System PIE The Primary Phoneme Inventory and Sound

Transcription

SystemPIE
ThePrimaryPhonemeInventoryandSound
LawSystemforProto-Indo-European
JounaPyysalo
ACADEMIC DISSERTATION
To be publicly discussed, by due permission of the Faculty of Arts
of the University of Helsinki, in Porthania P III,
Yliopistonkatu3,onthe22ndofNovember,2013,at10o’clock
Publications of the Institute for Asian and African Studies 15
ISBN978-952-10-9303-6(paperback)
ISBN978-952-10-9304-3(PDF)
http://ethesis.helsinki.fi
ISSN1458-5359
UnigrafiaOy
Helsinki2013
2
Der wahre Grund, warum es Comte nicht gelang, ein unlösbares Problem zu finden,
besteht meiner Meinung nach darin, daß es ein unlösbares Problem überhaupt nicht
gibt. Statt des törichten Ignorabimus heiße im Gegenteil unsere Lösung: Wir müssen
wissen,Wirwerdenwissen.
DAVIDHILBERT
NaturerkennenundLogik(1930)
3
A BSTRACT
TheIndo-Europeansoundlawsarethebestknownofalllanguagefamilies.Yetmany
soundlawsremainincompletelyformulatedduetoafailureintheinterpretationof
theOldAnatolianlaryngeal.Thepostulationofmultiplelaryngeals(atleastthreein
themainstreamlaryngealtheory)hasledtoasignificantdetourinthereconstruction
ofProto-Indo-European(PIE).
A single laryngeal PIE * R i. was already discovered by Ladislav Zgusta
(1951),however,andsubsequentlyitwasconfirmedbyJohannTischler(1977ff.).The
current dissertation studies unexplored properties of PIE * and demonstrates that
this laryngeal had a voiceless (PIE *h) and a voiced (PIE *Y) variant with glottal
fricativearticulation.PIE*appearswithPIE*aindiphonemicPIE*aand*a.
This solution to the laryngeal problem allows for a clarification of the
relationship between PIE *h/Y and the rest of the phoneme inventory. Segmental
analysis results in System PIE, the primary phoneme inventory for Proto-IndoEuropeanconsistingof
?
PIE*a/
*e/*h/Y*i/¾*k/g*l/Ä*m/Ç*n/É*o/*p/b*r/Î*s/z*t/d*u/Ò.
The phoneme inventory of System PIE is minimal: it cannot be reduced and it is
sufficient to generate attested Indo-European forms. Accordingly, the import of
System PIE for Indo-European linguistics is comparable to mastery of the building
blocksofDNA.
Inaddition,thedissertationmodernizestheessentialIndo-Europeansoundlaws
in terms of the laryngeal PIE *h/Y. Due to the advanced stage of Indo-European
linguistics, no entirely new sound laws are presented, because the yet remaining
problems of the traditional sound laws reflect the absence of the comparative
interpretationoftheOldAnatolianlaryngeal.
The scientific framework used in this study is the comparative method of
reconstruction, recognized as a branch of natural science already by August
Schleicher.Thedissertationcontributestothedevelopmentofthefieldbyexplicating
the comparative method by means of predicate calculus, including a precise
formulation of Schleicher’s intuitive description of the decision method for IndoEuropean etymology. As such, the reconstruction theory System PIE can be
digitalized (i.e. turned into a programming language that can generate IndoEuropeandatafromreconstructions).
The most reliable etymological and standard dictionaries are used as the
material of the dissertation. While these sources present the data and etymological
suggestionsthatexisttodate,nofullcomparativeconclusionshaveyetbeendrawn.
Asacontributiontothisvitalareaofthefield,thedissertationpresentshundredsof
new etymologies, which serve as preliminary examples of the Proto-Indo-European
Lexicon(PIELexicon),adigitaletymologicaldictionaryofIndo-Europeanlanguages
thatwillbepublishedathttp://pielexicon.hum.helsinki.fi.
4
A CKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Inmanyways,thisdissertationreflectsmyacademiccareer.
My studies at the University of Helsinki began with Classical Greek under the
able instruction of Prof. Maarit Kaimio, Prof. Jaakko Frösen, Prof. Paavo Castrén
and Dr. Erkki Sironen. The demands and discipline of my subsequent M.A. studies
inculcated in me the value of thorough philological competence in that language,
somethingforwhichIowegratitudetotheseprofessorsandmanyothers.Latinwasa
naturalcontinuationofGreek,taughttomebyProf.OlliSalomiesandothers.LaterI
becamefamiliarwiththerestoftheancientItalicdialects,anditismygreatpleasure
tothanktheLatinistsfortheirassistanceinthisregard.
A solid foundation in the Sanskrit language was laid for me by Prof. Asko
ParpolaandProf.KlausKarttunen.SoonIbecameparticularlyinterestedintheRigVedic language, which was thus added to my repertoire as well. Avestan and Old
Persian were kindly introduced to me by Petri Pohjanlehto, a PhD student in the
Central Asian Studies department, and I am very thankful for those who were
involvedinmytraininginIndo-Iranianaswell.
Being already capable in several ancient Indo-European languages, it was
naturalthatIwouldtakeupthetaskoflearningthemall.Thisprocessisstillongoing,
butitismanageable—asdemonstratedbymypredecessor,Prof.PenttiAalto.Tothis
end, I have attended lectures by Prof. Anders Ahlquist in Old Irish, Dr. Kari
LiukkoneninLithuanianandDr.SannaAro-ValjusinHieroglyphicLuwian.Ihave
benefitedovertheyearsfromtheknowledgeofnumerousindividuals,includingProf.
JoukoLindstedtinSlavonic,andforthisIamverygrateful.
With time, I have gradually come to depend more and more on my own
resources to learn languages on my own. As I became more familiar with the
reconstructionoftheIndo-Europeanproto-language,Iconsequentlygraduatedwith
a double M.A. degree in Indo-European linguistics under the kind and able
supervisionofProf.AskoParpolaandDr.BertilTikkanen.
Since embarking on my academic path, I have compiled digital dictionaries of
Indo-European languages for my own personal use. Around the turn of the
millennium, I combined these into an Indo-European etymological dictionary. My
lexicographical interests had made me keenly aware of Oswald Szemerényi’s
(1996:31) words: “(...) the first task of the Indo-Europeanist is to work back to the
fullestpossiblereconstructionofIndo-European.”Thisprovedtoindeedbethecase,
as one can hardly compile a Proto-Indo-European dictionary without an adequate
PIEphonemeinventory.
Having also learned the key Old Anatolian languages by this point, it had
become clear to me for some time that the traditional (Neogrammarian)
5
reconstruction was outdated, in particular regarding the laryngeal. Yet my
honeymoon with the laryngeal theory proved to be a short one. In discussions with
Prof. Jorma Koivulehto, Prof. Raimo Anttila, Dr. Petri Kallio and Dr. Santeri
Palviainen concerning the problems of the laryngeal theory, I discovered that its
inaccuracies in the reconstruction of the data could not be overcome, and I am
thankfultothesescholarsforhelpingmearriveatthisconclusion.
Whenengagingintheactualwritingofthedissertation,Ihadnootherchoicebut
tofollowDarwin’sexample.Accordingly,“IworkedontrueBaconianprinciples,and
[…] collected facts on a wholesale scale […]grouping facts so that general laws or
conclusionsmaybedrawnfromthem.”Duringthistime,myacademicadvisorswere
Dr. Bertil Tikkanen, whose extensive capabilities in the field of phonetics and
phonology have been a constant, reliable guidance; Dr. Martti Nyman, whose dataoriented attitude and insights into methodology were always held close; and Prof.
Klaus Karttunen, whose steadfastness has always been a source of encouragement
andcalm.
Mystudieshavealwaysalsoincludedaninterestinphilosophy,inparticularthe
theory of science, and therefore I followed lectures by Prof. Ilkka Niiniluoto, Dr.
Heikki Kannisto and others. This interest further led me to study formal logic and
mathematicsunderProf.LauriMyrberg,Dr.JuhaPartanenandothers.Lateron,this
interestwouldresurfaceintheformoflanguagetechnology,andinthatregardIam
especiallythankfultoProf.KimmoKoskenniemiforoursuccessfuldemosincoding
theIndo-EuropeansoundlawsofSystemPIEandtoMr.AleksiSahala,B.A.;bothof
themaremostcapablecomputerlinguists,ifIeversawone.
I am grateful to Prof. Juha Janhunen for his profound comparative experience
andacademicleadership.Ithasbeenmyhonourandpleasuretolearnfromhim.
IamalsoindebtedtoDr.AlbionM.Butters,whohascheckedtheEnglishofthe
dissertation,improvingitandprovidingmewithvaluablelessonsinthatlanguage.
Lastbutcertainlynotleast,IwishtothankLauraandthechildren—Aura,Jade,
TaitoandTua—fortheirgreatloveandpatience.
Intermsofinstitutions,IwouldliketoexpressmygratitudetotheUniversityof
Helsinki,theDepartmentofWorldCulturesanditsheadLars-FolkeLandgren,and
all other employees of the institution for their constant support and assurance of a
safehavenfortheactualcompilationofthedissertation.
IamextremelygratefultotheFinnishCulturalFoundationforgrantingmethree
annual scholarships and the Emil Aaltonen Foundation for another set of three
annual scholarships. Without this significant financial assistance, the dissertation
wouldnothavebeenpossible.
Finally, I am most indebted to the board of the Institute of Asian and African
Studiesforacceptingmydissertationforpublicationinitsseries.
6
T ableofContents
ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................... 4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................ 5 TABLEOFCONTENTS ................................................................................... 7 1 COMPARATIVE
METHOD
OF
RECONSTRUCTION
IN
INDO-
EUROPEAN ......................................................................................................... 13 1.1 SYSTEMPIEANDCOMPARATIVEMETHODASNATURALSCIENCE ................................... 13
1.1.1 SituationinthereconstructionofProto-Indo-European.......................................... 13
1.1.2 Formsasfunctionsofphonemesandmeanings......................................................... 20
1.2 PHONETICSANDPHONOLOGYINSYSTEMPIE ................................................................... 21
1.2.1 Introduction:phoneticsandphonology...................................................................... 21
1.2.2 Sounds,phonemesandphonetics................................................................................ 22
1.2.3 ThehistoricalPIEphonemeinventories .................................................................... 23
1.3 SEMANTICS ............................................................................................................................ 30
1.3.1 Symbolfunctionandsemantics ................................................................................... 30
1.3.2 SemanticfieldsofPIErootmatrices........................................................................... 35
1.4 MORPHOLOGY ...................................................................................................................... 37
1.4.1 Morphemesandmorphology....................................................................................... 37
1.4.2 Onclassificationofmorphemes .................................................................................. 39
1.4.3 MorphotacticsandPIErootmatrices......................................................................... 44
1.5 THECOMPARATIVEMETHODOFRECONSTRUCTION ......................................................... 50
1.5.1 Comparativerelationanditssubcategories................................................................ 50
1.5.2 Geneticinternalcomparison(Grammarians)............................................................ 51
1.5.3 Geneticexternalcomparison(Paleogrammarians) ................................................... 53
1.5.4 Soundchangesandsoundlaws .................................................................................... 55
1.5.5 Reconstructionandtheprincipleofpostulation........................................................ 61
1.5.6 Non-geneticexternalcomparison(typology) ............................................................. 64
1.5.7 Non-geneticinternalcomparison(metalanguage) .................................................... 66
1.5.8 Thecomparativemethodofreconstruction ............................................................... 67
1.5.9 Onregularandirregularsoundchanges..................................................................... 71
2 PIE*ANDTHEINDO-EUROPEANVOWELSYSTEM ........................ 75 2.1 INDO-EUROPEANVOWELSYSTEMANDI. ..................................................................... 75
2.1.1 TheproblemofOAnat.andtheIEvowelsystem ................................................... 75
2.1.2 Brugmann’ssystemofeightproto-vowels .................................................................. 76
2.1.3 OnAnatolianlanguages,corpusandlaryngeal.......................................................... 77
2.1.4 i.andthereconstructionofPIE* ....................................................................... 79
2.1.5 i.andvocalismNeogr.*a ................................................................................. 84
7
2.1.6 TheMonolaryngealschool(Zgusta,Szemerényi) ..................................................... 86
2.1.7 PIE*insyllabicpositionandNeogr.* ................................................................... 89
2.1.8 i.inenvironmentNeogr.*e* .............................................................................. 90
2.1.9 DiphonemicPIE*aandPIE*a .............................................................................. 92
2.1.10 OnpropertiesofthecoversymbolPIE*................................................................ 96
2.2 VOWELSNEOGR.*Ý*A*ANDI. ................................................................................. 97
2.2.1 Introductionanddefinitions ........................................................................................ 97
2.2.2 ReconstructionofNeogr.*Gr.:OInd.i........................................................... 97
2.2.3 ProblemsofthereconstructionofNeogr.*.............................................................. 99
2.2.4 Neogr.*PIE*a..................................................................................................... 101
2.2.5 ReconstructionofNeogr.*aGr.:OInd.a........................................................ 104
2.2.6 ProblemsofthereconstructionofNeogr.*a............................................................ 105
2.2.7 Neogr.*aPIE*aeorPIE*ea ........................................................................... 107
2.2.8 ReconstructionofNeogr.*Do.:OInd. ....................................................... 111
2.2.9 ProblemsofthereconstructionofNeogr.*............................................................ 111
2.2.10 Neogr.*PIE*aorPIE*a ......................................................................... 112
2.3 VOWELSNEOGR.*O*Å*ANDI. ............................................................................... 114
2.3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 114
2.3.2 ThereconstructionofNeogr.*oGr.:OInd.andBrugmann’sLaw............. 114
2.3.3 ProblemsofNeogr.*oandBrugmann’sLaw........................................................... 116
2.3.4 ReconstructionofNeogr.*åGr.:OInd.a........................................................ 117
2.3.5 ProblemsofthereconstructionofNeogr.*å............................................................ 118
2.3.6 Neogr.*åPIE*o .................................................................................................... 120
2.3.7 Neogr.*oPIE*oa,*oa(Brugmann’sLawII) ................................................. 121
2.3.8 ReconstructionofNeogr.*Gr.:OInd. ....................................................... 125
2.3.9 ProblemsofthereconstructionofNeogr.* ........................................................... 126
2.3.10 Neogr.*PIE*,*a,*a,*aor*a...................................................... 127
2.4 VOWELSNEOGR.*EAND*ANDI. ............................................................................. 128
2.4.1 Introductionanddefinitions ...................................................................................... 128
2.4.2 ThereconstructionofNeogr.*eGr.:OInd.a ................................................. 128
2.4.3 ProblemsofthereconstructionofNeogr.*e............................................................ 130
2.4.4 Neogr.*ePIE*e*ea*ae............................................................................ 131
2.4.5 ReconstructionofNeogr.*Gr.:OInd. ........................................................ 134
2.4.6 ProblemsofthereconstructionofNeogr.*............................................................ 135
2.4.7 Neogr.*PIE**a*a............................................................................ 137
2.5 PIEABLAUTANDPIE*INSYSTEMPIE......................................................................... 139
2.5.1 PIE*a,*aandtheProto-Indo-Europeanablaut................................................. 139
2.5.2 AblautPIE*:*o:Ø:*e:*................................................................................... 142
2.5.3 ProtheticablautPIE*:*o:Ø:*e:* ................................................................... 146
2.5.4 AblautPIE*:*o:Ø:*e:*withPIE*a,*a.................................................... 152
2.5.5 PIE*ainablautPIE*a*oa*a*ea*a ..................................................... 154
2.5.6 ProtheticablautNeogr.*a:*oandi. ................................................................. 156
2.5.7 SchwebeablautandPIE*......................................................................................... 162
8
2.5.8 Osthoff’sLawforAnatolian,TocharianandGreek ................................................ 166
2.5.9 EvaluationofhistoricaltheoriesandSystemPIE.................................................... 172
3 PIE*ANDRESONANTSPIE*IULRMN ........................................ 181 3.1 ONTHEORIESANDPROBLEMSOFTHERESONANTSYSTEM ............................................. 181
3.1.1 Introductoryremarksonresonants ........................................................................... 181
3.1.2 OnthetheoriesofPIEsyllabicresonants................................................................. 182
3.1.3 Thetheoryofsyllabicsonants(Sonantentheorie) ................................................... 182
3.1.4 TheproblemsofSonantentheorie............................................................................. 186
3.1.5 Theschwasecundumschool ...................................................................................... 192
3.1.6 Thecomparativetheoryofsyllabicresonants .......................................................... 196
3.2 SEMIVOWELSPIE*ÒAND*¾ANDVOWELSPIE*UAND*I............................................... 200
3.2.1 Neogr.*+=PIE*+ .................................................................................................... 200
3.2.2 Neogr.*u=PIE*u .................................................................................................... 203
3.2.3 Neogr.*
PIE*áu,*áu,*uá,*uá,*uu ......................................................... 205
3.2.4 Neogr.*!PIE*! ...................................................................................................... 211
3.2.5 Neogr.*iPIE*i ...................................................................................................... 214
3.2.6 Neogr.*PIE*ái,*ái,*iá,*iá,*ii................................................................. 215
3.2.7 OnSievers’sLawandSturtevant’sanalysis .............................................................. 219
3.2.8 SummaryofPIE*i,*uandPIE*a,*a.................................................................. 223
3.3 LIQUIDSPIE*L*R .............................................................................................................. 224
3.3.1 GeneralremarksonPIEliquids ................................................................................ 224
3.3.2 Fortunatov’sLawandPIE*a*a ........................................................................... 224
3.3.3 Liquids*rand*lintheNeogrammariansystem...................................................... 243
3.3.4 Neogr.*r(consonantaltrill) ...................................................................................... 248
3.3.5 Neogr.**(anteconsonantalsyllabictrill).................................................................. 251
3.3.6 Neogr.**r(antevocalicsyllabictrill) ......................................................................... 260
3.3.7 Neogr.*)(anteconsonantallongsyllabictrill) ......................................................... 266
3.3.8 Neogr.*l(consonantallateral) .................................................................................. 272
3.3.9 Neogr.*$(anteconsonantalsyllabiclateral) ............................................................. 273
3.3.10 Neogr.*$l(antevocalicsyllabiclateral) ................................................................... 276
3.3.11 Neogr.*#(anteconsonantallongsyllabiclateral)................................................... 280
3.3.12 LiquidsPIE*l/$andPIE*r/*inSystemPIE........................................................... 284
3.4 NASALSNEOGR.*N*M ....................................................................................................... 284
3.4.1 NasalsintheNeogrammariansystem ....................................................................... 284
3.4.2 PIE*n(consonantaldental) ...................................................................................... 292
3.4.3 Neogr.*((anteconsonantalsyllabicdental) ............................................................ 294
3.4.4 Neogr.*(n(antevocalicsyllabicdental).................................................................... 307
3.4.5 Neogr.*'(longsyllabicdental)................................................................................. 311
3.4.6 PIE*m(consonantalbilabial) ................................................................................... 317
3.4.7 Neogr.*&(anteconsonantalsyllabicbilabial) ......................................................... 318
3.4.8 Neogr.*&m(antevocalicsyllabicbilabial) ................................................................ 327
3.4.9 Neogr.*%(longsyllabicbilabial) .............................................................................. 330
9
3.4.10 NasalsPIE*m/&and*n/(inSystemPIE .............................................................. 332
3.5 RESONANTSINSYSTEMPIE............................................................................................... 332
3.5.1 Theresonants*iulrmninSystemPIE .................................................................. 332
3.5.2 TheevaluationoftheSonantentheorie .................................................................... 334
4 PIE*ANDTHEPIEOBSTRUENTSYSTEM ...................................... 345 4.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 345
4.1.1 TheNeogrammarianobstruentinventory ................................................................ 345
4.1.2 Neogr.*TThDDh(Decem-Taihunisogloss)......................................................... 345
4.1.3 Neogr.*K:K!:K+(Centum-Satemisogloss)........................................................... 347
4.2 THEORIESOFTHEFOURPLOSIVESERIESTTHDDH ...................................................... 348
4.2.1 NeogrammariansystemTThDDh .......................................................................... 348
4.2.2 Meillet’sandMagnusson’srootconstrainttheory ................................................... 348
4.2.3 ThetypologyTDDhofthelaryngealtheory........................................................... 349
4.2.4 Theglottalictheory(GamkrelidzeandIvanov)....................................................... 350
4.2.5 OverviewofthetheoriesofthePIEplosivesystem ................................................. 351
4.3 TENUESNEOGR.*K,P,T ..................................................................................................... 353
4.3.1 MaterialofNeogr.*k,p,t .......................................................................................... 353
4.3.2 TheoreticalapproachestoseriesT(tenues) ............................................................ 355
4.3.3 SolutionstotheseriesT(PIE*k*p*t) .................................................................... 355
4.4 TENUESASPIRATAENEOGR.*KH,PH,TH ......................................................................... 356
4.4.1 Generalremarksontenuesaspiratae ....................................................................... 356
4.4.2 MaterialofNeogr.*kh,ph,th ................................................................................... 357
4.4.3 TheoreticalapproachestotheseriesTh................................................................... 360
4.4.4 ComparativesolutionoftheseriesTh ...................................................................... 361
4.5 MEDIAENEOGR.*G*B*D ................................................................................................. 366
4.5.1 MaterialofNeogr.*g,b,d ......................................................................................... 366
4.5.2 Theoreticalapproachestotheseriesmediae ........................................................... 369
4.5.3 Solutionstotheproblemsoftheseriesmediae........................................................ 370
4.6 MEDIAEASPIRATAENEOGR.*DH*BH*GH ..................................................................... 395
4.6.1 MaterialofNeogr.*dh,bh,gh................................................................................... 395
4.6.2 Historicalapproachestothemediaeaspiratae ........................................................ 397
4.6.3 Criticalcorrectionsandsolutions .............................................................................. 398
4.6.4 Grassmann’sLawanditsexceptions ......................................................................... 409
4.6.5 Bartholomae’sLawanditsgeneralization................................................................ 413
4.7 SUMMARYOFTHEDECEM-TAIHUNISOGLOSS ................................................................. 414
4.7.1 SummaryoftheseriesT:Th:D:DinSystemPIE.............................................. 414
4.7.2 EvaluationoftheDecem-Taihuntheories ............................................................... 416
4.8 CENTUM-SATEMISOGLOSSORTHETHREEVELARSERIES .............................................. 417
4.8.1 GeneralremarksontheCentum-Satemisogloss..................................................... 417
4.8.2 TheplainvelarsNeogr.*kkhggh ............................................................................ 424
4.8.3 ThelabiovelarsNeogr.*k+*k+h* * h.................................................................. 427
4.8.4 ThepalatovelarsNeogr.*""hh........................................................................... 441
10
4.8.5 Proto-Indo-EuropeanvelarsinSystemPIE ............................................................. 449
4.9 PROTO-INDO-EUROPEANFRICATIVES .............................................................................. 452
4.9.1 Generalremarksonthehistoricalfricativesystems ................................................ 452
4.9.2 ThesibilantsPIE*sand*z ........................................................................................ 453
4.9.3 PIE*h/andthepropertiesofthelaryngeal............................................................ 459
5 THERECONSTRUCTIONTHEORYSYSTEMPIE ................................ 465 5.1 SYSTEMPIEANDPIELEXICON ......................................................................................... 465
5.1.1 ThephonemeinventoryofSystemPIE .................................................................... 465
5.1.2 TheaxiomatizationofSystemPIE ............................................................................ 469
5.1.3 ThesoundlawsofSystemPIE................................................................................... 472
5.1.4 ThedecisionmethodofIndo-Europeanetymology ................................................ 475
5.1.5 Proto-Indo-European(PIE)Lexicon........................................................................ 477
6 REFERENCES ....................................................................................... 484 7 ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................. 500 11
12
1 ComparativemethodofreconstructioninIndoEuropean
1.1 SystemPIEandcomparativemethodasnatural
science
1.1.1 SituationinthereconstructionofProto-IndoEuropean
§0.Thesituationofthe PIEreconstructionchangeddecisivelyafterBed ichHrozn’s
(1917)demonstrationoftheIndo-EuropeanoriginofHittite.Acenturylater,ithas
becomeindisputablethatOldAnatolianpreservedalaryngealsegmentHittitethat
was lost in the languages on which the Neogrammarian phoneme inventory and
sound law system were based. The laryngeal theory, with Møller’s advancement of
three laryngeals and the subsequent addition of variants, dates back to the prelaryngeal period (1879-1880) and is based on a Semitic typology rather than IndoEuropean data. Accordingly, the theory cannot win the acceptance of comparatists,
withtheresultthatthestudyisindeadlock.Withsuchastateofaffairs,Szemerényi’s
(1967:92)assessmentismorerelevantthanever:
“What is really needed is a renewed, and unbiased, study of all the available Hittite
evidence–withnoattempttoforceitintothestrait-jacketofpreconceivedtheoriesabout
IEablautorroot-structure.”
Indeed, the problems with the study are caused by a lack of detailed comparative
reconstruction based on the current body of greatly enriched data and the new
segment PIE*,themissinglinkinthePIEphonemeinventory.Itiswellknownthat
when data changes, theories also must change. It is not an exaggeration to say that
Indo-European linguistics stands today in the very situation once sketched out by
KarlBrugmannandHermannOsthoff:1
“Ehemanweiterbaut,bedarfderganzebau,soweiterbisjetztdasteht,einergründlichen
revision.”(1878:xi).
1
The laryngeal is confirmed, owing to the traces of PIE * outside of Old Anatolian as well (e.g. in
Rig-Vedichiatus,regularlycoincidingwithi.incorrespondences).
13
The quantitative and qualitative improvement of the presentation of the IndoEuropean material has reached a critical mass, allowing the solution of all major
problems of PIE segmental phonology based on the comparative method of
reconstruction. This window of opportunity will be explored in this study with a
completely upgraded reconstruction theory, called System PIE, which is based on
strict principles of natural science. In essence, System PIE consists of the primary
phoneme inventory and the upgraded sound law system for Proto-Indo-European,
withparticularattentionpaidtothesegmentallaryngeal PIE*inallenvironments.
Assuch,SystemPIEisdesignedtosolvethecriticalproblemsofPIEphonologyand
open the way for a subsequent exploration of the breakthrough, especially in the
fields of PIE morphology, etymology and the accent of the proto-language.
ConcerningtheseSchwerpunkts,thefollowingpreliminaryremarksarepresented.
§1. The reconstruction of the primary phoneme inventory (i.e. the phonetic and
phonologicalcomponentofSystemPIE)willnotstartfromscratch.Onthecontrary,
owing to the highly advanced stage of the study, the traditionally postulated protophonemeswillserveasstartingpointsforthecasestudiesandsolutionssuggestedby
the comparative method will be presented for each question. In the order of
appearance,thephoneticandphonologicalproblemsinclude:
(a)TheproblemoftheProto-Indo-Europeanlaryngeal PIE*hasbeenpreliminarily
solved by the comparative school with the theory of monolaryngealism (der
Monolaryngalismus). According to the proponents of this theory, there is one (and
onlyone)laryngeal PIE*inductivelyobtainablefromtheOldAnatoliandata.This
result, originally discovered by Ladislav Zgusta (1951), has now been confirmed by
JohannTischlerandhiscolleaguesinHethitischesEtymologischesGlossar(1977ff.),
the most noteworthy and reliable etymological dictionary of Old Anatolian in
existence.2 The delay in the breakthrough of the theory has been caused by its
approximate form, basically consisting only of the realization of the existence of a
single PIE *. With an independent confirmation of the result, the study at hand
continues with a complete study of PIE *, its properties, and the sound laws
governing it in all environments. As a result, System PIE implements
monolaryngealismasafull-scalereconstructiontheoryconsistingonlyofpostulatesof
thecomparativemethod.
(b) As is well known, the problems of PIE * and PIE vocalism are closely knit
together. At its apogee, the Neogrammarian vowel system of Brugmann contained
eight cover symbols for the proto-vowels. The system was inductively reconstructed
and it has the necessary minimum of phonemes required for a complete (and
therefore valid) reconstruction theory. Although no additional correspondence sets
have emerged in the new material, Brugmann’s system is outdated, particularly in
2
InPyysalo2003,aftercomparingalltheexistingPIEreconstructiontheoriesonthesamematerial,I
demonstrated the impossibility of the supported versions of multilaryngealism and concluded that
monolaryngealismisthesolereconstructivepossibilityforProto-Indo-European.
14
terms of the relation of the eight-vowel system to the laryngeal PIE * consisting of
threesubsets:
1.TheproblemofNeogr.*T:a:
(‘a-vocalism’)andPIE*.
2.TheproblemofNeogr.*o::å(‘o-vocalism’)andPIE*.
3.TheproblemofNeogr.*e:(‘e-vocalism’)andPIE*.
ThecomparativesolutiontothesemainPIEablautproblemsandtheirrelationtoPIE
*ispresentedinChapter2.
(c)Theproblemoftheresonants(orsonorants) PIE*iurlnm,bothindependently
andintheenvironmentofPIE*,isdividedinto:
1.Theproblemofsemi-vowels/glides*i,u(U)withandwithoutPIE*.
2.Theproblemofliquids*rl(L)withandwithoutPIE*.
3.Theproblemofnasals*nm(N)withandwithoutPIE*.
ThecomparativesolutionoftheseproblemsispresentedinChapter3.
(d)TheproblemofPIEobstruents,independentlyandintheenvironmentof PIE*,
isdividedintothreesubsets:
1.Theproblemoffourseriesofplosives(Neogr.*T:Th:D:DY).
2.Theproblemofthreeseriesofvelars(Neogr.*k:*À:*kÒ,etc.).
3.TheproblemofIndo-Europeanfricatives(Neogr.*s/zandPIE*).
ThecomparativesolutionoftheseproblemsispresentedinChapter4.
(e) The problems of the PIE phoneme inventory are divided into nine subsets. To
these may be added a tenth subset: their treatment in a comparatively consistent
system. In order to establish the primary character of the phoneme inventory, it is
demonstrated that no phonemes are absent in System PIE and that the inventory
doesnotcontainanalyzablephonemes(i.e.SystemPIEisminimal).3
§2.PIEsoundlaws,comprisingthephonologicalpartofSystemPIE,arethoroughly
upgraded(inparticular,for PIE*),accordingtothecomparativeimplicationsofthe
nowenricheddata.Whennecessary,thesoundlawsareanalyzedinconnectionwith
theproblems.Thus,Brugmann’sLawandOsthoff’sLawareupgradedinconnection
with the vowel system, Sievers’s Law and Fortunatov’s Law in connection with the
resonant system and so forth until the segmental PIE sound laws have been
completelyrevised.
§3.ThekeyIndo-European(IE)languagesforthereconstructionofPIEconsistofthe
hundredmostancientlanguagesfromthelastfourmillennia.Splitintotwelvemain
subgroups,thelanguagefamilypresentshistoricalsoundchangesinauniquemanner,
similarly allowing the prospective reconstruction of their common ancestor, ProtoIndo-European (PIE). To date, thousands of scholars – from distinguished
lexicographerstocomparativelinguists–havededicatedmillionsofman-hourstothe
codingofthematerial,makingthemostancientIndo-Europeandatafinallyavailable
3
Thus all historical proto-phonemes will be individually scrutinized for their existence and possible
analytical(or‘polyphonemic’)origin,ensuringthatnoitemsstandforsimplerproto-phonemes(asis
thecasewithGr.J,A,etc.).
15
in a practically complete form.4 The key features of PIE Lexicon, the etymological
databaseofSystemPIE,formasynthesisoftheseeffortsandcanbecharacterizedas
follows:
(a) In terms of the completeness of the material, the measures recommended by
BrugmannandOsthoffinthe‘Neogrammarianmanifesto’(1878)havebeenadopted:
“Je mehr sprachmaterial uns so in lückenloser, durch die jahrhunderte sich hinziehender
schriftlicher überlieferung zur beobachtung unterbereitet ist, um so besser sind wir daran
[…]”(1878MU1:vii.)5
Historically speaking, however, the Neogrammarian theory – with its emphasis on
Sanskrit,GreekandLatin–wasneverbasedoncompletedata,nordiditclaimtobe.6
Thisprovidesawindowofopportunitytofurtherthereconstruction.
(b)InordertoeliminatetheproblemoftheincompletenessoftheNeogrammarian
reconstruction – and, even more, that of the laryngeal theory – the material of the
dissertationconsistsofthemainbulkofstems(andmorphemes)ofthehundredmost
ancientIndo-Europeanlanguagesbasedonthemosttrustedmainstreamdictionaries,
comparativelysupplementedwithothercriticalsources.
The full material, in homage to the most capable scholars of in the field of
etymologywillbeseparatelypublishedunderthetitle Proto-Indo-EuropeanLexicon
(PIELexicon);ithasalreadybeencompiledwithalengthoffivethousandA3pages.
Theworkiscurrentlyinanadvancedstage,allowingpreparationoftheinitialletters
ofthePIELexiconforpublication.
(c)ThePIELexiconisanext-generationetymologicaldictionaryutilizingtherulesof
System PIE, as presented in this study. Although hardcopy versions could be made
available,thePIELexiconisessentiallyadigitalenterprise7withtheultimateaimof
accounting for every recorded Indo-European morpheme. This has been made
possiblebythegeneralprogressoflanguagetechnology,exemplifiedtodaybysimilar
productsinthefield,likethe TITUSproject(ThesaurusindogermanischerText-und
Sprachmateriel) based in Frankfurt am Main.8 The TITUS project is currently
publishing archaic Indo-European texts, but links to digital dictionaries are also
offered on the TITUS website. Due to digital technology, the TITUS project will
becomeavailabletotheusersofthePIELexiconthroughthecommonmaterialdealt
with,allowingforthefurtherimprovementofboth.
4
Bammesberger (1984:9): “Seit Beginning unseres Jahrhunderts hat sich hauptsächlich durch die
Kenntnis des Hethitischen und Tocharischen die Materialbasis für die Rekonstruktion der
indogermanischenGrundsprachewesentlicherweitert.”
5
Zgusta (1951:428): “Il est naturel qu’une théorie nouvelle soit ainsi appliquée au matériel le plus
largepossible.”
6
For Brugmann’s note concerning the incompleteness of all early theories (including his own), see
Grundr21:397n1.
7
ThePIELexiconisdesignedtoallowforanupgradingofdatauntilallIndo-Europeanmorphemes
arereconstructed.Thus,thecompletenessofSystemPIEcanbedemonstratedinextenso.
8
For the TITUS Program (Das Project eines indogermanischen Thesaurus), see http://titus.unifrankfurt.de/indexe.htm.
16
§4. Throughout the study, special weight is placed on a strict commitment to the
comparative method and other methodical disciplines. This deserves a brief
explanation:
(a)AnthonyFoxcharacterizesearlydiscussionsonthecomparativemethodinwriting
(1995:19):
“It must be said that nineteenth-century discussions of the method itself, and of the
procedures involved in its application, are rather disappointing. Although there are many
demonstrations of the results of the method, no detailed step-to-step explanations or
explicitformalizationsareforthcomingfromthisperiod.”
With the exception of Schleicher, this evaluation is generally correct. Similar ideas
withanevenmorecriticaltonehavebeenexpressedbyRadoslavKatii(1970:9),a
leadingcomparativetheoretician,whowrites:
“If this traditional field of linguistic studies is to be incorporated in a modern body of
linguisticdoctrine,thecomparativemethodmustbemadeexplicitanditsproceduresmust
become more formal. If a method is stated explicitly it becomes possible to discern its
propertiesandshowwhyitissuccessfulandwhereitcouldbeexpectedtofail.”9
(b) Within this study are found both an explicit presentation of method (see
especially Chapters 1 and 5) and its formalization in predicate calculus, the best
known and most uncontroversial scientific meta-language in existence.10 This
formalizationconsistsofasimplepresentationanddefinitionoftheIndo-European
materialintermsofpredicatecalculus.11Theusefulnessoftheformalizationwillbe
demonstrated in Chapter 5, where the decision method for the Indo-European
etymologyisstatedasasimpleformulaofpredicatecalculus.
(c) The preliminary nature of the Paleogrammarian phoneme inventory and sound
laws(basedonSanskrit)andthelaryngealtheory,presentingaSemitichypothesison
a Neogrammarian chassis, means that Indo-European linguistics depends on the
Neogrammariansmorethantypicallyunderstood.Thismakesthefollowingremarkof
Davies(1975:644)relevantforthestudyasawhole:
“What historiography [and Indo-European linguistics]most needs now is a series of
attempts to investigate both the neogrammarians’ concrete achievements (about which
muchisknown)andtheirtheoreticalpresuppositionsintheirentirety(aboutwhichweare
farlessclear),tocomparethetwo,andsettheminsomesortofhistoricalperspective.”
9
Asafurthermotivation,Katii(1970:72)referstotheongoinglaryngealcontroversy:“Theheated
discussion that arose about the laryngeal theory could become much more fruitful if the
methodological problems were made explicit.” For a detailed account for the methodological
inadequaciesofthelaryngealtheory,seeBammesberger1984.
10
Predicatecalculusisaformalizationoftheuniversalrulesoflogicsharedbyallbranchesofscience.
Logic–andpredicatecalculus–remainthesame,butthebranchesofnaturalsciencedifferinthereal
objectsembedded.Forthetranslatabilityofpredicatecalculusintoamodernprogramminglanguage
thatallowsforthetestingofthesoundlawsofSystemPIE,seeChapter5.
11
Despite the introduction of notation for predicate calculus, the standard conventions in the
presentationofIndo-Europeandataarefollowedinthisstudy.
17
§5.Inonerespect,SchleicherdidbetterthantheNeogrammarians,namelyinviewing
the comparative method as a natural science.12 This highly conservative tradition is
upheld by the author in System PIE and the PIE Lexicon with the principles of
naturalsciencedulyfollowedthroughout:13
(a) The comparative method of reconstruction is an empirical science. The IndoEuropean data is understood like DNA code, carrying genetic information, and
thereforenormative.Shouldatheoryconflictwiththedata,correctionsinthetheory
aresoughtinsteadofirregularexplanations,inaccordancewiththethoughtofHans
HenrichHock(1991:535):
“Givenachoice,analysespostulatingsoundchangesaremorehighlyvaluedthananalyses
which require analogical or other non-phonetic changes. Similarly, everything else being
equal, analyses operating with regular changes (sound change and/or rule-governed
analogy)arepreferredoverthosewhichrequiresporadicorlessregularchanges.”
By seeking improvements in the analysis of material instead of analogies,the selfcorrectingprocessofthesciencecanbemeaningfullyupheld.Accordingly,theresult
ofthemethodis“[…]testableinprincipleonthebasisofparticulareventsoccurring
inspaceandtime”(seeEsaItkonen1978:2ff.andMarttiNyman1982:19).Basically
this amounts to the acceptance of Isidore Dyen’s requirement (1969:508) that
“[s]tatements regarding the nature of the proto-language are entirely inferential or
analytical, not assumptive”. A theory allowing verification or falsification of every
detailispursued,andaprioristhypothesesarereplacedwithinductiveones.
(b)Thereconstructionofproto-languagemeansitsrestorationinascientificmanner
that satisfies high philological, linguistic and comparative standards. Ultimately,
reconstruction represents an equivalent of the Indo-European data, compressed in
Proto-Indo-European formulas. Szemerényi’s (1996:32) position is compulsory
throughout:
“Fromtheoutsetrealism,arealisticapproach,playsadecisivepartinreconstruction,since
the reconstruction of phonetically impossible sounds and sound sequences (= words) can
beconsiderednothingbutanidlegame.”
Thereconstructionofproto-languageisnothypothetical,butaregulatedprocedure
defined by specific empirical criteria.14 Therefore, scientific realism is the standard
forthepostulationofreconstructionandconceptformation,whichareonlyallowedif
theobjectsareobtainedexclusivelyfromthematerial.15Anisomorphicrelationship
12
See Koerner (1982:2): “Schleicher’s conception of language […] was, at least with respect to its
methodofinvestigation,anaturalscience(Naturwissenschaft).”SeealsoFox(1995:24):“Theworkof
Schleicher and his contemporaries, on the other hand, reflects the growing interest in the natural
sciencesandinscientificmethod:‘themethodoflinguisticsistotallydifferentofthatofallhistorical
disciplines,andisbasicallythatofthenaturalsciences’.”
13
Onthestructureofscientifictheories,seeKuhn1973.
14
AccordingtoSzemerényi(1962),thebasicprinciplesofetymologicalresearcharephonetic,semantic
andwordformationcriteria.SeealsoAnttila(1969:35).
15
Forconceptformationintheempiricalsciences,seeHempel1952.
18
between the objects of the theory and their counterparts in the real world is thus
demandedonalllevels.16
(c)IntheevaluationoftheIndo-Europeanreconstructiontheories, atheory(and/or
itssubset)isvalidifandonlyifitiscompleteandsound.17Inthisregard,thecounterexampleprocedure(i.e.constructingasetofdatafalsifyingahypothesisandleading
to a revision of the theory) is favoured in order to take problems as part of the
solution.
(d)Occam’srazor,18orthe‘principleofeconomy’(quotedherefromHock1991:538),
isadoptedforthepurposesofcomparisonofthetheoriesandtheirsubsets:
“Reconstructions should not violate the maxim attributed to the medieval philosopher
Occam that e ntia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem ‘entities (in an
argument)arenottobemultipliedbeyondnecessity’.Putdifferently,thesimplestpossible
analysisistobepreferred,everythingelsebeingequal.”
The converse of the principle, Occam’s guillotine, is applied in the elimination of
unnecessaryassumptions.19
(e)Theexnihilonihilprinciplestatesthatnothingcomesfromnothing.Inpractice,if
a measurable phenomenon exists, it can be assumed to reflect a previously existing
stateratherthantoemergefromnowhere.Theprincipleisalsousedintheevaluation
ofthecompetingtheories.
(f)Theruleofunambiguitycanbedefinedthus:fromapropositionp
q(‘porq’),it
isnotallowedtoinferapropositionporpropositionqunlessporqhasbeenproven.
This rule is designed to secure the scientific character of theory by disallowing
conclusionsofambiguoushypotheses.
(g)Throughoutthestudy,‘Fick’srule’isusedastheprincipleofpostulationtojustify
theentirereconstuction.Accordingtothiskeyprincipleofthecomparativemethod,
twoindependentwitnessesarealwaysrequired.20Asaconsequenceofthislimitation,
the comparative method of reconstruction in its pure form is the sole form of
inference applied in this study, with the result that the very source code of ProtoIndo-EuropeanisderivedinanobjectivemannerinSystemPIE.
A strict adherence to these principles allows one to demonstrate that
Schleicher’s view of the comparative method as natural science is accurate. By
stickingtoprinciplesofnaturalscience,nothingbutscienceisproduced.Thecorrect
16
For the opposite point of view, see Benveniste (1962:10): “On a trop cherché à convertir les
laryngales en réalités phonétiques. Nous avons toujours pensé que le statut qui leur convenait
présentementétaitceluid’êtresalgébriques.Loind’enêtregênee,lareconstructionindo-européenne
s’en trouve facilitée. Les modèles de reconstruction ne doivent pas dépendre d’interprétations
phonétiquesencorelargementconjecturalesetquiseraientnécessairement‘historiques’.”
17
Asystemiscompleteifitgeneratesallthecorrectforms,notifitgeneratesincorrectforms.
18
For Occam’s razor (‘entitia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem’) in linguistics, see Hock
(1986:538-540)andSzemerényi(1977:309).
19
“Ifapostulateisnotnecessary,itismeaningless.”
20
SeealsoBammesberger(1984:11):“UmeinlinguistischesPhänomenderGrundsprachezuschreiben
zu können, muß es in mindenstens zwei verschiedenen Sprachgruppen unverkennbare Spuren
hinterlassenhaben.”
19
solutionscanbesimultaneouslyidentifiedandcalibratedtomatchtherequirements
ofthenowenricheddata.
1 .1.2 Formsasfunctionsofphonemesandmeanings
§0. Katii (1970:146) expresses the key idea of language, forms as functions of
meaning,asfollows:
“[…] the languages in genetic research must be defined in the first place as sets of
phonemicstringsthatserveasexpressiontocertaincontents.”
Though not sufficient as a general theory of language – which is in any case not
sought in this study, being strictly limited to the Indo-European domain – Katii’s
definitionprovidesasolidstartingpointforadefinitionofthecomparativemethodin
termsofpredicatecalculus.
§1.Theattestedformsconstitutingthelexicalitemsoflanguageƒconsistofthestring
of phonemes a1, a2, ..., an and the meaning ‘x’ (in practice, the translation).
Consequently, the Indo-European data can be understood as a set of propositions
(functions)oftheformƒ(a1,a2,...,an)=‘x’.InSystemPIEandinthePIELexicon,
thestemsarechosenasthebasiclevelofdescription.21Accordingly,anindependent
entryisprovidedforeverydocumentedstem,andthedescriptionisunderstoodtobe
complete when all attested stems have been accounted for. An example of the
presentationofmaterialbasedonthestems(arrangedundertherespectiveroots)is,
forinstance,theOldAnatolianformation22#-‘sein’(e#-,a#-#a-):
i.e#- i.a#- HLu.sa-
(pr.)‘sein’(HEG1:109-10,e-e#-zi[3sg],KBoI53,7)
(pr.)‘sein’(HEG1:109-10,a-#a-an-du[3pl])
(vb.)‘be’(CHLu.2.34.1,sa-tú[3sg],10.17.6,sa-ta[3pl])
In terms of predicate calculus, such entries are combined functions f(g(h(x))) = ‘y’
expressing not only the stem and its meaning, but additional information like
grammatical analysis (e.g. ‘(pr.)’, ‘[3sg]’, etc.), reference (e.g. ‘HEG 1:109-110’), the
locusoftheattestedform(e.g.‘KBoI53,7’)andsoforth.23
§2. In the formalization the following symbols, functions (symbol: ‘ƒ’)24 and
definitions(symbol:‘’)areused:
21
Hock’s(1991:29)definitionisfollowedhere:“Ifthemaincarrieroflexicalmeaninginagivenwordis
morphologicallycomplex,containingarootplusanaffix,itiscalledastem,suchasword-y,inword-ier, word-i-ness.” In addition also the root, capable of taking inflectional endings, is understood as a
specialformofstem.
22
On the topic of organization, compare Matthews (1991:26): “For some other languages, such as
Sanskrit,dictionariesareorganizedbystemsorroots...”
23
Thegrammaticalfunctioncoversthetypesofstemsaccordingtotheirgrammaticalclass,including
verbs(vb.),substantives(sb.),adjectives(a.),numerals(num.),adverbs(adv.),interjections(intj.),etc.
24
Functionsƒ1,ƒ2,ƒ3,...canrepresentanyproperties(orfeatures)orrelationsoftheargumentsx1,x2,
…,xn.
20
(a)TheIndo-Europeanstemsarearrangedunderconstantfunctionsexpressingthe
source language (e.g. Aiol., Alb., Arm., Av., etc.) of the item in question, and the
scopeofafunctiondefinesthelexiconofthatlanguage.25
(b)ThephonemeparadigmsoftheindividualIndo-Europeanlanguages(i.e.thesets
ofminimalunitsofthesoundsystem)canbereferredtoastheirconstantinventories.
Forthephonemeparadigms,anextensivedefinitionisthereforesetforth.Thus,asan
example,forGreekwecandefine:26
/Gr. 4,5,6,7,8,...,K
(theGreekphonemeinventory).
Inpredicatecalculus,therealobjects4,5,6,7,8,...,Kcanbereferredtobytwokinds
ofobjectvariables–freeones(a,b,c,...)andboundones(x,y,z,...)–bothofwhich
arefurthermarkedwithsubscripts‘a1,a2,...,an,...’and‘x1,x2,x3,...’asneeded.27
(c) The phonemes constituting a stem are connected with a sequence function
(symbol:+)expressingtheleft-to-rightorderoftheobjectsinvolved(e.g.a1+a2+...+
an). In practice, it is not necessary to write the sequence function; for example, the
conventionalwriting(e.g.Go.ist)isunderstoodasshorthandforGo.i+s+t.
(d)Thecomparativefunction(thesymbol:)canbesetbetweenanytwoarguments
/x(a)and/y(b)bysettingtheminjuxtaposition(e.g.i.e#zi‘is’:Go.ist‘is’).Ifthe
compareditemsareidentical,thenthecomparativefunction/x(a):/y(b)isprovable
andidentity(thesymbol=)replacesthefunction;otherwiseitsoppositeisshown(by
thesymbol:).
(e)Astringofphonemes/(a1,a2,...,an)isamorpheme,ifandonlyifthereexistsanx
suchthat‘x’isitsmeaning(possiblyunknown).Formally,therefore,themorphemes
areofgeneralform/(a1,a2,...,an)df‘x’.Astemcancontainmultiplemorphemes,
and if so these are separated by segmentation function (the symbol ·) as seen, for
example,with:
OIr.do·for·mag-
(pr.)‘accroîre’(LEIAM-8,doformaig[3sg]).
§3. In this manner, any Indo-European lexical item can be expressed in terms of
predicatecalculus(i.e.one-to-onemappingexists).
1 .2 PhoneticsandphonologyinSystemPIE
1.2.1 Introduction:phoneticsandphonology
§0.ThebasicsituationisneatlysummarizedbySalmonandSmith(2005:86):
25
Thevariablescoveringtheconstantfunctions(i.e.languagesanddialects)are/,+,0,...possibly
withsubscripts(/1,/2,...,/n,etc.).Withthesetheindividualsubgroupslike‘Baltic’,‘Celtic’,etc.can
bedefined.
26
The definitions of the phoneme paradigms of the Indo-European languages, available in standard
grammars,arenotrepeatedhere.
27
Inaddition,thezerophoneme(representedbythesymbolsØor–)isusedtomarklostphonemes
andthezerograde(bothinIEandPIE).
21
“Establishing a phonological inventory is a cornerstone of linguistic description and the
samenaturallyholdsforreconstructingproto-language.”
InordertoensurethecorrectreconstructionoftheIndo-EuropeanandProto-IndoEuropeanphonemeinventories,onemustobservethefollowingissues:
§1.ThephonemeparadigmsofIndo-Europeanlanguagesbasicallycoincidewiththe
inherited alphabets created by the inventor(s) of the respective writing systems. In
this way, the inherited alphabets contain a received internal reconstruction. Being
empiricallygiven,reinterpretationofalphabetsisseldommotivated,thoughnaturally
thepropertiesofthesystemscanbedealtwithbymeansofphonetics,thescientific
studyofsoundsasindividualobjects(Trask,DPhPh:270),andphonology,thestudyof
therelationshipsofsoundsinalanguage(Trask,DPhPh:275-77).
§2.InthereconstructionofthephonemeinventoryofProto-Indo-European,onlythe
strictestprinciplesofthecomparativemethodareemployed.Inpractice,everyprotophoneme must be comparatively postulated, based on a correspondence set
consistent with the full data. In particular, the so-called hypothetico-deductive
method, which is occasionally allowed in historical linguistics and involves
hypotheticalproto-soundsandapostulationofpre-proto-language,isunnecessary.
1 .2.2 Sounds,phonemesandphonetics
§0.Thesoundsofspeechareconcreteobjectswithmeasurableacousticpropertiesor
features produced by airflow and the human vocal apparatus, the places of
articulationandthearticulator.28Strictlyspeaking,asnotwospellingsofasoundare
identical, the concept of phoneme (representing actual instances and/or spelling
variantsa1,a2,...,anofasound/a/)hasbeenintroduced.29
§1. Language reaches its written phase when the means for its transcription, most
oftenanalphabet,30havebeendeveloped.Thedescriptivenessandgeneralaccuracy
of the archaic Indo-European phoneme inventories results from their phonetic
character. Unaffected by conventions, the main source of non-phonetic spellings or
similar factors in the ancient Indo-European alphabets usually reflects the data as
directlyaspossible,andtheyareusuallyacceptedassuchinacomparativestudy.In
terms of minor exceptions, note the following phonological remarks concerning
certainindividualIndo-Europeanlanguages:
(a)ContinuingtheSumerianideogrammatictradition,theOldAnatolianlanguages
(i., Pal. CLu. and HLu.) are syllabic, not phonetic. Consequently, phonetic
approximationsareusedforthepresentationoftheOldAnatoliandata(e.g.i.e#zi
28
Forphonemes(sounds),seeLadefoged&Maddieson1996.Forphonetics,seeLaver1994.
29
ComparethefamousdefinitionofDanielJones1950,accordingtowhomaphonemeisafamilyof
sounds.
30
For the close connection between ‘alphabet’and ‘phoneme inventory’,compare Meriggi (1966:8):
“[…]diejenige,diedenuraltenBegriffBuchstabeninderneuenMaskierungals‘Phonem’rettenwill.”
22
iswrittenfortheattestedi.e-e#-zi‘is’),apracticealsofollowedinthisstudy.Being
secondary (built upon primary data), these approximations are susceptible to error,
and comparative evidence is particularly important for the elimination of possible
mistakes.
(b)TheIndo-Europeanlanguagesareusuallyattestedintheirowninheritedwriting
systems, but transcribed in the Latin alphabet (except for Greek). The scholarly
transpositions are not necessarily flawless, and scrutiny occasionally required in the
phonologicalconsiderationsinvolvingthelatter.31
(c) From a comparative point of view, the allophonicalternation of phonemes is
caused by sound changes in varying environments. Avestan is especially rich in
allophonic alternation in its alphabet, possibly reflecting its status as a sacred
language. It is not uncommon that Avestan allophones cannot be explained on a
synchronicbasis,butinsteadrequireahistoricalexplanationoutsideofthereceived
phonemeparadigm.
§2. The comparative method of reconstruction is not primarily interested in the
phonemeinventoriesoftheindividualIndo-Europeanlanguages.AlthoughallIndoEuropean languages preserve some proto-phonemes as such, all have gone through
multiple and successive sound changes, leaving the surface level ambiguous to a
degree. In particular, the following types of changes are commonplace within the
Indo-Europeanlanguages:
(a)Loss(ordisappearance)ofaproto-soundinalanguage(e.g.PIE*Gr.Ø).
(b)Merger(orconvergence)oforiginallydistinctproto-phonemesinalanguage(e.g.
Ò
PIE*th*dY*k Y*»YGr.;).
(c)Splitofanoriginalproto-phonemeasconditionedbyenvironment(e.g.inPIE*ºh
Lat.cgh,etc.).
Owingtothesecondarynatureofatleastsomeattestedphonemes,thecomparative
method of reconstruction eliminates secondary phonemes by postulating the
respective sound laws before entering into conclusions, thus focusing on the protophonemeinventoryasthecommondenominatorofthecognates.
1 .2.3 ThehistoricalPIEphonemeinventories
§0.ThehistoricalPIEphonemeinventorieswillbebrieflypresentedinordertotest
themagainsttheenrichedIndo-Europeandata.Thoughoutdatedincertainaspects,
the Neogrammarian phoneme inventory is the common starting point of all IndoEuropean reconstruction theories (including the one presented in this study), and
thusservesasanaturalpointofreferenceforthehistoryanddevelopmentofthePIE
phonemeinventory.32
31
Foranexampleofafailureintransliterationanditsconsequences,seeChapter4forthediscussion
onthe‘voicedaspirate’series(mediaeaspiratae)ofSanskrit,historicallymiswrittenasOInd.bhdhgh
jhhinsteadofthepropernotationOInd.bYdYgYjYY.
For“DerLautbestandderidg.Ursprache”,seeBrugmann(Grundr21:92-93).
32
23
Within the phoneme inventory, three functional classes of phonemes, vowels
(V),resonants(R)andobstruents(C)aredistinguishedanddealtwithrespectivelyin
Chapters2,3and4.Beginningwiththelaryngeal PIE*,theoverallpictureofthe
researchhistorycanbesketchedasfollows:
(a) The laryngeal PIE *, which is absent from the Neogrammarian reconstruction,
cannowaddedtotheproto-languagebasedonOldAnatolian,asalreadydiscovered
bymonolaryngealism:
Neogr.
Monolar.
Ø PIE* (Brugmann,Osthoff,Pokorny,Kronasseretal.)
(Zgusta,Laroche,Szemerényi,Tischleretal.)
Thevariationsofthenowoutdatedmultilaryngealismwillbediscussedsubsequently
intheirrelevantcontexts.
(b) At its high point, the Neogrammarian vowel system Neogr. *V contained eight
correspondence sets, provided below with the respective vowel system of the
laryngealtheory:
*a-quality: Neogr. *T
*a
LT.
*h2*h2e/–
*o-quality: *
*å
*eh2 –
*e-quality:
*o
*
*e
*h3e *eh3 *e
*
*eh1 (c) The Neogrammarian system of sonants33 contained glides (U), liquids (L) and
nasals(N),asindicatedinthetablebelow:
Neogr.
*¾
*l
*m
i
Ä
Ç
C
ÃC
ÆC
i¾V
ÃV
ÆV
*Ò
*r
*n
u
Î
É
%C
ÍC
ÈC
uÒV
ÍV
ÈV
Itwasfurtherclaimedthatthelongsonantsstoodfortherespectiveshortones,plus
Neogr.*T,nowwrittenas*Hinthelaryngealtheory.
(d)TheNeogrammarianobstruentsystemconsistedofthefollowingitems:
Neogr.
*p
*ph
*b
*bh
Plosives: t
th
d
dh
k
kh
g
gh
À
Àh
º
ºh
Fricatives:
Ò
k kÒh
»
»h
s
sh
z
zh
h
h
Thefollowinginitialremarksarerespectivelymadeforeachcategoryofobjects:
§1. The monolaryngealism has its roots in Zgusta’s (1951) observation that there is
one and only one laryngeal PIE * (R i. , CLu. , Pal. , HLu. ), which is
comparatively inferable from the Old Anatolian (and other Indo-European) data.
This has now been confirmed by Johann Tischler’s Hethitisches etymologisches
Glossar (HEG 1977ff.), proving that Zgusta’s conjecture was both sufficient and
33
Note that in this study, the term ‘resonant’is used for PIE *i u r l n m, whereas the term
‘sonants’referstoBrugmann’sandOsthoff’ssyllabicsonants.
24
necessary. This decisive success provides an inductive starting point for the
comparative reconstruction of the PIE laryngeal, but monolaryngealism has not
inferredthepropertiesofthecoversymbol PIE*asanindependentsegmentandits
behaviourinallenvironments,basedonthecomparativemethod.
§2.AsfortheIndo-Europeanvowelsystemanditsrelationtothecoversymbol PIE
*,thefollowingtheorieshavebeenproposed:
(a) At its high point, the Neogrammarian vowel system consisted of eight cover
symbolsforvowels:
Neogr.*T,a,
(‘a-quality’)
*å,o,(‘o-quality’) *e,(‘e-quality’).
Tested against the enriched data, the Neogrammarian vowel system is adequate in
terms of the number of cover symbols and their derivation. Eight distinct
correspondencesetscanbeinductivelyobtainedfromthedata,andnoneofthecover
symbols are redundant. In the absence of the laryngeal, the traditional system is
outdated.Inparticular,themutualrelationshipsofvowelsandthelaryngealandthe
ablautpatternsrequireathoroughrevision.
(b) Based on Saussure’s ideas, Møller (1879, 1880, 1906:vi = MØL) presented the
classical three-laryngealism (now competing with Brugmann’s comparative
reconstructionofproto-vowels)indicatedinthefollowingtable:
Neogr. *T
*a
MØL.
*A*Ae/–
*
*eA
*å
–
*o
*
*Oe/– *eO
*e
*Ee
*
*eE
–
–
This theory was based on Saussure’s (1878 = DS*) single ‘fundamental’ (in modern
terms ‘pre-proto-vowel’) *e34 of two ‘coefficients sonantiques’: an ‘a-colouring’*A
(Neogr.*T= LTh2)andan‘o-colouring’*O(= LT*h3),withrulesofcompensatory
lengthening and colouring obtained by structural reasoning.35 For the sake of
similaritywiththeSemiticsystemoflaryngeals,Mølleraddedyetanotheritem*E(=
LT h1) and projected the assumed Proto-Semitic root shape C1C2·C3 onto ProtoIndo-European,36 thus giving birth to the laryngeal theory.37 Unsurprisingly, this
laryngeal theory conflicted with reality: after the emergence of the Old Anatolian
data, Møller’s original proposition of three laryngeals has been gradually
downgraded. By switching to a notation in which E, A, O indicate laryngeals
preserved in Old Anatolian and h1, h2, h3 laryngeals that have been lost (or never
34
SeeSaussure(Rec.127):“Lephonèmea1[=*e]estlavoyelleradicaledetouteslesracines.Ilpeut
êtreseulàformerlevocalismedelaracineoubienêtresuivid’unesecondesonantequenousavons
appeléecoefficientsonantique.”[...]“Dansdecertainesconditions,quinesontpasconnues,a1[*e]est
remplacépara2[*o];dansautres,mieuxconnues,ilestexpulsé.”
35
The‘ruleofcompensatorylengthening’referstothepostulatesLT**eh1O*;LT**eh2O*
;LT
**eh3O*andthe‘colouringrules’tothepostulatesLT**h1eO*e;LT**h2eO*a;LT**h3eO
*o.
36
Thus,Lindeman(1987:25)writes:“Initscommonlyacceptedformthe‘LaryngealTheory’assumes
theexistenceinEarlyIndo-Europeanof(atleast)three‘laryngeal’consonants[...].”
37
Forthelaryngealtheory,seeHendriksen1941,Puhvel(1960:1-13),Polomé1965,Szemerényi1973,
Jonsson1978,Lindeman(1982:63-64,1987:78-79),andBammesberger(1984:38).
25
never existed), we may summarize the subsequent developments of the theory as
follows:
1.Benveniste’s(1935= BENV.)assumedthreelaryngeals:twopreserved(*A=
i.,*O=i.)andone‘lost’item(*h1=i.Ø).
2.Kuryowicz(1935:75f.,254f.= KUR.)assumedfourlaryngeals:twopreserved
(AandO=i.)andtwo‘lost’laryngeals(h1andh2[=LTh4]=i.Ø).
3.Eichner’s(1973= EICH.)assumedthreelaryngeals:onepreserved(*A=i.
)andtwolost(*h1h3=i.Ø).
4. Puhvel’s (1965 = PUH.) theory supposes e and six laryngeals, of which three
have been assumedly preserved in Old Anatolian: *E, A, O and three lost (h1, h2,
h3).38
Møller’s laryngeal theory has split into two subgroups. One favours weakening the
originalpropositionofthenumberofpreservedlaryngeals(BenvenisteandEichner)
and one adds the number of assumed laryngeals (Kuryowicz and Puhvel) to
compensate:
¨
BENV. *h1*A*O
EICH. *h1*A*h3
MØL*EAO
§
KUR.
PUH.
–*A*O
*E*A*O
*h1*h2–
*h1*h2*h3
(c) The monolaryngeal theory of Indo-Europeanvocalism is currently in its early
phase,inessenceconsistingofthefollowing:
1.Zgusta(1951),thefirsttoreconstructasinglelaryngealPIE*Hcoincidingwith
i. , argues for the favour of a colourless (or non-colouring) item. By adding the
threeshortvowels*e,a,oandfollowingtheruleofcompensatorylengthening(*eH
O,*aHO
,*oHO),Zgusta’stheoryhasonlyfourproto-phonemes(ZG. *H*e
*a*o)andthreerules(ofcompensatorylengthening).
2.Similarly,Szemerényi(1967:96-7=SZ)positsonenon-colouringlaryngealPIE
*H(=i.)andsixvowels*e,a,o,,
,;thus,hedisagreeswithZgusta,favouring
theoriginalquantityinsteadofcompensatorylengtheningnotrequiredinhissystem.
Fromthepointofviewofthedata,itcanbereadilysaidthatthissolutionissuperior
to that of Zgusta, because Szemerényi’s system contains the original vÎddhi vowels
proventoexistindependentlyoflaryngeals.
(d)Inordertoprovideanoverviewoftheinitialassumptions,thevocalismsandthe
laryngealsofthetheoriesaresummarizedinthefollowingtable,where‘–’indicatesa
correspondencesetmissingfromatheory:
Neogr.*T
*A
DS.
Vowels:
Laryngeal:
a
–
eA
o
(o)
eO
e
e
eA
–
–
å
–
38
ForPuhvel’smotivationfortheexpansionofthenumberoflaryngealstomorethanthree,seeHED
3: v-vi: “Those who have insisted on postulating a set (preferably low) number of ‘laryngeals’and
hewingtothemreligiouslyhavelulledthemselvesintoafalseandprematurecircularity.”
26
MØL
ZG.
SZ.
*AAe/–
–
a
*T? a
eA
aH
–
–
–
Oe/– eO
o
oH
o
Ee
e
e
eE
eH
–
*H
*h
Thetheorieslackatleastonecorrespondenceset,withtheresultthatnoneofthem
are complete or acceptable as the basis of a comparative reconstruction theory as
such. However, Brugmann’s reconstruction is the most accurate description of the
Indo-European vocalism, and the absence of the laryngeal can be corrected by the
addition of the critical sound law established by the laryngeal theory and
monolaryngealism:
PIE*R
i.,Pal.,CLu.,HLu.:RV’/Ø,Gr.Ø,Lat.Ø,etc.
Thus,acompletesetofcoversymbolsemergeswhenthetwotheoriesarecombined:
*T
*a
*
*å
*o
*
*e
*
*.
In Chapter 2, when the cover symbols are replaced with the actual Proto-IndoEuropeanvalues,thissolutionwillbeshownasbothnecessaryandsufficient.39
§3. Concerning the resonants, functionally defined as phonemes having vocalic (±)
andconsonantal(R)allophones,threetheorieshavebeensuggested:
(a)TheNeogrammariansystemofsonantscontainedthepostulates:
Neogr.
*¾
*l
*m
i
Ä
Ç
C
ÃC
ÆC
i¾V
ÃV
ÆV
*Ò
*r
*n
u
Î
É
%C
ÍC
ÈC
uÒV
ÍV
ÈV
Here the long sonants ° stand for short sonants plus schwa (= ±+ T). In the
laryngealtheory,Neogr.*Tisreplacedwith*Hinacompletelyisomorphicsystem:
LT
*¾
*m
*l
i
Ç
Ä
iHC iHV ÇHC ÇHV ÄHC ÄHV *Ò
*n
*r
u
É
Î
uHC uHV ÉHC ÉHV
ÎHC ÎHV
(b)Theschwasecundumschool,initiatedbySchmidt,acceptsBrugmann’sand
Osthoff’s correspondence sets, but explains the epenthetic svarabhakti vocalisms of
thecognatesasreflectingaschwasecundum(writtenas*M)insteadofthezerograde.
(c) The third tradition, dating back to the period preceding the theory of syllabic
sonants,isthecomparativeone.Accordingtothisview,thoughneverformulatedasa
full-scale theory, the identical vocalisms of cognates are directly compared and
postulated to the proto-language when confirmed by at least two witnesses. This
approachcanbeillustrated,forinstance,byVerner’sreconstruction(1877:125):
“[G]erm.folliaf.‘fülle’(ahd.fullida)=altind.pûrátâdss.,vongerm.folla-‘voll’(goth.
fulla-,an.full-r,as.full,ags.ful,ahd.fol)=altind.pûrá-,dss.”
39
For an interpretation of the historical connection between the Neogrammarians and
monolaryngealism, see Eichner (1988:128): “Er [= der Monolaryngalismus] bildet im Grunde die
Fortsetzung der Brugmannischen Auffassungen vermerhrt um die Ansicht, daß man nach der
EntdeckungderanatolischenEvidenznichtmehrganzohneLaryngalauskommt.”
27
Here,inessence,anoriginalvowelispostulatedbyatleast“twowitnesses”:
PIE*pulno- R
RV.p%rá-,Go.full-,ORus.p&ln&-,etc.
§4.Fortheobstruents,functionallydefinedasphonemeswithoutvocalicallophones,
the Neogrammarians postulated a system of plosives and fricatives, comprising of
twenty-eightproto-phonemes.
Plosives:
Fricatives:
2.
t
th
d
dh
4.
À
Àh
º
ºh
5.
kÒ
kÒh
»
»h
6.
s
sh
z
zh
1.
*p
*ph
*b
*bh
3.
k
kh
g
gh
7.
h
h
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
As regards these items, discussed in full in Chapter 4, the following preliminary
remarkscanbemade:
1.Columns1-3representthe decem-taihunisogloss,viz.theproblemofthefour
mannersofarticulationT—Th—D—Dh(appearinginrows1-4).
2. Columns 3-5 represent the Centum-Satem isogloss, viz. the problem of the
threePIEvelarseries(Neogr.*k:À:kÒ,etc.).
3. Columns 6-7 represent the Neogrammarian fricative system, consisting of a
series of sibilants and a series of interdental fricatives (or thorns), but lacking the
placeofarticulationforlaryngeal(s).
(a) Three main theories have been presented for the decem-taihun isogloss,
consistingoftheseriesT—Th—D—DY:
1.Thetraditional(Neogrammarian)theorywithtwentycomparativelyobtained
coversymbolsforplosives,asalreadyindicatedinthetableabove.
2. The ‘root constrainttheory’ of Meillet and Magnusson, which claims a
complementarydistributionfortheseriesmediae(D)intherootswithtwosuccessive
plosives,thusimplyingitssecondarycharacter.
3. Based on Saussure’s suggestion (generalized by Kuryowicz), the series of
tenues aspiratae is eliminated by means of segmental analysis in mainstream
laryngealtheory.
Neogr.*phthkhÀhkÒh
R
LT*p+h2t+h2k+h2À+h2k
Ò
+h2
The remaining system of three series (*T : D : Dh) is the starting point of the socalledglottalictheory,modulationsofwhicharebasedontypologicalconsiderations.
(b)ThesecondpartoftheplosiveproblemdealswiththeCentum-Satemisogloss(i.e.
the existence of the three velar series (Neogr. *k : À : kÒ)). Currently there are a
numberofattemptstodealwiththisquestion:
1.TheNeogrammariantheory,consistingoftwelveproto-phonemes(Neogr.*k
ÀkÒ;*khÀhkÒh;*gº»;*ghºh»h),isobtainedthroughthecomparativemethod.
Although correct in terms of its contents, the theory is typologically problematic,
becausenosatisfactoryparallelsinthelanguagesoftheworldhaveemerged.
28
2. Attempts to eliminate one series by means of environments result in a
reduction of the system to only two original series. In this regard, all the possible
subsets of two original phonemes (i.e. *k+*À, *k+*kÒ and *À+*kÒ) have been
suggested,butwithlittlesuccess.
3. When segmental analyses of the velars (Neogr. *kÒ = *ku) (Reichelt) and
palatals (Neogr.* À = *ki) (Szemerényi) are combined into a single theory, the two
approachesonlyleavetheplainvelarseriesfortheproto-language,thusremovingthe
typologicalproblemofhavingthreeseries.
(c)TheNeogrammariansystemoffricatives–inpartartificial,inpartdeductive(vs.
inductive)–wasdefectiveintermsofthelaryngealplaceofarticulation.Thesituation
is discussed separately in the next paragraph in order to illustrate the principles of
segmentalanalysis.
§5.InordertoguaranteetheminimalcharacterofthephonemeinventoryofSystem
PIE, a combinatory analysis of phonemes is carried out for vowels, resonants and
obstruentsintherespectivechaptersofthestudy.Thetestingofthepostulatedprotophoneme systems can be exemplified here with an analysis of the Neogrammarian
systemoffricatives,inrelationtowhichonecanobservethefollowing:
(a)OfthesibilantsNeogr.*sshzzh,onlyNeogr.*sand*zexistasoutcomesofthe
comparativemethod.ThesibilantsNeogr.*shzhwerepostulatedonthebasisofthe
typology of the four obstruent series Neogr. TTh D DY (‘Systemzwang’). Since the
proper (comparative) reconstruction must be exclusively based on data, the
constructionsleaningtostructuresortypologiesandtheirpostulates(hereNeogr.†sh
and†zh)areunacceptable.
(b)Thepostulationoftheso-called‘thorn’series(i.e.thefourinterdentalfricatives)
Neogr.*
*h
*
*h
(Grundr21:790)
isbasedonacomparisonofsibilants(inIndo-Iranianandelsewhere)anddentals(in
Greek). The definition can be shown to be erroneous, because the full data of the
alleged examples reveal both sibilants and dentals in Greek (and occasionally
elsewhere as well). No independent segment is to be reconstructed because sibilant
and dental extensions (marked I and II) exist simultaneously. The case can be
illustrated,forinstance,withthedata:
1.Neogr.*ghho·(.)-‘Erde,Ton’(adv.)‘unter,unten’(P.414f.)
I)PIE*ghso-
RV.ká·p
vant-
RV.ka·p³vant-
Gr.?CB·AB- Att.bC8·IE~- RV.k³m- Gr.b·A8@BD
II)PIE*ghdho-
Gr.?CB·I;B-
(m.)‘BeschützerderErde’(WbRV.362)
(m.)‘BeschützerderErde’(WbRV.362)
(m.)‘TonzumBleichen’(GEW2:256)
(N.)=bC8-I;~D(SchwyzerGrGr.1:326)
(f.)‘dieErde,derErdboden’(WbRV.363)
(a.)=Gr.b<I;@<BD(SchwyzerGrGr.1:326)
(m.)‘TonzumBleichen’(GEW2:256)
29
Gr.I;@
Phryg.674@?4
i.gadan
(f.)‘Erde,Erdboden,Land’(GEW2:1098-9)
(f.)‘MotherEarth’(P.414)
(adv.)‘unten’(HHand.76,HEG1:539ff.)
Both a sibilant and a dental extension exist, due to which the postulation of an
underlyingthornisillegitimate.
2. Neogr. *teÀ- ‘bauen, zimmern, verfertigen, schneiden, usw.’ (P. 1058-59,
KEWA1:612-3)
I)PIE*teÀs-
RV.ták-
TochB.t
ks-
LAv.t
#-
Lat.texo-
gAv.ta#n-
Gr.F}I@:-
(ao.)‘zimmern,verfertigen’(WbRV.511,tákati)
(vb.)‘chopup,grindup’(DTochB.286,t
ksoym)
(pr.)‘(inScheite)zerlegen’(AIWb.645,t
#ti[3sg])
(vb.)‘bauen,zimmeren’(WH2:678,tex[1sg])
(m.obl.)‘Bildner,Schöpfer’(AIWb.645,ta#n[sgG])
(f.)‘Handwerk,Kunst(fertigkeit),List’(GEW2:889)
II)PIE*teÀt-
Gr.F}=FK@- LinB.tekton- Gr.F}=F4<@4 (m.)‘Zimmermann,Handwerker’(GEW2:867)
(m.)‘Zimmermann’(GEW3:183,te-ko-to-ne)
(f.)‘Handwerkerin’(GEW2:867)
Again two different extensions (Neogr. *teÀs- *teÀt-) are verified instead of a
singleitemimplyingathorn.Thisargumentcanberepeatedthroughoutthealleged
examples of Neogr. * h h, leading to the elimination of series of thorns.
ConsequentlyonlythesibilantsNeogr.*s(*z)andthecoversymbolforthelaryngeal
PIE*needtobeaccountedforinthePIEsystemoffricatives.
§6.Giventheexistenceofnineclearlydefinedproblems,thetheoreticalsituationin
thefieldistransparent.Sinceatleastsketchesofcomparativesolutionscanalready
be found in the literature, all problems can be solved by simple successive
applicationsofthecomparativemethod,asshowninthisstudy.
1 .3 Semantics
1.3.1 Symbolfunctionandsemantics
§0. From a semantic point of view, the predicate function /(a1, a2,..., an) df ‘x’
expressingmorphemesdefinescorrespondencesofthestringsofphonemesandtheir
meanings, therefore coinciding with the concept of symbol function.40 In semantics
40
Saussure(1916)interpretsthelinguisticsymbolastwosidesofacoin,showingbothform(cheval)
andmeaning(‘equus’).Perhapsthisisnotthebestavailablemetaphor,becausethetwosidesofacoin
are not identical, nor do they refer to each other, as is essentially the case with linguistic signs; for
example,seeMeriggi(1966:5):“FreilichvertreteichgeradedieThese,daßzwischenderSemantischen
Sphäre und der Lautgestaltung des entsprechenden Ausdrücks immer ein strenger Parallelismus
besteht.”
30
especially meanings are studied, and as the general problems of the field are well
knownitsufficestorefertothemostrelevantissuesforthereconstructionofProtoIndo-European.41
§1. Meaning can be defined in many ways, parallel or divergent.42 In comparative
Indo-Europeanlinguistics,themainvehicleforthedeliveryofmeaningistranslation.
As translation is a concrete measurable object, it is not intended that it involve a
philosophically loaded discussion about the meaning of meaning.43 It should,
however, be kept in mind that morphemes presuppose meaning and reconstruction
presupposes morphemes; accordingly, meaning is by no means a trivial concept.44
Systems lacking proper reference to meaning (see Chomsky) are of limited interest
forIndo-Europeanlinguistics,wheretranslationsplayasignificant(non-trivial)part
onseverallevels.45
(a)Translationsareofteninterpretationsofmultiplecontextualfactswhereanerror
mayoccur.AnexampleofanerroneousmeaningisprovidedbyTischler(HEG1:16465)explaininghowacertaintranslation
i.apadia- (vb.)‘schlagen,verletzen,töten’(HHand.40)
should be postulated instead of the early ‘†Diener, Untergebener’, which was based
on a misunderstanding of the context. Such corrections, once made, can often be
verified(orfalsified)bycomparativeanalysis.46
(b)Itisnotuncommonforthetranslationofaword(oramorpheme)tobemissing.
Thisisparticularlycommonwithhapaxesandinonomastica.Inordertorecoverthis
vitalmaterial,Indo-Europeanlinguisticsusesmultiplemethodologiestosupplement
themissingtranslations,butinparticularthecomparativemethod.Asanexampleof
supplementingthemissingmeaning,IquoteanancientCelticpropername:
OGaul.mageno-
(PN.m.)‘-(?)-’(ACSS.2:374).
Thoughnotranslationisavailable,themethodallowsforacomparisonwiththelater
Celticitems:
Cymr.maen- (m.)‘pierre:stone’(LEIAM-9)
Bret.mean- (m.)‘Stein’(P.709)
OBret.cronn·main- (sb.)‘pierreronde’(LEIAM-9)
41
Forageneralintroductiontosemantics,seeLyons1977.
42
Forinstance,typesofdefinitionsincludeostensive,iconic,nominal,extensional,grammaticalandso
forth.
43
Inthisstudy,hybridtranslations–quotingdictionariesintheiroriginallanguages–areusedinorder
tominimizethepossibilityoferror.
44
See, for instance, Nyman’s sketch of the connection (1982:32): “[...] the so-called sign rules which
relateasignatumtoitssignans,thusmakingupamorpheme(Andersen1980:3)oraphoneme[…].”
45
SeealsoMeriggi(1966:3):“[…]dieasemantischeSprachwissenschaft[…],beidermanLauteund
Formen,abernichtihreBedeutunguntersuchensoll,istmirsinnlose.”
46
Inthiscase,Tischler’stranslationisnowsupportedbytheetymologyHes.\874@B-(LSJ.182)=
f874@-‘schwach,gebrechlich’(GEW1:639-40).
31
Walde(andPokorny,P.709)correctlyreconstructedPCelt.*mageno-forthelatter,
butastheprototypenowcoincideswiththeactuallyattestedancientform,thelatter
canbefurnishedwiththetranslation:
OGaul.mageno-
(PN.m.)‘Stein(?)’(ACSS.2:374).
Sincenosoundlawsareviolated,andthepostulatedproto-formisreplacedwithan
actually attested form of equal shape, the comparisons of the type are allowed
regardlessofthesubgroupinvolved.47
§2.AsmentionedbyMatthews(1991:223),theproblemoftherelationshipbetween
morphemesandrealitywasalreadyunderstoodinAncientGreece:
“One of the oldest findings about the language is that the forms of lexical elements
generally do not bear a natural relation to their meanings. As Hermogenes put it in a
dialogue by Plato, the names of the things are justified by nothing more than rule and
custom.”(Cratylos384d)
However, some modern formulations of the idea, especially the extreme
interpretation of Saussure’s slogan ‘arbitrariness of meaning’, does not serve IndoEuropean linguistics in an optimal manner. In particular, if the rules mentioned by
Hermogenesarenotrecognized,severalactualcriteriagoverningthealternationsof
meaningarelost:
(a) The PIE roots are attested in multiple vocalizations (including zero), called its
ablautbases.Theablautvowelsmodifiedthemeaningoftheroottovaryingdegrees
inamannernotyetcompletelyunderstood.
(b)ThePIEstemsbelongtovariousgrammaticalfunctions(e.g.verbs,substantives,
adjectives, etc.) and their subclasses (e.g. active : medium/deponent : passive and
transitive:intransitive,etc.).Suchalternationsarereflectedinregular(vs.arbitrary)
changesofmeaning.
§3. The original PIE derivation and the subsequent sound changes have semantic
consequences,especiallyforthefollowingphenomena:
(a)Homonyms–morphemeswithanidenticalphonologicalshape,butetymologically
incompatiblemeanings–arecommonplacebothinProto-Indo-EuropeanandIndoEuropean:
/(a1,a2,...,an)‘x’ /(a1,a2,...,an)‘y’.
Thecomparativemethodsplitshomonyms,arrangesthemorphemesunderrespective
rootsmnbasedontheirsemanticvalues,andeliminatesmergersintheprocess.
(b) Polysemy describes different but ultimately connected meanings of an identical
sequenceofphonemes,suchas:
/=(a1,a2,...,an)
df
‘x1’,‘x2’,...,‘xn’.
47
InthedigitalizedplatformofthePIELexicon,itwillbepossibletolistallthemorphologicalmatches
allowed by sound laws to test the available translations. Even if no match is found, all possible
etymologies have been attempted and the reasons for their failure systematically codified; this also
constitutesascientificresult.
32
Suchvariationcanbetracedbacktoarangeoffactors,suchasthedifferencebetween
the real objects designated (e.g. ModEng. plain = ‘clear’, ‘unadorned’, ‘obvious’,
etc.),thegrammaticalclassesofthestems,andsoforth.Fromacomparativepointof
view,polysemyreferstoitemswithacommonsemanticfieldandroot.
(c)Synonymsorparaphrases–theforms/=(a1,a2,...,an)and/=(b1,b2,...,bm)with
the same meaning, but distinctive phonetic structure – are widespread in IndoEuropean.48EvenSanskrit,knownforitssynonyms,palesincomparisonwithProtoIndo-European, implying that the ‘one meaning, one form’ principle cannot be
followed literally in Indo-European linguistics. The principle is helpful in
distinguishing forms with incompatible meanings, but it should be recognized that
multipleobjectswithidenticalmeaningaresupportedbythecomparativemethod.
(d) It is not uncommon for a stem to have a ‘double meaning’, thus revealing a
compound rather than a simple word. In such cases it is still possible to achieve
correspondences by segmentation, as the two morphemes and two meanings can be
attachedtotwodifferentroots.Anexampleofsuchanalysisisfoundin:
Go.aldo·min-
(m./n.)‘6C4D:oldage’(GoEtD.25).
Herethefirstcomponent(Go.aldo)correspondstothemeaning‘old’,asaresultof
which Go. ·min- is left with the meaning ‘age’, which still currently has no known
cognates, according to Lehmann (GoEtD. 25). However, the comparison with Old
Anatolianresultsinadirectmatchin:
PIE*men-‘Zeit’
i.men-
Go.·min-
(n.obl.)‘Zeit’(HEG2:171,me-e-ni[sgL])
(m./n.)‘age’(GoEtD.25)49
Generallyspeaking,thedataactuallycontainsmoresegmentsthanjustthewords(or
stems),andsemantichintsoftenleadtosuccessfulsegmentation.
§4. Semantic bridges – assumed changes of meaning through a postulated
(hypothetical)meaning–arerelativetothephonemeinventoryandsoundlawsystem
at hand. In general, improvements in phonology result in increased morphological
distinctions, sometimes confirming and sometimes specifying a semantic bridge.
Perhaps most often, however, a semantic bridge turns out to be artificial. An
illustration of this can be found with the emergence of PIE * (= i. ). In the
Neogrammarian system, ‘a-vocalism’ (Neogr. *T a ) referred to vowels; not
considered root radicals, they were therefore allowed to alternate with zero.
According to the modern line of thought, Neogr. *T a indicates PIE * ( h2), a
radical consonant, thus often necessitating distinctions within the traditional roots
A brief look at the Indo-European synonym dictionaries like Watkins 19923 and Mallory-Adams
1997confirmsthatsynonymyiswidespreadwithinthegroup.
48
49
For an alternative extension of the root obtained similarly by Fraenkel, see his outstanding
comparison of Li. tuo·m¢l (adv.) ‘in einem fort : right away’ (LiEtWb. 445) and Go. mel- (n.) ‘Zeit,
Stunde’(ANEtWb.376).
33
heldtogetherwithsemanticbridges.Therefore,inthePokorny-root*(a)ner-‘Mann,
Mensch:Kraft,Rüstigkeit,usw.’thefollowingdistinctionsarenowobligatory:
(a) PIE *ner *nor- ‘man’ (P. 765). The undisputed \- in Greek (and Phrygian)
impliesthatthisrootoriginallybeganwithPIE*:
Gr.\@~C-
NeoPhryg.4@4C-
RV.nár-
RV.nË-
(m.)‘Mann’(GEW1:107-8)
(m.)‘Mann’(P.765)
(m.obl.)‘Mann,Mensch’(EWA2:19-20)
(m.obl.)‘Mann,Mensch’(WbRV.748-50,nËbhis[I])
(b)PIE*ner-*nor-‘strength,strong’(P.38-39,HEG1:28).HerebothGreekandOld
Anatolianindicatethattherootdidnotbeginwithalaryngeal:
Cymr.ner
Osc.niir-
RV.nár-
RV.nË-
Hes.@C·8?@B-
Gr.@KC}K CLu.anari- i.anari-
Gr.@}CFB-
OIr.nert
(m.)‘chef,seigneur’(LEIAN-10)
(m.)‘princeps’(LEIAN-10,niir[sgN])
(m.)‘Held,Krieger(vonGöttern)’(WbRV.748)
(m.)‘Held,Krieger(vonGöttern)’(WbRV.748)
(a.)‘?}64D,B>D’(LSJ.1186)
(vb.)‘operate,effect,etc.’(Hes.@KC8)b@8C68)
(c.)‘Rüstigkeit,Lebenskraft’ (DLL26-27)
(c.)‘Rüstigkeit,Lebenskraft,Vitalität’(HHand.16)
(m.)Hes.l}C4A)@}CFBD(LSJ.1170)50
(n.)‘force,vigueur,puissance,vertu’(LEIAN-10) Thesemanticbridgefailsnotonlyformorphologicalreasons,butbecausea‘man’is
notnecessarily‘chief,hero’oreven‘strong’.Definitely,however,heisa‘breather’,as
wassuggestedalreadybyBrugmann(Grundr21:351),connectingGr.\@~Ctotheroot
PIE*en-‘breath’(P.38-39):
RV.sám(...)
n-
Go.uz·n- Osc.anamo- (pf.)‘leben,atmen’(WbRV.50,sám(...)
na[3sg])
(pret.)‘aus-atmen’(GoEtD.385,uzn[3sg])
(m.)‘Seele,Geist,Gesinnung,Gemüt,Müt’(WH1:49)
§5. Finally, it should be observed that the postulation of a PIE morpheme requires
thatboththeformalandsemanticequationsmatch.Therefore,twomorphemes
/x(a1,a2,...,an)df‘x’ =
/y(a1,a2,...,an)df‘y’
areidenticalonlyifboththeproposition/x(a1,a2,...,an)=/y(a1,a2,...,an)andthe
proposition‘x’=‘y’aretrue.51
50
Forthealternationofthemeanings,compareGr.ß|@4A‘Herrscher,Herr,Fürst’(GEW1:102)and
Li.vãnagas‘Habicht’(LiEtWb.1194).
51
CompareCampbell(2004:356):“Agenerallyacceptedprinciple(advocatedbyMeillet)permitsonly
comparisonswhichinvolvebothsoundandmeaningtogether.”Anexceptiontotheruleconsistsofthe
formswithunknownmeaning(formula/x(a1,a2,...,an)df‘-(?)-’).Inordertotestwhetherasuitable
translation can be found, it is naturally allowed to propose equations from among morphologically
possiblematchesinordertoarriveatthemissingtranslation.
34
1 .3.2 SemanticfieldsofPIErootmatrices
§0. The PIE roots formed tree-shaped structures called root matrices with a wide
range of meanings defining the semantic field of the matrix.52 The existence of
semanticfieldshasbeenunderstoodeversincetheSanskritgrammariansconstructed
roots not restricted to a single but several meanings. The preconditions for a
comprehensivescientificstudyofthesemanticfieldshaveonlybeencreatedrecently
asaconsequenceofthecodificationofthecompleteIndo-Europeanmaterialandthe
advancementsofcomputationallinguistics.HereIwillnotproposeafull-scaletheory
of semantic fields of the Indo-European languages, but simply sketch the general
situationinapreliminarymannerforthelimitedpurposesofthisstudy.
§1.Thealternationofmeaningsofasemanticfieldisgoverned,forinstance,bythe
followingregularfactors:
(a)Thegrammaticalcategoriesofthestemsbelongingtoarootmatrix.Forinstance,
itiscommonplacewithinPIErootsthataverbmeaning‘togo(withfourlegs),run’is
associated with substantives meaning ‘horse’, ‘bird’and/or ‘foot/leg’, an adjective
‘hasty’, a numeral meaning ‘four’, a preposition(s) meaning ‘for(ward), forth, etc.’,
and an adverb meaning ‘fast’. The subcategories of the stems (such as ‘transitivity’,
‘gender’,etc.)governregularchangesofmeaning,whichcanbedigitallymanaged.
(b)Thefactsoftheexternalrealityarereflectedinthedimensionsofasemanticfield.
Thus,inPIE,averbmeaning‘make’isoftenaccompaniedbyasubstantivemeaning
‘hand’(ormoreabstractly,‘work’),anadjectivemeaning‘capable,mighty’,anumeral
meaning ‘five’, and so forth. The reasons for the alternation are readily understood
(the meaning ‘hand’ is defined by the ‘(five) fingers’ and actions performed by the
hand), and this kind of phenomenon can also be regulated, at least to a reasonable
degree.
(c) Roots with parallel extensions with an identical meaning (or nearly so) are not
uncommon in Proto-Indo-European (and Indo-European). This can be illustrated
with the traditional entry Neogr. *mn- ‘moon, month’ (P. 731), actually a *·nextensionoftherootPIEme-m-‘luna’:53
PIEme-
OInd.ma-
TochA.ma·ñkätt-
(m.)‘Moon’(MonWil.771,Lex.ma[sgN])
(m.)‘dealuna’(Poucha212,ma·ñkätt[sgN])
52
Note that the term ‘semantic field’is used here in a different sense than in its original usage. The
standard definition and its summary are advanced by Fox (1995:116) as follows: “Jost Trier […] put
forward the theory of the semantic fields (Trier, 1931). According to this theory, it is possible to
identifyareasofthevocabulary(‘fields’)withinwhichmeaningsaremutuallydefininganddelimiting,
thus forming systems which have some affinity to those found in phonology and morphology. Trier
illustrated this principle with an analysis of the vocabulary of ‘knowledge’in Middle High German,
demonstratingthatvariouswordsusedcoveredthefieldinquestionwithoutgapsoroverlaps,andthat
thefieldanditsstructurechangedinresponsetoculturaldevelopments.”Forthisinternalmeaningof
theterm‘semanticfield’,seefurtherHock(1991:305).
53
Fortheregularexplanationofvocalismsinvolved,seeChapter2.
35
PIEm·n-
RV.m
·!catú-
Li.m¹na-
PIEm·s-
RV.candrá·mas-
RV.m³s-
Arm.mahik Mars.mesen- (a.)‘denMondverscheuchend’(WbRV.1028)
(m.)‘Monat,Mond’(LiEtWb.435,m¹nas[sgN])
(m.obl.)‘Mond-’(WbRV.436,candrá-masas[G])
(m.)‘Mond,Monat’(WbRV.1036,m³sam[sgA])
(sb.)‘Mondsichel’(ArmGr.1:191,mahik)54
(sb.)‘Mond’(WbOU.472)
PIEm·u-
El.?8-
OIcl.m%lin- OIcl.mundil·fari
(m.)‘Monat,Mondsichel’(GEW2:227,?8D[sgN])
(m.)‘Mond’(ANEtWb.395,m%linn[sgN])
(PNm.)‘N.fürdenVaterdesMondes’(ANEtWb.395)
The semantic distinctions originally caused by the extensions remain temporarily
unknown, owing to the incomplete state of Indo-European studies, but in principle
these can also be recoverable when a digital study of the matrices as independent
(andcomparable)objectsbecomespossible.
(d)Semanticfieldsofformallydistinctmatricescanbecomparedwitheachotherin
termsofalternationsandparallelsofmeaning.Thusthecommonplacealternationof
meanings‘foot’,‘go’,‘hasty’etc.recursin:
pi-‘gehen;Fuß’(fortheextendedroot,seeP.795,*pi·m-)
TochA.pe- i.pai-
OInd.paya- (m.)‘pes:Füß’(Poucha186,pe[sgN])
(vb1.)‘gehen,marschieren,usw.’(CHDP:19f.)
(vb.)‘togo,move’(MonWil.585,payate[3sg])
(e) The scope of semantic fields can (and must) be tested using the procedure
sketchedoutbySzemerényi(1977:306):
“Ifanetymoninvolvestheassumptionofanunusualsemanticdevelopment,theresearcher
mustre-examinethephonologicalandmorphologicalaspectsofthederivation.”
Assemanticalternationscanbeverifiedbymeansofcomparisonorrejecteddueto
anabsenceofparallels,themorematricesarereconstructedthemoresolutionsthere
are for semantic problems – and the more possible it is to build a highly regulated
theory.
§2.Generallyspeaking,themostinterestingpossibilitiesinIndo-Europeansemantics
lieinnon-arbitraryalternationsofmeaning.
54
As evidence against Hübschmann’s suggestion of a hypothetic loan (without an Iranian starting
point),notethe‘a-colouring’inArmenianandLithuanianacute,bothwithagreementinPIE*.
36
(a)Usuallytheassumptionofarbitrarinessofmeaningisunnecessaryormisleading:
our first and foremost task in (P)IE semantics is to develop a means of regulating
non-arbitrary semantic alternations and providing the study with precise tools to
approachameaningasaninductiveproblemwithasolution.
(b) Even if the meanings of the shortest (primary) PIE roots, which serve as the
startingpointsofthematrices,eventuallyturnouttobearbitrary,ourtaskistoprove
thisscientificallyinsteadofassumingarbitrarinessapriori.
§3. Due to the translatability of the Indo-European data into formulas of predicate
calculus,semanticscanbestudiedasrigorouslyasmorphology.Therefore,insteadof
attempting to ignore (or dismiss) it, semantics should be understood as a vital,
independentdimensionofcomparativereconstruction.
1 .4 Morphology
1.4.1 Morphemesandmorphology
§0.ThebasicstructureofIndo-Europeanwords,consistingofmorphemesinafixed
order,hasbeenunderstoodsincethetwilightofthegrammaticalanalysis.55Owingto
thisfundamentalstructureitisnotprimarilythewords(orevenlesstheparadigms),
butmorphemes–theminimaldistinctunitswithmeaning–thatcomprisethefocusof
thecomparativemethodofreconstruction.56Forthesakeofsuchstudy,Schleicher57
coined(orborrowedfrombiology)thetermmorphology.Theprimarygoalsofsuch
study,occasionallyalsocalledroottheory,areasfollows:
(a)TheestablishmentoftheProto-Indo-Europeanmorphemeinventoryconsistingof
all attested Indo-European morphemes arranged under PIE root matrices,
segmented and stored in the lexicon with their comparative reconstructions and
derivationsaccordingtotheprovensoundlaws.58
55
Fortheoriginalsegmentation,whichissporadicallyattestedinthedata,seeespeciallyAvestanand
Old Celtic, where segmentations (Av. hisp.sTmna- and OGaul. coop., etc.) do occur. Naturally one
mustalsomentionthesystematicprogramofsegmentationoftheSanskritgrammarians.
56
Forthemotivationtochoosemorphemesasthebasiclevel,seeFox(1995:67):“Morphemesare,in
fact, more useful than whole words, since word structure may well be different in the languages
compared.” For some definitions of ‘morpheme’, see Lyons (1968:108ff.) and Trask (DPhPh:227):
“The minimal grammatical unit; the smallest unit which plays any part in morphology, and which
cannotbefurtherdecomposedexceptinphonologicalterms.”
57
Szemerényi (1996:155): “The term morphology was coined by Schleicher in 1859; see Mémoires
Acad.Impériale7/1/7,35:‘fürdieleerevonderwortformwäleichdaswort“morphologie”.’”Forthe
backgroundoftheterm,seeKoerner(1982:21):“ItisquitesignificantthatSchleicherintroducedthe
term‘morphology’intolinguistics(Schleicher1859b,1861a)inhisattempttodevelopamathematical,
rigorous system of language classification.” Also note that biology, the source of the term, played a
significantroleinSchleicher’sideasconcerningthecomparativemethodingeneral.
58
On the definition, see Katii (1970:93): “Morphological correspondence of word forms can be
definedbyphonemiccorrespondenceofgrammaticalandlexicalmorphs.”
37
(b) The study of the variation and relationships of the PIE morphemes and
establishingtherulesgoverningthederivationofthePIEroots.59
§1.Intermsofmorphemeinventory,IwouldbeginbyquotingJoanBybee(1985:3):
“Thetraditionalconcernofmorphologyhasbeentheidentificationofmorphemes:dividing
wordsintopartsandassigningmeaningtotheparts.Thisisadescriptiveenterprisewhich
assumesthatwordsareindeeddivisibleinparts.”
In Indo-European linguistics, this divisibility has been gained by experience; there
exists general confidence on the matter. However, segmentation – the cutting of
morphemes – is not governed by a priori rules,60 but internal and external
confirmation for the morpheme boundary is required.61 General devices for
segmentation, like “[…] Greenberg’s square test to find the morph boundaries
(Essays in Linguistics 22)” (Raimo Anttila 1969:43), have been suggested and
developed.62 All such methodologies remain, however, subordinate to the data. For
theIndo-Europeanlanguages,thefollowingprinciplesarevalid:
(a)/xisacompound,ifandonlyiftherearemorphemes/yand/z,suchthat
/x(a1,a2,...,an)‘x’ ©
/y(a1,a2,...,am-1)‘y’+/z(am,...,an)‘z’63
(b) If a morpheme /y(a1, a2,..., am-1) ‘y’ is previously known and the morpheme
/z(am,...,an)‘z’hasbeenreachedbysegmentationofit,itisallowedtoaccountfor
thelatterinordertoidentifyitsetymologyortofalsifythesegmentation.
§2.AccordingtoBaudoin’s singlemorphemehypothesis,the(Indo-European)roots
and the affixes have the same status, being morphemes. Consequently, at the basic
level of observation, there is only one kind of entity: morphemes.64 In this context,
one readily agrees with Anttila (1969:97), quoting “Schütz’s general principle that
etymologicalresearchshouldnotcomprisemeresoundcomparisonbutalsoinclude
wordformation(341,347).”Inotherwords,asputbyNyman(1982:7):
“All good etymologies are generative; i.e., they are based on an explicit grammatical
analysis of linguistic signs. And evaluation of etymological reconstructions also has much
[in]commonwithevaluationofdescriptivegrammaticalanalysis.”
In accordance with these principles, System PIE and the PIE Lexicon present a
morpheme-and-stemmorphologyaccompaniedbyreconstructionandsoundlaws.
59
Notethatinordertobemeaningfullypracticed,thispartofthetaskrequiresthatsignificantportions
ofthemorphemeinventorymusthavebeenreconstructed.
60
SeeAnttila(1969:12,15).
61
ForseveralviolationsofdatainBenveniste’ssegmentation,seeSchmitt-Brandt(1967:14).
62
Thus, one may formulate the usual segmentation rule as follows: if two forms contain m identical
radicals,butdisagreeinthenth,thennisasuffixbelongingtoanother(possiblyunidentified)root.
63
See Campbell (2004:357): “When compared words are analysed as being composed of more than
onemorpheme,itisnecessarytoshowthatthesegmentedmorphemes(rootsandaffixes)infactexist
inthegrammaticalsystem.”
64
This principle, well known to the Neogrammarians, lies behind their respective term for the study
(viz.‘comparativegrammar’).
38
1 .4.2 Onclassificationofmorphemes
§0. The classification of Indo-European morphemes is based on the linear
organization of words, maximally consisting of prefix (-), root (), root
determinative (*), derivational suffix (.) and inflectional suffix (E). The varying
aspectsoftheIndo-Europeanwordsoftheshape-··*·.·Earestudiedunderthe
followingmaindisciplines:
(a) Morphophonology classifies the morphemes based on their appearance and
mutualorderintheformula-··*·.·E.
(b)Morphophonemicsstudiestheallomorphs(inpractice,theablautvariants)ofthe
morphemes of all categories.65 The Indo-European parent language was of a rootinflectedtypelikeArabic,andassuchitcontainedastockofconsonantalrootswith
alternative vocalizations in a system resembling Semitic interdigitation (or
introflexion).66
(c)Arigorousapparatusofderivationalmorphologyhasresultedinawidevarietyof
rootshapesinProto-Indo-European,insharpcontrastwithSemitic,whichismostly
basedonthree-literalroots.Inderivationalmorphology,thevariationofmorphemes
isstudiedaccordingtotheirrelativepositionsintherootmatrix.
§1.TheProto-Indo-Europeanwordswereformedbasedonthepattern-··*·.·E,
where some terms may be missing in their attested form.67 The subcategories of
morphemesarewellknown,andabriefsketchsufficeshere:
(a)Theprefixmorpheme-canbesegmented(e.g.Gr.CB,etc.),ifprefixedforms
appearalongsidetheprefixlessonesinthematerial.Thus,forinstance,theso-called
protheticvowels PIE*··Ê·68areprefixesbydefinition,owingtothestandardablaut
PIE*Ê:Ø:*·,inexamplessuchas:
m-‘I,me,my,mine,etc.’
*m- *om- *em- Gr.?8[sgA],gAv.m
,OCS.m,etc.
HLu.amu,i.amuk[AD] Gr.b?}[sgA],b?-(a.)‘mine’,Arm.im
O
O
O
-=Ø·
-=*Ê·
-=*··
65
For a definition, see Bybee (1985:v): “The study of morphology approaches morphemes as the
(minimal) linguistic units with semantic content, and studies relations among them. In contrast,
morpho-phonemics, as classically defined, studies the relations among allomorphs – the variant
phonologicalrepresentationsofasinglemorpheme.”
66
In Indo-European linguistics, the proto-roots are often given in the conventional *e-grade (e.g.
elu-),regardlessoftheactualvocalizationsofthematerial.
67
Thepattern-··*·.·Emaynaturallycontainmultipleitemsofoneandthesamecategory.Thus,
for example, a compound (see Hirt 1928 and Salus 1963) may consist of several root morphemes
(1·2·...·n).
68
Anttila(1969:89),Schwyzer(GrGr.1.411-413&433),Austin1941,Winter1950,Wyatt(1972:1n1),
Beekes (1969:18-98), Lejeune (1953:127-9), Messing (1947:190-200), Szemerényi (1964:112,
19701:131).
39
s-‘be’
*s-
*os- *es- Osc.senti[3pl],Do.b@F<,HLu.sa-tu[3sg]
i.Pal.CLu.a#antu[3pl]‘sind’
LinB.ehont-,OLi.esti-[pt.],etc. O
O
O
-=Ø·
-=*Ê·
-=*··
su-‘good’
*su- *osu- *esu- i.#umili-(a.)‘well-fixed’:RV.s%máya- O
i.a#u-(a.)‘good’ O
Gr.b3·@@:FB-(a.)‘gutgesponnen’ O
-=Ø·
-=*Ê·
-=*·
Inthelaryngealtheory,ithasbeenassumedthattheprotheticvowelswouldprovide
direct evidence for laryngeals. 69 However, Messing’s (1947:191) objection “one
cannotrelyontheprotheticvoweltoalwaysreflectalaryngeal”iscorrectforobvious
reasons: the postulation of a laryngeal based on a prothetic vowel constitutes a
violationoftheambiguityrule,because PIE*··Ê·areequallypossible(andactually
correct in cases where PIE * does not appear). Thus, in the above examples, the
postulationofaninitiallaryngealisimpossible,becausenotraceofitappearsinthe
zerogradeoftheprotheticlanguages(Gr.?-)orinOldAnatolian(HLu.#-‘be’,
i.#u-‘good’).
(b)Therootmorphemes(designatedbythesymbol)arethemaincomponentsof
thewords(e.g.PIEpt-‘fly’).70Therootistheminimalconsonantshape(morpheme)
ofetymologicallyconnectedwordsobtainedwhenalltheaffixes,includingtheablaut
vowels, are removed.71 For lexical purposes, the PIE roots can be understood as
arraysofradicalconsonants(phonemes)appearingwiththeattestedvocalizations.72
(c)Theterm‘Wurzeldeterminativ’(or‘rootdeterminative’,designatedbythesymbol
*)wascoinedbyCurtiusandacceptedbyBrugmannandotherNeogrammarians.As
forthedefinition,Persson’s(Beitr.560)generalcharacterizationcanstillbequoted:
“DieElemente,umwelchemdielängerenWurzelformenvermehrtzuseinscheien,unddie,
da sie keine klar erkennbare Bedeutung oder bestimmte Funktion aufzeigen, sich für die
gewöhnliche Auffassung im allgemeinen als integrierende Teile der Wurzel darstellen,
nenntmanmiteinemvonCurtiusgebrachtenNamenWurzeldeterminative;zurDefinition
vgl.BrugmannKvglGr.296f.,Grundr.2II,I,10.”73
69
SeeBenveniste(1935:152):“La‘prothèsevocalique’dugrecetdel’arménienadonc,aumoinsen
partie,unfondementétymologique:c’estlerested’uneinitialeT-antéconsonantiquedansuneracine
suffixéeàl’étatII.”
70
Foramoreinformaldefinition,seeMatthews(1991:64):“Aformsuchasluc-istraditionallycalleda
root. This is a form that underlies at least one paradigm or partial paradigm, and is itself
morphologicallysimple.Thuslucunderliestheparadigmsofbothluceoandlucidus.”
71
Trask(DPhPh:312)writes:“Inmorphology,thesimplestpossibleformofalexicalmorpheme,with
no affixes, such as Latin am- ‘love’or Arabic ktb ‘write’.” For a detailed discussion, see Anttila
(1969:15)andBrugmann(Grundr.21:32-40).
Anttila(1969:104,17-),Møller(1880:1511),Polomé(1965:41183),andBorgström(1954:279).
72
73
SeealsoSzemerényi(1996:100):“[...]*gheud-wasformedwithinIndo-Europeanfromthesimpler
*gheu-bymeansofasuffixwhichnolongerhasanyclearlyperceptiblemeaning.Formativeelements
ofthiskindhavebeenknownsinceCurtiusasrootdeterminatives.”Fortheliteratureandadiscussion,
seealsoAmmer(1952:195).
40
The root determinatives, fossilized elements between the root and the derivational
and/orinflectionalsuffixes,aredisappearingasaclassofmorphemes.Thisisdueto
the advancement of the field, allowing their comparison with well-defined
morphemesofthelexicon.Asanexampleofaneliminationofa‘rootdeterminative’,
wemayconsiderthefollowingroot:
Neogr.*markÒ-‘fassen,usw.’(P.739)
TochA.mar(…)kä-
Gr.?}?4CB- OInd.marcaya-
Rus.moroková-
(pr.)‘capere,comprehendere’(Poucha225,markäs)
(ao.)‘packen,fassen,ergreifen,einholen’(GEW2:178)
(cs.)‘toseize,take’(MonWil.791)
(vb.)‘begreifen,verstehen’(REW2:159)
TheunextendedrootNeogr.*mar-‘fassen,usw.’isattestedbeyondTocharian:
Gr.?|C:-
Alb.mora- Gr.?4C~6K Gr.8t·?4CF:-
(f.)‘Hand’(=Hes.I8C,GEW2:175,LSJ.1081)
(ao.)‘nehmen,halten,fassen’(Grundr21:365)
(pr.)‘nehmen,usw.’(LSJ.1081,?4C~68<:>4?5|@8<)
(f.)‘Leichtigkeit,Bequemlichkeit’(GEW1:588)
The determinative * = PIE *kÒ(e/o)- can be proven as a morpheme by noting that
Tocharian has preserved its meaning (= TochA. ‘com’). Accordingly, the
determinative·kÒ-‘zusammen’canbecomparedtotheencliticconjunction PIE*kÒe
‘und’(Lat.·que,RV.·ca,Gr.·F8usw.,P.635),thusformingapartoftherootkÒ-
‘zusammen’.74
In general, close philological and comparative scrutiny often allows for a
comparativeidentificationoftherootsofdeterminatives.Asthedigitaltechnologies
aresteadilyimproving,thestudyofdeterminativesislikelytoimproveconsiderablyin
thefuture.
(d)Thederivationalsuffixes·.aredefinedasboundmorphemesfollowingtheroot
after an optional root determinative. As is the case of the root determinatives, the
derivational suffixes can usually be compared to the respective free morphemes,
which are preserved at least in some language(s). A relatively recent example of a
derivationalsuffixanalyzedintermsofmorphemeinventoryisprovidedbySchmittBrandt (1967:129), who compared the causative suffix PIE *·e¾e/o- *·o¾e/o- (vb.)
‘·machen’withAnatoliandatain:
i-(vbA.)‘machen’(vbMP.)‘werden’(PIE*i-*ei-*oi-,HEG1:338-343)
Lyc.ai-
CLu.aia-
Gr.·iB-
Gr.·iK
i.ei- Gr.·}K
(vb.)‘machen’(HEG1:340,aiti[3sg])
(vb.)‘machen’(DLL.23-24,a-a-du[3sg?])
(csM.)‘werden’(GEW2:109,>8G=B?4<[1sg])
(csA.)‘machen’(GEW2:109,>8G=K[1sg])
(vb.)‘machen’(SumDÙ,HEDI:335-347,e-it[3sg])
(cs.)‘machen’(e.g.inpCI}K,GEW2:433)
74
Thus,Pokorny’searlysemanticalbridge‘*irgendwie’(asiffromtherelativepronounPIE*kÒo-,kÒe)iserroneous.
41
Lat.·eo-
RV.·áya-
TochA.ya-
Oi.ia-
RV.·yá-
(cs.)‘machen’(e.g.inLat.l%ce‘leuchten’,WH1:823)
(cs.)‘machen’(e.g.inRV.rocaya-,WbRV.1171-2)
(vb.)‘facere’(Poucha235-7,yatär[3sg],yatsi[inf.])
(vb1A.)‘machen’(HEG1:338-343,ia-az-zi,ia-an-zi)
(pr.P.)‘werden’(e.g.inRV.badhyá-,WbRV.898)
Although the number of recognizable PIE derivational suffixes is considerably less
than that of root determinatives, there are still etymologies worth comparative
attention.75
(e)Theinflectionalsuffixes·E(orendings)areboundmorphemesbydefinition,but
as a rule they are also connected to other items of the morphology inventory. The
inflectional suffixes are typically pronouns and demonstratives (with verbs) and
affixes expressing, for instance, directions and other grammatical categories (with
nouns).76 The connection between inflectional suffixes and the respective root
morphemescanbeexemplifiedwithawell-knownexample:
m-‘ich,mich,mir,usw.’(P.702)
i.·mi
Gr.·?8
(end.)‘1sg-pr.’(e.g.ine-e#-mi[1sg],HEG1:109)
(encl.sgA.)‘mich’(GEW1:504)
Thewordsdetachedfromtheirinflectionalsuffixesarecalledthestemsofalanguage
andmarkedwithafinalhyphen(thesymbol-):
CLu.uap-
(a.)‘böse:hostile’(DLL.50,u-u-ua-ap-pí[sgD]).
§2. In Indo-European linguistics, the term morphophonemics (or root-inflection of
morphemes)basicallycoincideswithablaut.WecandefinetheProto-Indo-European
ablautwiththefollowingformula(forthefullderivationandproof,seeChapter2):77
ABLAUT(PIE)
df
PIE*:e:Ø:o:.
Intheory(andofteninpractice),anyablautvowelisallowedtoappearinanyposition
andisrestrictedonlybytheattestationsofthematerial.78
(a)Theablautvocalizationsofarootanditsablautbasesarereconstructedforevery
root,accordingtotheattestedforms.Thus,forinstance,theablautoftherootbhr-
‘bear’ can be defined as PIE *bhr- : *bhor- : *bhr- : *bher- : *bhr-, since such
vocalizationsareinferablebasedonthedata.79
75
Thus,forinstance,theoptativeGr.·B<-(RV.·e-)appearsasafreemorphemeinRV.é-(pr.)‘von
jemandbittendangehen,bitten’(WbRV.194,éti[3sg]).
76
It is usually said that inflectional affixes signal grammatical relationships without changing the
grammaticalclassofthestems.
77
Forthezerograde,seeAnttila(1969:75),Brugmann(Grundr21:394,428)andWhitney(1955:422).
78
Strictlyspeaking,theablautbasesofPIErootsarenotallomorphs,sincethevocalizationsPIE*:e
:Ø:o:donotallowfurtherreduction;theycertainlymakeaspecificdifferenceintermsofmeaning.
79
Note that identification of the ablaut bases of the roots is one of the primary problems of their
reconstruction,becausetheattestedformsarebuiltuponthese.
42
(b)Forthevalidityoftheablauttheory,itisvitalthatcompletevariationistakeninto
accountandtherespectivesoundlawsareconfirmed.Anincompletearrayofablaut
bases together with a structural approach can result in a false comparison of
unidenticalbases;ifsoundlawsremainunchecked,inconsistencyensues.80
(c)Deeplevelbasesachievedbytheinternalreconstructionof‘Pre-Proto-Language’
arenotacceptedexceptfortheabsoluteroot,purgedofablautvowelsandusedonly
foralphabeticpurposes.81Thus,forexample,itispermittedtopostulateazero-grade
root mr- ‘sterben, usw.’ (P. 735f.) even if no such vocalization is attested, because
theitemstagged‘’arenot,strictlyspeaking,postulated(reconstructed).82
§3. Derivational variation is widespread both in Proto-Indo-European and its
successors.Thevariationisusuallyreferredtoasdialectal,butthedatasuggeststhat
itismorelikelycausedbyPIEderivation,andthelatterterminologyispreferredin
thisstudy.83Thederivationalvariationreferstoformsthataredistinctfromthemost
commonformationsandcannotbeconnectedtothelatterbythemeansofconsistent
soundlaws.Itiscommonfordialectal(orderivational)variantstobecorroboratedby
at least two witnesses, thus allowing for their reconstruction in the proto-language.
Exempligratia,thisisthecasewith:
Poln.midzy (prep.)‘zwischen’(REW2:112,P.–).
The stem contains a problematic nasal vowel PSlav. *memdj-, which is absent from
thebetterknownformation:
(a)PIE*medh¾o-‘medius:(inthe)middle(of),between’(P.706)
RV.mádhya-
LAv.mai7ya-
Osc.mefio-
Ep.?}EEB-
(a.)‘medius’(WbRV.988)
(a.)‘medius,mittlerer’(AIWb.1116)
(a.)‘mittlerer,inderMittebefindlich’(WbOU.464)
(a.)‘inderMittebefindlich,mittlerer’(GEW2:214)
Intheextendeddatanowatourdisposal,theSlavonicformisalsonowparalleled:
(b)PIE*memdh¾o-‘mittel-,zwischen’
LAv.mam7ya-
(a.)‘mittelstark(vonderStimme)’(AIWb.1115)
80
See,forinstance,Szemerényi(1996:71):“[...]amorphemeisnotnecessarilyanunchangingform.[...]
For example, Grm. geb-e ‘give’, gib-t ‘gives’, gab ‘gave’, gäb-e (subj.) clearly contain the same
morpheme, though in the different forms geb-/gib-/gab-/gäb-. The morpheme, therefore, has
allomorphs[...].Thetypeofmorphemevariationillustratedbygebenisofgreatimportance[...]andis
knownasablaut.”
81
Consequently, hypothetic roots with unattested vocalizations like the so-called ‘Hirtian bases’(e.g.
*eueguh-,P.348)areunacceptableinthecomparativemethod.
82
Roots(e.g.mr-)refertoabsolutelyaffixlessforms.Therefore,theyareindependentofattestations
suchasRV.mÎ-(aoM.)‘sterben’(WbRV.1054,mÎth
s[2sg])andRV.mamr-(pf.)‘sterben’(WbRV.
1054,mamrús[3pl]).
83
For an alternative formulation of the ‘derivational variation’used here, see Fox (1995:51-2): “[…]
although it is customary in the practice of reconstruction to take ancient attested languages (Latin,
Sanskrit,OldHighGerman,etc.)asthestartingpoint,itisclearthattheselanguageswereinreality
not the uniform linguistic systems often preserved in their classical form, but were variable and
dialectallydifferentiated.”
43
Poln.midzy (prep.)‘zwischen’(REW2:112,P.–)
Obviously,thiskindofalternationisnotdialectal,becausethereisno‘Polish-Avestan
dialect’andwearedealingwithasimpleisoglossbetweenthelanguages.Aswemay
identify the derivational device leading to PIE *memdh¾o- (reduplication) and the
base is confirmed by two witnesses, the isogloss containing an otherwise unattested
zerogradeoftheroot(PIE*mdh-)isawelcomeadditiontotheknownablautofthe
root.
1 .4.3 MorphotacticsandPIErootmatrices
§0. In Indo-European linguistics, the term morphotactics can be understood as the
study of the morphemes in linear sequence -··*·.·E (morphophonology) and
ablaut PIE * e Ø o (morphophonemics). The ultimate goal of the study is to
discover and reconstruct the rules governing the derivational morphology of the
proto-language.Initsfullyadequateform,thestudyrequiresthereconstructionofall
PIE morphemes arranged under the main roots, a goal that has yet to be achieved.
Despite this, a preliminary description of the PIE root matrices is sketched out for
generalpurposes.
TheIndo-Europeanroottheoryhassplitintotwomaindivisions:
(a)Thetraditionaltheory–whichincludessuchfiguresasBrugmann,Walde,Persson
and Pokorny – is empirical and inductive, and consequently it makes no a priori
demandsonthenumberofradicalconsonantsofroots:theroots’shapesimpliedby
the comparative method and based on the evidence are projected onto the protolanguage.
(b) The laryngeal theory, based on an assumed Proto-Indo-Semitic root structure
C1C2·(C3),hasavastlysimplifiedideaofthealternationoftheIndo-Europeanroots:
iftheidealshapeisnotattestedatthesurfacelevel,laryngeals †h1and †h3areadded
inordertomaketheshapeoftherootofProto-Indo-Semitic.
§1. The traditional root theory, based on induction, was already practiced by the
Neogrammarians and continued by names like Persson, Walde and Pokorny. The
intrinsicorganizationoftheIndo-Europeandatahasinformedthelexicographersand
root theoreticians that the unextended roots are accompanied with numerous
parallelextensionsofshapes·.1,·.2,...,·.n(wherethesuffixvariable.ranges
across the morpheme paradigm, including the root determinatives). This approach
has resulted in tree-shaped root structures, consisting of the primary root and its
extensions, which are possibly further extended. The basic arrangement can be
exemplifiedwithamonoliteralroot:
i-‘gehen’(P.293-297)
RV.i- Gr.8o- (pr.)‘gehen,reiten,fahren,fliegen’(WbRV.195)
(vb.)‘gehen’(GEW1:462-3,8m?<[1sg])
44
Forthisroot,WaldeandPokornyreconstructedmultiplebiliteralextensions(called
‘Bildungen’ in this context), including i
(h)- (P. 296), igh- (P. 296), il- (P. 296),
im-(294),it-(294),idh-(P.295),iu-(P.295),andsoforth.84Characteristically,
the extensions are subordinated and arranged according to the number of attested
radicals. In this study, these shapes – containing the derivational structure of the
primary PIE roots – are called ‘root matrices’ (or simply ‘matrices’). Though
presenting a full-scale root theory before the completion of the PIE morpheme
inventory would be premature, the concepts of the monoliteral root and the root
matricesbuiltuponthemgoverntheformationandthestructureoftheProto-IndoEuropeanparentlanguage,andsomepreliminarycommentsareinorder:
(a) Many, if not all, PIE roots derive from monoliteral roots that allow no further
analysis;therefore,theyformtheprimarylevelofthePIErootmatrices.85Recently,
theexistenceofsuchrootsinOldAnatolianwasnotedbyBurrow(1979:20):
“[...]therearealargernumberofmonosyllabicrootsin-
inHittite[...]whichshownosign
ofalaryngeal,someofwhichhaveequivalentsinotherIElanguages,andsomeofwhichdo
not:
-‘tobelieve’,l
-‘toloosen’,m
(i)-‘togrow,thrive,ripen’[...]n
(i)-‘tolead,direct,
send’[...],p
(i)-‘togo’[...],#
(i)-‘topress,impress’[...]”86
Suchmonoliteralrootsare,ofcourse,notrestrictedtoOldAnatolian.Theyappear
practically in all cognates, as shown in the parallel examples below.87 In such a
manner, the phenomenon dates back to the Proto-Indo-European period and is of
particularinterestforthecomparativemethod.
(b)PIErootmatriceshaveauniquestructureconsistingofknots(isoglosses)based
ontheattestedcognates.Accordingly,Proto-Indo-Europeanhadastructure(inthe
senseofSaussure)thatcanbereconstructedbyaccountingforallattestedextensions.
Thisnotonlycontributestoourprimaryobjective,thebuild-upofthePIEmorpheme
inventory, but allows for organization of the material based on the structure of the
rootsthemselves.
(c) An argument against the comparative theory was presented by Szemerényi
(1977:288);referringtoPersson(1891,1912),hewrote:“[…]newavenuesseemedto
beopenedupwithamorethoroughinternalanalysisandcomparisonwhichleadto
thedoctrineofroot-determinatives.”Szemerényi’sobjection(1977:288)follows:
“But many scholars recognized the dangers inherent in the method of dissection. The
phoniccoreremainingaftertheoperation,theroot,oftenbecamesotenuous—consonant
84
Foranexampleofanextension,seeGr.Bo?B-(m.)‘Streifen,Gang,Weg,Bahn’(GEW2:363)from
PIE*oimo-(fromim-).
85
Note that the existence of single consonant roots does not mean that multiliteral roots (without
derivation from monoliteral ones) would not exist. Roots with any number of consonants (as well as
vocalicroots)areacceptedasprovenbythecomparisonofmaterial.
86
For Burrow’s views on Old Anatolian in a more general context, see (1979:vii): “The special
contributionofHittite[...]isduetothefactthatanearlierstageofIndo-Europeanisreachedbythe
comparison of Hittite and the Anatolian languages on the one hand, and the previously known IE
languagesontheother.”
87
Foradditionalmonoliteralroots(ofshapeCV),seealsoSchmitt-Brandt(1967:13n8.).
45
+ vowel + consonant at the best, but often something even less substantial—that the
comparisonsobtainedcouldnotbutbeviewedwithextremeskepticism.”
Szemerényi’s reasoning is difficult to accept because there is no comparative
alternative, and consequently monoliteral roots have been correctly postulated ever
sincethe19thcentury(seei-‘gehen’,s-‘sein’,etc.).88Themoredatahasemerged,
however,themoreclearmonoliteralshapeshavebecome;nowthatdigitaltechnology
is supporting study of the determinatives and suffixes, it has become pointless to
furtherdenythisattestedphenomenon.89
(d)Thecontentofthetraditionaltheorybeingempirical,thesoleremainingproblem
–mentionedbyKatii(1970:141)–isthescopeofthetheory:
“The fundamental question is, how can bundles of isoglosses [or correspondences]be
reduced to knots on genealogical trees [or root matrices]without arbitrary selection of
isoglossesfromthewholenetworkthatexistsinreality.”
This problem can also be solved when the existing network is accounted for in the
etymological dictionary, thus comprising the full extent of the data. From such
structure,theknotsconfirmedbyatleasttwobranchescanbeextractedbymeansof
digitaltechnology.
§2. The comparative root theory posits no a priori restrictions on the number of
radical consonants making a root. Thus monoliteral (x1), biliteral (x1,x2) and
triliteral(x1,x2,x3)–upto n-literalroots(x1,x2,…,xn)–canbereconstructed,if
implied by the data. Some examples of externally confirmed monoliteral roots and
theirextensionsarrangedunderrootmatricesarementionedbelow:
(a)m-‘disintegrate,disappear,vanish,die’
PIEmo-
i.ma-
Lat.mo-
PIEmor-
i.mar-
RV.mam³r-
i.mer-
RV.mÎ-
(Ro-)‘disappear,vanish,die’
(vb1.)‘disappear,vanish’(CHLL/N99,ma-du[3sg])
(vbM.)‘sterben’(WH2:112,mor[inf.])
(Ro*1-)‘idem’(Ablaut:*mer-*mor-*mÎ-)
(vb1&2.)‘verschwinden,verlorengehen’(HEG2:199)
(pf.)‘sterben’(WbRV.1054,mam³ra[3sg])
(vb1.)‘verschwinden,absterben’(HEG2:199,me-er-zi)
(aoM.)‘sterben’(WbRV.1054,mÎth
s,KEWA2:696f.)
88
AlsonoteSzemerényi’scontradictoryviewsonthematter:whileelsewheredenyingsuchitemsinthis
context(1996:132),hepointsouttheexistenceof“clearlyarchaicroots”thatshowthestructuresVC-,
C,CV.OnroottheoryandrootshapesCandV,seealsoSzemerényi(1996:98-101).
89
Forexamplesofdeterminativesimplyingamonoliteralroot,seeNeogr.*»
-»em»en-(Persson,
Beitr.572-3)andBurrow’sanalysis(1949:32):“TheSanskritrootgam-‘togo’containsanenlargement
-am([P]IE-em)asisclearfromthealternativerootg
-whichcontainsadifferentenlargement-
.In
GreekandLatin(54@K,venio)yetathirdenlargement-enappears.Theusualtheorywhichderives
thisnphoneticallyfromanearliermisbothunnecessaryandmisleading.”Thesamecanbesaidofthe
root*»ou-‘Stier,Kuh’(P.482-3)and*dr
-,*drem-,dreÒ-‘run’(Szemerényi1996:100-1).
46
PIEmort-
Gr.?BCF- RV.márta- Lat.mortuo- PIEmosK-
i.ma#ki-
(Ro*1·.1-)90
(a.)‘man,mortal’(LSJ.1147,GEW2:257,?BCFD)
(m.)‘Sterblicher,Mensch’(WbRV.1008-9)
(a.)‘tot’(WH2:113,mortuus[sgN])
(Ro*2·.2-)
(vb.)‘id’(?)(CHDM-99,ma-a#-ki-id-du[3sg])
In addition to the monoliteral root m- (and its extensions mor- and mos-), yet
anotherextensionma-(Ro*3)hasbeenpreservedinthefeminine
PIE*ma-‘death’:
OInd.m
-
(f.)‘death’(MonWil.771,Lex.m
[sgN]).
Theextensionsoftherootmatricescanbebuiltinastraightforwardmannerbasedon
attestedforms,ashasbeenthecustomeversincetheNeogrammarians.
(b)p-‘foot:go’(norootgiveninP.)
po-‘go’(norootgiveninP.)
HLu.pa-
Gr.\B·B-
i.pa-
Gr.FC·B-
pei-‘eilen’(P.795)
i.pai-
TochA.pe- Dh
tup.páya-
(vb1.)‘treiben,jagen’(?)(DLL.77,pár-du[3sg])
(pr.)‘hinüberführen’ (WbRV.777-8,píparti)
(sb.)‘foot’(CHLu.10.14.9,(“PES”)pa+ra/i-za)
(vb.intr.)‘eilen,jagen’(HHand.121,CHDP:143f.)
(pr.)‘durchschreiten,-fahren’(GEW2:510)
pet-‘fliegen,laufen,eilen’(P.825-6)
AV.víánupap
t-
Gr.}FB-
i.peta-
(vb1.)‘gehen,fließen,fliegen’(CHDP:19f.,paizi)
(m.)‘pes’(Poucha186,pe[sgN])
(vbM.)‘togo,move’(MonWil.585,payate[3sg])
per-‘eilen’(P.816-7)
CLu.par-
RV.pípar-
HLu.para-
i.para-
Gr.8C|K
(vb.)‘go’(CHLu.11.1.e24,(“PES2”)pa-tu)
(ao.?)Hes.\B8@)\8>;8@(LSJ.212)
(vb.)‘go,pass,flow’(CHDP:18f.,pa-an-zi[3pl])
(m.)‘tripod’(LSJ1821,FCBD,FCBG)
(pf.)‘durchfliegen’(WbRV.761,víánupap
ta[3sg])
(vb.)‘fliegen’(GEW2:521-2,}FB?4<[1sg])
(vb.)‘laufen,eilen,fliegen’(CHDP:352f.,pí-it-ta-i)
peu-‘gehen,eilen’(norootgiveninP.)
i.pauan-
(n.obl.)‘dasHinausgehen,derAusgang’(HHand.128)
90
Aparallelextensioniso·*·.-inPIEmori-=i.mari-(vb.)‘zerstückeln’(HEG2:136,mar-ri-etta),OLat.mor-(vb.)‘sterben’(WH2:112,morr[inf.]).
47
TochB.snai·pew-
TochB.wi·pew-
(a.)‘withoutfeet’(DTochB.399,snaipewa)
(a.)‘two-footed’(DTochB.399,wipewa)
Yetagain,themonoliteralrootp-isaccompaniedbymultiplealternativeextensions
(ordeterminatives)constitutingthematrixoftheroot.
§3.ThecomparativeIndo-Europeanroottheoryhasbeentemporarilysidetrackedby
the laryngeal theory, where empirical theory has been replaced by Møller’s ProtoIndo-Semiticroothypothesis.Withinthisframework,bilateralrootswouldbeofthe
oldesttype,accordingtoMøller(1906:xiv):
“Die zweikonsonantigen Wurzeln, wie bh-r-, g1-n- (in H}CK, 6}@BD), sind innerhalb des
Indogermanischen (wie entsprechend innerhalb des Semitischen) die ältesten, nicht, wie
Hirtwill,diejüngsten.”
Contrary to Møller’s suggestion, the monoliteral roots C- are not restricted to
pronouns,91 but include ancient roots with nominal and verbal derivations (see
above). Erroneously claiming biliteral roots to be the most ancient Indo-European
ones, the root shape C1C2·(C3) is not particularly suitable for comparative
reconstruction.92 It makes little sense to add the root radicals (laryngeals) based on
the alleged shape C1C2·(C3) and then remove these traces. This practice is
particularly questionable in examples where no prothetic vowel, no compensatory
lengthening,noOldAnatolianlaryngealornoothertraceofalaryngealappears:
PIEi-‘gehen,usw.’
CLu.i-
RV.i- Gr.m- (vb.)‘aller’(DLL.50,i-ti[3sg],i-du[3sg])
(pr.)‘gehen,wandern,reiten,usw.’(WbRV.195,itás)
(vb.)‘gehen’(GEW1:463,m?8@[1pl],m;<[2sg])
Insuch(andsimilar)circumstances,postulateslike †h1i-‘gehen’–farexceedingthe
allowed means of inference of natural science and the comparative method – are
erroneous.
§4. The main issues concerning the PIE root theory (and/or morphotactics) can be
summarizedasfollows:
(a)TheshortestformsofthePIEroots,whethermonoliteralormultiliteral,serveas
thebasisuponwhichtheextensionshavebeenbuilt.Theseextensionscanbedefined
asknotsthatcannotbederivedfromtherootthroughsoundlaws,andtheyreflectthe
PIEderivation,basedonmorphologicalrulesthatarestillonlypartiallyknown.
(b)Owingtotheprincipleofrecursion,itcanbeanticipatedthattheformationofthe
extensions follows the same rules throughout the root matrices with the result that
91
Møller(1911:viii):“eineReiheeinkonsonantigereinsilbigerPronominalstämme[...]¾-‘er’(S.109),
d-‘dieser’(S.39),2t-‘der’,1t-‘du’(S.242),Á-‘ich’(diesess.unteridg.e-S.64).”
92
Quoting Anttila (1969:12), Benveniste explains segmentation: “Starting from the beginning of a
word, cut after the second consonant to get the root; thereafter cut behind every consonant to get
suffixes(Or174).”Althoughoccasionallytrue,owingtoitsdeductivecharacterthisistobeabandoned
asageneralprinciple.
48
study of the PIE derivation will be increasingly important for Indo-European
morphology in the future. As a relatively complete PIE morpheme inventory is a
necessary prerequisite for such study, it could take some years before the first
comprehensivestudiesappear,butingeneralthedevelopmentisunavoidable.
(c)Owingtounfulfilledpreconditions,PIEmorphotactics–thestudyofthemutual
relationships of the morphemes – has traditionally exhibited oversimplifying
tendencies.Inaccuracieswiththe PIEpastparticiplecanbeillustratedby*·to-,which
isoftenclaimedtotakethezero-graderoot(andhenceconsistingofgeneralstructure
C1C2·tó-).93Thisviewis,properlyspeaking,exaggeratedinseveralrespects:94
1.ArestrictionhasalreadybeensuggestedbyMaurer(1947:3fn4),accordingto
whom:
“Itshouldberemarkedthattherulesaboutzerogradereallyapplyonlytorootscontaining
asonantafterthealternatingvowel.Otherwisethefullgradeisgenerallyfoundinstead,e.g.
Sk.sannáandsattáfromtherootsad-,IE*sed-‘tosit’,Gk.>8=-FD[sic.],root>86-,IE
*leº-‘togather,etc.’.”
To prevent the postulation of unattested (and unrealistic) shapes like †spÀto- and
†
tgtó- (see Rix 1976:229) instead of the actual ones, the restriction should be
accepted.
2.Furthermore,aspointedoutbyPersson(1912:202),thegrammaticalclassof
thestemalsobearssignificancetotheablautgradeoftheroot:
“Wiebekannt,eignetHochstufenvokalismusbesondersdensubstantivischen to-Bildungen,
währenddiepartizipialverwendeteninderRegeltiefstufigeWurzelsilbenhaben.*leuÀtos
*louÀtos -om in ai. l ás -am steht neben *luktos in gr. \>G=FB}7: wie z. B. *mértos
mórtos in ai. mãrtas, gr. ?BCFD : ^@;CKBD ;@:FD Hes. neben *mÎtós ‘gestorben’ in ai.
mÎtás[...]”
3.Theuniformassumptionoftheexistenceofasingle*·to-participleforevery
root may turn out premature as well. Thus, for instance, four distinct vocalizations
appear for the root Neogr. *do- ‘geben’ (cf. Li. dúotas ‘given’, Gr. 7BFD ‘id.’, Lat.
datum‘id.’andLat.man·d
to-‘Auftrag’;cf.§2.5.5.fortherespectivebases).Inthis
caseitispossiblethatparticiplesin*·to-couldinprinciplebeformedfromanyverbal
stem.
(d)Theultimatereasonthatthecornerhasnotbeenturnedinmorphotacticsliesin
theabsenceofageneralsolutiontotheproblemoftheIndo-Europeanablautandthe
reconstructionofi..Whenthisproblemissolvedandtherespectiveproto-vowels
arereconstructed,thisfieldofIndo-Europeanstudieswillalsoberevitalized.
93
Thus,forinstance,Anttila(1969:75)writes:“Togetherwiththe-tí-nounthe-tó-participletakeszero
gradeoftheroot(Grdr21.394,428;WhitneyGrammar422).”
94
Similar examples are readily found elsewhere in morphology. Thus, PIE *o in C1oC2·e¾e/o- (Gr.
BF2B-:RV.patáya-)isnotthesolevocalizationofcausatives,becausecausativebasesinC1C2-(Gr.
KF1B?4<:RV.p
táya-)andinC1C2-(OInd.j
saya-‘toexhaust’,Av.ni-W
maya-‘makeborn’,etc.)
occur. Likewise, the perfect in PIE *o (cf. C1oC2- in Gr. 686B@4 ‘I am born’ = RV. jajana) is
accompanied by perfects in C1C2- (Gr. 62@K@4 ‘I am audible’, GEW 1:293) and C1C2- (Lat. g,
sd,OInd.jaj
sa‘isexhausted’,etc.).
49
1 .5 Thecomparativemethodofreconstruction 95 1.5.1 Comparativerelationanditssubcategories
§0.Thecomparativemethodhastakenitsnamefromthecharacteristicjuxtaposition
ofobjectsincomparativerelations:
:
/(a1,a2,...,an)Rdf‘x’
Hi.guen·ziR‘kill·[3sg-pr]’ :
+(b1,b2,...,bm)Rdf‘y’96
RV.han·tiR‘kill-[3sg-pr]’
Comparativerelations/(a):+(b)aredefinedbythepropertiesofthepredicates/
and + on two axes: genetic vs. non-genetic and internal vs. non-internal (i.e.
external). If we designate the genetically related Indo-European languages with /,
non-geneticallyrelatedlanguageswithƒ,andthemetalanguagewith?,thenthefour
logicallyexistingdomainsofcomparisoncanbeexpressedbythetable:
INTERNAL: EXTERNAL: GENETIC:
NON-GENETIC:
/m(a):/m(b)
/m(a):/n(b)
/m(a):?(b) /m(a):ƒ(b)
Thedefinedsubclassescanbebrieflycharacterizedasfollows:
§1. The genetic internal relation /m(a) : /m(b) deals with objects of one and the
samelanguage/m,thusdefiningthesynchronic/staticsphereofinternalcomparison
as,forinstance,inLat.est‘is’:Lat.erat‘was’.97
§2. The genetic external relation /m(a) : /n(b) compares objects of two different
Indo-Europeanlanguages/mand/n(e.g.Lat.est:i.e#zi).Theformsareusually
attestedatdifferentperiodsoftime,duetowhichthefieldofstudyisoftenreferred
toasdiachronic(orhistorical)linguistics.
§3. The non-genetic internal relation /m(a) : ?(b) represents analytic assertions of
the metalanguage at various levels of formalism (e.g. i. e#- Rdf VC). In order to
eliminatetheapparenteffectsofthesoundlawsinthecognates,theuseofstructural
metalanguage is limited to the portions of proto-language where no ambiguity
appears.
§4. The non-genetic external relation /m(a) : ƒ(b) compares Indo-European
languages/mtoothernaturallanguagesoftheworldthatarenotconsideredtobe
95
Fortheprinciplesofthecomparativemethod,seeSzemerényi1962,Bammesberger(1984:16-8),and
Shields(1992:4-10).Forahistoricalpresentation,seePaul1898,andforamorerecentone,Fox1995.
96
In such equations, objects of any level (e.g. phonemes or their properties, meanings, morphemes,
and/orsoundlaws)canbecomparedasdefinedbythecontext.
97
Furthermore, note the distinctions made by Nyman (1982:3fn3): “In the first place a
‘synchronic’description is supposed to be a snapshot of a socio-historical ‘|@F4 8’ (cf. Saussure’s
‘étatdelangue’).Inthesecondplace,a‘synchronic’descriptionmeanssimplystructuralanalysisofthe
objectlanguage(s).”
50
geneticallyrelated.Inpractice,thepropositionsdefinethedomainoftypology,orthe
classificationandstudyoflanguagesaccordingtotheirstructuralfeatures.98
1 .5.2 Geneticinternalcomparison(Grammarians)
§0.Thegeneticinternalcomparison99isdefinedbytheformula
/m(a1,a2,...,am)
:
/m(b1,b2,...,bm).
Typically only one function /m occurs (i.e. the comparison is restricted within a
language and therefore called internal). This is the primary level of linguistic
description as practiced already by the ancient grammarians like P
ini, Dionysos
Thrax and Varro. It still exists in the study of language isolates (e.g. Baski) with no
geneticcontactsavailable.
§1. Despite its elementary character, the significance of an adequate internal
descriptioncannotbeunderstated.Thelevel,beingtheprimaryone,providesdirect
information about a language, and only adequate skills in the language and
philologicalprecisionguaranteeasatisfactoryinitialdescription.InSystemPIE(and
the PIE Lexicon), the following steps of description are integral to internal
reconstruction:
(a) Morpheme and Stem reconstruction is characterized by the postulation of the
stemsobtainedbysegmentingthe(inflectional)endings.Thus,forexample,fromi.
e-e#-miandi.e-e#-zioneobtainsastem
i.e#- (pr.)‘sein’(HEG1:76-,e-e#-mi[1sg],e-e#-zi[3sg]).
ByrepeatingthisprocedureandincludingsegmentationallIndo-Europeanlanguages
canbepresentedasstandardizedhorizontallinesinthematrix.
(b) Item and Arrangement reconstruction is added by arranging the material of a
language under its own roots, to be confirmed (or rejected) by means of external
data.100Asanexampleofitemandarrangementreconstructionofthematerial,one
maycitetheOldAnatolianroot:
me-‘Zeit’
men-
i.men-
meu(e)n-
i.meuen- (n.obl.)‘Zeit’(HEG2:171-4,me-e-u-e-ni[sgL])
98
Ifageneticrelationshipisprovable,thelanguageƒbecomesanewIndo-Europeanlanguage/n.
99
Kuryowicz(1964:9)“[...]synchronicanalysisoflinguisticdatawithoutorbeforehavingrecourseto
comparison,linguisticgeographyand“areallinguistics”,andglottochronology.”Foranexceptionally
well-balanceddescriptionofinternalreconstruction,seeCampbell(2004:225-251).
100
Note that within this process, as observed by Szemerényi (1977:298), “It is of course absolutely
necessarytoconsiderthewholefamilyofaword,andnotmerelyonerepresentative.”
51
i.meun-
(n.obl.)‘Zeit’(HEG2:171-4,me-e-u-ni[sgL])
meur-
i.meur-
i.meuri-
(n.)‘Zeit’(HEG2:171-4,me-u-ur[sgNA])
(n.pl.)‘Zeit’(HED6:111,me-ur-riI.A[plNA])
In this manner, reconstruction displays the stems of the languages under matrices
consisting of the root (me-) and its extensions (me·n-, meu·r/n-), not unlike
thoseoftheearlySanskritgrammarians.
§2. Owing to potential historical developments like mergers, splits, PIE derivation
and other factors, the internal method is not infallible.101 The most noteworthy
sourcesoferrorsheredeservetobementioned:
(a)Thedistributiveevidenceconcerningthemorphemesisindirect,anditdoesnot
necessarilypreservethetruth.Thus,despitetheexistenceofthewell-knowninternal
distribution for the prepositions Lat. : ab ‘von, weg’ (cf. WH 1:1-2), it remains
possible that there were two originally distinct PIE prototypes. Accordingly, rules
postulated on the basis of internal evidence only102 and internal reconstruction in
general require external confirmation or rejection by means of the comparative
method.
(b)Theinternaldescriptionintheusualsenseisorientedtotheparadigmsandthe
grammarofthelanguageinquestion.Often,ifnotalways,thisinvolvesanunstated
assumption of direct preservation of the paradigms through history. This has led to
certainproblems,asillustratedherebyNyman’sexample(1977a:39):
“TheLatincopulahasbeenastumblingblockforstudentsattemptingtorelateitspresent
indicativeparadigm(1)totheIndo-Europeanmodelparadigm(2):
(1)sum,es(s),est,sumus,estis,sunt
(2)*ésmi,*és(s)i,*ésti,*smós,*sté(s),*sénti
Relating1to2apparentlypresupposesmorethanmereoperationofsoundlaws.However,
recoursetoanalogyasanexplanatoryprinciplehasbeenshunned[…].”
Such apparent difficulties result from the conflict between the assumed PIE model
paradigm(cf.Sanskrit)andtheoneattestedinLatin.However,onceonenotesthat
the latter consists of not just one paradigm but two stems,103 the problem becomes
moreapproachable:
101
See Hock (1991:549): “[…] there is evidence which shows that occasionally the [internal]method
willyieldinaccurateresults.”
102
Indeed, one can compare Lat. = RV. ‘id’ and Lat. ab : RV. abhi (e.g. in AV. abhí (...) valga-
(prA.) ‘aufwallen’(von Wasser, WbRV. 1226)) and RV. abhi·!vás-(inf.bs.) ‘aufstossen’ (vom Magen,
WbRV.1433),implyingthatbothprepositionsareexternallysecured.
103
Compare Fox’s (1995:162) more general view of the situation: “[…] the method of Internal
Reconstructionisextremelypowerfulinitsabilitytoreconstructsplits,butalsothatsomeofitspower
maybeexcessive,sinceitisabletoreconstructasingleinvariantsourceevenwherethealternationis
original.”
52
Lat.es-
Lat.su-
(pr.)‘tobe’(WH2:628,inLat.es(s),est,estis)
(pr.)‘tobe’(WH2:628,inLat.sum,sumus,sunt)
In order to proceed further in comparison, additional (external) evidence – in this
case,itisavailableinOldAnatolian–isrequired:
i.e#- HLu.sa-
(vb.)‘tobe’(HEG1:76f.,e-e#-zi[3sg])
(vb.)‘tobe’(CHLu.1.1.36etc.,sa-ta,sa-tu)104
Inotherwords,theattestedIndo-Europeannominalandverbalparadigmsareoften
suppletive,afeaturethatexplainstheirpermanentmutualdisagreement.Despitethe
differences of the paradigms, the Indo-European stems are in regular agreement,
withtheresultthattheproblemsareavoidedbyasimpleshiftfromthegrammatical
approachtomorphemesandstems.105
1 .5.3 Geneticexternalcomparison(Paleogrammarians) 106 §0. Sir William Jones’s (1786) announcement of a relationship between the IndoAryanandEuropeanlanguagesmarkedtheopeningofanewdomainofgenetic(or
external)comparisonbetweentheIndo-Europeanlanguages.107Thesharpdistinction
betweenPaul’s(1898:21-22)‘DiedescriptiveGrammatik’,referringtothetraditional
activities of the philologists and ‘Die vergleichende/historische Grammatik’108,
referringtothenewgeneticstudy,liesinthecomparisonofdifferentlanguages/m
and/n(Kuryowicz1964:9,1973:63):
104
Seealsothe‘suffix’inCLu.mazala·#a-(vb2M.)‘gedüldigsein,dulden’(HHand.104,CLu.ma-azza-al-la-#a-du-ua-ri[2pl]).
105
In addition to the ‘morpheme and stem’reconstruction (à la root theory) of the Sanskrit
grammariansusedhere,comparethemorecommonlyrecognizedtypes(viz.WordandParadigm,Item
andArrangementandItemandProcess)describedbyMatthews(1991:21):“Inaninfluentialarticleof
themid1950s,Hockettpinpointedthreemodelsofgrammaticalanalysisingeneral–threedifferent
‘frames of reference’ (to adapt his words) within which an analyst might ‘approach the grammatical
description of a language and state the results of his investigation’(first sentence of Hockett,
‘Models’).Inthetermswhichweareusing,theseareparticularsetsofformalprinciples.OfHockett’s
three, one which he called the ‘Word and Paradigm’ model, evidently referred to the traditional
descriptionoftheolderEuropeanlanguages[e.g.Greek,Latin].Another,whichhelabelled‘Itemand
Arrangement’, is a model in which morphemes are the basic units of meaning and in which they are
arrangedlinearly[e.g.inChinese].Thethird(‘ItemandProcess’)isoneinwhichthestructureofthe
wordisspecifiedbyaseriesofoperations.”Inanobviousmanner,comparativereconstructionentailsa
mixtureoftheabovetypes.
106
ForabriefsummaryofthePaleogrammarians,seeMallory(1989:12-18).
107
Note, however, that the Hungarian Jesuits János Sajnovics and Samuel Gyarmathi proved the
genetic relationship of Finnish and Hungarian, as well as the existence of the wider Finno-Ugrian
group,attheendofthe18thcentury(seeSzemerényi1996:6fn1).
108
OnSirWilliamJonesasthefounderofIndo-Europeanlinguistics,seeMayrhofer(1983:125ff.)and
Hock (1991:556-7). Furthermore, note Szemerényi’s (1996:fn2) remark: “The term ‘comparative
grammar’(vergleichendeGrammatik)wasnot,however,coinedbyFriedrichvonSchlegel,butoccurs
as early as 1803 in a review by his brother August Wilhelm; see Aarsleff, The Study of Language in
England1780-1860,1967,157n.115.”
53
/m(a1-m,x):/n(b1-n,y)
(e.g.inOsc.sent‘theyare’:Dor.(h)b@F<‘id.’).
§1. The Paleogrammarians – including such pioneers as August Wilhelm von
Schlegel,RasmusRask,FranzBopp,JakobGrimm,andAugustPott–werecapable
of producing seminal etymological dictionaries like Curtius’s Grundzüge der
Griechischen Etymologie (1858-1862) and Schleicher’s Compendium der
vergleichendenGrammatikderindogermanischenSprachen(1861-1862).Asagreat
success was achieved in determining the historical relationhips between the IndoEuropeanlanguages,thesedevelopmentsledtotheestablishmentofanewbranchof
science.
§2.RaskandBopphadalreadydevelopedtheconceptofsystematiccorrespondences
between the phonemes (called ‘letters’ at the time) of the cognates. With this, the
study inherited a consistent starting point for its development. However, the
Sanskrito-centric paradigm of the Paleogrammarians –partly explained by the
transparency of the Indo-Iranian consonant system – led many pioneers to equate
Sanskritwiththeparentlanguageassuch.109Thisfallacydelayedthedevelopmentof
reconstruction and, at least to some degree, prevented understanding of the vowel
systemasawhole:becauseSanskritonlypossessedthevowels/a/and/
/(incontrast
with /´/, /·/ and /Ê/ of the ‘European’ languages), the solution to the problem of
vocalismhadtowaituntilBrugmannandhiscolleagues,theNeogrammarians.
§3. The Paleogrammarian concept of ‘systematic correspondences of the letters’ is
basedonthecomparisonofobjectsx:yinordertoestablishtheiridentityx=y(or
thecontrary,xy).Intermsofpredicatecalculus,thecorrespondencesareprovable
relationsstatinganetymologicalidentitybetweentheobjects
/(a1,a2,...,an)Rdf‘x’
=
+(b1,b2,...,bn)Rdf‘y’.
Insuchformulas,inorderfortheequationtobetrue,alltheobjectscompared(a1=
b1,a2=b2,…,an=bmand‘x’=‘y’)mustbeidentitieswithpossibleapplicationsof
the sound laws. If any terms of the equation do not constitute a match, then the
oppositeholds:
/(a1,a2,...,an)Rdf‘x’
+(b1,b2,...,bm)Rdf‘y’.
§4. During the early process of comparison, it became obvious that not all the
phonemesoftheIndo-Europeanlanguageshadbeenpreservedassuch,butsomehad
changed according to the respective sound laws. In effect, the comparative method
deals with two kinds of correspondences: the ‘identities of 1st Class’(i.e. phonemes
preserved as such) and ‘identities of 2nd Class’ (i.e. altered phonemes, requiring
soundlawsfortheirreconstruction).
109
See Koerner (1985:332): “Indo-European linguistics [...] was essentially ‘Sanskrito-centric’ (cf.
Mayrhofer1983:130-36passim).”UltimatelytheturningpointcamewithSchleicher,whoreplacedthe
habit of quoting Sanskrit as the protolanguage with his reconstructed forms using an asterisk (*)
prefixedtotheprotoforms.
54
1 .5.4 Soundchangesandsoundlaws
§0. The fundamental core of Proto-Indo-European comparative reconstruction
consistsoftheidentitiesof1stClass(i.e.thepreservedphonemesandproperties).In
addition,itisrequiredthattheidentitiesof2ndClass(i.e.thechangedphonemes)are
described by regular sound laws.110 The distinction between the preserved and the
changed phonemes (marked with square brackets) can be illustrated by the
correspondencesetforPIE*senti‘theyare’:
RV.santi
Osc.sent
gAv.hTnt
Do.b@F<
PIE*senti
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
R
R
R
R
R
/=(
/>(
/?(
/@(
*
s
s
[h]
[–]
s
[a]
e
[T]
b
e
n
n
n
@
n
t
t
t
F
t
i
[–]
[]
<
i
)
)
)
)
Characteristically,theidentitiesofthe1stClass(e.g.PIE*sRRV.s=Osc.s,etc.)are
directly mirrored in the proto-language based on the axiom of identity (x = x), but
soundlawsmustbepostulatedforthechangedphonemes(e.g.PIE*eORV.a,PIE*s
OgAv.h,etc.).Inthissensethesoundlaws,describinghistoricalsoundchanges,are
secondary(complementary)devicesusedtoeliminatethesurface-leveldifferencesof
the attested languages. Strictly speaking, they are not utilized in the reconstruction
properwithoutanychangedsounds.111
§1. Already in 1818, Rasmus Christian Rask wrote of “rules of letter changes” to
explain similarities between words in the Germanic and Classical languages. The
status of such rules, coined ‘Lautgesetze’ by Bopp (1825:195), was properly
understood by the pioneers from the very beginning, as is obvious from Koerner’s
(1982:21)account:
“Bopp,undertheinfluenceofHumboldt,spokeof‘phonetischeGesetze’asearlyas1826,
usingtheterm‘soundlaw’(Lautgesetz)from1824onwards.Thesehedescribedasphysical
andmechanicallawsintheprefaceofhisVergleichendeGrammatikof1833[…].”
A generation later, constantly speaking of the “ausnahmlos durchgreifende
lautgesetze”, Schleicher (1860:170) had added the idea of the non-existence of
exceptions to the concept, but the breakthrough had to wait until Leskien’s famous
110
See, for instance, Hock (1991:540-1): “[…] in order to be considered successful, reconstructions
(both internal and comparative) must be ‘justified’by means of a detailed statement on the changes
requiredtoconvertthereconstructedformsintotheiractuallyattestedcounterparts.”
111
Naturally,afterthesoundlawshavebeenprovenbyinduction,thechangedsoundscanalsobeused
in reconstruction (as often happens when a phoneme or a property has not been preserved in any
language).
55
quote “die Ausnahmslosigkeit der Lautgesetze” (1876) won the day, becoming the
sloganoftheNeogrammarians.112
§2. It is possible that the adoption of Bopp’s term ‘sound law’ (instead of ‘rule’,
preferredbyRask)hascontributedtotheLautgesetz-controversy,113asitallowedthe
Neogrammarians(andsomeoftheiradversaries)tousetheterms‘soundchange’and
‘sound law’ as synonyms. Since this confusion still exists, I would like to use the
occasiontobrieflydiscussthedefinitions(andtheirdifference)inthisconnection.
(a) As a causal phenomenon of nature, sound change (Lautwechsel) operates
regularlyorwithoutexceptions.114Asforthis,IfindKatii’s(1970:146)evaluationof
theNeogrammariansstillapplicabletoday:
“Thediscoverybythe Junggrammatikeroftheimportanceoftheassumptionofregularity
insoundchangecrownedtheworkofmanydecadesofsuccessfulgeneticresearch.”115
(b)Soundlaw(Lautgesetz),ontheotherhand,isaman-mademodeldescribing(or
attemptingtodescribe)therespectivesoundchange.Astheyarerelativetothedata
thatisavailable(andused),thesoundlawsarepotentiallyfallible;ifso,theydoallow
‘exceptions’, because the sound laws themselves can be misformulated.116 This
demarcationwasnotmadebytheNeogrammarianswhentheyidentifiedsoundlaws
withsoundchanges,thusprovokingtheireoftheiradversaries.117
§3. As for their function, the sound laws – quoting here Katii (1970:120) – “are
operatorstransformingphonemicstringsoftheolderstageintophonemicstringsof
theyoungerone.”Intermsofpredicatecalculus,thesoundlawsareimplicationsof
theformPIE*xIEy(read:‘ifPIE*x,thenIEy’)as,forexample,in
PIE*senti
RV.sánti,gAv.hTnt,Osc.sent,Do.(h)b@F<,etc.
Therulesofsubstitutionapplytoallphonemesintheattachedenvironments,andas
suchthesoundlawsaretheconverseofthereconstruction,consistingofimplications
112
For Leskien 1876, see also Benware 1974. For the Neogrammarian doctrine in its original
formulation,seeBrugmannandOsthoff(1878:iii-xx)andBrugmann(Grundr21:67ff.)and1885.
113
Meriggi (1966:3-4): “Mit dem Wort ‘Lautgesetze’ haben wie an einen wunden Punkt der ganzen
Sprachwissenschaft gerührt, der immer noch nicht geheilt ist. Man kennt die lange, unfruchtbare
DiskussionüberdieAusnahmslosigkeitderLautgesetze.”
114
See Hock (1991:2): “We derive this knowledge [= the regularity of sound change] from the
experienceabouttwohundredyearsofresearchintothequestionofhowlanguageschange[…]”
115
Fortheclassicalformulationoftheview,seeBrugmann&Osthoff(1878[MU1]:xiii-xiv):“Erstens.
Allerlautwandel,soweitermechanischvorsichgeht,vollziehtsichnach ausnahmlosengesetzen,d.h.
dierichtungderlautbewegungistbeiallenangehörigeneinersprachgenossenschaft,ausserdemfall,
dass dialektspaltung eintritt, stets dieselbe, und alle wörter, in denen der der lautbewegung
unterworfene laut unter gleichen verhältnissen erscheint, werden ohne ausnahme von den änderung
erfgiffen.”
116
Onsoundlaws,seeSzemerényi(1996:21).SeealsoCollinge1985,1995and1999onIndo-European
soundlawsinextenso.
117
See Fox (1995:304): “A case in point is the criticism of the Neo-grammarians’ principle of
exceptionlessofsoundlawsbySchuchardt,whoarguedthatthisprincipleignoresthecontributionof
theindividual(Schuchardt,1885).Schuchardtis,ofcourseperfectlyright.”
56
p PIE *q. In a properly made reconstruction, both sound laws and the
reconstruction
IE
RV.sánti,gAv.hTnt,Osc.sent,Do.(h)b@F<,etc.
PIE*senti.
holdtrue.Hence,thereconstruction(IEyPIE*x)andthesoundlaws(PIE*xIE
y) establish a logical equivalence between the data and the proto-language (IE y ©
st
PIE*x).Sincethelogicalequivalenceisultimatelybasedontheidentitiesof1 Class,
118
thesoundlawshavenoalternativebuttoexpressthescientificcontent. Intermsof
soundchangesandsoundlaws,notethefollowingkeyissues:
(a)Asoundlawisconsideredprovenifitregularlyproducescompletedataanddoes
not generate non-existing forms.119 Once a sound law has been proven (i.e. it
generatescompletedataanddoesnotproduceghostforms),itequalstherespective
soundchangeandthusisitstruedescription.
(b) The proto-language can be defined as the state in which no sound change has
taken place; thus it is the immediate phase before the first sound law affected the
system.120Owingtotheequivalenceofproto-languageandthedata,thecomparative
methoddoesnotrequire(orrecommend)thepostulationofadeep-levelpre-protolanguage.Insuchcircumstances,asynchronicstateofanydescendantlanguagecan
bedefinedastheconjunction(orset)ofsoundlawsimplyingthesynchronicsystemin
questioninadditiontothepreservedvocabulary.121
(c)Thehistoryofresearchteachesusthatetymologiesviolatingverifiedsoundlaws
aredoomedtofail.ThusMeillet(1894a:285fn1)challengedaproposedetymologyof
;8D,owingtoitsirregularcharacter,asfollows:
“Lerapprochementde;8Detlit.dvãsacecicontreluique;ß-devaitdonnerE-;cf.E}de
Fß}. Si, contre toute vraisemblance, ;ß- subsiste, l’initiale de ;8D devrait faire position
chezHomère,commecellede7ß}BD.”
Meillet’s faithfulness to the regularity of sound laws has now been rewarded by the
emergenceofLinearB,wherethelossofdigammaisexcludedin
118
SeealreadyBrugmann&Osthoff(1878:xiv):“Nurwersichandielautgesetze,diesengrundpfleiler
unsererganzenwissenschaft,strenghalt,hatbeiseinerforschungüberhaupt einenfestenbodenunter
denfüssen.”
119
Compare Brugmann’s and Osthoff’s (1878:xiii) less explicit statement, according to which sound
lawscanbeproved‘mechanically’(mechanisch).
120
SeeDyen(1969:510):“Theproto-languagecanberegardedasthelaststageofatime-continuous
languageimmediatelyprecedingtheappearanceofdaughterlanguages.”
121
Consequently, as mentioned by Katii (1970:99-100), “The sound laws can by definition be
formulatedonlyintermsofphonologicalunitswhichintheirturnhaveacertaindistributionrealized
in the phonemic strings and in the suprasegmentals of the operand-language. This has as its
consequence that the distribution of phonological entities in the younger language is wholly
determinedbythedistributionofphonologicalentitiesintheolderone.Whenaregularsoundchange
representedbyaone-to-onemapping(1a)takesplace,theresultisaphonemiccorrespondencesince
the old and the new phonological entity appear always in the same surroundings. […] The same
happens when the morphs of two languages are derived from the morphs of a third one by two
different sets of sound laws. Here again, the distribution of phonological entities in the two new
languagesiswhollydeterminedbythedistributionofphonologicalentitiesintheolderone.”
57
LinB.;8hB-
(m.)‘god’(DMGr.409,LinB.te-o[sgA]).
In other words, ;8D does not belong to Li. dvãs. Consequently, no irregular
developmenthastakenplacehere.
(d) Occasionally ambiguous sound laws with two different outcomes in an identical
environmenthavebeenproposed:
PIE*pIEq
&
PIE*pIEr
(whereqr).122
Owing to the principle of the regularity of sound change, such propositions are not
allowed,becausetheembeddedambiguitywouldleadtoinconsistency.123
§4.ItisakeygoalofIndo-Europeanlinguisticstobeinpossessionofacompleteset
of tested sound laws that generate complete data regularly without yielding nonattested(orwrong)forms.
(a) Currently the main bulk of the traditional (Neogrammarian)sound laws remain
untested, especially as regards the effects of the new segment of the phoneme
inventory,thelaryngealPIE*.Thissituationhasnotbeenimprovedbythelaryngeal
theory, postulated independently of the Old Anatolian data, which improperly
describestheactualpropertiesandbehaviourofPIE*andthedataingeneral.
(b) The urgent need for an upgraded sound law system concerning PIE * and its
relationshiptootheritemsofthephonemeinventorywillbeansweredinthisstudyby
a calibration of the entire traditional sound law system with the comparative
method.124 It is shown that most of the problems of the traditional sound laws (see
Collinge1985)arecausedbythemissinglinkoftheproto-phonemeinventory,PIE*.
Oncethisissolved,thesoundlawscanbeharmonizedwiththerequirementsofthe
enlargeddata.125
(c)Intermsoftheprocedureoftestingthesoundlaws,Nyman(1982:19)writes:
“a[…]rulecanbefalsifiedeitherbyshowingthatitfailstogenerateallthecorrectformsof
thelanguage(cf.completeness),orbypointingoutthatitgeneratesincorrectformsaswell
(cf.soundness).”
OwingtothehighlyadvancedstageofthestudyofIndo-Europeansoundlaws,itis
very rare that entirely new sound laws are found (this study being no exception to
that).Ratheritisthealreadyexistingsoundlawsthatcanbeimproved,basedonour
122
Themostnotoriousambiguityistheallegedtwo-foldoutcomeofthesyllabicliquidsNeogr.*Ä*ÎO
PCelt.*liriandPCelt.*alar,whicharenowoutdatedbytheemergenceofthe‘a-colouringlaryngeal’
ofHittite.
123
See Katii (1970:60): “There is one more restriction imposed on the operator of regular sound
change. According to the assumption of regularity, no disjunction is allowed on the right side of the
rules.”
124
The testing of sound laws includes the elimination of erroneous lawsby a counter-example
procedure.Thus,forinstance,theso-called‘LexEichner’(accordingtowhichLT*h2didnotcolour
PIE*)isshowntobefalsebyequationswithashortvowel(PIE*e)equallylackingcolouring(e.g.in
Gr.bE;>-(a.)‘tüchtig,brav,edel’(GEW1:574):i.a#teli-(c.)‘Held’(HHand.46,HEG1:203)).
125
Inpractice,thesupportablesoundlawsrangefrom‘irregularities’totentativeformulationsofsound
lawsto(confirmed)soundlawswithconditionsrestrictingtheirapplication.
58
capability to master the data. Accordingly, if an early sound law is incomplete or
unsound, and if the comparative method implies a sound and complete rule (or
improvement), then an upgrade of the early sound law is allowed. Since there is no
need to change the well-established names of the sound laws, the sound laws
upgradedinthisstudywillbeattachedwiththetag‘II’(e.g.‘Fortunatov’sLawII’)to
distinguishbetweenthehistoricalformulationanditsupgradedversion.126
§5.Inordertoillustratetheprocessinpractice,IquoteadiscussionrelatedtothesocalledNyman’sLawthattreatstheassimilationof PIEdental+liquidclustersinLatin
(forthegeneralsettingsofthelawandadiscussionthereof,seeCollinge1985:355):
(a)Accordingtothetraditionalsoundlaw,thevoicelessdentaldevelopsintovelarif
followedbyalateral:
PIE*tl O
Lat.cl,Osc.cl,etc.
(Leumann1977:153-4).127
AccordingtoNyman(1977b:177),however,“[…]wehavetopositanewsoundlaw
forLatin,viz.assimilationof-t-tofollowing-l-[…]-tl->-ll-[…].”
ItcanbereadilystatedthatmultiplefactorsfavourNyman’ssuggestion:
1. Development PIE *tl O Lat. ll can be claimed for Nyman’s (1979:141) own
example: “As far as pullus is concerned, I am convinced […] that its customary
equation to Skt. putrá- ‘boy, son’ […] is correct.” Similar observations hold for the
otherexamplesaswell.
2.AspointedoutbyNyman(1977b:178),thevoiceddentalassimilatessimilarly:
“-dl- > -ll- (e.g. *sedla > sella ‘seat’)”. Furthermore, the failure of *dhl to behave
identicallyis explained by its early fricativization(PIE *dhlOLat.fl); this istosay,
the rule can be generalized to the class of dental stops that occur after the
fricativization.
3. The assimilation PIE *tl- O PItal. *ll- O Lat. l- is certain for the initial
position,sincenoItalic†cl-appearsin:
Umbr.tlatio- Lat.latio-
Lat.latno- (a.)‘breit’(WH1:770,Umbr.agretlatie)
(ONn.)‘Latium’(WH1:770,Lat.latium[sgNA])
(a.)‘zuLatiumgehörig,lateinisch’(WH1:770)
Inotherwords,thedevelopment PIE*tl-OLat.lisactuallyproven,whiletheearly
hypothesisPIE*tlOLat.clisnot.
4. In general, Pisani’s (1979) objections are artificial. One may instead refer to
Collinge’s (1995:35) favourable evaluation of Nyman’s Law: “But as Hamp
(1983:134)acceptsNYMANasa‘Lautgesetz’,andasNymanhimselfremainsadamant
(1984),thelaw’stitleisjustifiedandhandy.”
126
Numerous alternatives for marking an upgraded sound law (e.g. Fortunatov II, Fortunatov +,
Fortunatov revised, Fortunatov upgraded) were considered. The tag ‘II’, being the simplest, was
ultimatelychosenforthispurposeinSystemPIE(apracticetobefollowedalsointhePIELexicon).
127
TheexamplesincludeespeciallyLat.pculo-‘Trinkgefäss’:OInd.p³tra-‘id.’andOsc.puclo-‘Sohn’
:OInd.putrá-‘id.’;seeSommer(1948:228).
59
(b) Owing to the availability of the enriched material, the story does not end with
scholarstakingsidesforandagainstNyman’sLaw.Whentestedagainstthematerial,
the critical examples Lat. pculo- and Osc. puclo- reveal that both dental and velar
extensionsareparalleled,asaresultofwhichtheearlyassumption PIE*tlOLat.cl
cannolongerbeupheld.ThesituationisclearinbothkeyexamplesofNyman’sLaw:
1.pe-‘trinken’(P.839-40)
pe-
RV.pra·p³- RV.p³-
RV.pap
-
pek-
Gr.}K=- OInd.taila·paka-
Lat.pculo- (f.)‘Tränke’(WbRV.876,prap³[sgN])
(pr.)‘trinken’(WbRV.800-1,p
hí[2sg])
(pf.)‘trinken’(WbRV.802,pap
tha[2sg])
(pfA.)‘trinken’(GEW2:542)
(PNm.)‘oil-drinking’(MonWil.455)
(n.)‘Becher’(WH2:329,Lat.pculum)
pet-
Go.FB-
Lat.pto-
gAv.vspo·paiti-
RV.p³tra- (n.)‘Trinken,Trank’(GEW2:540)
(m.)‘Trinkbecher’(WH2:351,ptus)
(a.)‘all-tränkend’(AIWb.1468)
(n.)‘Trinkgefäss’(WbRV.805)
2.peu-‘Geburt’(P.843-4)
pu-
Cret.:(ß)E=B-
puÀ-
LAv.pusa- Pahl.pus-
MidPers.pws-
ModPers.pus-
(m.)‘-(?)-,cf.below’(AIWb.911)128
(sb.)‘son’(MPahl.2:163,KEWA2:304)
(sb.)‘son’(MPahl.2:163)
puÀlo-
Pahl.pusar- Pael.puclo- TochA.pukl- (m.)‘Sohn,Nachkomme’(GEW2:526,:E=BD)
(m.)‘Sohn,Kind’(WH2:386,puclois[plI])
(sb.)‘annus’(Poucha183)129
puÀu-
LAv.pusva- TochA.pukul (m.)‘son’(?)(AIWb.911,pusvanh[plN])
(pl.f.)‘annus:Jahr’(Poucha183,pukul[sgN])
128
See LAv. hvåh puZråh pusah bavainti ‘The(se) kids become -(?)-’, for which the meaning
‘son’(figuraetyologica)yieldsameaningfultranslation.
129
For‘Sohn’:‘Jährling’:Jahr’,seeOInd.vatsa-,Lat.uetus,etc.(P.1175).
60
put-
OInd.put·gala-
Lat.putillo- (m.)‘body,man,usw.’(KEWA2:305)
(m.)‘Knäblein’(WH2:394)
putlo-
Lat.pullo-
RV.putrá-
gAv.puZra-
OPers.puça-
Pahl.puhr
(a.)‘jung’(m.)‘Tierjunges,usw.’(WH2:385,pullus)
(m.)‘Sohn’(WbRV.821,KEWA2:304)
(m.)‘Sohn,Kind,Tierjunge’(AIWb.909-10)
(m.)‘son’(OldP.197,puça[sgN])
(m.)‘son’(MPahl.162,puhr[sgN])
Inthiscase,theearlysoundlawwasbasedonanerroneousidentificationofdentals
and velars, both of which are now independently secured. Accordingly, Nyman
(1977b:176) is very likely correct in “[r]ecognizing *capitlos as the historically
underlyingformofcapillus”,aswellasinhisproposalasawhole.
Throughout this study, a similar checking is done on the key (Proto-)IndoEuropean sound laws; they are tested against the enriched data in order to ensure
theircorrectness.
1 .5.5 Reconstructionandtheprincipleofpostulation
§0. August Schleicher’s greatest invention, the reconstruction (represented by the
symbol*),istheculminationpointofthedevelopmentofthecomparativemethod.In
a nutshell, Schleicher’s innovation consists of the realization that the systematic
correspondences of the letters have consequences, which have been referred to as
reconstructions ever since. As Koerner (1982:1) put it, Schleicher’s “[…] theory of
languagerepresentedsomethinglikea‘paradigm’or‘disciplinarymatrix’(Kuhn1970:
184)forhistorical-comparativelinguistics.”Therefore,thefoundationsoftheconcept
arepresentedhere.
§1.Withhispostulationofproto-phonemesandproto-language,Schleicheroutlined
thestudyasanaturalscience,characterizedbyimplications,typicallyoftheform:
/(x) Osc.s Osc.es-
Osc.sent
Osc.sent
=
=
=
=
=
+(y) Lat.s Lat.es-
Osc.est
Do.(h)b@F<
PIE*z
PIE*es-
PIEs-
PIE*senti
PIE*s
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)130
§2.Inallexamples,thereconstructionisanimmediateconsequenceoftheprinciple
ofpostulation,whichallowsconclusionstobedrawnwhenthecriterionoftruthhas
beensatisfied.Inthisstudy,theprincipleofpostulationisreferredtoas‘Fick’srule’
130
Note that the level of reconstruction is determined through the objects compared. Thus, for
instance,inthetablein(1)aphoneme,in(2)astem,in(3)aroot,andin(4)awordisreconstructed.
61
of ‘two witnesses’, which served as the motto of Fick’s Vergleichendes Wörterbuch
derindogermanischenSprachen(1870):
DurchzweierZeugenMundwirdalleWahrheitkund
(Fick’srule)
TheprincipleiscorrectlyexplainedbyPedersen(1962:274)tomeanthat:
“If a word [or an object of any level]is found in the two branches, then it was also to be
foundintheoriginallanguagewhichdividedintothesebranches.”
In other words, reconstruction requires at least two independent pieces of evidence
thatpointtotheitembeingpostulated.Inthisconnectionitshouldbenotedthat:
(a) All conclusions (reconstructions) must ultimately be consequences of the
principle of postulation, except for unambiguous features allowing the postulation
basedononegroupalone(theprincipleofthefamilyconsistency).
(b) In his Introduction, Meillet (1937:340) proposed that a minimum of three
witnessesshouldberequiredtoconstitutearegularcorrespondenceset.Thoughitis
generally true that the more witnesses are available the better it is for the
reconstruction,amoresatisfactoryviewhasbeenpresentedbyFox(1995:68):
“In practice, therefore, the reliability of reconstruction may increase with the number of
witnesses,butitisnotreallypossibletostipulatehowmanywitnessesareactuallyrequired
[…]”
Foxiscorrectinthattheissueisnotthenumberofbranchesattested,butwhetherthe
resultingreconstructionisunambiguousornot.Therefore,areconstructionisregular
if only verified sound laws have been applied in its postulation, regardless of how
many branches are involved. Separately, the reconstruction is unambiguous if the
comparative method implies one (and only one) reconstruction based on the fully
attestedmaterial.Inotherwords,twowitnessesaresufficientforreconstruction,but
theexactnumberofcognatesrequiredtoeliminateambiguitydependsonthedataat
hand.
(c)Asforthelimitsofpostulation,theobjectionsagainstover-reconstructionofthe
proto-languagehavebeenansweredsatisfactorilybyAnttila(1969:34):
“Patterns change, and it is here that one runs the danger of attributing too many of the
attested patterns into Proto-Indo-European (cf. Puhvel EFL1 8). Ultimately the final
verdictrestsoncomparativeevidence[...]”
Indeed,preciselyasmanymorphemesarepostulatedbythecomparativemethodas
impliedbyFick’sruletoaccomplishtheprimarygoalofthestudy,thecompletionof
theProto-Indo-Europeanmorphemeinventory.131
(d)Portionsofinternalreconstructionareacceptableinreconstruction,accordingto
thelinessketchedbyMikkoKorhonen(1974:122):
131
SeeCampbell(2004:122-3):“Theaimofreconstructionbythecomparativemethodistorecoveras
much as possible of the ancestor language (the proto-language) from a comparison of the related
languages,thedescendantsoftheoriginallanguageandtodeterminewhatchangeshavetakenplacein
thevariouslanguagesthatdevelopedfromtheproto-language.”
62
“Für eine bestimmte Grundsprache lassen sich nur die Wechsel rekonstruieren, die
wenigstens in zwei Tochtersprachen auftreten, sowie jene in einer Tochtersprache
erscheinenden Wechsel, die sich in der inneren Rekonstruktion, verglichen mit einem
solchen Wechsel, der durch die vergleichende Methode für die besagte Grundsprache
rekonstruiertwerdenkann,alsgleichaltrigoderaltererweisen.”
§3. The key objects reconstructed by the comparative method are: (a) the protophonemes as items; (b) the proto-phoneme inventory; (c) the proto-morphemes as
items; and (d) the proto-morpheme inventory. For each, respectively, note the
following:
(a)AccordingtoMeillet’sclassicalaccount(19347:44),areconstructionphonemeis
defined by a set of correspondences.132 In terms of predicate calculus, the
comparative functions /1(a),/2(b), …, /n(n) imply the reconstruction through the
preservedidentitiesof1stClass,whenavailable.Primarily,therefore,thecomparative
method does not make hypotheses concerning the reconstructed phonemes, but
projectsthepreservedsounds(orclustersoftheirfeatures)ontotheproto-language
assuch.133
(b)Thecomparativepostulationofaprimaryphonemeinventory(astheminimalset
ofproto-phonemes)hasbeenakeygoalof PIEphonologyeversincetheemergence
oftheOldAnatolianlanguages.Inessence,thistaskwillbeperformedinthisstudy
throughcomparativepostulationoftheproto-phonemesandasegmentalanalysisof
traditionalitems.134
(c)Thereconstructionofmorphemesfocusesonthesegmentationandidentification
oftherootsandtheirablautvariants.135Thisprocedure,leavingthesimplestinferable
segment as the root, consists of a sequence of at least one radical phoneme.136 An
exampleofaPIErootanditsablautbases(includingtheroot)iscontainedin
132
Discussing the correspondence sets from yet another angle, Katii (1970:78) writes: “Every
correspondence becomes then a unit composed by other units arranged in a fixed order. In
mathematics such units are called vectors and it is most convenient to think of phonemic
correspondencesasvectors.”
133
Campbell (2004:132-3) explains: “We attempt to achieve as much phonetic realism as possible by
observingwhatphoneticfeaturesaresharedamongthereflexesseenineachofthedaughterlanguages
inthesoundcorrespondence.Wedeterminewhichphoneticfeaturesarecommontothereflexesinthe
daughterlanguages(andfeatureswhichcanbederivedfromothersbytheknowndirectionofsound
changes […]) and then we attempt to reconstruct the proto-sound by building into it these shared
phoneticfeatures.”
134
For the items of the inventory, see Campbell (2004:132): “We attempt to reconstruct the protosoundwithasmuchphoneticprecisionaspossible;thatis,wewantourreconstructiontobeascloseas
possibletotheactualphoneticformofthesoundasitwaspronouncedwhentheproto-languagewas
spoken.”
135
Campbell (2004:123) adds: “The work of reconstruction usually begins with phonology, with an
attempt to reconstruct the sound system; this leads in turn to reconstruction of the vocabulary and
grammaroftheproto-language.”
136
Compare Anttila’s (1969:15) summary of the Neogrammarian definition of the root: “He
[Brugmann]defines the base and the root even more clearly in the second edition of the Grundriss:
rootsaretheactuallyoccurringformsoftheetymologicallyconnectedwords(231.86[1913]).”
63
s-‘sein’(P.340-342):
*s-
*es-
*os-
*s-
*s-
R
R
R
R
R
Av.zd[2sg],OInd.stha[2sg],TochB.star[2sg],etc.
i.e#zi,RV.ásti,Lat.est,Gr.bEF,Ven.est,Go.ist,etc.
CLu.a#ta,HLu.asta,OPr.ast,i.a#anzi,Northumbr.arun
Osc.sent,Do.b@F<,RV.sánti,gAv.hTnt[3pl]
OCS.sVt,Li.sãnti[pt.],OHG.sand,HLu.sa-tu[3sg]
(d) The PIE morpheme inventory consists of the totality of Indo-European root
morphemes and their ablaut bases, compared and arranged under the PIE root
matrices.Oncetheentirematerialhasbeenreconstructed,theconditionsfortaking
theproto-language*[astheobjectofinvestigationhavebeencreatedonphonetic,
phonological,morphological,semantic,pragmaticandsyntacticlevels.
1 .5.6 Non-geneticexternalcomparison(typology)
§0. Typology, the comparison of the external relations of languages, can be said to
havebegunwiththeBiblicalstoryofBabelandAdam’slanguage,where(inmodern
terms)atypologicaluniversalconcerningalllanguagesoftheworldwaspresented.137
Since then, modern advances in the description of the languages of the world have
resulted in the formal study of mutual similarities of languages; typology is now an
acceptable tool in Indo-European linguistics, providing support, restrictions and
external means of testing for reconstructions. Some of the typologies presented by
Møller, Szemerényi, Jakobson, Gamkrelidze and Ivanov have already dealt with
critical features of the Proto-Indo-European phoneme paradigm, meriting a brief
discussionofthestudyanditsapplicationshere.
§1. Typological features at any level can be presented as parallels to support (or
weaken)areconstruction.Potentiallyfallibletypologicalpositionsandargumentsofa
non-geneticnatureareconsiderednon-obligatory,becauseexceptionsmayrepresent
real counter-examples to the alleged universals. Despite this, typological support is
highlydesirableforanytheory,owingtothescientificrealismprovidedbyanexisting
parallelinalanguage.138
§2. In typology, the quantifiers of predicate calculus deal with the languages and
phonemessimultaneously.Thisresultsintypologicalstatementsbeingtypicallyofthe
forms ‘there is a language ƒ such that x’ or ‘for all languages ƒ, x’. From such
statements it is possible to proceed to pure typology that no longer involves any
particular language. Thus, for instance, we may write a ƒ ‘a belongs to ƒ’ (e.g.
VOICED(d) gAv. ‘voiced d belongs to the phoneme inventory of Gathic Avestan’).
From this we may infer that ‘there exists a language ƒ with a voiced dental stop d’
137
Ontypologyingeneral,seeComrie1981.
138
SeealsoBybee’s(1985:210)remark:“WeowetothemanyworksofJosephGreenbergtheideathat
theremustbeadiachroniccomponenttoanyexplanationoflanguageuniversals.”
64
(written/(VOICED(d)/)andderiveatypologicalstatement/x(VOICED(x)/)
(i.e.‘somelanguageshavevoicedphonemes’).139
§3.Owingtotheirnon-geneticcharacter,typologiesneverhavethesameobligatory
status as the conclusions based on the primary (genetic): in the case of different
language families (or languages), it cannot ultimately be expected that the rules of
one group would always function in another, because the genetic relation is absent.
Thiscanbeillustratedbythebest-knowntypologicalhypothesisinthefieldofIndoEuropean linguistics so far, the laryngeal theory, concerning which Szemerényi
(1967:92-93)correctlyobservesthat:
“[...]thereisnointrinsicreasonwhyweshouldattempttoreduceall[P]IE‘roots’toasingle
tri-phonemic pattern of the CVC-type [...]. On the contrary, it is clear that such notions
wereduetoadoubleinfluencefromSemiticlinguistics:(a)inSemiticallwordsbeginwitha
consonant;(b)inSemiticthegeneralroot-shapeistri-radical.But,ofcourseneitherfeature
isbindingfor[P]IE.”140
A comparative consensus on the matter, as mentioned by Pokorny (1969:3), was
reachedlongago:
“Schon Holger Pedersen hatte, obwohl er durch seinen Abhandlung über das ‘präidg. g’
(Kelt.Gramm.I176f.)nebenKuryowiczundBenvenistealseinerdererstenLaryngalisten
geltenmuß,vorallemdagegenprotestiert,daßjedesmiteinemVokalanlautendeidg.Wort
im Anlaut einen Laryngeal verloren haben soll. Szemerényi schließt (aaO. S. 12) seine
Bemerkungen über die Laryngale mit dem Hinweis, daß das Hethitische keineswegs
geeignetsei,dievonDeSaussurepostuliertenLaryngalezuerweisen:‘Thisdoesnotmean
thatdeSaussureslaryngealsmustdisappear;theyareprobablyheretostay,butonafarless
lavish scale than recent discussion would have us to believe, and on purely structural
grounds,notonthestrengthofHittiteevidence.”
Generally, before accepting a typology it is vital to secure its correctness, exclude a
prioritypologiesfromthetheory-formingprocess,andrestrictthestudytoitsproper
task(i.e.supportingtheparalleledreconstructionsandcastingdoubtonothers).As
long as these principles are upheld, the application of typology is quite acceptable,
because not only can typologies be used to test reconstructions but the
reconstructionscanbetousedtotestthetypologies.Inthismanner,thecomparative
methodiscapableofcorrectingmisusedtypologies,asillustratedwithinthisstudy.141
139
Aseverytypologicalstatement(e.g.«/x(CONS(x)/’)),‘Alllanguages/haveconsonants’,etc.)
canbeobviouslybeformulatedinpredicatecalculus,anactualdemonstrationofthisisnotnecessary
here.
140
Note also that Szemerényi’s arguments can be repeated as such for Møller’s laryngeals also
typologicallybasedontheSemiticphonemeinventory.
141
In addition to Møller’s typology (see Chapter 2), the most relevant problems in the field are the
four-place system of plosives Neogr. *T, Th D Dh (or the ‘Taihun-Decem isogloss’)and the threeplace velar system Neogr. *k À kÒ (or the ‘Centum-Satem isogloss’),both of which are discussed in
Chapter4.
65
1 .5.7 Non-geneticinternalcomparison(metalanguage)
§0. The non-genetic internal relation /m(a) : ?(b) refers to the comparison of data
and metalanguage (represented by the symbol ?). The term non-genetic is selfexplanatory because no genetic relationship exists between PIE and the
metalanguage;asthe(correct)meta-statementsareanalyticallyobtainedfromdata,
theyareessentiallyinternal.
§1.Therelevanceofmetalanguageliesinitsexplicit(andformal)characterandthe
formulation of generalizations concerning high-level objects. Although not
necessarilyattestedindataassuch,thesearestilllegitimatewhencorrectlyobtained
fromthedata.Someexamplesofmetalanguagecanbeofferedhere:
(a) Auxiliary symbols for classes of objects (and their properties), especially
including,forexample,VRCforphonemes142and-*.Eformorphemes.
(b)Concepts,definitionsandothermeta-expressionscharacteristicofthestudy(e.g.
ABLAUTR*eØo,etc.).
(c)Logicalsymbols,axioms(e.g.x=x)andrulesofinference(seeChapter5).143
§2. Since metalanguage may contain terms not attested as such, the definition of
concepts (and concept formation in general) must follow strict principles of natural
science. In particular, the correct postulation of a metalanguage must exclusively
consistofmeasurableobjectsandfeaturesofthematerial.Thecorrectprocedurecan
beexemplifiedwiththefollowingmeta-statementsconcerningobstruentstructuresof
ofaPIEroot:
i.e#zi,RV.ásti,Lat.est,Gr.bEF,etc.
©
CLu.a#ta,HLu.asta,i.a#anzi,OPr.ast ©
RV.sánti,HLu.sata,Do.(h)8@F,gAv.hTt ©
*es- Rdf
*os- Rdf
*s- Rdf
eC
oC
C-
In other words, the comparative method of reconstruction is confined to a pure
descriptionofthedataalsointheusageofmetalanguage,onlyallowingdescriptively
true statements. Despite the pivotal attempts to apply abstract symbolism,144 the
concept of metalanguage has played a minor role in Indo-European studies so far.
ThisisexplainedpartlybytheincompletestateofthePIEphonemeandmorpheme
inventories, partly by metalanguage itself (which, in order to be effectively used,
requires digital technology). As both limitations are being overcome, metalanguage
canbeexpectedtomakeamajorbreakthroughinthefuture.
142
From a functional point of view, the PIE phonemes belong to V (vowels) R (resonants) and C
(obstruents).Thevowelsalternateintermsofquantity(V:V:),resonantsintermsofsyllabicity(±:
R),andobstruentsintermsofvoice(T:D)andaspiration(Th:DY).
143
CompareNyman(1982:45):“CMisapttoestablishanaxiomaticsystemforprovingaunitybehinda
moreorlessapparentdiversity.”
144
Among‘metastudies’focusingonthecomparisonofstructuralfeaturesoftheroots,onemaycite,
forinstance,Steensland1973and,inparticular,Meillet’sandMagnusson’srootconstrainttheory(see
Chapter4).
66
§3. Unfortunately, the most widespread application of metalanguage in IndoEuropean linguistics, the laryngeal theory, is far from satisfactory. Starting from
Møller’s (and Cuny’s) Indo-Semitic hypothesis, the pioneers of the laryngeal theory
turnedSemitictypologyintoameta-axiomC1eC2·(C3),whichwasaddedtotheIndoEuropean languages for the postulation of laryngeals.145 This violation of the
acceptedlimitsoftypologyandtherulesofnaturalsciencehavegivenmetalanguage
abadreputationamongsomeproponentsofthecomparativemethod.
1 .5.8 Thecomparativemethodofreconstruction
§0.Thecomparativemethodofreconstructioninitsmodernsenseiscomprisedofa
simultaneous application of all auxiliary sciences presented above (viz. phonetics,
phonology,morphology,internal(philological)reconstruction,external(diachronic)
reconstruction, sound laws, typology, metalanguage added with various special
methodologies related to the data (e.g. dialectography, etc.)).146 In the process of
reconstruction, dubbed ‘reconstructive systematization’ by Nyman (1982:43), the
comparativemethodacceptsonlysuchpropositionsthataresimultaneouslytrueinall
auxiliaries;assuchtheyyieldhighlyaccuratedescriptionsandpredictionsofthedata.
§1.Comparativereconstructioniscomprisedofconsistentsystemofidentitiesbased
on complete data. When properly applied, the comparative method establishes a
comparative reconstruction PIE *[ as the epistemological equivalent (‘ª’) of the
data147(direction‘N’)andthesoundlaws(direction‘’)asexpressedintheformula
PIE*[ ª
/(a)+(b).148
The equivalence is the ultimate reason for the understanding of comparativists like
Fox(1995:11):
‘‘‘Reconstruction’isthustobetakenliterally,asthe re-creationofanactualwordinareal
language,andwhenwe‘derive’attestedformsfromsuchareconstruction,wearelikewise
claimingthatthisisarealhistoricalprocess.”’149
145
On the Indo-Semitic root axiom C1eC2·C3- : C1C2·eC3, see Szemerényi (1990:131-132 [wL]),
Benveniste(1935:150-161),Anttila(1969:22,36-51),andLindeman(1997:51-52,fn43).
146
CompareKorhonen’s(1974:113)slightlydifferent,butessentiallyidenticallistofthecomparative
method:“FürdieErforschungderVergangenheitderSprachenkommenjabekanntlichinersterLinie
die folgenden Vier in Frage: 1. die philologische Forschung, 2. die innere Rekonstruktion, 3. die
vergleichendeMethode4.dieDialektgeographie.”
147
See Bammesberger (1984:11): “Das postulierte linguistische System der Grundsprache resultiert
ausdenstrukturellenÜbereinstimmungenderTochtersprachen.”
148
In terms of the two directions, see also Nyman (1982:45): “Comparative linguistics involves two
functions,viz.(1)predictingcognatesand(2)predictingthepast,whichmethodologicallycorrespond
torelationalandreconstructivesystematization,respectively.”Nyman(1982:46)continues,“Prediction
ofthepastisdonebymeansofcomparativereconstruction,whichestablishestheprotoforms[…].”
149
ComparealsoCampbell(2004:124):“[…]everyprotolanguagewasonceareallanguage,regardless
ofwhetherwearesuccessfulatreconstructingitornot.”
67
Indeed,comparativereconstructionprojectstheunalteredphonemesandfeaturesof
1st Class for reconstruction as such (‘re-creation’), then generates (‘derives’) the
changedphonemesofthe2ndClassthroughsoundlawsthatremovethesurface-level
differences of the languages. For this reason, the comparative method is capable of
reconstructingtheproto-languageinacoherentmanner,150asshownbyKorhonen’s
self-explanatorycomment(1974:124):
“Vor allem die vergleichende Methode und die durch sie erzeugten Rekonstruktionen
haben die Gesichte der Sprachen und auch der geistigen Kultur so weit zurückverfolgen
können wie keine andere Wissenschaft. Die komparative Linguistik […] ihre historische
BeweiskraftausderIsomorphiedersynchronenundderdiachronenEntwicklungerhält.”
By arranging all Indo-European stems under the root matrices and choosing the
nodespreservedbytwobranches,theresultingsystemcoincideswiththe(preserved)
structure of the proto-language as such. As postulated from external data, ProtoIndo-European itself is a legitimate object of independent study.151 Here the
comparativemethodisthemosteconomicdescriptionoftheIndo-Europeanfamily
in existence, not only in terms of reconstructing the languages, but also the protolanguageandthesoundlawsbywhichitsphonemicstringsareregularlytransformed
intothoseofitsdescendants.152
§2.Themeaningoftheterm‘reconstruction’hasbecomesomewhatblurred,owingto
itsdifferentapplicationsinconnectionwithhistorical(external)andstatic(internal)
and comparative reconstructions (internal and external). The occasionally heated
discussion on the topic is a result of misunderstanding caused by unsatisfactory
definitions,andIwouldliketocommentonthesituationbriefly.
(a)Historicallinguisticsissometimesunderstoodasanindependentscience(andnot
the x-axis of the comparative method), a platform for unrestricted hypotheticodeductive models. This line of thought is exemplified by a quote from Kümmel
(2012:291),whoopenshispaperwiththestatement:
“When we reconstruct a proto-language, we produce a hypothesis about a non-attested
synchronicstateandaboutthechangesleadingfromittotheattestedlanguages.”
1.Fromthecomparativepointofview,associatingreconstructionwithforming
hypotheses is not acceptable. Rather than making hypotheses, the comparative
methodresultsinproto-phonemes,discoveredempiricallyandexperimentally,based
oncorrespondencesetsdefinedbythedata.
150
Thus,asKorhonen(1974:123)putsit,“DievergleichendeMethodedecktnurauf,welcheWechsel
inderGrundsprachewenigstensnachzuweisensind.”
151
After such arrangement, the digitalized material can be displayed according to the ablaut bases
(alternation*:e:Ø:o:)ortheextensions(orboth).
152
Consequently,asmentionedbyKorhonen(1974:121),“DasResultatdervergleichendenMethode
is weniger abstract und sagt mehr auch über die Oberflächenstruktur der zu rekonstruierenden
UrspracheausalsdiebloßeinnereRekonstruktion.”
68
2. Every correspondence set defining a proto-phoneme must be reconstructed
based on preserved phonemes and features (i.e. identities of the 1st Class). In this
process,hypothesesarenotformed,becausetheunambiguousportionofthedatais
analytically projected onto the proto-language through the axiom of identity x = x
(e.g.inRV.s=PIE*s).
3. According to Schleicher’s original definition (see 1861:11 anm **), the
reconstruction star * (asterisk) designates inferred forms (‘bezeichnet erschloßene
formen’)153 obtained through comparison with the Indo-European data.154 The idea
that there is “no written evidence for its existence”155 is not entirely true either,
because written evidence of the unchanged phonemes and properties exists, and
preciselyitisthisthatformsthecoreofthereconstruction.Inthissense,comparative
reconstructionisanalyticalanddirectlyobtainedfromthepreserveddata.156Froma
logical point of view,157 Proto-Indo-European therefore exists in the unchanged
phonemes and features of the descendants, and it is the goal of the comparative
methodtorestorethatlanguagethroughreconstruction.158
(b)Occasionallyinternal(synchronicand/orstructural)reconstructionhasbeensetin
opposition to the comparative method. From the comparative point of view, by
understanding internal comparison as the y-axis complementing the external x-axis
thedisputehasanartificialflavour.Nonetheless,asthemisunderstandingshavedeep
rootsintheresearchhistory,Iwouldliketoofferafewmoderatingwords:
1. The dispute, which is usually traced back to Saussure, began with the
Neogrammarians,whoattheheightoftheirpowerclaimedthehistoricaldimension
ofthecomparisontobetheonlyscientificone,asillustratedherewithaquotefrom
BrugmannandStreitberg(1892:viii):
“Weresunternimmt,eineSprachewissentschaftlichzugründen,demstehtnureineeinzige
MethodezurVerfügung:diehistorische.”159
Though the comment is understandable in the sense that historical comparison
provides a higher-level environment for the testing of internal reconstruction, its
153
Foraresearchhistoryofthe‘reconstructionstar’,seeKoerner1975.
154
The hypothetical constructions whether ‘expected’ (in opposition to ‘attested’) or ‘impossible’ are
designatedwiththesymbol†(cruxcritica)toindicatetheirsecondarycharacter,neverwith*(asterisk),
whichisreservedforcomparativelypostulatedobjects.
155
Chrystal(1980:37)writes:“Inhistoricallinguistics,asterisksareusedtoindicateaformwhichhas
been reconstructed, there being no written evidence for its existence, as in the sounds and words
postulatedforIndo-European,e.g.,*penkwe‘five’.SeeRobins1971:Ch.8.”
156
Forthisidea,compareHock(1991:568):“[…]reconstructionsarenothingbut[…]summarizingour
understandingofthelinguisticrelationshipbetweengivenlanguages.”
157
For the logical (or ‘achronic’) existence of Proto-Indo-European, see Katii (1970:99): “[…]
comparativelinguisticsisusuallythoughtofasahistoricalanddiachronicaldiscipline,whereasinitself
itisdescriptiveandachronicsinceitsbasicassertionsaresuch.”
158
Szemerényi(1996:32)explains:“Areconstructedform[...]isthereality[orrather:‘thedescription
of the reality’]which underlies the forms in the individual languages, from which all of them have
developedinaccordancewiththeirownsoundlaws.”
159
Foradiscussiononthis,seeNyman(1982:36).
69
formulation was an unnecessary provocation: the comparative method depends
heavily on a reliable basic linguistic description, initially set forth by internal
reconstruction, which is correct as such in the great majority of cases.160 Although
internal reconstruction can (and occasionally does) fail in a diachronic context, the
mainbulkofphilologicaland/orinternalreconstructionremainscorrecttotheendin
comparativetests,thusconfirmingitsscientificcharacterbeyondanydoubt.161
2. Such exaggerations resulted in a backlash against the Neogrammarians and
thecomparativemethodingeneral,witharegrettablesplitofthestudyintoopposite
camps. Furthermore, this split is often traced back to Saussure, whose Cours de
linguistiquegénérale–asfeltlaterbySzemerényi(1967:67)–“[...]insistedonastrict
separationofsynchronicanddiachronicstudies[...]”.AsforSaussure’sactualpartin
this dispute (which rather involved his followers), I would like to quote Koerner’s
(1985:328)commentonthematter:
“Perhaps it should be stated in the present context that the critical edition of the Cours,
carefullycompiledbyRudolfEngler,contradictsaffirmationsinthetextaseditedbyBally
andSechehaye,includingthosefrequentlyattackedonesaccordingtowhichsynchronyand
diachronyaresupposedtoberegardedastwosubjectsapart.”
3.AmoderatingviewhasbeenproposedbyHoenigswald(1974:189),according
towhom:
“Thedivisionbetween‘internal’reconstructionandtheso-calledcomparativemethodhas
certainlybeenoverstressed.Inparticular,thereisnogoodreasontoinsistthattheformer
must,inexecution,precedeintheapplicationofthelatter.”
From the comparative point of view, the method does not prioritize internal or
external reconstruction but treats them as the two axes by means of which a single
coordinate, the reconstruction, is postulated.162 In this sense, the occasionally
emotionaldiscussionconcerningthedemarcationlinebetweeninternalandexternal
reconstructionsisacostlydiversionofourresources: thecomparativemethodgives
no priority for internal or external comparison, but seeks an arrangement of the
material that results in simultaneously true internal and external propositions in a
soundandcomplete(i.e.valid)reconstruction.
§3. With such strict commitments to the comparative method, I support the
conservativetraditionofIndo-Europeanlinguistics,whichbeganwithsuchnamesas
160
Campbell(2004:362)clarifies:“[…]philologyisunderstoodasthescholarlyactivitywhichattempts
togetsystematicinformationaboutalanguagefromwrittenrecords.”
161
Note especially Katii (1970:99): “[…] comparative reconstruction not only presupposes
descriptionbutalsocontributesverysubstantiallytoitscompletionbystatingtheinterrelationshipsof
the data obtained by the description of single languages. This being so, comparative research is not
differentinkindandscopefromdescriptivelinguistics.”
162
Thus,IprefertheviewpresentedbyCampbell(2004:225):“Internalmethodislikethecomparative
methodbutappliedtoasinglelanguage.”
70
Rask and Bopp and, in particular, Schleicher.163 Today the comparative method of
reconstruction in Indo-European linguistics does not essentially differ from the
empirical, explicit and exact science of the pioneers, except in its increased
sophisticationbroughtaboutbytheadvancementofcomparison,methodologiesand
auxiliary disciplines. Reconstructing Proto-Indo-European as an object of its own
right for the purposes of linguistic analysis belongs to the primary goals of the
study.164
1 .5.9 Onregularandirregularsoundchanges
§0. A demarcation line between regular sound changes (described with sound laws)
and irregular changes (called analogy, in a broad sense) was drawn by the leading
Neogrammarians, especially Brugmann, in the 19th century. It has often been noted
thatinsodoing,theNeogrammariansabandonedtheprincipleofregularityofsound
changes and opened the door for irregular explanations still continuing the IndoEuropeanliterature.Thedevelopmentswhichledtothesituationandrecommended
solutionswillbebrieflydiscussedbelow.
§1. In addition to regular sound changes, the Neogrammarians accepted irregular
sound changes that could be accounted for by means of analogy. The historical
developmentcanbeunderstoodagainstthefollowingbackground:
(a) From the point of view of research history, the Neogrammarian reconstruction
theory was fragile, primarily owing to apparent exceptions, which are neatly
summarizedbyHock(1991:36):
“[…]theregularitiespredictedbytheneogrammarianhypothesismoreoftenthannotseem
tobecontradictedbynumerousexceptions.Theneogrammarianswerekeenlyawareofthis
fact.”
(b)Inordertoaccountforproblematicexceptions,BrugmannandOsthoff(1878:xiiixiv) decided to extend the scope of analogy by generalizing the situation of the
modernlanguagestotheirprecedents:
“Zweitens. Da sich klar herausstellt, dass die formassociation d. h. die neubildung von
sprachformen auf dem wege der analogie, im leben der neueren sprachen eine sehr
bedeutende rolle spielt, so ist diese art von spracherneuerung unbedenklich auch für die
älteren und ältestenperiodenanzuerkennen,undnichtnurüberhaupthieranzuerkennen,
sondern es ist dieses erklärungsprincip auch in derselben weise zu verwerten, wie zur
erklärungvonspracherscheinungenspätererperioden[…]”
163
I agree with Schleicher on the existence of Proto-Indo-European, but instead of the analogy of a
biologicalorganism,Ipreferalogicalexplanation:PIEisderivedanalytically(byinduction)fromthe
directly preserved Indo-European phonemes of the 1st Class, and so is reconstruction as their linear
sequences.Hencealsotheproto-language,consistingofdirectlypreservedphonemesatleastinsome
languages,existsaccordingtotherulesoflogic.
164
CompareSchleicher(forthetranslation,seeLehmann1993:26),whoalreadywrites:“Inthepresent
workanattemptismadetosetforththeinferredIndo-Europeanoriginallanguagesidebysidewithits
reallyexistentderivedlanguages.”
71
(c)Furthermore,Brugmann(1879a:6)wentasfarastoinsistthatanalogyshouldbe
usedautomaticallyifthesoundlawsfailed:
“In allen anderen fallen, in denen wir abweichung vom allgemeingiltigen gesetz finden,
habenwireineassociation(analogie)zustatuiren.”
In so doing, Brugmann and the scholars following him agreed upon a very broad
agendafortheallowanceofanalogyinexplanation.
§2.TheNeogrammarianconceptofanalogyhasbeenstronglycriticized:
(a)TheNeogrammarianpostulationofanalogyinvolvesacontradictioindefinitione:
If the sound changes are regular (and they are), it is not possible that they are also
irregular.165 By introducing this double standard, an unfavorable situation emerged,
asKatii(1970:51-2)pointsout:
“But while claiming that sound laws are exceptionless, the Junggrammatiker provided in
their very theory a place for exceptions by introducing the concepts of analogy, dialect
borrowing and individual sound change due to assimilation, dissimilation, haplology,
paretymology,etc.”
(b)Brugmann’srationalefortheexpansionofanalogydoesnotfitwiththehistorical
facts.166 Owing to sound changes taking place, entropy (information contained in a
segment)increases.Accordingly,thelevelofanalogyofmodernlanguagesiscertainly
not on the same level as that of their genetic ancestors.167 Quite the opposite, it is
rather to be assumed that the further comparative reconstruction advances, the
furtheruseofanalogywillbereduced(untilapproachingvirtualnil).
(c)AsrecognizedalreadybythePaleogrammarians,theNeogrammariananalogydid
not account for the possibility of human error in their own sound laws and
comparisons, which may have offered a correct explanation of irregularities (rather
thananalogy).Withvastlylargerqualitativeandquantitativematerialatourdisposal
today, checking problematic correspondences and upgrading sound laws (instead of
automaticallyusinganalogy)hasbecomeurgent.
(d)Fromabroaderperspective,theissueofhumanerrormasksawidespectrumof
inherentfactorsintheNeogrammariansystem:
1. The incompleteness of data available for the Neogrammarians, in particular
Old Anatolian and its laryngeal. Though no specific figures are available at the
moment,theearlyreconstructiontheoriesutilizedfragmentarydata(comparedtothe
entirebulkofdatanowatourdisposal).Accordingly,severalexceptionscanbeshown
toberegularsimplybycomparingitemstotheirproperIndo-Europeancounterparts.
165
The milder interpretation of Brugmann’s view, consisting of the idea that the sound changes are
regularorirregular,isatautology.
166
By comparison, Szemerényi (1996:29-30) offers a much better explanation: “[...] in early times
society was itself much smaller, more united and, owing to measures of central control, much more
stronglycohesivethantoday,thelanguagesituationalsowasmuchmoreunified.”
167
Korhonen (1974:124): “Je mehr Zeit vergangen ist, desto mehr hat es in den Tochtersprachen zu
einerphonemischenundmorphophonemischenRestrukturierungkommenkönnenunddestoweniger
bleibtvonderursprünglichenStrukturderGrundsprachesichtbar.”
72
2.TheincompletenessoftheNeogrammarianphonemeinventory,especiallyin
terms of the presence of PIE *, had consequences. Without PIE *, the
Neogrammarianshadtocreatecomplicatedrulestoaccountforitsreflects,whichare
allnowexplainableonaregularbasis.
3. Numerous irregularities of the Neogrammarian sound law system reflect
defects caused especially by the absence of PIE * (although other factors are also
involved). By setting forth analogy as the universal remedy for exceptions, the
Neogrammarians turned their focus from a calibration of sound laws to irregular
explanations, with the result that much improvement remains to be done with the
Indo-Europeansoundlaws.
§3.Inhindsight,thesubsequentstagnationoftheNeogrammarianmovement168can
beseentohavepartiallybeencausedbytheexaggerateduseofanalogy.Byreplacing
theself-correctingprocedureofsciencewithanalogy,theNeogrammariansfailedto
improvetheirownsystem.
§4.Inordernottorepeattheseerrors,Irecommendthatthefollowingimprovements
are upheld in System PIE and the PIE lexicon (and indeed, they are recommended
forthestudyingeneral):
(a)AspointedoutbyBrugmann,theexceptionstothesoundlawsdonotcontestthe
generalprincipleoftheregularityofsoundchange.169Accordingly,Brugmann’sviews
concerningthesoundlawsingeneral(1876b:380)areacceptable:
“[…]ichglaubedieLautgesetzemüssennochweitstrengerbeobachtetwerdenalsesbisher
imgrossenGanzenderFallgewesenist.”
(b)Shouldthematerialconflictwiththesoundlaws,noautomaticanalogyshouldbe
presented, but improvements in comparison and in the sound law system should be
sought until the regular explanation has been achieved. This protocol leads to the
desirablesituationdescribedbyFox(1995:89):
“The greater the range of data accommodated by the reconstruction, and the fewer the
anomaliesandexceptions,themorecoherentandplausiblewillbethereconstruction.”
Through this practice, a maximal output of languages also allows for maximal
regularityasirregularitiescanreplacedwithregularcomparisons.170Inthistask,the
general policy of proceeding systematically towards the goal of Bybee (1985:207) is
accepted:
168
SeeSzemerényi(1977:289):“[…]theworkofthe19thc.,centredonphonologyand
morphology, was coming to a standstill, that the problems were either exhausted or had reached a
deadlock.”
169
Brugmann&Osthoff(1878:xv):“Dassdie‘junggrammarische’richtungheutenochnichtinderlage
ist, alle ‘ausnahmen’von den lautgesetzen zu erklären, kann naturlich keinen einwand gegen ihr
principbegründen.”
170
Ihaveillustratedthispointelsewherebyreplacingarandomsetoffourteenirregularetymologies
withregularones;seePyysalo2011.
73
“[N]oexplanationforlinguisticphenomenaiscompleteuntilacausalrelationcanbeshown
toexistbetweentheprincipleproposedasexplanationandthelinguisticphenomenatobe
explained.”
The task of testing irregularitiesand pushing them to an absolute minimum is
thereforetwofold:171
1. Present the primary phoneme inventory of Proto-Indo-European and the
upgraded sound law system, such that they require no irregular explanations
whatsoever.
2. Present a completely reconstructed PIE morpheme inventory in order to be
abletogeneratetheIndo-Europeandatainaregularmanner.
171
Ofcourse,theagendashouldnotbeunderstoodasadenialoftheexistenceofanalogyaltogether
(see the undeniable analogical levelling in Gr. e8F4< ‘he follows’ and Lat. labor ‘labour’ (Campbell
2004:107)). The goal is instead to: (a) ensure that all the data is checked for regular explanations
before irregular ones, (b) prevent the use of analogy in justifying the inconsistencies of the theories,
and(c)drawacleardemarcationlinebetweentheregularandtheirregularchanges.
74
2 PIE*andtheIndo-Europeanvowelsystem
2.1 Indo-Europeanvowelsystemandi.
§0. The Indo-European vowel system discussed in this chapter is restricted to those
vowels defined as non-radicals from the point of view of root-formation, thus
referringtophonemesthatunlikeresonants(PIE*iuÄÎ...)donothavefunctionally
definedconsonantalcounterparts(PIE*¾Òlr,...).Inpractice,vowelswillthereforebe
designated by cover symbols Neogr. *T, *a, *
, *å, *o, *, *e, * and their PIE
counterparts(tobedefined).172
2.1.1 TheproblemofOAnat.andtheIEvowelsystem
§1. The most prominent problem in Indo-European linguistics is the comparative
interpretationofOldAnatolian(i.,Pal.,CLu.,HLu.)anditscompatibility
withthereconstructionoftheattestedvocalismsoftheIndo-Europeanlanguages.
§2. The three key reconstruction theories – the Neogrammarian (Neogr.), the
laryngeal theory (LT) and the monolaryngealism of Szemerenyi (= SZ) – have
suggestedthefollowingproto-vowelsforProto-Indo-European:
Neogr.*e
*
*a
*
*o
å
LT173 *h1e *eh1 *h2e/– *eh2 *h3e/– –
SZ
*e
*
*a
*
*o
–
*
*T
*eh3 *h2
*
*T
These models (and their key variants) will be studied and tested by setting them
againsttheenricheddata,andthecomparativesolutionextractedonthebasisofthe
correctanswerscontainedbothinthemodelsandthedataitself.
172
See Koerner (1985:332): “The i/u/a vowel triad, however, had been codified in Schleicher’s
Compendiumof1861(pp.134-35),andwaswidelyacceptedforseveralyearsafterSchleicher’sdeath
in1868.”Forthedevelopmentofthe(Proto)-Indo-EuropeanvowelsystemuptotheNeogrammarians,
seeBenware1974.AhistoryoftheresearchonIndo-Europeanvocalismin1868-1892isprovidedin
Davis1972.
173
For three-laryngealism, see Eichner’s 1973, 1978, 1980, 1988 slogan “Die uridg. Grundsprache
besitzt drei Laryngal(phonem)e (Symbole: H1, H2, H3), nicht mehr und nicht weniger.” Lindeman
similarly supports six laryngeals (1997:25): “In its commonly accepted form the ‘Laryngeal Theory’
assumestheexistenceinEarlyIndo-Europeanof(atleast)three‘laryngealconsonants’.”
75
2 .1.2 Brugmann’ssystemofeightproto-vowels 174 §0. The reconstruction of the Indo-European vocalism, starting with the Sanskritcentric Paleogrammarians, reached its high point in Brugmann’s (Grundr2 1:1-178)
systemofcoversymbolsforvowels:
Neogr.*e:
:
Neogr.*T:a:
:
Neogr.*å:o:.
Even today this system is superior to all its rivals, including the modern ones, as it
consistsofalleightcorrespondencesetsactuallydefinedbythedata.Bythusfulfilling
therequirementofcompleteness,thissystemprovidesthesoleoptionasthestarting
pointforacomparativereconstructionofPIEvocalism.
§1.Asshownbyhisreconstruction,Schleicher(1861/2,1868)tooktheSanskritvowel
system (OInd. a, ) to reflect the Proto-Indo-European situation. However, already
Benfey (1837)175 had questioned how the two items OInd. ´ can reflect a more
original state than Greek and its display of six distinctions (Do. 8 4 B : K), a
criticism which was quite appropriate (ex nihilo nihil). The Paleogrammarian
Sanskrito-centrism began to falter when Curtius (1864) proved that the European
languagespreserveda‘vowele’inanidenticalposition:
*e
:
Arm.e:Gr.8:Lat.e:Go.i:Li.e:OCS.e:OIr.e,etc.
However,CurtiusstillbelievedthattheEuropeanbranchhadinnovatedthe*e,from
asplitoftheoriginal*ato*e(Gr.8)and*a(Gr.4).
§2. Finally, as Szemerényi (1996:134) notes, “It was not until 1871 that Arthur
AmelungcametorealizethattheEuropean easopposedtoSanskrit a represented
theoriginalsituation,thoughthisviewdidnotwingeneralacceptanceuntillater,with
Brugmann’sfamousarticleof1876.”
§3. Brugmann’s reconstructive aims, however, extended far beyond Neogr. *e.
StartingwithhisreplacementofSchleicher’s*awithNeogr.*a3 ,*a2 ,*a1 (=Do.4,B,
8) and Schleicher’s *
with Neogr. *
, *, * (= Do. , K, :), Brugmann brought –
quitecorrectly–theItalo-Greeksystemofsixdistinctionsintothereconstructionof
the proto-language. Furthermore, Brugmann included Fick’s ‘schwa
indogermanicum’ (Neogr. *T) and finally Neogr. *å (‘non-ablauting o’) in his vowel
system,withtheresultthatinitswidestform(c.1880)itconsistedoftheactualsetof
existingeightcorrespondencesetsforthevowels,viz.:
Neogr.
Neogr.
*T
*å
*a(=*a3 )
*o(=*a2)
*
*
‘a-vocalism’ ‘o-vocalism’ (2.2.)
(2.3.)
174
SeeBrugmann(Grundr2),Hübschmann1885andHirt1921,Pedersen(1931:240-310),Szemerényi
(1964:2-6)andWyatt(1964:141-144).
175
Benfey (1837:911) writes: “Von diesem – bloss lautlichen –Standpunkt aus muss man z.B. als
entschieden fraglich betrachten, ob nicht das Griechische, indem es 4, 8, B, <, G als kurze Vokale
darbietet,denälterenSprachstandtreuerbewahrte,alsindieserRücksichtärmereSanskrit.Unddiese
Frage kann nicht dadurch geschlichtet werden, das sie nur vom bloss lautlichen Standpunkt uns zu
zeigensucht,dass8,BTrübungenvon4sind.”
76
Neogr.
–
*e(=*a1)
*
‘e-vocalism’
(2.4.)
§4.ThedistinguishingfeaturesofBrugmann’seight-vowelsystemare:
(a)ThesixvowelsNeogr.*e,a,o:,
,replacetheearlyablautPaleogr.*a:
and
the typology of Sanskrit as the proto-language. The monolaryngealist systems of
Zgusta(notmentioningNeogr.*T)andBurrow(rejectingschwa)–andespeciallythe
laryngeal theory – are essentially confined to the six items only and therefore
incomplete.
(b) The six vowels plus schwa are included in the monolaryngealist system of
Szemerényi, whose theory thus consists of seven correspondence sets and works
slightlybetterthanthosementionedabove.
(c)TheonlysystemwithtwoseparatevowelsNeogr.*oand*åisthatofBrugmann,
however;hissystemisthustheonlyonethatcoverstheeightattesteddistinctions.As
no one to date (including the author) has been capable of consistently defining a
ninth correspondence set, Brugmann’s achievement is likely to be remain, and it is
acceptedhereasthebasisofSystemPIE.
2 .1.3 OnAnatolianlanguages,corpusandlaryngeal
§0. Hrozn’s discovery (1915) and demonstration (1917) of the Indo-European
characterofHittite176notonlygavebirthtoAnatolianlinguistics,themostimportant
development of Indo-European linguistics in the 20th century, but also brought to
light the segmental laryngeal, Hittite , which had disappeared from all IndoEuropeanlanguagesknowntotheNeogrammarians.
§1.TheAnatoliancorpuscanbesplitintwomaingroups:
(a) The Old Anatolian (OAnat.) group, including Hittite (i.), Palaic (Pal.),
Cuneiform Luwian (CLu.),177 Hieroglyphic Luwian (HLu.),178 and Cappadocian
names(Cpd.).Thecharacteristiclinguisticfeatureofthisgroupisthepreservationof
thesegmentallaryngealassuch:i.RPal.RCLu.RHLu..179
(b) The Late(r) Anatolian (LAnat.) group: in addition to the scarcely attested
languages – Lydian (Lyd.)180 Lycian (Lyc.)181, Carian (Car.), Sideti (Sid.) and Pisidi
(Pis.) – some sporadic glosses (by Hesychius, for example) have been preserved.
Owingtothelaterattestationofthisdata,thecounterpartofi.hasdisappearedin
therestoftheIndo-Europeanlanguages,exceptOldAnatolian.
176
ForanaccountoftheinterpretationofHittite,seeEichner(1980:120-129).
177
ForCuneiformLuwian,seeLaroche1959andMelchert1993.
178
ForHieroglyphicLuwian,seeHawkins2000.
179
InordertounderlinetheoriginalunityofOAnat.,theHieroglyphicLuwian.hwillalsobewritten
HLu.inthephoneticapproximationsofthisstudy.
180
ForLydian,seeGusmani1964,1975,1980,1982and1986.
181
For Lycian with dialects LycA. (= ‘Lycian’) and LycB. (= ‘Milyan’), see Neumann 1961-75 and
Melchert2004.
77
§2. Whether cuneiform (i., Pal., CLu.) or hieroglyphic (HLu.), Old Anatolian is
attestedinsyllabicscript.Themostimportantpeculiarities182oftheorthographycan
beoutlinedasfollows:
§3.No(watertight)distinctionbetweenvoicedandvoicelessstopswasmadeinOld
Anatolian script. The so-called Sturtevant’s rule (19512:3),183 according to which a
cuneiformgeminationreflectsavoicelessstopandanon-geminationavoicedstop,is
controversialinthecomparativecontextforthefollowingreasons:
(a) As already noted by Bergsland (1938:272-5), there is widespread variation
between geminated and non-geminated writing within the roots (e.g. i. a-ki [3sg]
‘dies’andi.ak-kán-du‘letthemdie’[ipv3pl]),whichdonotallowanunambiguous
definitionof‘voiced’and‘voiceless’rootsinthefirstplace.
(b)Inexampleslikei.ne-ku-uz-zi[3sg]‘eswirdAbend/dunkel,esdämmert’(HEG
2:302-7) without gemination, the application of Sturtevant’s rule leads to false
conclusions. The alleged voiced starting point †ne»- (Mayrhofer, 1986:108-9) is
contradictedbythevoicelesslabiovelarinitemslike:
Ò
PIEnek
-,nokÒ-‘night,darkness’(P.762-3)
RV.ropa·³k
-
Li.nakó-
(f.)‘nightingale,blackbird’(WbRV.1186)
(vb.)‘dieNachtzubringen’(LiEtWb.481,nakóti[inf.])
Thus,contrarytoBenveniste’sclaim(1962:7,107),Sturtevant’sruleisnotafailproof
method to determine the voice of the Old Anatolian obstruents. Instead of
attemptingtodecidethecharacterofIndo-EuropeanstopsbasedonOldAnatolian,
Indo-European plosives – which preserve distinctions – should be used to provide
confirmationforthevoicedorvoicelessnatureoftheOldAnatolianstops.
§4.VowelquantityisnotindicatedintheOldAnatoliansyllabicscript(seeSturtevant
1951:23).Inparticular,theplenewriting(e.g.CLu.a-a-a#-#a-(n.)‘Mund’,Pal.a-a-a-
(vb.) ‘heiß, warm sein’) does not represent quantity, but a lost glide PIE *¾ in the
intervocalicposition(Sturtevant1951:18&n23).Thisisprovenbythepresenceof*i/¾
inetymologicallyrelatedformslike:
(a)is-‘Mund’(¾os-,¾es-,P.784-5)184
i.a·ie#-
(n.)‘Mund,Maul’(HEG1:6-8,Oi.a-i-i#[sgNA])
Lat.d·ier
- (pr1.)‘heiligbeschwören’(WH2:274-5,PItal.*·ies
-)
Lat.pe·ier
- (vb1.)‘falschschwören’(WH2:274-5,peier
re[inf.])
(n.)‘Mund’(DLLAdd.45,DLL.33,a-a-a#-#a-(a-ti)
CLu.aia#a- 182
For an introduction to the numerous problems of Anatolian notation and orthography, see
Rosenkranz1959andLaroche1978.
183
Sturtevant’s rule (1942:34) was adopted from Speiser’s work on Hurrian (1940:319-40). For
literatureonSturtevant’srule,seeSzemerényi(1996:56n8).
184
Pedersen’s (1938:47f.) tentative etymology of i. i#- ‘Mund’, which was accepted by Pokorny, is
incompatiblewiththelackofglideinLat.s-‘Mund’(RV.³s-‘id.’),Gr.Ê;?4F-(n.)‘schweres,kurzes
Atmen, Keuchen, Asthma’ (GEW 1:161-2) and Gr. 7<(ß)·4EF (adv.) ‘in the language of Zeus’ (LSJ.
413).Beingincompatible,theroot·s-,Ês-shouldbeseparatedfromis-,¾es-(i.i#-,Lat.·ier
);seePyysalo2003.
78
i.i#- Gr.6C4<=·<EF
RV.i áni- (n.)‘Mund,Maul’(HEG1:371,i.i#-#a-a#[sgG])
(adv.)‘inGreek(language)’(LSJ.358-9)
(a.)‘rauschend’(WbRV.228)
(b)i-‘brennen’(oi-,ei-,P.11-2)
Pal.ai-
LAv.ay-
i.aima-
OIcl.eim-
gAv.ayan-
gAv.ayar-
Go.air
Hom.iC<
Lat.aes-
(vb.)‘heiß,warmsein’(DPal.53,a-a-an-ta[3pl])
(pf.)‘schimmern’(AIWb.11,ata-‘schimmernd’)
(c.)‘DämondersommerlichenErstarrung’(HEG1:123)
(m.)‘Feuer,Rauch,Dampf’(ANEtWb.96,eimr[sgN])
(n.)‘Tag’(AIWb.157,gAv.ayn[sgG])
(n.)‘Tag’(AIWb.157,ayarÖ[sgNA])
(adv.)‘frühe’(GoEtD.18,airisdagis)
(adv.)‘früh,inderFrühe’(GEW1:643,iC<[sgL])
(n.)‘Erz,Bronze,Kupfer,Geld’(WH1:19-20)
In this study, examples of this lost PIE *¾ will be indicated by the subscript i (CLu.
aia#a-,Pal.ai-,etc.).
§5. The attested syllabic forms of Old Anatolian (e.g. i. e-e#-zi) are generally
referredtowiththeirphoneticapproximations(i.e#zi),whichvaryfromresearcher
to researcher. Such phonetic approximations, strictly speaking, consist of a special
formofcrude(orelementary)reconstruction,andthepossibilityoferrorshouldbe
takenintoaccountwhendealingwiththem.
2 .1.4 i.andthereconstructionofPIE*
§0.Thekeypropertiesofi.,CLu.,HLu.andPal.aresketchedoutherein
ordertoestablishabasisforfurtherreconstructionoftheirPIEcounterpart.
§1.i.isaphonemethatappearsinminimalpairs.Tocitejustasingleexample,i.
a#a-‘Feuer(stelle)’(HEG1:197)decisivelydiffersfromi.a#a-(n.)‘Sitz’(HHand.
25,i.ALAMa#an‘Sitzbild’toHi.a#-,e#-‘sitzen,sichsetzen’,HEG1:77).185
§2.i.waswrittensystematicallybytheHittiteandLuwianscribes:thephoneme
// appears in all positions without signs of complementary distribution, leaving the
earlyhypothesisofitsphoneticparasitestatus(Kronasser1956:§101ff.)untenable.186
§3.i.correspondssystematicallytoCLu.,HLu.,Pal.inetymologicallysecure
isoglosseslike:
i.uidar- HLu.uidar- Pal.uidumar-
CLu.uidumar-
(n.)‘animal,fauna’(HEG1:269-70,u-i-ta-ar[NA])
(n.)‘wildanimals’(CHLu.4.4.10(BESTIA)HWI-tara/i)
(n.)‘Lebe,Lebenwesen’(DPal.56)
(n.)‘Lebe(nwesen)’(DLL47,u-u-i-du-mar)
185
SeePuhvel(1965:87,fn21)andLindeman(1987:32).
Forthe‘antilaryngealism’,seeSzemerényi(19904:134).
186
79
OIcl.vitni-
(m.)‘creature’(HEDH:352-5,vitnir[sgN])
Such correspondences verify a unified Old Anatolian phoneme // in identical
position,whichisthusnotrestrictedtoHittitealone.
§4.Theappearanceofi.initiallysurprisedthetraditionalscholars,andattempts
weremade(forthese,seePuhvel1965:79-80)tocompareaplosiveoraspirantofthe
Neogrammarian system (e.g. Neogr. *À). However, even before these tentative
attemptsithadbeencorrectlyunderstoodbyKuryowicz(1927a)–andindependently
Sturtevant–thatthecounterpartofOAnat.waslostintherestofthegroup.The
situationofi.uitar:OIcl.vitni-isrepeatedthoroughthevocabulary,forexample,
andacoupleofexamplessufficehere:
(a)·st-,Êst-‘Knochen’(P.783)
i.a#tai-
gAv.ast-
RV.an·asthá-
TochB.
st- Gr.8kE·EF:- Gr.pEF}B-
Gr.\EF4=- Gr.pEF4=- (n.)‘Knochen’(HEG1:237f.,a-a#-ta-a-i[sgNA])
(n.)‘Knochen,stofflicherLeib’(AIWb.211-2,astTm)
(a.)‘knochenlos’(WbRV.54,anasthás[sgN])
(n.)‘Bone’(DTochB.45,
sta[plNA])
(f.)‘Beinhaus(?)’(GEW3:84)
(n.)‘Knochen,KerneinerFrucht’(GEW2:436-7)
(m.)‘Meerkrebs’(GEW1:169,\EF4=D)
(m.)‘Meerkrebs’(GEW1:169,pEF4=D)
(b)p·s-,pÊs-‘protect:schützen’(P.787+839)187
i.pa#-
TochA.p
s- OCS.pas-
RV.pári(...)p
s-
LAv.p
h-
Lat.p
str- (vbM.)‘seekprotection’(CHDP:2f.,pa-a-#a[3sg])
(vbM.)‘custodire,tueri’(Poucha168,p
santrä[3pl])
(vb.)‘weiden’ (Sadnik633,OCS.pasti[inf.])
(s.ao.)‘ringsschützen’(WbRV.800,párip
sati[conj.])
(s.ao.)‘sorgenfür’(AIWb.855,påhahe[conj.2sg])
(m.)‘Hirt’(WH2:260,p
stor[N],p
stris[G])
The number of correspondences that imply the loss of the laryngeal outside Old
Anatolian are now counted in the hundreds, with the result that the correct
comparativeconclusionisnolongerindoubt.188
§5.InordertoaccountfortheOldAnatolianlaryngeal,itisnecessarytoreconstruct
atleastoneproto-phoneme,markedpreliminarilywiththecoversymbol
PIE* i.,CLu.,Pal.,HLu.:
Gr.Ø,OInd.Ø,etc.189
187
Burrow(1949:51n2):“Therootappearsbothas p and p,andsincethesamevariation(Lat.d
s:
Gk 77K?<) appears in the root meaning ‘to give’, there seems to be no necessity to assume two
synonymousIEroots.”
188
Seebold (1988:497-8) writes: “Nun kann aber dem unvoreingenommenen Betrachter nicht
zweifelhaft sein, daß dieses Phonem [= das hethitische h] nicht von Himmel gefallen sein kann: Es
müß einen historischen Grund haben. Es ist einerseits klar an bestimmte Wörter gebunden, die es
enthalten;währendesinanderenbeisonstgleicherLautumgebungnichtauftritt–eskannalsonichtin
irgendwelchenStellungensekundärangetretenein.”
80
Atthisstage,noapriorifeatures(suchascolouring,voice,glottal/velar)areassigned
to PIE*,apartfromitbeinganon-anteriorfricative.190Thepropertiesof PIE*will
beinferredfromthedataasimpliedbythecomparativemethod.
§6.Thepreservationofthesegmentallaryngeal,thecounterpartofOldAnatolian,
has been suggested for a number of languages, including Albanian, Armenian,
GermanicandLycian.Allattemptsarefailures,exceptforapossible/h/insomeItalic
words,owingtothediscrepancybetweenthegenerallossoflaryngealPIE*OØand
its alleged preservation (the regularity of sound change). These attempts can be
exemplified by Pedersen’s early interpretation (1945), according to which Lyc. x
corresponds with OAnat. . Prominent experts like Laroche and Tischler have
repeatedly cautioned against the idea, owing to the absence of Lyc. x in
correspondenceswithOldAnatolian.Someexamplesare:
(a)PIE*apr-‘Handel(treiben)’
i.apar-
i.apari-
Pal.apari-
Lyd.afari
i.aprie-
Lyc.eprie-
(N.act.)‘Handel,Kaufpreis’(HHand.40,a-ap-pár)
(vb1.)‘Handeltreiben,verkaufen’(HEG1:161-)
(vb.)‘übergeben’(DPal.54,apari#i)
(sb.)‘Verkaufserklärung’(LydWb.52)
(vb.)‘trade,sell,deliver’(HEG1:161f.,a-ap-ri-ez-zi)
(vb.)‘Verkaufen’(Laroche,Comp1:171f.,eprieti)
(b)PIE*ora-‘border,area’(P.854-7,HEG1:52,56)
Lat.r
-
i.araza-
i.ara-
i.arai-
i.arita
Lyc.eri·zãna
(f.)‘Rand,Grenze,Region,usw.’(WH2:218)
(adv.)‘ringsum,außerhalb’(HHand.20,a-ra-a-za)
(c.)‘Grenze,Gebiet(Sum.ZAG)’(HHand.21,ar-a)
(vb.dn.)‘dieRundemachen’(HHand.21)
(URU.)‘Grenze/Gebiet-TA’(OGH.31,ar-i-ta)
(sb.)‘eri-ZANA’(Laroche,Comp1.177-78)
ThereisnosignofLyc.xcorrespondingwith PIE*.Thatistosay,Lycianhasgone
throughthelossofPIE*OØlikeotherlanguages(e.g.LydianandLatin),implying
thatLyc.xmusthavesomeotheroriginthanPIE*(exnihilonihil).
Atthesametime,thesuggestedcomparisonsofLyc./x/:OAnat.//suchasLyc.
xuga- : i. ua- ‘grandfather’(Lat. auus) and Lyc. xawa- : CLu. aui- ‘sheep’are
ambiguous.InsteadofcomparingLyc.xtotheOldAnatolianlaryngeal,thephoneme
canbesettocorrespondtoIndo-Europeanvelar:
(c)InsteadofLyc.xuga-:i.ua-,onecancompareLyc.xtoGr.=/6in:
Hes.=BG=- Hes.6G64 (m.)‘grandfather’(LSJ.986,|K@)
(m.pl.)‘grandfather’(LSJ.361,6G64:4B)
189
Seebold(1988:498)explains:“EsbestehtalsokeinZweifeldaran,daßdietraditionelleDarstellung
desindogermanischenLautsystems[…]indiesemPunktzuergänzenist.”
190
Burrow(1949:59)clarifies:“Thephoneme H[...]isnottobeclassedwiththenasals,liquids,etc.,
whichcanbythemselvesmakeasyllable;itistobeclassedwith s,whichisincapableofthisfunction
[...].”
81
Lyc.xuga-
Mil.xugasi- Lyc.xugah- Lyc.epñ·xuxa-
(c.)‘grandfather’(Lyk&i.25)
(a.gen.)‘ofgrandfather’(LuPG59,kugasi,[sgN])
(a.gen.)‘ofgrandfather’(Lyk.xugaha[plD])
(I.)‘-(?)-’(LuPG116,epñxuxa)
(d)InsteadofLyc.xawa-:CLu.aui-,onecancompareLyc.xtoGr.==Car.==
Lat.cin:
Car.=-
Lyc.xawa-
Gr.=4E-
Lat.caula-
(sb.)‘C54FB@:sheep’(AthenaiosXIII:580,=D)
(sb.)‘lamb’(HEG2:230,xaw[sgA])
(n.)‘Schaffell,Vlies’(GEW2:368,=4D)
(f.pl.)‘Schafhürden’(WH1:187,Lat.caulae[plN.])
§7.Aprefix PIE*(orseveralsuchitems)canbepostulatedonthebasisofexisting
material.Someexamplesofrootswithandwithouttheprefixare:
(a)PIE*meYarº-(P.722+738)
RV.sám(…)m³rj-
AV.mamarj- Gr.\·?}C6B- Gr.\·?C6:- Gr.p·?C6@G-
Gr.?CA4- (pr.)‘hellmachen,schüren’(WbRV.1056)
(pf.)‘reinigen,putzen,streichen’(EWA2:324)
(pr.)‘abpflügen,auspressen’(GEW1:91,\·?}C6K)
(f.)‘mulchesMassederaußgepreßtenOliven’(P.738)
(prA.)‘abwischen,abtrocknen’(P.738,p?C6@G?<)
(s.ao.)‘wipe’(LSJ.1146,1227,?CA4@FB)
(b)PIE*Àei-,Àoi-,Ài-‘liegen’(P.539f.)
Gr.=8<-
RV.!áy-
i.kei-
Gr.=BF:-
Gr.^·=B<F<-
(pr.)‘liegen,sichbefinden’(GEW1:809,=8F4<[3sg])
(ao.)‘liegen,amBodenliegen,ruhen’(KEWA3:303)
(vb.)‘liegen,gelegtsein’(HEG1:568-9,ki-it-ta-ri[3sg])
(f.)‘Lager,Bett,Netz,Kiste’(GEW1:809)
(f.)‘Gemahlin,Gattin,Lagergenossin’(GEW1:54)
Theexistenceofaprefix PIE*·meansthattheroot-initiallaryngeal(reflectedin‘avocalism’)doesnotnecessarilyprovethattherootitselfbeganwiththelaryngeal.
§8. A suffix PIE *·- (former Neogr.*·T-) was already identified by Brugmann
(Grundr2 1:500), who explained the simultaneous appearance of one- and twosyllabic(a.k.a.ani andse )roots:
“OftschwanktdieselbeWurzelzwischen‘Ein-’und‘Zweisilbigkeit’hinundher,ohnedass
diesalsetwasreinlautmechanischesbetrachtetwerdenkann[...].DieeinfachsteErklärung
dieses Schwankens ist jedenfalls die, dass der sogen. ‘Wurzelauslaut’T ein
‘suffixaler’Zusatzwar.”
In the laryngeal theory, the Proto-Indo-Semitic root shape (C1C2C3) was accepted.
Consequently,Brugmann’smorphologicalanalysiswasrejected,amovethatAnttila
wouldlaterfollow(1969:78):191
191
Intherangeoflaryngealistliteratureonthetopic,seeAnttila(1969:59):“[...]therearethoughtto
besomecaseswherethesamerootisbothmonosyllabicanddisyllabic,e.g.,Skt.str-á-‘scattered,’stÎ-
82
“[...] píparti ‘fills’[...] Brugmann thinks *pi-pel-mi original (MU 1.44, Grdr 231.178), with
pl-fromtheweakgrade(cf.§6.2.6.).Itishardtoseewhathappenedtothelaryngeal.”
According to Szemerényi’s comment, Indo-European linguistics does not accept
Møller’snon-genetictypologyasnormative.Pokorny’scomparativepostulationofthe
root and extensions (see P. 798ff. for *pel- and *pel·T- ‘gießen,…’) is favoured
instead,becausethetraditionaldoctrinecanbeshowntobecorrectforBrugmann’s
example:
RV.pípar-
(pr.)‘(an)füllen’(WbRV.775,píparti,pipartana)
AsproveninChapter3,thisstemneverhadaroot-finallaryngealduetotheabsence
of cerebralization (see Fortunatov’s Law II); in this case, the root was PIE *pel-.
Simultaneously, the laryngeal extension PIE *plea- is implied by the Rig-Vedic
hiatusandGr.4in:
RV.prá’-
RV.kakia·prá’-
Gr.?·>4- (ao.)‘füllen,anfüllen’(WbRV.886,práas[2sgConj.])
(a.)‘denLeibgurtfüllend’(WbRV.309,kaksiapráam)
(pr.)‘füllen’(GEW1:537-8,?>4?8@[1pl])
Ingeneral,bothani andse roots(typePIE*pl-*pla-)arenowattestedinparalleled
formationsofOldAnatolian,suchas:
(a)PIE*pr-*por-*per-‘treiben,jagenfliegen:Fuß’(P.816f.)
CLu.par-
RV.pípar-
CLu.para-
HLu.para-
OCS.pero-
CLu.para-
Gr.8C|K
(vb1.)‘treiben,jagen’(?)(DLL.77,pár-du)
(pr.)‘hinüberführen’(WbRV.777-8,píparti[3sg])
(vb.)‘treiben,jagen’(?)(HHand.120,DLL.77)
(vb.)‘emporfliegen,sicherheben’(Sadnik639,perV)
(vb.)‘treiben,jagen’(HHand.122,CHDP:143f.)
(pr.)‘durchschreiten,-fahren,-dringen’(GEW2:510)
(b)PIE*son-*sen-‘suchen’(P.906)
HLu.#ana-
i.#ana-
(vb.)‘toseek’(CHLu.11.1.e19,(“*69”)sa-na-tu)
(pr.)‘(ver)suchen’(HEG2:818f.,#a-an-a-mi)
(c)PIE*mol-*mel-‘mahlen,zerkleinern,zerbrechen’(P.716f.)
i.mal-
Lat.mol
Lat.in·mol
- CLu.mamal-
Lat.in·mol
u-
CLu.malau- (vb2.)‘mahlen,zerkleinern’(HEG2:102,ma-al-li[3sg])
(f.)‘Mühlstein,Mühle,Opferschrot’(WH2:104)
(pr.)‘opfern’(WH2:105,immol
re[inf.])
(vb.)‘zerdrücken,zerbrechen’(HHand.98)
(pf.)‘opfern’(WH2:105,immol
uit[3sg])
(vb.)‘zerdrücken,zerbrechen’(DLL.65)
tá-‘throwndown’,Gr.66@B?4<,Skt.j
-tá-(SeeSaussureMém260,Flensburg101-102,KuryowiczÉI
66, AP. 172, 198; Möller ZfdPh 25.383, Persson 680, Specht Ursprung 288, Hirt Abl 73, Maurer Lg
23.15,CowgillEFL2148,155,159,AdradosEstudios159,StrunkMSS17.77-108,Narten278,281[...].”
83
Due to the preservation of the laryngeal in Old Anatolian, no laryngeal could have
beenlost,whencethealternationisderivational(suffix).192Thus,Persson(Beitr.631648)wasalreadycorrectindefendingBrugmann’sviewwhenhestatedthatmultiple
Sanskritrootsappearbothinse andinani forms:193
“Wie ich zu zeigen versucht habe, gibt es auch mehrere Tatsachen, welche direct dafür
sprechen, dass manche Se -Basen im Ausgang eine suffixale (formantische) Erweiterung
erfahrenhaben.[...]BrugmannsLehrevoneinem‘verbalenSuffixe’
(
)habenHirtu.
a.GelehrtemitUnrechtganzverworfen.”(Persson,Beitr.704)
Theexistenceofparallelse andani rootsisthereforeanempiricalproblemthatis
decidedforeverystemonthebasisofthedata,notbyanaprioristicconceptofthe
rootstructure.
2 .1.5 i.andvocalismNeogr.*Ta
§0.DespitethelossofPIE*,thelanguagesthatpreservedistinctionsofvowelquality
indicate a dominance of Neogr. *T a in correspondence sets with OAnat. , a
featurefirstidentifiedandexplainedbythelaryngealtheorywith‘a-colouring’ofthe
laryngeal*h2.
§1.SomeexamplesoftheNeogr.*Ta
thatappearinconnectionwithi.are:194
(a)elu-‘Höhlung’(P.88)
i.alu-
OInd.
lu-
Lat.aluo-
(a.)‘tief’(sb.)‘Höhlung’(HEG1:135-6)
(f.)‘smallwater-jar’(KEWA1:80,EWA3:25)
(m.f.)‘Höhlung,Wölbung,Unterleib’(WH1:34)
(b)en-‘Großmutter’(P.36-37)
i.ana-
OHG.ana
Lat.an%-
(c.)‘Großmutter’(HEG1:145-6,a-an-na-a#[sgN])
(f.)‘(Ur)großmutter,Ahne’(WP1:56-)
(f.)‘altesWeib’(WH1:49-50,anus[N],an%s[G])
(c)en-‘schöpfen’(P.901)
i.an-
i.an·e#a- Gr.^@·F>B- (vb2.)‘schöpfen’(HEG1:144-5,a-a-ni[3sg])
(DUGc/n.)‘Schöpfgefäss’(EHS513)
(m.)‘Kielwasser’(GEW1:114[diff.])
192
Similarly for the roots ending in obstruent there is an unextended root (AV. ví ánu pap
t‘durchfliegen’,WbRV.761,pap
ta[3sg]),avocalicextension(Gr.}FB-‘fliegen’,GEW2:521,}FB?4<
[1sg])andalaryngealextension(Gr.}F4-‘fliegen’,GEW2:521,}F4?4<[1sg]).
193
For an identification of suffixes, see Brugmann (KVG:148A2): “Die Vokallängen [d. h. die
auslautendenVokalederSe -Basen]mögenvielfacheSuffixeoder,wasdasselbebesagt,Determinative
indemSinnegewesensein,dassdieselbe‘Wurzel’schonvorderWirksamkeitderablautschaffenden
FaktorenmitverschiendenerSuffixbildungvorlag.”
194
Cataloguesfori.areprovidedbyTischler(HEGH),Puhvel(HEDH),Zgusta(1951:455-456),
Oettinger(1979:546-550)andSeebold(1988:514-519).
84
(d)ent-‘Stirn,Front,vor,vorne’(P.48,WP.1:67)
i.ant-
i.antei
Lat.ante
Gr.\@F
(c.)‘Vorderseite,Stirn’(HEG1:149,a-an-za[N])
(adv.)‘vorne’(HEG1:149,a-an-ti-i[sgDL])
(adv.)‘vor,vorher’(WH1:53,ante[adv.])
(prep.)‘angesichts,gegenüber,anstatt’(GEW1:113-4)
(e)endh-‘hervorsprießen,blühen’(P.40-41)
i.andeia#a-
MidIr.ainder HLu.a(n)dara-
Gr.^@;CKB- (a.)‘männlich(?)’(HEG1:157,EHS189)
(f.)‘marriedwoman,virgin’(DIL139)
(sb.)‘life’(CHLu.1.1.49,ha-tà+ra/i-ti-i)
(m.)‘Mensch’(GEW1:110-1,alsoLinB.a-to-qo)
(f)ep-‘fügen’(P.50-51)
i.ap-
OLat.ape- OLat.ape- Lat.apto-
CLu.aapatar/n-
(vb1.)‘gefügigmachen’(HEG1:158-9,a-ap-zi[3sg])
(pr.)‘prohibe,compesce’(WH1:56,ape[2sg])
(pr.)‘binden,imZaumehalten’(WH1:56,apere[inf.])
(pt.)‘angefügt,verbunden’(WH1:57,aptus[sgN])
(n.)‘Bindung:binding’(HHand.34,CLuLex.46)
(g)er-‘zerstoßen,zerreiben,verderben’(P.62,ar-‘pfügen’,HEG1:169-70)
i.ara-
Gr.\C~-
Gr.\C:-
(vb.)‘zerstoßen,zerreiben’(HEG1:169-70)
(f.)‘Verderben,Schaden,Unheil’(GEW1:136-)
(pf.)‘harm’(Hom.\C:?}@BD:585>4??}@BD)
(h)es-‘erfüllen,sättigen’(P.–)195
LAv.upa(...)
h-
Gr.^(h)-
Pal.a#a-
Gr.^(h)8/B- i.a#ik-
i.a#ik-
(prM.)‘erfüllen’(AIWb.345,upa
h#a[opt2sg.])
(ao.)‘sichsättigen’(GEW1:159,^?8@4<[inf.])
(pr.)‘sichsatttrinken/essen’(DPal.46,a-#a-an-ti)
(pr.)‘sichsättigen’(GEW1:159^8F4<[3sg])
(vb1.)‘sichsättigen,sichsatttrinken’(HEG1:200)
(GI"n.)‘einObstbaumundseineFrucht’(HHand.46)
Statistically Neogr. *T a is attested in the great majority of the examples of Old
Anatolian,thussupportingaconnectionbetweenthephenomenaandcastingdoubt
ontheversionsofmonolaryngealismwithoutsuchdistribution.
§2.Inthelaryngealtheory,Saussure’scoefficient*Ahasbeenreplacedwith*h2,for
which an ‘a-colouring effect’ on environment *e, is generally assumed (see
Mayrhofer 1986:132-40 & 2004:27-8). Though the general idea of the connection is
backedbythematerial,thesuppositionofa‘colouringlaryngeal’(LTh2)isuntenable:
(a) The phoneme PIE * is a consonant (an obstruent), which as such does not
necessarily have a colouring component. Owing to co-articulation (or glottal
195
NotetheexistenceoftherootPIE*se-‘fill,satisfy’(i.#a-(vb2.)‘vollstopfen’(HEG3:690,#a-ai[3sg]):Gr.a-(vb.)‘>:CBF4<’(LSJ.267,aF4<[3sg])withasimilarmeaning.Apparentlybothitems
havemerged(ornearlyso)inGreekintoasingleroot.
85
movement), a glottal may change the pronunciation of the preceding vowel (e.g.
Hind. mihr [meher], Hind. #ahr [#eher]), but the change of /e/ to /a/ as a result of a
consonantal segment’s colouring property does not satisfy the requirements of
scientificmethod.
(b) Phonetically the distinctions between the (cardinal) vowels are produced in the
mouthcavity,notinthelarynx,asassumedbythelaryngealtheory.
Due to these problems, the idea of a ‘colouringlaryngeal’ (equated with the
vowelNeogr.*T)cannotbetakenasself-evident.Consequently,aninterpretationis
needed to explain the connection between PIE * and Neogr. *T a within the
frameworkofcomparativerealityandscientificmethod.
2 .1.6 TheMonolaryngealschool(Zgusta,Szemerényi)
§0. Monolaryngealism196 avoids the pitfalls of the ‘colouring laryngeal’ by
reconstructingasinglelaryngeal*H(=i.)withoutanycolouringeffect.
§1.AlreadyZgusta(1951)questionedtheconnectionbetween*Handvowelquality,
claiming that the phoneme had no indisputable colouring effect in PIE.197 Thus
Zgusta postulated the vowels *a, *e, *o198 as original, and by adding the rule of
compensatorylengtheningheendedupwiththeinventory
*e,*a,*o;
*eH,*aH,*oH
*H (ZG).199
§2.AnotherstepbeyondthelaryngealtheorywastakenbySzemerényi(1996:36-39),
whoquestionedtheruleofcompensatorylengtheningduetotheexistenceoforiginal
vÎddhi (Occam’s razor).200 Thus, postulating schwa *T (1996:40) and one laryngeal
*H,Szemerényi’s(SZ)systemcanbepresentedasfollows:
*a,*e,*o
*,*
,*
*T
*H
(SZ).
196
For‘monolaryngealism’(ascoinedbyEichner1988),seeSzemerényi(1996:139-40n7).
197
Zgusta(1951:472)writes:“Ilyavaitseulementun H.Iln’avaitriendecommunaveclaqualitédes
voyelles.”
198
Zgusta (1951:444) adds: “[...] si l’on prouvait qu’il existait au degré plein la voyelle a ou, le cas
échéant, ooriginaires,ou,si,end’autrestermes,lasuppositionqu’ellestirentsonoriginel’influence
d’unelaryngalen’étaitpas,aumoins,vraisemblable,celanepourraitmodifierquelesconsidérations
du problème, s’il existait plus de laryngales, et lesquelles, mais une telle découverte ne pourrait
contesterlabasedelathéorielaryngale[...]”.
199
Zgusta(1951:472)explains:“[...]enindo-européen,ilyavaitunphonème,quenouspouvonsécrire
H, qui avait dans le système des phonèmes une place analogue à celui des sonantes, dont la qualité
exacten’estpassûre,maisquiétaitsimilareau .Entrelesconsonnesle Hestenétatdevoyelle(=
)ainsiquelessonantes.Enhittite,cephonème(quandiln’étaitpasenqualitédevoyelle)sechangea
en , évidemment sous l’influence des langues avec lesquelles les Hittites vinrent en contact en Asia
Mineure.”
200
Szemerényi(1996:137)notes:“Itisjustasquestionablewhetheralllongvowelsaretobederived
fromcombinationsofshortvowelwithlaryngeal.”
86
§3.Inessence,themonolaryngealists–includingZgusta(1951),Szemerényi(1970),
Burrow(1979:vi),Tischler(1980)andmyself–agreeonthefollowingruleconcerning
thereconstructionofthesegmentallaryngeal:
IfthereisalaryngealinOldAnatolian,PIEalsohadalaryngeal,andifthereisnolaryngeal
inOldAnatolian,Proto-Indo-Europeanalsohadnolaryngeal.201
§4.Whilethereconstructionbasedonone*Hhasfoundnoteworthysupporters,202it
hasnotwongeneralacceptancebecauseofthefollowingproblems:
(a) The requirement of a ‘non-colouring’ laryngeal PIE *, though phonetically
accurate,resultsinthelossofconnectionbetweenOAnat.andNeogr.*Ta
.Thisis
contradictedbystrongstatisticalcounterevidence.203
(b) To date, the sound laws for laryngeal have been formulated for Old Anatolian
alone,butitsreflexesintherestofthegroup(e.g.inVedichiatus)andthetheoryin
generalremainsketchy.Consequently,themonolaryngealismneedstobedeveloped,
especiallyintermsofthefeaturesimplying PIE*inothercognates,itsfeatures(e.g.
the place of articulation) and its relationships with the other items of the phoneme
inventory.
§5.ThereisonlyahandfulofcomparisonsinwhichNeogr.*Ta
(Lat.a,Gr.4,OIr.
a, etc.) allegedly matches i. a without laryngeal (i. ). For examples of the socalledindependentNeogr.*a(Tischler1980:501-2,fn.31&504-5)anditslaryngealist
counterpart(h4),204alternativeetymologiescanbepresented.205Thegeneralsituation
canbeillustratedwiththekeyexamples:
(a) i. apa ‘zurück’ : Gr. \ ‘weg, von’ were compared already by Kuryowicz
(1935:75).However,themeaningsdonotagree,andanalternativeetymologywithout
Neogr.*Ta
hasbeenpresentedforHittite:
201
Tischler (1980:509): “Da es ein Ziel wissenschaftlicher Forschung sein muß, möglichst einfache
Theorien zu erstellen [...] sollte man die Lösung des Problems in der schon von Zgusta (1951) und
Szemerényi(1967)vorgeschlagenenRichtungsuchenundsichaufnureinenidg.Laryngal,dernichts
mitVokalfärbungzutunhat,beschränkenunddieseneinenLaryngalebennurdaansetzen,woerim
Hetitischen als belegt ist; dies zumindest für diejenige Phase des Indogermanischen, die der
AusgliederungdesAnatolischenunmittelbarvorangeht.”
202
For the single laryngeal PIE * R i. , see Szemerényi (1967:90 and 1985:59, fn3), Vaillant
(1936:111f- and 1950:241-246), Gusmani (1979:63-71), Kammenhuber (1985:459) and Laroche 1986,
Jonsson (1978:48ff.), Szemerényi 19904:147), Tischler (1980:498), Szemerényi (1967:90), and Beekes
(1969:5).
203
ApparentlyonlyBurrow’s(1973:85-86)versionofmonolaryngealismrecognizesthat“anothereffect
of h, observable in languages other than Sanskrit, is the coloration of a succeeding vowel by h,
producingnotablyachangefrometoa”.
204
LT†h4, an a-colouring laryngeal allegedly ‘lost’ in Old Anatolian, was suggested by Kuryowicz
(1935:75f., 254f. and 1956:166-71) in his construction of †T4 (R †A2 of Puhvel 1960:35, 1965:92). See
also Hendriksen (1941:42), Schmitt-Brandt (1967:5), Schmitt-Brandt (1967:108-9), Szemerényi
(1990:130) [wL.] and Lindeman (1997:48-49). For more recent supporters, see Mallory and Adams
1997andAnttila2000.
205
Forexamplesofi.a:Gr.4,Lat.a,OIr.a,etc.,seeKuryowicz(1935:75),Eichner(1988:132-133)
andTischler(1980:504,fn44).
87
PIEop-‘(da)nachzurück,usw.’(*pi-,*epi-,*opi-,etc.)
i.apa
LinB.opi
Gr.pEEK
i.apizia-
Gr.<-
OInd.pi·
Gr.d<
RV.ápi
(prep.adv.)‘danach,zurück’(HEG1:41)
(prepD.)‘around,upon,after’(DMycGr.402,o-pi)
(adv.)‘nachhinten,hernach’(GEW2:404,pEEK)
(adv.)‘hinterer,letzter,geringer’(HEG1:46)
(pref.)(GEW1:535,inGr.<·}9K,F·GI~)
(pref.)(inOInd.pi-dÎbh-,pi-nah-,pi-dh
na-)
(prep.adv.)‘dazu,dabei,auf,an,bei’(GEW1:535)
(adv.)‘auch,dazu’(WbRV.75-6)
(b) i. auan ‘-(?)-’ and Lat. au- ‘fort’ were similarly compared by Kuryowicz
(1935:75).Yetagain,however,abettersemanticsisavailableinthefollowing:
PIEuon-un-‘weg,-los,ohne,alleinstehend’
i.uan·umia-
Pal.uan·danguar-
Go.wan-
(a.)‘kinder-,elternlos,alleinstehend’(HHand.194)
(n.)‘ohneDunkel’(HHand.194)
(n.)‘Mangel’(GoEtD.394,wan[sgN])
(c) i. maglant- ‘mager’ : Gr. ?4=CD ‘lang’ (Tischler 1980:504). Since not all ‘thin’
objects are ‘long’,the semantic bridge can fail, leaving Neogr. *a in doubt. If one
comparesi.maglant-directlytoitstranslation(ModHG.mager)andtherespective
Germanicitems(OIcl.magr-‘mager’ANEtWb.375,etc.), PIE*ocanbepostulated
fortheitemswithoutNeogr.*Ta
.206
(d)i.lap-‘glühen’:Gr.>|?K‘glänzen’(Tischler1980:504).Despitetheacceptable
semantics,theitemsdonotconstituteamorphologicalmatch(owingtotheabsence
ofnasalinOldAnatolian).ThisproblemisobviatedifonecomparesHittitewithGr.
>BH@7-‘Fackel’(GEW2:139)andpostulatesNeogr.*lobh-(or*loph-)‘glänzen’for
both.
(e) i. taia- ‘stehlen’ : OCS. taji- ‘verbergen’ were already compared by Kuryowicz
(1935:75) with a provable Neogr. *
in Do. F4F|B- (vb,.) ‘entbehren, darben,
beraubtsein’,GEW2:895.Semantically,theformsbelongtothesameroot,butthe
possibilityofderivationalvariationwasnottakenintoaccountbyKuryowicz.Asset
againstthedata,thefollowingrootmatrix(without†h4)isimpliedbythecomparative
method:
PIEt-‘fassen,nehmen,(be)stehlen,usw.’(P.1010)
te/o-
i.ta- (vb.)‘take’(HEG3:5-11,da-a-i[3sg])207
206
Kuryowicz’scomparisoni.alpa-‘Wolke’andLat.albus‘weiß’issimilarlybasedonquestionable
semantics:ascloudsarenotalways‘white’intherealworld,thereisnoparallelforsuchdevelopment
in the Indo-European vocabulary.Instead, since the Indo-European words for ‘cloud’are usually
derivedfromthemeaning‘water,moisture,liquid,etc.’,itismorenaturaltocompareHittitewithGr.
r>:-(f.)‘Ölflasche’(GEW1:503)andGr.d>BE-(n.)‘Öl,Fett’(GEW1:503),becausethelatterlack
initialaspirationandthereforehardlybelongtoGo.salb-(vb.)‘salben’(GoEtD.293).
207
Fori.ta-‘take’,seePuhvel(1960:73)andSchmitt-Brandt(1967:63,fn59).
88
OInd.ta-
Li.tè- (f.)Hes.=‘\BC4,d@78<4,EF}C:E<D’(GEW2:895)
(vb,.)‘entbehren,darben,beraubtsein’(GEW2:895)
(a.)‘heimlich’(sb.)‘Geheimnis’(REW3:69)
tei-
Do.F4F|B-
ORus.taj
(m.)‘thief’(MonWil.431,Lex.ta[sgN])
(vb.)‘nehmen’(LiEtWb.1071,Li.tè[ipv2sg])
te-
Gr.F~·F:-
tei-toi-
i.tai-
i.taia-
gAv.taya- gAv.taya-
OInd.ma·táya-
Gr.F}B-
LAv.aiwi·ti- toti-teti-
HLu.ARHAtàti-
Li.tèti-
(vb1.)‘stehlen,bestehlen’(HEG3:24-,ta-a-iz-zi)
(vb1.)‘(be)stehlen’(HEG3:24f.,da-a-i-ia-zi[3sg])
(m.)‘Dieb(stahl)’(AIWb.638)
(a.)‘verstohlen,heimlich’(AIWb.638)
(cs.)‘sichwieeinVermittlerbenehmen’(KEWA2:557)
(vb.)‘take’(GEW2:890,inF[2sg],FF8[2pl])
(a.)‘sichbefassendmit[G]’(AIWb.91,aiwiZy[plN])
(vb.)‘takeaway’(CHLu.2.9.27,ARHAtà-ti-i[3sg])
(vb.)‘nehmen’(LiEtWb.1071,tèti-te[ipv2pl])
Diagnostically speaking, a monoliteral root t- is accompanied with laryngeal te-
andpalataltei-extensions;accordingly,Neogr.*
isnotconfirmedforHittite.
In the absence of unambiguous examples of Indo-European /a/ matching with
OldAnatolian,thereisacomplementarydistributionaccordingtowhichtheNeogr.
*Ta
andi.implyeachother.Inthisregard,themonolaryngealismneedstobe
improved(asdiscussedbelow).
2 .1.7 PIE*insyllabicpositionandNeogr.*T
§0. A common problem of all historical theories is the treatment of *H in syllabic
positionCHC(whereCisaconsonantorzero),andtherelationofthephenomenon
totheNeogrammarianvowel*T(=DS*A).
§1. Saussure’s coefficient sonantique *A, interpreted as a laryngeal, was adopted by
Cuny(1912:102f.),208accordingtowhom*A(= H2)becomessonorous(i.e.*)ina
non-sonorous environment; the author thus ended up explaining the ablaut with LT
*seg-(Att.g6,Do.]6-)andLT*sg(Lat.sag-).
§2.InEichner’slaryngealtheory(1988:125ff.),theideaisadaptedintoanassumption
that the laryngeals h1 h2 h3 have vocalic allophones LT T1 T2 T3, which allegedly
208
ForadetailedanalysisofCuny’swork,seeSzemerényi1973:12f.
89
producethesyllabicreflexes(e.g.,inLat.pater-‘father’:OInd.pitár-‘id’N*pT2ter-
andsoforth).209
§3.TheunavoidableproblemofthesyllabichypothesisraisedbyWyatt(1964:148)is
that “[...] it is difficult to see how an essentially consonantal element can be
vocalized”. Indeed, the laryngeal is non-sonorous and has no syllabic properties.
Furthermore, for phonetic reasons the idea of its vocalization does not satisfy the
requirementsofscientificrealism..210
§4.Thedeadendofthevocalicallophoneofthelaryngealhasledscholarstoseekan
explanation for the syllabic reflexes from the domain of vowels. It was Karl O#tir
(1913:167)–followedbyKuryowicz(1935:29&fn2,55f.)andSturtevant(1941:184)
–whosuggestedthat*Hwasaccompaniedbyschwasecundum*Mindiphonemic*MH
and *HM. A similar suggestion but based on an anaptyctic vowel has been recently
discussedbyTischler(1981:322).211
§5.Althoughtheideaofexplainingthevocalizationassociatedwiththelaryngealby
means of vowels is definitely superior to the impossible syllabicization of PIE *H,
problemsremain.OfgreaterimportancethanZgusta’sapophony-relatedobjection212
isLindeman’s(1987:84,98ff.)remarkconcerningthedubiouscharacteroftheschwa
secundum (and anaptyxis). This is indeed a concern, because according to scientific
rules the reconstruction phonemes can only be postulated if implied by the
comparativemethod.Clearlytheschwasecundumand/orananaptycticvoweldonot
satisfythiscondition,becausetheitemscannotbedefinedfortheproto-languageina
consistentmanner.
2 .1.8 i.inenvironmentNeogr.*e*
§0.Despitetheexistingstatistics,theconnectionbetween PIE*andNeogr.*Ta
is
not self-evident, because the comparative method confirms clusters i. e, e with
etymological PIE *·. In such examples, the lack of a-colouring challenges a key
assumptionofthelaryngealtheoryandthehypothesisofasinglelaryngealPIE*(on
which, see Tischler 1980:496),213 unless a hitherto unknown distribution can be
uncovered
209
Eichner(1973:86,fn13)writes:“DieLaryngalehattenimUridg.m.E.vokalischeAllophone(T1T2
T3), wenn ihnen aufgrund der uridg. Sonantizitätregeln in der Phonemkette die Rolle von Sonanten
zufiel.”
210
Tischler (1980:515) adds: “[...] der hier vorliegende L[aryngal] H2, der ja ein Konsonant ist, nich
einfach‘vokalisiert’werdenkann(wiez.B.Rix1976,§86annimmt[...].”
211
ForG.Schmitt’s(1973)similartreatmentwith‘einüberkurzerSproßvokal’,seealsothesummaryof
Mayrhofer(1986:138-9).
212
Zgusta(1951:438)writes:“M.O#tir,M.Kuryowicz,M.SturtevantenseignentqueT<MHouHM.
Maiscettehypothèseesttrèsprécaire,carparlànousrenonçonsauparallélismedel’apophonie,qui
estlaraisonfondamentalepouraccepterlathéorielaryngale.”
213
Burrow (1973:88) suggests: “For all practical purposes it is possible to operate with a single,
undifferentiatedH.”
90
§1. In order to solve this problem, Pedersen (1938:179-181)214 suggested that there
aretwodifferentlaryngeals,bothpreservedasHittite215:anon-colouring*H(e.g.
i.ue-e-zi‘sichwenden’[3sg])andana-colouring*Ha(e.g.i.anti‘frons’:Lat.
ante).216 In addition, Pedersen’s system only includes the cardinal vowels *e and *o
(and the rule of compensatory lengthening), with the result that it is economic and
capableofexplainingtheablautNeogr.*´:*Êbasedon*Hae:*Hao:*eHa:*oHa(a
propertythatismissingfromthemultilaryngealtheorieswithonly*e).
§2. Despite this partial success, under closer inspection Pedersen’s reconstruction
fallsshort.Neither*HnorHacanbereconstructedfortherootswithablautNeogr.*´
:·,sincethenon-colouring*Hisprecludedbytheformsin*´(e.g.Lat.ag)andthe
a-colouring*Habytheformsin*·(e.g.Lat.g).IntheOldAnatoliandata,thenoncolouring*Hsolvestheablauti.ue-,ua-N*Ò·H-,*ÒÊH-,butthevocalismofGr.
(ß)4n@K‘winnow’(GEW1:41)andLat.uannus‘Getreide-oderFutterschwinge’(WH
2:731)revealsthecontradictioninPedersen’s*Hand*Ha.Sinceitisnotuncommon
thatallthreequalities(Neogr.*·:Ê:´)appearwithinoneroot(Lat.g:Gr.r6?BD:
Lat. ag etc.), Pedersen’s reconstruction is disproved: adding laryngeals does not
solvetheproblemsathand.
§3.Morerecently,anewproposalconcerningtheablautNeogr.*·:´wasputforth
by Eichner (1973:53, 71f.),217 according to whom the ‘a-colouring laryngeal’ *h2had
nocolouringeffectonanadjacentPIE*.Thefollowingremarksshow,however,that
‘LexEichner’shouldnotbeconsideredasoundlaw:218
(a)Itisquestionabletopositasoundlawdependingonanscientificallyunverifiable
condition, in this case the Old Anatolian quantity, a feature not expressed in
cuneiformwriting.
(b)TheIndo-EuropeanformsrelatedtotheparadeexampleofLexEichner(i.e.i.
meur/n- (n.) ‘time, noon’ (HEG 2:171-4, i. me-e-ur[sgN], me-e-u-na-a# [sgG]
(OAnat. m·-)) are sufficient to prove that the lack of colouring is not related to
quantity.Eichner’sideacanbeillustratedwiththefollowingcorrespondences:
214
OnPedersen’sreconstruction,seealsoPolomé(1965:19).
215
Pedersen (1938:180) proposes: “Da es aber zwei verschiedene Färbungen der Grundstufe gibt,
müssenwirzweiverschiedeneLaryngaleannehmen,diemanH1undH2schreibenkann;istauseH1,
aus eH2 entstanden; der Unterschied der beiden Laryngale besteht also darin, dass H1 auf die
Färbung des vorgehenden e keinen Einfluss ausübt, während H2 das e in a verwandelt. [...] H2, das
einemvorhergehendenediea-Färbunggegebenhat,aucheinfolgendeseinaverwandelthat.”
216
Since Pedersen does not postulate unattested ‘laryngeals’, the (Semitic) monovocalism or root
axiom are not upheld. Therefore, his theory is not a proper laryngeal theory, but a version of
monolaryngealism.
217
Eichner(1973:72)writes:“Trotzder–wienichtanderszuerwarten–geringenZahlvonsicheren
Beispielen (mhur, #hur, hkur, Éhi#t
-, LÚhippara-) dürfte die Folgerung, das uridg. neben H2
(H2,H2)seineQualitätbisinsHethitischehaltenkonnte,unausweichlichsein,Vorbilder,ausdenen
daslangedieserWörteranalogischbezogenseinkönnte,fehlenvöllig.”Foradditionalexamplesand
discussionandliterature,seeMayrhofer(1986:132-133,2004:27fn114)andSzemerényi(1996:139).
218
Eichner(1973:72)adds:“DieAnnahmederErhaltungvonuridg.indieserPositionistprinzipiell
unbedenklich,daLangvokaleerfahrungsgemässdurchbenachbarteKonsonantennichtindemselben
MassverändertwerdenwiedieentsprechendenKurzvokale.”
91
i.men-
Lat.m
n
Lat.m
nic
- (n.obl.)‘Zeit’(HEG2:171,me-e-ni[sgL])
(adv.)‘amMorgen’(WH2:25,m
n[adv.])
(pr1.)‘frühaufstehen’(WH2:25,m
nic
re[inf.])
where the difference of colourings i. men- : Lat. m
n- allegedly reflects the
originaldifferenceofquantity: EICH.*mh2n-:*meh2n-.Thatthequantitydoesnot
explain the absence of ‘a-colouring’is evident on the basis of the short PIE *e in
Gothic:
Go.aldo·min-
i.men-
(m./n.)‘6C4D:oldage’(GoEtD.25)
The alternative extensions of the root PIE *me- ‘Zeit, usw.’ imply that the actual
ablautalternationisfarmorecomplicated.Thustheextension PIE*m··l-appears
withNeogr.*eand*butwithout‘a-colouring’in:
Li.tuo·m¢l- Go.ml-
OIcl.m
l-
(adv.)‘ineinemfort’(LiEtWb.430,tuom¢l[sgNA])
(n.)‘Stunde,Zeit’(GoEtD.250,mel[sgNA])
(n.)‘Zeit,Termin,Mahlzeit’(ANEtWb.376,m
l[NA])
In this manner, Lex Eichner succeeds no better than Pedersen’s *H : *Ha. Since
Zgusta’s idea that a connection between the ‘a-vocalism’and PIE * is missing
altogether is not tempting either, Neogr. *· in environment i. remains
unexplained, and the true solution needs to be inferred based on the comparative
method.
2 .1.9 DiphonemicPIE*aandPIE*a
§0. All attempts to solve the problem of the syllabic reflects of the laryngeal, the
relationbetweeni.andNeogr.*Ta
andtheappearanceofi.inenvironment
Neogr. *· have proven unsuccessful. On Christmas Eve 1998, I briefed my future
mentor,BertilTikkanen,onthesituationwithdatarelatedtotherootNeogr.*kTu-
*k
u-‘schlagen,usw.’(P.535,k
u-kTu-):
k
u-
Li.káu-
Latv.kaû-
TochA.k
w-
Li.kovà-
(vb.)‘schlagen,hauen,vernichten’(LiEtWb.232)
(vb.)‘schlagen,hauen,stechen,usw.’(LiEtWb.232)
(vb.)‘occidere,necare’(Poucha85,k
we(ñc)[3pl])
(f.)‘Kampf,Schlacht’(LiEtWb.232,kovà[sgN])
kTu·ii-
Li.kÑja-
Li.kÑji-
RusCS.kyj
(f.)‘Stelze:pale,stake’(LiEtWb.232)
(.)‘schwererSchmiedehammer’(LiEtWb.232)
(.)‘Hammer,Knüttel’(LiEtWb.232)
kTu·d-:k
u·d-
92
Lat.c%d-
Lat.caud·ec- Latv.pa·kûdî-
khu·d-
RV.khudá-
(pf.)‘schlagen,klopfen,stampfen,prägen’(WH1:300)
(m.)‘Baumstamm,gespaltenesHolz’(WH1:136)
(vb.)‘antreiben’(Sadnik434)
kheu·d-
RV.coda-
RV.códa-
RV.codáya- (vb.)‘hineinstossen:thrustinto’(WbRV.374)
(P.955)
(pr.)‘inBewegungsetzen,antreiben’(WbRV.456)
(m.)‘WerkzeugzumAntreiben,Peitsche’(WbRV.458)
(cs.)‘schärfen,wetzen’(WbRV.457)
Thisdatacontainsmaterialthatiscriticalforthesolutionofthelaryngealquestion,as
itincludessimultaneouslyalltheproblems:
(a)The‘a-vocalism’Neogr.*Ta
isattestedinlanguagespreservingthequality.Thus
Neogr. *k
u- is directly represented by Li. kov- R Lat. cau-. At the same time,
Neogr.*kTu-isindirectlypreservedinthequantityofLi.kÑ-RRusCS.ky-,which
reflectstheassimilationandlengtheningof*T+uO*%(seeChapter3).
(b)ThesegmentallaryngealPIE*isimpliedbytheBalticaccentinLi.káu-RLatv.
kaû-andLi.kÑ-,anditisdirectlyconfirmedbytenuisaspiratainRV.khud-.
(c)Thusboththelaryngealandtheschwaarecomparativelyproven,butneitherthe
laryngealnortheschwaassuchprovidesacoherentreconstructionThereasonsfor
thisareexplicatedbelow:
1.IfoneoptsforthetraditionalreconstructionNeogr.*kTu·(.)-,itisnolonger
possible to reconstruct the root variants with laryngeal(RV. khud-), because it
makesnosensethatavowel*TwouldbeaconsonantPIE*.
2. If one opts for laryngeal reconstruction with PIE * (in LT *khu·.-), it is no
longerpossibletoreconstructthevocalicvariants(Li.kÑ-),asitmakesnosenseto
reconstructasyllabicobstruent†¬.
§1. In a subsequent discussion, Tikkanen and I agreed that the solution had to be
soughtfromthedirectionofbothvowelandlaryngealbeingpresent(insteadofeither
alone).Throughourjointefforts,mineonthecomparativesideandhisinphonetics,
wearrivedatthesoleexistingsolution,effectivelydealingwithallproblems:
(a) Tikkanen initially suggested a parallel in Hebrew with the so-called ‘pata
furtivum’, a short sub-phonemic [a] which appears anaptyctically before a laryngeal
/h/, //, or /‘/ (e.g. Hebr. r%a ‘wind, spirit’). This suggestion raised, however, the
weaknesses of schwa secundum and/or anaptyxis in a form of the sub-phonemic [a].
Consequently,theideahadtobeabandonedinfavourofadiphonemiccombination
of the vowel Neogr. *T and the laryngeal PIE *: the root Li. kÑ- represents PIE
*kÕhu-(withaccentedschwa*Õ)andtherootRV.khu-represents PIE*kThu-(with
unaccentedschwa*T).Thusthediphonemic*Tallowsforthereconstructionofboth
variantsnecessaryforacompletetheory.
(b)WhenIpointedouttheexistenceofexamplesrequiringpost-laryngealschwa*T,
Tikkanen suggested a phoneme surrounded by vowels *TT (q.d. Hebr. †aa). I
93
abandoned this as too strong, as the resulting unrestricted colouring would be
identicaltothatof LTh2,whichnolongerallowsthequality*·attestedinRV.cod-
N PIE*kTheud-.Inordertoinclude PIE*·,*Talsohastobeposited;thisleadsto
diphonemic *T and *T, for which Tikkanen in this connection had already
suggestedthevalueNeogr.*TRPIE*a.219
§2.Forthesolutionofthelaryngealproblem,itisnecessaryandsufficienttocombine
PIE * (= i. ) and the cover symbol Neogr. *, reinterpreted as vowel PIE *a, in
diphonemicPIE*aandPIE*a.
Fromthefollowingsketch,itcanbereadilyseenthatthesolutionanswersallexisting
problems:
(a)Theproblemthatthelaryngeal PIE*cannotbevocalized220canbeansweredby
thesimplefactthatitdoesnothaveto:thesyllabicityiscausedbythevowel PIE*a
adjacenttoPIE*inPIE*a*a.
(b) The problem of the scientifically unsatisfactory character of schwa secundum
and/or an anaptyctic/epenthetic vowel is answered by the fact that the vowel
accompanying PIE * is the well-defined schwa indogermanicum (Neogr. *T), for
which the phonetic value PIE *a can be demonstrated. Since Neogr. *T was already
comparatively proven by the Neogrammarians, it has to be included in the
reconstructionanyway.
(c) Neogr. *T R PIE *a has a well-known double treatment: in addition to the
developmentLat.aROInd.i,schwawaslostinalldialectsexceptfortracesofVedic
meterinexampleslike
RV.pári·jm
-
(m.)‘Umwandler,Herumwandler’(WbRV.785)
requiringafour-syllabicscansion.Theexplanationforthelossandthepreservation
ofavowelPIE*acanonlybesoughtfromanoriginaldifferencebetweenanaccented
PIE*áandanunaccented PIE*a.Anunaccented PIE*awaslost(e.g. PIE*u·a-
i. ue- and PIE *uÊa- i. ua-), but it may remain indirectly measurable in
variantsinwhichPIE*awasassimilatedinPIE*·beforeitsloss(e.g.PIE*u·a··n-
Gr.ß4·@-‘winnow’).221
(d)ThevowelPIE*a,notPIE*,isthesourceoftheso-called‘colouringeffect’inthe
environmentswith PIE*·,whichreadilyaddressesthenon-realisticassumptionofa
‘colouringlaryngeal’.
(e)ThevowelPIE*a(Neogr.*T),notthevocalizationofthelaryngeal(PIE*),isthe
originofthesyllabicityinthezerograde(e.g.inPIE*pater-‘father’).
(f)Thealternationbetween‘a-quality‘and‘e-quality’inenvironmentPIE*iscaused
byalternationofthepositionof PIE*·:theformswithoutdirectcontactbetween PIE
219
Confirmation of the idea, necessitating a solution for the problem of the vowel Neogr. *a, took
placesomeyearslater.
220
Tischler (1980:514) writes: “Von Kuryowiczs Nachfolgern wird der Unterschied zwischen dem
vocalischen Schwa und den konsonantischen Laryngalen jedoch oftmals vernachlässigt und mit
leichtfertigenPapiererklärungenwie‘silbischesAllophon’u.dgl.abgetan.”
221
AsaconsequenceofthelossofPIE*andcontractions,notonlyPIE*ua-butanyvocalization
ofPIE*u·a·-couldunderlieGr.ß4(@)-(Neogr.*Ò
n-).
94
*· and *PIE *a (e.g. i. men- N PIE *m·a·n-) do not indicate a-vocalism, while
thoseindirectcontactdo(e.g.Lat.m
nNPIE*m·a··n-).
(g)Consequently,onlyasinglelaryngealappearinginPIE*aandPIE*asufficesfor
the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European, and no distinction between colouring
andnon-colouringlaryngeals(Pedersen)shouldbemade.Thevowel PIE*a,notthe
laryngeal,isresponsibleforthe‘colouringeffect’,whichisactuallyanassimilationof
222
PIE*·+a,PIE*a+·OLat.´,etc.followedbyafairesisoftheunaccentedPIE*a. In
thismanner,asinglecoversymbol PIE*solvestheProto-Indo-Europeanlaryngeal
problemwithoutanyoftheproblemscausedbymultiplesuchitems.
(h) The difference between PIE *a : *a is distinctive (i.e. PIE *a *a in all
environments):thevowel PIE*adoesnotalteritsposition(or‘schwebeablaut’)like
PIE*e/o(possibly),butitstandsinafixedpositioneitherbeforeorafterthelaryngeal
andthusbehavesfunctionallyasarootradical.223AsIndo-Europeanlinguisticsisan
empirical science, there are no aprioristic rules for determining whether PIE *a or
*aneedstobereconstructedforaroot;thecorrectalternativemustbechosenbased
onthemeasurablefeaturesofthedata.Thus,forexample, PIE*mea-‘time,noon’
hasPIE*a(basedonthelackofcolouringini.me·ur-),whereasPIE *pater-has
224
PIE*a(basedonGr.|F8C-‘father’)withouttenuesaspirataandsoforth. §3. The rules of the laryngeal theory that allow PIE * (h2) to be inferred from ‘acolouring’and‘a-colouring’fromtheOldAnatolianlaryngealareacceptable,because
PIE * and PIE *a form an equivalence pair, PIE *a a. The following rules of
inferenceapplyforthese:
Neogr.*Ta
(Gr.4,Lat.a,etc.) PIE*(i.,Pal.,etc.) PIE*(i.,Pal.,CLu.,HLu.)Neogr.*Ta
(Gr.4,etc.) (1)
(2)
Asfortheserules,noteinparticularthat:
(a) The first rule, which has been widely used ever since the appearance of the
laryngealtheory(‘thecolouringruleofh2’),allowsustoreconstruct PIE*basedon
Neogr. *T a even when the correspondence is not confirmed by Old Anatolian,
compensatingconsiderablyforthelossofthelaryngeal.
(b)ThesecondruleallowsforthereconstructionofNeogr.*Ta
(i.e. PIE*a)based
ontheOldAnatolianlaryngeal,thusprovidinganauxiliaryhypothesis,accordingto
which one can anticipate ‘a-vocalism’in the Indo-European languages when Old
AnatolianindicatesPIE*.
222
TheafairesisisapartofthegenerallossofunaccentedPIE*a(Neogr.*T).
223
Note, however, that roots can naturally be affixed both with ·a or ·a, thus resulting in
alternation formally resembling schwebeablaut. Thus, for example, in Li. pagynà- (f.) ‘Beendigung,
Ende’(LiEtWb. 152) a suffix ·a appears and in Li. pa·gyn¹- (vb.) ‘ein wenig treiben, beendigen,
vollenden (LiEtWb. 152) a suffix ·a appears. Here and in similar examples, there are two distinct
suffixesinsteadofschwebeablautingvowelPIE*achangingitspositionwithrespecttoPIE*.
224
Due to the loss of material, it is not always possible to infer whether PIE *a or *a is to be
reconstructed.Eveninsuchcases,however,atleastPIE*canbeconfirmed.
95
(c)UpgradingthemonolaryngealismwiththeserulessolvesZgusta’sproblemofthe
absence of a connection between PIE * and Neogr. *T a based on the single
laryngealPIE*,afeaturehenceforthaddedtoSystemPIE.
§4.Itispossibletoseektheestablishmentofadiphonemicconnectionbetween PIE
* and PIE *a from the general existence of the ablaut PIE *· : Ø : Ê. The ablaut
mechanismwouldhavefacedenormousdifficultiesinzero-gradeCC(shapeCCC)
hadPIE*notbeenaccompaniedbythevowelPIE*a.225Thediphonemicconnection
betweenPIE*andPIE*aallowedrootswithPIE*tobehaveinasimilarmanneras
theresonants,exceptnotbeingeither‘avoweloraconsonant’(=±/R),but‘avowel
(PIE*a)andaconsonant(PIE*)’inPIE*aandPIE*a.
§5. Finally, it should be noted that since both Neogr. *T (PIE *a) and PIE * (=
OAnat. ) are based on well-defined correspondence sets, the proto-language was
bound to contain their combinations PIE *a+ and PIE *+a (i.e. PIE *a and PIE
*a),whencethereconstructionofdiphonemesisacceptablealsofromthepointof
viewofactuallyattestedforms.
2 .1.10
OnpropertiesofthecoversymbolPIE*
§0.Intermsofthepropertiesofthecoversymbol PIE*,severalkeyfeaturescanbe
inferredbasedonthematerial:
§1.Inthelaryngealtheoryithasbeensuggestedthati.= PIE*wasavoiceless
velar fricative /x/ (see, for example, Mayrhofer 2004:25fn102).226 Regarding this
interpretation,oneshouldobservethefollowing:
(a)Theassumedvelarfricativearticulationof PIE*isbasedonthetranscriptionof
the (sole) laryngeal of the cuneiform script (Sum. = Akd. = i. , etc.) in the
Latinalphabet.However,wecouldwriteSum.h=Akd.h=i.hforthelaryngeal
instead(i.e.i.canstandequallywellforaglottalfricative/h/,justasthecuneiform
i.#standsforPIE*s(=IPA/s/)despiteitsvalueSum.#=Akd.#).
(b) In connection with the assumed voiceless character of i. and its PIE
counterpart,itshouldbenotedthatthecuneiformscriptmadenodistinctionbetween
the voiceless and the voiced laryngeal. Though by means of segmental analysis the
voicelessvaluecanbedemonstratedforsomeexamples(e.g.OInd.sth-<*stah-),
thisdoesnotexcludethepossibilityofi.alsostandingforavoiceditem.
§2.Consequently,thephoneticvalues PIE*h:Yand PIE*x:6(orboth)arepossible
for the cover symbol PIE *. Although no further conclusions can be drawn on the
basisoftheone-dimensionalsurfacelevelofi.,itcanbereadilymentionedthat
225
Note, however, that this argument – being essentially structural – lacks rigour, unless the general
impossibilityoftheshapeCCCisdemonstratedforProto-Indo-European.
226
The various attempts of the laryngeal theory to explain the colouring in terms of different
articulatory properties of the different ‘laryngeals (e.g. Ó, x, xw) fail due to the non-existence of the
itemsh1andh3.
96
analysis of the taihun-decem isogloss (see Chapter 4) reveals that at least the value
PIE*h(glottalfricative)canbeprovenforthecoversymbol PIE*.Inaddition,the
glottalfricativealternatesintermsofthevoice(i.e.thecoversymbol*standsforPIE
*h:Yoftheproto-language).
§3. The compatibility of the diphonemic interpretation of PIE *a, a with the Old
Anatolian laryngeal (i. ) and Brugmann’s vowel system will be demonstrated for
the‘a-vocalism’inSection2.2,for‘o-vocalism’inSection2.3,andfor‘e-vocalism’in
Section 2.4. Taken together, these constitute a general solution for the ablaut
problemandi..
2 .2 VowelsNeogr.**a*andi.
2.2.1 Introductionanddefinitions
§1.InBrugmann’ssystem,threecorrespondencesetsNeogr.*T,Neogr.*a(=*a3),
andNeogr.*
aredefinedasthecoversymbolsforthe‘a-vocalism’.Inthischapter,
Neogr.*Ta
willbeshowntobeconsistentwiththediphonemicinterpretationofPIE
*a,abyderivingtheupgradedvaluesforNeogr.*Ta
inSystemPIE.
2.2.2 ReconstructionofNeogr.*TRGr.4:OInd.i 227 §0.FollowingtheanalysisofPaleogr.*a
intothesixcoversymbolsNeogr.*a
eo
,problematiccorrespondencesetsremained.Themostfamousoftheseisthecover
symbolNeogr.*T,‘schwaindogermanicum’,discussedhere.
§1.ThetermwasintroducedintoIndo-EuropeanlinguisticsbyFick(1879:157-165)in
hisarticleSchwaindogermanicum,228usingthefollowingdefinition:
“Dieses ursprüngliche e, o, das ich der Kürze wegen Schwa nenne, erscheint im Sanskrit
meist als i, (vor und hinter Labialen auch als u, ), im Zend als , i, im Griechischen
vorwiegendals4,imDeutschenalso(got.u).”
§2. The Neogrammarians accepted Fick’s schwa (written Neogr. *T), but with a
restrictionstatedbyBrugmann(Grundr.21:170);accordingtothis,Av.TandGo.u
should be treated differently.229 In Brugmann’s canonical formulation, the schwa
producesashort/a/inalllanguagesexceptIndo-Iranian,wheretheresultingvowelis
/i/:
227
FortheNeogr.*T(‘schwaindogermanicum’),seeSzemerényi(1990:134-135,1996:40-41),Burrow
1949,1979andWyatt1964,1970.
228
ForacriticaldiscussiononFick’sviews,seeTischler(1980:513&fn57).
Brugmann (Grundr2 1:177): “Dass uridg. T im Germanischen lautgesetzlich auch als u erscheine,
nachStreitberg(IF.Anz.2,47f.,Urgerm.Gr.S.47)innichthaupttonigerSilbe,istmirunerwiesen.Vgl.
Noreen Abriss 10 f. (T in zweiter Silbe darf nicht in ahd. anado ‘Kränkung’und nhd. dial. sam(p)t
‘sand’=ahd.*samatgesuchtwerden.).”
229
97
Neogr.*T
R
OInd.i,Av.i:Gr.a,Lat.a,OIr.a,Arm.a,etc.230
For schwa, Brugmann (Grundr.2 1:170-178, KVG 80-82) provided, inter alia, the
followingexamples:
OInd.pitár- :
OInd.sthitá- :
OInd.·dita- :
Arm.hair,Gr.4F~C,Lat.pater,OIr.athir,Go.fadar
Gr.EF4FD,Lat.status,Go.stas,Li.stata$,etc.
Lat.datus,Arm.ta-mk‘[1pl.],Alb.da#e[1sg]
§3.Brugmann(Grundr.21:51)characterizedschwaphonetically,
“Eine Mittelstellung zwischen Vollstimme und Flüsterstimme nimmt die Murmelstimme
(nach Sievers’ Bezeichnung [= 18934]) ein. [...] Statt Murmelvocal sagt man auch Schwa.
Vondenuridg.Vocalengehörthierherder,denwirmitTdarstellen.”
Lateron,Brugmann(KVG:33)providedamorepreciseformulation:
“Murmelvokale(nachSievers’Bezeichnung)sindsolcheVokale,beiderenHervorbringung
dieStimmbändersoweitauseinanderstehenundderExpirationsdrucksoschwachist,dass
sich dem Stimmton Flüster- und Hauschgeräusche beimischen. Bei ihnen fällt der
KlangunterschiedweniginsOhr,undmeistwirdauchdiespezifischeArtikulationweniger
korrektausgeführtalsbeivollstimme.ImNhd.wirdeoftalsMurmelvokalgesprochen,z.B.
inname,gethan.Vondenuridg.VokalenscheintThierherzugehören(§37,127f.).”
§4. Brugmann231 and the Neogrammarians set the schwa (Neogr. *T) in ablaut
alternationwiththelongvowelsNeogr.*
.Theresultingsystem
Neogr.*
:T Neogr.*:T Neogr.*:T
thusstandsinaclearcontrastwiththebasicablautpatternPIE*e:Ø:o.
§5.Afamousre-interpretationoftheablautschemeNeogr.*T:
waspresentedby
Saussure(1878),accordingtowhom:
(a)TheablautschemaNeogr.*T:
isderivedfrom*A:eA(Neogr.*T:eT).The
ablaut behaviour of *A, lacking zero grade, suggests that it belongs to the class of
functionally (or structurally) defined ‘coefficientes sonantiques’, which ablaut
accordingtothepattern*eA:*A,*ei:*i,etc.,232notaccordingtoNeogr.*e:Ø:o.
(b)Saussure’sablautschema*A:*eA(forNeogr.*T:
)impliednotonlyacommon
denominator*A,butacoefficientwithacolouringeffectontheprecedingvowel(*eA
OaA)andcompensatorylengthening(aAO
).233
Brugmann(Grundr21:170)writes:“Idg.T[...]fielinallenSprachzweigenausserdemarischenmit
uridg.azusammen.ImArischenerscheintTalsi[...].”
230
231
Brugmann(KVG:80)writes:“Uridg.T[...]eineSchwächungvon,,
(§213,1).”
232
According to Wyatt (1970:10-11), Saussure understood *A as a vowel, not a consonant, but it is
generallyagreedthatforhim*Awasaresonant-like‘coefficient’.
233
Møller(1906:xiv-xv)generalizedE,A,Ôaccordingly:“DielangenindogermanischenWurzelvokale
, , sind aus dem kurzen Wurzelvokal und einem ursprünglich folgenden Kehllaut, semitischen
Kehllautentsprechend,entstanden.”
98
§6. Møller (1880:492, fn2 & 1906:vi)234 took this a step further by suggesting a
phoneticinterpretationofthe‘coefficient*A’,whichaccordingtohimwasaguttural
oftheSemitictype(i.e.aconsonantforwhichhelatercoinedtheterm‘laryngeal’).235
§7. In his interpretation of Hittite,236 Kuryowicz (1927a:95-104,237 1935:28-30)
identified*A,nowinterpretedasalaryngeal,directlywithi.,as;see,forexample,
*T2ent-O
i.antei‘frons’(HEG1:149):Lat.ante(WH1:53).
The laryngeal theory followed Kuryowicz, whose equation Neogr. *T = *A = *h2
resultedinacompletereversalofthephoneticinterpretationoftheschwa.Theitem
originallydefinedasavowel(Neogr.*T)wasunderstoodasasonantbySaussure(DS.
*A)andfinallyasaconsonantbyMøllerandKuryowicz(LT*h2).
2 .2.3 ProblemsofthereconstructionofNeogr.*T
§0. Despite the early acceptance of schwa, the correspondence set Neogr. *T has
causedconstantdifficultieseversinceitspostulation.
§1.Tischler(1980:514)suggestsrejectingNeogr.*T,whichaccordingtohimisnotan
autonomous phoneme, but a mere cover symbol for some unconnected
comparisons.238 This is certainly true for the majority of the alleged examples of
Neogr.*TOInd.i(Av.i),whichactuallycontainNeogr.*i.Amongthese,onecan
mentiontheclassicalexampleofschwa*Tin:
RV.sthitá-
:
Gr.EF4FD,Lat.status,Go.stas,Li.stata$,etc.
In order to reconstruct the root P. 1004-1010, it is important to correctly note the
following:
234
Møller (1906:vi) explains: “Als Ferdinand de Saussure seine glänzende Entdeckung der von ihm
sogenannten‘phonèmesAundÔmachte[...],sprachichalsbald(1879)dieVermütungaus,dassdiese
wurzelhaften Elemente, denen ich ein drittes hinzufügte, konsonantische und zwar Kehlkopflaute
gewesen sein [...] und behauptete (1880) ‘Es waren ... wahrscheinlich Gutturale von der Art der
semitischen’.”
235
Møller(1880:492n2):“Ueberdieconsonanten A, Evgl.Engl.stud.II,150f.Eswarenconsonanten
vonderart,wiewirsieinhistorischerzeitganzgewöhnlichmitdemvorhergehendenvocalverbunden
ineinemlangenvocalsichverlierensehen(z.b. hodergutturalesr),wahrscheinlichgutturalevonder
art der semitischen, A = lef, der tonlose gutturale verschlusslaut, und E wahrscheinlich der
entsprechendetönendeverschlusslaut.”
236
Kuryowicz 1927, Cuny 1927 and Sturtevant 1928 recognized the Hittite independently; see
Szemerényi(19904:130,1996:124).
237
Kuryowicz1927[nonvidi]forthe“Tindo-europeenethittite”andarticlesbyKuryowiczfromthe
1920s (Polomé 1965:61-62 and Szemerényi 1973:15) are included in Kuryowicz (1935:27-76). For a
modernevaluationofKuryowicz’sinterpretation,seeSzemerényi(1973:15-19).
238
See Tischler (1980:514): “Es wird dabei überstehen, daß dieses Schwa als eigenständiger Laut
überhaupt nie existiert hat, sondern nur als Decksymbol für die beiden phonetisch sonst nicht
vereinbarenVertretungen iund agedachtwar.”Hefurtheradds(1980:516):“Esistdahernochmals
festzuhalten, das nur eine Cover-Symbol für arisch i und westidg. a darstellt; es hat keine reale
historische oder vorhistorische phonetische Realität und kann keinen Hinweis auf die Art der
Entstehungvonarischigeben.”
99
1. The dentals of RV. sthi- : Gr. EF4- do not match (RV. th Gr. F), with the
resultthattheirvocalismsalsodonotnecessarilymatch.
2.TheprimarystartingpointofSanskritistheunaspiratedrootsurvivinginAV.
nari· -(f.)‘Scherz,Geplauder’(EWA2:22),whichisidenticalwithDo.EF-Li.
stó-Lat.st
-PIE*sta-.
3. The root RV. sth-, the zero grade of PIE *sta- (AV. st
- Li. stó-),
survivinginthereduplication
RV.ta·sth-
(pf.)‘stehen’(WbRV.1600,tasthús[3pl])
hasbeenderivedfromPIE*sta-withlossoftheunaccentedPIE*a.
4.Fromthebase PIE*sta-(RV.sth-),severalderivativeshavebeenformed.In
additionto
OInd.nari· h
-
(f.)‘Scherz,Geplauder’(KEWA2:140,sth
-),
theextensionPIE*sta·i-isattestedinthreequantities:
(a)PIE*stai-(*-grade)
Li.stója-
OPers.ava·st
ya-
LAv.
·st
ya- OCS.staja- (vb.)‘sichstellen,treten’(LiEtWb.914,stóju[1sg])
(pr.)‘setdown,place’(OldP.210,av
st
yam[1sg])
(pr.)‘einsetzen’(AIWb.1602,
st
ya[1sg])
(vb.)‘sichhinstellen/hintreten’(Sadnik875,stajati)
(b)PIE*steai-(*e-grade)
Gr.EF4-
LAv.staya-
OCS.stoja-
(ao.)‘stehen’(GEW1:739,LSJ.1633,EF48@[opt.3pl])
(pr.)‘aufhaltenin’(AIWb.1601,stayaÐ[3sg])
(vb.)‘stehen,aushalten’(Sadnik875,stojati[inf.])
(c)PIE*stai-(Ø-grade)
RV.sthi-
RV.tasthi-
RV.sthirá-
RV.sthitá-
(pf.&ao.)‘stare’(WbRV.1601,ásthita)
(pf.)‘statumesse’(WbRV.1600,tasthim
[1pl])
(a.)‘fest,haltbar,stark’(WbRV.1604)
(pt.)‘sichnahen’(WbRV.1603apisthitá-)
§2.Despitetheexamplesactuallycontaining PIE*iratherthanNeogr.*T,Burrow’s
(1973:89)claimthatNeogr.*Tiswithoutjustificationistoostrong.Thisisprovenby
thefactthatinadditiontothestandarddevelopmentOInd.iRAv.i PIE*i,there
are certain examples of ‘non-palatalizing’ OInd. i2 R Av. i Neogr. *T. This is
confirmed by the neutrality of the vowel OInd. i2 in the second palatalization in
examplessuchas:
(a)PIE*kaln-(Neogr.*kTln-)‘Schwiele,harteHaut’(P.523-4)
OInd.kia-
Lat.callo-
Lat.calle
(m.)‘Schwiele’(KEWA1:208,EWA3:90,kia)
(n.)‘Schwiele,dickeHaut’(WH1:139,callum[sgNA])
(vb.)‘einedickeHauthaben’(WH1:139,calle[1sg])
100
(b)PIE*gal-(Neogr.*gTl-)‘Maus,Wiesel’,(P.367)239
Lat.mi·gal OInd.giri- Lat.m·galno-
Gr.64>}:
Lat.gale
- Gr.64>}B- OInd.girik
- (f.)‘Spitzmaus’(ACSS.2:86)
(f.)‘Maus’(KEWA1:336,EWA1:488,giri[sgN])
(a.)‘rostbraun’(WH2:86)
(f.)‘Wiesel,Marder’(GEW1:284-5,Gr.64>}:[sgN])
(f.)‘HelmausLeder’(WH1:579,galea[sgN])
(m.)‘Haifisch’(GEW1:285,64>}BD[sgN])
(f.)‘Maus’(KEWA1:336,EWA1:488,girik
[sgN])
§3. The examples of the non-palatalizing OInd. i2 R Gr. 4240 stand in contrast to
OInd. i1 R Gr. <, and they are numerous enough to establish the ‘schwa
indogermanicum’. Hence the monolaryngeal systems with Neogr. *T (e.g.
Szemerényi)arecompleteandthereforevalid.
§4. Tischler (1980:513-514)241 criticizes Kuryowicz for changing the original vowel
Neogr.*TintoaconsonantLT*h2.Thisisinorder,becauseKuryowiczmadenoneof
thenecessarycorrectionstotheNeogrammariansystemwhenreinterpreting*T(PIE
*a) as a consonant. Subsequently, ‘la théorie du T consonantique’ led to the
phoneticallyirrationalthesisofconsonantsyieldingvowels(PIE*OGr.4,etc.),as
wellasthefallacyofasyllabiclaryngeal.242
2 .2.4 Neogr.*TRPIE*a
§0.ThephoneticinterpretationofNeogr.*TRPIE*aRIPA/a/canbeprovenforthe
schwaindogermanicumonthebasisofthefollowingarguments:
§1. Burrow (1949:28-29) considered the Neogrammarians’ double treatment of
Neogr.*TOGr.4vs.OInd.iproblematicduetothephoneticdistanceoftheterms
/T/:/a/:/i/.Thisisaccurateinthesensethatthedevelopmentofafeaturelessmiddle
vowel /T/ into two separate cardinal vowels /a/ and /i/ is next to impossible,
phoneticallyspeaking,andunacceptablefromthepointofviewofscientificrealism.
§2.Burrow’sproblemcanonlybesolvedbychangingthephoneticinterpretationof
thecoversymbolschwa.Inpracticethiscanbedonebyreplacingtheitemwiththe
proper phoneme. The obvious candidate for a non-frontal (O Gr. 4) and a non
239
ForLat.gls-‘dormouse’,seeLat.glsc(vb.)‘entglimmen,entbranntseinvonetwas’(WH1:607).
240
For the non-palatalizing OInd. i y, see Wackernagel (AIGr. 1:141-3 = §123) and Güntert
(1916:97).
241
Tischler (1980:514) writes: “Zu diesem weit verbreiteten Irritum kam noch ein zweiter, als
Kuryowicz im hethitischen den Vertreter der idg. Laryngale erkannte bzw. erkennen wollte, und
diesesgenauandenStellenauftrat,andenensonsteinTangesetztwurde.Kuryowiczselbstsahzwar
sogleich, daß der Laryngal H bzw. T, der ja ein Konsonant ist, nicht mit dem vokalischen Schwa
identischseinkann[...].”
242
Burrow (1973:106) notes: “[...] the whole presentation of LT has continued to be vitiated by the
original error of the invention of ‘schwa’ [...] H could not function as vowel and is certainly not
representedinSanskritbySkt.i.”
101
palatalizing (O OInd. i2) proto-vowel underlying Neogr. *T is PIE *a (i.e. the vowel
/a/).Thephoneticplausibilityoftheinterpretationcanbeshownbythefollowing:
(a)Trivially,oneobtainstheEuropean/a/fromanoriginalPIE*a(withaccent):
PIE*a
Gr.4,Lat.a,OIr.a,Go.a,Arm.a,etc.
Burrow’sproblemhasbeenresolved,asnosoundchangeisrequiredatall.
(b) The sound change PIE *a OInd. i2 (with accented PIE *a) results in a vowel
neutralinthesecondpalatalization,thereforesuggestinganintermediatephase:
PIE*a PIIr.*T
OInd.i,Av.i,etc.243
§3.Inotherwords,thesoundlawforschwacanbepreservedinitsearlyform,except
forPIE*awhichnowstandsforNeogr.*T:
PIE*a Gr.a,Lat.a,OIr.a,...&OInd.i,Av.i,...(SystemPIE)
§4.Asiswellknown,PIE*a(Neogr.*T)hasatwofoldoutcome(OInd.ivs.Ø).Inthe
absenceofanyotherexplanation,thealternationmustdependonwhetherthevowel
wasoriginallyaccented(PIE*á)ornot(PIE*a).
(a) The originally accented vowel PIE *á equals the classical concept of ‘schwa
indogermanicum’,asdefinedabove.
(b) The originally unaccented PIE *a was lost in all dialects, except for occasional
tracesinthesurroundingPIE*eand*assimilatedintoLat.a,
,etc.244
§5.Regardingtheinitialposition,theso-calledprotheticlanguages(especiallyGreek
andArmenian)aregenerallyacceptedascounter-examplesofthelossofschwa(i.e.
PIE*a).Thereasonisthatintheprotheticlanguages,Gr.4=Arm.a(accompanied
byi.,etc.)appearagainstthezerogradeintherestofthegroup.Someexamples
are:
(a)astr-‘star’(P.1027-8,WP2:635-)
i.a#tert-
Gr.\EF}C-
LAv.star-
gAv.str-
RV.stÎ-
Lat.stll
-
(c.)‘star’(HEG1:204-,a-a#-te-er-za[sgN])
(m.)‘star’(GEW1:170-1,\EF~C,\EF}CBD[sgG])
(m.)‘Stern’(AIWb.1598,starasa)
(m?.)‘Stern’(AIWb.1598,strÖm
[plG])
(f?.)‘Stern’(EWA2:755-,stÎbhí[plI])
(f.)‘Stern’(WH2:587-8,stlla[sgN])
(b)aue/ont-‘Wind’(P.81-4)
i.uant-
Gr.^(ß)8@F-
Lat.uento-
TochA.want
(pt.)‘Wind’(HEG1:328f,u-u-Òa-an-te-e#[plN]) (sb.)‘Wind’(GEW1:26,\}@F8D[plN])
(m.)‘Wind’(WH2:751-2,Lat.uentus[sgN])
(f.)‘ventus’(Poucha285,want[sgN])
243
ThechangePIE*aPIIr.*TOInd.i,Av.itakesplaceinallenvironmentsexceptfor*u,where
theresultingphonemeisassimilatedintoalabialyieldingOInd.u,Av.u(seeChapter3).
244
Ontherelatedlossofschwainmedialposition,seeSzemerényi(1996:88-9).
102
(c)aru-‘sun,red’(P.302-4)245
Arm.arev
OInd.ravi-
OInd.aru-
RV.aruá-
i.arunai-
RV.aru½-
(sb.)‘Sonne’(ArmGr1:424,arev[N],arevu[G])
(m.)‘sun(-god)’(EWA2:440,ravi[sgN])
(m.)‘Sonne’(EWA3:13,aru[sgN])
(a.)‘rötlich,goldgelb’(EWA2:113,WbRV.107)
(vb1.)‘(sich)aufhellen’(HEG1:190,a-ru-na-iz-[zi])
(f.)‘Kuh’(f.)‘Morgenröte’(WbRV.107)
§6. The preservation of the initial PIE *a in the prothetic languages remains
ambiguous,however:
(a) Owing to the productivity of the ablaut in PIE, it is possible that the prothetic
vowelofGr.\EF~C:Arm.ast‘Stern’(ArmGr.1:421)etc.representsanoriginal*egrade PIE*aester-insteadofzero PIE*aster-.Inotherwords,itisequallypossible
that the loss of the unaccented PIE *a holds true for all languages in all positions,
sincewemayalwaysaccountforthethe‘prothetica-’withPIE*e.
(b)Theexistenceofprotheticformsin‘non-prothetic’languagesconfirmsthatsuch
*e-graderootsarenecessary.Thisisshownbycomparisonslike
PIE*aeuel- O
Cymr.awel(f.)‘ventus’,Gr.^(ß)8>>4(f.)‘Windstoß’
wheretheCelticitemscouldnothavepreservedthe‘prothetica’(unlessreflectingan
originalPIE*e).IdenticalcircumstancesapplytoLat.astro-(n.)‘Stern,Gestirn’(WH
2:587-8,astrum[sgN]),whichisnotnecessarilyaloanfromGr.ÊFCB-(n.)‘Gestirn’,
because PIE *aestro- (n.) ‘Gestirn’ can be reconstructed for both. As both PIE *a
and*aeOGr.a,Arm.a,theroot-initialisambiguous:thederivationofprothetic
vowelsinGr.\EF~C,Gr.^(ß)8@F-,Arm.arevetc.ispossiblebasedon PIE*eandthe
zerograde.246
§7. Following the Sanskrit grammarians, the roots ending with Neogr. *·T- (i.e. PIE
*·a-and*·a-)areoccasionallycalled‘se ’inordertoindicatearoot-finalOInd.·i.247 The terminology is only acceptable as a convention, and it is vital to note the
following restriction: the term se , traced back to internal considerations of the
Sanskrit grammarians, does not account for the external distinction between two
differentphonemesinIndo-Iranian,OInd.i1=Gr.<(= PIE*i)andOInd.i2=Gr.4
(= PIE *a or *a). Automatically taking se -roots to reflect an original root-final
laryngealisamistake,because PIE*i(=OInd.i1)isalsopossibleand,inmostcases,
etymologicallycorrect.248Despitethis,sinceSaussure(Rec.225,OInd.pavi-:p%-)249
245
Pokorny’s etymology (Neogr. *el-, *ol-, OHG. elo ‘braun, gelb’, Lat. alnus ‘Erle, Eller’, etc.) is
inferiortothatofHübschmann(ArmGr.1:424)andEichner(1978:144-162)withPIE*r.
246
Since the reconstruction of the root radicals is not problematic, however, this is only a minor
problemforthereconstruction.
247
Szemerényi (1996:90) writes: “[...] the Old Indic grammarians, often followed by their western
successors,speakofrootswithouti(an-i )andwithi(sa-i >s ).”
248
ForsomeexamplesofagenuinesuffixPIE*·i-,seeBurrow(1949:48):“Itisgenerallyadmittedthat
the participle of the verbal stems in -aya- (causatives, etc.) was in the Indo-European -ito. This
103
severaltheoreticianshavetakenlibertiesinchoosingtheambiguousOInd.iN*Tas
the basis of their theories, thus violating the rule of ambiguity. Such efforts are
illegitimateatbest,andanextensivecomparativestudyoftheactualdatathatmakes
thenecessarydistinctionsbetweenOInd.i1andOInd.i2isurgentlyneeded.
2 .2.5 ReconstructionofNeogr.*aRGr.4:OInd.a
§0.Theassignmentofthevalue PIE*atoNeogr.*Tnecessitatesanexaminationand
reinterpretationofBrugmann’scoversymbolNeogr.*a(=*a3),whichcannolonger
beidentifiedwithPIE*aduetotheprincipleoftheregularityofsoundchanges.250
§1. Historically, Brugmann (Grundr2 1:158) postulated a cover symbol *a3 for the
shortvowel/a/,asdefinedbythecorrespondenceset:
Neogr.*a
©
Gr.4,Lat.a,OIr.a,Arm.a,OInd.a,Av.a,...
Brugmann’s (KVG 77-78, Grundr2 1:158-163) examples of the vowel Neogr. *a3
includetheitems:
OInd.áj
mi :
OInd.tatá- :
LAv.masyå :
Arm.acem,Lat.ago,OIr.agat[3pl],OIcl.aka
Gr.F|F4,Alb.tate,Lat.tata,Corn.tat251
Gr.?4=CD,?|EEK@
The Neogrammarians interpreted the cover symbol *a3 phonetically as the cardinal
vowel /a/, the counterpart of the vowels Neogr. *e, *o in terms of quantity. Despite
theclear-cutdefinitionoftheproto-phoneme,boththecorrespondencesetsandits
phoneticinterpretationlackedasatisfactoryablautpatternfromtheverybeginning:
patterns for Neogr. *e : Ø : o and Neogr. *T : , *T : , *T : exist in Brugmann’s
system,buttheseleaveNeogr.*aisolated.252
§2. Saussure’s Mémoire notoriously has no reconstruction of Neogr. *a, and it is
absent from his system as a whole. The defect is a direct result of Saussure’s (Rec.
127) scansion of the Neogrammarian ablaut pattern *T : as *A : *eA,253 with the
basicablautalternation(Rec.128)ofhistheorybeing:
conclusionisreachedfromtheagreementofSanskrit(gamitá-,etc.)andGermanic(Gothgatarhis:
gatarhjan,wasis:wasjan,etc.,Brugmann,GrundrissII.2i,399).”
249
NotethatSzemerényi’sviewexpressedin(1996:90)istoostrong:“Itisclearthatintheseinstances
OInd. i cannot represent IE i, since if it had done so it could not have been lost. It must therefore
represent IE schwa.” The schwa, however, was lost when unaccented, a phenomenon with far more
generalitythancurrentlyunderstood.
250
OnthecoversymbolNeogr.*a,seeSzemerényi(1996:135-6).
251
RV.tatá-‘Vater’isostensiblyanonomatopoeticword,butasitisBrugmann’sownexampleIhave
acceptedithere.
252
Compare Szemerényi (1996:135): “[...] whereas the vowel e and its ablaut variant o have an
extremelyimportantfunctioninallfieldsofthemorphology,thevowel aishardlyusedatallforsuch
purposes.”
253
Accordingly,Møller(1880:493n2)writes:“Esverhaltensichalsowieei:oi:i,er:or:r,so
::A,
::E(s.F.deSaussure,Syst.prim.136f.).”
104
DS.*stA-
DS.*steA-
Gr.EF4FD:Lat.sttum:OInd.sthitá
(Rec.141)
Gr.EF|?K@:Lat.st
men:OInd.sth³man- (Rec.129)
This kind of system has *A R *T and *eA R *
, but –as pointed out already by
Bechtel254 – it lacks a reconstruction for the vowel Neogr. *a, and therefore it is
permanentlyincomplete.
§3.ApartialresponsetotheproblemwassuggestedbyMøller(1879:150),according
towhomtheprotheticrootsNeogr.*aCareoftheform*AeC-(i.e.thelaryngeal*A
hascolouredthefollowing*einto*a).Indeed,suchananalysisisbothsufficientand
necessaryinanexplanationoftheablautpatterns*a-:Ø-withexampleslike:
*Aeº- *Aº- Lat.agmen- RV.jmán-
(n.)‘Treiben,Zug,Marsch’(WH1:22)
(m?.)‘Bahn’(WbRV.502,jmán[sgL])
§4.Møller’sreconstructiongainedgeneralacceptancebyproponentsofthelaryngeal
theory (cf. LT *h2eº- *h2º-, etc.), in spite of its incompleteness in cases where an
initiallaryngealcannotbepostulated.
2 .2.6 ProblemsofthereconstructionofNeogr.*a
§0.ThemonolaryngealsystemsarecapableofreconstructingNeogr.*abytakingitat
facevalue,butwiththehighcostoflosingallablautpatterns.Ontheotherhand,the
incomplete treatment of the vowel Neogr. *a marked an impasse for the laryngeal
theory.255Withbothmaintheoriesfacingdifficulties,theproblemofthecoversymbol
Neogr.*arequiresacomparativesolution.
§1. In monolaryngealism, which lacks the counterparts of the colouring rules of the
laryngeal theory, the vowel Neogr. *a is taken at face value as simply the vowel /a/.
Thoughthisallowsthereconstructionofthevowelinallpositions(SZ*a),owingto
the unanswered question concerning the PIE ablaut patterns in general, it does not
constitutearigoroussolutionandthetheoryneedstobeseriouslyimproved.
§2. The laryngeal theory, direcly mirroring Saussure’s and Møller’s early ideas, is
incapable of reconstructing Neogr. *a, and no satisfactory starting point can exist
until the remaining difficulties have been solved. The problem rests with roots with
Neogr. *a (shape C1aC2), which are divided into three subclasses based on the
propertiesofC1.Inthisregard,therearethreerelevantpossibilities:
1. C1 is a laryngeal (Lat. ag). This case is has been partially solved by Møller,
whosesuggestionallowsareconstructionof*h2eº-forLat.agandsoforth.
254
ForadiscussionofBechtel’scriticism,seeBurrow(1979:10).
255
For the root CaC, see Kuryowicz (1956:187ff.), Wyatt (1970:29ff.), Mayrhofer (1986b:170),
Lubotsky(1989:53),Kuryowicz(1956:174),Saussure(1879=Mém.55f.),Wyatt(1970:60ff.),Jonsson
(1978:110-111), Meillet (19347:99, 166ff.), Schmitt-Brandt (1967:96-7), Beekes (1969:128), and
Brugmann(Grundr21:120-121).
105
2. C1 is a resonant (LAv. masyå). Though one could in theory reconstruct
*Çh2eÀ-forAv.Masyå,thecurrentrulesforthesyllabicresonantsrequire*Çh2eÀ-
O*ah2eÀ-O*a’eÀ-OAv. †
s-(i.e.thereconstruction,producingunattestedghost
forms,isunsound).
3.C1isaplosive(OInd.tatá-).SomeexternallyconfirmedexamplesofNeogr.*a
LT*h2ebelongingtothiscategoryare:
(a)Neogr.kal-‘schön’(P.524)
OInd.kalyá- RV.kaly³a- Gr.=|>>BE- Boiot.=4>ß- (a.)‘gesund,gerüstet,geschickt’(KEWA1:184)
(a.)‘schön,lieblich’(WbRV.318,kaly³a-)
(n.)‘Schönheit’(GEW1:766,Grundr21:308)
(a.)‘schön,edel,gut’(GEW1:766-7,=4>ßD[sgN])
(b)Neogr.*kan-‘jung,neu’(P.563-4)
RV.kan³-
LAv.kain-
Gr.=4@B-
RV.kaní
-
(f.)‘Jungfrau,Mädchen’(WbRV.312)
(f.)‘(unverheirates)Mädchen’(AIWb.439)
(a.)‘neu(erfunden)’(GEW1:754) (f.)‘Mädchen,dieJungfrau’(WbRV.313) In this category of corrrespondences Møller’s treatment Neogr. *a R *Ae is not
available: †Ch2eC is impossible owing to the distinction between unaspirated and
aspirated stops C Ch in Indo-Iranian and Greek. Since the sole remaining
theoretical prototype LT Ceh2C- would yield a long vowel through compensatory
lengthening(LT*eh2=Neogr.*
),thevowelNeogr.*acannotbereconstructedin
thelaryngealtheory.256
§3.Theinternalfailureofthelaryngealtheoryhasresultedinawiderangeof adhoc
explanations, including the supposition of a ‘secondary a’,257 denying the vowel
Neogr.*a,258andotherequallyunacceptablepropositions.259Thebottomlineisthat,
duetothebulkofwell-definedexamples,noreconstructiontheorycandowithoutthe
coversymbolNeogr.*a.Consequently,arealsolutiontotheproblemisneeded.
§4.AnotherapproachwasattemptedbyPedersen(1900a:74ff.),whodrewattention
totheidenticaloutcomeofNeogr.*TandNeogr.*ainthe‘western’subgroup(where
bothitemscollidedinGr.4,Lat.a,OIr.a,etc.).AccordingtoPedersen,noseparate
phonemes need to be reconstructed for Neogr. *a and *T, since Neogr. *a is the
256
InSzemerényi’swords(1996:135):“Theeliminationof abymeansofalaryngealisnotacomplete
solution:internal acannotinthiswayberemovedwithouttrace.Theattempthascertainlybeenmade
toexplainvariousinstancesofthetypeCaTbyassumingCH2eTandtoderiveCaiTfromCeH2iT.Ina
considerablenumberofcases,however,thiswayofescapeis[...]withoutfoundation[...].”
257
A‘secondarya’hasmadeitswayintoliteraturebypostulatingapre-proto-language(LT**h2e)and
aproto-language(LT*h2a),thelattersupposedlybeingthesourceofthe‘secondary*a’whichspread
analogicallytorootswithNeogr.*a.Itwillbeshownbelowthatsuchexplanationscanbereplacedwith
theregularone.
258
SeeLubotsky1989,AgainstaProto-Indo-EuropeanPhoneme*a,andBeekes(1995:138-9).
259
Kuryowicz (1976:127f.) suggested that Neogr. *a was a combinatory variant of *o, but was, of
course,unabletoposittheconditionsofthealternation.
106
reductionoftheNeogr.*
.260Furthermore,accordingtoPedersen,thedifferencein
theaccentuationofNeogr.*a(markedbelowasPED*á,*a)explainstheIndo-Iranian
twindevelopment:
PED*á(=Neogr.*a3)
PED*a(=Neogr.*T)
OInd.a,Av.a,Gr.4,Lat.a,OIr.a,etc.
OInd.i,Av.i,Gr.4,Lat.a,OIr.a,etc.
Brugmann’s skepticism concerning the accentuation261 is well founded, since all
Pedersen’sattempts(1905:398-402,VGK1:30,1926:27)todefinethecriterionforthe
accent difference PED *á vs. PED *a have been in vain.262 As Wyatt’s (1970:8,15f.)
defenseofPedersendoeslittletochangethefactthatactuallyPIE*á[=*Õ]OInd.
i : Gr. 4 and PIE *a OInd. Ø : Gr. Ø, the difference between the cover symbols
Neogr.*TandNeogr.*a3cannotbesolvedthroughaccentalternation.
2 .2.7 Neogr.*aR PIE *aeor PIE *ea
§0. Despite its problematic formulation, Pedersen’s idea of a connection between
Neogr. *T : *a3 is based on a correct observation of their identical outcome in
‘western’languages(Gr.4,Lat.a,etc.).ByreplacingPedersen’smistakencondition
withatrulycommonfactor,thecoversymbolNeogr.*acanbeexpressedintermsof
well-defineditemsofthephonemeinventoryandleadtoasolutionoftheproblem.
§1. Møller’s analysis of Neogr. *a = *A+e indicates that the assimilation of the
vowels
PIE*a+e
Gr.4,Lat.a,OIr.a,OInd.a,Av.a,...
resultedinashortvowelinallcognates(Lat.ag,RV.ájati,LAv.azaiti,etc.).Inthis
context,itisnaturaltoaskwhatthetrue(comparative)outcomeofthecombination
PIE*e+a=DS*e+A=Neogr.*e+Tmightbe.
§2.EverafterSaussure,thelaryngealtheorytaughtthatthesequencee+Aresultsin
alongvowel(Neogr.*
)throughtheruleofcompensatorylengthening.However,it
has been correctly pointed out by Schmitt-Brandt that Saussure’s analysis is by no
means necessary.263 The rule of compensatory lengthening has not been proven,264
andinfactnoproofispossible,becauseitsoppositeistrue:
260
InBurrow’swords(1979:11):“H.Pedersen(KZ36(1900),pp.75-86)maintainedthatinIE awas
thereducedgradeoftheoriginallongvowels[...]andthatinSanskritthisadevelopedinsomecasesto
aandinsomecasestoi.”
261
Brugmann(1904:80)writes:“Anm.Pedersen’sAnsicht(KZ36,1ff.),dassmanüberhauptmituridg.
aauskomme,dasimAr.teilsageblieben,teilszuigewordensei,überzeugtmichnicht.”
262
OnreasonsforseparatingNeogr.*a3and*T,seealsoHendriksen1941.
263
Schmitt-Brandt (1967:2) writes: “In der Tat ist es auch keineswegs zwingend, aus einem
Ablautverhältnis*e¾:*iund*:*Tauf*eTzuschließen[...]”.
264
Szemerényi(1996:122)adds:“Itisconsiderablymorespeculativetoassertthatthelongvowelsare
reallycombinationsofthissameeandmodifyingelementswithwhichitwascontracted.”
107
PIE*e+aresultsinshortvowelLat.a,OInd.a,etc.inallenvironments.
§3. The proof for PIE *eaV O Neogr. *V (OInd. a, etc.), the absence of
compensatory lengthening before vowel (V), is exemplified here by the root PIE
pa-(Neogr.*p
-)‘protect’(P.839)withthefollowingreconstructiveproperties:
(a) The laryngeal PIE *a is confirmed by the *s-enlargement in which both the
laryngeal(i.)and‘a-vocalism’(Lat.
)aresimultaneouslypresent:
PIEpas-‘schützen’(P.839)
i.pa#-
i.paa#- TochA.p
s- RV.pári(...)p
s-
Lat.p
str- (vb.)‘toprotect’(CHDP:2f.,pa-a-#i[2sg])
(vb.)‘toprotect’(CHDP:2f.,pa-a-a-a#-#i[2sg])
(vbM.)‘custodire,tueri’(Poucha168,p
santrä[3pl])
(s.ao.)‘ringsschützen’(WbRV.800,párip
sati[conj.])
stor[N],p
stris[G])
Theunextendedrootappearsinverbalandnominalstems,suchas
PIEpa-‘schützen’:
RV.p³-
RV.tan%·p³- (vb.)‘schützen,behüten’(WbRV.798,p³ti[3sg])
(a.)‘protecting·self/body’(WbRV.520).
(b) It was already shown by Kuryowicz’s (1935:34-35)265 prosodic analysis that the
lossof PIE*isnotcompleteintheRig-Veda,sincetheVedicmeterrevealsahiatus
(markedRV.’)andthuspreservesatraceofthesegmentallaryngeal.Thisisthecase,
forinstance,withthedisyllabicscansionrequiredbyRig-Vedicmeterin:
RV.pa’-
RV.tan%·pá’- (vb.)‘schützen,behüten’(WbRV.798,paánti[3pl])
(a.)‘protectingself’(WbRV.520,tan%·páam[sgA])
Indo-Iranianconfirmsthelaryngealofi.pa-,butevenmoreremarkablytheshort
quantityofRV.pa’- provesthatthelaryngeal PIE*waslostwithoutcompensatory
lengtheningbeforeavowel.
(c)ThelossofPIE*withoutcompensatorylengtheningoftheRig-Vedichiatusclass
(CeaV)iswidespreadinRig-Vedicmeterandthereforereadilyconfirmed:
RV.yá’-
RV.vá’ar- RV.vá’ar-
RV.ná’u-
RV.da’i há- RV.va’ata- RV.bhá’as- (vb.)‘gehen,wandern’(WbRV.1103,yáanti[3pl])
(n.)‘Wasser’(WbRV.1260,vá’ar[sgNA])
(m.)‘Beschützer’(WbRV.1260,váar[sgN])
(f.)‘Schiff’(WbRV.756,ná’u[sgN]266)
(sup.a.)‘aufsbestegebend’(WbRV.638)
(m.)‘Wind’(WbRV.1257,váatas[sgN])
(n.)‘Licht,Schein’(WbRV.934,bháas[sgNA])
265
ForthetypeRV.paánti,RV.yaánti,etc.,seealreadyKuryowicz(1927b,1935:35,1948,1968)and
Lindemann(1987:45-56,1997:59).
266
Forthehiatus,seeSzemerényi(KZ73:185f.).
108
Furthermore, the phenomenon is not restricted to Sanskrit: PIE * is lost before
vowels without compensatory lengthening in all cognates, as confirmed by
correspondenceslike:
1.PIE*deaiÒer-‘brother-in-law’(P.179):
RV.devár-
Gr.74~C-
Li.dieverì-
(m.)‘BruderdesGatten’(WbRV.638,deváram[sgA])
(m.)‘BruderdesGatten,Schwager’(GEW1:338-9)
(m.)‘Schwager’(LiEtWb.94,dieverìs[sgN])
2.PIE*keaik-‘blind,squinting,one-eyed’(P.519-20):
Lat.caeco- OInd.kekara-
Go.haih-
(a.)‘blind,unsichtbar,dunkel’(WH1:129,caecus)
(a.)‘schielend’(KEWA1:264,EWA3:120)
(a.)‘one-eyed’(GoEtD.169,haihamma[sgD])
In general, the measurable short quantity before the laryngeal proves beyond any
doubt that the rule of compensatory lengthening did not apply in the antevocalic
positionPIE*eaV.
§4. The proof for the short outcome of PIE *in the anteconsonantal position PIE
*eaCisevensimpler.TherootNeogr.CaCwithNeogr.*a,whennottracedbackto
PIE*ae,shouldbereconstructedwith PIE*CeaC,whichalsoconfirmsthelackof
compensatory lengthening before a consonant. Thus, the root of RV. pa’- (vb.) ‘to
protect’(provenabovetocontainalaryngeal)appearsbeforeaconsonantin
PIE*pea¾-‘beschützen’:
OPers.paya- LAv.ni·paya- (prM.)‘toprotect’(OldP.194,apayaiy[1sg])
(pr.)‘beschützen’(AIWb.886,nipayeimi[1sg])
Based on measurable features of the data, no compensatory lengthening has taken
placeinPIE*eaC.Similarly,Neogr.kal-‘schön’(P.524),Neogr.*kan-‘jung,neu’(P.
563-4)andotherexamplesofCaC-(= PIE*CeaC-)displayacommonshortvowel
Neogr.*a:
(a)PIE*kean-‘sing’(P.525-6)
Lat.can
Gr.=4@·4I~- Go.hana(n)- (pr3.)‘singen,ertönen,spielen’(WH1:154,can[1sg])
(f.)‘Geräusch,Schall’(GEW1:776,=4@4I~)
(m.)‘Hahn:cock,rooster’(GoEtD.176)
(b)PIE*Àead-‘toexcel’(P.516-517)
RV.!
!ad-
Gr.=}=47-
(pf.)‘sichauszeichnen,hervorragen’(WbRV.1377)
(pf.)‘sichauszeichnen’(GEW1:811,=8=47?}@BD)
(c)PIE*peaº-‘fest,festmachen’(P.787-8)
RV.pajrá-
Gr.~6@G-
(a.)‘gedrungen,feist,derb,kräftig’(WbRV.759) (vb.)‘befestigen,feststecken’(GEW2:525,~6@G?<)
(d)PIE*peast-‘fest’(P.789)
RV.pastía-
(n.)‘Behausung’(WbRV.797,KEWA2:242)
109
OIcl.fast-
Arm.hast
(a.)‘fest,hart,stark’(ANEtWb.113,fastr[sgN])
(a.)‘fest’(ArmGr.1:464,hast[sgN])
ThehighnumberofexamplesbelongingtothecorrespondencesetNeogr.*aC=PIE
*eaC is well known: OInd. kark·a a- (m.) ‘crab’ (KEWA 1:169) : Gr. =4C=·@BD
‘Krabstier,Krabbe’(GEW1:789),OInd.kark·ara-(a.)‘hard,firm’(KEWA1:179):
Hes. =|C=4CB< ) FC4I8D (GEW 1:789, 796), RV. kakúbh- (f.) ‘Gipfel, Höcker’
(WbRV. 309) : Lat. cac%men- (n.) ‘Spitze, Gipfel’ (WH 1:127), OInd. !amn-
(prM.)‘arbeiten,sichmühen’(EWA2:610-1):Gr.=|?@K(pr.)‘sichmühen’(GEW
1:773),OInd.patya-(vb.)‘feed(on),nourish’(Burrow1979:44):Gr.4F}B?4<‘id.’,
andsoforth.267
§5.Theoutcomeof PIE*eaisshortbothin PIE*eaVandin PIE*eaC(i.e.inall
environments,independentlyofthefollowingphoneme).Hencethecomparativerule
for PIE *e+a, which replaces Saussure’s compensatory lengthening, can be
formulatedforSystemPIEinthefollowingform:
PIE*ea(C/V) Gr.4,Lat.a,OIr.a,Arm.a,OInd.a,Av.a,etc.
§6. Since at the same time Møller’s colouring rule *Ae R Neogr. *a (properly
speaking,anassimilation)iscomparativelyacceptable,thefollowingdefinitionholds
forthetraditionalcoversymbol
Gr.4,Lat.a,OInd.a,...
RPIE*ae
*ea
(RNeogr.*a).268
Asreadilyseen,thecoversymbolNeogr.*aisexpressedbymeansofthewell-defined
terms PIE *e *a and *, with the result that no independent phoneme Neogr. *a is
postulatedinSystemPIE.269
§7. In terms of research history, Saussure’s ‘deconstruction’ went wrong when he
posited DS *eA R Neogr. *
and assumed a compensatory lengthening a priori.
Consequently, the correct definition DS *eA R Neogr. *a was no longer possible,
leading to the absence of the vowel in the laryngeal theory. On the other hand,
Pedersen’sideaofaconnectionbetweenNeogr.*TandNeogr.*acontainsaseedof
truthinthesensethattherelationofphonemescanbedefinedintermsofablaut*e:
Ø(insteadofaccent)asfollows:
R
PIE*aa
PIE*aeea R
Neogr.*T
Neogr.*a
DS*A
DS–
LT*h2 LT*h2e/–
267
IfOsc.kar
-(vb1.)‘sichernähren’(WbOU.370,karanter[3pl]),Osc.caria:quamOscorumlingua
panemessedicunt,andOsc.carenses:pistoresarerelatedtoi. NINDAkaari-(c.)‘eineBrotsorte’
(HEG1:460),theshort*aismatchedwithOldAnatolian.
268
On16January2001,Ipresentedcounter-examplesofaconfirmedlaryngealwithnocompensatory
lengthening to my supervisor Bertil Tikkanen. After a long discussion, Tikkanen asked the obvious
question,“Whatifthecompensatorylengtheningdoesn’ttakeplace?”providingatypologicalparallel
inwhichwhere‘h’waslostwithoutlengthening.
269
Naturally,thisdoesn’tmeantheeliminationofthephoneme/a/,whichappearsasPIE*areplacing
theformerNeogr.*TinSystemPIE.
110
2 .2.8 ReconstructionofNeogr.*
RDo.:OInd.
§0.InadditiontotheNeogr.*Tand*a,yetathirdcoversymbolforthelonggrade
vowel Neogr. *
was inferred from the correspondences actually already posited by
thePaleogrammarians.
§1. Brugmann (Grundr.2 1:163-170, KVG 78-79) defined a cover symbol with an
identicaloutcomeinIndo-IranianandtheEuropeanlanguages,asfollows:
Neogr.*
R
Do.,Lat.
,OLi.
(=Li.o),...
:OInd.
,Av.
.
ThecorrespondencesetisillustratedherebyBrugmann’sownexamples,including:
OInd.m
tár- :
OInd.sth³na- :
OInd.k
la- :
Do.?|F:C,Lat.m
ter,OIr.m
thir,OHG.muoter
Av.st
nTm,Li.stónas,OCS.stan&,etc.
Att.=:>D,OCS.kal&,etc.
§2. Saussure’s miscalculation in his compensatory lengthening rule ultimately lay in
hismechanical(structural)replacementoftheNeogrammarianablautpatternNeogr.
*T:*
with*A:eA.Since DS*eA(= LT*eh2)is defactoidenticalwithNeogr.*,
strictlyspeakingthelaryngealtheorydoesnotprovideareconstructionforthelong
vowelNeogr.*
either.
§3.Earlymonolaryngealismoperatingwithoriginallongvowels(àlaSzemerényi)was
abletoreconstructNeogr.*
atfacevalue.Thisishardlysatisfying,however,owing
to the connection between the ‘a-colouring’and the laryngeal PIE *, in terms of
whichthetheoryalsorequirescalibration.
2.2.9 ProblemsofthereconstructionofNeogr.*
§0. As for the ‘a-vocalism’, the key difficulty of the Neogrammarian (and the
laryngeal) ablaut theory is the problematic (or unaccounted) relation between the
coversymbolsNeogr.*T:*a3:*
.Asalreadymentionedabove,Neogr.*Tand*acan
beexpressedintermsof PIE*a,aand PIE*e:Ø(ablaut);onthebasisofthis,by
addingtheremainingablautgrade PIE*,thelongvowelNeogr.*
canbeanalyzed
asPIE*a,*a.
§1.TheNeogrammarianablautpatternNeogr.*
:Tdidnotexpresstherelationof
the terms to the third ‘a-quality’vowel of the system, Neogr. *a. This defect in the
ablautpatternsoftheNeogrammarians(includingthoseadvancedbySaussure)was
actuallycontradictedbythefactsfromtheverybeginning,sincesuchapatternisnot
uncommon in the material. The ablaut Neogr. *a : *
was correctly noted, for
instance, by Wackernagel (AiGr 1:5-6), who held Neogr. *a as a reduction of the
vÎddhiNeogr.*
.Inotherwords,theablautpatternsNeogr.*T:
andNeogr.*a:
belongtogether,formingasinglepatternNeogr.*T:a3:
(e.g.inRV.jmán:Lat.ag
111
: Lat. amb·
gs, etc.).270 This ‘Wackernagel-ablaut’ represents the true pattern
insteadofthedefectiveonerecognizedbyBrugmannandhiscolleagues(Neogr.*T:
).ThatSaussurepickedthelatterinsteadofWackernagel’sNeogr.*T:a:
suggests
thatSaussurereliedtoostronglyontheNeogrammarianpatterns,ratherthanonthe
material.
§2.AsfortheenduringcontributionsofSaussure,heshouldbecreditedasbeingthe
first to express the connection between Neogr. *T and *
by postulating a common
phonetic factor (*A) for both sides of the equation. In so doing, however, Saussure
lackedthemeanstoproperlyaccomplishthesegmentalanalysis.Thebasicerrorlay
in Saussure’s immature view that the Proto-Indo-European ablaut consisted of only
two terms *i : ei, *A : aA, etc. Against this simplification, the true Proto-IndoEuropean pattern contains three terms (as was already understood, for instance, by
theSanskritgrammarians).Thecorrectablautpatternwiththreegrades(e.g. PIE*i:
ei:i)canbeexemplifiedherebytheroot
Ò
PIE*lik
-‘lassen’(P.669-70):
Ò
*lik - *leikÒ- *likÒ- Gr.>B-(ao.)‘(ver)lassen’(GEW2:99-100,d><B@[1sg])
Gr.>8B-(pr.)‘laisser’(DELG.628-9,>8K[1sg])
RV.raik-(s.ao.)‘überlassen’(WbRV.1165,
raik[3sg])
§3.HadSaussureorMøllerbeencapableofunderstandingthecorrectablautpattern
*Ø : e : , they would also have obtained the proper pattern for the
coefficient/laryngeal*A,viz.
PIE
*A:eA:A(SaussureII)
*A:Ae:A(MøllerII).
Thecorrectanalysiswouldhavecreatedaunifiedinterpretationforthe‘a-vocalism’
byprovidingasingleablautpatternforNeogr.*T:a:
,thushugelyimprovingthe
transparencyofthereconstruction.
2 .2.10
Neogr.*
R PIE *aor PIE *a
§0.WiththevaluesofthecoversymbolsNeogr.*TR PIE*a(zerograde)andNeogr.
*a3 R PIE *ae *ea (*e-grade) solved above, Neogr. *
can only represent the
respectivelongvowelPIE*withPIE*a,*a,asformulatedinthedefinitions:
PIE*a
PIE*a
O
O
Lat.
,Do.,OLi.
,OIr.
,OInd.
,etc.
Lat.
,Do.,OLi.
,OIr.
,OInd.
,etc.
Accordingly,thecoversymbolNeogr.*
isreplacedwiththerule:
270
Wackernagel,aspointedoutbyBurrow(1979:10),acceptedtworeducedgrades:“InhisAltindische
Grammatik,I,pp.5-6,J.Wackernagelalsoaccepted-a-asthereducedgradeoforiginallongvowels,
asanalternativetreatmentto-i-,inaconsiderablenumberofcases[...].”
112
Neogr.*
R
PIE*a
PIE*a
(PIE*-grade).271
§1.TheproofforPIE*a-ONeogr.*
ispreservedinexamplesofablautPIE*a:
*ea(Neogr.*
:a),reflectingtheoriginalalternationofquantity PIE*:*e.Some
examplesofthisare:
(a)PIEpa-‘protect’(P.839)
*pa-
*pea-
RV.p³ti[3sg](LAv.p
iti),tan%·p³-,i.pa#-
RV.paánti[3pl],tan%·páam[sgA],i.paa#-
(b)PIEda-‘geben‘(P.223-6)
*da-
*dea-
Lat.d
-‘give’,Arm.ta-‘geben’,Li.dovanà[sgN]
Lat.dre[inf.],Gr.7|@BD‘Gabe’,gAv.daidy
i[inf.])
(c)PIEna-‘Schiff’(P.755-6)
*nau-
*neau-
RV.n³vam[sgA]‘Schiff’,Lat.n
uis[sgN]‘Schiff’,etc.
LAv.nav·
za-‘Schiffer’,RV.ná’u[sgN]‘Schiff’
§2.Theprooffor PIE*aONeogr.*
iscontained,forinstance,inrootseC.The
followingexamplesillustratetheablautPIE*e::
(a)PIEam-‘Jahr,Frühling,Month,Tag’(P.35)272
Arm.am-
i.ami#a-
Arm.amis-
Hom.i?4C-
Do.\?}C4
(sb.)‘Jahr’(ArmGr.1:416,am[sgN])
(c.)‘Frühling’(HEG1:143-4,a-me-e#-a-an[A])
(sb.)‘Monat’(ArmGr1.417,amis[N],amsoy[G])
(n.)‘Tag’(GEW1:635-6,i?4C,Arc.`?4C[sgNA])
(f.)‘Tag’(GEW1:635,Do.\?}C4[sgN])
(b)PIEap-‘Wasser’(P.51-2)
i.ap-
RV.ap-
gAv.ap-
TochB.ap-
RV.³p-
TochB.
p-
Umbr.
pa-
Do.\4-
(f.)‘Fluß’(HEG1:159-60,i.a-pa-a,a-ap-pa)
(f.)‘Wasser’(WbRV.70-1,apás[plA])
(f.)‘Wasser’(AIWb.325-9,apas
[plA])
(f.)‘water,river’(DTochB.44,a[pä][plObl/A])
(f.)‘Wasser’(WbRV.70-1,³pas[plN])
(f.)‘water,river’(DTochB.44,
p[sgN])
(f.)‘Wasser(leitung)’(WbOU.42-43,aapam[sgA])
(f.)‘Peloponnesos’(P.51)(Do.
-=Umbr.aa-)
(c)PIEap-‘treiben,stoßen,schlagen,verletzen’(P.801-2)
271
Naturally, contractions following the loss of PIE * can also account for some long quantities: in
theory,notonlyPIE*aandPIE*abutanyoutcomesofPIE*·a·andPIE*·a·resultinNeogr.
*
(e.g.Lat.m
n·NPIE*m·a·n-,etc.).
272
Hübschmann’s (ArmGr. 1:416) etymology Arm. am ‘Jahr’: OInd. sám
‘Sommer’, repeated by
Pokorny (P. 35), is dubious due to the absence of the expected initial h- in Armenian (Arm. am vs.
†
ham).ThePIE*am-requiredbyArmenian(accordingtothesoundlaws)coincideswithi.am-
andDo.\?-,sothatitispossibletoaddtheitemstotherootP.35am-inordertotreattheforms
regularly.
113
Li.opà
Gr.^8>BE- i.apala#ai- Lat.pell
(f.)‘eiterndeWunde,Geschwur’(LiEtWb.517)
(n.)‘Wunde’(GEW1:120,^8>BD[sgNA])
(vb1.)‘verletzten’(HEG1:160,EHS480,555)
(pr3.)‘drive,shoot,move,exile,strike’(WH2:276-7)
(d)PIEad-‘Haut,usq.;schliessen’(P.322)
Li.óda
Latv.âda
i.adk-
LAv.aÐ.ka-
RV.átka-
(f.)‘Haut,Leder’(LiEtWb.515-6)
(f.)‘Haut,Balg’(LiEtWb.515-6,Latv.âda)
(vb2.)‘(Tür)schliessen’(HEG2:225-6)
(m.)‘Oberkleid,Mantel’(AIWb61,aÐ.kTsa,a7kTm)
(m.)‘Gewand,Hülle,Schleier’(WbRV.30)
§3. The traditional vocalism Neogr. *T : *a : can thus be expressed by three
variables:theablaut PIEØ:*e:*,thediphonemic PIE*a:*a,andtheaccent PIE
*á:*a.Insum,theseresultinfourdistinctcorrespondencesets:
PIE:
INDO-EUROPEAN: Neogr.
1. *a,*a
2. *á,*á
3. *ae,*ea
4. *a,*a
R
R
R
R
OInd.Ø,Gr.Ø,ArmØ,etc.
OInd.i,Gr.4,Arm.a,etc.
OInd.a,Gr.4,Arm.a,etc.
OInd.
,Do.,Arm.a,etc.
R
R
R
R
Ø
*T
*a
*
The column PIE consists only of the terms PIE *, PIE *a/á and PIE *e *, with the
result that Neogr. *a and Neogr. *
are analytical sequences of well-defined PIE
phonemes.
2 .3 VowelsNeogr.*o*å*andi.
2.3.1 Introduction
§1.Threecoversymbolsindicating‘o-vocalism’–Neogr.*o*å*–wereincludedin
the Brugmannian eight-vowel system. With these three cover symbols, the system
closely resembles ‘a-vocalism’, but is not identical in all regards. The comparative
interpretationofNeogr.*o*å*,aswellastherelationof‘o-vocalism’toi.and
(P)IEablautingeneral,willbediscussedinthischapter.
2.3.2 ThereconstructionofNeogr.*oRGr.B:OInd.
and
Brugmann’sLaw
§0.Brugmann(1876b:363ff.)positedthecoversymbolNeogr.*o(=*a2)asthebasic
vowel /o/ used in Neogrammarian reconstructions.273 In this way, Brugmann
(1876b:367)intendedforthevoweltostandinablautwith*e[=a1]:
273
Forthevowel*o,seeSzemerényi(1967:68-70).
114
“WirwollenderKürzewegendenjenigenVokal,alsdessenregelrechteFortsetzungaind.a,
griech.lat.slav.eanzusehenist,mita1,denGrundlautabervonaind.
,griech.lat.slav.o
mita2bezeichnen.”
§1.AccordingtoBrugmann(1879a:2ff.),Neogr.*ois‘half-long’andstandsinablaut
relation(1904:145-6)toNeogr.*a1(=*e)andzerogradeinthepatternNeogr.*o:e
:Ø,asexemplifiedherebythefollowingitems:
*o(*a2)
*e(*a1)
Ø(zero)
R
R
R
Gr.7}7BC=4[1sg]‘voir’(DELG264-5)
Gr.7}C=B?4<[1sg]‘ansehen,blicken’(GEW1:368)
RV.dÎ á-[pt.]‘gesehen’(WbRV.628)
§2. The characterization of Neogr. *o as half-long was motivated by Brugmann’s
Law,274 according to which Neogr. *a2 (= *o) yields a long OInd. = Av. in an
Indo-Iranian open syllable, when the Europeanlanguages point to a short vowel
instead:
Neogr.*a2CV
OInd.
,Av.
:Gr.B,Lat.o,Arm.o,OIr.o,etc.275
Forthisdevelopment,Brugmann(Grundr.21:138-146,168)provided,amongothers,
thefollowingexamples(chosenfromtheRig-Veda):
Go.satja-
Gr.74
Gr.7CG
Gr.6@G
Gr.6}6B@8
Gr.7Bß}@4<
Gr.7BFC4
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
RV.s
dáya-(WbRV.1458)(LAv.ni·#
7aya-)
RV.p³dam(WbRV.770)(LAv.p
7Tm) RV.d³ru(WbRV.595-6)(Av.d
uru)
RV.j³nu(WbRV.483)
RV.jaj³na[3sg](WbRV.467)
RV.d
váne[inf.](WbRV.586)
RV.d
t³ram[sgA](WbRV.593)
§3. In addition, according to Brugmann (Grundr2 1:138-146), the development of
Neogr.*o(=a2)inclosedsyllablesresultsinshortquantityinIndo-Iranianaswell:
Neogr.*oC(C)
OInd.a,Av.a:Gr.B,Lat.o,Arm.o,OIr.o,etc.
Brugmann supports his hypothesis with correspondences where the Indo-Iranian
shortquantitycoincideswiththeEuropeanone:
Gr.7}7BC=8
Go.band
Li.vartti
Lat.torre
:
:
:
:
RV.dadár!a[3sg] AV.babándha[3sg] RV.vartáya-(cs.) OInd.ví·taraya-(cs.)
(WbRV.626)
(EWA2:208)
(WbRV.1332)
(EWA1:635)
274
Foranearlycanonizationof‘Brugmann’sLaw’,seeOsthoff(1878:207ff.).Adetailedaccountofthe
reception and impact of Brugmann’s Law is provided by Collinge (1985:13-21). On its literature, see
Szemerényi(1996:38n2).
275
Asamatterofhistoricalinterest,itisworthmentioningthatBrugmann’sLawcanactuallybetraced
backtoOsthoff,whoin(1876:40-41)wrote:“[…]gedehnteswurzelhaftesâgriechischeno(inF}-FB=-4,
=}-=>BH-4),germanischenkurzema(ingot.sat,hlaf==}-=>BH-4)entgegenstellt:pa-pâc-a,pa-pât-a,
sa-sâd-a=gotsatu.s.w.,nichtetwablossja-gâm-a=got.qamvoreinemnasal,ba-bhâr-a=got.bar
voreinerliquida.”
115
Gr.6?HBD
Go.gadars
:
:
RV.jámbha[sgN] RV.dadhara[3sg] (WbRV.478)
(WbRV.694)
Consequently,Brugmann’sLawforNeogr.*oisoftheform:
Neogr.*oCVGr.B:IIr.
Neogr.*oCCGr.B:IIr..
2 .3.3 ProblemsofNeogr.*oandBrugmann’sLaw
§0. Brugmann’s Law has been controversial ever since its publication on account of
acuteproblems,whicharesummarizedhere.276
§1.SomeofBrugmann’scomparisonsaredisputedonthebasisoftheablautofthe
proto-language, which makes several examples of assumedly lengthened RV. ambiguous. In theory, almost all examples could reflect an original vÎddhi PIE * insteadofNeogr.*o.Thisapplies,forexample,tothefollowingcomparisons:
(a) The Neogr. *o in Go. satja- (cs.) ‘set, place, determine’ (GoEtD. 296) is not
necessaryidenticalwithRV.s
dáya-,asthelattercouldhaveanoriginalvÎddhilike
OCSsadi-
(vb.)‘setzen,pflanzen,anbauen’(Sadnik795,saditi[inf.]).
(b)TheNeogr.*oinGr.74[sgA]doesnotnecessarilycorrespondtothevÎddhiin
RV.p³dam(LAv.p
7Tm).FromtheIndo-Iranianpointofview,[sgA]isastrongcase
associated with [sgN], with the result that the quantity can be set to match the
nominativestemsLat.pd-orDo.K7-.
(c)Ingeneral,thepossibilityofanoriginallongvowelNeogr.*
,*,*OIIr.*
isa
restrictiononBrugmann’sLawthatmustbeaccountedforinallapplications.
§2.YetanotherproblemwasbroughttolightbySchmidt(1881),277whopresenteda
catalogue of examples with ‘European *o’ (Gr. B, Lat. o, OIr. o, Arm. o, etc.) that
corrrespondtoshortOInd.a=Av.ainanopensyllable.Thesecircumstancesarenot
uncommon,andtheexternallyparalleledformationsareclearlywell-defined:
RV.ánas-‘Lastwagen’(WbRV.54)
RV.ápas-‘Arbeit’(WbRV.74)
RV.ávi-‘Schaf’(WbRV.129)
RV.páti-‘Herr’(WbRV.764)
RV.patáya-‘fliegen’(WbRV.762)
RLat.onus-‘Last’(WH2:210)
RLat.opus‘Arbeit’(WH2:217)
RDo.rß<-‘Schaf’(GEW2:367)
RGr.E<-‘Gatte’(GEW2:584)
RGr.BF}B?4<‘id.’(GEW2:522)
§3.Onpaper,thecounter-examplescouldbeexplainedbyclaiminganoriginalPIE*e
for Indo-Iranian and PIE *o for the European languages. Ultimately, however, this
does not solve the problem, since Neogr. *e is impossible before an Indo-Iranian
velarin:
276
For early criticism of Brugmann’s Law, see Collitz (1878:291ff., 1886a:2ff., 1886b:215), Fick
(1880:423-433),Bechtel(1892:46ff.),andDelbrück(1894:132).
277
Hirt (1913) presented no less than 67 counter-examples against Brugmann’s Law; while some of
thesewereunacceptable,severalstillstand.
116
Gr.F8CB- LAv.katara- RV.katará- (a.)‘wer,welchervonbeiden’(GEW2:586)
(a.)‘wer,welchervonbeiden’(AIWb.433)
(pron.)‘welchervonzweien’ (KEWA1:148)
§4.NobettersolutionwasachievedbyKleinhans,accordingtowhom(apudPedersen
1900a:87)theconsonantCinBrugmann’scondition(*oCV)shouldbespecifiedasR
andtherulewritteninform*oRVIIr.
RV(whereRR*l,r,m,n).Thisdoesnot
solvetheproblemeither,becauseincounter-exampleslikeRV.ánas-:Lat.onuswith
R=*nnolengtheningappears.
2 .3.4 ReconstructionofNeogr.*åRGr.B:OInd.a
§0.Acknowledgingthecounterarguments,Brugmannpresentedasolutionconsisting
of the postulation of another *o-quality vowel, Neogr. *å. This was intended for
Schmidt’s counter-examples with short Proto-Indo-Iranian *a (RV. a, gAv. a),
correspondingto‘Europeano’,thuspresentingtheeightthandfinalcorrespondence
setoftheNeogrammarianvowelsystem.
§1. Brugmann (Grundr2 1:153-158)278 responded to Schmidt’s criticism by
distinguishing between two correspondence sets, Neogr. *o (see above) and Neogr.
*å, with the latter standing for a short /o/ in open syllables of Indo-Iranian.279 In
addition,thecorrespondencesetNeogr.*åwascharacterizedbyanabnormalablaut
Arm.a:Gr.B,accordingtoBrugmann:
Arm.a
:
Gr.B,Lat.o,OInd.a,Av.a280
Forthis,Brugmannprovidedthefollowingexamples:
Arm.akn‘Auge’
Arm.ateam‘hasse’
:
:
Gr.rJB?4<,Lat.oculus(WH2:200-2)
Lat.odium‘Hass,Widerstreben’(WH2:202-3)
According to Brugmann, Neogr. *å is therefore distinct from Neogr. *a2 (= *o) by
virtueofthefollowingadditionalconditions:
(a)UnlikeNeogr.*o,Neogr.*ådoesnotablautwithNeogr.*e.281
(b)Neogr.åCVIIr.CVyieldsashortvowel(incontrasttoNeogr.*o),resulting
inBrugmann’sLaw.282
278
For the non-ablauting *o, see Bartholomae (1891:91-103), Pedersen (1900:86-103), Polomé 1965,
Schmitt-Brandt(1967:7,114-130),Beekes(1969:139-141),andLindeman(1997:23ff.).
Brugmann (Grundr2 1:92-93) writes: “Der o-Laut war in der idg. Urzeit vermutlich in zwei
Qualitätenvorhanden,dereneinemanalså[...]d.h..alssehroffeneo[...]bezeichnet.”
279
Brugmann(Grundr21:140):“Manbeachte:uridg.o=arm.o,uridg.å=arm.a(§160).”
280
Brugmann(Grundr21:153)explains:“Mit åbezeichnenwirdennichtmit eablautendenuridg. oVocal,derimArmenischenalsaundimArischeninoffenerSilbewahrscheinlichalsaerscheint.”
281
Brugmann (Grundr2 1:140) adds: “Im arischen sind uridg. o und å, wie es scheint, dadurch
geschiedengeblieben,dassåauchinoffenerSilbealsaerscheint.”
282
117
§2.Saussure(Rec.91)agreedwithBrugmann’sreconstructionofanextraphoneme
forthecorrespondencesetArm.a:Gr.B(Arm.akn:Lat.oculus).Thephonemein
question represents Saussure’s original definition of ‘coefficient sonantique’ *Ô (i.e.
h3).283 This made Saussure’ssystem inconsistent from the beginning, because he
defined*Ôintwomutuallycontradictingcorrespondencesets,viz.284
*Ô Gr.B,Lat.a,OInd.i :
*Ô Gr.B,Lat.o,OInd.a:
(Gr.7BF-,Lat.datum,OInd.·dita-)
(Gr.rß<-,Lat.ovi-,OInd.ávi-)
§3. Møller’s (1880:492-4n2, 1906:vi) interpretation of *Ô as a laryngeal enabled the
elimination of Saussure’s inconsistency in the initial position by introducing a
laryngealfortherootsoC=ÔeC.Thisisfound,forinstance,in:
*ÔeÒi-
Gr.rß<-,Lat.ovi-,RV.ávi-‘sheep’,etc.
(*e-grade)
Despitethis,theinterpretationrunsintoadeadendwithrootsNeogr.*CoC-,where
aninsertionofh3isimpossible(cf.Gr.BF-‘fliegen’)inexactlythesamemanneras
therootsNeogr.*CaC-discussedabove.
§4. After the discovery of Hittite, Kuryowicz (1927, 1935) identified DS *Ô with a
laryngeal(*h3).AccordingtoBenveniste(1935),thisphonemewaspreservedasi.
(=CLu.,Pal.)inthecorrespondencetype
LT*h3est-‘Knochen’ i.a#tai-,Gr.rEF8B@‘id’.
§5. Brugmann’s correspondence set characterized by Arm. a : Gr. B has essentially
remained as the basis for the reconstruction of h3, here quoted in Mayrhofer’s
formulation(1986:142):
“EineweitereQuellefür*/h3/istdiePositionvor[–syll],woimGriechischeneindem‘ofärbenden’ /H/ entsprechender prothetischen Vokal /o-/ entsteht, im Armenischen
hingegendiedortüblicheFortsetzungjedes‘*T’nämlich/a-/(s.55 .2.1.2.2.mitAnm.115).
Vgl. gr. r@8<7BD ‘Tadel, Schmähung’, armen. anicanem ‘fluche’ gegenüber ved. nid
ná-
‘getadelt’,got.ga-naitjan‘schmähen’;gr.rH8>BDn.‘Förderung,Nutzen’,armen.-awel-inyawel-ow-‘hinzufügen’(s.Klingenschmitt,Verbum236,E.P.Hamp,Glotta60[1982]229f.),
idg.*/h3bhel-/(vgl.noch*/É-b3bhel-/inmyken./npheleha/<no-pe-re-a2>,verdeutlich
zu \@KH8>~D ‘nutzlos’); * /h3kÒih1/ ‘die beiden Augen’ in gr. rEE8, armen. a‘k‘, worüber
weitereso.S.127Anm.118.”
2.3.5 ProblemsofthereconstructionofNeogr.*å
§0.TheproblemsofNeogr.*å(andLTh3)canbesummarizedasfollows:
§1. According to Pedersen (1900a:86-103) and Meillet (1893/4:153-165), the ‘nonablauting’vowelNeogr.*åneverexisted.285Theaccuracyofthiscriticismisshownby
283
SeeSaussure(1878,Rec.106):“[...]puisÔwi‘mouton’,àcausedel’abrefduskr.¡vi;pÔti‘maitre’;
mÔni‘joyau’,skr.mí;sÔk2i‘compagnon,skr.s¡khi.D’aprèscetteanalogie,ondevraajouter:Ôsti
‘os’,klÔuni‘clunis’(?),kÔni‘poussiere’,nÔkti‘nuit’.”
284
Saussure’sattempttoexplaintheinconsistencybymeansofanalogy(Rec.106)isnothelpful.
285
SeealsoSchmitt-Brandt(1967:7,fn18).
118
examplesofthesupposednon-ablauting*å,whichactuallyablautswithNeogr.*·or
withNeogr.*´.
§2. In contrast with Brugmann’s definition, Neogr. *å actually ablauts with *e in
exampleslike:
(a)Neogr.*påt-‘Herr,Gatte’(P.842,WP.2:77f.):
RV.páti-
Gr.E<-
OLi.patì-
Li.pàt-
i.pat
Lat.com·pot- Pael.hos·put- (m.)‘Schützer,Herr,Gebieter,Gemahl’(WbRV.764)
(m.)‘Ehemann,Gatte,Gemahl’(GEW2:584,E<D)
(m.)‘Ehemann,Gatte,Gemahl’(LiEtWb.551,patìs)
(adv.)‘selbst,sogar,eben,just’(LiEtWb.551,pàt)
(ptcl.)‘eben/geradeder,ebenfalls’(HHand.127,BAD)
(a.)‘teilhaftig’(WH2:350-1,compos[sgN])
(m.)‘Gastherr’(WH1:660-1,hospus[sgN])
Therespective*e-gradeispreservedin:
Lat.hos·pet- (c.)‘Gastfreund’(WH1:660-1,hospes,hospitis[G]).
(b) Neogr. *påt- ‘fly’ (P. 825-6). The causative without lengthening in Indo-Iranian
opensyllables(i.e.Brugmann’sNeogr.*å)appearsin:
RV.patáya- Gr.BF}B-
(cs.)‘fliegen’(WbRV.762,patáyanti[3pl])
(cs.)‘flattern’(GEW2:2:522,Gr.BF}B?4<[1sg])
TheformationablautswithNeogr.*ein:
Gr.}FB-
i.pta-
(prM.)‘fliegen’(GEW2:522,}FB?4<[1sg])
(vb1.)‘fliegen’(HHand.133,píd-da-an-zi[3pl])
TheablautGr.8:B=Lat.e:ostronglysuggeststhatNeogr.*åshouldhavebeen
interpretedasthebasicvowel PIE*o,ratherthanNeogr.*a2(=Neogr.*o),andthe
reasonforthelengtheninginBrugmann’sLawshouldhavebeensoughtelsewhere.
§3.Brugmann’scriterion(Grundr21:154)basedontheassumedidentityofvocalisms
Arm. a : Gr. B is misstated. It is comparatively provable that the ‘a-vocalism’is not
restricted to Armenian, but rather that it is a feature shared by all languages
preserving the distinction. Thus, in reality the ablaut Neogr. *å : *a extends far
beyondBrugmann’sdefinition(Armenianonly),asisseenfromexampleslike:
(a)Arm.a‘-k‘‘eye-s’withArm.a-,allegedlycorrespondingtoNeogr.*å-inGr.r-
(Neogr.*okÒ-‘sehen’,P.775-7,WP.1:169ff.),isactuallyparalleledby:
Gr.\JB-
(n.)Hes.\JB@)FCEKB@(LSJ.299).
(b)TheablautNeogr.*å:areappearsinconnectionwithOldAnatolianinthedata
P.*oui-‘sheep’(P.784,WP1:167).Neogr.*åisconfirmedbyItalo-Greek:
CLu.aui-
HLu.aui-
Gr.rß<-
Lat.oui-
(c.)‘Schaf’(DLL45,HEG1:230,a-a-ú-i-i#[sgN])
(c.)‘lamb’(CHLu.1.1.48,(OVIS.ANIMAL)há-wá/í-i-sá)
(c.)‘Schaf’(GEW2:367,Argiv.rß<@D[plA])
(c.)‘Schaf’(WH2:229,ouis[sgN])
119
RV.ávi-
(m.)‘Schaf’(EWA1:135,KEWA1:59,ávi)
The corresponding ‘a-vocalism’ is preserved in Lat. auillus [sgN] ‘agnus recentis
partus’(WH1:84)andinLat.au·bubulcus[sgN]‘pastorouium’(WH1:79).286
§4.Sincetheablautgr.*å:aisparalleledbytheEuropeanlanguages(Greek,Latin,
Celtic,etc.),thea-vocalismisnotexclusivelyanArmenianfeature;itbelongsrather
toNeogr.*a(i.e.Proto-Indo-European):
PIE*ae,ea R
Arm.a=Gr.4=Lat.a=OIr.a,OInd.A.
Inotherwords,theArmeniana-vocalismstemsfrom PIE*e(intheenvironment PIE
*ae,ea),notfromnon-ablauting*å(=PIE*o).
2 .3.6 Neogr.*åR PIE *o
§0. Facing growing criticism and accumulating problems, Brugmann (1904:74-5)
withdrewhisreconstructionofthetwovowelsNeogr.*o*å287andrenouncedhis
law. I find Brugmann’s reaction exaggerated, because both correspondence sets
Neogr.*å(RV.páti-:Gr.E<-)andNeogr.*o(RV.d³ru-:Gr.7CG-)cannowbe
unambiguouslydefinedandBrugmann’sLawrescuedbythemeansoutlinedbelow.
§1.ThecriticalproblemofBrugmann’sreconstructionofthe‘o-vocalism’isidentical
withthatofthe‘a-vocalism’.Inbothcases,Brugmannchosethemorecomplexcover
symbols Neogr. *a3 (= *a) and Neorg. *a2 (= *o) to represent the basic vowels
insteadofthesimpleritems(Neogr.*Tand*å)athand.BychangingthisforNeogr.
*å in the manner already presented in connection with Neogr. *a, the comparative
solutionresults.
§2. Most of the difficulties of Brugmann’s Law could have been avoided had
Brugmannchosenthesimpler(i.e.non-lengthening)‘o-quality’vowel(Neogr.*å)as
thebasicvowelofhisreconstruction.ItispossiblethatwithoutOldAnatolianathis
disposal,BrugmannlackedthetransparencytosettletheobviousPIE*oforNeogr.*å
incorrespondencesetssuchas
PIEpot-‘Herr,Gatte’(P.842,WP.2:77f.):
RV.páti-
(m.)‘Schützer,Herr,Gebieter,Gemahl’(WbRV.764)
Gr.E<-
(m.)‘Ehemann,Gatte,Gemahl’(GEW2:584,E<D)
OLi.patì-
(m.)‘Ehemann,Gatte,Gemahl’(LiEtWb.551,patìs)
Li.pàt-
(adv.)‘selbst,sogar,eben,just’(LiEtWb.551,pàt)
286
Pokorny (P. 9) accepts the traditional reconstruction uridg. *a»in
- O Umbr. habina ‘agnas’,
comparingtheformwithLat.auillus(asif*a»inlo-)butthiswouldleaveUmbr.h-irregular.Onedoes
better by noting the semantic parallel Lat. pecus ‘sheep’ (Umbr. habina ‘id’) : Lat. pec%nia ‘money,
property’ (Go. gabei ‘Reichtum’), which connects the Umbrian form to the root P. 407-9 *ghabh-
‘fassen,nehmen’andLat.auillustoLat.oui-.
287
Brugmann (1913:191n2) writes: “Die Ansicht, dass es im Uridg. zwei qualitativ verschiedene oVokalegegebenhabe(Gr.I2S.138,153,156),stehtaufschwachenFüssen.S.MeilletMém.8,153ff.,
PedersenKZ.36,86ff.101ff.”
120
i.pat
Lat.com·pot- Pael.hos·put- (ptcl.)‘eben/geradeder,ebenfalls’(HHand.127,BAD)
(a.)‘teilhaftig’(WH2:350-1,compos[sgN])
(m.)‘Gastherr’(WH1:660-1,hospus[sgN])
ThisproblemcanbeavoidedbyreplacingBrugmann’sbasicvowelfor/o/,according
tothedefinition:
PIE*o(RNeogr.å) O
Gr.B,Lat.o,Armo,i.a,OInd.a,etc.
ThekeypropertiesofthevowelPIE*o(RNeogr.*å)willbediscussednext.
§3. As noted by Schmidt, PIE *o does not cause lengthening in Indo-Iranian open
syllable.Thisisconfirmedbytheclassofcounter-examplestoBrugmann’sLawwith
PIE*osystematicallyresultinginashortvowel:
PIE*aok
Ò
-
PIE*aoÒi-
Ò
PIE*k otero-
PIE*polu-
PIE*pote¾e/o-
PIE*poti-
:
:
:
:
:
:
Gr.r-,Lat.oculus,OCS.oko,etc.
CLu.aui-,Gr.rß<-,Lat.oui-,RV.ávi-,etc.
Gr.F8CB-,RV.katará-,LAv.katara-
Gr.B>-,OPers.paru,LAv.pouru-
RV.patáya-,Gr.BF}B-
RV.páti-,Gr.E<-,OLi.patì-,etc.
§4. The vowel PIE *o ablauts with PIE *e and zero-grade Ø, as shown by the
alternationGr.8F-:BF-,F-andnumeroussimilarcases(e.g.Gr.ß8<7-,ßB<7-,
ß<7-‘know’,etc.).
§5.Unlike PIE*e, PIE*oisnotassimilated(or‘coloured’)intheenvironment PIE*a.
Thus, PIE *aokÒ- yielded a simple /o/ in Gr. r-, Lat. oculus, etc. after the loss of
unaccentedPIE*a.
§6.Indirectcontactwith PIE*a(in PIE*a,a),theoriginalablaut PIE*e:oresults
inablautGr.4:B(=Lat.a:o,etc.).ThusPIE*aoÒi-(CLu.aui-)hasPIE*oinGr.
rß<- (Lat. oui-), but PIE *aeÒi- has PIE *e reflected in Lat. auillus [sgN] ‘agnus
recentispartus’(WH1:84),andsoforth.
§7. Szemerényi (1967:84) mentions a class of roots with PIE *o (see, for example,
bhos-[P.163],ghos-[P.452],Àlou-ni-[P.607],koÀs-[P.611],Àonkh-[P.614])
without attested *e-grade. As underlined by Szemerényi,such vocalizations confirm
theexistenceofPIE*o.ThereisnoneedtopositanythingbutPIE*o,sincetheablaut
isdefective(i.e.withoutpreserved/derivationallyformedPIE*e).
2 .3.7 Neogr.*oR PIE *oa,*oa(Brugmann’sLawII)
§0.With PIE*obeingsetasthebasic‘o-vocalism’,Brugmann’sinterpretationofthe
coversymbol*a2asNeogr.*o(=PIE*o)cannotbeupheldduetotheprincipleofthe
regularity of sound change. However, another value can be inferred for Neogr. *o
basedonthemeasurablepropertiesoftheexamplesofBrugmann’sLaw.
§1.TheexactmatchesofBrugmann’sLaw,includingitemslike
121
Cypr.7Bß}@4<[inf.]‘togive’ R
RV.d
váne[inf.]‘togive’,
confirm that Brugmann’s Law (Neogr. *a2CV IIr. CV) has been operational,
makingthecorrespondencesetdistinctfromtheregularshortquantityof
PIE*o
RV.a,gAv.a,Gr.B,Lat.o (Neogr.å).
§2. The common feature (or distribution) of the roots affected by Brugmann’s Law
canbestatedasfollows:Brugmann’sLawwasoperationalwhentherootcontained
PIE*ofollowedbyPIE*intheopensyllableofIndo-Iranian.
Inotherwords,Brugmann’sLawcanbecorrectedbyupgradingittotheform
PIE*oaCV,*oaCV
Gr.B,Lat.o,RV.
,Av.
(BRUG.II).
Hence,therealvalueofBrugmann’scoversymbolNeogr.*a2canbeexpressedas
Neogr.*a2(=Neogr.*o)
R
PIE*oa
*oa.
Intermsofmixednotation,usingbothBrugmann’s*å(= PIE*o)andthelaryngeal
PIE*,oneobtainsthevalueNeogr.*oR*åa
*åa.
§3.DespitethelossofPIE*,therootswithBrugmann’slengtheningareconstantly
associatedwith‘a-vocalism’orothercriteriapointingto PIE*a*a.Someexamples
oftheconnectionofBrugmann’sLawIIandPIE*a*aare:
(a) Cypr. 7Bß}@4< = RV. d
váne R PIE *doaÒV. The respective ‘a-vocalism’,
implyingPIE*,appearsinLat.d
‘give’,Arm.ta-m‘Igive’,Gr.7|@BD‘gift,loan’,Li.
dovenà‘gift’,andsoforth.
(b)Gr.7CG=RV.d³ruR PIE*doarV.Therespective‘a-vocalism’appearsinOIr.
daur‘Eiche’(DIL175-6)fromPIE*daeru-(schwebeablaut).
(c) Gr. 6}6B@·8, RV. jaj³n·a R PIE *ºegoan·e [3sg]. The respective ‘avocalism’appears, for instance, in Gr. 8><·6@- (m.pl.) ‘Bl d@7BAB<, 5BG>8GF4’
(GEW 2:498) and in Do. 6}6=8<@ [pf.inf.] ‘geboren werden’ (LSJ. 340) with an
alternativeextension.
§4.Brugmann’sLawIIcannowbeconfirmedwithanexamplefromOldAnatolian,
containingapreservedPIE*afterPIE*oinexampleslike
(a)PIE*aur-*auor-*auer-‘schmücken’(P.–):
i.uara-
LAv.gao#
vara-
i.ura-
i.i#tama·ura-
(vb1.)‘schmücken’(HEG1:332,uaranzi[3pl])
(m.)‘Ohrschmück,Ohrgehänge’(AIWb.486)288
(vb1.)‘schmücken’(HEG1:229f.,urair[3pl])
(c.)‘Ohrring,Schmuckring(?)’(HEG1:423)
(b)PIE*seau-*soau-*sau-‘brennen,glänzen;Sonne,Lampe’(P.881-2,1045)
LAv.hu-
LAv.h%-
LAv.h
vaya- (vb.)‘schmoren,rösten’(AIWb.1782-3,huy
rT#)
(n.)‘Sonne,Sonnenball,Sonnenlicht’(AIWb.1847)
(cs.)‘rösten’(AIWb.1782,h
vayeiti[3sg])
288
Bartholomae’searlyetymology(OInd.
·bharaa-‘Schmück’,AIWb.486)isunacceptable,because
Av.vOInd.bh.
122
Go.sauil-
CLu.#eual- (n.)‘sun’(GoEtD.297,sauil[sgN])
(n.)‘Lampe(?)’(HEG2:1090-1,#e-u-Òa-a-a[l])289
§5.OwingtoBrugmann’sinterpretationofNeogr.*a2asthebasic‘o-quality’vowelof
hissystem,theitemwasreconstructed(passim)insteadoftheactuallyattestedNeogr.
å (= PIE *o). Consequently, Neogr. *a2 (= Neogr. *o) must not be automatically
replacedwithPIE*oa,*oa,asthiswouldovergeneratelaryngeals.Brugmann’sLaw
IIrequiresatleastoneanotherdiagnosticfeatureimplying PIE*aor PIE*a.Thus,
forinstance,thedirectcomparisonofcausativesoftheformationP.762,*neÀ-,*noÀ-
‘Tod’(cf.Lat.nec-(f.)‘gewaltsameTod,Mord’)in
Lat.noce RV.vi(...)n
!áya-
OPers.vi·n
Zaya-
(cs.)‘schaden’(WH2:153-5,noce[1sg])
(pt.)‘vertilgen,zerstören’(WbRV.718)
(cs.)‘injure,harm’(OldP.193,vin
Zayatiy)290
makesNeogr.*o=PIE*oapossible.However,notasingleattestedformimpliesPIE
*a or PIE *. In such settings, it remains possible that the Indo-Iranian quantity is
identicalwithPIE*,291inthefollowing:
Gr.@=·4C
OIr.n
s
LAv.n
#-
(n.)‘Totenschlaf’(GEW2:300,@=4C)
(m.)‘Tod’(LEIAN-3,n
s.i.b
s;PCelt.*nks-)
(s.ao.)‘verschwinden’(AIWb.1055,n
#aite[3sg])
UnlesstheOldAnatolianstemexcludingPIE*
i.nakiu-
(c.)‘ArtUnterweltsgottheit’(HEG2:261-2)
belongshere,alaryngealremainspossible,butitisnotproven.292
§6. In addition to Brugmann’s Law II, its converse also applies in reconstruction.
Owing to the preservation of PIE * in Old Anatolian, the alleged examples of
Brugmann’s Law lacking i. are bound to contain original PIE *, instead of
Neogr.*o(=PIE*oa,oa).ThusRV.p³dam(LAv.p
7Tm)containsanoriginalPIE
*(Do.K7-)orPIE*(Lat.pd-),becausetheOldAnatolianhasnolaryngealin:
i.pada-
CLu.pada-
HLu.pada-
(c.)‘foot,leg’(Sum.GÌR,HHand.127,CHDP:231f.)
(c.)‘foot’(DLL.81,pa-ta-a-a#)
(sb.)‘foot’(CHLu.1.1.22,(“PES”)pa-tà-za)
289
Note,however,thatStarke’s(KLuN.342f.)translation‘Lampe’ispossiblywrong,asthecompeting
suggestion ‘Dolch’ seems more acceptable based on context. Regardless of Luwian, however, the
reconstruction(andtheargument)remainsthesame.
290
The perfect RV. nan
!a [3sg] ‘verschwinden, sich davon machen’ (WbRV. 717-8) and gAv.
vi.nTn
s
[3sg] ‘dem Untergang verfallen sein’ (AIWb. 1055-6) could also contain Neogr. * as Gr.
6}6K@8‘make(s)oneselfheard’(LSJ.340),etc.
291
ThecausativeinPIE*isconfirmed,forinstance,byGr.(ß)y;}K‘stoßen,drängen,treiben’(GEW
2:1144):gAv.v
d
ya-(pr.)‘zurückstoßen’(AIWb.1410,v
d
yi#[opt]).
292
i. nakiu- (c.) ‘Art Unterweltsgottheit’ closely resembles the (thematic) stems Lat. nocuo- (a.)
‘schädlich’(WH2:153,nocuus[sgN])andthe*e-gradeinLat.inter·necuo-(a.)‘mörderisch,tödlich’
(WH 2:153), both of which have meanings that fit an underworld god. If this etymology is accepted,
thentheroothadnolaryngealandtheIndo-Iranianquantityreflectstheoriginalstateofaffairs.
123
Inthismanner,theconverseofBrugmann’sLawIIoftenprovesthelackof PIE*,
whichcanbeequallyimportantintheeliminationofunderlyingambiguities.
§7.Asisthecasewith PIE*e,thelaryngealistruleofcompensatorylengtheningfor
PIE*o(seeMøller(1880:493n2):“*eAwird aA,*oAwird”)isoverstated.Instead
of the ubiquitous lengthening, the cluster PIE *o results in a long quantity only in
Indo-Iranianopensyllables(Brugmann’sLawII),butremainsshortelsewhere.
§8.Inthisconnectionitshouldbenotedthatthedifferenceintheresultingquantity
oftheoutcomesofPIE*oand*einIndo-Iranianopensyllables
PIE*eCV
IIr.aCV
PIE*oCV
IIr.
CV
provides an independent confirmation of the existence of two originally different
vowels PIE*o PIE*eimpliedbythesecondpalatalization.293Thisprovesfalsethe
assumptionofaPIEmonovocalism(i.e.thedoctrineof‘Proto-Indo-Semitic*a’),also
known as the ‘fundamental vowel *e’ of the laryngeal theory (Benveniste,
1935:149),294whichwasputforthbySaussureandMøller.295
§9.Inhisearlyarticle,Kuryowicz(1927a:103)reconstructedthefollowingparadigm
fortheperfectformsoftheSanskrit-rootkÎ-‘machen’:
OInd.cakára OInd.cak³ra N
N
*kwekwór·h2e *kwekwór·e [1sg]
[3sg]
AsexplainedbyLindeman(1997:67),Kuryowiczassumedthat
“the *-o- of the 3 sg. had become Skt. -a- in an open syllable (according to Brugmann’s
Law),theradicalshort-a-ofthe1sg.wassupposedtobetheregularoutcomeofanIE*-o-
inanoriginallyclosedsyllable.Thesamephoneticdevelopmentwasassumedforcausative
formations like janáyati (: jan- ‘generate’) < *g’onH-éye/o- [… ] Kuryowicz later (in
Apophonie,330and336f.)withdrewthisexplanation[…]”
In this connection it is worth mentioning that Kuryowicz’s withdrawal might also
have been premature. In Kuryowicz’s (1935:28) example RV. jan- ‘gebären’, the
root has a laryngeal (PIE *ºean-; see above), meaning that it is possible to
reconstructexactlylikeKuryowiczexceptwritingPIE*ofor*o:
Gr.6}6B@4=RV.jajána[1sg]
Gr.6}6B@8=RV.jaj
na[3sg]
N
N
PIE*ºeºoan·ae
PIE*ºeºoan·e
(oaCC)
(oaCV)
293
Forthe‘lawofthepalatals’indetail,seeCollinge(1985:133-42).
294
SeeKuryowicz(1964:28)andLindeman(1987:23-24,1997:26-28).
295
See Møller (1911:XIV): “Es gibt im Indogermanischen nur a-Wurzeln (oder, wenn man fürs
Indogermanische lieber will, e-Wurzeln, was für die Sache dasselbe), den semitische a-Wurzeln
entsprechend.”
124
OwingtotheregularoutputafterthelossofPIE*a,Kuryowicz’sLawIIisfeasible.296
InordertoavoidovergeneralizationofKuryowicz’sLawII,however,theambiguity
ofBrugmann’sLawmustbetakenintoaccount:
(a) The alternation of quantity of the root vowel RV. a [1sg] : RV. [3sg] is not
restricted to roots containing a laryngeal. Thus, the root han- ‘schlagen’,which is
certainlywithoutalaryngeal(cf.*»hen-‘schlagen,töten,usw.’P.491-3),revealsan
identicalablaut:
RV.jaghán- RV.jagh³n- (pf.)‘erschlagen,usw.’(WbRV.1644,jaghántha[2sg])
(pf.)‘erschlagen,usw.’(WbRV.1644,jagh³na[3sg])
(b)ThereisnojustificationfortheaprioristassumptionthatSanskrit(oranyother
language)wouldhaveinheritedtheproto-paradigmsassuch.Sincenosoundlawscan
explainthealternationRV.a:RV.
,asuppletivealternationNeogr.*o:remains
thesoleoptionfor
RV.jaghán-=*»he»hon- RV.jagh³n-=*»he»hn-.297
Because the vocalizations reflecting PIE *oCV : *oCC (Brugmann’s Law II)
coincide with suppletive paradigms with PIE *CV : *oCC (suppletion/ablaut), it is
unlikely that Kuryowicz’s Law II will create revolutionary new possibilities for the
reconstructionofPIE*.
§10.Brugmanndeservesbelatedcreditforhiscorrectinitialobservationconcerning
thelengtheningIndo-Iranianlengthening.IfindthefactthatBrugmannwasableto
grasp this phenomenon without PIE * at his disposal a remarkable sign of his
comparative mastery. Even today Brugmann’s efforts have not been wasted, as
detailed study of Brugmann’s Law II and its converse are able to restore lost
laryngeals and eliminate false positives to the extent that clarification of these
problemsmayberesolvedinthenearfuture.
2 .3.8 ReconstructionofNeogr.*RGr.K:OInd.
§0.AsthelengtheningofPIE*otookplaceonlyintheenvironmentPIE*oCVOIIr.
CV (Brugmann’s Law II), the laryngealist compensatory lengthening does not
explainthelongvowelNeogr.*,whichmustbeaccountedforinadifferentmanner.
Theseandotherkeyissuesarediscussedbelow.
§1. For the long ‘o-quality’ vowel, Brugmann (Grundr2 1:147) defined the cover
symbol
Neogr.*
Rdf
Gr.K,Lat.,Go.,Li.uo,Arm.u,OIr.
,Av.
,etc.
296
Similarly, the short vowel of the causative RV. janáya- (cs.) ‘erzeugen, gebären, schaffen zu’
(WbRV. 469, janáyatha) is regular if compared to Gr. 6B@|K (pr.) ‘zeugen, hervorbringen’ (GEW
1:320),aswasdonebyKuryowicz(1927a:103).
297
Fortheexternalconfirmationofthelonggrade,compareOCS.pro·ganja-(vb.)‘vertreiben’(Sadnik
214,proganjati[inf.]).
125
Brugmann (Grundr.2 1:147-153, KVG 76-77) provided, among other things, the
followingexamplesforthiscorrespondenceset:
OInd.dád
ti :
OInd.dv³
:
OInd.pr
tár :
Gr.77KE<,Arm.tur,Lat.dnum,OCS.dati
Gr.7K,Lat.duo,OCS.d&va
Gr.CK,Osc.pruterpan,OHG.fruo
§2. In Brugmann’s system, an ablaut relation Neogr. * : *T (KVG:141), similar to
thatofNeogr.*
:T,wasassumed.Someexamplesofthealternationare:
Gr.6>EE4 :
Lat.dnum :
Gr.EFCKFD :
Ion.6>|EE4 (Neogr.*glTºh¾a)
Lat.datum (Neogr.*dTto-)
Gr.EFC4FD (Neogr.*strTto-)
§3.Saussure(Rec.127)abandonedthetraditionalanalysisofNeogr.*(definedby
him as “grec et latin ”) and assumed an ‘o-colouring’ coefficient DS *Ô with
compensatorylengtheningandablautpattern*Ô:eÔin
DS*dÔ-
DS*deÔ-
Gr.7BFD,Lat.dtum,OInd.·dita- (Ø-grade)
Gr.77K?<,Lat.dnum,OInd.d
nam,etc. (*e-grade)
§4. Following Møller’s interpretation of DS *Ô as a laryngeal, Kuryowicz (1935)
identified*T3withi.,thuslayingthebasisforLT*h3.298
2 .3.9 ProblemsofthereconstructionofNeogr.*
§0. The Neogrammarian postulation of the vowel Neogr. * is problematic only in
terms of its behaviour in the new environment PIE *. However, Saussure’s
restructuringofNeogr.*R DS*eÔiserroneous.Beginningwithitsflawedstrategy
ofeliminating PIE*o,thepathledtoinconsistencyandtrivializationofthelaryngeal
theory.
§1. The colouring effect attributed to the laryngeal h3 R DS Ô results in an
impossibility,aspointedoutbyPedersen(1938:180-1):
“Vielfach nimmt man drei Formen der Grundstufe (, , ) und damit drei verschiedene
Laryngalean;eslässtsichaberwenigstensnichtstrengBeweisen,dassjeGrundstufeist;
77K?< lässt sich für diese Ansicht (KURYOWICZ Ét. 301) nur dann verwerten, wenn
manlat.d
sundlit.dovanàhinwegerklärt.”
Ingeneral,ifLTh3hasbeenpostulatedforaroot,itsdominant‘o-colouring’excludes
the actually attested data with Neogr. *´ and/or *·. This incompleteness, in turn,
trivializesthetheory,becausefromacomparativepointofviewapostulatewithsuch
anexcessofmaterialcostisofnointerest.299
298
For LT h3, see Beekes (1969:128, 166-168, 290) and 1972, Kuryowicz (1956:168, 1968:205),
Mayrhofer(1986:141),Melchert1987,andZeilfelder(1997:188f.).
299
TheclaimsofthesecondarynatureofparalleledrootformslikeLat.d
-Li.do-Arm.ta-(see
Cowgill1965:145)arecircular.
126
§2. According to Wyatt (1964:146), Saussure’s equation Gr. 7BFD = Lat datum
violates the principle of the regularity of sound change. Indeed, it is not proper to
compare the colourings ´ Ê in languages preserving such oppositions. The root
vocalism of Lat. dtum is identical with that of Gr. 7|@BD, and the vocalism of Gr.
7BFD is identical with that of Fal. Douiat and Umbr. pur·douitu, with the latter
correspondingtoCypr.7Bß}@4<(=RV.d
váne)intermsoftheextension*·u-and
vowelquality.
§3.Saussure’s*Ô(=LT*h3)waspostulatedwiththehelpofincompleteablautbases,
with the result that the postulate is automatically eliminated through the attested
Indo-Europeanvocalisms.Itneedsnotconcernusfurtherhere.
2 .3.10
Neogr.*R PIE *,*a,*a,*aor*a
§0.ThevowelNeogr.*hasatwofoldorigininProto-Indo-European:
(a) PIE*aspartoftheablautpattern PIE*Ê:Ø:·andnotinenvironment PIE*a,
*a.
(b) PIE*inenvironment PIE*a,*a(in PIE*a*a*a*a).Followingthe
lossof PIE*aand PIE*,allprototypescollidedwithIndo-European*inlanguages
sharingsuchchanges.Basedontheoutcomesofthecollision, PIE*adidnothavea
colouringeffectonPIE*(i.e.PIE*wasnotassimilatedintoPIE*a).
§1.TheexistenceofPIE*asapartofthepatternPIE*Ê:Ø:·withoutthelaryngeal
is confirmed by the correspondence type Do. 7- : Go. fotu- with Old Anatolian
parallels (cf. i. pada- (c.) ‘foot’), excluding the laryngeal. The ablaut pattern
appears,forinstance,in:
(a)Neogr.*lÊgh-‘liegen’(P.658-9)
i.laga-
Go.lagja-
Gr.@4G·>BI}K
OIcl.lg-
OHG.luog- OCS.v&·laga-
(vb2M.)‘liegen’(HEG2:16,i.la-ga-a-ri[3sg])
(vb.)‘F<;}@4<:legen’(GoEtD.233)
(pr.)‘tolieinharbourorcreek’(LSJ.1162)
(n.)‘LagerbestandfüreinenTag’(ANEtWb.364)
(n.)‘Höhle,Lager’(WH1:768,luog[sgN])
(iter.)‘hineinlegen’(Sadnik444,v&lagati[inf.])
(b)Neogr.*lÊdh-‘prosper’(P.–)
HLu.ARHAlada-
OIcl.l-
Lyc.lada-
Rus.láda
Rus.ládi-
(vb.)‘prosper(?)’(CHLu.10.16.1,ARHAla-tà-ta)
(f.n.)‘Ertrag,Frucht’(ANEtWb.362,OIcl.l[sgN])
(c.)‘Frau’(Pedersen1945:15-6,lada[sgN])
(c.)‘Gemahl(in)’(REW2:5,láda[sgN])
(vb.)‘passen,stimmen,usw.’(LiEtWb.328,ladit’[inf.])
(c)pt-‘fly,fall’(P.825-6,i.peta-(vb1.)‘fliegen’,ini.píd-da-an-zi[3pl])
PIE*pt-
PIE*pot-
Gr.KF|B?4<‘flattern’
Gr.BF}B?4<‘flattern’
127
:RV.p
táya-(WbRV.762)
:RV.patáya-(WbRV.762)
PIE*pt-
Gr.dF8FB‘flug’
:LAv.ptaÐ(AIWb.819-21)
§2. The existence of this ablaut type implies that both the Neogrammarian ablaut
schemata (Neogr. * : T) and its laryngeal counterpart (LT *eh3 : h3) were not
adequate:PIE*alsoappearsindependentlyofPIE*a,a,andPIE*alonedoesnot
justifythepostulationofschwa(and/oritslaryngealcounterpart).
§3. PIE *o resulted in a short vowel, except in Indo-Iranian open syllables (see
Brugmann’s Law II). Consequently, compensatory lengthening does not explain the
commonIndo-EuropeanquantityinPIE*da-‘geben’(P.223-6):
Neogr.*d- :
Lat.dnum,RV.d
ná-,OCS.dan&,OIr.d
n,etc.
In the absence of lengthening, only the quantity PIE * can account for the long
quantityofthecognates.Accordingly,thetraditionalview(supportedbySzemerényi
andothers)istofollowed.
§4.Somerootswith PIE*tantum,thelongequivalentsofSzemerényi’srootsin PIE
*o,areimpliedbythematerial.Anexampleofsuchroothasbeenpreservedin
al-‘Zeit,Tag,Jahr,Mal’(P.–):
HLu.ali-
CLu.ali-
OInd.par·
ri Lat.lim
OInd.par·
ritna-
(sb.)‘day’(CHLu.10.11.17,ha-li-i[plA])
(sb.)‘Tag’(DLL.38,al-li-ia[sgD])
(adv.)‘intheyearbeforelast’(MonWil.589)
(adv.)‘einmal,einst,zuweilen’(WH2:206-7,lim)
(a.)‘belongingtotheyearbeforelast’(P.24[diff.])
PIE*canbepostulatedthroughout.Asaseparatenon-ablauting*wouldconstitute
aviolationoftheruleoftheambiguity,itshouldbeavoided.
2 .4 VowelsNeogr.*eand*andi.
2.4.1 Introductionanddefinitions
§1.TheNeogrammarianspostulatedtwocoversymbolsforthefrontvowelsNeogr.*e
(=*a1)andNeogr.*,referredtobymeansoftheterm‘e-vocalism’.Inthissection,
the comparative interpretation of the phonemes – both independently and in
environmentPIE*–willbeinferred.
2.4.2 ThereconstructionofNeogr.*e RGr.8:OInd.a
§0.FollowingthecontributionsofCurtius(1864)andAmelung(1871),Brugmann’s
reconstruction(1876)finallyestablishedanoriginalfrontvowelNeogr.*a1(=*e)for
theproto-language.
§1.Brugmann(1876b:363ff.)definedthecoversymbol*a1:
Neogr.**a1 R
Gr.8,Lat.e,OIr.e,Arm.e,Li.e,OInd.a,Av.a,etc.
128
§2. According to Brugmann’s (Grundr2 1:114-131, KVG:71-72) phonetic
interpretation, the cover symbol *a1 stands for a short front vowel Neogr. *e
preserved,forexample,in:
Neogr.*bher:
Neogr.*ne :
Neogr.*senti :
OInd.bhár
mi,Arm.berem,Gr.H}CK,Lat.fero
OInd.ná,Lat.ne·scio,Go.ni,Li.nè,OCS.ne
OInd.sánti,Arm.en,Do.b@F,Umbr.sent,Go.sind
§3.AccordingtoBrugmann,thevowel*estandsinablautrelationwithNeogr.*o(=
*a2)andzero-gradeØ,formingathreefoldablautpatternNeogr.*e:Ø:*o(e.g.in
Neogr.*bher-‘tragen,bringen’(P.128ff.)):
*e
Ø
*o
*bher- :
*bhÎ- :
*bhor-:
Lat.fert,Hom.H}CF8,RV.bhárti,gAv.barTt%
LAv.bTrTt-,OPers.hu·barta-,RV.bhÎtí-
Go.bar,Gr.HCBD,OCS.s&·bor&,Lat.fors
§4.Inthe1870s,aconfirmationforNeogr.*ewasobtainedthroughtheformulation
ofthelawofthepalatals,300accordingtowhichNeogr.*kand*kÒcollidedinSatem
*k.Thesesplitintoapalatalandavelar,accordingtothehistoricalquality(‘front’vs.
‘back’)ofthefollowingphoneme,resultingin
OInd.c,Av.,OCS.,etc. OInd.k,Av.k,OCS.k,etc.
Owing to this complementary distribution, the Sanskrito-centric reconstruction of
palatalstops(e.g.OInd.c,j,jh)practicedbysomePaleogrammarianwasabandoned.
As a consequence of this development, it is necessary to reconstruct at least two
different full-grade vowels, a palatalizing vowel PIE *e and a non-palatalizing vowel
PIE*oinopposition(PIE*ePIE*o).
§5. In the Elis dialect of Greek, the pan-Hellenic Gr. 8 has turned into 4 (see
BrugmannGrundr.21:117-118)inasimilarfashionasIndo-Iranian.Thisaccountsfor
Locr.4inexampleslikethefollowing:
Gr.ß}FBD‘Jahr’
Do.^?8C4‘Tag’
Gr.cE8CB-‘abendlich’
Gr.H}CK‘tragen’
Gr.bC}EEK‘rudern’ :Locr.b·(ß)4F:D :Locr.^?4C4 :Locr.ß8E4CK@ :Locr.H|CK :Locr.bC|FGBD(amonth)
(GEW1:583)
(GEW1:634)
(GEW1:575)
(GEW2:1003f.)
(GEW1:129,553)
The Old Anatolian parallels lacking a laryngeal (cf. i. Òt- ‘Jahr’ : Gr. ß}FBD ‘id.’)
now confirm that Locr. 4 is not to be explained on the basis of PIE *a, *a (and
schwebeablaut),butthroughaseparatesoundlawPGr.*8OLocr.4.
300
Thelawofthepalatals(‘Palatalgesetze’),anideathatwasintheairatthetime,hasbeencreditedto
variousauthors.
129
2 .4.3 ProblemsofthereconstructionofNeogr.*e §0. The problems related to the laryngeal PIE * and its connection to PIE ablaut
patterninghaveresultedinasituationinwhichthecoversymbolNeogr.*erequires
additionalclarificationsforasuccessfulreconstructionofthedata.
§1. The fundamental (and single most difficult) problem of the (Proto)-IndoEuropean ablaut is the commonplace alternation Neogr. *e : *T a 301 in
correspondences. Up to this point, the problem has remained unsolved by all
theories,despitetheavailabilityofOldAnatolianparallels.
§2.Thetraditional(Neogrammarian)theorylacksbothfunctioningpatternsforthe
descriptionoftheablautNeogr.*e:*Ta
,aswellasthereconstructionphonemePIE
*. As a result, the theory is outdated and can serve only as the starting point for
necessaryexplication.
§3.Themonolaryngealismhas PIE*,butinitspreliminaryformulation(Zgusta)all
attestedvocalisms,includingNeogr.*e:*Ta
,arereconstructedwithoutPIEablaut
patterning underlying the surface level of the Indo-European vocalism.
Consequently,thistheoryalsoneedstobeimprovedintermsoftheablaut.
§4.Incontasttothisproblemsofthelaryngealtheoryareofinternal(orself-inflicted)
character:
(a)Theubiquitouscolouringruleof*h2ofthethree-laryngealismisincontradiction
withtheadjacentshortPIE*einexamplesofthefollowingtype:
i.ue-
Umbr.ue-
(vb1A.)‘sichwenden,usw.(HHand.200,ú-e-e-zi)
(vb.)‘wenden’(WbOU.835-6,uetu[3sg])
Inthesix-laryngealismofPuhvel(1960,1965),thisproblemisobviatedbyaddingthe
number of laryngeals (in this case, through the postulation of an ‘e-colouring’
laryngeal allegedly preserved in Old Anatolian). However, this modulation of
Pedersen’stwo-laryngealismdoesnotsufficetosolvetheproblem,becauseNeogr.*T
a
implyingPIE*(h2)recursinrelatedforms,suchas:
Gr.ß@-
Gr.4n@K
(vb.)‘winnow’(Hes.ß@4<)8C<FE4<)
(vb.)winnow’(GEW1:42,GrGr.1:694,LSJ.40)
(b)Thecompensatorylengtheningofthelaryngealtheoryistoostronginthefaceof
theshort*eappearingbeforethelaryngealini.ue-=Umbr.ue-definingPIE*e.
(c)Theinconsistencieshaveledsomeproponentsofthelaryngealtheorytodenialof
the data (e.g. Kuryowicz (1956:174-187)). However, owing to the considerable
number of examples, which sufficiently establish the phenomenon,302 such tacks are
301
For the ablaut Neogr. *· : *´, see Pedersen (1938:168-169 [wL.]), Hirt (1900:15), Lindemann
(1997:80-88),Mayrhofer(1986:132-)andKuryowicz(1956:174-187).
302
Amongothers,thealternation–confirmedbyparallels–isattestedinthecomparisonsi.paur/n-
(n.)‘Feuer’(TochA.por):OHG.fiur;Lat.iaci‘throw’:Lat.ic(Gr.j=4);Lat.capi(Gr.=|FK):
Lat. cp; Lat. faci (Phryg. 4774=8F) : Lat. fc (Gr. d;:=4); and Lat. magnus (MidIr. maige) : Gr.
?}64(Arm.mec).
130
lessattractive.Afterall,theultimategoalisthesolutionoftheproblem,andasthe
comparativemethodisthetooldesignedforthepurpose,oneshouldhavenodoubt
aboutproceedinginthismannerinstead.
2 .4.4 Neogr.*eRPIE*e
*ea
*ae
§0.ThefundamentalproblemofthecoversymbolNeogr.*eisitsconnectiontothe
laryngeal PIE *andtheablautNeogr.*e:*Ta
.Thisproblemissolvablewiththe
followingdefinitionsforthetraditionalcoversymbolinSystemPIE:
Neogr.*e
R
PIE*e PIE*ea
PIE*ae.
Thecorrectnessofthesolutionwillbedemonstratedforeachtermofthedisjunction.
§1.ThesubsetNeogr.*eR PIE *erepresentsthecorrespondencetypecharacterized
by the common Proto-Indo-European *e and the absence of the Old Anatolian
laryngeal(oranyothercriteriaimplying PIE *aor PIE *aintherestofthegroup).
Thevowelreferredtoispreserved,forinstance,in
Neogr.*gÒhen-‘schlagen,usw.’(P.491-3):
i.gÒen-
RV.hán-
gAv.WÖn-
(vb.)‘schlagen,erschlagen,töten’(HHand.81)
(pr.)‘(er)schlagen,kämpfen’(WbRV.1642)
(pr.)‘schlagendtreffen’(AIWb.492)
ReflectingtheoriginalNeogrammariandefinition,thecorrespondencesetNeogr.*e
RPIE*ehasbeencorrectlydefinedsincethattimeandrequiresnofurthercomment.
§2.ThesubsetNeogr.*eRPIE*earepresentsPIE*e(asdefinedabove),followedby
PIE*a.Thefollowingfeaturescharacterizethesubset:
1.InOldAnatolianthelaryngeali.hasbeenpreservedassuchandthevowel
PIE*ahasbeenlostwithoutassimilationoftheneighbouringPIE*e.
2. In the rest of the group, both PIE *a and PIE * have been lost without
assimilation (or ‘colouring effect’) or compensatory lengthening of PIE *e. In
addition,thelanguagesthatpreservetheoppositionsNeogr.*Ta
oftenindicatethis
vocalismbymeansoftheschwebeablaut.
Bothtreatments,whicharesupportedbymeasurablefeaturesofthedata,have
beenpreservedinexampleslike
(a)PIE*uea-‘wenden’:
i.ue-
Umbr.ue-
(vb1A.)‘sichwenden,usw.’(HHand.200,ú-e-e-zi)
(vb.)‘wenden’(OUD.835-6,uetu[3sg])
Ascanbereadilyseen,theOldAnatolianlaryngealhasbeenpreserved,butthereis
no colouring effect (i. e = Umbr. e) or compensatory lengthening (Umbr. e). In
addition,theextensions*·n-and*·t-confirmPIE*aintheassimilatedGr.4(Lat.a):
i.uean-
Gr.ß@-
(n.)‘Wenden,Wendung’(HHand.191,ueana#[sgG])
(vb.)‘winnow’(Hes.ß@4<)8C<FE4<)
131
Gr.4n@K
Lat.uanno-
(vb.)‘winnow’(GEW1:42,GrGr.1:694,LSJ.40)
(m.)‘Futterschwinge’(WH2:731,uannus[sgN])
Inthisway,thefollowingstemscanbereconstructed:
PIE*uea- PIE*uea··n- i.ue-(i.uezi),Umbr.ue-(Umbr.uetu)
i.uean-(i.ueana#),Gr.ß@-(Hes.ß@4<)
(b)PIE*mea-‘time,noon,zenith’(P.703-704):
PIEmea·n-
i.men-
Go.aldo·min-
(m./n.)‘6C4D:oldage’(GoEtD.25)
Lat.m
n-
(adv.)‘amMorgen’(WH2:25,m
n[adv.])
Asinthepreviousexample,thefollowingstemscanbereconstructed:
PIE*mea·n PIE*mea··n-
i.men-(Go.aldo·min-)
Lat.m
n-(Lat.m
n)
§3.ThesubsetNeogr.*eR PIE *aerepresents PIE *e(asdefinedabove),following
PIE*a.Thefollowingfeaturescharacterizethesubset:
1. In Old Anatolian the vowel PIE *a has been lost without assimilation (or
‘colouringeffect’)oftheneighbouring PIE*e,andthelaryngeali.ispreservedas
such.
2. In the rest of the group, both PIE *a and PIE * have been lost without
assimilation (or ‘colouring effect’) or compensatory lengthening of PIE *e. In
addition,thelanguagesthatpreservethedistinctionsNeogr.*Ta
oftenindicatethat
vocalism.
Bothtreatments,whicharesupportedbymeasurablefeaturesofthedata,have
beenpreservedin
PIE*ae»-‘peak,top,stronghold,strong’(P.8-9):
i.egur/n- RV.ágra-
RV.agrimá- (NA4n.)‘peak,stronghold’(HEG1:235,é-gur)
(n.)‘Spitze,äußerstesende,Gipfel’(EWA1:45f.)
(a.)‘anderSpitzestehend,erster’(KEWA1:18)
In addition, Lat. agrippa (WP 1:38ff.) is based on the zero grade of the root PIE
a»-withprothetic*ePIE*ea»-,implyingPIE*athroughassimilation.
§4.Inconnectionwiththedefinition
Neogr.*e
R
PIE*e
*ea
*ae
(SystemPIE),
thefollowinggeneralremarksshouldbenoted:
(a) The lack of assimilation in examples of OAnat. e e with etymological PIE *e
(versus PIE *i) and other Indo-European data provides the criterion for deciding
whether PIE *a or PIE *a should be reconstructed for a root: i. ue- (vb.) ‘sich
wenden, etc.’ implies PIE *a (rather than PIE *a), because PIE *e has not been
assimilatedandthepositionofPIE*áisthusconfirmed.
132
(b)FollowingthelossofPIE*aandPIE*,PIE*earesultsinashortvowel(Umbr.e,
Go.i,etc.),asisthecasewithPIE*ea(i.e.nocompensatorylengtheningtakesplace,
regardlessofthemutualorderofPIE*aandPIE*followingPIE*e).
(c) The absence of any colouring effect (assimilation)is a regular feature in System
PIE:withPIE*standingbetweenPIE*eandPIE*a,therewasnoimmediatecontact
betweenthevowelsandassimilationwasthusprevented.
(d)Astheyareofparticularrelevanceforthereconstructionofthematerial,itshould
beunderlinedthat PIE*aand PIE*(i.e.diphonemicPIE*aand PIE*a)werelost
practically without trace in the later Indo-European languages, as illustrated by the
examples:
I:PIE
PIE*uea- PIE*mean- II:OAnat. i.ue-‘sichwenden’
i.men-‘time,noon’
III:LaterIE
Umbr.ue-‘wenden’
Go.·min-‘Zeit’
In practice, this means that the laryngeal PIE * can be found in practically any
position where Neogr. *e is traditionally reconstructed. A systematic and
comprehensivere-evaluationofallthematerial,basedonthemeasurablecriteriafor
PIE * and PIE *a in the cognates, is urgently required. In order to illustrate the
identification and use of the criteria in philological and comparative inference, the
rootNeogr.*seu-‘(yellow)liquid’(P.912)maybecited.Withinthedata,fivecriteria
forPIE*and*aareattested:
1.PIE*seau-‘Soma,Urin,Schmutz’:
RV.só-
(ao.)‘Somapressen,keltern’(WbRV.1523,sót
[2pl])
i.#eu·r/n- (n.)‘Urin,Schmutz’(HEG2:973-7,#e-e-ur[sgNA])
i.#eu·kaniauant- (pt.)‘mitUrin(#eu-)befleckt’(HEG2:972)
PIE
*e is directly confirmed by Hittite, but there is no colouring effect or
compensatorylengtheningintheRig-Veda.
2. PIE*saeu-‘Flußname’withNeogr.*aappearsintheassimilatedrootvowels
of
Illyr.sauo- OGaul.sau
- (m.)‘Flußname’(P.912-3,Illyr.sauus[sgN])
(f.)‘Flußname’(P.912-3,OGaul.saua[sgN]),
thusimplyingPIE*afortheroot.
3. In PIE *o-grade (for a perfect verb and a noun), the lengthening of
Brugmann’sLawIIcanbeclaimedforIndo-Iranianin
PIE*soaÒ-‘Somapressen’:
RV.sus³v-
RV.s
vá-
(pf.)‘Somapressen’(WbRV.1523,su³va[3sg])
(m.)‘Somapreßung,Somaspende’(WbRV.1513)
4.PIE*andPIE*aaresimultaneouslyconfirmedbytheformRV.sómam[sgA],
requiringascansionCV’V:CVinRV.4.26.7:
RV.s’Ñ·ma- (m.)‘Soma’(WbRV.1579,sómam[three-syllabic])
133
i.#eu·r/n- (n.)‘Urin,Schmutz’(HEG2:973-7,#e-e-ur[sgNA])
Here the quantity RV. Ñ points to an assimilation of the accented PIE *á into the
followingPIE*u:PIE*seáumo-PIIr.*saÑma-.
5. The quantity RV. Ñ is confirmed by other branches in PIE *sáu·.- ‘regnen,
schütten’:
i.#una- TochA.s%m
n-
Latv.s%lâ-
(vb.)‘schütten,werfen’(HEG1:391,i#-u-na-u-ua-ar)
(pt.M.)‘regnend’(Poucha375,s%m
[sgN])
(vb)‘siepen’(P.913,s%lât[inf.])
ThecommonIndo-European/%/úuPIE*áureflectsPIE*á,incontrastwiththe
lossofunaccentedPIE*ainPIE*sau(cf.RV.susumá[1pl],WbRV.1523).
§5. In practice, PIE *a and PIE *a are often implied by several witnesses, all
mutually supporting each other: PIE * is implied by the Hittite laryngeal (#eu-)
and confirmed by Rig-Vedic hiatus (RV. s’Ñ-), while PIE *a is implied by ‘acolouring’(OGaul.sau-)andconfirmedbythelongdiphthong(TochA.s%-:RV.
s’Ñ-).Both PIE*and PIE*ain PIE*aarethusprovenbytwowitnesses(Fick’s
Rule).Inasimilarmanner,thediphonemic PIE*a,asolvesallirregularitieswithin
theframeworkofasinglelaryngealPIE*.
2 .4.5 ReconstructionofNeogr.*RGr.::OInd.
§0.Neogr.*,thelongvariantofNeogr.*e,replacedPaleogr.*
astheeighthcover
symbolforthevowelsintheNeogrammarianvowelsystem.
§1.ForthelongfrontvowelNeogr.*,Brugmannreconstructed
Neogr.*
Gr.:,Lat.,Go.e,Li.,OCS.
:OInd.
,Av.
.
Brugmannprovidedthefollowing(Grundr.21:131-137;KVG72-74)examplesforthe
correspondence:
OInd.ádh
m :
OInd.pr
tá- :
OInd.sy³s
:
Arm.e·di,Go.ga·ds,Lat.fc,OCS.dti,...
Gr.>FB,Lat.plnus,Alb.pl’ot,Arm.li,...
Gr.8m:D,OLat.sis[opt2sg],...
§2. In the Neogrammarian system, Neogr. * stood in ablaut with Neogr. *T in an
identical manner as the two other quantities Neogr. * and *
. According to
Brugmann, the pattern appears, for instance, in Neogr. *pl- ‘voll’ with an alleged
zerograde:
*plTist(h)o-: Av.fra#ta-‘plurimus’:OIcl.flestr‘id.’(Grundr.12:173).303
303
NotethatBrugmann’sexampleisill-chosen:Gr.>8EFB-(sup.)‘meist’(GEW2:556)hasnoschwa.
134
§3. In addition, according to Brugmann (Grundr2 1:174-175), the vocalism of Gr.
;8FDisNeogr.*e,thusstandinginablautwithNeogr.*(Gr.F;:?<)asNeogr.*o:
*inGr.7BFD:77K?<.304
§4. With the two coefficients A, Ô and compensatory lengthening, Saussure (1878,
Rec.133)foundhimselfintroublewiththeremainingquantityNeogr.*.Saussure
suggested Neogr. * = *eA (Rec. 133- = 1878:141), but having already posited DS
*eA=Neogr.*
,theideaviolatedtheprincipleoftheregularityofsoundchange:it
isnotallowedforanidenticalstartingpointtodevelopintwodifferentdirectionsin
anunchangedenvironment.
§5. Møller (1879), seeking additional laryngealsfor his Indo-Semitic hypothesis,
suggestedthatyetanother,additionalitem*EwastobepostulatedforNeogr.*=
**eE,patterningas:
*dheE:
*dhE :
Gr.F;:?<:Lat.fc:OInd.didh
ti
Gr.;8F-:Lat.faci:OInd.hitá-,etc.305
Thus,atleastonpaper,MøllersucceededineliminatingthelongvowelsNeogr.*
,,
withcompensatorylengtheningandthree‘colouring’laryngeals*eE,eA,eO(= LT
*eh1,eh2,eh3).306
§6.InthedialectofElis(Grundr.21:132),thecommonGreek:(Do.ßC~FC4=Att.
C~FC4)hasturnedinto(El.ßC|FC4).Thephenomenondoesnotimply PIE*a,a,
butcorrespondstotherespectivedevelopmentoftheshortvowelGr.8OEl.4.
2 .4.6 ProblemsofthereconstructionofNeogr.*
§0.Theproblemsofthereconstructiontheoriesinthetreatmentofthecoversymbol
Neogr.*closelyresemblethoseofitsshortcounterpart,Neogr.*e.
§1. Though correctly postulated, the traditional (Neogrammarian) interpretation of
the cover symbol Neogr. * is outdated owing to the emergence of the Anatolian
laryngeal(=PIE*a*a)andthedefectablautpatternsattachedtotheitem.
(a)Inparticular,theNeogrammarianablautpatternNeogr.*:Tlacksjustification
forthesamereasonsasNeogr.*:T.NothinginNeogr.*itselfrequiresNeogr.*T
(= PIE*a,a),becausetheablautpattern PIE*:e:Ødidappearwithout PIE*
(i.e. the pattern Neogr. * : T overgenerates schwa). In order to illustrate this, the
Rather than admitting this, Brugmann (Grundr2 1:174-175) sought to explain the Greek ‘evocalism’ by means of analogy: “In den Formen [...] liegt Umfärbung des 8 im Anschluss an die
Formenmit:(F;:?<)undK(77K?<).”
304
305
Møller (1879:151n1) writes: “Saussure stellt ausser dem A noch ein zweites wurzelhates element
derselbenartauffürwurzelnwiestufe1und27K-,stufeo7B-,underhättefürwurzelnwiestufe1;:-
germ.d-,2germ.d-,o;8-skr.hi-lat.ainratus,satus(s.140ff.)nachmeineransichtnocheindrittes
aufstellen sollen. Diese wurzelhaften elementen werden als consonantische (A die tönende, E die
tonlosekehlkopfspirans?,Odaskehlkopf-r?)aufzufassensein.”
306
OnMøller’scontributiontothelaryngealtheory,seeSzemerényi(1973:1-2,5-8).
135
ablaut * : e : Ø without schwa/laryngeal is attested in prefixed (V)C, interdigited
C(V)CandsuffixedC(V)positionsasfollows:
1.(V)C-*rean-‘Freude’(withNeogr.*ran-,*e·ran-,*·ran-):
RV.ráa-
Gr.d·C4@B- Gr.b<·~·C4@B-
(m.)‘Ergötzen,Lust,Freude’(WbRV.1135-6)
(m.)‘Freundesmahl,Schmaus’(GEW1:547)
(a.)‘gefällig,angenehm,willkommen’(GEW1:641)
2.C(V)C-*ueºh-‘fahren,führen’(ablautNeogr.*uºh-,*ueºh-,*uºh-):307
RV.ní(…)uh-
Gr.ß}IB-
Lat.ux-
(aoM.)‘zuführen’(WbRV.1243,ní(...)uhta[opt3sg])
(vb1.)‘bringen’(GEW1:604,Pamph.ß8I}FK[3sg])
(pf.)‘fahren,führen,tragen,bringen’(WH2:742,ux)
3.C(V)-*dh-‘set’(Neogr.*dh-,*dhe-,*dh-):
RV.dadh-
Gr.;8F-
Gr.F;:-
(pf.)‘einsitzen,aufrichten’(WbRV.670,dadhús[3pl])
(pt.a.)‘adoptiert’(GEW2:897,;8FD[sgN])308
(pr.)‘setzen,legen’(GEW2:897-8,F;:?<[1sg])309
TheNeogrammarianablautschemaNeogr.*:Tisunacceptablebecausenothingin
thevowel*assuchjustifiesthepostulationofschwa(and/orthelaryngeal).
(b)SeveralIndo-Iraniansuffixes·i-generatedbytheablautschemataNeogr.*:T
havebeeninterpretedasautomaticallyrepresentingNeogr.*Tdespitetheambiguity
of OInd. i (= Neogr. *i or *T). In practice, however, all instances must be settled
throughcomparison.Thus,forinstance,
RV.api·dhí- (m.)‘Bedeckung’(WbRV.76,apidh½n[plA])
doesnotnecessarilycontainNeogr.*T(cf.Lat.faci‘machen,usw.’WH1:440-4)or
h1,owingtothecomparativelyconfirmedPIE*·i-in:
†
dhi-‘setzen’(ablaut*dhei-*dhoi-)
i.dei-
i.dai-
RV.iu·dhay- LAv.ni·7aya- RV.iu·dhí- RV.dadhi- Oi.ziki-
(pf.)‘setzen,legen’(HEG3:19-23,de-i-i[1sg])
(pf.)‘setzen’(HEG3:19,ta-it-ti[2sg])
(m.obl.)‘Köcher-’(WbRV.277,iudhés[sgG])
(pr.)‘niedersetzen’(AIWb.721,ni7ayeinte[3pl])
(m.)‘Köcher’(WbRV.277,iudhís[N],iudh½n[plA])
(red.pf.)‘setzen’(WbRV.670,dadhimá[1pl])
(iter.)‘festsetzen’(HEG3:19,zi-ik-ki-iz-zi[3sg])
307
ThelackofalaryngealintherootisprovenbyHLu.uaza-(vb.)‘carry’(CHLu.2.11.7,HLu.PES2()wa/i-za-ha[1sg]).
308
The Greek normal grade is confirmed in RV. dhána- (n.) ‘Kampfpreis, Beute, Schatz, Reichtum,
Gut’(WbRV.654)withNeogr.*dhéno-or*dhóno-.
309
Bammesberger(1984:30)clarifies:“FürdieUmbildungderParadigmatamüsseninersterLiniedie
horizontalen Reihen betrachtet werden. Gegenüber der Wurzel ;:- konnte 3. Pl. ;8@F (I) den
Eindrückerwecken,alslägehiereinquantitativerAblaut:vor.InähnlicherWeiseschiendasntPart.7B@F-(II)gegenüberderWurzel7K-einenAblaut:aufzuweisen.BeiderWurzelEF-warder
dem
entsprechendeKurtzvokalaregelrechtimOptativEF4-:-undto-Part.EF4-FDvorhanden.”
136
Theextensionhasnormalablautgrades, PIE*eini.dei-, PIE*oini.dai-and
zerogradeinOi.zi-(=RV.dhi-).
§2. The monolaryngealism lacks meaningful ablaut patterns, explaining the surfacelevelvocalismoftheIndo-Europeanlanguages,anditalsoneedstobedevelopedin
relationtothevowelSZ*.
§3. Møller’s analysis of Neogr. * R **eE (à la Saussure’s eA and eÔ) and the
generalizationoftheNeogrammarianablautschematahavecreatedaninconsistency
inthelaryngealtheory:Compensatorylengtheningdidnottakeplacein PIE*e(see
above) and there is no reason to expect a lengthening in Møller’s *eE either,
especiallyasitcontainstheerroneouslypostulated*E(=LT†h1).
2 .4.7 Neogr.*RPIE*
*a
*a
§0. The comparative interpretation of the cover symbol Neogr. * matches that of
Neogr. *e, except for the long quantity. Accordingly, for the traditional long front
vowelthefollowingdefinitionholds:
Neogr.*
R
PIE*
PIE*a
PIE*a
(SystemPIE).
In general, the treatment of the subsets is identical to the respective short ones,
exceptthatthereisnoconfirmedquantityavailableinOldAnatolian.Therefore,the
traditionalIndo-Europeanmaterialisutilizedinexamples.
§1.ThesubsetNeogr.*R PIE*representsthecorrespondencetypecharacterized
bythecontinuationof PIE*andtheabsenceofanOldAnatolianlaryngealorany
other criteria implying PIE *a PIE *a in the rest of the group. The situation is
preserved,forinstance,in
RV.v³k-
Lat.ux-
OCS.vs-
(s.ao.)‘zuführen’(WbRV.1243,áv
[2sg])
(pf.)‘fahren,führen,tragen,bringen’(WH2:742,ux)
(s.ao.)‘fahren’(Sadnik1063,vsu[1sg])
IntheabsenceofthelaryngealinOldAnatolian(cf.HLu.uaza-(vb.)‘carry’(CHLu.
2.11.7, PES2(-)wa/i-za-ha[1sg])), an original PIE * not resulting from compensatory
lengthening(LT†eh1)isreconstructedforProto-Indo-European.
§2.ThesubsetNeogr.*RPIE*arepresentsPIE*(asdefinedabove),followedby
PIE*a.Thesubsetischaracterizedbythefollowingfeatures:thoughnoconfirmed
examplesfromOldAnatolianareavailable,intherestofthegroupboth PIE *aand
PIE * have been lost without assimilation (or ‘colouring effect’). In addition, the
languages that reflect Neogr. *T a often indicate this vocalism and/or some other
criteriaforthelaryngeal.AnexampleofthesituationispreservedinPIE*samen-
‘Same,Saat’(P.889f.):
Li.s¹men-
Lat.smen-
(m.)‘Leinsamen,-saat’(LiEtWb.774,s¹mens)
(n.)‘Same,Geschlecht,Nachkomme’(WH2:512)
137
Umbr.semenia-
(f.)‘Same,Saat’(WbOU.662-3,seme.nies[plDAbl])310
The Lithuanian acute implies the laryngeal,311 which is confirmed by the ‘avocalism’inPIE*saeto-:
Lat.sato-
OGaul.sato- (n.pl.)‘cultivatedplants,offspring’(OxLatD.1692)
(PNm.)‘Sohn’(ACSS.2:1381,satus[sgN])
§3.ThesubsetNeogr.*R PIE *arepresents PIE *following PIE*a.Thoughno
confirmedOldAnatolianexamplesareavailableintherestofthegroup,both PIE *a
and PIE * have been lost without assimilation (or ‘colouring effect’). Furthermore,
thelanguagesthatreflectthequalityNeogr.*Ta
oftenpreservethisvocalismand/or
someothercriteriaforPIE*.Thesecircumstancescanbeexemplifiedbytheisogloss
PIE*diau-‘Himmel,Zeus’:
RV.di’³u-
Gr.98-
(m.)‘Himmel’(WbRV.604,RV.di³u[N])
(dm.)‘sky-god,Zeus’(GEW1:610-1,98D[sgN])
Here the Rig-Vedic hiatus, implying PIE *, is supported by the Dorian | in forms
withouttheextension*·u-:
Do.9|-
RV.dy³-
(m.)‘Zeus’(SchwyzerGrGr.1:576f.,9|D[N],9|@[A])
(m.)‘Himmel’(WbRV.604,dy³m[sgA])
§4. The long vowels PIE * * are confirmed for Indo-European languages beyond
any shadow of a doubt. Attempts to eliminate these by means of compensatory
lengthening,312 accent313 or other processes have met with failure.314 Thus, the
postulation of laryngeals based on quantity (and the root axiom C1eC2·C3-) is
unacceptableinthefollowingcorrespondencetypes:
i.a#a-
OLat.
s
-
(c.)‘Feuerstelle’(HEG1:196,a-a#-#a-a#[sgN])
(f.)‘AufbauzumOpfern,Altar’(WH1:61,
sa)
310
Note that in an archaic spelling of the word Umbr. sehmenia- (f.) ‘Same, Saat’ (WbOU. 662-3,
sehmeniar[sgG]),alaryngealappearsexactlyinthepredictedposition.
311
SincePIE*earesultsinshortvowelIEewithoutcompensatorylengthening,thequantityofthis
class(Lat.,Li.,etc.)mustrepresenttheoriginalstateofaffairs(i.e.thatofPIE*a).
312
Fromatypologicalpointofview,Saussure’scompensatorylengtheningwasbaselessfromthevery
beginning, as pointed out by Lindeman (1997:24, fn3): “It should be noted in this connection that,
accordingtoSt.R.Anderson LinguisticInquiry12,1981,516:‘Apparently,compensatorylengthening
doesnotariseunlessalanguagealreadyhasdistinctivelylongvowelsand/ordiphthongs[…]languages
donotdevelopanewlengthconstrastsolelythroughtheoperationofcompensatorylengthening.’”
313
Streitberg (1900:305-415) postulated a compensatory lengthening of a stressed vowel in an open
syllable if a following syllable was lost (e.g. †pedos O Lat. ps). This was correctly rejected by
Wackernagel(AiGr.1:68)andBloomfield(1895:5f.),whoreferredtomanynounsofthe*bhórostype
thathadsurvivedwithoutbecoming†bhrs.
314
NotethatKuryowicz(1962:113)laterwithdrewhisearlierideas:“DieTatsache,daßaufGrundvon
Formenmite-VokalismusFormenmitderSchwundstufei,u,mitderAbtönungo,mitderDehnstufe
usw. gebildet werden, kann nicht als Beweis gelten, daß sämtliche i, u, o, usw. sekundären und
relativspätenUrsprungssind.”
138
Since compensatory lengthening did not take place, a laryngeal h1 in LT †h2eh1s- is
unmotivated and PIE *as- (i. a#- = OLat. s-) with PIE * (Lat. pd-, etc.) is
postulated.
2 .5 PIEAblautandPIE*inSystemPIE
2.5.1 PIE*a,*aandtheProto-Indo-Europeanablaut
§0.TheappearanceofNeogr.*T(= PIE*a)andi.(= PIE*)indiphonemic PIE
*aand PIE*aleadstoabreakthroughinthelaryngealproblem.Inthecontextof
research history, the diphonemic PIE *a *a represents a synthesis in which the
vocalic aspect of the traditional reconstruction Neogr. *p(T)ter- ‘father’ and the
consonantal aspect of the laryngealist reconstruction LT *p()ter- ‘idem’ have been
interpolated in a prototype comprised of both components in PIE *pater-. As the
diphonemic PIE *a *a suffices to solve all segmental problems of the PIE
phonology,thelaryngealcrisisoftheIndo-Europeanlinguisticspromisestosoonbe
resolved.
§1.Brugmann’seight-vowelsystem
Neogr.*T
*a
*
*å
*å
*o
*
*e
*
andthesinglelaryngealreconstructedonthebasisofOldAnatolian
PIE* R
i.,Pal.,CLu.,HLu.
solvethelaryngealproblembycombiningthetraditionalNeogr.*T(PIE*a)andthe
modernreconstructionsofPIE*intodiphonemicPIE*a*a.Ameasurabletraceof
PIE*aisoccasionallypreservedinthemetricscansionofRig-Veda,notonlyproving
PIE *a but also PIE * with hiatus. By way of illustration, though no Old Anatolian
forms of PIE aº- ‘treiben’ (P. 4ff.) have been identified, the diphonemic *a is
confirmedbytheform
RV.pári·jman-
(m.)‘Umwandler,Herumwandler’(WbRV.785).
The stem requires a four-syllabic scansion in RV. 1.122.3, and as Grassmann’s
scansion PIIr. †parijam
is impossible (PIIr. *a cannot be lost), PIE *periaºmen-
(PIIr.*pariT¿man-)remainsthesolepossibleprototype.Since PIE*isrequiredby
hiatusandPIE*abythefourthsyllable,onlyPIE*acanbereconstructed.
(a) Since PIE * (= i ) and PIE *a (= Lat. a : OInd. i) are well-defined, their
appearanceindiphonemic PIE*+aand PIE*a+doesnotviolatethecomparative
rules. On the contrary, just such prototypes are required in order to explain the
materialinaregularandconsistentmanner.
(b)ThediphonemicsynthesisallowsthereconstructionofallattestedIndo-European
ablautgradeswiththePIEablaut*eØo,asindicatedin:
*aº-
Lat.amb·
gs‘Umgang’,Do.EFC4F·46D‘Heerführer’,etc.
139
*aeº-
*aº- *aoº-
*aº-
Lat.ag‘(be)treiben’Gr.^6K,RV.ájati,Av.azaiti,etc.
RV.jmán-‘Bahn’,RV.párijman-‘Umwandler’(four-syllabic)
Gr.r6?B-‘Schwad,Reihe’,RV.ájma-‘dieBahn,derZug’
Gr.\6·K6D‘Führer’,OIcl.k‘drove’(orPIE*Yaº-?)
Inaddition,theperfectin*without‘colouringeffect’isaccountedforby
*aº-
Lat.g‘(be)treiben,führen’,Gr.i6?4<[1sg].
ToaddressthefullrangeofIndo-Europeanablautvariation,aninductionhypothesis
statingtheexistenceofdiphonemic PIE*a*aissetforth,phonologicallytestedin
thisstudyandconfirmedinextensointhePIELexicon.
§2. Brugmann’s eight cover symbols Neogr. *T a å o e have the following
upgradedvaluesinSystemPIE:
Neogr.:
–
Ø[=T]
*T[=Õ]
*a
*
*o
*å
*
*e
*
Indo-European:
–
Gr.Ø:OInd.Ø
Gr.4:OInd.i
Gr.4:OInd.a
Do.:OInd.
Gr.B:OInd.
CV
Gr.B:OInd.a
Gr.K:OInd.
Gr.8:OInd.a
Do.:=OInd.
SystemPIE:
–
PIE*a(in*a
a)
PIE*á(in*á
á)
PIE*ae
ea
PIE*a
a
PIE*oa
oa
PIE*o
ao
ao
PIE*
a
a
a
a
PIE*e
ea
ae
PIE*
a
a
By means of these reconstructions, the traditional eight correspondence sets have
been interpreted in terms of the simple phonemes PIE * *a *· *Ê. Since all cover
symbols can be presented in terms of System PIE, diphonemic PIE *a a is the
sufficientconditionforthesolutionofthelaryngealproblem.315Thisbeingthecase,I
congratulate Zgusta, Szemerényi, Laroche, Burrow, Tischler and others for their
correctpostulationofthesinglelaryngeal PIE*(Ri.),andforthebreakthrough
thatthisallowedinthereconstructionofProto-Indo-European.316
§3. Since Streitberg (1900:307), ‘schwa’ and the ‘zero grade’ have been taken to
indicate vÎddhi (or ‘Dehnstufe’; see Streitberg (1900:305-415)) with two different
origins.317InSystemPIE,onlyoneablautoccurs,thepattern
PIE
*
*o
Ø
*e
*
(ABLAUT).
Fromthisbasicpattern,theablautwithschwaresultsinenvironmentPIE*aand*a
(=ABLAUT+).
315
Withthis,Eichner’s(1988:128)criticismofthecomparativemethodlackingtheoryisoutdated.
316
Thus, crediting Szemerényi, Burrow (1979:vi) writes: “[...] there was only one laryngeal in the
original[P]IEinventoryofphonemes,namelythatwhichappearsinHittiteas.”
ForasummaryoftheNeogrammarianvowel/ablautsystem,seeBrugmann(Grundr21:93).
317
140
§4.ThemaximalablautconsistsofallpermutationsofPIE*a,*aandPIE*:o:Ø:
e:.Forasingleablautvowelinafixedposition,oneobtains:
PIE
PIE
PIE
PIE
PIE
*:
—
*a
*a
*a
*a
*o:
—
*ao
*ao
*oa
*oa
Ø
—
*a
*a
*a
*a
*e:
—
*ae
*ae
*ea
*ea
*:
—
*a
*a
*a
*a
RABLAUT
Ra+ABLAUT
Ra+ABLAUT
RABLAUT+a
RABLAUT+a
All Indo-European ablaut patterns (e.g. Neogr. *e : Ø : *o, Neogr. *
, *, * : *T,
Neogr. *a : o and Neogr. *
: e Grundr2 1:170-178) are subsets of the table (i.e. in
termsofpatterning,theproblemofIndo-Europeanablautvocalismhasbeensolved).
§5.Puhvel(1960:35)writes:
“Until and unless there is a proof to the contrary, we are well advised to work with
reasonablybroadlydefinedsymbolism.”318
Asthecomparativemethodpermitsuseofasinglelaryngeal PIE*(in PIE*a,a)
andvowelsPIE*:e:Ø:o:,itcanbehopedthatthemostcapableIndo-European
linguistswillbewillingtoreducethenumberoflaryngeals319byremovingtheitems
†
h1, †h3,...(whichcontradicttheexistingIndo-Europeanablautvariation)320fromthe
phonemeinventory.321
§6. In terms of Proto-Indo-European vowel quantity, in particular the following
shouldbenoted:
(a)OwingtothealternationsPIE*e:andPIE*o:,thequestionoftheexistenceof
?
?
PIE*
(thelongcounterpartof PIE*a)canbeposited.If PIE*
didexist,itwould
have collided with PIE *
+e, e+
. Despite my best attempts, I have so far been
unabletoverifyorfalsify PIE*
?;accordingly,only PIE*aisreconstructedinSystem
PIE.
(b) Quantity is sometimes understood as a suprasegmental, but the definition
depends on notation. In the presentation of Indo-European languages, various
conventionshavebeenused,themostimportantofwhichare:
318
Compare also Anttila (1969:69): “[...] until the triple full-grade outcome CeRa/e/o can be solved
withoneHwithoutassumingothernonexistingrootshapes,ImustgoonwritingE,A,andO.”
319
CompareTischler(1980:498):“AngesichtsalldieserSchwierigkeitenistmanversucht,eineLösung
nichtinRichtungeinerVermehrung,sondernvielmehrineiner ReduzierungderZahlderLaryngale
zu suchen, wie dies auch tatsächlich schon mehrfach, so von Zgusta (1951) und Szemerényi (1967)
vorgeschlagenwordenist.”
320
SeealsoTischler(1980:500):“NunverstößtzwarderAnsatzvonLauten,dieüberallgeschwunden
sindundnirgendsSpurenhinterlassenhaben,nichtgegendieGesetzederLogik,eristaberinsofern
unwissenschaftlichimSinnederEmpirie,alserwederverifizierbarnochfalsifizierbarist.”
321
Such loss is by no means critical, of course, because it has been admitted by Puhvel (HED 3:v):
“‘Laryngeals’donothavethesameconfirmedepistemologicalstandinginestablishedIndo-European
grammarasdothetraditionallypositedphonemes.”
141
1.Thesuprasegmentalconvention,favouringanindicatorabovethevowel(e.g.
OIcl.é,Li.,OCS.,PIE*,etc.).
2. The segmental convention, representing quantity with two successive short
vowels(e.g.Osc.aa=/a:/andGr.Kstandingfortwosuccessiveomikrons).322Asfor
correct notation, the matter has at least been pondered. As Koerner (1985:335)
points out, already “Saussure had considered a1a1 (ee) ‘parallèle aux combinations
a1A,a1i,a1n[i.e.*eA,ei,en]etc.’,buthearguedinfactthatthiswouldleadto‘contresens’(Mémoirep.141).”
HereandinthePIELexicon,anotationwithmacronPIE**isusedinsteadof
PIE*ee*oo.Themattermaybemorethanjustaconvention,becausePIE*eeand*oo
allowmoredistinctionsofaccent(PIE*éevs.eé,etc.)thanPIE*(onlyPIE*),andit
mayyetturnoutthatthechangeofnotationisnecessary.
2 .5.2 AblautPIE*:*o:Ø:*e:*
§0.Theablautalternation PIE*:*o:Ø:*e:*iswell-attestedinIndo-European
data and thus secured beyond doubt.323 The alternation discussed in this paragraph
can be exemplified with the root *legh- ‘(sich) legen’ (P. 658-9), preserving all five
ablautgradesin:
(a)PIE*lgh-(*-grade)
OIcl.lg-
OHG.luog- OCS.v&·laga-
(n.)‘LagerbestandfüreinenTag’(ANEtWb.364)
(n.)‘Höhle,Lager’(WH1:768,OHG.luog)
(iter.)‘hinelegen’(Sadnik444,v&lagati[inf.])
(b)PIE*logh-(*o-grade)
i.laga-
Go.lagja-
Gr.@4G·>BI}K
(vb2M.)‘liegen’(HEG2:16,la-ga-a-ri[3sg],–or*?)
(vb.)‘legen’(=F<;}@4<‘lay’,GoEtD.233)
(pr.)‘tolieinharbourorcreek’(LSJ.1162)
(c)PIE*lgh-(zerograde)
TochA.lalku (pt.)‘iactus’(Poucha267,lalku[sgN])
(d)PIE*legh-(*e-grade)
Gr.>}I-
OCS.leg-
(aoM.)‘laydown’(GEW2:110-2,Gr.>}=FB[3sg])
(vb.)‘sichlegen’(LiEtWb.350,le(ti[inf.])
(e)PIE*lgh-(*-grade)
Li.l¹g-
OIcl.l
g-
OHG.l
ga
(vb.)‘niederlegen’(LiEtWb.350,Li.l¹gti[inf.])
(a.)‘niedrig,gering,unbedeutend’(ANEtWb.344,l
gr)
(.)‘Lage,Lager,Hinterhalt’(ANEtWb.344)
322
ForP
iniandLatinandGreekauthorsonquantity,seeAllen(1953:15-6).
323
Forexamplesoftheablaut*:e:Ø:o:,seeSzemerényi(1996:84-7).
142
§1.SimilarexamplesoftheablautPIE*:*o:Ø:*e:*caneasilybeextractedfrom
thedata:
(a)ped-‘Fuß(boden),Platz’(vb.)‘gehen,fallen’(P.790-2)
*pd-
*pod-
*pd-
*ped-
*pd-
:
:
:
:
:
Do.D[sgN],Go.fotus[sgN](=RV.p
dú-)
Gr.B74[sgA],Li.pãdas[sgN],i.pada#[sgN]
Gr.b574<[plN],LAv.fra·bda-,LAv.a·bda-(AIWb.96)
Gr.87|[prep.],Arm.het[sgN],Lat.pedis[sgG]
Lat.ps[sgN],Li.pdà[sgN],Gr.:7|K[1sg]
(b)bher-‘bringen,tragen,usw.’(P.128-32)
*bhr-:
*bhor-:
*bhr- :
*bher- :
*bhr- :
Gr.HC‘Tief’,RV.bh
rá-(m.)‘Bürde,Last’(WbRV.933)
Gr.HCBD,Go.bar,OCS.s&·bor&,Lat.fors
Gr.7·HCBD,LAv.bTrTt-,OPers.hu·barta-,RV.bhÎtí-
Hom.H}CF8[2pl],Lat.fert,RV.bhárti,gAv.barTt%
Go.berum(GoEtD.57),RV.³bh
r-(WbRV.961)
(c)ueºh-‘bewegen,ziehen,fahren’(P.1118-20)
*uºh-:
*uoºh-:
*uºh- :
*ueºh-:
*uºh-:
OInd.v
háyati(orwithPIE*asinMidHG.w
gen?)
Gr.(ß)pI}K[1sg],Go.ga-wagjan[inf.],OIcl.vagn[sgN])
RV.ní(..)uh-(WbRV.1243,ní(...)uhta[opt3sg])
Lat.ueh,Pamph.ß8I}FK,Li.ve(ù,LAv.vaza-
Go.weg-,Lat.ux,RV.áv
,OCS.vs&
There is no laryngeal in Old Anatolian (see i. lag-, i. pada-, HLu. uaza-
respectively) or any other factor that could explain the common Indo-European
quantityandquality,excepttheablautPIE*:e:Ø:o:itself,whichmusttherefore
reflecttheoriginalstateofaffairs.
§2.SomeofthevowelsofthefullablautPIE*:*o:Ø:*e:*maybeabsentfrom
the attested data. Thus, for instance, the root P. *sekÒ- ‘sehen’ (897-8) has the
vocalizations PIE*(Go.seSu), PIE*e(Go.saiSan‘sehen’), PIEØ(OIr.ro·sc(m.)
‘Auge, Blick’) and PIE *o (Go. saS). The existence of PIE * remains unproven,
becausetherootvowelofi.#akua-[plNA](n.)‘Augen’isambiguous(either PIE*o
or *). In order to account for such gaps, the complete solution for the ablaut
problem,consistingoftherulesgoverningthealternation PIE*:*o:Ø:*e:*,is
requiredinthefuture.
§3. Ever after the Sanskrit grammarians,324 numerous attempts have been made to
derive the ablaut vowels from each other.325 As pointed out already by Courtenay
(1894:53f.), the accent must be excluded as the cause of PIE *o-grade (see also
324
Szemerényi (1996:111) writes: “[...] the Indian grammarians in their theory of vowel gradation
startedfromthezerogradeasthebasicformandaccountedfortheothertwogradesasarisingfromit
bysuccessiveadditionsofa.”
325
Theterm‘ablaut’,coinedbyJacobGrimm,suggestsaremovaland/orreplacementofvowelinthe
rootandshould,therefore,beunderstoodasaconventiononly.
143
Szemerényi1996:121).Generallyspeaking,theexistenceofthefivedistinctions(PIE
**eØ*o*)doesnotofferanypossibilityofreducingthesystem;thisis
becausenoreductionhashappened.Theonlyviewthatdoesnotleadtoinconsistency
istheoriginalityoftheablaut PIE*:*o:Ø:*e:*,sincenoviolationof exnihilo
nihilensues:thezerogradeisnota‘weakening’(Schwächung)ofPIE*e,nordoesPIE
*oreplace PIE*eunderanyconditions,butthefivevocalizationsreflecttheoriginal
stateofaffairs.326
§4. As is obvious from Szemerényi’s (1996:92n1) recent comment concerning the
absence of any purely descriptive account of the Proto-Indo-European ablaut, the
currentstateofresearchremainsfarfromitsgoalsinthisparticularregard.327Asthe
main obstacle – the laryngeal problem – has been solved, the corner has also been
turnedintermsoftheanalysisofthePIEablaut.Inordertoillustratetheresulting
transparency,Iquoteacoupleofwell-knownwordswithPIE*:*o:Ø:*e:*:
(a) PIE*pa·ter-‘father’(P.829,Neogr.*pTter, LT*ph2ter).ThefullablautPIE*:
*o:Ø:*e:*hasbeenpreservedforthesuffix,asindicatedin:328
*pa·tr-
4F~C
*pa·ter-
4F}C8D
*pa·tr-
4FCD
*pa·tor-
8t·|FBC8D
*pa·tr-
8t·|FKC
Fortheroot PIE*pa-(usuallyonlycomparedintermsofthevocalismsLat.pater:
RV.pitár-),numerousotherablautvocalizationsareactuallyattested:
PIE*pea-
gAv.patar-(m.)‘Vater’(AIWb.905,patarÖm[sgA])
PIE*poa-
Osc.7<·BF8C<-(m.)‘Iuppiter’(WbOU185-6,7<BF8C8D)
PIE*p/a- TochB.p
cer-(sb.)‘father’(DTochB.365,p
cera[NA])
329
PIE*p/a- TochA.p
car-(m.)‘pater’(Poucha165) PIE*pa-
gAv.fTdr-(m.)‘Vater’(AIWb.905,fTdri[sgD])
(b) PIE*eÀÒo-‘horse’(P.301-2).Inadditiontotheoft-quotedvocalism PIE*e(Lat.
equus:RV.á!va),thereisan*o-graderootform PIE*oÀu-confirmedbymultiple
witnesses:
Li.a#và-
HLu.a#ua- Thrac.BGF·|E<B-
OPr.aswina- (f.)‘Stute’(LiEtWb.20,a#và[sgN])
(c.)‘Pferde’(CHLu.10.42.4,(EQUUS)á-sù-wa/i-za)
(PNm.)‘-(?)-’(P.301,BGF·|E<BD[sgN])
(n.)‘Kobilmilch’(LiEtWb.20,aswinan[sgNA])
ThecorrespondingvÎddhiisattestedinPIE*Àu-‘Roß’:
326
Szemerényi(1996:83)writes:“Vowelalternationsofthiskind[=PIE*:e:Ø:o:]arefoundin
theotherIndo-Europeanlanguagesalso.Astheycorrespondexactlyintheirbasicschemeandcannot
beexplainedwithinthehistoriesoftheindividuallanguages,theymustnecessarilybe inheritedfrom
Indo-European.”
327
Forbasicproblemsoftheablautintheliterature,seeSzemerényi(1996:83n1).
328
Seealso,forexample,PIE*anr-‘man,person’inGr.\@~C:\@}C4:RV.nË-:\@BC}4:\6~@KC
(GEW1:107-8).
329
Lat.pap
t-(m.)‘Erzieher’(WH2:249)impliesthebasePIE*pa-,whichcouldalsobecontained
inTochAB.p
-(andforwhichPIE*pa-alsoremainspossible,however).
144
RV.
!ú-
HLu.asu-
i.a#u·#ani- (m.)‘Roß’(WbRV.187-8,
!ú[N],
!um[A])
(sb.)‘horse’(CHLu.1.1.8,EQUUS.ANIMAL-sù)
(LÚc.)‘Pferdetrainer(ofKikkuli-)’(HHand.28)
If the quality PIE *e of OPers. asa·b
ra- (m.) ‘horseman’ (OldP. 173) matches with
thecorrespondinglongvowelin
OPers.hu·
sa·b
ra- (m.)‘goodhorseman’(OldP.177,uv
sab
ra[sgN]),
thestem*Àu-isalsodocumented.Finally,thezero-graderootisattestedin
LAv.aZwarT·spa-
(m.)‘EN.einesGläubigen’(AIWb.578).330
Thus,aswiththeroot PIE*pa-,remnantsofpracticallyallfiveablautvocalizations
havebeenpreserved.
§5. Laroche (DLL 134 [§16.]) mentions the alternation i. e : CLu. a in Old
Anatolian:“Lelouvitealevocalisme a,enfaceduhittite e/idanslesmots: a-‘être’:
hitt. e-. –wa- ‘vêtir’ : Hitt. we- [...].” While Laroche’s observation is admittedly
correct,itdoesnotwarrantpositingofthesoundlawPIE*e,CLu.a,HLu.a.
(a)ThereareHittiteformswith/a/directlycorrespondingtotheLuwianones(cf.i.
a#-‘sein’=CLu.a#-,i.ua#-‘bekleiden’=CLu.ua#-,etc.).TheHittiteformscannot
beexplainedwithasoundlawbecauseformswithi.earesimultaneouslypreserved
(respectively,i.e#-,ue#-).
(b)ThereareLuwianformswithpreservedPIE*eand/orPIE*:
CLu.#eual- HLu.satara-
HLu.ARHAlsa-
(n.)‘Lampe’(?)(HEG2:977,1090oder‘Dolch’?)
(sb.)‘throne’(CHLu.1.1.16,(“THRONUS”)i-sà-tara/i-ti)
(vb.)‘separate,delimit’(CHLu.5.2.2,li-sa-ha[1sg])
Intheseexamples,CLu.e(=HLu.e)isalsoparalleledbyi.e:
i.e#a-
i.l#a-
(vb.)‘sichsetzen’(HEG1:77,e-#a)
(vb.)‘(auf)lesen,sammeln,aufräumen’(HEG2:64)
In such circumstances, Lu. a = i. a and Lu. e = i. e; no sound law PIE *e, CLu.a,HLu.acanbepostulated.LuwianhadatendencytopreserverootswithPIE
*Ê instead of PIE *· (as is the case, for instance, in Aeolian Greek), but even this
remainsuncertain,owingtotherelativelysmallcorpusofLuwian.
§6.Szemerényi(1996:41)supportsthesuggesteddevelopmentPIE*eLat.obefore
PIE*uin
OLat.nouos‘new’
:
Gr.@8(ß)D‘new’
(P.769).
Despite the undeniable Lat. o : Gr. 8, it is noteworthy that Lat. o is paralleled by
multiplelanguagesthatalsoimplyPIE*o,namely:
OCS.nov&
(a.)‘neu’(Sadnik583,nov&[m],novo[n.],nova[f.])
330
For the border of segmentation in LAv. aZwarT·spa- compare LAv. aZwarT.zangra- (a.)
‘vierfüssig’(AIWb.578).
145
TochB.naw
ke
(m.sg.)‘novice’(DTochB.331,naw
ke)
OGaul.nouio·d%no- (URUn.)‘Neuenburg,Neustad’(LiEtWb.488)
Li.na$ja-
(a.)‘neu’(LiEtWb.487,na$jas[sgN])
Since PIE *e is excluded, it is simpler (viz. Occam’s razor) to understand Lat. o as
original and explain the alternation PIE *neÒo- : *noÒo- with an ablaut. Such an
alternation, resulting in root variants that only differ in terms of PIE *e/o, is
commonplaceintheallIndo-Europeanlanguagesthatpreservesuchdistinctions:
(a)leu-,lou-‘waschen,baden,usw.’(P.692)
LinB.>8ßBFCB·IBßB- (m.)‘bath-pourer’(GEW2:138,re-wo-to-ro-ko-wo)
Hom.>Bß8FC-
(n.)‘dasBad,derBadeort’(GEW2:138,>B8FC@)
(b)leuk-,louk-‘leuchten’(P.687-690)
OGaul.leucetio-
OGaul.loucetio-
(m.)‘marsl.=G.desBlitzes’(ACSS.2:194)
(m.)‘marsl.=G.desBlitzes’(ACSS.2:194)
(c)teku-,toku-‘fliessen,laufen’(P.1059)
OCS.teenije OCS.toenije (n.)‘dasFliessen,Fluss,Lauf,Gehen’(Sadnik953)
(n.)‘dasFliessen,Fluss’(Sadnik953)
The provability of two distinct vowel qualities PIE *e PIE *o in all languages (in
Indo-Iranian through the second palatalization) is now confirmed by Brugmann’s
LawII,necessitatingPIE*oinPIE*oCVOIIr.*
CV.Accordingly,studyofthePIE
vowelsystemisshiftingfromthelaryngealistpre-proto-languagewithafundamental
*e331tothefullablautPIE*:e:Ø:o:.
2 .5.3 ProtheticablautPIE*:*o:Ø:*e:* 332 §0.Theterm‘protheticvowel’,conventionallyreferringtothealternationofvowelsin
root-initial position, has been outdated ever since the emergence of Old Anatolian.
Properlyspeaking,thetermerroneouslyconnectstwodistinctsubsets:
(a) The prothetic vowels proper, referring to root-initial vowels PIE *·· Ø· *Ê·
withoutalaryngeal(i.e.roots*··C-,Ø·C*Ê·C-),and
(b)TherootsbeginningwiththelaryngealPIE*oftheshape*·C-,*C-*ÊC-.
Thenecessarydistinctionbetweenthesubsetsisdrawninthisstudybyrestrictingthe
term ‘prothetic vowel’ only to the roots (a) and by using the descriptive term
‘laryngealroot’fortheitemsbelongingto(b).
331
Møller (1906:xiv) writes: “Es gibt im Indogermanischen nur a-Wurzeln (oder, wenn man fürs
Indogermanische lieber will, e-Würzeln, was für die Sache dasselbe), den semitischen a-Wurzeln
entsprechend.”
332
For the prothetic vowels, see Szemerényi (1996:129-30), Schwyzer (GrGr. 1.411-413) and Anttila
(1969:89).
146
§1. According to a convention dating back to the Neogrammarians, the prothetic
vowels are prefixes. The prothetic vowels (see Szemerényi 1996:§6.4.7.3) have been
preservedespeciallyinArmenian(Grundr21:433)andinGreek(Grundr21:436),but
scatteredremnantsappearpracticallyinallbranches.TheoutdatedNeogrammarian
terminology,occasionallyallowedtorefertoprothetic*aaswell,canbecorrectedby
restricting the prothetic vowels (symbol ·) to the pure vocalic prefixes without a
laryngeal,asexpressedbythedefinition
·
R
PIE*e·
*·
*o·
*·
(‘isaprotheticvowel’).
Asforkeyfeaturesoftheprotheticvowels,notethefollowing:
(a) In Greek (the language with the most documentation of prothetic vowels), an
internalalternationbetweenprotheticvowelsandzero(:Ø)iscommonplace:Gr.
I;}D = b·I;8D; Gr. =}>>K : p·=}>>K : Gr. ;}>K : b·;}>K, Gr. b·=8@BD : =8@BD (see
Schwyzer(GrGr.413)fortheseandadditionalexamples).Thisistosay,theprothesis
representstheprefixbydefinition.
(b) The alternation : Ø is externally confirmed by the disagreement of Armenian
andGreekprotheticvowels.Thus,ononehand,theprotheticvowelArm.e·appears
withoutanycorrespondingreflexinGreek:
PIE»a-‘gehen,usw.’(P.463-5)
Gr.5|-
Li.gó- Arm.ek-
Arm.ek
(vb.)‘walk,step,etc.’(LSJ.302,5|F:@[3du])
(vb.)‘gehen’(LiEtWb.161,góti[inf.])
(sb.)‘Ankunft’(ArmGr.1:441,*i-stem)
(sb.)‘CBE~>GFBD,arrivedat’(ArmGr.1:441)
Ontheotherhand,Greekcanhaveaprotheticvowelwithoutacorrespondingitemin
otherprotheticlanguages:
PIEla-‘treiben,fahren,gehen’(P.306-7)
lea-
i.laa-
TochB.la-
TochB.la-
Arm.l-
(c.)‘Feldzug,Reise’(HEG2:8,la-a-a-a[Dir.])
(vb.)‘exithouse’(Krause1952:192,lat[2sg])
(vb.)‘emerge,comeout’(DTochB.552,la[3sg]) (ao.)‘hinausgehen,hervorgehen’(ArmGr.441,el[3sg])
ela-
Arm.el-
Do.b·>|-
MidCymr.e·lw-
(sb.)‘Ausgang,Aufgang’(ArmGr.441)
(vb.tr.)‘treiben’(GEW1:482,Cos.b>|FK[3sg])
(vb.)‘gehen’(MidCymr.elwynt[conj.3pl.])
Diagnosticallythereisnolaryngeal(oranytraceofavowel)inOldAnatolian,which
securesthetraditionalinterpretationofprotheticvowels.
§2. A competing explanation for the prothetic vowels emerged when Møller (1880)
suggestedthatthetraditionalrootsNeogr.*eC-,oC-,aC-,reflectingtheProto-IndoSemiticrootstructureC1C2·(C3),mustcontaintworadicalconsonantsandbeofthe
147
form LT EeC-, AeC-, and ÔeC-.333 According to this interpretation, the prothetic
vowelsprovidedirectevidenceofthe“laryngeals”h1h2h3.Thoughtrueoftheroots
Neogr. *aC- (i.e. PIE *aeC, *eaC), the automatic replacement of prothetic
vowelsPIE*·C,C,ÊC334withthelaryngeals†h1and†h3iserroneous:
(a)Szemerényi(1967:92-93)iscorrectinstatingthat“[...]thereisnointrinsicreason
whyweshouldattempttoreduceall[P]IE‘roots’toasingletri-phonemicpatternof
theCVC-type[...]”.HealsodoeswelltodenythattheSemitictypology“isbindingfor
[P]IE.”
(b) The replacement of prothetic vowels with †h1eC and †h3eC is a violation of the
ruleofambiguity:as PIE*eC,*oC(withoutlaryngeal)ispossible,noreconstructive
postulateslike†h1and†h3areallowed(becausethiswouldleadtoinconsistency).
(c) The postulation of the laryngeals †h1 and †h3 based on the prothetic vowels is a
violationof exnihilonihil,becauseinthemidmostterm(zerograde)oftheprothetic
patternPIE*·C,C,ÊCthereisnotraceofalaryngealorvowelinprotheticlanguages
including Old Anatolian; the “laryngeals” †h1 and †h3 are falsified by the data. The
root PIEs-‘be’(P.340-2),whichappearswiththeprotheticstem PIE*es-,iswritten
†
LT h1es- on the basis of the Proto-Indo-Semitic root hypothesis. Against this,
however,itmaybenoted:
1.InGreek(aprotheticlanguage),thereisnotraceofaninitiallaryngealinthe
identitycorrectlyreconstructedalreadybyWaldeandHoffmann:
*senti Do.(h)b@F,Umbr.sent:Go.sind:RV.sánti(WH2:628-9).
2. In Old Anatolian, a prothetic vowel is likewise absent in Hieroglyphic
Luwian:335
HLu.sa-
(vb.)‘tobe’(CHLu.2.34.1,sa-tú[3sg],10.17.6,sa-ta[3pl],etc.).
In these contexts, the laryngealist rule is of the unacceptable form Ø †h1. And in
thisconnectionitshouldbenotedthatfollowingthediscoveryoftheOldAnatolian
languages,itwasimmediatelyobviousthatMøller’s*E(=*h1)hadnocounterpartin
Anatolian. Since Kuryowicz (1927), the laryngeal theory has interpreted336 the
scenarioasa‘loss’ofthelaryngeal
†
h1Oi.Ø i.e-e#-zi‘is’(HEG1:76)=Gr.bEF‘is’(P.340-342),
333
Benveniste(1935:152)writes:“La‘prothèsevocalique’dugrecetdel’arménienadonc,aumoinsen
partie,unfondementétymologique:c’estlerested’uneinitialeT-antéconsonantiquedansuneracine
suffixéeàl’étatII.”
334
SeeMessingapudAnttila(1969:89):“[...]onecannotrelyontheprotheticvoweltoalwaysreflecta
laryngeal(e.g.Messing191).”
335
Note that in most of the examples belonging here, there is no ‘initial-a-final’ , but the prothetic
vowelisentirelyabsent.SeeHawkins(2003:159-161).
336
Eichner (1973:53) writes: “Uridg. H1 wird in den anatolischen Sprachen in allen überzeugenden
EtymologienlediglichdurchNull.”Forexamples,seeEichner(1973:54-55).
148
but in the face of the reverse IE Ø †h1 it must be noted that †h1 was incorrectly
postulated.337
(d) The laryngealist postulation of †h1 and †h3 is based on a misinterpretation of
incomplete data through a direct comparison of unequal ‘prothetic’and ‘nonprothetic’ forms. In this procedure, the prefixed and prefixless forms are directly
comparedinspiteoftheexistenceofprotheticvowelsin‘non-prothetic’languagesas
well.Toillustratethispoint,onemaycitethe LTconstructionforapresentparticiple
oftheroot*s-‘tobe’:
Gr.b@F-(LinB.e(h)ont-)=RV.sánt-(gAv.hant-) LT*h1sónt-.
However, both the prefixed (PIE *esont-) and prefixless (PIE *sont-) participles are
paralleledbyatleasttwowitnesses,andthereforetheyaregenuine:
PIE*sont-
PIE*esont-
Gr.(h)r@F-(pt.),RV.sánt-(pt.),gAv.hant-,OLi.sant(pt.f.)
Gr.b(h)@F-,LinB.e-o[sgN],e-o-te[plN],Li.¢sti-(pt.f.)
(e) From the comparative point of view, the laryngeal theory overgenerates quasiroots with obsolete root radicals, thus systematically misleading the etymology. In
ordertoillustratethis,Ioffersomethree-laryngealistconstructionsobtainedthough
theSemiticrootaxiom:
i.amiant-
HLu.auli-
i.ade#-
CLu.ela-
i.aladari-
(pt.a.)‘small’ (c.)‘hammer’ (n.)‘axe’
(vb.)‘wash’ (.)‘Obstküchen?’
:CeC·.-
:CeC·.-
:CeC·.-
:CeC·.-
:CeC·.-
O
O
O
O
O
†
LT
h3em·i-
h1/3eh2·u-
†
LT h3dh·es-
†
LT h1el·h2-
†
LT h3eT·oTori-
†
LT
The generation of the quasi-roots LT h3em- h1/3eh2- h3edh- h1el- h3eT- is
completely misleading, because such items suggest that problems are being solved
while in reality the real (comparative) etymologies are left unstudied. The latter,
however,canbeachievedbysegmentingtheprotheticprefixes:
1.mi-‘klein,schwach’(P.711)338
LAv.maya- i.a·meiant- Osc.min-
Gr.?<@·KCB-
Gr.?<@;K (pr.)‘zuGrunderichten’(AIWb.1141,mayaÐ[3sg])
(pt.a.)‘klein,schwach’(HEG1:22,a-mi-ia-an-za[sgN])
(a.)‘klein’(WH2:92,min[sgN])
(a.)‘kurzeZeitlebend’(GEW2:242,?<@KCBD)
(vb.tr.)‘verkleinern,vermindern’(GEW2:242)
2.aul-‘schlagen,kämpfen;Hämmer,Hammer’
i.ula-
HLu.a·uli- (vb.)‘schlagen,bekämpfen’(HEG1:275,u-ul-la-i)
(c.)‘hammer’(CHLu.12.1.4,(“MALLEUS”)á-hu-li-na)
337
Hendriksen (1941:43) explains: “Bei den Beurteilung der -losen Wörter könnte man auf den
Gedankenkommen,dasssiekeinenLaryngalenhaltenhaben.”
338
Forthisetymology,Seebold(1988:510)writes:“Heth.amijant-‘klein’gehörtwohlzu.1.minususw.,
sodaßtrotzgr.minvon*(e)mi-‘klein(er),mind(er)’auszugehenist.”
149
OPr.%lin-
(cs.)‘kämpfen’(APrS.453,%lint[inf.],HEG1:275)
3.dhes-(sb.)‘Axt,Beil’(a.)‘scharf,spitz’(P.272)
i.a·de#-
OEng.a·desa Gr.;B(h)- OInd.dh
sa- Gr.F8;(h)K- ((URUDU)n.)‘Axt,Beil’(HEG1:94,HHand.29)
(m.)‘addice,adze,ascia’(ASaxD.7)
(a.)‘scharf,spitz’(GEW1:678,;BD[sgN])
(m.)‘Berg’(EWA3:278dh
sas[sgN])
(pf.)‘zuspitzen’(GEW1:678,F8;BK?}@BD[pt.])
4.lodh-‘Frau,geburt,Frucht,Erfolg,usw.’
i.a·ladari- i.ladari- HLu.ARAlada-
OIcl.l-
Lyc.lada-
Rus.láda
(NINDAc.)‘Obstküchen?’(HEG.1:15)
(NINDAc.)‘Obstküchen’(HEG.1:15)
(vb.)‘prosper,begoodto’(CorpHLu.10.16.1,la-tà-ta)
(f.n.)‘Ertrag,Frucht’(ANEtWb.362,l[sgN])
5.la-‘waschen,gießen,schütten’(HEG2:3-8)
CLu.e·la-
i.la-
i.lau-
Lat.l
u-
(vb.)‘(rein)waschen’(DLL36,e-el-a-a-du[3sg])
(vb.)‘gießen,schütten’(CHDL:4,la-a-a[2sg])
(vb.)‘gießen,schütten’(HEG2:15,la-u-u-i)
(pf.)‘waschen,reinigen’(WH1:773ff.,l
u[1sg])
In this manner, the laryngeal theory misleads the Indo-European etymology. Better
resultsaregainedbyfollowingthecomparativemethod.
§3.TheprotheticvowelscanbeunderstoodasaspecialcaseofablautPIE*:*e:Ø:
*o:*inroot-initialposition,illustratedherewiththeprotheticbasesoftheroot
PIEs-‘tobe’:
PIE*s- Gr.iE;4[2sg],Lyc.:EFB[3sg],RV.³sa[3sg],gAv.åharÖ[3pl]
PIE*es- i.e#zi[3sg],Gr.bEF,Li.¢sti,OPr.est,Umbr.est,Go.ist
PIE*Ês-CLu.a#ta[3sg],HLu.asta,OPr.asmai,ast,Northumbr.aron[3pl]
PIE*s·(C)gAv.hv
[1du],TochB.ste[3sg],RV.smá[1pl],Lat.sis[2sg]
PIE*s·(e)Dor.b@F[3pl],Umbr.sent[3pl],Go.sind,RV.sánti,gAv.hTnt
PIE*s·(o)HLu.satu,Lat.sunt,OCS.sVt[3pl],Gr.r@F-[pt],OLi.sant[pt.]
§4. Some additional examples of the prefixes PIE * : *e : Ø : *o : * (without a
laryngeal)are:
(a)su-‘gut’(ablaut*su-,*·su,*Êsu,P.342&1037-8)
i.a#u-
Gr.b(h)3-
Gr.b3·h@:FB- Gr.f3-
i.#u·mili- RV.sú-
(a.)‘gut’(n.)‘HabundGut’(HEG1:87,a-a#-#u)
(a.)‘gut,wacker,tüchtig’(GEW1:594-5,b3D[sgN])
(a.)‘gutgesponnen’(Gr.b3@@:FBD[sgN])
(a.)‘gut,wacker,tüchtig’(DELG338-9,f3[sgNA])
(a.)‘wohlgeordnet’(HEG2:1135,#u-u-mi-li-i#[sgN])
(pref.)‘gut,wohl,recht,schön’(EWA3:478-80)
150
(b)r-‘erheben’(ablaut*r-,*or-,*er-,P.326-32)
Gr.dC8/B-
i.ara-
Gr.rCKC-
RV.Îvá-
(vb.)‘sicherheben’(GEW2:422,dC8FB[3sg])
(vb.)‘sicherheben’(HEG1:52,a-ra-a-i[3sg])
(pf.)‘sicherheben’(GEW2:422,rCKC4[1sg])
(a.)‘erhaben,hoch,emporragend’(WbRV.294)
(c)s-‘sitzen’(ablaut*·s-*Ês-and*(·/Ê)s·s-*(·/Ê)sÊs-,P.342-3)
i.e#- Gr.=4F·}h-
HLu.as-
RV.³s-
LAv.aha-
Gr.hE-
i.a#a#-
i.a#e#-
i.e#e#-
HLu.satar-
i.a#atar-
(vb.)‘sitzen,sichsetzen’(HEG1:110-1,e-#a[3sg])
(vb.)‘sitzen’(GEW1:633-4,=4F·}4F4<[3pl])
(vb.)‘tosit’(CHLu.2.11.10,(SOLIUM)á-sa-tá[3pl])
(pr.)‘sitzen’(EWA1:181,WbRV.188-9,³sate[3pl])
(m.)‘Lager,Lagerstätte’(AIWb.106,ahaÐ[sgAbl])
(vb.)‘sitzen’(GEW1:633-4,jEF4<[3sg]NPIE*ss-)
(vb.)‘setzenlassen’(HHand.26,a-#a-a#-i[1sg]
(vb.)‘setzenlassen’(HHand.26,a-#e-#a-an-zi[3pl])
(vb.)‘setzenlassen’(HEG1:110f.,e-#e-#er[3pl]
(sb.)‘throne’(CHLu.1.1.16,(“THRONUS”)i-sà-tara/i-ti)
(N.act.)‘dasSitzen,Sitz’(HHand.26,a-#a-tar[sgNA])
(d)rºh-‘Hode’(ablaut*orºh-,*erºh-,*rºh-,P.782,WP.1:83)
i.argi-
Gr.rCI<-
Arm.orji-
Li.aÌ(ila-
Li.eÌ(ila-
LAv.TrTzi-
(c.)‘Hode’(HEG1:60,ar-ki-i-e#-kán)
(m.)‘Hode’(GEW2:433-4,rCI<D[sgN])
(a.)‘nichtkastriert’(pl.)‘Hoden’(ArmGr1:483,orji-k‘)
(m.)‘Hengst’(LiEtWb.123-4,aÌ(ilas[sgN])
(m.)‘Hengst’(LiEtWb.123-4,eÌ(ilas[sgN])
(m.)‘Hodensack’(du.)‘Hoden’(AIWb.352)
(e)rkÒ-‘singen,beten,bitten’(ablaut*orkÒ-,*erkÒ-,*rkÒ-P.340)
i.arkuai-
i.arkuar-
RV.árca-
RV.Ëk-
RV.Ëkva-
(vb1.)‘beten,bitten’(HEG1:60-1,ar-ku-ua-it[3sg])
(n.)‘Gebet’(HEG1:60-1,ar-ku-ua-ar[sgNA])
(pr1.)‘(lob)singen,usw.’(WbRV.110,árcati[3sg])
(f.)‘Lied’(KEWA1:50,118,WbRV.278,Ëcam[A])
(a.)‘singend’(WbRV.277)
(f)pi-nähe,hinter,hinten’(ablaut*pi-*opi,*epi-,P.323-5,HEG1:41-43)339
LinB.opi
Gr.pEEK
i.apizia-
Gr.<-
OInd.pi-
Gr.d<
(prepD.)‘around,upon,after’(DMycGr.402,o-pi)
(adv.)‘nachhinten,hernach’(GEW2:404,pEEK)
(adv.)‘hinterer,letzter,geringer’(HEG1:46-7)
(pref.)(GEW1:535,inGr.<·}9K,F·GI~)
(pref.)‘api’(MonWil.44,inpi-dÎbh-,pi-nah-,pi-dh
-)
(prep.adv.)‘dazu,dabei,auf,an,bei’(GEW1:535)
339
The unextended root PIE p- (*ep-, *op-, *p-, *p-) appears with *o-grade in i. apa ‘hinter,
zurück’(Li.ap-)andOsc.op(prepAbl.)‘bei’(WbOU.799-800).
151
RV.ápi
(adv.)‘auch,dazu’(WbRV.75-6)
(g)r-‘gelangen,ankommen,kommenzu’(ablaut*er-,*or-,*r-,P.326-329)
i.er- i.ar- RV.úd(...)ar-
RV.ra-
(1.)‘gelangennach,kommenzu’(HHand.20,e-ru-e-ni)
(vb2.)‘gelangen,ankommen’(HEG1:48-9,a-ar-i)
(aoM.)‘sichbewegen’(WbRV.98-101,úd(...)
rta)
(vbM.)‘sichbewegen’(WbRV.98-101,ranta[3pl])
(h)erºh-,orºh-‘bewegen’(P.328&339)
i.arga-
Gr.pCI}B-
OIr.erg-
Alb.erdha
Gr.dCIB?4<
(vb2M.)bespringen’(HEG1:59,ar-ga-ru[3sg])
(pr.)‘tanzen’(GEW2:433,pCI}B?4<[1sg])
(vb)‘gehen’(DIL268&584f.,eirg[ipv2sg])
(pret.)‘Ichkam’(Meyer1896:96,erdha[1sg])
(pr.)‘kommen,gehen,wandern’(GEW1:572)
(i)r·(s)-‘Hinterer,After,Gesäß’(ablaut*ers-,*ors-,*ros-,P.340)
i.ara-
i.ar#a
Gr.rCCB-
OIcl.ars
Arm.o
OIr.err
OIcl.ras-
(UZUc.)‘After,Gesäß’(HEG1:51-2,ar-ra-an[sgA])
(adv.)‘nachhinten’(HHand.25)
(m.)‘Hinterer,After’(GEW2:427,Ion.rCEB-[cpd.])
(m.)‘Arsch,After’(ANEtWb.14,ars[sgN])
(sb.)‘Arsch’(ArmGr.1:482,o,o-k[pl.])
(f.)‘Schwanz,Ende’(VGK2:101,PCelt.*ers
-)
(m.)‘Arsch,After’(ANEtWb.14,rass[sgN]N*roso-)
2 .5.4 AblautPIE*:*o:Ø:*e:*withPIE*a,*a
§0.TheablautNeogr.*´:*Ê340isasubsetoftheablautPIE*·:Ø:*Êinenvironment
PIE *a *a. This ablaut type has caused severe difficulties both for the
Neogrammarianslackingthepatternandfortheextremelaryngealtheorieswithout
PIE*o.However,itmaybenoted:
§1.TheablautNeogr.*a:owasrecognized,butexplainedasanirregularassimilation
byBrugmann(Grundr21:153)inexampleslike
Hom.r@4C‘Traum’ :Cypr.^@4<CBD‘Traum’,Arm.anurW‘Traum’.
This neglects to take into consideration, however, that Greek regularly never
assimilatesthevowels4andB(cf.Schwyzer,GrGr2:254-6).Inaddition,theablaut
Neogr. *´ : Ê is definitively attested with the phenomenon being a regular (and not
340
For the ablaut ‘a : o’, see Peters (1980:1ff.), Hirt (1921:§§190-1), Kuryowicz (1935:111-112;
1956:167-), Pedersen (1938:179-82), Lindeman (1997:45-48), Beekes 1972 and 1976, Cowgill
(1965:145f.), Lindeman (1982:22f.), Saussure (Mém. 135), Martinet 1953 and (1955:212-234), Hirt
(1900:161-163; 1921:185-186), Schmitt-Brandt (1967:36-38), Szemerényi (1967: 83-84), Polomé 1950
andSchwyzer(GrGr.1:340).
152
sporadic)development.341FortheNeogrammarians,therefore,theproblemwasthe
absence of an ablaut pattern governing the alternations of ‘a- and ovocalisms’(exceptforNeogr.*:Tand*
:T).
§2. In his early article of 1877, Saussure had hinted at a connection between the
ablautGr.^6K:r6?BDandthecoefficient*A(seeRec.384).Inhis Mémoire(1878),
however, he discarded this correct supposition and ended up with the two
‘coefficients’ *A, Ô and the fundamental vowel *e. This would have far-reaching
consequencesforthestudyasawhole.Whethercausedornotbytheunavailabilityof
the colouring rules (subsequently presented by Møller), the fact remains that
Saussure did not posit *Aeº- : *Aoº- for Gr. ^6K : r6?BD etc., which would have
solvedtheablautproblemwithasinglecoefficient*A.342
§3.Thelaryngealtheorywiththefundamentalvowel*eisunabletoreconstructthe
ablautNeogr.*´:*Ê,owingtotheabsenceoftheoriginal PIE*Ê.Anexampleofthis
is included in Benveniste’s (1935:149) postulation of the traditional root *ost-
‘Bein’(P.783)withLT‘T3est-’in:
i.a#tai-
Gr.pEF}B-
(n.)’Knochen,usw.’(HEG1:237-,a-a#-ta-a-i[sgNA])
(n.)‘Bein’(GEW2:436,pEF}B@[sgNA])
However,‘T3’isimpossiblehere,duetoNeogr.*ainGr.\EF4=D‘Meerkrebs’,OIr.
asnai‘ribs’,aswellasotherformsimplyingPIE*aandPIE*e:ofortheroot.343
§4.Allegedexamplesof*h3,ifnotbelongingtotheablautNeogr.*·:Ø:*Êwithout
a laryngeal, can be shown to ablaut according to the pattern Neogr. *´ : *Ê. This
distributionimpliesthatthelaryngealLT†h3doesnotexist,withtheconsequencethat
the o-vocalism of the Indo-European languages always reflects PIE *o, . This rule
substantially simplifies the reconstruction of the PIE vocalism in a manner detailed
below.
§5.IntermsofSystemPIE,theearlyablaut*´:*Êcanbedefinedastheoutcomeof
theablautPIE*Ê:*o:Ø:*e*andPIE*a*a,asexpressedintheformula:
ABLAUT+*a/a
R
(*:*o:Ø:*e:*)a/a(*:o:Ø:*e:*).
341
Forthealternation4:BasaGreekphenomenoncf.alsoGr.\JB@:FCEKB@asArm.a’-k’:
Gr.r-‘Auge’,etc.
342
Ontheotherhand,accordingtoMøller(1880:486),SaussureacceptedNeogr.*=oA:“Nachdem
aber,waswirvonF.deSaussure,Syst.prim.138,gelernthaben,dasssichzuverhältwiee+cons.zu
a+cons.[...]das--desfemininsistentstandenaus-eA-,das-aus-oA.”Clearly,ambiguityiscaused
by the identical outcome of DS. *eO = *oA. This was explained correctly by Møller (1880:493n2):
“SaussureselementÔhatindenmeistenderwörter,denenerdasÔbeilegt,sichernichtbestanded,
undvielleichthatdaselementÔundalsoeineablautreihe::oüberhauptnichtexistiert.Inden
weitaus meisten fällen gehört nämlich dieses Ô in die A-reihe und ist nichts anderes als das von
Saussureselbsts.113f.inerwägunggezogene,aberschliesslichabgewiersene,‘unesimplealtération
gréco-italiquedeA’.”
343
Seebold(1988:519)writes:“ImfallederWeiterbildungerscheintdasdamitvorausgesetzte(ha-)im
Hethitischenalsha-,imGriechischenundArmenischenalsprotetischesa-,indenübigenSprachenals
ø. Das in einigen Gleichungen erscheinende o- der außer-anatolischen Sprachen läßt sich am
einfachstenaufeineAbtönungsstufeozurückführen.”
153
The remnants of the original pattern are still visible in cognates that preserve the
distinctionsNeogr.*´:*Ê,asshowninthetablebelow:
*a
—
i.a,a
Gr.4 Ital.a Arm.a
Celt.a Li.a Latv.a
*o
—
i.a,a
Gr.B Ital.o Arm.o
Celt.o
Li.a Latv.a
*
—
i.a,a
Do.4Ion.:
Ital.
Arm.a
Celt.
Li.o Latv.
*
—
i.a,a
Gr.K
Ital.
Arm.u
Celt.
Li.uo
Latv.uo
Examplesoftheablaut PIE*:o:Ø:e:inconnectionwith PIE*a,*a(suchas
PIE*a,*oa,*a*ea,*aand PIE*a,*ao,*a*ae,*a)willbepresented
below.
2 .5.5 PIE*ainablautPIE*a*oa*a*ea*a
§0. The root PIE Ca- in ablaut PIE * : o : Ø : e : is exemplified by the root PIE
da- ‘geben, schenken’ (P. 223-6). The five ablaut bases preserved by the IndoEuropeanlanguagesreflectPIE*da-*dea-*doa-*da-*da-directly.
§1.PIE*dea·(.)-‘geben’(ablaut:PIE*e)
Lat.d-
gAv.da-
Arm.ta-
RV.dá’a-
Gr.7|@BE- OInd.ddapa-
Lat.dto-
(vb.)‘geben,gewähren’(WH1:360-3,dare[inf.])
(vb.)‘geben’(AIWb.678,daidy
i[inf.])
(vb.)‘geben’(ArmGr1:496,ta-mk‘[1pl])
(vb.)‘geben’(WbRV.590,daam,dáas,daat[1-3sg])
(n.)‘Gabe,Darlehen’(GEW1:347,7|@BD[sgNA])
(ao.)‘geben’(MonWil.474,addapat[3sg])
(pf.pt.)‘gegeben’(WH1:360-3,datum=Fal.datu‘id.’)
The base PIE *dea·(.)- results, as expected, in a common Indo-European /a/ in
Neogr.*d-withoutcompensatorylengthening.
§2.PIE*doa·(.)-‘geben’(ablaut:PIE*o)
RV.dravio·dá-
Gr.7B-
OInd.d
paya-
Gr.\@F·7BE<-
RV.havyá·d
ti-
RV.d³ti·v
ra-
LAv.d
iti- Fal.dou-
Umbr.pur·doui-
(m.)‘Gutgebend’(WbRV.645)
(ao.)‘geben’(GEW1:388f.,7B:@[1sg])
(cs.)‘causetogive’(MonWil.474,withBRUG.II?)
(f.)‘antidote’(GEW1:388,\@F7BE<D[sgN])
(f.)‘Opfergabe’(WbRV.1657,withBRUG.II?)
(a.)‘gerngebend’(WbRV.592-3)
(f.)‘Geben,Schenken,Gewährung’(AIWb.727)
(vb.)‘geben,gewähren’(WH1:363,douiad[conj.3sg])
(vb.)‘porricit’(WH1:363,pur·douitu[3sg])
154
Cypr.7Bß}@4<
RV.d
váne (n.)‘zugeben’(GEW1:389,7Bß}@4<[inf.])
(n.)‘zugeben’(WbRV.596,d
váne[inf.])
The base PIE *doa- (Neogr. *do-) results in a short vowel, except in Indo-Iranian
opensyllables(BRUGMANN’SLAWII).344
§3.PIE*da·(.)-‘geben’(ablaut:PIE*)
Lat.d
-
Arm.ta-
Latv.dãva-
Li.dovanà-
(vb.)‘geben’(WH1:360,d
[ipv2sg],d
s[pr2sg])
(vb.)‘geben’(ArmGr1:496,tam[1sg])
(vb.)‘anbieten,schenken’(LiEtWb.112,dãvat[inf.])
(f.)‘Gabe’(LiEtWb.112,dovanà[sgN])
§4.PIE*da·(.)-‘geben’(ablaut:PIE*)
OLi.dúo-
Arm.tu-
Gr.77K-
Lat.dno-
RV.d³na-
Gr.7CB-
Lat.dt-
(vb.)‘geben’(LiEtWb.111-2,dúomi[1sg])
(ao.)‘geben’(ArmGr1:496,etu,Godel1975:72)
(vb.)‘geben’(GEW2:388-9,77K?<[1sg])
(n.)‘Gabe,Opfer’(WH1:360,dnum[sgNA])
(n.)‘Gabe,Geschenk’(WbRV.593,d³nam[sgN])
(n.)‘Gabe,Geschenk’(GEW1:430,7CB@[sgN])
(f.)‘Mitgift,Gabe’(WH1:360,ds[N],dtis[G])
Theroot PIE*da·(.)-(Neogr.*d-)isclearlyrecognizable,basedonthecommon
Europeanquantity//.ThisvocalismcanbeseeninmultipleIndo-Iranianformslike:
RV.tv³·d
ta- LAv.para·d
ta- (a.)‘givenbyyou’(WbRV.566)
(a.)‘verlobt’(AIWb.854)
However, these forms remain ambiguous as they could reflect the “European”
participlesGr.7BF-(*doato-),Lat.man·d
to-(*dato-),orLi.duotá-(*dato-).
§5.PIE*da·(.)-(Ablaut:PIEØ)
RV.dh·i-
(f.)‘Opfer·lust,Lustzugeben’(WbRV.683,dhi³[I])
The stem RV. dh·i- is a compound of the roots PIE *da-‘geben’ and RV. is-
‘suchen, begehren’ (WbRV. 223f.).345 In zero grade, the unaccented PIE *a of PIE
*daY-waslost,resultinginRV.dY-(mediaaspirata).Thus,thelaryngealinthehiatus
RV.dá’-(vb.)‘geben’andPIE*a(Lat.da-,d
-)andthelengtheningoftheglidein
RV.dÑ-
(f.?)‘Gabe’(WbRV.623,dúvas[plN]NPIE*dáu·es)
are accompanied by a directly preserved laryngeal in RV. dh- ‘geben’, properly
containing/dY/(i.e.avoicedglottalfricative(seeChapter4)).
344
ThequantityofIIr.
canbealsoaccountedforwithPIE*and/or*.Thusitisnotobvious,for
instance,thatOInd.d
t³ram[sgA]isidenticalwithGr.7BF~C-,becausetheitemcouldbecomparedto
Gr.7KF~C-orLat.man·d
tr-(WH.2:24-5)aswell.
345
Forthisformation,compareRV.gav·í-(WbRV.389),RV.pa!u·í-(WbRV.797)andsoforth.
155
§6.InOldAnatolian,theablaut PIE*:o:Ø:e:ofrootCa·(.)-resultedinthe
preservation of the laryngeal adjacent to OAnat. a, accompanied by ablaut ´ : Ê in
Indo-Europeanparallels:
(a)m·al-,mÊal-(P.–)‘Wein’
i.mala- TochB.m
la Lyd.?>4=- Maced.?<?4>>@-
TochB.m
latsai
(GI"c.)‘Weinrebe’(HEG2:89-90,ma-a-a-la-a#)
(sb.)‘akindofintoxicatingdrink’(DTochB.449)
(c.)‘Wein’(HEG2:89,?>4A)>G7BF@Bo@B@)
(f.pl.)‘4l5|=I4<’(LSJ.1135,?<?4>>@8D[plN])
(a.)‘drunken’(DTochB.449)
(b)p·a-,pÊa-‘schützen’(P.787+839)
RV.pa’-
Gr.B<?~@-
Gr.G-
RV.p
yú-
i.pa#-
Lat.p
str-
(vb.)‘schützen,behüten’(WbRV.798,paánti[3pl])
(m.)‘Hirt,Lenker,Gebieter’(GEW2:573)
(m.)‘Schafherde’(GEW2:573)
(m.)‘Hüter,Beschützer’(WbRV.804)
(vbM.)‘seekprotection’(CHDP:2f.,pa-a-#a[3sg])
stor[N],p
stris[G])
ThereconstructionofablautisunproblematicinSystemPIEandrequiresnofurther
comment.
2 .5.6 ProtheticablautNeogr.*a:*oandi.
§0.TheablautNeogr.*Ć-:ÊC-istheprotheticcounterpartoftherootsCea-(PIE
*sea-‘liquid’)andCea-(PIE*dea-‘give’)fortherootsbeginningwithlaryngeal,
PIE*aeC-andPIE*aeC-.
§1.The‘colouringrules’applyfortherooteCasformulatedinthelaryngealtheory
exceptforthecolouringcomponentbeingPIE*a,notthelaryngeal:
(a)WheninimmediatecontactwithPIE*a,PIE*·isassimilatedintothelatter:
Lat.a(Lat.auillus,au-bubulcus),etc.
(Neogr.*´).
Aftertheassimilation,PIE*aislostandthequantityofthevowelPIE*·prevails.
(b)PIE*ÊisnotassimilatedintoPIE*a:
Lat.o(Lat.oui-,CLu.aui-,Do.rß<-),etc. (Neogr.*Ê).
SubsequentlyPIE*awaslostandthequantityandqualityofPIE*Êremain.
§2.TherootshapeeC-withOldAnatolianparallelsisexemplifiedby:
(a)al-‘Höhlung’(P.88)
OInd.
ra-
Li.olà-
(m.)‘Höhlung’(EWA3:23,KEWA1:77)
(f.)‘Höhle,Grube’(LiEtWb.516,olà[sgN])346
346
Thus, the alleged loan from MidLG. hol ‘Höhle, Grube’ is not necessary. See Fraenkel (LiEtWb.
516).
156
Gr.^><-
Gr.\>·54FB- i.alu-
Lat.aluo-
(c.)‘shallowvessel,saucer’(LSJ.66,^><C[sgN])
(a.)‘high,steep,deep,abysmal’(LSJ.768,\>54FBD)
(a.)‘tief’(sb.)‘Höhlung’(HEG1:135-6)
(f.)‘Höhlung,Wölbung’(WH1:35,aluus[sgN])
(b)an-‘evil,bad’(P.779),inana-,ani-andanid-(P.760)
MidIr.on
Gr.r@B-
MidIr.ana- Gr.r@4-
CLu.anaman-
OCymr.anamou
MidBret.anaff
CLu.ania- CLu.anania-
HLu.haniada-
Gr.r@8<7BE- Arm.anicane-
RV.níd-
Go.ga·naitja- (n.)‘blot,stain,disgrace,etc.’(DIL490,on[pl])
(pr.)‘schelten,tadeln’(GEW2:397,r@B?4<)
(vb.)‘blemish’(DIL41,anaid[3sg])
(ao.)‘\F<?|98F4<’(GEW2:397,Hes.r@4F4<[3sg])
(n.)‘-(?)-’(DLL.39,a-an-a-ma-an[sgNA])
(sb.)‘mendae’(P.799)
(sb.)‘Makel,Fehler’(P.779)
(a.)‘malum’(?)(HHand.38,aniati[sgI?])
(vb.)‘tadeln(?)’(DLL.39,a-an-a-ni-ia-i[3sg])
(a.)‘evil,bad’(CHLu.1.1.12,(“MALUS2”)ha-ní-ia-ta)
(n.)‘Vorwurf,Schmähung,Schmach’(GEW2:394)
(vb.)‘fluchen’(P.760,anicanem[1sg])
(f.)‘Spott,Schmähung,Verachtung’(WbRV.730)
(vb.)‘treatshamefully’(GoEtWb.146)
(c)ap-‘Reichtum’(P.780)347
i.ap-
Lat.op-
RV.ápnas- OIr.an-
OIr.anae
Cymr.anaw OIr.ane·denmid
(vb1.)‘reichlichvorhandensein’(HEG1:157f.,apzi)
(f.)‘Reichtum’(WH2:215,Lat.ops[sgN])
(n.)‘Besitz,Habe,Reichtum’(WbRV.78)
(m.)‘richness,property’(DIL40,anai[plN])
(m.)‘Reichtum’(LEIAA-72[OIr.-])
(sb.)[Mg.]‘Reichtum’(VGK2:585)
(.)‘gl.‘opifice’(LEIAA-72-73)
(d)·rº-,Êrº-‘geraderichten,usw.’(P.854f.,HEG1:176)
Gr.\C6-
i.arganau- RV.Ëjiant- LAv.TrTzu- RV.Îjú-
RV.Îju·hásta-
Gr.rC6G<4- (a.)‘schnellbeweglich’(GEW1:132,\C6D)
(n.)‘Sohle,Ferse?’(HHand.42,ar-ga-na-ú[sgN])
(pt.)‘vorwärtsschießend’(WbRV.280)
(m.)‘Finger’(AIWb.353,TrTzu#[sgN])
(a.)‘gerade,recht,richting,gerecht’(WbRV.279)
(a.)‘dieHandausstreckend’(WbRV.280)
(f.)‘Klafter’(GEW2:412)
(e)·rs-,Êrs-‘Wasser’(P.1003[diff.])348
347
Fortheroot,seeSzemerényi(1954:275f.).
348
The etymology of Pokorny (P. 1003) and Godel (1975:71) on RV. srótas ‘Strom’ was already in
doubtbyHübschmann(ArmGr.1:420-1).AccordingtotheconfirmedrulePIE*sr>Arm.r(e.g.Arm.
157
Arm.au
Arm.aoge- Arm.ooge- i.ar#umna-
(sb.)‘Canal,Bach,Strom’(ArmGr.1:420-1)
(pr.)‘benetzen’(Arm.arogel[inf.],Beekes1969:21)
(pr.)‘irrigate’(Godel1975:71,oogel[inf.])
(n.)‘Quellgebiet’(HEG1:187-8,ar#umna[plNA])
(f)·s-,Ês-‘birth,origin’(HED3:217ff.)
i.a#-
i.a#a-
HLu.a#a- OEng.r-
LAv.åhair- i.a#atar- Gr.I:C·KEF4
HLu.a#u- (vb.)‘zeugen,gebären’(HEG1:191f.,a-a#-ta[3sg])
(c.)‘Enkel’(HHand.45,a-a#-#a-a#[sgN])
(vb.)‘tobeget’(HED3:217,CHLu.1.1.56,ha-sá-tu)
(n.)‘spring,origin,beginning’(ASaxD.763,r[sgN])
(f.)‘Gebärerin’(AIWb.358,åhairy[plN])
(n.)‘Zeugung,Familie’(HHand.45,a-a#-#a-tar)
(m.pl.)‘Seitenverwandte’(GEW2:1096)
(n.?)‘birth,family’(CHLu.1.1.15,ha-su-‘[sgD])
(g)ast-‘Knochen,Bein’(P.783)
TochB.
st- Gr.8kE·EF:- i.a#tai
Gr.pEF}B- Gr.pEF4=- Gr.\EF4=- RV.an·asthá-
AV.asthn- OIr.asn-
(n.)‘bone’(DTochB.45,
sta[plNA])
(f.)‘Beinhaus(?)’(GEW3:84)
(n.)‘Knochen’(HEG1:202-3,a-a#-ta-i[sgNA])
(n.)‘Knochen’(GEW2:436-7,pEF}B@[sgNA])
(m.)‘Meerkrebs’(GEW1:169,pEF4=D[sgN])
(m.)‘Meerkrebs’(GEW1:169,\EF4=D[sgN])
(a.)‘knochenlos’(WbRV.54,anasthás[sgN])
(n.obl.)‘Knochen’(WbRV.158,asthnás[sgG])
(pl.)‘côte’:‘rib’(LEIAA:94-5,asnai[plN],asna[G])
(h)a·d-,aÊd-‘Krieg,Kampf,Haß,Widerstreben’(P.773)
Lat.d-
OIcl.at
Lat.ad·ria- Lat.odio-
Arm.atea- OIcl.etja
i.ad·ei#tant-
i.ad·ei#tanteia-
Arm.ateli
Lat.so-
Aiol.Ê4-
Gr.\E|K
(pf.)‘Widerwillenhaben,hassen’(WH2:202,d)
(n.)‘Kampf’(ANEtWb.17,at[sgNA])
(f.)‘Kriegsruhm’(WH1:14&WH1:655-6)
(n.)‘Widerstreben,Haß,Ekel’(WH2:202)
(vb.)‘hassen’(ArmGr.1:422,ateam[pr1sg])
(f.)[Mg.]‘Kampf’(ANEtWb.106,etja[sgN])
(pr.)‘verzaubert,verflucht’(i.a-te-i#-da-a-an-te-e#)
(pr.)‘fluchen’(HEG1:222,a-te-i#-ta-an-ti-¾a-a#)
(a.)‘verhasst,feindlich’(ArmGr.1:422)
(pf.pt.)‘hated’(WH2:202-3,sussum)
(f.)‘surfeit,loathing,nausea’(LSJ255,Ê4)
(pr.)‘feelloathing,nausea’(LSJ255,\E4K)
§3.ExamplesoftherootC-,·C-,ÊCwithoutOldAnatolian,forinstance,are:
(a)·it-,Êit-‘Anteil,Schicksal’(P.10-11,WP.1:2,WH1:408,2:848)
ariun ‘Blut’ : OInd. asra- (n.) ‘Blut’), Arm. < PIE *rs. As the ablaut Arm. a : o suggests an initial
laryngeal,therequiredrootPIE*ars-providesanexactmatchwithi.ar#·umna-‘Quell·gebiet’.
158
Gr.BoFB-
LAv.aeta-
Osc.aeti-
Gr.4oE4
Lesb.mEE4-
(m.)‘Schicksal’(GEW2:370,Gr.BoFBD[sgN])
(m.)‘Strafe’(du.)‘SchuldundStrafe’(AIWb.11-12)
(f?.)‘pars’(WbOU.55-6,aeteis[sgG])
(f.)‘Anteil,Schicksal’(GEW1:44,4oE4[sgN])
(s.aoM.)‘castlots’(GEW1:738,mEE4E;4<[inf.])
(b)·g-,Êg-‘wachsen’(P.773)
Li.ág- Arm.ae-
Li.úoga-
Latv.uôga
OIr.
si-
OCS.agoda
(vb.)‘wachsen’(Grundr21:211,águ[1sg])
(vb.)‘wachsen’(EtDiArm.43,aem[1sg])
(f.)‘Beere,Kirsche’(LiEtWb.1165,úoga[sgN])
(f.)‘Beere,Blatter,Pocke’(LiEtWb.1165)
(vb.)‘wachsen’(P.787[diff.],ásid,ifPCelt.*
gse/o-)
(f.)‘=4CD:Frucht,Beere’(Sadnik4A)
(c)·À,ÊÀ-‘scharf,spitz’(P.18-22)
Lat.
cer-
OLat.ocri- Gr.r=C<-
Gr.\=C<-
RV.cátur·a!ri-
(a.)‘scharf’(WH1:7,
cer,
cris)
(m.)‘steinigerBerg’(WH2:199,ocris,ocris)
(m.)‘Spitze,Ecke’(GEW2:374,r=C<D)
(f.)‘Berggipfel’(GEW1:59,^=C<D,^=C<BD)
(a.)‘vierKantenhabend’(WbRV.433)
(d)·À,ÊÀ-‘schnell’(P.775)
Lat.cior-
Lat.acu·pedio-
RV.³!i ha- Gr.pA·BG7-
Gr.y=-
RV.
!ú-
OCymr.di·auc
(comp.)‘schneller’(WH2:198,Lat.cior,cius)
(a.)‘schnellfüssig’(WH1:11,acupedius[sgN])
(sup.)‘schnellste,rascheste’(WbRV.187) (a.)‘schnellfüssig’(GEW2:1146)
(a.)‘schnell,geschwind’(GEW2:1145-6,y=D)
(a.)‘rasch,schnell’(WbRV.187-8)
(a.)‘träge’(i.e.“un-schnell”;seeP.775)
(e)·º,Êº-‘sprechen,sagen’(P.290-1)
Gr.^@·K6- Arm.a·ac Gr.\@·K6~- Lat.ad·agio- Lat.ad·agin-
(pf.pr.)‘befehlen’(GEW1:115,^@K64[1sg])
(vn.)‘adagium,proverbium’(P.290,aac[sgNA])
(f.)‘Befehl’(GEW1:115,\@K6~[sgN])
(n.)‘Sprichwort’(WH1:12,ad·agium[sgNA])
(f.)‘Sprichwort’(WH1:25,adagi,adaginis[G])
(f)·kÒ-,ÊkÒ-‘Auge(n)’(P.775-7)
Gr.r-
Arm.a’-
Gr.CE·KB-
Gr.rJ<-
Gr.ÊFC·|J<-
Gr.\JB-
(f.)‘eye,face’(GEW2:407,LSJ1282,r4[sgA])
(sb.)‘Auge’(ArmGr.1:413,a‘-k‘[plN])
(n.)‘Gesicht,Antlitz=\JB@’(GEW2:602)
(f.)‘appearance‘(LSJ1282-3,rJ<D)
(f.)‘Blitz’(GEW1:173,Suid.ÊFC|J<D)
(n.)‘Hes.\JB@)FCEKB@’(LSJ299)
159
RV.ánka- LAv.aiwi·
x#aya-
Li.úoksau- (n.)‘Angesicht,Glanzerscheinung’(WbRV.57)
(iter.)‘wachenüber’(AIWb.310,aiwy
x#ayeinti[3pl])
(vb.)‘ansehen,ausspionieren’(LiEtWb.1166,úoksauti)
(g)·l-,Êl-‘flammen,brennen,glänzen’(P.28)
OSwed.ala- OInd.al
ta- OGaul.alato- MidIr.alad ModIr.aladh Lat.ad·ole Gr.\>B<?- (vb.)‘lodern,flammen’(P.28,ala[inf.])
(n.)‘Feuerbrand,Kohle’(EWA3:15,al
tam[sgN])
(PNm.)‘Bunt,Scheckig’(LEIAA:59),alatos[sgN])
(a.)‘bunt,scheckig,gestreift’(LEIAA:59,alad[sgN])
(m.)‘Forelle’(P.28,aladh[sgN])
(cs.)‘verbrennen(bes.Opfer)’(WH1:13,adole[1sg])
(a.)‘polishing,plastering’(LSJ.72,\>B<?D)
(h)·l-,Êl-‘ernähren,wachsen’(P.26-7)
OEng.l-
Lat.al
OIr.ali-
Lat.in·ol- Lat.sub·ol- Gr.@8(ß)·4>}E-
(pret.)‘nourish,grow,produce’(ASaxD.33,l[3sg])
(pr3.)‘(er)nähren,aufziehen,pflegen’(WH1:31,al)
(pr.)‘nähren’(LEIAA:57,GOI577,alim[1sg])
(f.)‘natürlicheAnlage’(WH2:702,inolsinolis)
(f.)‘Nachwuchs,-kommenschaft,Sproß’(WH2:14)
(a.)‘frisch,kräftig,ausgeruht’(GEW2:295,@84>~D)
(i)·m-,Êm-‘Rot,Rost’(P.777-8)
OEng.m
ModHG.ohm
OEng.mig- OIr.umae
Lat.am
-
(m/n.?)‘rubigo’=‘rust’(ASaxD.744,m[sgN])
(sb.)‘Kornbrand,Rotlauf’(P.778,ohm[dial.])
(a.)‘rusty,rust-coloured,inflammatory’(ASaxD.744)
(n.)‘Kupfer’(DIL.628,Cymr.efydd)
(f.)‘Feuereimer’(WH1:35,ama[sgN])
(j)·m-,Êm-‘roh,ungekocht’(P.777-8,WP.1:179)
Gr.y?-
RV.
má-
OIr.om-
Gr.y?B·H|6B-
RV.
m³-
Lat.am
ro- (a.)‘roh,ungekocht’(GEW2:1149,Gr.y?D)
(a.)‘roh,ungekocht’(WbRV.181,
más[sgN])
(a.)‘roh’(VGK1:32,om[sgN]=Cymr.of)
(a.)‘blutgierig,unmenschlich’(GEW2:1149)
(a.f.)‘dieKuhalsdierohe’(WbRV.181,gáus
m³)
(a.)‘roh’(WH1:35,Lat.am
rus[sgN])
(k)·ms-,Êms-‘Schulter’(P.778)
Umbr.onso
Gr.z?B-
Go.ams-
RV.ása-
Lat.umero-
Gr.\?}EK
(m.)‘umerus’(Meiser1986:63,onse[L])
(m.)‘Schulter’(GEW2:1148,z?BD[sgN])
(m.)‘shoulder’(GoEtD30,amsans[plA])
(m.)‘Schulter’(WbRV.2,EWA1:37,WH2:815)
(m.)‘Schulter’(WH2:815,umerus[sgN])
(du.)‘Schulterblatt’(Hes.\?}EK)y?B>|F4<)
(l)·nk-,Ênk-‘biegen’(P.45-48)
160
Gr.r6=B-
Lat.unco-
RV.aká-
Lat.anco-
Gr.\6=@-
RV.ákas-
Gr.\6=E-
(m.)‘Wiederhaken’(GEW2:347,r6=BD[sgN])
(m.)‘Haken’(a.)‘gekrümmt’(WH2:816,uncus[sgN])
(m.)‘Haken’(WbRV.13,EWA1:47)
(a.)‘withcrookedarms’(WH1:46,ancus[N])
(m.)‘Ellenbogen’(GEW1:11,\6=@)
(n.)‘Biegung,Krümmung(desPfades)’(EWA1:47)
(n.)‘Bergschlucht,Felsental’(GEW1:11)
(m)·bhel-,Êbhel-‘fegen,kehren’(P.772)
Arm.avelu-
Gr.pH8>>K
Gr.rH8>?4
Gr.rH8>FCB-
(pr.)‘fegen’(P.772,avelum[1sg])
(pr.)‘fegen,kehren’(GEW2:452,pH8>>K)
(n.)‘Besen’(GEW2:452)
(n.)‘Besen’(WP.1:178,rH8>FCB@)=|>>G@FCB@)
(n)·bhr-,Êbhr-‘Braue’(P.172)
Gr.pHC-
MidIr.abrait- OMaced.\5CBF-
RV.bhrÑ
OIr.for·br%- SCr.brva (f.)‘Braue’(GEW2:454,pHCD,pHCBD)
(plN.)‘Augenlider,Brauen’(P.172,Bret.abrant)
(c.)(\5CBF8D)pHCD,Beekes1969:21)
(f.)‘Braue’(WbRV.967,bhruvós[du])
(.)‘supercilia’ (P.172,forbru[plA],forbr%[plG])
(f.)‘Braue’(P.173,Gr.pHC4(f.)‘Erhöhung’)
(o)·ru-,Êru-‘vox’(P.781)
Arc.=|F·4CßB-
Phryg.BCß8@B-
Phryg.BCß4- Gr.\C(ß)|- Gr.\C|B-
Gr.\CK
Gr.\C8(ß)<:- Gr.\C8(ß)<|K
(a.)‘cursed’(GEW127,WP1:182)
(pt.)‘prayed’(Phryg.128,BCBG8@BD[sgN])
(f.)‘prayer’(Phryg.128,BCBG4@[sgA])
(f.)‘prayer’(Hom.\C~,Att.\C|)
(prM.)‘beten,verwünschen’(GEW1:127,\C|B?4<)
(vb.)‘sprechen,rüfen’(LSJ.251,GEW1:158)
(f.)‘Vervünschung,Drohung’(GEW1:135)
(vb.)‘drohen’(GEW1:135)
(p)·s-,Ês-‘Mund,Mündung,Rand’(P.784-5)
Lat.s-
RV.³s-
gAv.
h-
Lat.ra-
OEng.ra
Lat.
rae
RV.
sía-
Gr.4-
Gr.u8C·4- Do.\hL@- Lat.sculo- (n.)‘Mund,Anlitz,Rand,Saum’(WH2:224-5)
(n.)‘Mund’(WbRV.190,
sás[sgAb])
(n.)‘Mund,Öffnung’(AIWb.345,åh[sgG])
(f.)‘Saum,Rand’(WH2:218ra[sgN]N*s
-)
(m.)‘border,edge,margin,bank’(ASaxD.763,ra)
(f.pl.)‘Strandbänke,Klippen’(WH1:61[diff.])
(n.)‘Mund,Rachen’(WbRV.191)
(f.)‘Saum’(GEW1:1143,4,4,r4)
(f.)‘Gaumen’(GEW2:969,LSJ1871,DELG1158-9)
(f.)‘Strand,Ufer’(Do.*\L@,Hom.fL@,fL@BD)
(n.)‘Kuß’(WH2:227,sculum[sgN])
161
Gr.dA·4EF<E- Gr.Ê;?4F- Gr.\E;?4@K
(f.)‘RandeinesGewebes,Franse’(GEW528)
(n.)‘schweres,kurzesAtmen,Keuchen’(GEW1:161)
(vb.)‘schweratmen,keuchen’(=kE;?4@K[Hes.])
ThepatternswithandwithouttheOldAnatolianareidentical,andPIE*a,acanbe
reconstructedevenintheabsenceofOldAnatoliani.,Pal.,CLu.,HLu..
2 .5.7 SchwebeablautandPIE*
§0. The schwebeablaut,349 representing the alternation of the position of the ablaut
vowels PIE * : e : Ø : o : within the root, was already recognized by the Sanskrit
grammarians (P
ini).350 The major Indo-European theories explaining this
alternation were developed by the Paleo- and the Neogrammarians in the 19th
century. With the emergence of the Old Anatolian laryngeal, both theories became
outdated, because the lost PIE laryngeal implies different etymological origins for
numerousexamplesoftheallegedschwebeablaut.Thisfactor,causedbythefactthat
the schwebeablaut is inextricably linked to the phoneme inventory, necessitates
restrictionsregardingtheuseofthemechanism.
§1.Theterm‘schwebeablaut’(seeAnttila1969:13)datesbacktotheNeogrammarian
period:
“In1888K.F.Johansson(...)proposedthecurrentnameforthisalternationbetweentwo
full grades: gleichgewichts- oder schwebeablaut. He called it balance ablaut because the
differentformstendedtohaveabalanceinsharingtwomoras:gn-gene-gn(BB13.116,
15.308-309).”
In more modern discussions, the focus of schwebeablaut has shifted from mora
length351 to the alternation of the position of the root vowel. This is described by
Anttila(1969:1):
“Thereareanumberofroots,however,whichshow(orappeartoshow)analternationin
the position of the full-grade vowel. The vowel alternates around a root-medial resonant
(orsometimesaconsonant).”
Intheexplanationoftheschwebeablaut,twomainschoolshaveemerged,whichmay
beroughlycharacterizedasfollows:
349
ForadetailedaccountoftheSchwebeablaut,seeAnttila1969(towhichadebtisowed,particularly
in regard to the background information presented here) and Szemerényi (1996:133, ‘Secondary
ablaut’).
350
See Allen (1953:13): “sapras
raa (lit. ‘extension’), whereby a sequence of type va, i.e.
v+syllabicity, alternates with u, i.e. ‘syllabic v’ (cf. Pr. Ind. svapiti : P.P. supta-, etc.). P
ini uses the
termbothfortheprocessandfortheresultantvowel,butwefindneitherthetermnoranydiscussion
oftheprocessinthephoneticworks.”
351
SeeJohansson1888and1890.
162
(a) The uniform school, which postulates a single underlying root C1C2(C3) with
alternatinginterdigitationsC1eC2·(C3):C1C2·(eC3),hasbeensupportedbyscholars
suchasSaussure,Møller,Cuny,Hirt,Benvenisteandothers.
(b)Thesegmentalschool,whichreconstructsthebasesasattested(e.g.C1o-,C1eC2,
C1C2,C1C2C3),keepstheschwebeablautvariantsdistinct.Accordingtothisschool,
the bases are considered original rather than reducable to each other through an
underlyingform(ormechanism).
§2. The theories of the uniform school assume that schwebeablaut variants can be
connected without severe problems, regardless of whether an underlying prototype
(allowingthederivationofvariants)isactuallypostulatedornot.Themostprominent
versionsofthislineofthoughtaresummarizedasfollows:
(a) As explained by Anttila (1969:3), the Paleogrammarians in general favoured
metathesisasthemechanismofderivationforconnectingtherootvariants:
“Metathesis is the standard explanation for schwebeablaut from the 1840’s onwards,
supported by the biggest names of the day, Benfey, Bopp, Pott, Schleicher, etc. (for
referencesseeCurtius,Grundzüge5179and747).”
(b)Anttila(1969:10)furtherdescribesthepioneersofthelaryngealtheory:
“Saussure (...) was (...) left with two full grades: Skt. ámbhas ‘rain water,’ nábhas ‘mist,
cloud’ (Mém 280-281: cf. §9.45). He calls the first one where the vowel occurs before the
resonantpremiercas,andthesecondonedeuxièmecas(Mém280).”
Saussure’sideafoundsupportsoonenough:
“MöllersideswithSaussureandKretschmerinthinkingthatse rootshavetwofullgrades,
whichcanbecombinedintooneearliershape(vorindogermanisch)asshown.Actuallyhe
haddonethisalreadyinthesamefamousfootnotewhereheaddedthethirdlaryngeal*E
to Saussure’s two (1880:1511), suggesting further that such shapes should best be written
accordingtotheSemiticfashion:*diuinsteadof*dajava,etc.”(Anttila1969:17)
(c) A more cautious version of the theory held a connection between the different
vocalizations of the root, but postulated no underlying form (i.e. only surface-level
alternationexists).Accordingto(Anttila1969:21):
“NotablyonlyBenveniste(followingMeillet)doesnotestablishorsuggestadeeperlevelof
invariance, which is a basic principle of linguistic analysis, and which was reached in this
casealreadybySaussure:e.g.,*dor-éu->dór-u,dr-éu(Mém222).”
§3. Though perhaps not generally understood, the problems of the uniform school
becameaggravatedaftertheemergenceofthePIElaryngeal:
(a) Most importantly, the hypothesis of an underlying root, whether postulated or
not,isrelativetothephonemeinventoryatourdisposal.Inparticular,thepossibility
thatthelaryngeal PIE*andthevowel PIE *awerelostinnon-Anatolianlanguages
hasledtoasituationwherenumerousexamplesoftheallegedschwebeablautactually
revealsrootswithandwithoutthelaryngeal(i.e.theyarenotschwebeablautvariants
163
at all).352 In order to illustrate the situation, I quote Benveniste’s (1935:156)
laryngealist reconstruction of the traditional root Neogr. *ubh- : *Òebh-‘weben,
flechten’(P.1114):
I:
*T2eu·bh-(gr.uH4@K)
II:
*T2u·ebh-(vha.weban).
Forthisdata,thecomparativemethodimpliestwoetymologicallydifferentroots,one
withalaryngealandonewithout:
PIE*aubh-‘weben’
i.upar-
Gr.uH4@K LAv.ubdaena-
(GADAc.)‘einGewebe/Kleidungsstück’(HHand.55)
(pr.)‘weben,usw.’(GEW2:976f.)
(a.)‘ausWebstoff,ausZeuggemacht’(AIWb.401)
PIE*Òebh-‘weben’
i.ueb-
i.ueba-
RV.
ura·v
bhá-
(vb.)‘weben’(HHand.201,uepta[3sg])
(c.)‘Webstück,Gewebe’(HHand.201,uepu#[plA])
(a.)‘vonderSpinnestammend’(WbRV.307)
In terms of roots with and without the laryngeal i. : i. Ø, the traditional
approach reconstructs too few laryngeals (Neogr. *ubh- : *Òebh-) and the laryngeal
theoryovergeneratesthem(LT*T2eu·bh-:*T2u·ebh-).
(b)AsanexampleinwhichHittiteconfirmstheabsenceofthelaryngeal(buttherest
ofthelanguagegroupimpliesit,necessitatingtwoseparateroots),IquoteSaussure’s
comparisonofSkt.ámbhas‘rainwater’:Skt.nábhas‘mist,cloud’(Mém280-281:cf.
§9.45),whichactuallyappearswithandwithoutthelaryngeal:
PIE*nebh-‘Himmel,Wolke,Gewölk’(P.315-6)
i.nebia-
RV.abhi·nabhyá-
OInd.nabhya-
(c/n.?)‘Himmel’(HEGII:310-5,ne-pi-a#[sgG])
(n.)‘Wolkennähe’(WbRV.84)
(a.)‘cloudy,moist,foggy’(MonWil.528)
PIE*aembh-‘rain,water’
Arm.amb- RV.ámbhas- Osc.anafri- RV.ambhÎá-
(sb.)‘Wolke’(ArmGr.1:417,o-stem)
(n.)‘Regenwasser,Wasser’(WbRV.96)
(.)‘Regengottheiten’(Meiser1986:70)
(a.)‘nebelhaft,feucht’(WbRV.96)
(c)Ahithertounidentifiedlaryngealisoccasionallyfoundinrootsconsideredtobe
examples of the schwebeablaut. This is the case of the aforementioned ‘Pre-ProtoIndo-European’ (‘vorindogermanisch’) tri-literal root *diu : *dajava of Møller
(1880:1511).Forthisitem,thelaryngealisimpliedbyRig-Vedichiatusand PIE*aby
352
Thus,inLi.tuo·m¢l(adv.)‘ineinemfort’(LiEtWb.430,tuom¢l[sgNA])andGo.mel-(n.)‘Stunde,
Zeit’(GoEtD.250,Go.mel[sgNA]),bothPIE*andPIE*awerelost,noristhereanycompensatory
lengthening. Nonetheless, i. me- ‘time, noon’ (in me·ur-, me·un-) reveals a root shape
C1eC2·.RPIE*meal-.
164
Do.,thetwowitnessesimplyingdiphonemicPIE*aforPIE*dia-‘sky,sky-god’(P.
183-7):
PIE*dia-
Do.9|-
RV.dy³-
(m.)‘Zeus’(GEW1:610;NPIE*dia-)
(m.)‘Himmel’(WbRV.601-4,dy³m[sgA])
PIE*dia-
Lat.di-
RV.di³-
(f.)‘Tageslicht,Tag’(WH1:349,dis[N],diem)
(m.)‘Himmel’(WbRV.601-4,di³m[sgA])
Structuralinferences(liketheIndo-Semiticroothypothesis)donotnecessarilyreflect
theactualstateofaffairs:RV.diáu-(m.)‘Himmel’(WbRV.604,RV.diáu[N])=
Gr.98-(m.)‘sky-god,Zeus’(GEW1:610ff.,Gr.98D)hasfourradicals(C1C2C3C4),
notthree(voridg. †dajava).Thoughthetheoryoftheuniformschoolcanbecredited
foraimingatregularpatterning,itstoolsareoutdated:Indo-Europeanlinguisticsis
anempiricalscienceandthelostlaryngealscannotberecoveredbyapriorimeans.In
itscurrentform,thelaryngealtheorysucceedsonlyinthereconstructionof*h2(PIE
*),anditstoolsovergenerateeventhat.
§4. The segmental school prefers a straightforward reconstruction of attested
vocalizations (as implied by the data), and no underlying roots are postulated. The
mostimportantscholarsandideasrelatedtothisviewcanbesummarizedasfollows:
(a) As Anttila (1969:10) points out, the idea of ‘double roots’ can historically be
tracedbacktothetimeofthePaleogrammarians:
“Asearlyas1870E.Kuhn(KZ19:308)pointedoutthattheproblemofschwebeablautcan
beresolvedthrough“doubleroots,”*ank/*nak,*ambh/*nabh,*angh/*nagh-,whichwould
avoidallthedifficultiesofderivingoneformfromtheother.”
Duetothisprecaution,thesegmentalapproachavoidsthemergingofdistinctroots
during reconstruction, and for this reason it is the preferred choice of the
comparative method. Noting the criteria for the presence (or absence) of the
laryngeal in a finite procedure, which then can be used to decide whether a
schwebeablaut is apparent or not, can be developed based on the segmental
interpretation.
(b) Instead of approaching morphemes as non-analyzable entities, the segmental
school tends to apply linguistic analysis to the data. Thus, Anttila (1969:5) explains
thatBrugmann:
“(...)inMU1:55(1878)reasonsagainstgeneralmetathesisandreintroducesFick’ssuffix
withmorerigortotakecareofthedoubletslikeskt.pr
:par(§9.48)!r
:!ar(§9.39),y
:e
(§5.3.1;WW91).”
This approach is also recommendable in comparative contexts, because the surface
level(whichdoesnotnecessarilypreservealloriginalfeatures)isnotnaïvelytakenas
primary.
165
(c) As Anttila writes (1969:11), the ultimate conclusions based on the regularity of
soundchangeweredrawnby:
“Perssoninhisbookonrootextensions(1891)[,…who]conteststheprevalentdoctrineof
metathesis, anaptyxis, and prothesis in Greek (WW 99f., 217-8, 224, 245, etc.) [...;]
metathesis is impossible [...] and thus all such full grades would best be taken as equally
original(100).”
With the reservation that the Neogrammarian cover symbols can also conceal lost
laryngeals(Neogr.*eRPIE*eha
*e
*ahe,etc.),ithasbeenobviouseversincethe
Brugmanniansoundlawsystemthatnometathesis(oritsalternative,àlaBenveniste)
can be consistently presented. This is another way of stating Persson’s general
conclusion,namelythattheschwebeablautasanactualmechanismderivingtheroot
forms from each other never existed. Rather, the interdigitationsof the vowels and
their alternations were caused by the rules of the proto-language, and the sole
possiblewaytodeciphertheseistodescribetheattestedvocalizations,restorethelost
phonemes (in particular, the laryngeal) and differentiate the rules governing the
alternationfromthoseofthetheproto-languageherself.
§5.Despitethesuperiornatureofthe(non-uniform)segmentaltheory,itisalsonot
withoutitsproblems.
(a) The works of the leading theoreticians are based on the Neogrammarian
reconstruction,whichisnowoutdated,particularlyintermsofthelaryngeal PIE*a
*a.Anyattempttoproceedwiththenon-uniformcoursemustthereforebeginwitha
compilationandtestingofallthetraditionalrootsfordiagnosticfeaturesthatimply
PIE*a*ainallpositions.
(b)Thetraditionalapproach,ifsatisfiedonlybythedescriptionoftheattested(orat
leasttheexternallyparalleled)vocalizations,willnotultimatelyresultinthedesired
scientificmeansofpredictingtheschwebeablaut.Consequently,theapproachneeds
tobedevelopedbymakingtheentiresurfaceleveloftheIndo-Europeanlanguages
transparentintermsofthepresenceorabsenceof PIE*.Inthenextphase,adigital
function capable of calculating all the attestations of the ablaut vowels of the PIE
root(s)C1…Cn
(-)·C1…Cn·(.)
R
(*ÊØ·)·C1(*ÊØ·)Cn·(*ÊØ·)
needstobepresentedinordertofullypredictthealternations.
(c) Finally, there is the problem of the absence of a comparative etymological
dictionary in which the entire Indo-European data can be stored and which would
allow the extraction of a set of rules governing the schwebeablaut (and ablaut in
general).ThePIELexiconProjectaimstosolvethisproblem.
2 .5.8 Osthoff’sLawforAnatolian,TocharianandGreek
§0.Osthoff’sLaw,whichinvolvestheshorteningoflongdiphthongsbeforeacluster
ofaresonantandaconsonant(exceptinIndo-Iranian),isamongthemostsuccessful
166
sound laws ever postulated for the Indo-European languages. Accordingly, only
minor improvements (mainly concerning Anatolian, Tocharian, and Greek) are
requiredbytheenrichedmaterialnowatourdisposal.353
§1.In PhilologischeRundschau(1881b:1593f.),Osthoffclaimedashorteningoflong
vowelsbeforearesonantandaconsonantinIndo-EuropeanlanguagesexceptIndoIranian:the‘non-Aryan’languageshadgonethroughthesimplification
PIE*V:RC
VRC (Osthoff’sLaw).354
Thus, for instance, the short Gr. 4 owes its short quantity to Osthoff’s Law,355
standingincontrasttotheIndo-Iranian/
/inthefollowing:
Gr.64?·5C- LAv.z
ma·oya-
RV.j³m
tar- LAv.z
m
tar-
(m.)‘Schwiegersohn,Eidam,usw.’(GEW1:287)
(m.)‘BruderdesSchwiegersohns’(AIWb.1689)
(m.)‘Eidam’(WbRV.484)
(m.)‘Eidam,Schwiegersohn’(AIWb.1689)
§2.ThemostsignificantnewdevelopmentrelatedtoOsthoff’sLawistheexistenceof
sequences V:RC in both Tocharian A and B. Based on abundant examples, it is
virtually certain that Tochariandid not go through the shortening, and hence its
dialectsshouldbegroupedwithIndo-Iranian.
(a) The absence of Osthoff’s Law can be proven for the nasals PIE *m *n and the
liquids PIE *l *r in a straightforward manner due to the ample stock of attested
clustersTochAB.
mC,
nC,
lCand
rCattestedassuch.Someexamplesinclude:
1.TochAB.
mC
TochA.
mpi TochB.y
m- TochA.w
mpu-
(num.du.m.)‘ambo’(Poucha22)
(vb.)‘do,make,effect’(DTochB.490-1,y
mtsi[inf.])
(pret.pt.)‘ornare,comere’(Poucha286,w
mpu)
2.TochAB.
nC
TochB.kl
nk-
TochA.sp
nte
TochB.a·m
nt·atte
TochA.w
nt- TochA.l
ts-
TochB.l
ntso TochB.k
nta TochB.k
ntsa-
(vb.)‘ride,gobyawagon’(DTochB.220,kl
nka)
(a.indecl.)‘confidens’(Poucha386)
(a.)‘notevil-minded’(DTochB.18)
(pt.)‘vehens’(Poucha14,w
nt,w
nta)
(f.)‘regina’(Poucha265,TochA.l
ts)
(f.)‘Queen’(DTochB.548)
(vb.)±‘rub,polish’(DTochB.151,k
ntatsi[inf.])
(vb.)±‘sharpen,file’(DTochB.151,k
ntsatsi[inf.])
353
For literature on Osthoff’s Law, see Collinge (1985:127-131), Schwyzer (GrGr 1:279) and
Szemerényi(1996:93).
354
Osthoff (1884:84-5) writes: “jeder lange vokal ist in der stellung vor sonorlaut [...] und einem
weiterenconsonantinnerhalbdesselbenwortesurgriechischverkürztworden.”
355
Collinge (1985:127) describes how the theory of a loss of quantity was initially not ascribed to
OsthoffintheGermanicworld.Nevertheless,asCollingepointsout,“elsewhereitis‘Osthoff’sLaw’
[...]”,andaccordinglythisterminologyisusedalsointhisstudy.
167
3.TochAB.
lC:
TochB.l
lyi TochB.l
ñe TochA.k
ltak-
TochB.ts
lta-
TochB.s
lka- TochB.!p
lmen-
TochB.s
lla- (f.)‘zeal’(DTochB.546)
(f.)‘flood’(DTochB.547)
(sb.)‘n.cuiusdaminstrumentimusici’(Poucha61) (vb.)‘chew’(DTochB.732)
(vb.)‘pullout,produce’(DTochB.689,s
lka)
(sup.)‘excellent,superior’(DTochB.643,!p
lme)
(vb.)‘throwdown’(DTochB.686,s
lla)
4.TochAB.
rC:
TochA.my
rsa-
TochB.
rte TochA.
ral TochB.
rcan-
TochB.
r- TochB.
rse- TochA.
rwar TochB.
rwer TochB.waw
rpau
TochB.w
rwä-
TochA.k
rme
TochB.
rkwi-
TochA.
rki·!oi-
TochA.
rt- TochA.k
rna-
TochA.k
rp TochB.k
rpa-
TochA.s
ry
- TochA.s
rm- TochB.
rka- TochA.k
ryap-
(vb.)‘ver·gessen’(Poucha226,my
rsatai)
(m.sg.)‘(raised)aqueduct,feedercanal’(DTochB.51)
(MU"EN.)‘vermisvenenosus’(Poucha25-6,
ral)
(vb.)‘beobligedto’(DTochB.50,
rccatär[3sg])
(vb.tr.)‘leave(behind),forsake’(DTochB.47,
rtsi)
(vb.)‘cease’(DTochB.47,
rsen-ne)
(adv.)‘paratus:ready,readily’(Poucha25,
rwar)
(a.indecl.)‘ready,ofhorse:saddled’(DTochB.53)
(pt.)‘surrounded’(DTochB.587,waw
rpau)
(vb.)‘prod,urge,spuron’(DTochB.587,w
rwäim)
(a.)‘Wahrheit’(a.)‘wahr’(Poucha60)
(a.)‘white’(DTochB.23-4)
(n.)‘mundus’(Poucha24)
(m.)‘procus,sponsus’(Poucha24,
rt[sgN])
(prA.)‘descendere’(Poucha60,k
rnatsi[inf.])
(vb.)‘descendere’(Poucha60,k
rp)
(vb.)‘descend,stepdown’(DTochB.154,k
rpatsi)
(vbM.)‘serere,seminare’(Poucha365,s
ry
t[3sg])
(sb.)‘semen’(:‘seed’)(Poucha364,s
rmntu[oblplN])
(vb.)‘surpass,gobeyond’(DTochB.655,
rkatai)
(sb.)‘incommodum,detrimentum’(Poucha60-1)
When available, external etymologies indicate that the Tocharian quantity matches
the Indo-Iranian vÎddhi. An uncontestable example of an identical quantity in the
Rig-VedaandinTocharianBhasbeenpreservedin:
TochB.
rkwi-
RV.
rjuneyá-
(a.)‘white’(DTochB.23-4)
(m.)‘Nachkommedesárjua-’(WbRV.185)
Identically,thelongquantityofTocharianAcoincideswiththeVedicvÎddhiin:
TochA.k
lta·k-
AV.
·gh
á-
RV.
·gh
í-
(sb.)‘somemusicalinstrument’(Poucha61)
(m.)‘Zimbel’(EWA1:159+Fortunatov’sLawII)
(c.)‘Cymbeln’or‘Klappern’(WbRV.172)
168
The Tocharian and Indo-Iranian long vowels are identical. Their original quantity
beingthesimplesthypothesis(Occam’srazor),itreplacestheearlierexplanationsof
Tocharian quantity, especially accent (Krause-Thomas 1960:42ff.) and/or schwa
(Krause-Thomas 1960:53ff.). The ostensible difference in quantity between
Tocharianand‘non-Aryanlanguages’canbeaccountedforwithOsthoff’sLaw(PIE
*ambhi-)aslongasthegeneralrestrictionofthelawisnoted.356Examplesinclude:
TochA.
mpi
Gr.\?H Lat.ambi
(num.du.m.)‘ambo’(Poucha22)
(adv.)‘herum,aufbeidenseiten’(GEW1:98)
(pref.)‘herum,um,ringsum’(WH1:36)
(b) The archaism of the Tocharian group is, however, broken down in the long
diphthongs PToch *
iC and *
uC. As a rule, the long diphthongs have been
preservedindialectB,whileindialectAonlyshortonesappear:
TochB.
iC
:TochA.eC TochB.
uC :TochA.oC.357
Thereasonforthelackofasoundlawaccountingforthisdevelopmentseemstobe
the tendency in the laryngeal theory to avoid discussion of vÎddhi (except for
Saussure’s compensatory lengthening). However, it is possible to advance an
interpretation of the situation that does not present any difficulties. Instead of two
quantitativegrades(cf.Saussure*e/o:Ø),theparentlanguagehadthreeoppositions
(PIE */ : *e/o : Ø), which are preserved in Tocharian B. Some examples of
alternationTochB.ai:e:i/yandTochB.au:o:u/wareareincludedhere:
1.*aiº-‘sehen,wissen:Auge’(withTochB.ai:e:y)
TochB.po·y!i-
Gr.4k6·K644-
OHG.eihha- TochB.eka- TochB.aike- TochA.e!e TochB.ai!aiy
m-
(a.)‘all-knowing=Buddha’(DTochB.402,poy!i)
(f.)‘Auge’(LSJ.35,Hes.4k6·K644@)pH;4>?D)
(vb.)‘zuerkennen’(WP.1:11,GoEtD.2,eihhan[inf.])
(vb.)‘know’(DTochB.101,ekasta[2sg])
(pr.)‘know,recognize’(DTochB.101,aikemar[1sg])
(adv.)‘aspectabiliter,manifeste’(Poucha41)
(vb.)‘takecare,handle,treat’(DTochB.106)
Here the identity TochB. ai!ai R TochA. e!e proves that TochA. e!e, unlike its
equivalentindialectB,hasbeenshortened(Osthoff’sLaw).Noshorteningtookplace
inTochB.ai!ai,withtheresultthattherootTochB.ek-in
TochB.eka-
(vb.)‘know’(DTochB.101,ekasta[2sg])
reflectsthenormalgradePIE*e/o(incontrastwithPIE*/inTochB.aik-).
356
Osthoff’s Law is somewhat ambiguous, owing to the possibility of an original ablaut of the protolanguage, which could potentially account for some differences of quantity. Thus, for example, the
alternationTochA.
mpi:Gr.\?Hcouldreflectquantitativeablaut(PIE*ambhi-:aembhi-,etc.)
ratherthanOsthoff’sshortening.
357
For such alternations, cf. TochB. ai- (vb.) ‘give’ (DTochB. 100-1, aitsi [inf.]) : TochA. el- (sb.)
‘donum’(Poucha 37-8, 40) and TochB. !aul- (n.) ‘life’(DTochB. 636-7) : TochA. !ol- (sg.m.) ‘vita’
(Poucha327-8),etc.
169
2.Fortheu-diphthong,theablautTochB.au:o:u/wisdocumented.Thiscanbe
seen,forexample,in:
TochB.rautka-
TochB.rotkä- TochB.rutk
- (vb.)‘moveaway’(DTochB.538,rautka)
(vb.)‘move(away)’(DTochB.538,rotkär)
(vb.)‘takeoff’(garment)(DTochB.538,rutk
te)
Thethreesimultaneouslypreservedablautgradesprovethatnoshorteninghastaken
place in Tocharian B, thus signalling agreement with the conservative Indo-Iranian
group.
3. Practically speaking, the differences between Tocharian A and B have
significance for internal and external comparisons, since the recognition of three
starting points for Tocharian B provides a regular explanation for alternations that
arecurrentlyfelttobedifficult,358seeninsuchexamplesas:
Gr.4o@B-
TochA.enäs- TochB.enäs- (m.)‘Rede,Lobrede’(GEW2:40,4o@BD[sgN])
(prM.)‘iubere,punire’(Poucha38,enäsm
[pt.])
(cs.prM.)‘instruct’(DTochB.81,enästär[3sg])
(c) For the aforementioned reasons, the restriction of Osthoff’s Law’s should be
expandedintoTocharian,359exceptforthelongdiphthongsshortenedindialectA.
§3.Owingtotheunmarkedquantityincuneiformscript,Osthoff’sLawisnotstrictly
verifiable in Old Anatolian. Scattered hints of a possible lack of shortening are,
however,possiblypresentintheuseoftheGreekalphabetbyLaterAnatolian.Thus,
theclusters:RCandKRCarepreservedatleastinsomeCariannamescollectedby
Sundwall (e.g. Car. ACF:G?BD (1913:76), Car. <?54C:>7BD (1913:81), Car.
=4CGEK>7BD(1913:97)andCar.=4E5K>><D(1913:98)).Basedon exnihilonihil,the
forms can hardly represent anything but an original long grade. Accordingly, it is
relativelysafetoassumethatOldAnatolianhadlongdiphthongs,too.Aninstanceof
an original PIE * can be postulated de facto for Old Anatolian on the basis of the
isogloss
HLu.rua-
i.nai·rua- Cil.CK·9CG?8C<-
(Ic.)‘Rua’(NOMS.1069,CHLu.10.9.1,ru-wa/i-sá)
(mc.)‘-’(NOMS.843,na-i-ru-ua-a#(-#a)[sgN])
(c.)‘-’(Sundwall1913:97,CK9CG?8C<D[sgN])
Thebase Cil.C(ß)Kisalso documented with a nasalextension(PIE *rÒ·n-)in Cil.
CK@·9CG?8C<D(Sundwall1913:97),whichisunaffectedbyOsthoff’sLaw.Itispossible
thatthelawdidnotapplyinOldAnatolianeither,butthematerialissparseandthe
358
Thecontemporaryproblem,outlinedbyLane(1960:76),isnottheequationTochB.aiC=TochA.
eC,butTochB.e=TochA.e:“TheanalysisofTochB.ke-t(e)withke-=TochA.kegoesagainstthe
rulethatBai=Ae,thoughonemightassumereductionofaitoeinunaccentedforms,andthereare
otherinstanceswheretheequationseemstohold(cf.Benäsk-‘instruct’,Aenäs-‘command’,punish’,
Bek-,Aents-‘seize’).”
359
NotealsotheambiguityofTochB.e.Inadditiontothecorrespondenceofshortdiphthongs(PIE
*oi, etc.), TochB. e also corresponds with TochA. a (e.g. TochA. pats (m.) ‘maritus’, Poucha 163 :
TochB.petso(sb.)‘husband’(DTochB.401)).
170
absence of quantity in Old Anatolian means that the problem may forever remain
ambiguous.
§4.SomecounterexamplesofOsthoff’sLawhavebeenidentifiedinGreek(e.g.Gr.
:x=F4<). Tested against the data, these exceptions reveal that the environment of
Osthoff’s Law (V:RC) was not present, because Proto-Indo-European had a
laryngealinthemiddleofthediphthongofthetraditionalreconstruction(shape PIE
*V:RC). The presence of this laryngeal can be demonstrated in terms of the key
exceptionsasfollows:
(a)PIE*augh-‘verkünden,usw.’(P.348,cf.:xI-)
i.ug-
Gr.8vI-
gAv.aog-
Gr.:xI-
Gr.4tI}K
(vb1.)‘beschwören’(HEG1:255-7,u-uk-zi)
(prM.)‘verkünden’(GEW1:595-6,8x=FB[3sg])
(pr.)‘verkünden,sprechen’(AIWb.37-8,aogTd
[3sg])
(pf.)‘tohaveprayed’(LSJ.739,:x=F4<,:xI;4<[inf.])
(pr.)‘sichrühmen,prahlen’(GEW1:192)
Both i. - and ablaut Gr. 4 : 8 : : are clearly present, and the bases allow only a
single reconstruction: PIE *a·ug- O Gr. 4tI-, PIE *aug- O i. ug-, PIE
*eaugh- O Gr. 8vI- and PIE *augh- O Gr. :xI-. In particular, :xI- had no
original diphthong (PIE *augh-); for this reason, Osthoff’s Law does not apply to
theform.
(b)The‘a-quality’inGr.@4D[sgN]andhiatusinRV.ná’us[sgN]imply PIE*neau-
for both (for the root of Lat. n
uis [sgN], see P. 755-6). The ostensible violation of
Osthoff’sLawbythelongdiphthongofHom.@:Dcanthereforebeexplainedbyit
being based on the laryngeal (PIE *naú-). Thus, by arranging the material under
twocomparativelyconfirmedablautbases,regularityisrestored:
PIE*neau- O
PIE*naú- O
Gr.@4D,RV.ná’us,etc.
Hom.@:D,Lat.n
uis,etc.
(c)Neogr.*mn-‘moon,month’(P.731)The‘a-vocalism’pointingto PIE*within
therootisreflectedin
Arm.mahik †
PIE*man-(vs.
(sb.)‘?:@E=BD:Mondsichel’(ArmGr.1:191).360
man-)isconfirmedbytheLithuaniane-vocalismandacutein
Li.m¹na-
Li.m¹nuo
(m.)‘Mond,Monat’(LiEtWb.438,m¹nuo[sgN])
WemaythusreconstructPIE*mans-for
Aiol.?@@-
(m.)‘Monat,Mondsichel’(GEW2:227,?@@BD).
HereagainthesecondarylongdiphthongexplainstheexceptionofOsthoff’sLaw.361
360
AccordingtoHübschmann(ArmGr.1:191),Arm.mahikisanIranianloan(foran*i-extension,see
LAv.nava.m
hya-(a.)‘neunMonatedauernd’,AIWb.1046).SincetheassumedsourceofArmenian
(Pahl. †m
hik) is hypothetical and Armenian has a derivate (Arm. mahik·eWiur ‘Mond-horn’), these
factorssupportthegenuinenessofArm.mahik.
171
(d) In general, the secondary long diphthongs in Greek are conditioned by the
presenceof PIE*andcanbeaccountedforwiththisupgrade,whichsimultaneously
providesanadditionalcriterionforPIE*.362
§5.Inthe19thcentury,Osthoff’sLawcontributedtotheproofthatvÎddhiwasnotan
Indo-Iranian innovation, but an original Proto-Indo-European feature that was lost
to a degree in European languages. Tocharian and possibly Anatolian today add to
thisanindependentconfirmation,increasingourcapabilitytorestorelostquantity.363
Owingtolimitsofspacehere,ithasbeenpossibletopresentonlyasketchofthemost
criticalphenomena,butIwholeheartedlyagreewithCollinge’s(1985:130)wishtosee
adissertationwrittenonOsthoff’sLaw.364
2 .5.9 EvaluationofhistoricaltheoriesandSystemPIE
§0.HavingthusdealtwiththeproblemofIndo-Europeanvocalism,itsrelationtothe
Old Anatolian laryngeal and their reconstruction, I finally present a brief survey of
howtherespectivetheoriesperform.
§1. Brugmann’s eight-vowel system is a masterpiece of comparative reconstruction.
Owing to its strictly empirical content, the comparative theory can be inductively
inferredfromitbymeansofasimpleadditionofthesinglelaryngeal PIE*(Zgusta,
Szemerényi,Tischler,etc.),whichappearsindiphonemicPIE*a*a.
§2.Thelaryngealtheory,inturn,canbecreditedforthefollowing:
(a)Saussure’ssegmentalanalysisoftheablautschemaNeogr.*T:
through*A:eAis
pivotalandcontinuestobeofvalue,duetothecommondenominator*Aofthe‘avocalism’, which is absent in the schema Neogr. *T : .365 By means of three simple
changes–addingquantitytoSaussure’sdefectvowelinventory,replacing DS*Awith
PIE*a,andpostulatingPIE*(inenvironmentPIE*a/a)–Saussure’ssystemcanbe
changedtomatchthatofSystemPIE:
Saussure*e*o*A
:
SystemPIE*·*Ê*a/a.
361
Intermsofarelativechronology,onemayaddthatthedoubletreatmentofthelongdiphthongsin
GreekimpliesthatOsthoff’sLawtookplacebeforethelossofPIE*.
362
Note,however,thateventhisupgradedoesnotresolveall‘dialectal’counterexamples(cf.TheranMelian9:D[sgN]vs.Gr.98D=RV.dy³us[sgN]).
363
AsthecontractionssuggestedbySaussure(*eA,eO)andMøller(*eE)didnottakeplace,vÎddhi
appearsinpositionswherethelaryngealtheorypostulatesLT*eH,withtheresultthatthelongvowels
arefarmorecommonplacethancurrentlythought.
364
Broadly speaking, there appears to have been a large-scale distribution, according to which the
‘Aryan languages’ (including Tocharian)lost the oppositions of quality and the ‘non-Aryan’(or
‘European’)languageslosttheoppositionsofquantity(Osthoff’sLaw).
365
See Saussure (1879 [= Mém.]:119f. Anm2) and Tischler’s comment (1990:91 & fn117) on
Saussure’s assumption that “ein Zusammenhang zwischen Vokalfarbe und Gutturaltyp [or rather:
coefficient]besteht”.
172
(b)Møller’scolouringrule366Neogr.*aR*Ae(Neogr.‘*Te’)–thatistosay,the
assimilationofPIE*etothepreceding PIE*aresultingintheshortvowelNeogr.*a–
iscorrect.ThoughSystemPIEalsocontainsthelaryngealinsequence PIE*ae,the
principleofassimilationremainsthesame:
PIE*ae
O
i.a,Lat.a,Gr.a,OInd.a,etc.
(c) The laryngeal theory as a whole can be credited for the establishment of the
connection between OAnat. and Neogr. *T a ( ‘a-vocalism’) through LT *h2,
despite the fact that the idea of the laryngeal itself could ‘colour’ surrounding
vowels367andKuryowicz’sidentification(i.RA)are,strictlyspeaking,erroneous:
LT*h2RNeogr.*TRPIE*a.
(d)Finally,thelaryngealtheorycanbecreditedformakingtheideaofthelaryngeal
oftheproto-languagegenerallyaccepted.Thoughmultipleaspectsofthemainstream
laryngealtheoryneedtoscaledback,certainlythecornerhasbeenturnedregarding
the idea that a laryngeal phoneme, the reconstructive counterpart of i. , once
belongedtothePIEphonemeinventory.368
§3. As a whole, however, the laryngeal theory did not fare as well as the theory
advancedbythecomparativists.Itsdisappointingperformancecanbetracedbackto
a chain of errors made during the critical phase of theory formation. By order of
appearance,theerrorscanbecataloguedasfollows:
(a)Saussure’sfailureintheanalysisoftheIndo-Europeanablautlefthimwithatwophasedablautpattern DS*Ø:*e/oinsteadofthecorrectablaut PIEØ:*e/o:*/
with three distinctions. The error manifested immediately, as Saussure had to recreatequantitybyassumingforthefallaciouscompensatorylengthening(DS*eAO
Neogr.*
),whichinturnlefthissystemwithoutanypossibilityofreconstructionfor
thecoversymbolNeogr.*a.369
(b)Saussure’spostulationofthesecond‘coefficient’*Ô(e.g.Lat.datumRGr.7BFD,
Rec. 141) went astray because of his previous errors.370 After his assumption of
ubiquitous compensatory lengthening, it could no longer occur to Saussure that the
differenceofLat.datum:Gr.7BFDcouldbeaccountedforby PIE*deato-and PIE
*doato-(i.e.ablaut PIE*e*o);accordingly,hepostulated †Ôforboth.Inrelation
tothisdetail,Brugmann’sevaluation(1879d:774)ofSaussure’s Mémoireasapurely
366
ForananalysisofMøller’sequationNeogr.*ag-as*Aeg,cf.Szemerényi(1973:6).
367
Seebold (1988:519) writes: “Die Ansätze der Laryngalhypothese haben sich bei der Annahme
bestätigt,daßgrundsprachlichesh-eineUmfärbungzuha-bewirkthat.”
368
SeeNyman’sevaluation(1982:39):“Saussure’sabstractrepresentationswerelaterinpartconfirmed
by the Hittite findings. Strictly speaking, however, this ‘confirmation’consisted in the fact that the
Hittitedatarenderedsomereconstructionslessabstract.”
369
These errors were inherited by Møller (1879:150): “Dasselbe lange enthält >~;K, zu dem sich
alsdannd>4;B@verhältgenausowiezu>8Kd><B@,zuH86KdHG6B@.”
370
See Mayrhofer (1986:101), Schmitt-Brandt (1967:117), Bammesberger (1984:112), Frisk (GEW
1:347),Chantraine(DELG1:251),Beekes(1969:182-5),Rix(1976:71-2)andLindeman(1970:90-91).
173
aprioristic construction is correct:371 Though Saussure’s *A fares better than
Brugmann’s*Tintermsofsegmentalanalysis,Saussure’ssystemcontaineda“radical
error” (Osthoff) because of the second coefficient †Ô.372 The inadequacy of †Ô was
wellknowntosuchcontemporariesasMøller(1880:494n2):
“Ich sehe indessen kein wort, für welches die annahme dieses dritten elementes [= Ô]
notwendigunddieerklärungdesodurchgeändertenablautunmöglichwäre.”
Theinconsistencyof †ÔinthefaceoftheexistingbasesNeogr.*da-,d
-wasknown
toMøller(1880:518):
“Dasgriech.hat7KF~C,voc.7FBC,ausdenstarken,7BF~Causdenschwachencasus(:o
tritt für : a ein indem das griech. die stufe d
aufgiebt und d nach 77K?<
verallgemeinert.SonsthatdiewurzelSaussuresÔ[...].Dasaaberzeigtgr.7|@BD.”
(c) At this critical juncture, in spite of knowing that Saussure’s †Ô (= †h3) was
erroneous, Møller (1880:493n2) paved the way for the postulate by arguing for an
analogy:
“Ingriech.7K-:7B-ausd
:d:dAhättealsodasgriechischediestufed
aufgegebenund
danndenablaut7K:74in7K:7Bgeändert.”
Møller’sreferencetoanalogyinsteadoftheregularexplanation(Gr.4=Lat.aand
Gr.B=Lat.o)seemstohavebeenmotivatedbyhisassumptionofageneticrelation
betweenIndo-EuropeanandSemiticlanguages(1906,1911),whichfirstandforemost
required the addition of laryngeals (here †Ô) for Indo-European. Møller’s
questionableactionsresultedintheuseofanon-existent †h3inthereconstructionof
Proto-Indo-European. At the same time, the postulate †h3 was redundant, as the
allegedexamplesof†h3belongedtooneortheotherofthecategories:
1. The o-vocalism in ablaut with a-vocalism points to PIE *a, *a, making ‘h3’
impossible;seeEichner(1978:162,fn77):
“VondeninderLiteraturfüranatol.h-N*h3-genanntenBeispielenistkeinessicher,alle
könnenauchmit*h2-angesetztwerden(MaterialbeiF.O.Lindeman,Einführungindie
Laryngaltheorie,Berlin1970,§27).”373
TheexamplesbelongtotheablautPIE*:e:Ø:o:withPIE*a,*a.
371
SeeKoerner(1985:324):“Indeed,Brugmann(1879d:774)feltthatSaussurehadproposedapurely
aprioristic scheme (rein aprioristische Construction), which did not hold water […]”, as well as his
accompanyingdiscussion.
372
SeeKoerner(1985:324):“HermannOsthoff[…]expressedhimselfinamuchmorehostilemanner
to Saussure’s theories in several articles published in volumes 2 and 4 of Morphologische
Untersuchungenin1879and1881,qualifyingthemasa‘totalfailure’,‘radicalerror’,andthelike(cf.
Redard 1978:35 for details).” For Osthoff’s critique (1879b:125f., 1881a:215f., Anm. 1, 279, 331
(“radicaler irritum”), 346ff.), see also Mayrhofer (1983:141). In order to better understand Osthoff’s
attitude,itisworthnotingthatwhilehewasworkingtoestablishthePIElonggradethroughhislaw
andotherinductivemeans,Saussurewasdeductivelyproceedingtooppositegoals.
373
SeealsoMayrhofer(1986:142-143,fn182):“[...]wo*/h3/durchhethhvertretenseinsoll,beidenen
ichmichfrage,obinihnennicht*/h2o/angesetztwerdendarf.”SeealsoMayrhofer(1986:135).
174
2.Therootswith‘o-vocalism’inablautwith‘e-vocalism’pointtoablautPIE*:e
:Ø:o:withoutPIE*a,a.Here‘h3’isimpossible,owingtothe‘e-quality’andzero
grade,bothofwhichexclude †h3.Thatsaid,Eichner’s(1978:162,fn77)ownexamples
of†h3mistakenlyreplacePIE*owith†h3:
“Hingegen ist die Vertretung von *h3- durch anatol. ø- wegen heth. artari ‘steht’(Wurzel
*H3er,s.H.RixMSS27,1969,92f.)m.E.gesichert.”374
Asarule,amoredetailedlookatthedatarevealsPIE*:*e:Øtoberelated,atleast
insomeforms,tothealleged†h3:
i.ar- RV.sam(…)³ra-
Gr.kI;G·:C- (vbM.)‘(da)stehen,sichstellen’(HEG1:49-,ar-ta)
(aoM.)‘zuStandekommen’(WbRV.98-101)
(a.)‘ausFisch(en)bestehend’(GEW2:746)
Accordingtothegeneraldistribution,LT†h3isexcludedeitherby‘a-vocalism’(PIE*
:e:Øwith PIE*a,*a)or‘e-vocalism’(PIE*:e:Ø),withtheresultthatnosuch
phonemeexistedintheproto-language.
(d)Strictlyspeaking,Saussure’sinterpretationofthevowelNeogr.*Tasacoefficient
sonantique *A (a sonorant) is wrong, since the real value is PIE *a = *A (a vowel).
EvenmoreerroneouswasMøller’sinterpretationof*Aasalaryngeal(aconsonant).
ThesamecanbesaidofKuryowicz’sidentificationof PIE*awiththeOldAnatolian
laryngeal:
LT*h2O
Gr.4,Lat.a,OInd.i,…
:
i.,CLu.,…375
The confusion of vowels and consonants in the laryngeal theory can be corrected
throughapostulationofseparatesoundlawsforthevowelandthelaryngeal:
PIE*á O
PIE* O
Gr.4,Lat.a,RV.i,…
Gr.Ø,Lat.Ø,RV.’/Ø,…
:
:
i.a,CLu.a,…
i.,CLu.,…
(e)Inyetanothermistake,Møller’sstructuralpostulationof†E(1880:492n2.)repeats
Saussure’serrorswith*Aand †Ô(i.e.thevowelsNeogr.*e:*(inGr.;8-:;:-)are
replacedwithconsonantsin †E: †eE).ThisisparticularlydisappointingsinceMøller
(1880:523)knewthat†EwouldnotsolvetheproblematicablautNeogr.´:·:
“[...]griech.\F?D[...].DasAdieseswortes,dasmitvorhergehendemelangesgiebt,muss
ein anderer laut gewesen sein, als das A, das sich mit vorhergehendem e zu langem vereinigt,s.o.s.493anm.”376
374
Forthelackofi.correspondingto*h3inOldAnatolian,seeMayrhofer(1986:132,fn141).
375
CompareBurrow’s(1949:28)analysis:“[...]thevalidityoftheevidencefortheexistenceofavocalic
laryngeal,¬.Itispreciselyinthispointthatthelaryngealtheoryconnectswiththeearlierprevailing
theory of the apophony of the long vowels, since ¬ is nothing but schwa in new guise, and both are
foundedonthesamebasis.Thetwotheorieshavethisincommon,andhistoricallyitisassumptionof
thisreconstructedIEvowelwhichhasgivenrisetothemanifoldramificationsofthelaryngealtheory.”
376
FortheformsNeogr.*T:inOIr.athach:OEng.Um(RV.
tmán-),seeP.345.
175
As mentioned by Zgusta (1951:438), the laryngeal theory favoured the simple
solution E : eE, A : eA, Ô : eÔ at the cost of reconstructio difficilior (i.e. the ablaut
Neogr.*´:*Ê:*·).ItispossiblethatMøllerwasnotaimingtosolvetheproblemsof
Indo-European vocalism as much as he was tempted by the opportunity of the two
laryngeals*Aand †Ôtoproposeyetathirdone †E,thuscreatingasystemsimilarto
theSemiticlaryngeals‘’h.Inreality,itisnotallowedtoreconstructasegmentfor
theproto-languagethatdoesnothaveanunambiguousreflexinatleastonedaughter
language.Owingtotheerrorsinitspostulation,thelaryngeal †h1canbeeliminated;
seethefollowingdistribution:
1. Bases with ‘e-vocalism’ without PIE *a, a point to ablaut * : o : Ø : e : .
Here †h1 is eliminated by the data in the absence of any reflect of a ‘laryngeal’ (i.e.
vowel) in zero grade. Thus, Benveniste’s (1935:149) “*T1es- O e#-(zi) ‘il est’: *T1s(onti)Oa#-anzi‘ilssont’[...]”doesnotsignaltheabsenceofanyreflectofalaryngeal
in
PIE*s-
O
HLu.sa-(vb.)‘tobe’,Gr.(h)b@F<‘theyare’.
†
Anyattempttoderive T1sfrom PIE*s-(HLu.s-,Gr.h-)wouldbeaviolationof ex
nihilonihil,resultinginaninconsistency.
2.Rootswithe-vocalisminablautwithNeogr.*T,a,
reveal PIE*a,ainstead
of†h1.Thea-vocalism,OAnat.orothercriteriaimplyingPIE*aor*aeliminate†E
inthesubset.Thus,inMøller’sownexample(OEng. Um:OIr.athach),not †Ebut
*Aisattested(forNeogr.*ainOIr.athach,seealsoGr.\F?D).
Excludedbythezerograde(ablautPIE*:e:Ø:o:)or‘a-vocalism’(ablautPIE*
:e:Ø:o:withPIE*a,*a),LT†h1isnon-existent.
(f) Møller’s (1879:492) other mistake lies in his generalization of the Proto-Semitic
rootstructureCC·(C)forProto-Indo-European:377
“Die ursprüngliche gestalt der indogermanischen wurzel, d. h. natürlich des
indogermanischenwortes,genauernomenswardie:diewurzelwarzweisilbigmitinnerem
vocal aundauslautendemvocala,nachdenconsonantenbiliteralwie B‘aRa(träger)oder
triliteral(mitinneremi,u,rodernasalcons.,oderA,E)vorodernachcons.)wie DaRCa
(blickend), VaIDa (sehend), DaIVa und DIaVa (glänzend, himmel), DaMAa
(bändigend).”
IthasbeenpointedoutbySchmitt-Brandt378andSzemerényi379thattheProto-IndoEuropeanrootsarenotofgeneralformC1C2·(C3),butconfirmavaryingnumberof
377
According to Møller (1911:v-vi, x), many Semitic ‘triliteral’ root shapes were originally biliteral,
implyingCC·Cfor‘Proto-Indo-Semitic’.
378
Schmitt-Brandt (1967:9) writes: “Bei einer durch Rekonstruktion gewonnenen Sprache läßt sich
meist nicht mit Sicherheit feststellen, welche Ableitungen einer und derselben Epoche der
Sprachgeschichtlichte angehören, so daß sich auch nicht sagen läßt, welche Wurzelgestalten
gleichzeitigexistierten.DieanlebendenoderschriftlichbezeugtenSprachengemachtenerfahrungen
lassenjedenfallsfüralleEpocheneinerSprachediegleichzeitigeExistenzmehrererWurzelgestalten
erwarten,sodaßaprioriderAnsatzeinereinzigenWurzelformK1eK2äußerstunwahrscheinlichist.”
379
Szemerényi(1996:132)clarifies:“[...]itiswellknownthatthetheorycontradictssomeobviousfacts,
since there are certainly longer roots such as *leikw- ‘to leave’ (‘quadlitère’) and *sneigwh- ‘to snow’
(‘quinquilitère’),andalsoshorter,e.g.*es-‘tobe’(‘bilitère’).”
176
radical consonants ranging from C1 to C1C2…Cn.380 Being non-genetic, the Semitic
typology is not binding (Szemerényi 1967:92-93), and as it conflicts with the data, it
should be abandoned rather than normatively applied to the material (as is done
within the framework of multilaryngealism).381 The Proto-Indo-Semitic root
hypothesisCaC·(C)382hasledtoasituationwherethenon-existentlaryngeals†h1and
†
h3 are added to the roots with a single consonant (e.g. PIE i- ‘gehen’ and PIE s-
‘sein’),asiftheycontainedtwosuchitems(LT †h1ey-383and †h1es-).Inthisprocess,
the comparison of Indo-European data (and only that) has been replaced with
comparisonofdataandtheProto-Semiticrootaxiom
PISem.C1eC2-:i.e#-
O
PISem.†h1es-
despite the warnings of Bammesberger384 and others. Ultimately such tautologies,
containing Proto-Indo-Semitic on both sides of the equation, are not products of
soundscholarship,385aswasalreadypointedoutbyMøller’scontemporaries.386With
this move, Møller abandoned the agenda set forth by Sir William Jones (i.e. the
genetic relationship between the Indo-European languages) and failed as a
responsibleactorinthereconstructionofProto-Indo-European.
(g) For the third mistake of Møller, I would like to quote his monovocalism
hypothesis (1906:XIV), which also hearkens back to an alleged genetic relationship
withtheSemiticlanguages:
“Es gibt im Indogermanischen nur a-Wurzeln (oder, wenn man fürs Indogermanische
lieber will, e-Wurzeln, was für die Sache dasselbe) den semitische a-Wurzeln
entsprechend.”
Inretrospect,thiswasalsoasetbackforthedevelopmentofthereconstructionofthe
Indo-Europeanvowelsystem.Despitehissuggestionofthe‘fundamentalvowel*e’,
Saussureadmittedtheexistenceof PIE*o,standinginablautrelationshipwith PIE*e
(Mém. 127). The real content of PIE *o in Saussure’s system is secure because he
380
NoteinparticularthatSzemerényi(1996:132)isrightinclaimingthat“[...]itcanbeprovedthatnot
allIErootshavingthestructure eCgobacktoamoreprimitiveform*HeC,i.e.therewerenotonly
suffixesbutalsorootswiththestructure eC”.Thus,*s-‘sein’isconfirmedbyHLu.#a-‘tobe’and*i-
‘gehen’byi.i-‘id’.
381
Lindeman(1997:51)adds:“Most‘laryngealists’assume[...]thattheparentlanguagehadno(verbal)
rootswithaninitialvowel.ThisassumptionisbasedonBenveniste’stheoryoftheIErootaccordingto
theIErootconsistedoftwoconsonantsthattookthevowel*e[...].”
382
See Møller (1879:492): “die Wurzel war [...] mit innerem Vocal a [...] nach den Consonanten
bilitteral.”
383
Bammesberger (1984:36-40) writes: “Auch die Wurzel für ‘gehen’ muß nach Benvenistes Theorie
als*T1ey-(BENVENISTE1935:156)angesetztwerden.”
384
Bammesberger (1984:36-40) further explains: “In den Paradigmata von *es- und *ed- kommen
Formenvor,diemitderAnnahmeeinesanlautendesLaryngalsT1nichtvereinbarsind.”
385
Boretzky’s (1975:49) criticism of the idea that “Vielfach wird behauptet, daß die LT mit den
Methoden der IR arbeite” is justified: the laryngalist reconstruction is not internal, but uses Semitic
typologyembeddedasaxiomsinthelaryngealtheory.
386
See Koerner (1985:336): “[Möller’s] 94-page monograph on the laryngeal consonants of IndoEuropeanandSemiticwasnotregardedassoundinscholarship.”
177
(Rec. 159) accepts Brugmann’s Law, presupposing that vowel. By abandoning this,
Møller fell back to the Paleogrammarian monovocalism hypothesis, replacing the
Sanskrito-centrictypology(Paleogr.*´)withaSemiticone(LT*e).Consequently,the
NeogrammarianefforttorenovatethePIEvowelsystem,culminatinginBrugmann’s
systemofeightvowels,wasforgotten,thoughnotlost.Thiswasunfortunate,seeing
that the resulting costly detour could have been avoided; Møller was aware of the
existence of at least two different proto-vowels *e *o, as implied by his early
statements like “*eA wird aA, woraus , *oA wird ” (1880:493n2). That Møller
(1906:v-vi)lateroncametofavourthe*o-elimination(a.k.a.monovocalism),which
was called a ‘well-known phonological fallacy’ by Kuryowicz (1964:28), is obvious
fromhisstatement:
“Der Satz ‘Es gab und gibt im Indogermanischen nur a-Wurzeln’, an dem ich [...] ohne
einen einzigen Moment des Schwankens oder Zweifels beständigt festgehalten habe,
währendervonvielenSeiten,u.a.alsbaldvonOsthoffbestrittenwordenist.”
(h)Forhisfinalerror,Møllerchoseanincompletestartingpointofsixvowelsforhis
theory,insteadofthecorrecteightcoversymbolsofBrugmann(Møller1879:151):
“Esgabinderletztenperiodedergrundsprachezudendreikürzen a1a2a(mitCollitz eo
a)dreientsprechendelängen12(,,).”387
ThoughequalingtheablautDor.48B:K,thisapproachwasnotsufficientforthe
reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-European, because Indo-Iranian necessitates two
more correspondence sets (viz. Neogr. *T and Neogr. *å). Without these, Møller’s
theory never had a chance to solve the problem of Indo-European vocalism, and
givenhisfocusonentitiesdefinedbycolouring(Ee:Ae:Ôe)andlengthening(eE:eA
:eÔ)–thatistosay,the‘laryngeals’ E: A: Ô–itcanbedoubtedwhetherMøllerhad
theIndo-Europeanprobleminhismindatall.Accordingly,thelaryngealtheoryhas
been criticized for its aprioristic approach at the cost of empiricism from the
beginning.388Theresultsareparticularlypoor,asMøllerknowinglychoseSaussure’s
inconsistent theory as the basis of his deductions.389 The situation did not improve
whenKuryowiczandBenvenisteuncriticallycontinuedMøller’sdeductiveapproach
in the interpretation of Hittite. Instead of using empirical induction390 and
387
SeealsoSchmitt-Brandt(1967:4):“MöllerhatteausSaussureszweisonantischenKoeffizientendrei
Laryngalegemacht,sodaßdendreiVokalqualitätendesMeilletschenVokalsystems*e,*a,*o,*,*
,
*jedreilaryngaleKonsonanten*H1,*H2,*H3,entsprachen.”
388
SeeTischler’s(1980:498)skepticismtowardsthedeductiveapproachofSaussure,MøllerandCuny.
SeealsoMeid’srelateddiscussion(1988:341).
389
Krahe (1958:97) writes: “‘Die ‘Laryngaltheorie’kann aber weder in ihrer Substanz noch in ihrer
Methodikalsgesichertgelten.”
390
SeeTischler(1980:498):“ImübrigenliegtjadieAnnahmenahe,daßKuryowiczselbstgarnieauf
die Idee gekommen wäre, das hethitische auf mehr als einen idg. Laut zurückzuführen, well er
induktiv vom sprachlichen Material ausgegangen wäre. Kuryowicz ging dagegen deduktiv von den
Theorien de Saussures und Cunys aus und wollte im Hethitischen nur die Bestätigung für diese
Theoriefinden.”
178
comprehensive material,391 the authors presented Møller’s theory without its
programmatically Semitic typology by replacing ‘Proto-Indo-Semitic *a’with
‘fundamentalvocal*e’,laryngeals E: A: Ôwithschwas*T1T2T3andtheProto-IndoSemitic root CäCä·Cä with schemata C1eC2·.- (thème I) : C1C2·e.- (thème II).392
Unfortunately,noamountofanalysiswillreachtherightconclusioniftheparadigmis
wrong.
§4. As an empirical science,393 Indo-European linguistics is fundamentally based on
empiric data, genetic relationships and family consistency.394 It is these factors that
allow the study to overcome the laryngeal crisis. As demonstrated in this study, the
Proto-Indo-Europeanlaryngealproblemissolvableasthetwocomparativelyproven
phonemesNeogr.*T(= PIE*a)and PIE*(=i.)arecombinedintodiphonemic
PIE *a, *a. In the resulting system, the values of Brugmann’s eight cover symbols
haveaninterpretationinthemosteconomicsystemofproto-phonemestodate, PIE
*·Êa.Asacomparativereconstructionexistsanditcanbesupportedbyadigital
proofthatgeneratesthedata,thesuccessofthecomparativemethodiscertain.The
simultaneousappearanceofthePIELexicon,itscompatibilitywiththeotherdigital
dictionaries and the fact that the problems of the laryngeal theory have not been
generallyforgotten395meanthatthisbreakthroughcanberigorouslyexploredinthe
391
SeeTischler(1980:495):“ObwohlKuryowiczseineTheorieaufderschmalenBasisvonledigilich
24 Wortvergleichen errichtete, von denen sich nachträglich noch dazu eine ganze Reihe als verfehlt
erwiesen,wurdeschonbaldklar,daßdieseTheoriemitdenvorliegendenFaktennichtinEinklangzu
bringenist.”
392
Benveniste(1935:170)writes:“Laracineindo-européenneestmonosyllabique,trilitère,composée
delavoyellefondamentaleeentredeuxconsonnesdifférentes.[…]Laracinefournit,avecunsuffixe,
deux thèmes alternants: I racine pleine et tonique + suffixe zéro; II racine zéro + suffixe plein et
tonique.”ForBenveniste’s‘thèmeI’and‘thèmeII’,seeMöller(1880:506):“Ursprünglichdreisilbige
wurzeln(wiedajavas.492,worausdaivunddjau[...].”
393
See Boretzky (1975:61): “Die historische Sprachwissenschaft ist jedoch eine empirische
Wissenschaft,dienichtalleinmitlogischenGrundsätzenauskommenkann[...].”
394
For‘familyconsistency’,seeTrask(DHCL120).NotealsothatTrask’srestrictiontotheapplication
of the rule does not hold, because his sole counterexample is the laryngeal theory, which must be
regardedasafailure.
395
Toassistinanunderstandingoftheambiguityofthelaryngealtheory,Iquoteanentryfromthefirst
articleofthepublishedentryof AltlitauischesetymologischesWorterbuch(HUBerlin),linkedtothe
TITUSprogram’sdesktop:
n à,nùint.,prt.‘fürwahr;na’:M(GII5655Widuimertisnamumskerchiy/Pelklakarchtuvgnimi
“n
‘(Mittenindemtodanficht/unsderhellenrachen)’;BrG[22]v15 Widuimertiesnumumskerchi
‘(Mittenindemtodanficht)’;SaC729Interjectiones..Comminantis,ut:Nu/nu.
LK'belegtbeideVariantenderInterjectionundPartikelnàundnùfürdasganzelit.Sprachgebiet.
Die Variante nà ist vermutlich entlehnt aus nhd., nndd. na int. ‘(Ausdruck des Zögerns, des
Unglaubens,derUngeduld)’,dastrotzrelativspäterBezeugung(16.Jh.)wohlnichtzutrennenist
vonan.napart.inhér-na‘hier,hierhin’,ar-na‘da,dahin’,nú-na‘jetzteben’etc.Diegerm.Lexeme
lassensichmitgr.(ion.,att.)@~‘fürwahr,wahrlich,ja’,lat.n‘ja,fürwahr’zusammenstellen,wasdie
Rekonstruktioneinerbereitsuridg.Part.*néh1oder*nnahelegt(vgl.EWDS642).–Dievariante
lit.nùmachtdenEindrückeinerübernahmeausdemPoln.oderOstslav.Vgl.poln. nu, nu-e,russ.
nu, nú-ka, nue,wruss. nu, nú-ka, nu.DieseInt.desAuffordernsistnachAusweisdersüd[s]lav.
Vergleichsformen wie skr. n, nto oder sln. nù, nùj zumindenst bereits urslav. Alters (vgl. REW
179
future. A new era in Indo-European linguistics has begun, one of natural science,
empiricismanddigitaltechnology.
1.230,ÉSSJ.26.30-33).SieentstandwahrscheinlichdurchZusammenrückungvonuridg.*néh1bzw.
*nmitderPrt.*h2u‘und,auch,ferner’(ved.u,gr.4x).eh”
Theentryisnotonlyphilologicallyandcomparativelyoriented(versusdeductive),butconservativeas
forthelaryngeals:*h2isreconstructed(in*h2u forGr.4x),butneitherthecompensatorylengthening
nor the ‘e-colouring’laryngeal are strictly speaking bought, as the ambiguity is properly noted in the
reconstruction(‘*néh1oder*n’).
180
3 PIE*andresonantsPIE*iulrmn
3.1 Ontheoriesandproblemsoftheresonantsystem
3.1.1 Introductoryremarksonresonants
§0.ThemainfeaturesofthePIEresonants(orsonorants)–thesemi-vowelsPIE*¾*Ò
(= U), liquids PIE *l *r (= L) and nasals PIE *m *n (= N) – will be studied in this
chapter both independently and in environments PIE *a *a, based on the
comparativemethodofreconstruction.396
§1.TheProto-Indo-Europeanresonantshadaconsonantalandasyllabicvariant:
PIE
PIE
*¾
*i
Ò
u
m
Ç
n
É
l
Ä
r
Î
(‘non-syllabicR’)
(‘syllabic±’)
The alternation R : ± is conditioned by the environment (i.e. the surrounding
phonemes)asexpressedinthefollowingformula:
VRV CRV
V±C
C±C
(‘alternationR:±’).
Fundamentally,thealternationdependsonlyonthephonemefollowingtheresonant,
with the result that the antevocalic resonants were non-syllabic (RV) and
anteconsonantalsyllabic(±C),regardlessoftheprecedingphoneme(CorV).397
§2. As for the resonants (R) and their subclasses (U, L, N), note the following
preliminaryobservations:
(a)Themainproblemsofthetheoryofsemi-vowels U(PIE*i,u)havebeensolvedin
the traditional reconstruction with the rules for *T+U and * U+T (except for
Sturtevant’s interpretation of Sievers’s Law), allowing for the replacement of the
formerprosodicconditionwithaphoneticone.
(b) A more complex problem is found in the Neogrammarian ‘Sonantentheorie’ of
the co-called syllabic sonants,398 or the syllabic liquids Neogr. *Ä Î and the syllabic
nasals*ÇÉ,postulatedbyOsthoffandBrugmann.Thistheorydominatesthefieldof
PIE resonants and is given special attention in what follows, owing to the new
interpretationnecessitatedbytheemergenceofthesegmentallaryngeal.
396
In this chapter, the term resonant R refers to the phonemes that can function either as vowels ±
(syllabic)orconsonantsR(non-syllabic).
397
ThisoriginalstateofaffairsisstillpreservedintheBalticlanguageswherethesequencesV±Care
diphthongsregardlessofthecharacteroftheresonant±.
398
Inordertoavoidconfusion,theterm‘sonant’isusedtorefertoBrugmann’sandOsthoff’stheoryof
syllabicsonants.
181
3 .1.2 O nthetheoriesofPIEsyllabicresonants
§0. In the domain of problems best highlighted through Osthoff’s and Brugmann’s
syllabic sonants, three primary theoretical approaches have emerged in the
explanationofdata,describedhereintermsoftheirgeneralfeatures.
§1. The theory of syllabic sonants (die Sonantentheorie) was presented by Osthoff
and Brugmann. The idea of the theory is that the syllabic sonants developed an
epenthetic (svarabhakti) vowel in ‘non-Aryan’languages (except for the syllabic
nasal), resulting in a vowel in Indo-Iranian and Greek.399 Thus, the following wellknownequationsweresetforthforNeogr.*Îand*É:
Neogr.*Î
Neogr.*É
OOInd.Î,Av.Tr
OOInd.a,Gr.4
:Gr.4C,Li.ir,Go.ur,Lat.or,etc.
:Li.in,Go.un,Lat.en,etc.
Inthismanner,thesyllabicsonantswereassumedtohavedevelopedfullvowels(Gr.
4,BSl.i,Germ.u,Ital.o/e,etc.)characteristicoftheindividualsubgroups.
§2.The‘schwasecundumschool’includessuchscholarsandtheoreticiansasSchmidt,
Bechtel (1892:127-43 & 151-3), Güntert (1916), and Schmitt-Brand (1967). Though
less appreciated, this theory was highly influential in the 20th century as Walde’s
etymological dictionary formed the core of Pokorny’s Indogermanisches
etymologisches Wörterbuch, a hybrid of the Sonantentheorie and schwa secundum.
Characteristically, the schwa secundum school accepts the correspondences defined
by Brugmann and Osthoff, but explains the svarabhaktivowels by means of schwa
secundum*M,asindicatedin:
SSec.*Mr
SSec.*Mn
OOInd.Î,Av.Tr
OOInd.a,Gr.4
:Gr.4C,Li.ir,Go.ur,Lat.or,etc.
:Li.in,Go.ur,Lat.en,etc.
§3.Finallythecomparativetheorymaybementioned,asitisoccasionallyemployed
in the reconstruction of various scholars like Verner. This approach compares the
svarabhaktivowelsofcertainlanguagestoidenticalonesinotherbranches,andwhen
twowitnessesconfirmavowel,thatitem–ratherthansyllabicsonantsortheschwa
secundum–isreconstructed.
§4. These three theories will be analyzed, evaluated and tested against the material
nowatourdisposal.
3.1.3 Thetheoryofsyllabicsonants(Sonantentheorie)
§0.TheNeogrammariantheoryofsyllabicsonantshasatwofoldorigin:
399
The Neogrammarians used various terms, in both the singular and the plural, to designate the
vowelsallegedlyoriginatinginthesyllabicresonants.Inadditiontotheterm‘svarabhakti’,designations
like‘dasResiduumdesVokals’,‘Gleitlaut’,‘Stimmgleitlaut’and‘volleVocale’wereused.Forthesake
ofsimplicity,exclusivelytheterm‘svarabhakti’willbeusedinthisstudy.
182
(a) The two ablaut schemata of the Neogrammarian system (Neogr. *e : Ø : o and
Neogr. *T : ) did not suffice for a regular explanation of the attested IndoEuropean vocalisms. Consequently, needing additional means of derivation,
BrugmannandOsthoffchosesyllabicsonantsforthispurpose.
(b) In his phonology, Sievers (1876:24-5) had demonstrated that liquids and nasals
can function as consonants and as vowels, thus providing the phonetic, typological
andtheoreticalframeworkforthetheoryofsyllabicsonants.
Against this background, Osthoff and Brugmann set themselves the goal of
accounting for the irregular vocalisms by explaining them as svarabhakti vowels
resultingfromsyllabicsonants.400
§1.DuringtherevisionofthePaleogrammarianvowelsystem,Osthoff(1876:52-53)
claimed the existence of syllabic liquids for the proto-language. Immediately
afterwards,Brugmann(1876a:303-4)madeasimilarconjectureforsyllabicnasals.401
ThesesuppositionswerecombinedbyBrugmann(1879a:3)intoageneralstatement
ofsyllabicsonants,markingthebirthofthegeneraltheory:
“Die gemeinsam indogermanische grundsprache besass aller wahrscheinlichkeit nach ein
vocalischesrundlundebensovocalischenasale[…].”
As for the svarabhakti vowels (i.e. the alleged outcomes of the syllabic sonants),
Pedersen(1983:68)illustratestheplanwiththefollowing(slightlymodified)table:402
Sanskrit Greek Latin
Celtic Gothic ONorse Lithuanian
Slavic
Paleogr. 1
–
a
8
e,i
e
i
e,i
e
e
–
*a
2
–
a
B
o,(u)
o
a
a
a
o
–
*a
3
–
a
4
a
a
a
a
a
o
–
*a
4
–
iu
4(B?)
eo
i(a)
u
u/o
i
–
a,[e,o],i,u
400
See Brugmann (1876a:303): “E. Sievers in seinen trefflichen ‘Grundzügen der
Lautphysiologie”setztS.24ff.auseinander,dasdieliquidae rund l unddienasalsn,n,mebensogut
VocaleseinkönnenwieConsonanten.”
401
SeealsoPedersen(1983:71):“Thefollowingyear(1876)BrugmannwroteanarticleentitledNasalis
sonans in der indogermanischen Grundsprache in which he maintained that there must have been
syllableswithoutvowelsintheparentlanguageofourlanguagefamily,syllablesinwhichan noran m
madeupthesyllable;similarly,heassumedsyllableswithÎ(Ä)assyllabicnucleus.” NotethatPedersen
credits Brugmann for the syllabic liquids; this is inaccurate, strictly speaking, as the syllabic liquids
wereoriginallysuggestedbyOsthoff.
402
Columns1,2and3indicatethevowelsNeogr.*a,e,o,etc.(seeChapter2)andcolumn4indicates
the svarabhakti vowels explained by the leading Neogrammarians by means of ‘syllabic sonants’
(Neogr.*ÇÉÄÎ,etc.).
183
Neogr.
*e
*o
*a
*ÇÉÄÎ
§2.Thekeyfeaturesofthetheoryare:
(a) In the formation of their theory, Brugmann (and Osthoff) borrowed from the
conceptualframeworkoftheSanskritgrammariansinseveralrespects:
1. The svarabhakti (a.k.a. epenthetic) vowel of the Sanskrit grammarians was
turned into a theoretical means of explaining the vocalisms of the individual
subgroups(Lat.e,Li.i,etc.).403
2.ThesyllabicliquidoftheSanskritgrammarians(OInd.rÎÍetc.)wasaccepted
andgeneralizedforthelateralandnasalsofProto-Indo-European.
3. The variation of the Sanskrit-roots tar- tir- tur- was subordinated to
unattestedunderlyingroots(Neogr.tÍ-etc.)equalingtheirtheoreticalcounterparts
inSanskrit(OInd.tÍ-etc.).
(b)TheNeogrammarianspostulatedproto-sonants*±,assumedlypreservedinIndoIranian zero grade as such (except for the nasal), but displaying svarabhakti vowels
derivedbyexcrescenceintherestofthesubgroups:
P
IIr.± Neogr.*±
P
P
Gr.4R
Li.iR P
Go.uR
P
Lat.or
etc.
Inmodernterms,BrugmannandOsthoffimpliedadistributionaccordingtowhich‘avocalism’was typical for Greek, ‘i-vocalism’ for Balto-Slavonic, ‘u-vocalism’ for
Germanic and so forth.404 The Sanskrito-centric basic idea of the reconstruction is
reflected in Brugmann’s and Osthoff’s conclusion of Indo-Iranian representing the
originalstateofaffairs,whereastherestofthegroupisconsideredtohaveinnovated
thesvarabhaktivowels.
(c) Brugmann and Osthoff shared the ‘uniform hypothesis’ in its absolute form,
accordingtowhichforeveryobjectthereisone(andonlyone)representativeinthe
proto-language(asinBrugmann’sGermandialect).Accordingly,itwasassumedthat
asingleuniformprototypeexisted(forinstance,forthewordmeaning‘hundred’)in
the proto-language (Neogr. *ÀÇto-), just as there is a single word in German
(ModHG.hundert).
§3. In contact with the material, the simple theory including Neogr. *m/Ç *n/É *l/Ä
*r/Îranintodifficulties.SoonOsthoff(1879a:421)405hadtosuggesttheexistenceof
Neogr.*ÄlÎrÇmÉn(a.k.a.‘antevocalicsyllabicliquidsandnasals’)inordertoaccount
forthesvarabhaktivowelsattestedinantevocalicposition:
403
For the ‘svarabhakti’ in action, see Brugmann (1876a:305): “Für die europäische Grundsprache
können wir Formen etwa wie pádem […] aufstellen, d. h. die in der Anlage schon vorhandene
Svarabhaktihatteeinee-färbung.”
404
Consequently,thetestingofthetheorydependsonwhethersuchdistributionsareprovablebythe
comparativemethodornot.
405
SeealsoOsthoff(1879b:14-16).
184
“Diesestellungdergriechischenspracheerhelltbesondersklarauchausfolgendemseitens
Brugmans noch nicht verzeichneten beispiele für die nasalis sonans: griech. F4@G- in den
bahuvrhis F4@F8CBD u. a. […] wie skr. tanú- adj., aber lat. tenu-i-s, abulg. tn&-k&, ahd.
dunni,allevondergrundformindog.*tÉnú-.Mitdiesemsoangesetztenindogermanischen
adjectiv*tÉnu-verhältessichmitderviersilbigkeitdesSievers’schenmusterbeispielesnhd.
be-rit-tn-(n)e.”
(a)Inordertoprovideatheoreticalframework,Brugmann(Grundr21:399)defined
the ‘prevocalic syllabic nasals and liquids’ as parallel to the glides: “Hinter
ConsonantenentsprichtderWechselÉn:ndemvoni¾:¾,uÒ:Ò,Îr:r,Äl:l,s.§282S.
264.”Theirregularityoftheexplanationwas,however,immediatelyrecognizedand
criticizedforthat.Forexample,Møller(1893:370)writes:
“Indem Bechtel (wie Joh. Schmidt) reducierten vokal + m, n, r, l vor vokal für die
grundsprache annimmt, stelt er sich in einen gegensatz gegen ‘die anhänger der
sonantentheorie’(s.131),diedenwurzelvokalbeseitigseinlassenunddergrundsprachedie
lautgruppen Çm, Én, Îr, Äl zuschreiben. ‘Gegen derartige ansätze erhebt das germanische
protest,wiePaul(PBB.6,109fg.)gezeigthat’,demBechtel(s.132)sichanschließt,obwohl
Paul,ohnedasvonihmselbstfrühervorgebrachtezuwiderlegen,seineneinwandhatfallen
lassen(6,409).Ingot.baurans,numans,skulum,munumusw.‘kannniemalsdervokalvor
nas.-liq ganz geschwunden gewesen sein’, es müste sonst ‘skullum heissen gerade wie
hullum’.”
(b)Szemerényi(1996:51)laterattemptedtoimprovethesituation,notingthat
“[...]itiscustomarytospeakofsyllabicnasalsandliquidsinprevocalicposition(denotedby
ÇmorÇm,etc.),whichinfactinvolvesacontradiction,asthesesoundscanbecomesyllabic
only between the consonants. [...] Since the denotation Çm is misleading –giving the
impression of a syllabic followed by a consonantal m –we shall use Ç, É, etc. for the
prevocalicpositionalso.”
WhileSzemerényiiscorrectininrejectingthenotationNeogr.*ÇmÉn,etc.,writing
*ÇV,*ÉV,etc.insteaddoesnotresolvethecontradiction:“thesesoundscanbecome
syllabiconlybetweentheconsonants.”
(c) Saussure attempted to solve the problem with segmental analysis by defining
Neogr. *±R R DS *±A. This idea (written C±HV) is accepted by the mainstream
laryngealtheorywiththefollowingrules:
Neogr.*(C)ÄHV
(C)ÎHV
(C)ÇHV
(C)ÉHV.
Onpaper,suchanalysisprovidesaphonologicalmotivationforthesyllabification,but
itshouldbenotedalreadyherethatthiswasanotationalchangethatdidnotcritically
evaluatethepostulatesNeogr.ÇmÉnÎrÄlandtheiractualbehaviourinthedata.
§4.Finally,afourthseriesofresonants–thelongsyllabicsonantsNeogr.*ÍÃÆÈ–
were postulated by Brugmann (Grundr.2 1: 417-423).406 From the outset, this series
was considered as shorthand for the earlier diphonemic clusters ±+T (= Saussure
406
For the long syllabic sonants, see Mayrhofer (1987:103), Schwyzer (GrGr1: 259-63), Kuryowicz
(1956:166-208),Schmitt-Brand(1967:32),Hirt(1900:32ff.)andBrugmann(Grundr21:490ff.).
185
±+A407)inenvironmentC±TC(RLTC±HC).408Theideaofthereconstructionis
neatlyexplainedbyBurrow(1949:35):
“It is supposed, in the case of this root [= tr-], that the weakened which forms the
secondelementbecomesT>Skt.iinformsliketaritum,butthatwherethereiscomplete
reduction, the two elements combined to form in Indo-European a long vocalic Í which
developsinSanskrittor,%r,andvariouslyinotherlanguages.Thesamerelationisheldto
exist between párman- ‘abundance’, pr
tá-, and p%rá- ‘full’ (IE Ä), bhávitum and bh%tá-
(IE ewT : %); likewise IE in ntá- ‘lead’, È in s
tá- ‘obtained’(: sanitum), Æ in d
ntá-
‘tamed’ (: damitË-). The laryngeal theory substitutes the usual duality of vocalic and
consonantal:*tér-¬-tum:tÎHnó-.”
Brugmann’sinterpretationwassoonattackedbyJohannesSchmidt(1895),according
to whom Neogr. *T is a vowel and therefore could not possibly syllabicize (and
lengthen)theprecedingsonant.InSaussure’ssystem,however,thecoefficient*A(=
Neogr.*T)wasunderstoodasasonant;Saussure’sCÎAC409could,atleastintheory,
overcome the difficulty, especially after *A was interpreted as a (laryngeal)
obstruent.410
3 .1.4 TheproblemsofSonantentheorie
§0. The problems of the sonant theory culminated in its complexity: instead of two
resonantsinsimplealternationR:±,fourserieswereultimatelypostulated:
Neogr.R:±:±R:°
R
LTRV:±C:±HV:±HC.
OwingtotheabsenceoftheOldAnatolianlaryngealatthetimeofthepostulation,
the alleged analytical shapes were never more than structural guesses, which would
become outdated with the emergence of the new material. The presence of PIE *
necessitates an inductive check of the real behaviour of the sequences *+R and
R+,duringwhichmoregeneralproblemsmayalsobecriticallydiscussed.
§1.Theseries±R*ÇÉÄÎ–thatistosay,thesimplesyllabicsonantsinenvironment
(C)±C–isnowwidelyaccepted.Yetseriousproblems,forgottentosomedegreeby
now,haveplaguedthetheoryfromthebeginning:
407
ForNeogr.*È=*ÉAandsoforth,seeSaussure(Mém.250)andSchmitt-Brandt(1967:3).
SeeBrugmann’s(Grundr21:393)structuralstatement:“InmorphologischerHinsichtentsprechen
unsereÆ,È,Í,Ãdemund%,s.§547.”FortheliteratureonNeogr.*ÍÃÆÈand/ortheCRTC/C±HCrule, see Lindeman (1982:13, 1997:94ff.), Mayrhofer (1986:144-145), Schmitt-Brand (1967:3ff.) and
Szemerényi(1996:49-50).ForSchmidt’s‘KritikderSonantenteorie’(1895:167ff.)andothercriticisms,
seeAnttila(1969:68).
408
409
See, for instance, Anttila’s (1969:67) perspective: “This was Saussure’s view of the long syllabic
resonants:±A,±E,±O(Mém271).”
410
See Szemerényi (1996:123): “[…] as Möller’s pupil H. Pedersen recognized, that the long syllabic
sonants(4.3.5,5.3.5)arefusionsofsyllabicsonantswithnon-syllabiclaryngeals:,%,ÍÃÆÈareiH,uH,
ÎhÄHÇHÉH.”
186
(a)Immediatelyafteritsdelivery,itwasrecognizedthattheSonantentheoriewasnot
verifiableintermsofitscontent(viz.theemergenceofsvarabhaktivowels).Thus,to
quoteMøller(1893:371):
“Dassaberdieunsvorliegendenvokalegriech.4,germ.u,usw.vorm,n,r,lnotwendigaus
sonantischenÇ,É,Î,Äerwachsensind,kannnichtbewiesenwerden[…].”
TheobviousreasonforthisstateofaffairsisthatthesvarabhaktivowelsGr.4,OCS,
Go.u,etc.oftheNeogrammarianscanalwaysreflecttheoriginalvowelsNeogr.*aei
ouandsoforth,withtheresultthatthetheoryisambiguousand,strictlyspeaking,
doesnotsupporttherulesoftheorycreationadvancedbyOsthoffandBrugmann.411
(b) The environment suggested for the svarabhakti vowels – occurrence with
(syllabic)sonants–doesnotholdtrueeither,aswasalreadypointedoutbyGüntert
(1916:viii):
“[...]derselbeüberkurze,reduzierteVokal,denvielebisjetztnurvorodernachNasalund
Liquidaannahmen,begegnetauchsonstinbeliebigerkonsonantischerUmgebung[...]”412
Indeed, the svarabhakti vowelsappear independently of the environment, as is the
casein:
Lat.tepe Umbr.tap·isten
-
(pr2.)‘warm,mildsein’(WH2:667-8,tepe)
(f.)‘caldariola?’(WH2:668)
Thusthephenomenonexists,butitismoregeneralthanBrugmann’sandOsthoff’s
originalvision,whichwasrestrictedtothesyllabicsonants.413
(c) Methodically the assumption of svarabhakti vowels violates the ex nihilo nihil
principle.Bysimplificationof±/Ronbothsides,thederivation
Neogr.*±
O
Gr.4R
Li.iR Go.uR
etc.
is equal to PIE Ø O IE a e i o u. In other words, the theory assumes that all five
cardinal vowels were uniformly derived from nothing (instead of the primary
(attested)Indo-Europeanvowelsavailableforexplanation).
(d) The Neogrammarian sound laws are dependent on the assumption that syllabic
sonantsproducevowelsinIndo-Europeanlanguages.Thisassumptionhasalsobeen
411
Since Neogr. *a e i o u were already present in the proto-phoneme inventory, they were primary
compared to the svarabhaktis emerging from the Neogrammarian ‘syllabic resonants’, making the
assumption of epenthetic vowels and syllabic sonants superfluous (‘entia non sunt multiplicanda
praeternecessitatem’).
SeealsoGüntert(1916:68):“[...]imItalischenundKeltischennichtnurdieVertretungdes Tdurch
a in diesen Sprachen ergeben, sondern uns auch gezeigt, daß T bei Nasal und Liquida geradeso
vertretenist,wiebeireinkonsonantischerUmgebung.”SeealsoGüntert(1916:68):“DieHauptsache
bleibt aber dabei, daß dieser Vokal T um den genannten Verbindungen auch sonst in jeder anderer
Stellung begegnet und keineswegs nur an die unmittelbare Nachbarschaft von Nasal und Liquida
gefesseltist.”
412
413
AsGüntertpointsout,theirregularvowelsappeartobeconnectedtotheablautratherthantothe
syllabic resonants (1916:89): “Bartholomae BB. 17 (1888), 9f ff. hat auf auffällige Beispiele
aufmerksamgemacht,beidenenimArmenischenainder‘e-Reihe’stand.”
187
questioned,atleastbySchmitt-Brandt(1967:67n69),whocorrectlypointsoutthatthe
outcomesareconsonantal(forinstance,inSlavonic):
“Die anlautende Liquida oder Nasalis muß deshalb vor Ausfall des *H nicht silbisch
gewesensein,vgl.tschech.mhla‘Nebel’undmzda‘Lohn’,poln.rtc‘Quecksilber’etc.”
A similar situation exists in Greek, where the secondary ‘syllabic liquidas’ (Gr. =
/rh/, Gr. >h = /lh/) are attested, not unlike in Tocharian and Later Anatolian, as
discussedbelow.414
(e) Finally, Brugmann had already realized that the outcomes of the syllabic nasals
wereactuallyconsonants,notvowels.Inthesectionof Grundrissthatdealswiththe
consonantalnasals(§387),Brugmann(Grundr21:342)writes:
“[…]minAnlaut.[…]Anteconsonantisch,vornundvorLiquidae.–Ai.
-mn
yat‘erwird
erwähnt’, arm. mna-m ‘ich bleibe, erwarte’, Gr. ?@E4< ‘erinnern’. –Ai br%-hi av. mr%i7i
‘sprich’;got.br%-s‘Braut’aus*mr%ti-‘Versprechung’?–Gr.5C}?K‘ichbrause,dröhne’,
Lat.frem,ahd.brima‘ichbrümme,brülle’,zuai.marmara-s‘rauschend’.–Ai.ml³ya-ti‘er
erschlafft,wirdweich,schwach’,gr.5>:IC-D‘schwach’.”
Leaving aside impossible etymologies (got. br%-s ‘Braut’, etc.), a nasal before
consonant (shape NC) appears in the proto-language. By definition the nasal was
syllabic¯C,notconsonantal †NC(i.e.theformscontain PIE*Çr-, PIE*Çl-,and PIE
Çn-, which resulted in mr-, ml-, mn- in the Indo-European languages). In other
words,theoutcomeofsyllabicnasalswereconsonantalwithoutyieldingsvarabhakti
vowels, which together with the opposite assumption constitutes a violation of the
principleoftheregularityofsoundchange.415
(f) As the traditional reconstruction only had a handful of counterexamples, the
matterwasoflittlerelevancebeforetheemergenceoftheOldAnatolianlaryngeal.
Following the discovery of the laryngeal, however, the reconstruction of PIE * has
resulted in hundreds of examples of PIE *±C and PIE *C± (of the general shape
C±C)inwhichtheoutcomeofsyllabicsonantswasconsonantalwithoutsvarabhakti
vowels. Since the principle of regularity of sound change does not permit two
different outcomes for a prototype in an identical environment, the historical
explanation needs to be revised in relation to post-Anatolian Indo-European
theory.416
414
Also in Prakrits, the sequences /mh/ and /nh/ emerge without syllabification (a situation
typologicallyparalleledbyThaiandMaradhi,forexample).
415
For the identical outcome of PIE *nC, see Brugmann (Grundr2 1:344): “Die Gruppe nr- (in ai.
nachved. nr-, nr-asthi- ‘Menschenknochen’ und Gr. 7CJ : ^@;CKBD (Hes.) aus *@C war in uridg.
Zeit,wennsiedamalsüberhauptschonbestand,wahrscheinlichnichtimAbsolutenAnlautinsLeben
getreten.”
416
Note Brugmann’s (Grundr2 1:342) explanation: “Anm. Die Gruppen mn-, mr-, ml- sind vielleicht
alle in uridg. Zeit nicht im absoluten Anlaut ins Leben getreten, sondern im bedingten und zwar
postsonantisch (vgl. §282,3 S. 265 über ai. mriyá-t). Sie kamen dann secundär in der Satzanfang zu
stehen.”Thisisnotacceptable,becausetheexampleslikePIE*mri-arealsocomparativelyconfirmed.
188
§2. As regards the series ±R R *Çm Én Äl Îr (C±HV), without repeating the general
problems(ambiguity,etc.)mentionedabove,thefollowingobstaclesshouldbenoted:
(a) It has been obvious from the very beginning that the C±HV rule does not
generate data regularly.417 Attested forms are left outside the reconstruction
(resultingintheerrorofincompleteness),andghostformsareproduced(resultingin
unsoundness).
(b)Atthetime,thepostulationoftheseriesNeogr.*ÇmÉnÄlÎrwasastructuralguess
and comprehensive proof was never provided. Simultaneously, the attempts to
explain the considerable discrepancy between the data and the theory by means of
analogy have not been successful. What is actually needed is an observation-based
theoryinductivelyinferredfromthedata.418
(c)Theverydefinitionoftheseries±RRC±HVinvolvesacontradiction:SinceHR
C,theformulaisactuallyoftheshapeC±C(V),anditthusidenticalwithC±C.Asit
is not allowed for an identical environment to yield two different outcomes (due to
the principle of regularity of sound change), the outcomes must be identical with
thoseofC±C.
§3. The series ° = *Æ È Ã Í (RLT C±HC) is equally problematic. Again without
repeatingtheissuesalreadynoted,onemayobservethat:
(a)Theallegedoutcomesofthelongsyllabicsonantsareambiguous.Alreadyinthe
Paleogrammariansystem,therelatedIndo-Europeanlongvowelswerereconstructed
withagenuinePIEquantity,asindicatedin:
Paleogr.*CRV:C(*tl
to-)
O
IECRV:C(Do.F>F-).
Inthiscontext,Brugmann’sand/orSaussure’srule
Neogr.*CRTC-(RLTC±HC)
O
IECRV:C
isredundant:onefindsanartificialambiguitythatshouldhaveneverbeencreated(or
accepted). A genuine quantity has always been the choice of specialists of the
Europeanlanguages,asseenintheexampleoftheclassicalphilologistsfavoringthe
original vocalism (Gr. CK, >, etc.) in a manner made evident by Szemerényi
(1996:50):
“Beekes,Laryngeals186f.,andothersholdthatGreekneverhadlongsyllabicsonants.This
viewwasheldlongbeforebyF.Bechtel,who,inhisimportantstudy DieHauptprobleme
der idg. Lautlehre seit Schleicher (1892), also maintained (p. 217) that Saussure had not
managedtoproveinMémoire247f.(=Recueil231f.)thatlongsonantsexistedinIE.”
TothisIwouldliketoaddAnttila’s(1969:68)narrative:419
417
SeeAnttila(1969:5):“[…]thedifficultyinthelaryngealbases,pointedoutbySaussure[...],thatthe
zerogradeof,say,ºenE+
shouldgiveGk*gan(Mém271).”
418
Szemerényi(1996:142)writes:“The[prevocalicsyllabicliquidsandnasals]canalsoinpartbedueto
the analogical transfer of certain preconsonantal developments (i.e. occurring before a laryngeal) to
prevocalicposition.Thus gw$H--couldgiveGr.54>-:-,andasthisnewformcontinuedalongsidethe
old5>:-,anew?4@:-couldbeformedanalogicallytotheold?@:-.”
419
Note,however,Anttila’sanachronism,writingeHforquantity.
189
“ScholarshavetendedtoexplainsuchambiguousGreekmaterial(R
//)withanoriginal
statetwo*ReH,e.g.,PerssonWW292.HirtmentionsthatGreekCKmightalwaysbeafull
grade (Abl 66) [...] Chantraine (Morphologie historique) does not even mention the
possibilityofazerograde.Schwyzer,whodoespointtothetwopossibleoriginsofGreek
R
//,isnotreallyinterestedindistinguishingtheoriginalzeroandfullgrades.However,
he at least reminds us of the facts by labeling the Greek result with ‘III’ (I.360; Adrados
121-122, with a tendency to interpretate it as full grade [128], as is done by Burrow TPS
1949:38).”
Scientifically speaking, the original long-grade Neogr. *
is correct, because no
ambiguity is created, no violation of ex nihilo nihil is made and the principle of
economyisfollowed.420
(b)IftheschemataC±HCisassumed,theresultingsystembecomesincompletesince
theactuallyattestedrootsCRaCwithashortvowelcannolongerbeaccountedfor.
Thisconstitutesamajorproblemforallreconstructiontheories,421becauseneither*T
(Neogr.) nor *H (LT) can be reconstructed (see Nyman 1985:55-61 for Gr. >~6K :
>K6|D:>6CDetc.).422Itisnotdifficulttoprovideexamplesforsuchavocalism:
Gr.?>- Gr.F};@-
Gr.F}F>-
(pr.)‘füllen’(GEW1:537-8,?>4?8@[1pl])
(pf.)‘sterben’(GEW1:653,F};@4?8@[1pl])
(pf.)‘suffer,endure,dare’(LSJ1800,F}F>4;<,P.1060)
Thecomparativedatarevealstheartificialcharacteroftheproblemandtheabsence
ofanyneedforanalogy.423TheetymologicalvalueofthevocalismisdefinedbyGreek
4andtheVedichiatusinPIE*plea-‘fill’:
Gr.?·>4- RV.prá’-
RV.kakia·prá’-
(pr.)‘füllen’(GEW1:537-8,?>4?8@)
(ao.)‘füllen,anfüllen’(WbRV.886,práas[conj.2sg])
(a.)‘denLeibgurtfüllend’(WbRV.309,kaksiapráam)
Aswecanreconstructtheattestedformswith PIE*CReaCand PIE*CRaeC,the
problemiscausedbytheerroneousinitialfoundationoftheNeogrammariantheory,
whichrecognizesonlytwoablautgrades(*T:
)insteadof(thecorrect)three.
§4.Theproblemsofthetheorycanbesummarizedasfollows:
420
For the consequences of accepting the ambiguity of Gr. >, C, >K, CK, see Anttila (1969:34):
“Considerableconfusionhasarisenfromthefact[read:assumption]thatinmostsubgroupszero-grade
vocalismmergeswithfull-gradevocalisminsomeenvironments[…]”Fortheambiguityingeneral,see
Persson(1912:633).
421
Forsomeadditionalexamplesof(C)RaCinthecognates,seeBurrow(1979:15).Inthisconnection
it should be noted that the phenomenon is not restricted, but occurs everywhere (Gr. h>;<, Aigin.
>h5@, etc.). For Celtic CRC, see Schrijver (1991:201) and Joseph 1982. For Italic CRC, see
Schrijver(1991:161ff.,184).
422
Nyman(1985:56-57)writes:“Neither*(s)lTgnor*(s)lHg-canbereconstructed[...]therootvariants
*(s)lg-/*slg-/*(s)lag-pointtoanIE.ablauttype//a[...].Itisnotdifficulttofindmoreevidence
forsuchanablauttype[...].”
423
AccordingtoAnttila(1969:79-80):“ThereisgeneralagreementthattheCRVformsaresecondary
[...],althoughthereisalsoaminoritybelievingtheopposite,i.e.,F};@:=4aftereEF:=4/eEF4?8@(Hirt
Abl 186, Maurer Lg 23.9, Adrados 134). The CRV forms occur in the active plural perfect, middle
perfect,andactivepluralpresent(alsomiddlepresent:?>4@FB).”
190
(a) The theory was initially rejected by Paul (1880:110), who pointed out that
Brugmann’s table of reflexes (Grundr1 1:453) did not account for all the evidence
(incompleteness)andleftseveralirregularities(unsoundness).424Todaythenewdata
has made this situation only worse, given the inconsistency resulting from the
reconstruction of the laryngeal and Tocharian vocalism, which does not fit the
patternsoftheNeogrammariantheory.
(b) In order to explain the numerous exceptions, the Neogrammarians resorted to
analogyintheirtheoryformation.Asanexample,Brugmann’s(1879b:276)discussion
concerningthebasesoftherootOInd.j
-‘gebären’maybequotedhere:
“Aind. j
ti- ‘geburt, stand’ und das davon abgeleitete j
tya ‘edel, echt’ können nicht
getrenntwerdenvonlat.n
tiod.i.*ºn
ti-o,got.knodi-unddemgenaudasselbewiej
tya-
bedeutenden 6@~E<BD […] Vielleicht ist jñ
tí- m. ‘blutsverwandter’noch jenes *jñ
titi- =
j
ti-(vgl.B.-R.).”425
HereBrugmannreconstructed†ºn
titi-(animpossibility)inordertoaccountforRV.
jñ
tí-, despite the fact that the latter obviously belongs to PIE *ºnati- : *ºnati-
(schwebeablaut):426
RV.jñ
tí-
Lat.prae·gn
ti-
Lat.(g)n
ti(n)-
Gr.6@~E<B- (m.)‘(naherBluts)verwandter’(WbRV.502)
(a.)‘schwanger,trächtig,voll,strotzend’(WH2:354)
(f.)‘Geburt,Erzeugung,Schlag,Rasse’(WH1:598)
(a.)‘echtbürtig,vollbürtig’(GEW1:307)
ByreconstructinganunderlyingsyllabicnasalforOInd.j
ti-(allegedlyNeogr.*ºÈti-
R**gnTti-),BrugmannhadtoseparateRV.jñ
tí-fromitsdirectparallelsandexplain
it through analogy. Had Brugmann followed the proper procedure of external
comparison, he might have noticed that the absence of the nasal is not purely an
Aryanfeature,butalsoextendstotheEuropeanlanguages:
Lat.indi·get- Gr.F:>·68FB-
RV.j
tá-
LAv.z
ta-
(a.)‘eingeboren,einheimisch’(WH1:693)
(a.)‘spät-geboren’(GEW2:893)
(m.)‘Sohn,lebendesWesen’(WbRV.482)
(a.)‘geboren’;‘jetztvorhanden,jetzig’(AIWb.1689)
For these reasons, I agree with Burrow’s (1949:38) analysis of the Neogrammarian
theory:
“This is the theory that seeks to explain out of [P]IE *È, Æ, Í, Ã, such forms as Lat.
gn
tus‘born’, str
tus, gr
num, l
na, and Greek EFCKFD, F>:FD, ;@:FD, @87?4FBD, etc.
Thesecombinationsconsistobviouslyofliquidornasalfollowedbylong
,oroccasionally
Brugmann (Grundr2 1:397n1) writes: “Wenn Hirt S. 160 sagt, es sei unbedingt nötig, dass an die
Stelle der reinen Induktion die Deduktion trete, so möchte ich es für unbedingt nötig erklären, dass
man erst einmal aus allen idg. Sprachen das in Frage kommende Material in einiger Vollständigkeit
sammle.”
424
425
Similarly,Saussure(Mém.272=Rec.254)writes:“Toutlemondeaccordeque6@~E<BDcorrespond
auskr.j³tya.”
426
Theviewthat“[...]·6@:FDisregularzerogradeofthefullgradein68@8-F~C”(Anttila1969:10)isan
unnecessarycomplication,asitproducesanunmotivatedambiguity.
191
some other vowel, and there is no reason to believe that they ever consisted of anything
else.Thereasonthattheyweremadeouttorepresentoriginallongsonantnasalsorliquids
was partly a desire to find forms corresponding to Sanskrit r, %r, etc., at all costs. The
argumentwouldapplyonlyifsuch‘roots’werereallyindissoluble,butsinceitiscertainthat
wearedealingwithsuffixes,thesuffixesmaybeallowedtovary.”
(c) As mentioned by Koerner (1985:334), Saussure’s reconstruction (and,
consequently,Brugmann’sequivalent)wastoalargeextentinternal:
“No doubt, Saussure operates with what we nowadays refer to as ‘underlying forms’,
deriving the actual attested forms through specific rules. By the same method, Saussure
(Mémoire p. 248) sets up the rule ‘Le groupe sonante +A, précédé ou placé au
commencement du mot, se change en sonante longue, quel que soit le phonème qui suit’
(italicsintheoriginal),sothatand%aswellasthelongsonorantsÈÆÍÂarederivedfrom
iA,uA,ÉA,ÎA,andsoon,or,innotationsuggestedbySaussureonlyin1891(cf.Recueil603),
sonantplusshwa.”
The most troubling feature of Koerner’s (1985:334) summary (“In effect […]
Saussure was operating with hypothetical constructs and indirect (distributional)
evidence.”)427 is not only the semi-internal character of the reconstruction, but the
fact that no comparative reconstruction, the main objective of Indo-European
linguistics,hasbeenpresentedtothisday.
3 .1.5 Theschwasecundumschool
§0.ThemaincriticsoftheNeogrammariansprovednottobethePaleogrammarians
withtheirlimitedcontributioninthe‘warofmonographs’,buttheschwasecundum
school.Inthistheory,thesvarabhaktivowelsarerecognizedastheproblem,butthey
are derived from an original vowel called schwa secundum (or several such items).
Despite some improvements (compared to the Neogrammarians), there are also
insurmountableproblemsforthisview.
§1. The most noteworthy contemporary challenger of the Sonantentheorie was
Johannes Schmidt (1877, 1889 and 1895). According to this scholar, the syllabic
sonants never existed, but were accompanied by original reduced vowels *e and *o,
laterreferredtoasschwasecundumbyGüntert(1916).428Fromatheoreticalpointof
view, Schmidt (1895:50)understood the schwa secundum(s) as ‘reductions’429 of *e-
and o-grades430 (similar to the way in which Neogr. *T was the reduced grade of
427
ForanexampleofBrugmann’ssimilar(structural/distributional)argumentation,seehiscomparison
ofparadigms:“ai.i-másy-ánti:é-tum,ju-hu-téjú-hv-ate:hótum,ha-thághn-ánti:hántum,á-kÎ-taákr-ata:kár-tum”(Grundr21:499).
428
Similarly, according to Güntert (1916:100): “[...] das ‘Residuum des Vokals’(Brugmann K.vgl.Gr.
121)istnichtsanderesalseinauchinjederanderenStellungerscheinender,zweiterMurmelvokalder
idg.Grundsprache.”
429
See Güntert (1916:viii): “[...] Schwa secundum [...], das bei der Vokalschwächung aus den kurzen
Vokalen a, e, oentstandenwar.”Sturtevant(1942:90)writes*M(cf.Lat.sarp‘prune,trim’;1943:304)
fortheschwasecundum.
430
Schmidt(1895:50)usestheexpression“dieReduktionvonerzuer”.
192
Neogr.*
).431Subsequently,Hirtpostulatedthreeschwasecundums,thusending
upwithavocaliccounterpartofthethree-laryngealism.432Thebest-knownversionof
thetheoryisthatofGüntert(1916),whichisrestrictedtooneschwasecundum*T.433
AsnotedbyGüntert,434Schmidt’scritiquewassomewhattoostrong(aswasHirt’s).
Accordingly,IhavechosentoreviewGüntert’sversionofthetheoryhere.
§2.IncomparisonwithBrugmann’sandOsthoff’szerograde,theadvantagesofthe
schwa secundum in the explanation of svarabhakti vowels can be summarized as
follows:
(a) The chief contribution of the schwa secundum school435 to Indo-European
linguistics lies in the replacement of the Neogrammarian deus ex machina, the
emergenceofsvarabhaktivowelsfromnowhere,withanactualproto-phonemeschwa
secundum.436Regardlessofthequestionablenatureoftheschwasecundumitself(see
below),themorefatalproblemofexnihilonihilwasavoided(toadegree,atleast).
(b)Güntert’s(1916:68)callto“Ansätzewie Tr,rT, Tl,lT, Tm,mT, Tn,nTanzuerkennen”
is reasonable in yet another sense. In this reconstruction the actual position of the
reconstructed vowel(s) is identical with that attested in the data. This increased the
descriptive accuracy of the theory and avoided the ambiguity problem plaguing the
Neogrammarian system, in which syllabic resonants have unpredictable (and hence
unacceptable)doubleoutcomes:
Neogr.*±
O
Gr.4R
R4,Go.uR
Ru,etc.(Grundr21:463).437
In so doing, the schwa secundum school abandoned the straightforward Sanskritocentrism of the Neogrammarians in favor of lectio difficilior with a healthy dose of
realism(incomparisonwiththepracticesofBrugmannandOsthoff).438
431
Bertil Tikkanen pointed out to me that Schmitt’s idea appears to have been borrowed from the
Semiticlanguages:inHebrewthevowelseaohaveareduced‘schwa-grade’/T/causedbyaccentshift.
432
See Hirt (1900:5-6): “[...] es ist [...] selbstverständliche Voraussetzung, dass jedem Langvokal ein
besonderes Schwa entsprechen muss, und wir deshalb ein e-Schwa, a-Schwa, o-Schwa anzusetzen
haben.[...]Reduktionsstufe(R.)zuidg.,
,=idg.¥,¤,¦.”
433
Güntert(1916:viii)wrote‘T’fortheschwasecundum(ratherthanfortheschwaitself).Inorderto
avoidconfusion,IuseT(withupperindex)fortheschwasecundumandT(withoutindex)fortheschwa
indogermanicum.
434
See Güntert (1916:78): “dieser Gelehrte [J. Schmidt]hatte mit seiner übertriebenen Kritik der
LiquidaundNasalissonansdasKindmitdemBadausgeschüttet.”
Güntert(1916)assumesone(*T),Schimidttwo(*e,o)andHirt(1900:6)threeschwasecundums(*e,
o,a).Hirt’stheorywasbluntlyrejectedbyBrugmann(1904:80):“Nochtwenigeraber[überzeugtmich]
die Ansicht von Hirt (Ablaut 6f.), dass ausser T noch drei andre schwache Vokale für das Uridg.
anzusetzenseien,sieer¥,¦,¤schreibt(vgl.HübschmannIF.Anz.11,38ff.).”
435
SeeGüntert(1916:92):“[...]stattÎr,Äl,Én,Çnvielmehridg.Tr,Tl,Tm,Tnanzusetzensind,einerlei,ob
VokaloderKonsonantfolgt[...]”.
436
437
Brugmann (1879b:258fn2) already wrote: “Im griechischen erscheint die ursprachliche liquida
sonans(Î1undÎ2),vgl.zeitschr.XXIV17)baldalsC4und>4,baldals4Cund4>.”ForLat.r
andGr.
C N Neogr. *Í, see also Brugmann (Grundr2 1: 274-) and, in general, Schmitt-Brand’s views
(1967:38). Due to the principle of the regularity of sound change, such rules are not allowed by the
comparativemethod.
193
(c) As their third improvement, the schwa secundumschool provided a wider
perspectiveoftheoverallproblembyalsohandlingthesvarabhaktivowelsappearing
inconsonantal(non-sonorant)environments.Thismadethetheorymoregeneraland
explanatory than its Neogrammarian competitor, which was artificially limited to
vowelssurroundingthesonants(andthusdidnotaddressthedeep-levelproblemat
all).
§3. Despite its undeniable advantages, the schwa secundum contains problems that
are as equally serious as those of the Neogrammarians.439 The key among these,
notwithstanding overlapping with the problems of the Neogrammarians, can be
(a) The key reconstructive postulate of the theory, the schwa secundum *T, is illdefined. Güntert’s definition (1916:viii & 19-20)440 of the schwa secundum in the
correspondence Lat. magnus : OGaul. magio-rix : RV. majmán- reveals that the
phonemebeingreferredtoisnothingotherthanNeogr.*a(=PIE*ae*ea).Inthis
manner,thetheoryreplacesthewell-definedvowelsNeogr.*aeiouwiththeschwa
secundum,andintheprocesscausesthemtolosetheirdistinctions.Thisisadmitted
by Güntert (1916), at least to a degree, when he says that it is impossible to
distinguishbetweentheshortvowelsNeogr.*e:a:oandtheirreductions*e, o, a.441
Thebottomlineisthatrenamingwell-definedphonemesasschwasecundumsisalso
aexnihilonihilviolation.
(b) Petersen (1938:39-59) rejected Hirt’s reduced vowels between normal and zero
grade, because reflexes of the alleged ‘Mittelstufe’ vowels vary considerably, both
betweenandwithinthelanguages.Admittedly,thereisnoregularityinhowthevowel
qualities develop from *T, with the result that the theory is highly inaccurate and
hardlyusableinreconstruction.
(c)Fromaphoneticpointofview,theschwasecundum,whichisassumedlycapable
ofproducingthefivecardinalvowelsfromasinglestartingpoint,wouldinvolvethe
assumptionofasuperphonemethatdoesnotexistinthestrictframeworkofscientific
realism.442 Rather than explaining the problematic residue of the vowels /a/, /e/, /i/,
438
Brugmann’s(1895:1726-7)reviewofSchmidt(1895),inwhichhereferstothedifferencebetween*Î
and*eras‘Finessen’,doesnotsatisfyasthedifferenceisreal,owingtotheexnihilonihilproblemwith
Neogr.*Î.
439
On Brugmann’s examples and his views on the schwa secundum, see his treatment of the vowel
(Grundr21:393,bzw.452and395-6).SeealsoAnttila(1969:15).
440
OnGüntert’sdefinitionoftheschwasecundumasOInd.a=Av.a=Arm.a=Gr.4=Lat.a=
Celt.a=Alb.a,seehisanalysis(1916:127).
441
This is also admitted by Schmitt-Brandt, according to whom there is no difference between the
gua-vowelsandschwasecunduminthecognates(1967:4):“BeiderBehandlungdiesesLautswurde
jedochmeistnichtunterschiedenzwischendenFällen,beidenenSchwasec.indenEinzelsprachenmit
demjeweilszugehörigeVollstufenvokalgleichlautete(Hirt,AblautS.11ff.:ai.paktáh,[...]gr.8FD
< *pekÒtó-).” Based on Occam’s razor, entities are not to be multiplied in situations where the
standardvalues(Neogr.*a,e,i,o,u)aresufficient.
Thus, Güntert derives OInd. ir, ur N *T (1916:93), Gr. 4, Lat. a N *T and so forth, explaining
“griech. ?4@8F4< spiegelt altes *mTn¾atai (s. auch Hirt IF 7, 146, Ablaut 18 u. sonst)” (1916:99) and
“[...]stattÉn,ÇmwäredannTn,Tmanzusetzen,unddieskönntelat.nurzuan,amführen”(1916:67).
442
194
/o/, /u/, the schwa secundum results in five lost distinctions; in essence, it thus
resemblestheNeogrammariantheory.443Thisisexplainedbythefactthattheschwa
secundumschooldidnotquestionthebasisofBrugmann’sandOsthoff’sattemptto
reduce the attested Indo-European vowel variation, but rather was satisfied with
rewritingtheNeogrammariananalysisinthefollowingform:
Neogr.ØO IEaeiou
:
SchwaSec.*TOIEaeiou.
(d) In the period before the Old Anatolian data was available, both the
Neogrammarians and the schwa secundum school relied on an assumption of an
unproblematiczerogradeofvowels,characterizedbyGüntert(1916:72)444asfollows:
“[...] denn =|CF4 hat auf alle Fälle in got. hardus, aisl. harr, ags. heard, as. hard, ahd.
hart(i) ‘hart’eine Stütze, so daß demgegenüber die Frage, wie =C}FBD entstanden sei, nur
vonuntergeordnetemIntresseist[...].”445
However,theemergenceofOldAnatolianchangedthesituationdecisively:thenonexistenceofSaussure’scompensatorylengtheningimpliesthatanoriginal PIE*can
be postulated for every Neogr. *a, as exemplified with the following equations for
Greek
Gr.4RRPIE*aeR
*eaR
Gr.R4RPIE*Rea
*Rae.
That PIE * is actually present in Güntert’s example can be proven by Fortunatov’s
Law,requiringanadditionalconditionaccordingtowhichPIE*mustalsobepresent
for the sound law to take effect in Indo-Iranian. Thus, examples like Gr. =|CF4 :
OInd. ka hara- (a.) ‘hard’ (MonWil. 244) imply Gr. 4 PIE *ea, thus eliminating
thepossibilityofaccountingforGr.4(andthe‘a-vocalism’ingeneral)withsyllabic
sonantsortheschwasecundum.Since PIE*waspresent,aroot PIE kart-mustbe
postulatedratherthanNeogr.*kÎt.446
(e)Theweaknessesofthetheoriesleftbothincapableofproducinganetymological
dictionary, the ultimate proof of success. Only after Walde based the theory on the
syllabic sonants but added the schwa secundum (when Osthoff’s and Brugmann’s
theory did not suffice to cope with the data) did it become possible to compile
Pokorny’s Indogermanisches etymologisches Worterbuch, and even this work never
wonunreservedacceptance,owingtothereconstructivelibertiesthatittook.
443
For such an assumption, see Güntert (1916:77): “[...] Vokal T ist nicht aus dem Stimmton des
einstigenÎ,Äerwachsen,sonderneristdasauchsonstinjederbeliebigenStellungerscheinendeSchwa
secundum[...].”
444
OnfurtherexamplesofGr.4R:R4,seeGüntert(1916:69-73).
445
Similarly, Brugmann and Osthoff derived the twofold attestations (type =|CF4 : =C|FBD) from a
singleprototypeaccordingtotheformula4RNeogr.*±R4.
446
Assuming a laryngeal metathesis (see Anttila 1969:99) for alternations of this type (Lat. armus :
r
mus,Lat.tarmes:tr
mes,etc.)ispointlessduetotheexistenceofdifferentroots(passim).
195
3 .1.6 Thecomparativetheoryofsyllabicresonants
§0. The third reconstructive approach of the svarabhakti vowels, though existing in
the pre-Neogrammarian period and occasionally practiced by scholars like
Grassmann,Verner,Meyer447andWhitney,hasneverbeenformulatedasafull-scale
theory. Despite this, the common denominator of the reconstruction is
straightforward:insteadofderivingthesvarabhaktivowelsfromsyllabicresonantsor
aschwasecundum,thereconstructionisbasedonanexternalcomparisonofattested
vowels, which have been proven to exist by the comparative method through a
confirmationbytwobranches(Fick’sRule).
§1. Historically the comparative solution was preferred by some Paleo- and
Neogrammarians reconstructing the Indo-European vocalisms /a i u e o/, with
confirmationdependingonatleasttwobranches.Inordertoillustratethesolution,I
citesomereconstructionsbasedonthismodeofthought:
(a)Verner’sequation(1877:125)
PIE*pulno- R
RV.p%rá-,Go.full-,ORus.p&ln&,etc.
isanexampleofaclear-cutcomparativereconstruction.Thereconstructionisbased
onthecommonIndo-Europeanvocalismheresharedbyseveralbranches,whilethe
output of the comparative method, PIE *u, is postulated for the proto-language as
such.Inthefaceofadirectmatch,thesecondary(internal)postulates(hereNeogr.†Ã
Schwa sec. *Tl) and the supporting sound laws are unnecessary (due to Occam’s
razor).
(b) From the point of view of root theory, pure comparative reconstruction has
characteristically been practiced by some Sanskrit philologists (like Grassmann and
Whitney (Roots 64-5)), who typically favoured attested root variants (e.g. tar tir
tur,etc.)insteadofhypotheticaldeep-levelroots(tÍ,etc.).
(c) When tested against the new material, the comparative method implies that the
svarabhaktivowelsaregenuine(i.e.paralleledbyatleasttwobranchesthroughout),
leavinghistoricaltheoriesonthesecondaryoriginofthesvarabhaktivowelsindoubt.
Asanexampleillustratingthetest,onemayrefertothetraditionalreconstructionof
theitemsLat.decem‘10’andcentum‘100’:
Neogr.*ÀÇto-O
RV.!atá-(Gr.c·=4F-),Li.#iÅta-,Go.hunda,etc.
In general, the Neogrammarians assumed a single starting point for Proto-IndoEuropeanbasedonthe(absolute)uniformhypothesis,thenexplainedthevariationof
the attested root vowels (RV. a : Gr. 4 : Lat. e : Li. i : Go. u, etc.) based on the
svarabhaktivowelsemergingfromsyllabicsonants.Inthecompletedatanowatour
disposal, no distribution organized according to the subgroups exists, because all
447
ForMeyer,seeBrugmann(1879b:257):“GustavMeyera.a.o.s.7.zerlegttanu-inta-nu-,indem
glauben, das particip ta-tá- sowie die griechischen formen F}-F4-=4, F}-F4-?4<, b-F|-;:@, F4-F-D
erwiesenaufsdeutlichstedieexistenzeinervokalischenwurzelta.”
196
vocalisms are externally paralleled, thus confirming their Proto-Indo-European
status.Thus,forthequoteddatathereareseveralexternallyconfirmedisoglosses:
1.TheNeogr.*ainRV.!atá-(Gr.c·=4F-)isnowparalleledbyTocharianwith
TochA.kät- (num.card.)‘centum’(Poucha66-7,kät[316b7]).
Since a nasal cannot be lost in Tocharian, the suggested traditional reconstruction
with Neogr. †Ç is impossible. Simultaneously, the comparative method implies PIE
*Àeato-(=Neogr.*Àato-)fortheformsinquestion.
2.The‘i-vocalism’ofLi.#iÅta-(alsoinBalto-Slavonic)isexternallyconfirmedin
Tocharian:
OPr.de·simto-
OLi.de·#imtì-
OCS.de·st TochA.tary
·kiñci-
(num.)‘zehn’(APrS.320,dessimton)
(num.)‘Dekade,zehn’(LiEtWb.91,d¢#imtis[sgN])
(num.)‘zehn,Dekade’(Sadnik139)
(num.ord.)‘tricesimus’(Poucha116)
3. The ‘u-vocalism’of Go. hunda [n.pl.] is also confirmed as genuine by two
witnesses:
Go.tai·hun- Arm.ere·sun-
Go.hunda- Go.taihunda- (num.card.)‘7}=4:zehn’(GoEtD.339)
(num.)‘dreissig’(ArmGr.1:491)
(n.pl.)‘hundert’(GoEtD.194-5)
(num.ord.)‘tenth’(GoEtD.339)
Inthismanner,theproblemsoftheNeogrammariansandtheschwasecundumtheory
arecausedbytheideaofthesecondarycharacterofthesvarabhaktivowels,whichare
actuallyprovengenuinebymeansofcomparison.
§2.Theproceduresketchedoutherecanbeappliedforthedataingeneralwiththe
resultthatthecomparativemethodimpliesthegenuinenessofthesvarabhaktivowels
throughout.448Byprocessingtheentiredatathroughexternalcomparison,weareleft
with isoglosses of the svarabhakti vowels Gr. 4, OCS. , Go. u and so forth, all of
confirmedPIEorigin.449ThecriteriaforestablishingagenuinePIEiteminsteadofa
secondary svarabhakti vowel resulting from a syllabic sonant (or schwa secundum)
canbesummarizedasfollows: Ifavowelofasubgroup(Gr.,Lat.e/o,PGerm.*u,
BSl.*i,etc.)isdirectlyparalleledbyanidentityinanothersubgroupthenthevowelin
questionreflectsagenuinePIEvowel.
§3.Inafullyexplicitmanner,ifatleastoneofthefollowingcriteriaispresent,thena
respective PIE vowel is to be reconstructed instead of a syllabic sonant (or schwa
secundum):
(a)‘Svarabhaktia’(RV.a,gAv.a,Gr.4,etc.)doesnotreflectasyllabicsonant,but
Neogr.*a(=PIE*aeor*ea)
448
ThefullproofincludingentiredatawillbepresentedinthePIELexicon.
449
Understandably, the possible candidates for ‘full vowels’stemming from syllabic resonants will
remainambiguous,becausetheparallelsmayhavebeenlost.
197
1.ifthevowelinquestionstandsinquantitativeablaut(e.g.IIr.
:a:Ø.Gr.::
4:Ø,Li.o:a:Ø,etc.).Thisisthecase,forexample,in
PIE
*»a *»ea-
*»a-
Indo-European:
RV.g-
RV.ga’-(hiatus),Gr.5-
RV.g
-,Do.5-,Li.gó-
Neogr.
[incomplete]
*»Ç-
*»
-
2. if the velar preceding RV. ´ (= gAv. ´, etc.) has gone through the second
palatalization,thenPIE*·istobepostulatedinsteadofasyllabicsonant.
3. If the vowel participates in Indo-European ablaut ´ : · : Ê, then it does not
reflectasyllabicsonant.Thus,forinstance,thequalitativeablautGr.4:Brevealsan
original PIE *a or *a, which cannot be traced back to a syllabic resonant.450
Exemplii gratia, instead of Neogr. *»Îrú-s ‘schwer’(= Schmidt *»erú-s) we are to
reconstructablaut*e:Ø:ofortheitems
PIE*»aru-‘schwer,groß,machtvoll’(P.476-7):
Ø:
*e:
*o:
Go.kauru-
Gr.54C
Gr.5C:-
PIE*»aru-
PIE*»oaru- PIE*»earu-
(cf.Gr.F-)
(cf.Gr.8F-)
(cf.Gr.BF-)
4.Ifacriterionfor PIE*and/or PIE*aissecuredbythecognates,thenNeogr.
*a(= PIE*aeor*ea)isconfirmedinsteadofasyllabicsonant.Thisenablesusto
eliminate well-known ambiguity problems of the Neogrammarian theory, like the
illegitimate double development assumed for the syllabic resonants in the Celtic
branch.451
450
IntheearlyNeogrammarianaccounts,adialectaldevelopmentAiol.BNeogr.*Ç,*ÉandAiol.
B>,BCNeogr.*Ä,Îwasassumed.However,thedistributionAiol.B:Gr.4doesnotexist,because
thisGr.BisnotrestrictedtoAiolian(andDoric),butrepresentsacommonGreekfeature(asinAiol.
8m=BE< ‘20’= Att. 8m=BE< (GEW 1:453)). Therefore, the alternation *e/o with PIE *a *a replaces
Brugmann’s (1879a:66) outdated suggestion of a double treatment of syllabic sonants: “Zunächst
machtderspurlosewegfalldesnasalsschwierigkeiten.Mandenktfreilichtvielleicht,eslägederselbe
fall vor, wie in ^=?BE< von stamm ^=?B@- oder 8m=BE< = lat. vginti, aber bei genaueren zusehen
erscheintdieseparallelealsunzulässig.^=?BE<gehtmitaind.á!masuaufeinursprachlichesakmÉsvá
zurückundentsprechend8m=BE<mitboeot.ß=4F<,lat.vginti,aind.vi!atíaufeinvkÉtiwiec=4F@
mitaind.!atámaufeinkÉtá-m.Statt74?BE<hättemanlautgesetzlich*74<?4E<zuerwarten,dasBis
aller warscheinlichkeit nach erst durch die analogie der übrigen kasus erzeugt worden […].” In this
regard, compare also Osthoff’s views (1879a:424): “Noch bleibt us eine frage aufzuwerfen und zu
beantworten übrig. Wir haben gesegen, dass 8 nicht der griechische vertreter der nasalis sonans in
tieftoniger silbe sein kann. Könnte nicht vielleicht griech. B auf diesen rang neben dem 4 für einige
fälle anspruch machen? Man würde sich, um dies zu behaupten, auf solche fälle wie att. 7<4=E<B<
nebendor.7<4=4FB<,att.8m=BE<nebenboeot.dor.ß=4F<,ß8=4F<,lakon.58=4F<,wiearkad.78=F4@,
c=BF?5B<4 neben att. 78=|F:@ c=4F?5: berufen dürfen. Das griech. B an stelle der nasalis sonans
würde an sich dann gar nichts auffälliges haben, wenn es in einem oder in einigen griechischen
dialekten so aufträte und zwar als alleiniger acteur in dieser rolle. Das ist aber, wie die angeführten
beispielenzeigen,nichtderfall.”
451
See Güntert (1916:64): “Es ist bekannt, daß man idg. Î Ä im Keltischen zweierlei Vertretungen
zuschreibt,s.ThurneysenHandb.128,§214,PedersenVgl.Gr.I,42ff.EinmalsollenÎ,Äzuurkeltri,li
geworden sein, aber in anderen Fällen erscheint ar, al.” and (1916:63): “Viele dieser Fälle bringt
PedersenVgl.Gr.I,44zumBeweisefürdieGleichungkelt.ar,al,anusw.=idg.Î,Ä,É:abernichtmit
198
5. If Gr. 4 (= OInd. a) appears both before consonant and vowel (i.e. in all
environments), then Gr. 4 = PIE *ae or *ea. Thus, for instance, the ostensibly
ambiguousGr.4in
Gr.5|-
gAv.ga-
RV.ga-
Gr.5}54-
(vb.)‘walk,step,etc.’(LSJ.302,5|F:@[3du])
(vb.)‘kommen’(AIWb.494,gaid[2sg])
(vb.)‘kommen’(WbRV.380,gadhi[ipv.2sg])
(pf.)‘walk,step,etc.’(LSJ.302,585|?8@[inf.])
isconfirmedtoreflectPIE*ea(versusNeogr.*Ç/É)bythevocalicextension*·us-
Gr.5854G4- (pf.pt.f.)‘walk,step,etc.’(LSJ.302).452
(b) ‘Svarabhakti e’ (typically Lat. e) does not reflect a syllabic resonant (or schwa
secundum)ifitisparalleled(Fick’sRule)and/oralternateswithIndo-European/a/or
/o/.
(c) ‘Svarabhakti i’ (typically BSl. *i, PIIr. *i or PCelt. *i) does not reflect a syllabic
resonant (or schwa secundum) if it is externally paralleled and/or appears in ablaut
alternationPIE*Êi:·i:i:i·:iÊ.
(d)‘Svarabhaktio’(typicallyLatin*o(inPItal.*ol,*or))doesnotreflectasyllabic
resonant (or schwa secundum) if it is paralleled by another subgroup or appears in
ablautalternationwithIndo-European/e/or/a/.Thus,forinstance,Lat.odoesnot
justifyasyllabicliquidfortheItalicsubgroupin
Lat.fort-
Gr.HCFB-
Gr.HBCF-
(f.)‘blinderZufall,Ungefähr’(WH1:534,fors[sgN])
(m.)‘Last,Ladung’(GEW2:1004,HCFBD[sgN])
(f.)‘Lastschiff’(GEW2:1004)
becauseofthedirectmatchLat.oRGr.BRPIE*o(Occam’srazor).
(e)‘Svarabhaktiu’(typicallyPGerm.*uorRV.u)doesnotreflectasyllabicresonant
(orschwasecundum)ifitisparalleledbyanothersubgroupand/orappearsinablaut
453
PIE*Êu:·u:u:u·:uÊ. §4.TheabovecriteriawillnowbeappliedtoBrugmann’sexamplesofsyllabicsonants
in Grundriss in order to demonstrate that svarabhakti vowels are implied by the
comparativemethodbyatleastbytwowitnesses,andarethereforegenuine.Similar
results are obtained for syllabic sonants of any origin, proving that the postulation
arrivedatbymeansofthecomparativemethodreflectsthemethodologicallystrictest
andthemosteconomicaltheoryinexistence.
Recht[...].”and(1916:64-5):“[…]idg.Î,ÄistimKeltischennurdurchri,livertreten,dagegensinddie
Formenmitar,aldieFortsetzungvonidg.Tr,Tl[...].”
452
Forthe*u-extensionparallelingGreek,seeOInd.gáva-(prM.)‘togo’(MonWil.356,gávate[3sg]).
453
As the Neogrammarians’ assumption was restricted to Sanskrit, the Iranian ir and ur forms (for
someexamplesofthese,seeGüntert1916:94-5)areacceptableasparallels.
199
3 .2 SemivowelsPIE*+and*!andvowelsPIE*uand*i
§0.ThevowelsPIE*iandPIE*u–andtheirconsonantalcounterparts,thesemivowels
454
PIE*¾and*Ò(a.k.a.palatalandvelarglides) –werealreadyincludedinSchleicher’s
reconstruction. The most relevant properties of the proto-phonemes and their
developmentsinenvironmentPIE*a*awillbedealtwithinthischapter.
(a)AsalreadymentionedbyBrugmann(Grundr21:256),thesemivowels PIE*¾and
*Òappearsidebysidewiththecorrespondingvowels PIE*iand*uinetymologically
connectedwords:
“[…] i und ¾, u und Ò standen seit uridg. Zeit oft in etymologisch identischen Gebilden
nebeneinander, indem nur die benachbarten Laute und die Betonungsverhältnisse dafür
massgebendwaren,obderVocalalsSonantoderalsConsonantgesprochenwurde.”455
(b)Asforthederivation(andtheprimarityofthephonemes),ithasbeencorrectly
pointedoutbySzemerényi(1996:136),
“The existence of [the phonemes *i and *u] is not in dispute, but they are treated as
allophonesoftheconsonantsy,w.Thispositionisphoneticallyuntenableasiuandyware
fundamentallydifferentsounds,vowelsandspirantsrespectively.”
The laryngeal theory, rejected by Szemerényi in his comment, started from the
primary items PIE *¾ Ò instead of the proper PIE *i *u, being motivated by the
monovocalism hypothesis. The correct allophonism can be achieved by setting the
vowels PIE *i and *u as primary and defining PIE *¾ and *Ò as their allophones in a
vocalicenvironment.456
(c)InadditiontoNeogr.*u:*ÒandNeogr.*i:*¾,theirlongcounterpartsNeogr.*%
and * were postulated in the Neogrammarian system. They are treated separately
below.
3.2.1 Neogr.*Ò=PIE*Ò
§0. Under the influence of the Sanskrito-centric ideas of the time,457Schleicher
(Compendium 1861-2) reconstructed a fricative Paleogr. *v (= OInd. v) for the
proto-language. Schleicher’s initial mistake was soon corrected, and ever since
454
Trask (DPhPh. 320) defines SEMIVOWEL as “a non-syllabic segment which has the phonetic
characteristicsofavowelbutthephonologicalbehaviourofaconsonant.”
455
Insodoing,BrugmannnotonlyestablishedtheallophonesPIE*i:¾andPIE*u:*Ò,butremoved
Schleicher’s erroneous (Sanskrito-centric) place of articulation /v/ from the earlier proto-phoneme
inventory.
456
Onthephonemicstatusof/i/,/u/ratherthan/¾//Ò/,seeMayrhofer(1986:§7.1.9).
457
Costello (1995:10) writes: “Schleicher reconstructed a fricative v, rather than a resonant w, which
may be interpreted as another example of his belief that Indic, with its v, accurately reflected the
protolanguage. (However, cf. the sandhi change of u alternating with v –tau ubhau > t
v ubhau
‘thesetwo’–whichclearlypointstotheearlierbilabialresonantnatureofSkt.v.).”
200
Brugmann (Grundr2 1:293-341) a bilabial resonant Neogr. *Ò = /w/ (preserved as
suchbyEnglish,LatinandOldIranian)hasbeencorrectlyreconstructed.458
§1.Comparisonwithnewlydiscoveredlanguagesconfirmsthat PIE*Òwaspreserved
bothinOldAnatolianandinTocharian:
(a) Brugmann (Grundr2 1:293) reconstructed Neogr. *Òeºh ‘veh’ for “ai. váh
mi,
gr.pamph.Imper.ß8I}FK(?),alb.vjeZAor.voda(‘ichentführe,stehle’),lat.ueh,
got.ga-wiga,lit.ve(ù,aksl.vezV.”Thepreservationof PIE*ÒinOldAnatolian(here
Luwian)isconfirmedbytherelatedstem
HLu.uaza-
(vb.)‘carry’(CHLu.2.11.7,PES2(-)wa/i-za-ha[1sg]).
(b)Brugmann(Grundr21:294)reconstructedNeogr.*neÒo-s‘neu’for“ai.náva-s,gr.
@}ßB-D,lat.nouo-s,aksl.nov&.”Thepreservationof PIE*ÒinHittiteandTocharian
(bothAandB)isconfirmedbythecorrespondences
i.neua-
TochA.ñu- TochB.naw
ke
Poln.nowak (a.)‘frisch,neu’(HEG2:320,ne-e-ua-an)
(a.)‘novus’(Poucha111)
(m.sg.)‘novice’(DTochB.331)
(m.)‘Neuling’(LiEtWb.488)
(c) Brugmann (Grundr2 1:295) reconstructed Neogr. *dÒu *du ‘zwei’, *dÒi-
‘zwei’for “ai dv
ú dv³, dvi-pád- ‘bipes’, gr. 7K-78=4 ‘zwölf’ 7-BGD, lat. bi-ps, air.
d
u, dau, d ‘zwei’, got. twai ‘zwei’, ags. twi-fte ‘bipes’, lit. dvì F. ‘zwei’ aksl. dva
‘zwei’”.459
§2. In Old Mycenaean Greek the counterpart of digamma Gr. ß460 is preserved
throughoutasLinB.w.Thishasprovidedseveralconfirmationsfor PIE*Ò(e.g.LinB.
wa-na-ka-te [sgD] ‘to the king’= Phryg. ß4@4=F8< (DMycGr. 411) and LinB. we-to
[sgA] ‘year’ = Cypr. ß}FBD ‘id’), as well as for its absence. As of yet, however, the
problemoftheetymologyofLinearBhasnotbeencompletelysolved,andsomeearly
mistakesalsoremainuncorrected.Thus,LinB.ru-ko‘wolf’(DMycGr.96)confirmsa
root
luk-(vb.)‘teilen,brechen,usw.’(sb.)‘Wolf’
Gr.>=B-
i.luka-
(m.)‘Wolf’(GEW2:143-4=LinB.ru-ko)
(URU.)‘-’(HEG2:69-70,OGH.249-50,lu-uq-qa)
458
SeeSzemerényi’s(1996:44)account:“Inthecaseofw,however,theoriginalbilabialarticulation(as
inEng.w)wasalreadyreplacedintheearliesttraditionofmanylanguagesbylabiodental(asinEng.v,
Grm.w).TheoldpronounciationwasretainedinclassicalLatinandOldIranian.”Theevidenceisnow
addedwithTocharian,distinguishingbetweentheinheritedTochAB.wandTochAB.vinloanwords
fromSanskrit(e.g.TochA.vidhy
dhare‘nomensemidaemonum’,Poucha281=TochB.vidhy
dhare
‘akindofsupernaturalbeing’,DTochB.570).
459
AsoundchangePIE*d+ÒOToch.w(inTochA.we‘duae’,Poucha304andTochB.wi,w‘two’,
DTochB. 598) has been suggested (see already van Windekens 1976:566). The rule is redundant,
however, owing to the direct correspondence between Do. ß·=4F< ‘20’ (GrGr. 1:591), Lat. u·gint
‘20’(WH2:788-9),LAv.vsaiti‘20’(AIWb.1458)andtheTocharianitems(Occam’srazor).
ForthetracesofßinGreek,seeBrugmann(Grundr21:305-15).
460
201
Pal.luki-
Lyc.>G=4- OGaul.luchto-
(vb.)‘teilen’(HEG2:66,DPal.62,lu-ki-i-it[3sg])
(ON.)‘Lykien’(HEG2:82,Lyc.>G=4[sgN])
(m.)‘Teil’(?)(P.686,OGaul.luchtos[sgN])
Theabsenceofinitial*Ò-isconfirmedbyseveralgroups,withtheresultthattheroot
isnotidenticalwiththeotheritemmeaning‘wolf’(P.1178-9*ÒlkÒ-):
TochB.walkwe-
RV.vËka-
LAv.vThrka- OPers.varka·zana-
(sb.)‘wolf’(DTochB.582,walkwe,MA.646-7)
(m.)‘Wolf’(WbRV.1325)
(m.)‘Wolf’(AIWb.1418)
(a.)‘eightmonthwerewolf’(OldP.207)
§3.InTocharianasecondarylossof PIE*Òhasresultedfrompalatalizationbeforea
front vowel. Thus, for instance, an *e-grade with a short quantity confirmed by
Osthoff’sLawII
Lat.uento- TochB.yente (m.)‘Wind’(WH2:751-2,uentus[sgN])
(sb.)‘wind’(DTochB.505,yente[sgN])
haslosttheinitiallabialthroughPToch.*wyanta-.Thecontrastwith PIE*o,leaving
theprecedingPIE*Òunaffected,isclearin:
i.uant-
TochA.want- (pt.c.)‘Wind’(HEG1:328,uante#[plN])
(sb.f.)‘ventus’(Poucha285,want[sgN])
§4.Thesoundlaw PIE*ÒArm.g(Godel1975:§4.353)isambiguousowingtothe
standarddevelopmentPIE*ghArm.g.AsforthedevelopmentPIE*ÒArm.g,it
shouldbenotedthatitispossibletodistributetheexamplesinamannerthatmakes
therulePIE*ÒArm.gredundant.Thus,forexample,thestem
Lat.lau
(pr.)‘baden,waschen,spülen’(WH1:773-)
isusuallycomparedwith
Arm.logana- (pr.)‘sichbaden’(ArmGr.1:453,loganam[1sg]).
YettherootArm.log-canbedirectlycomparedwiththeGermanicformation
ModNorw.laga-
OIcl.lagask- OEng.lagu OIcl.lVg-
(vb.)‘mitWasserübergießen’(ANEtWb.344)
(vb.)‘rinnen,strömen’(ANEtWb.344)
(m.)‘sea,water’(ASaxD.615)
(m.)‘Nass,Wasser,See’(ANEtWb.373,lVgr[sgN])
Similarly,Arm.git-(ao.)‘finden’(ArmGr.437,egit[3sg])isnotnecessarilyrelatedto
RV.vid-‘finden’(WbRV.1270-4,RV.vidánti[3pl]),theconventionaletymology.
Instead,amatchwithanoriginalNeogr.*gh(Arm.g)ispossiblein:
Go.bi·gat- Go.bi·gita- Li.gãdy-
OIcl.geta
OSax.bi·geta-
(pret.)‘find’(GoEtD.69,bigat)
(st.vb.)‘erlangen,finden’(GoEtD69,bigitan[inf.])
(vb.)‘sichereignen,treffen’(P.423-4)
(vb.)‘schaffen,erreichen,erzeugen’(ANEtWb.165)
(vb.)‘ergreifen’(ANEtWb.165)
202
In order to confirm whether the rule PIE *Ò Arm. g remains valid, a complete
reevaluationofexamplesisrequired.461
3 .2.2 Neogr.*u=PIE*u
§0.Thevowel PIE*u(Neogr.*u)wascorrectlyreconstructedalreadybySchleicher,
andlittlenewconcerningthepostulatehasemerged.
§1. Brugmann’s (Grundr2 1:103-111) examples of Neogr. *u, when compared with
OldAnatolianandTocharian,confirmthegeneralpreservationofPIE*uinthelatter
groups:
(a) Brugmann (Grundr2 1:103) reconstructed “W. sup-, Schwundstf. der W. sÒep-
‘schlafen’ : ai. suptá-s ‘eingeschlafen, schlafend’, [...] gr. w@B-D [...] air. suan (565,2)
aksl.s&n&‘Schlaf’.”InOldAnatoliantherootappearsin
i.#up-
(vbM.)‘schlafen’(HEG2:1175,#uptari[3sg])
withPIE*upreservedassuch.
(b) Brugmann (Grundr2 1:103) reconstructed “*Àun-, schwache Form des St. ÀÒon-
ÀuÒon-‘Hund’:Gen.Sg.ai.!ún-asgr.=G@-Dair.conlit.#uñs.”Therespectiveforms
asattestedinOldAnatolianandTocharianare
HLu.#uani- TochA.ku- (c.)‘dog’(CHLu.2.28.10,sù-wa/i-ni-i-sá)
(sb.)‘canis’(Poucha76)
ThisconfirmsthepreservationofPIE*uforboth.
(c)Brugmann(Grundr21:103)reconstructedNeogr.*nu‘nun’for“ai.nú,gr.@@-@,
lat. nu-di%s, air. nu no, ahd. nu no, lit. nù nù-gi aksl. n&.” In Old Anatolian the
conjunctionappearsinanidenticalform:
i.nu
(conj.)‘nun,und’(HEG2:345).
§2.InTocharianalossofunaccented PIE*uhastakenplaceinexampleslikeTochB.
tk
cer(f.)‘daughter,girl’(DTochB.312),whichcanbecomparedtogAv.dugTdar-
‘id’.462 This rule should not, however, be applied automatically when the vocalism
TochAB.a(and/orAB.ä)isattestedinthepositionwherePIE*uwasassumedlylost.
Thus,forexample,thewords
TochB.mäsce
TochB.ma!ctsi
(f.)‘fist’(DTochB.443)
(sb.)‘mouse,rat’(DTochB.443)
donotnecessarilycorrespondwithRV.mu í-(m.f.)‘diegeschlosseneHand,Faust’
(WbRV. 1052) and RV. mÑ- (m.f.) ‘Maus’ (WbRV. 1054), because the Tocharian
wordscanbeconnectedwiththe*u-lessformsofHittite:
OnthecomplexdevelopmentsofArmenian,seeBrugmann(Grundr21:303-5).
461
462
TochariansyncopeisdirectlyparalleledinArmenianwherethenominativeArm.dustr‘Tochter’is
accompaniedwithArm.dster-(ArmGr.1:440).
203
i.ma#tiga- i.ma#·uilua-
(fc.)‘auteurderituels’(NOMS.782,ma-a#-ti-ig-ga)463
(mc.)‘PÍ".TUR-wa=kleineMaus’(HEG2:157-8)
In other words, the possibility of morphological (or derivational) variations in the
proto-languagemustbetakenintoaccountbeforetheapplicationofthesoundlaw.
§3.ArecurringthemeinIndo-Europeanlinguistics,nowadaysknownas‘LexStang’,
concernstheparadigmsoftheitems
RV.dy³u-
RV.g³u-
(m.)‘Himmel’(WbRV.603,dy³us[sgN])
(m.)‘Rind,Stier,Kuh’(WbRV.407,g³u[sgN])
(cf.Gr.98DandGr.5BD).Thesestemsaresupplementedwiththemeswithoutfinal
*uinexamplessuchas:
RV.g³-
RV.dy³-
(m.)‘Rind,Stier,Kuh’(WbRV.407,g³m[sgA])
(m.)‘Himmel’(WbRV.604,dy³m[sgA])
Already Brugmann sought to provide an explanation on the basis of phonology
(Grundr21:259):
“In 233 S. 203 ff. haben wir gesehen dass [...] Ò in den Langdiphthongen unter gewissen
Bedingungenschoninuridg.Zeitgeschwundensind,z.B.[...]*»åm‘bovem’aus*»åu-m.”
Similarly,Szemerényi(1996:181)explained:
“The original forms must rather have been *dyeus dyeum; the acc. then became dym by
absorption of u and compensatory lengthening, and the long vowel was in Aryan carried
overintothenom.also.”
Severalargumentscanbepresentedagainstthephonologicalexplanation:
(a) No sound law stating the loss of *u can be postulated without causing
inconsistency, because the well-known sound laws demand the preservation of the
vowel*uinthelanguagesinquestion.
(b)Theexistenceofthe*u-lessformisexternallyconfirmedbyparallels:
RV.g³m[sgA]RDo.5@[sgA]464 RV.dy³m[sgA]RGr.9|@[sgA]
(c)BothSanskritandGreekconfirminternallytheexistenceofdoublestems.Thus,
twoaccusativesRV.g³s[plA]andRV.gávas[plA]‘cows’areattested,justasthere
aretwostemsinGreek:
Do.9|-
Gr.98-
(m.)‘Zeus’(SchwyzerGrGr.1:576f.,9|D[sgN])
(dm.)‘sky-god,Zeus’(GEW1:610-1,98D[sgN])
In such circumstances, the comparative method implies two different prototypes in
theparentlanguage.
i.ma#tiga-(fc.)‘auteurderituels’couldrefertoa‘handlerofrituals’,containingarootmeaning
‘hand,fist’,thuscorrespondingwithTocharian.
463
464
Forthe*u-lessrootinGreek,cf.Gr.c=4F?·5:-‘Opfervon100rinder’(GEW1:474-5).
204
§4.FinallyitmaybenotedthattheclustersoftheplainvelarsPIE*k,g,...followedby
anunaccented PIE*uturnedintothelabiovelars(Neogr.*kÒ= PIE*k+u,etc.)inthe
mannerdetailedinChapter4(cf.theCentum-Satemisogloss).
3 .2.3 Neogr.*%RPIE*áu,*áu,*uá,*uá,*uu
§0. The long vowel Neogr. *%, unaccounted for by Schleicher, was added to the
reconstructionbyCurtius(forexample,seeBenware1974:78-9)and,followinghim,
the Neogrammarians.465 Though the postulation is correct in the sense that
correspondences confirm a common Indo-European vowel /%/, the material now at
our disposal implies a segmental origin for Neogr. *%. Three main subsets can be
distinguishedinProto-Indo-European.
§1.SUBSET I .Neogr.*%RPIE*áu-orPIE*áu.Thephasedsoundchangeconsists
of the assimilation of PIE *á, the loss of PIE * and contraction expressed in the
formula:
PIE*áu-*áu
úu,úu úu RV.%,etc.
In other words, PIE *á+u was first assimilated ( ú+u), then contracted into the
respectivelongvowel(RV.%,etc.)withthelossofthelaryngealduringtheprocess.
Anexampleofthesoundchangeiscontainedinthedata
pau(r)-‘Feuer’(P.828,CHDP:12)
CLu.paur- i.paur-
TochA.por- (n.)‘Feuer’(DLL.77,pa-a-u-u-ur[sgNA])
(n.)‘Feuer’(HHand.115,pa-a-u-ur[sgNA])
(n.)‘ignis’(Poucha189-90,por[sgN])
This*e/o-graderoothasarespectivezerogradein
PIE*páu-‘Feuer’
Gr.C
TochB.puwar
(n.)‘Feuer’(GEW2:627-9,C[sgNA])
(n.)‘=Skt.agnim’(DTochB.393)
The lack of spiritus asper in Greek (Gr. - vs. †H-) and circumflex resulting from
contractionproveanearlierdissyllabicformPGr.*GCN*puurNPIE*páur.PIE
*páÒor-resultedinTochB.puwar,reflectingthedevelopmentbefore PIE*Ò.466The
researchhistoryofthesubsetstandsasfollows:
(a)InhisanalysisofthesequenceNeogr.*Tu,Brugmann(KVG:80)asserted:
“Uridg. T [...] ist von uridg. a nur im Ar. geschieden geblieben, doch sind auch hier die
diphthongischen[...]aÒund[...]TÒin[...]aÒzusammengefallen(§134ff.).”
Elsewhere,however,Brugmann(Grundr21:498)contradictsthis:
ForBrugmann’sexamplesofNeogr.*%,seeGrundr21:111-4.
465
466
A dissyllabic form Gr. GC (n.) ‘fire’ has actually been preserved. Based on the etymology, the
scansionisnotnecessarilyjusta‘distraction’,asclaimedbyLiddellandScott(LSJ.1555).
205
“Folgten[...]Òaufetc.,soerscheintinderSchwundstufevordemHaupttonteils[...]TÒ,
teils anteconson. [...] %, anteson. [...] uÒ. [...] Gr. 74K ‘ich brenne’ aus *74ß¾K (Tu) : ai.
d%ná-s[...].”
The partial inconsistency of the Neogrammarian reconstruction is caused by the
defective ablaut pattern Neogr. * : *T, which did not allow the normal grade
Neogr.*a(= PIE*ae,ea)betweenschwaandthelonggrade.Theproblemcanbe
resolvedbydistinguishingalloftheattestedtreatments:
Neogr.*Tu
Neogr.*au
RPIE*áu
PIE*áu
RPIE*aeu
PIE*eau
(Gr.C-,TochB.puwar-)
(i.paur-,TochA.por-)
Inthisway,theartificialambiguityoftheNeogrammariansystemisreplacedwiththe
systematic and complete alternative of Wackernagel’s ablaut Neogr. *
: a : T,
consistingofthreeactualdistinctions(seeChapter2).
(b) Following the erroneous identification of Schwa *T with i. , Kuryowicz
(1935:41,71)attemptedtoexplainNeogr.*%byassumingareducedvowel(orschwa
secundum) attached to a laryngeal (i.e. *eu O %). Though the explanation is
agreeableintermsofthereconstructionGr.C-,TochB.puwar-,etc.,theside-effect
oftheschwasecundumcanbeavoidedthroughthepostulation PIE*a(in PIE*au),
asdonethroughoutinSystemPIE.467
(c)Inthemainstreamlaryngealtheory(forexample,seeMayrhofer1986:174-5and
fn 324), a laryngeal metathesis (LT **Hu O *uH) and subsequent compensatory
lengthening(LT*uHNeogr.*%)areoftenassumedinordertoproduceNeogr.*%.
While avoiding the schwa secundum,the metathesis theory only allows long
quantities,whichinturncontradictstheestablishedalternationsNeogr.*u:%inthe
data. Therefore, the laryngeal metathesis is too strong a hypothesis, and one does
betterwiththesimpleassimilationandcontractiondetailedabove.468
§2.Brugmann(Grundr21:504)soughtanexplanationforthealternationNeogr.*u:
%fromthedifferenceintheaccentuationoftheroot:469
“Wie sich dazu die Fälle wie gr. ?D ai. mÑ Pl. mÑs-as : mu-ká-s, ai. gÑha-ti : guhádavadya, stÑpa- : stupá-, gr. EFHK : EFGH8>D verhalten, ist unklar; nur so viel ist
einigermassen deutlich, dass hier der Wortaccent ein % bewahrte, das in schwachtoniger
Silbezuugewordenist(vgl.§547,,9).”
Brugmann’s‘wordaccent’isnotsufficient,becauseashortvowelwithrootaccentis
attested in examples like RV. gúh
‘im Verborgenen, geheim’ (WbRV. 404).
Accordingly,adistinctionbetweenaccentedandunaccented PIE*á*aisnecessary
467
In this connection, Hendriksen (1941:91) names Møller (Sem. u. Idg. 264) as the inventor of the
schwasecundum.
468
InOldAnatoliantheclusteruisstablebothbeforeavowel(e.g.i.lau-(vb2.)‘gießen’(HEG
2:3,i.la-u-u-i[1sg]=Lat.l
u[1sg]))andaconsonant(e.g.i.lelua-(vb2.)‘ausgießen’(HEG
2:57,le-el-u-ua-i)),whichdoesnotsupporttheideaofametathesis.
ForthealternationNeogr.*u:%,seeBrugmann(Grundr21:487).
469
206
inordertoexplainthealternationNeogr.%:&.Withtheadditionofthisadditional
condition,theoutcomesbecomefullyregular,forinstance,inthepair:
PIE*máus-(Omúus-)
PIE*maus-(OÇus-)
RV.mÑs-(m.)‘Maus’(WbRV.1054)
RV.mué(inf.)‘rauben’(WbRV.1051)
Inotherwords,thealternationofthequantitycanbetracedbacktothealternationof
theaccentof PIE*aand PIE*á.Whenaccented, PIE*áuand*áuassimilatedwith
thefollowing*u(*úu,úu),finallyresultinginlongquantityNeogr.*%(=RV.%,
etc.).AnunaccentedPIE*a,ontheotherhand,waslostwithoutlengthening:
PIE*au,*au
i.u,RV.&,etc.(=Neogr.*&).
ThetypicalablautpatternNeogr.*ú:Êu:%:ucanthusbeexpressedinProto-IndoEuropeantermsasfollows:
PIE*aÊu*a·u*áu*au
PIE*au*áu,*·au,*Êau
Numerous examples of the alternation exist, and some have been chosen here to
illustratethegeneralbehaviouroftheablauttype:
(a)au-‘Schaf’(P.784)
CLu.aui- Gr.rß<-
Li.avì-
Lat.auillo- OIr.u·gaire Lat.%·pili(n)-
(c.)‘Schaf’(DLL.44,a-a-ú-i-i#[sgN])
(c.)‘Schaf’(GEW2:367,Arg.rß<@D[plA])
(4.)‘Schaf’(LiEtWb.28,avìs[sgN])
(m.)‘agnusrecentispartus’(WH1:84)
(m.)‘shepherd’(DIL485,sub‘oegaire’)
(m.)‘Schafhirt’(WH2:211)
(b)aug-,aueg-‘wachsen’(P.84-5)
Li.pasi·%gé- Li.áug-
Lat.augeo- gAv.ugra-
Gr.4vAK
Hom.\(ß)}AK
i.ugatar- (vb.refl.)‘großwerden’(LiEtWb.24,pasi%gétis)
(vb.)‘wachsen,größerwerden’(LiEtWb.24,áugti)
(pr2.)‘vermehren’(WH1:85f.,auge[1sg])
(a.)‘stark,kräftig’(AIWb.380)
(pr.)‘mehren,fördern;wachsen’(GEW1:187)
(prA.)‘mehren,fördern;wachsen’(GEW1:187)
(n.)‘Haufen,Getreidesilo?’(HEG1:264)
(c)auk-‘rufen,sprechen,lärmen’(P.1103)
LAv.aoaya-
Go.auhj-
Li.Ñkau-
Li.áukter-
(cs.)‘sprechenzu-,anreden’(AIWb.36-7) (vb.)‘lärmen’ (GoEtD.48,auhjn[inf.])
(vb.)‘zurufen,schreien,lärmen’(LiEtWb.1160)
(vb.)‘aufschreien’(LiEtWb.25,áukterti[inf.])
(d)aukh-‘Kochtopf,Pfanne,usw.’(P.88)
RV.ukha·chid-
RV.ukh³-
Go.auhn-
(a.)‘denTopfzerbrechend’(WbRV.245)
(f.)‘Kochtopf,derPfanne’(WbRV.246) (m.?)‘=>@45BD=oven’(GoEtD.49)
207
Lat.aull
-
Lat.auxill
- (f.)‘Topf,Hafen’(WH1:84)
(dim.f.)‘ollaparvula’(WH1:84)
(e)aul-‘kämpfen,schlagen,brechen’(P.1144)
i.ula-
OPr.%lin-
Gr.4x>·4=- (vb.)‘(nieder)schlagen’(HEG1:273-6,u-ul-la-a-i)
(cs.)‘kämpfen’(APrS.453,%lint[inf.])
(.)‘Furche’(GEW1:77,Hes.4x>4A,4x>4=8D)
(f)aur-‘Wasser,Regen,Fluss’(P.80-1)
OIcl.%r-
Gr.^@·4GCB- Thrac.4vC4- Pal.uarnina-
(n.)‘Feuchtigkeit,feinerRegen’(ANEtWb.635)
(a.)‘Gießbach,Strom’(GEW1:103,^@4GCBD)
(m.)(ariver)(Lindeman1997:60,4vC4D[sgN])
(vb.)‘besprengen’(?)(HHand.58,DPal.56)
(g)aus-‘brennen’(P.86-7)
RV.viús-
Gr.4vhK
RV.úsri-
Gr.4vC<B@
LAv.viusa-
AV.%man-
(f.)‘dasAufleuchten,Hellwerden’(WbRV.1360)
(vb.)‘Feuerholen’(GEW1:193,Gr.4vK)
(a.)‘morgendlich’(WbRV.270)
(adv.)‘morgen’(GEW1:189,PIE*aeusrio-)
(pr.)‘aufleuchten,aufflammen’(AIWb.1394,viusaiti)
(m.)‘Hitze,Dampf’(WbRV.276)
(h)aud-‘vox’(P.76-77)
Gr.b@·4G7B-
Gr.4t7~-
Gr.w7K
Li.$dy-
RV.uditá-
(a.)‘speaking’(LSJ.557,b@4G7BD)
(f.)‘(menschliche)Stimme,Laut,Rede’(GEW1:184)
(pr.)‘besingen,verherrlichen’(GEW2:956)
(vb.)‘keifen,schelten,murren,usw.’(LiEtWb.1157)
(pt.)‘gesprochen,gesagt’(WbRV.1201,uditám)
(i)aud-‘Wasser,Quelle,usw.’(P.78-80)
Hom.Û74F- RV.an·%daka-
Hom.Û7KC Li.Ñdra
Rus.vdra LAv.ao7a- (n.obl.)‘Wasser’(GEW2:957,Il.21.300)
(n.)‘wantofwater,aridity’(MonWil.41)
(n.)‘Wasser’(GEW2:597,Û7KC,Il.15.37)
(f.)‘Fischotter’(LiEtWb.1157-8)
(f.)‘Fischotter’(GEW2:957)
(m.)‘Quelle’(AIWb.42,ao7a#u[plL])
Inthismanner,thecoversymbolNeogr.*%providesanouter-Anatoliancriteriafor
therestorationofPIE*throughPIE*á,whichisreflectedintheIndo-Europeanlong
quantity % = PIE *áu or *áu. Consequently, Brugmann’s (Grundr2 1:483)470
See Brugmann (Grundr2 1:483): “Nur diejenigen erst im einzelsprachlichen Leben neu
aufgekommenen Verschiedenheiten des sonantischen Elementes sind mit heranzuziehen, welche
durch analogische Nachahmung uridg. Ablautverhältnisse entsprungen sind, wie z. B. gr. Ø=}F8GE4 )
Ù=8F8K,Ú?8@4BG@Ü?8<@4<,wo:i,%:udemuridg.Verhältnis:einhw:estiu.dgl.nachgebildet
wordensind(IIS.864).”
470
208
analogical explanation of ablaut Neogr. *% : & can be replaced with a phonological
condition,thealternationofaccentinPIE*áuauandPIE*áuau.
§3. S UBSET II . Neogr. *%, uT R PIE *uá, uá with accent on PIE *á. As with the
subset*+u,anassimilationofPIE*a,thelossofPIE*andacontractiontookplace
inthesubsetasindicatedin:
PIE*uá*uá
uú*uú uú RV.%.
Theresearchhistoryshowsthatthesubclasshasbeenreconstructedalmostcorrectly
byalltheoriesthataccepteitherNeogr.*Tor PIE*.AlreadytheNeogrammarians
accepted a contraction of *u+T RV. %, Lat. %, etc., as implied by the following
quotefromBrugmann(Grundr21:495):
“[…] , % dürften öfters durch Contraction von T mit i, u entstanden sein. Z.B. *tr ‘tria’
(ved. tr½ lat. tr-gint
air. tr lit. tr-lika aksl. tri) aus *tri-T, vgl. ai. bhárant-i gr. H}CB@F-4;
*pÄl%‘multa’(ved.)aus*pÄlu-T.”
Similarly,Saussure(1879:239=Rec.231-2)suggestedananalysisNeogr.*%R*uA
for the se -roots of the type OInd. pavitár : p%tá-. This view, reinterpreted as
compensatory lengthening caused by a lost laryngeal (**uH O Neogr. *%), is now
dominantinthelaryngealtheory.Strictlyspeaking,however,thequantityofNeogr.
*%(R PIE*uá,*uá)isnotcausedbycompensatorylengthening,becausethis–asa
dominantfeature–wouldprecludetheattestedalternationsofquantityRV.&:%,etc.
Instead,thealternationisconditionedbymeansofaccentaccordingtotherules
PIE*uá,*uáORV.%,etc.
PIE*ua,*uaORV.&,etc.
where PIE*ástandsforanaccentedand PIE*aforanunaccentedvowel.Inthiscase
Neogr.*%alsoprovidesanadditionalcriterionfor PIE*a,a(otherwiselostinthe
daughterlanguages).Inordertoillustratethis,HittiteandRig-Vedichiatusimply
PIE*awithtwodifferentquantities,accordingtotheaccent PIE*ávs. PIE*ainthe
data:
pual-‘Tor,Tür,Pforte,Burg’(P.799)
PIE*pual-
RV.púr-
i.pula-
Gr.cF|·G>B-
Gr.>:-
(f.)‘Burg,FesterPlatz’(WbRV823-4,púras[sgG])
(c.)‘Stadttor’(CHDP:370,HHand.134)
(a.)‘siebentorig’(GEW1:624)
(f.)‘Tür-,Torflügel’(pl.)‘Tor,Pforte’(GEW2:623-4)
PIE*puál-
RV.pu’ur-
RV.pÑr-
(f.)(einGott)(WbRV.823,pÑr[zweisilbig])
(f.)‘Burg,FesterPlatz’(WbRV823-4,pÑr[sgN])
§4. The accent alternation PIE *a : á with ablaut PIE * : e : Ø results in a
theoretical maximum of four root variants in the Indo-European languages. An
exampleofthesystemoffourdistinctionsisfullypreservedin
209
suad-‘sweet’(P.1039-40)471
RV.sam·súd-
RV.havya·sÑd-
RV.su’áda- RV.sv
da- (inf.bs.)‘geniessen’(WbRV.1533,samsúde[inf.])
(a.)‘dieOpfertränkesüssigmachend’(WbRV.1657)
(pr.)‘mitLustgeniessen,gutschmeken’(WbRV.1622)
(prM.)‘sichfreuen’(WbRV.1636,sv
date[3sg])
Theexplicitreconstructionisoftheform:
PIE*súad-(RV.súd-)
PIE*suaed-(RV.su’ád-)
PIE*suád-(RV.sÑd-)
PIE*suad-(RV.sv
d-)
(zerograde)
(*e/grade)
Thus, the diphonemic PIE *a, a is required in order to account for simultaneous
traditionallyirregularfeatures,suchasthe‘a-colouring’,thehiatusinRV.su’ád-and
thealternationofquantityNeogr.*u:%.
§5. Occasionally in Greek, but also in Italic and in Celtic, an unassimilatedGr. G4,
appears (cf. Gr. =4@B- ‘Blaustein’, GEW 2:37, etc.).472 The difference between
Neogr. *uT and Neogr. *% caused a dispute between Brugmann and Schmidt, as is
apparentinBrugmann’s(Grundr21:495)comment:
“Formen wie gr. FC4, 6B@4 aus *6B@ß4 waren einzelsprachliche Neubildungen. Die
Ansicht J. Schmidt’s (zuletzt Kritik 22f.), dass iT, uT, falls sie den Formen wie ved. tr½ zu
Grundegelegenhaben,nochnichtinderZeitderidg.Urgemeinschaftzu,%verschmolzen
waren,istkaumhaltbar.SieheVerf.M.U.5,58ff.,WackernagelAI.Gr.I104.”
Thedisagreementisoflesserrelevance,sinceanablautdifference(i.e.Neogr.*avs.
*T) can be singled out as the explanation, when the proper three ablaut grades of
Wackernagel’sablaut(PIE*ua*uea*ua)aretakenintoaccount.
§6. S UBSET III . In addition to the clusters PIE *+u (SUBSET I ) and PIE *u+
(SUBSET II ), there are other minor reconstructive starting points for Neogr. *%,
characteristically containing PIE *u twice. This category consists of analytical
prototypeslike
Neogr.*%
R
PIE*uu,uau,uau,etc.
ThistypeofsecondaryNeogr.*%appears,forinstance,in:
(a)Neogr.*%RPIE*u·u(reduplication).ThequantityofaperfectstemRV.%c-(pf.)
‘sagen,aussprechen’(WbRV.1192),%cús[3pl]isexplainedbyreduplication(i.e.RV.
%c-=*u·ukÒ-(cf.P.1135,ÒekÒ-‘ß}BD’)).Inthissubset, PIE*a(andthelaryngeal)
arenotinvolvedinthequantity,butNeogr.*%=PIE*uu.
(b)Neogr.*%=uau.TheuniqueablautoftherootP.bheu-‘sein’(P.146-150)is
caused by a difference between the unextended (PIE *bheu-) and extended (PIE
471
PIE*isconfirmedbyhiatusinRV.su’áda-(pr.)‘angenehm,genussreichmachen’(WbRV.1622,
su’ádanti[3pl]) and PIE *a by colouring of Boiot. ß|7B- (prM.) ‘sich freuen’ (Boiot. ß|7B?: = Att.
h7B?4< [1sg]). It it likely that the traditional root is actually the compound PIE *su·ad- =
‘wohl·essen’.
472
Cf.alsoGr.=4;BD‘Schöpgefäss,Hohlmass’(GEW2:36),Gr.=4?BD‘Bohne’(GEW2:36-7),etc.
210
*bhu·aand*bhu·a·u-)rootforms,thelatterexplainingthe‘overlong’quantitiesof
RV.babhÑva(WbRV.946),LAv.bv
va(AIWb.932)andOCS.byvati‘sein’.
§7.TherearenogeneralapriorirulesbywhichacorrectsegmentalanalysisofNeogr.
*% could be mechanically decided. Therefore, the choice of the proper alternative
fromthelistofalternatives
Neogr.*%
R
PIE*áu,áu,uá,uá,uu,uau,uau,etc.
must decided individually for each correspondence based on the measurable
propertiesofthedata.OwingtotheprovablyanalyticcharacterofNeogr.*%,inthe
greatmajorityofexamplesitis,however,likelythat PIEdidnotpossessalongvowel
/%/asthelongcounterpartofPIE*u.
3 .2.4 Neogr.*¾RPIE*¾
§0.Neogr.*¾R PIE*¾(=IPA/j/)wasalreadypresentinSchleicher’sreconstruction.
Littlenewinformationhasemergedconcerningtheglide,andthemaindevelopments
canbebrieflysummarizedasfollows:
§1. Brugmann’s (Grundr2 1:261-293) examples of Neogr. *¾ include, inter alia, the
items:
(a)Neogr.*¾ekÒen-‘Leber’(Grundr21:261-2):“ai.yákÎtGen.yakn-asav.y
karT,gr.
i4C,-4F-BD,lat.jecurjecinor-is,lit.jeknosPl.”
(b)Neogr.*torsé¾e/o-‘dürsten’(Grundr21:262):“ai.taráy
mi‘ichlassedürsten’,lat.
torre,ahd.derriu‘ichdörre’.”
(c)Neogr.*kÒ¾eu-‘treiben’(Grundr21:262-3):“ai.cyáva-t‘erregtsich,rührtsich’,
gr.äol.E8K‘ichtreibe,schwinge,jage’.”
§2.InOldAnatolian,PIE*¾wasoccasionallylostinbetweenvowels.Diagnostically,in
suchcasesthereisaconnectionbetweenetymologicallyrelatedrootvariantswithand
without PIE *i : *¾. The glideless forms are often written with the (overlong) plene
script (OAnat [C]a-a-a[C]), which does not refer to quantity but to the loss of
intervocalicPIE*i/¾inOldAnatolian:473
PAnat*a¾a
Oi.a-a-a,CLu.a-a-a,Pal.a-a-a,etc.(StarkeKLuN:101).
This sound law was identified already by Sturtevant (1951:18 and fn 23),474 and its
verification consists of lexical comparisons of forms with the plene alternating with
formscontaininganoriginalPIE*i:¾.SomeexamplesofthedevelopmentbothinOld
andLaterAnatolianare:
(a)i-‘glow,burn,warm(up)’
473
The overlong plene script is often transcribed with /
/, but it is likely that the middlemost plene
vowel-a-shouldbereadasspiritus,asecondary‘laryngeal’(OAnat.’)fromPIE*¾.Bothhereandin
thePIELexicon,aneutral‘subscript’notation(OAnat.aia)willbeadopted.
474
A similar value for ‘plene writing’is attested in Akkadian. See also Kronasser (VFLH 50) and
Tischler(HEG1:3-4).
211
(vb2.)‘warm,heißsein’(HEG1:3-4,a-a-ri,a-a-an-ta)475
(pt.)‘heiß,warm’(HEG1:3-4,a-a-an-za,a-a-an-te-it)
(cs.)‘heißmachen;kochen’(HEG1:363,i-nu-zi[3sg])
(vb.)‘machen’(CLu.a-a-¾a-#i[2sg],KLuN.101,fn256)
(vb.)‘machen’(CLu.a-a-ta[3sg])
i.dalai-
CLu.talaa- CLu.dalai·mi-
(DUGn.)‘Gefäß(fürFeinöl)’(HEG3:56,tal-la-i[sgN])
(GI"c.)‘einGefäß’(DLL89,ta-la-a-an-za[plA])
(DUGc.)‘einGefäß’(DLL89,da-la-i-mi-i#[sgN])
i.aa-
i.aant-
i.inu-
(b)i-‘machen’
CLu.aia-
CLu.aa-
(c)tali-‘einGefäß’
(d)tarpei-‘(zer)treten’(HEG2:203f.)
CLu.tarpaa- CLu.tarpei- HLu.tarpaa- (vb.)‘(zer)treten’(HHand.169,tar-pa-a-tar[3sg])
(vb.)‘(zer)treten’(DLL93,tar-pí-a)
(vb.)‘treten’(CHLu.5.1.22,tara/i-pa-a-ti)
(e)uli-‘Wiese:grünen’
Pal.ulaana- i.ulilia-
Pal.uliliantik-
(sb.)‘Wiese,Dicklicht?’(DPal.76,ú-la-a-an-na[sgL])
(vb.dn.)‘grünen,sprosssen?’ (HHand.185)
(dc.)‘aclassofgods’(DPal.76ú-li-li-an-ti-ga-a#[plD])
(f)si-‘Lieb,Wohlwollen,Gunst’.
i.a#eia-
Lyd.a!aa-
(vb1M.)‘lieb,beliebtsein’(HEG1:81-83)
(c.)‘Gunst,Wohlwollen’(?)(LydWb.66,a!aa@)
(g)mliu-‘Teil,Urteil(er),usw.’
OInd.mleva- Lyd.qa>·m>u-
Lyd.m>ola- Lyd.m>v¢nda-
Lyd.m>v¢si- Lyc.mlejeusi- Lyc.?>44GE<- (vb.)‘toserve,worship’(MonWil.838,mlevate)
(c.)‘König’(LydWb.179,qa>m>u>[sgD],Lyd.>N*l¾)
(c.)‘Teil’(LydWb.166,m>ola[sgN])
(sb.)‘cf.above(?)’(LydWb.166-7,m>v¢ndãñ[pl?D])
(c.)‘Schicksal(?)’(LydWb.167,m>v¢sis[sgN])
(Ic.)‘-(?)-’(VLFH93,mlejeusi[sgN])
(Ic.)‘-(?)-’(VLFH93,?>44GE<D[sgN])
TheinadequaciesoftheAnatoliansyllabicscriptpreventanexactformulationofthe
conditionsofthelossof PIE*¾unless(oruntil)acompletetheoryoftheProto-IndoEuropean ablaut patterns has been advanced, which could provide some additional
hintsfortheOldAnatolianaswell.476
475
Forthesestems,seealsoOettinger(1976:136).
476
Thechange*V¾VOVØVispossiblyanarealfeature.AppearinginAnatolian(i.,HLu.,CLu.,
Lyd.,Lyc.,Pal.),theHellenicworld,(Ion.,Att.,etc.),theBalkans(Phryg.8748D‘posuit’,cf.i.da-a-i#,
P.236)andItalicwithanobviousconnectiontothegenesisofpalatovelars,thelossofunaccented*i
playedasignificantroleinthepost-PIEperiod.
212
§3.OldMyceneanhaspreserved PIE*¾(=LinB.j),whichisotherwiselostinGreek
(see DMycGr. 78-9).477 This has provided a degree of confirmation for PIE *¾ in
Greek(forsomeearlyexamplesofLinB.j,seeDMycGr.394-5andpassim),whichis
problematic owing to the simultaneous loss of iota, sigma and digamma in the
classicallanguage.
§4. In addition to the standard development PIE *¾ TochAB. y, the Tocharian
palatalizationhasgivenbirthtoanon-organicTochAB.y,emergingbeforethefront
vowels PIE *e*.ThesoundchangewentthroughanapproximatelysketchedprotoTocharianstage,yieldingasecondarypalatalglideasindicatedin:
TochAB.y,ya PToch.*je,je PIE*e,.
Thisdevelopmentissuggestedbytheroot PIEsar-‘Blut,Saft’(P.343),wherethe
equationsTochB.yaRGr.:andTochAB.yRGr.8holdtrue,asindicatedin:
CLu.a#ar- i.e#ar-
Hes.i4C-
TochB.yasar- Gr.d4C-
TochA.ys
r- TochB.ys
ra- (n.)‘Blut’(HHand.26,a-a#-ar-#a[sgNA])
(n.)‘Blut’(HHand.33,HEG1:112-15,e-e#-a-ar)
(n.)‘Blut,Saft’(GEW1:432,i4C[sgNA])
(n.)‘blood’(DTochB.487,yasar[sgNA])
(n.)‘Blut,Saft’(GEW1:432,d4C[sgNA])
(m.)‘cruor,sanguis’(Poucha253)
(n.)‘blood’(DTochB.487)
Consequently,theambiguityofTochAB.y(from PIE*¾or PIE*e,)mustbetaken
into account in etymological considerations. The reconstructive situation thus
resemblesOldAnatolianwithvacillationbetweenPIE*eandPIE*i.
§5. In order to explain theinitial Gr. 9- through comparison to an Indo-European
glide (RV. y-, Lat. i-, etc.), Brugmann (Grundr2 1:793-5) postulated a second glide
Neogr.*j(Neogr.*¾).Thus,forinstance,Gr.9allegedlyreflectsNeogr. *jinGr.
9G6D:RV.yugá-(n.)‘dasJoch,Gespann,Geschlecht,Generation’(WbRV.1114-5)
=Lat.iugum.Theoutcome9is,however,restrictedtoGreek,andconsequentlythe
reconstructionofanindependentphonemecannotbeconfirmed.Theresultofthisis
thatBrugmann’sideahasnotfoundfollowers.Becauseatwofoldoutcomeofasingle
prototype(asin PIE*¾Gr.h(spiritus)Gr.9)wouldviolatetheprincipleofthe
regularity of sound change, a hitherto unutilized approach (a prefix? or a
redistributionofthecorrespondences?)isrequiredtoexplainthephenomenon.478
§6.Anunaccented PIE*i*¾waslostafteravelar(PIE*k,etc.)intheCentumgroup
duringanintermediatestageofpalatovelarsNeogr.*ÀÀhººhrequiredbyGreekand
Tocharian, but developed into * h ¿ ¿Y in the Satem group. In this manner, the
477
AccordingtoVentrisandChadwick(DMycGr.78):“ThelossofI.-E.-j-inintervocalicpositionis
provedbythefirstcomponentofaman’snamea-e-ri-qo-ta[...].”Astheonlypotentialexampleofthe
lossof*¾,andinapersonalname,thelossisnotguaranteed,becausePIE*sisequallypossible.
478
Theproblemcouldbesolvedonasegmentalbasisbypostulatingtwodistinctstartingpoints(with
Gr.9G6-=Neogr.*d·¾ugó-,etc.),butitshouldbenotedthatotherapproachesalsoremainpossible.
213
palatovelarsNeogr.*À,Àh,º,ºharepolyphonemicclustersofplainvelarsfollowedby
PIE*¾.Theseareexplainedindetailwithdefinitions(PIE*k+i=Neogr.*À,etc.)in
Chapter4.
3 .2.5 Neogr.*iRPIE*i
§0. Only minor corrections and additions concerning the vowel PIE *i (Neogr. *i =
PIE*i)haveemergedsinceSchleicher’sreconstruction.Althoughfewinnumber,the
mostrelevanttopicsaresummarizedbelow.
§1.Brugmann’sexamplesofNeogr.*i(Grundr21:94-101)included:
(a)Neogr.*i-(Grundr21:94):“SchwundstufenformderW.ei-‘gehen’:1.Pl.ai.i-más
gr.m?8@,lat.itum”(P.293-297).
(b)Neogr.*Òid-(Grundr21:94):“Schwundstf.derW.Òeid-‘sehen,wissen’:1.Pl.ai.
vid-má hom. m7?8@ got. witum, [...] lat. vide, air. fiss ‘das Wissen’, lit. pa-vìdulis
‘Ebenbild’”(P.1025f.).
(c)Neogr.*ÒidheÒ
‘Witwe’(Grundr21:94):“ai.vidháv
,gr.f;8BD‘Junggesell’,lat.
viduaviduos,air.fedb,got.widuw,aksl.vdova”(P.1127-8).
There is no need for major changes in the general picture already presented by the
Neogrammarians, which are well-established by now. However, the following new
itemscanbementionedinthisconnection:
§2. In Hittite (and generally in Old Anatolian), there is a widespread confusion
betweenthevowelsPIE*eand*i(alsoincludingthediphthongsPIE*ei,i,etc.).This
phenomenonwasrecentlycharacterizedbyCHDL-N:XIIasfollows479:
“Itiswell-knownthatthevowels eand iofteninterchangeinthespellingofHittitewords.
In the earliest texts scribes clearly sought to maintain a distinction. What consistency
underlies later usage and whether the post-OH spelling conventions also reflect a
continuingdistinctionbetweeneandiaremattersofcontroversy.”
From a comparative point of view, external reconstruction remains the sole
trustworthymethodfordistinguishingbetweenetymological PIE*eand PIE*iinOld
Anatolian.480
§3.Onsuppletiveparadigmswithandwithoutan*·i-extension,Brugmann(Grundr2
1:259)writes:
“In 233 S. 203 ff. haben wir gesehen dass ¾ [...] in den Langdiphthongen unter gewissen
Bedingungenschoninuridg.Zeitgeschwundensind,z.B.*rm‘rem’aus*ri-m[...].”
479
Forthefluctuationbetweeni.iandi.e,seeSturtevant(1951:18-19).
480
Theinternalreconstructionofthealternationi.i:i.aNPIE*·:Êisnotentirelyreliable.Owing
tothevastvocabularyoftheprotolanguage,thisstructuralapproachmayfail,becausePIE*imaybe
externallyprovableinsomeexamples.
214
Suchaviewwouldleadtoamajorinconsistencycausedbysupposedproto-andpreproto-languages. Furthermore, since the Vedic variation is externally paralleled,481
argumentssimilartothoseinconnectionwith*u-stemsapply.
3 .2.6 Neogr.*RPIE*ái,*ái,*iá,*iá,*ii
§0.ThelongvowelNeogr.*,absentfromSchleicher’ssystem,wasfirstreconstructed
by Curtius (Benware 1974:78-9). The Neogrammarians followed Curtius, but also
suggestedasegmentalanalysisofNeogr.*similartoNeogr.*%.Initsfullform,the
cover symbol Neogr. * consists of three main subsets that are structurally identical
withthoseofNeogr.*%:
§1. SUBSET I :Neogr.*R PIE*ái,*ái(withaccented PIE*á).Thephasedsound
changeleadingtothesecondarylongvowel//canbestatedasfollows:
PIE*ái,ái íi,íi(assimilation)íi(*-loss)RV.,etc.
Thekeydevelopmentsintheresearchhistoryofthesubsetare:
(a)On*Tiasapossiblestartingpointof*,Brugmann(Grundr21:498)wrote:
“Folgten ¾ [...] auf etc., so erscheint in der Schwundstufe vor dem Hauptton teils T¾ [...]
teilsanteconson.[...]anteson.i¾[...].*dhT¾-‘säugen’ai.dhaya-tidhenú-(§193)S.171f.):
dh- ai. dhtá-s : dh¾- ai. dh
yú- [...]. Ai. prtá- ‘erfreut, geliebt’ priyá-s got. frijn : gr.
C4Daus*C¾G-Dav.fr
y[...].”
AswithNeogr.*%,Brugmann(KVG:80)contradictshimselfbywriting:
“Uridg. T [...] ist von uridg. a nur im Ar. geschieden geblieben, doch sind auch hier die
diphthongischen a¾ [...] und T¾ [...] in a¾ [...] zusammengefallen (§ 134 ff.) und die
heterosyllabischena¾undT¾inai.”
(b) Brugmann’s latter suggestion was contested by Hirt (1900:33ff.), who preferred
the first-mentioned treatment *T+i Neogr. *.482 Hirt’s reconstruction was
accepted by Benveniste (1935:167f.), who additionally postulated a syllabic schwa
(1935:168)asanallophoneofthelaryngealinthiscontext:
“[...]*peT3-y+t+o-devient*pTo-i-to-(ennotantparTounTsyllabiqueenhiatusdevanti),
lequels’assimileen*pi-i-tó-Oskr.ptá;demême*pTo-i-n-o->*pi-i-no->gr.@B@.”
AgainstBenveniste,Schmitt-Brandtcorrectly(1967:34)argued:
“PhonetischvölligunhaltbaristendlichdieErklärungvon*p-(gr.@K)aus*p¬-i-.Ist*H
einKonsonant,sokannesnichtsilbischwerden[...]ist*HeinSonant,sowirdesgeradein
481
In this case, the stem RV. r³- (f.) ‘Gut, Schatz, Reichtum’ (WbRV. 1184, r³m [sgA]) is
comparativelyconfirmedbyLat.r-(f.)‘Sache,Besitz’(WH2:430-1,rs[sgN],rem[A]),andthestem
RV.ray-(m.)‘Reichtum’(WbRV.1183,rayé[sgD])byLat.rei[sgG]).
482
AspointedoutbyGüntert(1916:107),Hirt’ssolutioninvolvesaccentedschwa*Õ,correspondingto
PIE*áinSystemPIE:“[...]findenwir[Hirt’s]Ablaut14,Handb.d.gr.Laut-u.Formenl.2117,§120
diese Angabe dahin erweitert, daß idg. Ti und Tu als und % erscheinen hatten, wenn sie im Idg.
sekundärdenTonerhaltenhatten.”
215
dieser Stellung gewiß nicht silbisch (*pri-, nicht *pÎ¾-), nur ein reiner Vokal könnte mit
folgendem*i,*uzueinemDiftongverschmelzenundanVokalengibtesnachBenveniste
imIndogermanischennureinen,nämlich*e.”
In addition, an extra difficulty mentioned by Burrow (1949:42) must be taken into
account:
“[...]Benveniste[...]retainsthetheorythatcandevelopoutof-Ti-,or¬i[...].Thiscreates
extraordinary difficulties. Even if it were admitted that H could function as a sonant it
oughtnottodosobeforeavowel.”
These problems, as well as those caused by the schwa secundum (Møller 1906:264)
andKuryowicz(1935:41),canbeavoidedbyreconstructingdiphonemic PIE*aand
*a. Thus, for Gr. - (ao.) ‘trinken’ (Gr. ;< [2sg] = OCS. pi-) PIE *pái- is
postulatedexactlyasforPIE*áuandPIE*áu.
(c) The laryngeal metathesis **Hi *iH Neogr. has been offered as an
explanation of quantity in the laryngeal theory (Mayrhofer 1986:174-5). Strictly
speaking,thisisnotconsistent,becausecompensatorylengtheningwouldexcludethe
attestedalternationofquantityNeogr.*i:*(Brugmann,Grundr21:487)andleadto
the incompleteness (and invalidity) of the reconstruction. The examples of the type
“[Neogr.]*s½d ‘sitzen’ ai. s½da-ti russ. sidt’ av. hi7aiti gr. l7CK [...]” (Brugmann
Grundr2 1:504)483 can only be accounted for by reconstructing a difference in the
accentuation, with PIE *á leading to long glides and PIE *a (unaccented) to short
ones,asindicatedin
PIE*ái,áiRV.,etc. (and) PIE*ai,aiRV.,etc.
§2.Someexamplesof PIE*ái,áiRV.,etc.(Neogr.*)arereadilyavailablein
correspondenceswiththeattestedablautí:Êi::i,typicalincognatesfortheprotosequencesPIE*+iinconnectionwithablautPIE*:e:Ø:o::
(a)ai-(orai)‘this,that(here)’(P.285)
gAv. OIcl.dag
RV.·dË!-
Gr.BuFBE·× OInd.
i·áma
(ptcl.)‘Part.derHervorhebung’(AIWb.363)
(adv.)‘heute’(ANEtWb.282,dag)
(dem.pron.)‘einsolcher’(WbRV.231,dË!e[sgD])
(deict.ptcl.)‘demonstrativ-stärkend’(GEW1:701)
(adv.)‘heuer:inthepresentyear’(KEWA1:130)
(b)aiº-‘regen,bewegen,treiben’(P.13-14)
RV.ápa(...)ja-
Gr.4o6-
RV.éja-
Gr.mA·4>B- (vbM.)‘wegtreiben’(WbRV.230,ápa(...)jate[3sg])
(c.)‘Meereswogen’(GEW1:31,4o68D)F{=?4F4)
(prA)‘sichbewegen,sichregen’(WbRV.297,éjati)
(a.)‘springing(?),bounding’(LSJ.831)
(c)aiº-‘Ziege’(P.13)
483
The commonplace reconstruction †sisd- Lat. sd- is erroneous, because the corresponding RV.
s½da-(pr.)doesnothavearetroflexandthereisnotraceofavoicedsibilantinAv.hi7a-either.
216
Gr.4m6-
Arm.aic
LAv.zana-
LAv.izana-
Gr.kA4>
(c.)‘Ziege(nbock)’(GEW1:41-2,4mA,4k6D)
(sb.)‘Ziege’(ArmGr.1:417)
(a.)‘ausLeder,ledern’(AIWb.373,zaena-)
(a.)‘ausLeder,ledern’(AIWb.373,izana-)
(f.)‘Ziegenfell’(GEW1:728)
(d)aim-‘Bild(ung),Nachbildung,Gestalt,usw.’(P.10ff.)
i.ima-
TochB.me-
Arm.imana-
Lat.im
gn-
OLi.aimù-
Lat.aemulo-
(c.)‘Nachbildung,Substitut’(HEG1:245,i-im-ma-a#)
(m.)‘consciousness,awareness,thought’(DToch.66)
(pr.)‘vormuten’(WH1:17,imanam[1sg])
(f.)‘Bild,Abbild,Schein,Gestalt’(WH1:680)
(a.)‘vonschönenGestalt’(LiEtWb.2)
(a.)‘nacheifernd,wetteifernd’(WH1:17,aemulus)
(e)air-‘brennen’(P.12)
Go.air
gAv.ayar-
LAv.uz·ayara-
LAv.uz·rah- i.irina-
Gr.\}C<EFB- (adv.)‘frühe’(GoEtD.18) (n.)‘Tag’(AIWb.157,ayarÖ[sgNA])
(n.)‘Nachmittagzeit’(AIWb.409)
(n.)‘Nachmittag’(AIWb.410)
(UDUNm.)‘Schmeltzofen’(EG2:237,i-ri-na-a#)
(sb.)‘Frühstück’(Hom.\}C<EFB@[inV124])
(f)air-‘schneiden,enzweigehen,trennen’(P.333)
Li.ìr- Li.yra-
Li.pa·ra-
Gr.4oC4-
OInd.il-
OInd.l-
OEng.iring-
(vb.)‘sichauflösen,enzweigehen’(LiEtWb.15)
(vb.)‘sichauflösen,trennen’(LiEtWb.187.yrù)
(a.)‘locker’(P.333,paras[sgN])
(f.)‘Axt,Beil’(GEW1:43,Hes.4oC4)\A@:)
(f.)‘eineArtSchwert’(EWA3:28) (f.)‘eineArtSchwert’(EWA3:28)
(a.)‘sectum’(ASaxD.599,iringesweg)
(g)air-‘SPRECHEN’(P.–)
CLu.iru-
Go.airu-
OIcl.ra·st-
(n.)‘oath’(HEG1:252,DLL45,irun[NA])
(m.)‘Bote’(GoEtD.19,airus[sgN])
(pr.)‘gesagt,-flüstert,erzähltwerden’(ANEtWb.287)
(h)ais-‘binden;Deichsel’(P.298)
i.i#a-
RV.³-
Gr.Bn4=-
CLu.i#ia-
(GI".)‘Deichsel’(EG2:252f,HED.3:318,i-e#-#i)
(f.)‘Deichsel’(WbRV.238,³)
(m.)‘GriffdesSteuerruders,Steuerruder’(GEW1:356)
(vb1.)‘lier,ceindre’(DLL.46,i-i#-i-ia-an-ti[3pl])
Generally the cover symbol Neogr. * (RV. , etc.) reflects a lostPIE *, indirectly
preservedthrough PIE*áinthequantityresultingfrom PIE*áior*ái.Theablaut
217
Neogr.*:*icanberegularlyexplainedonaphonologicalbasis(PIE*áiaiand
PIE*áiai).
§3. S UBSET II :Neogr.*R PIE*iá,iá.Asuccessiveseriesofsoundchangestook
place,asexpressedintheformula:
PIE*iá,iá ií,ií(assimilation)
ií(-loss) RV.etc.
Thissubsethasbeenreconstructedmoreorlesscorrectlybyalltheoriesthataccept
Neogr.*TorPIE*,asshownbytheresearchhistory:
(a) Already Brugmann (Grundr2 1:495) recognized the segmental possibilities of
Neogr.*:
“[…],%dürftenöftersduchContractionvonTmiti,uentstandensein.Z.B.*tr‘tria’(ved.
tr½lat.tr-gint
air.trlit.tr-likaaksl.tri)aus*tri-T.”
(b)AfterSaussure’s(1879:239=Rec.231-)analysisofNeogr.*N*iA,thelaryngeal
theoryshiftedfromassimilationtocompensatorylengtheninginitsexplanationofthe
phenomenon. This cannot be correct, however, because the sole resulting quantity
Neogr. * implied by the compensatory would contradict the existing forms with
Neogr.*,leavingtheaccentasthesinglereconstructiveoption.
(c) A disagreement between Brugmann (19003:102, 1890:58f.) and Schmidt
(1885:291,309,1889:59f.)aroseconcerningthetreatmentofthesequenceNeogr.*iT,
duetoobservabledifferencesbetweenSanskritandGreekincorrespondenceslike:
RV.tr½‘drei’ :
RV.patn½‘Herrin’ :
RV.krta-‘gekauft’ :
Gr.FC4‘id’
Gr.BF@4‘id.’
Gr.C4FB[3sg]‘bought’
As can be readily seen here, Greek has not assimilated <+4, leading Brugmann
(Grundr21:495)toexplaintheformsasinnovations:
“Formen wie gr. FC4, 6B@4 aus. *6B@ß4 waren einzelsprachliche Neubildungen. Die
Ansicht J. Schmidt’s (zuletzt Kritik 22f.), dass iT, uT, falls sie den Formen wie ved. tr½ zu
Grundegelegenhaben,nochnichtinderZeitderidg.Urgemeinschaftzu,%verschmolzen
waren,istkaumhaltbar.SieheVerf.M.U.5,58ff.,WackernagelAI.Gr.I104.”
Owingtoapossibleablautdifferencebetweenthelanguages(i.e. PIE*iavs.*iea,
etc.), the problem remains ambiguous. In any case, the issue is generally of lesser
importance,sincePIE*and*acanbereconstructedonthebasisofthedataanyway.
(d)AdistinctionbetweenanaccentedPIE*á,assimilatingandcontractingwithPIE*i,
and an unaccented PIE *a disappearing without any trace is required to explain the
Indo-Europeanablaut:.Thealternationisregulatedbytheformula
PIE*iá,*iáRV.,etc. (and) PIE*ia,iaRV.,etc.
§4. SUBSET III .Inadditiontothesequences*+i(SUBSETI)and*i+(SUBSETII),
thereareotherreconstructivestartingpointsforNeogr.*,includingitemssuchas
Neogr.*
R
PIE*ii,*iai,*iai,etc.
218
AsegmentalNeogr.*R PIE*i+iappears,forexample,inthereduplicatedperfect
stem RV. - (pf.) ‘erlaben, fördern, erquicken’ (WbRV. 222, us [3pl]), which is
relatedtotherootnounRV.í-(f.)‘Saft,Trank,Labetrunk,Labung,etc.’(WbRV.
224-5)withshortquantity.
§5. Mechanical rules that would allow correct segmental reconstruction from the
alternatives
Neogr.*
R
PIE*ái,ái,iá,iá,ii,iai,iai,etc.
do not exist. Here the segmental analysis must be done individually for every
correspondence on the basis of the measurable features of the material. In most
cases, the presence and position of a laryngeal can be identified. Accordingly,
Curtius’s long vowel *, just like Neogr. *%, provides an additional criterion for the
reconstruction of PIE *a, a. Owing to the analytic character of Neogr. * in most
examples, it is likely that PIE did not possess an original long vowel // as a
quantitativecounterpartofPIE*i.
3 .2.7 OnSievers’sLawandSturtevant’sanalysis 484 §0.InthephonologicalIndo-Europeansoundlawsisincludedanessentiallyprosodic
law, formulated by Sievers, according to which PIE *i/u followed by a vowel V
becomesaconsonantafterashortsyllable(CiVOCyV,CuVOCvV)andavowel
afteralongsyllable(CCyVOCCiV,CCÒVOCCuV).Followingtheemergenceof
Old Anatolian, Sturtevant proposed a change of the interpretation of the law
accordingtowhichthealternations,notdulyaccountedforbySievers’scondition,are
actually caused by the presence of the laryngeal and/or an accompanying schwa
secundum. Sturtevant’s interpretation is shown below to be correct when the
idiosyncrasiesofhispresentationarereplacedwiththePIEphonemesproper.
§1. In 1878, Sievers formulated a sound law which has become known under his
name.AccordingtoSievers(1878:129),intheRig-Vediclanguage“unbetontes(nicht
svaritiertes) i oder u vor einem vokal ist consonant nach kurzer, vocal nach langer
silbeohnerücksichtaufdiesonstigeaccentlagedeswortes”.485Theruleissupposed
toholdafteraconsonant,whereasintervocalici,uaretoappearalwaysasRV.y,v.486
In addition, an extra condition mentioned by Edgerton (1934:235-6) is to be taken
intoaccount:“Alsoafterasingleconsonantabsolutelyinitialinthespeech-unit,the
resultisthesameasafteraheavysyllable.”
484
OnSievers’sLaw,seeSievers1878,Edgerton1934,1943,1962,Mayrhofer(1986:164-7),Szemerényi
(1996:106-8)andCollinge(1985:159-78).
485
OnthepossibleexamplesofSievers’LawinAvestan,seeHübschmann(1879:362ff.).
486
SeeEdgerton(1934:235n1):“Inthispapertheterms‘heavy’and‘light’(syllable)willbeusedinthe
senseof guru-and laghu-asusedbytheHindumetricians:viz.,a‘heavy’syllableisonecontaininga
long vowel or diphthong, or a short vowel followed by more than one consonant; other syllables are
‘light’.”
219
§2.ThereareseveralproblemsrelatedtoSievers’slaw:
(a)Sieversdidnotapplysufficientexternalcomparisonsintheformulationofhislaw.
This has resulted in ambiguities, especially with regard to Germanic. Thus, for
instance,thestemGo.lagja-(GoEtD.233)doesnotnecessarilycontainthesuffix†¾o, because PIE *·e¾o- (the standard causative morpheme) remains equally possible.
ThisisindeedconfirmedbyGr.@4G·>BI}K‘tolieinharbourorcreek’(LSJ.1162).487
Similar problems are found in several of Sievers’s others examples, in which the
allegedparallelismbetweenSanskritandGermanicisnotwatertight.
(b)AsadmittedbyEdgerton(1934:252),Sievers’sLawdoesnotalwaysagreewiththe
attestedRig-Vedicdistributioneither:
“The pronunciation diyaús, díyaus (nom. and voc. of div-, dyu-), ‘heaven, day’, occurs
invariablyinitiallyorafteraheavysyllable.Thepronunciationdyaúsoccurs27timesaftera
lightsyllable.Accordingtothetraditionaltextitseemstooccuralso17timesafteraheavy
syllableand6timesinitially.”
More seriously, there are comparatively paralleled Rig-Vedic examples that
contradictthelaw,raisingquestionsaboutitsvalidityoverall.488
(c) In his criticism, Sturtevant (1942:32n2) points out that Edgerton “preferred to
write iy and uw for the vocalic member of these pairs”.489 It is understandable that
Edgerton wanted to explain the alternation on a phonological basis,490 but this
practicehasundesirablesideeffects:RV.iy(inRV.mriyase[2sg],WbRV.1054,etc.)
and RV. uv (in RV. suvita-, WbRV. 1551, etc.)491 are actually written in the RigVedic orthography, suggesting that the dissyllabic scansions must have been
somethingdifferent.Inordertoavoidconfusion,Grassmann’snotation(RV.diaús,
etc.)ispreferredinconnectionwithRig-Vedichiatus.492
487
OnGermanicexamples,seeEdgerton(1934:236):“Sieverswasindeedledtoitsdiscoverybyastudy
of Germanic conditions. The Germanic -ja- ([P]IE -yo-) stem nouns point to [P]IE -y- after a light
syllablebut-iy-afteraheavy;Gothicharjis,buthaírdeis.Soalsoverbscontainingthesamesuffix(-y-
alsoafteravowel):Gothicsatji,hafji,stoji,buttandei,sokei.”
488
Edgerton (1934: 262-3) provides some examples: “[...] the forms and derivates of [...] sv
d- occur
almost always initially or after a heavy syllable, and seem never to be pronounced suv-. So the stem
dv³r-‘door’frequentlyoccursafteraheavysyllableandinitially,andisrarelyreadduv-[...].Another
wordwhichignoresthelawisthesacrificialexclamationsv³h
.”
489
For his view on the issue, see Edgerton (1943:92-3n26): “[...] I write duv³ and siyoná-, §17, and
wastenowordsoverthefactthatthetextswriteonlydv³andsyoná-.AllVedistswouldagree,except
thatmanywritedu³(intendingtwosyllables)andsioná-(threesyllables).IfollowWackernagel(see
footnote10)andothers.”
490
SeeEdgerton(1934:235):“IEprevocalic iyand y, uwand w,afteraconsonant,wereeachasingle
phoneme, varying automatically under fixed phonetic conditions (essentially, y and w after a light
syllable,iyanduwafteraheavy).”
491
Comparare Edgerton’s (1934:249) comment: “Even the traditional writing shows always suv-itá-
(§12),andsothewordisalwayspronounced.”
492
For this reason, I agree with Edgerton (1934: 241) when he says: “[...] H. Güntert (Indogerm.
Ablautproblems97[1916])showsacompletelackofcomprehensionofitwhenhearguesthat tuvám
must have been different from the ‘ordinary u’ because it is not written as u in Vedic orthography
(which writes tvám).” However, the reason for not writing RV. tuám, etc. seems to have been the
problematic‘hiatus’,forwhichtherewasapparentlynoproperexpression.
220
§3. Sievers’s Law was put into an entirely new perspective by Sturtevant (1942:32),
according to whom the following conclusions can be drawn after the appearance of
theOldAnatolianlaryngeal:
(a) “[S]ince IH M [= Schwa secundum]must be reconstructed in any case, it is
convenient to assume it inreconstructing the dissyllabic forms required by Sievers’s
Law”(1942:§25d).
(b) “In other cases an IH laryngeal has to be assumed within the group that later
yieldedtheconditionsrequisiteforSievers’sLaw”(1942:32fn2).
SturtevantsquarelyshiftsfromSievers’sprosodicexplanationtoaphoneticone
by accounting for the hiatus with ‘Indo-Hittite’*M and *H. To this, Edgerton
presentedthefollowingobjections:
1. Edgerton’s arguments (1943:120) against Sturtevant’s “Indo-Hittite” (a
dubiousentityindeed)andM(schwasecundum)arecorrect.However,bothofthese
problems can be avoided by reconstructing Proto-Indo-European instead of IndoHittiteandPIE*a(indiphonemicPIE*aa)insteadofschwasecundum.
2.AgainstSturtevant’slaryngeals,Edgerton(1943:120)argued:
“I am not aware that Sturtevant or anyone else has proved anything about the phonetic
values of the ‘laryngeals’, or their place in the phonemic pattern, which would justify
relatingthemtotheprinciplesheresetforthabouttheIEsemivowels.”
However, these doubts can be dealt with, because only one laryngeal PIE * with
glottalic fricative value and voiceless and voiced variants (PIE *h/Y) can be
reconstructed for the proto-language. Furthermore, this PIE *h/Y appears in
diphonemic PIE *a, a, explaining its semivowel-like behaviour already noted by
Saussure with his term ‘coefficient sonantique’. Moreover, Sturtevant’s two rules,
which deal separately with the schwa secundum and laryngeal(s), can be combined
intoasingleruleforPIE*a,a.
(c)Edgerton’sscepticism493aboutwhetherlaryngeals“wouldmakeanydifferencein
the application of Sievers’s Law” can be countered with a distribution according to
which PIE *a, a coincides with the Vedic hiatus in all instances of Sievers’s Law.
However,asIdonotfavour“assuming”laryngealsàlaSturtevant,thepresence(or
absence)of PIE *a,aisalexicalproblemthat mustbeconfirmedindividuallyfor
everycorrespondence.
§4.TheshiftinexplanationmaybereadilydefendedbynotingthatPIE*a,acanbe
comparatively proven through their prensence in the instances of Sievers’s Law.494
Therefore,Sturtevant’sbasicassertionconcerningSievers’sLaw–replacingSievers’s
uw,iwwithschwasecundumorH–needsonlyaslightadjustment,withthelaryngeals
and schwa secundum being replaced with diphonemic PIE *a, a in PIE *i+, PIE
493
SeeEdgerton(1943:121n70):“IreplythatSturtevantwouldfirsthavetoprovethatthepresenceof
alaryngeal[...]wouldmakeanydifferenceintheapplicationofSievers’sLaw.Hisownremarks,op.cit.
§74,tendtosupportthenegative.”
494
Collinge1985doesnotmentionofSturtevant’sinterpretationinhisaccountofSievers’sLaw.
221
*u+ PIE *+i and PIE *+u. When PIE *a is added, one obtains the following
startingpointsforthehiatusofSievers’sLaw:
PIE*iaia PIE*aiai
PIE*uaua PIE*auau.
Someprovableexamplesof PIE*a,*acorrespondingtotheRig-Vedichiatuscan
beextractedfromthematerialtoillustratethesituation:
(a) The Old Anatolian laryngeal (i. ) has been directly preserved in place
correspondingtotheRig-Vedichiatus,asin:
PIE*saie/o-‘binden,fesseln’
i.#ia-
RV.ví(...)sia-
(vb1.)‘binden,fesseln’(HEG1:385,i#-i-ia-zi[2sg])
(pM.)‘freimachen’(WbRV.1514,ví(...)siasva[2sg])
Thus PIE *a+i results in Rig-Vedic dissyllabic scansion à la Sievers’s Law,
phoneticallyreflectingtwooriginalsyllablesoftheproto-language.
(b)dia-‘glänzen;Himmel’(P.183-7)confirmsPIE*a:
R
PIE*dia-
PIE*dia- R
PIE*deiea- R
RV.did-(pr.)‘herbeistrahlen’(WbRV.609,didhí)
Do.9|-(m.)‘Zeus’(GEW1:610,9|D[N],9|@[A])
Hom.7}4-(vb.)‘scheinen’(GEW1:354,7}4FB[3sg])
Inaddition,theRig-Vedichiatus(reflectingPIE*)isconfirmedin:
PIE*diau- R
RV.di³us(WbRV.604)RGr.98D(GEW1:610-1).
§5.ThedissyllabicscansioncanresultbothfromPIE*+iandPIE*i+,aswellasPIE
*+u and PIE *u+, regardless of whether *= PIE *a or PIE *a. From the
reconstructivepointofview,therearenoaprioriruleswhichwouldsettlethemutual
orderofPIE*andPIE*a.Hence,theymustbedecidedcomparativelyforeachroot.
Either way, the Rig-Vedic examples of Sievers’ Law like “*diu- [...] neben *d¾u-”
(Grundr2 1:265) indicate a lost PIE *a or *a, where PIE *a and PIE * are the
immediate cause of the disyllabic scansion (i.e. hiatus). In such circumstances,
Edgerton’swarning495againstregardingthelaryngealastheexplanationisoutdated,
and the priority of our study is to allow the restoration of PIE * on the basis of
measurable criteria outside of Old Anatolian. Taken that a proof in extenso is
successful and it is fully demonstrated that the hiatus indeed always reflects the
laryngeal,496 this naturally does not lessen Sievers’s achievement as the original
discovererofthephenomenon.
§6. In support of Sturtevant’s idea that the Vedic dissyllabic scansion appears in
conjunction with *M/H (or rather PIE *a, *a), it should be finally noted that the
495
Edgerton (1943:108) writes: “[...] I would, however, caution against operating, even speculatively,
with IE or IH Tand laryngeal ‘consonants’ in terms of my results for the six proved semivowel
phonemes.”
496
Note that some lack of resolution concerning Sievers’s Law may trouble us for some time, for as
recognizedbyEdgerton(1934:262),“[...]Vedicmeter(ouronlyreliableguide)oftenallowsalternative
interpretations.”
222
converseofSievers-Sturtevant’slawisfunctionalaswell:IftherewasnoPIE*aain
aroot,thereisnodissyllabicRig-VedicscansiondespiteSievers’sLaw.
Thus, for instance, the root PIE *sup- suep- suop- ‘sleep’ (P. 1048-9, HEG 2:1175)
neverhadalaryngeal,asprovenbyitsabsenceinOldAnatolian:
i.#up-
(vb1M.)‘schlafen’(HHand.155,#uptari[3sg]).
Consequently,theRig-Vedicbasesoftherootincludingitemssuchas
RV.sivap- (cs.ao.)‘inTodesschlafversenken’(WbRV.1626)
(ao.)‘entschlafen,sterben’(WbRV.1626)
RV.svapa- RV.ni(...)sv
paya- (cs.pr.)‘inTodesschlafversenken’(WbRV.1626)
never display Sievers’s scansion, whether appearing in a long or short syllable (i.e.
RV. †suv´p-doesnotexist).ThisandsimilarexceptionsofSievers’sLawarereadily
solvable when the condition of the law is changed to reflect the presence of the
laryngeal,assuggestedbySturtevant.
3 .2.8 SummaryofPIE*i,*uandPIE*a,*a
§0.Itisnecessaryandsufficienttoreconstructtwoshortvowels PIE*i,*uandtheir
consonantal allophones, PIE *¾, *Ò for the proto-language. The other traditional
items,especiallyNeogr.*andNeogr.*%,haveasegmentalorigin.
§1.Withtheadditionof PIE*iand*utothevowels PIE*e*o*a(seeChapter2),the
reconstructed Proto-Indo-European vowel system consisted of the five cardinal
vowelsofthevoweltriangle,approximatelyIPA/a//e//i//o//u/.
§2.ThelongvowelsNeogr.*,*%,unlessderivedfrom PIE*i+iand*u+u,reflect PIE
*áintermsofquantityasaresultofassimilationandcontraction.Inthismanner,the
longvowelsNeogr.*,*%provideacriterionforthereconstructionof PIE*through
its diphonemic connection with PIE *á. If a complete reconstruction of the data
demonstratesthatNeogr.*and*%canalwaysbeanalyzedbysegmentalmeans,there
isnoneedforindependentlongvowels//and/%/intheproto-language.Thereisno
mechanical(orstructural)aprioriprocedurefordecidingwhether PIE*ior*iand
PIE*uor*uaretobereconstructedforNeogr.*,*%.Everycorrespondencemust
bereconstructedindividually.
§3.IntheRig-Vedicmeter,thehiatusofSievers’sLawcanbeproventoreflectearlier
PIE*aand*ainamannersuggestedbySturtevant.Insodoing,yetanotherextraAnatolian criterion for the laryngeal (or its absence)497 can be comparatively
confirmed.
497
RootswithPIE*i,*unotablautingwith*,%(e.g.luk-glänzen’)orpointingtoanyothercriterion
forthelaryngealcanbeassumednottohavecontainedalaryngealinthefirstplace(withaveryslight
marginoferrorthatcanalwaysbecorrected,shouldthecomparisonproveotherwise).
223
3 .3 LiquidsPIE*l*r
3.3.1 GeneralremarksonPIEliquids
§0. The reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-European liquids, PIE *l *r (= L), is
straightforward.Thisandmorecomplexquestionsrelatedtothenumber,properties
andrelationshipsofliquidstootherphonemesintheinventory(especiallyPIE*)will
bediscussedinthischapter.Intermsofthese,itshouldbereadilynotedthatfroma
historicalpointofviewthetheoryofPIEliquidswasneverfullysatisfactory,dueto
laterappearanceofFortunatov’sLawandSievers-Edgerton’sLawforliquids.While
theseissuesconstituteacomplexproblem,bytestingthemagainstthedatatheycan
besolvedcomparatively.
3.3.2 Fortunatov’sLawandPIE*a*a
§0. The most serious problem concerning the liquids PIE *l r is the unexplained
retroflex (a.k.a. cerebral or lingual) in Sanskrit (OInd. h Y ) and its
counterpartinIranian(Av.Ï).498Fortunatov’sattempttosolvetheproblemwiththe
law now bearing his name did not win the day due to the defective material at the
disposalofthecontemporaryscholars,inparticulartheNeogrammarians.Todaythe
comparativemethodimpliesthatthereconstructivecounterpartoftheOldAnatolian
laryngeal, PIE*,isanadditionalconditionrequiredbyFortunatov’sLaw,bymeans
ofthroughwhichafullyregulartreatmentcanbepresented.
§1. According to Fortunatov’s original formulation of the law (1881), in the group
l+dentalinSanskrit,theliquiddisappearedandthedentalwaschangedtoalingual
(seealsoBurrow1972:531).499WiththissuggestionFortunatovsoughttoexplainthe
problematicretroflexesinSanskritastheregularoutcomesof PIE*l+T. Hisideawas
plausible in the sense that comparisons often suggest PIE *l in connection with a
Sanskritretroflex,butsimultaneouslymanyproblemsemerged.500
§2.AspointedoutbyBurrow(1972:534),“Theprincipalobjectionagainstthetheory
isthatthereexistsacertainnumberofwordsinSanskritinwhichthecombinationofl
followedbydentalisnottreatedaccordingtoFortunatov’srule,butresultsinsteadin
the combination of r + dental.” Indeed, original sequences of PIE *l+dental are
confirmedbeyonddoubtbyisoglosseslike
(a)mul·dh-‘Schädel,Haupt,Kopf,Gipfel’(P.725)
498
The term ‘unexplained retroflex’ refers here to the items not conditioned by the RUKI-rule (in
Indo-Iranian)andtheinternalassimilationoftheretroflexinSanskrit.
499
Fortunatov (1881:215) writes: “In der gruppe ‘l+dental’ im Altindischen schwindet das l und der
dentalgehtinLingualüber.”
500
Compare Burrow’s evaluation (1972:531): “Fortunatov’s theory provided an explanation for the
remarkablefactthatwhereasinallIndo-EuropeanlanguagesoutsidetheAryangroupcombinationsof
l followed by dental are quite common, they are, with rarest of exceptions, absent in Sanskrit, even
thoughtheconsonantisquitecommon.”
224
RV.m%rdh³(n)
OEng.molda(n)-
(m.)‘Schädel,Haupt,Kopf,Gipfel’(WbRV.1053)
(m/f.)‘thetopofthehead’(ASaxD.695)
(b)aul·n-‘Wolle’(P.1139)
i.ulana-
RV.Ñr
-
OIcl.ull-
(ÍD.)‘SÍG:Wolle’(HEG1:278f.,OGH.529-30)
(f.)‘Wolle’(WbRV.274)
(f.)‘Wolle’(ANEtWb.633)
Inaddition,atleastoneundeniableexampleofOInd.·lt·hasbeenpreservedassuch:
P
.pra·phulta-
P
.pra·phulti-
(a.)‘blooming’(MonWil.683)
(f.)‘blooming,blossoming’(MonWil.683)
§3. Despite these problems, Fortunatov gained support from Bechtel. He had a
differentagenda,however.BechtelhopedtoprovetheearlyexistenceofNeogr.*lin
Indo-Iranian by quoting the difference of Neogr. *l *r, allegedly reflected in
Fortunatov’sLaw.501Butinsteadofsuccessfullyprovingthedifference,Bechteldrew
heavycriticismfromBartholomae(1894:157-97),who–toquoteBurrow(1972:535-6)
–reasonedasfollows:
“The other objection to Fortunatov’s theory, developed at length by Bartholomae, was
based on a list of words in which the same change is said to have taken place in
combinations of r followed by dental, e.g. ka u- ‘bitter’ (Lith. karstùs), ka a- ‘mat’ (Gr.
=|CF4>BD‘basket’,etc.),ka-‘toscratch’(Li.kaÌ#ti).”
ThoughsomeBartholomae’scomparisonsaredispensable,bothhisargumentandthe
main bulk of examples remain solid. Consequently the early comparativists faced a
situationwhereFortunatov’sLawhadtobeabandonedorreformulated.
§4.Atthisjuncture,Brugmann(Grundr21:427)chosetorejectFortunatov’sLaw:
“Die schon in der ersten Auflage von mir bestrittene Fortunatov’sche Regel, dass in der
uridg.Gruppel+DentalisimAi.lgeschwundenunddieDentalisinCerebralisübergangen
sei,währendsichuridg.r+Dentaliserhaltenhabe(BB.6,215ff.),darfheutealsabgethan
gelten, s. Bartholomae IF. 3, 157ff., J. Schmidt Kritik S. 1 f., Wackernagel Ai. Gr. I 171.
194.”
§5.Atthesametime,however,Brugmannunderstoodthatthephenomenonreferred
to did exist. Elsewhere (Grundr2 1:459) he suggests that the Proto-Indo-Iranian
syllabic*ÎbeforeadentalalsoresultsinaSanskritretroflex:
501
Møller’s (1893:393-4) review of Bechtel 1892 provides a contemporary interpretation of the main
idea:“Daslezte10.kapitel(s.380-390)lehrtinderüberschrift:‘lgehörtderursprachean’.Diesfolgt
aus‘Fortunatov’sregel’(Bezz.beitr.6,215-220),nachwelcherl+dentalimsanskritmitschwunddesl
durch den lingual vertreten wird (ai- ‘achsennagel’aus alni-, ahd. lun; pa ala- ‘dach, hülle, decke,
schleier’auspelt-,gr.}>F:,altn.feldr‘decke’;pu a-‘falte’auspÄto-oderBechtelspTlto-),während r
+ dental im skr. unverändert bleibt. Ausnahmen von der regel sucht Bechtel auf den lezten seiten
385ff. zu erklären, entweder durch geschehene dialektmischung innerhalb des indischen oder durch
systemzwang (wie wenn das part. p%rá- ‘voll’das r seines wurzelwebs, präs. píparmi
‘fülle’festgehaltenhat.”
225
PIIr.*Ît,În,Î#
OInd.a ,a,a(Av.aÏ)502
Thus,despitehisostensibledenialofFortunatov’sLaw,Brugmannactuallypresented
a scenario in which not only PIE *l (Fortunatov) but PIE *r (Bartholomae) were
involvedinthesoundchange.
§6. Brugmann’s maneuver maintained that is was possible to explain the Sanskrit
cerebrals on the basis of sound laws and simultaneously account for Bartholomae’s
criticism.However,thiswasnotenoughtoresolvetheproblem,asthereremainedan
issuewiththepreservationofOInd.Ît,Î,ÎandtheircounterpartswithNeogr.*lin
Indo-Iranian:
(a)PIIr.*Ît-‘passend,recht,wahr’(P.56)
RV.Îtá-
OPers.arta- LAv.an·arTta-
Pahl.art
y- (a.)‘passend,gehörig,recht’(WbRV.282-3)
(m.)‘Law,Justice’(OldP.170)
(a.)‘gesetzlos,demheiligenRechtfeind’(AIWb.120)
(a.)‘righteous,good’(MPahl.2:30)
(b)PIIr.*Îs-‘stossen,stechen’(P.335)
AV.Îa-
gAv.TrT#i-
OIcl.err-
OInd.ara½-
(pr.)‘stossen,stechen’(WbRV.292,Îati[3sg])
(f.)‘Neid’(AIWb.356)
(n.)‘Narbe’<PGerm.*arsi->(P.338)
(f.)‘stechenderSchmerz’(KEWA1:53)
(c)PIIr.*În-‘Schuld,Sünde’(P.–,EWA1:254)
RV.Îá-
Sogd.’rn
LAv.arTnat.a#a-
Khot.
rra- (n.)‘Schuld,Verschüldigung,Sünde’(WbRV.281)
(sb.)‘Schuld’(KEWA1:121)
(a.)‘avengingdebts’(?)(EFL154-5,AIWb.195)
In the face of these counterexamples, Brugmann’s suggestion does not explain the
Indo-Iranian phenomena any better than Fortunatov’s original law, as both violate
theprincipleofregularityofsoundchange.503
(d)Tomyknowledge,noprogresshasbeenmadeonFortunatov’sLawbeyondthis
point.504 This is disturbing because Brugmann’s expanded version of Fortunatov’s
Law, including both liquids, is backed by solid correspondences that place the
existenceofthephenomenonbeyonddoubt.Thesolutiontotheproblem,essentially
Forcontemporarycommentsandexamples,seeBrugmann(Grundr21:429-30).
502
503
Note also that cerebralization is not conditioned by the presence of a syllabic resonant (as was
suggested by Brugmann), because the irrelevance of quantity is shown by the counterexamples with
PIIr. Ø : *a : *
, in RV. Î í- (f.) ‘Speer, Spiess, Dolch’ (WbRV. 293), LAv. ar#ti- (f.) ‘Speer, Lanze’
(AIWb.295)andOPers.
r#ti·ka-(m.)‘spearman’(OldP.172).HereandinothersimilaritemsPIIr.*r
ispreservedthroughoutandthephenomenonisthereforenotcausedbysyllabicsonants.
504
Brugmann’s leaning towards a methodic solution is understandable, since the other option
(presented later in Burrow 1971 as ‘spontaneous retroflexion’ in Sanskrit) is not scientifically
acceptable(exnihilonihil).
226
an explanation505 capable of accounting for the Indo-Iranian double development,
willbeformulatednext.506
§7.Fortunatov’sLawII.Basedonthedatanowatourdisposal,themissingcondition
ofFortunatov’sLawcanbeinferredasfollows:
(a)NeitherPIE*l+TnorPIE*r+Tcanbethecauseofcerebralization,becausethese
sequenceswerepreservedassuch(cf.OInd.praphulti-,RV.Îá-,etc.).Accordingly,
thisstateofaffairshastobeformulatedasthebasicrule
PIE*l+T,*r+T
O
RV.rT,Av.rT.
(b) The sequences L+T preserved in Indo-Iranian contrast with the cerebrals that
musthavehadadifferentphoneticstartingpoint,asrequiredbytheprincipleofthe
regularityofsoundchange.AsimilarconclusionwasalreadydrawnbyFortunatovin
hisreevaluation(1900).AsBurrow(1972:535)notes,Fortunatov
“[…] attempted to account for the above-mentioned developments of [P]IE l, both in
contactwithfollowingdentalandinotherpositions,byassumingtwooriginal[P]IEsounds,
a lwhichremainedinSanskritanda lwhichwasconvertedto r,andthusfelltogetherwith
[P]IEr.”
AspointedoutalreadybyPetersson(1911:12-13),Fortunatov’sattempttopostulate
anotherphoneme †>(PIE*l)cannotbeacceptedassuch.507However,Fortunatov’s
idea to mark the distinction between ‘cerebralizing’ and ‘non-cerebralizing’ liquids
canbeused,atleasttemporarily,intheformulationofthecerebralizationproblem.
(c)Inthefollowingtreatment,thetemporarycoversymbols“>”and“C”willbeused
todesignatethe‘cerebralizingliquids’ofProto-Indo-Iranian,whichstandincontrast
to the ‘non-cerebralizing’ liquids PIE *l and PIE *r. The real values of the cover
symbols >and C can be determined through the general solution of the laryngeal
problem presented in Chapter 2. Based on phonological shape, the ‘irregular’IndoIraniancerebralsaredividedintothreesubsets:
(d) S UBSET I (Lat. palma, etc.) is characterized by cerebralization in Sanskrit and
thevocalismNeogr.*
**T(=PIE*:e:Ø+*a)withintheroot.Thediphonemic
connectionbetween PIE*aand PIE*impliesthefollowing(first)setofrealvalues
forthecoversymbols>andC:
>RPIE*al CRPIE*ar (SUBSETI).
RegardingBrugmann’sawarenessofthelackingcondition(s)forthecerebralization,see(Grundr2
1:429):“IneinemnichtnäherzubestimmendenTeildesai.Sprachgebieteswurdenaucht-Lautedurch
vorausgehendesrcerebralisiertundschwand[...].”
505
506
TheprogressofDravidianstudiesledtoanattempttoexplaintheSanskritretroflexesasDravidian
loans (and/or influence). As mentioned by Burrow (1972:533), however, “[...] it has become
increasinglyclearthattheproblemofunexplainedcerebralsinSanskritwasnotgoingtobesolvedby
theassumptionofDravidianloans[...]sinceetymologiesinDravidianwerenotavailable.”
507
Fick’sRulerequiresthatinordertopostulate*>,anotherIndo-Europeanlanguageshouldconfirm
theitem,whichisclearlynotthecase.
227
(e) S UBSET II (Lat.gelum,etc.)hasaretroflexthatisidenticalto SUBSETI,but‘acolouring’ is absent and ‘e/o-vocalism’ is attested instead. This implies diphonemic
PIE*a;thisistosay,thesecondsetofrealvaluesforthecoversymbols>andCis:
>RPIE*al CRPIE*ar (SUBSETII).
(f) SUBSET III (OInd. laati, etc.). External comparisons confirm that not only
+L+T (= SUBSET I+II), but also L++T resulted in retroflex in Sanskrit. The
thirdsetofrealvaluesforcoversymbols>andCarethus:
>RPIE*la,la
CRPIE*ra,ra
(SUBSETIII)
These three assignments of the real values to >and C allow the substitution of the
coversymbolswithwell-definedProto-Indo-Europeanphonemesasfollows:
>RPIE*al,*al,*la,*la CRPIE*ar,*ar,*ra,*ra.
Theseclusters,followedbyadentalT,expressthemissingcondition,thepresenceof
diphonemic PIE*aabeforeorafteraliquidfollowedbyadental.Inwhatfollows,
thisisreferredtoasFortunatov’sLawII.
(g)TheearlyresultsofFortunatov,BartholomaeandBrugmanncanbeharmonized
with the upgrade of the law: the original proto-sequences V+H+L+T and
V+L+H+TexplainregularlytheIndo-Iraniancerebrals,butallowforthesequences
V+L+Ttobepreservedassuch.
(h)Thesolutionisseentoholdtrueinlightofthedata,whichprovidescriteriafor
diphonemicPIE*a,aappearinginconnectionwitheachsubset,asindicatedbelow.
§8. PIE *aLT (SUBSET I) is characterized by ‘a-quality’ (Neogr. *T *a *
) and the
absence of an initial Ch (tenues aspiratae) confirming a diphonemic *a (vs. *a).
Someexamplesofthissubsetare:
(a) kal- ‘treten, gehen; Schuh’ (P. 928 *(s)kel). The root appears in various
extensions(e.g.Lat.calc
-(pr1.)‘treten,betreten,stampfen,kelteren’,WH1:136and
TochA.kalka-(conjA.)‘ire’,Poucha32-3)withanunambiguousLat.a.Accordingto
Fortunatov’sLawII,thedentalextensionhasaretroflexinIndo-Iranianasexpected:
PIE*kealt-‘gehen:Schuch’
OInd.ka a- Tarent.=|>FB-
Tarent.=|>F<B-
(vb.)‘togo’(MonWil.243,Dh
tup.ka ati[3sg])
(m.)‘horseshoe’(WH1:136,=|>FB<[plN])
(n.)‘Schuh’(WH1:136,=|>F<B@)u7:?4)
(b)kal·n-‘Schwiele,harteHaut’(P.523-4[*kal-],WP1:357).Neogr.*TRPIE*a
isconfirmedbyzerogradeinLatinandSanskritandtheabsenceofinitialaspiration
inIndo-Iranian(OInd.k,not†kh):
PIE*kalno-‘Schwiele,dickeHaut’
OInd.kia-
(m.)‘Schwiele’(KEWA1:208,EWA3:90,kia)508
508
Noteespeciallyhowthe‘non-palatalizing’OInd.i2=Lat.a(RNeogr.*T)impliesPIE*aandPIE
*,whichisinturnconfirmedbythecerebral(Fortunatov’sLawII).
228
Lat.callo-
Lat.calle
(n.)‘Schwiele,dickeHaut’(WH1:139,callum[sgNA])
(vb.)‘einedickeHauthaben’(WH1:139,calle[1sg])
(c)kar-‘drehen,flechten,binden’(P.257).TheablautingrootformsPIE*kar-(in
OInd.kil·iñja-‘mat’,withOInd.i2RPIE*a)andPIE*kear(OInd.kal·iñja-‘mat’)509
are accompanied with Gr. 4 in the dental extension with an attested cerebral in
Sanskrit:
PIEkart-‘binden,usw.’
OInd.ká a- OPr.korto- OInd.ká aka- Gr.=|CF4>>B-
(m.)‘Geflecht,Matte’(KEWA1:141)
(f.)‘dergehegteWald’(APrS.361,korto)
(m.n.)‘Armband,Ring’(KEWA1:140)
(m.)‘Korb’(GEW1:794,=|CF4>>BD[sgN])
(d)kars-‘kratzen,usw.’(P.532-3).TheunambiguousLat.a=OInd.aPIE*ea
isconfirmedbyretroflexinSanskrit:
Li.kaÌ#-
OInd.káa- Lat.carr
OInd.kaaa-
OCS.krasta (vb.)‘(Wolle)kämmen,hecheln,riffeln’(LiEtWb.224)
(vb.)‘reiben,kratzen’(KEWA1:190,kaati,kaate)
(pr3.)‘(Wolle)krämpeln’(WH1:173ff.)
(n.)‘dasReiben’(KEWA1:190)
(f.)‘Kruste,Schorf,Räude’(Sadnik388)
(e) kart- ‘bitter, scharf, beissend’ (P. 941-2). Neogr. *r (vs. *l) is confirmed by
Baltic,whichcorrespondswiththecerebralinSanskrit:
OPr.k
rta-
Li.kartù-
OInd.ka u-
RV.ká uka-
(a.)‘bitter’(APrS.353,k
rtai[plN])
(a.)‘bitter’(LiEtWb.225,kartùs[sgN])
(a.)‘pungent,acid,sharp,fierce’(MonWil.244)
(a.)‘scharf,beissend’(WbRV.310,EWA1:143)
(f)keart-‘Stein;hard’(P.531).Theroothasalaryngealimpliedbythe‘a-vocalism’
inGreek(inGr.4PIE*ea):
Gr.=|CF4
Gr.=4CF8C- Go.hardu- (adv.)‘stark,sehr’(GEW1:793)
(a.)‘stark,mächtig,gewaltsam’(GEW2:9)
(a.)‘hart,streng’(GoEtD.177,hardus[sgN])
As anticipated, the root with extension PIE *kart·h- appears with a cerebral in
Sanskrit:
OInd.k
ha- OInd.ka hara-
OInd.ka halya-
OInd.ka hina-
OInd.ka hora-
(n.)‘Stein,Fels’(KEWA1:196,MonWil.269)
(a.)‘hard’(MonWil.244)
(a.)‘gravel’(MonWil.244)
(a.)‘hart,fest,steif’(MonWil.244)
(a.)‘hard,solid,stiff,sharp,piercing’(MonWil.224)
509
AnoriginalPIE*r(vs.*l)islikely(seeOInd.karaa-(n.)‘Korb’KEWA1:164).
229
(g)Àeal-‘cover’(P.553[4.Àel-]).PIE*aisconfirmedbyGr.4andtheabsenceof
initial†Àhin:
Dh
tup.!ala-
AV.!³l
-
AV.
·!
ra-
Gr.=4><|-
Gr.=4>FK
(vb.)‘tocover’(KEWA3:311,!alate[3sg])
(f.)‘Hütte,Haus,Gemach,Gebäude’(KEWA3:328-9)
(m.)‘Oberdach,Schutz’(MonWil.157)
(f.)‘Hütte,Scheune,Nest’(GEW1:764)
(pr.)‘umhüllen,verbergen’(GEW1:768-9)
The liquid has disappeared and turned the dental into a cerebral in the extension
Àalt-,whichispreservedin:
OInd.!
a-
(m.)‘kindofskirt/petticoat’(MonWil.1063).
(h)near-‘Rohr,Narde’(P.–).Theunextendedroothasbeenpreservedin:
OInd.nalá- OInd.nala- (m.)‘Rohr,Rohrschilf’(EWA2:7)
(m.)‘NameeinesKönigsderNiadhas’(KEWA2:141)
ThedentalextensionPIE*neard-withGr.4=Lat.ahasacerebralinSanskrit:
RV.naá-
Gr.@|C7B-
Lat.nardo-
(m.)‘Schilfrohr,Rohr’(EWA2:7,WbRV.705)
(f.)‘indischeNarde’(GEW2:289,@|C7BD[sgN])
(m.)‘NardostachysJatamansi’(WH2:143,nardus)
(i)pal-‘Hand’(P.806).PIE*eaisconfirmedbyGr.4=Lat.ain:
Gr.4>|?:- Lat.palmo- Lat.palm
- (f.)‘flacheHand,Handhabe,Mittel’(GEW2:466)
(m.)‘Hand(Längenmass),Spanne’(WH2:240)
(f.)‘flacheHand,Gänsefuß’(WH2:240,palma[sgN])
ThedentalextensionPIE*pealni-hastheexpectedretroflexinSanskrit:
RV.pái-
RV.p
i-
OInd.p
ini- (m.)‘derGeizige’(WbRV.760)
(m.)‘dieHand,dasHuf(desRosses)’(WbRV.805)
(ENm.)‘P
ini’(MonWil.615)
(j)pal-‘stone’(P.807).CorrespondingtoPIE*peal·es-withPCelt.*a
OGaul.alesia-
OHG.felis- (ON.f.)‘LaRoche’,LEIAA-30)
(m.)‘Felsen,TeileinesBerges,Felsabhang’(P.807)
thezerogradesuffixPIE*peal·s-hasacerebralinSanskrit:
MidIr.all-
OInd.p

a-
RV.p
ía- (n.)‘Stein,Klippe’(LEIAA-61)
(m.)‘astone’(MonWil.624,Burrow1972:97)
(n.)‘Stein(bollwerk),Pressstein’(WbRV.810)
(k)pal-‘split,schneiden,usw.’(P.986),unextendedroot,isattestedinSlavonic:
Rus.raz·poló-
(pr.)‘entzweischneiden’(P.986,raspolót’[inf.])
ThedentalextensionPIEpal·t-withNeogr.*ainCeltichasacerebralinSanskrit:
OCS.plat&
(m.)‘C|=BD:Fetzen’(P.986)
230
OInd.pa a- OInd.p
aka- Ir.altan-
OInd.p
ana-
OInd.p
avá- (vb.)‘tosplit’(KEWA2:189,pa ati[3sg])
(m.)‘asplitter,divider’(MonWil.614)
(f.)‘rasoir:Schermesser’(LEIAA-34)
(n.)‘splitting,dividing,tearingup’(MonWil.615)
(m.)‘desPa u-’(KEWA2:191)
(l)ual-‘Baum,Stab,Pfeil’(WH.2:730).Theunextendedroot
OInd.vala- (m.)‘Balken,Stange’(KEWA3:162)
isbestknownfortheextensionPIE*ueal·u-withGr.4PIE*ea:
Go.walu-
OIcl.vVl-
El.\>F4-
(m.)‘C|57BD=Stab’(GoEtD.393,walus[sgN])
(m.)‘runderStab’(ANEtWb.673,vVlr[sgN])
(m.)‘elischePolizeibehörde’(GEW1:80,\>F4D)
Asexpected,thedentalextensionPIE*ual·n-isattestedwithacerebralinSanskrit:
Gr.ß|>>B-
Lat.uallo-
RV.v
á-
RV.v³-
(m.)‘nail’(LSJ.337,inHes.6|>>B<)j>B<[Aiol.])
(m.n.)‘Pfahl(werk)’(WH2:730,uallus,uallum)
(m.)‘Pfeil’(WbRV.1256)
(f.)‘Rohr,Rohrstab’(WbRV.1256)
TheextensionPIE*ualt-(P.1139-40)hasalsoleftacerebralinSanskrit:
OInd.v
a-
OInd.v
a-
OHG.wald
OEng.weald
(a.)‘madeofIndianfig-tree’(MonWil.939)
(m.)‘fence,enclosure,wall,garden’(MonWil.939)
(m.)‘Wald’(Kluge1975:774,wald[sgN])
(m.)‘wood,forest’(ASaxD.1171)
(m) PIE *»hahl·t-, an alternative extension of the root Neogr. *»h·en- ‘schlagen’
(P. 491-3), is now paralleled by Tocharian, revealing PIE *l as the liquid lost in
Sanskrit:
AV.
·gh
á- OInd.d
rv·
·gh
á-
TochA.k
ltak-
RV.
gh
í- (m.)‘Zimbel’(EWA1:159)
(m.)‘Baumhacker,Specht’(EWA1:160)
(sb.)‘instrumentummusici’(Poucha61)
(c.)‘Cymbeln’oder‘Klappern’(WbRV.172)
(n)Àal-‘Rahm,Milch’(P.–).Therootwithablaut*e/oisbasedontheforms:
OInd.!ara- OInd.!áras- Lat.colostra- (m.)‘saurerRahm’(KEWA3:305,!ara)
(n.)‘Rahm,HautaufgekochterMilch’(KEWA3:305)
(f.)‘Biestmilch’(WH1:247f.)
ThedentalextensionPIE*Àealto-hasresultedinretroflexinSanskrit:
OInd.!a a-
(a.)‘sauer’(KEWA3:291).
ThustherootcontainsPIE*,revealedbyFortunatov’sLawII.
§9. PIE *VaLT (SUBSET II). In this subset, cerebralization has taken place in
Sanskrit,butincontrastwith SUBSETI(with PIE*a)noNeogr.*Ta
isvisible,and
231
theroothasablaut*e:o.Theshape PIE*e/oaLis,however,provenbytheacutein
Lithuanian, implying PIE *. Thus, for instance, the Lithuanian acute (and Latvian
brokentone)ispresentin:
ºeal-‘bind’
OEng.cel-
AV.j³la-
Gr.b·6}>4-
Li.(¹l-
Latv.zêle-
(sb.)‘abasket’(ASaxD.150,cel,celas[pl])
(n.)‘Netz,Kampfnetz,Fanggarn’(EWA1:588)
(n.pl.)Hes.‘I4><@B:bridle,bit’(LSJ.469)
(f.)‘Siele,Pferdegeschirr’(LiEtWb.1296)
(f.)‘Siele,Pferdegeschirr’(LiEtWb.1296)
In the dental extension PIE *ºealt-, the liquid has been lost in Sanskrit with the
anticipatedOInd. in:
OInd.já -
OInd.ja lá-
OInd.ja i-
OInd.ja ilá-
(f.)‘Flechte,verflochtenesHaar’(KEWA1:413)
(a.)‘Flechtentragend’(KEWA1:413)
(f.)‘Haarflechte’(KEWA1:413)
(a.)‘Flechtentragend’(KEWA1:413)
Ontheotherhand,thesubsetischaracterizedbytheablaut PIE*·:*Ê.Thus,the*·gradeiscontainedin:
PIE*ºh·alt-‘Gold’
OstLi.(eÁta- Thrac.9:>F4- (a.)‘golden,goldgelb,blond’(LiEtWb.1296-7,(eÁtas)
(f.)‘Gold’(?)(P.429,9:>F4[sgN])
Therespective*o-gradeissecuredbySlavonic:
PIE*ºhÊalt-‘Gold’
Rus.zóloto
OCS.zlato
(n.)‘Gold’(REW1:460)
(n.)‘Gold’(REW1:460,zlato[sgNA])
WhetherreflectingPIE*orPIE*Ê,SanskrithasacerebralpointingtoPIE*ain
OInd.h
aka- (n.)‘Gold’(EWA3:535,h
akam[sgNA]).
SomeadditionalexamplesofSUBSETIIwithanetymologyare:
(a)geal-,goal-‘kalt,Kälte,Frost’.Theunextendedrootisattestedin
Lat.gelo-
OEng.cala- Osc.68>4-
(n.)‘Eiskälte,Frost,Eis’(WH1:585-6,gelum[sgNA])
(pret.)‘tobe(come)cold,cool’(ASaxD.143,calan)
(f.)‘Steph.Byz.68>4@)|I@:@’(WH1:586)
ThedentalextensionPIE*geald(h)-isaccompaniedbyaretroflexinSanskrit:
OInd.jaa- OCS.(ldica RV.jáhav- (a.)‘cold,stiff,dull’(KEWA1:414,EWA1:565)
(f.)‘gefrorenerRegen’(WH2:586)
(a.)‘stumpfsinnig’(WbRV.465,jáhavas)
232
(b) ºealth- ‘puer, infans’ (P. 473).510 Germanic cognates confirm PIE *l for the
liquidlostinSanskrit:
OEng.cild- Go.in·kilo- Go.kilei(n)- RV.ja hára- RV.já hara- OEng.cildru- (n.)‘puer,infans:child,infant’(ASaxD.154)
(a.)=d6=GBD‘pregnant’(GoEtD.218)
(f.)=64EF~C‘womb’(GoEtD.218)
(n.)‘derMutterleib,Bauch,Magen’(WbRV.464-5)
(m/n.)‘Leibesgrösse’(WbRV.465,EWA1:565) (st.n.pl.)‘children’(ASaxD.154)
(c) keal-, koal- ‘einäugig’ (P. 545, 2. kel-). The root, postulated by Pokorny
withoutalaryngeal,hasaretroflexinSanskritimplyingPIE*ain:
AV.k
á-
Gr.=8>>|-
OIr.coll-
RV.k³-
(a.)‘durchstochen,-löchert,einäugig’(WbRV.322)
(a.)Hes.=8>>|D)?B@H;4>?BD(GEW1:817)
(a.)‘luscum’:‘einäugig’(LEIAC-159)
(a.)‘ausgestochen,duchtbohrt,einäugig’(WbRV.322)
(d)kear-‘neck,etc.’(P.576).The*·-gradeisattestedinItalo-Greek:
Lat.ceruc-
Gr.=}C@4
(f.)‘Nacken’(WH1:207.cerux,cerucis[sgG])
(f.pl.)‘transverseprocessesofthevertebrae’(LSJ943)
Thecorresponding*-gradeinPIE*kart-isconfirmedbythelackofpalatalization
inSanskritwherecerebralizationhastakenplace:
OInd.kak³ ik
-
RV.reú·kak
a-
(f.)‘TeildesmenschlichenHinterkopfes’(WbRV.308)
(a.)‘staubbedecktenNackenhabend’?(KEWA1:135)
(e)meal-‘young,youth(ful)’.Therootappearsinvariousextensionsincluding:
Gr.?}>4=- TochB.malyakke-
(a.)Hes.?}>4=8D)@8F8CB<(LSJ.1098)
(a.m.)‘youthful,puerile’(DTochB.442)
The dental extension PIE *mealn- is confirmed by Greek and Sanskrit, where the
cerebralofthelatterimpliesPIE*a:
Gr.?}>>4=- OInd.m
ava-
(m.)‘jungerKnabe’(GEW2:202,LSJ.1098)
(m.)‘ayouth,lad,youngster’(MonWil.806)
(f) peal- ‘Menge, Masse; Decke, Schild’ (P. 803). The root, appearing in various
extensions,reflectsFortunatov’sLawIIwhenaugmentedwithadental:
Gr.}>F:-
OInd.pa a-
OIcl.feld-
(f.)‘kleinerSchildausFlechtwerk’(GEW2:501)
(m.)‘wovencloth,blanket,garment’(MonWil.579)
(m.)‘Schafpelz,Mantel’(ANEtWb.116)
510
ThegroupwascorrectlyconnectedtoOSax.kind‘Kind’,OHG.kint‘proles’(PIE*ºean;cf.P.373
ºen-‘erzeugen’)alreadybyBosworthandToller(ASaxD.154).Theunextendedroot(PIE*ºea-)is
attestedinRV.eka·já-(a.)‘einzelngeboren’(WbRV.296,ekajám[sgA])andmultiplerelateditems.
233
(g) pear-, poar- ‘einhandeln, kaufen’ (P. 817). The root is attested in several
extensions,includingthedentalone,in:
PIE*pearn-‘einhandeln,kaufen:Dirne,Hure’
Gr.BC@- OInd.páa- OInd.paa·str-
Gr.}C@4- Ion.-Att.C@:-
(m.)‘Buhlknabe,Buhler:paramour’(GEW2:581)
(vbM.)‘einhandeln,kaufen’(KEWA2:194)
(f.)‘meretrx,C@:’(EWA2:69)
(prM.)‘zumVerkaufausführen’(GEW1:516-7)
(f.)‘feileDirne,Hure’(GEW1:581,C@:[sgN])
TheretroflexismanifestinOInd.paa-(=Gr.BC@-),implyingPIE*a.511
§10. PIE *VLT (SUBSET III). This subset, characterized by PIE * between a liquid
and dental, consists of two starting points, VLaT and VLaT, both resulting in a
cerebralinSanskrit.SomeexamplesofSUBSETIIIare:
(a)PIEla-‘gehen,treiben’(P.306-7).BoththelaryngealandPIE*aarepresentin
theunextendedroot:
i.laa-
Gr.b·>|-
(c.)‘Feldzug,Reise’(HEG2:8-11,la-a-a-i)
(vb.)‘treiben’(GEW1:482-3,Cos.b>|FK[ipv3sg])
Therootwithadentalextension(PIE*e·lat-)isconfirmedbytheequation:
OInd.á a-
OInd.
a-
Gr.b>4F~C-
Gr.b>4E<4-
(pr.)‘herumschweifen’(EWA1:56,á ati)512
(a.)‘going(after)’(MonWil.133)
(m.)‘Treiber,Wagenlenker’(GEW2:482)
(f.)‘Ritt,Marsch’(GEW2:481)
(b) PIElas-‘verlangen,begehren’(P.654,*las-).The*e-graderoot PIE*leas-has
acertainNeogr.*a(PIE*)impliedbytheEuropeanlanguages:
OInd.l
lasa- Gr.><>4(h)B-
Lat.lascuo- OIr.lainn- (a.int.)‘heftigverlangendnach’(KEWA2:99-100)
(prM.)‘heftigbegehren,verlangen’(GEW2:123)
(a.)‘geil,usw.’(WH1:766,lascuus[sgN])
(a.)‘gierig’(WH2:766,lainn[sgN]NPCelt.*lasni-)
Inthereduplication PIE*lelaso-, PIE*awaslostandthecluster*lsreplacedwitha
retroflexinSanskrit:
OInd.laa- OInd.abhi·laita-
(pr.)‘begehren,Verlangenhabennach’(KEWA3:95)
(a.)‘begehrt,gewünscht’(KEWA3:95)
(c)ThelossofliquidandthecerebralinSanskritarenowalsodocumentedforthe
reduplicationPIE*lolatuo-(fromPIE*la-‘gehen,treiben’),whichappearsin:
TochA.laltu- (pret.pt.)‘exitus’(Poucha268,laltu[sgN])
511
Notethe‘a-colouring’intheschwebeablautvariantofPIE*pear-RGr.}C-‘verkaufen’inPIE
*paer-RLat.par-‘kaufen’.
512
ItispossibletoanalyseSV.av·a á-(m.)‘well,spring’(WbRV.125)as‘Wasser+Lauf’andconnect
thesuffixtotherootOInd.a -‘gehen,usw.’.
234
OInd.la va- (m.)‘dancingboy’(KEWA3:95,Lex.la va[sgN])
§11. Fortunatov’s Law II has the following restriction in Sanskrit: If a zero-grade
clusterPIE*LT,LTwasnotprecededbyavowelV=OInd.a,,i,,u,
,thenthe
liquidLbecamesyllabicandcerebralizationdidnottakeplace.
Therestrictionisbasedonconfirmedexamplesof PIE*withoutcerebralizationin
Sanskrit(whereOInd.Îhasbeenpreservedbeforeadentalinthezerograde).Some
examplesofthisare:
(a) PIE *aldh- ‘wachsen, gedeihen’ (P. 27). The laryngeal is based on Gr. ^>;B?4<
andtheretroflexinSanskrit:
RV.Ëdh-
gAv.arTd-
Go.ald-
OInd.
hyá-
(ao.)‘gedeihen’(WbRV.289,Ëdhat[conj3sg])
(ao.)‘gedeihenlassen,fördern’(AIWb.193,arTdaÐ)
(f.)‘generation,age:4k@,68@8|,5BD’(GoEtD.26)
(a.)‘rich,wealthy’(KEWA1:71-72,*
+Ädhyá-)
In the zero-grade RV. Ëdh-, however, the liquid has been preserved. This variation
canbereconstructedregularlybythefollowingprototypes:
I
h-*e/oaldh-
zerograde II
Îdh-*aldh-
ardh-*ae/oldh-
(b)PIE*naRt-‘tanzen,drehen’(P.975f.)appearsin:
OInd.ná a- OInd.ná a- RV.³(...)nÎt-
AV.nËt-
RV.nartáya- RV.narti- (vb.)‘tanzen’(KEWA2:127,na ati[3sg])
(m.)‘Schausspieler’(KEWA2:127)
(ao.)‘tanzendherbeispringenzu[A]’(WbRV.751)
(f.)‘Tanz’(EWA2:21,nËt-)
(cs.)‘tanzenlassen,drehen’(WbRV.751,nartáyan)
(is.ao.)‘tanzen’(WbRV.751,ánartius[3pl])
Inanidenticalfashion,thealternationcanbereconstructedregularlybypositing:
I-A
zerograde I-B
na -PIE*ne/oaRt- nÎt-PIE*naRt- nart-PIE*nae/oRt-
Evidentlythereisnocerebralizationinzero-gradenÎt-,whichprovestherestriction.
§12. Given the relevance of the schwebeablaut for the alternation in Sanskrit, yet
anotherexampleofarootanditsbasesmayprovided:
PIE*»al-‘drip,drop,etc.’(P.471-2,2.»el-)
(a)PIE*»eal-(P.471-2).PIE*aisimpliedbyGr.4in:
OInd.gála- OInd.gagala- Gr.54>4@8- (vb1.)‘drip,drop,ooze’(MonWil.350,galati[3sg])
(n.)‘venom(ofserpents)’(MonWil.341)
(m.)‘Bader’(GEW1:212-3,54>4@8D[sgN])
The*e-graderootismatchedwith*o-gradePIE*»oal-in:
235
Gr.\?·5B>|7:@
(adv.)‘bubblingup’(LSJ.79,\?5B>|7:@).513
(b) The root with a dental extension PIE *»eald- has resulted in the retroflex in
Sanskrit(Fortunatov’sLawII):
Dhatup.gaa-
OInd.gaa- OInd.gaayitnu-
OInd.gaera-
OInd.gaayantá-
(pr1.)‘distil,drop’(MonWil.342,gaati[3sg])
(m.)‘akindofgold-fish’(MonWil.342)
(m.)‘acloud’(MonWil.342)
(m.)‘cloud,torrent’(MonWil.342,KEWA1:328)
(m.)‘Wolke’(KEWA1:328)
(c) On the other hand, the schwebeablaut base PIE *»aold- did not satisfy the
conditionofFortunatov’sLawIIandnocerebralizationtookplaceinexampleslike:
RV.gáld
- OInd.gardayitnu-
(f.)‘dasAbseihen(desSoma)’(WbRV.388)
(m.)‘Wolke:cloud’(KEWA1:328)
Thus,theapparentlychaoticalternationoftheretroflexisregular.
§13. Avestan has preserved some twenty examples of Av. Ï, the outcome of
Fortunatov’s Law in the language, carefully catalogued and discussed by Hoffmann
(1986).514 To show its compatibility with Fortunatov’s Law II, a short but
comprehensivereviewoftheAvestanmaterialwillfollow.
(a) Generally the development of Avestan is identical with that Sanskrit, except for
being restricted to voiceless dental stops. Accordingly, in external comparisons
Neogr.*Ta
,theOldAnatolianorsomeothercriterionforPIE*appearswithAv.
Ï.Thus,forinstance,therootPIE*al-‘mahlen’hasaninitialPIE*provenbyGr.\-
in
Gr.\>}K
(pr.)‘mahlen’(GEW1:70).
IntherespectivedentalextensionPIE*alt-,Av.ÏcorrespondstoIndo-Aryan in
alt-‘mehl,gemahlen’(P.28-9):
LAv.aÏa-
OInd.a a-
Hind.
-
(pt.)‘gemahlen(vomgetreide)’(AIWb.230)
(n.)‘boiledrice,food’(MonWil.11)
(f.)‘Mehl’(EWA1:55,
[sgN]N*
-)
(b) Owing to the existence of a segmental explanation (PIE *) for Av. Ï, the early
suprasegmentaltheory(seeHoffmann1986)shouldbereconsidered.Theassumption
of an Iranian accent in the syllable preceding Av. Ï – as inferred from Sanskrit – is
weakatbest,andyetitoftendoesnotreflectthefacts.Thus,forinstance,
LAv.vouru.kaÏa-
(a.)‘mitweitBuchten’(AIWb.1429)
513
The*o-gradeofGreekisparalleledbyOHG.quall-(pret.)‘hervorquellen,schwellen’,possiblyalso
appearing in OInd. g
la- (m.) ‘flowing, liquefying’ (MonWil. 350), if this is indeed an example of
Brugmann’sLawII.
514
FortechnicalreasonsthedifferencebetweenAv.#andAv.ÏwasnotnotifiedbyBartholomaeinhis
dictionary(AIWb.).Naturally,thedevelopmentAv.ÏN*rtwasknownbytheNeogrammarians(see
Grundr21:431)andtheircontemporaries.
236
hadanaccentonthelastsyllable,ifitisjustifiedtoinferthisfromSanskrit:
RV.k
á-
(m.)‘Grube,Tiefe’(WbRV.322,KEWA1:197).
However, we cannot conclude that an accent would account for Av. Ï = OInd. ,
because
RV.kartá-
(m.)‘Grube,Loch’(WbRV.316)
is accented identically, but Fortunatov’s Law II has not occurred. In such
circumstances,itisnaturaltoapplythesamecriteriathroughoutIndo-Iranian.
(c)OccasionallyAv.ÏandAv.TrTTappearsidebyside(asisthecaseinSanskrit)and
thealternationisexplainedwithaschwebeablaut.Anexampleofthisispreservedin
thedata:
sual-‘swallow’(P.10451.sÒel-‘schlingen’)
LAv.kTrTf#·Ôar-
LAv.Ôara- OIcl.soll-
(a.)‘Leichen-,Aas-fressend’(AIWb.469,kTrTf#.Ôar)
(pr.)‘geniessen’(AIWb.1865,Ôaraiti[3sg])
(m.)‘SpültrankfürSchweine’(ANEtWb.529)
InthedentalextensionPIE*suealto-,theliquidwaslostinIranianwithAv.Ï:
LAv.Ô
Ïa- LAv.Ô
Ï
r- (n.)‘Essen’(AIWb.1879)
(m.)‘Trinker’ (AIWb.1879,Ô
Ï
rTm[sgA])
On the other hand, the schwebeablaut variant PIE *suaolto- did not satisfy the
conditionofFortunatov’sLawII,andthereforethelawdidnottakeplacein:
LAv.ÔarTta- (vb.)‘geniessen,trinken’(AIWb.1868,ÔarTtÖe[inf.]).
Similarly,aschwebeablautisrequiredtoexplainthealternationAv.Ï:Av.VrTtin
PIEalt-‘Lohn’:
Gr.\>F-
gAv.aÏi-
LAv.
rTiti-
Gr.\>FC-
(m.)‘Lohn’(LSJ.73,Hes.\>FD)?<E;D)
(f.)‘Anteil,Lohn,Verdienst,Belohnung’(AIWb.241)
(f.)‘Anteil,Lohn,Verdienst,Belohnung’(AIWb.192)
(m.)‘Lohn,usw.’(LSJ.73,Hes.\>FCD)?<E;D)
(d) In addition to morphology, the Proto-Indo-European derivation accounted for
some doublets with dental and retroflex/sibilant in Indo-Iranian. The data are
characterizedbytheappearanceofboththeplainrootandthelaryngealextension
·. With a further dental suffix ·T-, extensions ·T and ·T appear. While the
former gives no indication of Fortunatov’s Law II, the latter does. An example
supportedbyOldAnatolianisnowavailablein:
1.*pr-‘gehen;Fuß’(R).Theunextendedrootiswell-documentedinLuwian:
CLu.para- HLu.ARHApara-
HLu.para- RV.purv
·pará-
(vb.)‘chase,hunt’(DLL77,pa-ra-ad-du[3sg])
(vb.)‘hunt’(CHLu.7.2.1.fr6ARHA(PES2)*501+RA/I-ha)
(a.)‘nachfolgend’(WbRV.846-7)
237
2. PIE *prtu- ‘Durchgang’ (R ·T-). Directly built on the unextended root
withoutalaryngeal,Fortunatov’sLawIItookplacein:
gAv.pTrTtu- (m.f.)‘Durchgang,Pforte,Furt,Brücke’(AIWb.892).
3. PIE*pra-*pora-*pera-‘treiben,jagen’(R·a).Thelaryngealextension
isattestedinOldAnatolian(CHDP:143f.):
i.para-
CLu.para- (vb2.)‘treiben,jagen’(HHand.121,pár-a-i[3sg])
(vb.)‘treiben,jagen’(DLL.78,pár-a-ad-du[3sg])
4. PIE *pratu- ‘Durchgang, Furt’(R ·a·T-). Following the loss of PIE *a,
Fortunatov’sLawIItookplaceandAv.Ïappearsin:
LAv.pTÏu- LAv.pTÏu.p
na-
(m.)‘Durchgang,Furt’(AIWb.897)
(a.)‘Brückenwächter’(AIWb.898)
(e)Thismorphologicalvariationisparalleledbytherootpr-’Kampf;schlagen’(P.
818-9).HeretheextensionPIE*pr·tR·TpreservesanunalteredclusterL+Tin:
LAv.pTrTt-
RV.pËt-
(f.)‘Kampf,Streit’(AIWb.891,pTrTtasa)
(f.)‘Kampf,Streit’(WbRV.854,pÎtsú[plL])
Simultaneously,however,theextension*pra·th-R··T(withGr.|implyingthe
laryngeal)hasresultedinAv.Ïin:
LAv.pTÏana- LAv.pTÏan
- Gr.C|;B- (n.)‘Kampf,Schlacht’(AIWb.896-7)
(f.)‘Kampf,Schlacht’(AIWb.896-7)
(ao.)‘zerstören,verwüsten’(GEW2:512)515
(f) PIE pel-, pol- ‘law; judge’(P. –). The unextended root is now attested in
Tocharian:
TochA.pal- TochB.pele (sb.)‘lex(religiosa)’(Poucha163) (m.sg.)‘law;prison’(DTochB.398)
DirectlyfromthisrootareformedthedentalextensionsPIE*plno-and*plto-:
LAv.pTrTnav-
gAv.pTrTZa- LAv.
pTrT·ti-
(vb.)‘verurteilen:judge’(AIWb.850)
(n.)‘Ausgleichung,Sühne,Strafe’(AIWb.892)
(f.)‘Ausgleich,Sühne’(AIWb.329)
In contrast, the extension pla-, augmented with a dental, is revealed by Av. Ï
(AIWb.898)in:
gAv.pTÏ.tan%-
LAv.pTÏ.s
ra-
(a.)‘desLeibverwirkt,demGerichtverfallenist’
(a.)‘desHauptverwirkt,demGerichtverfallenist’
(g) PIEpel-,pol-‘breit,weit,etc’(P.833).Theextension*pla-(*pela-*pola-)
isnowattestedinOldAnatolian(CHDP:66):
i.pala-
(DUG.)‘Kessel’(HHand.117,pal-a-a#)
515
The‘laryngeal’extensionisconfirmedbyGr.4NPIE*(e)a.
238
i.pali-
(a.)‘breit,weit’(HHand.117,pal-i[NA])
Therootaugmentedwithadentalrevealsthesimultaneouspresenceofi.,Gr.4
andAv.Ïin:
Gr.>4F- i.palatar- LAv.pTÏ.parTna-
LAv.pTÏ.igha-
(a.)‘weit,breit,flach,eben’(GEW2:553,>4FD)
(n.)‘DAGAL:Breite:width’(CHDP-65,pal-a-tar)
(a.)‘mitweiterFlügelspannung’(AIWb.898)
(a.)‘mitgespreiztenKlauen’(AIWb.897)
(h)Proto-Indo-EuropeanderivationalsoaccountsforsomealternationsofAv.TrTt
andAv.Ï(=OInd. ),ultimatelytracingbacktomonoliteralrootswithandwithouta
laryngeal(asintheaboveexamples).Anotherexampleisfoundinthematrixofthe
root
m-‘(make)disappear,die,destroy,kill’:
i.ma-
(vb1.)‘disappear’(CHLL/N99,ma-du[3sg]).
The best-known extension of the root, PIE *mr- (cf. i. mer-, mar- (vb1&2.)
‘verschwinden,verlorengehen,absterben’,HEG2:199,mar-ta[3sg]),preserves*r+t
assuchinIndo-Iranian:
Lat.mort-
Gr.?BCF-
RV.márta-
gAv.marTta-
(f.)‘Tod,Erlöschen’(WH2:112,mors[N],mortis[G])
(a.)‘man,mortal’(LSJ.1147=^@;CKBD,;:@FD)
(m.)‘Sterblicher,Mensch’(AIWb.1148)
On the other hand, a feminine PIE *ma- (ablaut *mea- *ma-) was built on the
monoliteralrootm-in:
OInd.m
-
(f.)‘death’(MonWil.771).
Furthermore, this base formed an *r-extension with a dental extension, resulting in
Fortunatov’sLawII:
PIE*meart-‘sterben’
OIr.mart-
gAv.maÏa- gAv.a·mTÏa- AV.ma ·ma á-
(m.)‘tuerie,massacre,victime’(LEIAM-21)
(a.)‘unsterblich’(AIWb.145-6)
(m.)‘einbestimmterDämon’(KEWA2:554)
(i)PIE*ue/oar-‘treiben,führen,bewegen’(P.1160)canbepostulatedonthebasisof
theforms:
Li.var-
Arm.vari-
Pahl.vari#n-
Arm.varun-
(pr.)‘treiben,führen,leiten,bewegen’(LiEtWb.1200)
(pr.)‘beled,behave’(MPahl.2:203,varil[inf.])
(sb.)‘conduct,wayofliving’(MPahl.2:203)
(a.)‘beaten(track)’(MPahl.2:203)
Arm.aimplies PIE*,whichisinturnconfirmedbythedentalextensionresultingin
Av.Ï:
239
PIE*ueart-‘Wagen’
LAv.v
Ïa- LAv.v
Ïaya- (m.)‘Wagen’(AIWb.1418)
(pr.)‘denWagenziehen’(AIWb.1418)
(j)Inarareexample,acollisionoftwoetymologicallydistinctrootswithAv.tandAv.
ÏispossibleinIranian.Thuswemaypostulatethefollowingroot:
PIEr-‘law,justice,right,good’(HEG1:50)
i.ara-
OPers.arta- RV.Îtá-
LAv.an·arTta-
gAv.dÖWÐ.arTta-
Pahl.art
y- (a.)‘accordingtolaw,appropriate’(IE&IE710)
(m.)‘Law,Justice’(OldP.170)
(a.)‘passend,gehörig,recht’(WbRV.282-3)
(a.)‘gesetzlos,demheiligenRechtfeind’(AIWb.120)
(PN.)‘dasGesetz,Rechtmindernd’(AIWb.609)
(a.)‘righteous,good’(MPahl.2:30)
ThereisnolaryngealinOldAnatolian(i.ar-).Consequently,Fortunatov’sLawII
has not taken place. On the other hand, there is the root PIE ar- with a similar
meaningin:
gAv.aÏa-
LAv.WÐ.aÏa- Hes.^CE<B- Gr.\@·|CE<B-
(n.)‘Wahrheit,usw.’(AIWb.229-238)
(PN.)‘dasGesetz,Rechtmindernd’(AIWb.609)
(a.)‘fitting,meet,right’(LSJ.248,^CE<B@:7=4<B@)
(a.)‘inimical:feindlich’(IE&IE710)
This root has both Gr. \( PIE *) and Av. Ï ( PIE *), and it is therefore to be
differentiatedfromthepreviousrootPIE*r-withoutalaryngeal.516
(k) The upgraded condition of Fortunatov’s Law II is equal to a methodology for
identifying etymologies. The mode of inference applied for Indo-Iranian consists of
theeliminationoftheroot-finaldental,thereconstructionofthelostliquid(PIE*ror
*l)andthepostulationofPIE*a,aintheproperposition.Thismethodologycanbe
illustratedherewithanAvestanrootcurrentlylackingetymology:
LAv.kaÏ-‘warten;Wärter’
LAv.nasu.kaÏa-
LAv.irist.kaÏa-
(m.)‘Leichenwärter’(AIWb.1058)
(m.)‘Totenwärter’(AIWb.1530)
The elimination of the dental and the restoration of the liquid leaves a maximal
expansion*KaLwithKRPIE*k
*kÒandLRPIE*l
*r.ThevaluesPIE*kandPIE
*ryieldadirectmatchbetweenAvestanandtheGreekitemsin:
Gr.@8K·=CB-
Gr.94·=CB- Gr.E:=B·=CB-
(m.)‘Tempel-wärter’(GEW1:607,PGr.*@4EßB-)
(c.)‘Tempel-diener(in)’(GEW1:607,94=CBD[sgN])
(m.)‘Stallknecht’(GEW1:919,E:=B-=CBD[sgN])
Thus,arootPIE*kear-*koar-‘Wärter’isobtained.
516
Theconditionsfordecidingwhetherrootsareultimatelyconnected(e.g.viaprefixPIE*a·=Gr.
\·(LSJ.1))mustbecreatedfortheentirevocabularybeforethequestioncanbesettled.
240
§14.InAvestan,unlikeinSanskrit,Fortunatov’sLawIIalsoappliedinthezerograde
(cf.LAv.pTÏana-,LAv.kTÏa-,etc.).Thisreflectstherealizationofthesyllabicliquids
PIE*ÄÎinAvestanTr(vs.RV.ÄÎ).InadditiontoprovingtherealityofAv.T,thiscase
isofsomeinterestforthePIEvowelsystem,becauseitprovesthatAvestandeveloped
thevowelinquestion(comparedtoSanskrit,whichlostit).
§15. According to the converse of Fortunatov’s Law II,IfasequenceVLThasbeen
preservedinIndo-Iranian,517itsprototypedidnotcontain PIE*aor*apreceding
orfollowingtheliquid.
This principle provides a criterion for determining when a root did not have a
laryngeal in the positions initiating Fortunatov’s Law II. This capability is of some
relevance,becausetheNeogrammariansandSaussureovergeneratedschwathrough
thestructuraldefinitions
Neogr.®LRDS®AVRLTLHV
Neogr.RDS®ACRLTLHC.
Someexamplesofthemispostulatedlaryngeals518appear,forinstance,in:
(a) RV. p%rá- (pt.) ‘voll, gefüllt’ (WbRV. 844). The form is traditionally
reconstructedasNeogr.*pÃnó-(=LT*pÄH1no-).SincethecerebralisabsentinRigVeda,theprototypedidnotcontainalaryngeal.Simultaneously,the‘u-vocalism’of
PIE*pulno-isparalleledbyIndo-Iranian(cf.Sogd.pwrn‘voll,gefüllt’,KEWA2:283),
Slavonic (OCS. pl&n& (a.) ‘voll’, Sadnik 672) and Germanic (Go. full- ‘>~C:D =
full’,GoEtD.131);therefore,itisoriginal.
(b) PIEtil-‘erheben’(subP.10162.*tel-‘gang’).AVedicroottir-(cf.RV.titir-
(pf.)‘überwinden,besiegen’(WbRV.525,titirús[3pl])isoftendirectlyconnectedto
the root RV. tÎ- (PIE *tÎ-) based on internal reconstruction (R Neogr. *trTC-, LT
*tÎHC-).Externalcomparisonimpliesthattheroothadanoriginal PIE*linsteadof
†
PIE rinPIE*til-,however:
Thrac.F<>8/B- RV.úd(...)tira-
OInd.tela- (ao.)‘auf-,wegheben,entfernen’(WH2:688,F<>8)
(pr6A.)‘erhöhen,steigern’(WbRV.525,údtir
masi)
(pr1A.)‘togo’(MonWil.448,Dh
tup.telati[3sg])
Simultaneously,theabsenceofaroot-finallaryngealisprovenbythelackofanIndoIraniancerebral(theconverseofFortunatov’sLawII)inPIE*táhil-:
Li.tìlta-
RV.trthá- Thrac.F<>F<4 (4m.)‘Brücke’(LiEtWb.1094,tìltas[sgN])
(n.)‘WegzurTränke,FurtdesFlusses’(WbRV.537)
(f.)‘Weg’(LiEtWb.1094,F<>F<4[sgN])
§16. Regarding the laryngeal theory, it should be mentioned that the converse of
Fortunatov’sLawIIcanbeunderstoodasprovingnumerouscandidatesof†h1and†h3
postulated on the basis of the root axiom to be false. The simultaneous
presence/absence of the PIE laryngeal and retroflex in Indo-Iranian reveals the
followingdistribution:
517
Notethatthe‘non-palatalizing’OInd.i2PIE*áisavowel(cf.OInd.kia-=Lat.callo-,etc.).
518
Numeroussimilarexampleswillbepresentedinthediscussionconcerningsyllabicsonants.
241
1.Therootswithlaryngeal PIE*( LTh2)dohavevariantswithgAv.Ï,RV. ,
etc.
2. The roots without laryngeal PIE * but with alleged †h1 and †h3 do not have
variantswithgAv.Ï,RV. ,etc.
SeveralexamplesofPIE*(LTh2)appearingwithgAv.Ïand/orRV. havealready
beendiscussedabove;therefore,itsufficestoquoteexampleswithalleged†h1and†h3
withOldAnatolianprovingtheabsenceofthelaryngealPIE*(LTh2):
(a)rnu-‘inBewegungsetzen,erregen,usw.’(P.326f.)
i.arnu-
RV.Îó-
(cs.)‘inBewegungsetzen’(HEG1:64)
(pr.)‘inBewegungsetzen[A]’(WbRV.98-101)
(b)rn-‘culpa’(P.501)
RV.Îá-
Sogd.’rn
Khot.
rra- LAv.arTnat.a#a-
i.arnu-
(a.)‘schuldig,sündig’(WbRV.281)
(a.)if‘avengingdebts’(?)(EFL154-5,AIWb.195)
(vb.)‘büßen,ersetzen’(Tischler1972:278)
(c)rs-‘fließen’(P.336)
i.ar#-
RV.ára-
Go.airzei-
(vb.)‘fließen’(DLL32,HEG1:66-7,ar-a#-zi)
(pr.)‘fließen,herbeiströmen’(WbRV.119-120,árati)
(a.)‘ledastray,deceived,inerror’(GoEtD.19-20)
(d)rs-‘Neid’(P.335)
LAv.arT#yant-
i.ar#ani-
(a.)‘neidisch,misgünstig’(AIWb.206)
(vb.)‘beenvious,angry’(HEG1:67-8ar-#a-ne-e-#i)
(e)rdh-‘sägen,spalten,auftrennen’(P.333)
i.ardu-
RV.Ëdhak
Li.ard-
(vb.)‘sägen’(HEG1:69,ar-du-me-ni[1pl])
(adv.)‘(ab)gesondert,versteckt,abseits’(WbRV.290)
(cs.)‘auftrennen,usw.’(LiEtWb.15,ardti[inf.])
Diagnostically, the roots with alleged †h1 and †h3 do not display variants with
cerebral/sibilantinIndo-Iranian(i.e.Fortunatov’sLawdoesnotapply).Thisreflects
the fact that the laryngeals †h1, †h3 do not represent real consonants but are
substitutesforthevowelsPIE*e(RLTh1)andPIE*o(RLTh3).
§17.ThedevelopmentsofFortunatov’sLawIIaresummarizedasfollows:
(a)BothFortunatov’sinitialobservationandtheimprovementsofBartholomaeand
Brugmann are professional in terms of the identification of the class of irregular
cerebrals and Ïibilants in Indo-Iranian. Since the ultimate conditio sine qua non of
Fortunatov’s Law (i.e. PIE *) was absent from the Neogrammarian phoneme
inventory,itwasmoreofacaseofthescholarslackingthemeansbywhichtodescribe
the sound law rather than their failing in its formulation. Fortunatov’s Law II,
242
upgradedasitisnow,providesaregularmethodofreconstructionthatfillsthelacuna
leftbythepioneers.519
(b) The phonetic development required by Fortunatov’s Law II is natural: the
sequences PIE*LT,LTraisethetongue,whichisfurtherturnedbackwardsby PIE
*l, *r (palatalization). After the loss of the liquid, the clusters resulted in a sibilant
(Av.Ï)andaretroflexinSanskrit.
3 .3.3 Liquids*rand*lintheNeogrammariansystem
§0.FaithfultoSanskritastheparadigmoftheproto-language,Schleicher(1861-62)
reconstructedonlyoneliquid,Paleogr.*r(=PIE*r).
§1. Schleicher’s initial mistake was soon corrected by the Neogrammarians, who
reconstructed two liquids, PIE *r and PIE *l, with a sound law implying a general
collisionoftheitemsinIndo-Iranian:
“Im Arischen dagegen scheinen die beiden Laute in der Zeit der indisch-iranischen
Urgemeinschaft in r zusammengefallen zu sein. Dies gilt, wie für die consonantischen, so
auchfürdiesilbischenLiquidae,s.497ff.”(Brugmann,Grundr21:423)
Bynowithasbecomeclear(see,forexample,Szemerényi1996:45)thatthesituation
ismorecomplex:
“[...]inOldIranian lbecame rthroughout,whileinOldIndicdialectmixturehasconfused
theoriginalsituationtosuchanextentthatlandrcaneachrepresent[P]IElorr.”520
§2. In the Sonantentheorie,Brugmann and Osthoff went far beyond this basic
scheme,ultimatelypostulatingthefourseriesofliquids:
(a)Consonantalliquids*LinantevocalicpositionNeogr.*lV*rV(§3)
(b)Shortsyllabicliquids*®inanteconsonantalpositionNeogr.*ÄC*ÎC(§4)
(c)Shortsyllabicliquids*®LinantevocalicpositionNeogr.*ÄlV*ÎrV(§5)
(d)Longsyllabicliquids*inanteconsonantalpositionNeogr.*ÃC*ÍC(§6)
§3. The consonantal liquids *L, preserved as such in most languages, are relatively
unproblematicwiththefollowingminorexceptions:
(a)InIndo-Iranian,anexternalconfirmationfor PIE*lor PIE*risalwaysrequired,
owingtothecollisionandmixtureofdialectsdiscussedabove.
(b) The syllabic script of Linear B distinguishes only one liquid (DMycGr. 44)
transliterated/r/,though/l/couldbeusedaswell.ForthereasonsstatedbyVentris
and Chadwick, it is highly improbable that this reflects the phonetic reality of Old
519
Inthisstudy,onlyalimitedportionofthedatacanbediscussedandnumerousexamplesofPIE*
waitfortheirdiscoveryandreconstruction.
520
There are examples in which both RV. r and RV. l are attested for one and the same word: RV.
sahá·m%ra- (a.) ‘mit der Wurzel’ (WbRV. 1498) and AV. mÑra- (n.) ‘Wurzel’ (WbRV. 1053) versus
RV.sahá·m%la-(a.)‘mitderWurzel’(WbRV.1498)andRV.mÑla-(n.)‘Wurzel’(WbRV.1054).
243
Mycenean.521Fromthecomparativepointofview,however,theresultissimilartoa
soundlawimplyingacollision(i.e.LinB./r/requiresanoutsideconfirmationforan
originalPIE*lorPIE*r).
§4.Themostrelevantissuesconcerningthesyllabicliquids®in(C)®Care:522
(a)TheexistenceoftheshortsyllabicliquidsisimpliedbynumerousreflexesofPIE*Ä
*Î,whicharedirectlycontinuedinIndo-Iranian.Astypicalexamplesonecanquote:
1.PIE*pÄth-‘breit’(withPIE*Ä)
RV.pÎthú-
gAv.pTrTZu-
Gr.>};CB-
Gr.>8;C9K
LAv.fraZah-
(a.)‘breit,weit,sichaustreckend’(WbRV.857)
(a.)‘weit,breit’(AIWb.892-3)
(n.)‘Längen-undFlächenmaß’(GEW2:55)
(pr.)‘sichüberetw.verbreiten’(GEW2:555)
(n.)‘Breite’(AIWb.983)
2.PIE*pÎt(h)-‘Kampf:kampfen’(withPIE*Î)
RV.pËt-
LAv.pTrTt- Gr.}C;K
Gr.FB>·BC;B-
(f.)‘Kampf,Streit’(WbRV.854,pÎtsú[plL])
(f.)‘Kampf,Streit’(AIWb.891,pTrTtasa)
(pr.)‘zerstören,verwüsten’(GEW2:512)
(a.)‘Städtezerstörend’(GEW2:512)
Thelossofvowels PIE*e,o,i,uinIndo-Iranianisexcludedbythesoundlawsstating
theirpreservation.Furthermore,PIE*a(indiphonemicPIE*aorPIE*a)couldnot
havebeenlosteither,owingtotheconverseofFortunatov’sLawII(noAv.†Ï).Hence
the Indo-Iranian liquid (RV. Î, Av. Tr) had to be syllabic already in Proto-IndoEuropean,anditwasthusanoriginalfeatureoftheproto-language.
(b) The Neogrammarian attempt to generalize the syllabic liquids beyond IndoIranian has caused insurmountable difficulties. Osthoff’s and Brugmann’s idea that
PIE*Äand*Îdevelopedcharacteristicsvarabhaktivowelsinnon-Aryanlanguagesis
fraughtwithambiguity,523foritisalwayspossiblethatthesvarabhaktivowelsreflect
originalPIEvowels,asindicatedin:524
Lat.orPIE*ol
Lat.orPIE*or
Go.ulPIE*ul
Gr.4>PIE*ael
*eal etc.
Go.urPIE*ur525 Gr.4CPIE*aer
*ear etc.
521
SeeVentris&Chadwick(DMycGr.69):“IftheMycenaeansconfusedthe soundsof landr,then
theirdescendantscouldneverhaveseparatedthemagaincorrectly.”
522
ForthesyllabicÎandÄ,seeAllen(1953:62).
See,forinstance,Brugmann(Grundr21:451):“Indennichtarischenidg.Sprachenwurden,wiebei
densonantischenNasalen(§430),inallenStellungenvolleVocaleausÎundÄentwickelt.”
523
As for Latin, the ambiguity was recognized by Brugmann (Grundr2 1:466): “Da im Lat. uridg. or
und * in or unduridg. ol,el,$in olzusammengefallensind(§121,2S.121),soistdieZurückführung
auf*,$zuweilenunsicher.”Naturallythesameappliestoallsvarabhaktivowelsingeneral.
524
Brugmann (Grundr2 1:453) was aware of the more widespread distribution of PIE *u than just
Proto-Germanic: “Im Arm., Griech., Ital., Kelt. und Balt.-Slav. ist der aus uridg. Î, Ä entwickelte
Vollvokal zuweilen u, und es scheint, dass der specielle Anlass zu dieser unregelmässigen
Vocalentfaltung in der Natur der benachbarten Laute zu suchen ist, durch die der schwache
525
244
(c) The reconstruction of PIE *, an obstruent C, has resulted in the emergence of
sequences *®C and *C® (shape C®C) for the proto-forms of the “nonAryan”languages.Thisdecisivefeatureenablesustodeterminethetrueoutcomesof
C®Cbasedonthemeasurablefeaturesofthedata.Thus,forinstance,in SUBSETIof
Fortunatov’sLawII,theoutcomesofC®C(in®C)fornon-Aryanlanguagesare:
PIE*uaÄt- PIE*keaÎs- OHG.wald,OInd.v
a-,etc.
Li.kaÌ#-,OInd.káa-,Lat.carro-,etc.
The prototypes predicted by the Neogrammarian theory (PGerm. †w()ul-, PLi.
† ()
ka iÌs- PItal. †ca()orso-) do not exist, since CÄC CÎC did not develop svarabhakti
vowels.InsteadthedevelopmentofPIE*ÄÎwasidenticaltothatofIndo-Iranianinall
languages(i.e.PIE*ÄÎremainedsyllabicuntilPIE*waslost,afterwhichtheyturned
intorespectiveconsonants):
PIE*Ä PIE*Î RV.l/Ä,Li.l(N*Ä),Lat.l(N*Ä),Go.l(N*Ä),etc.(inÄC)
RV.r/Î,Li.r(N*Î),Lat.r(N*Î),Go.r(N*Î),etc.(inÎC)
§5.Neogr.*Äland*Îr,thesyllabicliquidsinantevocalicpositionC®LV,represent PIE
C®V.Asregardsthis,itisimportanttonotethefollowingcentralissues:
(a) The series ®L was initially proposed by Osthoff after it turned out that the
svarabhakti vowels appeared in antevocalic position as well. Brugmann and Osthoff
handledthesituationofthecontext-freesyllabicliquidsbypostulatingNeogr.*Äland
*Îrbeforeavowelwiththeindexedgeminates*l raddedtorestoretheconsonantal
environment.ForSanskrittheassumedsvarabhaktivowelwasOInd.u(=Av.a):
“Dagegen scheint sich aus Î vor Sonanten (in welchem Fall r als consonantischer
Übergangslautgesprochenwurde)schoninurar.ZeiteinVollvokalentwickeltzuhaben,z.
B.ai.pur³av.para.”(Grundr21:451)
AccordingtoBrugmann(Grundr21:451-2),theantevocalicsyllabicliquidsdeveloped
identicallywithNeogr.*Äand*Îinnon-Aryanlanguages(i.e.theyyieldedtheusual
svarabhaktivowelsGr.4,Gou,etc.):
“Die Vocalentfaltung fand in allen diesen Sprachen regelmässig vor Î, Ä statt, wenn diese
antesonantischstanden,wiegr.54C-Dgot.kauru-s(ai.gurú-)ausuridg.*»Îrú-s.”
(b)Inthelaryngealtheory,Neogr.*Äland*Îrhavebeenreplacedwith*CÄHxVand
*CÎHxVwherexexpressesthecolouringofthelaryngeal.Accordingly,itisassumed
thatthecolouringofthelaryngealcontaminatestheemergingsvarabhaktivowel PIE
*C®HxVIECVxLV-.Someexamplesfortheexistinglaryngeal‘h2’wouldbe:
*»Äh2VGr.54>-(LT*CÄHxV)
*»Îh2uGr.54C-(RLT*CÎHV).
While on paper the explanation may escape the Neogrammarian contradiction of
syllabicliquidsinanon-syllabicposition,andthusitcanatleastintheorybeusedin
unsilbische Stimmgleitlaut grossenteils wohl schon in uridg. Zeit die u-Färbung erhielt (§ 430 Anm.
3).”Forfurtherexamples,seeBrugmann(Grundr21:453-5).
245
reconstruction, as seen earlier the rule leads to non-existent prototypes without
coveringtheattestedrootshapes;therefore,itisnotanidealgeneralsolution.
(c)Tomyknowledge,therealoutcomeofthesequenceC®Vwaspresentedforthe
firsttimebyEdgertoninarticles(1934,1943,1962)thatsoughttogeneralizeSievers’s
Law for the liquids Neogr. *Äl and *Îr. Comparing Sievers’s scansions iy and uw to
Neogr. *Äl and *Îr, Edgerton quoted the following Rig-Vedic forms requiring threesyllabicscansion:
RV.ín·dra-
RV.ru·drá-
(m.)‘derGottdesLichthimmels’(WbRV.213-4)526
(m.)‘derVaterdesMaruts’(WbRV.1174)
Edgerton’s(1934:259)interpretationwascorrectinrejectingGrassmann’s †índ(a)ra-
and †rud(a)rá-, because the bracketed PIIr. *a (or any other vowel in that position)
couldnothavedisappearedinIndo-Iranian.Therefore,itistheliquidthathastobe
syllabic,whichinturnispossibleonlyifitwasoriginallyfollowedby PIE*.Thus,in
order to explain the three-syllabic scansion of the Rig-Vedic meter, the following
Proto-Indo-Iranianprototypeshavetobereconstructed:
RV.índÎ’a-RPIIr.*índÎa-
RV.rudÎ’á-RPIIr.*rudÎá-.
These formulas contain the true (regular) development of liquid C®+ before a
vowel,namely:
PIE*CLaV*C®aV
PIIr.*C®VRRVM.CÎ’V
RV.CrV.
In other words, RV. †índura- does not exist, and the sequence CLV (in PIIr.
*índÎa-etc.)doesnotproduce‘svarabhaktiu’inSanskrit.Insteadthelaryngealwas
lost(RV.índÎ’a-)andtheliquidbecameaconsonantinthevocalicenvironment(RV.
índra-).527ConsequentlytheNeogrammarianphoneme*®L
Neogr.*C®TV(RLT*C®HV)
RV.CuLV,Gr.C4LV,etc.
is not well-defined and the development noted by Edgerton should replace it in
reconstruction.
§6.Asforthelongsyllabicliquids(inenvironmentCC),oneshouldobservethat:
(a) The Neogrammarians assumed the phoneme Neogr. *Í from the hypothetical
Sanskrit-roots(cf.OInd.pÍ-‘fill’,tÍ-‘cross’,etc.)andgeneralizedtheconceptfor
Neogr.*Ã.528Inadditiontotheirinternalreconstruction,thelongsyllabicliquidswere
considered diphonemic by definition (Neogr. *Ã R *ÄT and Neogr. *Í R *ÎT), and
526
RV.ín·dra-isderivedfromRV.iná-(a.)‘wirksam,mächtig,stark’(“häufigvonIndra”,WbRV2112)andLyd.ina-(pret.)‘machen’(LydWb.132,inal[3pers]).Similarly,RV.ru·drá-
(m.) ‘Rudra’
belongs to the root PIE lu- (*lu-, *leu-, *lou-; see Pyysalo 2011), which is best known for its
extensions(e.g.luk-(P.687-690,i.luk-(vb1A.)‘hellwerden,tagen,leuchten,zünden’,HEG2:65ff.
i.lu-uk-zi[3sg]).
527
Thelackof‘svarabhakti’vowelisacommonIndo-Iranianfeature(cf.RV.índra-RLAv.indra-(m.)
‘NameeinesDava’AIWb.367-8).
528
Burrow(1979:8)adds:“[...]trá-‘crossed’,p%rá-‘full’;tirás‘across’,purás‘infront’[...].Forsuch
rootstheancientIndiangrammarianssetuphypotheticalweakformswithlongsonant-Í-,aconcept
whichwasbroughtintoIndo-EuropeanbyBrugmannandhiscolleagues.”
246
thereforetheywerebuiltuponunderlyingformsforwhichthepresenceofschwawas
neverproven.
(b) In the laryngeal theory, the long syllabic liquids are represented by the rules
CÄHxC and CÎHxC. 529Regarding their interpretation in Sanskrit, one may cite
Burrow’sreview(1949:36):
“BeginningwithtÎH-,aperfectlyregularreducedform,wemustassumeadevelopmentto
tirH-,thevocalicÍinthispositiondevelopingintoaslightvowelr:whencetirHna>trá-;
similarlyp%rá-<pulHnó-<pÄHnó-.”
(c)TheseearlydevelopmentssuggestedforthesequencesCÄHCandCÎHCarenow
contradictedbythedata.Thesituationismanifest,forinstance,inthe SUBSETIIIof
Fortunatov’sLawIIwheretheshapeCLTappearswithoutlengtheningorintrusion
ofasvarabhaktivowel:
PIE*prat(h)-
Gr.C|;B-,LAv.pTÏana-
In other words, the outcome of *CLC is zero, not a (compensatory lengthened)
vÎddhi or any other vowel. Greek has instead preserved PIE *á (accented) and
AvestanlostPIE*a(unaccented).Similarly,inexamplessuchas
PIE*dráÀ-:*draÀ- Gr.7C|=B-:RV.dÎ á-
Greek has preserved PIE *á, while Indo-Iranian lost PIE *a without any svarabhakti
vowelsemergingintheprocess.Thus,insteadofproducinglongvowels(andOInd.i,
u),PIE*waslostinC®Casinallotherenvironments.
(d) According to the converse of Fortunatov’s Law II, the preserved Indo-Iranian
sequences*LThadnolaryngeal.Thisisincontradictionwiththeearlyrule
Neogr.CLTC(LTC®HxC)
OInd.Ci/uLCvs.Gr.CLV:C,etc.
because the liquid has not been lost in RV. p%rá-, trá-, etc. Therefore, as the
svarabhakti vowels are not explained by the laryngeal or schwa, they have to be
accountedfordifferently.Withtheextendeddataathand,thisdoesnotconstitutea
reconstructive problem, because the svarabhakti vowels are paralleled and hence
reflecttherespectiveoriginalvowels:
PIE*tahiltho- R
PIE*pulno- R
RV.trthá-=Li.tìlta-=Thrac.F<>F·<4-
RV.p%rá-=ORus.p&ln&-=Go.full-
Since the alleged svarabhakti vowels can be proven to be original by means of
comparison,theproblemsoftheearlyruleCLTC(LTCLHxC)arefullysolvable.
529
On Møller’s adoption of Saussure’s structural analysis of long syllabic liquids, see already Møller
(1880:502):“[...]pÄAn[o]-ingerm.fulla-,lit.pìlna-etc.=sankr.p%rá-.”
247
3 .3.4 Neogr.*r(consonantaltrill)
§0.TheconsonantaltrillPIE*rwasproperlyreconstructedalreadybySchleicher,who
positedPaleogr.*r(RNeogr.*rRPIE*r).
§1.Brugmann’sexamplesofNeogr.*rincludedthecorrespondences:
(a)Neogr.*reudh-‘rotsein’(Grundr21:424)for“gr.bCG;C-Dlat.ruberair.ruadgot.
rau-slit.ra$da-saksl.r&dr&ai.rudhirá-s‘rot’.”
(b) Neogr. *»her- ‘warm’(Grundr2 1:424) for “arm. Werm gr. ;8C?-D lat. formu-s
‘warm’,preuss.gorme‘Hitze’ai.gharmá-s‘Glut’.”
(c)Neogr.*tre¾-es‘drei’(Grundr21:424)for“gr.FC8D,alb.tre,lat.trs,air.tr,got.
reis,lit.tr£saksl.trjetrije,ai.tráyas.”
ThemorerecentdevelopmentsrelatedtoPIE*rcanbesummarizedasfollows:
§2.AsforthevocalprothesisPIE*er-*or-,whichoftenappearbeforeinitialPIE*r-in
severalIndo-Europeanlanguages,notethefollowing:
(a) The absence of Hittite words beginning with r- was noted already by Hrozn
(1917:1886): “In den mir zugänglichen Texten findet sich kein wort, das mit ranlautenwürde.”530
(b) In the laryngeal theory, this phenomenon – shared to a degree by Greek and
Armenian – has been generalized into a conjecture according to which the (pre)proto-language did not have roots beginning with PIE *r531 because the prothetic
vowelsreflectoriginallaryngeals,asindicatedin:
Neogr.*er-RLT**H1er-
Neogr.*or-RLT**H3er-.
Thisviewofprotheticvowelscannotbecorrect,however,forthefollowingreasons:
1. As mentioned by Tischler (1972:269), roots *r- without laryngeal and/or
protheticvowelexistdefacto:
“Ein Blick in ein Wörterbuch der verschiedenen indogermanischen Einzelsprachen
(ausgenommen das Griechische und Armenische, und natürlich auch das Hethitische)
zeigt,welcheFüllevonWörternmitanlautendenr-esindiesenSprachen–undsomitauch
inderGrundsprache–gibt.”532
2.AcounterexamplewithoutaprotheticvowelisattestedinGreek:
PIE*reaº-‘röten,farben,dye’(P.854)
Gr.}9K
Gr.ICGEB·C46}E-
AV.rájya-
AV.rajaya- (pr.)‘dye’(SchwyzerGrGr.1:310)
(a.)‘=ICGEB·54H}D’(GEW2:647-8)
(pr.)‘sichfärben,sichröten,rotsein’(KEWA3:35-6)
(cs.)‘färben,röten’(KEWA3:35,WbRV.1133)
530
ForprotheticvowelsPIE*e··o··beforeinitialPIE*rinHittite,seeTischler(1972:267-86).
531
Theconjecturethattherewerenorootsbeginningwith*rinProto-Indo-Europeanisusuallytraced
back to Lehmann (1951:13-17), but one may point already to Petersen’s ideas dating back to 1937
(apudTischler1972:267).
532
Note that OAnat. arC- can represent PIE ÎC with an unmarked syllabic trill, owing to the
impossibilityofexpressing*Îincuneiformscript.
248
3.AcounterexamplewithoutaprotheticvowelexistsinAnatolian:
PIE*ruÊ-‘Rua’
HLu.rua-
i.nai·rua- Kil.CK·9CG?8C<-
HLu.ruan
Kil.CK@·9CG?8C<-
(Ic.)‘Rua-’(CHLu.10.9.1,NOMS.1069,ru-wa/i-sá)
(mc.)‘PN’(NOMS.843,na-i-ru-ua-a#(-#a)[sgN])
(c.)‘PN’(Sundwall1913:97,CK9CG?8C<D[sgN])
(adv.)‘former·ly’(CHLu.1.1.33,rú-wa/i-na[adv.])
(c.)‘PN’(Sundwall1913:97,CK@·9CG?8C<D[sgN])
(c) In general, when PIE * is not involved, the vowels before PIE *r- belong to the
protheticvowels PIE*e··Ø·o··.Whetheranalyzedasprefixes(PIE*e··Ø·o·
·)533orablautbasesoftheroots(PIE*er-r-r-or-r-),thepresenceofsuchvowels
isalexicalproblem,notarootconstraint.
§3.RhotacismofdentalstopshasbeensuggestedfortheHieroglyphicLuwian:534
V+PIE*tthddh+V HLu.VrV.
ThisruleisbasedontheinternalcomparisonofthepairsHLu.t:HLu.r(cf.HLu.
lada- ‘prosper’ : HLu. lara- ‘id.’ etc.), as well as on some external data that shows
HLu.rallegedlymatchingadentalintherestofthegroup.Theestablishmentofsuch
a sound law would be premature, however, as the complete external evidence
contains both dental and trill extensions, indicating that the alternation depends on
derivationalvariationinsteadofphonologicalchange.Rootvariantswithdentaland
trillextensions,confirmedbytwowitnesses,areattestedfortheallegedexamplesof
HieroglyphicLuwianrhotacismasfollows:
(a)l·dh-,lÊdh-‘fruit,prosperity’(P–)
HLu.ARHAlada-
OIcl.l-
Lyc.lada-
Rus.láda
Rus.ládi-
(vb.)‘prosper(?)’(CHLu.10.16.1,ARHAla-tà-ta)
(f.n.)‘Ertrag,Frucht’(ANEtWb.362,l[sgN])
(vb.)‘passen,stimmen,usw.’(LiEtWb.328,ladit’[inf])
The alternative extension with a trill, PIE l·r-, lÊr- ‘fruit, prosperity’ (P. –), is
confirmedbytwowitnessesin:
HLu.ARHA’lara-
TochB.l
re- TochB.lare- TochB.larauñe
(vb.)‘flourish’(CHLu.10.14.6,ARHA-’la+ra/i-ta)
(a.)‘beloved,dear’(DTochB.548)
(a.)‘beloved,dear,friendly’(DTochB.548)
(m.sg.)‘love,affliction’(DTochB.545)
533
A rule for ‘a-prothesis’(a counterpart of the Greek-Armenian ‘e-prothesis’) was outlined for
AnatolianbyTischler(1972:271):“Dasbedeutetdochwohl,daßderVokalaüberdurchschnittlichoft
dann im Anlaut auftritt, wenn der erste Folgekonsonant ein r is, was für die Vermutung spricht,
ursprünglichmitr-anlautendeWörterhätteneinena-Vorschlagbekommen.”
534
Foramorerecentstatementonthis,seeArbeitman&Ayala1981:“Thephenomenonofrhotacism
ofanintervocalicdentalstopiswellknowninHieroglyphicLuwian.”
249
RhotacismisoutofquestioninTocharian,wheretwodifferentextensions, PIE*lÊr-
andPIE*lÊdh-,areimpliedbythecomparativemethod.
(b)PIE*melit-,*molit-‘Honig’(P.723-4):
Gr.?}><F-
i.mlit-
CLu.malita- (n.)‘Honig’(GEW2:200,?}><[N],?}><FBD[G])
(n.)‘Honig’(HEG2:207,mi-li-it[sgN])
(n.)‘Honig’(DLL66,ma-al-li-(i)-ta-a-ti[sgI])
Theparallelextensionwithatrillhasbeenpreservedin:
PIE*melir-*molir-‘Honig’
Arm.mer- HLu.maliri·mi-
(sb.)‘Honig’(ArmGr.1:473,mer[sgN])
(pt.a.)‘honeyed’(CHLu.4.4.1.,ma-li-ri+i-mi-i-sá)
RhotacismbeingexcludedinArmenian,thetrillisoriginalinHieroglyphicLuwian.
(c)PIE*ped-*pod-‘Fuß’(P.790-792)
HLu.pada-
CLu.pada-
i.pada-
(c.)‘foot’(CHLu.1.1.22,(“PES”)pa-tà-za[plD])
(c.)‘Fuß’(DLL81,pa-a-ta-an-za[plD])
(c.)‘foot’(CHDP:231f.,pa-ta-a-an[plG])
AnoriginalPIE*risexternallyparalleledforHLu.para-‘foot’in
PIE*per-*por-‘Fuß,Feder:treiben,jagen,folgen;eilig’:
HLu.para- CLu.para- RV.purv
·pará-
Lat.pro·pero-
OCS.pero (sb.)‘foot’(CHLu.10.14.9,(“PES”)pa+ra/i-za)
(vb.)‘treiben,jagen’(DLL.77,pa-ra-ad-du[3sg])
(a.)‘nachfolgend’(WbRV.846-7)
(a.)‘eilig’(WH2:372-3,properus[sgN])
(n.)‘Feder,Schwinge’(Sadnik639)
(d)Therootmeaning‘essen,fressen’iswidelyattestedinAnatolian:
i.ed-
i.ad-
Pal.ad-
HLu.ARHAada-
(vb.)‘essen’(HEG1:117-119,e-te-ir[3pl])
(vb.)‘essen,fressen’(HEG1:91,a-da-an-zi[3pl])
(vb.)‘essen’(DPal.52,a-ta-a-an-ti[3pl])
(vb.)‘eatup’(CHLu.10.14.33ARHAá-tà-tu-u)
Inaddition,astemwithallegedrhotacismappearsin
HLu.aru-
(vb.)‘toeat’(10.11.16,(‘EDERE’)á-ru-na).
However,intermsofthelatter,onemustobservetheisogloss:
PIE*su·er-*su·or-*su·r-‘sweet’
TochA.sw
r TochB.sw
re TochB.sware-
LAv.ÔarTzi#ta-
TochA.sw
rsa-
TochB.swarauññe
(a.)‘dulcis’(Poucha389,sw
r[m.sgN])
(a.)‘sweet’(DTochB.725-6,sw
re)
(a.)‘sweet’(DTochB.726,sware)
(sup.)‘dersüsseste,schmackhafteste’(AIWb.1874)
(M.)‘seplaireà,jouir’(LeTokh.447,sw
rsanträ[3pl])
(sb.)‘sweetness’(DTochB.726,swarauññe)
250
This root can be analyzed as *su·or- (see the parallel PIE *su·ad-‘sweet =
*well+eat’, P. 1039-40, *sÒ
d-) and directly compared to HLu. aru- (cf. especially
TochB.sw·arau·ññe),originallywithPIE*r.
(e)Ingeneral,anoriginalPIE*risamoreeconomicalsolutionintermsofpostulated
sound laws. It implies twice the number of correspondences (i.e. both those with
dental and trill) and it does not violate the principle of regularity of sound change
with double outcomes (HLu. lada- : HLu. lara-). Simultaneously, parallels can be
providedfortheallegedexamplesofrhotacisminHieroglyphicLuwian.535Allthese
being the case, I recommend refraining from further use of the sound law until a
comprehensivecheckhasbeenaccomplished.
§4.Hübschmann(ArmGr.420)mentionsaquestionablesoundlaw PIE*sr-OArm.
, which was accepted, however, by Brugmann (Grundr2 1:432) and others later on.
Though the sound change PIE *rs O Arm. is certain, there are clear
counterexamplesoftheallegeddevelopment*sr-OArm.(Hübschmann,ArmGr.
409),including:
PIE*hasr-‘Blut,Saft’(P.343)
OLat.aser
Arm.arean-
Arm.ariun
Latv.asin-
(n.)‘Blut’(WH1:72) (sb.obl.)‘Blut’(ArmGr.1:424)
(sb.)‘Blut’(ArmGr.1:424)
(.)‘Blut’(WH1:72,Latv.asins[sgN],asinis[plN])
Since the assumption PIE *sr- O Arm. is not consistent with the material, it is
recommendedtoreplaceitwiththesecurerule PIE*srOArm.r,whichisbackedup
bymeansofcomparison.
3 .3.5 Neogr.*Î(anteconsonantalsyllabictrill)
§0.PIE*Î,thevocalicallophoneofPIE*rinanteconsonantalposition,waspostulated
for the Proto-Indo-European by Osthoff (= Neogr. *Î). Osthoff’s part is correctly
recognizedbySzemerényi(1996:46):
“Osthoffwasthefirst,in1876,toputforwardtheideathat,astherelationshipoftheSkt.
dat.s.pitre‘tothefather’totheloc.pl.pitÎusuggested,thesamer-soundcouldfunctionat
one time as a consonant, at another (between consonants) as a vowel; further, that this
syllabic or sonant Î was retained only in Aryan and that there was an obvious
correspondencebetweenitandthesequenceC4inGr.4FC|E<.”536
§1. Brugmann (Grundr2 1:452) developed Osthoff’s initiative into a full theory
summarizingthe“RegelmässigeVertretungdesuridg.Î”asfollows:
535
Thus, for instance, the endings HLu. ·ra [3sg], ·ri [3sg] do not necessarily reflect i. ·ta [3sg], ·zi
[3sg]asmuchasthemediumPIE*Qro*Qriandsoforth.
536
Osthoff(1876:52)writes:“Dasgriech.C4in4FC|-E<[...]stelleichunmitttelbardemsanskr.Îvon
pit-ugleich.”
251
Uridg. Ai.
Î+C Î
Av.
Tr
Arm. Gr. Alb.
arra 4CC4 ri
Ital.
or
Kelt. Germ. Balt. Abulg.
ri
urru iÌ
r,r&
§2.AsthegeneralproblemsoftheNeogrammarianreconstructionhavealreadybeen
discussed,asurveyofthemostcriticalpointswillsufficehere:
(a) Fortunatov’s Law II and Sievers-Edgerton’s Law for liquids contain provable
counterexamples of syllabic *Î in PIE *ÎC *(C)ÎC *(C)ÎV not producing
svarabhaktivowels(e.g.Gr.4C,OInd.ur,Li.ir,Lat.or,OIr.ri,etc.).Instead, PIE *Î
turnsintosimplePIE*rafterthelossofPIE*.
(b)ThatNeogr.*Î(= PIE *Î)doesnotproducethesvarabhaktivowelsIEaeiouis
notamajorproblembecausetheitemscanbecomparativelyverifiedbyatleasttwo
witnesses(Fick’sRule).
ThetruthofthesepointscanbeseenfromthecomparativetreatmentofBrugmann’s
examples.
§3.Brugmann(Grundr21:455)reconstructed*mÎ-‘sterben’for“ai.mÎtá-‘gestorben’
mÎti-‘Tod’,Arm.mard‘Mensch’,lat.mortuo-smors,ahd.mord‘Mord’,lit.mirti-s
aksl.s&-mrt‘Tod’lit.miÌti‘sterben’;av.miryeite‘erstirbt’fürmTiryeite,lat.morior
(vgl. § 514), lit. musió-miris mùs-miris, Gen. mirio, ‘Fliegenpilz’ (‘Fliegentöter’).”
Thismaterialcontainsseveralderivationalvariants,eachconfirmedbytwobranches:
(a) PIE*mÎto-‘gestorben’.Anoriginalsyllabic PIE*Îisconfirmedbytheabsenceof
Av.Ï(theconverseofFortunatov’sLawII)in:
RV.mÎtá- LAv.mTrTta- gAv.a·mTrTta·t
t-
(pt.)‘derTodte’(WbRV.1054)
(pt.)‘gestorben’(AIWb.1142,mTrTt[sgN])
(f.)‘Unsterblichkeit,Ewigkeit’(AIWb.143)
(b) Arm. mard- (sb.) ‘Mensch’ (EDArm. 452-3). Here the PCelt. *a = Arm. a and
Indo-IranianÏ/ confirmPIE*mearto-(Fortunatov’sLawII):
OIr.mart-
gAv.maÏa- gAv.a·mTÏa- AV.ma a·ma á-
OInd.ma a·ka-
(m.)‘tuerie,massacre,victime’(LEIAM-21)
(a.)‘unsterblich’(AIWb.145-6)
(m.)‘einbestimmterDämon’(KEWA2:554)
(m.)‘Leichnam’(KEWA2:553)
(c)PIE*mort-withanoriginalPIE*oisconfirmedbynumerousparallels:
Lat.mort-
Gr.?BCF-
RV.márta-
gAv.marTta-
Lat.mort
li-
(f.)‘Tod,Erlöschen’(WH2:112).
(a.)‘^@;CKBD,;:@FD,Hes.’(LSJ.1147)
(a.)‘sterblich’(c.)‘Sterblicher’(WH2:112)
The absence of Av. †Ï and RV. † implies a formation without a laryngeal (the
converseofFortunatov’sLawII).
(d) PIE*murto-withanoriginal PIE*u(cf.OHG.mord)isconfirmedbyGermanic
andIranian,whichpreservetherootinPIE*u:
252
OEng.mor- OIcl.mor- Pahl.murtak-
(m.)‘death,destruction,murder’(ASaxD.698)
(n.)‘Tot,Mord’(ANEtWb.392)
(a.)‘dead’(sb.pl.)‘thedead’(MPahl.2:134)
PIE*mur-‘sterben’,theunextendedroot,ispreservedinIndo-Iranian:
RV.mur-
RV.múr-
Pahl.mur-
(ao.)‘sterben’ (WbRV.1054,murya[opt1sg])
(m.)‘Verderber,Feind’(WbRV.1051,múras)
(vb.)‘todie’(MPahl.2:134,murtan[inf.])
(e) Li. mirtì-s (OCS. s&mrt ‘Tod’). Within this group, two root variants can be
reconstructed,bothofwhichareparalleledbyIranian.537First,therootPIE*mir-with
ashortvowelisconfirmedbytwobranchesin:
Li.miÌ-
OCS.mro- LAv.ava.mirya-
LAv.fra·mirya-
Latv.mirinâ- (vb.)‘sterben’(LiEtWb.457-9,miÌti[inf.])
(pr.)‘sterben,erschöpftsein’(Sadnik500,mrV[1sg])
(pr.)‘sterben,umkommen’(AIWb.1142,avamiryete)
(pr.)‘sterben,umkommen’(AIWB.1142)538
(vb.)‘sterbenlassen’(LiEtWb.458,mirinât)
Inaddition,theroot PIE*máir-(withPIIr.*,PBSl.*= PIE*ái)isconfirmedby
twobranchesin:
ModPers.mra-
OCS.u·mira- Li.m£ri-
LAv.ava.mrya-
(vb.)‘sterben’ (Güntert1916:95,mrad[3sg])
(vb.)‘sterben,imSterbenliegen’(Sadnik500,umirati)
(2)‘Sterben,Tod,Beerdigung’(LiEtWb.457)
(pr.)‘sterben,umkommen’(AIWb.1142,ava.mry
ite)
(f)OLat.mor-‘sterben’(WH2:112,OLat.morr[inf.])isparalleledin
PIE*mori·(.)-:
i.mari-
Gr.?C<B- OCS.iz·mor-
Pal.mari#- (vb1.)‘zerstückeln,-kleinern’(HEG2:129,mar-ri-it-ta)
(a.)‘ofburial’(LSJ.1146)
(vb.)‘töten’(Sadnik500,izmorti[inf.])
(vb2.)‘zerstückeln’(?)(Carrub.64,ma-ri-i#-#i[3sg])
§4.Brugmann(Grundr21:455)reconstructedNeogr.*bhÎti-for“ai.bhÎtí-‘Tragen,
Pflege, Unterhalt’, lat. fors, forte, air. brith ‘Tragen’, got. ga-baurs ahd. gi-burt
‘Geburt’.”Herethefollowingcorrespondencesaresecuredbycomparison:
(a)Neogr.*bhÎti-,thezero-graderoot,isonlypreservedinIndo-Iranian:
RV.bhÎtí-
LAv.a#.bTrTti-
(f.)‘Pflege,Unterhalt,usw.’(WbRV.964)
(a.)‘reichlicheDarbietung’(AIWb.264)
537
An*e/o-graderoothaspossiblybeenpreservedinLAv.mir·s-(AIWb.1176),iftheformbelongs
here.ThusBartholomae’ssuggestion(“Vermutlichausmahrk%#-verderbt”)isnotnecessary.
538
Brugmann(Grundr21:835)backsupBartholomae’sreconstructionbywriting“Tirywurdeiry,z.B.
miryeite, s. § 504,3”. However, this would be the only example of such a change and ultimately
unnecessaryowingtothedirectparallelismof‘i-vocalisms’(Fick’sRule).
253
Despitethelackofdirectparallels,anoriginalsyllabicresonantPIE*Îiscertaininthe
absenceofAv.Ï(theconverseofFortunatov’sLawII).
(b)PIE*bhort-,an*o-grade,isconfirmedbytheidentityofvocalismsin:
Lat.fort-
Gr.HCFB-
Gr.HBCF-
Lat.fort%n
-
(f.)‘blinderZufall,Ungefähr’(WH1:534,forsferet)
(m.)‘Last,Ladung’(GEW2:1004,HCFBD[sgN])
(f.)‘Lastschiff’(GEW2:1004,HBCFD[sgN])
(f.)‘Zufall,Geschick,(Un)Glück’(WH1:534)
Owingtothecommon PIE*o,asyllabicresonantNeogr.*ÎisunnecessaryforLatin
(Occam’srazor).
(c)Neogr.*bhri-,the*·i-extensionofthezero-graderoot PIE*bhr-,isconfirmedby
twowitnesses:
RV.babhrí- (a.)‘tragend’(WbRV.899)
RV.ní(...)bhri·ya- (pr.P.)‘herabkommenvon[Abl.]’(WbRV.960)
OIr.brith-
(vn.f.)‘faitdeporter’(LEIAB-86-87,brith)
An original PIE *i is required by both Celtic and Sanskrit, and Neogr. *Î is not
necessaryforCeltic.
(d)OHG.gi·burt(f.)‘birth’hasanoriginalPIE*uimpliedbythreesubgroups:
LAv.fra·bavar-
Pahl.bur-
Lat.f%r-
Go.ga·baur-
Lat.f%rti-
(pf.)‘zu-,übertragen,bringen’(AIWb.490,frabavara)
(vb.)‘carry,bring,bear,procure,remove’(MPahl.2:50)
(m.)‘Dieb’(WH1:569)
(f.)‘birth,descent,race’(GoEtD.134)
(adv.)‘diebischerweise,heimlich’(WH1:569,f%rtim)
Neogr.*ÎisunmotivatedintheexplanationofGermanicvocalism,becausetwoother
subgroupsrequireagenuinePIE*uaswell.
§5.Brugmann(Grundr21:462,464)reconstructedNeogr.*ÎÀo-for“Arm.arW‘Bär’:
ai. Ëka-s, gr. ^C=FB-D.” This example is of particular interest because the Old
Anatolian laryngeal has resulted in an upgrade of the reconstruction traditionally
basedonsyllabicsonants:
art·.-‘Bär;‘verletzend’(HEG1:188-9)
i.artaga-
RV.Ëka-
LAv.ar#a-
Gr.^C=FB-
(c.)‘einRaubtier’(HHand.44,ar-tág-ga-a#[sgN])
(m.)‘derBär’(a.)‘verletzend’(WbRV.277)
(m.)‘Bär’(AIWb.203,ar#[sgN])
(m.)‘Bär’(f.)‘Bärin’(GEW1:141-2,^C=FBD[sgN])
Forthiscorrespondenceset,*h2(= PIE*ae)isnowreconstructedinthelaryngeal
theory instead of the elimination of Indo-European /a/ by a secondary svarabhakti
vowel emerging from Neogr. *Î. By way of generalization, PIE * can also be
reconstructedfortheisoglosseswithoutadirectOldAnatolianparallel.
254
§6.Brugmann(Grundr21:462)reconstructedNeogr.*Îto-for“Arm.ardar‘gerecht’:
ai.Îtá-s‘passend,recht’.”OwingtoArm.a=Gr.4andAv.Ï(Fortunatov’sLawII),
PIE*(i.e.alaryngealroot)ispostulated:
PIE*art-‘wahr,recht,usw.’
gAv.aÏa-
Gr.^CF<B-
Gr.^CE<B-
(n.)‘Wahrheit’(AIWb.229-238)
(a.)‘angemessen,richtig,bereit’(GEW2:155)
(a.)‘just,fair’(IE&IE710,es.^CE<B@:7=4<B@)
§7. Brugmann (Grundr2 1:462) reconstructed Neogr. *Îºi·p¾o- ‘Adler’ for “Arm.
arciv,arcui‘Adler’:ai.Îjipyá-‘sichstreckend,imFlugausgreifend’.”Theunextended
rootisnowattestedinOldAnatolian,confirmingthelaryngealininitialposition:
PIE*aor-‘Adler’(P.325-6)
i.ara-
Pal.ara-
(c.)‘Adler’(HEG1:170f.,a-a-ra-a#[sgN])
(c.)‘Adler’(?)(DPal.54,a-ra-a-a#[sgN])
Thenasalextensionhasbeenbuiltonthis,asindicatedin:
PIE*aron,*arn-‘Adler,Aar,Vogel’
i.aran-
Go.aran-
CLu.arani-
i.arani-
Gr.rC@8B-
(c.obl.)‘Adler’(HEG1:170f.,a-a-ra-na-an[sgA])
(m.)‘Aar,Adler’(GoEtD.40,arans[plN])
(c.)abird’(HEG1:170f.,ar-ra-ni-en-za)
(c.)‘einOrakelvogel’(EHS222,ar-ra-ni-i#[sgN])
(n.)‘Vogel’(GEW2:421-2,rC@8B@)
PIE*arºi-‘Adler’(P.854-5),analternativeextension,appearsin:
Maced.\C6<·BG7-
OInd.Îji·pya- LAv.TrTzi·fya-
Arm.arciv- Arm.arcui- (m.)=‘Gr.\8FD’(LSJ235,\C6<BGD[sgN])
(a.)‘BWvon!yená-Adler,Falke.’(Beitr.2:827)
(m.)‘Adler’(AIWb.354)
(sb.)‘Adler:eagle’(EtDiArm.139)
(sb.)‘Adler:eagle’(EtDiArm.139)
Maced. \ = Arm. a reflects PIE *a attached to PIE *, not a svarabhakti vowel
emergingfromNeogr.*Î.
§8. Brugmann (Grundr2 1:465) reconstructed “Alb. krimp (krimb-i) ‘Wurm’ : ai.
kËmi-air.cruimnkymr.pryf‘Wurm’(urkelt.kÒrimi-s)lit.kirml¸‘Wurm’.”(P.649)
(a)NoevidenceforthedevelopmentNeogr.*ÎOIr.ri,Alb.riisavailablebecause
Neogr.*kÒrim-‘Wurm’appearsinseveralbranches,includingIndo-Iranian:
OInd.krími- ModCymr.pryf-
Alb.krimb- (m.)‘Wurm,Made’(EWA1:394)
(.)‘ver:Wurm’(LEIAC-252,OIr.cruim)
(m.)‘worm’(AlbEtD.197,krimb[sg],krimba[pl])
(b)ThedevelopmentNeogr.*ÎBSl.irdidnotoccureither,sincetheBalto-Slavic
/i/isalsoattestedinIndo-Iranian(Fick’sRule):
ModPers.kirm-
(sb.)‘Wurm’(Güntert1916:95,REW3:318)
255
Li.kirmì-
Latv.cirmi-
ORus.rv-
Rus.erv’-
OCS.rv-
(m.f.)‘Wurm,Schlange’(LiEtWb.257,kirmìs[sgN])
(m.)‘Wurm,Schlange’(LiEtWb.257,cirmis[sgN])
(m.)‘Wurm’(REW2:318) (m.)‘Wurm’(REW3:318)
(m.)‘Wurm’(Sadnik128)
§9. Brugmann (Grundr2 1:470) reconstructed Neogr. *tÎn- for “Go. aurnu-s, ahd.
dornas.thorn,ags.orn,aisl.orn‘Dorn’:ai.tËa-m‘Grashalm’,aksl.trn&‘Dorn’.”
Despitethis,thereareseveralcomparativelyattestedrootsinthedata:
(a)TheGermanicformsbelongtoroot PIEturwithacommonIndo-European*u
confirmedbytwowitnesses:
RV.túr-
OIcl.ura-
RV.turaya-
Go.aurnu-
(a.)‘(durch)vordringend’(WbRV.541,túram[sgA])
(f.)‘Pfeil’(Beitr.2:479,956)
(cs.)‘kräftigvordringen’(WbRV.541,turayante[3pl])
(m.)‘thorn(plant)’(GoEtD.357)
(b)OCS.trn&-(m.)‘Dorn’(Sadnik998)isderivedfromanunextendedroot
PIEtir-‘reiben,usw.’,whichisalsosupportedbytwowitnesses:
OCS.tro-
AV.tilá-
OCS.pr·tira-
AV.tiryà-
AV.tailá-
(vb.)‘reiben’(Sadnik992,trV[1sg])
(m.)‘Sesamumindicum’(KEWA1:504,tilá[sgN])
(vb.)‘(zer)sägen’(Sadnik992,prtirati[inf.])
(a.)‘ausSesamkörnerbereitet’(KEWA1:504)
(n.)‘Sesamöl,Öl’(KEWA1:526,tailám[sgNA])
PIE *i (OCS. tr-, AV. til-) has ablaut variants OCS. tir- and AV. tail-, which
confirmtheglidebeyonddoubt.
(c)Thethirdrootvariant PIEtern-(ablaut PIE*trn-*tern-*torn-*trn-*trn-)is
alsoexternallyconfirmedbytwowitnesses:
RV.tËa-
Khot.tarra-
OInd.t
ra
Gr.F}C@4=-
(n.)‘grass’(MonWil.453)
(sb.)‘Gras’(KEWA1:522)
(a.)‘madeofgrass’(MonWil.444)
(c.)‘FD=|=FBGFBHGFB=4G>@’(GEW2:881)
§10. Brugmann (Grundr2 1:470) posited Neogr. *ÀÎn- for “Got. haurn ahd. horn
‘Horn’ : ai. !Îga-m ‘Horn’ [...] gr. =|C@B-D ‘Hornvieh’.” Instead of a uniformroot
withNeogr.*Î,twoindependentrootsareconfirmed:
(a)OHG.horn PIE*u(notfromNeogr.*Î)isprovenbyarootwithderivatesin
fourbranches:
Gr.=CK
Lat.curi-
Gr.=GC9K
Gr.=C@4-
Go.haurn-
HLu.surni-
(pr.)‘stoßen,erreichen,treffen,eintreffen’(GEW2:56)
(f.)‘Lanze’(WH1:315)
(pr.)‘mitdenHörnerstoßen’(GEW2:54)
(n.pl.)‘cornusmas’(Hes.=C@4)=C4@4,LSJ.1014)
(n.)‘=}C4D=Horn’(GoEtD.180)
(n.)‘horn’(CHLu.11.1.f36,(“CORNU”)sù+ra/i-ni)
256
(b)Brugmann’scomparisonoftheitems(cf.P.574-7)
RV.!Ëga-
Gr.=|C@B-
(n.)‘Horn’(WbRV.1412)
(m.)‘5E=:?4,C54FB@’(GEW1:790)
remains possible since it is possible to reconstruct RV. ! = Neogr. ÀhËn- N PIE
*Àarn-wherePIE*aisconfirmedbyacommonIndo-European/a/inPIE*Àear-:
Hom.=|C- LAv.urv·sara-
(n.)‘Kopf’(LSJ.877,GEW1:784,=|C=4CD)
(a.)‘mitspitzzulaudendemKopf’(AIWb.1546)
NoexampleofNeogr.*ÎGr.4Cisavailable,however.
§11. Brugmann (Grundr2 1:470) compared “Go. fruma ‘der Erste’ : gr. C|?B-D
‘Forderster,Führer’,zugr.C?B-D,umbr.promom.”,allegedlyfromNeogr.*pÎmo-.
Basedontheextendeddata,thecomparativemethodimpliesdistinctisoglosses:
(a)PIE*pru-‘über–hinaus,durch–hin’(P.810f.)
Gr.C·F4@<-
OEng.frum- Go.fruma- Gr.CG?@- Gr.7<4·CE<B@
TochA.pruccamo-
(m.)‘Obmann,Prytan’(GEW2:606)
(a.)‘original,first,primitive’(ASaxD.341)
(sup.a.)‘derErste’(GoEtD.129)
(a.)‘äusserst,hinterst,letzt’(GEW2:606)
(adv.)‘weithindringend,durchdringend’(GEW1:386)
(a.)‘primus,optimus’(Poucha261)
(b)PIE*preamo-*proamo-‘Vorkämpfer,Führer’
Hom.C?B- Umbr.promo-
Gr.C|?B- OEng.fram- Go.fram-
(m.)‘Vorkämpfer’(GEW2:600)
(adv.)‘primum’(GEW1:588)
(m.)‘Vorkämpfer,Führer’(GEW1:588)
(a.)‘valiant,stout:strenuus’(ASaxD.330)
(prepD.)‘\4C|ub’(GoEtD.124)
TheablautGr.4:BrepresentsPIE*e/oa,notNeogr.*Î.
§12.Brugmann(Grundr21:455)reconstructedNeogr.*dÎÀ-‘sehen’(P.276)for“ai.
dË!-F.‘Anblick’dÎ á-s‘gesehen’,gr.7C4=8@‘sehen’,alb.dritëF.‘Licht’,air.drech
F. ‘Gesicht’, ahd. zoraht as. torht ‘hell, klar’.” The comparative method implies the
followingbasesasattested:
(a)Gr.4isparalleledbyCelticain:
PIE*draÀ-*dreaÀ-‘ansehen,blicken,usw.’
Gr.u·7C4(=)-
RV.upa·dË!- Gr.7C4=- MidIr.air·drach
Gr.u·7C4A MidIr.ar·dracht-
OIr.an·dracht-
RV.ví!va·dÎ a-
(adv.)‘vonuntenherblickend’(GEW2:972,u7C4)
(f.)‘Anblick,Aussehen’(WbRV.255)
(ao.)‘ansehen,blicken’(GEW1:368,7C4=8@)
(sb.)‘spirit,phantom’(DIL.24)
(adv.)‘vonuntenherblickend’(GEW2:972,u7C4A)
(a.)‘solus:clair’(LEIAA-76)
(a.)‘obscur,somber,laid’(LEIAA-76)
(pr.)‘vonallengesehen’(WbRV.1301)
257
In other words, the loss of unaccented PIE *a resulted in the emergence of a
secondarysyllabicliquidinRV.dÎ!-.
(b)PIE*adu-‘glänzen;sehen’,arootbeginningwithalaryngeal,isattestedin
adu-
AV.pr
du-
adur-
RV.
duri- OEng.torht- OSax.torht OHG.zoraht-
(adv.)‘insight,forth’(KEWA2:377,pr
du[adv.])
(a.)‘achtsam’(WbRV.177,
dure[sgV])
(a.)‘bright,splendid,bright,glorious’(ASaxD.1003)
(a.)‘hell,klar’(ASaxD.1003)
(a.)‘clear,evident’(ASaxD.1003)
aduti-
K
h.up
dútya-
(a.)‘anzuzünden’(EWA1:707)539
(c) PIE*adr-‘light’,alsofromtheroot PIEad-(cf.ad·u-above),isimpliedfor
theforms
Umbr.adro- Maced.\7C44-
Alb.dritë
(a.)‘schwarz,dunkel,finster,unheilvoll’(WH1:75)
(f.)‘4k;C4,Hes.’(LSJ.24)540
(f.)‘light,luster,pupil(ofaneye)’(AlbEtD.75)
§13.Brugmann(Grundr21:455)reconstructedNeogr.*Îfortheitems“Ai.pÎcchá-ti
av. pTrTsaiti ‘er fragt’ apers. Conj. p(a)rs
tiy ‘er soll fragen’ : arm. harµanem ‘ich
frage’, lat. posc aus por[c]sc, ahd. forsca ‘Forschung, Frage’, lit. piÌ#ti ‘für Jem.
freien’,vonW.preÀ-.”Brugmann(Grundr21:461)alsoadds“npers.pursad‘erfragt’
[...]”.Asfortheformation,notethat:
1. Already Wood (1912: 316f.) had suggested that that the root *perÀ- ‘fragen’
(P.821)isacompoundofprefixesbelongingtotheitemsLat.per,pr,etc.541Wood
didnotprovehissegmentation,andhisproposalwasconsequentlyrejectedbyWalde
andHoffmann(seeWH2:347).Today,however,Walde’sviewshavebeenshownto
beerroneousbyaparallelformationprovingWood’ssegmentation:542
OHG.fors·c-
OHG.fors·p-
(pr.)‘forschen’(Grundr21:470,forscn[inf.])
(pr.)‘sichfragen,Überlegungenanstellen’(Beitr.317)
Atthesametime,therootmorphemePIE*À-appearsbothfreeandprefixedin:
539
NoteBrugmann’sLawIIin*pro·adus-(AV.pr
du)and*upo·adutio-(K
h.up
dútya-)asthe
prefix*upo·doesnothavealongvariant†up/up.
540
For Gr. 4k;C4, of unknown meaning, compare Gr. CB8A4<;C<|9K ‘first expose to the air’(LSJ.
1473).
541
Wood(1912)writes:“42.Posco,prex,precor,procus,etc.arereferredtoaroot*pereÀ-‘ask,beg’,
on which see Walde2 s.v. posco. I see no reason why *pereÀ- may not be an outgrowth of the root
*pere-‘pressforward,goforward’inLat.per,pro,portus,etc.”
542
InthisconnectionIalsocreditLehmann(GoEtD.123)forhisrecognitionthattherootis“possibly
anextensionofPIE[*]per-takeacross”.
258
RV.!- Lat.pre·c- Lat.pro·c- Go.fra·h-
TochB.pre·k-
(ao.)‘gern,mitliebebetreiben’(WbRV.1227,!masi)543
(f.)‘Gebet,Bitte’(WH2:346,Beitr.560,prex[sgN])
(f.)‘bonavox’(WH2:346)
(pret.)‘question’(GoEtD.122,frah[3sg])
(prA.)‘ask,question’(DTochB.372,preku[1sg])
IdenticalprefixlessandprefixedformationsreappearinextensionPIE*·s-:
TochA.käs- TochA.pra·käs-
gAv.fTra·s
h-
(vb.)‘interrogare’(Poucha172,käsm
rä[1sg])
(prM.)‘interrogare’(Poucha172,prakäsm
r[1sg])
(f.)‘Bitte,Wunsch,Hoffnung’(AIWb.1002)
2. The prefixes of the root PIE *À-, which appear mostly in the short and
extendedforms(adding*·s),areconfirmedbytwowitnesses,asindicatedbelow:
(a1)PIE*pe/or·À(fortheprefix,cf.Lat.per·,por·)
TochB.par·k-
TochA.pär·k-
Li.per·#a-
(vb.)‘ask,question’(DTochB.372,parktsi[inf.])
(M.)‘interrogare’(Poucha172,pärkm
r[1sg])
(pr.)‘jmd.einMädchenzufreien’(LiEtWb.598,per#ù)
(a2)PIE*pe/ors·À-(fortheprefix,cf.Arm.hei-(a.)‘entfernt,fern’,ArmGr.1:466)
RV.pÎch-
Umbr.pers·clu-
(inf.bs.)‘fragen’(WbRV.853,pÎché[inf.])
(sb.)‘supplic
tione’(WH2:346)
(b1)PIE*pre/o·À(fortheprefix,cf.Gr.C·,Lat.pre·)
Lat.pre·c-
Lat.pro·c-
Go.fra·h-
(f.)‘Gebet,Bitte’(WH2:346,Beitr.560,prex[sgN])
(f.)‘bonavox’(WH2:346,prox[N],procis,[G])
(pret.)‘question’(GoEtD.122,frah[3sg])
(b2)PIE*pre/os·À(fortheprefix,cf.Gr.CE·,C}E·)
YV.paprách- (pf.)‘fragen,begehren,bitten’(EWA2:183,papracha)
(c1)PIE*pear·À-(fortheprefix,cf.Gr.|C·)
OIr.imm·chom·arc-
Cymr.archa- Arm.harsn- Arm.harsin- Osc.com·parakini-
(vb.)‘fragen’(LEIAA-86,immchomairc[3sg])
(pr.)‘bitten’(VGK1:44,archam[1sg])
(sb.obl.)‘Braut’(ArmGr.464,harsn[sgN])
(sb.obl.)‘Braut’(ArmGr.464,harsin[sgG])
(sb.)‘consili’(WH2:347,comparakineís[plN])
(c2)PIE*pears·À-(fortheprefix,cf.Gr.|CBD)
Arm.harµ- (ao.)‘fragen’(ArmGr.464,eharµ[3sg])
Arm.harµ- (sb.)‘Frage,Untersuchung’(ArmGr.464,harµi[G])
Osc.com·paras·c·us- (2fut.)‘cnsultare’(WH2:347,comparascuster[3sg])
(d1/2)PIE*pir·À-(orPIE*pirs·À-(?);fortheprefix,cf.OPr.pirschau‘vor’)
543
ForRV.!masi[1pl,RV.2.31.31],seealsoBurrow(1979:5).
259
Li.piÌ#-
Li.pir#l£-
Latv.pirsli-
(pr.)‘jmd.einMädchenzufreien’(LiEtWb.598,piÌ#ti)
(f.)‘Heiratsvermittler,Freiwerber’(LiEtWb.599)
(f.)‘Freiwerber’(LiEtWb.599,pirslis[sgN])
(e1)PIE*pur·À-(fortheprefix,cf.Go.faur,RV.pur³,etc.)
Umbr.pepur·kus-
Pahl.pur·s- (fut.)‘poposcerint’(WbOU.530,pepurkurent[3pl])
(vb.)‘fragen’(MPahl.2:163,purstan[inf.])
(e2)PIE*purs·À-‘forschen’(fortheprefix,cf.OHG.fors·p-)
OHG.fors·c
-
OHG.fors·c-
(f.)‘Forschung,Frage’(WH2:346,forsca[sgN])
(pr.)‘forschen’(Grundr21:470,forscn[inf.])
§14.OnthepropertiesofPIE*ÎinSystemPIE,notethat:
(a) The syllabic trill PIE *Î is directly continued only in Indo-Iranian, confirming its
originalcharacterthroughtheimpossibilityofanyothervocalicelementinexamples
like RV. bhÎtí- : LAv. a#.bTrTti- or RV. mÎtá- : LAv. mTrTta- (the converse of
Fortunatov’s Law II). Owing to this, it is allowed to postulate PIE *Î for the protolanguagebasedontheprincipleoffamilyconsistency(seeTrask,DHCL120).
(b) The availability of PIE * for reconstruction reveals that the outcome of the
syllabictrillwasidenticalinalldialects:
PIE*Î O
RV.Î/r,Av.Tr/r,Lat.*Î(inLat.r),Li.*Î(inLi.r),etc.
PIE*Î(in PIE*Î*Î)didnotproducesvarabhaktivowels,withthephonemeinstead
turningintosimplePIE*rafterthelossofPIE*.
(c)Bysuccessiveapplicationsofthecomparativemethod,thesvarabhaktivowelscan
beparalleledintheIndo-Europeanbranchesandreconstructedregularlyonthebasis
oftwowitnesses(Fick’sRule).
3 .3.6 Neogr.*Î r (antevocalicsyllabictrill)
§0. Following the introduction of Neogr. *Î in anteconsonatal position, Osthoff
(1879a:421, 1879b:14-16) had to admit that the syllabic resonants occurred in
antevocalicpositionaswell.Forthese,Saussure(1879:257-9)introducedthenotation
*Îr. After initially being doubted by Brugmann, it was then accepted in his
Grundriss.544
§1.Brugmann(Grundr21:452)summarizedthe“RegelmässigeVertretungdesuridg.
Î”asfollows:
Uridg. Ai.
Av. Arm. Gr. Alb.
r
arra 4CC4 ir
Î +V ir,ur ar
Ital.
ar
544
ar
ur
ir
r
As Brugmann’s theory became more abstract, his and Osthoff’s paths separated, with the latter
turning back to genuine vowels. As an indication of this, Güntert (1916:vii) refers to Osthoff as the
fatherofthetheoryof‘nebentonigenTiefstufe’inLat.magnus(MUVI:209ff.).Forfurtherdetails,see
Güntert (1916:20): “Schon Osthoff MU. VI, 212 ff. behauptete, nach Liquiden und Nasalen sei der
reduzierteVokalvielmehr4gewesen[...].”SeealsoSturtevant(1943:293)andGüntert(1916:19[wL]).
260
Historically speaking, Neogr. *Îr was never a phoneme proper, since already
Brugmann (Grundr2 1:456) identified an environment schwa for the item (in Lat.
graui-,illustratedinthefollowingquote):
“HinterConsonantenentsprichtderWechselÎr:r,Äl:ldemvomi¾:¾,uÒ:Ò,Én:n,s.§282
S.264f.Z.B.ai.gurú-s.ai.gru-mu í-‘schwereHandvoll’,lat.graui-s(§193S.171).”
Structurally speaking, Neogr. *Îr(V) stood for the pre-proto-form Neogr. **ÎTV,
where *Îr assumedly arose according to the pattern of glides and schwa (compare
Neogr.*i+TVOIEi¾VandNeogr.*u+TOIEuÒV).InSaussure’snotation,Neogr.
*ÎrVwaswritten**ÎAV.ThelaryngealtheoryagreeswithBrugmannandOsthoffin
termsoftheoutcomesoftheruleNeogr.*ÎrVRLT*(C)ÎHV;therefore,itneedsno
separatediscussion.
§2.Thekeyproblemsoftherule*(C)Îr(V)canbesummarizedasfollows:
(a) Sievers-Edgerton’s Law for liquids contains examples of the actual behaviour of
thesequence PIE*(C)ÎVRNeogr.*ÎrVRLT*(C)ÎHV,which–againstcommon
consensus–donotproducesvarabhaktivowels(OInd.irur)inSanskrit.Instead PIE
*ÎturnsintosimplePIE*rafterthelossofPIE*:
PIIr.*índÎa-ORV.índÎ’a-
PIIr.*rudÎá-ORV.rudÎ’á-.
Thesituationisnotlimitedtothese,buttheyapplytothedataingeneral.Toquote
anotherpieceofdata,however,theextensionPIE*pra-in
RV.kÎti·pr³- (a.)‘dieVölkerdurchdringend’(WbRV.349)
(forthelaryngeal,cf.CLu.para-‘jagen’)hasaweakstem PIE*pra-(cf.i.par-
‘jagen’). Instead of the ghost form Neogr. †kÎ ipuras [sgG], the attested genitive is
RV. kÎ ipr·ás without the svarabhakti vowel /u/ (i.e. the sequence CÎV (= PIE
*CraV,*CÎaV)doesnotdevelopsvarabhaktivowels).
(b)Thesvarabhaktivowelsassumedtobecharacteristicofthenon-Aryangroupare
also externally paralleled and therefore genuine (Fick’s Rule), with the result that
Neogr.*Îrdidnotproduceepentheticvowelsinanygroup.Comparatively,thisdoes
not constitute a major problem, because the svarabhakti vowels are externally
paralleledandthereforederivablefromtheproto-language.
(c)AlreadySaussure(Mém.271)noticedthat*Îr,thezerogradeoftheantevocalic
syllabicliquids(a.k.a.‘laryngealbases’)CÎAVshouldgiveGr.C4CV.Thisisoftennot
the case, however (see Anttila 1969:5). Consequently, theories that include the rule
Neogr. *ÎrV R LT *ÎHV overgenerate unattested reconstructions while
simultaneouslyfailingtocovertheattestedforms.
§3.Brugmann(Grundr21:456)reconstructedNeogr.*»Îrú-s‘schwer’(= LT*»Îh2u,
cf. EWA 1:490-1) for “ai. gurú-, gr. 54C-D, got. kauru-s”. (See P. 476-477, *»er-.)
Insteadofauniformprototype,fourbasesareattested:
261
PIE*»ar-
:
PIE*»ár-
:
PIE*»ear- :
PIE*»oar- :
OInd.gru·mu í-,Lat.graui-s,Go.kauru-s545
RV.gurú-(a.)‘schwer’,AVP.gurv-(a.f.)‘id.’
Gr.54C-,LAv.gouru-‘schwer’(Grundr21:460)
Gr.5C:-‘toweight,depress’(Aiol.=C5C:F4<)
§4.Brugmann(Grundr21:460)reconstructedNeogr.*tÎrV-(=LT.*tÎh2V)for“Ai.
tirásAv.tarapers.tarah-‘durchhin,hinüber’,ai.tirá-titurá-ti‘erdringthindurch’,
Caus.ai.turáya-tiapers.ataray
mah:arm.tar‘fremdesLand’tara-‘trans’,aksl.trV
‘tero’.”Withinthisgroup,severalexternallyconfirmedrootsappear:
(a)PIE*til-‘über’(withacommonIndo-EuropeanPIE*i):
CLu.pua·til- Thrac.F<>8- RV.úd(...)tira-
RV.tirás
(n.)‘(le)passé:ver-gangen,früher’(DLL.83)
(ao.)‘aufheben,wegheben,entfernen’(WH2:688,F<>8)
masi)
(prep.)‘durch,darüber,hinweg,über’(WbRV.536)
(b)PIE*ter*tor*tr-(ablaut*e:o:Ø)in:
OPers.vi·taraya-
Go.airh
OEng.erh OHG.derh- (cs.)‘putacross’(OldP.186,viyatarayam[1sg])
(prep.)‘through’(GoEtD.354)
(prep.)‘through,during,bymeansof’(GoEtD.354)
(a.)‘pertusus:durchgebohrt’(GoEtWb.354)
(c) PIE *teahr- ‘cross, above’ with the voiceless laryngeal PIE *h (see Chapter 4) is
attestedin:
OIr.tar
LAv.tar
OPers.tarah (prepA.)‘über–hinaus:over’(LEIAT:25-6,GOI:531)
(prepA.)‘durch–hin,über–hin,hinaus’(AIWb.641)
(prepA.)‘through’(OldP.186,tara)
(d) PIE*deaYr-‘beyond,fern,fremd,ausser’isthevoicedvariantoftheaboveroot
withthevoicedlaryngealPIE*Y(seeChapter4)in:
OIr.dar
Arm.tar-
Arm.tara·kaµ-
Arm.tara·(am-
Arm.tara·gir (prep.)‘beyond’(GOI531)
(sb.)‘fremdesLand’(ArmGr.496)
(a.)‘vonfern’(ArmGr.496)
(adv.)‘ausserderZeit’(ArmGr.496)
(a.)‘ausgeschlossen’(ArmGr.496)
§5. Brugmann (Grundr2 1:462) reconstructed “Arm. sar, Gen. saroy, ‘Höhe, Gipfel,
Abhang’:ai.!íras-av.sarah-‘Haupt’,gr.=|C4@B-@‘Haupt’.”Twodistinctprototypes
areimpliedbythecomparativemethod:
(a) PIE*Àear-‘Höhe,Gipfel,Kopf’(P.574f.).AcommonIndo-European/a/= PIE
*eaisconfirmedbythreegroups:
Hom.=|C-
(n.)‘Kopf’(LSJ.877,GEW1:784,=|C=4CD)
545
Go.kauru-withoutaninitiallabiovelarprovesthattheinitialsyllablewasaccentedas/kúru-/,dueto
which the following unaccented PIE *a was lost. See Peeters (1974:32): “[P]IE. *gwÎ- is expected to
yield*qaur-,i.e.*qaurusinGothicandnot*kaurus.”
262
Arm.sar-
LAv.urv·sara-
LAv.sarah- Gr.=|C4h- Gr.=|C4@B- (sb.)‘Höhe,Gipfel,Abhang’(EtDiArm.570)
(a.)‘mitspitzzulaufendemKopf’(AIWb.1546)
(n.)‘Kopf’(AIWb.1565)
(n.)‘Kopf’(GEW1:784,inAtt.=|C4=Ion.=|C:)
(n.)‘Haupt’(Grundr21:462,=|C4@B@[sgNA])
(b) PIE*Àir-(or PIE*Àair-?)‘Höhe,Gipfel,Kopf,usw.’,arootwithanoriginal PIE
*i,isimpliedby:
RV.!íras-
TochB.!i!ri- Lyd.sirma- RV.!rá-
Latv.sirsi-
RV.!rán- Li.#ir#eñ-
RV.!rán·!ran
(n.)‘Haupt,Kopf’(WbRV.1395)
(sb.)‘acumen,cuspis’(DTochB.324,!i!ri[sgN])
(c.)‘Tempel’(LydWb.196,syrma![sgN],sirma>[DL])
(n.)‘Haupt,Kopf’(WbRV.1398,!ré[du])
(m.)‘grosseWespe’(LiEtWb.988,sirsis[sgN])
(n.)‘Haupt,Kopf’(WbRV.1398)
(.)‘Wespenart,Hornisse,vespa’(LiEtWb.988)
(adv.)‘jedesHaupt,jedesWesen’(WbRV.1398)
ThevowelRV.iRLi.iRLyd.i(N PIE*i)recursinTocharian(withpalatalization),
leaving no doubt of the etymological origin of the phoneme.546 Simultaneously the
preservationofRV.rNPIE*rsimpliesthatthisclusterwasnotprecededbyPIE*a
(theconverseofFortunatov’sLawII).
§6.Brugmann(Grundr21:467)reconstructedNeogr.*kÎr-for“Lat.car,umbr.karu
‘pars’kartu‘distribuito’auskaretd:gr.=4C@4<Aor.zu=8CK‘ichschere,schneide
ab’.”Thecomparativemethodimplies,however,twodistinctroots:
(a) PIE *kr- *ker- *kor- (Gr. =8CK) is widely attested in Indo-European, forming
variousalternativeextensions.Ofparticularinterestisthedentalonein:
PIE*kort-*krt-*kert-
i.karta-
RV.isu·kËt- RV.ví(...)cakárt-
(vb1.)‘abschneiden,beseitigen’(HEG1:523)
(a.)‘wieeinPfeilverwundent’(WbRV.227)
(pf.)‘zerspalten,-schneiden’(WbRV.346,cakart
)
Taken together, Old Anatolian and Indo-Iranian prove that this root had no
laryngeal;therefore,theparadigmaticrelationbetweenGr.=8CK(without PIE*a)
andGr.=4C@4<(withPIE*a)issuppletive.
(b) PIE*Àar-.TheItalo-Greek‘a-vocalism’(Neogr.*a
R PIE*ea*a)isproven
to contain a palatal (Neogr. *À) by the dental extension with palatovelar and a
laryngealbymeansofFortunatov’sLawIIin:
PIE*Àear-*Àar
Hes.=|C-
Gr.=}=4C-
(f.)‘Tod’(GEW–,Hes.=|C);|@4FBD,Alkm.=C<)
(pf.)‘abschneiden,abmähen,aufzehren’(GEW1:810)
546
TochB.!i!riNNeogr.*ÀiÀiri-(withalossofPIE*iinthemidmostsyllable)isrequiredtoexplain
thepalatalizationofTochB.!i(!)ri-.
263
PIE*Àearn-
Lat.car(n)- Umbr.karn- Gr.=|C@B- (f.)‘Fleisch’(WH1:170)
(f.)‘TeileinesOpfertieres’(WbOU.372-373,caru)
(m.)‘=H;8C’(GEW1:790)
PIE*Àearnd-
OInd.!aa- (prM.)‘tohurt’(MonWil.1048,!aate[3sg])
YV.!áa- (m.)‘NameeinesDämons’(EWA2:605)
OInd.!a
·márkau (m.du.)‘twodemons!.andm.’(MonWil.1048)
§7. Brugmann (Grundr2 1:467) reconstructed Neogr. *pÎr (R LT. *pÎh2V) for “Lat.
parns,zulit.periù‘ichbrüte’,vgl.pari§514,3.”Inordertoaccountforthedata,
thederivationrequirestwostartingpoints,namely:
(a)PIE*pear-‘gebären,usw.’isimpliedbythecommonIndo-European/a/in
Langob.fara- Lat.parent- Gr.4C·;}@B-
(sb.)‘Geschlecht’(WP2:7)
(m.)‘Vater’(f.)‘Mutter’(WH2:252f.)
(f.)‘Jungfrau,Mädchen,jungeFrau’(GEW2:474)
(b) PIE*paer-‘gebären,usw.’,theschwebeablautvariantofthepreviousexample,is
requiredbythesimultaneouslackof‘a-vocalism’inBalticandthetenuisaspiratain
Indo-Iranian547:
Li.p¢ra-
Li.peria-
RV.pra·pharv½-
(m.)‘Fruchtkeim,Keim’(pl.)‘Brut’(LiEtWb.573)
(vb.)‘brüten,aufdenEiernsitzen’(LiEtWb.573)
(f.)‘wollüstigesMädchen’(WbRV.876)
§8. Brugmann (Grundr2 1:465) compared “Alb. bir ‘Sohn’: Got. baur aisl. bur-r
‘Sohn’gotbauran-s‘geboren’[…]”and(Grundr21:471)“Got.bauran-sahd.gi-boran
aisl. borenn Part. zu got. bairan ‘tragen’ […]”. Several externally paralleled root
variantscanbeconfirmedforProto-Indo-European(Fick’srule):
(a)PIE*bhir-‘nehmen,tragen,bringen’(P.128)isconfirmedbytwobranches:
Alb.bir-
OCS.bra-
(m.)‘Sohn’(AlbEtD.26,WH2:504)
(vb.)‘sammeln,lesen,wählen,nehmen’(Sadnik33)
HencethecommonIndo-European/i/reflectsagenuinevowelPIE*i.
(b)Neogr.*bhur-containsagenuinePIE*uwithvaryingablautvowels*e/oin:
LAv.fra·bavar-
Pahl.bur-
Lat.f%r-
OIcl.bur-
Go.un·bauran-
Lat.f%rti-
(pf.)‘zu-,übertragen,bringen’(AIWb.490,frabavara)
(vb.)‘carry,bring,bear,procure,remove’(MPahl.2:50)
(m.)‘Dieb’(WH1:569)
(m.)‘Sohn’(ANEtWb.65,burr[sgN])
(pt.)‘notbearing’(GoEtDi.57)
(adv.)‘diebischerweise,heimlich’(WH1:569,f%rtim)
547
Note how examples of this type imply that ‘laryngeal bases’(LT *pÎh2V, etc.) are not the proper
strategytoexplainthesvarabhaktivowelsoftherootsyllable.
264
(c)PIE*bher-‘tragen,bären,usw.’
Gr.H}CK
Go.baira-
Arm.bere-
gAv.bara-
(pr.)‘(er-,weg)tragen,usw.’(GEW2:1003)
(vb.)‘carry,endure,givebirth’(GoEtD.57)
(pr.)‘bären,tragen’(ArmGr.429,berem[1sg])
(pr.)‘(insich)tragen,besitzen,enthalten’(AIWb.933)
§9. Brugmann postulated (Grundr2 1:471) Neogr. *pÎr- (LT *pÎh2V) for “ai. pur³
purásav.parapar‘vor’,gr.|CBD‘vorn,vorher’,got.faurfaura‘vor’.”Twodistinct
isoglossesare,however,impliedbythecomparativemethod:
(a)PIE*pur-‘vor,für,etc.’isconfirmedbymultiplebranchesagreeinginPIE*u:
Go.faur
RV.pur³
RV.purás Go.fauri- TochA.purccamo-
TochA.purcomo-
(adv.prep.)‘4C|CG}C:vor,für’(GoEtD.110)
(adv.)‘früher,vonAltersher,vonjeher’(WbRV.826)
(adv.)‘vor,vorne,andervorderenSeite’(WbRV.825)
(adv.)‘CFB@,CF8CB@’(GoEtD.112,fauris)
(b)PIE*pear-‘vor(her),usw.’isconfirmedbyseveralbranches:
Gr.|CBD LAv.par gAv.parÖ
OGaul.are·morica-
OIr.air
(adv.)‘vorher,früher,vorn(prepG)‘vor’(GEW2:476)
(adv.)‘ante,vorn,hervor,vor,vonSeiten’(AIWb.857)
(prep.)‘ausser,abgesehenvon[A]’(AIWb.857)
(GN.)‘in-front-of-sea-nymphs’(GoEtD.111)
(prep.)‘for,infrontof’(LEIAA:37-8)
Thustwoprototypes,PIE*pear-andPIE*pur-,areattestedinthedata.
§10.Brugmann(Grundr21:473)reconstructedNeogr.*stÎrV(=LT.stÎHV)for“aksl.
strV‘ichstrecke’:ai.Perf.tistiré‘eristhingestreutworden’.”
(a)PIE*stir-‘ausbreiten’isdirectlyconfirmedbySanskritandSlavonic:
RV.ti ir-
OCS.pro·stro-
RV.strá- (pf.)‘hinstreuen,ausbreiten’(WbRV.1588,ti iré)
(vb.)‘ausstrecken,-breiten,-dehnen’(Sadnik889)
(pret.pt.)‘gebreitet’(WbRV.1589)
Sincetheparticiplehasnocerebral(theconverseofFortunatov’sLawII),anoriginal
PIE*iwithoutlaryngealremainsthesolereconstructivepossibility.Inthisregard,it
shouldalsobenotedthatPIE*irecursinanalternativeextension:
(b)PIE*stil-‘ausbreiten,usw.’548
OCS.stla- OCS.po·stla-
OCS.po·stila-
(vb.)‘ausbreiten,unterbreiten’(Sadnik876,stlati)
(vb.)‘aufbreiten,ausbreiten’(Sadnik876,postlati)
(vb.)‘aus-,unterbreiten’(Sadnik876,postilati)549
548
Thealternationstil-:stir-isparalleledbyvariantsster-:stel-withsimilarmeaningpresentin
Slavonic(cf.Meillet-Vaillant19342:37).
549
Notetheoriginal*e-gradePIE*steil-inOCS.stil-.
265
Owingtothemixtureof PIE*l*rinSanskrit,itispossiblethatsomeSanskritforms
actuallyreflectthisroot.
§11.AsforNeogr.*Îr=(C)ÎHVinSystemPIE,notethefollowing:
(a)Afterthelossofthelaryngeal,theactualoutcomeofthesequencePIE*(C)ÎVis
(C)rV in the Indo-European languages. No svarabhakti vowels developed from the
syllabic sonants. Accordingly, the early rule Neogr. *(C)Îr = LT (C)ÎHV should be
replacedwiththecomparativeone.
(b) The resulting lacuna in the explanation of the svarabhakti vowels can be
compensated for by means of the comparative method, which finds parallels of the
vowelsinquestionandimpliestherespectivePIEprototypes.
3 .3.7 Neogr.*Í(anteconsonantallongsyllabictrill)
§0. Neogr. *Í, assumedly a long syllabic trill,was generalized into proto-language
basedonOInd.Íinordertoexplainthesvarabhaktivowelsdetailedbelow.
§1. According to Brugmann (Grundr2 1:473ff.), the developments of the Neogr. *Í
standasfollows:
Uridg. Ai.
Í+C ur
Av.
ir
Arm. Gr. Alb.
arra CC ar
Ital.
ar
ar
ur
ir,ur r
Neogr. *Í R (C)ÎTC, with its alternative before a vowel being Neogr. *Îr R (C)ÎTV,
wasstructurallydefinedbyBrugmann(Grundr21:473),writing“*stÍno-‘stratus’=ai.
strá-sstelltsichzuai.stari-tav
i,wieai.stÎta-szustár-tave”.Withablaut*e/o:Ø
andthealternationofextensionNeogr.·Ø-/*·T-,thisSanskrito-centricreconstruction
canbesummarizedwiththetable:
*e/o-grade:
Neogr.*ster(OInd.stártave)
Neogr.*ster+T(OInd.staritav
i)
Ø-grade:
Neogr.*stÎ-(OInd.stÎtá-)
Neogr.*str+T(OInd.strá-)550
The analysis of an underlying Neogr. *Í R **r+T was subsequently accepted by
Saussureandthelaryngealtheory,withLT*CÎHC-nowbeingwritten.
§2.ThemainreconstructiveproblemsofNeogr.*Íareasfollows:
(a)ForIndo-Iranian,thekeyproblemisthatthesvarabhaktivowelsassociatedwith
the Neogr. *Í did not emerge. This can be seen, for instance, from the examples of
SUBSET III *CraT- and *CraT- of Fortunatov’s Law II. Following the loss of *
there are no svarabhakti vowels, and Indo-Iranian has zero grade instead. The
situationisidenticalwiththenon-dentalextensions*CraC-and*CraC-,andasitis
550
Inthisregard,itisworthnotingthatBrugmann’sanalysis*sterT·C-:*strT·Cisstructural/internal,
andthereforeisnotnecessarilytrue.ThisiscausedbytheambiguityofOInd.staritu-(MonWil.1260)
withOInd.iRNeogr.*iorNeogr.*T,whichwasleftuntreatedbyBrugmann.Insuchcasesitisusually
possibletoconfirmPIE*i-insteadofNeogr.*T(e.g.Lat.storea-(f.)‘DeckeausStroh’(WH1:600)
andLAv.fra·stairya-(a.)‘zuspreiten’(AIWb.1002,barTsman)).
266
simultaneouslypossibletoconfirmthesvarabhaktivowelsbyexternalparallels(Fick’s
Rule)thetraditionalviewishardlydefendableinthepost-Anatolianworld.
(b) The assumed outcomes of Neogr. *Í in the non-Aryan group are ambiguous
(passim).ThesvarabhaktivowelslikethoseinGreek
Neogr.*Í(=Neogr.**rT=LT**Îh2)Do.C(Att.C:),etc.
canbeconfirmedbyexternalcomparisontoreflectoriginalquantities.
ThisbasicsituationcanbeseentoholdtrueinBrugmann’sexamples:
§3. Brugmann (Grundr2 1:474-475) reconstructed Neogr. *Ímo- for “ai. rmá-s av.
arTm ‘Arm’, arm. armukn ‘Ellenbogen, Bug’, lat. armu-s, got. arm-s ‘Arm’, preuss.
irmo ‘Arm’, aksl. ramo und ram ‘Schulter’ [...]”. Regarding Neogr. *Ímo-, two
distinctrootsareprovenbymeansofexternalcomparison:
(a) PIE*air-‘mouere’.Along//appearsintwosubgroups,regardlesswhetheritis
followedbyavowelorconsonant,withtheresultthatNeogr.*Íisnotfeasiblein:
RV.½r-
gAv.ra-
gAv.ra-
RV.rm³
OPr.irmo-
(prM.)‘inBewegungsetzen’(WbRV.234,½rate[3pl])
(pr.)‘hingelangenlassen,bringenüber’(AIWb.183)
(n.)‘Anlauf,Angriff,Energie,Tatkraft’(AIWb.372)
(adv.)‘bereit,zurHand’(WbRV.235)
(f.)‘Arm’(APrS.347+Osthoff’sLaw)
BasedonacommonIndo-European//, PIE*áir-istobereconstructedinsteadofa
longsyllabicsonant.
(b)PIE*aermo-‘Arm’(P.58).AcommonIndo-European/a/RPIE*aeappearsin:
Lat.armo- 'em.arma LAv.av.arma-
OCS.ramo- Arm.arm·ukn-
(m.)‘Schulterblatt,Vorderbug’(WH1:69,armus)
(m.pl.)‘VorderarmamWagen’(LiEtWb.16,arma)
(a.)‘einarmig’(AIWb.24)
(n.)‘Schulter’(Sadnik737)
(sb.)‘Ellenbogen:elbow’(EtDiArm.141)
§4. Brugmann (Grundr2 1:474) reconstructed Neogr. stÍ·n/t- for “Ai. strá-s
‘hingestreut’av.starTta-‘belegt,bedeckt’,gr.EFCKF-D‘stratus’EFC@G?<‘sterno’,lat.
str
tu-s, nkymr. sarn ‘stratum, pavimentum’, aksl. strana ‘Seite, Gegend’ [...]”. The
comparativemethodimpliesfourrootsconfirmedbyFick’sRule:
(a)PIE*stir-hasalreadybeenshowntocontainanoriginalPIE*iin:
OCS.pro·strV
RV.ti ir-
RV.sa·stír- RV.strá- (vb.)‘ausstrecken,-breiten,-dehnen’(Sadnik889)
(pf.)‘hinstreuen,ausbreiten’(WbRV.1588,ti iré)
(a.)‘zusammenstrebend’(WbRV.1439)
(pp.)‘gebreitet’(WbRV.1589)
(b)PIE*stear-isprovenbythecommonEuropean/a/RPIE*eain:
Cret.EF4CFB-
OIr.cos·sair- ModCymr.sarn-
(m.)‘eineUnterabteilungderPhyle’(GEW2:806)
(sb.)‘lacouche:Bett’(LEIAC-217,P.1029)
(sb.)‘stratum,pavimentum’(Grundr21:474)
267
(c)PIE*stor-isattestedin:
OCS.strana (f.)‘Seite,Land,fremdeGegend’(Sadnik889)
Rus.storoná (f.)‘Seite,Land,fremdeGegend’(REW3:20)
Gr.EFC@G- (pr.)‘sternere’(GEW2:802,EFC@G?<[1sg])
LAv.ni#tarTt.spaya- (a.)‘mithingebreitetenKissen’(AIWb.1087)
Being unaffected by Fortunatov’s Law II, Avestan does not include the otherwise
possiblePIE*stoar-,thusconfirmingPIE*owithoutalaryngeal.
(d)PIEstra-,thezerograderootPIE*str-withalaryngealextension,survivesin:
Gr.EFCKF- Lat.str
to- (pt.)‘ausgebreitet’(GEW2:802)NPIE*strato-
(n.)‘Decke’(WH2:590)NPIE*strato-
§5.Brugmann(Grundr21:474)reconstructedNeogr.*pÍCfortheitems:“Ai.pÑrva-s
av.paurv‘dervordere,frühere’,ai.p%rviyá-s‘primus’gthav.paourvm‘primum’,gr.
CFB-D dor CFB-D ‘primus’ aus *CKß-4FB-D, dor. C|@ ‘vordem’ aus *CKß4-@,
att. CK:@ ‘kürzlich’ aus *CKß<4-@, alb. parë ‘primus’ aus *parÒo-s, dagegen mit
Suffix-mo-lit.pirma-s‘primus’.”
SeveralrootsarecomparativelysecuredbyFick’sRule:
(a)PIE*pur·uandPIE*pour·u-‘früher,etc.’
RV.pÑrva- gAv.paourvm
(a.)‘früher,östlig,vorzüglich,alt’(WbRV.845)
(adv.)‘zuerst,zuAnfang,beiBeginn’(AIWb.873-4)
belongtotherootPIE*pur-‘vor’,whichisproventobeoriginalby:
Go.faur
RV.pur³
Go.fauri- TochA.purccamo-
(adv.prep.)4C|CG}C‘vor,für’(GoEtD.110)
(adv.)‘früher,vonAltersher,vonjeher’(WbRV.826)
(adv.)‘CFB@,CF8CB@’(GoEtD.112,fauris)
(b)PIE*pra-‘pro-’(P.810f.).ThebasesPIE*pra-andPIE*pra-arerequiredin
ordertoaccountfortheablaut:Kin:
Hom.CFB- Boiot.CFB- (a.)‘dervorderste,dererste’(GEW2:609)
(a.)‘dervorderste,dererste’(GEW2:609)
(c) PIE*pear-(cf.Gr.|C·,|CBDabove)isthestartingpointoftheextension PIE
*pear·uo-‘erst(er)’,whichiswidelyattestedinIndo-Europeanlanguages:
LAv.pouru- Alb.parë
u
LAv.pa rva- TochB.parwe-
OPers.parva- (adv.bs.)‘erst’(AIWb.870-2,pourum[sgA=adv.])
(a.)‘erster’(AlbEtDi.311,parë[sgN])
(a.)‘dervordere,dererstere,südlich’(AIWb.870)
(a.)‘(the)first(year)’(MA399,DTochB.360)
(adv.)‘beingbefore’(OldP.196,paruvam[sgNA])
(d)pir-‘vor(der),erst(er),u.s.w.’andtherespective*e/o-grade(cf.PIE*poir-*peir-
inLatvian)appearswithalternativeextensionsin:
Latv.pìere
(f.)‘Vorderseite,Stirn’(LiEtWb.573,pìere[sgN])
268
Li.pìrma-
OPr.pirma-
ORus.prv&
OCS.prv&
Rus.pérvyj
(a.)‘erster’(LiEtWb.597-8,pìrmas[sgN])
(a.)‘erster’(APrS.399)
(a.)‘erster’(REV2:336-7)
The vocalisms of PBalt. *pir·ma- and PSlav. *pir·ua- are uncontested due to the
correspondingdiphthonginLatv.pìere.551
§6. Brugmann (Grundr2 1:474) reconstructed Neogr. *kÍd for “Ai. k%rda-ti ‘er
springt, hüpft’, gr. =C74A ein Tanz, vgl. =C47|K ‘ich schwinge, schwenke’ [...]”.
When tested against the extended data, three different roots are implied by the
comparativemethod:
(a)Neogr.*k%rd-‘quadrus’withPIE*u(nottracedbacktoNeogr.*Í),appearingin:
OInd.kÑrda- TochA.kurtsru
(vb.)‘hüpfen,springen’(KEWA1:254-5)
(plObl.)‘millepassus’(Poucha79,kurtsru=yojana)
(b)Neogr.*Kerd-*Kard-*Kord-‘werfen,tanzen’(P.934)in:
OIr.fo·cerd- OIr.fo·card- Gr.=C74=- (vb.)‘werfen,usw.’(LEIAC-72-3,focheird)
(pret.)‘werfen’(LEIAC-72-3,fochaird)
(m.)‘N.einesTanzes’(GEW1:917-8)
(c)Neogr.*Krad-(P.934),whichisattestedinGreekandinGermanic:
OIcl.hrata- Gr.=C47|B- (vb.)‘schwanken,eilen,fallen,stürzen’(ANEtWb.252)
(prM.)‘schwanken,zittern’(GEW2:1-2,=C47|B?4<)
§7.Brugmann(Grundr21:475)reconstructed“[Ai.]t%rtá-s‘eilig’austÒ%rta-s(§327,
2S.301f.),av.Zw
Ïa‘eilig’ausZwarta-(§469,3S.431),zuai.tvára-te‘ereilt’[…]”,
positingarootNeogr.*tÒer-.Thebasesimpliedbythecomparativemethodare:
(a)PIEtur-(vb.)‘eilen,laufen,usw.’(a.)‘rasch,eilig’(num.)‘fourth’
RV.turá-
RV.tur½ya-
OIcl.yrja-
LAv.t%irya-
OInd.t%rtá-
RV.a·tÑrta-
Gr.FGCF4B-
(a.)‘rasch’(EWA1:656,WbRV.541)
(ord.)‘dervierte’(KEWA1:515,WbRV.542)
(vb.)‘schnellfahren,laufen’(ANEtWb.630)
(ord.)‘dervierte’(AIWb.656)
(a.)‘eilig’(EWA1:629f.,Grundr21:475)
(n.)‘derunüberschritteneRaum’(WbRV.29)
(Im.)‘Vierter(?)’(GEW2:918)
Intheabsenceofaretroflexbeforethedentalextension,thisroothadnolaryngeal
(theconverseofFortunatov’sLawII).ThewidelyattestednumeralNeogr.*kÒetur-
‘vier’ (P. 642-644) is a compound based on the root PIE *tur-with additional
connectedforms:
551
i.pi-e-ra-an‘infront’(CHDP:291f.)mayalsobelonghere,asonecandefendPIE*ibasedona
parallelextensioni.pi-an=i.pi-e-ra-an.OwingtotheconfusionbetweenOAnat.e:i:ei,etc.,this
remainsuncertain,however.
269
Umbr.pe·tur·purso-
RV.ca·túr- LAv.a·tur- Li.ke·turì- (sb.)‘quadrupes,Vierfüßler’(WbOU.551)
(a.)‘vier’(WbRV.433,catúra[plA])
(num.)‘vier’(AIWb.577,aturÖ[plA],atura[plNA])
(num.coll.)‘vier’(LiEtWb.247f.)
(b) PIE *tuar- ‘eilen’ (P. 1100). The Sanskrit verbal and nominal forms are well
known:
Br.tvára-
AV.tvar³-
AV.tvaráya- (vb.)‘eilen’(KEWA1:539,tvárate[3sg])
(f.)‘Eile’(EWA1:684-5)
(cs.)‘beleben,eilenlassen’(EWA1:684-5tvaráyati)
ForthisrootPIE*isimpliedbyAv.Ïin:
LAv.Zw
Ïa- (a.)‘eilig,rasch’(AIWb.787)
LAv.Zw
Ïa.g
man- (a.)‘eiligschreitend,raschenSchritts’(AIWb.788)
The confirmation for the laryngeal is provided by the prefixed variant of the root
Neogr.*kÒe·tÒar-(PIE*kÒe·tÒear-)withGr.4=PCelt.*a:
LAv.a·Zwar-
MidCymr.pe·tgwar-
Boiot.}·FF4C-
Hom.F}·EE4C-
TochA.!·twar
OGaul.pe·tuaria-
(num.)‘vier’(AIWb.557,aZwarasa[plN])
(num.)‘vier’(ACSS.2:982,petgwared)
(num.)‘vier’(GEW2:883,}FF4C8D)
(num.)‘vier’(GEW2:883,F}EE4C8D[plN])
(num.)‘vier’(Poucha330,!twar)
(ON.num.f.)‘vierte’(ACSS.982)
§8. Brugmann (Grundr2 1:475) reconstructed “Ai. trá-s ‘überschritten,
durchgemacht’,trthá-m‘Furt,Tränke’,apers.fra-tarta-h‘vorwärtsgegangen’,zuai.
tára-ti tirá-ti, W. ter-”, assumedly from Neogr. *tÍC. As already pointed out above,
therearetwoexternallyconfirmedroots:
(a)PIE*ter-,tor-,tr-‘über,durch’(P.1074-5)
RV.tára-
HLu.tari-
LAv.tit
raya- OPers.vi·taraya-
Go.airh
(m.)‘dasÜbersetzen,Überfahrt’(WbRV.529)
(vb.)‘rise’(CHLu.10.12.8,tax-ri+i-tax)
(cs.)‘überwinden,bewältigen’(AIWb.639)
(cs.)‘putacross’(OldP.186,viyatarayam[1sg])
(prep.)‘through,etc.’ (GoEtD.354)
(b)PIE*til-‘erheben’(P.1074-5)
Thrac.F<>8/B- RV.úd(...)tira-
(ao.)‘auf-,wegheben,entfernen’(WH2:688,F<>8)
masi)
§9.Brugmann(Grundr21:475)compared“Ai.rá-s‘inBewegunggesetzt,erhoben’
[...]gr.@}BCFBD‘neuentstanden’,=B@<-BCFD‘ErregungvonStaub’rC@G?<‘icherrege,
störeauf’.”Yetagain,theenricheddatarevealstwodistinctroots:
(a)PIE*air-(or*ir-?).TheSanskrit//coincideswithGr.<in:
Br.rá-
Hes.b·<C@F<B-
(pt.)‘inBewegunggesetzt,erhoben’(EWA1:106)
(a.)‘b<C@F<BD)98Db@=C~F’(GEW2:423)
270
An original PIE *i is in agreement with the lack of cerebralization in Sanskrit not
allowingalaryngealfollowingaliquidinIndo-Iranian(theconverseofFortunatov’s
LawII).
(b)PIE*or-*r-*er-‘sichregen,erheben,usw.’isattestedin:
Gr.rC-
Gr.bC-
i.ara-
Gr.rC@G-
gr.@}(ß)·BCFB-
Gr.=B@<·BCF-
(ao.)‘sichregen/erheben,eilen’(GEW2:426-,rCFB)
(ao.)‘sichregen/erregen’(GEW2:422,dC8FB)yC?~;:)
(vb2.)‘to(a)rise,lift,raise’(HEG1:52,a-ra-i[3sg])
(.)‘sichregen/erregen,eilen’(GEW2:423,rC@G?<)
(a.)‘neuerstanden’(GEW2:423,@}BCFBD[sgN])
(m.)‘ErregungvonStaub’(GEW2:423,=B@<-BCFD)
§10.Brugmann(Grundr21:479)reconstructedNeogr.*Ífortheitems:“Av.TrTzatTm ‘Silber’, gr. ^C6GCB-D \C6~D (neben ai. rajatá-m, vgl. Wackernagel Ai. Gr. I 12)
weisenaufuridg.*Îº-,welchesauchinarm.arcat‘enthaltenseinkann.DasItal.und
dasKelt.habenarg-:lat.argentu-mosk.aragetud‘argento’,air.argatnkymr.ariant
bret.arc’hant.MansetztfürdieseWorteruridg.*Íº-voraus[...].”
The traditional reconstruction has been outdated by the emergence of the Old
Anatolianlaryngeal,whichallowsfortheregulartreatmentofItalo-Celtic/a/withPIE
*a(*a)insteadofNeogr.*Í:
arº-‘weiss,glänzend;Silber’(P.64)
i.argi-
Gr.\C6<·=}C4G@B-
LAv.TrTzata-
(a.)‘weiß,hell’(HEG1:177,ar-ki-i#[sgN])
(a.)‘mitglänzendemDonnerkeil’(GEW1:134)
(n.)‘Silber’(AIWb.352,TrTzatTm[sgNA])
§11. Brugmann (Grundr2 1:479) reconstructed “Lat. arduo-s : air. ard ‘hoch, gross’,
gall.arduenna,aisl.Vrug-r‘steil’urgerm.arÒa-,Gf.*ÍdhÒo-ÍdÒo-,vgl.av.TrTdwa
‘aufrecht, erhaben’.” Here, as in the previous example, all theories containing the
laryngealnowreconstructthelaryngeal:
ardu-‘hoch,steil,gross,usw.’
Lat.arduo- OIr.ard
OGaul.ardu·enna-
LAv.TrTdva- (a.)‘hoch,steil,schwierig’(WH1:64-5)
(a.)‘haut,grand:hoch,gross’(LEIAA-87)
(ONf.)‘Ardennes’(LEIAA-87)
(a.)‘auf,nachoben,indieHöhegerichtet’(AIWb.350)
§12.ThekeyissuesconcerningNeogr.*ÍR(C)ÎHCcanbesummarizedasfollows:
(a)TheactualoutcomeofthesequencePIE*(C)ÎCinAryanlanguagesaftertheloss
ofthelaryngealis(C)ÎC(RV.dÎ!-,etc.).Thisistosay,svarabhaktivowelshavenot
developedfromsyllabicsonants.
(b) Both in Aryan and non-Aryan languages the svarabhakti vowels traditionally
derivedfromNeogr.*Íareexternallyparalleled,andthereforereflecttheiroriginal
PIEcounterparts.
271
3 .3.8 Neogr.*l(consonantallateral)
§0. Neogr. *l R PIE *l, a lateral liquid, was felt to be problematic by the SanskritocentricPaleogrammariansbecauseonly/r/wassecurelyattestedinIndo-Iranian.The
systematicappearanceof PIE*lintherestofgroupallowedtheNeogrammariansto
directlyestablishPIE*lbeyonddoubtwiththesoundlawPIE*lOPIIr.*r.
§1.BrugmannprovidedanumberofexamplesofNeogr.*l:
(a) Brugmann (Grundr2 1:424) reconstructed leikÒ- ‘lassen’ for “arm. lk‘ane-m gr.
>8K lat. linqu ‘ich lasse’, got. leiSa ‘ich leihe’Lit. liekù ‘ich lasse’aksl. ot&-lk&
‘Überbleibsel’,ai.riák-ti‘erlässt,lässtlos,räumtein’.”
(b) Brugmann (Grundr2 1:424) reconstructed mel- for “Gr. ?}>4D (F. ?}>4<@4)
‘schwarz’,nbret.melen‘croccus’,lett.meln-s‘schwarz’lit.m¹lyna-s‘blau’,ai.maliná-s
‘schmutzig,dunkelfarbig,schwarz’.”
(c) Brugmann (Grundr2 1:424) quotes “Gr. \>H8@ ‘verdienen, erwerben’, lit. algà
‘Lohn’,ai.arghá-s‘Wert,Preis’.”
§2.AsforAnatolian, PIE*lhasbeenthoroughlypreservedandonlyminorissuesare
worthnotinginthisconnection:
(a) Hawkins (= CHLu.) would prefer to replace the earlier reading of the syllable
HLu.lawithHLu.“la/i/u”,asignwiththreepossibleinterpretations,HLu.la,liorlu.
TheideaisbasedonexampleslikeHLu.(‘FLAMMAE(?)’)la/i/u-sà-la/i/u-sà-ta(CHLu.
9.1.11),whichHawkinsreadsas/lusalusa-/,basedonthecomparisonwith PIEluk-
‘glänzen’ = i. luk- ‘id.’ with palatalization in Hieroglyphic Luwian. However, the
traditionalreadingHLu.laisquitesatisfactory,owingtothecomparativeexistenceof
theroot:
PIEles-,los-‘glänzen’(P.–)
HLu.la#a·la#a-
OInd.lasa- i.le#ala-
(vb.)‘glänzen’(?)(‘FLAMMAE(?)’)la/i/u-sà-la/i/u-sà-ta)
(a.)‘shining’(MonWil.899,lasas[sgN])
(MULc.)‘Komet’(HEG2:54,le-e#-#al-la-a#[sgN])
Similarly,theotheralternativereadingsfor“la/i/u”lackcomparativecontent.Forthis
reason,IfeelthatHawkins’ssuggestionmaybeanunnecessarycomplicationofthe
notation.
(b) In Lydian there are two laterals, Lyd. l and Lyd. >. It has been suggested
(Gusmani, LydWb. 33) that Lyd. > represents a palatal due to the presence of the
glide in the comparative evidence (see, for instance, Lyd. a>a- = Lat. alio- ‘alius’).
Additional examples of PIE *l¾, li O Lyd. > can now be identified in the data, for
instance,in:
CLu.lali-
Lyd.la>¢-
(c.)‘Wort,Rede’(HEG2:20,DLL.62,la-li-i#)
(vb.)‘aussprechen’(LydWb.158,la>¢n![pt.sgN])
HereGusmani’sLawisconfirmed.
§3.Apalatalizedlateral/>/isalsoattestedinTocharian/ly/,constitutingaphoneme
inbothdialects(Adams1988:10).AsimilaretymologicalorigintothatofLydiancan
272
established for both dialects A and B, except that the Tocharian also includes nonorganicexamplesoflyhavinggainedthepalatalfromthefollowingPIE*·(cf.TochB.
klyomo (a.) ‘noble’DTochB. 231 : Go. hliuma (m.) ‘Gehör’ (pl.) ‘Ohren’ GoEtD.
188).
3 .3.9 Neogr.*Ä(anteconsonantalsyllabiclateral)
§0. PIE*Ä,thevocaliccounterpartof PIE*l,waspostulatedbyOsthoffasthelateral
counterpartof PIE*Î.Like PIE*Î,thesyllabic PIE*ÄisonlyattestedinIndo-Iranian,
butintherestofthegroupthesvarabhaktivowelsareexternallyparalleledwiththe
resultthattheNeogrammariantheoryneedstobescaledbackinthisrespect.
§1.AccordingtoBrugmann’ssynthesis(Grundr21:452),theoutcomesofNeogr.*Äin
thecognatesareexpressedinthetable:
Uridg. Ai.
Ä+C Î
Av.
Tr
Arm. Gr. Alb.
al,la 4>>4 li
Ital.
ol
li
ul,lu il
l,l&
§2. The problems of Neogr. *Ä are identical with those of Neogr. *Î. Brugmann’s
alleged examples can be proven to contain vowels proper instead of svarabhaktis
emergingfromsyllabic*Ä,asdetailedbelow.
§3. Brugmann (Grundr2 1:456) reconstructed Neogr. *pÄ- for “Ai. pipÎ-más gr.
?>4-?8@ ‘wir füllen’ (II S. 935)”. The material contains, however, two separate
stems:
(a) PIE *pel- *pol-, the unextended root, is confirmed by the absence of
cerebralization(theconverseofFortunatov’sLawII)inSanskrit:
PIE*pel-‘füllen,usw.’
TochB.päl-
RV.pípar-
(vb.)‘drip’(DTochB.379,pältsi[inf.])
(pr.)‘füllen,anfüllen’(WbRV.775,píparti[3sg])
(b) PIE*plea-,thelaryngealextensionoftheroot,isconfirmedbyRig-Vedichiatus
andGreek4coincidingin:
RV.prá’-
RV.kakia·prá’-
Gr.?·>4- (ao.)‘füllen,anfüllen’(WbRV.886,práas[2sgConj])
(a.)‘denLeibgurtfüllend’(WbRV.309,·práam[A])
(pr.)‘füllen’(GEW1:537-8,?>4?8@[1pl])
Thus,aroot PIE*pl-anditsextension PIE*pla-areattestedinsteadofasingleroot
withNeogr.*Ä.
§4.Brugmann(Grundr21:457)comparedtheitems“Ai.pÎthú-av.pTrTZu-#‘breit’,
ai. pÎthiv½ ‘Erde’ : Arm. lain ‘breit’, air. lethan ‘breit’ […]” and (Grundr2 1:468)
“akymr. litan ‘breit’ gall. Smertu-litanus Litu-gena [...]”, which are all derived from
Neogr.*pÄt(h)-.Thenowenrichedmaterialimplies,however,aroot PIEpl-‘breit,
weit’withalternativeextensions:
(a)PIE*pl·ai-(a.)‘breit,weit’(CHDP:66)
273
i.pali-
Arm.lain-
OGaul.litano·briga-
OCymr.litan- (a.)‘breit,weit’(HHand.117,pal-i[NA])
(a.)‘breit’(Grundr21:457,PIE*pleaino-)
(ON.)‘Breitburg’(ACSS.2:243,PIE*plaito-)
(a.)‘breit’(ACSS.2:242,Grundr21:468)
(b) PIE *pÄ·thu-,arootwithoutalaryngealsuffix,issecuredbytheabsenceofgAv.Ï
(theconverseofFortunatov’sLawII)in:
gAv.pTrTZu- RV.pÎthú- (a.)‘weit,breit’(AIWb.892-3)
(a.)‘breit,weitsichaustreckend’(WbRV.857)552
§5. Brugmann (Grundr2 1:464) reconstructed Neogr *Ä»h- for “Gr. \>H~
‘Arbeitslohn’(ai.Pf.
n-Îhúr:árha-ti‘eristwerth,verdient’),fallslit.algà‘Lohn’mit
elgiúos‘ichführeeinenLebenswandel,betragemich’zusammenstellenist.”Forthis
root,thefollowingbasesareimpliedbythecomparativemethod:
(a)Neogr.*al»h-(PIE*ael»h-)‘erwerben’(P.32-3,HEG1:134)
i.algue#ar-
RV.sahasra·’arghá-
Gr.\>H~-
Li.algà-
OPr.
lga-
(n.)‘Ernte,Erstlingsgabe’(HHand.36,al-ku-e#-#ar)
(a.)‘tausendfachenWerthabend’(WbRV.1504)
(f.)‘Erwerb’(GEW1:81,\>H~[sgN])
(f.)‘Lohn,Sold’(LiEtWb.7)
(f.)‘Lohn’(APrS.298,
lgas[sgG])
The root with a common Indo-European /a/ is confirmed by the Old Anatolian
laryngeal, Rig-Vedic hiatus and Greek \-. Owing to the presence of i. ,
vocalizationssuchasGr.\>H-shouldnolongerbeexplainedwithNeogr.*Äbutwith
thevowelPIE*a(formerly*h2)accompanyingPIE*.
(b)Neogr *Ä»h (= PIE *al»h-), the zero-grade root, appears only in Indo-Iranian
andisofsecondaryorigin.Neogr.*ÄtooksyllabicityafterthelossofPIE*ain:
OInd.
n·Îh- (pf.)‘wertsein’(Whitney19558:282,
nÎhús).
(c)PIE*eal»h-,thezero-graderootwithaprotheticvowel,appearsinBaltic:
Li.eÁg-
Latv.elg-
(vb.)‘sichbenehmen,sichbetragen’(LiEtWb.7)
(vb.)‘sichaufdrängen,aushalten,usw.(LiEtWb.7)
§6. Brugmann (Grundr2 1:468) reconstructs Neogr. *mÄto- for “Mir. blith Inf. zu
[air.]melim ‘molo’.” The comparative method implies, however, two derivationally
distinctroots:
(a)PIE*mel-*mol-(rootPIEml-)areattestedin:
i.mala-
OIr.meli-
(vb.)‘mahlen,zerkleinern’(CHDLN:125-6,ma-al-la-i)
(vb.)‘.i.molmoudre,écraser’(LEIAM-32,melim)
(b) PIE mli- ‘mahlen’ (P. 716), the *·i-extension, is attested in PIE mlit- ‘mahlen,
usw.’
ItispossibletocomparegAv.pTrTZu-withOAnat. mpaltu·patita-(NOMS.917,pa-al-du-ú-ba?-a?ti-it-ta-a#). As we are dealing with a personal name and the meaning of ·patita- is unknown, the
comparisonremainsuncertain.
552
274
OIr.mlith- Gr.5>FB-
Gr.5><F|-
OInd.mrit·ya-
OInd.a·sam·mletya-
(vn.f.)‘moudre,écraser,ruiner,frotter’(LEIAM-32)
(n.)‘Melde:despatch’(GEW1:245)
(f.)‘altesWeib’(GEW1:245)
(pr.)‘zerfallen,sichauflösen’(KEWA2:695)
(a.)‘ohnezuzerkauen’(KEWA2:695)
ThreewitnessesconfirmPCelt.*liN PIE*li,notNeogr.*Ä,whichisplacedbeyond
doubtbytheablautingextensionPIE*mloit-,mleit-inOInd.mlet-.
§7.Brugmann(Grundr21:470)compares“Go.lustu-s,ahd.lust‘Lust’,wahrscheinlich
zuai.l
laa-s‘begierig’gr.><>4B?4<‘ichbegehre’aus*><->4E¾B-(294S.273)”.For
this,thecomparativemethodimpliestwoexternallyparalleledroots,onewithNeogr.
*aandanotherwithNeogr.*u:
(a)PIE*lus-‘Lust’(withNeogr.*u)isconfirmedbytwowitnesses:
OInd.lua·bha-
Go.lus·tu- (m.)‘brünstigerElephant’(KEWA3:109,luabha)
(.)‘Lust’(GoEtD.238)
(b)PIE*leas-‘begehren,verlangen’(withNeogr.*a)isevidentin:
OInd.l
lasa- Gr.><>4B- (a.int.)‘heftigverlangendnach’(KEWA2:99-100)
(prM.)‘heftigbegehren,verlangen’(GEW2:123)
Tothelatterbelongsthecerebralizedstem(originallyareduplication)PIE*lelaso-
OInd.láa-
(pr.)‘begehren,Verlangenhabennach’(KEWA3:95),
wherethelaryngealimpliedbyGr4isconfirmedbyFortunatov’sLawII.
§8.AsforthePIE*ÄinSystemPIE,notethefollowinggeneralremarks:
(a) The syllabic lateral PIE *Ä is directly continued only in Indo-Iranian (possibly
having turned into Î). Its Proto-Indo-European origin is confirmed by the
impossibilityofthelossofanyvocalicelementinexampleslikegAv.pTrTZu-=RV.
pÎthú-,whicharenotaffectedbyFortunatov’sLawII.Owingtothis,itispossibleto
postulate PIE *Ä based on the principle of family consistency (Trask DHCL 120).
Accordingly, the core of the Neogrammarian theory is sound in terms of its key
assertion,theexistenceofsyllabicPIE*Äintheproto-language.
(b) Through the availability of PIE * in reconstruction, it can be shown that the
outcomeofthesyllabiclateralwasasimplelateralinalldialects.Thisisbecause*Ä(in
PIE *Ä and *Ä) did not produce svarabhakti vowels, but turned into simple PIE *l
followingthelossofPIE*:
PIE*Ä O
RV.Î/r,Av.Tr/r,Lat.*Ä(inLat.l),Li.*Ä(inLi.l),etc.
(c)Sincethesvarabhaktivowelscanbeexternallyconfirmedbyparallelstorepresent
originalPIEitemsbyatleasttwowitnesses(Fick’sRule),scalingbackthetraditional
outcomesofNeogr.*Äpresentsnotheoreticalorpracticaldifficulties.
275
3 .3.10
Neogr.*Ä l (antevocalicsyllabiclateral)
§0. As the Neogrammarians noticed that the svarabhakti vowels associated with
syllabicsonantsappearedinantevocalicpositionaswell,Neogr.*Älwasintroducedas
thecounterpartofNeogr.*Îrtoaccountforthesituation.
§1. According to Brugmann (Grundr2 1:452), Neogr. *Äl resulted in in svarabhakti
vowelsidenticaltothoseassociatedwithNeogr.*Îr:
Uridg. Ai.
Av.
Ä+V ir,ur ar
Arm. Gr.
al
al
Alb.
il
Ital.
al
al
ul
il
l
§2. The problems of Neogr. *Äl match those of Neogr. *Îr. For this proto-phoneme,
Brugmann’sexamplesofsvarabhaktivowelscanbecomparativelyprovenasoriginal
inthefollowingmanner:
§3.Brugmann(Grundr21:456)reconstructedNeogr.*tÄl-‘heben,tragen’for“ai.tula
‘Gewicht, Wage’, gr. F|>4D ‘duldend’, lat. 2. Sg. at-tul
s, got. ulai ‘er duldet’.”
Neogr.*Ällackssupport,owingtoseveralexternallyconfirmedcorrespondences:
(a) PIE *tul- ‘tragen’ is attested in three subgroups, including Indo-Iranian, and
thereforecarriesanoriginalPIE*uin:
Lat.tul-
OLat.tul
OIcl.ola-
Go.ula-
OInd.tul³-
(pf.)‘tragen,bringen’ (WH2:68,tulit[3sg])
(pr3.)‘tragen,bringen’(WH2:688)
(vb.)‘ertragen,dulden’(ANEtWb.615)
(vb.)‘endure,bepatientwith’(GoEtD.367,ulan)
(f.)‘Waage,Waagebalken’(EWA1:658)
PIE*uisinternallyconfirmedforIndo-IranianthroughthevariantsPIE*teul-*toul-:
OInd.tolaya- OInd.tolana- (vb10.)‘aufheben,aufhalten,wägen’(EWA1:658)
(n.)‘dasAufheben’(EWA1:658)
(b) PIE tal- ‘tragen’. Greek and Tocharian (lacking palatalization) preserve the
rootformsPIE*teal-andPIE*tal-in:
Gr.F}F4>-
TochB.täle- Gr.F4>4(ß)- TochA.t
lo- TochB.tall
rñe-
(pfM.)‘ausproßenlassen,hervorbringen’(GEW2:870)
(sb.)‘load,burden’(DTochB.296)
(a.)‘ausdauernd,ertragend,unglücklich’(GEW2:848)
(a.)‘miser:elend’(Poucha119)
(sb.)‘misery’(DTochB.282)
§4.Brugmann(Grundr21:470)reconstructedNeogr.*ÀÄl-for“Ai.kul³yam‘Gehäuse,
Nest,Lagerstatt’,gr.=4><|‘Hütte,Nest’,got.hulundiF.‘Höhle’:air.cuil‘Versteck,
Winkel’, mir. cuile ‘Keller, Magazin’ wegen u zu § 499?” and (Grundr2 1:456, 465)
“Go. hulja ahd. hull(i)u ‘ich hülle’, ahd. hull(i)a ‘Hülle’, zu ahd. helan ‘hehlen’.”
Severalrootsare,however,impliedbythecomparativemethod:
(a) PIE *Àal- ‘cover, deck, etc.’. An Indo-European /a/R PIE *ea is confirmed by
Italo-Greek and the laryngeal by cerebralization in Sanskrit in the dental extension
PIE*Àal·to-:
276
Gr.=4><|- Lat.calim
Lat.calautica-
OInd.!
a- (f.)‘Hütte,Nest’(GEW1:764)
(adv.)‘antiquidicebantproclam’(WH1:138)
(f.)‘KopfbedeckungvornehmerFrauen’(WH1:136)
(m.)‘astripofcloth,akindofskirt’(MonWil.1063)
(b)Inzerograde,thebasePIE*Àal-withunaccentedPIE*ahasresultedinGr.I(=
Neogr.*Àh)followingthelossofPIE*a,asprovenby:
Lat.clam
Aiol.I>|?G- (adv.)‘heimlich,verhohlen,insgeheim’(WH1:226-7)
(f.)‘Oberkleid,Mantel’(GEW2:1102,I>|?G@[sgA])
(c)Thepresenceofthe*·-gradeisexplainedbyschwebeablautinPIE*Àael-*Àal-
‘verbergen’(=Neogr.*Àhel-*Àhl-):
OIr.celi-
Lat.cl
-
(pr.)‘verbergen’(LEIAC-53-4,ceilid)
(pr1.)‘verhehlen,verbergen’(WH1:196)
(d)PIEKul-‘hohl’;‘Keller’(withambiguousK)isrequiredbyCentumformslike:
OIcl.hol-
Gr.=>4
i.kuli-
OEng.a·holia-
MidIr.cuile (a.)‘hohl’(ANEtWb.248,holrsgN)
(n.)‘HöhlungenunterdenAugen’(GEW2:46)
(sb.)‘Loch,Hohlweg’(?)(HHand.83,HEG1:–)
(vb.)‘todig’(ASaxD.31,aholian[inf.])
(m.)‘Keller,Magazin’(LEIAC-269,Grundr21:456)
Owing to the uniform *u-vocalism and the absence of PIE * (cf. i. kuli- and Gr.
=>4),therootisnotidenticalwithPIEÀal-.
§5.Brugmann(Grundr21:460)reconstructedNeogr.*pÄlVfor“Ai.purú-av.pouru-
(Nom.Pl.parav-)apers.paru-‘viel’:Lit.pilù‘ichschütte,giesse’,vgl.got.filu‘fiel’.”
Yet the material confirms several PIE bases implied by isoglosses with a common
Indo-Europeanvocalism:
(a)PIEpul-‘viel’,thezero-graderoot,appearswithunifiedPIE*uin:
RV.pur-
RV.p%ryá-
OIr.huile-
Go.full-
OCS.pl&n&-
(ao.)‘anfüllen,reichlichzufüllen’(WbRV.776,p%rdhí)
(prP.)‘anfüllen’(WbRV.776,p%ryám
am‘angefüllt’)
(a.)‘tout,entire,chacun’(LEIAU:17-18)
(a.)‘>~C:D=voll’(GoEtD.131,fulls[sgN])
(a.)‘voll’(Sadnik672)
Additionally,theablautbasesPIE*pe/oul-*p/ul-havebeenpreservedin:
RV.paurá- LAv.paoir- Hom.BG>·B7-
(m.)‘Füller,Zufüller,Spender,Mehrer’(WbRV.863)
(a.)‘viel,zahlreich,reichlich’(AIWb.855-6,paoiri#)
(m.)‘polypus’(LSJ.1441,BG>B7BD[sgG])
(b)PIE*polu-‘viel,zahlreich’appearsinaperfectmatchbetweenGreek,Iranianand
Armenian:
Gr.B>-
gAv.pouru-
(a.)‘viel,zahlreich,häufig’(GEW1:577,B>D[sgN])
(a.)‘viel,zahlreich,reichlich’(AIWb.855-6,pour%#)
277
OPers.paru- Arm.y·olov- (a.)‘much,many’(OldP.196,paruv[sgNA])
(a.)‘viel’(Grundr21:510)
(c)PIE*pil·(a)-‘voll,füllen’withPIE*iisconfirmedbymultiplewitnessesin:
Li.pìl-
Li.añt·pila-
RV.r
s·pirá-
OIr.il-
Go.filu-
(vb.)‘gießen,ausschütten,-füllen’(LiEtWb.592,pìlti)
(m.)‘Auffüllmaterial,Schotter’(LiEtWb.592,añtpilas)
(a.)‘geräuschvoll’(WbRV.1163)
(a.)‘many,numerous’(DIL.380,il[sgNA])
(a.)‘B>D:much,>4@:very’(GoEtD.116)
§6. Brugmann (Grundr2 1:462, 467) compared “Arm. malem ‘ich zerstosse’ : umbr.
kumaltu ‘commolito’, nkymr. malaf ‘ich mahle, zermalme’ [...]”. Instead of Neogr.
*mÄlV,thecomparativemethodimpliesarootwithaninternallaryngeal:
(a)PIEmal-(ablautPIE*meal-*mal-)withArm.a=Gr.|=OIr.aisattested
in:
Arm.male-
Gr.?|>8GCB-
OIr.malart
Li.mol
(vb.)‘zerstossen’(EtDiArm.443,malem[1sg])
(n.)‘Mehl’(PNm.)‘Müller’(GEW2:166)
(f.)‘destruction’(LEIAM:14)
(f.)‘Mahlen,Mahlgut’(LiEtWb.463)
HereinparticularthevowelLi.omustreflectPIE*a.Furthermore,
(b)PIE*meals-,the*·s-extensionoftheroot,isattestedin:
AV.mama³karo- (pr.)‘zuStaubzermalmen’(KEWA2:604)
OInd.maak
raya-(pr.)‘zuStaubzermalmen’(KEWA2:604)
ThecelebralizationinSanskrit(Fortunatov’sLawII)confirmsthelaryngeal.
§7. Brugmann (Grundr2 1:462) compared “Arm. kain, Gen. kanoy, ‘Eichel’ : gr.
5|>4@B-D ‘Eichel’, vgl. auch lit. gìl preuss. gile ‘Eichel’ […]”, proposing Neogr.
*»ÄlV-asthestartingpointfortheforms.However,thecomparativedistributionof
theitemsisdifferent.
(a)PIE*»eal-‘Eichel’,reflectedincommonIndo-European/a/,isprovenby:
Arm.kain- gr.5|>4@B- (sb.)‘Eichel’(EtDiArm.348,kain,kanoy[G])
(f.)‘Eichel’(GEW1:213)
Thecorrespondingzerograde(PIE*»al-)ispreservedin
OInd.gula-
(m.)‘theglanspenis,clitoris’(MonWil.360).
(b) PIE *»a·il- ‘Eichel’(P. 472) an alternative extension of the root PIE *»a-, is
provenbythealternationofquantityinBaltic,requiring*»áil-and*»aíl-:553
Li.gìl
OPr.gile
Li.gyl¸
(f.)‘Eichel:acorn’(LiEtWb.151)
(f.)‘echele:Eichel’(APrS.338)
(f.)‘Eichel’(LiEtWb.151)
553
Fortheetymological*iinArmeniandialects,seeMartirosyan(EtDiArm.411f.).
278
Latv.Xla
(f.)‘Eichel’(LiEtWb.151)
2
§8. Brugmann (Grundr 1:473) posits Neogr. *tÄlV- for “Lett. tilát tilinát ‘flach
ausbreiten’, aksl. tlo ‘Boden’ : nbret tal ‘Stirn’ gall. cassi-talos, zu lit. tìls etc., s. §
521.” Several original vocalizations are, however, confirmed for PIE by the
comparativemethod:
(a) PIEtail-‘ausbreiten,überziehen,bedecken;Boden’,arootwith PIE*i,isnow
confirmedbyOldAnatolian,matchingBalto-Slavonicin:
i.teiala-
Latv.tilâ-
i.teialai-
Li.tìl-
OCS.tlo
(a.)‘(qualifiziertLeinen)’(HHand.176,HEG3:364)
(vb.)‘ausgebreitetliegen’(LiEtWb.1093,tilât[inf.])
(vb.)‘bedecken,überziehen’(HHand.176,HEG3:364)
(f.)‘Bodenbretter,Bodenbelag’(LiEtWb.1093)
(n.)‘Boden:ground’(Sadnik970)
(b)PIEtal-‘Fläche,Ebene,Gegend’isattestedin*e-gradePIE*teal-:
OInd.tala-
Arm.t‘a
OEng.el-
(n.)‘Fläche,Ebene,Handfläche’(KEWA1:487)
(sb.)‘Gegend,Distrikt’(P.1061)
(n.)‘thinpiece,plank,plate’(ASaxD.1046)
(c)AsforBrugmann’ssemanticallyunconvincingcomparisonofCeltic,Iwouldlike
tosuggestaconnectionbetweenGreekandIndo-Iranianinstead:
PIEtal-‘Kuppel,Stirn,Gaumen’
tehal-,tohal-
MidIr.tel
YV.t³lu-
AVP.t
lavya- (n.)‘Stirn’(LEIAT-180f.,telaib[plD])
(n.)‘Gaumen:palatum’(EWA1:644)
(a.)‘zuGaumengehörig’(EWA1:644)
thael-,thaol-
Gr.;>B-
Gr.;|>4?B- MidIr.taul- ModBret.tal OGaul.cassi·talo-
(f.)‘Kuppel,rundesGebäude’(GEW1:677)
(m.)‘innererRaumdesHauses’(GEW1:648)
(n.)‘Stirn:forehead’(LEIAT–180f.)
(.)‘Stirn’(P.1061)
(PN.m)‘Aufrontélégant’(ACSS.1:828)
§9.ThemainissuesconcerningNeogr.*Äl=(C)ÄHVcanbesummarizedasfollows:
(a) The actual outcome of the sequence PIE *(C)ÄhV after the loss of laryngeal is
(C)lV. That is to say, svarabhakti vowels did not develop from syllabic sonants, as
suggestedbytheNeogrammarians.
(b) The resulting theoretical vacuum is readily filled as the svarabhakti vowels are
externallyconfirmedbymeansofthecomparativemethodandthereforeshowntobe
original.
279
3 .3.11
Neogr.*Ã(anteconsonantallongsyllabiclateral)
§0. Neogr. *Ã, the lateral counterpart of Neogr. *Í, was generalized for the protolanguage by Brugmann and Osthoff, with the intent of explaining the svarabhakti
vowelsdiscussedbelow.
§1. According to Brugmann (Grundr2 1:473ff.), the development of Neogr. *Ã
(identicaltoNeogr.*Í)canbesummarizedasfollows:
Uridg. Ai.
Ã+C ur
Av.
ir
Arm. Gr. Alb.
alla >> al
Ital.
al
al
ul
il,ul l
Neogr.*Ãwasstructurallydefinedas**Ä+T(inCÄTC).Thisviewhasbeeninheritedby
the laryngeal theory as such (LT *CÄHC), and therefore it requires no separate
discussion.
§2. The problems of Neogr. *Ã are identical with those of Neogr. *Í. Instead of
repeating these, it is possible to proceed directly to an examination of Brugmann’s
examples.
§3. Brugmann (Grundr2 1:475) compared the items “Ai. m%rdhán- ‘Höhe, höchster
Teil, Kopf’, gr. 5>K;C-D ‘hochgewachsen’, vgl. gr. 5>4EF8@ ‘in die Höhe kommen,
hervorspriessen, keimen’, ags. molda ‘Kopf’.” Despite this, the data requires a
twofoldorganization:
(a)PIEmul-(ormaul-)‘top,head,usw.’andtheextension*mul·dhon-appearin:
OIr.mul-
OEng.molda(n)-
RV.m%rdhán-
(m.)‘tête’(LEIAM-74,mul[sgN])
(m/f.)‘thetopofthehead’(ASaxD.695)
(m.)‘Schädel,Oberhaupt,Kopf’(WbRV.1053)
ThreelanguagesconfirmPIE*u,whichisnottraceablebacktoNeogr.*Ã.
(b)TheHellenicforms,belongingtoadifferentsemanticfield(‘keimen,wachsen’),
cannotreflectPIE*mul-(OGr.?G>-)andmusthaveadifferentorigin:
Gr.5>K;C-
Gr.5>4EF-
Gr.5>4EF-
Gr.5>|EF:-
Gr.5>4EF|K
(a.)‘hochgewachsen’(GEW1:246,5>K;CD)
(pt.m.)‘Keim,Spross,Stengel’(GEW1:241)
(ao.)‘keimen,sprossen’(GEW1:241,5>4EF8@)
(f.)‘Ursprung,Geburt’(GEW1:241)
(pr.)‘hervorbringen’(GEW1:241)
Intheory,theGreekitemscouldbecomparedwith
TochA.malto-
(num.ord.)‘primus’(adv.)‘primum’(Poucha214),
butthisremainsuncertainowingtotheslightdifferenceinsemantics,schwebeablaut
andtheambiguityofGr.5(=PIE*m,*bor*»).
§4.Brugmann(Grundr21:475)reconstructedNeogr.*pÃno-for“Ai.p%rá-s‘gefüllt’,
air.l
nakymr.laun‘voll’,lit.pílna-saksl.pl&n&‘voll’,ai.p%rv½F.‘multa’,gr.B>>~
‘multa’aus.B>¾4,älter*B>ß¾4-(§293,2S.272).”Insteadofauniformprototype,
thecomparativemethodimpliesseveralexternallyconfirmedPIEroots:
280
(a)PIEpul-‘full’.TheVerner-rootwithPIE*uappearsin:
PIE*pul-
RV.pur-
PIE*pulno-
RV.p%rá- OCS.pl&n&- Rus.polnotá- (ao.)‘füllen,reichlichzufüllen,schenken’(WbRV.776)
(pt.)‘voll,gefüllt’(WbRV.777,844)
(a.)‘voll’(Grundr21:475)
(f.)‘Fülle,Vollständigkeit’(REW2:394)
PIE*poulu-
Hom.BG>- LAv.paouru- (a.)‘voll’(LSJ.1456,BG>D)
(adv.)‘reichlich,inreichemMass’(AIWb.855)
(b) PIE pil- ‘voll’, already proven to contain *i under the respective antevocalic
variant,iswidelyattested:
PIE*pil·(a)-
Li.pìl-
Li.añt·pila- RV.r
s·pirá- OIr.il-
PIE*pilano-
Li.pìlna-
OPr.pilna-
(vb.)‘gießen,ausschütten,-füllen’(LiEtWb.592,pìlti)
(m.)‘Auffüllmaterial,Schotter’(LiEtWb.592,añtpilas)
(a.)‘geräuschvoll’(WbRV.1163)
(a.)‘many,numerous’(DIL.380,il[sgNA])
(a.)‘voll’(LiEtWb.591-2,pìlnas[sgN])
(a.)‘ganz’(APrS.398)
PIE*pilu-
Go.filu-
(a.)‘B>D=much’,>4@=very’(GoEtD.116)
(c)TheprototypePIE*polno-isshownbytwowitnesses:
Gr.B>>- (a.)‘viel,zahlreich,häufig’(GEW1:577,B>>D)
LAv.parTnah·vant- (a.)‘inFüllevorhanden,reichlich’(AIWb.870)
TheabsenceofthelaryngealisprovenbytheconverseofFortunatov’sLawII.554
(d)ThebaseNeogr.*pl-(RPIE*pl-
*pla-
*pla-)appearsin:
Gr.?·>:- Lat.plno- Umbr.plno- (pr.)‘füllen,vollmachen’(GEW1:537,?>:E<)
(a.)‘voll(ständig),schwanger,stark,satt’(WH1:322)
(a.)‘voll’(WH1:322,plener[plDAbl])
(e)Neogr.*plno-(orPIE*plahno-
*plahno-)hasbeenpreservedintheCeltic
OIr.l
n-
(a.)‘full(of),filled(with)’(DIL.421).555
554
Brugmann’s internal reconstruction of Gr. B>>~ N PGr. *B>ß¾4 is unsatisfactory due to the
externalconfirmationofPIE*polno-.
281
§5.Brugmann(Grundr21:475)reconstructedNeogr.*ÒÃn-for“Ai.Ñr
aus*Ò%r
,
lat.l
naausÒl
n
,lit.vílna‘Wolle’,gr.Bx>B-D‘Kraus’aus*ßB>@B-D(§408,3S.359);
vgl. § 451 Anm. über mir. oland nkymr. gwlan ‘Wolle’.” The extended material
impliesseveraldistinctionswithinthedata:
(a)PIEaul-isestablishedbyvariousextensions,brieflysummarizedasfollows:
1.PIE*aulo-,thethematicextension,provesPIE*áindirectlyinOInd.%:
OInd.!
m·%la-
Gr.Bx>B-
(n.)‘wollenesHemd’(KEWA1:116,3:652)
(m.)‘Wolle’(GEW2:118&3:146,Bx>BD[sgN])556
2.PIE*aulio-(with*·io-suffix)isattestedin:
i.ulia-
RV.!
m·ulía-
(c.)‘Wolle’(HEG1:280,u-li-ia-a#[sgN])
(m./n.)‘wollendesHemde’(WbRV.1391)
Herei.directlyreflectstheoriginallaryngeal.
3.PIE*aul·(o)n-,thenasalextension,issharedbyseveralbranches:
i.ulana- RV.Ñra·mradas-
OCS.vl&na (c.)‘Wolle’(HEG2:278f.,u-u-la-[n(i)])
(a.)‘Wollen-weich’(WbRV.274)
(f.)‘Wolle’(ANEtWb.633)
4. As for the general context (to my knowledge unrecognized), it is worth
mentioningthattherootaul-‘wool’isa*·l-derivateoftheroot
au-‘sheep’
HLu.haua- Li.áva-
Lat.au·bubulco-
OIr.u·gaire Lat.%·pili(n)-
(c.)‘sheep’(CHLu.1.1.48,OVIS(ANIMAL)há-ua/i-sá)
(m.)‘Widder’(APrS.309,ávas[Ju#k.I,179])
(m.)‘pastorovium’(WH1:79)
(m.)‘shepherd’(DIL485[suboegaire],ugaire)
(m.)‘Schafhirt’(WH2:211)
(b)PIE*auilah·no-‘Wolle,usw.’,arootwithPIE*iisattestedin:
Li.vìlna-
Lat.uillo-
OPr.wilna-
(f.)‘Wolle’(LiEtWb.1253)
(m.)‘daszottige,wolligeHaarderTiere’(WH2:791)
(f.)‘Rock’(LiEtWb.1253)
Baltic i, confirmed by Latin, here reflects an original PIE *i, not Neogr. *Ã. The
segmentationoftheextensionPIE*·l-attachstheitemstothemainroot
PIEaui-‘sheep’:
CLu.aui-
Gr.rß<-
Lat.oui-
(c.)‘Schaf’(KLuN70,DLL45)
(c.)‘Schaf’(GEW2:367,Arg.rß<@D[plA])
(c.)‘Schaf’(WH2:229-30)
555
WhetherOInd.pr
a-(a.)‘voll’(Wack.AiGr.II/2:731,KEWA1:283)andLAv.fr
na·yantTma-(a.)
‘-(?)-’(AIWb.1016)belongtoLat.plnusorOIr.l
ncannotbedetermined,owingtothecollisionof
vocalismsinIndo-Iranian.
556
WhetherPIE*aoulo-orPIE*oaulo-istobereconstructedforGr.Bx>B-remainsuncertain.
282
Li.avì-
(4)‘Schaf’(LiEtWb.28,avis[sgN])
(c)PIE*ulan-‘Wolle’(P.1139)isimpliedbytheGreeklacking‘prothetic\-’in:
Gr.>@B-
MidIr.olann MidCymr.gwlan
Lat.l
n
-
(m.)‘Wolle,Wollfaser,-flocke’(GEW2:117-8)
(f.)‘Wolle’(DIL.489,olann,oland)
(f.)‘wool’(Schrijver1995:177)
(f.)‘Wolle’(WH1:756-7,l
na[sgN])
TheabsenceoftheinitiallaryngealisconfirmedbyOldAnatolian,wheretherootPIE
ul-appearswithanalternativeextension:
i.ulii-
((SÍG)c.)‘e.KultgegenstandausWolle’(HHand.185).
§6. Brugmann (Grundr2 1:475) reconstructed Neogr. mÃC- for “Ai. m%rá-s
‘zermalmt’,alat.malt
s‘molles’umbr.kumatescomatir‘commolitis’[...]lit.míltaiPl.
‘Mehl’.”Asusual,severaldistinctrootsareconfirmedbyexternalcomparison:
(a)PIE*mul-isimpliedbythecommonIndo-European/u/in:
Gr.?>B-
RV.pari·m%rá-
Gr.?>>K
OHG.mulla- (m.)‘Handmühle’(GEW2:268-70)
(pret.pt.)‘verwelkt,altgeworden’(WbRV.389)
(vb.)‘mahlen,zerreiben,zermalmen’(GEW2:269)
(vb.)‘crushtopieces’(GoEtD.260,mullan[inf.])
AstheliquidhasbeenpreservedinRig-Vedic,therewasnolaryngealwithintheroot
(theconverseofFortunatov’sLawII).
(b)PIE*mal-isconfirmedbymultiplewitnessesin:
Gr.?|>8GCB- OIr.malart Li.mol
AV.mama³karo-
OLat.malto- (n.)‘Mehl’(PNm.)‘Müller’(GEW2:166)
(f.)‘destruction’(LEIAM:14)
(f.)‘Mahlen,Mahlgut’(LiEtWb.463)
(pr.)‘zuStaubzermalmen’(KEWA2:604)
(pt.)‘malt
s:molles’(Grundr21:475)
(c)PIE*mail-(or*mila-?)isattestedinItalicandBaltic:
Lat.milio-
Li.milin£-
Li.mìlta-
Latv.miltî-
(n.)‘Hirse,Rispenhirse’(WH2:87,milium[sgNA])
(f.)‘HandgriffandderHandmühle’(LiEtWb.453)
(1m.pl.)‘Mehl’(LiEtWb.453,mìltai[plN])
(vb.)‘zermahlen,prügeln’(LiEtWb.403,miltît[inf.])
§7.ThekeyissuesconcerningNeogr.*ÃR(C)ÄHCare:
(a)Afterthelossofthelaryngeal,theactualoutcomeofthesequencePIE*(C)ÎCin
Aryan languages is (C)Ä/ÎC, rebutting the idea that svarabhakti vowels developed
fromsyllabicsonants.
(b) In both Aryan and non-Aryan languages, the svarabhakti vowels traditionally
derived from Neogr. *Ã are paralleled by at least two witnesses, and therefore are
showntobeoriginal.
283
3 .3.12
LiquidsPIE*l/ÄandPIE*r/ÎinSystemPIE
§0.OnlytwoliquidswithconsonantalPIE*l*randvocalicPIE*Ä*Îallophonesareto
be reconstructed for the proto-language, with syllabicity being conditioned by the
environmentC/V.
§1.ThecoreNeogrammariantheoryofthesyllabicliquidsPIE*Î*Äholdstrue,butthe
vocalicallophonesareonlycontinuedinIndo-Iranian.Intheory,someimprovements
couldyetemerge,owingtothescatteredtracesofsyllabicliquidsinLaterAnatolian
andTocharian:
(a)Occasionaltracesofthesyllabicresonant/Î/(writtenr)appearatthesurfacelevel
ofLaterAnatolian.Thus,forexample,thephoneme/Î/isfoundintheenvironment
CÎCinLycian:
Lyc.prñnawa- HLu.parnaua- (pr.)‘build’(Pedersen1945:30,prñnawati[3sg])
(vb.)‘serve’(CHLu.1.1.58,(CRUX)pa+ra/i-na-wa/i-tu4)
Since the Lycian corpus – and, consequently, our knowledge of the language – is
relatively restricted, we cannot reconstruct PIE *pÎnouo- with certainty. In theory,
syncope (the loss of the counterpart of the vowel /a/ in HLu. parn-) could have
occurred,thusresultinginasecondarysyllabicÎinLycian.AslongasLaterAnatolian
hasnotbeenfullycomparedwithOldAnatolianandtherestofthegroup,itremains
possiblethatverificationofPIE*Îand*ÄmayemergefromLaterAnatolian.
(b)Furthermore,sporadicremnantsofsyllabicliquidsalsoappearinTocharianina
few (but clearly attested) instances. Thus, for instance, a surface level /Ä/ appears in
TocharianB(writtenClC),correspondingtoOInd.Äin:
RV.c
kÄp- TochB.klpor- AV.kÄptá- (pfM.)‘sichwonachrichten’(WbRV.318,c
kÄpré)
(sb.abstr.)‘obtaining’(DTochB.171,klporsa)557
(pret.pt.)‘geordnet(EWA1:323-4,kÄptá-)
TheTocharianmaterialisadmittedlythin,butatleastintheoryexternalconfirmation
fortheIndo-Iraniansyllabicresonantscouldemergefromthisdirectioninthefuture.
§2.Noexamplesfor PIE*Äand*Îareavailableinthe‘non-Aryan’languages,because
the svarabhakti vowels traditionally attached to syllabic sonants are externally
paralleledandthusproventobegenuinebythecomparativemethod.
3.4 NasalsNeogr.*n*m
3.4.1 NasalsintheNeogrammariansystem
§0.Schleicher(1861-62)alreadycorrectlyreconstructedthetwonasalsPaleogr.*n(=
PIE*n)andPaleogr.*m(=PIE*m)intheproto-language.
557
Adams(loc.cit.)explainstheformasaloan,butthesuffixisunmistakablyTocharian,andthereis
nosyllabicliquidTochB.†Äaswouldbethecaseiftheformwerealoan.
284
§1.In GrundrissBrugmannpresentedhistheoryofsyllabicnasals,consistingoftwo
series–Neogr.*nÉÉnÈandNeogr.*mÇÇmÆ–thatcloselyresembleliquids.The
segmentalanalysisoftheitemswasassumedtobeidenticalwiththatofliquids:
Neogr.*ÉnR**ÉTV;*ÈR**ÉTC;*ÇmR**ÇTV;*ÆR**ÇTC.
§2. According to Brugmann, the nasals of the proto-language (written here for the
dentalnasal*nonly)werereflectedinIndo-Europeanasfollows:
Uridg. *n
*É+C *Én+V
*È+C Ar.
n
a
an
Arm.
n
an
an
an
Gr.
@
4
4@
@
Alb.
n
e(i)
?
?
Ital.
n
en
en
en
Urir.
n
in
an
an
Germ. Balt.
n
n
un
in
un
in
un
in
Slav.
n
n
n
TheallegedoutcomesofNeogr.*Én*È*Çm*Æareidenticalwithliquids,exceptfor
thetinydifferencesofsvarabhaktivowelsandthetreatmentofNeogr.*É*È,which
assumedlylostthenasalandturnedintothesimplevowels/a/and/
/inIndo-Iranian
and,tosomeextent,Greek.558Thefollowingpreliminaryremarksconcerningthefour
typesofnasalsasitemsoftheinventoryshouldbenoted.
§3.Thenon-syllabicconsonantalnasalsNeogr.*n(dental)andNeogr.*m(bilabial)
are attested in the antevocalic environment *nV, mV. The reconstruction of PIE *n
and PIE *m has not substantially changed, and the most relevant subsequent
development concerns Brugmann’s (Grundr2 1:342) distinction between four places
ofarticulationforenvironments:
“Die idg. Grundsprache hatte vier der Articulationsstelle nach verschiedene Nasale, den
labialen, m,dendentalen, n,denpalatalen ñ,unddenvelaren, .Diezweiletztenkamen
nurvorpalatalenundvorvelarenConsonantenvor[...].”
The existence of conditions for Neogr. *ñ (before palatals) and Neogr. * (before
velars)hasmorecommonlybeeninterpretedasindicatingtheallophonicstatusofthe
palatal(Neogr.*ñ)andvelar(Neogr.*)articulations.Thisviewisnodoubtcorrect,
butneverthelesstheunderlyingproblemisnotwhollyresolvedwithallophones(for
reasonsthatwillbediscussedbelow).Thesurface-levellabialanddentalnasalsofthe
Indo-European languages can also be allophones in environments NK (velar), NP
(labial)andNT(dental),whereanoriginalPIE*norPIE*mcannotbeverifiedowing
totheassimilations:
PIE*n/mKO*nK
PIE*n/mPOmP
PIE*n/mTOnT.
559
If Brugmann’s allophonicreconstruction (*K) is mechanically replaced with a
structuralone(*nK,etc.),theoutcomesarenotnecessarycorrect.because PIE*mK,
558
Becausetheproblemsofthesyllabicliquidsapplytothenasalsandviceversa,allofthearguments
havenotbeenrepeatedhere.
559
PIE *mT was only preserved in Lithuanian (Li. #iÅtas, etc.), with the result that in practice the
entirecase*nTisambiguous.
285
etc. can also be correct from a comparative point of view. Though this possibility is
usuallynotmentionedinetymologicalcontexts,actuallyacoversymbol*Nshouldbe
usedthroughoutuntilandunlessPIE*morPIE*nhasbeenproven.560
§4. In the year marking the appearance of Osthoff’s syllabic liquids Neogr. *Ä *Î,
Brugmann (1876a:285-338 & 1876b:363-406) assumed the existence of the syllabic
nasalsNeogr.*É*Çfortheproto-language(Szemerényi1996:46-48).Theseitemsare
now referred to as the short syllabic nasals in anteconsonantal position (i.e. in
environments Neogr. *ÉC and *ÇC).561 According to Brugmann, the syllabic nasals
were not preserved in any Indo-European language as such, and this statement is
generally true in the sense that no language possessed /É/ or /Ç/ in its phoneme
inventory.562 In order to find evidence for the PIE items, Brugmann assumed a
twofolddevelopment:
(a)InthemajorityoftheIndo-Europeanlanguages,thesyllabicnasalsdevelopedan
epenthetic(svarabhakti)vowel,whichassumedsyllabicityfromitsoriginalcarrier,the
vocalicnasal:
“Die änderung bestand gewöhnlich darin, dass eine Verspätung des Eintritts der
spezifischen Mundstellung des Nasals deutlicheres Hervortreten des schwachen
unsilbischen Stimmgleitlautes bewirkte, der zu dieser Stellung führte. Der Gleitlaut zog
danndieFunktiondesSonantenansichundentwickeltesichzueinemStellungslaut.Z.B.
got.munda-ausuridg.mÉtó-.”(Brugmann,Grundr21:393)
For the Indo-European languages, the assumed svarabhakti vowels were mostly
identicalwiththoseoftherespectiveliquids.
(b) On the other hand, Brugmann (Grundr2 1:393) suggested that the
anteconsonantal syllabic nasals were lost in Indo-Arian and Greek, where the
outcomewasasvarabhaktivowel/a/only:563
“Im Arischen und im Griechischen ging mit dem Erstarken des Gleitlautes der Nasal vor
allenConsonanten[…]verloren,z.B.ai.matá-gr.[4tF-]?4FB-=got.munda-.”
Historically speaking, the starting point of Brugmann’s reconstruction was P
ini’s
internal reconstruction of the verbal paradigms of Sanskrit, displaying well-known
alternationsofbaseswithandwithoutanasal(likeRV.ga-:gam-‘gehen’andRV.
ha- : han- ‘schlagen’). With the newly postulated proto-language and the sound
laws at his disposal, Brugmann (1876a:294) correctly asserted that (P
ini’s) early
ruleofnasallosswasimpossible:
560
In practice, the reconstruction of the ambiguous nasal in C0-nNK-, C0-nNP- and C0-nNT-
depends on whether we are able to identify the respective roots C0-nN- without extensions ·K-, ·P-
and·T-,revealingeitheradental(C0-nn-)oralabialC0-nm-nasal.
561
ThoughBrugmannisnowgenerallycreditedfortheintroductionofthesyllabicnasals,theideahad
occurredtoseveralauthorsbeforehim(seeSzemerényi1996:48,fn1withliterature).
562
SeeBrugmann(Grundr21:393):“[DiekurzensonantischenNasale]sind[...]inkeineridg.Sprache
unveränderterhaltengeblieben.”
Initsfullform,Brugmann’ssoundlawinvolvesamulti-phaseddevelopment:Neogr.*ÉÇO an am
OanamOOIIr.a,Gr.4.
563
286
“Est ist durchstehende Regel, dass nach thematischem a vor folgenden Consonant ein
Nasal niemals spurlos wegfällt, dass dagegen ein Nasal nach bindevokalischem a dann
schlechtwegverschwindet,wennseineSilbetieftonigist.”
Ineffect,Brugmann’skeyideawasthatthenasalwasnotlost,buthadturnedintoa
vowel,asindicatedbytheinternalreconstruction*CÇ-:*Cam-and*CÉ-:Can-of
thesyllabicnasalsfortheparadigmsinquestion.
(c)Brugmann’snasals(Neogr.*É*Ç)havebeencriticizedbyBurrow(1949:22)for
being “[...] reconstructed purely on the basis of theoretical reconsiderations”. This
criticism is accurate, because having taken Panini’s internal reconstruction as his
starting point, Brugmann implicitly assumed that the Sanskrit paradigms directly
continued those of the proto-language. Consequently, the syllabic nasals were
postulated based on structural and distributive evidence, which did not necessarily
preservethetruth.
(d)Mostimportantly,thesuccessfulreconstructionofthelaryngealPIE*(h2)isa
catalytic event that will revolutionize the reconstruction of the syllabic nasalsin the
future. The laryngeal, by definition, is an obstruent (C). Consequently, hundreds of
examples of *¯C and *C¯of shape C¯C exist in reconstruction. This allows
definition of the real outcomes of the syllabic nasals ¯ based on their measurable
reflexes in the cognates. Though the situation is not yet generally understood, the
phenomenon has already been recognized for word-initial position by Beekes
(1988:22),whoinhisarticlePIE.RHCinGreekandotherlanguagessuggests:
“[…]achangeindetailofoneofthewellestablishedlaws.Itconcernsthedevelopmentof
the ‘long resonants’, i.e. the sequences of vocalic resonant plus laryngeals when before
consonant(RHC).Onitsdevelopmentthereisageneralagreement.Whennotprecededby
a vowel the resonant in this sequence is now automatically indicated as syllabic (C±HC).
Withintheframeworkofthelaryngealtheoryithasnotbeenobserved,asfarasIknown
[sic] that this sequence gives a different development in word initial position, at least in
some languages. It seems that here the laryngeal [R¬C]was vocalized rather than the
resonant.”
Beekes concludes his article by claiming that a ‘vocalization’, basically a nonphonemicvowel e,accompaniedthelaryngealin*He eH,thuscreatingenvironments
for the different vocalizations discussed (in a nutshell, ±HC = ±HeC and RHC =
Re¬C).RegardingBeekes’simportantarticle,thefollowingissuescanbehighlighted:
1.Beekes’s‘vocalizatione’(or‘propvowel’)isnothingbuttheschwasecundum–
theanaptyctic/epentheticvowelofO#tir(1913),Kuryowicz(1935:29&fn2,55f.)and
Sturtevant (1941:184) – which functionally corresponds to PIE *a (R Neogr. *T) in
SystemPIE.564
2.Beekes’skeyobservation,thatthedataprovesthatthe‘sequence[RHC]gives
a different development’ than ±HC (traditionally assumed for long syllabic
564
ForBeekes’shighlytentativedistributionbetween eHandHe,see1988:44:“InthecaseofCmHCit
isbesttowriteCmeHCasthefirstphoneticdevelopment.FormHC-,wheremeHCisclearlynotwhat
happened,onemightassumemHeC-.Ofcoursewewouldliketofindasetofruleswhichdetermine
wherethispropvoweldeveloped.Itisclearthattherulesarelanguage-specific.”
287
resonants), is correct in the sense that the syllabic resonants indeed result in
consonantswithoutsvarabhaktivowels.However,thedevelopmentisnotrestrictedto
word-initial position, but applies to the sequence C±HC as well. This is hardly
surprising, since the Neogrammarian theory was formulated without the laryngeal
andthereforenomeasurablesequencesC±C(RC±H,H±C)wereavailable.
3.InordertodemonstratethatBeekesiscorrectinhispositingoftheexistence
of a “different development” for syllabic resonants, I quote a root with PIE *a
(equalingBeekes’s*eh2)withthelaryngealconfirmedbyVedichiatusand PIE*aby
the‘a-vocalism’,inexamplessuchas:
PIEnau-‘Schiff,Boot’(P.755-756)
PIE*nau-
RV.n³v-
Hom.@:-
Lat.n
ui-
PIE*neau-
RV.ná’u-
Gr.@4-
LAv.nav·
za-
(f.)‘Schiff,Boot’(WbRV.756,n³vam[sgA])
(.)‘Schiff’(GEW2:292-3,Hom.@:D,Do.@4D)
(f.)‘Schiff’(WH2:148f.)
(f.)‘Schiff,Boot’(KEWA2:181,náüs[sgN])565
(.)‘Schiff’(Gr.@4D[sgN])
(m.)‘Schiffer’ (AIWb.1047)
PIE*nau-
OInd.nu-
(n.)‘aship’(MonWil.567)566
Thestrikingfeatureisthezero-grade PIE*nau-,whichfirstlosttheunaccented PIE
*a, resulting in a syllabic nasal, but then developed into a consonant (OInd. nu-)
ratherthanavowel:
PIE*nau-
O
*Éu- O
OInd.nu-.
Inotherwords,theoutcomeofthesyllabicnasalwas*ÉOOInd.n(),notOInd. †
(as assumed by Brugmann). This outcome,as pointed out already by Beekes
(1988:33),isgeneral.567Thisistosay,itholdstrueforallresonants(PIE*ÇÉÄÎ)inall
languages.FornasalPIE*Éwehaveasimpledevelopment:
PIE*É
O
OInd.n,Av.n,Gr.@,Lat.n,etc.
AsimilarsituationappearswiththelabialnasalPIE*Ç,forinstance,in:
PIE*máus-(Omúus-)
PIE*maus-(OÇus-)
RV.mÑs-(m.)‘Maus’(WbRV.1054)
RV.mué(inf.)‘rauben’(WbRV.1051)
565
Forthetwo-syllabicscansionCV’VC(RV.5.59.2.),seeSzemerényi(1956:185ff.).
566
Fortheform,seeWackernagel(AiGr.3:218).
567
See Beekes (1988:33): “I came upon the matter on the basis of Greek, but it seems that other
languageshavethesamedifference.”
288
4. Beekes’s strategy of explaining the difference between the real and
conventional outcomes of long syllabic resonants with RHe and ReH falls apart,
because it can be demonstrated that the outcomes of both are consonantal, not
vocalic. This is caused by the fact that Beekes’s RHe = PIE Ra also yielded a
consonantwithoutasvarabhaktivowel:
PIE*mea-‘Mond’
PIE*mean-
OEng.mn- Li.m¹na-
Go.mena(n)- PIE*meas-
RV.m³s-
LAv.bi·m
hya-
Arm.mahik (.)‘moon’(ASaxD.696)
(m.)‘E8>~@::moon’(GoEtD.251)
(m.)‘Mond,Monat’(WbRV.1036)
(a.)‘zweiMonatedauernd’(AIWb.965)
(sb.)‘Mondsichel’(ArmGr.1:191)
PIE*meau-
El.?8-
OIcl.m%lin- OIcl.mÞlin- OIcl.mundil·fari-
(.)‘Mond’(LSJ.1093-94)
(m.)‘Mond’(ANEtWb.395)
(m.)‘NamedesMondes’(ANEtWb.397)
(PNm.)‘N.fürdenVaterdesMondes’(ANEtWb.395)
OIcl.m%lin= PIE*Çául-containsanexampleof PIE*ÇC(in*Ç-),yieldingOIcl.
m (not †um, the assumed Neogrammarian outcome). Thus, the distinction between
Rhe and ReH made by Beekes is not sufficient: OInd. mu- ‘rauben’ lacks a
svarabhaktivowellikeOIcl.m%lin-andallexamplesbelongingtothistype.
5. No mention is made in Beekes’s article of the true scope of the situation. A
consonantRresultsfromasyllabicresonantinC1±C2whenC2isnot PIE*,asseen
inexamplessuchas:
PIE*aenÀ-*aonÀ-‘erreichen,(zu)Teilwerden,usw.’
RV.
n·á!- gAv.frs-
OIr.ro·
n·acc-
RV.á!a-
(pf.)‘inBesitzbekommen’(WbRV.135,
ná!a[3sg])
(ao.)‘zuteilwerden’(AIWb.360,fr#t
[3sg])
(pf.)‘erreichen’(P.317,ro
naic[3sg])
(m.)‘Anteil,Erbteil,Partei’(WbRV.1)
TherespectivezerogradecontainstheconsonantaloutcomeofasyllabicnasalinPIE
*anÀó-‘Teil’:
RV.pari·!á- (m.)‘Anteil,Zugeteiltes’(WbRV.78).
Thefullderivationoftheformis:
PIE*anÀó- O*ÉÀó-
O*Éó-
ORV.·!á-.
Inanidenticalmanner,thesyllabicnasalsdevelopintorespectiveconsonantswithout
svarabhaktivowelsaccordingtotheschemata:
289
PIE*C1¯C2
O
IEC1NC2
(withC1orC2=PIE*).
Duetotheregularityofsoundchange,twooutcomesarenotallowedforanidentical
prototype.Usingtheupgradedrulerestorestheconsistencyinreconstruction,andit
is therefore opted for in System PIE and the PIE Lexicon. This results in a
considerable simplification of the reconstruction, because the svarabhakti vowels
OInd. a R Gr. 4 etc. represent original vowels Neogr. *a R PIE *ea/ae, thus
removinganyambiguity.
§5.SoonafterthepostulationofNeogr.*(C)ÉCand*(C)ÇC,itturnedoutthatthe
svarabhakti vowels also appear in antevocalic position. Brugmann and Osthoff
postulatedNeogr.*Énand*Çm(now LT*(C)ÉHVand*(C)ÇHV),butnotwithout
somehesitation:
“Wie bei den Kürzen, erscheint einzelsprachlich die consonantische Nasalis und Liquida
baldvorbaldhinterdemVokal[...]Woraufberuhtdies?”(Brugmann,Grundr21:417)
Brugmann’s doubts are understandable, because the conditioning of syllabicity by a
consonantalenvironment,theverycoreofthetheory,waslostwiththepostulationof
Neogr.*(C)ÉVand*(C)ÇV.
(a)AtheoreticalimprovementwasmadebySaussure,whoreplacedtheschwawith
coefficient *A, subsequently interpreted as a laryngeal *H, such that a syllabic
environment(CRHV)wasrestored(atleastonpaper).
(b) Despite the improvement in the theoretical outlook of the problem, the
consonantal outcomes of RH(V)- are not restricted in word-initial position (see
Beekes1988:22)butgenerallyholdtrueforCRH(V)-.Followingthereconstruction
of the laryngeal, the sequence CNHV is now present, for instance, in examples of
Sievers-Edgerton’s Law for nasals where the actual developments of the cognates
allow us to infer the outcome of syllabic nasals directly based on the data. As an
exampleofthis,wecanobservetheroot PIE*ºnea-(Neogr.*ºn-)‘wissen’(P.376378).
Forthisroot,thelaryngealisimpliedbyVedichiatus:
RV.Îta·jñá’-
(a.)‘dasGesetzkennend’(WbRV.285,Îtajñáas[plN]).
The stem with confirmed Neogr. *a appears in the extension PIE *ºnea·dh- with
Celtic‘a-vocalism’in:
OIr.in·gnad- TochA.
·knats-
(a.)‘strange,wonderful,unusual,etc.’(DIL.406)
(a.)‘unwissend’(Poucha16)
PIE*ºna-,therootwithNeogr.*
(Li.o=Lat.
),ispreservedin:
Li.ne·(nó- (vb.)‘nichtwissen’(LiEtWb.1310,ne(nóti[inf.])
Lat.gn
ro- (a.)‘havingknowledge;known’(OxLatD.768)
TochB.a·kn
tsaññe- (sb.)‘ignorance’(DTochB.3)
290
In the zero grade, the laryngeal stands before the vowel (PIE *ºnaY+V),568 withthe
effectthattheregulardevelopmentofthesequenceCNVhasbeenpreservedin:
RV.jajñ- (pf.)‘erkennen,wahrnehmen’(WbRV.501,jajñús).
Inotherwords,thefollowingphasestookplace:
PIE*ºnaV-
PIE*CNaV-
O
O
PIIr.*¿ÉV O
PIIr.*C¯V O
RV.jñV,etc.
IE.CNV,etc.
Thesyllabicnasal¯wasdesyllabicized,yieldingaconsonantalNwithoutsvarabhakti
vowel, exactly as with the corresponding liquids.569 As it has been understood from
the beginning that the traditional theory produces ghost forms instead of attested
ones,itshouldbecorrectedintermsofthisdetail.570
§6.ThelongsyllabicnasalsNeogr.*Èand*Æbeforetheconsonantwerepostulated
byBrugmann,whowasfeelinglessconfidentabouttheirreconstruction,however.571
(a) In the laryngeal theory, the long syllabic nasals were analyzed as standing for
Neogr. *È Rdf ÉT Rdf ÉA Rdf LT ÉH (see Saussure, Mém. 269-75), but due to the
abstract nature of the theory the evidence has always been in doubt. A proof for
Neogr.*ÈRdfÉTinthecorrespondencesinquestionwasneverpresented.
(b)AsfortherealdevelopmentofC¯C,theexpectedoutcomeisidenticalwiththat
of C¯V for natural reasons: both C¯C and C¯V are of simpler shape C¯ R
C1¯C2independentlyofthephonemefollowingC2;accordingly,anidenticaloutcome
is expected. Since no sequences C1¯C2 were preserved in the early material, the
traditional (vocalic) interpretation is understandable. However, as with PIE liquids,
therearescatteredremainsinTocharianandinLaterAnatolianwithaconsonantal
outcomeofthesyllabicnasal,whichcanbeexemplifiedwiththeroot
PIE*ºna-‘(er)kennen,wissen’(P.376-8)
PIE*ºna-
Li.ne·(nó- (vb.)‘nichtwissen’(LiEtWb.1310,ne(nóti)
Lat.gn
ro- (a.)‘havingknowledge;known’(OxLatD.786)
TochB.akn
tsaññe- (sb.)‘ignorance’(DTochB.3)
PIE*ºnea-
RV.Îta·jñá’- TochA.
·knats-
(a.)‘dasheiligeGesetzkennend’(WbRV.285)
(a.)‘unwissend’(Poucha16)
568
Forthevalue*RPIE*Y,basedonthevoicedplosivePIE*º,seeChapter4.
569
As with the liquids, the outcomes of syllabic nasal C¯NV were erroneously postulated by the
Neogrammariansandthelaryngealists(LTC¯HV)followingthem.
570
See already Saussure (Mém. 217 = Rec. 253), who pointed out that prototypes such as *ºÉAV
should produce Gr. †64@:-, etc. Instead of metathesis or syncope (see Anttila 1972:5-6), the
explanationofvocalismshouldbesoughtfromtheirPIEorigin.
InBrugmann’swords(Grundr21:417):“Dassdieidg.UrspracheanteconsonantischundimAuslaut
lange silbische Nasale besessen habe, halte ich nicht für so sicher, wie dass sie kurze hatte, aber
immerhinfürwahrscheinlich.”
571
291
PIE*ºna-
RV.jajñ-
(pf.)‘erkennen,wahrnehmen’(WbRV.501,jajñús)
TochA.
·kn·ts·une (sb.)ignorantia,inscientia’(DTochB.16)
Inzerograde,onecanreadilyverifythatfollowingthelossofunaccented PIE*athe
prototype PIE *ºna- resulted in a nasal, both before a vowel V (RV. jajñús) and
before an obstruent C (TochA. ·kn·tsune). Thus the development of the
reconstructioncanonlybe:
PIE*Cna,*Cna
O*CÉ
OTochA.Cn,RV.Cn.
The general absence of the attested shapes CnC may have been caused by a
phonological restriction, according to which such shapes were dropped in usage (or
wereneverformedinthefirstplace?).
(c)Asthesyllabicnasalsresultinrespectiveconsonantswithoutyieldingsvarabhakti
vowels, the latter can no longer be explained by traditional means. This does not,
however, constitute a major reconstructive problem, since the vowels are externally
confirmedatleasttwowitnesses,andthereforerepresentoriginalPIEitems.
3 .4.2 PIE*n(consonantaldental)
§0.ThedentalnasalNeogr.*n(PIE*n)hasbeenpreservedinthecognatesassuch,
andonlyafewminorissuesdeserveattention.
§1.Brugmann’s(Grundr21:344-8)examplesofNeogr.*ninclude:
(a)Neogr.*neÒo-s,*neÒ¾o-s‘neu’(Grundr21:344):“ai.náva-s,arm.nor(miteinem
r-Suffixerweitert),gr.@}B-D,lat.nouo-s,air.n%e,got.niuju-s,lit.na$ja-s,aksl.nov&.”
(b)Neogr.*seno-s‘alt’(Grundr21:344):“ai.sána-s,arm.hin,gr.e@:(‘Tagvordem
Neumond’),lat.senex,air.sen,got.Superl.sinista,lit.s¢na-s.”
(c) Neogr. *snei»h- ‘schneien’(Grundr2 1:345): “av. sna(
-Ð ‘es soll schneien’, gr.
@8H8< ‘es schneit’, hom. \6|-@@<HBD ‘sehr beschneit’, lat. ninguit nix, mir. snechta
‘Schnee’,got.snaiw-s‘Schnee’,lit.sni¢ga-saksl.sng&‘Schnee’.”
§2. PIE*nhasbeenpreservedinTocharianwithvelarandpalatalallophones.Thisis
provenbycorrespondenceslike:
Gr.@}(ß)B- TochA.ñu TochB.naw
ke
Poln.nowak- (a.)‘neu,jung,usw.’(GEW2:306,LinB.ne-wo)
(a.)‘novus’(Poucha111,ñu[sgN])
(m.sg.)‘novice’(DTochB.331,naw
ke)
(m.)‘Neuling’(LiEtWb.488)
No nasal loss has taken place in Tocharian. Conversely, when there is no nasal in
dialectsAandB,thenasalwasabsentalreadyintheproto-language.
§3.PIE*nwasalsopreservedinOldAnatolian,asrevealedby:
i.neua-
(a.)‘frisch,neu’(HEG2:320,ne-e-ua-an).
292
On the contrary, when Old Anatolian has no nasal, it is also absent in the protolanguage (i.e. no nasal loss has taken place). Note, however, the following minor
exceptions:
(a) PIE*nisnotwritteninconsonantclusters,whichwereimpossibletorepresentin
theOldAnatoliansyllabicscript.Thus,forexample,thepluralofthestem
i.ning-
(vb1A.)‘sichsatttrinken,sichbetrinken’(HEG2:331f.)
iswritteni.ni-in-kán-zi[3pl]withnasalvisibleafteravowel,butitssingulari.niik-zi [3sg]lacks the nasal after a consonant. In such cases, the nasal was not
historically lost (or assimilated), but left unmarked due to the restrictions of the
cuneiform orthography.572 In such instances, the internal reconstruction of *n/m is
allowed,until/unlessprovenotherwisebycomparison.
(b) In Hieroglyphic Luwian script, the inherited nasals were omitted (or, less likely
thecase,lost)beforeconsonants,asinOldPersian(Kent1953:17-18).Consequently,
the reconstruction of the now absent nasals in Hieroglyphic Luwian depends on
comparison.
§4. A ‘nasal infix’ PIE *n573 has been identified in multiple roots. To quote just one
example,theinfixlessrootform PIE*likÒ-‘lassen,usw.’(RV.ric-)isaccompaniedby
an infixedone in athematic PIE *linekÒ- (RV. riak-) and in thematic PIE *linkÒo-
(Lat.linquo-)variants.Etymologicallythenasalinfixmorphemeisconnectedwiththe
conjunction PIE*nu-‘now’(RV.nú,etc.),whichispreservedinthesentenceparticle
i. n(a)- ‘now’ (PIE *n(o)- ‘now’). Regarding the analysis of the formation, two
dominanttheoriesexist:
(a)Accordingtotheinfixtheory,anasalmorphemewasinsertedwithintheroot.This
viewassumesaprocessofinfixationandderivesthenasalformsfromthebasicroots
withthisauxiliary(e.g.*likÒ-*li(ne)kÒ-,*li(n)kÒ-).574
(b) According to Persson, the scholar who has gone into Indo-European root
formation in the most depth, the nasal infix forms consist of sequences of suffixed
morphemes.575Thus,Persson’ssegmentationresultsinmultiplemorphemeslike*li·
kÒ- *li·ne·kÒ- and *li·n·kÒ-, where the root li- is optionally attached with a nasal
suffixfollowedbythedeterminative·kÒ-.AlreadyPerssonwasabletoproveseveral
segmentationsbydemonstratingthealternationofdeterminativesoftheroots,576and
the material now at our disposal confirms Persson’s observations. Indeed, several
572
OntheHittitenasalreduction,seealreadyKronasser(1956:71f.).
573
Forhisviewonnasalinfix,seeBrugmann(Grundr21:452-3).Forliterature,seeAnttila(1969:3839).Forawidearrayofexamples,seethemonographsofKuiper1937,Puhvel1960andStrunk(1967
&1973/4).
574
Onthenasalinfixinthecontextoftypology,seeBybee(1985:97):“Infixationwasnotfoundtobean
inflectional process in any of the languages examined, while it was mentioned occasionally as a
derivationalprocess.”
Note Anttila’s (1969:38) summary: “Persson (WW 991) expresses himself against the general
agreementthatthenasalformsaresecondaryandcutsoutasequenceofsuffixes: spr-e-n-gh-, wr-e-ngh-(cf.Persson589,959).”
575
576
SeePersson’s(1912:503fn1)owndiscussionon*lei·kÒand*lei·p(lei-).
293
rootspredictedbyPersson’smethodologyarenowactuallyattested.Forexample,the
unextendedrootimpliedbytheextensions PIE*li·kÒ-,*li·n·kÒ-,*li·p-isnowattested
in:
PIEli-‘lassen,lösen,frei(mach)en,usw.’(*li-*lei-*loi-,HEG2:1ff.)
i.lai-
(vb1.)‘lösen,freimachen’(HHand.89,la-a-iz-zi[3sg])
Comparatively speaking, Persson’s segmentation is methodically superior because it
predicts the segmentation, hence the shortest forms of historical roots, and thus
reveals the maximal portion of the PIE root structure, implying that historically the
‘nasalinfix’formationsarenotrootsproper,butcompounds.577
3 .4.3 Neogr.*É(anteconsonantalsyllabicdental)
§0.Neogr.*É,originallypostulatedbyBrugmannin1876,isthesyllabiccounterpart
of Neogr. *n in the consonantal environment *(C)ÉC. Though syllabic nasal PIE *É
doubtlessly existed in the proto-language, the traditional view of its reflexes in the
cognatesisnolongersupportedbythecomparativemethod.
§1. According to Brugmann (Grundr2 1:395), the developments of Neogr. *É in the
daughterlanguageswereasfollows:
Uridg. *É+C Ar.
a
Arm. Gr.
an
4
Alb.
e(i)
Ital.
en
Urir. Germ. Balt. Slav.
in
un
in
§2.BecausethegeneralproblemsoftheNeogrammarianreconstructionhavealready
beendiscussed,Ionlyreferheretothemostcriticalpoints:
(a)ThereconstructionofthelaryngealPIE*ÉresultsinnumerousexamplesofPIE*É
inenvironments PIE*ÉC*(C)ÉC*(C)ÉVthatdonotproducesvarabhaktivowels
inthenon-AryangrouporIndo-Iraniana(=Gr.4).Instead PIE *Éturnsintosimple
PIE*nafterthelossofPIE*.
(b) While PIE *É fails to produce the svarabhakti vowels, the latter can be
comparatively verified as original by two witnesses. Hence, despite the fact that
syllabicnasalsexist,theyhavenotcausedthesvarabhaktivowels.
BothphenomenaarevisibleinBrugmann’sexamplesofNeogr.*É:
§3.Brugmann(Grundr21:394,401)compared“Gr.@}B?4<:OInd.ásta-mAv.astT-m
‘Heimat’aus*És-to-mW.nes-(IIS.216)”.
(a)PIE*nes-*nos-,the*e/o-graderoot,isconfirmedbeyonddoubt:
Gr.@}(h)B-
Go.ga·nasja-
Gr.@EFB-
Gr.@}EFKC-
(pr.)‘glücklichgelangen,zurückkehren’(GEW2:304-6)
(vb.)‘heal,save’(GoEtD.263,ganasjan[inf.])
(m.)‘Rück-,Heimkehr,Fahrt,Ertrag’(GEW2:305)
(Im.)‘der(glücklichwohin)gelangt’(GEW2:305) 577
Naturally, the number of theroots allowing Persson’s segmentation is well documented in the
traditionalmaterial(cf.OInd.yu,yuj,yuñj,yunaj,etc.).
294
(b) The structurally assumed zero-grade Neogr. *Ésto- in RV. ásta- (n.) ‘Heimat,
Heimatstätte’ (adv.) ‘heim(wärts)’(WbRV. 157-8) is, however, unparalleled. In
addition,analternativeetymologyispossible,becausethemeaning‘Heimat’appears
inaderivateoftherootsta-‘stehen’(P.1004-1010):
RV.giri·stháa-
(a.)‘aufBergenseineHeimathabend’(WbRV.401).
ThuswecanreconstructPIE*esto-(orPIE*osto-?)forIndo-Iranian.
§4.Brugmann(Grundr21:394,405)compared“OInd.asmá-:Lesb.^??8DGr.g?D
Go.unsnebenOInd.nás(IIS.803f.)”,derivingthesefromNeogr.*És-*nes-*nos-.
Againstthisanalysis,threeidentitiesareconfirmedbyexternalcomparison:
(a)Theroot*n(e/o)-‘we’isattestedinpluralslike:
RV.·nas
Lat.ns
i.·na#
(plNAD.)‘uns,wir’(WbRV.165)
(plNA.)‘wir;uns’(WH2:175-6)
(encl.pron.1pl.)‘(to)us,our’(CHDLN:396f,·na-a#)
Thepluralsarerelatedtotherespectiveduals(Gr.@,RV.n
u)andsingularsin:
TochB.ñi
TochA.nä (pron.1sg.sgG.)‘my’(DTochB.265)
(pron.1sg.m.)‘ego’(Poucha148-9)578
(b)Theroot PIE*u-‘1stperson’formedsingularssuchasCLu.·ui[1sg.]andTochB.
·u [1sg] with a corresponding dual in TochB. wene ‘we both’ (DTochB. 265). A ‘splural’is attested in TochA. was ‘ns’(Poucha 289-90) and a ‘n-plural’ in i. ·ueni
[1pl], i. ·uani [1pl] and CLu. ·uni [1pl]. The pronouns Go. uns (1pl.pr.pronAD.)
‘uns,unser’(GoEtD.378),OIcl.oss‘id’,etc.withPIE*uns-belongtothisformation.
(c)OIr.arn-‘our’(P.758)N PIE*aes·r-m[plG]containsaroot PIE*aes-‘we’,
whichmatchesOInd.asmá-:Lesb.^??8D:Gr.g?DfromPIE*aes·m-.TherootPIE
*aes-‘we’,inturn,isanoriginalnominativepluralin*·esoftherootmeaning‘I’(cf.
HLu.·a[1sg],i.·i[1sg],etc.).
§5.Brugmann(Grundr21:398)reconstructedNeogr.“*mÉtó-sPart.,*mÉti-sF.von
W. men- ‘denken, sinnen’ : ai. matá-s matí-, gr. 4tF?4FBD ‘freiwillig’
(‘selbsgedacht’), lat. com-mentu-s mns menti, air. der-met N. ‘das Vergessen’ ermitiu‘honor’,got.munda-ga-mundi-,lit.miñta-sat-mintì-saksl.pa-mt.”.Tothese
Brugmann(Grundr21:398)added“*mÉ¾é-tai3.Sg.Med.vonW.men-:gr.?4@8F4<
aus *?4@¾8-F4< ‘er ist verzückt, rast’, air. do muiniur ‘ich meine, glaube’, aksl. mnjV
‘ichdenke’;nichtganzsicherist,obauchai.mánya-t‘ermeint’hierhergehört(IIS.
1061)”.
Thecomparativemethodimpliesseveralexternallyconfirmedrootforms:
(a)PIEm-‘beachten’,themonoliteralroot,isnowattestedinthereduplication
PIE*mi·mo-‘beachten,usw.’:
578
According to Adams (DTochB. 265), “The formation of the first person singular pronoun in
Tocharianisasthornyathicketofmorphologyandphonologyasonecanfindthere.”Theproblemis
causedbyafalsecomparisonoftheTocharianpronounn-,theñ-pronounwiththepronounPIE*m-
(OInd.máma),insteadofthepropercognatesbeginningwithPIE*n-(Lat.ns,etc.).
295
CLu.mima- i.taru+mima-
i.mima·mi- (vb.)‘beachten(?)’(HHand.106)
(mc.)(grandécuyer)(NOMS.1260,tar-u-mi-ma)
(a.)‘heldinregard’(HEDM-160,HEG2:212)
(b) PIE ma- ‘id’, the laryngeal extension of PIE m-, appears in the feminine PIE
*ma-andderivatesinPIE*mea·(.)-:
PIE*ma-
OInd.m
-
LAv.v·m
- PIE*mea-
RV.ma-
Gr.?}?4-
(ao.)‘gedenken’(WbRV.992,ámata[3sg])
(pf.)‘imSinnehaben,gedenken’(GEW2:206)
PIE*mean-
RV.man³-
Gr.?4@o-
(f.)‘knowledge’(MonWil.771,Lex.m
[sgN])
(a.)‘besorgend’(AIWb.1450)
(f.)‘Eifersucht,Zorn’(WbRV.996)
(prM.)‘rasen,toben,vonSinnensein’(GEW2:160)
PIE*meat-
Gr.4tF·?4FB-
(a.)‘freiwillig:selbsgedacht’(Grundr21:398)579
(c)PIE*men-*mon-,thenasalextensionofPIE*me-mo-,includesitemssuchas:
i.men-
Go.man-
Li.m¢na-
CLu.manaa-
gAv.mainya-
(c.)‘Gesicht,Wange’(HEG2:196,me-nu-u#-#a[plA])
(pf.pr.)‘meinen,glauben’(GoEtD.260,man[1sg])
(m.)‘Gedächtnis,Verständnis’(LiEtWb.435)
(vb.)‘schauen’(?)(DLL.67-8,ma-na-a-ti[3sg])
(prM.)‘wissenwollen,bedenken’(AIWb.1122)
(d) PIE *min- ‘denken, usw.’(P. 714, *mein- *moin-) is confirmed by several
branches,including:
AVP.men-
Li.miñ-
OIr.man
OCS.mni-
OSax.mnia-
Li.mintì-
(pf.)‘denken’(EWA2:305,mené)
(vb.)‘sicherinnern,gedenken,usw.’(LiEtWb.455)
(n.)‘désir,objetdedésir’(LEIAM-47)
(vb.)‘meinen,glauben,gedenken’(Sadnik506mniti)
(vb.)‘meinen,denken,sagen,erklären’(ASaxD.659)
(4.)‘Gedanke,Einfall,Idee’(LiEtWb.455)
(e) PIE *mun- ‘denken, usw.’ is implied by the comparative method and based on
severalwitnesses:
OEng.muna- OIcl.muna- RV.múni- (vb.)‘remember,bemindfulof,think’(ASaxD.700)
(vb.)‘gedenken,sicherinnern’(ANEtWb.395)
(m.)‘einBegeisterter,Verzückter’(WbRV.1050)
579
Based on the correct meaning of Gr. 4tF·?4FB- (a.) ‘aus eigenem Antrieb, aus sich selbst
handelnd’(GEW1:191),theitemdoesnotbelongtotheroot.
296
OEng.mynia- OIr.do(…)muini-
RV.máuneya-
OstLi.muntu-
(vb.)‘haveastheobjectofdesire,intend’(ASaxD.704)
(vb.)‘ichmeine,glaube’(LEIAM-35,muinithir)
(n.)‘derZustandeinesM,Verzückung’(WbRV.1065)
(a.)‘verständig,geschickt,tauglich’(LiEtWb.409)
(f) PIE *met- *mot-, the dental extension of the stem PIE *me/o-, is implied by the
identities:
e
PIE*met /o-
Li.mete·linga-
LAv.mata- RV.matá·v
nt-
PIE*moti-
RV.matí-
gAv.tarÖ·maiti-
Alb.mësoj- PIE*metu-
(pt.)‘gedacht,usw.’
(f.)‘Kenn-,Erkundungszeichen’(LiEtWb.446)580
(pt.)‘gedacht’(AIWb.1122)
(a.)‘dasGedachteverfolgend,achtsam’(WbRV.974)
(f.)‘Andacht,usw.’
(f.)Andacht,Absicht,Sinn,Geist’(WbRV.974)
(f.)‘widerstrebendesDenken,Trotz’(AIWb.641)
(pr.)‘toteach,totrain’(AlbEtD.262,PAlb.*matj
ja-)
(f.)‘Gedank,usw.’
Lat.met%-
(f.)‘Besorgnis,Furcht’(WH2:83)
OGaul.moni·metu- (n.)‘monument’(ACSS.2:624,monimetu[sgNA])
RV.matú·tha-
(m.)‘derWeise(derPriester)’(WbRV.975)
The three formations PIE *meto- *moti- *metu- are externally confirmed not to
containasyllabicnasal.
§6.Brugmann(Grundr21:398)reconstructedNeogr.“*É-pod-‘fusslos’:ai.á-pad-apád- gr. ^-BGD” for the attested vowel RV. a = Gr. 4 Neogr. *a. The extended
material satisfies multiple criteria for the absence of the syllabic nasal, thereby
challengingthetraditionalreconstruction:
(a) In Tocharian A, the prefix also appears without nasal TochA. a· R TochB. a·,
makinganasalintheproto-languageimpossible.Someexamplesofthisare:
RV.á·deva- TochB.a·t
katte-
TochA.a·sinät
RV.a·sinvá- (a.)‘nichtgöttlich,gottlos’(WbRV.37-8)
(a.)‘unfounded,untrue’(DTochB.9)
(adv.)‘insatiabiliter’(Poucha13,asinät)
(a.)‘unersättlich’(WbRV.154,asinvámvavrám)
(b) The negative prefix RV. a· ‘nicht, ohne, -los’(cf. RV. á·deva-) stands in
quantitative ablaut with RV. · ‘nicht, ohne, -los’ (RV. ³·deva-). It appears, for
instance,in:
RV.³·deva- RV.³·sat-
(a.)‘gottlos’(WbRV.177)
(a.)‘nichtseined,unwahr,unheilsam’(WbRV.153)581
580
For the segment Li. ·linga- ‘·Zeichen’, see the hitherto problematic OInd. liga- (n.) ‘Merkmal,
Kennzeichnen’ (KEWA 3:101) and LAv. hapt·iringa- (a.) ‘mit sieben Merkmalen
(Gestirnbezeichung)’(AIWb.1767),thusreflectingPIE*l(vs.PIE*r).
297
RV.³’art·ana-
TochA.
·kn
ts-
TochB.
·
OHG.uo·haldi
OHG.uo·zurne-
(a.)‘Miserntenbringend’(WbRV.185)
(a.)‘foolish,stupid’(sb.)‘fool’(DTochB.3)
(vb.pref.)‘away,down’(DTochB.35)
(.)‘precipice:down-slope’(DTochB.35)
(vb.)‘disdain’(DTochB.35,uozurnen[inf.])
(c)The*o-gradevariantoftheprefixisapparentlyattestedinLatin:
Lat.o·pico- Lat.o·piter- (a.)‘un-gebildet’(cf.Lat.pic·tur
,WH2:211)
(a.)‘cuiuspateravvivmortuusest’(WH2:213)
Fromanexternalpointofview,thenegationprefixPIE*ae/o-*a/-‘un-,not-,etc.’
lacksanasalthroughout,anditistobedifferentiatedfromtheprefix PIE*ne-*no-
*n-‘no,etc.’despitetheidenticalmeaning.
§7. Brugmann (Grundr2 1:398, 401) reconstructed: “*»hÉ-¾é-ti 3. Sg. Act von W.
*»hen-:ai.hanyá-t‘erwirdgeschlagen’,aksl.(njV‘ichschneideab,ernte’(a.O.).”
[…] “Av. Wanyånte ‘sie sollen getroffen werden’ […]”, (Grundr2 1:498): “*»hÉtó-s
‘geschlagen’(ai.hatá-s)zuhán-ti.”,(Grundr21:405):“Gr.H4F-D‘getötet’:ai.hatá-s,
W. »hen- ‘schlagen’.” and (Grundr2 1:416): “Lit. giñti ‘(Vieh) treiben’ ap-ginti-s
‘Vertheidigung’ giñà giña-s ‘Streit’ giñkla-s ‘Waffe’, aksl. (ti ‘hauen, mähen’ : ai.
hati- ‘Schlag’ haty
‘Tötung’, gr. H4F-D ‘getötet’, as. g%ea ‘Kampf’ (urgerm.
*gun¾). W. »hen- [...] aksl. (injV ‘ich schneide ab, ernte’ : ai. hanya-t ‘er wird
geschlagen’[…].”
AgainstBrugmann’sNeogr.*»hen-*»hÉ-,severalrootsareconfirmed:
(a)Neogr.*»he-‘schlagen’,therootwithoutthenasal,isimpliedbythecomparative
methodowingtotheperfectmatchbetweenHittiteandIndo-Iranian:
i.gue-
RV.ha-
gAv.Wa-
OPers.ja-
(vb.)‘(er)schlagen,töten’(HEG1:604-5,ku-e-mi/-#i)
(pr.)‘(er)schlagen,töten’(WbRV.1642,hathás,hatás)
(vb.)‘schlagen,töten’ (AIWb.603,Waidy
i[inf.])
(pr.)‘strike,smite,defeat’(OldP.185,jadiy[2sg])
The Hittite e = PIE *e is confirmed by the second palatalization in Indo-Iranian,
provingtheabsenceofthenasal.
(b)Neogr.*»ho-‘schlagen’withPIE*oisattestedin:
HLu.gua-
OIc.hVg·gva- OInd.p
i·gha-
OInd.r
ja·gha-
(vb.)‘schlagen’(CHLu.6.5.3,CORNU(-)ku-wa/i-ha)
(vb.)‘tohew,beat’(ANEtWb.226)
(m.)‘strikingwiththehand’(MonWil.615)
(m.)‘slayerofkings’(MonWil.873)
Thusadeep-levelnasaldidnotoriginallybelongtoallbasesoftheroot.
(c)PIE»h·a-,theaboverootwithalaryngealextension,isattestedin:
581
The alternation is independent of ‘laryngeals’ and unconditioned (cf. RV. á·deva- (a.) ‘nicht
göttlich, gottlos, den Göttern feindlich’, WbRV. 37-8 and RV. á·sat- (a.) ‘nicht seined, unwahr,
unheilsam’,WbRV.153withoutaroot-initiallaryngeal).
298
PIE*»h·a-
OInd.gh
- Gr.\B·H4- Gr.}H4-
PIE*»halt-
AV.
·gh
á- TochA.k
lta·k-
RV.
·gh
í- (f.)‘astroke’(MonWil.375)
(ao.M.)‘die’(GEW1:657,Hes.\}H4FB)\};4@8@)
(pf.P.)‘die’(GEW1:657,}H4F4<[3sg])
(m.)‘Zimbel’(EWA1:159,FORTUNATOVII)
(sb.)‘n.cuiusdaminstrumentimusici’(Poucha61)
(c.)‘Cymbeln’oder‘Klappern’(WbRV.172)
PIE*»h·at-(=PGr.*H4F-:HF)
Gr.\C:·H4FB-
OInd.jghata-
OInd.gh
ta- YV.go·gh
tá-
Gr.}H:EB- (pt.)‘imKampfgetötet’(GEW1:657,\C:H4FBD)
(cs.ao.)‘causetobeslain,puttodeath’(MonWil.1287)
(a.)‘tötend’(m.)‘Schlag,Vernichtung’(MonWil.377)
(m.)‘Kuh-töter’(EWA2:800)
(pf.fut.)‘töten’(GEW1:657,8H:E8F4<)582
(d) PIE *»hin- ‘schlagen’ with common Indo-European *i is confirmed by several
witnessesin:
OCS.(n-
Br.hina-
Li.gina-
Arm.Wne-
Li.giñkla-
RV.hís-
(vb.)‘schneiden,ernten’(Sadnik214,(ti[inf.])
(prA.)‘verletzen,schädigen’(KEWA3:595,ahinat)
(pr.)‘wehren,verteidigen’(LiEtWb.152,ginù[1sg])
(vb.)‘schlagen’(GEW1:657,PArm.*Wine/o-)
(m.)‘Waffe’(LiEtWb.152,giñklas[sgN])
(pr.)‘verletzen,beleidigen’(WbRV.1665,hísanti)
(e)PIE*»hen-‘schlagen,töten’(HEG1:604-606),thenasalextensionoftherootPIE
*»he-(i.gue-,RV.há-),appearsin:
PIE*»hen-
i.guen-
RV.hán-
(vb.)‘(er)schlagen,töten’(HHand.81,ku-en-zi[3sg])
(pr.)‘(er)schlagen,töten’(WbRV.1642,hantan
[2pl])
PIE*»heni-
i.gueni-
Gr.;8@K
RV.hanyá-
(vb.)‘erschlagen’(HEG1:604f.,ku-e-ni[ipv2sg])
(pr.)‘(tot)schlagen’(GEW1:657,;8@K)
(prP.)‘erschlagen’(WbRV.1645,hanyáte[3sg])
PIE*»hn-
i.gun-
RV.ghn-
TochA.kuña!-
OHG.gund·fano
(vb.)‘(er)schlagen,töten’(HEG1:604-5,ku-na-an-zi)
(pr.)‘(er)schlagen,töten’(WbRV.1643,ghnánti[3pl])
(sb.)‘rixa:Streit,Kampf’(Poucha76,kuña![sgN])
(.)‘Kriegsfahne’(Grundr21:611,gundfano)
582
Inthisform,Gr.H(vs.†;)requiresPGr.*}HF·E¾B-,implyingPGr.*RYV.
.
299
OEng.g%
(f.)‘bellum’(ASaxD.493,g%[sgN])
(f)Neogr.*»h(e)t-,thedentalextension,isattestedinzero-and*e-grades:
PIE*»ht(o)-
OIcl.gu-
OIcl.hVgu- (f.)‘Kampf’(ANEtWb.195)
(m.)‘Schwert’(ANEtWb.280)
PIE*»het(o)-
RV.sa·hát- RV.hatá-
LAv.Wata-
(f.)‘dieSchicht’(WbRV.1440)
(pf.)‘geschlagen,getötet,erschlagen’(WbRV.1646)
(pf.pt.)‘geschlagen,getötet’(AIWb.602)
§8.Brugmann(Grundr21:399)reconstructed“ai.tanv½‘tenuis’,ahd.dunniaisl.unnr
‘dünn’(-nn-aus-nÒ-,§376S.335),aksl.tnk&‘dunn’vermutlichaus*tnÒk&(§449),
uridg.tÉÒ-,nebentÉnu-,s.§432.”(Grundr21:407):Lat.tentu-stenti:ai.tatá-sgr.
F4F-D ‘gestreckt’, gr. F|E<-D ‘Spannung’, W. ten-.” Brugmann (Grundr2 1:411) also
adds: “OIr. tt ‘Saite‘ : nkymr. tant gGf. *tÉtu-, vgl. ai. tatá- ‘gestreckt’, W. ten-.
(Grundr2 1: 416) OCS. tn&k& ‘dünn’[...] OCS. t&n&k& ‘dünn’(russ. tónkij)” and
(Grundr2 1:416): “Lit. t¼sti ‘sich recken’ Li. t¼si-s ‘Fischzug’ : ai. vi-tasti- ‘Spanne’,
ahd.gi-dunsan‘gedunsen’,zuW.ten-,s.IIS.1020.”ContrarytoBrugmann’suniform
rootwithdeep-levelnasal,amonoliteralrootwithmultipleextensionsisattested:
(a) PIE t- ‘strecken, usw.’, the monoliteral root, is preserved in reduplication PIE
*tet-‘dehnen,hinstrecken’
RV.tat-
(pfM.)‘sichhinstrecken,dauern’(WbRV.516,tate)
(b) PIEta-‘dehnen,erstrecken,spannen,usw.’,thelaryngealrootwithextensions,
hasbeenpreservedin:
PIE*t·a-
RV.³·t
-
LAv.hu·pairi·t
-
Lat.an·t
- Gr.F}F4-
Br.ta- PIE*tean-
ModCymr.tant
OIr.tt-
OGaul.tantou-
Gr.F4@-
RV.tanú-
(f.)‘Saite’(Grundr21:411,VGK1:138)
(f.)‘câble,corde’(LEIAT:55)
(pl.)‘fides’(LEIAT-55)
(prM.)‘spannen,strecken,ausdehnen’(GEW2:853)
(a.)‘lang,ausgedehnt’(WbRV.519)
PIE*teas-
Czech.tasi- Gr.\·F4~E- (f.)‘dieUm·fassung,dieRahmen’(WbRV.175)
(a.f.)‘(sich)wohlherumdehnend’(AIWb.1826)
(f.pl.)‘viereckigerWandpfeiler,Pilaster’(WH1:52)
(pfM.)‘sichdehnen,sicherstrecken’(GEW2:864)
(ao.)‘spannen,dehnen,sichausdehnen’(EWA1:618)
(vb.)‘ziehen’(REW3:81,tasiti[inf.])
(a.)Hes.‘\6?@4EFBD’(LSJ.267)
300
Rus.táska
LAv.vi·tasti- (f.)‘dasZiehen’(REW3:81)
(f.)‘Spanne(alsLängenmass)’(AIWb.1440)
PIE*teat-
RV.tatá-
Gr.F4F-
OInd.tati-
Gr.F|E<-
(pf.pt.)‘aufgespannt,aufgezogen’(WbRV.517)
(vb.a.)‘dehnbar’(GEW2:864)
(f.)‘Opferhandlung,Zeremonie’(EWA1:618)
(f.)‘Spannung,Dehnung,usw.’(GEW2:864)
(c)PIE*tin-‘zart,fein’isconfirmedbyBalto-SlavonicandCelticin:
Ir.tin- Latv.tina-
OCS.tin-
Li.tiñkla-
OCS.tn&k& OGaul.tinnetio(n)-
OBret.tinsi- (a.)‘zart:doux’(LEIAT-67,tin[sgN])
(f.)‘einSetznetz’(WP724,Latv.tina)
(f.)‘Seil,Strick’(Sadnik966,OCS.tin)
(m.)‘Netz,Falle,Schlinge’(LiEtWb.1098)
(a.)‘fein,zart’(Sadnik972,tn&k&)
(ON.)‘Tinzen’(ACSS.2:1854,tinnetione)
(vb.)‘sparsit’(VGK2:374,tinsit[3sg],Loth:tinsot!)
(d)PIE*ten-,ten(a)-,thenasalextensionoftheroot,hasbeenpreservedin:
Lat.ten%-
Li.t¶va-
Lat.tenui-
OIcl.inul-
(pf.)‘gespannt/besetzt/zurück/an-halten’(WH2:664-5)
(a.)‘schlank,dünn,fein,zart,hoch’(LiEtWb.1086)
(a.)‘dünn,fein,zart,eng,schmal’(WH2:666)
(m.)‘TaudasdasNetzeinfasst’(ANEtWb.611)
(e)PIEtun-(OHG.gi-dunsan,etc.)isproventobeoriginalthroughfoursubgroups:
PIE*tunu-
Li.tunu-
OIcl.unn- Gr.FG@@-
OHG.dunni ORus.t&n&k&
Rus.tónkij (a.)‘dünn’(LiEtWb.1140)
(a.)‘dünn,schwach,klar’(ANEtWb.627)
(a.)‘klein,gering’(PGEW2:945,Gr.*FG@ßB-)
(a.)‘dünn’(ANEtWb.627)
(a.)‘dünn,hager,fein,scharf’(REW3:119)
(a.)‘dünn,fein,schlank’(REW3:119)
§9.Brugmann(Grundr21:399)reconstructedNeogr.“*dÉÀó-PräsensstammvonW.
denÀ- ‘beissen’(ai. d²!a-s ahd. zangar): ai. dá!a-ti (§ 1047,4) gr. d-74=B@ (II S. 921.
994)”.Brugmann’sreconstructionhasalreadybeenshowntobeerroneousbyBurrow
(1979:59),whocorrectlypointedoutthat“[...]Skt.da!-isnotfromIE*denÀ-,but
from*danÀ-”.Thisstateofaffairsisundeniableasthematerial(P.201)agreeswith
Gr.74@=-in:
(a)PIE*deanÀ-‘beißen’(P.201)
Gr.74@=|@K OHG.zangar Gr.7|@=B>B- RV.da ra- (pr.)=‘7|=@K’(LSJ.364,746=|@K)
(a.)‘beissend,scharf’(GEW1:344)
(n.)=‘7C}4@B@’(LSJ.364,7|6=B>B@)
(m.)‘Zahn,Fangzahn’(WbRV.569,da ra[sgN])
301
LAv.ti(i·dstra-
(a.)‘mitscharfemGebiß,Gezähn’(AIWb.653)
(b) PIE*deaÀ-‘beißen’(P.201).Theabsenceofasyllabicnasalisconfirmedbythe
Europeanaaccompaniedbyquantitativeablaut:
Gr.74=-
RV.dá!a-
TochB.ts
ka- Gr.7}7:I- Lat.daculo- (ao.)‘beißen,stechen,verletzen’(GEW1:343,d74=@)
(pr1A.)‘beißen’(WbRV.569,dá!a[2sg])
(vb.)‘bite’(DTochB.731,ts
ka[3sg])583
(pf.)‘beißen,stechen,verletzen’(GEW1:343,7}7:I4)
(n.)‘Sichel’(WH1:449,daculum[sgNA])
Therootvariantspointtoa‘nasalinfixroot’with‘Perssoncut’ PIE*dea·n·À-,nota
syllabicnasalNeogr.†dÉÀó-(seeBurrow).
§10.Brugmann(Grundr21:401)reconstructedNeogr.*bhÉdh-for“Ai.badhná-ti‘er
bindet’badhyá-t‘erwirdgebunden’,Part.baddhá-av.basta-apers.basta-:vgl.got.
bundan-s‘gebunden’,W.bhendh-”and(Grundr21:413):“Got.bundumahd.buntum
aisl. bundom ‘wir banden’, zu got. bindan ‘binden’ (II S. 1258)”. Yet all attested
vocalismsareparalleledbythecomparativemethod.
(a) PIE *bhend(h)- *bhond(h)- ‘binden’, the nasal root (P. 127),has never been
contested:
Go.and·band-
LAv.band- RV.bandhá- Go.and·binda-
Lat.of·fendc-
(pret.)‘unbind,loose’(GoEtD.71,andband[3sg])
(vb.)‘binden,fesseln’(AIWb.926,bandy
t[opt])
(m.)‘Band,Fessel’(WbRV.898)
(vb.)‘unbind,loose’(GoEtD.71,andbindan[inf.])
(f.)‘dasKinnbandanderPriestermütze’(WH2:204)
(b) PIE *bhodh- ‘binden’. Brugmann’s structural derivation RV. badh- Neogr.
*bhÉdh-isproventobeerroneousbyOldAnatolian,whichalsolacksthenasalin:
i.badan- AV.badhn³- i.badar-
(GI"n.)‘TablettausRohr,Korb,Sieb’(HHand.127)
(pr.)‘bindenan/mit[L]’(WbRV.897,badhn
mi)
(GI"n.)‘TablettausRohr,Korb,Sieb’(CHDP:241f.)
(c)PIE*bhund(h)-‘binden’isconfirmedbythefollowingexamples:
Lat.fund
- Lat.funditr- Lat.fundulo- Go.bundan- (f.)‘Schleuder,Wurfnetz,Leibbinde’(WH1:562)
(m.)‘Schleuderer’(WH1:562)
(m.)‘Blinddarm’(WH1:562,fundulus[sgN])
(pt.)‘bound’(GoEtD.71,bundans[plN])
§11. Brugmann (Grundr2 1:401) reconstructed: “Ai. !asyá-t ‘er wird gelobt’ apers.
Zahy
mahy‘wirwerdengenannt’,Part.ai.!asti-‘Lob’av.sasti-#‘Lob,Gebot’:osk.
an-censto ‘incensa’, W. Àens- (ai. !²sa-ti)” and (Grundr2 1: 407): “Lat. cnsu-s für
*cnstu-s[...]osk.an-censto‘incensa’:ai.!astá-s‘gesprochen,gepriesen’,W.Àens-”.
583
TheTocharianpalatalizationrequiresPIE*daYÀ-O*dYÀ-OTochB.ts
k-(schwebeablaut).
302
TheinternalreconstructionofSanskrithasbeenexaggeratedatthecostofexternal
comparisonwithoutanasalin:
(a)Àes-‘sprechen’(P.566)
TochA.k
s- Go.hazja-
RV.!asyá- TochA.ka
ntae-
RV.!astí-
(sb.)‘reprimand,chastise’(DTochB.149,Poucha62)
(wk.vb1.)‘4k@8@:praise’(GoEtDi.181,hazjan)
(prP.)‘loben,preisen,geloben’(WbRV.1366)
(a.)‘prtngtoreprimand’(?)(DTochB.148)
(f.)‘Lob,Loblied’(WbRV.1389)
TheabsenceofasyllabicnasalintheseformsisacommonIndo-Europeanfeature.
(b)Àens-‘sprechen’(P.566)
RV.!ás-
Lat.cnse Osc.an·censto-
(aoM.)‘feierlichaussprechen,aussagen’(WbRV.1366)
(pr.)‘begutachten,schätzen,meinen’(WH1:198-99)
(a.)‘incensa,nichtgeschätzt’(WbOU.102)
Again, a ‘nasal infixroot’ (Persson’s cut PIE *Àe·n·s-), not a syllabic nasal,accounts
forthealternationRV.!as-:!as-.
§12.Brugmann(Grundr21:401)reconstructed:“Ai.sat-av.hat-Schwundstf.zus-ánt,h-Tnt-‘seiend’,z.B.Gen.sat-áshat-Nom.Sg.Femsat½haiti:gr.dor.Fem.d4EE4
aus*bE4F-¾4,got.sunji-s‘wahr’aus*sund-¾a=ai.sat-yá-‘wahr’”.InsteadofNeogr.
*sont- *sÉt- there are several extensions with and without a nasal implied by the
comparativemethod:
(a)PIE*sont-‘seiend’isattestedin:
RV.sánt-
Gr.(h)r@F-
(pt.m.)‘(wahr)seiend,usw.’(WbRV.151)
(pt.m.)‘seiend’(GEW1:463,r@F8D[plN])
(b)PIE*set(o)-‘seiend’appearsin:584
RV.sát-
gAv.hat-
Gr.(h)bFB-
(pt.n.)‘wahr,seiend,wirklich,usw.’(WbRV.151)
(pt.)‘seiend,usw.’(AIWb.266f.,haÐ[sgNA])
(n.pl.)‘wahr’(GEW1:435,bF|[plNA])
(c)PIE*sotio-‘wahr,usw.’isdocumentedin:585
Gr.sE<B-
RV.satyá-
gAv.haiZya- (a.)‘gerecht,gottgefällig’(GEW2:435,sE<BD)
(a.)‘wahr,wirklich’(KEWA3:422)
(a.)‘wahr,echt’(AIWb.1760)
(d) PIE *sea-, *sa- ‘sein’, the laryngeal extension with an optional ‘prothetic
vowel’*e-,isattestedin:
Lat.er
-
gAv.h
t-
(pret.)‘sein,war’(WH2:628,er
s[2sg])
(pt.)‘seiend’(AIWb.267,h
tm[plG])
584
ThiswasalreadycorrectlyreconstructedbyFrisk:‘*s-e-toinbF|’(GEW2:435).
585
See already Frisk (GEW 2:435): “[…] gewöhnlich als <B-Ableitung eines Ptzs. *s-o-to- (von es-
‘sein’)erklärt”.Notethat*soto-existsinOIcl.sa-(a.)‘wahr,schuldig’(ANEtWb.462,sar[sgN]).
303
gAv.h
it-
Do.d4EE4 OIr.saithech (pt.f)‘seiend’(Grundr21:797,h
itm)586
(pt.f.)‘seiend’(LSJ.466)
(.)‘rights,alaw,legalmeasure’(DIL.519)
(e)PIEsu-‘good’(P.342)appearswithandwithoutaprotheticvowelin:
PIE*osu-
Hi.a#u-
Northumbr.aro-
(a.)‘SIG5=gut,nützlich,angenehm,gütig’(HEG1:87)
(pret.)‘sein’(P.340,aron[3pl],PGerm.*azu-)
PIE*esu-
Gr.b3-
Gr.f3-
PIE*su-
(a.)‘gut’(adv.)‘wohl’(GEW1:594,b3D,b3)
(a.)‘gut’(adv.)‘wohl’(GEW1:594,f3D,f3)
(a.)‘schön,wohl,gut,recht,usw.’(WbRV.1526)
(a.)‘gesund,heilsam’(GEW2:954,u6<~D[sgN])587
(a.)‘well-bound,fixed’(Lindeman1997:106)
(a.)‘schönverfertigt’(WbRV.1566) (a.f.)‘\>:;~D,\>:;<@D=truth(ful)’(GoEtD.329)
RV.sú
Gr.u·6<~E-
i.#umili-
RV.s%máya-
Go.sunja
§13.Brugmann(Grundr21:402)reconstructedarootNeogr.*ÉÀ-*enÀ-*onÀ-for“ai.
a!-nó-tiav.a#naoiti‘ererreicht’,vgl.ai.
n²!a,²!a-s‘Anteil’[…].”Thepostulationof
Neogr. *ÉÀ- to account for all forms is no longer possible due to external
confirmationoftherootlackinganasal:
(a) PIE*aÀ-isrequiredbyformsdisplayingWackernagel’sablautOInd.Ø:a:
in
Indo-IranianandTocharianwithNeogr.*aandwithoutanasal:
RV.³!-
RV.a!-
gAv.fr·sya- TochB.ekitayam-
TochB.ekaññe-
TochA.akäntsune-
(pf.)‘erreichen,gelangen’(WbRV.135,³!a[3sg])
(aoA.)‘erreichen,gelangen’(WbRV.134-5,a!i³m)
(vb.)‘erreichen,treffen’(AIWb.360,frsy
Ð[3sg])588
(vb.fr.)‘help’(DTochB.76,ekitayamaare)
(f.pl.)‘possession,equipment’(DTochB.75)
(m.)‘Geld,Besitz:res,pecunia’(Poucha1)
(b)PIE*aenÀ-‘erreichen,usw.’,therootwithanasal,hasaninitiallaryngealproven
byCeltic:
RV.
n·á!- OIr.ro·
n·acc-
Cymr.di·anc- gAv.frs-
(pf.)‘‘inBesitzbekommen’(WbRV.135,
ná!a[3sg])
(pf.)‘erreichen’(P.317,ro
naic[3sg])
(vb.)‘ent·fliehen’(P.317)
(ao.)‘zuteilwerden’(AIWb.360,fr#t
[3sg])
586
Brugmann’s(Grundr21:797)analogicalexplanationofgAv.h
itmisthusunnecessary.
587
Bammesberger(1984:38-9)writes:“DasFehlenvon8-imAnlautbeigr.u-6<~DistbeiderAnnahme,
dass T1- > 8- geführt habe, kaum verständlich. […]Es bleibt somit wohl nur die Annahme, daß die
Wurzel für ‘sein’im Anlaut keinen Laryngal aufwies.” For a similar analysis, see also Seebold
(1988:505).
588
Fortheprefix,seealsogAv.fr.g
-(a.)‘voranschreitend’(AIWb.1024),etc.
304
RV.á!a-
(m.)‘Anteil,Erbteil,Partei’(WbRV.1)
§14. Brugmann reconstructed (Grundr2 1:402): “ai. bahú- ‘dicht, viel, gross’, vgl.
Superl.b²hi ha-sundav.bzah-‘Grösse’[...]”,allegedlyreflectingNeogr.*bhÉºh-:
*bhenºh-.ThestructurallypostulatedNeogr.*ÉforGr.4(4I-)=RV.a(bahú-)is
erroneous,becauseHittiteparallelstherootswithandwithoutanasal:
(a)PIE*bhae/oºh-(CHDP:88f.)
RV.baháv-
i.bagau-
(a.)‘dicht(gefüllt),viel,zahlreich’(WbRV.902)
(c.)‘multitude,thepeople’(CHDP:88,pa-ga-ua-a#)
(b)PIE*bhae/onºh-(CHDP:88f.)
RV.báhi a- LAv.bzah- i.bangu- (sup.)‘derfesteste,dichteste,sehrdicht’(WbRV.897)
(n.)‘Höhe,Tiefe’(AIWb.962-3)
(a.)‘gesamt,vereint’(HHand.118,pa-an-ku-u#)
§15. Brugmann (Grundr2 1:407) reconstructed Neogr. *Ési- ‘Schwert’ (P. 771, WP
1:324)for“Lat.nsi-s:ai.así-‘Schwert’”.Theextendedmaterialconfirmstworoots:
(a)PIE*as-‘schneiden,abschaben,werfen(eineWaffe)’(HEG1:199)589
RV.par
(...)³s-
i.a#a#a- LAv.aha- RV.así-
Pal.a#ira- RV.ásira-
LAv.ahuya- (pfA.)‘verstoßen’(WbRV.152,par
(...)³sa[3sg])
(pr1)‘abschaben’(HHand.46,a-a#-a-a#-#a-an[pt.])
(vb.)‘werfen(eineWaffe)’(AIWb.279,ahaÐ[3sg])
(m.)‘dasSchwert’(WbRV.154,EWA2:145,asís[sgN])
(c.)‘Dolch’(DPal.55,a-#i-i-ra-am(-pi)[sgA])
(m.)‘(Strahlen)Geschoss’(WbRV.154,ásirena[sgI])
(f.)‘Schwert’(AIWb.110,parahuy
t[sgAbl])
OldAnatolianhas PIE *andagreeswithIndo-Iranianintheabsenceofanasal.In
turn,itisconfirmedbythequantitativeablautRV.a:
.
(b)PIE*·ns-Êns-‘abwischen;Schwert’isalsopreservedbyOldAnatolian:
i.ana#-
i.an#a·#iui- Lat.nsi-
i.an#ia-
Lat.nsi·culo-
gAv.sta-
(vb.)‘abwischen’(HEG1:33,a-an-a#-ta-at[3sg])
(c.)‘Leichnam’(HEG2:33)
(m.)‘Schwert’(WH1:406)
(vb.)‘abwischen’(EHS507)
(m.dim.)‘Schwertlein’(WH2:406,nsiculus[sgN])
(m.)‘Hass,Feindschaft,Feindseligkeit’(AIWb.361)
Thenasalisconsistentlypreservedandnolaryngealisattested.
§16.Brugmann(Grundr21:413)reconstructedNeogr.*Édhero-for“Go.undarahd.
untar ‘unter’ : av. a7airi ‘unter’ai. adhás ‘unten’ ádhara-s ‘der untere’”. The
traditionalreconstructionwaserroneousfromthebeginning,becauseLat.f(notLat.
†
nbimo- †nbero) confirms a prefix. As for the root without affixes, the following
formationsshouldbenoted:
589
Fortheetymology,seealreadyEichner(1980:127fn30).
305
(a)PIE*dho-‘unter’,themainrootwithoutaprefix,isattestedin:
gAv.dT·bz- gAv.dT·bzah-
gAv.dÖ·WÐ.arTta-
(prA.)‘unter·stützen’(AIWb.760,dTbzait[conj.3sg])
(n.)‘Unter·stützung,Hilfeleistung’(AIWb.761)
(PN.)‘dasGesetz,Rechtmindernd’(AIWb.609)590
Theunextendedrootisdocumentedthroughnumerousextensions,including:
(b)PIE*dhem-*dhom-‘unterste’
RV.a·dhamá-
Lat.n·fimo- TochB.e·tte
Lat.n·fim
- (sup.)‘unterste,niedrigste,geringste’(WbRV.43-4)
(a.)‘derunterste’(WH1:698,nfimus[sgN])
(adv.)‘down’(DTochB.81<*dhomo-)
(pr.)‘erniedrigen’(WH1:698,nfim
re[inf.])
(c)PIE*dher-*dhor-‘untere’
RV.á·dhara- Go.un·dar Lat.n·fero- LAv.a·7airi TochB.an·tariye-
(comp.)‘untere,niedriger,tieferstehen’(WbRV.44)
(prep.)‘=u:under’(GoEtD.376)
(a.)‘deruntere’(WH1:698,nferus[sgN])
(prepA.)‘unter,unterhalb’(AIWb.58)
(a.)‘under/lower(ofgarments)’(DTochB.15)
(d)PIE*dhes-*dhos-‘unten’
RV.a·dhás LAv.a·dÖ
TochB.e·tte TochB.e·tte- TochB.e·ttesa
(adv.)‘unten,nachunten,untermit[A,G]’(WbRV.44)
(adv.)‘unten’(AIWb.60)
(adv.)‘down’(DTochB.81,MA611)
(a.indecl.)‘lower’(DTochB.81)
(prep.)‘under’(DTochB.81)
Asitisimpossibletoderiveprefixesfromasingleprototype,theformationoffersno
examplesofNeogr.*É.
§17. Brugmann (Grundr2 1:414) compared “Go. kunjis (Nom. Acc. kuni) ahd.
kunn[i]es(Nom.Acc.kunni)‘Geschlechtes’[...]Go.gda-kund-s‘vonguterAbkunft’,
W. ºen- ‘gignere’ [...] Über das Verhältnis von got. sama-kunjis zu gr. q?6@<BD s. §
282S.265”.
Two different roots, a palatal one and a labiovelar one, are implied by the
comparativemethod:
(a)PIE*ºean-‘gignere’(P.373-5[ºen-])
Gr.6}@-
RV.ján-
Gr.6}6B@-
TochB.kan- Gr.8><·6@- RV.jaj
n-
(aoM.)‘(geboren)werden,entstehen’(GEW1:306-8)
(aoMP.)‘erzeugen,gebären’(WbRV.469,jáni[3sg])
(pf.)‘geborenwerden’(GEW1:306-8,6}6B@8[3sg])
(vb.)‘cometopass,berealized’(DTochB.160,kantär)
(m.pl.)‘Bld@7BAB<,5BG>8GF4’(GEW2:498)
(pf.)‘gebären,erzeugen’(WbRV.467-8,jaj
na[3sg])
590
For the respective prefixless forms, cf. RV. báhi a- (sup.) ‘der festeste, dichteste, sehr dicht’
(WbRV.897)andLAv.WÐ.aÏa-(PN.)‘dasGesetz,Rechtmindernd’(AIWb.609).
306
Pahl.zan-
(f.)‘woman,wife’(MPalh.2:228,zan)
(b)PIE*»ean-‘gignere’(P.473)
Gr.6G@~-
OIcl.kuna- OIcl.kyn-
Go.kuni-
Go.qina·kund-
Lyc.qñza-
OIcl.
s·kynd-
(f.)‘Weib,Frau’(GEW1:333-4,6G@~)
(f.)‘Frau’(ANEtWb.334)
(n.)‘Geschlecht,Familie’(ANEtWb.340)
(n.)‘Geschlecht’(GoEtWb.222)
(a.)‘;>GD:female’(GoEtD.277)
(c.)‘Nachkommenschaft’(HEG1:196,qñza)
(a.)‘gehörendzumgeschlechtvonA.’(ANEtWb.340)
ThelackofpalatalizationinLycian,aSatemlanguage(seeChapter4),indicatesthat
theformationdoesnotreflectthezerogradeofapalatalrootNeogr.*ºÉC-.
3 .4.4 Neogr.*É n (antevocalicsyllabicdental)
§0. Following Osthoff’s realization that the svarabhakti vowels also appear in
antevocalic position, Neogr. Én was postulated by the Neogrammarians for the
environment*(C)ÉnV=LT*(C)ÉHV.
§1.AccordingtoBrugmann(Grundr21:395),thedevelopmentofthesyllabicnasalsin
antevocalicpositionwasidenticalwithNeogr.*É+¾,Ò,asshownin:
Uridg. *Én+V
*É+¾,Ò
Ar.
an
an
Arm. Gr.
an
4@
an
4@
Alb.
?
?
Ital.
en
en
an
un
in
n
an
un
in
n
§2.ThekeyproblemsofNeogr.*(C)ÉnVcanbesummarizedasfollows:
(a) Examples of Sievers-Edgerton’s Law for nasals contain real examples of the
sequencePIE*(C)ÉV.WithinthesePIE*ÉturnedintosimplePIE*nafterthelossof
PIE*withoutproducingthesvarabhaktivowels.
(b)Thesvarabhaktivowelscan,however,beexternallyparalleledandpostulatedto
theproto-languagebyatleasttwowitnesses(Fick’sRule).Thisstateofaffairscanbe
confirmedbyBrugmann’sfollowingexamplesofNeogr.*Én:
§3. Brugmann (Grundr2 1:399) reconstructed Neogr. *»Én
- ‘Weib’ for “ved. gn³-
arm.Pl.kanaik‘böot.54@|air.ban-(inCompp.)aisl.kona(daneben*»n
-inved.
gn³-gr.?@|B?4<etc.)”.Severaldistinctionspredicatedontheablaut*o:Ø:ecanbe
drawnfromthisdata:
(a)PIE*»an-,thezero-graderoot,isattestedin:
OIcl.kuna-
Gr.6G@~-
RV.gun³-
(f.)‘Frau’(ANEtWb.334)
(f.)‘Frau,Weib’(GEW2:333-4,6G@~)
(f.)‘Götterweib,Göttin’(zweisilbig,WbRV.415)
(b)PIE*»aen-,the*e-graderoot,issharedbytheforms:
OInd.pa
·gan
-
(f.)‘meretrx’(KEWA2:194,EWA2:69)
307
Boiot.54@|- OIr.ban-
Arm.kana- (f.)‘Frau,Weib’(GEW2:333)
(f.)‘Frau’(GOI§291,ban[plG])
(sb.obl.)‘Frau’(ArmGr.1:460,kanaµ[plG])
(c)PIE*»oan-,the*o-graderoot,isconfirmedin
OPhryg.5B@B=-
(f.)‘Weib’(Pedersen,Groupement48,P.473).
(d)PIE*»an-‘Weib,Frau,Herrin,Göttin’isattestedin:
RV.gn³-
Arm.kna-
OIr.mn
-
Gr.?@|B-
(f.)‘Götterweib,Göttin’(WbRV.415,onesyllabic)
(sb.obl.)‘Ehefrau,Weib,Frau’(ArmGr.1:460,knav[I])
(f.)‘Frau’(GOI§291,mn
[G],mna[D],mn
ib[plD])
(vbM.)‘umeineFrauwerben,freien’(GEW2:240)
Thereconstructionisthuspostulatedwithoutanantevocalicsyllabicnasal.
§4.Brugmann(Grundr21:399)positedNeogr.*tÉnú-‘gestrect,dünn’for“ai.tanú-
gr.F4@-6>KEEBDlat.tenuisair.tana”and(Grundr21:412)“OIr.tana‘dünn’:corn
tanownbret.tanav‘dünn’,Ai.tanú-etc.s.§432”.Thecomparativederivationofthe
root,alreadydiscussedabove,canbepresentedasfollows:
(a)PIEt-,themonoliteralroot,isattestedintheperfectPIE*tet-preservedin
RV.tat-
(pfM.)‘sichhinstrecken,dauern’(WbRV.516,tate).
(b) PIE*ta-,thelaryngealextensionof PIEt-,isattestedinthenormal(PIE*tea-)
andlonggrades(PIE*ta-):
Br.ta- Gr.F}F4-
RV.³·t
-
LAv.hu·pairi·t
-
(ao.)‘spannen,dehnen’(AIGr.1:8,atata[3sg])
(pfM.)‘sichdehnen,sicherstrecken’(GEW2:864)
(f.)‘dieUmfassung,dieRahmen’(WbRV.175)
(a.)‘(sich)wohlherumdehnend’(AIWb.1826)
(c) PIE*teanu-(*e-grade),the*·n-extensionofthepreviousexample,ispreserved
in:
RV.tanú-
(a.)‘lang,ausgedehnt’(WbRV.519)
Gr.F4@-
(prM.)‘spannen,strecken,ausdehnen’(GEW2:853)
OIr.tanae (a.)‘mince,fin,étroit’(LEIAT-26)
(d) PIE *toahn-, the *o-grade of the previous example, is possible (see Brugmann’s
LawII)in:
RV.tat³n-
Gr.F@B-
RV.ut·t
ná-
gAv.us·t
na-
(pfA.)‘sichausbreiten’(WbRV.516,tat³na[3sg])
(m.)‘Spannung,Seil,Saite,Sehne’(GEW2:863)
(pt.)‘ausgestreckt’(WbRV.250)
(a.)‘ausgestreckt’(AIWb.633)
(e) PIE*taenu-(=Neogr.*thenu-),theschwebeablautvariantof PIE*teanu-(Gr.
F4@-),provesthelaryngealofthelatterbythetenuisaspiratainIranian:
LAv.Zanv- LAv.Zanvar- (m.)(N.einerPflanze)(AIWb.785,Zanvasa[plA])
(n.)‘Bogen’(AIWb.785,ZanvarTa[sgNA])
308
LAv.Zanvana-
OPers.Zanvanya-
(n.)‘Bogen’(AIWb.785,haaZanvan
t)
(m.)‘bowman’(OldP.187,Zanuvaniya[sgN])
(f)PIE*tenau-withacommonIndo-European*eispreservedin:591
Li.t¶va-
Lat.tenui-
OIcl.inur-
(a.)‘schlank,dünn,hager,fein’(LiEtWb.1086)
(a.)‘dünn,fein,zart,eng,schmal’(WH2:666)
(m.)‘Tau,Bogenmitte,HartesHolz’(ANEtWb.611)
§5. Brugmann (Grundr2 1:399) reconstructed Neogr. *mÉn- “Tempusst. von W.
men-‘sinnen’:3sg.gr.b?|@:got.munaiaus*mun[¾]ii,lit.mìnaksl.mnneben
1.Sg.mnch&(IIS.960)”and(Grundr21:415)“Go.munanags.munanaisl.muna
‘gedenken’ zu Ind. man von W. men- : lett. u#-minu ‘ich errate’; vgl. got. munai §
432, munjau § 446”. Against Neogr. *Én, the comparative method implies several
confirmedrootvariants:
(a) PIE man- ‘rasen, toben, wüten; Zorn’ is attested with a quantitative ablaut,
confirmingthelaryngealwithintheroot:
PIE*mean-
Gr.?|@:-
RV.man³-
(ps.ao.)‘rasen,toben,wüten’(GEW2:160)
(f.)‘Eifersucht,Zorn’(WbRV.996)
PIE*mahn-
Gr.?}?:@- Do.?@<-
Li.at·mõny- (pf.)‘rasen,toben,wüten’(GEW2:160,?}?:@4)
(f.)‘gerechter,heiligerZorn’(GEW2:229,?@<D)
(vb.)‘rächen,ahnden’(LiEtWb.455,atmõnyti[inf.])
Inordertoaccountforthebases,PIE*m·an-insteadofNeogr.*mÉnV-isrequired.
(b)PIE*min-‘denken,meinen,usw.’(ablautPIE*mein*moin-,P.714)
AVP.men- Li.miñ-
TochA.on·min-
TochB.on·min-
OIr.man- OCS.mni- Li.mintì-
(pf.)‘denken’(EWA2:305,mené)
(vb.)‘sicherinnern,gedenken’(LiEtWb.455,miñti)
(sb.)‘remorse,repentance’(DTochB.115,onmi)
(sb.)‘remorse,repentance’(DTochB.115,onmi)
(n.)‘désir,objetdedésir’(LEIAM-47)
(vb.)‘meinen,glauben,gedenken’(Sadnik506)
(4.)‘Gedanke,Einfall,Idee’(LiEtWb.455)
(c) PIE *mun- ‘denken, usw.’, an extension with PIE *u, is confirmed by three
branches:
Go.muna- (vb.)‘meinen,glauben,wollen’(GoEtD.260-1)
RV.múni- (m.)‘einBegeisterter,Verzückter’(WbRV.1050)
RV.máuneya-
(n.)‘Verzückung’(WbRV.1065)
OstLi.muntu-
(a.)‘verständig,geschickt,tauglich’(LiEtWb.409)
591
See Güntert (1916:68): “In lit. dial. tenvas ‘schlank’, lett. tëws dass. haben wir doch auch
Normalstufe;aberwenndieseWörterselbstnichtvorhandenwären,soläßtsichgarnichtsbestreiten,
daßtenuisVollstufeerhaltenkann.”Inthisconnection,alsonotethatPIE*teanu-isequallypossible.
309
OstLi.munu- (a.)‘verständig,geschickt,tauglich’(LiEtWb.409)
§6.Brugmann(Grundr21:399)reconstructedNeogr.*Én-‘un-’for“ai.an-udrá-sgr.
^@-G7CB-D‘wasserlos’”.Inaddition,Brugmann(Grundr21:415)comparedtheitems
to the well-known Germanic negation prefix PGerm. *un- (before a vowel) in “Go.
un-aiwisks‘schandlos’ahd.un-armaherz‘unbarmherzig’:ai.an-etc.,s.§432”.The
comparativemethodimplies,however,twoidentities:
(a) PIE *aen· ‘un-, ohne, -los’, an extension of the well-known negative prefix, is
confirmedbythecommonIndo-European/a/in:
Gr.^@·G7CB- OInd.an·udrá-
Arm.an·kin- Osc.an·takri- OIr.an·fis- (a.)‘wasserlos’(GEW1:1)
(a.)‘wasserlos’(GEW1:1)
(a.)‘ohneWeib’(sb.)‘Witwer’(Grundr21:403)
(a.)‘integris’(WH1:686,Osc.an·takres)
(pref.)‘ignorance’(LEIAA-69)
The prefix PIE *aen- is an extension of PIE *ae· ‘not’,which was already
reconstructedabove.
(b) PIE *un- ‘nicht, un-, ohne, -los’,best known as the Germanic negation prefix, is
nowimpliedbyTochariantocontainagenuinePIE*u:592
Go.un·airkn- Go.un·aiwisk-
TochB.on·mi-
TochA.on·mi-
TochB.on·mie-
TochB.on·missu-
(a.)‘unheilig,gottlos:\@E<BD’(GoEtD.18)
(a.)‘ohneSchande:\@84EIG@FBD’(GoEtD.21)
(sb.)‘remorse,repentance’(DTochB.115)
(m.)‘paenitentia’(Poucha46)
(a.)‘prtngtoremorse’(DTochB.115)
(a.)‘remorseful’(DTochB.115)
Though the negation prefix TochB. on(t) ‘un-’ (PIE *o·un-) appears mostly with
labials,593thedistributionmaybeaccidental,becausethe*o-gradeoftherootisalso
preservedin:
(c)PIE*uon-‘ohne,usw.’
i.uan·umia-
Pal.uan·danguar-
OIcl.van·
Go.wan-
(a.)‘kinder-,elternlos,alleinstehend’(HHand.194)594
(n.)‘ohneDunkel’(HHand.194)595
(pref.)‘voranetwaszufehlt,zuwenig’(ANEtWb.643)
(n.)‘Mangel’(GoEtD.394,Go.wan[sgN])
592
TheTocharianformsrequirePIE*o·un-‘no,-less,etc.’withavocalicprefix.
593
Cf.TochB.ont-soyte(a.)‘insatiable,unsatisfied’(DTochB.116),TochB.on·krocce-(a.)‘immortal’
(DTochB. 113-4), TochB. on·waññe (a.)‘immortal’ (DTochB. 114-5) and TochB. on·kipe-
(a.)‘shameless’(DTochB.112).
594
Thecompoundi.uan·umia-isconnectedtoi.umiant-(pt.)(Attr.von‘Vogel’,etwas‘klein’?;
see HHand. 185), semantically paralleled in Lat. pullus (WH 2:385-6) ‘jung; Tierjunges; Küchlein;
jungerTrieb;Hahn’andLat.pusillus(WH2:386)‘etwasklein’.
595
The second half of the Palaic word is an extension of the well-known adjective i. tankua- (a.)
‘schwarz,dunkel’(HEG3:107-111,ta-an-ku-u¤-¤#[sgN]).
310
§7.Brugmann(Grundr21:405)reconstructed“Gr.]@Khom.^@G?<‘ichkommezum
Ziel’:ai.sanó-ti‘ergewinnt’,uridg.*sÉ-neu-,*sÉ-nu-,W.sen-(IIS.1007)”.Instead
of a single root with the syllabic nasal Neogr. *Én, several roots are implied by the
comparativemethod:
(a) PIE *sea-, an *e-grade root without nasal, is verified by the exact match of the
OldAnatolianlaryngealandtheRig-Vedichiatusin:
i.#a-
RV.ketra·sá’-
RV.sasa-
(vb1.)‘erstreben,verlangen’(HEG2:818,#a-a-u-un)
(a.)‘Landgewinnend,Ackerverleihend’(WbRV.370)
(pf.)‘erlangen,erbeuten,gewinnen’(WbRV.1467)596
(b) PIE*san-(ablaut PIE*soan-*sean-),thenasalextensionofthepreviousroot,
isattestedin:
RV.sas³n-
Att.]@-
RV.sanó-
(pf.)‘erlangen’(WbRV.1466,sas³na[3sg])
(pr.)‘zustandebringen,vollenden’(GEW1:11)
(vb.)‘erlangen,erbeuten,gewinnen’(WbRV.1465)
InsteadofNeogr.*sÉn-,therootPIE*sa·n-isattested.
3 .4.5 Neogr.*È(longsyllabicdental)
§0.ThelongsyllabicnasalNeogr.*ÈwascharacterizedbyBrugmann(Grundr21:417)
asaclusteroftwophonemes:
“IndenmeistenBeispielen,womanlangeNasalissonansansetzt,erscheintdiesealsAblaut
(Schwundstufe) zu einer Gruppe kurzer Vocal + conson. Nasal + T, z. B. *ºÈtó-s
‘genitus’=ai.j
tá-snebenai.jani-tar-[...].”
Brugmann’s analysis of Neogr. *È R **n+T was shared by Saussure, who posited
Neogr.*ÈR*É+A(Mém.250),nowLT*É+Hinthelaryngealtheory.
§1.ThebasicassumptionsoftheNeogrammarianreconstructionareasfollows:
(a)These -forms(RV.sani-)aretobeinterpretedasrepresentingNeogr.*CenT-(=
LT*CenH).
(b) The zero-grade Neogr. *CÉT of the full-grade Neogr. *CenT- is derived as
describedbyBurrow(1949:36):
“ThelongsonantnasalsarereplacedbyÉHandÇH[...]SinceÉbecomesainSanskrit,a
*sÉHtó- develops first into *saHtá-, and then H disappears with the usual lengthening of
theprecedingvowel.”
According to Brugmann (Grundr2 1:417ff.),597 the subsequent developments of
Neogr.*È(C)canbesummarizedasfollows:
Brugmann’sview(Grundr21:401-2),accordingtowhich“[n]ichtlautgesetzlichsindai.sasa-vásPart.
von san- ‘gewinnen’ […]”, is outdated due to Old Anatolian and the Vedic hiatus confirming PIE
*sea-withoutanasal.
596
311
Uridg. *ÈvorC
Ar.
Arm. Gr. Alb.
an
4@@4 ?
Ital. Urir. Germ. Balt. Slav.
an,na an
un
in
n
In particular, Neogr. *È is assumed to yield IIr. (i.e. the theory accounts for the
Indo-IranianvÎddhibymeansofthelongsyllabicnasal).598
§2.Themainreconstructiveproblemsofthistheory,alreadydiscussedabove,arethe
following:
(a)ThesvarabhaktivowelsattachedtoNeogr.*Èdonotemergefromthepostulate.
Thisisnowseenfromtheexamplesof*CnC-where PIE*istobereconstructed,
butyetthenasalresultsinaconsonantthroughout.
(b)ThesvarabhaktivowelsassociatedwithNeogr.*ÈbyBrugmann(RV.
,Do.@,
etc.)areconfirmedbyexternalparallels,andthereforetheyaregenuine.
The validity of these statements can be shown by the examination of Brugmann’s
examplesofNeogr.*È.
§3. Brugmann (Grundr2 1:504) reconstructed “[ai.]go-³-s ‘Rinder gewinnend’ (aus
*-sÈ-s,vgl.Gen.g-aas),u.a.”Intheextendedmaterial,bothbasesareexternally
paralleledandconfirmthattheroothadnolongsyllabicnasal:
(a) PIEsa-‘erlangen,erbeuten,usw.’,theunextendedrootwiththe‘Wackernagel
ablaut’PIE*sa-*sea-*sa-,isattestedinvaryingextensions:
PIEsa-
i.#a-
RV.pa!u·- RV.ketra·sá’-
RV.go·³- (vb.)‘verlangen,etc.’(HEG2:820,#a-a-u-un[1sg])
(a.)‘Viehschenkend’(WbRV.796,pa!uás[sgG])599
(a.)‘Landgewinnend’(WbRV.370,ketrasáam[sgA])
(a.)‘Rindergewinnend/verleihend’(WbRV.414)600
PIEsai-
Ved.sáy-
OInd.s
ya- RV.!ata·séya-
i.#ai#ki- Arm.haiµe- (ao.)‘erlangen’(Burrow1979:24,set[3sg])
(prM.)‘erlangen,erbeuten’(Lex.s
yate[3sg])
(n.)‘dasErlangenhundertfachenGutes’(WbRV.1375)
(vb.iter.)‘suchen,verlangen’(HHand.142)
(vb.)‘suchen,verlangen,bitten’(ArmGr.418)601
PIEsan-
597
Note that I have compiled this table because Brugmann was never able to present a coherent
summaryofhisviewsconcerningthedevelopment(s)ofNeogr.*È.
598
See Burrow (1979:25): “[...] the [long]sonant nasals, producing forms of the type kh
tá-, j
tá-,
d
ntá-,etc.[...].”
599
TheshortrootisparalleledbygAv.f#u·#-(a.)‘derViehinseinenBesitzbringt’(AIWb.1030,f#u#Ö
[sgG]).
600
ThefullquantitativeablautofPIEsa-(i.#a-)isreflectedinRV.s-(PIE*sa-):RV.sa’-
(PIE *seah-) : RV. s
- (PIE *sah-). Naturally some forms may contain PIE *o *, but the details
remainambiguousowingtotheIndo-Iranianmerger.
601
NotethatHittiteandArmeniandefinePIE*a,notPIE*a.
312
RV.sas³n-
RV.sanó-
Att.]@-
Att.]@K
PIEsat-(ifwithPIE*sat-,notPIE*st-)
RV.s
tá-
RV.gó·
ti- OCS.po·sti- OCS.pri·sti- RV.s³tu-
OCS.po·stova-
(pt.)‘gewonnen’(KEWA3:428)
(f.)‘ErlangungvonRindern’(WbRV.414)
(vb.)‘heim-,besuchen,sehennach’(Sadnik800)
(vb.)‘besuchen’(Sadnik800,pristiti[inf.])
(m.)‘derempfangendeMutterleib’(WbRV.1508)
(vb.)‘besuchen,freien’(Sadnik800)602
(b) PIE sen- son-, a nasal alternative to the laryngeal extension PIE sa-, is
confirmedbyOldAnatolian,wherebothunextendedandextendedformsappear:
PIEsono-
HLu.sana-
(vb.)‘toseek’(CHLu.p.629,(“*69”)sa-na-tu)
PIEsona-
i.#ana-
(pr.)‘(ver)suchen’(HEG2:818f.,#a-an-a-mi)
PIEsonai-
OIr.con·sn- CLu.#ani#ki-
(vb.)‘streben’(VGK2:633ff.)
(iter.)‘suchen’(DLL.85,#a-an-e-e#-ki-mi[1sg])603
The new evidence implies a monoliteral root PIE *s- ‘suchen, (ver)langen’ in
extensionsPIE*sea-andPIE*sen-,notlongsyllabicnasal.
§4. Brugmann (Grundr2 1:419) reconstructed *ºÈ- ‘gignere’ for “ai. j
tá- ‘geboren’,
lat.gn
tu-sn
tu-s,gall.Cintu-gn
tu-s‘Erstgeborner’,vgl.ai.jani-tár-‘genitor’”.
Tworootswithalternativeextensionsareimpliedbythecomparativemethod:
(a)PIEºea-,ºoa-‘gebären,usw.’
PIE*ºea-,*ºoa-(cf.i.#a-=RV.sá’-)
LAv.fra·za- RV.p%rva·já- Hes.54·6- (c.)‘Nachkommenschaft,Kinder’(AIWb.1004)
(a.)‘inderVorzeitgeboren,uralt’(WbRV.846)
(m.)‘54E<>8D,EFC4F:6D’(LSJ.300,546D[sgN])604
PIE*ºeai-,*ºoai-(cf.i.#ai-=Arm.hay-)
602
†
TheidentityOCS.RRV.
impliesthattheoftenquotedprototypewithnasal(Neogr. †sÈti-:LT
sÉHti-)existedonlyonpaper.
603
For yet another extension, compare the PIE *senuo- in OHG. sinna- (vb.) ‘streben nach’ (for the
verbandtheetymology,seeEichman1973).
604
For the unextended root PIE ºea- coinciding with RV. já-, LAv. za-, see also OSerb. dvi·z (a.)
‘zweijährig’(P.230).
313
TochB.ap
k·!ai-
LAv.zaya- OInd.jaya- RV.j
y³-
PIE*ºea·k-‘gebären’
Pind.68·6|=-
Serb.dvì·z
k (pf.)‘geborenwerden’(LSJ349,686|=8<@[inf.])606
(m.)‘zweijährigerWidder’(P.230)
PIE*ºean-,*ºoan-‘gebären’(cf.RV.san-:Gr.]@-)
Gr.6}@-
Gr.6}6B@- Gr.8><·6@-
(adv.)‘withgenitalsexposed’(DTochB.16)
(prM.)‘geborenwerden’(AIWb1658-9)
(pr.)‘tobeborn’(MonWil.410,jayate[3sg])
(f.)‘Eheweib,Gattin’(WbRV.485)605
(ao.)‘werden’(GEW1:306-8,d68@FB[3sg])
(pf.)‘werden’(GEW1:306-8,6}6B@8[3sg])
(m.)8><6@8D)Bld@7BAB<,5BG>8GF4(GEW2:498)607
PIE*ºeat-,*ºoat-(cf.OCS.st-RV.s
t-)
Lat.indi·get- Gr.F:>·68FB-
LAv.z
ta- (a.)‘einheimisch,eingeboren’(WH1:693,indiges)
(a.)‘spät-geboren’(GEW2:893)
(a.)‘geboren’(AIWb.1689;PIE*/isalsopossible!)
(b) PIE ºna- ‘gebären’ (cf. i. #ana-, #an-) is confirmed by the following
vocalizations:
PIE*ºnaV-
Gr.66@B-
(pr.)‘(geboren)werden,entstehen’(GEW1:306)
Gr.@8(ß)B·6@-
(a.)‘neugeboren’(GEW1:307)
Lat.gigno- (pr3.)‘erzeugen,hervorbringen’(WH1:597-600)
PIE*ºnai-
TochB.kne- RV.jajñi-
Gr.hB?·6@<B-
PIE*ºneaC-,*ºnaC-
Lat.prae·gn
t-
OLat.gn
to- OGaul.gnato-
(vb.)‘fullfill(awish)’(DTochB.160,knetär[3sg])
(pfM.)‘geborenwerden’(WbRV.468,jajñié[2sg])
(a.)‘vongleicherAbstammung’(GEW1:307)
PIE*ºnaC-
(a.)‘schwanger,trächtig’(WH2:354)
(pret.pt.a.)‘geboren,alt’(m.)‘Sohn’(WH1:598)
(m.)‘gnatusfiliuslinguaGallica’(ACSS.1:2029)
Owingtotheexternalconfirmationofthe*i-extension,Brugmann’s(Grundr21:420)analogy(“im
Ind. wurde nach j
tá- das Präs. j³ya-ti für *j
nya-te gebildet, wohl auch p%rva-j³van- ‘in der Vorzeit
geboren’statt*-j
nvan-”)isunmotivated.
605
Brugmann’s (19003:327-8) analogy (“[n]ach eEF4=4 : eEF4?8@ schuf man 686|=8<@ (Pind.) neben
6}64?8@, wie umgekehrt nach demselben Vorbild fCEF4?8@ (Komiker) neben fCEF:=4 (\C<EF|K)
getretenist”)isnotnecessary.
606
607
ByreconstructingPIE*ºean-(Gr.6}@-),PIE*ºoan-(Gr.6B@-)andPIE*º·a·n-(Gr.6@-),the
surfacevocalismsareregularlyobtained.
314
Gr.=4E·6@:FB-
Gr.7<(ß)·6@:FB-
(m.)‘Bruder’(SchwyzerGrGr.1:360,GEW1:307)
(PNm.)‘Diogenes’(LSJ.432)
The root Neogr. *ºen- *ºn- represents two distinct items PIE *ºea(n)- and PIE
*ºna-‘gebären’,structurallyresemblingPIE*sea-,*sena-‘suchen’.
§5. Brugmann (Grundr2 1:405) reconstructed Neogr. *ºÈ-m- (ºen-) for “Gr.
64?5C- ‘Tochtermann, Schwestermann, Bräutigam’ : vgl. ai. j³m
tar- av. z
m
tar-
‘Tochtermann’[…]”.OnlyonebasewithoutNeogr.*Èisattested,however:
PIE*º·a·m-‘Tochtermann’(P.369-370)
Gr.64?5C- LAv.z
ma·oya-
RV.j
mí-
LAv.hu·z
mi-
LAv.z
m
tar-
(m.)‘Schwiegersohn,Eidam,usw.’(GEW1:287)608
(a.)‘BruderdesSchwiegersohns’(AIWb.1689)
(c.)‘Schwester,Bruder’(WbRV.484,j
mí[sgN])
(m.)‘gute,leichteGeburt’(AIWb1839)
(m.)‘Eidam,Schwiegersohn’(AIWb.1689)
The extension PIE *º·a··m- belongs to the previous root and has been built in a
similarfashionas PIE*º·a·k-(Gr.6=-)and PIE*º·a·n-(Gr.6@-),discussed
above.
§6.Brugmann(Grundr21:419-20)reconstructedNeogr.*ºÈ-‘kennen’for“ai.j
n³-ti
‘er kennt, weiss’ (av. z
nata [2pl]), lat. gn
ru-s, lit. pa-(ínti ‘kennen’; vielleicht auch
arm. caneay ‘ich kannte’ an-can ‘unbekannt’ auf Grund von *ºÈ-n-”. Based on the
extendedmaterial,thecomparativemethodimpliesthevariants:
(a)PIE*ºeaen-*ºeaon-‘erkennen,wahrnehmen,usw.’
RV.j
n-
Gr.6}6K@- Arm.can-uµ-eal-
(aoM.)‘[A]erkennnen,wahrnehmen’(WbRV.501)
(pf.)‘verkünden’(GEW1:293,6}6K@4[1sg])
(a.)‘erkannthabend’(ArmGr1:455)
(b) PIE *ºaen- *ºaon-, the schwebeablaut variant of the above root with media
aspirata,isattestedin:
OLat.hons- i.gane#-
Lat.hones·to-
Pael.hanus·to-
i.ganu#·ta- (m.)‘Anerkennung,Auszeichnung’(WH1:655-6)
(vb1.)‘anerkennen’(HEG1:478-80,ga-ne-e#-zi[3sg])
(pf.pt.)‘anerkennenswert’(MachekIII(1959):78)
(pt.)‘honesta’ (WH1:665-6,hanustu)
(mc.)‘Honestus(?)’(NOMS.508,ga-nu-u#-ta[abs.])
(c)PIE*ºeai-*ºain-‘kennen’isattestedin:
LAv.zaya-
Latv.zin-
Li.pa·(ìn-
(vb.)‘kennen’(AIWb.1659,zay
Ð[sb3sg])
(vb.)‘kennen,wissen’(LiEtWb.1310,zinu[1sg])
(vb.)‘(er)kennen,bekanntsein’(LiEtWb.1319,pa(ìnti)
608
ForthedifferenceofquantitybetweenGr.64?-andAv.z
m-,seeOsthoff’sLaw.
315
§7.Brugmann(Grundr21:419)reconstructedNeogr.*Èt
for“Ai.³t
-‘Umfassung,
RahmeneinerThür’,arm.dr-and‘Thürpfosten,Thürschwelle’,lat.anta‘viereckiger
Thürpfeiler,Pilaster’”.Asforthereconstruction,notethefollowing:
(a)AlreadyGrassmannanalyzedRV.³t
-correctlyasacompound:
RV.³·t
-
(f.)‘dieUmfassung,dieRahmen’(WbRV.175).
TheitemconsistsoftheprefixRV.³-‘um-’followedbytheroot PIE*t-‘stretch’and
thefemininesuffixNeogr.*·
(=PIE*·a).Directlyfromthishasbeenbuilt
(b)PIE*hean-,theextendedformoftheprefixRV.³-‘um’:
Lat.am·plo- Lat.an·t
- Gr.\?·HBC8-
Arm.dr·an·d (a.)‘umfangreich,ausgedehnt,weit’(WH1:42)
(f.)‘viereckigerThürpfeiler,Pilaster’(WH1:52)
(m.)‘zweihenkeligerkonischerKrug’(GEW1:99)609
(sb.)‘Thürpfosten,Thürschwelle’(ArmGr.419)
Nolongsyllabicnasalisneededforthealternationofprefixes.
§8. Brugmann (Grundr2 1:419) reconstructed Neogr. *Èti- for “ai. tí- ‘ein
Wasservogel’,gr.@EE4(urgr.
)‘Ente’,vgl.lat.anasAcc.anitemundanatem(§244,
1 S. 221), ahd. anut ‘Ente’ und lit. ánti-s aksl. Vty ‘Ente’ (§ 210 Anm. S. 178)”. The
overallmatchingmeaningdoesnotconfirmthemorphologicalidentityoftheforms,
because three roots, correctly separated by Walde and Pokorny, are externally
confirmed:
(a)PIE*at-‘liquid,water,water-animal’(P.70)isattested,forinstance,in:
Lat.at·tilo-
Li.õta-
Li.atì-
Oss.acc
RV.
tí-
OIcl.æ-
(m.)‘einstörähnlichergroßerFischimPo’(WH1:78)
(m.)‘gemeineScholle,Steinbutte’(LiEtWb.518,õtas)
(.)‘Steinbutte’(LiEtWb.21,atìs[sgN])
(sb.)‘Wildante’(EWA1:163)
(f.)‘einWasservogel’(WbRV.175,
táyas[pl])
(f.)‘Eidergans’(ANEtWb.681,Ur[sgN])
(b)PIEna-‘water’appearsinvariousextensions:
Ò
PIE*nak
Boiot.@EE4 Att.@FF4
(f.)‘Ente’(GEW1:317)
(f.)‘Ente’(GEW1:317)
PIE*ne/oat-‘Wasser;Nässe,naß’
Gr.@BF-
Arm.nay
·¾eah-(orPIE*nahÀ·¾ea-?)
(m.)‘Südwestwind,derNässebringt’(GEW2:324)
(a.)‘naß,flüssig’(GEW2:324,PArm.*nati-)
PIE*nau-‘ship,boat,water’(P.755-756)
OIcl.n-
(m.)‘Schiff’(ANEtWb.411)
609
Gr.\?·HBC8-cannotbeahaplologyduetothesimultaneouspreservationofGr.\?H<·HBC8-(m.)
‘zweihenkeliger konischer Krug’ (GEW 1:99). Accordingly, the difference must reflect two different
prefixes,Gr.\?-andGr.\?H<-.
316
OIcl.n·trog-
(.)‘Wasserkübel’(ANEtWb.411).
(c) PIE *an- ‘wasser, liquid’. The initial laryngeal is attested in Old Anatolian,
coincidingwiththeIndo-European/a/in:
i.an-
Lat.anat-
Gr.7<·4@F-
Li.ánti-
Gr.^@F>B-
(vb.)‘schöpfen’(HEG1:144-5,a-an-tén[2pl])
(f.)‘Ente:duck’(WH1:44,anas,anatis[G])
(a.)‘capableofbeingwetted’(LSJ.405)
(.)‘Ente:duck’(LiEtWb.11-12,ántis[sgN])
(m.)‘Schiffsbodenwasser,Kielwasser’(GEW1:114)
Thus,Brugmann’sunderlyingNeogr.*ÈstandsforPIE*an-,PIE*at-andPIE*na-.
§9.Brugmann(Grundr21:419)reconstructedNeogr.“*È-‘un-’neben*É-(431,2S.
398): gr. hom. \?-H4E: ‘Sprachlosigkeit’, dor. @|-B<@BD ‘straflos’ hom. @:-=8C7~D
‘gewinnlos’, osk. an-censto ‘incensa’”. Here two morphologically distinct roots are
confirmed:
(a)PIE*aen-‘un-,ohne,-los’,asalreadyreconstructedabove,hasbeenpreservedby
severallanguagesincluding:
Arm.an·anum-
RV.an·iná- gAv.an·aoah-
Gr.^@·4>FB- TochB.an·aikätte-
(a.)‘namenlos’(Grundr21:404)
(a.)‘un-kräftig’(WbRV.56)
(a.)‘unfriendlich’(AIWb.114)
(a.)‘unersättlich’(GEW1:102,^@4>FBD)
(a.)‘unknown’(DTochB.13)
(b)PIE*n·a-,thelaryngealextensionofPIE*ne-‘not’,isattestedin:
OIr.na
OIr.n
Do.@|·B<@B-
Hom.@~·B<@B-
(neg.adv.)‘no,not’(DIL.473)
(neg.adv.)‘no,not’(DIL.473)
(a.)‘straflos,ungerächt’(GEW2:573,@|B<@BD[sgN])
(a.)‘straflos,ungerächt’(GEW2:573)
Theextensions PIE*aen-‘un’and PIE*n·a-havebeenderivedfromtherespective
monoliteralrootsPIE*a‘un’andPIE*n-‘un’(seeabove).
3 .4.6 PIE*m(consonantalbilabial)
§0. The consonantal bilabial nasal Neogr. *m (= PIE *m), already included in
Schleicher’sreconstruction,hasbeenpreservedpracticallyunchangedthroughout.
§1. Brugmann’s (Grundr2 1:342-4 & 348-) examples of Neogr. *m include, for
instance,theitems:
(a)Neogr.*m
ter-‘Mutter’(Grundr21:342):“ai.m
tár-,Arm.mair,gr.?~F:C,alb.
motrë(‘Schwester’),air.m
thir,ahd.muoter,lit.mot¸‘Weib,Ehefrau’,aksl.mati”.
(b) Neogr. *Òem- ‘vomit’ (Grundr2 1:342): “ai. vámi-ti, vama-ti ‘vomit’, gr. b?}K
‘vomo’,lat.uom,lit.vemalaPl.‘Ausgespienes’”.
317
(c)Neogr.*»hermo-,»hormo-(Grundr21:343):“ai.ghar-má-s‘Glut’,arm.Wermgr.
;8C?-Dlat.formu-s‘warm’”.
§2. PIE *m was preserved both in Tocharian and in Anatolian, and no special
commentsarerequired.
§3. Brugmann suggested610 an epenthesis of glide and a change in the place of the
articulationofthenasal*mforGreek:
PIE*m¾
PGr.*@¾
Gr.<@.
Externally, an original PIE *n now appears in Brugmann’s key examples (like PIE
*kÊn-‘gemeinsam,usw.’):
Gr.=B<@-
Gr.=B<@-
TochB.an·k
n·mi-
(a.)‘gemeinsam,usw.’(GEW1:892-3)
(n.)‘Gemeinde,Bund,usw.’(GEW1:892-3)
(sb.)±‘commonality’(DTochB.5-6)
ThelabialextensionPIE*kÊm-isalsoconfirmedin:
Lat.cum
(prepAbl.)‘mit,zusammen/zugleichmit’(WH1:251)
OFrank.ham·dii (sb.m.pl.)‘con-i%r
trs’(P.613)
TochB.an·k
m·nicce(a.)±‘shared,common’(DTochB.5-6)
Inthesecases,thedifferenceofnasalsisexplainedbymeansoftheextensionsNeogr.
*ko·m-*ko·n-,bothfromNeogr.*ko-(Lat.co-,OIr.co-,etc.).Thepostulationof
aseparatesoundlawforGreekisunnecessary(Occam’srazor).
3 .4.7 Neogr.*Ç(anteconsonantalsyllabicbilabial)
§0.Neogr.*Çwasassumedtodevelopsvarabhaktivowelsinthecognatesinthesame
mannerasNeogr.*É,withtheresultthatthecoreissuesareidentical.
§1.AccordingtoBrugmann,thesvarabhaktivowelsassociatedwithNeogr.*Çwere
Uridg. Ç+C Ar.
a
Arm. Gr.
am
4
Alb.
e(i)
Ital.
em
im
um im
§2. Because the problems of Neogr. *Ç match those of Neogr. *É, they are not
repeatedhere.ThesvarabhaktivowelsofBrugmanncanbeproventobegenuineby
externalcomparison,asfollows:
§3.Brugmann(Grundr21:394,404)reconstructedNeogr.*Çº-:*meº-for“Gr.^64@
‘sehr’:?}64-D‘gross’”.Frisk’sdissatisfaction611isnowsupportedbythecomparative
comfirmationoftwodistinctroots:
SeeBrugmann(Grundr21:358):“-@¾-aus-m¾-magvorliegenin54@K‘ichgehe’aus*54?-¾K,woam- aus -Ç- entstanden war (§431).” Note that also in this example the assumed change *?- @ is
redundant, because 54@K is derived from 54@-, which is also attested in Sanskrit RV. gán- (vbA.)
‘kommen, hingehen’ (WbRV. 381, ganma [1pl]) and secured by TochB. känmas- (vbM.) ‘to come’
(DTochB.160,känmasträ[3sg]).
610
318
(a)PIE*aº-‘wunder(bar),würdig,kostbar,usw.’isattestedinseveralextensions:
1.PIE*aºea-
Gr.^64-
Gr.\64·=>8(ß)~E-
Gr.^6:-
2.PIE*aºs- LAv.a#.ama- Gr.^A<B-
Lat.axitiso- (a.)‘sehr,besondersstark,kräftig’(AIWb.241)
(a.)‘würdig,wert’(GEW1:116,^A<BD[sgN])
(a.)‘kostspielig,pützsüchtig,usw.’(WH1:90)
3.PIE*aºeasu-
TochA.k
su- Gr.\64G- TochA.k
swa·i-
(vb.)‘sichwundern’(GEW1:5,^64?4<[1sg])
(a.)‘mitgroßemRuhm’(GEW1:5)
(f.)‘Verwunderung’(GEW1:5)
(a.)‘bonus’(sb.)‘bonum’(adv.)‘bene’(Poucha62-3)
(a.)‘verehrungswert,edel’(GEW1:7,\64GD)
(a.poss.)‘bonus’(Poucha64)
4.PIE*aeºeadh-
Gr.\64;- TochA.a!!i TochB.
ktike-
(a.)‘gut,tüchtig,trefflich’(GEW1:5)
(ptcl.interrog.)‘sane’?(Poucha11,a!!i)
(a.indecl.)‘wonderful’(DTochB.37,
ktike)
(b)PIE*meaº-*maeº-‘groß,usw.’(orPIE*meaº-?)
OIr.do·for·mag-
Lat.mage
Alb.madi- RV.majmán- Gr.?}64-
Arm.mec- Go.mikil-
(vb.)‘augere:vermehren’(WH2:10)
(adv.)‘mehr,eher,vielmehr’(WH2:10)
(a.)‘groß’(WH2:10)
(m.)‘Grösse,Macht,Herrlichkeit’(WbRV.973)
(a.)‘groß’(GEW2:189-90)
(a.)‘groß’(GEW2:190)
(a.)‘groß:?}64D,B>D’(GoEtD.254)
§4.Brugmann(Grundr21:400)reconstructedNeogr.*»Ç-for“ai.gahígthav.gaid
2. Sg. Imper. von W. »em- ‘kommen’, vgl. §431”. Furthermore, he assumed Neogr.
*»Ç-¾o-(Grundr21:407)for“Lat.ueni[…]osk.kúm-benneísGen.‘conventus’[…]
: gr. 54@K ‘ich gehe’ ai. gamya-m ‘Ort, wohin man gehen soll’”, Neogr. *»Ç-ske-ti
for “5|E=8 Imper. ‘geh’ : ai. gáccha-ti ‘er geht’ […]” (Grundr2 1:404) and Neogr.
*»Çti- for “OInd. gáti- Gr. 5|E<-D Got. ga-qums Lat. in-uenti” (Grundr2 1:394,
397-8). Instead of a single root Neogr. *»Ç-, several morphologically distinct
extensionsareimpliedbythecomparativemethod:
(a) PIE *»eais confirmed by the Rig-Vedic hiatus accompanied by Greek ‘avocalism’in:
RV.ga’a-
(pr.)‘einenWeg[A,I]gehen’(WbRV.392,ga’at[3sg])
611
See Frisk (GEW 1:5): “Gewöhnlich wird \64 mit ?}64 verbunden; die dabei vorauszusetzende
Grundformidg*Çº(a)-istvenigerfreulich.”
319
Gr.5|-
gAv.ga-
RV.³(...)ga- (vb.)‘walk,step,etc.’(LSJ.302,5|F:@[3du],Gr.)
(vb.)‘kommen’(AIWb.494,gaid[2sg])
(vb.)‘kommenzu[A]’(WbRV.380,gathá)612
(b)PIE*»eam-,the*·m-extensionofthepreviousroot,isattestedin:
RV.gam-
gAv.aib.gTm-
TochB.kamä-
RV.gáma- (pr.)‘kommen,hingehen’(WbRV.380,gami
s)
(pr.)‘hin/herzukommen’(AIWb.496,aib.gTman[3pl])
(pretA.)‘tocome’(DTochB.161,kame[3pl])
(a.ao.)‘kommen,hingehen’(WbRV.385,gámadhyai)
(c) PIE*»am-,thezerogradeofthepreviousexamplewith PIE*gÒ+áOgÒ+úin
Go.qum-,isattestedin:
TochA.kumnä-
TochA.kumsa-
Go.ga·qum-
(prA.)‘venire’(Poucha67,kumnä[3sg])
(prA.)‘venire’(Poucha67,kumsam[3sg])
(m.)‘Zusammenkunft’(GoEtD.147,gaqums)
(d) PIE *»ean-, *»oan-, the parallel *n-extension, is also confirmed by several
subgroups:
RV.gán-
RV.gáni·gmat-
Gr.54@K TochB.känmas-
RV.jaganv³ns-
(vbA.)‘kommen,hingehen’(WbRV.381,ganma[1pl])
(int.pt.)‘kommend’(WbRV.385,gánigmatam)
(pr.)‘gehen’(GEW1:208,54@K)
(vbM.)‘tocome’(DTochB.160,känmasträ[3sg])613
(pf.pt.)‘gehend’(WbRV.384)
(e)PIE*»aen-,*»an-,theschwebeablautvariantwithPIE*e/,isdocumentedin:
Lat.un-
LAv.fra·ptTrT·W
n-
Lat.uen-
TochB.!anmä-
Umbr.benus- (pf.)‘kommen’(WH2:747f.,un[1sg])
(a.)‘imFlugsichbewegend,Vogel’(AIWb.984)
(pr4.)‘kommen’(WH2:747f.,uenre[inf.])
(prA.)‘come’(DTochB.161,!anmä[3sg])
(2.fut.)‘kommen’(WbOU.143-4,benus)
(f) PIE*»easki-‘gehen’withoutanasalhasacommonIndo-European/a/inthree
subgroups:
Gr.5|E=K
RV.gácha-
Alb.n·gah-
(pr.)‘gehen’(GEW1:208,5|E=K[1sg])
(prA.)‘kommen,gehen’(WbRV.382,gáchati[3sg])
(pr.)‘run’(AlbEtD.292)614
(g)PIE*»eati-‘Gang’,anextensionwithoutanasal,isconfirmedbyfourwitnesses:
612
Note the zero grade in RV. g- (ao.) ‘gehen, kommen, wandern’ (WbRV. 392, gus [3pl]) and the
lengthenedgradeinLi.gó-(vb.)‘gehen’(LiEtWb.161,góti[inf.]).
NowthatTocharianaswellagreeswithVedicandGreek,Brugmann’s(Grundr21:358n1)viewcan
be seen as outdated: “Ein uridg. »en- neben »em- anzusetzen, sehe ich keinen ausreichenden
Grund.”
613
614
Note that the suggested developments have changed. According to Orel (2000:42), PIE *Ç É O
Alb.ainsteadoftheformerNeogr.OAlb.im,in.
320
RV.gáti-
Gr.5|E<-
Alb.n·gas-
Latv.gate
(f.)‘derGang’(WbRV.376)
(f.)‘Schritt,Gang’(GEW1:209,5|E<D)
(ao.)‘urge,incite,annoy’(AlbEtD.293)
(f.)‘WegzwischenzweiZäunen’(LiEtWb.139)615
§5. Brugmann (Grundr2 1:397, 400) reconstructed a uniform prototype Neogr.
*ÀÇtóm‘hundert’forabroadspectrumofvowels:“ai.!atá-m,gr.c-=4F@,lat.centum, air. ct, got. hund, lit. #iÅta-s”. The complete data now at our disposal implies
severalisoglosseswithunifiedvocalismsinsteadofasingleunderlyingsyllabicnasal:
616
PIE*Àa-‘10,100’(P.191-192)
617
PIE*Àea-
Gr.7}·=4-
RV.dá·!a-
(n.)‘zehn’(GEW1:359,7}=4)
(n.)‘zehn’(n.)‘zehnFinger’(WbRV.581,dá!a[NA])
PIE*Àoa-
Arc.7}·=B-
RV.dá·!
-
(n.)‘zehn’(Grundr21:406)
(n.)‘zehn’(WbRV.582,da!
n³m,BRUGMANNII)
618
PIE*Àaimt-
Li.#iÅta-
(m.)‘centum’(LiEtWb.984,#iÅtas[sgN])
OCS.de·st (num.)‘zehn,Dekade’(Sadnik139)
TochA.tary
·kiñci- (num.ord.)‘tricesimus’(Poucha116)
PIE*ÀeaNt-
TochA.känt-
Bret.kant-
Cymr.cant-
Gr.m·=4@F<-
(num.card.)‘centum’(Poucha66-7)
(num.)‘hundert’(WH1:201,kant)
(num.)‘centum’(WH1:201,cant)
(num.)‘20’(Schwyzer,GrGr.1:591)
PIE*ÀaeNto-(=Neogr.*Àhento-)
Lat.cento-
(n.sg.)‘hundert’(WH1:200-1,centum)
615
TheLatvianformisnotnecessarilyaloan,becauseNeogr.*a/oispossible.
616
Thenumeralfor‘10’(Latdecem)consistsoftheprefixPIE*dea-‘unus’(ablaut*deae-,*da-)
and the root PIE *Àea- (n.pl.) ‘*hands’ (num.) ‘ten’ (for the prefix, see Pyysalo 2011). The root
withouttheprefixisacceptedasbelongingwiththenumeralfor‘100’(RV.!atá),anassumptionthatis
supported by the segmentation, leaving a common root for items such as Gr. 7}·=4FB- (ord.) ‘der
zehnte’(GrGr.1:595,GEW1:359),Gr.c·=4F-(num.n.)‘hundert’(GEW1:475,c=4F@)andsoforth.
Themeaning‘hundred’isthusderivedthroughthesubstantivizationoftheadjective‘tenth’,withthe
numeral‘100’beingapproximately‘(the)tenth(ten)’(i.e.the‘poweroften’).
617
Ontherootshapeingeneral,noteAnttila(1969:159):“Itisalsoimpossibletotake*deÀÇ(§9.11)
asoneunextendedrootbecauseofitsshapeCeCR[...].”
618
The meaning ‘hand’embedded in the numeral for ‘10’is accompanied by the adjective Gr.
7E·I<?B- (a.) ‘troublesome, dangerous, fearful’ (LSJ. 461) with Gr. I N Neogr. *Àh N PIE *Àa
provingatenuisaspiratafortheambiguousOInd.!intherelatednounsOInd.!íma-(m.)‘Zubereiter’
(EWA2:637-8)andRV.!ím-(f.)‘Arbeit,Eifer,Werkdienst,Opferdienst’(WbRV.1394),etc.
321
LAv.Zri·sant-
620
PIE*Àeato-,*Àoato-
RV.!atá-
TochA.kät- Gr.c·=4F- Arc.c·=BF- Aiol.7}·=BFB-
Att.8m·=BE<- Aiol.8m·=BE<- RV.!
ta·vaneya-
(f.)‘dreissig’(AIWb.810,Zrissa[sgN])619
(num.n.)‘hundert’(WbRV.1372,!atá[NA])
(num.card.)‘centum’(Poucha66-7,kät[316b7])
(num.n.)‘hundert’(GEW1:475)
(num.n.)‘hundert’(Schwyzer,GrGr.1:592,c=BF@)
(ord.)‘derzehnte’(GEW1:359)
(num.)‘20’(GEW1:453)
(num.)‘20’(GEW1:453)
(a.)‘zumGeschlechtdes!.gehörig’(WbRV.1391)
PIE*Àaun-(=Neogr.*Àhun-)
Arm.k‘aa·sun-
Go.hunda- (num.card.)=7}=4‘ten’(GoEtD.339)
(num.)‘40’(ArmGr.1:491)
§6.Brugmann(Grundr21:397,400)reconstructedNeogr.*Çbhró-for“OInd.abhrá-
‘Gewölk, trübes Wetter’, gr. \HC-D ‘Schaum’, lat. imber (Gen. imbris); Av. awra-
npers. awr ‘Wolke’”, also adding (Grundr2 1:429) OPers. 45CB=?:D (Herod.).
Contrarytothis,tworootsareimpliedbymeansofthecomparativemethod:
(a)PIE*aebhr-(Neogr.*abhr-)canbereconstructedfor:
Gr.\HC-
Gr.\HC·@<FCB-
RV.abhrá- LAv.awra- (m.)‘Schaum,Geifer’(GEW1:197,\HCD[sgN])
(n.)‘Mauersalz’(KVG:242,\HC·@<FCB@)
(m.)‘Wolke,Gewitterwolke’(WbRV.88)
(n.)‘Regenwolke,Wolke,Regen(schauer)’(AIWb.99)
(b) PIE*aebh-,theunextendedbaseofthepreviousexample,connectsGreekand
thewell-knownCelticitems(P.1-2)throughacommonIndo-European/a/in:
Gr.\H·@<FCB-
OGaul.^5B- (n.)‘Mauersalz’(KVG:242,\H·@<FCB@)
(m.)‘Fluß’(ACSS1:5-6,^5BD[sgN])
Here(asinthederivatePIE*aebhr-)Neogr.*aisattested,notasyllabicnasal.
(c) PIE*aembh-‘Wolke,Regen,Wasser’,arootwithanasal,isconfirmedbythree
subgroupsagreeingonacommonIndo-European/a/:
Arm.amb-
Osc.anafr-
RV.ambhÎá-
RV.ámbhas-
(sb.)‘Wolke’(o-stem)(ArmGr.1:417)
(m.)‘Regengottheit’(WbOU.95-6,anafríss[plD])
(a.)‘nebelhaft,feucht’(WbRV.96)
(n.)‘Wasser,Regenwasser’(WbRV.96)
619
Alternatively,AvestanbelongstoTocharianandCelticwithanon-palatalizingvowel.
620
NotethatTochA.kätlacksthenasal,andGreekhasablaut4:B,implyingthattherewasnosyllabic
nasalintheproto-form.
322
§7.Brugmann(Grundr21:397,404)reconstructedNeogr.*sÇ‘unus’“alsPräfix‘mit,
zusammen’ : ai. sa-kËt ‘einmal’, gr. ]->BD ‘einfach’, lat. sim-plex, ai. sadhriy-áñc-
‘nach einem (demselben) Punkt hin gerichted, vereint, einsam’, gr. \-;CB< ‘im
Verein, gesamt’”. The comparative method implies the following correspondence
sets:
(a) PIE*sea-‘with,together,etc.’ThecommonIndo-European/a/,whichdoesnot
reflectasyllabicnasal,isprovenbythefollowingitems:
Li.sà·
Latv.sa·
TochB.·sa RV.sa·rátha- RV.sá·vara- Gr.]·>B- OInd.sódaka-
(prep.pref.)‘zusammen’(LiEtWb.753)
(prep.)‘zusammen,usw.’(LiEtWb.753)
(end.sgPerl.)‘with,by,etc.’(DTochB.passim)
(a.)‘aufgleichemWagendfahrend’(WbRV.1487)
(a.)‘gleichesAussehenhabend’(WbRV.1492)
(a.)‘einfach’(GEW1:1,]>BD[sgN])
(a.)‘containingwater’(MonWil.1248)
(b)PIE*sa-‘with,together,etc.’,the*-gradeofthepreviousexample,isprovento
beoriginalbytwobranches:
Li.súo·kalbi- Li.suo·(in- Latv.suô·vardi-
RV.s³·vari- RV.s
·kám RV.s³·rathi- (.)‘agreement’(LiEtWb.942)
(f.)‘conscience’(LiEtWb.936)
(c.)‘Namensvetter’(LiEtWb.753)
(m.)‘ENeinesMannes’(WbRV.1513)
(adv.)‘aufeinmal’(EWA2:721-)
(m.)‘Wagengenosse,Gefährte’(WbRV.1513)
PIE *sa- is to be reconstructed with the position of the laryngeal confirmed by a
Baltic accent.621 The ablaut *e : is, therefore, accountable for the alternation of
quantityRV.a:
inpairs:
RV.sa·rátha- RV.s³·rathi- RV.sá·vara- RV.s³·vari- (a.)‘aufgleichemWagendfahrend’(WbRV.1487)
(m.)‘Wagengenosse,Gefährte’(WbRV.1513)
(a.)‘gleichesAussehenhabend’(WbRV.1492)
(m.)‘ENeinesMannes’(WbRV.1513)
(c)PIE*sem-‘ein,zugleich’isimpliedfor:
LinB.h8?- Lat.semel
OLat.semol (pron.m.)‘one’(GEW3:83,DMycGr.392,he-mei[D])
(adv.)‘einmal,daserstemal’(WH2:511)
(adv.)‘zugleich’(WH2:538)
InsteadofasinglerootwithNeogr.*sÇ-:*sem-,thereisamonoliteralroot PIEs-
‘ein,eins,zusammen,usw.’withalternativeextensionsPIE*sea-andPIE*sem-.
§8.Brugmann(Grundr21:398)reconstructedNeogr.*deÀÇ‘zehn’for“ai.dá!a,arm.
tasn, gr. 7}=4, lat. decem, air. deich n-”, to which he adds (Grundr2 1:413) “Got.
taihunda aisl. tionde ‘zehnte’ : gr. 7}=4FB-D”and (Grundr2 1:415) “Lit. de#iÅta-s
621
ForadditionalexamplesinBaltic,seealreadyBezzenberger(1888:146-8).
323
preuss. dessmts aksl. dest& ‘zehnter’ : gr. 7}=4FB-D”. As already discussed above,
severalextensionsareimpliedbythecomparativemethod:
(a)PIE*Àea-*Àoa-‘zehn’
Gr.7}·=4-
RV.dá·!a-
Arc.7}·=B-
RV.dá·!
-
(n.)‘zehn’(GEW1:359,7}=4)
n³m[plG])
The absence of a syllabic nasal is proven by the qualitative alternation Gr. 4 : B,
reflectedasRV.a:
inIndo-Iranian(withBrugmann’sLawIIinRV.da!
n³m).
(b)PIE*Àean-‘zehn’
Arm.ta·san- OSax.te·han TochB.(w)i·kä
Gr.78·=4@- (num.)‘zehn’(ArmGr.496,tasn[N],tasanµ[G])
(num.)‘zehn’(GoEtD.339)
(num.)‘zwanzig’(DTochB.61,ikä)
(m.)‘decurio,Aufseher’(GEW1:359)
The forms have in common Indo-European /a/ = Neogr. *a followed by a nasal
extensionPIE*·n-.
(c)PIE*Àato-‘zehn,hundert’isattestedintheablautgradesPIE*eandPIE*o:
Gr.7}·=4FB- Gr.c·=4F- RV.!atá-
RV.!atá’·a!va-
PIE*Àeato-
(ord.)‘derzehnte’(SchwyzerGrGr.1:595,GEW1:359)
(num.n.)‘hundert’(GEW1:475,c=4F@)
(num.n.)‘hundert’(WbRV.1372,!atám,!aténa)
(a.)‘aushundertRossenbestehend’(WbRV.1376)
PIE*koato-
TochA.kät- Lesb.7}·=BFB-
Arc.c·=BF- RV.!
ta·vaneya-
(ord.)‘derzehnte’(GEW1:359,LSJ.377)
Brugmann’searlyreconstructionisoutdated622becauseGr.4:B(Att.7}·=4FBD:Att.
8m·=BE<)belongstothestandardablautPIE*ea:*oa(seeChapter2),asillustrated
by:
PIE*Àeato- R
PIE*Àoato- R
Att.7}·=4FB- Arc.7}·=BFB- :
:
RV.!atá-
RV.!
ta-623 (d)PIE*Àaimt-‘zehn,hundert’
See Brugmann (Grundr2. 1:406): “Nur scheinbar treten im Griech. auch andre Vocale als 4 als
lautliche Fortentwicklung von sonantischen Nasal auf. Über att. äol. 8m=BE< gegenüber dor. ß=4F<,
arkad. 7}=B 7}=BFBD gegenüber Att. 7}=4 7}=4FBD u. dgl. s. II S. 490f. 494, Verf. Gr.Gr.2 s. 137,
KretschmerKZ.31,361ff.”
622
623
ThestemisbasedonapossiblePIE*o-grade(Brugmann’sLawII)inRV.!
ta·vaneya-(a.)‘zum
geschlechtdes!atavanigehörig’(WbRV.1391)andRV.!
ta·pant
[du]=!atavat-(?)(WbRV.1391).
324
Li.#iÅta-
OPr.de·simto-
OLi.de·#imtì-
TochA.tary
·kiñci-
(m.)‘centum’(LiEtWb.984)
BalticandTocharian(twowitnesses)implyagenuinePIE*i.
(e)PIE*Àaem-‘zehn’(Neogr.*Àhem-)
Lat.de·cem OIr.de·ichN Umbr.de·sen·duf
OPr.de·sempt-
(num.)‘zehn’(WH1:327,decem)
(num.)‘ten’(DIL200,deichn-)
(num.)‘duo-decim,zwölf’(WbOU.169)
(num.)‘zehn’(APrS.320,dessempts[sgN])
(f)PIE*Àaun-‘zehn,hundert’(Neogr.*Àhun-)
Go.hunda- OIcl.tiond- (num.card.)‘zehn:7}=4’(GoEtD.339)
(f.)‘zehnerTeil’(ANEtWb.590)
Armenianu,coincidingwithGermanicu,impliesanoriginalPIE*u.
§9.Brugmann(Grundr21:400)reconstructed*¾ÇsÀe/o-for“ai.yácha-ti‘erhält’,av.
a-yasa#a‘dumögestandichnehmen’,apers.a-yasat
‘erzogansich’,zuai.yama-ti
(II S. 1031)”. Though the data is mostly Indo-Iranian, the impossibility of syllabic
nasalscanbeprovenwhenthecompletedataisaccountedfor:
(a)PIE*ia-‘halten,fassen’,abaseneglectedbyBrugmann,isattestedin
gAv.y
-
(f.)‘Halten,Fassen’(AIWb.1264,ym[sgA]).624
(b) PIE *ieam- ‘halten, paaren, bezwingen’ (P. 505), with a possible laryngeal
revealedbyBrugmann’sLawIIinthestrongperfect,hasbeenpreservedin:
RV.yem-
RV.úd(...)yay
m-
TochA.yam- TochB.yamauki-
(pfM.)‘sich[D]darbieten/hingeben’(WbRV.1093)
(pf.)‘erheben,emporsteigenlassen’(WbRV.1095)625
(sb.)‘pair’(Poucha238)626
(sb.)‘participant’(DTochB.483,yamauki)
(c) PIE*ieasÀ-(or PIE*iesÀ- ?)doesnotcontainanasal,owingtothequantitative
ablautPIIr.*a:*
preservedin:
gAv.yas-
RV.yácha- gAv.
·yesa- (a.)‘indenBesitzgelangend,teilhaftig’(AIWb.1269)
(pr.)‘darreichen,aus-,vorstrecken’(WbRV.1090)
(vb.)‘herholen,holen’(AIWb.1288-9,
yese[3sg])
624
ThefemininePIE*i·a-impliesamonoliteralrootPIEi-‘halten,fassen’fromwhichtheattested
derivateshavebeenbuilt.
625
Note, however, that RV. yay
m- could derive its vrddhi from an original *. Accordingly, a root
withoutlaryngeal(PIE*iem-iom-)isalsopossible.
626
Owingtothepossiblegeneticrelationship,aloanfromRV.yamá-(a.)‘verbunden,verschwistert,
gepaart’(WbRV.1096)isunmotivated.
325
LAv.
(...)y
sa-
OPers.
·yasa-
LAv.apa(...)y
sa-
(vb.)‘herholen,holen’(AIWb.1288-9)
(pr.)‘reachoutfor,takeasone’sown’(OldP.205)
(vb.)‘wegnehmen’(AIWb.1288,apav
y
s
iti)
(d) PIE*ieat-(or PIE*iet- ?)alsodoesnotcontainanasal,owingtothequantitative
ablautPIIr.*a:
in:
RV.yatá-
LAv.y
ta-
LAv.y
ta-
RV.y
táya-
(pf.pt.)‘gezügelt,gelenkt’(WbRV.1095)
(n.)‘Anteil,Besitz’(AIWb.1283)
(a.)‘reichanBesitz,vermögend’(AIWb.1283)
(csA.)‘verbinden,vereinigen’(WbRV.1080,y
tayati)
§10.Brugmann(Grundr21:400)reconstructedNeogr.*Ébhri-for“ai.ábhri-‘Hacke,
Spaten’zunabh-‘bersten’”.Theproblemsofthereconstructionareinsurmountable:
(a) There are no parallels for OInd. ábhri- (KEWA 1:43) as the zero grade of RV.
nábh-(f.)‘Zerspalter,Zerbrecher’(WbRV.708)intherestofthegroup.
(b)TherelatedlonggraderevealsthequantitativeablautOInd.a:
:
OInd.
bhriká-
(a.)‘mitderHackearbeitend’(KEWA1:43).
†
HenceNeogr. Ébh-isimpossible.
(c) It is possible to segment OInd. ´·bhri- instead of Neogr. *ÉbhRi-, attaching the
formstothewell-knownroot
bhri-‘schneiden,scheren,zerbröckeln’(P.182):
OInd.á·bhri- Lat.fri
-
Pahl.br-
RusCS.bri- OInd.
·bhriká-
RV.bhrá- LAv.pairi.brna-
(.)‘Hacke,Spaten’(KEWA1:43) (vb.)‘zerreiben,zerbröckeln’(WH1:549,fri
re)
(vb.)‘schneiden’(AIWb.972,brtan[inf.])
(sb.)‘scheren’(WH1:549,briti[inf.])
(a.)‘mitderHackearbeitend’(KEWA1:43)
(vb.)‘zürnen’(tr.)‘strafen’(WbRV.967,bhrn³ti)
(vb.)‘ringsumschneiden’(AIWb.972,·brnTnti[3pl])
§11. Brugmann (Grundr2 1:404) reconstructed Neogr. *tÇp- for “F|:D ‘Decke,
Teppich’ : Li. tiÅpti ‘sich recken’ neben teÅpti Iter. tampti ‘spannen’, W. temp-”.
The complete material contains several roots with confirmed Indo-European
vocalisms:
(a) PIE *tap- with ablaut PIE *teap- : *tap- is implied by the following
comparison:
Gr.F|:F- ModPers.t
p-
(m.)‘Teppich,Decke’(GEW2:854)
(vb.)‘spinnen,drehen,wenden’(GEW2:854,t
ftan)
TherootisanextensionoftherootPIE*tea-*ta-‘id.’,alreadydiscussedabove.
(b) PIE*tin-,hostingtheextension*tin·p-(OLi.tiÅp-),isproventobeoriginalby
twowitnesses:
Latv.tin-
Ir.tin- (vb.)‘flechten,winden,wickeln’(Latv.tinu,tit)
(a.)‘zart:doux’(LEIAT-67)
326
OCS.tin-
Li.tiñkla-
OGaul.tinnetio(n)-
Li.tiÅp-
OBret.tinsi- OCS.tn&k& (f.)‘Seil,Strick’(Sadnik966)
(m.)‘Netz,Fischernetz,Falle,usw.’(LiEtWb.1098)
(ON.)‘Tinzen’(ACSS.2:1854,tinnetione)
(vb.)‘sichrecken’(Grundr21:404,tiÅpti[inf.])
(vb.)‘sparsit’(VGK2:374,tinsit[3sg])
(a.)‘fein,zart’(Sadnik972,tn&k&[sgN])
(c) Neogr. *temp- ‘spannen’. In addition to the well-known Lithuanian and Latin
forms,aLycianstemmayalsobelongtothisroot:
Li.teÅp-
Li.tamp- Li.i#·tempìma-
Lyc.tÅpeimeh
Lat.templo- Li.templ¸- (vb.)‘spannen,ausdehnen,recken’(LiEtWb.1079)
(vb.)‘spannen,dehnen,sichrecken’(LiEtWb.1054)
(m.)‘Anspannen’(LiEtWb.1079)
(Ic.)‘-(?)-’(BLyk.4:58,tÅpeimeh)
(n.)‘gespanntQuerholz’(WH.2:659,templa[plNA])
(f.)‘Bogensehne,Sehne,Saite’(LiEtWb.1079)
Theformation*ten·p-isanextensionoftherootNeogr.*ten-in:
RV.tan-
Umbr.an·ten-
Umbr.en·ten-
Lat.tnsa- OPr.tensei- OPr.en·tenst-
Lat.tento- (ao.)‘weithinstrecken’(WbRV.514,átan)
(vb.)‘intendit’(WH2:662,antentu[3sg])
(vb.)‘intendit’(WH2:662,ententu[3sg])
(f.)‘Prozessions-,Götterwagen’(WH2:666)
(vb.)‘reizen’(APrS.448,nitenseiti[3sg])
(pf.pt.ps.)‘gefasst’(APrS.448,entensts[sgN])
(n.)‘Spinngewebe’(a.)‘gespannt’(WH2:662)
Inthisway,nosvarabhaktivowelsresultingfromNeogr.*Çareattested.
3 .4.8 Neogr.*Ç m (antevocalicsyllabicbilabial)
§0.Neogr.*Çm,thelabialcounterpartofNeogr.*Én,waspostulatedandassumedby
Brugmanntodevelopsimilarlyasthecorrespondingdental.
§1.AccordingtoBrugmann,thedevelopmentsofNeogr.Çwereasfollows:
Uridg. Ar.
Çmvoraetc. am
Arm. Gr.
am
4?
Alb.
?
Ital.
em
am
um im
m
§2.TheproblemsofNeogr.*ÇmareessentiallyidenticalwiththoseofNeogr.*É(to
which I refer in this connection). Brugmann’s svarabhakti vowels, assumedly from
Neogr.*Çm,canbeproventobegenuinebythecomparativemethod(i.e.impliedby
atleasttwowitnesses).
§3. Brugmann (Grundr2 1:399) reconstructed Neogr. “*sÇmo- ‘irgend einer’: ai.
sama- gr. ]?B- got. suma- (Verf. Ausdr. f. d. Totalität S. 5)” and (Grundr2 1:412)
“OIr. samail ‘Gleichnis, Bild’ : nkymr. hafal ‘similis, par’, lat. simili-s, gr. _?4
327
‘zugleich’”, adding (Grundr2 1:415) “Go. sum-s aisl. sum-r ‘irgend ein’ : ai. sama-
etc.”.Insteadofauniformroot,thereareseveralparalleledextensions:
(a) PIE*seam-.ThecommonIndo-European/a/(PIE*ea)isconfirmedbyseveral
branches:
RV.sám
Gr._?·4
OIr.samail- (prepI.)‘mit’(adv.)‘zugleich’(WbRV.1478)
(adv.)‘zu·sammen,zu·gleich’(GEW1:83)
(f.)‘ressemblance’(LEIAS-21-2)
TheformationisanextensionPIE*sea·m-oftherootPIE*sea-(seeabove).
(b)PIE*sem-‘one,oneself’,anextensionoftherootPIE*s-,isattestedin:
OMyc.h8?- OLat.sem·ol Lat.sem·per Lat.simili- (pron.m.)‘ein’(DMycGr.392,he-mei[sgD])
(adv.)‘zugleich’(WH2:538=Lat.simul)
(adv.)‘immer;jedesmal’(WH2:511)
(a.)‘ähnlich’(WH2:538)
(c) PIE *sum- ‘some; together’627 contains a genuine PIE *u confirmed by three
branches:
Go.sum-
RV.sum·ád
Aiol.v?B<
Aiol.t?BB-
Go.suman
(indef.prn)‘anyone,someone,some’(GoEtD.328)
(adv.)‘zusammen,zugleich’(WbRV.1545)628
(adv.)=‘q?B’(LSJ.1849)
(a.)=‘s?B<BD’(LSJ.1849)
(adv.)‘BF}’‘once,formerly’(GoEtD.328)
§4. Brugmann (Grundr2 1:399) reconstructed Neogr. *»Çmó- as “Präsensst. von
*»em-‘kommen’:ai.gamé-t,ahd.comanaisl.koma(IIS.920)”.Insteadofasingle
prototype, the complete data now reveals two different vocalizations implied by the
comparativemethod:
(a)PIE*»eam-‘kommen’isparalleledbyIndo-IranianandTocharianin:
RV.gáma- TochB.kame-
(a.ao.)‘kommen’(WbRV.385,gámadhyai[inf.])
(pretA.)‘tocome’(DTochB.161,kame[3pl])629
Takentogether,theformsimplyPIE*»eamo-withoutanantevocalicsyllabicnasal.
(b) PIE*»ám-(O*»úm-)‘venire’isparalleledbyTocharianandGermanicand,
therefore,itisshowntobeoriginal:
Go.qum-
TochA.kumnäs-
TochA.kump
-
(m.)‘Ankunft’(GoEtD.279)630
(prA.)‘venire’(Poucha67,kumnässi[inf.])
(impfA.)‘venire’(Poucha67,kump
r[3pl])
627
PIE*su-,theunextendedstartingpointoftheextensionPIE*sum-,appearsinTochB.su-(dem.pr.)
‘the;he,she,it’(DTochB.693,su)andinLi.su-(pref.)‘mit,inBegleitungvon[I.]’(LiEtWb.933).
628
NoteRV.·ád(postp.)‘zu’paralleledinUmbr.·a (postp.A)‘zu,bei,an’andbelongingtoLat.ad
(prep.pref.)‘ad’(WH1:11).
629
Inaddition,aPIE*o-grade(cf.Go.qam-(pret.)‘kam’)ispossibleinTocharian.
630
Thesurface-levelPGerm.*umdidnotresultfromthesyllabicnasalNeogr.*Ç,butfromPIE*ám
withPIE*aassimilatedtothelabialcomponentof*».
328
OHG.chumft-
TochA.kumsa-
Go.ga·qum-
(f.)‘dasKommen,Ankunft’(Grundr21:413)
(prA.)‘venire’(Poucha67,kumsam)
(m.)‘Zusammenkunft’(GoEtD.147,gaqums)
§5. Brugmann (Grundr2 1:399) reconstructed *medhÇmo- ‘mittelster’for “av.
madTma-, got. miduma F. ‘Mitte’, ahd. *metamo ‘mediocris’ in metamun-schaft
‘mediocritas’(IIS.157)”.Attemptstoexplainthealternationwithasyllabicnasaldo
notsucceed,becausethevariationofsuffixesisexternallysecured:
(a)PIE*medh-‘middle’(P.706-7),theunextendedroot,appearsin:
Go.mid·gardiwaddju-(m.)‘=EG@87:E<D:consciousness’(GoEtD.258)
LAv.mai7·y
irya- (m.)‘d.GottheitderfünftenJahreszeit’(AIWb.1117)
OIcl.mi-
(n.)‘Mitte’;‘FischplatzimMeer’(ANEtWb.386)
(b)PIE*medhomo-issharedbyAvestanandGermanicin:
LAv.ma7Tma-
OEng.meteme-
(a.)‘inderMittebefindliche,mittlere’(AIWb.1114)
(a.)‘mediocer’(ASaxD.677,cf.OHG.metam-)
(c)PIE*medh(e/o)u-appearsinGermanicandCeltic:
Go.miduma- OIcl.mjVdm- OIr.medón- Go.midjun·gard-
(f.)‘Mitte:?}EB@’(GoEtD.253)
(f.)‘Hüfte,Leibesmitte’(ANEtWb.390)
(m.)‘milieu,centre,partiecentrale’(LEIAM-28)
(m.)‘inhabitedworld’(Gr.Bk=B?}@:,GoEtWb.253)
§6. Brugmann (Grundr2 1:415) reconstructed Neogr. *»Çmi- for “Lit. pó-gimis
‘Natur’Gen.-gimio,zugiÅti‘geborenwerden’,nebenPräs.gemù.”.
Theroot PIE*»ea-(Neogr.*»a-),onlysketchedbyWaldeandPokornyinP.
465,cannowbereconstructedwithfarmoredetails:
(a)PIE*»ea-‘gebären’,theunextendedroot,appearsin
Gr.5|-
(ao.)‘geborenwerden’(GEW1:210,b5|;:[ps.]).
(b) PIE *»eai- ‘id.’ is documented with a schwebeablaut in Avestan, matching Li.
gemùinPIE*e:
Gr.544-
LAv.Wa-
LAv.Wa·kar#ta-
(f.)‘Amme’(GEW1:208,544[sgN])
(f.)‘Weib’(AIWb.606,Wa[sgN],Wa#[plA])
(a.)‘vondenMenschernbewirkt’(AIWb.601)
ThisformationisthestartingpointoftheSatemrootgim-preservedinBalticand
Albanian:
(c)PIE*»aim-‘geborenwerden’
Li.giÅ-
Alb.pre·im- OPr.pr·gima-
(vb.)‘geborenwerden’(LiEtWb.151,giÅti[inf.])
(sb.)‘GastmahleinesErstgeborenen’(LiEtWb.151)
(m.)‘Kreature(n)’(APrS.395,prgimmans[plA])
(d) PIE *»a·m- ‘geboren werden’ (P. 465), the labial extension of the root, is
attestedinseveralbranches:
329
OPr.gem-
Li.gema-
OPr.gemia- LAv.ni·W
maya-
TochB.!
m·nya-
(vb.)‘gebären’(APrS.336-7,gemton[inf.])
(pr.)‘geborenwerden,entstehen’(LiEtWb.151,gemù)
(f.)‘Hausfrau’(APrS.337,gemia[sgN])
(cs.)‘zuGebärenbringen’(AIWb.1081,niW
mayeiti)
(pret.)‘create’(DTochB.621,!
mnyare[3pl])
§7. Brugmann (Grundr2 1:417) reconstructed Neogr. *tÇm- for “Aksl. tma
‘Finsternis’,W.tem-‘dunkelsein’(lit.u#-temis‘Verfinsterung’ai.támasN.‘Dunkel’),
vgl. lit. tímsra-s ‘schweissfüchsig’”. In the material, two roots are now confirmed by
Fick’srule:
(a)PIE*tim-‘dunkel,finster’appearsinBaltic,SlavonicandIndo-Iranian:
OCS.tma
OInd.timirá- ModPers.timir-
Li.tiÅsra-
(f.)‘Finsternis’(‘darkness’,Sadnik971)
(a.)‘dunkel,finster’(KEWA1:502)
(sb.)‘Dunkelheit’(KEWA1:502)
(a.)‘bleifarbig,schweißfüchsig’(LiEtWb.1097)
(b) PIE *tema- (or *team- ?) ‘Dunkel, Finsterniss’with PIE * implied by the
Lithuanianacuteisattestedinfourgroups:
Li.tém-
RV.támas-
gAv.tTmah-
OHG.demar
Lat.temere
(vb.)‘finster/dunkel/Abendwerden(LiEtWb.1080)
(n.)‘Dunkel,Finsterniss’(WbRV.524)
(n.)‘Finsternis,Dunkel’(AIWb.648)
(.)‘Dämmerung’(LiEtWb.1081)
(adv.)‘blindlings,zufällig,ohneGrund’(WH2:656)
3 .4.9 Neogr.*Æ(longsyllabicbilabial)
§0. Neogr. *Æ, the labial counterpart of long syllabic Neogr. *È, behaves in all
respectsinthesamewayasthecorrespondingdentalnasal.
§1.AccordingtoBrugmann(Grundr21:417f.),thedevelopmentsofNeogr.*Æinthe
daughterlanguageswereasfollows:
Uridg. *ÆvorC
Ar.
Arm. Gr. Alb.
an
4@@4 ?
Ital. Urir. Germ. Balt. Slav.
an,na an
un
in
n
§2.ThetheoreticalandreconstructiveproblemsofNeogr.*Æcoincidewiththoseof
Neogr. *È. In essence, Brugmann’s svarabhakti vowels, assumedly from Neogr. *Æ,
arecomparativelyconfirmedbyatleasttwowitnesses(Fick’srule),asshownbelow.
§3.Brugmann(Grundr21:419)reconstructedNeogr.*dÆ‘zähmen’for“ai.d³mya-ti
‘erzähmt’,gr.ion.7}7?:?4<,7?:F-D,7?E<-D(urgr.
)und7|?4E<-D\-7|?4FBDvgl.
ai.dami-tár-‘domitor’”.Yetagaintwoetymologicallydistinctrootsareattested:
(a) PIE*dam-‘zähmen’withtheablaut*e/oin PIE*deam-*doam-isimpliedby
thefollowingforms:
Hom.l·74?B-
OIr.daimi- (m.)‘Rossebändigend’(GEW1:346,l74?BD)
(pr.)‘zähmen’(DIL175,daimid[3sg])
330
Lat.dom
-
RV.d
m³-
Aiol.7|?@4-
OIr.domna-
(pr1.)‘zähmen,bändigen’(WH1:367,dom
re[inf.])
(f.)‘Seil’(WbRV.595+Brugmann’sLawII)
(vb.)‘bezähmen,bändigen,bewältigen’(GEW1:346)
(vb.)‘festbinden,bändigen’(DIL180,domnaid)
(b)PIE*dma-‘bändigen,usw.’
Gr.7}7?:- Hom.7?E- Hom.\·7?~F- Gr.^·7?:FB- (pf.)‘bändingen,bezähmen,-wältigen’(GEW1:346)
(m.)‘Sklave’(Schwyzer,GrGr.1:480,GEW1:403)
(pt.)‘ungebändigt,unverheiratet’(GEW1:346)
(pf.pt.)‘gebändigt,unverheiratet’(GEW1:346)
TheformationhasnoexternalparallelsthatIwouldbeawareof.Despitethisadirect
derivation of (b) from (a) is impossible, because in zero grade the root PIE *dam-
resultedinmediaaspirata:
(c)PIE*dam-‘binden,anheften,usw.’(Neogr.*dhm-)
Gr.;?<@6- i.daming- (f.)‘Strick,Schnur,Band’(GEW1:700)
(vb1A.)‘anheften,-kleben(?)’(HEG3:77-8)
§4.Brugmann(Grundr21:419)reconstructedNeogr.*ÀÆ-‘ermüden’for“ai.!³mya-ti
‘er hört auf, lässt nach’, gr. ion. =}=?:=4 =?:F-D (urgr. ) und =|?4FB-D, vielleicht
auch =|?@K aus ÀÆn, vgl. ai. Imper. !ami-va”.631 Nevertheless, two distinct
correspondencesareimpliedbythecomparativemethod:
(a)PIE*Àama-‘mühen;liegen,Lager’(ablautPIE*Àeam-*Àam-,P.557)632
Lat.cam
RV.!am
yá- Gr.\·=|?4@F-
Gr.=?4F- (f.)‘kurzes,niedrigesBett,Pritsche’(WH1:145)
(dn.)‘tätigsein,sichMühegeben’(WbRV.1380)
(pt.)‘unermüdlich,frisch’(GEW1:773)
(n.)‘tiefe,ruhigerSchlaf’(GEW2:61)
(b)PIE*Àma-‘liegen’(P.557,KEWA3:381-2)
AV.!ma·!
na-
Do.=}=?4=- Gr.\·=?~F- (n.)‘Fried-hof,Leichen-stätte’(EWA2:659)
(pf.)‘sichmühen,ermatten,sterben’(GEW1:773) (a.)‘unermüdlich’(GEW1:773,\=?~D[sgN])
(c) PIE*Ào-‘liegen’(Ablaut*À-Ào-Àe-).Thebaseoftheaboveextensionsandthe
shortest form of the root is revealed by an attribute of the gods Rudra and iva
(AiGr.II/2:81):
OInd.giri·!a- (m.)‘inhabitingmountains’(KEWA3:304).
The best-known extension PIE *Àei- ‘liegen’ (P. 539-540) has been built on this
formant.
631
ForGüntert’sdiscussiononthealternation=|?4FBD)=?:FD,see(1916:115).
632
Accordingtoconventionalunderstanding,theroothastwomeanings,‘liegen’and‘mühen’.These
are, however, ultimately incompatible, and two etymologically distinct roots – one meaning ‘Hand :
mühen’andtheothermeaning‘Acker:liegen’–actuallyexist.Sincethisdistinctionismorphologically
irrelevant,Ihavenotseparatedtherootshere.
331
3 .4.10
NasalsPIE*m/Çand*n/ÉinSystemPIE
§0. The extended data does not support the postulation of syllabic nasals with the
methodology suggested by Brugmann. The comparative method implies that the
svarabhaktivowelsareparalleledandthusofPIEorigin,notepentheticoutcomesof
syllabicsonants.633Consequently,theNeogrammarianrulesforC¯CCNHVCNHC
canbesimplifiedintoasingleitemC¯COCNC,basedontheactualdevelopmentof
thesyllabicnasals(theprincipleofregularityofsoundchange).
§1.Asfor PIE*C1¯C2,onlyahandfulofformswithC1andC2notrepresentingthe
laryngeal have been preserved in the data, all in languages not available for
Brugmann and his colleagues.634 However, in a special case C1 R PIE *, a syllabic
nasal *Ç *É emerged without developing svarabhakti vowels, thus allowing
determinationoftheoutcomeofPIE*C1¯C2tobetherespectiveconsonantN.
§2.PIE*C1¯V(RNeogr.*Çm*Én)isaspecialcaseofthepreviousexamplewithC2
RPIE*.OwingtotheidentityoftheenvironmentC1¯=C1¯C2,onewouldexpect
the syllabic nasal to yield a consonant without a svarabhakti vowel. This is now
implied by the comparative method in examples like PIE ºna- ‘wissen’ with a
commonIndo-Europeandevelopment
PIE*ºnaV- O*ºÉV-
O*ºÉV-
O*ºnV-
as,forinstance,in
RV.jajñ- (pf.)‘erkennen,wahrnehmen’(WbRV.501,jajñús).
Nosvarabhaktivowelsemergedintheprocess,andtheresultingnasalisconsonantal.
§3. PIE*C1¯C(RNeogr.*Çm*Én)isanotherspecialcaseofthepreviousexample
with C2 R PIE *. Accordingly, the outcomes are consonantal, as seen in the sole
certainexample:
TochA.
·kntsune
(sb.)ignorantia,inscientia’(DTochB.16).
3.5 ResonantsinSystemPIE
3.5.1 Theresonants*iulrmninSystemPIE
§0. The main issues concerning the resonants as phonetic items and as part of a
phonologicalsystemcanbesummarizedasfollows:
633
TheexistenceofparallelsofsvarabhaktivowelsisnotrestrictedtoBrugmann’sexamples,butholds
truegenerallyfortheentiredata.TherestoftheexampleswillbetreatedinthePIELexicon.
In Later Anatolian examples like Lyc. sñta- ‘100?’ or ‘a percent?’ and Lyc. tÅpeimeh (Ic.) ‘-(?)-’
(BLyk.4:58),thesyllabicnasal(PIE*C¯C)remainsunprovenowingtothepossibilityofsyncope.
634
332
(a) The existence of the consonantal resonants PIE *¾ l m n r Ò in Proto-IndoEuropeanisbeyonddoubtandnosubstantialchangesarerequiredinthetraditional
theory.
(b)Theexistenceofthevocalicresonants PIE*iÄÇÉÎuisequallyprovable,withthe
result that the core of the Neogrammarian theory is sound.635 However, the
svarabhakti vowels allegedly arising from the syllabic sonants Neogr. *Ä Î Ç É are
comparativelyparalleled,andthereforetheyareestablishedtobegenuine.Inorder
to avoid generating ghost forms from Neogr. *Ä Î Ç É, the traditional rules must be
replaced with a simpler one stating that the syllabic resonants resulted in the
respectiveconsonants after the loss of surrounding PIE * (the principle of the
regularityofsoundchange).
§1. The key developments of the Proto-Indo-European glides PIE *i *u can be
(a) PIE*i/¾and PIE*u/Òcontinueincognateswithexceptionsregulatedbythesound
lawsofthelanguagesinquestion.
(b) PIE *á (Neogr. *Õ) assimilated with PIE *i *u regardless of whether PIE *
precededorfollowedPIE*á,accordingtothefollowingrules:
PIE*á+i*i+á
PIE*á+u*u+á
O
O
RV.,Li.y,Gr.,OCS.i,etc.
RV.%,Li.%,Gr.,OCS.y,etc.
(c) Sturtevant’s idea of a laryngeal and/or schwa being the cause of the two-syllabic
scansionsofSievers’sLawcanbeformulatedwithprecisionfortheenvironments
PIE*iV *iV *uV *uV.
These rules should be adopted because counterexamples prevent Sievers’s original
(prosodic)explanation.
(d)In PIE*Ki/¾*Ku/Ò,thesemivowels/glidesresultedinpalato-andlabiovelarswith
well-knownoutcomesinthecognates(seeChapter4).
§2. The key developments of the Proto-Indo-European liquids PIE *l/Ä and PIE *r/Î
canbesummarizedasfollows:
(a) The syllabic liquids have been preserved in Indo-Iranian, but they are generally
absentinallotherIndo-Europeanlanguages(exceptforpossiblescantyremnantsin
LaterAnatolianandTocharian).
(b)ThepresenceofPIE*constitutesthelong-soughtconditionofFortunatov’sLaw:
in the environments (V)LT and (V)LT, the laryngeal and liquid were lost and a
palatalizationensued,resultingincerebralsinSanskritandAvestanÏ.
(c) Actual examples of the development of (C)LV have been preserved (e.g. in
Edgerton’s samples of Sievers’s Law for liquids). RV. índra- indicates that no
635
Conversely, Schmitt-Brandt’s (1967:48) assertion (“In der Tat besaß das Indogermanische keine
silbischen Liquiden und Nasale.”) is too strong. Syllabic sonants existed, but yielded only respective
consonants.
333
svarabhakti vowel emerged, leaving the latter to be explained by means of external
comparison.
(d) The neutrality of the long syllabic resonantsin the environment (C)LC is
indicatedbyRV.dÎ!-(WbRV.255):Gr.7C4=-(GEW1:368):OIr.drach-(DIL.
24, LEIA A-76), in which no svarabhakti vowels emerged. Taken together, the
traditional rules for the Indo-European liquids (C)LC (C)LV (C)LV can be
replacedwithasinglerule.
§3. The key developments of the Proto-Indo-European nasals PIE *m *n can be
(a)Theconsonantalnasals PIE*mand PIE*nhavebeenpreservedforthemostpart
assuchinthecognates.
(b) PIE *Ç and PIE *É turned into respective consonants without developing
svarabhakti vowels. The situation was already understood by Brugmann in terms of
the initial sequences *mn-, *mr-, *ml- (with PIE *Ç), but the true scope of the
phenomenon has become apparent only after the reconstruction of PIE *. In the
environments PIE¯Cand PIEC¯containing PIE*Ç*É,thelossofthelaryngeal
hasleftPIE*mandPIE*ninthecognateswithoutepentheticvowels.
§4.ForProto-Indo-Europeanispostulatedthesimplestsysteminitiallysoughtbythe
Neogrammarians:
PIE
*i/¾
*Ä/l
*Ç/m *É/n *Î/r
*u/Ò
(SystemPIE).
Simultaneously,theattachedsoundlawsaregreatlysimplifiedinthemannerdetailed
above.
3 .5.2 TheevaluationoftheSonantentheorie
§0. Owing to the existence of the syllabic resonants PIE *Ä Î Ç É (conditioned by
position)andthegoalofconnectingtherelatedIndo-Europeanforms,thecoreofthe
Neogrammarian theory is sound. However, the decisively extended Indo-European
data and the emergence of PIE * has led to a situation where Brugmann and
Osthoff’sreconstructionsnolongerreflectthematerialinaconsistentmanner,anda
transition from the Sanskrito-centric method of reconstruction of the
Neogrammarians to a comparative (external) one is required. The reasons for this
andrelatedissuesarebrieflyanalyzedhere.
§1.Despitetheiranti-PaleogrammariantendenciesinthetreatmentofthePIEvowel
system (Neogr. *T ´ · Ê å vs. Paleogr. *´), Brugmann and Osthoff fell back into
Sanskrito-centrism in their reconstruction of the syllabic sonants. This is apparent
throughoutthereconstruction:
(a) On the level of phonetics, Brugmann adopted the concept of svarabhakti vowel
and syllabic liquids (OInd. Î Í) from the Sanskrit grammarians, importing and
generalizing these for the proto-language. These preferences can be exemplified by
well-known comparisons like RV. dÎ!- (WbRV. 255) : Gr. 7C4=- (GEW 1:368) and
334
theirallegedprototypeNeogr.*dÎÀ-.Inthispostulation,anon-trivialassumptionwas
madethatGreekhaddevelopedasvarabhaktivowelGr.4,andthattheIndo-Iranian
zerograde(RV.Ø)representedtheoriginalstateofaffairs.Insodoing,Osthoffand
Brugmann operated not only ex nihilo nihil, but in violation of the principle of
postulation(Fick’sRule).TheidentityofthevocalismsOIr.drach-(DIL.24,LEIA
A-76) : Gr. 7C4=- (two witnesses) properly implies Indo-Iranian as having
developedasecondarysyllabicresonantRV.dÎ!-afterthelossof PIE*a(=Neogr.
*T).
(b) In terms of morphology, Sanskrito-centrism manifested in a twofold manner.
First,thecounterpartsofthetheoreticalSanskrit-rootspÍ-tÍ-wereprojectedonto
the proto-language in a vastly generalized form, not only involving liquids (Neogr.
*pÃ-and*tÍ-)butnasals.Secondly,onlytheSanskritrootsoftheHindugrammarians
(e.g.san-,s
-‘win,gain,obtain’)werereconstructed,meaningthatthetheorywas
incompletefromthebeginning.636Inordertoillustratethelatterpoint,Brugmann’s
postulation of the root OInd. san- : s
- can be compared with Burrow’s critique
(1979)637 and the reality of the data. In the traditional reconstruction, the
morphologicalvariationwasaccountedforwiththefollowingschema:
*e-grade:
Neogr.*sen-(san-) Neogr.*senT-(sani-)
zero-grade:
*sÉC(sa·C-)
*sÉTC(s
-) *snV(–)
*snTV(–)
The critical feature of the reconstruction is the assumed presence of an underlying
nasal Neogr. *n/É in all forms of the root. This was never consistent with the facts,
because roots without the nasal OInd. s-, sa- existed de facto outside the
description of the Sanskrit grammarians.638 When Brugmann excluded the forms
withoutanasal(orexplainedthesebymeansofanalogy),thetheorywasleftwithout
the primary roots. However, for reasons mentioned by Burrow, analogy is not an
acceptableexplanation.639Theabsenceofanunderlyingnasalisalsoimpliedbythe
comparativemethod:
636
See Brugmann (1879b:273): “Delbrück stellt diese -formen vb. 93 mit j
tá- von jan, kh
tá- von
khanundm³tavaívonmanzusammen,recurriertzurerklärungderselbenaufparallelwurzelns
,v
,j
,
kh
,m
[…].”
637
See Burrow (1979:24) “Another Hittite root terminating in - which has been mentioned in this
connectionis#an-‘tostrive,seek’.ThisHittiteverbhasbeenconnectedwiththeSanskritrootsan-‘to
win,gain,obtain’[…].”
638
Burrow(1979:24)writes:“Onecouldthenassumethat,onthebasisofthisrootstemanalogically
produced,theform!ataséya-isderivedontheanalogyofratnadhéya.Suchahistoryisnotaltogether
convincing even for these forms, preserved in the Veda, set (3 sg. active aor. inj.) and smahi, which
accordingtoK.Hoffmann(MSS22,pp.26ff.)isanoptative1pl.mid.derivedfromthisroot.”
639
Burrow (1979:24) adds: “It is not possible to account for the root s
-/s- in these forms as having
arisenanalogicallyinthemannerdescribedabove.Weareforcedtotheconclusionthattherootform
present in these cases is ancient and original, and if so, the same obviously applies in v
ja-s³-, etc.
whicharealsodifficulttoaccountforotherwise.Ifthisrootwasoriginallys
-,thenthepresentsanóti
canbeanalyzedassa-nó-ti,afifthclassformationwiththereducedgradeofthisroot.”
335
PIEsa-
i.#a-
RV.go·³- RV.ketra·sá’-
RV.pa!u·- gAv.f#u·#- PIEsai-
Ved.sáy-
OInd.s
ya- RV.!ata·séya-
i.#ai#ki- Arm.haiµe- RV.sas³n-
RV.sanó-
Att.]@-
Att.]@K
(vb.)‘verlangen,etc.’(HEG2:820,#a-a-u-un[1sg])
(a.)‘Rindergewinnend/verleihend’(WbRV.414)640
(a.)‘Landgewinnend’(WbRV.370,ketrasáam[sgA])
(a.)‘Viehschenkend’(WbRV.796,pa!uás[sgG])
(a.)‘derViehinseinenBesitzbringt’(AIWb.1030)
(ao.)‘erlangen’(Burrow1979:24,set[3sg])
(prM.)‘erlangen,erbeuten’(Gramm.s
yate[3sg])
(n.)‘dasErlangenhundertfachenGutes’(WbRV.1375)
(vb.iter.)‘suchen,verlangen’(HHand.142)
(vb.)‘suchen,verlangen,bitten’(ArmGr.418)
PIEsan-
PIEsat-
RV.s
tá-
RV.gó·
ti- OCS.po·sti- OCS.pri·sti- RV.s³tu-
OCS.po·stova-
(pt.)‘gewonnen’(KEWA3:428)
(f.)‘ErlangungvonRindern’(WbRV.414)
(vb.)‘heim-,besuchen,sehennach’(Sadnik800)
(vb.)‘besuchen’(Sadnik800,pristiti[inf.])641
(m.)‘derempfangendeMutterleib’(WbRV.1508)
(vb.)‘besuchen,freien’(Sadnik800)
(c)Atthegrammaticallevel,BrugmannassumedthattheSanskritparadigmsdirectly
reflectedthoseoftheproto-language.Therefore,accordingtohim,thealternationof
paradigms like RV. han·ti : RV. ha·tha had to contain a common deep-level root.
Brugmann’s (1879c:287) structural mode of reasoning is illustrated by the following
quote:
“Ichgehevoneinemmeineserachtensganzsicherenfallaus.Dassdaspraesensbadhn³ti
‘bindet’ sich zum perfect babándha ebenso verhält wie mÎdhn³ti zu mamárda, tÎpnóti zu
tatárpa, dhÎóti zu dadhára und demgemäss auf ein *bÉdhn³ti zurückzuführen ist, wird
wolniemandbestreiten,derdieentstehungvontatá-aus*tÉtá-u.s.w.zugibt.”
640
Burrow’s(1979:24)skepticism(“Itismorediffuculttoseehowtherootstem-s
-(inv
ja-s³-and
!ata-s³-,nom.sg.v
jas³,!atas³,acc.sg.v
jas³m)couldbederivedfromsuchabase[=*sÉH-].”)is
completelyjustified:i.#a-=RV.sa’-,s³-.
641
ThetheoreticalderivationreferredtobyBurrowisfalsifiedbyOCS.st-fromPIE*sat-without
anasal.SeeBurrow(1979:24):“Fromsuchabasetheparticiples
tá-andtheactionnouns
tí-could
beeasilyderivedasrepresenting*sÉHto-and*sÉHti-.”
336
Despite this, owing to the enriched data, Brugmann’s internal reconstructions have
nowbeencastintodoubt.Asarule,whenexternalparallelsareavailable,thenasalis
alsoabsent.Thus,thereisnonasalin:
i.badan- AV.badhn³- (GI"n.)‘TablettausRohr,Korb,Sieb’(CHDP:241f.)
(pr.)‘bindenan/mit[L]’(WbRV.897,badhn
mi[1sg])
Identically,theshortrootformRV.ha-didnotcontainthenasalthatispresentin
RV.han-(=i.guen-),becausethevowelreflectsPIE*e:
i.gue-
RV.ha-
gAv.Wa-
(vb.)‘(er)schlagen,töten’(HEG1:604-5,ku-e-mi/-#i)
(pr.)‘(er)schlagen,töten’(WbRV.1642,hathás,hatás)
(vb.)‘schlagen,töten’ (AIWb.603,Waidy
i[inf.]).
In this regard, one should mention the questionable part played by analogy in
Brugmann’s(1879c:290)thought:
“In wurzeln wie bhandh ‘binden’, skand ‘steigen’u.a. ist der nasal, nach allem, was wir
wissen, ein ebenso wesentlicher bestandtheil wie das r in wurzeln wie dark ‘sehen’, vart
‘wenden’u.s.w.Wennerfehlt,soisterentwederauf lautgesetzlichemweggeschwunden,
wie in badhn³ti und baddhá-, oder es hat eine neubildung nach der analogie von
unnasaliertenwurzelnstattgefunden,wiebeibedhúsnach!ekúsundähnl.”
However, yet a third explanation is possible, which is not based on sound laws or
analogy(thetwoprivilegedagendasoftheNeogrammarians).ThisistheProto-IndoEuropean derivation, now externally confirmed as the true cause of the difference
RV.ha-:han-=i.gue-:guen-andothersimilaralternations.
§2. As a second factor contributing to the problems of the Sonantentheorie, it is
necessary to mention the incompleteness of the Neogrammarian data, sound law
systemandphonemeinventory.Intermsofthesevulnerabilities,thefollowingmaybe
observed:
(a)RegardingthedatausedbytheNeogrammarians:
1.Brugmanndidnotusealloftheavailabledatainhistheoryformation,which
left the theory incomplete. Using the concurrent Sanskrito-centric (internal)
approach had consequences, because multiple alleged svarabhakti vowelsof the
individualsubgroups(Baltic,Celtic,etc.)couldhavebeenexternallyconfirmedfrom
thebeginning.Asanexample,onemayciteBrugmann(1879b:276):
“Dagegenhabenwirandenverwandtensprachenfür
-wurzelnkeinenirgendgenügenden
anhaltbeis
,fernerbeij
inj
tá-,j
yáte,j
-(kind,geschöpf),beit
int
yáteundbeidem
obennochnichtgenanntengh
-ingh
tá-adj.‘schlagend’,subst.m.‘schlag,tödtung’neben
hántihatá-haty³-.Hieristvorsichtgebotenundzuzusehen,obdiedifferenznichterstauf
demeinzelsprachlichengebietentstandenist.”
Against this analysis, the roots in question were actually attested already in the
traditionalmaterial,asrevealedbythefollowingexamples:
OInd.gh
ta- YV.go·gh
tá-
(m.)‘Schlag,Tötung,Vernichtung’(MonWil.377)
(m.)‘Kuh-töter’(EWA2:800)
337
OInd.gh
taya-
Gr.}H:EB- (cs.)‘tötenlassen,töten’(KEWA3:576)
(pf.fut.P.)‘töten’(GEW1:657,8H:E8F4<)
(f.)‘Kampf’(ANEtWb.195)
(f.)‘dieSchicht’(WbRV.1440)
(pf.)‘geschlagen,getötet,erschlagen’(WbRV.1646)
(pf.pt.)‘geschlagen,getötet’(AIWb.602)
and
OIcl.gu-
RV.sam·hát- RV.hatá-
LAv.Wata-
Thus there were already defects in the Neogrammarian theory before the Old
Anatolianand/orTochariandataappeared.Accountingonlyforanincompletesetof
itemswithabstractprototypesratherthanactualparallels(Do.HF-,OIcl.gut-),
thetheorywasagamble.
2. Though it would be inappropriate to criticize the Neogrammarians for not
usingdatathatwasunavailabletothem,itshouldbenotedthatthecontrastbetween
the abstractness of the Neogrammarian reconstruction and the concreteness of the
data has considerably increased since the emergence of Old Anatolian and
Tocharian.Neithergrouphasatendencytocharacteristicsvarabhaktivowels,andin
particularTocharianpreservessynchronicallynumerousalternativevowels:
PIE*Àea-*Àoa-‘decem,centum’(P.191-192)
PIE*Àea-*Àoa-
Gr.7}·=4-
RV.dá·!a-
TochB.!a·k
Arc.7}·=B-
RV.dá·!
-
(n.)‘zehn’(GEW1:359,7}=4)
(num.)‘ten:zehn’(DTochB.619,!ak[N])
n³m,BRUGMANNII)
PIE*Àaimt-
Li.#iÅta-
(m.)‘centum’(LiEtWb.984,#iÅtas[sgN])
OCS.de·st (num.)‘zehn,Dekade’(Sadnik139)
TochA.tary
·kiñci- (num.ord.)‘tricesimus’(Poucha116)
PIE*Àeant-*Àoant-
TochB.kante-
Gr.FC<|·=B@F4
Gr.m·=4@F<- (num.)‘centum’(MA.405,DTochB.139) (num.)‘dreissig’(LSJ.1815,Schwyzer,GrGr.1:592)
(num.)‘20’(Schwyzer,GrGr.1:591,m=4@F<@)
PIE*Àeato-,*Àoato-
RV.!atá-
Gr.c·=4F- Arc.c·=BF- Aiol.7}·=BFB-
TochA.kät- (num.n.)‘hundert’(WbRV.1372,!atá[NA])
338
The identities of the svarabhakti vowels Toch. kint- = Li. #iÅt-, Toch. kant- =
Gr.=4@F-,Toch.kät-=RV.!at-aredecisive,leavingonetowonderwhetherthe
theorywouldneverhavebeensuggestedhadBrugmannhadtheTochariandataathis
disposal.
(b) By and large the incompleteness of the Neogrammarian sound law system was
causedbytheabsenceof PIE*,andthereislittlepointincriticizingthepioneersfor
that. However, the Neogrammarians overproduced sound laws by setting forth
abstractunderlyingformsforderivationsinexampleslike
Neogr.*pÎrV-(RLT*pÎHV) O
OInd.pur-‘forth’
withoutfirstcheckingthepossibilityofanexternal(comparative)match(i.e.common
Indo-European vowels traced back to Proto-Indo-European). Had this been done,
themoreeconomicalsolution642mighthaveemergedacenturyearlierthroughsuch
correspondencesasthefollowing:
PIEpur-‘vor,für,usw.’
Go.faur
Umbr.pur·doui-
ModPers.pul-
RV.pur³
LAv.paoirya Go.fauris TochA.purcomo-
(adv.prep.)‘vor,für’(GoEtD.110)
(vb.)‘porricit’(WbOU.612,purdouitu[3sg])
(sb.)‘Brücke’(Güntert1916:95)
(adv.)‘früher,zuvor,usw.’(WbRV.826)
(adv.)‘zuAnfang(dererstenWelt)’(AIWb.874)
(adv.)‘CFB@,CF8CB@before,earlier’(GoEtD.112)
(c) The incompleteness of the traditional phoneme inventory was perhaps not
sufficiently understood by Brugmann and Osthoff, the key theoreticians. Saussure’s
segmentalanalysisNeogr.*
ReAandMøller’sgutturalinterpretationof*A,though
admittedly not adequately formulated, were revolutionary indeed. Unfortunately,
SaussureandMøllerwerenotrewardedwithaproperresponse(i.e.positiveattempts
to develop the ablaut theory of Neogr. *T a and to check the possibility of the
existenceofasegmentallaryngealNeogr.*h).HadtheNeogrammariansstudiedthe
ideas more fully, they might have been able to eliminate some of Saussure’s and
Møller’s early mistakes before the appearance of the first interpretations of Old
Anatolian.
§3. As a final problem, I would like to discuss the so-called (absolute) uniform
hypothesissharedbyseveralproponentsoftheNeogrammariantheory.
(a)AsmentionedbyDyen(1969:502),Brugmannsupportedthe(absolute)uniform
hypothesis:
“Brugmann did regard the Ursprache as having a relatively high degree of uniformity, if
oneistojudgebythefollowing(1897:22):‘Inderfrüheren,engerenUrheimatmögendie
642
Campbell (2004:133) writes: “What is meant by the criterion of economy is that when multiple
alternativesareavailable,theonewhichrequiresthefewestindependentchangesismostlikelytobe
right.”
339
IndogermaneneineSprachegeredethaben,dienochetwaindemSinneeinheitlichwar,in
demwirheuteeinedeutscheMundartwiediebairischealseineEinheitbezeichnen’.”643
ThetypologyofthemodernIndo-Europeanlanguages(andtheirdialectalvariation)
as the model of the reconstruction of the proto-language is recognizably present in
the Neogrammarian theory of syllabic sonants. In practice, a single (uniform)
prototypewasassumedforameaning(e.g.‘100’)andthesoundlawswerepostulated
fromthis(absolute)uniformstartingpoint,accordingtothepattern:
Neogr.*ÀÇto-ORV.!atá-,Li.#iÅta-,Lat.cento-,Gr.c·=4F-,Go.hunda,…
Simultaneously,theincompatiblesurpluswasexplainedasdialectalvariation,inthis
caserepresentedbytheSlavonicstem
OCS.s&to-
(num.)‘hundert’(Sadnik917,s&to[sgNA]).644
(b) This absolute uniformity negatively affected the acceptability of the
Neogrammariantheory645forreasonsneatlydetailedbyTwaddell(1948:139):
“The[…]purposeofreconstructionistoestablishasingleformulawhichcanberegarded
asastartingpointforsubsequentevolutions.Thispurposeinvolvesnecessarilyanemphasis
onmaximumsimplicityandanintentionalneglectofnon-uniformities.”
Concerningthissituation,Burrow(1949:32)hasthefollowingtosay:
“[...]afewexamplesaresufficienttoillustrate,ontheonehand,theverygreatvariabilityof
theIndo-Europeanlanguagesinthematterofword-formation,andontheotherhandthe
factthatthisfeatureisfrequentlynotgivenadequateattentionbycomparativists.”
Thus,accordingtoBurrow’s(1949:32)interpretation:
“TherehasbeenanerrorofmethodinconceivingoftheIndo-Europeanparentlanguageas
asingleandunitedformofspeechafterthemannerofLatin.Attemptstoreconstructthis
singleoriginalhavefrequentlyresultedinviolencebeingdonetothefactsoftheindividual
languages.”
Burrow(1949:32)concludes:
“The truth is that at no period which can be reached by comparison is such a simplified
stateofaffairstobefound.Theevidencepointsrathertoacontinuumofvaryingdialectsof
the same language, manifesting differences in the matter of morphology which are often
veryconsiderable.”
Themorematerialthatemerges,theeasieritistoagreewithNyman(1978:39):
“To quote Hall (1960:203): ‘Ever since the beginning of the comparative method, it has
been evident that […] every proto-language has to be reconstructed as non-uniform, i.e.
showingdialectalvariations’.”
643
SeealsoBrugmann(1904:503).
644
See Brugmann (Grundr2 1:415): “Die Ansicht von Meillet Mém. 8,236, dass im Slav. auch &
Vertretervonuridg.Nasalissonanssei,z.B.ins&to‘hundert’halteichfürverfehlt.”
645
SeeespeciallyKatii(1970:116):“Itwastheabsoluteunityoftheproto-languagethatwasformany
linguistsandhistoriansdifficulttoaccept.”
340
(c) In a further criticism of the absolute uniform hypothesis, note the remarks of
Dyen(1969:506):
“Not only does the [absolute]uniformity assumption specify a characteristic not found in
normalobservedlanguages,butinterestinglyenoughitalsocontradictstheresultsobtained
by the comparative method, for the application of the comparative method does not
necessarilyproduceauniformprotolanguage.”
The existence of variation was naturally understood also by Brugmann (1879b:274),
accordingtowhomitcouldbetolerated,ifstrictlybasedoncomparison:
“Beidemgegenwärtigenstanddervergleichendensprachwissenschaftkommenwirvielfach
über den ansatz von parallelwurzeln nicht hinaus. Wir finden oft formationen
nebeneinander,derenwurzeltheileoffenkundigetymologischnaheverwandtsindunddoch
lautlichnichtzueinereinheitlichenformcombiniertwerdenkönnen.Indessnurdannsollte
man von parallel wurzeln redden, wenn die verschiedenheit der nicht zu trennenden
kernhaftenworttheilesichschonalseineurindogermanischeherausstellt.”
In other words, the uniform hypothesis is sustainable in its non-absolute form
allowing variation when implied by two witnesses (Fick’s rule).646 The over-strong
hypothesisofabsoluteuniformityoftheproto-languagecanbeavoidedandvariation
meaningfullydealtwith;theabsoluteuniformityofcorrespondencesisupheld,butas
manycorrespondencesarepostulatedasthecomparativemethoddemands.
(d) With the enriched data at our disposal, Indo-European linguistics now has the
opportunity to shift from absolute uniformity to the real parent language with
derivationaldiversity.Thedifferencebetweenthetwoapproachescanbeillustrated
with the modern counterpart of the Neogrammarian reconstruction, in which the
following derivational variants (confirmed by two witnesses) are implied by the
comparativemethod:
PIE*Àa-’10,100’
Gr.7}·=4-
RV.dá·!a-
Arc.7}·=B-
RV.dá·!
-
PIE*Àea-,*Àoa-
(n.)‘zehn’(GEW1:359,7}=4)
n³m,BRUGMANNII)
PIE*ÀeaiNt-
OPr.de·simto-
OLi.de·#imtì-
OCS.de·st TochA.tary
·kiñci-
(num.)‘zehn,Dekade’(Sadnik139)
646
Compare Katii (1970:117): “What we want to stress here is that by reconstructing a protolanguagenothingissaidabout[…]howmuchvarietyisencompassedbyitsunity.”
341
PIE*Àeant-*Àoant-
Bret.kant- Cymr.cant- TochA.känt- Gr.m·=4@F<- Gr.FC<|·=B@F4
PIE*Àeat-*Àoat-
RV.!atá-
TochA.kät- Gr.c·=4F- Arc.c·=BF- Aiol.7}·=BFB-
Att.8m·=BE<- Aiol.8m·=BE<- RV.!
ta·vaneya-
Arm.k‘aa·sun-
Go.hunda Go.taihunda (num.)‘hundert’(WH1:201,kant)
(num.)‘centum’(WH1:201,cant)
(num.card.)‘centum’(Poucha66-7)
(num.)‘20’(Schwyzer,GrGr.1:591)
(num.)‘dreissig’(LSJ.1815,Schwyzer,GrGr.1:592)
(num.n.)‘hundert’(WbRV.1372,!atá[NA])
(num.)‘20’(GEW1:453)
(num.)‘20’(GEW1:453)
PIE*Àaun-
(num.card.)‘=7}=4:ten’(GoEtD.339)
(num.)‘40’(ArmGr.1:491)
(num.ord.)‘tenth’(GoEtD.339)
PIE*Àaut-
OCS.s&to
OCS.s&tn& RV.!utu·dr½- (num.)‘hundert’(Sadnik917,s&to[sgNA])
(a.num.m.)‘derhundertste’(Sadnik917)
(IDf.)‘FlussimFünfstromland’(WbRV.1403)647
Intermsofthereconstruction,itisimportanttonotethat:
1. All nodes of the matrix are supported by at least by two witnesses, due to
which their reconstruction for the proto-language is legitimate and based on the
comparativemethod,alsoaccordingtoBrugmann’smoremoderateview.
2.Thenodesofthematrix(orisoglosses)donotappearintheaxisof‘regularvs.
dialectal’ but in that of derivational variation. In the traditional theory, OCS. s&to-
wasconsidereddialectalbecausetheformcouldnotbederivedfromsyllabicsonants.
Duetotheparallel(RV.!utu·dr½-),thissituationhasnowchanged.Sincethereisno
‘Indo-Slavic’dialectbutanIndo-Slavicisogloss,thistypeofvariationisbestreferred
toasderivational.648
647
AspointedoutbyMayrhofer(EWA2:646),theformsRV.!utu·dr½-andOInd.!ata·dr%-referto
thesameriver,implyingRV.!utu-=RV.!ata-‘hundred’.
648
Inmyopinion,weareabletoinfermorethanDyen’s(1969:506)observation:“Incaseslikethese
[…]thecomparativemethod[…]showsusirreconcilablydifferentforms,whoserelationasalternants
orasdialectalvariants,itdoesnotreveal.”
342
3. All nodes of the matrix (isoglosses) are perfectly regular and uniform. The
comparativemethodimpliesreconstructionsfortheroot PIEÀa-anditsderivates
PIE Àa·imt-, Àa·nt- Àa·t-, Àa·un- and Àa·ut-. Consequently, the
comparative method accounts for the derivational diversity in a manner that has
alreadybeennotedbytheleadingroottheoreticianslikePerssonandWalde.Inthis
way,itshouldfurtherbenoted,thecomparativemethodalsopostulatestheexplicit
structureoftheproto-language,allowingitsstudyinthefuture.649
§4.Thefollowinggeneralremarksandrecommendationsarecriticalforthetheoryof
syllabicsonants:
(a) Due to the existence of the syllabic sonants PIE *Ç É Ä Î and the overall goal of
explaining the links between the etymologically connected Indo-European data, the
substance of the Neogrammarian theory and etymology remains largely unchanged.
ThetraditionalsoundlawsconcerningtheoutcomesofNeogr.*ÇÉÄÎarenolonger
inharmonywiththeenvironmentPIE*,implyingconsonantaloutcomes/m//n//l//r/
intheIndo-Europeanlanguages.Inparticular,thesvarabhaktivowelsareexternally
paralleledandultimatelycausedbymorphologicalvariation(derivation)oftheprotolanguage.
(b) The absolute uniform view of the structure of the proto-language should be
replaced with a more realist view that allows for a derivational variation of ProtoIndo-European as implied by the comparative method. The comparative method
accounts for variation and indicates the relative positions of the roots and their
extensions,thusprovidingastableplatformfortheclassificationandpresentationof
thedata.Inthisregard,owingtotherequirementsofthedata,ashiftfromthemostly
biliteralNeogrammarianrootstothemonoliteraloneswillbenecessary.
649
ThusitispossibletoavoidthecriticismmentionedbyKatii(1970:146):“Traditionalcomparative
linguistics has often been criticized as foreign to the fundamental idea of structure its main interest
beingconcentratedonthecomparisonoftheisolatedwordsandforms.”
343
344
4 PIE*andthePIEobstruentsystem
4.1 Introduction
§0. The Proto-Indo-European obstruent system consists of plosives and fricatives,
whicharediscussedandanalyzedinthischapter.ExceptfortheabsenceofPIE*and
agenerallyexaggeratedfricativesystem,theNeogrammarianproto-phonemesystem
is correctly postulated and suitable as the starting point of the comparative
reconstructionassuch.
4.1.1 TheNeogrammarianobstruentinventory
§0. The Neogrammarian obstruent system can be approached through the natural
classificationofthephonemespostulated.
§1.Initsfullform,theNeogrammarianplosivesystemconsistedoftwentyphonemes:
I
II
III
IV
1.
–
*p
*ph
*b
*bh
2.
–
*t
*th
*d
*dh
3.
–
*k
*kh
*g
*gh
4.
–
*kÒ
*kÒh
*»
*»h
5.
–
*À
*Àh
*º
*ºh
Theproblemsoftheplosivesystemaredividedintotwosubsets:
(a) Columns 1–3 represent the so-called ‘Decem-Taihun isogloss’, reflecting the
problemofthefourmannersofarticulation(theseriesT:Th:D:Dh)intheprotolanguage.
(b) Columns 3–5 represent the so-called ‘Centum-Satem isogloss’, representing the
problemofthethreevelarplacesofarticulation(theseriesK:K¾:KÒ)intheprotolanguage.
§2. The Neogrammarian system of fricatives consisted of two main categories,
sibilants(Neogr.*sshzzh)andthorn(Neogr.*hh),butlackedthedefinitively
establishedlaryngealimpliedbyi.andindirectfeaturesintherestofthecognates.
4.1.2 Neogr.*TThDDh(Decem-Taihunisogloss)
§0. The term Decem-Taihun isogloss650 refers to a division of Indo-European
languages:theTaihungroup,whichwentthroughasoundshiftofthesystemNeogr.
650
Forthecoiningoftheterm,seeHopper1981.
345
*T : Th : D : Dh (Germanic and Armenian), and the Decem group, which did not
undergothatshift.
§1. The Germanic sound shift (‘Lautverschiebung’, otherwise known as Grimm’s
Law)wasinessencegraspedalreadybyRask(1818),exceptfor PIE*b(forwhichhe
lacked examples)651 and for the series Th,652 which would be discovered later on
(Szemerényi1996:55).Initsfullform,theGermanicsoundshiftstandsasfollows:
Labials
–
*p
*ph *b
*bh f
f
p
b
Dentals
–
*t
*th *d
*dh t
d
Velars
–
*k
*kh *g
*gh h
h
k
g
§2.Exceptionally,thesoundlawitselfisgenerallyunproblematic,whilethetermused
foritisnot:
(a)Theterm‘soundshift’wascoinedbeforeGrassmann’sclassicaldemonstrationof
theexistenceofthefourthseriesTh(tenuesaspiratae).Owingtothecollisionofthe
seriesTandTh,bothyieldingProto-Germanic*fI,thesoundchangewasnolonger
apropershift(unlike,forinstance,theOldHighGermansoundshift)(Szemerényi
1996:55).
(b)Ontheotherhand,thealternativeterm‘Grimm’sLaw’wasalreadycriticizedby
Pedersen, who considered it Rask’s Law, a view that has recently gained greater
traction.653 Thus, according to Fox (1995:21): “The term [Grimm’s Law]itself is a
misnomer, as Grimm was certainly not the discoverer of this law; predecessors,
especially Rasmus Rask, deserve much of the credit for its discovery.” Similarly
Collinge (1995:28) writes: “The dependence of Grimm on Rask in phonology (the
1822 version of the first volume of Grimm’s grammar was revised by 596 Raskinspiredpages)ledPedersentosuggestthatthelawbesuitablyrenamed(Pedersen
1916:59).SupportcamefromJespersen.”
§3.InArmenian,averysimilarbutmorecompleteshifttookplace:
Labials
–
*p
*ph *b
*bh Ø/v
p‘
p
b
Dentals
–
*t
*th *d
*dh Ø/t‘
t‘
t
d
Velars
–
*k
*kh *g
*gh k‘
x
k
g
651
The gap left by Rask regarding *b was immediately filled by Jakob Bredsdorff (1821:21-22). See
Collinge(1985:63)fordetails.
652
TheseriesThwasprovenbyGrassmannin1863.
653
As reported by Collinge (1985:64), “Pedersen (PedS 261) saw no progress [in Grimm 1822] over
Rask’sresults,andlessinsight.”
346
§4. Other cognates, not having gone through a similar shift, are called Decem
languages (except for Tocharian and Anatolian, which in my opinion are better left
outsidetheisogloss).
§5.InTochariantheoppositionsofvoiceandaspiration,manifestedintheseriesT:
Th:D:Dh,werelostaltogether.TheuniquedevelopmentofTocharianmakesita
mergergroup of its own rather than a Decem or a Taihun language. In particular,
‘Taihunlanguage’wouldbeamisnomer,becausedespitethecommondevelopments
DhDand*DT,theseriesTdidnot‘shift’(unlikeinGermanicandArmenian).
§6.ConcerningtheAnatoliangroup,oneshouldnotethefollowing:
(a)TheoppositionsT:Th:D:DhwerenotmarkedinOldAnatoliancuneiformand
hieroglyphic script, as a result of which our knowledge of the developments of the
fouroriginalseriesdependonexternalcomparisons.654
(b)InLaterAnatolian,especiallyinLycianandinLydian,thereareobstruentsbased
onanidenticalplaceofarticulationbutalternatingintermsofvoice(e.g.Lyd.f:Lyd.
b).Itislikely,therefore,thatatleastsomeoftheoppositionsT:Th:D:Dhwere
alsopreservedinOldAnatolian,whichintheabsenceofanyrealdistinctionsshould
notbeidentifiedwithTocharian.655
(c)InHittite,tworeflexesofpalatalizeddentalsappear,namelyi.#(e.g.ini.#iu-
‘god’)andi.z(e.g.ini.za-).Thetwooutcomescanonlybeunderstoodifthere
was a difference between voiceless and voiced stops in Old Anatolian (i.e. i. # N
*t(h)¾andi.zN*d(h)¾).656
4 .1.3 Neogr.*K:K ¾ :K Ò (Centum-Satemisogloss)
§0.ThedefinitionoftheCentum-Satemisoglossistwofold:
(a) The series Neogr. *À º ºh resulted in palatals in the Satem group (the first
palatalization),butcollidedwiththeplainvelarsNeogr.*kgghintheCentumgroup.
(b)TheseriesNeogr.*kÒ»»hwascontinuedintheCentumgroupwithwell-known
subsequent developments, but the labial component was neutralized in the Satem
group,resultinginacollisionwiththeseriesNeogr.*kggh(plainvelars).
§1. Though the traditional theory has prevailed for over a century, there is now
relevant new data and interpretations. Accordingly, the problem is dealt with in a
separatechapterbelow.
654
AgainstSturtevant’sgeminaterule,seeKronasser(EHS1:13-18)withcounterexamplessuchasi.
me-ek-ki:RV.mahi-,etc.
655
Similarly, most of the oppositions were not marked in Linear B and in Cyprian syllabary (Buck
1955:210),butthisdoesnotjustifyinferringthattheyhadbeenlostintherespectivelanguages.
656
TheendingsHi.-zi[3sg]andHi.-nzi[3pl]would,therefore,implyNeogr.*-dhiand*-ndhi.Thiscan
bebackedbythematerial,sinceinthesingularbothvoicelessandvoicedendingsappearinOIr.-tand
OIr. d. Similarly, voiceless endings appear for the plural in Greek, as pointed out by Grassmann
(1863:103):“dieboot.endung-K@;<neben-BGE<,dor.-B@F<,z.b.dIK@;<[...]”,withthevoiceconfirmed
byGo.-nd[3pl].
347
4 .2 TheoriesofthefourplosiveseriesTThDDh
§0.InordertoexplainthefourplosiveseriesofProto-Indo-European(ortheDecemTaihunisogloss),fourtheorieshaveemerged:
(a)TheNeogrammarian(or‘traditional’)theorywithT:Th:D:Dh.
(b)TherootconstrainttheoryofMeilletandMagnusson.
(c)ThelaryngealtheorywiththreeseriesT:D:Dh.
(d)Theglottalictheory,arevisedlaryngealtheorywiththreeseriesT(h):T‘:D(h).
Inthischapter,thetheoriesareevaluatedagainstthedata.
4.2.1 NeogrammariansystemTThDDh
§0. The comparative work of the Neogrammarian school resulted in the classical
reconstructionoftheplosivesystem(Szemerényi1996:54-56):
*p
*ph
*b
*bh
*t
*th
*d
*dh
*k
*kh
*g
*gh
(tenues)
(tenuesaspiratae)
(mediae)
(mediaeaspiratae)
§1. The Neogrammarian plosive system distinguishes between three places of
articulation (labial, dental and velar) and four manners of articulation: tenues (T),
tenuesaspiratae(Th),mediae(D)andmediaeaspiratae(Dh).
§2. The Neogrammarian reconstruction is comparative (obtained through external
comparison)andcomplete(nofurtheritemsexist).Therefore,itisacceptableasthe
basisforfurtheranalysisandreconstruction.
4.2.2 Meillet’sandMagnusson’srootconstrainttheory
§0.BasedonobservationsoftheexistingProto-Indo-Europeanrootshapes,Meillet
(1937:173-4)657 presented a theory of root constraints that applies to roots with two
successiveplosivesT—T.
§1. According to Meillet, the following root shapes were allowed in the protolanguage:
T—T Dh—Dh
T—D D—Dh
D—T Dh—D
§2.Incontrast,accordingtoMeillet,thefollowingrootshapeswerenon-existent:
T—Dh
D—D
Dh—T
657
For Meillet’s root constraints with a discussion, see Szemerényi (1996:99-100) and Mayrhofer
(1986:95n19).
348
Regardingtherootconstraints,oneshouldnotethefollowingadditionalconditions:
§3.Vaan(1999:1)writes:“The[...]combination[T—Dh]isadmittedifprecededby
#s-(smobileincluded),forinstance*steigh-.”658
§4.Miller(1977a:367)adds:“[...]theconstraintappliesonlytomorphemesandnotto
whole words (cf. *gher+to- ‘milk butter’(Pokorny 446), *bhÎ+tí- ‘(act of) carrying
’(Pokorny128),etc.).”659
§5. In his article Complementary Distributions among the Root Patterns of ProtoIndo-European, Magnusson (1967:19) further develops Meillet’s root constraints,
first excluding ‘pure patterns’ (roots with two successive plosives belonging to the
sameseries):
T—T :
(D—D)
:
Dh—Dh.
§6.Afterthis,Magnusson(1967:24-5)statesthatrootswithD(=Neogr.*bdgº»)
are in complementary distribution, because the two unattested root shapes T—Dh
andDh—Tcanbeusedtoderiveexistingpatterns,accordingtotheschemata:
T—D D—T (T—Dh)
(Dh—T)
D—Dh
Dh—D
As pointed out by Magnusson (1967:19), in this framework “one may explain all 2occludentpatternsintermsofonlytwooriginaloccludentseries[i.e.TandDh]”.660
§7.DespitethepartialsuccessofMeilletandMagnusson,thetheoryisincomplete(it
applies to roots with two successive plosives only) and outdated in terms of the
segmentallaryngealnowreconstructedforProto-Indo-European.
4 .2.3 ThetypologyTDDhofthelaryngealtheory
§0.Saussure’searlysegmentalanalysisNeogr.*th=t+A(1891)wasgeneralizedby
Kuryowicz (1935:46) for the series tenues aspiratae as a whole (= T+h2), a move
which ultimately led to the elimination of the series in the laryngeal theory by
Lehmann(1952).
658
Ifthisruleisaccepted,itsconversemustapplyaswell(i.e.theshapesT—DdoesnotimplysT—
Dh).
659
Conversely,iftherootisoftheshapeT—Dh,itmustcontainanaffix.Accordingly,gAv.frad-and
Gr.>:;-areaffixedderivatesoftherootpl-‘fill’.Forcounterexamples,seeMiller(1976:59).
660
Immediatelyafterthiscorrectgeneralization,Magnussonpresentsachainoffallaciousinferences
summarized by Miller (1976) as follows: “Magnusson arbitrarily arranges IE stops in the following
hierarchy(weakesttostrongest):labiovelars–dentals–palatals–labials.”(1976:55);“[...]thestrength
assignmentsarearbitrary,andalloftheserulesareimpossible.”(1976:57);“Magnusson’stheoryfails
to distinguish accidental gaps from genuine constraints, and quasi-complementary distributions in
roots that appear for reasons that obviously have nothing to do with ‘hierarchies’.” (1976:58); “If
anything,[Magnusson]hasmuddledtheissuewithamorearbitraryandtypologicallydubioussolution
[...].” (1976:60). See also Mayrhofer (1986:105fn42). It is abundantly clear that there is no need to
discuss Magnusson’s errors any further, and I will restrict the treatment here to his correct initial
observationanditsconsequences.
349
§1. In the mainstream laryngeal theory, the elimination of the tenues aspiratae has
ledtothereplacementofthefourseriesoftheNeogrammarianswiththreeseries,as
indicatedin:
*p
*b
*bh
*t
*d
*dh
*k
*g
*gh
(tenues)
(mediae)
(mediaeaspiratae)
§2. Soon after Lehmann’s proposal, Jakobson (1958:23) declared the laryngealist
remodelingtobetypologicallydeviant:
“To my knowledge no language adds to the pair /t/ – /d/ a voiced aspirate /dh/ without
having its voiceless counterpart /th/, while /t/, /d/, and /th/ frequently occur without the
comparatively rare /dh/, and such stratification is easily explainable (cf. Jakobson-Halle);
therefore theories operating with the three phonemes /t/ – /d/ – /dh/ in Proto-IE must
reconsiderthequestionoftheirphonemicessence.”661
In connection with his demand for typological realism, Jakobson interpreted662 the
laryngealistplosivesystemasquestionable.663
4 .2.4 Theglottalictheory(GamkrelidzeandIvanov)
§0.Hopper(1973)andGamkrelidze&Ivanov(1973)reactedtoJakobson’schallenge
withanewtypologicalproposal,namelytheexistenceofejectivestopsin(Pre-)ProtoIndo-European. The slightly different ejective models, which nonetheless share
commonhypotheses,664arenowcalledtheglottalictheory.665
§1.Toavoidtheproblemofadeviantsystemwiththreeseries,theejectivemodelof
GamkrelidzeandIvanov(1973=GI)666attemptsthefollowingsuccessivesteps:667
(a) The voiced (unaspirated) stops D668 were replaced with a series of glottalized
(ejective)stopsT’.
661
Foradiscussionof‘Jakobson’sUniversal’,seeBarrack(2003:1-2).
662
SeeJakobson(1958:23):“Aconflictbetweenthereconstructedstateofalanguageandthegeneral
lawswhichtypologydiscoversmakesthereconstructionquestionable.”
663
Against Jakobson’s typology, it should be now noted that there are some languages that actually
containthethreeseriesT:D:Dh(seeMayrhofer1986:93fn14).
664
Forasummaryofvariousejectivemodels,seeCollinge(1985:260).
665
For the glottalic theory, see Hopper 1973, Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1973 and 1995, Szemerényi
(1996:151-3)andMayrhofer(1986:92-98).
666
Thedetailsoftheglottalictheoriesvarysomewhat.Gamkrelidze&Ivanov(1973:152)positTh:T’:
DhandHopper(1973:152)positsT:T’:(whereisa‘laryngealized’sound).Hopper(1981:133)
writes simply T : T’ : Dh. A recent summary of the varieties of the glottalic theory is provided by
Kümmel(2012:293)
667
Theglottalistapproachisbasedonthethreeseriesoflaryngealtheory.SeeGamkrelidze&Ivanov
(1973:151): “Das System der indogermanischen Verschlußlaute wird traditionell in Form von drei
Serienrekonstruiert.”Similarly,accordingtoHopper(1981:135-6):“Comparativeevidence[...]leads
ustopositathree-foldobstruentsystemforthewholeofIndo-European.”
668
Pedersen(1951:10f.)hadalreadyassertedthatPIE*bdghadarisenfromearlier**ptk.Seealso
Szemerényi(1996:145)andMayrhofer(1986:94).
350
(b)Thevoiceless(unaspirated)stopsTwerereplacedwithseriesThappearinginfree
variationT~Th.
(c)Thevoiced(aspirated)stopsDhwerereplacedwithseriesDinfreevariationD~
Dh.
§2. From a phonological point of view, Gamkrelidze and Ivanov’s glottalic theory
(GI)canbeunderstoodasthelaryngealistversionofMeilletandMagnusson’stheory,
in the sense that it attempts to explain the same distributions of the PIE roots by
slightlydifferentmeans:
(a) GI explains the absence of the traditional roots D—D (rewritten T’—T’) by an
extension of Grassmann’s Law, which allegedly applies to roots that originally had
twosuccessiveglottalstops(Gamkrelidze&Ivanov1973:152):
“Das [...] Nichtvorhandensein der Wurzeln vom Typus *ged- (Media + Media) im
IndogermanischenwirdleichtdurchUnvereinbarkeitvonzweiheterorganenglottalisierten
LautenineinerWurzelerklärt(also*k’et’-).”
DerivationallythisissynonymouswiththeideathatthetraditionalrootswithT—D
andD—TarederivedfromD—D.
(b)GIexplainstheabsenceofthetraditionalrootsT—Dh,Dh—Tbyrewritingthese
in aspirated form Th—Dh, Dh—Th and then applying Grassmann’s Law. Thus,
accordingtoGamkrelidzeandIvanov(1973:153):
“[…]das Nichtvorhandensein der Wurzeln vom Typus *ghet- oder *tegh- [...] wird durch
die Unvereinbarkeit von zwei durch Stimmbeteiligung unterschiedenen aspirierten
PhonemenineinerWurzelerklärt(also*gheth-oder*thegh-).”
§3.Seriousobjectionshavebeenpresentedagainsttheglottalictheory,whichmaybe
discussedinconnectionwiththerelateddata.669Forthesakeofbackgroundcontext,
however,Imustexpressasinglepreliminaryreservationconcerningthefoundations
of the theory. In his immediate comment to Jacobson’s typology, Ivanov (apud
Jacobson1958:26)madethefollowingremark:
“In mathematics two systems are called isomorphic if we can establish a one-to-one
correspondence between them while preserving the relations between the elements. [...]
Thisconceptcanbeappliedtotwocognatelanguagesasstudiedbythemethodofinternal
reconstruction.”
A comparison of the laryngeal theory and the move of Gamkrelidze and Ivanov in
1973 leaves no doubt that just such an isomorphism was presented. Though not
usuallymentioned,thisisproblematic,sincebyaninconsistentplatformbeingchosen
asthestartingpoint,theoddsaregoodthatanotherinconsistenttheorywascreated.
4 .2.5 OverviewofthetheoriesofthePIEplosivesystem
§0.Thefollowingtablepresentsanoverviewoftherivaltheories:
669
Forhisthreepointsagainsttheglottalictheory,seeSzemerényi(1996:152).
351
Neogr.
MM LT
GI
T
T
T
T(h)
Th
(Th)670
–
–
D
[D]
D
T’
Dh
Dh
Dh
D(h)
Noneofthesystemsarecompletelyacceptable,duetothereasonsdetailedbelow.
§1.Thoughcomparativelyflawless,theNeogrammariansystemhasbecomeoutdated
aftertheappearanceoftheOldAnatolianlaryngeal.AsJakobson(1958:23)already
pointedout,“languagespossessingthepairsvoiced-voiceless,aspirate–non–aspirate
have also phoneme /h/”, and in general the relationship between the PIE laryngeal
andtheNeogrammarianplosivesystemrequiressystematicclarification.
§2. Despite its empirical content, Meillet and Magnusson’s root constraint theory
remainsincomplete.TherootconstraintagainsttheseriesD(voicedmediae)applies
only to the roots with two plosive stops, and the issue of segmental laryngeal is left
untreated. In order to win acceptance, the theory needs to be modernized and
generalized.
§3. The mainstream laryngeal theory with elimination of series Th is typologically
questionable(Jakobson).ThoughafewlanguageswithTDDhdoexist,linkingthem
with the Indo-European group is not tempting because typologically the IndoEuropean languages require four series (like Sanskrit), with the result that a
simplersystemwiththreeseriesisnotaproperparallel.671
§4.GamkrelidzeandIvanov’sglottalictheoryisatypologicalisolateitself,asrecently
pointedoutbyBarrack(2003:7-9):“[...]notriseriallanguagecontainsbothvoiceless
ejectives (/T’/) and voiced aspirated stops (/DH/).” Therefore, as concluded by
Barrack (2003:14): “[...] the Glottalic Theory compels us to reexamine not only the
adequacyoftheStandardModel[=Mayrhofer1986:98]buttotakeacloserlookat
the typologically superior quadraserial configuration that preceded it:
Neogrammarian*T–*D–*TH–*DH.”
§5.Noneoftheexistingtheoriesarecapableofexplainingtheproblematictypology,
and consequently there is a vacuum in this area of the Proto-Indo-European
reconstructiontheory,whichneedstobeexaminedinconnectionwiththefourseries
T–D–Th–*Dh.
670
MeilletandMagnussondonotaccountfortheseriestenuesaspiratae.
671
SeeBarrack(2003:11):“Whatisnotrecognized[byMayrhofer],however,isamoresubtlebiasin
favorofthetriserialovertheNeogrammarianquadraserialconfiguration:theunexaminedbiasonthe
partoflinguisticstowardformally‘simpler’systems.”
352
4 .3 TenuesNeogr.*k,p,t
4.3.1 MaterialofNeogr.*k,p,t
§0.Theunaspiratedtenues PIE*k*p*taretheleastproblematicitemsoftheProtoIndo-Europeanobstruentsystem.AsalreadyincludedinSchleicher’sreconstruction,
andessentiallyunchangedeversince,onlyabriefexcursionshallsufficehere.
§1.Neogr.*k.Someexamplesofthephoneme(Grundr21:571-2)are:
(a)Neogr.*kru-‘Fleisch’(P.621-622)
Gr.=C}4D
Lat.cruento- RV.kravy·³d-
gAv.xr%ra- (n.)‘Fleisch,Fleischstück’(GEW2:11)
(a.)‘blutig,blutbespritzt,grausam’(WH1:294)
(a.)‘Leichnameverzehrend’(WbRV.359)
(a.)‘blutig,grausig’(AIWb.539)
(b)Neogr.*kark-(P.531-532)
Gr.=}=4C=- OInd.karka- Gr.=4C=·@B- TochB.karkar-
OInd.karka a-
(pf.)‘tocut’(LSJ.935,=}=4C=4[1sg])
(m.)‘Krabbe’(KEWA1:171,Lex.karkas[sgN])
(m.)‘Krabstier,Krabbe’(GEW1:789)
(sb.)‘cancer’(DTochB.144)
(m.)‘Krebs,Krabbe’(KEWA1:169)
(c)Neogr.*kel-*kol-‘Spitze,usw.’(P.544)
Li.kél-
Gr.=B>B·HK@-
OCS.elo
Li.kálna-
RV.ca³la- (vb.)‘aufsteigen,sicherheben’(LiEtWb.237-8)
(m.)‘Gipfel,Spitze,Höhepunkt’(GEW2:904)
(n.)‘Stirn,Front’(Sadnik102,elo[sgNA])
(m2.)‘Berg’(LiEtWb.209,kálnas[sgN])
(m.)‘derKnaufderOpfersäule’(WbRV.443)672
(d)Neogr.*k
u-*kTu-‘schlagen,usw.’(P.535)
Li.káu-
TochA.k
w-
TochB.kau-
Li.kÑji-
(vb.)‘schlagen,hauen,vernichten’(LiEtWb.232) (vb.)‘occidere,necare’(Poucha85,k
we[3pl])
(vb.)=Skt.vadh
ya-(DTochB.208,kautsi-![inf.])
(f.)‘schwererSchmiedehammer’(LiEtWb.232,kÑjis)
(e)Neogr.*kes-*kos-‘kämmen,scharren,graben,usw.’(P.585)
Li.kàs-
i.ke#-
OCS.esa- Li.kasà-
Gr.=8E=}B- OInd.kacchÑ-
(vb.)‘graben,scharren’(LiEtWb.226,kàsti)
(vb.)‘kämmen’(HEG1:587f.,ki-i#-zi)
(vb.)‘kämmen,abstreifen(vonFrüchten)’(Sadnik105)
(f.)‘Haarflechte,Zopf’(LiEtWb.226,kasà[sgN])
(n.)‘Werg’(GEW1:834,=8E=}B@)
(f.)‘Krätze’(KEWA1:139)
672
RV.ca³lavant-(a.)‘miteinemKnaufeversehen’(WbRV.443)withPIE*ecorrespondstoPIE*o
in Go. hals- (m.) ‘Hals’ (GoEtWb. 175). The Rig-Vedic retroflex suggests a laryngeal (Fortunatov’s
LawII),whichisinturnconfirmedbytheLithuanianaccent(Li.é,á).
353
i.ke#ri-
(SÍGc.)‘etwasausWolle,Handschuh?’(HHand.80)
§2.Neogr.*p.Someexamplesofthelabialplosive(Grundr21:507)are:
(a)Neogr.*pet-,*pot-‘Schutzer,Herr’(Grundr21:513)
RV.páti-
Lat.pot-
Lat.poti-
OLi.patì-
Go.hunda·fa-
(m.)‘Schutzer,Herr,Gebieter,Behüter’(WbRV.765)
(vb.)‘teilhaftigmachen,bemächtigen’(WH2:350)
(a.)‘vermögend,mächtig’(WH2:350)
(m.)‘Ehemann,Gatte,Gemahl’(LiEtWb.551)
(m.)‘Befehlshaberüber100mann’(GoEtD.194-5)
(b)Neogr.*speÀ-‘sehen,spähen’(P.984)
RV.spá!-
LAv.spas-
Lat.speci TochA.spakt
n-
(m.)‘Späher,Beschauer’(WbRV.1608,spá [sgN])
(m.)‘Späher,Wächter’(AIWb.1614-5,spa#[N])
(pr.)‘sehen’(WH2:570-1)
(sb.n.)‘servitium,ministerium’(Poucha384)
(c)Neogr.*sup-‘schlafen’(P.1048-9,HEG2:1175)
i.#up-
RV.ní(...)suup-
OCS.s&pa- Gr.w@B-
Gr.^6C·G@B-
gAv.Ôafna- (vbM.)‘schlafen’(HHand.155,#uptari[3sg])
(pf.)‘entschlafen,sterben’(WbRV.1625)
(vb.)‘schlafen’(Sadnik915,s&pati[inf.])
(m.)‘Schlaf’(GEW1:970,w@BD)
(a.)‘wakeful,keepingawake’(LSJ.16,^6CG@BD)
(n.)‘Schlaf,Schläfrigkeit’(AIWb.1863)
§3.Neogr.*t.Someexamplesofthephoneme(Grundr21:521-2)are:
(a)Neogr.*ten-‘dehnen’(P.1065-6)
RV.tan-
Gr.F8@K
Li.t¶va-
Lat.tenui-
(ao.)‘weithinstrecken’(WbRV.514)
(vb.)‘spannen,indieLängeziehen’(GEW2:863f.)
(a.)‘schlank,dünn,fein,zart,hoch’(LiEtWb.1086)
(a.)‘dünn,fein,zart,eng,schmal,niedrig’(WH2:666)
(b)Neogr.*trei-‘drei’(P.1090-2)
RV.trí-
TochA.tri-
TochB.trai-
Gr.FC}(i)-
(num.)‘drei’(WbRV.555,tr½n[plA])
(f.)‘tres’(Poucha135,tri)
(num.m.)‘three’(Poucha319,trai[NA])
(num.pl.)‘drei’(GEW2:621,Gortyn.FC}8D[plN])
(c)Neogr.*pet-‘fliegen’(P.825-6)
i.pet-
(vb1.)‘laufen,fliegen’(CHDP:352f,píd-da-an-zi)
Lat.prae·pet- (a.)‘imFlugevorauseilend,günstig’(WH2:354)
AV.víánu(...)pap
t-(pf.)‘durchfliegen’(WbRV.761,víánupap
ta[3sg])
RV.páta-
(pr1.)‘fliegen’(WbRV.761,pátasi[2sg])
Gr.}FB-
(vb.)‘fliegen’(GEW2:521-2,}FB?4<[1sg])
354
4 .3.2 TheoreticalapproachestoseriesT(tenues)
§0.Untilrecently,theseriesT(unaspiratedtenues)hasnotbeencontested.However,
thefewattemptstochallengethegeneralconsensuscanbrieflybediscussedhere.
§1. In order to explain Meillet’s root constraints against T—Dh and Dh—T,
Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (1973) claimed that the PIE voiceless unaspirated plosives
were originally aspirated (i.e. Neogr. T R GI Th). This would mean that the nonaspirated series did not exist in Proto-Indo-European, but the series Th became
deaspiratedinalldialects(GamkrelidzeandIvanov1973:154).
§2.Inhisbooks Proto-Indo-EuropeanLabiovelars(1978)and Proto-Indo-European
Laryngeals and Ablaut (1984), Speirs uses the term ‘labiovelar’ to designate an
underlyingsuperphonemeofthepre-proto-language,whichhe(1978:47)describesas
concealinga:
“[...]hithertooverlookedcorrelationbetweenvelar,labialanddentalocclusives,suchthat
theyappeartobeinterchangeableinroot-initialandroot-finalposition,orasextensionsto
roots.”
According to Speirs (1978:47), the changes appear to be identical with those of
Greek:
“[...] it must be concluded that at some earlier period, which we call the PIE period,
labiovelarsunderwentthesameshiftsastheyunderwentagaininGreek.”
4.3.3 SolutionstotheseriesT(PIE*k*p*t)
§0.Despiteitssimplicity,theseries PIE*k*p*tformstheminimalcoreoftheProtoIndo-European plosive system, from which all other items can be derived. In this
sense the series is fundamental. In particular, the following points should be noted
regardingtheseries:
§1.TheglottalicreplacementoftheseriesTwithThrevealsaninconsistencyinthe
foundationsofGamkrelidzeandIvanov’sejectivemodel:IfthedefinitionNeogr.*T
R **Th is accepted, then the glottalic equation Neogr. *D = **T’ is no longer
possible, because typologically **T’ presupposes *T. This contradicts Gamkrelidze
and Ivanov’s claim that the series T did not exist,673 suggesting that the glottalic
theoryisindeedinconsistent.
§2.Speirs’sideasconcerning‘labiovelars’havebeenshunnedbyIndo-Europeanists674
forreasonsthatcanbereadilyunderstood:theunderlyingsuperphonemes–allegedly
673
Another set of solid counter-arguments against the equation T = Th in Gamkrelizde & Ivanov’s
glottalictheoryispresentedbyMiller(1977a:382-4).
674
See, for example, Mayrhofer (1986:109): “Das […] Buch von A. G. E. Speirs, The Proto-IndoEuropean Labiovelars (Amsterdam 1978) kann auf den derzeitigen Stand nocht nicht beurteilt
werden.”
355
yielding velars, labials and dentals – would violate the principle of the regularity of
sound change. On the contrary, it must be concluded that the places of articulation
PIE *k p t are irreducible and the oppositions are distinctive. Any attempt to
derivetheseitemsfromotherplacesofarticulationisdoomedtofailure.
§3.Inwhatfollows,itwillbeshownthatthethreefundamentalobstruents PIE*k*p
*taresufficientfortheentireplosivesystemtobederived.
4 .4 TenuesaspirataeNeogr.*kh,ph,th
4.4.1 Generalremarksontenuesaspiratae
§0. After an initial postulation of the tenues aspiratae in the 19th century, the
discussionofthe20thand21stcenturieshasbeendominatedbyasegmentalanalysis
of the series. As the laryngealist elimination of the series was not performed in a
flawless manner, a detailed analysis and improvements to the series will defend its
place.
§1. After the failures of Schleicher and others, finally Grassmann (1863:96-98)675
successfullypostulatedtheseriestenuesaspirataeNeogr.*kh*ph*thfortheprotolanguage.676 This opened the path for Grassmann’s Law, which offers a general
solutionfortheproblemofthedifferencesoftheaspiratedstops,especiallyinIndoIranianandGreek.AftertheIndo-EuropeancharacterofArmenianwasrecognized,
thatlanguagehasalsobeenaddedtotheevidenceoftheseriesTh.677
§2. The reflects of the series Th in languages preserving this phoneme can be
Neogr.
–
*kh *ph *th OInd. –
kh
ph
th
Av.
–
x
f
Gr.
–
I
H
;
Arm.
–
x
p‘
t‘678
§3.Inaddition,atraceofthetenuesaspirataehasbeenpreservedinSlavonic(Meillet
&Vendryes,19342:22-26),wheretheaspiratedvoicelessvelariscontinued:
Neogr*kh
OCS.ch,Rus.ch,etc.679
675
ForGrassmann’sinitiativeinthepostulationoftenuesaspiratae,seePedersen(1983:65).Ontenues
aspiratae,seeHiersche1964,Szemerényi(1996:68-9&fn1)andSzemerényi(1996:56fn1).
676
On tenues aspiratae (with discussion and literature), see Szemerényi (1996:68fn1), Sturtevant
(1941b:3fn12),Frisk1936:3-50,Mayrhofer(1986:91-92),andMeillet(1935:109-120).
677
OnArmenianasanIndo-Europeanlanguage,seeSchmitt(1975:3-30).
678
Arm.t‘fromNeogr.*thispreservedinallpositions(alsoVthV)inArmenian.
679
OCS. ch has multiple origins, including PIE *s O ch in the ruki-rule. Therefore, it requires an
externalconfirmation.
356
4 .4.2 MaterialofNeogr.*kh,ph,th
§0.TheseriesNeogr.*kh*ph*thwaspostulatedbyGrassmanninhisfamousarticle
of1863onthetreatmentofrootswithtwosuccessiveaspiratesinGreekandSanskrit.
§1.TheevidenceforNeogr.*kh(Grundr21:571)isplentiful,anditsufficestochoose
afewcorrespondencestoillustratetheproto-phoneme:
(a)Neogr.Àonkh-‘Muschel’(P.614)
Gr.=6IB- AV.!akhá- Latv.sence (m.)‘Muschel(schale),Hohlmaß’(GEW1:889-90)
(m.)‘Muschel,Schläfe’(EWA3:290)
(f.)‘Muschel’(P.614)
(b)Neogr.*khakh-(P.634)
OInd.kákha- Arm.xaxan- Gr.=4I|9K OCS.chochota-
Li.kakno-
(vb.)‘lachen’(KEWA1:136,Lex.kákhati)
(sb.)‘lautesGelächter’(ArmGr.1:455,xaxank‘[pl])
(vb.)‘lautlauchen’(GEW1:804)
(vb.)‘lautlauchen’(GEW1:804,chochotati[inf.])
(vb.)‘lautauflauchen’(LiEtWb.206)
(c)Neogr.*khor-‘Esel’(P.–)
LAv.xara-
OInd.khára-
LAv.xar
Alb.kërr
(m.)‘Esel’(AIWb.532)
(m.)‘Esel:donkey’(KEWA1:302)
(f.)‘Eselstute’(AIWb.532)
(.)‘donkey,ass,foal,gray’(CHGAlb.67)
(d)Neogr.*khaid-‘schlagen’(P.917)
Lat.caed
RV.ni(...)khida-
RV.sám(...)khida-
Go.dulga·haitja(n)-
(vb.)‘hauen,(er)schlagen’(WH1:129)
(pr.)‘niederdrücken’(WbRV.374,ni(...)khida[2sg])
(pr.)‘zusammenschlagen’(WbRV.374)
(m.)‘creditor’(GoEtD.97)
(e)Neogr.*khad-‘zerbeissen,verzehren’(P.634)
RV.
(...)cakh³d-
LAv.v·xa7a- RV.khadirá- Arm.xacane- (pf.)‘zerbeissen,essen,verzehren’(WbRV.373)
(vb.)‘auseinanderquetschen’(AIWb.531)
(m.)‘Acaxiacatechu’(WbRV.372)
(pr.)‘bite,sting’(EtDiArm.323,xacanem[1sg])
(f)Neogr.*mahulKh-‘dumm;schweigend’(P.719)
Li.mùlk-
OInd.m%rkhá-
Li.mùlki-
ORus.m&la- OCS.ml&a- (vb.)‘dummwerden’(LiEtWb.471,mùlkti[inf.])
(a.)‘blöde,Tor’(KEWA2:664)
(m.)‘Dummkopf,Tropf,Tor,Trottel’(LiEtWb.471)
(vb.)‘schweigen’(REW2:153)
(vb.)‘E<K@:schweigen’(Sadnik529)
(g)Neogr.*À´kh-‘Ast,Zweig,Stock,Stab’(P.523,Szemerényi1996:68)
357
RV.dá!a·!
kha-
RV.!³kh
- OCS.po·socha-
Go.hoha(n)- TochB.!ak
tai-
(a.)‘zehnFingerhabend’(Hand)(WbRV.582)
(f.)‘Ast,Zweig’(WbRV.1391,KEWA3:321)
(f.)‘Stock,Stab’(Sadnik857)
(m.)‘Pflug:plow’(GoEtWb.189,hohan[sgA])
(sb.obl.)‘stick,club’(DTochB.619,!ak
taisa[Perl])680
§2.TheexamplesofNeogr.*ph(Grundr21:507)include:
(a)Neogr.*phoi-‘Feim,Schaum’(P.1001)
OHG.feim-
OEng.f
m
RV.phéna-
OCS.pna
OCS.pni-
(m.)‘Feim,Schaum’(Grundr21:696)
(m.)‘Schaum,Feim’(GoEtD.123)
(m.)‘Schaum,Feim’(WbRV.897,phénam[sgA])
(f.)‘Schaum,Speichel’(Sadnik643,Grundr21:716)
(vb.)‘schäumen,aufbrausen’(Sadnik643,peniti)
(b)Neogr.*Àoph-‘Huf’(P.530)
RV.!aphá-
LAv.safa-
OHG.huof-
OEng.hf-
(m.)‘Huf,Klaue,Achtel’(WbRV.1378) (m.)‘Huf,Hufstück’(AIWb.1557-7,safTm[sgA])
(.)‘Huf’(Grundr21:696)
(.)‘ungula:hoof’(ASaxD.548)
(c)Neogr.*phelg-(P.–)
RV.phalgúa- (a.)‘gering,schwächlich’(WbRV.896)
Gr.H8>6@K (pr.)‘\EG@8F8,>:C8’(GEW2:1000)
Gr.\·H8>6@BGE4- (pt.)Hes.=‘=4=BE4’(LSJ.287)
(d)Neogr.spho-‘gedeihen’(P.983-4)
i.i#pa-
LAv.hu·pairi·sp
-
OInd.pasph
y-
i.#pi·ningatar-
RV.sphirá- (vb1.)‘sichsattessen’(HEG1:408,i#-pa-a-i[3sg])
(a.)‘ringsumwohlgedeihend’(?)(AIWb.1826)
(pf.)‘feistwurdensein’(MonWil.1270,pasph
ye)
(n.)‘SättingunganSpeisundTrank’(HHand.66)
(a.)‘feist’(WbRV.1612)
(e)Neogr.*sphur-‘Fuß:schnellen,usw.’(P.992-3,Grundr21:689)
RV.apa·sphúr-
RV.sphurá- Gr.EHGC- OEng.spor- (a.)‘wegstoßend,fortschnellend’(WbRV.74)
(pr6.)‘mitdemFußewegstoßen’(WbRV.1612)
(n.)‘Fußknöchel,Fußgelenk’(GEW2:835,EHGC@)
(n.)‘trace,track,spoor’(ASaxD.903)
(f)Neogr.*Àoph-or*Àoph-‘cyprinus:Karpfenart’(P.614)
Rus.sápa
OInd.!aphara-
Li.#ãpala-
Latv.sapal- (f.)‘Barbe,Cyprinusballerus’(REW2:578)
(m.)‘Cyprinussaphore’(KEWA3:296)
(m.)‘Leuciscosdobula,Döbel’(LiEtWb.963)
(m.)‘Dünakarpfen’(LiEtWb.963,sapals[sgN])
680
NotetheTocharianpalatalization,whichimpliesPIE*efortheroot.
358
§3.TheexamplesofNeogr.*th(Grundr21:522)include:
(a)Neogr.*menth-‘rühren,wirren’(P.732)
Li.mt-
OCS.mt- RV.manthá- RV.nis(...)mántha-
Li.mentùr- (vb.)‘umrühren(Mehl)’(LiEtWb.442,msti)
(vb.)‘F4C|FF8<@,turbare’(REW2:189,msti)
(m.)‘Gebräu,Rührtrank’(WbRV.1000)
(pr1.)‘zuschütteln’(WbRV.976)
(f.)‘Quirl,Kelle’(LiEtWb.437)
(b)PIE*ath-‘wisdom’(P.–)
i.ata-
i.ata-
Do.\;|@4 Lyc.t¢ne·guri-
(vb.)‘denken,überlegen,klugsein’(HEG1:214,219)
(cs.)‘verständig,klugmachen’(HEG1:217)
(f.)‘Athene’(GEW1:28,Do.\;|@4,Att.\;~@:)
(c.)‘A;:@46C4D’(LuPG5)
(c)Neogr.*skth,skTth‘schaden’(Szemerényi1996:69,P.950)
LAv.skat- Gr.\·E=:;~E-
OIr.scatha- Go.ga·skaja-
(f.)‘Heuschrecke’(AIWb.1586,skaitm[sgA])
(a.)‘unversehrt,wohlbehalten’(GEW1:164)
(pr.)‘verstümmeln,lähmen’(LEIAS-53,scathaid[3sg])
(vb.)‘harm,damage’(GoEtD.309,gaskajan[inf.])
(d)Neogr.*roth-‘Rad,Kreis,Wagen’(P.866)
RV.rátha- Lat.bi·roto- OGaul.roto·magos-
Li.rãta-
Lat.rot
-
Lat.rot
-
(m.)‘raschfahrendeStreitwagen’(WbRV.1137)
(a.)‘zweirädig’(WH2:444,bi·rotus[sgN])
(ON.)‘Rouen’(ACSS.2:1079f.,rotomagos[sgN])
(m1.)‘Rad,Kreis(ring)’(LiEtWb.705)
(f.)‘Rad,Rolle,Wagen,Kreisel’(WH.2:443-4)
(vb.)‘imKreisherumdrehen’(WH2:443,rot
re)
(e)Neogr.*kÒenth-‘Leid:leiden’(P.641)
Gr.}@;BE-
Li.k¢nt-
Gr.}B@;-
Li.kantrà-
OIr.csa-
(n.)‘Leid,Trauer’(GEW2:478)
(vb.)‘leiden,ertragen,erdulden’(LiEtWb.246,ksti)
(pf.)‘leiden,erdulden’(GEW2:478,}B@;4[1sg])
(f.)‘Geduld,Langmut’(LiEtWb.246)
(vb.)‘souffrir,endurer’(LEIAC-79f.,csaid[3sg])
(f)Neogr.*usth-,Tusth-‘Mund,Lippe’(P.784-5)
RV.ó ha-
LAv.ao#ta-
OCS.usta-
OPr.austa-
i.u#tai-
i.u#tei#k-
(m.)‘dieOberlippe,dieLippe’(WbRV.306)
(m.)‘Oberlippe’(du.)‘diebeidenLippen’(AIWb.44)
(n.pl.)‘Mund,Maul,Rachen’(Sadnik1033,usta)
(n.pl)‘Mund’(APrS.308,austa)
(vb1.)‘(Stimme)dampfen’(HEG1:317)
(vb.iter.)‘(Stimme)dampfen’(HHand.57)
(g)Neogr.*st(h)
-‘stehen’(P.1004ff.)
359
LAv.hi#ta- Lat.sist
RV.sth³-
LAv.upa·st
- (pr.)‘stehen,dastehen’(AIWb.1600,hi#taiti[3sg])
(pr3.)‘stehen,usw.’(WH2:596f.)
(a.)‘stehend’(WbRV.1603)
(f.)‘Beistand,Hilfe’(AIWb.396)
§4.Despiteitssecurecomparativebasis,theseriesThisstatisticallyrarecomparedto
theseriesDh.
4 .4.3 TheoreticalapproachestotheseriesTh
§0. The Neogrammarians accepted the series *Th without further interpretation.
That would change in the subsequent discussion of the 20th century, which was
dominated by segmental analysis made possible by Saussure’s *A and the statistical
rarityoftheseries.
§1.TheoriginalformulationofSiebs’sLaw(1904)allowsavoicedaspiratefollowing
*stobecomevoicelessornon-aspirated.Withinthetraditionaltheory,thisopeneda
derivationalmechanismfortheeliminationoftheseriesTh.Theattemptculminated
inHiersche’s(1964)comprehensivework,whichsuggestedthatthetenuesaspiratae
were secondary and developed in combination with s-mobile after the sibilant was
lost.681
§2.However,themaineffortofquestioningthephonemicstatusoftenuesaspiratae
datesbacktoSaussure(1891=Rec.603),accordingtowhomNeogr.*thconsistedof
*t+A(written*t+’)682inexamples683suchas:
RV.pÎthú-
RV.ti h
-
:
:
Neogr.*pÄthú-
Neogr.*ti he/o-
:
:
DS.pÄt’u-
DS.ti ’e/o-
§3.WithoutAnatolianevidence,Saussurewasunabletodefendhisideaagainstthe
Neogrammarian critics,684 and the issue was stalemated until Kuryowicz (1927)
extended Saussure’s analysis to voiceless aspirates in general (see also Kuryowicz
1935:46-54and1956:375-82).
§4.Theglottalictheoryisanextremeformofthelaryngealtheoryinwhichsegmental
analysis of the series *Th is understood to imply non-existence (and elimination).
Referring to Jakobson (1958), Gamkrelidze & Ivanov (1995:12) underlined the
contradiction of the absence of the Th series in the laryngeal theory, but little
681
Note, however, that Miller (1977a:366) is correct in saying that “Hiersche’s theory [...] must be
rejectedonthegroundsofphoneticimplausibility”.
682
See Saussure (Mém. 603): “M. de Saussure apporte comme contribution à l’histoire des aspires
sourdes(kh,h, h,th,ph)dusanscrituneséried’exemplesdestinéesàétablirl’originedecertainsth
dans les racines et les suffixes. Ces th proviendraient de t indo-européen suivi du phonème T
régulièrementélidédevantvoyelle.”
683
ForotherexamplesofsegmentalT+h,seeBurrow(1949:58-59,1979:26-30).
684
Note, for instance, Brugmann’s now outdated denial of Saussure’s analysis. See Brugmann
(Grundr21:632-3).
360
understood that adopting the very same triserial system meant adopting the
contradictionaswell(seebelow).
4 .4.4 ComparativesolutionoftheseriesTh
§0. The segmental analysis of the series *T+A as put forth by Saussure (and,
following him, the laryngeal theory) is vulnerable to criticism from two main
directions:
(a)TheanalysisNeogr.*ThRT+A(=T+h2)leavesmuchtobehopedforinterms
ofthedetailsofthereconstruction(seeexamplesbelow).
(b)TheeliminationoftheseriesNeogr.*Thleadstothequestionabletypologyofthe
threeseriesT:D:Dh(seeJakobson’sremarkabove).
In order to make the laryngealist ideas acceptable, it is necessary to develop the
theoryinamannerthatovercomesthesedifficulties.
§1. The laryngealist analysis Neogr. *Th R *T+h2 continues to have persistent
problems,suchas‘a-colouring’(oritsabsence),andthesimultaneousalternationsof
environmentslikeablautNeogr.*i:,*u:%and*T:Ththatareunaccountedfor.
Theseproblemscanbebestillustratedwithexamples:
(a)Thelackof‘a-colouring’inLat.sist(pr3.)‘stehen,usw.’,an*e/o-stem,standsin
contrast with the ‘a-colouring’ in Lat. st
-. The problem can be solved by positing
PIE *a instead of *A [= h2] in PIE *sta-‘stehen’(P. 1004f.). Consequently, the
alternationof‘a-colouring’canberegularlytreatedwithprototypessuchas:
I-A
I-B
*stea-
*stae/o-
Gr.EF4FD=Lat.status‘id.’(Neogr.*sta-/stT-)
Lat.siste/o-=Av.hi#ta-‘id.’(Neogr.*sthe/o-)
Inotherwords,theoverstatedcolouringruleofthelaryngealtheory,demanding‘h2’
to colour all surrounding vowels, can be fixed with the postulation of PIE *a a
instead.
(b) Another laryngealist problem is manifest in the group P. 951-53, including the
items:
OIcl.h%s-
CrimGo.h%s- Go.gud·h%s- Pahl.k%#k
Arm.xuµ
(n.)‘Haus’(ANEtWb.268)
(n.)‘domus’(GoEtD.161,hus[sgN])
(n.)‘Tempel’(GoEtD.161,gudhusa[sgD])
(sb.)‘partofabuilding’(DTochB.206,kw#k)
(sb.)‘Stube’(Persson1912:420;Arm.µNs·À)
The long quantity here is usually explained in the laryngeal theory as laryngeal
metathesis(Mayrhofer1986:174-5),butstrictlyspeakingthisisimpossible,owingto
itsabsenceinArm.xuµ(withNeogr.*kh-).Insteadof LT*k+h2,thereconstruction
requiresPIE*k+a,asindicatedintheequations:
I-A
I-B
*káus·.-
*kaús·.-
*kúus·.-
*kús·.-
361
OIcl.h%s,Pahl.k%#k,etc.
Arm.xuµ‘Stube’
(c) Sturtevant685 sought to explain some examples of the alternation Neogr. T : Th,
such as LAv. kanTnti ‘they dig’ : OInd. khánati ‘digs’, as analogical generalizations.
Thedifficultiesheencountered(Sturtevant1941:10-11)arecausedbyanoverstated
compensatory lengthening rule. By simply abandoning this assumption, the
alternationcanbereconstructedregularly:
I-A
I-B
*keano-
*kaono-
LAv.kana-‘dig’(AIWb.437-8)
RV.khána-‘dig’(WbRV.372)
(d)skhal-(P.928).Aschwebeablautwithdiphonemic*aappearsin
I-A
I-B
*skeal-
*skael-
Gr.E=}>BD‘Schenkel,Bein’(GEW2:723)
OInd.skhala-,Arm.sxalem(Grundr21:587)
§2. The examination of the data of tenues aspiratae reveals that the series is to be
reconstructedwithavoicelessvalueofthecoversymbol*RPIE*h:
RV.kh,gAv.x,Gr.I,Arm.x,etc. R
RV.ph,gAv.f,Gr.H,Arm.p‘,etc. R
RV.th,gAv.Z,Gr.;,Arm.t‘,e

System PIE The Primary Phoneme Inventory and Sound

Transcription

Similar documents

rITM-4 craves4 211" K POWER SYSTEM OPERATION

holster resource guide