce any historical evidence in support of his view. Against Pedersen's identification of the flexion in -mi with the transitive conjugation Knobloch objects that the distribution of Hittite -mi and -hi does not correspond to a distinction between transitive and intransitive verbs, e.g. dmi 'I am', paimi 'I go' versus diihhi 'I take, pihhi 'I give~ Athematic root verbs in -mi are particularly often intransitive in the IndoEuropean languages. Referring to an article by Jak.olev, Knobloch cites the following Kabardian examples as an illustration of the three types of syntactic construction which are found with Circassian verbs:
siile-r ma-je 'le gar!j:On erie' siile-r txaA.a-m y6-je 'le gar!j:On lit (dans) le livre' siile-m txaA.a-r ye-3 'le gar~j:on lit le livre (en entier)' In the first example, the subject is in the absolute case. Knobloch compares this intransitive construction with the Indo-European type with a verb in *-mi. In the second example, the subject is in the absolute and the (indirect) object in the relative case. The verb has a zero subject prefix and an indirect object marker yo-. This is the construction which Knobloch compares with the Indo-European thematic flexion, the thematic vowel corresponding to the object preftx. In the third example, the subject is in the relative and the (direct) object in the absolute case, while the verb has a zero object marker and an actor preftx ye-. Knobloch compares this transitive construction with the Indo-European perfect, where the thematic vowel is absent. Thus, he arrives at the following reconstruction of the Indo-European verb phrase:
Proto- Indo-European verbal syntax
95
- construction of the ergative type: - objective flexion: -o-H- (thematic present) - athematic flexion: -H- (perfect) - construction of the nominative type: - objective flexion: -o-m (thematic aorist and imperfect) -athematic flexion: -m(i) (present and aorist) Knobloch adds that the thematic vowel of nominal o-stems can also be regarded as a petrified object marker. For a more detailed and accurate description of the Circassian case system I refer to Kuipers 1962. The main objection which can be raised against Knobloch's reconstruction is that the Indo-European perfect was undoubtedly intransitive at the earliest reconstructible stage, so that the hypothesis that it was construed with an ergative is highly unnatural. Moreover, the conjecture that the thematic present was construed with an ergative while the thematic aorist was construed with a nominative or absolutive case runs counter to the expected state of affairs. It seems preferable to return to Pedersen's suggestion that the flexion in *-Hcorresponds to an intransitive type of construction whereas the ergative case correlated with the endings 1st sg. *-m, 2nd sg. *-s, 3rd sg. *-t.
III As I have indicated elsewhere (K033: 6?[.), I think that we have to assume six Proto- Indo-European classes of verbal stems, which were characterized by the following sets of endings: imperfective
perfective
dynamic
subjective
1st sg. 2nd sg. 3rd sg. 3rd pl.
-mi -si -ti -nti
-m -s -t -nt
dynamic
objective
1st sg. mdsg. 3rd sg. 3rd pl.
-oH -eH,i -e
-om -es -et -ont
static
1st sg. 2nd sg. 3rd sg. 3rd pl.
-0
-H.
-tHo -0
-ro
-H.e -tH.e -e -r
These sets of endings correspond to the historically attested athematic present and aorist, thematic present and aorist, stative (intransitive middle) and perfect
Indo-European morpho syntax The opposition between the laryngeals was neutralized in the neighbourhood of PIE *o (cf. Ko34: 128). The six types of paradigm were interconnected by a network of derivative, not flexional relations. For the origins of the middle paradigms I refer to the exposition which I have given elsewhere (Ko44, K203). The stative and the perfect were inherently intransitive, while the objective flexion was transitive and the subjective flexion could be either. The distinction between subjective and objective flexion is characteristic of the Uralic languages. In Hungarian, for example, the verb varni 'to wait' has the following paradigms: subjective
objective
present
1st sg. 2nd sg. 3rd sg.
varok varsz var
varom varod varja
preterit
1st sg. 2nd sg. 3rd sg.
vartam vartal vart
vartam vartad varta
The objective flexion is used with a definite direct object, e.g. varom a fiamat 'I am waiting for my son'. The subjective flexion is used if there is no definite direct object, e.g. varok valakit 'I am waiting for somebodY. The objective personal endings are identical with the possessive suffixes, cf. karom 'my artn: karod 'thine artn: karja 'his arm'. It is usually assumed that the opposition between subjective and objective conjugation cannot be traced back to Proto-Uralic (e.g. Collinder 1960: 244. Hajdu 1975: 101). There are two weighty arguments against this view. Firstly, the objective conjugation is common to Hungarian, Ob-Ugric, Samoyed, and Mordvin, and traces have been claimed for Saami and, less convincingly, for Cheremis and the Permian languages (see Tauli 1966: 171f. for references). It is improbable that the rise of the objective flexion is an independent development in all branches of Uralic. Secondly, there is to a certain extent formal agreement between the languages. In Yurak, which is in several respects the most archaic of the Uralic languages, the endings of 1st sg. subj. madiiu 'I cut' and obj. madiidm 'id: where -d- is an infixed object pronoun and -m is the subject marker, correspond formally to those of Hung. varo-k and varom, respectively, and the 2nd sg. obj. endings of Yurak madiin 'you cut: Yenisei motadd-o 'id: Selkup noand 'you hunted; and Hung. varod all point to Proto-Uralic *-nt (cf. Pedersen 1933: 323f.), cf. also 2nd sg. subj. Selkup noal, Hung. vartal. The main argument against the hypothesis that the verbal system of the Uralic languages is very ancient is the widespread identity of the flexional endings with the personal or possessive pronouns. This argument is inconclusive because the identity may be the result of analogic remodelling.
Proto- Indo-European verbal syntax
97
Thus, the identity of the Polish 1st pl ending -my with the personal pronoun my is comparatively recent but cannot be used as evidence for a recent origin of the flexional system. The ending -my replaces Old Polish -m, which had merged with the athematic 1st sg. ending as a result of the loss of final jers. There is evidence that the Uralic endings were subject to a similar type of restructuring at various stages in the development of the separate languages. In Hungarian, the objective personal endings are identical with the possessive sufftxes, as opposed to the subjective personal endings. In Yurak, which is representative for the Samoyed languages, the subjective endings are identical with the possessive sufftxes after singular nouns, while the objective endings for dual and plural objects are identical with the possessive suffJXes after dual and plural nouns, in contradistinction to the different objective endings for singular objects. This distribution is undoubtedly secondary. The inftxed object pronoun which is present in 1st sg. obj. Yurak madiidm, Yenisei motaro', is also present in 3rd sg. subj. madiida, motara, Selkup fwed, but absent from 3rd sg. obj. madii, mota, noe-k. This reversal of the 3rd sg. subj. and obj. endings must be attributed to the influence of the possessive sufftxes. In Selkup, the 1st sg. subj. and obj. sufftxes have also interchanged places, e.g. subj. noap < *-m, obj. noa-k 'I hunted: cf. Yurak subj. madiiu, obj. madiidm, Hung. subj. varo-k, obj. varom. The hypothesis that there was a distinction between subjective and objective flexion in Proto- Indo-European cannot be proven in any strict sense of the word, but it offers an explanation for at least three sets of data in the oldest material of the historically attested languages: the distribution of the Hittite thematic flexion, the origin of the sixth class of Sanskrit (tudati), and the rise of the subjunctive. It may also offer an explanation for the distribution of the thematic aorist in Greek, which will not be discussed here. In the course of the historical development, the Hittite flexion in -hi is gradually replaced with the flexion in -mi. It is probable that this development had started before the earliest texts already, so that we can assume that some of the verbs which belong to the flexion in -mi in the oldest material had been transferred to that class at an earlier stage. The thematic 3rd sg. ending *-e was identical with the perfect 3rd sg. ending *-e at the very outset, while the 1st sg. endings *-oH and *-H.e were sufficiently alike to induce analogic leveling. As a result of the loss of *H, the 2nd sg. ending *-eH,i merged with the 3rd sg. ending when the latter took the characteristic *-i from the athematic flexion: it was therefore predisposed to replacement with a more distinctive ending. In view of all this, it is remarkable that the thematic present did not entirely merge with the perfect. I think that the reason must be sought in the addition of *-i from the athematic present to the perfect endings at a stage when the thematic present was still a distinct inflexional type. The transfer of causatives and iteratives to the flexion of the perfect can be understood if we assume that the fmal vowel of 3rd sg. *-eie was dropped before the loss of intervocalic *i, so that the ending
Indo-European morpho syntax merged with the corresponding perfect ending at a stage which was posterior to the addition of *-i to the perfect endings but anterior to the loss of the thematic present flexion. This explanation is far more probable than the complicated mechanism which Oettinger suggests (1979: 452ff} The remaining thematic presents were subsequently transferred to the flexion in -mi, perhaps under the influence of the secondary endings. The transfer was late in the case of the denominatives in -ahh- < *-eH,e-, which in Old Hittite belong to the flexion in -hi. Thus, the expected reflex of the PIE thematic flexion in Hittite can be found in the simple flexion in -ami, the derived flexions in -skami and -())ami, the causatives and iteratives in -ahhi, and the denominatives in -ahhahhi (e.g. happinahhahhi, Oettinger 1979: 41). All of the simple verbs are transitive with the exception of papre- 'unrein sein' (Oettinger 1979: 282ff.). The inherited verbs in -ske- are transitive, and so are the causatives and iteratives and the verbs in -ahh-. The numerous verbs in -je- constitute a heterogeneous class, the nondenominatives among them being almost exclusively transitive. Oettinger's view that siszi < *sisd-ti represents PIE *sisde- 'sif with analogical athematic flexion (1979: 216) must be rejected because no such verb existed in the proto-language. The intransitive meaning of Skt. sidati 'sits' and t{$thati 'stands' is the result of a secondary development, as Thieme has demonstrated (1929: 55), cf. T{w, Tcrrruu. The sixth class of Sanskrit (tudati) has punctual meaning in Vedic, except in the case of originally athematic verbs which were transferred to the thematic flexion (cf. Renou 1925: 310). The verbs of this class are characteristically accompanied by an implicit or explicit defmite object In addition to the examples which Renou adduces Q.c.), the following instances can serve for illustration (the translation is from Geldner 1951). 1.67.7-8 ya lrtt cik~ta gllha bhavantam a ya~ sasada dhariim rtasya, vf ye crtanty rta sapanta ad fd vasuni pra vaviiciismai 'Wer ihn entdeckt hat, da er sich versteckt hielt, wer zum Strom der Wahrheit gelangt ist - jedem der (den Strom der Wahrheit) entbindet, die Wahrheit pflegend, - dem hat (Agni) darnach Gutes verheissen." 3.29.14 pra saptahotii sanakad arocata miitUr upasthe yad Mocad Mhani, na nf m~ati suratzo div~dive yad asurasya jathariid ajiiyata "Von Sieben Opferpriestern umgeben erstrahlte er seit alters, wenn er im Schosse der Mutter, an ihrem Euter ergliihte. Nicht schliesst der Erfreuliche Tag fiir Tag die Augen, nachdem er aus dem Leibe des Asura geboren wurde:' (cf. Latin miciire 'to twinkle') 5.30.13 supeJasartt mava srjanty astartt gaviirtt sahtisrai rusamiiso agne "Reich geschmiickt entlassen mich die Rusama's mit Tausenden von Kiihen nach Hause, o Agni."
Proto- Indo-European verbal syntax
99
5.53.6 a yartt nara/:l sudanavo dadaHt$e diva/:l k6Sam acucyavu/:l, vf parjanyartt srjanti r6dasl "Wenn die gabenschonen Herren fiir den Opferspender des Himmels Eimer heraufgezogen haben, so lassen sie den Parjanya (Regen) tiber
beide Welten sich ergiessen:' 6.36.3 tartt sadhrfclr utayo vh~yani paul'flSyani niyuta/:l sa5cur fndram, samudrartt na sfndhava uktlui5u$mii uruvyacasartt gfra a viSanti "Den Indra
begleiten vereint die Hilfen, die Bullenkrafte, die Manneskriifte, die Gaben. Wie die Strome in das Meer, so gehen die Lobreden, durch Loblieder verstiirkt in den Geriiumigen ein:' In all of these instances, it is the object rather than the subject which experiences a change of state as a result of the action. Renou regards the verbs of the sixth class as originally modal forms and compares them with the subjunctive, which he considers to be the starting-point for the formation of numerous thematic indicatives (1925: 315). The Vedic subjunctive is a thematically inflected stem: "le seul trait qui caracterise le subjonctif est la voyelle thematique" (Renou 1932: 14). As Renou points out, the original meaning of this form is best preserved in those cases where the athematic stem does not constitute an indicative paradigm: "pour rendre compte des notions liees au systeme thematique, il faut tabler sur les formations autonomes, non sur celles qui ont adhere a un systeme particulier de present et d'aoriste" (1932: 15). And here we fmd that "une forme telle que karati, que rienne rattache a un theme special, possede une valeur trouble, mi-reelle mi-modale, et telle qu'il serait vain de restituer un karati indicatif a celte d'un karati subjonctif" (ibidem). The best exan1ple is precisely the stem kara-, which is attested 75 times in the ~gveda: "en majorite subjonctif, mais subjonctif indetermine, eventuel, plutelt que modal," without regard to the presence of either primary or secondary endings. Compare the following examples: 2.35-1 apartt napad asuhema kuvft sa supesasas karati j6$i$ad dhf "Gewiss wird Apam Napat, der Rossetreiber, (meine Lobrede) zieren, denn er soll seine Freude daran haben:' "peut-~tre Apam Napat, animateur de coursiers, rendra-t-il (mes chants) richement omes?" 7.88.1 pra sundhy{tvartt varu~aya prqthartt matfrtt vasi$tha mllhU$e bharasva, ya lm arvancartt karate yajatrartt sahtisramaghartt vha~artt brhtintam "Vasi~tha!
Bring ein sauberes, recht angenehmes Gedicht dem belohnenden Varul}.a dar, der den verehrungswiirdigen, tausend Gaben bringenden grossen Bullen herwarts lenken soli:' "presente aVarul}.a la priere la mieux aimee, qui amene (qui amenera) le taureau." 6.18.14 anu tvahighne adha deva deva madan v£5ve kavftamartt kavlnam karo yatra varivo badhitaya divt janaya tanve groana/:l "Da jubelten alle Gotter dir, o
100
Indo-European morpho syntax
Gott, dem Weisesten der Weisen im Drachenkan1pf zu, in dem du gepriesen dem bedriingten Himmel dem Volke, dir selbst einen Ausweg schufest:' "alors, el dieu, les dieux se rejouirent aton sujet, el tueur du Dragon, quand afopprime tu procuras le libre espace:' 5·31.11 sara§ cid ratharrt paritakmyayiirrt parvarrt karad upararrt jujuvalf'Sam, bharac cakram eta§a/:l sarrt ritzati pur6 dadhat sani$yati kraturrt na/:l "Auch den Wagen der Sonne, der vorausgeeilt war, brachte er im entscheidenden Augenblick ins Hintertreffen. Etasa trug das Rad davon; er stellt es her. Wenn er (ihn) an die Spitze bringt, wird er unsere Absicht erreichen." In connection with the last two examples Hoffmann remarks: "Auch an der zweiten Stelle VI 18.14, wo kara/:l allgemein priiterital iibersetzt wird, braucht durchaus kein priiteritaler Tatbestand vorzuliegen: 'Da jubeln (madan, Inj. Pras.) dir alle Gotter beim Drachenkan1pfe zu, in dem (yatra) du Weite dem bedriingten Himmel dem Volke, dir selbst schaffen wirst (kara/:lr Wenn man aber an einer prateritalen Situation festhalten will, so lasst sich auch rechtfertigen: 'Da haben dir die Gotter beim Drachenkan1pfe zugejubelt, in dem du schaffen solltest (d.h. dan1it du dabei schaffest)' [...] Geldner iibersetzt karat auch V 31.11 priiterital doch schon die auf karat folgenden Verbformen (bharat, sarrt ritziiti, sani$yati) machen das unwahrscheinlich" (1967a: 5537). Renou concludes from the Vedic facts that the subjunctive was originally an independent formation, characterized by the mere presence of the thematic vowel with a semi-modal value which could develop either into the historical subjunctive or into the inexpressive and aspectually indeterminate indicative of the first present class: "Le subjonctif prevaudra dans la mesure ou le verbe conserve un present ou un aoriste athematique qui soutient ce mode; l'indicatif, dans la mesure ou le theme en -a- est senti comme isole et independant" (1932.: 29). He remarks that "dans bharati, en regard de bfbharti, revolution est a son terme, fincorporation du theme bhara- au systeme indicatif est totale et rien ne decele immediatement forigine modale. Maison observera que bfbharti fournit le present expressif'tenir en mains, soutenir, maintenir: et aussi 'porter dans son sein'; bharati 'apporter ou emporter, procurer, offrir' et au moyen 'recevoit, implique une participation de la volonte du sujet [...]. Au point de vue des desinences, dans le Rv., on observera que, si bfbharti possede uniquement la serie primaire et la voix active, bharati re<;:oit aussi la serie secondaire et le moyen, avec une repartition des fmales qui rappelle celle du subjonctif. Quant a bharti, la forme fait corps avec bfbharti pour le sens; exceptionnellement rare, elle ne saurait appuyer lorigine thematique normale de bharati"' (1932.: 23f.). On the endings of the subjunctive see now Beekes 1981. The facts which have been adduced here can be understood if we start from the assumption that the thematic vowel was originally an object marker. Consider the following Bulgarian examples:
Proto- Indo-European verbal syntax
101
spj-a 'I sleep' spi mi se 'I am sleepy' In the first example the stem is followed by the 1st sg. ending -a. In the second it is followed by the zero 3rd sg. ending, the enclitic 1st sg. dative pronoun, and the reflexive particle. The structure of these forms is immediately comparable with that of Skt admi 'I ea~ where -mi is the 1st sg. subject marker, and Gr. Mol«ll 'I will ea~ where the root is followed by the thematic vowel -o-, the 1st sg. marker -m-, and the middle voice marker -ai. While the Bulgarian case shows how the subjunctive can have originated from a type of objective flexion, the nonvolitional variant which underlies Skt bhtirati is found in Polish. In this language, where the translation of the above examples is spi~ and chce mi si~ spat (same syntactic construction with 3rd sg. chce 'wants' and in£ spat 'to sleep'), the "objective" construction is found in such instances as spalo mi si~ bardzo smacznie, which is practically equivalent to spalem bardzo smacznie 'I slept very soundlY. The position of Russian appears to be intermediate in this respect, e.g. mne ne spitsja 'I cannot sleep' (Polish nie mog~ zasnqf), but mne xocetsja spat' 'I am sleepy' (Bulg. spi mise). As the Slavic parallel demonstrates, the fact that the stem is intransitive is no obstacle to the derivation of a modal category from an objective construction. The Slavic examples adduced here contain a reflexive particle. As Thieme observed (1929: 53), there is a correlation between thematic flexion and middle voice, as opposed to an athematic active paradigm, in the oldest Indo-European material. "II est certain qu'il y a plus generalement une tendance vers la voix moyenne dans la plupart des systemes thematiques; acet egard le contraste htinti jfghnate, sacate sf$akti est saisissant [...]. Le moyen est aussi rare dans les presents et aoristes radicaux, dans le present redouble athematique, qu'il abonde dans les presents thematiques" (Renou 1932: 21').
IV Now we return to the syntax of the PIE finite verb. It has long been recognized that there is a striking resemblance between the verbal systems of Georgian and classical Greek. It may therefore be profitable to have a look at the syntax of the Georgian verb. The following examples are characteristic of literary Georgian (cf. Boeder 1979: 437):
txa modi-s 'the goat comes' (present) txa movid-a 'the goat came' (aorist) txa mosul-a 'the goat has apparently come' (perfect) txa cam-s venax-s 'the goat eats the vine' (present) txa-m setam-a venax-i 'the goat ate the vine' (aorist) txa-s seucami-a venax-i 'the goat has apparently eaten the vine' (perfect)
Indo-European morpho syntax
102
The subject of a regular intransitive verb is always in the nominative, which ends in zero after a vowel and -i after a consonant. With transitive verbs, the case forms depend on the tense system. In the present tense, the subject is in the nominative and the object is in the dative, which ends in-s. In the aorist, the subject is in the ergative, which ends in -m after a vowel and -ma after a consonant, and the object in the nominative. In the perfect, the subject is in the dative and the object in the nominative. There is a class of intransitive verbs which have an ergative subject in the aorist, e.g.
cqal-i duy-s 'the water boils' (present) cqal-ma iduy-a 'the water boiled' (aorist) is t'iri-s 'he weeps' (present) man it'ir-a 'he wept' (aorist) There are transitive verbs which have a dative object in the aorist There is a class of verbs which have a dative subject and a nominative object in the present (indirect or inverted verbs), e.g. deda-s uqvar-s wil-i 'the mother loves the child~ The verbal syntax of Georgian is more archaic than that of the related Megrelian and Laz languages. In Megrelian, the use of the ergative case was generalized in the aorist, irrespective of transitivity or intransitivity of the verb. In Laz, the use of the ergative case with transitive verbs was generalized, irrespective of tense. A particularly instructive survey of the historical development of verbal syntax in Georgian, including the dialects, can be found in Boeder's contribution to the handbook on ergativity (1979). For Proto-Indo-European we can assume that the subject was in the absolutive (asigmatic nominative) case in the stative and the perfect because these categories were intransitive. The original derivative relationship between a transitive present and an intransitive perfect has been preserved in rretOw 'I persuade: rrbrmOa 'I trusf, MYvVfU 'I break (tr.): lppwya 'I am broken'. If the agent was mentioned with the perfect, it was probably in the dative if it was animate and in the instrumental if it was inanimate. If this is correct, the original syntactic construction is preserved in rovr6 flOI rrtrrpaK.ml, where the verb has received an analogical middle ending, while the syntax of rrtrrp«xa rovro was taken from the present tense. The original perfect rrtrrpiXya has preserved the intransitive meaning. In the thematic flexion, which always had two arguments, the thematic vowel referred to an object in the absolutive case. I stick to Pedersen's view that the secondary endings *-m, *-s, *-t etc. referred to a subject in the ergative (sigmatic nominative) case. For the thematic present I assume that the subject was originally in the dative if it was animate and in the instrumental if it was inanimate. Thus, the syntactic construction of the thematic present was the same as that of Bulg. spi mi se or rather Eng. me dreamed a strange dream. The substitution of I for me in modern English had its analogue in late Proto- Indo-
Proto- Indo-European verbal syntax
103
European, cf. also German mir traumt and ich traume. The fact that Bulgarians are discouraged from saying az mi se spi, where az is the nominative of the 1st sg. pronoun, testifies to the same development happening right now in that language. The hypothesis that the subject of a thematic present was originally in the dative accounts for the correlation between middle presents and active aorists in a number of instances, e.g. 8epKO/«XI 'I see, ~PXOI«XI 'I go, come' (often with o86v 'road, journey: the original meaning was perhaps 'to cover a distance, cf. Skt. rcchtiti 'reaches'), aor. ~8pa~<.ov, ~A.vOov. The PIE transitive middle expressed the identity of the subject with the indirect object: it can be compared with the subjective version in Georgian, e.g. me vimzadeb sadils 'I prepare myself a dinner' (cf. neutral version me vamzadeb sadils 'I prepare a dinner: intransitive middle vemzadebi 'I prepare myself). Like its Georgian counterpart, the PIE transitive middle had probably the same syntactic construction as the corresponding active forms. The presence of a dative subject in the thematic present prompted the spread of the transitive middle endings, which correlated with the identity between the subject and the indirect object. In its turn, the spread of the transitive middle endings facilitated the substitution of the ergative (sigmatic nominative) case for the dative with thematic presents in late ProtoIndo-European. With athematic presents and aorists, the subject was probably in the ergative if the verb was transitive and in the absolutive if the verb was intransitive. The apparent contradiction between Pedersen's view that the endings *-m, *-s, *-t etc. referred to the ergative subject of a transitive verb and Knobloch's observation that intransitive verbs belong as a rule to the flexion in -mi has a remarkable counterpart in Samoyed, where intransitive verbs characteristically receive the endings of the objective flexion (cf. Castren 1854: 207), e.g. Yurak adm 'I am'. Indeed, I think that this is a major argument in favor of the Indo- Uralic hypothesis. As is commonly assumed, the accusative developed from a directive case (e.g. Haudry 1977: 155). The same development is attested at a later stage in Romance, e.g. Spanish 1a madre quiere a su nino, Rumanian mama iubqte pe pruncul sau 'the mother loves her child; cf. Latin ad 'td, prae 'for'. The substitution of the accusative for the absolutive was probably early in the case of effective verbs, individualized objects, and emphasis (cf. Pottier 1968). The generalization of -m in the neuter nom.acc.sg. ending of the o-stems can perhaps be attributed to the semantics of this category, which supplied an expression for individual members to a collective in -ii. It is recalled that the neuter does not function as a subject of transitive verbs in Hittite.
GRJ!EK NUMERALS AND PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN GLOTTAUC CONSONANTS
Gamkrelidze and Ivanov have suggested on typological grounds that the reconstructed voiced occlusives of the Indo-European proto-language were actually glottalic (1973). A similar argumentation was put forward earlier by Holger Pedersen (1951: 14). Elsewhere I have argued that this hypothesis is supported by immediate comparative evidence from Latvian (Ko25), Armenian (Ko31), and Sindhi (Ko38), and by indirect evidence from Balto-Slavic (Winter's law, cf. Winter 1978), Latin (Lachmann's law, cf. Ko86), and Indo-Iranian (Bartholomae's law, cf. Ko32). Additional evidence from Indo-Iranian has been adduced by Alexander Lubotsky (1981). Elsewhere I have argued that the new theory provides a possible explanation for the rise of preaspiration in Icelandic and the so-called vestjysk st~d in Danish (cf. Ko72). Here I intend to show that it offers an explanation for several problems in connection with the formation of the numerals in Greek. The PIE word for 'too' is usually reconstructed as *k111t6m. This reconstruction does not account for the initial vowel of banov. The initial vowel is usually derived from *sem- (e.g. Risch 1962: 132) or *s111- (e.g. Chantraine 1967: 150) if its origin is not simply called "unknown" (e.g. Beekes 1969: 53) or left out of consideration altogether (e.g. Szemerenyi 1960). These explanations meet with several difficulties. There is no support for the ad hoc hypothesis that the final nasal of *sem was dissimilated before *k111t6m. The alleged substitution of batr6v for *d:~a~:rov < *s111- cannot be compared with the replacement of &.repoi;, with lrepoi;, because the latter is limited to a part of the dialects. Above all, the assumption of a composite form 'one hundred' is at variance with the indeclinability and the syntactic behavior of e~<:arov. The original character of the indeclinability is evident both from the preservation of the final nasal in composition and from the impossibility of using *~a~:ra after rpta etc. If such a construction had been possible at an earlier stage, it would hardly have been replaced with a derivative formation in -io-. Thus, I think that the Greek form and its syntax are more archaic than is generally assumed. The hypothesis that the unaspirated voiced stops of the Indo-European proto-language were glottalic offers a straightforward explanation for the initial vowel of t~a~:rov. If we start from *dk111t6m, we can assume that the buccal features of the initial consonant were lost while its glottalic feature merged with the reflex of the PIE laryngeal *H, and yielded *e-: *hcarov. The aspiration was apparently taken from lv. Thus, I agree with Frisk's prudent variety of the above hypotheses that initial t- "mu6 irgendwie mit lv 'eins' oder idg. *s111- (gr. 0:-) zusammenhangen" (1973: 475). The ending of *dk111t6m can be identified with
106
Greek
the gen. pl. ending *-om, not because the numeral represents an original gen. pl. form (this is Szemerenyi's view, o.c. 140, which Risch has effectively rebutted, o.c. 135) but because the gen. pl. must be derived from an uninflected PIE form (cf. Ko3o: 294f.). The original meaning of *dk111t6m was "pertaining to the category of portions of reality which carry the feature 'consisting of 10 members"'. As Laroche remarked on the Hittite genitive in -an (1965: 40), the ending is characteristic of"~tres ou categories allant par groupes~ The explanation put forward here has the additional advantage of simultaneously accounting for the long vowel in the decades, a traditional analysis of which leads to the following reconstruction (cf. Szemerenyi, o.c. 24): '2o' '30' '40'
'so' '6o' '70' 'So' '90'
*wlk~ti
ei~eom
*tnkont*k"'etwtkont*penk"'ekont*swekskont*septt;ikont*oktokont*newr;kont-
rpt&.~eovra renapa~eovra
Jtevnf~eovra
t{~~eovra if38o14~"ovra oy8o~ICOVTa tve~wvra
vlginti trlgintii quadriigintii qulnquiigintii sexiigintii septuiigintii octogintii noniigintii
now reconstruct *d instead of the vowel length in the proto-forms, e.g. *penk"'edkomt. This view has been put forward a number of times in the earlier literature, as Szemerenyi points out (o.c. 136). It has never been explained, however, that *d merged with the laryngeals in this environment. Szemerenyfs reference to a chronological difference begs the question because he does not discuss the origin of the Indo-European lengthened grade. I agree with Szemerenyi that originally there was no final vowel in '30' through '9o: especially because Indic -sat would otherwise be very difficult to explain. The assumption that *d was also present in *sweksdkomt, where it lost its glottalic feature and was assimilated to *t before *k, provides an explanation for the rise of the Indo- Iranian suffiX -ti- in the higher decades if it is correct that the final *k of the cluster was lost in this branch of Indo-European. Greek eliminated the cluster by introducing -e- from nevr~~eovra into i{~~eovra. It can be objected against the theory advanced here that the long vowel is absent from tma~e6awt etc. The objection does not hold because the latter formation is limited to Greek and must apparently be dated to the period after the reanalysis of *t!Carov as t-~ear6-v. The Indo-European proto-language had no names for the hundreds. In the case of *sept111dkomt, the hypothesis that *d yields the same reflex as *H, accounts for the difference between -e- in ef38o14~"ovra and -ii- in the corresponding Latin form. It may also account for the irregular voicing in Greek. The alleged development of PIE *septmos to *ef38a~(, rather than *ema~(, lacks parallels and can hardly be correct. More probably, the voicing
Greek numerals and Proto- Indo-European glottalic consonants
107
arose in *ef38ft~K.ovm after the development of the syllabic nasal at a stage which was posterior to Sievers' law, cf. OVYft6c; < *dh(w)PJH.tos, arpwr6c; < *strH3 t6s. (This is in agreement with Szemerenyi's view, o.c. 8). It then spread to lf38oft0c;, from there to tJy8oroc;, which replaced *o~<.roroc; < *H3 1CtH3w6s, and fmally to *oy8f~K.Ovra, which replaced *oK.tUIK.Ovra < *H3 elCtoHd/Comt-. (On the neutralization of the timbre opposition between the laryngeals in the neighbourhood of PIE *o see Ko34. Vedic a5ttf- developed by dissimilation from *Hasti;Iti-, which reflects *~elCtHdlComt with medial zero grade from the ordinal *Ha5tHa- < *~elCtHo-.) The introduction of the medial vowel from the ordinals into e{380ft~1<.0Vr«. and oy8o~K.OVr«. is probably late. The form *H,newPJdlComt yielded *evefv~K.Ovra, in which *w was apparently lost at an early stage because of the aberrant syllable structure. At a later stage, *w was assimilated or became u before a following resonant (cf. Lejeune 1972: t8tf.). The usual derivation from *enwen- cannot be correct because that would yield **elvev~K.ovra in Ionic, cf. eTvaroc; < ~vraroc;. The theory advanced here also provides an explanation for the coexistence of eTK.Oat < *eff~<.om and ff~<.art, both of which represent PIE *dwidlCrrtti. Partial dissimilation of the initial consonant yielded *H,widkPJti, from which the southern form must be derived, whereas total dissimilation yielded the northern form. Unlike Szemerenyi ( o.c. 24), I assume that Indo-Iranian and Greek faithfully reflect PIE short -i, which was lengthened in Latin and British by the addition of the dual ending *-H,. The long vowel of rptaK.Ovra cannot represent an original plural ending -ii, as is often assumed, because it is absent from rpta < *triH•. I think that the form continues *triaHkonta, which developed from PIE *triH.d!Comt under the influence of rpta. Indeed, this is the form where in my view the fmal vowel of -K.Ovr«. originated on the analogy of *dwid!Crrtti and from where it spread to the higher decades. The difference between *dwi- and *triH.- has been preserved in Old Irish fiche < *wikent- versus trlcho < *trlkont- and in Tocharian B ikiirrt < *wikPJt versus tiiryiika < *triaka, with Proto-Tocharian *a as the phonetic reflex of PIE *H•. The ending -a < *-H. is the regular Proto-Tocharian plural ending, which replaces *-ont in the decades. The short vowel which is reflected in Breton tregont is doubtless of analogical origin. British il- in Old Welsh uceint and Breton ugent also points to a short vowel: it represents *wi- before a syllable with a front vowel, cf. Welsh ucher 'evening, Latin vesper. The development of itfrom *wi- is not due to umlaut but to the preservation of the palatal feature in this environment. The initial part *dwi- is apparently the PIE neuter form *dwoi of the root *du- '2' with zero grade in composition, and *triH,- is similarly the neuter form with zero grade of the root *tri '3'. While *d merged with *H, in Jrev~K.ovra, if38oft~K.ovra and eve~K.ovm, it apparently merged with *H3 in rerpUI~<.ovra, which was preserved in West Greek and regularized to *rerrapfxK.Ovra elsewhere. I think that rerpUIK.Ovr«. developed
108
Greek
regularly from *k"'etwrdkomt and that the rounding of the medial vowel represents the lost *w, as is the case with the rounding of the epenthetic vowel in rpvrpfxAe1a < *k"'twr-. The combined evidence of rp1&.~<.ovr:a, rerpw~<.ovr:a and Jrevr~K.ovr:a allows us to date the merger of *d with the laryngeals to a stage which was posterior to the rise of colored epenthetic vowels, but anterior to the eventual loss of the laryngeals (which had merged as a result of the previous development): *triHaHkont, *k"'etwroHkont, *penk"'eHkont. Since the development of colored epenthetic vowels is specifically Greek, it follows that the PIE glottalic consonants were preserved up to a stage which was posterior to the separation from the other languages. This result is in accordance with what has been demonstrated earlier for Indo-Iranian (cf. Lubotsky, o.c.), Armenian, Balta-Slavic, and Germanic (cf. Ko32: 110-114). I think that the same holds for Albanian, Italic and Celtic. The Albanian material is difficult to interpret, as it usually is. The initial consonant of -zet '2o' must be derived from *gw- because it requires the simultaneous presence oflabial, palatal, and velar articulation (cf. Ko22: 249; the rule was first established by Pedersen 19oob: 338). It probably originated from assimilation in *dwiPJti < *dwidk111ti, with *g combining the glottalic feature of *d with the palatovelar articulation of *k. A similar explanation could be put forward for the voiced stop in Latin vlgintl if the voicing were not absent from the ordinal vlcesimus and from Old Irish fiche. Moreover, Lachmann's law suggests that a glottalic consonant dissolved into a sequence of a laryngal and a voiceless buccal part, the former of which merged with the reflex of the PIE laryngeals, when it was preceded by a vowel and followed by a voiceless stop (cf. Ko32: 117). One therefore expects *dk to develop into *Hk, not into *g. However, it is probable that the cluster became voiced after a nasal (cf. Thurneysen 1883: 313). The neutralization of the opposition between glottalic and aspirated stops in the position after a nasal accounts for the absence of Lachmann's law in strictus and pictus, which adopted the short vowel of fictus and mictus, cf. stringo, pingo < *-g- and Jingo, mingo < *-('-. The glottalic feature was apparently absorbed by the preceding laryngeal in lassus < *lH,dtos, just as the laryngeal was absorbed by the following glottalic obstruent in Vedic pajra- 'firm' < *peH.gro- (Lubotsky, o.c.). The initial syllable of sedeo was prefiXed to *sdtos in -sessus, where the glottalic feature had been lost at an early stage, cf. the zero grade in nidus < *nisdos. In my view, *septl'/1dkomt and *H,newtzdkomt developed into *sept111Hgont and *newttHgont, which subsequently yielded *septmiigont and *newniigont in Italo-Celtic. Szemerenyi's view that the introduction of zero grade in Latin -gintii was anterior to the elimination of the long resonants (o.c. 169) cannot be correct because the latter development was Italo-Celtic and the former was not (cf. Ko46: 14). Note that Old Irish sechtmogo can represent either *septmiigont or *septmiikon t, with medial o for a under the influence of the preceding labial (cf.
Greek numerals and Proto- Indo-European glottalic consonants
109
Thumeysen 1946: so). The former reconstruction is more probable because -ach- seems to have resisted the voicing of voiceless fricatives between unstressed vowels (ibidem, 82). The form nocha '90' was apparently modelled after tricho '3o: while cethorcho developed regularly from *kwetwriikont. For co{ca 'so; Modern Irish caogad, I assume metathesis of *kogexo to *koxego and voicing of *.X after the syncope (ibidem, So). The rounded vowel of the initial syllable is due to the originallabiovelar environment, as it is in guidid < *g"'hedhandgonaid < *ren- (cf. Cowgil1198o). Together with *kwetwriikont, these forms are the source of the final vowel in Latin -gintii, which was introduced on the analogy of vlgintl. Thus, the ultimate origin of the difference between Greek -a and Latin -ii is the different vocalization of the laryngeals in the two languages. After the disintegration of Italo-Celtic, the influence of '70' and '90' first affected *swekskont, which was preserved in Irish sesca, and *oktokont, where Latin preserved -o- and Celtic adopted *-mii-. The preservation of the difference between the short vowel of Old Irish fiche < *dwidlbpt- and the long vowel of tricho < *triH.d!Comt- suggests that the *d was simply lost after a vowel in Celtic. If the length in Latin vlgintl is correctly attributed to the glottalic feature of tlle lost *d, it shows that the elimination of the glottalic obstruents was posterior to the disintegration of Italo-Celtic. Note that the difference between fiche and vlgintl corresponds with the difference between Old Irish recht 'law' and Latin rectus, where the long vowel originated from Lachmann's law.
THE AEOUC OPTATIVE
Despite considerable effort which has been spent on a variety of possible solutions to the problem (cf. especially Thomas 1957 and Forbes 1958, with a survey of the earlier literature), the origin of the so-called Aeolic optative has not been clarified: "Le probleme reste pose" (Chantraine 1967: 266).' I think that the absence of a convincing solution is the consequence of an imperfect understanding of the original, Proto-Indo-European state of affairs. In the following I intend to discuss a few points which, though relevant to the problem, have not received sufficient attention and to present an alternative solution.
1.
2. Proto-Indo-European verbal paradigms could have either fixed or mobile stress. When the stress was fixed, as in the sigmatic aorist and the thematic flexion, the optative suffix was *-iH,, followed by the personal endings with no vowel intervening: 1st sg. 2nd sg. 3rd sg. 1St pl. 2nd pl. 3rd pl.
-siH,m -siH,s -siH,t -siH,me -siH,te -siH,nt
-oiH,m -oiH,s -oiH,t -oiH,me -oiH,te -oiH,nt
Outside these two categories, I fmd no trace of an original paradigm with fixed stress in Greek. When the stress was mobile, the optative sufftx was *-ieH,- in the singular and *-iH,- in the plural of the active voice, and *-iH,- in the middle voice. The stress was on the ending in the 1st and 2nd pl. forms of the mobile paradigms, and evidently also in the sg. forms of the middle voice, but not in the 3rd pl. forms, where a number of indications point to original root stress. First of all, the 3rd pl. active ending of the Vedic optative is -ur, not -an. The ending -ur is found in root presents with fixed stress, e.g. inj. talqur of ttik$ati 'they fashion; in reduplicated imperfects, e.g. cfdadhur of dadhati 'they puf, in the sigmatic aorist, which has -sur, and in root aorists of roots in a laryngeal, e.g. adhur 'they puf, i.e. in all those athematic forms where the stress is either on the root or on a preceding syllable. It follows that -ur replaces earlier *-at from syllabic *-nt. Secondly, the agreement between Latin velint, Gothic wileina and Old Church Slavic vel~t'b, which are all related to English will, suggests that the optative paradigm from which these forms are derived had an e-grade in the root. The oldest paradigm of the Slavic compound stem do-Vblje- 'suffice; which has a reduced grade in the root and is evidently based on the 3rd sg. form in *-ieH,t, has an irregular 3rd pl. form dovt~l~t'b, which must be derived from
Greek
112
*-i(H,)nt. The same alternation is found in xoste- < *-tye- 'want; 3rd pl. xot~t'b. It points to an original paradigm *ulieH,t, *ueliH,nt. Thirdly, the Vedic optative of the type dheyiim 'I may put' requires an explanation. This form cannot have replaced *dheya(m) < *dheH,iH,m or *dhiiyiim < *dheH,ieH,m because neither of these forms is attested in the material while both are supported by other paradigms and would not therefore easily be lost, cf. gameyam, games beside gamyas of gam- 'go'. This suggests that the full grade of the root *dheH,- and the full grade of the suffix *-ieH,- were taken from different forms of the same paradigm, which means that the stress alternated between the root and the suffix. Since the suffiX had full grade in the singular, the obvious source of the full grade root vowel is the 3rd pl. form dheyur, which is the expected reflex of *dheH,iH,nt. On the basis of these considerations I arrive at the following reconstruction of PIE paradigms for the present optative of the root *H,ei- 'go' and the aorist optative of the root *dheH,- 'put': 1st sg. md sg. 3rd sg. 1st pl. md pl. 3rd pl.
H,iieH,m H,iieH,s H,iieH,t H,iiH,me H,iiH,te H,eiiH,nt
dhH,ieH,m dhH,ieH,s dhH,ieH,t dhH,iH,me dhH,iH,te dheH,iH,nt
In the middle voice, which will not be discussed here, I also assume full grade of the root in the 3rd pl. form and zero grade elsewhere (cf. Ko65). 3. What is the expected development of the reconstructed paradigms in Greek? This question hinges on the development of the laryngeals. In the position after a vowel and before a consonant, the laryngeals were apparently lost at an early stage with compensatory lengthening of the preceding vowel, cf. especially ftEl~ < *mens< *meH,ns 'montli, where the accent points to an original monosyllable, and similarly acc.pl. -&~. -aV<; < *-iins < *-eH.ns, acc.sg. < *-iim < *-eH.m, also acc.sg. -vv < *-uHm, acc.pl. -v~ < *-uHns, but acc.sg. -yan on the analogy of nom.sg. -ya < *-iH., where the vocalization of the word-fmal laryngeal is regular.' Thus, I assume that the phonetic reflex of 1st sg. *-siH,m and 3rd pl. *-siH,nt should be *-sin. In the thematic flexion, *-oiH,- yielded *-oiy- (or *-oyy-) with vocalization of the following nasal in Arc. e{e.:tavvota 'I may drive out' and Hom. irrotaro 'they may follow~ Before the nonsyllabic consonant of the endings *-s, *-t, *-me, *-te, the sequence *-oiy- was evidently reduced to *-oi- (or *-oy-).3 It is clear from the 3rd sg. form in -ot that the assimilation of the laryngeal to the preceding semivowel was anterior to the loss of fmal *-t because the laryngeal would otherwise have been vocalized to yield -e, as it was in {J(J(Je < *H3ek"'iH, '(pair of)
-av
The Aeolic Optative
113
eyes'. However, the circumflex ending of Kclevm 'he may order, where the accent was not retracted to the initial syllable, points to a disyllabic ending *-oyi or *-ol, suggesting that the assimilation of the laryngeal was anterior to the rise of a distinction between *i and *y. Thus, we arrive at the following relative chronology: (1) assimilation of a laryngeal before a final consonant (cluster) to a preceding (semi)vowel, ( 2) vocalization of the syllabic nasals and loss of final *-t, (3) reduction of *-oii- to *-oi- before a consonant, (4) rise of an opposition between *i and *y, (5) loss of the laryngeals in antevocalic and intervocalic position. The laryngeals of *H,i- and *dhH,- were lost after the vocalization of the following *i, cf. especially btwv < *H,e-p&iom 'I drank'. 4 In intervocalic position, the laryngeals were retained longer than elsewhere, as is clear from the circumflex tone which reflects the original disyllabic character of the resulting long vowels and diphthongs. This leads us to the following reconstruction of Proto-Greek paradigms: 1st sg. mdsg. 3rd sg. 1st pl md pl. 3rd pl.
-sin -sis -sl -slme -site -sin
-oiya -ois -ol -oime -oite -oiya(n)
iyen iyes iye ilme ilte eyln
thien thies thie thlme thlte theln
The disyllabic character of *theln is still preserved in rdJeiev < *tithel-en 'they may pu~ where the accent was not retracted to the initial syllable, cf. 8vvaw, 8vvaunJe 'you may be able~ which replace earlier *dunlso, *dunlsthe. 4. The 3rd pl ending *-sin, which was homophonous with 1st sg. *-sin, was now replaced by *-seln on the analogy of *-theln, the ending of which was also found in the passive aorist and in the paradigm of r'1fU 'let go'. This is the origin of the Aeolic optative. The ending *-seln was subsequently replaced by *-seiyan on the analogy of the thematic ending *-oiyan. This replacement accounts for the retraction of the accent in A.vaetav 'they may loosen' in accordance with the limitation law, as compared with rdJeiev. The ending *-seiyan then gave rise to the 3rd sg. ending *-seiye on the analogy of the indicative, cf. ~A.vae, lA.vaav 'he, they loosened~ also 2nd sg. *-seiyas. In the 1st and 2nd pl. forms, however, the model of lA.vaafU!V, lA.vaare yielded A.vaatfU!V, A.vaatre on the analogy of the thematic endings. The latter analogy did not work in the 3rd sg. form, where the indicative ending was -e. Thus, the distribution of -at- and -et- is ultimately based on the spread of *-eifrom the 3rd pl. form on the one hand and the absence of -a- from the 3rd sg. indicative form on the other.
Greek
114
In the thematic flexion, the isolated 1st sg. ending *-ya was replaced by the usual athematic ending *-mi, e.g. AVolfU 'I may loosen: which then gave rise to the analogical form A.oaalfll. The substitution of -ev for *-an in the 3rd pl ending must have taken place at a time when *-en<* -ent had not yet been replaced by -ov, -av or -aav in the indicative, as in Hom. (eoyvvov, (e6yvvaav 'they yoked: ~IOV 'they went: Skt. ayan < *-H,ient. In the original paradigm with mobile stress, the full grade of the 3rd pl. form spread to the other forms of the paradigm, e.g. rdJel'lt;, r18efre < *titheiyes, *tithelte 'you may puf. This development is analogous to the rise ofSkt. dheyiim. The 3rd pl ending *-In was replaced by *-iyen on the basis of the indicative paradigm, e.g. r18efev < *titheiyen, also Delphi 1tepue1ev < *-i-eiyen 'they may go round: Hom. le£'7 < *i-eiye 'he may go~ Similarly, el8el'7, el8efev < *weideiye, *weideiyen 'he, they may know' represent *uidieH,t (Skt. vidyat), *ueidiH,nt (with original full grade in the root) plus *-el- from *theln and 3rd pl. -ev < *-ent. The Cretan forms 8tKa1a11e 'he may judge, KOOft'late 'he may arrange' (Dreros), fepKatev 'they may perform~ 81a:A.vatav 'they may dissolve' (Gortyn) are apparently built on the zero grade of the suffix *-s-iH,-. It is highly improbable that the singular forms represent *-ye- because there is no trace of the full grade suffix in the sigmatic aorist, which had ftxed stress from the outset. These forms rather represent a variety of the Aeolic optative with generalization of the zero grade *+ instead of the 3rd pl. vocalism *-el-. The endings -ate, -atav suggest that we have to reconstruct a real Aeolic optative (-ae1e, -ae1av) with *+not yet replaced by -a:1- in the 1st and 2nd person forms and subsequently generalized throughout the paradigm. The form repw1ev adopted -ev from the other optative paradigms, and the eventual substitution of -a:1- for *+ is clear from the forms fepKaal 'he may perform: P'1"aa1ev 'they may break' (Gortyn). It appears that Cretan lagged behind in a development of the optative which was the same as in the other dialects. NOTES
'Cf. Chantraine's footnote "On mesurera dans ces articles fextr@me complication de toutes les solutions proposees:' Rix's conception of"-1/ij- umgebildet [... ] zu -ejja!e- mit den Ind.-Ausgangen und Dissimilation -ij- > -ej(1)-, nur als Variante in der 2.. 3. Sg. 3. PI:' (1976: 2.33) stretches the imagination and does not explain the distribution of the e-grade. Cf. also Risch (1982.: 32.829): "Nicht eindeutig gekHirt ist noch immer die Herkunft des sog. ~aolischen' Optativs, z. B. 8el~e1at;,
-e1e, -etav:' • Professor Ruijgh draws my attention to yA.wxft; 'point: which is based on the original acc.sg. form *glokhln of yA.waaa < *-iH. 'tongue'.
The Aeolic Optative
115
The e-grade of 8tor:ro 'he seemed' suggests that this form represents an original stative *deiH.-o, cf. 1Gelra1 'he lies; IGPEfUXtal 'he hangs; 3rd pl *deiH.ento (replacing earlier *-ro), cf. Hittite kitta(ri) 'he lies: kiyanta(n} 'they lie'. The 3rd pl ending *-ento was regular in the middle root aorist, e.g. Skt. kranta 'they made, ranta 'they wenf (cf. Ko65: 2.2.0), also 8evro < *dhH,ento 'they puf.
3
4 Cf. also *Ta < *sH.ieH. 'strap' (Ruijgh 1967: 205) and vy1~c; < *-('H3 ies 'healthY, {3/oc; < *g"'wiH3os < *g"'H3iuos 'life, t{3lwv < *-g"'wiH3eH,m < *-g"'~iueH,m 'I lived' (cf. SCr. zfvjeti, OPr. giwlt), {3eofUXI < "g"'wei~omH.- 'I will live' where the *-w-
apparently inhibited the palatalization of the preceding labiovelar. The word
(woe; < *g"'yowos 'alive' and its derivatives contain a secondary full grade which replaces the original zero grade of *g"'lwos < *g"'H3iuos, Skt. jtvas, where the Balta-Slavic and Celtic evidence shows that the laryngeal preceded the *i, e.g. Latvian dztvs (with broken tone reflecting preservation of fmal stress), Welsh byw (with a short root vowel), cf. Ko14: 76-82.. The verb A.oew < *loweso adopted the root vowel of A.ow < *lowo 'I wash: which replaces athematic *loumi < *leH3 umi, where the phonetic loss of *H3 before *u in such forms as 3rd pl *lH3uenti led to confusion with the paradigm of A.vw 'I loosen'. The root vowel of A.ow cannot represent a vocalized laryngeal because in that case there would be no motivation for the rise of the secondary full grade which is attested in Myc. re-wo-to-ro-ko-wo, metathesized in Hom. A.oerpoxooc; 'bath-pourer'. The rise of *lewo- may be due to the influence of the quasi-synonymous root xer- 'pour, as Professor Ruijgh suggests to me. Note that ravaoc; < *ttzH,euos and IIM:ra1a < *pltH.euiH. are no counterexamples to the loss of a laryngeal before a vocalized semivowel, cf. also Breton tanao < *tanawos 'thin'.
THE GRJlEK 3RD PL. ENDINGS
The Vedic 3rd pl. active ending is -ur instead of -an in the following instances: (1) root presents with fixed stress, e.g. inj. tak$ur of tak$ati 'they fashion'; (2) reduplicated imperfects, e.g. adadhur of dadhati 'they put'; (3) sigmatic aorist -sur; (4) root aorists of roots in a laryngeal, e. g. adhur 'they put'; (5) optative -yur. Besides, the ending-uris found in the perfect Elsewhere (Ko65, cf. also Ko97) I have argued that -ur replaced earlier *-at from syllabic *-nt in those athematic forms where the stress was either on the root or on a preceding syllable. It follows that inj. dhUr adopted the vocalism of ind. adhur, whereas the converse substitution took place in ind. avran 'they covered~ inj. vran. This view is supported by the apophonic difference between 3rd pl. indicative and injunctive forms in the middle root aorist: akrata 'they made, arata 'they went' versus kranta, ranta (cf. Meillet 1920: 203, 205). It also provides an explanation for the remarkable 3rd pl. middle subjunctive ending -anta, which must originally have been the inj. ending corresponding to ind. -ata from syllabic *-nto. This ending was evidently reinterpreted as a subjunctive because it differed from the other inj. endings by the presence of an initial vowel. What is the expected distribution of full and zero grade 3rd pl. endings in Greek? In the thematic flexion we expect -ov, -ovr1 (-ovm), -ovro, -ovro1 (-ovra:1). Outside the thematic flexion, the sigmatic aorist, and the original stative, I fmd no evidence for an original paradigm with fixed stress in Greek. I therefore expect zero grade 3rd pl. endings in the sigmatic aorist, reduplicated and augmented forms, the optative, and the original stative, and e-grade endings in unreduplicated athematic presents and augmentless root aorist forms. I claim that the actual distribution is closer to this expectation than is usually assumed. In the following, page numbers will refer to the discussion of the 3rd pl. forms by Risch (1982). The ending -evr1 (-evm) is attested in Myc. e-e-si !ehensi/ 'they are, contracted in Ionic elat and West Greek tvrl (324), also in Myc. ki-ti-je-si !ktiyensi! 'they cultivate, Vedic santi, k$iyanti. Risch puts the middle verbs ~eel 'lie, qa- 'sit' and rea- 'wear' in the same category, which is inappropriate because these represent original statives with a root-stressed 3rd pl. form, e.g. ~eeam1, eTaro, which are in perfect agreement with the corresponding Vedic forms. The original zero grade ending -a:r1 (-am) from syllabic *-nti is well preserved in the perfect, e.g. Hom. rreqn5~Cam 'they have grown'. Elsewhere we find -a:v and -a:vr1 (-am) for the zero grade active endings.
118
Greek
Turning now to the reduplicated presents and the root aorists, we fmd the zero grade 3rd pl. endings in Attic rdJeam, 8186am, Arcadian avveeeav, Cyprian ka-te-ti-ya-ne !katethiyan/, Boeotian and Locrian d:ve8eav, also Arc. imp. (w8ecfvrw beside Ka8evrw, Elean opt. t.n18eiav, yvoiav (325). These forms have not received an adequate explanation. Risch's comment deserves full quotation (327): "Die Tatsache, daB der Typus ~8eav, ~8oav sowohl im Arkadischen als auch im Kyprischen gilt, spricht m.E. eindeutig dafi.ir, daB er wenigstens bei dieser Dialektgruppe alt ist. Auch das Bootische ist ein Dialekt, der neben verschiedenen Neuerungen doch manches Alte bewahrt hat, so z.B. die Endung -qn in t.mnarpoqnov, pronominale Formen mit -vl in 1rpO!Yfvl 'friiher: Patronymika auf -we;. Also darf ~8eav auch im aolischen Bereich eventuell als alt betrachtet werden. Dafi.ir spricht auch das Zeugnis des homerischen Gebrauchs. Bekanntlich haben wir hier bei den langvokalischen Aoristen sowohl Mra:v als auch Mrrfactv, sowohl ~rpavev als auch t.f{JcXVYfO'ctv usw., wobei die langere Form typisch ionisch-attisch ist und die kiirzere vermutlich dem Aolischen zugewiesen werden kann. Ebenso ~rpav und ~rpaaav und bei -VVfU t.{wyvvov und t.{e6yvvaav. Urn so iiberraschender ist, daB nur ~8eaav, ~8oaav, Ml8oaav, nie ~8ev, ~8ov, ~&8ov vorkommen. Der SchluB liegt nahe, daB auch das vorhomerische Aolisch sie nicht kannte, sondern vermutlich ~8eav, Moav (oder *~8oev?) hatte, die dann ohne weiteres durch metrisch gleichwertiges UJeaav, ~8oaav ersetzt werden konnten." In view of this, the West Greek forms rl8evr1, ~r18ev, UJev, 8£8ovr1, M18ov, Mov can hardly be ancient. They are easily explained as the result of a secondary development, while their replacement by forms in -a:vr1 (-am) and -a:v in the other dialects can hardly be motivated. Risch thinks that the Attic forms r18Eitm, &86am, lam, iaram are recent (similarly Chantraine 1973: 471 and Rix 1976: 252) because we find Myc. di-do-si !didonsi/, -i-je-si 1-hiyensi/, and Hom. r18erm, leim, 818ova1, iaram, where he attributes the accent to the influence of earam, re8vam from -cfam (329). The problem is that the perfect provides a small and none too obvious basis for such an analogical development Moreover, the ending -a:r1 (-am) from syllabic *-nti must have been introduced into the perfect from the reduplicated present. It seems much more plausible that the zero grade ending was never eliminated from the reduplicated present in Attic and was replaced by the regular athematic ending -evr1 (-e1m) in Ionic. Thus, we may surmise that r18erm, 818ovm represent earlier *r18eevm, *&86eVOl (West Greek rl8evr1 may actually represent *r18eevr1). Since neither the replacement of -awn by -evm, nor the converse replacement can easily be motivated, we may conjecture that the two endings were alternative solutions for the elimination of an irregular ending. In this way I arrive at the tentative reconstruction of the 3rd pl. forms *r18eam, *8186i.ia1 for Attic-Ionic.
The Greek 3rd pl. endings
119
The situation in Aeolic and Arcado-Cyprian is different. Though the evidence of these dialects points to the aorist forms lOeav, Moav, it appears that the present forms were replaced by rtOevr1, 8t8ovr1, as they were in West Greek (where the substitution may have taken place independently at a more recent stage). First, Myc. di-do-si and -i-je-si seem to reflect !didonsi! and !hiyensi!. Second, Risch has called attention to Arc. present rrotevm beside imperfect rrapel
present
imperfect
aorist
rtOevr1 rtOevr1
tn Oev tnOev trtOeav trtOeav
lOev lOeav lOeav
This scheme does not necessarily reflect a single chronological layer. In particular, the Aeolic state of affairs may be a younger development of the one posited for Arcado-Cyprian. The West Greek simplification may have taken place at any stage; the Elean optative forms in -av, e.g. tmOeiav, suggest that it was a recent development. In any case, the Attic- Ionic distribution is evidently archaic and the cleavage between this dialect and Arcado-Cyprian must be ancient We now come to the discrepancy between lf3av and larav on the one hand, and lOeav and l8oav on the other. There can be little doubt that the disyllabic forms are secondary. If they replace earlier lOev and Mov, it is hard to see a motivation for the introduction of the new ending. Such a motivation is even more difficult to fmd in the case of *r10eiia1 and *8186am if these replace earlier rtOevr1 and 8t8ovr1. I therefore think that we have to start from *lOav, *Mav, *rlOar1, *8l8ar1, where the introduction of the root vowel is a natural development It follows that after a consonant the laryngeals were lost without a
12.0
Greek
trace before a syllabic nasal, which was regularly vocalized to a, in spite of the fact that word-initiallaryngeals were vocalized before a tautosyllabic nasaL This brings us to a reconsideration of the nt-participle. Since Beekes' discussion of Latin iens (1985: 67-71) we have to start from nom. *dheH,nts, ace. *dhH,entm, gen. *dhH,ntos, which now yields Greek 8etc;, 8evra, *8ar6c;. The oblique stem may be reflected in Arc. anv86ac;, Elean avrano818waaa from *-8186a(J(Jct (325). The original participle of lrA.rtv is preserved in raAii:c; 'wretched; which represents *telH.nts, *tlH.(e)nt-, while the 3rd pL form lrA.av evidently replaces *ha:A.av. Similarly, I think that lyvov replaces *lyavav from *-gnH3 nt and cannot be used as evidence for a root aorist with fiXed stress. Mter a consonant, the nom.sg. ending *-as from zero grade *-nts was replaced by *-on(f), e.g. b<.wv 'willing, evidently because polysyllabic consonant stems usually had an asigmatic nominative in Greek. Thus, the ending of twv, lWv, f3aA.wv (not -etc;) corroborates the reconstruction *H,esnts, *H,eints, *g"elH,nts, as opposed to 8ooc;, yvoOc; from *d~nts, *gneH3 nts, cf. also 8pa~<.wv beside 8pa~<.etc; reflecting *derknts, *drkentm. As I pointed out above, the Vedic evidence leads us to expect e-grade 3rd pL endings in augmentless and unreduplicated forms, as opposed to zero grade endings in the forms which have just been discussed. This is actually what we fmd in the imperative 8evrwv, 86vrwv; the -a- of Arc. vv8eavrw beside m8evrw must have been taken from the indicative. Thee-grade ending is also found in the optative 8eiev, as opposed to -ae1av in the sigmatic aorist (cf. Ko97). There seem to be traces of the original distribution in the middle voice as well, cf. Hom. {6ftf3Artvro for *-f3aA.evro, trA.~vro for *naA.evro and *naA.avro, but f3ef3A.~am1 and f3ef3A.~aro for *f3ef3aA.aro from *-g"lH,nto. The 3rd sg. form tnptaro 'bought' for *lnplro must be based on augmentless 1rpfavro from *kwriH.ento, similarly 8tevm1 'they hasten' from *diH,ento, also lmov 'they drank' for *hriv on the basis of *pH3 ient, and I<.Eovra:1 'they lie~ The e-grade endings were largely replaced by the thematic o-grade endings outside the optative, where the model for this substitution was lacking. Thus, we fmd -o- for e-grade 3rd pl. endings in rav6ovm, (eoyvvov, &5ftvvov, tJpvvov, ~<.ametvvov, ravoovro beside the usual zero grade in 8e11<.vOii:al, (e6yvvaav, 8atvvvra1, p~yvvvro. The accent of 8ctftViim, PrtYvVal may reflect earlier *-vaevm, *-v6evm, as in the case of r18eim. It appears that Greek preserved the original PIE alternations more faithfully than is generally assumed.
GLOTTAUC CONSONANTS IN SINDm AND PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN
In 1973 Gamkrelidze and Ivanov suggested on typological grounds that the reconstructed voiced occlusives of the Indo-European proto-language were actually glottalic. Elsewhere I have argued that this hypothesis is supported by comparative evidence from Baltic (Ko25) and Armenian (Ko31) and offers an explanation for the lengthening in Latin actus, lectus (Lachmann's law) and the devoicing in Sanskrit yukta~ < *-gt-, vasutti~ < *-dHt-, as opposed to dugdhti~ < *-i't-, vasudhiti~ < *-dhHt- (Ko32.). I have not discussed the Sindhi material, which will be the subject of the present article.
1.
2.. Apart from the usual obstruents which are found in the other Indo-Aryan languages (voiced and voiceless, aspirated and unaspirated), Sindhi possesses a series of voiced implosive stops, which will be denoted by 'b, '4, 'j, g in this article (on the phonetics see Nihalani 1974). There is no dental implosive stop. The phonemic status of the implosives is beyond doubt, cf. bakhu 'sacrifice of a goaf, 'bakhu 'embrace, 4ith0 'bold~ '4ith0 'seen' jau 'barleY, )au 'laC, ga~ 'mortar, ga~ 'much'. These examples are taken from Turner 1924, who gives a few dozens of minimal pairs; his article serves as a basis for the following analysis. The topic of this article is their historical origin. 3. As Turner points out, "a detailed examination of the words in which they occur shows that initially g 'j '4 'b correspond to initialg-,j- (dy-), d-, b- (dv-) in Sanskrit, and intervocalically to consonant groups in Sanskrit that in Prakrit became -gg- -jj- -44- (-dd-) -bb- (-vv-), while the simple voiced stops in Sindhi, g j db, are the result of special conditions and in most cases (where not occurring in loan-words from other languages) are descendants of Primitive Indian sounds other than g j db. The simple voiced dental d, except in the group nd, is found only in loan-words. That is to say, except for certain specific conditions, Sindhi has shifted Primitive Indian g-, j-, d-, b- to g 'j '4 'b" (192.4: 305 = 1975: 196). 4. The rise of the glottalic articulation which is characteristic of the Sindhi implosives can hardly be attributed to external influence because the neighbouring Dravidian (Brahui), Iranian (Baloci), and Indo-Aryan languages do not present anything comparable, with the exception of the westernmost dialect of the closely related Lahnda language. The southern (Kacchi) and eastern (Thareli) dialects of Sindhi do not have implosives. On the other hand, it is difficult to perceive an internal motivation for the rise of the glottalic consonants, which are not found elsewhere in the Indo-Aryan linguistic area. Since the Sanskrit reflexes of the sounds for which Proto-Indo-European glottalic articulation has been assumed are reflected as implosives in Sindh~ e.g.
12.2.
Indo-Iranian
't;liatzu 'to give' (Indo-European *do-), we must consider the possibility that the latter language has preserved an archaism which was lost elsewhere. 5· As Turner points out, "the simple voiced stops - g j 4 b - can result from the disaspiration of the corresponding aspirated voiced stops- gh jh t;lh bh. A voiced aspirate when followed by an aspirate or by h in the same word lost its aspiration and became the corresponding simple voiced stop without glottal closure. It makes no difference whether h represents a Sanskrit intervocalic sibilant or has been inserted simply to avoid hiatus" (192.4: 311f. = 1975: 2.02.). Examples: bath! 'quiver' (Skt. bhtistrii), t;lithO 'bold' < *t;lhithO (Skt. dhT'$fa-), giihu 'fodder' (Skt. ghiisa-), cf. gahu 'bait' < griisa-. It follows that the rise of the implosives was anterior to the dissimilation of voiced aspirates before another aspirate or h. 6. A surd stop preceded by a nasal becomes the corresponding voiced stop, which remains without glottal closure. The original voiced stops preceded by a nasal are completely assimilated to the preceding nasaL In the group stop + r, the r is lost, except when the stop is a dentaL In the latter case, the dental becomes a cerebral and the r (except in South Sindhi) remains. Even when the resultant cerebral is voiced, there is no glottal closure, e.g. t;lriikh• 'a small grape' (driik$ii), iitzt;lro 'entrails' (antra-), catzt;l~ 'moon' (candra-). Thus, where the voiced stop is preceded by a nasal or followed by r there is no glottal closure. These clusters do not offer a basis for a relative chronology because it cannot, at this point, be decided whether the glottal closure arose in giihu 'bait' after the loss of r in griisa-, or was lost secondarily in t;lriikh•.
Initial vy- became w- in Sindhi, e.g. wiighu 'tiger' (Skt vyiighra-), but intervocalic -vy- became -b- without glottal closure, e.g. sibatzu 'to sew' (sivyati), katabu 'business' (ktirtavya-). It follows that the rise of the intervocalic implosive -'b- from -br-, -rb-, and -dv- was anterior to the development of -vy- into a bilabial stop. The rise of 'b from initial and intervocalic dv and the rise of 'j from intervocalic dy do not offer a basis for a relative chronology because the glottal closure may have been a feature of the dental obstruent before the sound change already, e.g. 'ba 'two; 'bijo 'second' (Skt dva, d'Vitiya-), u'batatzu 'perfumed flour to rub the body with' ( udvartana-), a)"" 'today' (adytf). 7.
8. Sindhi, like Kashmiri and Sinhalese, keeps Skt j andy apart. The former became 'j, the latter j, e.g. jo, jii 'who' (yah, yti), jo 'because' (yata/:l), jatzyo 'sacred cord' (yajnopavlta-), jahu 'coitus' (yiibha-). It follows that the rise of the implosive 'j was anterior to the development of initial y into a stop. In the same way, Skt -lya- (Pali -lya- or -iyya-) is reflected in Sindhi as -ija-, while Skt -idyais reflected as Sindhi -i'ja-, e.g. 't;lijatzu 'to be given' (dlyate, Pali diyyati, Prakrit dijjai), chi'jatzu 'to be broken' (chidyate). Cf. also bhiitzejo 'sister's son' (bhiigineyaka-, Pali bhiigineyya-), miitrejo 'belonging to a stepmother' (*miitreya-, Pali matteyya-), sej" 'couch' (sayyii, Prakrit sejjii), as opposed to
Glottalic consonants in Sindhi and Proto-Indo-European
12.3
bha'jatJu 'to be broken' (bhajyate), upa)atJu 'to be produced' (utpadyate), we).., 'doctor' (vaidya-). Thus, I assume that -j- is the regular reflex of intervocalic -yyin Sindhi. 9. The treatment of -ry- and -rv- differs from that of -yy- and -vy- in the presence versus absence of glottal closure, e.g. kii'ju 'ceremony, work' (kiirya-), ca'bat~u 'to chew' (carvati), sej" 'couch' (sayyii), katabu 'business' (kartavya-). We have to conclude that r was not assimilated to a following y or v, but developed into glottal closure. I think that -ry- and -rv- became -dy- and -dv- at an early stage and subsequently shared the regular development of these clusters in Sindhi. They do not offer a basis for a relative chronology because the glottal feature may or may not have been present in the original clusters -dy- and -dv- at the time when the obstruent replaced the alveolar or retroflex flap in -ry- and
-rv-. The facts which have been discussed so far do not inhibit the identification of Sind hi and Proto-Indo-European glottalization. In particular, Sind hi may have preserved the glottal closure which has been surmised as a feature of the PIE voiced occlusives except for certain specific environments. There are a number of instances where the identification is impossible, however. First of all, the unaspirated voiced stops which came into being as a result of Grassmann's law are reflected as implosives in Sindhi, e.g. 'badhO 'bound' (baddha-), 't;lahl 'curds' (dadhi), 'jangh• 'leg' (janghii), 'ginhat~u 'to buy' (grhnati). If the identification of Sindhi and PIE glottalization is to be upheld, we must assume that the initial consonant of these words became glottalic as a result of the aspiration dissimilation. This is no serious objection because there was no series of unaspirated voiced stops without glottal closure at the time of the dissimilation if PIE glottalization had not yet been lost at that stage.
10.
n. Besides, there is an implosive in the words pe).., 'drinking, pe'j•, pe'jl 'ricepe)\ pe'jo 'watering land after sowing' (Pali peyya-). The implosive cannot continue -yy-, which yielded -j- (see above). I think that the glottal closure is the reflex of the laryngeal in the Indo-European root *poH(i)- 'drink'.
water~
The preservation of the laryngeal before the semivowel in this word family is a consequence of its particular root structure. The development of the laryngeal into glottal closure gave rise to a marginal phoneme -y- in pre-Sindhi, which was to merge with - )- from -dy- and -jy-. A similar merger of laryngeals with the glottal closure of the PIE voiced occlusives took place in Baltic and Slavic (cf.
Ko25). The hypothesis that the laryngeal was preserved in the position before a semivowel up to a stage which was posterior to the rise of the Sindhi implosives is supported by the absence of glottal closure in the words jtu 'living being' (jlva), jiaro 'alive' (jlvala-), jiatJu 'to live' (jivati). Turner attributes the absence of 12..
12.4
Indo-Iranian
glottal closure in these words to the following+ (1924: 309 = 1975: 199). This is unsatisfactory because there is an initial implosive in 'jibh• 'tongue' (jihva) and it is not clear why the length of the following vowel should have caused the loss of the initial glottal closure. I assume that the latter was lost by dissimilation before the glottal closure which had developed from the laryngeal of Indo-European *g"'iH(u)- 'live, which had been preserved before the semivowel and was subsequently lost. Several conjectures can be made in connection with jlro 'cummin-seed' (jlraka-), none of which seems to be demonstrable.
su'jatzu 'to be heard' (srftyate, Pali suyyatl), su'jatzu 'to be swollen' (suyate), u'jatzu 'to be woven' (uyate). Here again I
13. Moreover, there is an implosive in
assume earlier -y-, where the glottal closure continues a laryngeal which was original in set verbs and spread to anit verbs in the passive. In nijatzu 'to be carried away' (nlyate) etc. the glottal closure was apparently lost between -i- and -y- at an early stage.
14. One may wonder if it is probable a priori that an archaic feature which was
lost elsewhere in the Indo-Aryan linguistic area should be preserved in Sindhi. It must be remembered that Sindhi belongs to the more conservative dialects, e.g. in the preservation of the distinction between Skt j and y, which it shares with Kashmiri and Sinhalese, and in the preservation of r after a dental obstruent Since there are indubitable traces of early dialectal diversity in the Rgveda (cf. Emeneau 1966), the possibility that Sindhi has preserved an archaism which was lost elsewhere cannot be rejected a priori. The original Indian script does not provide the means of distinguishing between glottalic and plain voiced obstruents, which became phonemically relevant only as a result of the Sindhi dissimilation of voiced aspirates before another aspirate or h. 15. In any case, the Sindhi material cannot be adduced in support of "the
general diachronic hypothesis that at least one source of injectives might be a sound shift from voiced plain to voiced implosive stops" (Greenberg 1970: 134). The comparative evidence points the other way.
ARCHAIC ABLAUT PATTERNS IN THil VEDIC VERB
The 1st sg. active form of the Vedic sigmatic aorist injunctive does not take vrddhi. This is a remarkable archaism which has not been sufficiently appreciated.
1.
2.. In his article on the "proterodynamic" root present, Insler calls attention to the fact that "the system of proterodynamic present inflection reflected in Vedic forms is nearly identical to the oldest system ofVedic sigmatic aorist inflection" (1972.: 56). "It is only when we compare the act. indic.-inj. of proterodynamic root presents that the complete parallelism breaks down" (Insler 1972.: 57). The active forms of the sigmatic aorist have lengthened grade vocalism throughout the whole paradigm and do not show the expected alternation between lengthened grade in the singular and full grade in the plural which is found in tii$fi, ttik$ati. We must therefore ask the question: "which paradigm seems to continue the original ablaut relationship?" (Insler 1972.: 58). 3. The obvious explanation is that the active paradigm of the sigmatic aorist "has participated in the same sort of leveling of vocalism observed in act. root aorists of the type akar, akarma, akarta" (Insler 1972: 58). Insler rejects this view because the lengthened grade vocalism was extended to the 3rd pl. form of the sigmatic aorist, whereas the corresponding form of the root aorist maintains the original zero grade, e.g. akran. The argument does not hold because the ending of the root aorist was -an < *-ent, whereas the sigmatic form ended in *-sat < *-snt. The ending *-at was replaced with -ur, as it was in the injunctive taqur and in the reduplicated imperfect The retention of the ablaut contrast in the paradigm of tii$ti and the extension of the lengthened grade to the 3rd pl. form of the sigmatic aorist fit "the general tendencies of the Vedic verb system to characterize act athematic present inflection by ablaut differences, but to mark act. athematic aorist inflection by the predominant absence of any alternating vocalism" (Insler 1972.: 61). 4. Lengthened grade vocalism was generalized in the active paradigm of the sigmatic aorist indicative, but not in the injunctive, which betrays the original distribution of the ablaut grades. It is noteworthy that the original distribution was already indicated by Wackemagel in his Old Indic grammar (1896: 68): the lengthened grade spread from the monosyllabic 2nd and 3rd sg. forms to the rest of the paradigm. The archaic character of this distribution is supported by the Balta-Slavic evidence (cf. Ko14: 84-86 and Ko64: 114-117). It is also clear from the Vedic material.
Indo-Iranian
126 5·
The 1st sg. indicative has lengthened grade in RV ajai$am, apriik$am,
abhii~am,
ayiirrtsam,
aspii~am,
ahiir~am,
akiini~am,
akiiri~am,
aciiri~am,
asiini~am,
and ambiguous vocalism in ayiisam. It has full grade in akrami$am and in the analogic forms akramlm and a5arrtSi$am. The 1st sg. injunctive has full grade in VS TS TB jqam, TS KS TB JB yo~am, and RV sto~am, vadhlm, and lengthened grade in the analogic form riivi$am (ru- 'break'). 6. Following Hoffmann, Narten interprets jqam and 1st pl RV jqma as precative forms (1964: 12.0). The reason for this interpretation is evidently the absence oflengthened grade (cf. Hoffmann 19678-: 254). The functional evidence for the interpretation as precative (Hoffmann 1967b: 32f.) or subjunctive (Insler 1975b: 1526) is very weak, while the formal objections against it are prohibitive. It is therefore preferable to retain the traditional view that these forms are what they look like: full grade injunctive forms, which were interchangeable with the corresponding subjunctive in certain contexts and which could be interpreted as precative when the latter category became common. 7. Narten assumes that the injunctive forms yo~ am and sto~am took their vocalism from the subjunctive (1964: 213, 277). The model for this analogic development is lacking, however, because the subjunctive ending was -iini, not -am. Hoffmann attributes the alleged substitution of the injunctive ending -am for the earlier subjunctive ending -ii to the influence of the 2nd sg. imperative: "Das Bestreben, den Konjunktivausgang -ii von dem durch Auslautsdehnung gleichlautend gewordenen Imperativausgang zu sondern, hat das Ausweichen zu -am, wodurch die 1. Person deutlich gekennzeichnet wurde, gefdrdert" (19678-: 248). I find such influence highly improbable. The use of the 1st sg. injunctive for the subjunctive must be explained from the meaning of the forms. Note that Standard British English offers an exact parallel in the use of 'I shall' where other persons 'will'. During my stay in Dublin, Dr Patrick Sims-Williams told me that when an Irish friend asked him in front of an open door: "Will I go first?': the only reasonable answer to him would be: "I don't know". Compare in this connection RV 7.86.2 kada nv antar varut~e bhuviini kada mrJikarrt sumanii abhf khyam 'When will I be inside Varuna? When shall I, cheerful, perceive his mercy?' Also 10.27.1 asat su me jarita/:l sabhiveg6, yat sunvate yajamiiniiya sflqam 'That will be my excitement, singer, that I shall be helpful to the pressing sacrificer'. In 10.28.5 kathti ta etad aham a ciketam 'How shall I understand this (word) of yours?' the substitution of the subjunctive for the injunctive would yield a quite different shade of meaning: it would shift the responsibility from the singer to Indra. The indicative has lengthened grade in RV 3rd du. asvamam, 1st pl abhai$ma, atiiri$ma, 2nd pl. achiinta, 3rd pl achiintsur, abhai~ur, atiiri~ur, apiivi$ur, amiidi$ur, ariit~i$ur, ariivi$ur, aviidi$ur, asiivi~ur, and
8.
aJal~ma,
Archaic ablaut patterns in the Vedic verb
127
ambiguous vocalism in ayiisur, ariiji$ur, and iivi$ur. It has full grade in 3rd du. amanthi$fiim, 1st pl. agrabhl$ma, 3rd pl. atak$i$ur, adhanvi$ur, anarti$ur, amandi$ur, all of which have a root in a double consonant (cf. grbhlta- < *grbhH-ita-). It has zero grade in amatsur, anindi$ur, and iik$i$UY (nas- 'attain').
9. The injunctive has full grade in Rgveda md du. avi$(am, krami$tam, gami$fam, cani$(am, cayi$(am, mardhi$fam, yodhi$(am, vadhi$fam, snathi$fam, 3rd du. avi$fiim, 1st pl. jeyma, srami$ma, 2nd pl. avi$fa(na), grabhf$fa, rat~i$(ana, vadhi$ta(na), snathi$tana, zero grade in hii'JlSi$fa, and ambiguous vocalism in 3rd pl. dhiisur, hiisur. It has lengthened grade in 2nd du. yaU$(am (ApMB yo$(am), tiiri$(am, 2nd pl. nai$fa (ApSS yo$fa), 3rd pl. yau$ur, jiiri$ur, and in the analogic form md du. yiivi$tam (yu- 'unite'). Note that the difference between 1st pl. srami$ma and atiiri$ma parallels the one betweenjeyma and ajai$ma. 10. One may wonder if the ablaut difference between the indicative and the injunctive is also found in the asigmatic aorist. It has long been noticed that the 3rd pl. middle indicative forms akrata and iirata correspond to the injunctive forms kranta and ranta (Meillet 1920: 203, 205). The archaic character of this distribution is supported by the isolated 3rd pl. injunctive forms nasan and na5anta, which correspond to indicative ii/qi$ur (for iisur replacing *iisaf) and iisata. Hoffmann's conjecture that the initial n- of the injunctive is of secondary origin (1957: 124-f.) does not explain why it is limited to the 3rd pl. forms, cf. 3rd sg. middle a$fa. As in the case of the sigmatic aorist, it is probable that the vocalic alternation was eliminated in the indicative paradigm. This must have occurred at a much earlier stage, however, because it affected the form which was to yield asthur. The full grade injunctive ending -anta survived in the paradigm of the subjunctive, which shared the thematic vowel There is a trace of the original distribution in Homer ravvra1, ravvovro.
n. As I indicated above (section 3), the 3rd pl. ending -ur replaced earlier *-at< *-nt, not -an < *-ent. Since the optative ends in -yur, the original form must have had zero grade both in the suffiX and in the ending. This suggests that it had full grade in the root 12. Hoffmann has argued that the root aorist optative had fiXed stress on the root (1968). His proposal offers a straightforward explanation for 3rd pl. Latin velint, Gothic wileina, and OCS vel~t'b, but not for the remarkable alternation which the latter language shows between 2nd pl. xostete, dovtJijete and 3rd pl. xot~t'b, dovbl~t'b. It appears that the 3rd pl. form differed from the other persons in the original paradigm. This enables us to remove the unlikely assumption that the root aorist differed from the root present in the accentuation of the optative.
Indo-Iranian
12.8
13. Insler connects the type dheyiim with the type gam~yam, the two being in complementary distribution (1975b: 15). His explanation falters on two points. First, it requires the previous existence of both *dheyam and *dhiiyiim, of which the attested form represents a blending. It is highly improbable that neither of the earlier forms would have survived because both were supported by other paradigms, while the alleged blending created a new type. Second, the motivation for the spread of the new vocalism to the 3rd person forms is very weak. The long chain of analogic changes which Insler's theory requires is too complicated to be credible. 14. Thus, I arrive at the following reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-European active root optative: 1St 2nd 3rd
singular
plural
dhH,ieH,m dhH,ieH,s dhH,ieH,t
dhH,iH,me dhH,iH,te dheH,iH,nt
After Sievers' law and the loss of tautosyllabic laryngeals this paradigm turned into the following: 1St 2nd 3rd
singular
plural
dhiyiim dhiyiis dhiyiit
dhlma dhlta dhamat
The generalization of *dha(- and the substitution of -ur for *-at yielded 1st sg. dheyiim, 3rd pl dheyur. 15. The isolated 1st pl. middle optative form na51mahi (3x) next to aSimahi (5x) suggests that this paradigm also contained a form with full grade in the root Since the initial n- is lacking elsewhere in the middle optative and indicative paradigms, it was probably taken from the unattested 3rd pl. optative form. 16. The accentual mobility in the paradigm of the optative is reminiscent of the one in the reduplicated present, where 3rd pl. bfbhrati and dadhati have both initial stress and zero grade in the root and in the ending. Thus, I reconstruct PIE *dhedhH,nti 'they put'. It follows that the 3rd pl. form does not have the same origin as the other forms of the paradigm. 17. The reduplicating syllable da- of dadhiimi replaces earlier di-, which is preserved in rl()'fftl and in the desiderative present dfdhi$iimi. It is difficult to agree with Leumann's view that da- was taken from the perfect (1952: 27) because the motivation for such an analogic development was very weak. More probably, the paradigm of the present contained a form with da- from the very outset. This must have been the 3rd pl. form. In my view, PIE *dhi- was simply
Archaic ablaut patterns in the Vedic verb
12.9
the pretonic (zero grade) variant of *dhe- before a double consonant, cf.rrlrWfftl, Yrrrroc;, rrtavpec; beside 1Ce(J(Jvpec; and rrerrapec;, Czech ctvrty < *cbt'Vbrtyj 'fourtll, o cs st~l'b < *st~dl'b 'went'. 18. The 3rd pl forms yanti, kranta, dheyur and dadhati have in common that
the initial syllable contains a full grade vowel. They have the same vocalism as the participles yant-, krant-, dadhat-. It is therefore probable that the form in -nti represents the original nominative plural form of the participle. The plural ending -i is also found in the Proto-Indo-European pronominal inflection: nom. *to-i, gen. *to-i-s-om, dat *to-i-mus, abl *to-i-os, inst. *to-i-bhi, loc. *to-i-su. It follows from this point of view that the secondary ending *-nt was created on the analogy of the singular forms, where the primary -i had a different origin. In my view, the plural ending -i is of Indo- Uralic origin. It can be identified with the Finnic and Northern Samoyed oblique plural suffix -i-, e.g. Finnish talo 'house, pl talot, taloi-. It is also found as a plural object marker in the Northern Samoyed objective conjugation, e.g. Yurak mada-i-n 'I (did) cut (more than two things): cf. Finnish pala-n 'I bum (intr.): Lappish puolam < *palak-mi.
ACCENT AND ABLAUT IN THE VEDIC VERB
Most scholars nowadays reconstruct a static root present with an alternation between lengthened grade in the active singular and full grade in the active plural and in the middle. I am unhappy about this traditional methodology of loosely postulating long vowels for the proto-language. What we need is a powerful theory which explains why clear instances of original lengthened grade are so very few and restrains our reconstructions accordingly. Such a theory has been available for over a hundred years now: it was put forward by Wackernagel in his Old Indic grammar (1896: 66-68). The crucial element of his theory which is relevant in the present context is that he assumed lengthening in monosyllabic word forms, such as the 2nd and 3rd sg. active forms of the sigmatic aorist injunctive. Since the sigmatic aorist is the prototypical static paradigm in the verbal inflection, it offers the possibility of testing the relative merits of the two theories, Wackernagefs lengthening in monosyllabic word forms versus a static paradigm with lengthened grade in the singular and full grade in the plural. As I have pointed out elsewhere (Ko65), the evidence substantiates Wackemagefs view and forces us to reject the alternative because we find full, not lengthened grade in the 1st sg. form, e.g. Vedic jeyam 'conquer, sto$am 'praise'. The only 1st sg. active form with lengthened grade in the sigmatic aorist injunctive is riivi$am of the root ru- 'hurf, which is clearly analogicaL It is therefore reasonable to assume that originally the static present also had lengthened grade in the md and 3rd sg. active forms of the injunctive and full grade elsewhere. Narten assumes that the injunctive forms yo$am and sto$am took their vocalism from the subjunctive (1964: 2.13, 277). The model for this analogic development is lacking, however, because the subjunctive ending was -ani, not -am. The use of the 1st sg. injunctive for the subjunctive must be explained from the meaning of the forms. Note that standard British English offers an exact parallel in the use of'I shalf where other persons 'wilf. Similarly, 8.74.15 dediSam 'I shall point out' must be identified as an injunctive (cf. Hoffmann 196~: 2.53'81), not a subjunctive (thus Schaefer 1994: 42f. "will ich [...] hinweisen"), and the same holds for yo$am and sto$am. The injunctive presents the event as a fact without specifying its time frame. As a result, the listener has to supply a time frame in which the event is part of reality, and is driven by the context to choose the most obvious possibility. The subjunctive, however, presents the will to achieve a situation as part of reality, and thereby suggests that its accomplishment may be beyond the subject's control. The "Spezialfall" of the "Nebeneinander von Injunktiv und Konjunktiv in der 1. Person Singularis" (Hoffmann 1967a: 2.47) is a result of the fact that the first person can take full responsibility for his own actions, cf. also 2..18.3 hart nu kartt ratha fndrasya
132
Indo-Iranian
yojam ayai suktena vacasii navena "die Falben schirre ich nun an Indras Wagen ['now indeed shall I harness the steeds to Indra's chariot'] mit wohlgesprochener neuer Rede, auf daB er komme" beside 1.82.1-5 yojii nv lndra te htirl "ich will dir nun deine Falben anschirren, Indra" followed by 82.6 yunajmi 'I harness' (Hoffmann 1967a: 253). If Wackemagel's theory is correct, as I think it is, we also expect lengthened grade in the 2nd and 3rd sg. active forms of the root aorist injunctive. Perhaps the clearest piece of evidence for this original distribution is the long vowel in 3rd sg. *g"'emt 'came, Latin venit, Gothic qem-, Toch. B sem, which can hardly be explained otherwise. Another instance is Greek a{3Y{- < *sg"'est '(the fire) went out' (cf. Ruijgh 1998: 226). A third example may be Old Irish ro-mfdair 'he judged' < *med- of midithir 'judges' < *med-, Gothic met- 'measured: Greek llYf8'be disposed, inclined' beside 14e8- 'be observant, attentive~ This raises the question of why in Indo-Iranian the long vowel was generalized in the sigmatic aorist indicative, which had fiXed stress, and eliminated in the root aorist, which had mobile stress. The reason must be sought in the difference between static and dynamic paradigms. The problem will be taken up below. We first have to establish the nature of the static present, which is not a frequent type of inflection. I subscribe to Alexander Lubotskfs unpublished theory that it must be derived from a reduplicated formation (cf. already Rix apud Har~arson 1993: 29"). A clear instance is Vedic 3rd sg. t~fi, 3rd pl ttik$ati 'fashion, which cannot be separated from Greek rh<:rwv 'carpenter' < *tetk-. Another example is Vedic 3rd sg. d~ti 'makes offering' beside dak$ate 'is able' < *dedk- (cf. Lubotsky 1994: 204). These verbs may have provided a model for kas'appear' beside Ca$fe 'sees' < *k"'ets- < *k"'ek"'k-, then Siis- 'order' < *ke(k)Hsbeside aorist siis-, si$- < *keHs-, *kHs-, and 3rd sg. mar$ti 'wipes' < *me(m)rg-, stauti 'praises' < *ste(st)u-, with lengthening of the vowel replacing the lost consonants. The original formation can be identified with Greek rllaw 'engender'. It may be useful to have a look at the place of this formation in the original verbal system. Following a line of thought developed by Pedersen (1921: 25f.) and Kuiper (1934: 212), I reconstruct a hysterodynamic s-present, 3rd sg. *tresti, 3rd pl. *trsenti, beside a statics-subjunctive (Indo-Iranian aorist injunctive), 3rd sg. *terst, 3rd pl. *tersnt, the coexistence of which is perhaps best preserved in Tocharian (cf. already Ko64: 1173), where we find B tiis- < *dhH,es- beside A tiis< *dhH,s- in the present and B tes-, A cas- < *dheH,s in the preterit of the verb tii< *dheH,- 'put'. If the reduplicated formations followed a similar pattern, we may reconstruct a hysterodynamic reduplicated present, Vedic 3rd sg. vfvakti 'speaks' < *wiwek"'ti, weak stem *wiwk"'-, but with retracted stress in 3rd pl. *wewk"'nti, cf. 3rd sg. S{$akti, 3rd pl. sascati 'accompany' < *sisek"'ti, *sesk"'nti, beside a static reduplicated subjunctive (Indo-Iranian aorist injunctive), 3rd sg. *wewk"'t, 3rd pl *wewk"'nt, Vedic avocat 'he spoke: subjunctive v6cati beside vociiti. This
Accent and ablaut in the Vedic verb
133
reconstruction actually explains the long *-e- in the reduplication syllable of original reduplicated aorists, as opposed to original presents and perfects, in Tocharian (cf. K149: 173). The original accentuation of the hysterodynantic reduplicated present is preserved in Vedic 3rd sg. juh6ti, 1st pl juhumas, 3rd pl. juhvati 'sacrifice~ For the reduplication syllable cf. also 3rd sg. yuy6ti 'separates: aorist injunctive yftyot for *yayut < *yeywt (?), also 3rd sg. aplpatat for *-piip(t) < *pept beside apaptat, 3rd pl. apaptan 'flew' for *-paptat < *peptnt, and jahiiti 'leaves' beside jfhlte 'goes forth; further 2nd sg. vavalqi beside 3rd sg. viva~ti 'desires: imperative rinhi beside subjunctive rarate 'give, also jfgiiti 'goes: jagat 'going, world: like Greek rlKrw 'engender~ reKrwv 'carpenter'. There is no reason to assume two types of reduplicated present which as a result of partial adaptation under mutual influence gave rise to four different combinations of accent and ablaut in Vedic (thus e.g. Har<Jarson 1993: 30'4) because this assumption does not explain the coexistence of the two types of reduplication within a single paradigm. The rise of the static reduplicated present may have been provoked by the raising of pretonic -e- to -i- in the reduplication syllable (cf. Ko6s: 222). If the historical background of the reduplicated formation proposed here is correct, we should expect full grade reduplication and zero grade root vocalism throughout the paradigm of the Vedic intensive. It follows that full grade root vocalism in the paradigm of the intensive is always the result of analogy after the hysterodynantic flexion types. Thus, I think that 1st sg. dedisam 'point out' is the regular injunctive form and that e.g. 2nd sg. dardar 'split; 3rd sg. adardhar 'held' are analogical for *dardur, *adardhrt, which were anomalous forms. On the other hand, 3rd pl. forms in -at < *-nt could easily give rise to a thematic injunctive paradigm with 3rd sg. -at and 3rd pl -an, e.g. davidyutat or -an 'flashed' (cf. Thieme 1929: 12f., Hoffmann 196~: 2oof., Schaefer 1994: 41). ]antison asks the question "why the intensive was not thematized throughout: it is the restriction, the relative rarity of these thematic forms that is curious, not their existence" (1983: 48). The answer is precisely that the subjunctive had zero grade root vocalism in the intensive so that the thematic paradigm existed already with a different function. Since the intensive was the only athematic present without full grade vocalism in the predesinential syllable of the active singular forms, the analogical introduction of a full grade root vowel is only to be expected, e.g. davidyot for *-dyut beside davidyutat or -an. Interestingly, the two instances which ]antison adduces as clear eXaniples of thematized injunctives, as opposed to subjunctives, are precisely the 3rd pl. forms carkiran 'commemorate' and piipatan 'fly (1983: 47), where -an may have replaced -at < *-nt (cf. also Schaefer 1994: 41f. and Lubotsky 1997: 561), like -anta replacing -ata in the middle. This replacement must have been earlier than the general substitution of -ur for *-at< *-nt in Vedic (cf. Ko44: 129').
134
Indo-Iranian
As I have argued elsewhere (Ko65), the 3rd pl. form occupies a special position in the paradigm. This is clear not only from the alternating vowel in the reduplication syllable of 3rd sg. sf$akti, 3rd pl. sascati 'accompany' and jfgiiti 'goes: jagat 'going, world: but also from the alternating vocalism in the active and middle root aorist and in the paradigm of the optative. As Meillet noticed a long time ago (1920: 202-205), the 3rd pl. middle indicative forms akrata 'made, iirata 'went' correspond to the injunctive forms kranta, ranta. The archaic character of this distribution is supported by the isolated 3rd pl. injunctive forms naJan and naJanta 'attain: which correspond to indicative iik$i$UY (for iiSur replacing *iiSat) and iiSata. Hoffmann's conjecture that the initial n- of the injunctive is of secondary origin (1957: 124f.) does not explain why it is limited to the 3rd pl. forms, cf. 3rd sg. middle ~fa. In the active root aorist we fmd 3rd pl. asthur 'stood: avran 'covered' beside the corresponding injunctive forms sthUr, vran, which suggest an original alternation between double zero grade in the indicative and a full grade ending in the injunctive. This distribution must be old because the double zero grade is supported by comparative evidence from Greek, where 3rd pl.lOeav 'put' replaces earlier *l(}av, with loss of the laryngeal and vocalization of the nasal (cf. Ko98: 67), and from Germanic, where original *dunp is reflected in the Old English preterit sg. dyde, pl. dydon 'did' (cf. K109: 102). In the optative, the alternation between a full grade suffix in the singular and double zero grade in the suffix and the ending in the 3rd pl. form is best preserved in the Old Church Slavic je-presents xoste- 'want' and dovt~ije- 'satisfy, which have *-iHnt in 3rd pl. xotft'b and dovblft'b, corresponding to Latin velint, Gothic wileina (cf. Ko65: 221). As in the case of the reduplicated presents, there is no reason to assume different flexion types in the optative, an assumption which does not explain the coexistence of the two types within a single paradigm. Instead we must reconstruct an original alternation between suffixal stress in the active singular, desinential stress in the active 1st and 2nd pl. forms and in the middle, and root stress in the active and middle 3rd pl. forms. This reconstruction actually offers an explanation for the Vedic isolated 1st pl. form naJimahi (3x) beside aslmahi (5x) 'attain, which suggests that this paradigm also contained a form with full grade in the root Since the initial n- is lacking elsewhere in the middle optative and indicative paradigms, it was probably taken from the unattested 3rd pl. middle optative form. The reconstruction of a triple accent and ablaut alternation advocated here also accounts for the root aorist optative type exemplified by 1st sg. Vedic dheyiim, Greek Oelrtv 'put' (cf. Har~arson 1993: 126-142 for a survey of the scholarly literature). In his elaborate treatment, Insler connects the type dheyiim with the type gameyam, the two being in complementary distribution (1975b: 15). His explanation falters on two points. First, it requires the previous existence ofboth *dheyam and *dhiiyiim, of which the attested form represents a blending. It is highly improbable that neither of the earlier forms would have survived
Accent and ablaut in the Vedic verb
135
because both were supported by other paradigms, while the alleged blending created a new type. Second, the motivation for the spread of the new vocalism to the third person forms is very weak. The long chain of analogic changes which Insler's theory requires is too complicated to be credible. Thus, I think that the paradigm of dheyam was based on the 3rd pl form *dhamat, which had full grade in the root and double zero grade in the suffix and the ending, because the zero grade of the root was reduced to dh- before the optative suffiX -yii-, + in the other persons. Similarly, Greek introduced the stem vowel from 3rd pl. *theln into the other persons, where the zero grade of the root had been reduced to th- before -ie-, + (cf. Ko97: 238). The disyllabic character of "theln is still preserved in rt8eiev < *tithel-en 'they may pu~ where the accent was not retracted to the initial syllable, unlike 8owxw, 8owxta8e 'you may be able; which replace earlier *dunlso, *dunlsthe. The 3rd pl ending of the sigmatic aorist optative *-sin < *-slnt, which had become homophonous with 1st sg. *-sin < *-slm, was replaced by *-seln on the analogy of *theln, the ending of which was also found in the passive aorist and in the paradigm of YrtfU 'let go'. This is the origin of the so-called Aeolic optative. The correctness of these reconstructions is corroborated by the Old High German preterit subjunctive (Indo-European optative) of weak verbs. The difference between Alemannic niimi 'took' and suohtt 'sought' (Notker name versus suohtl), which cannot be explained as a secondary development, shows that the two paradigms represent different formations. While niimi can be compared with wili 'wants' (Notker wile) and derived from *-It, the weak ending -tl must be compared with Vedic 1st sg. dheyiim, 3rd pl. dheyur, Greek 8elrtv, 8efev, and derived from *dhelt (cf. K109: 105). It provides conclusive evidence for the compound origin of the Germanic weak preterit. The peculiar accentuation of the 3rd pl. forms such as Vedic tak$ati 'fashion; sascati 'accompanY, juhvati 'sacrifice, *jagati 'gd, akrata 'made; iirata 'wen~ nasan, nasanta, iiSata, iik$i~ur 'attain(ed); asthur 'stood; avran 'covered; dheyur 'put' points to a different origin from the other forms of the verbal paradigm. In fact, the accentual alternation in 1st sg. juhOmi, 3rd sg. juhOti, 1st pl juhumas, 3rd pl. juhvati 'sacrifice' suggests that these forms have three distinct origins: the singular looks like a regular verbal paradigm, with suffiXed endings which may go back to clitics, while the 1st pl. form resembles a derivative, perhaps a compound, and the 3rd pl. form has the appearance of a participle. As I pointed out earlier (Ko65: 222), I think that the form in *-nti represents the original nom. pl. form of the participle, with the Indo- Uralic plural ending *-i which is also found in the Proto-Indo-European pronominal inflection, e.g. "toi 'they, these; gen. "toisom, etc. Since Beekes's discussion of Latin iens, eunt- 'going' (1985: 67-71), we have to start from a reconstructed paradigm with nom.sg. *H,eints, acc.sg. *H,ientm, gen.sg. *H,intos, in which Vedic 3rd pl. yanti < *H,ienti may have been the original nom. pl. form of the participle. If the present
Indo-Iranian indicative *trsenti and the aorist injunctive *tersnt originally belonged to the same paradigm, the latter form looks like the original neuter of the participle. This is indeed the expected form if the agent of a transitive verb in the aorist was in the ergative case (cf. Ko49). Thus, I tentatively reconstruct present indicative *toi trsenti beside aorist injunctive *tois tersnt, where *tois is the original ergative from which the genitive *tois-om and the instrumental *to-ois were derived. A typological parallel is offered by the dialectal Russian (plu)perfect, e.g. v jix kosal£ bal'syje nabfto (bylf) senom 'they have/had filled the big bags with hay (cf. Honselaar 1998: 303), literally: 'at them [gen.pl.] bags [nom.pl] big [nom.pl] filled [neuter past participle] (were [pl.]) hay [instsg.]'. It appears that the participial form was cliticized after the augment in Vedic asthur 'stood' for *asthat < *H,e-stH.nt, also akrata 'made' < *H,e-krnt-, and after the reduplication, e.g. neuter dadhat 'putting' < *dhedhH,nt, 3rd pl. dadhati < *dhedhH,nti. In this view, forms like na5an, nasanta 'attailt avran 'covered' adopted the full grade ending on the analogy of the primary (i.e. nom.pl.) form in *-enti, whereas the static paradigm is ultimately based on the secondary (i.e. neuter) form with zero grade *-nt exemplified in *tersnt and *dhedhH,nt. The model for the creation of the full grade secondary endings *-ent, *-ento beside primary *-enti was of course provided by 3rd sg. *-t, *-to beside *-ti, while the zero grade primary ending of dadhati 'they put' may have been the original nom. pl. ending of the reduplicated participle. The remaining question is why the lengthened grade was eliminated from the Indo-Iranian root aorist, e.g. Vedic 3rd sg. agan 'went' < *-g"'emt, cf. Latin venit, Gothic qem-, Toch. B sem 'came' < *g"'em-. As in the case of the s-present and the s-aorist, I think that we have to start from a reduplicated present indicative, 3rd sg. *wiwekwti, 3rd pl *wewkwnti, beside a reduplicated aorist injunctive, 3rd sg. *wewkwt, 3rd pl *wewkwnt, cf. Vedic vfvakti 'speaks~ avocat 'spoke~ The meaning of this formation must have been iterative or intensive (cf. Bybee et al. 1994: 166-174 on the semantic development of reduplicated formations). When lengthened grade superseded reduplication in the active singular of the static present, first in TeK-roots such as t~ti 'fashions~ da$ti 'makes offering, then analogically in mar$ti 'wipes: stauti 'praises~ the long vowel became characteristic of this type of derived present and thereby anomalous in the paradigm of the root aorist, where it was limited to the 2nd and 3rd sg. injunctive forms and could easily be eliminated, cf. 3rd sg. imperfect akramat beside aorist akramlt 'strode'. The original lengthened grade may have been preserved in md and 3rd sg. akran 'cried~ asyan 'moved: araik 'leff, acait 'perceived: asvait 'brightened: adyaut 'shone, which are isolated in the paradigm of the root aorist and could be reanalyzed as sigmatic aorist forms. The hypothesis that these forms are independent analogical creations (Narten 1964: 18) does not explain their isolated character in the oldest texts. I therefore think that they may be relics from the stage when lengthened grade had not yet
Accent and ablaut in the Vedic verb
137
adopted the function of reduplication in the static present, which provoked its elimination from the root aorist
THil ORIGIN OF THil INDO-IRANIAN DESIDERATIVIl
In his detailed account of the Indo- Iranian desiderative ( 2006), Fran~is Heenen offers a new functional analysis in order to establish the invariant meaning of the category and to determine the semantic roles of the morphological components in this meaning. A typical example is jfgharrtSati 'he wishes to slay' in JB 1.193 indro vai vrtram ajigharrtSat "Indra wished to slay Vrtra~ The desiderative is characteristically a (i) thematically inflected (ii) sigmatic derivation from a (iii) verbal root with (iv) zero grade vocalism and (v) initial reduplication with (vi) i-vocalism and (vii) initial accentuation. Heenen concludes that the semantic value of the reduplication is the image of a "developpement progressif graduel. Le sujet execute des efforts repetes qui convergent vers un resultat" (p. 68) and that the suffix -sa- has "une origine commune a celui du subj. aor." (p. 72), combining perfective aspect -s- with a non-factive mode of expression -a- (p. 70). The desiderative itself denotes neither the successful accomplishment of the basic action, nor the modal value of a subjunctive. Heenen suggests that the reduplication was the original carrier of the categorial meaning and that the suffx -sa- was added later on the analogy of the aorist subjunctive. This does not explain how the distinction between "actions re~tees convergentes des themes des. redoubles avant I'addition du sufftxe -sa-, et actions re~tees des pres. redoubles du type de bfbhar-" developed (p. 73). In a presentation at Leiden University (28 October 2005) Heenen took a different view, viz. that the desiderative must be derived from the aorist subjunctive and that the reduplication appeared at a later stage. In the following I intend to show that the comparative evidence points to a third possibility, viz. that the perfective -s- was the oldest component and the thematic -a- the most recent addition and that the meaning of the desiderative reflects this chronology. Elsewhere I have argued that all subjunctive and strong future formations of Old Irish can be derived from a single athematic paradigm with a stem in *-sand secondary endings (K239: 71). This unitary inflection combined with six types of stem:
140
Indo-Iranian (a) unreduplicated, e-grade, anit, e.g.fo-16 'supports'< *leugs-, (b) unreduplicated, e-grade, set, e.g. -genathar 'is born'< *genas-, (c) reduplicated, e-grade, anit, e.g.fo-cicherr'will throw'< *kikerds-, (d) reduplicated, e-grade, set, e.g. -gignethar 'will be born' < *gigenas-, (e) reduplicated, zero grade, an it, e.g.fo-lil 'will support'< *lilugs-, (f) reduplicated, zero grade, set, e.g. -gena 'will wound' < *gignas-.
As a rule, the unreduplicated forms are subjunctives and the reduplicated forms are futures, but there is a class of basic verbs (lie; 'sif, 'run. 'flee, 'arise, 'protect') where the unreduplicated forms are used both for the subjunctive and for the future (cf. Thurneysen 1946: 41of.). It is therefore probable that all of these formations represent an earlier athematic subjunctive paradigm with secondary endings. Moreover, there is a seventh type without reduplication but with a zero grade root and a full grade sufftx *-es-, viz. subjunctive -be < *bes- < *bhwest 'be: future -bia < *biyas- < *bhwiHes- (cf. K239: 73), cf. Latinfo- 'be;fi- 'become'. It appears that the reduplication was introduced in order to differentiate the future from the subjunctive. From an Indo-European point of view, the full grade forms can be compared with the sigmatic aorist injunctive and the zero grade forms with the injunctive of the s-presents (cf. Pedersen 192.1, Kuiper 1934). I have proposed to reconstruct a hysterodynamic present 3rd sg. *tresti, 3rd pl. *trsenti beside a static aorist 3rd sg. *terst, 3rd pl. *tersnt (e.g. K188: 9). The system is perhaps best preserved in Tocharian, where we fmd B tas- < *dhH,es- beside A tiis- < *dhH,sin the present and B tes-, A cas- < *dheH,s- in the preterit of the verb tii- < *dheH,- 'put'. For the reduplicated formations I reconstruct a hysterodynamic present, e.g. Vedic 3rd sg. vfvakti 'speaks' < *wiwekwti, weak stem *wiwkw-, but with retracted accent in 3rd pl. *wewkw~ti, cf. 3rd sg. s{~akti < *sisekwti, 3rd pl. sascati < *seskw~ti 'accompanY, beside a static aorist 3rd sg. *wewkwt, 3rd pl. *wewkw~t, reflected in Vedic avocat 'he spoke, subjunctive v6cati beside v6ciiti. This reconstruction explains the long *-e- in the reduplication syllable of original reduplicated aorists, as opposed to original presents and perfects, in Tocharian (cf. K149: 173). The original accentuation of the hysterodynamic reduplicated present is preserved in Vedic 3rd sg. juh6ti, 1st pl. juhumas, 3rd pl. juhvati 'sacrifice'. In the same vein I now reconstruct a reduplicated s-present sg. *titresmi, -si, -ti, pl. *titrsmes, -tH,e, *tetrs~ti, which explains the combination of accented i-vocalism in the reduplication syllable and zero grade in the root of the Indo-Iranian desiderative. It follows that the thematic vowel is the most recent component of the formation. The unreduplicated athematic s-present *bhHues-, *bhHus- is also attested in Balta-Slavic and Italic, e.g. Lithuanian bUs 'will be, Old Church Slavic byf~teje 'the future' (which is an athematic nt-participle), Oscanfost, Umbrianfust, 3rd pl. forent 'will be, Oscan fosld, Latin foret, 3rd pl. forent 'were, with full grade
The origin of the Indo- Iranian desiderative
141
suffix *-es- in Umbrian ferest 'will bring, Oscan pertemest 'will prevenf, also Umbrian menes 'you will come' reflecting *g"mes- with zero grade in the root This formation is clearly identical with the Old Irish subjunctive -M < *l:i'west. The Balto-Slavic s-subjunctive became a future in East Baltic, e.g. Lith. bits 'will be, but assumed the function of an imperative in Old Prussian, e.g. teiks 'put!; where the addition of thematic present endings yielded a future paradigm, e.g. postiisei 'you will become'. The reduplicated s-present is attested in Italic, where it adopted the function of a future perfect, e.g. Latin emero 'I will have boughf, Oscanfifikus 'you will have decided;jejacust 'he will have done, Umbrianfefure < 't"ifusent 'they will have been, dirsust < *didust 'he will have given' (cf. K239: 72, 152). The data presented here invite a consideration of the following scenario. We have to start from a hysterodynamic s-present with zero grade root vocalism and a static s-aorist with e-vocalism in the root. Both the present and the aorist injunctive could tum into a non-factive subjunctive. The s-present became a future in Lith. bits and in Oscan and Umbrian just 'will be, 3rd pl. furent, but not in Old Irish -be 'be' and in Latin foret, 3rd pl. forent 'were; which adopted the productive sufftx *-e-. These forms show that the future meaning was comparatively recent here, as it was in Latin ero. The non-factive meaning of the s-present could easily be combined with the aspectual meaning of the reduplicated present, which denoted repetitive activity (cf. Kulikov 2005: 442-444, with references to Ul'janov 1903 and Elizarenkova 1982), e.g. Vedic pfbati 'drinks' (series of sips), jfghrati 'smells' (series of sniffs), jfgati 'goes' (series of steps) in RV 10.73-3 r$1/a te pada prti yaj jfgasi "your feet are high when you (lndra) are treadin~ A clear example of the difference between telic bharati 'brings' (Russ. neset) and atelic bfbharti 'carries' (Russ. nosit) is RV 10.30.13 yad
apo adrsram ... ghrtam payiii'J1Si bfbhratlr madhuni ... fndraya s6mai'J1 s~utam bharantt/:l "when the waters, which carry (bfbhratlr) ghee, milk and honey, which bring (bharantib) the well-pressed soma-sap to Indra, became visible .. :'. The reduplicated s-present with secondary endings denoted repetitive activity aimed at an accomplishment which does not happen. This is Heenen's "developpement progressif graduel. Le sujet execute des efforts repetes qui convergent vers un resultat" (2006: 68) which is implied by the perfective-s- but not accomplished because the action is not telic. The meaning may be compared with that of the secondary imperfective verb pridumyvat' in Russian Levin slusal i pridumyval i ne mog pridumat' cto skazat' (Lev Tolstoj, Anna Karenina) "Levin listened and tried to think of something to say but could not'; covering effort and attempt but not necessarily desire (except by implication). The expected meaning of the reduplicated s-present is conative, not desiderative. The last step in the development of the Indo- Iranian desiderative is the thematicization of the reduplicated sigmatic formation. Elsewhere I have argued that the Vedic subjunctive presents the will to achieve a situation as part of
142.
Indo-Iranian
reality, thereby suggesting that its accomplishment may be beyond the subject's control (K188: 8). This modal value differs from that of the injunctive, which simply presents the event as a fact without specifying its time frame. It follows that the thematic subjunctive of a reduplicated s-present depicts the will to achieve a situation of repetitive activity aimed at the accomplishment of a goal which may be beyond the subject's control. When this mode of expression lost its non-factive (subjunctive) character, it became a desiderative present, stating the will to achieve the desired situation as a fact. The conflation of the situation desired (-a-) and the situation aimed at (-s-) into a single goal of action (-sa-) enabled the creation of a full paradigm of the desiderative, e.g. vfviisati 'desires to win; imperfect iivfviisat, subjunctive iivfviisiit, optative liviviiset, imperative 2nd sg. aviviisa, participle iivfviisant- (cf. Heenen 2006: 223-2.26). There never was an Indo-European desiderative formation with a reduplicated thematic present of the type *titrse!o-.
ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN FINAL SYLLABLES IN
TocHARIAN The fate of PIE final syllables in Tocharian has largely been clarified by Pedersen (1941, 1944) and Lane (1976). In the following I intend to discuss a few details against the background ofJorundur Hilmarsson's dissertation (1986). As far as I see, there is little evidence for a difference between final and nonfmal syllables in the development of the Proto-Tocharian vowel system. I subscribe to the view summarized by Beekes (1985: 208), which is reproduced here with the slight modification that I write e, ii, o for his eh, aH, oH. pre-Tach.
e, i, u a, a 0
e!_CC e!_CV iii_CC iii_CV o!_CC o!_CV iHI_C iHI_V uH!_C uH!_V ei ai oi eu au ou
Proto-Tach.
West Tach.
East Tach.
a e e a a
ala ii/a e e ii/a ii/a
0
0
0
0
u ya (a)y wa (a)w (a)i ai
u yiilya (i)y wii/wa (u)w
a ii a a ii ii a a u
;}
ei
(a)u au eu
ai ai u au e";;>au
yii
y wa w e e u 0 0
Examples of the long vowel developments: *uentos 'wind: A want, B yente, *me 'nof, AB mii, *li'riiter 'brother, A pracar, B procer, *uostu 'house, A wa$t, B ost (Beekes apud Hilmarsson 1986: u), see further below. Proto-Tocharian consonants: p, p, t, f, ts, s, s, s, k, k"', m, th, n, n, l, ~ r, (f), y, w, w, e.g. *Pans 'five: A pan, B piS, *Pak"'al 'yeai, A p'Jcal, B pikul, *sak"' < Skt. sukha- 'happiness: A suk, B sakw, *'~Vasaye 'nighf, A W$e, B niye, *sport'-wotr 'turns: A sparcwatar, B sporttotar, caus. *spartwass, A spiirtwii$, B $partt~$al'fl. It appears that fmal *-m, *-n, *-s, *-t were lost at an early stage without leaving a trace, and that a preceding vowel developed in accordance with the
144
Tocharian
rules given above (cf. Lane 1976: 151 on *-om). The thesis which I would like to defend here is that this loss of final single consonants was anterior to the proposed long vowel shift in open syllables, while final *-nt, *-nts had become *-n at the time of the shift. This fmal *-n was lost after long vowels at a later stage. Final *-ns was preserved in Proto-Tocharian and developed into A -s, B -rtt. Eventually, final vowels were apocopated in East Tocharian. The hypothesis that *-ns was preserved in Proto-Tocharian and yielded A -s, B -rtt was rejected by Pedersen and Lane for different reasons. Pedersen called the derivation of A -s from *-ns "entschieden unrichtig. In einer Sprache, wo das -s der Endung -nts geschwunden ist [...], kann dass -s in der Gruppe -ns nicht geblieben sein" (1941: 81). Lane objected to the derivation of B -rtt from *-ns: "je ny crois guere pour rna part; ceux des dialectes grecs qui, diversement, alterent *-ns le font tous aux depens de la m@me consonne, la nasale" (1976: 153). The latter objection had already been raised by Pedersen: "In der Gruppe -ns pflegt das -s der stiirkere Laut zu sein, der sich auf Kosten des -n- behauptet" (1941: 77), but he did not regard it as decisive: "Trotz allen Bedenken wird man also den Obl. Pl. auf den ieur. Akk. Pl. zuriickfiihren" (1941: 78). I think that the typological argument cannot be maintained. Sanskrit preserves a reflex of the final *-s in the length of acc.pl -an < *-ons but not in nom.sg. -an < *-onts. Armenian preserves the fmal spirant unchanged in ace. pl. -s < *-ns but not after a vowel. Old High German has a reflex -a < *-ons which is distinct from both -a < *-on and -o < *-os. Since a comparison of the Tocharian languages points to the ending *-ns, I think that strong evidence is required for an eventual rejection of this reconstruction. The early loss of fmal *-s after an obstruent in the Tocharian branch of Indo-European partly accounts for the rise of the root subjunctive corresponding to s-presents and s-preterites (cf. Ko68: 181).' Thus, I derive A wal, gen. lant, B walo, gen. lante 'king' from Proto-Tocharian *walo, *lante, earlier *walOn, *wlante from *uelonts, *ulantos, cf. Old Irish flaith 'lordship' < *ulati- of the root *uelH-. The nom.sg. ending *-on of the nt-stems gave rise to doublets such as B oblsg. klyomont beside klyomortt of klyomo 'noble' (cf. Stumpf 1990: 102, Peyrot 2008: 119). Turning now to the development of long vowels in fmal syllables, we find the expected reflex of *e in the palatalizing a-preterite, e.g. A klyo$, B klyau$a 'heard' < *kleuset. The reflex of *-a and *-am is found in the flexion of the original H.-stems, which has preserved two types of apophonic alternation. The two most common types of nouns with accentual mobility in Indo-European are proterodynamic neuters, where the accent alternates between the root and the stem formative, and hysterodynamic masculines and feminines, where the accent alternates between the sufftx and the case ending, e.g. Skt daru 'wood: gen. dros, Greek 1rar~p 'father: gen. 1rarp6~ (cf. Beekes 1985: 167-171). Pedersen already remarked that the accusative adopted the stem form of the weak cases in Tocharian (1944: 37), as it did in the plural in Sanskrit Thus, we may expect that
On the development of Proto- Indo-European fmal syllables in Tocharian
145
the ideal reflex of a proterodynamic H,-stem has full grade in the root, zero grade in the nom.sg. ending, full grade of the stem formative in the other case forms, and neuter plural endings (class II), and that the ideal reflex of a hysterodynamic H,-stem has zero grade in the root, full grade in the nom.sg. ending, zero grade of the stem formative in the other case forms, and no neuter plural endings (class VI). This is exactly what we fmd. The proterodynamic type is represented by B sana 'wife' < *sana < *g"'enH., obl. sano < *-am, gen. snoy < *-iis plus *-eis, pl. snona < *-as plus *-nH., A oblpl. sniis < *-iins, and B liintsa 'queen' < *wlantya < *-iH,, obl. -o, gen. -oy, pl. lantsona, A nom.pl. lantsan < *-on < *-iis plus *-nes, also B $arya 'beloved: obL -o. The hysterodynamic type is represented by B kantwo 'tongue' < *kantwo < *dni'uii, obl. kantwa < *-uH,-m, A nom.pl. kantwiin < *-uH,-nes, B perl.pl. kantwartttsa for *kantwiintsa < *-uH.ns plus a secondary case ending which may be derived from PIE inst *-H,, and B kiitso 'stomach' < *kuHtiii (Hilmarsson 1986: 2.36), obl. -a, nom.pl. katsiin, also tiino 'grain' < *dhH3 nii, obl. -a, nom.pl. taniin, and kiiswo 'rash', miiskwo 'hindrance, tsiiro 'monastery, all obl. -a. The pronominal adjective A iilak, B alyek, allek 'other' < *alios plus -k, nom.pl. A iilyek, B alyaik < *alioi plus -k, shows the reflex of the proterodynamic type in the feminine: A iilyiik, B alyiik, obl. A iilyakyiirtt (with -a- for -a-), B alyok, allok, pl. A iilkont, B allonk, allonkna, pointing to Proto-Tocharian nom.sg. *aTfak, obl.sg. *aTfok, nom. pl. *aTl'o(na)k <
*aliH., *aliiim, *alias! The phonetic reflex of final *-o is found in B 1st sg. -u, for which no alternative explanation is satisfactory. The same development is found in the past participle AB -u < *-wu < *-wos, where A apocopated the vowel and vocalized the preceding semivowel while B preserved the vowel and lost the semivoweL and also in the monosyllables AB ku 'dog' < *kuo, A wu 'two' < *duo, and in A oktuk 'eighty, which reflects the original final vowel of okat 'eight' < *ek"'tu < *okto. The corresponding B word okt lost its final *-u on the analogy of the word for 'seven, which conversely adopted the labiovelar of the word for 'eight: cf. A $pat < *sapt < *septm, B $Ukt < *sak"'t. The medial vowel of A oktats, B oktatse 'eightfold' and A iiknats, B akniitsa 'ignorant' must be derived from a vocalized laryngeaL not from a full grade voweL3 In the decades, A $aptuk 'seventy' adopted the sufftx of oktuk while the converse development is found in B $Uktanka, oktanka.4 The phonetic reflex of *o in a closed syllable is found in the AB verbal nouns in -or< *-uor and in the B oblsg. and nom.pl. forms in -O$, -ont, -one, which must be derived from *-uosm, *-uoses, *-uontm, *-uontes, with early loss of the fmal *-a which arose from these endings.s The o-grade was preserved in B -wq < *-uoses and the e-grade in A -unt < *-uentm, cf. obl.sg. B saumortt 'man' < *-onm but A somartt < *-enm. I also assume *o in B po 'all' < *pon < *pants < *peH,onts, nom. pl. masc. pone < *pontes, fern. ponta < *ponta, where the circumflex of Greek mit;, n-av points to a contraction in the masc. and neuter nom.sg. forms. 6 It follows from the position taken here that A ytiir, B
Tocharian
ytiirye 'road' cannot be derived from "I.-E. *H,itot> (Hilmarsson 1986: 44), which has little to commend itself anyhow. We must rather start from a zero grade sufftx *-tr and assume analogical introduction of the vowel from Aysiir, B yasar 'blood' < *yasar, where it represents a vocalized laryngeal, cf. Hittite e5har. The same analogy is found in A wmiir 'jewel; cf. B warner < *w.:~mer. The word AB kos 'how much' may be derived from *kwo-su, certainly not from *kwo-suo(s) (Hilmarsson 1986: 46), which should yield AB -u, as in the past participle. The original nom.sg. ending of the n-stems *-o(n) is preserved in the word for 'dog, AB ku, where it cannot be analogical. The usual ending B -o must ultimately be derived from *-ants (with analogical lengthened grade), which may have yielded *-on at an early stage in the development of Proto-Tocharian. It was evidently introduced into the flexion of the n-stems at a time when the final *-n was still preserved, cf. the converse substitution in Greek qJepwv 'carrying'. Thus, it shows the expected reflex of *o in a closed syllable. When the fmal *-n was lost, the ending merged with the reflex of *-eH•. In spite of Hilmarsson's efforts to prove the contrary, I still think that obl.sg. A ko111, B kwe111 'dog' represent Proto-Tocharian *kwen < *kwonm, like A por, B puwar 'fire'< *pwar < *puHr (cf. Winter 1965: 192).? The preservation of-w-in A stwar, B stwer 'four' < *s.:~twer < *kWetuores is probably due to the intervocalic position of the cluster. If A ka111, B kene 'melody' is correctly derived from *j'~:~onos (Hilmarsson 1986: 158), the *-w- must have been lost at an early stage. A sas, B $e 'one' point to Proto-Tocharian *sens < *sems, with A s- for *sassimilated to -s, and with analogical elimination of B *-111, which was preserved in the feminine A sa111, B sana < *s.:~na < *sm (neuter?) plus *-H,. The nom.sg. ending -e represents *-en, where the fmal nasal must have been restored at a time which was anterior to the long vowel shift in open syllables, cf. the contrast between Latin lien 'spleen' and homo 'man'. I find no evidence for original e-stems in Tocharian. NOTES
' Final *-s was regularly lost in *seks, A $Ilk 'sfx, but analogically restored in B $kas, evidently on the basis of the ordinal *seksos, A $k~t, B $kaste. • Hilmarsson's view that the theory outlined here makes the a-vocalism of A *so111 'continent' and *mok 'greatness' incomprehensible (1986: 350) must be based on a misunderstanding. Even if his derivation of these asterisked words from *scono < *styiinii and *moko < *miikii is correct, their failure to delabialize in East Tocharian is a dialectal problem which should not affect the reconstruction of the Proto-Tocharian forms. Moreover, Hilmarsson's "difficulties fitting B karyor, A kuryat> 'commerce' < *kw.:~ryor into his system because "the fmals B -or and A -ar seem irreconcilable" (1986: 16) are a consequence of his unwillingness to adopt the position taken here. His
On the development of Proto- Indo-European fmal syllables in Tocharian
147
assumption of three different types of Proto-Tocharian *o in posttonic syllables is not warranted. The vocalized laryngeal is also found in Skt aSitf- 'eighty' and probably in Greek oy8o(J)o~ 'eighth' (Ko6o: 99, 103). This obviously does not imply a direct derivational connection between A oktats and Skt. aS!tf- (Hilmarsson 1986: 349). It simply means that we have to start from zero grade before the suffiX. 3
Hilmarsson points out correctly that the -u of *okto was preserved in dialectal times whereas the fmal nasal of *septm was apocopated in pre-dialectal times already (1986: 159). This does not affect the reconstructed analogical developments in any significant way, however. 4
s See now Peyrot 2.009, however.
For the possibility of deriving Greek 114i~ from *peH.onts with restored *H. see Ko34. The flexion type must evidently be compared with Skt. bluiran < *-onts, bluirat- 'bearing, whereas Greek len&~ 'setting'< *-stH.ents seems to agree with Skt. dvi$tin < *-ents, dvi$at- 'hating'. The root of Toch. B po and Greek niX~ was apparently ousted in the other Indo-European languages because of its homonymy with *peR- 'protecf. This is no reason to question the IndoEuropean origin of the word, cf. Greek Alta~ 'stone, which is doubtless IndoEuropean (cf. Beekes 1985: 15-17) though it has no obvious cognates in other languages. Hilmarsson's derivation of B po from *H,ponts (1986: 2.14) is impossible because there is no prothetic vowel in Greek.
6
7 I agree with Schindler (1967: 2.43) that Winter's derivation of A por and B puwar from different nominatives is "ein Weg, den man bei so nahe verwandten
Sprachen nach Moglichkeit vermeiden
sollte~
We have to start from PIE
*peH.ur, gen. *pH.uens, later *pH.unos > *puH.nos, then pre-Toch. *puHr > *pwar. There is no evidence for a collective in *-or in Tocharian.
THE TOCHARIANWORD FOR 'WOMAN'
Consider the following paradigms: 'wife' A nom.sg. obl.sg. nom.pl obl.pl.
sarrt sarrt snu sniis
B
sana sa no snona snona
'woman' A
k:li k:le k:lewiifi k:lewiis
B
klyiye, kllye klaifi, klairrt, klai klaina klaina
I agree with Klaus Schmidt that the word for 'woman' must be derived from the word for 'wife' with dissimilation of the radical nasal to -l- before a sufflxal nasal (1980: 410). For a similar dissimilation cf. Lith. glinda 'nit'< *gninda. I disagree with Schmidt's view that the two words represent different stem forms of the same paradigm, to be compared with Arm. kin < *g"'ena, pl kanay- < *g"'nai-, Greek yvv~, gen. yvva11ro<;. These forms must probably be derived from an original proterodynamic neuter paradigm, PIE nom.acc. *g"'enH., gen.abl. *g"'neH.s, datloc. *g"'neH,i (cf. Beekes 1985: 167). The Toch. word for 'woman' is rather a derivative of this root. For the derivation cf. Slovene zena 'wife, z¢nski 'female (adj.): Zfnska 'woman: and the English noun female. Thus, we may look for an adjectival sufftx which yields the proper output when added to the root
*g"'nH.-. It is clear that the sufftx must have contained an *n for the dissimilation of the radical *n to take place. This is not the only requirement, however. Hilmarsson observes that B klyiye shows "the main characteristics of Class VI,2.: nom.sg. -iye and nom. pl. with -ai-. This fact might prompt one to assume that this word belonged to Class VI,2 at an earlier stage and was later transferred to Class 11,1 because of its meaning' (1986: 2.18, also 333). I think that this is quite correct, but one may wonder if it is compatible with his conclusion that -iye- is "an intruder in Class VI,2., it seems to be more at home in Class VI,1" because "-iye in its natural element (Class VI,1) had a palatalizing effect, but when transferred to a foreign flexional category (Class VI,2) -iye had no such effect" (1986: 2.2.9). Thus, we have to account for the palatalizing effect of -iye in the word for 'woman'. Hilmarsson has convincingly argued that the ending -(iy)e must be derived from *-(iy)en (1986: 2.31-2.36). The problem with the word for 'woman' is that there is no obvious reason for the loss of the root-final laryngeal of *g"'nH,before this ending. On the one hand, *H, is not lost before *i, cf. especially A sne, B snai 'without' < PIE *snHi, Latin sine. On the other hand, *H. colors a following *e to *a, so that palatalization cannot take place. Thus, we must look
Tocharian
150
for a sufftx before which *H, is lost. The only possibility I can think ofis *-H,en-, *-H,n- (cf. Beekes 1985: 53), which fits perfectly. Assuming that *H. was lost before *H, I arrive at the following reconstruction: stage I
stage II
stage III
stage IV
*g"'nH,-H,en *g"'nH.-H,n-
*kwlH,en *kwlH,n-
*kwlye *kwlan-
klyiye klain-
For the substitution of -iye, -ain- for *-e, *-an- I refer to Hilmarsson (l.c.) and for the vocalization of *H, as -a- to Klingenschmitt (1975: 161-162.). POSTSCRIPT
It appears that B kltye is older than klyiye (cf. Hilmarsson 1996: 157, Peyrot 2.008: *H, blocked the palatalization by the following front vowel at stage III.
109). This suggests the possibility that
THE FATE OF TilE SIGMATIC AORIST IN TOCHARIAN 1.
Krause and Thomas write (1960: 247):
"In den aktiven Formen tritt das -s- nur in der 3. Sg. auf, z.B. B Sg. 1 prekwa, 2 prekasta (mit Endung -s(a), 3 preksa, Pl. 3 prekar [A prakwii, prak(4t, prakas, prakar]. Im Medium fiihrt das Wtoch. das -s- durch das ganze Paradigma durch, z.B. ersamai, -tai, -te, -nte. Im Otoch. dagegen fmdet sich eine doppelte Flexion im Medium: Einerseits wird auch hier das -s- durchgefiihrt, z.B. rise, risiite, risiit, risiint; andrerseits erscheinen s-lose Formen wie tamilt, tamilnt; nakat, nakilnt; pakat, pakant; lyokat, lyokant; tsakat, tsakilnt. Nur bei Wz. yam- zeigen sich beide Bildungen: yiimtse, *yiimtsiite, yiimtsiit, yiimtsiint neben yiimwe, yiimte (nicht bezeugt in den iibrigen Personen)." The only active paradigm with generalized -s- is 'gave': B wsiiwa, wsiista, was a (wsii-ne), wasam, wsare (wsilr-fii), A wsii, was (wsii-1?1), wsilr, part. wawu (cf. already Pedersen 1941: 186). We must look for an explanation of this distribution. 2. As a rule, final obstruents are lost in Tocharian, so that the expected reflex of 3rd sg. *prekst (Vedic apriit 'asked') is B *prek, A *prak, and the sigmatic ending must be analogical, cf. especially A $ilk 'si'x < *seks, B $kas with restoration of -s on the basis of the ordinal $kaste. The phonetic loss of *s accounts for the rise of an asigmatic paradigm on the basis of Proto-Tocharian 3rd sg. *prek. 3. If sigmatic and asigmatic forms existed side by side at some stage, the main question is: why was the sigmatic ending restored in the 3rd sg. form and ousted in the rest of the active paradigm? This question must be viewed in relation to the corresponding subjunctive. As Lane observed, there is a pattern: "s-present, athematic subjunctive originally only active; e-subjunctive, only middle, s-preterit" (1959: 165). If the asigmatic forms in the s-preterite arose from the phonetic loss of *s, the root subjunctive is best derived from the sigmatic aorist injunctive, a derivation which moreover explains the absence of an s-subjunctive. 4. This brings us to a reconsideration of the root vocalism. Elsewhere I have argued that the sigmatic aorist injunctive had lengthened grade in the md and 3rd sg. forms and e-grade in the rest of the paradigm, and that this distribution is still reflected in the Vedic material, where lengthened grade was already generalized in the indicative (Ko65). Since apart from the palatalization *e in closed syllables merged with *o while *e plus resonant merged with the corresponding zero grade reflex in Proto-To char ian (cf. Ko95: So), the root
152
Tocharian
vocalism of the perfect and the sigmatic aorist merged outside the 1st sg. form, which was easily subject to analogical leveling. As a consequence, palatalization and its absence became associated with transitive versus intransitive paradigms (cf. Winter 198oa). 5· When the subjunctive and the preterite adopted the endings of the present and the perfect, respectively, the sigmatic ending served to disambiguate the 3rd sg. form *prek. This presupposes the earlier coexistence of sigmatic and asigmatic paradigms. The sigmatic paradigm of AB was- 'gave, also A cas-, B tes'puf, and the asigmatic middle paradigm of A nak- 'perished: pak- 'cooked: tsak'burned' suggest a correlation between vocalic stems and sigmatic forms on the one hand, and between consonantal stems and asigmatic forms on the other. This is understandable if original *s was lost in interconsonantal position, as was the case in the verb stems in -tk- (cf. Melchert 1977). 6. Thus, I propose the following scenario. The loss of word-final and interconsonantal *s yielded a mixed paradigm which gave rise to the root subjunctive on the one hand and to sigmatic and asigmatic preterites on the other. The generalized reflex of lengthened grade in the active preterite is strongly reminiscent of the Vedic aorist indicative. In Tocharian, it even spread to the middle paradigm, e.g. A lyokiit 'was illuminated: tamiit 'was born, nakiit, pakiit, tsakiit, which point to *leuksto, etc. The initial palatalization was partly redistributed according to transitiveness. The original vowel alternation was largely eliminated. 7. It will be clear from the foregoing that I strongly disagree with both Adams (1988) and Jasanoff (1988). While the latter's rash comparison with Hittite does not account for the multifarious sigmatic formations which are attested in the Tocharian material, the former's reliance on the initial palatalization for the identification of a preterite as an original aorist or perfect is at variance with the productive character of this feature. I think that it is hardly possible to identify an original perfect at all (cf. already Pedersen 1941: 183) because the root aorist adopted the endings of the perfect at an early stage. Apart from the endings and the reduplicated participle, the only clear trace of the perfect appears to be the mobile stress in sufflxless preterites with an original o-grade root vowel, as opposed to the fixed initial stress in the s-preterite. 8. Thee-subjunctive, like thee-present, appears to be ultimately based on the stative 3rd sg. form in *-o, which was extended by the regular middle endings. The s-present is a thematically inflected sigmatic formation. It seems probable to me that it represents a thematicization of an original present in 1st sg. *-esmi, 1st pl. *-smes (cf. Pedersen 1921: 26). If this is correct, Tocharian has preserved an archaic feature in the correlation between s-present, root subjunctive (sigmatic aorist injunctive), and s-preterit The original vowel alternation in the sufftx has
The fate of the sigmatic aorist in Tocharian
153
left a trace in the present of AB tii- 'put; e.g. 3rd pl A tiisefic < *dhH,s-, B tase111 < *dhH,es-, with a different generalization in the two languages, both of which have tiis- in the subjunctive and tits- in the middle preterite. This suggests that the athematic s-present was still preserved in Proto-Tocharian. POSTSCRIPT
Michael Peyrot points out to me that B tase111 is an archaic form and may therefore represent *tiise111 (with zero grade root vocalism).
A NOTE ON THE TOCHARIAN DUAL
1. It appears that the PIE word for 'two' was *duo (cf. Cowgill 1985). I reconstruct the nom.du. ending as *-H,(e) (cf. Oettinger 1988) for animates and *-i for inanimates. The fundamental character of the animacy distinction must be recognized since Weitenberg's basic article (1987: 225 and passim). Other endings are analogical, e.g. *duoH, 'two (persons); *duoi 'two (things); Skt. ak$i < *-i-H, 'both eyes; Greek {J(J(Je < *-i-H, or *-i-e, with addition of the regular ending of the consonant stems at a prehistoric stage. It is usually assumed that the neuter ending was *-iH, (e.g. Oettinger 1988: 355). While the *-H, can easily be analogical in this ending, there are several indications that the earlier ending was *-i. First of all, PIE *duidkmti 'twenty' contains a dual ending, as opposed to "triH,dkomt 'thirty' (cf. Ko6o: 100), e.g. Skt. vitfl5atf, tritfl5at, Greek rf1ax.rt, rptft~wvm. The short -i cannot be analogical in these forms because there is no modeL Secondly, Vedic ak$i 'eye' may represent the original dual form, which was enlarged to ak$i, AV ak$itJI. The short -i of ak$i is difficult to explain otherwise. Thirdly, I think that the nom.du. ending *-i was preserved in Gathic. In his Gathic grammar, Beekes lists eight instances of short i for expected long I (1988: 42f.). If we disregard the YH forms, which have a shortened vowel in an inner syllable of a polysyllabic word followed by the enclitic -cii 'and; the five remaining instances are the following (with translation from Insler 1975a): (3o.ub) x'lticii (anaiti) 'both a way of easy access (and one with no access)' (31.4b) asicii (iirmaiti) 'also reward (and piety)' (32.1ob) afibyii 'with (his) eyes' (53.5a) kainibyo 'to (these) girls' (53.8C) syeitibyo (vlzibyo) 'for the (peacefully) dwelling (settlements)' The first three instances are dual forms while the last two represent analogical shortening before the oblique plural endings, as in the following cases: (49.4b) (x'iiiS) hizubiS 'with (their own) tongues' (43.7e) (aibllJwiihu gae8iihu) tanusicii (read tanufucii) '(among thy creatures) and (thine) own Though the evidence is not conclusive, the prominence of dual forms among the instances of unexpected short i and the absence of neuter dual forms with long I suggest that there was a short neuter ending *-i in Gathic. 2. Turning to the Tocharian languages, I think that an explanation which starts from PIE *duo and the endings *-H,(e) and *-i is preferable to possible alternatives. It follows that I find myself unable to adopt the interpretation
Tocharian which Hilmarsson has proposed in his careful analysis of the material (1989). In this note I shall not go into a detailed discussion but limit myself to a few basic points. As Pedersen pointed out already (1941: 75), "eine Flexionsform, die in B -ne, im A _n geben sollte, miisste den ieur. Vokal o enthalten haben. Fur eine solche Flexionsform gibt es aber nirgends eine Stiitze. Wir miissen also in -ne eine enklitische Partikel sehen, so unklar es auch ist, wie sie dazu gekommen ist, sich mit Dualformen zu verbinden". I think that this particle can be identified with the deictic particle *an < *H,en (cf. Ko63: 32of.) followed by the numeral *dwo in the same way as Lith. mudu 'we two; judu 'you twd, fern. mudvi, judvi, OE wit, git. The same particle is found in the 3rd sg. suffixed pronoun A -I'Jl, B -ne. The genitive forms in A -nis, B -naisafi, -naisi can be compared with Arcadian -OIVV (cf. Hilmarsson 1989: 61f.) and Lith. locative mudviese,judviese. The expected reflex of the PIE endings *-H,e and *-i is palatalizing *-a in Proto-Tocharian, and this is indeed the regular ending before the dual particle, e.g. A aSai'Jl, B d(a)ne 'both eyes'< *ok"'i-ndwo, which therefore reflects an older stage than Greek 6aae (which has an analogical -e). I think that the expected reflex of *-iH, would be *-ya in view of AB tas- < *dhH,s- and A -miii'Jl, B -mane < *-m.H,nos (cf. Klingenschmitt 1975: 161f.). The objection that we find -i- in the optative does not hold because this mood was thematicized, as is clear from the 3rd pl. ending B -yei'Jl, -yentar, so that the formative -i- may represent *-iH,e-. I agree with Ringe (apud Hilmarsson 1989: 10) that the dual ending *-a can easily be analogical in the thematic flexion. The expected reflex of the original thematic ending is found in A wu < *dwoH, we < *dwoi 'twd, B tai < *toi 'the two'. On A ti- for *te- in tii'Jl 'these twd, tim 'those two' see Ko63: 319ff. The neuter dual ending *-i palatalized the preceding *w in B kenl(ne) < *gonwi( -ndwo) 'both knees; but not in A kanwei'Jl (which adopted -e- from we < *dwoi). The resulting West Tocharian neuter dual ending -i < *-wi then spread to pwiiri(ne) 'two fires' because original *-i was lost without a trace after the consonant r, which was unique in resisting palatalization, and further to the Buddhist vocabulary (cf. Hilmarsson 1989: 59). After the loss of fmal *-a, the West Tocharian ending -i < *-wi was the only nonzero dual ending outside the pronouns, and I think that this is why it replaced *-u and *-ai in B wi 'twd, where the absence of palatalization shows that it cannot have been original, cf. A wiki, B ikai'Jl 'twenty'< *dwi-. If Greek fX!lf(Jl 'on both sides' represents *H.nt-bhi (Jasanoff 1976), Toch. A ampi, B antpi, antapi 'both' reflect *H,nt-bhi-H,e, with similar addition of the regular dual ending as in Greek &;/lrpw, Latin ambo < *H,nt-bhoH,. More precisely, the initial vowel and the preservation of -t(a)- show that *H,nt- was replaced by the reflex of acc.sg. *H.entm at some stage. My colleague Robert Beekes suggests to me that a derivation from *H,en- 'that' rather than *H.ent'face' is preferable from a semantic point of view. I disagree, not only because
A note on the Tocharian dual
157
this leaves the -t- unexplained but also because a development from 'two face to face, opposite to each other' actually seems more appropriate to me than from 'the two beyond, on the other side, cf. also Greek ~vm, avrto~. The form A iimpuk may reflect *H,nt-ll'i-kw(e), with -uk < *-akw as in yuk, B yakwe 'horse, etc. 3. Pedersen's derivation of B ikii111 'twenty' < *wiknt (1941: 253) cannot "be safely discarded" (Hilmarsson 1989: 121) because short *i probably caused palatalization in the same way as the other front vowels, as is especially clear from the 3rd pl. ending A -fie< *-nti. The corresponding Bending -111 represents the secondary ending *-nt (cf. Ko33: 66 on the A zero ending beside -fie). The sequence *wi gave rise to the B dual ending -i, as was pointed out above. The absence of palatalization in B wase 'poison' does not warrant the assumption of a new sound law but rather points to an early borrowing from Indo- Iranian (Skt vi~am ), as is indeed suggested by its specialized meaning and lack of phonetic congruity with Greek '16~ and Latin virus. Thus, I think that PIE *duidkmti lost its *-i on the analogy of *dekmt and *triH.dkomt and developed into A *wikiii'J1, B ikiii'J1. Though the ending of A wiki looks like the regular nom. pl. ending AB -i < *-eies of the masculines which did not take the nasal sufftx -fi < *-nes, it seems probable to me that it originated as a copy from the particle -pi in such instances as A wiki ~api 'twenty-one: cf. B ikii111 ~e. In any case this -i must be of recent origin because it did not palatalize the preceding consonant It cannot be a dual ending because there is no such ending in East Tocharian.
THE TOCHARIAN IMPERFECT
Krause and Thomas list the following Common Tocharian imperfects (1960: 217):
1sg. 2sg. 3sg. 1pl. 2pl. 3pl.
'togo TB
TA
'to be' TB
yaim yait yai, yey yeyem yaicer, yeycer yeyel'fl, yel'fl
yem yet ye$ *yemas *yec yefic
$aim, $eym $ait $ai, $ey $eyem $aicer, $eycer $eyel'fl, $el'fl
TA
$em $et $ey
$emas *$eC $efic
These paradigms are generally derived from the PIE optative (e.g. Pedersen 1941: 206, Lane 1953: 279, Pinault 1989: 128, Klingenschmitt 1994: 406, Winter 1994: 294). Other verbs show different formations (cf. Krause & Thomas 1960: 218-221): TB i-imperfects of present stem classes I-IV and VII-XII, e.g. act. 3pl.
priyel'fl to par- 'to carry' (thematic present), ISg. klyau$im to klyaus- 'to hear' (thematic present), mid. 3pl kraupiyentar to kraup- 'to collect' (thematic present), act 3sg. ai$$i to ai- 'to give' (sk-present), 3sg. wey$i to we- 'to say' (sk-present), 3sg. kalpii$$i to kalp- 'to obtain' (sk-present), 3pl. lkii$yel'fl to lak- 'to see' (sk-present); TB oy-imperfects of present stem classes V and VI, e.g. mid. 3pl. lkoyentar to lak- 'to see' (a-present), act. 3pl. kiirsanoyel'fl to kars- 'to know' (na-present), ISg. tarkanoym to tark- 'to release' (na-present); TA a-imperfects of present stem classes I-XII, e.g. act. 3sg. keiia to ken- 'to call' (thematic present, preterit kak), 3sg. klyo$a to klyos- 'to hear' (thematic present, preterit klyo$), 3sg. eyii, 3pl eyar to e- 'to give' (s-present, preterit was), 3sg. karya to kar- 'to laugh' (ye-present), 3sg. katafisa to katk- 'to stand up' (na-present, preterit katak), mid. 3sg. kropiiat to krop- 'to collecf (na-present, preterit kropat); TA a-imperfects of subjunctive stems, which are very few and hard to analyze; in fact, these forms are probably based on unattested present formations (cf. Lane 1953: 281); TA imperfects derived from the root, which is the root of the present stem in the case of suppletive paradigms. Krause and Thomas mention the following instances (1960: 221, cf. Pedersen 1941: 174):
160
Tocharian (1) act 3pl. sarsar to ki:irs- 'to know' (na-present, preterit 3Sg. si:irs, 3pl. krasar, mid. 3Sg. ki:irsat), mid. 3Sg. salpat to ki:ilp- 'to obtain' (na-present, preterit 3sg. kiilpat), act 3pl. carkar, mid. 3sg. carkat to tiirk- 'to release' (na-present, preterit 3sg. ciirk, 3pl. tarkar), mid. 3sg. parat, 3pl. parant to par- 'to carry' (thematic present, preterit 3sg. kamat), act. 3sg. lyak, 3pl. lyakar to liik- 'to see' (a-present, preterit 3sg. piilkat), mid. 3pl. sakant to tsiik- 'to pull out' (na-present, preterit 3pl. tsakar, mid. 3sg. tskat); (2) act 3sg. crankiis, 3pl. crankiir to triink- 'to say' (athematic present, preterit 3sg. we, wena-, 3pl. wenar), act. 3pl. separ to tsip- 'to dance' (athematic present).
It is generally assumed that the TA a-imperfect must be connected with the stative e-verbs of other Indo-European languages (e.g. Pedersen 1941: 179, Lane 1953: 285), with *-e- yielding Tocharian -a- in open syllables (cf. Ko95: So). This explains the palatalization of the preceding consonant. The same formation is found in the preterit, e.g. 3sg. TA klyo$, TB klyau$a 'heard~ While Pedersen does not doubt that these preterits are "dem Ursprunge nach Imperfekta" (1941: 190), Lane thinks that all TA imperfects except ye- 'go' and $e- 'be' are "in origin identical with preterit formations" which are "all derived from IE perfects and aorists" (1953: 278). The latter view cannot be correct because the development of an imperfect into an aorist is commonplace but "der umgekehrte Vorgang, tJbergang eines gewohnlichen Aorists zu imperfektischer Funktion, kommt nicht vor" (Pedersen 1941: 175). In fact, Pedersen argues that the a-imperfect was preserved beside the i-imperfect in TB 3sg. yama$$a, 3pl. yam~$are, mid. 3sg. yam~$ate 'made' (1941: 181), with durative meaning, as distinct from the frequentative i-imperfect yama$$i, yama$$itiir. Similarly, the TA preterit wenabeside we 'said' may be compared with Russian ipf. gavorll "seine Worte waren" beside pf. skazal "er sprach die Worte aus~ and theTA preterit klyo$ beside the imperfect klyo$a 'heard' with Russian slysal, "wo wir den Vorgang perfektiv auffassen" (Pedersen 1941: 175). It follows that Tocharian A is more archaic than Tocharian B in the formation of the imperfect. Interestingly, the TA 3sg. preterit endings -a and zero reflect the original distinction between imperfect and preterit The former ending is found with a-imperfects and with preterits of classes N and V, which are derived from skand n-stem formations, whereas the latter ending is limited to root imperfects, which will be discussed below, and preterits of classes I-III and VI, which reflect perfects and aorists. The difference between imperfect klyo$a and preterit klyo$ 'heard' is strongly reminiscent of the one between Old Church Slavic imperfect slyfaase and aorist slyfa, with loss of the fmal vowel in Tocharian A. Elsewhere I have derived the Slavic imperfect from a nominal form in *-e- followed by the perfect of the verb 'to be' (Ko71). In a similar vein, we may attribute the preservation of the TA imperfect ending -a to the former presence of a verbal
The Tocharian imperfect
161
clitic. It seems probable to me that this clitic has left a trace in the 1sg. ending -wa, perhaps from *bhwe-, which serves to disambiguate the ending from 3sg. -a. Thus, I think that the TB i-imperfect is at least partly the result of an innovation. As a rule, the i-imperfect is derived from the present stem in the same way as the Tocharian optative is derived from the subjunctive stem. The oy-imperfect is the i-imperfect of stems in a laryngeal It presupposes an earlier formation in *-o < *-a-. The former existence of an oy-optative in Tocharian A is indicated by the lack of palatalization in 3sg. tak~ 'were; kars~ 'knew' (cf. Pedersen 1941: 203). The original formation in *-a- is reflected in TA ya 'went' beside i- 'to go; TB iya111 'goes about: imperfect lyoy, cf. Skt. ya- beside i- 'to gd, Lith. j6ti 'to ride'. It thus appears that the i-imperfect developed from the iterative use of a present optative and replaced an earlier imperfect which was partly preserved in Tocharian A. In fact, the modal use of the TB present optative has been preserved in a number of instances (cf. Pedersen 1941: 206). The TB i-subjunctive must also be derived from an earlier optative (cf. Lane 1959: 166), e.g. 1sg. W$iyau '(will) staY, cf. ws~$iil11 'stays'. The TB "intensive preterit" is formally a preterit of an i-subjunctive, e.g. 3sg. ~lya 'stayed' or 'would stay'. Against this background, it is improbable that the Common Tocharian imperfects of the verbs 'to go' and 'to be' represent original optatives. Such a derivation is also difficult from a morphological point of view because the vocalism of TA ye-, $e-, TB yai-, yey-, $ai-, $ey- requires *-oi-, which is unattested in Tocharian. The expected reflexes of the PIE optatives of *ei- and *es- in Tocharian would have yielded *iya-, *$ya-, and undoubtedly have joined the a-flexion and not have been replaced by a unique formation in -ey- on the basis of an unknown model. It is much more probable that the attested paradigms are what one expects them to be, viz. original imperfects. What are the expected reflexes of the original imperfects? Consider the following paradigms: 1Sg.
2sg. 3sg. 1pl. 2pl. 3pl.
Vedic
Indo-European
Proto-Tocharian
ayam ais ait aima aita ayan
*eim *eis *eit *eime *eite *eient
*yey *yey *yey *yeym *yeyc *yeyn « *yayn
This is a perfect reconstruction of the Proto-To char ian paradigm for the verb 'to go'. In the case of the verb 'to be, the paradigm was evidently remodeled by substituting $ey- for sg. *yes, *ye, pl. *yey- < *es-. It follows that we can reconstruct the augment in Tocharian, as we can in Germanic (cf. K135: 138) and Celtic (cf. K239: 109f.).
Tocharian The derivation of TA ye- and $e-, TB yey- and $ey- from PIE augmented imperfects has led me to propose a new explanation for the origin of theTA root imperfects siirs- of kars- 'to knoW, siilp- of kalp- 'to obtain~ ciirk- of tark- 'to release, par- of par- 'to carry, lyiik- of lak- 'to see~ siik- of tsak- 'to pull ouf, crankof trank- 'to saY, sep- of tsip- 'to dance, all of which seem to reflect a palatalizing long root vowel *-e-. The development is phonetically regular in the last five verbs (cf. Ko95: So) and may be either analogical or conditioned by the following tautosyllabic resonant in the frrst three. The last two verbs, where *-edid not shift to -ii-, joined the flexion of the sigmatic aorist. The long root vowel could have arisen on the analogy of *yey- and *$ey- at an early stage of ProtoTocharian, analogous to the rise of long vowel preterits in Latin and Germanic on the basis of such perfects as *ed-, *em-, *ep- (cf. K120: 104). However, these forms evidently represent original imperfects which became root aorists by a differentiation between present and aorist stems (cf. K239: 155). Thus, TA lyiik 'saw' and TA piirat 'carried' reflect an earlier stage than Latin leg! and Gothic berum (cf. also Pedersen 1941: 176, Lane 1953: 282). The theory advanced here also provides an explanation for the discrepancy between the causative (class II) preterits of Tocharian A and B, which must be derived from the PIE reduplicated aorist (cf. Pedersen 1941: 187, Krause & Thomas 1960: 244), e.g. TA 3sg. cacal to tal- 'to raise, 2sg. sasrii$t to tsar- 'to splif, 3sg. lyalyam, lyalymii- to lam- 'to sef, which point to *tetl-, *dedr-, *lelm-, also 3sg. kakal to kal- 'to endure' with restoration of the initial consonant (cf. Winter 198ob: 561), but TB 3sg. ciila <*tel-, 3sg. tsyiira with recent tsy-, mid. 3sg.lyamate < *lem- with recent stress on the initial syllable. The latter forms are clearly innovations and may have been modeled after the root imperfects when these had become preterits in Tocharian B. The reduplicated formation survived in TB 3sg. yaika < *wewik-, TA wawik 'removed~ and in the participle, e.g. TB fiefimu < *nenm-, TA nanmu to nam- 'to boW, also TB scdcamu, TA sasmu < *stestm- 'puf, cf. with a restored initial consonant TB kekamu, TA kakmu < *gegm- 'come, as opposed to TB papeku < *piipeku < *pepokwos, TA pakku < *pepk- 'boiled~ It appears that the reduplication vowel is TB -e-, TA -a- in original aorists and TB -a-, TA -ii- in original perfects, cf. TB paspiirttau, causative peypirttu < *(s)pesp(e)rtwos 'turned~ but TA siispartwu, causative siisparlW$U with analogical vocalism. It follows that TB paspiirttau may represent *-spertw- < *-sportw-, with the same lowering as in the TA imperfects siirs- 'knew' and ciirk- 'released'. When the imperfects became preterits, they formed participles with the reduplication vowel of the aorist, not the perfect, cf. TB lyelyku to 3sg. lyiika 'saW, keklyau$U to klyau$a 'heard: wewefiu to wefia < *wokne 'said: TA kaklyU$u, wewfiu. As this reduplication is irregular from a synchronic point of view (cf. Krause & Thomas 1960: 238, 242), it follows that aorist and perfect were separate categories when these participles were created. The imperfective aorists which developed from earlier imperfects may have
The Tocharian imperfect been preserved as a distinct category in Proto-Tocharian, as they were in Slavic, e.g. OCS slyfa, TA klyo~ 'heard'. When the root imperfects were ousted by i-imperfects in Tocharian B, they resembled the reduplicated preterits formally by the palatalization of the initial consonant and semantically by their opposition to the simple preterits. As Pedersen has pointed out, the meaning of the Indo-European reduplicated aorist is not only causative but also that of "einer als abgeschlossen vorgestellten Wiederholun(, i.e. an imperfective aorist, e.g. Greek (l)rrbrJ..r{yov "brachten durch wiederholtes Schlagen zustande" (1941: 177). The former root imperfect therefore provided a suitable model for an elimination of the reduplication in the preterit, e.g. TB ciila 'raised: siirla 'let knoW, TA caciil, sa§iirs. The original root imperfect was preserved as a preterit in TB lyiika, lyakii- 'saw' (not 'let see'), lyawii- 'rubbed'. I agree with Lane that "the long-vowel preterits and imperfects in question have in origin nothing to do with the reduplicated forms" but disagree with his view of "a developing category of imperfects" in Tocharian A (1953: 282f.). The accentuation of the causative preterit in Tocharian B shows that it is a recent formation.
VESTJYSK ST0D, ICELANDIC PREASPIRATION, AND PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN GLOTTAUC STOPS
In his monograph on the vestjysk st0d, Kristian Ringgaard concludes "that the v-st0d is only found immediately before the plosives p, t, k, and that it is found wherever these stand in an original medial position, following a voiced sound in a stressed syllable. The exceptions to this are certain types of loanwords from a later period" (Ringgaard 1960: 10, 195). "The v-st0d is a complete occlusion of the vocal chords, combined with the diaphragm's movement of inhalation, equalizing the difference in pressure, and caused by an attempt to pronounce pure and unaspirated fortes plosives when medial" (Ringgaard 1960: 199), i.e., a full-fledged glottal stop. Ringgaard dates the rise of the vestjysk st0d to the 12th century because it is characteristic of "all then existing medial plosives". The view that the vestjysk st0d originated from a phonetic development of fortes plosives in medial position was already put forward by Anders Pedersen (1912: 42), who compared the development with the rise of preaspiration in Icelandic. It is an elaboration of Axel Kock's hypothesis that the vestjysk st0d represents "en ljudaffektion, som intratt vid tenues i vissa stallningar" (Kock 1891: 368 fn., similarly 1901: 26 fn.). Accepting the thesis that the rise of the vestjysk st0d has nothing to do with accentuation or apocope, we are faced with three conflicting theories on its origin: 1.
T1: lt < ht (A. Pedersen 1912: 42). This view is accepted by H. Pedersen (1942: 119).
T2: lt < t (Jespersen 1913: 23). This view is accepted by Ringgaard (1960: 108). T3: (t < tt (Skautrup 1928: 45). This view is explicitly rejected by Hansen (1943: 135). The difference between these three proposals must not be exaggerated. All of them start from the conviction that the origin of the glottal stop must be sought in a series of fortes plosives. The disagreement concerns the phonetic probability of the proposed developments. Ringgaard unjustly repeats Jespersen's objection to Pedersen's view: both the rise of glottalization from preaspiration and the rise of preaspiration from a preceding glottal stop are well attested, e.g. in Burmish languages (cf. Bradley 1979: 127-131). Ringgaard's own view that the vestjysk st0d is a spontaneous innovation of the western dialects can hardly be called an explanation. Moreover, it does not account for the parallel development of preaspiration in Icelandic.
166
Germanic phonology
2. Preaspiration is found not only in Icelandic, but also in Faroese, West Norwegian, and the Gaelic dialects of Scotland. Phonetically, the preceding vowel is cut short and continued as a whisper; a preceding resonant (m, n, l, r) is partly or wholly unvoiced. The distribution of preaspiration in Icelandic has been clarified in Einar Haugen's lucid analysis of the phonemic system (1941, cf. also 1958). It turns out that /b, d, gl differ from /p, t, kJ in the absence of preaspiration, except in initial position, where they are distinctively unaspirated. The opposition is neutralized after fricatives and after long vowels, where preaspiration is lost. All obstruents are usually voiceless. The same distribution is found in the Norwegian dialect of Jreren (Oftedal1947). Preaspiration is also attested in Hallingdal, northern Gudbrandsdal, Tr0ndelag, and even Herjedal We can conclude that it must have been common to a much larger area and that it is "an example of a feature taken to Iceland by the original settlers" (Chapman 1962: 85). Carl Marstrander has argued that the preaspiration in Scottish Gaelic is due to a Norse substratum (1932: 298). He advances the hypothesis that the Norwegian preaspirated stops represent a retention of the clusters hp, ht, hk, which developed into geminates elsewhere (302). He adduces Middle English haht, saht, slahter < ON Mtta 'danger~ satt, sd!tt 'agreemenf, slattr 'mowing' as evidence for the view that the cluster ht had not yet merged with the geminate tt in the 10th century. His theory implies three developments: D1: tt < ht in East Norse; D2: ht < tt in West Norse; D3: ht < tin West Norse in those positions where the preaspirated stop does not reflect a cluster, e.g. Icelandic epli 'apple, vopn 'weapon, opna 'open, gutl 'dabbling, vatn 'watei, batna 'improve, mikla 'increase~ pukla 'toucli, teikn 'toketi, lfkna 'show mercy, hjalpa 'helP, verpa 'throW, elta 'pursue~ erta 'tease,f6lk 'people, verk 'worl.(. Here the preaspirated stop appears to be the phonetic reflex of a Proto- Indo-European unaspirated voiced plosive. 3. Elsewhere I have argued that the reconstructed voiced plosives of the IndoEuropean proto-language were actually glottalic and that the glottalization has been preserved in Balto-Slavic, Armenian, and Indo-Iranian, and has left traces in Greek and Latin (Ko32, Ko6o). Both the vestjysk st0d and the Icelandic preaspiration receive a natural explanation if we assume that Early ProtoGermanic, like Proto-Balto-Slavic and Proto-Indo-Iranian, possessed a series of preglottalized voiced stops. Devoicing yielded a series of Late Proto- Germanic sequences lp, lt, lk. Syllable-fmal glottal stop was lost. Subsequently, weakening of the glottal stop in West Norse yielded preaspiration, while its assimilation to the following plosive gave rise to a series of geminates in East Norse, with the exception of Danish, where the plosives were subject to lenition and the glottal stop was preserved in the westernmost dialects. I wonder if Swedish vecka
V estjysk st0d, Icelandic preaspiration, etc. 'wee!(, droppe 'drop; skepp 'ship' reflect a dialect that escaped the earliest loss of the glottal stop. One may wonder if preglottalization had been preserved in word-initial position in Late Proto-Germanic. There is positive evidence for this idea in the vestjysk st0d ofjattig
168
Germanic phonology - OE haccian 'hack' < *kaHw- next to heawan 'hew' with laryngeal metathesis. - OE leccan 'moisten'< *laHw-. - OE naca 'boat' < *naHw-. - OE cwic 'alive'< *f:'iHw- < *g"'Hiw-. - ON skeika 'swerve' < *skaiHw- < *skaHiw-. - OHG speichaltra 'spit'< *speiHw- < *speHiw- next to splwan with further laryngeal metathesis. - OE spic 'fat' < *spiHw- < *spHiw-. - OE staca 'haystack' < *staHw-. - OE tiicor 'brother-in-law' < *daiHw- < *daHiw-.
There is no evidence for a similar development before *j, where a laryngeal lengthened the preceding vowel, e.g. OHG tiiju 'sue](. The rise of -ug- from antevocalic *-uH- must be explained as a secondary development (cf. Winter 1965: 198). The intervocalic sequences *-wH- and *-jH- yielded *-ww- and *-jj- in Proto-Germanic.
PROTO-GERMANIC OBSTRUENTS
Ten years ago I published a new reconstruction of the Proto- Indo-European system of obstruents, arguing for the absence of an original distinction between voiced and voiceless phonemes in the proto-language (Ko32). According to the conception outlined there, the historically voiced plosives were earlier aspirated and glottalized lenes, and the rise of an opposition between voiced and voiceless obstruents was a common innovation of all branches except Anatolian and Tocharian, resulting from the loss of aspiration in the north and glottalization in the south of the Indo-European language area. In subsequent years I argued that there is evidence for later preservation of the original glottalized plosives not only in Balta-Slavic and Armenian, as I had done earlier, but also in IndoIranian, Greek, Italo-Celtic, and Germanic (e.g. Ko75). This obviously has consequences for the reconstruction of the Proto-Germanic system of obstruents, which will be discussed in the present contribution. As I pointed out in my article on the PIE obstruents (Ko32: mf.), there is no evidence that the original aspirated plosives ever yielded fricatives in ProtoGermanic times (cf. already Meillet 1908: 89f.). The major indications which are relevant in this connection are the following: (1) A comparative analysis of the Scandinavian evidence points to original plosives in word-initial position (cf. Einarsson 1941: 43ff.). (2) In Old English, initial/gl was a plosive before consonants and back vowels (Moulton 1954: 24), so that the rise of a fricative before front vowels must have been posterior to the palatalization. (3) There is no Old Saxon spelling evidence for a fricative pronunciation of initial/g/, which can be established on the basis of the Middle Low German and modern dialectal evidence only (Moulton 1954: 32; Dr Norbert Voorwinden informs me that Iosef alliterates with God and good in Old Saxon, which renders this point immaterial). (4) In Old Norse, the preterit suffiX of weak verbs with a stem ending in lorn is a dental plosive if the preceding syllable is heavy, but a dental fricative if the preceding syllable is light, e.g. deilda 'divided; kenda 'taught' (inf. kenna), vallJa 'chose; vanlJa 'accustomed'. The simplest way to account for the difference is the assumption that an intervocalic plosive *d became a fricative at the stage between the first and the second syncope. Thus, the syncope in *dailido yielded *daildo, the intervocalic development of the dental plosive in *walido then yielded *walilJO, the syncope in the latter form yielded *wallJo, and the shortening of fmal vowels eventually yielded the attested forms deilda and vallJa.
170
Germanic phonology
If this reconstruction of the relative chronology is correct, it follows that the intervocalic dental plosive was preserved at the time of the earlier syncope. (5) Intervocalic *lJ was lost before r when the intervening vowel was syncopated in Proto-Norse, e.g. fi6rir 'four, hvarir 'which', Gothic fidur-, JuajJarai. Since the cluster was not simplified in velJr 'weather' < *uedhrom, Russ. vedro, the dental plosive in this word had apparently not yet become a fricative at the time of the younger syncope. Thus, the rise of a fricative in velJr was evidently posterior to the loss of the fricative with compensatory lengthening in fi6rir and hvarir, which was in its tum posterior to the syncope in 'tilJur- and *hwalJar-.
(6) Old Norse batt 'bouncf, helt 'held: Gothic haihald point to preservation of the plosive before the apocopated ending *-e. The final fricative of Gothic faifaljJ 'folded' was assimilated to the preceding resonant in ON fell'covered the head: as it was infimm 'five'; the forms hell and felt are analogical If the obstruent *d had been a fricative at the time of the apocope, it would have yielded -P in Gothic and have been assimilated to the preceding resonant in Old Norse. It follows that the fricative of Gothic anabaup 'ordered: ON baulJ from *bhoudhe is an innovation while the corresponding dental plosive of West Germanic must be an archaism. Since the Proto-Germanic voiced obstruents have a twofold origin, their reconstruction as plosives poses a chronological problem with respect to Verner's law. There are two possibilities:
(1) Verner's law was posterior to the rise of the voiceless fricatives f, p, x which resulted from Grimm's law. This is the usual view. It implies a development *t > *P > *lJ > d > lJ, e.g. in English father, OE freder, ON falJir, Greek Jrar~p. Since the dental obstruent was preserved in ON datsg. felJr, Greek 1rarpt, it must have been a plosive at the stage discussed under (5) above (cf. Ko32.: 113). The objection that the dental obstruent may have been restored in this form does not hold in view of the word lelJr 'leather: Old Irish lethar, where such a restoration is impossible. (2) Verner's law was anterior to the rise of voiceless fricatives which resulted from Grimm's law. This is Vennemann's view (1984). I think that it is correct In my earlier discussion I stuck to the traditional view, mainly because of ON enn 'still: which cannot be separated from endr 'again: OHG enti 'earlier' (Ko32.: 113). The assimilation in ON enn points to a fricative, as in fimm and fell. The antinomy is resolved if we derive enn from acc.sg. *anpu, Greek ~vra, and assume that the umlaut was analogical, while OHG enti can be identified with Greek avrla<;. There is no evidence for a root-stressed loc.sg. form *anpi beside *andi (Greek avrl) and *un]Je in Germanic, in spite of Liihr's effort to prove the contrary (1979). If we identify ON enn with Skt. anti, the plosive of the common
Proto-Germanic obstruents
171
Germanic prefix and- remains unexplained. (For the stress of *unpe cf. Gathic inst.sg. a.SI < *ftl 'reward' and Beekes 1985: 197. Perhaps we do have to assume a root-stressed paradigm on the strength of enn and *unpe and a derivative to account for endr and OHG enti. If this is correct, it remains unclear why the prefix and- adopted the plosive of the derivative.) The hypothesis that Verner's law was anterior to Grimm's law has several advantages beyond the points which have been mentioned thus far. It provides a simple chronology for the Runic forms fadir (Stro), fajJir (Rok), ON janir (Lehmann 1986: 101). The rise of the younger futhark was evidently conditioned not by the voicing of the fricatives f, p, x, but by the loss of occlusion in the plosives b, d, g. Moreover, the total merger of the preterit formative *-dh(€)- with the participial formative *-t(o)- is best explained by an early phonological merger of the two obstruents, followed by a long period of analogical adjustments. There can be no doubt that the analogical processes operated in both directions. On the one hand, the suffiX of OE gehaifd 'had: gesregd 'said: gehygd 'mind: Gothic gahugds was taken from the dental preterit The original consonant was preserved in OE haft 'captive; Gothic andahafts 'answer'. On the other hand, the perfect presents ("praeterito-praesentia") created a preterit on the basis of the participle, e.g. OE cune 'could: cun 'known'. Riickumlaut preterits are also a creation on the basis of the participle, e.g. OE worhte 'worked; jJuhte 'seemed~ They replace earlier perfects (strong preterits), as is clear from the root vowel of warhte beside worhte, also pohte beside puhte, with secondary transfer to the paradigm of jJencan 'think' on the analogy of sohte, secan 'seelc. The original perfect was preserved in breac, brftcan 'use: which adopted the regular ending of the strong verbs in the participle brocen, cf. Gothic bruhta 'used' and OE coren 'chosen' replacing earlier cost. The ablaut was most widely preserved in the case of Gothic brahta, briggan 'bring, OE brohte, bringan, OHG briihta,
bringan. The hypothesis that Verner's law was anterior to the rise of the voiceless fricatives is compatible with the early rise of Proto-Germanic voiced plosives as a result of the dialectal Indo-European loss of aspiration. Both developments are at variance with the traditional reconstruction of PIE simple voiced stops yielding Proto-Germanic simple voiceless stops which were subject to a number of gemination processes in various Germanic language areas and shifted to affricates in Old High German. We must therefore reconsider the phonetic character of the Proto-Germanic voiceless plos ives. The usual reconstruction of simple voiceless plosives for Proto-Germanic does not account for the multifarious reflexes which we find in the daughter languages. The following developments are of major importance:
(1) Preaspiration in Icelandic, e.g. in epli 'apple, opna 'open; vatn 'water: batna 'improve; mikla 'increase, teikn 'token, verpa 'throW, elta 'pursue, verk 'work'.
172.
Germanic phonology
These examples show that the preaspirated stops do not reflect clusters but directly represent the voiceless plosives of Proto-Germanic. Since the same reflexes are found in the Norwegian dialect of Jreren (cf. Oftedal 1947), preaspiration is an inherited feature in these words. ( 2.) Preglottalization in the western dialects of Danish: the so-called vestjysk st0d (cf. Ringgaard 1960). The classic view that it represents "en ljudaffektion, som intriitt vid tenues i vissa stiillningar" (Kock 1891: 368 fn.) does not explain the rise of the glottal stop. (3) Gemination in Swedish, e.g. in vecka 'wee!(, droppe 'droP, skepp 'shiP, cf. ON vika, dropi, skip, OE wice, dropa, scip, Finnish viikko. This gemination is unexplained. (4) Assimilation of mp, nt, nk to pp, tt, kk in the larger part of Scandinavia. The nasal consonant was apparently devoiced by the preaspiration of the following plosive and then lost its nasal feature. (5) Gemination of k before j and w, e.g. ON lykkja 'coil', bekkr 'brool(, n9kkvi 'boaf, r~kkr 'dark'. Similarly, gemination of t before j in a limited area, e.g. Swedish satta 'sef. (West Germanic geminated all consonants except r before j and is therefore inconclusive.) ( 6) Gemination of p, t, k before r and l in West Germanic. The same development is found sporadically in Scandinavia; this suggests that we have to do with the loss of an archaic feature (such as preaspiration) rather than with an innovation. In Icelandic, preaspiration is lost before r and preserved before l (Haugen 1941: 101). (7) Standard English inserts a glottal stop before a tautosyllabic voiceless plosive, e.g. lea'p, hel'p (Brown 1977: 27). There is no reason to assume that this is a recent phenomenon. (8) The High German sound shift yielded affricates and geminated fricatives, e.g. OHG pfad 'path~ werpfan 'throW, zunga 'tongue~ salz 'salf, kind, chind 'child~ trinkan, trinchan 'drinl(, offan 'opelt wazzar 'water: zeihhan 'token'. These reflexes suggest a complex articulation for the Proto-Germanic voiceless plosives from which they developed. In the traditional theory, the origin of the gemination is unexplained. Note that the High German sound shift has a perfect analogue in the English dialect of Liverpool, where we find e.g. kx in can't, back (Hughes and Trudgil11987: 66). The developments listed here receive a natural explanation if we start from the system of obstruents which must be reconstructed for Balto-Slavic. In this branch of Indo-European, the unaspirated lenes of the proto-language are reflected as voiced plosives preceded by a glottal stop, e.g. Latvian p~ds 'footstep:
Proto-Germanic obstruents
173
nu6gs 'naked' from *pei:l-, *nog-, cf. OE fot, nacod. (The circumflex accent denotes a glottal catch.) When the voiceless plosives were lenited to fricatives in Germanic, voicedness was lost as a distinctive feature. This is my reformulation of Grimm's law. The Proto-Germanic system of obstruents, which lacked voiced phonemes, has been preserved largely unchanged in modem Icelandic (and in the Norwegian dialect of Jreren), except for the fact that relaxation of the glottal stop yielded preaspiration (cf. Haugen 1941). The original glottal stop was preserved in the western dialects of Danish in spite of the general lenition of obstruents characteristic of this language. It was assimilated to the following plosive in Swedish vecka, droppe, skepp, scitta. It devoiced and subsequently eliminated a preceding nasal consonant in the larger part of Scandinavia, e.g. ON drekka 'drinl.(. It was assimilated before kj and kw in ON lykkja, n9kkvi, and before p, t, k plus resonant in West Germanic. It was preserved before a tautosyllabic plosive in modern English. It was oralized and after a vowel assimilated when the following plosive was lenited to a fricative as a result of the High German sound shift, a development which was probably arrested by the loss of the glottal stop in the Low German area. I find no evidence for preservation of the glottalic feature in Gothic. Unlike the other Germanic languages, Gothic appears to have developed a distinction between voiced and voiceless phonemes at an early stage, probably under the influence of its non-Germanic neighbours. The new voiced plosives developed fricative allophones, which still remained strictly distinct from the voiceless fricatives in Wulfila's days, as Roberge has shown (1983). There is a trace of the Proto-Germanic absence of voiced obstruents in the Gothic words Kreks 'Greek' and dat.pl. marikreitum 'pearls: which were apparently borrowed from Latin Graecus, margarita at a stage when no voiced plosives were available. As a summary, the following schematic representation illustrates my view of how the system of obstruents developed from Proto- Indo-European to Gothic: I. Proto-Indo-European glottalized fortis len is
plain
aspirated
t:
t'
II. Dialectical Indo-European (Proto-Balto-Slavic) glottalized plain t voiceless voiced ii d III. Proto-Germanic (Proto-Norse, Proto-English, Proto-German) plosive fricative 't fortis len is t
Germanic phonology
174
IV. Gothic plosive voiceless voiced
fricative
p
t d
Verner's law must be dated to stage II. It yielded a voiced variant of the PIE fricative *s, which became phonemic when the stress was flxed on the initial syllable of the word. The rise of r from *z may be viewed as a consequence of the loss of voicedness as a distinctive feature which Grimm's law entailed in the theory advocated here. It appears that the rephonemicization of voicedness in Gothic forestalled the rhotacism. I am inclined to date the ftxation of the stress before Grimm's law in Gothic and after Grimm's law in the other Germanic languages. This chronological difference explains a number of seemingly independent characteristics of Gothic: (1) the preponderance ofbarytone forms, (2.) the elimination of Verner alternations, and (3) the absence of rhotacism.
KLUGE'S LAW AND THE RISE OF PROTO-GERMANIC GEMINATES
According to Friedrich Kluge (1884: 174) "trat nach Vollzug des zweiten lautverschiebungsaktes, d.h. nach der Wirkung des Vemer'schen gesetzes, die angleichung der betonten n-sufftxe an die vorausgehenden ronenden laute ein. Nachdem sich so das gebiet der tOnenden verschlusslaute erweitert hat, tritt der letzte Verschiebungsakt ein, wodurch alle medien, einfache wie geminierte zu [tenues] werden." Though Kluge was not the first to propose the assimilation of sufftxal *n to a preceding consonant in order to explain the rise of ProtoGermanic *kk, *tt, *pp, his presentation is rightly acknowledged as the canonical view in the later discussion of the problem. It therefore seems appropriate to call his rule "Kluge's law" (thus already Kauffmann 1887). The rise of the voiceless geminates belongs to the most debated issues in Germanic linguistics. It has received a comprehensive treatment in Rosemarie Liihr's Habilitationsschrift (1988), an impressive piece of work in the best German tradition (with 44 pages of bibliography and 2493 footnotes; I have noticed very few printing errors, mainly subscript dots missing in Indic forms, pp. 199, 200, 312). After a detailed discussion of earlier treatments in terms of "expressive gemination" and "expressive nasalization" in the frrst two chapters of her book, the author concludes (188): "Es steht nichts im Wege, die Gemination oder den Konsonantenwechsel in den meisten der sogenannten 'Gefiihlsworter' auf die gleiche Weise zu deuten wie im Falle von Wortern neutralen Gefiihlswertes:' I agree whole-heartedly; it follows that Fagan's theory (1989) must be rejected. In the central chapter of her book (189-215), Liihr presents her own theory, which basically conforms to Kluge's. She lists the following crucial arguments (191):
"1) Die Bedeutung der meisten Nomina mit Doppeltenuis oder Konsonantenwechsel liillt keine expressive, lautnachahmende oder Intensitiit beziehungsweise Iteration ausdriickende Lautgebung vermuten. 2) Die Doppelobstruenten treten vor allem in n-Stiimmen auf, was in der Flexion dieser Stiimme begriindet ist. 3) n-Stiimme mit *ll < *l-n, *nn < *n-n verhalten sich morphologisch wie die n-Stiimme mit Doppeltenuis. 4) Der Umstand, da6 ein und dasselbe Wort Doppeltenuis aufweist und als u-Stamm flektiert, ist bei der Annahme einer nicht lautgesetzlichen Entstehung der Doppeltenues nicht erkH:irbar:' These arguments decide the issue. In the last two chapters, Liihr adduces lists of nouns and verbs and analyzes the material. She derives the intensive and iterative verbs with voiceless geminates from factitives on the basis of deverbal
Germanic phonology adjectives in *-na- < *-no-, e.g. German biicken 'stoop, Skt bhugnti- 'bent: not from nasal presents. This looks very convincing (but see now Kroonen 2009: 47). Comparing Liihr's final text with her preliminary statement (1980), I find myself in agreement with her earlier rather than later analysis of the phonetic development involved. First of all, Kluge limited the assimilation rule to stressed nasal sufftxes in view of such instances as Gothic a]m 'year, auhns 'oven'.' According to Liihr's more recent view (1988: 192) "erscheint es ratsam, den Akzent bei der Beschreibung der n-Gemination au6er Betracht zu lassen, auch wenn sich mit Hilfe des Akzentes eine Reihe von Gegenbeispielen leichter erkH:iren lie6e." I certainly disagree. Secondly, Liihr reformulates Kluge's assimilation rule as gemination before *n and subsequent loss of the nasal. There is no material evidence for this view, which is based on an aprioristic theory of syllable structure.• I think that Kluge's formulation quoted above is superior to any modification which has been proposed since. The relative chronology of Kluge's law poses a problem which has not been solved yet. On the one hand, the rise of the new geminates was posterior to Verner's law because it affected the voiced reflexes of the PIE voiceless plosives in the same way as the original aspirates (thus already Paul188o: 133 fn., which Liihr does not mention). On the other hand, the devoicing of the geminates suggests that it was anterior to Grimm's law, or at least to the "Medienverschiebung': as Kluge pointed out already. The logical conclusion is that Verner's law preceded Grimm's law, a chronology for which there is other evidence as well (cf. K102: sf.). Those who refuse to accept this conclusion can choose between two alternatives. Either they may assume that the voiced fricatives which resulted from Verner's law assimilated a following *n and became plosives (Kluge 1884: 175) or became plosives before *n which was then assimilated (Liihr 1980: 259) before devoicing. Or they may assume that "zwischen der urgermanischen und der hochdeutschen lautverschiebung ausser der durch Verner aufgekH:irten noch eine weitere Verschiebung liegt, durch welche die lange verschlusslenis zur verschlussfortis verschoben wird" (Paul 188o: 133 fn.), "wobei die verdoppelten stimmhaften Reibelaute in der Gemination zunachst zu Verschlu6lauten und dann wie im Oberdeutschen zu stimmlosen Verschlu6lauten wurden" (Liihr 1988: 196), which means that it was eme von der germanischen Lautverschiebung unabhangige spatere Erscheinung'. Both solutions are unsatisfactory. The problem can be resolved if we start from the reconstruction of the Proto-Germanic system of obstruents which I have presented earlier (K1o2). In my view, the PIE aspirates lost their aspiration in dialectal Indo-European times already. They remained distinct from the "mediae" (unaspirated lenes) because the latter were preglottalized, as is clear from their reflexes in Balto-Slavic. After Verner's law had "das gebiet der ronenden verschlusslaute erweitert" (as Kluge
Kluge's law and the rise ofProto-Gennanic geminates
177
put it), the remaining voiceless plosives were lenited to fricatives and voicedness was lost as a distinctive feature. This is Grimm's law. The resulting system of obstruents is preserved largely unchanged in modem Icelandic, except for the development of preglottalization into preaspiration, e.g. in epli 'apple, mikla 'increase; verk 'work'. We can now date Kluge's law between Verner's law and Grimm's law: this enables us to explain the attested reflexes from well-known developments without any additional assumptions. The range of Kluge's law must not be underestimated. Liihr writes (1988: 250): "Nun erscheinen auch bei dem Wort Schiff Lautungen, die auf ein *pp weisen; diese sind in den etymologischen Worterbiichem im allgemeinen nicht erwahnt'; and she cites a number of forms on the basis of which "ist fiir das Althochdeutsche neben *skipa- ein *skippa- n. vorauszusetzen. [...] Demgegeniiber weisen alle iibrigen germanischen Sprachen allein auf eine Vorform mit einem urgerm. *p." The geminate is actually corroborated by Swedish skepp 'shiP, which relates to ON skip as Swedish droppe 'droP, vecka 'week' relate to 0 N dropi, vika and can safely be taken to be the reflex of *skibna< *skipn6-, cf. Lith. skiepas 'graft'. It would be interesting to reconsider the whole problem of East Norse gemination against this background. Similarly, the rootfinal consonant of the word for 'deep' was probably taken from *dubna- < *dhubhno-, Russ. dno 'bottoni, cf. Lith. dubils 'deep, holloW, with a short vowel pointing to *bh, not *b, also MHG topf'pot' <'vas profundum' (Liihr 1988: 232f. and 349f.).3 One can only hope that Kluge's law will now be recognized as an integral part of our knowledge in the standard treatments of Germanic historical linguistics. NOTES
' Cf. already Sievers 1878: 149 fn., which Liihr does not mention in her book, and Osthoff 1882: 300 fn. The formulation that "nicht sicher ist, ob ein im Friihurgermanischen auf ein *-n- folgender Akzent die n-Gemination verhindert hat" (Liihr 1988: 331) is of course a slip of the pen. On the detrimental influence of preconceived theoretical ideas on the investigation of the material see my discussion (K1o4) of Vennemann's application of this theory to Armenian data. 3 Unfortunately, the usefulness of Liihr's book is reduced by the limited character of the index. Thus, the page numbers given here can only be found through the words Topf and tupfen, respectively, not through tief, OE doppettan, or the Celtic, Baltic or Slavic cognates cited in the text.
LABIALS, VIlLARS AND LABIOVIlLARS IN GERMANIC
The eminent Indologist F. B. J. Kuiper has emphasized the necessity to distinguish between at least three different layers of pre-Germanic substratum (t995): (At) "European" words with a-vocalism and frequent voiced aspirates, e.g. *~ardh- 'beard: *~ar(e)s- 'barleY,*ghasdh- 'rod: perhaps *sam(a)dh'sand'.
*bhabh- 'bead,
(A2) Germanic words with a-, i-, u-vocalism, initial clusters kn-, kl-, and prenasalization, which is reflected as variation between -b-, -mb-, -mp-, -pp-, e.g. ON klifa 'climb: klif, kleppr, kleif, 'cliff: OE climban, clif. (A3) "Old European" words with frequent a-vocalism, few consonants and lots of sufftxes, reflected in the European hydronymy. Theo Vennemann has presented considerable evidence for the view that this substratum language is cognate with Basque (t994a). Kuiper goes on to discuss two Proto-Germanic words which may belong to layer At, viz. *babno 'bead, which he assumes to have replaced *babO < *bhabha reflected in Latinfaba and Old Pruss ian babo,' and *babmaz, Gothic bagms 'tree, OE beam, OHG bourn. Here he assumes dissimilation to *bauno and *baumaz in West Germanic and dissimilation of *babmaz to *bagmaz in East and North Germanic, cf. Old Swedish bagn 'trunK and concludes that the source language must have had two different root morphemes*~a~- 'bean' and *bhabh- 'tree'. The latter conclusion seems highly improbable to me. It is much more plausible that we are dealing with two derivatives of a single root *bha~-. which may have carried the verbal meaning 'grow'. This leads me to a reconsideration of the possibility that *bhabh- represents the PIE root *bheH3 u- in an unknown substratum language which may have branched off at an early stage.• I have long suspected the existence of a western Indo-European substratum language where the PIE laryngeals are reflected as velar obstruents to a larger extent than they are in Anatolian. It seems appropriate to give vent to my speculations here. As I have indicated elsewhere (Kn2), I think that the PIE laryngeals developed from Indo- Uralic velar plosives, e.g. PIE*dheH,- 'put' < PIU *deka-, Finnish teke- 'do, make, and PIE *deHr 'give, take' < PIU *tagu-, Finnish tuo'bring, southern Lappish duoke- 'self. For Armenian I have argued that PIE *H,eand *Ho- yielded e- and o- whereas *H,e- and *~e- yielded ha- and ho-, with voiced h-, respectively (Ko6t). If PIE *e yielded a while *11 and *H3 merged with *t and *g"'h in the western Indo-European substratum language, the expected
180
Germanic phonology
correspondences fit Kuiper's category A1 perfectly. We may then conclude that *bhabh- < *bhag"'hw- < *bheH3 w- is a natural development Another example where I suspect an obstruent reflecting a PIE laryngeal is the Gothic name of the s-rune sugil < *suH.l, with laryngeal metathesis in the zero grade of *seH.ul 'suO: Latin sol, cf. Gothic sauil < *siiwel-, ON sol. The alternative hypothesis that Gothic sugil is a dialectal variant of sauil meets with several difficulties. Firstly, there is no evidence for this type of dialectal variation elsewhere in the language. Secondly, there is no evidence for an intrusive-g-in Gothic, as there is in West Germanic, e.g. OE nigon < *newun, geogulJ < "juwundo, Gothic niun 'nine; junda 'youth'. Thirdly, it is unclear why a form from an obscure dialect should be used to designate the s- rune. It is more probable that the name represents an archaic symbol If the name of the s-rune represents a borrowing from a West Germanic dialect (Old English?), these objections are invalid. An example to which my colleague Robert Beekes has drawn my attention is the word for 'bridge, OE brycg, OHG brucka, if this is cognate with the word for 'eyebroW, OE brft < *H3 bhruH.-, Greek {)(ppik;. Here again, the semantic shift precludes the possibility of simple dialectal variation. Dr Peter Schrijver has drawn my attention to OE sugu 'sow; which may be another case in point if it represents the PIE word for 'pig, OE su. However, it seems to me that the velar may have been taken from the verb sugan 'suck' if it was not simply intrusive before vocalic case endings. An example with an initial laryngeal which is reflected as a velar obstruent is Gothic gazds 'sting, OHG gart 'goad' < *(asdh- < *~esd-, Latin hasta 'pole, spear; Middle Irish gat 'withe~ The regular development is reflected in Gothic asts 'branch; OHG ast, Greek i'J{oc;. A possible instance with a voiceless reflex of an initial laryngeal is Slavic kostb 'bone, Greek oareov (for alternative proposals see Hamp 1985 and Rousseau 1990), cf. especially the a-vocalism of Welsh asgwrn 'bone' beside Latin os. However, the meaning is not favorable for borrowing and Latin costa 'rib' rather suggests that we are dealing with two different roots here. A better example is Slavic koza 'goat' < *kaj'- < *H,eg-, Vedic aja, cf. Lith. ozjis 'he-goat' < *H.eg-, Vedic ajas (the long vowel in the Lithuanian word is a result of Winter's law, according to which an original short vowel became long and acute before an unaspirated voiced plosive in Balto-Slavic). The same root is recognized in Gothic hakuls, OHG hahhul 'cloa:tc. Another possible instance with an initial laryngeal is OHG habaro 'oats' if this word is cognate with Latin avena, Lith. aviza, Slavic o'Vbs'b. It is tempting to derive the Balto-Slavic words from *avifCdh_ < *H3ewi-H,d- 'fodder' with different simplification of the fmal cluster, despite Pedersen's reluctant attitude.3 However, the Germanic word may not be related because Finnish kakra and Middle Irish coirce, Welsh ceirch suggest that a different root may be involved.
Labials, velars and labiovelars in Germanic
181
A final example with a voiceless reflex of an initial laryngeal and a-vocalism is Latin cabo, caballus 'horse: Slavic kobyla < *kabh- < *H,ekw-, Finnish hepo. I find it difficult to separate these words. The possibility of deriving Latin faba 'bean' and caballus 'horse' from *bheH3w- and *H,ekw-leads me to reconsider the labialization of labiovelars in Germanic. As far as I can see, there has been little progress here since Streitberg's unsurpassed Proto-Germanic gran1mar appeared in 1896.4 As a rule, PIE labiovelars were preserved in initial and intervocalic positions in ProtoGermanic but were delabialized before rounded vowels at an early stage. The development of the voiced aspirate *t"h in initial position is unclear: "labialization to b- is improbable, delabialization to g- is unwarranted, assumed development to w- rests on disputable etymologies" (Polome 1987: 309). Yet I think that the number of good etymologies where a PIE labiovelar is reflected as a labial obstruent in Germanic is too large to be ignored, cf. especially Gothic wulfs 'wolf'< *wJkwos,fimj'flve' < *penkwe, ainlib 'eleven, twalib 'twelve'< *-likwa, bilaif 'remained' < *-loikwe, laiba 'remnant'< *loikwii, ON lifr 'liver' << *yekwr, Gothic wairpan 'throw'< *werg"-. While the initial labial of Gothic fidwor 'four' can easily have been taken from the word for 'five; the alleged assimilation of the labiovelar to the initial labial infimf seems rather problematical to me. It is improbable that the labial feature spread phonetically through the non-labialized vowel In cases of phonetic influence at a distance, we usually find either regressive assimilation resulting from mental anticipation, as in Latin quinque 'five, or progressive dissimilation, as in Spanish arbol 'tree' or in the Germanic instances which Kuiper adduces (1995: 83). I therefore regard the word for 'five' as a prime example for the phonetic development oflabials from labiovelars in Germanic. In view of the delabialization of labiovelars before rounded vowels in ProtoGermanic (cf. Streitberg 1974: nof., 134), it is clear that the rise of the labial obstruent in the word for 'wolf' must have been very early. It follows that the delabialization in ON ylgr 'she-wolf' must have been even earlier because it is hardly probable that an alternation between labial and velar obstruent within a single paradigm would have been preserved for a very long period of time. As the labial obstruent of OHG wulpa, OE wylf 'she-wolf' can easily have been taken from the word for 'wolf' before the consonant shift, I arrive at the following relative chronology:
182
Germanic phonology
(1) *wlk"'jii- > *wlkjii-, (2) *wlk"'os > *wulk"'os, (3) *wulk"'os > *wulpos, ( 4) *wulkjii- > *wulgjii- (Verner's law), (5) merger of *a, *ii with *o, *o, (6) *wulgjo- » *wulbjo- in West Germanic, (7) *wulpaz > *wulfaz (Grimm's law).s On the basis of Gothic wulfs, fimf, wairpan I now assume that the development of the labiovelars into labial obstruents was regular after resonants, and also before resonants in view of ON lifr 'liver, ofn 'oven, with later delabialization in Gothic auhns, Swedish ugn. The phonetic motivation for this development was provided by the dissolution of the intervocalic labiovelars into heterosyllabic sequences of plain velar plus *w, which is especially clear in the case of Gothic naqaps 'naked: where ON nekkvilJr and OHG nackot show gemination of the velar before *w, and in Gothic riqis 'darkness~ ON rekkr, and Gothic aqizi 'a'x, 0 H G ackus. Thus, I regard the labialization of the labiovelars as a form of cluster simplification. In the case of the root *lik"'- we may assume the former existence of a nasal present *link"'-, to be compared with Latin linquo 'leave'. The main objection to the explanation proposed here is the existence of the verbs Gothic siggwan 'sing, sigqan 'sinK and stigqan 'thrust'. The latter verb appears to belong to Kuiper's prenasalizing category A2, cf. ON stinga 'thrusf, OHG stehhan, stehhen, sticken 'pricK stehho, stecko 'stick' (but cf. Kroonen 2009: 48f.). The same may be suspected for the other two verbs. The connection of Gothic sigqan with Greek tcfrpOrt and Armenian ankanim 'fall' is no more than a possibility and the connection of Gothic siggwan with Greek Oftrp~ 'voice, oracle' is not compelling. No conclusions can be based on Gothic arJuazna 'arrow'. It is therefore possible that the labiovelars in these words belong to a layer which is younger than the labialization of the PIE labiovelars. NOTES
The accentuation of Russian bob 'bean' and its cognates in other Slavic languages points to an original root-stressed neuter, which was evidently created as a singulative formation. Note that Old Pruss ian babo is translated as Bonen in the Elbing vocabulary. • The reconstruction of the root as *bheH3 u- rather than *bheuH.- is based on the Vedic imperative bodh£ 'be!: the Old Irish preterit -ba, -bof, -bo 'was: Welsh bu, and other evidence (cf. K239: 77-79 and 125). 3 "Hat man denn je Schafe und Boeke mit Hafer gefiittert? Oder is der Name etwa ein Schimpfwort, von solchen Leuten ausgegangen, denen der Haferbrei
Labials, velars and labiovelars in Germanic nicht mundete?" (Pedersen 1895: 42). Wild oats may certainly have been part of the livestock's diet. "Die Bedingungen fUr den Eintritt dieser Verschiebung der Artikulationsstelle sind bis jetzt noch nicht ermittelt" (Streitberg 1974: m).
4
s On the relative chronology of Verner's law and Grimm's law cf. K1o2. Note that OHG lebara 'liver: not **-ur-, shows that the stem extension of this word arose prior to my stage (2).
PREASPIRATION OR PREGLOTTAUZATION!
In an earlier study (K1o2.) I argued that we have to reconstruct preglottalized stops for Proto-Germanic on the basis of the following reflexes: (1) Preaspiration in Icelandic, e.g. in epli 'apple, opna 'open, vatn 'water, batna 'improve; mikla 'increase, teikn 'toketi, verpa 'throW, elta 'pursue, verk 'work'. These examples show that the preaspirated stops do not reflect clusters but directly represent the voiceless plosives of Proto-Germanic. Since the same reflexes are found in the Norwegian dialect of Jreren (cf. Oftedal 1947), preaspiration is an inherited feature in these words. ( 2.) Preglottalization in the western dialects of Danish: the so-called vestjysk st0d (cf. Ringgaard 1960). The classic view that it represents "en ljudaffektion, som intriitt vid tenues i vissa stiillningar" (Kock 1891: 368 fn.) does not explain the rise of the glottal stop. (3) Gemination in Swedish, e.g. in vecka 'wee!(, droppe 'drop; skepp 'shiP, cf. ON vika, dropi, skip, OE wice, dropa, scip, Finnish viikko. This gemination is unexplained. (4) Assimilation of mp, nt, nk to pp, tt, kk in the larger part of Scandinavia. The nasal consonant was apparently devoiced by the preaspiration of the following plosive and then lost its nasal feature. (5) Gemination of k before j and w, e.g. ON lykkja 'coif, bekkr 'brool(, npkkvi 'boaf, r~kkr 'dar](. Similarly, gemination of t before j in a limited area, e.g. Swedish scitta 'sef. (West Germanic geminated all consonants except r before j and is therefore inconclusive.) ( 6) Gemination of p, t, k before r and l in West Germanic. The same development is found sporadically in Scandinavia; this suggests that we have to do with the loss of an archaic feature (such as preaspiration) rather than with an innovation. In Icelandic, preaspiration is lost before rand preserved before l (cf. Haugen 1941: 101). (7) Standard English inserts a glottal stop before a tautosyllabic voiceless plosive, e.g. lea'p, hel'p (Brown 1977: 27). There is no reason to assume that this is a recent phenomenon (cf. K142). (8) The High German sound shift yielded affricates and geminated fricatives, e.g. OHG pfad 'path', werpfan 'throW, zunga 'tongue, salz 'salf, kind, chind 'child: trinkan, trinchan 'drinl(, offan 'opel\ wazzar 'water, zeihhan 'token'. These reflexes suggest a complex articulation for the Proto-Germanic voiceless plosives from which they developed. In the traditional theory, the origin of the
186
Germanic phonology
gemination is unexplained (but see K138). Note that the High German sound shift has a perfect analogue in the English dialect of Liverpool, where we find e.g. kx in can't, back (Hughes & Trudgil11987: 66). The reconstruction of glottalization for Proto-Germanic has been challenged by Goblirsch, who claims that this feature "has not been directly attested in Germanic" (1999: 117), disregarding the vestjysk st0d and the English glottal stop which I have adduced as direct evidence. He claims that the "main argument in favor of the glottalic theory is a typological one" (1999: u8), disregarding both the comparative evidence which I have adduced in the course of the last 25 years (see especially Ko75) and the argumentation against the use of typological considerations in linguistic reconstruction (cf. K130). It is simply not true that "there is a nearly complete lack of direct evidence in Germanic and the other branches of Indo-European" (Goblirsch 1999: 119). What can I do but refer to my earlier publications? Goblirsch returns to the traditional reconstruction of voiced rather than glottalized stops for Proto-Indo-European and posits "spirants, phonologically undifferentiated as to voice" for the traditional Indo-European voiced aspirates (1999: 120), disregarding the comparative evidence from Germanic (cf. K1o2) and other languages and assuming independent rise of occlusion in Celtic, Germanic, Baltic, Slavic, Greek, Iranian, Albanian, Armenian, and Indic (1999: 121). He claims that his reconstruction is "the simplest system possible. There is every advantage to a simple protosystem" (1999: 122) and thereby unwittingly offers a perfect exemplification of the thesis that "the negative potential of aprioristic considerations must not be underestimated. Since theory can easily embody the reflection of rationalized prejudice, it is important that comparative work be carried out inductively" (K130: 97). Perhaps the most characteristic feature of the Germanic languages in comparison with their Romance and Slavic neighbours is the incomplete voicing in the obstruents. This feature is most striking in the peripheral dialects, especially in Icelandic and Upper German, but also in Danish. I find it very difficult to assume that these dialects have innovated and that the ProtoGermanic system resembled that of Spanish or Greek more than that of the attested Germanic languages. If we take the evidence of the peripheral dialects at face value, we must reconstruct a series of voiceless fricatives, a series of unaspirated voiceless plosives, and a series of voiceless obstruents with a complex articulation which is reflected as (pre)aspiration in the north and (af)frication in the south. The latter series remained distinct from the original geminates (cf. especially Petersen et aL 1998: 27 on Faroese, K142: 177 on northern English, and K138: 56 on southern German). Thus, I think that the alleged strengthening of initial obstruents in North Bavarian pro3d 'brei~ tum 'dumtn: tox 'Tag, kern 'geben' and Middle Bavarian pam 'Baum: taits 'deutsch: to
Preaspiration or preglottalization? 'Tag, kriiw 'grau' (cf. Goblirsch 1994: 33) in fact reflects an archaism. The West Germanic gemination of consonants before *j gave rise to a sixfold distinction in the obstruents without introducing voicing as a distinctive feature (cf. K138: 55). The question now is: what was the feature which is reflected as preaspiration in Icelandic, preglottalization in the western dialects of Danish, gemination in Swedish vecka, droppe, skepp, assimilation of mp, nt, nk to pp, tt, kk in the larger part of Scandinavia, gemination of k in ON bekkr, r~kkr and oft in Swedish siitta, gemination of p, t, k before rand lin West Germanic and sporadically in Scandinavia, preglottalization before a tautosyllabic voiceless plosive in English, and affrication in High German and in the English dialect of Liverpool? It cannot have been gemination, which remained a separate distinctive feature, e.g. in North Tyrol (Imst) prukb 'Briicke, l9xxa 'lacheiT, der.Jkkxa 'denken' (cf. Goblirsch 1994: 35). But it must have been a feature that could easily give rise to gemination under various conditions in the separate languages. As the phonetic difference between gemination and preglottalization is small, it can easily have been the latter, which may have been preserved in English and western Danish and by lenition have developed into preaspiration in West Scandinavian. Thus, I reconstruct for Proto-Germanic the preglottalization which is actually attested in standard British English and which offers by far the simplest explanation for the reflexes in the other Germanic languages. Note that this reconstruction of Proto- Germanic glottalization is wholly independent of any theories one may have on its Indo-European origins. In a recent article (1997), Page argues that preaspiration was present in the Common Scandinavian period and that the vestjysk st121d developed from this preaspiration (thus already Pedersen 1912: 42). This view was already rejected by Jespersen, who called it an example of "papirfonetik." (1913: 24). Ringgaard agrees with Jespersen and regards the vestjysk swd as a spontaneous innovation of the westernmost dialects of Danish (1960: 108). This does not explain the origin of the glottalization and dissociates it from the same phenomenon in English and from the rise of preaspiration elsewhere in Scandinavia. Page suggests that in comparison with the Scandinavian dialects with preaspiration, "dialects with swd are more centrally located, a pattern associated with innovations" (1997: 185). On the contrary, I would maintain that the vestjysk dialects are peripheral in relation to other varieties of Danish, which in their turn were peripheral to the dialects of Norway and Sweden at the time of the Viking expeditions. It therefore seems much more probable to me that preglottalization is ancient in Germanic and that the West Scandinavian preaspiration developed from it by lenition.
It appears that most scholars nowadays reconstruct North-West Germanic *e, and *e. as [a] and [e], respectively. Elsewhere I have argued for a reconstruction as [re] and [ea] instead (Ko84, Ku5, K124. K18o). Patrick Stiles has now emphatically endorsed the majority view (2004). Since he is evidently unaware of my publications, it may not be superfluous to return to the subject here. I shall try to avoid repeating what I have said earlier. There is evidence for a fronted pronunciation of *e, in Gothic, Old English, Old Frisian, Old Saxon, and the Dutch dialects of West Flanders, Zealand, Holland and Utrecht (cf. Ko84: 440), in early West Germanic names such as Suebi and Segimerus, and in Finnish loanwords from North Germanic such as miekka and niehla, Old Icelandic mrekir 'sword' (early Runic acc.sg. makija), mil 'needle' (cf. Gnmvik 1998: 88). The retraction of *e, to ii evidently spread from the High German area to the north and apparently took place independently in Scandinavia when new long vowels arose. In my view, the crucial factor is precisely the Proto-Germanic asymmetry in the low vowels between long front re and short back a which could be resolved either by fronting a to re, as in Anglo- Frisian, or by backing re to ii, as in High German and Scandinavian. If re had been retracted to ii in West Germanic already, the Anglo- Frisian fronting of short a to re would be entirely unmotivated. Moreover, we would have to reconstruct a totally unmotivated sequence of alternating backing and fronting developments under different conditions (cf. K18o: 46). If we want to avoid the assumption that fronted re was again retracted to a at various stages, it follows that the Anglo- Frisian fronting of the short vowel was blocked by a following l, r, h plus consonant and in open syllables by a back vowel in the following syllable (cf. already Heuser 1903: 1). Since we do not fmd palatalization before *ai and *au in Frisian, it is natural to assume that *ai had been monophthongized to ii before the Anglo-Frisian fronting of a to re and that *au had remained unchanged. The Anglo- Frisian palatalization then affected k and g before front vowels. Mter the earlier, "Saxon" migration which resulted in the conquest of Kent and Sussex in the flfth century, the fronting of a to re affected the remaining instances of a in closed syllables, and also *au with a before tautosyllabic u, in the dialect of the new settlers. This "Saxon" second fronting was followed by breaking and second palatalization, e.g. in eald, ceapian, Old Frisian ald 'old: kiipia 'buy'. In fact, the flrst stage of breaking can be identilled with the "Saxon" fronting because the conditions were largely identical: it appears that the process of breaking began as incomplete fronting of a before tautosyllabic l, r, h and u and subsequently affected e and i. After the "Anglian" migration which can be connected with the subjugation of the
190
Germanic phonology
Humber estuary starting around the middle of the sixth century, these developments spread to the northern territories, leaving traces only of the earlier situation. In the meantime, Anglian shared the development of Frisian on the continent, in particular the raising of re to e, which had been preceded by the Anglo- Frisian retraction of re to ii before w. The Kentish raising of re toe was probably a local development, perhaps under the influence of a second invasion in Kent in the sixth century. After the "Anglian" migration, Frisian fronted ii < *ai to re unless it was followed by a back vowel in the following syllable and monophthongized *au to ii. The distinction between e < *re and re < *ai is still preserved in modern dialects (cf. Campbell1939: 101'). The Anglo-Frisian and second English palatalizations preceded i-mutation because the umlauted vowels did not palatalize k and g but phonemicized the opposition between palatals and velars, so that Old Frisian shows palatalization before e < *re and e < *re but not before e < *a or re < *ai, e.g. tsetel < *katilaz 'kettle' and tziake < *krekon 'jaw' versus kenna < *kannjan 'make known' and kei, kiii < *kaijo 'key'. The Proto-Germanic adverbs 'here, 'there' and 'where' can be reconstructed on the basis of Gothic her, par, Juar and Old Norse her, par, hvar as *hiar, *j:Jar, *h"'ar and compared with Lithuanian sia-, ta-, ka- from Indo-European *ki-o-, *to-, *k"'o-. This explains the difference between the long vowel in 'here' and the short vowel in 'there' and 'where~ In West Germanic, the latter was lengthened so as to yield High German and Saxon -iir, Frisian and Anglian -er, and West Saxon -rer. Stiles now reconstructs Proto-West-Germanic *j:Jiir and *h"'iir and concludes that *e, had been retracted to *ii at the time of the lengthening (2004: 389).
In fact, things are more complicated. While the vowel of Old English and Old Saxon her and of Old High German hear and hier can be identified with *e. < *ea, with lowering of *ito e before a in *hiar (cf. K124: 16), the high vowel in Old Frisian and Old Saxon hlr suggests that the lowering was forestalled by the raising of *ia to ie in the Frisian and Low German dialectal areas, so that *e. never arose in this word. This view is supported by the fact that the Saxon variant her is frequently spelled hier. As I have pointed out earlier (K124: 17), I think that original *ea was preserved not only in High German, but also in Scandinavian at the time when breaking arose, and that the monophthongization of *ea to e took place under the pressure of the rise of re from umlauted *ii here. In Old English, *ea yielded eo infioll 'fell', heold 'held; speonn 'clasped;geong'went' (cf. Kn5: 99). Thus, we arrive at the following scenario. Mter *ii merged with *o in ProtoGermanic, symmetry could be restored by lowering *e, to ii, and this is what happened in High German and Scandinavian. This development was forestalled by the monophthongization of *ai to ii in Anglo-Frisian, where short a was fronted to re instead unless it was followed by a blocking environment These
Germanic *e, and *e.
191
developments preceded the Anglo-Saxon migrations. The lengthening in *Par and *h"'ar could take place at any time during these developments because there was no other long vowel than *e, [re, a] corresponding to short *a [a, re] in early West Germanic. The rise of *j:Jt:i!r and *h"'rer in Anglo- Frisian evidently preceded breaking and i-mutation, which belong to the period after the early migrations. Symmetry in the vowel system was again restored in North and West Germanic by the monophthongization of *ea to *e, except in High German, where *o was diphthongized instead. I conclude that there is no reason to assume a general retraction of *e, to ii in North-West Germanic and that Stiles pays insufficient attention to the chronological and motivational aspects of the developments.
PROTO-GERMANIC OBSTRUENTS AND Tim COMPARATIVE METHOD
In his impressive new monograph (2005), Kurt Goblirsch rejects my reconstruction of Proto-Germanic preglottalized stops. It may therefore be useful to examine his treatment of the evidence which I have adduced for my reconstruction. I have claimed that the following processes are direct reflexes of ProtoGermanic preglottalization (K1o2: 6f., see also K138, K192, K2n, K212): (1) Preaspiration in Icelandic, e.g. in epli 'apple, opna 'oped, vatn 'watei, where the aspiration developed from the lenition of a glottal stop. ( 2) Preglottalization in the western dialects of Danish: the so-called vestjysk st~d (cf. Ringgaard 1960), which is in my view an archaism. (3) Gemination in Swedish, e.g. in vecka 'weel(, droppe 'drop: skepp 'shiP, ON vika, dropi, skip, OE wice, dropa, scip, which developed from assimilation of a glottal stop to the following plosive. (4) Assimilation of mp, nt, nk to pp, tt, kk in the larger part of Scandinavia. The nasal consonant was apparently devoiced by the preaspiration of the following plosive and then lost its nasal feature. (5) Gemination of k before j and win ON lykkja 'coif, bekkr 'brool(, r~kkr 'darl(, and of t before j in Swedish satta 'to set' and other examples, from assimilation of a glottal stop to the following plosive. ( 6) Gemination of p, t, k before r and l in West Germanic. The same development is found sporadically in Scandinavia; this suggests that we have to do with the loss of an archaic feature rather than with an innovation. (7) Standard English inserts a glottal stop before a tau to syllabic voiceless plosive, e.g. lea'p, hel'p (cf. Brown 1977: 27), which is in my view an archaism. (8) The High German sound shift yielded affricates and geminated fricatives, e.g. OHG offan 'open, wazzar 'water: zeihhan 'toketi The gemination originated from the oralization of a glottal stop and its assimilation to the following fricative. Goblirsch does not discuss the vestjysk st~d and the English glottalization at all. He claims that the rise of distinctive preaspiration before p, t, k was a reaction to the loss of voicedness in b, d, gin order to maintain the distinction between voiced and voiceless geminates (p. 132). This does not explain the specific phonetic development Moreover, there is reason to assume that all obstruents were voiceless in Scandinavian until the 12th century (cf. K212).
194
Germanic phonology
Goblirsch discusses neither the spontaneous gemination in Swedish vecka etc. nor the conditioned gemination in ON lykkja, rekkr, Swedish siitta and similar instances. He attributes the West Germanic gemination of p, t, k before r and l to "Systemzwang" and to the relative length of the voiceless stops (p. 141), without discussing the origin of the length and the reason for further strengthening. He acknowledges but does not explain the rise of High German long fricatives from single p, t, k "die durch die hochdeutsche Spirantisierung geminiert wurden~ e.g. OHG offan 'open; ezzan 'to eat; sahha 'matter' (p. 154). What all of these lengthenings have in common is that they affected ProtoGermanic *p, *t, *k and that they remain unaccounted for in Goblirsch's theory. Thus, it turns out that Goblirsch simply disregards the comparative evidence for preglottalized stops in Proto-Germanic. This is a consequence of his a priori assumption that, since there is in Germanic "heute in keiner Sprache und in keinem Dialekt eine Serie der glottalisierten Konsonanten" (p. 59), no such series can be reconstructed for Proto-Germanic, in spite of the fact that preglottalization is actually attested in English and in the western dialects of Danish (cf. K192: 8). This has grave consequences because he thereby eliminates glottalization as a possible source of the Germanic consonant shifts from his reconstructions. A strict comparative analysis of Proto-Germanic *b, *d, *g yields a reconstruction of word-initial plosives which have been preserved in Scandinavian, English and High German, and probably in Gothic and Low German as well (cf. Moulton 1954 and K102). While it is generally recognized that *d was always a plosive in West Germanic, I have argued that in Scandinavian an intervocalic plosive *d became a fricative between the earlier and the later syncope and a postvocalic *d before -r- after the younger syncope, and that a word-final plosive *d was preserved both in Gothic and in Scandinavian at the time when fmal obstruents were devoiced after the apocope (K102: 4). Goblirsch disregards my argumentation and posits voiced fricatives which became plosives in all Germanic languages under various conditions and even projects this reconstruction back into Indo-European, in spite of the comparative evidence of neighbouring branches of the language family. This is what Moulton called a "reductio ad absurdum" which "immediately destroys the whole comparative method of reconstruction, and with it the whole concept of a proto-language. We must apply the comparative method either strictly or not at all" (1954: 38). Moreover, Goblirsch assumes that Proto-Germanic *b, *d, *g became devoiced independently in High German, Danish (and neighbouring dialects of Swedish, Norwegian, Low German and Frisian) and Icelandic (and Faroese), and then word-initially in Swedish, Norwegian, English and Low German (p. 17). In a strict comparative analysis one would rather assume an archaism in High German, Danish and Icelandic, and substratum influence from Celtic, Romance, Slavic and Finnish in northern English, Low and Central
Proto-Germanic obstruents and the comparative method
195
Franconian, northern Middle German and eastern Swedish, in spite of Goblirsch's statement to the contrary (p. 79). The reason why scholars are tempted to assume voiced fricatives for ProtoGermanic is of course that this simplifies the formulation of Verner's law, according to which voiceless fricatives became voiced under certain conditions. However, there are reasons to suppose that Verner's law preceded Grimm's law (cf. K1o2: sf. and Kn9: 2f.), which Goblirsch does not discuss. If Verner's law voiced *t to *d before the consonant shift, it follows that the traditional IndoEuropean *d and Proto-Germanic *t cannot have been simple voiced and voiceless stops. Since the reflexes of these consonants lengthened a preceding vowel under certain conditions in the same way as did the Proto-Indo-European laryngeals both in Latin (Lachmann's law) and in Balto-Slavic (Winter's law) and moreover left a trace in the glottalization which we fmd in the modern Baltic languages, the hypothesis of an original series of preglottalized stops is not farfetched. In Goblirsch's theory, voiceless plosives first become aspirates, then affricates, and fmally fricatives. Note that the frrst development regards the glottal articulation (delay of the voice onset time) whereas the second and the third concern the oral articulation (oralization of friction and loss of oral occlusion). It is presupposed that the glottal occlusion is released during the oral occlusion and lost together with the latter. In the case of preglottalization and preaspiration, the glottal occlusion is released and the glottis is opened wide before the oral occlusion takes place. When a preglottalized voiced stop becomes devoiced, the glottis is opened wide after the release of the glottal occlusion and remains so until the new voice onset When the latter is delayed, the new voiceless stop becomes asp irate d. Thus, the devoicing of a preglottalized voiced stop yields a preglottalized voiceless stop which may develop into a preaspirated voiceless stop and subsequently into a voiceless aspirated stop. This is what probably happened in the Germanic languages. An oral fricative may be shortened to an oral plosive, but it is improbable that this happened repeatedly on a large scale. I conclude that the Germanic consonant shifts started with a lenition of the original voiceless plosives *p, *t, *k to fricatives f, p, x and the concomitant general devoicing of obstruents which yielded the characteristic absence of voicedness in High German, Danish and Icelandic, where the original preglottalization is reflected as consonantal strengthening, vestjysk strad and preaspiration, respectively. No such development took place in the neighbouring Indo-European languages (Baltic, Slavic, Italic, Celtic), where the inherited voicedness in the obstruents was never lost, except in Italic after the lenition of the simple voiced stops (i.e. the so-called voiced aspirates) to fricatives. Preglottalization was preserved in English and western Danish, lenited to preaspiration in West Norse, and oralized in East Norse and High German,
Germanic phonology except in word-initial position, where delay of the voice onset time yielded postaspiration. Further delay of the voice onset time and oralization of the friction yielded affricates and fricatives in High German. In Gothic, voicedness was restored under the influence of a Romance substratum which produced a system of obstruents resembling that of modern Spanish (cf. K1o2.: 8). The reconstruction of Proto-Germanic preglottalized stops thus gives a complete, consistent and well-motivated picture of the multifarious consonant shifts in the Germanic languages.
ENGLISH bottom, GERMAN Boden, AND THE CHRONOLOGY OF SOUND SIDFI'S
Guus Kroonen has convincingly shown (2oo6) that English bottom and German Boden represent an original formation in *-men- which can be identified with Greek JrV8ft~V 'bottoni, with Indo-European loss of *-m-in the zero grade suffix
*-mn- after a labial consonant in the root. This explains the alternation between Germanic *din OFr. bodem from *budmen and *tt in OE botem from gen.sg. *buttas < *budn6s. It does not explain *Pin OS dat.sg. bothme beside bodme, ME bothme beside botme and bodme, OHG bodam. ln view of Mercian oexen, Northumbrian exen, OFr. ixen, ON yxn, raxn < *uksnes 'oxen: the expected paradigm of Proto-Germanic *budmen is the following (cf. Beekes 1995:176, Boutkan 1995: 278, K219: 3): nom.sg. acc.sg. gen.sg. dat.sg. inst.sg. loc.sg.
*budmen *budmenun *buttas *buttei *butte *budmeni
nom.pl acc.pl gen.pl dat.pl
*buttes *buttuns *buttan *budumus
It now appears that *-m- was restored in all languages, but not with the same result. While the geminate was preserved so as to yield preglottalization in OE botm, botem and ON botn, it was simplified and lenited by Grimm's law in OHG bodam and OS datsg. bothme < *bopma-. Similarly, OFr. wetma and OHG wedamo 'dowry' show preservation of the geminate in the northwest and lenition by Grimm's law in the southeast in the paradigm of Proto-Germanic *wetmen. While High German generalized the lenited obstruent in bodam, bodem, Boden and Scandinavian generalized the fortis stop in botn, the original alternation was apparently preserved in OE bodan beside botem and in OS dat.sg. bodme beside bothme. It follows that the simplification of the geminate before the restored -mpreceded Grimm's law in the German dialectal area but not in Anglo- Frisian and Scandinavian. Elsewhere I have claimed that the Germanic fiXation of the stress on the initial syllable of the word preceded Grimm's law in Gothic but not in North-West Germanic (K1o2: 9, K138: 54). These two datings support each other if Gothic originated in the southernmost part of the Germanic territories, as I have argued earlier (K198). Thus, we arrive at the following relative chronology (with a reconstruction of traditional *t, *d, *dh, cf. K138 with references):
Germanic phonology (t) Proto-Indo-European t:, t', t. (2) Dialectal Indo-European t, l:l, d. (3) Verner's law: non-initial t > d before the stress. (4) Kluge's law: medial tn, l:ln, dn > ttbefore the stress. (sa) Retraction of the stress in Gothic. (sb) -ttm- > -tm- in High and Low German and simplification of most geminates in Gothic. (6) Grimm's law: t > p, l:l > 't (>tin Gothic), d > t (not in Gothic). (7a) Retraction of the stress in North-West Germanic. (7b) Simplification of geminates under certain conditions in North and West Germanic. (8) West Germanic raising of e to i before i and j. (9) West Germanic loss of j before i. (to) West Germanic gemination before j: pj >pp, 'tj > 'tt, tj > tt. (n) High German consonant shift: 't > tz > zz, 'tt > ttz > tz. (12) Restoration of voicedness in northern English, Low and Central Franconian, northern Middle German and eastern Swedish under the influence of neighbouring Celtic, Romance, Slavic and Finnic languages (cf. K230). The fricative *P is found not only in the German territories but also in English texts of northern provenance, e.g. bythne 'keef, ME bothem beside OE botm, bytme (cf. Campbel11959: 171, Brunner 1965: 163). It appears that the AngloFrisian preglottalized reflex of *ttm was replaced by the German fricative reflex *]Jm between the earlier, "Saxon" migration of the sth century and the later, "Anglian" migration of the 6th century AD (cf. Ko84: 440-442, Kt8o: 45). This development can now be added to the list of innovations which reached the continental homeland of the Anglo-Saxons from the south between the two waves of migration (ibidem). In Old Frisian, we find the original word wetma 'dowry' beside the German loan withume 'consecrated ground near the church' (Boutkan & Siebinga 2005: 453) < 'endowmenf. The recent date of Grimm's law invalidates Vennemann's objection to the glottalic theory that "for Semitic loanwords with voiced plosives [...] we have to reckon with Germanic T or D reflexes depending on the time of borrowing" (2006: 137) because traditional Indo-European *d was a preglottalized voiced stop from dialectal Indo-European times almost until the dissolution of ProtoGermanic. The argument can only be used against the outdated view that the Germanic voiceless stops directly continue the voiceless ejectives of the IndoEuropean proto-language, which is still supported by Perridon (2oo8: 416). It appears that Perridon has given up on the comparative method: "we need no longer look for a common origin for all the cases of preaspiration in [the Nordic] languages. Preaspiration may have emerged, and possibly have
English bottom, German Boden, and the chronology of sound shifts
199
disappeared again, in different areas at different points in time" (2oo8: 425). As I have argued elsewhere (K2n, K212, K230), the hypothesis that preaspiration originated from a lenition of preglottalized stops in the 7th century at a time when all obstruents were voiceless accounts for a wide range of different phenomena. Perridon's view that preglottalization "seems to be closely connected with the loss of the distinction between long and short consonants" ( 2008: 426) is clearly mistaken in view of the vestjysk st121d in such instances as hjc:el'b 'to help' < *hjc:el'pe, henl:l 'to fetch' < *hen'te, skar'b 'sharp (pl.)' < *skar'pe, kj~vl:l 'bought'< *kj~'pte, bruwl:l 'used'< *bru'kte. After the late Proto-Germanic devoicing of the original preglottalized voiced stops, further delay of the voice onset time yielded post-aspiration in word-initial position so as to maintain the distinctive glottal articulation when the lenes were also devoiced.
THE GERMANIC FIRST CLASS OF WEAK VERBS
The first weak class of Germanic continues two PIE present stem formations, viz. *-ie/o- and *-eie/o-, e.g.
1.
3rd sg. 3rd pl.
*bugjepi *bugjanpi
*wurkjepi *wurkjanpi
*nasejepi *nasejanpi
*kausejepi *kausejanpi
'buy'
'work'
'save
'probe
The question to be answered in the following is: when did these two types merge? 2. The two types were redistributed according to the length of the stem in the attested languages, e.g. Gothic:
3rd sg. 3rd pl.
bugjip bugjand
waurkeip waurkjand
nasjip nasjand
kauseip kausjand
It is reasonable to assume that bugjip, kauseip, and the 3rd pl. forms are phonetically regular. This suggests that *e was raised to i, intervocalic "}was lost, and the high front vowel became nonsyllabic before a. Conversely, *j became vocalic in waurkeip, lengthening the thematic vowel. This must have been a phonetic development because it is also found in the nominal inflection. It eliminated the difference between the two types of present stem formation after long verb stems. In the case of short verb stems, the elimination of the difference must have been due to an analogical development because the form nasjp can hardly be phonetically regular, as will be argued in the following. 3. The md sg. imperative ending -ei, which is uniform after long and short verb stems, can only be derived from PIE *-eie because *-ie would yield -i, as is clear from the vocative of the io-stems, e.g. hairdi 'shepherd; and related forms. Consequently, verbs with a present stem in *-ie/o- must have adopted the imperative in *-eie at a stage when the latter still represented a distinct flexion type. This poses a problem with respect to the chronology and the motivation of the required analogical development 4. Chronologically, the simplest assumption is that verbs of the type of bugjan and waurkjan adopted the imperative of nasjan and kausjan after the loss of fmal *-e, which eliminated the thematic vowel from the imperative. As a result of this phonetic development, the imperative in *-i, *-ei became somewhat isolated from the indicative paradigm and therefore more easily subject to analogical pressure. When intervocalic "} was subsequently lost and the two types of present stem merged before the low thematic vowel a, there was little reason to keep the two types distinct in the imperative.
202
Germanic verb classes
5· The motivation for generalizing the long ending -ei rather than the short ending *-i was simply the relative frequency of the two types. Krause lists 12. primary verbs versus 42 causatives, intensives and iteratives, beside 46 denominatives (1953: 225-227). The latter may belong to either type, cf. Greek Ttotpatvw 'herd' of Ttotp~v, qnA.ew 'love' of rptA.oc;, and may have been subject to redistribution in Proto-Germanic times. The generalization of -ei may have been facilitated by the vocalization of "} in waurkeis, waurkeip, which induced the transition to the other type. 6. Just as *-eie yielded -ei, PIE *-eies yielded -eis in nom.pl naweis of naus 'corpse'. This makes the conclusion that nasjip replaces an earlier form *naseip practically inevitable. This analogical development again poses a problem of chronology and motivation. It is clear that it must have been posterior to the generalization of the long imperative ending -ei, which would otherwise be a quite incomprehensible development.
7. After the neutralization of the opposition between IV and ljl in waurkeip and nasjand, the flexion of nasjan differed from that of bugjan only in those forms where long verb stems automatically took -ei- alternating with -ja-. The flexion of bugjan was of greater regularity because it always had a stem-final-jbefore the thematic vowel. Moreover, the same flexion was found in strong verbs with a present stem in -j-, e.g. bidjan 'praY, hafjan 'raise'. Krause lists 17 verbs of this type (4 primary weak verbs, 4 denominatives with a vocalic stem, and 7 strong verbs with a short stem, to which *sitjan and *ligjan must be added on the evidence of the North and West Germanic languages) versus 9 causatives and intensives, beside 6 denominatives with a consonantal short stem (1953: 219-220 and 225-227). It appears that the substitution of nasjip for *naseip was determined both by the tendency toward regularity of the paradigm and by the relative frequency of the types. The substitution may or may not have taken place in the West Germanic languages, which lost *j before i.
Thus, I claim that the phonemic distinction between -ji- (from *-je-) and -ei- (from *-ei- and *-!-)was never lost after short stems. There is no reason to assume a *-j- at any stage in the development of the word marei 'sea: which represents the neuter *mari plus the PIE suffix *-H,n-. Similarly, verbal nouns such as naseins 'salvation' do not replace earlier *nasjins from *-jen-, as is sometimes assumed, but represent a lost neuter *nasi plus the suffix *-H,n-. The form *nasi, which is also found as the first member of a compound in the
8.
preterit, can be identified with the Vedic passive aorist in -i, as I have indicated elsewhere (Ko44: 128'). There is no evidence for a sequence -ji- which is older than the raising of *e to i in unstressed syllables. 9. The neutralization of the opposition between IV and ljl took place not only before a, but also before other back vowels, cf. especially nom.pl. sunjus of sunus
The Germanic frrst class of weak verbs
203
'son; PIE *-eues. Since j after a long stem was not excluded before back vowels, it was bound to spread to the position before front vowels. This is what happened in gen.sg. andbahtjis 'service, gawair}Jjis 'peace' next to andbahteis, gawairjJeis, also reikjis 'power, arbjis 'heritage, fiskjins 'fisher, bandjins 'prisoner, and similarly in the adjective. 10.
In conclusion, I assume the following chain of developments:
(1) loss of final *-e, (2) raising of *e to i and loss of intervocalic "j, (3) ( 4) (5) ( 6)
vocalization of"} after a long stem before front vowels, desyllabification of *i before back vowels, generalization of the long imperative ending -ei, analogical introduction of stem-fmal j before front vowels.
The last development fmally eliminated the difference between the flexion types of bugjan and nasjan. Though the West Germanic evidence for the developments (5) and (6) is inconclusive as a result of subsequent changes, the difference between Old High German 2nd sg. neris 'save' and subj. niimls 'took' seems to reflect the one between Gothic nasjis and nemeis quite faithfully.
THil GERMANIC THIRD CLASS OF WEAK VERBS
More than half a century after Flasdieck's comprehensive study (1935), consensus has not been reached on the origin of the third weak class of Germanic (cf. Bammesberger 1987). It appears that the majority of scholars nowadays agree on the reconstruction of an ai/ja-paradigm of the Old English type for Proto-Germanic (cf. especially Dishington 1978). This reconstruction leaves several questions unanswered. Firstly, we fmd evidence for an ai!a-paradigm in Old High German, Old Norse and Gothic. Secondly, the expected gemination of palatals is lacking in ON segia 'saY, pegia 'be silent; Old Swedish sighia, pighia. Thirdly, the Proto-Indo-European origin of the ai/ja-paradigm remains to be clarified.
1.
2. Dishington has convincingly argued that the ai/a-paradigm of Old Norse and the corresponding forms in Old High German arose under the influence of the thematic inflection (1978). He does not discuss the Gothic paradigm, which carmot easily be dismissed because of its early attestation and in view of the generally archaic character of this language. I shall return to the Gothic evidence below. 3. There is evidence for an ai/eja-paradigm in Old English, e.g. lifgan 'live: feccan 'fetch' (Flasdieck 1935: 106). Cowgill has shown that this is the result of a recent innovation which did not even reach Old Saxon and Old Frisian (1959: 14). Since the lack of gemination in ON segia and pegia requires the earlier presence of a vowel before *-ja- (cf. already Mahlow 1879: 24), Dishington proposes a similar restructuring for Old Norse (1978: 312). This seems improbable to me, not only because the Old English innovation is rather specific, but especially because it was apparently evoked by a similar restructuring of the a-inflection to an o/oja-paradigm in Old English, Old Frisian and Old Saxon, a development for which there is no evidence in Old Norse. It seems better to connect the lack of gemination in segia and pegia with the same phenomenon in the causatives and intensives vekia 'wake up: pekia 'thatch: rekia 'stretch: Old Swedish vrrekia 'drive'. 4. In an earlier article (Ko88) I argued that the first weak class of Germanic comprises two inflection types, a je/ja-paradigm and an eje/eja-paradigm, and that the distinction between these two was preserved after short verb stems up to a recent stage. The lack of gemination in ON vekia, pekia, rekia, Old Swedish vrrekia suggests that the gemination of velars before *j was anterior to the loss of the distinction between the two inflection types, so that the operation of the rule was limited to the je/ja-paradigm, e.g. ON hyggia 'thin!(, byggia 'marrY. The gemination in leggia 'lay' can easily be analogical, either on the basis of liggia
206
Germanic verb classes
'lie, or under the influence of hyggia and byggia. It now follows from the lack of gemination in segia and pegia that the ai/ja-paradigm which was reconstructed on the basis of the West Germanic evidence must be derived from an ai/ija- or ai/eja-paradigm in order to accommodate the North Germanic material. 5· We now turn to the prehistory of the paradigm which has been reconstructed for North and West Germanic. I agree with Jasanoff (1978: 60-67) that all theories which operate with athematic forms or with an apophonic alternation in the suffiX must be rejected. Incidentally, the reconstruction of an ei/i/i'-paradigm for Balto-Slavic is incompatible with the accentual evidence from that branch of Indo-European. Furthermore, I agree with Dishington (1978) and Bammesberger (1987) that Jasanoff's own theory, which is basically a modification of Collitz's (1891: 51-2), cannot be maintained. We must therefore look for an invariable thematic suffiX which yields the correct output in a phonetically regular way. If the final part of the ai!ija- or ai/eja-sufflX represents the thematic vowe~ the initial part must be derived from a vowel which was low before -i- and front before -a-, i.e. from a low front vowel *re, which leads to the reconstruction of an rei/reja-paradigm. Since West Saxon and Old West Low Franconian re is the most archaic reflex of Indo-European *e in Germanic (cf. Ko84: 440, with ref.), we arrive at the reconstruction of a pre-Germanic eje/ejo-paradigm on the basis of the internal evidence from North and West Germanic alone. Jasanoff's objection that *-eje- should give *-e- because *-iijeyielded *-o- (1978: 62) does not hold if *e was low while *ii and *e were mid vowels at the time of contraction. Similarly, his conjecture that *-ejo- should give *-e- because *-iijo- yielded *-o- is unfounded because *e was a front vowel while *ii and *o were not. His assertion that the frrst vowel of Gothic pahta, OHG diihta 'thought' was nasalized at the stage under consideration is spurious. The transfer of Gothic peihan, OE peon, OHG dthan 'thrive' from the third to the first strong class rather suggests that this type of long vowel was denasalized at an early stage. We must therefore consider the possibility that Gothic haba, habam, haband 'have' represent -ii, -iim, -iind (cf. already Brugmann 1904: 527). 6. What is the expected reflex of an eje/ejo-paradigm in Gothic? This question must be viewed in connection with the development of the i- and u-diphthongs in the Germanic languages. The Proto-Indo-European loc.sg. forms in *-ei and *-eu are reflected in the Germanic dat.sg. endings of the i- and u-stems. We fmd a low reflex in Gothic anstai 'favor: sunau 'soO: Runic winai 'friend' (AD 300), fapai 'master' (France, 6th century), Hakupo (AD 450, cf. Antonsen 1975: 34. 77, 55), OE suna, OS suno, and a high reflex in Runic Kunimu(n)diu (AD 500), magiu 'son' (7th century, ibidem: 79, 85), OHG suniu, ensti, meri 'sea: OS ensti, wini, ON brupe 'bride'. It appears that the long diphthongs were originally low and were raised around the end of the 5th century. If the earlier Norse syncope can be dated to the 7th century, this fits in with the development of the
The Germanic third class of weak verbs
207
rei/reja-paradigm advocated here. Interestingly, the gen.sg. ending of the i-stems *-ois which is reflected in Gothic anstais and ON br{ipar appears to have merged with the reflex of *-ei in OHG and OS ensti while remaining distinct from the nom. pl. ending *-oi and the datsg. ending *-oi, OHG blinte 'blind: tage 'daY, OS blinde, dage. This suggests a development of *-ois > *-aiz > *-aij > *-rei with subsequent raising after its merger with *-rei < *-rei < *-ei, whereas *-iii and *-oi were shortened to *-ai and later monophthongized to *-e. The datsg. ending of OE suna and OS suno shows that *-reu merged with *au rather than *eu in these dialects, perhaps because it was shortened slightly earlier here than in OHG and ON. 7. Now we tum to the development of intervocalic "} in Gothic. Elsewhere I have argued that the gen.pl. ending -e represents Proto-Indo-European *-eiom (Ko3o: 291-2 and Ko55: 171-2). The lowering of *ei to *e before *-an < *-om, as compared with its unconditioned raising to *1, has a parallel in the low reflex of Proto-Germanic *re from Indo-European *e in saian 'sow' and waian 'bloW, as compared with its unconditioned reflex *e. The absence of raising suggests that intervocalic "} was assimilated to the preceding vowel. This development can be dated after the loss of final *-e (cf. Ko88: 30). Mter the raising of *e to i, the expected reflex of an eje/ejo-paradigm is an rei/rea-paradigm in early Gothic. I think that the long vowel in the suffix was now shortened to *a before the raising of *re to *e, as in Juamma 'to whom' beside Juammeh 'to everyone'. This development can be compared with the reduction of *ow to au before vowels in sauil 'su:d taui 'deed: staua 'judge, judgment; stauida 'judged; cf. OE stow 'place, stowian 'restrain'. The preservation of -j- in Gothic stojan < *stowjan shows that the loss of *w was more recent than the elimination of intervocalic *j. It seems probable to me that the root vowel of saian, waian, taui, staua was short. This hypothesis accounts not only for the automatic lowering in the latter words, but also for the absence of raising in the former. It has the additional advantage of accounting for the inflection of haban, which now turns out to be an ai/ii-paradigm of recent origin. While the a-inflection is apparently of ProtoGermanic date, the development of the third weak class belongs largely to the separate languages. Such forms as waiwoun 'they blew' and the calque armaio 'mercy' are recent and must be considered analogical in any theory. 8. The eje/ejo-paradigm which has been reconstructed for pre-Germanic is not of Proto-Indo-European origin. It represents a je/jo-derivative of a preterital e-stern, to be compared with Slavic imeti, imeje- rather than Lith. tureti, turi 'have'. One may wonder if Germanic has preserved any traces of the original present tense inflection which was ousted by the eje/ejo-paradigm. On the basis of the Balta-Slavic evidence we can reconstruct an ei/i-paradigm, which is still preserved in Prussian turei, turri 'has, have' (cf. Ko87). I think that this
2.08
Germanic verb classes
inflection can actually be recovered in Germanic, but not in the third class of weak verbs. It has often been observed that the absence of the verbs for 'sit' and 'lie' from the third weak class is remarkable. Gothic sitan and ligan belong to the simple thematic inflection, whereas their North and West Germanic cognates have a je/jo-paradigm. Though it is usually assumed that the Gothic inflection is secondary, the motivation for such a morphological transfer of two extremely common verbs is quite unclear. It seems much more probable to me that these verbs represent an original i-inflection which was brought into line with the i/a-paradigm in Gothic and the i/ja-paradigm in the North and the West. The inflection which can be reconstructed for Proto-Germanic is the same as we fmd in Lith. sedeti, sedi 'sit'. The Gothic development has a perfect analogue in Old Irish saidid, -said 'sits; laigid 'lies; 3rd pl. sedait, -legat (cf. Thurneysen 1946: 354). 9.
10. The reconstruction of a Proto-Germanic i-inflection also offers an explanation for OHG stan, sten 'stand; giin, gen 'gd, OE giin, 3rd sg. grep, pl. gap. Mahlow already reconstructed *staji-, *staja- (1879: 138), which should yield an ai/ii-paradigm in view of Gothic aiz 'brass; maiza 'greater, OE iir, mara, OHG er, mero. There are two problems with this reconstruction. On the one hand, the vowel of OHG sten and gen is not the unconditioned ei of stein 'stone' but the lowered variant e which is found word-fmally in we 'woe' and se 'behold; as if it were followed by a hiatus. The reflex ei in Otfrid 3rd sg. steit, geit represents -e-i-, cf. duit 'does' from -uo-i-, similarly OE grep from -ii-i-. On the other hand, the vowel of OE giin, gap is not the retracted variant o which could be expected as a reflex of *ii before a nasal but the unconditioned reflex ii of *ai, as in stan 'stone'. These problems disappear if we start from an athematic i-inflection *stai-, which could be restructured either as *sta-i/a-, which is reflected in OHG stan, or as *stai-i/a-, which is suggested by OHG sten. As to the etymology of the verb 'to gd, I am inclined to return to Kluge's derivation of the word from gaplus *eimi, in spite of Streitberg's objection that the meaning is durative (1896: 319). If this is correct, we can reconstruct a disyllabic stem *ga-i- with an athematic paradigm for Proto-Germanic, and the OE reflex giin is regular. The difference between durative *stai-, *seti-, *legi-, preterite *-e-, and inchoative *stand-, *sent-, *leng-, preterite 3rd sg. *stop, *sat(e), *lag(e) was apparently lost in Proto-Germanic times. The same can be assumed for *(ga-)i-, *(ga-)eaj(e), which yielded OE gii-, *ee, OHG ge-, *ee. The nasal present of Gothic gaggan, OE OHG gangan may have been created on the analogy of *stai-, *stop, *stodun, standan (OHG stantan), *gai-, *gegai, *gegijun if the incorporation of ga- was sufficiently early.
THil GERMANIC SEVENTH CLASS OF STRONG VERBS The Proto-Germanic reduplicated preterit has a threefold reflex in the attested languages (cf. Bech 1969: 3):
1.
(1) reduplicated preterits, e.g. Gothic haihait 'called: lailaik 'leaped: OE heht 'called: leolc 'played: also reord 'advised'; (2) r-preterits, e.g. ON sera 'sowed: grera 'grew: snera 'turned: OHG steroz 'strucl(, pl biruun 'dwelf, OE leort 'lef, also reord 'advised'; (3) e-preterits, e.g. ON het 'called: jell 'felt hli6p 'leaped: OE het,fooll, hleop. Bech derives the latter two types from ez-inftxation before the root vowel and syncope. This accounts nicely for such forms as ON snera, OHG steroz, OE leort, but less satisfactorily for thee-preterits. The main drawback of Bech's theory is the narrow basis for the analogical development of the ez-infJX, which he derives from *sezo 'sowed' and *sezalt 'salted' (1969: 21). It is hardly possible that these two verbs provided the model for a pervasive restructuring of the reduplicated preterit 2. Robert Fulk has now demonstrated in a conclusive way that the e-preterit must be derived from e-infJXation before the root vowel of the present stem (1987). The apex of his explanation is the disyllabic interpretation of OHG geang 'wenf, feang 'seized: feal 'fell'. The following remarks are intended to supplement Fulk's theory. 3. As in the case of Bech's proposal, the model for the analogical development of e-infJ.Xation is not obvious. Fulk adduces ON auka 'increase, ausa 'pour: OE eaden and OS odan 'granted; OHG erien 'plou~ and Gothic (af-aikan 'deny' and) us-alpan 'grow old' (1987: 162), for which we can reconstruct the preterits *eauk, *eaus, *eaud, *ear (OHG ier), *eaik, *earp. It is not evident that these forms sufficed to generate a wholesale restructuring of the reduplicated preterit We may therefore have to look for a more powerful model, which can only have been supplied by a high frequency verb. 4. In his discussion of OE eode 'wenf, Cowgill assumes a development of 3rd sg. *eaje to *eae, then contracted to *eo, which yielded West Germanic *eu, then *euda (1960: 494, 499). This theory meets with a number of difficulties. First of all, the loss of intervocalic "} can hardly have preceded the loss of final *-e because the 2nd sg. imperative ending *-eje yielded Gothic -ei /-1/, not **-e (cf. Ko88: 28 and K105: 6), so that we would expect *eaj instead of *eae. Secondly, the alleged contraction of *-ae to *-o is not very probable in view of Gothic haba /-a/ 'I have' from *-ejo (K1o5: 5). Thirdly, it is not evident that a form *eo should
2.10
Germanic verb classes
escape remodeling to *eaj. These difficulties can be removed if we identify the stem vowel of OE eode with that offooll and hleop. 5· If *eaje yielded *eaj and 3rd pl. *eijun was remodeled to *eajun, the loss of intervocalic *j in the latter form yielded *eaun, which developed into OE *eon, cf. reon 'rowed' from *reoun. The stem form eo- then served as a basis for the creation of a weak preterit while reon was replaced by reowon on the basis of other forms in the paradigm of rowan. The difference between eode on the one hand and seow 'sowed: meow 'mowed: bleow 'blew: cneow 'knew' on the other shows that the 3rd sg. form 'went' cannot have been *eo at an earlier stage. It follows from Fulk's theory that disyllabic *ee, *ea, *eo yielded OE e, eo, eo in let 'lef, het 'called: fooll 'felt heold 'held; speonn 'clasped: geong 'wenf, hleop 'leaped; hreop 'shouted'. The rounding in the reflex of *ea must evidently be attributed to the influence of the following consonants. The unrounded reflex is found infong 'seized: heng 'hung, which must be derived from disyllabic *feah, *heah. Fulk assumes "either a chronological or a morphological discrepancy in the formation of the etyma of OE geong, on the one hand, and fong and heng on the other: the latter may have been formed at a later date" (1987: 172). This view is unsatisfactory because these verbs would be the only exceptions to the rule of e-insertion, and a phonetic explanation is therefore more probable. I think that *eah yielded *eeh instead of *eoh, which implies that the disyllabic pronunciation was preserved at the stage when posttonic long vowels were shortened and that the latter development preceded the retraction of *a to o in stressed syllables. 6.
7. Fulk's theory does not account for the r-preterits in a satisfactory way. As Bech observed, the geographical distribution of the forms suggests that they represent an older process. The original formation is attested in ON sera 'I sowed: rera 'I rowed; also snera 'I turned' if the nasal resonant in *seznow was subject to metathesis, and OE reord 'advised' < *rerod-, cf. beoft 'beat' < *bebaut-. It appears from ON grera 'I grew' that the reduplication C,eC,C.- was replaced by C,C.eC.-, cf. Gothic gaigrot /gegrot/ 'wept'. This substitution, which is reminiscent of Latin steff 'I stood' and spopondl 'I vowed; accounts for 0 E speoft 'spat' and OHG screrot 'cuf. While ON gnera 'I rubbed' was evidently built on the analogy of snera and grera, dissimilation of l-l to l-r yielded OE leort 'let' and OHG pleruzzun 'they sacrificed'. Since the vowel ofOE leolc 'played' cannot be the result of either breaking or umlaut before -lc, we have to assume a form *lelOk- on the analogy of *lelot-. The furthest extension of the r-preterit is found in Old High German, where it is attested in biruun 'they dwelt' (cf. ON snera and gnera), steroz 'struck' (cf. screrot and pleruzzun), and even scrirun 'they cried; which does not belong to the seventh class of strong verbs.
THil GERMANIC FIFI'H CLASS OF STRONG VERBS
As a rule, reduplication and qualitative ablaut are in complementary distribution in the Germanic preterit. There are two classes of exceptions to this. On the one hand, both reduplication and qualitative ablaut are found e.g. in Gothic lailot 'let; saiso 'sowed; inf. letan, saian. This is obviously an archaism. It follows that no conclusions can be based on the absence of reduplication in verbs with qualitative ablaut for the reconstruction of the original state of affairs. On the other hand, neither reduplication nor qualitative ablaut is found e.g. in for 'fared: stop 'stood: inf. faran, standan. This is a heterogeneous class. The qualitative ablaut in the strong preterit is usually accompanied by a quantitative ablaut distinction between sg. and pl. forms. The elimination of the latter alternation in waiwoun 'they bleW, lailoun 'they despised' is evidently recent (cf. K105: 7). The sg. form fret 'devoured' will be discussed below. While the use of either reduplication or ablaut as a preterit marker has a clear motivation, the remarkable preservation of a quantitative alternation between sg. and pl forms in ablauting preterits suggests the existence of a complex productive pattern for an earlier stage of the language. I cannot therefore agree with Bammesberger "daB der Langvokal -e- in der schwachen Priiteritalalternante das Resultat einer analogischen Neuerung ist, wobei die Alternation -a- : -o- in der VI. Klasse als Vorbild wirkte" (1986a: 56). Such a development would undoubtedly have replaced nam 'tool(, gaf 'gave' by **nem, 1.
**gef. The expected direction of analogical change is actually clear from the perfect presents ("Priiterioprasentien"), where ablaut was not used as a preterit marker. Here we find generalization of the full grade with preservation of the Verner alternation in aih 'has; aigun 'they have, also full grade in magum 'we can'. It follows that the long vowel of gebum, gebun 'we, they gave' can hardly be of analogical origin. 2.. The largely complementary distribution of reduplication and ablaut gives rise to the question of how it originated because both seem to reflect the PIE perfect. While ablaut is found with present stems of the type CeRC-, CeR-, CeC-, and CeC-, reduplication is found with present stems of the type CaRC-, aRC-, CeC-, and CoG-. This distribution suggests that the separation between ablauting and reduplicating preterits was triggered by the merger of earlier *a and *o, which obliterated the ablaut alternations in verbs with an original *a in the present stem. As a result, ablaut became redundant in reduplicating preterits and reduplication could be abolished in ablauting preterits. We may now wonder what happened to verbs with a present stem of the type eR-, eC-, aR-, aC-, CaR-, CaC-. Elsewhere I have argued that *eaj- 'went'
2.12.
Germanic verb classes
provided the model for restructuring the reduplicating preterits in North and West Germanic (Kns). It is probable that this formation itself was fairly recent and replaced an earlier suppletive aorist (perhaps *lud-, which may have been ousted because of its homonymy with the preterit of *leud- 'grow'). Anyway, it is clear that reduplication was fairly recent in *eaik- 'denied: *eauk- 'added: *eaus'poured: *eaud- 'granted' because the initial sequence of vowels would hardly survive a longer period of time. This brings us to the verb 'to eat'. It is highly improbable that Gothic fret, ON at, OE ret, OHG iiz reflect *eet- (Flasdieck 1936: 335), firstly because there was no motivation to create this form rather than *eat-, and secondly because *eet- would undoubtedly have yielded the same vowel as we find in ON let 'lef, hit 'called: OE let, het, OHG liaz, hiaz. It is also highly unlikely that *et replaced a well-motivated earlier form *eat, as Cowgill maintained (1960: 492f.), especially in view of the MH G substitution of az for iiz. I therefore think that we have to start from a paradigm *ate, *etun 'he, they ate, with substitution of *etfor *ot- on the analogy of *ok- 'traveled: *ol- 'nourished: *on- 'breathed: ON 6k, 61, Gothic uzon 'expired: where the vowel length distinguished the preterit from the present stem *ak-, *al-, *an-. It follows that the long vowel of *ok-, *ol-, *on- must be relatively old. The motivation for the replacement of *ot- by *et- arose from the merger of earlier *a and *o, which eliminated the ablaut distinction between sg. and pl. forms in the preterit of verbs with initial a- and provoked the merger of this type with the root aorist of the verb 'to stand: Gothic stop. The ancient character of the initial long vowel in the perfect is supported by the perfect present og 'I fear~ unagands 'fearless~ Olr. -agathar 'fears: cf. Vedic bibheti with reduplication from the perfect, OHG biben 'tremble'. The separation of og from agis, OE ege 'fear' (Cowgill1960: 489) is arbitrary. It follows that *ear-, OHG ier- 'plowed' is a recent formation. This is indeed what could be expected because the verb has a je-present in Celtic, Germanic, Baltic and Slavic, which suggests that the root had aorist meaning in the northern Indo-European languages. I therefore think that *ear- replaced an earlier aorist *ar- by prefixation of *e-. Since reduplication was more productive in the High German area than elsewhere at an early stage (cf. Kus), there is no evidence for the view that the form *ear ever existed in the other languages, which may simply have replaced the aorist *ar- by the weak preterit 3. Thus, I think that the e-vocalism in the plural forms of the strong preterit reflects the reduplication syllable of eC-verbs, as in Gothic etun 'they ate'. It is clear that the type could never have spread if this were the only verb with initial *e-, as it is in the oldest Germanic languages. Note that in German "fast alle starken verba des germanischen, die vocalisch anlauteten, untergegangen sind: aikan, akan, alan, al}:lan, anan, arjan, audan, aukan, ausan; agan, lgan und
The Germanic fifth class of strong verbs
213
innan sind nur noch in den priisentisch gewordenen og, aig und an vorhanden. Einzige ausnahme das unentbehrliche etan" (Behaghel 1924: 129). We must therefore ask ourselves what happened to the original eC-verbs in Germanic. It is important to realize that the elimination of verbs with an initial vowel in Germanic is closely connected with the existence of a productive ablaut pattern in the strong preterit. If the root vowel served to distinguish the preterit from the present stem, the lexical meaning was carried by the root-fmal consonant, which was itself subject to phonetic variation under the influence of a following consonant or the place of the stress, cf. Gothic parf, paurbum 'I, we need~ OE geneah, genugon 'it, they sufflce(s)'. Since the ablaut pattern remained productive in CeC-verbs, the annexation of an initial consonant could solve the problem. I think that this is indeed what happened. The process may be compared with the generalization of triconsonantal roots in the Semitic verb, where a similar problem existed. It has long been recognized that it is difficult to separate *nem- 'take' from Latin em- and its cognates in Celtic, Baltic and Slavic. The root can easily be explained from a reanalysis of the compound *gan-em- as *ga-nem-, which is attested all over the Germanic area. The same reanalysis is found in Latvian r,zemt beside jemt 'to take' and in Slavic. Note that OE nom, nomon 'took' beside more recent nam, niimon may actually reflect *-om, *-emun. The usual connection of *geb- 'give' with Latin habeo 'hold' and 0 Ir. gaibid 'takes' must be rejected because the vocalism is incompatible. The verb can be derived from the Germanic prefiX ga- plus the root of Hittite epzi 'seizes: Latin aplscor 'reach: coepl 'have begun'. Note that the meaning 'reach' offers a suitable basis for the semantic development. Interestingly, the consistent spelling of Gothic gaf'gave', as opposed to grob 'dug' and gadob 'was fitting' (cf. Roberge 1983: 129), supports the derivation proposed here. I therefore reconstruct sg. *of-, pl *eb-. A third example is the verb 'toea~ where we find OHG gezzan beside ezzan in Otfrid and Notker (cf. Seebold 1970: 179), also modem German gegessen, Dutch gegeten 'eaten'. A fourth example is MHG gan, gunnen 'grant' and -bunnen (with -b- from ab- instead of ga-), also gunst 'favoi, cf. OHG an, unnun, unst, abunst 'grudge'. These instances exemplify the general tendency to eliminate initial vowels in ablauting paradigms. A fifth example may be the preterit of the verb 'to be~ It is not immediately clear why the root aorist *bu- should have been replaced by the preterit of *wes'staf. Elsewhere I have argued for an original perfect *os-, *es- which is reflected in Indo-Iranian, Greek, Slavic and Celtic (Ko71). I therefore wonder if we have to start from a Germanic preterit *ubOs-, *ubez- 'was, were~ For the prefiX cf. Greek {)rrei/U 'subsis~ Latin subsum 'am presen~ beside Olr. foi"d 'spends the night' from *upo-wes-. This would explain the alternation in *was-, *wez-. Moreover, it seems possible that Anglian (e)arlJ, (e)aron 'art, are' and Old
Germanic verb classes
2.14
Swedish aru represent a back-formation from *os- on the analogy of *ok-, *ol-,
*on-. A sixth example may be the verbs 'to suffice' and 'to bring. The ablaut of OE
geneah, genugon points to an earlier alternation *ga-nah, *gan-ung-, which in its tum suggests a paradigm *bra-nah-, *bra-ng- from *pro-n(e!o)k-. The preterit
evidently replaces an earlier root aorist, cf. Vedic anat 'attained'. The present stem *breng- was probably created to replace the earlier suppletive present *ber-, cf. Gothic atbairan 'to bring. Greek TtpoqJepw 'bring forward; Latin (pro)fero. Note that the Old Irish cognates con-ic 'can' and r-ic 'reaches' also suggest secondary ablaut on the basis of a zero grade formation. The high frequency verbs adduced here provide a suitable basis for the spread of e-vocalism in the plural forms of the strong preterit The Balta-Slavic evidence suggests that *sat-, *set- and *lag-, *leg- replaced earlier aorists *set- 'sat down' and *leg- 'lay down' belonging to presents with a nasal infiX, cf. Gothic standan, stop 'stand, stood: Old Prussian sindats 'sitting'. These aorists were eliminated because they were nearly homonymous with the stative presents *seti- 'sit; *legi- 'lie' (cf. K105: ?f.). There is no reason to assume the existence of reduplicated preterits **sesat-, **lelag- at any stage in the development of Germanic. The incorporation of original aorists into the system of strong verb classes supported the elimination of reduplication in the ablauting preterits.
THE GERMANIC SIXTH CLASS OF STRONG VERBS 1. In an earlier article (K12o ), I argued that Gothic nam, nemun 'too:K gaf, gebun 'gave, -et, etun 'ate' represent original *ome, *emunp, *ofe, *ebunp, *ote, *etunp. Similarly, Gothic -on 'breathed: ON 61 'nourished: 6k 'traveled' continue reduplicated preterits *on-, *ol-, *ok-, where the long vowel arose from the merger of earlier *o- in the singular and *a- in the plural. This development
eliminated the apophonic distinction between sg. and pl. forms in these preterits and provoked the merger of the type with the root aorist Gothic stop, sto]Jun, OE stod, stodon 'stood'. This root aorist correlates with ad-present with nasal infix stand-. Another verb which apparently combines a root aorist with ad-present is Gothic -hla}Jan, OE hladan 'to load: cf. Lith. kl6ti, Slavic klad-. Thus, the sixth class of strong verbs seems to have originated as a distinct category from the merger of the reduplicated preterits of IE *an-, *al-, *ak- with the root aorists of IE *sta- and *kla-. (For the root aorist of IE *dhe- cf. K109: 102.) Since the resulting class lacked the usual apophonic difference between sg. and pl forms in the preterit, it provided a convenient model for analogical extension to verbs with a present stem of the types CaR- and CaC-. This raises a number of questions. 2. First of all, we may wonder why *ar- 'plow' did not join the sixth class of strong verbs but developed a seventh class reduplicated preterit *ear- in Old High German and joined the first class of weak verbs in the other North and West Germanic languages. As I pointed out already (K120: 103), I think that *ear- replaced an earlier root aorist *ar- at a recent stage because the je-present of this verb in Celtic, Germanic, Baltic and Slavic suggests that the root had aorist meaning in the northern IE languages. We must therefore ask ourselves if the vocalism in the preterit of the other Germanic je- presents points to an earlier aorist or to a perfect formation. In Gothic, six out of the seven verbs with a je-present and a strong preterit belong to the sixth class: bidjan 'to praf, hafjan 'to lif~ hlahjan 'to laugh:frapjan 'to understand: skapjan 'to harm: ga-skapjan 'to create, wahsjan 'to grow'. It appears that strong verbs with a root in a velar stop and a je-present created a weak preterit on the basis of the past participle in *-htas (K109: 107): bugjan 'to buY, waurkjan 'to worl{, brukjan 'to use, pugkjan 'to believe, preterit bauhta, waurhta, bruhta, puhta. The earlier strong preterit is still evident from OE breac 'used' and warhte beside worhte 'worked: also ]Johte, Gothic pahta 'though~ which gave rise to a secondary present *Pankeje- in Proto-Germanic times already. The new formation gave way to a regular ftrst weak class preterit in the case of sokjan 'to seek' and faurhtjan 'to fear': sokida 'sough~ faurhtidedun 'they feared: OE sohte, OHG. suohta, forahtun. The vocalism of OE breac, warhte,
2.16
Germanic verb classes
pohte points to an earlier perfect formation while sohte is ambiguous because it represents the IE root *sag-. Elsewhere I have suggested that Gothic brahta, OE brohte 'brought' represents an original root aorist which adopted the pattern of a perfect formation (K120: 106). From an Indo-European point of view, Gothic hafjan, bugjan, waurkjan, pugkjan, faurhtjan and paursjan 'to thirst' (cf. Schmid 1963: 97) belong to the flexion type of Latin capio 'I seize' with a zero grade root vowel and a ya- present in Indo-Iranian (cf. also K239: 134-136). The same probably holds for wahsjan 'to grow; hazjan 'to praise' and *-safjan 'to perceive'.' The verbs bugjan and sokjan can hardly be separated from biugan 'to bend' and sakan 'to quarref, respectively. If sokjan is a secondary formation on the basis of the preterit stem *sok-, it is possible that sakan had a je-present at an earlier stage and that we may compare the relation between the two verbs with that between pagkjan and pugkjan. This is in accordance with the fact that Old Irish saigid 'seeks' has a je-present which may be identified with the flexion of Latin capio (Thurneysen 1946: 354. cf. K239: 134-137).• I conclude that there is no evidence for an original aorist among the sixth class preterits of je- presents while all of them may represent earlier perfects. The vocalism of *hOf and *sok is ambiguous and the other verbs have an o-grade vowel Since *ar- 'plow' did not develop a sixth class preterit, it is probable that *an-, *al-, *ak- joined the sixth class at a recent stage and never served as a model for other verbs. It follows that we may regard the sixth class preterit as the regular outcome of the root aorist of IE roots in *-ii-, which may have served as a model long before the merger of *a and *o. 3. Chr. Stang has proposed for verbs with an o-grade present such as Lith. barti 'to scold; kalti 'to forge, malti 'to grind; kasti 'to dig, OCS brati 'to figh~ klati 'to chop; bosti 'to stab; Latin fodio 'I dig, "dass in diesen und anderen Verben mit den Bedeutungen 'stechen, graben, schlagen, mahlen, zermalmeiT, wo neben e-stufigen auch o-stufige Formen vorkommen, die letzteren auf einen alten intensiven Priisenstypus mit o-stufiger Wurzelsilbe zuriickgehen. Ich verweise auf skt. janghanti, (Priis. Part.) ghanighnat, die wegen der Erhaltung von gh gegeniiber h in hanti einmal o-Stufe gehabt haben diirften" (1966: 333, cf. already 1942.: 41f.). Here belong Gothic graban 'to dig, slahan 'to strike, malan 'to grind; ga-draban 'to hew ou~ ga-dragan 'to heap up; skaban 'to shave; swaran 'to sweat, jJwahan 'to wasli, also faran 'to travef, cf. Dutch doorsteken 'to pierce, to cross; oversteken 'to cross'. Gothic ga-daban 'to be suitable' (cf. Schrijver 1991: 102.) may also belong here, cf. German treffend 'apt, apposite'. It is clear that not all of these verbs are equally ancient. Since they constitute the bulk of the sixth class of strong verbs, we may regard this class as the reflex of the IE intensives. This raises the question of why the intensives followed the pattern of the root aorist in *-ii- rather than the perfect ubiquitous in the formation of new
The Germanic sixth class of strong verbs
2.17
preterits in the other strong verb classes. Since the intensives were a reduplicated o-grade formation, the perfect was not suitable as a clear model for an analogical preterit As the original preterit of the intensives was an athematic imperfect, the root aorist was a much more likely candidate from the outset. Thus, I think that the imperfect took the place of an aorist at an early stage and came under the influence of the pattern which is reflected in OE hladan 'to load: hlodon 'they loaded' after the merger of short *a and *o. This model was not available to present stems of the type CaRC-, which joined the seventh class of strong verbs, e.g. Gothic stautan 'to strike: skaidan 'to separate: blandan 'to mi'x. Apart from the o-grade thematic presents and zero grade je-presents, there are a few o-grade je-presents, viz. Gothic frapjan, skapjan, hlahjan. These are probably old denominatives, cf. frapi 'understanding, skapis 'har:nf, also Russ. x6xot 'laughter: je-present xox6cet 'laughs~ They adopted the strong preterit as if they were primary verbs. Besides, there are three o-grade je-presents of roots in *-w-, viz. ON deyja 'to die: geyja 'to bar!(, kleyja 'to scratch', preterit d6, g6, kl6. These may represent earlier intensives, cf. Lith. kauti 'to strike, where the rootfinal laryngeal yielded gemination in ON fuJggva, OE heawan, which therefore joined the seventh class of strong verbs. NOTES
For wahsjan cf. Avestan uxfyeiti 'grows'. I think that the full vowel was generalized on the basis of the o-grade perfect stem. Though it is conceivable that the long vowel of the preterit wohs was taken from the reduplication syllable of *wowahs-, this is improbable for chronological reasons. The je-present was replaced by the regular thematic flexion in North and West Germanic for differentiation from the causative *wahseje-, cf. ON vaxa vs. vexa, Avestan vax5aiti 'causes to grow~ It seems to me that hazjan must be identified with Indo-Iranian *siis- 'instruct'. On *-sajjan see Seebold 1970: 383, Schrijver 1991: 93. • Cf. again wahsjan, ON vaxa versus vexa. Differently swaran 'to swear: ON sverja, which belongs to the next category, cf. Latin susurro 'I whisper'.
THil GERMANIC FOUI«H CLASS OF WEAK VERBS
The formation of Gothic fullno-, 3rd pl. fullnand 'become full' cannot be separated from that of Vedic Prtza-, 3rd pl. proanti 'fill'. It has long been recognized that the two paradigms cannot be identified, however. From a formal point of view, the expected stem form in Germanic should be "jullo-, with loss of the nasal and gemination of the preceding consonant. The attested verb is a denominative formation, derived from fulls 'full'< *plHnos. From a semantic point of view, the verbs of the fourth weak class are intransitives, which is contrary to what can be expected on the basis of the older Indo-European languages. This requires an explanation. It is probable that the nasal was always assimilated to a preceding consonant before the stress, cf. especially OHG storren 'stand out' beside stornen 'be rigid: where the nasal was apparently restored, similarly sterro beside sterno 'star:Je"o 'far' beside firni 'old; and swimman 'swim; Old Irish do-seinn 'pursues'. As it is improbable that the nasal suffix was generalized on the basis of vocalic roots only, the fourth class of weak verbs must have originated from an extension of the suffix to stressed roots before the nasal assimilation (Kluge's law, cf. Kn9). When we disregard the denominative verbs, the Gothic evidence for the fourth weak class is limited to the following material: af-lifnan 'be leff, dis-skritnan 'become tom us-gutnan 'be poured ou~ fra-lusnan 'be los~ ga-luknan 'be shut up, and-bundnan 'become unbound; ga-paursnan 'become drf, us-bruknan 'be broken; aftaurnan 'be torn awaY, ga-skaidnan 'become parted; ga-waknan 'awake'. It thus appears that the formation represents a nasal present derived from a middle root aorist with zero grade vocalism. This brings us to the problem of the aorist in Germanic. Elsewhere (K1o9) I have argued that the endings of the Germanic weak preterit reflect the root aorist *de- < *dhe- and that in order to explain OE dyde 'did' we must assume that 3rd pl. *dedunp replaced earlier *dunp. The latter form is important because it has zero grade vocalism in the stressed syllable. It suggests a paradigm with fixed stress, unlike Gothic stop, OE stodon 'he, they stood: which reflect a more recent paradigm with mobile stress. In fact, the previous existence of a 3rd pl. form *stunp provides the motivation for the creation of the form *stodunp. The Verner alternation in Gothic stop, OE stodon suggests an early date for this analogical development. The paradigm of *de-, 3rd pl. *dunp is strongly reminiscent of the Vedic root aorist adhat, adhur 'he, they puf. Elsewhere (Ko65) I have argued that the 3rd pl. form originally had zero grade vocalism in the indicative and full grade vocalism in the injunctive, which would yield Proto-Germanic *e-dunp, *e-stunp versus *denp, *stanp. The zero grade vocalism of the reconstructed form *dunp,
2.2.0
Germanic verb classes
which is reflected in OE dyde, now suggests that we have to start from an augmented root aorist *e-de- in Germanic. When the augment was lost, the stress was probably fiXed on the initial syliable of the paradigm. There are three weak preterits which directly reflect root aorists in Germanic (cf. K109: 108), viz. *kunpe- 'kneW, *unpe- 'granted' and *wulpe'ruled; which are attested in Gothic kunpa, OE culJe, ulJe, ON olla. These forms may be compared with Greek lyvw 'perceived; OVf1TO (for &)varo) 'profited; Vedic avrta 'chose'. Here again, we may assume that the stress was fJXed on the initial syllable when the augment was lost at an early stage. The historical paradigm was evidently built on the zero grade form of the root, e.g. *kununp 'they kneW, *wul}:la 'he chose'. Thus, it appears that the fourth class of weak verbs originated from an extension of the athematic nasal present suffiX to the zero grade stem form of the middle root aorist which had received fiXed stress on the initial syllable when the augment was lost. This yields the following relative chronology: (1) loss of the augment and establishment offJXed stress on the initial syllable in the root aorist, ( 2.) derivation of nasal presents from middle root aorists with initial stress, (3) loss of fiXed stress in the root aorist and expansion of the perfect, (4) Verner's voicing of obstruents before the stress (cf. K1o2.), (5) Kluge's nasal assimilation before the stress (cf. Ku9), (6) Grimm's rise of new fricatives and fiXation of the stress on the initial syllable (cf. K1o2.). It follows that I should have written *dunt instead of *dunp etc. above. As this is not the place to discuss the Proto-Germanic consonant system, I have chosen to use a more traditional transcription.
OLD NORSE taka, GoTmc tekan, GREEK -reraycliv
In his analysis of this etymon, Karl-Heinz Mottausch lists the following Germanic verbs (1993: 152): Gothic tekan 'touch' < *trekan-; Old Norse taka and Middle Dutch taken 'take'; Middle Low German tacken 'touch' < *takko-; Old Frisian tetsia 'appropriate' < *takjan; Old High German zascon 'rob' < *tak-sko-; Old English paccian 'paf, Old Saxon thakolon 'stroke'. The Gothic reduplicated preterit taitok can be identified with Latin tetigi < *tetagai 'touched' and Greek reraywv 'having seized'. The problem is that neither the initial t- nor the vowel -e- of Gothic tekan is compatible with the regular sound laws. While the initial t- beside P- seems to be a Germanic problem, the long vowel is also found in the Tocharian B present ces- 'touch' < *tek-. Mottausch derives the long vowel from *-eH,- and reconstructs a static root present with an alternation between sg. *-teH.g- and pl. *teH.g- (1993: 154f.). I am very unhappy about this traditional methodology of loosely postulating long vowels for the proto-language. What we need is a powerful theory which explains why clear instances of original lengthened grade are so very few and restrains our reconstructions accordingly. Such a theory has been available for over a hundred years now: it was put forward by Wackernagel in his Old Indic grammar (1896: 66-68). The crucial element of his theory which is relevant in the present context is that he assumed lengthening in monosyllabic word forms, such as the 2nd and 3rd sg. forms of the sigmatic aorist injunctive. Since the sigmatic aorist is the prototypical static paradigm in the verbal inflection, it offers the possibility of testing the relative merits of the two theories, Wackernagefs lengthening in monosyllabic word forms versus a static paradigm with lengthened grade in the singular and full grade in the plural. As I have pointed out elsewhere (Ko65), the evidence substantiates Wackernagefs view and forces us to reject the alternative because we fmd full, not lengthened grade in the tst sg. form, e.g. Vedic je~am 'conquer: sto~am 'praise'. It is therefore reasonable to assume that originally the static present also had lengthened grade in the md and 3rd sg. forms of the injunctive and full grade elsewhere. We now have to establish the nature of the static present, which is not a frequent type of inflection. I subscribe to Alexander Lubotsky's unpublished theory that it must be derived from a reduplicated formation. A clear example is Vedic 3rd sg. ta~(i. 3rd pl. tak~ati 'fashion: which carmot be separated from
2.2.2.
Germanic verb classes
Greek re~<.rwv 'carpenter' < *tetk-. Another example is Vedic 3rd sg. da$ti 'makes offering' beside dak$ate 'is able' < *dedk- (cf. Lubotsky 1994: 2.04). I therefore think that Gothic tekan and Tocharian B cd- represent a reduplicated paradigm which can be identified with Greek reraywv. It may be useful to have a look at the place of this formation in the original verbal system. Following a line of thought developed by Pedersen (192.1: 25f.) and Kuiper (1934: 2.12.), I reconstruct a hysterodynamic s-present, 3rd sg. *tresti, 3rd pl. *trsenti, beside a static s-subjunctive (injunctive), 3rd sg. *terst, 3rd pl. *tersnt, the coexistence of which is perhaps best preserved in Tocharian (cf. already Ko64: 1173), where we find B tas- < *dhH,es- beside A tiis- < *dhH,s- in the present and B tes-, A cas- < *dheH,s in the preterit of the verb tii- < *dheH,- 'put'. If the reduplicated formations followed a similar pattern, we may reconstruct a hysterodynamic reduplicated present, 3rd sg. *wiwek"'ti, weak stem *wiwk"'-, but with retracted stress in 3rd pl. *wewk"'nti, cf. Vedic 3rd sg. s[$akti, 3rd pl. sascati 'accompany' < *sisek"'ti, *sesk"'nti, beside a static reduplicated subjunctive (injunctive), 3rd sg. *wewk"'t, 3rd pl. *wewk"'nt. This reconstruction actually explains the long *-e- in the reduplication syllable of original reduplicated aorists, as opposed to original presents and perfects, in Tocharian (cf. K149: 173, and B tatt- 'put' < *dhidhH,-, *dhedhH,-). The rise of the static reduplicated paradigm may have been provoked by the raising of pretonic -e- to -i- in the reduplication syllable, which was probably earlier than Wackemagefs lengthening. While the Tocharian B present cd- < *teke, subjunctive tek- < *tek (with restored t-), and preterit teks- < *teks (idem) all have original long *-e-, short *-eis preserved in the optative taJi < *te(t)kl. The loss of the laryngeal in the root -(t)k- < *tH.g- shows that the lengthened grade arose by analogy with the paradigm ofbiconsonantal roots. The long -e- of Gothic tekan cannot simply be derived from the same source because it is an isolated formation, and there is no indication that lengthened grade ever spread in the verb in Germanic. We therefore have to start from the stem *tetH.g- which is found in Greek and Latin, with a short vowel in the reduplication syllable. As interconsonantallaryngeals in medial syllables were lost in Germanic, the stem became *tetg-, assimilated to *tedg-, with restoration of the reduplication *dedg- (cf. already Mottausch 1993: 158). The latter development has a perfect analogue in Latin bibit beside Vedic pfbati and Old Irish ibid 'drinks'< *pibe-. This solves the problem of the initial tbeside P- in Old English paccian 'pat' < *tH.g-, but not the problem of the long -e- of Gothic tekan 'touch~ which requires a reconsideration of the ProtoGermanic consonantal system. In a number of articles I have argued that the Indo-European unaspirated voiced plosives *b, *d, *g, *("were actually preglottalized ['b], [a], ['g], ['gw], and that the preglottalization was preserved after their devoicing to ['p], ['t], ['k], ['kw] in Germanic (cf. K138 and K142.). The preglottalization has partly been
Old Norse taka, Gothic tekan, Greek reraywv
223
preserved in modern British English and western Danish and is reflected as preaspiration in West Norse and as gemination in all of North and West Germanic under various conditions. Theories which derive the western Danish glottalization from preaspiration or gemination, the West Norse preaspiration from gemination and the East Norse gemination from preaspiration, or the rise of glottalization, preaspiration and several layers of gemination from spontaneous local developments are all inadequate (cf. Ko72). In addition to the arguments which I have adduced elsewhere, I may now add an irrefutable piece of evidence from Faroese, which has preserved preaspiration before intervocalic plosives after originally short vowels, e.g. eta [e:hta] 'eat; opin [o:hpin] 'open' (cf. Petersen et al. 1998: 27; I am indebted to Dr Hoskuldur Prainsson for access to this volume). This preaspiration cannot possibly be derived from gemination because it remains distinct from the preaspiration before original intervocalic geminates, where a preceding short vowel was not lengthened. It must therefore be identified with the "illogical" gemination in Northumbrian, e.g. eatta (Lindisfarne Gospels, cf. Campbell1959: 27, Brunner 1965: 189), and in Old High German, e.g. ezzan, offan. The Proto-Germanic preglottalization can be identified with the one in other Indo-European languages, e.g. Latvian ~t 'eat' <
*eii-. Against this background we have to assume that *tetg- [tet'g-] was assimilated to *tedg- [M:l'g-], with restored reduplication *dedg- [tie'd'g-], and then simplified by the loss of dental articulation in the cluster *-dg-, which yielded a sequence of glottal stop [7] plus *-g- ['g]. If *R was still a glottal stop at the time, we can now write the stem as *deH,g-, which regularly developed into *deg- [tie:'g-], later *tek- ['te:'k-]. This explanation of the long -e- in Gothic tekan is the same as has been proposed for the long -e- in Greek nevr~KOvra 'so: if38o14~"ovra '70~ tvev~K.ovra '90' < *-H,kont- < *-dkomt- (cf. Ko6o: 98f., Lubotsky 1994: 203). It has the advantage of accounting for both the initial t- and the long -e- of Gothic tekan on the basis of a single property of the stem formation, viz. a reduplication which is also attested in Greek and Latin. Thus, we arrive at a Proto-Germanic aorist *tek-, which gave rise to a Gothic 7th class verb tekan, a Scandinavian 6th class verb taka, and a variety of weak verb formations in West Germanic. Mottausch thinks that the Scandinavian verb is a "Neubildung" for *taka on the basis of the preterit tok, which he derives from *tetok- by loss of the reduplication syllable (1993: 159). This seems improbable to me for a number of reasons. First of all, the converse development is attested in the case of lata 'put; which has a secondary preterit lot beside let on the basis of the unstressed variant lata, as Mottausch indicates himself. This verb belongs to the 7th class in all branches of Germanic. Secondly, the restructuring of the reduplicated preterit in North and West Germanic is based on the present stem, e.g. let < *leret, not **li6t, cf. hli6p 'leaped' < *hleaup, Gothic lailot 'let; aiauk 'added'. Thirdly, the 7th class was still productive in late Proto-Germanic,
2.24
Germanic verb classes
whereas the 6th class, which essentially reflects the root aorist (cf. K122), was not This is especially clear from the verb arjan 'plougll, which is a perfect candidate for a 6th class preterit but has a 7th class preterit in Old High German and a weak preterit elsewhere (cf. Kuo: 103). Fourthly, the West Germanic formations remain to be explained. After the merger of *a with *o in late Proto-Germanic, there must have been considerable pressure to change *tek- into *tok- so as to conform to the 6th class pattern, especially if there was a zero grade form with -a- in the paradigm. Gothic evidently created a (new) present tense by adding the regular present endings to the aorist stem *tek- and substituted a newly formed perfect stem *tetok- for the aorist stem in the preterit. There is no reason to assume that such forms ever existed in North and West Germanic, where they would probably have been preserved as a 7th class paradigm. Instead, we find tak- in Old Norse and Middle Dutch, with gemination in Middle Low German, with palatalization in Old Frisian, and with a sk-sufftx in Old High German. This suggests either that there was no present tense of this verb at all in Proto-Germanic or that it was a suppletive formation. In either case the aorist stem *tek- must have survived long enough to give rise to the derivative formations. The initial consonant of Old English paccian 'pat' < *j:Jakko- < *tagna- (cf. Kn9), of which Old Saxon thakolon 'stroke' is evidently a derivative, shows that this is an ancient formation. It can be identified with Middle Low German tacken 'touch' < *takko- if the latter took its initial t- from the aorist stem *tek-. Though this is predominantly a denominal type of inflection, it is perfectly possible that we are dealing here with an original nasal present which joined the regular type. Note that Middle Low German has preserved the original meaning attested in Gothic, Latin and Tocharian. There is no reason to assume that it is an intensive formation (thus Mottausch 1993: 152.), especially because we cannot reconstruct another present tense for Proto-Germanic. Thus, I think that *j:Jakko- < *tagna- and *tek- < *tetg- originally belonged to the same paradigm, which can be directly compared with Latin tango, tetigl 'touch'. The elimination of the suppletive paradigm was a gradual process. While Gothic simply added present endings to the aorist stem *tek-, this device was apparently no longer available when the process reached North and West Germanic. When Scandinavian substituted tak- for *Pakko-, the suppletive paradigm was still preserved in West Germanic. Old Frisian created a j-present *takj-, either on the analogy of 6th class verbs like Gothic hafjan 'raise' or as an intensive formation. The suppletive paradigm must still have existed at the time when Middle Low German adopted the initial t- of the preterit in tacken 'touch' < *takko-. The Middle Dutch verb taken may be a borrowing because it belongs to the weak inflection and has the same meaning as Middle English taken and Old Norse taka (but cf. Kroonen 2.009: 48). Old High German has only preserved a derivative of a deverbal noun in zascon 'rob' < 'make a grab: cf.
Old Norse taka, Gothic tekan, Greek reraywv
2.25
forscon 'ask' < 'put a question; eiscon 'demand' < 'lay a claim'. It thus appears that the original paradigm was retained longer in the Ingvaeonic and Low German territories than elsewhere.
THE GERMANIC WEAK PRETERIT
The main difficulty with the Germanic weak preterit is that one cannot endeavor an explanation of its origin without taking into account almost every aspect of the historical phonology and morphology of the Germanic languages. In the following I intend to show how a number of problems receive a natural explanation in a unified treatment on the basis of earlier studies. The theory presented here is not revolutionary but aims at integrating earlier findings into a coherent whole. There is no reason to give a detailed account of the scholarly literature, which is easily accessible (cf. Tops 1974. Bammesberger 1986a). The best starting-point for the discussion is perhaps the following quotation from Ball (1968: 186f.), to which I wholly subscribe: "It is surely a remarkable fact that the stem and dental of any and every weak verb are the same in the preterite and past participle. This immediately suggests either a common origin or that one is derived from the other. Now, the -to-participle is an IE formation while the weak preterite is Germanic, and, since a common origin seems out of the question, if they are related at all the dental preterite must be derived from the past participle. This hypothesis would avoid all the difficulties produced by Gothic wissa, bri:thta, etc., which have been discussed above: it would, in fact, at once solve the problems both of the origin of the dental and of the form of the stem in the preterite- presents and class I preterites without medial vowel. And I have argued above that the class III preterites like OE haifde can only be accounted for on the assumption that the weak preterite was introduced into this class at a far later date in Germanic:'
As Ball recognizes, the "really serious problem is, of course, to account for the endings" (187): if the weak preterit "was a Germanic innovation, we might expect it to adopt a ready-made set of endings, such as those of the strong preterite" (183). This is where the verb 'to do' enters the picture: I agree with Ball that it "has always been the main strength of the composition theory that it provided a fairly satisfactory explanation of the endings" (183). The verb 'to do' has three different preterit stems in Germanic: *dud- in OE dyde, *ded- in OS deda, OHG teta, and *ded- in OS diidun, OHG tatun. While *de- is evidently the reduplication syllable, the root forms *de- and *du- must be derived from the root aorist, cf. Vedic adhiit, adhur 'he, they put'. The coexistence of a perfect stem *dedo- and an aorist stem *de- is corroborated by the 2nd sg. endings OHG -os, OS -os and Gothic -es, OE OS -es. Thus, I think that OS dedos and -des represent the perfect and the aorist of the verb 'to do~ respectively. There is another root aorist which has survived into Germanic, viz. *stop, Vedic asthiit 'he stood: which gave rise to a 3rd pl. form *stodun(p), cf. Gothic
Germanic verbal inflexion
228
stop, OE stodon. Similarly, the 3rd sg. form *dep gave rise to a plural form *dedun(p), OHG tatun, Gothic -dedun. I thereby arrive at the following reconstruction of the Proto-Germanic root aorist of the verb 'to do': 1st sg. 2ndsg. 3rd sg. 1St pl. 2nd pl. 3rd pl.
PGmc.
Gothic
ON
OE
OS
*den *des *dep *dedume *dedude *dedunp
-da -des -da -dedum -dedup -dedun
-Pa -per -pe -Pom -pop -Po
-de -des -de
-da -des -da
-don
-dun
In order to account for OE dyde we must assume that *dedunp replaced earlier *dunp at a stage which was more recent than the introduction of *du- into the optative (subjunctive). The perfect (strong preterit) of the verb 'to do' can be reconstructed as follows: 1st sg. 2ndsg. 3rd sg. 1St pl. 2nd pl. 3rd pl.
PGmc.
OS
OHG
*dedoa *dedopa *dedoe *dedume *dedude *dedunp
deda dedos deda
teta -tos teta -tum, -tom -tut, -tot -tun, -ton
dedun
The formation can be compared with Gothic saiso, ON sera 'I sowed'. Mter the loss of final *-a, *-e, the 2nd sg. ending *-P was evidently replaced by *-s on the analogy of the aorist (weak preterit), cf. Gothic saisost, with added -t. This *-s spread to the other strong preterits in West Germanic on the analogy of the weak endings *-dre, *-dres, a development which must have occurred at a stage when the Verner alternation of fmal *-s was still productive. On the form dedun cf. Li.ihr 1984: 39f. and 49f. We may now wonder if the development of the endings is in accordance with the Germanic Auslautgesetze. Elsewhere I have proposed the following rules for the phonetic development of fmal syllables in Germanic (Koss: 172., Ko84: 437):
The Germanic weak preterit PGmc. *-0-
*-on *-ons *-os *-ot *-oa(n)
Gothic
-a -a -OS -OS -0 -0
ON zero zero
-ar -ar -a -a
229 OE
OS
OHG
-(u) -e -e -a -a -a
-(u) -a -a
-(u) -a
-0
-0
-0
-0
-0
-0
-ii
Originally stressed *-os developed into OE -as, OS -os, OHG -os. The unstressed gen.sg. ending *-os was replaced by the acc.sg. ending *-on in West Germanic in order to eliminate the homophony with the gen. pl. ending *-oan which resulted from the loss of *-sand *-an. The difference between *-o and *-otis paralleled by the difference between Gothic -a < *-ai in the middle and -ai < *-ait in the optative (subjunctive). I do not share the usual view that the ON acc.sg. ending was replaced by the nom.sg. ending ingi9j'gift' < *gebo, *gebon because I fail to see the motivation for such a replacement, the two case forms being distinct in the other flexion classes of this language. The fern. acc.sg. form of the adjective spaka 'wise' has a pronominal ending. Like the introduction of the pronominal ending in the neuter form spakt, this is an innovation of Old Norse. The nonzero nom.sg. ending of ON hane 'rooster' was taken from the ion-stems (cf. Lid 1952). The reconstructed gen.pl. ending *-oan was evidently a ProtoGermanic innovation (cf. Ko3o). I see no evidence for tonal distinctions in Proto-Germanic. Here I add the expected reflexes of the corresponding front vowel endings: PGmc. *-e-
*-en *-es *-et
Gothic
-a -a -es -e
ON zero zero
-er -e
OE
OS
OHG
-e -e -e(s) -e
-a -a -e(s) -e
-a -a -e, -es -e
Apart from the expected zero endings in Old Norse, the attested singular forms of the weak preterit appear to reflect a Proto-Germanic paradigm *-den, *-des, *-de, without fmal *-P in the 3rd sg. form. This is strongly reminiscent of the Balta-Slavic e-preterit, which has a nominal origin (cf. Ko71: 256) and therefore suggests a derivation of the Germanic weak preterit from compounds with the PIE root noun *dhe- (cf. Ko64: 120), but it is more probable that the fmal *-P was eliminated on the analogy of the strong preterit in view of the Gothic paradigm 3rd sg. -da, 3rd pl. -dedun, which is otherwise difficult to explain. It appears that OS deda and OHG teta adopted the endings of the weak preterit. The Alemannic plural endings -tom, -tot, -ton presuppose an earlier 3rd sg. form
*teto.
Germanic verbal inflexion
230
Hollifield has argued that *e always yielded *a in North and West Germanic (1980 ). Though this may be correct for *-e and *-en, the evidence is unfavorable in the case of *-ei, *-eu, *-er and *-es and inconclusive in the case of *-et. Moreover, I maintain that Proto-Germanic *re was preserved in Ingvaeonic stressed syllables (Ko84: 440). Elsewhere I have argued for the following reflexes oflong final diphthongs (K105: sf.): PGmc.
Gothic
Runic
ON
OE
OS
OHG
*-e1-· *-01 -· *-eu *-ou
-ai -ai -au -au
-ai, -e -ai, -e -o, -iu
-e -e -e -a
-i -e -a -a
-i -e -0
-i -e -iu, -e
-0
-0
-0
It appears that *-ei and *-oi remained distinct in OS and OHG, e.g. datsg. ensti 'favor' versus dage, tage 'daY, and that *-eu and *-ou remained distinct in ON datsg. syne 'son' (Runic magiu) versus atta 'eight' and OHG suniu, sune versus ahto. The high reflex -i of *-ei in OS and OHG and the fronted reflex -iu, -e of *-eu in ON and OHG suggest that *e was a front vowel when the long final diphthong was shortened to *-ei, *-eu, while the merger with the corresponding back vowel diphthongs in the other languages suggests that *e was a low vowel at the time of the shortening, which was apparently early in OE and late in OHG. It follows that we must reconstruct *-rei and *-reu for North and West Germanic. There is no reason to assume different apophonic grades in these Germanic endings. In the case of Runic swestar 'sister' I assume preservation of PIE *-or and later replacement by the reflex of *-er in ON syster on the analogy of faper, m6per, d6tter. If PIE *-er had yielded *-ar, the rise of ON -er would be incomprehensible. Final *-es is found in the 2nd sg. ending of the weak preterit and in OHG 1st pl. -mes, which can be compared with the corresponding long vowel ending in Lithuanian. The ON nonzero endings 1st sg. -a and 3rd sg. -e have not yet been explained. The attested older Runic endings are the following (cf. Antonsen 1975): 1st sg. -o: Vetteland Stone (Norway, 350 AD), Einang stone (Norway, 350-400 AD), Gallehus gold hom 2. (Jutland, 400 AD), Ro stone (BohusUin, 400 AD), Tune stone (Norway, 400 AD), Kj0levik stone (Norway, 450 AD), Ellestad stone (Ostergotland, sso-6oo AD). 1st sg. -aa: Etelhem clasp (Gotland, soo AD).
The Germanic weak preterit
231
3rd sg. -ai: N0vling clasp (Jutland, 200 AD), Vimose chape (Fyn, 250-300 AD), Darum bracteate 3 (Jutland, 450-550 AD). 3rd sg. -e: Garb0lle wooden box (Sjrelland, 400 AD), Halskov bracteate (Sjrelland, 450-550 AD), Tjurko bracteate 1 (Blekinge, 500 AD), By stone (Norway, 500-550 AD), Gummarp stone (Blekinge, 600-650 AD). These endings appear to reflect 1st sg. *-au or *-ou, 3rd sg. *-ai or *-oi, as if the optative endings had been added to the aorist or perfect endings of the Gothic forms. Here the OE paradigm of dyde comes to mind: it suggests that the aorist indicative adopted the endings of the optative when the perfect became the regular preterit of strong verbs. This leads us to an examination of the optative (subjunctive) endings in Germanic. The difference between Alemannic m:imi 'took' and suohtl 'sought' (Notker mime versus suohti) cannot be explained as a secondary development: it shows that the two paradigms represent different formations. While niimi can be compared with wili 'wants' (Notker wile) and derived from *-It, the weak form must be compared with Vedic 1st sg. dheyiim, 3rd pl. dheyur, Gr. 8elrtv, 8eiev, and derived from *dhezt (cf. Ko65: 221). It provides conclusive evidence for the compound origin of the weak preterit The Old English forms suggest an early substitution of *dul- for *del- in the simple verb, and later replacement by *dud!-, which yielded dyde. This was evidently the subjunctive of the regular preterit *dedo-, *dedu- in Proto-Germanic times. It now appears that North Germanic disambiguated the weak indicative ending *-da by adding 1st sg. *-u, 3rd sg. *-i from the subjunctive *-diu, *-dii, which supplied a convenient model for disambiguation. Thus, I reconstruct Proto-Norse 1st sg. *-dau, 3rd sg. *-dai for the weak preterit indicative. It is clear that these endings cannot account for the West Germanic material. Following Collitz, Hollifield tries to demonstrate 1st sg. -a versus 3rd sg. -e for the Monacensis ms. of the OS Heliand, but this distribution is not supported by the evidence: the ratio of -a to -e in the first (1), middle (II-III), and fmal (N- VI) part of the ms. is as follows (Hollifield 1980: 157): -a: -e 1st sg. 3rd sg.
I 2:1 101:46
II-III 2:2 63:114
N-VI 0:5 18:215
total 4:8 182:375
It follows that we have to start from a single homophonous ending *-re which was first written -a and later -e (and twice -re in the fmal part). The fronted character of this ending, as opposed to the regular endings of the o-stems (Hollifield 1980: 152f.), may reflect the original timbre of Proto-Germanic *re. It appears to differ from the even more fronted reflex of the dat.sg. ending *-Oi of the a-stems (Hollifield 1980: 156):
Germanic verbal inflexion
232. -a: -e datsg.
105:82.
II-III 52.:2.95
IV-VI 14:32.4
total 171:701
It must be investigated whether the differences can be attributed to the preceding consonant (cf. Liihr 1984: 75). In view of the general agreement between OS and OHG I assume that the expected strong preterit form *dedo, like *teto, adopted the weak ending. It has been proposed that the weak preterit represents the imperfect rather than the aorist of the verb 'to do' (e.g. Bech 1963, Liihr 1984). This hypothesis explains neither the absence of reduplication in Gothic -da, nor the long vowel of 3rd pl. -dedun, OHG tatun. The derivation of these forms from a root aorist, to be compared with Gothic stop, OE stodon, has the additional advantage of offering an explanation for OE dyde, as was pointed out above. It is highly improbable that the present stem *dedhe- survived beside aorist *dhe- and perfect *dedho- when reduplication became characteristic of the strong preterit. It think that the attested present stem represents a thematic derivative *doje- of the perfect and that the 1st sg. ending -m is secondary in this paradigm, cf. already early OHG 2nd sg. tois, 3rd sg. tOit, tuoit, part. toenti (Braune & Eggers 1975: 304). Now we turn to the problem of the stem form before the dental suffix. If the weak preterit must be derived from the past participle in the formations without a connecting vowel while the endings represent the root aorist of the verb 'to do~ the origin of the weak preterit must be sought in compounds which are reflected as weak verbs with a connecting vowel. The correctness of this hypothesis is nicely corroborated by the existence of a class of verbs where the connecting vowel cannot have been introduced from the present tense. The Germanic first class of weak verbs originated from a merger of earlier je-presents, e.g. *bugje'buY, *wurkje- 'worl(, and eje-presents, e.g. *naseje- 'save~ *kauseje- 'probe, as a result of Sievers' law and raising of *e before "}. Elsewhere I have argued that the distinction between these two formations was preserved with short stems in Proto-Germanic (Ko88). In Gothic we fmd seven je-presents with a strong preterit (bidjan, hajjan, hlahjan, frapjan, skapjan, gaskapjan, wahsjan), five je-presents with a preterit in -ta (bugjan, waurkjan, brnkjan, pugkjan, kaupatjan), and eight primary je-presents with a preterit in -ida (hazjan, taujan, siujan, sokjan, hropjan, wopjan, paursjan,faurhtjan). The connecting vowel was spreading in this language, as is clear from sokida 'soughf (OE sohte, OHG suohta), faurhtidedun 'they feared' (OHG forahtun, cf. Krause 1953: 2.12.), part kaupatidai beside kaupastedun 'they buffeted'. It appears that bruhta 'used' and waurhta 'worked' replace earlier strong preterits in view of OE breac and warhte beside worhte (cf. Bammesberger 1986a: So), where the apophonic alternation cannot otherwise be explained; similarly Gothic briihta 'brought' and piihta 'thought' beside puhta 'seemed: which gave rise to a secondary present *j:Jankeje-
The Germanic weak preterit
233
in Proto-Germanic times. Thus, I think that all strong verbs with a root ink or g and a je- present created a weak preterit on the basis of the past participle, which must have ended in -htas at that stage. It follows that the original first class of weak verbs had an alternation between *-eje- in the present and *-i- in the preterit, e.g. *nasejepi, *naside(p) 'he saves, saved'. Elsewhere I have identifled the stem *nasi- with the Indo- Iranian passive aorist as a neuter verbal noun 'salvation' (K044: 127f.), of which Gothic naseins is a derivative *nosi-H,n-i(Ko88: 29). The Germanic third class of weak verbs remains to be discussed. It has convincingly been argued that neither Gothic habaida, ON hajpa, -e, OHG habeta, nor OE hafde, OS habda, Alemannic hapta 'had' can represent the original preterit of this class. As I have indicated elsewhere (K105: 7), I think that the inherited preterit was *habe-, without an intervening dental. This formation was replaced by *habde- in West Germanic and by the present stem followed by the dental suffix elsewhere, and later also in Old High German. The formation of *kunpe- 'kneW, *unpe- 'granted: *wulpe- 'ruled' is peculiar because we expect *d in the past participle. It seems to have originated from a root aorist 3rd pl *kunp (replacing *knunp or *kununp), cf. *dunp above, and 3rd sg. middle *wulpa, Vedic avrta 'he chose'. These forms reflect the original relation between nasal presents (*kunn-, *unn-, Vedic vro-) and root aorists, as opposed to underived presents with reduplicated perfects. The stem form *wulp- cannot be identified with ON vald- 'rule' because the latter is identical with Lith. valdyti 'to rule, which has PIE *dh. It must rather be compared with Slavic veleti 'to command: which is a derivative of PIE *uel- 'want'. The absence of a connecting vowel in Gothic wilda and the zero grade in OE wolde, OHG wolta suggest that these forms replace an earlier preterit *wulp-, which apparently survived in ON olla 'I ruled~
THE PROTO-GERMANIC PLUPERFECT
The Germanic perfect presents (Priiteritopriisentien) form a past tense by adding the endings of the weak preterit to the stem of the past participle, e.g. Gothic wissa 'knew'. This is a recent formation (cf. K1o9). We may therefore ask ourselves if we can reconstruct the earlier formation which was ousted by the weak preterit. We may also try to recover the motivation for the replacement There was no pluperfect in Proto- Indo-European. In Greek we fmd a derivative stem (f)etOYf- 'kneW, seemingly with the same suffiX as in Slavic vede-. If such a formation had existed in Germanic, it would hardly have been replaced by *wisse-, cf. Gothic witaida 'observed; which corresponds to Latin vide-. The Vedic pluperfect can be defmed as a perfect stem with secondary (aorist, imperfect) endings, e.g. avedam 'I knew' (cf. especially Thieme 1929). This formation, which is occasionally found in Greek, may also have existed in Germanic. Indeed, I think that the hypothesis of a former pluperfect with secondary endings offers an explanation for a number of unclear points in Germanic historical morphology. The interpretation of Gothic (nf) ogs (pus) '(do not) fear' as an injunctive (Hirt, Meid), subjunctive (J. Schmidt, Bammesberger), or irregular optative (Scherer, Hiersche) is not supported by independent evidence and must therefore be rejected (see Bammesberger 1986b for references and discussion). The form evidently represents a perfect stem with a secondary ending. It is difficult to separate OHG ni curi 'noli; Tatian ni curet beside ni curlt 'nolite' semantically from Gothic ogs and formally from the West Germanic strong preterit indicative, e.g. OHG md sg. zugi, 2nd pl zugut 'drew'. The derivation of (nf) curi from an aorist optative (cf. Bammesberger 1986b: 676) is not supported by additional evidence and does not explain the plural form in -et, which can hardly be analogical. Moreover, the regular optative form ni churls in the 2nd Reichenauer Glossar suggests that the plural form curlt replaced curet, not the other way round. Thus, the forms curi and curet appear to reflect the perfect stem with secondary ending *-es, *-ete. The usual view that the West Germanic 2nd sg. strong preterit ending -i was taken from the aorist (indicative, injunctive or optative) cannot be correct because both the model and the motivation for such a replacement are lacking. Apart from *de- < *dhe- in the weak preterit and *stii- < *sta- in the sixth class strong preterit, which are not suitable as a model, it is difficult to fmd traces of the aorist in Germanic. It is highly improbable that an isolated 2nd sg. aorist ending replaced the regular perfect ending in a limited area without leaving a trace in the more archaic dialects.
Germanic verbal inflexion If the 2nd sg. ending -i < *-es belonged to a fully inflected paradigm, we can reconstruct 1st sg. *-om and 3rd sg. *-et, both of which yielded a zero ending in the attested Germanic languages. The merger of these endings with those of the perfect makes clear why the category disappeared. What remains to be discussed is the mechanism which produced the distribution of the 2nd sg. endings *-es and *-ta which is actually attested in the material. East and North Germanic preserved *-ta both in the perfect presents and in the strong preterit with the exception of stems in a long voweL which adopted the weak endings in Scandinavian, e.g. 2nd sg. serer, 3rd sg. sere 'sowed~ This type has a md sg. ending -st in Gothic saisost. Conversely, the ending -t was added to the athematic 2nd sg. form of the verb 'to be' in Scandinavian est, later ert. Thus, we fmd spread of *-es after a vowel in the preterit and spread of *-ta after a consonant in the present tense. The West Germanic elimination of *-ta from the strong preterit and the addition of this ending in the athematic md sg. forms, e.g. OE eart, bist, dest, gti!st, wilt, can be viewed as a continuation of the same development. On the basis of what has been said I claim that we can reconstruct a thematic preterit of a perfect with secondary endings *-om, *-es, *-et, *-ete, at least for the perfect presents, where it was ousted by the newly formed weak preterit at a recent stage. The previous existence of this thematic formation explains the generalization of -u- as a tense marker in the plural endings -urn, -ud, -un from *-me, *-te, *-nt in the perfect. It is hard to determine to what extent (if at all) the thematic formation supplied a real pluperfect to the strong preterit. This brings us to the question of the model and the motivation for the creation of the pluperfect. While most simple verbs probably had at least an aorist or a perfect at an early stage, derived verbs only had an imperfect beside the present tense. This holds for the causatives and iteratives (1st class weak verbs), denominatives (1St and 2nd class weak verbs), and intensives (6th and 7th class strong verbs with an original o-grade root vowel, cf. K122). While the former categories had a thematic imperfect which was eventually replaced by the weak preterit, the intensives were an athematic reduplicated formation, cf. Vedic janghanti 'strikes: adardar 'pierced'. We may therefore wonder if Gothic lailaik 'leaped: OHG steroz 'strucl(,feang'seized' directly continue an athematic imperfect I think that this is not the case. The remarkable fact about the development of the Indo-European intensives in Germanic is not that they may form a 7th class strong preterit, which clearly represents the perfect, but that they do so only if the root structure prevented the formation of a 6th class strong preterit, which originated from the root aorist of roots in a long vowel ( cf. K122). This is particularly striking in view of the fact that the root *ar- 'plow; which probably had aorist meaning in the northern Indo-European languages because it has a je-present in Celtic,
The Proto-Germanic pluperfect
237
Germanic, Baltic and Slavic, did not join the 6th class of strong verbs but developed a 7th class strong preterit in Old High German iar- and a weak preterit in the other languages. We would therefore expect to find Gothic *saislah, *slahta or *slahida instead of sloh 'struck'. It follows that the athematic imperfect of the intensives remained distinct from both the root aorist and the perfect. The solution to this anomaly seems to be that the athematic imperfect, like the athematic present, became thematicized at an early stage and did not therefore merge with either the root aorist or the perfect. A trace of the original athematic inflection may be preserved in Gothic rei ran 'to tremble, OE riirian, OHG reren 'to roar: where the preterit Gothic inreiraida 'quaked' suggests an original present stem *reiroi-, similarly gageigaidedjau 'I might gain'. These verbs may have escaped early thematicization because their inflection was supported by the present stem *stai- 'stand' (cf. K105: 8). The remarkable fact that intensives with a root of the type CaR- or CaC-, but not CaRC-, created a long vowel preterit on the analogy of the root *stiicannot be explained on the basis of a present stem *stistii-, as in Greek Ycrrruu 'I set up, or *stand-, as in Gothic. I think that the latter stem form must be derived from an athematic imperative of a nasal present *standi, cf. Greek tn(){w 'I eat' from *ed- plus the Indo-European athematic imperative ending *-dhi, as in Vedic addhf 'eat!~ It follows that we have to assume an inchoative nasal present *stanbeside the root aorist *stii-, which may be compared with Gothic fulln- 'become full' beside the preterit full no- which apparently ousted the root aorist attested in Greek nA.~ro. While the replacement of a root aorist by an imperfect in the case of fullnois a natural development, the creation of an aorist beside a regular imperfect on the anomalous pattern of *stan-, *stii- is much more difficult to understand. If the original athematic imperfect *pulniit became an aorist when the present tense was thematicized on the basis of 3rd pl. *pulnanti, it must have been the reduplication which prevented the same thing happening to the intensives. This renders the presence of a semantic distinction between aorist and perfect at that stage highly probable. The creation of a new aorist beside the imperfect in these intensives and inchoatives also demonstrates the presence of a semantic distinction between aorist and imperfect at the time of the thematicization. This is nicely corroborated by the perfect present Gothic kann 'knoW, which is evidently built on a thematicized imperfect *kunna-, cf. Vedic jiintinti 'they know: ajiinan 'they kneW, Lith. zinoti 'to know'. The athematic imperfect which turned aorist *kunnii- was replaced by *kunne- in Gothic -kunnaida, obviously because the verb had durative meaning. The latter formation is found in competition with the original root aorist in ufkunnaida beside ufkunpa 'recognized'. The creation
Germanic verbal inflexion of an athematic aorist *naside- 'saved' beside the thematic imperfect *naseje/a(cf. K109: 107) can probably be dated to the same stage of development The thematic imperfect *kunna- was eventually ousted by the aorist kunpa 'knew'. If the same development can be demonstrated for a perfect preterit rather than a perfect present, this vindicates the hypothesis of a real pluperfect I think that conclusive evidence is provided by the verbs Gothic briggan 'to bring, brukjan 'to use, waurkjan 'to worl(, preterit brahta, bruhta, waurhta, OE brohte, breac, and warhte beside worhte. Since these forms represent analogical weak preterits derived from strong preterit stems, their original function can hardly have been anything else than that of supplying a pluperfect to a strong preterit. As in the case of the past tense of perfect presents, I think that they replaced a thematic formation. The thematic imperfect of intensives with a root of the type CaRC- was integrated into the perfect system, e.g. Gothic lailaik 'leaped; OHG steroz 'strucl(, feang 'seized; evidently because it was a reduplicated formation. This incidentally explains the absence of quantitative ablaut in the 7th class strong preterit in Gothic. We can now assume that these perfects were created in a similar way as kann was on the basis of *kunna-. The paradigm reconstructed above for OHG ni curi 'noli', ni curet 'nolite' fits into the picture rather nicely. When the pluperfect was lost as a tense, these forms survived in a modal function, like the Old Spanish pluperfect indicative in -ra which has become a past subjunctive in the modern language. The theory developed here provides an explanation for the remarkable redundancy which characterizes the personal endings in the oldest Germanic material, e.g. Gothic -a, -is, -ip, -am, -ip, -and after a present stem versus -0, -t, -0, -urn, -up, -un after a preterit stem versus -au, -s, -0, -rna, -]1, -na after an optative stem. This awkward system becomes understandable if it resulted from the loss of an imperfect and a pluperfect which were formed from the present and preterit stems by the addition of a set of secondary thematic endings which regularly developed into -0, -s, -0, -am, -ip, *-an. Note that the function of the thematic vowel was particularly unfortunate because it distinguished on the one hand the present and imperfect from the weak preterit (aorist) and on the other the pluperfect from the strong preterit (perfect).
THil INFLEXION OF TilE INDO-EUROPEAN a-STEMS IN GERMANIC At the Eichstiitt conference on the languages of prehistoric Europe (1999), the gentle Dirk Boutkan was unpleasantly surprised by an unexpected frontal attack launched by his then Leiden colleague Peter Schrijver. When the conference volume was published (2.003), Dirk had passed away at the age of 37 and was therefore no longer in a position to answer his critic. Against this background I feel the need to clarify my own position in the debate. In the following I shall limit myself to the inflexion of the Indo-European a-stems in Germanic. It is important to note that the principal differences of opinion between Boutkan and Schrijver are hidden in the footnotes to the latter's diagrammatic presentation of the data (2.003: 197), where Boutkan's reconstructions *-os, *-ons (1995: 163) appear as *-oz, *-onz. Boutkan's paradigm of the a-stems is the following (1995: 2.2.2.-2.2.4. abbreviations: P[roto-]G[er]m[anic], O[ld] R[unic], Ic[elandic], E[nglish], S[axon], H[igh] G[erman], N[ominative], A[ccusative], G[enitive], D[ative], I[nstrumental], s[ingular], p[lural]). Ns As Gs Ds Is Np Ap Gp Dp Ns As Gs Ds Is Np Ap Gp Dp
PGm
Gothic
OR
Ole
*-0*-on *-os *-01 -· *-0*-os *-ons *-oan *-omus
-a -a
-u -0
-0 -0 -ar
-OS -OS
-u -oz -oz, -Az
-0 -ar -ar
-0
-0
-OS
-ai
-om
-a
-om
PGm
OE
OS
OHG
*-0*-on *-os *-01 -· *-0*-os *-ons *-oan *-omus
-0, -u -e -a,-e -e
-0, -ale -ale -ale -ale -u -ale, -o -ale
-0, -a
-0
-ono -om
-a,-e -e, -a -a -um
-un
-a
-a -u
-o,-a
-a
This distribution of the endings differs from the one advocated by Schrijver in the following respects.
240
Germanic nominal inflexion
The phonetically regular Ns ending was -a in Gothic and -u in North and West Germanic, with u-umlaut and loss of the ending in Scandinavian and with loss of the ending after long stems in West Germanic. The same ending is found in the Is form and in the 1s form of the present indicative. While Ns -u was preserved in Old English, where the Is form was lost, it was replaced by the & ending in OS -ale and OHG -a, where Is -u was generalized as Ds ending. "A model for this development was provided by the o-stems, where the Ns and As had coalesced as a result of regular phonetic development" (Boutkan 1995: 225). Schrijver does not even mention this point. The As ending differed from the Ns ending by the fmal nasal, which evidently gave rise to a nasal vowel at an early stage and thereby inhibited the vowel from raising to -u in North and West Germanic, yielding OR -o. Like Gothic -a, 0 R -o was short, as is clear from the fact that it was subsequently lost with u-umlaut, as was Ns -u in Scandinavian. In West Germanic, the nasal vowel was delabialized and yielded OE -e, OS -ale, OHG -a. This development may be compared with the lowering, delabialization and fronting in French masc. un 'one; as opposed to fern. une, where the high rounded oral vowel was preserved: "Close vowels such as [i], [y] and [u] are less liable to nasalization than more open vowels, for the reason that, as they involve raising the tongue almost to the maximum height possible without causing friction and so producing a consonant, the air passage through the mouth is already restricted and there is less 'room for manoeuvre' for the lowering of the velum in anticipation of a following nasal consonant." (Price 1979: 87''"). The view that the & ending was replaced by the Ns zero ending in Scandinavian carmot be correct because there is no motivation for this replacement, as the Ns and As forms are distinct in the other inflexional paradigms of this language. The fern. As form of the adjective spaka 'wise' has a pronominal ending. Like the introduction of the pronominal ending in the neuter form spakt, this is a Scandinavian innovation. Schrijver's suggestion that the As zero ending was taken from the recessive u- or consonant stems (2003: 197") is for the same reasons quite unacceptable, also because in the latter paradigms Ns -R < *-s was replaced by u-umlaut on the analogy of the a-stems, e.g. mprk 'marl(, Gs and NAp merkr. His statement that Boutkan does not discuss the problem is simply not true (cf. 1995: 139). It appears that West Germanic substituted the As for the Gs ending in order to avoid the merger with the Gp ending which resulted from the phonetic developments (cf. Boutkan 1995: 227). Like Schrijver, I agree with Dahl (1938: 141-143) that the Gs ending OE -a does not reflect original *-os but is the result of a secondary development of -e, which also affected the Ds and As forms. Schrijver raises three objections against the view that the As ending spread to the Gs in order to avoid homonymy with the Gp form (2003: 2oo): "In this way one homonymy is traded for another, but it is not made clear why the new homonymy would be more tolerable than the old one." It is obvious that a
The inflexion of the Indo-European a-stems in Germanic
241
merger of the Gs and Gp forms always obliterates an important semantic distinction whereas the difference between Gs and & forms is usually no more than a superfluous syntactic index. "More to the point, OE had no difficulty with the homonymy Gsg. - Gpl. in the u-stems, where -a is the ending of the GDsg. and NAGpl. but not of the &g:' This is simply not true: when Gs *-aus (OHG -oo) and Gp *-ewan (OHG -eo) merged into -a in Old English, the former was replaced by the corresponding ending of the o- and a-stems (cf. Boutkan 1995: 256). "Furthermore, all stem classes preserve a formal difference between the As g. and Gsg. if one was inherited:' This again is not true, as is clear from As for Gs hond 'hand; without -a, and guman 'mad, not -en. Thus, Schrijver's objections do not hold water. I have discussed the inflexion of the n-stems elsewhere (K219, cf. Boutkan 1995: 278-282). While Np *-os and Ap *-ons merged in East and North Germanic when the nasal was lost, the two endings remained distinct in West Germanic because, as in the singular, the nasal vowel was delabialized, yielding Ap forms in OE -e, OS -ale, OHG -a (with length preserved before the lost consonant), contrasting with Np forms in OE -a, OS OHG -o. The Ap ending now replaced the Np ending in West Germanic, probably because the latter had become homophonous with the Gp ending. This development "did not reach the Kentish and West Saxon dialects, which had apparently left the continent by this time, and did not affect the pronominal flexion, where the homophony never arose" (Ko84: 438). Conversely, the Np ending replaced the Ap ending in West Saxon and Kentish in order to remove the homophony with the As ending which arose when the long vowel corresponding to OHG -a was shortened. In German, the original Np ending -o was preserved in the peripheral Alemannic dialects. This explanation accounts in a straightforward way for the peculiar distribution of the attested forms. Schrijver's supposition that Alemannic -o is a recent development (2003: 2.07) is at variance with the fact that it is limited to the earliest stage of the language. His view that the distinction between the Np and Ap forms of a-stem nouns and adjectives was lost in Germanic, later restored in West Saxon on the basis of the demonstrative pronoun, then lost again in West Saxon by generalization of the nominal ending in the pronoun and the pronominal ending in the noun (2003: 2o8f.) is totally arbitrary, indeed spurious. I conclude that Schrijver's attack on Boutkan was unnecessarily offensive and does not constitute a useful contribution to our knowledge of the Germanic Auslautgesetze.
THE INFLEXION OF THE GERMANIC n-STEMS
Elsewhere I have expressed my disagreement with the usual view that the Old Norse acc.sg. ending of the a-stems was replaced by the nom.sg. ending, e.g. gi()f 'gift'< *gebO, *gebOn (Ko3o: 298, Ko55: 172). I fail to see the motivation for such a replacement because the nom.sg. and acc.sg. forms are distinct in the other flexion classes of this language. The fern. acc.sg. form of the adjective spaka has a pronominal ending. Like the introduction of the pronominal ending in the neuter form spakt, this is an innovation of Old Norse. It follows that the expected nom.sg. ending of the n-stems is zero in Scandinavian. This explains the introduction of the front vowel from the jan-stems in hane 'rooster' (cf. Lid 1952). The inflexion of the Germanic n-stems has largely been clarified by Lane (1963) and Boutkan (1995), which enables me to refer to these authors for most points of discussion. Suffice it to emphasize that I start from nom.sg. *-on for all genders, masc. acc.sg. *-en- versus nom.acc.pl. *-on-, and neuter nom.acc.pl. *-on-< Indo-European *-on versus fern. *-on-< *-ii-n-. The alternation between sg. *-en- and pl. *-on- is also found in Armenian and must be ancient ( cf. Meillet 1936: 79). This yields the following Proto-Germanic paradigms: nom.sg. acc.sg. gen.sg. datsg. nom. pl. ace. pl. gen. pl. datpl.
masculine
feminine
neuter
-on -enun -en as -eni -anes -anuns -nan -mus
-on -onun -on as -oni -ones -onuns -on an -om us
-on -on -en as -eni -ono -ono -nan -mus
As Boutkan points out (1995: 280), *-an- was raised to *-un- before the acc.pl. ending *-uns in North and West Germanic (Van Helten's law). This *-un- spread to the nom. pl. and acc.sg. forms in the German area, where it appears as -on in the north (Saxon and Franconian) and -un in the south (Boutkan 1995: 285). The latter development did not reach the Ingveonic dialects, where the nom. pl. form in -an replaced the acc.pl. form, as in the case of the o-stem ending -a replacing -e in the Old English dialects which left the continent at an early time (cf. Ko84: 438). In Scandinavian and Ingveonic, *-an- had evidently replaced *-en- in the singular at an early stage after Van Helten's law. This leads to a reconstruction of the following paradigms after the apocope:
Germanic nominal inflexion
244
acc.sg. gen.sg. datsg. nom. pl. ace. pl. datpl.
Scandinavian English
Upper G.
-an -an -an -an -an -um.R
-un -en -in -un -un -um
-an -an -an -an -an -um
In the feminines, Boutkan assumes raising of fmal *-on to *-un after the apocope both in North Germanic and in the German dialectal area (1995: 284-290). This development, which may now properly be called Boutkan's law, did not affect the Ingveonic dialects, where *-on had been shortened to -an at an early stage (ibidem). Thus, we arrive at the following paradigms: acc.sg. gen.sg. dat.sg. nom.pl. acc.pl. dat.pl.
Scandinavian English
High G.
-un -un -un -un -un -omR
-un -un -un -un -un -om
-an -an -an -an -an -um
As I think that the nom.sg. ending of Gothic guma 'mart OE tunge, OHG zunga 'tongue, also neuter OE eage, OHG ouga 'eye represents the phonetic reflex of Proto-Germanic *-on, we now turn to Go. tuggo, augo, ON tunga, auga (Runic -o), OE guma and OHG gomo, which must have taken their final vowel from the acc.sg. and nom.pl. forms after the delabialization of original *-on. This is unproblematic in the case of the East and North Germanic etyma because there was no suffixal variant *-an- in their paradigms, so that *-on could easily be restored on the basis of the medial variant *-on-. In the case ofWest Germanic it apparently requires a stage after *-an- had replaced *-en- in Ingveonic but before Van Helten's *-un- spread from the ace. pl. to the nom. pl. and acc.sg. forms in the German dialectal area. On the basis of the Old Saxon evidence (cf. Boutkan 1995: 152-162), we may assume that at that stage the suffix *-an- was in fact [An] while original *-on had developed into [re], which was now replaced by [a] in West Germanic so as to yield OE guma, OHG gomo. This replacement can be viewed as an extension of the substitution of *-an- for *-en- in the acc.sg. form. The feminines could not be affected by a similar development in West Germanic because there was no fmal *-o corresponding to the suffix *-on- after the raising of original *-o to -u. When new *-o originated from the loss of final consonants, earlier *-on- had apparently been shortened to -an or raised to -un already. The final question is about the chronology of the delabialization of original *-on. The Runic evidence for the acc.sg. ending *-on is limited to Einang (and
The inflexion of the Germanic n-stems
245
perhaps Noleby and Eikeland) runo (cf. Nielsen 2ooo: 85, 152) and possibly Reistad wraita and Bjorketorp ui-ArAbA (Syrett 1994: 157-159). The interpretation of runo as acc.pl (Syrett 1994: 119-132) is not convincing. The Runic evidence for the nom.sg. ending *-on is abundant. As Syrett has made perfectly clear (1994: 143-146), we find both -a and -o in the masculines and -o in the feminines (cf. also Gr121nvik 1998: 127 and Nielsen 2ooo: 154. 282). Masculine gender seems to be certain for Illerup wagnijo (also Vimose) and nil-ijo, probable for Udby lamo, Himling0je hariso, Strarup lel-ro, F0rde aluko, and possible for Berga fino and Vimose talijo. The ending -o appears to have petered out in the sth century while -a is attested from the beginning of the Runic tradition, e.g. Illerup swarta, Vimose harja, and becomes general in the bracteates. If -o and -a represent consecutive stages of a nasal vowel [an] which developed from original *-on, we may conclude that the delabialization was under way at the time of our earliest records and was completed in the 5th century. The same development affected the acc.pl ending *-ons in West Germanic, where *-s was assimilated to the preceding nasal, but not in North Germanic, where both this ending and the analogical nom.sg. ending *-on of the feminine n-stems became denasalized at an early stage (cf. Boutkan 1995: 142). The delabialization may be compared with the centralization of nasal vowels in French, cf. un bon vin blanc, where the vowels are much closer together than their oral counterparts are in une bonne vigne basse because lowering the velum for the articulation of the nasal vowel leaves little room for moving the tongue around. If Proto-Germanic *-on developed into the nasal vowel of bon and then into that of blanc [an] while original *-o was raised to -u, the spellings -o and -a are quite appropriate. The nasal vowel was sufficiently rounded to cause u-umlaut in Scandinavian before it was eventually lost in the same way as -u, yielding homophony in nom.acc.sg. gi()f In the n-stems, the u-umlaut was evidently eliminated with the introduction of the front vowel from the jan-stems, e.g. hane. In the oblique cases, Stenstad igijon and Rosseland agilamudon (both 5th century) represent the sufftx *-on- after the apocope but before the raising of -on to -un (Boutkan's law). In the masculines, Kalleby 1-rawijan and Tune halaiban show that *-an- had already replaced *-en- in the 4th century, which supplies a terminus ante quem for Van Helten's law. Tune arbijano exemplifies the generalized sufftx *-an- in the gen.pl form as well as the new post-apocope ending *-o. A final example of original *-on is provided by the ending of Kj0levik minino and probably Str0m hino, the origin of which unfortunately remains unclear (cf. Boutkan 1995: 297-300).
OLD HIGH GERMAN UMLAUT
The paradigm of OHG anst 'favor; GDsg. ensti, NApl. ensti, Gpl. ensteo, Dpl. enstim shows in a straightforward way that *a was umlauted to e before a preserved i, but not before a lost *i. This is supported by the paradigm of man 'ma:d GDsg. man, NApl. man, where the root vowel was not umlauted before the lost endings. It suggests that the (phonemic) umlaut of *a toe was later than the loss of short endings after a long root syllable. It has been proposed that the absence of umlaut in NAsg. anst is due to influence from the consonant stems (Antonsen 1970). This cannot be correct because the two paradigms had no case endings in common before the apocope. The consonant stems had the same endings as the u-stems in the Asg., Apl. and Dpl. forms, whereas the u-stems merged with the i-stems in the Npl. and Gpl. forms, e.g. suni, suneo 'sons: cf. Gothic sunjus, suniwe. Thus, the influence of the i-stems upon the consonant stems is an indirect one, while the converse influence is recent: "Formen des G.D.Sg. ohne Endung (die mhd. sehr hliufig sind) kommen im Ahd. nur auBerst selten vor" (Braune 1975: 201). Though the conditions under which *a was umlauted to e before an original *i or *j in the following syllable are rather well known (e.g. Braune 1975: 27f.), the development before original *e requires some discussion (cf. Cercignani 1979, with references). It seems to me that OHG beret 'you bear' is the unambiguous phonetic reflex of Proto- Indo-European *bherete. While the Monsee ending -it and the Alemannic ending -at are easily explained as analogical on the basis of the 3sg. and 3pl endings, respectively (e.g. Braune 1975: 260), no such explanation is possible for the ending -et in the strong verbs because there was no model. It follows that the distinction between 3sg. -it < *-eti and 2pl. -et < *-ete is ancient. This is in accordance with the absence of umlaut in Old Icelandic fallep 'you falf. There is an additional piece of evidence for the distinction between *-eti and *-ete in the first class of weak verbs. The absence of gemination in OHG zelit 'tells' and its presence in zellet 'you tell' show that *j was lost before *i but not before *e at a stage after the raising in *-eti. This yields the following relative chronology: (1) ( 2) (3) (4) (5) ( 6)
raising of *e to i before *i and *j, loss of *j before *i, gemination before *j, raising of *e to i before *u, loss of final short vowels, umlaut of *a to e before i and *j.
German Stages (2)-(3) are West Germanic while stages (4)-(6) are specifically German. Dirk Boutkan has pointed out to me that such OHG doublets as gewi, gouwi 'county' suggest the converse chronology of (3) and (5): 'Worter mit w vor dem j wie geuui, G.Sg. geuues 'Gau~ heuui 'Heu~ gistreuui 'Streu~ haben unumgelautete Nebenformen: gouwi, houwi, gistrouwi, meist in obliquen Kasus. Das Nebeneinander richtet sich lautgesetzlich danach, ob ein i oder ein Verdoppelung bewirkendes j folgte: gawi-, gawwj-" (Braune 1975: 190). I rather think that the apocopated NAsg. form *gawwj yielded *gawi before the early umlaut, which was apparently blocked by the cluster *ww in the same way as it was in garwen 'to prepare, scatwen 'to shadow'. Voyles' "alternative theory" (1991) is actually a return to pre-structuralist methodology. It follows from the above that the original paradigm of OHG hano 'rooster' can be reconstructed as Gsg. hanen < *-enos, Dsg. henin < *-eni, Asg. hanun < *-enum, Npl *hanan < *-ones, Apl hanun < *-onuns. For the u-infection in the Asg. form cf. Dpl tagum 'days'< *-omus (Ko62: 106). The idea that this form had a different ablaut grade than the GDsg. forms seems highly improbable to me. It follows that the u-infection in Asg. hanun < *-enum was earlier than the West Germanic raising of *-o to *-u which led to the raising of *e to i in NApl lembir 'lambs' < *-ezu < *-esii, cf. (4)-(6) above. This chronology seems to account for the material in an adequate way. The absence of umlaut in the subjunctive zalti 'told' < *zaltel (cf. K109: 105) is due to the analogical influence of the indicative. The new umlaut which arose at the end of the Old High German period yielded a different reflex than the earlier umlaut of *a toe, e.g. mahte 'powers~ wahset 'grows~ earlier mahti, wahsit.
THil HIGH GERMAN CONSONANT smFr Elsewhere (Ko75, K1o2., Kn9) I have put forward a new theory on the ProtoGermanic consonant shifts. In the following I intend to show how the High German consonant shift fits into the picture. The relevant dialect material has recently become more easily accessible through Goblirsch's lucid and wellinformed treatise (1994), to which the reader may be referred for further details.
1.
2.. It may be useful to recapitulate the reconstructions which I have proposed for the successive stages of development from Proto- Indo-European to ProtoGermanic. For the argumentation I refer to the articles mentioned above. (1) Proto-Indo-European: plain fortes p:, t:, k:, kw: aspirated lenes ph, r, ~.kwh glottalic lenes p', t', k:, kw' At this stage, all plosives were usually voiceless, as they are in modern Icelandic and the southern dialects of eastern Armenian. This is in agreement with the absence of a voiced counterpart to the PIE fricative *s. Initial *p'- now lost its glottalic feature and merged with its fortis counterpart *p:-, e.g. Vedic pfbati 'drinks: Old Irish ibid (but Latin bibit with restored reduplication). We may also assume dissimilation of C'... C' to C: ... C' and assimilation of C: ...Ch and Ch ...C: to Ch ... Ch in roots at this stage. ( 2.) Dialectal Indo-European: plain voiceless p, t, k, kw plain voiced b, d, g, g" glottalic voiced 'b, ii, g, r' Apart from the development of the palatovelars, this is the system which can be reconstructed for Proto-Balta-Slavic, where the glottalic feature merged with the reflex of the PIE laryngeals into a glottal stop, e.g. Latvian peds 'footstep' < *peii-, nu6gs 'naked' < *nog-, cf. OE fot, nacod. This is the starting-point for the Germanic developments. (3) Verner's law: non-initial voiceless obstruents became voiced unless they were immediately preceded by the stress. As a result, the suffix of the participle in *-t6- practically merged with the formative element of the weak preterite *-de-. Verner's law did not change the system of obstruents but limited the distribution of the voiceless plosives and yielded a voiced variant *z of the phoneme *s.
German (4) Kluge's law: the initial *n of a stressed sufftx was assimilated to a preceding consonant. This development yielded a series of geminates which were in complementary distribution with the voiceless plosives. There is no distinction between plain and glottalic geminates. (5) Retraction of the stress in Gothic (cf. K102.: 94). & a result, *z became a phoneme in this language, while the geminates were all but eliminated. (6) Grimm's law: the voiceless plosives were lenited to fricatives and voicedness was lost as a distinctive feature. In Gothic, the glottalic feature was lost and the distinction of voicedness was restored, probably under the influence of its nonGermanic neighbours.
(7) Retraction of the stress in North-West-Germanic yielded the following system of obstruents: plain fricatives f, 8, s, x, x"' plain plosives p, t, k, k"' glottalic plosives 'p, 't, 'k, 'k"' geminates pp, tt, ss, kk, kk"' The voiced fricative *z became r, the labiovelars were eliminated, and the glottalization yielded a variety of reflexes (cf. Ko75, K1o2.). 3. In Scandinavia we find a threefold reflex of the glottalization. Weakening of the glottal occlusion in West Norse yielded preaspiration, e.g. Icelandic epli 'apple, vatn 'water, mikla 'increase, hjalpa 'help: verk 'work'. Weakening of the geminates also yielded preaspirated stops in this area. Conversely, assimilation of the glottal occlusion to the following plosive gave rise to new geminates in East Norse, e.g. Swedish vecka 'wee!(, droppe 'drop: skepp 'shiP, cf. ON vika, dropi, skip, OE wice, dropa, scip. In Danish, however, the geminates merged with the preglottalized stops, which were subject to lenition with preservation of the glottal occlusion in the western dialects, giving rise to the so-called vestjysk st~d, e.g. hjrel'b 'hjrelpe'. It appears that preservation of the glottalization in the separate languages accounts for the existence of several layers of gemination, which can now be viewed as retentions rather than innovations, e.g. ON bekkr 'brook' < *-kj-, r~kkr 'dark' < *-kw-, Swedish scitta 'set' < *-tj-, English apple < *-pl-, bitter< *-tr-, cf. Gothic baitrs. 4. The evidence for Proto-Germanic preglottalized stops is not limited to Scandinavian but can also be found in English and German. It is common knowledge that Standard English inserts a glottal stop before a tautosyllabic voiceless plosive, e.g. lea'p, hel'p. There is no reason to assume that this is a recent phenomenon. The High German consonant shift yielded affricates and geminated fricatives, e.g. OHG pfad 'path; werpfan 'throW, offan 'oped, zunga 'tongue, salz 'salf, wazzar 'water: kind, chind 'child; trinkan, trinchan 'drinl(,
The High German consonant shift
251
zeihhan 'token'. These reflexes suggest a complex articulation for the ProtoGermanic voiceless plosives from which they developed. The origin of the gemination is unexplained in the traditional doctrine. If we start from the assumption that the Proto-Germanic plosives were preceded by a glottal occlusion which is preserved in the vestjysk st0d and the English glottalization, the High German consonant shift can be explained as a lenition of the plosives to fricatives with a concomitant klusilspring of the preceding glottal stop. Note that the High German consonant shift has a perfect analogue in the English dialect of Liverpool, where we find e.g. [kx] in can, back, which also remains unexplained in the traditional doctrine. 5· The number of geminates was increased substantially by the West Germanic gemination of all consonants except r before a following *j, which was a comparatively recent development (cf. K123): (8) raising of *e to i before *i and "j, (9) loss of *j before *i,
(10) gemination before "j. The absence of gemination in OHG zelit 'tells' < *-ijeti and its presence in zellet 'you telf < *-ijete show that *j was lost before *i but not before *eat a stage after the raising in *-eti. The gemination before *j gave rise to the following system of obstruents: simple fricativesf, 8, s, x geminated fricatives ff, ()(), ss, xx simple plosives p, t, k geminated plosives pp, tt, kk simple glottalics 'p, 't, 'k geminated glottalics 'pp, 'tt, 'kk The new geminated plosives did not merge with the Proto-Germanic geminates, which merged with the geminated glottalics instead, probably because they were longer. The glottalization was sometimes removed by analogy, e.g. in the words for 'raven' and 'roe (cf. Liihr 1988: 332). Examples of geminated obstruents: OE skeppan 'injure~ cyssan 'kiss~ hliehhan 'laugh', hebban 'raise, biddan 'praY, lecgan 'laY, scieppan 'create: settan 'se~ leccan 'moisten'. & Goblirsch has shown (1994: nand passim), the distinction between the plain and glottalic plosives, or lenes and fortes, is generally reflected as consonantal length in the modem languages, while voicedness and aspiration are concomitant features. Air pressure and muscular tension do not offer a reliable criterion because in Danish, lenis stops "have a greater tension than the fortes, which sounds like a terminological paradox" and in Icelandic, "unaspirated fortis and lenis stops were found to be tense compared to the aspirated fortes. In the studies on these two languages,
German the lack of firm closure associated with the aspirated stops was considered the decisive factor" (Goblirsch 1994: 9). In my view, a lack of firm closure in the latter part of the glottalic plosives was the origin of the High German consonant shift. 6. In High German, the glottalic plosives were lenited to fricatives with concomitant oralization of the glottal occlusion:
(n) High German consonant shift. The new dental fricative, which I shall write z, remained distinct from the earlier alveolar fricatives. Mter a vowel, simple pf, tz, kx became ff, zz, xx, e.g. OHG offan 'oped, wazzar 'water: zeihhan 'token'. The interdental fricatives p, pp were subsequently shortened to t, tt. The full range of geminates is preserved e.g. in the North Tyrol dialect oflmst (cf. Goblirsch 1994: 35): n)ppa 'Rabe: hitta 'Hiitte, prukka 'Briicke, kxouffa 'kaufeiT, h9assa 'heilleiT, l9xxa 'lacheiT, huppfa 'hiipfeiT, sittsa 'sitzed, der;kkxa 'denken'. This is undoubtedly an archaism because the same is found in the isolated pockets of South Bavarian speech in Italy and former Yugoslavia (cf. Goblirsch ibidem and map 5 on p. 43). When "p, k became b, g' as a result of the High German lenition, this was not "a partial reversal of the second consonant shift" (Goblirsch 1994: 36), but of Grimm's law, when distinctive voicing was lost. Similarly, the South Alemannic "strongly geminating" dialects have preserved an archaism. The geographical distribution of the "fmal strengthening" in Bavarian and Alemannic (Goblirsch 1994: 43, 45) shows that this is a retention, not an innovation, and must be compared with the same phenomenon in Icelandic (e.g. Haugen 1941: 101). The same holds for the alleged strengthening of initial obstruents in the North Bavarian dialects of Bohemia and Egerland, e.g. proad 'breif, tum 'dumm: tax 'Tag, kern 'geben: and the Middle Bavarian dialects of Burgenland, e.g. pam 'Bautd, taits 'deutsch; to 'Tag, kraw 'grau' (cf. Goblirsch 1994: 33). These peripheral dialects have preserved a precious archaism (cf. also Goblirsch 1994: 78f.). 7. The position taken here differs from Vennemann's (cf. especially 1988, 1991, 1994b) in several respects. It is closer to the traditional doctrine in dating the High German consonant shift unambiguously after the West Germanic gemination, which I regard as its impulse. While I agree with Vennemann's "repression theory" (1994b: 28of.), according to which the High German system of obstruents was gradually eliminated from north to south as a consequence of Franconian rule, I do not share his assumption of an early split between High German and the rest of the Germanic language family. If the High German affrication had preceded the West Germanic gemination, we would expect the Proto-Germanic geminates to have merged either with the simple fortes, as they in fact may have in Gothic, or with the geminated lenes, and the geminated fortes with the geminated fricatives. In my view, OHG helpfan differs from
The High German consonant shift
253
Vestjysk hjrel'b in the oralization of the glottal occlusion and the frication rather than voicing of the obstruent which is found in English hel'p.
THE ORIGIN OF THE FRAN CONlAN TONE ACCENTS
Elsewhere I have argued for the Proto-Germanic existence of a series of preglottalized voiceless stops which were preserved in English and yielded preaspiration in West Norse, gemination in East Norse, vestjysk strad in Danish, and affrication in High German (K1o2, K138, Km). In the remaining German territory, the glottalization may have affected the preceding vocalic segment in different ways. "In various Low German dialects, a length distinction on old and new long vowels arose in disyllables, depending on the phonation of the intervocalic consonant. [...] An example of this is the minimal pair ik riet !rit/ 'I tear' versus ik ried !ri:t! 'I ride~ [...] It is furthermore assumed that this length distinction is sometimes realized as an intonational opposition" (de Vaan 1999: 38). This development resembles the West Norse preaspiration and the East Norse gemination in the fact that the preceding vowel is cut short by the original preglottalized stop but differs from these because the vowel is not continued as a whisper and the following consonant is not geminated. Thus, the distinction between "long" and "overlong" vowels may have arisen from the loss of glottalization which shortened the preceding long vowel without either leaving a devoiced segment (as in West Norse) or lengthening the following consonant (as in East Norse). There is no reason to assume that voicedness played an independent role here. Bjorn Kohnlein's M.A. thesis (wos) has led me to a reconsideration of the possibility that the rise of the Franconian tone accents can also be attributed to the loss of glottalization. The relevant data are the following. In Central Franconian, there is a distinctive opposition between a falling tone 1 and a stretched tone 2 that seems to be reversed in a strip of land along the southeastern border, which is formed by the "thick bundle of isoglosses separating Central Franconian from Rhine Franconian, the most characteristic one being the isogloss between the pronoun dat 'thaf to the northwest and das to the southeast" (de Vaan 1999: 41). Phonetically, the Franconian tones strongly resemble the Latvian falling (') and stretched c-) tones and the Lithuanian acute (1) and circumflex (2) tones, respectively. Since it has been argued that the Lithuanian acute (1) and the Latvian stretched c-) tone arose from a loss of glottalization (e.g. Ko25) while the distinction between the Franconian tones is to a large extent determined by the earlier presence or absence of a following preglottalized stop, it may be useful to consider the possibility of a similar origin.
German The distribution of the tone accents in the larger northwestern (A) and the smaller southeastern (B) parts of the Central Franconian area is as follows (cf. de Vaan 1999: 26-27 and Kohnlein 2005: 14-16): I. Non-high long vowels and diphthongs are falling in A and stretched in B. II. High long vowels and diphthongs, lengthened short vowels, and short vowels with tautosyllabic resonants are stretched in A and falling in B when they are followed by an original final consonant or non-fmal preglottalized stop. III. Elsewhere these vowels and sequences are falling in A and stretched in B, except lengthened short vowels, which are falling in both A and B. Thus, it appears that glottalization was lost after non-high long vowels and diphthongs at an early stage, after which it yielded a stretched tone in A, as in Latvian, and a falling tone in B, as in Lithuanian. The falling tone in A and the stretched tone in B were evidently the unconditioned, unmarked ("spontaneousj reflexes before the lengthening of short vowels in open syllables and the apocope blurred the picture and rendered the distribution of the tones opaque. We must now ask: how did the bifurcation of glottalization into a stretched tone in the northwest and a falling tone in the southeast come about? It is important to understand the phonetic influence of glottalization on word melody. When the glottal closure is formed, the vocal cords are tightened so that the pitch of the sound goes up. The flow of air is then interrupted and subsequently continued at a lower pitch when the glottal closure is released. When a following voiceless consonant is short, the rise of the pitch may be more prominent than its fall, but when it is long, the fall of the pitch may be more prominent than its rise. As a result, we expect a falling tone near the Rhine Franconian area, where the glottal stop was oralized and lengthened the following fricative, but a stretched tone in the northwest, where the rise of the pitch before the short interruption of the air flow prevented the pitch from falling below the level it would reach without the glottal closure. This is indeed what we fmd. Thus, the bifurcation of the glottalization into a stretched tone in A and a falling tone in B is explained by the relative prominence of the rise of pitch before and the fall of pitch after the glottal closure. The word melody was then transferred to the initial syllable, yielding a tonemic opposition on long nuclei. The transfer was clearly anterior to the apocope because original monosyllables adopted the new, marked tone, as if followed by a word-initial glottal stop. It also preceded the lengthening of short vowels in open syllables in B because these never developed a stretched tone. The rise of the stretched tone in A and the falling tone in B may to some extent be compared with the rise of preaspiration in West Norse, where glottalization cut short the preceding vowel, and gemination in East Norse,
The origin of the Franconian tone accents
257
where it lengthened the following consonant The big difference is that the rise of a devoiced segment in West Norse and of an oral occlusion in East Norse eliminated the pitch effects and thereby prevented the rise of a distinct tone pattern. There was no such long voiceless segment in the Low German dialects which developed a distinction between "long" and "overlong" vowels, which "is sometimes realized as an intonational opposition" (de Vaan 1999: 38).
THil ORIGIN OF TIIll OLD ENGUSH DIALECTS
It has been argued that the Old English dialects either reflect old tribal divisions or developed after the Anglo-Saxon emigration. I think that neither view is correct In the following I intend to show that the early divergences between West Saxon and Kentish on the one hand and Anglian (Mercian and Northumbrian) on the other are the result of a chronological difference between two waves of migration from the same dialectal area in northern Germany.
1.
2. Hans Nielsen (1981a: 251-252) lists thirteen pre-invasion correspondences between Anglian and continental Germanic languages and four correspondences of Kentish and West Saxon. I shall briefly review the material. 2.1. The usual nom.acc.pl. ending of the o-stems is -a in West Saxon and Kentish and -e in Anglian. Since Kern (1906) has shown that the former represents the original nominative and the latter the original accusative ending, they can be derived from Proto-Germanic *-os and *-ons, respectively. Though it is usually assumed that the nasal was lost in the latter ending (e.g. Hollifield 1980: 43), there is no evidence for this view ( cf. in this connection Beekes 1982: 55). There is no reason to postulate tonal distinctions for Proto-Germanic. As I have indicated elsewhere (Ko55: 172), I assume the following developments of ProtoGermanic fmal syllables: PGmc.
Gothic
ON
OE
OS
OHG
*-0*-on *-ons *-os *-ot *-oa(n)
-a -a
-0 -0 -ar -ar -a -a
-(u)
-(u)
-(u)
-e -e -a -a -a
-a -a
-ii
-0
-0
-0
-0
-0
-0
-OS -OS -0 -0
-a
Apart from the compensatory lengthening in Old High German, ProtoGermanic *-ons merged with *-os in the north and the east, and with *-on in the west. This divergence must evidently be connected with the different chronology of the rise of nasal vowels on the one hand and the loss of *-son the other. The acc.sg. ending of the o-stems (PGmc. *-on) replaced the gen.sg. ending (PGmc. *-os) in West Germanic in order to remove the homophony with the gen.pl. ending (PGmc. *-oan, cf. Ko3o: 293). For the same reason the acc.pl. ending (PGmc. *-ons) replaced the nom.pl. ending (PGmc. *-os), but this development did not reach the Kentish and West Saxon dialects, which had apparently left the continent by this time, and did not affect the pronominal flexion, where the homophony never arose. Conversely, the nom. pl. ending
260
English
replaced the acc.pl. ending in West Saxon and Kentish in order to remove the homophony with the acc.sg. ending. The latter development has nothing to do with the merger of nom.pl. *-os and acc.pl. *-ons in Old Norse and Gothic, which resulted from the phonetic loss of the nasal. 2.2. The nom.pl. form Mercian oexen, Northumbrian exen, Old Frisian ixen, West Norse yxn, ~xn preserves the zero grade of the proto-form *uksnes 'oxen; which was lost elsewhere. 2.3. Mercian and Northumbrian share with Old Norse the preservation of the zero grade gen.sg. ending -ur, -or in the word for 'father'. This ending was original in the words for 'mother' and 'brother, from where it spread to the word for 'father' in North and West Germanic. Unlike the other languages, Old English preserves the difference between acc.sg. freder on the one hand, and modor and bropor on the other. 2.4. The Kentish hapax lreresta can be identified with Old Frisian lerest 'least'. This unique correspondence between Kentish and a continental language is insignificant 2.5. Kentish and West Saxon share with Old Frisian and Old Saxon the use of the dative for the accusative of the 1st and 2nd sg. personal pronouns. This is apparently a common North Sea Germanic innovation which can be dated to the period before the migrations. On the other hand, the dialect from which Old High German evolved differentiated the accusative from the dative of the 1st and 2nd pl. personal pronouns by the addition of *-ik. The latter innovation spread to the Anglian dialects of Old English, leaving traces in Old Saxon and Old Low Franconian, but not in West Saxon or Kentish, which had apparently left the continent at the time already. The long accusative forms are evidently stylistically marked in Old English and disappear after the oldest records. 2.6. The Northumbrian 1St pl. possessive pronoun usa, which has been preserved in modem dialects between York and Stafford (cf. Orton et al. 1978, map M75), corresponds to Old Saxon usa, Old Frisian ftse, and Old Low Franconian unsa, representing an innovation in comparison with Gothic unsar, Old High German unserer, Old Franconian unser, and the usual Old English forms user, ure. The innovation can evidently be dated to the period of the last migrations. It did not affect the md pl. form eower, Old High German iuwerer, Old Franconian iuwer, cf. Old Saxon iuwa, Old Frisian iuwe, Old Low Franconian iuuwa. 2.7. The Northumbrian acc.sg. form of the masc. demonstrative pronoun pene beside pone can be identified with Old Frisian thene, Old Saxon thena beside thana, Middle Dutch dien beside Old Low Franconian thana, Old High German den. The introduction of e-vocalism in the acc.sg. form evidently spread from
The origin of the Old English dialects
261
the southern dialects to the north and reached the pre-English dialects at the time of the last migrations. It also affected the interrogative pronoun in Old High German (hwenan, wen) and Old Saxon (hwena), but not in Old English
(hwone). 2.8. Anglian has preserved the reduplicated preterits heht 'called; leolc 'played; leort 'lef, reord 'advised: cf. Gothic haihait, lailaik, lailOt, rairop. 2.9. The r-forms in the present tense of the verb 'to be' are more widespread in Anglian than in West Saxon and Kentish. The -r- probably spread from the 1st pl form *erum, ON erom, OHG birum, to 2nd pl. ON erop, OHG birut, and subsequently to 3rd pl. ON ero, OE (e)aron, -un, and 2nd sg. OE eart, (e)arp. It was eventually generalized in Scandinavian. The West Saxon 2nd sg. form eart must have originated before the substitution of 3rd pl sind(on) for the 1st and 2nd pl. forms. Since the latter development was a shared innovation of Old English, Old Frisian and Old Saxon, it must be dated to the period before the migrations. The Anglian plural form (e)aron must therefore be regarded as an archaism representing an earlier common innovation. 2.10. West Saxon preserves the original coexistence of 1st sg. eom and beo 'am'. The latter form adopted the-m of the former in Anglian beom, blom, Old Saxon bium. This was apparently a shared innovation dating from the time between the early and the later migrations. Conversely, the former paradigm adopted the b- of the latter in Old High German bim, bist, birum, birut, Old Frisian bim, Middle Dutch bem. 2.11. The rare Northumbrian 2nd sg. form of the verb 'to be' is can hardly be identified with Gothic is. It is probably the 3rd sg. form used for the md sg. 2.12. The Anglian plural form dedon beside dydon 'did' can be compared with Old Frisian deden, Old Saxon dedun or dadun, Old High German tatun, Gothic -dedun. It represents an archaism in comparison with OE dydon. 2.13. Reflexes of *waijan in the paradigm of the verb 'wilf are frequent in Old High German, but occur also in Old Saxon, Old Frisian, and Anglian. In the preterit, the stem is limited to Anglian walde and Old Saxon walda. It is evidently an innovation which reached pre-English from the south at the time of the later migrations. 2.14. The reflex of Proto-Indo-European *e is e in Anglian, Kentish, 0 ld Frisian, and Gothic, re in West Saxon, and a in Old High German, Old Saxon, and Old Norse. There are also instances of e in Old Saxon, e.g. berun, lesun. Van Wijk (1911) has established that the original reflex of PIE *e is re in West Flanders, Zealand, South Holland, Utrecht, and the southern part of North Holland, whereas it is e in the remainder of North Holland and in Old Frisian. The reflex a invaded the Low Franconian area from the south, while the entire coast from
2.62.
English
Flanders to Ostfriesland preserved the fronted reflex until the eleventh century (cf. Gysseling 1962.: 7-8). There can be little doubt that Dutch and West Saxon re is an archaism. The retraction of this vowel to ii in Old High German, Old Saxon, and Old Norse must be viewed in connection with the rise of e,, and its raising to e in Anglian, Kentish, Old Frisian, and Gothic with the monophthongization of ai. The twofold reflex in Old Saxon is matched by a twofold reflex of ai in the same area. We can therefore date the raising of re to e in Anglian, Kentish and 0 ld Frisian to the period of the migrations. 3. A reconsideration of the correspondences between the Old English dialects and the continental Germanic languages shows that the early divergences between Anglian and West Saxon can be explained from a chronological difference between two stages of a single continental dialect In comparison with Anglian, West Saxon has preserved two structural archaisms: the nom. pl. ending of the o-stems -a, and the reflex re of PIE *e. On the other hand, Anglian has preserved five accidental irregularities: the umlauted nom.pl. form of'oxeiT, the zero grade gen.sg. ending of 'father, the reduplicated preterits, and the plural forms (e)aron 'are' and dedon 'did'. Three of these retentions are also found in Old Norse, one in Gothic, and one in Old Saxon and Old High German. Besides, Anglian differs from West Saxon as a result of seven innovations shared with continental West Germanic languages: the substitution of the acc.pl. ending of the o-stems -e for the nom.pl. ending, the creation of a distinct accusative of the 1st and 2nd sg. personal pronouns, the creation of the 1st pl. possessive pronoun usa, the introduction of e-vocalism in the acc.sg. form of the masc. demonstrative pronoun, the creation of 1st sg. beom 'am~ the spread of *waijan to the paradigm of the verb 'will', and the raising of re to e. These developments, all of which have at least left traces in Old Saxon, can be dated to the period after the early migrations. 4. According to the explanation put forward here, we must distinguish between an earlier, "Saxon~ and a later, "Anglian" migration. One may wonder if there is any historical evidence for this view. Nielsen states that the Saxons lived in present-day Holstein according to Ptolemy (md century) and appear to have been in control of the whole region between the Elbe and the Weser from the middle of the third century (Nielsen 1981a: 2.65). They reached the Netherlands in the fourth century. The Angles can hardly be separated from the present-day district of Angeln in eastern Schleswig. I would suggest that "Anglian" refers to the original Saxons of Angeln, more or less as the French word allemand refers to the original Germans of Alemannia. As Nielsen (1981a: 271) points out, Bede does not always observe the distinction between Angles and Saxons, and the eventual preference for the term "Anglian" is probably due to its distinctiveness from the continental Saxons.
The origin of the Old English dialects The traditional designation for the Germanic invaders in Celtic sources is This name was evidently established at the first stage of the invasion, which can be identified with the period from the time ofVortigem (around 450) until the battle of Mount Badon (about 500, cf. Jackson 1953: 199). There followed almost half a century of peace, the "Saxons" having settled in Kent and Sussex. The territory of Essex and Middlesex was largely uninhabited at that time. In the north, "the great gateway by which the Angles penetrated into the north Midlands and Yorkshire was the estuary of the Humber" (Jackson 1953: 207). Though in the Yorkshire Wolds and at York itself "archaeological fmds seem to indicate a more or less unbroken continuity of occupation between the late Roman and pagan Saxon periods" (Jackson 1953: 212), there is no historical evidence for a kingdom of Deira before the second half of the sixth century. During the latter period Deira must have gained considerable strength in view of the spectacular expansion after the battle of Catterick about 6oo which is described in the Gododdin. It seems that the battle of Catterick can be viewed as the northern equivalent of the battle of Mount Badon, except for the fact that it was won by the other side. Thus, I suggest that the "Saxon" invasion yielded the conquest of Kent and Sussex in the ftfth century, whereas the "Anglian" invasion can be connected with the subjugation of the north which started around the middle of the sixth century. There is no linguistic evidence for a different continental homeland, especially because the shared innovations of Anglian and Old Saxon point to geographical contiguity after the early migrations. "Saxons~
HOW OLD IS THE ENGUSH GLOTTAL STOP!
The discussion of the English glottal stop by Christophersen (1952) and O'Connor (1952) motivated Anatoly Liberman to reconsider the problem of its origin (1972). The main difficulty is that "neither in RP, nor in the dialects can the glottal stop ever differentiate meaning," so that "we must trace whether the glottal stop has not yet achieved relevancy or already lost it" (Liberman 1972: so, 51). In his later work, Liberman defmitely opts for the second possibility (1982: 237). Here I intend to make clear why I agree with this view in spite of the fact that I do not subscribe to his accentological theory. In his survey of the earlier literature, Andresen comes to the conclusion that "there is strong evidence in favor of the view that about 186o the phenomenon of pre-glottalization existed only in a few dialects in Western Scotland" (1968: 24). However, it is clear from his examples that this statement refers to the glottal stop which replaces [p, t, k], not to the concomitant glottal closure which accompanies these sounds in more widespread varieties of English. As Andresen points out himself, it is "not impossible that pre-glottalization started as a characteristic feature of a certain class dialect, viz. the dialect of the working classes in the big industrial areas" (1968: 29). The spread of the replacing glottal stop and its social stigma adequately account for the "increasing space given by phoneticians from about 1920 onwards to the treatment of the glottal stop" (Andresen 1968: 34), but this does not indicate that the "reinforcing" glottal closure of ['p], ['t], ['k] "is actually on the increase among educated people" (ibidem). In fact, there is evidence to the contrary. Collins and Mees have recently advanced our knowledge of the matter by listening "to a number of pre-1930 audio recordings, together with two recordings of later date, to hunt for what evidence, if any, could be found of glottalisation in the speech of people who had been born in the latter half of the nineteenth century" (1994: 75). They were impressed by "the general pervasiveness of glottalisation in the material we have at our disposal. Far from having to search for odd examples, as we thought might be the case at the outset of our investigation, we have found glottalisation in the speech of all our subjects, even in formal delivery" (1994: 78). They conclude that glottalization was well-established in upper-class English speech by the latter half of the nineteenth century and suggest that "this would imply that glottalisation was even more widespread in the standard language than our observations would indicate" (1994: 79). This is in accordance with the view that earlier glottalization went unnoticed because it was not distinctive. We may therefore have a look at the comparative evidence.
2.66
English
The comparison of the English glottal stop with the Danish strad is commonplace. There are two varieties of st0d in Danish. The standard Danish st121d appears in monosyllables which have an acute pitch accent in Swedish and Norwegian. Though its distribution has partly been obscured by analogical levelings, it seems clear that it developed from a falling tone movement. The socalled vestjysk strad of the western dialects is an entirely different phenomenon because it is characteristic of original polysyllables which have a circumflex accent in Swedish and Norwegian. It cannot be connected with the Jylland apocope because it is also found in the northeastern part of vestfynsk dialects, where the apocope did not take place. In his monograph on the vestjysk st121d, Ringgaard concludes that "the v-st0d is only found immediately before the plosives p, t, k, and that it is found wherever these stand in an original medial position, following a voiced sound in a stressed syllable. The exceptions to this are certain types ofloan-words from a later period" (1960: 195). He dates the rise of the vestjysk st0d to the twelfth century because it is characteristic of "all then existing medial plosives" (1960: 199). The view that the vestjysk st0d is a spontaneous innovation of the westernmost dialects of Danish, which Jespersen had in fact already proposed almost half a century earlier (1913: 23), can hardly be called an explanation. Moreover, it does not account for the vestjysk st0d in the isolated pocket of dialects on the island of Fyn, which suggests that it is a retention rather than an innovation. The hypothesis of a local origin also neglects the parallel development of preasp iration in Icelandic and of the glottal stop in English. Both the vestjysk st121d and the preaspiration receive a natural explanation if we assume that early Proto-Germanic possessed a series of preglottalized voiced stops 'b, l:l, g (cf. Ko75: 196, K102: 8). Devoicing yielded a series of late ProtoGermanic sequences 'p, 't, 'k, the glottal stop of which was lost under various conditions. Weakening of the glottal stop in West Norse yielded preaspiration, while its assimilation to the following plosive gave rise to a series of geminates in East Norse, with the exception of Danish, where the sequences were subject to lenition and the glottal stop was preserved in the vestjysk dialects. Apart from the straightforward explanation of the vestjysk st0d and the Icelandic preaspiration, the reconstruction of Proto-Germanic preglottalized stops has the advantage of accounting in a principled way for the existence of several layers of gemination, which can now be viewed as retentions rather than innovations (cf. K1o2.: 7). Firstly, it is possible that the unexplained gemination in Swedish, e.g. in vecka 'weel(, droppe 'droP, skepp 'shiP, reflects a dialect which escaped an early loss of the glottal stop, in contrast with Old Norse vika, dropi, skip, Old English wice, dropa, scip. Secondly, mp, nt, nk yielded pp, tt, kk in the larger part of Scandinavia. This development becomes understandable if we assume that the nasal consonant was devoiced by the preaspiration of the following plosive and subsequently lost its nasal feature. Thirdly, *k was geminated before *j and *w,
•
How old is the English glottal stop? e.g. in Old Norse bekkr 'brool(, rrakkr 'dar!(. Similarly, *twas geminated before *j in a limited area, e.g. Swedish siitta 'to set'. (West Germanic geminated all consonants except r before *j and is therefore inconclusive.) Fourthly, the stops p, t, k were geminated before l and r in West Germanic, e.g. English apple, bitter, cf. Gothic baitrs. The same development is found sporadically in Scandinavia, which suggests that we are dealing with the loss of an archaic feature rather than with an innovation. Here again, the geminate may have originated from the assimilation of a glottal stop to the following plosive. Thus, I propose that the English glottal stop directly continues the glottalic feature of the Proto-Germanic preglottalized stops. The gemination in Old High German offan 'oped, wazzar 'watei, zeihhan 'token' also suggests a complex articulation for the Proto-Germanic voiceless plosives from which they developed. The origin of the gemination is unexplained in the traditional doctrine. If we start from the assumption that the Proto-Germanic plosives were preceded by a glottal stop which is preserved in the vestjysk st0d and the English glottalization, the High German sound shift can be explained as a lenition of the plosives to fricatives with a concomitant klusilspring of the preceding glottal stop. Note that the High German sound shift has a perfect analogue in the English dialect of Liverpool, where we find e.g. [kx] in can't, back (Hughes and Trudgil11987: 66), which again remains unexplained in the traditional doctrine. If the English glottal stop was inherited from Proto-Germanic, we may look for traces in the form of unexpected gemination in medieval sources, to be compared with the gemination in Swedish vecka, droppe, skepp and Old High German offan, wazzar, zeihhan. Such unexplained gemination is indeed found in the Northumbrian Lindisfarne Gospels and Rushworth glosses, e.g. grett, scipp,frett, eatta, brecca (cf. Brunner 1965: 189, further Luick 1964: 400 and 886). Here pp, tt, cc may represent earlier ['p], ['t], ['k]. Hofmann writes about this gemination: "Da die Vokaldehnung im Nordenglischen erst fiir das 12. Jahrhundert angesetzt wird [...], miillte es sich urn eine andersartige, echte Geminierung einzelner Formen handeln, die die distinktive Funktion der KonsonantenUinge wohl noch nicht aufhob und von der Vokaldehnung unabhlingig war" (1989: 208). This is a perfect analogue of Swedish vecka, droppe, skepp, which can be explained by the existence of preglottalized stops in the Middle Ages. The hypothesis that the geminates represent a purely graphical phenomenon does not explain the short vowel reflexes in later northern English. It now turns out that the English language offers perhaps the most straightforward evidence for the theory that the unaspirated voiced stops of the Indo-European proto-language were actually glottalized. It follows that the preglottalization which can now be assumed for Old English fot 'foo~ nacod 'naked' can be identified with the glottal stop which is attested in Latvian p~ds 'footstep: nu6gs 'naked'. The antiquity of the English glottal stop is corroborated by glottalization in Danish, Latvian, Lithuanian, Armenian and Sindhi, and
2.68
English
supported by indirect evidence from Indo-Iranian, Greek, Latin and Slavic (cf. Ko75). This exemplifies once more the importance of re-examining time and again the primary data in linguistic reconstruction.
THil ORIGIN OF THil OLD ENGUSH DIALECTS RJlVISITED
Did the Old English dialects first diverge in Britain or on the continent? In an earlier study (Ko84) I argued that neither view is correct and that the early divergences between West Saxon and Kentish on the one hand and Anglian on the other are the result of a chronological difference between two waves of migration from the same dialectal area in northern Germany. I argued that West Saxon has preserved two structural archaisms, viz. the nom.pl ending of the o-stems -a and the reflex re of PIE *e, whereas Anglian has retained five accidental irregularities which are also found in Old Norse, Gothic or Old High German. Besides, Anglian differs from West Saxon as a result of seven innovations shared with continental West Germanic languages: the substitution of the ace. pl. ending of the o-stems -e for the nom. pl. ending, the creation of a distinct accusative of the 1st and 2nd sg. personal pronouns, the creation of the 1st pl possessive pronoun usa, the introduction of e-vocalism in the acc.sg. form of the masc. demonstrative pronoun, the creation of 1st sg. beom 'am~ the spread of *waijan to the paradigm of the verb 'wilf, and the raising of re to e. I therefore distinguished between an earlier, "Saxon" invasion which resulted in the conquest of Kent and Sussex in the fifth century and a later, "Anglian" invasion which can be connected with the subjugation of the north starting around the middle of the sixth century. The shared innovations of Anglian and Old Saxon point to geographical contiguity after the early, "Saxon" migration. Reconsidering the relative chronology of Anglo-Frisian sound changes, Robert Fulk arrives at the following conclusion for the Northumbrian dialect of Old English (1998: 153): Backing and nasalization of West Gmc. a, ii before a nasal consonant. 2. Loss of n before a spirant, resulting in lengthening and nasalization of the preceding vowel. 3. Fronting of West Gmc. a, ii tore, re, including a in the diphthongs ai and au. 4. Palatalization (but not yet phonemicization of palatals). 5· Retraction of re, re to a, ii due to the influence of neighbouring consonants. 6. Non-Saxon (and Frisian) re >e. 7. Restoration of a before a back vowel of the following syllable; at this time reu was retracted to au in Old Frisian. 8. Breaking; in West Saxon, palatal diphthongization follows. 9. i-mutation, followed by syncope; Old Frisian breaking follows. 10. Phonemicization of palatals and assibilation, followed by second fronting in part ofWest Mercia. n. Smoothing and back mutation. 1.
English In this chronology, English and Frisian begin to diverge at stage 5 and tend to diverge widely at stage 7. The main difficulty with Fulk's chronology is the unmotivated character of the sound changes: we fmd backing at stage 1, fronting at stage 3, backing at stage 5, fronting at stage 6, backing at stage 7, fronting at stage 9, and backing at stage n. What was the driving force behind these alternating developments? Following Krupatkin's observation that "every time the initial shifts in the field of the long vowels raised similar transformations in the field of the short vowels" (1970: 63), we may look for structural pressure as a determinant factor. In my view, the basic element is the Proto-Germanic asymmetry in the low vowels between long front re and short back a, which could be resolved either by fronting a to re, as in Anglo-Frisian, or by backing re to a, as in the other languages (except Gothic, where re was raised toe at an early stage). If re had been retracted to a in West Germanic already, the Anglo- Frisian fronting would be entirely unmotivated. Moreover, Caesar refers to the Swabians as Suebi, not **Suabi, which shows that we must reconstruct a front vowel for an early stage of Old High German. I therefore think that West Saxon re is an archaism and that the early retraction of re to a did not reach Anglo-Frisian. Hans Nielsen lists three reasons for the assumption that re was frrst retracted to a and then fronted to re in Anglo-Frisian (1981b: 52f.). First of all, "the development of Gmc. *-en, -em> OE/OFris. -on, -om could hardly have taken place except by way of *-an, -am". Secondly, "the borrowing of Latin strata as strazza in OHG and strata in OS and as stret(e) in AngL!Kt!OFris. and strret in WS suggests that the forbears of OE/OFris. had an open vowel, which was subsequently fronted". And thirdly, "the expansion of e, to a was a direct consequence of the appearance of e. in the long/tense subsystem of late Gmc. (NG/WG)". I think that none of these three arguments holds water. First of all, it must be noted that the retraction of Proto-Germanic *-en to *-an is not only shared by Old Saxon and Old High German but also matched by a West Germanic delabialization of *-on and *-ons to *-an, *-ans (cf. K109: 103). This centralization before a tautosyllabic nasal is typologically similar to the development of nasal vowels in French, e.g. main, plein, bien, fin, un, brun, all with a nasalized central vowel in the modem language. It follows that no conclusions can be based on this new *a < *re, *o before nasals, which evidently was an early West Germanic development Secondly, the borrowing of Latin strata as West Germanic *strreta only shows that there was no *a in the receiving language at the time and that *re was closer than *o, which is unremarkable. Note that the fmal-a was identified with the delabialized acc.sg. ending *-on. And thirdly, the rise of new e was probably recent because it represents earlier *ea in Scandinavian and is preserved as ea in early Old High German (cf. K12.4). In fact, the diphthongization of o to uo in Old High German is best explained by the hypothesis that ea > ia > ie was never
The origin of the Old English dialects revisited
271
monophthongized in the southern dialects of West Germanic. The spelling ea is typical of Alemannic, as is the spelling ua for o, as opposed to ie, uo in Franconian and ie beside ea and oa in Bavarian (cf. Rauch 1967: 37f., 25, 90). Now we tum to the Anglo-Frisian palatalization. Fulk distinguishes between an early palatalization (stage 4) and a later phonemicization of palatals and assibilation (stage 10). This is an unfortunate split, not only because the late phonemicization of palatals effectively obliterates the explanatory value of the early palatalization, but also because it implies that the fronting of velar consonants was reversed by the restoration of a following re to a. When we look at other languages (Celtic, Slavic, Indic), we usually perceive a rising tide of palatalization, which first affects certain positions and then spreads to other environments (e.g. Greene 1974, Ko35). The similarities and differences between the conditions for palatalization in English and Frisian rather suggest that we have to distinguish between an early Anglo-Frisian development and a later 0 ld English innovation. Such a chronological split is strongly criticized by Hogg, who claims that "the various types of palatalization are prime candidates for simultaneous application" (1979: 108). On the contrary, it yields a much more natural chain of events than the alternating developments of fronting and backing listed above. Thus, I would start from a vowel system with long front *re and short back *a, a general tendency to retract re to ii, and a local tendency to front a to re. If we want to avoid the assumption that fronted re was again retracted to a, it follows that the Anglo- Frisian fronting of the short vowel was blocked by a following l, r, h plus consonant and in open syllables by a back vowel in the following syllable. (Dirk Boutkan has pointed out to me that the same view was already put forward by Heuser 1903: 1.) Since we do not fmd palatalization before *ai and *au in Frisian, it is natural to assume that *ai had been monophthongized to ii before the Anglo-Frisian fronting of a to re and that *au had remained unchanged. The Anglo- Frisian palatalization then affected k and g before front vowels. Mter the "Saxon" migration to Britain, the fronting of a to re affected the remaining instances of a in closed syllables, and also *au with a before tau tosy llabic u, in the dialect of the settlers. This "Saxon" second fronting was followed by breaking and second palatalization, e.g. in eald, ceapian, OFr. ald 'old: kiipia 'buf In fact, the frrst stage of breaking can be identified with the "Saxon" fronting because the conditions were largely identical: it appears that the process of breaking began as incomplete fronting of a before tautosyllabic l, r, h and u and subsequently affected e and i. After the "Anglian" migration, these developments spread to the north, leaving traces only of the earlier situation. In the meantime, Anglian shared the development of Frisian on the continent, in particular the raising of re to e, which had been preceded by the Anglo-Frisian retraction of re to ii before w (cf. Fulk 1998: 141). The Kentish raising of re to ewas probably a local development, perhaps under the influence
272
English
of a second invasion in Kent in the sixth century. Mter the "Anglian" migration, Frisian fronted a (from *ai) to re unless it was followed by a back vowel in the following syllable and monophthongized *au to a. The distinction between e < *re andre< *ai is still preserved in modem dialects (cf. Campbell1939: 101'). The Anglo- Frisian and second English palatalizations preceded umlaut (i-mutation) because the umlauted vowels did not palatalize k and g but phonemicized the opposition between palatals and velars, so that Old Frisian shows palatalization before e < *re and e < *re but not before e < *ii or re < *ai, e.g. tsetel < *katilaz 'kettle' and tziake < *krekon 'jaw' versus kenna< *kannjan 'make known' and kei, kai < *kaijo 'key' (cf. already van Haeringen 1920: 31f.). The main difference between the conventional wisdom that a was fronted to re and then retracted to a before a back vowel in the following syllable and my view that these developments never took place concerns the interpretation of the form slean 'strike: which serves as the hackneyed example to demonstrate fronting and breaking in *slahan (e.g. Hogg 1979: 92, Fulk 1998: 150). It seems to me that insufficient attention has been paid to the paradigm of this word. If slean were the phonetic reflex of *slahan as a result of fronting and breaking, it would be quite impossible to account for Northumbrian ea < *aha 'water: where restoration of a before the back vowel in the following syllable should have prevented breaking. In fact, Mercian eo- and North. (Be de) -eu and the preservation of the contrast between the reflexes eo < *ehO and ea < *eha in the Vespasian Psalter (cf. Campbell1959: 103) show that we are not dealing with breaking but with contraction here. It appears that the loss of intervocalic *-hbefore rounded vowels was sufficiently early for the resulting diphthong *au to undergo the "Saxon" fronting to *reu. The verb slean relates to faran as seon < *sehan to beran. It has long been recognized that strong verbs of the sixth class have a strong tendency to restore the root vowel a in West Saxon (e.g. Campbell 1959: 62). This is already an indication that the vocalism of slean cannot simply be attributed to generalization of breaking. We must rather assume that a was restored in the imperative far and the subjunctive (optative) fare because this limited the front vowel to the 2nd and 3rd sg. forms which had an umlauted vowel in other verbs and ask why the same development did not take place in the paradigm of *slahan. The parallelism between slean and seon suggests that their vocalism must be attributed to the early loss of *-h- before a rounded vowel and contraction in the 1st sg. and 3rd pl forms *seu, *slreu, *seop, *sla!op, which eventually developed into seo, slea, seop, sleap. When breaking yielded 2nd sg. *seohist, *slreohist, 3rd sg. *seohip, *slreohp, imp. seoh, *slreoh, subj. (opt) *seohe, *slreohe, the stage was set for generalization of the broken vowel in the infinitives *seohan, *slreohan. The original distribution of front re and back a in the root is actually preserved in Old Frisian, where we find 3rd sg. present ind. sleith <
The origin of the Old English dialects revisited
273
*slrehijJ, subj. sle < *slrehe, past participle slein, infinitive sla < *slahan, gerund slande (cf. Boutkan 1996: 147). Thus, I regard the "Saxon" dialect of English as a variety of Ingvaeonic which generalized Anglo- Frisian fronting and palatalization and developed early breaking. In a similar vein, we may regard Mercian second fronting as a generalization of "Saxon" fronting after umlaut (cf. Fulk 1998: 149) under the influence of the "Anglian" raising of re to e, and the same holds for Kentish raising of re to e after umlaut. While Old English breaking supplied short counterparts to the u-diphthongs, the Old Frisian breaking of e yielded a short diphthong *eu which was raised to iu when original *eu and *iu developed into iii and iu, respectively, e.g. siucht < *seuxp < *sexjJ < *sexijJ 'sees' (with restored root vowel, cf. Boutkan 1998a: 82.). The restoration of the root vowel -e- in the strong verbs was probably an Anglo- Frisian development which was obliterated by "Saxon" umlaut (cf. Campbell 1959: 76, 30of., Fulk 1998: 149). All these developments seem to corroborate Krupatkin's view quoted above that changes in the short vowel system were adaptive to changes in the long vowel system.
ANGLO- FRisiAN
Patrick Stiles has argued against the reconstruction of an Anglo- Frisian protolanguage "because it is not possible to construct the exclusive common relative chronology that is necessary in order to be able to establish a node on a family tree" (1995: 2.11). His starting-point are the following shared features of Old English and Old Frisian (1995: 17][.): 1. 2..
3. 4. 5· in
Front reflex of *e, in OE deed, ded, OF ded(e) 'deed: OHG tat. Fronting of *a in OE dreg, OF dei 'daY, OHG tag. Rounding of *e, before a nasal in OE, OF mona 'mooti, OHG miino. Rounding of *a before a nasal in OE, OF lond 'land: OHG lant. Loss of nasal with compensatory lengthening before a homorganic spirant OE, OF top, toth 'tooili, gos 'goose: fif 'five, Us 'us: OHG zan(d), gans, fimf,
uns. Rounded reflex of *a in OE, OF brohte 'broughf, OHG briihta. 7. Breaking in OE reoht, OF riucht 'righf, OHG reht. 8. Reflexes of unaccented vowels in OE, OF mona 'mooti, OHG miino and OE, OF sunne 'suti, OHG sunna. 9. Palatalization of velar consonants in E cheese, F ts(J)iis, G Kase, also OE dreg, OF dei 'daY, OHG tag. 10. Uniform plural ending in verbal paradigms, e.g. OE beralJ, OF berath, OHG berumes, birit, berant 'we, you, they carry. 6.
It seems to me that the last point, which is fully shared by Old Saxon, is quite irrelevant to the relative chronology to be established and must be kept apart. It is well-known that breaking and palatalization took place under different conditions in English and Frisian. I have argued that the West Saxon front reflex re of *e, is an archaism, not an innovation (Ko84. K18o, K225). Reconsidering the relative chronology of Anglo-Frisian sound changes, Robert Fulk arrived at the following conclusion for the Northumbrian dialect of Old English (1998: 153): Backing and nasalization of West Gmc. a, ii before a nasal consonant Loss of n before a spirant, resulting in lengthening and nasalization of the preceding vowel. 3. Fronting ofWest Gmc. a, ii tore, re, including a in the diphthongs ai and au. 4. Palatalization (but not yet phonemicization of palatals). 5· Retraction of re, re to a, ii due to the influence of neighbouring consonants. 6. Non-Saxon (and Frisian) re >e. 7. Restoration of a before a back vowel of the following syllable; at this time reu was retracted to au in Old Frisian.
1.
2..
English 8. Breaking; in West Saxon, palatal diphthongization follows. 9. i-mutation, followed by syncope; Old Frisian breaking follows. 10. Phonemicization of palatals and assibilation, followed by second fronting in part ofWest Mercia. 11. Smoothing and back mutation. In this chronology, English and Frisian begin to diverge at stage 5 and tend to diverge widely at stage 7. The main difficulty with Fulk's chronology is the unmotivated character of the sound changes: we fmd backing at stage 1, fronting at stage 3, backing at stage 5, fronting at stage 6, backing at stage 7, fronting at stage 9, and backing at stage 11. What was the driving force behind these alternating developments? Following Krupatkin's observation that "every time the initial shifts in the field of the long vowels raised similar transformations in the field of the short vowels" (1970: 63), we may look for structural pressure as a determinant factor. In my view, the basic element is the Proto-Germanic asymmetry in the low vowels between long front re and short back a, which could be resolved either by fronting a to re, as in Anglo- Frisian, or by backing re to ii, as in the other languages (except Gothic, where re was raised toe at an early stage). If re had been retracted to ii in West Germanic already, the Anglo- Frisian fronting would be entirely unmotivated. Moreover, Caesar refers to the Swabians as Suebi, not **Suiibi, which shows that we must reconstruct a front vowel for an early stage of Old High German. I therefore think that West Saxon re is an archaism and that the early retraction of re to ii did not reach Anglo-Frisian. Fulk distinguishes between an early palatalization (stage 4) and a later phonemicization of palatals and assibilation (stage 10). This is an unfortunate split, not only because the late phonemicization of palatals effectively obliterates the explanatory value of the early palatalization, but also because it implies that the fronting of velar consonants was reversed by the restoration of a following re to a. When we look at other languages (Celtic, Slavic, Indic), we usually perceive a rising tide of palatalization, which first affects certain positions and then spreads to other environments (e.g. Greene 1974, Ko35). The similarities and differences between the conditions for palatalization in English and Frisian rather suggest that we have to distinguish between an early Anglo-Frisian development and a later Old English innovation. Such a chronological split is strongly criticized by Hogg, who claims that "the various types of palatalization are prime candidates for simultaneous application" (1979: 108). On the contrary, it yields a much more natural chain of events than the alternating developments of fronting and backing listed above. Thus, I would start from a vowel system with long front *re and short back *a, a general tendency to retract re to ii, and a local tendency to front a to re. If we want to avoid the assumption that fronted re was again retracted to a, it
Anglo- Frisian
277
follows that the Anglo- Frisian fronting of the short vowel was blocked by a following l, r, h plus consonant and in open syllables by a back vowel in the following syllable (cf. already Heuser 1903: t). Since we do not find palatalization before *ai and *au in Frisian, it is natural to assume that *ai had been monophthongized to ii before the Anglo- Frisian fronting of a to re and that *au had remained unchanged. The Anglo-Frisian palatalization then affected k and g before front vowels. After the "Saxon" migration to Britain, the fronting of a to re affected the remaining instances of a in closed syllables, and also *au with a before tau tosy llabic u, in the dialect of the settlers. This "Saxon" second fronting was followed by breaking and second palatalization, e.g. in eald, ceapian, OF ald 'old: kiipia 'buY. In fact, the frrst stage of breaking can be identified with the "Saxon" fronting because the conditions were largely identical: it appears that the process of breaking began as incomplete fronting of a before tautosyllabic l, r, h and u and subsequently affected e and i. After the "Anglian" migration, these developments spread to the north, leaving traces only of the earlier situation. In the meantime, Anglian shared the development of Frisian on the continent, in particular the raising of re to e, which had been preceded by the Anglo-Frisian retraction of re to ii before w (cf. Fulk 1998: 141). The Kentish raising of re to ewas probably a local development, perhaps under the influence of a second invasion in Kent in the sixth century. Mter the "Anglian" migration, Frisian fronted ii (from *ai) to re unless it was followed by a back vowel in the following syllable and monophthongized *au to ii. The distinction between e < *re andre< *ai is still preserved in modern dialects (cf. Campbell1939: tot'). The Anglo- Frisian and second English palatalizations preceded umlaut (i-mutation) because the umlauted vowels did not palatalize k and g but phonemicized the opposition between palatals and velars, so that Old Frisian shows palatalization before e < *re and e < *re but not before e < *a or re < *ai, e.g. tsetel < *katilaz 'kettle' and tziake < *krekon 'jaw' versus kenna< *kannjan 'make known' and kei, kiii < *kaijo 'key (cf. already van Haeringen 1920: 31f.). Krupatkin's observation quoted above explains the fact that the "fractured reflexes of i and e have rounded second elements in OE, in early OE -u~ and possibly "the second element of the broken reflex of re was also -u at frrsf' (H.F. Nielsen 1984: 76). Thus, io, eo, ea were the short counterparts of lo, eo, ea from the time when these were still u-diphthongs. Nielsen can now explain the fact that the reflex of *a is not broken in Old Frisian: "Gmc. au was monophthongized to ii in 0 Fris., and consequently there was no systematic pressure in terms of creating another short diphthong in the way that iu (io) was phonemicized as a short counterpart of Gmc. eu/iu" (1984: 77f.). In Scandinavian, "the diphthong arisen by breaking was ia both before a and before u~ and this diphthong "is found on the stones of Sparlosa and Rok; by u-mutation it passes into i9 in WN, as appears from scaldic rhymes and vowel harmony; at the further development into o in Icelandic, bprn and biprn go
English together. In EN the development into i9 only takes place with lost u, a stage which perhaps is expressed in biaurn in the runic inscriptions; i9 is developed into io, which appears in the biurn of the runic inscriptions and in the biorn of the medieval MSS" (K.M. Nielsen 1961: 40f.). Since *e was the short counterpart of *e. in North and West Germanic, we must look into the origin of the latter. As I have pointed out elsewhere (Kns, K124, K225), I think that original *e. developed from disyllabic *ea by monophthongization, frrst in the Low German area, probably under Romance influence, then in Anglo- Frisian and Scandinavian, and eventually in the large majority of High German dialects. The primary locus of disyllabic *ea are the seventh class strong preterits, where reduplication was replaced by e-inflxation before the root vowel of the present stem in North and West Germanic (cf. Fulk 1987, Kns), e.g. *heait 'called: *hleaup 'leaped: 'teall 'fell', *heald 'held: *speann 'clasped: *geang 'wenf, *leret 'lef, *hreop 'shouted: 'teah 'seized~ The monophthongization yielded eo in OE hleop, ftoll, heold, speonn, geong, hreop, but e in het, let, ]eng, Northumbrian fill and ea, re from *ea in oncneaw 'kneW, geseaw 'sowed: oncnrew, srewe (Campbel11959: 119') for WS cneow, seow. If we take Krupatkin's observation seriously, we can now date the "Saxon" fronting and breaking after the migration to Britain in the 5th century but before the monophthongization of *ea to *e. and assume that the latter development reached the other Anglo-Frisian dialects from the Low German area before the "Anglian" migration in the 6th century. It may be useful to distinguish between a-breaking, which created a short counterpart to earlier *ea, and u-breaking, which gave rise to a short counterpart of original *eu. The first is found in West Saxon and Scandinavian while the second affected Anglian and Frisian. Breaking and palatalization were preceded by rounding of *re, *a, *a in OE, OF mona 'mooti, lond 'land: brohte 'broughf, top, toth 'tooth', gos 'goose, and by loss of a nasal with compensatory lengthening before a fricative in the latter words, cf. OHG mano, lant, brahta, zan(d), gans. These had already been preceded by the West Germanic centralization and unrounding of *o in the endings *-on and *-ons (cf. Ko84: 437 and K219: 5). It appears that the centralization before nasals frrst affected unaccented vowels in fmal syllables in West Germanic and then spread to stressed vowels in Anglo-Frisian, yielding a central vowel *a, *a, where phonetically *a may have been [A] or [!]. When nasalization was lost in the endings *-on, *-ons in West Germanic, these had been delabialized and became OHG -a, -ii, OS -a, subject to fronting in OE -e. In stressed syllables, *a, *a evidently yielded a, o in Anglo- Frisian, where adenotes the vowel which is written as a or o before a nasal, e.g. in OE camb, comb, lamb, lomb, land, lond, lang, long, mann, monn, nama, noma, OF lang, long, man, mon, nama, noma. West Germanic stressed *e, *o before nasals are reflected as i, u, e.g. OE niman 'take; guma 'mati, OF nima. These early Anglo-Frisian developments also affected some of the West Germanic dialects which were to
Anglo- Frisian
279
develop into Old Saxon, which is not a homogeneous linguistic entity (cf. Klein 1990).
On the basis of these considerations I now arrive at the following relative chronology: WG o. Centralization of unaccented vowels before nasals in fmal syllables and subsequent loss of the nasalization in these endings. AF 1. Centralization of stressed vowels before nasals. AF 2. Loss of nasalization before f, p, s, h. AF 3. Retraction of~ to o. AF 4. Monophthongization of *ai to ii. AF 5· Retraction of *re to ii before wand before g plus back vowel. AF 6. Fronting of *a to re, which was blocked by a following l, r, h plus consonant and in open syllables by a back vowel in the following syllable. AF 7. Palatalization of *k and *g before front vowels, also *g after front vowels. AF 8. Analogical restoration of the back vowel in 2sg. "farist, 3sg. "farip 'gd, 2sg. *slahist, 3sg. *slahip 'slaY, also OE sc(e)acan 'shake, sc(e)afan 'shave' (cf. Campbell1959: 315f., K18o: 49f.). WS 9. Breaking of *re to *rea and of *ito *ia before *hand raising of *ea to *ea, which was simplified to *e in *heit, *leret, "fiah, *hleup, *hreop, *seau, later het, let, fong, hleop, hreop, seow, but not in "fiall, *heald, *speann, *geang, where *ea later (at stage E 13) developed into -eo-. WS 10. Development of the West Germanic diphthongs *eu, *iu into *eu, *lu, later eo, lo. WS n. Fronting and breaking of *a to short *rea before anteconsonantall, r, h, u and simplification of *reau to *reu. WS 12. Breaking of *e to *ea and of *ito *ia before anteconsonantall, r, h. AF 9. Monophthongization of *ea to e, e.g. North. foll, fong, also *eii to ea in cneaw, seaw. AF 10. Raising of *re to e (this development did not reach Insular North Frisian, cf. Hofmann 1964). Fronting of *a to re before anteconsonantal r, h, u with breaking to *ea A 11. before r plus non-velar consonant and breaking of *e to *ea and of *i to *ia before r plus non-velar consonant, e.g. North. eorm, WS earm 'arm' (cf. Campbel11959: 117). A 12. Development of the diphthongs *reu, *eu, *iu into *reu, *eu, *iu and monophthongization tore, e, !before velar consonants. Raising of *re to e and of *eu to *iu and breaking of *e and *i to *ia K 11. before r plus consonant K 12. Adjustment to developments WS 9-12.
2.80
English
E 13. of *rea, E 14. E 15. E 16.
Merger of *rea, *ea, *Ia with *reu, *eu, *tu into ea, eo, lo and development *ea, *ia into ea, eo, io. Palatalization of *k and *g before front vowels. Palatal diphthongization. Umlaut (i-mutation).
F 11. Fronting of *a tore, which was blocked by a back vowel in the following syllable. F 12. Monophthongization of *au to a. F 13. Umlaut (i-mutation). Breaking of *eyielding iu (cf. Boutkan 1998a). F 14. In the chronology proposed here, West Saxon separated from Anglo- Frisian as a result of the "Saxon" migration to Britain in the 5th century and the break-up of Anglo-Frisian resulted from the "Anglian" migration in the 6th century. The stages AF 1-10 can appropriately be called Anglo-Frisian. Kentish sides with Anglian in this chronology. POSTSCRIPT
It should be clear from the above that my chronology is an improvement on Fulk's, just as Fulk's is an improvement on Stiles's. In order to elucidate the differences, it may be useful to compare Stiles's chronology (PS 1-9) with Fulk's (RF 1-11) and mine (WG o, AF 1-10, WS 9-12, A 11-12., K 11-12., E 13-16, F 11-14), as will be shown here. Note that every development gave rise to at least one isogloss (between groups of speakers who were and who were not affected) and that the chronology only holds for the dialects which have actually come down to us in the historical record. PS 1-2. = RF 3 = AF 6 + WS 11 +A 11. In my chronology, re was never retracted to in the low vowels between long front re and short back a which could be resolved either by fronting a to re, as in Anglo- Frisian, or by backing re to ii, as in the other languages. If re had been retracted to a in West Germanic already, the Anglo- Frisian fronting would be entirely unmotivated. I think that West Saxon re is an archaism and that the early retraction of re to a did not reach Anglo-Frisian. If we want to avoid the assumption that fronted re was again retracted to a, it follows that the AngloFrisian fronting of the short vowel was blocked by a following l, r, h plus consonant and in open syllables by a back vowel in the following syllable (AF 6). After the "Saxon" migration to Britain, the fronting of a to re affected the remaining instances of a in closed syllables, and also *au with a before tautosyllabic u, in the dialect of the settlers (WS 11). This "Saxon" second fronting was followed by breaking and second palatalization, e.g. in eald, ceapian, 0 F ald 'old~ kapia 'buf. Mter the "Anglian" migration, these
a in West Germanic but provided the asymmetry
Anglo- Frisian
281
developments spread to the north, leaving traces only of the earlier situation (A n). PS 3-6 = RF 1-2 = AF 1-3. Breaking and palatalization were preceded by rounding of *re, *a, *li in OE, OF mona 'moot\ lond 'land: brohte 'broughf, top, toth 'too&, gos 'goose, and by loss of a nasal with compensatory lengthening before a fricative in the latter words. These had already been preceded by the West Germanic centralization and unrounding of *o in the endings *-on and *-ons (WG o). It appears that the centralization before nasals first affected unaccented vowels in fmal syllables in West Germanic and then spread to stressed vowels in Anglo-Frisian, yielding a central vowel *a, ~. where phonetically *a may have been [A] or [!]. When nasalization was lost in the endings *-on, *-ons in West Germanic, these had been delabialized and became OHG -a, -ii, OS -a, subject to fronting in OE -e. These early Anglo-Frisian developments also affected some of the West Germanic dialects which were to develop into Old Saxon, which is not a homogeneous linguistic entity. PS 7 = RF 8 = WS 9-12 + A n-12 + K n-12 + F 14. Following Krupatkin's observation that "every time the initial shifts in the field of the long vowels raised similar transformations in the field of the short vowels" (1970: 63), we may look for structural pressure as a determinant factor. As I have pointed out elsewhere, I think that original *e. developed from disyllabic *ea by monophthongization. If we take Krupatkin's observation seriously, we can now date the "Saxon" fronting and breaking after the migration to Britain in the 5th century but before the monophthongization of *ea to *e. and assume that the latter development reached the other Anglo-Frisian dialects from the Low German area before the "Anglian" migration in the 6th century. PS 8 = WG o. I fmd it difficult to separate this development from the same in the other Germanic languages (cf. also K219). PS 9 = RF 4/Io = AF 7 + E 14. The similarities and differences between the conditions for palatalization in English and Frisian suggest that we have to distinguish between an early Anglo- Frisian development and a later Old English innovation. Since we do not fmd palatalization before *ai and *au in Frisian, it is natural to assume that *ai had been monophthongized to ii before the AngloFrisian fronting of a to re and that *au had remained unchanged. The AngloFrisian palatalization then affected k and g before front vowels. Mter the "Saxon" migration to Britain, the fronting of a to re affected the remaining instances of a in closed syllables, and also *au with a before tautosyllabic u, in the dialect of the settlers. This "Saxon" second fronting was followed by breaking and second palatalization, e.g. in eald, ceapian, 0 F ald 'old: kiipia 'buy>.
282
English
RF 6 = AF to. Anglian shared the development of Frisian on the continent, in particular the raising of re toe, which had been preceded by the Anglo- Frisian retraction of re to ii before w. Mter the "Anglian" migration, Frisian fronted ii (from *ai) to re unless it was followed by a back vowel in the following syllable and monophthongized *au to ii. The distinction between e < *re and re < *ai is still preserved in modem dialects. RF 9 = E 16 + F 13. After the analogical restoration of back vowels (AF 8) had introduced palatal consonants before back vowels and the second fronting (WS n, Au) had introduced new velar consonants before front vowels which were again palatalized (E 14), the umlaut (i-mutation) once again introduced new velar consonants before front vowels. H.F. Nielsen subscribes to Stiles's chronology of the rounding before a nasal (PS 3-6 = RF 1-2 = AF 1-3) but not to his early fronting (PS 1-2 = RF 3 = AF 6) and proposes the following chronology for Old Frisian (2001: 521): HN 1. HN 2. HN 3. HN 4. HN 5·
Monophthongization of *ai tore (AF 4 + F u) and of *au to ii (F 12). Fronting oflong *ii (< *e,) tore and of short *a tore (AF 6). Palatalization of *k and *g (AF 7). Umlaut= i-mutation (F 13). Breaking (F 14).
The problem with this chronology is threefold. First, short *re < *a and long *re < *e, must be older than *re < *ai because the former palatalize *k and *g and the latter does not, e.g. tsetel < *katilaz 'kettle' and tziake < *krekon 'jaw' versus kei 'key' (cf. van Haeringen 1920: 31f. and Campbell1939: 107). It follows that the fronting of *ai (HN t) must be more recent than the fronting of *e, and *a (HN 2) and the palatalization of *k and *g (HN 3). Second, the fronting oflong *ii (< *e,) tore (HN 2) must be older than the rise of *ii <*au (HN t) because the latter was not fronted until the i-mutation (HN 4). Third, in the modern dialects which preserve the distinction between e < *re < *e, and re < *ai, the reflex of *e, merges with that of umlauted *o and *u and must therefore have been higher than the reflex of *ai, which merges with that of umlauted *au (cf. Campbell 1939: tot'). This in fact eliminates Nielsen's chronology as a possibility. Indeed, it is precisely the front articulation of *e, versus the back articulation of *ai which characteristically distinguishes Anglo-Frisian from German (including Old Saxon), the latter displaying back articulation of *e, versus front articulation of *ai. Since the agreement between English and Frisian comprises not only the centralization of stressed vowels before nasals with loss of nasalization before fricatives and rounding but also the monophthongization of *ai to ii, the limited retraction of *re to ii, the fronting of non-breaking *a to re which was blocked by a back vowel in the following syllable, the palatalization of *k and *g by nonbroken front vowels and the analogical restoration of the back vowel in 2sg.
Anglo- Frisian
'tarist, 3sg. 'tarip 'go; 2sg. *slahist, 3sg. *slahip 'slay, there can be little doubt about a period of common development not shared by the German dialects. There is no reason to postulate a whole series of back and forth movements in order to unify different varieties of fronting, breaking, raising, palatalization and monophthongization in the separate languages into sweeping developments which affected all possible instances at a stroke. It is much more reasonable to assume a gradually widening scope of developments that affected progressively more instances under various conditions. According to the explanation put forward here, we must distinguish between an earlier, "Saxon~ and a later, "Anglian" migration. One may wonder if there is any historical evidence for this view. H.F. Nielsen states that the Saxons lived in present-day Holstein according to Ptolemy (md century) and "appear to have been in control of the whole region between the Elbe and the Weser from the middle of the third century" (1981a: 265). They reached the Netherlands in the fourth century. The Angles can hardly be separated from the present-day district of Angeln in eastern Schleswig. I would suggest that "Anglian" refers to the original Saxons of Angeln, more or less as the French word allemand refers to the original Germans of Alemannia. As Nielsen points out (1981a: 271), Bede does not always observe the distinction between Angles and Saxons, and the eventual preference for the term "Anglian" is probably due to its distinctiveness from the continental Saxons. The traditional designation for the Germanic invaders in Celtic sources is "Saxons~ This name was evidently established at the first stage of the invasion, which can be identified with the period from the time of Vortigern (around 450) until the battle of Mount Badon (about 500, cf. Jackson 1953: 199). There followed almost half a century of peace, the "Saxons" having settled in Kent and Sussex. The territory of Essex and Middlesex was largely uninhabited at that time. In the north, "the great gateway by which the Angles penetrated into the north Midlands and Yorkshire was the estuary of the Humber" (Jackson 1953: 207). Though in the Yorkshire Wolds and at York itself "archaeological finds seem to indicate a more or less unbroken continuity of occupation between the late Roman and pagan Saxon periods" (Jackson 1953: 212), there is no historical evidence for a kingdom of De ira before the second half of the sixth century. During the latter period Deira must have gained considerable strength in view of the spectacular expansion after the battle of Catterick about 6oo which is described in the Gododdin. It seems that the battle of Catterick can be viewed as the northern equivalent of the battle of Mount Badon, except for the fact that it was won by the other side. Thus, I suggest that the "Saxon" invasion yielded the conquest of Kent and Sussex in the fifth century, whereas the "Anglian" invasion can be connected with the subjugation of the north which started around the middle of the sixth century (cf. also Alcock 1971: 107-121). There is no linguistic evidence for a different continental homeland, especially because the shared innovations of Anglian and Old Saxon
English point to geographical contiguity after the early migrations. Chronologically, the Kentish invasion can be identified with the "Anglian" invasion. The spread of "Saxon" features to the north can be identified with the West Saxon expansion. It is important to realize that at the time under consideration we have to reckon with small numbers of highly mobile people. Milroy & Milroy have established that linguistic change is slow to the extent that the relevant populations are well established and bound by strong ties, whereas it is rapid to the extent that weak ties exist in populations (1985: 375). They point out that "societies undergoing social processes which entail social and geographical mobility and the dissolution of close-knit networks [... ] provide the conditions under which innovations can be rapidly transmitted along considerable social and geographical distances" and that "in situations of mobility or social instability, where the proportion of weak links in a community is consequently high, linguistic change is likely to be rapid" (1985: 370, 380). These observations are fully applicable to the Anglo-Saxon invaders of Britain in the 5th and 6th centuries.
THil OLD NORSE i-UMLAUT
Timothy Reid has reviewed the problem of ON gestr 'guest' versus stalJr 'place' (1990). Since his explanation is, to my mind, no more satisfactory than previous solutions, I venture to present my own view here. Reid's treatment relieves me of the duty to discuss the earlier literature in any detail (cf. also Steblin-Kamenskij 1959 and especially Bibire 1975 for an assessment of previous work).
1.
2.. As far as I can see, the problem has essentially been solved by Axel Kock (1888, 1892.). The main objection which has been raised against his explanation
is that it is unclear why *iR should cause umlaut in a preceding short syllable while *i did not do so. This objection has been countered by Seip, who pointed out that when *i was syncopated after a long syllable, it may have been reduced to *a after a short syllable unless it was followed by *R, which was "en palatallyd" and "kunde endog palatalisere foregaende vokal" (1919: 88). This eliminates Kock's umlautless period: "Vi tar en omlydsperiode, som begynner med omlyd virket av synkopert vokal og fortsetter med omlyd virket av bevart vokal". The problem which remains is: why did the earlier umlaut affect long syllables only? In my view, the key to the solution of this problem is "Kock's failure to distinguish between vowel-length and syllable-length" (Bibire 1975: 2.01). While *i "was lost after long root-syllables earlier than after short ones (and evidence for this seems to be irrefutable)" (Steblin-Kamenskij 1959: 109), it is reasonable to assume that the umlaut affected long vowels and diphthongs earlier than short vowels. The prominent place which the word gestr, which has a short vowel in a long syllable, has occupied in the discussion from Kock (1888) till Reid (1990) may have prevented scholars from confronting the problem in an adequate way.
3.
4· Thus, I arrive at the following reconstruction of g~pr 'crime, gestr and stalJr after the earlier syncope: nom.sg. gen.sg. datsg. acc.sg.
gMpR glopaR gMp gMp
gastR gastaR gast gast
stalJrR stalJaR stalJa stalJa
nom. pl. gen. pl. datpl. acc.pl.
gMpiR glopa gMpimR gMpi
gastiR gasta gastimR gasti
stalJiR stalJa stalJimR stalJi
2.86
Scandinavian
At this stage, the forms *glopaR, *gl6pa, *gMpimR were replaced by gMps, gMpa, *gMpumR on the analogy of the a-stems. When umlaut was phonemicized in short vowels, the umlauted root vowel of the plural forms *gestiR and gesti spread to the singular, which had the regular endings of the long stem paradigm. The analogical ending of gen.sg. gests suffices to show that the word gestr cannot be used as a representative example of an i-stem paradigm. 5· If the theory advanced here is correct, we expect lack of umlaut in i-stems with a short vowel in a long syllable, and this is indeed what we fmd, e.g. burlJr 'birth', fundr 'meeting, knstr 'choice, skurlJr 'cuf, stullJr 'theff, sultr 'hunger: prottr < *j:Jruhti- 'strength', *j:JurlJr 'diminution' (Noreen 1970: 2.67), also urlJr 'fate' and the feminines. There is an umlauted root vowel in feldr 'cloak' and gestr, possibly in brestr 'crash' (u-stem?), dyttr 'did, pyttr 'pit' (loanword?), skellr 'clash: and in a number of plural names (cf. Noreen 1970: 2.66f.). Thus, it appears that short vowels were not umlauted by syncopated *i but only by "j, *iR, *R, palatalized k/g, and retained i (cf. Bibire 1975: 189 and passim). 6. This raises a problem in connection with the development of the ja-stems. Since short root vowels were regularly umlauted in this category, the "} must have been preserved when short vowels were lost in the endings. I therefore reconstruct *harrR, *valJi beside the a-stems *harm.R, *barn and *dagaR, *baka for herr 'armY, velJ 'pledge, harmr 'grief: barn 'child: dagr 'daf, bak 'back' at the stage after the earlier syncope. Whether one considers *ito be a reduced vowel or a syllabic consonant is only a matter of taste. For bekkr 'bench; brook' I reconstruct *bakkiR, acc.sg. *bakkibecause this type behaves in the same way as the short ja-stems. 7. The difference between gestr and stalJr has a parallel in the weak preterits of fella 'to fell' and veija 'to choose, viz. 1st sg. felda vs. vallJa. The different suffiX can be explained by the assumption that intervocalic *d became a fricative between the earlier and the later syncope (cf. K1o2.: 4). As in the case of gestr, I assume that the umlaut in felda was introduced on the analogy of the long vowel stems, e.g. d~mda 'I judged~ There is unmistakable evidence for such analogical influence in the case of selda 'I sold' (OSw. salde), where the suffiX -d- shows that the form "schon in urnordischer Zeit zweisilbig gewesen ist und zusammensto6endes ld gehabt hat" (Kock 1894: 452, cf. OE sealde), similarly byglJa 'I lent' (OE bohte), cf. also keypta 'I bought' (inf. kaupa), and the later analogy in lykta 'I shut' (beside originalluklJa), sekta 'I sentenced: and setta 'I set' (OSw. satte), where the sequence *-tlJ- may have yielded -tt- immediately after the later syncope, cf. Runic satido 'I set' (Ro stone, AD 400 ), sAte 'he set' (Gummarp stone, 7th century). 8. Up to now I have assumed that the phonemicization of umlaut in long vowels can be identified with the earlier syncope. There is no reason why this
The Old Norse i-umlaut should be so. It is actually much more probable that unstressed short vowels were reduced after long and short syllables alike when unstressed long vowels were shortened. This vowel reduction must have preceded the earlier syncope but cannot have preceded the rise of umlaut in long vowels. Thus, we arrive at the following relative chronology:
(1) ( 2) (3) (4)
Umlaut oflong vowels. Reduction of unstressed vowels. Syncope after long syllables. Umlaut of short vowels. (5) Syncope after short syllables.
The gemination of velars before *j can be dated to stage ( 2) if it is viewed as a compensation for the reduction of the following syllable, e.g. *bakjaR > *bakkjaR > *bakkrR > *bekkrR > bekkr 'brook'.
ON BRJlAKING
As H.F. Nielsen points out, for Old English "it is fairly certain that breaking takes place prior to i-mutation,' which itself precedes back umlaut.• [... ] On the other hand, OE breaking must be later than OE fronting of a > re,3 which is most likely to be an independent development" (1984: 75, So). This chronology suffices to show that the Old English breaking cannot be identified with the Scandinavian breaking. Moreover, the conditions of the two were quite different. Since the Old Frisian breaking "took place only before ht and hs, and not before intervocalic h, such forms as siucht (sees') show that it must have taken place later than i-mutation, for the i of the 3rd pers. sg. pres. indic. was not syncopated till after it had caused mutation" (Campbel11939: 105). Thus, we fmd similar, yet quite different developments in the three languages. Nielsen quotes with approval Fourquet's view that in Old English "les produits de la fracture des voyelles breves sont venus occuper dans le systeme des breves la mfune place que les diphtongues dorigine ancienne occupaient dans le systeme des longues" (1959: 151), which is in accordance with Krupatkin's observation that "every time the initial shifts in the field of the long vowels raised similar transformations in the field of the short vowels" (1970: 63). This explains the fact that the "fractured reflexes of i and e have rounded second elements in OE, in early OE -u': and possibly "the second element of the broken reflex of re was also -u at first" (Nielsen 1984: 76). Thus, io, eo, ea were the short counterparts of lo, eo, ea from the time when these were still u-diphthongs. Nielsen can now explain the fact that the reflex of *a is not broken in Old Frisian: "Gmc. au was monophthongized to ii in OFris., and consequently there was no systematic pressure in terms of creating another short diphthong in the way that iu (io) was phonemicized as a short counterpart of Gmc. eu!iu" (1984: 77f.). This leads me to reconsider the Scandinavian breaking against the same background. As K.M. Nielsen has convincingly argued, "the diphthong arisen by breaking was ia both before a and before u"in Scandinavian, and this diphthong "is found on the stones of Sparlosa and Rok; by u-mutation it passes into i9 in WN, as appears from scaldic rhymes and vowel harmony; at the further development into o in Icelandic, lx;rn and bi9rn go together. In EN the development into i9 only takes place with lost u, a stage which perhaps is expressed in biaurn in the runic inscriptions; i9 is developed into io, which appears in the biurn of the runic inscriptions and in the biorn of the medieval MSS" (1961: 40f.). The further development of i9 in Old Icelandic jJiokkr 'thicl(, miolk 'mill(, Old Norwegian }1iukkr, neuter fiugur 'foui, Old Swedishfiughur is
290
Scandinavian
secondary. 4 Since *e was the short counterpart of *e, in North and West Germanic, we must look into the origin of the latter. The origin of *e. is the subject of an article by the regretted Tocharologist, Baltologist, Germanicist and Indo-Europeanist Jorundur Hilmarsson (1991). With his characteristic care and acute sense of etymology, the author divides the instances of *e. into seven groups: (1) *he.r, (2) *me.da-, (3) class VII preterits, (4) Latin loanwords, (5) "j'e.ro, (6) *ke.na- and *le,ba-, (7) Continental Germanic residue. For the present purpose, groups (4)-(7) can be regarded as a residue and will be left out of consideration. The same holds for *me,da-, which does not occur in Scandinavian. For *he.r we must start from a deictic particle *hi 'here' (cf. Ko63), which was extended by -ar from par 'there, jainar 'yondei, aljar 'elsewhere'.5 The regular lowering of *ito e before a yielded OHG hear (Isidor), later hiar, hier. As I have indicated elsewhere (Kn5), I think that *e, in the class VII preterits of strong verbs represents *ea, which was preserved in OHG geang 'wenf, feang 'seized~ feal 'fell'. The model for the development of this formation was provided by the preterits *eauk 'increased: *eaus 'poured~ *eaud 'granted: *ear 'ploughed~ *ealp, 'grew old~ *eaik 'claimed: and especially *eaj 'went'. The spread of *ea as a preterit marker yielded *hleaup 'leaped~ *heald, 'held: *heait 'called: also *beauw 'dwelf, 'teah 'seized: *leret 'lef, plural *hleup-, *held-, *heit-, *beuw-, 'teng-, *let-, ON hli6p, helt, hit, bi6, biogg-,fekk,flng-, let, lit- (cf. Noreen 1970: 338-340). The identification of *e, as *ea now explains the Scandinavian breaking of *e to *eii in accordance with the considerations cited above. It is remarkable that there is no evidence for breaking before a front vowel in the following syllable, where the model *ea was lacking, and that breaking is less frequent in light than in heavy syllables. Even more strikingly, breaking was blocked by a preceding *w, e.g. verpa 'to throW, huelpr 'whelP, while the preterit sueip, pl. suip- 'swept' shows absence of *ea after *w, which is a natural restriction because the form contains a triphthong already. The broken vowel *eii either developed into ja by "coinciding in its onset with the non-syllabic allophone of /if' (SteblinKamenskij 1957: 91) or lost its diphthongal character and merged with the reflex of umlauted *a. The latter development may have been conditioned by the monophthongization of *ea to e, which probably took place under the pressure of the rise of re from umlauted *a. It is probably no accident that *ea is best preserved in Old High German, where the umlaut of *a was late. Analogical developments have rendered the original conditions of breaking opaque. The Old Icelandic paradigm of hialpa 'to help' closely follows that of falla 'to fall', reflecting the conditions of umlaut, not of breaking, e.g. 2nd pl. hialpep like fallep < *-ed, *-aid. The purely phonological development is perhaps most faithfully preserved in the word for 'si'x, where the cardinal is not broken
On breaking
291
while the ordinal is in East Norse, cf. Swedish sex, sjatte, Danish seks, sjette, Latin sex, sextus. NOTES
' "Cf. forms like OE wierpp ( < *wiorpip < *wirpijJ) and nlehst (< *neahist < *nrehist), which would have come out *wiorpp, *weorpp and *neahst if the reverse relative chronology had been true~ Differently Collier (1987), who disregards the fact that the Old High German umlaut took place before preserved i but not before lost *i and cannot therefore be identified with the Old English umlaut. • "This is shown e.g. by eosol, whose diphthong is due to back mutation of e which again reflects an i-mutated a, cf. eosol (suffix substitution) < *esil <
*asiluz". 3 "Thus OE seah, *neahti (> nieht) and healp presuppose the intermediate stage -re-, cf. Gmc. *sah, *nahtiz and *halp".
Cf. Benediktsson 1963: 428-31 and 1982: 38-41. On doublets such as biarg, berg 'rock' and fiall, fell 'mountai.ti, cf. Hoff 1949: 195-202. On Dyvik's theory (1978), see Benediktsson's review (1982: 41-55). 4
This was already suggested by Mahlow (1879: 163) and more recently by Meid (1971: 94). Ringe's objection that we should expect *hir instead of *hiar (1984: 140) is proved invalid by *hwar'where, ON huar, Lith. kur.
5
GLOTIAUZATION, PREASPIRATION AND GEMINATION IN ENGLISH AND SCANDINAVIAN
Docherty et alii have "noted that several sociolinguistic accounts have shown a sharp distinction between the social trajectories for glottal replacement as opposed to glottal reinforcement, which have normally been treated by phonologists as aspects of 'the same thing'. It may therefore not always be appropriate to treat the two phenomena as manifestations of a single process or as points on a single continuum (presumably along which speakers move through time). From the speaker's point of view (as manifested by different patterns of speaker behavior) they appear as independent phenomena" (1997: 307). In particular, "while the glottal stop is spreading rapidly in mainstream English, glottal reinforcement (especially of /pi and lkl in intervocalic positions) is possibly recessive. It is characteristic not only of Tyneside male speech but also of rather conservative rural varieties, such as those of south-west Scotland and much of Northern Ireland" (o.c.: 306). This supports my view that the "reinforcing" glottal closure of ['p], ['t], ['k] is ancient, in spite of the recent spread of the replacing glottal stop in mainstream English (cf. K142.). The two types of glottal variant are clearly distinct in Newcastle English, where they moreover exhibit quite different sociolinguistic patterns. The replacing glottal stop "is variably substituted for non-initial pre-vocalic It/ (e.g. in set off, water) by younger speakers, especially middle-class females, and as such appears to be a non-local form entering Newcastle English" whereas the preglottalized variants "by contrast, are largely the preserve of older males" (Docherty & Foulkes 1999: 54). It appears that the preglottalized stops "differ from the 'pure' glottal variants in terms of the presence of movement of the second formant in the previous vowel: formant transitions are caused by gestures involving the supralaryngeal vocal organs. 79% of our tokens contained F2. transitions, the exceptional cases sounding clearly like glottal stops" (o.c.: 57). It turns out that "older males appear to be producing glottalised tokens with a different articulatory co-ordination than other members of the speech community: they have a greater tendency to time the oral gesture such that it lags behind the accompanying glottal articulation" (o.c.: 61f.). Thus, preglottalization is disappearing from the language while the replacing glottal stop is spreading in the speech of the younger generation. While the "increasing space given by phoneticians from about 192.0 onwards to the treatment of the glottal stop" (Andresen 1968: 34) can be explained by the phonemic character of the glottal replacement, the earlier preglottalization of /p/, /t/, /kl went unnoticed because it was not distinctive. Glottalization is pervasive in pre-1930 audio recordings of people born in the second half of the
294
Scandinavian
19th century, even in formal delivery (cf. K142, with re£). It follows that glottalization was well-established in upper-class English speech in the 19th century and must have been widespread in the standard language of that time. The lack of attention to this phenomenon can be explained not only by the subphonemic character of preglottalization but also by its loss in pre-pausal position. While "glottal variants are widespread in various phonological contexts in Newcastle, they are almost categorically prohibited in pre-pausal position. Tokens before a pause are instead - from an auditory perspective - clearly 'released' voiceless alveolars" (Docherty & Foulkes 1999: 62). It appears that either the glottalization or the buccal features could be lost in pre-pausal position: "In Derby glottal stops in pre-pausal position are far more widespread, but in the self-conscious context of word-list readings most speakers produce what sound like 'released' [t] s, just as in Newcastle" Q.c.). This suggests that prepausal [t] is due to restoration and that the spread of the rep lacing glottal stop in mainstream English may have started from pre-pausal positions. This brings the original distribution of the English glottalization closer to its Danish counterpart, the so-called vestjysk sted, which is found immediately before the plosives p, t, k "wherever these stand in an original medial position, following a voiced sound in a stressed syllable" (Ringgaard 1960: 195). The vestjysk st0d cannot possibly be connected with the Jylland apocope because it is also found in the northeastern part of the vestfynsk dialects, where the apocope did not take place. The vestjysk st0d in these isolated dialects suggests that it is a retention rather than an innovation. Moreover, Hansson has drawn attention to the fact that vestjysk swd is found on original monosyllables and polysyllables alike in the most remote and isolated villages on the island of Als, where it coexists with true pitch accents representing the original accents 1 and 2 from which the Common Danish st0d opposition developed (2001: 166). We must conclude that outside these archaic dialects the vestjysk st0d was lost in monosyllables, as was the case with preglottalization in Newcastle English. The preglottalized stops of English and Danish cannot be separated from the preaspirated stops in the northern Scandinavian languages. The geographical distribution of preaspiration has recently been examined in detail by Hansson (2001: 158-164), who concludes that it is a peripheral archaism to be identified historically with the vestjysk swd. Hansson points out that we fmd preaspiration proper in Icelandic, Faroese, the Norwegian dialects of Jreren, North Gudbrandsdal, most of Harjedalen, and the island of Senja, the Swedish dialects of northeastern Uppland (GrasO, ValO, Hallnas, Forsmark), of the Aland island of Kokar and some nearby dialects, the Estonian Swedish dialect of Ormso, the Lapland dialects of Vilhelmina and Arjeplog (where it may be attributed to Saami influence), and in a spoken corpus from Central Standard Swedish. Most importantly, preaspiration is found not only in original geminates and in stops before sonorants, as in Icelandic, but also in single /p/,
Glottalization, preaspiration and gemination in English and Scandinavian
295
It/, !kl between vowels and word-finally after a vowel, especially in Faroese (cf. already K182: 61) and in the dialects of Uppland (Graso). We find extensive sonorant devoicing before I pi, It/, !kl in the same areas as preaspiration proper while devoicing of /11 and especially lrl is more widespread, covering most of the Norwegian and Swedish territory. The strong geographical correlation between preaspiration proper and extensive sonorant devoicing and the much wider distribution of the devoicing of lrl and Ill suggest that preaspiration was lost after a vowel in the larger part of Scandinavia. We now tum to the origin of the Scandinavian preaspiration. Hansson assumes that lpl, It/, !kl were "phonetically preaspirated in all non-initial positions in Late Proto-Scandinavian" (2001: 167) but takes an agnostic position on the ultimate origins of preaspiration, proposing that lpl, ltl, !kl "became either preaspirated or preglottalized through a simple sound change: viz. "a slight misalignment of articulatory gestures': and assuming that "preglottalization developed out of preaspiration" without adducing any arguments for this assumption (o.c.: 169). He thinks that preaspiration was phonemicized in Icelandic as a result of devoicing of voiced stops (o.c.: 168) but suggests in a footnote that it may have resulted from the shortening of long vowels in closed syllables if !bl, ldl, lgl were already voiceless at the time. The latter view comes close to my own. In fact, there is no evidence for voiced obstruents in Proto-Scandinavian because the voiceless stops of e.g. Icelandic henda 'throw~ vagga 'cradle, hera 'carry' (o.c.: 164) may go all the way back to Proto-Germanic. Indeed, the "hardening' of voiced fricatives to voiceless stops (l.c.) suggests that the fricatives were actually voiceless at that time. Elsewhere I have proposed that intervocalic *-d- became a fricative between the earlier and the later syncope (K1o2: 4) and that all obstruents were voiceless in North-West Germanic (K138: 54). I think that the rise of phonemic voicedness was a more recent development which took place under Romance and subsequently Low German influence and eventually led to the loss of preaspiration in South and Central Scandinavian. The close correspondence between preglottalization in English and Danish suggests that preaspiration developed out of it in the northern Scandinavian languages. I am inclined to identify the development with the fricativization of postvocalic *d [t] between the earlier and the later syncope, which can be dated to the 7th century. The loss of glottal constriction in the preglottalized stops yielded preaspiration in the same way as the loss of occlusion in postvocalic b [p], d [t], g [k] yielded fricatives. This account of the facts offers parallel explanations for the Scandinavian preaspiration and the High German consonant shift, where the new affricates [pf], [ts], [kx] can be derived from preglottalized stops ['p], ['t], ['k] by loss of the buccal occlusion with concomitant oralization (klusilspring) of the glottal constriction (cf. K138a). Thus, I think that OHG helpfan, English hel'p, Vestjysk hjrel'b and Icelandic
Scandinavian
hjalhpa all developed from Proto-Germanic *hel'p- and that conservative English dialects have best preserved the original sound structure. The reconstruction of preglottalized stops sheds new light on the quantity shift in Scandinavian because the phonetic difference between preglottalized and geminated stops is slight, the glottal constriction preceding the buccal closure in the former but not in the latter instance. As a result, preglottalization could easily be reanalyzed as gemination, entailing the rise of new closed syllables. This mechanism accounts in a principled way for the existence of several layers of gemination in North and West Germanic (cf. K1o2: 7). It also explains the fact "that in Harjedalen, only the more innovative dialects (as opposed to that of Vemdal) preaspirate these secondary geminates, and on Kokar, only younger speakers preaspirate them. Both are obvious cases of later generalization" (Hansson 2001: 1723), similar to the generalization of sonorant devoicing before Is/ in Faroese (o.c.: 162f.). While preaspiration was lost after lengthened short vowels before single stops in most of the West and North Norwegian, Faroese and Icelandic dialects, the lengthening was evidently anticipated by the rise of geminates from preglottalized stops in East Norwegian and Central and North Swedish dialects, except after the low vowels a and re, which were lengthened (cf. Perridon 2002: 73), e.g. Swedish vecka 'wee!(, droppe 'drop; skepp 'ship; but iita 'eaf, cf. ON vika, dropi, skip, OE wice, dropa, scip. As in the case of preaspiration in Harjedalen and Kokar and sonorant devoicing in Faroese, gemination could be generalized by lengthening I sf and /m/ after short vowels, and even other resonants in the Norwegian dialect of Bergen (o.c.: 76). Elsewhere I have argued that the preglottalization which I have reconstructed for Proto-Germanic can be identified with the preglottalization which must be reconstructed for other Indo-European languages on the basis of direct evidence from Baltic and Indic and indirect evidence from Indo-Iranian, Greek, Latin and Slavic (see especially Ko75). Hansson's view that this hypothesis "hinges on the validity of the Glottalic Theory as such" (2001: 169) is mistaken because my reconstruction of Proto-Germanic preglottalization is based on its actual attestation in English and western Danish and on the derivation of preaspiration in northern Scandinavian, of various layers of gemination in North and West Germanic, and of affrication in High German (and English dialects) from natural developments of the same, irrespective of its origins. Perridon asks rhetorically: "If for instance the geminated fricative in High German essen is the reflex of a preglottalized stop in Pgerm., why then is there in this case no preaspiration in Icelandic, no (vestjysk) st121d in the western dialects of Danish, no glottal stop in English, nor gemination in Central and North Swedish?" (2002: 743). The answer in simple: preaspiration was lost after a lengthened short vowel in Icelandic (but not in northern Faroese), preglottalization was usually lost in monosyllables in vestjysk and English (but preserved in polysyllabic forms of such words), and gemination did not arise
Glottalization, preaspiration and gemination in English and Scandinavian
297
after lengthened a, re in Central and North Swedish (as Perridon remarks himself, o.c.: 73). Note that preaspiration is actually attested in Faroese eta [e:hta] (K182: 61) and preglottalization in Old Northumbrian eatta (K142: 177), where the double consonant cannot denote either a preceding short vowel (because the attested form is earlier than the lengthening of short vowels in northern English) or a true geminate (because the short vowel is regularly lengthened at a later stage in these dialects). The hitherto unexplained double consonants in the Lindisfarne Gospels and Rushworth glosses are another phenomenon which is accounted for by the reconstruction of preglottalized stops for Proto-Germanic (l.c.).
EARLY RUNIC CONSONANTS AND THil ORIGIN OF THil YOUNGER FUTHARK
Elsewhere I have argued that all obstruents were voiceless in North-West Germanic (K1o2: 9, K138: 54, K192: Sf.). H.F. Nielsen's comprehensive study of Early Runic (2ooo) now provides a welcome opportunity to compare my reconstruction with more traditional views of the early Germanic consonant systems and to specify its implications for the interpretation of the Runic evidence. While I generally agree with the common interpretation of the Gothic consonant system (as modified by Roberge 1983), I think that it originated from an early ftxation of the stress on the initial syllable which forestalled the devoicing of voiced stops and rhotacism of *z found in the other Germanic languages. Unlike Gothic, North-West Germanic preserved the preglottalized stops which were inherited from the proto-language and later developed into preaspirated stops in northern Scandinavia and into affricates in High German (cf. K1o2, K138, K192). This leads to the following comparison of my reconstruction (in square brackets) with Nielsen's interpretation (between slashes, cf. woo: 122f.) of the Early Runic consonant system:
b d g p
fbi /d/ /gl /pi
t
It/
k f
If/
I-
h s R
lkl
tpl lhl Is/
/z/ /m/
m n
In/
I
111
r
/r/ /w/ /j/
w
j
[p] [t] [k] ['p] ['t] ['k] [f)
[p] [h] [s] [R] [m] [n] [1] [r] [w] [j]
Nielsen assumes that the voiced stops had fricative allophones in non-initial positions. I fmd no evidence for this hypothesis, which cannot be separated from the common view that Grimm's law preceded Verner's law in ProtoGermanic. Elsewhere I have argued that this view is mistaken (K1o2: 5f. and
300
Scandinavian
Kn9: 2f.). If Verner's law preceded Grimm's law, there is no reason to assume voiced fricatives for any stage of Proto-Germanic except for the allophone *z of Is/. In particular, West Germanic *d and High German *b and *g never had fricative allophones in prehistoric times. Moreover, I think that they remained voiceless lenes up to a comparatively recent stage. In Old Norse, Nielsen's /z/ merged with /r/, e.g. gestr 'guesf versus Early Runic -gastiR. Nielsen assumes that the non-initial allophones of If! and tp/ became voiced and that the alleged voiced fricative allophones of !b! and /d/ were rephonemicized as allophones of If! and tp/ (2ooo: 125). This assumption creates several problems. First of all, "a contrast depending on the presence and absence of voice is retained by /k/ -:1- /g!, the latter phoneme having stop as well as fricative allophones" (o.c.: 145 63), e.g. voiced stop in ganga 'to gd, voiced fricative in auga 'eye and acc.sg. dag 'daY, palatal glide [j] in datsg. degi, voiceless fricative [x] in gen.sg. dags and neuter heilagt 'holy' (o.c.: 125). It remains unclear why [j] and [x] are identified as allophones of /g!, not of /j/ and /k/, respectively. It also remains unclear why the voiced fricative allophones of !b! and /d/ should be rephonemicized as allophones of If! and tp/ if this did not hold for the voiced fricative allophone of /gl. Alternatively, one could assume that the voiced allophones of If! and tp/ were rephonemicized as fricative allophones of !b! and /d/, which would bring them into conformity with the corresponding allophone of /gl. Secondly, it remains unclear why the voiced allophone [v] of If/, e.g. in grafa 'to dig, preteritgr6f < *-b-, and in nefi 'nephew'< *-p- (ibidem) is not identified with /v/, e.g. in vapn 'weapon~ instead of If/. The separation of non-initial [j] and [v] from initial/j/ and tv/looks like an undesirable artefact of the method. Thirdly, Nielsen notes that "there are no voiced allophones of Is/, not even in medial voiced surroundings, cf. leysa. This is surprising in view of the voiced allophones of the other fricatives in medial and fmal position" (o.c.: 125). Surprising indeed! It is a strong indication that there were no voiced fricatives at all at the stage under consideration and that all obstruents were voiceless. Nielsen remarks that "even the earliest Icelandic manuscripts had alternative spellings in u or V' for word-medial/f/ (o.c.: 14564), but this reflects a more recent stage. "Originally pwas used in all positions. When lJ was borrowed from Norwegian, the two letters occurred in free variation until eventually lJ was reserved for non-initial position" (l.c. 65). This may offer an indication for the chronology and geographical origin of the rise of voiced fricatives in Scandinavian. Fourthly, the phonological status of long consonants remains to be specified, e.g. leggja 'to laY, lykkja 'loop~ pakka 'to thank' (o.c.: 126). What exactly is the difference between leggja and datsg. degi in terms of distinctive features? Fifthly, the rhotacism is an unsolved problem. Nielsen's identification of R as /z/ is hard to reconcile with the fact that apart from the By stone (Norway, 6th
Early Runic consonants and the origin of the younger futhark
301
century) it is almost or wholly limited to word-fmal position (o.c.: 214). ln my view, R stands for voiceless r < *z and originated from the general devoicing of obstruents in North-West Germanic as a result of Grimm's law (cf. K138: 54). Now we tum to the 7th century evidence of the Blekinge and Eggja stones, which appears to be crucial for an interpretation of the Runic consonant system. Nielsen notes that initial /j/ "must have disappeared in the language of the Blekinge inscriptions, seeing that the jara-rune has come to designate A" (2ooo: 126) and suggests on the basis oflstaby AfatR 'after; with -R for -r, that "by this time the reflex of Gmc. *-z had coalesced with -r in fmal position in North Germanic when following an alveolar obstruent" (o.c.: 96). He thinks that the obstruent system of Early Runic was otherwise retained, to judge from examples such as Gummarp hA}mwolAfA, Stentoften hA_I)uwolAfR (personal name), Bjorketorp u_I)ArAbA 'harmfuf, where f and p are clearly preserved, as opposed to Gummarp stAbA 'staves; Stentoften hAborwnR 'he-goats; hederA 'hither; Bjorketorp hAidR 'brightness: which exhibit allophones of !bl and /d/. I find it very difficult to assume that *-z was retained in Stentoften -wolAfR (2x), Istaby -wulafR, also Eggja fiskR 'fisli, as in Stentoften dat.pl. hAborwnR 'he-goats: hagestwnR 'stallions: Eggja nom.pl. manR 'meti, while it became -r in Bjorketorp -IAusR 'loose, perhaps hAidR 'brightness; also bArutR 'breaks: cf. Stentoften -IAsAR, hideR, bAriuti}l. This looks like paper phonetics. If -R was the voiceless counterpart of -r, all of these examples receive a natural explanation. The fmal-r of *aftr was devoiced in Istaby AfatR, ON aptr, perhaps similarly in Bjorketorp hAidR [tR], while the final -r of Bjorketorp bArutR ['tR], ON brftr 'breaks' developed phonetically from -ip, Stentoften bAriuti_l), with -ip from word-fmal *-id with voiceless *-d [t] < *-ti. Nielsen states that things may be less clear-cut in the case of Stentoften gAf 'gave, where he assumes devoiced /b/ in fmal position, cf. Sjrelland bracteate 2 gibu '(I) give' (o.c.: 126). Interestingly, the consistent spelling of Gothic gif, gaf (beside giban, gibis, gebum, gebun) as opposed to grob 'dug' and gadob 'was fitting' (cf. Roberge 1983: 129) suggests that we have a Verner alternation here. I have therefore proposed to derive the verb 'to give' from ga- plus *ep-, cf. Hittite epzi 'seizes: Latin aplscor 'reacli, coepl 'have begun' (K120: 104f.), like OHG gezzan beside ezzan 'to eat' and MHG gan, gunnen 'grant' beside OHG an, unnun. The contrast between l'p/ and /d/ [t] in medial position was clearly retained in Eggja mo_I)A 'tired' versus mAde 'rubbed off' (Nielsen 2ooo: 127), so that the spelling of nAkdan 'naked' < *nakudan represents the expected reflex of ['kt], not [k<J] (as assumed by Nielsen, l.c.), similarly in final position ni}l 'waning of the moon' beside ob [op] < *uba, ON of'over'. The use of k and t instead of g and d in Eggja fold 'bird' and lat 'land' suggests that preglottalization was lost in western Norway around 700 because it developed into preaspiration at that time. This development must evidently be connected with the rise of the younger fu thar k.
302
Scandinavian
Elsewhere I have argued that the simplest way to account for the difference between the allomorphs of the weak preterit suffix in Old Norse, e.g. in deilda 'divided' < *dailido and vallJa 'chose' < *walido, is the hypothesis that intervocalic *-d- became a fricative between the earlier and the later syncope (K102: 4). If all obstruents were voiceless at that time, it follows that intervocalically b [p], d [t], g [k] became [f], [p], [x] and merged with the earlier fricatives f, p, but not h (which disappeared in non-initial positions). In northern Scandinavia, the loss of glottal constriction in the preglottalized stops p, t, k yielded preaspiration in the same way as the loss of occlusion in the noninitial lenes stops yielded fricatives. The preaspiration was often realized as devoicing of a preceding resonant and was thereby dissociated from the following stop. Note that there were also devoiced resonants without a following stop, e.g. in Stentoften and Bjorketorp welA 'deceitfuf < *wihla-, ON Vt!la 'betraY, Finnish Qoanword) vihlata 'delude, also ON mrela 'to speak' < *-Pl-, rrena 'to rob' < *-hn-, where the weak preterit in -ta instead of -da points to a voiceless resonant, and in my view of course-R for voiceless -r, cf. also rh- for *hr- in Helmes rhuulfR and Vatn (Norway, 8th century) rhoAltR < *hropuwaldaz (Nielsen 2ooo: 257ff.). On the other hand, -h- was not written before -tin Glavendrup trutin 'husband, lord: ON dr6ttinn, OE dryhten. These developments immediately explain the rise of the younger futhark, which does not denote voicedness because there were no voiced obstruents at that time. The choice of b rather than p is a consequence of the low frequency of the latter. Thus, we fmd original p in R0nninge bru})Ur 'brother' beside p < *d [t] in rau.,um 'red' and Glavendrup fa.,ur 'father' (Fyn, around 900), corresponding to OE bropor, read, freder, OHG bruoder, rot, fater (cf. o.c.: 129). The new consonant system did not arise everywhere at the same time. While it is already attested in the Ribe skull fragment (southwestern Jutland, around 725) in the form u.,in, OE Woden, the language of the Rok stone (Ostergotland, around 825) has preserved the distinction between b [p] and fin ualraubaR 'spoils of war' versus -uJfaR 'wolves' (o.c.: 14571 ). However, note that the latter inscription has also preserved the form sitiR 'sits: with -iR < -ip (attested in Stentoften, 7th century) < *-id with fmal [t], later Swedish sitr (o.c.: 260). It thus appears that the lenition was earlier word-finally after unstressed vowels. In a similar vein, I assume that b represents a bilabial stop in Old Frisian habuku 'hawk' (Oostum comb, 8th century) and in early Old English heben 'heaven, gibaen 'given: -hebuc 'hawl(, halb- 'half: salb 'ointmenf, scribun 'they decreed: as opposed to gen.sg. wuifes 'wolf' (o.c.: 135, cf. Campbell1959: 179). In North-Sea Germanic the original fricatives developed voiced allophones in medial positions before the syncope. The same may have happened in Scandinavia in the 12th century. Nielsen writes: "It is interesting and puzzling (a) that the (Old) Norse reflex of Gmc. *s remained voiceless in all positions, and (b) that the reflex of Gmc. *z was not de voiced fmally in the Blekinge and Eggja
Early Runic consonants and the origin of the younger futhark
303
language, cf. the final fricative in Stentoften gM vs. hAborwnz" (o.c.: 137). I claim that all obstruents remained voiceless throughout the Viking Age, that -f in gM represents an original voiceless fricative from Indo-European *-p-, and that -R was voiceless -r, not -z.
BJORKETORP AND STENTOFI'EN
In his discussion of the Bjorketorp and Stentoften stones, Elmer Antonsen claims that "all the forms of these two inscriptions represent the same stage in the development of Old Norse, and that the few instances of syntactic and morphological variation present no real evidence for a difference in chronology" (2002: 313). This conclusion is far from obvious. In the following I shall review the evidence against the background of my reconstruction of the Early Runic consonant system (K212), where all obstruents are voiceless and R is a voiceless trill which I shall write [R]. For the sake of convenience, the two inscriptions are reproduced here in the usual transcription (cf. Krause 1966: 209-217, Antonsen 1975: 85-88, 2002: 304). BJORKETORP
A B:I II III IV V VI
u_I)ArAbAsbA hAid.Rrunoronu fAIAhAkhAiderAg inArunARArAgeu hAerAmAIAusR utiARwelAdAude sAR_I)AtbArutR
"Harm(ful) prophecy. To the sequence of clear runes I commit hither mighty runes; through baseness protectionless abroad, (condemned) to insidious death, (is) he who breaks this:' STENTOFTEN
II III IV V VI
niuhAborwnR niuhagestwnR hA_I)uwolAfRgAfj hAriwolAfRmAgiusnuhle hideRrunonofelAhekAhederAginoronoR herAmAIAsARArAgeuwelAdudsA_I)AtbAriuti_l)
"(With) nine he-goats, nine stallions, Hapuwolf gave good-year, Hariwolf.... To the (sequence) of clear runes I commit hither mighty runes; protectionless through baseness, (condemned) to insidious death, (is) he (who) breaks this."
306
Scandinavian
In his identification of Bj. BI-VI with St V-VI, Antonsen equates the following forms (2002: 305-312): (1) Bj. hAidR = St. hideR= /hredr-/ 'clear~ In my reconstruction, the sequence dR is voiceless [tR], with a voiceless trill. Antonsen assumes that Stentoften, unlike Bjorketorp, has an epenthetic e in this sequence and that *ai and *au had been monophthongized both in St. hideR, lAs, dud and in Bj. hAidR, IAusR, dAude. Alternatively, one may assume that unstressed *i was lost in Bj. hAidR but not (yet) in St hideR < *haidiz 'brightness' (cf. Krause 1966: 215, Schulte 1998: 113-118, Nielsen 2ooo: 96) and that St. i, A, u are deficient spellings representing diphthongs in these words. ( 2) Bj., St. runo = 1- nina/ 'of runes'. Here Antonsen's interpretation is at variance with the spelling, which points to *ri:tno. (3) Bj. ronu =St. no= /(ru)nii/ 'to the (sequence)~ Here again, the discrepancy between the vowels remains unexplained. (4) Bj. fAIAhAk = St felAhekA = /frelh-rek(a)/ 'I commif, where I reconstruct preglottalized k ['k]. It may be assumed that the fmal vowel was lost after a light syllable in Bj. Ak but not in St ekA •e The vowel of Bj. Ak is best explained as a reduction of *e, which also points to a chronological difference between the two forms (cf. Schulte 1998: 134). (5) Bj. hAiderA = St hederA = /hredra/ 'hither'. These forms have an epenthetic e in the sequence /dr/, in my view [tr] with voiced r. (6) Bj. ginA = St gino = /ginn-/ 'mighty'. Antonsen's assumption of an epenthetic vowel does not explain the timbre of St o, which must represent earlier *u and points to a chronological difference between the two forms (cf. Schulte 1998: 12.4-128). (7) Bj. rWlAR = St. ronoR = /-riinaR/ 'runes'. Here again, Antonsen's interpretation leaves the discrepancies between the vowels unexplained. The spellings rather point to a difference between an older form *runoR and a younger form *runaR (cf. Nielsen 2ooo: 96, 263). (8) Bj., St. ArAgeu = /rergiu/ 'through baseness~ (9) Bj. hAerAmA = St herAmA = /hjrerm-/ 'protection'. Here we fmd breaking in Bjorketorp but not in Stentoften, which again may reflect a chronological difference. I reconstruct Bj. [hiE!r-], also in Istaby hAem 'sword-: later [ia] in Ribe hiAlb 'help' and R121nninge skialta 'shield' (cf. Nielsen 2ooo: 109), with the short counterpart of *e. = [ea], as I have argued elsewhere (K12.4). (10) Bj.IAusR =St. lAs= [-10ss] = /-10sr/ '-less'. This peculiar analysis smacks of paper phonetics. We must rather identify Bj. IAusR with St IAsAR (cf. Krause
Bjorketorp and Stentoften
307
1966: 215, Schulte 1998: 136, Nielsen 2ooo: 96, 259), with loss of unstressed *a in Bjorketorp but not in Stentoften.
(n) Bj. uti= Iiitel 'outside, abroad' has no counterpart in Stentoften. (12) Bj. AR =StAR= /reR/ 'is; which Antonsen derives from 2nd sg. *iz < *ezi < *esi with leveling of *e from the plural forms and lowering of *e to Ire!. I find this derivation highly improbable. First of all, St. AR is not a copula but part of the preceding word lAsAR (see above). Since there is no copula in Stentoften, there is no reason why there should be one in Bjorketorp. Moreover, the substitution of a md sg. for a 3rd sg. form is not a natural development (see below) and does not yield the required output: "ikke blot R, men ogsa A er umotiveref' (Jacobsen 1935: 30). I can only conclude that the sequence utiAR remains to be explained (in spite of Schulte 2oo6a: 24-34, wo6b: 406-410). (13) Bj., St. welA = /wrel-/ 'insidious; for which I reconstruct [weL-], with a voiceless lateral in view of the preterit velta and the Finnish borrowing vihlata 'delude'. (14) Bj. clAude= St dud= /-d0d(e)/ 'to deatli, where Antonsen thinks that the original nonzero ending was replaced by a zero ending under the influence of the consonant stems. This is an arbitrary solution because such a development is entirely unmotivated. The discrepancy is best explained by the hypothesis that we are dealing with ann-stem where the nom.sg. ending was lost phonetically in Stentoften and replaced by the ending of the ian-stems in Bjorketorp (cf. Lid 1952, Syrett 1994: 151, Schulte 1998: 141, Gnmvik 1998: 129-132, K219). Nedoma's outdated view (2005) can safely be discarded. (15) Bj. sAR = St sA= /sa(R)/ 'he (who)~ (16) Bj., St _I)At = tpat/ 'this; in my view with preglottalized t ['t]. (17) Bj. bArutR = /brytr/, St. bAriuti_l) = /brytip/ 'breaks; where I reconstruct voiceless band preglottalized t. Here again, the proposed substitution of a 2nd sg. for a 3rd sg. form is unacceptable to me. It is much more probable that final *-p became [R] when the preceding vowel was devoiced before the syncope. There is a parallel in Nivkh, where *t yielded [R] after a devoiced vowel which was syncopated (cf. K205: 285). Thus, we have the following indications for a chronological difference between Stentoften and Bjorketorp: (1) Bj. hAidR = St. hideR. One may assume that unstressed *i was lost in Bj. hAidR but not in St hideR< *haidiz 'brightness' and that St. i, A, u are deficient spellings representing diphthongs.
Scandinavian
308
(4) Bj. fAIAhAk = St. felAhekA. It may be assumed that the fmal vowel was lost after a light syllable in Bj. Ak but not in St. ekA •e The vowel of Bj. Ak is best explained as a reduction of *e, which also points to a chronological difference between the two forms. ( 6) Bj. ginA = St gino. The timbre of St. o must represent earlier *u and points to a chronological difference between the two forms. (7) Bj. runAR = St. ronoR. Here the spellings point to a difference between an older form *rnnoR and a younger form *runaR.
(9) Bj. hAerAmA = St herAmA. Here we find breaking in Bjorketorp but not in Stentoften, which again may reflect a chronological difference.
(10) Bj.lAusR = St lAs. We must identify Bj.lAusR with St.lAsAR, with loss of unstressed *a in Bjorketorp but not in Stentoften. (14) Bj. d.Aude = St. dud. This discrepancy is best explained by the hypothesis that we are dealing with an n-stem where the nom.sg. ending was lost phonetically in Stentoften and replaced by the ending of the ian-stems in Bjorketorp. (17) Bj. bArutR, St bAriutii-. Here final *-p became [R] when the preceding vowel was devoiced before the syncope. I conclude that Antonsen's theory cannot be correct. In an earlier study I proposed the following relative chronology (K117: 30): (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)
Umlaut oflong vowels. Reduction of unstressed vowels. Syncope after heavy syllables. Umlaut of short vowels. Syncope after light syllables.
Moreover, I have argued that the difference between deilda < *daildo < *dailido 'I divided' and valpa < *walpo < *walido 'I chose' is best explained by the assumption that intervocalic *d [t] became a fricative [p] between the earlier and the later syncope (K1o2.: 4) and can therefore be dated to stage D of this chronology. It now turns out that Stentoften hideR, lAsAR, bAriutii- can be dated before and Bjorketorp hAidR, lAusR, bArutR after the syncope at stage C. The vocalism of the second syllables in St hideR, felAhekA, gino, ronoR versus Bj. hAidR, fAIAhAk, ginA, runAR points to a date before and after the reduction of unstressed vowels at stage B, respectively. Syncope of original fmal vowels had evidently taken place already in St welAdud and bAriutii- and can therefore be dated before stage B. The lenition of fmal *-d [t] to [p] in the unstressed ending -il- can now also be dated before stage B while its further development to -R can be dated after the devoicing of the vowel which initiated
Bjorketorp and Stentoften
309
the syncope at stage C. There is no reason to assume that the umlaut of stage A had already taken place in Stentoften though it must have affected Bjorketorp hAidR. There is no evidence for an early monophongization in St. bAriuti., but the explicit spelling of the diphthongs in Bj. hAidR, IAusR, dAude suggests that it had taken place in bArutR. If the monophthongization can be identified chronologically with the umlaut at stage A, this offers a terminus ante quem for Stentoften. The rise of breaking in Bj. hAerAmA can perhaps be identified with the reduction of unstressed vowels at stage B. The preservation of the compositional vowels in both St. gino-ronoR, herAmA-IAsAR, welA-dud and Bj. ginA-runAR, hAerAmA-IAusR, welA-dAude suggests that the loss of these vowels, which may perhaps be identified chronologically with the syncope at stage E, had not yet taken place in the two inscriptions, especially because epenthetic vowels are not to be expected at morpheme boundaries (cf. Perridon 1991: 13). This puts Stentoften before stage A (or at least before stage B) and Bjorketorp between stages C and E. As I have argued elsewhere (K212: 74), the loss of glottal constriction in the preglottalized stops yielded preaspiration in the same way as the lenition of intervocalic *d [t] yielded a fricative [p] and can therefore be dated between the earlier and the later syncope, i.e. to stage D. Since the distinction between plain d [t], g [k] and preglottalized t ['t], k ['k] is well preserved in both inscriptions, not only Stentoften but also Bjorketorp must be dated before stage D. This is in conformity with the apparent absence of umlaut
inArAgeu. One of the most remarkable features of the two inscriptions is their agreement in the presence of epenthetic vowels (cf. Schulte 1998: 117). As the compositional vowels of St. gino-, herAmA-, welA- and Bj. ginA-, hAerAmA-, welA- were preserved, they are not epenthetic. This leaves us with the following instances: (4) St. felAh-ekA, Bj. fAIAh-Ak < "felh-, possibly Bj. "jalh-.
(5) St. hederA, Bj. hAiderA, Gothic hidre 'hither: where the epenthetic e in the sequence *dr was probably conditioned by the preceding *i and must therefore be older than the lowering of the root vowel (8) St., Bj. ArAgeu < *argiu.
(9) St. herAmA-, Bj. hAerAmA- < *herma-. (17) St. bAriuti.,, Bj. bArutR < *breutid.
310
Scandinavian
The epenthetic vowel was A [a] except in (5 ), where e represents [I] . There is no epenthetic vowel in voiceless clusters and at morpheme boundaries: (1) Bj. hAidR, where the sequence dR is voiceless [tR].
(10) Bj.IAusR, with voiceless [sR]. (17) Bj. bArutR, with voiceless ['tR]. (1-2) Bj. hAidR-rwto, St. hideR-rwto. (4-5) Bj. fAIAhAk-hAiderA. (12-13) Bj. utiAR-welA-. (14-15) St. -dud-sA. (15-16) Bj. sAR-.,At. (16-17) Bj . .,At-bArutR, St. .,At-bAriuti.,. The consistency of the presence versus absence of epenthetic vowels in these instances leaves no doubt about their phonetic reality. It follows that the rise of epenthetic vowels must have been early, at least before stage B. The reduction of St. ekA to Bj. Ak 'I' is now explained by the chronology of the univerbation, which can be dated between Stentoften and Bjorketorp (cf. Schulte 1998: 133). We can now test the relative chronology advocated here, first against the remaining parts of Bjorketorp and Stentoften and second against other inscriptions from the same period. Bj. ~ArAbA-sbA < *uparba-spahO 'harm prophecy' shows voiced rand voiceless b [p] with an epenthetic A [a] in rAb, preservation of the compositional vowel A [a], no preglottalization and no epenthetic vowel in the voiceless cluster sb [sp], loss of *h with lengthening and syncope of the fmal vowel with u-coloring in view of the later form sP9 < *spiiu < *spahu (cf. Nielsen 2ooo: 96). St. niu hAborumR niu hagestwnR hA.,uwolAfR gM j hAriwolAfR '(with) nine he-goats, nine stallions, Hapuwolf gave good-year, Hariwolf ..: shows voiceless b [p] and epenthetic o [u] before the ending umR in *habrumR, voiceless g [k] and preserved e [I] in *hangistumR, preservation of the first and syncope of the second vowel in the original ending *-umuR (cf. K219: 4), preservation of *u in hA.,u- and of *i in hAri- without umlaut of the preceding vowel, twice epenthetic A [a] and syncope in the following syllable in -wolAfR, voiceless g [k] and preservation of the original fricative in gM (cf. K212: 74). All of these features are in agreement with the chronology established above, with early epenthesis and syncope in polysyllables and late preservation of compositional vowels.
Bjorketorp and Stentoften
311
Now we turn to the evidence of the other Blekinge stones (cf. Krause 1966: 2.05-2.08, 2.18-2.2.0, Antonsen 1975: 83f.). Gummarp: hA}mwolAfA sAte stAbA .,ria fff 'Hapuwolf set three staves, fff'. Here we fmd syncope without umlaut in sAte < *satide, which puts the inscription after stage E. The compositional vowel was preserved in hA.,u- and the epenthetic vowel in -wolAfA, where the fmal A must evidently be corrected to R. The absence of an epenthetic vowel in .,ria also points to a recent date. Istaby: MatR hAriwulafa hA~wulafR hAeruwulaftR warAit rWlAR .,AiAR 'In memory of Hariwolf, Hapuwolf Heruwolfsson wrote these runes'. Here we fmd epenthetic a [a] in the frrst five words as well as compositional i and u in the three names, also breaking in hAeru- and reduction of the long ending in rWlAR, which point to the same stage as Bjorketorp. The fmal *r of Istaby AfatR 'after' may have been devoiced by the preceding consonant, which suggests a more recent date than both St hederA and Bj. hAiderA, with preservation of the epenthetic e [I] . Thus, I date Stentoften around stage A, Bjorketorp between stages C and D, Istaby around stage D, and Gummarp after stage E. It must be emphasized that this sequence reflects the language of the carvers, which may rather have been characteristic of their generations than of their dialectal background.
THil ORIGIN OF THE VESTJYSK ST0D In his recent discussion of the vestjysk st0d, Harry Perridon rejects my view that glottalization is ancient in Germanic (2006: 45). It may therefore be useful to specify the source of our disagreement. According to the view which I have put forward on a number of occasions (e.g. K2n, K212, K230), the absence of voicedness in Danish stops was inherited from Proto-Germanic, where fortes stops were preglottalized and lenes stops were plain voiceless. Proto-Germanic geminates had largely arisen from Kluge's law (cf. now K235). Other geminates arose from *-jH- and *-wH- (cf. Ko72: 356), e.g. tueggia 'of two~ h9ggua 'to heW, also from velar stops before *j and *w, e.g. leggia 'to laY, bekkr 'brool(, rokkr 'dar!(, further in sequences of nasal plus fortis stop, e.g. drekka 'to drinl(, and as a result of the syncope, e.g. leidda 'I led' with [tt] < *laidido [laitit6] and latta 'I hindered' with [7tt] < *latido [la7tit6]. Thus, we have an opposition betweenp [p], d [t], t [7t], dd [tt] and tt [7tt]. This system was simplified along different lines in the separate languages. The rise of voicedness in postvocalic simple obstruents can probably be dated to the 12th century, when the distinction between p and lJ was introduced (cf. Haugen 1976: 195, K212: 73). In Danish, the lenition affected not only fricatives and lenes stops, but also intervocalic and word-final p, t, k, which lost their glottalization and became simple voiceless stops. Word-initial p, t, k had become aspirates [ph], [th], [kh] at an earlier stage already, perhaps in the 7th century. As a result of the lenition, the corresponding geminates pp, tt, kk lost their distinctive length and became simple [7p], [7t], [7k]. The voiced fricatives were further lenited to semivowels [w], [j] and the voiced stops to fricatives v [~], th/dh [<J], gh [y] in the 13th century and later to semivowels [w], [j] in the central dialects (cf. Haugen 1976: 205). The remaining geminates bb [pp], dd [tt], gg [kk] were shortened intervocalically and became [7p], [7t], [7k] word-fmally, where original p, t, k had lost their glottalization. The original glottalization of intervocalic t [7t] in fat~kr 'poor' was preserved in Danish fattig because the word was still a com pound at the time of the lenition. Harry Perridon assumes that the vestjysk st0d arose from glottal reinforcement of unaspirated stops after the Jylland apocope in the 14th century (2006: 46-48). His argumentation is based on the Stockholm manuscript C37 of lyske Lov from around 1280, which has numerous examples of apocopated forms, e.g. fyllregh 'to folloW, sald 'sold~ but none of the weakening of postvocalic p, t, k, while we find vestjysk st0d e.g. in kjrav(d 'boughf, bruw(d 'used~ Danish krabte, brugte. The argumentation does not hold because these words evidently continue keypta [ltiiii7pta], *brftkta [brii7kta], cf. German kaufen, brauchen. Like the Proto-Germanic geminate *tt, the original clusters *pt and *kt preserved the
314
Scandinavian
glottal closure of the unreleased stop, e.g. in fremrd 'fifth', o(d 'eigh~ nre(da 'nights: Danish femte, otte, nretter. Moreover, the suffixed article, which dates perhaps from the nth century and was generalized in the 14th century, has no influence on the presence or absence ofvestjysk st121d, e.g. in Himmerland sdork 'stor:K sdorkan 'the stor:K ker(g 'church: ker(gan 'the church: Danish stork, kirke (cf. Ringgaard 1960: 49), which shows that the vestjysk st121d is older. Contrary to Perridon's statement (fn. 10), my theory does account for the difference beween sg. storkan and pl stor(gan, where t and k stand for non-glottalized stops, because fmal *k had lost its glottalization before the univerbation with the suffixed article and before the apocope in the plural form. It is clear that the vestjysk st121d must be older than the Jylland apocope because it is also found in the northeastern part of the vestfynsk dialects, where the apocope did not take place. Gunnar Hansson has drawn attention to the fact that vestjysk st121d is found in original monosyllables and polysyllables alike in the most remote and isolated villages on the island of Als (2001: 166). We must conclude that outside these archaic dialects the vestjysk st121d was lost in monosyllables, as was the case with preglottalization in Newcastle English. There is simply no evidence for glottal reinforcement of unaspirated stops. While I claim that preglottalization is ancient and that non-initial aspiration is recent, Perridon maintains the contrary. Since Jul Nielsen "found that in the dialects of the Bjerre district in SE Jutland all fmal stops are fully aspirated and all medial stops unaspirated" and Ejsing "writes that all medial and fmal stops, be they preglottalised or not, are unaspirated (pronounced as a stop after s) in the dialect of Salling (NW Jutland)" (thus Perridon 2006: 47), my view that the latter dialect directly reflects the original situation is more economical than Perridon's, which presupposes large-scale secondary loss of aspiration. Both the alleged reinforcement of unaspirated stops and the following suppression of aspiration in recent centuries are quite unmotivated and unnatural. In my view, the whole development of obstruents from Proto-Germanic times up to the modern dialects can be viewed as a continuous process of lenition. It has been pointed out that in Danish, phonetic studies "have found lenis stops to have a greater tension than the fortes, which sounds like a terminological paradox" and that "the lack offrrm closure associated with the aspirated stops was considered the decisive factor" (Goblirsch 1994: 9). This is in agreement with my view that the aspirated stops originated from a lenition process. According to Perridon's chronology (2006: 48f.), we have to start from an alternation between medial b, d, g, bb, dd, gg, {3{3, lJlJ, yy and final p, t, k, pp, tt, kk, bb, dd, gg, respectively. The position of the voiced geminates in this phonological system is peculiar (cf. K212: 73). The distinctively unaspirated geminate stops, which were later reduced and allegedly reinforced by vestjysk st121d, were only found in monosyllables, e.g. re(g 'egg, ne(b 'bea:K rorg 'bac:K Danish reg, nreb, ryg, Swedish agg, nabb, rygg (cf. Ringgaard 1960: 13). The lax
The origin of the vestjysk st0d
315
fricatives [3, lJ, y appear as glides in one of the oldest manuscripts of ]yske Lov (from around 1325), e.g. sauthre 'said; lauth 'laid; where other manuscripts have sagthe, lagth, laght. Mter the Jylland apocope, the allophonic variations became phonemic, e.g. drigg < drikke 'to drink' versus drikk 'drink!: later dre(g versus drek (Ringgaard 1960: 21). Then long obstruents were degeminated and postvocalic stops were weakened: aspirated p, t, k became lenes b, d, g and subsequently fricatives [3, lJ, y or glides w, j; word- fmal pp, tt, kk became p, t, k and bb, dd, gg became b, d, g, while the fricatives {3{3, lJlJ, yy changed to [3, lJ, y or w, j. At some stage, all unaspirated stops were allegedly strengthened by vestjysk swd if they followed a stressed vowel or vowel plus sonorant. These developments resulted in alternations such as va:(g 'walt vrey.:~ 'walls' and tra:(g.:~ 'pulls: trrek 'pull!; Danish vreg, vregge, tra:kker, trrek (Ringgaard 1960: 13, 2.4). In my chronology, g [k], k [?k], gg [kk], kk [?kk] became g [y], k [k], gg [kk], kk [?k] in the 12th century, then [y], [k], [kk], [?k], word-fmally [y], [k], [kk], [kh] in the 13th century, then [w], [y], [?k], word-fmally [w], [k], [?k], [kh] in the 14th century, with eventual generalization of [k] in the north and [kh] in the south. As a result, we fmd vestjysk swd immediately before the plosives p, t, k wherever these stand in an original medial position following a voiced sound in a stressed syllable (thus Ringgaard 1960: 10, 195) and in original monosyllables with finalgg [kk] and bb [pp] (cf. Ringgaard 1960: 13) since the 14th century.
VESTJYSK ST0D AGAIN
My recent article about the origin of the vestjysk st0d (K251) evoked an immediate reaction from Harry Perridon (2009), which may stimulate further discussion of the subject It is therefore important to specify the nature and origin of our disagreement. First of all I would like to emphasize that my analysis of the Germanic consonant system is in no way dependent on any theories about the IndoEuropean proto-language. My view that the vestjysk st0d is ancient is based on its correspondence with preglottalization, preaspiration, gemination and affrication in other Germanic languages (cf. K2u, K212, K230). The hypothesis that the vestjysk st0d is a spontaneous dialectal innovation (thus Kock 1891: 368 fn., Jespersen 1913: 23, Ringgaard 1960: 108) implies the equally spontaneous independent development of preglottalization in English, preaspiration in western Scandinavia, gemination in eastern Scandinavia (and elsewhere), and affrication in High German (and elsewhere), while nothing comparable is found in the surrounding Celtic, Romance, Slavic and Finnic languages except for the development of preaspiration in Scottish Gaelic under the influence of a Scandinavian substratum (cf. Marstrander 1932: 298) and independently in Saami (cf. Sammallahti 1998: 54f.). My theory that the vestjysk st0d and its English counterpart are of Proto-Germanic origin and developed into preaspiration, gemination and affrication elsewhere offers a principled explanation of these phenomena. Moreover, it accounts for the curious observation that Proto-Germanic *b, *d, *g allegedly became devoiced independently in High German, Danish (and neighbouring dialects of Swedish, Norwegian, Low German and Frisian) and Icelandic (and Faroese), and then word-initially in Swedish, Norwegian, English and Low German (thus Goblirsch 2005: 17). In a strict comparative analysis one would rather assume an archaism in High German, Danish and Icelandic and substratum influence from Celtic, Romance, Slavic and Finnish in northern English, Low and Central Franconian, northern Middle German and eastern Swedish, in spite of Goblirsch's statement to the contrary ( 2005: 79). In my reconstruction, the absence of voicedness in Icelandic, Danish and Upper German obstruents represents the original state of affairs (cf. K192), which also explains the rise of the younger futhark in Scandinavia (cf. K212). I have claimed that the vestjysk st0d in kjevfd 'bought' and bruwfd 'used' (Danish kebte, brugte) continues the glottal closure of the unreleased stops in the original clusters *pt [1pt] and *kt [?kt], cf. German kaufen < *-p- [?p], brauchen < *-k- [?k], just as the vestjysk st0d infremfd 'fiftll, ofd 'eight; nrefda 'nights' (Danish femte, otte, nretter) reflects the preserved glottal closure of the
318
Scandinavian
Proto-Germanic geminate *tt. Perridon objects that the verb bruge "is a loanword from Middle Low German (bnlken) which entered the language/dialects in the course of the 13th or 14th century, i.e. one or two centuries after an alleged change from non-geminated [7k] to [k] which Kortlandt [K251] suggests took place in the 12th century" (2009: 6). The objection is mistaken because the glottalization was preserved in the geminate and became a concomitant feature of the unlenited stop, yielding the vestjysk st0d (cf. K251: 3f.). As a result, kjevld < keiftre < keylpta with preservation of the glottal closure after the voiced segment is the expected development. When the glide v was devoiced to fin southern Jutland (cf. Perridon 2009: 6 fn.), the glottal stop was lost because it was no longer preceded by a voiced segment: kjeft < kjevlt. The vestjysk st0d in the preterit bleld 'bled' (Ringgaard 1960: 25) < *-dd- is evidently of morphological origin. Perridon argues that the loss of final shwa preceded the lenition of postvocalic p, t, k, e.g. in the preterit dept 'baptized'< deptre (2009: 8). It follows that the vestjysk st0d which distinguishes the preterit devlt < deptre from the participle devt < dept is not only older than the apocope (thus already Ringgaard) but also older than the lenition. Perridon's presupposition that this cannot be the case (2009: 5) forces him to assume an early rise and later loss of aspiration in fmal stops (stages 1 and 6 of Perridon 2009: 9) before and after the apocope (stage 3) and the spontaneous rise of the vestjysk st0d (stage 5) in order to keep the two forms apart. This scenario is quite unmotivated. Moreover, it is at variance with the fact that the vestjysk st0d is also found in the northeastern part of the vestfynsk dialects, where the Jutland apocope never took place (cf. also Ejskjrer 1990). Hansson has drawn attention to the fact that the vestjysk st0d is found on original monosyllables and polysyllables alike in the most remote and isolated villages on the island of Als, where it coexists with true pitch accents representing the original accents 1 and 2 from which the Common Danish st0d opposition developed (2001: 166). It follows that outside these archaic dialects the vestjysk st0d was lost in original monosyllables, as was the case with preglottalization in Newcastle English (cf. K2n: 6). Thus, I conclude that preglottalization was inherited from Proto-Germanic, generally lost wordfmally before the apocope, and preserved as vestjysk st0d elsewhere.
PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN *sIN ALBANIAN
Recent publications by Huld (1984) and Orel (1985) provide an incentive to reconsider the fate of PIE *s in Albanian. Though the problem was largely solved by Meyer (1892) and Pedersen (19oob), a number of unclear points have remained. In the following I intend to reconsider the evidence in order to arrive at an identification of what I see as the main difficulty. I shall not dwell upon the points which I regard as solved.
1.
2.
Initial *s- before a stressed vowel yielded gj-, e.g.:
gjarper 'snake; Latin serpens; gjashte 'sfx, Latin sex, Greek{{; gjalpe 'butter; Greek l"Anoc;, Toch. A ~alyp, B ~alype; gjume 'sleep; Greek iJJrVOc;, 0 CS S'bn'b; gjalle 'living, Greek Moe;, Skt sarva-; gjak 'blood; Greek o1t6c;, 0 CS soh. Orel rejects the accent as a conditioning factor on the basis of the last example (1985: 279). His argument is not valid because the accentuation of the Greek word is irregular, as Lubotsky has pointed out (1987: 167), and the Slavic evidence is ambiguous. 3. Initial *s- was dissimilated to th- before a following *s in thi 'pig, Latin sits, and in thanj 'I drf, Lith. saftsas (on the latter etymon cf. Lubotsky 1985). Initial *sw- before a stressed vowel yielded d-in the following words:
diell 'sun' < *swel-, Greek 1?..11, el'A.11; dergjem 'I am ilf < *sworgh-, Lith. sirgti; dirse 'sweat' < *swidr-, Greek 18pwc;, Skt. sveda-. Huld adds to this list dose 'brood sow' < *swiitjii and derr 'boar' < *swoinro(1984: 148), which are questionable examples. Before an unstressed vowel, *swyielded v- in the following instances:
vjeherr 'father/mother-in-laW, Greek bwp6c;, -& < *swe-; vete 'self'< *swe-; vjerr 'I hang, Lith. sveffi. The eli tic u- 'self' may be derived from *swe-.
Albanian
320 4.
PIE *s was lost before r, l, n, m, e.g.:
dore 'hand' < *K'esra; kolle 'cough' < *k"'aslii, Russian ktiSef; thanj 'I dry' < *sousnjo; notim 'swimming' < *sniit-, Skt. snati; mjeker 'beard' < *sme/Crii, Lith. smiikras; jam 'I am' < *esmi. Final *-s was also lost, e.g.:
mi 'mouse' < *mus; thi 'pig' < *sus. It is clear from the latter word that the loss of final *-s was posterior to the dissimilation of the initial *s- to th-. It was apparently anterior to the delabialization of final *-u, cf. ti 'you' < *tit. 5·
Initial *sp- yielded f-, e.g.:
fare 'seed: Greek arrop&.; jjale 'word: OE spell. Initial and medial *sk yielded h, e.g.:
hie 'shade, Greek ata&., Toch. B skiyo; hedh 'I throw' < *skeudo, OE sceotan; ah 'beech'< *osko-, OE resc; -h < *-sko. Medial *-sd0J- yielded the same reflex as *-dChJ_, viz. -dh-, which was sometimes devoiced to -th- (cf. ]ok11912.: 198-2.10), e.g.:
pidh 'vulva: Old Prussian peisda; ledh 'walf, 0 H G llsta; gjeth 'leaf, OHG questa; drithe 'grail\ OHG gersta. 6.
It seems that PIE *s yielded shin all other positions, e.g.:
shoh 'I see' < *sek"'sko (Pedersen 19oob: 2.83) or *sokwesko (Huld 1984: ns), OHGsehan; shtate 'seven' < *septm-; shterpinj 'vermin' < *serpen-; shi 'rail\ Old Pruss ian soye; shosh 'I sieve, Lith. sij6ti; vesh 'eaf. Lith. ausls; bresher 'haif < *bhreus-, Latin frustum;
Proto- Indo-European *s in Albanian
321
desha 'I loved' < *geus-, Greek ye6of«X1; mish 'meat; Skt miil'flSam; dhashi! 'I gave, pashi! 'I saW, rashi! 'I fell'; abl.pl. -sh < *-su; shteg 'patli, Greek arorxm;; asht 'bone, Greek oOTeov; eshte 'is' < *enesti; jashte 'outside'< *ej'stos, Greek exft6c;; gjashte 'sfx < *seks-t-; shkonj 'I go'< *st(o)i('-; shpend 'bird' < *su-petno-t- (Huld 1984: 154); shpreh 'I utter' < *(sm)-spreg-sko (Huld 1984: 64) or rather *efspregsko, 0 H G sprehhan; ashte 'beech grove; cf. ah 'beech' < *osko-; kashte 'straw'< *kolsta, cf. kall'ear (of cereals)'; vi~ 'calf' < *wetes-, Skt vatsa-. The absence of sh in djathte 'right' precludes its identification with Latin dexter. The word can be compared with OCS desn'b and derived from *deksn-, where *s was lost before *n, with later addition of the sufftx -te. Orefs derivation of -th in ankth 'anxiety' and zjarrth 'fever' from *-st- (1985: 2.82) is arbitrary. The suffiX denotes physical affections (cf. Camaj 1966: 122) and must probably be connected with Slavic -ota, Skt. -ata. 7. It follows from the position taken here that a number of etymologies where PIE *s is allegedly reflected as Alb. h or zero cannot be maintained. Thus, I withdraw the view that the intervocalic reflex of PIE *s is zero (Ko85: 42). The most important instances are the following: (h)yll'star: which Meyer connected with the PIE word for 'sun' and derived from *sulno- or *suli- (1891: 460). Though Pedersen remarked that "die bedeutungsentwicklung ist zwar recht auffallig" (19oob: 278), he stuck to the connection and derived the word from *sulo- or *suli-. The etymology was rejected by Huld, who pointed out the secondary character of the initial h-, denied the likelihood of an association with the word for 'su:d and proposed to equate Alb. yll with OE ysle 'spark' < *usli- (1976: 180 and 1984: 132). This etymology is certainly preferable. he(l)q 'I pull; which Meyer identified with Greek lAIGW and Latin sulcus (1891: 151). Pedersen derived the verb from *solkejo, assuming that it adopted the flexion of primary verbs at a later stage (19oob: 278). Rejecting the derivation of h- from *s-, Hamp posited a Proto-Albanian verb *Hwolkejo to be compared with Lith. vilkti (1965: 132). Finally, Huld connected the word with OE ealh 'temple' and reconstructed *Holkejo (1984: 73). I wonder if the word may rather
322
Albanian
be cognate with OE sceolh 'wrY. ln any case, it cannot be used as evidence for a development of h- from *s-. kohe 'time, which according to Meyer "ist vielleicht mit asl. Casb 'Zeit, Stunde' verwandt" (1891: 194), a comparison which he characterized as "zweifelhaft" (1892: 86). According to Pedersen, the comparison "J.asst sich kaum bezweifeln~ in spite of the fact that it is "das einzige beispiel fiir inlautendes h aus idg. s; sonst herrscht f' (19oob: 279). It is certainly not "eine evidente Wortgleichung' (Jokl1937: 159n.) because the two words have little in common. First, we should expect palatalization of the initial k-in view of zorre 'intestines' < *g"'ernii. Second, the derivation of the medial -h- from *s is not supported by other examples. Third, the fmal -e must be derived from *-ii, which points to a different flexion class from the Slavic word. The equation must therefore be abandoned. ai 'he; ajo 'she; plural ata, ato, also 'that, those'; ky, kjo, keta, keto 'this, these~ These words consist of a deictic element a-, ke- plus an anaphoric pronoun -i, -jo, -ta, -to. Pedersen derived the latter from PIE *so, *sa, *to- (1897: 2.88 and 19oob: 282), a view upheld even by Huld (1984: 148). The key argument is the observation that the distribution of -j- and -t- corresponds with PIE *so, *sii, *to-. This does not substantiate the derivation of -i, -jo from *so, *sii, however. Firstly, the derivation does not explain the vowel-i, for which Pedersen assumes a development of fmal *-o to *-u with subsequent delabialization, adducing dy 'two' < *dwo and ace. ty 'you' < *twe in support of his view (19oob: 282). But ty must be derived from the north-east Gheg form tye < *twem, cf. mue 'me' < *mem (Jok11963: 142), and Huld derives dy from *duwai, OCS d·bVe (1984: 57), which is preferable. Secondly, Pedersen assumes that -j- is a simple hiatus filler because *j is normally reflected as gj (19oob: 313). It is unclear how an epenthetic -j- could originate between a- and -o, however. Thirdly, I think that the expected reflex of PIE *so is actually attested in the interrogative pronoun kush 'who' < *ku-so, obl kujt, cf. OCS koto. It seems that Pedersen's view of the demonstrative pronoun prevented him from considering this interpretation of the interrogative: "der nominativ ist ku-s zu zerlegen; s muss rest eines nicht nab.er zu bestimmenden pronominalen elementes sein; durch analogische anfiigung der genitivendung -i an den stamm ku- entstand kuj, mit dem postpositiven artikel kujt" (19oob: 317). In view of these difficulties, it is necessary to reconsider the system of demonstrative pronouns which can be reconstructed for Proto-Albanian. 8. In an earlier study I pointed out that a reconstruction of the Balta-Slavic demonstrative pronouns leads to the establishment of a single demonstrative *so, *to-, an anaphoric pronoun *eli-, and three deictic particles, *ki 'hiC, *au 'istic; and *an 'illic: and that this system also accounts for the demonstrative pronouns of Armenian and Tocharian (Ko63). The attested paradigms resulted
Proto- Indo-European *s in Albanian
323
from various conflations of these elements. One may wonder if the Albanian forms can be derived from the same system. The deictic element a- may represent *au, but the element ke- cannot be derived from *ICi, which is perhaps found in sot 'todaY, sonte 'tonight' < */Cjii(Huld 1984: 112), cf. dite 'daf, nate 'nigh~ Greek aift-tepov 'todaY, though a comparison with sivjet 'this year' rather supports a derivation from *tjii(Pedersen 19oob: 311), cf. abl. masc. kesi, fern. keso 'this' < *-tj-. It seems evident to me that Ice- reflects Latin eccum, Italian ecco, which played a dominant role in the formation of the Romance demonstratives, e.g. Italian qui 'here' < *eccu-hic. This derivation explains the labialization in Alb. ky < *ku-i. It suggests that Alb. a- must perhaps be connected with Romance a- (cf. Meyer 1891: 1). The second component of the demonstrative pronouns -i, -jo, -ta, -to may represent a conflation of the PIE demonstrative *so, *to- with the anaphoric pronoun *eli-. Indeed, Alb. -i, -jo can be directly compared with Latin is, ea (Meyer 1892: 79), or rather with Skt. ayam, iyam < *ei-om, *iH-om (cf. Beekes 1983: 209), with added *-ii in the feminine. The unstressed variants are found in the article i, e. Similar conflations took place in Germanic, Baltic, Slavic, and Tocharian. The Germanic paradigm of *so, *to- has *te- in the genitive forms and in the feminine datsg. form. Since there is no motivation for the analogical introduction of eli- forms into the paradigm of *so, *to-, I think that it actually represents the paradigm of *eli- which took *t- and suppletive nominative and accusative forms from *so, *to-. The original nom. and ace. forms with added *sit- are found in the Viking age paradigm of ON sia 'this' (cf. Beekes 1983: 219). The origin of these forms can be dated to an earlier period in view of the Vedic evidence (ibidem: 216); they do not belong to the same paradigm. In Prussian, the paradigm of *eli- adopted *an- in order to create a form meaning 'he there, which subsequently gave rise to correlating forms with *tand *si- (cf. Ko63: 317). The further development of these forms yielded an anaphoric pronoun *tan(e/i)-, an article *st(e/i)-, and demonstrative pronouns *sta- and *si(a)- (ibidem: 312-314, cf. Koso: 9). The Slavic and Old Lithuanian paradigms of *eli- have suppletive nominative forms with *an- (cf. Van Wijk 1918: 116), which evidently have the same origin as the Prussian forms. Note in this connection the parallel in Greek, which has a suppletive nominative for avr6- as a 3rd person pronoun. The Slavic demonstrative Sb 'this' is inflected as a soft stem in spite of the fact that the s- was hard, as is clear from the West Slavic reflex s-, not s-. The paradigm must therefore be derived from the addition of sfrom *si 'hie' to the inflected forms of *eli-. This derivation also accounts for the deviant masc. nom.pl. form sii, which may represent */Ci plus *ei.
Albanian The paradigm of the West Tocharian word for 'this' is the following: nom.sg. obl.sg. nom. pl. obl.pl.
mas c.
fern.
neuter
se ce cey certt
sii tii toy toy
te te
Since e is the phonetic reflex of PIE *o, the masc. forms show the expected development of PIE *so, *tom, *toi, *tons, except for the fact that c- is the phonetic reflex of *t before a front vowel. It follows that there must have been a stem *te- with a suppletive nom.sg. form and that the initial consonant was adopted in the demonstrative pronoun. Elsewhere I have argued for the reconstruction of a Proto-Tocharian anaphoric pronoun *a- < *eli- which adopted *t- from the demonstrative (Ko63: 321). I think that we must assume the same conflation for Proto-Albanian. Thus, I propose to derive Alb. -i, -jo from *is, *ijii or *ei, *ejii, ace. -te < *tom, *tiim, pl. -ta, -to < *tons, *tiis, gen.dat -ti()), -saj < *tei(-), *t(e)jiii, abl. -si(sh), -so(sh) < *t(e)jei(su), *t(e)jii(su) (cf. Beekes 1983: 209, Pedersen 19oob: 314). The unstressed variants of these forms are found in the article i, e, te, se. In any case, the demonstrative pronoun cannot be used as evidence for the alleged loss of PIE *sin Albanian.
PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN *j IN ALBANIAN
According to Meyer (1892: 39f.), PIE initial "j- can be reflected as either gj- or jin Albanian:
gjesh 'knead: Skt. yasati, Greek {ew 'seethe, OHG jesan 'foam'. ngjesh 'gird; Avestan yasta-, Greek {waro<;, Lith. juosti. gjer 'soup; Skt yauti, Lith. jauti 'mfx. ju 'you: Avestan yfts, Gothic jus, Lith. jas. je 'permission; Skt. y6/:l 'welfare, Latin iUs 'justice'. a-jo 'she; ke-jo 'this' < *ja, Skt. ya. Pedersen regarded gj- as the only regular outcome of PIE "j- in Albanian and derived j- in ju and -jo from a hiatus filler (19ooa: 103, 19oob: 313). Jokl agrees with Pedersen and connects je 'permission' with Skt. avi/:l 'favorable' (1911: 32). <;:abej has argued in favor of a reflex z- from PIE "j- (1956, cf. 1972: 139). This view cannot be maintained, as Orel has made quite clear (1989: 41f.). Orel discusses the available evidence in detail and presents an extensive account of the scholarly literature (to which Jokl1911 and Rusakov 1987 should be added). He rejects Pedersen's suggestion of a hiatus filler and proposes additional instances of both gj- and j- from PIE *j- (1989: 43f.):
gjaj 'happen' and gjaj 'resemble' from *ja 'go; Skt yati. gjem 'bridle: Skt. yama/:l. gjer 'till' < *ajeri, Greek ~p1 'earlY, Avestan ayar- 'day'. gjymese, gjysme 'half: gjymte 'defective: Skt. yama/:l 'twin'. josh 'curl, fondle, caress: Skt. y6dhati 'fighf, Lith. jaudinti 'excite'. juzi,juci '(thin) silf, Lith. jaudra 'swamp, marsh'. Orel suggests that PIE *j- yielded j- before back vowels in Proto-Albanian and developed into gj- elsewhere. I find this account unsatisfactory for a number of reasons. First of all, the new comparisons are far from compelling semantically. Though meanings sometimes change in unexpected ways, it seems obvious to me that the proposed etymologies for josh and juzi, juci cannot be used as independent evidence for the establishment of a sound law. Note that the latter instance may be related to lluce 'Jauchengrube' (Kristoforidhi apud Orel). Secondly, the phonetic motivation for the retention of *j- before back vowels, as opposed to the rise of gj- elsewhere, remains unclear. One would rather expect the opposite. Thirdly, the number of examples is really too small to establish a distribution of gje-, gje-, gja-, gjy- versus jo-, ju-. Moreover, the clear instances of
Albanian
32.6
j- < PIE *j- are pronominal stems, as Orel remarks himself (1989: 43). It therefore seems appropriate to assume that gj- is the only normal reflex of PIE *j- and to look for a special development in the pronouns. Elsewhere I have argued that -jo in ajo 'she' and k(e)jo 'this' represents *ijii or *ejii, Latin ea, Skt iyam < *iH-om, cf. masc. -i in ai 'he, ky < *ku-i 'this; Latin is, Skt. ayam < *ei-om (K094: 2.2.4£). It follows that -jo reflects the intervocalic development of PIE *j in Albanian. We may therefore surmise that ju 'you' represents a cliticized form *ju of the PIE pronoun *ju < *iuH (cf. Beekes 1995: 2.08) after the verbal ending *-te, cf. na 'we' < *nos, where the short vowel also points to a clitic. This leads us to reconsider the reflex of PIE intervocalic *-j- in Albanian. According to Ore], "while in the majority of Slavonic borrowings Slav. *-j- is reflected as Alb. -j-, there exist a few Slavonic elements (presumably belonging to the earliest stratum of Slavonic words in Albanian) which display the development of *-j- to Alb. -h-" (1989: 46), e.g. krahine 'region, area: OCS kraina. It appears that Alb. -h- is a hiatus filler here. Orel further adduces krah 'arm, shoulder, wing, side' and llohe 'rain with snow, snow broth, dampness; allegedly from Slavic *kraj- and *loj-, respectively. These examples are not convincing for both formal and semantic reasons. In the inherited material, Orel proposes Alb. -h- < *-j- in bahe 'sling' < *bhojii, pah 'scab, dust' < *poujo-, preher 'lap' < *projenos, shtrohe 'kennef < *strejii, vehte 'self' < *svojeti- beside vete and vete, and in the verbs ftoh 'coof and ngroh 'warm; with *-jo where other scholars reconstruct *-sko. While vehte beside vete and vete is unclear, there is little reason to assume *-j- in the other words. Orel fmds a zero reflex of intervocalic *-j- in brie 'caries' < *bhrejii, di 'know'< *dhejo or *dhijo,fle 'sleep'< *owo-lejo, hie 'shadow'< *skijii, kri 'worm'< *kwr(i)jo-, ve egg' < *owijom, bie 'fall, strike, beat' < *bhejo, dhi 'she-goat' < *aigijii, fli 'offering, sacrifice' < *owo-lejos, tre 'three' < *trejes. All of these examples point to loss of intervocalic *-j- after a retained front vowel. Thus, I think that the phonetic reflex of intervocalic *-j- is Alb. -j-, which was lost after a front vowel at a recent stage (but earlier than the rise of new -jfrom -lj- and -nj-). As the reflex of intervocalic *-s- is -sh-, not -h- (cf. Ko94: 2.21f.), the two never merged except word-initially before a stressed vowel, where both yielded gj-. New initial j- arose from breaking of *e-, e.g. jam 'am' < *esmi, jashte 'outside' < *ej'stos. Orefs chronology (1989: 48) must therefore be revised as follows:
(1) s > sh, ( 2.) sh- > zh- before stressed vowels, (3) j- > gj-, (4) zh- > gj-, (5) rise of new j- and zh-.
Proto- Indo-European *j in Albanian
327
It is possible that the development of *j- to gj- at stage (3) was limited to the position before a stressed vowel. If the derivation of gjer 'tilf < *ajeri is correct, the rise of gj- must be dated after the reduction of pretonic vowels. However, I find it difficult to separate gjer from deri 'untif, which precludes a derivation from *j-. It seems possible to me that gjer took its initial consonant from gjere, gjere 'broad, wide, far~ for which no convincing etymology is available.
REFLEXES OF INDO-EUROPEAN CONSONANTS IN ALBANIAN
In his study of Albanian etymologies, Bardhyl Demiraj briefly summarizes his views on the development of the Indo-European phonemic system in this language (1997: 41-67). Here I shall review the reflexes of the IE consonants on which I have written myself (Ko22, Ko85, Ko94. K146). I have argued that the IE plain velars developed from neutralization between palatovelars and labiovelars after *s and *u in the proto-language, from delabialization of labiovelars before rounded vowels in western IE languages, and from depalatalization of palatovelars before resonants in eastern IE languages (Ko22). Demiraj lists the following instances of plain velars (1997: 64):
1.
(1) kap '(an)fassen, ergreifen' < *kH.p-, Greek ~e{urrw, where I reconstruct a palatovelar which was depalatalized before the following laryngeal. (2) thek '(er)wannen, rosten' < *keuk-, Skt. s6cati, with neutralization in *-uk-. (3) ag 'Dfunmerung, Strahlen' < *H.eug-, Greek a(Jy~, with neutralization in
*-ug-. (4) gardh 'Zaun, Gehege' < *('ordho-, Lith. gardas, Gothic garcls, Skt grlui- with depalatalization of the palatovelar in the zero grade form. For other examples I refer to my earlier treatment (Ko22). 2. I have suggested that IE *H.e- and *H3 e- developed into Albanian hawhereas IE *Ho- and syllabic *11R- and *H~- developed into a-, aR- (Ko85: 43-45). Demiraj lists the following examples (1997: 59, 51): (1) (h)~the 'Fieber'< *H.eidh-, Greek alOoc;, with (h)e- < *hai-. (2) Mrdhe 'Haden'< *&erj'i-, Greek 6pxesc;, with umlauted he-< *ha-, but Arm. orjik' < *H3rfi- with zero grade. (3) (i) hfdhet, (h)fdhte 'bitter' < *H.idh-, Greek l0ap6c;, aTOw, with zero grade *H,i- and h- from *H.ei-? (4) hut 'vergeblich, leer, eitef < *H.uto-, Greek aiJrwc;, with zero grade *H.u- and h- from *H.eu-? (5) ah 'Rotbuche' < *H3osk-, OHG asc, Greek 6{6rf, but Arm. hac'i < *H3esk- (cf. Schrijver 1991: 77). (6) (i) athet, athte 'herb, sauer, scharf' < *H.ok-, Latin acidus < *H.ek- (cf. Schrijver 1991: 132). (7) (i) ~per 'oberer'< *H,opi-ro-, Greek 6m0e(v), with umlauted e- <*a-. (8) ag 'Morgendfunmerung, Strahlen' < *H.eug-, Greek a(Jy~, with dissimilation of *h- before *-w- (thus Demiraj)? I would rather assume loss of *h- after a preposition, as in Arm. ayg 'dawn'< *H.eusi (cf. Clackson 1994: 223, K194: 119).
330
Albanian
(9) aft 'Luftzug des Blasebalgs, des Windes, Duft, heiBer Anhauch des Feuers' < "'H.euH,-et-, afsh '(heiBer oder kalter) Atem, Duft' < "'H.euH,-es-, Greek ttvr!'~· with dissimilation of "'h- before "'-w ? I have no opinion on these words. Note that the Greek form is also unexplained (cf. Fritz 1993). (to) a- deictic particle < "'H.eu-? I think that this is a borrowing from Latin because the same holds for the corresponding particle ke- < "'ku < "'eccum (cf. Ko94: 223). (n) a question particle < "'H.en, Latin an. Initial *h- and fmal *-n can easily have been lost in this proclitic element. (12) arf 'Bar' < "'H.rtko-, Greek &p~<:ro~, Arm. arj. (t3) are 'bebautes Feld' < "'H.r&uo-, Latin arvum < "'H.erHr (cf. Schrijver 1991: 250). (t4) ~mer Name < *H,n&men- < "'H3n&-men-, Greek oVOfUX, with dissimilation of the initial laryngeal. Demiraj's suggestion that "'h- was dissimilated before "'-w- in the reflex of IE "'H.eu- (1997: 59) seems improbable to me, not only because this is a phonetically unmotivated development, but especially because there is counterevidence in the following instances: (4) hut 'empty' if h- was taken from the full grade form (see above), (15) ha 'eat'< *H.eu-(H,ed-), aor. hengra < "'-g"erHn Skt. ava-(gir-), Arm. utem, aor. keray (cf. Ko85: 40). 3. I have argued that IE *s yielded sh in all positions except the following (K094o cf. Demiraj 1997: 56-58). 3.1. Initial *s- yielded gj- before a stressed vowel. Demiraj's examples: gjalpe 'Butter~ gjak 'Bluf, gji 'Brust, Busen, Buchf. 3.2. Initial *s- was dissimilated to th- before a following *sin thi 'pig' <*sus and thaj 'I dry' < "'sausnjo. Demiraj is doubtful about this dissimilation. 3.3. Initial *sw- yielded d- before a stressed vowel and v- before an unstressed vowel. Demiraj assumes a development to v- before a stressed and to h- before an unstressed vowel. His examples are the following (1997: 48): (t) ~te 'selbst' < "'swoi-, Slavic svoj- 'eigen'. Here I reconstruct original final stress on the basis of Skt. svayam 'self~ The clitic u 'self' represents unstressed "'swe. (2) vjeherr 'Schwiegervater' < "'swekwer- (thus Demiraj). Greek e~<:vp6~ has final stress. (3) he(l)q 'ziehen' < "'swelko, Greek lA~<:w. I have discussed this word in detail (K094: 222) and connected it with Old English sceolh 'wry'< "'skelk-. It carmot be used as evidence for a reflex h- < *s(w)-.
Reflexes of Indo-European consonants in Albanian
331
The prime exaniples of d- < *sw- before a stressed vowel are the following: (4) dfell 'sun'< *swel-, which Demiraj does not discuss. (5) d~rgjem 'ani ill' < *swer['o =Lith. sergu, which Demiraj prefers to compare with Lith. dlrgti 'get spoiled' (1997: 131). The latter etymology is semantically less convincing. (6) dfrse, dj~rse 'sweat' < *swidro-tjii, Greek i8pil)(;. Demiraj objects that this etymology does not explain the loss of *-d- before -r- in Albanian (1997: 139). However, I ani not aware of any clear counter-eXaniple against this development. Since medial *-d- becanie a fricative and intervocalic *-d-, like *-b-, may have been lost (cf. Demiraj 1997: 62), I think that the objection cannot be maintained and that the etymology is perfect. 3·4· IE *s was lost before r, l, n, m. Demiraj assumes compensatory lengthening before r, land gemination before n, m (1997: 44, 55), and I think that he is right: (7) d6re 'Hand' < *K'esr-, Greek xetp, with o < *e. (8) (h)yll 'Stern' < *H,usl-, ON usli, withy< *u. (9) thorn 'sage'< *keH,smi, then 'gesagt' < *KH,sno-, not-re. 3·5· Final *-s was lost, e.g. mi 'mouse' < *mits, thi 'pig' < *sus. I disagree with Demiraj's reconstruction *deks- 'right' (1997: 58) and attribute the loss of *sin (i) djathe, djathte to an earlier sufftx *-no-, as in Slavic desn- <*deksno- (Ko94: 221). 3.6. Initial *sp- yielded f-, while initial and medial *sk yielded h-, -h-. (10) fare 'Sanien, Saat' = Greek arrop&. (n) hfe 'Schatten' =Greek a-Kt&. (12) -h inchoative sufftx < *-sko. The evidence is obscured by IE *s- mobile and by the Albanian preftx sh-: (13) hale 'Granne, Griite, Nadef < *skolnii, kalU 'Ahre' < *kol-, Lith. sk~lti, Russ. k6los. (14) harr '(aus)jaten' < *skor-no, ther 'stechen, rei.Ben' < *ker-, Greek K.elpw. (15) knrr 'absicheln' < *kos-r-no, Slavic kosa. (16) shqerr 'zerrei.Ben' < *eK's-sker-no, Greek K.elpw. 3.7. Medial *-sd(h)_ appears to have yielded -th-: (17) gath 'Katzchen' < *g"osdo-, with umlautgj~the 'Laub, Blatt: OHG questa. (18) drfthe 'Getreide' < *K'rsdh-, OHG gersta. The alternative development to -dh- (K094: 220) must probably be abandoned: (19) pidh beside pith 'vulva' may be secondary (thus Demiraj 1997: 319f.). (2o) ledh 'walf must be derived from ledh 'Lehm' = Old Prussian laydis (cf. Demiraj 1997: 235).
332
Albanian
3.8. IE *s never yielded h in Albanian, and the comparison of kohe 'time' with Slavic care must be abandoned (cf. Ko94: 222). Demiraj derives kohe from *keswii (1997: 57, 222), which is arbitrary. I have suggested that the word must be connected with qoj 'awaken' (Ko22: 248). 4. Following Pedersen, I have argued that initial *j- yieldedgj- (K146). Demiraj is doubtful and mentions the following instances (1997: 47): (1) (n)gjesh 'giirten, umschnallen' < *(H)i~s-, Greek (wvvv/U. ( 2) ju md p L < *ju- is a elitic pronoun. For other examples I refer to my earlier treatment (K146). I see no evidence for a distinct reflex of *Hj- in any Indo-European language. Thus, I find myself in agreement with Demiraj on most issues. Our main differences concern the reflexes of *H,u-, *H.eu- and *sw- and the etymology of the word k6he. I gratefully accept his proposal of compensatory lengthening in *-sr-, *-sl- versus gemination in *-sn-, *-sm- and his elimination of -dh- as a phonetic reflex of *-sd(hL.
ARMENIAN ewl
'on.'
Antoine Meillet has established an alternation between stressed ew and unstressed iw, e.g. in ewl 'oil', gen. iwloy, inst. iwlov, later analogical iwl (1903: 493), which replaced the earlier paradigm of ewl, gen. eloy, and analogical el (p. 496). He maintained that the -w- developed phonetically in final -il and -el, listing giwl 'village, iwl 'oil', erkiwl 'fear' and liwl 'branch' as examples and citing Cilician gel 'village' as analogical on the basis of gen. gel] (1904: 27). This resulted in the fourfold shape of the word el, il, ewl, iwl, all meaning 'oif. Holger Pedersen accepted Meillet's view and added p'il, p'el, p'iwl, gen. p'li 'elephanf, zambil, zambiwl 'baskef, pile, piwlc, pelc, gen. plcoy, also pltor 'dirty, eel, eil, eiwl, gen. eli, also clawt 'stall(, aneiwl, anjiwl, anjil 'shoof, sil, siwl, sel, gen. sli, sloy, siwli, siwloy, seli 'twig' (1906: 402). The diphthongs ew and iw never arose phonetically in non-fmal syllables, where ew does not occur and iw is always the result of an analogical development. The converse analogy is found e.g. in gel 'beauty, gelee'ik 'beautifuf. The phonetic development must obviously be dated after the apocope (thus already Pedersen 1906: 403). The development of -w- before fmal -l established by Meillet and Pedersen has been disregarded by Godel (1975), Schmitt (1981), Klingenschmitt (1982) and Rasmussen (1985), but was accepted by Beekes (apud K194: 205). Joachim Matzinger has recently proposed to derive ewl 'oif from *seiblo- or *soiblo-, cognate with German Seife 'soap' (2oo6). This is unfortunate because the German root alternates with *seip- (Sieb 'sieve'), *seik"'- (seiehen 'to pee') and *seim- (Seim 'treacle'), which renders the comparison quite useless. I would rather identify ewl with Greek ~A.Jro~, Albanian gjalpe 'butter: Sanskrit sarpfs, German Salbe 'ointmenf, Tocharian A $iilyp, B $alype, with regular loss of *p before *o between stages 10 and 12 of my chronology (K194: 28f.). Note that there is no evidence for an epenthetic -w- from apocopated *u (contra Pedersen 1906: 408f., Meillet 1936: 55, Godel1975: 88, Klingenschmitt 1982: 153f. and later authors) but only from syncopated *u (cf. Pedersen 1906: 41of. on giwt 'finding' and mawt 'near'). The instances of -w- which have erroneously been adduced in this connection are the result of consonantal developments (cf. K194: 6o on artawsr 'tear' and awr 'day' and p. 27 on awj 'snake' and aweanem 'anoint').
THE BALTIC WORD FOR 'IN'
Professor Zigmas Zinkevicius has again drawn our attention to the presence of an acute in the inessive ending *-¢as opposed to the absence of an acute in the preposition j'in' (2oo8, cf. Stang 1966: 182). As he points out, we also fmd an acute in the nominal prefix f-, e.g. [lanka 'baY, fpedinis 'heii, fsunis 'adopted soO: lndeve 'poison; as opposed to j- in jlinkas 'concave, jprastas 'usual', jsuka 'screws iO: ifidas 'dish'. As Zinkevicius correctly observes, this is the same alternation as in p6kalbis 'conversation; pr6ttvis 'ancestoi, prletemis 'twilight; perpykis 'anger' beside po 'about; pro 'through: prie 'at; per 'across'. He does not mention the comparable alternations in nuo-, nuo- and s4-, sij- (e.g. in samdo 'hires~ safidas 'component'), nor the short prefiXes pa-, pra-, pri-, nu-, su-. The big question is: how did these alternations originate? The Balta-Slavic acute was a glottal stop which developed from an IndoEuropean laryngeal or preglottalized stop after an original short vowel or diphthong (cf. Ko25 and Ko64). It follows that f-, p6-, pro-, prle-, per-, s4-, nuoare the expected variants of j < *in, pa-, pra-, prie < *prei, per, sam-, *na (Prussian na 'on') before an Indo-European word-initial laryngeal or preglottalized stop, e.g. in nesti 'to carrf, d£toti 'to give, cf. Greek ~veyKOv 'I brought; 8t8w~ 'I give'. Thus, the rise of the acute in the prefiXes is the same as in the reduplication syllable of d£todu as opposed to dedu 'I put; Greek r£8'7~ (cf. Ko25: 323). The acute nominal prefixes are also attested in Slavic, e.g. Russian paguba 'rum. pasynok 'stepson: prtidedy 'ancestors~ sudoroga 'cramp~ sumerki 'twilight; which clearly show that the formation can be dated to the Balta-Slavic period. Apart from the tonal difference, there is an apophonic distinction between zero grade in Lith. j-, pri-, nu-, su-, also Slavic V1J 'iO: S'b 'wi&, and full grade in Lith. pa-, pra-, prie-, nuo-, sq-, also inessive *-¢, Latvian le- 'in' < *en, Slavic po 'after~ pro 'through: pri 'at'< *prei, na 'on'< *noH, s9- 'together'< *som, 9- 'in'< *on- in 9tn 'inside, 9troba 'entrails: Russian vnutri, utroba (cf. Derksen 2008: 387). It now appears that the vowel of Lith. nu-, su- and Slavic 'V'b, S'b represents a secondary zero grade on the analogy of the o-grade in Lith. nuo-, sq-, Slavic 9-, s9- (cf. Trautmarm 1923:4, Vaillant 1950: 173, K245: to). Conversely, Prussian has introduced a secondary front vowel in the preposition sen 'with' beside san- and in the prefiXes ep- and et-, East Baltic ap-, at-, Slavic ob-, ot-. This is a result of the fact that the initial vowel of Prussian en 'in' and esse 'from' represents a secondary zero grade going back to an originally pretonic reduced grade *i- < *e- reflected in Lith. j, is and Slavic 'V'b, iz < *t.>z (Greek tv, ~ whereas the regular phonetic reflex of Balta-Slavic initial *e- is a- in Prussian, e.g. addle 'spruce: alne
336
Balto-Slavic
'hind: as 'I: asmai 'am: assaran 'lake, also an 'in' (7x) and assa 'from' (6x) in the First Catechism (cf. K190). It follows that the acute of the inessive ending *-¢ cannot have the same origin as the acute in the nominal preftxes f-, p6-, pr6-, prfe-, per-, nuo-, s4-. Elsewhere I have argued that the inessive was created by the addition of stressed *en to the East Baltic pronominal locative forms masc. *tami, fern. *tajai, pl. *taisu (Slavic tomb, toi, teX'b), yielding *tam~, *taj~, *tais~ with glottalization from the hiatus before *en (K22.1: 68). The absence of an acute tone in the stem of the pronoun (which is clear from the Serbo-Croatian evidence) explains the root stress in the forms rankoje 'hand: pl. rafikose, riituose 'wheels: turguose 'markets: where Saussure's law did not operate. Note that the sg. form rate reflects *rat~, not **rataj~ < *ratai'en, and must therefore have been built on the analogy of *tam~. The earlier view "dass bute aus *but~ + *en (*~) entstanden ist" (Stang 1966: 183, followed by Ko14: 49) must be rejected because the monophthongization of *oi to *~ was limited to stressed syllables ( cf. Ko 2.5: 32.3).
ALL's WllLL THAT ENDS WELL A few years ago, Jasanoff adopted the central tenet of my accentological theory, viz. that the Balta-Slavic acute was a st~d or glottal stop, not a rising tone (cf. K014. Ko25, K218, Jasanoff 20048-). Of course, nobody will believe Jasanoff's claim that he arrived at the same result independently thirty years after I published it and ten years after we discussed it when he came to Leiden to visit us. Though at the time he haughtily dismissed "the tangle of secondary hypotheses and "laws" that clutter the ground in the field of Balta-Slavic accentology" (Jasanoff 2004b: 171), he has now recognized the importance of Pedersen's law, Hirt's law, Winter's law, Meillet's law, Dolobko's law, Dybo's law and Stang's law and largely accepted my relative chronology of these accent laws, including the loss of the acute shortly before Stang's law (cf. Jasanoff 2008). He has also accepted my split of Pedersen's law into a Balta-Slavic and a Slavic phase (to which a Lithuanian phase must be added), my thesis that the tonal contours of Baltic and Slavic languages are post-Balta-Slavic innovations (cf. Jasanoff 2008: 344' 0), and the rise of a tonal distinction on non-acute initial syllables before Dybo's law which I discussed at some length in my review (Ko28) of Garde's monograph (1976). This is great progress. Though Jasanoff has come a long way in the last few years, he has not yet understood the origin of the Balta-Slavic glottalization, nor the origin of the Baltic and Slavic tonal contours, nor the origin of distinctive vowel length in Slavic. He has not yet understood the exact conditions of Hirt's law, nor of Stang's law, nor of the distribution of the o-stems over the accent classes. He evidently has not grasped the basic problem of Proto-Slavic quantity which is central to a correct understanding of the developments and their chronology. Perhaps it is only a matter of time before such insights get through to the IndoEuropeanist scholarly community. A major problem will be that much of the relevant literature is in Baltic and Slavic languages and therefore not easily accessible to scholars without at least a reading knowledge of these languages. Some news travels slowly. For the time being, Jasanoff's contribution to our knowledge of Baltic and Slavic accentuation is zero. He calls his recent article "programmatic" (Jasanoff 2008: 339 and 371), which appears to be newspeak for a shot in the dark without calculating the consequences. Following the example of Ebeling's work (1967: 580, cf. Jasanoff 2008: 360), he offers an effort to reformulate Pedersen's law and Dolobko's law as a basic principle generating lateral mobility from stress on medial syllables. He proposes that Pedersen's law "moved the accent one syllable to the left, producing a contrastive intonation on the newly accented syllable" whereas Dolobko's law (in his jargon "Proto-VDL") moved the accent to the
Balto-Slavic final syllable in sequences of four or more syllables when the initial syllable had such a contrastive accent (Jasanoff 2008: 349 and 367f.). There are three strategies to deal with counter-evidence in Jasanoff's methodology: (1) ignore it, (2) assume irregular analogical leveling, (3) propose additional specific rules for specific instances (cf. already K218). Thus, Jasanoff dismisses "late and productively formed [Lith.] stems in -umas, -In is, and the like" (p. 349), "a word like Lith. sunukas" and Slavic *Vbdova (p. 350), Slavic *v~d9 for **ved9 and *vedetr1 for **vedetb (here I substitute the usual accent marks for Jasanoff's idiosyncratic notation) but Lith. nevedame, nevedate for his expected fmal stress (p. 367), Slavic *pros9, *prositb for his **pr3s9, **pr()sitb (p. 369), similarly in the nasal presents (p. 371), and so on and so forth. He admits that it "is not clear, however, why non-mobile presents are as numerous as mobile presents" in the stative i-presents "or how the non-mobile forms came to be accented on the root syllable rather than the endings" (p. 372). He does not mention the word for 'mother: which escaped Meillet's law, and arbitrarily assumes restoration of accentual mobility in the words for 'son' and 'alive, which escaped Hirt's law (p. 353). He simply does not explain the data as we have them. Note that Jasanoff's adaptation of Pedersen's law and Dolobko's law is the exact opposite of Olander's (2oo6), known to him at least from my publications but not mentioned by him, where Pedersen's law is reformulated as loss of accent on a non-acute final syllable with rise of contrastive tone on the initial syllable and Dolobko's law is reformulated as a part of Dybo's law, which moved the accent one syllable to the right. The main problem with Jasanoff's reformulation of Pedersen's law as a leftward accent shift is that we would expect a rising tone on the newly accented syllable, as in SCr. vada 'water' < *voda (cf. Jasanoff 2008: 348), whereas we actually fmd a falling tone as its Slavic reflex, e.g. in acc.sg. v3du. Jasanoff's solution to this problem is that he simply disregards the data, stating that no inference should "be drawn about the nature of the phonetic difference between the left-marginal [retracted] and in situ [unretracted] accents, other than that such a difference existed" (p. 351). The more unspecified distinctions one assumes, the more different forms one can "explain". Jasanoff reconstructs a Proto-Balto-Slavic prosodic system with nine different possibilities (p. 350f.): short, long acute, and long non-acute syllabic nuclei combined with retracted, unretracted, and no accent. His use of the grave accent mark for the retracted accent is particularly unfortunate because the grave accent is the conventional symbol for a short rising tone in Slavic, where the retracted accent is reflected as a (short or long) falling tone. Jasanoff states that the acute became a rising tone in Slavic (p. 352) without explaining why it did not merge with the other (neoacute) rising tone. He states that in unstressed syllables "the glottal component of acuteness was lost without a trace" (p. 353) without explaining the rise of the Slovene neo-circumflex.
All's well that ends well
339
Jasanoff's treatment of the Balta-Slavic verb is so full of mistakes that it would be pointless to subject his account to a detailed critique. It is not true that extra-presential forms "tend (at least in Slavic) to derive their accentual properties from the present" (p. 354'7). Jasanoff ignores the athematic origin of the i-flexion (p. 356, cf. Ko33, Ko87, Ko99). It is not true that "the overwhelming majority of athematic presents in Balta-Slavic are conspicuously non-mobile" (p. 358). It is not true that the verb ei- 'go' had an immobile present in Baltic, as is clear from Latvian (Varaklani) 1st sg. eimu, 2nd sg. ei, 3rd tt (cf. Ko25: 327). The concept of "Narten" present is an outdated phantom (cf. de Vaan 2004). It is not true that the Slavic copula owes its oxytone forms to Dybo's law (p. 359), as is clear from the long rising vowel in Cakavian and Posavian je 'is' (e.g. Jurisic 1973: z4f.). Lith. nevedu does not continue the Balta-Slavic place of the accent (as suggested on p. 363) because the stressed vowel is not lengthened. It is not true that the "word-fmal accent in Proto-Slavic was non-contrastively falling" (p. 36447) because it is rising in the languages which have preserved distinctive tone. It is not true that the Baltic verb *ded- 'put' had an immobile present (p. 3726'). It is not true that aorists of Slavic verbs with mobile presents have "originally accented endings in the sigmatic forms" (p. 373). Jasanoff even goes so far as to invent his own "data" in order to support his ill-conceived proposal, positing a Slavic paradigm of the present participle with end-stressed masc. acc.sg. **ved9tjb and gen.sg. **ved9tja (p. 361) for which there is simply no evidence whatsoever. Contrary to Jasanoff's statement, Lithuanian does not have the accent "on the root syllable in the longer forms" but shows the regular accent patterns (1) and (3) with final stress in such forms as gen.pl. vedanciij, loc.sg. vedanciame, vedancioje, loc.pl vedanciuose, vedanciose, fern. nom.sg. vedanti, dat.pl. vedanti6ms, with recent transfer to accent class (1) in the standard language (e.g. Endzelynas 1957: 201ff., Zinkevicius 1981: 149). There is an older pattern in both East and West Baltic with nom.sg. *esints 'being, *eints 'going, other cases *sent-, "jent- (cf. K195: 71), corresponding to Latin iens, eunt- from Indo-European *eints, acc.sg. *ientm, gen.sg. *intos (cf. Beekes 1985: 70). It follows that Lith. edqs 'eating, duodijs 'giving' replace earlier *edints, *dedints, adopting tlte suffixal accentuation of the stem form *dent-, *dldont-. The original accentuation of the masc. and fern. nom.sg. forms has been preserved in the Slavic gerund, e.g. Old Russian st6ja and stojatf 'standing' (cf. Stang 1957: 140). It will take some more time before Jasanoff will be in a position to make a contribution to tlte study of Balta-Slavic accentuation. The good news is that he has now understood the importance of at least some of the previous work in tlte field, even if he is reluctant to acknowledge his debt to earlier scholarship.
BALTO-SLAVIC ACCENTUATION REVISITED
There is every reason to welcome the revised edition (2009) of Thomas Olander's dissertation (2006), which I have criticized elsewhere (K234). The book is very well written and the author has a broad command of the scholarly literature. I have not found any mistakes in Olander's rendering of other people's views. This makes the book especially useful as an introduction to the subject It must be hoped that the easy access to a complex set of problems which this book offers will have a stimulating effect on the study of Balto-Slavic accentology. The purpose of the following observations is twofold. On the one hand, I intend to show that what the author evidently regards as his main result, the "mobility law': cannot be accepted because it is incompatible with the data. On the other hand, my aim is to pinpoint the essential differences between Olander's theory and mine (e.g. Ko66, K222, K249) in order to clarify where progress can be made. In the following, bracketed numbers which do not denote the Lithuanian accent classes (1) through (4) will refer to the pages of the book under discussion (Olander 2009). The origin of the mistaken analysis which has resulted in Olander's "mobility law" must be sought in his reconstructions of Proto- Indo-European and Proto-Slavic. Following the German (Brugmannian, pre-structuralist) tradition, Olander reconstructs five short and five long vowel phonemes *i, *e, *a, *o, *u, *1, *e, *a, *o, *u, of which *i and *u had non-syllabic variants which were "probably in complementary distribution" but are nevertheless distinguished in the reconstructions, four resonants *r, *l, *m, *n with "syllabic realisation between consonants" distinguished by a ring underneath, "four fricatives" *s, *h, *h,, *~, the latter of which had "vocalic variants" *a, *a,, *a3 , three labial stops *p, *b, *bh, three dental stops *t, *d, *dh, three palatal stops *k, *g, *f, three velar stops *k, *g, *(,and three labiovelar stops *kw, *(", *t"h (83), i.e. a total of 10 vowels, two of which had consonantal realizations, and 23 consonants, seven of which had "vocalic variants". This large and complex phonological system, which allows an impressive number of 425 ev and 10625 eve sequences, is clearly at variance with Olander's professed "methodological choice to attach considerable weight to simplicity" of reconstructed synchronic systems (2009: 4). The larger the inventory of the input, the easier it is to "explain" almost any actually occurring word form. In my view, the great merit of the laryngeal theory is that it enables us to reduce the inventory of ProtoIndo-European phonemes in a substantial way. Olander recognizes that long vowels "had a very limited distribution in the proto-language; most long vowels in the Indo-European languages are the result of contraction of a short vowel with a following laryngeal" (83), which raises the question if they must be
342
Balto-Slavic
reconstructed at all. The same holds for the "consonantal and vocalic realisations" of *i, *u, *r, *l, *m, *n and the laryngeals. In my view, syllabification developed in the separate branches of Indo-European, e.g. Latin sine and Tocharian B snai 'without' from PIE *snHi, where the laryngeal was consonantal in Latin and became syllabic in Tocharian. Interestingly, Olander's definition of syllables is language-specific (13), and I agree: there is no such thing as a universal syllable. From a phonological point of view, the coloring of vowels by contiguous laryngeals also does not go back to the proto-language (cf. Lubotsky 1989, 1990). The velar stops developed in dialectal Indo-European times from depalatalization of the palatovelars and delabialization of the labiovelars of the proto-language (cf. Steensland 1973). Thus, I reconstruct two vowels *e and *o with lengthened variants *e and *o in monosyllables and before fmal resonants (cf. Wackemagel1896: 66-68), six resonants *i, *u, *r, *l, *m, *n, three laryngeals *l, *5, ?, one fricative *s, and twelve stops. As I have argued elsewhere (e.g. Ko75), the "voiceless" and "voiced aspirated" stops were fortes and lenes, respectively, and the "plain voiced" stops were glottalized. While Olander's reconstruction does not allow for a chronology of dialectal Indo-European developments, such a chronology is an essential part of my reconstructions. In contrast with the large inventory of Proto-Indo-European phonemes, Olander reconstructs a minimal system for Proto-Slavic: six stops *p, *b, *t, *d, *k, *g, three fricatives *s, *z, *x, four resonants *m, *n, *l, *r, four short vowels *a, *e, *i, *u and four long vowels *a, *e, "!, *u (127). The two semivowels *j and *w "were probably variants" of the vowels *i and *u and "did not have independent phonological status" (ibidem). Since Olander reconstructs neither *w nor *H for this stage, it remains unclear how he accounts for the difference between e.g. zverb 'beast' and Z'bvati 'to calf. The smaller the inventory of the output, the easier it is to "explain" almost any word form thus reconstructed. Olander dismisses all instances of shortened "long" vowels, as in Serbo-Croatian jllgoda and Czechjahoda 'strawberrY, and all instances oflengthened "short" vowels, as in SCr. bl!re 'gathers' and Czech viile 'will; as recent developments and does not take them into consideration in his analysis. This greatly simplifies his task because accounting for the new quantitative distinctions such as between *a and *a and between *o and *o is by far the trickiest part of Slavic accentology. It also puts him on the wrong track because his "mobility law" is irreconcilable with the quantitative reflexes of vowels and diphthongs in Slavic. The same holds for his early date of Dybo's law (ibidem), for which he offers no argumentation. Note that Olander's reconstruction of "Proto-Slavic" corresponds to stage 6.o of my chronology (e.g. Ko66: 47, K222: 119), which differs from his system in the presence of a glottal stop. The loss of the glottal stop gave rise to shortened "long" vowels (stages 7.13 and 9.2 of my chronology) and paved the way for the rise oflengthened "short" vowels (my stages 7.15, 8.1, 8.2 and 8.8). Thus, Olander omits a large and essential part of the evidence.
Balto-Slavic accentuation revisited
343
There is a lot of misunderstanding resulting from terminology and defmitions in Balto-Slavic accentology. It is therefore appropriate that Olander devotes an introductory section to these problems (7-14). Unfortunately, his choices are not always felicitous. His Is- and Us-stems are actually iH- and uH-stems with a sigmatic nominative. He regards stems in semivowels and laryngeals as vowel stems, not consonant stems. His "desinence" refers to the complex of stem-forming sufftx and case marker while his "ending" refers to the case marker only, which is the opposite of common practice. He defmes ProtoIndo-European as "the language spoken at the end of the period that precedes the oldest innovation not shared by all (known) Indo-European languages': which corresponds to stage 2.0 of my chronology, not to stage 3.0, which is the end of the dialectal Indo-European period preceding the earliest Balto-Slavic innovations. This is at variance with his reconstruction of the "Proto-IndoEuropean phonological system" (83), which represents a subphonemic diasystem between my stages 2.1 and 2.2 (see above). His Proto-Balto-Slavic and his Proto-Baltic correspond to my stage 5.0 (see also K253). His Proto-Slavic is defmed as the stage immediately before the monophthongization of oral diphthongs, which took place at my stage 6.5 (e.g. Ko66: 48, K222: 119). In fact, his reconstructed "Proto-Slavic" phonological system (127) corresponds to my stage 6.o, before the umlaut (6.1) and the first palatalization ofvelars (6.2). This is long before the earliest Slavic dialectal developments, which arose around stage 7.0 (cf. K2o8: 231), and many centuries before the last common Slavic innovations and the disintegration of the common language (stage 1o.o). Olander's discussion of the prosodic terminology (10-14) is also less than satisfactory. He states that Stokavian "in a superficial analysis has contrasting tones, e.g. gen. sg. sela with rising tone vs. nom.-acc. pl. sf!la with falling tone. In a somewhat deeper analysis, however, where rising tone is interpreted as accent on a following syllable, i.e. se'la vs. 'sela, Stokavian may be viewed as a non-tonal language~ In fact, the "somewhat deeper analysis" is simply wrong because noninitial falling tones are frequent in Stokavian and the normative system is artificial and probably never existed in any authentic dialect (cf. Vermeer 1985). Olander defmes the term "accented" as referring to "the prominent syllable of a word in prosodic systems where no more than one syllable of a word is prominent relative to its neighbouring syllables.[ ... ] Unaccented word-forms are found in languages like Vedic and Japanese[ ...]. Automatic, i.e. non-distinctive, prominence of a certain syllable in a phonological word" is referred to as "ictus': which "in the case of unaccented words" falls on the initial syllable (u). This again is contrary to common practice, where ictus (beat') refers to dynamic prominence and accent (=trpoa(fJ8la 'pitch') to tonal characteristics. It would be preferable to restate these defmitions in terms of High and Low tone (where I use capital letters with reference to tone levels), making clear that the "automatic" Low tone on the initial syllable of an "unaccented word-form" is in
344
Balto-Slavic
fact distinctively Low as opposed to a High tone on the initial syllable of an "accented" word form with initial stress. Olander's identification of the Vedic and (Tokyo) Japanese systems as having "unaccented word-forms" is a source of confusion. Vedic has a full-fledged tone system with any sequence of High and Low tones, e.g. RV 1.1.6 tavet tat satyam on one hand and 10.75.5 imai'Jl me gange yamune sarasvati sutudri on the other (cf. KoSo: 156). On the other hand, contrary to Olander's presentation (12), Japanese hasi 'edge' and hasi 'bridge' are homophonous (Low-High) in the Tokyo dialect, where a following enclitic particle is High after 'edge' but Low after 'bridge; just as Russian kod 'code' and kot 'tom-cat' are homophonous but differ accentually in the genitive koda versus kota. While Vedic has distinctive tone, Tokyo Japanese has only lexical pitch accent A fmal source of confusion is the term "circumflex" (14), which usually refers to a falling tone in Slavic and to the absence of an "acute" in Baltic. While I am happy to see that Olander has accepted my view that the Balto-Slavic acute can be identified as glottalization, I am sorry that he has not (yet) seen why glottalized vowels must have remained distinct from earlier long vowels in Slavic. As is clear from Olander's Table 2 (46), the two pillars of modem Slavic accentology are Stang's demonstration (1957) that Saussure's law did not operate in Slavic and Dybo's establishment of a progressive accent shift from non-acute non-falling vowels in flexion (1962) and derivation (1968). The views of authors who do not accept these two fundamental discoveries (including Klingenschmitt and Stankiewicz) are by now primarily of historical interest. The major question which remains, in Olander's framework, is whether original accentual mobility was inherited from the Indo-European proto-language or developed in Balto-Slavic times. While original accentual mobility in consonant stems such as Greek Ovyan1p, Ovyarepa, Ovyarpoc; 'daughter' and Vedic iitma, iitmanam, tmanii, tmane 'souf can hardly be doubted, the absence of accentual mobility in original o-stems is equally certain. Olander challenges the classic view that vowel stems adopted the accentual mobility of the consonant stems ("Pedersen's law") and claims that the earlier accentual mobility which is reflected in alternating ablaut grades had almost wholly been eliminated in the Indo-European proto-language already. Here I disagree: nobody would maintain on the basis of the Welsh and Armenian evidence that the accent was ftxed on the penultimate syllable in the proto-language, and the same holds true for the ftxation of the stress in Vedic and Greek, where many traces of accentual mobility have been preserved. Indeed, it seems to me that the alternating ablaut grades provide a much more faithful piece of evidence than the attested place of the ictus, which does not go back more than 2500 years at most. Olander's analysis in terms of syllables is less appropriate than an analysis in terms of tonebearing morphemes, where e.g. Greek Ovyarepa is stressed on the sufftx and Ovyarpoc; on the desinence. In my view, the alternation between stem-stressed
Balto-Slavic accentuation revisited
345
and end-stressed forms can easily have been generalized from consonantal to vocalic stems. The argument that "the consonant stems constitute an unproductive group of words that are gradually disappearing in Baltic and Slavic" and that they cannot therefore "have influenced the large and productive group of vowel stems in such a profound manner as an imitation of the accent curves would imply" (51) is not valid because we are dealing with the earliest Balto-Slavic developments here, taking place at a stage when consonantal stems may still have been in the majority. Note that the ii-, e-, 1-, u-, i- and u-stems were also consonant stems at the outset. While I agree with Olander that analogical change requires a motivation and that a "typical example of a motivation would be the simplification of a complicated system" (so), I think that a morphological generalization is no less probable than the automatic fixation of the stress on a non-initial syllable. Thus, I stick to Pedersen's law; for the oxytonesis see below. Olander states that the analogical changes which account for the lateral mobility in Slavic paradigms "constitute the backbone of Kortlandt's theory of Balto-Slavic accentuation" (49). This is not correct. Starting from the assumption that the lateral mobility was not directly inherited from the IndoEuropean proto-language but could have developed by analogy with the consonant stems, this was not my major concern. The backbone of my theory is the thesis that the Balto-Slavic acute was a glottal stop which developed from the Indo-European laryngeals and from Winter's law and is reflected as glottalization in Latvian and Lithuanian and that the gradual loss of this glottal stop accounts for the development of vocalic timbre and quantity distinctions in Slavic. The red thread which runs through these developments is a series of sound changes: Hirt's law (4.1), Winter's law (4.3), retraction of the stress from fmal open syllables (4.4), loss of the glottal stop in pretonic and post-posttonic syllables (5-3), loss of the glottal stop in the remaining posttonic syllables (7.13), Van Wijk's law (7.15), contractions in posttonic syllables (8.1), retraction of the stress from fmal jers (8.2), Dybo's law (8.7), lengthening of short falling vowels in monosyllables (8.8), loss of glottalization in stressed syllables (9.2), Stang's law (9.3), shortening of long falling vowels (9.4), lengthening of short vowels and retractions of the stress in the daughter languages (10.4-10.12). These phonetic laws were followed by analogical levelings which account for the distribution of accent, timbre and quantity in the attested Slavic material In this framework, the loss of Indo-European accentual mobility (3.1) was never intended to be more than a working hypothesis in order to simplify the analysis. As more traces of Indo-European accentual mobility in Balto-Slavic became clear to me (cf. Ko82, Ko87, Ko99, K173. K195, K2o1), I have fmally abandoned this hypothesis (K236), see below. Olander makes a distinction between long and hiatal fmal syllables, the latter "containing two contiguous vowels, possibly separated by a laryngeal" (8).
346
Balto-Slavic
In Greek, "sequences of two vowels behave alike whether separated by a laryngeal or not': e.g. dat.sg. Or.ypij) 'field' < *-oei and rpvyfi 'flight' < *-aHai (89). I agree that the Greek circumflex reflects a sequence of two vowels possibly separated by a laryngeal here and reconstruct *-o(ei and *-a(ai < *-e5ei, similarly datsg. oTIGcp 'house' < *-o(ei, loc.sg. oTIGOI < *-oli but nom.pl. oliGm < *-oi like Or.ypot < *-oi, gen. pl. Or.ypwv < *-o(om, datpl. Or.ypoic; < *-o(ois but acc.pl. Or.ypooc; < *-ons, f3ovc; 'o'x < *g"o(us < *g"e5"'us but ZeOc; without a laryngeal, optative 3rd sg. 1tou8eom 'educate' < *-ol < *-oift, 3rd pl. r18eiev 'put' < *-efiy- but aor. A.oaesav 'loosen' < *-eiy- (cf. Ko97). In Indo-Iranian, intervocalic laryngeals were lost at an early stage with contraction yielding long vowels but later restored at morpheme boundaries after the rise of new intervocalic laryngeals from the vocalization of the syllabic nasals, e.g. *ma(as 'moon' < *mei'ns, *va(atas 'wind' < *5uei'ntos, which was followed by the rise of the new gen.pl. ending *-a(am (cf. K240). The same introduction of the formative suffiX before the PIE ending *-om is found in Germanic, where the laryngeals were lost at an early stage, e.g. Gothic -o < *-iiom, later again in Old High German -ono, similarly in Sanskrit -anam, -lnam, -unam, also Greek -&wv < *-asom and Latin -arum, -arum. Olander's dismissal of this explanation as "quite unnatural" (78) is quite incomprehensible to me. The original PIE ending *-om is attested in Slavic -'b, Lith. -11, Prussian -on, and in Germanic, Celtic, Italic, Indo- Iranian and Anatolian (cf. Ko3o). I am happy to see that Olander has accepted (90) my derivation of the Lith. nom. pl. ending *-{e from *-ali < *-e5-i (without giving the argumentation for this reconstruction, cf. Kuo). I cannot accept Olander's derivation of Slavic -i from *-oi and *-ai (9o), which is at variance with loc.sg. *vt~lce 'wolf: for which he arbitrarily assumes replacement by the ending of the a-stems, and with the pronominal forms mt~ne, tebe, sebe and 1st sg. vede 'knoW, which he does not discuss (cf. Ko55: 178). In my view, oral and nasal diphthongs were raised before final *-s (stage 5·9 of my chronology), e.g. imperative nesi 'carry'< *-oi(s, instpl. raby 'slaves' < *-Ois, acc.pl. raby < *-ons, ieny 'women'< *-a(ns, as opposed to loc.sg. rabe < *-oi, datsg. rabu < *-oi, Old Russian nesa 'carrying' < *-onts, soft ending -ja < *-jonts, but raising in acc.pl. kone 'horses' < *-jons, OCS konj~, and also in nom. pl. *Vblci < *-oi-s. As for the circumflex tone in the Lith. optative tesukie 'turn' < *-oift, as opposed to the acute of Slavic *nesl < *-oi(s, I assume that final *-(t merged with preglottalized *-d < *-t (as in Latin quod and Old High German hwaz 'what') before the latter was lost in BaltaSlavic times (my stage 3.7). This development is comparable to the Indo-Iranian loss of a laryngeal before a preglottalized stop followed by another consonant which was established by Lubotsky (1981), e.g. in Vedic pajras 'firm' < *pe5gros beside pajas 'frame' < *pe5gos. It has long been recognized that the traditional PIE voiceless and voiced aspirated stops could not co-occur in the same root, so that roots of the type *te(r)dh- and *dhe(r)t- are excluded. It follows that the distinction between fortes
Balto-Slavic accentuation revisited
347
and "aspirates" was a prosodic feature of the root as a whole, which may be called "strong" (or "high") if it contained e.g. *t and "weak." (or "low") if it contained e.g. *dh. Dybo has shown (1968) that Baltic and Slavic morphemes can be divided into two prosodic classes, viz. "strong' ("high': "dominant") morphemes which attract the accent and "weak." ("low': "recessive") morphemes which repel the accent, and that the stress falls on the first strong morpheme of a word form (cf. Olander 2009: 33). This system can be explained in a straightforward way from an earlier system with distinctive High and Low tones. Lubotsky has shown that there is a highly peculiar correlation between IndoEuropean root structure and accentuation (1988a: 170), which again points to an earlier level tone system. I have proposed (K213) that we must rather start from "strong" and "weak" syllables which originated from an Indo- Uralic consonant gradation. In any case, the prosodic system reconstructed for Proto- IndoEuropean was very close to the system actually attested in Vedic Sanskrit. The question whether "each constituent morpheme of a Proto-Indo-European word had a surfacing distinctive high or low tone, which would render the accent redundant, or that the tones were distinctive only at a pre-stage of Proto-IndoEuropean, having become redundant in the proto-language because of the distinctive accent" (Olander 2009: 85) receives the same answer as in the case of Vedic, depending on one's theoretical predilections (see above). Holger Pedersen made a distinction between "proterodynamic" and "hysterodynamic" accentual mobility (1926: 25, 1933a: 21), the former between root and suffix and the latter between suffiX and desinence, and stated that these accent movements "n'ont joue aucun r6le pour le developpement lituanien" (1933a: 22). The idea that there were two types of PIE accentual mobility was elaborated by Kuiper (1942) and other scholars, most consistently by Beekes (1985), who demonstrated that the nom.sg. form of the hysterodynamic paradigm was originally stressed on the root, not on the suffiX, and that the proterodynamic and hysterodynamic paradigms have a common origin. 0 lander again follows the German (Hoffmannian) tradition, using "-kinetic" for "-dynamic" (92) and disregarding Beekes' findings. He dismisses "the presence of ablaut alternations in the root of a word in one or more languages as an indication of paradigmatic mobility in that word in the proto-language" (93), which puts an end to the discussion. He accepts Rasmussen's idiosyncratic view that the "distribution of *-e- and *-o- in the thematic suffiX was not dependent on the accent but on a following segment, *-e- and *-o- appearing before an unvoiced and voiced segment respectively" (94). Disregarding Beekes' argumentation (1995: 128f.), he ignores the evidence for paradigmatic mobility in the a-stems (95) and dismisses the evidence in the i- and u-stems (96). He rejects the accentuation of Greek 8vyar11p and fl~T'lP as secondary (72f.) without mentioning Lycian kbatra 'daughter' < *dhueg5tr (cf. Kloekhorst 2008: 904) and attaches no importance to the accentual mobility in Greek lJpyvux,
Balto-Slavic
opyvtiXc; 'fathom' and Vedic panthas, panthiim, pathcis, pathf$U 'path' (97). In my view, Vedic piitar- 'protector' and pitar- 'father' represent a single PIE paradigm with nom. *pe5tr, ace. *p5term, gen. *p5tros, cf. Maltese missier 'father' < French monsieur < mon seigneur 'my lord'. I shall not discuss the accentuation of verbal paradigms here. Since "the curves of the Proto-Baltic mobile paradigms are virtually reconstructed on the basis of Lithuanian material only" (tot), Olander does not discuss Proto-Baltic. I have argued that Proto-Baltic and Proto-Balto-Slavic are the same thing because there are no common innovations of West and East Baltic which were not shared by Slavic (e.g. Ko25, K253). Olander does not discuss metatonie douce in Lithuanian (102) and does not even mention metatonie rude, nor metatony in Latvian. In my view, the rise of metatony coincides with the rise of syllabic tones in East Baltic (e.g. Ko25: 324-328, cf. also Derksen 1996). Olander regards the accentuation of secondary case forms in -n(a) and -p(i) as evidence for "unaccented word-forms" in Lithuanian, e.g. illative galve)n, galv6sna 'head(s); allative darb6p 'work' (103). I agree with Seriants' view ( 2004) that the original accentuation of the illative was that of the accusative (cf. K221). The Latvian locative represents the illative, not the inessive (cf. Vanags 1994), and also has the accentuation of the accusative. The short vowel of Lith. neveda 'does not lead' shows that the accentuation of this form is more recent than the lengthening in veda, which is limited to Lithuanian (cf. Ko25: 326), and cannot therefore go back to Proto-Baltic times. Nieminen's law (105) represents two distinct developments: an East Baltic retraction from final *-a and a later retraction from final *-as in Lithuanian (cf. Derksen 1996: 96-128 and 229-232). The "analogical spread of accentual mobility at the expense of the immobile paradigms" in Lithuanian (107) is largely reversed in the modern language. The Old Lithuanian mobile accentuation in zin6ti 'to know' (to8) is supported by the Slavic evidence (cf. Ko82). Accentual mobility is also found in Lith. duodijs 'giving, Latvian du6mu 'I give; setu 'I sif, eimu 'I go' (Varaklani, cf. Ko25: 321, 323, 327), and Slavic athematic verbs. Olander has accepted (u4f.) my view that original PIE long vowels are non-acute in Balto-Slavic in the case of Lith. akmuo 'stone' and dukti 'daughter' but does not mention the evidence of Latvian tibuols 'apple, SCr. zt!riiv, Czech zerav 'crane' (e.g. K141: 26). He regards the Lith. tst and 2nd sg. circumflex endings -au, -ai, -ei as "exceptions to Leskien's Law" (115) without mentioning that they are acute in the .Zemaitian dialects and regularly became circumflex in Aukstaitian. He rightly concludes that Saussure's law was limited to Lithuanian (u6f.) but does not mention the chronological argument (cf. Ko25: 327). Olander rejects "Kortlandt's Law" (124f.) without explaining the accentuation of such forms as Old Prussian semme, wedde, Lith. zeme 'earth', vede 'led; also OPr. twaiii, twaiiismu, swaiiismu, tennii, tenneismu, tenneison, tenneimans, genniimans, widdewa, widdewamans. He adduces the absence of a macron in such words as OPr. deiws 'god; deinan 'day'
Balto-Slavic accentuation revisited
349
as evidence for "unaccented word-forms" (125f.) without explaining the presence of a macron in e.g. mergan 'maid: antran 'othei, ausins 'ears' (cf. K234: 363). Now we tum to Slavic. "If a word-form containing only syllables with low pitch, i.e. an unaccented word-form, was followed by an enclitic, the enclitic received an automatic ictus" (128). This is Dolobko's law (my stage 7.2). "If there was no enclitic, the phonological word, i.e. the morphological word-form preceded by zero or more proclitics, received an automatic ictus on the initial syllable': i.e. a distinctive Low tone (my stage 6.10). "The unaccented wordforms, which at later stages of Slavic often received initial accentuation, were realised differently from initially accented word-forms~ viz. by the distinction between Low and High tone. Apart from the unfortunate terminology ("unaccented" = Low tones only, "automatic ictus" = High tone on an enclitic but Low tone on an initial syllable, "initially accented"= High tone on an initial syllable), Olander and I seem to be in agreement here. The phrase "which at later stages of Slavic often received initial accentuation" is confusing because we already have "automatic ictus" and distinctive tone on the initial syllable at this stage, Low tone being regularly reflected as falling tone in Serbo-Croatian. Olander's biggest mistake (cf. K234: 364) is his assumption that the distinction between glottalized and non-glottalized vowels had disappeared at this stage, the former yielding "long" vowels. As a result, he is unable to account for such quantitative distinctions as *a versus *a in Slavic. Contrary to Olander's statement (12.8), the Proto-Slavic prosodic system was not typologically similar either to that of Vedic (which had High and Low particles and syntactic conditioning of tone alternations) or to that of Tokyo Japanese (where accented Low tones surface as High tones). Greatly adding to the confusion, Olander now changes his terminology: "syllables are acute if they are accented and contain a long vowel, circumflex if they are unaccented or contain a short vowel" (129). Disregarding the instances where a long vowel lost the stress to the following syllable as a result of Dybo's law, e.g. Czech b£lf 'white, poutnfk 'travelei, trava 'grass~ travn{ 'grassY, travn{k 'pasture~ narod 'people, zakon 'laW, trouba 'trumpef, zabava 'fun, party, utroba 'intestine, as opposed to jazyk 'tongue: malina 'raspberry, chladny 'cold: tezky 'heavf, suchy 'drY, ruka 'hand: ruln{ 'hand-: rulnfk 'towel~ sukno 'clotli, humno 'threshing-floor, where an original pretonic long vowel was shortened, Olander reconstructs long vowels in "Proto-Slavic" *darga 'road: *galwa 'head: ace. *galwan for the short vowels of SCr. drltga, glava but obl.pl glavama, adj. glavnl, Czech hlava, hlavu, hlavn{, Polish droga, glowa, glow~, Upper Sorbian droha, hlowa, also long *a in *gena 'woman' for SCr. zena, dial. zenlt, and in inst pl. *genaml, SCr. zenama, Slovene tenami < *zen ami (cf. K222: 124). Similarly, Olander does not account for the quantitative difference in the sufftx between Czech pekar 'baker' and rybar 'fisherman' or between SCr. dvoriste 'yard' and bllttiSte 'mud-pit' or Cakavian potegnilt 'to pull' and dvFgnut 'to lift' (cf. K222: 129).
350
Balto-Slavic
According to Saxmatov's law (1915: 84), medial syllables lost a falling tone to a preceding short vowel but not to a preceding long vowel, where the falling vowel was shortened instead, e.g. SCr. pr3diili 'sold'< *prodali, ntiuka 'science'< *niiuka. We now know that the latter formation received the medial stress as a result of Dybo's law (cf. K22.2.: 12.2.). I have subsumed the former type under Pedersen's law because it represents a retraction of the stress in mobile paradigms. Saxmatov's law must not be confused with Stang's law, according to which the stress was retracted from long falling vowels after Dybo's law (cf. K22.2.: 123). Olander redefmes Saxmatov's law as "an accent retraction from a word-initial syllable with falling tone to a proclitic or preftx" (130). He regards the retracted accent as "the result of the automatic ictus placement rule inherited from Proto-Balto-Slavic" (ibidem). The problem with this interpretation is that the retraction of the stress and the rise of distinctive tone (my stage 6.10) must have been more recent than the generalization of accentual mobility in the masculine o-stems which did not have an acute root vowel ("Illic-Svityc's law': stage 6.9), e.g. in SCr. zub 'tootli, Greek y6wpoc; (cf. K222.: 119), which was conditioned by the identity of the paradigms (b) and (c) except in the oblique plural case forms and by the absence of barytone forms with an acute root vowel in paradigms with mobile stress after Meillet's law (stage 5.4), while original barytone neuters are continued as masculine o-stems of paradigm (b). Olander evidently does not appreciate the problem when he states that "substantial coincidence of the accent curves of two paradigms is not a necessary prerequisite for the transfer oflexemes among the paradigms" (145, cf. also K234: 364). Note that in Olander's reconstruction only the gen.pl. and inst.pl. forms of the paradigms (b) and (c) have the same accentuation while the original (i.e. pre- Hirt) barytone masculines and barytone neuters only differed in the nom.pl. and acc.pl. forms. It appears that the alleged paradigm (d) reconstructed by some scholars (135) never existed (cf. Langston 2.007 and K22.6: 231f.). Olander objects to my view of Meillet's law as an analogical elimination of glottalization from the barytone forms of mobile paradigms (stage 5·4) after the phonetic loss of glottalization in pretonic syllables (stage 5.3), e.g. in SCr. acc.sg. glavu, Lith. galvq, that such a development is unexpected in o-stem singularia tantum (131). He does not mention SCr. m?lti 'mother, which combines an acute root vowel with accentual mobility (cf. Jurisic 1973: 116) and thereby shows that Meillet's law must have been an analogical development. As I pointed out earlier (K234: 363f.), the high frequency of pluralia tantum with derived singulars is characteristic of Balto-Slavic, e.g. Lith. mesa 'mea~ taukal 'fa~ Latvian mlesa, OPr. mensa, crauyo 'blood; Slavic m~so '(piece of) meat'. Olander redefines Stang's law (my stage 9.3) as a retraction of the accent "from short medial diphthongs, from reduced vowels in weak position, and from contracting syllables" (131). This is quite unsatisfactory, first of all because the retraction
Balto-Slavic accentuation revisited
351
from weak jers yielded a different reflex and therefore belongs to a different chronological layer (e.g. stage 8.2 of K222: 122), secondly because "short medial diphthongs" include *-Ina, *-lk-, *-In-, from which the accent was not retracted to (b) roots (cf. Dybo 1968), and do not include e.g.loc.sg. -u < *-eu and inst.pl. -y < *-Ois, from which the accent was retracted to (b) roots but not to (c) roots, thirdly because the accent was not retracted in such contracted forms as Cakavian kopa 'digs' < *kopaje, and fourthly because the accent was retracted from long vowels which originated from Van Wijk's law, which Olander does not mention, e.g. SCr. pise 'writes~ v3ija 'will' (stage 7.15 of K222: 121). I am glad to see that Olander has accepted (132) my derivation of+ from athematic *-ei- in the Slavic i- presents, e.g. SCr. nllsl 'he carries'. I shall not discuss Olander's reconstruction of "Proto-Slavic" paradigmatic accent in detail but limit myself to a few remarks. The derivation of Slavic -'b from PIE *-os (135) cannot be upheld (cf. Ko55: 181f. and Vermeer 1991). Contrary to Olander's statement (136f.), the OCS verbs jesmtJ 'am', damtJ 'give' and jamtJ 'eat' had final stress before Dybo's law, as is clear from the long rising vowel in Cakavian (Vrgada) je 'is~ jesu '(they) are, dadu '(they) give' (cf. Jurisic 1973: 2.4, 42), (Hvar) je, jesu, (Novi) je, su, da, Posavian dada, Slovene dci, dad9, j¢, jed9, also v¢, ved9 'know~ The verbs imamtJ 'have' and *ztJnamtJ 'know' also had mobile stress (cf. Ko82). The sigmatic aorist had fixed stress on a non-acute long vowel, e.g. SCr. donijeh 'I brought; inf. donijeti with the long vowel of the aorist beside nesti 'to carry, similarly (Dubrovnik) r~et beside reti 'to say' (cf. K234: 365). There is no evidence for any type of change in the aorist "by analogy with the infmitive" (138). Olander does not discuss the thematicization of athematic verbs which in my opinion gave rise to accentual mobility in the thematic presents (cf. K226: 229f.). As a result of Olander's erroneous assumption that "after Dybo's Law the glottalisation disappeared and long glottalised vowels merged with long non-glottalised vowels" (142), he is unable to explain the numerous formations where Dybo's law introduced new long vowels in pretonic syllables. He was evidently misled by Rasmussen's suggestion that the fmal accentuation of *notjtJ stl 'this night' and *nesete 'you carry' originated from Dybo's law (142). As is clear from the fmal stress of Slovene gen.sg. lahkegti, dat.sg. lahkemu 'light' and from the long vowel of Slovak nesie < *nesettl (cf. Stang 1952), the fmal accentuation is older than Dybo's law here. The long rising vowel in Slovene inst.pl. kostmf 'bones~ mozm{ 'men, stabrf 'pillars~ Posavian sa sinovf 'with sons~ and in Slovene loc. pl. moi¢h, 3rd pl. nes9 < *nes9ttl also shows that the fmal accentuation in these forms is older than Dybo's law, which in these endings yielded a long falling vowel from which the accent was retracted in accordance with Stang's law (cf. K222: 123, Stang 1957: 70f., 117). The quantitative difference between Slovene konj 'horse' < *konjtJ and gen.pl. gfjr 'mountains' < *gori, shows that Dybo's law did not shift the accent onto fmal jers (cf. K222: 122).
352
Balto-Slavic
I can also be brief about Olander's reconstruction of Proto-Balto-Slavic, which is an intermediate stage between his "Proto-Indo-European" and his "Proto-Slavi~ His Proto-Balto-Slavic phonological system (144) differs from mine (stage 5.0 of my chronology) in the absence of a flfth short vowel *o, phonemic *j, *w and glottal stop *l, and in the presence of "unaccented wordforms". My primary reason for rejecting the latter category (apart from the terminological confusion, see above) is the discrepancy between the Slavic accentual mobility between pre-phrasal and phrase-flnal syllables and the Lithuanian accentual mobility between pre-radical and word-final syllables, both of which originated after specific developments limited to the separate branches of Balto-Slavic (cf. already Ko28: 73-75). Olander ignores the fact that PIE lengthened grade vowels are never acute and (unlike the acute vowels) did not lose their length when the new timbre distinctions arose in Slavic (e.g. Ko64, Vermeer 1992). He does not discuss the dozens of instances which I have adduced but limits himself to two isolated examples "suggesting that plain long vowels merged prosodically with long vowels of laryngeal origin and long vowels from Winter's Law" (148). The flrst example is Lith. zverls (3), Slavic zven, (c) 'beasf, which must be reconstructed as *zwelr- (cf. Derksen 2008: 550). The second example is Lith. varna (1), SCr. vr?lna (a), Upper Sorbian wrona < *worlnal 'crow' (cf. Derksen 2008: 528), which Olander regards as a vrddhi formation of Lith. vai'nas (4), SCr. vriin (c) 'raven' (147) though the word pair clearly represents an alteration of the corresponding forms in Latin cornlx, corvus and Greek 1Gopww7, IGOpa~ with substitution of *wor- for *kor-, both meaning 'burn, cf. also Lith. sii'vas 'greY, mulvas 'reddish' beside Russian s~rna (a) 'roe deer, Latvian m{!lns 'blacl(, OPr. sirwis, Greek !dAiX'- (cf. Ko64: 121). Just for the record I mention one of the very few printing errors in the book under discussion: Lith. "ne54s" (154, 260) must be corrected to nesijs (183). Now we come to Olander's "Mobility Law" (156): a High tone on a wordfmal mora became Low in Balto-Slavic. This is an improvement in comparison with his earlier formulation (2006: 133) but presupposes an ad hoc oxytonesis in VHV sequences, where the accent shifted from the first to the second mora while it remained on the flrst mora of long vowels and diphthongs (156). As a result of the mobility law, end-stressed word forms became "unaccented" and received an automatic Low tone "ictus~ either on the final syllable before an enclitic particle or (if there was none) on the frrst proclitic element or initial syllable of the phonological word (157). This is a peculiar compromise satisfying neither the Slavic mobility between pre-phrasal and phrase-fmal syllables nor the Lithuanian mobility between pre-radical and word-flnal syllables. The rule does not explain the accentuation of case forms in *-s, e.g. Lith. sirdls 'hearf, lietw 'raid, saltasis 'the cold one, arklys 'horse, gen.sg. galvos, sirdies, zveries, defimties 'ted, lietaiis, dukters, nom.pl. slrdys, Uetiis, ditkterys, nor langai 'windows: instsg. sirdiml, lietuml, gen. pl. langij, galvij, loc.pl. akisit 'eyes: sakosit
Balto-Slavic accentuation revisited
353
'branches: (Old) Russian gen.sg. plot£ 'flesh: smertf 'death', desjatf (cf. Stang 1957: 87f.), inst.sg. krug6m 'round; vlera 'yesterdaY, dat.pl detjam 'children, ijUdjam 'people, loc.pl. detjax, ijudjax, Slovene gen. pl. 9vac 'sheep, datpl. mo~m, kost~m, inst.pl. mozm{, kostm{. Moreover, it does not account for the category of endstressed neuters established by Derksen (cf. K236: 77f.), e.g. Lith. auldtas (2) 'floor' with metatony, Czech vedro, SCr. vjedro (b) 'bucket' with a shortened root vowel (cf. Derksen 2008: 518f.). One cannot escape the impression that Olander's reconstruction of "Proto-Indo-European" endings is strongly influenced by the outcome of his mobility law: he accepts the Greek circumflex as evidence for a hiatal ending in dat.sg. -tiJ, -fi (173), inst.sg. -~ (175), where the accent was retracted in Balto-Slavic, but cannot use the hiatus in gen.sg. -~c; (17o), loc.sg. -of (177), gen.pl. -wv (186), inst.pl. -ofc; (190); conversely, the absence of a hiatus is welcome in nom.sg. -~ (167) but not in acc.sg. -~v (169), dual-w (179), nom.pl. -of (181), acc.pl. -ovc; (183), -&c; (184). I shall not discuss the separate case forms (166-194) because I have done that earlier (K234: 366-368). Let me only add that my reconstruction of datpl. *-mus is based on Old Lithuanian-mus, Slavic -m'b, u-infection in Old High German tagum and Old Norse dpgom 'days' (cf. van Helten 1891: 460-462), and the zero reflex in Armenian (cf. K194: 49). My retraction of the stress from this ending to the initial syllable in the i- and u-stems at a stage (8.2) when pretonic jers in medial syllables could no longer receive the stress, e.g. in Russian detjam < *dettJm'b, is supported by Slovene danas 'today' < *dtJntJstl and gen.pl. 9vac 'sheep' < *owtoctl. Note that the rise of final accentuation in the polysyllabic case forms of the i- and u-stems must have preceded Hirt's law because accentual mobility was preserved in Slavic klettJ 'store-room; kyjtJ 'sticl(, syn'b 'son, dar'b 'gift; stan'b 'stand: cf. Lith. kletis, kajis, sum:ts, all of which would have received root stress (1) if the accent had been fixed on the second syllable before Hirt's law (cf. K234: 366). This already suffices to show that Olander's mobility law cannot be maintained. Olander regrettably follows Andersen's unfortunate suggestion to compare his mobility law with the rise of initial accentuation in the Podravian dialects of Croatia (159f.). In these dialects, which did not share the neo-Stokavian retraction of the stress, there is a long rising vowel in kriiij je doso 'the king has come' and a short stressed vowel in riiklt me boli 'my hand aches' (cf. Klaic 1936: 182). When a phrase ends in a syllable with a long rising or short vowel, the last word receives initial stress with a falling tone on a long voweL e.g. doso je kraij, boli me rCtka, where the accent of rCtka stands for a falling tone followed by a trace of the original fmal stress: ruldl, similarly imperative ptsi = pm for pm 'write, kradi for kriidi 'steaf, pismo for plsm3 'letter; also milikiirltc for mu5kiirltc je d3so, ali cigiinka je kiizltla 'the man came but the gypsy woman said' and svlrltte tltmburiiS for tamburiiS te svlrltti 'the mandolinist will plaf, with the main stress on the initial syllable of the word. Klaic emphasizes the difference between gen.sg. st!ijaka for seljiiklt (b) 'peasant' and cigiinka (a) and between l1 Benilance
354
Balto-Slavic
for u Beniliinci! (b) 'to Benicanci' and u SijFvoJevce (a) 'to Sljivosevci'. It is clear that the initial accentuation did not arise from a phonetic retraction of the stress but developed as an autonomous word-initial boundary signal Contrary to Olander's statement (160), such forms with initial accentuation are not "phonologically unaccented" but doubly accented. Olander is evidently unaware of the existence of similar systems with double accentuation in Slovak and Polish dialects along the river Orava (cf. Topolmska 1961: 86-89). In the Karelian dialects of Russian, we fmd variation between original fmal stress and new initial accentuation (cf. Ter-Avanesova 1989: 218). In Polabian and in the Pannonian dialect of the Kiev Leaflets we find both retraction of the stress from final syllables and rise of initial accentuation, which are clearly independent developments (cf. Ko27, K1o7). None of these phenomena can be adduced as a typological parallel in support of Olander's rise of"unaccented word- forms~ In his reply to my earlier criticism (K234), Olander discards objections which "are only valid from the point of view of [Kortlandt's] own theory" because such criticism "is interesting insofar as it illustrates differences between our theories, but it does not bring to light weaknesses in my theory that need to be dealt with" (206). This will not do. Olander's interpretation of Meillet's law cannot be correct because the prosodic merger of acute and circumflex in Slavic was limited to pretonic and post-posttonic syllables while the distinction between acute and non-acute was preserved under the stress and in the first posttonic syllable, where it is reflected as short versus long in the historical languages. Similarly, Dybo's law did not shift the accent to fmal jers because we find a short vowel in Slovene konj 'horse' < *kOnjb but a long vowel in gen. pl. gfjr 'mountains'< *got'b, and similarly in other languages. The point is that Olander's theory simply does not account for the evidence. My chief objection is not the typological improbability of Olander's mobility law but the fact that it is contradicted by the evidence. I agree with Olander that the lack of typological evidence is not crucial As was pointed out above, contrary to Andersen's mistaken analysis, it is simply not true that a final High tone was lost in Podravian or Karelian dialects of Slavic which developed an initial High tone under the influence of neighbouring languages. There is no typological parallel for Olander's phonological (as opposed to a syntactic) rise of"unaccented wordforms". In my earlier criticism I drew attention to the following words (K234: 361): (a) SCr. kr?lva 'coW, Slovak krava, Polish krowa, Czech krava, Upper Sorbian kruwa < krowa; (b) SCr. brazda 'furroW, Slovak brazda, Polish bruzda < brozda, Czech brazda, Upper Sorbian br6zda; (c) SCr. brada 'beard: Slovak brada, Polish broda, Czech brada, Upper Sorbian broda.
Balto-Slavic accentuation revisited
355
It is clear that we have a distinction between acute (a), long (b) and short (c) vowels here, all of which are reflected as a in South Slavic and Czecho-Slovak and as o in Polish and Sorbian. The acute vowels were lengthened in Czech and Upper Sorbian (stage 10.6) after the rise of the new timbre distinctions (stage 7.13) while they remained short in Serbo-Croatian, Slovak and Polish. In SerboCroatian we fmd a long vowel in disyllabic forms of paradigm (c) but a short vowel in polysyllabic forms and in derivatives (cf. K222: 125-128). Olander obscures the evidence by removing the pretonic vowels from the discussion through substitution of the accusative for the nominative in my examples, asserting that I do not take "the role played by the position of the accent" into account ( 207f.). He reconstructs a long vowel for the short vowel in (a) and a short vowel for both the long vowel in (b) and the short vowel in (c). He relegates the discrepancy between the long vowel in (b) and the short vowel in (c) to a footnote, where he claims that "we do not avoid the assumption of some subsequent analogical levelling in the Slavic languages" and that in the reflexes of (c) "in most cases the short root vowel has been generalised throughout the paradigm" ( 208), ignoring the universal short vowel reflex in flexion and derivation except in disyllabic word forms in Serbo-Croatian paradigms, e.g. obl.pl. rukama 'hands: ritcnl 'hand-: rucnlk 'towef, grtUlskt 'urbati, hladnt 'cold: teskl 'heavf, suhl 'drf, Czech ruka, rucnf, rulnfk, chladny, tetky, suchy (c), as opposed to SCr. trtiva 'grass: triivnl 'grassY, triivnlk 'pasture, b~elt 'white, putnlk 'traveler: Czech trava, travn{, travnfk, bfly, poutnfk (b). Pretonic long vowels in paradigm (a) are always shortened, e.g. SCr. jezik 'tongue; malina 'raspberry, Czech jazyk, malina, Polish jFyk, similarly s~dzia 'judge' < *s9d t~ja (< pre-Dybo *s9dtlja, cf. Russian sud)a with fmal stress) as opposed to wqtroba 'liver; Czech utroba < *ptroba, where the initial vowel lost the stress as a result ofDybo's law. Following Holger Pedersen (1933a: 22), I started from the assumption that Proto- Indo-European accentual mobility had largely been eliminated at the beginning of the Balto-Slavic period (stage 3.1). This is not only because the loss of PIE accentual mobility also affected Vedic and Greek, but especially because Illic-Svityc (1963) did not distinguish between mobile and oxytone paradigms and because I wanted to avoid circular reasoning when directly comparing Balto-Slavic with Indo-European accentual mobility. Dropping the assumption that accentual mobility had been lost at an early stage, I reconsidered the BaltaSlavic accent laws against the background of an independent reconstruction of Proto- Indo-European accent patterns on the basis of the apophonic alternations in the most archaic attested paradigms (K236: 76f., cf. Beekes 1985: 150). This enabled me largely to remove the barytonesis (3.3) and the oxytonesis (3.4) from my chronology. It also opened the way to explain the origin of Dybo's "dominant" suff'J.Xes on the basis of Derksen's end-stressed paradigms (ibidem, 77-79) and thereby to reformulate Pedersen's law (3.2) as a phonetic development, eliminating Stang's counter-examples (1957: 12). This does not,
356
Balto-Slavic
however, prove that Pedersen's law was indeed a phonetic development, and I do no think that it was. When we look at accent retractions in South and West Slavic languages, we see that they are always part of a gradual process. In Bulgarian, the stress was retracted from a fmal short vowel to a preceding open syllable (cf. Ko52). In Serbo-Croatian, the stress was retracted earlier from a final than from a non-fmal syllable, earlier from an open than from a closed syllable, earlier from a short than from a long vowel, and earlier to a preceding long than to a preceding short vowel (cf. Ivic 1958: 105). In Slovene, the stress was retracted from a fmal short vowel to a preceding long vowe~ and later also to a preceding short vowel (cf. Ko17: 6f., Greenberg 2ooo: 120, 143). In the Pannonian dialect of the Kiev Leaflets, the stress was retracted from a fmal open syllable (cf. Ko27). In Polabian, the stress was retracted from a short vowel in a final syllable (cf. K1o7). In Slovincian, the stress was retracted frrst from a fmal syllable to a preceding long vowe~ then from a fmal syllable in polysyllabic word forms and analogically from medial syllables in paradigms with ftxed stress, and later from a fmal short vowel in disyllabic word forms (cf. Ko28: 77). The ftxation of the stress on the initial syllable in West Slavic languages frrst affected polysyllabic word forms in Polabian, Kashubian, Polish and Slovak dialects and the Pannonian dialect of the Kiev Leaflets, and end-stressed word forms in Podravian and in Karelian dialects of Russian. After the ftxation of the stress on the initial syllable, it may look like this was the result of a single phonetic process, but this conclusion is clearly wrong. In view of the attested retractions of the stress in West and South Slavic languages, it seems to me that a retraction of the stress from medial syllables can more easily have been an analogical than a phonetic development and I therefore stick to the term "Pedersen's law". While retractions of the stress can often be described as phonetic developments, the ftxation of the stress on the initial syllable requires the existence of a morphosyntactic unit with an initial syllable. This renders the distinction between sound law and analogy disputable (cf. Olander 2009: 210"'). Olander fmds it "difficult to see the motivation behind" (211) the Slavic extension of Pedersen's law (which he calls "Saxmatov's Law~ 130). In my view, generalization of the Low tone of pretonic syllables to barytone forms of mobile accent paradigms gave rise to Olander's "unaccented word-forms" with distinctive Low tone on the initial syllable (stage 6.10). This introduction of a distinctive Low tone is an essentially syntactic development with a perfect analogue in Vedic. It created the possibility of lexical clitics, e.g. Russian letfrnadcat' 'fourteen, (byliny) bely grudi 'white breasts: Slovincian jau robjq 'I wor:K Bulgarian Cerna more 'Black Sea' (cf. already Ko28: 74), also Slovene gen.sg. lahkega, datsg. lahkemu 'light' (Dolobko's law, stage 7.2), where the fmal stress marks the end of the "phonological word~ as Olander calls it. The Low tone had a falling contour after a preceding High tone, as a result of which the High tone received a rising contour after a preceding Low tone. At a later stage
Balto-Slavic accentuation revisited
357
(8.7), the rising contour shifted the High tone to the following syllable (Dybo's law). Suppression of the contour could probably be used for a contrastive interpretation, as in modern Serbo-Croatian od br?lta (Low-High-Low) 'from the br6ther' as opposed to regular od brata (rising-falling) 'from the brother' (cf. Ivic & Lehiste 1967: 75f.). In Slovene, the distinctive Low tone became High when the falling contour shifted to the right while the High tone became Low, e.g. in ki)st (High) 'bone' versus P9t (Low) 'way' (cf. Greenberg 2007: 77 and Pronk 2009: 20). The rise of a distinctive Low tone was not an automatic consequence of the retraction of the stress to a preposition or prefiX, as is clear e.g. from Russian ottUda 'from there~ donel'zja 'as can be, cf. tuda, nel'zjti, also SCr. na vriita beside vrata (b) 'dooi, all of which received non- initial stress as a result of Dybo's law, similarly in the verb nalomlm, sl3mlm beside lOmlm (c) 'I breal(. The latter accentuation recalls the Vedic loss of accent on fmite verb forms in main clauses, e.g. gamat 'may he come'. As to Olander's rhetorical "final remark" on my "methodological approach" ( 212), it must be regretted that he does not draw the reader's attention to the fact that his "Proto-Slavic" phonological system (127) differs from my Early Slavic system (6.o) in the absence of a glottal stop which accounts for the rise and development of the new timbre and quantity distinctions, which he does not discuss. He also does not discuss the rise and development of the nasal vowels, nor of *j, which have considerable impact on the reconstruction of the phonological system. I am sorry that he has not replaced his confusing analysis in terms of "accent" and "ictus" by a consistent treatment in terms of High and Low tone, which could have avoided a number of misunderstandings. Had he done these things, he would probably have found very few substantial differences between his analysis and mine. But it is difficult to see how his mobility law could have survived the evidence of Slavic vowel length. As it is, Olander's free choice between "Proto-Indo-European" alternatives as input and his limitation of the Slavic evidence by excluding the new timbre and quantity distinctions as output enable him to explain almost any reconstructed word form, either as a regular phonetic reflex or as the result of influence from alternating forms. This is in stark contrast with my aim to explain the actual distribution of accent, tone and quantity as they are attested in the Slavic languages.
a
LITHUANIAN zinati 'TO KNOW'
Elsewhere I have argued that an apophonic difference between singular and plural forms of present tense suffiXes such as *-ei/i-, *-ii/i-, *-nii/n(a)- was quite common in Balta-Slavic times (Ko87, Ko99, also K263: 151-179 and 275-296), e.g. Prussian 1st sg. posinna (4x) 'bekenne' < *-zinii, 1st pL posinnimai < *-zini(n)ma-, 3rd pl. posinna < *-zin(n)a. I have identified this flexion type with Lith. zlno and Vedic jiinati 'knows~ Latvian zinim beside ziniim 'we knoW, Tocharian A kniinat 'you knoW, and Slavic *zt~niimb (Ko82). The Slavic verb had mobile stress (c), as is clear from Serbo-Croatian (Dubrovnik) nl! zniim, ne znamo, p3zniim, poznamo, (Sarajevo) d?l zniiS, nl! zniiS, (Posavian) nl! zniim, p3zniim, Slovene pozniim, also OLith. (Dauksa) ttno, tinome, tinote. The Slavic verb znati and its derived noun znam~ 'sigd, which are based on the root aorist *gne~-, have fiXed stress (a), as is clear from SCr. zn?lti, zn?lmen (e.g. Derksen 2008: 546). The initial palatovelar was evidently restored on the basis of *zt~niimb in these words because the phonetic reflex of the root aorist would be *gna- (cf. K263: 47), which would have merged with gna- < *gMa-, SCr. gn?lti 'chase~ 0 Pr. guntwei. It follows from both the mobile accentuation and the preservation of the initial palatovelar that SCr. zniim represents *zt~niimb and cannot be derived from the root aorist or from the perfect *-gnou, Vedic jajfiau, which is found in SCr. poznavati with restored palatovelar and long -areflecting the lengthened grade voweL Miguel Villanueva Svensson has raised two objections to the derivation of Lith. zin6ti from a nasal present (2oo8: 176-181). He points out correctly that the vowel-6- points to *-eH.-, which is at variance with a reconstruction *gn-neHr. However, OLith. (Dauksa) ttno, tinome, tinote shows that the present tense had lateral stress and, consequently, that the -o- was unstressed and may therefore represent either *-ii- or *-o- (e.g. K263: 6, 46). Since the rise of lateral mobility in Balta-Slavic accent paradigms preceded the East Baltic merger of *-ii- and *-oin unstressed syllables, the Lithuanian present tense directly continues the nasal present *gn-neHr with analogical loss of the acute in the tense suffiX. The acute in the infmitive was evidently taken from the preterit suffiX *-eH, before the latter lost its acute on the analogy of the preterit in *-e (cf. K263: 187). The other objection put forward by Villanueva regards the Latvian forms 1st pl. zinim, 2nd pl. zinit beside ziniim, ziniit, which are difficult to explain on the basis of the reconstructions *zinme, *zinte, allegedly from *gn-nHr before consonant It follows that the reconstructed development is incorrect The solution to this problem is provided by the Prussian forms -sinnimai, -sinnati, which Villanueva does not explain (cf. K263: 287-296). While md pl. -sinnati can easily have replaced *zinte < *zinnte on the analogy of 3rd pl. -sinna < *zina
Balto-Slavic < *zinna, 1st pl. -sinnimai evidently reflects *zinima < *zininma (cf. K263: 280). We must conclude that the phonetic development of *-nnHm-, with three nasal resonants in succession, differed from that of *-nnHt-, where the nasal geminate was simplified. An imperfect parallel is offered by Greek t{eA.aovma 'I may drive out'< *-oyyrrt < *-oiH,m versus IGeA.eom 'he may order'< *-oi" < *-oiH,t (cf. Ko97: 237). Villanueva's suggestion that "-sinnat built a thematic present in Old Pruss ian" (2oo8: 175) is clearly mistaken in view of the regular 1st pl thematic endings -ammai, -emmai, as opposed to -imai in je-presents and athematic formations (cf. Ko87). Thus, the derivation of Lith. zinoti from a nasal present is straightforward if the Prussian evidence is taken seriously. Villanueva's own proposal is to derive zinoti from the weak perfect stem form *zini-, to which the preterit sufftx *-eH, was added (2oo8: 194). He disregards both the mobile stress of :itno, :iinom~, :iinot~ and the Slavic formations. The accentuation of SCr. paznati, poznavati, pllznam points to ftxed stress in the aorist (a) and the perfect (b) and mobile stress in the present tense (c). It follows that in this verb the apophonic alternation between singular and plural forms had already been eliminated in the aorist and the perfect, but not in the present tense, before the characteristic system of accent paradigms was established in early Balto-Slavic times (e.g. K263: 43). It is therefore highly unlikely that the stem form *zin- originated in the aorist or the perfect. Moreover, it is unclear how the addition of the preterit sufftx *-eH. could yield a present tense. Anyway, the addition of *-eH, instead of *-eH, as in deveti 'to wear' and stoveti 'to stand: is quite unexpected and unmotivated. I conclude that Villanueva's proposal does not solve the problems which he raised himself. I fmd no evidence for Babik's reconstruction of a thematic present *Zineti 'makes acquaintance of' (2004: 79) beside Lith. patfsta, Proto- Indo-European *gnH~ke/o- (with depalatalized *k, cf. Lubotsky 2001, Villanueva 2009).
MORE ON THE CHRONOLOGY OF CELTIC SOUND CHANGFS
Graham Isaac's recent monograph (2.007) deals with the chronology of Celtic sound changes. Remarkably, the author completely disregards the relative chronology which I published 2.8 years earlier (Ko35). In the following I shall discuss the main issues on which our views differ. Following Thumeysen (1946: 435), Isaac derives Old Irish -fr 'granted' from *peper- or *pepor- (p. 15). I have argued that *p developed into a bilabial fricative [
1.
but earlier than the monophthongization of the latter into *o., so that the merger of *p with *u before *n can be dated between stages 2. and 3 of my chronology (Ko35: 39). Intervocalic *p was lost, e.g. saer 'artificer' < *sapero-, t~ 'hot' < *tepent-, ni(a)e 'nephew' < *nepot-, far 'after' < *epi-. Since *epi- shared the monophthongization of *ei to *e,, the loss of intervocalic *p can be dated before stage 3 of my chronology (Ko35: 40). In other positions, the reflexes [h] < *sand [
Italo-Celtic discussion of niad < *nepotos and cucann 'kitchen, Welsh cegin
*CeUH which nobody ever proposed (2.002: 28). Rasmussen's complaint that my view "is at variance with everything we know about IE syllabification" (1999: 170') should be remedied by a conscientious study of Werner Winter's pertinent article (1965) and by abandonment of his preconceived ideas about Indo-European, followed by a discussion of my arguments. Isaac's dismissal of my reconstruction *HR in cases of shortening as circular is mistaken because this reconstruction is supported by full grade forms with *VHR. His peculiar comparison of Latvian dztvs, Lith. gyvas 'living' with Latvian plans, Lith. pl6nas 'thin' obscures the issue because the latter word has a full grade vowel *VH. Eventually he devises a highly unnatura~ complex and unconvincing phonetic rule on the basis of a host of additional assumptions in order to explain the data without recourse to analogy. It is a typical example of paper phonetics. Isaac's proposal to derive the short vowel of Latin vir 'man' from nom.sg. *vir.z < *vlrz < *vlros (p. 57f.) does not explain the short vowel of the Old Irish cognate fer. 3. Isaac presents a relative chronology of 25 sound changes from Proto-IndoEuropean to Celtic (pp. 62-64). He mistakenly thinks that the circumflex of Lith. tauras 'aurochs' is compatible with a reconstruction **taHuros (p. 65), cf. acc.sg. dfeverj 'brother-in-law' < *daHiuerm, pfemenj 'shepherd' < *poHimenm. The word is an early European borrowing from Semitic. I cannot accept all stages of Isaac's relative chronology (pp. 69-74). I have dated the split of *o, into *a and *u (Isaac 22) before the rise of *e3 (Isaac 21) and the raising of *e, to *t (Isaac 17) between these two developments (Ko35: 39-41 = K239: 6-9). I think that the loss of the laryngeals (Isaac 7 and 18) can largely be dated to the Italo-Celtic period.
More on the chronology of Celtic sound changes Isaac's anaptyctic shwa (5, 13a, 20) is a heterogeneous phenomenon which can partly be dated to the Italo-Celtic period (cf. K239: 88). There was no phonetic reduction of *ye to *i between consonants (Isaac 19, cf. K239: 137). The development of *p (Isaac 12a, 14. 15, 16) was discussed above. Isaacs earlier rules are Proto-Celtic (4, 6, 10, n), Italo-Celtic (5, 7, 8, 9), dialectal Indo-European (3), or mistaken (2, cf. Puhvel1987). I am sorry that Isaac has found it unnecessary to discuss the arguments for the chronology which I put forward earlier. 4· Isaac reconstructs *f!'dies > *j'dhyes > *('dhes > Greek xOec, 'yesterdaY, with loss of the dental stop in Sanskrit hya/:l, Latin herl and German gestern but loss of the palatal stop in Welsh doe and Albanian dje (p. 75). He assumes metathesis in Greek *dhf!'omios > *i'dhonyos > x06vtoc, 'of the earth' and its cognate Olr. duine, Welsh dyn 'mad, Gaulish gen.pl. -XTONION (p. 78), but not in Sanskrit lcyam- 'earth~ Gothic guma 'man~ Latin humus, homo, Albanian dhe (p. 81), to which Lith. zeme, Slavic zemija, Thracian uf4EJ..'1 and Phrygian {e~ev can be added. It seems to me that none of these examples supports the hypothesis of an early dialectal Indo-European development or later language contact All forms can be derived from *tk-, *dhf!'-, with metathesis in Proto-Greek and ProtoCeltic. I also reject the derivation of Latin sitis 'thirsf, situs 'mould' < *dhg""'iti/uand situs 'located, site' < *tkito/u- (p. 79). The former words may be related to Sanskrit jasate 'be exhausted~ Greek af3evviJfU 'extinguish' and the latter to Latin sileo 'be silent' ( cf. de Vaan wo8: 563f.). No conclusions can be based on the word ursus 'bear'. Following Melchert (1994: 251f.), Isaac assumes three series of velar stops in Anatolian and Proto-Indo-European (p. 83). I have argued that the plain velar series developed from depalatalization of the palatovelars and delabialization of the labiovelars (e.g. K263: 27-32, cf. already Meillet 1894 and Steensland 1973). Melchert lists three examples of plain velar *k in Luwian, viz. kar5- 'cut' < *krs(cf. Kloekhorst 2008: 455), kattawatnalli- 'plaintiff' < *kH.et- (cf. Kloekhorst 2008: 466), and kiS- 'comb' < *ks- (cf. Kloekhorst 2008: 481f.), all of them with depalatalization of an original palatovelar before the following consonant. Contrary to Isaac's "neutralisation of distinctive aspiration in the voiced occlusives" during a "period of contact between Celtic, Balto-Slavic and IndoIranian around 2,ooo BC" (p. 90), I assume loss of PIE glottalization in ProtoCeltic and its preservation in Indo-Iranian, Balto-Slavic, Germanic, Italic, Greek and Armenian (e.g. Ko75 and K239: 149-151). In my view, Italo-Celtic was the first branch of Indo-European which separated from the proto-language after Anatolian and Tocharian and did not therefore participate in the more recent innovations of the central dialects such as the extended development of the subjunctive, the optative and the middle voice (cf. K239: 151-157). Isaacs view that the sigmatic formations "are patent innovations of the late Proto- IndoEuropean period" (p. 93) is surely mistaken. Contrary to his statement, the
Italo-Celtic relative pronoun *yos was not a common innovation of Indo-Iranian, BaltaSlavic, Graeco-Phrygian and Celtic but was simply replaced by *kwo- in Germanic and Italic, just as it recently was in most Slavic languages. Celtic never was a central Indo-European language. 5· Isaac's fmal chapter deals with palatalization in Irish, which I have discussed earlier (Ko35: 41-48 = K239: 9-17 and K167 = K239: 117-120). He starts from McCone's treatment (1996) without taking my criticism into consideration. Under these circumstances it seems pointless to repeat what I have said earlier about the mistakes in McCone's account and I simply refer to my earlier work. Just for the record I only mention that McCone's first, second and third palatalizations correspond roughly to my stages 7, 12 and 18 and the labialization of *i to *u in cruth 'shape' and gen.sg. cruimthir < QRIMITIR 'priest' to my stages 9 and 16, respectively. Eventually Isaac arrives at a chronology which is very close to mine (p. 102): first palatalization (7), lowering (n), second palatalization (12), apocope (15), labialization in cruimthir (16), third palatalization (18), syncope (19). Isaac's effortto conflate "the various palatalisations of Proto-Irish" (p. 104), which is evidently meant to remedy the inconsistencies in McCone's account, does not contribute to a better understanding of the chronological processes. There can be little doubt that the first palatalization affected initial consonants but not *kwr- and *gw- (cf. K239: 119f.), just as the intervening *w blocked palatalization of the velar obstruent by the following front vowel in Czech kvet 'flower: hvezda 'stat, unlike Russian cvet, zvezda. The lowering of *e in Old Irish daig 'flame, datsg. taig 'house, laigid 'lies: but not in gen.sg. and nom.pl. tige, verbal noun lige, is a result of palatal dissimilation and must be dated after the general raising and lowering (cf. K239: 141). I conclude that Isaac's discussion has given me no reason to change my mind on any of the issues involved.
INITIAL LARYNGEAIS IN ANATOUAN
Elsewhere I have argued that initial "'H.- and "'Hr yielded h- before *-e- and zero before *-o- in Armenian and Albanian and suggested that the same development may be established for Hittite, e.g. harp- 'separate' < *H3erbh- versus ark- 'mount' < "'H3 orl'-ey-, Gr. 6pqJctv6t;, 6pXJt; (cf. Ko73: 42). The new monographs by Kimball (1999) and Rieken (1999) have strengthened my view that this is indeed correct. In his classic study of "'~ in Anatolian, Melchert lists seven examples of ha< "'H3e- (1987: 21):
haran- 'eagle'< "'H3eron-, Gr. 6pv1t;; harp- 'change one's group'< "'H3erll'-, Latin orbus; happar 'transaction; happinant- 'rich'< "'H3ep-, Latin opus; haStiii 'bone(s)' < "'H3e5t(H.)oi, Gr. 6areov; hark- 'perish'< "'H3erg-, Old Irish orgaid 'slays'; (6) hawi- 'sheep' < "'H3ewi-, Latin ovis; (7) haliya- 'boW, halhaltumar 'comer' < "'H3el-, Gr. wA.ev11 'elbow'. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
As Melchert points out, proponents of the view that "'Hr was lost in Anatolian assume ha- < "'H.o- in these words, which implies that the absence of nonAnatolian a- < "'H.e- in these roots must be ascribed to chance. This is clearly a circular argument. Moreover, initial "'Hr is reflected as h(a)- before a consonant in Hittite harg(a)niiu 'palm, sole'< "'H3rg-, Gr. optyw 'stretch out' (and allegedly hapus- 'shaft, penis' < "'H3pus-, Gr. orrvtw 'marry, which seems an improbable etymology to me), as Melchert points out, concluding that "'Hn like *11-, is generally preserved as h-. In his more recent monograph, Melchert silently abandons "'~- for "'H.- in 'bone' and 'sheep~ to my mind for no good reason, and stealthily adds hanna- 'litigate' < "'H3enH.o- (1994: 145, 235). In his article, Melchert lists three examples where initial "'~- may have been lost in Hittite (1987: 20): (1) arta 'stands'< "'H3erto, Gr. wpro; (2) arki- 'testicle'< "'H3erl'i-, Gr. 6px1t;; (3) aniya- 'carry out, execute'< "'H3 en-, Latin onus. As he points out, these instances might reflect *H,o- if the necessary o-grade could be justified. In his book, Melchert posits *H,e- with lowering of *e- to abefore the following resonant in these forms (1994: 85, 137). This is clearly unsatisfactory in view of the non-Anatolian evidence. Moreover, he follows Kimball's suggestion (1987) that initial "'Hn unlike "'H.-, was lost in Lycian (on which see below).
Anatolian In her monograph, Kimball adduces three alleged instances of Hittite ha- <
"'H.o- (1999: 142): (1) hiiwi- 'sheep, Hom. Oi~, Latin ovis; (2) ha5tiii 'bone(s): Gr. oareov; (3) hasduer 'twigs, brush: Gr. i'J{oc;. Since these are classic examples of non-apophonic o- in Indo-European (e.g. Beekes 1969: 13of., 139f.), I reconstruct *~e- here. Kimball lists six possible examples of ha- < *H3e- (1999: 393f.): (1) hiippar 'price deal: hapzi 'is rich: hiipperiya- 'city, settled place, Latin opus; (2) hiiras, hiiran- 'eagle; Gr. i'JpVIc;; (3) hiiriya- 'burf, Gr. opv(J(JW 'dig'; (4) hiiri- 'valleY, Hom. oi>poc; 'boundary' (which seems an improbable etymology to me); (5) happena- 'baking kild Gr. om6c; 'roasted'; ( 6) hiiliya- 'kneel; Gr. wA.ev11 'elbow'. Kimball rejects the etymological connection of aniya- 'work' with Latin onus 'burden' and assumes ii- < *Ro- in iirra- 'arse' < *H,orso-, Gr. i'Jppoc;, and in iir'arrive, Gr. i'Jpwpa, versus ar- < *H,r- in arki- 'testicle' and ar- 'stand, place oneself' (1999: 387, 389). I would rather assume "'H3o- in arki- 'testicle' and distinguish between *H,er- 'move' and "'H3er- 'rise' (cf. Oettinger 1979: 403f., 523f.). While iir- 'arrive' < *H,or- reflects the vowel of the perfect, ar- 'stand' < "'H3or- has the root vowel of the original causative and iterative presents which spread to the middle flexion (cf. Oettinger 1979: 526). It is important to note that Hittite does not tolerate an alternation between initial h- and zero within the paradigm while the vowel alternation between -eand -a- in the root is productive. Consequently, a methodology which does not reckon with the possibility that initial h- was restored or analogically eliminated leads to a proliferation of reconstructed phonemes, and this is precisely what we see in Anatolian studies. My reconstructions differ from the ones proposed by Melchert and Kimball in two respects. First, they are much more constrained because I do not fmd evidence for more than four distinct sequences (three laryngeals before *-e- and neutralization before *-o-) whereas they start from 24 possibilities (zero and three laryngeals before three vowels "'e, *a, *o which may be short or long, cf. Melchert 1994: 46f., Kimball 1999: 119f.). Second, my reconstructed laryngeals are based on independent evidence from the nonAnatolian languages, especially Greek, whereas theirs are based on the internal evidence of the Anatolian languages, especially Hittite. In her excellent new monograph, Rieken is quite candid about adopting the latter methodology when she concedes that her view that "'H3 was always lost in Anatolian is "nicht viel mehr als eine Arbeitshypothese" (1999: 5).
Initiallaryngeals in Anatolian Any proponent of a scientific theory should indicate the type of evidence required for its refutation. While it is difficult to see how a theory which posits *H.- for Hittite h- and a dozen other possible reconstructions for Hittite a- can be refuted, it should be easy to produce counter-evidence for a theory which allows no more than four possibilities which are moreover based on independent, non-Anatolian evidence. The fact that no such counter-evidence has been forthcoming suggests that my theory is correct. In particular, the alleged instances of ha- < *H,o- all show non-apophonic o- in the non-Anatolian languages and Melchert reconstructs e-grade in these words (cf. 1987: 21 and 1994: 106, 145, 235, 257). For Hittite aiS 'mouth', Latin os, I reconstruct *H,eH~ (cf. Melchert 1994: nsf., Rieken 1999: 186). My theory makes three more predictions which could but have not been refuted: the absence of an Indo-European alternation between *e- and *a- (not *o-), the absence of Indo-European etymologies with *a- not from *H.e-, and the absence of an Indo-European origin of Hittite he- (unless -e- represents an i-diphthong). There was no phoneme *a in Indo-European (cf. Lubotsky 1981 and 1989). The only example of Hittite a- < *a- which looks ancient is alpa'cloud~ Gr. aA.q~6<;, Latin albus 'white, also Gr. &Aq~1 'barleY, Old High German albiz 'swan' (cf. Melchert 1994: 147, Rieken 1999: 98, rejected by Kloekhorst 2008: 169). I think that this root was borrowed from a European substratum language because it is not found in Indo-Iranian or Tocharian, has a variant *elbh- in Slavic, has an alternating suffiX -it-, -ut- in Germanic (cf. Boutkan 1998b: 127) and the same suffiX with an infiXed nasal in Slavic in the word for 'swad plays a role in Germanic mythology (cf. English elf) and is frequent in European geographical names (e.g. Alba, Albion, Elbe, the Alps). It supports the view that the Anatolians preceded the Greeks and the Phrygians in their migration from the Ukraine into the Balkans and then into Anatolia. The assumption that original long vowels were not colored by adjacent laryngeals is still maintained by Melchert (1994: 47, 68) and Kimball (1999: 120, 144f.). Since the color of the laryngeals is under discussion and original vowel length is notoriously difficult to establish, it adds another degree of freedom to available loose reconstructions. Interestingly, the harvest of this free lunch is extremely small Kimball still subscribes to Melchert's obsolete view that *H.eand perhaps *~e- yielded hi- in Hittite (1999: 144f.), a view which Melchert himself has fortunately withdrawn (1994: 143). Both Melchert (1994: 144) and Kimball (1999: 145) now recognize that hekur 'crag, rock' is a loanword from Hurrian. Incidentally, sehur 'urine' looks like a loanword from Semitic (cf. Orel & Stolbova 1995: 125, #533; differently Kloekhorst 2008: 742). The derivation of henk- 'offer, granf, middle voice 'bow' < *H.e- cannot be correct in view of the Old Hittite spellings 3sg. ha-ik-ta, 3pl. ha-in-kan-ta which "cannot be dismissed as hypercorrections" (Melchert 1994: 144, cf. Oettinger 1979: 172, 177, Rieken
Anatolian 1999: 336). It follows that there is simply no evidence for Hittite he- < *H.e- or *H3e- (cf. now Kloekhorst 2008: 98). Kimball claims that initial *Hn unlike *H,-, was lost in Lycian epirije- 'sell; Hittite happariye- < *~ep-, Latin opus (1987: 187f. and 1999: 385), and Mekhert follows her (1994: 72). Rieken has proposed to derive the verb from a thematic stem *Hopro-, not directly from happar 'transaction' (1999: 315). The initial laryngeal may have been lost in the verb and later restored in Hittite on the basis of the heteroclitic *~ep-rln-. Note that Oettinger already proposed two different chronological layers for hap(pa)rae- and hap(pa)rie- and an anaptyctic -i- in Lycian epirije- (1979: 352f., cf. Rieken, lc.). However, the meaning of the Lycian verb is unclear and it should therefore be excluded from the discussion (cf. Kloekhorst wo8: 296). I conclude that the material adduced by Oettinger, Mekhert, Kimball and Rieken is fully compatible with my view that initial *H.and *Hr were preserved before *-e- and lost before *-o- in Anatolian. POSTSCRIPT
In a recent study (2oo6a), Kloekhorst argues that initial *Hr is preserved before
*e in Hittite ha- 'believe, hanna- 'sue, happar- 'trade, haran- 'eagle; hark- 'perish; harp- 'separate oneself; hastiii- 'bone; hiiwi- 'sheep, hallanna/i- 'lay waste; harniiu- 'birthing chair, hartu- 'descendant' and lost before *o and before resonants in ark- 'mount; aru- 'high; arki- 'testicle, ar- 'stand; arai- '(a)rise; arnu- 'make gd, aniya- 'carry out' and liiman 'name'. He rejects the etymologies of haliya- 'kneel; *hapu5- (recte: hapusa- 'shaft; cf. Kloekhorst 2.005) and hasduer- 'brushwood' and proposes *H.- in harg(a)nau- 'palm, sole' and *H,- in ais- 'mouth'. I agree that zero grade is preferable to o-grade in arta < *H3 r-to, arai- < *H3 r-oi- and aniya- < *~n-ie/o- and that his alternatives for hallanna/i-, harniiu-, hartu-, aru-, arki-, harg(a)nau- and ais- are attractive possibilities.
HITTITE ammuk 'ME'
In the Indo-European department of Leiden University, Alwin Kloekhorst has initiated a discussion on Hittite ammuk 'me~ The central question is: where did the geminate come from? This has led me to reconsider the origin of the IndoEuropean personal pronouns against the background of my reconstruction of Indo-Uralic (K203: 221-225). For the historical data I may refer to Schmidt (1978). On the basis of the Indo-European evidence, the personal pronouns can be reconstructed as follows (cf. Beekes 1995: 207-211, Cowgil11965: 169f.): singular nom. ace. gen. abl. dat loc. poss.
1St
2nd
reflexive
*leg*lme *lmene *lmed *lmifi *lmoi *lmos
*tu*tue *teue *tued *tul:i'i *toi *tuos
*sue *seue *sued *subhi *soi *suos
dual nom. ace. gen. abl. dat loc.
1St
2nd
*uel*nlue *no? *nlued *nluebhi *nlui
*iul*ule *uol *uled *ulebhi *uli
plural nom. ace. gen. abl. dat loc. poss.
1St
2nd
*ue*nsme *nos *nsmed *nsmei *nsmi *nsos
*iu*usme *uos *usmed *usmei *usmi *usos
Here *l stands for the glottal stop *H,. The reconstruction of initial *lm- is based on Greek and Armenian. The reconstruction of the dative forms *lmif!'i, *fubhi, *subhi is based on Italic *mihei (cf. Oscan sifef), Sanskrit tUbhyam, and the BaltaSlavic forms, which point to dat.-loc. *minoi, *tubhoi, *subhoi, e.g. Polish mnie, tobie, sobie (similarly in Czech and Old Russian, butte-, se- from the gen.-ace.
370
Anatolian
form in South Slavic and modern Russian), East Baltic dial mu- from *tu- (cf. Endzelin 1971: 187), Old Prussian subs 'self~ While Sanskrit preserved the dual paradigms remarkably well, Greek evidently generalized full grade *nol-. The same generalization in the corresponding form *uol- and the reanalysis of the pronominal stem as *w- may have provoked the replacement of the latter by s- < *tw- from the singular and subsequently by arp- on the basis of the dat.-inst form arp1, which apparently replaced first *subhi on the model of loc. *soi and later *tubhi after dat-loc. am < *twoi. As a result, we find Greek arp-in the 2nd dual and 3rd plural forms. The reconstructed accusatives *lme (or *mme), *tue (or *twe), *nlue (or *nHwe), *ule (or *uwe), *nsme, *usme have given rise to different interpretations. It has been proposed that the distinction between *-me and *-ue reflects plural versus dual number (Cowgill 1965: 169), first versus second person (Katz 1998: 279), or a phonological split (Meyer 1997: 101-104). None of these proposals explains the actual distribution of the endings, in particular the short root vowel-u- in all case forms of Sanskrit yuvam 'ye two' and the fact that we never fmd *u twice in the same pronominal form. This strongly suggests that all instances of *u in the personal pronouns have a single origin. For Indo-Uralic we can reconstruct the pronouns *mi 'I; *me 'we, *ti 'thou; *te 'you; demonstratives *eli, *t-, *s-, reflexive *u/w, dual *-ki, plural *-t in heads and *-i in dependent forms, genitive *-n, case particles ace. *m, loc. *i, abl. *t, adessive *pi (cf. Collinder 1960: 237, 2.43, K203 and K2o5), where ace. *m and abl. *t may represent earlier *me and *te. Sound laws which are relevant in the present context include IE *s < IU *ti (e.g. in nom.pl. *-es beside *-i and abl.sg. *-os beside *-d), IE *e < all IU vowels under the stress except word-final high vowels and zero grade elsewhere, then IE *o < *u (syllabic *w) in unstressed syllables, then IE *o < *e in cliticized forms, and the (Indo- Uralic) lenition of *p, *t, *k to *bChJ, *dChJ, *f!-hJ in weak syllables and word-fmally (cf. Kw3: 2.2.1f. and K213). The Indo-European thematic flexion was built on an ergative case form in *-os (cf. Beekes 1985: 191-195) which still functions as the gen.-abl. form of the consonant stems in the historical languages. The possessives in *-os thus represent the earlier ablative of the personal pronouns while the new ablative in *-ed is built on the accusative, like the locatives *nsmi and *usmi and the datives *nsmei and *usmei as well as the corresponding dual forms. This essentially reduces the problem of the stem formation to the nom. ace. gen. forms and to the dat. and loc. forms of the singular. Here the question arises: how did the apparently simple and transparent pronominal system of Indo- Uralic develop into the much more complicated and opaque Indo-European system? The answer to this question lies primarily in the assibilation of *ti to *si and the rise of ablaut which reduced all non-final vowels to *e under the stress and zero grade elsewhere. As a result, we expect the following outcome:
Hittite ammuk 'me'
371
independent '1, me' 'myself' 'we, us' 'thou, thee' 'yourself' 'ye, you'
stressed
unstressed
Indo-Uralic
*mi, *me*mu, *me*me, *me*si, *se*tu, *te*te, *te-
*m*m*m*s*t*t-
*mi *mu *me *ti *tu *te
dependent 'I, me' 'myself' 'we, us' 'thou, thee' 'yourself' 'ye, you'
stressed
unstressed
Indo-Uralic
*men *men *men *sen *ten *ten
*mn*mn*mn*sn*tn*tn-
*min *mun *men *tin *tun *ten
It is clear that this system could not be maintained. Moreover, the stem form *s< *ti for the second person interfered with the Indo-Uralic demonstrative *s-, which is preserved in the Indo-European anaphoric pronoun *so. The largescale homophony was eliminated by the use of deictic *(e 'this' for the first person singular and *ue 'self' for a person who is contrasted with another (third) person and by the suffixation of *-( < *-ki for the dual and *-i, later *-s < *-ti for the plural This resulted in such forms as *(me 'this-me, *tue 'thee-self~ *sue 'him-self' (cf. K203: 225), also *ue(, *uei '(our)selves' in contrast with outsiders (inclusive meaning) versus *(m)nd, *(m)nes 'ours' in contrast with your people (exclusive meaning), *ue(, *ues 'yours' in contrast with other people, then *u(e 'you two' in contrast with 'them' and *n(ue 'we two' in contrast with both 'you' and 'them'. These forms must have existed at an early stage already because the a-vocalism of *no(, *nos, *uo(, *uos originated in their use as clitics and we find the corresponding zero grade in acc.pl. *nsme, *usme, where *-me can hardly be anything else than the full grade IU case particle *me. On the other hand, the forms *teue and *seue show the continued existence of *te, *se, *ue as separate words at the stage when full grade *e in unstressed syllables became possible. Now we turn to the case endings. It appears that gen. *men 'me' was remodeled to *mene on the basis of *teue and *seue. Contrary to my earlier view (K203: 223), I now think that dat. *migl'i represents original *mibhi with dissimilation of the labial articulation because I cannot otherwise explain the differentiation from *tubhi and *subhi. These forms seem to preserve IU *mi 'I~ *tu 'thou-self: and *pi 'at'. There is no reason to assume an initial laryngeal in *migl'i and *mene if these directly continue IU nom. *mi and gen. *min. Indeed, the laryngeal may have been limited to ace. *(me, loc. *(moi, and pass. *(mos,
Anatolian
372
where it is preserved in Greek. It was evidently introduced at an early stage from the nominative '~leg-, which contains the deictic element *fe- 'this' and the emphatic particle *g(e) which is also found in ace. Greek qdye, Gothic mik, Hittite ammuk. The absence of *-u- in the locatives *toi and *soi suggests to me that we have *o < *u rather than *o < *e here, while the form *fmoi can easily be analogical. Hittite appears to have preserved the original IU pronoun *ti (with restored *t-) in nom. zik 'thou; as opposed to *tu 'thou-self in the other IE languages. On the other hand, nom. uk 'I' seems to reflect *fe-u- 'this-self, which is not found elsewhere, similarly ammuk 'me' beside tuk 'thee'. The latter form may have originated from generalization of the zero grade in *tu-g(e), which suggests the possibility that *fme-g(e) and *fu-g(e) were conflated into *fm-fu-g(e), yielding ammuk. POSTSCRIPT
Kloekhorst now derives amm- from *fmn- (2oo8: 114) with a cluster *-mn- for which I see no evidence in the Indo-European material. In my view, original *mn- yielded *n- in the 1st pl. forms whereas the 1st sg. paradigm has *fme(-).
HITIITE hi-VIlRBS AND THE INDO-EUROPEAN PERFECT
In an earlier study (K049) I argued that unlike aorists and athematic presents, Indo-European perfects and thematic presents originally had a dative subject, as in German mir traumt 'me dreams' for ich traume 'I dreani, e.g. Greek ol&x 'I know'< 'it is known to me; foopa1 'I will eaf <'it is eatable to me'. On the basis of Oettinger's epoch-making book (1979), I proposed that the Hittite hi-flexion originated from a merger of the perfect, where *-i was added to 3rd sg. *-e in order to supply a new present, with the thematic flexion of causatives and iteratives, where the fmal *-e of 3rd sg. *-eie was dropped before the loss of intervocalic *-i- (K049: 315). This view must now be reconsidered against the background of Kloekhorsfs dissertation (2007), which marks another turningpoint in the history of Hittite studies. For convenience's sake I shall write h, j, w forb, j, 11 and *q for any Indo-European laryngeal. Kloekhorst has demonstrated that apart from the factitives in -ahh-, Hittite hi-verbs show an alternation between *-o- in the singular and zero in the plural both in the root of underived stems and in the sufftx of derived stems, e.g. au-, u- < *q(o)u- 'to see, ak-, akk- < *q(o)k- 'to die, arr-, arr- < *q(o)r-q 'to wasll, iStap-, iStapp- < *st(o)p- 'to shuf, tarna-, tarn-< *trk-n(o)-q 'to let gd, hamank-, hame!ink- < *qm(o)-n-t- 'to tie, dai-, ti- < *dh-q(o)i- 'to puf, pai-, pi-< *qp-(o)i'to give, mema-, memi- < *me-m(o)i- 'to spealc, lilhuwa-, lilhui- < *li-lqu-(o)i- 'to pour'. It follows that all of these must be derived from Indo-European perfects. Note that Kloekhorst has conclusively refuted Jasanoff's ill-conceived theory (2003), which can now safely be discarded. Two questions remain: how did the Hittite hi-verbs develop semantically from original perfects, and where do the causatives and iteratives fit in with the new reconstruction? Here I would like to call attention to an important but largely forgotten article by Herman K0lln (1968), who points to the threefold opposition between Greek cbro0Vf1aKw 'struggle with death; cbreOavov 'passed awaY, and rtOVY{ICa 'am dead; which represent three successive stages of a single event The same threefold opposition is found in Czech, e.g. imperfective klekat, perfective kleknout 'to kneel down, stative (resultative) klelet 'to be on one's knees; also sedat (sf), sednout (sf) 'to sit dowiT, sedet 'to sif, lehat (sf), lehnout (sf) 'to lie dowiT, letet 'to lie, blyskat (se), blysknout (se) 'to flasll, blystet se 'to shine, zmlkat, zmlknout 'to fall silenf, mllet 'to keep silenf, vstavat, vstat 'to get up: stat 'to stand~ Similar triplets are found in the other Slavic languages. The Slavic stative verbs in -eti such as Czech kletet 'to kneef, videt 'to see, dr:Zet 'to hold' correspond to the Greek perfect, denoting an event where the non-agentive subject has no effect on an outside object.
374
Anatolian
When there is no stative verb, the imperfective member of an aspectual pair may take its place, e.g. opfral se o strom 'er lehnte sich an den Baum zuriick' or 'er sass an den Baum zuriickgelehnf, obklopovali svlho pHtele 'sie stellten sich in einem Kreis urn ihren Freund' or 'sie standen in einem Kreis urn ihren Freund', skryval penfze ve skffni 'er versteckte das Geld im Schrank' or 'er hielt das Geld im Schrank verborgeiT, hoste zaujfmali sva mfsta 'die Gaste nahmen ihre Platze ein' or 'die Gaste sassen auf ihren Platzen' (K0lln 1968: 133). Similar instances can be found in Polish, e.g. Jan rozchyla drzwi 'John sets or is keeping the door ajar: Jan obejmuje Mari~ wp6l 'John puts or is holding his arm around Mary's waisf, Jan wyciqga r~k~ 'John stretches out his arm or is holding his arm stretched ouf, Jan si~ nachyla 'John leans forward or is leaning forward' (Proeme 1980: 312.), and in Russian, e.g. sneg pokryvaet krysi 'snow covers the roofs: which may refer either to the process or to the resulting state. While the Slavic stative verbs in -eti generally correspond semantically to the Greek perfect, this is not always the case. K0lln calls attention to Czech pucet 'to swell, to bud, to sprouf, which denotes a development leading up to the event of pukat 'to become cracked, to break (into leaf): perfective puknout. Here putet describes the stage preceding pukat and puknout, whereas kletet describes the stage following klekat and kleknout. Other stative verbs denote continuous sound or movement, e.g. pistet 'to whistle, to pipe' beside pfskat and pfsknout which depict the course of action and its conclusion, e.g. neslysels ze jsem na tebe pfskal (ipf.) 'hast du nicht gehOrt, dass ich dir pfiff (einmal oder mehrmals)' and pfskl (pf.) jsem jen jednou, ale i kdybych pfskl (pf.) vfckrat, asi bys to neslysel 'ich pfiff nur einmal, aber hatte ich mehrmals gepfiffen, hattest du es wahl auch nicht gehOrt' (K0lln 1968: 136). Here the stative verb pistet does not denote another stage in the development of the action but expresses its continuousness. Similarly, the Greek perfect KEKA'1Ya 'scream continually' denotes incessant action, as opposed to the aorist A'KA.ay{a 'let out a scream'. Stative verbs in -eti like Czech klecet, pucet and piStet are intransitive and denote either inactivity or continuous action. Other stative verbs in -eti lack an aspectual pair denoting the same event, e.g. bolet 'to ache, sumet 'to make a noise, or at least its perfective member, e.g. letet 'to fly: bezet 'to run'. A few of them have developed into regular imperfective verbs, e.g. hofet 'to bum, cf. zahofet 'to catch frre: shofet 'to burn dowiT, and kficet 'to shouf, which generally describes constant screaming but may also refer to a single cry. All of these are intransitive, e.g. letet, hofet, kficet, or at least denote an event where the nonagentive subject has no effect on an outside object, e.g. dr:Zet 'to hold: videt 'to see, slySet 'to heai. The only exception K0lln mentions is vrtet maslo 'Butter schlagen, to churn, which must be recent in view of the usual construction with an instrumental object in vrtet hlavou 'to shake one's head: vrtet ocasem 'to wag one's taif. This development of stative verbs into regular imperfectives and subsequently into transitive verbs offers a model for the development of the
Hittite hi-verbs and the Indo-European perfect
375
Indo-European perfect in Hittite. As K0lln put it in an earlier article (1966: 75): "Vom historischen Gesichtspunkt aus kann dieser Befund so interpretiert werden, dass gewisse Deverbativa, die urspriinglich nur das Zustiindliche ausdriickten, ihren Anwendungsbereich allntahlich erweiterten und sich auch das imperfektive Bedeutungsgebiet unterworfen haben:' Turning now to the Hitttite material, we may wonder if the hi-verbs can semantically be derived from Indo-European perfects along the lines indicated by K0lln for the Slavic stative verbs in -eti such as Czech kleeet, pulet, pistet, bolet, sumet, letet, bezet, horet, kfitet, videt, drzet, vrtet. An important point which must be taken into account is the syntactic change from dative subject to nominative subject, which may have occurred as early as the Anatolian exodus from the Indo-European homeland in the Ukraine and given rise to transitive usage, as in Czech videt, drtet, vrtet. This development can be illustrated with the following example from Georgian (cf. Tschenkeli 1958: 488):
kurdi gaepara p'olicielebs 'the thief (nom.) escaped the policemen (dat); pblicielebs gaeparat kurdi 'idem', where the added plural marker -t in the second variant is coreferential with the dative subject, the hapless policemen. The substitution of the nominative for the dative subject, as in German er traumte for ihm traumte 'he dreamf, might yield the meaning 'the policemen let the thief escape; which could easily develop into a causative. This offers an explanation for the development of the Hittite hi-flexion. The following analysis is entirely based on the data presented by Kloekhorst in his dissertation (2.007). I shall frrst leave suffixed and reduplicated formations and compounds out of consideration here.
iik-, akk- 'to die, to be killed, to be eclipsed (of sun and moon)'. Note that 'to be eclipsed' like 'to obscure, to conceal, to hide' may refer either to the process or to the resulting state, as in Czech skryval (penfze ve skffni) 'hid' or 'kept hidden' cited above. 2.. iir-, ar- 'to come (to), to arrive (atr The cognates Gr. fpxof«XI and Skt. rcchati with the imperfective suffix *-ske/o- relate to the Hittite verb like the Czech atelic imperfectives Mtat and behat to the original statives denoting continuous movement letet 'to fly' and bezet 'to run'. 3. iirr-, arr- 'to wash; Toch. Ayar- 'to bathe' is a typical verb denoting continuous action. 4. ark-, ark- 'to mount, to copulate' denotes continuous action. 5· au-, u- 'to see, to lool.(. This verb is immediately comparable to Czech videt 'to see'. 6. hiin-, han- 'to draw Qiquids)' denotes continuous action. 7. ha"a-, ha"- 'to grind, to splinter up (wood), to crush (bread); Gr. ap6w 'plough'. This verb denotes continuous action.
1.
376
Anatolian
8. haS-, haSs- 'to give birth (to), to beget, to procreate' is reminiscent of Czech
pucet 'to swell, to bud, to sprou~ which describes the state preceding the event of pukat 'to break (into leaf), to become cracked~ 9. hat-, hat- 'to dry up, to become parched: Gr. IX(w. This verb denotes continuous change. hatk- 'to shut, to close: Gr. lfx8oi«XI 'be burdened, be depressed'. Like 'to hide' and 'to cover, the Hittite verb can easily encompass both the process and the resulting state, like Polish rozchyla 'sets ajar' or 'is keeping ajai, obejmuje 'puts around' or 'is holding around: wyciqga 'stretches ouf or 'is holding stretched ouf cited above, or may be a causative (see below). n. huwapp-, hupp- 'to be hostile towards, to do evil against, to hurl, to throw; Skt. vap- 'to strew, to scatter~ This verb denotes continuous action. 12. huwart-, hurt- 'to curse' denotes incessant action and may refer both to the process and to the resulting state. 13. iskalla-, iSkall- 'to slit, to split, to tear: Gr. at
Hittite hi-verbs and the Indo-European perfect
377
28. siirr-, sarr- 'to divide up, to distribute, to split, to separate' denotes continuous action or may be a causative. 29. sarta-, sart- 'to wipe, to rub' denotes continuous action. 30. suhha-, suhh- 'to scatter~ Gr. iJw 'to rain'. This verb denotes continuous action. 31. dii-, d- 'to take, to wed, to decide~ Skt. dadiiti, Gr. 8t8w~. The compounds uda-, ud- 'to bring (here)' and peda-, ped- 'to take (somewhere), to carry, to transport, to spend (time)' suggest continuous movement, like Czech bezet 'to ruti, cf. also unna-, unni- 'to send (here), to drive (here)' and penna-, penni- 'to drive (there)' belonging with #22 above. The verb may be identified with Finnish tuo- 'bring, Hung. toj- < Proto-Uralic *toqi- (cf. Kn2: 82 and K203: 220, Sammallahti 1988: 550), which has evidently preserved the original meaning of continuous movement. 32. wai-, wi- 'to cry (out)' is immediately comparable to Czech kfilet 'to shouf. 33. wiik-, wakk- 'to bite, Gr. llyvvftl 'breal(, Toch. AB wiik- 'split, burst'. This verb suggests continuous action but may be a causative. 34. wa5ta-, wast- 'to sin, to offend' may be compared to #12 above, denoting incessant action. 35· ziih-, zahh- 'to hit, to beat' denotes continuous action or may be a causative. Oettinger classifies the following verbs as original causatives and iteratives to be compared with the Sanskrit presents in -aya- (1979: 414-430). Here again I give Kloekhorst's translations. The rise of the causative can be attributed to the substitution of a nominative for a dative subject as illustrated with the Georgian example cited above. 36. iirk-, ark- 'to cut off, to divide~ Latin (h)erclsco 'to divide (an estate)'. 37. iskiir-, iskar- 'to sting, to stab, to pierce, Gr. 1Gelpw 'cut (off)~ 38. iSpiint-, ispant- 'to libate, to pour, to sacrifice, Gr. mrtv8w, Latin spondeo 'pledge, promise'. 39. iStiip-, istapp- 'to plug up, to block, to enclose, to shu~ cf. #10 and #26 above. 40. kiink-, kank- 'to hang, to weigh', Gothic hahan. 41. kariip-, kare!ip- 'to devour, to consume~ Skt. grabh- 'to seize~ This verb may actually denote continuous action, like Czech horet 'to burn'. 42. liihu-, lahu- 'to pour, to cast (objects from metal), to (over)flow~ The intransitive meaning suggests continuous movement, like Czech bezet 'to run'. 43. liik-, lak- 'to knock out (a tooth), to tum (one's ears or eyes towards), to train (a vine)~ Gothic lagjan 'to lay down This verb looks like a typical causative. 44. mark-, mark- 'to divide, to separate, to distribute, to cut up' may be compared to #28 and to #36. 45· sariip-, sare!ip- 'to siP, Latin sorbeo. 46. diikk-, dakk- 'to resemble~ Gr. 8o1Gei 'seems~
378
Anatolian
47. wari- 'to reap, to harvest, to wipe; Old Latin vort'O 'wipe; butcf. #29 above. 48. was- 'to buY, Latin venum dare 'to sell'. Unlike the other Indo-European languages, Anatolian evidently created perfects from (imperfective) nasal presents and (perfective) sigmatic aorists: 49. tarna-, tarn- 'to let go, to allow, to leave' < *trk-n(o)-q. so. sunna-, sunn- 'to fill'< *su-n( o)-q. 51. sanna-, sann- 'to hide, to conceaf < *sn-n(o)-q. 52. hamank-, hame!ink- 'to tie, to betroth'< *qm(o)ni'-. 53· kalank- 'to soothe, to satiate, to satisfy' < *gl(o)ni'-· 54· iins- 'to wipe'< *qom-qs-, Gr. aft!xw 'mow, reap'. 55· hari- 'to till (the soil)' < *qor-qs-, Gr. ap6w 'plougli, cf. #7 above. 56. maz- 'to withstand, to resist'< *m(o)qdh-s-. 57. pahS- 'to protect, to guard, to defend' < *p(o)-qs-, Latin pasco, piivl 'graze~ 58. pas-, pal- 'to swallow' < *p(o)-qs-, Gr. nfvw 'drink'. The most frequent suffix of derived perfects in Hittite is *-(o)i-, which apparently contributed a sense of directionality and which may (or may not) be identical with Proto-Uralic *-j- found in inchoative, terminative, passive, frequentative and continuative verbs (cf. Collinder 1960: 275). 59· iippa-, iippi- 'to be fmished, to be done' is a typical perfect 6o. arai-, ari- 'to arise, to lift, to raise; Latin orior. This verb denotes directed movement, cf. Czech beZet 'to run'. 61. halai-, hali- 'to set in motioO: Gr. laA.A.w 'send off~ This verb also suggests directed movement, cf. #43 above. 62. halzai-, halzi- 'to cry out, to shout, to invoke, to recite, Gothic lapon. This verb is comparable to Czech piStet 'to whistle' and kfitet 'to shout'. 63. huwai-, hui- 'to run, to hurry, to spread (of vegetation); Skt. vati 'to blow (of wind)'. This verb is comparable to Czech bezet 'to run'. 64. ishai-, ishi- 'to bind, to wrap, to obligate with, to impose upon; Skt. sii-, si-, perfect si~aya. This verb may be compared to Czech drzet 'to hold~ 65. ishamai-, ishami- 'to sing' may be compared to Czech piStet 'to whistle~ 66. iShuwai-, iShui- 'to throw, to scatter, to pour; Gr. iJw 'to ram, cf. #38 and #42 above. 67. ispai-, ispi- 'to get full, to be satiated; Skt. sphii(ya)- 'to become fat, to increase'. This verb is reminiscent of Czech pulet 'to swell, to bud, to sprouf. 68. mai-, mi- 'to grow (up), to thrive, to prosper, to be born' is again reminiscent of Czech pulet, cf. #8 above. 69. pai-, pi- 'to give, to pay, to grant, to hand over, which is cognate with Hitt. epp-, app- 'to take, to seize, Skt. iipn6ti 'to reach, to gain, to obtam, Latin aplscor 'reach, get' (cf. also Kloekhorst 2oo6b). This verb is of the type exemplified by Czech (hostl) zaujfmali (sva mfsta), '(the guests) took (their places)' or 'were
Hittite hi-verbs and the Indo-European perfect
379
sitting, where English sat covers both variants. The meaning 'to give' evidently developed from 'to take there/somewhere, cf. #31 above. Note that the Sanskrit and Latin verbs are derived imperfectives from the Hittite formations epp- and pai-, respectively (cf. K239: 136). 70. parai-, pari- 'to blow (a hom), to blow on (a fire), to blow up; Gr. nlfttrpruu. This verb may be compared to Czech pistet 'to whistle'. 71. pattai-, patti- 'to run, to race, to flee, to fly, Skt patati, Gr. rreroftal. This verb is comparable to Czech betet 'to run' and letet 'to flY. 72. sai-, si- 'to impress, to seal, to sting, to shoot, to throW, Latin sera, Gothic saian 'to sow~ This verb denotes directed action and is reminiscent of Czech vrtet 'to turn, to shake, to churn'. 73. dai-, ti- 'to lay, to put, to place' < *dh-q(o)i- denotes directed action, cf. also #31 and #69 above. 74. tarai-, tari- 'to exert oneself, to become tired' denotes directed action and is reminiscent of Czech bezet 'to run'. 75· zai-, zi- 'to cross (over); Skt. at- 'to wander, to roam'. The Hittite verb denotes directed movement, like Czech betet 'to run'. Reduplication appears to have added intensive meaning, but the number of examples is limited. There are three verbs which look like Indo-European reduplicated perfects and aorists, all of which are formally and semantically comparable to Skt. uvaca, vavaca, avocat 'spoke' < *we-w(o)k"'-.
merna-, memi- 'to speak, to recite, to telf < *me-m(o)i-, perhaps cognate with Skt. min6ti 'to establish'. 77. wewakk- 'to demand, to ask' < *we-wok-, which is cognate with wekk- 'to wish, to desire, to ask for, Skt. vaf-. 78. hanna-, hann- 'to sue, to judge' < *qe-qn(o)-q, cognate with Gr. lJvo~t 'blame'. 76.
There are eight verbs with -i- in the reduplication syllable, which suggests that they were derived from reduplicated presents like Skt. v{vakti 'speaks':
79. halihla-, halihli- 'to genuflect, to make obeisance to' < *qli-ql(o)i-, which is cognate with halije/a- 'to kneel down' and probably with #61 halai-, hali- 'to set in motio:d cf. Czech kleeet, klekat cited above. So. lilhuwa-, lilhui- 'to pour' < *li-lqu(o)i-, which is cognate with #42 liihu-, lahu-, also lilahu- 'to pour'. 81. mimma-, mimm- 'to refuse, to reject'< *mi-m(o)-q. 82. parip(p)ara-, parip(p)ari- 'to blow a horn' < *pri-prq(o)i- is a derivative of #70 parai-, pari-, also papra-, papri- 'to bloW, Gr. rrlftrrprifU. 83. pippa-, pipp- 'to knock down, to tear down, to destroy, to throw up' < *pi-p(o)-q may be cognate with #58 pas-, pas- 'to swallow' (cf. 'the earth swallowed them up').
Anatolian 84. sisha-, sish- 'to decide, to appoint' < *si-sq(o)i- is cognate with #64 ishai-, ishi- 'to bind: Skt sii-, si-. 85. titta-, titti- 'to instal~ to assign' < *dhi-dhq(o)i- is cognate with #73 dai-, ti-, also tiiista-, tiiiSti- 'to load'< *dhoqes-dhq(o)i-, Gr. rl8'ffU· 86. wiwa-, wiwi- 'to cry'< *wi-w(o)i- is cognate with #32 wai-, wi-. Both the combined presence of i-reduplication and i-sufftxation in most of these verbs and their coexistence with simpler formations show that this was a productive type in pre-Hittite. The derivation of hi-verbs from nasal presents and sigmatic aorists points in the same direction. We may therefore conclude that the exclusive derivation of perfects from the root attested in the other IndoEuropean languages represents a more archaic state of affairs. After the loss of the dative subject construction, the hi-flexion evidently became a device to supply imperfective verbs in the way envisaged by K0lln as formulated in the quotation above. Since the Slavic verbs in -eti clearly represent the IndoEuropean perfect, we may wonder if the same holds for the verbs in -iti. Both verb classes have ani-present reflecting an athematic flexion type with full grade *-ei- in the singular and zero grade *-i- in the plural (cf. Ko33: 61 and Ko87: 107). This type can be identified with the flexion of Latin capio 'take' (cf. K239: 134), Gothic hajjan 'to raise'. It has a twofold origin. On the one hand, the derivation of Hittite hi-verbs from reduplicated and nasal presents suggests that hi-verbs with the sufftx *-(o)i- may similarly have been derived from athematic i-presents. On the other hand, the intransitive Slavic verbs in -eti clearly correspond to an original perfect, which can now be identified with the Hittite hi-verbs in *-(o)i-. It follows that the latter formation must be reconstructed for the Indo-European proto-language. It is reflected in Skt. kupya- 'be angry, t~ya- 'be conten~ thya- 'be thirsty, dfhya- 'be fl.llll, budhya- 'be awake, manya'thin.l(, y,jdhya- 'figh~ lubhya- 'be confused: hr$ya- 'be exited: Gr. fUXlVOfUXl 'be furious~ rpalVOfUXl 'appear: xatpw 'rejoice, Latin cupio 'desire, fugio 'flee, patior 'suffer~ Old Irish do-moinethar 'think'. What happened to the original athematic i-presents? Latin facio 'make' and iacio 'throw' show that the type must have been productive at an early stage. At that time, the stem-fmal vowel of the thematic flexion appears to have been an object marker (cf. Ko49 ). Traditional Sanskrit grammar distinguishes between 1st class presents with an accented full grade root and unaccented thematic -a-, which are historically identical with the subjunctives of athematic verbs ( cf. Renou 1932), 4th class presents with a mostly accented zero grade root and the sufftx -ya-, 6th class presents with an unaccented zero grade root and accented thematic -a-, e.g. tudati 'to thrus~ which are characteristically accompanied by an implicit or explicit totally affected defmite object experiencing a change of state as a result of the action (cf. Renou 1925), and 10th class presents, especially causatives with an original o-grade root and the accented sufftx -aya-. The 1st
Hittite hi-verbs and the Indo-European perfect class can be explained from the original syntax with a dative subject and a nominative object (cf. Ko49: 319). The 4th class can now be identified with the original perfect in *-(o)i- reflected in the Hittite material. The 6th class represents an original transitive construction with an ergative subject and a nominative object The 10th class causatives combine the o-grade of the Hittite simple hi-verbs with the full grade suffix *-ei- expected in the objective (=thematic) flexion of the athematic i-presents. If this sufftx contributed a sense of directionality and the thematic flexion reflects its transitivization, their combination is an appropriate device to derive causatives from o-grade perfects. There is no evidence for Anatolian formations corresponding to the Sanskrit 1st and 10th class presents (or thematic subjunctives of athematic verbs) with an accented e-grade in the root or the suffiX preceding the thematic vowel. I therefore think that these formations originated after the exodus of the Anatolians from the Indo-European homeland in the Ukraine. At that time, the thematic vowel was evidently added to a stem with zero grades only. It follows that the original objective flexion of athematic i-presents should appear as Sanskrit 6th class presents with the accented sufftx -ya-. This is the type syati 'to bind' recently discussed by Kulikov (2ooo, cf. also 2001: 493-508). While the ergative construction was lost in Proto- Indo-European times already, giving rise to the sigmatic nominative and to thematic nouns with a nominative in *-os and an accusative in *-om (cf. Beekes 1985: 172-195), the dative construction evidently persisted until after the rise of the thematic subjunctive in the nonAnatolian languages. Mter the loss of the ergative construction, the accented sufftx *-ie/o- could easily spread as a suitable device to derive imperfective presents, primarily of transitive verbs. The introduction of full grade stems before the thematic vowel (or the addition of the thematic vowel to full grade stems) now differentiated the original thematic present flexion with a dative subject from the new thematic present flexion with a nominative subject in the non-Anatolian languages, e.g. Skt. daya- 'distribute' beside dya- 'cut' (cf. Kulikov 2ooo: 277f.). The new suffiX *-eie/o- then spread too-grade perfects before the substitution of a nominative for a dative subject which gave rise to 10th class causatives as illustrated with the Georgian example cited above. The remaining question is: what happened to the athematic i-presents and to the simple thematic flexion (Sanskrit 6th class presents) in Anatolian? While the former can easily have been thematicized and appear as mi-verbs in Hittite, the latter seem to correspond to the causative hi-verbs. When the dative subject construction was lost at an early stage in Anatolian, the nominative construction which had replaced the pre-Indo-European ergative construction with transitive thematic verbs was semantically closer to the perfect than to the formally similar sufftxed thematic presents, cf. Skt. avocat 'spoke'< 'he uttered the word' beside uvtka, vavtica 'spoke' < 'the word escaped him'. At this stage, the hi-flexion may have replaced the simple thematic flexion in pre-Hittite. The
Anatolian original type may have been preserved as a distinct class of hi-verbs in the nonablauting factitives in -ahh- < *-eqe!o-, e.g. happinahhahhi 'I enricli, which were replaced by verbs in *-eqie/o- in the non-Anatolian languages. Summarizing we arrive at the following picture. The elimination of the preIndo-European ergative construction was a common development of the IndoEuropean languages which gave rise to sigmatic nominatives and to the new category of nominal o-stems. A!l a result, thematic verb forms now had a nominative subject and an accusative object (as did athematic verb forms) if the verb was transitive but an indirect object which could be reanalyzed as a dative subject if the verb was intransitive (as was also the case in the perfect). This ambiguity gave rise to middle paradigms, which supplied intransitive verb forms to transitive verbs. The creation of derived perfects from athematic i-presents also belongs to the Indo-European proto-language, but the derivation of perfects from reduplicated and nasal presents and sigmatic aorists was evidently limited to the Anatolian branch. When the nominative replaced the dative subject of perfects and thematic presents in Anatolian, the older transitive thematic verbs (corresponding to the Sanskrit 6th class presents) adopted the endings of the perfect, giving rise to the hi-flexion. On the basis ofboth athematic presents and perfects, the non-Anatolian languages created a new class of indeterminate presents with a dative subject, a full grade stem and thematic endings, which developed into the Sanskrit tst and toth class presents and the subjunctive of athematic presents. When the nominative replaced the dative subject in these languages, the indeterminate presents which were derived from o-grade perfects developed into causatives and iteratives in the way discussed above. The central Indo-European languages (at least Indo-Iranian and Greek, but not Italo-Celtic, cf. K239: 151-154) finally created a subjunctive of thematic presents by inserting another thematic vowel before the endings. A final question is: where did the various stem formatives come from? As I have indicated elsewhere (K203: 2.19), I think that nominalizing *-i-, *-m-, *-s-, participial *-1-, *-n-, *-t-, *-nt- and conative *-sk- are ofindo-Uralic origin. It is attractive to identify the last of these with Tocharian A ske-, B skai- 'to attempf, which suggests that other verbal suffiXes may also go back to simple verbs. I am therefore inclined to identify the Indo-European present stem formatives *-(e) i-, *-(e)m-, *-(e)s-, *-n-, *-tfdh- with the roots 'to go~ 'to take, 'to be, 'to lead~ 'to puf, like *-sk- with the root 'to trY. A comparison of these elements with the Uralic verbal suffiXes *-j-, *-m-, *-n-, *-t- (cf. Collinder 1960: 2.72.-2.81) remains a task for the future.
STATIVE AND MIDDLE IN HITTITE AND INDO-EUROPEAN
In his dissertation ( 2.007), Alwin Kloekhorst lists the following classes of middle verbs (I write h,j, w forb, j, 1J and *q, *q., *q3 for the Indo-European laryngeals). (a) original *CeC-o: ii(i)- 'to be hot: eJ- 'to sit dowti, happ- 'to work out: hatt- 'to pierce, to prick; huetti- 'to draw, to pull', kls-, kiS-, kikkiS- 'to happen, to occur; ne- 'to turn (oneself): pahS- 'to protecf, sallk- 'to touch', weh- 'to turn (oneself): ze- 'to cook (intr.)'. (b) original *CeC-to: harp- 'to change allegiance, huett- 'to draw, to pult ki- 'to lie, lukk- 'to get lighf, park- 'to rise; wari- 'to lift oneself; we5s- 'to be dressed'. (c) original *CC-o: ark- 'to mount, to copulate; halzi- 'to cry ouf, parsi-, pari- 'to break; tuhS- 'to be cut off. (d) original *CC-to: ar- 'to stand: karp- 'to be angry; tarupp- 'to collect oneself'. (c/d) original *CC-o or *CC-to: pukk- 'to be hatefut sar- 'to embroider, supp- 'to sleep'. (e) tith-a 'thunders: which will be left out of consideration here. (f) iStu-iiri 'is exposed: kiSt-iiri 'perishes; lag-iiri 'falls; mi-iiri 'is borti, dukk-iiri 'is visible, ur-iiri 'burns; wakk-iiri 'is lacking'. (g) verbs in -je/a-, which will be left out of consideration here. (h) other verbs, which will also be left out of consideration here. Kloekhorst lists the following analogical developments after the Old Hittite period. (a)» (b): ii(i)- 'to be hof, eJ- 'to sit dowti, happ- 'to work out: kikkis- 'to happen, to occur; pahS- 'to protect: weh- 'to turn (oneself)'. (a)» (g): hatt- 'to pierce, to prick; huetti- 'to draw, to pull'. (b)» (g): huett- 'to draw, to pull; park- 'to rise, we5s- 'to be dressed'. (c)» (d): ark- 'to mount, to copulate'. (c) » (g): halzi- 'to cry ouf, parii-, pari- 'to break'. (d)» (g): karp- 'to be angry. It follows that class (a) must be ancient and that class (b) can easily be analogical Moreover, the radical vocalism is not always unambiguous: lukk- and wari- may reflect an original zero grade while pukk-, tarupp- and tuhS- may represent an earlier e-grade, as may have been the case with ark- 'to mount, to copulate' if this verb eliminated the initial h- on the analogy of the active paradigm iirk-, ark-. Alwin Kloekhorst points out to me that the Old Hittite middle forms of halzi- and parii- are limited to 3rd sg. halzija and pariija beside active halziii-, halzi- and thematic middle halzija-, pariija- whereas tst sg. middle pariha(ri) may represent an original e-grade, like 3rd sg. active parizi <
Anatolian
*bhersti. Thus, there is no compelling reason to assume that classes (b) and (c) are original, so that we may have to deal with classes (a), (d) and (f) only. Kloekhorst fmds no semantic difference between the 3rd sg. endings *-o and *-to in Hittite, for which Norbert Oettinger proposed a distinction between "stative" and "middle" thirty years ago. The latter author listed four correspondences between Indo-Iranian and Anatolian statives (1976: 112f.): (1) Vedic stave 'is announced: Hittite istuiiri 'is exposed'. (2) Vedic aste 'is sitting, Hittite esa(n), Greek ~crra1 'sits~ (3) Vedic saye 'is lying, Hittite kitta( n), Palaic kltar 'lies'. (4) Vedic duM 'gives mi~ Hittite dukkiiri 'is visible; Gothic daug 'is usefuf. It seems to me that the zero grade of Vedic duM can easily be analogical after the regular middle paradigm whereas the formation of Hittite istuiiri and dukkiiri requires a separate explanation. This leaves us with two types of "stative" (a) and (f) and one type of"middle" (d). Elsewhere I have proposed the following reconstruction of the Proto-IndoEuropean perfect, stative and middle endings (K033: 66-68, Ko44: 128, Ko49: 312, K2o3: 218). 1st sg. 2nd sg. 3rd sg. 3rd pl.
perfect
stative
middle
-q,e -tq,e -e -(€)r
-q. -tq,o
-mq, -stq,o -to -ntro
-0
-ro
I now think that the fmal *-o of the 2nd sg. and 3rd pl. stative endings is analogical and was taken from the 3rd sg. ending (cf. already K203: 224). It follows that the stative differed from the perfect in the e-grade of the root, the 3rd sg. ending *-o, and the absence of a vowel from the other endings. I have proposed that *-q, and *-tq, reflect original datives 'to me, to you: that *-e represents a subject marker and *-o a reflexive ending, that the formation in *-r can be identified as an original nomen loci, and that the middle endings represent a combination of agent markers with stative endings (K203: 225f.). The expected 1st and md pl. endings *-mq. and *-q, or *-tq, were evidently replaced by the more distinctive pronominal forms *medhq, 'to us' and *(t)dhq,ue 'to yourselves' in the stative and the middle (ibidem). While the perfect and the stative were originally intransitive formations with or without the 3rd sg. subject marker *-e and a dative beneficiary, the addition of the stative endings after the agent markers *-m, *-s, *-t, *-nt gave rise to a middle paradigm where the beneficiary was coreferential with the agent. This formation is best compared with the Georgian subjective version, e.g. me vimzadeb sadils 'I prepare myself a dinner: as opposed to the neutral version me vamzadeb sadils 'I prepare a dinner' and the intransitive middle vemzadebi 'I
Stative and middle in Hittite and Indo-European prepare myself: where v- is the 1st sg. subject marker and the following vowel refers to an indirect object (cf. Vogt 1971: 119ff., Ko49: 321). Though Kloekhorst finds no correlation between Hittite -hi and -mi on the one hand and the endings *-o and *-to on the other, the historical connection seems unmistakable to me in view of the agent marker which is present in the latter but absent from the former members of these pairs. Elsewhere I have argued that the Hittite hi-flexion comprises original perfects, new perfects created on the basis of derived presents, and transitive zero grade thematic formations (K241). This merger obliterated the semantic distinction between original intransitive perfects and transitive verbs in the Hittite hi-flexion and similarly between the 3rd sg. endings *-o and *-to in the stative and the middle. As a result, the original distribution can no longer be established on the basis of the Hittite evidence. The only exception are the verb forms in -iiri of class (f), which have clearly preserved the meaning of a stative. Formally, these look like analogical 3rd sg. perfect forms in *-orei created on the basis of a 3rd pl. form in *-r in a similar way as tarniii 'lets go'< *-noqei and diii 'puts: piii 'gives' < *-oiei were created on the basis of derived presents (cf. Kloekhorst 2007, K241). This suggests that, as in the case of the perfect, new statives in *-o could be derived from athematic verbs while new perfects were derived from earlier statives. The peculiar fact that there is no interchange between class (f) and the other classes of middle verbs in Hittite can be explained by the assumption that the creation of the r-perfect was early and preceded the merger of the perfect with the transitive thematic flexion. At a later stage, the derivation of new statives from athematic verbs blurred the distinction between the stative and the middle, which are still reflected in classes (a) and (d), respectively. This leads me to the following chain of events. At the earliest reconstructible stage we expect e-grade of the root in the stative but zero grade before the ending *-e in the perfect. If the apophonic alternation between e- and zero grade was still automatic at the stage when the new 1st and 2nd pl. endings *-medhq. and *-(t)dhq,uewere introduced into the stative paradigm (stage A ofK203: 221), the new forms must have had zero grade in the root. The original 3rd sg. stative ending *-o arose phonetically from lowering of Indo-Uralic *-u (stage B, cf. K203: 224). The paradigmatic alternation between full and zero grade was then evidently introduced from the stative into the perfect at a stage when the alternation between stressed *e and unstressed *o was automatic (stage C of my chronology). The stress was eventually retracted in the singular forms of the perfect when stressed *o and unstressed *e had become possible (stages D and E, respectively), probably on the analogy of the athematic present. The rise of lengthened grade in the 3rd pl. ending *-er < *-er was most recent (stage F of my chronology). Reduplicated perfects were probably created in order to supply perfects to reduplicated aorists at a comparatively recent stage (cf. K241) and
Anatolian adopted the zero grade 3rd pl ending *-r because the accent was on the reduplication syllable. The developments proposed here can be summarized in the following tables. stative 1st sg. 2nd sg. 3rd sg. 1St pl. 2ndpl 3rd pl.
stage At
stage A2
stages B-F
CeC-q. CeC-tq. CeC-u CeC-mq. CeC-(t)q. CeC-r
CeC-q. CeC-tq. CeC-u CC-medhq. CC-(t)dhq.ue CeC-r
CeC-q. CeC-tq. CeC-o CC-medhq. CC-dhq.ue CeC-r
perfect 1st sg. 2nd sg. 3rd sg. 1St pl. 2nd pl. 3rd pl.
stages A-B
stages C-E
stage F
CC-q.e CC-tq.e CC-e CC-mq.e CC-(t)q.e CC-er
CoC-q.e CoC-tq.e CoC-e CC-mq.e CC-q.e CC-er
CoC-q.e CoC-tq.e CoC-e CC-mq.e CC-q.e CC-er
EIGIIT INDO- URAUC VllRBS?
Karoly Redei (1986) lists 64 words which were supposedly borrowed from IndoEuropean into Uralic at an early date. The material is divided into three groups: 7 Proto-Uralic (PU) etymologies, 18 Finno-Ugric (FU) etymologies, and 39 Finno-Permian (FP) and Finno-Volgaic (FV) etymologies. The source of the borrowings is specified as "vorarisch" for the PU words, "vorarisch oder friihurarisch" and "urarisch" for the FU words, and "friihurarisch" through "uriranisch" for the FP and FV words (Redei 1986: 2.6). There are several reasons to call this account into question. Firstly, it is difficult to determine a place and a time which are suitable for borrowings from Indo-European into Proto- Uralic. We can probably identify the Proto-Indo-Europeans with the Sredny Stog culture in the eastern Ukraine around 4000 BC (cf. Mallory 1989 and Km). This clashes with the concept of direct borrowings from Indo-European into Proto- Uralic: "All that seems to be certain is that in the fourth millennium B.C. the ancestors of the Finno-Ugrians and the Samoyeds had lived on the eastern side of the Urals" (Fodor 1976: so). The earliest contacts between Indo-European and Uralic languages must probably be identified with the eastward expansion of the "vorarische oder friihurarische" Yamnaya culture around 3000 BC and the simultaneous spread of the Finno-Ugric Ural-Kama neolithic culture to the southwest Even if we were to assume an Uralic homeland west of the Ural mountains, earlier borrowings could only have been taken from the Samara and Khvalynsk cultures on the Middle Volga. Though it is conceivable that the languages spoken in that area were genetically related to Indo-European, or to Uralic, they cannot be identified with the language of the Sredny Stog culture. Secondly, the number of verbs in the oldest material is too large to support the hypothesis that they were borrowed: 3 out of7 (43%) in the first group, 5 out of 18 (2.8%) in the second group, and 2. out of 39 (5%) in the third group. Moreover, the two verbs from the third group have questionable etymologies. The verb *kara- 'graben' (Redei 1986: 51) is attested in the Volgaic languages (Mordvin and Cheremis) only. The corresponding words in the Permian languages (Votyak and Ziryene) and in Ob-Ugric (Ostyak) require a reconstruction *kur-, which is incompatible both with the Volgaic forms and with the alleged (Indo-)Iranian source. The verb *ni8a- 'befestigen, heften, binden' (Redei 1986: 53) is limited to Finno-Volgaic, e.g. Finnish nito-, Redei doubts the connection with Skt mihyati 'binds' himself: "Zufalliger Gleichklang?" If we eliminate these two items from the list, the presence of eight verbs in the older material becomes even more significant
Indo- Uralic Thirdly, the derivation of the Proto-Uralic forms from their alleged IndoEuropean sources involves considerable formal difficulties. I shall briefly discuss the four nouns of the first group (Redei 1986: 40-43). PU *nime 'Name, Finnish nimi, Mordvin fem, Votyak and Ziryene nim, Ostyak nem, Hung. nev, Tavgi (Samoyed) nim, etc. The PIE word must be reconstructed as *H3 neH3mn, Latin nomen, Hitt. liiman, Skt. nama, Arm. anun, oblique stem *H3 nH3 men-, Gr. OVOfUX, Olr. ainm, OPr. emmens, Russ. fmja, Alb. emer (cf. Ko73: 42, Ko9o: 63). The only Indo-European language which has a front vowel in the root is Tocharian, where A nom and B fiem point to a reconstruction *nemn, with delabialization of the second laryngeal. But even this form does not account for the high front vowel of the Uralic words. The PIE word is probably a derivative of the verbal root *H3neHn Greek lJvoftal 'blame' (cf. Kloekhorst 2008: 283). PU *sGne (*sane) 'Ader, Sehne, Finnish suoni, Mordvin san, Votyak and Ziryene SGn, Hung. {n, Tavgi tar.Ja, etc. The word is compared with PIE *sneH,ur, obl. -en-, Skt. snava, Toch. B $fior, Arm. neard, Gr. vevpov. Here again, the IndoEuropean forms do not explain the Uralic vocalism, which may be original if the words are related at all, whether the PIE word is a derivative of the root *sneH,or not A comparison with English sinew from *sH,inu- is no better. It is actually worse because the meaning of the latter word is the result of a Germanic innovation. PU *wa§ke 'irgendein Metall, ?Kupfer, Finnish vaski, Mordvin uJke, viSka, Votyak vd, Hung. vas, Tavgi basa, etc. This is the only "Kulturwort" in the list. It may be compared with Toch. A was, B yasa 'gold: which point to earlier *wesa. The latter word cannot be identified with Latin aurum, Lith. auksas, and besides does not explain the Uralic vocalism. It is much more probable that the Tocharian word was borrowed from Samoyed *wesa (Janhunen 1983: 120). PU *wete 'Wasser, Finnish vesi, Mordvin vee(, Votyak vu, Hung. vfz, Tavgi bel, beda-, etc. In Indo-European, the e-grade is attested in Hittite obl. weten-, Phrygian f3e8v, Arm. get, and in Germanic and Slavic derivatives. If the word was actually borrowed into Uralic, this must have occurred at a very early stage. But it is not the kind of word that is easily borrowed, and the Indo-European forms rather look like derivatives of the (Indo-) Uralic word. Against this background, we must consider the possibility that the eight verbs in Redei's first and second groups were inherited from Proto-Indo-Uralic. I shall give a brief summary of the material (cf. Redei 1986: 40-48). PU *miye- 'geben, verkaufet\ Finnish m.Y,Y-, myii-, Mordvin mije-, Vogul (ObUgric) ma(J)-, mi-, maj-, Yenisei (Samoyed) mile-, PIE *mei-, Skt. minati 'exchanges: Latvian mtt.
Eight Indo-Uralic verbs? PU *muJke- (*moske-) 'wascheti, Estonian moske-, Mordvin muJke-, musko-, Votyak mjsk-, Hung. mos-, Yenisei musua-, PIE *mesg-, Skt. majjati 'sinks; Latin mergere, Lith. mazg6ti 'to wash'. PU *toye- 'bringen, holen, geben; Finnish tuo-, Mordvin tuje-, Ostyak tu-, Yurak (Samoyed) tii-, PIE *de~-, Skt. dadiiti 'gives; Hitt. dii- 'take'. FU *aja- 'treiben, jagen; Finnish aja-, Ziryene voj-, Vogul wujt-, wojt-, PIE *H.eg-, Skt. ajati 'drives: Latin agere. FU *kan - 'streuen, schiitten, werfen, graben; Ziryene kundj-, Ostyak /g~;~-, Vogul kon-, Hung. htiny-, PIE *kH.en-, Skt. khtinati 'digs~ FU *teke- 'tun, macheti, Finnish teke-, Mordvin feje-, tije-, Hung. te(v)-, tesz-, PIE *dheH,-, Skt. dadhiiti 'puts: Hitt. diii-, Latinfacere. FU *wetii- 'fiihren, leiten, zieheti, Finnish veta-, Mordvin veda-, vefa-, viti-, viida-, viife-, Hung. vezet-, PIE *uedh-, Olr. fedid 'leads: Lith. vesti. FU *wiye- 'nehmen, trageti, Finnish vie-, Mordvin vije-, Votyak and Ziryene vaj-, Hung. vi(v)-, visz-, ve(v)-, vesz-, PIE *uef-, Skt. vahati 'carries; Latin vehere, Lith. vezti. Apart from Skt. khtinati, all of the Indo-European words are basic verbs with impeccable etymologies. This is a strong argument against borrowing and in favor of an original genetic relationship. As I have indicated elswhere (Km), we may conceive of Indo-European as a language of the Uralic type which was transformed under the influence of a Caucasian substratum. Following this line of thought I tentatively reconstruct Proto-Indo- Uralic *miye-, *muske-, *tagu-, *gaki-, *deka-, *weda-, *wige- (but cf. K203: 2.2.0). Thus, I think that the PIE laryngeals developed from velars in the neighbourhood of back vowels, as did Yukagir h- (Collinder 1965: 168) and the uvulars in Turkic and Mongolian. It has been argued that the small number of Indo-Uralic etymologies favors the assumption of borrowing rather than genetic relationship (e.g. Redei 1986: 10, w ). I am afraid that I fail to understand this reasoning. When we are dealing with distant linguistic affmity, we cannot expect to fmd large numbers of obvious cognates, which would be contrary to the idea of distant affinity. What we do expect to find is morphological correspondences and a few common items of basic vocabulary. I think that this is precisely what we find in the case of Indo-European and Uralic. Advocates of the alternative hypothesis, viz. that the verbs listed above were borrowed into Uralic, are faced with two insurmountable problems. First, they have to explain the prominent place of basic verbs among the oldest borrowings. Second, they do not account for the differences in the Uralic vocalism, e.g. *nime-, *miye-, *wiye- versus *wete, *teke-, *wetii-. It therefore seems to me that the burden of proof is now on the opponents of the Indo- Uralic theory.
390
Indo- Uralic
Uhlenbeck (1935: 9ff.) makes a distinction between two components of PIE, which he calls A and B. The first component comprises pronouns, verbal roots, and derivational sufftxes, and may be compared with Uralic, whereas the second component contains isolated words, such as numerals and most underived nouns, which have a different source. This is a simplification because we can find good Uralic etymologies for some B words, e.g. Finnish kaly 'sister-in-law; Gr. yaA.w<;, Russ. zol6vka, but I think that the distinction is basically correct The wide attestation of the Indo-European numerals must be attributed to the development of trade resulting from the increased mobility which was the primary cause of the Indo-European expansions. Numerals do not belong to the basic vocabulary of a neolithic culture, as is clear from their absence in ProtoUratic and from the spread of Chinese numerals throughout East Asia (cf. also Collinder 1965: 113 and Pedersen 1906: 369 on Swedish kast '4; val 'so; Danish snes 'zo; ol 'so; German Stiege 'w; Russ. s6rok '4o; kopa 'so, 6o'). Though Uhlenbeck objects to the term "substratum" for his B complex, I think that it is a perfectly appropriate denomination. The concept of "mixed language" has done more harm than good to linguistics and should be abandoned.
THE INDO-URAUC VERB
C.C. Uhlenbeck made a distinction between two components of Proto-IndoEuropean, which he called A and B (1935a: 133ff.). The first component comprises pronouns, verbal roots, and derivational sufftxes, and may be compared with Uralic, whereas the second component contains isolated words, such as numerals and most underived nouns, which have a different source. The wide attestation of the Indo-European numerals must be attributed to the development of trade resulting from the increased mobility which was the primary cause of the Indo-European expansions. Numerals do not belong to the basic vocabulary of a neolithic culture, as is clear from their absence in ProtoUralic (cf. also Collinder 1965: 112) and from the spread of Chinese numerals throughout East Asia. Though Uhlenbeck objects to the term "substratum" for his B complex, I think that it is a perfectly appropriate denomination. The best candidate for the original Indo-European homeland is the territory of the Sredny Stog culture in the eastern Ukraine (cf. Mallory 1989). Ifwe can identify Indo- Hittite and nuclear Indo-European with the beginning and the end of the Sredny Stog culture, respectively (cf. Km: 138), Uhlenbeck's view can be unified with Gimbutas' theory of a primary homeland north of the Caspian Sea and a secondary homeland north of the Black Sea (cf. 1985). What we have to take into account is the typological similarity of Proto-Indo-European to the North-West Caucasian languages. If this similarity can be attributed to areal factors (cf. K130: 94), we may think of Indo-European as a branch of IndoUralic which was transformed under the influence of a Caucasian substratum connected with the Maykop culture in the northern Caucasus. We may then locate the Indo- Uralic homeland south of the Ural Mountains in the seventh millennium BC (cf. Mallory 1989: 192f.) and perhaps identify the Khvalynsk culture on the middle Volga as an intermediate stage before the rise of the Sredny Stog culture in the ftfth millennium BC. The Indo-European verbal system appears to combine Uralic flexional morphemes with Caucasian syntactic patterns. Holger Pedersen already argued that the subject of a transitive verb was in the genitive (= sigmatic nominative) case if it was animate and in the instrumental case if it was inanimate while the subject of an intransitive verb and the object of a transitive verb were in the absolutive (= asigmatic nominative) case form (1907: 152), that the endings of the perfect and the thematic present originally belonged to the flexion of intransitive verbs and the "normal~ mostly athematic endings to the flexion of transitive verbs (1933: 311-315), and that the intransitive and transitive flexion types correspond to the Hittite flexional paradigms in -hi and -mi (1938: 80-85). Beekes has shown that this theory explains the origin of the Indo-European
Indo- Uralic
392
nominal flexion in its entirety (1985). Knobloch however identified the IndoEuropean thematic vowel in verbal paradigms "'-e!o- with an object marker (1953). Elsewhere I have integrated these findings into a coherent whole, arguing that the Indo-European thematic flexion of the verb can be compared with the objective conjugation of the Uralic languages and that this hypothesis explains the distribution of the thematic flexion in Hittite and Sanskrit as well as the rise of the thematic subjunctive (K049, cf. Nikolaeva 1999 on the remarkably similar system in Ostyak). In the following I intend to examine the Indo- Uralic origins of the Proto-Indo-European verbal system which has thus been reconstructed. Since the Indo-European laryngeals apparently developed from uvular obstruents, I shall write "'q, "'q., "'Cb in order to facilitate comparison with the Uralic data. Note that *dh stands for a lenis dental stop. My reconstruction contains the following Indo-European verbal paradigms (K033: 67, Ko49: 312, also Beekes 1995: 252, for the dual endings see K145):
I. athematic present (dynamic, subjective, imperfective) 1st sg. md sg. 3rd sg.
-mi -si -ti
1st pl. 2nd pl. 3rd pl.
-mes -tq,e -(e)nti
II. athematic aorist (dynamic, subjective, perfective) 1st sg. 2nd sg. 3rd sg.
-m
-s -t
1st pl. 2nd pl. 3rd pl.
-me -te -(e)nt
III. thematic aorist (dynamic, objective, perfective) 1st sg. 2nd sg. 3rd sg.
-om -es -et
1st pl. 2nd pl. 3rd pl.
-omo -ete -ont
IV. thematic present (dynamic, objective, imperfective) 1st sg. md sg. 3rd sg.
-oq, -eq,i -e
1st pl. 2nd pl. 3rd pl.
-omom -etq,e -o
1St pl. 2nd pl. 3rd pl.
-me -e -(€)r
V. perfect (static, perfective) 1st sg. 2nd sg. 3rd sg.
-q.e -tq.e -e
The Indo-Uralic verb
393
VI. stative (static, imperfective) 1st sg. 2nd sg. 3rd sg.
-q. -tq.o -0
1St pl. 2nd pl. 3rd pl.
The six paradigms were originally interconnected by a network of derivative, not flexional relationships. While the stative supplied a middle paradigm to intransitive verb stems, the transitive middle paradigm combined the endings of sets II and VI (cf. Ko44: 128): VII. transitive middle 1st sg. mdsg. 3rd sg.
-mq. -stq.o -to
1St pl. 2nd pl. 3rd pl.
-medhq. -tdhwe -ntro
Note that the system looks like the remains of a much more elaborate, but perhaps more regular structure. The most probable grammatical correspondences between Indo-European, Uralic, and other possibly related language families have conveniently been summarized by Joseph Greenberg (2ooo). The following items from his list are in my view defmitely Indo- Uralic (I retain Greenberg's numbering): 1. 4· 8.
n. 12. 14. 15. 16. 24. 25. 26. 29. 30. 31. 33. 36. 38. 39. 42. 43. 44·
frrst person *m, second person *t, demonstrative *i/e, demonstrative *t, demonstrative *s, dual *ki, plural *t, plural *i, accusative *m, genitive *n, dative *ka, locative *ru, locative *n, locative *i, ablative *t, diminutive *k, nominalizer *i, nominalizer *m, participle *n, participle *t, participle *nt,
Indo- Uralic
394 45· 46. 53· 54· 56. 6o.
participle *l, verbal noun *s, conative *sk, reflexive *u/w, negative *n, interrogative *k.
After this rather lengthy introduction, I now come to the chief part of my contribution, which is a comparison of the reconstructed Indo-European verbal system with its Uralic counterpart There are two major problems involved here. On the one hand, the shallow time depth of the Uralic data does not allow a reconstruction of the Proto- Uralic verbal system but only of (some of) its components. This deficiency is mitigated by the relatively conservative character of the Uralic languages. On the other hand, the great antiquity of the earliest Indo-European evidence is to some extent invalidated by the radical changes which took place under the influence of the presumably Caucasian substratum. I start from the assumption that the Proto- Indo-Uralic vowel system was identical with the one which has been reconstructed for Proto-Uralic (cf. Sammallahti 1988: 481): u
ii
e
0
a
a
This system was reduced in non-initial syllables: 'i
a
a
Moreover, "front and back vowels could not occur together in a (noncompound) word" (Sammallaht~ l.c.), so that we can write Iii for [i, i1 and /a/ for [a, a] in non-initial syllables. The Proto- Indo-Uralic consonant system cannot easily be reconstructed because the gap between Uralic and Indo-European is huge. I reconstruct ProtoUralic palatalized Iff and Ill instead of Sammallahtfs spirants /d/ and /a/ because they pattern like resonants and are reflected as *r and *j in Samoyedic and as *land *fin Finno-Ugric (cf. Sammallahti 1988: 485, 511f., 518, 532), cf. also the variation between Proto-Finno-Permic *salki and Proto-Ugric *sill'ki 'saliva I prefer to write Proto- Uralic *q for Sammallahti's /x/, which is strongly reminiscent of the Indo-European laryngeals (being lost before a vowel and vocalized before a consonant in Samoyedic and lengthening a preceding vowel before a consonant in Finno- Ugric) and may represent more than a single phoneme. Thus, I arrive at the following Proto-Uralic consonant system:
The Indo-Uralic verb p m
395 t s n r
1
c
k
n.
1)
s
q
t
r
w Unlike Uralic, Indo-European had three series of stops, conventionally written
*t, *d, *dh, etc. The difference between fortis *t and lenis *dh is in my view the result of a secondary development, conditioned by the tonal patterns of strings of morphemes (cf. Lubotsky 1988a: 4-7). It is reminiscent of Verner's law in Germanic and similar phenomena in other languages. Though I do not intend to discuss lexical correspondences here, I would like to adduce seven IndoUralic etymologies which seem particularly attractive to me (cf. Kn2, Sammallahti 1988: 538, 542, 550f.): (1) *meqi- 'give, self, PIE *mey- 'exchange'; (2) *moski- 'wash; PIE *mesg- 'sink, wash'; (3) *(q)aja- 'drive, PIE *q,eg- 'drive'; (4) *teki- 'dd, PIE *dheq,- 'put'; (5) *toqi- 'bring, PIE *de'b- 'give'; ( 6) *weta- 'pulf, PIE *wedh- 'lead'; (7) *wiqi- 'take; PIE *wef- 'carry'.
It appears that no simple sound laws can be established. While it is probable that the Indo-European distinction between palatovelars *k, *g, *t and labiovelars *kw, *(", *r arose when the distinctive timbre of the following vowel was lost (as happened in Ethiopic), the relation between velars and uvulars remains unclear. In particular, the correspondence of Uralic *moski-, *teki-, *toqi-, *wiqiwith Indo-European *mesg-, *dheq,-, *deqn *wef- suggests that the distinction between velars and uvulars is due to a secondary development. If we look beyond Indo- Uralic to the Altaic languages, we should expect that the uvulars developed from velars before back vowels and that the original distribution was obscured by the reduction of the vowel system in non-initial syllables. While Indo-European looks like the development of a Uralic system, the latter looks like having developed from an Altaic system. I therefore take the Uralic distribution of *k and *q to be probably more original and assume for IndoEuropean secondary fronting in *wef- < *wiqi- and secondary retraction in *dheq,- < *teki- (see further below). The rounded laryngeal *q3 of Indo-European *deqr < *toqi- suggests that the non-initial vowel was rounded as a result of Indo- Uralic vowel harmony in this root. Greenberg rightly points out that Indo-European *i and *u represent not only syllabic *y and *w but also original vowels which alternated with *e and *o
Indo- Uralic
396
(2ooo: 34-39), though his examples are largely incorrect (cf. Ko69 and Ko65: 222). For the present purpose it suffices to adduce the relevant instances from Greenberg's list of Indo- Uralic morphemes (see above): 1.
4. 8. 14. 16. 26. 31. 33. 38. 54· 6o.
frrst person *-mi beside *m, second person *-si beside *t (see below), demonstrative *i- beside *e-, dual *-i beside *-e beside *-q, (cf. Kn8), plural *-i beside *-es (see below), dative *fi beside *q (see below), locative *-i, ablative *-os beside *-t (see below), nominalizer *-i, reflexive *-o (see below), interrogative *k"'i- beside *kwe-.
Beekes distinguishes three stages in the development of the Indo-European vowel system (1985: 157): I. full grade (i.e. non-high) vowels *e and *o in stressed syllables only; II. introduction of *o in unstressed syllables; III. introduction of *e in unstressed syllables. This theory accounts for all types of vowel alternation in the Indo-European nominal inflexion (cf. especially Beekes 1985: 161, 169, 207). However, as I doubt the possibility of o-grade in stressed syllables at stage I when all unstressed syllables had zero grade, I would propose the following alternative chronology: A. Indo-European vowel reduction, giving rise to full grade *e under the stress and zero grade elsewhere; B. phonetic lowering of *u (= syllabic *w) to *o, giving rise to a full grade (= non-high) vowel in unstressed syllables; C. analogical introduction of a full grade vowel in unstressed syllables (e.g. in compounds), which automatically yielded new *o; D. introduction of *o in stressed syllables (e.g. by decompounding), resulting in a phonemic opposition between lei and lol under the stress; E. analogical introduction of full grade *e in unstressed syllables, generalizing the opposition between lei and lo/; F. rise of lengthened grade vowels *e and *o, yielding the conventional ProtoIndo-European vowel system. This chronology has the advantage of providing an explanation for the successive stages in the development of the vowel system. It also accounts for Beekes' "difficulty which I cannot explain" (1985: 196) that neuter i- and u-stems as a rule have o-grade whereas masculines and feminines have e-grade in the
The Indo-Uralic verb
397
root because the uninflected neuter form was found in compounds, unlike the nominative in *-s and the accusative in *-m of masculines and feminines. Moreover, it accounts for the frequent instances of *wo after a consonant where the semivowel was restored on the basis of an alternating *w, especially before *i and *r, which were syllabic in the zero grade, e.g. in the words for 'two' and 'four~
We now come to the crucial sound law which identifies Indo-European as a branch of Indo-Uralic: *ti was assibilated to *si (as later happened in Finnish). The principal evidence for this sound law consists of three pieces, viz. the md sg. ending *-si beside "t-, the plural ending *-es beside *-i, and the ablative ending *-os beside *-t. A fourth piece of evidence is the isolated pronoun *sim for *tim (cf. Beekes 1983: 219-224). A fifth piece of evidence is the perfect participle, cf. Greek masc. el86r-, fern. l8via < *-us-iq, < *-ut-iq, 'knowing, Vedic neuter -vat beside-~-. The Proto-Uralic pronouns 1st sg. *mi, md sg. *ti (later *mu, "tu with the suffix *-u 'self'), 1st pl. *me, 2nd pl. *te (later *me-i, *te-i with the plural ending *-f) are attested in the corresponding personal endings *-mi, *-ti, *-me, *-te (cf. Collinder 1960: 243, 308, Raun 1988: 562), which can be identified with the corresponding Proto- Indo-European athematic endings *-mi, *-si, *-me, *-te. These endings are directly preserved as *-m, *-s, *-me, *-te in the athematic aorist (II), where the final *-i was lost because it was unstressed. In the athematic present (I) the fmal *-i was restored on the basis of the independent pronouns at an early stage, while 1st pl. *-me received the additional plural marker *-s and 2nd pl. *-tq,e was taken from the thematic present (IV). When the latter substitution took place, it was evidently more important to distinguish between the present (1, IV) and the aorist (II, III) than between the athematic (1, II) and the thematic (III, IV) flexion, which were already differentiated by the thematic vowel in the latter paradigms. The Proto- Uralic plural suffix was *t in the nominative and *i in the oblique cases (cf. Collinder 1960: 237, 297f., Raun 1988: 557f.). The ending *-i is preserved in the Proto- Indo-European 3rd pl. ending *-nti of the athematic present (1), which evidently represents the original nom.pl. ending of the nt-participle, like Finnish laulavat 'they sing' (cf. Collinder 1960: 243), and in the Proto- Indo-European pronoun, e.g. nom. "to-i, gen. "to-i-s-om, dat *to-i-mus, abl. "to-i-os, inst. *to-i-l:l'i, loc. "to-i-su (cf. Ko65: 222). The ending *-i was apparently added to the original nom.pl. ending *-t, which after the loss of unstressed *-i yielded *-s < *-si < *-ti. Thus, the Indo-European ending *-es represents *-eti. The correspondence between Uralic and Indo-European is even closer if Janhunen is right that Proto- Uralic *-i was originally a conjunctive rather than an oblique ending (1982: 29f.) because this explains the IndoEuropean distribution of *-i in the pronoun and the participle versus *-es in the noun. The Indo-European acc.pl. ending *-ns looks like the Proto-Uralic gen.sg.
Indo- Uralic ending *-n plus the new plural ending *-s < *-ti. This suggests that it was created as a defmite oblique plural ending after *-n had developed into a general oblique singular ending (subsequently yielding n-stems) in Indo-European. Proto- Uralic gen.sg. *-nand acc.sg. *-m were probably limited to defmite nouns (cf. Janhunen 1982: 31) and the same must be assumed for the Indo-European acc.sg. ending *-m. Note that the 3rd pl ending *-nti must be due to restoration because both *t and *-i have been preserved. It was evidently built on the 3rd pl. ending *-nt of the athematic aorist (II), which will be discussed below. The Proto-Uralic ablative sufftx *-ta developed into a partitive in Finnish and into an instrumental-l in Ugric, though the latter may have lacked the final vowel (cf. Collinder 1960: 28?[., Raun 1988: 559). In Indo-European there is an ablative in *-t which functions as an instrumental in Hittite, which has an ablative in -z < *-t-i. There is another ablative in *-os which also functions as a genitive and earlier apparently as an ergative which became the nom.sg. form of the nominal thematic flexion (cf. Beekes 1985: 176-195). Finally, there is an ablative in *-tos which evidently represents *-t-os (cf. Beekes 1985: 181f.). The abl.pl. ending was probably *-ios (cf. Beekes 1985: 144f.), which reflects plural *-i plus ablative *-os. The simplest explanation of all these endings is that the original Indo- Uralic ablative ending *-ta was replaced by *-ti in its local use in order to differentiate it from its instrumental use and then developed into *-s. This explains why *-t is found as a relic in the ablative of the personal pronouns and the o-stems (where it had to be distinct from the nominative ending *-s) and in the Hittite instrumental, whereas we find *-os in the ablative and genitive of the consonant stems and in the nominative of the o-stems. I think that the same *-t survives in the pronominal ending of the neuter o-stems, reflecting the substitution of the instrumental for the ergative with inanimate agents in transitive constructions. We now return to the Indo-European verbal paradigms cited above. The 3rd sg. ending *-t of the athematic aorist (II) evidently represents the Indo-Uralic demonstrative *t (no. u), cf. Indo-European *to- (with o-grade from stage C, see above), which was added to the original zero ending. In Uralic (or rather UraloSiberian, cf. Uhlenbeck 1935b, Fortescue 1998, Seefloth zooo) the 3rd sg. pronoun was supplied by the demonstrative *s (no. 12), e.g. Finnish hiin, which corresponds to the Indo-European nominative *so (again with o-grade from stage C). The formative sufftx of the sigmatic aorist must be derived from the verbal noun in *-s (no. 46, cf. Janhunen 1982: 36). The 3rd sg. ending *-ti of the athematic present (I) is evidently analogical after 1st sg. *-mi and 2nd sg. *-si. The md sg. imperative ending *-dhi may represent the original pronoun *ti with restored *t-. Elsewhere I have compared the difference between the athematic present (1), e.g. Vedic ad-mi 'I eaf, and the thematic present (IV), e.g. Greek M-o-ft-al 'I will eaf, with the distinction between Bulgarian spj-a 'I sleep' and spi mi se 'I am
The Indo-Uralic verb
399
sleepy' (K049: 319). While the athematic (subjective) flexion has an agent marker (Vedic -mi, Bulg. -a), the thematic (objective) flexion has a patient marker (Gr. -o-, Bulg. zero), an experiencer (Gr. -m-, Bulg. dative mi), and a reflexive marker (Gr. -ai, Bulg. ace. se). It has long been recognized that there is a correlation between thematic flexion and middle voice, as opposed to an athematic active paradigm, in the oldest Indo-European material (cf. Thieme 1929: 53, Renou 1932: 21). I therefore think that the thematic present endings (IV) represent a combination of object, recipient, and reflexive marking. The thematic aorist endings (Ill) evidently combine the object marker *-e/o- with the agent markers of the athematic aorist (II). When we compare the thematic present endings with the Indo- Uralic morphemes listed above, the obvious candidate for the 3rd sg. ending *-e is the demonstrative *e beside *i (no. 8). The characteristic laryngeal *q, of the nonthird persons may perhaps be compared with the dative marker *ka (no. 26). Note that the 1st pl. ending *-omom may actually represent *-omq,om, so that the non-third person plural endings may contain Indo-Uralic *me-ka 'to us~ *te-ka 'to you~ Since the double full grade vowel in the endings *-omq,om, *-etq,e cannot be original, the addition of fmal *-om and *-e must have been recent. The final vowel of the md sg. ending *-eq,i may have been taken from the athematic present, perhaps in order to disambiguate it from the derivative suffiX *-eq, which is found e.g. in the Greek passive aorist. The addition of this fmal *-i must obviously have been more recent than the grammatical differentiation between athematic present and aorist Thus, we may reconstruct the following paradigm for the thematic present at an early stage (Na): 1st sg. md sg. 3rd sg.
-o-q, -e-q, -e
1st pl. 2nd pl. 3rd pl.
-o-mq, -e-tq, -o
This paradigm must be examined in relation to the perfect (V) and the stative (VI). We may wonder if the thematic present must properly be called transitive or intransitive. I think that this is largely a matter of terminology. In the Bulgarian example spi mi se 'I am sleepY, which contains three person markers, a clearly intransitive situation is described by the reflexivization of a 3rd sg. intransitive verb form with the sole real participant in the dative. I claim that the same construction is found in Indo-European not only in the thematic present, but also in the perfect and the stative. As in the thematic present, I think that we have a patient marker and an experiencer in the perfect. If the agent was mentioned, it was probably in the dative if it was animate and in the instrumental if it was inanimate (cf. Ko49: 321). Here again, the obvious candidate for the 3rd sg. ending *-e is the demonstrative *e and the characteristic laryngeal *q. of the non-third persons
Indo- Uralic
400
may be compared with the dative marker *ka. The reconstructed endings 1st pl. *-me, 2nd pl. *-e may actually represent *-mq.e, *-q.e (cf. Ko33: 68), which yields the following paradigm for the perfect at an early stage (Va): 1st sg. mdsg. 3rd sg.
-q.-e -tq.-e -e
1St pl. 2nd pl. 3rd pl.
-mq.-e -q.-e -r
This paradigm differs from the thematic present first of all in the order of the constituent morphemes. It is reasonable to assume that the first part of the ending belongs more closely with the preceding stem while the second part has a more independent status. If we simplify matters by substituting 'I have' for the dative 'to me, we may paraphrase the thematic present as "I have it being changed" and the perfect as "it is me having changed~ The distribution of *m and *t suggests that these are person markers and that number was originally unmarked, perhaps because the following vowel was lost by the Indo-European vowel reduction (stage A). In the thematic present, *m and *t could be confmed to the plural on the analogy of the athematic flexion because frrst and second person were already distinguished by the thematic vowel. In the perfect, the same distribution is found in the frrst person, but not in the second, where the 2nd sg. form was obviously much more frequent than its plural counterpart. The remarkable elimination of the person marker in the plural ending suggests that it was disambiguated from the singular ending, which then must have been homophonous at the time. This brings us back to the distribution of velars and uvulars in Indo- Uralic. If the Indo-European distinction between palatovelars and labiovelars arose when the distinctive timbre of the following vowel was lost and the uvulars developed from velars before back vowels, we expect e.g. *R: < *ki, *k"' < *ku, *q. < *ki~ *q3 < *ku. Note that *q, has a special position because it does not color a contiguous vowel and is automatic if there is no other word-initial consonant. It has often been identifled with a glottal stop. We may then hypothesize that it developed from *k if no vowel followed. Interestingly, there is some evidence for reduction of laryngeals in word-final position. The Indo-European vowel reduction changed the root structure from *CV(C)CV- into *CV(C)C- and, consequently, the sufftxal structure from *-CV- into *-VC-, with full grade *e under the stress, shwa secundum in unstressed closed syllables, and zero in unstressed open syllables. Final clusters ending in a laryngeal may have originated from medial clusters of any consonant plus *k, which were particularly frequent (cf. Sammallahti 1988: 492). This accounts for the peculiar loss of laryngeals in compounds and o-grade formations, where the fmal laryngeal was lost before the initial consonant of the second component (cf. Hirt 1921: 185-187). Thus, I think that the particle *f'i, the k-perfect of Greek and Latin, and the laryngeals *q, in the thematic present and *q. in the perfect all go
The Indo-Uralic verb
401
back to the same element, which appears as -k or -ka in Uralic, often followed by other suffixes (cf. Collinder 1960: 296, Raun 1988: 560, also Fortescue 1998: ns). The principal difference between the stative (VI) and the perfect (V) is the 3rd sg. ending *-o instead of *-e. Since the stative was used to supply a middle paradigm, I think that the ending can be identified with the Indo- Uralic reflexive *u/w (no. 54), which yielded *-o in Indo-European (stage B). If *-e was a patient marker and the preceding element an experiencer in the perfect, the stative is structurally comparable with the Bulgarian example spi mi se 'I am sleepy. Since the *-o is absent from the 1st sg. as well as the 1st pl. and 2nd pl. endings, we must conclude that it was originally limited to the third person. The final vowel of the 2nd sg. ending *-tq.o can easily have been taken from the 3rd sg. form. The reconstructed md pl. ending *-dhwe may actually represent *-dhq,we (cf. Melchert 1984: 26 and Kloekhorst 2008: 899), which yields the following paradigm for the stative at an early stage (VIa): 1st sg. md sg. 3rd sg.
-q. -tq. -o
1st pl. md pl. 3rd pl.
-medhq. -dhq,-we -r-o
The corresponding transitive paradigm, where the endings were preceded by an agent marker, is the following (VIla): 1st sg. md sg. 3rd sg.
-m-q. -s-tq. -t-o
1St pl.
2nd pl. 3rd pl.
-me-dhq. -t-dhq.-we -nt-r-o
This explains the correlation between thematic flexion and middle voice, as opposed to the athematic active paradigm, in the oldest Indo-European material. The suffixation of the Indo-Uralic reflexive element *u!w to verbal stems yielded intransitives, middles and passives in Uralic (cf. Collinder 1960: 281). In Indo-European, it seems to have developed an oppositional meaning in relation to first person *m, as is especially clear in the pronouns, cf. ace. *q,-me 'this-me' versus *t-we 'thee-self, *s-we 'him-self, possessive *q,-mos 'this-my' versus *t-wos 'thy-own, *s-wos 'his-owiT, also nom. *q,e-g- 'I' versus *t-u- 'thou'. This explains why *-o spread to the 2nd sg. ending *-tq.o but not to the 1st sg. ending *-q•. It also explains the addition of *-we in the 2nd pl. ending. The elements 1st pl. *-medh- and md pl. *-(t)dh- can be understood as replacements of earlier *-m- and *-(t)- before *-q. in order to mark the plural subject of the stative. They can be identified as the absolutives (intransitive nominatives) *me-t and *te-t which were introduced when the laryngeal had lost its original function and become a simple voice marker. This development could not take place in the perfect as long as *-e functioned as a subject marker.
Indo- Uralic
402
In the frrst person, *u/w is found instead of *m in the dual endings (cf. K145). It is probable that the difference between these two morphemes reflects an original distinction between inclusive and exclusive first person forms, *u/w meaning 'you and I, ourselves' and *m meaning 'we as opposed to you' (cf. Ivanov 1981: 21 and K223). We also fmd *u as a deictic element connected both with the meaning 'selC as in Greek aV.6~, and with the second person, in opposition to *ki for the first person (cf. Ko63). This meaning of *u/w as a person marker which distinguishes its referent from the first person *m now explains the substitution of *o for *e as the patient marker in frrst person forms of the thematic flexion. Thus, the meaning of the 1st sg. thematic endings *-om and *-oq, can be paraphrased as 'other by/to me' whereas 2nd sg. *-es, *-eq,i and 3rd sg. *-et, *-e represent 'this by/to thee/him/her~ The final vowel of the thematic aorist endings 1st pl. *-omo and md pl. *-ete looks like a copy of the thematic voweL and a similar origin may be suspected for the addition of final *-om and *-e in the corresponding thematic present endings. If we call the thematic vowel *-e/o- an object marker and the perfect ending *-e a subject marker, we can now summarize the general structure of the seven paradigms discussed above as follows: Stem-object-agent-recipient-subject-reflexive This structure may reflect the original order of the clitics from which the endings developed. The chronology of the developments can largely be deduced from the vocalism of the endings. The athematic aorist endings 1st pl. *-me, md pl. *-te probably replaced *-m, *-t shortly after the Indo-European vowel reduction (stage A) on the basis of the independent pronouns and thereby introduced mobile stress in the verbal paradigm. The athematic present endings apparently developed in order to distinguish the actual present from the timeless aorist in imperfective verbs. The thematic aorist was the corresponding objective flexion, indicating a defmite object The substitution of *o for *e in the frrst person cannot have taken place before the introduction of *o in stressed syllables (stage D). The thematic present supplied an actual present for the objective flexion of imperfective verbs. It supplied a subjunctive after the introduction of *e in unstressed syllables (stage E) because this category has e-grade in the root. The perfect had final stress but introduced full grade in the root (stage C) and subsequently retracted the stress (stage D) in the singular forms, evidently on the analogy of the athematic present and aorist. The stative hade-grade in the root and developed the ending *-o by the phonetic lowering of *u in unstressed syllables (stage B). The middle aorist cannot have originated before the introduction of *o in stressed syllables (stage D) because it has zero grade in the root The middle present supplied a dynamic counterpart to the stative after the introduction of *o in stressed syllables (stage D) and a subjunctive after the introduction of*e in unstressed syllables (stage E).
The Indo-Uralic verb
403
The 3rd pl. endings have not yet been discussed because their deviant accent pattern betrays a separate origin (cf. Ko65: 222). Pedersen already pointed to the possibility of identifying 3rd pl. "intransitive" *-r and "transitive" *-nt with the formative suffix of Greek nom. Mwp 'water: oblique Mar- < *-nt- (1933b: 313). Both *r and *nt are found as formatives in neuters, collectives, and adjectives (cf. Benveniste 1935: 123-128). Interestingly, the accent of the 3rd pl. forms agrees with the oblique cases of the neuter, not with the nominative (cf. K195: 71). I therefore think that the 3rd pl. forms may be compared with English awry < on wry rather than wry 'turned, twisted'. This explains why the stop in *-nt(i) was not assibilated to *s. The same construction is found in the singular of the perfect in *-eu (cf. Ko99: m), which represents the locative form of the u-stem from which the participle in Vedic -U$-, Greek -or- < *-ut- is derived. When we compare the 3rd pl. ending *-(e)nt with English -ing in agoing 'in motion: the corresponding perfect form in *-(€)r can be compared with English asleep and identified as a nomen loci with the locative suffiX *ru (no. 29). The Avestan ending -rS apparently added the nom.pl. ending *-s after *-r. No such explanation is possible for the thematic present ending *-o, which must be derived from the reflexive marker *u/w. There evidently was an impersonal form with the reflexive *u in object position which supplied a 3rd pl. form to the thematic present. If we may paraphrase the original meaning of the 1st sg. thematic present as "I have it being changed" and of the 1st sg. perfect as "it is me having changed': the 3rd sg. forms can be derived from "there is it being changed" and "there is it having changed". We can then identify the 3rd pl. form of the thematic present as "there is being changed': with reflexive *-o replacing deictic *-e and thereby eliminating the 3rd sg. reference. There appear to have been no original3rd pl. verb forms in Indo-Uralic. I conclude that the Indo-European verbal system can be understood in terms of its Indo- Uralic origins. Most importantly, the reconstructed endings can be derived from combinations of Indo- Uralic morphemes by a series of well-motivated phonetic and analogic developments. The component parts of the endings either represent original morphemes (-m, -s, -t, -me, -te, -nt, -q, -q., -e, -o, -r, -t-, -dh-) or were introduced for disambiguation from other endings.
NIVKH AS A URALo-SmERIAN LANGUAGE
In his magnificent book on the language relations across Bering Strait (1998), Michael Fortescue does not consider Nivkh (Gilyak) to be a Uralo-Siberian language. Elsewhere I have argued that the Indo-European verbal system can be understood in terms of its Indo-Uralic origins (K2o3). All of these languages belong to Joseph Greenberg's Eurasiatic macro-family (woo). In the following I intend to reconsider the grammatical evidence for including Nivkh into the Uralo-Siberian language family. The Indo-Uralic evidence is of particular importance because it guarantees a time depth which cannot otherwise be attained. Nivkh initial consonants are subject to mutations which are strongly reminiscent of Celtic. Adopting Ekaterina Gruzdeva's transcription (1998) except for the uvulars q, q', g, x, y and the velar nasal r.J, we can summarize the alternations as follows: (1) p, t, f, k, q become v, r, z, y, y after a vowel (which may have been lost) and analogically in certain categories; ( 2.) p, t, f, k, q become b, d, tf, g, g after a nasal (which may or may not be lost); (3) p, t, f, k, q becomef, f, s, x, x after the 2nd sg. preftx c- and the reflexive preftx p'-;
(4) p', t', c, k', q' become f, f, s, x, x under the same conditions as (1) and (3) but remain unchanged under the conditions of (2); (5) p', t', c, k', q' become v, r, z, y, y after the 3rd sg. preftx i-/e- in ablauting and duster-initial verbs, e.g. iyd' 'kills' of the verb k'u- 'kilf (cf. Krejnovic 1958: 2.3f., Mattissen 2.001: 142.-146).
On the basis of these alternations I reconstruct *VC for the voiced fricatives, *VNC for the voiced stops, *VHC for the voiceless fricatives, and *HC for the aspirated stops, where *C represents p, t, f, k, q. Moreover, *VNHC > *VHC and *VHCC > *VCC. If *H developed from *h < *s, this brings the original consonant system rather close to the one reconstructed for Proto-Uralic (cf. K2o3: 220). Among the morphological elements for which I have suggested an IndoUralic origin (K203: 2.18f.), the following are likely candidates for a comparison with N ivkh (I retain the numbering of Greenberg 2.ooo): 1. first person *m, 4· second person *t, 8. demonstrative *i/e, u. demonstrative *t, 12.. demonstrative *s,
Indo- Uralic
406 14. dual *ki, 15. plural *t, 25. genitive *n, 44· participle *nt, 45· participle *l, 46. verbal noun *s, 54· reflexive *u/w.
Other possible connections are less convincing. Nivkh case markers and postpositions appear to have a lexical source (cf. Panfilov 1962: 143-156 and Mattissen 2001: 93). The Uralic participle in *-pa (Collinder 1960: 270) and the Nivkh gerund in *-pa (Panfilov 1965: 145) may represent the only Uralo-Nivkh formation without an Indo-European cognate unless they are related to the root of the English verb 'to be'. The reconstruction of interrogative *k and relative *j is highly questionable. The principal evidence for the Uralo- Siberian character of the Nivkh language is provided by the pronominal elements *m, *t, *i/e, *t, *s, *u/w. The personal pronouns are the following (cf. Gruzdeva 1998: 25f.; my reconstructions): 1St sg. fli: *fli, 1st du. megi!mege, mer;, memak: *mer;ki, 1st pl. incl. mer!mir, mefn!mifn, min: *mer, 1St pl. excl. flyr;, flin: *flir;, 2nd sg. li: *li, 2nd pl.lyr;, lin: *lir;, 3rd sg. if, i,jar;: *iw, 3rd pl. imr;, ivr;, imy, ifn, in: *iwr;. These paradigms can be derived from the Indo-Uralic pronouns 1st sg. *mi, 1st du. *men-ki (the two of us'), 1st pl. *me-t, 2nd sg. *ti, 3rd sg. *i/e (cf. K203: 221f.), where sg. *mi, *ti, pl. *me are the reconstructed stems and *-n, *-ki, *-t are the sufftxes for genitive, dual and plural mentioned above. The Indo- Uralic cognates suggest that Nivkh ni and li developed phonetically from *mi and *ti, respectively. While the latter development is commonplace, the former is reminiscent of Czech [mn] < mj-, e.g. in mesto [mnesto] 'city, also (as Jos Schaeken reminds me) North Russian [n] < [mn] < *-mj-, e.g. na zeni 'on the ground: na zen 'to the ground' (Zaliznjak 1995: 62, Honselaar 2001: 23). It has been suggested that the pronominal stem me- must be derived from the numeral stem me- 'two' (cf. Austerlitz 1959: 109, Panfilov 1962: 205f.). This is highly improbable because it does not explain the occurrence of me- in the plural the semantic contribution of the sufftxes, and the unexpected order of the pronominal and the numeral element (cf. Greenberg 1997: 192), cf. also megi
Nivkh as a Uralo-Siberian language
407
men 'we two' (Panfilov 1962: 233), which cannot possibly be glossed as *'two-du. two'. I reconstruct *iw for 3rd sg. if, oblique stem iv-, because this pronoun is limited to the Amur dialect, where *w > v (cf. Gruzdeva 1998: u), and corresponds to i, oblique stem j- in Sakhalin (cf. Mattissen 2001: 20). It seems attractive to derive this *-w from the Indo-Uralic reflexive element *u/w, which may have been used as a reinforcement of the 3rd sg. pronoun *i/e. The IndoUralic demonstratives *t- and *s- are reflected in the Nivkh demonstrative stems t- 'this' and h- 'that' (cf. Gruzdeva 1998: 26, Mattissen 2001: 21). Apart from the personal pronouns, there are personal preftxes which denote the possessor of a following noun or the undergoer of a following verb form (cf. Mattissen 2001: 62ff. for the distribution of the allomorphs): 1St sg.
n-, ni-, ne-, n-,
2nd sg.l-, li-, le-, t'-, 3rd sg. i-, v(i)-, j-, e-, reflexive p'-, p'i-, p'e-, reciprocal u-, v-, o-. On the basis of the alternations in the root-initial consonant I reconstruct the following paradigms (cf. Mattissen 2001: 66-69):
pax'stone, nvax 'my stone' < *mi-, lfax 'your stone' < *tis-, pJax 'one's own stone' < *pis-, ibax 'his/her stone' < *in-, liytjba:X 'our stone' < *minkun-, nzad' 'beats me' < *mi-, lsad' 'beats you' < *tis-, p'sad' 'beats him/herself' < *pis-, zad' 'beats someone' < *i-, idad' 'beats him/her' < *in-, nytJd'ad' 'beats us' < *minkun-, where *-kun is the plural sufftx (cf. Gruzdeva 1998: 16, Greenberg woo: u6). The 3rd sg. possessive preftx v(i)-, which is limited to the Amur dialect, apparently represents *iwin- and may have been introduced when initial *i- was lost. The final nasal of possessive *in- may represent the original genitive sufftx *-n and may have been introduced into the verbal preftx for emphasis (cf. Mattissen 2001: 65). The reconstruction of fmal *-s in *tis- and *pis- accounts both for the following voiceless fricative and for the aspiration of the preceding plo sive after the syncope of the intervening vowel. The labial element of p'i- has no obvious etymology. It is reminiscent of Latin ipse 'seW, but also of dative sibl, Greek pl. aqn < *sbhi beside sg. o/ < *swoi
408
Indo- Uralic
(for earlier *sui, cf. K203: 221), Slavic sebe, of which p'i- could be the phonetic reflex, further Prussian sups 'self: Gothic sibja 'clati, silba 'self: cf. Greek rplA.oc; 'dear, Indo-European *lfi 'neat, which is perhaps related to Nivkhfld' 'be in a place, p'ir.J 'inhabitant' (Greenberg 2ooo: 146). The prefix p'i- may have ousted ufrom its original reflexive function into secondary reciprocal use, as in Russian oni celujutsja 'they kiss each other' but oni celujut sebja 'they kiss themselves: cf. Nivkh ozmud''love each other' versus p'ezmud''love him/herself' (Panftlov 1965: 52). This idea is supported by the possibility of identifying the labial of the 3rd sg. possessive prefix v(i)- < *iwin- with the reciprocal verbal prefiX u-, as was suggested above. It allows us to identify the latter with the Indo- Uralic reflexive morpheme *u/w (cf. K203: 224). The verbal ending -d; -f, -d, -nd, -nt, -t < *-nt(i) (Gruzdeva 1998: 22, 33) can be identified with the Indo-Uralic participial suffiX *nt (cf. Collinder 1960: 269f., 277f., Greenberg 2ooo: 184f.). It is found in finite and infmite verb forms and in participles and verbal nouns in Nivkh, Uralic, and Indo-European (cf. Panftlov 1962: 64-68, 1965: 153f., K203: 226) and is therefore a strong piece of evidence for a common origin. Another participial formation which may have been inherited are the verbal adjectives in *-1- (cf. Panftlov 1965: 85-88, Greenberg 2ooo: 190), e.g. Latin bibulus, Nivkh raxyla nivx 'drinker, drunkard~ as opposed to ra niv.x 'drinker, person drinking. This suffiX is found in iterative verbs in Uralic (cf. Collinder 1960: 275f.). Finally, the Indo-Uralic verbal noun in *-s- (cf. Collinder 1960: 271, Greenberg woo: 191f.) may be reflected in the Nivkh deverbal nouns in -s!-f < *-s-t(i) denoting subject, object, instrument or result and in -f < *-s-p(i) denoting place of action or result (Panftlov 1962: 41-48, Gruzdeva 1998: 22). The labial of the latter suffiX may again be identified with Indo-European *bhi 'near' and with the root of the Nivkh verb fld' 'be in a place~ Thus, I think that we have strong indications of a close relationship between Nivkh and IndoUralic. The relations between these and the other Uralo-Siberian languages remain to be clarified (cf. also Bouda 1960, Tailleur 1960, Naert 1962).
INDO-URAUC CONSONANT GRADATION
Koivulehto and Vennemann have recently (1996) revived Postfs theory (1953) which attributed Finnic consonant gradation to Germanic influence, in particular to the influence of Verner's law. This theory disregards the major differences between Finnic and Saami gradation (cf. Sammallahti 1998: 3) and ignores the similar gradation in Nganasan and Selkup (cf. Kallio 2ooo: 92). Janhunen recognizes that the Proto-Uralic stress pattern "divided the word in two-syllable sections with initial stress, with the main stress on the first section of the word": (C)E(C)-CE(C)-C:~(C)-CE(C) and asserts that this phenomenon "has convergently led to important phonotactic and morphophonemic developments~ especially the consonant gradation (1981: 27). I rather agree with Helimski, who maintains that "we are left with only two options: to believe in wonders capable of producing most incredible coincidences in related or unrelated languages - or to regard the consonant gradation found in FinnicLapp and in Nganasan, both in its rhythmic and syllabic forms, as a PUr. phenomenon" (1995: 28 = 2ooo: 176). On the basis of]anhunen's Proto-Uralic stress pattern cited above, we may call odd syllables "strong" and even syllables "wea~ counting from the beginning of a word form. Helimski's "rhythmic" and "syllabic" gradations can now be defmed as follows (cf. 1995: 24-26 =woo: 172-174): I. A consonant which follows the vocalic nucleus of a weak syllable is weakened. II. A consonant which precedes the vocalic nucleus of a closed weak syllable is weakened.
These two rules are ordered because a closed weak syllable which becomes open by losing its coda as a result of I is no longer subject to II. Helimski shows that intervocalically the frrst rule yielded voiced fricatives and the second voiced stops both in Nganasan and in Finnic (1995: 31-33 = 2ooo: 178-179). It appears that the original situation is best preserved in North Saami, where non-weak consonants were strengthened (cf. Sammallahti 1998: 47-50). Note that the rules I and II yielded a subphonemic alternation between strong and weak consonants which was dependent on the stress pattern and could be either phonemicized or lost as a result oflater developments. Elsewhere I have argued that the Indo-European verbal system can be understood in terms of its Indo- Uralic origins because the reconstructed IndoEuropean endings can be derived from combinations of Indo- Uralic morphemes by a series of well-motivated phonetic and analo gic developments (2002). In the same vein I claim that the Proto-Uralic consonant gradation
410
Indo- Uralic
accounts for the peculiar correlations between Indo-European root structure and accentuation discovered by Lubotsky (1988a). The facts to be explained are the following: (1) Proto-Indo-European had three series of stops, which are traditionally considered to be voiceless, voiced, and voiced aspirated. There is reason to assume that the plain voiced stops were actually preglottalized (cf. Ko75) while the voiced aspirates may not have been aspirated. In order to avoid confusion I shall write *T, ~D, *Dh for the three series and call them fortes, glottalics and aspirates, respectively.
(2) Proto-Indo-European roots with two stops could not contain two glottalics, so that *~DE(RYD- is an impossible root structure. Moreover, fortes and aspirates could not co-occur in the same root, so that **TE(R)Dh- and **DhE(R)T- are also excluded. It follows that the distinction between fortes and aspirates was a prosodic feature of the root as a whole, which may be called "strong" if it contained *T and "weak." if it contained *Dh. (3) Dybo has shown (1968) that Baltic and Slavic morphemes can be divided into two prosodic classes, viz. "strong" morphemes which attract the accent and "weak." morphemes which repel the accent, and that the stress falls on the first strong morpheme of a word form. If a word form contains weak morphemes only, it has initial stress unless it can be cliticized as a whole to the preceding word form (cf. Lubotsky 1988a: 3). This rule was perhaps inherited from ProtoIndo-European. It raises the question if the "strong" and "weak." consonants and morphemes of Indo-European can be related to the "strong" and "weak" consonants and syllables ofProto-Uralic. I think that this is indeed the case. Lubotsky divides the Indo-European roots into four categories, viz. roots without stops, roots with a single stop and no initial laryngeal, roots with a single stop and an initiallaryngea~ and roots with two stops (1988a: 14). It turns out that derivatives of roots without stops and derivatives of roots with an initial laryngeal and a stop which is contiguous to the syllabic nucleus are either barytones with full grade in the root or oxytones with zero grade in the root, which points to an ancient correlation between ablaut and accentuation. However, in the case of derivatives of roots with a stop which is contiguous to the syllabic nucleus but without an initial laryngea~ it becomes apparent that o-stems are barytone if the root contains *T and oxytone if the root contains ~D or *Dh whereas i- and u-stems are oxytone if the root contains *T and barytone if the root contains ~D or *Dh, regardless of the ablaut grade of the root (Lubotsky 1988a: 169-170). This highly peculiar distribution requires an explanation.
Indo- Uralic consonant gradation
411
Elsewhere I have proposed the following relative chronology for the IndoEuropean branch of Indo-Uralic on the basis of the internal evidence (2.002.: 2.2.1):
A. Indo-European vowel reduction, giving rise to full grade *e under the stress and zero grade elsewhere; B. phonetic lowering of *u (= syllabic *w) to *o, giving rise to a full grade (= non-high) vowel in unstressed syllables; C. analogical introduction of a full grade vowel in unstressed syllables (e.g. in compounds), which automatically yielded new *o; D. introduction of *o in stressed syllables (e.g. by decompounding), resulting in a phonemic opposition between lei and lol under the stress; E. analogical introduction of full grade *e in unstressed syllables, generalizing the opposition between lei and Iof; F. rise of lengthened grade vowels *e and *o, yielding the conventional ProtoIndo-European vowel system. The remaining problems are the original place of the stress, the rise of new consonant clusters, and the distribution of the stops. These problems can be solved by the following rule, which must be inserted after I and II but before A-F and thereby separates Indo-European from the Indo- Uralic proto-language: III. An open strong syllable becomes weak and loses its (primary or secondary) stress to the following syllable, which becomes strong if it is closed (but not if it is open). As a result, rule A yields full grade *e under the stress, which falls on the first strong syllable of a word form, shwa secundum in unstressed closed syllables, and zero in unstressed open syllables. The loss of initial and medial open syllables gave rise to new consonant clusters while full vowels in open syllables could only be preserved word-fmally. The expected distribution of fortes and aspirates can now be specified as follows. The two types of Uralic weak stops (before and after the vocalic nucleus of a weak syllable) apparently merged into the Indo-European aspirates while the Uralic strong stops (before the vocalic nucleus of an open syllable) became the Indo-European fortes. Initial stops adopted the same pattern, which resulted in a consonant alternation in roots with fortes before zero grade sufftxes and aspirates before full grade sufftxes, e.g. *tekm, *dh('em- 'earth'. Mter the analogical introduction of *o in unstressed syllables at stage C, we obtain paradigms like the following (cf. Beekes 1995: 178):
Indo- Uralic
412
nom. ace. loc. abl. inst
'winter'
'grandson'
*teiom *tiem(m) *tiem(i) *times *timet
"'nepot "'nepot(m) "'nepot(i) "'neptos "'neptot
In the nominative *teiom, which replaced "'keim, the full grade suffiX was apparently introduced from the oblique form at this stage, while nom. "'nepot and obl "'nepot- may represent an earlier paradigm "'nept, "'nbhedh-, with generalization of fiXed stress on the initial syllable. These examples show how fortes and aspirates could become associated with fiXed and mobile stress patterns, respectively. As a result of developments in the verbal system, the nominative had now been replaced by the ablative of animate nouns and the instrumental of inanimate nouns occupying the subject position of transitive verbs, so as to yield an ergative system (cf. K203, with references). After the analogical introduction of stressed *o at stage D, the ergative in *-os, with generalized o-grade replacing e-grade in paradigms with mobile stress, developed its own paradigm, which resulted in the thematic flexion (cf. Beekes 1985: 191-195). This paradigm had zero grade vocalism in the root at that stage. Since fortes and aspirates were now associated with barytone and oxytone stress, respectively, we fmd a discrepancy between the ablaut grade (which was determined by the derivation) and the accentuation (which was determined by the root structure). The Indo-European proto-language developed an opposition between agent nouns with final stress (reflecting the original ergative) and action nouns with radical stress (representing earlier root nouns), both with o-grade in the root. We can assume that this development started before unstressed e-grade was introduced at stage E. In the historical material, the ablaut grade is evenly distributed over barytones and oxytones while the accentuation is still closely linked to the consonantal root structure. Counting the certain examples of o-stem derivatives with a single contiguous stop and no initial laryngeal in Greek, we fmd 4 instances of e-grade in the root, all of them oxytones with >~-~n or *Dh and therefore clearly secondary, n instances with o-grade, 10 instances with zero grade, and 3 oxytones with an a-diphthong in the root (cf. Lubotsky 1988a: 138). Thus, we clearly have to assume original zero grade in this formation, regardless of the root structure. The situation with the i- and u-stems was different because the oblique form of the suffiX *-ey, *-ew was evidently strong at the outset, so that the analogical introduction of unstressed *oat stage C yielded paradigms like the following:
Indo- Uralic consonant gradation
nom. ace. loc. abL inst.
413
'arm'
'thin'
*li'e5f!'u *11'5(eu(m) *11'5(ew(i) *11'5(eus *11'5(eut
*ten5u *ten5ou(m) *ten5ow(i) *ten5ous *ten5out
These paradigms may have replaced earlier *pe5ku, *bh5(ew- and "ten5u, *dhn5ew-, respectively. The differentiation between an ergative in *-s and an ablative in *-os in paradigms with ftxed stress after stage C now gave rise to a new ablative *ten5uos beside the ergative "ten5ous whereas paradigms with mobile stress created a new ergative in *-is, *-us beside the ablative in *-eis, *-eus, later also a new accusative in *-im, *-um. After stage D, accentual mobility with radical ablaut could be restored in paradigms with fortes in the root, yielding stressed *-oi-, *-ou- in the accusative and the ergative and zero grade *-i-, *-u- before the stressed ending of the ablative *-os (cf. Beekes 1995: 181). There was no differentiation between ergative and ablative (nor between nominative and accusative) in the neuter gender, where the instrumental was used instead of the ergative with transitive verbs. We have now arrived at the paradoxical stage where original paradigms with ftxed stress have developed full accentual mobility through the creation of a new ablative in *-os beside the ergative in *-s after a full grade sufftx while original paradigms with mobile stress tend to become barytones through the creation of a new ergative in *-sand an analogical accusative in *-m on the basis of the rootstressed nominative beside the original ablative in *-s after a stressed sufftx. This explains Lubotsk.y's remarkable discovery that i- and u-stems are oxytone if the root contains *T and barytone if the root contains >~-~nor *Dh. It is an indirect consequence of the Indo- Uralic consonant gradation. Lubotsk.y states that 12 of the 14 i- and u-stems with *T in the root have radical zero grade in Sanskrit (1988a: 174). In fact, all 26 certain exantples of i- and u-stem derivatives of triconsonantal roots with a single contiguous stop and no initial laryngeal in Sanskrit have radical zero grade except 2x haf'$- beside h11- 'rejoice' ( cf. Lubotsk.y 1988a: 55). The 16 instances with biconsonantal roots also have zero grade except 2X tan- 'spread' and Cart:t-, Juiri-, htfnu-, jasu-, sahyu-, madhu-, vahni-, and yajyu- beside f$ti- 'sacrifice~ All of these formations would be morphologically awkward if they had radical zero grade, so that we can safely assume analogical restoration of full grade in the root in these instances. There was no such reason to introduce an analogical full grade of the root in bhrtf-, dfti-, ghfvi-, jfti-, gati- or derivatives of triconsonantal roots. It follows that all of these i- and u-stem derivatives may have had original zero grade in the root, regardless of the root structure, as was the case with the o-stem derivatives. This supports the view expressed above that the case forms in *-is, *-us, *-im, *-um
414
Indo- Uralic
replaced earlier ergatives and accusatives with full grade sufftxes on the analogy of an earlier root-stressed nominative. Thus far I have left the rise of the glottalic consonants out of consideration because this problem requires a separate treatment. I suspect that the root-final glottalics reflect original consonant stems (cf. in this connection Helimski 1995: 31 = 2ooo: 178). This is in accordance with the word-final neutralization of the Indo-European stops into glottalics, e.g. Latin quod, Old High German hwaz 'whaf, and would explain the virtual absence of the glottalics in Indo-European word formation. For the root-initial glottalics I think of preftxes which may have left a trace in the glottalization (cf. in this connection Rousseau 1990). The matter cannot be pursued here. The theory of Indo-Uralic consonant gradation proposed here offers an explanation for several other sets of data which remain to be explored. An obvious exan1ple is the alternation between fortes and aspirates in IndoEuropean word formation, e.g. *-tro-, *-tlo- beside *-dhro-, *-dhlo-. A less obvious example is the alternation between the sufftxes -ok- and -k- in Russian vysokij 'high; sirokij 'broad; glub6kij 'deep; dalekij 'distant' and n{zkij 'loW, uzkij 'narrow; melkij 'shalloW, blfzkij 'neat, which are accentually strong and weak, respectively (cf. Dybo 1968: 155-158 on the latter). The difference between original *-o(k)- and *-u(k)- can be derived from an Indo-Uralic alternation between anteconsonantal (IE strong) *-w- which was syllabified to *-u- at stage A and lowered to *-o- at stage B and antevocalic (IE weak) *-w- which remained consonantal at stage A and was syllabified to *-u- at a later stage. The semantic differentiation is secondary, as is clear from Lithuanian platw 'broad; gilw 'deep' versus siauras 'narroW, zemas 'low~ The corresponding front vowel suffiX *-ik(Russian -c-) is strong in Slavic (cf. Dybo 1968: 174-181), evidently because *-iwas not lowered to *-e- at stage B and the strong variant was generalized. The sufftxes *-in- and *-isk- were weak in Baltic and Slavic (ibidem: 152-155 and 214-216).
INDO-URAUC AND ALTAIC
Elsewhere I have argued that the Indo-European verbal system can be understood in terms of its Indo- Uralic origins because the reconstructed IndoEuropean endings can be derived from combinations of Indo- Uralic morphemes by a series of well-motivated phonetic and analo gic developments (K2o3). Moreover, I have claimed (K213) that the Proto-Uralic consonant gradation accounts for the peculiar correlations between Indo-European root structure and accentuation discovered by Lubotsky (1988a). My reconstruction of the Indo-Uralic phonological system is essentially the same as Sammallahti's for Proto- Uralic (1988), except for the fact that I reconstruct palatalized resonants *r' and *l' for his dental spirants *lJ and *lJ'. In particular, I think that the large number of Indo-European plosives is the result of a secondary development Though it is quite possible that Indo- Uralic had a larger number of consonants than can be reconstructed for Proto-Uralic, I see no compelling evidence for this. The simplest assumption is that the Indo- Uralic protolanguage was identical with Proto- Uralic. Indeed, it seems possible to derive Nivkh (Gilyak) from the same proto-language, as I have indicated elsewhere (K2o5). As far as I can see, both Indo- Uralic and Nivkh (Gilyak) belong to the larger Uralo-Siberian language family which is now partly reconstructed by Fortescue (1998) and Seefloth (2ooo) on the basis of evidence from Uralo-Yukagir, Chukotko-Kamchatkan and Eskimo-Aleut All of these languages belong to Greenberg's Eurasiatic language family (2ooo), which in addition comprises Altaic (Turkic, Mongolian, Tungusic), Korean, Japanese and Ainu. There can nowadays be little doubt about the reality of an Altaic language family including Korean and Japanese (see especially Robbeets 2003), though the reconstruction of Proto-Altaic is extremely difficult because of its very large time depth. The position of Ainu remains unclear (at least to me). It is easy to criticize Greenberg's methodology, but this leaves the basic question about the correctness of his Eurasiatic hypothesis open (see now Georg & Vovin 2003). One should regard his list of grammatical elements, like Pokorny's Indo-European dictionary (1959) and Starostin's Altaic dictionary (2003), as a collection of possible rather than actual cognates which must be subjected to further analysis. My reconstruction of Indo- Uralic retains 27 of Greenberg's 68 grammatical elements, and I find 12 out of these 27 in Nivkh (Gilyak). We may wonder how many of these can now be reconstructed for Altaic. Here I shall take Starostin's list of Proto-Altaic grammatical elements (2003: 221-229) as my point of departure. I shall refer to Greenberg's numbering as G1-G6o.
416
Indo- Uralic
Starostin reconstructs personal pronouns 1sg. *bi, 1pl. *ba, *bu, obl. *min-, *man-, *mun-, 2sg. *si, 2pl. *su, obl. *sin-, *sun-, Mongolian 2sg.li < *tl'i and 2pl. ta < *tl'a. Besides, there are forms with a velar nasal in the frrst and a dental nasal in the second person, which "may have originally been restricted to some oblique cases" (Starostin 2003: 225). It seems to me that these forms are compatible with Indo-Uralic G1 *mi 'I: *me 'we: G4 *ti 'thou: *te 'you; G54 *-u 'self' and G25 *-n genitive (cf. K203: 221, 225). The Indo-Uralic *m- may have spread from the genitive if it was not the phonetic reflex of an original labial plosive. The Altaic forms with a velar and a dental nasal may reflect *mn- and *tn- with syncope before a following suffix. The alternation between *s- and *tl'in Altaic suggests that we must start from 2sg. *si < *tl'i and 2pl. *tl'a, with restoration of the plosive in Mongolian and generalization of the fricative in Tungusic; the form is limited to the singular in Turkic (where the plural is *sif) and Japanese and unattested in Korean. The assibilation of *ti to *si is also found in the Indo-European branch of Indo-Uralic (cf. K203: 221) and in modem Finnish. Starostin reconstructs demonstrative pronouns *sV, *ko, *la, *o 'this' and *cha, *e, *i, *tl'a, *tl'e 'that'; I reconstruct Indo-Uralic demonstratives G8 *i/e, Gn *t- and G12 *s-. If the reconstruction of Proto-Uralic *ti 'this' and *tu 'that' is correct, it is possible that Proto-Altaic *sV 'this' and *tl'a 'that' are the result of a secondary development However this may be, the identification of IndoEuropean *so with Finnish han 'he, she' < *s- seems to be perfect. Thus, Altaic *e, *i, *tl'a, *tl'e, *sV can be identified with Indo- Uralic *i/e, *t-, *s- while Altaic *o may be compared with G54 *u (cf. K203: 225). It is possible that the latter is also found as a suffiX in the stem *meno 'self, body' which functions as a reflexive pronoun. The Altaic interrogative pronoun *k!'a 'who' may be identical with the Indo- Uralic interrogative G6o *k-. The Altaic plural suffiX *-tl'- can be identified with the Indo- Uralic plural suffiX G15 *-t. The Altaic accusative suffiX *-be may be identical with the IndoUralic accusative G24 *-m if the latter is the phonetic reflex of an original labial plosive, as in the frrst person pronoun. The Altaic genitive has a velar, dental or palatal nasal, which points to *-n followed by other suffiXes. This is supported by the fact that *-n V is also found as a dative, locative and instrumental case suffiX. As in Indo-European (cf. K203: 222), it appears that the genitive G25 *-n developed into a general oblique singular ending in Altaic. Alternatively, it may have merged with the locative G3o *-n which may be compared with the Altaic dative, locative and instrumental suffiX *-nV. The locative G29 *-ru can be identified with the Altaic directive suffiX *-rV. Other case suffiXes may be compared with the dative G26 *-ka and the ablative G33 *-t. Starostin reconstructs partitive *-ga, dative or directive *-khV, and allative *-gV, all of which may be related to the Indo- Uralic dative suffiX *-ka. Since the Indo-European evidence points to a number of different vowels
Indo- Uralic and Altaic
417
after the velar consonant (cf. K203: 224), it is quite possible that several cognates of the Altaic suffixes merged in Indo-European. Similarly, the Altaic dative or locative *-du, *-da, comitative or equative *-cha, and instrumental or ablative *-JV (which function as an ablative in Turkic, Mongolian and Japanese, respectively) may all be related to the Indo-Uralic ablative suffiX *-t, which could be followed by other suffiXes (cf. K203: 222). Indeed, the distinction between Japanese genitive no and dative or locative ni and between Turkic dative *-ka and Tungusic directive *-ki suggests that the locative G31 *-i may have been added to other suffiXes so as to provide a (stronger) locative meaning, in the same way as Indo-European replaced the original ablative ending by *-ti in its local use in order to differentiate it from its instrumental use (cf. K203: 222). The Altaic deverbative nominal suffJ.Xes *-m- and *-1- (Starostin 2003: 177, 187) can be identified with the Indo- Uralic nominalizer G39 *-m- and participle G45 *-1-. The Altaic gerund *-jV and past tense *-rV (Starostin 2003: 227) may be identical with the Indo- Uralic nominalizer G38 *-i- and participle G43 *-t-. The combination of the Altaic desiderative or inchoative *-s- and factitive or intensive *-g- (Starostin 2003: 207, 209) may be found in the Indo-Uralic conative G53 *-sk-. The Altaic *-s- is also found by itself in Indo-European and may be identical with the IE root *es- 'to be' (cf. K161: 169). I am inclined to identify the Altaic negative verb *e-, Mongolian ese 'nof, with the Uralic negative verb *e- (cf. Collinder 1960: 247) and the IE root *es-, with loss of the original negative particle G56 *ne in Altaic (as in modern French). The Proto-Altaic verb *era 'to be' (Starostin 2003: 515) is evidently a derivative of the same root. Thus, I fmd evidence for 20 Indo-Uralic grammatical elements in Altaic: first person G1 *m, second person G4 *t, demonstratives G8 *i/e, Gn *t, G12 *s, plural G15 *t, accusative G24 *m, genitive G25 *n, dative G26 *ka, locatives G29 *ru, G3o *n, G31 *i, ablative G33 *t, nominalizers G38 *i and G39 *m, participles G43 *t and G45 *1, conative G53 *sk, reflexive G54 *u/w, and interrogative G6o *k. I conclude that the reality of an Eurasiatic language family is very probable. The historical relationship between the Altaic and Uralo-Siberian language families remains to be specified. We must reckon with the possibility that these are the two main branches of the Eurasiatic macro-family. Further research should therefore aim at separate reconstructions of Proto-Altaic and ProtoUralo-Siberian before other possible inner and outer connections are taken into consideration. Fortescue dates the dissolution of the Uralo-Siberian and Uralo-Yukagir language families to 8ooo and 6ooo BP or 6ooo and 4000 BC, respectively (1998: 182, 219, and maps 3 and 4). Sammallahti dates the dissolution of ProtoUralic and Proto-Finno-Ugric to the 5th and 4th millennia BC, respectively (1988: 480), and these are identical with my datings for the dissolution oflndoHittite and of nuclear Indo-European (K203: 217). While I date the dissolution
418
Indo- Uralic
of Indo-Uralic to the end of the 7th millennium (ibidem), Starostin dates the earliest split of Proto-Altaic to the 6th millennium (2003: 236). We may conclude that Proto-Indo-Uralic and Proto-Altaic may have been contemporaries (6ooo-5500), that Proto-Uralic and Proto-Uralo-Yukagir may have been the same thing and contemporaneous with Proto-Indo-Hittite (4500-4000), and that Proto-Finno- Ugric and nuclear Proto-Indo-European may again have been contemporary languages (3500-3000). This puts the dissolution of the Uralo-Siberian language family in the 7th millennium. It now becomes attractive to identify the latter with the abrupt climate change of 8200 BP or 62oo BC, when severe cold struck the northern hemisphere for more than a century. The catastrophic nature of this disastrous event agrees well with the sudden dispersal and large-scale lexical replacement which are characteristic of the Uralo-Siberian languages.
INDO- URAUC AND ALTAIC REVISITED
After Dybo & Starostin's comprehensive rebuttal (2oo8) of Vovin's critique (2005), one may wonder if it is useful to continue a debate which seems to lead nowhere and can only deter younger scholars from entering the field of Altaic studies. Yet I think that progress can be made by ending the controversy and developing a positive attitude to new perspectives. On the one hand, one cannot expect radical breakthroughs in a field where very few scholars are working on a number of extremely heterogeneous cultural traditions. On the other hand, the dramatic progress of Indo-Uralic studies in recent decades shows that there is room for unexpected results. Dybo & Starostin's civil tone and admirable restraint contrast starkly with Vovin's vicious rhetoric and personal insults. In my view, the Altaic controversy can be ended by abandoning emphasis on separate etymologies and shifting the attention to morphological correspondences and questions of chronology. The Vovin controversy can perhaps be ended by temporarily excluding this author from the debate and giving him a chance to reconsider the volatility of his position and the damage he has inflicted on the field by his offensive style of writing. In the meantime it is important to stimulate younger scholars to take part in a discussion which is traditionally dominated by an elderly generation. Dybo & Starostin claim (2oo8: 135) that "if genetic relationship between two or more languages can be demonstrated on morphological evidence, it will inevitably show up in the basic lexicon as well" whereas "if genetic relationship can be demonstrated on lexical evidence, it will not necessarily be detected within the compared languages' morphology as well". The problem is that critics of the Altaic hypothesis fmd most etymologies unattractive or suspicious and feel that the corpus of Altaic comparisons comprises not only possible cognates but also obvious loanwords, accidental lookalikes and even totally irrelevant non-lookalikes (as one colleague put it in an e-mail message to me). This assessment of the Altaic etymological dictionary is partly based on a misunderstanding. Like Pokorny's etymological dictionary of the IndoEuropean languages (1959), Starostin's dictionary is an essentially achronic collection of materials which can be used for analysis and reconstruction. Nobody today would subscribe to Pokorny's reconstructed forms, and the same may be the fate of Starostin's in the future. The quality of an etymology becomes more difficult to assess as we move deeper into the past because more unforeseen things may have happened. This is why there is reason to attach less value to separate etymologies at a larger time depth, unless there is independent evidence for the chronological layer to which they may belong, such as geographical distribution or relative chronology of specific changes. Note that
420
Indo- Uralic
Starostin et al. date the earliest split of Proto-Altaic to the sixth millennium BC (2003: 236), which means that Proto-Indo-Uralic and Proto-Altaic may have been spoken around the same time. When we look at language interference in bilingual communities, it appears that there is a marked difference in the ease of linguistic borrowing between grammar and lexicon, between bound and free morphemes, and between verbs and nouns. As a result, the older strata of a language are better preserved in the grammatical system than in the lexical stock, better in morphology than in phonology or syntax, better in verb stems and pronouns than in nouns and numerals. The wide attestation of the Indo-European numerals must be attributed to the development of trade which accompanied the increased mobility of the Indo-Europeans at the time of their expansions. Numerals do not belong to the basic vocabulary of a neolithic culture, as is clear from their absence in Proto- Uralic and from the spread of Chinese numerals throughout East Asia. The inequality between different parts of a language in linguistic borrowing is of particular importance when we are dealing with distant affmity. In a study of the earliest contacts between the Indo-European and Uralic language families (1986), Redei lists 64 words which were supposedly borrowed from Indo-European into Uralic at an early date. The material is divided into three groups: 7 Indo-European words which are attested in both Finno- Ugric and Samoyedic, 18 Indo-European or Indo-Iranian words which are attested in Finno-Ugric but not in Samoyedic, and 39 Indo-Iranian words which are found neither in Ugric nor in Samoyedic. Now it turns out that the number of verbs in the oldest material is too large to support the hypothesis that they were borrowed: verbs constitute 43% of the first group, 28% of the second group, and s% of the third group. This is strong evidence for the thesis that the oldest layer was in fact inherited from an Indo- Uralic proto-language. Though the material is very small, the case for an original genetic relationship is particularly strong because we are dealing with basic verbs meaning 'to give; 'to wasli, 'to bring, 'to drive, 'to dd, 'to lead: 'to take' (cf. K112). Moreover, it is difficult to see how Proto-Indo-European words could have been borrowed into Proto-Uralic if the Indo-Europeans lived in the South Russian steppe when the ancestors of the Finno-Ugrians and the Samoyeds lived on the eastern side of the Ural mountains. The earliest contacts between Indo-European and Uralic languages must probably be identified with the eastward expansion of the Indo-Iranians and the simultaneous spread of the Finno-Ugrians to the southwest. Thus, it appears that we do not need a large number of obvious cognates, which cannot be expected in the case of distant linguistic affinity, in order to establish a genetic relationship between languages. Dybo & Starostin argue (2oo8: 128) that "it is unreasonable to expect to be able to reconstruct paradigmatic morphology when dealing with macrofamilies" because a morphological system can undergo an overwhelming collapse over a
Indo- Uralic and Altaic revisited
421
relatively short period of time, as happened in the case of Classical Latin. However, this does not generally hold for the separate elements which make up the morphological system. The advantage of morphology over the lexicon is that it offers two types of chronological clue: in addition to sound changes which affect both lexical and morphological elements, the development of morphosyntactic categories poses obvious restrictions on the genesis and development of paradigmatic systems. In my reconstruction of the Indo-Uralic verb (K2o3) I have argued that the Indo-European verbal system can be derived from combinations of Indo-Uralic morphemes by a series of well-motivated phonetic and analogic developments. It is precisely the explanation of the IndoEuropean system of paradigms in terms of its Indo-Uralic origins that corroborates the reconstruction of the original morphemes. There is additional evidence for Indo- Uralic in the relation between ProtoIndo-European root structure and accentuation discovered by Lubotsky (1988a: 169-170). It appears that in the case of derivatives of roots with a stop which is contiguous to the syllabic nucleus but without an initiallaryngea~ o-stems are barytone if the root contains a voiceless obstruent and oxytone if the root contains a voiced obstruent whereas i- and u-stems are oxytone if the root contains a voiceless obstruent and barytone if the root contains a voiced obstruent, regardless of the ablaut grade of the root. This highly peculiar distribution can be explained by the assumption that Indo-European underwent the "rhythmic" and "syllabic" consonant gradations reconstructed for ProtoUralic (cf. Helimski 1995: 2.4-26 = 2ooo: 172-174) followed by a vowel gradation which shifted the stress toward the end of a word form and gave rise to the ablaut system (cf. K213: 165). Here again, Indo-Uralic offers an explanation for a state of affairs attested in Indo-European which remains unexplained if the Uralic data are not taken into account. Since the two Uralic consonant gradations were phonetic developments, one could suggest that their operation in Indo-European might be the result of substratum influence, or conversely. This suggestion meets with two difficulties. Firstly, the common chronology of the consonant gradations rather points to a shared innovation at a time of structural similarity. Secondly, the hypothesis of substratum influence before the Indo-Europeans arrived in Europe and acquired their highly characteristic linguistic features is arbitrary. It is defmitely more probable that we are dealing with a single language family which split up when the Indo-Europeans moved westwards while their relatives stayed behind. My reconstruction of the IndoUralic phonological system is essentially the same as Sammallahtfs for ProtoUralic (1988), except for the fact that I reconstruct palatalized resonants *r' and *l' for his dental spirants *lJ and *lJ'. In particular, I think that the large number of Indo-European plosives is the result of a secondary development. The simplest assumption is that the Indo-Uralic proto-language was identical with
Indo- Uralic
422.
Proto-Uralic. Indeed, it seems possible to derive Nivkh (Gilyak) from the same proto-language, as I have indicated elsewhere (K2.05). Uhlenbeck has argued (1935a) that Proto-Indo-European consisted of two unrelated components, which he calls A and B. The first component comprises pronouns, verbal roots, and derivational suffixes, whereas the second contains isolated words which are not related to verbal roots, such as numerals, some kinship terms, and many names of body parts, animals and trees. Uhlenbeck compares A with Uralic and Altaic and attributes irregular features such as heteroclitic inflection and grammatical gender to B. The Indo-European verbal system appears to combine Uralic flexional morphemes with Caucasian syntactic patterns. The rise of the ergative construction (which gave rise to the paradigm of the nominal o-stems, cf. Beekes 1985), grammatical gender and adjectival agreement can be attributed to North Caucasian influence and may have proceeded as indicated by Pedersen (1907). These views can be unified with Gimbutas' theory (e.g. 1985) that the Indo-Europeans moved from a primary homeland north of the Caspian Sea to a secondary homeland north of the Black Sea. What we have to take into account is the typological similarity of Proto- Indo-European to the North-West Caucasian languages. If this similarity can be attributed to areal factors (cf. K130: 94), we may think oflndo-European as a branch of Indo- Uralic which was transformed under the influence of a North Caucasian substratum. We may then locate the Indo- Uralic homeland south of the Ural Mountains in the seventh millennium BC (cf. Mallory 1989: 192f.). Having established the probability of an Indo-Uralic proto-language, we can now tum to the question if the reconstructed morphemes can be identified in other languages as well. This is indeed plausible for Eskimo (cf. Uhlenbeck 1935b, Fortescue 1998, Seefloth woo) and Nivkh. It may therefore be appropriate to look for the same elements in the Altaic languages. Here I shall first list those items adduced by Greenberg (woo) as grammatical evidence for Eurasiatic which I reconstruct for Proto-Indo- Uralic: first person *m, second person *t, demonstrative *i/e, demonstrative *t, demonstrative *s, dual *ki, plural *t, plural *i, accusative *m, genitive *n, dative *ka,
Indo- Uralic and Altaic revisited
423
locative *ru, locative *n, locative *i, ablative *t, diminutive *k, nominalizer *i, nominalizer *m, participle *n, participle *t, participle *nt, participle *l, verbal noun *s, conative *sk, reflexive *u/w, negative *n, interrogative *k. I have identified 12 of these 27 elements in Nivkh (K2o5), viz. first person *m, second person *t, demonstrative *i/e, demonstrative *t, demonstrative *s, dual *ki, plural *t, genitive *n, participle *nt, participle *l, verbal noun *s, reflexive *u!w. Moreover, I have suggested that we can add adessive *pi here on the basis of Indo-European *bhi 'neat, Nivkh fid' 'be in a place, p'ir.J 'inhabitanf. For the 1st and md person pronouns I reconstruct the following Indo- Uralic paradigms: nom. gen.
'I/me'
'myself'
'we/us'
'thou/thee'
'yourself' 'ye/you'
*mi *min
*mu *mun
*me *men
*ti *tin
*tu *tun
*te *ten
In Indo-European, the assibilation of *ti to *si and the rise of ablaut which reduced all non-fmal vowels to *e under the stress and zero grade elsewhere resulted in the following outcome: independent dependent independent dependent
'I/me'
'myself'
'we/us'
*mi, *me-, *m*men, *mn-
*mu, *me-, *m*men, *mn-
*me, *me-, *m*men, *mn-
'thou/thee'
'yourself'
'ye/you'
*si, *se-, *s*sen, *sn-
*tu, *te-, *t*ten, *tn-
*te, *te-, *t*ten, *tn-
It is clear that this system could not be maintained. Moreover, the stem form *s< *ti for the second person interfered with the Indo- Uralic demonstrative *s-, which is preserved in the Indo-European anaphoric pronoun *so. The largescale homophony was eliminated by the use of deictic *(e 'this' for the first
424
Indo- Uralic
person singular and *ue 'self' for a person who is contrasted with another (third) person and by the suffixation of *-f < *-ki for the dual and *-i, later *-s < *-ti for the plural. This resulted in such forms as *fme 'this-me; *tue 'thee-self; *sue 'him-self' (cf. K203: 2.2.5 and K223: 9), also *uef, *uei '(our) selves' in contrast with outsiders (inclusive meaning) versus *(m)nef, *(m)nes 'we in contrast with your people (exclusive meaning), *uef, *ues 'you' in contrast with other people, then *ufe 'you two' in contrast with 'them' and *nfue 'we two' in contrast with both 'you' and 'them'. These forms must have existed at an early stage already because the a-vocalism of *nof, *nos, *uof, *uos originated in their use as clitics and we fmd the corresponding zero grade in acc.pl *nsme, *usme, where *-me can hardly be anything else than the full grade Indo-Uralic case particle *me. On the other hand, the forms *teue and *seue show the continued existence of *te, *se, *ue as separate words at the stage when full grade *e in unstressed syllables became possible. It appears that gen. *men 'me was remodeled to *mene on the basis of *teue and *seue. I think that dat. *mi('i represents original *mibhi with dissimilation of the labial articulation because I cannot otherwise explain the differentiation from *tubhi and *subhi. These forms seem to preserve Indo-Uralic *mi 'I; *tu 'thou-self; and *pi 'at'. In Nivkh we fmd 1sg. *mi, 1du. *men-ki ('the two of us'), 1pl *me-t, 2.sg. *ti, 3sg. *i/e, *i-w, reflexive *pi-, reciprocal *u- (cf. K2o5). We now turn to the Altaic languages. Starostin et al. reconstruct personal pronouns 1sg. *bi, 1pl. *ba - *bu, obl *min-, *man- - *mun-, 2.sg. *si, 2pl *su, obl. *sin-, *sun-, adding Mongolian 2.sg. ci < *ri, 2pl ta < *tha, which are "no doubt archaic" (2.003: 2.2.5). These forms are strongly reminiscent of Indo-Uralic 1st person *mi, *me, *mu, gen. *min, *men, *mun, md person *ti, *tu, gen. *tin, *tun, and 2.sg. *ti, 2.pl. *te, respectively. The alternation between *s- and *r- in Altaic suggests that we must start from 2.sg. *si < *ri and 2pl *tha, with restoration of the plosive in Mongolian and generalization of the fricative in Tungusic; the form is limited to the singular in Turkic (where the plural is *sif) and Japanese and unattested in Korean. The assibilation of *ti to *si is also found in the Indo-European branch of Indo-Uralic (cf. K203: 2.2.1). In the 1st person form, Indo- Uralic *m- may have spread from the genitive if it was not the phonetic reflex of an original labial plosive, e.g. prenasalized -b or preglottalized *"b. Besides, Starostin et al. reconstruct 1st person *IJa and 2nd person *na, which "may have originally been restricted to some oblique cases" (2.003: 2.2.5), largely on the basis of the Korean and Japanese evidence. These forms may reflect *mn- and *tn- with syncope before a following sufftx, as in the Indo-European forms reconstructed above. If these considerations are correct, we arrive at the following reconstruction of the original personal pronouns in Indo- Uralic, Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, Koreanic and Japonic (cf. also Janhunen 2.003: 18, Gorelova 2.002.: 2.16, Benzing 1955: 107, Robbeets 2.005 s.v.):
Indo- Uralic and Altaic revisited
425
PIU
PTk
PMo
PTg
*mi *min *mu *mun *me *men
*bi-
*bi *min-, *n-
*ti
*si-
*bi *min *bu *mun *ba *man *si *sin *su *sun
*tin *tu *tun *te *ten
*ba *man*Ci *cin-
PK
PJ
*n*u-
*a *ba
*n-
*si *na
*ta *tan-
From this table it appears that the Altaic personal pronouns can largely be derived from the ones reconstructed for Indo-Uralic except for the initial *b- in the first person forms. Starostin et al. reconstruct demonstrative pronouns *s-, *ko, *la, *o 'this' and *cha, *e, *i, *fha (*~e) 'thaf. It appears that Altaic *e, *i, *fha (*fhe), *s-, *o may be identical with the Indo-Uralic demonstratives *i/e, *t-, *s-, and reflexive *u: PIU *i
PTk
*m*e *an*t-
*ti-
*s*u/w
*-st *o(l)
PMo
*i *in*e*en*te*ten*on-
PTg *i
PK *i
PJ *i
*in*e-
*a-
*a-
*ta-
*tj-
*to-
*u-
*so*o-
The Altaic interrogative pronoun *kha- 'whO, Pn *ka-, *ke-, PMo *ka-, *ke-, PTg *xa-, PK *ka, PJ *ka, may be identical with the Indo- Uralic interrogative
*k-.
The Altaic plural suffix *-r- can be identified with the Indo- Uralic plural suffix *-t. The Altaic accusative suffix *-be may be identical with the Indo-Uralic accusative *-m if the latter is the phonetic reflex of an original labial plosive, as in the first person pronoun. The Altaic genitive has a velar, dental or palatal nasal, which points to *-n followed by other suffiXes. This is supported by the fact that *-n- is also found as a dative, locative and instrumental case suffiX. As in Indo-European (cf. K203: 222), it appears that the genitive *-n developed into a general oblique singular ending in Altaic. Alternatively, it may have merged with the locative *-n which may be compared with the Altaic dative, locative and
Indo- Uralic
426
instrumental sufftx *-n-. The locative *-ru can be identified with the Altaic directive sufftx *-r-. Other case sufftxes may be compared with the dative *-ka and the ablative *-t. Starostin et al. reconstruct partitive *-ga, dative or directive *-kh-, and allative *-g-, all of which may be related to the Indo- Uralic dative sufftx *-ka. Since the Indo-European evidence points to a number of different vowels after the velar consonant (cf. K203: 224), it is quite possible that several cognates of the Altaic sufftxes merged in Indo-European. Similarly, the Altaic dative or locative *-du, *-da, comitative or equative *-Cha, and instrumental or ablative *-J- (which function as an ablative in Turkic, Mongolian and Japanese, respectively) may all be related to the Indo- Uralic ablative suffiX *-t, which could be followed by other sufftxes (cf. K203: 222). Indeed, the distinction between Japanese genitive no and dative or locative ni and between Turkic dative *-ka and Tungusic directive *-ki suggests that the locative *-i may have been added to other sufftxes so as to provide a (stronger) locative meaning, in the same way as Indo-European replaced the original ablative ending by *-ti in its local use in order to differentiate it from its instrumental use (cf. K203: 222). This results in the following comparisons (cf. Starostin et aL 2.003: 221, Erdal 2004: 168-179, Janhunen 2003: 14, Benzing 1955: 78-89, Robbeets 2005 s.v.): PIU pL *-t ace. *-m gen. *-n dat. *-ka
loc. *-ru loc. *-n loc. *-i abl. *-t
PTk
PMo
PTg
PK
PJ
*-t
*-d
*-tlr
*-IJ *-g *-ka *-ga *-ru *-n
*-n
*-ta, *-te *-ba, *-be *-ngi *-ga *-kt *-gi
*-tati *-bo *-n *-nka
*-da *-ca
*-ga *-ru *-dur *-ca
*-n
*-ro *-du -t *J"
Indo- U ralic and Altaic revisited
427
simpler than what we find in the Altaic languages, Indo-Uralic may have been either a sister or a daughter of an Altaic proto-language. In order to establish a possible chronology we now tum to the verb in the Altaic languages. As was indicated above, I reconstruct Proto-Indo- Uralic nominalizers *i and *m, participles *n, *t, *nt, *l, verbal noun *s, and conative *sk. The following deverbal nominals appear to have correspondences in the Altaic languages (cf. Starostin et al 2003: 177, 187, 227): PIU
Pn
PMo
*-m *-t *-l
*-ja *-m *-t*-l
*-ja *-m
*-la*-d*-n*-ki-
*-la*-d*-n*-ki-
*. -I
*-l
PTg
*-l
PK
PJ
*-ja *-m *-t-
*-t-
*. -I
42.8
Indo- Uralic
the sufftx *-la- can be compared with Uralic iterative *-1- (cf. Collinder 1960: 275f.), the other sufftxes appear to be limited to the Altaic languages. After this discussion of the morphological evidence, we may return to the problem of the lexicon. Arguing against a genetic relationship between the Mongolic and Tungusic languages, Doerfer has presented a detailed analysis of their common vocabulary (1985). Elsewhere I have shown that his material allows of a quite different conclusion (K156). Doerfer's classification of the Tungusic languages into dialectal areas from west to east differs sharply from the genetic classification of the Tungusic languages. As a result, his Central Tungusic is much more heterogeneous than the other groups. For Central Tungusic, Doerfer removes the words which are found in both North and South Tungusic from the material and lists those words which are found in either North or South Tungusic only. The high number of ancient words in this part of the material casts grave doubts on Doerfer's thesis that all of them were borrowed from Eastern Evenki, Solon or Manchu at a recent stage. It seems to me that the semantic distribution of the ancient Central Tungusic words with cognates in either North or South Tungusic points to genetic relationship rather than borrowing. In particular, the relatively large number of verbs is difficult to explain under the assumption ofborrowing. In her magnum opus (2.005), Robbeets eliminates the large majority of etymologies which have been proposed for Japanese words because they may be suspect for a variety of reasons, reducing a corpus of 2.055 lexical entries to 359 core etymologies representing 4 pronouns, 170 verbs, 46 adjectives or quality nouns, 83 basic nouns and 56 non-basic nouns. Here again, the large number of verbs requires an explanation if one does not accept her analysis as proof of a genetic relationship between Japanese and the other Altaic languages. It is quite possible, and even probable, that some of the remaining etymologies will have to be abandoned in the future, especially because their number seems to be at variance with the large time depth assumed for the Altaic proto-language. On the other hand, the huge number of etymologies which were rejected out of hand because they might be suspect for one reason or another may comprise many instances where judgment has been too rash. We can only hope that future research will bridge the gap between the historical data of the attested languages and their reconstructed origins. This can only be achieved by training a new generation of scholars with an interest in the chronological aspects of linguistic diversity.
A PARASITOLOGICAL VIEW OF NON-CONSTRUCTIBLE SETS "The genetic code, the primary manifestation oflife, and, on the other hand, language, the universal endowment of humanity and its momentous leap from genetics to civilization, are the two fundamental stores of information transmissible from the ancestry to the progeny, the molecular succession, which ensures the transfer of hereditary messages from the cells of one generation to the next generation, and the verbal legacy as a necessary prerequisite of cultural tradition." (Jakobson 1971: 681) "Divergent terminologies direct attention to different patternings; and fmding a logically convincing test, acceptable all around, that can determine whether one such system of terms is superior to its rivals, is often impossible. Yet the slow processes of evolution presumably apply to human societies and their symbolic systems as much as to human bodies, so that when logic cannot decide, survival eventually will:' (McNeill1976: 8) mivra psi As McNeill points out in his remarkable book on the role of infectious disease in the history of mankind, "one can properly think of most human lives as caught in a precarious equilibrium between the microparasitism of disease organisms and the macroparasitism of large-bodied predators, chief among which have been other human beings" (1976: 5). This view, which is abundantly illustrated in the book, leaves several questions open. Firstly, it is noteworthy that man has surpassed other large-bodied predators like lions and wolves in his ability to command the environment What was the device that enabled man to achieve higher efficiency in hunting? The obvious answer is: the use of language. Secondly, it must be noted that man is curiously insensitive as compared with other hunting species. The conjecture that the use of language diminishes the need for direct observation does not explain the rapid disappearance of the
430
Appendix
hunter's senses. More probably, the faculty of language has an adverse effect on the perceptual capacity of the brain. Thirdly, the macroparasitism among human beings differs in kind from the relation between predator and prey. Its function is to shorten the food chain. Even cannibalism generally serves a legal purpose and is not merely a way of feeding. Human beings are driven by ideas. In recent years there has been some debate whether language must be viewed primarily as a means of communication or as a form of self-expression of the human mind. Both of these views start from an anthropocentric conception of language. According to the view advanced in the present article, language is the means of communicating natural forms of self-expression through the human mind. The influence of concepts is particularly striking in man's economic behavior The following example is typical: "What had always seemed commonplace and respectable became, after Veblen, fraudulent, ridiculous and (a favorite word of his) barbaric. This is high art. The American rich never recovered from the sardonic disdain with which Veblen analyzed their behavior. The manners of an entire society were altered as a result. Mter he made the phrase "conspicuous consumption" a part of the language, the real estate market in Newport was never again the same. What had been the biggest and best was henceforth the most vulgar. "Conspicuous leisure" made it difficult even for the daughters of the rich to relax. Their entertainment had thereafter to be legitimatized by charitable, artistic or even intellectual purpose or, at minimum, sexual relief.' (Galbraith 1972: 35f.) It is hard to think of child labour, war, totalitarianism, or massive unemployment without the driving force of a system of beliefs in conjunction with a blunted sense of perception. The observation that in all Yuman languages the word for 'work' is a loan from Spanish (Werner Winter, personal communication) should be a major blow to any current economic theory. The force oflanguage is indeed comprehensive. "Even in the most primitive cultures the strategic word is likely to be more powerful than the direct blow" (Sapir 1949: 18). This has little to do with truth or logic because "the normal speaker does not actually feel the clash which the logician requires" (ibidem, 27). The view oflanguage as a tool of the human species is less well-founded than its converse. The question is, in Humpty Dumpty's words, which is to be master. The relation of a language to its carrier bears a strong resemblance to that of a parasite to its host. It invades the left hemisphere, diminishing the perceptual capacity of the brain. As a result, man's major capability to change his environment is matched by a minor capability to gain insight from direct observation. An excessive attack may lead to autistic phenomena. If the brain strikes back, it may yield a form of epilepsy. Cruelty is a human characteristic
A parasitological view of non-constructible sets
431
because it results from the substitution by the linguistic parasite of conception for perception. The formalist philosophy of language, of which generative grammar is but the latest variety, is futile because its subject matter is more easily accessible to the biochemist. The proper subject of the humanities is the behavior of the linguistic parasite. As in the natural sciences, advance in a humanist discipline springs from observation of what happens under changing circumstances, not from reflection on what is generally known. Language differs from viral diseases such as measles or smallpox in two respects. First, it is transmitted through sound waves, not through bodily contact. It can therefore be assumed that the fundamental structure of language is much simpler than that of a regular childhood disease. Second, the pattern of mutual adaptation between the individual and his language is much more stable than in the case of a more virulent infection. The process of adjustment alters not only the individuafs behavior and his language, but also the behavior of the group and the structure of the society at large. The relative ease with which the individuafs language responds to a change in the environment and the violent reactions which the use of language provokes among larger groups show that language is ancient in the individual and unfit for the large-sized communities of modern times. The fast rate of change which language exhibits can be compared with the instability of the influenza virus. It exemplifies a type of change which differs qualitatively from what we are accustomed to regard as the normal type of biological reproduction. In order to clarify the matter I define:
(1) Organic reproduction yields an image which resembles the model to a large extent. (2) Symbolic reproduction yields an image which resembles the model to a small extent Both types of reproduction must be distinguished from physical growth, which changes the size of an object without affecting its internal relationships. A crystal may grow, but does not reproduce itself. Werner Winter once compared the work of a translator with that of an artist who is asked to create an exact replica of a marble statue, but who cannot secure any marble. This is an apt characterization. Other linguistic activities differ from the translator's work in the absence of the intention to create a replica. They share the feature of symbolic reproduction and involve the creation of objects with unforeseen properties. Logical analysis requires the identifiability of distinguishable elements as belonging to the same set In the case of an extensional definition, it presupposes a sufficient degree of similarity between the indicated and the intended elements. In the case of an intensional defmition it presupposes the
432
Appendix
applicability of a criterion, which depends on the degree of similarity between the indicated property and the perceptible characteristics of the intended objects. The constructibility of a set is determined by the identifiability of its elements. Language does not generally satisfy the fundamental requirement of logic. Consider the following example:
(3) Man is numerous. (4) Socrates is a man. (5) Socrates is numerous. From a linguistic point of view, the inference is equivalent to the first syllogism of traditional logic. The point is that a linguistic meaning thrives by virtue of its applications, which cannot be deduced from its implications. The latter must be derived from its applicability, rather than the other way round. Thus, a linguistic meaning has the properties of a non-constructible set. Now I define:
(6) Existence is the capacity of an element being distinguished. (7) Truth is the capacity of an element belonging to a set (8) Meaning is the capacity of being a set. (9) The power of a capacity is the set of elements with that capacity. (10) Symbolization is the power of existence. (11) Generalization is the power of truth. (12) Abstraction is the power of meaning. (13) Mathematics is the study of symbolization. (14) Logic is the study of generalization. (15) Philosophy is the study of abstraction. Thus, a mathematician is typically concerned with the problem of existence, a logician with the problem of truth, and a philosopher with the problem of meaning.
(16) Physics is the phenomenology of existence. (17) Anthropology is the phenomenology of truth. (18) Linguistics is the phenomenology of meaning. The following statement can easily be verified:
(19) Symbolization is a fmite simple group of extremely large order. - If x can be distinguished and y can be distinguished, then x and y can be distinguished. - If x and y can be distinguished and z can be distinguished, then x can be distinguished andy and z can be distinguished.
A parasitological view of non-constructible sets
433
- There is an identity element, viz. nothing, which combines with any distinguishable element without affecting what is distinguished. - For every distinguishable element x there is an inverse element x-', which is the absence of x. - There is no proper subset of symbolization such that every distinguishable element can be distinguished as an element of the subset. - The number of distinguishable elements is limited by the finite ability of the senses. ( 20) Generalization is the Cartesian product of symbolization and abstraction. I further defme: ( 21) Sense is the applicability of meaning. (22) Formalization is the reduction of meaning to truth. (23) A contradiction is an element of generalization which is both true and false. (24) A confusion is an element of abstraction with a contradictory formalization. The existence of non-constructible sets offers a solution for the problem of the philosopher's stone. I think that the philosopher's stone is a 4-dimensional object and that it is crossing the 3-dimensional surface of a 4-dimensional pond called history. The universe is the slice of the stone which is at the level of the water. The universe originated with a big bang when the stone hit the surface. It is fmite and expands as the stone sinks into the water. Why did the stone hit the surface? We shall never know because it is beyond human observation. The parasitological view of non-constructible sets outlined here has important consequences for the daily practice of human affairs. Language has enabled humanity time and again to discover new techniques, allowing easy exploitation and rapid depletion of hitherto inaccessible resources and thereby renewing or intensifying damage to other forms oflife. Its fast rate of change has not permitted a stable, chronic relationship to establish itself. "A stable new disease pattern can arise only when both parties manage to survive their initial encounter and, by suitable biological and cultural adjustments, arrive at a mutually tolerable arrangement. [...] historical experience of later ages suggests that something like 120 to 150 years are needed for human populations to stabilize their response to drastic new infections" (McNeil11976: 51). Language may be lethal if time does not suffice for humans to adjust to changing conditions.
THE ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE LINGUISTIC PARASITE
"Whatever these difficulties may be, and whatever their biological origin, it is clear that, at the level of concepts, categorization is carried out neither by rigorous, nor by logical nor by universal criteria. Indeed, there may be no general means by which categories are formed at this level:' (Edelman 1987: 246) The philosophy of language comes in three varieties. The functionalist's view: linguistic forms are instruments used to convey meaningful elements. This is the basis of European structuralism. 2. The formalist's view: linguistic forms are abstract structures which can be filled with meaningful elements. This is the basis of generative grammar. 3. The parasitologist's view: linguistic forms are vehicles for the reproduction of meaningful elements. This is the view which I advocated twenty years ago in the Festschrift for Werner Winter's 6oth birthday (Ko67).
1.
Here I intend to discuss the evolutionary origin and the physiological nature of the linguistic parasite. My theory oflanguage is wholly consistent with Gerald Edelman's theory of neuronal group selection. This author makes three fundamental claims (Edelman 1987: 5): Diversification of anatomical connectivity occurs epigenetically during development, leading to the formation by selection of primary repertoires of structurally variant neuronal groups. The diversification is such that no two individual animals are likely to have identical connectivity in corresponding brain regions. [... ] 2. A second selective process occurs during postnatal behavior through epigenetic modifications in the strength of synaptic connections within and between neuronal groups. As a result, combinations of those particular groups whose activities are correlated with various signals arising from adaptive behavior are selected. [... ] 3. Coherent temporal correlations of the responses of sensory receptor sheets, motor ensembles, and interacting neuronal groups in different brain regions occur by means of reentrant signaling. Such signaling is based on the existence of reciprocally connected neural maps. [... ]" "1.
436
Appendix
Linguistic meanings are combinations of neuronal groups whose activities are correlated with the responses of sensory reception sheets connected with hearing and motor ensembles connected with speaking and their interactions. Language differs from bird song in allowing continuous and coherent correlation of various temporal and spatial aspects of a neural construct with at least some features of a real-world object which is not speech (cf. Edelman 1987: 108). Linguistic meanings are instances of categorical memory, combining relatively long-term changes at the cellular level with continuing creation of variants in certain synapses (cf. Edelman 1987: 205). They are subject to a Darwinian competition between various groups for cortical representation space as different stimuli are successively encountered; the most competitive groups are those that are associated with the most frequently stimulated peripheral locations (cf. Edelman 1987: 171). Local movement of map borders is accounted for by the trading of cells between adjacent groups; continuous alteration in map boundaries is the physiological correlate of the nonconstructibility of linguistic meanings which I discussed in my earlier contribution (Ko67). The sensorimotor channels of speaking and hearing can be regarded as the male and female sex organs of the linguistic parasite. The successful transmission of a message from a speaker to a hearer produces a mapping which correlates various aspects of a neural construct with identifiable features of realworld objects in the environment. A linguistic analysis must therefore start from a correlation of physical aspects of the speech flow with identifiable features of objects and events in the real world. The physical world is perceived as disjunctively partitioned in polymorphous sets, and neuronal groups are disjunctively partitioned by selection as a result of reentrant mapping of disjunctions of partitions in polymorphous sets of signals (cf. Edelman 1987: 262). As a result, there is no isomorphism with the signal domain in global mappings. The combinability of linguistic meanings presupposes the decomposability of neuronal groups and their interconnections as well as the possibility of creating new subcircuits by a variety of neurotransmitters. These allow the speech flow to convey a representation of identifiable features of objects and events in the real world from the speaker to the hearer, creating in the latter a neural construct which is isofunctional with an image constructed in the former. The isofunctional character of the representation, which correlates various aspects of a neural construct with identifiable features of real-world objects, detaches the image from its carrier and thereby gives rise to an independent organism which is parasitic upon the human brain, competing for cortical representation space. It must be realized that the concept of language as a system of neural constructs which are correlated with identifiable features of real-world objects and move from one brain to the next by means of a device which resembles bird
The origin and nature of the linguistic parasite
437
song is at variance with the functionalist view of language as an instrument used by a speaker to express his thoughts, which does not account for the adverse effects oflinguistic behavior (cf. Ko67), and is opposed to the formalist view of language as a set of abstract rules and representations, which does not explain categorization and is irreconcilable with biological reality (cf. Edelman 1987: 38). The functionalist paraphrase of the statement S that X is the case as "I want you to think that I think that X is the case" can now be reformulated as "my linguistic parasite tries to create in your brain a neural construct which is isofunctional with the neural image of S constructed in my brain" (cf. also Grace 1987). In accordance with the theory advocated here, the exploratory behavior of linguistic meanings in the human brain bears a strong resemblance to ant foraging (cf. Gerhart and Kirschner 1997: 146-151). The complex large-scale pattern of ant movements is a consequence of many simpler responses, viz. the individual responses of single ants to the distribution of food. Ants leaving the nest secrete a pheromone trail which they follow back to the nest. When an ant finds food, it secretes a stronger pheromone trail. Ants leaving the nest tend to follow existing trails; however, some wander off randomly because the volatile pheromone of unreinforced trails is weak and evaporates rapidly. "Exploration rather than hardwiring specific contingencies seems like the only practical means of responding to the variability or complexity of the environment. The ant cannot anticipate where food may be; the centrosome has no way of detecting the position of the chromosomes and directing the microtubules toward them; the nerve cell cannot maintain or express all the information necessary for the fme-grained pathfmding decisions required to fmd its many targets and to cope with physiological variability" (Gerhart and Kirschner 1997: 193). Environmental changes produce coordinated changes in neuronal groups, and neuronal exploration allows the development of new linkages among neuronal groups, extending the opportunities for generating new contingencies and thereby serving an ongoing physiological function where the environment remains forever changeable. This mechanism creates a wide variety of linguistic meanings upon which selection eventually acts at the social level.
REFERENCES
Adams, Douglas Q. 1988
Tocharian historical phonology and morphology (New Haven:
American Oriental Society). Adjarian, Hratch
Classification des dialectes armeniens (Paris: Honore Champion). Agajan, &iuard B. 1960 0 genezise armjanskogo konsonantizma. Voprosy Jazykoznanija 1909
1960/4:37-52. Agard, Frederick B. 1984
A course in Romance linguistics II: A diachronic view (Washington DC: Georgetown UP).
Alcock, Leslie 1971
Arthur's Britain: History and archaeology (New York: St Martin's
Press). Allen, W Sidney 1950 Notes on the phonetics of an Eastern Armenien speaker. Transactions of the Philological Society 1950, 180-206. 1951 Phonetics and comparative linguistics. Archivum Linguisticum 3: 126-136. 1953 Phonetics in Ancient India (London: Oxford UP). Andreev, Nikolaj D. 1957 Periodizacija istorii indoevropejskogo prajazyka. Voprosy Jazykoznanija 1957!2, 3-18. Andresen, Bj0m StAlhane 1968 Pre-glottalization in English standard pronunciation (Oslo: Norwegian Universities Press). Anthony, David W 1986 The 'Kurgan culture, Indo-European origins, and the domestication of the horse: A reconsideration. Current Anthropology 27, 291-304.
440
References
Antonsen, Elmer H. 1970 Old High German and the laws of final syllables. Studies in Linguistics 21, 55-76. 1975 A concise grammar of the older Runic inscriptions (Tiibingen: Niemeyer). Runes and Germanic linguistics (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter). 2002 Austerlitz, Robert 1959 Semantic components of pronoun systems: Gilyak. Word 15, 102-109. Austin, Willian! M. 1946 A corollary to the Germanic Verschlirfung. Language 22, 109-111. 1958 Germanic reflexes of Indo-European -Hy- and -Hw-. Language 34> 203-211. Babik, Zbigniew 2004 Morphonology of the Slavic present stem *jt~mamb. Rocznik Slawistyczny 54> 65-85. Bakker, Peter, & Maarten Mous (eds.) 1994 Mixed languages: 15 case studies in language intertwining (Amsterdam: IFOTl). Ball, C.J.E. 1968 The Germanic dental preterite. Transactions af the Philological Society, 162-188. Bally, Charles 1945 Manuel daccentuation grecque (Berne: Francke). Bammesberger, Alfred 1986a Der Aujbau des germanischen Verbalsystems (Heidelberg: Carl Winter). 1986b Gotisch (nf) ogs (]Jus) und althochdeutsch ni kuri. 0-0- PE-RO-SI: Festschrift fiir Ernst Risch zum 75. Geburtstag (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter), 673-677. 1987 Das Paradigma der e-Verben im Urgermanischen. Beitriige zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur (Tiibingen) 109, 341-349· Barth, Fredrik 1981 Selected essays, 2 vols. (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul).
References
441
Bech, Gunnar 1963
Die Entstehung des schwachen Prateritums (K121benhavn: Munksgaard).
1969 Das germanische reduplizierte Prateritum (K121benhavn). Beekes, Robert S.P. 1969 The development of the Proto-Indo-European laryngeals in Greek (The Hague: Mouton). 1972 H,O. Die Sprache 18, 117-131. 1981 The subjunctive endings of Indo- Iranian. Indo-Iranian Journal 23,21-27.
1983
GAv. rna, the PIE. word for 'moon, mon~ and the perfect participle. Journal of Indo-European Studies 10, 53-64. On laryngeals and pronouns. Zeitschrift fur vergleichende
1985
Sprachforschung 96, 200-232. The origins of the Indo-European nominal inflection (lnnsbruck:
1987
Institut fiir Sprachwissenschaft). On Indo-European 'wine~ Munchener Studien zur
1982
1995
Sprachwissenschaft 48, 21-26. A Grammar of Gatha-Avestan (Leiden: Brill). Comparative Indo-European linguistics: An introduction
2010
Etymological dictionary af Greek (Leiden: Brill).
1988
(Amsterdam: Benjamins). Behaghel, Otto 1924
Zur formenbildung vocalisch auslautender oder anlautender stiimme. Beitrage zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und
Literatur 48, 128-130. Benediktsson, Hreinn 1963 Some aspects of Nordic umlaut and breaking. Language 39, 409-31. 1982
Nordic umlaut and breaking: Thirty years of research (1951-1980). Nordic Journal ofLinguistics 5, 1-60.
Benveniste, Emile 1935 1959
Origines de la formation des noms en indo-europ~en (Paris: Maisonneuve). Sur la phonetique et la syntaxe de farmenien classique. Bulletin de la Soci~M de Linguistique de Paris 54: 46-68.
References
442
Benzing, Johannes 1955 Die tungusischen Sprachen: Versuch einer vergleichenden Grammatik (Wiesbaden: Steiner). Berg, Nils 1977 Der Ursprung des altgriechischen aktiven Plusquamperfekts und die Entwicklung der alphathematischen Flexion. Norsk 1idsskrift for Sprogvidenskap 31, 205-263. Bibire, Paul 1975 Some notes on the Old Icelandic front mutations. Arkiv for Nordisk Filologi 90, 183-212. Binchy, Daniel 1956 Some Celtic legal terms. Celtica 3, 221-231. Boeder, Winfred 1979 Ergative syntax and morphology in language change: the South Caucasian languages. Ergativity (London: Academic Press), 435-480. Bouda, Karl 1960 Die Verwandtschaftsverhaltnisse des Giljakischen. Anthropos 55, 355-415. Boutkan, Dirk F.H. 1995 The Germanic ~uslautgesetze' [Leiden Studies in Indo-European 4] (Amsterdam: Rodopi). 1996 A concise grammar of the Old Frisian dialect of the First Riustring manuscript (Odense). On labial mutation and breaking in Old Frisian. Approaches to 1998a
Old Frisian Philology =Amsterdamer Beitriige zur iilteren Germanistik 49, 77-88. 1998b
On the form of North European substratum words in Germanic.
Historische Sprachforschung 111, 102-133. Boutkan, Dirk, & Maarten Kossmann 2001 On the etymology of'silver'. North- Western European Language Evolution 38, 3-15. Boutkan, Dirk, & Sjoerd M. Siebinga 2.005 Old Frisian etymological dictionary (Leiden: Brill).
References
443
Bradley, David 1979 Proto-Loloish (Copenhagen Scandinavian Institute of Asian Studies). Bradshaw, Joel 1979 Obstruent harmony and tonogenesis in Jab~m. Lingua 49, 189-205. Braune, Wilhelm, & Hans Eggers 1975 Althochdeutsche Grammatik (13. Auflage, Tubingen: Niemeyer). Brach, Ingvild, & Jahr, Ernst H. 1984 Russenorsk: Et pidginsprak i Norge (2. utgave, Oslo: Novus). Brown, Gillian 1977 Listening to spoken English (London: Longman). Brozovic, Dalibor 1989 Review of Holzen989. Wiener Slavistisches ]ahrbuch 35, 223-225. Brugmann, Karl 1904 Kurze vergleichende Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen (Strassburg: Tri.ibner). Brunner, Karl 1965 Altenglische Grammatik (3. Auflage, Ti.ibingen: Niemeyer). Buga, Kazimieras 1959 Rinktiniai raJtai II (Vilnius: Valstybine politines ir mokslines literatures leidykla). Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca 1994 The evolution ofgrammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world (Chicago: University Press). <;:abej, Eqrem 1956 tiber einige mit z- anlautende Worter des Albanischen.
Zeitschrift filr Phonetik und allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft 9, 203-229. 1972 tiber einige Lautregeln des Albanischen. Die Sprache 18, 132-154. Camaj, Martin 1966 Albanische Wortbildung: Die Bildungsweise der alteren Nomina (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz). Campbell. Alistair 1939 Some Old Frisian sound-changes. Transactions of the Philological Society 1939, 78-107.
444
References
1959 Old English grammar (Oxford: University Press). Castren, M. Alexander 1854 Grammatik der samojedischen Sprachen (herausgegeben von Anton Schiefner, St. Petersburg: Akademie der Wissenschaften; reprint 1966, Bloomington: Indiana University). Cercignani, Fausto 1979 Proto-Germanic *Iii and */e/ revisited. Journal ofEnglish and Germanic Philology 78, 72-82. Chantraine, Pierre 1961 Morphologie historique du grec (Paris: Klincksieck). 1967 Morphologie historique du grec (2-eme edition, Paris: Klincksieck). 1973 Grammaire homerique I: Phonetique et morphologie (Paris: Klincksieck). Chapman, Kenneth G. 1962 Icelandic-Norwegian linguistic relationships (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget). Christophersen, Paul 1952 The glottal stop in English. English Studies 33, 156-63. Clackson, James 1994 The linguistic relationship between Armenian and Greek (Oxford: Blackwell). Collier, L.W 1987 The chronology of i-umlaut and breaking in pre-Old English. North- Western European Language Evolution 9, 33-45. Collinder, Bjorn 1960 Comparative grammar of the Uralic languages (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell). 1965 Hat das Uralische Verwandte? Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis N.S. 1/4 (Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell), 109-180. 1974 Indo- Uralisch- oder gar Nostratisch? (Vierzig Jahre auf rauhen Pfaden) Antiquitates Indogermanicae (lnnsbruck: Institut fiir Sprachwissenschaft), 363-375. Collins, Beverley, & Inger M. Mees 1994 Though'ts on the glo'ttal sto'p. Knowing the words: Liber amicorum for Robert Druce (Leiden: Academic Press), 68-81.
References
445
Collitz, Hermann 1891 Die behandlung des urspr. auslautenden ai im Gotischen, Althochdeutschen und Altsachsischen. Beitrage zur kunde der indogermanischen sprachen 17, 1-53. Cowgill, Warren 1959 The inflection of the Germanic a-presents. Language 35, 1-15. 1960 Gothic iddja and Old English eode. Language 36, 483-501. 1965 Evidence in Greek. Evidence for laryngeals (The Hague: Mouton), 142-180. 1968 The first person singular media-passive of Indo-Iranian. Pratidiinam (The Hague: Mouton), 24-31. 1980 The etymology of Irish guidid and the outcome of *t"h in Celtic. Lautgeschichte und Etymologie (Wiesbaden: Reichert), 49-78. 1985 PIE *dutJo '2' in Germanic and Celtic, and the nom.-acc. dual of non-neuter o-stems. Miinchener Stud ien zur Sprachwissenschaft 46,13-28. Cekman, Valerij N. 1974 0 refleksax indo-evropejskix *IC, *gvbalto-slavjanskom jazykovom areale. Balto-slavjanskie issledovanija (Moskva: Nauka), 116-135. Dahl, Ivar 1938 Substantival inflexion in early Old English: vocalic stems [Lund Studies in English 7] (Lund: Gleerup). Demiraj, Bardhyl 1997 Albanische Etymologien: Untersuchungen zum albanischen Erbwortschatz (Amsterdam: Rodopi). Derksen, Rick 1996 Metatony in Baltic (Amsterdam: Rodopi). 2003 Slavic *jtJ-. Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 30: Dutch
2008
Contributions to the Thirteenth International Congress ofSlavists (Ljubljana, 2003), Linguistics, 97-105. Etymological dictionary of the Slavic inherited lexicon (Leiden:
Brill). Dishington, ]. 1978 Arguments for an ai/ja-paradigm in the 3rd weak class of ProtoGermanic. Indogermanische Forschungen 83, 301-323.
References Djahukian, Gevork B. 1967
Olerki po istorii dopis'mennogo perioda armjanskogo jazyka
(Erevan: AN Arm. SSR). Docherty, Gerard J., & Paul Foulkes 1999 Derby and Newcastle: instrumental phonetics and variationist studies. Urban voices: accent studies in the British Isles (London: Arnold), 47-71. Docherty, Gerard J., Paul Foulkes, James Milroy, Lesley Milroy & David Walshaw 1997 Descriptive adequacy in phonology: a variationist perspective.
Journal ofLinguistics 33, 275-310. Doerfer, Gerhard 1985
Mongolo-Tungusica (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz).
Dunkel, George 1981 Typology versus reconstruction. Bono Homini Donum: Essays in
historical linguistics in memory of]. Alexander Kerns II (Amsterdam: Benjamins), 559-569. Dybo, Anna V., & George S. Starostin wo8 In defense of the comparative method, or the end of the Vovin controversy. Aspects of comparative linguistics 3 (Moscow: Russian State University for the Humanities), 119-258. Dybo, Vladimir A. 1961 Sokrascenie dolgot v kel'to-italijskix jazykax i ego znaeenie dlja balto-slavjanskoj i indo-evropejskoj akcentologii. Voprosy
slavjanskogo jazykoznanija 5, 9-34. 1962
0 rekonstrukcii udarenija v praslavjanskom glagole. Voprosy
slavjanskogo jazykoznanija 6, 3-27. 1968
1973
Akcentologija i slovoobrazovanie v slavjanskom. Slavjanskoe jazykoznanie: VI metdunarodnyj s"ezd slavistov, Fraga, 1968 (Moskva: Nauka), 148-22.4. Baltoslavjanskaja akcentnaja sistema s tipologiceskoj tocki zrenija i problema rekonstrukcii indoevropejskogo akcenta. Kuznecovskie ltenija 1973: Istorija slavjanskix jazykov i
pis'mennosti, 8-10.
References
447
Dybo, V., Nikolayev S. & Starostin S. 1978 A tonological hypothesis on the origin of paradigmatic accent systems. Estonian Papers in Phonetics (Tallinn: Academy of Sciences), 16-20. Dyvik, H.].]. 1978
Breaking in Old Norse and related languages: A reassessment of the phonetic conditions.Arkiv for Nordisk Filologi 93, 1-37.
Ebeling, Carl L. 1966 The grammar ofliterary Avar. Studia Caucasica 2, 58-100. 1967 Historical laws of Slavic accentuation. To Honor Roman ]akobson (The Hague: Mouton), 577-593. Edelman, Gerald M. 1987 Neural Darwinism (New York: Basic Books). Eichner, Heiner 1973 Die Etymologie von heth. mehur. Miinchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 31, 53-107. Einarsson, Stefan 1941 Some notes on E. Prokosch's A Comparative Germanic Grammar, with special reference to his treatment of the Scandinavian languages. The Journal of English and Germanic Philology 40, 38-47·
Ejskjrer, Inger St0d and pitch accents in the Danish dialects. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 22,49-75. Elizarenkova, Tat'jana ]a. 1982 Grammatika vedijskogo jazyka (Moskva: Nauka). Emeneau, Murray B. 1966 The dialects of Old Indo-Aryan. Ancient Indo-European dialects (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press), 1990
123-138.
Endzelin, Jan 1957 1971
Balt11 kalb11 garsai ir formos (Vilnius: Valstybine politines ir mokslines literatiiros leidykla). Comparative phonology and morphology of the Baltic languages (The Hague: Mouton).
References Erdal, Marcel A grammar of Old Turkic (Leiden: Brill). 2004 Fagan, Sarah M.B. 1989 Geminates in intensive and iterative Germanic class II weak verbs. Beitraege zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 111, 35-58. Feist, Sigmund 1910 Europa im Lichte der Vorgeschichte (Berlin: Weidmann). Flasdieck, Hermann M. 1935 Untersuchungen iiber die germanischen schwachen Verben III. Klasse (unter besonderer Beriicksichtigung des Altenglischen). Anglia 59, 1-192. 1936 Die reduplizierenden Verben des Germanischen (unter besonderer Beriicksichtigung des Altenglischen). Anglia 6o, 241-365. Fodor, Istvan 1976 The main issues ofFinno-Ugrian archaeology. Ancient Cultures of the Uralian Peoples (Budapest: Corvina), 49-78. Forbes, K. 1958 The formation of the so-called Aeolic optative. Glotta 37, 165-179. Fortescue, Michael 1988 The Eskaleut-Yukagir relationship: An alternative to the genetic/contact dichotomy. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 21!1, 21-50. 1998 Language relations across Bering Strait: Reappraising the archaeological and linguistic evidence (London-New York: Cassell). Fourquet, Jean 1959 Le systeme des elements vocaliques longs en vieil-anglais.
Melanges de linguistique et de philologie: Fernand Masse in memoriam (Paris), 148-160. Fraenkel, Ernst 1950 Die baltischen Sprachen (Heidelberg: Carl Winter). Frisk, Hjalmar 1973 Griechisches etymologisches WOrterbuch I (Heidelberg: Carl Winter).
References
449
Fritz, Matthias 1993
Griechisch aiiTft~ 'Dampf, Duff. Historische Sprachforschung 106, 288-301.
Fulk, Robert D. 1987 Reduplicating verbs and their development in northwest Germanic. Beitriige zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur (Tiibingen) 109, 159-178. 1998 The chronology of Anglo-Frisian sound changes. Approaches to
Old Frisian Philology = Amsterdamer Beitriige zur iilteren Germanistik 49, 139-154. Galbraith, John Kenneth 1972
Economics, peace and laughter (New York: The New American
Library). Gamkrelidze, Thomas V., & Vjaeeslav V. Ivanov 1972 Lingvisticeskaja tipologija i rek.onstrukcija sistemy indoevropejskix smycnyx. Konferencija po sravnitel'no-istoriceskoj
grammatike indoevropejskix jazykov: Predvaritel'nye materialy 1973 1980
(Moskva: Nauka), 15-18. Sprachtypologie und die Rekonstruktion der gemeinindogermanischen Verschliisse. Phonetica 27, 150-156. Rekonstrukcija sistemy smycnyx obsceindoevropejskogo jazyka: Glottalizovannye smycnye v indoevropejskom. Voprosy
]azykoznanija 1980/4, 21-35. Garde, Paul 1976
Histoire de laccentuation slave (Paris: Institut d~tudes slaves).
Garibjan, Ararat S. 1958 Novaja gruppa dialektov armjanskogo jazyka. Voprosy
]azykoznanija 1958/6: 95-101. 1959
Ob armjanskom k.onsonantizme. Voprosy ]azykoznanija 1959/5: 81-90.
Geldner, Karl F. 1951
DerRig-Veda, aus dem Sanskrit ins Deutsche iibersetzt und mit einem laufenden Kommentar versehen (Cambridge, Mass.).
Georg, Stefan, & Alexander Vovin 2003 Review of Greenberg 2000. Diachronica 20/2, 331-362.
450
References
Georgiev, Vladimir 1977 Trakite i tehnijat ezik (Sofija: B'hlgarska Akademija na Naukite). Gerhart, John, & Marc Kirschner Cells, embryos, and evolution (Malden: Blackwell). 1997 Gimbutas, Marija 1985 Primary and secondary homeland of the Indo-Europeans. Journal ofIndo-European Studies 13, 185-2.02.. Goblirsch, Kurt Gustav Consonant strength in Upper German dialects [= North-Western 1994 European Language Evolution, Supplement vol1o] (Odense: University Press). The correlation of voice in Germanic. North- Western European 1999 Language Evolution 35,115-140. 2.005 Lautverschiebungen in den germanischen Sprachen (Heidelberg: Carl Winter). Godel, Robert 1975 An introduction to the study of Classical Armenian (Wiesbaden: Reichert). Gorelova, Liliya M. 2.002. Manchu grammar (Leiden: Brill). Grace, George W. 1987 The linguistic construction of reality (London: Croom Helm). Green, Dennis Howard 1998 Language and history in the early Germanic world. Cambridge: University Press. Greenberg, Joseph H. 1970 Some generalizations concerning glottalic consonants, especially implosives. International Journal ofAmerican Linguistics 36, 12.3-145· 1997 The Indo-European frrst and second person pronouns in the perspective of Eurasiatic, especially Chukotkan. Anthropological Linguistics 39, 187-195.
woo
Indo-European and its closest relatives: The Eurasiatic language family I: Grammar (Stanford: University Press).
References
451
Greenberg, Marc L. 2000 A historical phonology of the Slovene language (Heidelberg: Carl Winter). 2007 Phonetic evidence for the development of the "acute" tone in Slavic. Tones and theories: Proceedings of the international workshop on Balta-Slavic accentology (Zagreb: lnstitut za hrvatski jezik i jezikoslovlje), 75-87. Greene, David 1974 The growth of palatalization in Irish. Transactions of the Philological Society 1973, 127-136. 1976 The diphthongs of Old Irish. Eriu 27, 26-45. Gr0nvik, Ottar 1998 Untersuchungen zur alteren nordischen und germanischen Sprachgeschichte [Osloer Beitriige zur Germanistik 18] (Frankfurt: Peter Lang). Gruzdeva, Ekaterina 1998 Nivkh (Miinchen: Lincom Europa). Gysseling, Maurits 1962 Het oudste Fries. It Beaken 24,1-26. Hachmann, Rolf 1970 Die Goten und Skandinavien (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter). HajdU, Peter 1975 Fin no- Ugrian languages and peoples (London: Andre Deutsch). Hamp, Eric P. 1965 Evidence in Albanian. Evidence for laryngeals (The Hague), 123-141. 1985
German Bein, Old English ban, Slavic kostb. North- Western European Language Evolution 6, 67-70.
Hansen, Aage
Stedet i Dansk (K0benhavn Munksgaard). Hansson, Gunnar Olafur 2001 Remains of a submerged continent: Preaspiration in the languages of northwest Europe. Historical linguistics 1999 (Amsterdam: Benjamins), 157-173. 1943
References
452
HarClarson, J6n Axel 1993
Studien zum urindogermanischen Wurzelaorist (lnnsbruck:
Institut fiir Sprachwissenschaft). Haudricourt, Andre-Georges 1975 Les mutations consonantiques (occlusives) en indo-europeen. Melanges linguistiques offerts Emile Benveniste (Louvain: Peeters), 267-272. Haudry, Jean
a
1977
Thmploi des cas en vedique: Introduction alf!tude des cas en indoeuropeen (Lyon: rHermes).
Haugen, Einar 1941
On the consonant pattern of modern Icelandic. Acta Linguistica 2, 98-107.
1958 1976
The phonemics of modern Icelandic. Language 34, 55-88. The Scandinavian languages (London: Faber & Faber).
Heather, Peter 1991
Goths and Romans 332-489 (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
Heenen, Franc;:ois 2006 Le desideratif en vedique (Amsterdam: Rodopi). Helimski, Eugene 1995 Proto- Uralic gradation: Continuation and traces. Congressus
Octavus Internationalis Fenno-Ugristarum I: Orationes plenariae et conspectus quinquennales (Jyvaskyl.a: Moderatores), 17-51. Heuser, Wilhelm 1903
Altfriesisches Lesebuch mit Grammatik und Glossar (Heidelberg:
Carl Winter). Heusler, Andreas 1967
Altislandisches Elementarbuch (Heidelberg: Carl Winter).
Hilmarsson, Jorundur 1986 1989
1991
Studies in Tocharian phonology morphology and etymology, with special emphasis on the a-vocalism (Diss. Leiden, Reykjavik). The dual forms of nouns and pronouns in Tocharian [=Tocharian and Indo-European Studies, suppl. 1] (Reykjavik: Malvfsindastofnun Hisk6la Islands). On e. in Germanic. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 23, 33-47.
References 1996
453
Materials for a Tocharian historical and etymological dictionary [=Tocharian and Indo-European Studies, suppl. 5] (Reykjavik:
MaJ.visindastofnun Hask6la fslands) Hirt, Herman 1892 Die Urheimat der Indogermanen. Indogermanische Forschungen 1, 464-485. 1895 Der Ackerbau der Indogermanen. Indogermanische Forschungen 5· 395-402. 1921 Indogermanische Grammatik II: Der indogermanische Vokalismus (Heidelberg: Carl Winter). 1929 Indogermanische Grammatik V: Der Akzent (Heidelberg: Carl Winter). Hirt, Herman, & Helmut Arntz 1939
Die Hauptprobleme der indogermanischen Sprachwissenschaft
(Halle/Saale: Niemeyer). Hockett, Charles F. 1955 A manual ofphonology (Baltimore: Waverly Press). Hoff, Ingeborg 1949 Vilkarene for brytning av germansk e till ia, io i vestnordisk. Arkiv for Nordisk Filologi 64, 177-210. Hoffmann, Karl 1957 Zur vedischen Verbalflexion. Miinchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 2', 121-137. 196?a Der Injunktiv im Veda: Eine synchronische Funktionsuntersuchung (Heidelberg: Carl Winter). 1967b Der vedische Prekativtyp yeyam, jeyma. Miinchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 20, 25-37. 1968 Zum Optativ des indogermanischen Wurzelaorists. Pratidiinam (The Hague: Mouton), 3-8. Hofmann, Dietrich 1964 "Germanisch" e, im Friesischen. Festschrift filr ]ost Trier zum JO. Geburtstag (Koln: Bohlau), 160-185. 1989 Die spatgermanische Silbenquantitatsverschiebung und die Doppelschreibung alter kurzer Konsonanten in den altwestfriesischen Quellen. Gesammelte Schriften II: Studien zur
References
454
friesischen und niederdeutschen Philologie (Hamburg: Buske), 206-14.
Hogg, Richard M. 1979 Old English palatalization. Transactions of the Philological Society 1979> 89-113.
Hollifield, Patrick H. 1980 The phonological development of fmal syllables in Germanic. Die Sprache 26, 19-53 and 145-178. Holzer, Georg 1989
Entlehnungen aus einer bisher unbekannten indogermanischen Sprache im Ursla:vischen und Urbaltischen (Wien: Ak:ademie der
Wissenschaften). Honselaar, Zep 1998 The dialect of Ostrovcy in the Pskov oblast. Dutch Contributions to the Twelfth International Congress ofSlavists (Amsterdam: Rodopi) =Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 24, 283-307. Govorderevni Ostrovcy pskovskoj oblasti (Amsterdam: Rodopi). 2001 Hopper, Paul J. 1973 Glottalized and murmured occlusives in Indo-European. Glossa 7> 141-166.
Hughes, Arthur, & Peter Trudgill 1987
English accents and dialects: An introduction to social and regional varieties of British English (London: Edward Arnold).
Huld, Martin E. 1976 Albanian yll 'star'. Zeitschrift fii.r vergleichende Sprachforschung 90, 178-182. 1984
Basic Albanian etymologies (Columbus, Ohio).
Hyman, Larry M.
Phonology: Theory and analysis (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston). Illic-Svityc, Vladislav M. 1962 K istolkovaniju akcentuacionnyx sootvetstvij v kefto-italijskom i balto-slavjanskom. Kratkie soobscenija Instituta slavjanovedenija 1975
1963
AN SSSR 35,63-72. Imennaja akcentuacija v baltijskom i slavjanskom: Sud'ba akcentuacionnyx paradigm (Moskva: AN SSSR).
References 1971
455
Opyt sravnenija nostraticeskix jazykov: Vvedenie, sravnitel'nyj slovar' b-~ (Moskva: Nauka).
Insler, Stanley 1968 The origin of the Sanskrit passive aorist. Indogermanische Forschungen 73, 312-346. 1972 On proterodynamic root present inflection. Munchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 30: 55-64. 1975a The Gathas ofZarathustra (Leiden: Brill). 1975b The Vedic type dheyam. Die Sprache 21, 1-22. Irslinger, Britta S. 2002 Abstrakta mit Dentalsuffixen im Altirischen (Heidelberg: Winter). Isaac, Graham R. 2007 Studies in Celtic sound changes and their chronology (Innsbruck: Institut fiir Sprachwissenschaft). Ivanov, Vjaeeslav V. 1981 Slavjanskij, baltijskij i rannebalkanskij glagol: Indoevropejskie istoki (Moskva: Nauka). Ivic, Pavle 1958 Die serbokroatischen Dialekte: Ihre Struktur und Entwicklung (The Hague: Mouton). Ivic, Pavle, & Ilse Lehiste 1967 Prilozi ispitivanju fonetske i fonoloske prirode akcenata u savremenom srpskohrvatskom jeziku. Zbornik za Filologiju i Lingvistiku 10, 55-93. Jackson, Kenneth 1953 Language and history in early Britain (Edinburgh: University Press). Jacobsen, Lis 1935 Forbandelsesformularer i nordiske runeindskrifter. Stockholm: Akademiens Forlag. Jakobson, Roman 1932 Zur Struktur des russischen Verbums. Charisteria Vilhelmo Mathesio oblata (Prague: Cercle Linguistique de Prague), 74-83. 1941 Kindersprache, Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze (Uppsala: Lundequist). Selected writings I: Phonological studies (The Hague: Mouton). 1962
References
456 1971
Selected writings II: Word and language (The Hague: Mouton).
Jamison, Stephanie W 1983 Two problems in the inflection of the Vedic intensive. Munchener
Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 42, 41-73. Janhunen, Juha 1982 On the structure of Proto- Uralic. Finnisch- Ugrische Forschungen 44.23-42.
On early Indo-European-Samoyed contacts. Symposium
1983
Saeculare Societatis Fenno- Ugricae [=Memoires de la Societe Finno-Ougrienne 185], 115-127. (Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura) The Mongolic languages (London: Routledge).
2003
Jasanoff, Jay H. 1976 1978
Gr. lXfUpW, lat. ambO et le mot indo-europeen pour 'fun et fautre'. Bulletin de la Societ~ de Linguistique de Paris 71/1, 123-131. Stative and middle in Indo-European (Inns brock: Institut fiir Sprachwissenschaft). The sigmatic aorist in To char ian and Indo-European. Tocharian
2003
and Indo-European Studies 2, 52-76. Hittite and the Indo-European verb (Oxford: University Press). Acute vs. circumflex: Some notes on PIE and post-PIE prosodic phonology. Per aspera ad asteriscos [Fs. Rasmussen] (Innsbruck: Institut fiir Sprachwissenschaft), 247-255. Balta-Slavic accentuation: telling news from noise. Baltistica 39/2, 171-177·
The accentual type *veda, *vedetl and the origin of mobility in the Balto-Slavic verb. Baltistica 43/3, 339-379. Jellinek, Max Hermann 1926 Geschichte der gotischen Sprache (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter). Jespersen, Otto 1913 Det danske st0d og umordisk synkope. Arkiv for Nordisk Filologi 2008
29, 1-32.
Jokl, Norbert 1911
Studien zur albanesischen Etymologie und Wortbildung (=Sitzungsberichte der philosophisch-historischen Klasse der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften 168/1, Wien).
References
457
Beitrage zur albanesischen Grantmatik. Indogermanische
1912
Forschungen 30, 192-210. Ein Beitrag zur Lehre von der alb. Vertretung der idg. Labiovelare. M~langes linguistiques offerts aM. Holger Pedersen (Aarhus-K121benhavn), 127-161. Die Verwandtschaftsverhaltnisse des Albanischen zu den iibrigen indogermanischen Sprachen. Die Sprache 9, 113-156.
1937
1963
Jurisit, Blaz
Rjelnik govora atoka Vrgade II: Rjelnik (Zagreb: JAZU).
1973
Kallio, Petri Postfs superstrate theory at the threshold of the new millennium.
2000
Facing Finnic: Some challenges to historical and contact linguistics (Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura), 80-99. Katz, Joshua T. Archaische keltische Personalpronomina aus indogermanischer Sicht. Sprache und Kultur der Indogermanen (Innsbruck: Institut fiir Sprachwissenschaft), 265-291.
1998
Kaufmann, F. Zur geschichte des germanischen consonantismus. Beitraege zur
1887
Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 12, 504-547. Kern, Johan H. 1906
Zum nom. und ace. plur. der a-stamme im ags. Beitrage zur
Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 31, 272-276. Kimball, Sara E. 1987
"'H3 in Anatolian. Festschrift for Henry Hoenigswald (Tiibingen:
1999
Hittite historical phonology (Innsbruck: Institut fiir
Gunter Narr), 185-192. Sprachwissenschaft). Klaic,A. 1936
0 podravskom akcentu i kvantitetu. ]utnoslovenski Filolog 15, 181-183.
Klein, Thomas 1990
Die Straubinger Heliand-Fragmente: Altfriesisch oder Altsachsisch? Aspects of Old Frisian Philology = Amsterdamer
Beitrage zur alteren Germanistik 31-32, 197-225.
References
458
Klingenschmitt, Gert 1975 Tocharisch und Urindogermanisch. Flexion und Wortbildung (Wiesbaden: Reichert), 148-163. 1982 Das altarmenische Verbum (Wiesbaden: Reichert). 1994 Das Tocharische in indogermanistischer Sicht. Tocharisch: Akten
der Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft [=Tocharian and Indo-European Studies, suppl. 4] (Reykjavik: MaJ.visindastofnun Hask6la fslands), 310-411. Kloekhorst, Alwin 2005 Hittite lJiipusa(sS)- (formerly known as lJapus- 'penis). Journal of Indo-European Studies 33, 27-39. 20o6a lnitiallaryngeals in Anatolian. Historische Sprachforschung 109, 77-108. 20o6b Hittite pai-lpi- 'to give'. Indogermanische Forschungen 111, 110-119. 2007 The Hittite inherited lexicon (Diss. Leiden). 2008 Etymological dictionary of the Hittite inherited lexicon (Leiden:
Brill). Kluge, Friedrich 1884 Die germanische consonantendehnung. Beitraege zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 9, 149-186. Knobloch, Johannes 1953 La voyelle thematique -e/o- serait-elle un indice dobjet indoeuropeen? Lingua 3, 407-420. Kock,Axel 1888 I -omljudet och den samnordiska forlusten af andelsevokaler. Arkiv for Nordisk Filologi 4, 141-62. Fomnordiska kvantitets- och akcentfragor. Arkiv for Nordisk Filologi 7, 334-377. Sprakhistoriska bidrag. Arkiv for Nordisk Filologi 8, 256-74. Kritische bemerkungen zur frage nach dem i-umlaut. Beitrage zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 18, 417-64. Die alt- und neuschwedische Accentuierung (Strassburg: Triibner). 1901 1911-16 Umlaut und Brechung im Altschwedischen: Eine Obersicht (Lund: Gleerup).
References
459
Kohnlein, Bjorn 2005 Tonakzente im rechtsrheinischen Regelumkehrgebiet: Eine phonetisch-phonologische Analyse 84 Jahre nach Ado if Bachs Entdeckung (Marburg: MA thesis). Koivulehto, Jorma, & Thea Vennemann 1996 Der finnische Stufenwechsel und das Vemersche Gesetz. Beitrage zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 118, 163-182. K1211ln, Herman 1966 Aspekt und Diathese im Slavischen. Scando-Slavica 12, 57-79. Zur Definition des Verbalaspekts. Scando-Slavica 14, 131-139. 1968 Kortland t, Frederik [numbering of www.kortlandt.nl] Ko14 1975 Slavic accentuation: A study in relative chronology (Lisse: Peter de Ridder). Ko17 1976 The Slovene neo-circumflex. The Slavonic and East European Review 54/1, 1-10. Ko22 1980 Albanian and Armenian. Zeitschrift furvergleichende Sprachforschung 94, 243-251. Ko23 1978 IE palatovelars before resonants in Balta-Slavic. Recent developments in historical phonology (The Hague: Mouton), 237-243· Ko25 1977 Historical laws of Baltic accentuation. Baltistica 13/2, 319-330. Ko27 1980 Zur Akzentuierung der Kiever Blatter. Zeitschrift fiir slavische Philologie 41/1, 1-4. Ko28 1978 A history of Slavic accentuation: Review of Garde 1976. Lingua 44/1, 67-91. Ko3o 1978 On the history of the genitive plural in Slavic, Baltic, Germanic, and Indo-European. Lingua 45, 281-300. Ko31 1978 Notes on Armenian historical phonology II. Studia Caucasica 4, 9-16. Ko32 1978 Proto-Indo-European obstruents. Indogermanische Forschungen 83, 107-118. Ko33 1979 Toward a reconstruction of the Balta-Slavic verbal system. Lingua 49, 51-70. Ko34 1980 H,o and oH•. Lingua Posnaniensis 23 [Fs. Kudzinowski], 127-128. [cf. this volume, 51-52]
References
Koso Ko51
Koss Kos8
Ko6o
Ko61 Ko62
Ko63 Ko64 Ko65
1979 The Old Irish absolute and conjunct endings and questions of relative chronology. Eriu 30, 35- 53· 1979 On the history of the Slavic nasal vowels. Indogermanische Forschungen 84, 259-272. 1981 Glottalic consonants in Sindhi and Proto-Indo- European. Indo-Iranian Journal23: 15-19. [cf. this volume, 121-124] 19811st sg. middle *-H•. Indogermanische Forschungen 86, 123-136. [cf. this volume, 81-90] 1981 More evidence for Italo-Celtic. Eriu 32 (1981), 1-22. 1983 Proto-Indo-European verbal syntax. Journal ofIndoEuropean Studies 11, 307-324. [cf. this volume, 91-103] 1982 Innovations which betray archaisms. Baltistica 18/t, 4-9. 1982 Phonemicization and rephonemicization of the Old Irish mutations. Eriu 33, 73-83. 1982 Sravnitel'no-istoriceskie kommentarii k bolgarskomu udareniju. Zbornik za Filologiju i Lingvistiku 25/t, 91-96. 1983 On final syllables in Slavic. Journal of Indo-European Studies 11, 167-185. 1982 Early dialectal diversity in South Slavic I. Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 2: South Slavic and Balkan Linguistics, 177-192. 1983 Greek numerals and PIE glottalic consonants. Miinchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 42: 97-104. [cf. this volume, 105-109] 1983 Notes on Armenian historical phonology III: h-. Studia Caucasica 5, 9-16. 1984 Proto-Armenian case endings. International Symposium on Armenian linguistics: Reports (Erevan: Armenian Academy of Sciences), 97-106. 1983 Demonstrative pronouns in Balto-Slavic, Armenian, and Tocharian. Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 3, 311-22. 1985 Long vowels in Balto-Slavic. Baltistica 21!2: 112-124. 1987 Archaic ablaut patterns in the Vedic verb. Festschrift for Henry Hoenigswald (Tiibingen: Gunter Narr), 219-223. [cf. this volume, 125-129]
References Ko66 Ko67
Ko68 Ko69
Ko73 Ko75
KoSo Ko82 Ko84
Ko85
461 1989 Od praindoevropskog jezika do slovensk.og (Fonoloski razvoj). Zbornik za Filologiju i Lingvistiku 32/2, 41-58. 1985 A parasitological view of non-constructible sets. Studia linguistica diachronica et synchronica: Werner Winter sexagenario oblata (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter), 477-483. [cf. this volume, 429-433] 1984 Old Irish subjunctives and futures and their Proto-IndoEuropean origins. Eriu 35, 179-187. 1985 On reduced vowels in Slavic. Zbornik za Filologiju i Lingvistiku 27-28, 367-368. 1986 Posttonic *win Old Irish. Eriu 37, 89-92. 1986 The origin of the Slavic imperfect. Festschrift fii.r Herbert Brauer zum 65. Geburtstag am 14· April1986 (Koln: Bohlau), 253-258. 1988 Vestjysk st0d, Icelandic preaspiration, and Proto-IndoEuropean glottalic stops. Languages and cultures: Studies in honor ofEdgar C. Polome (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter), 353-357. [cf. this volume, 165-168] 1984 PIE *H- in Armenian. Annual ofArmenian Linguistics 5, 41-43· 1985 Proto-Indo-European glottalic stops: The comparative evidence. Folia Linguistica Historica 6/2, 183-201. [cf. this volume, 53-65] 1985 Praindoevropejskie glottalizovannye smycnye (Sravnitefnoistorieeskie dannye). Voprosy Jazykoznanija 1985/4. 43-53. 1986 Proto-Indo-European tones? Journal ofindo-European Studies 14, 153-160. [cf. this volume, 67-72] 1985 Slavic imamtJ. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 31-32 [Fs. Birnbaum], 235-239. 1986 The origin of the Old English dialects. Linguistics across historical and geographical boundaries I: Linguistic theory and historical linguistics [Fs. Fisiak] (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter), 437-442. [cf. this volume, 259-263] 1986 Armenian and Albanian. La place de larmenien dans les langues indo-europeennes (Leuven: Peeters), 38-47.
References Ko86 Ko87 Ko88
Ko94 Ko95
Ko97
Ko99 K101 K1o2 K104 K1o5 K107 K109 K11o
1989 Lachmann's law. The new sound of Indo-European: Essays in phonological reconstruction (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter), 103-105. 1987 The formation of the Old Prussian present tense. Baltistica 23/2, 104-111. 1986 The Germanic first class of weak verbs. North-Western European Language Evolution 8, 27-31. [cf. this volume, 201-203] 1987 Notes on Armenian historical phonology V. Studia Caucasica 7, 61-65. 1987 PIE *sin Albanian. Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 10, 219-226. [cf. this volume, 319-324] 1988 On the development of PIE final syllables in Tocharian. Tocharian and Indo-European Studies 2, 8o-88. [cf. this volume, 143-147] 1988 The Tocharian word for 'woman'. Tocharian and IndoEuropean Studies 2, 77-79. [cf. this volume, 149-150] 1992 The Aeolic optative. Rekonstruktion und relative Chronologie: Akten der VIII. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Leiden, 1987 (Innsbruck: Institut fur Sprachwissenschaft), 235-239. [cf. this volume, 111-115] 1988 The Greek 3rd pl. endings. Miinchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 49, 63-69. [cf. this volume, 117-120] 1989 Lithuanian statyti and related formations. Baltistica 25/2, 104-112. 1988 The Thraco-Annenian consonant shift Linguistique Balkanique = Balkansko Ezikoznanie 31, 71-74. 1988 Proto-Germanic obstruents. Amsterdamer Beitrage zur alteren Germanistik 27, 3-10. [cf. this volume, 169-174] 1989 The making of a puzzle. Annual ofArmenian Linguistics 10, 43-52. 1990 The Germanic third class of weak verbs. North-Western European Language Evolution 15, 3-10. [cf. this volume, 205-208] 1989 Der polabische Wortakzent. Zeitschrift fiir slavische Philologie 49/I (1989), 163-170. 1989 The Germanic weak preterit. Amsterdamer Beitrage zur alteren Germanistik 28, 101-109. [cf. this volume, 227-233] 1993 Tokie salti rytai. Baltistica 28/I, 45-48.
References
463
Km
1990 The spread of the Indo-Europeans. Journal
Kn2
1989 Eight Indo- Uralic verbs?
of Indo-
Kn2a
European Studies 18, 131-140. [cf. this volume, 1-6] Milnchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 50, 79-85. [ cf. this volume, 387-390] 1992 Vosem' indo-urafskix glagolov? Voprosy ]azykoznanija
Kn4
199211, 101-104. 1994 The fate of the sigmatic aorist in Tocharian. Tocharisch:
Akten der Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Berlin, 1990 [=Tocharian and Indo-European Studies, suppl. 4] (Reykjavik: MHvfsindastofnun Hisk.6la fslands), 61-65. [cf. this volume, 151-153] Kns
1991 The Germanic seventh class of strong verbs. North- Western
European Language Evolution 18,97-100. [cf. this volume, Kn7 Kn8 Kn9
K120
K121 K122 K123 K124 K128 K130
209-210] 1992 The Old Norse i-umlaut North- Western European Language Evolution 20, 27-31. [cf. this volume, 285-287] 1991 A note on the Tocharian dual. Tocharian and Indo-European Studies 5, 5-10. [cf. this volume, 155-157] 1991 Kluge's law and the rise ofproto-Germanic geminates. Amsterdamer Beitriige zur iilteren Germanistik 34. 1-4. [cf. this volume, 175-177] 1992 The Germanic fifth class of strong verbs. North-Western European Language Evolution (Odense University Press) 19, 101-107. [cf. this volume, 211-214] 1992 Le statif indo-europeen en slave. Revue des Etudes Slaves 64/3, 373-376. 1994 The Germanic sixth class of strong verbs. North- Western European Language Evolution 23, 69-73- [cf. this volume, 215-217] 1993 Old High German umlaut Amsterdamer Beitriige zur iilteren Germanistik 37,19-20. [cf. this volume, 247-248] 1994 On breaking. North- Western European Language Evolution 24. 15-19. [cf. this volume, 289-291] 1994 The Proto-Germanic pluperfect. Amsterdamer Beitriige zur iilteren Germanistik 40, 1-5. [cf. this volume, 235-238] 1995 General linguistics and Indo-European reconstruction. Rask 2, 91-109. [cf. this volume, 7-20]
References K135
K138
K141 K142
K143 K145 K146 K149 K150
K156 K161 K167 K173 K18o
K182
The Germanic fourth class of weak verbs. North-Western European Language Evolution (Odense University Press) 25, 137-139. [cf. this volume, 219-220] 1996 The High German consonant shift Amsterdamer Beitrage zur alteren Germanistik 46, 53-57; Korrektur in Amsterdamer Beitrage zur alteren Germanistik 47, 231. [cf. this volume, 249-253] 1997 PIE lengthened grade in Balta-Slavic. Festschrift for Eric P. Hamp II (Washington: Institute for the Study of Man), 26-31. 1997 How old is the English glottal stop? North-Western European Language Evolution 31-32 [Germanic studies in honor of Anatoly Liberman], 175-179. [cf. this volume, 265-268] 1997 Labials, velars and labiovelars in Germanic. North-Western European Language Evolution 30,45-50. [cf. this volume, 179-183] 1998 The dual endings of the Indo-European verb. Studia Indogermanica Lodziensia 2, 71-73. 1996 PIE *j in Albanian. Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 23, 173-176. [cf. this volume, 325-327] 1996 The Tocharian imperfect Historische Sprachforschung 109, 169-174. [cf. this volume, 159-163] 1997 Thematic and athematic verb forms in Old Irish. Sound law and analogy: Papers in honor of Robert S.P. Beekes on the occasion of his 6oth birthday (Amsterdam: Rodopi), 133-137. 1998 Are Mongolian and Tungus genetically related? Acta Orientalia [Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae] 51, 235-237. 1997 Japanese aru, iru, oru 'to be'. Studia Etymologica Cracoviensia 2, 167-170. 1997 On the relative chronology of Celtic sound changes. Historische Sprachforschung uo/2, 248-251. 1997 Baltic e- and ilja-stems. Baltistica 32/2, 157-163. 1999 The origin of the Old English dialects revisited. Amsterdamer Beitrage zur alteren Germanistik 51, 45-51. [cf. this volume, 269-273] 2000 Old Norse taka, Gothic tekan, Greek remywv. NorthWestern European Language Evolution 36, 59-65. [cf. this volume, 221-225] 1995
References K183 K187
K188 K190 K192 K194 K195 K197 K198 K201 K202 K203
K205
Kw6
Kw8
465 1998 Reflexes of Indo-European consonants in Albanian. Orpheus 8, 35-37. [cf. this volume, 329-332] 2003 An Indo-European substratum in Slavic? Languages in prehistoric Europe (Heidelberg: Winter), 253-260. [cf. this volume, 73-80] 2004 Accent and ablaut in the Vedic verb. Indo-Iranian Journal 47/I, 7-15. [cf. this volume, 131-137] 2000 Initial a- and e- in Old Prussian. Linguistica Baltica 8, 125-127. 2000 Preaspiration or preglottalization? Amsterdamer Beitrage zur alteren Germanistik 53, 7-10. [cf. this volume, 185-187] 2003 Armeniaca: Comparative notes (Ann Arbor: Caravan Books). 2000 Old Prussian participles. Res Balticae 6, 69-75. 2ooo On Russenorsk. Amsterdamer Beitrage zur alteren Germanistik 54,123-127. [cf. this volume, 21-25] 2001 The origin of the Goths. Amsterdamer Beitrage zur alteren Germanistik 55, 21-25. [cf. this volume, 27-30] 2001 OPr. -snii, Lith. -sena, Latv. -sana. Mvnera lingvistica et philologica [Fs. Hasiuk] (Poznan: UAM), 137-139. 2004 Initiallaryngeals in Anatolian. Orpheus 13-14, 9-12. [cf. this volume, 365-368] 2002 The Indo-Uralic verb. Finno-Ugrians and Indo-Europeans: Linguistic and literary contacts (Maastricht: Shaker), 217-227. [cf. this volume, 391-403] 2004 Nivkh as a Uralo-Siberian language. Per aspera ad asteriscos [Fs. Rasmussen] (lnnsbruck: Institut fiir Sprachwissenschaft), 285-289. [cf. this volume, 405-408] 2003 The origin and nature of the linguistic parasite. Language in time and space [Fs. Winter] (Berlin: Mouton), 241-244. [cf. this volume, 435-437] 2003 Early dialectal diversity in South Slavic II. Dutch
contributions to the 13th international congress afslavists, Ljubljana: Linguistics [=Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 30], 215-235·
References
K2n
K212
K213
K216
K218 K219 K221 K222. K223 K225 K22.6
2.003 Glottalization, preaspiration and gemination in English and Scandinavian. Amsterdamer Beitrage zur alteren Germanistik 58, 5-10. [cf. this volume, 2.93-2.97] 2.003 Early Runic consonants and the origin of the younger futhark. North- Western European Language Evolution 43, 71-76. [cf. this volume, 2.99-303] 2.004 Indo- Uralic consonant gradation. Etymologie, Entlehnungen und Entwicklungen [Fs. Koivulehto] (Helsinki: Societe Neophilologique), 163-170. [cf. this volume, 409-414] 2.004 Indo-Uralic and Altaic. [this volume, 415-418] 2005 The inflexion of the Indo-European a-stems in Germanic. Amsterdamer Beitrage zur alteren Germanistik 6o, 1-4. [cf. this volume, 2.39-2.41] 2.004 Balto-Slavic accentuation: Some news travels slowly. Baltistica 39!1, 13-17. 2.006 The inflexion of the Germanic n-stems. North-Western European Language Evolution 48, 3-7. [cf. this volume, 2.43-2.45] 2.005 On the accentuation of the illative. Baltu Filologija 14/1, 67-69. 2.005 From Serbo-Croatian to Indo-European. Wiener slavistisches ]ahrbuch 51, 113-130. 2.005 Hittite ammuk 'me'. Orpheus 15, 7-10. [cf. this volume, 369-372] 2.006 Germanic *e, and *e•. North-Western European Language Evolution 49, 51-54. [cf. this volume, 189-191] 2.007 Miscellaneous remarks on Balto-Slavic accentuation. Tones
and theories: Proceedings of the international workshop on BaltaSlavic accentology (Zagreb: Institut za hrvatski jezik i K22.8 K229 K230
jezikoslovlje), 2.2.9-2.35• 2.005 Lithuanian teketi and related formations. Baltistica 40/2., 167-170. 2.007 The origin of the Franconian tone accents. Amsterdamer Beitrage zur alteren Germanistik 63, 1-3. [cf. this volume, 255-257] 2.007 Proto-Germanic obstruents and the comparative method. North-Western European Language Evolution 52,3-7. [cf. this volume, 193-196]
References K234 K235
K236
K238 K239 K24o K241 K244 K245 K247 K248 K249
467 2006 Balta-Slavic accentual mobility. Baltistica 41/3, 359-369. 2007 English bottom, German Boden, and the chronology of sound shifts. Amsterdamer Beitrage zur alteren Germanistik 63, 5-8. [cf. this volume, 197-199] 2009 Accent retraction and tonogenesis. Stressing the past: Papers
on Baltic and Slavic accentology [=Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 35], 75-82. 2008 Anglo-Frisian. North- Western European Language Evolution 54-55, 265-278. [cf. this volume, 275-284] 2007 Italo-Celtic origins and prehistoric development of the Irish language (Amsterdam: Rodopi). 2007 Gothic gen. pl. -e. Historische Sprachwissenschaft 120, 237-240. 2008 Hittite hi-verbs and the Indo-European perfect. [this volume, 373-382] 2008 Stative and middle in Hittite and Indo-European. [this volume, 383-386] 2007 The development of the Indo-European syllabic resonants in Balta-Slavic. Baltistica 42/t, 7-12. 2007 C. C. Uhlenbeck on Indo-European, Uralic and Caucasian. [this volume, 31-36] 2008 Arm. ewl 'oil~ Aramazd 3/t, 40-41. [cf. this volume, 333] 2008 Slavic historical morphology: Nominal paradigms. Dutch
contributions to the 14th international congress ofslavists, Ohrid: Linguistics [=Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 34], K250 K251 K253 K254
397-429. 2008 Bjorketorp and Stentoften. North- Western European Language Evolution 53, 19-27. [cf. this volume, 305-311] 200 9 The origin of the vestjysk st0d. Amsterdamer Beitrage zur alteren Germanistik 65, 1-4. [cf. this volume, 313-315] 2008 Balta-Slavic phonological developments. Baltistica 43/t, 5-15. 2008 The origin of the Indo-Iranian desiderative. Indologica [=Gs. Elizarenkova] (Moskva: RGG U), 227-230. [cf. this volume, 139-142]
References 2010 Indo- Uralic and Altaic revisited. Transeurasian verbal
morphology in a comparative perspective: genealogy, contact, chance [=Turcologica 78] (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz), 153-164. [cf. this volume, 419-428] 2009 The Baltic word for 'in'. Baltistica 44/1,33-35. [cf. this volume, 335-336] K263 2009 Baltica & Balto-Slavica (Amsterdam: Rodopi). K264 2009 All's well that ends well. Baltistica 44/1, 59-63. [cf. this volume, 337-339] K265 2010 Glottalization and tonogenesis in Athabaskan, Balta-Slavic and Germanic. Suvremena Lingvistika 10, oo-oo. K266 2010 Vestjysk st121d again. Amsterdamer Beitrage zur alteren Germanistik 66, 29-32. [cf. this volume, 317-318] K267 2009 Balta-Slavic accentuation revisited. [this volume, 341-357] K268 2009 More on the chronology of Celtic sound changes. [this volume, 361-364] K269 2010 An outline of Proto- Indo-European. [this volume, 37-45] K270 2010 Lithuanian Zin6ti 'to know'. Baltistica 45/1, oo-oo. [cf. this volume, 359-360] K271 2010 Schleicher's fable. [this volume, 47-50] Krause, Wolfgang 1953 Handbuch des Gotischen (Miinchen: Beck). 1966 Die Runeninschriften im alteren Futhark I: Text (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Krause, Wolfgang, & Werner Thomas 1960 Tocharisches Elementarbuch I: Grammatik (Heidelberg: Carl Winter). Krejnovic, Eruxim A. 1958 Ob inkorporirovanii v nivxskom jazyke. Voprosy Jazykoznanija 7/6, 21-33· Kroonen, Guus 2006 Gemination and allomorphy in the Proto-Germanic mn-stems: bottom and rime. Amsterdamer Beitrage zur alteren Germanistik 61, 17-25. 2009 Consonant and vowel gradation in the Proto-Germanic n-stems (Diss. Leiden). K261
References Krupatkin, Y.B. 1970 From Germanic to English and Frisian. Us Wurk 19/3, 49-71. Kuiper, Franciscus B.J. 1934 Zur Geschichte der indoiranischen s- Prasentia. Acta Orientalia 12, 190-306. 1942 1995
Notes on Vedic noun-inflexion (Amsterdam: KNAW). Gothic bagms and Old Icelandic ylgr. North-Western European Language Evolution 25, 63-88.
Kuipers, Aert H. 1962 The Circassian nominal paradigm: A contribution to casetheory. Lingua 11, 231-248. 1968 Unique types and typological universals. Pratidiinam: Indian,
1974
Iranian and Indo-European studies presented to RB.]. Kuiper on his 6oth birthday (The Hague: Mouton), 68-88. The Shuswap Language (The Hague: Mouton).
Kulikov, Leonid 2000 The Vedic type syati revisited. Indoarisch, Iranisch und die Indogermanistik (Wiesbaden: Reichert), 267-283. 2001 The Vedic -ya-presents (Diss. Leiden). 2005 Reduplication in the Vedic verb: Indo-European inheritance, analogy and iconicity. Studies on Reduplication (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter), 431-454. Kurytowicz, Jerzy 1964 The inflectional categories of Indo-European (Heidelberg: Carl Winter). Kuz'mina, Elena E. 2007 The origin of the Indo-Iranians (Leiden: Brill). Lane, George S. 1953 Imperfect and preterit in Tocharian. Language 29, 278-287. 1959 The formation of the Tocharian subjunctive. Language 35, 157-179· 1963
Bimoric and trimoric vowels and diphthongs: Laws of Germanic fmals again. Journal ofEnglish and Germanic Philology 62, 155-170.
1976
Notes sur le sort des syllabes finales i.e. en tokharien. Bulletin de
la Societ~ de Linguistique de Paris 71/1, 133-164.
References
470
Langston, Keith 2007 Common Slavic accentual paradigm (d): A reevaluation of evidence from Cakavian. Tones and theories: Proceedings of the international workshop on Balta-Slavic accentology (Zagreb: Institut za hrvatski jezik i jezikoslovlje), 121-150. Laroche, Emmanuel 1956 Etudes de linguistique anatolienne. Revue Hittite et Asianique 23, 33-54·
Lehmann, Winfred P. 1965 Germanic evidence. Evidence for laryngeals (The Hague: Mouton), 212-223. 1986 A Gothic etymological dictionary (Leiden). Lehmann, Winfred P., & Ladislav Zgusta 1979 Schleicher's tale after a century. Festschrift for Oswald Szemerenyi on the occasion of his 6sth birthday I (Amsterdam: Benjamins), 455-466.
Lejeune, Michel 1972
Phonetique historique du mycenien et du grec ancien (Paris:
Klincksieck). Leumann, Manu 1952
Morphologische Neuerungen im altindischen Verbalsystem
(Amsterdam: KNAW). Liberman, Anatoly S. 1972 The glottal stop in English as viewed against its Germanic background. Kalbotyra 23/3, 45-57. 1982 Germanic Accentology I: The Scandinavian Languages (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press). Lid, Nils 1952 Den nordiske nominativ singularis av maskuline an-stammer.
Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap 16, 237-240. Lorna, Aleksandar 1990 Pozajmljenice iz nepoznatog jezika u praslovenskom [Review of Holzer 1989]. Juznoslovenski Filolog 46,87-122.
References
471
Lubotsky, Alexander 1981 Gr.n~yvvfU: Skt. pajra- and loss oflaryngeals before mediae in Indo- Iranian. Munchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 40, 133-138. 1985 The PIE word for 'dry'. Zeitschrift fUr vergleichende Sprachforschung 98, 1-10. 1987 Nominal accentuation in Sanskrit and Proto-Indo-European (Diss. Leiden). The system of nominal accentuation in Sanskrit and Proto-Indo1988a European (Leiden: Brill). 1988b The Old Phrygian Areyastis inscription. Kadmos 27/I, 9-26. 1989 Against a Proto-Indo-European phoneme *a. The new sound of Indo-European: Essays in phonological reconstruction (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter), 53-66. 1990 La loi de Brugmann et *H3e-. La reconstruction des laryngales (Paris: Les Belles Lettres), 129-136. 1994 RV. avidhat. Fruh-, Mittel-, Spatindogermanisch (Wiesbaden: Reichert), 201-206. 1997 Remarks on the Vedic intensive [Review of Schaefer 1994]. Journal of the American Oriental Society 117, 558-564. 1998 New Phrygian metrics and the 8ew(, {1!/lEAW(, formula. Mfr Curad: Studies in honor of Calvert Watkins (lnnsbruck: Institu t fur Sprachwissenschaft), 413-421. 2001 Reflexes of Proto- Indo-European *sk in Indo- Iranian. Incontri Linguistici 24, 25-57. Li.ihr, Rosemarie 1979 Das Wort 'und' im Westgermanischen. Munchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 38,117-154. 1980 Zu einem urgermanischen Lautgesetz. Lautgeschichte und Etymologie (Wiesbaden: Reichert), 248-259. 1984 Reste der athematischen Konjugation in den germanischen Sprachen. Das Germanische und die Rekonstruktion der indogermanischen Grundsprache, 25-90. 1988 Expressivitat und Lautgesetz im Germanischen (Heidelberg: Carl Winter).
References
472 Luick, Karl 1964
Historische Grammatik der englischen Sprache (Stuttgart:
Tauchnitz). Lunden, Siri Sverdrup 1978 Tracing the ancestry of Russenorsk. Slavia Orientalis 27h, 213-217. Mahlow, Georg H. 1879 Die Iangen Vocale a e 6 in den europaischen Sprachen (Berlin: Hermann). Mallory, James P. 1989 In search of the Indo-Europeans: Language, archaeology and myth (London: Thames & Hudson). Manczak, Witold 1982 Kamen die Goten aus Skandinavien? Indogermanische Forschungen 87, 127-137. 1984 Origine meridionale du gotique. Diachronica 1, 79-102. On the Ausgliederung of Germanic languages. Journal ofIndo1987a
European Studiest5, 1-17. I.:habitat primitif des Goths. Folia Linguistica Historica 7/2., 371-380. 1992 De la prehistoire des peuples indo-europeens. Krak6w: Uniwersytet Jagellonski. Marstrander, Carl J.S. 1932 Okklusiver og substrater. Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap 5, 258-314. Martinet, Andre 1953 Remarques sur le consonantisme semitique. Bulletin de la Societe de Linguistique de Paris 49: 67-78. Mattissen, Johanna 2001 Dependent-head synthesis in Nivkh and its contribution to a typology ofpolysynthesis (Koln: Institut fiir Sprachwissenschaft). Matzinger, Joachim 2006 Altarmenisch ewl!iwl 'Of. In the Orient where the gracious light... [Fs. Pisowicz] (Krak6w: Ksh;garnia Akademicka), 71-72. 1987b
References
473
Mayrhofer, Manfred 1983 Sanskrit und die Sprachen Alteuropas: Zwei Jahrhunderte des Widerspiels von Entdeckungen und Irrtilmern (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). McCawley, James D. 1978 Notes on the history of accent in Japanese. Recent developments in historical phonology (The Hague: Mouton), 287-307. McCone, Kim 1996
Towards a relative chronology of ancient and medieval Celtic sound change (Maynooth: Department of Old Irish).
McNeill, William H. 1976
Plagues and peoples (Garden City: Anchor Press).
Meid, Wolfgang 1971
Das germanische Praeteritum (Innsbruck: Institut fiir
Sprachwissenschaft). Meillet, Antoine 1894 De quelques difficultes de la theorie des gutturales indoeuropeennes. Memoires de la Societe de Linguistique de Paris 8, 277-304. 1903 Observations sur la graphie de quelques anciens manuscrits de fevangile armenien. Journal Asiatique 10/2, 487-507. 1904 Remarques sur la grammaire historique de farmenien de Cilicie de M. J. Karst Zeitschrift fii.r armenische Philologie 2, 18-28. 1908 Les dialectes indo-europeens (Paris: Champion). 1918 A propos de latin formica. Memoires de la Societe de Linguistique de Paris 20, 115. 1920 Sur le rythme quantitatif de la langue vedique. Memoires de la Societe de Linguistique de Paris 21: 193-207. 1931a Essai de chronologie des langues indo-europeennes: La theorie du feminin. Bulletin de la Societe de Linguistique de Paris 32, 1-28. 1931b Caractere secondaire du type thematique indo-europeen. Bulletin de la Societe de Linguistique de Paris 32, 194-203. 1936 Esquisse d'une grammaire comparee de l'armenien classique (Vienne: Mekhitharistes). 1937 Introduction ali!tude comparative des langues indo-europeennes (Paris: Klincksieck).
References
474 1964
Introduction ali!tude comparative des langues indo-europ~ennes
(Alabama UP). Melchert, H. Craig 1977 Tocharian verb stems in -tk-. Zeitschrift for vergleichende 1984
Sprachforschung 91, 93-130. Studies in Hittite historical phonology (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht). Reflexes of*~ in Anatolian. Die Sprache 33, 19-28. 1994 Anatolian historical phonology (Amsterdam: Rodopi). Melchert, H. Craig, & Norbert Oettinger 2009 Ablativ und Instrumental im Hethitischen und Indogermanischen: Ein Beitrag zur relativen Chronologie. 1987
Incontri Linguistici 32, 53-73Meyer, Denise P. 1997 Greek pronouns in arp- and the PIE personal pronominal system.
Historische Sprachforschung no, 93-108. Meyer, Gustav 1891
Etymologisches WOrterbuch der albanesischen Sprache (Strassburg:
1892
Albanesische Studien III: Lautlehre der indogermanischen Bestandtheile des Albanesischen (=Sitzungsberichte der philosophisch-historischen Classe der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften 125/11, Wien).
Tri.ibner).
Migron, S. 1975
The Rgvedic passive aorist in -i: A functional study. Folia
Linguistica 8, 271-310. Milroy, James, & Lesley Milroy 1985 Linguistic change, social network and speaker innovation.
Journal ofLinguistics 21, 339-384. Manna, Maria C. 1978 The Gathas ofZarathustra: A reconstruction of the text (Amsterdam: Rodopi). Moszynski, Leszek 1992 Review of Holzer 1989. Rocznik Slawistyczny 48/1, 88-95.
References
475
Mottausch, Karl- Heinz 1993 Zwei verkannte germanisch-italische Isoglossen. Historische Sprachforschung 106, 148-175. 1994 Idg. *h,ei- 'gehen' im Germanischen. Historische Sprachforschung 107, 123-140. Moulton, William G. 1954 The stops and spirants of early Germanic. Language 30, 1-42. Munske, Horst Haider 1986 What are mixed languages? Language contact in Europe [Linguistische Arbeiten, 168] (Ttibingen: Niemeyer), 81-95. Naert, Pierre 1962 Contacts lexicaux ai'nou-gilyak. Orbis 11, 199-229. Narten, Johanna 1964 Die sigmatischen Aoriste im Veda (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz). Nedoma, Robert 2005 Umordisch -a im Nominativ Singularis der maskulinen n-Stiimme. North- Western European Language Evolution 46/47, 155-191. Nielsen, Hans F. 1981a Old English and the Continental Germanic languages (lnnsbruck: Institut fiir Sprachwissenschaft). 1981b Old Frisian and Old English dialects. Us Wurk 30/2, 49-66. 1984 A note on the origin of Old English breaking and back mutation. Amsterdamer Beitrage zur iilteren Germanistik 22, 73-81. 2000 The Early Runic language of Scandinavia (Heidelberg: Carl Winter). 2001 Frisian and the grouping of the older Germanic languages.
Handbuch des Friesischen =Handbook ofFrisian studies, (Tiibingen: Niemeyer), 512-523. Nielsen, Karl M. 1961 Scandinavian breaking. Acta Philologica Scandinavica 24. 33-45. Nihalani, Paroo 1974 An aerodynamic study of stops in Sindhi. Phonetica 29, 193-224. Nikolaeva, Irina 1999 Object agreement, grammatical relations, and information structure. Studies in Language 23/2, 331-376.
References
476
Noreen, Adolf 1970
Altnordische Grammatik I: Altislandische und altnorwegische Grammatik (Laut- und Flexionslehre) unter Berilcksichtigung des Urnordischen (5· Auflage, Ttibingen: Niemeyer).
O'Connor, Joseph D. 1952 RP and the reinforcing glottal stop. English Studies 33, 214-18. Oettinger, Norbert 1976 Der indogermanische Stativ. Milnchener Studien zur 1979
Sprachwissenschaft 34. 109-149. Die Stammbildung des hethitischen Verbums (Niirnberg: Hans
Carl). 1988 Der indogermanische Nominativ Dual aus laryngalistischer Sicht. Die Laryngaltheorie und die Rekonstruktion des indogermanischen Laut- und Formensystems (Heidelberg: Carl Winter), 355-359. Ofteda~ Magne 1947 Jrerske okklusivar. Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap 14, 229-235. Olander, Thomas 2006 Accentual mobility: The prehistory of the Balta-Slavic mobile accent paradigms (Diss. Copenhagen). 2009 Balta-Slavic accentual mobility (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter). Ore~ Vladimir E. 1985 PIE *sin Albanian. Die Sprache 31, 279-285. 1989 PIE *j in Albanian. Folia Linguistica Historica 8, 37-49. Ore~ Vladimir E., & Olga V. Stolbova 1995 Hamito-Semitic etymological dictionary (Leiden: Brill). Orton, Harold, Stewart Sanderson & John Widdowson (eds.) 1978 The linguistic atlas of England (London: Croom Helm). Osthoff, Hermann 1882 Ueber aoristpraesens und imperfectpraesens. Beitraege zur
Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 8, 287-311. Page, B.R. 1997
On the origin of preaspiration in Scandinavian. American Journal of Germanic Linguistics and Literatures 9!2, 167-190.
Panfilov, Vladimir Z. 1962
Grammatika nivxskogo jazyka I (Moskva-Leningrad: AN SSSR).
References
477
1965 Grammatika nivxskogo jazyka II (Moskva-Leningrad: Nauka). Paul, Hermann 188o Beitraege zur geschichte der lautentwickelung und formenassociation. Beitraege zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 7, 105-170. Pedersen, Anders 1912 Dansk og urnordisk akcentuering. Arkiv for Nordisk Filologi 28, 1-53· Pedersen, Holger 1895 Das indogermanische s im Slavischen. Indogermanische Forschungen 5, 33-87. Das albanesische neutrum. Zeitschrift fur vergleichende 1897 Sprachforschung 34. 283-291. Wie viellaute gab es im Indogermanischen? Zeitschrift fur 19ooa vergleichende sprachforschung 36, 74-110. Die gutturale im Albanesischen. Zeitschrift for vergleichende 1900b Sprachforschung 36, 277-340. Armenisch und die nachbarsprachen. Zeitschrift for vergleichende 1906 Sprachforschung 39: 334-484. Neues und nachtriigliches. Zeitschrift fiir vergleichende 1907 Sprachforschung 40, 129-217. Les formes sigmatiques du verbe latin et le probleme du futur indo1921 europeen (K0benhavn: H0st & S0n). La cinquieme declinaison latine (K0benhavn: H0st & S0n). Etudes lituaniennes (K0benhavn: Levin & Munksgaard). Zur Frage nach der Urverwandtschaft des Indoeuropaischen mit dem Ugrofmnischen. Liber Semisaecularis Societatis FennoUgricae (Helsinki: Suomalais- Ugrilainen Seura) =Memo ires de la Societe Finno-Ougrienne 67, 308-325. 1938 Hittitisch und die anderen indoeuropaischen Sprachen [Historiskfilologiske Meddelelser 25/2] (K0benhavn: Levin & Munksgaard). 1941 Tocharisch vom Gesichtspunkt der indoeuropaischen Sprachvergleichung [Historisk-filologiske Meddelelser 28/1] (K0benhavn: Munksgaard). 1942 Er st0det en konsonant? Acta Philologica Scandinavica 16, 111-120.
References
478 1944
Zur tocharischen Sprachgeschichte [Historisk-filologiske
1951
Die gemeinindoeuropaischen und die vorindoeuropaischen Verschlusslaute [Historisk-filolo giske Meddelelser 32/5]
Meddelelser 30/2] (K0benhavn).
(K0benhavn: Munksgaard). The discovery of language: Linguistic science in the 19th century (Bloomington: Indiana University Press) Penney, John H.W. 1989 Preverbs and postpositions in Tocharian. Transactions of the 1962
Philological Society 87, 54-74. Perridon, Harry 1991 The Reistad stone and the history of the Scandinavian languages. 2002 2006 2008
2009
Amsterdamer Beitrage zur alteren Germanistik 34. 5-17. The quantity shift in North Germanic. Amsterdamer Beitrage zur alteren Germanistik 56, 69-77· On the origin of the vestjysk st0d. Amsterdamer Beitrage zur alteren Germanistik 62, 41-50. Reconstructing the obstruents of Proto-Germanic. Evidence and counter-evidence [Fs. Kortlandt], vol 1 [=SSGL 32]: Balta-Slavic and Indo-European linguistics, 415-429. How old is the vestjysk st0d? Amsterdamer Beitrage zur alteren Germanistik 65, 5-10.
Petersen, Hjalmar P. et al. 1998
Faroese: An overview for students and researchers (T6rshavn-
Reykjavik). Petersen, Walter 1936
The personal endings of the middle voice. Language 12, 157-174.
Peterson, R.R Russenorsk: A little known aspect of Russian-Norwegian relations. Studies in language 4/2, 249-256. Peyrot, Michael wo8 Variation and change in Tocharian B (Amsterdam: Rodopi). 2009 On the formation of the Tocharian preterite participle. Historische Sprachforschung 121, oo-oo. 1980
References
479
Pinault, Georges 1989 Introduction au tokharien. LALIES: Actes des sessions de linguistique et de litterature d'Aussois (Presses de fEcole normale superieure, Paris) 7, 5-224. Pisowicz, Andrzej Le developpement du consonantisme armenien (Wrodaw: Polska 1976a Akademia Nauk). 1976b Materiaux pour servir ala recherche du consonantisme armenien. Folia Orientalia 17: 197-216. Pokorny, Julius 1959 Indogermanisches etymologisches WOrterbuch I (Bern: Francke). Polome, Edgar C. 1987 Initial PIE *g"'h- in Germanic. Festschrift for Henry Hoenigswald (fiibingen: Gunter Narr), 303-313. Posti, Lauri 1953 From Pre- Finnic to Late Proto- Finnic: Studies on the development of the consonant system. Fin nisch-Ugrische Forschungen 31, 1-91. Pottier, Bernard 1968 Thmploi de la preposition a devant lbbjet en espagnol. Bulletin de la Societe de Linguistique de Paris 63, 83-95. Price, Glanville 1979 The French language: present and past (London: Arnold). Proeme, Henk 1980 On aspectual pairs in Polish. Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 1, 299-314. 1984 Over de Nederlandse imperativus. Forum der Letteren 25, 241-258. Prank, Tijmen C. 200 9 The Slovene dialect ofEgg and Potschach in the Gailtal, Austria (Diss. Leiden). Puhvel, Jaan 1987 All our 'yesterdays'. Festschrift for Henry Hoenigswald (fubingen: Gunter Narr), 315-318.
References Pulleyblank, Edwin G. 1984
Middle Chinese: A study in historical phonology (Vancouver: The
University of British Columbia Press) Rasmussen, Jens E. 1974
Haeretica Indogermanica: A selection ofIndo-European and preIndo-European studies [Historisk-filosofiske Meddelelser 47/3]
(K0benhavn: Munksgaard). Miscellaneous morphological problems in Indo-European languages. Lingua Posnaniensis 28, 27-62. 1999 Selected papers on Indo-European linguistics (Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum). Rauch, Irmengard 1967 The Old High German diphthongization (The Hague: Mouton). Raun, Alo Proto-Uralic comparative historical morp hosyntax. The Uralic 1988 languages: Description, history and foreign influences (Leiden: Brill), 555-571. Redei, Karoly 1985
1986
Zu den indogermanisch-uralischen Sprachkontakten
[ =Sitzungsberichte der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, 468] (Wien: Akademie der Wissenschaften). Reid, Timothy G. 1990 The lack of i-mutation in short-stemmed, syncopated forms in Old Icelandic. North-Western European Language Evolution 15, 23-48.
Renou, Louis 1925 1932
Le type vedique tudati. Melanges linguistiques offerts aM.]. Vendryes parses amis et ses eleves (Paris: Champion), 309-316. A propos du subjonctifvedique. Bulletin de la Societ~ de
Linguistique de Paris 33, 5-30. Rieken, Elisabeth 1999
Untersuchungen zur nominalen Stammbildung des Hethitischen
(Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz). Ringe, Donald A. 1984 Germanic "e." and *r. Die Sprache 30, 138-155.
References Ringgaard, Kristian 1960
Vestjysk strad (Aarhus: Universitetsforlaget).
Risch, Ernst 1962
Das indogermanische Wort fiir 'hundert'. Indogermanische
Forschungen 67, 129-141. 1975
Remarques sur faccent du grec ancien, Melanges linguistiques offerts Emile Benveniste (Louvain: Peeters), 471-479. Ein Problem des griechischen Verbalparadigmas: Die verschiedenen Formen der 3. Person Plural. Serta Indogermanica [Fs. Neumann] (lnnsbruck: Institut fiir Sprachwissenschaft),
a
1982
321-334·
Rix, Helmut 1976
Historische Grammatik des Griechischen: Laut- und Formenlehre
(Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft). Robbeets, Martine I. 2003 Is Japanese related to the Altaic languages? (Diss. Leiden). 2005
Is Japanese related to Korean, Tungusic, Mongolic and Turkic?
2007
(Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz). How the actional suffiX chain connects Japanese to Altaic. Turkic
languages 11, 3-58. Roberge, Paul T. 1983 Those Gothic spirants again. Indogermanische Forschungen 88, 109-155·
Rousseau, Andre 1990 Thlternance *k-/0- finitiale des mots en indo-europeen: Essai d'interpretation semantique. La reconstruction des laryngales (Paris: Les Belles Lettres), 149-180. Ruijgh, Cornelis J.
a
1967
Etudes sur la grammaire et le vocabulaire du grec mycenien
(Amsterdam: Hakkert). 1971 Review ofBeekes 1969. Lingua 26,181-198. Review of HarClarson 1993. Mnemosyne 51, 216-227. 1998 Ruiperez, Martin S. 1952 Desinencias medias primarias indoeuropeas sg. 1" *-(m)ai, 2"
*-soi, 3" *-(t)oi, pl. 3" *-ntoi. Emerita 20, 8-31.
References Rumsey, Alan 1987a Was Proto-Indo-European an ergative language? Journal ofIndoEuropean Studies 15, 19-37. 1987b The chimera of Proto- Indo-European ergativity. Lingua 71, 297-318. Rusakov, A.Ju. 1987 K voprosu o rek.onstrukcii drevnealbanskogo konsonantizma. Acta Baltico-Slavica 17, 171-184. Sammallaht~ Pekka 1988 Historical phonology of the Uralic languages. The Uralic languages: Description, history and foreign influences (Leiden: Brill), 478-554. 1998 The Saami languages: An introduction (Kcirasjohka: Davvi Girji). Sapir, Edward 1949 Selected writings in language, culture and personality (ed. by David G. Mandelbaum, Berkeley-Los Angeles: University of California Press). Schaefer, Christiane 1994 Das Intensivum im Vedischen (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Schindler, Jochem 1966 Idg. *dtJ- im Tocharischen. Indogermanische Forschungen 71, 236-238. 1967 Tocharische Miszellen. Indogermanische Forschungen 72, 239-249. Schleicher, August 1868 Eine fabel in indogermanischer ursprache. Beitrage zur vergleichenden Sprachforschung 5, 206-208. Schmid, Wolfgang P. 1963 Studien zum baltischen und indogermanischen Verbum (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz). Schmidt, Gernot 1978 Stammbildung und Flexion der indogermanischen Personalpronomina (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz). Schmidt, Karl H. 1979 Reconstructing active and ergative stages of Pre-Indo-European. Ergativity (London: Academic Press), 333-345.
References Schmidt, Klaus T. 1980 Zu Stand und Aufgaben der etymologischen Forschung auf dem Gebiete des Tocharischen. Lautgeschichte und Etymologie (Wiesbaden: Reichert), 394-411. Schmitt, Rudiger 1974 Proto-Indo-European culture and archaeology: Some critical remarks. Journal ofIndo-European Studies 2., 279-2.87. 1981
Grammatik des Klassisch-Armenischen mit sprachvergleichenden Erlauterungen (Innsbruck: Institut fiir Sprachwissenschaft).
Schrader, Otto 1883 1890
Sprachvergleichung und Urgeschichte (Jena: Costenoble). Sprachvergleichung und Urgeschichte (2.. Auflage, Jena:
Costenoble). Schrijver, Peter 1991
The reflexes of the Proto-Indo-European laryngeals in Latin (Amsterdam: Rodopi).
1995
Studies in British Celtic historical phonology (Amsterdam:
Rodopi). wo 3 Early developments of the vowel systems of North-West Germanic and Saami. Languages in prehistoric Europe (Heidelberg: Carl Winter), 195-2.2.6. Schulte, Michael Grundfragen der Umlautphonemisierung (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter). wo6a Zum Nachweis von Allegro- und Presto-Sprachregeln in den tJbergangsinschriften. North-Western European Language
Evolution 48, 9-44. wo6b
Ein kritischer Kommentar zum Erkenntnisstand der Blekinger Inschriften. Zeitschrift filr deutsches Altertum und deutsche
Literatur135, 399-412.. Seebold, Elmar 1970
Vergleichendes und etymologisches WOrterbuch der germanischen starken Verben (The Hague: Mouton).
Seefloth, Uwe
woo
Die Entstehung polypersonaler Paradigmen im UraloSiberischen. Zentralasiatische Studien 30, 163-191.
References Seip, Didrik Arup 1919 Review ofKock 1911-16. Maal og Minne, 85-90. Serlants, Ilja 2004 Einige Bemerkungen zur Geschichte des Illativs. Baltu Filologija 1311. 113-120.
Shevelov, George Y. 1964
A prehistory af Slavic: The historical phonology af Common Slavic
(Heidelberg: Carl Winter). Sievers, Eduard 1878 Zur accent- und lautlehre der germanischen sprachen. Beitraege
zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 5, 63-163. Skautrup, Peter 1928 Klusiler og 'yngre' st0d i vestjysk. Acta Philologica Scandinavica 3, 32-51.
Stang, Christian S. 1942 1952 1957 1966
Das slavische und baltische Verbum (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget). Eine Bemerkung zur slowakischen Priisensflexion. Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap 16, 271-275. Slavonic accentuation (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget). Vergleichende Grammatik der baltischen Sprachen (Oslo:
Universitetsforlaget). Starostin, Sergej A. 2007 Indoevropejsko-sevemokavkazskie izoglossy. Trudy po jazykoznaniju (Moskva: Jazyki slavjanskix kul'tur), 312-358. Starostin, Sergei, Anna Dybo & Oleg Mudrak 200 3 Etymological dictionary af the Altaic languages I (Leiden: Brill). Steblin-Kamenskij, Mixail 1957 Scandinavian breaking from a phonemic point of view. Studia
Linguistica 11, 84-91. 1959
Concerning the three periods in the Scandinavian i-umlaut
Arkiv for Nordisk Filologi 74, 105-11. Steensland, Lars 1973
Die Distribution der urindogermanischen sogenannten Gutturale (Diss. Uppsala: Universitetsforlaget).
References Stender-Petersen, Adolf 1927 Slavisch-germanische Lehnwortkunde. Goteborg: Wettergren & Kerber. Stiles, Patrick V. 1995 Remarks on the "Anglo-Frisian" thesis. Friesische Studien II (Odense University Press), 177-220. Place-adverbs and the development of Proto-Germanic long *e, 2004 in early West Germanic. Etymologie, Entlehnungen und Entwicklungen [Fs. Koiwlehto] (Helsinki: Societe Neophilologique), 385-396. Streitberg, Wilhelm 1896 Urgermanische Grammatik: Einfilhrung in das vergleichende Studium der altgermanischen Dialekte (Heidelberg: Carl Winter). 1974 Urgermanische Grammatik: Einfilhrung in das vergleichende Studium der altgermanischen Dialekte (4th edition, Heidelberg: Carl Winter). Stumpf, Peter 1990
Die Erscheinungsformen des Westtocharischen: Ihre Beziehungen zueinander und ihre Funktionen [=Tocharian and Indo-European Studies, suppl. 2] (Reykjavik: MaJ.visindastofnun Hcisk6la
fslands). Swadesh, Morris 1971
The origin and diversification of language (Chicago: AldineAtherton).
Syrett, Martin
The unaccented vowels ofProto-Norse [North-Western European Language Evolution Supplement n] (Odense: University Press). Szemereny~ Oswald 1960 Studies in the IE System ofNumerals (Heidelberg: Carl Winter). Saxmatov, Aleksej A. 1915 Olerk drevnejsago perioda istorii russkago jazyka (Petrograd: Tipografija Imperatorskoj Akademii Nauk). Tailleur, Olivier Guy 1960 La place du ghiliak parmi les langues paleosiberiennes. Lingua 9, 113-147· 1994
References Tauli, Valter 1966 Structural tendencies in Uralic languages (The Hague: Mouton). Ter-Avanesova, Aleksandra V. Ob odnoj slavjanskoj akcentnoj innovacii. Slavjanskoe i balkanskoe jazykoznanie: Prosodija (Moskva: Nauka), 216-250. Thieme, Paul Das Plusquampeifektum im Veda (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & 1929 Ruprecht). Thomas F. 1957 Autour de foptatif grec dit "eolien". Revue des Etudes Anciennes 59. 250-274·
Thumeysen, Rudolf 1883 Urspr. dn tn en im lateinischen. Zeitschrift filr vergleichende
Sprachforschung 26: 301-314. 1908
Lecture, reported in Indogermanische Forschungen: Anzeiger 22,
1946
A Grammar of Old Irish (Dublin: Institute for Advanced Studies).
65.
Topolinska, Zuzanna
Z historii akcentu polskiego od wieku XVI do dzis (Wrodaw:
1961
Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk). Tops, Guy A.]. 1974 The origin of the Germanic dental preterit (Leiden: Brill). Trautmann, Reinhold 1923 Ein Kapitel aus der Lautlehre der baltisch-slavischen Sprachen.
Slavia 2, 1-4. Tschenkel~
Kita
Einfilhrung in die georgische Sprache I (Zurich: Amirani). Turner, Ralph L. 1924 The Sindhi recursives or voiced stops preceded by glottal closure. 1958
1975
Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies 3/2, 301-315. The Sindhi recursives or voiced stops preceded by glottal closure. Collected Papers 1912-1973 (London: Oxford UP), 192-205.
Uhlenbeck, Christiaan Camelis 1895 Waar werd de Indogermaansche stamtaal gesproken? Tijdschrift
voor Nederlandsche Taal- en Letterkunde 14, 69-74.
References 1897 1901 1904 1905a 1905b 1906 1907 1913 1923
1933
1934-35a
487 De voorgeschiedenis der Indogermaansche volken. Taal en Letteren 7, 1-25. Agens und Patiens im Kasussystem der indogermanischen Sprachen. Indogermanische Forschungen 12,170-171. Eine baskische Parallele. Indogermanische Forschungen 17, 436-441. Uralische AnkUinge in den Eskimosprachen. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft 59, 757-765. Baskisch und Uralaltaisch. Beitrage zur Kunde der indogermanischen Sprachen 29, 305-307. Zur Eskimogrammatik. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft 6o, 112-114. Zur Eskimogrammatik. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft 61, 435-438. Baskisch und Indogermanisch. Indogermanische Forschungen 33, 171-172. Over een mogelijke verwantschap van het Baskisch met de Palaeo-Kaukasische talen. Mededeelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afdeeling Letterkunde, A 55/5, 105-137· Eine Bemerkung zur Frage nach der Urverwandtschaft der uralischen und indogermanischen Sprachen. Liber Semisaecularis Societatis Fenno- Ugricae (Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura), 396-397· Oer-Indogermaansch en Oer-Indogermanen. Mededeelingen der
Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afdeeling Letterkunde 1934-35b
193?a
1937b
77-79, serie A, 125-148. Eskimo en Oer-Indogermaansch. Mededeelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afdeeling Letterkunde 77-79, serie A, 179-196. Ober den Wert eskimoisch-indogermanischer Wortiihnlichkeiten. Melanges linguistiques offerts aM. Holger Pedersen (Aarhus: Universitetsforlaget), 110-114. The Indo germanic mother language and mother tribes complex. American Anthropologist 39, 385-393.
References 1941
Oude Aziatische contacten van het Eskimo. Mededeelingen der
Nederlandsche Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afdeeling Letterkunde, NR 4/7, 201-227. 1942 1946
Ur- und altindogermanische AnkUinge im Wortschatz des Eskimo. Anthropos 37-40, 133-148. Gestaafde en vermeende affiniteiten van het Baskisch.
Mededeelingen der Koninklijke Nederlandsche Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afdeeling Letterkunde, NR 9/2, 13-24. Ufjanov, Grigorij 1903 Kratnoe znacenie udvoennyx osnov. Russkijfilologileskij vestnik 49. 235-249·
Vaan, Michiel de 1999 Towards an explanation of the Franconian tone accents. 2004
Amsterdamer Beitrage zur alteren Germanistik 51, 23-44. 'Narten' roots from the Ave stan point of view. Per aspera ad asteriscos [Fs. Rasmussen] (lnnsbruck: lnstitut fiir
wo8
Etymological dictionary ofLatin and the other Italic languages
Sprachwissenschaft), 591-599. (Leiden: Brill). Vaillant, Andre 1936 Thrgatif indo-europeen. Bulletin de la Soci~t~ de Linguistique de
Paris 37, 93-108. 1937
llirigine des presents thematiques en -e/o-. Bulletin de la Societ~
1950
de Linguistique de Paris 38, 89-101. Grammaire comparee des langues slaves I: Phon~tique (Lyon:
1958
Grammaire comparee des langues slaves II: Morphologie (Lyon:
1966
Grammaire comparee des langues slaves III: Le verbe (Paris:
lAC). lAC). Klincksieck). 1974
Grammaire comparee des langues slaves IV: La formation des noms (Paris: Klincksieck).
Van Haeringen, Coenraad B. 1920 Zur friesischen Lautgeschichte. Beitrage zur Geschichte der
deutschen Sprache und Literatur 44, 27-53.
References Van Helten, Willem L. 1891 Grammatisches. Beitrage zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache
und Literatur 15, 455-488. Van Wijk, Nicolaas 1902 1911 1918
Der nominale Genetiv Singular im Indogermanischen in seinem Verhaltnis zum Nominativ (Zwolle: Tijl). Een Oudwestnederfrankies re-dialekt. Tijdschrift voor Nederlandsche taal- en letterkunde 30, 161-189. Altpreussische Studien (Haag).
Vanags, Peteris 1994 Die Entwicklungstendenzen der Kasusendungen in den altesten lettischen Sprachdenkmalern. Linguistica Baltica 3, 121-130. Vennemann, Thea 1984 Hochgermanisch und Niedergermanisch: Die Verzweigungstheorie der germanisch-deutschen Lautverschiebungen. Beitrage zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur (Tiibingen) 106, 1-45. 1988 Die innergermanische Lautverschiebung und die Entstehung der germanischen und deutschen Dialekte. Languages and cultures: Studies in honor ofEdgar C. Polom~ (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter), 749-761. 1991
The relative chronology of the High Germanic consonant shift and the West Germanic anaptyxis. Diachronica 8, 45-57. Linguistic reconstruction in the context of European prehistory.
Transactions of the Philological Society 92, 215-284.
2006
Dating the division between High and Low Germanic: A summary of arguments. Language change and language structure (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter), 271-303. Grimm's Law and loanwords. Transactions of the Philological
Society 104/2, 129-166. Vermeer, Willem 1985 Non-initial falling tones in neo-stokavian dialects. Zbornik za Filologiju i Lingvistiku 27-28 [Fs. lvic], 143-149. The mysterious North Russian nominative singular ending -e 1991 and the problem of the reflex of Proto-Indo-European *-os in Slavic. Die Welt der Slaven 36, 271-295.
References
490
In the beginning was the lengthened grade: On the continuity of Proto- Indo-European vowel quantity in Slavic. Rekonstruktion und relative Chronologie: Akten der VIII. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Leiden, 1987 (Innsbruck: Institut fiir Sprachwissenschaft), 115-136. Villanueva Svensson, Miguel 2008 Lithuanian zinoti 'to know'. Baltistica 43/2, 175-199. 2009 Indo-European *siC in Balto-Slavic. Baltistica 44/1, 5-24. Vogt, Hans 1938 Armenien et caucasique du sud. Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap 9: 321-338. Les occlusives de farmenien. Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap 1958 1992
18: 143-161. 1971 Grammaire de la langue g~orgienne (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget). Vovin, Alexander 200 5 The end of the Altaic controversy. Central Asiatic Journal 49/1,
71-132.
Voyles, Joseph B. 1991 A history ofOHG i-umlaut Beitrage zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur (Tiibingen) 113, 159-194. VVackernage4Jakob 1896 Altindische Grammatik I: Lautlehre (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). VVatkins, Calvert 1969 Indogermanische Grammatik III: Formenlehre I: Geschichte der indogermanischen Verbalflexion (Heidelberg: Carl VVinter). VVeitenberg, Joseph J.S. 1987 Proto-Indo-European nominal classification and Old Hittite. Munchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 48, 213-230. VVinter, VVerner 1962 Die Vertretung indogermanischer Dentale im Tocharischen. Indogermanische Forschungen 67, 16-35. 1965 Tocharian evidence. Evidence for laryngeals (The Hague: Mouton), 190-211. 1978 The distribution of short and long vowels in stems of the type Lith. esti : vesti : mesti and 0 CS jasti : vesti : mesti in Baltic and
References
198oa
198ob
1994
491 Slavic languages. Recent developments in historical phonology (The Hague: Mouton), 431-446. Morphological signalling of selection properties: Transiteveness in Tocharian Band A verbs. Historical morphology (The Hague), 421-442. Zum Beitrag der tocharischen Sprachen zu Problemen der lautlichen Rekonstruktion des Indogermanischen. Lautgeschichte
und Etymologie: Akten der Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft (Wiesbaden: Reichert), 542-563. Zum tocharischen Verb. Tocharisch: Akten der Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft [=Tocharian and Indo-European Studies, suppl. 4] (Reykjavik: MaJ.visindastofnun Hisk6la
fslands), 2.84-309. Wolfram, Herwig 1979 Geschichte der Goten (Miinchen: Beck). Wollmann, Alfred 1990 Untersuchungen zu den frilhen lateinischen Lehnwortern im Altenglischen. (Miinchen: Fink). Xelimskij, Evgenij A. 2000 Proto-Uralic gradation: Continuation and traces. Komparativistika, uralistika: Lekcii i stat'i (Moskva: Jazyki russkoj kuftury), 167-190. Zaliznjak, Andrej A. 1995 Drevnenovgorodskij dialekt (Moskva: Jazyki russkoj kuftury). Zinkevicius, Zigmas 1966 Lietuvi!f dialektologija: Lyginamoji tarmi!f fonetika ir moifologija (Vilnius: Mintis). 1981 Lietuvi!f kalbos istorine gramatika II (Vilnius: Mokslas). 2008 Del postpozicijos *-en altiito. Baltistica 43/3,380.
INDEX
GERMANIC Gothic Runic Icelandic/Norse Faroese Norwegian Swedish Danish English Frisian Dutch Low German High German CELTIC Irish Welsh Breton Gaulish Celtiberian VENETie ITALIC Latin Urnbrian Oscan Marrucinian Italian Rumanian Spanish French BALTIC Pruss ian Lithuanian Latvian
SLAVIC (Church) Slavic Russian Polish Kash ubian/Slovincian Upper Sorbian Czech Slovak Slovene Serbian/ Croatian Bulgarian
Luwian Lycian
PHRYGIAN
URALIC Finnish Estonian Lappish/Saami Mordvin Votyak/Udmurt Ziryene/Komi Hungarian Vogul/Mansi Ostyak/Hanty Yurak!Nenets Tavgi/Nganasan YeniseVEnets Selkup
GREEK
GILYAK/NIVKH
INDO- IRANIAN Vedic/Sanskrit Prakrit Pali Hindi Panjabi Sindhi Ave stan Persian
OTHER Turkish Mongolian Japanese Georgian Kabardian Avar Akkadian Hebrew Arabic Maltese Berber Basque Bella Coola Heiltsuk
ALBANIAN THRACIAN ARMENIAN
TOCHARIAN TocharianA Tocharian B ANATOLIAN Hittite Palaic
Index
494
Gothic
afaikan, 209 aflifnan, 219 aftaurnan, 219 agis, 212 ahtau, 69 aiauk, 223 aigun, 211 aih, 211 aikklesjo, 30 ainlib, 181 aipistaule, 29 aipistula, 29 aiwaggelista, 30 aiwaggeljo, 30 aiz, 208 akeit, 29 aket, 29 alew, 29 aijar, 290 anabaup, 170 andahafts, 171 andbahteis, 203 andbahtjis, 203 and-bundnan, 219 anstai, 6 9, 206 anstais, 207 aqizi, 182 arbjis, 203 arJuazna, 182 arjan, 224 armahairtei, 30 armaio, 207 asts, 180 atbairan, 214 apn, 176 augo,69,244 auhns, 176, 182 aurali, 30 bagms, 179 bairada, 69 bairai, 69
bairanda, 69 bairgan, 75, 76 baitrs, 17, 250, 267 bandi, 74 bandjins, 203 bauhta, 215 baurgs, 76 berum, 162 bidjan, 75, 202, 215, 232
bilaif, 181 biugan, 216 blandan, 217 blindai, 69 bokareis, 29 brahta, 171, 216, 238 briihta, 171, 232, 275, 278
briggan, 171, 238 bruhta, 171, 215, 238 brithta, 227, 232 brukjan, 215, 238 britkjan, 232 bugjan, 201, 202, 203, 215, 216, 232
bugjand, 201 bugjip, 201 daga, 24. 69 daigs,74 daug, 384 daur, 74 -dedun, 228, 232 -dedun, 261 diabaulus, 30 diabulus, 30 dis-skritnan, 219 drakma, 29 -et, 215 etun, 212, 215 jaian,76 faifazp, 170 faran, 211, 216, 272
faura, 69 faurhtidedun, 215 faurhtidedun, 232 faurhtjan, 215, 216, 232
fidur-, 170 fidwor, 181 fimf, 181, 182, 275 fiskjins, 203 for, 23,211 fotus, 74 fra-lusnan, 219 frapi, 217 frajJjan, 215, 217, 232 fret, 211, 212 fulln-, 237 fullnand, 219 fullno-, 219 fullno-, 237 fulls, 219 ga-daban, 216 gadob, 213, 301 ga-draban, 216 ga-dragan, 216 gaf, 211, 213, 215, 301 gageigaidedjau, 237 gaggan,2o8 gahugds, 171 gaidw, 75 gaigrot, 210 galeiko, 69 ga-luknan, 219 garda,74,76 gards, 77, 329 ga-skaidnan, 219 ga-skapjan, 215 gaskapjan, 232 ga-jJaursnan, 219 gawairjJeis, 203 gawairpjis, 203 ga-waknan, 219 gazds, 180
Index
gebum, 211, 301 gebun, 211, 215, 301 giba, 69 gibai, 69 giban, 301 gibis, 301 gif, 301 graban, 216 grob, 213, 301 guma, 69, 244. 363 haba,2o6,209 habaida, 233 habam, 206 haban,207 haband,2o6 hafjan, 43, 202, 215, 216, 224, 232, 380
hahan, 377 haihait, 209, 261 haihald, 170 hairdi, 201 haitada, 87 haitanda, 87 haitaza, 87 hakuls, 180 hazjan, 216, 217, 232 her, 190 hidre, 69, 309 hindana, 69 hlahjan, 215, 217, 232 -hlapan, 215 hropjan, 232 hunds, 74 Juamma, 207 Juammeh, 207 Juar, 190 JuajJarai, 170 Jueits, 76 Jesus, 30 imma, 69 inreiraida, 237 is, 261
495
Iudaieis, 30 Iudaius, 30 jainar, 290 junda, 180 jUs, 325 kann, 237, 238 kaupastedun, 232 kaupatidai, 232 kaupatjan, 232 kauseip, 201 kausjan, 201 kausjand, 201 kelikn,29 Kreks, 29, 173 kubitus, 30 -kunnaida, 237 kunpa, 220, 238 lagjan, 377 laiba, 181 lailaik, 209, 236, 238, 261
lailot, 211, 223 lailot, 261 lailoun, 211 laisareis, 29 la]Jon, 378 letan, 211, 376 ligan, 208 liu}Jareis, 29 lukarn, 29 magum, 211 maiza, 208 malan, 216 marei, 202 Maria, 30 marikreitum, 29, 173 Marja, 30 met-, 132 mik, 372 mizdo, 75 motareis, 29 munan, 84
muns, 84 nam, 211, 213, 215 naqaps, 182 naseins, 202, 233 nasida, 69 nasides, 84 nasjan, 201, 202, 203 nasjand, 201, 202 nasjis, 203 nasjip, 201, 202 naus, 202 naweis, 202 nemeis, 203 nemun, 215 niun, 180 og, 212 ogs, 235 -on, 215 paurpura, 30 qem-, 132, 136 rairop, 261 reikjis, 203 reiran, 237 riqis, 182 Rumonim, 30 saian, 207, 211, 379 saiso, 211 saiso, 228 saisost, 228 saisost, 236 sakan, 216 sauil, 180, 207 Saurim,3o sibja, 75, 408 siggwan, 182 sigqan, 182 silba, 75, 408 sinapis, 30 siponeis, 29 sitan, 43, 208 siujan, 232 skaban, 216
Index
496
skaidan, 217 skapis, 217 skapjan, 215, 217, 232 skaurpjono, 30 slahan, 216 sloh, 237 sokareis, 29 sokida, 215 sokida, 232 sokjan, 215, 216 sokjan, 232 stand-, 215 standan, 208, 211, 214 staua, 207 stauida, 207 stautan, 217 stigqan, 182 stojan, 207 stop, 211, 212, 214, 215, 219
stop, 228, 232 stopun, 215 sugil, 180 sunau,206 suniwe, 247 sunjus, 202, 247 sunus, 202 swaran, 216, 217 taitok, 221 taui, 207 taujan, 232 tekan, 221, 222, 223 triggws,74 tuggo, 69, 244 twalib, 181 pagkjan, 216 pahta, 206, 215 pahta, 232 pai, 69 par, 190, 290 parf, 213 papro, 69
paurbum, 213 paursjan, 216, 232 peihan, 206 piubjo, 69 pugkjan, 215, 216, 232 puhta, 215 puhta, 232 frwahan, 216 ufkunnaida, 237 ufkunpa, 237 unagands, 212 undaro, 69 unsar, 260 us-aljJan, 209 us-bruknan, 219 us-gutnan, 219 uzon, 212 wahsjan, 215, 216, 217, 232
waian, 207 wairpan, 181, 182 waiwoun, 207, 211 waurhta, 215, 232, 238 waurkeis, 202 waurkeip, 201, 202 waurkjan, 201, 215, 216, 232, 238
waurkjand, 201 wilda, 233 wileina, 111, 127, 134 wissa, 227, 235 witaida, 235 wohs, 217 wopjan, 232 wulfs, 181, 182 Xristus, 30 Runic
AfatR, 301, 311 agilamudon, 245 Ak, 306, 308, 310 aluko, 245
AR,307 ArAgeu, 306, 309 arbijano, 245 bAriutip, 301, 307, 308,309
bArutR, 301, 307, 308, 309,310
brupur, 302 dAude, 306, 307, 308, 309
dud, 306, 307, 308 ekA, 306, 308, 310 fAlAhAk, 306, 308 fAlAh-Ak, 309 fapai, 206 fapir, 171 fapur, 302 felAhekA,3o6,308 felAh-ekA, 309 fino, 245 fiskR, 301 fokl, 301 gAf, 301, 303, 310 -gastiR, 300 gibu, 301 ginA, 306, 308 ginA-, 309 ginA-runAR, 309 gino, 306, 308 gino-, 309 gino-ronoR, 309 hAborumR,301,310 hAborumz, 303 hAerAmA, 306, 308, 309
hAerAmA-, 309 hAerAmA-, 309 hAerAmA-lAusR, 309 hAeru, 306 hAeru-, 311 hAeruwulafiR, 311 hagestumR, 301, 310
Index
hAiderA, 306, 309, 311 hAidR, 301, 306, 307, 308,310
Hakupo, 206 halaiban, 245 hAri-, 310 hariso, 245 hAriwolA.fR, 310 hAriwulafa, 311 harja, 245 hAj:Ju-, 310, 311 hApuwolAfA, 301, 311 hApuwolA.fR,301,310 hAj:Juwula.fR, 311 hederA,301,306,309, 311
herAmA, 306, 308, 309
herAmA-, 309 herAmA-, 309 herAmA-lAsAR, 309 hiAlb, 306 hideR, 301, 306, 307, 308
hino, 245 igijon, 245 Kunimu(n)diu, 206 lamo, 245 lAs, 306, 308 -lAsAR,301 lAsAR, 306,307,308 lat, 301 -lAusR, 301 lAusR, 306, 308, 310 lepra, 245 mAde,301 magiu, 206, 230 makija, 189 manR, 301 minino, 245 mopA,301 nAkdan, 301
497
nip, 301 nipijo, 245 niu, 310 no, 306 ob, 301 raupum, 302 rhoAltR, 302 rhuulfR, 302 ronoR, 306,308 ronu, 306 runAR, 306, 308, 311 runo, 245, 306 sA, 307 sAR, 307 sAte, 286, 311 satido,286 sitiR, 302 skialta, 306 stAbA, 301, 311 swarta, 245 swestar, 230 talijo, 245 trutin, 302 pAiAR, 311 pAt, 307 prawijan, 245 pria, 311 ualraubaR, 302 -ulfaR, 302 uti, 307 utiAR, 307 upArAbA, 245, 301 upArAbA-sbA,310 upin, 302 wagnijo, 245 warAit, 311 welA, 302,307,309 welA-, 309 welA-dAude, 309 welAdud, 308 welA-dud, 309 winai, 206
-wolAfA, 311 -wolA.fR, 301, 310 wraita, 245 -wula.fR, 301 Icelandic/Norse
aptr, 301 at, 212 atta, 230 auga, 69, 244,300 auka,209 ausa, 209 bak,286 barn,286 barr, 73 batna, 166, 171, 185 batt, 170 baulJ, 170 bekkr, 17, 172, 185, 187, 193. 250, 267, 286, 287,313 bera, 295 berg, 291 biarg, 291 bi6, 290 biogg-, 290 bi9rn, 277, 289
botn, 197 b9rn,277,289 brestr, 286 brnpar, 207 brnpe, 206 brytr, 301 burlJr, 286 byglJa, 286 byggia, 205 dag, 24.300 dagr, 286 dags, 300 degi, 300 deilda, 169, 302, 308 deyja, 217
Index
498
do, 217 dotter, 230 d9gom, 44, 353 d~mda, 286
drekka, 173, 313 dropi, 16, 172, 177, 185, 193. 250, 266, 296
drottinn, 302 dyttr,286 edic, 29 elta, 166, 171, 185 endr, 170 enn, 170 epli, 16, 64, 166, 171, 177. 185, 193. 250
ero, 261 erom, 261 erop, 261 ert, 236 erta, 166 est, 236 falJir, 170, 171 falla, 290 fallep, 247, 290 fat~kr, 64, 167, 313
fajJer, 230 felJr, 170 fekk, 290 felda, 286 feldr, 286 fell, 170, 209, 291 fella, 286 felt, 170 fiall, 291 fimm, 170 fing-, 290 fiorir, 170 folk, 166 fundr, 286 ganga, 300 gesti, 286 gestr, 285, 286, 300
gests, 286 geyja, 217 gi9f. 69, 229, 243. 245 gMpa, 286 gMpr, 285 gMps, 286 gnera, 210 go, 217 grafa,300 grera, 209, 210 grof,300 gumi, 69 gutl, 166 htitta, 166 hafri, 73 hajpa, 233 han~229,243,245
harmr, 286 heilagt, 300 heite, 87 hell, 170 helt, 170, 290 henda,295 her, 190 herr, 286 hit, 209, 212, 290 hialpa, 290 hialpej:J, 290 hind, 74 hjalhpa, 296 hjalpa, 16, 64, 166, 250
hliop, 209, 223, 290 h9ggua,313 h9ggva, 217 huar, 291 huelpr, 290 hvar, 190 hvarir, 170 hverna, 75, 77 hyggia, 205 kaupa, 286
kenda, 169 kenna, 169, 190, 272, 277
keypta, 286, 313 kleif, 179 kleppr, 179 kleyja, 217 klif, 179 klifa, 179 kl6, 217 kostr, 286 lata, 223 lata, 223 latta, 313 lelJr, 170 leggia, 205, 313 leggja, 300 leidda, 313 let, 210, 212, 223, 278, 279
Mt, 212, 223, 290 leysa, 300 lifr, 181, 182 liggia, 205 lfkna, 166 lit-, 290 lot, 223 luklJa, 286 lykkja, 172, 173, 185, 193. 194. 300
lykta, 286 mrekir, 189 mrela,302 merkr, 240 mikla, 16, 64,166, 171, 177. 185, 250
miolk, 289 moper, 230 m9rk, 240 nal, 189 nefi, 300 n9kkvi, 172, 173, 185
Index
nrakkvilJr, 182 of, 301 ofn, 182 6k, 212,215 61, 212, 215 olla, 220, 233 opna, 166, 171, 185, 193 oxe,39 raxn, 197, 260 pyttr, 286 rrena, 302 rekia, 205 rera, 210 rigna, 167 rrakkr, 17, 172, 182, 185, 187, 193, 194, 250, 267,313 stktt, 166 salr, 75,76 satt, 166 segia, 205, 206 sekta, 286 selda, 286 sera, 209, 210, 228 sere, 236 serer, 236 setta, 286 sia, 323 sigla, 167 skeika, 168 skellr, 286 skip, 16, 172, 177, 185, 193, 250, 266, 296 skurlJr, 286 slattr, 166 snera, 209, 210 s6l, 180 spaka, 229, 240, 243 spakt, 229, 240, 243 stalJr, 285, 286 stinga, 182 stullJr, 286
499
sueip, 290 suip-, 290 sultr, 286 sverja, 217 syne, 230 syster, 230 tak-, 224 taka, 221, 223, 224 teikn, 166, 171, 185 tok, 223 tueggia, 313 tunga, 69, 244 pakka, 300 par, 190, 290 pegia, 205, 206 pekia, 205 piokkr, 289 pr6ttr, 286 pukla, 166 urlJr, 286 usli, 331 vagga,295 vald-, 233 vallJa, 169, 286, 302 valpa,3o8 vanlJa, 169 vapn,300 vatn, 16, 64, 166, 171, 185, 193. 250
vaxa, 217 velJ, 286 velJr, 170 vekia, 205 vela, 302 velja,286 velta, 307 verk, 16, 64, 166, 171, 177· 185, 250
verpa, 166, 171, 185, 290
vexa, 217
vika, 16, 172, 177, 185, 193. 250, 266, 296
vopn, 166 ylgr, 181 yxn, 197, 260 Faroese
eta, 223, 297 opin, 223 Norwegian
altsamma, 22 betalom, 23 billiar, 23 dag, 24.300 daga, 24.69 dein, 23 dek, 24 djur, 23 driki, 23 fir, 23 fiugur, 289 for, 23, 211 forsto, 23 gall, 23 gjer, 23, 325, 327 har, 23 kjrap, 22 kom, 22,23 kor, 23 laga, 23 lige, 24. 364 lugom, 23 pd,22
reisa, 24 Rusleien, 23 Rusmain, 23 sainferdi, 23 selom, 23 skip, 22,23 slipom, 22 tykje, 23 piukkr,289
Index
500
vrersego, 24 verrigod, 23 Swedish
agg, 314 aru, 214 ata, 296 attika, 29 bagn, 179 biaurn, 278, 289 biorn, 278, 289 biurn, 278, 289 droppe, 16, 64, 167, 172, 173, 177. 185, 187, 193. 250, 266, 267, 296 fiughur, 289 kast, 390 nabb, 314 rygg, 314 salde, 286 satta, 17, 64, 167, 172, 173, 185, 187, 193, 194. 250, 267 satte, 286 sex, 291, 319 sighia, 205 sitr, 302 sjatte, 291 skepp, 16, 64> 167, 172, 173, 177, 185, 187, 193, 250, 266, 267, 296 pighia, 205 ugn, 182 val, 390 vecka, 16, 64,166, 172, 173, 177. 185, 187, 193, 194, 250, 266, 267, 296 vrrekia, 205
Danish
reg, 314
re(g, 314 blerd, 318 bruge, 318 brugte, 313, 317 bruw'd, 199 bruw(d, 313, 317 damp, 15 dampe, 15 dept, 318 deptre, 318 devt, 318 dev(t, 318 drek, 315 dre(g, 315 drigg, 315 drikk, 315 drikke, 315 frem(d, 314, 317 fattig, 64, 167, 313 femte, 314. 317 fyllregh, 313 hen'd, 199 hjrel'b, 199, 250, 253, 295
kant, 15 kante, 15 ker(g, 314 ker(gan, 314 kirke, 314 kjeft, 318 kjev'd, 199 kjevrd, 313, 317 kjev(t, 318 kebte, 313, 317 keiftre, 318 laght, 315 lagth, 315 lauth, 315 nreb, 314 nretter, 314, 317 nre(da, 314. 317 nerb, 314
ol, 220, 233, 390 otte, 314, 317 o(d, 314, 317 rerg, 314 ryg, 314 sagthe, 315 sald, 313 sautha, 315 sdork, 314 sdorkan, 314 seks, 291 sjette, 291 skar'b, 199 snes, 390 stork, 314 storkan, 314 stor(~n, 314
sytten, 64, 167 trrek, 315 trrekker, 315 trre(ga, 315 vreg, 315 vregge, 315 vre(g, 315 vreya, 315 vent, 15 vente, 15 English redre, 74 resc, 320 tit, 212 agoing, 403 apple, 17, 250, 267 iir, 208 asleep,403 awry, 403 back, 17, 172, 186, 251, 267
beam, 179 beo, 261 beoft, 210
Index
beom, 261, 262, 269 beralJ, 275 beran, 272 biddan, 251 blom, 261 bist, 236, 261 bitter, 17, 250, 267 bleow, 210 bodan, 197 bodme, 197 bohte, 286 bOian, 76 botem, 197 bothem, 198 bothme, 197 botm, 197, 198 botme, 197 bottom, 197 boy, 58 breac, 171, 215, 232, 238
brecca, 267 bringan, 171 brocen, 171 brohte, 171, 216, 238, 275> 278, 281
bropor, 260, 302 brn, 18o brncan, 171 brycg, 180 button, 17 bythne, 198 bytme, 198 camb, 278 can, 251 can't, 17, 172, 186, 267 ceapian, 189, 271, 277, 280,281
cheese, 275 clif, 179 climban, 179 cneaw, 279
501
cneow, 210, 278 comb, 278 coren, 171 cost, 171 culJ, 171 culJe, 171, 220 cwic, 168 cyssan, 251 deed, 275 dreg, 275 ded, 275 dedon, 261, 262 dest, 236 doppettan, 177 dreamed, 102 dropa, 16, 172, 185, 193> 250, 266, 296
dryhten, 302 dugan,76 dyde, 134> 219, 220, 227, 228, 231, 232
dydon, 134, 261 ea, 272 eaden,209 eage, 69, 244 eald, 189, 271, 277, 280,281
ealh, 321 (e)arlJ, 213 earm, 279 (e)aron, 213, 261, 262 eart, 236, 261 (e)arp, 261 eatta, 223, 267, 297 eced, 29 ege, 212 elf, 367 eo-, 272 eode, 209, 210 eom, 261 eorm, 279 eosol, 291
eower, 260 -eu,272 exen, 197, 260 freder, 170, 260, 302 frett, 267 far, 73, 76, 272 faran, 211, 216, 272 fare, 272 father, 170 feccan, 205 fill, 278,279 female, 149 fong, 210, 278, 279 fooll, 190, 209, 210, 278 fif, 275 fot, 173> 249> 267 fyrs, 73 grest, 236 grep, 208 grett, 267 giin, 208 gangan,2o8 gap,2o8 gehtifd, 171 gehygd, 171 gellce, 69 geneah, 213, 214 genugon, 213, 214 geogulJ, 180 geong, 190, 210, 278 gesregd, 171 geseaw, 278 gibaen, 302 giefu, 69 git, 156 gold, 32 gas, 275, 278, 281 guma, 69, 244> 278 guman, 241 haccian, 168 hrefde, 227, 233
Index
502
haft, 171 haht, 166 halb-, 302 hiitte, 87 healp, 291 heawan, 168, 217 hebban, 251 heben,302 -hebuc, 302 heht, 209, 261 hel'p, 17, 172, 185, 193. 250, 253. 295
heng, 210 heold, 190, 210, 278 het, 209, 210, 212, 278, 279
hider, 69 hindan, 69 hladan, 215, 217 hleop, 209, 210, 278, 279
hliehhan, 251 hlodon, 217 hond, 241 house, 11 hreop, 210, 278, 279 hwone, 261 is, 102, 261, 323, 326 kno'ck, 17 lreresta, 260 lamb, 278 land, 278 lang, 278 lea'p, 17, 172, 185, 193, 250
lead, 32 leccan, 168, 251 lecgan, 251 leolc, 2.09, 210, 261 leort, 209, 210, 261 let, 210, 212, 223, 278, 279
lifgan, 2.05 lomb, 278 lond, 275, 278, 281 long, 278 mann, 278 mara, w8 meow, 210 modor, 260 mona, 275, 278, 281 monn, 278 naca, 168 nacod,173, 249,267 nam, 211, 213, 215 nama, 278 namon, 213 nlehst, 291 nieht, 291 nigon, 180 niman, 278 nom, 213 noma, 278 nomon, 213 oexen, 197, 260 oncnrew, 278 oncneaw, 278 ore, 32 OX,32
pin'ch,17 rarian, 237 read, 302 red, 32 reoht, 275 reon, 210 reord, 2.09, 210, 261 reowon, 210 revolution, 84 revolutionize, 84 rowan, 210 srewe, 278 saht, 166 salb, 302 sat, 379
sc(e)acan, 279 sc(e)afan, 279 sceolh, 322, 330 sceotan, 320 scieppan, 251 scip, 16, 172, 185, 193, 250, 266, 296
scipp, 267 scribun, 302 seah, 291 sealde, 286 seaw, 279 secan, 171 seo, 272 seoh, 272 seon, 272 sMp, 272 seow,210,278,279 set, 293 settan, 251 sind(on), 261 sinew, 388 skeppan, 251 slahter, 166 slea, 272 slean, 272 sleap, 272 soa'k, 17 sohte, 171, 215, 232 spell, 32.0 speoft, 210 speonn, 190, 210, 278 spic, 168 staca, 168 stan, 208 steer, 32 sto'p, 17 stod, 215 stodon, 215, 219, 228, 232 stow, 207 stowian, 207
Index
street, 270 su, 180 sugan, 180 sugu, 180 suna, 206 sunne, 275 tiicor, 168 taken, 221, 224 tha't, 17 top, 275. 278, 281 tunge, 69, 244 paccian, 221, 222, 224 pencan, 171 pene,26o peon,w6 pohte, 171, 215 pone, 260 puhte, 171 ulJe, 220 ure, 260 Us, 275 Usa, 260, 262, 269 use, n wer, 260 wa'tch, 17 walde, 261 warhte, 171, 215, 232, 238
water, 293 wice, 16, 172, 185, 193, 250, 266, 296
wierpp, 291 will, 111 wilt, 236 wit, 156 Woden,302 wolde, 233 worhte, 171, 215, 232, 238
wry, 403 wulfes, 302 wylf, 181
503
yellow, 32 ysle, 321
tsetel, 190, 272, 277,
Frisian ald, 189, 271, 277, 280,
ts(J)iis, 275 tziake, 190, 272, 277,
281
berath, 275 bim, 261 bodem, 197 ded(e), 275 deden, 261 dei, 275 habuku,302 hlr, 190 iuwe, 260 ixen, 197, 260 kiii, 190, 272, 277 kiipia, 189, 271, 277, 280,281 kei, 190, 272, 277, 282
kenna,169,190,272, 277
lang, 278 lerest, 26o long, 278 man, 278 mon, 278 nama, 278 nima, 278 noma, 278 riucht, 275 siucht, 273, 289 sla, 273 slande, 273 sle, 273 slein, 273 sleith, 272 stret(e), 270 tetsia, 221 thene, 260 toth, 275, 278, 281
282
282 we,26o
wetma, 197, 198 withume, 198 Dutch bem, 261 dien, 260 doorsteken, 216 edic, 29 gegeten, 213 oversteken, 216 taken, 221, 224 Low German berun, 261 bium, 261 blinde,207 bodme, 197 bothme, 197 bnlken, 318 diidun, 227, 261 dage, 207, 230 dat, 255 deda, 227, 228, 229 dedos, 227, 228 dedun, 228, 261 -des, 227 ekid, 29 ensti, 206, 230, 247 etik, 29 God, 169 good, 169 habda, 233 her, 190 hier, 190, 290 hwena, 261 ik, 255 Iosef, 169
Index
504
iuuwa, 260 iuwa, 260 lesun,261 odan,209 strata, 270 suno, 206 tacken, 221, 224 thakolon, 221, 224 thana, 260 thena, 260 unsa, 260 Usa, 260, 262, 269 walda, 261 wini, 206 HighGennan
abunst, 213 achiss, 29 ackus, 182 ahto, 230 albiz, 367 an, 213,301 anst, 247 ars, 52 asc, 329 ast, 52,180 az, 212 iiz, 212 berant, 275 beret, 247 berumes, 275 biben, 212 bim, 261 birit, 275 birum, 261 birut, 261 biruun, 209, 210 bist, 236, 261 blinte, 207 bodam, 197 bodem, 197 Boden, 197
Bonen, 182 bourn, 179 briihta, 171, 232, 275, 278
brauchen, 313, 317 bringan, 171 brucka, 180 bruoder, 302 bilcken, 176 -bunnen, 213 burg, 76 chind, 17, 172, 185, 250 churls, 235 curet, 235, 238 curi, 235, 238 curlt, 235 diihta, 206 das, 255 deismo, 74 den,26o de1Jkkxa, 187, 252 Diele, 76 dihan, 206 dolen,74 drangen, 75 dringen,75 duit, 208 eiscon, 225 ensteo, 247 ensti, 206, 230, 247 enstim, 247 enti, 170 er, 208 erien, 209 essen, 296 ezzan, 194, 213, 223, 301
ezzih, 29 jater,302 feal, 209, 290 feang, 209, 236, 238, 290
fel, 74 ferro, 219 fimf, 181, 182, 275 firni, 219 forahtun, 215, 232 forscon, 225 furuh, 73 giin,2o8 gan, 213, 301 gans, 275, 278 gart, 180 garwen,248 geang, 209,290 gegessen, 213 geit, 208 gen, 208 gersta, 320, 331 gestern, 363 geuues, 248 geuui, 248 gewi, 248 gezzan, 213, 301 gillhho, 69 gistreuui, 248 gistrouwi, 248 gomo, 69, 244 gouwi, 248 gunnen, 213, 301 gunst, 213 habaro, 180 habeta, 233 hahhul, 180 hanen,248 hano,248 hanun, 248 hapta, 233 hear, 190, 290 helpfan, 252, 295 henin, 248 heuui, 248 hiar, 290 hiaz, 212
Index
hier, 190, 290 hittiJ, 252 h9assiJ, 252 houwi, 248 huppfo, 252 hwaz, 14, 41, 346, 414 hwenan, 261 iar-, 237 ier, 209 ier-, 212 iuwer, 260 iuwerer, 260 jesan, 325 Kiise, 275 kaufen, 313, 317 kem, 186, 252 kind, 17, 172, 185, 250 kraw, 187, 252 kxouffo, 252 lant, 275, 278 lebara, 183 leiten, 17 lembir, 248 liaz, 212 llsta, 320 l9XXiJ, 187, 252 mahte, 248 mahti, 248 man, 247 mano, 275, 278 meri, 206 mero, 208 nackot, 182 ntlme, 135, 231 nami, 135, 231 namls, 203 neris, 203 offan, 17, 172, 185, 193, 194, 223, 250, 252, 267 ouga, 69, 244 pam, 186, 252
505 pjad,17,172,185,250 pleruzzun, 210 proiJd, 186, 252 prukka, 187, 252 questa, 320, 331 reht, 275 reren, 237 rim, 51 r9PPiJ, 252 rot, 302 saf, 75 sahha, 194 Salbe, 333 salz, 17, 172, 185, 250 scatwen, 248 Schiff, 177 screrot, 210 scrirun, 210 se, 208 Segimerus, 189 seichen, 333 Seife, 333 Seim, 333 Sieb, 333 sittsiJ, 252 speichaltra, 168 splwan, 168 sprehhan, 321 stan, 208 stantan, 208 stecko, 182 stehhan, 182 stehhen, 182 stehho, 182 stein, 208 steit, 208 sten, 208 sterno, 219 steroz, 209, 210, 236, 238
sterro, 219 sticken, 182
Stiege, 390 stilli, 74 stornen, 219 storren, 219 strazza, 270 Suebi, 189 sune, 230 suneo,247 suni, 247 suniu, 206, 230 sunna, 275 suohta, 215, 232 suohtt, 135, 231 suohtl, 135, 231 swimman, 219 tag, 275 tage, 207, 230 tagum, 44, 248, 353 taits, 186, 252 taju, 168 tat, 275 tatun, 227, 228, 232, 261
teta, 227, 228, 229 theismo, 74 tief, 177 to, 186,252 toenti, 232 tOis, 232 toit, 232 topf, 177 Topf, 177 tax, 186, 252 traume, 103, 373 traumt, 103, 373 traumte, 375 treffend, 216 treno, 75 trinchan, 17, 172, 185, 250
trinkan, 17, 172, 185, 250
Index
506
trowwen, 74 truht, 75 tum, 186, 252 tuoit, 232 tupfen, 177 unnun, 213, 301 uns, 275 unser, 260 unserer, 260 unst, 213 wahset, 248 wahsit, 248 wazzar, 17, 172, 185, 193. 250, 252, 267
we, 208 weban, 75 wedamo, 197 wen, 261 werpfan, 17, 172, 185, 250
wile, 135, 231 wili, 135, 231 wolta, 233 wulpa, 181 zalti, 248 zan(d), 275, 278 zascon, 221, 224 zeihhan, 17, 172, 185, 193. 251, 252, 267
Zelge, 76 zelit, 247, 251 zellet, 247, 251 zugi, 235 zugut, 235 zunga, 17, 69, 172, 185, 244,250
Irish -agathar, so, 212 ainm, 39, 388 -ba, 182 -be, 140, 141
-bia, 140 biri, 361 -bo, 182 -bo{, 182
caogad, 109 cern, 75 cethorcho, 63, 109 cofca, 109 coirce, 180 con-ic, 214 cruimthir, 364 cruth, 364 cuan,361 cucann, 362 daig, 364 do-moinethar, 380 do-seinn, 219 drong, 75 duine, 363 -ebla, 361 -ebra, 361 fedid, 389 fer, 362 fiche, 63, 107, 108, 109 flaith, 144 fo-cicherr, 140 foi'd, 213 fo-lil, 140 fo-16, 140 gaibid, 43, 213 gat, 180 -gena, 140 -genathar, 140 -gignethar, 140 gonaid, 109 guidid, 109 far, 361 ibid, 38, 65, 222, 249 inathar, 74 -fr, 361 laigid, 208, 364 lassar, 361
-legat, 208 lethar, 170 lige, 24. 364 midithir, 132 necht, 361 nf, 47 niad, 361 ni(a)e, 361 niath, 361 nocha, 109 om, 52 orgaid, 365 pherid, 361 QRIMffiR, 364 recht, 63, 109 r-ic, 214 ro-mfdair, 132 saer, 361 saidid, 43, 208 saigid, 216 secht, 361 sechtmogo, 63, 108 sedait, 208 seir, 361 selb, 75 sesca, 109 sieir, 361 sir, 362 sith-, 362 siur, 361
sl1an,361 -suidigedar, 84 taig, 364
te, 361 tene, 361 tige, 364 timme, 361 trlcho, 107, 109 tuilid, 74 Welsh asgwrn, 180
Index
bu, 182 byw, 115 cegin, 362 ceirch, t8o doe, 363 dyn, 363 !fer, 361 hir, 362 hyd,362 llachar, 361 nith, 361 saith, 361 uceint, 107 ucher, 107 Breton
tanao, 115 tregont, 107 ugent, 107 Gaulish -XfONION, 363
Celtiberian
silapur, 32 Venetie
donasto, 87 doto, 87 Latin
acidus, 329 actus, 62, 121 ad, 44.103 aes, 32 agere, 389 albus, 37, 367 amarus, 52 ambo, 156 an, 330 animus, 51 aplscor, 213, 301, 378 argentum, 32 arvum, 330
507
auris, 52 aurum, 32, 388 avena, t8o avis, 52 bibit, 222, 249 bibO, 38,65 bibulus, 408 caballus, 181 cabo, 181 calx, 74 capiO, 43, 216, 380 cieo, 38 citra, 69 coepl, 213, 301 calumba, 76 coquina, 362 cornlx, 352 corvus,352 costa, t8o cubitus, 30 cupio, 380 dexter, 321 ea, 323,326 eccum, 323 em-, 213, 427 emero, 141 era, 141 es-, 427 eunt-, 135, 339 faba, 179, 181 facere, 389 faci0,380 factus, 62 far, 73, 76, 272 femen, 74 femur, 74 ferus, 74 fi-, 140 fictus, 63, 108 ftdo, 13, 54, 75 filius, 74 jingo, 63, 74, to8
fodio, 216, 376 for, 76 forent, 140, 141 fares, 7 4. 76 foret, 140, 141 frustum, 320 fu-, 140 fugio, 380 fogit, 50 -ginta, 108 Graecus, 173 granum, 32 grits, 56 Gutones, 28 habeo, 213 haec, 41 hasta, t8o heres, 75 (h)erclsco, 377 hen, 363 homo, 146, 363 hordeum, 32 humus, 363 i-, 161, 427 iacio, 380 ictus, 343 iens, 120, 135, 339 ipse, 407 is, 323,326 ifts, 325 lassus, 63, 108 lectus, 62., 121 leg!, 162
lien, 146 linquo, 182 -llquit, 48 margarita, 173 mergere, 389 mictus, 63, 108 mingo, 63, to8 miseret, 33 misericordia, 30
Index
508
molere, 32 moveo, 376 nidus, 108 nomen, 388 nonaginta, 106 octoginta, 106 odor, 52 olor, 73,76 onus, 365, 366 opus,365,366,368 orarium, 30 orbus, 365 orior, 378 OS, 180 os,367 ovis, 52, 365, 366 pasco, 51, 378 pastor, 52 patior, 380 pavl, 378 pellis, 74 penna, 74 pes, 73,74 pictus, 63, 108 pingo, 63, 108 porca, 73 patens, 75 prae, 103 procul, 75 (pr6)fero, 214 pudet, 33 putare, 75 quadraginta, 63, 106 quae, 41 quies, 75 qulnquiiginta, 106 quinque, 181 quod, 14, 41, 346, 414 raudus, 32 rectus, 63, 109 sal, 68 sapa, 75
scio, 376 sedeo, 63, 108 semen, 32 septuagintii, 63, 106 serius, 74 sero,379 serpens, 319 -sessus, 63, 108 severus, 74 sex, 291, 319 sexaginta, 106 sextus, 291 sibl, 407 sileo,363 sine, 149, 342 sitis, 363 situs, 363 sol, 18o
sorbeo,377 spondeo, 377 spopondl, 210 stet!, 210 strata, 270 strictus, 63, 108 stringo, 63, 108 subsum, 213 Suebi, 270, 276 sui, 75 sulcus, 321 sus, 319 susurro, 217 tango, 224 taurus, 32 tetigl, 221, 224 tollo, 74 trtginta, 106 ursus, 363 vectus, 62 vehere,389 velint, 111, 127, 134 venit, 132, 136 venum, 378
vespa, 75 vesper, 107 vlcesimus, 108 vide-, 235 vlgintl, 63, 106, 108, 109
vir, 362 virus, 157 vocem, 49 vo"o, 378 vox, 56 Umbrian
dirsust, 141 fefure, 141 ferar, 87 ferest, 141 furent, 140, 141 Just, 140, 141 menes, 141 Oscan
fefacust, 141 fifikus, 141 fus{d, 140 Just, 140, 141 pertemest, 141 sakarater, 87 sife£, 369 Marrudnian
ferenter, 87 Italian
ecco, 323 qui, 323 Rumanian
pe, 103 Spanish
a, 35,103 arbol, 181 French allemand, 262, 283
Index
arbre, 21 basse, 245 bien, 270 blanc, 245 bois, 21 bon,245 bonne, 21, 245 bouche, 21, 35 bras, 21,35 brun,270 est, 236 fin, 270 gros, 21 loup, 21,35 main, 270 matin, 21 monsieur, 348 moyen, 21 pieges, 21 place, 21 plein, 270 queue, 21 seigneur, 348 shack, 21 tem~te, 21
un, 240, 245, 270 une, 240, 245 vieux, 21 vigne, 245 vin, 245 Prussian
addle, 335 alne, 335 an, 336 iintran, 349 as, 126,336 asmai,336 assa, 336 assaran, 336 iiusins, 349 babo, 179, 182
509
crauyo, 350 deinan, 348 deiws, 348 emmens, 388 en,335 esse, 335 etskl-, 38
genniimans, 348 giwtt, 115 gudde, 28 guntwei, 359 laydis, 331 mensa, 350 mergan, 349 na, 326,335 peisda, 320 posinna, 359 posinnimai, 359 postiisei, 141 quai, 41 siilin, 55 semme, 348 sen,335 seyr, 50 sindats, 214 -sinna, 359 -sinnat, 360 -sinnati, 359 -sinnimai, 359 sirwis, 352 soye,320 stai, 41 subs, 370 sups, 408 swaiiismu, 348 talus, 76 tiirin, 49, 56 tauris, 32 telks, 141 tennii, 348 tenneimans, 348 tenneismu, 348
tenneison, 348 turei, 207 turri, 207 twaiii, 348 twaiiismu, 348 wedde,348 widdewft, 348 widdewumans, 348 Lithuanian
akisu, 352 akmuo,55.56,68,348 algas, 55, 68 alude, 56, 69 arkllde, 56, 69 arklys, 352 a5va, 48 auksas, 388 aukStas, 353 ausls, 320 avide, 56, 69 avie, 50 avizti, 18o barti, 216 bire, 55,68 birginti, 77 bus, 140, 141 bute, 336 darb6p, 348 daug, 76 dedit, 335 de5imties, 352 deveti,36o dfeverj, 362 dirgti, 331 dratas, 74 dubits, 177 dukti, 55, 68, 348 dukterys, 352 dukters, 352 duodijs, 339, 348 duodu, 335
Index
510
duos, 55, 56, 68 duosiu, 56, 68 duoti, 335 edqs, 339 lme, 55,68 galvq, 350 galvon, 348 galvos, 352 galv6sna, 348 galvij, 352 gardas,74,329 gela, 55, 68 gere, 55,68 gilits, 414 gyvas,362 glinda, 149 Gudai, 28 gulbe, 76 j, j, 335 [lanka, 335 jlinkas, 335 ifidas, 335 indeve, 335 fpedinis, 335 jprastas, 335 jsuka, 335 fsunis, 335 is, 335 jaudinti, 325 jaudra, 325 jauti, 325 j6ti, 161 jitdu, 156 jitdvi, 156 jitdviese, 156 juosti, 325
·= 325 JUS,
ka-, 190 kalbls, 55, 68 kalti, 216 kasti, 216 kauti, 217
kli!tis, 353 kl6ti, 215 kajis, 353 kur, 291 langaf, 352 langij, 352 like, 55, 68 lietaas, 352 lietuml, 352 lietits, 3 52 Uetas, 352 malti, 216 mazg6ti, 389 mesa, 55· 68, 350 mitdu, 156 mitdvi, 156 mitdviese, 156 mulvas, 352 nesijs, 352 neSti, 335 neveda, 348 nevedame, 338 nevedate, 338 nevedu, 339 obells, 65 ozys, 180 paZ[sta, 360 pelitde, 56, 69 per, 335 p~rpykis, 335
pfemenj, 362 piemuo, 39 platits, 414 pl6nas, 362
po, 335 p6kalbis, 335 prie, 335 prfetemis, 335 pro, 335 pr6tevis, 335 puraf, 73 rafikoje, 336
rafikose, 336 rate, 336 riituose, 336 sala, 75 samdo, 335 safidas, 335 saasas, 319 sedeti, 208 sergit, 331 siauras, 414 sij6ti, 320 sirdies, 352 sirgti, 319 siati, 75 skllti, 331 skiepas, 177 smiikras,320 s6lymas, 55, 68 stoveti, 360 sunitkas, 338 sunuml, 45 sunits, 353 svarits, 74 sverti, 319 sakosit,352 saltasis, 352 siipas, 73 seima, 73 sia-, 190 sirdimi, 352 sirdls, 352 sirdys, 352 sirvas, 352 smitlas, 74 SU0,74 ta-, 190 taisyti, 74 tarti, 49 taukai, 350 tauras, 32, 362 teisits, 74 tesukie, 346
Index
tiesti, 74 tiesits, 74 tureti, 207 tui'guose, 336 tverti, 74 valdyti, 233 vapsa, 75 varna,352 vai'nas, 352 veda,348 vedanliame, 339 vedanlioje, 339 vedanli6ms, 339 vedanliose, 339 vedanliij, 339 vedanliuose, 339 vedantl, 339 vede,348 vesti, 389 vezti,389 vilkti, 321 vilku, 45 zemas, 414 zeme, 348, 363 zlno, 359 ilno, 359, 360 iinom~. 359, 360 iinot~, 359, 360
zin6ti, 237> 348, 359> 360
zoli, 55> 68 tvaigtdi, 56, 69 zveries, 352 zverls, 74. 352
511 ~t. 223
gitovs, 55, 68 lt,339
jemt, 213 mf!lns, 352 mlesa, 350 mtt, 388 ~;~emt,
213
nu6gs, 55, 68, 173, 249, 267 p~ds, 55, 68, 172, 249,
267
plans, 362 s~,348
sdls, 55, 68 zinam, 359 zinat, 359 zinim, 359 zinit, 359
(Church) Slavic bajati, 76 bedr-, 74 bedro,74 bediti,75 bodp,74 bolna, 74 bolt~, 84
borzda, 73 bosti, 216 bra5t~no, 73
brati, 216 byf~teje, 140
d~ls.74
b'bdeti, 43, 75 b'bdr'b, 74 b'br'b, 73 cena,75 cvet'b, 76
du6mu, 348 dzlvs, 115, 362 ei, 339 eimu, 339> 348
lare,322,332 damb, 351 dan, 353 desn-, 331
Latvian l1buols,56,65,68,348
desn'b, 321 doiti, 74 dolga,76 dovblflt'b, 111, 127, 134 do-'Vbije-, 111 dovt~ije-, 134 dovt~ijete, 127
drtv-,74 druzina, 75 dvt~ri, 7 4. 76
dwe, 322 edro,74,77 {ldrD,76,77 gojiti, 75 gojb, 75 golenb, 74 golpbb, 76 gol'b, 74 goreti, 43 gvezda,76 g?JYn'b,75,77 imamb, 351 imeti, 207 iz, 335 iz-gojb, 75 jamb, 351 jesmb, 351 j{ltro, 76 klad-, 215 klati, 216 kletb, 353 kobyla, 181 koleno, 74 kone, 346 konj{l, 346 kosa, 331 kostb, 180 koza, 180 kraina, 326 krot-, 7 4. 76 kyjb, 353 k'bto, 322
Index
512
loboda, 73. 76 mfSO, 350 mbne, 346 mbsta, 75 mt1zda,75 na, 326,335 naviti, 84 navb,84 ne-pbtja, 75 nesa, 346 nesi, 346 ne,47 ograda, 74 OVbS'b, 180 9troba, 335 9trb, 335 Pfti,74 p0,335
pojetb, 76 pokoi, 75 pork'b, 76 P9tO, 74 pri, 335 pro, 335 prok'b, 75, 76 proso, 73, 76 p'btati, 75 p'bvati, 75 pbS'b, 31 rabe, 346 rabu, 346 raby, 346 recb, 84 sebe, 346, 408 selo, 75 sedeti, 43 Sfbr'b, 73 sii, 323 sin, 75 sloboda,76 slobodb, 75, 76 slySa, 160, 163
slyfaa5e, 160 smbrd-, 73 smbrd'b, 73, 77 sok'b, 319 stan'b, 353 svepet'b, 75 sverep'b, 74
svero, 76
svobodb,75 svoj-, 330 SVbteti, 43 syn'b, 353 syn'bmb, 45 S'b,335 S'bn'b, 319 Sb, 323 sbl'b, 129 tebe, 346 telf, 74 testo, 74 tesiti, 74 texa, 74 tex'b, 336 toi, 336 toliti, 74
tomb,336 tr9t'b, 75 tvartJ, 84 tvoriti, 74, 76 tvbrd'b, 76, 77 t'bk'b, 76 tblo, 76 veleti, 233 velft'b, 111, 127 vede-, 235 vede,89,346 V'b,
335
VtJcera, 45 xoste-, 112, 134 xostete, 127 XOtft'b, 112, 127, 134 za-tvoriti, 74
zemlja, 73.363 znamf, 359 znati, 359 znobiti, 73 zob'b, 73 zobb,73 zona, 73 21Jbr'b, 74 21Jb'b, 74 zvertJ,74.342,352 zvon-, 74
zvon'b,74 Z'bVati,342 Zalb, 55 teny, 346 Ziti, 75 Russian bely, 356 beregll, 75, 76 blagdaru, 23 blfzkij, 414 bob, 182 brat, 23,24 celujut, 408 celujutsja, 408 cvet, 364 cetyrnadcat', 356 dalekij, 414 davai, 22, 23 desjatf, 353 desjevli, 23 detjam, 353 detjax, 353 deza,74 dno, 177 donel'zja, 357 dorglo, 23 dorgo, 23 glub6kij, 414 govoril, 160 groppa, 23
Index
513
grudi, 356 fmja, 388 jabloko, 65 kak, 23 ktHeT, 320 kladi, 24 kod,344 k6da, 344 kok,23 k6los, 331 koptf, 390 kopom, 22, 23 kot, 344 kota, 344 kralom, 24 krug6m, 353 kuda, 23 ijudjam, 353 ijudjax, 353
pel', 59 pet, 23 plot£, 353 po, 22,42 podjom, 24 pokorna, 23 poneslo, 34 po-vsjudu, 42 pradedy, 335 pridumat', 141 pridumyval, 141 pridumyvat', 141 prosjai, 23 pud, 23 pudof, 23 puro, 73 robotom, 24 sembja, 73
m~lkij, 414
sjetiri, 23 skazal, 16o slysal, 16o smertf, 353 smotrom, 24 sneg, 374 sneslo, 34. 36 s6rok, 390 spasiba, 23 spitsja, 101 st6ja, 339 stojatf, 339 sud)a, 355 sudoroga, 335 sumerki, 335 sir6kij, 414 teceniem, 34 telenok, 11 telka, 11 tjei, 23 treska, 22 tri, 24 tuda, 357
moja, 22,23 moje, 23 moki, 23 mokka, 23 moneta, 59 nab{to, 136 nel'zja, 357 neset, 141 niet, 23 nietsjevo, 23 nietsjevo, 23, 24 nfzkij, 414 njet, 23 nogoli,24 n6sit, 141 odnomu, 42 osel, 11 oslica, 11 otsuda, 24 ottUda, 357 paguba, 335 pasynok, 335
s~rna, 352
tvoja, 22, 23, 24 utr6ba, 335 uzkij,414 vcertf, 353 vedra, 170 vetrom, 34, 36 vnutrl, 335 vros, 24 vsem, 42 vys6kij, 414 xocetsja, 101 xox6cet, 217 x6xot, 217 zen, 406 zeni, 406 zol6vka, 390 zvezda,364 Polish
broda, 354 bruzda,354 chce, 101 droga,349 Gdansk, 28 Gdynia, 28 glowa, 349 glOWf, 349 jf2:yk, 355 krowa, 354 mnie, 369 my,97 nachyla, 374 obejmuje, 374, 376 rozchyla, 374, 376 SfdZia,355 sobie, 369 spat, 101 spalem, 101 spalo, 101 spif, 101 tobie, 369 wqtroba, 355
Index
514
wyciqga, 374. 376 zasnqt, 101 Kashubian/ Slovincian
jau, 356 robjq, 356 Upper Sorbian
broda, 354 brozda, 354 dr6ha, 349 hlowa,349 kruwa, 354 wr6na, 352 Czech
behat, 375 bezet, 374, 375, 377, 378,379
bfly, 349, 355 blyskat, 373 blysknout, 373 blyStet se, 373 bolet, 374. 375 brada, 354 brazda,354 chladny, 349, 355 car, 56 tara, 56 Ctvrty, 129 drtet, 373, 374, 375, 378
hlava, 349 hlavnf, 349 hlavu, 349 horet, 374, 375, 377 humno, 349 hvezda, 364 jahoda,342 jazyk, 349, 355 klecet, 373, 374, 375, 379
klekat, 373, 374, 379 kleknout, 373, 374 krtiva, 354 kficet, 374, 375, 377, 378
kvet, 364 lehat, 373 lehnout, 373 letat, 375 letet, 374, 375, 376, 379 letet, 373 malina, 349, 355 mest0,406 mllet, 373 narod, 349 obklopovali, 374 opfral se, 374 pekar, 349 pfskal, 374 pfskat, 374 pfskl, 374 pfsknout, 374 piStet, 374. 375, 378, 379
poutnfk, 349, 355 pulet, 374. 375, 376, 378
pukat, 374. 376 puknout, 374 rucnf, 349, 355 rucnfk, 349, 355 ruka, 349, 355 rybar, 349 sedat, 373 sedet, 373 sednout, 373 shoret, 374 skryval, 374, 375 sly5et, 374 stat, 373 suchy, 349, 355 sukno,349
sumet, 374. 375 tezky, 349, 355 trava, 349, 355 travnf, 349, 355 travnfk, 349, 355 trouba, 349 utroba, 349, 355 vedro, 353 videt, 373, 374, 375 vrtet, 374. 375, 376, 379
vstat, 373 vstavat, 373 vule, 342 zabava,349 zahofet, 374 zakon,349 zaujfmali, 374, 378 zmlkat, 373 zmlknout, 373 zerav, 56, 68, 348 Slovak
brada, 354 brazda, 354 krava, 354 nesie, 351 Slovene
da, 351 dadp, 351 danas, 353 gQr, 351, 354 j¢, 351
jedp, 351 konj, 351, 354 ki)st, 357 kost~m, 353
kostmf, 351, 353 lahkega, 351, 356 lahkemu, 351, 356 moZ¢h, 351 mo~m,353
Index
mozm{, 351, 353 nest), 351 QV3C, 353
pt)t,357 poznam, 359 stabri, 351 v¢, 351 vedt),351 zena, 149 zenami, 349 z¢nska, 149 z¢nski, 149 Serbian/Croatian
Benicance, 353 Beniciinct!, 354 bt!re, 342 bijell, 355 bleltlste, 349 brada, 354 brata, 357 brelta, 357 brazda, 354 car, 56, 68 dtf, 351 del, 359 da, s6, 68 diida, 351 dada, 351 delh,s6,68 donesoh, 56, 68 donijeh, 56, 68,351 donijeti, 3 51 drelga,349 dvFgnut, 349 dvoriste, 349 gar, 56 glava, 349 glavama, 349 glavn1,349 glavu, 350 gnelti, 359
515
gradskl, 355 hladnl, 355 jelbuka, 56 jelgnje, 56 jelgoda, 56,342 je, 339,351
pr3diili, 3 so piUnlk, 355 reci, 56, 351 rijec, 56, 68 rijet, 56, 351
j~. 351
ritcnlk, 355 rtlka, 353 rukel, 353 rukel, 353 ritkama, 355 sam, 56,68 sela, 343 st!la, 343 seijiikel, 3 53 st!ljaka, 353 sinovf, 351 sjt!dnem, 56 sl()mfm, 357 sU, 351 sithl, 355 telmburiis, 353 teskr, 355 trava, 349, 355 travnl, 355 travnlk, 355 ilgiir, 56 itmrijeh, 56, 68 vjedro, 353 voda,338 v()du, 338 v3ija, 351 vran, 352 vrelna, 352 vrata, 357 vriita, 357 zakleh, 56, 68 znam, 359 znelmen, 359 znamo, 359 znelti, 359 zub, 350
jt!dem, 56 jesu, 351 jesa, 351 jezik, 355 kleh, 56 kopa, 351 kradi, 353 kriilj, 353 kraij, 353 krelva, 354 lOmlm, 357 mtilina, 355 melti, 350 mrijeh, 56 milSkiirClc, 353 na, 357 nalomlm, 357 nauka, 350 nf!,359
nt!miir, 56 nesti, 351 n3sl, 351 ad, 357 peldnem, 56 ptsmo, 353 piSe, 351 ptsi, 353 piSF, 353 pobjegnem, 56 potegnilt, 349 p()zniim, 359, 360 poznamo, 359 paznati, 360 poznavati, 359, 360 p()ziir, 56
n'Unf,355
Index
516
zar, 56 zara, 56 zenlt, 349 zena,349 zenama,349 zt!riiv, 56, 68, 348 z{vjeti, 115 Bulgarian az, 103 Cerno, 356 mi, 399 more, 356 se, 399 spi, 101, 102, 398, 399, 401
spj-a, 101, 398 Albanian a-, 323,330 a, 330 afsh, 330 aft, 330 ag,329 ah, 320,321, 329 ai, 322, 326 ajo, 322, 326 a-jo, 325 ankth, 321 are, 330 ar{, 330 asht, 321 ashte, 321 ata, 322 athi!t, 329 athte, 329 ato, 322 bahe,326 bie, 326 bresher, 320 brie, 326 dergjem, 319 dergjem, 331
deri, 327 derr, 319 desha, 321 dhashe, 321 dhe,363 dhi, 326 di, 326 diell, 319 dfell, 331 dirse, 319 dfrse, 331 dite, 323 djathi!, 331 djathte, 321 djathte, 331 dje, 363 djerse, 331 dore, 320 dare, 331 dose, 319 drithe, 320 drfthe, 331 dy,322 e, 323,324
emer,330 emer, 388 eper, 329 eshte, 321 fare, 320 fare, 331 jjale, 320 jle,326 fli, 326 ftoh, 326 gardh, 329 gath, 331 gjaj, 325 gjak, 319, 330 gjalle, 319 gjalpe, 319, 333 gjalpe, 330 gjarper, 319
gjashte, 319, 321 gjem, 325 gjer, 23, 325, 327 gjer, 325 gjere, 327 gjere, 327 gjesh, 325 gjeth, 320 gjethe, 331 gji, 330 gjume, 319 gjymese, 325 gjymte,325 gjysme, 325 ha, 330,367
hale, 331 harr, 331 hedh, 320 he(l)q, 321, 330 hengra,330 herdhe, 329 (h)ethe, 329 hfdhet, 329 (h)fdhte, 329 hie, 320, 326 hfe, 331 hut, 329, 330 (h)yll, 321, 331 i, 323,324 jam, 320, 326 jashte, 321, 326 je, 325 josh, 325 ju, 325, 326, 332 juci, 325 juzi, 325 kall, 321 kallf, 331 kap, 329 kashte, 321 ke-, 323, 330 kejo, 325, 326
Index
kesi, 323 keso, 323 keta, 322 keto, 322 kjo, 322 kohe,322
k6he,332 kolle, 320 korr, 331 krah, 326 krahine, 326 kri, 326 kujt, 322 kush, 322 ky,322,323,326 ledh, 320, 331
llohe,326 lluce,325 mi, 320, 321, 331 mish, 321 mjeker, 320 mjet, 78 mue, 322 na, 326,335 nate, 323 ngjesh, 325, 332 ngroh,326 notim, 320 pah,326 pashe,321 pidh, 320, 331 pith, 331 preher, 326 qoj, 332 rashe, 321 se, 324 sh-, 331 shi, 320 shkonj, 321 shoh, 320 shosh, 320 shpend, 321
517
shpreh, 321 shqerr, 331 shtate, 320 shteg, 321 shterpinj, 320 shtrohe, 326 sivjet, 323 sonte, 323 sot, 323 te, 324,389 thaj, 330 thanj, 319, 320 thek, 329 then, 331 ther, 331 thi, 319, 320, 330, 331 thorn, 331 ti, 320 tre, 326 ty, 322 tye, 322 u-, 319 u, 330 ve,326
vehte, 326 vesh, 320 vete, 319, 326 vete, 326 vete, 330 vi~, 321
vjeherr, 319 vjeherr, 330 vjerr, 319 yll, 321 -zet, 108 zjarrth, 3 21 zorre, 322
Thracian I:eid).'1, 363 Annen ian
ankanim, 182
anun, 388 arj, 330 artawsr, 333 awcanem, 333 awj,333 awr, 333
ayg,329 beg, 58 boy, 58 eel, 333 cil, 333 ciwl, 333 clawt, 333 eli, 333 liwl, 333 el, 333 eloy, 333 erkiwl, 333 ewl,333
ampem, 38, 65 anciwl, 333 anjil, 333 anjiwl, 333 gel, 333 gelec'ik, 333 gel], 333 gelmn, 47 get, 388 giwl, 333 giwt, 333 hac'i, 329 holm, 51 hot, 52 hoviw, 52 hum, 52 il, 333 iwl, 333 iwlov, 333 iwloy, 333 kanay-, 149 keray, 330 kin, 149
Index
518
manet', 59 mawt, 333 neard, 388 orb, 52 orjik', 52, 329 ork', 52 oskr, 52 ost, 52,143 pelc, 333 pile, 333 piwlc, 333 plcoy, 333 pltor, 333 p'eC', 59 p'el, 333 p'il, 333 p'iwl, 333 p'li, 333 sin, 73, 351 sirt, so sel, 333 seli, 333 sil, 333 siwl, 333 siwli, 333 siwloy, 333 sli,333 Sloy, 333 t'rem, 74 utem, 330 zambil, 333 zambiwl, 333
Phrygian aoOaKef, 90 aoOaKe!op, 90 f3eov,388 {eftEAev, 363 Greek
di-do-si, 118, 119 e-e-si, 117 -i-je-si, 118, 119
ka-te-ti-ya-ne, 118 ki-ti-je-si, 117 re-wo-to-ro-ko-wo, 115
apdlft6~, 51 ltpiG!O~, 330
ltporpov, 32 ap6w, 32, 375, 378 tlrepo~, 105
ltyav, 49 ayl<:d:A.1'f, 51 ayiGWV, 51 ltyvilftl, 377
avr6-, 323
ay6~, 51, 52
avr6~, 402
a(}y~, 329
avrft~· 330
aypol, 346
aOrw~, 329
aypof~, 346
aypwv,346 ayptp, 346 ltyw, 52
ltxftOftal, 50, 376 ltXVtJftal, 50 f3aA.wv, 120 {3e{3a1Ga,s2 f3ef317"a, 52
aywy~, 52 aop6~, 76
f3ef3A.~arat, 120 {3ef3A.~aro, 120
lt{w, 376 ale!, 52
{3EOftal, 115 {3lf31'fftl, 52
al(}o~, 329
{3lo~, 115
arew, 329 lt!GftWV, 55 aiGWIG~, 52
f3oviG6A.o~, 70 f3o~, 31, 55, 346 {3wft6~, 51, 52 yaA.~,390
~.ss aAqJ~~. 55· 68
yeOOftal, 321 yA.waaa, 114
lkAqJl, 3 67
yA.wxf~. 114
aA.9J6~, 37, 367 aft&.w, 32, 378 aftEA.yw, 31 ti.ftqJl, 156 ltftqJW, 156 aveOeav, 118 lkVeftO~, 51 ltvra, 157, 170
yvofav, 118
aypoo~, 346
ltiGpO~, 51
yvoo~,12o
y6ftqJO~, 350 yvvatiG6~, 149
yvv~,149
avra1l'08towaaa, 120 avrl, 170
8aftvii:m, 120 oalvvvrat, 120 oearo, 115 OEOOIIGa, 52 OeliGVOii:O'l, 120
avrlo~. 157· 170
&!{eta~, 114
lt{wv, 31 a1re8avov, 373 aJroOv!lO'IGW, 373
oepiGOftal, 103
aJrv86a~. 120
8taA.vmav, 114
oeho~,76
ota, 119
Index
519
cM6iXm, 118 8180ifU!V, 67 8t8ovn, 118, 119 8t8oaav, 119 818ovm, 118 8f8Wfi-1, 335, 377 81t, 119
8tevra1, 120 811<.a1<.me, 114 8o~<.ef, 377
86fi-Oc;, 31 86vrwv, 120 8otX;, 120 8pa~<.e{c;,
120
8pfxK.WV, 120 8vvaw, 113, 135 8vvaw6e, 67, 113, 135 tfxrp8Yf, 182 ~fiav, 119 e{380fi-~I<.OVT{X., 10 6,
107, 223
lf38ofi-Oc;, 107 ~{3YfV, 51
t{3lwv, 115 eyvov, 120 eyvw, 220 tyw, 71,92 eywye, 71 ~818ov,
118
Mt8oaav, 118 ~8oav,
118, 119
~80fi-(X.I, 101, 373, 398 ~8ov,
118, 119 118 ~8pa1<.0v, 103 ~8oaav,
Mw8~,52
t(et5yvvov, 118 t(et5yvvaav, 118 ~8eav, 118, 119, 134 ~8ev, 118, 119 ~8eaav,
118
eTaro, 117
el&Iev, 114 e18elrf, 114 e186r-, 397 el~<.om,
62, 106, 107 eTAYf, 319 elfi-a, 31 elva-roc;, 107 elat, 117 eK.ar6v, 62, 105 lclay{a, 374 eK.vp6c;, 319, 330 eK.WV, 120 lA.Yf, 319 lAme, 48 f.A.K.W, 3 21, 330 !AJroc;, 31, 319, 333 MvaafU!v, 113 !Avaav, 113 Mvaare, 113 !Avae, 113 Ef1-eye,372 tv, 335 lv, 105 tvev~K.ovra, 106, 107, 223 ~fame;, 107 lVVVfU, 31 ~repa, 76, 77 tvrt, 117 l{, 319 t{, 335 t{eAaVVOI{X., 112, 360 t{ ~I<.OVT{X., 10 6 briifi-01{36c;, 51 briXfi-01{36c;, 51 brrffi-01{36c;, 51 tm8eiav, 118, 119 hrwv, 113, 120 brmarp6rpwv, 118 hrotaro, 112 brptaro, 120 tma1<.6m01, 106
~ppwya,
51, 102
~PXOfi-al, 103, 375
Mfirf, 41 ta8tw, 237 ~arav,
118, 119
tariXm, 118 Mr17aav, 118 lrepoc;, 105 trt8eav, 119 ~-r~8ev,
118, 119 120 ~TAYfV, 120 ~rpav, 118 ~rpavev, 118 trpfxVYfaav, 118 ~rpaaav, 118 ~rpvye, 50 tx86c;, 321 twv, 120 (F)e18Yf-, 235 fepwal, 114 fepK.aleV, 114 rea-, 117 rf~<.aTI, 62, 107, 155 (evyvvov, 114, 120 (e6yvvaa:v, 114. 120 ZetX;, 346 (tw, 325 (vy6v, 31 (WVvVfU, 332 (w6c;, 115 (war6c;, 325 ~IOV, 114 ~A.v8ov, 103 ~vey~<.ov, 335 ~pi, 325 ~a-, 117 ~aT{X.I, 384 ~rpov, 74, 77 8eiev, 120, 135, 231 8elYfV, 134, 231 ()etc;, 120 ~rA.av,
Index
520
etv-nx, 120 Oevro, 115 etvrwv, 120
K.elpw, 331, 377
fl~'r'1P• 347
K.efra:t, 115
O~yw, 51 (J~lvc;, 74 (J~p.74 O~aOat, 74
K.ecl'1ya,374
t-tto66c;, 75 vavc;, 31 vevpov, 3SS vew, 31 V1'/Vefll'1• 51 {r5t-tf3l'1vro, 120 {vvtev, 119
OV'1r6c;, 107 Opwva{, 75 Ovyartpa, 344 Ovyfn'1P• 39, 55, 344, 347
Ovyarp6c;, 344 evpa, 74> 76, 77 ew{a:t, 51 !a:Uw,37S liXat, 11S t8pwc;, 319, 331 l8vfa, 397 lel11, 114 lefat, 11S rev, U9 r{w, 9S
r'1fll· u3, 135 l0ap6c;, 329 'i6c;, 157 lmriXftOly6c;, 51 lmrof3ov~<.oloc;, 32
rmroc;, 4S, 129
lamlftEV, 6S lamfo6e, 6S lar&c;, 147 raraaav, u9 lariXat, us iGr'lfll· 9S, 237 lwv, 120 ~<.a:Otvrw, us, 120
K.tXMftOc;, 51 l<.tXJrrW, 329 K.araelvvov, 120
~<.e~<.evea,51
~<.elevet, 67
l<.eAEVOI, 67, 113, 360 l<.eAEVOlflEV, 67 K.eft[tc;, 74 K.ev(ef)6c;, 73 I<.EOVrctl, 120
oy8o~K.OVrct, 106, 107
6y8oroc;, 107,147
~<.evew, 51
6y~<.oc;, 51
K.6lvt-tf3oc;, 76
6yft0c;, 52 o86v, 103
-K.Ovra:, 107 1<.6pa{, 352 K.opwV'l, 352 1<.0Gfl1'/Gle, 114 ~<.parae;, 74 ~<.peftctrctl, u5 ~<.portw, 74 ~<.vcloc;, 31 I<.VWV, 74 I<.WA~V,74
Aita:c;, 147 Mew, 51 AtAiXOa, 51 Ml110a, 51
laerpox6oc;, 115 laew, 115 MXft'1• 51 Mw, u5 AVOlfll, U4 AVO'CtlflEV, U3 AVGO:lfll, 114 lvaatre, 113 lvaetav, 113, 346 lvw,u5
ftct[VOftctl, 3S0 t-te8-, 132 f'EOtev, U9 t-telc;, U2
~<.tarat, u7
~iXc;,352
I<.El-, 117
t-t'18-, 132
6{oc;, 52., 1So, 366
ol, 407 ol8a, 34, 373 ol1<.01, 67, 346 oiK.Ot, 67, 346 oil<.~, 346 6ii;, 366 olwv6c;, 52 6K.ptc;, 51 6loc;, 319 dftrp~, 1S2 6wxta0e, 67 6wxp, 52 ove(Je[K.aev, U9 oveOetK.ctV, 119 6V1'/'r0, 220 6VOftct, 330, 3SS 6VOftctl, 379, 3SS o{v'1, 329 6nt0e(v), 329 o11'6c;, 319
om6c;,366 oJrV[W, 365 01rW1r~, 52
6pyvta, 347 opyvtiXc;, 34S optyw, 365 6pvtc;, 365, 366 6pvvov, 120
Index
521
6ppo~, 52, 366
rrfvw, 378
opvaaw, 366
rrlavpe~, 129
arrev8w, 377 arropa, 320, 331
opq){X.VO~, 52, 365
rrlrvruu, 129
arorxo~.
6pxe~~. 329
IIM:mta, 115
arparayo~. 51
lJpXJ~. 52, 365
1rAE1GW, 31
arpwro~. 107
6pwpa, 366 6(J(Je, 112, 155, 156 oareov, 52, 180, 321,
trA.~vro, 120
365,366 oiJpo~, 366 oiJ~, 52 orpp~. 18o 6xo~. 31 rratav, 76 trat8evol, 346 1rOtV, 145 rravv, 42
rrapal, 69 rrapeiGd:A.eav, 119 trOt~, 145> 147
rranfp, 144, 170 rrarpl, 170 rrarpo~. 144
rrel8w, 75, 102 rreiapa, 74
trA.~ro, 237
avve8eav, 118 aqn, 370, 407
trlptrpruu, 379 rrolevm, 119
awnfpwv, 71
rrotiGlA.o~, 70
raM~, 12.0 ravao~. 115
rav6ovro, 120, 127 rav6ovm, 120 TavvTal, 127
rroA.v,92 troA.vv, 92 rroA.v~. 92 rrop8p6~, 51
rrerrape~. 129
rrev8opal, 75 trerpvmCJl, 117 tr~YvVfU, 61
32
1r0v~, 74
rrplavro, 120 rrp61Ga, 75 rrpoarp8la, 343 TtpOTr{Vf, 118 rrp6rt8ev, 119 rrporl8evro, 119 rrporpepw, 214
rerayuw, 221, 222 rerpWIGOVTa, 62, 107 rerrapa1Govra,1o6 re6xw. 76 rt Beam, 118 rt8eiev, 113, 114, 135,
1r0Tft0~, 51
m~(J(JW, 51
rreaavpe~. 129
ravpo~,
re8vam, 118 re8vr{m, 373 rtiGrwv, 31, 132, 133,
mwaaw, 51
rreropat, 379
70
1r0lft~V, 31, 51, 2.02
1rEVT~IGOVTa, 62, 106,
107, 223
awr~po~.
trotpalvw, 202
rreA.A.a~. 74
rrerraya, 51 rretrr{ya, 51 tretrA.r{yov, 163 rrerrot8a, 51, 102 rrerrpaya, 102 rrerrpa1Gmt, 102 rrerrpaxa. 102 rrepuetev, 114
321
1W8p~v, 197 1rVpo~. 73
1rWV, 31, 51 MYvVfU, 102 Myvvvro, 12.0 P1'fYvVCJl, 120 p1'f1GCJatev, 114 af3evwfU, 363 CJ/31'{-. 132 aevopal, 38 oifpepov, 323 07<:tllW, 376
222
346 Tl8E£1'f~• 114 Tl8EiftEV, 68 rt8ercn, 118, 119, 120 rt8eire, 114 rl8evcn, 119 rl8evrt, 118, 119 rl8eaav, 119 rl81'fpl, 34. 12.8, 33 5, 380 T{ IGTW, 132, 133
rlvw, 75 rorxo~. 74
07<:t&, 320, 331
rpla, 105, 107 Tpl&IGOV'HX, 62, 106,
CJOl, 370 arrelpw, 376
rporpo~. 51
107, 108, 155
Index
522
rpvrpfxAe1a, 108 TVICOt;, 76
Vedic/Sanskrit
vy1~t;, 115
142, 161, 214, 357. 384 abhai~ma, 126 abhai~ur, 126 abhaf'$am, 126 acait, 136 aciiri~am, 126 achiinta, 126 achiintsur, 126 adadhur, 111, 117 adardar, 236 adardhar, 133 iidat, 84 addh£, 237 adhanvi~ur, 127 adharat, 69 adhat, 219, 227 adhur, 111, 117, 219, 227 admi, 101 ad-mi, 398 adrsran, 83 adya, 122 adyaut, 136 agan, 136 agrabhl~ma, 127 ahaf'$am, 126 ahuvat, 84 aima, 161 ais, 161 ait, 161 aita, 161 aja, 180 ajai~am, 126 ajai~ma, 126, 127 ajiinan, 237 ajani, 81, 83, 84 ajas, 18o ajati, 389 ajigharrtSat, 139
Mar-, 92
Mwp, 92, 403 (Jv(Jefxvrw, 118, 120 {)rrelfU, 213 {}rrvot;, 319 vrpatvw, 31 vrp~. 75 {)w, 377, 378 rpa11e6t;, 76 rp~{VOf«XI, 380 rpapa, 51 rpfxpot;, 73 rpeU6t;, 74 rpepw, 34. 93 rptpwv, 146 'P~It'1· 51, 52 'P'1ftl, 51, 52, 76 rp1Aew, 202 rplAot;, 42, 202, 408 rpof{3ot;, 76 rpoMt;, 74 rpvyfi, 346 rpwv~, 51, 52 xatpw, 380 115 xetp, 331
xer-,
x~pa,75 x8tt;, 363 x86vwt;, 363 XP~,42 WIC6t;, 49 wAtv'1, 365, 366 &)pvvov, 120 wp6t;, 52 &)varo, 220
wpro, 365
a, 48, 52, 81, 114, 117,
ajma-, 52 ajras, 32 akiini~am, 126
akar, 125 akiiri, 81 akiiri~am, 126
akarma, 125 akarta, 125 akhyat, 84 akriimat, 136 akramlm, 126 akrami~am, 126
akramlt, 136 akran, 125 akriin, 136 akrata,117,127,134, 135
akri, 81, 82, 84 aqi, 155 aqf. 155 aqitzz, 155 iiq~ur, 127, 134. 135 amiidi~ur, 126
ama/:1, 52 amandi~ur, 127 amanthi~fiim, 127
amatsur, 127 amoci, 84 amrta, 83 anart~ur,
anaf,
127
214
anind~ur, 127
anti, 170 antra-, 122 antra-, 76 apiidi, 83 apaptan, 133 apaptat, 133 apiivi~ur,
126
aplpatat, 133 iipn6ti, 378 apriik~am, 126
Index
523
apriif, 151 araik, 48, 136 ariij~ur, 12.7
ariitzi$ur, 12.6 arata, 117, 12.7, 134> 135 ariivi$ur, 12.6 asalflS~am,
12.6
asiini$am, 12.6 asat, 12.6 iisata, 127, 134, 135 asiiv~ur,
12.6
ase, 81 asi, 81 a5tmahi, 128, 134 a5ttf-, 107, 147 asmahe, 81 asmahi, 81 aspiir$am, 12.6 asrgran,83 ~fa,
12.7, 134 aste, 384 asthiit, 2.27 asthur, 127, 134> 135 asur, 127, 134 asvait, 136 asviir$tiim, 12.6 asyiin, 136 at-, 379 atak$i$ur, 12.7 atiir~ma, 12.6, 12.7 atiir~ur, 12.6 iitma. 344 iitmanam, 344 ava-(gir-), 330 aviid~ur, 12.6 avedam, 235 avidat, 48 avi/:1. 47, 32.5 avi$ta(na), 12.7 avi$tam, 12.7 avi$tiim, 12.7 iiVi$UY, 12.7
:! • av1vasa, 142. iivfviisant-, 142. iivfviisat, 142. iivfviisiit, 142. aviviiset, 142. avocat, 132, 136, 140,
379.381
avran, 117, 134> 135 avri, 84 iivrtzi, 82. avrtzi, 84 avrta, 2.2.0, 233 ayam,32.3,32.6 ayam, 161 ayiirrtSam, 12.6 ayan, 114> 161 ayiisam, 12.6 ayiisur, 12.7 ayu, 52 ayuji, 84 ayujran, 83 baddha-, 12.3 bandha-, 74 bhaas-, 67 bhiigineyaka-, 12.2. bhajyate, 123 bharan, 147 bharantl/:1, 141 bharat, 100 bharat-, 147 bharati, 100, 101, 141 bharti, 100 bhas-, 67 bhastrii, 12.2. bhrt£-, 413 bhugna-, 176 bhuviini, 12.6 bfbharti, 100, 141 bibheti, 2.12. bfbhrati, 128 bfbhratlr, 141 b6dhati, 75
bodh£, 182. budhya-, 380 budhyate, 43 candra-, 12.2. can~tam, 12.7
carkiran, 133 caru-, 75. 413 carvati, 123 cti$te, 132. cayate, 75 cay~tam, 12.7
chidyate, 12.2. ciketam, 12.6 crtanty, 98 cyavate, 38 dadiiti, 377. 389 dadhiimi, 12.8 dadhat, 111, 117, 12.8, 129, 136
dadhat-, 12.9 dadhati, 111, 117, 12.8, 129, 136
dadhiiti, 389 dadhi, 12.3 daqate, 132, 2.2.2. dardar, 133 daru, 144 d~fi, 132, 136, 2.2.2.
davidyot, 133 davidyutat, 133 daya-, 381 dayate, 43 dediSam, 131, 133 dev( 85 dhii-, 427 dhiirU-, 74 dhiisur, 12.7 dhayati, 74 dheyiim, 112., 114. 12.8, 134. 231
dheyur, 112., 128, 12.9, 135. 231
Index
524
dhr1fa-, 122 dhUr, 117 dfdh~iimi, 128
dlyate, 122
hinv~. 82
hlyate, 75 hrh 413 hf'$ya-, 380
driik~a,122
huv~. 82
dfhya-, 380 dr6s, 144 dfti-, 413 dugdhtf/:l, 121
hyab. 363 i-, 161, 427
duM,384
dva, 122 dv~an, 147 dv~at-, 147
dvitfya-, 122 dya-, 381 dyati, 43 ebhfs, 41 gamat, 357 gam~. 112 gam~yam,
112,128,
134 gam~~am, 127
gamyas, 112 gange, 70, 344 gati-, 413 gaus, ss. 68 gaya-, 75 ghtfnighnat, 216 ghiisa-, 122 ghft~i-, 413
grabh-, 377 grabht~fa, 127
grasa-, 122 grbhna-, 127 grhtf-, 76, 329 grhnati, 123 htfnti, 101, 216 htfnu-, 413 htfri-, 413 harh413
hasur, 127 hirtJSi~fa, 127
{~fi-, 413
iyam, 323, 326 jagat, 133, 134 jahati, 133 jajnau, 359 jiinanti, 237 janati, 359 jangha, 123 janghanti, 216 janghanti, 236 jiiri~ur, 127
jasate, 363 jasu-, 413 jeyam, 126, 131, 221 jeyma, 126, 127 jfgiisi, 141 jfgiiti, 133. 134. 141 jfghii171sati, 139 jfghnate, 101 jfghrati, 141 jfhfte, 133 jihva, 124 jtraka-, 124 jfti-, 413 jtva-, 123 jtvaltf-, 123 jtvas, us jfvati, 123 jman, 73 juh6mi, 135 juh6ti, 133, 135, 140 juhumas, 133, 135, 140 juhvati, 133, 135, 140 karad, 100 karab, 1oo
karat, 100 karate, 99 karati, 99 karo, 99 kartavya-, 122, 123 karya-, 123 kiiS-, 132 khtfnati, 389 khyam, 126 krami~fam, 127
krant-, 129 kranta, 115, 117, 127, 129,134 k~am-,363 k~ayati, 38 k~~ti. 38 k~iyanti, 117
kupya-, 380 lubhya-, 380 madan, 100 madhu-, 413 majjati, 389 miirtJSam, 321 manya-, 380 mardh~tam, 127
mar~fi, 132, 136
mas, 55 min6ti, 379 minati, 388 mi~ati, 98 nagnas, 55, 68 nahyati, 387 nai~fa, 127
nama,388 narp.Si, 81 naJ-, 127 naJan, 127,134,135 nasanta, 127, 134> 135 naSimahi, 128, 134 nay-, 376 nl-, 427 nlyate, 124
Index
525
pad-, 74 padam, 55, 68 pajas-, 61 pajas, 61, 346 pajasya-, 61 pajra-, 61, 63, 108 pajras, 346 pak~a-, 61 pak~as-, 61
pak#n-, 61 panthaam, 67 pantham, 67, 348 panthas, 348 papaje, 61 papatan, 133 patar-, 348 patati, 379 pathas, 348 path[$u, 348 pati-, 75 patra-, 74 pfbati, 38, 6 5, 141, 222,
sarva-, 319 sas-, 132 sascati, 132, 134. 135. 140,222
-sat, 106 saye,384 sayya, 122, 123 si-, 378, 380 sidati, 98 sf/qam, 126 si~-. 132 s~akti, 101, 132, 134.
140,222
s~aya,378
sivyati, 122
tu~ya-,
snati, 32.0 snava,388 s6cati, 329 spha(ya)-, 378
udvartana-, 122 utpadyate, 123 uvaca,379.381 uyate, 12.4 vadhlm, 126
sram~ma, 127
ratz~tana, 127
sto~am,
sukha-, 143 sum1s, 39 s(u)van-, 74 suyate, 124 sva-pati-, 75 svayam, 330 sveda-, 319 §veta-, 76 syati, 43, 381
ravi~am,
126, 131
rcchati, 103, 375 rirthi, 133 ru-, 126 sa-, 378, 380 sacate, 101 sahyu-, 413 sama-, 74 santi, 117 sarasvati, 70, 344 sarpfs, 333
t~thati, 98
tmana, 344 tmane, 344 tritfl5at, 155 thya-, 380 tUbhyam, 369 tudati, 93, 97, 98,380 U,42
ranta, 115, 117, 127, 134 rarate, 133
prayi~tha-, 67
t~fi, 125, 132, 136, 221
tat, 70,344 tatane, 83 tatne, 83 tavet, 70, 344
snath~tana, 127
prqtha-, 67 proa-, 219 proanti, 219
pitar-, 348
tar~tam, 127
tasthe, 82
snath~tam, 127
srjanti, 99 srjanty, 98 sruyate, 124 stauti, 132, 136 stave, 384 sthUr, 134
249
tan-, 413
126, 131, 221
tak~ati, 111, 117, 125,
132, 135. 221 tak~ur, 111, 117, 125
tala-, 76
380
vadhi~ta(na), 127 vadhi~tam, 127
vahati, 389 vahni-, 413 vaidya-, 123 vak, 56,84 vap-,376 vapati, 32, 75 VaS-,379 vasudhiti/:1, 121 vasutti/:1, 121 vati, 378 vatsa-, 321 vavaca,379.381 vavaqi, 133 vidyat, 114 vitfl5atf, 155 vi~am, 157
visanti, 99
Index
526
vfvakti, 132, 136, 140, 379
vfviisati, 142 ViVfl$fi, 133 v6cati, 49, 132, 140 v6ciiti, 49, 132, 140 vran, 117, 134 vro-, 233 vroe, 82 vyaghra-, 122 yii, 151, 161,325 yii-, 161 yti, 122, 325 yiibha-, 122 yah, 122 yajnopavlta-, 122 yajyu-, 413 yamah, 325 yamah, 325 yamune, 70, 344 yant-, 129 yanti, 129, 135 yasati, 325 yata/:1, 122 yati, 325
yuyot, 133 yuy6ti, 133 Prakrit
dijjai', 122 sejjii, 122 Pall
bhiigineyya-, 122 diyyati, 122 matteyya-, 122 peyya-, 123 suyyati,12.4 Hindi
ghora, 61 Panjabi
kora, 61 Sindhi iit~t;lro, 122
a'ju,122 bakhu, 121 bath!, 122 bhiit~ejo, 122
bha'jatJU, 123 cat~t;lru, 122
kii'ju, 123 miifrejo, 122 nijatJU, 124 pe'ja, 123 pe'jl, 123 pe'jo, 123 pe'ju, 123 seja, 122, 123 sibat~u, 122
su'jat~u, 12.4
upa'jatJU, 123 u'bafatJU, 122 u'jatJU, 12.4 wiighu, 122 we'ju, 123 'ba, 122 'badhO, 123 'bakhu, 121 'bijo, 122 't;lahl, 123 't;liatJU, 122 't;lijatJU, 122 't;lifhO, 121 gacu, 121 giihu, 61, 122
yau~tam, 127
ca'bat~u, 123
ginhat~u, 123
ya~ur,
chi'jat~u, 122
'jangha, 123 'jail, 121 'jibha, 124
127
yauti, 325 yiivi~tam, 127
y6dhati, 325 yodh~tam, 127 y6/:l, 325 y6jii, 132 yojam, 132
t;l ifhO, 121, 122 t;l riikha, 122 gacu, 121 giihu, 61, 122 jii,122
jiihu, 122 jatJ)'0,122
yo~am, 126, 131
jail, 121
yo~fa, 127
jiat~u, 123
yo~tam, 127
jiaro, 123 jlro, 12.4 jlu, 123 jo, 122 katabu, 122, 123
yu-, 127 yudhya-, 380 yukta/:1, 121 yunajmi, 132 yuvam, 370
Avestan
aojl, 81 aSt, 171
asibyii, 155 asicii, 155 ayar-, 325 dade, 83 dugdar-, 4 aroniivl, 83 hizubiS, 155 jaini, 83 kainibya, 155
Index
mazdaam, 67 mitda-, 75 paOaam, 67 sae-, 75 sriivi, 83 saiti-, 75 syeitibyo, 155 tanusicii, 155 Oraosti-, 74 urlyeiti, 217 viicl, 83 varlaiti, 217 varane, 83 xviticii, 155 yiista-, 325 yus, 325 zamar, 73, 77 Persian
adar5iy, 81 TocharianA
iiknats, 145 iilak, 145 iilkont, 145 iilyiik, 145 alyakyartt, 145 iilyek, 145 iimpi, 156 iimpuk, 157 asartt, 156 cacal, 162, 163 cark, 160 ciirk-, 162 ciirkar, 160 ciirkat, 160 cas-, 132, 140, 152, 222 crank-, 162 crankar, 160 crankiis, 160 eyii, 159
eyiir, 159 i-, 161, 427
527
kiik, 159 kakal, 162 kaklyu$U, 162 kakmu, 162 kalpiit, 160 kartt, 146 kiimat, 160 kantwiifi, 145 kanwertt, 15 6 karsiit, 16o kars~, 161
karyii, 159 katak, 159 katansa, 159 kefiii, 159 klyo$. 144, 159. 160, 163
klyo$ii, 159. 160 kniinat, 359 kortt, 146 kos, 146 krasar, 160 kropat, 159 kropfiiit, 159 ku, 145.146 k';;le, 149 k';;lewiifi, 149 k';;lewiis, 149 k';;li, 149 kuryar, 146 liint, 144 lantsafi, 145 lyiik, 160, 162 lyiik-, 162 lyiikar, 160 lyalyam, 162 lyalymii-, 162 lyokant, 151 lyokat, 151, 152 mii, 143 nak-, 152 nakant, 151
nakat, 151, 152 nanmu, 162 fiom, 388 okat, 145 oktats, 145, 147 oktuk, 145 pak-, 152 pakant, 151 pakat, 151, 152 pakku, 162 palkiit, 160 pan, 143 piir-, 162 piirant, 160 piirat, 160, 162 por, 146, 147 pracar, 143 prakar, 151 prakas, 151 prakii$t, 151 prakwii, 151 p';;kal, 143 risiint, 151 risiit, 151 risiite, 151 rise, 151 $iik, 146, 151 sak-, 162 siikant, 160 salJr, 162 salpat, 160 $iilyp, 319, 333 sartt, 146 sartt, 149 $iiptuk, 145 sars, 160 siirs-, 162 siirsar, 160 sas, 146 sasars, 163 sa§mu, 162 siispartw$u, 162
Index
528
siispartwu, 162 sa§r(4t, 162 $em, 159 $emas, 159 $efic, 159 sep-, 162 separ, 160 $q, 159 $et, 159 $k~t, 146
ske-, 382, 427 sniis, 145. 149 sne, 149 snu, 149 somartt, 145 sparcwatar, 89, 143 spiirtwa$, 143 $pat, 145 stwar, 146 suk,143 tii-, 132, 140, 153. 222 tiiki$, 161 tamant, 151 tamat, 151, 152 tarkar, 160 tiis-, 132, 140, 153, 156, 222
tas-, 132, 140, 153, 222 tiisenc, 153 tim, 156 tirtt, 156 tsak-, 152 tsakant, 151 tsakar, 160 tsakat, 151, 152 tskiit, 160 wiik-, 377 wal, 144 want, 143 was, 151, 159. 388 was-, 152 w~t,
143
wawik, 162 wawu, 151 we, 156, 160 wenii-, 16o weniir, 160 wewnu, 162 wiki, 156, 157 wmiir, 146 wsii, 151 wsar, 151 W$e, 143 wu, 145.156 yii, 151, 161, 325 yiimte, 151 yiimtsiint, 151 yiimtsiit, 151 yiimtse, 151 yiimwe, 151 yar-, 375 yem, 159 yenc, 159 ye$,159 yet, 159 ysiir, 146 ytiir, 145 yuk, 157
TocharianB ai~i, 159
akniitsa, 145 allek, 145 allok, 145 allonk, 145 allonkna, 145 alyaik, 145 alyiik, 145 alyek, 145 alyok, 145 antapi, 156 iintpi, 156 ciila, 162, 163 ce, 324
certt, 324 ces-, 221, 222 cey, 324 ersamai, 151 d(a)ne, 156 ikartt, 107, 157 ikartt, 156 iyartt, 161 lyoy, 161 kalp(4$i, 159 kantwa, 145 kantwartttsa, 145 kantwo, 145 karsanoyertt, 159 karyor, 146 kiiswo, 145 katsiin, 145 kiitso, 145 kekamu, 162 keklyaU$U, 162 kene, 146 kenl(ne), 156 klai, 149 klairtt, 149 klain, 149 klaina, 149 kllye, 149, 150 klyau$a, 144, 160, 162 klyaU$im, 159 klyiye, 149, 150 klyomo, 144 klyomortt, 144 klyomont, 144 kraupiyentar, 159 kwertt, 146 liinte, 144 liintsa, 145 lantsona, 145 lkii$yel'fl, 159 lkoyentar, 159 lyiika, 162, 163 lyakii-, 163
Index
lyiimate, 162. lyawii-, 163 lyelyku, 162. miiskwo, 145 fiem, 388 fiefimu, 162. okt, 145 oktanka, 145 oktatse, 145 ost, 52, 143 papeku, 162. paspiirttau, 162. peypirttu, 162. pikul, 143 piS, 143 po, 145,147 pone, 145 ponta, 145 prekar, 151 prekasta, 151 preksa, 151 prekwa, 151 priyertt, 159 procer, 143 puwar, 146, 147 pwiiri(ne), 156 reki, 56 sii,32.4
$ai, 159 $aicer, 159 $aim, 159 $ait, 159 sakw, 143 $alype, 319, 333 sana, 145· 149 sana, 146 sano, 145. 149 siirla, 163 $arya, 145 saumortt, 145 scdcamu, 162. $e, 146
529
se, 32.4 sem, 132.,136 $ertt, 159 $ey, 159 $eycer, 159 $eyem, 159 $eyertt, 159 $eym, 159 skai-, 382., 42.7 $kas, 146, 151 $kaste, 146, 151 skiyo, 32.0 snai, 149, 342. snona, 145· 149 $fior, 388 snoy, 145 soy-, 376 $partt~$Cirtt, 143
sporttotar, 89, 143 stwer, 146 $Ukt, 145 $Uktanka, 145 tii-, 132., 140, 153· 2.2.2. tii,32.4
tai, 156 taniifi, 145 tiino, 145 tarkanoym, 159 taryiika, 107 tiis-, 132., 140, 153. 2.2.2. tasertt, 153 ta§i, 2.2.2. tatt-, 2.2.2. te, 32.4 tek-, 2.2.2. teks-, 2.2.2. tes-, 132, 140, 152, 2.2.2. toy, 32.4 tsiiro, 145 tsyiira, 162. walo, 144 warner, 146
was-, 152. wasa, 151 wasam, 151 wase, 157 wefia, 162. Wey$i, 159 wewefiu, 162. wi, 156 wsare, 151 WSa$$Cil'fl, 161 wsiista, 151 wsiiwa, 151 W$1ya, 161 W$iyau, 161 yai, 159 yaicer, 159 yaika, 162. yaim, 159 yait, 159 yakwe, 157 yam~$a,
160 160 yam~$ate, 160 yam~$i, 160 yam~$itar, 160 yam~$are,
yasa,388 yasar, 146 yertt, 159 yente, 143 yey, 159 yeycer, 159 yeyem, 159 yeyertt, 159 y$iye, 143 ytiirye, 146 Hittite
ii(i)-, 383 a-, 41 ais, 367 ais-, 368 iik-, 373. 375
Index
530
akk-, 373, 375 alpa-, 367 alpa-, 37 ammuk, 369, 372 aniya-, 365, 366, 368 ans-, 32, 378
apa-, 41
app-, 378 appa-, 378 appi-, 378 ar-, 366, 368, 375, 383 ar-, 366, 375 arai-, 368, 378 ari-, 378 ark-, 365, 375, 377, 383 ark-, 368, 375, 377, 383 arki-, 365, 366, 368 arnu-, 368 arr-, 373, 375 arr-, 373, 375 arra-, 366 arta, 365, 368 aru-, 368 au-, 373, 375 d-, 377
da-, 377, 389 dahhi,94 dai-, 373, 379, 380 dai, 385 dai-, 389 dakk-, 377 dakk-,377 dukk-ari, 383 dukkari, 384 ekku-, 48 epp-,378 epzi, 213, 301 eS-, 383 esa(n), 384 dhar, 146 dmi,94 ha-, 368
ha-ik-ta, 367 ha-in-kan-ta, 367 halai-, 378, 379 halhaltumar, 365 hali-, 378, 379 halihla-, 379 halihli-, 379 halije!a-, 379 haliya-, 365, 368 haliya-, 366 hallanna!i-, 368 halzai-, 378 halzai-, 383 halzi-, 378, 383 halzija, 383 halzija-, 383 hamank-, 373, 378 hame!ink-, 373, 378 han-, 375 han-, 375 hann-, 379 hanna-, 365, 368, 379 happ-, 383 happar, 365 happar, 366, 368 happar-, 368 hap(pa)rae-, 368 hap(pa)rie-, 368 happariye-, 368 happena-, 366 happeriya-, 366 happinahhahhi, 98, 382
happinant-, 365 hapus-, 365 hapusa-, 368 hapzi,366 haran-, 365 haran-, 366, 368 haraf, 366 harg(a)nau, 365 harg(a)nau-, 368
hari-, 366 hariya-, 366 hark-, 365, 368 harnau-, 368 harp-, 365, 368, 383 harr-, 375 harra-, 32, 375 harf-, 378 hartu-, 368 has-, 376 haSduer, 366 hasduer-, 368 hasS-, 376 haStai, 365, 366 hastai-, 368 hat-, 376 hat-, 376 hatk-, so, 376 hatt-, 383 hawi-, 365 hawi-, 366, 368 hekur, 367 henk-, 367 huett-, 383 huetti-, 383 hui-, 378 hulana-, 47 huliya-, 47 humant-, 42 hupp-, 376 hurt-, 376 huwai-, 378 huwapp-, 376 huwart-, 376 ishai-, 378, 380 ishamai-, 378 ishami-, 378 ishi-, 378, 380 ishui-, 378 ishuwai-, 378 iskall-, 376 iskalla-, 376
Index
iskar-, 377 iskar-, 377 ispai-, 378 ispant-, 377 ispiint-, 377 ispar-, 376 ispiir-, 376 isparr-, 376 isparra-, 376 ispi-, 378 iStap-, 373, 377 istapp-, 373, 377 istu-ari, 383 istuari, 384 kii-, 41 kalank-, 378 kank-, 377 kiink-, 377 kariip-, 377 kare!ip-, 377 karp-, 383 ki-, 383 kikkiS-, 383 kiS-, 38, 363, 383 kzs-, 383 kiSt-ari, 383 kitta(ri), 115, 384 kiyanta(ri), 115 l-, 376 lii-, 376 lag-iiri, 383 lahu-, 377, 379 liihu-, 377, 379 lak-, 377 liik-, 377 liiman, 368, 388 lilahu-, 379 lilhui-, 373, 379 lilhuwa-, 373, 379 lukezzi, 93 lukk-, 383 mai-, 378
531
mald-, 376 mald-, 376 malk-, 376 miilk-, 376 mall-, 376 malla-, 32, 376 mark-, 377 mark-, 377 mau-, 376 maz-, 378 merna-, 373, 379 memi-, 373, 379 mi-, 378 mi-ari, 383 mimm-, 379 mimma-, 379 mu-, 376 nah-,376 nahh-, 376 nai-, 376 ne-, 383 newahhi, 93 ni-, 376 padd-, 376 padda-, 376 pahS-, 378, 383 pai-, 373, 378 piii, 385 piiimi, 94 papra-, 379 papre-, 98 papri-, 379 par-, 376 para-, 376 parai-, 379 pari-, 379 parip(p)ara-, 379 parip(p)ari-, 379 park-, 383 pars-, 383 parlha(ri), 383 parsi-, 383
par5ija, 383 parlija-, 383 parlzi, 383 pa5-, 378, 379 pas-, 378, 379 pa5k-, 376 pask-, 376 pattai-, 379 patti-, 379 ped-, 377 peda-, 377 penna-, 377 penni-, 377 pi-, 373> 378 pihhi, 94 pipp-, 379 pippa-, 379 pukk-,383 sah-, 376 sai-, 32, 379 sakk-, 376 sakk-, 376 salik-, 383 sann-, 378 sanna-, 378 sar-, 383 sariip-, 377 sare!ip-, 377 sarr-, 377 sa"-· 377 sart-, 377 sarta-, 377 sehur, 367 si-, 379 siSh-, 380 siSha-, 380 siSzi, 98 suhh-,377 suhha-, 377 sunn-, 378 sunna-, 378 supp-,383
Index
532
ta, 44 tiiiSta-, 380 tiiiSti-, 380 tarai-, 379 tari-, 379 tarn-, 373, 378 tarna-, 373, 378 tarniii, 385 tarupp-, 383 ter-, 49 ti-, 373. 379. 380 tith-a, 383 titta-, 380 titti-, 380 tuhS-, 383 tuk, 372 u-, 373,375 ud-, 377 uda-, 377 uk, 372 unna-, 377 unni-, 377 ur-iiri, 383 wai-, 377, 380 wiik-, 377 wakk-, 377 wakk-iiri, 383 war5-, 378, 383 was-, 378 wa5sezzi, 9 3 waft-,377 wa5ta-, 377 weh-, 383 wekk-, 379 wds-, 383 weten-, 388 wewakk-, 379 wi-, 377, 380 wiwa-, 380 wiwi-, 380 ziih-, 377 zahh-, 377
zai-, 379 ze-, 383 zi-, 379 zik, 372 Pal.aic kltar, 384
Luwian karf-, 38, 363 kattawatnalli-, 38, 363 kiS-, 38, 363, 383 pappas-,38 Lycian epirije-, 368 kbatra, 347 Finnish aja-, 38, 389 han, 398, 416
hepo, 181 kakra, 180 kaly, 390 laulavat, 397 miekka, 189 mya-, 388 myy-, 388 niehla, 189 nimi, 388 nito-, 387 pala-n, 129 suoni, 388 talo, 129 taloi-, 41, 129 talot, 41,129 teke-, 179, 389 tuo-, 179, 377, 389 vaski, 388 vesi, 388 veta-, 38, 389 vie-, 38, 389 vihlata, 302, 307 viikko, 172, 185
Estonian moske-, 38, 389 Lappish/Saami duoke-, 179 puolam, 129 Mordvin Tern, 388 mije-, 388 muJke-, 389 muJko-, 389 san, 388 t'eje-, 389 tije-, 389 tuje-, 389 uJke,388 vaaa-, 389 vat'e-, 389 vee(, 388 ved'a-, 389 vet'a-, 389 vije-, 389 viSka, 388 vit'i-, 389 Votyak!Udmurt m_iSk-, 389 nim, 388 S§n, 388 vaj-, 389 ve§, 388 vu, 388 Ziryene/Komi kundj-, 389 voj-, 389 Hwtgarian hany-, 389 {n, 388 karja, 96 karod, 96 karom, 96
Index
mos-, 389 nev, 388 tesz-, 389 te(v)-, 389 toj-, 377 varni, 96 varod, 96 varok, 34> 96 varo-k, 97 varom, 34, 96, 97 vartal, 96 vas,388 vesz-, 389 ve(v)-, 389 vezet-, 389 visz-, 389 vi(v)-, 389 vfz, 388 Vogul/Mansi kon-, 389 ma(J)-, 388 maj-, 388 mi-, 378, 388 wojt-, 389 wujt-, 389 Ostyak/Hanty kjtJ-, 389 nem, 388 tu-, 389 Yurak/Nenets adm, 103 madii,97 madiida, 97 madiidm, 96, 97 mada-i-n, 12.9 madiin, 96 madiiu, 96,97 tii-, 389 Tavgi/Nganasan basa, 388
533
beda-, 388 be?, 388 nim, 388 tar.Ja, 388 Yenisei!Enets mife-, 388 mota, 97 motadd-o, 96 motara, 97 motaro', 97 musua-, 389 Selkup noa-k, 97 noal, 96 noand,96 noap,97 noed,97 noe-k, 97 Gilyak/Nivkh cfax, 407 ci, 406 tin, 406 csad; 407 CYIJ, 406 fid; 408, 423 h-, 407
i, 406,407 ibax, 407 iaad; 407 if, 406,407 im1J, 406 imy, 406 in, 406 ifn, 406 iv-, 407 iVIJ, 406 iyd; 405 j-, 407
jar.J, 406 k'u-, 405
me-, 406 mege, 406 megi, 406 memak,4o6 men, 407 me1J,406 mer, 406 mefn, 406 min, 406 mir, 406 mifn, 406 ni, 406 nin, 406 nivx,4os nvax,407 riytj,406,407 flytJbax, 407 flytJtfatf, 407 nzatf, 407 ozmud; 408 p'ezmutf, 408 p'i-, 407 p'i1J, 408, 423 p'sad; 407
pax,4o7 ra, 408 raxyla, 408 t-, 407 zad; 407 Turkish beg, 58 Mongolian ci, 416,424 ese, 417, 427 ta, 416, 424 Japanese hanasanai, n hanase, 11 hanasi, 11 hanasoo, 11
Index
534
hanasu, n hasi, 344 ni, 417,426 no, 417,426 Georgian c~al-i, 102 c~al-ma, 102
lam-s, 101 deda-s, 102 duy-s, 102 gaepara, 375 gaeparat, 375 iduy-a, 102 is, 102 it'ir-a, 102 man, 102 modi-s, 101 mosul-a, 101 movid-a, 101 selam-a, 101 seulami-a, 101 svil-i, 102 t'i ri-s, 10 2 txa-m, 101 txa-s, 101 uq'var-s, 102 vamzadeb, 103, 384 vemzadebi, 103, 384 venax-i, 101 venax-s, 101 vimzadeb, 103, 384 Kabardian siile-m, 94 siile-r, 94 txaA.~m, 94 txaA.~r, 94
Avar tiis:a, 14 xcis:ab, 14
xasel, 14
Akkadian ~arapu,
33
Hebrew ~arap,33
Arabic
farasu, 92 farasun, 92 Maltese missier, 348
Berber a:?arif, 32 a:?ref, 32 Basque
aihen, 32 ayen, 32 zillar,32 BellaCoola
txt, 10 Heiltsuk
qqs, 10
