Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics: Volume 1 Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics 9783110261288, 9783110186147

Table of contents :
Preface
Contents
I. General and methodological issues
1. Comparison and relationship of languages
2. Language contact and Indo-European linguistics
3. Methods in reconstruction
4. The sources for Indo-European reconstruction
5. The writing systems of Indo-European
6. Indo-European dialectology
7. The culture of the speakers of Proto-Indo- European
8. The homeland of the speakers of Proto-Indo-European
9. The comparative method in Semitic linguistics
10. The comparative method in Uralic linguistics
11. The comparative method in Caucasian linguistics
12. The comparative method in African linguistics
13. The comparative method in Austronesian linguistics
14. The comparative method in Australian linguistics
III. Historical perspectives on Indo-European linguistics
15. Intuition, exploration, and assertion of the Indo- European language relationship
16. Indo-European linguistics in the 19th and 20th centuries: beginnings, establishment, remodeling, refinement, and extension(s)
17. Encyclopedic works on Indo-European linguistics
18. The impact of Hittite and Tocharian: Rethinking Indo-European in the 20th century and beyond
IV. Anatolian
19. The documentation of Anatolian
20. The phonology of Anatolian
21. The morphology of Anatolian
22. The syntax of Anatolian: The simple sentence
23. The lexicon of Anatolian
24. The dialectology of Anatolian
V. Indic
25. The documentation of Indic
26. The phonology of Indic
27. The morphology of Indic (old Indo-Aryan)
28. The syntax of Indic
29. The lexicon of Indic
30. The dialectology of Indic
31. The evolution of Indic
VI. Iranian
32. The documentation of Iranian
33. The phonology of Iranian
34. The morphology of Iranian
35. The syntax of Iranian
36. The lexicon of Iranian
37. The dialectology of Iranian
38. The evolution of Iranian
VII. Greek
39. The documentation of Greek
40. The phonology of Greek
41. The morphology of Greek
42. The syntax of Greek
43. The lexicon of Greek
44. The dialectology of Greek
45. The evolution of Greek

Citation preview

Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics HSK 41.1

Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science Manuels de linguistique et des sciences de communication Mitbegründet von Gerold Ungeheuer Mitherausgegeben (1985−2001) von Hugo Steger

Herausgegeben von / Edited by / Edités par Herbert Ernst Wiegand

Band 41.1

De Gruyter Mouton

Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics Edited by Jared Klein Brian Joseph Matthias Fritz In cooperation with Mark Wenthe

De Gruyter Mouton

ISBN 978-3-11-018614-7 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-026128-8 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-039324-8 ISSN 1861-5090 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Typesetting: Meta Systems Publishing & Printservices GmbH, Wustermark Printing and binding: Hubert & Co. GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen Cover design: Martin Zech, Bremen 앝 Printed on acid-free paper 앪 Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com

Preface In my graduate school days at Yale in the early 1970’s, I dreamed of being part of a team that would produce an update and enlargement of Brugmann’s Grundriss, in which the individual living branches of Indo-European would be traced from their roots to the modern day. As the years went by, this seemed increasingly to be no more than an idle fantasy. Then in the summer of 2004, I received an email message from Matthias Fritz (engineered by Stephanie Jamison) asking me whether I would be interested in participating in his proposed De Gruyter Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics (not precisely the original title). I asked him what the book entailed, and he told me that there would be sections on every subgroup of Indo-European, including chapters on phonology, morphology, syntax, and lexicon. Seeing an unexpected opportunity to fulfill my youthful dream, I said that I would participate, provided that three additional chapters would be added in each case: on documentation, dialectology, and, for those subgroups that had an ulterior history (i.e. everything but Anatolian and Tocharian), on evolution. A chapter on dialectology of course needs no special defense, but one on documentation has become something of an obsession of mine. It is of course not terribly critical for Greek, but for every other subgroup (including Italic, as soon as one moves beyond Latin), the reader needs to know what the primary sources are and how to find them. Thus, those looking for somebody to blame for the long gestation period of this book should probably focus their wrath on me for having added 34 chapters (27.2 %) to the book in one fell swoop. Things did not, however, progress smoothly. I, for one, had at that point never engaged in editorial work and had no idea how to proceed; nor was it clear to me what my role was to be in the project. Years went by as the individual chapters of the book piled up in my office. In 2011, I received a notice from one of the authors saying that he wished to withdraw his contribution in order to publish it elsewhere. I saw then immediately that the entire project was about to unravel and proceeded to resign from my position. Very quickly I was contacted by Uri Tadmor of De Gruyter and urged not to resign; I was told that Brian Joseph would be brought on to assist me. By that time, I had indeed gained experience in editing; but it was not until June 30, 2012 that I seriously sat down to set things in motion for the production of this book. Ultimately, I was able to convince De Gruyter that I needed an additional in-house assistant, and Mark Wenthe, despite his very heavy teaching schedule, kindly agreed to assume this role. From the date just noted, I have put this project at the highest level of priority, working at it consistently and placing all my other long-term research projects on hold. Some chapters were dropped,1 many chapters had to be reassigned to new authors, and

1 These included: Section 1, Genetic and typological relationship of languages, Reconstruction and linguistic reality, and Reconstruction and extra-linguistic reality; Section 3, National traditions of Indo-European linguistics in Europe and North America; Section 19, Indo-Anatolian contacts in the Mitanni Period and The communities of Greek and Armenian. These were omitted for various reasons, ranging from the fact that obvious authors either declined or did not respond to our recruitment efforts, to loss of interest in the topic on the part of assigned authors, to a perceived lack of need for the chapter. In one instance, a contribution was received, but the author left no forwarding address, and the paper was consequently withdrawn by the publisher. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261288-202

vi

Preface original submissions in three instances had to be redone by others. The result, I would like to believe, is the most significant presentation of the field of Indo-European Linguistics since the second edition of Brugmann’s Grundriss, which appeared just over 100 years ago. The two works, however, have almost nothing in common. Brugmann’s book was deductive, starting with Proto-Indo-European and deriving the phonologies and morphologies of the individual Indo-European languages. This work is inductive, beginning with the oldest attested subgroups and working toward the most recent ones, from there moving on to languages of fragmentary attestation, larger subgroups (Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic), wider configurations and contacts (Italo-Celtic, Greco-Anatolian relationships), and, ultimately, Proto-Indo-European and beyond. All of this is preceded by sections on general methodological issues, the use of the comparative method in selected language groups outside of Indo-European, and on the history, both remote and more recent, of the Indo-European question. Many may wonder about the need for the discussions of language families other than Indo-European, but the original title of this book, since changed, included the phrase “An International Handbook of Language Comparison”. While limitations of space forbid anything beyond a cursory glance outside IndoEuropean, these chapters will at the very least give the reader an overview of some of the most important literature on the language groups they cover. It gives me great pleasure to acknowledge the cooperation and assistance of many others in the preparation of this book. First and foremost, kudos goes to Matthias Fritz for having conceptualized this project ex nihilo and having recruited the vast majority of its authors. To my two active collaborators, co-editor Brian Joseph and editorial assistant Mark Wenthe I would like to express my deepest appreciation. Both of them read and commented upon every paper and thereby insured that each chapter was seen by three pairs of eyes in addition to those of the author. To my former M.A. student Julia Sturm, I owe more than I can express for her uncanny ability to answer, virtually without exception and with startling speed, my bibliographical queries, particularly with regard to tracking down first names of authors, editors rendered anonymous under the rubric “et al.”, and places and houses of publication. To a string of graduate assistants, including Marcus Hines, Nick Gardner, and Joseph Rhyne, I owe thanks and appreciation for having assembled master lists of references cited in the book, first by section and then further integrating these into one consolidated list. I am confident that the final, pruned version, in whatever form it may ultimately be disseminated, will prove valuable, not least as an up-to-date bibliographical resource on Indo-European Linguistics. I also wish to thank all the other 120 contributors for the cooperation and patience they have shown as this complex operation has unfolded. I know that most would have liked to see this book become a reality years ago. Finally, beyond editorial preparation, there is of course the actual production of this book. I am here indebted first to Uri Tadmor for having confidence in me and providing me with the assistance I needed to bring this project to fruition. Next, my most heartfelt thanks goes to Barbara Karlson for keeping on top of this enterprise and serving as my first contact on all matters of detail concerning publication. As the “voice” at the other end of the line, she has helped to insure that this project stayed on track. Jared Klein, Athens, GA (USA)

Contents

Volume 1 Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

v

General and methodological issues Comparison and relationship of languages . . . . . . . Language contact and Indo-European linguistics . . . . Methods in reconstruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The sources for Indo-European reconstruction . . . . . The writing systems of Indo-European . . . . . . . . . Indo-European dialectology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The culture of the speakers of Proto-Indo-European . The homeland of the speakers of Proto-Indo-European

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

1 7 15 20 26 62 75 85

. . . . . .

93 98 105 114 121 129

. . . .

138

. . . . . . . .

171 210

. . . .

220

19. The documentation of Anatolian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20. The phonology of Anatolian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21. The morphology of Anatolian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

239 249 256

II. The application of the comparative method in selected language groups other than Indo-European 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

The The The The The The

comparative comparative comparative comparative comparative comparative

method method method method method method

in in in in in in

Semitic linguistics . . . Uralic linguistics . . . . Caucasian linguistics . . African linguistics . . . Austronesian linguistics Australian linguistics . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

III. Historical perspectives on Indo-European linguistics 15. Intuition, exploration, and assertion of the Indo-European language relationship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16. Indo-European linguistics in the 19 th and 20 th centuries: beginnings, establishment, remodeling, refinement, and extension(s) . . . . . . . . 17. Encyclopedic works on Indo-European linguistics . . . . . . . . . . . . 18. The impact of Hittite and Tocharian: Rethinking Indo-European in the 20 th century and beyond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

IV. Anatolian

viii

Contents 22. The syntax of Anatolian: The simple sentence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23. The lexicon of Anatolian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24. The dialectology of Anatolian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

274 291 298

V. Indic 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31.

The The The The The The The

documentation of Indic . . . . . . . . phonology of Indic . . . . . . . . . . . morphology of Indic (old Indo-Aryan) syntax of Indic . . . . . . . . . . . . . lexicon of Indic . . . . . . . . . . . . . dialectology of Indic . . . . . . . . . . evolution of Indic . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

309 325 344 377 409 417 447

VI. Iranian 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38.

The The The The The The The

documentation of Iranian phonology of Iranian . . morphology of Iranian . syntax of Iranian . . . . lexicon of Iranian . . . . dialectology of Iranian . evolution of Iranian . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

471 481 503 549 566 599 608

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

625 638 654 682 695 710 717

VII. Greek 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45.

The The The The The The The

documentation of Greek phonology of Greek . . morphology of Greek . syntax of Greek . . . . . lexicon of Greek . . . . dialectology of Greek . evolution of Greek . . .

Volume 2 VIII. Italic 46. 47. 48. 49. 50.

The The The The The

documentation of Italic phonology of Italic morphology of Italic syntax of Italic lexicon of Italic

Contents

ix

51. The dialectology of Italic 52. The evolution of Italic

IX. Germanic 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59.

The The The The The The The

documentation of Germanic phonology of Germanic morphology of Germanic syntax of Germanic lexicon of Germanic dialectology of Germanic evolution of Germanic

X. Armenian 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66.

The The The The The The The

documentation of Armenian phonology of Classical Armenian morphology of Armenian syntax of Classical Armenian lexicon of Armenian dialectology of Armenian evolution of Armenian

XI. Celtic 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73.

The The The The The The The

documentation of Celtic phonology of Celtic morphology of Celtic syntax of Celtic lexicon of Celtic dialectology of Celtic evolution of Celtic

XII. Tocharian 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79.

The The The The The The

documentation of Tocharian phonology of Tocharian morphology of Tocharian syntax of Tocharian lexicon of Tocharian dialectology of Tocharian

x

Contents

Volume 3 XIII. Slavic 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86.

The The The The The The The

documentation of Slavic phonology of Slavic morphology of Slavic syntax of Slavic lexicon of Slavic dialectology of Slavic evolution of Slavic

XIV. Baltic 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93.

The The The The The The The

documentation of Baltic phonology of Baltic morphology of Baltic syntax of Baltic lexicon of Baltic dialectology of Baltic evolution of Baltic

XV. Albanian 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100.

The The The The The The The

documentation of Albanian phonology of Albanian morphology of Albanian syntax of Albanian lexicon of Albanian dialectology of Albanian evolution of Albanian

XVI. Languages of fragmentary attestation 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109.

Phrygian Venetic Messapic Thracian Siculian Lusitanian Macedonian Illyrian Pelasgian

Contents

xi

XVII. Indo-Iranian 110. 111. 112. 113.

The The The The

phonology of Indo-Iranian morphology of Indo-Iranian syntax of Indo-Iranian lexicon of Indo-Iranian

XVIII. Balto-Slavic 114. 115. 116. 117. 118.

Balto-Slavic The phonology of Balto-Slavic The morphology of Balto-Slavic The syntax of Balto-Slavic The lexicon of Balto-Slavic

XIX. Wider configurations and contacts 119. The shared features of Italic and Celtic 120. Graeco-Anatolian contacts in the Mycenaean Period

XX. Proto-Indo-European 121. 122. 123. 124.

The The The The

phonology of Proto-Indo-European morphology of Proto-Indo-European syntax of Proto-Indo-European lexicon of Proto-Indo-European

XXI. Beyond Proto-Indo-European 125. More remote relationships of Proto-Indo-European

I. General and methodological issues 1. Comparison and relationship of languages 1. 2. 3. 4.

Introduction Language relationship Regularity Features for determining relatedness

5. 6. 7. 8.

Horizons for determining relationships The comparative method and family trees Conclusions References

1. Introduction The comparative method is central to historical linguistics. It is the method by which we demonstrate linguistic relatedness and reconstruct proto-languages. The results of the comparative method not only give us information about the types of changes, phonological and otherwise, that the linguistic descendants have undergone, but also a reconstructed vocabulary which can be used to make inferences about the culture and homeland of the proto-language’s speakers. Finally, by studying the patterns of change which we reconstruct using this method, we are able to gain insight into linguistic evolutionary processes, such as how treelike language split has been. Nearly two hundred years ago, Bopp (1842; Bopp and Windischmann 1816), Rask (1811; Harris and Rask 2000), and others began to elucidate principles such as regularity in sound correspondences, grammatical change, diagnostics for relatedness, and reconstruction methods which provide ways of inferring the properties of proto-languages and their speakers. In doing so, they were building on a longer tradition of comparison which can be traced through William Jones to the 18th and 17th Centuries (Sajnovics 1770; Gyarmathi 1799), and perhaps even earlier to Dante (Shapiro 1990). While historical linguists tend to emphasize the antiquity of the discipline, historical study has not, of course, remained a 19th Century endeavor. Far from being a static field, historical linguistics has benefitted greatly from recent research into synchronic language systems. In particular, historical linguistics has benefited from sociolinguistics, as developed by Labov (1963; 1972), Weinreich (Weinreich, Labov, and Herzog 1968; Weinreich 1979), and many others since. Studies of how changes permeate through speech communities, how speech communities themselves are defined, and how speakers interact with each other and use linguistic markers to signal aspects of their identity have all been crucial in developing theories of how language changes at the micro-scale. This has, in turn, given us a better understanding of how the patterns that provide evidence for language relationship arise. In this article, I provide an overview of the most important characteristics of the method with a focus on demonstrating linguistic relationship. While there have been many overviews of the comparative method in linguistics (see Rankin 2003; Hale 2014 for two recent surveys), I here focus on the comparative method in linguistics as one of a number of “comparative methods” which can be used to find out about the past (see, for example, Sober 1991). Comparative methods are not unique to linguistics, but are also found in other fields of study, especially biology. Situating historical linguistics https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261288-001

2

I. General and methodological issues within other fields that study evolutionary processes is particularly important now that historical linguistics more frequently takes on the tools of other disciplines such as evolutionary biology (see, amongst others, Gray, Drummond, and Greenhill 2009; Bowern and Atkinson 2012; Holden 2002). Furthermore, there is more work in prehistory which synthesizes results from anthropology, archaeology, and linguistics (Jordan et al. 2009; Hunley et al. 2008).

2. Language relationship While I do not dwell here on the different ways in which terms such as “comparison” and “relationship” have been used in historical linguistics, it is worth briefly considering both how we define language relationships and the consequences of these definitions for historical study. The comparison of languages to reconstruct their common ancestors − and to draw family trees − has typically been based on a notion of “normal” or “regular” language transmission (Thomason and Kaufman 1988). Such transmission is assumed to proceed from parents to children who are acquiring language in largely or wholly monolingual communities. Under this model, changes accrue when children adduce grammars with slightly different properties from their parents’ grammars (compare Hale 1998; Kroch 1989). The different patterns could be due to spontaneous innovation, reanalysis, or differences in the frequency of the relevant features in the speech to which the child is exposed. We realize, of course, that this is an overly simplified picture of both acquisition and change, and relies on an idealized picture of what a language is. Children’s peers are just as important an influence on acquisition as their caregivers are (Stanford 2006; Aitchison 2003), and adults too are capable of innovations. Thus the parent-tochild transmission model is at best an idealization of how linguistic features are passed on; more accurate is a population-based model where learners deduce the features of their language based on input from their whole community (for more on agent-based models of this type, see Croft 2000). However, given that learners, on balance, come to almost identical conclusions about the properties of their language, generational models are a useful way of conceptualizing the most frequent type of linguistic transmission. This allows us to compare child-learner-centered transmission with other situations, such as creolization and mixed language formation, where both the transmission facts and the linguistic outcomes differ (Ng 2015). A further point of idealization comes from how we define a “language”. The input to language comparison is typically taken to be uniform. Either we are working with features which do not usually vary across speakers (such as basic vocabulary) or we abstract away from variation for the purposes of comparison by treating one speech variety as representative. Clearly, such assumptions will matter more in some areas than others. Internal linguistic diversity clearly matters in models of language transmission, as the learner’s input is never uniform. How learners abstract away from variation (and also acquire the patterns of variation) is crucial to understanding the role of acquisition in change. The transmission model gives us a working definition of language relationship. Two languages are related to one another if they show systematic similarities (that is, ‘correspondences’) across grammar and lexicon. Linguistic comparison has been conducted for a much longer time than formalized comparative methods. However, there is also much work which compares languages

1. Comparison and relationship of languages without direct reference to either their evolutionary history or transmission processes. It is probably the case that whenever two people speaking different languages come into contact with one another, they notice similarities and differences between their languages. Some cultures have well-developed theories of folk-linguistic comparison which ascribe causes to similarities between two languages (Schebeck 2001; Niedzielski and Preston 2003). Such theories are also found in the Roman world, where we find frequent comparisons between Latin and Greek, as well as etymologizing within word families. However, such comparisons were unsystematic and as such cannot be used for reconstruction. That is, while such theories suggest relationships between individual words, because the comparisons are unsystematic, they cannot be used to infer which changes happened at which times and to which words. This is the breakthrough of the late 18th and early 19th centuries; the discovery that similarities between related languages are systematic, while those between unrelated (more precisely, not demonstrably related) languages are ad hoc and unsystematic. All languages show resemblances, but only those which descend from a common ancestor have regular resemblances.

3. Regularity Regularity in change, while an important part of language comparison, is not without its critics. Debates about regularity in sound change have concentrated on two areas. One is whether change is in fact regular, or whether it only appears so after the fact as an epiphenomenon. The latter view is championed by lexical diffusionists such as Phillips (2006), and earlier by Gilliéron (see further Britain 2001).The other concerns the universal applicability of the principle of regularity, and whether all language families show it. Recent work on the nature of sound change has sharpened our knowledge on the nature of sound change and its exceptionalities. For example, we now know that there are principled exceptions to regularity. Some arise through borrowing between related languages or dialects. Others arise because of frequency effects of particular words interacting with dialect. Thus far, claims about the non-application of regularity in sound change in individual languages have been shown with further research to be unfounded. An early demonstration of this comes from Bloomfield (1925).

4. Features for determining relatedness While all features of languages can, in principle, be compared, some features are more suitable than others if the goal of comparison is to determine linguistic relatedness. Importantly, the best evidence for linguistic relationship comes from shared features which have high transmission rates and low diffusion rates, such as basic vocabulary and morphological paradigms. This guards against using similarities which may be due to borrowing (such as are often found in material culture vocabulary). While an initial claim of linguistic relatedness may be based on few features, relatedness can only be said to be comprehensively demonstrated once systematic correspondences can be demonstrated in multiple areas of the language. This guards against using accidental similar-

3

4

I. General and methodological issues ities, similarities due to independent development, or typological universals. For example, the use of the verb ‘say’ as a light verb is not evidence of language relationship, because most languages with light verb systems make use of this verb. The comparative method is applied not only to sound change, but to other areas of language such as syntax (A. C. Harris and Campbell 1995), and related methods are used to reconstruct aspects of culture, society, or religion (see, for example, Watkins 1995). However, as the number of traits to be reconstructed gets smaller, the greater the possibilities are for accidental similarity. Lastly, it is important to compare language features which have phylogenetic meaning. That is, the features most useful for demonstrating relatedness are those which are transmitted (rather than derived from other facts about the language). For example, comparing phoneme inventories independently of lexical material does not provide information about genetic relatedness, because phoneme inventories have properties shaped by the physiology of speech. Secondly, there is no reason to suppose that phoneme X in one language corresponds in any meaningful way in another language, unless we also have the evidence of shared lexicon. Inventory alone does not give us the crucial evidence of cognate lexical items. In fact, related languages frequently do not have the same phoneme inventories, and if they do, the same phonemes may not correspond to one another in the same word. For example, both English and German have a phoneme /t/, but because of a sound change where German initial */t/ was affricated, English /t/ corresponds not to German /t/ but to /ts/; compare tongue : Zunge, tug : Zug ‘train’, etc.

5. Horizons for determining relationships As the time depth since the initial split between two branches increases, the more changes will have accrued and the less likely it is that systematic similarities will be readily discernible. This does not mean that the languages are not related, of course, just that there is insufficient evidence to uncover the relationship. Because the comparative method relies on correspondences in several domains to provide evidence for relationship, it has a horizon, beyond which the evidence for regularity is too slight to build the required case. Different authors have tried various ways to get around this problem, from relaxing the strictness of requirements for regularity, to concentrating on morphological or syntactic features rather than lexicon, on the (probably incorrect) assumption that changes in lexicon accrue faster than changes in syntax or morphology.

6. The comparative method and family trees As can be seen from the previous discussion, I am separating the comparative method (that is, the identification of regular correspondences between putatively related languages) from other aspects of historical linguistics which are also commonly discussed as part of the comparative method. These include reconstruction, subgrouping, and discussions of how treelike the changes in the data are. The comparative method allows us to identify systematic correspondences between the languages under analysis, to detect

1. Comparison and relationship of languages the lexical items which do not satisfy the criterion of regular correspondence, and to marshal evidence for linguistic relatedness. Family trees, however, allow us to represent hypotheses of language relatedness and descent.

7. Conclusions While any aspect of language can be compared, not all comparisons are equally valid for demonstrating relationship. To show that languages are uncontroversially related, the languages must exhibit systematic correspondences in multiple domains: lexicon, morphology, and syntax. Sporadic shared similarities are found between all languages, and are due to chance, universal (or near universal) features of linguistic systems, borrowing, or convergent development. As the time depth of relationship becomes more remote, the less evidence will be preserved and the more difficult it is to demonstrate relatedness.

8. References Aitchison, Jean 2003 Psycholinguistic Perspectives on Language Change. In: Joseph and Janda (eds.), 736− 743. Bloomfield, Leonard 1925 On the Sound-System of Central Algonquian. Language 1: 130−156. Bopp, Franz 1842 Vergleichende Grammatik des Sanskrit, Zend, griechischen, lateinischen, litthauischen, gothischen und deutschen. Vol. 2. Berlin: Akademie der Wissenschaften. Bopp, Franz and Karl J. H. Windischmann 1816 Über das Conjugationssystem der Sanskritsprache in Vergleichung mit jenem der griechischen, lateinischen, persischen und germanischen Sprache: Nebst Episoden des Ramajan und Mahabharat und einigen Abschnitten aus den Vedas. Frankfurt am Main: Andreae. Bowern, Claire and Quentin Atkinson 2012 Computational phylogenetics and the internal structure of Pama-Nyungan. Language 88: 817−845. doi:10.1353/lan.2012.0081. Britain, David 2001 Space and spatial diffusion. In: Jack K. Chambers, Peter Trudgill, and Natalie SchillingEstes (eds.), Handbook of Language Variation and Change. Oxford: Blackwell, 603− 637. Croft, William 2000 Explaining language change. Harlow, England: Longman Linguistics Library. Gray, Russell D., Alexei J. Drummond, and Simon J. Greenhill 2009 Language phylogenies reveal expansion pulses and pauses in Pacific settlement. Science 323: 479−483. Gyarmathi, Sámuel 1799 Affinitas linguae hungaricae cum linguis fennicae originis grammatice demonstata: Nec non vocabularia dialectorum tataricarum et slavicarum cum hungarica comparata [The affinity of the Hungarian language with the languages of Finnic origin demonstrated

5

6

I. General and methodological issues grammatically: Or the vocabularies of the Tartar and Slavic dialects are not to be compared to Hungarian]. Göttingen: JC Dieterich. Hale, Mark 1998 Diachronic syntax. Syntax 1: 1−18. Hale, Mark 2014 The Comparative Method: theoretical issues. In: Claire Bowern and Bethwyn Evans (eds.), Routledge Handbook of Historical Linguistics. London: Routledge, 146−160. Harris, Alice C. and Lyle Campbell 1995 Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Harris, Roy and Rasmus Rask (eds.) 2000 Undersogelse om det Nordiske eller Islandske Sprogs Oprindelse: Foundations of IndoEuropean Comparative Philology, 1800−1850. Vol. 2. London: Routledge. Holden, Clare Janaki 2002 Bantu language trees reflect the spread of farming across sub-Saharan Africa: a maximum-parsimony analysis. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 269: 793−799. Hunley, Keith, Michael Dunn, Eva Lindström, Ger Reesink, Angela Terrill, Meghan E. Healey, George Koki, Françoise R. Friedlaender, and Jonathan S. Friedlaender 2008 Genetic and linguistic coevolution in Northern Island Melanesia. PLoS Genetics 4. e1000239. Jordan, Fiona M., Russell D. Gray, Simon J. Greenhill, and Ruth Mace 2009 Matrilocal residence is ancestral in Austronesian societies. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 1957−1964. Joseph, Brian D. and Richard D. Janda (eds.) 2003 The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. London: Blackwell. Kroch, Anthony 1989 Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Language variation and change 1: 199−244. Labov, William 1963 The social motivation of a sound change. Word 19: 273−309. Labov, William 1972 Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Ng, E-Ching 2015 The Phonology of Contact. PhD Dissertation, Yale University, New Haven, CT. Niedzielski, Nancy A. and Dennis Richard Preston 2003 Folk linguistics. (Trends in Linguistics 122). Berlin: De Gruyter. Phillips, Betty S. 2006 Word Frequency and Lexical Diffusion. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Rankin, Robert L. 2003 The Comparative Method. In: Joseph and Janda (eds.), 199−212. Rask, Rasmus K. 1811 Vejledning til det Islandske eller gamle Nordiske Sprog [Guide to the Icelandic or old Nordic language]. Copenhagen: Thiele. Sajnovics, János J. 1770 Joannis Sajnovics Demonstratio idioma Ungarorum et Lapponum idem esse [János Saynovics’ Demonstration that the languages of the Hungarians and Lapps are the same]. Trnava, Slovakia: Societas Jesus. Schebeck, Bernhard 2001 Dialect and social groupings in northeast Arnhem Land. (LINCOM Studies in Australian Languages 7). Munich: LINCOM Europa.

2. Language contact and Indo-European linguistics Shapiro, Marianne 1990 De vulgari eloquentia: Dante’s Book of Exile. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Sober, Elliott 1991 Reconstructing the Past: Parsimony, Evolution, and Inference. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Stanford, James 2006 When Your Mother Tongue is not Your Mother’s Tongue: Linguistic Reflexes of Sui Exogamy. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 12: 217−229. Thomason, Sarah Grey and Terrence Kaufman 1988 Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press. Watkins, Calvert 1995 How to kill a dragon: Aspects of Indo-European poetics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Weinreich, Uriel 1979 Languages in contact: Findings and problems. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Weinreich, Uriel, William Labov, and Marvin I. Herzog 1968 Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In: Winfred Lehmann and Yakov Malkiel (eds.), Directions for Historical Linguistics: A Symposium. Austin: University of Texas Press, 95−188.

Claire Bowern, New Haven, CT (USA)

2. Language contact and Indo-European linguistics 1. 2. 3. 4.

Introduction 5. Convergence and Indo-European dialectology Lexical borrowing 6. Conclusions and outlook Substratum 7. References Convergence as an alternative to substratum

1. Introduction In 1939 there appeared a brief, but thought-provoking posthumous article by Trubetzkoy on the “Indo-European Problem”. The article’s claim is commonly taken to be that ProtoIndo-European arose by convergence from several different, neighboring languages. While Trubetzkoy does indeed hint at such a proposal, it is more a speculative thought experiment than based on empirical evidence and arguments. In fact, the strong lexical and morphological similarities between the early Indo-European languages, including the idiosyncratic root suppletion in the personal pronouns (e.g. nom. *eg̑[-] : oblique *me- ‘I’), strongly argue for inheritance from a common ancestor, rather than origination through convergence, for in convergence it is structural features that come to be more similar, while the lexicon tends to remain distinct (Gumperz and Wilson 1971). In some geographical areas, e.g. the Balkans, lexical convergence may be more extensive (Joseph https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261288-002

7

8

I. General and methodological issues 1986, 1992/2003). Even there, however, the lexica remain quite distinct; and the affixes and other grammatical elements in the convergent structures are native, not borrowed. What is more important in the long run is Trubetzkoy’s role in the development of the very concept of Sprachbund or convergence area (Trubetzkoy 1928, 1931, Jakobson 1931; an alternative English rendition of Sprachbund, going back to Emeneau [1956], is ‘linguistic area’). To this must be added the claim at the foundation of Trubetzkoy’s (1939) thought experiment, namely that the interaction between the languages of convergence areas is the same as that between dialects of a given language. The new concept of structural convergence between distinct languages introduced an important alternative to traditional ideas about language contact as resulting primarily in lexical borrowing, with the added concept of substratum (or in some cases superstratum) influence as an explanation of structural similarities not ascribable to genetic relationship (see e.g. Pott 1833/1836 on Sanskrit retroflexion). I examine both these traditional ideas about language contact and the alternative notion of convergence, with major focus on their relevance to Indo-European linguistics. I begin with lexical borrowing (section 2). Section 3 addresses the concept of substratum. Section 4 deals with convergence. Section 5 addresses the relationship between convergence and Indo-European dialectology. Section 6 presents conclusions and implications.

2. Lexical borrowing The most obvious effect of language contact is lexical borrowing. As long as the context is clear, the sources and direction of borrowing tend to be uncontroversial. Elsewhere, we have to rely on several criteria in order to argue for borrowing. These include etymological “motivation”, cultural context, and historical priority. For instance, the relation between words for ‘sugar’ and ‘candy’ (Skt. śarkara : Pers. šakar : Arab. sukkar : Engl. sugar, etc. and Skt. khaṇḍa : Pers. qand : Arab. qandi : Engl. candy) can be explained as a series of borrowings from India via the Middle and Near East to Europe, because only in Sanskrit are the words in question etymologically motivated − as semantic specializations of preexisting words meaning ‘sand, grit’ and ‘piece, chunk’ respectively. Similarly in the set Engl. sky scraper : Fr. gratte-ciel : Span. rasca cielos, an American English origin is likely, since the construction of tall buildings deserving the name began in Chicago (after the Great Fire). Without such evidence of etymological motivation and/ or historical or cultural priority, the source and direction of borrowing is extremely difficult to detect. In fact, in the case of sky scraper, it would be impossible, given that − through the process of calquing − each language created its own word from native resources, such that each word appears to be etymologically motivated. The implications of these criteria and potential difficulties for Indo-European linguistics can be briefly illustrated with the case of the following set of words for ‘wheel’: PIE *k wek wlo- : Sumer. gigir : Semit. *gilgal : Kartvel. *br̥bar/*gr̥gar (Gamkrelidze and Ivanov 1995). The PIE word is universally analyzed as involving (partial) reduplication of the root *k wel/k wl̥ - ‘turn’ and is thus etymologically motivated. As it turns out, the same analysis holds for the Kartvelian words, based on the roots bar/br̥ and gar/gr̥, respectively (Gamkrelidze and Ivanov 1995), as well as for Sum. gigir (Halloran 1999, s.v. gišgigir[2]), and Semitic galgal (cf. gll ‘turn’) (James Dalgleish, http://sci.

2. Language contact and Indo-European linguistics tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.lang/2005-11/msg00926.html). We are thus dealing with a case strikingly similar to that of ‘sky scraper’. Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, accepting the older view that the wheel was invented in the Near East, argue for a spread of the words from that area − presumably by calquing. More recent evidence (Anthony 2007) shows that wheeled vehicles arose at roughly the same time (ca. 3,500 BCE) both in the Near East and in Europe, making it difficult to determine the source for the words for wheel. Any of the languages could have been the source, or some other, unknown language. Parpola (2007) argues for a PIE origin, considering even the simple root gir of Sumerian to be of PIE origin. But in the case of Semitic it would be difficult to consider the root g-l-l underlying galgal ‘wheel’ to be a borrowing from PIE. Murtonen (1986: 134) provides ample evidence for the antiquity of this root, not only in Semitic, but even in Afro-Asiatic (see Somali galgal ‘roll, rolling’; Tuareg gǝlǝllǝt ‘be round, circular’).

3. Substratum The notion that migration and resulting contact can lead to linguistic change has been around since at least the time of Dante’s De vulgari eloquentia (ca. 1300 CE). Influence by substratum (or superstratum) languages has been assumed especially commonly in Romance linguistics (see the discussion in Cravens 2002). In Indo-European linguistics, the notion of substratum influence seems to have been first introduced by Pott (1833/ 1836) in order to explain the retroflex consonants of Sanskrit (I ignore more generic references to the effects of language contact, such as William Jones’s speculation [1788 (1786)] that Celtic and Germanic are “blended with a very different idiom”). As has often been noted, many cases of linguistic change attributed to substratum influence are problematic, and “internal” explanations (not involving contact) are at least as explanatory, if not better; and some proposals, such as Millardet’s (1933) invoking an unknown “subtrat X” to account for the appearance of retroflex consonants in several Romance languages, are downright silly. See e.g. the critical discussion by Cravens (2002), as well as Hock (1986/1991) with references. On the other hand, examples like Indian English seem to lend strong support to the possibility of substratum influence, with extensive Indianization, especially in its phonology (unaspirated voiceless stops, retroflex for English alveolar stops, etc.). In fact, Thomason and Kaufman (1988) argue that, in effect, priority should be given to contact explanations over purely internal ones. Rather than succumbing to either “substratophobia” or “substratomania”, the best approach would be to decide particular cases on empirical grounds and, in some cases, to admit that a decision may not be possible. As it turns out, the latter generally seems to be true in the case of early Indo-European languages for which substratum influence has been proposed. An early Indo-European subgroup for which external (generally Afro-Asiatic or North African) substratum influence has been frequently invoked is Insular Celtic (see e.g. Pokorny 1949; Wagner 1982). As Watkins (1962) has noted, with focus on the Celtic verb: Without sure knowledge of the presence of such substrate populations, and without any notion of the nature of the languages they might have spoken, such a line of speculation is otiose: it is merely a deplacement of the problem, a substitution of one unknown for another.

9

10

I. General and methodological issues If, however, by the utilization of more recent techniques of linguistic analysis, we can account for the peculiar development of the Celtic verbal system, as a direct and unmediated successor of the Indo-European verbal system, then the necessity for recourse to such hypothetical substrata simply disappears.

In the study of early Slavic and Baltic, it has often been claimed that the use of the genitive with negation and to mark partitive objects reflects substratum influence from neighboring Uralic, which uses the partitive case under the same circumstances (Veenker 1967; V. Kiparsky 1969). On the Uralic side, the use of the partitive has been attributed to Baltic influence (Laanest 1982). Under the circumstances, a principled decision as to which language was the source of the phenomenon may not be possible − although the similarities are certainly likely to result from contact. Situations of this sort, where we find structural similarities in neighboring languages without there being a likely (single) source for the similarities, are typical of convergence areas (see Hock 1988 with references). In the case of Sanskrit retroflexion, first addressed by Pott, as well as other features shared by Sanskrit/Indo-Aryan and other languages of South Asia, the general consensus is still that these features reflect Dravidian substratum influence (most recently Krishnamurti 2003). I have argued (Hock 1996a, b) that the evidence for Dravidian substratum influence is not cogent, the features in question can be explained internally, and a case can be made for bi- or multilateral convergence instead of unilateral substratum influence. Further, Tikkanen (1988) points out that the Dravidian substratum hypothesis ignores the alternative possibility that an early form of Burushaski (or some other northwestern language) may have been the source of the “Dravidian” features of Sanskrit. Even in Indian English, there is evidence that a unilateral substratum account is not appropriate. In addition to extensive influence of Indian languages on English, we also find influence of English on the languages of South Asia (Y. Kachru 1989; Kachru, Kachru, and Sridhar 2008). Cases like the ones just discussed do not, of course, invalidate the possibility of substratum effects in early Indo-European languages. An area where such effects are quite likely is Anatolia; see e.g. Yakubovich (2010) on Hurrian and Luwian. Even here, however, one wonders whether the influence was unidirectional or bidirectional.

4. Convergence as an alternative to substratum We have seen in the preceding section that convergence, the phenomenon advocated by Trubetzkoy, must be considered an important alternative to the unidirectional process of substratum influence. Convergence can be briefly defined as an increase in structural similarity between different, distinct languages that are not necessarily related. To be successful, convergence requires extended bilingual contact, such that the effects of contact can build up and differences in structure can over time be diminished (see Hock 1986/1991, as well as Winford 2003). Most important for present purposes are two additional aspects of convergence. First, in convergence areas it is typically impossible to single out one language as donor; rather, every language may contribute to the shared features. Second, features may be spread unevenly, with some found only in a portion of the area. This is the case for

2. Language contact and Indo-European linguistics South Asia (Masica 1976) and the Balkans (Hock 1988). Convergence areas, thus, are similar to dialect continua, and in this sense Trubetzkoy’s claim that there is no difference between the two phenomena is borne out. Except for Trubetzkoy’s (1939) thought experiment, convergence has generally been an underutilized concept in studies of early Indo-European language contact. A major exception is Gamkrelidze and Ivanov’s (1995) claim that lexical as well as structural similarities between Proto-Indo-European and Kartvelian and Mesopotamian languages show that PIE was spoken in a convergence area close to the Caucasus and the Near East. The “Glottalic Theory” however − perhaps the most important structural support for the hypothesis − remains controversial, and hence the argument loses its force.

5. Convergence and Indo-European dialectology As noted in the preceding section, convergence areas are similar to dialect continua, in that linguistic features are not evenly spread over the entire area but may cover only part of it. In fact, convergence areas tend to exhibit the same crisscrossing network of isoglosses as dialect continua (Masica 1976; Hock 1988). This fact has consequences for Indo-European dialectology: If two neighboring varieties of Indo-European share particular features, it is not a priori possible to determine whether these features reflect common dialectal innovation (within a PIE dialect continuum) or secondary convergence at a point when the varieties have become distinct languages but have remained in contact. A case in point may be the relationship between Baltic and Slavic. Before Meillet (1908) challenged the view, Balto-Slavic was commonly recognized as a distinct subgroup of Indo-European. Since then, the debate whether the similarities between Baltic and Slavic should be attributed to descent from a common, Balto-Slavic ancestor or to contact between two distinct subgroups (Baltic and Slavic) has not come to a clear conclusion (see Klimas 1973 for a useful survey). Perhaps the issue can never be fully resolved, because, as is well known, there is no clear line of demarcation between different dialect and different language and hence between dialect and language contact. However, one common innovation of Baltic and Slavic, Winter’s Law (see Winter 1978), might perhaps be considered too idiosyncratic to be attributed to language contact and would therefore be more likely the result of dialect contact. But it is difficult to be certain as to what constitutes a sufficiently high degree of idiosyncrasy to rule out language contact. As the case of Baltic and Slavic shows, convergence may affect not just PIE and other, non-Indo-European languages, but also various Indo-European languages or subgroups. In fact, except for Turkish, which is only marginally involved, all the languages of the Balkan convergence area belong to the Indo-European family. A recent paper by Garrett (1999) suggests an even greater relevance of convergence for early Indo-European. In his view, the usual classification of Indo-European into subgroups such as Anatolian, Indo-Iranian, Greek, Italic, Celtic, is anachronistic, reflecting 19th-century ideas of race, ethnicity, and nation. Instead we should conceptualize early Indo-European society as a relatively loose array of tribes, which affiliate and reaffiliate in numerous ways before finally crystallizing into more defined groups such

11

12

I. General and methodological issues as Anatolian or Greek. This interpretation makes it possible to account for, say, the similarity of the iterative-duratives in -ske- of East Ionic Greek with the identical category of Anatolian (specifically Hittite) and the agreement of Greek with Italic alone in their devoicing of the PIE voiced aspirates as the result of convergent developments at the early tribal level. Garrett’s approach holds out the promise of accounting for other similarities which cause difficulties under the traditional view of Indo-European dialectology. One such case might be the early palatalization of labiovelars in Armenian, Albanian, and part of Greek, as in PIE *k wetwores > Arm. -c‘ork‘, Gk. tessares ‘4’ and *g whermo- > Alb. zjarm ‘fire’. The limitation of this palatalization to labiovelars (to the exclusion of plain velars) may be sufficiently idiosyncratic to rule out independent innovation. At the same time, the development affected only part of Greek; and the earliest form of Greek, Mycenaean, still had unpalatalized labiovelars. This makes it difficult to assume common innovation in a PIE dialect continuum, but would be explainable if we assume that Garrett’s loose affiliation of Indo-European tribes persisted in some form beyond Mycenaean times and made it possible for Armenian, Albanian, and part of Greek to participate in a late convergent development.

6. Conclusions and outlook Of the various effects of linguistic contact briefly discussed in this article, convergence is probably the most interesting and exciting for Indo-European linguistics. Lexical borrowing has been dealt with in great detail for at least 150 years. Substratum explanations have often been approached with considerable caution; and we have seen some of the reasons for this caution. In several cases we have seen that convergence may be a more appropriate approach. More important yet, convergence is still an underutilized concept in Indo-European linguistics and for that reason alone deserves greater attention. To this must be added the exciting further insights promised by Garrett’s hypothesis of intertribal convergence to account for phenomena that do not fit comfortably into the traditional distinction between language and dialect contact.

7. References Anthony, David W. 2007 The horse, the wheel, and language. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Cravens, Thomas D. 2002 Comparative historical dialectology: Italo-Romance clues to Ibero-Romance sound change. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Emeneau, Murray B. 1956 India as a linguistic area. Language 32: 3−16. Gamkrelidze, Thomas V. and Vjacheslav V. Ivanov 1995 Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans: A reconstruction and historical analysis of a proto-language and a proto-culture, I. [Translation by Johanna Nichols of Indoevropejskij jazyk i Indoevropejcy. Rekonstrukcija i istoriko-tipologičeskij analiz prajazyka i protokul’tury, 1984]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

2. Language contact and Indo-European linguistics Garrett, Andrew 1999 A new model of Indo-European subgrouping and dispersal. In: Steve S. Chang, Lily Liaw, and Josef Ruppenhofer (eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, February 12−15, 1999. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society, 146−156. Halloran, John A. 1999 Sumerian lexicon, version 3.0. http://www.sumerian.org/ sumerian.pdf Hock, Hans Henrich 1986/1991 Principles of historical linguistics, 1st and 2nd edns. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Hock, Hans Henrich 1988 Historical implications of a dialectological approach to convergence. In: Jacek Fisiak (ed.), Historical dialectology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 283−328. Hock, Hans Henrich 1996a Pre-R̥gvedic convergence between Indo-Aryan (Sanskrit) and Dravidian? A survey of the issues and controversies. In: Jan E. M. Houben (ed.), Ideology and status of Sanskrit: Contributions to the history of the Sanskrit language. Leiden: Brill, 17−58. Hock, Hans Henrich 1996b Subversion or convergence? The issue of pre-Vedic retroflexion reconsidered. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 23: 73−115. Jakobson, Roman 1931 Über die phonologischen Sprachbünde. Travaux du cercle linguistique de Prague 4: 234−240. Joseph, Brian D. 1986 A fresh look at the Balkan Sprachbund: Some observations on H. W. Schaller’s Die Balkansprachen. Mediterranean Language Review 3: 105−114. Joseph, Brian D. 1992/2003 The Balkan languages. In: William Bright (ed.), International encyclopedia of linguistics 1. Oxford: University Press, 153−155 (revised version in Second Edition, 2003 [ed. by W. Frawley], 194−196). Jones, Sir William 1788 [1786] The third anniversary discourse, on the Hindus. Asiatick Researches 1: 419−432. Kachru, Braj B., Yamuna Kachru, and S. N. Sridhar (eds.) 2008 Language in South Asia. Cambridge: University Press. Kachru, Yamuna 1989 Corpus planning for modernization: Sanskritization and Englishization of Hindi. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 19: 153−164. Kiparsky, Valentin 1969 Gibt es ein finnougrisches Substrat im Slavischen? Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia. Klimas, Antanas 1973 Baltic and Slavic revisited. Lituanus 19: 7−26. Krishnamurti, Bhadriraju 2003 The Dravidian languages. Cambridge: University Press. Laanest, Arvo 1982 Einführung in die ostseefinnischen Sprachen. Hamburg: Buske. Masica, Colin P. 1976 Defining a linguistic area: South Asia. Chicago: University Press. Meillet, Antoine 1908 Les dialectes indo-européens. Paris: Champion. Millardet, Georges 1933 Sur un ancien substrat commun à la Sicile, le Corse, et la Sardaigne. Revue de linguistique romane 9: 346−369.

13

14

I. General and methodological issues Murtonen, A. 1986 Hebrew in its West Semitic setting: A comparative survey of non-Masoretic Hebrew dialects and traditions, 1: 3. Leiden: Brill. Parpola, Asko 2007 Proto-Indo-European speakers of the Tripolye Culture as the inventors of wheeled vehicles: Linguistic and archaeological considerations of the PIE homeland problem. In: Karlene Jones-Bley, Martin E. Huld, Angela Della Volpe, and Miriam Robbins Dexter (eds.), Proceedings of the 19 th Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference. (Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph Series No. 54). Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man, 1−59. Pokorny, Julius 1949 Zum nichtindogermanischen Substrat im Inselkeltischen. Die Sprache 1: 235−245. Pott, August Friedrich 1833/1836 Etymologische Forschungen auf dem Gebiete der indogermanischen Sprachen, 1 and 2. Lemgo: Meyer. Thomason, Sarah Grey, and Terrence Kaufman 1988 Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press. Tikkanen, Bertil 1988 On Burushaski and other ancient substrata in North Western South Asia. Studia Orientalia [Helsinki] 64 : 303−325. Trubetzkoy Nikolai Sergejevič 1928 Proposition 16. Actes du premier congrès international de linguistes, 18. ed. by Congrès International de Linguistes. Leiden: Sijthoff. Trubetzkoy, Nikolai Sergejevič 1931 Phonologie und Sprachgeographie. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 4: 228− 234. Trubetzkoy, Nikolai Sergejevič 1939 Gedanken über das Indogermanenproblem. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 1: 81−89. Veenker, Wolfgang 1967 Die Frage des finnougrischen Substrats in der russischen Sprache. (Uralic and Altaic Series). Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Wagner, Heinrich 1982 Near Eastern and African connections with the Celtic world. In: Robert O’Driscoll (ed.), The Celtic consciousness. Portlaoise: Dolmen Press, 51−67. Watkins, Calvert 1962 Indo-European origins of the Celtic verb. Dublin: The Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies. Winford, Donald 2003 An introduction to contact linguistics. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Winter, Werner 1978 The distribution of short and long vowels in stems of the type Lith. ěsti : vèsti : mèsti and OCS jasti : vesti : mesti in Baltic and Slavic languages. In: Jacek Fisiak (ed.), Recent developments in historical phonology. The Hague: Mouton, 431−446. Yakubovich, Ilya S 2010 Sociolinguistics of the Luvian language. Leiden: Brill.

Hans Henrich Hock, Champaign, IL (USA)

3. Methods in reconstruction

15

3. Methods in reconstruction 1. 2. 3. 4.

The phenomenon of reconstruction General procedures Phonological reconstruction Morphological reconstruction

5. 6. 7. 8.

Lexical reconstruction Internal reconstruction Verification of reconstruction References

1. The phenomenon of reconstruction Reconstruction is a process of restoration of a no longer existing linguistic state. This extinct state preserves traces in observable linguistic conditions, and the role of the scientist is to find, identify, and analyze these traces. The reconstructed state remains unattainable as a whole but is subject to probabilistic judgment about the original condition, when one or more successor states are known. Therefore the main purpose of reconstruction is the fullest restoration of all the features of the object to be reconstructed. The problem of reconstruction occurs in all sciences dealing with unobservable phenomena: history (reconstructing past situations and their processes of change), archaeology (reconstructing material and nonmaterial culture of lost peoples), and justice (reconstructing incidents and offending events). Each science has its own methods for reconstruction. In this chapter we will tailor our discussion specifically to issues encountered in the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European.

2. General procedures 2.1. Reconstruction in linguistics is bound up with historical-comparative investigation and method. The main thesis of comparative linguistics is the following: a group of languages is united by common origin, i.e. having a common ancestor language (= protolanguage), which has split in historical or prehistorical times. The latter case requires a reconstruction. The exact methods of reconstruction must be elaborated at all linguistic levels. 2.2. One must distinguish the reconstruction, which stands, temporally speaking, in a vertical relationship relative to the languages being compared (the input), from the formula (Hermann 1907). The latter is a correspondence relationship between the sounds of the input languages and may be treated temporally as a horizontal relationship, provided that the input languages do not themselves stand in a lineal diachronic relationship (as would be the case, for example, if one employed both Latin and a modern Romance language as inputs in the comparison). An example of a formula would be Greek a : Latin a : Gothic a : Old Irish a : Armenian a : Tocharian B ā : Sanskrit i in the word for ‘father’ (Greek πατήρ : Latin pater : Gothic fadar [voc.] : Old Irish athir : Armenian hayr : Toch. B pācer : Sanskrit pitā́ ). In this case the reconstruction, *ph2 tḗr, represents the starting point from which the forms in all the input languages can be derived. In practice, phonological reconstruction employing the comparative method is nothing more https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261288-003

16

I. General and methodological issues than diachronic phonemic analysis employing such familiar notions as complementary distribution and phonetic similarity, understood as relating to the totality of distinctive features found in the input segments. This means that positing reconstructed segments that totally lack features found in the input items in order to explain typological oddities of a proto-language is a matter of internal reconstruction rather than of the comparative method. The sum total of all reconstructions attainable in a language family provides a collective starting point for the interpretation of the hypothetical proto-language system at all levels of grammar. One may speak of near and distant reconstruction (Tronsky 1967): the first is given as a result of comparison; the second involves a further operation dealing with the development of the proto-language and belongs rather under the rubric of internal reconstruction (see 6 below).

3. Phonological reconstruction 3.1. Phonological reconstruction has as its purpose the restoration of the phonemic system of a proto-language. It is based on the principle of phonetic law, predicting that in language A the phoneme a corresponds to the phoneme b of a cognate morpheme in language B. The phonetic environment, involving the phoneme’s position in the word and the presence or absence of stress or pitch, plays a material role in sound changes. These allow us to describe a phonetic law as a formula: L{a > b / P} T: sound a is transformed into b in position P at time T (Žuravlev 1986). The process works as follows: In a reconstructed language state, as in attested languages, phonemes occur in various environments. In some of these a given phoneme may be preserved, in others it may change. The change may take either of two different forms: split (a > a1, a2) or merger (a, b > b) (Hoenigswald 1960). Jakobson ([1931] 1962) defined the first process as phonologization of primary phonemic variants, and the second as dephonologization of original differences between several phonemes. Jakobson proposed a third term, rephonologization, to describe cases where the opposition of phonemes remains, but their distinctive features are changed. A good example of rephonologization is the Germanic Lautverschiebung treated independently of the exceptions noted by Grimm and Verner. 3.2. The verification of phonological reconstruction is ensured by typological criteria (see 7 below), external comparison (if possible), and by old borrowings in neighboring languages: Common Slavic *korvā/karvā (Russ. korova, OCS krava, Pol. krowa) ‘cow’ is verified by Lat. cerva ‘hind’ and *sarkā ‘magpie’ by the Hungarian loanword szarka.

4. Morphological reconstruction 4.1. All reconstructions at higher levels than the phoneme must be based on the exact application of phonetic laws. The peculiarities of morphological reconstruction are occasioned by the following factors: 1. In each language there are inflectional and derivational paradigms. In comparing related languages their correlation can be changed: independent words can be transformed into grammatical morphemes (cf. Lat. mēns ‘mind, disposition’, abl. mente, lexicalized as an adverbial suffix -ment[e] in the Romance languages).

3. Methods in reconstruction 2. An important peculiarity of morphemes is sound change not conditioned by environment, i.e. morphophonology. Morphophonological sound alternation such as ablaut is important for morphological characteristics of word-forms (cf. sing ~ song). One distinguishes qualitative and quantitative ablaut; the latter is a consequence of stress (unaccented vowels are reduced and syncopated), while the cause of the former is more controversial. But its morphosemantic role is beyond question. One can reconstruct an entire system of ablaut-accent in Proto-Indo-European morphology, where the direct case forms had stress on the stem, and oblique cases on the inflectional ending. Similarly, active verbs stress the stem and middle verbs the ending. 4.2. Three important features in morphological change are grammaticalization/lexicalization and stem reanalysis. Lexicalization is a transformation of a word-form into an independent lexeme (e.g., the Russian noun vesnoi ‘spring [instr. sg.]’ → adverb vesnoi ‘in/by spring’). Stem reanalysis is change in a morpheme boundary: Old Russ. žena-mъ ‘to the wives’ (dat. pl.) → contemporary Russ. žen-am; therefore old vlŭkomŭ ‘to the wolves’ is replaced by volkam. For the process of morphological reconstruction, cf. Koch (1996).

5. Lexical reconstruction 5.1. Root reconstruction is based on the application of phonetic laws to related unanalyzable semantic entities in cognate languages. These are subject to phonotactic constraints. (A) The phonetic structure of a root is not absolutely free. In Proto-Indo-European the combination of two voiced consonants in the same root (*DeD) or of a voiceless stop with a voiced aspirate (*TeDH/*DHeT) is proscribed. (B) The general contour of the root was also constrained: Consonant(s) − Vowel − Consonant(s). The coda of the root (the part following the vowel) did not allow clusters involving increasing sonority (e.g. Obstruent − Sonorant), while clusters showing decreasing sonority (e.g. Sonorant − Obstruent) were disallowed in onset position preceding the vowel of the root. The ProtoIndo-European root may occasionally appear extended with an additional consonant (or élargissement, Benveniste 1935); therefore such words as Greek ἔλδομαι ‘I wish’ (< *uel-d) and ἐλπίς ‘hope’ (*uel-p) are cognate. 5.2. The reconstruction of entire stems means the correspondence not only in the root, but also in the morphological type and word-formation affixes (if they are present): Greek φέρμα ‘burden, fetus’, OCS brěme˛ ‘id.’, Sanskrit bhárman- ‘burden’ represent the same prototype, *bhér-mn̥; therefore this word can be reconstructed for Proto-IndoEuropean. 5.3. The reconstruction of words is connected with that of material and nonmaterial culture; when we reconstruct a word, we suggest a thing. Therefore, the reconstruction of a cultural lexicon leads to the reconstruction of features of a culture. One can suggest that Indo-Europeans knew cattle-raising and agriculture, could build walls, dwelled in steppe-forest zones, and domesticated the cow, sheep, and horse (Mallory and Adams 1997).

17

18

I. General and methodological issues

6. Internal reconstruction Not all reconstruction is based on language comparison. This will necessarily be the case in attempting to reconstruct earlier stages of linguistic isolates or languages whose affiliation is uncertain and have no written traditions. In such instances one may still engage in reconstruction by establishing patterns of regularity within a language and then evaluating patterns that differ phonologically from these. If the variation is not deemed to be suppletive, then it will normally be the result of morphophonemic variation. Such variation may be taken to represent underlying unity of form differently realized in different environments (cf. Kuryłowicz 1962). Zawadowski (1962) terms this “conjectural reconstruction”. Reconstructions employing this method have a different status from those done via the comparative method. The latter produce a form that may be said to represent a fixed point: the latest stage allowing a one-way mapping relationship back to the individual input items (historical linguistics in the narrow sense); hence, a form belonging at least to a late stage of a proto-language. Moroever, the form so attained maintains, grosso modo, the features of the input items, insofar as it is reconstructed utilizing the totality of information in these items. The product of internal reconstruction, on the other hand, is an underlying form that gives the impression of belonging to a different typological stage of the language, viz. a point in time when the language was agglutinative in structure and completely lacked morphophonemic variation. The stage so attained lacks any definable temporal dimension, and the name given to it is “pre-language”. It could represent a recent stage of prehistory or be equivalent to a proto-form; but it could also belong to a remote stage that even overshoots a protolanguage. The fact that the pre-language seems to be agglutinative is itself a mirage, because one reconstructs into increasing umbra, and morphophonemic alternations no longer observable on the level at which the reconstruction is performed almost certainly existed at one point beyond our ken. Given that internal reconstruction requires only that a particular synchronic state of a language show morphophonemic alternation, it is possible to perform this operation on a proto-language. It is indeed by this method that the Proto-Indo-European laryngeals were first intuited by de Saussure. The comparative method applied to the different IndoEuropean languages would at best reconstruct an alternation of long vowels with some kind of short vowel. The decomposition of the long vowels into short vowel + resonantlike entity (“coefficient sonantique”) and the intuition of the presence of that entity in syllabic form leading to a short vowel were attempts on de Saussure’s part to evaluate a particular set of roots with aberrant behavior in relation to the pattern of regularity seen in roots ending in a resonant. In Saussure’s time the linguistic level at which the resonant-like elements would have existed would have been that of pre-Proto-Indo-European. It is only with the discovery of Hittite and its ḫ-consonant in places where de Saussure would have predicted a resonant-like element that the status of the reconstruction changed from internal to comparative, because now the Hittite ḫ was an actually occurring segment forming a material part of a reconstruction via the comparative method in the roots in question and could be reconstructed as a member of the PIE phonemic inventory. This illustrates that internal reconstruction has a role to play in explaining synchronic structure at any given level. It is this feature, too, which gives internal reconstruction, under the rubric of morphophonemic analysis, validity as a tool of synchronic linguistics.

3. Methods in reconstruction

7. Verification of reconstruction Linguistic reconstruction may be verified in a number of ways: (A) Semantic explication. If we reconstruct homonymous forms, we must either explain such homonymy as a result of language development or suggest that it is the same proto-language element with extended meaning; (B) Attention to correlation between levels. One language level can influence others. Expiratory stress may cause both sound change (e.g., reduction and syncope of unstressed vowels) and morphological change (e.g., the disappearance of unstressed morphemes). (C) Systemic correspondence. If a subsystem A1 of language L1 contains an element a1, one can expect an element a2 in parallel subsystem A2 of the related language L2. This reasoning is applicable along both a horizontal and vertical dimension. It was by employing this methodology that Saussure ([1879] 1968) internally reconstructed “coefficients sonantiques” which formed the basis of the laryngeal theory; (D) Typological verification. The reconstructed language state should not contain features not otherwise found in attested languages (Jakobson 1958). This postulate has been designated “the uniformity principle” (Ringe 2004). But unique features may also occur in attested languages, so that this requirement must not be taken as an absolute. A more precise formulation is the following: the probability of a reconstruction is increased when its result presupposes the most widespread tendencies of language change and development (Serebrennikov 1974).

8. References Benveniste, Émile 1935 Origines de la formation des noms en indo-européen. Paris: Maisonneuve. Hermann, Eduard 1907 Über das Rekonstruierte. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 41: 1−37. Hoenigswald, Henry M. 1960 Language Change and Linguistic Reconstruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Jakobson, Roman 1962 [1931] Prinzipien der historischen Phonologie. Travaux du cercle linguistique de Prague 4: 11−31. [Reprinted 1962 as Principes de phonologie historique. In: Stephen Rudy (ed.), R. Jakobson Selected Writings, vol. 1. The Hague: Mouton, 201−220.] Jakobson, Roman 1958 Typological studies and their contribution to historical comparative linguistics. In: Eva Sivertsen, Carl Hjalmar Borgstrøm, Arne Gallis, and Alf Sommerfelt (eds.), Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Linguists, Oslo, 5−9 August, 1957. Oslo: Oslo University Press, 17−25. Koch, Harold 1996 Morphological Reconstruction. In: Marc Duree and Malcolm Ross (eds.), The Comparative Method Revisited. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 218−263. Kuryłowicz, Jerzy 1962 On the Methods of Internal Reconstruction. In: Horace G. Lunt (ed.), Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists, Cambridge. MA. The Hague: Mouton, 469−490. Mallory, James P. and Douglas Q. Adams (eds.) 1997 The Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture. London: Fitzroy Dearborn.

19

20

I. General and methodological issues Ringe, Don 2004 Reconstructed Ancient Languages. In: Roger D. Woodard (ed.), The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World’s Ancient Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1112−1126. de Saussure, Ferdinand 1968 [1879] Mémoire sur le système primitif des voyelles dans les langues indo-européennes. Hildesheim: Olms. [Leipzig: B. G. Teubner] Serebrennikov, Boris 1974 Verojatnostnye obosnovanija v komparativistike [Probabilistic arguments in comparative linguistics]. Moscow: Nauka. Tronsky, Iosif 1967 Obščeindoevropeiskoe jazykovoe sostojanie: Problemy rekonstrukcii [The common Indo-European language state: problems of reconstruction]. Leningrad: Nauka. Zawadowski, Leon 1962 Theoretical foundations of comparative grammar. Orbis 11: 5−20. Žuravlev, Vladimir 1986 Diakhronicheskaja fonologija [Diachronic phonology]. Moscow: Nauka.

Konstantin G. Krasukhin, Moscow (Russia)

4. The sources for Indo-European reconstruction In early stages of Indo-European linguistics, the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European was dominated by the influence of Sanskrit, which was for a long time the earliest attested Indo-European language. Indeed, early Indo-Europeanists, such as Franz Bopp, sometimes found it difficult to distinguish between PIE, as the common origin of all Indo-European languages, and Sanskrit, as the earliest attested individual Indo-European language. The influence of Sanskrit was still overwhelming in August Schleicher’s pioneering reconstructions of PIE forms (see Muller, this handbook). At this stage in the development of comparative linguistics it was thought that the reconstructed proto-language must have been very similar to the attested language which is chronologically the least separated from it, and this may appear as a sound methodological principle even today. However, the discovery of the “law of the palatals” by the Neogrammarians (in the 1870s) led to a serious revision of the PIE vowel system, which was subsequently modelled on Greek rather than on Sanskrit. The subsequent history of Indo-European linguistics has been seen by Manfred Mayrhofer (1983: 127) as a slow dissolution of the “Sanskritocentric” model. Most reference works of Indo-European linguistics published in the late 19th and early 20th century, such as the compendia of Brugmann, Hirt, and Meillet, reflect the model of PIE chiefly based on the classical languages, above all Sanskrit and Greek, with minor corrections from Latin, early Germanic, and Balto-Slavic. Evidence from other languages known at the time, such as Celtic, Armenian, and Albanian, was used occasionally to support conclusions based on the analysis of forms from classical languages, but seldom (if ever) to cast any doubts on those conclusions. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261288-004

4. The sources for Indo-European reconstruction However, the decipherment of Hittite and the publication of texts in Tocharian A and B in the early 20th century provided linguists with evidence that was, at first, difficult to accommodate within the model of PIE based on classical languages. Developments within Celtic comparative linguistics in the first half of the 20th century also brought about the new evaluation of evidence from the Celtic languages. It was realized that some features of the Celtic verbal system, in particular the opposition between the absolute and conjunct verbal endings of the Insular Celtic languages, are not easily derivable from the classical model of PIE. In the domain of phonology, the growing importance of evidence from non-classical languages is shown in the discovery of the laryngeals and the proliferation of theories about the number and nature of these sounds. In the realm of morphology, in this period doubts were raised about the PIE status of such grammatical categories as the optative, the dual, and feminine gender, all of which are lacking in Anatolian. A growing interest in language typology in the sixties and seventies also cast some doubts on the classical model of PIE. For example, the “glottalic theory”, proposed by P. Hopper, T. Gamkrelidze and V. Ivanov, also shifted the attention of scholars to evidence from some hitherto less-studied languages, such as Armenian (see, e.g., Gamkrelidze and Ivanov 1995). It was argued that the classical reconstruction of the PIE system of stops was typologically impossible, since it assumed that PIE had the voiceless labial stop (*p), but not its voiced counterpart (*b), and such systems do not occur, or are extremely rare cross-linguistically. Therefore, the classical reconstruction of the PIE system of stops with voiced, voiceless and voiced aspirated series was reinterpreted by stating that the PIE voiced stops were actually glottalized (ejective) stops. Such stops are found in most languages of the Caucasus, including some Eastern Armenian dialects. Although the glottalic theory is certainly not accepted by most Indo-Europeanists today, it must be admitted that doubts regarding the traditional reconstruction of PIE stops remain, and no consensus regarding their proper phonetic interpretation is in sight. Although it could be stated that the crisis in Indo-European studies was overcome in the seventies, especially in the work of the “Erlangen school” (e.g. Helmut Rix, Heiner Eichner, and Jochem Schindler), when many aspects of the classical model of PIE were reintroduced and accommodated with the data from newly discovered and hitherto lessstudied languages, it is still true that today, in contrast with the situation a hundred years ago, the classical languages do not have a privileged status in the evaluation of the evidence in comparative Indo-European linguistics. Indeed, most researchers would agree that the balanced use of all available evidence is a prerequisite for a reliable reconstruction of PIE. Although new texts are not very often discovered (such as the spectacular discoveries of lengthy Celtiberian bronze inscriptions from Botorrita), advances in philological and linguistic interpretation of languages such as Lithuanian, Tocharian A and B, Albanian, and Armenian have made it possible to use the evidence from these languages with a high degree of reliability. It is clear today that PIE was spoken at least a thousand years before our first records of Anatolian languages (and some would argue even much earlier), so one does not expect that the proto-language had to be particularly similar to any of the earliest attested languages. The development of areal linguistics in the last decades has also shown that not only lexical items, but grammatical features as well can spread across existing language boundaries. Therefore, forms reconstructed on the basis of data from neighbouring dialects could easily have been borrowed, and similarities in grammatical features be-

21

22

I. General and methodological issues tween dialects that were (or could have been) in contact can be the result of areal convergence, rather than inheritance. In any case, most linguists would probably agree on the following three general principles of the evaluation of evidence in Indo-European linguistics (see, e.g., Mallory and Adams 2006: 107−110): 1. Other things being equal, more weight should be given to forms from languages that are attested early, than to forms attested only in languages that are attested late. This common sense principle was, as we have seen, already applied rather uncritically by the early comparatists. 2. Other things being equal, more weight should be given to forms attested in languages that do not belong to the same group of Indo-European dialects. This principle is similar to, but should be distinguished from, the next one. 3. Reconstructions should be based on forms attested in different parts of the area in which Indo-European languages are (or were) spoken. This last proviso is needed in order to diminish the probability that the forms compared were borrowed from one branch of Indo-European languages into another, during the period after the separation of the primary Indo-European branches. Usually this means that at least one of the languages used in the reconstruction is from Asia (belonging to Anatolian, Armenian, Tocharian, or Indo-Iranian branches). This principle goes back at least to Meillet ([1925] 1970). However, these simple principles are very difficult to apply mechanically, because they may contradict each other. For example, the augment, i.e. the prefix used to mark past tenses (the aorist, imperfect, and pluperfect), is attested in a number of early IndoEuropean languages in both Europe and Asia, including Greek and Sanskrit, while it is generally absent in the languages that are attested late (e.g. Italic, Germanic, and BaltoSlavic). However, the augment is also attested in Armenian and Phrygian, so that the branches in which we have its unquestionable reflexes appear to form a rather compact “Circum-Pontic” area, and it has been argued that languages of this area once formed a single group of Indo-European dialects. It would clearly be unwise to attribute the augment to PIE simply because it is attested in a group of early Indo-European languages and not in those that are attested late (note also that the augment is unattested in Anatolian). Moreover, there are other reasons why the principles stated above should not be applied uncritically: 1. Some languages that are attested very early were written in scripts that were ill-suited to their phonological systems, e.g., Hittite and Mycenaean Greek. This makes it very difficult to interpret and use some forms from these languages, although they may be attested thousands of years earlier than, e.g., Lithuanian forms which are not only associated with an unambiguous phonological interpretation, but which also provide us with important prosodic data (the Lithuanian accents). 2. The corpora of the early Indo-European languages are very unequal in size. For example, our corpus of 2nd Millennium Greek (the Mycenaean texts) is very limited in comparison with the corpus of Vedic texts. Although attested early, many forms occurring in languages with small corpora are bound to be hapaxes, and therefore less reliable than forms attested in languages with large corpora. 3. The sociolinguistic varieties attested in early languages are very dissimilar. While our old sources of Vedic and Post-Mycenaean Greek consist of poetic texts written in a

4. The sources for Indo-European reconstruction

4.

5.

6.

7.

highly prestigious traditional idiom, our earliest sources of languages such as Old Church Slavonic and Lithuanian are translations of religious texts intended to be understood by all layers of the society, and presumably reflect a variety of the language with lower prestige. Therefore, if the reflexes of a form are unattested in a particular language, this may be the consequence of the mere fact that the sociolinguistic variety in which that form existed was never recorded in that language. Texts in some languages are attested in various dialects from the outset, which allows separation of archaisms from innovations by linguistic reconstruction based on comparing dialectal forms. This is the case in Greek, which is attested early and in the form of several dialects. Other early Indo-European languages are attested with little or no evidence for dialectal diversification (e.g. Sanskrit, Latin, and Old Irish). The fact that we are often able to compare Greek forms from different dialects should be measured against the fact that we cannot do this in the case of Sanskrit. This should be borne in mind when estimating the relative dates of attestation for the two languages. The dialectal interrelationships of the Indo-European subgroups is still far from being a settled matter (see Ringe, this handbook). Although some groups seem to be presently beyond doubt (e.g. Balto-Slavic), some are still hotly disputed (e.g. Italo-Celtic). The relative importance of evidence for some reconstructions often crucially depends on one’s views on the early Indo-European dialects. For example, the reconstruction of PIE *met- ‘reap’ on the basis of Lat. metō and W med- may depend on whether one believes in Italo-Celtic, or not. If yes, then this etymon can be interpreted as an Italo-Celtic dialectal innovation. If not, then it can be attributed to PIE, and its exclusive preservation in Italic and Celtic can be viewed as the result of the archaism of peripheral languages. Languages that are spoken in very distant areas today (or were spoken in distant areas when they were first attested) could have originally been spoken in contiguous areas and/or developed from a single dialect of the proto-language. Their historical location could be the result of prehistoric migrations of their speakers. For example, the Tocharian languages are attested in the historical period as the easternmost branch of Indo-European, but the original homeland of Tocharians, as well as the route that brought them to Chinese Turkestan, is still an unresolved mystery. Although some features that Tocharian shares with the Western Indo-European dialects are best understood as archaisms of the peripheral dialects, both Eastern and Western (e.g. the r-endings of the mediopassive voice), some features shared with Germanic and BaltoSlavic might point to the original location of Tocharian in Europe, rather than in Asia, e.g. the original reflexes of the syllabic resonants. In Tocharian, as in Germanic and Balto-Slavic, the syllabic resonants are reflected as sequences of a high vowel (*i- or *u-, which both yield *ä in Tocharian) followed by non-syllabic resonants. Some languages, although attested very early, show evidence of having undergone a large number of changes at all levels of their grammar and lexicon. It is a basic fact of historical linguistics that language change does not take place at a steady rate. For example, we know that Goidelic changed very rapidly during the period from the 4th to the 7th century CE, since several of the far-reaching phonological changes that took place at that time are not yet documented in our earliest Ogam inscriptions from the 4th century. Similar periods of rapid development are attested for English (in the 10th−14th centuries), Bulgarian (in the 14th−17th centuries), etc. We can assume that a language has undergone a rapid transformation under the influence of some substrate,

23

24

I. General and methodological issues superstrate, or adstrate, in the prehistoric period, if it can be shown that there was extensive borrowing of lexical material from some known or unknown source. This can be done, e.g., in the case of Armenian, which borrowed hundreds of words from Iranian, as well as from some non-Indo-European languages such as Urartean. However, we know from areal typology that languages can undergo grammatical transformations as a result of language contact even when there is no large-scale borrowing of lexemes. Such a development usually occurs in situations of widespread bilingualism or multilingualism in contacts between groups of similar social prestige. Because of the possibility that some Indo-European languages were involved in such contacts during the prehistoric period, we cannot be sure whether some features of the grammars of attested languages developed as a result of areal convergence or contactinduced spread. For example, the optative as a morphological (synthetic) category, which is reconstructed for PIE, but is notably absent in Anatolian, appears to be an areal feature of the languages of the Caucasus, where almost all languages (both indigenous and intrusive) have such a grammatical mood, which is otherwise extremely rare in Eurasia (see Haspelmath et al. [eds.] 2005). This should at least warn us that there is a possibility that non-Anatolian branches developed the morphological optative as a result of prehistoric contacts on the northern slopes of the Caucasus. Of course, much additional independent evidence would be needed to make this hypothesis persuasive. Finally, even when we have ample evidence for massive lexical and/ or grammatical borrowing in one branch of Indo-European, this does not mean that there cannot exist genuine archaisms in languages from this branch, even forms that were lost everywhere else. For example, although Macedonian and Bulgarian changed both their grammars and lexicons dramatically under the influence of languages from the Balkan linguistic area, they are still the only Slavic languages that preserve the imperfect and aorist tenses as fully productive verbal categories. It could be argued that the inequality of our sources for Indo-European reconstruction can be overcome if one bases the reconstruction of PIE on the comparison of protolanguages of various branches, rather than on the comparison of individual Indo-European languages. Thus one would not compare a Sanskrit form with the Old Church Slavonic one, but rather the Proto-Indo-Iranian form with the Proto-Slavic, or ProtoBalto-Slavic one. For languages such as Albanian that are the sole representatives of a primary branch of Indo-European languages, we can reconstruct earlier forms by methods of internal reconstruction, and by using the evidence of early loans which underwent the same sound changes as native words (in the case of Albanian, there are hundreds of early Latin loanwords). If reliably reconstructed, Proto-Balto-Slavic and ProtoAlbanian forms can be just as archaic as the attested Sanskrit forms, and we can use them with equal justification in the reconstruction of PIE. However, the same difficulties encountered in the reconstruction of PIE by using forms of the earliest attested languages often hinder the reliable reconstruction of the proto-languages of individual branches. For example, the Celtic languages are attested very unequally with respect to both the dates and the amount of available material. While Celtiberian, Lepontic and Gaulish are attested in the 1st millennium BCE, they have provided us with very limited corpora, while the earliest monuments of the Insular Celtic languages stem from the middle of the 1st millennium CE, but have very large corpora. Therefore, the reconstruction of Proto-Celtic must either rely chiefly on the comparison of forms from two branches of

4. The sources for Indo-European reconstruction

25

Insular Celtic (which may be one of the primary sub-branches of Celtic), or must remain very incomplete. As we have seen, although the general principles stated above do seem to be derived from common sense, it is difficult to apply them mechanically, without taking into account the particular nature of each individual reconstruction. Therefore, one cannot but agree with the following words that Antoine Meillet wrote almost a century ago (Meillet 1970: 17): “Pour chaque langue, le problème de la ‘langue commune’ initiale se pose d’ une manière particulière. Il faut, en chaque cas, tirer parti des situations particulières qui se présentent” [For every language, the problem of the original “protolanguage” is presented in a particular way. In every case, one has to make the best of the particular circumstances at hand].

References Gamkrelidze, Thomas V. and Vjacheslav V. Ivanov 1995 Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans: A reconstruction and historical analysis of a proto-language and a proto-culture, 2 volumes. [Translation by Johanna Nichols of Indoevropejskij jazyk i Indoevropejcy. Rekonstrukcija i istoriko-tipologičeskij analiz prajazyka i protokul’tury, 1984.]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Haspelmath, Martin, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil, and Bernard Comrie (eds.) 2005 The World Atlas of Language Structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mallory, James P. and Douglas Q. Adams 2006 The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mayrhofer, Manfred 1983 Sanskrit und die Sprachen Alteuropas. Zwei Jahrhunderte des Widerspiels von Entdeckungen und Irrtümern. Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, I. Philologisch-historische Klasse, Nr. 5, 124−153. Meillet, Antoine 1970 [1925] La méthode comparative en linguistique historique. Paris: Champion.

Ranko Matasović, Zagreb (Croatia)

26

I. General and methodological issues

5. The writing systems of Indo-European 1. 2. 3. 4.

Introduction Cuneiform Indo-European Linear East Mediterranean Indo-European Abjad background

5. 6. 7. 8.

Greek alphabet and descendants Iranian scripts Indic scripts References

1. Introduction Nearly all the writing systems of Indo-European descend, by direct lineage, adaptation, or imitation, from a West Semitic consonantary (or abjad) that itself was inspired, but not taken directly from, Egyptian hieroglyphic writing. The exceptions are the earliest Indo-European scripts, described in 2, 3, and 6.1. The indigenous Indic scripts (7) and the early and classical Iranian scripts (6.2−3) descend from the Aramaic branch of West Semitic writing, while all the others descend from the Phoenician branch via Greek. No Indo-European language hosted the independent invention of a writing system. That achievement is restricted to languages that are monosyllabically organized (whether isolating or agglutinating), such as (in the Old World) Sumerian and Chinese. The history of Indo-European writing, then, is a history of borrowing and adaptation of scripts. This fact alone demonstrates that script-family lineage is independent of language-family lineage. This chapter is arranged in chronological order of origin and, within each group, of development. More attention is paid to the less-studied scripts. Further information should be sought in (primarily historical) Diringer (1968) and Jensen (1969), and (primarily descriptive) Daniels and Bright (1996). The most satisfactory brief handbooks remain Février (1959) and Friedrich (1966); Gnanadesikan (2009) is a congenial overview of the orientation adopted here.

2. Cuneiform Indo-European Mesopotamian cuneiform − written (left to right) with wedge-shaped impressions of a reed stylus on a smooth clay surface − was devised as a logography (with indications of phoneticism from the beginning) for the unaffiliated Sumerian language toward the end of the 4th millennium BCE. By 2500, prompted by its use for the East Semitic language Akkadian, it had developed into a logosyllabary most of whose characters (known as “signs”) were used phonetically, denoting CV, VC, V, or CVC syllables. The reading of each sign derives acrophonically from the sounds of the words it represents in both Sumerian and Akkadian: the sign giš ‘tree’ in Sumerian is also iṣ from the Akkadian word iṣu ‘tree’. (Moreover, because Akkadian had a richer phonology than Sumerian, a sign can write the voiceless, voiced, or emphatic sounds of the former: is, iz, or iṣ.) Most signs, when used as logograms, could also represent the complete Akkadian word equivalent to the Sumerian morpheme originally represented by the sign. The third use of a small group of signs was as determinatives, which denoted the category to which https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261288-005

5. The writing systems of Indo-European the word they precede or follow belonged − gods, wooden things, etc. There is no graphic distinction among the three possible uses of the signs. In transliterations, different signs denoting the same syllable are distinguished by indices (assigned long ago in approximate order of frequency): ša šá (= ša2) šà (= ša3) ša4 ša5. A comprehensive introduction to cuneiform is Edzard (1980), more basic is Walker (1987). The standard signlist for Akkadian and Sumerian is Borger (2004). The novice will find the presentation in Labat (1948, 1988) easier to follow; it shows the variety of sign shapes across geographic (broadly, Assyrian vs. Babylonian) and chronological (Old, Middle, Late) parameters. The decipherment of cuneiform was accomplished in the late 1840s (Daniels 1994, 2008b).

2.1. Hittite, Luvian, Palaic Anatolian cuneiform languages are written with a subset of the Mesopotamian syllabary. The script (Old Babylonian cursive) probably came to the Hittites in the course of war waged in north Syria by Hattusili I ca. 1600 BCE and continued in use to the fall of the Empire about 1200 BCE. The Hittite signlist (Rüster and Neu 1989) comprises 375 signs (Table 5.1): phonetics include 50 CV (a phonetic reading of Sum. geštin ‘wine’ unique to Hittite, wi5, derives acrophonically from wiyana-), 36 V and VC, and 89 CVC signs; there are 41 determinatives. In addition to some 2000 Sumerograms (composed from the normal sign repertoire), Hittite also employs nearly 200 Akkadograms − Hittite words spelled as if they were Akkadian words − which can be up to five signs long. Orthographic conventions include Akkadogram prepositions before logograms to indicate case: ša dingir might be read šiunaš ‘of the god’ (Watkins 2004: 553); and consistent distinction of single and geminate consonants between vowels (Melchert 2004a: 577). The transliterations ‹š› for /s/ and ‹z› for /ts/ are retained for consistency with other branches of cuneiform study. Brief passages in Luvian were written in cuneiform by Hittite scribes from the 15th c. BCE. The conventions of Hittite orthography are followed, along with consistent notation of vowel length with CVi −Vi or #Vi −ViC (Melchert 2004a: 577). Palaic adds notation for /f/ using a series of wVV signs with a vowel sign subjoined to the sign wa (Melchert 2004b: 586).

27

28

I. General and methodological issues Tab. 5.1: Hittite syllabic charactersa

5. The writing systems of Indo-European

2.2. Mittanni The 81 personal names (O’Callaghan 1948: 56−63), 4 divine names, and 13 lexical items (Mayrhofer 1966: 18−19) attesting to a ruling Indo-Aryan presence in the Mittanni realm, an otherwise Hurrian-speaking milieu in northern Syria in the mid 14th century BCE, are spelled in the ordinary orthography of their time and place. Specific IndoAryan sounds are represented: /c, j/ = ‹z› as in zi-ir-dam-ia-aš-da = Citraṃ-yaṣṭā, biria-wa-zi = Vīrya-vāja; /o/ = ‹au› as in bi-ri-ia-ša-u-ma = Vīrya-soma (Dumont apud O’Callaghan 1948: 149−155). Possibly when the administrative center of Mittanni is discovered, an archive of connected texts in early Indo-Aryan will be found.

3. Linear East Mediterranean Indo-European Several scripts attested around the Aegean Sea are clearly pictographic but do not clearly share an origin; since most are undeciphered, little can be said with certainty about their relationship. We might suggest that awareness of Egyptian hieroglyphic writing was sufficient stimulus for the creation of new local syllabic scripts toward the middle of the 2nd millennium BCE − a phenomenon known from such modern inventions as Cherokee writing (Daniels 1992). Graphic similarities between some signs of Linear B (3.2) and the non-IE Linear A (the labels were assigned by their first excavator and distinguish both their temporal sequence and their difference from local pictographic scripts) have been used to suggest readings of Linear A, but decipherment has not resulted.

3.1. Luvian hieroglyphs From the 16th−13th c. BCE, biscriptal seal impressions are found in Anatolia with a central hieroglyphic device and a (royal) name in cuneiform around the circumference. The seals consist only of names, titles, and conventional signs like ‘good’ and ‘life’, so one cannot properly speak of these as texts in a given language. Thus they do not yet represent a full writing system. In the 13th c., Luvian commemorative inscriptions on stone begin to appear (reflecting a dialect slightly different from Cuneiform Luvian), and with the end of the Hittite empire ca. 1200 and the disuse of cuneiform, these are the only Luvian records for the next 500 years: the hieroglyphs appear never to have been transferred to the clay medium. Luvian writing comprises 50 syllabic signs, V and CV only, and some alternatives. An oblique stroke for /r/ creates a few signs such as ar(a/i)- and tar(a/i)-. There are more than 400 logograms, almost half of which are well enough understood to assign conventional Latin equivalents (Table 5.2; Hawkins 2000: 26−27; for the rest see Laroche 1960 and Hawkins 2000: 25). These conventions are modeled on those used for Linear B (3.2). Hawkins (2003) describes the script and summarizes the decipherment, which occupied several decades in the mid 20th century. Van den Hout (2006: 236) observes that when Luvian words appear within Hittite (cuneiform) texts, they grammatically reflect Hieroglyphic, and not Cuneiform, Luvian.

29

30

I. General and methodological issues Tab. 5.2: Luvian hieroglyphs

5. The writing systems of Indo-European

3.2. Mycenaean Linear B Between about 1550 and 1200 BCE, 87 CV syllabic characters (11 of them not yet identified) and more than 30 logograms (Table 5.3) were used on the Greek mainland and Crete to write nothing but mundane accounting documents. The decipherment of Linear B by Michael Ventris in 1952 was one of the most celebrated intellectual achievements of its time; his subsequent collaborator John Chadwick published many accounts. The most useful overview is Chadwick (1987); Chadwick (1973) presents Ventris’s “Work Notes” in considerable detail and is probably more widely accessible than their long-posthumous publication (Ventris 1988). Tab. 5.3: Linear Ba

31

32

I. General and methodological issues Tab. 5.3: (continued)

3.3. Cypriote syllabary In his decipherment of Linear B, Ventris borrowed some readings of similar-shaped signs in the Cypriote syllabary (deciphered in 1874 by Moriz Schmidt; Daniels 1995: 88), which at the time was pure conjecture, as the syllabary was known to have been used only in the 6th−3rd c. BCE. In 1983, a possible Cypriote inscription that may date some 500 years earlier was published (Palaima 1991: 451), rendering the possibility of continuity more credible. The syllabary comprises 55 CV signs (Table 5.4). Both Miller (1994) and Woodard (1997) discuss the large differences in orthographic practice, especially regarding closed syllables, between Linear B and Cypriote. Tab. 5.4: Cypriote syllabarya

5. The writing systems of Indo-European

4. Abjad background Egyptian hieroglyphs probably became a writing system under the indirect influence of Sumerian cuneiform: Egyptian notates only consonants because the first Egyptian scribes learned that a Sumerian sign stands for a morpheme; in agglutinative Sumerian, morphemes do not change shape, but in internally inflected Egyptian, the vowels can vary and only the consonants are constant − thus what is represented by the phonetic use of a sign is its consonant(s) only (Daniels 2006b). The script, like cuneiform, combines phonograms, logograms, and determinatives. Baines (2004) indicates that the recently discovered “labels” from Abydos seem not to stand in the direct line of development of the writing system sensu stricto; the symbols used could well have provided the graphic input to the phonological adaptation. The view standard since 1916 (Sass 1988), that the (North)west Semitic abjad − which eventuated in the Phoenician and Aramaic varieties − was devised in the mid 2nd millennium BCE for (or by?) West-Semitic-speaking turquoise miners in the Sinai Peninsula, was overturned by the recent discovery of two inscriptions, securely dated a few centuries earlier, at Wadi el-Hol, in Egypt proper, using the same signary to record a text that cannot be read as either Semitic or Egyptian. (The discovery lends credibility to Sass’s earlier hypothesis [1991] that the inspiration for the abjad was the Middle Kingdom orthography of foreign names.) It remains agreed, however, that the letters derive from hieroglyphic shapes, and that the readings they still bear derive acrophonically from the first sound of the Semitic name of the item depicted by the shape (Hamilton 2006). Egyptians wrote only consonants, so Semitic-speakers wrote only consonants, likely never having had the opportunity to attend Egyptian scribal school and learn the daunting details.

4.1. Phoenician A recognizably Phoenician ductus had emerged via the gradual depictorialization of the letters by the turn of the 1st millennium BCE, and within a few centuries the more angular Phoenician (proper) and the more cursive Aramaic scripts (both written right to left) had gone their separate ways (Naveh 1987). During that millennium, Phoenician merchants carried their script from the Levant across the Mediterranean − to Anatolia, North Africa, Sicily, Italy, Iberia − while Aramaic expanded from the language of citystates in northern Syria to become the chancery language of successive empires across the Near East until, at least in some areas, the Arab conquest in the 7th c. CE.

4.2. Aramaic A very significant innovation in Aramaic orthography (Table 5.5) is the use of certain consonant letters to mark, in addition, the presence of a diphthong or a long vowel, including ‹y› for /ī/ and ‹w› for /ū/. In this usage they are called matrēs lectionis ‘mothers of reading’.

33

34

I. General and methodological issues Tab. 5.5: Germanic and Iranian scripts derived directly from Aramaic

5. The writing systems of Indo-European

4.2.1. Square Hebrew The Aramaic script used for Hebrew since ca. the 5th c. BCE, in which vowel indications (“pointing”) have been optionally available since the later 1st millennium CE, has been adapted for writing many “Jewish languages,” i.e., vernaculars of Jewish communities (Paper 1978; Kahn and Rubin 2016), Ladino and Judeo-Persian, for example. Yiddish, however, in contemporary orthography has turned the Hebrew abjad (with matrēs and optional vowel pointing) into a true alphabet with a letter for each consonant and vowel. Some of the vowel letters have the appearance of a consonant letter plus a vowel point, but these are inseparable combinations and the vowel points cannot be associated indiscriminately with other consonants. (Yiddish is not to be confused with the late 18th century Jewish Enlightenment phenomenon Judeo-German, i.e., Standard High German written with Hebrew characters.)

4.2.2. Syriac As the Middle Persian scripts went their own idiosyncratic way (6.2), by the 3rd c. CE Manichaean and Christian missionaries and the communities they served began to write Iranian languages in the Estrangelo (adding ‹ǰ›) and Nestorian (for Sogdian only; adding ‹ž›) varieties of Syriac script respectively.

4.2.3. Arabic With the advent of Islam in the 7th c. CE, the Persian language came to be written with the Arabic script, another descendant of the Aramaic branch. Its 28 consonant letters were supplemented with ‹č g p v› for sounds not found in Arabic; this set the pattern for other languages of the Islamic world, including Kurdish, Pashto, Kashmiri, Sindhi, and Urdu (Table 5.6). Long vowels are written with obligatory matrēs lectionis, with the rarely exercised option of indicating a short vowel with a diacritic-like mark above or below the consonant it follows. Kurdish and Kashmiri, however, have developed systems for obligatorily including all vowels as full letters in the line of writing.

35

Tab. 5.6: Indo-Iranian scripts derived directly from Arabica

36 I. General and methodological issues

5. The writing systems of Indo-European

37

38

I. General and methodological issues A striking adaptation of Arabic script is the Dhivehi alphabet (Table 5.7), in which the first 9 letters are taken from numerals; the next 9 from an earlier set of numerals; the next 6 (used mainly in loanwords) from other letters or from Persian; and the last 14 directly from Arabic (used only in Arabic loanwords). The vowel symbols are as in Persian but are obligatory. Tab. 5.7: Dhivehi writinga

5. Greek alphabet and descendants At a place that cannot be pinned down with any degree of confidence, at a date that can be quite securely set around 800 BCE (Sass 2005), the Phoenician abjad gave rise to the Greek alphabet (an alphabet is a script that notates both consonants and vowels with coequal letters). This did not happen because IE languages “need” to write vowels more than Semitic languages do (see 4.2, 6.2), nor on account of some “Greek” (or “Aryan”!) “genius.” Rather, like the Egyptian from the Sumerian, and the Semitic from the Egyptian, it happened because the first Greek scribe did not fully understand the script being imitated. The first Greek writers, who got an explanation from a Phoenician scribe, did not understand what the Phoenician was saying. They got the concept that each letter represented the first sound of its name − bayt dalt gaml etc. − they just did not get the first sounds of some of the names − ˀalp yod ˁayn etc. − because these sounds were not phonemic in the Greek language. They thus thought that ˀalp yod ˁayn etc. represented /a/ /i/ /o/ etc. This would not have happened if the source of the Greek alphabet had been an Aramaic forebear, since the matrēs lectionis would have been available for indicating the vowels (Daniels 2007: 61). Phoenician ‹W› split into ‹Ƒ› /w/ and ‹Υ› /u/. Letters for two long vowels were soon added, ‹Η› /ē/ borrowed from ḥēt for a dialect that did not have /h/, and ‹Ω› /ō/ a graphic variant of ‹Ο› /o/.

5. The writing systems of Indo-European The Greek alphabet quickly spread around the Greek-speaking world, with local adaptations reflecting local needs (Jeffery 1990). The epichoric (local) alphabets (Table 5.8) have been classified since Kirchhoff (1887) according to the colors he used on his map. Green alphabets have no additional letters beyond the last Phoenician letter, ‹t›. Red alphabets have ‹Φ› [ph] ‹Ψ› [kh] ‹Χ› [ks]. Dark blue alphabets have ‹Ξ› [ks] ‹Ψ› [ps], where light blue alphabets have ‹ΧΣ› ‹ΦΣ› respectively (Voutiras 2007). In 403/402 a decree was issued standardizing the alphabet on Athenian usage (without /h/ or /w/), a dark blue alphabet (Bodson 1991). Today’s minuscule forms developed in Byzantine times; accents and breathings appear sporadically as early as the 2nd c. BCE but their use did not become rigorous until ca. 800 CE. The Iranian language Bactrian was written with a Greek alphabet augmented by one extra letter, for a sibilant, with the shape of ‹ϸ›, transliterated thus or with š, between about the 4th and 8th centuries CE, in the Kushan kingdom of northern Afghanistan and the Silk Road (Sims-Williams 2000−2012).

39

40

I. General and methodological issues Tab. 5.8: Epichoric Greek alphabetsa

5. The writing systems of Indo-European

5.1. Italic alphabets The alphabets of the Italic languages (Radke 1967) cannot be considered in isolation from their Etruscan background (Rix 2004). A red alphabet was adopted from a Greek community at Cumae near Naples early in the 8th c. BCE. The sounds /b d g o/ do not occur in Etruscan, and the velar letters ‹C K Q› appear in complementary distribution for /k/ before front, central, and back vowels respectively. These features and innerEtruscan historical developments permitted Lejeune (1957) to date the transmissions of the alphabet to the Italic languages (Table 5.9). The strictures of Cristofani (1979), that the secure datings of many newly excavated Etruscan sites need to be taken into account in historical studies, have apparently not been taken up. Lejeune ticks off the earliest attestations of the Italic epichoric scripts as follows: 7th c. BCE, Faliscan and Latin (but this was before the Praenestine fibula was shown to be a forgery: the earliest Latin inscription is in fact from the late 6th c. − but see Poccetti, this handbook, for the view that the Praenestine fibula is a genuine early Latin inscription); 5th c., Venetic and, Tab. 5.9: Italic alphabetsa

41

42

I. General and methodological issues probably, Umbrian (not attested until the 2nd c.); 4th c., Oscan and probably Lepontic (subsequently used for its fellow Celtic language Cisalpine Gaulish). Knowledge of the Greek alphabet is evidenced by these facts: Faliscan, Latin, Venetic, and Lepontic resuscitated ‹O› for /o/; Latin, Oscan, and Umbrian revived ‹B› and ‹D›, Umbrian using the latter for some lenited sound; and Oscan used ‹C› for /g/. Venetic found different sources for the voiced-stop letters: ‹Ζ Φ Ψ› (in their “red” values) represent /d b g/. (The Messapic alphabet was adapted directly from the Greek.) A peculiarity shared by (southern varieties of) Etruscan and Venetic (far to the north) is “syllabic punctuation” (Rix 1968). The explication − albeit not the explanation − was discovered by Vetter (1936): the unmarked syllable is CV, and segments that cause a departure from the norm, namely initial vowels and final consonants, are marked with a dot on either side (or variants thereof). An explanation was proposed independently by Wachter (1986) and Prosdocimi (1983): writing these languages was taught using CV syllables. As scribes sounded out the text to be recorded, they marked off each segment that violated the canonical syllable structure.

5.2. Latin alphabet The Latin language thrived, and with it its alphabet, which replaced the local alphabet of any languages that managed to survive. It has undergone a number of changes. Etruscan ‹F› was /w/, and /f/ was ‹FH›, a spelling carried over to Venetic and perhaps Latin, where /f/ was simplified to ‹F›. Latin /g/ and /k/ were both ‹C› until the 3rd c. BCE when ‹G› was introduced for /g/ (and took the sequential position of ‹Z›, for which Latin had no use); ‹K› appeared only in a few archaisms (Heimpl 1899). ‹Y Z› (re)entered the Latin alphabet in the 1st c. BCE when it became necessary to write borrowed Greek words accurately. The past two millennia have brought such innovations to what is then better called the roman alphabet as ‹W› (for Germanic languages), the differentiation of ‹I J› and ‹U V› (which had been positional variants), and the use of digraphs (beginning with Latin spellings of ‹Θ Φ Χ› as ‹TH PH CH›) and diacritics (introduced by Jan Hus in 1412[?]; Schröpfer 1968). The minuscules resulted from attempts to balance speed of writing, conservation of precious writing materials, and legibility; they achieved their present form in Charlemagne’s court under Alcuin of York ca. 800. Local variants arose throughout Europe, of which (besides italic, used as an auxiliary to “roman”), only the barely survives, as do a few distinctive forms of letters in Irish. German

5.2.1. Runes Perhaps as early as the 1st c. CE, Germanic languages began to be written with runes (Elliott 1989), angular (for carving into wood) adaptations of some Mediterranean script − arguments against each possible origin, Greek, Etruscan, or Latin, are easy to make, and conclusive arguments for any of them are not − initially numbering 24, shrunk to 16 in the 8th-century Danish form, and expanded to 28 and then 31 for Anglo-Saxon (Table 5.10). The set of runes is acrophonically called the futhark.

5. The writing systems of Indo-European Tab. 5.10: Runesa

5.2.2. Ogham The Latin alphabet became a sort of code (groups of one to five strokes abutting or crossing a central line, usually the edge of a shaped stone monument; Table 5.11) for recording brief commemorative inscriptions, in Ireland and Britain, in Irish and Pictish (McManus 1991).

Tab. 5.11: Ogham

5.3. Anatolian alphabets Several alphabets appeared in Anatolia during the 1st millennium BCE (Table 5.12). The decipherment of Carian (5.3.3) in the 1990s rendered the few overviews of them to some extent obsolete (Ševoroškin 1968; Pugliese-Carratelli 1978; Masson 1991). Characteristics of the Anatolian alphabets are the adoption of several Greek letters for sound and meaning, changes of shape for similar sounds, and the reuse of letters with unneeded Greek values for sounds not found in Greek (Heubeck 1978).

43

44

I. General and methodological issues Tab. 5.12: Anatolian alphabets

5. The writing systems of Indo-European

5.3.1. Phrygian The earliness of attestation of the Phrygian alphabet − 750 BCE or before − has led to some speculation that Phrygian came first and the Greek alphabet derived from it, but the absence of Phrygian letters for aspirated stops, which Greek has directly from Phoenician from the beginning, renders this unlikely. This alphabet was used down to the time of Alexander. (Phrygian reappears around the turn of the era using the Greek alphabet.)

5.3.2. Lydian The Lydian alphabet (attested from the late 8th/early 7th−3rd c. BCE) includes 16 directly Greek letters, 5 reuses, and 5 inventions. It shows considerable similarity to its Phrygian neighbor.

5.3.3. Carian Carian inscriptions were long known from Egypt in the 7th−5th c. BCE as well as from Caria proper in the 4th−3rd, but they long resisted interpretation because it was assumed that Greek-looking letters should have their Greek sounds. (There is not yet a proposal for the prehistory of this alphabet.) It was John Ray who first studied Carian−Egyptian bilinguals, and finally Diether Schürr and I.-J. Adiego who completed the task in the early 1990s (Adiego 2007: 166−204). Adiego identifies no less than 7 local variants involving both inventory and shape.

5.3.4. Lycian Though attested only from the early 6th c. BCE until 323/322, the Lycian alphabet was probably adapted quite early from the red Greek, and some of its letters changed shape over the years along with the Greek. 14 letters agree with Greek, 7 represent reuses, and 5 are new shapes. The presence of “nasalized letters” ‹ã ẽ m ˜ ñ› has generated much discussion, and two letters have not been satisfactorily interpreted.

5.3.5. Sidetic The scantily attested − just 10 brief inscriptions from the 4th−3rd c. BCE − Sidetic alphabet seems to derive from the Aramaic abjad of the Achaemenids, rather than the Greek alphabet like its neighbors to the west: 7 letters closely correspond in sound and shape, 8 letters more distantly, 7 are assigned new values, and 3 come from Greek (Pérez Orozco 2005). (Equally scarce Pisidian is written with a Greek alphabet.)

45

46

I. General and methodological issues

5.4. Celtiberian Between the mid 6th c. BCE and the early 1st c. CE, a small group of related scripts was in use in Iberia (Anderson 1988; Untermann 2001). Nearly two centuries of study culminated in the definitive decipherment by Manuel Gómez Moreno (Caro Baroja 1954), who made the surprising discovery that the script (Table 5.13) incorporates both syllabic characters (for the 3 stops 0̸ or plus each of the 5 vowels) and segmental characters (for the 7 continuants). The question has been whether Phoenician (de Hoz 1991) or Greek (Untermann 1997) writing underlies the scripts. New evidence came with the 1987 discovery of an “abecedary” of the Southwest Iberian (Tartessian) variety in which the first 14 characters are those that correspond in shape, sound, and order to Greek letters, alpha to upsilon (Adiego 1993). The Northeast Iberian variety was used for Ibero-Celtic (Celtiberian) alongside, but to a greater extent than, the Latin alphabet from the 2nd c. BCE to the time of Augustus. Correa (1996) very tentatively suggests that the language of the Tartessian inscriptions (where ‹CVi› is always followed by ‹Vi›) may also be Celtic. The study of Celtiberian is placed in the context of Continental Celtic studies by Eichner (1989: 24−55). Tab. 5.13: Iberian scripta

5. The writing systems of Indo-European

5.5. Alphabets of the Christian Orient Whereas the Western or Roman church promoted only its liturgical and literary language, Latin, resulting in the spread of the roman alphabet (5.2) wherever it brought literacy, the Eastern church, based in Greek, encouraged worship in vernacular languages and translation of Scripture and other documents into such languages. National feeling encouraged the desire for distinctive alphabets, and such were devised for languages that were not already written (Table 5.14). Tab. 5.14: Alphabets of the Christian Orienta

47

48

I. General and methodological issues Tab. 5.14: (continued)

5.5.1. Gothic The Gothic alphabet was devised by Bishop Wulfila († 383) in connection with the evangelization of the East Germanic-speakers around present-day Moldova. It alters the Greek alphabet with five lettershapes from Latin and two from runes (Gamkrelidze 1994: 31−33).

5.5.2. Armenian According to legend (Orengo 2005 cites and translates the sources), the Armenian alphabet was devised by St. Mesrop Maštocʻ in 406−407 CE. Its dependence on the Greek alphabet is clear from the order of letters; the shapes of the letters are probably arbitrary inventions (Mouraviev 1980) − suggestions that letter shapes are taken from a wide variety of existing scripts (e.g. Russell 1994) are unpersuasive. Legend also credits Mesrop, rather implausibly, with the creation of the Georgian alphabet, which was used for Ossetic in the mid 20th c. CE.

5. The writing systems of Indo-European

5.5.3. Glagolitic Two scripts emerged for writing Old Church Slavonic (Old Bulgarian) in the later 9th c. (Cubberley 1993). Legend ascribes them both to a pair of Byzantine missionaries, Constantine (later Cyril) and Methodius. Glagolitic emerged first, based on Greek cursive with many additional letters. Its original rounded form lasted 300−400 years, while a squared form continued in use in Croatia, particularly in the church, until the 19th c.

5.5.4. Cyrillic A more elaborate form of the alphabet still used for Russian, as well as for Belarusian, Bulgarian, Moldovan, Ossetic, Serbian, Tajik, and Ukrainian, called Cyrillic after the saint, was based in the late 9th c. on formal Greek uncials plus some letters taken from Glagolitic. Reforms of Russian orthography took place under Peter I in 1708−1710 and at the start of the Soviet Union in 1918. Of the variety of techniques for expanding an alphabet (Daniels 2006a), Cyrillic favors modification of shape (rather than digraphs or diacritics as preferred in roman alphabets). Choice between roman and Cyrillic has followed both religion and politics.

6. Iranian scripts As long ago as 1901, the editors of the Grundriss der Iranischen Philologie lamented that they would not be able to include the planned chapter on “Schriftkunde,” and to this day there has not been a comprehensive treatment. Reference must be understood throughout to Henning (1958), to numerous authors in Schmitt (1989) and Windfuhr (2009), and to Skjærvø (2006: 366−370).

6.1. Old Persian Old Persian cuneiform is not a selection or derivation from Mesopotamian cuneiform, except in that the strokes, carved into stone or brick, that compose the characters imitate its wedges impressed in clay. The script was used for no purpose other than the Persian versions of trilingual royal inscriptions of the Achaemenid empire − given pride of place among the three scripts and languages − though the principal language of the empire was Elamite. The script was probably devised during the construction of the awesome relief and inscription of Darius I at Bisotun (520 BCE), the Elamite version having been the first to be inscribed. Inscriptions in the name of earlier monarchs are most likely fraudes piae composed in later years. Beside 6 inconsistently used logograms, the Old Persian script has 36 characters (Table 5.15): 3 for the vowels a i u, 13 for consonants followed by any or no vowel, 6 for consonants followed by a or no vowel, 3 for consonants followed by a, i, or no vowel, 4 followed by i, and 7 followed by u. Vowel quality, even when indicated in the

49

50

I. General and methodological issues consonant letter, and vowel length (except for ā) are almost always marked with vowel characters. Such orthography is reminiscent of, but certainly not identical to, the use of matrēs lectionis in Aramaic writing, with which Achaemenid scribes were intimately familiar. The fullest exposition of Old Persian orthography remains Kent (1953: 9−24; cf. also Hoffmann 1976: 620−45). Since then there has been much speculation on the origins of the script, with no resolution in sight. Tab. 5.15: Old Persian scripta

6.2. Middle Persian scripts Aramaic paralleled and then succeeded Elamite as the chancery language of the Iranian empires (Achaemenid, 549−330 BCE; Seleucid, 330−ca. 210; Arsacid or Parthian, ca. 210 BCE−224 CE; Sasanian, 224−Arab Conquest). In early Parthian times, Aramaic was giving way to Iranian as the chancery language, while the scribes continued to use Aramaic script − and Aramaic spellings, reminiscent of Akkadograms in Hittite:

5. The writing systems of Indo-European At first sight, such writings with “ideograms” [Aramaeograms, “heterograms”] appear to be an unnecessary obstacle to scribal practice; would it not be simpler to spell all the words of their own language alike? In fact that was not the case. The retention of a large portion of the hitherto used Aramaic vocabulary was in reality a simplification of the transition, which thanks to the ideogram system could be carried out thoroughly and without a radical break with the past. (Henning 1958: 31; trans. PTD)

The three Middle Persian scripts (Parthian, 1st c. BCE−3rd c. CE; Pahlavi, 3rd−7th c.; Sogdian, 5th−9th c., far to the east) differ between and within themselves calligraphically (Table 5.5) but exhibit striking uniformity orthographically. All use 4 of the 22 Aramaic letters, ‹h ṭ ˁ q›, only in Aramaeograms and use ‹ṣ› for /č/. In each, the shapes of several letters merged. All have expanded the use of matrēs lectionis to cover short vowels. All employ much historical spelling. The nature of Aramaeogrammatic writing was clarified once and for all by Ernst Herzfeld, “neither an Aramaist nor a trained philologist at all” (1924: 52), on the basis of the large corpus of Pahlavi coins, inscriptions, and texts: lexical bases are written with Imperial Aramaic orthography provided with phonetic/morphological complements marking the Iranian affixes. Pahlavi orthography and calligraphy are set forth by Nyberg (1964, 1: 129−136).

6.3. Avestan The sacred texts of Zoroastrianism were transmitted orally for centuries. Eventually, as the language became more and more archaic and there was danger that the texts would be lost, a 51-letter alphabet was devised (Table 5.16), taking some shapes from Book Pahlavi, some from the Psalter script, and at least one from the Greek alphabet. The Avestan alphabet is nearly unique in, apparently, notating subphonemic features of the language. The oldest manuscripts date from the 13th c., but the shapes of the letters compared with Pahlavi epigraphy point to a 5th-c. date, the so-called “Sasanian archetype” of the Avestan text (Hoffmann and Narten 1989). Tab. 5.16: Avestan alphabeta

51

Tab. 5.17: Indic scripts of Indo-Aryan languages

52 I. General and methodological issues

5. The writing systems of Indo-European

53

54

I. General and methodological issues

7. Indic scripts Two indigenous scripts of India (Salomon 1998, 2007) reflect the prior existence of the renowned linguistic tradition associated with the name of Pāṇini. Unlike their Aramaic model, they provide fully for the notation of vowels, and the contrasting treatment of consonants and vowels reflects that linguistic sophistication. Each consonant (or initial vowel) of an utterance receives its own letter (Table 5.17); with one exception, each vowel is notated with a mark (a mātrā) added to the consonant it follows. The exception is the unmarked phoneme /a/: a consonant letter ‹C› without a mātrā is pronounced /Ca/. Consonant clusters are notated by merging the symbols for the successive consonants into conjuncts, in different ways for the different scripts (Daniels 2008b: 298 f.). A letter or conjunct together with its mātrā (if any) is called an akṣara.

7.1. Kharos thi Kharoṣṭhi is attested from the time of Aśoka, in the mid 3rd c. BCE, but it was probably devised some two centuries earlier, when the Achaemenid empire brought Aramaic script to the far northwest of South Asia (present-day eastern Afghanistan and northern Pakistan). It was first used to write Gāndhārī Prakrit, continuing in use in Gāndhāra until the 3rd c. CE and to the northeast (along the Silk Road) for some time after that. The consonant shapes generally relate clearly to Aramaic forebears; the vowels e i o u are marked with short strokes attached to the consonant letters. Consonant clusters are rare in Prakrits, so conjuncts are correspondingly rare. With the recent discovery of a variety of manuscripts in Kharoṣṭhi, it has become possible to assemble a paleographic sequence (Glass 2000).

7.2. Brahmi Brahmi appears to date no earlier than the reign of Aśoka, in the mid 3rd c. BCE, when it was used to post decrees in Prakrit throughout his empire. To the vowel indications of Kharoṣṭhi it adds the refinement of marking vowel length; the standard complement of mātrās (as reflected in its descendants) is ‹ā i ī u ū r̥ e ai o au›. The severe geometric shapes of the letters in the earliest exemplars make it difficult to derive it from any particular Aramaic forebear; the left-to-right direction of writing suggests that it might have been a complete rethinking of Kharoṣṭhi itself. Dani (1986) carries the evolution of Brahmi in its geographic variants down to the 8th c. CE, and Filliozat (1953) discusses further developments. Brahmi was used throughout South Asia and exhibited regional individuality almost from the beginning. Grierson (1903−1928) is peppered with facsimiles of ms. pages from throughout British India at the turn of the 20th c. Turning to the north, two main scripts developed from Brahmi, both in use by the 5th or 6th c. CE (Sander 1968, 1986; Novotny 1967: 534). North Turkestan Brahmi (formerly “Slanting Gupta”) was used for (Iranian) Tumshuqese and occasionally Sogdian, with additional akṣaras for consonants not found in Prakrits, and for Tocharian (Table 5.18), with an additional vowel ‹ä› (probably /ə/). South Turkestan Brahmi (formerly “Upright

5. The writing systems of Indo-European Gupta”) was used for (Iranian) Khotanese, again with the addition of ‹ä› and some diacritics, but with ligatures rather than new akṣaras to represent new sounds.

Tab. 5.18: Tocharian script

7.2.1. North Indic scripts The most important modern representative of the North Indic branch of scripts descended from Brahmi is the Nāgarī ‘city script’, used for Hindi, Marathi, and Nepali (the latter

55

56

I. General and methodological issues two adopting distinctive orthographic practices to reinforce their autonomy); it is also the script now most often used for Sanskrit (Devanāgarī ‘script of the city of the gods’), though Sanskrit can be written with any Indic script according to local convenience. The other standard modern Northern scripts are those of Panjabi, Gujarati, Bengali and Assamese, and Oriya. Bühler (1904: 64) observes that a diagnostic characteristic of all the North Indic scripts is the knob at the lower left corner of ma.

7.2.2. South Indic scripts The only Indo-European language written with a South Indic script is Sinhala, which has added a series of akṣaras for prenasalized consonants and for long /ē ō/. Bühler (1904: 80) observes that a diagnostic characteristic of all the South Indic scripts is mātrā ‹r̥› with a curled curve on the left. They were mainly written with a stylus on palm leaf, making straight lines difficult, but the curvaceous form is not definitive, as Oriya, a close kin to Bengali, is highly curved for the same reason. South Indic also provided the four Dravidian scripts and the vast proliferation of writing systems throughout Southeast Asia (Holle 1999).

8. References Adiego, Ignacio-Javier 1993 Algunas reflexiones sobre el alfabeto de Espanca y las primitivas escrituras hispanas. In: I.-J. Adiego, Jaime Siles and Javier Velaza (eds.), Studia paleohispanica et indogermanica J. Untermann ab amicis hispanicis oblata. (Aurea Saecula 10). Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona, 11−22. Adiego, Ignacio-Javier 2007 The Carian Language. With an appendix by Koray Konuk. (Handbuch der Orientalistik 1: The Near and Middle East, Vol. 86). Leiden: Brill. Anderson, James M. 1988 Ancient Languages of the Hispanic Peninsula. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Baines, John 2004 The Earliest Egyptian Writing: Development, Context, Purpose. In: Stephen Houston (ed.), The First Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 150−189. Baurain, Claude, Corinne Bonnet, and Véronique Krings (eds.) 1991 Phoinikeia Grammata [Phoenician Letters]. Liège: Société des Études Classiques, Namur. Bodson, Liliane 1991 Aspects techniques et implications culturelles des adaptations de l’alphabet attique préliminaires à la réforme de 403/2. In: Baurain, Bonnet, and Krings (eds.), 591−611. Borger, Rykle 2004 Mesopotamische Zeichenliste. (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 305). Münster: UgaritVerlag. Bühler, Georg 1904 Indian Paleography. New Delhi: Oriental Books Reprint Corp.

5. The writing systems of Indo-European Caro Baroja, Julio 1954 Historia del desciframiento de las escrituras hispánicas prerromanas. In: Ramón Menéndez Pidal (ed.), Historia de España, pt. 1: España prerromana, vol. 3: Etnología de los pueblos de Hispania. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe, 681−702. Chadwick, John 1973 Linear B. In: Thomas A. Sebeok (ed.), Current Trends in Linguistics, vol. 11: Diachronic, Areal, and Typological Linguistics. The Hague: Mouton, 537−568. Chadwick, John 1987 Linear B and Related Scripts. Reading the Past. London: British Museum. Correa, José Antonio 1996 La epigrafía del Sudoeste: Estado de la cuestión. In: Francisco Villar and José d’Encarnação (eds.), La Hispania prerromana: Actas del VI Coloquio sobre Lenguas y Culturas Prerromanas de la Peninsula Ibérica. Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad, 65−75. Cristofani, Mauro 1979 Recent Advances in Etruscan Epigraphy and Language. In: David Ridgway and Francesca R. Ridgway (eds.), Italy before the Romans. London: Academic Press, 373−412. Cubberley, Paul 1993 Alphabets and Transliteration. In: Bernard Comrie and Greville G. Corbett (eds.), The Slavonic Languages. London: Routledge, 20−59. Dani, Ahmad Hasan 1986 Indian Palaeography. 2nd edn. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal. Daniels, Peter T. 1992 The Syllabic Origin of Writing and the Segmental Origin of the Alphabet. In: Pamela Downing, Susan D. Lima, and Michael Noonan (eds.), The Linguistics of Literacy. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 83−110. Daniels, Peter T. 1994 Edward Hincks’s Decipherment of Mesopotamian Cuneiform. In: Kevin J. Cathcart (ed.), The Edward Hincks Bicentenary Lectures. Dublin: University College Dublin, Department of Near Eastern Studies, 30−57. Daniels, Peter T. 1995 The Decipherment of Ancient Near Eastern Scripts. In: Jack M. Sasson (ed.), Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, 1. New York: Scribner’s, 81−93. Daniels, Peter T. 2006a On Beyond Alphabets. Written Language and Literacy 9: 7−24. Daniels, Peter T. 2006b Three Models of Script Transfer. Word 57: 371−378. Daniels, Peter T. 2007 Littera ex occidente: Toward a Functional History of Writing. In: Cynthia L. Miller (ed.), Studies in Semitic and Afroasiatic Linguistics Presented to Gene B. Gragg. (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 60). Chicago: Oriental Institute, 53−68. Daniels, Peter T. 2008a Rawlinson, Henry. ii. Contributions to Assyriology and Iranian Studies. Encyclopedia Iranica, to appear. http://www.iranicaonline.org/sarticles/rawlinson-ii. Daniels, Peter T. 2008b Writing Systems of Major and Minor Languages. In: Braj B. Kachru, Yamuna Kachru, and S. N. Sridhar (eds.), Language in South Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 285−308. Daniels, Peter T. and William Bright (eds.) 1996 The World’s Writing Systems. New York: Oxford University Press. Diringer, David 1968 The Alphabet. 3rd edn. 2 vols. New York: Funk & Wagnalls.

57

58

I. General and methodological issues Edzard, Dietz Otto 1980 Keilschrift. In: Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie 5. Berlin: De Gruyter, 544−568. Eichner, Heiner 1989 Damals und heute: Probleme der Erschließung des Altkeltischen zu Zeußens Zeit und in der Gegenwart. In: Bernhard Forssman (ed.), Erlanger Gedenkfeier für Johann Kaspar Zeuß. Erlangen: Universitätsbund Erlangen-Nürnberg, Auslieferung, Universitätsbibliothek Erlangen, 9−56. Elliott, Ralph W. V. 1989 Runes: An Introduction. 2nd edn. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Février, James G. 1959 Histoire de l’écriture. 2nd edn. Paris: Payot. Filliozat, Jean 1953 Paléographie. In: Louis Renou and Jean Filliozat, L’Inde classique: Manuel des études indiennes. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 665−712. Friedrich, Johannes 1966 Geschichte der Schrift. Heidelberg: Winter. Gamkrelidze, Thomas V. 1994 Alphabetic Writing and the Old Georgian Script: A Typology and Provenience of Alphabetic Writing Systems. Delmar, NY: Caravan Books. Glass, Andrew 2000 A Preliminary Study of Kharoṣṭhi Manuscript Paleography. M. A. Thesis, Dept. of Asian Languages and Literature, Univ. of Washington. Gnanadesikan, Amalia E. 2009 The Writing Revolution: Cuneiform to the Internet. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Gnanadesikan, Amalia E. 2012 Maldivian Thaana, Japanese Kana, and the Representation of Moras in Writing. Writing Systems Research 4: 91−102. Grierson, George A. (ed.) 1903−1928 Linguistic Survey of India. 11 vols. in 19 parts. Delhi: Govt. of India. Hamilton, Gordon J. 2006 The Origins of the West Semitic Alphabet in Egyptian Scripts. (Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 40). Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association. Hawkins, John David 2000 Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions. Volume I: Inscriptions of the Iron Age. (3 parts). (Studies in Indo-European Language and Culture 8.1). Berlin: De Gruyter. Hawkins, John David 2003 Scripts and Texts. In: H. Craig Melchert (ed.), The Luwians. (Handbuch der Orientalistik 1: The Near and Middle East, Vol. 68). Leiden: Brill, 128−169. Heimpl, George 1899 The Origin of the Latin Letters G and Z. Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 30: 24−41. Henning, Walter B. 1958 Mitteliranisch. In Bertold Spuler (ed.), Iranistik: Linguistik (Handbuch der Orientalistik 1: The Near and Middle East, Vol. 4/1), Leiden: Brill, 20−130. Herzfeld, Ernst 1924 Essay on Pahlavi. In: Paikuli: Monument and Inscription of the Early History of the Sasanian Empire. Berlin: Reimer, 52−73. Heubeck, Alfred 1978 Zur Entstehung der Lydischen Schrift. Kadmos 17: 55−66.

5. The writing systems of Indo-European Hoffmann, Karl 1976 Zur altpersischen Schrift. In: Johanna Narten (ed.), Karl Hoffmann. Aufsätze zur Indoiranistik. vol. 2. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 620−645. Hoffmann, Karl and Johanna Narten 1989 Der Sasanidische Archetypus. Untersuchungen zu Schreibung und Lautgestalt des Avestischen. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Holle, Karel Frederik 1999 Table of Old and New Indic Alphabets: Contribution to the Paleography of the Dutch Indies. Trans. Carol Molony, and Henk Pechler. Written Language and Literacy 2: 167− 246. [Dutch original, 1877−1883]. van den Hout, Theo 2006 Institutions, Vernaculars, Publics: The Case of Second-Millennium Anatolia. In: Seth L. Sanders (ed.), Margins of Writing, Origins of Cultures. (Oriental Institute Seminars 2). Chicago: Oriental Institute, 217−256. de Hoz, Javier 1991 The Phoenician Origin of the Early Hispanic Scripts. In: Baurain, Bonnet, and Krings. (eds.), 669−682. Jeffery, Lillian H. 1990 The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece. Revised edn. Supplement by A. W. Johnston. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jensen, Hans 1969 Sign, Symbol and Script. 3rd edn. New York: Putnam. Kahn, Lily and Aaron D. Rubin (eds.) 2016 Handbook of Jewish Languages. (Brill's Handbooks in Linguistics 2). Leiden: Brill. Kent, Roland G. 1953 Old Persian Grammar, Texts, Lexicon. (American Oriental Series 33). New Haven: American Oriental Society. Kirchhoff, Adolph 1887 Studien zur Geschichte des griechischen Alphabets. 4th edn. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann. Labat, René 1948 Manuel d’épigraphie akkadienne. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale. [6th edn. by Florence Malbran-Labat, 1988. Paris: Geuthner.] Laroche, Emmanuel 1960 Les hiéroglyphes hittites, pt. 1: L’écriture. Paris: Éditions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique. Lejeune, Michel 1957 Sur les adaptations de l’alphabet étrusque aux langues indo-européennes d’Italie. Revue des études latines 35: 88−105. Masson, Olivier 1991 Anatolian Languages. In: John Boardman, I. E. S. Edwards, N. G. L. Hammond, and Edmond Sollberger (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 3/1, The Prehistory of the Balkans; The Middle East and the Aegean World, Tenth to Eighth Centuries B.C. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 666−676, 855−860. Mayrhofer, Manfred 1966 Die Indo-Arier im alten Vorderasien. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. McManus, Damian 1991 A Guide to Ogham. Maynooth: An Sagart. Melchert, H. Craig 2004a Luvian. In: Woodard (ed.), 576−584. Melchert, H. Craig 2004b Palaic. In: Woodard (ed.), 585−590. Miller, D. Gary 1994 Ancient Scripts and Phonological Knowledge. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

59

60

I. General and methodological issues Mouraviev, Serge 1980 Les caractères mesropiens. Revue des études arméniennes 14: 87−111. Naveh, Joseph 1987 Early History of the Alphabet. 2nd edn. Jerusalem: Magnes. Novotny, Fausta 1967 Schriftsysteme in Indien. Studium Generale 20: 527−547. Nyberg, Henrik Samuel 1964 A Manual of Pahlavi, vol. 1: Texts. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. O’Callaghan, Roger T. 1948 Aram Naharaim. (Analecta Orientalia 26). Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Orengo, Alessandro 2005 Society and Politics in 4th and 5th-century Armenia: The Invention of the Armenian Alphabet. In: Ann Katherine Isaacs (ed.), Language and Identities in Historical Perspective. Pisa: University of Pisa − Edizione Plus, 25−40. Palaima, Thomas G. 1991 The Advent of the Greek Alphabet on Cyprus: A Competition of Scripts. In: Baurain, Bonnet, and Krings (eds.), 449−471. Paper, Herbert H. (ed.) 1978 Jewish Languages, Theme and Variations. Cambridge, MA: Association for Jewish Studies. Pérez Orozco, Santiago 2005 Sobre el origen del alfabeto epicórico de Side. Kadmos 46: 78−80. Prosdocimi, Aldo Luigi 1983 Puntuazione sillabica e insegnamento della scrittura nel venetico e nelle fonti etrusche. Aiōn (ling.) 5: 75−126. Pugliese-Carratelli, Giovanni (ed.) 1978 Seminario sulle scritture dell’Anatolia antica. Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa, Cl. Lettere e Filosofia 3.8: 729−915. Radke, Gerhard 1967 Die italischen Alphabete. Studium Generale 20: 401−431. Rix, Helmut 1968 Zur etruskischen Silbenpunktierung. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 23: 85−104. Rix, Helmut 2004 Etruscan. In: Woodard (ed.), 943−966. Russell, James R. 1994 On the Origins and Invention of the Armenian Script. Le Museon 107: 317−333. Rüster, Christel and Erich Neu 1989 Hethitisches Zeichenlexikon. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Salomon, Richard 1998 Indian Epigraphy. A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages. New York: Oxford University Press. Salomon, Richard 2007 Writing Systems of the Indo-Aryan Languages. In: George Cardona and Dhanesh Jani (eds.), The Indo-Aryan Languages. corrected edn. London: Routledge, xi, 67−103. Sander, Lore 1968 Paläographisches zu den Sanskrit-handschriften der Berliner Turfansammlung. Stuttgart: Steiner. Sander, Lore 1986 Brahmi Scripts on the Eastern Silk Roads. Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik 11/12: 159−192. Sass, Benjamin 1988 The Genesis of the Alphabet and Its Development in the Second Millennium B.C. (Ägypten und Altes Testament 13). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

5. The writing systems of Indo-European

61

Sass, Benjamin 1991 Studia Alphabetica: On the Origin and Early History of the Northwest Semitic, South Semitic and Greek Alphabets. (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 102). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Sass, Benjamin 2005 The Alphabet at the Turn of the Millennium. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press. Schmitt, Rüdiger (ed.) 1989 Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum [Compendium of Iranian languages]. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Schröpfer, Johann 1968 Hussens Traktat “Orthographia Bohemica.” (Slavistische Studienbücher 4). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Ševoroškin, Vitaly V. 1968 Zur Entstehung und Entwicklung der kleinasiatischen Buchstabenschriften. Kadmos 7: 150−173. Sims-Williams, Nicholas 2000−2012 Bactrian documents from Northern Afghanistan. 3 vols. (Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum pt. 2, vol. 6 = Studies in the Khalili Collection 3). London: Nour Foundation in association with Azimuth Editions and Oxford University Press. Skjærvø, Prods Oktor 2006 Iran VI: Iranian Languages and Scripts. Encyclopedia Iranica, 13: 344−377. Untermann, Jürgen 1997 Neue Überlegungen und eine neue Quelle zur Entstehung der althispanischen Schriften. Madrider Mitteilungen 38: 49−66. Untermann, Jürgen 2001 Die vorrömischen Sprachen der iberischen Halbinsel: Wege und Aporien bei ihrer Entzifferung. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag. Ventris, Michael A. 1988 Work Notes on Minoan Language and Other Unedited Papers. Edited by Anna Sacconi. (Incunabula Graeca 90). Rome: Ateneo. Vetter, Emil 1936 Die Herkuft des venetischen Punktiersystems. Glotta 24: 114−133. Voutiras, Emmanuel 2007 The Introduction of the Alphabet. In: Anastasios-Phoibos Christidis (ed.), A History of Ancient Greek: From the Beginnings to Late Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 266−276, 369−371. Wachter, Rudolf 1986 Die etruskische und venetische Silbenpunktierung. Museum Helveticum 43: 111−126. Walker, Christopher Bromhead Fleming 1987 Cuneiform. Reading the Past. London: British Museum. Watkins, Calvert 2004 Hittite. In: Woodard (ed.), 551−575. Windfuhr, Gernot (ed.) 2009 The Iranian Languages. Typology and Syntax. London: Routledge. Woodard, Roger D. 1997 Greek Writing from Knossos to Homer. New York: Oxford University Press. Woodard, Roger D. (ed.) 2004 The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World’s Ancient Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Peter T. Daniels, Jersey City, NJ (USA)

62

I. General and methodological issues

6. Indo-European dialectology This article will discuss work on the diversification of the Indo-European family, regardless of whether the “family tree” model or the “dialect continuum” model is used. The question of exactly how the IE family diversified from a single protolanguage was first raised in the mid-19th century. Almost from the beginning, that specific historical question was discussed in the context of general principles (how do languages diversify?) and methodological issues (how can we tell what happened after the fact?). Though it seemed clear that daughter languages which share significant distinctive characteristics should be grouped together, there was no consensus about how to determine the significance of shared material (Porzig 1954: 19−20). The contrast between treelike diversification, with sharp separations between diverging languages, and gradual divergence of dialects in contact came to the fore early, as did the question of whether those two models are necessarily opposed to each other (Porzig 1954: 21−24). The distinction between “centum” and “satem” languages likewise put in an early appearance (Porzig 1954: 26). The history of scholarship down to the middle of the 20th century is ably summarized in Porzig (1954: 17−52); here I will note only a few points that continued to be relevant in the later period. The most influential work of the early period was probably Meillet (1908), which was based on the dialect geography model and helped to establish that model as the basis for further discussion. The one conclusion that met with wide acceptance was the centum-satem split (reported prominently in Buck 1933 and other handbooks). The discovery of Hittite and the Tocharian languages reopened the question of IE subgrouping, but until at least the 1960’s research on those languages was still at such a preliminary stage that most conclusions then ventured about their positions in the family are now of historical interest only. The hypothesis that Hittite − or rather, the Anatolian subgroup, to which it presently became clear that Hittite belongs − is the most divergent daughter, of which all the other subgroups together constitute the sister, was advanced by several scholars and given wide circulation in Sturtevant (1933) as the “Indo-Hittite hypothesis” (Porzig 1954: 42−43); it has continued to generate debate down to the present, though the grounds on which it is based have shifted repeatedly as further information has become available and old analyses have been revised or discarded. Porzig (1954) is probably still the most thorough attempt to subgroup the entire IE family. In an important chapter on methodology (1954: 53−64), Porzig discussed types of evidence for subgrouping in detail, and several of his observations have continued to guide rigorous work ever since. Following Brugmann, he emphasized that only shared innovations can prove shared history, and that those innovations must be either numerous enough or improbable enough to effectively exclude the possibility that languages share them by chance (54−56). He also pointed out that shared phonological and morphological innovations are better indicators of shared history than shared vocabulary (59). After an exhaustive review of the evidence known to him, Porzig concluded that, of the wellattested subgroups, Germanic, Celtic, and the Italic groups (he treats Latino-Faliscan and Osco-Umbrian as separate subgroups, see especially 97−98) constitute a larger “Western” group, sharing innovations both all together and pairwise, while Baltic, Slavic (he appears to recognize a Balto-Slavic areal grouping, but not a clade in the strict sense, and he usually discusses Baltic and Slavic separately, 164−181 passim), Indo-Iranian, Greek, and to a large extent Armenian constitute a similar “Eastern” group (213). He also https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261288-006

6. Indo-European dialectology recognized connections between the two major groups, especially between Germanic and Balto-Slavic (213−214). Though he found less evidence bearing on the subgrouping of Albanian, Tocharian, and Hittite, individual innovations led him to group them with the Eastern languages, suggesting that Tocharian also has some connections to the Western group (213−214). This is obviously a dialect-geographical classification, not a Stammbaum. More recent work on Tocharian and Anatolian has tended to contradict Porzig’s placement of those subgroups within the family, but it remains debatable whether his classification of the remaining well-attested groups can be improved on. Before turning to later attempts to subgroup the entire family it will be convenient to address work investigating the closer relationships of individual subgroups. That Indic and Iranian together constitute an Indo-Iranian clade has not been seriously questioned; the languages share more than enough striking innovations to show that they developed as a single language for some time after losing touch with the ancestors of other surviving IE languages. Though Baltic and Slavic are not so closely related, the evidence for a Balto-Slavic clade likewise seems secure (see especially Leumann 1955 and Szemerényi 1957; for a reasonable presentation of the opposing view see Senn 1966). Close connections between other groups have been much debated, as follows. Throughout the first half of the 20th century there was a running debate over whether Latino-Faliscan and Osco-Umbrian constitute an Italic clade, disappointing in retrospect for its lack of rigor (cf. the summary of Diver 1953: 38−59). At the same time Porzig was writing, William Diver reexamined the question using criteria essentially identical to Porzig’s and concluded that the Italic languages exclusively share a large enough number of innovations to prove that they are a clade (Diver 1953: 155−161). That has been the consensus ever since (cf. e.g. Meiser 1986: 14−15; Wallace 2004: 813). Not all of the innovations that Diver recognized are still accepted as such; shared phonological innovations are few, and many are either easily repeatable or are shared with other languages (cf. Meiser 1986: 37−38). Two striking innovations in verb inflection, however, can only be explained by shared historical development, namely the gerundive in *-ndo- and the imperfect subjunctive in *-sē- (Wallace 2004: 813). Neither suffix has an easy or obvious etymology, and the inflectional category “imperfect subjunctive” is itself an innovation presupposing a specific restructuring of the verb system. Since the borrowing of inflectional morphology, to say nothing of inflectional categories (as opposed to their persistence in wholesale language shift) is at best extremely rare (cf. e.g. Sankoff 2002: 658), these two innovations are clinching. (For a measured presentation of the opposing view see Beeler 1966.) On the imperfect indicative in *-bhā-, which Wallace also cites, see now Meiser (1998: 197). On the other hand, the fact that we do not have enough Venetic material to determine whether that language shares these innovations renders its membership in Italic uncertain. The existence of an Italo-Celtic clade has also been suspected, but it is much harder to validate and remains problematic. Most of the apparent evidence adduced in the first half of the 20th century was demolished in Watkins (1966). However, the argument that the sound change *p…k w > *k w…k w cannot be a shared innovation because it was preceded by delabialization of the second labiovelar in the (probably Celtic) name Hercynia < *perkunyo- (Watkins 1966: 33−34) cannot stand. Delabialization of labiovelars next to high round vocalics was a PIE phonological rule (Weiss 1993: 153−165); it is therefore Latin quercus ‘oak’ that demands a (probably analogical) explanation (cf. e.g. Hoenigswald 1973: 327−328). On the other hand, Cowgill (1970) made a strong case

63

64

I. General and methodological issues for significant shared innovations between Italic and Celtic − but only for a few, “so that Italic and Celtic might be said to constitute a ‘drowned’ or ‘prematurely disrupted’ subgroup of Indo-European, in contrast to the well-recognized double-jointed subgroups, Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian, where the period of common development was long enough and close enough to the earliest documents that its existence is unmistakable” (Cowgill 1970: 114). Individual members of Cowgill’s short list of innovations (Cowgill 1970: 143) have of course been differently evaluated; for instance, it no longer seems certain that the Insular Celtic facts support a thematic optative in *-ā- (though some “Continental” Celtic facts might; see Rix 1977: 151−154, McCone 1991: 90−97), while on the other hand the sound changes *-ūy- > *-īy- (“Thurneysen’s Law”) and *-Cye- > *-Ci- might be shared, and Jay Jasanoff has argued for a previously unrecognized innovation in the mediopassive endings (Jasanoff 1997). But Cowgill’s conclusion has stood the test of time reasonably well. The case for a Greco-Armenian clade is much weaker; Clackson (1994) has shown that the significant innovations shared by Greek and Armenian (all of which are lexical) are so few that they do not support subgrouping those two languages together. (See also further below.) The old division between centum languages (those that merged the palatal and velar stops, but not the labiovelars) and satem languages (those that merged the labiovelar and velar stops, but not the palatals) has had to be drastically revised. Melchert (1987) showed that the Luvian subgroup of Anatolian preserved PIE *k̑, *k, and *k w as separate phonemes. Since mergers are irreversible, it follows that Proto-Anatolian likewise preserved this three-way contrast. Hittite, however, exhibits the centum merger − and it is impossible that that innovation is historically shared with any of the other centum languages, because Proto-Anatolian had already undergone so many innovations (cf. Melchert 1994: 60−91; Garrett 1990: 265−280) that it must have been mutually unintelligible with the other IE languages even if they were still in contact (which is itself doubtful). In other words, the centum merger is a repeatable innovation; and it follows that the centum languages cannot be shown to be a subgroup and need not have been geographically contiguous in the immediate post-PIE period. The satem merger should also have been repeatable; moreover, it appears that not all the languages that have sometimes been said to share the merger actually do. Though the Albanian evidence is difficult to evaluate, it appears that Albanian, like the Luvian group, did not at first merge any of the PIE dorsals (cf. Demiraj 1997: 63−65); that Armenian underwent the merger is unlikely at best, since it appears that some of the PIE labiovelars are palatalized in environments in which the velars are not (cf. e.g. Schmitt 1981: 62−65; Olsen 1999: 805−808 with references) and it is even possible that *k w became *p before *o prior to the Armenian stop shift (Olsen 1999: 805−808). That leaves Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic as probable members of a satem group. It appears that those two subgroups share not only the satem merger but also the “RUKI-rule”, a sound change which retracted *s after high vocalics, rhotics, and dorsals (Andersen 1968); that tends to strengthen the case that they constitute a clade. On the other hand, the recent discovery of Gaulish future stems in *-syé/ó- (McCone 1991: 145 with references) has removed one item from the potential list of satem-language innovations. But the fact that Baltic and Slavic (often separately) exhibit some forms with the centum development of dorsals which are unlikely to be loans from (pre-)Proto-Germanic (cf. already Porzig 1954: 74−75) strongly suggests that the satem merger, at least, spread

6. Indo-European dialectology from Indo-Iranian to Balto-Slavic after the latter had already begun to diversify internally (so e.g. Hock 1991: 442−444). If that is true, then the satem group can be a subgroup in the sense that it remained a dialect continuum after losing contact with the other IE languages, but not in the strictest sense of the term. The fact that the centum merger does not define a subgroup is important for assessing the position of Tocharian, which exhibits that merger (Ringe 1991b: 138−144, 1996: 39− 42). Partly for that reason, some scholars had suggested that in spite of its historical position at the far eastern end of the IE Sprachraum Tocharian was at first a western dialect of IE. Ringe (1991a) examined the available evidence and concluded that Tocharian shares no significant innovations with any other subgroup of the family. (On more recent assessments see further below.) The rest of this article will discuss attempts to reconstruct the diversification of IE as a whole during the past half-century. During that time a gradual revolution in methodology occurred. In the late 1950’s some of the most rigorous historical linguists began to reconsider the usefulness of the family tree model (Gleason 1959; Hoenigswald 1960: 144−160, 1966; see also Hoenigswald 1987). A major weakness of the dialect geography model is that it is difficult to falsify; new evidence that is at variance with evidence already in hand can often be accommodated on an abstract dialect “map” without major revisions. By contrast, the family tree model is easy to falsify, and therefore forces clear choices on the linguist: if new evidence points to a tree incompatible with what is already known, either one body of evidence or the other must be rejected (on the grounds that the innovations in question are repeatable after all, or that borrowing rather than direct descent is involved) − or the model must be rejected for the language family in question. Thus the tree model is always the better scientific hypothesis for any specific case, unless and until it becomes completely untenable. Also in the 1950’s, Morris Swadesh proposed a rough way of assessing linguistic divergence by measuring the percentages of cognates shared by pairs of related languages (Swadesh 1950, 1952, 1955); this “lexicostatistical” method gave rise to a whole new line of work (on which see Embleton 1986), some of it on the subgrouping of IE languages (see e.g. Tischler 1973; Dyen, Kruskal, and Black 1992). The latter will be discussed in appropriate contexts below. Finally, in the early 1970’s Wolfgang Meid argued that a model of the diversification of IE must work with known patterns of linguistic diversification in space and time − including the necessary relation between the two − and sketched such a model in some detail, schematically distinguishing between temporally differentiated reconstructible strata of “PIE” linguistic material (Meid 1975). All these developments had an important impact on more recent work. For the last two generations discussion of the first-order subgrouping of the IE family has focussed on how the Anatolian subgroup fits into the family as a whole. The most important question is whether all the non-Anatolian branches constitute a single firstorder subgroup, so that Anatolian is, in effect, half the family; that is essentially the “Indo-Hittite hypothesis” (see above). By far the most difficult piece of evidence to evaluate is the verb system: the reconstructible Proto-Anatolian system (largely preserved in Hittite) differs in several major ways from the verb system reconstructible from the non-Anatolian subgroups, and it is still not clear what innovations, on one or both sides, gave rise to so great a divergence. This summary will continue to focus on subgrouping, making only the minimum reference necessary to the reconstruction of the PIE verb.

65

66

I. General and methodological issues Warren Cowgill reopened the Indo-Hittite question in the 1970’s (Cowgill 1974, 1979). Cowgill argued convincingly that Anatolian cannot be shown to share any significant innovations with any other subgroup of IE (Cowgill 1974: 558−562), but his most important argument concerned the Hittite hi-conjugation and the non-Anatolian perfect, which are clearly cognate formations on some level. Cowgill maintained that neither can be derived from the other by any plausible sequence of changes; since both must therefore be descended from something else, the non-Anatolian subgroups share a clearly significant major innovation − the creation of the perfect − and the Indo-Hittite hypothesis is thereby validated. The opposite conclusion was reached by Heiner Eichner and Ernst Risch (Eichner 1975; Risch 1975). Both suggest sequences of changes (rejected as implausible by Cowgill) through which the Anatolian verb system could have evolved from the PIE system as reconstructed from the non-Anatolian languages; Eichner explicitly argues against the Indo-Hittite hypothesis on those grounds. Erich Neu, in the context of an elaborate and speculative hypothesis regarding the prehistory of the PIE verb system, rejected the Indo-Hittite hypothesis if the latter is conceived of as a Stammbaum (Neu 1976: 243−245). Using Meid’s model of the gradual disintegration of PIE, he suggested that Anatolian separated from the rest of the family at a relatively early stage of its development (Neu 1976: 245−247), in contrast to other subgroups such as Greek and Indo-Iranian. That amounts to a version of the Indo-Hittite hypothesis appropriate for a dialect network model. Meid (1979) essentially endorsed this view. But Meid’s model was vigorously attacked on methodological grounds in an important article by Bernfried Schlerath (Schlerath 1981). As Schlerath observed, all reconstruction of prehistoric languages depends ultimately on the mathematics of the comparative method; moreover, only the comparative method gives certain results, and every other procedure used in reconstruction is necessarily less probative. But the comparative method always produces a cladistic tree − that is, a Stammbaum (Schlerath 1981: 178− 179). Of course it does not follow that a cladistic tree accurately models every aspect of a protolanguage’s disintegration (as Schlerath is careful to point out). But one must always start with the tree produced by the mathematics of phonological reconstruction, and for the IE family that either will be an “Indo-Hittite” tree or it will not − there is no third alternative. This needs to be borne in mind in evaluating the cladistic work discussed below. More recent traditional work has tended to support the Indo-Hittite model. Jay Jasanoff and Don Ringe noticed independently (initially presenting their results at the same East Coast Indo-European Conference at Yale in 1996) that whereas Tocharian has a modest class of simple thematic presents, only two or three of them are cognate with those in other subgroups. In most subgroups this type of present stem is abundantly represented; in Anatolian, however, there are no certain examples. A reasonable interpretation of this pattern is that simple thematic presents are an innovation of the nonAnatolian half of the family, and that Tocharian lost contact with the other non-Anatolian branches before that innovation had gone very far (Ringe 2000; cf. Jasanoff 1998: 313− 314). Werner Winter identified a number of possible archaisms in the meanings of inherited words which are characteristic only of Tocharian among the non-Anatolian subgroups; taken together with a handful of archaic Anatolian-Tocharian isoglosses, these suggest the same scenario that Jasanoff and Ringe propose, with an initial split between

6. Indo-European dialectology Anatolian and a non-Anatolian clade, followed by a split between Tocharian and a nonTocharian clade (Winter 1998). Jasanoff’s controversial reconstruction of the PIE verb, if it turns out to be correct in detail, also offers support for the Indo-Hittite model, since in his scenario the non-Anatolian branches of the family (or the non-Anatolian, nonTocharian branches) underwent important morphological innovations in common (cf. Jasanoff 2003: 218−221). On this model see further the cautious discussion of Melchert (1998) with further bibliography. Recently Andrew Garrett has suggested another line of inquiry. He argues that many of the innovations that characterize subgroups of the family are relatively late and appear to be overlaid on older divergences, some of which cut across the subgroups; to account for this pattern he proposes a relatively “flat” dialect continuum model of the family’s diversification (Garrett 1999, 2006). Since this idea represents an important challenge to received opinion, it needs to be tested against the data in depth. Formal cladistic work on the subgrouping of IE has been pursued with a variety of methodologies. The earliest attempts employed the lexicostatistical method devised by Morris Swadesh (see above). This is a distance-based method which uses comparative wordlists as data. For each pair of languages the number of items in the list for which the languages do not exhibit cognates is tallied; that is the degree of divergence, or phylogenetic distance, between those two languages. The distances can then be converted into a cladistic tree by one of a number of mathematical procedures. On the hypothesis that the loss of vocabulary items on the standardized lists is relatively constant over large stretches of time, rough dates can also be assigned to the internal nodes of the tree; that codicil to the method is usually called “glottochronology”. Tischler (1973) is a straightforward application of lexicostatistics and glottochronology to the first-order subgrouping of the IE family based on wordlists for ancient languages, yielding plausible dates of divergence from which a plausible tree could be constructed, though Tischler seems too cautious to present the reader with such a tree (cf. Tischer 1973: 94−107). Dyen, Kruskal, and Black (1992) is a much more sophisticated application, based on a much larger number of wordlists for modern languages; their method yields a “box diagram”, which takes account of non-treelike phenomena in the data, though they also present an “outline classification” (Dyen, Kruskal, and Black 1992: 84−90) − the equivalent of a cladistic tree, on which see further below. Most Indo-Europeanists have remained unhappy with the lexicostatistical method, and especially with glottochronology. Bergsland and Vogt (1962) demonstrated, using IE data, that the rate of vocabulary loss on the Swadesh lists is not approximately constant over the time frames − a few millennia − within which the comparative method can yield statistically probative results; in more modern terms, there is no reliable “lexical clock”, just as there is no reliable “molecular clock” in evolutionary biology. Of course that result not only makes glottochronology unrealistic, but also complicates the attempt to construct trees or other models of diversification based on distances, since a range of probabilities must be calculated for each divergence. Embleton (1986) established that much more realistic lexicostatistical results can be achieved if a model incorporating both lexical borrowing and contact within dialect continua is constructed (and tested computationally) and if information on those developments is incorporated into the application of the resulting method to real-world data. But that does not solve all the practical problems, since in many cases of interest such information is permanently unavailable.

67

68

I. General and methodological issues Two other shortcomings of lexicostatistics are more fundamental. Though linguists continue to debate whether inflectional morphology can be borrowed at all, it is clear that such borrowings are rare at best (Sankoff 2002: 640−641, 658); thus inflectional morphology is a better indicator of linguistic descent than vocabulary, and a method based only on the latter adopts an unnecessary handicap. Most fundamentally of all, the translation of multiple lexical differences into a single “distance” between two languages loses all the information in the distributions of individual cognate sets across the family − information which obviously could be of relevance in constructing a phylogenetic tree. This consideration is so important that it has led to the abandonment of distance-based methods in most recent phylogenetic work, which is character-based instead. In the technical language of phylogenetic analysis, a “character” is a trait which all the taxa under study possess but which can be instantiated differently in different taxa; the distinctive instantiations are called “states” of the character. For example, the meanings on a Swadesh list are potential characters, and different cognate sets are different states of such a character. Character-based phylogenetic methods examine the distribution of all character states across the taxa and seek the evolutionary tree which best fits the distributions of the states. An evolutionary tree which fits the distributions of all the states with no discontinuities or overlap is called a “perfect phylogeny” and is the best possible tree (or one of the best possible, if more than one perfect phylogeny is possible). If no perfect phylogeny can be found, there are various criteria according to which less perfect trees can be evaluated; for instance, “maximum parsimony” seeks the tree on which the smallest number of transitions from state to state occurs, while “maximum compatibility” seeks the tree with which the greatest number of characters is compatible. It would be pleasant to report that character-based methods have conclusively resolved long-standing controversies regarding the subgrouping of IE, if only it were true. Several difficulties have rendered character-based methods a heavily qualified success so far. An inherent difficulty of character-based methods is that they are computationally intractable. Finding the best tree according to any of the criteria mentioned above is “NP-hard”; that is, there is believed to be no possible algorithm which can be proved to return the correct solution for any input in polynomial time calculated from the size of the input − the time required necessarily increases exponentially as the size of the input increases, effectively putting the definitive solution of many large and interesting phylogenetic problems out of reach. All work in computational cladistics therefore makes use of heuristics whose overall reliability is less than perfect (though they may be able to give correct results for particular problems). A further shortcoming of most character-based work on the subgrouping of IE is that it continues to use only lexical data, often from modern languages which have lost much distinctive inherited vocabulary; in fact nearly all attempts to subgroup IE still use the modern lexical dataset of Dyen, Kruskal, and Black (1992), typically with the addition of a list from Hittite and sometimes of lists from the Tocharian languages. This leads to questionable results in some parts of the trees that are returned, and some of the same questions recur in all studies based on such a dataset, as the following discussion will illustrate. In their “outline classification” Dyen, Kruskal, and Black (1992) group Romance, Germanic, and Balto-Slavic together as a single middle-level clade coordinate with the other recognized subfamilies, while splitting Indo-Iranian into two such clades; the latter

6. Indo-European dialectology result, especially, is incompatible with the mathematically cogent results of the comparative method. Rexová, Frynta, and Zrzavý (2003) present several trees based on different methods of analysis, but in all the trees Romance and Germanic are nearest sisters and Celtic is a near sister of the Romance-Germanic clade (though two of the three trees do recognize an Indo-Iranian clade and present it as the nearest sister of Balto-Slavic, an improvement on Dyen, Kruskal, and Black 1992). Similarly, Gray and Atkinson derive trees in which Germanic and Romance are nearest sisters, Celtic the nearest sister of that clade, and Balto-Slavic the nearest sister of the clade including Celtic (Gray and Atkinson 2003; Atkinson and Gray 2006: 99). Their experimental restriction of the dataset to the original Swadesh hundred-word list produces an even stranger result, with Italo-Celtic as the nearest sister of the “satem” languages (Atkinson and Gray 2006: 106). Any well-informed Indo-Europeanist will doubt all these conclusions, for a simple reason: Italic shares at least one significant morphological innovation with Celtic (the formation of the superlative), but none with the other clades mentioned in this paragraph; on the other hand, Indo-Iranian, Greek, and Germanic share at least three (the formation of the superlative, the shape of the mediopassive endings, and the thematic optative suffix), of which Balto-Slavic shares at least the last (the superlative and mediopassive having been lost). In other words, Germanic is an “eastern” language, in terms of its inflectional morphology, which nevertheless shares a good deal of vocabulary with the “western” subgroups, Italic and Celtic − an important pattern in need of an explanation which a purely lexical dataset simply cannot reveal. Rexová, Frynta, and Zrzavý do present Anatolian as the outlier in the IE family, and the Gray and Atkinson team not only concur but also identify Tocharian as the outlier in the residual clade; one might hope that those are computational results which support the emerging consensus among traditional IEists discussed above. Unfortunately it appears that all these trees were rooted between Hittite and the other subgroups by hypothesis (cf. Rexová, Frynta, and Zrzavý 2003: 121; Atkinson and Gray 2006: 102); that Anatolian is the outlier is part of the input to their experiments, not a result. In sum, it appears that computational analysis of only lexical data not only fails to tell us much that we did not already know, it also tells us some things which we already have very good reason to doubt. The only phylogenetic analyses of IE so far that take phonological and morphological information into account are those of Tandy Warnow’s team; their final attempt to construct a cladistic tree of IE is reported in Ringe, Warnow and Taylor (2002). Like the other phylogenetic analyses attempted to date, they find that Anatolian is the outlier in the family and Tocharian the outlier in the remainder; however, their tree then groups Italic and Celtic together against all the remaining subgroups. The tree can be represented as follows: (Anat (Toch ( (Ital, Celt) ( (Gmc, Alb) ( (Gk, Arm) (IIr, BSl) ) ) ) ) ) But though this tree is compatible with a range of traditional results, many aspects of it are surprisingly weakly supported by the data. The rooting of the tree between Anatolian and the other subgroups is supported by the interpretation of only one morphological character; the Greco-Armenian clade is supported only by a few lexical characters, only one or two of which are beyond challenge; and so on. Moreover, a significantly large proportion of the characters are incompatible with this tree. Thus the best purely cladistic analysis of Warnow’s team is not an unqualified success. However, all the incompatible

69

70

I. General and methodological issues characters are lexical, and the Germanic clade is implicated in most of the incompatibilities. Those facts have led Warnow’s team to shift their attention to non-treelike aspects of the diversification of IE (on which see further below). The fact that the position of Italic and/or Celtic in the tree apparently depends on what sort of dataset is used highlights a further significant characteristic of phylogenetic methods: if the mathematics employed is cogent, the input necessarily determines the output. Since input characters must be selected and coded by linguists, some colleagues insist that the output is “biased” in advance by linguists’ decisions; apparently they want a computational method that will give indisputable results from raw data. Interestingly, evolutionary biologists (who have been employing similar methods for a couple of decades) have no such qualms. It is well understood in the biological community that a phylogenetic method based on unprocessed data is unattainable. Of course it follows that the value of phylogenetic methods is not what a naive observer might assume. Rather than settling philological arguments, computational cladistics is best suited to working out the phylogenetic consequences of linguists’ beliefs about particular pieces of data − and testing sets of such beliefs for internal consistency. Warnow’s team has made this point explicit in a number of venues and has called for systematic testing of hypotheses that are known to conflict. So far the response has been very limited (though see Nakhleh, Ringe, and Warnow 2005: 396−406 for an interesting exception). Since it seems likely that the diversification of IE was only partly treelike, further progress will probably depend on the development of phylogenetic methods that are able to recover network-like diversification rigorously. Nakhleh, Ringe, and Warnow (2005) was a first attempt in that direction, investigating how many non-tree edges must be added to imperfect trees to account for all the data and attempting to assess the plausibility of the resulting networks in historical terms. Warnow, Evans, Ringe, and Nakleh (2006) reports the beginning of an attempt to construct a stochastic model of the relevant aspects of language evolution which will permit the experimental modelling of different diversification scenarios. Work of that kind is still in the initial stages at the time of writing. Finally, Gray and Atkinson have reopened the question of when PIE was spoken, aggressively arguing for a date of 6,000 BCE or earlier (Gray and Atkinson 2003, Atkinson and Gray 2006). Such a date would support Renfrew’s hypothesis of an early origin of the IE language family in Anatolia (Renfrew 1987). But many archaeologists seem to have concluded that Renfrew’s hypothesis cannot be reconciled with the evidence of several different kinds (see e.g. Anthony and Wailes 1988, Barker 1988, Sherratt 1988, Mallory 1989: 177−179, 242−243). Linguistically, their conclusion is difficult to reconcile with well-known facts. For instance,*h2 iHso- ‘thill’ is reconstructible for PIE and *k wék wlos ‘wheel’ for the non-Anatolian half of the family; the former is unanalyzable, and the formation of the latter is so odd that it cannot have arisen more than once. Moreover, if either word has been borrowed from one daughter of PIE into others, the borrowing must have been too early for any distinctive sound changes to have intervened, and that leads to roughly the same chronological conclusions as shared inheritance. Yet our first archaeological evidence for wheels dates to about 3,500 BCE (cf. e.g. Anthony and Wailes 1988: 443; Mallory 1989: 163, 275−276 fn. 25), and the earlier the date we posit for PIE, the longer the evidentiary gap for wheels that needs to be explained. The vague and general objections of Atkinson and Gray (2006: 102−103) do not refute these criticisms. But the most serious difficulty with Gray and Atkinson’s

6. Indo-European dialectology attempt to date PIE − or, indeed, any other attempt to date a protolanguage using lexical data − is that the problem can be shown to be inherently unsolvable in the absence of better models of linguistic evolution than we currently possess (Evans, Ringe, and Warnow 2006; cf. also McMahon and McMahon 2006). In short, more basic research on the properties of language change in general is needed before further applications to IE can be attempted. The crucial advances will be made by mathematicians and computer scientists; that should be no surprise, given the current state of the field and of the sciences in general.

Acknowledgment I am grateful to Joe Eska for helpful discussion of several points and for a number of references. All remaining errors and infelicities are, of course, my own.

References Andersen, Henning 1968 IE *s after i, u, r, k in Baltic and Slavic. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 11: 171−190. Anthony, David W. and Bernard Wailes 1988 Review of Renfrew 1987. Current Anthropology 29: 441−445. Atkinson, Quentin and Russell Gray 2006 How old is the Indo-European language family? Illumination or more moths to the flame? In: Forster and Renfrew (eds.), 91−109. Barker, Graeme 1988 Review of Renfrew 1987. Current Anthropology 29: 448−49. Beeler, Madison 1966 The interrelationships within Italic. In: Birnbaum and Puhvel (eds.), 51−58. Bergsland, Knut and Hans Vogt 1962 On the validity of glottochronology. Current Anthropology 3: 115−153. Birnbaum, Henrik and Jaan Puhvel (eds.) 1966 Ancient Indo-European dialects. Proceedings of the Conference on Indo-European Linguistics Held at the University of California, Los Angeles April 25−27, 1963. Berkeley: University of California Press. Buck, Carl Darling 1933 Comparative grammar of Greek and Latin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Clackson, James 1994 The linguistic relationship between Armenian and Greek. (Publications of the Philological Society 30). Oxford: Blackwell. Cowgill, Warren 1970 Italic and Celtic superlatives and the dialects of Indo-European. In George Cardona, Henry Hoenigswald, and Alfred Senn (eds.), Indo-European and Indo-Europeans. Papers Presented at the Third Indo-European Conference at the University of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 113−153. Cowgill, Warren 1974 More evidence for Indo-Hittite: the tense-aspect systems. In: Luigi Heilmann (ed.), Proceedings of the Eleventh International Congress of Linguists, Vol. 2. Bologna: Mulino, 557−570.

71

72

I. General and methodological issues Cowgill, Warren 1979 Anatolian hi-conjugation and Indo-European perfect: instalment II. In: Neu and Meid (eds.), 25−39. Demiraj, Bardhyl 1997 Albanische Etymologien. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Diver, William 1953 The relation of Latin to Oscan-Umbrian. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Columbia University. Dyen, Isidore, Joseph B. Kruskal and Paul Black 1992 An Indoeuropean Classification: A Lexicostatistical Experiment. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 82, Part 5. Eichner, Heiner 1975 Die Vorgeschichte des hethitischen Verbalsystems. In: Rix (ed.), 71−103. Embleton, Sheila 1986 Statistics in historical linguistics. Bochum: Brockmeyer. Evans, Steven, Don Ringe, and Tandy Warnow 2006 Inference of divergence times as a statistical inverse problem. In: Forster and Renfrew (eds.), 119−129. Forster, Peter and Colin Renfrew (eds.) 2006 Phylogenetic methods and the prehistory of languages. Cambridge: McDonald Institute. Garrett, Andrew 1990 The origin of NP split ergativity. Language 66: 261−296. Garrett, Andrew 1999 A new model of Indo-European subgrouping and dispersal. In: Steve S. Chang, Lily Liaw, and Josef Ruppenhofer (eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, February 12−15, 1999. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society, 146−156. Garrett, Andrew 2006 Convergence in the formation of Indo-European subgroups: phylogeny and chronology. In: Forster and Renfrew (eds.), 139−151. Gleason, Henry 1959 Counting and calculating for historical reconstruction. Anthropological linguistics 1: 22− 32. Gray, Russell and Quentin Atkinson 2003 Language tree divergence times support the Anatolian theory of Indo-European origin. Nature 426: 435−439. Hock, Hans Henrich 1991 Principles of historical linguistics. 2nd edn. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Hoenigswald, Henry M. 1960 Language Change and Linguistic Reconstruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hoenigswald, Henry M. 1966 Criteria for the subgrouping of languages. In: Birnbaum and Puhvel (eds.), 1−12. Hoenigswald, Henry M. 1973 Indo-European *p in Celtic and the claims for a relative chronology. Journal of IndoEuropean Studies 1: 324−329. Hoenigswald, Henry M. 1987 Language family trees, topological and metrical. In: Henry Hoenigswald and Linda Wiener (eds.), Biological metaphor and cladistic classification: an interdisciplinary perspective. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 257−267. Jasanoff, Jay H. 1997 An Italo-Celtic isogloss: the 3pl. mediopassive in *-ntro. In: Douglas Q. Adams (ed.), Festschrift for Eric Hamp. Vol. I. (Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph 23). Washington: Institute for the Study of Man, 146−161.

6. Indo-European dialectology Jasanoff, Jay H. 1998 The thematic conjugation revisited. In: Jay Jasanoff, H. Craig Melchert, and Lisi Oliver (eds.), Mír curad: studies in honor of Calvert Watkins. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität, 301−316. Jasanoff, Jay H. 2003 Hittite and the Indo-European verb. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Leumann, Manu 1955 Baltisch und Slavisch. In: Hans Krahe (ed.), Corolla linguistica: Festschrift Ferdinand Sommer zum 80. Geburtstag an 4. Mai 1955 dargebracht von Freunden, Schülern und Kollegen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 154−162. Mallory, James P. 1989 In Search of the Indo-Europeans. Language, Archaeology and Myth. London: Thames and Hudson. McCone, Kim 1991 The Indo-European origins of the Old Irish nasal presents, subjunctives, and futures. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität. McMahon, April and Robert McMahon 2006 Why linguists don’t do dates: evidence from Indo-European and Australian languages. In: Forster and Renfrew (eds.), 153−160. Meid, Wolfgang 1975 Probleme der räumlichen und zeitlichen Gliederung des Indo-germanischen. In: Rix (ed.), 204−219. Meid, Wolfgang 1979 Der Archaismus des Hethitischen. In: Neu and Meid (eds.), 159−176. Meillet, Antoine 1908 Les dialectes indo-européens. Paris: Champion. Meiser, Gerhard 1986 Lautgeschichte der umbrischen Sprache. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität. Meiser, Gerhard 1998 Historische Laut- und Formenlehre der lateinischen Sprache. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Melchert, H. Craig. 1987 Proto-Indo-European velars in Luvian. In: Calvert Watkins (ed.), Studies in memory of Warren Cowgill (1929−1985). Papers from the Fourth East Coast Indo-European Conference Cornell University, June 6−9, 1985. Berlin: De Gruyter, 182−204. Melchert, H. Craig 1994 Anatolian Historical Phonology. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Melchert, H. Craig 1998 The dialectal position of Anatolian within Indo-European. In: Benjamin Bergen, Madelaine Plauché, and Ashlee Bailey (eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Special session on Indo-European subgrouping and internal relations. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society, 24−31. Nakhleh, Luay, Don Ringe, and Tandy Warnow 2005 Perfect phylogenetic networks: a new methodology for reconstructing the evolutionary history of natural lan-guages. Language 81: 382−420. Neu, Erich 1976 Zur Rekonstruktion des indogermanischen Verbalsystems. In: Anna Morpurgo Davies and Wolfgang Meid (eds.), Studies in Greek, Italic, and Indo-European linguistics offered to Leonard R. Palmer On the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday June 5, 1976. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität, 239−254.

73

74

I. General and methodological issues Neu, Erich and Wolfgang Meid (eds.) 1979 Hethitisch und Indogermanisch. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität. Olsen, Birgit Anette 1999 The Noun in Biblical Armenian. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Porzig, Walter 1954 Die Gliederung des indogermanischen Sprachgebiets. Heidelberg: Winter. Renfrew, Colin 1987 Archaeology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins. London: Jonathan Cape. Rexová, Kateřina, Daniel Frynta, and Jan Zrzavý 2003 Cladistic analysis of languages: Indo-European classification based on lexicostatistical data. Cladistics 19: 120−127. Ringe, Don 1991a Evidence for the position of Tocharian in the Indo-European family? Die Sprache 34 [1988−1990]: 59−123. Ringe, Don 1991b Laryngeals and Sievers’ law in Tocharian. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 52: 137−168. Ringe, Don 1996 On the chronology of sound changes in Tocharian. Vol. 1. From PIE to Proto-Tocharian. (American Oriental Series 80). New Haven: American Oriental Society. Ringe, Don 2000 Tocharian class II presents and subjunctives and the reconstruction of the Proto-IndoEuropean verb. Tocharian and Indo-European Studies 9: 121−142. Ringe, Don, Tandy Warnow, and Ann Taylor 2002 Indo-European and computational cladistics. Transactions of the Philological Society 100: 59−129. Risch, Ernst 1975 Zur Entstehung des hethitischen Verbalparadigmas. In: Rix (ed.), 247−258. Rix, Helmut 1977 Das keltische Verbalsystem auf dem Hintergrund des indo-iranisch-griechischen Rekonstruktionsmodells. In: Karl Horst Schmidt and Rolf Ködderitzsch (eds.), Indogermanisch und Keltisch. Kolloquium der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft am 16. und 17. Februar 1976 in Bonn. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 132−158. Rix, Helmut (ed.) 1975 Flexion und Wortbildung. Akten der V. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft Regensburg, 9.−14. September 1973. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Sankoff, Gillian 2002 Linguistic outcomes of language contact. In: Jack K. Chambers, Peter Trudgill, and Natalie Schilling-Estes (eds.), The handbook of language variation and change. Oxford: Blackwell, 638−688. Schlerath, Bernfried 1981 Ist ein Raum/Zeit-Modell für eine rekonstruierte Sprache möglich? Zeitschrift für vergleichende Spachforschung 95: 175−202. Schmitt, Rüdiger 1981 Grammatik des Klassisch-Armenischen mit sprachvergleichenden Erläuterungen. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität. Senn, Alfred 1966 The relationships of Baltic and Slavic. In: Birnbaum and Puhvel (eds.), 139−151. Sherratt, Andrew 1988 Review of Renfrew 1987. Current Anthropology 29: 458−463.

7. The culture of the speakers of Proto-Indo-European Sturtevant, Edgar 1933 A comparative grammar of the Hittite language. Philadelphia: Linguistic Society of America. Swadesh, Morris 1950 Salish internal relationships. International Journal of American Linguistics 16: 157− 167. Swadesh, Morris 1952 Lexico-statistic dating of prehistoric ethnic contacts. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 96: 452−463. Swadesh, Morris 1955 Towards greater accuracy in lexicostatistic dating. International Journal of American Linguistics 21: 121−137. Szemerényi, Oswald 1957 The problem of Balto-Slav unity − a critical survey. Kratylos 2: 97−123. Tischler, Johann 1973 Glottochronologie und Lexikostatistik. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität. Wallace, Rex 2004 Sabellian languages. In: Roger Woodard (ed.), The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World’s Ancient Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 812−839. Warnow, Tandy, Steven N. Evans, Don Ringe, and Luay Nakhleh 2006 A stochastic model of language evolution that incorporates homoplasy and borrowing. In: Forster and Renfrew (eds.), 75−87. Watkins, Calvert 1966 Italo-Celtic revisited. In: Birnbaum and Puhvel (eds.), 29−50. Weiss, Michael 1993 Studies in Italic Nominal Morphology. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Cornell University. Winter, Werner 1998 Lexical archaisms in the Tocharian languages. In: Victor Mair (ed.), The Bronze Age and early Iron Age peoples of eastern Central Asia, Vol. I. Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man, 347−357.

Don Ringe, Philadelphia, PA (USA)

7. The culture of the speakers of Proto-IndoEuropean 1. 2. 3. 4.

Definitions Theoretical possibilities Archaeology and linguistics Sources for investigation

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261288-007

5. 6. 7. 8.

The Middle Path Working hypotheses Earlier scholarship References

75

76

I. General and methodological Issues

1. Definitions “Culture” is defined by the New Oxford Dictionary of English (Pearsall 2001: 447) as “the arts and other manifestation of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively (sense dates from the early 19th cent.)”. Cf. also the definition of “art(s)”: “(2) various branches of creative activity, such as painting, music, literature and dance; (3) subjects of study primarily concerned with the process and products of human creativity and social life, such as languages, literature, and history (as contrasted with scientific and technical subjects)” (Pearsall 2001: 93). In a handbook of linguistics, such a subject may seem to be out of place at first glance. But language itself is one of those “manifestations”, and perhaps even the most important of all. Speakers of Proto-Indo-European are utterly unknown in any historical record. Though according to some “modern” archaeologists, the use of ethnic labels for the subject of “archaeological cultures” − a difficult term in itself − should be regarded as absurd, to assume the former existence of a human community actually employing ProtoIndo-European as their natural (first) language is unavoidable if the method of reconstruction of undocumented languages is taken seriously at all. The definition of Proto-Indo-European is the subject of this entire handbook. For the purposes of this chapter, the former existence of the Proto-Language is taken for granted. Speculations about its possible periods and regions, i.e. when and where Proto-IndoEuropean may have been spoken by an otherwise completely unknown and undocumented human group labelled “speakers of Proto-Indo-European” or “Proto-Indo-Europeans” for short, are found in Gaitzsch and Tischler, this handbook. The term “Indo-European” is partly misleading and rather unhappy, and not at all “politically correct”; it is a pity that the slightly older and much better name “Indo-Germanic” (cf. e.g. Zimmer 2003: 26 n.2) for the group has not been retained in most languages.

2. Theoretical possibilities 2.1. The discovery of the IE language family was an enormous event not only for linguistics but for human history generally, quite comparable to Darwin’s demonstration of the principles of evolution. The primarily linguistic term “Indo-European” immediately suggested its usage in historical studies. If the language existed, it was, of course, spoken (strictly speaking, a language exists only in speaking, as Wilhelm von Humboldt demonstrated). If people spoke Proto-Indo-European, many questions arise naturally: Where and when, and how did they live? The only source for any such investigation is the reconstructed language itself. Grammar, of course, tells us almost nothing about the way of life of those who follow its rules. But the reconstructed lexicon does, and has, right from the beginning of IE studies, provoked countless hypotheses. For some new contributions, see Hettrich and Ziegler (eds.) (2016), as well as Kölligan, this handbook. A major obstacle in Indo-European cultural studies is the fact that sound laws have no counterparts in semantics. There are no “laws” governing semantic change, only rules of thumb, tendencies, analogies, etc. The meanings ascribed to reconstructed words must therefore necessarily remain rather vague, much more hypothetical than the word forms.

7. The culture of the speakers of Proto-Indo-European 2.2. Two centuries of scholarship have, however, made it clear that naive interpretations and superficial comparisons cannot lead to solid results. The developments of form and content, of signifiant and signifié, to use Ferdinand de Saussure’s famous terms, are widely independent of each other. Of lesser historical relevance, but perhaps more attractive for cultural history, was the discovery, made practically simultaneously, of parallel wordings in literary works of the older IE languages, especially Homeric epics and the hymns of the R̥gveda. This led to a further postulate, not less reasonable but certainly more difficult to substantiate, of a common IE poetical tradition going back to a ProtoIndo-European Dichtersprache. In fact, a considerable corpus of so-called “formulas” has been amassed (the famous collection published by Rüdiger Schmitt [1967] needs to be updated). Reconstruction of form and meaning has to be kept separate as far as possible. Whereas the linguist often can interpret the form of a given word by comparison with other words in the same language or with similar words in other languages, the investigation of meaning is, first of all, the task of philology. In daily life, of course, one person often practices both arts, especially in studies of (often misleadingly so-called) “smaller” or “lesser known” languages.

3. Archaeology and linguistics For principal reasons, archaeology is unable to answer the above-mentioned historical questions which arise automatically from the results of comparative and historical linguistics. It is impossible to prove or disprove any hypothesis concerning relations between archaeologically defined cultures and linguistically postulated speech communities. Sociology and ethnology furthermore insist on the fact that social or political units usually define themselves based on a wide variety of criteria. Among those cultural identity markers, language does not necessarily figure high, nor does any specific trait of archaeologically recordable material culture such as, for example, burial practices or ceramic styles. As long as written records are absent, either as part of the archaeological finds or as contemporary information from outside, not a single item of an archaeological “culture” can be ascribed with certainty to a purely postulated ethnos such as “the speakers of Proto-Indo-European”. Instead of any such attempts, which are bound to remain futile, other questions could, and in my view (cf. e.g. Zimmer 2003) should be asked: How does a “new” language arise? What are the social conditions for the emergence of “new” social communities, of language change, of language spread? All these points, and many more similar ones, are essential for a proper understanding of the so-called “IE Problem” as I see it. It is a pity that they are usually excluded from scholarly discussion.

4. Sources for investigation What are the procedures which may lead, nevertheless, to reasonable hypotheses about “the culture of the speakers of Proto-Indo-European”? As already alluded to above in

77

78

I. General and methodological Issues 2.2, there are but two categories of data: the reconstructed lexicon, and the collection of “formulas”. Both come with their specific problems.

4.1. The Proto-Indo-European lexicon A venerable rule of thumb, reasonably valued in IE studies at all times, holds that a word may only be ascribed to the common mother tongue if it is attested in at least three languages, preferably in non-contiguous ones, and if no suspicion of loan relations may be raised. Earlier scholarship was rather generous in respect to the precise word forms in the respective languages. This has led to a certain negligence in reconstructing actual words. In fact, traditional IE “dictionaries” are not collections of Proto-Indo-European words, but first of all lists of reconstructed roots. In our days, decisive progress has been achieved by diligent reconstruction of (possible) actual words, i.e. nominal and verbal forms, besides precisely dressed particles. This has led to much more trustworthy results and is going to produce more realistic lexica (such as the Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben, Nomina im indogermanischen Lexikon, and the Lexikon indogermanischer Partikeln und Pronominalstämme, or the announced “Leiden Pokorny”). It remains to be seen whether a sufficiently high number of items can be established which then might be of real use for cultural investigations.

4.2. Proto-Indo-European Dichtersprache If one would adhere to the rule cited in 4.1, very few “formulas” of Proto-Indo-European age could be reconstructed. If only two versions of a “formula” are taken as sufficient to suspect inheritance, the dangers of independent parallel development and simple coincidence are, of course, increased. But this is in fact reduced by the specific nature of the “formula”, the syntactic link of two (or more) words, the semantics of both (or more) members of the syntagm, the originality of the collocation. Trivial combinations may appear unsuitable; but what is trivial if no context survives? Even very specific ideas such as the king as “herder of people”, well attested in Sanskrit and Greek, and highly suspicious of being part of Proto-Indo-European poetical diction, are not necessarily of a specifically IE nature − cf. the biblical parallel. After all, the Proto-Indo-European Dichtersprache was hardly a purely home-grown product. If Proto-Indo-European came into being as the new language of a colluvies gentium as I have suggested on several occasions (e.g. Zimmer 1990, 2003), it is more than likely that some Proto-Indo-European poetic ideas and maybe even bits of poetic diction were brought along by new members from their earlier respective cultures. This wider perspective should be kept in mind but will no longer be discussed in the following. Nobody doubts that Proto-Indo-European did not fall from heaven, and neither did “the culture of the speakers of Proto-Indo-European”. A hypothetical “Pre-ProtoIndo-European” is touched upon in Koivulehto and Kallio, this handbook.

7. The culture of the speakers of Proto-Indo-European

4.3. Sifting and weighing The first task of scholarship is then close investigation of all items reconstructed, both single words and more or less complete “formulas”. The reconstructed lexicon can be arranged according to semasiological categories, giving immediately a first impression of the world of those who used it. A closer look at every group, sub-group, and lastly at every single entry may teach us still more, or may at least modify our ideas. As is well known, etymology is an art, and cannot be pursued in a mechanical way without losing credibility. Apart from basic practical knowledge of sound laws, rules of wordformation, etc., experience and a sound general culture are indispensable tools in etymological research. Furthermore, historical interpretation of a given lexicon requires decent knowledge of general history, especially the cultural history of the speech community under investigation. If the language in question is a reconstructed one, the scholar, of course, has to rely on his or her working hypotheses framed by general historical typology, experience, and, last but not least, personal linguistic instinct. Still more difficult, but also much more rewarding, is the task of interpreting the “formulas” of the Dichtersprache. Here, in addition to the qualities enumerated above, the scholar has to be at home in as many literatures as possible and have a distinct feeling for poetics. A lurking danger threatens even the most learned and artistically versed of philologists and linguists: that of being led astray by one’s own enthusiasm which, inevitably, blurs the boundary between creative imagination and sober extrapolation.

4.4. Further restraints Any given lexicon provides information about the specific view its users − the speakers of the language in question − had of the world, including themselves, and their minds. The larger philosophical background of this point cannot be touched upon here, nor can famous authors such as Wilhelm von Humboldt, Benjamin Lee Whorf, Leo Weisgerber and their teachings be discussed in this brief contribution. To reconstruct such a Weltanschauung (in the broadest possible sense) on the basis of a reconstructed lexicon alone would be quite hazardous. Even if supported, as in the case of Proto-Indo-European, by a few “formulas” of inherited poetical diction, there are no coherent texts, so that no systematic covering of any aspect is possible. If one considers the huge amount of ink spilled in interpreting works from “big” literatures in order to better understand sometimes tiny questions with reference to specific, sometimes very small, groups of people in narrowly defined space and time, and the ongoing debates on myriads of points − how reliable then could one scholar’s (or even a dozen scholars’) attempts be to reconstruct “the culture” of a group of people who have left nothing other than about 1500 reconstructed verbal roots, a few hundred nouns, and some ten dozen “formulas”? Nevertheless, the subject is and remains attractive enough, and highly important for nearly one third of the world’s present population: through it we get at least a glimpse of otherwise undocumented human history.

79

80

I. General and methodological Issues

5. The middle path Should any reader get the impression that the study of “the culture of the speakers of Proto-Indo-European” is a shaky endeavour − this is correct! Some people (perhaps even most fellow scholars) do in fact refrain from it, cf. Bernfried Schlerath’s statement “Daß diejenigen Forscher, die Freude an konkretem Material und sicheren Ergebnissen haben, sich von diesem Problemkomplex fernhalten, ist verständlich.” (1992: 137; emphasis mine) [That those scholars who find pleasure in concrete material and certain results eschew this set of problems is understandable.] A few others, nevertheless, see it as a fascinating discipline, opening a window into Dark Ages. Everybody will agree that a “noble middle path” between scepticism and naiveté must be followed − but where can it be found? No general answer is, of course, possible. The principle of “cumulative evidence” always applies (cf. Thieme 1964/1995). But every case is different, every step brings its own risks. The study of “formulas”, however, is beset with a general problem which should be discussed before going into details. This is the question of “replacement”. A serious problem in the field of IE poetics is posed by the observably wide range of variation in formulas. Scholars from all sides agree that repetition and variation are the two main principles of formalized language, especially poetics (as distinguished from plain prose). A “formula” in poetics pertains of course to repetition − but as speech has two sides, an external, formal one and an internal, semantic one, the poet is free to repeat or vary both, either simultaneously or alternatively. Linguistic reconstruction, however, is first of all a matter of outward form. Every poetic formula is embedded in a context, be it expressed or not, so that philology has the first say in interpreting its semantic content, its message. Inevitably, a serious conflict arises. On the one hand, the linguist has to insist on strict formal etymological comparability in order to secure Proto-IndoEuropean (or at least zwischengrundsprachlich or pre-einzelsprachlich) age for the formula in question. On the other hand, the philologist demonstrates the poet’s versatility in expressing the same or similar message by varying the wording of his formula ad infinitum. That means that claims to Proto-Indo-European status for a purely semantic formula attested in two or more wholly or partly varying words cannot have the same status as the other category which expresses the same or a similar thought by exactly the same words in the same or similar syntax. It seems as if in recent years a formally laxer mode has taken the upper hand. Most influential has been the great philologist and linguist Calvert Watkins who, however, seems often to fall rapt to the rhetorical brilliance he detects in “his” poems. One should remain cautious. As works of others tend to suggest, there are hardly any limits for scholarly fantasy if the traditional severe postulate of formal identity is abandoned. (A broad range of methods is used, e.g., in the contributions collected by Pinault and Petit 2006.) It would be utterly wrong, of course, to deny that traditional formulas were constantly varied and modified, improved and replaced by Proto-Indo-European poets, too − precisely this is, after all, one of the very tasks of a poet. Philological scholarship is often able to demonstrate the poetical genius in such matters, especially within larger texts such as the Homeric epics (cf. e.g. West 2008) or the Vedic Saṃhitās and cf. e.g. the breathtaking discoveries of M. Schwartz in the poetic structure of Zarathustra’s Gāϑās, e.g. 1986, 1991). But for the purpose of a handbook which intends to sum up the main-

7. The culture of the speakers of Proto-Indo-European stream opinions (consensus seems utterly impossible) in one of the fundamental branches of the humanities, it seems safer to keep to those formulas whose age is guaranteed by the double correspondence of both form (etymology) and meaning.

6. Working hypotheses Before going into detailed discussion about possible items of “the culture of the speakers of Proto-Indo-European”, a general space and time frame should be outlined. As is well known, neither comparative nor internal reconstruction can lead to absolute chronologies, so that dating Proto-Indo-European (cf. Zimmer 1989) remains a purely speculative task. Attempts at developing rules of “glottochronology” or determining a rate of loss with the help of “lexicostatistics” can be safely disregarded, such practices being methodically insufficient (see e.g. Holm 2006). According to the traditional pattern of Ausgliederung, the following scenario seems to be the most responsible (or the least unlikely) at present: Given the earliest attestations of already distinguished Anatolian languages in the early 2nd millennium BCE, ProtoAnatolian could be dated around 2500 BCE; consequently, Proto-Indo-European might be set at around 3000 BCE. The reader should be warned once again a last time that any such date is far from being secured. Speech communities can hold together for much longer periods without major changes or may break up suddenly, quickly developing into two or even many new languages. On the individual level, a switch from one language to another seems to take at least about three generations to complete. The bigger the social group that undergoes language change as a whole, the longer this may take. But even ten generations are only 250−300 years, so that to suggest that Proto-Anatolian may have been spoken around 2250 BCE, and Proto-Indo-European around 2500 would not be to posit an impossibly “short” chronology. Nothing precludes, of course, the assumption of much longer periods. Modern ethnolinguistic studies suggest that small but widespread population groups can be surprisingly conservative, keeping to hardly modified traditions over hundreds, if not thousands of years (Jacquesson 2000). Fortunately, counterarguments against very “long” chronologies are available in the reconstructed lexicon (see below). No specific position with respect to geographical location will be taken here. The Proto-Indo-European lexicon is compatible with every moderate climate within all European inlands so that the traditional wide range of Urheimat proposals from Central Germany to Southern Russia seems equally possible. Coastal regions, however, are unlikely, as are high mountains, or the extreme climates of Central Asia.

7. Earlier scholarship Apart from etymological dictionaries which hardly ever touch on questions of extralinguistic history, only a few authors have endeavoured to deal with “the culture of the speakers of Proto-Indo-European” in a book-length study. This is quite understandable given the problematical status of all such combinations of hypotheses which are all too often of quite different qualities. The old volumes of Schrader and Nehring (1917−1923)

81

82

I. General and methodological Issues are of course more than dated by now but have not found successors to the present day. (How such a work may and can indeed be realized successfully, the new “Hoops” nicely demonstrates; see the Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde.) Buck (1949), though still an invaluable resource, does not include the Anatolian material discovered in the 20th century (for a Hittite appendix, see Weeks 1985). Innumerable precious details lie hidden in the vast scholarly literature, especially in Vedic, Greek, and Anatolian Studies. Here is a brief survey of publications other than those already mentioned from the last half century: Benveniste (1969) (a partially corrected second edition was published in the same year, without any indication of the fact) is a brilliant product of the author’s structuralist thinking but gives the reader only the opinions of the author, without any discussion of either the material or the method. The book is still able to impress historians and sociologists but historical linguists have never been able to accept Benveniste’s theories without further investigations. In fact, many bold statements of Benveniste have turned out to need moderation, modification, and qualification. Gamkrelidze and Ivanov’s monumental work (1984) includes (as Part II of the Russian edition, but in vol. I of the 1995 English translation) a “Semantic Dictionary of the Proto-Indo-European Language and Reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-European ProtoCulture”. Very rich in lexical terms, bold reconstructions, and keen interpretations, also touching on the development in later periods, this work suffers from a peculiar notion of Proto-Indo-European (based on Gamkrelidze’s “glottalic theory”, which has failed to find acceptance in IE Studies), insufficient methodological rigor, and a certain lack of philological background in most of the Einzelsprachen adduced (with the noticeable exception of Anatolian). A new vista was brought into IE cultural studies by Mallory, whose researches into Irish prehistory led him further into questions of a possible Proto-Indo-European background. His archaeologist’s view of the “IE problem” (1989) instigated renewed interest in collaboration among Indo-Europeanists proper and archaeologists (cf. Schlerath 1992). With the fall of the Soviet Bloc, contacts with Russia became much easier, and the enormous work done in the USSR during the preceding decades became accessible in Europe and the US (cf. e.g., Häusler’s various reports). Mallory and Douglas Q. Adams compiled a large Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture which was hailed as a truly great book but also criticized for many shortcomings (see Zimmer 1999). Strangely unimpressed, however, Mallory and Adams republished their views without major changes in The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World (2006), obviously aimed more at a larger educated readership than at fellow specialists (cf. Zimmer 2008). Further progress can only be achieved by close collaboration of a group of scholars from IE studies proper and adjacent fields. Archaeology, but also various branches of anthropology, including historical ethnology, historical sociology, and all the philologies of the older IE languages should be involved in a broad discussion. Again, the model of the Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde imposes itself. With the progress of Indo-European studies as documented in the new dictionaries Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben2 (2000), Nomina im indogermanischen Lexikon (2008), and Lexikon indogermanischer Partikeln und Pronominalstämme (2014), or the announced Leiden volumes, such investigations of all possibly relevant items (units of the reconstructed lexicon) will become considerably more reliable, because a sounder

7. The culture of the speakers of Proto-Indo-European linguistic basis will be provided. As for the other disciplines, I do not know. We are still far removed from true interdisciplinary cooperation. At present, nothing more can be done other than close scrutiny of the main points raised in recent years, even if the results are bound to be rather disappointing. Whoever looks for neat summaries of the probable or possible only should consult shorter sketches. Among newer publications of the latter type, Watkins (2011) and Forssman (1990) seem the most reliable. References to a broad selection (not the entirety!) of scholarly publications about a wide variety of special questions are to be found in my two-part “Forschungsbericht” in Kratylos 47 (2002) and 48 (2003). For a brilliant, and utterly negative, theoretical discussion about the possibilities of reconstructing “the culture of the speakers of Proto-Indo-European”, see Tremblay (2005).

8. References Beck, Heinrich, Dieter Geuenich, Herbert Jankuhn, Hans Kuhn, Kurt Ranke, Heiko Steuer, and Reinhard Wenskus 1968−2007 Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde, begründet von Johannes Hoops. Zweite Auflage. 35 vols. Berlin: De Gruyter. Benveniste, Émile 1969 Le vocabulaire des institutions indo-européennes. Paris: Minuit. [English translation Elizabeth Palmer. 1973. Indo-European Language and Society. Coral Gables: University of Miami Press. German translation. 1993. Indoeuropäische Funktionen, Wortschatz, Geschichte, Funktionen. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.] Buck, Carl Darling 1949 A Dictionary of Selected Synonyms in the Principal Indo-European Languages. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Dunkel, George 2014 Lexikon indogermanischer Partikeln und Pronominalstämme. Heidelberg: Winter. Forssman, Bernhard 1990 Das Ur-Indogermanische. In: Henning Kössler (ed.), Sprache. Fünf Vorträge. Erlangen: Universitätsbund Erlangen-Nürnberg, 41−64. Gamkrelidze, Tamaz V. and Vyacheslav V. Ivanov 1984 Indoevropejskij jazyk i indoevropejci. Rekonstrukcija i istoriko-tipologičeskij analiz prajazyka i protokul’tury. Tbilisi: Izdatel’stvo Tbilisskogo Universiteta. [Translation by Johanna Nichols. 1995. Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans: A reconstruction and historical analysis of a proto-language and a proto-culture. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter]. Häusler, Alexander 2003 Nomaden, Indogermanen, Invasionen. Zur Entstehung eines Mythos. (Orientwissenschaftliche Hefte 5). Halle: Orientwissenschaftliches Zentrum der Universität. Hettrich, Heinrich and Sabine Ziegler (eds.) 2016 Die Ausbreitung des Indogermanischen. Thesen aus Sprachwissenschaft und Archäologie. Akten der Tagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 24. bis 26. September 2009 in Würzburg. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Holm, Hans 2006 The New Arboretum of Indo-European « Trees ». Can New Algorithms Reveal the Phylogeny and Even Prehistory of Indo-European? Journal of Quantitative Linguistics 14 : 167−214.

83

84

I. General and methodological Issues Jacquesson, François 2000 L’évolution des langues dépend-elle de la densité des locuteurs? Études Finno-Ougriennes 31 [1999]: 27−34. Lexikon indogermanischer Partikeln und Pronominalstämme − see Dunkel. Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben − see Rix (ed.). Mallory, James P 1989 In Search of the Indo-Europeans. Language, Archaeology and Myth. London: Thames and Hudson. Mallory, James P. and Douglas Q. Adams (eds.) 1997 The Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture. London: Fitzroy Dearborn. Mallory, James P. and Douglas Q. Adams (eds.) 2006 The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nomina im indogermanischen Lexikon − see Wodtko, Irslinger, and Schneider. Pearsall, Judy (ed.) 2001 The New Oxford Dictionary of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pinault, Georges-Jean and Daniel Petit (eds.) 2006 La langue poétique indo-européenne. Actes du colloque de travail de la Société des Études Indo-Européennes, Paris, 22−24 Octobre 2003. Leuven: Peeters. Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde − see Beck et al. Rix, Helmut (ed.) 2001 Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben. Die Wurzeln und ihre Primärstämmbildungen. Unter der Leitung von Helmut Rix und der Mitarbeit vieler anderer bearbeitet von Martin Kümmel, Thomas Zehnder, Reiner Lipp und Brigitte Schirmer. Zweite erweiterte und verbesserte Auflage bearbeitet von Martin Kümmel und Helmut Rix. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Schlerath, Bernfried 1992 Review of Mallory 1989. Prähistorische Zeitschrift 67: 132−137. Schmitt, Rüdiger 1967 Dichtung und Dichtersprache in indogermanischer Zeit. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Schrader, Otto and Alfons Nehring (eds.) 1917−1923 Reallexikon der indogermanischen Altertumskunde. 2nd edn. Berlin: De Gruyter. Schwartz, Martin 1986 Coded sound patterns, acrostics, and anagrams in Zoroaster’s oral poetry. In: Rüdiger Schmitt und Prods Oktor Skjærvø (eds.), Studia Grammatica Iranica, Fs. Helmut Humbach. Munich: Kitzinger, 327−392. Schwartz, Martin 2002 Gathic Compositional History, Y 29, and Bovine Symbolism. In: Siamak Adhami (ed.), Paitimāna, Essays in Iranian, Indo-European, and Indian Studies in Honor of HannsPeter Schmidt. Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda, 195−249. Thieme, Paul 1964 The comparative method for reconstruction in linguistics. In: Dell Hymes (ed.), Language in Culture and Society. New York: Harper and Row, 585−598. [Reprinted 1995 in Renate Söhnen-Thieme (ed.), Paul Thieme Kleine Schriften, vol. II. Wiesbaden: Steiner, 981−993.] Tremblay, Xavier 2005 Grammaire comparée et grammaire historique: Quelle réalité est reconstruite par la grammaire comparée? In: Gérard Fussman, Jean Kellens, Henri-Paul Francfort, and Xavier Tremblay (eds.), Āryas, Aryens et Iraniens en Asie Centrale (Publications de l’Institut de Civilisation Indienne, Collège de France, fasc. 72. Paris: De Boccard, 21−195.

8. The homeland of the speakers of Proto-Indo-European Watkins, Calvert 2011 The American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European Roots. 3rd edn. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Weeks, David M. 1985 Hittite Vocabulary: An Anatolian appendix to Buck’s Dictionary. Unpublished PhD dissertation, UCLA. West, Martin L. 2007 Indo-European Poetry and Myth. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wodtko, Dagmar S., Britta S. Irslinger, and Carolin Schneider (eds.) 2008 Nomina im indogermanischen Lexikon. Heidelberg: Winter. Zimmer, Stefan 1989 On Dating Proto-Indo-European: A Call for Honesty. Journal of Indo-European Studies 16 [1988]: 371−375. Zimmer, Stefan 1990 Urvolk, Ursprache und Indogermanisierung. Zur Methode der Indogermanischen Altertumskunde. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität. Zimmer, Stefan 1999 Comments on a great book: The Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture. Review of Mallory and Adams 1997. Journal of Indo-European Studies 27: 105−163. Zimmer, Stefan 2002 Tendenzen der Indogermanischen Altertumskunde 1965−2000. I. Teil: Sachkultur. Kratylos 47: 1−22. Zimmer, Stefan 2003 Tendenzen der Indogermanischen Altertumskunde 1965−2000. II. Teil: Geistige Kultur. Kratylos 48: 1−25. Zimmer, Stefan 2003 The Problem of Proto-Indo-European Glottogenesis. General Linguistics 39 [1998]: 25− 55. Zimmer, Stefan 2008 Review of Mallory and Adams 2006. Kratylos 53: 21−24.

Stefan Zimmer, Bonn (Germany)

8. The homeland of the speakers of Proto-Indo-European Soon after Comparative Indo-European Linguistics was established about 200 years ago, a legitimate thought arose: If the languages of the ancient Greeks, Indians, Celts, and other Indo-European peoples are derived from one common predecessor, then this protolanguage must have been spoken by one proto-people (German Urvolk). The question about the original home (Urheimat) of this people has been discussed ever since and remains still unanswered. Everything we know about the Proto-Indo-Europeans is based on the vocabulary that has been reconstructed by comparing the oldest Indo-European sub-branches, as there is no direct textual tradition. That is why even a temporal classification is very difficult − often a period somewhere between 10,000 and 5,000 BCE is stated. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261288-008

85

86

I. General and methodological Issues Despite critical examination of the matter and numerous hypotheses there is no prevailing opinion, which is even more frustrating as there actually are plausible solutions regarding other language families. For instance, the Finno-Ugric Urheimat is now said to have stretched across the middle and southern Ural region and its western extension. So, without historic records, how is it possible to draw such conclusions anyway? Researchers have been trying to solve the Indo-European problem using a number of different methods. For a while now, academic input from external disciplines such as geography or anthropology has been noticeable. Although some linguists tend to criticize approaches by natural scientists, interdisciplinary cooperation can be fruitful. Nevertheless, the subject is primarily a linguistic one, and therefore language is the primary instrument to be used. An item is considered to be of Proto-Indo-European provenience if it has descendants in at least three derivative languages with nearly the same meaning. The comparison of Vedic bhárāmi, Greek φέρω, Latin ferō, Gothic baira, Old Irish biru, and Classical Armenian berem, all meaning ‘I bear’, as well as other cognates results in the reconstruction of a PIE root *bher- meaning ‘to carry, to bear’. Hence this root and the present tense built to it (*bhere/o-) must have been known to the speakers of the proto-language. Of course, this gives no indication of what the PIE culture, civilization, or homeland was like. There is, however, a significant number of terms which draw a rather detailed picture of the natural environment of the homeland, yielding the following idea: If a certain term was known to the speakers of the proto-language, then their homeland is to be sought where the denoted “thing” can be found naturally. As there exists a PIE word for ‘beech’ (*bhāĝos-), the Urheimat must have been in the natural habitat of this very tree. This type of approach is called linguistic paleontology, a term introduced by Adolphe Pictet in 1859. The method seems logical and promising, but it clearly has its flaws. The argument just mentioned − the so-called beech argument, which places the Urheimat in an area west of a line drawn from Kaliningrad to the Crimea, for only there the beech is to be found − has been disproved by now. As a matter of fact, the individual descendants vary significantly in meaning. For example, Greek φηγός means Quercus aesculus (an oak), Proto-Slavic *bŭzŭ means ‘elder’, and Kurdish būz ‘elm’. Besides, our knowledge about the range of botanical and zoological species some millennia ago is far from complete. Another famous argument is the salmon argument. The Salmo salar does not live south of the 42nd latitude. However, PIE *lak̑(a)s- appears only in a few daughter languages; also Tocharian laks simply means ‘fish’ in general. Many terms for plants and animals are genuinely Indo-European, though, and exclude certain areas in the world. It is considered a fact that the Indo-Europeans knew the bee, as they produced honey (*melit- > Greek μέλι) and used it for making an alcoholic beverage (*medhu- ‘mead’). The horse (*ek̑u̯os) was of particular importance: not only did it play a prominent role in rituals, it also was most likely domesticated and served as a draft animal and a mount. It is assumed that horses were yoked to chariots (*rot-h2-o- > Sanskrit rátha-). Accordingly, a scenario of wheeled PIE warriors conquering most parts of Europe and Asia is widespread in literature. There is an alleged word meaning ‘sea, ocean’ which is highly controversial: Gothic marei, Old Irish muir, Old Church Slavic morje point to a neuter i-stem *mori/*mari. Such i-stems are rare and are evidence of great antiquity. However, an Indo-Iranian cognate is missing, so a European innovation is not out of the question. After all, it

8. The homeland of the speakers of Proto-Indo-European remains a matter of conjecture which body of water was actually meant by *mori/*mari. The Baltic Sea or the Black Sea are most often suggested. Reconstructing the PIE vocabulary is not the only way to locate the original homeland. Consideration of non-Indo-European language families may be useful as well. Contact between non-related languages is a common phenomenon. If we can prove loan contact(s) in the supposed PIE era, it is most likely that the Urheimat was situated in the vicinity of those languages contributing the loans. Of course, cultural terms can travel long distances along with the denoted thing. For instance, as a result of trade relations we find similar words for ‘wine’ all over the world (the origin of wine was in Caucasia). Even numerals are borrowed now and then, e.g. the Arabic sábʕa ‘seven’ probably has a connection with PIE *septm̥ and Akkadian šalašu ‘three’ with PIE *trei̭ es. However, the majority of Indo-European-Semitic loan words denote objects of trade such as animals and plants. Words belonging to the basic vocabulary are of greater value; they indicate direct contact and thus close spatial proximity. A couple of such “basic words” have been borrowed from PIE into Finno-Ugric languages, e.g. PIE *h3 nōmn̥ ‘name’ → Proto-Fi.-Ugr. *nime > Finnish nimi or PIE *d hē-k- ‘to do, make’ → PFU *teke > Hungarian te-sz. Furthermore, there must have been contact with the Caucasian language family. Especially the Kartvelian (= South Caucasian) branch shows evident IE elements in its vocabulary: PIE *meld h- ‘ritual invocation of a deity’ → Georgian madl-i ‘grace, blessing’; PIE *snus-o- ‘daughter-inlaw’ → Zan nusa ‘bride’ amongst other examples. As linguistic paleontology was being established, numerous works regarding this method were published. Two of them can be considered milestones today. Victor Hehn’s Culturpflanzen und Hausthiere in ihrem Übergang aus Asien nach Griechenland und Italien sowie in das übrige Europa (1870) and Otto Schrader’s Reallexikon der indogermanischen Altertumskunde (1901) give an extensive outline of Indo-European life. The problem was that both authors reached different conclusions using the same method! Hehn proposed an Asian Urheimat, while Schrader placed the homeland in South Russia. For the opponents of paleolinguistics this was proof enough of the defectiveness of the method. This was also the point when the first archaeologists entered the fray. In 1902, Gustaf Kossinna published his essay Die indogermanische Frage archäologisch beantwortet, in which he stated that archaeology alone has the advantage of operating with concrete material and therefore has the sole privilege of giving a definitive answer to the homeland question. It is indeed true that it is nowadays possible to date archaeological finds very precisely by using the radiocarbon method. But the whole area in question is still not archaeologically explored. Besides, there is no communis opinio about when the proto-language was spoken. The linguistic material indicates a Neolithic level of civilization, including agriculture, keeping of domestic animals and processing of domesticated plants, together with a settled life style. These features can be found in a number of cultures even in Europe, e.g. the Corded Ware culture or the Funnel Beaker culture. In addition, a clear correlation of prehistoric cultures with certain languages is difficult if not fatuous. The different cultures are often classified only by one distinguishing feature such as the ornamentation of pottery. It has to be noted that cultural features are not exclusively linked to certain peoples − they can be passed on and spread like waves, regardless of migration. Connecting a group of speakers with racial features is even more questionable. Because of the mentioning of an élite dominance of light-skinned, tall, and blue-eyed men

87

88

I. General and methodological Issues in some ancient texts, the Proto-Indo-Europeans were associated with the so-called Nordic race without further reflection. Such pseudo-scientific assertions emerged at the beginning of the 20th century and were especially widespread in Germany during the 1930s and ’40s. Under the influence of the works of authors like Otto Reche and Karl Penka, Scandinavia and/or Germany were soon regarded as the final answers to the homeland question. Modern linguistics does not bother examining skulls anymore, although skeletal remains are not entirely useless. With the aid of genetics, scientists try to find a connection between linguistic, genetic, and cultural developments in Europe, the latter being characterized by the transition from hunter-gatherer to agriculture (“Neolithic revolution”). Indeed, it was detected that the share of Neolithic DNA apparently decreases from Southeast to Northwest. Supposing that agriculture has its roots in Asia Minor, we can thus recognize a “flow” coming from the Southeast: the Indo-European migration movement? Time will tell to what extent human genetics is helpful. As of now, we have to rely on linguistic data. Long before the IE proto-language was an issue, Friedrich Schlegel recognized the antiquity of Sanskrit and its parallels to related languages like Greek and Avestan. In his work Über die Sprache und Weisheit der Indier (published in 1808) he praised the Old Indic language for its pureness and clarity and he implied that India alone must have been the origin of the later IE “colonies”. Today India can be ruled out as a homeland candidate with the utmost probability. After Schlegel almost every single part of the Old World was brought into the discussion. (We will not dwell on exotic locations like the North Pole or the Sahara.) Sometimes it seems like a religious war is being fought. Quite often the proposals are influenced by nationalistic thinking and the suggested homeland is identical with the country/ region the particular author is from. Often researchers have ignored arguments against the favored position a priori instead of systematically gathering evidence, pondering the pros and cons, and then presenting a solution. Some academics even give up their original opinion in favor of a new one: A. H. Sayce stated in 1880 that the Urheimat had been in Asia; ten years later he suggested Europe; and in 1927 he finally proposed Asia Minor. Of all the theories that have been set forth during the past two centuries, three can be considered serious. One of them places the original home in an area that can roughly be called “South Russian steppes”, i.e., the regions north of the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea. The first prominent proponent of this South Russian hypothesis was Otto Schrader in 1890. His argumentation was primarily based upon paleolinguistics: The PIE people knew animals such as the wild boar, the bear, and the eel and plants such as the beech and the yew − life forms found in the assumed area. Furthermore, he regarded the huge steppes as ideal for farming and stock-breeding. One of the most complex models of Indo-European dispersal is the Kurgan hypothesis, introduced by Marija Gimbutas in 1956. It must be noted that Gimbutas never intended to give an explicit solution for the Indo-European problem. What she actually developed was a theory of the Indo-Europeanization of Old Europe by the so-called Kurgan people, who came from the Volga-Uralic-/North-Pontic regions in three waves of invasion. The Kurgan culture was characterized by: round burial mounds (Russian kurgan ‘mound’, actually a loan from a Tatar word with the same meaning); a patriarchic and hierarchic social structure; domestication of the horse as a mount and its use as a provider of milk and meat; advanced weaponry (bow and arrow, spear, dagger, etc.); and

8. The homeland of the speakers of Proto-Indo-European a half-nomadic life with rudimentary agriculture. This culture was diametrically opposed to that of the Old Europeans. According to Gimbutas, the Old European people lived in a peaceful, sedentary and matrifocal society and were hardly able to defend themselves against the penetrating heavy-armed, horseback-riding Kurgan warriors. The bulk of today’s criticism is leveled against this war-like scenario, the description of which is similar to that proposed for the Germanic Migration Period. On the other hand, kurganlike tumuli have been found in Mycenae, Thrace, Macedonia, and Scythia; and similar burial mounds are described in the epic poems Iliad and Beowulf. Also, the theory is well-suited to a possible Uralic and Caucasian neighborhood. The Caucasus itself is the central point of the second noteworthy theory, whose main supporters are Tamaz Gamkrelidze and Vjačeslav Ivanov. Since the 1980s, they have been basing their hypothesis on reconstructed words for geological and meteorological terms which point to a mountainous landscape. Beside the PIE word *sn(e)ig ṷh- ‘to snow’ Gamkrelidze/Ivanov claim to have found other related terms: *(i̭ )eg- ‘coldness, ice’, *(e)is- ‘ice’, *srīg- ‘to be cold’, and *preu(s)- ‘to freeze’. These terms support the idea of a mountainous homeland, as well as the words for ‘peak, hilltop’: Sanskrit ágra-, Avestan aɣra, cf. also Albanian gur ‘cliff, rock’, Old Church Slavic gora ‘mountain’, and Lithuanian girià ‘forest’. Of course, terms concerning height and width are relatively dependent on the speakers’ experience and are therefore not useful for determining absolute measures, as Wolfgang Meid noted in 1989. Some parts of Gamkrelidze/Ivanov’s zoological terminology are a little bit dubious, e.g. *He/or- ‘eagle’ or *i̭ebh-/Hebh- ‘elephant’. Also worth mentioning are the so-called “Southwest Asian migratory terms” found in the Semitic languages, for example PIE *tauro- : Proto-Semitic *ṯawr- ‘bull’. Among the IE-Kartvelian relations are a couple of Proto-Kartvelian words which can be interpreted as Proto-IE loans: *diqa- ‘clay’ ← PIE *d heĝ h-om- ‘earth; (soil)’; *lom- (Georgian lom-i) ← PIE *leu- ‘lion’. Culturally, Gamkrelidze/Ivanov classify the Proto-Indo-European civilization as Old Eastern. One cannot identify PIE with one archaeological culture in the postulated area, the authors say, but there are various parallels. For example, the use of bull horns as symbols of masculinity and the depiction of leopard furs in 4th millennium Western Anatolia can be associated with the Halafian culture. The significance of the horse and the carriage as well as the cremation of chiefs along with their chariots points to the Kura-Araxes culture. One would think, though, that the Indo-European Urvolk, which was homogeneous in both language and culture, should have left more or less homogeneous archaeological evidence. Furthermore, it must be noted that the oldest place names in the Caucasian region are non-Indo-European. The same is true for Asia Minor, the third Urheimat hypothesis worth mentioning. The hydronyms and toponyms there would suggest a secondary immigration by IE peoples. The first supporter of an Anatolian homeland was Johannes Schmidt in 1890. His argumentation was as follows: The Indo-European numeral system is based on the number 10, but in several dialects there is a “break” after 60. The tens up to 60 are built using the cardinal numbers, but from 70 on they are built using the ordinal numbers. Schmidt interpreted this break as having been influenced by the Babylonian sexagesimal (base-sixty) system. Hermann Hirt argued in 1892 that the number 60 is also important in the Chinese calendar; if this was also due to Babylonian influence, then why did the neighboring Indo-Iranians not adopt it, too?

89

90

I. General and methodological Issues

Fig. 8.1: Supposed homeland of the Proto-Indo-Europeans

The Anatolian hypothesis of Colin Renfrew attracted a great deal of attention but also criticism, mainly because it is not entirely based upon linguistic data. Renfrew developed the Wave of Advance Model, which equates the spread of the Indo-Europeans with the spread of agriculture. As the latter arose about 6,500 BC in Anatolia, this must have been the original home. Renfrew also interprets the differences between the Hittite language and other Indo-European subgroups as archaisms reflecting the proto-language. The spread of agriculture is explained according to a concept by Albert Ammermann and Luca Cavalli-Sforza. Assuming that one farmer’s son moves 35 kilometers away from his parents’ home in 25 years, agriculture would have spread at a pace of approximately one kilometer per year. However, this is a computer model; it suggests a continuous movement and ignores the fact that natural processes are not that predictable and constant. It is highly probable that the cradle of agriculture was in and around the archaeological site Çatalhöyük (findings include einkorn and emmer wheat). This does not necessarily mean that the splitting/spreading of the IE language was analogous to the spread of agriculturalists. As mentioned above, linguistic reality should be the primary consideration in any attempt to determine the locality from which the speakers of the later Indo-European dialect groups spread. Within a period of two centuries, more than a hundred researchers have registered their opinion concerning the Indo-European problem, but a final answer has still not been provided. At least several areas can now be excluded as candidates and − after considering all arguments − it is very likely that the homeland is indeed situated in the South Russian and North Pontic regions including the zones east of the Black Sea and, possibly, in the Caucasus. In particular, the early Finno-Ugric and (South-)Caucasian loan relations can be explained satisfyingly on the grounds of this theory. But an end of the discussion cannot be foreseen.

8. The homeland of the speakers of Proto-Indo-European

References Ammerman, Albert and Luca L. Cavalli-Sforza 1984 Neolithic Transition and the Genetics of Populations in Europe. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Gamkrelidze, Tamaz V. and Vjacheslav V. Ivanov 1984 Indoevropejskij jazyk i indoevropejci. Rekonstrukcija i istoriko-tipologičeskij analiz prajazyka i protokul’tury. Tbilisi: Izdatel’stvo Tbilisskogo Universiteta. [Translation by Johanna Nichols. 1995. Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans. A reconstruction and historical analysis of a proto-language and a proto-culture. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.] Gimbutas, Marija 1956 The Prehistory of Eastern Europe. Part I. Mesolithic, Neolithic and Copper Age cultures in Russia and the Baltic area. Edited by Hugh Hencken. American School of Prehistoric Research. Bulletin no. 20. Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum. Gimbutas, Marija 1992 Die Ethnogenese der europäischen Indogermanen. (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft − Vorträge und Kleinere Schriften 54). Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität. Häusler, Alexander 2000 Bemerkungen zu einigen Ansichten über den Ursprung der Indogermanen. General Linguistics 40 [2003]: 1−4. Hehn, Victor 1870 Culturpflanzen und Hausthiere in ihrem Übergang aus Asien nach Griechenland und Italien sowie in das übrige Europa. Berlin: Borntraeger. Hirt, Hermann 1892 Die Heimat der indogermanischen Völker und ihre Wanderungen. Indogermanische Forschungen 1: 464−485. [Reprinted in Helmut Arntz (ed.), Indogermanica. Forschungen über Sprache und Geschichte Alteuropas. Halle/Saale: Niemeyer 1940, 56−76.] Kossinna, Gustaf 1902 Die indogermanische Frage archäologisch beantwortet. Zeitschrift für Ethnologie 34: 161−222. Mallory, James. P. 1973 A History of the Indo-European Problem. The Journal of Indo-European Studies 1: 21− 65. Mallory, James. P. 1989 In Search of the Indo-Europeans. Language, Archaeology and Myth. London: Thames and Hudson. Meid, Wolfgang 1989 Archäologie und Sprachwissenschaft: Kritisches zu neueren Hypothesen der Ausbreitung der Indogermanen. (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft − Vorträge und Kleinere Schriften 43). Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität. Pictet, Adolphe 1859 Les origines des Indo-européennes ou les Aryas primitifs. Essai de paléontologie linguistique. Paris: J. Cherbuliez. Renfrew, Colin 1987 Archaeology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins. London: Jonathan Cape. Sayce, Archibald H. 1880 Introduction to the Science of Language. Vol. II. London: Kegan Paul. Sayce, Archibald H. 1890 The Hittites: the Story of a forgotten empire. 2nd edn. Oxford: The Religious Tract Society.

91

92

I. General and methodological Issues Sayce, Archibald H. 1927 The Aryan Problem − fifty years later. Antiquity 1: 204−215. Schlegel, Friedrich 1808 Über die Sprache und Weisheit der Indier: ein Beitrag zur Begründung der Alterthumskunde; nebst metrischen Übersetzungen indischer Gedichte. Heidelberg: Mohr and Zimmer. Schmidt, Johannes 1890 Die Urheimath der Indogermanen und das europäische Zahlensystem. Abhandlungen der Königl. Preuss. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin vom Jahre 1890. Berlin: Reimer. Schrader, Otto 1890 Prehistoric antiquities of the Aryan peoples: a manual of comparative philology and the earliest culture. Trans. Frank Jevons. New York: Scribner and Welford. Schrader, Otto 1901 Reallexikon der indogermanischen Altertumskunde. Grundzüge einer Kultur- und Völkergeschichte Alteuropas. Strassburg: Trübner. Schrader, Otto 1907 Sprachvergleichung und Urgeschichte. Linguistisch-historische Beiträge zur Erforschung des indogermanischen Altertums. Jena: Costenoble. Tischler, Johann 2002 Bemerkungen zur Urheimatfrage. In: Matthias Fritz and Susanne Zeilfelder (eds.), Novalis Indogermanica. Festschrift für Günter Neumann zum 80. Geburtstag, 475−487. Graz: Leykam.

Torsten Gaitzsch, Frankfurt am Main and Johann Tischler, Utting am Ammersee (Germany)

II. The application of the comparative method in selected language groups other than Indo-European 9. The comparative method in Semitic linguistics The Semitic language family is part of the larger Afro-Asiatic language phylum, which includes Ancient Egyptian, the Berber languages of North Africa, Cushitic, Chadic, and Omotic. Semitic itself is divided into two major sub-branches, East and West Semitic. East Semitic contains its oldest attestations, Akkadian, attested from ca. 2700 BCE to the 1st c. CE, and Eblaite, which is attested in the 24th and 23rd c. BCE. West Semitic comprises all other Semitic languages and is commonly divided into three main branches, Ethiopian Semitic, Modern South Arabian (MSA), and Central Semitic (CS). Ethiopian Semitic is attested from the 4th c. CE on in its classical form, called Gecez, and is still widely spoken in Ethiopia today. Some of the living Ethiopian languages include Amharic, the national language of Ethiopia, Tigre, Tigrinya, Harari and the dialect cluster Gurage. MSA is spoken in the area of today’s Yemen, Oman and on the island of Soqotra. It is represented by languages such as Mehri, Harsusi, Jibbali, and Soqotri. CS contains Old South Arabian (OSA), a cluster of four dialects attested in inscriptions dating from the 8th cent. BCE to the 6th cent. CE. The main corpora of OSA inscriptions were found in basically the same area in which MSA is spoken today. It is important to note, though, that despite the fact that MSA and OSA are geographically close, MSA is clearly not a descendent of OSA since the latter took part in an innovation in the verbal system that separates CS from MSA and Ethiopian, for which see below. CS also includes Arabic, attested from the 5th c. CE until today, and a branch called Northwest Semitic, which contains Ugaritic, the language of the ancient northern Syrian coastal city of Ugarit attested in writing from the 15th−12th c. BCE, Aramaic, known from ca. the 9th c. BCE until today, and Canaanite. The most prominent Canaanite languages are Hebrew, attested from around 1200 BCE until today, and Phoenician, which is known from inscriptions dating from the 10th c. BCE to the 2nd c. CE (for this classification of Semitic see, e.g., Voigt 1997; Faber 1997; Huehnergard 2004: 141). Semitic languages are thus attested over a time period of roughly 4700 years, with some of its members being recorded for almost 3000 years (Akkadian, Hebrew, Aramaic). Because of its almost unequaled chronological depth, Semitic naturally is of special interest for the diachronic study of language and the application of the comparative method. The comparative study of Semitic languages began in the 10th c. CE, when Jewish grammarians such as Sacadia ben Yosef, Yehuda ibn Quraysh, and Menachem ben Saruq, under the influence of Arabic philology, began to give thought to the resemblance of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic and laid the foundation of comparative Semitic philology. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Christian theologians working on the Old Testament and orientalists began to compare the lexicon and verbal paradigms of Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic and Ethiopian. This period produced the first basic tools for the comparison of the Semitic languages known at the time, such as polyglot Bible editions https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261288-009

94

II. The application of the comparative method in selected language groups and Bible lexica that included evidence from Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac, Ethiopic, Arabic, and Persian (for more detail see Ullendorff 1961: 15). The Western tradition of the comparative study of Semitic languages thus primarily developed out of Biblical philology, a connection it has retained in some of its sub-branches up to today (Goldenberg 2002: 23). With the discovery of other and, in part, more ancient Semitic languages such as Akkadian, Ugaritic, and OSA, Semitic studies became connected to other philologically oriented disciplines such as Assyriology and Northwest Semitics. Real progress in the linguistic and comparative study of Semitic languages, however, did not occur before Bopp’s influential studies on the relationship of the Indo-European languages and the development of the comparative method based on this language family. By the mid-nineteenth century, scholars working on Semitic such as de Sacy, Gesenius, and Ewald adopted this method and laid the foundation for, as Ullendorff writes, the “remarkable progress” in Semitic studies over the course of the nineteenth century that was achieved on the basis of the comparative method, and which is reflected in the works of, e.g., Theodor Nöldeke, August Dillmann, and William Wright (Ullendorff 1961: 16). Subsequently, the linguistic concept developed by the Neo-Grammarians regarding the regularity of sound change, which is crucial for the comparative method, was likewise integrated into the linguistic study of Semitic. This methodological progress is reflected in the monumental work on Semitic languages by Carl Brockelmann published in two volumes in 1908 and 1913. Nothing as comprehensive as Brockelmann’s Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen has been published since, so that his volumes are still one of the major tools for the comparative study of Semitic today (Huehnergard 1996: 258). The influence of comparative linguistics as developed in IE studies can also be noticed in other works on Semitic languages from the early twentieth century such as the Historische Grammatik der hebräischen Sprache by Hans Bauer and Pontus Leander (1922); for a more detailed overview see Ullendorff (1961: 17). The comparative method, thus, had an enormous effect on the field of Semitic linguistics in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Other linguistic methodologies that were developed in the first half of the twentieth century, such as structuralism, were regarded with skepticism by Semitists and only rarely integrated into the linguistic analysis of the language family. The neglect of other methodologies than historical and comparative linguistics was caused by several factors. First of all, the comparative method by itself yielded many important results, especially for the study of ancient Semitic languages. For example, many writing systems used to render ancient Semitic languages do not express vowels, and even if they do in part or in full, there still remain doubts about their exact phonological realization. These ambiguities, of course, have direct impact on the morphological analysis of these languages. Difficulties such as these can often be solved by using the comparative method when comparable evidence from other, better attested Semitic languages is available (Hackett 2002: 62). A nice example is Ugaritic, an ancient Semitic language that is written in an almost exclusively consonantal alphabet. Comparative evidence has been crucial for the reconstruction of the Ugaritic vowel system and the vocalization of basic lexemes and pronominal and nominal patterns, and for explaining the use of certain verbal forms (for more detail see Hackett 2002: 63). The comparative method has also been used to reconstruct the vocalization of classical Phoenician words and names on the basis of later transcriptions into Latin and Greek and comparison with closely related languages such as Hebrew, as exemplified by Cross and Freedman’s Early Hebrew Orthography (1952),

9. The comparative method in Semitic linguistics in which forms for unvocalized Hebrew, Phoenician, and Aramaic inscriptions are reconstructed. In addition to facilitating the understanding of partially attested languages, the comparative method has been an important tool for achieving the main goals of Semitic linguistics as set in the early twentieth century, which consisted of determining linguistic features common to all or most of the family’s members, tracing diachronic changes in individual sub-branches and languages, and reconstructing the presumed ancestor language. For this type of work, the comparative method has been quite successfully applied, so that many features that were unclear or disputed can now be reconstructed with considerable certainty − for examples see further below. Another reason for the predominance of comparative and historical linguistics in the study of Semitic languages is that Semitic linguistics, as mentioned above, is deeply rooted in philology and the comparative study of languages, which were, of course, essential disciplines for the development of comparative and historical linguistics (Huehnergard 1996: 265). The study of Semitic languages in the second half of the twentieth century up to today is divided into two main groups (Lieberman 1990: 568; Huehnergard 2002: 122). The first group consists of scholars primarily working on modern Semitic languages − a group that has grown significantly in recent decades. Scholars in this field conduct fieldwork, record modern languages and dialects − specifically modern Arabic, Ethiopian, and Neo-Aramaic languages and dialects − and analyze them mostly from a synchronic point of view and on the basis of modern linguistic theories. These theories, which are sometimes also used for ancient Semitic languages, include discourse analysis and functional grammar (e.g. Khan 1988; Gianto 1990), pragmatics (e.g. Reiner 1966), and generative grammar (e.g. Malone 1993); for a more detailed summary see Malone (2002) and Izre’el (2002: 13). Although current linguistic theories are now more frequently applied to Semitic, Semitic studies have hardly contributed to the development of modern linguistic trends. A noticeable exception is the work of McCarthy (1979, 1981) and Prince (1975) who based much of their theoretical work in generative phonology and morphology on Semitic. These studies, however, are hardly referred to by Semitists. The second group consists of scholars who primarily work on ancient Semitic languages and on Semitic in general from a diachronic perspective. These scholars use the methodologies of historical and comparative linguistics for the analysis and reconstruction of individual languages and the language family in general. The predominance of historical and comparative linguistics in the study of ancient Semitic and the comprehensive discussions of Semitic is clearly reflected in the most recent treatments of Semitic grammar, such as Hetzron’s collection of language descriptions (1997), Bennett’s manual for students of Semitic languages (1998), which specifically introduces the methodologies of historical and comparative linguistics with examples taken from Semitic languages, Lipiński’s rather idiosyncratic “Comparative Grammar” (2nd ed. 2001), which attempts to replace Brockelmann’s Grundriss, and Haelewyck’s brief “Grammaire comparée” (2006), which all adhere to the basic methodologies of comparative and historical linguistics. As mentioned above, Semitists have come to several important results in the reconstruction of Semitic in recent years based on the comparative method. Regarding the phonemic inventory, it is now generally agreed that Proto-Semitic had three voiceless sibilants, *s, *ts, and a lateral *ɬ (Faber 1981) − which were previously reconstructed as *š, *s and *ś respectively based on their realization in Hebrew −, and that the originally assumed sibilant triad consisted of affricates, that is *ts, *dz, and *ts’ instead of traditional

95

96

II. The application of the comparative method in selected language groups *s, *z and *s’ (Faber 1985). Furthermore, it is now relatively certain that the so-called “emphatic” consonants of Semitic were glottalized in Proto-Semitic − a feature still attested in Ethiopian Semitic and MSA − and not pharyngealized as in Arabic (Cantineau 1960; Aro 1977; Huehnergard 2002: 124). Many important advances have also been made in morphology, especially in the reconstruction of the verbal system. The Proto-Semitic verbal system is now considered to have been similar to the one attested in Akkadian, that is, with an imperfect/imperfective conjugation *yVqattVl, a preterite/jussive/perfective conjugation *yVqtVl, a subordinating marker -u that was attached to these verbal conjugations, and a conjugated predicative verbal adjective qatVl (Greenberg 1952; Huehnergard 1996: 252). The aforementioned subgrouping of Semitic is to a great extent based on changes in the verbal system. In West Semitic, the conjugated predicative verbal adjective became a finite verb used for the perfect/perfective aspect. In CS, the imperfect *yVqattVl was lost and replaced by the form *yVqtVlu, the former subordinated form, through a process of reanalysis in subordinate clauses in which it was used in similar contexts as the imperfect when the latter was used for circumstantial expressions (Hamori 1973). Finer gradations within CS are based on phonological changes, such as the change from ā > ō that, among other features, characterizes Canaanite, and morphological innovations such as the development of different definite articles, for example Arabic (’)al-, Hebrew haC-, Aramaic − ā(’), and others. Syntactic studies based on the comparative method are rare in Semitic linguistics. This is due to the fact that the treatment of Semitic syntax was initially based on the Latin tradition, with some influence of Arab syntactic theories, which consisted of the identification of syntactic categories and their arrangement in a synchronic framework. This classic methodology continued to be used throughout the twentieth century (Khan 2002: 155). The increasing interest in the comparative-historical method that had so much influence in the study of Semitic phonology and morphology, never gained as much influence in Semitic syntax. One of the few exceptions is volume II of Brockelmann’s Grundriss (1913) on syntax, which also considers historical and comparative issues. Some other monographs that treat syntactic issues from a comparative-historical perspective are Bravman (1953), McFall (1982), and D. Cohen (1984). Current syntactic studies more often employ the methodologies developed by linguistic disciplines such as discourse analysis, pragmatics, and transformational syntax. Even the advances in typological studies based on Greenberg’s work, which often consider syntactic features and which are considered important for comparative-historical syntax, have as yet received little attention among Semitists (Khan 2002: 160).

References Aro, Jussi 1977 Pronunciation of the “Emphatic” Consonants in Semitic Languages. Studia Orientalia 47: 5−18. Bauer, Hans and Pontus Leander 1922 Historische Grammatik der hebräischen Sprache des Alten Testaments. Halle: Niemeyer. [repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1965.]

9. The comparative method in Semitic linguistics Bennett, Patrick R. 1998 Comparative Semitic Linguistics − A Manual. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Bravman, Max M. 1953 Studies in Arabic and General Syntax. Cairo: Publications de l’Institut d’Archéologie Orientale du Caire, Textes arabes et islamique XI. Brockelmann, Carl. 1908−1913 Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen (2 vols.). Berlin: Reuther und Reichard. Cantineau, Jean 1952 Le consonantisme du sémitique. Semitica 4: 78−94. Cohen, David 1984 La phrase nominale et l’évolution du système verbal en sémitique: Étude de syntaxe historique. Leuven: Peeters. Cross, Frank M. and David Noel Freedman 1952 Early Hebrew Orthography: A Study of the Epigraphic Evidence. New Haven: American Oriental Society. Faber, Alice 1981 Phonetic Reconstruction. Glossa 15: 233−262. Faber, Alice 1985 Akkadian Evidence for Proto-Semitic Affricates. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 37: 101− 107. Faber, Alice 1997 Genetic Subgrouping of the Semitic Languages. In: Robert Hetzron (ed.), The Semitic Languages, 3−15. New York: Routledge. Gianto, Augustinus 1990 Word Order Variation in the Akkadian of Byblos. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico. Goldenberg, Gideon 2002 Semitic Linguistics and the General Study of Language. In: Izre’el (ed.), 21−41. Greenberg, Joseph 1952 The Afro-Asiatic (Hamito-Semitic) Present. Journal of the American Oriental Society 72: 1−9. Hackett, Jo Ann. 2002 The Study of Partially Documented Languages. In: Izre’el (ed.), 57−75. Haelewyck, Jean-Claude 2006 Grammaire comparée des langues sémitiques: Éléments de phonétique, de morphologie et de syntaxe. Bruxelles: Safran. Hamori, Andras 1973 A Note on Yaqtulu in East and West Semitic. Archiv Orientální 41: 319−324. Hetzron, Robert (ed.) 1997 The Semitic Languages. New York: Routledge. Huehnergard, John 1996 New Directions in the Study of Semitic Languages. In: Jerrold S. Cooper and Glenn M. Schwartz (eds.), The Study of the Ancient Near East in the Twenty-First Century. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 251−272. Huehnergard, John 2002 Comparative Semitic Linguistics. In: Izre’el (ed.), 119−150. Huehnergard, John 2004 Afro-Asiatic. In: Roger D. Woodard (ed.), The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World’s Ancient Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 138−159. Izre’el, Shlomo 2002 Introduction. In: Izre’el (ed.), 13−20.

97

98

II. The application of the comparative method in selected language groups Izre’el, Shlomo (ed.) 2002 Semitic Linguistics: The State of the Art at the Turn of the 21st Century. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Khan, Geoffrey 1988 Studies in Semitic Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Khan, Geoffrey 2002 The Study of Semitic Syntax. In: Izre’el (ed.), 151−172. Lieberman, Steven L. 1990 Summary Report: Linguistic Change and Reconstruction in the Afro-Asiatic Languages. In: Philip Baldi (ed.), Linguistic Change and Reconstruction Methodology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 565−575. Lipiński, Edward 2001 Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar. Second Edition. Leuven: Peeters. Malone, Joseph L. 1993 Tiberian Hebrew Phonology. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Malone, Joseph L. 2002 The Chomskian School and Semitic Linguistics. In: Izre’el (ed.), 43−55. McCarthy, John 1979 Formal Problems in Semitic Phonology and Morphology. Unpublished MIT Ph.D. dissertation. McCarthy, John 1981 A Prosodic Theory of Nonconcatenative Morphology. Linguistic Inquiry 12: 373−418. McFall, Leslie 1982 The Enigma of the Hebrew Verbal System: Solutions from Ewald to the Present. Sheffield: Almond Press. Prince, Alan S. 1975 The Phonology and Morphology of Tiberian Hebrew. Unpublished MIT Ph.D. dissertation. Reiner, Erica 1966 A Linguistic Analysis of Akkadian. London: Mouton. Ullendorff, Edward 1961 Comparative Semitics. In: Giorgio Levi della Vida (ed.), Linguistica semitica: Presente e futuro. Rome: Centro di studi semitici, 13−32. Voigt, Rainer M. 1997 The Classification of Central Semitic. Journal of Semitic Studies 32: 1−21.

Rebecca Hasselbach, Chicago, IL (USA)

10. The comparative method in Uralic linguistics 1. Introduction 2. Phonology 3. Morphology https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261288-010

4. Syntax 5. The lexicon 6. References

10. The comparative method in Uralic linguistics

1. Introduction In the second half of the 19th century, Uralic linguistics adopted the Indo-European method (sound laws, exceptionless sound change, and analogy) that formed the basis of many important works (e.g. historical phonologies of most of the Finno-Ugric languages) through which the field of Uralic studies caught up with the international state-of-theart of historical-comparative linguistics. The methodological consensus that remained unquestioned until the middle of the 20th century dissolved over an issue which had been largely unresolved up to this point, the reconstruction of the Uralic and the FinnoUgric vowel systems. While the first position, now held by only a small number of researchers, was strictly based on the concept of regular sound correspondences (“sound laws”), the second position introduced a number of methodological innovations as a result of certain a priori assumptions, e.g. sporadic sound change, unconditioned splits, sound change “across” other phonemes, and suffix-conditioned sound change; despite considerable evidence in their favor, concepts from Indo-European are rejected, such as the postulation of ablaut. For the period from 1830 to 1970, there is a bibliography which claims to be complete (Schlachter and Ganschow 1976−1986). The only existing comparative survey is Collinder (1960), which, however, is out-ofdate. Also worth consulting is the chapter “Die uralische Grundsprache” of Hajdú (1987). Sinor (1988) is the standard handbook of historical phonology and morphology, containing survey articles on all Uralic languages (these articles are not referenced individually in the following). Several of the large handbooks on the individual languages or subfamilies are out-of-date on details but are nevertheless useful: Benkő and Imre (1972) on Hungarian, Hakulinen (1957−1960) on Finnish, Laanest (1982) on Fennic, Sammallahti (1998) on Lapp, and Mikola (2004) on Samoyedic.

2. Phonology A very concise, unannotated survey is the introduction to Katz (2003) which, however, was the target of heavy polemics.

2.1. Vowels All in all, there were three problem areas: 1. whether to reconstruct a quantity opposition or an opposition of full versus reduced vowels for the proto-language, 2. whether the proto-language had ablaut, and 3. the reconstruction of the Permian vowel system. The standard work on the Finno-Ugric vowel system is Steinitz (1964), which argues for the ablaut position. This work is now out-of-date, but follows a line of argument that is based on the concept of strict sound laws. The opposing methodological view is taken in the synopsis by Sammallahti (1988) which, making use of the Samoyedic languages, attempts to reconstruct the Uralic vowel system. Csúcs (1991) is based on the Uralisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch, which was criticized from the position of those who assume strict sound laws.

99

100

II. The application of the comparative method in selected language groups Individual languages which are important in this regard are treated in the following works: Steinitz (1955) on the Vogul vowel system, Steinitz (1950 and 1966−1993) on the vowel system of Ostyak, Honti (1982; without ablaut) with an opposing position, and Lytkin (1964) as well as Csúcs (2005) on the Permian vowel system, the latter consciously disregarding the concept of sound laws.

2.2. Consonants There is no recent comparative treatment, nor is there an older one of good quality. The main difference in the various reconstructions lies in the number and the quality of the postulated affricates and fricatives. Besides the relevant literature listed in 2.1, the following works on individual languages are important from a historical-comparative point of view: Honti (1999a) on the Ob-Ugrian consonant system, Uotila (1933) on Permian, Keresztes (1986−1987) on Mordvin, Bereczki (1992−1994) on Cheremis, and Postis (1953) on the influence of the Germanic and the Baltic languages on the consonant system of the Fennic languages. On phonotactics, see Bakró-Nagy (1992a), which is based on the Uralisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch.

3. Morphology The only existing survey is the out-of-date monograph of Majtinskaja (1979). Serebrennikov (1963) specifically addresses the Permian languages, Künnap (1971−1978) deals with Southern Samoyedic. To date, Lehtisalo (1936) is the only treatment of derivation in general, even though it no longer represents the state of the art in every detail. The formation of abstract nouns is dealt with in Lazar (1975). Tendencies of structural change are discussed in the important monograph of Tauli (1966).

3.1. Nouns The number system of Uralic is the subject of a new study in Honti (1997a), which contains a list of the previous literature. There exists no survey of the case system of Uralic or its development in the individual languages; for the situation in these, see Collinder (1960), Hajdú (1987), the handbooks on the individual languages, and the monograph of Baker (1985) on Zyrian. The same is true of the system of possessive suffixes, since Mark (1925) was never completed; despite its age, this still represents a valuable resource.

3.2. Adjectives Morphologically, there is no difference between adjectives and nouns, except, of course, for the concept of comparison, for which see Fuchs (1949).

10. The comparative method in Uralic linguistics

3.3. Numerals The standard work is Honti (1993).

3.4. Pronouns Though out-of-date and not restricted to Uralic, Majtinskaja (1969) is the only survey in existence.

3.5. Verbs Regarding the person endings of Uralic, the surveys mentioned in 3. above should be consulted; on Samoyedic, Körtvely (2005) should also be mentioned here. Even though over 100 years old, Setälä ([1887] 1981) continues to be the standard work on tense and mood in the Finno-Ugric languages. The monograph of Serebrennikov (1960) is dedicated specifically to the Permian languages, whose tense and mood categories show a different behavior. With the exception of Ob-Ugrian (cf. Kulonen 1989) and Lapp, the passive is only a minor category in the Uralic languages. The determinate conjugation is the topic of two recent important works which both include a comparative perspective, even if the focus of each is on a single language: Keresztes (1999) deals with Mordvin and Havas (2004) with Hungarian. Recently, Honti has contributed important studies in two areas, one on negation in Uralic (1997b) and the other (1999b) on verbal prefixes which are attested in several Uralic languages. On the nominal forms, the survey works should be consulted; for the Permian languages see Stipa (1960) and for Lapp, Korhonen (1974).

3.6. Conjunctions, postpositions, particles These categories are treated in Majtinkskaja (1982).

4. Syntax Comparative, non-language-particular syntactic analyses play a subordinate role in Uralic studies. Worth mentioning in this regard are the following works: Fuchs (1962), Schlachter, ed. (1970), the study of the object in Uralic in Wickman (1955), and the treatment of coordination in Finno-Ugric in Lewy (1911), which remains valid and valuable despite its age. Tauli (1966) should be consulted as well.

5. The lexicon The not uncontroversial Uralisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch by Rédei (1986−91) contains the inherited lexical inventory. Collinder (1977) on Finno-Ugric is out-of-date.

101

102

II. The application of the comparative method in selected language groups On Samoyedic see Janhunen (1977). Bakró-Nagy (1992b) groups together words from the first of these that express related concepts. A survey, not always reliable, of loan words and strata of loan words is provided in the relevant articles in Sinor (1988). More recent works on this topic exist: Ritter (1993) provides a critical survey of the research on Germanic and Baltic loan words (see also Kylstra et al. 1991 and Hahmo, Hofstra, and Nikkilä 1996); Katz (2003) and Rédei (1986) both deal with Indo-Aryan loan words but take opposing points of view; Csúcs (1990) treats Tatar loan words in Votyak (English: Udmurt). A large handbook by András Róna-Tas and Árpád Berta on the Turkic loan word strata of Hungarian appeared in 2011.

6. References Baker, Robin 1985 The development of the Komi case system. (Suomalais-ugrilaisen seuran toimituksia [Proceedings of the Finno-Ugric Society] 189). Helsinki: Suomalais-ugrilaisen Seura. Bakró-Nagy, Marianne Sz. 1992a Proto-Phonotactics: Phonotactic investigation of the PU and PFU consonant system. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Bakró-Nagy, Marianne Sz. 1992b Die Begriffsgruppen des Wortschatzes im PU/PFU. Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher/Neue Folge 11: 13−40. Benkő, Loránd and Samu Imre 1972 The Hungarian language. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Bereczki, Gábor 1992−1994 Grundzüge der tscheremissischen Sprachgeschichte I−II. (Studia uralo-altaica 34−35). Szeged: József Attila University Press. Collinder, Björn 1960 Comparative grammar of the Uralic languages. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. Collinder, Björn 1977 Fenno-ugric vocabulary2. Hamburg: Buske. Csúcs, Sándor 1990 Die tatarischen Lehnwörter des Wotjakischen. Trans. by Albrecht Friedrich and Károly Gerstner. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Csúcs, Sándor 1991 Statistik der uralischen Lautentsprechungen. Budapest: A Magyar Tudományos Akadémiai Nyelvtudományi Intézete. Csúcs, Sándor 2005 Die Rekonstruktion der permischen Grundsprache. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Erelt, Mati (ed.) 2003 Estonian language. Tallinn: Estonian Academy Publishers. Fokos-Fuchs, Dávid R. 1962 Rolle der Syntax in der Frage nach Sprachverwandtschaft. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Fokos-Fuchs, Dávid R. 1949 Der Komparativ und Superlativ in den finnisch-ugrischen Sprachen. Finnisch-ugrische Forschungen 30: 147−230. Hahmo, Sirkka-Liisa, Tette Hofstra, and Osmo Nikkilä 1996 Lexikon der älteren germanischen Lehnwörter in den ostseefinnischen Sprachen II−III: K−O, P−Ä. Amsterdam: Rodopi. [Continuation of Kylstra et al. 1991]

10. The comparative method in Uralic linguistics Hajdú, Péter 1987 Die uralischen Sprachen. In: Péter Hajdú and Péter Domokos (eds.), Die uralischen Sprachen und Literaturen. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 179−271. Hakulinen, Lauri 1957−1960 Handbuch der finnischen Sprache I−II. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Havas, Ferenc 2004 Objective conjugation and medialisation. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 51: 95−141. Honti, László 1982 Geschichte des obugrischen Vokalismus der ersten Silbe. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Honti, László 1993 Die Grundzahlwörter der uralischen Sprachen. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Honti, László 1997a Numerusprobleme. Finnisch-ugrische Forschungen 54: 1−126. Honti, László 1997b Die Negation im Uralischen. Linguistica Uralica 33: 81−96, 161−176, 241−252. Honti, László 1999a Az obi-ugor konszonantizmus története [The history of the Ob-Ugric consonant system]. (Studia uralo-altaica. Supplementum 9). Szeged: József Attila University Press. Honti, László 1999b Das Alter und die Entstehung der “Verbalpräfixe” in uralischen Sprachen. Linguistica Uralica 35: 81−97, 161−176. Janhunen, Juha 1977 Samojedischer Wortschatz: gemeinsamojedische Etymologien. (Castrenianumin toimitteita 17). Helsinki: Suomalais-ugrilaisen Seura. Katz, Hartmut 2003 Studien zu den älteren indoiranischen Lehnwörtern in den uralischen Sprachen. Posthumously edited by Paul Widmer, Anna Widmer, and Gerson Klumpp. Heidelberg: Winter. Keresztes, László 1986−1987 Grundzüge des mordwinischen Konsonantismus I−II. (Studia uralo-altaica 26− 27). Szeged: József Attila University Press. Keresztes, László 1999 Development of the Mordvin conjugation. (Suomalais-ugrilaisen seuran toimituksia 233). Helsinki: Suomalais-ugrilaisen Seura. Korhonen, Mikko 1967−1974 Die Konjugation im Lappischen I−II. (Suomalais-ugrilaisen seuran toimituksia 143, 155). Helsinki: Suomalais-ugrilaisen Seura. Körtvely, Erika 2005 Verb conjugation in Tundra Nenets. (Studia uralo-altaica 46). Szeged: József Attila University Press. Kulonen, Ulla-Maija 1989 The passive in Ob-Ugrian. (Suomalais-ugrilaisen seuran toimituksia 203). Helsinki: Suomalais-ugrilaisen Seura. Künnap, Ago 1971−1978 System und Ursprung der kamassischen Flexionssuffixe I−II. (Suomalais-ugrilaisen seuran toimituksia 147, 164). Helsinki: Suomalais-ugrilaisen Seura. Kylstra, Andries D., Hahmoo Sirkka-Liisa, Tette Hofstra, and Osmo Nikkilä 1991 Lexikon der älteren germanischen Lehnwörter in den ostseefinnischen Sprachen I: A− J. Amsterdam: Rodopi. [continued by Hahmo, Hofstra, and Nikkilä 1996]. Laanest, Arvo 1982 Einführung in die ostseefinnischen Sprachen. Hamburg: Buske.

103

104

II. The application of the comparative method in selected language groups Lazar, Oscar 1975 The formation of abstract nouns in the Uralic languages. (Studia Uralica et Altaica Upsaliensia 10). Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell. Lehtisalo, Toivo 1936 Über die primären ururalischen Ableitungssuffixe. (Suomalais-ugrilaisen seuran toimituksia 72). Helsinki: Suomalais-ugrilaisen Seura. Lewy, Ernst 1911 Zur finnisch-ugrischen Wort- und Satzverbindung. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Majtinskaja, Klara E. 1969 Mestoimenija v jazykach raznych sistem [The pronoun system in various languages]. Moscow: Nauka. Majtinskaja, Klara E. 1979 Istoriko-sopostavitel’naja morfologija finno-ugorskich jazykov [Historical-comparative morphology of the Finno-Ugric languages]. Moscow: Nauka. Majtinskaja, Klara E. 1982 Služebnye slova v finno-ugorskich jazykach [Function words in the Finno-Ugric languages]. Moscow: Nauka. Mark, Julius 1925 Die Possessivsuffixe in den uralischen Sprachen I. Hälfte. (Suomalais-ugrilaisen seuran toimituksia 54). Helsinki: Suomalais-ugrilaisen Seura. Mikola, Tibor 2004 Studien zur Geschichte der samojedischen Sprachen. (Studia uralo-altaica 45). Szeged: József Attila University Press. Posti, Lauri 1953 From Pre-Finnic to Late Proto-Finnic. Studies on the development of the consonant system. Finnisch-ugrische Forschungen 31: 1−91. Rédei, Károly 1986 Zu den indogermanisch-uralischen Sprachkontakten. (Sitzungsberichte der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 468). Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Rédei, Károly 1986−1991 Uralisches etymologisches Wörterbuch I−III. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Ritter, Ralf-Peter 1993 Studien zu den ältesten germanischen Entlehnungen im Ostseefinnischen. Frankfurt am Main: Lang. Róna-Tas, András and Árpád Berta 2011 West Old Turkic. Turkic Loanwords in Hungarian. I−II. (Turcologia 84). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Salminen, Tapani 1997 A monograph on the phonotactics of Proto-Finno-Ugrian consonants. Finnisch-ugrische Forschungen 54: 219−227. Sammallahti, Pekka 1988 Historical phonology of the Uralic languages with Special Reference to Samoyed, Ugric, and Permic. In: Sinor (ed.), 478−554. Sammallahti, Pekka 1998 The Saami languages. An introduction. Kárášjohka: Davvi Girji. Schlachter, Wolfgang (ed.). 1970 Symposium über Syntax der uralischen Sprachen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Schlachter, Wolfgang and Gerhard Ganschow (eds.) 1976−1986 Bibliographie der uralischen Sprachwissenschaft 1830−1970. I−III. Munich: Fink.

11. The comparative method in Caucasian linguistics Serebrennikov, Boris A. 1960 Kategorii vremeni i vida v finno-ugorskich jazykach permskoj i volžskoj grupp [The categories tense and aspect in the Finno-Ugric languages of the Permian and Volgaic groups]. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk. Serebrennikov, Boris A. 1963 Istoričeskaja morfologija permskich jazykov [Historical morphology of the Permian languages]. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk. Setälä, Eemil Nestor. 1981 [1887] Zur Geschichte der Tempus- und Modusstammbildung in den finnisch-ugrischen Sprachen. Journal de la Société Finno-ougrienne II. Sinor, Denis (ed.) 1988 The Uralic languages. Description, History and Foreign Influences. (Handbuch der Orientalistik 8; Handbook of Uralic Studies 1). Leiden: Brill. Steinitz, Wolfgang 1950 Geschichte des ostjakischen Vokalismus. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Steinitz, Wolfgang 1955 Geschichte des wogulischen Vokalismus. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Steinitz, Wolfgang 1964 Geschichte des finnisch-ugrischen Vokalismus2. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Steinitz, Wolfgang 1966−1993 Dialektologisches und etymologisches Wörterbuch der ostjakischen Sprache. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Stipa, Günter 1960 Funktionen der Nominalformen des Verbs in den permischen Sprachen. (Suomalaisugrilaisen seuran toimituksia 121). Helsinki: Suomalais-ugrilaisen Seura. Tauli, Valter 1966 Structural tendencies in Uralic languages. The Hague: Mouton. Uotila, Toivo E. 1933 Zur Geschichte des Konsonantismus in den permischen Sprachen. (Suomalais-ugrilaisen seuran toimituksia 65). Helsinki: Suomalais-ugrilaisen Seura. Wickman, Bo. 1955 The form of the object in the Uralic languages. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.

Eberhard Winkler, Göttingen (Germany)

11. The comparative method in Caucasian linguistics Caucasian languages are usually defined with reference to a cluster of rather heterogeneous diagnostic features: a) Geographical features: Caucasian languages are spoken in the regions adjacent to the Great Caucasus mountain range. The region is bounded by the Black Sea on the West and by the Caspian Sea on the East. The northern and southern boundaries are less pronounced: In the North, a tentative line can be drawn from the regions around Krasnodar in the Northwest, touching upon Cherkessk and running eastwards along the northern border of Chechnya via Kizljar to the northernmost parts of Daghestan. In the South, a nearly horizontal line from Batumi in the West to Quba in Northern Azerbaijan describes the boundaries of this linguistic area (see Korjakov 2006: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261288-011

105

106

II. The application of the comparative method in selected language groups 33). According to (doubtful) speculations about the pre-history of the languages at issue (see below), this region would have been much larger in pre-historical times, including major parts of Eastern and Central Asia Minor as well as present-day Armenia and Northern Iraq. b) Features of migration: Caucasian languages are said to be autochthonous, contrary to a significant number of languages in the Caucasus region whose speakers have migrated there in historical times (e.g. Armenian, Turkic languages including Azeri, Turkhmen, Kumyk, Nogai, Karachay and Balkar, Ossetian [Northeast Iranian], Tātī [Southwest Iranian], Kurdish [Northwest Iranian], Greek [Pontic region], and Russian). c) Genetic features: Caucasian languages can be defined as those languages that belong to one of the three language families: South Caucasian (SC, also known as Kartvelian), West Caucasian (WC), and East Caucasian (EC) (also known as Nakh-Daghestanian). Again, doubtful or even dubious hypotheses include languages from outside this region, such as Basque, Proto-Hattic, and Hurro-Urartian. If we disregard these hypotheses (see below), we can give the following numbers of languages for the individual families: SC: today four languages (Georgian, Mengrel, Laz, and Svan); WC: today four languages (with important dialect divergence in the north): Abkhaz, Abaza, Adyghej, and Kabarda; EC: 29 languages (see below). In sum, historical-comparative linguistics of Caucasian languages has to start from at least 37 languages, to which we must add languages that have become extinct in historical times, such as Ubykh (WC) or Caucasian Albanian (EC). Comparative studies in Caucasian linguistics become complicated because of the fact that nearly all languages at issue are documented for a relatively short time span only. The earliest written sources usually stem from the 19th century, except for some EC languages such as Avar, Lak, and Dargi, for which sparse documents are available from the 16th century onwards. Only two languages have a written tradition that goes back to the early days of Christianization (roughly 400−500 CE): Georgian (with a continuing tradition) and Udi (EC), that can be described as an immediate relative of Caucasian Albanian (see Gippert and Schulze 2007). Caucasian Albanian is documented in two palimpsests recently found in the Katharine monastery on Mt. Sinai (roughly 600 CE, see Gippert, Schulze et al. 2009 for the editio princeps of these texts). Because of the differing number of languages belonging to each of the three language families as well as their differing degrees of diffusion, comparative studies had to start from rather divergent settings: The four Kartvelian languages show a lesser degree of diffusion than the West Caucasian languages that, however, can still be regarded as a rather homogenous family. The twenty-nine languages of East Caucasian are marked by both an extreme degree of diffusion/divergence and secondary convergence, which renders the application of the comparative method more difficult. In addition, early studies in the historical linguistics of Caucasian languages were long dominated by the so-called Ibero-Caucasian hypothesis claiming that all three language families had emerged from one proto-language (Proto-Caucasian) that was again related to either Basque or some of the early languages of Asia minor (see the excellent account in Tuite 2008; also see Tuite 1999 for the question of a Caucasian sprachbund). The Ibero-Caucasian hypothesis conditioned a biased view of the history of the individual languages whose structures had been constantly mapped onto the alleged étalon of Proto-Caucasian. In the early days of Caucasian linguistics some researchers tried to paint a more differentiated picture of the classification of the Caucasian languages, e.g. Güldenstädt (see Büsching 1773, Klaproth 1814, Tuite 2008), Klaproth (1814), Müller (1887), Erckert (1895), Trombetti

11. The comparative method in Caucasian linguistics (1922), Trubetzkoy (1922), Dirr (1928), and Deeters (1933). Except for the studies by Trubetzkoy and Deeters, most of the relevant proposals were impressionistic in nature and lacked a sound comparative method. Instead, seemingly typological features and lexical “look-alikes” had been used to establish classification charts. Hardly any of the early studies aimed at the reconstruction of (parts of) the proto-languages. Rather we can witness several proposals to link the world of Caucasian languages to languages outside the region, starting with Fr. Boppʼs hypothesis on the Indo-European character of Georgian (Bopp 1846, 1847). The data underlying this hypothesis had later been interpreted as a result of early language contact (Klimov 1994: 92; also compare Gamkrelidze and Ivanov 1984). Other approaches include speculations about a relationship with Urartian (Lenormant 1871; Sayce 1882; Braun and Klimov 1954), Hurro-Urartian (Diakonoff 1986), Semitic (Trombetti 1902−1903; Marr 1908 [Kartvelian]), Basque (Winkler 1909; Karst 1932; Bouda 1949; Tovar 1950; Tailleur 1958; Braun 1981 [Kartvelian]); Hattic (Forrer 1919 [West Caucasian]); Nostratic (Illich-Svitych 1964), and Sino-Caucasian/Dené-Caucasian (Starostin 1982, etc.). None of these proposals, however, has found general acceptance. More serious research concerns the inner classification of the Caucasian languages. Here, Kartvelian represents the best-studied Caucasian language family so far. The Kartvelian languages are characterized by a relatively high degree of morphological variation and innovation. As a result, only parts of the original morphology can be reconstructed (see Deeters 1933; Oniani 1978, 1989 and Mač’avariani 2002). Likewise, the very nature of Kartvelian syntax is still a matter of debate (but see e.g. Harris 1985; Schulze 2001a). Nevertheless, the Kartvelian languages exhibit rather systematic patterns of sound changes, which allow reconstruction of large portions of the phonological system of Proto-Kartvelian together with corresponding lexical cognates (e.g. Schmidt 1962; Klimov 1964; Gamq’relidze and Mač’avariani 1965, Rogava 1962/1984; see Fähnrich and Sardshweladse 1995 for details). The picture emerging from these studies suggests that Svan was the first dialect to split off from Common Kartvelian at roughly 2000 BCE. Parts of the remaining Proto-Kartvelian dialects survived a common Zan-Georgian language that disintegrated later on, resulting in a Western branch (Zan > Mengrel and Laz) and an Eastern branch (> Georgian). The two other Caucasian language families (West Caucasian and East Caucasian) are sometimes regarded as a single family conventionally called “North Caucasian” (e.g. Trubetzkoy 1926, 1930; Dumézil 1933; Nikolaev and Starostin 1994). Despite some rather attractive lexical “look-alikes”, the North Caucasian hypothesis still awaits further linguistic support. One would also have to take into account areal, cultural, and ethnographic data that in part go against this hypothesis. The West Caucasian language family itself can be said to be safely established (e.g. Dumézil 1932; Lafon 1966; Chirikba 1996; Hewitt 2005; also compare Colarusso 1988), although more comparative work has been done concerning its two subgroups (Northern branch: Cherkes-Kabardian; Southern branch: Abkhaz-Abaza; compare among many others Kuipers 1963, 1975; Šagirov 1977). The rather homogenous morphosyntactic patterns of West Caucasian (basically head marking [prefixing]) have dictated that the reconstruction of grammatical issues concentrate on morphology rather than on syntax. The internal structure of the East Caucasian language group is much more controversial than that of West or South Caucasian. Comparative research has to start from at least twenty-nine languages (the status of certain dialects being a matter of debate) that are conventionally classified according to at least five subgroups: Nakh (Chechen, In-

107

108

II. The application of the comparative method in selected language groups gush, Bats), Awaro-Andian (Awar, Andi, Bagwalal, Ghodoberi, Chamalal, Karata, Botlikh, Tindi, Akhwakh), Tsezian (Tsez, Bezhta, Hunikh, Khunzib, Khwarshi), Lako-Dargi (Lak and Dargi), and Lezgian (Archi, Eastern Samur [Lezgi, Tabasaran, Aghul, Udi], Western Samur [Rutul and Tsakhur], Southern Samur [Kryts and Budukh]). The status of Udi has become more obvious since the decipherment of Caucasian Albanian (see Schulze 2005; Gippert and Schulze 2007). Before, it had usually been interpreted as a marginal Lezgian language. Finally, Khinalug, a language spoken in Northern Azerbaijan, had sometimes been regarded as a Lezgian language too (see Schulze 2008 for a discussion of this problem). Regarding the classification of the language family at issue, two options are taken: a) The Nakh languages form a separate branch, being opposed to “Daghestanian” (hence the alternative term “Nakh-Daghestanian” for the whole family). This view is adopted especially by Johanna Nichols (e.g. Nichols 2003), but also by many scholars from the former Soviet Union and from Russia (e.g. Bokarev 1961, 1981; Giginejšvili 1966; Xajdakov 1973). b) The East Caucasian languages have emerged from two dialectal types of Proto-East Caucasian, one of which was more innovative than the other. The “old” (conservative) type would include Nakh, Lezgian, Lako-Dargi, and Khinalug, whereas the “new” (innovative) type would be constituted by Awaro-Andian and Tsezian (e.g. Schulze 2008). Whereas assumption a) is strongly based on phonological arguments, assumption b) starts from morphological and morphosyntactic observations (e.g. Schulze 1999, 2003, 2011). For the time being, the phonological system of East Caucasian (or: Nakh-Daghestanian) has not been fully elaborated (Nikolaev and Starostin 1994 can only be regarded as a preliminary attempt). This is also because no etymological dictionary has yet been written for any East Caucasian language (the one exception is the etymological glossary of Udi in Schulze 2001b). Moreover, there is still no comparative grammar of East Caucasian available to serve as the basis for the reconstruction of the morphosyntax of the proto-language. As for the individual subgroups, much more work has been done. The history of Nakh phonology has been discussed by Imnajšvili (1997) and Nichols (2003), among others. Dešeriev (1963) is a first attempt to fully reconstruct the grammar of Proto-Nakh. For Awaro-Andian see Gudava (1964) (phonology) and Alekseev (1988) (morphology). For Tsezian see Gudava (1979) (phonology) and Imnajšvili (1963) (morphology). Proto-Lezgian has been addressed systematically by Talibov (1980) and Schulze (1988) (phonology) and Alekseev (1985) (morphology), among others. Many other studies concern specific aspects of the diachronic grammar of Lezgian. However, most authors rarely refer to the grammatical system as such and to proposals concerning the reconstruction of related grammatical issues. Actually, many such reconstructions still await validation. The hypothesis of a Lako-Dargi subgroup is difficult to substantiate. Even though we can observe certain isoglosses between these two languages (or, in the case of Dargi, dialect continuum), we cannot exclude massive convergences due to geographical proximity. The only relevant lexical study is Musaev (1978), disputed by Fähnrich (1976), for example, who argues in favor of a closer link of Lak to the world of Nakh languages. Khinalug, finally, has hitherto escaped a definite classification (compare Talibov [1960]: Khinalug is Lezgian vs. Schulze [2008] [and others]: Khinalug is a distinct East Caucasian language heavily influenced by Lezgian languages). In summary, it can be safely stated that historical comparative research on East Caucasian languages is still in its infancy. Most studies are comparative rather than oriented towards the reconstruction of a proto-layer. In addition, the lack of relevant historical

11. The comparative method in Caucasian linguistics sources means that language-internal processes of linguistic change can only be retrieved by internal reconstruction − a method that, however, is not yet fully developed for East Caucasian. The newly found Caucasian Albanian (Old Udi) documents (Gippert and Schulze 2007, Gippert; Schulze et al. 2009) for the first time allow a description of processes of internal changes within an East Caucasian language covering a time span of roughly 1500 years. Nevertheless, the results are not easy to map onto other East Caucasian languages. Accordingly, the comparative method faces rather heterogeneous problems in Caucasian linguistics: On the one hand, there is a very pronounced approach with respect to South Caucasian (Kartvelian), and − perhaps less elaborated − for West Caucasian. Comparative research on East Caucasian, on the other hand, still is in a state that resembles that of Indo-European studies (long) before its annus mirabilis 1876.

References Alekseev, Mixail E. 1985 Voprosy sravnitel’no-istoričeskoj grammatiki lezginskix jazykov [Issues in the historicalcomparative grammar of the Lezgian languages]. Moscow: Nauka. Alekseev, Mixail E. 1988 Sravnitel’no-istoričeskaja morfologija avaro-andijskix jazykov [Historical-comparative morphology of the Avar-Andian languages]. Moscow: Nauka. Bokarev, Evgenij A. 1961 Vvedenie v sravnitel’no-istoričeskoe izučenie dagestanskix jazykov [Introduction to the Historical-comparative study of the Dagestanian languages]. Makhachkala: Dagestanskoe Učebnoe izdatel’stvo. Bokarev, Evgenij A. 1981 Sravnitel’no-istoričeskaja fonetika vostočnokavkazskix jazykov [Historical-comparative phonology of the East Caucasian languages]. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Akademii nauk SSSR. Bopp, Franz 1846 Über das Georgische in sprachverwandtschaftlicher Beziehung. Abhandlungen der Königlichen Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Klasse. Berlin: Verlag der Königlichen Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Bopp, Franz 1847 Die kaukasischen Glieder des indoeuropäischen Sprachstamms. Berlin: Dümmler. Bouda, Karl 1949 Baskisch-kaukasische Etymologien. Heidelberg: Winter. Bouda, Karl 1950 Die tibetisch-kaukasische Sprachverwandtschaft. Lingua 2: 140−169. Braun, Jan 1981 Bask’uri da k’avk’asiuri. / Euscaro-caucasica [Basque and Caucasian]. Ežegodnik iberijsko-kavkazskogo jazykoznanija [Annual of Ibero-Caucasian linguistics] 8: 203−215. Braun, Jan and Georgij A. Klimov 1954 Ob istoričeskom vzaimootnošenii urartskogo i iberijsko-kavkazskix jazykov [On the historical interrelationship between Urartu and the Ibero-Caucasian languages], V (XI) Naučnaja sessija In-ta jazykoznania AN Gruz. SSR, tezisy dokladov, 49−52. Brosset, Marie Felicité 1849 Rapports sur un voyage archéologique dans la Géorgie et dans lʼArménie. Rapport VII. St. Petersburg: Imprimerie de l’Académie impériale des sciences.

109

110

II. The application of the comparative method in selected language groups Büsching, Anton Friedrich 1773 Wöchentliche Nachrichten von neuen Landkarten 1. Jahrgang. Berlin: Haude and Spencer. Chirikba, Viacheslav 1996 Common West Caucasian. The reconstruction of its phonological system and parts of its Lexicon and Morphology. Leiden: Research School CNWS, Leiden University. Colarusso, John 1988 The northwest Caucasian languages: a phonological survey. New York: Garland. Deeters, Gerhard 1933 Das kharthwelische Verbum. Vergleichende Darstellung des Verbalbaus der südkaukasischen Sprachen. Leipzig: Markert and Petters. Dešeriev, Jurij D. 1963 Sravnitel’no-istoričeskaja grammatika naxskix jazykov i problemy proisxoždenija i istoričeskogo razvitija gorskix kavkazskix narodov [Historical-comparative grammar of the Nakh languages and problems in the origin and historical separation of the highland Caucasian people]. Izd. 2−e, ispravl. Grozny: Čečen-ingušckoe knižnoe izdatel’stvo. Diakonoff, Igor M. and Sergej A. Starostin 1986 Hurro-Urartian as an Eastern Caucasian language. (Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft, Beiheft 12). Munich: Kitzinger. Dirr, Adolph 1928 Einführung in das Studium der kaukasischen Sprachen. Leipzig: Asia Major. Dumézil Georges 1932 Études comparatives sur les langues caucasiennes du Nord-Ouest (morphologie). Paris: Maisonneuve. Dumézil Georges 1933 Introduction à la grammaire comparée des langues caucasiques du Nord. Paris: Champion. von Erckert, Roderich 1985 Die Sprachen des kaukasischen Stammes, vol. 1−2. Vienna: Holder. Fähnrich, Heinz 1976 Innerdagestanische Sprachbeziehungen. Bedi Kartlisa 33: 248−254. Fähnrich, Heinz and Surab Sardshweladse 1995 Etymologisches Wörterbuch der Kartwel-Sprachen. Leiden: Brill. Forrer, Emil 1919 Die acht Sprachen der Boghazkoy-Inschriften. Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Klasse, Nr. LIII, 1919, 1029−1041. Gamkrelidze, Tamaz V. and Vjacheslav V. Ivanov 1984 Indoevropejskij jazyk i indoevropejci. Rekonstrukcija i istoriko-tipologičeskij analiz prajazyka i protokul’tury [Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans: A reconstruction and historical-typological analysis of a proto-language and a proto-culture]. Tbilisi: Izdatel’stvo Tbilisskogo Universiteta. Gamq’relidze, Tamaz and G. Mač’avariani 1965 Sonant’ta sist’ema da ablaut’i kartvelur enebši [The system of sonants and ablaut in the Kartvelian languages]. Tbilisi: Izdatel’stvo Tbilisskogo Universiteta. Giginejšvili, Bakar K. 1966 Sravnitel’naja fonetika dagestanskix jazykov [Comparative phonology of the Dagestanian languages]. Tbilisi: Mecniereba. Gippert, Jost and Wolfgang Schulze 2007 Some remarks on the Caucasian Albanian Palimpests. Iran and the Caucasus 2: 1−11. Gippert, Jost, Wolfgang Schulze, Zaza Aleksidze, and Jean-Pierre Mahé 2009 The Caucasian Albanian Palimpsests from Mt. Sinai, 2 vols. Turnhout: Brépols.

11. The comparative method in Caucasian linguistics Gudava, Togo 1964 Konzonantism andijskix jazykov [Consonantism of the Andian languages]. Tbilisi: Mecniereba. Gudava, Togo 1979 Istoriko-sravnitelʼnyj analiz konzonantizma didojskix jazykov [Historical-comparative analysis of the consonant system of the Dido languages]. Tbilisi: Mecniereba. Harris, Alice C 1985 Diachronic Syntax: The Kartvelian Case. (Syntax and Semantics 18). New York: Academic Press. Hewitt, George 2005 North West Caucasian. Lingua 115: 91−145. Illič-Svitych, Vladislav M. 1964 Caucasica. In: Oleg N. Trubačev, Leonid A. Gindin, and Georgij A. Klimov (eds.), Étimologija 1964. Principy rekonstrukcii i metodika issledovanija [Etymology 1964. Principles of reconstruction and research methodology]. Moscow: Nauka, 334−337. Imnajšvili, David S. 1963 Didojskoj jazyk s sravnenii s ginuxskim i xvaršijskim jazykami [The Dido language in comparison to the Hinuq and Khwarshi languages]. Tbilisi: Izdatel’stvo Akdemii Nauk Gruzinskogo SSR. Imnajšvili, David S. 1977 Istoriko-sravnitel’nyj analiz fonetiki naxskix jazykov [Historical-comparative analysis of the phonology of the Nakh languages]. Tbilisi: Mecniereba. Karst, Joseph 1932 Grundzüge einer vergleichenden Grammatik des Ibero-Kaukasischen. 1 Band. Strassburg: Heitz. von Klaproth, Julius 1814 Kaukasische Sprachen. Anhang zur Reise in den Kaukasus und nach Georgien. Halle (Saale): Hallesche Waisenhaus. Klimov, Georgij A. 1964 Étimologičeskij slovar’ kartvel’skix jazykov [Etymological Dictionary of the Kartvelian languages]. Moscow: Nauka. Klimov, Georgij A. 1994 Einführung in die kaukasische Sprachwissenschaft. Deutsche Bearbeitung von Jost Gippert. Hamburg: Buske. Kuipers, Aert Hendrik 1963 Proto-Circassian Phonology: An Essay in Reconstruction. Studia Caucasica 1: 56−92. Kuipers, Aert Hendrik 1975 A dictionary of Proto-Circassian Roots. Lisse: De Ridder. Lafon, René 1966 Notes de phonétique comparée des langues caucasiques du Nord-Ouest. Bedi Kartlisa XXI−XXII (no. 50−51). Lenormant, François 1871 Lettres assyriologiques. Vol. I. Paris: Lith Barousse. Lomtatidze, Ketevan V. 1976 Abxazuri da abazuri enebis istʼoriul-šedarebiti analizi [Historical-comparative analysis of the Abkhaz and Abaza languages]. Vol. 1. Tbilisi: Mecniereba. Mačʼavariani, Givi 2002 Kartvelur enata sˇedarebiti gramatika ̣ [Comparative grammar of the Kartvelian languages]. Tbilisi: Mecniereba. Marr, Nikolaj J. 1908 Osnovnye tablicy k grammatike drevnegruzinskogo jazyka s predvaritel’nym soobščeniem o rodstve gruzinskogo jazyka s semitičeskimi [Basic tables for the grammar of the

111

112

II. The application of the comparative method in selected language groups Old Georgian language with a preliminary report on the relationship of the Georgian language to Semitic]. St. Petersburg: Académie imperiale. Müller, Friedrich 1887 Grundriß der Sprachwissenschaft, vol. III, 2. Die Sprachen der mittelländischen Rasse. Vienna: Holder. Musaev, Magomed-Said M. 1978 Leksika darginskogo jazyka. Sravnitel’no-istoričeskij analiz [Lexicon of the Dargi language: A historical and comparative analysis]. Makhachkala: Dagestanskij gos. universitet. Nichols, Johanna 2003 The Nakh-Daghestanian consonant correspondences. In: Tuite and Holisky (eds.), 207− 251. Nikolaev, Sergei L. and Sergei A. Starostin 1994 A North Caucasian Etymological Dictionary. Moscow: Asterisk. Oniani, Aleksandr 1978 Kartvelur enata istoriuli morpologiis sak’itxebi [Issues in the historical morphology of ̣ the Kartvelian languages]. Tbilisi: Ganatleba. Oniani, Aleksandr 1989 Kartvelur enata sˇedarebiti gramatiḳ iṣ sak’itxebi [Issues in the comparative grammar of the Kartvelian languages]. Tbilisi: Ganatleba. Rogava, Giorgi 1962/1984 Kartvelur enata istoriuli ponet’ik’is sak’itxebi I/II [Issues in the historical phonoḷ ogy of the Kartvelian languages]. Tbilisi: Sakartvelos SSR Mecnierebata Ak’ademiis Gamomcemloba. Šagirov, Amin K. 1977 Étimologičeskij slovar’ adygskix (čerkesskix) jazykov [Etymological dictionary of the Adyghean (Circassian) languages]. Moscow: Akademia Nauk. Sayce, Archibald H. 1882 The cuneiform inscriptions of Van deciphered and translated. Journal of The Royal Asiatic Society (London) 14: 377−732. Schmidt, Karl-Horst 1962 Studien zur Rekonstruktion des Lautstandes der südkaukasischen Grundsprache. Wiesbaden: Steiner. Schulze, Wolfgang 1988 Studien zur Rekonstruktion des Lautstandes der südostkaukasischen (lezgischen) Grundsprache. Bonn (Habil. Thesis). Schulze, Wolfgang 1999 The diachrony of personal pronouns in East Caucasian. In: Helma van den Berg (ed.), Studies in Caucasian Linguistics. Leiden: Research School CNWS, Leiden University, 95−111. Schulze, Wolfgang 2001a Die kaukasischen Sprachen. In: Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher, and Wolfgang Raible (eds.), La typologie des langues et les universaux linguistiques, Vol. 2. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1774−1796. Schulze, Wolfgang 2001b The Udi Gospels: Annotated text, etymological index, lemmatized concordance. Munich: Lincom. Schulze, Wolfgang 2003 The diachrony of demonstrative pronouns in East Caucasian. In: Tuite and Holisky (eds.), 291−347. Schulze, Wolfgang 2005 Towards a History of Udi. International Journal of Diachronic Linguistics 1: 55−91.

11. The comparative method in Caucasian linguistics Schulze, Wolfgang 2008 Towards a History of Khinalug. In: Brigitte Huber, Marianne Volkart, and Paul Widmer (eds.), Chomolangma, Demavend und Kasbek. Festschrift für Roland Bielmeier zu seinem 65. Geburtstag. Halle (Saale): International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies, 703−744. Schulze, Wolfgang 2011 Personalität in den ostkaukasischen Sprachen. Banská Bystrica: Fakulta humanitnych vied. Starostin, Sergei A. 1982 Praenisejskaja rekonstrukcija i vnešnie svjazi enisejskix jazykov [Reconstruction of Proto-Yeniseian and external relations of the Yeniseian languages]. In: Sergei Starostin (ed.), Ketskij sbornik: Antropologija. Étnografija. Lingvistika [Ket collection: Anthropology. Ethnography. Linguistics]. Leningrad: Vostočnaja Literatura, 197−237. Tailleur, Olivier Guy 1958 Un îlot basco-caucasien en Sibérie. Orbis 7: 415−427. Talibov, Bukar B. 1960 Mesto xinalogskogo jazyka v sisteme jazykov lezginskoj gruppy [The placement of the Khinalug language in the system of languages of the Lezgian group]. In: Učenye zapiski Instituta Istorii, Jazyka i Literatury Dag. Fil. AN 7. Makhachkala: Institut istorii, jazyka i literatury, 281−304. Talibov, Bukar B. 1980 Sravnitel’naja fonetika lezginskix jazykov [Comparative phonology of the Lezgian languages]. Moscow: Nauka. Tovar, Antonio 1950 La lengua vasca. (Monografías Vascongadas 2). San Sebastian: Biblioteca Vascongada de los Amigos del País. Trombetti, Alfredo 1902−1903 Delle relazioni delle lingue caucasiche con le lingue camitosemitiche e con altri gruppi. Giornale della Società Asiatica Italiana (Firenze) 15 [1902]: 177−201 and 16 [1903]: 145−175. Trombetti, Alfredo 1922 Elementi di Glottologia. Bologna: Zanichelli. Trubetzkoy, Nikolai Sergejevič 1922 Les consonnes latérales des langues Caucasiques-Septentrionales. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique 23: 184−204. Trubetzkoy, Nikolai Sergejevič 1926 Studien auf dem Gebiete der vergleichenden Lautlehre der nordkaukasischen Sprachen. Caucasica 3: 7−36. Trubetzkoy, Nikolai Sergejevič 1930 Nordkaukasische Wortgleichungen. Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 37: 1−2, 79−92. Tuite, Kevin 1999 The myth of the Caucasian Sprachbund: the case of ergativity. Lingua 108: 1−29. Tuite, Kevin 2008 The Rise and Fall and Revival of the Ibero-Caucasian Hypothesis Historiographia Linguistica 35: 23−82. Tuite, Kevin and Dee Ann Holisky (eds.) 2003 Current trends in Caucasian, East European, and Inner Asian linguistics: Papers in honor of Howard I. Aronson. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Winkler, Heinrich 1909 Das Baskische und der vorderasiatisch-mittelländische Völker- und Kulturkreis. Breslau: Grass, Barth and Comp.

113

114

II. The application of the comparative method in selected language groups Xaydakov, Said M. 1973 Sravnitel’no-sopostavitel’nyj slovar’ dagestanskix jazykov [Comparative dictionary of the Dagestanian languages]. Moskow: Nauka.

Wolfgang Schulze, Munich (Germany)

12. The comparative method in African linguistics 1. Background 2. General problems

3. References 4. Recommended reading

1. Background In the study of African languages, historical linguistics played a most important role already before African linguistics became established as a discipline in its own right. An endless number of studies on language relationship and language classification have since been published and several attempts were made at reconstructing the history of African language phyla and families. Until the mid-twentieth century, however, by far the majority of such contributions were based on mixed criteria: economic, cultural, physical anthropological, and linguistic. But even if purely linguistic criteria were applied, no dividing line was drawn, as a rule, between genetic and typological criteria. This situation changed with the publication of a series of articles by Joseph Greenberg on African linguistic classification (1949−1950), a revised version of which appeared later on as a monograph, entitled The Languages of Africa (Greenberg 1963). In this famous book, the author provided a “complete genetic classification” (Greenberg 1963: 1) that distinguishes four genetic phyla, each containing a number of families and subfamilies. It is this taxonomy that, in subsequent years, was used most frequently by other scholars as a point of departure for new attempts at classifying African language groups. However, although Greenberg made exclusive use of “genetic” linguistic criteria and in spite of the enormous impact of his investigation on follow-up studies, his classification was not based on the comparative method but on an approach that Greenberg himself had called “mass comparison” and that other scholars referred to as the “method of resemblances”. (For a harsh critique of this method, see Fodor 1982.) In fact, systematic application of the comparative method has been relatively rare to this day in African linguistics, as will be shown in this section. For reasons of economy, the discussion will largely be restricted to some general problems inherent in the employment of the comparative method in the African context.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261288-012

12. The comparative method in African linguistics

2. General problems Critics of Greenberg’s classification and the “method of resemblances” argued against it based on the background of empirical findings that the application of the comparative method had yielded especially in the Indo-European context. For sure, Greenberg himself was aware of the shortcomings of any method/classification which relies mainly on lexical similarities between languages, rather than principles of language development such as sound laws and correspondences. But given the large variety of languages on the African continent and that relatively little was known about them at the time, he was convinced that “mass comparison” would at least lead to a worthwhile working hypothesis which could later on be used as a starting point for in-depth comparisons based on the comparative method. However, from the beginning, almost any attempt to apply the comparative method to African languages faces a twofold difficulty which one might call the core problem: the range and nature of linguistic data.

2.1. Data-related problems 2.1.1. Range of language data On the one hand, our knowledge of African languages has increased enormously since Greenberg’s taxonomic enterprise, but on the other hand a majority of languages are still sparsely recognized if not substantially unknown. This creates time and again a problem of compatibility: language groups can often not be investigated in their entirety, as certain members would have to be excluded completely, or nearly so, from comparison due to lack of data. Therefore, the reconstruction of language groups or families is frequently based on random samples. More often than not this does not detract from the general validity of the outcome, but in some cases such gaps present themselves as missing links impeding considerably the reconstructive work. For the Khoisan languages, for example, missing links throughout Africa − but especially in Greenberg’s southern branch of South African Khoisan − have been identified as a major reason for the presumed impossibility of establishing Khoisan as a genealogical unit by means of the comparative method. In contrast to other African language families, these gaps can no longer be filled through fieldwork in this particular case, as so many Khoisan languages appear to have become extinct over the last two centuries or so. Another facet of the range of data concerns the often uneven balance in the state of documentation of African languages. Only a few languages, mostly those with high or at least some kind of official status, have been studied to the extent that a comparison at all linguistic levels − lexical and grammatical − would be feasible. Generally speaking, lexical data still prevail over grammatical and discourse-related data, thus setting limits accordingly to the overall validity of the reconstructive work.

115

116

II. The application of the comparative method in selected language groups

2.1.2. Nature of language data As distinct from Indo-European historical linguistics, where reconstructive research relies upon written sources covering a time-period of several thousands of years, the application of the comparative method to African language groups in general suffers from the fact that, with very few exceptions, more or less synchronic data must be utilized for any kind of comparison. Not many languages look back on a long-standing written tradition; most of those which do owe their early transcription to the expansion of Islam (and were hence written in Arabic characters, e.g. Hausa, Swahili, and Fula) or the encounter with European colonial powers (especially Portugal). At any rate written sources on such African languages do not go back beyond the 7th and 17th centuries, respectively. The documentation of a number of other African languages commenced with the arrival of early missionaries, traders, travellers, and adventurers as well as colonial administrators and military representatives, as a rule no earlier than the late 18th century. The bulk of information on African languages, however, derives from more recent decades during which African linguistics became professionalized at universities and other research institutions. The extensive lack of diachronic dimensions in the comparative data has immediate bearing on the validity of linguistic reconstructions, as any reconstructed forms, lexical or grammatical, at whatever stage of development within a given language group must be considered largely hypothetical. What is hence more important, by implication, than the concrete shape of reconstructed proto-forms is their reconstructibility as such. Naturally reconstructions as accurate as possible are aimed at, but reconstructive plausibility determines the significance of “starred” forms at all levels. Unfortunately, reconstructions made within African linguistics can hardly ever be assigned to a time frame with chronological precision. Of course, the predominantly synchronic nature of language data also impacts any attempt at internal reconstruction. The establishment of intermediate stages of development within an individual language is, as a rule, very difficult and often just not manageable. There are, however, exceptions. A good example may be seen in the vowel system of Bantu languages, the largest family in Africa. Seven vowels have safely been reconstructed for “Ur”- or Proto-Bantu by both Meinhof ([1899] 1910) and Guthrie (1967− 1971), respectively, but a large number of modern Bantu languages exhibit a reduced, 5-vowel system. Fortunately, the lost two vowels have left traces behind, such as fronting and spirantization of certain voiceless stops immediately preceding these former vowels. In Swahili, for instance, the voiceless velar stop k in -andik-a ‘to write’ shifts to the palatal fricative sh [ʃ] in the derived noun of agent mw-andish-i ‘writer’ because of the fact that the nominal derivative suffix -i goes back to the lost high front vowel *î as set up by Meinhof (1910: 20 ff.). (For more details, see Gerhardt 1981: 384 f.). There is yet another, in fact very fundamental data-related problem: empirical research has shown that the comparative method is not equally suitable in the context of African languages. In some language families such as Eastern (Vossen 1982) and Southern Nilotic (Rottland 1982), the Togo Remnant language group (Heine 1968), Kordofanian (Schadeberg 1981 a,b), Central Sudanic (Boyeldieu 2000) and Gur (Manessy 1969, 1975, 1979), to name but a few, it seems to work very well, while in others historical linguists are coping with severe problems. Especially interesting in this respect is the West African Mande family where a remarkable complexity and partial overlapping of

12. The comparative method in African linguistics linguistic rules, which is largely due to extra-linguistic factors, impinges on the elicitation of historical strata of development (cf. Bird 1970). Also Chadic, whose “morphology is so diversified that its reconstruction will still take many years to come” (Jungraithmayr and Ibriszimow 1994 I, XI; cf. also Newman 1977), and Central Khoisan (see 2.2.1 below) have presented themselves as intricate cases, and even the reconstruction of Bantu, despite all the valuable historical comparative work done by Meinhof (1910, [1906] 1948), Guthrie (1967−1971), Meeussen (1967) and others, is still controversial in some ways (see 2.2.2 below).

2.2. Methodology-related problems 2.2.1. Regular sound correspondences and sound laws The principle of regular sound correspondence has from the beginning been a central element in the history of African historical linguistics. Of the problems connected with this principle two are regarded here as particularly prominent: First, what is behind the term “regularity”? And second, how are instances of multiple correspondence to be treated? Time and again, the regularity notion has given reason for hot debates. How many attestations are needed in order that a correspondence of sounds may be called regular? Some scholars say two (surely the minimalist view), others demand (much) stronger evidence. However, in African languages it is often not so easy to find even two examples of a given regular correspondence. One common reason for this is the small size of the data in the corpora that comparisons are mostly based on. Another lies in the fact that in languages with inflated sound inventories some sounds are (much) rarer than others. In Central Khoisan, for instance, consonants such as tx or dz occur in just a handful of words; in inter-language comparison, these words may not be cognates throughout so that regularity cannot be proven. Thus, the effect of such deficiencies on the establishment of sound laws and reconstruction becomes obvious. Not infrequently, Africanist linguists come across the problem of multiple correspondences in external reconstruction. In Atlantic and certain Mande groups, for example, there exists the phenomenon of initial consonant permutation. On the surface this appears to be mere phonological change, but as a matter of fact its foundation is of utmost grammatical relevance. As a prerequisite for phonological reconstruction one would normally have to systematically reconstruct internally first, yet this is more easily said than done. Nevertheless, if multiple correspondences can be shown to be regular a fairly safe reconstruction seems not entirely out of the question (cf., e.g., Kastenholz 1996 and Schreiber 2008). Central Khoisan, on the other hand, is a language family with multiple correspondences of a different type of origin. Up to five series of (mostly regular) correspondences have been observed between languages without any grammatical motivation behind them. As Vossen (1991, 1997) was able to show, this sort of “regular irregularity” is due to gradual, rather than abrupt, shifting of sounds across the various parts of the lexicon. An especially sensitive area of such “smooth and silent” changes are clicks, as attested by their strategies of loss and replacement.

117

118

II. The application of the comparative method in selected language groups

2.2.2. The comparative method and language contact In Africa, the earliest application of the comparative method was to Bantu (Meinhof 1910, 1948). The success of Meinhof’s reconstruction of “Ur-Bantu” was impressive at the time; what detracts from it, however, is the highly selective and inductive procedure chosen, as from the more than 400 Bantu languages only six were taken into account. (Generally speaking, the smaller the number of languages compared, the greater the likelihood to arrive at a solid reconstruction.) That Bantu in its entirety is anything but easy to reconstruct became obvious through Guthrie’s (1967−1971) endeavour to base his reconstruction of Proto-Bantu and subsequent stages on more than 200 languages. The problematic nature of his reconstruction derives from the observation that the comparative method does not permit one to distinguish genetically inherited linguistic features from those which are the result of processes of linguistic superimposition. Massive mutual interaction, influence, and borrowing must be assumed to have been an elementary concomitant facet in the perhaps more than 3,000 year-old history of the Bantu family; as a consequence, correspondences suggesting genealogical motivation in fact often resulted from homogenization processes (cf., among others, Möhlig 1981). Therefore, what we need to take into consideration when reconstructing African language groups is contact history; unfortunately, we mostly know very little about this important aspect of language history. Given this, Bantu may be a particularly tricky field for historical reconstruction, but in principle the problem is ubiquitous in Africa. The small Nubian language family, for example, seemed once so smoothly reconstructible by means of the comparative method (see Bechhaus-Gerst 1984/1985) until the same author, meanwhile having studied comprehensively the exceptionally well-documented history of the Nile Valley, a few years later found out that the reconstructive work had just been too easy, as recent contact could be shown to have been the underlying reason for the seemingly genealogical unity of Nubian (Bechhaus-Gerst 1996).

2.3. User-related problems The efficacy of the comparative method depends much on the conscientiousness of its user. In the African context, many linguists have made (or claimed to have made) use of this method, with varying degrees of success. From experience we know that problems with the comparative method are sometimes due to inadequate application, in other words: user-made. Unfortunately, methodological sloppiness need not necessarily lead to negative results, the opposite may actually be the case (for whatever this is worth). However, meticulous adherence to procedural rules implied in the method is of utmost importance if the outcome of such historical comparative work is to contribute to a better understanding of language history in Africa.

3. References Bechhaus-Gerst, Marianne 1984/1985 Sprachliche und historische Rekonstruktionen im Bereich des Nubischen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Nilnubischen. Sprache und Geschichte in Afrika 6: 7− 134.

12. The comparative method in African linguistics Bechhaus-Gerst, Marianne 1996 Sprachwandel durch Sprachkontakt am Beispiel des Nubischen im Niltal. Möglichkeiten und Grenzen einer diachronen Soziolinguistik. Cologne: Köppe. Bird, Charles S. 1970 The development of Mandekan (Manding): a study of the role of extra-linguistic factors in linguistic change. In: David Dalby (ed.), Language and History in Africa. New York: Cass, 146−159. Boyeldieu, Pascal 2000 Identité tonale et filiation des langues sara-bongo-baguirmiennes (Afrique Centrale). Cologne: Köppe. Fodor, István 1982 A Fallacy of Contemporary Linguistics. J. H. Greenberg’s classification of the African languages and his “comparative method”. Hamburg: Buske. Gerhardt, Ludwig 1981 Genetische Gliederung und Rekonstruktion. In: Bernd Heine, Thilo C. Schadeberg, and Ekkehard Wolff (eds.), Die Sprachen Afrikas. Hamburg: Buske, 375−405. Greenberg, Joseph H. 1949−1950 Studies in African linguistic classification. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 5: 79−100, 190−198, 309−317; 6: 47−63, 143−160, 223−237, 388−398. Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963 The Languages of Africa. The Hague: Mouton. Guthrie, Malcolm 1967−1971 Comparative Bantu. An introduction to the comparative linguistics and prehistory of the Bantu languages. Farnborough: Gregg. Heine, Bernd 1968 Die Verbreitung und Gliederung der Togorestsprachen. Berlin: Reimer. Jungraithmayr, Herrmann and Dymitr Ibriszimow 1994 Chadic Lexical Roots. 2 vols. Berlin: Reimer. Kastenholz, Raimund 1996 Sprachgeschichte im West-Mande. Cologne: Köppe. Manessy, Gabriel 1969 Les langues gurunsi. Essai d’application de la méthode comparative à un groupe de langues voltaïques. Paris: SELAF. Manessy, Gabriel 1975 Les langues oti-volta. Paris: SELAF. Manessy, Gabriel 1979 Contribution à la classification généalogique des langues voltaïques. Paris: SELAF. Meeussen, Achille E. 1967 Bantu grammatical reconstructions. Africana Linguistica 3: 79−121. Meinhof, Carl 1910 [1899] Grundriß einer Lautlehre der Bantusprachen. 2nd edn. Berlin: Reimer. Meinhof, Carl 1948 [1906] Grundzüge einer vergleichenden Grammatik der Bantusprachen. 2nd edn. Berlin: Reimer. Möhlig, Wilhelm J.G. 1981 Stratification in the history of the Bantu languages. Sprache und Geschichte in Afrika 3: 251−316. Newman, Paul 1977 Chadic classification and reconstruction. Afroasiatic Linguistics 5: 1−42. Rottland, Franz 1982 Die südnilotischen Sprachen. Beschreibung, Vergleichung und Rekonstruktion. Berlin: Reimer.

119

120

II. The application of the comparative method in selected language groups Schadeberg, Thilo C. 1981a A Survey of Kordofanian. Vol. I: The Heiban Group. Hamburg: Helmut Buske. Schadeberg, Thilo C. 1981b A Survey of Kordofanian. Vol. II: The Talodi Group. Hamburg: Buske. Schreiber, Henning 2008 Eine historische Phonologie der Niger-Volta-Sprachen. Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der Sprachgeschichte der östlichen Ost-Mandesprachen. Cologne: Köppe. Vossen, Rainer 1982 The Eastern Nilotes. Linguistic and historical reconstructions. Berlin: Reimer. Vossen, Rainer 1991 What do we do with irregular correspondences? The case of the Khoe languages. History in Africa 18: 358−379. Vossen, Rainer 1997 Die Khoe-Sprachen. Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der Sprachgeschichte Afrikas. Cologne: Köppe.

4. Recommended reading Bender, M. Lionel 1975 Omotic: A New Afroasiatic Language Family. Carbondale: University Museum, Southern Illinois University. Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. 2011 Historical Linguistics and the Comparative Study of African Languages. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. Ehret, Christopher 1995 Reconstructing Proto-Afroasiatic (Proto-Afrasian): Vowels, tone, consonants and vocabulary. Berkeley: University of California Press. Ehret, Christopher 2001 A Historical-Comparative Reconstruction of Nilo-Saharan. Cologne: Köppe. Hetzron, Robert 1980 The limits of Cushitic. Sprache und Geschichte in Afrika 2: 7−126. Hombert, Jean-Marie and Larry M. Hyman 1999 Bantu Historical Linguistics. Theoretical and empirical perspectives. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Köhler, Oswin 1975 Geschichte und Probleme der Gliederung der Sprachen Afrikas. In: Hermann Baumann (ed.), Die Völker Afrikas und ihre traditionellen Kulturen. Part I: Allgemeiner Teil und südliches Afrika. Wiesbaden: Steiner, 135−373. Manessy, Gabriel 1990 Du bon usage de la méthode comparative historique dans les langues africaines et ailleurs. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique d’Aix-en-Provence 8: 89−107. Newman, Paul 2000 Comparative linguistics. In: Bernd Heine and Derek Nurse (eds.), African Languages. An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 259−271. Nicolaï, Robert 2003 La force des choses ou l’épreuve ‘nilo-saharienne’. Questions sur les reconstructions archéologiques et l’évolution des langues. Cologne: Köppe.

Rainer Vossen, Frankfurt am Main (Germany)

13. The comparative method in Austronesian linguistics

13. The comparative method in Austronesian linguistics 1. Introduction 2. Time depth of data 3. Word structure

4. Morphosyntax 5. Recommended further reading 6. References

1. Introduction The terms “Austronesian” and “Malayo-Polynesian” are often used interchangeably. However, they do not mean the same thing: “Austronesian” refers to the entire language family, and “Malayo-Polynesian” to one of its branches. On the basis of phonological evidence alone, Robert Blust distinguishes ten first order branches in the Austronesian language family. Nine of these have their members exclusively among the 20 or so Austronesian languages in Taiwan (“Formosan” languages). A tenth branch, MalayoPolynesian, includes the 1200 or so member languages spoken elsewhere in the Austronesian-speaking world. The special genetic position of Formosan languages only became apparent in the 1960’s (cf. Dahl [1973] 1976). Previously, “Austronesian” and “MalayoPolynesian” had basically been different names for the same language family. In the following cursory overview, it is not possible to mention more than a fraction of the many scholars who have made valuable contributions to the discipline of Austronesian comparative linguistics, and of their works. The first application of the comparative method to Austronesian languages was Van der Tuuk’s (1865) systematic comparison of Malagasy (the language of Madagascar) and Toba Batak (a language in Sumatra) in an attempt to demonstrate that these languages belonged to the same subgroup (a subgroup which has since been proven false). The first to apply the method to a large range of Austronesian languages was Brandes (1884), who however limited his comparison to the reflexes of two consonants only. Half a century later, Dempwolff (1934, 1937, 1938) proposed a detailed reconstruction of Proto-Malayo-Polynesian phonology and part of its lexicon, which became a milestone in Austronesian linguistics. Dempwolff labelled his reconstructions “Proto-Austronesian”, but nowadays they are equated with Proto-Malayo-Polynesian, because he did not include any evidence from Formosan languages. Later on, Dempwolff’s Proto-Malayo-Polynesian phonological system was refined further and adapted, especially through the research of Isidore Dyen in the 1950s and 1960s, and Robert Blust since 1970, so as to become the hypothetical starting point for phonological developments in all Austronesian languages. Dyen improved Dempwolff’s phonological system considerably by adding some protophonemes to it and re-aligning various others (including the problematic laryngeals *h and *‘). This enabled him to eliminate many doublets in Dempwolff’s lexicon and adapt his phonological system so that it would also reflect the Formosan languages and bring out their special position within the Austronesian family (cf. Dyen 1953, 1963, 1965a, 1965b). Blust’s contribution will be discussed in Section 5. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261288-013

121

122

II. The application of the comparative method in selected language groups Especially in its early days, Indo-European comparative-historical research was much oriented towards morphological analysis because of the availability of old texts. In contrast, Austronesian comparative-historical research was for a long time predominantly focused on phonological and lexical reconstruction. The reconstruction of Proto-Austronesian morphology and syntax has only become the focus of scholarly attention in the last 35 years (with the works of Wolff [1973] and Pawley and Reid [1976]), although the first systematic endeavour to compare the morphosyntax of several Austronesian languages from a historical perspective was probably Dahl (1951).

2. Time depth of data Most Austronesian languages lack historical records that predate European contact, although there are notable exceptions: Cham and Malay have stone inscriptions from the 4th and 7th centuries CE respectively, and Javanese has a richly documented old language with sources going back to the 8th century CE. Malagasy has records written on cowhide from the 16th century. Almost all other languages, however, were only first recorded with the arrival of Europeans, and many of them only in the last one hundred years. Austronesian written records do lack time depth in comparison to Indo-European ones. However, the data make up for this in two ways. First, through their number: with as many as 1200 Austronesian languages belonging to many different subgroups, it is theoretically possible to reach a relatively high precision in the reconstruction of protolanguages. Second, due to the maritime history of many Austronesian-speaking communities, some of them ended up on previously uninhabited and isolated islands or remained in the homeland and became out of touch with out-migrating members of their community. Their languages developed undisturbed with little or no influence from other Austronesian languages, in some cases becoming veritable laboratory cases for historical linguistics (However, it has also become increasingly clear that such isolation from other Austronesian influences was almost never total.). The Formosan languages, Malagasy, and the Eastern Polynesian languages (such as Hawaiian, Tahitian, Maori and the language of Easter Island), are such cases. Following the initial split some 4000 years ago, the Formosan languages in Taiwan have developed in almost total isolation from Malayo-Polynesian languages. Malagasy split off from the South East Barito languages in South Borneo some 1300 years ago (Adelaar 1989). The settlement of eastern Polynesia (which originally started from Samoa) ended less than nine hundred years ago, with the Maori migrating from central east Polynesia and occupying New Zealand in the 12th or 13th century CE (Kirch 2000).

3. Word structure One of the things that strikes one immediately when observing Proto-Austronesian and Proto-Malayo-Polynesian roots is their well-defined disyllabic structure. This disyllabicity is maintained in many of the Austronesian languages in Formosa, the Philippines and West Indonesia, but it is not ubiquitous in the daughter languages. The basic structure of Proto-Austronesian and Proto-Malayo-Polynesian roots is CV(C)CVC. In it, each C

13. The comparative method in Austronesian linguistics can stand for 0̸, and consonant clusters are allowed in intervocalic position. There are monosyllabic and trisyllabic roots, but these are in the minority: monosyllables are usually grammatical words (prepositions, etc.), and trisyllables are often subject to reduction or re-interpreted as derivations, if they were not already polymorphemic in origin. The daughter languages may have lost the original disyllabic structure of certain Proto-Austronesian/Proto-Malayo-Polynesian roots; however, when this happened, languages like Malay, Javanese, and Tagalog tend to restore disyllabicity through, for instance: 1. vowel contraction and lexicalization of affixes (e.g. PAn *(ə)sa- ‘one’ + *baCu ‘stone’ > *sə-batu ‘one stone’ > *səwatu > suatu, satu ‘one’; PAn *ma- (stative prefix) + iRaq ‘red’ > Malay merah; 2. the lexicalization of a reduplicated root (e.g. PAn *duSa ‘two’ > PMP *duha > Old Javanese rwa, rwa-rwa > Javanese roro, [with regressive dissimilation of *r to l ] loro); 3. the reduction of a compound to a single form (i.e. PMP *quluh ‘head’ + *tuSəj ‘knee’ > *(hu)lu tuhət > *lu-tūt > modern Malay lutut ‘knee’). The identification of disyllabicity as the basic root structure is Dempwolff’s legacy. However, scholars before and after him have been able to demonstrate the existence of meaning for units smaller than the disyllabic lexeme, especially for the last syllables of roots (cf. Blust 1988). There are other, less obvious, features belonging to especially Proto-Malayo-Polynesian etyma, such as phonotactic constraints applying to consonants in roots. One is articulation type agreement: in Proto-Malayo-Polynesian roots reconstructed by Dempwolff (1938), if the first and second consonant share the same place of articulation, they must also be of the same articulation type. In other words, the first and second consonant can be totally identical, or totally different in both articulation type and place, but they cannot agree in articulation place while differing in articulation type. For instance, Malay forms like papan ‘board, plank’ and bibit ‘seed’ conform to this constraint, but forms like Malay bapak ‘father’ or bomoh ‘sorcerer’ do not and, as a matter of fact, bapak is historically polymorphemic, and bomoh is a Thai loanword. Apparent exceptions to this constraint are Proto-Malayo-Polynesian forms of a *tV(d,n)VC and *(d,n)VtVC structure (e.g. *tiduR ‘to sleep’; *tanəq ‘earth’), but here the compatibility of *t with *d or *n is explained through the fact that PMP *t is a dental, whereas PMP *d and *n are alveolars (cf. Adelaar 1983; Chrétien 1965). Finally, Proto-Austronesian and Proto-Malayo-Polynesian may have had contrastive stress (Zorc 1983; Ross 1995: 740; Wolff 2010), but this remains a contested issue. Several alternative analyses emphasize the phonetic similarity between *u and *w and between *i and *y and treat these pairs as single phonemes (cf. Wolff 1988 and 2010; Mahdi 1988; Dahl 1976, 1981). While these analyses reduce the Proto-Austronesian/Proto-Malayo-Polynesian phoneme inventory, they also yield a more complicated syllable structure and obscure the other phonotactic constraints discussed here. Proto-Austronesian and Proto-Malayo-Polynesian were agglutinative. Although there are presently also quite a few languages that tend to be fusional or even isolating, historical reconstruction of Austronesian morphology indicates that these are secondary developments, and that the languages in question must derive from an agglutinative original stage. In Proto-Austronesian/Proto-Malayo-Polynesian, prefixes were the most numerous, indicating, among other things, causality, inchoativity, potentivity, instrument voice,

123

124

II. The application of the comparative method in selected language groups aspect, and stative and dynamic action. There were also various suffixes (indicating several voice categories as well as mood), and two infixes (one indicating perfectivity, the other, actor orientation). These were verbal affixes, but they also appeared in deverbal nouns. A typical nominalizing affix combination was the confix ka-/-an, which derived nouns denoting a quality from stative verbs. In many Austronesian languages adjectives are basically stative verbs, and they have been reconstructed as such for both ProtoAustronesian and Proto-Malayo-Polynesian.

4. Morphosyntax The many Austronesian languages are typologically rather diverse in their morphosyntax and hardly lend themselves to a general characterization. Three important areas can be distinguished, each representing a different pattern of verbal morphosyntax. These areas and patterns are neither exclusive (i.e. they can overlap), nor do they cover all morphosyntactic variation in the Austronesian world. Many languages in western Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei, Taiwan, and the Philippines are “symmetrical voice” languages. They are either predicate-initial (and subject-final) or they have an SVO clause structure. They have “at least two voice alternations marked on the verb, neither of which is clearly the basic form” (Himmelmann 2005: 112), meaning that these voice alternations are each marked to an equal extent, and one is not a transformation of the other (unlike European languages, where the passive is a heavily marked transformation of the active) Within this type, a further distinction is made between the so-called “Philippine-type” languages spoken in the Philippines and surrounding areas, and the “West-Indonesian-type” languages represented in Sumatra, Java, Bali, Lombok and Borneo. Philippine-type languages have at least two formally and semantically different undergoer voices, phrase-marking clitics for nominal expressions, and pronominal second position clitics (cf. Himmelmann 2005: 113). “West-Indonesian” languages have a simple active vs. passive voice opposition. They also have various applicatives selecting different objects, which can be raised to subject in passive clauses. In eastern Indonesia in the interface area of Austronesian and Papuan languages, the so-called “preposed possessor” pattern prevails, in which the possessor precedes the possessum in noun phrases. Preposed possessor languages have an SVO clause structure. They usually have no voice alternations, and if they have them, these alternations are not symmetrical; they often distinguish between alienable and inalienable possession, and have person-marking prefixes or proclitics for Subject/Actor arguments; verbs are in second position or in final position, and negators often occur in clause-final position (Himmelmann 2005: 175). In the Oceanic languages of the Pacific (which form a genetic subgroup within EastMalayo-Polynesian), subjects are co-referenced by a prefix or proclitic to the verb, objects by a suffix or enclitic. Verbs often fall into morphologically related pairs with a transitive and an intransitive member. In some languages these verb pairs in turn fall into two classes. With A-verbs, the subject of both members is the Actor. With U-verbs, the subject of the intransitive is the Undergoer, which is to say, it corresponds to the object of the transitive. (Ross 2004: 491)

13. The comparative method in Austronesian linguistics Verbs can be suffixed with various applicatives, which take on different objects. Oceanic languages also distinguish between alienable and inalienable possession (Ross 2004: 491). Most Oceanic languages have VO order, with the position of the subject varying across groups and regions; within the verbal complex, the order of the verb and clitic pronouns is SVO. Historical linguists and typologists are currently trying to find out how these different morphosyntactic models have developed from one another. There is a growing consensus that the Austronesian and Malayo-Polynesian protolanguages must have had a Philippine-type structure. The West-Indonesian-type and Oceanic-type structures are considered to be regular transformations of the Philippine-type structure. The preposed possessor-type structure, on the other hand, is seen as the result of intensive contact with neighbouring Papuan languages, which often share the same typological features. Ross (1995) and Ross (in press) are comprehensive sources for the reconstruction of ProtoAustronesian morphosyntax.

5. Recommended further reading Two recent reference works which include up-to-date historical linguistic information are Lynch, Ross, and Crowley (2002) on Oceanic languages, and Adelaar and Himmelmann (2005) on other Austronesian languages. An older but still useful work with much introductory information on the Austronesian language family is the Comparative Austronesian dictionary by Tryon et al (eds.). The chapters by Durie and Ross, Blust, and Grace in Durie and Ross (1996) reflect on the use of the comparative method in Austronesian linguistics. Some older publications which nonetheless give an interesting view on the development of the discipline are Dyen (1971) and Dahl (1976). Pawley and Ross (eds.) (1994) gives an overview of Austronesian terminologies. Himmelmann (2005) gives a good survey of Austronesian typological variety; Reid and Liao (2004) do the same for Philippine languages, and Ross (2004) for Oceanic languages. Wouk and Ross (eds.) (2002) deal with the history and typology of WestAustronesian voice systems. Robert Blust has had an immense impact on the field ever since 1970. This has extended to Proto-Austronesian/Proto-Malayo-Polynesian phonology, lexicon, morphosyntax, semantics and lexical taxonomies, as well as to classifications of Austronesian languages at all levels, homeland theories, and the reconstruction of Proto-Austronesian/ Proto-Malayo-Polynesian social organization and material culture. Within the limits of this chapter it is impossible to discuss the full extent of his contribution. Reference will only be made to his most important contributions, which include an 800-page introduction to Austronesian linguistics covering all the issues mentioned above (Blust [2009] 2013), the aforementioned monograph on root theory (1988), an extensive Austronesian Comparative Dictionary (Blust and Trussel), and various other publications containing lexical reconstructions (Blust and Trussel 1970, 1976, 1980, 1983−1984, 1986, 1989). The latter all appeared in Oceanic Linguistics, the main journal of Austronesian linguistics and an important outlet for Blust’s publications. Blust 1991, 1993, 1995, and 1998 are some of his publications on subgrouping.

125

126

II. The application of the comparative method in selected language groups

Acknowledgment I wish to thank Andy Pawley (emeritus professor of Austronesian linguistics, Canberra) for his useful comments on an earlier draft of this chapter.

6. References Adelaar, Alexander 1983 Malay consonant-harmony: an internal reconstruction. In: James T. Collins (ed.), Studies in Malay dialects, Part I. (Nusa Series 16). Jakarta: Atma Jaya Catholic University, 57− 67. Adelaar, Alexander 1989 Malay influence on Malagasy: historical and linguistic inferences. Oceanic Linguistics 28: 1−46. Adelaar, Alexander 2005 The Asian languages of Asia and Madagascar: a historical perspective. In: Adelaar and Himmelmann (eds.), 1−42. Adelaar, Alexander and Nikolaus P. Himmelmann (eds.) 2005 The Asian languages of Asia and Madagascar. London: Routledge. Blust, Robert A. 1970 Proto-Austronesian addenda. Oceanic Linguistics 9: 104−162. Blust, Robert A. 1976 Dempwolff’s reduplicated monosyllables. Oceanic Linguistics 15: 107−130. Blust, Robert A. 1980 Austronesian etymologies I. Oceanic Linguistics 19:1−181. Blust, Robert A. 1984 Austronesian etymologies II. Oceanic Linguistics 22−23 [1983−1984]: 29−149. Blust, Robert A. 1986 Austronesian etymologies III. Oceanic Linguistics 25: 1−123. Blust, Robert A. 1988 Austronesian root theory. An essay on the limits of morphology. (Studies in Language Companion Series 19). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Blust, Robert A. 1989 Austronesian etymologies IV. Oceanic Linguistics 28:111−180. Blust, Robert A. 1991 The Great Central Philippines hypothesis. Oceanic Linguistics 30: 73−129. Blust, Robert A. 1993 Central and Central-Eastern Malayo-Polynesian. Oceanic Linguistics 32: 241−293. Blust, Robert A. 1995 The position of the Formosan languages: methods and theory in Austronesian comparative linguistics. In: Li et al. (eds.), 585−650. Blust, Robert A. 1996 The Neogrammarian hypothesis and pandemic irregularity. In: Durie and Ross (eds.), 135−156. Blust, Robert A. 1998 The position of the languages of Sabah. In: Maria L. S. Bautista (ed.), Pagtanáw Essays on language in honor of Teodoro A. Llamzon. Manila: The Linguistic Society of the Philippines, 29−52.

13. The comparative method in Austronesian linguistics Blust, Robert A. 1999 Subgrouping, circularity and extinction: some issues in Austronesian comparative linguistics. In: Zeitoun and Li (eds.), 31−94. Blust, Robert A. 2013 [2009] The Austronesian languages. 2nd revised edn. Asia-Pacific Linguistics Open Access monographs, A-PL 008. Canberra, ACT: Asia-Pacific Linguistics. http:// pacling.anu.edu.au/materials/Blust2013Austronesian.pdf Blust, Robert A. and Stephen Trussel no date Austronesian Comparative Dictionary. Unfinished work available online at http:// www.trussel2.com/acd/ Brandes, Jan Lourens Andries 1884 Bijdrage tot de vergelijkende klankleer der westersche afdeling van de Maleisch-Polynesische taalfamilie [Contributions to the comparative phonology of the western branch of the Malayo-Polynesian language family]. Utrecht: P.W. van de Weijer. Chrétien, C. Douglas 1965 The statistical structure of the Proto-Austronesian morph. Lingua 14: 243−270. Dahl, Otto Christian 1951 Malgache et Maanyan. Une comparaison linguistique. (Avhandlinger utgitt av Instituttet 3). Oslo: Egede Instituttet. Dahl, Otto Christian 1976 [1973] Proto-Austronesian. (Scandinavian Institute of Asian Studies Monograph series No. 15). Lund: Studentlitteratur. 2nd revised edn. Richmond (Surrey, UK): Curzon. Dahl, Otto Christian 1981 Early phonetic and phonemic changes in Austronesian. (Instituttet for Sammenlignende Kulturforskning Serie B: Skrifter LXIII). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Dempwolff, Otto 1934 Vergleichende Lautlehre des Austronesischen Wortschatzes. I. Band. Induktiver Aufbau einer indonesischen Ursprache. (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Eingeborenensprachen 15). Berlin: Reimer. Dempwolff, Otto 1937 Vergleichende Lautlehre des Austronesischen Wortschatzes. III. Band. Deduktiver Anwendung des Urindonesischen auf austronesische Einzelsprachen. (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Eingeborenensprachen 17). Berlin: Reimer. Dempwolff, Otto 1938 Vergleichende Lautlehre des Austronesischen Wortschatzes. III. Band. Austronesisches Wörterverzeichnis. (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Eingeborenensprachen 19). Berlin: Reimer. Durie, Mark and Malcolm Ross (eds.) 1996 The comparative method reviewed: Regularity and irregularity in language change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Durie, Mark and Malcolm Ross 1996 Introduction. In: Durie and Ross (eds.), 3−38. Dyen, Isidore 1953 The Proto-Malayo-Polynesian laryngeals. Baltimore: Linguistic Society of America. Dyen, Isidore 1963 The position of the Malayo-Polynesian languages of Formosa. Asian Perspectives 7: 261−271. Dyen, Isidore 1965a Formosan evidence for some Proto-Austronesian phonemes. Lingua 14: 285−305. Dyen, Isidore 1965b A lexicostatistical classification of the Austronesian languages. (International Journal of American Linguistics, Memoir 19). Baltimore: Waverly.

127

128

II. The application of the comparative method in selected language groups Dyen, Isidore 1971 The Austronesian languages and Proto-Austronesian. In: Thomas A. Sebeok (ed.), Current trends in linguistics. Volume 8: Linguistics in Oceania. The Hague: Mouton, 5−54. Grace, George W. 1996 Regularity of change in what. In: Durie and Ross (eds.), 157−179. Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2005 The Asian languages of Asia and Madagascar: typological characteristics. In: Adelaar and Himmelmann (eds.), 110−181. Kirch, Patrick Vinton 2000 On the road of the winds. Berkeley: University of California Press. Li, Paul Jen-kuei, Dah-an Ho, Ying-kuei Huang, and Cheng-hwa Tsang (eds.) 1995 Austronesian studies relating to Taiwan. (Symposium Series of the Institute of History and Philology 4). Taipei: Academia Sinica. Lynch, John, Malcolm D. Ross, and Terry Crowley 2002 The Oceanic languages. Richmond (Surrey, UK): Curzon. Mahdi, W. 1988 Morphonologische Besonderheiten und historische Phonologie des Malagasy. (Veröffentlichungen des Seminars für Indonesische und Südseesprachen der Universität Hamburg 20). Berlin: Reimer. Pawley, Andrew K. 1999 Chasing rainbows: implications for the rapid dispersal of Austronesian languages for subgrouping and reconstruction. In: Zeitoun and Li (eds.), 95−138. Pawley, Andrew K. 2002 The Austronesian dispersal: languages, technologies and people. In: Peter Bellwood and Colin Renfrew (eds.), Language-farming dispersals. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 251−274. Pawley, Andrew K. and Laurie Reid 1976 The evolution of transitivity in Austronesian. In: Paz B. Naylor (ed.), Austronesian Studies: Papers from the Second Eastern Conference on Austronesian Languages. (Michigan Papers on South and Southeast Asia 15). Ann Arbor: Center for South and Southeast Asian Studies, The University of Michigan, 103−130. Pawley, Andrew K. and Malcolm D. Ross (eds.) 1994 Austronesian terminologies: continuity and change. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Reid, Lawrence A. and Hsiu-chuan Liao 2004 A brief syntactic typology of Philippine languages. Language and Linguistics (Taipei) 5: 433−490. Ross, Malcolm D. 1995 Reconstructing Proto Austronesian verbal morphology: evidence from Taiwan. In: Li et al. (eds.), 727−791. Ross, Malcolm D. 2004 The morphological typology of Oceanic languages. Language and Linguistics (Taipei) 5: 491−541. Ross, Malcolm D. in press. Proto Austronesian verbal morphology: a reappraisal. To appear in a Festschrift. Tryon, Darrell T. (ed.) 1995 Comparative Austronesian dictionary. An introduction to Austronesian studies. (Trends in Linguistics Documentation 10). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Van der Tuuk, Hendrik N. 1865 Outlines of a grammar of the Malagasy language. The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland (n.s.) 1: 419−446.

14. The comparative method in Australian linguistics Wolff, John U. 1973 Verbal inflection in Proto-Austronesian. In: Andrew B. Gonzalez (ed.), Parangal kay Cecilio Lopez: essays in honor of Cecilio Lopez on his seventy-fifth birthday. (Philippine Journal of Linguistics. Special monograph 4). Quezon City: Linguistic Society of the Phillippines, 71−91. Wolff, John U. 1988 The PAN consonant system. In: Richard McGinn (ed.), Studies in Austronesian linguistics. (Monographs in International Studies). Athens, OH: Ohio University Press, 125− 147. Wolff, John U. 2010 Proto-Austronesian phonology with glossary. Vol. I and II. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Southeast Asia Program. Wouk, Fay and Malcolm D. Ross (eds.) 2002 The history and typology of Western Austronesian voice systems. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Zeitoun, Elizabeth and Paul Jen-kuei Li (eds.) 1999 Selected Papers from the Eighth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics. (Symposium Series of the Institute Of Linguistics [Preparatory Office]). Taipei: Academia Sinica. Zorc, R. David 1983 Proto Austronesian accent revisited. Philippine Journal of Linguistics 14: 1−24.

Alexander Adelaar, Melbourne (Australia)

14. The comparative method in Australian linguistics 1. Introduction 4. Dixon’s approach to comparative Australian 2. Early studies and the problem of attestation 5. More recent comparative work 3. The perversity of Australian languages 6. References

1. Introduction Comparative linguistics has finally come of age in Australia, particularly in the past two decades. While this chapter ends with a brief summary of recent studies, it devotes more space to earlier work, which tends to be more revealing of the particular nature of the Australian linguistic area.

2. Early studies and the problem of attestation Until recently the comparative study of Australian languages was severely hampered by the extremely poor data available. Even today many of the languages which are no longer spoken are known mainly from early wordlists recorded by interested pastoralists, police constables, and other non-linguists. Such attestation began with Captain Cook’s https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261288-014

129

130

II. The application of the comparative method in selected language groups visit to Australia in 1770, and by the time of the publication of Grey’s account of an expedition to Western Australia in 1841 it was enough to reveal the diversity and yet widespread similarities among Australian languages (Dixon 1980: 8−11). It hit a peak during the last two decades of that century, which saw the publication of 125-item word lists for some three hundred speech varieties in Curr’s (1886−87) four-volume work on The Australian race. This sort of data provided the basis for the first systematic attempt to classify Australian languages, by Schmidt (1919), who succeeded in recognizing the genetic grouping of many of the languages spoken across the southern half of the continent (see Koch 2004: 18−25). Tasmanian languages died out especially early, and from the limited data available it is not even clear to what extent they were related to languages of the mainland (see e.g. Crowley and Dixon 1981). They will not be considered further here. Attestations of languages began to improve as work by the first notable Australian linguist, Arthur Capell, began to appear in the late 1930s. While Capell (1937: 58) recognized the basic unity of Australian languages, his own classification was typological, initially arranging the languages into five groups. Later Capell (1956: 119) recognized a major division between the prefixing languages found across northern and northwestern Australia and the suffixing languages found elsewhere on the continent. While he still believed that the languages stemmed from a common ancestor − a position he would later discard (e.g. Capell 1975: 2) − he did not believe it would be possible to reconstruct it (Capell 1956: 3). Instead he focused on what he called “Common Australian”, i.e. “words and constructions that are found throughout Australia ... ‘common’ to all areas (though not to all languages) but [which] may or may not be ‘original’”. In his study of Common Australian vocabulary, Capell (1956: 83−85) recognized more obvious sound “changes”, and also the less obvious loss of initial consonants or sometimes entire syllables in the Aranda (now Arrernte) language of Central Australia (Capell 1956: 100− 101). For further discussion of Capell’s work, see Koch (2004: 25−30).

3. The perversity of Australian languages This brings us to one of two major problems with the nature of Australian languages: much of Capell’s “Common Australian” vocabulary, such as mara for ‘hand’ and guna for ‘faeces’, is found with little change in languages across the continent. This makes it difficult to distinguish borrowed forms from cognates, and it also tends to provide little evidence of shared innovations that might bear on subgrouping. Especially for more poorly attested varieties, such lexical data was nonetheless taken as the main basis for a preliminary classification of the languages by O’Grady, Voegelin, and Voegelin (1966). To a great extent this was based on lexicostatistical data (but largely for adjacent varieties that could easily be affected by borrowing), and an extremely crude system of bands of percentages was used to establish groupings; e.g., percentages of 26 % to 50 % were taken to establish subgroups within the same group (see O’Grady and Klokeid 1969; Dixon 2002: 45−48 and Koch 2004: 30−33). Typological considerations also seemed to play a role, with the result that the suffixing languages found across much of the continent were classified into the largest, “Pama-Nyungan”, family, while the diverse prefixing languages of the north and northwest were classified into 28 other

14. The comparative method in Australian linguistics families within an “Australian Phylum”. The latter included all languages in Australia except for the Tasmanian languages and the Meriam (or Meryam) language of Torres Strait, whose closest relatives are on the mainland of New Guinea. This classification was also informed by the first proper comparative studies of Australian languages, namely Hale’s (1964 and later) work on Northern Paman and other languages in Cape York Peninsula and O’Grady’s (1966) comparative reconstruction of Proto-Ngayarda in Western Australia. Hale’s work was particularly exciting because the languages of Cape York Peninsula had long been considered highly divergent from each other and from languages elsewhere in Australia (e.g. Capell 1956: 108−109). Hale found that this tended to be due to the loss of initial consonants or syllables, so that the reconstructed root *pama for ‘person’ had such reflexes as pam, a:m, abm, and ma in the various languages. While many of the languages are phonologically unusual in Australia, their vocabularies can be seen to be quite similar once such changes are taken into account. The range of sound changes was a welcome relief from the relative uniformity found throughout much of the continent, and Hale’s achievement quickly inspired further comparative work on the languages of the area; see Sommer (1969), Dixon (1970a), various papers (including some by Hale) in Sutton (1976), and Black (1980). At the same time it revealed a second perversity of Australian languages. While the loss of initial consonants and syllables might be thought to be a relatively unusual change, it had occurred independently in several groups in Cape York Peninsula, in the Arandic languages of Central Australia (as already noted by Capell 1956: 100−101), and in the Nganyaywana language of New South Wales (Crowley 1976; see also Black 2007a). Worse than that, even within such individual subgroups as Northern Paman (Black 2004: 244−246) and Arandic (Koch 2004: 135−136), initial consonant loss is problematic as a shared innovation because it must have been preceded by changes specific to just some members of each subgroup. As Koch (2004: 136) suggests for Arandic, it seems to be a change shared across a continuum of already divergent dialects. Black (2004) has more recently suggested more generally that there is little basis for identifying shared innovations for subgrouping the languages of Cape York Peninsula despite the extensive phonological changes found in many of them. Aside from the above, work by O’Grady (1979 and later) on Pama-Nyungan has raised some interesting questions about semantic change in Australia. For example, O’Grady (2004: 83−84) proposed five distinct Proto-Pama-Nyungan reconstructions (*kayal, *kuma(n), *kuurnum, *kUrri and *nguyal) that each involve reflexes meaning ‘raw’ in some languages and ‘one’ in others. While it is not clear why the two meanings should be related, repeatedly finding such an association suggests that the relationship may well be real. O’Grady and Fitzgerald (1997: 349−350) have thus suggested that initial searching for cognates should ignore meaning and be based on form alone.

4. Dixon’s approach to comparative Australian Considering the problematic nature of Australian languages, it may not be surprising that a different approach to the languages was gradually developed by R. M. W. Dixon, who had been appointed foundation professor in linguistics at Australian National Uni-

131

132

II. The application of the comparative method in selected language groups versity in 1970. Aside from focusing on the comparative reconstruction of specific language groups, Dixon attempted to draw conclusions about ancestral protolanguages by examining selected features of better attested languages across Australia. Dixon (1970b) was thus able to suggest that a contrast between lamino-dental and lamino-alveolar consonants found in some Australian languages had developed since the time of earlier protolanguages. Later, in a key text on The languages of Australia, Dixon (1980) used similar approaches to suggest other aspects of a likely sound system of Proto-Australian (e.g. Dixon 1980: 150−158) and protoforms for such morphemes as case suffixes (Dixon 1980: 311−322) and pronouns (Dixon 1980: 327−377). This involved considering likely phonological changes. For the second person singular pronoun, for example, Dixon (1980: 344) noted that various languages had forms similar to nyundhu, nyindhu and (more rarely) ngindu (in my retranscription), and he suggested that these were from an original form ngindhu, since he could then explain nyindhu and nyundhu as resulting from assimilation. From examining the phonotactics of modern Australian languages, Dixon (1980: 167−174) also suggested that Proto-Australian may well have been unlike most of them in having had a number of monosyllabic roots. Essentially he undertook internal reconstruction on a consensus of modern languages and attributed the result to their latest shared protolanguage. At this time Dixon (1980: 3) believed that nearly all Australian languages were descended from a common Proto-Australian ancestor. He did not, however, accept that Pama-Nyungan was a genetic unity (Dixon 1980: 226−227) despite the gross similarities that had convinced other linguists. At that time he cited the lack of established shared innovations (Dixon 1980: 255−256), and when some were later proposed he rejected them (Dixon 2002: 50−51), in one case on the grounds that the proposed innovation (an ergative allomorph -nggu) is only found in about a third of the Pama-Nyungan languages. Another reason was because he believed that the similarities were due to diffusion, a view that eventually made Dixon (e.g. 2002) unsure of whether Australian languages might stem from a common ancestor (Dixon 2002: xix) or whether they may have developed from several different language families that had “merged their character through tens of millennia of equilibrium and diffusion” (Dixon 2002: 92). Dixon (1970a) had earlier proposed that borrowing between contiguous languages was so extensive in Australia that such languages would eventually reach an “equilibrium level” of about 50 % of shared vocabulary. As developed further later, Dixon’s (e.g. 2002: 27−30) theory has interesting consequences. For example, the greater lexical diversity among the prefixing languages of north and northwest Australia was normally taken to suggest that they had been diverging for a longer period of time than the lexically more similar Pama-Nyungan languages, which must have spread across the continent at a later time. Dixon’s theory, on the other hand, suggests that the north and northwest must have been areas of considerable movement, with few of the languages adjacent for long enough to raise their shared vocabulary to anything close to the 50 % equilibrium level; see Harvey (1997) and Black (2006). Dixon (1970a) originally based his theory on views of the impact of name taboo phenomena that have since been shown to be questionable (Black 1997; Alpher and Nash 1999). At the same time, there are occasional cases in which borrowing has clearly been unusually heavy, as between Ngandi and Ritharngu (Heath 1978: 29−31) and between Jingulu and Mudburra, which Pensalfini (2001) found to share as much as 71 %

14. The comparative method in Australian linguistics of basic vocabulary due mainly to borrowing; see also Black (2007b). Where there is little sound change to distinguish borrowing from cognation, one may believe that borrowing was similarly heavy elsewhere, and where it was clear that borrowing between initial-dropping and initial-preserving languages was not so heavy, Dixon (2002: 28−29) simply took borrowing to be inhibited by the phonotactic differences.

5. More recent comparative work While Dixon’s views have been difficult for many Australianists to accept (see e.g. Koch 2004: 48−57, Evans 2005), they certainly raise interesting questions about the extent to which the comparative method can be assumed to be applicable in a continent with hundreds of speech varieties that seldom had as many as a thousand speakers each. If Dixon (2002: xx) is correct in regarding the Australian language situation as unique, the matter can’t be argued on the basis of what happens elsewhere in the world. At the same time, however, it becomes increasingly difficult to see merit in his position as advances continue to be made in the application of the comparative method to Australian languages, thanks largely to substantial improvements in attestation over the past few decades. Of special importance are comparative studies of the more divergent non-Pama-Nyungan languages of the north and northwest, such as those in a volume edited by Evans (2003b). As Evans (2003a: 10) notes in his introduction, these languages will play a far more important role in reconstructing Proto-Australian than the more widespread PamaNyungan languages, since they appear to represent a number of higher-level branches. At the same time these studies offer some hope of determining relative degrees of relationships among these branches, in contrast to the 29-way split in Proto-Australian implied by the preliminary classification by O’Grady, Voegelin, and Voegelin (1966). Work by Blake (1988) and Evans (1988) had already suggested that one prefixing language, Yanyuwa, should be added to a subgroup within Pama-Nyungan while the suffixing Tangkic group should be removed from it. Evans and Jones (1997: 392−393) went as far as to suggest that the closest relatives of Pama-Nyungan were Karrwan, then Tangkic, and then Gunwinyguan, in that order. Within Pama-Nyungan, comparative reconstruction has been undertaken on additional subgroups by Austin (e.g. 1981, 1990) and others; see Koch (2004: 34−48) for an overview. Where there has been little phonological change reconstruction is relatively straightforward, and significant work has been undertaken as honours and masters theses (e.g. Barrett 2005; Bowern 1998; Brammall 1991; Carew 1993; Laffan 2003). Higher level work on Pama-Nyungan as a whole has largely been due to O’Grady (e.g. recently 1998, 2004) and Alpher (e.g. 2004). For attempts to use evidence of shared innovations to establish subgroups within Pama-Nyungan, see Bowern and Koch (2004). More recently Bowern and Atkinson (2012) have used Bayesian phylogenetic inferencing to explore the subgrouping of 194 Pama-Nyungan varieties, which they found to fall within four major divisions. For a recent survey of comparative work on Australian languanges see Koch (2014). Some other relevant papers can be found within such collections as O’Grady and Tryon (1990), McConvell and Evans (1997), Tryon and Walsh (1997), and Bowern, Evans, and Miceli (2008).

133

134

II. The application of the comparative method in selected language groups

6. References Alpher, Barry 2004 Pama-Nyungan: Phonological reconstruction and status as a phylogenetic group. In: Bowern and Koch (eds.), 93−126. Alpher, Barry and David Nash 1999 Lexical replacement and cognate equilibrium in Australia. Australian Journal of Linguistics 19: 5−56. Austin, Peter 1981 Proto-Kanyara and Proto-Mantharta historical phonology. Lingua 54: 295−333. Austin, Peter 1990 Classification of Lake Eyre languages. La Trobe Working Papers in Linguistics 3: 171− 201. Barrett, Bevan 2005 Historical reconstruction of the Maric languages of central Queensland. Unpublished Master of Linguistics sub-thesis, Australian National University. Black, Paul 1980 Norman Pama historical phonology. In: Bruce Rigsby and Peter Sutton (eds.), Papers in Australian linguistics no. 13: Contributions to Australian linguistics. (Pacific Linguistics, ser. A, 59). Canberra: Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University, 181−239. Black, Paul 1997 Lexicostatistics and Australian languages: Problems and prospects. In: Tryon and Walsh (eds.), 51−69. Black, Paul 2004 The failure of the evidence of shared innovations in Cape York Peninsula. In: Bowern and Koch (eds.), 241−267. Black, Paul 2006 Equilibrium theory applied to Top End Australian languages. In: Keith Allen (ed.), Selected papers from the 2005 Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society. electronic document available from http://www.als.asn.au/proceedings/als2005/black-equilibrium.pdf as at 4 November 2015. Black, Paul 2007a Lessons from Terry Crowley’s work on New England languages. In: Jeff Siegel, John Lynch and Diana Eades (eds.), Language description, history and development: Linguistic indulgence in memory of Terry Crowley. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 255−265. Black, Paul 2007b Lexicostatistics with massive borrowing: The case of Jingulu and Mudburra. Australian Journal of Linguistics 27: 63−71. Blake, Barry J. 1988 Redefining Pama-Nyungan: Towards the prehistory of Australian languages. In: Evans and Johnson (eds.), 1−90. Bowern, Claire 1998 The case of Proto Karnic: Morphological change and reconstruction in the nominal and pronominal system of Proto Karnic (Lake Eyre basin). Unpublished BA (Hons) thesis, Australian National University. Bowern, Claire and Quentin Atkinson 2012 Computational phylogenetics and the internal structure of Pama-Nyungan. Language 8: 817−845.

14. The comparative method in Australian linguistics Bowern, Claire and Harold Koch (eds.) 2004 Australian languages: Classification and the comparative method. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Bowern, Claire, Bethwyn Evans and Luisa Miceli (eds.) 2008 Morphology and language history: In honour of Harold Koch. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Brammall, Daniel 1991 A comparative grammar of Warluwaric. Unpublished BA (Hons) thesis, Australian National University. Capell, Arthur 1937 The structure of Australian languages. Oceania 8: 27−61. Capell, Arthur 1956 A new approach to Australian linguistics. Sydney: University of Sydney Press. Capell, Arthur 1975 Ergative constructions in Australian languages. Working Papers in Language and Linguistics, Tasmanian College of Advanced Education, Launceston 2: 1−7. Carew, Margaret 1993 Proto-Warluwarric phonology. Unpublished BA (Hons) thesis, University of Melbourne. Crowley, Terry 1976 Phonological change in New England. In: R. M. W. Dixon (ed.), Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages. Canberra: Australian Institute of Australian Studies, 19− 50. Crowley, Terry and R. M. W. Dixon 1981 Tasmanian. In: R. M. W. Dixon and Barry J. Blake (eds.), Handbook of Australian languages, vol. 2. Canberra: Australian National University Press, 394−421. Curr, Edward M. 1886−87 The Australian race: Its origin, languages, customs, place of landing in Australia, and routes by which it spread itself over that continent. Melbourne: J. Ferres. Dixon, R. M. W. 1970a Languages of the Cairns rain forest region. In: Stefan A. Wurm and Donald C. Laycock (eds.), Pacific linguistics studies in honour of Arthur Capell. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, 651−687. Dixon, R. M. W. 1970b Proto-Australian laminals. Oceanic Linguistics 9: 79−103. Dixon, R. M. W. 1980 The languages of Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dixon, R. M. W. 2002 The Australian languages: Their nature and development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Evans, Nicholas 1988 Arguments for Pama-Nyungan as a genetic subgroup, with particular reference to initial laminalization. In: Evans and Johnson (eds.), 91−110. Evans, Nicholas 2003a Introduction: Comparative non-Pama-Nyungan and Australian historical linguistics. In: Evans (ed.), 2−25. Evans, Nicholas 2005 Australian languages reconsidered: A review of Dixon (2002). Oceanic Linguistics 44: 242−297. Evans, Nicholas (ed.) 2003b The non-Pama-Nyungan languages of northern Australia: Comparative studies of the continent’s most linguistically complex region. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.

135

136

II. The application of the comparative method in selected language groups Evans, Nicholas and Steve Johnson (eds.) 1988 Aboriginal Linguistics, vol. 1. Armidale, NSW: Department of Linguistics, University of New England. Evans, Nicholas and Rhys Jones 1997 The cradle of the Pama-Nyungans: Archaeological and linguistic speculations. In: McConvell and Evans (eds.), 385−417. Hale, Kenneth 1964 Classification of Northern Pama languages, Cape York Peninsula, Australia: A research report. Oceanic Linguistics 3: 248−264. Harvey, Mark 1997 The temporal interpretation of linguistic diversity in the Top End. In: McConvell and Evans (eds.), 179−185. Heath, Jeffrey 1978 Linguistic diffusion in Arnhem Land. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies. Koch, Harold 2004 A methodological history of Australian linguistic classification. In: Bowern and Koch (eds.), 17−60. Koch, Harold 2014 Historical relations among the Australian languages: Genetic classification and contactbased diffusion. In: Harold Koch and Rachel Nordlinger (eds.), The languages and linguistics of Australia. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 23−89. Laffan, Kate 2003 Reconstruction of the Wakka-Kabic languages of south-eastern Queensland. Unpublished BA (Hons) thesis, Australian National University. McConvell, Patrick and Nicholas Evans (eds.) 1997 Archaeology and linguistics: Aboriginal Australia in global perspective. Melbourne: Oxford University Press. O’Grady, Geoffrey N. 1966 Proto-Ngayarda phonology. Oceanic Linguistics 5: 71−130. O’Grady, Geoffrey N. 1979 Preliminaries to a Proto Nuclear Pama-Nyungan stem list. In: Stefan A. Wurm (ed.), Australian linguistic studies. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, 107−139. O’Grady, Geoffrey N. 1998 Toward a Proto-Pama-Nyungan stem list, Part I: Sets J1−J25. Oceanic linguistics 37: 209−233. O’Grady, Geoffrey N. 2004 Pama-Nyungan under unjustified attack. Mother Tongue 9: 7−109. O’Grady, Geoffrey N. and Susan Fitzgerald 1997 Cognate search in the Pama-Nyungan language family. In: McConvell and Evans (eds.), 341−355. O’Grady, Geoffrey N. and Terry Klokeid 1969 Australian linguistic classification: A plea for coordination of effort. Oceania 39: 298− 311. O’Grady, Geoffrey N. and Darrell T. Tryon (eds.) 1990 Studies in comparative Pama-Nyungan. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. O’Grady, Geoffrey N., Charles F. Voegelin, and Florence M. Voegelin 1966 Languages of the World: Indo-Pacific Fascicle Six. (Anthropological Linguistics 8/2). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University. Pensalfini, Rob 2001 On the typological and genetic affiliation of Jingulu. In: Jane Simpson, David Nash, Mary Laughren, Peter Austin, and Barry Alpher (eds.), Forty years on: Ken Hale and Australian languages. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, 385−399.

14. The comparative method in Australian linguistics Schmidt, Wilhelm P. 1919 Die Gliederung der australischen Sprachen: Geographische, bibliographische, linguistische Grundzüge zur Erforschung der australischen Sprachen. Vienna: MechitharistenBuchdruckerei. Sommer, Bruce A. 1969 Kunjen phonology: Synchronic and diachronic. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Sutton, Peter (ed.) 1976 Languages of Cape York. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies. Tryon, Darrell and Michael Walsh (eds.) 1997 Boundary rider: Essays in honour of Geoffrey O’Grady. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.

Paul Black, Charles Darwin University (Australia)

137

III. Historical perspectives on Indo-European linguistics 15. Intuition, exploration, and assertion of the IndoEuropean language relationship 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Introduction A historical-methodological perspective Synthetic overview Antiquity The (Western) Middle Ages The Renaissance The path towards the “(Indo-)Scythic” hypothesis

8. Leibniz 9. Language-comparative studies in the course of the 18 th century 10. The final decades of the 18 th century 11. Conclusion 12. References

1. Introduction The concept of “Indo-European comparative grammar” is a relatively recent one, going back to the 19 th century. However, relationships between languages of the Indo-European family were adumbrated, perceived, and explored long before; the history of the modern discipline was preceded by a long “prehistory” of language comparisons, reaching back to Antiquity. “Pre-comparativist” endeavours are characterized by the strong impact of ideological preconceptions, linked with the weight of authoritative texts (such as the Bible, or the writings of the Church Fathers), and with ethnocentric presuppositions or “nationalistic” claims. Nevertheless, these endeavours were considered to be an instance of “(scientific) knowledge”, and although their results could be, and indeed were, criticized, the overall scope and status of these contributions to knowledge were not questioned within the respective historical periods. The principal features of this “prehistory” of comparative linguistics, are the following, apart from the abovementioned reliance on authority arguments and the ideological underpinnings: a) The adoption of a geographical model of language diversification, as well as of linguistic regrouping; b) The failure to elaborate a concept of language-internal change (except on a very general plane, viz. the idea that “languages change over time”); c) The mixture of linguistic aspects with historical, geographical, ethnological, theological, philosophical considerations, a fact which was the natural consequence of the distribution of linguistically relevant topics over a variety of disciplines (among which “linguistics” was institutionally represented by grammar and dictionary-making); d) The fact that the genealogical relationships that were “recognized” or postulated did not include all the Indo-European languages then known, nor did they involve only https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261288-015

15. Intuition, exploration, and assertion of the Indo-European language relationship Indo-European languages (in logic this shortcoming is designated by the phrase nec omne nec solum). This prehistory is formed by the input of individual scholars, by the (non-continuous) transmission of ideas and language materials, the “(re)discovery” of texts (e.g. the Gothic Bible text) and languages (e.g. classical Sanskrit), and by the changing views on the number of the world’s languages. To this we have to add, for the Early Modern Period, the increased interaction between scholars, first channelled through epistolary correspondence, later through scholarly exchange in journals and academy proceedings or memoirs. In sum, this prehistory was the playground of “necessity and chance” (cf. Monod 1970). For comprehensive treatments of the issues dealt with in this chapter, see Zeller (1967), Droixhe (1978), various chapters in Schmitter (1987−2007: vols. 4, 5, and 6) and in Auroux, Koerner, Niederehe, and Versteegh (2000−2006), and Van Hal (2010); for an idiosyncratic but thought-provoking linguistic-philosophical reflection, see Verburg (1952). On the (farreaching) ideological implications, see Olender (1989). On issues of terminology, see Lindner (2011−2015: fasc. 4, 258−269). For bio-bibliographical information on scholars, see Stammerjohann (2009) and Nativel (1997−2006) [on Renaissance authors].

2. A historical-methodological perspective A retrospective misconception, installed by late 19th-century and early 20th-century historiographical accounts (e.g. Delbrück 1880; Thomsen 1902; Pedersen 1924), concerning the development of “scientific linguistics” consists in assuming a) that in the early 19 th century the study of language(s) witnessed a change from a pre-paradigmatic or paradigm-less occupation to a uniform disciplinary paradigm, in terms of methodological systematization and of institutional practice, and, as a corollary, b) that the new “paradigmatic” constellation in language study was exclusively defined by a historical-comparative orientation, applied to the investigation of well-defined genetic sets of “linguistic families”. This (twofold) misconception − which made its way into broad-gauged philosophical musings on the macroscopic evolution of Western European “knowledge” (Fr. savoir) concerning man and society (cf. Foucault 1966, 1969) − has been conceptually challenged and empirically corrected by work, in the past few decades, on the history of Early Modern language study and scholarship. (For an overview with extensive bibliographical information, see Van Hal, Isebaert, and Swiggers 2013.) The crucial lesson to be drawn from recent historiographical work is that there was a gradual, non-rectilinear, and uncalibrated development of an empirical, methodological, and theoretically − also “ideologically”-coloured − body of knowledge, which was constituted through accumulation, “de-cumulation” or decomposition, and segregation of bits of information, flashes of insights, and piecemeal theory formation. The evolution of ideas and of practical endeavours with reference to “Indo-European language relationship” − an anachronistic term when applied to Early Modern scholarship − testifies to the historical reality of a mosaic-like conflation of contributions, a fact which should not come as a surprise. As a matter of fact, a “scientifically” (in our modern view) satisfactory approach to linguistic relationships (within the Indo-European,

139

140

III. Historical perspectives on Indo-European linguistics or another, language family) requires that an increasingly complex gamut of constraints be met with. To tackle the problem of language relationships from a historical-comparative perspective a number of minimal demands have to be complied with; one needs, e.g. a) A concept of a (linguistic) domain over which the relationships (Σ R) extend; such a domain can be explicitly labelled (as a “family”, “group”, “stock”), identified with a name (e.g. “Indo-European”, “Romance”, “Penutian”), or it can be left unspecified, in which case the domain will simply be identified by the enumeration of the individual languages included in the relational set. (Note that the set may consist of a single language L, in which case the historical-comparative endeavour reduces to a comparison of [attested/reconstructed] historical stages of L.) b) A genetically based concept of linguistic relatedness, applying in a horizontal and/or vertical sense, by which “languages” (i.e. linguistic varieties identified as separate “languages” or as distinct “linguistic systems”) are unified into a frame of parental relationship(s), generally spotted as “similarities” in the initial stage of investigation. c) An idea or, even better, a clear notion of time-depth, i.e. a time-frame into which the members of the relational set as well as their common relational antecedent are chronologically situated. This common relational antecedent may be taken to be one of the members of the relational set itself, or may be a superimposed entity to which all the members of the relational set are related by some kind of parallel (meta-)relation. d) A demonstrative technique with its applicational field: this means that any claimed relationship has to be demonstrated by linguistic proof applied to language “materials”. The proof may be more or less formalized; the “materials” can range from sounds (or their written symbolization) to discursive fragments (e.g. poetic phrases), but most frequently they will belong to the phonic and grammatical field. These four minimal demands may be considered sufficient for justifying the general qualification of “linguistic comparativism”. Higher standards have to be met before we can speak of historical-comparative grammar, which works under much more rigorous constraints, viz. a) The sorting out of the input to which the comparative approach has to be applied: this involves the elimination of onomatopoeic words, of borrowings (including borrowings from an ancestral “node”, causing the possible presence of doublets at a particular synchronic stage). b) A refined technique, involving b1) a correct segmentation of forms that can be accurately compared over the members of the relational set, and b2) a systematically applied procedure of triangulation. c) A clear notion of the nature of linguistic changes (including zero change), accounting for the recurrent sets of “triangulated” matchings (between “correspondences”, which are not necessarily “similarities”), and of their directionality. d) The recognition of the regularity of change, and the principled application of such regularity in explaining the changes represented on the descending sides and the basis of the triangulations (i.e. “descending” regularity and regularity in the horizontal correspondences).

15. Intuition, exploration, and assertion of the Indo-European language relationship Observing these various constraints will (i) rule out automatically comparison of “chance similarities” (which will not pass tests such as: correctly segmented forms in each member of the relational set; general presence in the various members of the set; replicability of the postulated change), (ii) involve the use of a large body of segmentable data (in order to provide substantial proof for the regularity of changes along the sides of the triangulation figures); (iii) require the constant coupling of the segmentation of forms with the definition of (phonic, morphemic, syntactic) contexts, always in close connection with the purpose of the comparative undertaking and the level of description involved. Taking into account the full set (of lower and higher) demands to be observed in historical-comparative grammar (and its lexical implementation, viz. etymology), one could consider some kind of evaluation metrics, in which a distinction is made between 1. Observational adequacy: a threshold for ruling out wrong data or wrongly analysed data, but also, at the macro-level, the unjustified inclusion of a language L as a member of the proposed relational set, or, in a reverse way, its unjustified exclusion from such a set. 2. Descriptive adequacy: a critical threshold for eliminating any erroneous matching of the segments included in triangulation sets, and the erroneous or incomplete accounting of determining contexts. 3. Explanatory adequacy: a threshold for ruling out erroneous or incomplete explanation of the nature and/or direction of the changes (along the sides of the triangulation sets), and erroneous hypothesizing (or, strongly claimed identification) of the common relational antecedent. Searching for the full set of constraints, and for the conjunction of three levels of adequacy in the (century-long) history of language comparison and investigation of language relationships would be a frustrating experience of constant disillusion. The evolutionary course of language-comparative activities offers massive evidence of the general truth that the history of science is the grave of “great expectations” as to (instantaneous) scientific perfection. On the nature, scope, constraints (and limitations) of the “comparative method” (involving triangulation), see Hoenigswald (1960, 1973); on the place of comparative grammar within historical (or “diachronic”) linguistics, see, e.g. Hock (1986/1991) and Hock and Joseph (1996/2009); for some reflections on the history of the comparative method, see Hoenigswald (1963).

3. Synthetic overview In the following sections an attempt has been made to highlight the most significant (not always the most “important”) landmarks in reflections and practices involving the comparison of (not always) Indo-European languages, and to guide the reader through the complex and sinuous paths of investigation into language relationships, from Antiquity to the beginning of the 19 th century. The long history of studies dealing with the relationships between languages (and “nations”) reaches back to the biblical accounts of the confusion of tongues and the

141

142

III. Historical perspectives on Indo-European linguistics ethnic-linguistic tripartition between the sons of Noah (cf. Lipiński 1990, 1992, 1993), transmitted to the later periods by the Church Fathers and encyclopedists of late Antiquity (cf. 4) and the early Middle Ages; an important role in the transmission process was played by authors such as Jordanes/Jornandes [ca. 510−ca. 560], author of De origine actibusque Getarum (ca. 550), and Isidore of Seville [ca. 560−636], author of the Etymologiae or Origines (compiled around 610), and the venerable Bede [ca. 673−735], author of the Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum (731). Medieval, Renaissance (cf. 5 and 6), and early Modern investigations into language relationships were marked by the impact of the Bible and the chronological frame it implied. From the later Middle Ages on, particular relationships were noted between languages spoken within the confines of Europe, thus fostering incipient views on the linguistic division of the continent. In the Renaissance, scholars became interested in relationships between European languages and languages (once) spoken on the Asian continent (i.e. relationships not restricted to a contiguous geographical area). Also, the status of Hebrew as the primeval language was questioned, often on ideological grounds, but argued for with (at times) interesting linguistic observations. In the 17 th century (cf. 7), fruitful exchange of ideas between scholars (especially in the Low Countries) led to the formulation of the “Scythic” hypothesis (also “Indo-Scythic”, next to various other terminological alternatives), accounting for linguistic relationships which to a large extent cover those between “Indo-European” languages. The enlightened 18 th century (cf. 8 and 9) required investigations that were “rationalist”, and in the field of language comparison this is evident from the (renewed) attempts at classifying the world’s languages, based on in situ observation. Although not directly impacting on the study of relationships between Indo-European languages, the late 18th-century language collections offered evidence (word lists, text specimens) and provided some methodological insights (e.g. concerning the importance of comparing grammatical structures, and not simply words) for delimiting language families and for defining relationships within a family. Finally, in the last decades of the 18 th and the first decades of the 19 th century (cf. 10), language relationships within the boundaries of a family that was named “IndoEuropean” were gradually defined in a linguistically justified way.

4. Antiquity Language realities in the ancient “Western” world, and by extension, in the neighbouring Near East (later hellenized and then romanized) naturally included phenomena such as bi- or multilingualism and (even more) bi-/multiscripturalism, language contacts (spontaneous, utilitarian, or imposed), observation of or reporting on foreign cultures and languages, and employment of translators and interpreters; however, interest in language relatedness, let alone language classification, was slight. Exceptions to this general rule are constituted by a) the interest − triggered by the Old Testament accounts of Adamic language and the Babelic confusion of tongues and by the New Testament Pentecost story − of Greek and Latin Christian authors in matters of language origins, of language diversity, and classification; b) the (limited) interest taken in the comparison of Latin and Greek (to the advantage of the latter).

15. Intuition, exploration, and assertion of the Indo-European language relationship On multilingual situations in Antiquity and interest in languages, see Lejeune (1948), Allen (1948), Swiggers and Wouters (1989), Rochette (1995), Adams (2003, 2007), Schöpsdau (1992), Werner (1992), Wiotte-Franz (2001). On the link between linguistic and ethnic (pre)conceptions, see Gera (2003), Hall (1997), Harrison (2002). On (the recurrent theme of) Adamic language, see Coudert (1999). On the link established between Babelic confusion and the Pentecost language miracle, see Céard (1980) and von Moos (2008). On the long tradition of commentaries on, and interpretations of the Babel story, see the monumental work of Borst (1957−1963); on the attitudes of the Greek and Latin Church Fathers, see Van Rooy (2013) and Denecker (2015).

5. The (Western) Middle Ages Whereas in the Near East the establishing of the Masoretic text of the Old Testament involved a substantial portion of (implicit) Semitic comparative grammar (cf. Tené 1980; Gruntfest 1989), in the West the interest in language comparison was for a long time limited to reflections and speculations on language origins and (ethno)linguistic diversification. These speculations derived from the Biblical text of Genesis and were totally determined by the (much too narrow) chronological frame imposed by the Bible. In spite of a clear awareness of the similarities and differences between Greek and Latin in the Byzantine empire, and of the experience, in Western Europe, of the rift between (classical) Latin and the Romance vernaculars (cf. Banniard 1992), no attempt was made to systematize linguistic correspondences and differences into sets of languages, nor to organize and classify recurrent similarities or deviations in terms of retention vs. change. And while there was − from Antiquity, in fact − a basic awareness of ethnic and linguistic differences, such differences were not organized into an encompassing classificatory scheme. The (ancient and) medieval lack of cultural and linguistic open-mindedness can be seen as characteristic of older periods of Western civilization, but it can also be explained by the higher prestige which Greek (in the Hellenistic world) and Latin (in the Roman empire) enjoyed, and by their near-monopoly as languages of learning and science (although mention has to be made of the role of Arabic on the Iberian peninsula, and of Hebrew in Jewish scholarly circles). Characteristically, Dante Alighieri [1265−1321], in his De vulgari eloquentia (written in 1304/1305), considered Latin to be a rule-based and codified language (“grammatica”), quite distinct from the vernaculars, the acquisition of which was natural, and not through a process of learning. As a consequence Dante denied a direct genetic link between Latin and the Romance vernaculars. We are indebted to Dante for one of the first classifications of the languages of Europe. Before him Gerald of Wales/Giraldus Cambrensis [Fr. Gérald/Giraud de Barri] [1146−1220], in his Descriptio Cambriae (1194), had noticed (lexical) similarities between words in Greek, Latin, and Welsh (which he clearly separates from English and Saxon). Half a century later, Roderigo Jiménez [Ximénez] de Rada [ca. 1170−1247], in his De rebus Hispaniae (written around 1240), offers us a linguistic description of Europe, with explicit reference to a genealogical descent. In Jiménez de Rada’s view the languages of Europe (extending from the Iberian shores of the Atlantic to the Bosporus) are to be regarded as the linguistic descent of Japhet. He makes particular mention of the descent of Tubal (one of Japhet’s sons),

143

144

III. Historical perspectives on Indo-European linguistics first associated with the Yberes and Hyspani, and then with all the nationes that use the Latin language. The other sons of Japhet populated the rest of Europe, and here Jiménez de Rada lumps together all kinds of “nations”: Greeks, Vlachs, Bulgarians, Slavs, Hungarians, the Scots and the Welshmen, various Germanic peoples (Theutonia, Dacia, Norueguia, Suecia, Flandria, Anglia), and finally the Basques, Navarrese, and Celtiberians. To this Biblical perspective on Europe’s ethnic and linguistic population Jiménez de Rada adds a pseudo-historical Graeco-Roman historicization, with Hercules conquering Hispania and Rome being a Trojan foundation. Dante’s picture of Europe (which he defines as the territory between Asia and the westward borders of Anglia) is linguistically better informed, and also more cautious: on the one hand, he makes no strong claims about the (remote) origins of Europe’s linguistic population, and, on the other hand, he sticks to a broad geographical division between the south, the north, and the east of Europe. Within this division Dante posits three linguistic entities (for each of these he simply uses the term idioma ‘language’): a) the Germanic-Slavic-Hungarian linguistic domain (in which iò is used for saying ‘yes’); b) the Greek linguistic domain, extending into Asia, for which no delimiting isogloss is mentioned; c) a third linguistic domain, which he defines as corresponding to a ‘threefold language’ (idioma tripharium), according to the word for ‘yes’: sì, oc, or oïl. For Dante the three offshoots (subsuming, respectively: (i) Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese; (ii) Occitan and Catalan; (iii) French) can be brought back to a single language; his demonstration consists in noting the presence, in the three, of the ‘same words’ (eadem vocabula) for expressing the concepts of ‘God’, ‘heaven’, ‘love’, ‘sea’, ‘earth’, ‘[he/she/it] is/lives/dies/loves’. Dante refrains from labelling this domain as “Latin”, and simply refers to it as the linguistic development of one of the three languages which after the Babelic confusion ended up occupying the territory of Europe. These three medieval accounts of linguistic relationships share the following characteristics: (i) they adhere to the Biblical accounts of the Babelic confusion of a single primeval language, and of the distribution of languages according to the division of the earth among Noah’s three sons Japhet, Sem, and Ham; (ii) they hardly provide linguistic evidence for grouping languages and/or for separating groups from each other (Giraldus offers 14 lexical comparisons between Welsh, Greek, and Latin; Dante uses the word for ‘yes’ in his macro-division of Europe, and lists some correspondences between the varieties within his third group); (iii) at the outset, the perspective is a geographical one, limited to Europe (or to parts of Europe); (iv) apart from a very general idea of “genealogical descent” − embedded in a Bible-based chronology and supplied with a pseudohistorical account of how Europe was populated −, there is no linguistically based concept of “genetic relationship” in a vertical sense; (v) the (largely implicit) idea of genetic relationship at the horizontal level (between parent languages occupying a parallel position with respect to a common ancestor) is either an unsubstantiated corollary of a monogenetic assumption concerning Europe’s linguistic scene, or is in the best case supported with a few words (lexical items in the case of Giraldus, lexical and partly grammatical in the case of Dante), but there is no trace of a comparison involving the matching of correspondingly segmented forms. While there was a general awareness and recognition among medieval scholars of the development of societies and cultures, the case of these three authors testifies to the general lack, in the Middle Ages, of a more or less clear idea of the nature and mechanisms of linguistic change. As to the reception of their ideas, one notes that the impact

15. Intuition, exploration, and assertion of the Indo-European language relationship of Dante’s text, edited and commented upon by Italian humanists from the early 16 th century on, largely remained restricted to scholarly work in the Romance field. Jiménez de Rada’s and Giraldus’ texts were used in the Early Modern period by scholars in the Low Countries and on the British isles who were interested in the genealogy of Europe’s languages. On medieval language classifications, see Bonfante (1953−1954); on Dante’s contribution, see Swiggers (2001: 46−49, with further references).

6. The Renaissance: moving away from Babel, and from the Bible The Renaissance, a broad cultural and intellectual trend starting in Italy in the first half of the 15 th century and spreading over Europe, saw several changes in the approach to language. These were caused or stimulated by: a) the expansion of the linguistic horizon of European scholars, due to the conquest of overseas territories, and the increased ethnographic interests of travellers; b) the emergence of a philologically based approach to ancient languages, more specifically Latin, Greek, and (classical) Hebrew; c) the strong investment, nourished by the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, in text criticism, which became of major relevance for a more accurate culture-historical awareness; d) sustained efforts in the grammatical and lexicographical description of the vernaculars, stimulated by the new possibilities offered by the printing industry, by the need to provide the merchant class with tools satisfying their practical interest in modern languages, and, on a general level, by a growing nationalistic or patriotic feeling among scholars; e) a general historical sensibility and its linguistic implementation, growing out of philological work (cf. b, c), of the interest taken in the national past (cf. d), of the critical attitude with regard to medieval scholarship and scholastic Latin, and − especially in the Romance-speaking areas − out of the awareness of the distance between Latin and the vernaculars (the latter is well testified to by the debates, most prominently in Italy, on the historical relationship between Latin − which variety: classical or vulgar? − and the Romance languages. For an overview of Renaissance linguistics, see Tavoni (1998). For bibliographical information on primary and secondary literature, see the Renaissance Linguistics Archive (Tavoni et al. 2009‒). On the Renaissance origins of scholarship in various branches of “IndoEuropean studies” (such as Germanic, Celtic, Slavic, and Baltic), see von Raumer (1870) [for Germanic studies]; Tourneur (1905), Chotzen (1931), Bonfante (1956), and Poppe (1988) [Celtic studies]; Van de Velde (1966), Dekker (1999), and Gardt (1999) [Germanic]; Dini (1999) [Baltic]; for investigations involving a larger (Indo-)European perspective, see Bonfante (1953−1954), Zeller (1967), Droixhe (1978, ed. 1984), Colombat (2008), Van Hal (2010), Van Hal and Considine (2010), and Metcalf (2013). For the history of Finno-Ugric scholarship (at times intersecting with “Indo-European” studies), see Gulya (1974) and Stipa (1990). For the link with anthropological views, see, e.g. Hodgen (1964) and Hymes (1983). For the link with the topic of language origins, see Aarsleff (1982), Droixhe (1987, 2007), and Demonet-Launay (1992).

The gradually decreasing impact of a Eurocentric vision, and the humanistic urge to support man’s knowledge of the world with compelling empirical evidence explain the

145

146

III. Historical perspectives on Indo-European linguistics appearance of a new text genre in the study of language, viz. the language catalogues. These catalogues integrated the newly discovered languages, either extinct (such as Etruscan or Umbrian), on the verge of extinction (such as Coptic or Old Prussian), or living (such as Syriac and Amharic) (cf. Strothmann 1971; Kessler-Mesguich 2000). Special mention must be made here of the discovery, in 1573, of the Codex argenteus by Arnold Mercator [1537−1587], which brought the Gothic Bible text under the attention of scholars (the first printed edition of the Gothic Bible appeared in 1665, and was prepared by Franciscus Junius/du Jon [1591−1677]), and of the report, by Ogier Ghislain de Busbecq [1522−1592] on Crimean Gothic, the Germanic character of which was recognized (Busbecq’s observations, dating to the 1560s, are formulated in his Legationis Turcicae epistolae quatuor, 1589). On the importance of these discoveries for Germanic studies, see von Raumer (1870), Van de Velde (1966), von Martels (1989), Rousseau (ed. 1991), Dekker (1999).

After the example of the catalogues of scripts by Bernhardus Breydenbach [ca. 1440− 1497] (1486), Guillaume Postel [1510−1581] (1538) and Theseus Ambrosius [1460−ca. 1540] (1539), the Swiss polymath Conrad Ges(s)ner/Gesnerus [1516−1565] published his Mithridates (1555, a second, enlarged edition appeared in 1610, prepared by Caspar Waser), the first catalogue of the world’s languages. Gesner relied on a wide variety of ancient and medieval sources; his “modern” source material on languages included various works by Postel, as well as the Lexicum [sic] symphonum, quo quatuor linguarum Europae familiarium, Graecae scilicet, Latinae, Germanicae ac Slavinicae, concordia consonantiaque indicatur (1537, second edn. 1544) of Sigismundus Gelenius/Zikmund Hrubý z Jelení [1497/8−1554], which compares lexical items shared by Greek, Latin, German, and Czech (shared by all four, by three of these, or by couples of two), and the De ratione communi omnium linguarum et literarum (1548) of the theologian and language scholar Theodor Bibliander/Buchmann [ca. 1504−1564]. Bibliander’s work, which is interesting for its insights into the nature of language change and for its recognition of the importance of comparing grammatical elements, remained nonetheless traditional in its classificatory aspects: the status of Hebrew as the mother language is not questioned, and the diversity of languages is correlated with the spread of the families of Noah’s three sons. Gesner also derived much information from ethnographic and geographical descriptions of European regions, e.g. by Sigmund Baron d’Herberstein [1486−1566] (author of a description of Russia), Olaus Magnus [1490−1557] (author of a map of the Nordic countries), and Gilg Tschudi/Aegidius Schudus [1505−1572] (author of a description of Rhaetia). The primary goal of the language catalogues was that of listing speech varieties (and discussing the world’s linguistic “storehouse”), but the underlying view was a historical one; also, cataloguing was not purely atomistic, but involved some regrouping. This can precisely be seen in Gesner’s Mithridates, in which the author (following Johannes Aventinus’ [1477−1534] Annales Boiorum of 1519−1521, translated into German under the title Bayrische Chronik), subscribes to the mythical idea of 72 languages (with subordinate dialects) covering the globe. Gesner’s account betrays, in spite of the overall alphabetical arrangement, a modest attempt at classification; it is, however, confused both terminologically (with variant terms for the same language, and also some misno-

15. Intuition, exploration, and assertion of the Indo-European language relationship mers) and conceptually (e.g. under lingua Scythica he also ranges Finno-Ugric and Tartar languages). While he seems to have had a rather clear idea of a Semitic linguistic unity, his views on the genetic relationship and distribution of the languages of Europe are characterized by a treatment into separate blocks: Greek, Latin (and the Romance descendants; cf. the entry De Gallica lingua recentiore), and an intuition of a Celtic block (cf. the entries De vetere lingua Gallica, De Britannica lingua vetere, and Galatae), and of a Slavic block (see De Illyrica sive Sarmatica lingua); his classificatory attempt is most advanced in the Germanic field (entry De lingua Germanica). A regrouping tendency became more pronounced in the subsequent development of this text genre, showing an inclination towards collecting comparable text specimens and towards tabulation of languages; works in this tradition include the (at times voluminous) catalogues by Hieronymus Megiser [1553−1618] (Specimen quadraginta diversarum atque inter se differentium linguarum et dialectorum […], 1592; Thesaurus polyglottus […], 1603), Claude Duret [1565−1611] (Thresor de l’histoire des langues de cest univers […], 1613), Edward Brerewood [ca. 1565−1613] (Enquiries touching the diversity of languages and religions […], 1614), François des Rues [fl. 1620] (Description contenant toutes les singularitez des plus celebres villes et places […], ca. 1625), Christoph Crinesius [1584− 1629] (Babel, seu Discursus de confusione linguarum […], 1629), Johannes Vlitius/Jan van Vliet [1622−1666] (‘T Vader ons in XX oude Duytse en Noordse Taelen […], 1664; based on materials provided by Franciscus Junius), Jānis Reiters/Johann Reuter (Oratio dominica XL linguarum, 1662), Andreas Müller [1630−1694] (Orationis dominicae versiones fermè centum. Oratio orationum […], 1680), Nicolaas Witsen [1641−1717] (Noord- en Oost-Tartarye, 1692), John Chamberlayne [1666−1732] and David Wilkins [1685−1745] (Oratio dominica in diversas omnium fere gentium linguas versa […], 1715), Benjamin Schul(t)ze [1689−1760] and Johann Friedrich Fritz (Orientalisch- und Occidentalischer Sprachmeister […], 1748). An idea underlying some of these catalogues and collections of the Lord’s Prayer was to show, or to establish, the harmony between all languages (harmonia linguarum), a goal which also appealed to Leibniz (cf. 8). For information on the Renaissance language catalogues, see Bonfante (1955), Droixhe (1978: 45−48), Percival (1992), Swiggers and Desmet (1996: 130−133), Trabant (1998), Schmidt-Riese (2003), De Grauwe (2013), and the reedition (with French translation, bibliographical notes and commentary) of Gesner’s Mithridates (= Gesner [ed.] 2009).

The language catalogues convey an image of the “universe of languages” which soon called for a systematization and an explanation. The (text-)critical, emancipatory and patriotic features of the Renaissance intellectual atmosphere converged in challenging, though mostly implicitly, the dogma of Hebrew as the “mother” of all languages; there appeared on the scene scholars with an interest in history, geography, archaeology, theology, etc., who applied etymological analysis to words and proper names, often weirdly segmented, in order to show relationships among languages and to cast doubts on the “Hebrew dogma”. In construing their account, however, they generally avoided a direct conflict with the Bible text (and, hence, with the Church); the strategies used for this purpose were diverse (e.g. admitting a very remote affinity between all languages; hypothesizing the absence of the “founding family clan” when the tongues were confused at Babel, etc.). The first blow was given by Johannes Goropius Becanus [1519−1573]

147

148

III. Historical perspectives on Indo-European linguistics (Origines Antwerpianae, 1569; Opera hactenus in lucem non edita, 1580), who applied in a very flexible way the classical theory of letter/sound transpositions (permutationes litterarum) in order to reduce Hebrew words and names to “Cimbrian” (or “Cimmerian”); the latter, which according to Becanus survived in his native Dutch language, was claimed to be the language of the descendants of Noah who had escaped from the Babelic confusion. Becanus’ impressive acquaintance with ancient sources created a sense of trustworthiness, in strong opposition to the boldness and fancifulness of his nationalistic thesis; although his Origines and his posthumous Opera were not a commercial success, the ideas of Becanus were widely known (they were perhaps most efficiently diffused due to their integration in the commentaries to the maps in Abraham Ortelius’ [1527− 1598] often reprinted Theatrum orbis terrarum). Becanus’ approach in etymology and language history was, apart from a few exceptions, severely criticized, if not ridiculed [see below]. Nevertheless, Becanus’ “displacement” of Hebrew, and his idea that the oldest language must have been a perfect, and therefore simple and transparent, language had a durable impact. Becanus’ claims concerning the Cimbrian-Cimmerian origins of Europe’s linguistic history and, ultimately, the post-Babelic world, and his etymological practice left their mark on the study of language relationships: his contemporaries and successors could not but define their stand with regard to his revolutionary thesis and with regard to his linguistic-genealogical practice. In fact, in the long run Becanus’ merit of having reoriented the course of language-genealogical research was recognized by scholars of the stature of Daniel Georg Morhof [1639−1691] (Unterricht von der Teutschen Sprache und Poesie, 1682; Polyhistor, sive de notitia auctorum et rerum commentarii, 1688−1692), and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (cf. 8). On Becanus, see Droixhe (1978: 54−55, 59−62), Metcalf (2013: 37−44, 90−96), Frederickx and Van Hal (2015).

A few scholars would take Becanus’ etymologizing practice even further, in order to defend the primeval status of their own language (Swedish, Basque, Breton, etc.), with Olof Rudbeck’s [1630−1702] Atlantica sive Manheim vera Japheti posterorum sedes ac patria (1679−1702, 4 vols.) marking the culminating point of excess. Most reactions to Becanus, however, were critical and downgrading. Among the first critics were Justus Lipsius and Josephus Justus Scaliger, who condemned Becanus’ lack of method; on the British Isles, scholars such as William Camden and Richard Verstegan (see below) expressed their reservations. Lipsius [1547−1606], who was mildly interested in the study of linguistic affinities, strongly rejected speculative genealogy and urged historical proofs. Formulating his criticism of Becanus in a letter to Hendrik Schotti (letter of 1598, first published in 1602; cf. Deneire and Van Hal 2006), Lipsius stressed that language comparison could not be used as a heuristic tool, language history being the result of vicissitudes and chance. The unpredictability of linguistic change made it impossible, in Lipsius’ view, to constitute a “method” for doing etymological (and language-comparative) research. A similar skeptical attitude, rooted in historical-philological expertise, underlies the criticisms of J. J. Scaliger [1540−1609], formulated in his private correspondence and in his text editions of classical authors. Also, Scaliger’s broad linguistic interests allowed him to point at “factual errors” in Becanus’ etymologies. Scaliger summarized his linguistic-genealogical views in a short text, Diatriba de Europaeorum linguis. The text

15. Intuition, exploration, and assertion of the Indo-European language relationship was written in 1599 and published in 1605; it was republished, together with short essays on the origins of the Frankish people, and on the “permutations” of letters/sounds in Scaliger’s Opuscula varia antehac non edita (1610). Scaliger’s Diatriba, an overview of Europe’s linguistic territory, combines geographical distribution and linguistic regrouping. Since Scaliger only presents the resulting classification, no definitive statement can be made concerning the underlying criteriology. The classification itself may be seen as an act of exaggerated cautiousness, allowing Scaliger to elude the dogma of Hebrew as the universal mother tongue. While the correspondences between Greek and Latin, and also with the Germanic languages could hardly have gone unnoticed to Scaliger, he posits 11 matrices, with no (genetic) affinity between them (matricum vero inter se nulla cognatio est, neque in verbis, neque in analogia): four major matrices (viz. Slavic, Latin, Greek, and Germanic), and seven minor (viz. Albanian, Tartar, Hungarian, Finnish, Irish, Old and modern Brittonic/Breton, and Basque-Cantabrian). The major matrices, identified on the basis of their distinct word for ‘God’, comprise a number of propagines (‘offshoots’), related to each other by commercium: e.g., the Slavic matrix comprises “Ruthenic”, Polish, Bohemian, “Illyrian”, “Dalmatian”, and Wendic. Scaliger’s way of proceeding is paralleled by Megiser’s (see above) grouping of the world’s languages into 10 “tables” (Thesaurus polyglottus, 1603); the division into matrices, or mother-tongues, and their dialects would surface again in the language catalogues of Hervás y Panduro, in the late 18 th and early 19 th century [see below]. Lipsius and Scaliger had levelled criticisms against Becanus’ arbitrary use of letter/ sound permutations in order to account for interlanguage correspondences, but without proposing themselves methodological principles for such comparison. Scaliger’s cautious attitude was endorsed by a number of scholars, such as Christian Becmann [1580−1648] (De originibus Latinae linguae, 1609), Edward Brerewood [ca. 1556−1613] (Enquiries touching the diversity of languages and religions, 1614], John Wilkins [1614−1672] (An Essay towards a Real Character, and a Philosophical Language, 1668], and Stephen Skinner [1623−1667] (Etymologicon linguae Anglicanae, 1671]. It also offered a comfortable position to those scholars who preferred to do historical work within a language group; as a matter of fact, in the 17 th century remarkable progress was achieved within the Romance and the Germanic fields. Scaliger’s “over-fragmentation” of linguistic groups went against an already longstanding tradition of relating Greek to Latin, and against a specifically German tradition of relating German(ic) to Greek (cf. Bonfante 1953−1954: 688, who cites Johann von Dalberg/Dalburg [1455−1503], Johann Trithemius [1462−1516], Conrad Celtis [1459− 1508] and Sigismund Gelenus [see above]) or Germanic to Latin (in the 17 th century Johann Vorstius [1623−1696] published a pamphlet stressing the affinity between German and Latin [1653]). A direct attack on Scaliger was made by Johannes Isaac Pontanus [1571−1639] (Itinerarium Galliae Narbonensis, 1606; Originum Francicarum libri VI, 1616) who was convinced of the unity, if not identity between Celtic and Germanic (in fact, this had also been Scaliger’s view in his early years). In the British Isles philological-historical work on Anglo-Saxon and on the Celtic varieties (especially Welsh) was stimulated by Biblical studies (editions and translations), and by geographical and cartographical projects. Important names here are those of Matthew Parker [1504−1575], William Camden [1551−1621] (author of a very successful work on the history of Britain, 1586), and Richard Verstegan [ca. 1550−ca. 1635]. Their 17th-century successors, like William L’Isle/Lisle [1569−1637], John Davies [ca.

149

150

III. Historical perspectives on Indo-European linguistics 1567−1644], Meric Casaubon [1599−1671] and the French-German Huguenot Franciscus Junius/du Jon [1591−1677] produced text editions, lexicographical works, and language-comparative essays which had a strong impact on views proposed concerning the linguistic genealogy of Europe, and specifically on the place of Anglo-Saxon and of Celtic within the frame of the “Scythian” hypothesis (cf. 7). A “distant” relationship noted and discussed from the late 16 th century on, and which prepared the way for the eastward extension of Europe’s linguistic prehistory, was that between Persian and the Germanic languages. The Leiden orientalist and printer Franciscus Raphelengius/Frans van Ravelingen [1539−1597] had noticed, in the 1570s, lexical and morphological correspondences between Persian, Latin, Greek, and his native Dutch language. Raphelengius communicated his findings to Justus Lipsius, Josephus Justus Scaliger (see above) and Bonaventura Vulcanius/Bonaventura de Smet [1538−1614]; the latter published a short Persian vocabulary in his De literis et lingua Getarum sive Gothorum (1597, with reference to Jornandes (cf. 3), whose work on the Getes, identified with the Goths, he edited in the same year). The affinity perceived between Persian and Germanic led to a popular and durable thesis of the close relationship between these two linguistic (sub)groups; the thesis, which had been sceptically judged by Scaliger and by Richard Verstegan, was to be forcefully defended by Johann Elichmann (cf. 7), John Greaves [1602−1652], author of Elementa linguae Persicae (1649), and by Marcus Zuerius Boxhorn (cf. 7). In the second half of the 17 th century, the “Persian-Germanic” theory was less enthusiastically received: scholars such as Brian Walton [1600−1661], author of an Introductio ad lectionem linguarum orientalium (1655) and chief editor of the Biblia sacra polyglotta (1657−1669), and his collaborator Thomas Hyde [1636− 1703] (Historia religionis veterum Persarum eorumque magorum, 1700) were cautious in their interpretation, and tended towards an explanation of the correspondences by contact. But in the 18 th century the theory became popular again, through Adrianus Relandus [1676−1718] (Oratio pro lingua Persica et cognatis literis orientalibus, 1701), Johann-Georg Wachter [1663−1757] (Glossarium germanicum, 1737), Johan Ihre [1707−1780] (Glossarium suiogothicum, 1769) and James Burnet, Lord Monboddo [1714−1799] (Of the origin and progress of language, 1773−1792, 6 vols.); this reendorsement facilitated the subsequent exploration of the relationships between Latin, Greek, Germanic on the one hand, and Sanskrit. On the “Persian-Germanic” link, see Streitberg (1915), Muller (1986), De Bruijn (1990), Orsatti (1996), Van Hal (2011).

In the late 16 th century and at the beginning of the 17th century the search for an explanation of the genealogy of Europe’s linguistic situation was generally based on lexical investigations (often involving onomastic material). Almost invariably, these investigations were marked by what we (retrospectively) would call “errors”: in the segmentation of forms serving as correspondence sets between languages; in accounting for the (phonetic) details of the correspondences established; in the inferences drawn from the correspondences established. But there was methodological progress, although the progress was not straightforwardly implemented in the evolutionary course of pre-comparativist studies. Advances concerned (i) the constraining of etymological analysis, both in its formal and semantic aspects; (ii) restrictions imposed upon the input material brought in for lexical comparison (with a view toward separating borrowings, explained by lan-

15. Intuition, exploration, and assertion of the Indo-European language relationship guage contact phenomena, from shared basic vocabulary, to be explained by a common ancestor); (iii) the need to identify (and explain) linguistic change and its directionality. Often the admission of language monogenesis (with Hebrew as the mother tongue, a dogma shaken by Becanus) was a convenient maneuver to circumvent troubles, allowing one to focus on the demonstration of linguistic relationships at a lower level. On etymological work in this period, see Swiggers (1996); on advances in language history and comparison, see Eros (1972), Hiersche (1985), Swiggers and Desmet (1996). Droixhe (2000). On the concept of change, see Read (1977), Auroux (1990), Schunk (2003).

7. The path towards the “(Indo-)Scythic” hypothesis The period between Becanus’ Origines (1569) and Scaliger’s Opuscula (1610) had been marked by the discussion of a changing language-genealogical scheme, but also by the general absence of a concept of regular linguistic change, and by the use of a vague notion of linguistic affinity. Opposing stands of scholars (e.g. Scaliger and Pontanus) as well as new insights in the historical development of languages, caused a reorientation of the study of language relationships from the 1610s on. Reliance on the accounts of ancient and medieval historians was gradually replaced by a focus on argumentation based on linguistic correspondences − the lexicon remaining the touchstone for language comparison −, by the search for “intergroupings”, and by a more accurate approach to language change (not just seen as externally determined). The 17 th century saw the elaboration of a hypothesis that accounted for a common ancestry of a set of European languages more narrowly defined than before. The hypothesis was a rather solid one, in that it was based on a justifiable (though not always correct) linguistic segmentation, on setting off the “Scythic” language family from the Semitic(-Hamitic) language family. The hypothesis went beyond a geographically based approach of languages and their classification, and was not (too much) ideologically tinted. The exact linguistic coverage of the Scythic family was not yet determined, nor were the divisions within it correctly identified; the remote “Scythic” ancestry made the theory appropriate for being adopted in scholarly endeavors that were not nationalistically driven. On the development of language-historical and language-comparative studies in the 17 th century, see Droixhe (1984), Di Cesare and Gensini (1990), Van Hal and Considine (2010), and Metcalf (2013).

The evolution was gradual and complex. Between 1614 and 1620 the Flemish statesman Adrianus Sc(h)rieckius/Adriaen van Schrieck [1559/60−1621] published a number of huge works in which the status of Hebrew as primeval language is defended, and in which Europe’s linguistic history is explained as the evolution of the Japhetic linguisticethnic branch (Van t’beghin der eerster volcken van Europen, 1614; Monitorum secundorum libri V, 1615; A consiliis adversariorum libri IV, 1620). For Japhetic, Schrieckius also uses “Scythic”, with (apparently) the same coverage; under “Scythic”, he includes Belgian, Britannic, Gaulish, Germanic (and Teutonic), Greek, Latin, Etruscan, and Celtiberian. But in the course of his works, Schrieckius equates “Scythic” with “Celtic”: he

151

152

III. Historical perspectives on Indo-European linguistics qualifies this “Scytho-Celtic” as a transparent, primitive language. Although he frequently criticizes Becanus, Schrieckius’ approach is, after all, very similar: Flemish (“Belgian”) is presented as the purest descendant of Scytho-Celtic; the argumentation is mainly based on historical sources; crucial use is made of the etymological analysis of proper names; the etymologizing is based on extremely loose principles (phonetic and semantic). Schrieckius’ apriorism contrasts with the views expressed in the works of Abraham Mylius/van der Myl (Lingua Belgica […], 1612) and Philippus Cluverius/Clüver (Germaniae antiquae libri III, 1616). Mylius [1563−1637] admits the primacy of Hebrew, probably for strategic reasons, since he posits five matrix languages/language groups: Hebrew, Greek, Latin, “Belgian” (also named “Cimbrian”, “Celtic”, “Gothic”, “Germanic”), and Illyrian. Of these “Belgian” is the most ancient, and also the most stable in Mylius’ view; Greek and Latin are thus degraded. Incorporating newly discovered documentary sources, Mylius pays much attention to language history and to language change; he has reflected upon the possible causes of commonalities between languages. His work also testifies to an incipient understanding of the process of dialectalization (he offers interesting observations on the s/t alternation in Germanic: Wasser vs. water). While the factual accuracy of his etymologies is often questionable, his explicit concern with formal and semantic justification is remarkable. Cluverius [1580−1622], although primarily interested in geography and ethnology, places “Celtic” at the origin of Europe’s linguistic history (rejecting the dogma of the primeval Hebrew language, Cluverius considers Celtic to be derived from the [no longer retrievable] original language). In his view Celtic also gave way to the languages spoken by the Illyrians, Germans, and by the French and Hispanic nations. The genealogical status of the lingua Slavica, which he identifies, is not clear. Cluverius’ main contribution is methodological: he insists on (i) identifying recurrent segments in lexical (especially onomastic) material, (ii) establishing principles (rationes) for correspondences and variations; (iii) explicating the level of comparative matching (between languages, between dialects, between a language and a dialect). On the complex history of the concepts “Celtic”, “Gothic” and “Scythic”/“Scythian”, see resp. the contributions in Brown (1996); Brough (1985); Villani (2003); Mayrhofer (2006).

Cluverius also touched upon the issue of the nature of the lexical items to be considered for language comparison, a topic which was to become prominent in the following decades. Its importance can be seen in the heated discussion between Hugo Grotius [1583− 1645] (De origine gentium Americanarum dissertatio, 1642; Dissertatio altera de origine gentium Americanarum adversus obtrectatorem opaca quem bonum facit barba, 1644) and Johannes Laetius/Jan de Laet [1581−1649] (Notae ad dissertationem Hugonis Grotii de origine gentium Americanarum, 1643) concerning the origins of the American Indians. Both authors were convinced of the importance of comparing lexical items in the most appropriate way, but it was Laetius who showed the most methodological acumen, by imposing constraints on the descriptive procedure applied to the transpositions of letters, and by requiring that the relationship be proved at the phonetic, grammatical, and lexical level. Both authors agreed that language comparison should exclude borrowings, and that it should focus on stable and basic vocabulary items (terms for body parts and kinship relations, numerals); but in his work on the American Indians Grotius did not put this principle into practice.

15. Intuition, exploration, and assertion of the Indo-European language relationship In the northern provinces of the “Low Countries”, especially in Leiden and Amsterdam, a critical mass had been constituted, since the late 16 th century, in the field of language study (grammaticography, lexicography; language history and genealogy). It was in this intellectual context that around the mid-17 th century a solid hypothesis was formulated accounting for linguistic relationships which to a large extent cover those between “Indo-European” languages: the “Scythic” or “Indo-Scythic” hypothesis. Becanus (cf. 6) had used “Indo-Scythica” as the title of one of the chapters in his posthumously published Opera; there Becanus deals with Persian proper names, which he “reduces” to Dutch elements. The (Indo-)Scythic hypothesis elaborated in the 17 th century was of a different nature: it was ultimately proposed as a conjectural theory about a protolanguage, explaining the correspondences between a number of European and Asian languages. The germ of the theory was laid by the Silesian physician and Orientalist Johann Elichmann [1601/2−1639] during his stay at Leiden. Elichmann, well versed in many European languages, and also in Arabic, Persian, and Turkish, planned a work, Archaeologia Harmonica, dealing with linguistic-ethnic relationships; his untimely death prevented him from finishing this project. However, his ideas − based on the careful observation of lexical and grammatical resemblances between German, Persian, Greek, Latin, and Dutch − concerning a “Scythic” (or “Indo-Scythic”) origin of various languages in Europe and Asia were diffused by other scholars (in the absence of relevant publications by Elichmann himself, we do not know the precise extension of the language set subsumed under his “Scythic”). The Leiden classicist of French descent Claudius Salmasius/Claude Saumaise [1588− 1653] integrated Elichmann’s insights in two of his works on the history of Greek (De Hellenistica commentarius […]; Funus linguae Hellenisticae […], both published in 1643). Salmasius compares Greek, Latin, German, and Persian (as well as “Indian”), and postulates a “Scythic” original; in his view this protolanguage is not attested. In one instance Salmasius even attempts a reconstruction, viz. for numerals. However, Salmasius does not enter into a discussion concerning the nature of this “Scythic” language (or language complex, since he believes in the existence of considerable dialect differences within “Scythic”). Salmasius’ valuable methodological insights (e.g. concerning the phonetic details of changes or concerning the nature of the lexical elements to be considered for comparison) are, unfortunately, flanked by the uncritical use of etymologies or equations proposed by his predecessors. The hypothesis was made more explicit and was methodologically refined by Marcus Zuerius Boxhornius/van Boxhorn [1612−1653], professor of rhetoric, later of history at Leiden university. In his publications (Bediedinge van de tot noch toe onbekende afgodinne Nehalennia, 1647; Antwoord van M. Z. van Boxhorn […], 1647; De Graecorum, Romanorum et Germanorum linguis […], 1650; Originum Gallicarum liber, 1654) Boxhorn proposes (Indo-)Scythic as the ancestor language through which one can explain the correspondences between Greek, Latin, the Germanic, the Celtic and the Slavic languages). In fact, over the years 1647−1653 Boxhorn moved from a historical view of “Scythic” to a more abstract-methodological view: the ancestor languages had to account for the correspondences between languages having a common descent (such correspondences were clearly separated by Boxhorn from correspondences due to borrowing). Boxhorn includes grammatical structures in his comparisons (and paid attention to correspondences of grammatical anomalies), and shows remarkable insight into the gradual

153

154

III. Historical perspectives on Indo-European linguistics process of language change, and in dialectalization. Weak points are his ambiguous stand as to the dogma of Hebrew (hence his apparent wavering between monogenesis and polygenesis), and the fluctuating extension given to “Scythic” (which includes Turkish, since Boxhorn considers the “Tartars” to continue the Scythic line). Some of the shortcomings of Boxhorn’s work can be explained by his sloppiness, his high esteem for classical authors, and his involvement in a wide gamut of occupations (including poetry and politics). A synthetic work, announced under the title De Scythicis Originibus, did not materialize. By the time his posthumously published 1654 work appeared (edited by Georg Horn [1620−1670], the author of De originibus Americanis Libri IV, 1652), Boxhorn’s views had been criticized by several of his Dutch colleagues, including Salmasius, Daniel Heinsius [1580−1655] and Gerardus Johannes Vossius [1577−1649]; but in later periods Boxhorn’s hypothesis attracted the attention of scholars, possibly because of its methodological relevance. The (Indo-)Scythic hypothesis was intensively studied in the late 17 th century, especially in the Wittenberg circle around G. K. Kirchmaier, with contributions by A. Jäger and M. Hepp (cf. 8); it exerted its influence on scholars well into the 18 th century, e.g. on Leibniz (cf. 8) and on Lord Monboddo, and probably through the latter, on Sir William Jones (cf. 10). On the (Indo-)Scythic hypothesis, see Metcalf (1974, and other contributions reprinted in 2013); on the elaboration of the hypothesis and the role of various scholars, see Van Hal (2010; with detailed information on the ideas of all the prominent figures); on its traces in William Jones’ thinking, see Fellman (1975). On Schrieckius, see Swiggers (1984, 1998); on Mylius and Cluverius, see Metcalf (1953, 1972); on Elichmann, see Van Hal (2010: 335− 348) and Van Hal and Considine (2010: 70−80); on Salmasius, see Considine (2010); on Boxhorn(ius), see Fellman (1974), Droixhe (1989), Hofman (1998). On the topic of “basic vocabulary”, see Muller (1984).

8. Leibniz The German philosopher, mathematician, and diplomat Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz [1646−1716] was deeply interested in languages, as objects of philosophical and historical inquiry. In his view the various stages of languages reflected the development of human thinking, in its relation to changing contexts. Leibniz devoted much time to the study of the German language (his mother tongue, considered to be very apt for philosophical purposes), and to the study of languages worldwide. His studies were based on the etymological analysis of words and proper names; ultimately, they served the purpose of establishing a historically based classification of languages. Leibniz’ linguistic horizon extended well beyond Europe and Asia; he corresponded actively with scholars working on Semitic and African languages (such as Hiob/Job Ludolf [1624−1704]) or FinnoUgric (e.g. Bengt Skytte [1614−1683] and Martin Fogel [1634−1675]). Following up on Leibniz’ recommendation to Peter the Great to start compiling (lexical and grammatical) information, the empress Catherine the Great promoted the collection of vocabularies and text specimens of the world’s languages which led to the publication of P. S. Pallas (cf. 9). Leibniz’ endeavour in the field of language classification and genealogy was rooted in the “Scythian” hypothesis as it had been systematized by Boxhorn [see above].

15. Intuition, exploration, and assertion of the Indo-European language relationship Leibniz’ approach to the history of the world’s languages can be labelled “ecumenical”. On the one hand, whereas he seems to have had his doubts about positing Hebrew as the primeval language, he recognized its status as the “oldest (attested) language”. On the other hand, his conception of the (genealogical) relationship of Europe’s linguistic population, while still incorporated within a “Japhetic” explanatory theory − Europe being seen as the territory populated by Japhet’s descendants − was a fluctuating one, and it involved a wavelike (and not a ramifying) view on language groups. In his Nouveaux essais sur l’entendement humain (written around 1704−1706, but published only in 1765), Leibniz struggled with the problem of relating Germanic to Celtic. In spite of his qualification of Gothic as “strikingly different”, Leibniz postulated a common source, called “Celtic”, for Celtic, Latin, and Germanic. But he extends this entity to “ScythoCeltic”, including the Slavic domain and the Greek; in his view the Scythic component intersects with the Celtic. In his Brevis designatio meditationum de originibus gentium (published in the Miscellanea Berolinensia ad incrementum scientiarum of 1710), one of his most important (and final) assessments on language relationships, Leibniz hypothesizes the existence of a remote, common language for Europe and Asia (stretching from the Atlantic Ocean to Japan), while conjecturing the (no longer recoverable or demonstrable) existence of a single Ursprache for humanity. Leibniz then advances a division of the original EuroAsiatic languages into two branches: Japhetic (represented in the north), and Aramaic (in the south; this branch combines the legacy of Sem and Ham). The first branch, which Leibniz prefers to call “Celto-Scythic” instead of Japhetic, is defined by the common (ancient) nucleus shared by Celto-Germanic and Greek. In line with a long-standing tradition in German scholarship, Leibniz extends the territory of Germanic far to the east, so as to comprise the languages of the Sarmatians (ancestors of the Slavs) and the Tartars; however, in his correspondence (with Andreas Akoluth and Johann Gabriel Sparfvenveldt), Leibniz observed that the Slavs are “very different” from the Germans, and he links them with the Huns. Ultimately, Leibniz situates the origin of the “northern” languages in Scythia, from where the Japhetic tribe, following the course of the sun, migrated. On Leibniz’ linguistic-classificatory views, see Waterman (1963), von der Schulenburg (1973), Dutz (1989). For a bibliography spanning Leibniz’ linguistic thinking in general, see Dutz and Klinkhammer (1983). On the expansionist view of Germanic, which was integrated into a broader “Scythian” theory, much information can be found in Borst (1957− 1963).

Leibniz’ Brevis designatio of 1710 can be taken as an illustration of the methodological state of affairs at the beginning of the 18 th century in the study of what we now call the “Indo-European” languages. The comparative approach was, as a general rule, still based on lexical units (and, in many cases, on a reduced set of words); the focus was a geographical one, combined with the idea that continents had been populated in a more or less homogeneous way by a single ethnic-linguistic group; in the background there was the idea, derived from the Biblical account, that the world had been divided among Noah’s offshoot (Japhet, Sem, Ham). Language comparison thus remained a topic belonging within the macro-historical study of humanity and civilization, and could hardly free itself from ideological assumptions and theological dogmas. What was crucially

155

156

III. Historical perspectives on Indo-European linguistics lacking in these endeavours was a serious attempt to provide matches of correspondence sets between (sound) segments (let alone that such correspondences would have been used in order to formulate regularities in the evolution of these segments). By contrast, in studies dealing with lower level relationships (e.g. within Romance or Germanic), regularities had been established on the basis of correctly segmented forms from the late 16 th century on; important figures in this respect are Duarte Nunez de Leao, Celso Cittadini, Bernardo Aldrete, and Gilles Ménage in the Romance field, Franciscus Junius, Stephen Skinner, George Hickes, Lambert Ten Kate in the Germanic field. On the evolution of language comparison after Leibniz see Hoenigswald (1984, 1990), Hiersche (1985), Swiggers (1990b), Van Hal (2010, 2012). On language-historical work in Romance and Germanic, see Swiggers (1996, 2001).

Leibniz’ position was not a totally innocent one: his preference for “Celto-Scythic” over “Japhetic” reveals after all a Germano-centric implementation. Analogously, “Japhetism” was reinvested by other scholars with different focuses. Most prominently there was a “Celtic” recuperation: a) in France (where the Celtic origin of French had its defenders; cf. Droixhe 1978: 144−148), e.g. in Paul-Yves Pezron’s [1638−1706] work of 1703 (Antiquité de la nation et de la langue des Celtes, autrement appellez Gaulois) or JeanBaptiste Bullet’s [1699−1775] Mémoires sur la langue celtique (1754−1760, 3 vols.); b) in Germany, more specifically at the University of Wittenberg, where under the direction of Georg Kaspar Kirchmaier [1635−1700] a number of dissertations were defended in which “Celtic” was claimed to be Europe’s ancestral language (cf. Andreas Jäger, De lingua vetustissima Europae, 1686; Johann Michael Hepp, Parallelismus et convenientia XII. Linguarum ex matrice scytho-celtica Europae a Japheti posteris vindicatarum, 1697); c) and on the British Isles, where the demonstration by Edward Lhuyd [1660− 1709] (Archaeologia Britannica, 1707) of the relatedness of the Celtic varieties, accompanied by a study of the ancient literature, provided new inspiration for nationalistic appropriations of Europe’s linguistic past. In 1767, James Parsons [1705−1770] published The Remains of Japhet, being historical enquiries into the affinity and origin of the European languages. Parsons defined, on the basis of the comparison of number words, a set of European languages (recognized as not being related to Basque, Turkish, nor to Hebrew and Chinese); he also noted the relationship of this group with Persian and “Bengali”; finally, he posited a common Celtic ancestor (surviving in modern Irish). His Irish-coloured Celtomania was criticized by authors such as John Pinkerton [1758− 1826] (Dissertation on the Origins and Progress of the Scythians or Goths, 1787) and John Jamieson [1759−1838] (Hermes Scythicus, or the Radical Affinities of the Greek and Latin languages to the Gothic, 1814) who propounded the idea of a “Picto-Germanic” or “Picto-Gothic” nucleus (with Scots as its direct descendant). Finally, there were authors who divided Europe into two blocks: a Celto-Germanic (descending from Gomer) and a Slavic one (descending from Magog); in his De causis linguae Ebreae libri III (1706) Valentin-Ernst Löscher (1672−1749) took this view.

9. Language-comparative studies in the course of the 18 th century Although in early texts of Leibniz we find patriotic statements on Germanic as the origin of all of Europe’s languages, in his later works he noted the specificity of Finnish and Hun-

15. Intuition, exploration, and assertion of the Indo-European language relationship garian (to which he seems to link Estonian and Livonian), and also of Basque. The following generations of scholars were indebted to Leibniz for his insistence on gathering documentation, and on pursuing historical-philological and etymological work (cf. his Epistolaris de historia etymologica dissertatio, 1712). In the field of language-historical research Leibniz inspired Johann Georg Wachter and the Swede Johan Ihre (cf. 6). As to language documentation and classification, Leibniz, in advising the Jesuit father Claudio Filippo Grimaldi [1639−1712] (to whom he presented a model linguistic questionnaire in 1689) and Peter the Great (in a letter of 1713), instigated a tradition of collecting first-hand linguistic materials. Mention must be made here of contributions by: Vasily N. Tatiščev [1686−1750], who undertook a questionnaire-based survey of Siberia, the results of which were integrated and expanded upon in Johann Eberhard Fischer’s [1697−1771] Vocabularium Sibiricum (1747); Philipp Johann von Strahlenberg [1676−1747], who published an ethnolinguistic description of eastern Europe and northern Asia (Das nord- und östliche Theil von Europa und Asia, 1730); the Göttingen professor August Ludwig Schlözer [1735−1809], who conducted work on northern Germanic, on Slavic and on Finno-Ugric (and who inspired Samuel Gyarmathi’s Affinitas linguae Hungaricae cum linguis Fennicae originis grammatice demonstrata, 1799); Christoph Friedrich Nicolai [1733−1811], who in 1785 compiled a Tableau général de toutes les langues du monde (manuscript). Three imposing language collections stand out; they were published at the end of the 18th and in the first decades of the 19 th century. All three were, in different degrees, indebted to the ideas of Leibniz (who also inspired the ethnographic deepening of such enterprises, as formulated in Christian Jakob Kraus’ [1753−1807] review of Pallas’s compilation, published in Allgemeine Literatur Zeitung, 1787): 1. Linguarum totius vocabularia comparativa (1787−1789, 2 vols.), basically a lexical compilation, with some text specimens, arranged by Peter Simon Pallas [1741−1811]; a second, enlarged edition was published in 1790−1791 (in 4 vols.) by Theodor/Fedor Jankovič de Miriewo [1741−1814]; 2. Idea dell’Universo (1778−1787, in 21 vols., of which vols. 17−21 deal with languages and writing systems), and Catálogo de las lenguas de las naciones conocidas (1800− 1805, in 6 vols.) by the Jesuit Lorenzo Hervás y Panduro [1735−1809], which combines a geographical organization with a typological and genealogical classification; 3. Mithridates oder allgemeine Sprachenkunde mit dem Vater Unser als Sprachprobe in beynahe fünfhundert Sprachen und Mundarten (1806−1817, 4 vols.), started by Johann Christoph Adelung [1732−1806] and continued by Johann Severin Vater [1771− 1826], a work consisting of short studies, combining history, typology, and grammatical characterization, on individual languages. In spite of their numerous imperfections and of their lack of in-depth analysis, these works constitute landmarks in the history of language studies, not only for aspects of language classification, but also for details of language relationship (also extending beyond Indo-European). These compilations made scholars aware of a) the need for accurate notation of language materials to be used for comparison; b) the necessity of going beyond a comparison of words, and of paying attention to morphology and syntax; c) the importance of supplying language classification with fine-grained etymological analysis; d) the relevance of including language history together with historical anthropology and socio-cultural history in a broader scheme. On late 18th- and early 19th-century catalogues see Adelung (1815, 1820), Gyula (1974), Haarmann (2000).

157

158

III. Historical perspectives on Indo-European linguistics

10. The final decades of the 18 th century This novel way of language classification was one of the components in the formative process of comparative grammar, in its application to the study of what came to be designated as “Indo-European” (referring to the family comprising Indic and [most of] the European languages). Another component was the “rediscovery” of Sanskrit, a language attested at considerable geographical distance from Europe, but showing “remarkable” similarities with (most of the) European languages. The term “Indo-European” was used for the first time by the British polymath and Egyptologist Thomas Young [1773− 1829] in his review of Adelung and Vater’s Mithridates (Quarterly Review 10, 1813): later it was adopted by Franz Bopp [1791−1867] (see Swiggers, chapter 16, this handbook). A competing term was “Indo-Germanic”; it was first used in French by Conrad Malte-Brun [1775−1826], then adopted into German by Julius Heinrich Klaproth [1783− 1835]. On the history of the term “Indo-European”, see Koerner (1981, repr. in 1989) and Bolognesi (1994); on earlier terminology, see Lindner (2011−2015: fasc. 4, 258−269).

It is important to stress that at least until the 1830s the practice of “comparative” linguistics (most frequently called “comparative philology”) was a “mixed bag”, characterized by a) a continuity with the philosophical tradition of general grammar, b) the appeal to language “types”, often linked to a particular linguistic “character” or “genius”, c) an uneven balance between word-based and word-segment-based comparison (with segments corresponding to our modern concepts of “phoneme” and “morpheme”), d) diverging views on the historical depth of, and the directionality of historical relationships within, a linguistic family, e) a gradual integration, both in comparative grammar and in etymology, of the distinction between innovation and retention. Moreover, the beginnings of “comparative grammar/philology” were marked by the persistence of the belief in linguistic monogenesis, by the search for “primitiveness”, and by loose, impressionistic remarks on language relationships. This can best be illustrated with the example of Sir William Jones. On the mixed nature of this “comparative philology”, see Diderichsen (1974), Hoenigswald (1984), Swiggers (1990b, 1993).

On February 2, 1786 William Jones [1746−1794], judge at the high court of Calcutta, read his discourse On the Hindus before the Asiatick Society of Calcutta. In it we read the following statement: “The Sanskrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of a wonderful structure; more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either, yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity, both in the roots of the verbs and in the forms of grammar, than could possibly have been produced by accident; so strong indeed, that no philologer could examine them all three, without believing them to have sprung from some common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists: there is a similar reason, though not quite so forcible, for supposing that both the Gothic and the Celtic, though blended with a very different idiom, had the same origin with the Sanscrit; and the old Persian might be added

15. Intuition, exploration, and assertion of the Indo-European language relationship to the same family, if this were the place for discussing any question concerning the antiquities of Persia” (Asiatick Researches 1, 1788).

In retrospect, this passage has often been raised to the status of birth certificate of IndoEuropean comparative grammar. But this is very disputable. First, Jones’ terminology and viewpoint are extremely traditional: he speaks of languages in terms of (subjective) qualities, and his hypothesis of a “common source” should be read in the light of a genealogical investigation into the history of peoples, cultures, and writing systems. The passage quoted above is followed by considerations on literature, written characters, antiquities, and here we see that Jones’s “affinity” becomes all embracing: “they [the Hindus] had an immemorial affinity with the old Persians, Ethiopians, and Egyptians, the Phenicians, Greeks, and Tuscans, the Scythians or Goths, and Celts, the Chinese, Japanese, and Peruvians”. “Affinity” seems to mean here ‘corresponding in (human) antiquity’. Second, Jones’ statement was not intended as a (precise) statement about a linguistic (Indo-European) unity, but was meant to take a stand in the debate on monogenesis/polygenesis of languages and mankind. One will also note Jones’ conditional wording, betraying his uncertainty (even when it comes to discussing the relationship with Persian), and his mention of “the Scythians”; for much of his broad languagegenealogical interest, Jones was indebted to the ideas (and sources) of his friend James Burnet, Lord Monboddo (cf. 6 and 7). Jones’ role has been an issue of historiographical debate. While he certainly had the merit of drawing the attention of Westerners to the Sanskrit language and literature, he did not produce a grammar of Sanskrit from which future practitioners of comparative grammar could benefit; in this respect, his fellow countrymen Charles Wilkins [1749− 1836] and Henry Thomas Colebrooke [1765−1837] were much more important: their grammars, based on the native Indian grammatical tradition, were far more useful for scientific purposes than the Latinizing missionary grammars of Heinrich Roth (1660), of Johann Ernst Hanxleden [1681−1732] (ca. 1720), of Father Pons [1688−1752] (ca. 1740), and of Paulinus a Sancto Bartolomaeo [1748−1806] (1790). Neither did Jones make use of Sanskrit forms in order to show structural correspondences with (major) European languages, and to lay the foundations for the demonstration of genetic relationship. No doubt, Jones’ work (including his Persian grammar, his discourses on Indian language, culture, and customs) contributed to show that the picture of a “Japheticallybased” Europe was both incorrect and too limitative, and that there were linguistic connections between several European languages and Persian and Sanskrit. However, as seen in (6.), the “affinity” of Persian with Europe’s languages (specifically with German) has a long history, reaching back to the late 16 th century and the Leiden circle around Scaliger and Raphelengius. What with Sanskrit? Already in the 16 th century we find observations on word correspondences between Sanskrit and European languages transmitted by the missionaries Franciscus Xaverius [1506−1552] (letter of 1544) and Thomas Stephens [1549−1619] (letter of 1583), then by the Italian traveller-merchant Filippo Sassetti [1540−1588]. These were followed in the 18 th century by reports of the missionaries Benjamin Schul(t)ze (in 1725), Christian Theodor Walter (in 1733), and Father Pons (letter of 1740, published in 1743 in a collection of Jesuit correspondence edited by J.-B. du Halde). One should also recall the cultural impact of Alexander Dow’s [1735/ 6−1779] The History of Hindostan, from the earliest accounts of time to the death of

159

160

III. Historical perspectives on Indo-European linguistics Akbar (1768, translated into French in 1769, under the title Dissertation sur les mœurs, le langage, la religion et la philosophie des Hindous), and of the article “Samskret” (published in 1786, in the third volume of the Encyclopédie méthodique: Grammaire et littérature). A curious case of scientific suppression (or just oblivion?) is the public reading, in 1785, before the French Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, of the memoir written in 1768 by the Jesuit Father Gaston Laurent Cœurdoux [1691−1779] on the history of India, its languages and literatures. In this memoir, Cœurdoux offers lists of a) Sanskrit words identical with or similar to Latin and Greek words, b) words showing a correspondence between Sanskrit and Greek, and words showing a correspondence between Sanskrit and Latin, c) the numerals from 1 to 21, and decads 30, 40 and 100 in Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin. Cœurdoux then raises the question of explaining these “commonalities” − by contact, religion, political events, common origin? − and chooses the latter explanation, while sticking to the Biblical account: it was the sons of Japhet, each of them “chief of a large family” who gave way to the nations speaking Latin, Greek, Slavic, and Sanskrit. For the history of observations/reports on Sanskrit, see Muller (1986). Cœurdoux’ text has been reprinted in Mayrhofer (1983); for a commentary, see Swiggers (1996). On the article “Samskret” in the Encyclopédie méthodique, see Swiggers (1990a).

Cœurdoux’ text was written in 1768, sent to France, but read only in 1785 before the Académie, and published only in 1808: the revolution it could have caused was silenced and obscured by a political and socio-economic one (and its Napoleonic sequels), which brought about drastic changes in the political, economic, and cultural landscape of Europe. Cœurdoux’ possible contribution did not surface in the Ancien Régime period; when it finally was published, England and Germany were taking the lead in the study of language history and language relationships (cf. Swiggers, chapter 16, this handbook). On the history of Sanskrit studies, and on the “re-discovery” of Sanskrit, see Benfey (1869), Windisch (1917−1920), Mayrhofer (1983), Muller (1985, 1986), Grotsch (1988), Amaladass (1992), Rocher (1968, 1980a, 1983, 2001), Van Hal (2005), Lindner (2011−2015: fasc. 4, 246−257). The literature on Sir William Jones and his (controversial) role in the development of comparative linguistics is extensive; for a biography and bibliography, see Cannon (1979, 1990) and Stammerjohann (2009: entry “Jones, William”), and for relativizing assessments, see Hoenigswald (1963, 1974), Kispert (1978), Rocher (1980b), Swiggers and Desmet (1996: 141−143), Campbell (2006) and Rietbergen (2007).

11. Conclusion The “assessment” of language relationships within the (later so called) “Indo-European” language family was a process that extended over centuries, and it was characterized by a mix of sound insights, bold claims, wild guesses, and by a dialectics of advances and relapses, of accumulation and oblivion; it may be worthwhile to recall that Celtic and Slavic, already present in 16th- and 17th-century inventories, were not immediately included by Franz Bopp and Rasmus Rask [1787−1832] in their comparative work (not to speak of Albanian or Armenian). Our present-day concept of “Indo-European compara-

15. Intuition, exploration, and assertion of the Indo-European language relationship tive linguistics” (the domain of which was only definitively circumscribed in the 20 th century, with the integration of the Tokharian varieties, of the Anatolian languages, and of Celtiberian) can be seen as the crystallized result of a chain of developments in diverse “layers” of scholarly practice, over a long stretch of time: developments on the empirical (documentary) level, on the methodological level, and on the conceptual level. For the idea of “layered” development in science, see Galison (1987, 1997); for the adaptation of Galison’s views to linguistics, see Swiggers (2006).

Looking back, without anger and preconceptions, we have to conclude that scholarly involvement with linguistic relationships of the Indo-European languages has a long and complex history, dispersed over several (changing) fields of knowledge and marked by continuity and discontinuity, both in the center and in the outskirts of scholarly practice.

12. References Aarsleff, Hans 1982 An Outline of Language-Origins Theory since the Renaissance. In: Hans Aarsleff, From Locke to Saussure. London: Athlone, 278−292. Adams, James N. 2003 Bilingualism and the Latin Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Adams, James N. 2007 The Regional Diversification of Latin 200 BC−AD 600. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Adelung, Friedrich 1815 Catherinens der Grossen Verdienste um die vergleichende Sprachenkunde. Saint Petersburg: Drechsler. Adelung, Friedrich 1820 Übersicht aller bekannten Sprachen und ihrer Dialekte. Saint Petersburg: Gretsch. Allen, W. Sidney 1948 Ancient Ideas on the Origin and Development of Language. Transactions of the Philological Society 81: 35−60. Amaladass, Anand 1992 Jesuits and Sanskrit Studies. In: Teotónio R. de Souza and Charles J. Borges (eds.), Jesuits in India. Macao: Instituto cultural, 211−232. Auroux, Sylvain 1990 Representation and the Place of Linguistic Change before Comparative Grammar. In: De Mauro and Formigari (eds.), 213−238. Auroux, Sylvain, Gilles Bernard and Jacques Boulle 2000 Le développement du comparatisme indo-européen. In: Sylvain Auroux (ed.), Histoire des idées linguistiques, Vol. 3: L’hégémonie du comparatisme. Liège: Mardaga, 155− 171. Auroux, Sylvain, Konrad Koerner, Hans-Josef Niederehe, and Kees Versteegh (eds.) 2000−2006 History of the Language Sciences: An international Handbook. 3 vols. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Banniard, Michel 1992 Viva voce. Communication écrite et communication orale du IVe au IX e siècle en Occident latin. Paris: Institut d’études augustiniennes.

161

162

III. Historical perspectives on Indo-European linguistics Benfey, Theodor 1869 Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft und orientalischen Philologie in Deutschland seit dem Anfange des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts mit einem Rückblick auf die früheren Zeiten. Munich: Cotta. Bolognesi, Giancarlo 1994 Sul termine ‘indo-germanisch’. In: Palmira Cipriano, Paolo Di Giovine, and Marco Mancini (eds.), Miscellanea di Studi linguistici in onore di Walter Belardi, Vol. I. Rome: Il Calamo, 327−338. Bonfante, Giuliano 1953−1954 Ideas on the Kinship of the European Languages from 1200 to 1800. Cahiers d’Histoire mondiale 1: 679−699. Bonfante, Giuliano 1955 Una descrizione linguistica d’Europa del 1614. Paideia 10: 224−227. Bonfante, Giuliano 1956 A Contribution to the History of Celtology. Celtica 3: 17−34. Borst, Arno 1957−1963 Der Turmbau von Babel. Geschichte der Meinungen über Ursprung und Vielfalt der Sprachen und Völker. 6 vols. Stuttgart: Hiersemann. Brough, Sonia 1985 The Goths and the Concept of Gothic in Germany from 1500 to 1750. Culture, Language, and Architecture. Frankfurt am Main: Lang. Brown, Terence (ed.) 1996 Celticism. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Campbell, Lyle 2006 Why Sir William Jones got it all wrong, or Jones’ role in how to establish language families. Anuario del Seminario de Filología Vasca Julio de Urquijo/International Journal of Basque Linguistics and Philology 40: 245−264. Cannon, Garland 1979 William Jones: A Bibliography of Primary and Secondary Sources. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Cannon, Garland 1990 The Life and Mind of Oriental Jones: Sir William Jones, the Father of Modern Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Céard, Jean 1980 De Babel à la Pentecôte. La transformation du mythe de la confusion des langues au XVI e siècle. Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance 42: 577−594. Chotzen, Theodor M. 1931 Primitieve Keltistiek in de Nederlanden [Early Celtic studies in the Netherlands]. The Hague: Nijhoff. Colombat, Bernard (ed.) 2008 Les langues du monde à la Renaissance (= Histoire, Épistémologie, Langage 30/2.) Considine, John 2010 Why was Claude de Saumaise (1588−1653) interested in the Scythian Hypothesis? In: Toon Van Hal and John Considine (eds.), Classifying and Comparing Languages in post-Renaissance Europe. (Language and History 53/2), 81−96. Coudert, Allison (ed.) 1999 The Language of Adam. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. De Bruijn, Johannes T. P. 1990 De ontdekking van het Perzisch [The discovery of Persian]. Leiden: Rijksuniversiteit. De Grauwe, Luc 2013 Humanisten uit de Lage Landen, in het voetspoor van Gessner, over de Scandinavische talen [Humanists of the Low Countries, in the footsteps of Gessner, on the Scandinavian languages]. In: Van Hal, Isebaert, and Swiggers (eds.), 235−251.

15. Intuition, exploration, and assertion of the Indo-European language relationship Dekker, Kees 1999 The Origins of Old Germanic Studies in the Low Countries. Leiden: Brill. Delbrück, Berthold 1880 Einleitung in das Sprachstudium: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte und Methodik der vergleichenden Sprachforschung. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel. [Revised edition, Einleitung in das Studium der indogermanischen Sprachen, Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1904, with reeditions in 1908 and 1919.] De Mauro, Tullio and Lia Formigari (eds.) 1990 Leibniz, Humboldt, and the Origins of Comparativism. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Demonet-Launay, Marie-Luce 1992 Les voix du signe. Nature et origine du langage à la Renaissance (1480−1580). Paris: Champion. Denecker, Tim 2015 Linguistic Ideas in Early Latin Christianity (c. 250−636). A historiographical study. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, KU Leuven. Deneire, Tom and Toon Van Hal 2006 Lipsius tegen Becanus. Over het Nederlands als oertaal. Editie, vertaling en interpretatie van zijn brief aan Hendrik Schotti (19 december 1598) [Lipsius against Becanus. On Dutch as the original language. Edition, translation, and interpretation of his letter to Hendrik Schotti (19 December, 1598)]. Amsterfoort: Florivallis. Di Cesare, Donatella and Stefano Gensini (eds.) 1990 Iter Babelicum. Studien zur Historiographie der Linguistik 1600−1800. Münster: Nodus. Diderichsen, Paul 1974 The Foundation of Comparative Linguistics: Revolution or Continuation? In: Dell H. Hymes (ed.), 277−306. Dini, Pietro U. 1999 Der Paläokomparativismus und das Baltische. Bericht über die Erforschung der früheren baltischen Linguistik. In: Eckhard Eggers (ed.), Florilegium linguisticum. Festschrift für Wolfgang P. Schmid zum 70. Geburtstag. Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 63−86. Droixhe, Daniel 1978 La linguistique et l’appel de l’histoire (1600−1800). Rationalisme et révolutions positivistes. Geneva: Droz. Droixhe, Daniel (ed.) 1984 Genèse du comparatisme indo-européen (= Histoire, Épistémologie, Langage 6/2). Droixhe, Daniel 1987 De l’origine du langage aux langues du monde. Tübingen: Narr. Droixhe, Daniel 1989 Boxhorn’s Bad Reputation: A chapter in academic linguistics. In: Dutz (ed.), 359−384. Droixhe, Daniel 2000 Les conceptions du changement et de la parenté des langues européennes aux XVII e et XVIII e siècles. In: Auroux et al. (eds.), Vol. I, 1057−1071. Droixhe, Daniel 2007 Souvenirs de Babel: La reconstruction de l’histoire des langues de la Renaissance aux Lumières. Brussels: Académie royale de langue et de littérature françaises de Belgique. Dutz, Klaus D. 1989 Lingua Adamica nobis certe ignota est. Die Sprachursprungsdebatte und Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. In: Gessinger and von Rahden (eds.), Vol. 1, 204−240. Dutz, Klaus D. (ed.) 1989 Speculum historiographiae linguisticae. Münster: Nodus. Dutz, Klaus D. and Ulrike Klinkhammer 1983 Zeichentheorie und Sprachwissenschaft bei G. W. Leibniz: Eine kritisch annotierte Bibliographie der Sekundärliteratur. Mit einem Anhang: Sekundärliteratur zur Sprachforschung im 17. Jahrhundert. Münster: Universität.

163

164

III. Historical perspectives on Indo-European linguistics Eros, John Francis 1972 Diachronic Linguistics in Seventeenth-Century England with Special Attention to the theories of Meric Casaubon. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Wisconsin. Fellman, Jack 1974 The First Historical Linguist. Linguistics 137: 31−33. Fellman, Jack 1975 On Sir William Jones and the Scythian Language. Language Sciences 34: 37−38. Foucault, Michel 1966 Les mots et les choses. Une archéologie des sciences humaines. Paris: Gallimard. Foucault, Michel 1969 Archéologie du savoir. Paris: Gallimard. Frederickx, Eddy and Toon Van Hal 2015 Johannes Goropius Becanus (1519−1573), Brabants arts en taalfanaat [Johannes Goropius Becanus (1519−1573), Brabantian physician and language fanatic]. Hilversum: Verloren. Galison, Peter 1987 How Experiments End. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Galison, Peter 1997 Image and Logic. A material culture of microphysics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gardt, Andreas 1999 Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft in Deutschland. Vom Mittelalter bis ins 20. Jahrhundert. Berlin: De Gruyter. Gera, Deborah Levine 2003 Ancient Greek Ideas on Speech, Language, and Civilization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gesner, Conrad [1555] 2009 Mithridate/Mithridates. Introduction, translation, annotation and index by Bernard Colombat and Manfred Peters. Geneva: Droz. Gessinger, Joachim and Wolfert von Rahden (eds.) 1989 Theorien vom Ursprung der Sprache. 2 vols. Berlin: De Gruyter. Grotsch, Klaus 1989 Das Sanskrit und die Ursprache: Zur Rolle des Sanskrit in der Konstitutionsphase der historisch-vergleichenden Sprachwissenschaft. In: Gessinger and von Rahden (eds.), Vol. 2, 85−121. Gruntfest, Yaakov 1989 The Comparative and Diachronic Approach to Language in Mediaeval Semitic Linguistics. In: Dutz (ed.), 37−51. Gulya, János 1974 Some Eighteenth-Century Antecedents of Nineteenth Century Linguistics. The discovery of Finno-Ugrian. In: Hymes (ed.), 258−276. Haarmann, Harald 2000 Die grossen Sprachensammlungen vom frühen 18. bis frühen 19. Jahrhundert. In: Auroux et al. (eds.), Vol. 1, 1081−1094. Hall, Jonathan M. 1997 Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Harrison, Thomas (ed.) 2002 Greeks and Barbarians. London: Routledge. Hiersche, Rolf 1985 Zur Etymologie und Sprachvergleichung vor Bopp. In: Hermann M. Ölberg and Gernot Schmidt (eds.), Sprachwissenschaftliche Forschungen. Festschrift für Johann Knobloch. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft, 157−169.

15. Intuition, exploration, and assertion of the Indo-European language relationship Hock, Hans H. [1986] 1991 Principles of Historical Linguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter Hock, Hans H. and Brian D. Joseph [1996] 2009 Language History, Language Change, and Language Relationship: an Introduction to Historical and Comparative Linguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter. Hodgen, Margaret T. 1964 Anthropology in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Hoenigswald, Henry M. 1960 Language Change and Linguistic Reconstruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hoenigswald, Henry M. 1963 On the History of the Comparative Method. Anthropological Linguistics 5: 1−10. Hoenigswald, Henry M. 1973 Studies in Formal Historical Linguistics. Dordrecht: Reidel. Hoenigswald, Henry M. 1974 Fallacies in the History of Linguistics. Notes on the appraisal of the nineteenth century. In: Hymes (ed.), 346−358. Hoenigswald, Henry M. 1984 Etymology against Grammar in the Early 19 th Century. In: Droixhe (ed.), 95−100. Hoenigswald, Henry M. 1990 Descent, Perfection, and Comparative Method since Leibniz. In: De Mauro and Formigari (eds.), 119−132. Hofman, Rijcklof 1998 Marcus Zuerius Boxhorn (1612−1653). In: Lauran Toorians (ed.), Kelten en de Nederlanden van prehistorie tot heden [Celts and the Netherlands from prehistory to the present]. Leuven: Peeters, 149−167. Hymes, Dell H. (ed.) 1974 Studies in the History of Linguistics. Traditions and Paradigms. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Hymes, Dell H. 1983 Essays in the History of Linguistic Anthropology. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Kessler-Mesguich, Sophie 2000 L’étude de l’hébreu et des autres langues orientales à l’époque de l’humanisme. In: Auroux et al. (eds.), Vol. 1, 673−680. Kispert, Robert J. 1978 Sir William Jones. A new perspective on the origin and background of his common source. Georgetown University Papers on Languages and Linguistics 14: 1−68. Koerner, E. F. Konrad 1981 Observations on the Source, Transmission, and Meaning of ‘Indo-European’ and Related Terms in the Development of Linguistics. Indogermanische Forschungen 86: 1−29. Reprinted in Koerner 1989: 149−177. Koerner, E. F. Konrad 1989 Practicing Linguistic Historiography. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Lejeune, Michel 1948 La curiosité linguistique dans l’Antiquité classique. Conférences de l’Institut de Linguistique de l’Université de Paris 8: 45−61. Lepschy, Giulio (ed.) 1998 History of Linguistics, Vol. 3: Renaissance and Early Modern Linguistics. London: Longman. Lindner, Thomas 2011−2015 Indogermanische Grammatik. Band IV/1: Komposition. Heidelberg: Winter (4 fasc. of Bd. IV/1 published).

165

166

III. Historical perspectives on Indo-European linguistics Lipiński, Edward 1990 Les Japhétites selon Gen 10, 2−4 et 1 Chr 1, 5−7. Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 3: 40− 53. Lipiński, Edward 1992 Les Chamites selon Gen 10, 6−20 et 1 Chr 1, 8−16. Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 5: 135− 162. Lipiński, Edward 1993 Les Sémites selon Gen 10, 21−30 et 1 Chr 1, 17−23. Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 6: 193−215. Mayrhofer, Manfred 1983 Sanskrit und die Sprachen Alteuropas. Zwei Jahrhunderte des Widerspiels von Entdeckungen und Irrtümern. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Mayrhofer, Manfred 2006 Einiges zu den Skythen, ihrer Sprache, ihrem Nachleben. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Metcalf, George J. 1953 Abraham Mylius on Historical Linguistics. Publications of the Modern Language Association of America 68: 535−554. [Reprinted in Metcalf 2013: 85−104.] Metcalf, George J. 1972 Philipp Clüver and his Lingua Celtica. Deutsche Beiträge zur geistigen Überlieferung 7: 90−109. [Reprinted in Metcalf 2013: 105−122.] Metcalf, George J. 1974 The Indo-European Hypothesis in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. In: Hymes (ed.), 233−257. [Reprinted in Metcalf 2013: 33−56.] Metcalf, George J. 2013 On Language Diversity and Relationship from Bibliander to Adelung. Ed. with an introduction by Toon Van Hal and Raf Van Rooy, Amsterdam: Benjamins. Monod, Jacques 1970 Le hasard et la nécessité. Essai sur la philosophie naturelle de la biologie moderne. Paris: Seuil. Muller, Jean-Claude 1984 Quelques repères pour l’histoire de la notion de vocabulaire de base: le précomparatisme. In: Droixhe (ed.), 37−43. Muller, Jean-Claude 1985 Recherches sur les premières grammaires manuscrites du sanskrit. Bulletin d’études indiennes 7: 125−144. Muller, Jean-Claude 1986 Early Stages of Language Comparison from Sassetti to Sir William Jones (1786). Kratylos 31: 1−31. Müller, Carl W., Kurt Sier, and Jürgen Werner (eds.) 1992 Zum Umgang mit fremden Sprachen in der griechisch-römischen Antike. Stuttgart: Steiner. Nativel, Colette (ed.) 1997−2006 Centuriae Latinae. 2 vols. Geneva: Droz. Olender, Maurice 1989 Les langues du paradis. Aryens et Sémites: un couple providentiel. Paris: Gallimard. Orsatti, Paola 1996 Prodromi degli studi europei sul persiano nel Rinascimento. In: Mirko Tavoni (ed.), Italia ed Europa nella linguistica del Rinascimento: Confronti e Relazioni, Vol. 2. Modena: F. Cosimo Panini, 551−567.

15. Intuition, exploration, and assertion of the Indo-European language relationship Pedersen, Holger 1924 Sprogvidenskaben i det nittende aarhundrede: Metoder og resultater, Copenhagen: Gyldendal. [English translation, Linguistic Science in the Nineteenth Century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1931.] Percival, W. Keith 1992 La connaissance des langues du monde. In: Sylvain Auroux (ed.), Le Développement de la grammaire occidentale. (Histoire des idées linguistiques 2). Liège, Mardaga, 226− 238. Poppe, Erich 1986 Multiplex sane linguarum ac dialectorum varietas. Zur Quellenrekonstruktion im ‘Mithridates’ (1555) des Konrad Gessner am Beispiel des Keltischen. Münster: Institut für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft. Read, Malcolm K. 1977 The Renaissance Concept of Linguistic Change. Archivum Linguisticum 8: 60−69. Rietbergen, Peter J. A. N. 2007 Europa’s India. Fascinatie en cultureel imperialism, ca. 1750−ca. 2000 [Europe’s India. Fascination and cultural imperialism, ca. 1750−ca. 2000]. Nijmegen: Vantilt. Rocher, Rosane 1968 Alexander Hamilton (1762−1824). A chapter in the early history of Sanskrit philology. New Haven: American Oriental Society. Rocher, Rosane 1980a Lord Monboddo, Sanskrit, and Comparative Linguistics. Journal of the American Oriental Society 100: 12−17. Rocher, Rosane 1980b Nathaniel Brassey Halhed, Sir William Jones and Comparative Indo-European Linguistics. In: Recherches de linguistique. Hommage à Maurice Leroy. Brussels: Presses de l’Université de Bruxelles, 173−180. Rocher, Rosane 1983 Orientalism, Poetry, and the Millennium: The checkered life of Nathaniel Brassey Halhed, 1751−1830. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Rocher, Rosane 2001 The Knowledge of Sanskrit in Europe until 1800. In: Auroux et al. (eds.), Vol. 2, 1156− 1163. Rochette, Bruno 1995 Grecs et Latins face aux langues étrangères. Contribution à l’étude de la diversité linguistique dans l’antiquité classique. Revue belge de philologie et d’histoire 73: 5−16. Rousseau, André (ed.) 1991 Sur les traces de Busbecq et du gotique. Lille: Presses Universitaires. Schmidt-Riese, Roland 2003 Ordnung nach Babylon. Frühneuzeitliche Sprachinventare in Frankreich und Deutschland. In: Frank Büttner, Markus Friedrich, and Helmut Zedelmaier (eds.), Sammeln, Ordnen, Veranschaulichen. Zur Wissenskompilatorik in der Frühen Neuzeit. Münster: LIT, 53−82. Schmitter, Peter (ed.) 1987−2007 Geschichte der Sprachtheorie. 6 vols. Tübingen: Narr. Schöpsdau, Klaus 1992 Vergleiche zwischen Lateinisch und Griechisch in der antiken Sprachwissenschaft. In: Carl W. Müller, Kurt Sier, and Jürgen Werner (eds.), Zum Umgang mit fremden Sprachen in der griechisch-römischen Antike. Stuttgart: Steiner, 115−136. Schunk, Mariella 2003 Der Sprachwandel im metalinguistischen Diskurs Italiens und Frankreichs von der Renaissance zur Aufklärung. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.

167

168

III. Historical perspectives on Indo-European linguistics Stammerjohann, Harro (ed.) 2009 Lexicon grammaticorum. A Bio-bibliographical Companion to the History of Linguistics. 2 vols. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Stipa, Günter Johannes 1990 Finnisch-ugrische Sprachforschung. Von der Renaissance bis zum Neopositivismus. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Streitberg, Wilhelm 1915 Zur Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft. Indogermanische Forschungen 35: 182−186. Strothmann, Werner 1971 Die Anfänge der syrischen Studien in Europa. Göttinger Orientforschungen 1: 1−22. Swiggers, Pierre 1984 Adrianus Schrieckius: De la langue des Scythes à l’Europe linguistique. In: Droixhe (ed.), 17−35. Swiggers, Pierre 1987 Comparaison des langues et grammaire comparée. Réflexions méthodologiques. Linguistica 27: 3−10. Swiggers, Pierre 1990a Un jalon dans l’étude du sanskrit au XVIII e siècle: l’article ‘Samskret’ de l’Encyclopédie. Die Sprache 34: 158−164. Swiggers, Pierre 1990b Comparatismo e grammatica comparata, tipologia linguistica e forma grammaticale. In: De Mauro and Formigari (eds.), 281−299. Swiggers, Pierre 1993 L’étude comparative des langues vers 1830. Humboldt, Du Ponceau, Klaproth et le baron de Mérian. In: Daniel Droixhe and Chantal Grell (eds.), La linguistique entre mythe et histoire. Münster: Nodus, 275−295. Swiggers, Pierre 1996 L’étymologie: les transformations de l’étude historique du vocabulaire aux Temps Modernes. In: Peter Schmitter (ed.), Geschichte der Sprachtheorie, Vol. 5. Tübingen: Narr, 352−385. Swiggers, Pierre 1998 Van t’beghin der eerster volcken van Europen (1614): Kelten en Scythen bij Adrianus Schrieckius [On the origin of the first peoples of Europe (1614): Celts and Scythians according to Adrianus Schrieckius]. In: Lauran Toorians (ed.), Kelten en de Nederlanden van prehistorie tot heden. Leuven: Peeters, 123−147. Swiggers, Pierre 2001 La philologie romane de Dante à Raynouard: Linguistique et grammaticographie romanes. In: Günter Holtus, Michael Metzeltin, and Christian Schmitt (eds.), Lexikon der romanistischen Linguistik, Band I,1. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 36−121. Swiggers, Pierre 2006 Another Brick in the Wall. The dynamics of the history of linguistics. In: Jan Noordegraaf, Frank Vonk, and Marijke van der Wal (eds.), Amicitia in Academia. Münster: Nodus, 21−28. Swiggers, Pierre and Piet Desmet 1996 L’élaboration de la linguistique comparative: comparaison et typologie des langues jusqu’au début du XIX e siècle. In: Peter Schmitter (ed.), Geschichte der Sprachtheorie. Vol. 5. Tübingen: Narr, 122−177. Swiggers, Pierre and Alfons Wouters (eds.) 1989 Language in Antiquity/Le langage dans l’Antiquité. Leuven: Leuven University Press. Tavoni, Mirko 1998 Renaissance Linguistics. In: Giulio Lepschy (ed.), History of Linguistics, Vol. 3: Renaissance and Early Modern Linguistics. London: Longman, 1−107.

15. Intuition, exploration, and assertion of the Indo-European language relationship Tavoni, Mirko, John Flood, Pierre Lardet, Gerda Hassler, Christine Damis-Schäfer, and Toon Van Hal 2009− Renaissance Linguistics Archive (online publication by Potsdam Universitätsverlag: http://opus.kobv.de/ubp/volltexte/2009/3206) Tené, David 1980 The Earliest Comparisons of Hebrew with Aramaic and Arabic. In: E. F. Konrad Koerner (ed.), Progress in Linguistic Historiography. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins, 355−377. Thomsen, Vilhelm 1902 Sprogvidenskabens historie: En kortfattet Fremstilling. Copenhagen: Gad. German translation, Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft bis zum Ausgang des 19. Jahrhunderts. Halle: Niemeyer, 1927. Tourneur, Victor 1905 Esquisse d’une histoire des études celtiques. Liège: Vaillant-Carmanne. Trabant, Jürgen 1998 Mithridates: de Gesner jusqu’à Adelung et Vater. Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure 51: 95−111. Van de Velde, Roger G. 1966 De studie van het Gotisch in de Nederlanden. Bijdrage tot een status quaestionis over de studie van het Gotisch en het Krimgotisch [The study of Gothic in the Netherlands. A contribution to the state of the art on the study of Gothic and Crimean Gothic]. Gent: Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie voor Taal- en Letterkunde. Van Hal, Toon 2005 Language Comparison in Paulinus a Sancto Bartholomaeo (1748−1806): Aims, Methodological Principles. Bulletin d’Études indiennes 22−23: 323−336. Van Hal, Toon 2010 ‘Moedertalen en taalmoeders’. Het vroegmoderne taalvergelijkende onderzoek in de Lage Landen [‘Motherlanguages and language mothers’. Early modern comparative linguistic research in the Low Countries]. Brussels: Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie van België voor Wetenschappen en Kunsten. Van Hal, Toon 2011 The earliest stages of Persian-German language comparison. In: Gerda Hassler (ed.), History of Linguistics 2008. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 147−165. Van Hal, Toon 2012 Linguistics ante litteram: Compiling and transmitting views on language diversity and relatedness before the nineteenth century. In: Rens Bod, Jaap Maat, and Thijs Weststeijn (eds.), The Making of the Humanities. From Early Modern to Modern Disciplines. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 37−53. Van Hal, Toon and John Considine (eds.) 2010 Classifying and Comparing Languages in post-Renaissance Europe. (Language and History 53/2). Van Hal, Toon, Lambert Isebaert, and Pierre Swiggers 2013 Het ‘vernieuwde’ taal- en wereldbeeld van de vroegmoderne tijd [The ‘new’ languageand worldview of the early modern era]. In: Van Hal, Isebaert, and Swiggers (eds.), 3− 46. Van Hal, Toon, Lambert Isebaert, and Pierre Swiggers (eds.) 2013 De tuin der talen. Taalstudie en taalcultuur in de Lage Landen, 1450−1750 [The garden of languages. Linguistics and linguistic culture in the Low Countries, 1450−1750]. Leuven: Peeters. Van Rooy, Raf 2013 Πόθεν οὖν ἡ τοσαύτη διαφωνία: Greek patristic authors discussing linguistic origin, diversity, change and kinship. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft 23: 21− 54.

169

170

III. Historical perspectives on Indo-European linguistics Verburg, Pieter A. 1952 Taal en functionaliteit. Een historisch-critische studie over de opvattingen aangaande de functies der taal vanaf de prae-humanistische philologie van Orleans tot de rationalistische linguistiek van Bopp [Language and functionality. A historical-critical study of the ideas on the functions of language from the pre-humanistic philology of Orleans to the rationalist linguistics of Bopp]. Wageningen: Veenman. Villani, Francesco P. 2003 Scythae. Un problema linguistico, etnografico e culturale dell’età moderna. Studi linguistici e filologici Online 1: 443−491. von der Schulenburg, Sigrid 1973 Leibniz als Sprachforscher. Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann. von Martels, Zweder R. M. W. 1989 Augerius Gislenius Busbequius: leven en werk van de keizerlijke gezant aan het hof van Süleyman de Grote [Augerius Gislenius Busbequius: the life and work of the imperial envoy to the court of Suleiman the Magnificent]. Groningen: Rijksuniversiteit. von Moos, Peter (ed.) 2008 Zwischen Babel und Pfingsten. Sprachdifferenzen und Gesprächsverständigung in der Vormoderne (9.−16. Jh.) / Entre Babel et Pentecôte. Différences linguistiques et communication orale avant la modernité. Zürich: LIT. von Raumer, Rudolf 1870 Geschichte der germanischen Philologie. Munich: Oldenbourg. Waterman, John T. 1963 The Languages of the World: A classification by G. W. Leibniz. In: Erich Hofacker and Liselotte Dieckmann (eds.), Studies in Germanic Languages and Literatures in Memory of Fred O. Nolte. St. Louis: Washington University Press, 27−34. Werner, Jürgen 1992 Zur Fremdsprachenproblematik in der griechisch-römischen Antike. In: Carl W. Müller, Kurt Sier, and Jürgen Werner (eds.), Zum Umgang mit fremden Sprachen in der griechischrömischen Antike. Stuttgart: Steiner, 1−20. Windisch, Ernst 1917−1920 Geschichte der Sanskrit Philologie und indischen Altertumskunde. 2 vols. Strassburg: Trübner. Wiotte-Franz, Claudia 2001 Hermeneus und Interpres: zum Dolmetscherwesen in der Antike. Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag. Zeller, Otto 1967 Problemgeschichte der vergleichenden (indogermanischen) Sprachwissenschaft. Osnabrück: Biblio-Verlag.

Pierre Swiggers, Leuven (Belgium)

16. Indo-European linguistics in the 19 th and 20 th centuries

16. Indo-European linguistics in the 19 th and 20 th centuries: beginnings, establishment, remodeling, refinement, and extension(s) 1. Introduction 2. Excitement and stimulus: William Jones and the Schlegel brothers 3. Early beginnings: Rasmus Rask and Franz Bopp 4. Further developments: comparison and history 5. New foundations: August Schleicher 6. Revolution and paradigmatic science: the Neogrammarians and Saussure

7. The remodeling of Indo-European comparative grammar in the first half of the 20 th century 8. Indo-European linguistics in the second half of the 20 th century: unity and diversity 9. Conclusions 10. References

1. Introduction Indo-European comparative grammar is, properly speaking, a creation of 19 th-century German academic science; it received recognition, and hence institutionalization, in the first half of the 19 th century, and subsequently became the core discipline within linguistics, a science which received its name in the first decades of that century. Throughout the 19 th century, up to the first decades of the 20 th century, the historical-comparative approach dominated linguistics; a more “general” and theoretical approach to language, illustrated by the work of Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767−1835) and his followers, was largely marginalized, and “practical” grammar studies (often in the service of first and second language teaching) were regarded as craftsmanship, not science. The development of Indo-European comparative studies in the 19 th century gives one the impression of a rather straightforward evolution (although this is partly due to our more distant perspective): one which consists of the development, and refinement of the “comparative method”. There were indeed successive methodological advances, but they were not purely cumulative. Also, there were at times relapses in theoretical principles (if not, ideological assumptions). But by the end of the 19 th century Indo-European comparative linguistics had achieved a highly considered scientific status and was taken to illustrate the superiority of a historical approach to language. In the 20 th century, in spite of the gradual predominance of descriptive (“synchronic”) linguistics and of nonhistorical theoretical linguistics, there has been a growth in the absolute number of practitioners and, almost inevitably, in the number of “schools” of historical-comparative linguistics, coupled with a diversification of theoretical and methodological principles and assumptions. [For general overviews, see Streitberg (ed. 1916−1929), Thomsen (1902), Pedersen (1924), Zeller (1967), and Morpurgo-Davies (1975, 1996). Much bio-bibliographical information can be found in Tagliavini (1963, 1968), Sebeok (ed. 1966), Koerner (1989), Auroux et al. (eds. 2000−2006), and Stammerjohann (ed. 2009). Useful information can also be found in historical overviews of the various (Classical, Oriental, Germanic …) philologies (although in the 19 th century, linguistics and philology were https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261288-016

171

172

III. Historical perspectives on Indo-European linguistics often perceived as antagonistic): see, e.g. Benfey (1869), von Raumer (1870), Bursian (1883), Tourneur (1905), Gudeman (1907), Kroll (1908), Windisch (1917−1920), and Pfeiffer (1976). For anthologies of source texts, see Bolelli (1965), Lehmann (1967), and Christmann (1977). On the Germanic academic context in the 19 th century, see Conrad (1884), Kaufmann (1888−1896), Lexis (1893), Paulsen (1896−1897), Sanderson (1975), and Jarausch (1982, 1983). On the history of linguistics in the German-speaking area, see Gardt (1999). For a science-historical view on the development of comparative studies, see Amsterdamska (1987); for a science-sociocultural view, see Hültenschmidt (1987). On the history of the comparative method, see Hoenigswald (1963, 1990), Wells (1979), and Negri/Orioles (eds. 1992). On the importance of distinguishing the practice of 19 th-century linguists and their theoretical pronouncements, see Hoenigswald (1974, 1986).]

2. Excitement and stimulus: William Jones and the Schlegel brothers Intuitions and − at times − more penetrating and refined views on the relationship between languages such as Greek, Latin (and its Romance developments), the Germanic languages, and the Slavic languages had been formulated before the 19 th century (see Swiggers, Intuition, exploration and assertion of the Indo-European language relationship, this handbook); at best, these efforts − focusing almost exclusively on lexical resemblances, not integrated into a coherent view of (systematic) phonological and morphological correspondences showing the diversification over time from a common ancestor − can be assigned to a (long) period of “pre-” or “proto-comparativism”. While these endeavors reflect an overall concern with genealogical classification (whatever the concrete results) and testify to the fruitfulness of linguistic hypothesizing (as in the case of the “Scythian theory”, a remote prefiguration of the Indo-European hypothesis; cf. Metcalf 1974 = 2013: 33−56), truly comparative work, based on a consistently applied method and integrating the concept of a defined (and delineated) genetic unity, started to appear in Europe only in the late 18 th century, though not with respect to the languages we now call “Indo-European”. As a matter of fact, crucial comparativist insights were first formulated with regard to language families other than the Indo-European. The large amount of work done − since the Renaissance − on Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopian, eventually led to the recognition and labeling of the “Semitic” language family, as it was named, in 1781, by the Göttingen historian and polymath August Ludwig Schlözer (1735−1809). More importantly, the writings of two Hungarian scholars, János Sajnovics (1733−1785) (Demonstratio idioma Ungarorum et Lapponum idem esse, 1770) and Sámuel Gyarmathi (1751−1830) (Affinitas linguae Hungaricae cum linguis Fennicae originis grammatice demonstrata nec non vocabularia dialectorum Tataricarum et Slavicarum cum Hungarica comparata, 1799), establishing links between Hungarian and Finnish and Lapponian, and then with other Ugrian languages, offered lexical and grammatical proofs of the unity of the Finno-Ugrian languages (cf. Gulya 1974; Stipa 1990). As to the Indo-European languages, the process was a complex one: it consisted of the “rediscovery of Sanskrit”, and involved, on the one hand down-to-earth, practically-

16. Indo-European linguistics in the 19 th and 20 th centuries minded, grammatical and lexical contributions by missionaries and functionaries, and, on the other hand, philosophical musings on the “perfect” old Indian language (cf. the article “Samskret” in the Encyclopédie méthodique: Grammaire et littérature, vol. 3 [1786]; Swiggers 1990) and wide-ranging speculations. The excitement caused by the contact with the language(s), literature(s), and religion(s) of India catalyzed the recognition of a transcontinental relationship between (some of) the languages of Europe and languages of the Middle East. One wide-ranging speculation, formulated by a British attorney in India, (Sir) William Jones (1746−1794) − who was mainly interested in the mythology, literature, and legal system of India − was to have a great impact in Western Europe: in a discourse read in 1786 (and published in 1788), Jones pointed to the “affinities”, in the “forms of grammar”, between Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, Gothic, the Celtic languages, and Persian − a truly interesting insight, albeit subsequently obscured, and diminished, by the idea of a more encompassing affinity between Ethiopian, Egyptian, Etruscan, Chinese, Japanese, and “Peruvian” … [On Jones and his role, see the diverging opinions of Fellman (1975), Kispert (1978), Cannon (1979, 1990), Rocher (1980), Robins (1987), and Campbell (2006); on Jones’ precursors, see Muller (1986).] Jones’s speculation, linguistically less refined and precise than the unjustly forgotten memoir of the Jesuit Laurent Cœurdoux (1691−1779) (cf. Mayrhofer 1983), found an appropriate breeding ground in German romanticist circles, and most specifically in the literary and philosophical minds of the Schlegel brothers, Friedrich (1772−1829) and August-Wilhelm (1767−1845), who took a vivid interest in the history of culture, religion, and art. Friedrich, during his years in Paris (1802−1805), had studied Sanskrit with Alexander Hamilton (1762−1824), a former military man who had learned Sanskrit and Bengali, and who later became the first professor of Sanskrit in Europe (cf. Rocher 1968; Plank 1987). Schlegel, who was more interested in the general cultural connections between the East and the West, published in 1808 a work entitled Über die Sprache und Weisheit der Indier. In this (rather unsystematic) book Schlegel, pointing to the relationship between, on the one hand, the classical languages of Europe (Greek and Latin) and the languages of the Germanic nations, and, on the other, Sanskrit and Persian, advocates an approach following the principles of comparative anatomy (as exemplified in the works of Georges Cuvier [1769−1832]), focusing on the “organic structure” of languages, and aiming at tracing the genealogy of language families, defined by typological characteristics. Friedrich Schlegel’s linguistic views remain general and vague; his linguistic typology operates with two groups, one in which the linguistic expression of ideas (i.e. basic concepts and their relations) is achieved through internal modification or “flection” (Biegung) of root elements, and a second one, in which this is realized by using invariable (content) words, combined and linked by additive particles. Basically, Schlegel thus wanted to oppose the Indo-European languages (illustrating the first type) to the other language families known to him (while allowing for differentiation within the second type: this depends on the absence or presence of integration of these additive particles). And within Indo-European, Sanskrit was seen as (a) superior in structural organization to the other languages in the family, and as (b) more “original”. Within Schlegel’s “organicist” view (involving as a basic assumption an evolutionary line from birth, over gradual growth, to the attainment of a “perfect” organic state, followed by decline and degeneration), Sanskrit was thus seen as embodying the culmination of the full-grown Indo-European type, and hence as the organic state from which the other Indo-European languages (known to us in various stages of degeneracy) should be stud-

173

174

III. Historical perspectives on Indo-European linguistics ied. Whatever its weaknesses and its patent lack of comparative-linguistic elaboration, Schlegel’s book had three undeniable merits: (a) it incited scholars to examine in more detail the linguistic affinities between European languages and two (equally “classical”) languages of the East, Sanskrit and Persian; (b) it outlined the need for the investigation of (organic) structure, thus imposing a limiting and systematizing frame for the investigation of affinities or resemblances; (c) it initiated the reorientation of linguistic-evolutionary studies, away from attempts to recover the “origin” of human language and to trace the genealogy of the world’s languages, to the analysis of genetic relationships within one language family. [On the concepts of “organism” and “organic” in 19 th-century linguistic thought, see Schmidt (1986), Morpurgo-Davies (1987), Krapf (1993), and Kucharczik (1998).] Friedrich’s brother, August-Wilhelm, devoted himself to the study of Sanskrit; the newly founded university of Bonn created a chair of Sanskrit language and literature for him. Apart from his philological and literary output − not confined to Sanskrit, but embracing also Germanic and Romance −, A.-W. Schlegel invested his efforts in the classification of languages. While remaining faithful to the overall frame of his younger brother’s typology, he proposed a threefold typology, distinguishing between monosyllabic languages, languages using affixing (or agglutination), and inflectional languages (with only the latter deserving to be called “truly organic”). In addition, he formulated thoughts on the development from a synthetic (organic) state to an analytic one (still organic, but to a lesser degree). The years 1780−1810 were a period marked by excitement, by admiration for India’s philosophy, literature, and religion, by fascination with the Orient, the land where the sun rises (Morgenland), which some German romanticists saw as an ideal projection of their Germany. The then-prevailing view of the East explains the subsequent creation, in Western Europe, of journals devoted to the study of Oriental languages and literatures: the Indische Bibliothek (1820−1830) of A.-W. Schlegel, the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (1823), the Journal Asiatique (1828), and the Zeitschrift der deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft (1847). [On the Romantic interest in language comparison, see Fiesel (1927); on the fascination with the Orient, see, e.g., Gérard (1953) and Schwab (1984); on Friedrich Schlegel (compared with Bopp), see Nüsse (1962) and Timpanaro (1972, 1973); on the language typology of the Schlegel brothers, cf. Horne (1966).]

3. Early beginnings: Rasmus Rask and Franz Bopp The beginnings of Indo-European comparative grammar, if we take the two terms comparative and grammar in their strict sense, should be placed in the 1810s. The pioneers were a Danish scholar and a German philologist − two very different personalities, with different backgrounds. The Dane Rasmus Kristian Rask (1787−1832) was a physically and mentally labile person, but also a polyglot and a globetrotter, who travelled not only through Scandinavia and Western Europe, but also through the East. Rask wrote grammars of various languages, ancient and modern (Old Norse and Old Icelandic, AngloSaxon, Spanish, Italian, Danish, Lapponian, and English), but he also published on Hebrew and Egyptian chronology. His basically descriptive (or “synchronic”) approach to languages explains why he has been regarded (cf. Hjelmslev 1950−1951), as an “anti-

16. Indo-European linguistics in the 19 th and 20 th centuries historic” scholar, faithful to the principles of 18 th-century rationalism. While it is true that Rask applies ideas of 18 th-century general grammar, and praises the theoretical reflections of Anne-Robert-Jacques Turgot (1727−1781) (author of the article “Etymologie” in the 18 th-century Encyclopédie), one cannot dismiss the fact that Rask recommended the study of the historical causes of linguistic facts, and that he frequently appealed to linguistic comparison, e.g. in his study of the Scandinavian languages. Moreover, Rask had clear intuitions about linguistic relationships. This is evident from his major piece, written in 1814, published in 1818 (Undersøgelse om det gamle Nordiske eller Islandske Sprogs Oprindelse [Study of the origin of the old Norse or Icelandic language]), in which he shows the regular correspondences holding between the phonological systems of Greek, Latin, and the Germanic languages, and their relationship to those of the Slavic and Baltic languages. Since Rask would only become acquainted with Sanskrit and Avestan later in his life, his 1814 memoir does not make use of IndoIranian materials. Rask’s comparative interest − covering grammatical and lexical data − can be seen from the fact that in his 1814 memoir he adumbrated the consonant shift that had occurred in the Germanic languages, thus anticipating the well-known Lautverschiebung-law formulated by Jacob Grimm (cf. below). Rask’s insight, which he may have regarded as an instance of a general law or tendency, thus became operational only in the hands of a scholar primarily interested in historical evolution, and not so much in overall comparison. Another fundamental contribution of Rask was his idea of reconstructing forms on the basis of either external comparison (between various languages) or internal comparison (based on alternations in paradigms). [On Rask, see, apart from Hjelmslev (1950−1951), Antonsen (1962), Diderichsen (1974), Percival (1974), and Baudusch (1985).] The absence of Sanskrit in the 1814 memoir, its delayed publication, the use of Danish as language of exposition, Rask’s reliance on linguistic principles typical of general grammar (such as analogy; paradigmatic symmetry; fixed word classes) − all these facts explain why Rask was eclipsed in the annals of linguistic comparativism by a German scholar, less versatile but more disciplined: the Mainz-born philologist Franz Bopp. The (canonical) historiography of linguistics generally identifies Franz Bopp (1791− 1867) as the “father” of Indo-European comparative grammar (see already Kuhn 1868), and more specifically because of his 1816 maiden work, Über das Conjugationssystem der Sanskritsprache in Vergleichung mit jenem der griechischen, lateinischen, persischen und germanischen Sprache [...] (Frankfurt am Main). Bopp, who was influenced by the philosophical and cultural views of Karl Joseph Windischmann (1775−1839) and Friedrich Schlegel, studied with Antoine Léonard de Chézy (1773−1832) and Antoine-Isaac Silvestre de Sacy (1758−1838) in Paris; he was, however, to a large extent an autodidact in the field of Sanskrit linguistics and comparative philology. In 1816 his Über das Conjugationssystem was published with an introduction by Windischmann. The goal of the work is a general one: to show the organic workings of language. In order to unravel these, Bopp analyses the most fundamental component in language, viz. the verb (Zeitwort, ‘time-word’), which is the grammatical bond between subject and predicate, and thus the expression of the essential relation in language. The approach must be comparative, so as to enhance the validity of the resulting conclusions; and the comparison deals with the “sacred language of India” − most apt to express, through inner flection and building of the stem syllable, the various relations and additional determinations − and

175

176

III. Historical perspectives on Indo-European linguistics its cognate languages, viz. Greek, Latin, German, and Persian (in fact, little use is made of the latter). The work is an attempt to understand the formation (Bildung) of verb forms, as it existed in the “simple language organism” (einfaches Sprachorganismus); this simple organism has to be studied primarily through the analysis − in fact a dissection of verb forms − of the verb system in Sanskrit, Greek, and Gothic, since languages such as Latin testify to the introduction of new processes, especially periphrasis (Umschreibung); such processes are not new “organic” modifications, but “mechanical” devices. In his 1816 work Bopp proceeds by discussing, consecutively, the building of verb forms in Sanskrit (chapter 2, p. 12−60), Greek (ch. 3, p. 61−87), and Latin (ch. 4, p. 88− 115); those of German(ic) and Persian are treated together in a single chapter (ch. 5, p. 116−136). The ideas put forward in the Conjugationssystem can be summarized as follows: 1. The analytical comparison of the verb system of the five languages shows a common origin; 2. This common origin appears in two formative processes, viz. a) internal change of the root (Ablaut) b) agglutination or incorporation (Einverleibung), which is chronologically posterior. In October of 1818 Bopp went to London, where he established contacts with English scholars of Sanskrit. He translated his 1816 work into English. The result, published in 1820 under the title Analytical Comparison of the Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, and Teutonic Languages, Shewing the Original Identity of their Grammatical Structure was a rather different text: Persian was left out from the comparison, and instead of a successive treatment of the ancient languages examined, we find here only an introduction and two chapters, one dealing with roots, the other with verbs. The 1820 book explicitly addresses the importance of the comparative enterprise, and the place of Sanskrit (now put on the same level with Greek and Latin). Bopp expounds here his theory of the Indo-European root as monosyllabic, segmentally diversified (possible configurations that are mentioned are V, CV, CVC, VC [V = vowel; C = consonant]), and not defined by the number of “letters”. Rejecting Schlegel’s typology, Bopp distinguishes genuine inflection (either by change of vowels or by reduplication), and the process of adding particles to a root. The general linguistic underpinnings of Bopp’s approach remained largely philosophical (cf. Verburg 1950, 1952): referring to the ideas of Everardus Scheidius (1742−1795) Bopp defends the thesis that verb forms fundamentally have the (underlying) structure (e.g. John sings = ‘John-is-singing’). On the basis of such a view verb forms are analyzed as consisting of a) the root + a person-marking particle (e.g. in the present tense) b) the root (possibly in a modified form) + a mood-indicating element + a personmarking particle (in the potential) c) a “foreign addition” + the root + a person-marking particle (preterit forms) d) a reduplicated root + a person-marking particle (second preterit forms) e) the root + a form of the verb ‘to be’ + person-marking particle. In 1821 Bopp was appointed at Berlin University, where he remained active until his death. In the period 1821−1867 Bopp published several books and memoirs, such as a grammar and dictionary of Sanskrit, translations of Sanskrit texts, and also studies on

16. Indo-European linguistics in the 19 th and 20 th centuries the position of the Celtic languages, of Old Prussian, and Albanian. His chief work in the field of comparative grammar was his Vergleichende Grammatik des Sanskrit, Zend, Griechischen, Lateinischen, Litthauischen, Gothischen und Deutschen (Berlin), of which the first volume appeared in 1833; the work was to comprise 3 volumes in its first edition, spread over twenty years (1833−1852). In the following decades Bopp revised the work, of which a second (1857−1861, integrating Armenian and Old Church Slavonic) and third (posthumous, 1868−1871) edition appeared. Bopp’s Vergleichende Grammatik brings to their logical conclusion the views put forward in his early works of 1816 and 1820. The result can be summarized as follows: 1° Indo-European words are derived from monosyllabic roots (of which there exist two types: verbo-nominal and pronominal); 2° case-endings are, as a general rule, originally pronouns; 3° personal endings of verb forms stem from pronouns; 4° the verbal augment is identical with the a privativum; 5° the causative suffix contains the verb “to go”, and the desiderative suffix contains the verb “to be”; 6° stem-building suffixes are either of verbal or pronominal origin. Bopp’s merits are indisputable: he laid out the field of Indo-European comparative grammar, founded a style of research and writing, and in applying analytical comparison was able to show the formative processes that tie together Sanskrit, Persian, and their European cognates, and to shed light on how grammatical forms in Indo-European came about and how they developed. However, all this should not conceal the defects of his approach (even when one makes abstraction of his attempts to posit links between the Indo-European languages and Caucasian and even Malayo-Polynesian). Bopp did not go beyond the analytical comparison of forms (yielding at times valuable hypotheses): his view on the historical relationship of the languages he compared was meagre (he hardly considered intergroup-relationship within Indo-European), and his grasp of historical processes very limited (e.g., he did not engage in a study of the [morpho]phonemic processes). His inflexible belief in the non-grammatical nature of apophony made him miss the essential distinction between phonetically triggered changes and grammatically relevant alternations (which may have the same surface realization). In his general approach to language history, Bopp wavers between naturalism and historicism (cf. Bologna 1992). Although he was a practitioner of philological methods, Bopp viewed languages as massive formations, of which the origin and development could be analytically traced. As to linguistic change, Bopp seems to have understood the nature of change in a rather static way: static, because he frequently appeals to an explanation in terms of euphony. Initially, his view of change was also rather “asystemic”: in 1816, he speaks of arbitrariness, chance, hazard, but later he adopted a more nuanced view, recognizing, at least to some extent, regularity in the modification of sounds. [On Bopp’s life and work, and his contribution to comparative grammar, see Kuhn (1868), Lefmann (1891−1897), Pätsch (1960), Orlandi (1962), Neumann (1967), Koerner (1984), Sternemann (1984a, 1984b, 1994, ed. 1994), Morpurgo-Davies (1987), Schlerath (1989), Eichner (1994).] Although their observations and conclusions were tangential to the history of the Indo-European languages, Rask and Bopp’s main interest was in circumscribing the range of Indo-European languages − those known to them and those identified as such −, and in noting correspondences between forms, and thus not so much in accounting for changes (including zero change) lying behind the forms gathered in correspondence sets. Their approach was a mixture of comparison, typology and general (“rational”) grammar (cf. Swiggers 1993; Swiggers and Desmet 1996), and − more in the case of Bopp − of

177

178

III. Historical perspectives on Indo-European linguistics philological documentation. Their practice of “horizontal” comparison was adopted by followers such as Frédéric-Gustave Eichhoff (1799−1875) (Parallèle des langues de l’Europe et de l’Inde, ou Étude des principales langues romanes, germaniques, slavonnes et celtiques, comparées entre elles et à la langue sanscrite, avec un essai de transcription générale, Paris, 1836), Karl Mori(t)z Rapp (1803−1883) (Grundriss der Grammatik des indischeuropäischen Sprachstammes, Stuttgart/Tübingen/Augsburg, 1852−1859, 6 vols.), or Louis Benloew (1818−1901) (Aperçu général de la science comparative des langues pour servir d’introduction à un traité comparé des langues indo-européennes, Paris, 1858; second edn. 1872), all works that lagged behind the state of the art at the time they were published. Insights into language changes and, in a broader scope, into the chronological relationships between the languages compared, remained sporadic, and not integrated into an historical-linguistic view.

4. Further developments: comparison and history From its beginnings, Indo-European comparative linguistics was shaped and colored by the range of languages taken − or not taken − into account or privileged by the practitioners of the discipline, as is already clear from the respective role and contribution of Rask and Bopp. A factor overarching scholars’ strategic options has been, of course, the availability of materials, and the appearance of new data, as well as of new languages or language groups to be added to the inventory. [On the role of Sanskrit, see Grotsch (1989) and Rocher (2001).] In the 19 th century there was a steady increase of materials for the older stages of languages within the various branches of Indo-European, and in some cases this carried methodological implications, e.g. a revision of the role of Sanskrit caused by the decipherment of Old Persian, or new insights into factors of language change stemming from the study of Vulgar Latin. In the period between the first and second edition of Bopp’s Vergleichende Grammatik − the endpoint of which coincides with Schleicher’s comprehensive reconstruction of (proto-)Indo-European (cf. § 5 below) −, scholarly work in the field of Indo-European was marked by two major, and largely complementary, developments: (i) on the one hand, a string of fine-grained studies of individual (sub)branches of the Indo-European language family, starting with Germanic, then followed by Romance, Celtic, and Slavic; (ii) on the other hand, the etymological determination of the common lexical stock of Indo-European, coupled with the identification of the gradual separation of the various branches, as evidenced by lexical differentiation (cf. Jankowsky 1996). Pioneering work in the latter domain was done by August Friedrich Pott (1802−1887), a specialist in the (Indo-Iranian) gypsy languages, in his Etymologische Forschungen auf dem Gebiete der Indo-Germanischen Sprachen mit besonderen Bezug auf die Lautwandlung im Sanskrit, Griechischen, Lateinischen, Littauischen und Gothischen (Lemgo, 1833−1836, 2 vols.; a much enlarged second edition appeared between 1859 and 1876, in six volumes, and includes a Wurzel-Wörterbuch der Indogermanischen Sprachen). On Pott, see Leopold (1983), Bologna (1990), and Plank (1993). As to the first development mentioned above − the study of individual branches of the Indo-European family −, this resulted in a historical “filling” and “deepening” of the

16. Indo-European linguistics in the 19 th and 20 th centuries comparative approach. Immediately following upon the 1816 and 1818 works of Bopp and Rask, Jacob Grimm (1785−1863) undertook pioneering work on the Germanic languages. Grimm was a Romantic mind, influenced by the humanist scholar and lawyer Friedrich Carl von Savigny (1779−1851); he was less philosophically slanted than Bopp or the Schlegels, but imbued with a sense of historicity (with application to language, literature, law, and mythology). Moreover, as a gatherer of texts, expressions, and words − together with his brother Wilhelm (1786−1859) he started a monumental Deutsches Wörterbuch, of which the two brothers published three volumes between 1859 and 1864 −, Jacob Grimm was well at home in etymology and in the intricacies of sound changes; he rejected the conception of languages as self-developing organisms. In 1819 he published the first volume of his grammar of the Germanic languages (Deutsche Grammatik, in which 15 Germanic language varieties, mostly in their older stages, are dealt with). Having studied Rask’s 1818 work, he revised the first volume, of which he published a second edition in 1822 (this volume, of almost 600 pages, was followed by three more, in 1826, 1831 and 1837, covering morphology, lexicon, and syntax). It is in the second edition that Grimm offers a comprehensive treatment of the sound patterns of the Germanic languages, and it is here that he formulates (more explicitly and more systematically than Rask had done) the consonant shifts of Germanic (the triple chain of changes: b > p, d > t, g > k; p > f, t > θ, k > h; bh > b, dh > d, gh > g accounting for the evolution from Indo-European to Germanic). The account of these shifts is generally referred to as Grimm’s Law (in fact, Grimm also added a second stage to his explanatory account: this second stage concerns the evolution of these consonants from protoGermanic to Old High German; cf. Collinge [1985: 63−76] for a detailed discussion of the law and its posterity). It is important to stress that Grimm constructed his chain-like law of Lautverschiebung (‘sound displacement’) as (a) an etymological device, and (b) in order to describe the correspondences holding between Germanic and other IndoEuropean languages; he also viewed the evolution as (c) reflecting a spiritual characteristic of the Germanic peoples. Within Germanic, Grimm also discovered the effects of the (phonetically conditioned) Umlaut-process (absent from Gothic); Grimm discussed both u- and i-Umlaut (the latter had already been pointed out by Rask before him). As to the workings of (grammatically conditioned) vowel alternations (Ablaut or apophony) which are manifest in Germanic, he was unable to explain them, but he surmised these to be a phenomenon typical of the original stages of languages. Grimm’s views on the consonant and vowel system of Germanic signal a major step forward with regard to Rask and Bopp. However, they were far from complete, among other things, because of the neglect of the role of the accent. Also, Grimm had to admit that his explanatory principles could not account for certain facts, but just like Rask and Bopp, he did not claim that phonetic evolution was governed by rigid laws: there are always words that “escape the current of innovation”. Grimm’s work was mainly in the field of Germanic (in 1848 he also published a Geschichte der deutschen Sprache), but his comparative outlook was a broad one, including Latin, Greek, Sanskrit, Persian, and Slavic. As a matter of fact, Grimm paved the way for later comparative studies of the Slavic languages through the introduction he wrote to his translation of Vuk Stefanovič Karadžič’s (1787−1864) grammar of Serbian (Wuk’s Stephanowitsch Kleine Serbische Grammatik verdeutscht und mit einer Vorrede, Leipzig − Berlin, 1824). [On Grimm’s life and career, see Scherer (1865), Ker (1915),

179

180

III. Historical perspectives on Indo-European linguistics Ginschel (1967), Denecke (1971), Wyss (1979), Lötzsch (1985), Neumann (1985), Cherubim (1986), Denecke and Teitge (1989), Krapf (1993).] A field in which the historical relationships could be traced along lines of a more accurate chronology was Romance. Although belonging to a “subordinate” order within the overarching span of Indo-European, the field of Romance − which had attracted Romanticist attention with figures such as Claude Fauriel (1772−1844), François-JusteMarie Raynouard (1761−1836), and August-Wilhelm Schlegel − yielded interesting implications for Indo-European comparative grammar. Friedrich Diez (1794−1876), who had started out as a student of Old Provençal and Old Spanish and Portuguese poetry, was to apply the principles of comparative grammar, supplying these with historical insights. He corrected the unfounded views of scholars such as Raynouard and Lorenz Diefenbach (1806−1883), and founded the historical-comparative study of the Romance languages, with a monumental grammar (Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen, 1836− 1844) and an etymological dictionary (Etymologisches Wörterbuch der romanischen Sprachen, 1853). Working with classical Latin as the ancestor language, and with Romance materials gleaned not only from the major Romance languages but also from minor varieties, Diez was able to identify and describe more accurately sound changes (and correspondences), and to differentiate between inherited vocabulary and loans. The view, prevailing in the first half of the century, that classical Latin was the immediate ancestor of the Romance languages was definitively corrected by Hugo Schuchardt (1842−1927) in his Vokalismus des Vulgärlateins (1866−1868). Among other branches of Indo-European that were explored in greater detail in the first half of the 19 th century, yielding important materials to be added to the overall comparison of the Indo-European languages, mention must be mentioned of Slavic and Celtic. In the Slavic field, in which Vasilij K. Tatiščev (1686−1750) and Mixal Lomonosov (1711−1765) had done pioneering work in the 18 th century, Joseph Dobrovský (1753−1829) laid the first solid foundations with his Institutiones linguae Slavicae (Vienna, 1822); Slavic historical-comparative grammar and lexicology, as an integral part of Indo-European linguistics, was later established by Franz Miklosich/Franc Miklošić (1813−1891) in his impressive works Vergleichende Grammatik der slavischen Sprachen (Vienna, 1852−1875, 4 vols.; second edn., 1876−1883) and Etymologisches Wörterbuch der slavischen Sprachen (Vienna, 1886). In the Celtic field (in which Edward Lhuyd [1660−1709] had done pioneering work in the early 18 th century), scholarship did not proceed in a straightforward way, because of the persistence of (nationalist or folkloric) convictions that they were not of Indo-European descent. In the wake of Rask and Bopp, James Cowles Prichard (1786−1848) published in 1831 his work The Eastern Origin of the Celtic Nations proved by a comparison of their dialects with the Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, and Teutonic languages (London), followed by Adolphe Pictet’s (1799−1875) De l’affinité des langues celtiques avec le sanskrit (Genève, 1837). But the real foundations of Celtic historical-comparative grammar were laid only in the mid-19 th century by Johann Kaspar Zeuss (1806−1856) in his Grammatica Celtica e monumentis vetustis tam Hibernicae linguae quam Britannicae dialecti Cornicae Armoricae nec non e Gallicae priscae reliquiis construxit J. C. Zeuss (Leipzig, 1853, 2 vols.); on Zeuss, see Poppe (1992). The first, “heroic” period of Indo-European linguistics is characterized by (a) dispersed work of individual scholars, (b) a mix of comparison, typology, language “characterology” and language-philosophical speculation; (c) indecision about the genetic status

16. Indo-European linguistics in the 19 th and 20 th centuries of languages and language groups (cf. the case of Celtic; another example is Armenian, seen as belonging within Indo-Iranian and recognized as a separate branch only in the 1870s); (d) occasional misfires (as Bopp’s comparison between Indo-European and Malayo-Polynesian). A typical manifestation of this early stage of groping in the dark is the vacillating denomination of the language family itself. Simplifying a very complex history (making abstraction, e.g., of the sporadic reappearance of the term “Japhetic”), one can say that Schlegel used “Aryan” (a term already used in the 18 th century), Rask “Thracian” (next to several other terms), Julius Heinrich Klaproth (1783−1835) “Indogermanic” (in 1823), Bopp “Indo-European” (in 1833, though only in the preface), and Pott “Indo-Germanic” (in 1833). The term “Indo-Germanic” seems to have been introduced, in its French form, by the Danish geographer Conrad Malte-Brun (1775−1826), in 1810 (Précis de la géographie universelle […], vol. 2, Paris, 1810, p. 577) and seems to have spread in Germany after its use by Klaproth. The term “Indo-European” was an English coinage, proposed by Thomas Young (1773−1829) in 1813; Bopp adopted it (as indo-europäisch) and, in the second edition of his Vergleichende Grammatik (1852), made a strong case for it (against Pott and his followers), but without much success: in the German-speaking world, indogermanisch was to prevail, contrary to what happened in French and British publications. [On the history of the terms “Indo-European”, “IndoGermanic” and related terms, see Meyer (1893), Meyer (1901), Siegert (1941−1942), Norman (1929), Shapiro (1981) Koerner (1981 = 1989: 149−177), Bolognesi (1994), and Lindner (2011−2015: fasc. 4 of Bd. IV/1).] This first period of Indo-European scholarship also saw the emergence, following upon the linguistic exploration of an idealized Indo-European language unity, of studies on Indo-European civilization. Pioneers (inspired by suggestions voiced by F. Schlegel and Rask) were (Franz Felix) Adalbert Kuhn (1812−1881) (Zur ältesten Geschichte der indogermanischen Völker, Berlin, 1845) and Adolphe Pictet (Les origines indo-européennes ou les Aryas primitifs. Essai de paléontologie linguistique, Paris, 1859−1863). This type of “paleontological linguistics” was methodologically rather superficial; in 1870 Victor Hehn (1813−1890) offered a critical appraisal of it (Culturpflanzen und Hausthiere in ihrem Übergang aus Asien nach Griechenland und Italien sowie in das übrige Europa, Berlin, 1870).

5. New foundations: August Schleicher Franz Bopp reworked his Vergleichende Grammatik during the 1850s (cf. supra), with a second edition appearing between 1857 and 1861 (Berlin) in 3 volumes (a Register volume appeared in 1863). The book was then almost immediately translated into French, under the supervision of Michel Bréal (cf. below), who wrote a lengthy introduction to the translation (Grammaire comparée des langues indo-européennes par François Bopp, traduite sur la deuxième édition et précédée d’une introduction par M. B., Paris, 1866−1872). This is an interesting testimony to France’s lagging behind in the historicalcomparative study of languages, since the revised edition of Bopp’s work appeared at a time when Indo-European linguistics was undergoing profound changes in theory and practice, which do not surface in Bopp’s reworking. Also, in the decade 1850−1860, Indo-European linguistics was gaining full academic recognition in the German-speaking

181

182

III. Historical perspectives on Indo-European linguistics scholarly world, and it was no longer a field plowed by a few individuals, each specializing in one or the other branch. Penetrating insights into the history of languages and into the morphology of language types were integrated in the practice of comparative scholars; also, the narrative, “juxtaposing” style of early comparativism was replaced with a more structural exposition, making more and more use of tabulation of lists and paradigms. The key figure of this period of “re-foundation” is August Schleicher (1821−1868), co-founder of one of the two newly created specialized journals, viz. Beiträge zur vergleichenden Sprachforschung [auf dem Gebiete der Arischen, Celtischen und Slavischen Sprachen] (1858), his associate being Adalbert Kuhn (1812−1881), who in 1852 had launched the other scholarly journal, Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung [auf dem Gebiete des Deutschen, Griechischen und Lateinischen] (often referred to as “KZ”, i.e. Kuhn’s Zeitschrift”). In his short-lived career Schleicher, who insisted on the opposition between Glottik (the study of organic language structures from an evolutionary point of view) and Philologie (the study of [literary] texts), made several important contributions to Indo-European linguistics. On the one hand, he considerably advanced the state of knowledge in the fields of Slavic and Baltic: as to the former, he produced a grammar of Old Church Slavonic (1852) and, more importantly, a grammar of the extinct Polabian language (1871, posthumously edited by his student August Leskien). In the then still insufficiently studied field of Baltic, Schleicher − inspired by the writings of the Lithuanian amateur scholar Friedrich Kurschat/Pridrikis Kursatis (1806−1884) on Lithuanian intonation − undertook a field trip to Lithuania, and published a collection of folkloric texts (1857) and a grammar with a vocabulary (Handbuch der litauischen Sprache, vol. 1: Litauische Grammatik, vol. 2: Litauisches Lesebuch und Glossar, Prague, 1856−1857). His most important contribution, however, was the Compendium der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen: Kurzer Abriss einer Laut- und Formenlehre der indogermanischen Sprache, des Altindischen, Alteranischen, Altgriechischen, Altitalischen, Altkeltischen, Altslawischen, Litauischen und Altdeutschen (Weimar, 1861−1862; second edn., 1866; third and fourth posthumously published editions: 1870 and 1876), a manual which was translated into Italian (1869, based on the second edn.) and English (1874−1877, after the third edn.). [On Schleicher’s life and career, see Lefmann (1870), Schmidt (1887, 1890), Dietze (1966), Koerner (1976, 1989: 210−232, 324−375), Bynon (1986), and Jankowsky (1996).] Schleicher’s comparativist work has numerous merits: (i)

First, Schleicher made it definitely clear that Indo-European had to be reconstructed as a hypothetical language system, i.e. the ancestral stage that could explain the linguistic differentiation into distinct branches of related languages, a constellation in which Sanskrit (as part of an Indo-Iranian branch) was on the same level as Germanic, Baltic, Slavic, Celtic, Italic, Albanian and Greek. (ii) Second, Schleicher made fully explicit his reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-European phonological and morphological system (it is to Schleicher that we owe the use of the asterisk as marking reconstructed forms). He presented his reconstructions in a top-bottom way, before discussing in detail the processes that had led to the respective systems of the different Indo-European branches. While the idea of reconstruction had its predecessors (already in 1837, Theodor Benfey [1809−1881] had pointed to the usefulness, or even necessity of reconstructing Indo-European

16. Indo-European linguistics in the 19 th and 20 th centuries forms), it was Schleicher who gave the first demonstration of it. Schleicher even wrote a short story in reconstructed Indo-European, which encapsulates to a certain extent the view that Indo-Europeanists then had of the proto-language (cf. Lehmann and Zgusta 1979). (iii) Schleicher also proposed a scheme, first in the form of an upward fragmenting plant or tree (“Die ersten Spaltungen des indogermanischen Urvolkes”, Allgemeine Montsschrift für Wissenschaft und Literatur 1853; also in another article, written in Czech, of 1853); after using similar diagrams in his Die deutsche Sprache (Stuttgart, 1860), he proposed in his Compendium (1861−1862) a branching diagram − tree model, or Stammbaum − as a model to represent the “descent” of the different Indo-European branches from the Indo-European Ursprache. The tree diagram (cf. Hoenigswald 1975, Priestly 1975, Koerner 1989: 211−232, 356−357), inspired by the stemmata used by philologists to represent the relationship between textual testimonies going back to an archetype, and also by diagrams used by botanists in Schleicher’s time, is a binary branching tree, headed by the bifurcation into Slawodeutsch (splitting into Germanic and Balto-Slavic) and Ario-griechisch-italo-keltisch. Since the model is incapable of representing the (complex) intersections between branches, and does not stand in an iconic relationship with the geographical dispersion of language groups, an alternative, wave-like model was developed. This Wellen-model, more in line with the findings of dialectology, was proposed in the early 1870s (by Schuchardt in 1870 in a lecture eventually published in 1900, on the classification of the Romance varieties, and by Johannes Schmidt in 1872, in his Die Verwandtschaftsverhältnisse der indogermanischen Sprachen [Weimar]). However, Schleicher’s tree model (which was immediately defended by August Fick, Die ehemalige Spracheinheit der Indogermanen Europas. Eine sprachgeschichtliche Untersuchung [Göttingen, 1873]) remained in use; modern cladistic phylogenetic techniques also use tree-like diagrams (“dendrograms”), which can be combined with a chronological X-axis or Y-axis. (iv) In two ways, Schleicher marks an important advance with respect to Bopp: (a) he was able to integrate his comparative study of the Indo-European languages within a theoretically and empirically well underpinned typology of languages (cf. Swiggers and Van Hal 2014), yielding a definition of the morphological characteristics of Indo-European; (b) although still admitting the non-absolute character of sound laws, Schleicher stressed their overall generality, guaranteeing the systematicity of the comparison of form correspondences between related languages. As such, he prepared the way for the Neogrammarian principle (cf. § 6 below) of exceptionless sound laws (cf. Schmidt 1887). Indo-European comparative linguistics is highly indebted to Schleicher for the technical aspects of his practice, in a science-historical (or “Popperian”) sense: Schleicher’s reconstruction of Indo-European − especially of its phonological system − served as a hypothesis inviting confirmation or refutation. Within the next two generations Schleicher’s vowel system for Indo-European (three original vowels: a-i-u, with two increment levels: aa-ai-au, āa-āi-āu) was substantially revised (for a detailed account, see Bechtel 1892 and Benware 1974). His consonant system (with, inter alia, three rows of obstruents) did not undergo radical changes, but extensions and refinements (e.g. the introduction of a labiovelar series; the positing of syllabicity-bearing consonants).

183

184

III. Historical perspectives on Indo-European linguistics Schleicher’s comparativist work was embedded not only in a language typology, but also in a theory of language and linguistics, where influences from Hegel’s philosophy and from naturalism in general (later, specifically, from Darwin’s evolutionary theory) had flown together (see Streitberg 1897, who argues that the general basis was Hegelian philosophy, into which naturalist ideas enfolded themselves). For Schleicher, languages are to be regarded as natural organisms, having a life of their own: they develop and grow until they reach a perfect stage (in the case of the Indo-European languages that stage was reached by the common Indo-European proto-language), which is then followed by a period of decline. (On the influence of biological models in 19 th-century linguistics, and particularly in the period of Schleicher, see Picardi [1977], Wells [1987]; see also various other chapters in Hoenigswald − Wiener [eds. 1987]). The task of linguists is to describe the life cycle of languages; in the case of Indo-European, to investigate the evolution from the perfect stage of common Indo-European to the degenerated stages of the distinct branches. Schleicher’s theory of language − which, fortunately, had no damaging effects on the intrinsic aspect of his comparative work − gave rise to a twofold reception. On the one hand, it was vehemently criticized by the following generations of scholars who stressed the historical nature of linguistics and of languages: criticisms were voiced not only by the more limited circle of Neogrammarians, but also by scholars such as Whitney, Schuchardt, Bréal, and Saussure. On the other hand, Schleicher’s naturalism, reinforced with Friedrich Max Müller’s (1823−1900) evolutionary view (in which languages were rather seen as massive, geological entities; cf. his very popular Lectures on the Science of Language, London, 1861−1864), were enthusiastically embraced by a group of amateur scholars, with Paris as their center-stage, who forged a theory of “naturalist linguistics”, involving an evolutionary typology of languages and races. In spite of their strong internal cohesion (reflected in their journal Revue de linguistique et de philologie comparée, 1867−1916), these naturalist linguists (such as Honoré Chavée [1815−1877], Abel Hovelacque [1843−1896], André Lefèvre [1834−1904], Julien Vinson [1843−1926]) were efficiently marginalized by the leaders of comparativist studies in France (Bréal, Saussure, Meillet, who directed the Mémoires [1868−] and the Bulletin [1869−] of the Société de Linguistique de Paris), and this school of thought died out at the beginning of the 20 th century. (On the naturalist linguistic school, see Desmet 1994, 1996.)

6. Revolution and paradigmatic science: the Neogrammarians and Saussure Schleicher’s codification of Indo-European comparative grammar and his reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European soon came under fire. In the 1870s a group of young scholars at Leipzig, led by the Indo-Europeanists Hermann Osthoff (1847−1909) and Karl Brugmann (1849−1919), and supported by the Germanic scholar Wilhelm Braune (1850− 1926) and the Sanskritist and Indo-Europeanist Berthold Delbrück (1842−1922), active at Jena, rejected the evolutionary views of Schleicher, relativized the usefulness of linguistic reconstruction, modified on various points Schleicher’s description of the vowel and consonant system of Indo-European and his explanation of phonetic and morphological changes, and − most importantly − rigidified the concept of regular sound change.

16. Indo-European linguistics in the 19 th and 20 th centuries The founding-ground of their ideas can be traced to the work of Schleicher’s former student August Leskien (1840−1916) on Die Declination im Slavisch-Litauischen und Germanischen (Leipzig, 1876), and to Wilhelm Scherer’s (1841−1886) book Zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache (Berlin, 1868; second edn. 1878): both authors had pointed to the astonishingly regular character of phonetic changes. The Leipzig group was strengthened in its conviction and its polemical stand by the discovery, in the years 1875 to 1878 (cf. Hoenigswald 1978; Koerner 1976), of a number of important sound laws explaining large-scale processes in the history and diversification of Indo-European: most prominent among these were Verner’s Law (1875), by which Karl Verner (1846− 1896) could explain the apparent exceptions to Grimm’s law of the general obstruent shifts in Germanic, by referring to the decisive role of accent position; Brugmann’s (1876) positing of syllabicity-bearing nasals (and liquids); and the “Law of the palatals” (the 1878 result of cumulative contributions by several scholars: V. Thomsen, K. Verner, Esaias Tegnér [1843−1928], F. de Saussure, H. Collitz, and J. Schmidt). In the same period (1875−1878) Heinrich Hübschmann (1848−1908) established, especially on phonological grounds, the exact genetic position of Armenian, and Eduard Sievers (1850− 1932) published his foundational work on articulatory phonetic processes and their use in explaining language-historical facts. Together with a number of innovating papers (by Brugmann and Osthoff) on Indo-European declension patterns, these articles, and the abovementioned works of Leskien and Scherer (second edn.) constituted, by 1878, a constellation of impressive advances in comparative studies. Consequently, the Neogrammarians felt they could claim their views to be scientifically superior to those of the preceding generation(s). The Leipzig comparativists, designated by the term Junggrammatiker (‘Neogrammarians’), first used as a jocular nickname, was remarkable for its strong doctrinal cohesion, its innovative empirical work, and its baffling work capacity. Three of its most prominent members produced monumental compendia: Brugmann and Delbrück (Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen. Kurzgefasste Darstellung der Geschichte des Altindischen, Altiranischen [Avestischen und Altpersischen], Altarmenischen, Altgriechischen, Lateinischen, Albanesischen, Umbrisch-Samnitischen, Altirischen, Gotischen, Althochdeutschen, Litauischen und Altkirchenslavischen, 1886−1900, 5 vols.; second edn. 1897−1916, 5 vols. in 9 parts [with Delbrück’s three-part contribution to the first edition (vols. 3−5), Vergleichende Syntax der Indogermanischen Sprachen, 1893−1900, added unchanged by the publisher]); Delbrück (Syntaktische Forschungen, 1871−1888, 5 vols.); and Hermann Paul (Deutsche Grammatik, 1916−1920, 5 vols.). The group had in its ranks scholars with theoretical ambitions. The young Karl Brugmann (with Osthoff approvingly co-signing) formulated the principle of the absolute regularity (“exceptionlessness”) of sound change (if not touched by analogy). This principle, stated in the preface to the first volume of Brugmann and Osthoff’s Morphologische Untersuchungen (1878) was the cornerstone of their “uniformitarianist” assumption that language evolution followed the same lines and principles through time, being universally subject to identical conditions. Uniformitarianism had been proposed, in the 1780s by James Hutton (1726−1797), as an evolutionary theory; in the 19 th century the theory was further developed in geology by Charles Lyell (1797−1875) and William Whewell (1794−1866). It consists of the principle that processes in the present can be assumed to have been identical in the past (cf. Christy 1983). [Concerning the influence of geology on the language sciences in the second half of the 19 th century, see Naumann, Plank, and Hofbauer (eds. 1992).] The study of linguistic

185

186

III. Historical perspectives on Indo-European linguistics change as observed (or presumed!) in dialects was hailed as the touchstone for explaining, by chronological “retroprojection”, changes in the past. The Freiburg Germanist Hermann Paul (1846−1921), the major theoretician of the group, whose Principien [later: Prinzipien] der Sprachgeschichte (1880; fourth edition, the last one revised by Paul, in 1920) constituted the Neogrammarian theoretical synthesis for diachronic linguistics, stated that the “historical” approach was the only scientific one in linguistics. Paul offered a theoretical frame for the explanation of language change, as caused by individuals and adopted by (part of) the community. Although the Neogrammarians admitted that the laws of the evolution of languages cannot and should not be seen as “natural” laws (they finally endorsed the view that sound laws were global historical phenomena), and although they stressed that linguistics is a historical discipline, they never yielded to Heymann Steinthal’s (1823−1899) psychologically based views nor to Wilhelm Wundt’s (1832−1920) sociologically based theory of language and linguistic evolution, although both authors influenced the views of some Neogrammarians. [On the Neogrammarian movement, see the insiders’ account of Delbrück (1880, with re-editions), and Meriggi (1966), Putschke (1969), Jankowsky (1972), Norman (1972), Růžička (1977), Robins (1978), Quattordio Moreschini (1986), Einhauser (1989), and Gippert (1994); for studies of individual figures, see, e.g., Brugmann (1909; on Osthoff), Streitberg (1919; on Brugmann), Hermann (1923; on Delbrück), Morpurgo-Davies (1986; on Brugmann), and Reis (1978; on Paul). On the Neogrammarian concept of Lautgesetz, see Wechssler (1900), Schneider (1973), and Jankowsky (1979); for a survey of the various sound laws formulated by the Neogrammarians, and by subsequent generations of Indo-Europeanists, cf. Collinge (1985, 1995). On the two explanatory principles, sound law and analogy, see Hermann (1931), Vallini (1972) and Jankowsky (1990).] The Neogrammarians had the merit of stressing, much more than Schleicher, the need for phonetic accuracy as a basic requirement for the adequate description of sound change, caused by the physical properties and processes of the articulatory apparatus. The progress in experimental phonetics was at the service of historical-comparative linguistics and historical linguistics, as can be seen in the work of Eduard Sievers (1850− 1932), Grundzüge der Lautphysiologie zur Einführung in das Studium der Lautlehre der indogermanischen Sprachen (1876). The Neogrammarian principle of exceptionless sound change, used as a powerful heuristic tool, was criticized by some contemporaries (for a selection of texts, see Wilbur 1977), mainly from three angles: 1. scholars such as Georg Curtius (1820−1885), belonging to Schleicher’s generation, and the Italian “glottologist” Graziadio Isaia Ascoli (1829−1907) stressed the role of conservative factors and of substratal influences in the history of languages; 2. historical linguists with sharp theoretical views, such as the American Sanskritist William Dwight Whitney (1827−1894) and the French Indo-Europeanist Michel Bréal (1832−1915) criticized the neglect of social and cultural factors by the Neogrammarians in their approach to language change; 3. the versatile German scholar Hugo Schuchardt (1842−1927), at home in half a dozen language families, sharply criticized the principle of regular sound change, and its mechanistic nature. In his pamphlet Über die Lautgesetze. Gegen die Junggrammatiker (Berlin, 1885) he argues that (i) there is no “pure linguistic community”, mixture being the normal situation in a linguistic society; (ii) there is no basis for distinguishing between the workings of a sound law and those of analogy; (iii) linguistic change

16. Indo-European linguistics in the 19 th and 20 th centuries cannot be mechanically explained, given the complexity of conditioning factors. Schuchardt’s objections were soon confirmed on a large empirical scale by dialectological work, e.g. that of Georg Wenker (1852−1911), Heinrich Morf (1854−1921), Louis Gauchat (1866−1942), and, especially, Jules Gilliéron (1854−1926). Also in the 1870s, and precisely at Leipzig, a work was published which was to revolutionize Indo-European comparative grammar. It appeared in December 1878 (official publication date: 1879), and was written in French by a young Swiss who had come to study for one year at Leipzig. In his Mémoire sur le système primitif des voyelles dans les langues indo-européennes, the author, Ferdinand de Saussure (1857−1913), took as his starting point morphophonemic alternations in verbal patterns of Sanskrit, and was led to reconstruct a vowel system, accounting for qualitative and quantitative alternations in the Indo-European languages; this reconstruction involved the positing of two fully hypothetical (i.e. nowhere directly attested as such) phonological units, viz. two coefficients sonantiques. To Saussure’s two coefficients (“A” and “O”) the Danish comparativist Hermann Möller (1850−1923) added a third one (“E”), and defined their nature as “laryngeals”, thus establishing a link with the existence of post-velar (consonantal) sounds in the Semitic languages. Interestingly, Saussure’s reconstruction was based, not on the comparison of the phonological systems of ancient Indo-European language stages, but on the observation of morphophonemic alternations; this was also the case with the reconstructive positing of a nasalis sonans (syllabic nasal; in fact the discovery involved two nasals: n̥ and m̥, and a liquid and vibrant: l̥ , r̥), a discovery which Saussure had made when still at school but for which the honor eventually fell to Brugmann (“Nasalis sonans in der indogermanischen Grundsprache”, published in 1876 in volume 9 of Studien zur griechischen und lateinischen Grammatik). In connection with this, one has to point out that the study of morphophonemic alternations was to become one of the core interests of linguists; foundation-laying (synchronic and diachronic) work in the field was done by the Polish linguists Jan Baudouin de Courtenay (1845−1929) and Mikolaj Kruszewski (1851−1887). [On Saussure’s Mémoire and the anticipation of his general linguistic theory, see Kuryłowicz (1978), Redard (1978), Vallini (1978), Watkins (1978), Mayrhofer (1981, 1988), Gmür (1986), and Koerner (1987); on Baudouin de Courtenay and Kruszewski, see Jakobson (1967), Häusler (1968), Stankiewicz (1976), Mugdan (1984), Williams (1991), and Koerner (1989: 376−399).] Saussure’s hypothetical vowel system involving the action of “laryngeals” was to receive confirmation, half a century later, through the evidence of cuneiform Hittite (cf. § 7 below). Although this work, as well as other insights into the structure of ProtoIndo-European (e.g. concerning the consonant system), confirmed the general approach of the Leipzig Neogrammarians, Saussure never adhered to the principles of the Junggrammatiker, whom he criticized for their theoretical shortsightedness. In subsequent years, Saussure engaged less in comparative-reconstructionist work, preferring to focus on problems of historical linguistics, and, from the 1890s, on problems of general linguistics, resulting in his (posthumously published) Cours de linguistique générale (Genève/Paris, 1916). The latter work laid the foundations for European structuralist linguistics, which was to have an impact on the development of historical-comparative linguistics. Whether the Neogrammarians’ self-proclaimed revolutionary stand was justified or not − some of their contemporaries, such as the abovementioned (§ 5) Johannes Schmidt (1843−1901), a former student of Schleicher, held that their work was in continuity with Schleicher’s (a view endorsed in recent linguistic historiography; cf. Koerner 1975 and

187

188

III. Historical perspectives on Indo-European linguistics 1989: 324−365) − remains a matter of debate and personal appreciation. It must also be pointed out (as Saussure already did) that the Neogrammarians’ bold theoretical claims were after all poor in theoretical substance. Nevertheless, the impact of their teaching and output was profound. On the one hand, this has an intrinsic explanation: when considered post factum, a linguistic change can only be said to be “regular”; nor can one deny the existence of analogical processes (in synchrony and diachrony); everybody will agree that language change is the result of a social selection and adoption of innovations produced by individuals; finally, that divergences between genetically related languages can be described and explained in terms of retention vs. innovation is unproblematic. As such, the Neogrammarian view was, and still is, “factually correct”; this explains Hermann’s (1931: 6) statement that in actual practice there was hardly a historical-comparative scholar who did not adopt the sound-law principle. The other reason for their great impact was their institutional strength and cohesion: the Neogrammarians created new journals for Indo-European and its branches (e.g. Indogermanische Forschungen, founded in 1891 by Brugmann and Streitberg, coupled with an Anzeiger and a Jahrbuch), published compendia (cf. the Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik, mentioned above; Gustav Gröber [ed.], Grundriss der romanischen Philologie, Strasbourg, 1888−1906, 4 vols.; Wilhelm Geiger and Ernst Kuhn [eds.], Grundriss der iranischen Philologie, Strasbourg, 1896−1904, 2 vols.; Hermann Paul [ed.], Grundriss der germanischen Philologie, Strasbourg, 1891−1893, 2 vols. [second edn. 1901−1909, 4 vols.]; Reinhold Trautmann and Max Vasmer [eds.], Grundriss der slavischen Philologie und Kulturgeschichte, Berlin − Leipzig, 1927), and manuals (e.g., Brugmann published a Kurze vergleichende Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen, Strasbourg, 1902−1904). Under the direction of linguists working along Neogrammarian principles, such as Wilhelm Streitberg (1864−1925) and Wilhelm Meyer-Lübke (1861−1936), collections of elementary grammars and study books were launched with the publishing house Carl Winter in Heidelberg (Sammlung germanischer Elementar- und Handbücher; Sammlung romanischer Elementar- und Handbücher). As a result, the general approach of the Neogrammarians received confirmation even in the writings of scholars who did not (fully) endorse their bold statements on sound laws or on the purity of dialects, such as Johannes Schmidt and his student Hermann Collitz (1855−1935) (who later emigrated to the United States and became the first president of the Linguistic Society of America), the Swiss Celticist (Eduard) Rudolf Thurneysen (1857−1940, author of a still invaluable Handbuch des Altirischen [1909]), or the Dutch general linguist Christiaan Cornelis Uhlenbeck (1866−1951); and the same may be said, after all, of astute critics such as F. de Saussure and W. D. Whitney. With the Neogrammarians, the comparative method had come full circle: the generation of Bopp had used grammatical and phonetic correspondences in order to prove genetic relationships and to distinguish subgroups within a family; the generation of Schleicher had proposed a reconstruction from which to derive the parent languages and had clarified the historical principles at work within the various branches. The Neogrammarians now explained these historical principles through sound laws, which served as reliable tools in accounting for horizontal and vertical relationships within the language family. The “Neogrammarian” spirit influenced, or harmonized with, the general linguistic approach of many scholars outside Central Europe: many Scandinavian scholars worked along the same lines, including Vilhelm Thomsen (1842−1927), whose work spans a wide spectrum of language families (Indo-European, Finno-Ugric, Altaic), Karl Johans-

16. Indo-European linguistics in the 19 th and 20 th centuries son (1860−1926), Per Persson (1857−1929), Sophus Bugge (1833−1907) and Alf Torp (1853−1916); and for Russia one must mention the name of Filipp Fortunatov (1848− 1914), who instilled the principles of Neogrammarian linguistics in his students. The second half of the 19 th century also saw sustained comparativist work on IndoEuropean civilization, initially focusing on comparative mythology and religion, with Michel Bréal (Mélanges de mythologie et de linguistique, Paris, 1877) and the Vedic and Sanskrit scholar Friedrich Max Müller (Essay on Comparative Mythology, Oxford, 1856; Chips from a German Workshop, London, 1868−1875, 4 vols.) as eloquent practitioners, and on the reconstructed lexicon of the Proto-Indo-European people, carrying culturehistorical implications, as in the case of August Fick (Wörterbuch der indogermanischen Grundsprache in ihrem Bestande vor der Völkertrennung, Leipzig, 1868; later editions under the title Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der indogermanischen Sprachen, 1870−1871, and 1874−1876). Towards the end of the century, a methodologically more mature cultural-linguistic comparativism involved the study of the material and spiritual culture of the Indo-Europeans and the determination of their homeland (a topic very popular at the turn of the century, as can be seen from book publications by Matthias Much and Karl Helm, in the years 1902−1905, and by Hirt’s Die Indogermanen: Ihre Verbreitung, ihre Urheimat und ihre Kultur [1905]). The older “linguistic palaeontology” had by then developed into an interdisciplinary Altertumskunde (linked to, but not dependent on Neogrammarian linguistics), of which Paul Kretschmer (1866−1956) and Otto Schrader (1855−1919) were prominent representatives. Under Schrader’s direction an impressive undertaking, the Reallexicon der indogermanischen Alterthumskunde. Grundzüge einer Kultur- und Völkergeschichte Alteuropas was published at the very beginning of the 20 th century (Strasbourg, 1901). This work was revised and expanded during the first quarter of the 20 th century, incorporating new materials (second edition published under the editorship of Alfons Nehring [1886−1968], between 1917 and 1929, Berlin/Leipzig, 2 vols.). In 1913 the Gothic-specialist Sigmund Feist (1865−1943) published a onevolume synthesis: Kultur, Ausbreitung und Herkunft der Indogermanen (Berlin). In the following decades, research on the origins and the spread of the Indo-Europeans and their civilization unfortunately fell prey to ideologically-colored approaches.

7. The remodeling of Indo-European comparative grammar in the first half of the 20 th century The first half of the 20 th century saw a succession, and partly overlap, of two developments, one marked by continuity and consolidation, the other by innovation, on both the empirical and theoretical level. (For a historical assessment of Indo-European studies in the first decades of the 20 th century, see Specht 1948; for an overview of changing views on the vowel system of Indo-European in the 20 th century, see Mayrhofer 2004, complementing the abovementioned survey of Bechtel 1892.) The Neogrammarian framework received codification at the beginning of the 20 th century, with Brugmann’s abridgment of the Vergleichende Grammatik into a Kurze vergleichende Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen (Strasbourg, 1902−1904; immediately translated into French by Meillet and a group of Paris scholars, 1905), and with Meillet’s Introduction à l’étude comparative des langues indo-européennes (Paris, 1903;

189

190

III. Historical perspectives on Indo-European linguistics eighth edition, with a foreword by E. Benveniste, Paris, 1937; a German translation by W. Printz appeared in 1909: Einführung in die vergleichende Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen, Leipzig), a limpid, uncontroversial synthesis of Indo-European comparative linguistics, which became a classic. The towering figure in Indo-European linguistics in the first three decades of the 20 th century was the abovementioned French scholar Antoine Meillet (1866−1936), a student of Ferdinand de Saussure and Michel Bréal. Meillet was at home in (nearly) all the language groups within Indo-European then known (Indo-Iranian, Armenian, Slavic and Baltic, Greek, Latin, Germanic, and Celtic). Apart from foundational work on the lexicon of the Slavic languages, on the grammar and vocabulary of Armenian, and on the history of Greek and Latin, Meillet wrote extensively on the comparative method (as applied in the fields of Indo-European; cf. Meillet La méthode comparative en linguistique historique [1925], still a classic), and also authored one of the most successful introductions to Indo-European comparative grammar, the already mentioned Introduction. But the same Meillet was to enlarge the theoretical frame of Indo-European studies, through the integration of methodological insights stemming from dialectology (cf. his Les dialectes indo-européens, Paris, 1908) and his views on convergence and divergence, continuity and discontinuity in the development of languages, as well as on the multiplicity of sociological factors of language change (cf. several studies assembled in the two volumes of Linguistique historique et linguistique générale, 1921 and 1936). Also within the general line of continuity was the work of Herman Hirt (1865− 1936), who published extensively on Indo-European accent, and who attempted a broad synthesis of Indo-European comparative grammar, integrated in a general approach of Wörter und Sachen, and thus aiming at a reconstruction of Indo-European culture. And still within the same sphere of methodological continuity, one can mention the truly impressive work of the Danish Indo-Europeanist Holger Pedersen (1867−1953), a student of Vilhelm Thomsen, whose publications cover various branches of Indo-European, especially Balto-Slavic, Armenian, Albanian, Germanic (and for other branches, see below), and to whom we are indebted for the still authoritative Vergleichende Grammatik der keltischen Sprachen (Göttingen, 1909−1913, 2 vols.; shortened version, in English translation: Henry Lewis and Holger Pedersen, A Concise Comparative Celtic Grammar, Göttingen, 1937); next to Pedersen, one should mention the names of German and Swiss comparatists such as Jacob Wackernagel (1853−1938), Felix Solmsen (1865− 1911), Wilhelm Schulze (1863−1935), Ferdinand Sommer (1875−1962), Eduard Schwyzer (1874−1943), Manu Leumann (1889−1977), Johannes Friedrich (1893−1972), Julius Pokorny (1887−1970) (author of the useful, though methodologically outdated, Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, Bern, 1959−1969, which brought to completion an aborted enterprise of Alois Walde [1869−1924]), of Italian scholars such as Antonino Pagliaro (1898−1973), Giacomo Devoto (1897−1974), and Vittore Pisani (1899−1991), for most of whom we can say that their comparativist work was characteristically grounded in a philological approach to particular branches of Indo-European − Anatolian, Indo-Iranian, Balto-Slavic, Greek, Italic. For the United States, one can mention the names of Carl Darling Buck (1866−1855), a specialist in Greek and Italic, who published an interesting onomasiologically arranged Dictionary of Selected Synonyms in the Principal Indo-European Languages (Chicago, 1959), Roland G. Kent (1877−1952), a specialist in Italic and Old Persian, and Edgar Howard Sturtevant (1875−1952) (cf. also below), a full-fledged historical-comparative linguist well informed of developments

16. Indo-European linguistics in the 19 th and 20 th centuries in general linguistics. These three scholars were important as transmitters of theory and practice in Indo-European linguistics to the generations active after World War II. Broad periodizations (even half a century) clash with the complex dynamics of individual careers. Whereas most of the scholars just mentioned can be said to have stuck to the general approach typical of the Neogrammarians, most of them witnessed in their lifespan the (re)introduction of Saussure’s theory of coefficients sonantiques − which, after Möller’s refinement (cf. supra) came to be known as the “laryngeal theory” − and some of them became prominent defenders of it, such as Sturtevant (who posits four laryngeals). And all of them (if we exclude the first mentioned Neogrammarian in this section, viz. Karl Brugmann) lived to see the important changes brought about by the discovery of new materials which revealed the existence of two unknown branches of Indo-European: Tocharian (first findings in 1892, followed by more at the beginning of the 20 th century) and Anatolian (numerous texts found in Boğazköy, during German excavation campaigns in 1905−1907, and 1911−1912). These findings yielded an IndoEuropean centum language complex attested east of the Indo-Iranian area, viz. in Chinese Turkestan, with two varieties (“Tocharian A” and “Tocharian B”), and an archaic Anatolian language complex, comprising four Indo-European languages written in cuneiform script: Palaic, Hittite, and both cuneiform and (later) hieroglyphic Luwian. Many of the abovementioned scholars contributed to the integration of the new materials into the general framework of Indo-European comparative grammar. Meillet worked extensively, with Sylvain Lévi (1863−1935), on the decipherment and linguistic interpretation of Tocharian (B) texts. Johannes Friedrich and Edgar Sturtevant established themselves as authorities in the field of Anatolian; both of them produced a dictionary of Hittite, and Friedrich also a students’ manual. Sturtevant put the Hittite materials to comparative use in his A Comparative Grammar of the Hittite Language (Philadelphia, 1933) and The Indo-Hittite Laryngeals (Baltimore, 1942), eventually arguing for a “sister-status” of Anatolian on a par with Indo-European (the so-called “Indo-Hittite hypothesis”). Ferdinand Sommer also worked on Hittite, and Holger Pedersen, who also edited Hittite texts, published monographs on both Anatolian and Tocharian, dealing with their place within Indo-European (Hittitisch und die anderen indoeuropäischen Sprachen [Copenhagen, 1938]; Tocharisch vom Gesichtspunkt der indoeuropäischen Sprachvergleichung [Copenhagen, 1941]; Zur tocharischen Sprachgeschichte [Copenhagen, 1944]; Lykisch und Hittitisch [Copenhagen, 1945]). Against the background of conservation and the affluence of new data, theoretical renewal occurred in the 1930s. Meillet, whose practice of Indo-European comparative grammar and reconstruction of common Indo-European (an issue in which he was less interested than in the topic of comparison) remained Neo-grammarian in outlook, had formed a school of comparatists − many of them also general linguists − who distinguished themselves in various subfields of Indo-European, and at times also in the study of Semitic, Finno-Ugrian, and Basque. Among his Indo-European students, mention must be made of Robert Gauthiot (1876−1916), Joseph Vendryes (1875−1960), Pierre Chantraine (1899−1974), Louis Renou (1896−1966), André Vaillant (1890−1977), Michel Lejeune (1907−2000), and Emile Benveniste (see below), who became specialists in the fields of Iranian, Celtic, Greek, Italic, and, for most of them, also in general linguistics (cf. Vendryes’ Le langage. Introduction linguistique à l’histoire [1921], and the two volumes of Benveniste’s Problèmes de linguistique générale [1966, 1974]). The most brilliant of Meillet’s French students was Emile Benveniste (1902−1976), whose

191

192

III. Historical perspectives on Indo-European linguistics (prematurely ended) career brought him from linguistic and philological studies in Iranian and Greek, to novel, revolutionary views on Indo-European comparative grammar and lexico-cultural reconstruction, and to general linguistics in its broadest sense (language theory, methodology of linguistics, philosophy of language, semiotics). Benveniste’s most fundamental contribution to Indo-European comparative grammar, or more precisely, the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European, is his 1935 book, Origines de la formation des noms en indo-européen (Paris). The theory put forward in this book consists of a new, structural definition of the constituency of the Indo-European root as trisegmental (CVC), with formative restrictions (on the nature of the consonants surrounding the vocalic nucleus), and a characterization of the degree of the root vowel when combined with a suffix (the combination allowing for two types of “themes”). Another student of Meillet, the Polish comparativist Jerzy Kuryłowicz (1895−1978) not only demonstrated the relevance of Saussure’s hypothetical system of laryngeals, but also provided the impetus for Benveniste’s theory of the Indo-European root; in Kuryłowicz’s Études indo-européennes (Kraków, 1935), one finds various studies on IndoEuropean laryngeals and root structure. As an Indo-Europeanist (he also worked on Semitic languages), Kuryłowicz published extensively on three sets of problems of comparative grammar: (a) the origin and development of accent and intonation; (b) inflection and derivation; (c) the evolution of grammatical categories in Indo-European, more specifically tense and aspect (and Aktionsart). After World War II, Kuryłowicz addressed more and more topics of general linguistic interest: theory of the syllable; the role of the verb in the sentence; the nature of analogical processes. But his continuing interest, during the years 1930−1950, in problems of accentuation and morphophonemic alternation in Indo-European led to the publication of two major syntheses in the 1950s: L’accentuation des langues indo-européennes (Kraków, 1952); L’apophonie en indoeuropéen (Wrocław, 1956). (For Kuryłowicz’s activity in the second half of the 20 th century, see § 8 below). Benveniste’s theory of the Indo-European root and Kuryłowicz’s views of accent and apophony in Indo-European, although they met with criticism, marked a new stage in Indo-European historical-comparative linguistics, viz. one characterized by (a) the firm admission of a set of laryngeals to be posited for Proto-Indo-European, (b) the description of accentual types of (nominal) stems, (c) the search for structurally definable conditions of analogical change, (d) the application of the structural principle that different form classes correlate with different meanings or functions. Indo-European linguistics thus integrated insights of structural linguistics: in Europe, principally Saussure’s heritage and André Martinet’s (1908−1999) functional linguistics (see Martinet 1955), in the United States, the methods of distributionalism (see esp. Hoenigswald 1960). There were also more sporadic attempts to apply specific theories or models, e.g. binary feature analysis, neolinguistic areal norms, glottochronological lexico-statistics, or sociolinguistic dialectology.

8. Indo-European linguistics in the second half of the 20 th century: unity and diversity After World War II, linguistics witnessed a spectacular extension: in the number of practitioners, of academic curricula and positions, of research institutions and projects,

16. Indo-European linguistics in the 19 th and 20 th centuries entailing an exponential growth of publication outlets and scientific output. Also, in the 1960s and 1970s linguistics became a pilot discipline in the humanities, opening itself to a large audience of interested laymen. Diachronic linguistics was not in the frontline of this expansion: theoretical linguistics (especially models of grammar), sociolinguistics, and various types of “applied linguistics” attracted much more attention. Nevertheless, the quantitative boom in the field of the language sciences yielded sufficient manpower to keep the solid tradition of historical-comparative work very much alive. (On the development of linguistics in the decade 1950−1960, see Szemerényi 1982.) Indo-European comparative linguistics thus could consolidate its position in the prominent centers of learning in Europe, from the British Isles to Moscow, and from Italy to Scandinavia. In the United States it had a remarkable extension, with teaching and research centers on the East Coast (Harvard, Yale, Cornell, Philadelphia) as well as on the West Coast (Los Angeles, Berkeley), and, in between, in Chicago and Austin. (For an overview of the evolution of Indo-European comparative linguistics between World War II and the early 1980s, see Szemerényi 1985.) The scientific output in the field of Indo-European comparative studies since the 1950s exceeds the total amount of what was published in the 150 years before. It is characterized by four properties: 1. Strong investment in the Indo-European language groups discovered in the early 20 th century, viz. Anatolian and Tocharian, the study of which has been considerably advanced by editions (and analyses) of texts (see Jasanoff, The impact of Hittite and Tocharian, this handbook). 2. Integration of new materials for Indo-European branches already known, but whose historical and geographical depth and breadth were considerably revised in the light of these new data. 3. The role played by “schools of thought”, focusing on specific topics in historicalcomparative grammar, giving a privileged attention to one or the other branch of Indo-European. 4. The (unequally spread) impact of developments in general and theoretical linguistics within these schools of thought or, more precisely, among the individual practitioners in the field. This rough typological characterization allows us not to engage in fastidious namedropping or in a chronicling of res gestae. At the same time, it betrays two undeniable features of Indo-European comparative studies: its variety and its (relative) idiosyncrasy. As to the latter, it may suffice to refer to some recent introductions [e.g. Oswald Szemerényi, Introduction to Indo-European Linguistics, Oxford, 1996; Robert S. P. Beekes, Comparative Indo-European Linguistics: An introduction, Amsterdam − Philadelphia, 1996; Michael Meier-Brügger, Indo-European Linguistics, Berlin, 2003; Benjamin W. Fortson, Indo-European Language and Culture. An introduction, Oxford, 2004 [20102]; James Clackson, Indo-European Linguistics. An introduction, Cambridge, 2007] in order to gain an idea of the degree of divergence and idiosyncrasy. The divergences in opinion are even more striking if one surveys the history of introductions (normally a locus of consensus and codification) over a longer period (cf. Mayrhofer 2009, comparing introductions to Indo-European linguistics since the beginnings of the discipline to the early 21 st century).

193

194

III. Historical perspectives on Indo-European linguistics Returning to the above characterization, a number of important factors can be singled out; for specific details − on problems and explanatory proposals − the reader is referred to other chapters in this handbook (with some of the contributions written by prominent representatives of Indo-European studies in the past half century): With respect to (1): there has been a remarkable investment in the study of the IndoEuropean varieties of Anatolian − not just the four mentioned above, but also Lycian, Lydian, and Carian (often considered in relation to the non-Indo-European languages of Anatolia) − focusing on the historical-comparative phonology of these languages as well as on the insights they provide into the evolution of Indo-European grammatical categories. A similar statement can be made about the study of Tocharian, although the specific relevance of the two varieties of Tocharian within an Indo-Europeanist perspective lies more on the morphological level. With respect to (2), several facts have to be mentioned. To begin with, the decipherment of Mycenaean (Linear B) in 1952, which has given rise to a stream of philological and linguistic publications, has yielded invaluable insights for our knowledge of the early history of the Hellenic branch, but has not led to radical new views on IndoEuropean comparative grammar. Another branch in which there has been a considerable growth of new materials which have been implemented in Indo-European studies in the past half century is Iranian. Although some of the languages in question were already known, new materials on Sogdian, Khotanese and Tumshuqese, Choresmian, and Bactrian have enriched our knowledge of the internal history and geography of (Middle) Iranian. Next to new findings, or new, reliable, editions of materials for Celtic, Phrygian, and some Slavic varieties, mention must be made of new data on Venetic and South-Picene, two Italic languages that have attracted much attention in the past decades. For a presentation and comparative treatment of the Venetic and South-Picene materials, see the works of Michel Lejeune (Manuel de la langue vénète, Heidelberg, 1974) and Helmut Rix (Sabellische Texte: Die Texte des Oskischen, Umbrischen, und Südpikenischen, Heidelberg, 2002); for Phrygian, see the editions by Otto Haas (Die phrygischen Sprachdenkmäler (Sofia, 1966) and by Claude Brixhe and Michel Lejeune (Corpus des inscriptions paleo-phrygiennes (Paris, 1984). With respect to (3), reference has already been made, for the United States, to major centers of learning. Among the leaders in the field who have passed away in recent years, mention must be made of Warren Cowgill (1929−1985), Edgar Polomé (1920− 2000), Calvert Watkins (1933−2013), and Winfred Lehmann (1916−2007); their teaching and work − albeit privileging specific branches (Indo-Iranian, Hittite, Celtic, or Germanic), and offering divergent perspectives (philologically, linguistic-structurally, or sociolinguistically based) − have strongly impacted the global practice of Indo-European linguistics in the United States (and beyond). For Europe, the major centers have been and/or are: in England, Oxford and Cambridge; in Scandinavia, Copenhagen and Oslo; in Spain, Madrid and Salamanca; in Italy, Rome, Milan, and Udine; in France, Paris and Lyon; in the Netherlands, Leiden; in Germany, Berlin, Cologne, Erlangen, Freiburg, Göttingen, München, Saarbrücken, and Würzburg; in Switzerland, Basle and Zurich; in Austria, Vienna and Salzburg; in Poland, Warsaw; in the Czech Republic, Prague and Brno; in Bulgaria, Sofia; in the Soviet Union (Russia), Moscow. Towering scholars in the field who have passed away in the past half-century in these countries include: Walter Belardi (1923−2008), Roberto Gusmani (1935−2009), Karl Hoffmann (1915−1996), Hans Krahe

16. Indo-European linguistics in the 19 th and 20 th centuries (1898−1965), Manfred Mayrhofer (1926−2011), Ernst Risch (1911−1988), Helmut Rix (1926−2004), Jochem Schindler (1944−1994), and Oswald Szemerényi (1913−1996). Finally, with respect to (4), one has to mention the continuing appeal of structuralism (prominently present in the publications of Benveniste and Kuryłowicz in the years 1950−1970) in the general approach to historical-comparative grammar, at times with a strong formalist bent (cf. Hoenigswald 1960, 1973). The influence of generative linguistics has been more sporadic, and has been to a large extent not a matter of adoption, but one of application (by a prominent generativist, as in the case of Paul Kiparsky or Morris Halle; cf. their respective papers on the inflectional accent and on stress and accent in Indo-European, published in Language 49 [1973], 794−849 and 73 [1997], 275−313). Much more conspicuous has been the influence of language typology, e.g. in Winfred P. Lehmann’s (1916−2007) Proto-Indo-European Phonology (Austin, 1952) and ProtoIndo-European Syntax (Austin, 1974) and Paul Friedrich’s (1927−2016) Proto-IndoEuropean Syntax: The Order of Meaningful Elements (Butte, 1975). One important “intrusion” of language typology into Indo-European comparative grammar has been the “glottalic theory”, formulated, essentially simultaneously, by Tamaz (Thomas) Gamkrelidze and Vjačeslav Ivanov (“Lingvističeskaja tipologija i rekonstrukcija sistemy indoevropejskix smyčnyx” [Linguistic typology and the reconstruction of the system of Indoeuropean stops], Conference on comparative-historical grammar of the Indo-European languages, ed. by S. B. Bernštejn et al. [1973], 15−18) and Paul J. Hopper (“Glottalized and Murmured Occlusives in Indo-European”, Glossa 7 [1973], 141−166) and most thoroughly expounded by Gamkrelidze and Ivanov in their Indoevropejskij jazyk i indoevropejcy (Tbilisi, 1984, 2 vols.; Engl. transl. Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans, Berlin, 1995) taking up suggestions by Roman Jakobson (1896−1982) and AndréGeorges Haudricourt (1911−1996). The theory consists in reformulating the reconstructed three obstruent series for Proto-Indo-European (voiceless/voiced/voiceless aspirated obstruents) as a set containing a plain voiceless series, a glottalized series (i.e. formerly reconstructed *b, *d, *g should be interpreted as *b?, *d?, *g? − I use superscript ? to mark glottalization; other notations have been used in the literature), and an aspirate series (in which voice is not phonological). This proposal has been hailed as a revolutionary one (cf. Vennemann ed. 1989), but now it seems to have lost much of its initial appeal (also, the proposal did not involve a serial patterning different from the older model: only the feature-assignment was different; furthermore, the exact phonetic nature of these “glottalic” sounds in Indo-European was and is a matter of dispute). (For a synthetic overview of the glottalic theory, see Salmons 1992.) Although Indo-European comparative linguistics is a retrospective discipline, dealing with facts of the past and reconstructed portions of the history of a language family, it is a field open to hypotheses, discussions, controversies; and overall consensus has been, and still is a thing hard to achieve (cf. the recent personal overview of Adrados 2016). Most Indo-Europeanists of today are “laryngealists”, but not all agree on the number of laryngeals to posit for Indo-European, nor on the respective evidence for them. (On laryngeal theory, see the papers in Winter (ed.) 1965 and Bammesberger (ed.) 1988; for an introduction, cf. Lindeman 1997; for a recent assessment, see De Lamberterie 2007). Significant advance has been made in the field of nominal morphology, with the distinction of two major accentual and apophonic types of nominal stems (viz. one with fixed accent, falling into two acrostatic subtypes, and the other with mobile accent, falling

195

196

III. Historical perspectives on Indo-European linguistics into four subtypes: kinetic, proterokinetic, hysterokinetic, and amphikinetic). In the field of verbal morphology, the focus of research has recently been on the categories of voice, and tense/aspect, on formal-semantic types of conjugations, and on analogical or rebuilding processes within (and across) paradigms (cf. Shields 1992). A field which is receiving increasing attention − and one in which a philologically based approach is coupled with one or the other linguistic model (functional or generative syntax, discourse grammar, etc.) is syntax, especially in application to Hittite and to the older stages within Indo-Iranian, Germanic, and Celtic. The interplay between continuity and innovation, as well as the widening and complexification of the field are perhaps best illustrated by the fact that the ambitious project of an Indogermanische Grammatik (Heidelberg, 1968−), begun by Jerzy Kuryłowicz (with the publication of Band II, Akzent und Ablaut, 1968 [impending revision by Stefan Schaffner]) and continued almost immediately thereafter by Calvert Watkins (Band III/1, Geschichte des indogermanischen Verbums, 1969), has now been compartmentalized into a mosaic of multi-authored monographs and fascicles covering aspects of the phonological, morphological, and syntactic reconstruction of Indo-European (Band I, Einleitung und Lautlehre, in two parts written by Warren Cowgill and Manfred Mayrhofer, 1986 will be partly revised; Band II will be rewritten by Stefan Schaffner, Band III, dealing with inflectional morphology will consist of four parts; Band IV, dealing with derivational morphology, will consist of two parts: compounding and derivation, four fascicles of which, on compounding, have already been published by Thomas Lindner [cf. Lindner 2011−2015]; Band V, dealing with syntax, will comprise no less than 10 parts). Moving beyond the field of grammar and of formal etymology, one has to note that in the past decades there has been a remarkable increase of interest in the study of ProtoIndo-European culture and its areal diversification, focusing on aspects of Indo-European religion and mythology, law, poetry, and material culture. The origin, background, and evolution of Indo-European “institutions” have been studied by Emile Benveniste in his Le vocabulaire des institutions indo-européennes (Paris, 1969; 2 vols., the first dealing with economy, kinship, and societal relationships, the second with power, law, and religion). In this revival of the study of Indogermanische Altertumskunde, linguists, archaeologists, and historians of religion and civilization have joined in an interdisciplinary dialogue with an eye at linking the ancient (and, in the case of persistent patterns, more recent) stages of Indo-European languages with cultural beliefs and practices. [Among the numerous publications in this domain, see e.g. Campanile (1990), Costa (1998), Gimbutas (1997), Mallory (1989), Mallory and Adams (eds. 1997), Meid (ed. 1998), Schmitt (1967) and Watkins (1995). For a well-documented overview, see Zimmer (2002−2003).] Finally, mention must be made of attempts to transcend the boundaries of IndoEuropean. Already at the end of the 19 th and the beginning of the 20 th century, Scandinavian scholars, including Hermann Möller and Vilhelm Thomsen, had suggested a relationship between Indo-European and Semitic and also Finno-Ugrian. Holger Pedersen extended this, hypothetically, to a “Nostratic” (or “Nostratian”) stock, involving also Kartvelian, Uralic, and Hamitic. In the course of the 20 th century attempts were made to link Indo-European with Etruscan, with Ainu, with the Dravidian languages, not to speak of Eskimo-Aleut and Nilo-Saharan. In the latter half of the 20 th century some scholars have engaged in writing a comparative phonology and morphology of “Nostratric” (cf. Illič-Svityč 1971−1984; Bomhard and Kerns 1994; Dolgopolsky 1998). And

16. Indo-European linguistics in the 19 th and 20 th centuries Joseph Greenberg advanced the hypothesis of a “Eurasiatic” family (Greenberg 2000). As a whole, these attempts have met with skepticism in Indo-Europeanist circles (cf. Joseph and Salmons, eds. 1998).

9. Conclusions The history of Indo-European (historical-)comparative linguistics in the 19 th and 20 th century is not one of a straightforward development. It is marked not only by the theoretically divergent outlooks, backgrounds, initiatives, and procedures of individuals and, later, “schools”, but also by changes imposed by the appearance of new data. One basic line of “deep” continuity, however, since the second half of the 19 th century is the use of the “comparative method”, at the service of patterned reconstruction, based on the recognition of regular sound changes (both “major” and “minor”, or sporadic, changes) − of which the conditioning factors have been increasingly specified −, and on the recognition of the workings of analogy; another element of continuity is the adoption of a distinction, within grammar, of a phonological (segmental and suprasegmental) level, a morphological level, and a syntactic level. As such, the general approach established in the period of the Neogrammarians has not been basically altered by the developments in 20 th-century linguistic science: refinements, restatements, specifying or relativizing qualifications, and extensions have occurred, but without causing radical modifications. In the course of its development over the past two centuries, Indo-European historicalcomparative linguistics has contributed significantly to general linguistics and to the methodology of linguistics: it has given stuff for reflection on language history and evolution, on the status of linguistic systems and their liability to change, on ways to account for (i.e. describe and explain) linguistic processes, on internal and external factors of variation and change. For historians of linguistics, the history of Indo-European historical-comparative studies offers interesting materials: it shows the important role of individual “ideas” (insights and errors, technical devices, new concepts), the impact of the institutionalization and professionalization of a discipline, the crucial function of manuals, “exemplary works” or compendia, and also the importance of changes caused by the availability, or not, of (new) data. The future of Indo-European historical-comparative linguistics will probably be marked by an increased interest in comparative syntax, by the search for new types of (theory-bound) explanations, by a more frequent appeal to language-typological arguments, by an integration of sociolinguistic (inter- and intragenerational or microdiachronic) considerations into our understanding of multigenerational (macrodiachronic) change, and by further reflection on various aspects of comparatist methodology. On a broader level, the issue of the long-term chronology of IndoEuropean, and its possible relationship with other language families, and the problem of modeling linguistic subgrouping (using a branching or dialectometric tree model, a wave model, or a space-time model) are likely to figure prominently in the research agenda. [On the reconstruction of Indo-European syntax, see the reflections of Dressler (1971), and the contributions in Crespo and García-Ramón (eds. 1997); on problems of chronology and subgrouping, cf. Dunkel et al. (eds. 1994), Forster and Renfrew (eds. 2006), Meid (1975).]

197

198

III. Historical perspectives on Indo-European linguistics

10. References (Secondary literature only; primary literature is fully referenced in text) Adrados, Francisco R. 2016 Indo-European from Bopp until Now. In: Francisco R. Adrados, Alberto Bernabé, and Julia Mendoza, Manual of Indo-European Linguistics, II: Nominal and Verbal Morphology. Leuven: Peeters, 463−479. Amsterdamska, Olga 1987 Schools of Thought. The development of linguistics from Bopp to Saussure. Dordrecht: Reidel. Antonsen, Elmer H. 1962 Rasmus Rask and Jacob Grimm: Their relationship in the investigation of Germanic vocalism. Scandinavian Studies 34: 183−194. Auroux, Sylvain, Konrad Koerner, Hans-Josef Niederehe, and Kees Versteegh (eds.) 2000−2006 History of the Language Sciences: An international Handbook. 3 vols. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Bammesberger, Alfred (ed.) 1988 Die Laryngaltheorie und die Rekonstruktion des indogermanischen Laut- und Formensystems. Heidelberg: Winter. Baudusch, Renate 1985 Rasmus Rask und Jacob Grimm. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 38: 686−692. Bechtel, Friedrich 1892 Die Hauptprobleme der indogermanischen Lautlehre seit Schleicher. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Benfey, Theodor 1869 Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft und orientalischen Philologie in Deutschland seit dem Anfange des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts mit einem Rückblick auf die früheren Zeiten. Munich: Cotta. Benware, Wilbur A. 1974 The Study of Indo-European Vocalism in the 19 th Century, from the Beginnings to Whitney and Scherer. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Bolelli, Tristano 1965 Per una storia della ricerca linguistica. Testi e note introduttive. Naples: Morano. Bologna, Maria Patrizia 1990 Storia della linguistica e teoria linguistica: A. F. Pott e la ricostruzione. Studi Classici e Orientali 40: 1−22. Bologna, Maria Patrizia 1992 Il ‘dualismo’ di Franz Bopp. Incontri Linguistici 15: 29−48. Bolognesi, Giancarlo 1994 Sul termine ‘indo-germanisch’. In: Palmira Cipriano, Paolo Di Giovine, and Marco Mancini (eds.), Miscellanea di Studi linguistici in onore di Walter Belardi. Vol. I. Rome: Il Calamo, 327−338. Bomhard, Allan R. and John C. Kerns 1994 The Nostratic Macrofamily: A Study in Distant Language Relationship. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Brugmann, Karl 1909 Hermann Osthoff. Indogermanische Forschungen 24: 218−223. [Repr. in Sebeok ed. 1966, 555−562.] Bursian, Conrad 1883 Geschichte der classischen Philologie in Deutschland von den Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart. 2 vols. Leipzig: Oldenbourg.

16. Indo-European linguistics in the 19 th and 20 th centuries Bynon, Theodora 1986 August Schleicher, Indo-Europeanist and General Linguist. In: Bynon and Palmer (eds.), 129−149. Bynon, Theodora and Frank R. Palmer (eds.) 1986 Studies in the History of Western Linguistics in Honour of R. H. Robins. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Campanile, Enrico 1990 La ricostruzione della cultura indoeuropea. Pisa: Giardini. Campbell, Lyle 2006 Why Sir William Jones got it All Wrong, or Jones’ Role in how to Establish Language Families. Anuario del Seminario de Filología Vasca Julio de Urquijo/International Journal of Basque Linguistics and Philology 40: 245−264. Cannon, Garland 1979 William Jones: A Bibliography of Primary and Secondary Sources. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Cannon, Garland 1990 The Life and Mind of Oriental Jones: Sir William Jones, the Father of Modern Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cherubim, Dieter 1986 Hat Jacob Grimm die historische Sprachwissenschaft begründet?. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 38: 672−685. Christmann, Hans Helmut 1977 Sprachwissenschaft des 19. Jahrhunderts. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Christy, T. Craig 1983 Uniformitarianism in Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Collinge, Neville E. 1985 The Laws of Indo-European. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Collinge, Neville E. 1995 Further Laws of Indo-European. In: Werner Winter (ed.), On Languages and Language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 27−52. Conrad, Johannes 1884 Das Universitätsstudium in Deutschland während der letzten 50 Jahren. Statistische Untersuchungen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung Preussens. Jena: Fischer. [Engl. transl. The German Universities for the Last Fifty Years. Glasgow: Bryce and Son, 1885.] Costa, Gabriele 1998 Le origini della lingua poetica indoeuropea: voce, coscienza e transizione neolitica. Florence: Olschki. Crespo, Emilio and José Luis García Ramón (eds.) 1997 Berthold Delbrück y la sintaxis indoeuropea hoy. Madrid − Wiesbaden: Ediciones de la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid − Reichert. Delbrück, Berthold 1880 Einleitung in das Sprachstudium: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte und Methodik der vergleichenden Sprachforschung. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel. [Revised edition, Einleitung in das Studium der indogermanischen Sprachen, Leipzig, Breitkopf & Härtel, 1904, with re-editions in 1908 and 1919.] Denecke, Ludwig 1971 Jacob Grimm und sein Bruder Wilhelm. Stuttgart: Metzler. Denecke, Ludwig and Irmgard Teitge 1989 Die Bibliothek der Brüder Grimm: annotiertes Verzeichnis des festgestellten Bestandes. Weimar: Böhlau.

199

200

III. Historical perspectives on Indo-European linguistics Desmet, Piet 1994 La “Revue de linguistique et de philologie comparée” (1867−1916) − organe de linguistique naturaliste en France. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft 4: 49−80. Desmet, Piet 1996 La linguistique naturaliste en France (1867−1922). Nature, origine et évolution du langage. Leuven: Peeters. Diderichsen, Paul 1974 The Foundation of Comparative Linguistics: Revolution or Continuation? In: Hymes (ed.), 277−306. Dietze, Joachim 1966 August Schleicher als Slawist. Sein Leben und sein Werk in der Sicht der Indogermanistik. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Dolgopolsky, Aharon 1998 The Nostratic Macrofamily and Linguistic Palaeontology. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological research. Dressler, Wolfgang 1971 Über die Rekonstruktion der idg. Syntax. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 83: 1−25. Dunkel, George, Gisela Meyer, Salvatore Scarlata, and Christian Seidl (eds.) 1994 Früh-, Mittel-, Spätindogermanisch. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Eichner, Heiner 1994 Zur Frage der Gültigkeit Boppscher sprachgeschichtlicher Deutungen aus der Sicht der modernen Indogermanistik. In: Sternemann (ed.), 72−90. Einhauser, Eveline 1989 Die Junggrammatiker: ein Problem für die Sprachwissenschaftsgeschichtsschreibung. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier. Fellman, Jack 1975 On Sir William Jones and the Scythian Language. Language Sciences 34: 37−38. Fiesel, Eva 1927 Die Sprachphilosophie der deutschen Romantik. Tübingen: Mohr. Forster, Peter and Colin Renfrew (eds.) 2006 Phylogenetic Methods and the Prehistory of Languages. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Gardt, Andreas 1999 Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft in Deutschland. Vom Mittelalter bis ins 20. Jahrhundert. Berlin: De Gruyter. Gérard, René 1963 L’Orient et la pensée romantique allemande. Paris: Didier. Gessinger, Joachim and Wolfert von Rahden (eds.) 1989 Theorien vom Ursprung der Sprache. 2 vols. Berlin: De Gruyter. Gimbutas, Marija 1997 The Kurgan Culture and the Indo-Europeanization of Europe. Selected articles from 1952 to 1993. Washington, D.C.: Institute for the Study of Man. Ginschel, Gunhild 1967 Der junge Jacob Grimm 1805−1819. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Gippert, Jost 1994 Zur indogermanistischen Ausbildung in der zweiten Hälfte des 19. Jahrhunderts. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 53: 65−121. Gmür, Remo 1986 Das Schicksal von F. de Saussures ‚Mémoire‘. Eine Rezeptionsgeschichte. Bern: Universität Bern.

16. Indo-European linguistics in the 19 th and 20 th centuries Greenberg, Joseph H. 2000 Indo-European and its Closest Relatives: The Eurasiatic Language Family. Vol. I. Grammar. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Grotsch, Klaus 1989 Das Sanskrit und die Ursprache: Zur Rolle des Sanskrit in der Konstitutionsphase der historisch-vergleichenden Sprachwissenschaft. In: Gessinger and von Rahden (eds.), Vol. 2, 85−121. Gudeman, Alfred 1907 Grundriss der Geschichte der klassischen Philologie, 2 nd edn. 1909. Stuttgart: Teubner. Gulya, János 1974 Some Eighteenth-Century Antecedents of Nineteenth Century Linguistics. The discovery of Finno-Ugrian. In: Hymes (ed.), 258−276. Häusler, Frank 1968 Das Problem Phonetik und Phonologie bei Baudouin de Courtenay und in seiner Nachfolge. Halle: Niemeyer. Hermann, Eduard 1923 Berthold Delbrück. Ein Gelehrtenleben aus Deutschlands grosser Zeit. Jena: Frommann. Hermann, Eduard 1931 Laugesetz und Analogie. Berlin: Weidmann. Hirt, Herman 1939 Die Hauptprobleme der indogermanischen Sprachwissenschaft. Halle: Niemeyer. Hjelmslev, Louis 1950−1951 Commentaires sur la vie et l’œuvre de Rasmus Rask. Conférences de l’Institut de linguistique de l’Université de Paris 10: 143−157. Hoenigswald, Henry M. 1960 Language Change and Linguistic Reconstruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hoenigswald, Henry M. 1963 On the History of the Comparative Method. Anthropological Linguistics 5: 1−10. Hoenigswald, Henry M. 1973 Studies in Formal Historical Linguistics. Dordrecht: Reidel. Hoenigswald, Henry M. 1974 Fallacies in the History of Linguistics. Notes on the appraisal of the nineteenth century. In: Hymes (ed.), 346−358. Hoenigswald, Henry M. 1975 Schleicher’s Tree and its Trunk. In: Werner Abraham (ed.), Ut Videam: Contributions to an Understanding of Linguistics. Lisse: P. de Ridder, 157−160. Hoenigswald, Henry M. 1978 The annus mirabilis 1876 and Posterity. Transactions of the Philological Society 1978: 17−35. Hoenigswald, Henry M. (ed.) 1979 The European Background of American Linguistics. Papers of the Third Golden Anniversary Symposium of the Linguistic Society of America. Dordrecht: Foris. Hoenigswald, Henry M. 1986 Nineteenth-Century Linguistics on Itself. In: Bynon and Palmer (eds.), 172−188. Hoenigswald, Henry M. 1990 Descent, Perfection, and Comparative Method since Leibniz. In: De Mauro and Formigari (eds.), 119−132. Hoenigswald, Henry M. and Linda F. Wiener (eds.) 1987 Biological Metaphor and Cladistic Classification. An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

201

202

III. Historical perspectives on Indo-European linguistics Horne, Kibbey M. 1966 Language Typology: 19 th and 20 th Century Views. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Hültenschmidt, Erika 1987 Paris oder Berlin? Institutionalisierung, Professionalisierung und Entwicklung der vergleichenden Sprachwissenschaft im 19. Jahrhundert. In: Schmitter (ed.), 1987−2007. vol. 1, 178−197. Hymes, Dell H. (ed.) 1974 Studies in the History of Linguistics. Traditions and Paradigms. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Illič-Svityč, Vladislav M. 1971−1984 Opyt sravnenija nostratičeskix jazykov [An attempt at a comparison of the Nostratic languages]. Moscow: Nauka. Jakobson, Roman 1967 L’importanza di Kruszewski per lo sviluppo della linguistica. Ricerche slavistiche 13: 3−23. Jankowsky, Kurt R. 1972 The Neogrammarians. The Hague: Mouton. Jankowsky, Kurt R. 1979 Typological Studies in the Nineteenth Century and the Neogrammarian Sound Law Principle. Forum Linguisticum 4: 159−173. Jankowsky, Kurt R. 1990 The Neogrammarian Hypothesis. In: Edgar C. Polomé (ed.), Research Guide on Language Change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 223−239. Jankowsky, Kurt R. 1996 Development of Historical Linguistics from Rask and Grimm to the Neogrammarians. In: Schmitter (ed.), 1987−2007. vol. 5, 193−208. Jarausch, Konrad H. 1982 Students, Society and Politics in Imperial Germany. The rise of academic illiberalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Jarausch, Konrad H. (ed.) 1983 The Transformation of Higher Learning 1860−1930. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Joseph, Brian D. and Joseph C. Salmons (eds.) 1998 Nostratic: Sifting the Evidence. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Kaufmann, Georg 1888−1896 Die Geschichte der deutschen Universitäten. 2 vols. Stuttgart: Cotta. Ker, William P. 1915 Jacob Grimm. London: Philological Society. Kispert, Robert J. 1978 Sir William Jones. A new perspective on the origin and background of his common source. Georgetown University Papers on Languages and Linguistics 14: 1−68. Koerner, E. F. Konrad 1972 Hermann Paul and Synchronic Linguistics. Lingua 29: 274−307. [Repr. in Koerner 1978, 73−106.] Koerner, E. F. Konrad 1975 European Structuralism: Early Beginnings. In: Sebeok (ed.), 717−827. Koerner, E. F. Konrad 1976 1876 as a Turning Point in the History of Linguistics. Journal of Indo-European Studies 4: 333−353. [Repr. in Koerner 1978, 189−209.] Koerner, E. F. Konrad 1978 Toward a Historiography of Linguistics. Selected Essays. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

16. Indo-European linguistics in the 19 th and 20 th centuries Koerner, E. F. Konrad 1981 Observations on the Source, Transmission, and Meaning of ‘Indo-European’ and Related Terms in the Development of Linguistics. Indogermanische Forschungen 86: 1−29. [Repr. in Koerner 1989, 149−177.] Koerner, E. F. Konrad 1984 Franz Bopp (1791−1867). Aschaffenburger Jahrbuch 8: 313−19. [Repr., with a new select bibliography, in Koerner 1989, 291−302.] Koerner, E. F. Konrad 1987 The Importance of Saussure’s Mémoire in the Development of Historical Linguistics. In: George Cardona and Norman Zide (eds.), Festschrift for Henry Hoenigswald. Tübingen: Narr, 201−217. Koerner, E. F. Konrad 1989 Practicing Linguistic Historiography. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Krapf, Veronika 1993 Sprache als Organismus: Metaphern − Ein Schlüssel zu Jacob Grimms Sprachauffassung. Kassel: Brüder Grimm-Gesellschaft. Kroll, Wilhelm 1908 Geschichte der klassischen Philologie. 2 nd edn. 1919. Leipzig: Göschen. Kucharczik, Kerstin 1998 Der Organismusbegriff in der Sprachwissenschaft des 19. Jahrhunderts. Berlin: De Gruyter. Kuhn, Adalbert 1868 Franz Bopp, der Begründer der vergleichenden Sprachwissenschaft. Unsere Zeit. Deutsche Revue der Gegenwart, N.F. 4: 780−789. Kuryłowicz, Jerzy 1978 Lecture du ‘Mémoire’ en 1978: un commentaire. Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure 32: 7− 26. De Lamberterie, Charles 2007 La théorie des laryngales en indo-européen. Comptes rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 151: 141−166. Lefmann, Salomon 1870 August Schleicher. Eine Skizze. Leipzig: Teubner. Lefmann, Salomon 1891−1897 Franz Bopp, sein Leben und seine Wissenschaft. Mit dem Bildnis Franz Bopps und einem Anhang: Aus Briefen und anderen Schriften. 2 vols + Nachtrag. Mit einer Einleitung und einem vollständigem Register. 1 vol. Berlin: G. Reimer. Lehmann, Winfred P. 1967 A Reader in Nineteenth Century Historical Indo-European Linguistics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Lehmann, Winfred P. and Ladislav Zgusta 1979 Schleicher’s Tale after a Century. In: Bela Brogyanyi (ed.), Studies in Diachronic, Synchronic, and Typological Linguistics: Festschrift for Oswald Szemerényi on the occasion of his 65 th birthday. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 445−466. Leopold, Joan 1983 The Letter Liveth: The Life, Work and Library of August Friedrich Pott. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Leskien, August 1876 Bopp, Franz. Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, vol. 3. Berlin: Duncker and Humblot, 140−149. [Repr. in Sebeok (ed.) 1966, Vol. I, 207−221.] Lexis, Wilhelm (ed.) 1893 Die deutschen Universitäten; für die Universitätsausstellung in Chicago 1893. 2 vols. Berlin: Asher and C o.

203

204

III. Historical perspectives on Indo-European linguistics Lindeman, Fredrik Otto 1987 Introduction to the Laryngeal Theory. Oslo: Norwegian University Press. Lindner, Thomas 2011−2015 Indogermanische Grammatik. Band IV/1: Komposition. Heidelberg: Winter (4 fasc. of Bd. IV/1 published). Lötzsch, Ronald 1985 Jacob Grimm über die Verwandtschaftsverhältnisse der indoeuropäischen, finno-ugrischen, baltischen und germanischen Sprachen und Dialekte. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 38: 704−711. Mallory, James P. 1989 In Search of the Indo-Europeans: Language, Archaeology and Myth. London: Thames and Hudson. Mallory, James P. and Douglas Q. Adams (eds.) 1997 The Encyclopaedia of Indo-European Culture. London: Fitzroy Dearborn. Martinet, André 1955 Économie des changements phonétiques. Bern: Francke. De Mauro, Tullio and Lia Formigari (eds.) 1990 Leibniz, Humboldt, and the Origins of Comparativism. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Mayrhofer, Manfred 1981 Nach hundert Jahren. Ferdinand de Saussures Frühwerk und seine Rezeption durch die heutige Indogermanistik. Mit einem Beitrag von Ronald Zwanziger. Heidelberg: Winter. Mayrhofer, Manfred 1983 Sanskrit und die Sprachen Alteuropas. Zwei Jahrhunderte des Widerspiels von Entdeckungen und Irrtümern. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Mayrhofer, Manfred 1988 Zum Weiterwirken von Saussures ‚Mémoire‘. Kratylos 33: 1−15. Mayrhofer, Manfred 2004 Die Hauptprobleme der indogermanischen Lautlehre seit Bechtel. Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Mayrhofer, Manfred 2009 Indogermanistik. Über Darstellungen und Einführungen von den Anfängen bis in der Gegenwart. Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Meid, Wolfgang 1975 Probleme der räumlichen und zeitlichen Gliederung des Indogermanischen. In: Helmut Rix (ed.), Flexion und Wortbildung. Akten der V. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft Regensburg, 9.−14. September 1973. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 204−219. Meid, Wolfgang (ed.) 1998 Sprache und Kultur der Indogermanen. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck. Meriggi, Piero 1966 Die Junggrammatiker und die heutige Sprachwissenschaft. Die Sprache 12: 1−15. Metcalf, George J. 1974 The Indo-European Hypothesis in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. In: Hymes (ed.), 233−257. [Repr. in Metcalf 2013, 33−56] Metcalf, George J. 2013 On Language Diversity and Relationship from Bibliander to Adelung. Ed. with an introduction by Toon Van Hal and Raf Van Rooy. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Meyer, Gustav 1893 Von wem stammt die Bezeichnung Indogermanen? Anzeiger für indogermanische Sprach- und Altertumswissenschaft 2: 125−130.

16. Indo-European linguistics in the 19 th and 20 th centuries Meyer, Leo 1901 Über den Ursprung der Namen Indogermanen, Semiten und Ugrofinnen. Göttingische gelehrte Nachrichten, Phil.-historische Klasse 1901, 448−459. Morpurgo-Davies, Anna 1975 Language Classification in the Nineteenth Century. In: Sebeok (ed.), 607−716. Morpurgo-Davies, Anna 1986 Karl Brugmann and late Nineteenth-Century Linguistics. In: Bynon and Palmer (eds.), 150−171. Morpurgo-Davies, Anna 1987 ‘Organic’ and ‘Organism’ in Franz Bopp. In: Hoenigswald and Wiener (eds.), 81−107. Morpurgo-Davies, Anna 1996 La linguistica dell’Ottocento, Bologna: il Mulino. [English transl., Nineteenth-Century Linguistics, London: Longmans, 1998.] Mugdan, Joachim 1984 Jan Baudouin de Courtenay (1845−1929). Leben und Werk. Munich: Fink. Muller, Jean-Claude 1986 Early Stages of Language Comparison from Sassetti to Sir William Jones (1786). Kratylos 31: 1−31. Naumann, Bernd, Frans Plank and Gottfried Hofbauer (eds.) 1992 Language and Earth. Elective affinities between the emerging sciences of linguistics and geology. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Negri, Mario and Vincenzo Orioles (eds.) 1992 Storia, problemi e metodo del comparatismo linguistico. Atti del convegno della Società Italiana di Glottologia, Bologna, 29 novembre − 1 dicembre 1990. Pisa: Giardini. Neumann, Gunter 1967 Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft 1816 und 1966. Innsbruck: Leopold-FranzensUniversität. Neumann, Werner 1985 Zum Sprachbegriff Jacob Grimms. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 38: 500−518. Norman, Frederick 1929 ‘Indo-European’ and ‘Indo-Germanic’. Modern Language Review 24: 313−321. Norman, William M. 1972 The Neogrammarians and Comparative Linguistics. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton University. Nüsse, Heinrich 1962 Die Sprachtheorie Friedrich Schlegels. Heidelberg: Winter. Orlandi, Tito 1962 La metodologia di Franz Bopp e la linguistica precedente. Rendiconti dell’Istituto Lombardo di Scienze e Lettere; Classe di lettere e scienze morali e storiche 96: 529−559. Pätsch, Gertrud 1960 Franz Bopp und die historisch-vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft. In: Willi Göber and Friedrich Herneck (eds.), Forschen und Wirken. Festschrift zur 150. Jahr-Feier der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin 1810−1960. Berlin: VEB deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften, 211−228. Paulsen, Friedrich 1896−1897 Geschichte des gelehrten Unterrichts auf den deutschen Schulen und Universitäten von Ausgang des Mittelalters bis zur Gegenwart. 2 vols, 2 nd edn. 1919−1921. Berlin: De Gruyter. Pedersen, Holger 1924 Sprogvidenskaben i det nittende aarhundrede: Metoder og resultater, Copenhagen: Gyldendal. [English transl., Linguistic Science in the Nineteenth Century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1931.]

205

206

III. Historical perspectives on Indo-European linguistics Percival, W. Keith 1974 Rask’s View of Linguistic Development and Phonetic Correspondences. In: Hymes (ed.), 307−314. Pfeiffer, Rudolf 1976 History of Classical Scholarship from 1300 to 1850. Oxford: Clarendon. Picardi, Eva 1977 Some Problems of Classification in Linguistics and Biology 1800−1830. Historiographia Linguistica 4: 31−57. Plank, Frans 1987 What Friedrich Schlegel Could have Learned from Alexander (“Sanscrit”) Hamilton besides Sanskrit? Lingua e Stile 22: 367−384. Plank, Frans 1993 Professor Pott und die Lehre der Allgemeinen Sprachwissenschaft. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft 3: 94−128. Poppe, Erich 1992 Lag es in der Luft? − Johann Kaspar Zeuss und die Konstituierung der Keltologie. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft 2: 41−56. Priestly, Tom M. S. 1975 Schleicher, Čelakovský, and the Family-Tree Diagram: A puzzle in the history of linguistics. Historiographia Linguistica 2: 299−333. Putschke, Wolfgang 1969 Zur forschungsgeschichtlichen Stellung der junggrammatischen Schule. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 36: 19−48. Quattordio Moreschini, Adriana (ed.) 1986 Un periodo di storia linguistica: i neogrammatici. Atti del Convegno della Società italiana di Glottologia (1985). Pisa: Giardini. von Raumer, Rudolf 1870 Geschichte der germanischen Philologie. Munich: Oldenbourg. Redard, Georges 1978 Deux Saussure? Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure 32: 27−41. Reis, Margot 1978 Hermann Paul. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 100: 159− 204. Renfrew, Colin and Daniel Nettle (eds.) 1999 Nostratic: Examining a Linguistic Macrofamily. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Robins, Robert H. 1978 The Neogrammarians and their Nineteenth-century Predecessors. Transactions of the Philological Society 1978: 1−16. Robins, Robert H. 1987 The Life and Work of Sir William Jones. Transactions of the Philological Society 1987: 1−23. Rocher, Rosane 1968 Alexander Hamilton (1762−1824). A chapter in the early history of Sanskrit philology. New Haven: American Oriental Society. Rocher, Rosane 1980 Nathaniel Brassey Halhed, Sir William Jones and Comparative Indo-European Linguistics. In: Recherches de linguistique. Hommage à Maurice Leroy. Brussels: Presses de l’Université de Bruxelles, 173−180. Rocher, Rosane 2001 The Knowledge of Sanskrit in Europe until 1800. In: Auroux et al. (eds.), vol. 2, 1156− 1163.

16. Indo-European linguistics in the 19 th and 20 th centuries Růžička, Rudolf 1977 Historie und Historizität der Junggrammatiker. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Salmons, Joseph C. 1992 The Glottalic Theory: Survey and Synthesis. McLean: Institute for the Study of Man. Sanderson, Michael 1975 The Universities in the Nineteenth Century. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Scherer, Wilhelm 1865 Jacob Grimm, 2 nd edn. 1885. Berlin: Reimer [New edition by Sigrid von der Schulenburg, Berlin: Dom, 1921] Schlerath, Bernfried 1989 Franz Bopp (1791−1867). In: Michael Erbe (ed.), Berlinische Lebensbilder. IV: Geisteswissenschaftler. Berlin: Duncker and Humblot, 55−72. Schmidt, Hartmut 1986 Die lebendige Sprache. Zur Entstehung des Organismuskonzepts. Berlin: Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR. Schmidt, Johannes 1887 Schleicher’s [A]uffassung der [L]autgesetze. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 28: 303−312. Schmidt, Johannes 1890 August Schleicher. Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie Vol. XXXI. 402−415. [Repr. in Sebeok ed. 1966, Vol. I, 374−395.] Schmitt, Rüdiger 1967 Dichter und Dichtersprache in indogermanischer Zeit. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Schmitter, Peter (ed.) 1987−2007 Geschichte der Sprachtheorie. 6 vols. Tübingen: Narr. Schneider, Gisela 1973 Zum Begriff des Lautgesetzes in der Sprachwissenschaft seit den Junggrammatikern. Tübingen: Narr. Schwab, Raymond 1984 The Oriental Renaissance. Europe’s Rediscovery of India and the East 1680−1880. New York: Columbia University Press. [French original, La renaissance orientale. Paris, 1950.] Sebeok, Thomas A. (ed.) 1966 Portraits of Linguists. A biographical source book for the history of Western Linguistics 1746−1963. 2 vols. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Sebeok, Thomas A. (ed.) 1975 Current Trends in Linguistics, Vol. 13: Historiography of Linguistics. The Hague: Mouton. Shapiro, Fred R. 1981 On the Origin of the Term ‘Indogermanic’. Historiographia Linguistica 8: 165−170. Shields, Kenneth C. 1992 A History of Indo-European Verb Morphology. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Siegert, Hans 1941−1942 Zur Geschichte der Begriffe ‘Arier’ und ‘arisch’. Wörter und Sachen. Zeitschrift für indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft, Volksforschung und Kulturgeschichte 22: 73−99. Specht, Franz 1948 Die ‘indogermanische’ Sprachwissenschaft von den Junggrammatikern bis zum 1. Weltkrieg. Lexis 1: 229−263. Stammerjohann, Harro (ed.) 2009 Lexicon grammaticorum. A Bio-bibliographical Companion to the History of Linguistics. 2 vols. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

207

208

III. Historical perspectives on Indo-European linguistics Stankiewicz, Edward 1976 Baudouin de Courtenay and the Foundations of Structural Linguistics. Lisse: P. de Ridder. Sternemann, Reinhard 1984a Franz Bopp und die vergleichende indoeuropäische Sprachwissenschaft. Beobachtungen zum Boppschen Sprachvergleichung aus Anlass irriger Interpretationen in der linguistischen Literatur. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität. Sternemann, Reinhard 1984b Franz Bopps Beitrag zur Entwicklung der vergleichenden Sprachwissenschaft. Zeitschrift für Germanistik 5: 144−158. Sternemann, Reinhard 1994 Franz Bopp und seine Analytical Comparison. In: Sternemann (ed.), 254−269. Sternemann, Reinhard (ed.) 1994 Bopp-Symposium 1992 der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. Heidelberg: C. Winter. Stipa, Günter Johannes 1990 Finnisch-ugrische Sprachforschung. Von der Renaissance bis zum Neopositivismus. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Streitberg, Wilhelm 1897 Schleichers Auffassung von der Stellung der Sprachwissenschaft. Indogermanische Forschungen 7: 360−372. Streitberg, Wilhelm (ed.) 1916−1929 Geschichte der indogermanischen Sprachwissenschaft seit ihrer Begründung durch Franz Bopp. Strassburg: Trübner. Streitberg, Wilhelm 1919 Karl Brugmann. Indogermanisches Jahrbuch 7: 143−148. Swiggers, Pierre 1990 Un jalon dans l’étude du sanskrit au XVIIIe siècle: l’article ‘Samskret’ de l’Encyclopédie. Die Sprache 34: 158−164. Swiggers, Pierre 1993 L’étude comparative des langues vers 1830. Humboldt, Du Ponceau, Klaproth et le baron de Mérian. In: Daniel Droixhe and Chantal Grell (eds.), La linguistique entre mythe et histoire. Münster: Nodus, 275−295. Swiggers, Pierre and Piet Desmet 1996 L’élaboration de la linguistique comparative: comparaison et typologie des langues jusqu’au début du XIXe siècle. In: Schmitter (ed.), 1987−2007. Vol. 5, 122−177. Swiggers, Pierre and Toon Van Hal 2014 Morphologie du langage et typologie linguistique. La connexion ‘Schleicher − SaintPétersbourg’. In: Vadim Kasevich, Yuri Kleiner, and Patrick Sériot (eds.), History of Linguistics 2011. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 87−102. Szemerényi, Oswald 1982 Richtungen der modernen Sprachwissenschaft. 2. Die fünfziger Jahre (1950−1962). Heidelberg: Winter. Szemerényi, Oswald 1985 Recent Developments in Indo-European Linguistics. Transactions of the Philological Society 1985: 1−71. Tagliavini, Carlo 1963 Panorama di storia della linguistica, 2 nd edn. 1968, 3 rd edn. 1970. Bologna: Pàtron. Tagliavini, Carlo 1968 Panorama di storia della filologia germanica. Bologna: Patròn. Thomsen, Vilhelm 1902 Sprogvidenskabens historie: En kortfattet Fremstilling, Copenhagen: Gad. [German translation, Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft bis zum Ausgang des 19. Jahrhunderts. Halle: Niemeyer, 1927.]

16. Indo-European linguistics in the 19 th and 20 th centuries Timpanaro, Sebastiano 1972 Friedrich Schlegel e gli inizi della linguistica indoeuropea in Germania. Critica storica 9: 72−105. Timpanaro, Sebastiano 1973 Il contrasto tra i fratelli Schlegel e Franz Bopp sulla struttura e la genesi delle lingue indoeuropee. Critica storica 10: 553−590. Tourneur, Victor 1905 Esquisse d’une histoire des études celtiques. Liège: Vaillant-Carmanne. Vallini, Cristina 1972 Linee generali del problema dell’analogia dal periodo schleicheriano a F. de Saussure. Pisa: Pacini. Vallini, Cristina 1978 Le point de vue du grammairien ou la place de l’étymologie dans l’œuvre de F. de Saussure indo-européaniste. Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure 32: 43−57. Vennemann, Theo (ed.) 1989 The New Sound of Indo-European. Berlin: De Gruyter. Verburg, Pieter A. 1950 The Background to the Linguistic Conceptions of Franz Bopp. Lingua 2: 438−468. Verburg, Pieter A. 1952 Taal en functionaliteit. Een historisch-critische studie over de opvattingen aangaande de functies der taal vanaf de prae-humanistische philologie van Orleans tot de rationalistische linguistiek van Bopp [Language and functionality. A historical-critical study of conceptions concerning the functions of language from the pre-humanistic philology of Orleans to the rationalist linguistics of Bopp]. Wageningen: Veenman. Watkins, Calvert 1978 Remarques sur la méthode de Ferdinand de Saussure comparatiste. Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure 32: 59−69. Watkins, Calvert 1995 How to Kill a Dragon: Aspects of Indo-European Poetics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wechssler, Eduard 1900 Gibt es Lautgesetze? Halle: Niemeyer. Wells, Rulon S. 1979 Linguistics as a Science: the case of the comparative method. In: Hoenigswald (ed.), 23−61. Wells, Rulon S. 1987 The Life and Growth of Language Metaphors in Biology and Linguistics. In: Hoenigswald and Wiener (eds.), 39−80. Wilbur, Terence H. 1977 The Lautgesetz-Controversy. A Documentation (1885−1886). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Williams, Johanna E. 1991 Baudouin de Courtenay and his Place in the History of Linguistics. Historiographia Linguistica 18: 349−367. Windisch, Ernst 1917−1920 Geschichte der Sanskrit Philologie und indischen Altertumskunde. 2 vols. Strassburg: Trübner. Winter, Werner (ed.) 1965 Evidence for Laryngeals. The Hague: Mouton. Wyss, Ulrich 1979 Die wilde Philologie: Jacob Grimm und der Historismus. Munich: Beck.

209

210

III. Historical perspectives on Indo-European linguistics Zeller, Otto 1967 Problemgeschichte der vergleichenden (indogermanischen) Sprachwissenschaft. Osnabrück: Biblio. Zimmer, Stefan 2002−2003 Tendenzen der indogermanischen Altertumskunde 1965−2000. Kratylos 47: 1− 22; 48: 1−25.

Pierre Swiggers, Leuven (Belgium)

17. Encyclopedic works on Indo-European linguistics 1. Introduction 2. Grammatical overviews of Proto-Indo-European

3. Etymological dictionaries of Proto-Indo-European 4. References

1. Introduction Following its conceptualization prior to the end of the 18 th century (Muller 1986), the Indo-European hypothesis, viz. the idea that various living and dead languages extending from Europe to India derive from an unattested mother tongue (“a common source which, perhaps, no longer exists”, Sir William Jones, 1786), was established on firm ground 200 years ago by the Berlin professor Franz Bopp in his “Conjugationssystem der Sanskritsprache” (Bopp 1816). While Bopp systematically used the novelties of Sanskrit, which had become known in a Europe avid for knowledge since the beginning of British rule in India (Jankowsky 2009), the Danish linguist Rasmus Kristian Rask demonstrated one year later (Rask 1818) that a scientific comparative approach could equally be based on the already well known languages of Europe, excepting Sanskrit and Iranian (Mayrhofer 2009: 8−9).

2. Grammatical overviews of Proto-Indo-European The fields of history and classical antiquity have their respective German reference works, “the Gebhardt” or “the Pauly-Wissowa”, de-onomastic word formations to designate the standard handbooks in those domains of knowledge. Bruno Gebhardt’s historical handbook series was started in 1891 and has appeared in a completely new edition since 2001. Its readers extend from the general public to students of history who look for a competent orientation. In parallel fashion, the Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertums-Wissenschaft, founded by August Friedrich Pauly (1796−1845) and continued by Georg Wissowa (1859−1931), soon became established as the standard work for students of classical antiquity. Similarly, in the field of Indo-European studies, the de-onomastic https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261288-017

17. Encyclopedic works on Indo-European linguistics appellations “the Bopp”, “the Schleicher”, “the Brugmann” customarily designate encyclopedic works, most of them published in several volumes and/or editions at some thirty years’ intervals in 1833, 1861 and 1886 respectively. They were considered to have codified the sum of knowledge attained in the field well beyond their moment of publication. Their comprehensive character rendered them less useful as handbooks for beginning students; rather, they were used as reference tools by practitioners of Indo-European linguistics. After the publication, at the end of the 19 th and the beginning of the 20 th century, of Brugmann & Delbrück’s Grundriß as well as Brugmann’s Kurze Vergleichende Grammatik, and excepting the idiosyncratic 7-volume Indogermanische Grammatik of Hirt (Hirt 1921−1937), a time gap of some 80 years ensues before the next endeavor, by several international scholars this time, of a comprehensive new project of an Indogermanische Grammatik [grammar of Indo-European]. True enough, the two World Wars, the emigration of many Jewish linguists, and the Holocaust had shaken the institutional bases of Indo-European studies in many countries. In Germany and Austria, the terms “urindogermanisch” [Proto-Indo-European] and “arisch” [Aryan] had to regain scientific respectability after their abuse by the Nazis. The editorial adventure of a new Indogermanische Grammatik was started by the Polish scholar Jerzy Kuryłowicz in 1968 with a volume (designated vol. II) on Akzent and Ablaut (Kuryłowicz 1968), followed one year later by a semi-volume (designated vol. III, part 1) titled Formenlehre − Geschichte der Indogermanischen Verbalflexion (Watkins 1969). The project lay at rest for some 20 years until Manfred Mayrhofer of the University of Vienna took over as the new general editor (Mayrhofer 1985). The third volume to appear (Cowgill 1986; Mayrhofer 1986, designated vol. I, half-volume 1 and 2) should indeed have been the first in the series and was hampered by the untimely death of Warren Cowgill. This editorial project now finally considered, on the one hand, the newly discovered Indo-European daughter languages of the Anatolian branch (especially Hittite) and the two dialects of Tocharian and, on the other hand, integrated newly developed structural concepts like laryngeals and the glottalic theory into the discussion. 25 further years would pass before the project was taken up again by Thomas Lindner of the University of Salzburg (Austria), who thus far has produced four fascicles of volume four under the general heading of Komposition [compounds], among which the last is devoted to questions of the historiography of linguistics (Lindner 2011−2015). Franz Bopp’s Vergleichende Grammatik des Sanskrit, Zend, Griechischen, Lateinischen, Lithauischen, Gothischen und Deutschen, the publication of which started in 1833 in Berlin, has been called an epochal achievement, given that an enormous amount of linguistic material had to be dealt with, leading to the intuitive apprehension of insights in a field which had begun to be ploughed only 18 years prior (Mayrhofer 2009: 10). The linguistic material is presented and discussed in eight chapters of uneven length, viz. Schrift- und Laut-System [writing and sound system], Von den Wurzeln [about roots], Bildung der Casus [case formation], Adjective [adjectives], Zahlwörter [numerals], Pronomina [pronouns], Verbum [the verb], Wortbildung [noun formation]. No reconstruction as such of PIE forms is attempted by Bopp “but in fact the [whole] work is a work of reconstruction; the whole book is an attempt at explaining what forms in the individual languages count as innovations and what forms are inherited” (Morpurgo Davies 1994: 248−249). Discussing the nominative singular of the athematic n-stems, Bopp (1833− 1852: i, 166) concludes that there was an original final -n, although Skt. rā´jā, Lat. homō

211

212

III. Historical perspectives on Indo-European linguistics lack it in comparison with Gk. eudaímōn. Since -n- appears in all other case forms of these nouns, Bopp thinks it may have been lost in the nominative “in der Zeit vor der Sprachwanderung” [at a time before the linguistic migration], that is, even before the breaking asunder of the original linguistic unity. In a paper presented at the Bopp Symposium 1992, Heiner Eichner underlined the relevance of some of Bopp’s grammatical points, such as the Germanic weak preterite or the missing expression of some moods in archaic Indo-European languages (Eichner 1994). Some thirty years later, August Schleicher’s Compendium der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen. Kurzer Abriss einer Laut- und Formenlehre des indogermanischen Ursprache, des Altindischen, Alteranischen, Altgriechischen, Altitalischen, Altkeltischen, Altslawischen, Litauischen und Altdeutschen (Schleicher 1861− 1862) represented an inversion of perspective. This professor at the University of Jena innovated by associating the reconstructed proto-language with its oldest attested daughter languages, going as far as composing a fable − “the wolf and the sheep” − in reconstructed PIE. Schleicher uses the asterisk consistently for reconstructed forms and also develops the concept of discrete splits away from the “indogermanische ursprache” [the IE primeval language] down to the attested languages. In his tree model (Schleicher 1871: 9), he operates with intermediate stages which have to be reconstructed in their own right; thus, the first two branches to break away from the “urprache” are “slawodeutsch” [Slavo-Germanic] and “ariograecoitalokeltisch” [Aryan-Greek-Italo-Celtic]. This 829 page volume presents for the first time an impressive account of phonology, divided between vowels and consonants. After a short presentation of the PIE phonological inventory, the author meticulously exposes the systems of the daughter languages : Old Indic, “Altbaktrisch” i.e. Avestan, Old Greek, Italic, Old Irish, Old Bulgarian, i.e. Old Church Slavonic, Lithuanian and Gothic. This first section occupies two fifths of the volume, being followed by the second chapter on morphology, divided between an account of roots and stems, as well as word formation, under which are subsumed the cases, the pronouns and, finally, the conjugations with their endings and stem formations according to “tempus” [tenses]. It has been pointed out that Schleicher was unable to conceptualize changes within the reconstructed protolanguage and thus to develop a view of earlier versus later stages of PIE, blinded as he was by his family tree model and the discrete branchings off of the daughter languages He refers once more to the athematic n-stems where, instead of reconstructing a final *-V:n in view of “ai áçmā, gr. poimḗn, lit. akmuõ, lat. homō, got. guma d. i. *gumā ” (Schleicher 1871: 12−13), Schleicher argues instead that the long vowel is more likely to have arisen independently in a number of languages after the separation and prefers to reconstruct e.g. *akmans for Indo-European (Morpurgo Davies 1994: 247−248). Mayrhofer, basing his judgement upon a bon mot of Delbrück, contrasts the approaches of Bopp and Schleicher in the following way: “Bopp conquers, Schleicher organizes. Bopp’s presentation is like an interesting trial, while Schleicher’s work reminds one of the paragraphs of a law code. Schleicher’s Compendium could easily be taken apart to edit as many individual grammars …” (Maryhofer 2009: 11). It is interesting to note that neither August Leskien nor Johannes Schmidt, who saw the third edition of the Compendium of their teacher August Schleicher through the press in late 1870, produced an overview or a general work on Indo-European. It was instead Karl Brugmann, together with Berthold Delbrück, both students of Georg Curtius at Leipzig in the early 1870s, who would codify the contemporary knowledge about PIE

17. Encyclopedic works on Indo-European linguistics in the monumental 5 volume Grundriß der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen [Outline of the comparative grammar of the Indo-European languages]. Both young linguists (Junggrammatiker) had forcefully established around 1876 the principle of the Ausnahmslosigkeit der Lautgesetze [the exceptionlessness of phonological rules], interfered with only by the operation of analogy (their exceptionally brilliant student, Ferdinand de Saussure, later claimed that some of his own intuitions had been “plagiarized” by Brugmann and Delbrück). The Grundriß no doubt played an important role in the strategy to establish the thinking of the Leipzig school of comparative linguistics, first among the students of the next generation, and finally in all the Indo-European curricula in the united Germany and much beyond. Brugmann’s Grundriß is characterized by a very clear presentation. Beginning with a general “Einleitung” [introduction] about the PIE language family and its branches (I-1: 1−40), the author embarks on an extensive “Lautlehre” [phonology] anchored in phonetic prolegomena (I-1: 41−72) and discussion of the (transliterated) orthographic systems of the various daughter languages (I-1: 72−92), followed by the “lautgesetzlich” developments of the PIE phonemes in the derived languages (I-1: 92−622; I-2: 623−875), and concluding with a treatment of accentuation and suprasegmental phonology (I-2: 875− 992). Brugmann’s volume II is devoted to the various nominal and verbal word formations. Volumes three to five of the great overview are due to Delbrück and treat syntactic matters under the general title Vergleichende Syntax der indogermanischen Sprachen. In a historiographic account of 1927, the Danish linguist Vilhelm Thomsen characterized Brugmann’s and Delbrück’s Grundriß − published altogether in eight volumes in its first edition − as “das grosse Hauptwerk, eine streng wissenschaftliche Kodifikation der indoeuropäischen Sprachforschung auf ihrem Standpunkt in der Jahrhundertwende” [The great foundational work, a strictly scientific codification of Indo-European linguistic research from its perspective at the turn of the century]. Even today, the summum opus of Brugmann can be consulted with profit and, above all, has not yet been superseded. An English translation by Joseph Wright (vol. I) and by R. Seymour Conway and W. H. D. Rouse (vol. II and indices) was published by Westermann & Co in New York as early as 1888−1895. This was followed by a translation into French in 1905, produced under the supervision of Antoine Meillet. Simultaneously with a second edition in nine volumes of the Grundriß (Brugmann2 1897−1916), Brugmann himself produced a condensed version titled Kurze Vergleichende Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen [Short comparative grammar of the Indo-European languages] (Brugmann 1902−1904). In the age of the world-wide-web, all of this material can be consulted in digitized form at the site archive.org. (See also https://www.win.tue.nl/~aeb/natlang/ie/grundriss.html (consulted Nov. 4, 2016). 1927 was also the year in which volume 1 of the seven-volume Indogermanische Grammatik [Indo-European grammar] of the Giessen professor Hermann Hirt was published (Hirt 1921−1937; volume 2 had already appeared six years earlier). In an approach which the author himself describes as iconoclastic (“Die indogermanische Grammatik … wird ein anderes Werk werden, als man bisher gewöhnt war” [The Indogermanische Grammatik … will be a work different from what people have previously come to expect; I: v), he bases his novel hypotheses on accent and Ablaut but fails to present a state of the art account which could be used independently by students or would replace “the Brugmann”. In this way it also differed from Meillet’s single-volume work Introduction à l’étude comparative des langues indo-européennes, the first edition of which had

213

214

III. Historical perspectives on Indo-European linguistics appeared in 1903. (As a shorter treatment written largely for students, Meillet’s work will not concern us here.) The late Manfred Mayrhofer (2009: 15) speaks of his lifelong ambiguous relationship to Hirt’s handbook, which can be read with profit if the unusual approaches of Hirt are checked philologically. The unconventional nature of the work is mirrored also in the titles of the seven volumes : vol. 1 introduction and “etymology” by which the author means phonology of the consonants; vol. 2 Indo-European vocalism (1921); vol. 3 the noun (Flexions- und Stammbildungslehre); vol. 4 reduplication, composition, followed by the verb; vol. 5 accent; vol. 6 syntactic use of the cases and the verbal forms; vol. 7 (posthumous) the syntax of simple and compound sentences. The picture of Proto-Indo-European which Brugmann and Delbrück had codified in their Grundriß witnessed dramatic changes even before World War I: the archaeological discoveries during the first decade of the 20 th century of texts in two heretofore unknown branches of Indo-European, Hittite and the Anatolian languages of Asia Minor as well as the two dialects of Tocharian on the Silk Road in Chinese Turkestan, would trouble the consensual picture. Similarly, the presence in the Anatolian documents of so-called laryngeals corresponding to the “coefficients sonantiques” which Ferdinand de Saussure had hypothesized as early as 1878 to explain certain structural long-vowel correspondences, slowly led to a completely renewed image of the reconstructed PIE proto-language. In view of the predictive power of the comparative method, which was proven by the new textual finds, it is astonishing to notice that it would take at least six decades for the laryngeal theory to become generally embraced, not to speak of its acceptance in a new handbook of PIE. Mention must also be made of the substantial upheavals caused by both World Wars (1914−1918 and 1939−1945) with their displacements of scientific personnel and disorientation of research and teaching. Add to this the explosion and, at the same time, the fragmentation of knowledge and scientific disciplines, and it will become evident that no single linguist could pretend any more to offer an overview of PIE on an individual basis. In the same way as Hermann Hirt had begun his project with volume two, volume two titled “Band II: Akzent . Ablaut” of a new “Indogermanische Grammatik” [IndoEuropean grammar] was published in German by the Polish linguist Jerzy Kuryłowicz in 1968. This 371-page volume was followed one year later by the 248-page volume III “Formenlehre − Erster Teil. Geschichte der Indogermanischen Verbalflexion” authored by Harvard professor Calvert Watkins. Both volumes share the characteristic that no introduction situates them in the perspective of the general project; they rather give the impression of personal monographs about their respective topics. This aspect changes completely some 18 years later, when the new editor Manfred Mayrhofer (see also Mayrhofer 1985 and Mayrhofer 2010/2011), with his keen interest in the historiography of linguistics, introduces the first two half volumes of volume I, the Introduction by the late Warren Cowgill and the segmental phonology of Indo-European by himself. The laryngeal theory with its convincing explanation of diverse phenomena has here finally been given its due in a general work. Nevertheless, the progress of the enterprise has been hampered by various adverse circumstances, chief among them financial, resulting in the suspension of work on volume IV “Nominalflexion”; and it took until 2012 for the project to be reconstituted, this time under the directorship of the new editor, Thomas Lindner of the University of Salzburg (Austria). The revised plan for the full edition specifies a total of six volumes, divided between vol. 1 introduction and phonology (a reedition of Cowgill [1986] and of Mayrhofer [1986]); vol. 2 morphonology (accent and

17. Encyclopedic works on Indo-European linguistics Ablaut) with a new treatment by Stefan Schaffner of Kuryłowicz [1968]); vol. 3 flectional morphology with a new version of Watkins (1969), plus three more partial volumes dealing with nominal and pronominal inflection (by Martin Kümmel), verbal inflection (by Melanie Malzahn), and numerals, indeclinables and particles (by Matthias Fritz); vol. 4 derivational morphology with two subaspects, viz. composition and derivation; vol. 5 syntax with a plethora of potential contributors; vol. 6 indices. At this writing, merely four fascicles of volume 4 have seen the light of day under the authorship of Thomas Lindner. The 300 pages of this work appearing so far, with their fractured approach to the material (extending to as many as six subdivisions), unfortunately appear to lose themselves in details instead of presenting a state-of-theart, matter-of-fact view of the problems discussed. Fasc. 4 (dated 2015) is a most interesting excursus into the history of linguistics and of some linguistic concepts but unfortunately strengthens the impression that the whole enterprise is embarked on a downhill path.

3. Etymological dictionaries of Proto-Indo-European Given that reconstructed roots play an important role in understanding the regular developments from Proto-Indo-European to the daughter languages, it is remarkable that an overview of the accumulated lexical knowledge of PIE was presented only as late as 1926−1930 in the three-volume Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der indogermanischen Sprachen [Comparative dictionary of the Indo-European languages] by Alois Walde and Julius Pokorny (Walde-Pokorny 1926−1930). The very formulation of the title sheds light on the orientation of the Austrian-German authors, viz. to concentrate rather on the variety in the daughter languages than on the strict reconstruction of roots in the mother tongue. In 1959 Julius Pokorny, who is also known as an expert in Celtic linguistics, updated and reduced the three volumes to a single one, plus an index volume, titled Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch [Indo-European etymological dictionary], in abreviation IEW (Pokorny 1959). “The Pokorny” has since remained an important reference tool, though its approach was extremely conservative even in the late 1950s: relatively little Anatolian or Tocharian linguistic material (three-and-a-half pages of Anatolian and five-and-a-half pages of Tocharian words [the former a bit more than Czech, the latter comparable to Albanian or Old Prussian] listed in the index volume) was included even forty years after these two branches of Indo-European were established. This author remembers perusing a copy of the IEW in the Linguistic Seminar Library at Yale University into which Edward Sapir and Franklin Edgerton had pencilled under the various lemmata the missing lexical attestations from Hittite and Tocharian. Moreover, Pokorny continued to ignore the laryngeal theory in his slimmed-down reworking of “the Walde-Pokorny”. The reconstructed lemmata are not marked by an asterisk, thus pretending to represent a reality which can definitely be denied to them. In cases where the semantics of the attestations in the daughter languages seemed too far-spread to Pokorny, he would simply posit several reconstructed etyma of the same form side by side, numbering them as high as sometimes eight (e.g. *mel- Pokorny 1959: 716−722). Despite these shortcomings, the IEW has gone through several editions since 1959, the latest, the 5 th, dates from 2005 and was published by the same editor, Francke. The

215

216

III. Historical perspectives on Indo-European linguistics University of Texas has made available Pokorny’s PIE data at the site http://www. utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/ielex/PokornyMaster-X.html (consulted Nov. 6, 2016). The reworking of Walde-Pokorny (1926−1930) by Pokorny (1959) had been preceded ten years earlier by a pragmatic 1515 page volume which regroups under 22 headings and many more subchapters the attested vocabulary in most of the PIE daughter languages for an impressive number of concepts from the material world (body parts, plants, animals, food and drink) as well as more abstract concepts (possession, commerce, emotions, mind and thought, warfare, law) (Buck 1949). From a historiographic viewpoint “the Buck”, though remaining a useful first step for any onomasiological and even semasiological inquiry, has to be viewed against the background of the 100- and 200-word basic vocabulary lists developed by Morris Swadesh for field linguistics after World War Two. No reconstruction of any PIE root is furnished, Hittite and Tocharian examples are missing, and references are to Walde-Pokorny (1926−1930). The turn of the millennium witnessed a proliferation of PIE dictionary projects. The first to appear developed out of a research initiative at the University of Freiburg im Breisgau (Germany) under Helmut Rix. The LIV − Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben has gone through two printed editions. Addenda and Corrigenda to the second edition continue to be published on the world-wide-web at the address http://www. indogermanistik.uni-jena.de/dokumente/PDF/liv2add.pdf (consulted Nov. 6, 2016). A surface analysis would classify the LIV as an update of the verbal entries in Pokorny’s IEW, rendering the reconstructions of the PIE verbal roots through the grid of the theory of the three laryngeals. Yet the syntactico-semantic analysis which permeates the root entries in the LIV goes far deeper. Rix and his students, chief among them Martin Kümmel, assume a dichotomy between telic and atelic verbs in early Proto-Indo-European. Telic verbs envisage the action expressed by the verbal root as terminated, as reduced to one point in time (e.g. wake up, arrive), whereas atelic verbs express the action as ongoing, as continual (e.g. sleep, run). At a later stage of PIE, telic verbs were reinterpreted as aorist forms to which missing present forms were created by means of various suffixes (e.g. *-sk̑e-, *-né- [also called nasal infix presents]). To atelic verbs, on the other hand, were added missing aorist forms (e.g. *-s- [the so called sigmatic aorist]) as they themselves became reinterpreted as present forms. In addition to the dichotomy between telic and atelic verbs, the authors of LIV assume the following aspects stratifying the PIE verbal system: perfect, causative-iterative, desiderative, intensive, fientive and essive. Each lexical entry for a reconstructed verbal root consists of 1. the conjectured meaning; 2. the reconstructed stems with their reflexes in the daughter languages; 3. extensive annotations (bibliography, discussion of alternative or dubious reconstructions); 4. a page reference to the corresponding IEW lemma. The LIV ends with a regressive root index, an index of reconstructed primary stems, and an index of reflexes sorted by daughter languages, all extremely useful and reader friendly. The second partial PIE dictionary to appear, the NIL − Nomina im Indogermanischen Lexikon also saw the light of day at the University of Freiburg im Breisgau (Germany) during the early 2000s. This 863 page volume (Wodtko, Irslinger, and Schneider 2008) is what ultimately emerged from the aborted Indogermanische Grammatik project referred to in 2. above. This book treats only a limited selection of nouns and adjectives and lacks completely the grammatical section which was to have listed the PIE nominal inflection types. It includes, however, an account of the PIE mechanisms for deriving

17. Encyclopedic works on Indo-European linguistics nouns from verbal roots, viz. root nouns, suffixes, vr̥ ddhi derivation. It is immediately evident that the lexical entries in NIL are structured similarly to those in LIV. The third dictionary to cover a partial aspect of the global reconstructed lexicon of PIE appeared in two volumes in 2014 (Dunkel 2014). Titled LIPP − Lexikon der indogermanischen Partikeln und Pronominalstämme, it grew out of the teaching and research of George E. Dunkel at the University of Zürich (Switzerland); and while volume one deals with terminology, sound laws, adverbial endings and nominal suffixes, volume two contains the lexicon of PIE particles and pronominal stems proper. The final PIE dictionary project which this notice discusses is the most ambitious one, the IEED − Indo-European Etymological Dictionary, centered at the Department of Comparative Indo-European Linguistics at Leiden University in the Netherlands. Originally begun in 1991 by Peter Schrijver and Robert Beekes, the project is presently supervised by Alexander Lubotsky and is being funded by Leiden University, Brill Publishers, and the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research. In a general context of budget cuts affecting the smaller fields of study in the humanities, the so called “Orchideenfächer”, the IEED project has demonstrated the viability of collaborative research and networking. It has also resulted in a remarkable series of book publications over a short period of time, though many of these individual etymological dictionaries have come under heavy criticism for having been edited in an unripe state (Lubotsky et al. 2005−2014). This endeavor has two specified goals: 1. to compile etymological data bases for the individual branches of PIE, containing all words that can be traced back to the mother tongue, to edit these lists with prose commentary and produce them in the form of the individual volumes of Brill’s Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary series, and to make these data bases available electronically and free of charge on the Internet (http://www.universiteitleiden.nl/en/research/research-projects/humanities/indo-europeanetymological.dictionary [consulted Nov. 6, 2016]); 2. finally, to create a new large PIE etymological dictionary on the basis of the etymological dictionaries of the PIE daughter language traditions, ultimately intended to replace Pokorny’s IEW. In contrast to the LIV, NIL, and LIPP etymological dictionaries with their pan-IndoEuropean focus, the Leiden IEED project thus far offers a view of the individual language traditions, albeit through their inherited lexicon, rather than a stringent reconstruction of PIE language forms.

4. References Bopp, Franz 1816 Über das Conjugationssystem der Sanskritsprache in Vergleichung mit jenem der griechischen, lateinischen, persischen und germanischen Sprache: Nebst Episoden des Ramajan und Mahabharat und einigen Abschnitten aus den Vedas. With an introduction by Karl J. H. Windischmann. Frankfurt am Main: Andreae. [Reprint Hildesheim: Olms, 1975.] Bopp, Franz 1833−1852 Vergleichende Grammatik des Sanskrit, Zend, Griechischen, Lateinischen, Litthauischen, Altslawischen, Gothischen und Deutschen. 2 vols. [2 edn. 1856−1861. 3 edn. 1868−1871]. Berlin: Dümmler.

217

218

III. Historical perspectives on Indo-European linguistics Brugmann, Karl and Berthold Delbrück 1886−1900 Grundriß der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen1. Straßburg: Trübner. Brugmann, Karl and Berthold Delbrück 1897−1916 Grundriß der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen 2. 9 vols. Strassburg: Trübner. [Reprint Berlin: De Gruyter, 1967.] Brugmann, Karl 1902−1904 Kurze Vergleichende Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen. Strassburg: Trübner. Buck, Carl Darling 1949 A Dictionary of selected synonyms in the principal Indo-European Languages − a Contribution to the history of ideas. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Cowgill, Warren 1986 Indogermanische Grammatik. I,1: Einleitung. Heidelberg: Winter. Dunkel, George E. 2014 Lexikon der indogermanischen Partikeln und Pronominalstämme [LIPP]. 2 vols. Heidelberg: Winter. Eichner, Heiner 1994 Zur Frage der Gültigkeit Boppscher sprachgeschichtlicher Deutungen aus der Sicht der modernen Indogermanistik. In: Rainer Sternemann (ed.), Bopp-Symposium 1992 der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. Heidelberg: Winter, 72−90. Hirt, Hermann 1921−1937 Indogermanische Grammatik. 7 vols. Heidelberg: Winter. Jankowsky, Kurt R. 2009 Franz Bopp und die Geschichte der Indogermanistik als eigener Disziplin. In: A. M. Baertschi and C. G. King (eds.), Die modernen Väter der Antike. Die Entwicklung der Altertumswissenschaften an Akademie und Universität im Berlin des 19. Jahrhunderts. Berlin: De Gruyter, 117−144. Kuryłowicz, Jerzy 1968 Indogermanische Grammatik. II: Akzent. Heidelberg: Winter. Lindner, Thomas 2011−2015 Indogermanische Grammatik. IV,1: Komposition [4 Lieferungen]. Heidelberg: Winter. Lubotsky, Alexander (ed.) 2005−2014 Indo-European Etymological Dictionary [IEED]. Research project of the Department of Comparative Indo-European Linguistics at Leiden University, the Netherlands, having so far resulted in twelve etymological dictionaries of Indo-European particular or proto-languages, edited by Brill Academic Publishers in Leiden; cf. (http://www.brill.nl/ publications/leiden-indo-european-etymological-dictionary-series). Mayrhofer, Manfred 1985 Überlegungen zu einer Fortsetzung der von Jerzy Kuryłowicz begründeten “Indogermanischen Grammatik”. In: Bernfried Schlerath (ed.), Grammatische Kategorien: Funktion und Geschichte. Akten der VII. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft 1983 in Berlin. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 257−260. Mayrhofer, Manfred 1986 Indogermanische Grammatik. I,2: Lautlehre [Segmentale Phonologie des Indogermanischen]. Heidelberg: Winter. Mayrhofer, Manfred 2009 Indogermanistik: Über Darstellungen und Einführungen von den Anfängen bis in die Gegenwart. (Philosophisch-historische Klasse, Sitzungsberichte Band 778). Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.

17. Encyclopedic works on Indo-European linguistics Mayrhofer, Manfred 2010−2011 Die Indogermanische Grammatik geht der Vollendung entgegen. Die Sprache 49: 2−5. Meillet, Antoine 1903 Introduction à l’étude comparative des langues indo-européennes. First edition. Paris: Maisonneuve. Morpurgo Davies, Anna 1994 Early and Late Indo-European from Bopp to Brugmann. In: George E. Dunkel, Gisela Meyer, Salvatore Scarlata, and Christian Seidl (eds.), Früh-, Mittel-, Spätindogermanisch. Akten der IX. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 5. bis 9. Oktober 1992 in Zürich. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 245−265. Muller, Jean-Claude 1986 Early stages of language comparison from Sassetti to Sir William Jones. Kratylos 31: 1−31. Pokorny, Julius 1959 Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch [IEW]. 2 vols. Bern: Francke. Rask, Rasmus 1818 Undersögelse om det gamle Nordiske eller Islandske Sprogs Oprindelse [An investigation of the ancient Scandinavian or Icelandic language]. Copenhagen: Gyldendal. Rix, Helmut (ed.) 1998 Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben. Die Wurzeln und ihre Primärstämmbildungen.1 Unter der Leitung von Helmut Rix und der Mitarbeit vieler anderer bearbeitet von Martin Kümmel, Thomas Zehnder, Reiner Lipp und Brigitte Schirmer. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Rix, Helmut (ed.) 2001 Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben. Die Wurzeln und ihre Primärstämmbildungen.2 Unter der Leitung von Helmut Rix und der Mitarbeit vieler anderer bearbeitet von Martin Kümmel, Thomas Zehnder, Reiner Lipp und Brigitte Schirmer. Zweite erweiterte und verbesserte Auflage bearbeitet von Martin Kümmel und Helmut Rix. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Schleicher, August 1861−1862 Compendium der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen. Kurzer Abriss einer Laut- und Formenlehre der indogermanischen Ursprache, des Altindischen, Alteranischen, Altgriechischen, Altitalischen, Altkeltischen, Altslawischen, Litauischen und Altdeutschen. 1. Auflage. 3. berichtigte und vermehrte Auflage, besorgt von Johannes Schmidt. Weimar: H. Böhlau, 1871. [Reprint Hildesheim: Olms, 1974.] Walde, Alois and Julius Pokorny 1926−1930 Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der indogermanischen Sprachen. 3 vols. Berlin: De Gruyter. Watkins, Calvert 1969 Indogermanische Grammatik. III,1: Geschichte der indogermanischen Verbalflexion. Heidelberg: Winter. Wodtko, Dagmar, Britta Irslinger, and Carolin Schneider 2008 Nomina im Indogermanischen Lexikon [NIL]. Heidelberg: Winter.

Jean-Claude Muller, Redange-sur-Attert (Luxembourg)

219

220

III. Historical perspectives on Indo-European linguistics

18. The impact of Hittite and Tocharian: Rethinking Indo-European in the 20th century and beyond 1. Two epoch-making discoveries 2. Phonological impact 3. Morphological impact

4. Syntactic impact 5. Implications for subgrouping 6. References

1. Two epoch-making discoveries The ink was scarcely dry on the last volume of Brugmann’s Grundriß (1916, 2 nd ed., Vol. 2, pt. 3), so to speak, when an unexpected discovery in a peripheral area of Assyriology portended the end of the scholarly consensus that Brugmann had done so much to create. Hrozný, whose Sprache der Hethiter appeared in 1917, was not primarily an Indo-Europeanist, but, like any trained philologist of the time, he could see that the cuneiform language he had deciphered, with such features as an animate nom. sg. in -š, an acc. sg. in -n, and neuter r / n-stems like wātar, gen. wetenaš ‘water’, was IndoEuropean. Indeed, it was soon clear that Hittite represented a whole new branch of the family, Anatolian, with lexical and grammatical idiosyncrasies that distanced it from the other branches, but linked it to two less well-attested languages of approximately the same time and place, Luvian and Palaic (and, as would eventually emerge, to the later Lycian, Lydian, and other first-millennium languages of Asia Minor). The significance of the decipherment was underscored by the fact that the clay tablets from the archives of the Hittite capital at Boğazköy, some dating back earlier than the middle of the second millennium BCE, were by far our earliest surviving records of an IE language. Only once before in the hundred-year history of IE scholarship had a new branch of the family come to light. Curiously enough, this had been less than a decade earlier, when the languages that would be known as Tocharian A and B were briefly introduced to the world by Sieg and Siegling (1908). In comparison with the discovery of Anatolian, however, the discovery of Tocharian made relatively little impression at the time. The reasons for this were understandable − the late date (first millennium CE) and familiar cultural setting (Central Asian Mahayana Buddhism) of the texts; the highly evolved and untransparent condition of Tocharian phonology; and the widespread perception, incorrect but shared by nearly every early scholar who voiced an opinion in the matter, that Tocharian was essentially an ordinary IE language of the “Western” type, oddly displaced to Central Asia. As the twentieth century progressed, the false picture of Tocharian as a branch of secondary interest was reinforced by the glacial progress of Tocharian philology. The rate at which edited texts, grammars, and glossaries were published lagged far behind the pace set by Hittite. (Thus, e.g., Tocharian B was basically inaccessible until 1949, and had no dictionary until fifty years later. The dates of publication of the basic grammatical and lexicographic tools are given by Pinault 2008: 146−148. Malzahn 2007 and Pinault 2007 catalogue the text fragments, which are scattered over six national collections.) https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261288-018

18. The impact of Hittite and Tocharian Much of the history of IE linguistics in the twentieth and early twenty-first century can be read as an extended effort to accommodate the Neogrammarian model of ProtoIndo-European to the facts of Anatolian − an enterprise in which Tocharian eventually came to play a crucial mediating role. None of the other half dozen or so “new” languages discovered or deciphered after Brugmann’s time challenged the basic assumptions of the field in the same way. The 1952 decipherment of Linear B / Mycenaean was spectacularly important for our understanding of Aegean prehistory and the internal history of Greek, but not highly consequential for the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European itself. The decipherment of Hieroglyphic Luvian, completed in the 1970’s, was likewise a major breakthrough, but linguistically important mainly for the light it shed on the languages of the “Luvian group” within Anatolian. The impact of the twentiethcentury language discoveries in Middle Iranian (Khotanese, Sogdian, and others), Italic (South Picene), and Continental Celtic (especially Celtiberian) was only very occasionally felt at the IE level. (Most often this was in the lexicon, though occasionally with wider implications. The presence of the PIE word for “horse” [*h1 ék̑u̯o-] in Anatolian, potentially important for dating the IE breakup, was known only from Hieroglyphic Luvian [asu(wa)-] and Lycian [esbe]. The discovery in 1983 of the Continental Celtic [Gaulish] word for “daughter” [duxtir < PIE *dhugh2 tḗr] added another datum to the complicated set of facts relating to the vocalization of laryngeals between obstruents in the parent language [cf. Mayrhofer 1986: 136−138].) The feature of Hittite that most impressed the first investigators was its unexpected morphological simplicity. Instead of the Sanskrit-like profusion of inflectional categories that might have been anticipated in an IE language of the second millennium BCE, Hittite presented more the profile of an early Germanic language like Gothic or Old Norse. Nouns and pronouns had eight cases, but these were poorly differentiated in the plural, and there was no dual. There were only two genders, animate and neuter. In the verb there was no aorist, perfect, subjunctive, optative, or active participle (the participles in -nt- were voice-neutral or passive); the main formal novelty was a synchronically unmotivated distinction between two kinds of active inflection, the so-called mi- and ḫiconjugations. Hittite phonology was similarly “advanced.” Whether or not voiced and voiceless stops contrasted (scholars were initially unsure), there was no evidence for a separate series of voiced or voiceless aspirates. The vowel system was reduced, merging *a and *o, and sometimes, it seemed, *e and *i. Only one item in the phonological inventory resisted easy identification with a source in Brugmann’s Proto-Indo-European; this was the consonant which, following normal Assyriological practice, was transcribed as ḫ. Attention focused on this sound in the wake of an epoch-making 1927 paper by Jerzy Kuryłowicz.

2. Phonological impact Kuryłowicz proposed to connect the mysterious Hittite ḫ with the “coefficients sonantiques” *A and *O̬ that had been posited for Proto-Indo-European by the young Ferdinand de Saussure a half century earlier (Saussure 1879). According to Saussure’s theory of ablaut, which had never been widely accepted outside his immediate circle, *A and *O̬ were sonorants like liquids and nasals; they vocalized when flanked by consonants,

221

222

III. Historical perspectives on Indo-European linguistics yielding the vowel (or vowels) that the Neogrammarians wrote as *ə (“schwa indogermanicum”). Thus, where the standard Brugmannian reconstruction set up *stə-to- ‘standing’ (Gk. στατός) and *də-to- ‘given’ (Gk. δοτός), Saussure assumed *stA-to- and *dO̬to-, with implicitly syllabic *-A- and *-O̬-. Kuryłowicz’s specific insight, supported by a series of striking etymologies (including such now standard comparisons as Hitt. ḫarkiš ‘white’ : Lat. argentum ‘silver’, Gk. ἄργυρος, etc.; Hitt. ḫant- ‘front’ : Lat. ante ‘in front of’, Gk. ἀντί ‘opposite’; Hitt. paḫš- ‘protect’ : Lat. pāscō, OCS pasǫ ‘I pasture, protect’; Hitt. newaḫḫ- ‘make new’ : Lat. [re]nouāre ‘id.’, Gk. νεάω ‘I plow up’; etc.), was that Hitt. ḫ was the reflex of the consonantal, non-syllabic allophone of *A − a sound which he wrote as *ə̯2 . (He employed *ə̯3 and *ə̯1 for *O̬ and for a third coefficient, *E, that had been added to the Saussurean inventory by the Semitist Hermann Møller in 1880.) No longer dismissable as a mere flight of fancy by its clever but youthful inventer, the theory of consonantal schwa now began to attract the attention it had been denied in Saussure’s lifetime. Rechristened the laryngeal theory − for reasons born of Møller’s erroneous conviction that *E, *A, and *O̬ were cognate with the “laryngeal” consonants of Semitic − it dominated the discourse of Indo-European studies for most of the next fifty years. This is not the place for a detailed history of the controversies generated by the laryngeal theory in the decades after Kuryłowicz’s article. The broader picture was as in other cases of “paradigm shift”: a small but growing number of scholars were attracted to the new framework, especially after its relevance to problems in Greek and IndoIranian had been demonstrated in a succession of brilliant studies by Kuryłowicz himself (synthesized in Kuryłowicz 1935). Prominent among the laryngealists of the interwar years were Walter Couvreur, Holger Pedersen (a one-time student of Møller), Edgar H. Sturtevant, and − most influential of all − Émile Benveniste, who built his transformative theory of the IE root (Benveniste 1935: 147−173) on a laryngealist foundation. Notably absent from the list of early adherents of the theory were major scholars from the German-speaking world. This was no accident; even before the Nazi period, the conservative, inward-looking culture of German Indogermanistik was bound to regard with suspicion a French-inspired research program that challenged key tenets of what could be seen as the German national school. Another country where the national “culture” of IE studies was at first hostile to laryngeals was Italy. A sign of the approaching thaw in Germany was Ferdinand Sommer’s semi-endorsement of the laryngeal theory in his influential postwar book on Hittite (1947: 77 ff.). Ill-tempered anti-laryngeal outbursts, however, remained common into the 1960’s (see, e.g., the gratuitous remarks in KrauseThomas 1960: 7). Not until the mid-1950’s, with the work of Karl Hoffmann and Manfred Mayrhofer, did laryngeals finally begin to figure importantly in German and Austrian IE scholarship. By the 1970’s it was no longer possible to be a mainstream IndoEuropeanist anywhere without subscribing to some form of the laryngeal theory. The “laryngeal wars” were over. The path of the laryngeal theory from heresy to quasi-orthodoxy was not a uniform ascent. Many errors, both substantive and methodological, were made in the first decades of laryngeal scholarship. An unfortunate trend was the practice of resorting to additional subscripts and diacritics whenever a problem − or simply a displeasing asymmetry − arose that could not be resolved with the original inventory of three laryngeals. Already in the 1920’s, Kuryłowicz noticed cases where a Greek or Latin initial *a- corresponded to Hitt. a-, not *ḫa-; for these, in his later work, he set up a fourth laryngeal, *ə̯4 , with

18. The impact of Hittite and Tocharian the same properties as *ə̯2 , but not preserved in Hittite. Kuryłowicz’s *ə̯4 never gained as wide a following as the other three, but it was eagerly taken over by Sturtevant, who proposed a phonetic interpretation of the four laryngeals inspired by his Americanist colleague Edward Sapir. (Sapir’s role is generously acknowledged in Sturtevant 1942: 19−20.) The “phonetic turn” was not a radical step at the time; others had already noted, for example, that *ə̯3 must have been distinctively voiced. But in the rigidly structuralist environment that prevailed in the 1950’s and early 1960’s, especially in the United States, the identification of a marked distinctive feature in one laryngeal inevitably fueled expectations that its unmarked counterpart, and perhaps yet other pairs of laryngeals distinguished by the same feature, would turn up as well. The floodgates were opened when André Martinet proposed to interpret *ə̯3 as *Aw, a rounded back-coloring laryngeal that supposedly became *w in some environments (Martinet 1953). Soon other laryngealists were operating with a separate voiced *A1 w and voiceless *A2 w, and a symmetrical pair of “palatal” laryngeals, *E1 y (voiced) and *E2 y (voiceless), was invented to complement the labiovelar set. (*E1 y and *E2 y were two of the eight laryngeals posited by Puhvel [1960: 56], building on Diver 1959. Palatal effects were already attributed to *h1 by Risch [1955].) The decade following Martinet’s article marked the climax of “laryngeal mania,” when no phonological or morphological puzzle in the daughter languages seemed beyond the reach of a possible laryngealistic solution (see, e.g., Polomé 1965: 33 ff.). As the number of hypothetical laryngeals grew, efforts were made to simplify other sectors of the PIE sound system. The voiceless aspirates, rewritten as clusters of voiceless stop + *ə̯2 , were an early and largely unmourned casualty of the adoption of the laryngeal theory. But PIE *a, the non-laryngeal long vowels, and the *e : *o distinction, all of which now came under attack as well, proved more durable. The recurrent anecdotal mischaracterization of Proto-Indo-European as a typologically impossible protolanguage with only a single vowel owes its origin to some of the more extreme formulations of this period. Roman Jakobson’s famous pronouncement, “The one-vowel picture of Proto-Indo-European finds no support in the recorded languages of the world” (Jakobson 1958: 23), misleadingly implies that a “one-vowel picture” was the communis opinio at the time. As discussed by Manaster-Ramer and Bicknell (1995), Jakobson was partly attacking a straw man. When stability began to return to the field in the mid 1960’s, it was because a critical mass of scholars, including some who had initially been skeptical of the laryngeal theory, were able to look beyond the excesses of the recent past and agree that the landscape had changed. All attempts to explain the Hitt. ḫ as secondary had failed (as underscored by the sterile efforts of Kronasser 1956: 75−96, 244−247); the need for an a-coloring laryngeal was inescapable. But admitting the existence of one laryngeal in the protolanguage was for all practical purposes the same as assuming three. If a “long-vowel” root like *stā- ‘stand’ and a “disyllabic” root like *terə- ‘overcome’ (cf. Hitt. tarḫ-, Ved. tar i-) were to be rewritten as *steə̯2 - and *terə̯2 -, then pre-laryngeal *dhē- ‘put’ and *g̑enə‘engender’ would have to be rewritten as *dheə̯1 - and *g̑enə̯1 -, respectively, and prelaryngeal *dō- ‘give’ and *sterə- ‘spread out’ would have to be rewritten as *deə̯3 - and *sterə̯3 -. The version of the laryngeal theory that came into general circulation, therefore, was a simple three-laryngeal model, essentially identical to Kuryłowicz’s reformulation of the Saussure-Møller system. The “naturalization” of laryngeals was signaled by the gradual replacement of the algebraic notations *ə̯1 , *ə̯2 , *ə̯3 and *E, *A, *O by *h1 , *h2 ,

223

224

III. Historical perspectives on Indo-European linguistics *h3 , a move that emphasized the rootedness of the erstwhile coefficients sonantiques in actual language data. As the obsession with laryngeals waned, other notable features of Hittite began to attract more focused attention. The comparative method itself had evolved since preHittite days. An overly rigid Neogrammarianism − the tendency to look for sound laws as the solution to every problem − had been partly responsible for some of the wrong turns of the early laryngeal years. Sturtevant (1940), for example, had followed Sapir in explaining the Greek k-perfect (type τέθηκα ‘I have put’, ἕστᾱκα ‘I stand’) by a pre-PIE (“Indo-Hittite”) sound change of “*-’x-” (i.e., *-h1 h2 -) and “*-’.x-” (i.e., *-h4 h2 -) to “*-’qx-” and “*-’.qx-” in the 1 sg., whence ultimately PIE *-k- (i.e., *-dhéh1 -h2 a, *-stáh4 h2 a > *-dhēka, *-stāka). The argument was formally impeccable; there were no obvious exceptions to the purported sound law(s) that could not somehow be explained away by analogy, especially if the verb ‘to stand’ was set up with the poorly motivated fourth laryngeal rather than with the now standard *-h2 -. But phonological regularity aside, the supposed spread of *-k- from the 1 sg. to the other singular forms was morphologically implausible, and the whole basis of the theory was undercut by the fact that the k-perfect was demonstrably an inner-Greek innovation based on the k-aorist (ἔθηκα, etc.), where the 1 sg. ending was *-m, not *-h2 a. (Gk. ἔθηκα, -ας, -ε formed a word equation with Lat. fēcī, -istī, -it ‘did, made’; whatever the source of the k-element, the shared *-ēprecluded a perfect.) Curiously parallel to Sturtevant’s account of the k-perfect was Martinet’s invocation of *Aw as the source of the Latin uī-perfect (e.g., strāuit ‘spread’ < *streAw-e, etc.). “Explanations” like these, in which the origin of an obscure morpheme was laid at the door of a special laryngeal treatment in a restricted environment, lost their cachet when laryngeals came to be seen as ordinary sounds functioning within a normal sound system. The greatest change noticeable in the practice of the comparative method from the 1960’s on was a greater sophistication in the use of tools and techniques other than sound change − above all, analogy and philology. The laryngeal theory − or rather, the confirmation of the laryngeal theory as originally propounded by Saussure − was the most dramatic contribution of Hittite to PIE phonology. But it was not the only one. Among the anomalies of the Neogrammarian picture of ̑ the protolanguage were the “thorn clusters” *kþ, *k̑ u̯þ, *g̑hþ, etc., set up to account for correspondences of the type Ved. kṣā́m ‘earth’ : Gk. χθών, Ved. r̥´kṣa- ‘bear’ : Gk. ἄρκτος, etc. A priori, it was highly unlikely that a language as poor in fricatives as Proto-IndoEuropean would have had the otherwise non-occurring interdental fricative *þ only in clusters with a preceding dorsal. Hittite, seconded by Tocharian, showed the “thorn” reconstruction to be incorrect. Instead of clusters of the form Kþ, Ks, or KT, these languages had TK, which in one case even alternated with full-grade TeK in an “amphikinetic” paradigm (cf. Hitt. tēkan, gen. taknāš ‘earth’, Toch. A tkaṃ, B (t)keṃ ‘id.’ < *dhég̑hom- / *dhg̑hm-΄; Hitt. ḫartagga- [ḫartka-] ‘bear’). Questions about the phonetic history of the Ks- and KT-treatments remained, but the priority of the TK of Hittite and Tocharian was speedily recognized. (The possibility of an assibilated Anatolian treatment TsK was raised by Craig Melchert [2003] in connection with the Cuneiform Luvian form īnzagan ‘inhumation’[?], supposedly a hypostasis from the phrase *en dhg̑hō˘m ‘in the earth’. Despite my earlier acceptance of this idea in Jasanoff 2010: 167, the meaning and structure of īnzagan are too uncertain to override the clear and contrary evidence of ḫartagga-.) Anatolian also settled the long-running dispute over whether Proto-IndoEuropean had two dorsal series (*k, *k u̯) or three (*k̑, *k, *k u̯). The velar stops assumed

18. The impact of Hittite and Tocharian by the Neogrammarians (*k, etc.) supposedly merged with the labiovelars in the satem languages and with the palatals in the centum languages, leading many scholars to question their existence. Notwithstanding the apparent preservation of distinct reflexes of the three series in some environments in Albanian, doubts persisted until Melchert showed (1987) that *k̑-, *k- and *k u̯- gave z- [ʦ], k-, and ku-, respectively, in Cuneiform and Hieroglyphic Luvian (cf. CLuv. ziyar ‘lies’ [= Hitt. kitta, Ved. śáye], kiš- ‘comb’ [= OCS česati < *kes-], kuiš ‘who’ [= Lat. quis]). (So too independently Morpurgo Davies and Hawkins 1988. As shown by Melchert 2012b, the development of *k̑- to z- was confined to the position before front vowels.) The resolution of the “velar problem” stimulated fresh thinking about the phonetics of the three-way dorsal contrast and the nature of the centum : satem division more generally (see especially Kümmel 2007 and Weiss 2012).

3. Morphological impact The decades-long preoccupation with laryngeals had the result of delaying the impact of Hittite and (to a lesser extent) Tocharian on the reconstruction of PIE morphology. But the effect, when it came, was profound.

3.1. Noun morphology The surprisingly impoverished character of Hittite and Anatolian declension has already been noted. It was not immediately obvious whether the absence of the dual, the feminine, and various expected case endings was due to loss or archaism. In the case of the dual the answer was clearly loss; Luvian had the collective plurals īššara ‘hands (of a single individual)’ and GÌR.MEŠ-ta (i.e., *pāta) ‘feet (of a single individual)’, which were best explained as consonant-stem duals in *-h1 e comparable to Gk. χεῖρε, πόδε ‘id.’. (The existence of the dual in Anatolian was made likely in any case by the 1 pl. verbal ending -wen[i], cognate with Ved. 1 du. -va[ḥ], OCS -vě, etc.) The problem of the feminine was more difficult. Both Hittite and the Luvian languages had collectives, abstracts, and “individualizations” in *-(e)h2 -, mostly rendered opaque by the phonological loss of *h2 in final position. Some of these, like Hitt. ḫāššāš ‘hearth’ < *h2 eh1 s-eh2 (= Lat. āra ‘altar’), were animate, with secondarily added *-s in the nom. sg.; some, like Lyc. lada ‘wife’, denoted female persons; some, like Hitt. *miyaḫ- ‘(old) age’ in miyaḫḫuwantaḫḫ- ‘make old’, even preserved the laryngeal. Nowhere in Anatolian, however, was the suffix *-(e)h2 - productively employed to derive feminine nouns or adjectives from animates, and nowhere did it trigger agreement. The robust attestation of PIE *-(e)h2 - in its traditional functions other than gender marking in Anatolian tended to support the view that the development of a distinct feminine was an innovation of the non-Anatolian languages. Efforts to find an Anatolian reflex of the feminine-marking “devī-suffix” (*-i̯ eh2 - / -ih2 -), either in adjectives of the type Hitt. parkuiš ‘pure’ beside parkunu- ‘purify’ or in the Luvian adjectival forms said to exhibit “i-motion” (cf. nom. sg. anim. adduwališ ‘evil’ vs. nom.-acc. nt. adduwal(za), abl.-inst. adduwalati, etc.), were unsuccessful. (All alleged instances of the devī-suffix in Anatolian were plausibly explained as ordinary i-stems by Elisabeth Rieken 2005.)

225

226

III. Historical perspectives on Indo-European linguistics The Hittite case endings held several surprises. Most striking was the absence of bh(or m-) endings in the paradigmatic positions where they were predicted by the comparative evidence, notably the instr. pl. (cf. Ved. -bhiḥ, Arm. -bkʿ, Lith. -mis, etc.) and dat.abl. pl. (Ved. -bhyaḥ, Lat. -bus). Part of the reason for this was that Hittite had new endings, adverbial in origin, in the instrumental (-[i]t) and ablative (-[a]z). (The adverbial character of the instrumental and ablative in Hittite was shown by their indifference to number, a property shared with the typologically parallel Vedic adverbial ablatives in -taḥ and their [unrelated] Greek equivalents in -θεν. The ending -(a)z was assibilated and apocopated from older *-[a]ti, with the same particle *-ti that surfaced in the Luvian abl.-instr. in -ati, the Armenian ablative in -ē, and the Tocharian A ablative in -äṣ [cf. Jasanoff 1987: 109 f.].) But in the dat.-loc. pl., where PIE *-bh(i̯ )os would not have been replaced by the new ablative, the Hittite ending -aš < *-os bore no resemblance to anything in the other IE languages. In the writer’s view, the “classical” dat.-abl. pl. in *-bh(i̯ )os was a relatively late creation, made by adding the older dat.-abl. pl. ending *-os to the case-indifferent adverbial suffix *-bhi seen in Hitt. kuwapi ‘where’, Gk. ἶφι ‘by force’, PIE *h2 n̥t-bhi ‘around’ lit. ‘side-wise’ (= Gk. ἀμφί), and other well-known forms, cf. Jasanoff (2009: 140 f.). (There were no certain bh-endings in Tocharian either, but this was unsurprising in the context of the Tocharian declensional system.) Other notable terminations in Hittite were the thematic gen. sg. in -aš < *-os, contrasting with extended *-osi̯ o in Indo-Iranian, Greek, and Italic; and the Old Hittite “allative” (or “directive”) in -a, which also appeared in adverbs and in the infinitives in -anna < *-atna. The PIE shape of the latter morpheme was uncertain, since almost any sequence of the form *-(H)V(H) would have yielded Hitt. -a in some environments, especially after stops. The comparandum most often favored was the *-(e)h2 or *-h2 e of Gk. χαμαί ‘on the ground’ (< *dhg̑hm̥ -h2 e-i or *dhg̑hm̥ m-eh2 -i, with added locative *-i) and the prepositions μετά ‘among, behind’, παρά ‘beside’, etc. Whether these forms pointed to a full-blown PIE case, lost in the non-Anatolian languages, was impossible to tell. In the realm of nominal stem formation and ablaut, Hittite confirmed many of the salient archaisms of Indo-Iranian and Greek. The r/n-stems, vestigial in the other languages but represented in Hittite by (inter alia) the productive suffixes -eššar, gen. -ešnaš (e.g. ḫanneššar, -šnaš ‘judgment’) and -ātar, gen. -annaš < *-atnaš (e.g. akkātar, -annaš ‘death’), were a case in point. Among these, the word for ‘water’, with *o : *e ablaut in the root syllable (wātar : wetenaš < *u̯ód-r̥ : *u̯éd-[e]n-), was particularly notable; together with the t-stem gen. sg. nekuz < *nék u̯-t-s (preserved in the phrase nekuz mēḫur, lit. ‘at the time of evening’), it provided key evidence for the “acrostatic” ablaut type in the theory of PIE noun inflection that emerged in the early 1970’s. (The long-puzzling relationship of pre-Hitt. *nek u̯t- to *nok u̯t- in the other languages [cf. Lat. nox, Gk. νύξ, Go. nahts, etc.] was clarified by Jochem Schindler [1967], who set up an ablauting paradigm nom. sg. *nók u̯-t-s : gen. sg.*nék u̯-t-s. Hittite was the only language to preserve the underlying verb nekuz(z)i ‘it becomes evening’.) Another ablaut-accent class, the amphikinetic type (cf. above), made an appearance in the collective widār ‘bodies of water’ (< *u̯ed-ór-, earlier *u̯éd-or-), formed from the acrostatic singular by a process that came to be called internal derivation. (For the type widār in particular, see Nussbaum 2014, enlarging on the approach outlined by Schindler 1975a: 262 ff., 1975b: 3 f.) Amphikinetically inflected neuter i-stems, a type seen in Hitt. ḫaštāi, gen. ḫaštiyaš ‘bone’, were believed to be a Hittite specialty until an exact counterpart was

18. The impact of Hittite and Tocharian found by Gert Klingenschmitt in Tocharian (cf. A rake, B reki ‘word’ < *rok-ō˘i; Klingenschmitt 1994: 400).

3.2. Pronominal morphology In the pronominal system, the features of Hittite that initially attracted notice were the unfamiliar-looking genitive in -l (cf. ammēl ‘my’, kuēl ‘whose’, etc.) and the absence of the *so- / *to- pronoun. The l-genitive was an anomaly, sometimes even suspected of having been borrowed from a non-Indo-European “Asianic” language akin to Etruscan. But Luvian and the “minor” Anatolian languages mostly employed possessive adjectives in place of genitive case forms, and it was natural to wonder whether the Hittite forms in -l might not originally have been adjectival as well. The matter was finally settled by Rieken (2008), who showed that the underlying formation was a thematic adjective in *-lo-, with regular truncation of pre-Anatolian *-los, *-lom to Hitt. -l. The non-appearance of the *so- / *to- pronoun was most simply attributed to loss; the view that the familiar Ved. sá, sā́, tád, etc. was a post-“Indo-Hittite” creation on the basis of the supposed sentence connectives *so (cf. OHitt. šu) and *to (= OHitt. ta) was demonstrably untenable. The coup de grâce to this durable idea, much favored by Sturtevant (1933: 4 and later writings), was delivered by J. J. S. Weitenberg (1992: 327), who noticed that šu and ta were in complementary distribution, the former being only used with the preterite and the latter being used with the present. ta was perhaps a case form (instrumental?) of *to-. Other pronominal anomalies included the form of the nom.-acc. pl. neuter, where the non-Anatolian languages had the same ending as nouns (*-eh2 ; cf. Ved. tā́[ni], Gk. τά, etc.), but Hittite surprisingly had -e < *-oi, identical with the nom. pl. in *-oi of masculines (cf. kē ‘these [things]’, apē ‘those [things]’, enclitic -e ‘they [nt.]’, etc.). Internal reconstruction showed the Hittite ending to be an archaism, the vestige of a collective stem in *-oi- that also appeared in most of the other pronominal plural forms, both masculine and neuter (cf. gen. pl. *-oisohxom, dat.-abl. pl. *-oibh[i̯ ]os, loc. pl. *-oisu, etc.). Similarly, the instr. pl. in *-ōis represented older *-oi-is, where *-is was identifiable with the *-is of the “long” instr. pl. in *-bhis. The structure of the pronominal plural cases is discussed in Jasanoff (2009).

3.3. Verb morphology In comparison with Hittite and Anatolian, Tocharian offered relatively little of IndoEuropean interest in the domain of nominal morphology. This was hardly surprising in a language where the inherited system of declension had first been drastically simplified and then overlaid by a substratum-influenced apparatus of “secondary” cases built on the foundation of the old accusative. But what Tocharian lacked in the noun it made up for in the verb. As the study of the “new” languages progressed, it was found again and again that the novel and/or problematic features of the Hittite verbal system had a presence in Tocharian as well. One of the most interesting agreements between the two branches was in the presence of “r-endings” in the middle. In Brugmann’s time, endings of this type, in which an

227

228

III. Historical perspectives on Indo-European linguistics element containing -r- combined with familiar-looking person / number-marking material (3 sg. *-t-, 3 pl. *-nt-, etc.), were believed to be a special feature of Italic and Celtic (cf. Lat. -tur, -ntur; OIr. -thar, -tar [deponent], -ther, -ter [passive]). The discovery of Hittite and Tocharian, which had r-endings as well, put an end to this view (notwithstanding the early tendency to see the r-endings of Tocharian as evidence of its Western [in effect, Italo-Celtic] affinities). More importantly, the restriction of the -r- to the primary endings in Hittite and Tocharian showed that the r-element was a hic et nunc particle, added to the simple (i.e. r-less) endings of the middle to mark the actual present, just as *i was added to the simple endings of the active (3 sg. mid. primary *-to-r : secondary *-to, parallel to 3 sg. active *-t-i : *-t). Many scholars (the present writer included) were initially reluctant to accept this result, which clashed with the traditional Neogrammarian view that the Italo-Celtic r-forms were an analogical outgrowth of the archaic 3 pl. middle desinence in Ved. 3 pl. śére (impf. áśera[n]), GAv. sōirē ‘they lie’, etc. Defenders of the Neogrammarian position pointed to the aberrant shape and distribution of the relement in Hittite, which had the form -ri, not -r, and was optional in most verbs (cf. 3 sg. paḫša beside paḫšari ‘protects’, 3 pl. paḫšanta, -antari). These oddities, however, proved to be secondary. As shown by Kazuhiko Yoshida in 1990, all Hittite present middles originally ended in *-r. After unstressed vowels this was lost by sound change (*péh2 s-or > paḫša); after stressed vowels it was retained and renewed by the addition of the hic et nunc particle *i taken from the active (*stuu̯-ór > *ištuwār > ištuwāri ‘becomes known’). From ending-accented forms like ištuwāri, -ri was secondarily reapplied to forms of the paḫša type, thus producing the attested doublets in -(t)ari beside -(t)a, -antari beside -anta, etc. The middle endings proper lay at the heart of a more fundamental discovery. In Greek the middle endings of the 1−3 sg. (pres. -μαι / -μᾱν, -σαι / -σο, -ται / -το) and 3 pl. (-νται / -ντο) closely shadowed those of the athematic active, with the same characteristic consonant followed by a vowel or diphthong not found in the active endings. This pattern was likewise on display in Indo-Iranian. Here, however, there were surprising exceptions: the 1 sg. had no -m- (cf. Ved. bháre ‘I bring [for myself, etc.]’); the 2 sg. in Vedic (though not in Avestan) had secondary -thāḥ for expected *-sa (abharathāḥ); the 3 sg. had -e / -a[t] alongside -te / -ta (Ved. śáye, impf. áśáya[t]) (with secondary addition of -t to the middle ending -a, as shown by Wackernagel [1907: 309−313]); and the 3 pl. had -re / -ra[n] in cases where the 3 sg. had -e / -a[t] (śére, áśera[n]). The same consonantal “mismatches” recurred in Italic, Celtic, and / or Tocharian, showing that they must already have been present in the parent language. Thus, *-m- was lacking in the 1 sg. in Italic (Lat. -or, etc.), Celtic (OIr. -ur, etc.), and Tocharian (cf. 1 sg. pret. A präkse beside B parksamai ‘I asked’). Celtic and Tocharian, though not Italic, had t-endings in the 2 sg. (OIr. -ther, -the, etc.; Toch. A -tār, -te); Italic and Celtic, though not Tocharian, had dentalless forms in the 3 sg. (cf. Umbr. ferar = Lat. ferātur ‘let it be brought’; OIr. pass. -a[i]r). None of the three branches had a direct reflex of *-ro in the 3 pl. (For Toch. B ste, star ‘is’, pl. stare, formerly thought to contain *-o and *-ro, see Malzahn 2010: 691 f., with references, correcting Jasanoff 2003: 52.) Hittite allowed these facts to be seen in a new light. The Hittite middle endings in their simplest form (i.e. without -ri or the preterite particle -t[i]) were 1 sg. -ḫa, 2 sg. -ta, 3 sg. -a or -ta, and 3 pl. -nta. The 1 sg. in -ḫa matched the vowel-initial ending in Indo-Iranian; the 2 sg. in -ta resembled Ved. -thāḥ, etc.; the two 3 sg. endings, one with and one without -t, exactly corresponded to Indo-Iranian *-a(i) and *-ta(i) (there was no Hittite counterpart to the Indo-Iranian

18. The impact of Hittite and Tocharian 3 pl. in *-ra(i)). What made these agreements significant was that the series 1 sg. -ḫa, 2 sg. -ta, 3 sg. -a ~ -ta bore a striking similarity to another set of endings in Hittite − the 1 sg. -ḫi, 2 sg. -ti, 3 sg. -i of the ḫi-conjugation. The ḫi-conjugation, named for its characteristic 1 sg. ending (e.g., dāḫḫi, -tti, -i ‘I take’, etc.) was one of the two conjugation classes to which all Hittite non-deponent verbs belonged. Unlike the historically transparent mi-conjugation, which consisted mainly of inherited presents (rarely aorists) that inflected with the PIE active endings (e.g., ēpmi, -ši, -zi ‘I seize’, etc.), the ḫi-conjugation was not immediately equatable with any known PIE category. Yet there was no mistaking the fact, first observed by Kuryłowicz in his foundational article of 1927, that the ḫi-conjugation endings were etymologically akin to those of the PIE perfect. The perfect endings, in their Neogrammarian guise, were 1 sg. *-a, 2 sg. *-tha, 3 sg. *-e, etc. (cf. Gk. οἶδα ‘I know’, οἶσθα, οἶδε) (For both presentational and substantive reasons, the dual and plural will not be discussed here.) Kuryłowicz rewrote these in laryngeal terms as *-h2 e, *-th2 e, *-e and identified them with the ḫi-conjugation endings -ḫi, -ti, -i, taking the final -i from the -mi, -ši, -zi of the mi-conjugation. This last step was not quite accurate; the ḫi-endings were later shown to go back to the perfect endings extended by the *i of the hic et nunc (i.e. *-h2 e + i, *-th2 e + i, *-e + i). But details aside, the similarity of the ḫi-conjugation endings to the -ḫa, -ta, -a ~ -ta of the middle raised fundamental questions about the relationship of the perfect to the middle in pre- and Proto-Indo-European − questions to which different scholars offered different answers. In separate articles from the year 1932, Kuryłowicz and Stang took the position that the perfect and middle endings − and by implication, the perfect and the middle as a whole − went back to a common source. According to the theory that eventually crystallized around this view (see especially Pedersen 1938: 80−86), a unitary “h2 e-series” of endings gave rise to separate perfect and middle sets within the parent language. The middle, formally more innovative, tended to adopt the consonantism of the corresponding active (“mi-series”) endings, a tendency seen both in the rise of post-PIE endings of the type Gk. 1 sg. -μαι / -μᾱν (cf. Toch. A -mār) and 2 sg. -σαι / -σο (cf. Ved. -se, Lat. -re, Go. -za) and in the inner-PIE creation of 3 sg. *-to( r ) beside *-o( r ) and 3 pl. *-nto(r) beside *-ro(r). As an early spin-off of the laryngeal theory, this approach − the “two-series” theory, we may call it − initially found favor in sectors of the field where the existence of laryngeals was taken for granted and Hittite was accorded the same weight as the other second-millennium languages, Greek and Indo-Iranian. The alternative approach was the more traditional, less Anatolian-influenced “three-series” theory, which posited separate active, middle, and “stative” endings for the parent language. Of these, the supposed middle series, with the same consonantism as the active endings (i.e., *-m-, *-s-, *-t-, 3 pl. *-nt-), was best preserved in the Greek middle, while the stative series survived in the perfect and the consonantally aberrant middle endings of Indo-Iranian, Italic, Celtic, Tocharian, and, above all, Hittite. There were many variations on this theme. Thus, e.g., the influential presentation by Helmut Rix (1988) posited a 3 sg. “stative” in *-e, while Norbert Oettinger’s “indogermanischer Stativ” (1976) formed its 3 sg. in *-o. Elements of the two and three series models were combined in the related approaches of Erich Neu and Wolfgang Meid, who assumed a “frühindogermanisch” identity of the perfect and middle but envisaged a subsequent fragmentation of the Urmedium into a multiplicity of daughter categories (see Jasanoff 2003: 23−26 for details and references). The essential difference between the two- and three-series

229

230

III. Historical perspectives on Indo-European linguistics approaches was that the two-series theory viewed middle endings of the type Ved. 1 sg. -e (: Hitt. -ḫa), 2 sg. -thāḥ (: Hitt. -ta), and 3 sg. -e (: Hitt. -a) as the forerunners of the more transparent -μαι, -σαι, -ται, etc., while the three-series theory took them from historically distinct paradigms. Even a century after the decipherment of Hittite, there was no consensus on the question of two vs. three series. The relationship of the perfect to the middle lay at the heart of the most contentious question in Hittite morphology, the origin of the ḫi-conjugation. For much of the twentieth century, the ḫi-conjugation was generally assumed to be the Hittite reflex of the PIE perfect. (The history of attempts to relate the ḫi-conjugation to the familiar Neogrammarian categories is critically surveyed in Jasanoff 2003: 1−29.) There were good reasons for this opinion; the two categories, as already noted, had essentially the same endings, and many radical ḫi-verbs showed perfect-like ablaut (cf., e.g., 3 sg. kānki ‘hangs (tr.)’ < *k̑onk-; 3 pl. kankanzi < *k̑n̥k-). Yet there were major problems with the perfect : ḫi-conjugation equation. The ḫi-conjugation lacked the resultative-stative semantics of the perfect, and was conspicuously associated with non-stative present stems, such as the iteratives in *-s- (ḫalziššai ‘calls repeatedly’), the factitives in *-eh2 - (newaḫḫi ‘I make new’), the “verba pura” in *-i- (3 sg. dāi ‘puts’ < *dheh1 -i̯ -ei) (I take the term “verba pura” from Germanic, where it refers to the i̯ e/opresents of “long-vowel” roots, e.g. *sē[j]an- ‘sow’, *knē[j]an- ‘know’, *spō[j])an‘thrive’, etc.), and the “molō-presents” with historical *o : *e ablaut (malli ‘grinds’, cf. Go. malan, Lith. malù beside OIr. melid, OCS meljǫ; similarly OCS bodǫ ‘I stab’, Lat. fodiō ‘I dig’ beside Lith. bedù ‘I poke’ [: Hitt. paddai ‘digs’]; etc.). Under the three-series approach, all these would either have to have inherited the perfect / “stative” inflection or adopted it analogically. But it was extremely difficult − some thought impossible − to construct a plausible, step-by-step scenario leading from the perfect to the attested distribution of the ḫi-conjugation. (The most commonly accepted account, by Heiner Eichner 1975, is critiqued in Jasanoff 2003: 8 ff. A more recent scenario linking the ḫiconjugation to the perfect, likewise problematic in my view, is the proposal of Oettinger 2006: 36−42.) For this reason, an altogether different theory, based on the two-series model, was proposed by the present writer in 1979. (Important revisions and enlargements were Jasanoff 1988 and 1994. The fullest and most up-to-date exposition is Jasanoff 2003.) If the perfect and middle endings went back to a pre-PIE Urmedium or “protomiddle” in *-h2 e, *-th2 e, *-e, etc., I argued, then the late PIE middle proper could be seen as a formally renewed version of the protomiddle, incorporating such “new” features as o-timbre in the third person endings (*-o, *-ro, later *-to, *-nto), *-r as a hic et nunc marker, elimination of paradigmatic ablaut, etc. The cumulative function of these formal steps would have been to differentiate the emergent true middle, with its specific range of late PIE “internal” values, from the older and less specialized protomiddle. But since the middle was the marked member of the late PIE active : middle opposition, protomiddle forms not renewed as middles would have tended to be reinterpreted as actives. This was the essence of the “h2 e-conjugation theory” − that Proto-Indo-European had grammatically active verbs which inflected with the endings traditionally but wrongly called “perfect” or “stative.” PIE h2 e-conjugation presents and aorists were directly ancestral to Anatolian ḫi-verbs; the ḫi-conjugation was in effect a PIE category. The ḫi-conjugation also hovered in the background of another longstanding problem. The sigmatic aorist, a formation well known from the classical IE languages (cf. Ved. ávāṭ [subj. vákṣa-] ‘conveyed’, Gk. [Cypr.] εϝεξε, Lat. uēxī, etc.; all < *u̯ē˘g̑h-s-), had a

18. The impact of Hittite and Tocharian strangely elusive presence in Hittite and Tocharian. In Hittite, a 3 sg. ending -š, probably < *-st (Hitt. aušzi ‘sees’ was evidently a back-formation from pre-Hitt. *aust ‘saw’ [cf. Jasanoff 2012: 129]), took the place of expected *-e in the preterite of the ḫi-conjugation (cf. dāḫḫun ‘I took’, 2 sg. dātta, 3 sg. dāš, 1 pl. dāwen, etc.). It was usual to identify this ending with the 3 sg. of the s-aorist; the assumption, under the traditional, perfectbased theory of the ḫi-conjugation, was that the perfect and the aorist had merged in Anatolian, permitting interpenetration of their paradigms. Curiously, however, the Tocharian “s-preterite” showed exactly the same mixture of sigmatic and non-sigmatic forms as the preterite of the ḫi-conjugation, with -s- confined to the 3 sg. of the active (cf. Toch. B nekwa ‘I destroyed’, 2 sg. nekasta, 3 sg. neksa [= Toch. A ñakäs], 1−3 pl. nekam, -as, -ar). (Note that the -s- which appeared in the 2 sg. [nekasta] and 2 pl. [nekas] was a component of the 2 sg. and 2 pl. endings throughout the preterite system, and had nothing to do with the stem formative -s-, which appeared in the 3 sg. of the spreterite [cl. III] alone.) In Tocharian too, the received position was that the perfect and the s-aorist had fused to become part of a conglomerate paradigm. Yet it was obvious that whatever the merits of assuming a perfect / s-aorist mixture for Hittite or Tocharian separately, the amalgamation of the two, with exactly the same result, could hardly have taken place in the two languages independently. The logical conclusion was that the PIE sigmatic aorist was actually a suppletive “presigmatic” aorist − an already composite formation, partly sigmatic and partly non-sigmatic, directly ancestral to the preterite of the ḫi-conjugation in Hittite, the s-preterite in Tocharian, and (with generalization of the *-s-) the classical s-aorist of the other IE languages. The etymological origin of the sigmatic and non-sigmatic components of this conglomerate type was a separate question and a natural topic for speculation. The non-sigmatic forms could hardly have been old perfects, since the perfect would never have joined in a single paradigm with the aorist in the parent language. The Tocharian s-preterite had yet another peculiarity: the verbs that constituted its core also formed athematic subjunctives of class I, characterized by historical *o : *e / Ø ablaut; cf. B 1 sg. neku ‘I will destroy’, A 2 sg. nakät (< *nok̑-), B 1 pl. nkem, 3 pl. nakäṃ (< *nek̑- or *nek̑-). The origin of these forms was a mystery in its own right. Tocharian subjunctives were known to be old indicatives, but the only Neogrammarian category that presented itself was once again the perfect, which seemed an unlikely source for a closed class of transitive, unreduplicated forms correlated with s-aorists. (Accent-based arguments, unconvincing in my opinion, were adduced to establish the former presence of a reduplicating syllable in these forms. The problem is surveyed by Malzahn 2010: 306 ff.) The h2 e-conjugation framework opened up another possibility. A h2 e-conjugation aorist of the type *nók̑-h2 e, *-th2 e, etc., 3 pl. *nék̑-r̥ s, representing a formation for which there was independent evidence in Hittite (cf. Jasanoff 2003: 149 ff.), could directly explain not only the class I subjunctive, but also the s-less forms of the s-preterite / presigmatic aorist and the connection between the two. The same two categories − the perfect and the h2 e-conjugation − were also the main candidates for the source of the clearly related subjunctives of class V, likewise characterized by *o : *e / Ø ablaut (cf. B 3 sg. mārsaṃ ‘will forget’ (< *mors[H]-), pl. *marsaṃ (< *mr̥ s[H]-) (The class I and V subjunctives are rightly treated together by Malzahn 2010: 306 ff.). Taken together, the ablauting subjunctive classes of Tocharian, with their perfect-like vocalism but un-perfect-like semantics and overall patterning, presented very much the same set of problems as the ḫi-conjugation in Anatolian.

231

232

III. Historical perspectives on Indo-European linguistics Important though all this was, the problems that Hittite, and to a lesser extent Tocharian, raised for the reconstruction of the IE verb were not confined to the sphere of the middle, the perfect, and the ḫi-conjugation. Some of the canonical IE features missing from the Hittite verbal system have already been mentioned − the present : aorist opposition, the non-indicative modes, and other more specific morphological traits. There were varying opinions on whether the “holes” in the Hittite system were archaic or secondary. Other things being equal, it was simpler to assume that the contrast between present and aorist stems had been lost in Hittite than that the other languages, following the separation of Anatolian from the rest of the family, had introduced it. (Warren Cowgill 1979 was a notable dissenter from this view.) The same was true of the optative. Most scholars with an opinion in the matter considered it unlikely that the optative suffix*-i̯ eh1 -/*-ih1 -, the only finite suffix in the IE verbal system to display paradigmatic ablaut, could have been an innovation of the non-Anatolian languages. In the case of the subjunctive, loss could actually be demonstrated, since the well-attested 2 sg. impv. paḫši ‘protect!’ was a si-imperative, haplologized from a 2 sg. subj. *péh2 s̸e̸si. (The status of paḫši as a siimperative based on the s-present *peh2 -s- is upheld in Jasanoff 2012, contra Oettinger 2007.) A more significant gap was the near-absence of primary thematic presents in Anatolian. The thematic conjugation in Hittite was best represented by the very common derived types in *-sk̑e/o-, *-i̯ e/o-, *-ei̯ e/o-, *-eh2 i̯ e/o-, etc., supplemented by one clear example of a zero-grade “tudáti-present” (Hitt. šuwezzi ‘pushes’; cf. Ved. suváti ‘sets in motion’). Full-grade thematic presents of the ubiquitous IE type, however, were limited to the solitary case of HLuv. tamari ‘builds’, cognate with Gk. δέμει ‘id.’. Hittite had no trace of the thematic present : s-aorist pattern seen in Vedic pairs of the type váhati ‘conveys’ : aor. ávākṣam, dáhati ‘burns’ : aor. ádhākṣam, náyati ‘leads’ : aor. ánaiṣam, etc.; the one Hittite verb with a cognate in this group, nai- ‘direct’ (= Ved. nī-), had the Hittite equivalent of an s-aorist (pret. 1 sg. nēḫḫun, 3 sg. naiš) and a back-formed ḫiconjugation root present (nēḫḫi, etc.). What made these facts especially interesting was that they were almost exactly replicated in Tocharian. The commonest thematic stems in Tocharian were the immensely productive derived causatives in *-sk̑e/o-. Inherited root thematic presents were arguably limited to āśäṃ ‘leads’ (= Ved. ájati, Gk. ἄγει, etc.) and paräṃ ‘carries’ (= Ved. bhárati, Gk. φέρει, etc.). There were many other class II (= simple thematic) presents, but the great majority of them, to the extent they had etymologies, were either petrified s- or sk-presents or inner-Tocharian thematizations of athematic stems. The half dozen or more Tocharian roots with inherited s-preterites, like tsäk- ‘burn’ (B pret. 3 sg. *tseksa = Ved. ádhākṣam), had presents in -se/o- (B 3 sg. tsakṣäṃ < *dheg u̯h-se/o-) rather than thematic presents of the dáhati type.

4. Syntactic impact Even in the realm of syntax there were surprises. One of the most discussed features of Anatolian was the phenomenon of “split ergativity”, discovered by Emmanuel Laroche (1962) and put into modern descriptive terms by Andrew Garrett (1990). (A summary of the highly contentious literature on ergativity in Anatolian is provided by Melchert 2012a.) Neuter nouns in Hittite, when serving as the subject of a transitive verb, were marked by an apparent ergative ending -anz(a), with cognates in the Luvian languages.

18. The impact of Hittite and Tocharian While the specific morphology could not have been inherited, some scholars weighed the possibility that the prohibition against neuter nom.-acc. forms functioning as transitive subjects had been a PIE feature (so Melchert 2009: 132; Yakubovich 2011: 6). Another distinctive Anatolian trait, the penchant of Hittite and the “minor” languages for long chains of clitics and sentence-connective particles, was certainly, in its beginnings, of IE origin; Calvert Watkins’ Anatolian-inspired etymology of the PIE verbal augment *(h1 )e- as a sentence connective (Watkins 1963: 15−17) became the standard explanation of this element. On the Tocharian side, the phenomenon of Gruppenflexion, whereby a secondary case (allative, perlative, etc.; also genitive) needed to be marked only once on a noun and its modifiers, was typologically unusual in an IE language, but easy to understand against the background of the postpositional origin of the secondary case endings.

5. Implications for subgrouping Once the initial phase of post-decipherment excitement had worn off, it was not long before the tension between the predictions of the Neogrammarian model and the descriptive facts of Hittite took shape in the form of the “Indo-Hittite” theory. This was the position, due originally to Emil Forrer (1921: 26), that Proto-Anatolian was a sister, not a daughter, of Proto-Indo-European, both supposedly descending from a common parent called Proto-Indo-Hittite. The Indo-Hittite theory is rightly associated with the name of Sturtevant, who introduced the term in 1933 (although the idea is found in his writings as early as Sturtevant 1926: 29 ff.) and developed it in numerous publications of the 1930’s and 1940’s. Sturtevant was a fervent believer in the archaism of Hittite, and his picture of Proto-Indo-Hittite reflected his view of what features of Hittite deserved to outweigh the evidence of the other IE languages. But his principle for deciding what was Indo-European proper and what was Indo-Hittite was not based on a fresh consideration of the evidence of Anatolian, Indo-Iranian, Greek, etc.; rather, he took the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European as a given, fixed in its essential details by the Neogrammarians. Thus, e.g., he assigned four laryngeals to Proto-Indo-Hittite, but assumed their complete disappearance in the period between Proto-Indo-Hittite and Proto-IndoEuropean, thus upholding Brugmann’s laryngealless system unchanged. Not unfairly, later generations saw him as trying to have his cake and eat it too − defending the classical picture of the protolanguage while allowing Hittite free rein to disturb it. The term “Indo-Hittite,” rejected for different reasons by all schools save Sturtevant’s own, acquired tendentious overtones that caused it to be avoided even as evidence gradually accumulated that Anatolian had indeed been the first branch to split off from the rest of the family. Cowgill, one of the few scholars to continue following Sturtevant’s usage, considered the difference between Indo-Hittite and Neu’s “Früh- oder Mittelindogermanisch” to be largely terminological (1979: 27). By the beginning of the twenty-first century a mild “Anatolian first” scenario had come to be widely accepted. Informing the new consensus was an improved understanding of how the IE dispersal might actually have taken place. The traditional “big bang” picture of the IE family was non-committal on matters of subgrouping and agreeably consistent with the Romantic myth of a sudden, transformative “Indo-European invasion.” But there was no positive evidence, either

233

234

III. Historical perspectives on Indo-European linguistics linguistic or archaeological, for a single explosive event at the onset of the IE breakup, nor any reason to believe that such an event would have been likely. The neighboring Uralic family was traditionally represented with successive branches peeling off a diminishing core. Once the question became not whether one IE branch left the family first, but which branch, it was not hard to agree that the choice was Anatolian. It remained the case, however, that instances where the rest of the IE languages could be proved to have undergone a common innovation vis-à-vis Anatolian were few and far between. The feminine gender and (if one accepted the h2 e-conjugation theory) the resultative-stative perfect were plausible candidates for “Nuclear IE” innovations, but the possibility that they had simply been lost in Anatolian could not be excluded. The two most striking positive features of Hittite and Anatolian − the ḫi-conjugation and the survival of consonantal laryngeals − were of little value for classification purposes. Under the standard “perfect” theory, the ḫi-conjugation was an Anatolian innovation. Under the h2 e-conjugation theory it was a retention; yet, given the evidence for the continued athematic inflection of h2 e-conjugation presents in the prehistory of the non-Anatolian languages (seen, e.g., in the ablaut difference between *molh2 - [malan, etc.] and *melh2 [melid, etc.]), the “loss” of the h2 e-conjugation was impossible to date as a single event in post-Anatolian Proto-Indo-European. It was the same with laryngeals: Anatolian was the only branch to preserve palpable consonantal reflexes of these sounds, but laryngeals figured in language-specific rules in most branches of the family. More decisive was the cumulative value of lower-profile phenomena, such as the post-Anatolian activization of the participles in *-nt- and the replacement of the pronominal nom.-acc. neuter plural in *-oi by *-eh2 . Interestingly, some of the strongest indicators of the archaic status of Anatolian were the special traits that Hittite shared with Tocharian. These included the joint failure of Anatolian and Tocharian to form thorn clusters, the limited development of the thematic conjugation, and the mixed, still largely non-sigmatic character of what was to become the s-aorist. The adoption of a “layered” model of Proto-Indo-European thus showed not only that Anatolian was the first branch to leave the family, but also that Tocharian, the other “new” branch at the beginning of the twentieth century, was probably the second.

6. References Benveniste, Émile 1935 Origines de la formation des noms en indo-européen. Paris: Maisonneuve. Brugmann, Karl 1897−1916 Grundriß der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen. Zweite Bearbeitung. Strassburg: Trübner. Cowgill, Warren 1979 Anatolian hi-conjugation and Indo-European perfect: instalment II. In: Neu and Meid (eds.), 25−39. Diver, William 1959 Palatal quality and vocalic length in Indo-European. Word 15: 110−122. Eichner, Heiner 1975 Die Vorgeschichte des hethitischen Verbalsystems. In: Rix (ed.), 71−103. Garrett, Andrew 1990 The origin of NP split ergativity. Language 66: 261−296.

18. The impact of Hittite and Tocharian Hrozný, Bedřich 1917 Die Sprache der Hethiter. Boghazköi-Studien 1−2. Leipzig: Hinrichs. Jakobson, Roman 1958 Typological studies and their contributions to historical comparative linguistics. In: Eva Sivertsen, Carl Hjalmar Borgstrøm, Arne Gallis, and Alf Sommerfelt (eds.), Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Linguistics, Oslo, 5−9 August, 1957. Oslo: Oslo University Press, 17−25. Jasanoff, Jay 1979 The position of the ḫi-conjugation. In: Neu and Meid (eds.), 79−90. Jasanoff, Jay 1987 Some irregular imperatives in Tocharian. In: Watkins (ed.), 92−112. Jasanoff, Jay 1988 The s-aorist in Hittite and Tocharian. Tocharian and Indo-European Studies 2: 52−76. Jasanoff, Jay 1994 Aspects of the internal history of the PIE verbal system. In: George E. Dunkel, Gisela Meyer, Salvatore Scarlata, and Christian Seidl (eds.), Früh-, Mittel-, Spätindogermanisch. Akten der IX. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 5. bis 9. Oktober 1992 in Zürich. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 149−168. Jasanoff, Jay 2003 Hittite and the Indo-European Verb. Oxford : Oxford University Press. Jasanoff, Jay 2009 *-bhi, *-bhis, *-ōis: following the trail of the PIE instrumental plural. In: Jens Rasmussen and Thomas Olander (eds.), Internal Reconstruction in Indo-European: Methods, Results, and Problems. Section Papers from the XVI th Conference on Historical Linguistics. Copenhagen, 11 th−15 th August, 2003. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum, 137−149. Jasanoff, Jay 2010 The Luvian “case” in -ša / -za. In: Ronald Kim, Norbert Oettinger, Elizabeth Rieken, and Michael Weiss (eds.), Ex Anatolia Lux. Anatolian and Indo-European studies presented to H. Craig Melchert on the occasion of his sixty-fifth birthday. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave, 167−179. Jasanoff, Jay 2012 Did Hittite have si-imperatives? In: Sukač and Šefčík (eds.), 116−132. Klingenschmitt, Gert 1994 Das Tocharische in indogermanistischer Sicht. In: Bernfried Schlerath (ed.), Tocharisch. Akten der Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Berlin, September, 1990. Reykjavík: Málvísindastofnun Háskóla Íslands, 310−411. Krause, Wolfgang and Werner Thomas 1960 Tocharisches Elementarbuch, Band I. Grammatik. Heidelberg: Winter. Kronasser, Heinz 1956 Vergleichende Laut- und Formenlehre des Hethitischen. Heidelberg: Winter. Kümmel, Martin Joachim 2007 Konsonantenwandel. Bausteine zu einer Typologie des Lautwandels und ihre Konsequenzen für die vergleichende Rekonstruktion. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Kuryłowicz, Jerzy 1927 ə indo-européen et ḫ hittite. In: Witold Taszycki and Witold Doroszewki (eds.), Symbolae Grammaticae in honorem Ioannis Rozwadowski, vol. 1. Krakow: Uniwersytet Jagielloński, 95−104. Kuryłowicz, Jerzy 1935 Études indoeuropéennes. (Polska Akademja Umiejętności. Prace Komisji Językowej 21). Krakow: Gebethner & Wolff.

235

236

III. Historical perspectives on Indo-European linguistics Laroche, Emmanuel 1962 Un “ergatif” en indo-européen d’Asie Mineure. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 57: 23−43. Malzahn, Melanie (ed.) 2007 Instrumenta Tocharica. Heidelberg: Winter. Malzahn, Melanie 2007 Tocharian texts and where to find them. In: Malzahn (ed.), 79−112. Malzahn, Melanie 2010 The Tocharian Verbal System. Leiden : Brill. Manaster Ramer, Alexis and Belinda Bicknell 1995 Logic and philology: incommensurability of descriptions of one-vowel systems. Journal of Linguistics 31: 149−156. Martinet, André 1953 Non-apophonic o-vocalism in Indo-European. Word 9: 253−267. Mayrhofer, Manfred 1986 Lautlehre (Segmentale Phonologie des Indogermanischen). Indogermanische Grammatik. Edited by Jerzy Kuryłowicz. Band I. 2. Halbband. Heidelberg: Winter. Melchert, H. Craig 1987 PIE velars in Luvian. In: Watkins (ed.), 182−204. Melchert, H. Craig 2003 PIE “thorn” in Cuneiform Luvian? In: Karlene Jones-Bley, Martin E. Huld, Angela Della Volpe, and Miriam Robbins Dexter (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference. Washington DC: Institute for the Study of Man, 145− 161. Melchert, H. Craig 2009 Review of S. Patri. 2007. L’alignement syntaxique dans les langues indo-européennes d’Anatolie. Kratylos 54: 130−132. Melchert, H. Craig 2012a The Problem of the Ergative Case in Hittite. In: Michelle Fruyt, Michel Mazoyer, and Dennis Pardee (eds.), Grammatical Case in the Languages of the Middle East and Europe. Acts of the International Colloquium “Variations, concurrence et evolution des cas dans divers domaines linguistiques,” Paris 2−4 April 2007. Chicago: Oriental Institute, 161−167. Melchert, H. Craig 2012b Luvo-Lycian Dorsal Stops Revisited. In: Sukač and Šefčík (eds.), 206−218. Morpurgo Davies, Anna and J. D. Hawkins 1988 A Luwian Heart. In: Fiorella Imparati (ed.), Studi di Storia e di Filologia Anatolica dedicati a. G. Pugliese Carratelli. Firenze: Edizioni Librarie Italiane Estere, 169−182. Neu, Erich and Wolfgang Meid (eds.) 1979 Hethitisch und Indogermanisch. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität. Nussbaum, Alan. J. 2014 Feminine, Abstract, Collective, Neuter Plural: Some Remarks on each (Expanded Handout). In: Sergio Neri and Roland Schuhmann (eds.), Studies on the collective and feminine in Indo-European from a diachronic and typological perspective. (Brill’s studies in Indo-European languages and linguistics 11). Leiden: Brill, 273−306. Oettinger, Norbert 1976 Der indogermanische Stativ. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 34: 109−149. Oettinger, Norbert 2006 Review of Jasanoff 2003. Kratylos 51: 34−45.

18. The impact of Hittite and Tocharian Oettinger, Norbert 2007 Der hethitische Imperativ auf -i vom Typ paḫši ,schu¨tze!’. In: Detlev Groddek and Marina Zorman (eds.), Tabularia Hethaeorum. Hethitologische Beiträge Silvin Košak zum 65. Geburtstag. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 561−568. Pedersen, Holger 1938 Hittitisch und die anderen indoeuropäischen Sprachen. Copenhagen: Munksgaard. Pinault, Georges-Jean 2007 Concordance des manuscrits tokhariens du fonds Pelliot. In: Malzahn (ed.), 163−219. Pinault, Georges-Jean 2008 Chrestomathie tokharienne. Textes et Grammaire. Louvain: Peeters. Polomé, Edgar 1965 The laryngeal theory so far: a critical bibliographical survey. In: Werner Winter (ed.), Evidence for Laryngeals. The Hague: Mouton, 9−78. Puhvel, Jaan 1960 Laryngeals and the Indo-European Verb. Berkeley : University of California Press. Risch, Ernst 1955 Zu den hethitischen Verben vom Typus teḫḫi. In: Hans Krahe (ed.), Corolla Linguistica. Festschrift für Ferdinand Sommer. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 189−198. Rix, Helmut 1988 The Proto-Indo-European middle: content, forms and origin. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 49: 101−119. Rix, Helmut (ed.) 1975 Flexion und Wortbildung. Akten der V. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft. Regensburg, 9.−14. September 1973. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Saussure, Ferdinand de 1879 Mémoire sur le système primitif des voyelles dans les langues indo-européennes. Leipzig: Teubner. Schindler, Jochem 1967 Zu hethitisch nekuz. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 81: 290−303. Schindler, Jochem 1975a Zum Ablaut der neutralen s-Stämme des Indogermanischen. In: Rix (ed.), 259−267. Schindler, Jochem 1975b L’apophonie des thèmes indo-européens en -r / n. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 70: 1−10. Sieg, Emil and Wilhelm Siegling 1908 Tocharisch, die Sprache der Indoskythen. Sitzungsberichte der Königlichen Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Berlin: Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 915−932. Sommer, Ferdinand 1947 Hethiter und Hethitisch. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Sturtevant, Edgar H. 1926 On the position of Hittite among the Indo-European languages. Language 2: 25−34. Sturtevant, Edgar H. 1933 Archaism in Hittite. Language 9: 1−11. Sturtevant, Edgar H. 1940 The Greek κ-perfect and Indo-European -k(o)-. Language 16: 273−284. Sturtevant, Edgar H. 1942 The Indo-Hittite Laryngeals. Baltimore: Linguistic Society of America. Sukač, Roman and Ondřej Šefčík (eds.) 2012 The Sound of Indo-European 2. Munich: Lincom Europa. Wackernagel, Jakob 1907 Indisches und Italisches. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung 41: 305−319.

237

238

III. Historical perspectives on Indo-European linguistics Watkins, Calvert 1963 Preliminaries to a historical and comparative analysis of the syntax of the Old Irish verb. Celtica 6: 1−49. Watkins, Calvert (ed.) 1987 Studies in Memory of Warren Cowgill (1929−1985). Berlin: De Gruyter. Weiss, Michael 2012 Uvulars ubiquitous in PIE [PowerPoint presentation]. Paper presented at Concordia University, November 30, 2012. Weitenberg, J. J. S. 1992 The use of asyndesis and particles in Old Hittite simple sentences. In: Onofrio Carruba (ed.), Per una grammatical ittita. Pavia: Iuculano, 305−353. Yakubovich, Ilya 2011 Ergativity in Hittite [handout]. Paper presented at Die vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft im 21. Jahrhundert / Historical-Comparative Linguistics in the 21 st Century, Pavia, 22− 25 September, 2011.

Jay H. Jasanoff, Cambridge, MA (USA)

IV. Anatolian 19. The documentation of Anatolian 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Preliminary remarks Hittite Palaic Luvian Carian

6. Lydian 7. Sidetic 8. Primary text editions and important publication-series 9. References

1. Preliminary remarks Anatolian, an extinct language family spoken mainly in the territory of present day Turkey, is the oldest attested subgroup of Indo-European. The languages making up Anatolian are a) Hittite, b) Palaic, c) Luvian with its dialects (Cuneiform and Hieroglyphic Luvian, Pisidian, Lycian, Milyan), d) Carian, e) Lydian, and f) Sidetic. The attestation of Anatolian covers approximately eighteen centuries, beginning around 1650 BCE and ending in around the 2nd century CE; Luvian personal names are attested in Insauria until the fifth century CE, Luvian topographical names up until the present day (Konya < Gr. Ἰκόνιον < Luv. Ikkuwaniya). After the decline of the Hittite empire about 1200 BCE, Hittite and Cuneiform Luvian died out, but the other Anatolian languages continued to be attested.

2. Hittite Hittite is the earliest attested Indo-European language in north-central Anatolia, inside the curve of the River Marassantas (Halys in Greece and Kızılırmak in Turkey). The Hittites designated their own language as nesili-, nesumnili- ‘Nesite; in the language of (the inhabitants of) Nesa’. Nesa, later Kanes, is located in the vicinity of the Turkish village Kültepe (near Kayseri), where the Assyrians once had a merchant colony named Kārum Kaneš; it is in the Old Assyrian contracts attested in this colony that the first few Hittite words appear. The Hittites regarded this city as their original home, from where the oldest attested king, Anitta (18th/17th centuries BCE), began to conquer the surrounding city states and to lay the foundations for the Old Hittite Kingdom, finally established under Hattusili I and his son Mursili I, whose later capital was Hattusa (Boğazkale, Turkey); and from this time forward, ending with the destruction of the Hittite Empire at about 1200 BCE, one finds a continuous and extensive attestation of Hittite. We can distinguish three linguistic stages of the Hittite language: Old Hittite (17th or early 16th centuries BCE−ca. 1500 BCE), Middle Hittite (ca. 1500−1375 BCE) and NeoHittite (ca. 1375−1200 BCE), cf. Watkins 2004: 351. The datings of the beginning of the documentation of Hittite are directly connected with the chronological tables of the Hittite kings; these timetables depend on timetables of Assyrian and Babylonian kings https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261288-019

240

IV. Anatolian

Map 19.1: The Ancient languages of Anatolia and surrounding regions (languages which are first attested in the 1st millenium BCE or later are marked in italics)

and allow so-called long, middle, and short chronologies to be established. According to the short chronology, some date the beginning of the Old Hittite period at 1580/1570 BCE (cf. Oettinger 1999; Luraghi 1998: 170); according to the middle chronology, the beginning is dated at 1650 BCE (Luraghi 1998: 170). The long chronology, which dates the beginning of the Old Hittite period to the last decade of the 18th century BCE, is generally considered unlikely or even impossible. Hittite texts were written by professional scribes on clay tablets, which were air-dried and archived; the tablets found during excavations were preserved by fire disasters. The Hittites used the Mesopotamian cuneiform syllabary of the 2nd millennium, running generally left-to-right, which they adapted to the essentials of their own language. The writing system was probably borrowed in the 17th century BCE, at the beginning of the Old Hittite Kingdom, in Northern Syria from an Akkadian scribal school. The signs used can be classified as logograms (standing for words), some of which were also employed in a specialized usage as determinatives, and as syllabograms with at least the structures of Vowel + Consonant, Consonant + Vowel, and Consonant + Vowel + Consonant. The first understandings of Hittite texts were supported by these special characteristics of this writing system, especially the frequent use of a number of logograms from Sumerian (called Sumerograms) and various Akkadian words (written syllabically, called Akkadograms). The texts found in the archives of the royal palace and of the temples in Hattusa show varying contents, but the majority of the texts can be assigned to the religious and ritualistic sphere. Laroche (1971) arranged the Hittite texts according to subject matter: historical texts (annals, reports and self-portrayals of kings), administrative texts (instructions for officials, reports about royal donations, library catalogues), law codes, scientific

19. The documentation of Anatolian texts (e.g. Sumerian-Akkadian-Hittite vocabularies) and translations (e.g. the HurrianHittite bilingual, a literary text, found between 1980 and 1986), mythological texts, contracts, texts in foreign languages (Luvian, Palaic, Hattic, Hurrian) and the great bulk of religious and ritualistic texts (descriptions of rituals, oracles, astrological texts, and many descriptions of festivals).

3. Palaic Palaic is the language of the land of Palā in the north and northwest of the Hittite core area across the Halys River (Kızılırmak, Turkey). The name is derived from Hitt. palaumnili- ‘in Palaic language’. Palā is mentioned in Old Hittite law codes (ca. 17th/ 16th centuries BCE) as one of the three parts of the Hittite state together with Luviya and Hatti. After the depredation of Palā by the Kaskean people, Palaic died out no later than the 13th century BCE. Its main attestation in Hittite texts dates from the 16th to the 15th century BCE (Starke 1996: 661). Palaic seems to represent an independent branch among the Anatolian languages, although it shows characteristics of both Hittite and Luvian (e.g. the genitive singular with suffix -as as in Hittite or with the adjectival suffix -ssa- as in Luvian) with a closer connection to Luvian, justifying the establishment of a Palaic-Luvian protolanguage (Oettinger 1978). Palaic shows a slightly different phonological system, preserving a phoneme /f/ in Hattic loanwords and showing a development of Indo-European */k w/ to /ʕ w/ as in Pal. ahu- ‘drink’ (cf. Melchert 2004e: 586). Palaic texts were written on clay tablets by Hittite professional scribes using the same version of the cuneiform syllabary as they did for Hittite, with the exception of special signs for the phoneme /f/. Palaic is preserved only in Hittite texts in liturgical usage, especially with regard to the Hattic god Zaparfa/Ziparfa, and is always embedded in a Hittite context. As of today only 12 texts (fragments) are known (CTH 750−754), the most interesting being CTH 751 (“formule des pains”) and 752 (“mythos”), according to Carruba (1970).

4. Luvian Luvian, whose name is derived from Hitt. luwili- ‘in Luvian language’, was spoken over large areas of (north)western, south central and southeastern Anatolia as well as northern Syria and is therefore the most widely spoken member of the Anatolian family. Luvian. In the Old Hittite law codes, the Luvian-speaking areas were called Luvia. Because of its wide distribution, we can assume that Luvian was the “popular language” in the Hittite Empire. Luvianisms and Luvian loanwords are found in Hittite texts from the Old Hittite period on. The influence of Luvian on Hittite increased in the period of the Late Empire, so the suggestion has been made that by this time Luvian was the spoken language in Hattusa as well, with Hittite preserved only as a written “chancellery” language (cf. Melchert 2003: 11−14, 2004b: 576 f.). It is indisputable that the Hittite kings never used the cuneiform script for inscriptions or monumental purposes but employed instead Anatolian Hieroglyphs, and the language of these inscriptions was Luvian.

241

242

IV. Anatolian Luvian is attested in dialects employing different scripts: Cuneiform Luvian employed the Hittite cuneiform script and Hieroglyphic Luvian used a special indigenous hieroglyphic writing system (Hawkins 2003); Pisidian, Lycian, and Milyan used alphabetic scripts. The period of attestation of Luvian (including all Luvian languages) is a very long one: if we include Luvian names in foreign texts, it extends from the 18th century BCE to the 5th/6th century CE, a duration (with interruptions) of almost 2300 years (Starke 1999a: 528).

4.1. Cuneiform Luvian The first attestation of Cuneiform Luvian (CLuvian) − only names − occurs in Old Assyrian texts from Kanes/Kültepe. Beginning with the 16th century BCE numerous CLuvian substantives and verbs occur in Hittite texts as loanwords; but later an independent CLuvian is attested. CLuvian texts were written by Hittite professional scribes on clay tablets using the same version of cuneiform script as already adapted for Hittite. Beside two fragments of letters, CLuvian texts are embedded in Hittite Festbeschreibungen and purification rituals as magic conjuration spells or ritual chants dating from the 16th−15th century BCE, with copies from the 14th−13th century BCE (Starke 1985). All texts containing CLuvian passages have been found in the Hittite capital Hattusa.

4.2. Hieroglyphic Luvian Hieroglyphic Luvian (HLuvian) was written in a special hieroglyphic script invented by the Luvians. The signs used can be classified as logograms (standing for words), some of which were also employed in a specialized usage as determinatives, and as syllabograms (these specific features of the script indicate a close connection to cuneiform writing traditions). The direction of the script was either from left to right or from right to left, but inscriptions of several lines are written boustrophedon, or “as the ox ploughs” (each line in the reverse direction to its predecesor), with horizontal relief rulings serving as line-dividers. Individual words were written vertically in the line in one or more columns (Hawkins 2003: 155 ff.). The direction of writing is easy to determine with the help of the non-symmetrical signs, which always face the beginning of the line (Payne 2004: 5). HLuvian is attested by about 260 inscriptions spread over the whole of the Hittite empire. The first attestation of these hieroglyphs are found on Hittite personal seals dating from the 15th and 14th centuries BCE. About 40 inscriptions are from the 13th century BCE. Particularly important among these, on account of their historical content, are the inscriptions found in Lykaonia (Yalburt, Emirgazi) and in Hattusa (“Südburg”). The vast majority of the inscriptions, about 220, date from the 12th to the 8th/early 7th century BCE, all found in the south and southeast of Asia Minor as well as in northern Syria, all of which are regions of the smaller Hittite states after 1200 BCE. Of great interest

Map 19.2: Hittite states (12th to 8th/7th centuries BCE) after the decline of the Hittite Empire

19. The documentation of Anatolian 243

244

IV. Anatolian

Map 19.3: Anatolia about 270 BCE

are the two bilingual inscriptions (Phoenician-HLuvian) from Karatepe and İvriz (for detailed description and grouping of the HLuvian inscriptions cf. Hawkins 2003: 138−151). The HLuvian inscriptions are historical and/or autobiographical texts of kings and local sovereigns and the people about them. They deal with military actions, buildings, consecrations, epitaphs, internal affairs, etc. The HLuvian tradition dies out with the conquest of these smaller Hittite states by the Assyrians at the end of the 8th or rather at the beginning of the 7th century BCE.

4.3. Pisidian Pisidian was spoken in the eastern area of Pisidia (situated in the southwest of Central Anatolia) and is attested by 21 short funeral inscriptions containing only personal names in a rigid syntactic form (nominative, patronymical genitive, dative). Pisidian is assumed to be the successor to HLuvian (Starke 1999a: 529). According to Starke (loc. cit.), the dialect of Lystra in Lycaonia (1st century CE), called Lycaonian (Λυκαονιστὶ λέγοντες), is closely related to Pisidian.

4.4. Lycian Lycian (or Lycian A) was the language of Lycia, the region of the mountainous peninsula on the southwest coast of Anatolia lying between the Gulf of Fethiye and the Gulf of Antalya. Its texts are written in an alphabetic script running from left to right (except for some inscriptions on coins running right-to-left) derived from a Dorian form of the Greek alphabet (Neumann 1969: 371). The attestation of Lycian starts at the end of the 5th century BCE and ends with the conquest of Lycia by Alexander the Great (about 334/333 BCE).

19. The documentation of Anatolian The Lycian corpus includes about 176 inscriptions on stone − eight of them bilingual (Lycian-Greek), one trilingual (Lycian-Greek-Aramaic) −, about 180 inscriptions on coins (485−360 BCE), short inscriptions on vessels (from 500 BCE), and graffiti. The majority of the inscriptions on stone are sepulchral texts of the local sovereigns and their people, with highly stereotyped content. Very important are two monuments: the inscribed stele of Xanthos, which describes the military exploits and building activities of a local patriarch, and the trilingual stele of Létôon, which records the founding of a cult for the goddess Leto. The longest Lycian inscription (TL 44 from Xanthos) records historical details of the Peloponnesian War (431−404 BCE).

4.5. Milyan Among the texts written in the Lycian alphabet are two (end of TL 44 and TL 55) which represent a distinct dialect known either as Lycian B (vs. ordinary Lycian A) or as Milyan. Because Milyan is more closely related to HLuvian than to Lycian A, the designation “Milyan” is − with regard to the linguistic evidence − better than Lycian B, which suggests a close relation of Milyan to Lycian A. The Milyan texts are located in the Lycian area; therefore it is impossible to specify the geographical distribution of Milyan.

5. Carian Carian is the language of the land of Caria in the southwest of Anatolia between Lycia and Lydia. It is attested from the 7th to the 3rd centuries BCE by more than 200 inscriptions. Older inscriptions, especially tomb inscriptions and graffiti (7th to 5th centuries BCE) − the majority of the known corpus −, were found in Egypt, left there by Carian mercenaries. These inscriptions record only personal names. The younger corpus (4th to 3rd centuries BCE), a few dozen very short or fragmentary inscriptions, was found in Caria itself. One Carian-Greek inscription, dated to the 6th century BCE, was found in Athens. A huge step forward in Carian philology and linguistics was occasioned by the discovery of an extensive Carian-Greek inscription at Kaunos in 1996. Carian is written in an alphabetic script, slightly related to the Greek and perhaps borrowed from a Doric alphabet. The direction of the script is right-to-left in texts from Egypt and left-to-right in those from Caria. The successful decipherment of the Carian script was at last rendered possible in 1997, following the publication of the bilingual from Kaunos (for details cf. Melchert 2004a: 609 f.).

6. Lydian In the 1st millennium BCE, Lydian was spoken in an area called Lydia in Greek on the west coast of Anatolia, northwest of Lycia. In the 2nd millennium BCE, the homeland of the Lydians was perhaps further to the north or northwest from its region of attestation.

245

246

IV. Anatolian The attestation of Lydian in graffiti and on coins starts at the end of the 8th and the beginning of the 7th centuries BCE and extends down to the 3rd century BCE. The longer inscriptions on stone are limited to the 5th and 4th centuries BCE and hence are contemporaneous with those in Lycian. More than 100 Lydian texts are known, but only about 30 of these show more than a few words. The contents of the majority of the inscriptions on stone are sepulchral, but some texts are decrees. Very important for the understanding of Lydian is one short Lydian-Aramaic inscription. Several inscriptions are metrical, with a stress-based meter and vowel assonance at the end of the line. Lydian is generally written from right to left in an alphabetical script closely related to or derived from the Greek alphabet; only a few older texts are written from left to right (Nos. 31, 32, 49 and 58), one inscription (No. 30) is also written boustrophedon, according to Gusmani (1964: 21).

7. Sidetic Sidetic was spoken in the south of Anatolia (Pamphylia), in the town Side and its surrounding area from the 5th/4th to the 3rd/2nd centuries BCE. The Greek author Arrian reports that the language of Side differed from Greek as well as from other surrounding languages. Sidetic is written in an alphabetic script from left to right. We have several inscriptions on coins (5th/4th centuries BCE), nine inscriptions (beneath them three GreekSidetic bilingual texts), one inscription on a vessel (fragment), and one inscription on a votive tablet (3rd/2nd centuries BCE); signs on a scarab can also be Sidetic (Rizza 2005). Although the attestation of Sidetic is very sparse, it is clear that it is an independent branch of Western Anatolian, different from Luvian (Starke 2001).

8. Primary text editions and important publication-series The Hittite cuneiform texts archived in the museums of Berlin, Istanbul, and Ankara are autographically edited in two main series: Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazköy (KUB), vol. 1−60 (1921−1990; to be continued in Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler der staatlichen Museen zu Berlin, with the first volume published 1997 by Liane Jakob-Rost), and Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköy (KBo), vol. 1−61 (1923−2011, to be continued); further publication series are Ankara Arkeoloji Müzesinde Bulunan Boğazköy Tabletleri (ABoT), vol. 1−2 (1948−2012, to be continued) and İstanbul Arkeoloji Müzelerinde bulunan Boğazköy Tabletleri (IBoT), vol. 1−4 (1944−1988, to be continued). Many of these volumes are edited in transliteration in Dresdner Beiträge zur Hethitologie (DBH). Hittite texts in translation are especially published in the monographic series Studien zu den Boğazköi-Texten (StBoT) and Texte der Hethiter (THeth). Cuneiform texts recently found by excavations in Turkey are to be published by Turkish scholars; texts from Kuşakli/Sarissa only are edited by Wilhelm (1997).

19. The documentation of Anatolian Cuneiform Luvian texts are published by Starke (1985), the major HieroglyphicLuvian texts by Hawkins (2000) and Çambel (1999). Lycian texts are found in the editions of Kalinka (1901) and Neumann (1979), Lydian texts by Gusmani (1964).

9. References ABoT = Ankara Arkeoloji Müzesinde Bulunan Boğazköy Tabletleri. İstanbul. 1948− Adiego, Ignacio-Javier 2007 The Carian Language. With an appendix by Koray Konuk. (Handbuch der Orientalistik 1: The Near and Middle East, Vol. 86). Leiden: Brill. Çambel, Halet 1999 Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions. Volume II: Karatepe-Aslantaş − The Inscriptions: Facsimile Edition. (Studies in Indo-European Language and Culture 8.2). Berlin: De Gruyter. Cancik, Hubert and Helmuth Schneider (eds.) 1996−2003 Der Neue Pauly. Enzyklopädie der Antike. Stuttgart: Metzler. Carruba, Onofrio 1970 Das Palaische. Texte, Grammatik, Lexikon. (Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten 10).Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. DBH = Dresdner Beiträge zur Hethitologie 2002 ff. Dresden: Verlag der TU (2002−2004, vol. 1−15). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz (2005 ff., vol. 16 ff.). Frei, Peter and Christian Marek 1997 Die karisch-griechische Bilingue von Kaunos. Kadmos 36: 1−89. Gusmani, Roberto 1964 Lydisches Wörterbuch. Mit grammatischer Skizze und Inschriftensammlung. Heidelberg: Winter. Hawkins, John David 2000 Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions. Volume I: Inscriptions of the Iron Age. (3 Parts). (Studies in Indo-European Language and Culture 8.1). Berlin: De Gruyter. Hawkins, John David 2003 Scripts and Texts. In: Melchert (ed.), 128−169. Houwink ten Cate, Philo H. J. 1965 The Luwian population groups of Lycia and Cilicia Aspera during the Hellenistic period. (Documenta et Monumenta Orientis Antiqui 10). Leiden: Brill. IBoT = İstanbul Arkeoloji Müzelerinde bulunan Boğazköy Tabletleri(nden Secme Metinler). İstanbul. 1944−1988. Jakob-Rost, Liane 1997 Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköy im Vorderasiatischen Museum. Mainz: von Zabern. Kalinka, Ernst 1901 Tituli Asiae Minoris. Conlecti et editi auspiciis Caesareae Academiae Litterarum Vindobonensis. Volumen I: Tituli Lyciae lingua Lycia conscripti [Inscriptions of Asia Minor. Collected and edited under the auspices of the Caesarean Academy of Letters of Vienna. Volumen I: Inscriptions of Lycia composed in the Lycian language]. Vienna: Hölder. KUB = Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazköy. vol. 1−60 (1921−1990): 1−32: Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, vorderasiatische Abteilung, 33−38: Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft zu Berlin, 39− 40: Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Institut für Orientforschung, 41− 60: Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR. Zentralinstitut für Alte Geschichte und Archäologie. Continued in Jakob-Rost (1997, first volume).

247

248

IV. Anatolian Laroche, 1971 Laroche, 1972

Emmanuel Catalogue des textes hittites. (Études et Commentaires 75). Paris: Klincksieck. Emmanuel Catalogue des textes hittites. Première supplément. Revue Hittite et Asianique 30 : 94− 133. Luraghi, Silvia 1997 Hittite. Munich: Lincom Europa. Luraghi, Silvia 1998 The Anatolian Languages. In: Anna Giacalone Ramat and Paolo Ramat (eds.), The IndoEuropean languages. London: Routledge, 169−196. Marazzi, Massimo 1990 Il geroglifico anatolico. Problemi di analisi e prospettive di ricerca. Rome: Università “Sapienza”. Melchert, H. Craig (ed.) 2003 The Luwians. (Handbook of Oriental Studies 1: The Near and Middle East, Vol. 68). Leiden: Brill. Melchert, H. Craig 2004a Carian. In: Woodard (ed.), 609−613. Melchert, H. Craig 2004b Luvian. In: Woodard (ed.), 576−584. Melchert, H. Craig 2004c Lycian. In: Woodard (ed.), 591−600. Melchert, H. Craig 2004d Lydian. In: Woodard (ed.), 601−608. Melchert, H. Craig 2004e Palaic. In: Woodard (ed.), 585−590. Neumann, Günter 1969 Lykisch. In: Bertold Spuler (ed.), Altkleinasiatische Sprachen. (Handbuch der Orientalistik 1. 2. Lieferung 2). Leiden: Brill, 358−396. Neumann, Günter 1979 Neufunde lykischer Inschriften seit 1901. (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Phil.-Hist. Klasse. Denkschriften 135). Vienna: VÖAW Oettinger, Norbert 1978 Die Gliederung des anatolischen Sprachgebietes. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 92: 74−92. Oettinger, Norbert 1999 Kleinasien. Sprachen. In: Cancik and Schneider (eds.), Band 6, cols. 555−558. Payne, Annick 2004 Hieroglyphic Luwian. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Rizza, Alfredo 2005 A new document with Sidetic (?) signs. In: Kadmos 44: 60−74. Starke, Frank 1985 Die keilschrift-luwischen Texte in Umschrift. (Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten 30). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Starke, Frank 1990 Untersuchungen zur Stammbildung des keilschrift-luwischen Nomens. (Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten 31). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Starke, Frank 1996 Anatolische Sprachen. In: Cancik and Schneider (eds.), Band 1, cols. 661−662. Starke, Frank 1998a Hethitisch. In: Cancik and Schneider (eds.), Band 5, cols. 521−523.

20. The phonology of Anatolian

249

Starke, Frank 1998b Karisch. In: Cancik and Schneider (eds.), Band 6, cols. 279−280. Starke, Frank 1999a Luwisch. In: Cancik and Schneider (eds.), Band 7, cols. 528−534. Starke, Frank 1999b Lydisch. In: Cancik and Schneider (eds.), Band 7, cols. 548−549. Starke, Frank 2001 Sidetisch. In: Cancik and Schneider (eds.), Band 11, col. 519. StBoT = Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 1965 ff. THeth = Texte der Hethiter. Heidelberg: Winter. 1971 ff. Watkins, Calvert 2004 Hittite. In: Woodard (ed.), 551−575. Wilhelm, Gernot 1997 Kuşaklı − Sarissa: Band 1: Keilschrifttexte: Faszikel 1: Keilschrifttexte aus Gebäude A. (Kuşaklı − Sarissa 1). Rahden: Leidorf. Woodard, Roger D. (ed.) 2004 The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World’s Ancient Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Christian Zinko, Graz (Austria)

20. The phonology of Anatolian 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Introduction Vowels Diphthongs Syllabic resonants Resonants

6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Stops Fricatives Affricate Accent References

1. Introduction Although the individual Anatolian languages show many innovations, including a fortislenis opposition among consonants, lengthening of accented vowels, mergers of IE */a/ with */o/ and */ā/ with */ō/, and various syncopes, Proto-Anatolian was fairly conservative. The IE short and long vowel systems remained largely intact; syllabic resonants, nasals, liquids, and semivowels were retained; */h2/ and */h3/ were preserved in some environments; and the contrast between plain velars, palatalized velars, and labiovelars was maintained. Major innovations include */ǣ/ from */eh1/; monophthongization of */ei/ and */eu/ and of */oi/, */ai/, */ou/, and */au/ in some environments; geminate nasals, liquids, and stops arising through assimilation; the probable merger of the voiced aspirates with voiced stops; voicing of IE voiceless stops after long accented vowels and in unaccented syllables; and loss of */h1/. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261288-020

250

IV. Anatolian

2. Vowels *i, *ī *e, *ē *ǣ

*u, *ū *o, *ō *a, *ā

The distribution of the Indo-European short vowels in Proto-Anatolian remained largely unchanged, though lowering of *e before resonant plus laryngeal and before */r/ and */n/ plus stop or word boundary and the resyllabification of sequences of */w/ or labiovelar */k w/ to u and ku, respectively, created vowels that merged with existing short vowels. Hittite shows shortening of inherited long vowels in unaccented syllables, but it cannot be determined whether this shortening had taken place in Proto-Anatolian. Examples: PA */i/ < PIE */i/: /PA *k wi- ‘who, which’ in Hitt. kui-, Pal. kui-, CLuv. kui-, Lyc. ti-, Lyd. qi-; PA */e/ < PIE */e/: PA *es- ‘be’ in Hitt. ēs-, CLuv. ās-, Lyc. es- (PIE *h1 es-); PA */a/ < PIE */a/: PA *anna- ‘mother’ in Hitt. anna-, Pal. ānna-, Luv. ānna/i-, Lyd eña-; PA *dada- ‘father’ in CLuv. tāta/i-, Lyd. taada-; PA */h2a/ < early PIE */h2e/: PA *h2 ab- ‘river’ in Hitt. hapa-, Pal. hāpna-, CLuv. hapāt(i)- ‘river valley’, Lyc. xba(i)‘irrigate’ < early PIE *h2 ebo-, h2 ebn-; PA */a/ < PIE */e/: PA *ando ‘into’ in Hitt. anda, CLuv. ānta, Lyd. ẽt- < PIE *endo; PA *tarro- ‘be strong’ in Hitt. tarra- < PIE *terh2 o-; PA */o/ < PIE */o/: PA dem. pron. *obo- in Hitt. apā-, CLuv. apā-, Lyc. ebe- < PIE *h1 obho-; PA */h3o/ < early PIE */h3 e/: PA *h3 op-r̥, *h3 open- in Hitt. hāppar ‘price’, Lyc epenetija- ‘act as seller’ (early PIE *h3 ep-); PA */u/ < PIE */u/: PA 3 sg. imp. *-tu in Hitt. -tu, CLuv. -tu, Lyc. -tu; PA */u/ < PIE */w/ or labiovelar plus syllabic resonant: PA *hur- in Hitt. hurna- ‘sprinkle’, CLuv. hur- ‘give liquid’ < PIE *h2 wr̥neh1 - beside *h2 wr̥h1 -; PA *pah2 ur ‘fire’ in Hitt. pāhhur, CLuv. pāhūr < PIE *peh2 wr̥. Proto-Anatolian had at least six long vowels. A mid or low front */ǣ/ that became /ē/ in Hittite and Palaic and /ā/ in Luvian, Lycian, and Lydian resulted from PIE tautosyllabic */eh1/ (Melchert 1994: 56, Kimball 1999: 122). Monophthongization of PIE diphthongs and compensatory lengthening after the loss of laryngeals also created long vowels that merged with existing long vowels. Melchert (1994: 56) reconstructs long close */ẹ̄/ from the PIE diphthongs */ei/, */oi/, and */ai/, and Eichner (1973: 76−79) reconstructs */ẹ̄/ from */ei/ and */oi /beside an open */ē˛/ from */ai/. However, the status of such vowels as distinct from the other PA front vowels is unclear, since the reconstructions are not supported by undisputed sound changes. Although Hittite, Palaic, and Luvian show lengthening of accented vowels in some environments, lengthening was an independent development in each language and cannot be projected back into the protolanguage (Melchert 1994: 76). Examples: PA */ī/ < PIE */ī/: PA deictic *-ī in e.g. Hitt. asi ‘the aforementioned’ < PIE *h1 os-ī; PA */ī/ < PIE */iH/: PA dual ending *- ī in Hitt. elzī ‘scales’ < PIE *h1 eltih1 ; PA motion suffix *-ī- in Hitt. -ī-, CLuv. -ī-, Lyd. anim. adj. suffix -i- < PIE *-ih2 -; PA */ī/ < PIE */ei/: PA *k̑ī- ‘lie’ in Pal. kī-, CLuv. zī-, Lyc. si- < PIE *k̑ei- (Hittite ki- has an unexplained short vowel); PA */ī/ < PIE */ū/: PA *tī ‘you’ in Hitt. zīg, Pal. tī, CLuv. tī < PIE *tū (Melchert 1994: 84); PA */ē/ < PIE */ē/: PA *bēh2 o- ‘radiance, splendor’ in CLuv. pihassa/i- ‘lightning’, Lyc. *pige- (in proper names) < PIE *bhēh2 o-; PA collective suffix *-ēi in Hitt. kulē ‘plowed field’ < PIE *k wlēi (Oettinger 1995); PA */ǣ/ < PIE */eh1/: PA *dǣ- ‘put, place’ in Hitt. tē- ‘say’, Pal. wite- ‘build’, Lyc. ta-, Lyd. ta(a)c-; PA *sǣ- ‘release, let go’ in CLuv. sā-, Lyc. ha< PIE *seh1 -; PA */ā/ < PIE */ā/: PA *mām ‘how, as’ in Hitt. mān, CLuv. mān; PA */a/

20. The phonology of Anatolian < early PIE */eh2/: PA *(s)tā- ‘stand’ in CLuv. tā- < PIE *(s)teh2 -; PA */ō/ < PIE */ō/: PA plural collective suffix *-ōr in e.g. Hitt. witār ‘waters’ < PIE *wedōr; PA */ō/ < early PIE */eh3/: PA *dō- ‘take’ in Hitt. dā-, CLuv. lā- < PIE *deh3 -; PA */ ū / < PIE */eu/, */ou/: PA *h2 ūħ2 o- ‘grandfather’ in Hitt. huhha-, CLuv. hūha-, Lyc. xuga- < PIE *h2 euh2 o-; PA *h2 ūdo- ‘haste’ in Hitt. hūdāk ‘at once’, CLuv. hūta-, Lyc. xddaza- ‘slave’ < PIE *h2 outo-.

3. Diphthongs Proto-Anatolian short diphthongs */oi/ and */au/ occurred before */l/ and */n/ and before clusters with initial */s/ beside inherited long diphthongs */ōi/ and */ōu/. Examples: PA */oi/ < PIE */oi/: PA *k̑oino- in Hitt. kaina- ‘relative by marriage’; PA */au/ < PIE */au/: PA *auli- in Hitt. and CLuv. auli- ‘windpipe, throat’; PA */ōi/ < PIE */ōi/: PA neut.-coll. pl. *h2 ast[H]-ōi in Hitt. hastāi ‘bones’ < early PIE *h2 est[H]-ōi (Oettinger 1995: 218); PA */ōu/ < PIE */ōu/: PA *dhonōu in Hitt. tanau ‘fir tree’.

4. Syllabic resonants Since a sequence of *VRHV became *VRRV with gemination of the resonant, the single /l/ and retained laryngeal of Hitt. palhi- ‘broad’ and CLuv. palhā- ‘spread out’ should go back to PA *l̥ h2- with preserved syllabic resonant. Examples are, for /*r̥/: PA *pr̥n-, oblique stem of *pēr ‘house’ in Hitt. and CLuv. parn-, Lyc., prñnawe-’build’; for */l̥ /: PA *pl̥ h2 i- ‘broad’ in Hittite palhi-, CLuv. palhā- ‘make flat, spread out’ < PIE *pl̥ h2 -; for */m̥/: PA consonant stem acc. sg. ending *-m̥ in Hitt. -an (e.g. kesseran ‘hand’ < PA *g̑eser-m̥), Lyc. -a (e.g. xñtawata ‘rule, kingship’ < PA *h2 antowotm̥ ); for */n̥/: PA menstem nom.-acc. sg. *-mn̥ in e.g., Hitt. ērman ‘sickness’ (< PA *ermn̥), Lyc. hrm ˜ ma ‘temenos’ (< PA *s[e]rmn̥ ‘division’), Lyd. sadmen ‘relief’ (perhaps from PA *sedmn̥).

5. Resonants The Indo-European nasals were retained in Proto-Anatolian. The Anatolian languages merge */m/ and */n/ in final position, but the preservation of /m/ in CLuv. -am-san (anim. acc. sg. ending -am + enclitic possessive -san ‘his’) indicates that the merger was an independent development in each language (Melchert 1994: 270). Medially, geminate nasals arose through assimilation to a following nasal or laryngeal. Examples are, for */m/: PA *melid-, *mlid- in Hitt. militt- (with analogical /t/ for PA */d/), CLuv. mallit-, Pal. malitannas ‘of sweetness’; PA *h2 e/omso- ‘grandchild, descendant’ in CLuv. hamsa/ i-; for */mm/: PA ptcp. *-ommo/ī- in Pal. -amma/i-, CLuv. -a(i)mma/i-, Lyc. -Vme/i- < PIE *-mno-; for */n/: PA *nē(−) ‘not’ in Pal. ni(t), Lyc. ni, CLuv. ni; PA *g won(ā)‘woman’ in Hitt. Kuwanses ‘female deities’, CLuv. wānā-, Pal. kuwani-, Lyd. kaña‘wife’; PA *ando ‘into’ in Hitt. anda, CLuv. ānta, Lyd. ẽt- < PIE *endo; for */nn/: PA *anna- ‘mother’ in Hitt. anna-, Pal. ānna-, Luv. ānna/i-, Lyd. eña-; PA durative suffix *-anna/ī- in Hitt. -anna-, CLuv. -anna/i-, Lyd. -ẽni- < PIE *-enh1 i-.

251

252

IV. Anatolian The PIE liquids */r/ and */l/ were also preserved, although */r/ did not occur in initial position, a constraint perhaps inherited from PIE. In medial position geminate liquids arose through assimilation to a following laryngeal or nasal. Examples are, for */r/: PA *orbo- in Hitt. and Luv. arpa- ‘strife’, Lyc. erbbe ‘battle’ < PIE *h1 orbho-; PA *g̑esr̥, *g̑esserm̥ , g̑essr- ‘hand’ in Hitt. kissar, kesseran, kisri-, CLuv. īss(a)ri-, Lyc. isr- < PIE *g̑hesr-; for */rr/: PA *tarro- ‘be strong’ in Hitt. tarra- < PIE *terh2 o-; for */l/: PA *lalo-/*lalā- ‘tongue’ in Hitt. lāla-, Pal. lāla-, CLuv. lāla/i-; PA *melid- in Hitt. milit-, CLuv. mallit- < PIE *melit-; PA *auli- ‘windpipe’ in Hitt. and Luv. auli-; for */ll/: PA *malla- ‘grind’ in Hitt. malla- < PIE *molh2 -; PA *skalla- ‘tear’ in Hitt. iskalla- < PIE *skelH-. An additional source of */l/ is dissimilation in sequences of *n…n: PA *lōmn̥ ‘name’ in Hitt. lāman, HLuv. lamaniya- ‘call upon’ < PIE *h1 neh3 mn̥ and PA *lomr̥, *lemn- ‘time, hour’ in Hitt. lammar, HLuv. lamar < PIE *nem- ‘apportion’. The semivowels */y/ and */w/ occurred initially and medially, although inherited initial */y/ was lost before */e/, */ē/, and */ǣ/. Examples are, for */w/: PA *wes(V)‘good’ in CLuv. wassar ‘favor’, wassra- ‘be pleasing’, Lyc. wiśśi- beside PA *wosu‘good’ in Pal. wāsu-, CLuv. wāsu-; PA *ék̑w(o)- ‘horse’ in HLuv. azuwa/i-, Lyc. esbe< PIE *h1 ek̑w(o)-; PA *diw-, *diwod- ‘sungod, day’ in Hitt. siwatt-, Pal. Tiyaz, CLuv. Tiwat-, Lyd. ciw- < PIE *diw- ‘shine’; for */y/: PA *yugom ‘yoke’ in Hitt. iukan < PIE *yugom; PA mo(h1 )yo(nt-) ‘grown’ in Hitt. māyant-, Pal. māyant-, CLuv. māyassi- ‘of the community’. PA */w/ also resulted from monophthongization in PA *wemye/o- ‘find’ in Hitt. wemiya-, HLuv. wa-mi-ya-, Lyd. (fa-kat-)wemid, deverbative in *-ye/o- from IE *h1 em- ‘take’ plus preverb *ou- (i.e. *ou-h1 em-ye/o-).

6. Stops Voiceless Voiced

*/p/, */t/, */k̑/, */k/, */k w/ */b/, */d/, */g̑/, */g/, */g w/

There is no evidence that the IE voiced aspirates were retained, though technically, it is not possible to exclude them. Although initial stops were devoiced in Lycian, Lydian, and perhaps in the other languages, the development of PIE */k w/ to PA /k w/ in Luvian kui- ‘who’ < PA *k wi- as opposed to */g w/, which became /w/ in, for example, CLuv. wānā-‘woman’ < PA *g wonā- (IE *g won-eh2 -), shows that the voicing distinction was retained in PA. Melchert (1994: 18−20) suggests that the devoicing was an areal feature diffused throughout the individual languages. An opposition between medial voiced stops, voiceless stops, and geminates can be reconstructed for PA, and it seems likely that reanalysis of the voiced-voiceless system into a fortis-lenis system was an independent development in the individual languages (Melchert 1994: 20−21). The Proto-Anatolian distribution of voiced and voiceless stops does not entirely echo that of Proto-IndoEuropean because PIE voiceless stops were voiced after long accented vowels (including the monophthongized diphthongs), after (unaccented) */ǣ/ from */ēh1/, and in unaccented syllables (Eichner 1973: 79−83); and IE medial */k w/ became PA */g w/ except before */s/ (Melchert 1994: 61). Melchert (1994: 85), claims that final stops were voiced in Proto-Anatolian on the basis of spellings like Hitt. pa-i-ta-as = [paid-as] ‘went he’, 3 sg. pret. of pāi- ‘go’ plus 3 sg. enclitic personal pronoun -as with single stop representing a voiced stop. Examples are, for PA */p/ < PIE */p/: PA *pod- ‘foot’ in Hitt. pāta-, CLuv. pāta-, Lyc. pede-; PA *h3 op-r̥, *h3 (o)p-ēr, *h3 (o)pen- in Hitt. hāppar ‘price’,

20. The phonology of Anatolian happariya- ‘hand over’, Pal. hapariya- ‘hand over’ (*h3 pr̥ye/o-), Lyc. epirije- ‘sell’, (*h3 (V)pērye/o-), epenetija- ‘act as seller’ < PIE *h3 ep-; for PA */t/ < PIE */t/: PA *tu, *tū, *tī ‘you’ in Hitt. tuk, Pal. tī, tū, CLuv. tī < PIE *tu; PA *h2 ant- in Hitt. hant- ‘front’, Pal. hantanā- ‘meet’, CLuv. hantili- ‘first’, Lyc. xñtawa- ‘lead’ < PIE *h2 ent-; for PA */k̑/ < PIE */k̑/: PIE/PA *k̑won- ‘dog’ in Hitt. kuwan-, HLuv. zuwan(i)-, Lyd. *kan- (in proper names); PA *k̑ī - ‘lie’ in Hitt. ki-, Pal. kī-, CLuv. zī-, Lyc. si- < PIE *k̑ei-; PA *wek̑n̥ti in Hitt. wēkkanzi ‘they ask’; for PA */k/ < PIE */k/: PA *tw(e)k- in Hitt. twēkka‘form’, Lyc. tukedri- ‘statue’; for PA */k w/ < PIE */k w/: PIE/PA *k wi- ‘who, which’ in Hitt. kui-, CLuv. kui-, Pal. kui-, Lyc. ti-, Lyd. qi-; PA *dek wso- ‘show’ in Hitt. tekkussa-; enclitic conjunction PIE/PA *-k we ‘and’ in Hitt. -kku, Pal. -kku, CLuv. -ku. PA */b/ < PIE */p/: PA *ēbur ‘seizing’ in Hitt. denom. ēpurā(i)- ‘seize’ < PIE *h1 ēpwr̥; PA */b/ < PIE */b/: PA *h2 ab- ‘river’ in Hitt. hapa- ‘river’, Pal. hāpna-, CLuv. hapāt(i)- ‘river valley’, Lyc. xba(i)- ‘irrigate’ < PIE *h2 ebo-, h2 ebn-; PA */b/ < PIE */bh/: PA *berg̑wī- in Hitt. parkuī- ‘pure’, Pal. parkui(ye)- ‘purify’, CLuv. papparkuwa‘purify’ < PIE *bherg̑hw-; PA *bēh2 -o- ‘radiance, splendor’ in CLuv. pihassa/i- ‘lightning’, Lyc. *pige- (in proper names) < PIE *bhēh2 o-; PA dem. pron. *obo- in Hitt. apā, CLuv. apā-, Lyc 3 sg. pers. pron. ebe- < PIE *h1 obho-; PA*/d/ < PIE */t/: PA *h2 ūdo‘haste’ in Hitt. hūdāk ‘at once’, CLuv. hūta-, Lyc. xddaza- ‘slave’ < PIE *h2 outo-; PA */d/ < PIE */d/ in PA *diw-, *diwod- ‘sungod, day’ in Hitt. siwatt- (with /si/ < */di/), Pal. Tiyaz, CLuv. Tiwat-, Lyd. ciw-; PA *ando ‘into’ in Hitt. anda, CLuv. ānta, Lyd. ẽt-; PA */d/ < PIE */dh/: PA *dǣ- ‘put, place’ in Hitt. tē- ‘say’, Pal. wite- ‘build’, Lyc. ta-, Lyd. ta(a)c- ‘votive offering’ (*dǣdi) < PIE *dheh1 -; PA */g̑/ < PIE */k̑/: PA *weg̑- in Hitt. 3 pl. pret. wēker ‘they asked’ < PIE *wēk̑-; PA */g̑/ < PIE */g̑h/: PA *g̑emro‘steppe’ in Hitt. gimmara-, CLuv. immara-, Lyc. *ipre- = [ĩbre-] (in proper names) < PIE *g̑hemro-; PA *deg̑ōm ‘earth’ in Hitt. tēkan, HLuv. takami ‘in the country’ < PIE *dheg̑hom, *dhg̑hem; PA */g/ < PIE */g/: PA *kogo- in Hitt. kagā- ‘tooth’; PIE/PA *yugom ‘yoke’ in Hitt. iukan; PA *dug(a)tr- ‘daughter’ in CLuv. duttariyata/i-, Lyc. kbatra- < PIE *dhugh2 ter-; PA */g w/ < PIE */k w/: PA *wl̥ g wo- ‘lion’ in CLuv. *walwa(in personal names), Lyd. walwel < PIE *wl̥ k wo-; PA *targ w- ‘dance’ in Hitt. tarku-, CLuv. taru- < PIE *terk w-; PA */g w/ < PIE */g w/: PA *g won(ā)- ‘woman’ in Hitt. Kuwanses ‘female deities’, CLuv. wānā-, Pal. kuwani-, kaña- ‘wife’ < PIE *g won(-eh2 -); PIE/PA *g wou- ‘cow’ in HLuv. wawa/i-, Lyc. wawa-; PA *g wen- ‘strike’ in Hitt. kwēn-, Lyd. (fis)-gan- ‘destroy’ < PIE *g when-; PA */g w/ < PIE */g wh/: PA *eg w-, *ag w- ‘drink’ in Hitt. eku, Pal. ahu-, CLuv. u- < PIE *h1 (e)g wh-. The Proto-Anatolian geminate stops resulted from assimilation of a stop to a following laryngeal. Their voicing cannot be determined (Melchert 1994: 76−77). Examples: */PP/ in Hitt. pippa- ‘overturn’ < PIE *pe-pH1/3 o-; */TT/ in Hitt. 2 pl. middle -ttuma, Pal. -ttuwar, CLuv. -ttuwar(i) < PIE *-dhh2 we-; Hitt. pattar ‘basket’ < PIE *poth2 r̥; */KK/ in Hitt. mekki- ‘much’ < PIE *meg̑h2 -.

7. Fricatives Voiceless Voiced

*/s/ */h2/ *[ħ] */h w/ */h3/

Evidence for the contrast between *h2 and *h3 is found in Lycian, which lost initial */h3/ in epirije- ‘sell’ (< *h3 (V)pērye/o-) and epenetija- ‘act as seller’ (< *h3 (V)pen-) but

253

254

IV. Anatolian retained */h2/ as stops x, q and k (see Melchert 1994: 305−307 and Zinko 2002 on possible phonetic values and conditioning). Although it is not certain whether CLuv. has a cognate (the Luvian status of happinatta ‘riches’ is not assured), CLuv. hizza(i)- ‘fetch’ from PIE *h3 oit- (Melchert 2007) shows that initial */h3/ was preserved in the second millennium Luvian languages, and presumably the loss is pre-Lycian. */h3/ was lost medially between vowels but was perhaps retained after resonants. A labialized laryngeal */h w/ resulted from *h2w and *h3w (Kloekhorst 2006: 98−100; Melchert 2011). Medial */h2/ had two allophones, a voiceless *[h2], which occurred after short accented vowels, and voiced *[ ħ] after long accented vowels and in unaccented syllables. Examples, for PA */h2/ < PIE */h2/: PA *h2 ant- in Hitt. hant- ‘front’, Pal. hantanā- ‘meet’, CLuv. hantili- ‘first’, Lyc. xñtawa- ‘rule’ < PIE *h2 ent-; PA *h2 ūħo- ‘grandfather’ in Hitt. huhha-, CLuv. hūha-, Lyc. xuga- < PIE *h2 auh2 o- (Hittite huhha- has /hh/ after anna‘mother’ and atta- ‘father’); PA 1 sg. pret. ending *-h2 a in Pal. -hha, CLuv. -hha, Lyc. -xa (cf. Hitt. -hhun) < PIE *-h2 e; PA *warh2 wih2 - in Hitt. warhwi- ‘rough’; PA *h2 stēr in Hitt. hasterza ‘star’; for PA*[ħ] < PIE */h2/: PA 1 sg. pret. ending *-ħa in Pal. -ha, CLuv. -ha, Lyc. -ga (cf. Hitt. -hun) < PIE *V̄h2 e, * ˊ-h2 e; PA *bēh2 -o- ‘radiance, splendor’ in CLuv. pihassa/i- ‘lightning’ Lyc. *pige- (in proper names) < PIE *bhēh2 o-; PA *pah2 sin Hitt. pahhas-, pāhs- ‘protect’ < PIE *peh2 s-; for PA */h3/ < PIE */h3/: PA *h3 op-r̥, *h3 (o)p-ēr, *h3 (o)pen- in Hitt. hāppar ‘price’, happariya- ‘hand over’, Pal. hapariya‘hand over’ (*h3 pr̥ye/o-), Lyc epirije- ‘sell’ (*h3(V)pērye/o-), epenetija- ‘act as seller’ < PIE *h3 ep-; PA *h3 oron- ‘eagle’ in Hittite hāran-, Pal. hāran- < PIE *h3 eron-; perhaps PA *walh3 - in Hitt. walh- ‘strike’ < PIE *welh3 - and PA *h2 erh3 o- in Hitt. hahra- ‘rake’ < PIE *h2 erh3 o- (Kimball 1994: 410, 405−406); for PA */h w/ < PIE *h2/3w: PA *terh2 win Hitt. tarhu- ‘be able, conquer’, CLuv. Tarhunt- ‘Stormgod’, Lyc. Trqqñt- id.; Hitt. lāhu- ‘pour’, CLuv. lā(h)u- id. < PIE *le/oh3 w-. Proto-Anatolian */s/ occurred in initial, medial, and final positions. It is opposed to geminate /ss/ from *sH. Examples are, for PA */s/ < PIE */s/: PA *sǣ- ‘release, let go’ in CLuv. sā-, Lyc. ha- < PIE *seh1 -; PA *s(V)rlaHye/o- ‘exalt’ in CLuv. sarla(i)-, Lyd. serli- ‘supreme authority’; PA *wes(V)- ‘good’ in CLuv. wassar ‘favor’, wassra- ‘be pleasing’, Lyc. wiśśi- beside PA *wosu- ‘good’ in Pal. wāsu-, Luv. wāsu-; PA *misro‘bright’ in HLuv. proper noun Mizra/i- and Lyc. proper noun Mizretije-, PA *meisri‘brightness’ in Hitt. misriwant- (mesriwant-?) ‘bright’; PA *k wl̥ s- ‘scratch, engrave’ in Hitt. guls-, CLuv. gulzā(i)-, Pal. Gulzanikes ‘fate gods’; for /ss/: PA *pōss- ‘swallow’ in Hitt. pāss-, Luv. pass- < PIE *peh3 s-; PA *gnēss- ‘recognize’ in Hitt. ganess- < PIE *gnēh3 s-. Only Hittite retained reflexes of PA initial *s plus stop for certain, though it is difficult to tell whether these clusters developed a prothetic /i/ in Pre-Hittite or whether spellings with IS-C were used to facilitate the writing of initial clusters in cuneiform (Melchert 1994: 31−33, Kimball 1999: 108−111). Examples are, for */sp/: Hitt. ispānt-, sipānt-, ‘make a libation’ < PIE *spond-; for */st/: PA *stōmn̥, *stumn(t)- ‘ear’ in Hitt. istaman, Cluv. tummant- < PIE *st(e)h3 mn- (Melchert 1994: 59, 74); for */sk/: Hitt. iskalla- ‘tear’ < PIE *skelH-.

8. Affricate The affricate */ts/, which is written with signs of the Z-series in cuneiform, is from *ty. The best example of a likely Proto-Anatolian form is the adjective suffix *-tsyo- (< PIE

20. The phonology of Anatolian *-tyo-) in e.g. Hitt. sarazziya- ‘upper’, Lyc. hrzze/i- id. (< PIE *srōtsyo-), Lyd. armτa‘of the moongod’ < PIE *armatsyo-.

9. Accent The nature of the Proto-Anatolian accent can be inferred from its effects in the Anatolian languages. Although Indo-European may have had a pitch accent, the voicing, or lenition, of IE voiceless stops after long accented vowels and in unaccented syllables suggests that Proto-Anatolian had a stress accent. Anatolian, however, shows no evidence for the syncope or reduction of vowels in unaccented syllables that might be expected in a language with a strong stress accent. Evidence from Hittite, where plene writing, or the doubling of vowels, points to lengthening of accented vowels, indicates that ProtoAnatolian retained the IE mobile accent in at least some nominal and verbal paradigms. For example, a few hi-verb paradigms oppose first or third person present singular forms with plene writing of the vowel of the root syllable to third person plural forms which lack it, e.g., kānk- ‘hang’ 3 sg. pres. ka-a-an-ki with stem [kānk-] < *k̑ṓnk- beside 3 pl. pres. kan-kan-zi = [kank-] < *k̑n̥k- ˊ. Similarly, plene writing of the vowel of the root syllable alternates with plene writing of the vowel of endings in, e.g., tēkan ‘earth’, although the paradigm has been extensively remodeled: nom.-acc. sg. te-e-kan = [dēgan] < *dhḗghom beside e.g., gen. dag-na-a-as = [dagnās] for *dhghm̥m-és.

10. References Eichner, Heiner 1973 Die Etymologie von heth. mehur. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 31: 53− 107. Ivo Hajnal 1995 Der lykische Vokalismus: Methode und Erkenntnisse der vergleichenden anatolischen Sprachwissenschaft, angewandt auf das Vokalsystem einer Kleincorpussprache. Graz: Leykam. Kimball, Sara E. 1999 Hittite Historical Phonology. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität. Kloekhorst, Alwin 2006 Initial laryngeals in Anatolian. Historische Sprachforschung 119: 127−132. Kloekhorst, Alwin 2008 Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon. Leiden: Brill. Melchert, H. Craig 1994 Anatolian Historical Phonology. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Melchert, H. Craig 2007 Luvian Evidence for PIE *H3 eit- ‘take along, fetch.’ Indo-European Studies Bulletin (UCLA) 12: 1−3. Melchert, H. Craig 2008 Lydian. In: Roger Woodard (ed.), The Ancient languages of Asia Minor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 56−63.

255

256

IV. Anatolian Melchert, H. Craig 2011 The PIE verb for ‘to pour’ and medial *h2 in Anatolian. In: Stephanie W. Jamison, H. Craig Melchert, and Brent Vine (eds.), Proceedings of the 22 nd annual UCLA IndoEuropean conference. Bremen: Hempen, 127−132. Oettinger, Norbert 1995 Griech. ostéon, Heth. kulēi und ein neues Kollektivsuffix. In: Heinrich Hettrich, Wolfgang Hock, Peter Arnold Mumm, and Norbert Oettinger (eds.), Verba et Structurae: Festschrift für Klaus Strunk zum 65. Geburtstag. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität, 211−28. Zinko, Christian 2005 Laryngalvertretungen im Lykischen. Historische Sprachwissenschaft 115: 218−238.

Sara Kimball, Austin, TX (USA)

21. The morphology of Anatolian 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Preliminary remarks Nouns Adjectives Numerals Pronouns

6. 7. 8. 9.

Personal pronouns Verbs Conclusion References

1. Preliminary remarks It is likely that the predecessors of the Anatolians left the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) community earlier than the predecessors of all other Indo-European tribes known to us. For this theory, developed by E. H. Sturtevant and discussed by Zeilfelder (2001), see e.g. Cowgill (1979), Strunk (1984), Oettinger (2006a: 39 f., 2013/2014), and Kloekhorst (2008: 7−11). For an up-to-date description of synchronic Hittite Morphology see now Hoffner and Melchert (2008: 51−270) and, shorter, Rieken (2006: 87−101) and Watkins (2004: 14−25). For Palaic cf. Carruba (1970), for Luwian cf. Melchert (2003: 185−200), for Lydian Gérard (2005: 79−113) and for Carian Adiego (2007). For discussion of Hittite historical morphology cf., among others, Melchert (1994a), Rieken (1999), and Kloekhorst (2008).

2.

Nouns

2.1. Inflectional morphology 2.1.1. Gender Anatolian languages have two genders, animate gender=common gender (c.) and neuter (n.). Words designating living creatures are never found in the latter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261288-021

21. The morphology of Anatolian

2.1.2. Number In PIE there had been a fourfold contrast in number: a) singular, b) dual, c) plural (distributive or count plural) and d) collective plural, according to Eichner (1985). For further arguments see Melchert (2000a). According to Eichner (1985), it is likely that the fourfold contrast was fully realized only for animate nouns. Neuter nouns were probably inflected only for singular, dual and collective plural. In Old Hittite the collective plural for animate nouns is still fully productive. Anatolian still shows a number of collective pluralia tantum (Melchert 2000a: 62 note 32).

2.1.3. Case The following list presents the endings of early PIE, as far as one can guess, of ProtoAnatolian (PA), Old Hittite (OH), and Luwian (Cuneiform unless specifically marked as HL). Dual and Ergative are treated only in the commentary which follows.

Singular Vocative: Luwian -0̸, Old Hittite -0̸/-i/-a, PA *-0̸, early PIE *-0̸. Nominative, common gender (animate): Luwian -s (thematic -a-s), Old Hittite -s/-0̸ (them. -a-s), PA *-s/*-0̸ (them. *-o-s), early PIE *-s/*-0̸ (them. *-o-s). Accusative, common gender (animate): Luwian -n (them. -a-n), Old Hittite -n (them. -a-n), PA *-m (them. *-o-m), early PIE *-m (them. *-o-m). Nom.-Acc. ntr.: Luwian -0̸ (them. -a-n) + sa, Old Hittite -0̸ (them. -a-n), PA *-0̸ (them. *-o-m), early PIE *-0̸ (them. *-o-m). Instrumental: Luwian −; Old Hittite -d, -id; PA *-(e)h1 ? (them. *-o-h1 ?); early PIE *(e)h1 (them. *-o-h1 [-e-h1 ?]). Dative: Luwian (Dative-Locative) -i, -ya, -0̸; Old Hittite (Dative-Locative) -i, -ya, -0̸; PA *-ẹ̄ (?) or = Loc.; early PIE *-ey (them. *-o-ey). Ablative: Luwian (Ablative-Instrumental) -(a)di; Old Hittite -ts, -ats, -ants; PA *-ti (them. *-o-ad?); early PIE *-ti (them. *-oh1 -ad). Genitive: (Cuneiform Luwian: adjective), Hieroglyphic Luwian (HL) -as, -asi (and adjective); Old Hittite -as, -s; PA *-os, *-s (them. *-e-s[y]o, *-o-s[y]o); early PIE *-es, *os, *-s (them. *-e-s[y]o, *-o-s[y]o). Locative: Luwian −; Old Hittite −; PA *-i?, *-0̸? (them. *-oy?); early PIE *-i, *-0̸ (them. *-oy). Allative: Luwian −, Old Hittite -a, PA −?, Early PIE −.

Plural Nominative, animate (count plural): Luwian -ntsi, Old Hittite -ēs, PA *-es < early PIE *-es. Palaic thematic nom. pl. c. -as from early PIE them. *-o-es.

257

258

IV. Anatolian Nom.-Acc. collective (non-count plural): Luwian -0̸ (long vowel in suffix), -a, -aya; Old Hittite (OH) -0̸ (long vowel in suffix), (them. -a); PA -0̸ (long vowel in suffix), (them. *-a); early PIE *-h2 , (them. *-e-h2 ). Accusative, animate (count plural): Luwian -nts, HL -ntsi; Old Hittite -us; PA (*-ms) > *-ns; *-m̥s (them. *-o-ms > *-o-ns); early PIE *-ms/m̥s (them. *-o-ms > *-o-ns > *ons or, morphologically recharacterized, *-ōns). Instrumental (= Sg.): Luwian −; Old Hittite -d, -id; PA *-(e)h1 ? (them. *-o-h1 ?); early PIE *-(e)h1 , (them. *-o-h1 [*-e-h1 ?]). Dative: Luwian (Dative-Locative) -nts, OH (Dative-Locative) -as, PA *-os, Early PIE *-os. Ablative (= Sg.): Luwian (Ablative-Instrumental) -(a)di; OH -ts, -ats, -ants; PA *-ti, (them. *-o-ad?); Early PIE *-ti (them. *-oh1 -ad). Genitive: Luwian (adjective); Old Hittite -an, -as; PA *-om; Early PIE *-ōm or *-om (them. -ōm). Locative: Luwian −, Old Hittite −, PA *-su?, early PIE *-su (them. *-oy-su).

Commentary 2.1.3.1. Vocative Sg.: Hittite vocative singular in -i (younger spelling -e) − which is unattested to an assured o-stem − probably represents a reanalysis of the dative-locative in -i; see Neumann (1982/3: 241−244). Vocative Pl. = Nominative Pl. There was no “absolute case”, not even in naming constructions, but only Akkadographic writing; see Melchert (2009a: 131). 2.1.3.2. Animate Nominative Sg.: An asigmatic Nom. Sg. is Old Hittite (OH) kessar < PIE *g̑ hésōr. Nom. Sg. *-ā of eh2 -stems and Nom. Sg. *-ō of n-stems was in Anatolian languages recharacterized by -s; e.g. Hitt. hāras ‘eagle’ from *h3 érō + s. 2.1.3.3. Animate Accusative Sg.: For the question of *-m̥ see Melchert (1994: 181). Thematic Hitt. acc.sg. -an < *-o-m. 2.1.3.4. Neuter Nom-Acc. Sg.: Luwian mostly adds the deictic particle -sa. In Lydian the pronominal ending -d has spread to all nouns. Thematic Hitt. nom-acc. n. -an < *-o-m. 2.1.3.5. Genitive Sg.: Hittite, Palaic, and Luwian have -as < *-os. Simple *-s is preserved in Hitt. nekuz mehur (gen. *nék wt-s, Schindler 1967: 290 ff.) ‘eventide’ and gen. -was < *-wen-s of verbal nouns. There are only a few Anatolian nominal case “endings” whose thematic origin is assured. Nevertheless, the gen. sg. of Luwian and Lycian makes it likely that Anatolian had once possessed a fully developed (not defective) thematic inflection. Lycian personal names attest true gen. sg. in -ahe, -ehe that are supported by certain HL forms. They can continue nothing other than PIE thematic genitives in *-oso. There are also HL genitives in -asi that could continue thematic *-osyo. For Carian gen. sg. -ś < *-osyo see Adiego (2007: 313 note 3).

21. The morphology of Anatolian 2.1.3.6. Ablative and Instrumental Sg. (and Pl.): In Anatolian two endings of the ablative survived, the first of which, *-ti, had acquired the function of instrumental as well. Hittite -(a)ts and Luwian -adi stem from it. In Hittite the postconsonantal unlenited variant *-ti > -ts spread analogically, whereas in the “Luvic” languages (Melchert 2003: 177 fn. 7) the lenited postvocalic variant -adi was generalized. The Hittite variant -ants (Jasanoff 1973) is probably secondary. The second ablative ending is *-d, surviving e.g. in Hittite kitpantalaz ‘from that time on’. This *-d is related to *-ad in PIE e.g. *pedoh1 ad ‘from the place’ (*pedo-h1 is instrumental and *ad originally an adverb). In Old Hittite this -d and its anaptyctic variant -id (Neu 1979: 191) changed meaning under pressure of *-ti and functioned as instrumental. See Melchert and Oettinger (2009: 57 ff., 67 ff.), partly otherwise Hackstein (2007). 2.1.3.7. Dative Sg.: It is not certain whether the dative was still preserved in PA or had already been taken over by the locative. The few attestations of Hitt. dat-loc. -ai are secondary; cf. Rieken (2004a). 2.1.3.8. Locative Sg.: Hitt. dative-locative sg. -i stems from PIE loc. -i. Palaic and Lycian -i and most attestions of CL -i can go back to dative *-ey as well. For the endingless locative see Neu (1980). 2.1.3.9. Allative Sg.: This case is an innovation of Anatolian. The original particle forming the ending was either *-h2 e (Melchert 1994: 325) or *-eh2 (Hajnal 1995a: 98). 2.1.3.10. Dual: Dual is no longer a living category in the Anatolian languages. There are relics like Hittite pl. sākuwa ‘eyes’ from dual *sók wo-h1 and the stem mēni- n. ‘face’ < dual neuter *mén-ih1 ‘both cheeks’ (Rieken 1994: 51 f.). Besides, Hittite (and perhaps HL) have an ending -i of the collective that is disputed but could stem from dual neuter *-ih1 as well. 2.1.3.11. Animate Nominative Plural: Instead of *-es Hittite has generalized the ending -ēs of i-stems, from *-ey-es. In Luwian, Lycian and probably Carian (Hajnal 2003: 202 f.) as well as Lydian (cf. Gérard 2005: 80−82 with references) it has been replaced by *-nsi, an innovation starting from acc. pl. *-ms > *-ns. Original PIE *-es could be preserved in Palaic -es ([ dIlal]iyantes: Melchert 1984b: 41). 2.1.3.12. Animate Accusative Plural: The Hittite ending -us could stem from *-m̥s; for discussion see Melchert (1994: 181 f., 185 f.). After a vowel the PA ending was *-ns, attested in Cuneiform Luwian -nz(a), Milyan -z, Lycian -s, Sidetic -s (malwadas ‘votive presents’ Neumann 1992). Hieroglyphic Luwian -nzi and probably also Lydian -s /-š/ stem from *-ns-i, with generalization of the nominative to the accusative; see Gérard (2005: 80−82 with references). 2.1.3.13. Collective Nominative-Accusative Plural: Eichner (1985: 134−169) and Melchert (2000a: 61−67, 2011: 395) have shown that PIE possessed a fourfold opposition in number: a) singular, b) dual, c) count (or distributive) plural, d) collective plural (or comprehensive). This system, except dual, survived until Middle Hittite, e.g. count

259

260

IV. Anatolian plural lahhurnuzziyes ‘branches’ vs. collective lahhurnuzzi ‘foliage’ to lahhurnuzzi‘leafy branch’. For a different view for PIE see Harðarson (1987: 83 f.). The PA “ending” of the collective for vocalic stems was lengthening of the stem vowel; e.g. Hitt. alpa / álba/ ‘several clouds’ < PA *álba < *álb hā < PIE Coll. *álb h-eh2 from *álb ho- ‘white’ (cf. Lat. albus ‘white’). Similarly, Hitt. assū ‘goods’ < *h1 esu-h2 (cf. Watkins 1984: 250−255 and Melchert 1984b: 36), and widā́r ‘several vessels of water’ < PIE *wedṓr < *wédor-h2 (sg. *wód-r̥). For ‘i-collectives’ cf. e.g. Hittite kulē(i)HI.A ‘fallow land(s)’ < coll. *k wl̥ h1 -éy-h2 (PIE sg. *k wélh1 -o- ‘field’); see Oettinger (1995: 216−225). 2.1.3.14. Genitive Plural: Old Hittite has -an, Lycian -ẽ, Lydian Dative (< Genitive) -aν. There is no Cuneiform Luwian genitive in -anzan; see Melchert (2000b). The PIE ending was either *-ōm or *-om. Anatolian allows no decision between them, because *-ōm would have been shortened in an unstressed syllable and *-om would have been lengthened under accent. 2.1.3.15. Dative-Locative Plural: the Luwian ending -anz(a) came from the accusative (2.1.3.13.). Hittite and Palaic -as and Lycian -e can be reconstructed as PA = PIE *-os; see Melchert (1994: 182, 293 with references). The Proto-Indo-Iranian dative-ablative ending *-b hyas < *-b hyos is a combination of adverbial *-b hi plus ending *-os (Jasanoff 2009: 143 ff.), whereas the Balto-Slavic ending *-mos stems from adverbial *-m (cf. Lat. illim ‘from beyond’) plus *-os; see Melchert and Oettinger (2009: 64 ff.), who also regard *-os versus late PIE *-b hi-os, *-m-os as an argument for the Indo-Hittite hypotheses (see 1 above). For *-b hi in general cf. Hajnal (1995b: 327−337). There is no trace of PIE locative plural *-su in Anatolian. 2.1.3.16. Ergative: In Hittite there is a characteristic difference between e.g. pahhur n. and pahhuen-ant- c. ‘fire’, in pahhur kistari ‘the fire goes out’ and -an pahhuenanza arha warnuzi ‘fire burns (him) up’. When grammatically neuter nouns serve as the subject of transitive verbs in Hittite, Luwian, and Lycian, they appear in a special form marked by -anz(a), -antis, and -ẽti, respectively. Synchronically the suffix -anza (and cognates) is an inflectional ending of neuter nouns. The correct term for this relationship is “split ergativity” (Garrett 1990: 268 ff.). The origin of the ending *-ant- is disputed. Garrett (1990: 276−279) derives it from a variant *-anti of ablative-instrumental *-(a)ti. Benveniste (1962: 48 ff.) and Oettinger (2001: 311 f.) argue rather for a development of the ergative from the “individualizing” *-ent-suffix. The latter solution is more likely; see Melchert (2009a) in his discussion of Patri (2007). Josephson (2004: 115 f.) tries to combine both positions.

2.2. Morphology of nominal stems Not all the stem classes of the Hittite noun have been given monographic treatment and, as Anatolian studies are developing quickly, even the most recent accounts of them are now partially out of date. Most extensive is Kronasser (1966); shorter is Berman (1972). For Hittite root nouns, t-stems (except -nt-), s-stems, h2 -stems, r-stems, r/n-stems and lstems see Rieken (1999), for u-stems Weitenberg (1984), for Luwian consonant-stems

21. The morphology of Anatolian Starke (1990), for Lydian nominal stems Gérard (2005: 86−89); for a short overview of Hittite nominal word formation see Oettinger (1986) and now Kloekhorst (2008: 103− 110). Our treatment of this material must be limited to only a few remarks. In Hittite thematic and athematic nouns differ only in the nom. sg. Since there is no other evidence for the agentive type PIE *tomh1 -ó- ‘(the) cutting (one)’ in Anatolian, Hitt. arā- ‘companion’ is more likely a secondary o-derivative from the base of āra‘what is proper, fas’ than a primary *aró-. The corresponding action/result noun *tómh1 o- ‘incision’ is attested, e.g. in Hitt. harpa- ‘heap’ < *h3 órb h-o- from harp‘change herds’ (of cattle), ‘change membership from one group to another, join’ (of humans); see Melchert apud Weiss (2006: 256). The original meaning of PIE *h3 erb hwas probably ‘change herds’ and not ‘turn’, so that Lat. orbus ‘orphan’ but not orbis ‘circle’ is related. As in PIE, Anatolian athematic stems consist of consonant stems, istems and u-stems. Most i- and u-stem nouns show no suffix-ablaut, e.g. nom. sg. wellus, gen. wellu-as ‘meadow’, as opposed to the corresponding adjectives, which generalized this kind of ablaut, e.g. nom. sg. /párgus/ ‘high’ < PIE *b hérg̑ h-u-s, gen. /párgawas/ < *párgew-as (with renewed accent and ending) < PIE *b hr̥g̑ h-éw-s. Among the nouns, there are also diphthongal stems in -āi-, -āu- and -ē(i)-. The neuters of these stems form collectives, e.g. Hittite kulē(i)HI.A ‘fallow land(s)’ (see 2.1.3.13.), and the animates partly form transformations like Late Hittite tuhhuwā́i- ‘smoke’, a refashioning of OH tuhhuī́< Pre-PA noun *d huh2 -wí-. The latter is the Caland-form of an adjective *d huh2 -wó‘smoky’ (Melchert, pers. comm.); cf. PIE *d huh2 -mó- ‘smoke’ > lat. fūmus. Among Hitt. n-stems, strong forms with -en- like acc. sg. ishi-men-an ‘string’ show either full grade of the suffix (Oettinger 2003: 147) or anaptyxis (Rieken 2004b: 292). Very common in Hittite and Anatolian are r/n-stem inanimates with nom.-acc. sg. and pl. (collective) in -r and remaining cases in -n-, e.g. Hitt. sēhur, gen. sēhunas ‘urine’ from PIE *sēh2 -wr̥, gen. *séh2 -wn̥-s (Eichner 1973: 70). For thematic derivations like *sh2 ur-ó- ‘damp, sour’ > *suh2 r-ó- > OHG sūr see now Le Feuvre (2007: 113 ff.). (Gr. εὐρώεσσα is better left aside.) Suffixes ending in -r/n- are unusually productive in Anatolian; cf. 7.1.5 below. There may be relics of inherited heteroclites in 0̸/n and i/n in Hittite, too. 2.2.1. An important innovation of the languages of the so-called “Südgürtel” is the i-mutation by means of which Luwian, Lycian and Lydian form their adjectives and part of their nouns. Here in the animate nominative and accusative the vowel -i- appears before the ending. If the original stem is thematic, the thematic vowel is replaced by this -i-; see Starke (1990: 45 ff.) and cf. Melchert (2003: 187 f.). The origin of this phenomenon is best explained by Rieken as a suppletion of animate i-adjectives and neuter thematic verbal abstracts (Rieken 2005a). 2.2.2. Nominal compounds: See now Brosch (2010). The phonological composition of two lexical elements to form a single phonological word is relatively rare in Anatolian and, especially, in Hittite. There are archaic examples like Hitt. *an-dur ‘indoor(s)’ − cf. for the morphology PIE *pér-ut ‘in the year before’, OH saudist- (Middle Hittite: restored sawitist-) ‘of the same year’ from older *sám-wedes-t- ‘having one year’ (PIE *wet-es-) following Rieken (1999: 147), and PA *kom-ber-t- ‘mouse’ (lit. ‘the one that brings together’). For covert possessive compounds in Hittite and Luwian like Hitt. kiklubassari- ‘signet of steel’ < Luwian *kikluba- + *āss(a)ra/i’ ‘that which has an image of steel’, see Melchert (2002). An inherited type of copulative compound is represented in e.g. Hitt. huhha-hanna- ‘ancestors’, lit. ‘grandfather (and) grandmother’ and

261

262

IV. Anatolian possibly also in the HL collective asharmisa ‘blood sacrifice’ from *ashar ‘blood’ and misa- ‘flesh, meat’. (For CL misa- < PIE *mēms-o- see Poetto 1995; the variant miyasais best explained by the breaking tendency *ē > ya.) A slightly productive type with abstract suffix -ātar is represented e.g. by Hitt. gen. sg. persahhannas from *per-sahhanannas ‘of house and fief’ and ispi-ning-ātar ‘eating and drinking one’s fill’ (Rieken 2005b: 101 f.), possibly from *ispi-ātar + nink-ātar.

3. Adjectives There is no principal morphological difference between noun and adjective. Pronominal adjectives with meanings like ‘other’ or ‘single’ show, as in other IE languages, a tendency to fluctuate between nominal and pronominal inflection; for examples see Goedegebuure (2006) and Oettinger (2006b). Typical for Anatolian adjectival stem formation is enlargement in -(a)nt-, e.g. dannarant- beside dannara- ‘empty’, whose original function and origin cannot be separated from participle (7.1.5) and ergative (2.1.3.16).

4. Numerals As numerals were written logographically, especially in cuneiform texts, only a small part of the numerals of the Anatolian languages is known to us. The most important study of the historical morphology of Anatolian numerals is Eichner (1992). See now also Hoffner (2007). In Hittite the cardinals from 1 to 4 show pronominal inflection, e.g. Sg. Nom. 1-as/is, Dat. 1-edani. The readings of ‘1’ are ā- < *oi̯ -o-, sana- (cf. PIE *sem-) and sya-; for the latter see Goedegebuure (2006). For ‘2’ we find Hitt. *duya- (cf. PIE compositional *dwi-), for ‘3’ Hitt. tēri-, developed from tri- by regular anaptyxis. The numeral ‘4’ is Hitt. mēyu- (> mēu-), an Anatolian innovation vs. PIE pl. nom. *k wetwóres. Luwian *maw- ‘4’ can now be derived from PA pl. nom. c. *méyew-es by means of the Proto-Luwian rule that -y- disappears between equal vowels. For this rule see Rieken (2005a: 67−71). For ‘7’ Hittite has *septam (Neu 1999). For Luwian nunza ‘9’ see Eichner (1992: 87). Lycian nuñtãta means ‘9’ (Carruba 1974: 584), not ‘90’. This is confirmed by its use in connection with the PIE and PA custom of offering 9 animals, for which cf. Oettinger (2008). For ‘8’ Lycian has aitãta. In Anatolian -nt- is used for distributive plurals from collectives, e.g. numerals like in Hittite 1-anta ‘one set’ (of wooden piles); see Melchert (2000a: 59 ff.) and Hoffner (2007).

5. Pronouns Hoffner and Melchert (2008: 277−287) treat the Hittite pronominal system synchronically. For Luvian see Melchert (2003: 189−191). In Hittite there are personal, demonstrative, interrogative-relative-indefinite, and possessive pronouns. The personal pronouns distinguish stressed and enclitic forms.

21. The morphology of Anatolian 5.1. Demonstrative pronouns: For the functions of Hitt. kā- < *k̑o-, apā- < *ob hó-, and a/u/e- < *é/ó-, functionally corresponding to Lat. hic, iste, and ille, respectively, cf. Goedegebuure (2003), for anna/i- < *éno- Melchert (1994: 74), for HL ablative-instrumental zin, apin Goedegebuure (2007). 5.2. Interrogative-Relative pronouns: The paradigm of Hitt. kui-/kue- ‘who?, who’ is the following: Sg.

nom.c. acc.c. nom.-acc.n. gen. dat.-loc. abl. sg. and pl.

kuis < PIE *k wi-s kuin < *k wi-m kuit /k wid/ < *k wi-d kuēl < *k wé-li/o- (cf. Rieken 2006). Adjectives are used for genitives in other Anatolian languages as well. kuēdani < (virtually) *k we-d + n-i; cf. abl. *kē-d < early PIE *k̑é-d (see 2.1.3.6 above). kuēz /k wēts/ < PA *k wé-ti. There is no instrumental; cf. demonstrative instr. kedand(a) from hypercharacterized *ke-d+n+d.

Plural: Nom. c. ku(i)es is analogical after noun inflection instead of *kuē < *k woy like the neuter. For acc. c. kuius cf. demonstrative kūs < PIE *k̑o-ns (< *k̑o-ms). As nom.acc. neuter the demonstratives have kē, apē from a PIE collective *k̑ói, *ob hói that is probably older than Late PIE *k̑é-h2 , *ob hé-h2 (Jasanoff 2009: 147 f.). For kuē either the same solution is correct or, as all other strong forms of the pronoun kui- contain -i-, kuē can be derived from an i-collective *k wēy < *k wei-h2 (Melchert 2004a: 139 f.). The gen. *kuēnzan has developed from PIE *k woy-s-om with nasal assimilation (Oettinger 1994: 325 f.). Melchert (2008: 368−373) derives the Old Hittite allative form kuwatta ‘wherever’ (cf. apadda, tamatta) from *k wed-h2 o with the same PIE particle *-h2 o as in Gk. okéllō ‘I drive to land’. 5.3. Possessive Pronouns: Old Hittite, like e.g. Turkish, marks possession by a set of enclitic pronouns of all three persons singular and plural, suffixed directly to the possessed noun, and agreeing with it in gender, case, and number, e.g. nom. sg. attas-mis ‘my father’; dat.-loc. sg. atti-si ‘to his father’ (lit. ‘to the father, to his’); nom.-acc. sg. neut. mēni-met ‘my face’; nom. pl. ares-smes ‘your (pl.) companions’; see Hoffner and Melchert (2008: 137 ff.). It is neither certain that CL had enclitic possessives nor that this feature of Hittite is inherited from Early PIE. Adjacent non-IE Hattic had proclitic possessives, a similar operation. In Middle Hittite these enclitics were abandoned, probably through the influence of Luwian. In Luwian possession is expressed by inflected adjectives showing i-mutation; cf. HL 1sg. /ama-/ ‘my’ (cf. Gk. emós ‘my’), 2sg. /tuwa-/, 1pl. /antsa-/, 2pl. /untsa-/.

6. Personal pronouns As in most languages of the world, Hittite personal pronouns are irregular. See now Kloekhorst (2008: 111−115). There are common Anatolian innovations like the -u in

263

264

IV. Anatolian *emu ‘me’ in Hitt. ammu-k ‘me’, HLuw. (a)mu, Lyc. a/ẽmu, Lyd. amu ‘I, me’. This -u has probably been borrowed from *tu- ‘thee’. Beside these accented personal pronouns, Anatolian languages have enclitic personal pronouns, too. An example is OH dat. sg. -sse, younger -ssi ‘to him’, cf. Old Persian -šaiy ‘to him’. A second example is Lydian dat. pl. -mś ‘to them’ < PA *-smos (Hitt. -smas, CL -mmas) identified by Schürr (1997: 204). For CL = Neo-Hittite acc. pl. -as ‘them’, see Melchert (2000b: 179 ff.).

7.

Verbs

7.1. Inflectional morphology 7.1.1. Number For synchronic Hittite inflectional morphology, cf. now Hoffner and Melchert (2008: 180−234), for Luwian, Melchert (2003: 191−194). The Anatolian finite verb has two of everything: two numbers, two tenses, two aspects, two moods, two voices, and two conjugations (7.3), but, of course, three persons. The plural endings formally resemble the dual endings of other IE languages; cf. Hitt. pret. 1st. pl. -wen, Lydian -wν, with Vedic 1st dual -va(s). Possibly early PIE had a system with opposition not between verbal dual and plural but between inclusive *-we ‘me and you’ vs. *-me ‘me and some other(s)’; cf. Watkins (1969: 47). Of these *-me did not survive in Anatolian, whereas *-we was employed as dual in Late PIE.

7.1.2. Tense and aspect The fundamental tense opposition is between present and preterite (past). These are formed from the same stem. In Hittite and Luwian there are relics of an opposition of root stem vs. ye-stem (Melchert 1997b), but it is an open question whether these continue the normal PIE opposition of present and aorist or, less probably, a predecessor of it that was not yet grammaticalized. The present is, as in the old Germanic languages, used also to express the future. In the Hittite aspect system the exponent of the imperfective aspect is the thematic suffix -ske- < PIE *-sk̑e-; less frequently used for the same purpose are -anna/i-, -ss(a)and, in a few cases, the pure reduplicated stem. For -ske-, see Hoffner and Melchert (2002, 2008: 317−323) and, partly different, Cambi (2007). The perfective aspect is expressed by not using -ske- or its companions. Examples are Hitt. ēpzi ‘seizes’, ēpta ‘seized’, appiskizzi ‘seizes continuously, starts to seize’, appiskit ‘seized continuously, started to seize’.

7.1.3. Mood In comparison with other IE languages, the system of mood is very deficient in Anatolian. For possible reasons, see Strunk (1984). The imperative type pahs-i ‘protect!’ is

21. The morphology of Anatolian either a relic of the subjunctive (Jasanoff 2012) or an innovation of Hittite (Oettinger 2007). Beside the indicative, the only synthetically formed mood is the imperative, marked by final -u, e.g. CL ās-tu, cf. Vedic ás-tu ‘let him/her/it be’. Lydian abandoned even this mood. Hittite has periphrastic forms with the verbs ‘be’ and ‘have’ plus preterite participle. (Cf. Hoffner and Melchert 2008: 310 ff. with refs.)

7.1.4. Voice The two voices are active and middle, also called mediopassive. The middle marks, as usual in early IE languages, the functions of reflexivity, reciprocity and passive. It is now likely that Lydian has inherited the middle, too; see Melchert (2006). In Hittite and especially in Old Hittite, but also in other branches of Anatolian, there are many “deponents” which are middle in form and active in meaning, partly even transitive such as Hitt. 3sg. iskallāri ‘slashes’. The marker of the present middle is -r (Yoshida 1990), as in early PIE. In the last period of PIE this -r started to be replaced by -i, the present marker of the active. In the preterite middle Hittite uses -ti, the old reflexive particle. In Lycian the middle marker has become -n-, cf. Melchert (1992). In Hittite the marker of the active present, -i, is often added in the middle to the middle marker, e.g. Hitt. istuwāri ‘is manifest’ < PIE *stu-ó-r ‘is proclaimed’ +i. Whether the Hittite middle ending 3sg. present variant -ta beside -a is inherited or not is disputed (Yoshida 2007).

7.1.5. Non-finite forms It is important that the Hittite participle in -ant- normally has active (present) function only with intransitive verbs, but passive (preterite) function with transitive verbs; e.g. from PIE *ses- ‘sleep’ Hitt. and Vedic sas-ánt- ‘sleeping’, but from PIE *g when- ‘kill, strike’ Hitt. kun-ant- ‘killed’ vs. Vedic ghn-ánt- ‘killing’. This is confirmed by Palaic e.g. neuter plural suwānta ‘filled’. Therefore, the ‘participle’ in *-nt- was in Hittite and PA still a kind of verbal adjective, not yet an active participle as in late PIE. From the Luwian suffix -mman forming verbal action nouns from verbs (Starke 1990: 260 f.), the Luwian languages derived a new preterite participle in *-mno- > -mma/i-, e.g. upamma/i- ‘granted’; cf. Melchert (2003: 197). Contrary to other IE languages, Anatolian uses for verbal substantives and infinitives nearly exclusively (derivations of) nouns in *-r/n- and not in *-ti- and *-tu-. For the Hieroglyphic Luwian gerundive in -min(a), see Melchert (2004b).

7.2. Stem formation For synchronic verbal stem formation, see Hoffner and Melchert (2008: 173−179) for Hittite, Watkins (2004: 574) and Melchert (2003: 199 f.) for Luwian, Gérard (2005: 105− 110) for Lydian and for verbal compounds in Lydian Yakubovich (2005: 75−80). In

265

266

IV. Anatolian Anatolian there is an opposition between the mi- and hi-conjugations; for the latter see below 7.3. The majority of Hittite verbs and verbal stem classes belong to the miconjugation, whose endings are easily derivable from PIE; e.g. present sg. 1 -mi < *-mi, 2 -si < *-si, 3 -zza /-ts/ (mostly restored as -zzi /tsi/) < *-ti. Most of the well-established verbal classes of PIE are found in Hittite (and Anatolian), too. See Oettinger (1979 [= 2002], 1992) and Kloekhorst (2008: 117−156). For denominative verbs in Luwian and Lycian cf. Melchert (1997a, 2003: 199 f.) and Rieken (2005a: 69−71). The predominance of the formant -ye- in Anatolian is striking. The PIE suffix *-sk̑e- developed by secondary analysis from imperative forms that were enlarged by the PIE particle *k̑é ‘now, here’, e.g. 2sg. *g̑n̥h3 s-k̑é ‘recognize now, here!’ > *g̑n̥h3 -sk̑é (Oettinger 2013); cf. Hitt. ganess- ‘recognize’. Hitt. -ske- still shows no ablaut, contrary to late PIE. The suffix of the (Old) Hittite verbs in -ē- like Hittite dannattē-zzi ‘is waste, empty’, hassuē-t ‘ruled as king’ probably stems from *-eh1 -ye- (Jasanoff 2003a: 147), as in northwestern Indo-European, not from simple *-eh1 -. This way *-eh1 -ye- can more easily be explained as a denominative derivation from case forms in *-eh1 of instrumental function. For derivation from verbal stems of this kind cf. Hitt. hassuē-zzi n. ‘kingdom’ < *h2 onsu-eh1 -ye-ti with Latin e.g. acē-tum ‘vinegar’ < *h2 ek̑-eh1 -ye-to- from aceō ‘I am sour’. In Anatolian there are very few examples of simple thematic stems like HL / tamari/ ‘builds’ < PIE *démh2 -e-ti (cf. Gk. démō ‘I build’) and Hitt. suwezzi ‘pushes’ (Skr. suváti). It may well be that this scarcity is an archaism of Anatolian. There is no cogent argument to assume that the second type with zero grade of the root should not be of PIE age as well. For the rise of verbal compounds, cf. Hitt. pē har(k)- ‘keep ready’ = Old Latin parcō ‘I restrain, hold back’ (Weiss 1993: 49−52).

7.3. hi-conjugation This conjugation is unique to Anatolian, but cf. for Hitt. prt.3sgl. -s Indo-Iranian material (Kümmel 2015). Synchronically, among its endings, the following differ from those of the mi-conjugation: Hitt. present 1sg. -hhe (later: -hhi), 2 -tti, 3 -e, -i, 2pl. -steni (sic; see Kloekhorst 2007), preterite 1sg. -hhun, 2 -tta, 3 -s. A few of these verbs show vowel change, e.g. hān-i ‘draws (water)’ vs. preterite 3pl. /hēn-er/, the origin of which is disputed. For general discussion cf. Kloekhorst (2008: 136−149) and Melchert (2012). In Old and Middle Hittite the hi-conjugation is better preserved than in the other Anatolian languages; for HL, see Morpurgo Davies (1979). The origin of the hi-conjugation is the vexatissima quaestio of Anatolian morphology. A systematic survey being impossible here, we can at any rate state that the traditional derivation of this conjugation from the late PIE perfect is no longer likely. At the moment two solutions are proposed. For the first see Jasanoff (2003) and for the second Oettinger (2006a, especially 39−42). Both authors think that the hi-conjugation stems from categories with first person singular ending *-h2 e. Jasanoff derives it mainly from PIE root presents and root aorists with ablaut o : 0̸, e.g. Hitt. malli (normally: mallai) ‘grinds’ from PIE *mólh2 -e, but also some aorists with ablaut e : 0̸ and perfects like PIE *we-wok̑-e > Hitt. wewakki ‘wishes continuously’. According to Oettinger, the hi-conjugation stems partially from an Early

21. The morphology of Anatolian PIE present formation that was reduplicated in form and iterative in meaning. Examples are: Early PIE *wé-wok̑-e ‘wishes continuously’, *mé-molh2 -e ‘grinds continuously’, *sé-sh2 oi-e ‘binds continuously’, *b hé-b hoih2 -e ‘trembles continuously’, *h2 wé(r)h2 worg-e ‘turns continuously’, *dé-doh3 -e ‘gives/takes continuously’. They had root ablaut o : 0̸. From this category he derives the Hittite hi-conjugation (with addition of -i), e.g. wewakki ‘wishes continuously’, malli ‘grinds continuously’ (cf. CL *mammalhuwai), dāi ‘takes’, and the PIE perfect, e.g. in Old Avestan hišāiia ‘holds bound, has bound’, Vedic bibhāya ‘is in fear’. The following categories have the same origin but replaced the h2 e-endings by mi-endings: the PIE Intensive (Vedic ptc. ud-varī-vr̥j-ant‘turning up again and again’; cf. Hitt. wa-wark-ima- ‘door-hinge’) and the PIE residual present type *dé-doh3 -ti > Vedic dá-dā-ti ‘gives’. The advantage of this solution is that it can explain four categories from one. The disadvantage is that it has to assume loss of reduplication in many Anatolian hi-conjugation verbs. Now Jasanoff (2015) plausibly derives the late PIE perfect from a reduplicated intensive -h2 e-aorist.

8. Conclusion While many features of Anatolian morphology are “good Indo-European”, there are nevertheless discrepancies between the two languages. Some of them are evidently innovations on the Anatolian side, probably caused by substratum or adstratum influences, while other features of Anatolian are evident archaisms. But it is striking that several of these archaisms are preserved in Anatolian only. This leads to the assumption that they were replaced by common innovations in all other Indo-European languages (1). Among them are the formations of the ablative (2.1.3.6), dative plural (2.1.3.16), and collective (2.1.3.14), of the pronominal neuter plural (5.2), the inflection of ske-verbs (7.2) and, in the sphere of the verb, the participle (7.1.5) and the hi-conjugation (7.3).

Acknowledgement I wish to thank H. Craig Melchert for a great number of very valuable suggestions. Section 2 in particular has immensely profited from these. Needless to say, any remaining infelicities are my own responsibility.

9. References Adiego, Ignacio-Javier 2007 The Carian Language. With an appendix by Koray Konuk. (Handbuch der Orientalistik 1: The Near and Middle East, Vol. 86). Leiden: Brill. Benveniste, Émile 1962 Hittite et Indo-Européen: Études Comparatives. Paris: Maisonneuve. Berman, Howard 1972 The Stem Formation of Hittite Nouns and Adjectives. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Chicago.

267

268

IV. Anatolian Bombi, Raffaella, Guido Cifoletti, Fabiana Fusco, Lucia Innocente, and Vincenzo Orioles (eds.) 2006 Studi Linguistici in Onore di Roberto Gusmani. Alessandria: Editioni dell’Orso. Brosch, Cyril 2010 Nominalkomposita und komponierende Ableitungen im Hethitischen. Altorientalische Forschungen 37: 263−310. Cambi, Valentina 2007 Tempo e Aspetto in Ittito. Alessandria: Editioni dell’Orso. Carruba, Onofrio 1970 Das Palaische. Texte, Grammatik, Lexikon. (Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten 10). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Carruba, Onofrio 1974 I termini per mese, anno e i numerali in licio. Rendiconti, Istituto Lombardo, Classe di Lettere 108: 575−597. Clackson, James and Birgit A. Olsen (eds.) 2004 Indo-European Word Formation. Proceedings of the Conference held at the University of Copenhagen, October 20 th−22 nd 2000. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum. Cowgill, Warren 1979 Anatolian hi-conjugation and Indo-European perfect. Instalment II. In: Neu and Meid (eds.), 25−39. Eichner, Heiner 1973 Die Etymologie von heth. mehur. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 31: 53− 107. Eichner, Heiner 1985 Das Problem des Ansatzes eines urindogermanischen Numerus „Kollektiv“ („Komprehensiv“). In: Bernfried Schlerath (ed.), Grammatische Kategorien. Funktion und Geschichte. Akten der VII. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft Berlin, 20− 25. Februar 1983. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 134−169. Eichner, Heiner 1992 Anatolian. In: Jadranka Gvozdanović (ed.), Indo-European Numerals. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 29−96. Garrett, Andrew 1990 The origin of NP split ergativity. Language 66: 261−296. Gérard, Rafael 2005 Phonétique et morphologie de la langue lydienne. Louvain-La-Neuve: Peeters. Goedegebuure, Petra M. 2003 Reference, Deixis and Focus in Hittite. The Demonstratives ka- ‘this’, apa- ‘that’ and asi- ‘yon’. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Amsterdam University. Goedegebuure, Petra M. 2006 A New Proposal for the Reading of the Hittite Numeral ‘1’: šia-. In: Theo P. J. van den Hout (ed.), The Life and Times of Hattušili III and Tuthaliya IV. Proceedings of a Symposion held in honour of J. de Roos. Leiden: NINO, 165−188. Goedegebuure, Petra M. 2007 The Hieroglyphic-Luwian Demonstrative Ablative-Instrumentals zin and apin. Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 49: 319−334. Hackstein, Olav 2007 Ablative Formations. In: Nussbaum (ed.), 131−154. Hajnal, Ivo 1995a Der lykische Vokalismus. Methode und Erkenntnisse der vergleichenden anatolischen Sprachwissenschaft, angewandt auf das Vokalsystem einer Kleincorpussprache. Graz: Leykam. Hajnal, Ivo 1995b Studien zum mykenischen Kasussystem. Berlin: De Gruyter.

21. The morphology of Anatolian Hajnal, Ivo 2003 „Jungluwisch“ − Eine Bestandsaufnahme. In: Mauro Giorgieri, Mirjo Salvini, MarieClaude Trémouille, and Pietro Vannicelli (eds.), Licia e Lidia prima dell’Ellenizzazione. Atti del Convegno internazionale, Roma, 11−12 ottobre 1999. Rome: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, 187−206. Harðarson, Jón Axel 1987 Zum urindogermanischen Kollektivum. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 48: 71−114. Hoffner, Harry A. 2007 Aspects of the Hittite System of Numbering. In: Metin Alparslan, Meltem Dogan-Alparslan, and Hasan Peker (eds.), Vita. Festschrift in honour of Belkis Dincol and Ali Dinçol. Istanbul: Ege Yayinlari, 327−340. Hoffner, Harry A and H. Craig Melchert 2002 A Practical Approach to Verbal Aspect in Hittite. In: Stefano di Martino and Franca Pecchioli Daddi (eds.), Anatolia Antica. Studia in Memoria di F. Imparati. Florence: LoGisma, 377−390. Hoffner, Harry A. and H. Craig Melchert 2008 A Grammar of the Hittite Language. Part I: Reference Grammar. Winona Lake (IN): Eisenbrauns. Jasanoff, Jay H. 1973 The Hittite Ablative in -anz(a). Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 31: 123− 128. Jasanoff, Jay H. 2003a “Stative” -ē- revisited. Die Sprache 43[2002]: 127−170. Jasanoff, Jay H. 2003b Hittite and the Indo-European Verb. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jasanoff, Jay H. 2009 *-bhi, *-bhis, *-ōis: Following the Trail of the PIE Instrumental Plural. In: Jens E. Rasmussen and Thomas Olander (eds.), Internal Reconstruction in Indo-European. Methods, Results, Problems. Section Papers from the XVI International Conference of Historical Linguistics. University of Copenhagen, 11th−15 th August, 2003. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum, 137−149. Jasanoff, Jay H. 2012 Did Hittite Have si-Imperatives? In: Roman Sukač and Ondřej Šefčík (eds.), The Sound of Indo-European 2. Papers on Indo-European Phonetics, Phonemics and Morphophonemics. München: Lincom Europa, 116−132. Jasanoff, Jay H. 2015 Hittite and the IE verb 100 years after Hrozný. What happened to the perfect in Hittite? Handout, Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Universität Marburg, “100 Jahre Entzifferung des Hethitischen. Morphosyntaktische Kategorien in der Sprachgeschichte und Forschung.” Josephson, Folke 2004 Semantics and Typology of Hittite -ant-. In: Clackson and Olsen (eds.), 91−118. Kloekhorst, Alwin 2007 The Hittite 2.pl-ending -šten(i). Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 49: 493−500. Kloekhorst, Alwin 2008 Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon. Leiden: Brill. Kronasser, Heinz 1966 Etymologie der Hethitischen Sprache, I. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Kümmel, Martin J. 2015 Anatolisches und indoiranisches Verbum: Erbe und Neuerung. Handout, Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Universität Marburg, “100 Jahre Entzifferung des Hethitischen. Morphosyntaktische Kategorien in Sprachgeschichte und Forschung.”

269

270

IV. Anatolian Le Feuvre, Claire 2007 Grec γῆ εὐρώεσσα, Russe syra zemlja, Vieil Islandais saurr, ‘la terre humide’: Phraséologie Indo-Européenne et Étymologie. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique 102: 101− 129. Lubotsky, Alexander, Jos Schaeken, and Jeroen Wiedenhof (eds.) 2008 Evidence and Counter-Evidence. Essays in Honor of Frederik Kortlandt. Volume 1. Balto-Slavic and Indo-European Linguistics. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Melchert, H. Craig 1984a Studies in Hittite Historical Phonology. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Melchert, H. Craig 1984b Notes on Palaic. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 97: 22−43. Melchert, H. Craig 1992 The Middle Voice in Lycian. Historische Sprachforschung 105: 189−199. Melchert, H. Craig 1994 Anatolian Historical Phonology. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Melchert, H. Craig 1997a Denominative Verbs in Anatolian. In: Dorothy Disterheft, Martin Huld, and John Greppin (eds.), Studies in Honour of J. Puhvel. Washington D.C.: Institute for the Study of Man, 131−138. Melchert, H. Craig 1997b Traces of a PIE Aspectual Contrast in Anatolian? Incontri Linguistici 20: 83−92. Melchert, H. Craig 2000a Tocharian Plurals in -nt- and Related Phenomena. Tocharian and Indo-European Studies 9: 53−75. Melchert, H. Craig 2000b Aspects of Cuneiform Luvian Nominal Inflection. In: Yoel L. Arbeitman (ed.), The Asia Minor Connection. Studies on the Pre-Greek Languages in Memory of Ch. Carter. Leuven: Peeters, 173−183. Melchert, H. Craig 2002 Covert Possessive Compounds in Hittite and Luvian. In: Fabrice Cavoto (ed.), A Linguist’s Linguist. A Collection of Papers in Honor of Alexis Manaster Ramer. München: Lincom Europa, 297−302. Melchert, H. Craig 2003 Language. In: H. Craig Melchert (ed.), The Luwians. (Handbook of Oriental Studies 1: The Near and Middle East, Vol. 68). Leiden: Brill, 170−210. Melchert, H. Craig 2004a Second Thoughts on *y and *h2 in Lydian. In: Olivier Casabonne and Michel Mazoyer (eds.), Studia Anatolica et Varia. Mélanges offerts au professeur René Lebrun. II. Paris: L’Harmattan, 139−150. Melchert, H. Craig 2004b Hieroglyphic Luvian Verbs in -min(a). In: Adam Hyllested, Anders R. Jorgensen, Jenny H. Larsson, and Thomas Olander (eds.), Per Aspera ad Asteriscos. Studia Indogermanica in Honorem Jens E. Rasmussen. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität, 355−362. Melchert, H. Craig 2006 Medio-Passive Forms in Lydian? In: Bombi et al. (eds), 1161−1166. Melchert, H. Craig 2008 Problems in Hittite Pronominal Inflection. In: Lubotsky et al. (eds.), 367−376. Melchert, H. Craig 2009a Review of S. Patri 2007. L’alignement syntaxique dans les langues indo-européennes d’Anatolie. Kratylos 54: 130−132.

21. The morphology of Anatolian Melchert, H. Craig 2009b The Nominative Plural in Luvian and Lycian. Die Sprache 48 (= *h2 nr. Festschrift für Heiner Eichner): 112−117. Melchert, H. Craig 2012 Hittite hi-Verbs of the type -āC1 i, -aC1 C1 anzi. Indogermanische Forschungen 117: 173− 186. Melchert, H. Craig and Norbert Oettinger 2009 Ablativ und Instrumental im Hethitischen und Indogermanischen. Incontri Linguistici 32: 53−73. Morpurgo Davies, Anna 1979 The Luvian Languages and the Hittite hi-Conjugation. In: Béla Brogyanyi (ed.), Festschrift for O. Szemerényi. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 577−610. Neu, Erich 1979 Einige Überlegungen zu den hethitischen Kasusendungen. In: Neu and Meid (eds.), 177−196. Neu, Erich 1980 Studien zum endungslosen „Lokativ“ des Hethitischen. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität. Neu, Erich 1999 Zum hethitischen Zahlwort für „sieben“. In: Peter Anreiter and Erzsebet Jerem (eds.), Studia Celtica et Indogermanica. Festschrift für Wolfgang Meid zum 70. Geburtstag. Budapest: Archaeolingua, 249−254. Neu, Erich and Wolfgang Meid (eds.) 1979 Hethitisch und Indogermanisch. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität. Neumann, Günter 1983 Zur Genese der hethitischen Vokative auf -i und -e. Zwei neue Vorschläge, II. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 96: 241−244. Neumann, Günter 1992 SIDETISCH malwadas*. Kadmos 31: 157−160. Nussbaum, Alan J. (ed.) 2007 Verba Docenti. Studies in historical and Indo-European linguistics presented to Jay H. Jasanoff by students, colleagues, and friends. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave Press. Oettinger, Norbert 1979 Die Stammbildung des hethitischen Verbums. Nürnberg: Carl. Nachdruck 2002 mit einer kurzen Revision der hethitischen Verbalklassen. Dresden: Dresdner Beiträge zur Hethitologie. Oettinger, Norbert 1986 „Indo-Hittite“-Hypothese und Wortbildung. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität. Oettinger, Norbert 1992 Die hethitischen Verbalstämme. In: Onofrio Carruba (ed.), Per una grammatica Ittita. Pavia: Uculano, 213−252. Oettinger, Norbert 1994 Etymologisch unerwarteter Nasal im Hethitischen. In: Jens Elmegård Rasmussen (ed.), In honorem Holger Pedersen. Kolloquium der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 26. bis 28. März 1993 in Kopenhagen. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 307−330. Oettinger, Norbert 1995 Griech. ostéon, heth. kulēi und ein neues Kollektivsuffix. In: Heinrich Hettrich, Wolfgang Hock, Peter-Arnold Mumm, and Norbert Oettinger (eds.), Verba et Structurae. Festschrift für Klaus Strunk zum 65. Geburtstag. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität, 211−228.

271

272

IV. Anatolian Oettinger, Norbert 2001 Neue Gedanken über das nt-Suffix. In: Onofrio Carruba and Wolfgang Meid (eds.), Anatolisch und Indogermanisch. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität, 301−316. Oettinger, Norbert 2003 Zum Ablaut von n-Stämmen im Anatolischen und der Brechung ē > ya. In: Eva Tichy, Dagmar S. Wodko, and Britta Irslinger (eds.), Indogermanisches Nomen. Derivation, Flexion und Ablaut. Bremen: Hempen, 141−152. Oettinger, Norbert 2006a Rezensionsaufsatz zu Jasanoff 2003b. Kratylos 51: 34−45. Oettinger, Norbert 2006b Pronominaladjektive in frühen indogermanischen Sprachen. In: Bombi et al. (eds.), 1327−1335. Oettinger, Norbert 2007 Der hethitische Imperativ auf -i vom Typ pahsi ‚schütze!ʻ. In: Detlev Groddek and Marina Zorman (eds.), Tabularia Hethaeorum. Hethitologische Beiträge Silvin Košak zum 65. Geburtstag. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 561−568. Oettinger, Norbert 2008 An Indo-European Custom of Sacrifice in Greece and Elsewhere. In: Lubotsky et al. (eds.), 403−414. Oettinger, Norbert 2013 Die Herkunft des idg. Verbalsuffixes *-sk̑é/ó-. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 67: 57−64. Oettinger, Norbert 2013/14 Die Indo-Hittite-Hypothese aus heutiger Sicht. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 67/2: 149−176. Patri, Sylvain 2007 L’alignement syntaxique dans les langues indo-européennes d’Anatolie. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Poetto, Massimo 1995 Luvio mi(ya)sa- nell’àmbito dell’interpretazione di KUB 35. 45 II 22−24. Historische Sprachforschung 108: 30−38. Rieken, Elisabeth 1994 Der Wechsel -a-/-i- in der Stammbildung des hethitischen Nomens. Historische Sprachforschung 107: 42−53. Rieken, Elisabeth 1999 Untersuchungen zur nominalen Stammbildung des Hethitischen. (Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten 44). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Rieken, Elisabeth 2004a Merkwürdige Kasusformen im Hethitischen. In: Detlev Groddeck and Sylvester Rössle (eds.), Šarnikzel. Hethitologische Studien zum Gedenken an Emil O. Forrer. Dresden: Technische Universität Dresden, 533−543. Rieken, Elisabeth 2004b Reste von e-Hochstufe im Formans hethitischer n-Stämme? In: Clackson and Olsen (eds.), 283−294. Rieken, Elisabeth. 2005a Neues zum Ursprung der anatolischen i-Mutation. Historische Sprachforschung 118: 48−74. Rieken, Elisabeth 2005b Kopulativkomposita im Hethitischen. In: Nikolai N. Kazansky (ed.), Hr̥dā´ Mánasā. Studies presented to L. G. Herzenberg. Saint Petersburg: Nauka, 99−103.

21. The morphology of Anatolian

273

Rieken, Elisabeth 2006 Hethitisch. In: Michael P. Streck (ed.), Sprachen des Alten Orients. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 80−127. Rieken, Elisabeth 2008 The Origin of the -l Genitive and the History of the Stems in -īl- and -ūl- in Hittite. In: Karlene Jones-Bley, Martin E. Huld, Angela Della Volpe, and Miriam Robbins Dexter (eds.), Proceedings of the 19 th Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference, Los Angeles, November 3−4, 2007. Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man, 239−256. Schindler, Jochem 1967 Zu hethitisch nekuz. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 81: 290−303. Schürr, Diether 1997 Lydisches IV: Zur Grammatik der Inschrift Nr. 22 (Sardes). Die Sprache 39: 201−212. Starke, Frank 1990 Untersuchungen zur Stammbildung des keilschrift-luwischen Nomens. (Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten 31). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Strunk, Klaus 1984 Probleme der Sprachrekonstruktion und das Fehlen zweier Modi im Hethitischen. Incontri Linguistici 9: 135−152. Watkins, Calvert 1969 Geschichte der indogermanischen Verbalflexion. (Indogermanische Grammatik III/1). Heidelberg: Winter. Watkins, Calvert 1982 Notes on the Plural Formations of the Hittite Neuters. In: Erich Neu (ed.), Investigationes Philologicae et Comparativae. Gedenkschrift für H. Kronasser. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 250−262. Watkins, Calvert 2004 Hittite. In: Roger D. Woodard (ed.), The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World’s Ancient Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 551−575. Weiss, Michael L. 1993 Studies in Italic Nominal Morphology. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University. Weiss, Michael L. 2006 Latin Orbis and its Cognates. Historische Sprachforschung 119: 250−272. Weitenberg, Joseph J. S. 1984 Die hethitischen u-Stämme. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Widmer, Paul 2005 Der altindische vr̥kī́ -Typus und hethitisch nakkī˘-: Der indogermanische Instrumental zwischen Syntax und Morphologie. Die Sprache 45: 190−208. Yakubovich, Ilya 2005 Lydian Etymological Notes. Historische Sprachforschung 118: 75−91. Yoshida, Kazuhiko 1990 The Hittite Mediopassive Endings in -ri. Berlin: De Gruyter. Yoshida, Kazuhiko 2007 The Morphological History of Hittite Mediopassive Verbs. In: Nussbaum (ed.), 379− 396. Zeilfelder, Susanne 2001 Archaismus und Ausgliederung. Studien zur sprachlichen Stellung des Hethitischen. Heidelberg: Winter.

Norbert Oettinger, Erlangen (Germany)

274

IV. Anatolian

22. The syntax of Anatolian: The simple sentence 1. Clause structure 2. The subject

3. Compound predicates 4. References

1. Clause structure For reasons of space I limit myself to discussing the syntax of the simple sentence, including clause structure, word order, the coding of the subject relation, and compound verb forms. I leave out of account such topics as the use of cases, possessive constructions, clause conjunction, and subordination. An overview of subordination in Hittite can be found in Hoffner and Melchert (2008: 414−429). On relative clauses in Hittite, see further Held (1957), Justus (1972), and Garrett (1994), which also contains a discussion of relative clauses in Lycian. On complex adverbial subordination, see Zeilfelder (2002). Complement clauses are infrequent in Hittite and only appear in relatively late texts, see Cotticelli-Kurras (1995).

1.1. Word order Two phenomena are characteristic of Anatolian clause structure, i.e. basic OV order and Wackernagel’s Law. The OV character of the Anatolian languages implies that the right sentence boundary is marked, in the vast majority of cases, by the occurrence of a finite verb form. The left sentence boundary, in its turn, is taken by second position, or P2, enclitics, which follow Wackernagel’s Law, and are hosted by the first word (less frequently first constituent) in the sentence. Note that Lycian is exceptional among the Anatolian languages, because its basic word order is VO; accordingly, it will be discussed after the other languages. Typical Anatolian simple sentences are the following: (1)

mD XXX.DU-as DUMU mzida piran=ma= at= mu child Z. before CONN 3SG.N/A 1SG.OBL A.:NOM m maniyahhiskit administer:3SG.PRET.ITER ‘Before me Armadatta, the son of Zida, had administered it.’ KUB 1.1 i 28 (Hittite);

(2)

[tiy]ammis=pa=ti [t]ap-PIŠ-sa naw[a a]yari earth:NOM CONN PTC heaven:NOM NEG become:3SG.PRS ‘And the earth does not become heaven.’ KUB 35.54 ii 43−44 (Cun. Luvian);

(3)

ni= pa= si musanti 3PL.OBL satisfy:3PL.PRS ‘They cannot be satisfied.’ KUB 32.18 9 (Palaic); NEG PTC

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261288-022

22. The syntax of Anatolian: The simple sentence (4)

fak= m= CONN CONN

λ= it= in qλdãn=k artimu=k 3SG.DAT PTC PTC Q:NOM and A.:NOM and

katsarlokid bring.destruction:3PL.PRS ‘May the gods Qλdãns and Artemis bring destruction to him.’ 23.10 (Lydian). Sentence (4) has the left boundary marked by a connective which hosts second-position enclitics, whereas in the other sentences different types of words are placed in initial position, followed by the enclitics. Since the subject of an Anatolian sentence can be zero or a Wackernagel enclitic, the verb is the only accented constituent which obligatorily occurs in a sentence. If enclitics occur in a sentence where the verb is the only accented constituent, they are hosted by the verb itself, as in example (5), which contains two verbs in the imperative, asyndetically coordinated, each of which hosts an enclitic particle: (5)

lalaidu= tta papraddu= tta take:3SG.IMP PTC chase:3SG.IMP PTC ‘Let him take (it and) chase (it).’ KUB 35.43 ii 12 (Cun. Luvian).

As noted above, Lycian displays a different sentence structure. Examples are: (6)

mê=

(e)ne tubidi qlaj ebi se Malija se 3SG.OBL strike:3PL.PRS precinct local and M.:NOM and tasa miñtaha oath:N/A.PL m.:ADJ.N/A.PL ‘The local precinct and Malija and the oaths of the minti will strike him.’ TL 75.5 (Lycian); CONN

(7)

ebêñnê χupã mê= (e)nê prñnawate Trijêtezi this:ACC tomb:ACC CONN 3SG.ACC build:3SG.PRET T.:NOM ‘This tomb, Trijêtezi built it.’ TL 8.1−2 (Lycian).

As shown in the examples, Lycian has second-position enclitics like the other Anatolian languages (note that among second-position enclitic pronouns, nominative forms are not attested in Lycian); however, given the high frequency of left dislocated constituents with clitic doubling, the structure of the left sentence boundary ends up looking quite different from that of the other Anatolian languages, as shown in example (7), where the left-dislocated constituent is followed by the particle me, cognate to Hittite -ma-, which hosts a clitic that is coreferential to the left-dislocated constituent. This pattern is not commonly found in the other Anatolian languages (Garrett, 1994: 38 quotes a few examples from Hittite, which however look quite different). In example (6), the verb precedes all the other constituents of the sentence; the connective and the enclitics still precede the verb in such passages. A few similar examples are available from the other Anatolian languages, as in (8), with the verb following and initial connective, and in (9):

275

276

IV. Anatolian (8)

D ta piyatta immarassa IM-ti CONN 3SG.N/A give:3SG.PRET wilderness:ADJ.D/L weather:god.D/L ‘He gave it to the Weather God.’ KUB 35.54 ii 37 (Cun. Luvian),

(9)

qis= it fênsλibid esλ vãnaλ buk esλ mruλ who:NOM PTC damage:3SG.PRS this:DAT tomb:DAT or this:DAT stele:DAT ‘Whoever damages this tomb or this stele.’ 3.4−5 (Lydian).

a=

The examples in (6) and (7) seem to point toward a different basic order for Lycian with respect to the SOV order of the other Anatolian languages. However, as noted in Daues (2009), the fact that our knowledge of Lycian relies to such a high extent on tomb inscriptions certainly has a bearing on attested word order patterns. Basic word order in Lydian is apparently OV, except in poetic texts, which, albeit potentially interesting, are at present too poorly understood to allow speculations based on them.

1.2. The left sentence boundary In the Anatolian languages, P2 enclitics are normally placed after the first accented word or after a prepositive element. Beside Wackernagel’s enclitics, the Anatolian languages also have word enclitics, i.e. enclitics that are attached to a specific word, as possessives, which are inflected adjectives hosted by the head they modify, or focus particles. When one of such enclitics refers to the first word in a sentence, it precedes P2 enclitics. Prepositives are connectives, such as Hittite nu, which are possibly proclitic, though they can host enclitics (according to Melchert [1998: 485] “sentence-initial conjunctions and attached clitics are unstressed”). Enclitics of different types occur in second position for two different reasons, connected with their grammatical and discourse status (see Luraghi 1990: 14−15). a) Sentence particles such as coordinators and connectives, discourse markers, and modal particles, which have the whole sentence as their scope, tend to occur as early as possible in the sentence. Such connectives have placement rules similar to those of prepositives, which occur at the beginning of a sentence: unstressed particles occur after the first accented word in the sentence, this being the leftmost accessible position for items that cannot begin a sentence for accentual reasons. This phenomenon can be seen as due to prosodic inversion (see Halpern [1995: 13−76]); b) enclitic pronouns, which belong in the VP, in their turn are attracted close to the left sentence boundary for pragmatic reasons. Unstressed pronouns have a low communicative dynamism, since they do not convey new information; they rather refer back to items which have already been introduced in the preceding discourse. Thus, they also fulfill a textual function, connecting sentences with each other, and contributing to the building of discourse continuity. The basic difference between clitics and particles in a) and clitic pronouns in b) lies in the relation between their structural and their phonological host. The (a) forms are attached phonologically to the whole sentence (i.e. to its border), which is also their structural host; the b) forms, on the contrary, have the VP as their structural host, but they take the sentence border as their phonological host; see further Luraghi (1990: 13−15 and 2013).

22. The syntax of Anatolian: The simple sentence P2 clitics occur in slots and each slot can be filled by one clitic only in the relevant set (see also Hoffner and Melchert 2008: 410−411): (i)

(ii) (iii) (iv)

(v) (vi)

Sentence connectives and conjunctions: Hittite -(y)a-, coordinator; -ma-, -a- (according to some, -ma- and -a- are phonologically conditioned variants of a single particle; see Hoffner and Melchert [2008] for this latter view; in addition, -ma- can be postponed in the sentence and occur in a position other than P2, notably with certain subordinating constructions, see Hoffner and Melchert [2008: 396]), adversative particles, man- modal particle (which may sometimes co-occur with the connective -ma- and which also has an accented variant); Cun. Luv. -ha-, -kuwa-; Pal. -(y)a-, -pa-; Hier. Luv. -ha-; Lycian -me-, -be-; Milian -me-, -be-, -ke-; Lydian -k-, -um-. Not all these particles are always enclitic in all languages: for example, Lycian -me-, which corresponds to Hittite -ma-, can also be sentence initial (see Melchert 2004: 37−38). Hittite and Palaic -wa(r)-, Luv. -wa-, Lycian and Milian -(u)we-, direct speech particles. (In Hittite) nominative or accusative of the third person pronoun singular or plural. (In Hittite) oblique forms of the first and second person singular and plural or dative of the third person singular or plural. In the plural, dative enclitic pronouns normally precede possible nominative or accusative enclitics in Hittite. Note that, whereas third person nominative and accusative clitic pronouns cannot co-occur with each other, they can co-occur with any dative form, including the third person. (In Hittite) -z(a)-, reflexive particle. Hittite -kan, -(a)sta, -san, -an, -(a)pa, Cun. Luv. -tta, -tar, Hier. Luv. -ta, -pa, Pal. -(n)tta, -pi, Lycian -te, -pi, -de, Milian -te, Lydian -(i)t, -in, so-called local particles.

The order attested for the enclitics in positions (iii) through (v) in Hittite is the inverse of the order that occurs in the other languages, where one finds: c) Reflexive particle Luv. ti, Pal.-ti, Lyd. -s, -si. d) Oblique forms of first and second person pronouns or dative of third person. e) Nominative or accusative of third person pronouns. As already mentioned, clitics in each of the above groups are mutually exclusive. Clitics in slot (i) can appear only if none of the prepositive connectives occurs in the initial position (an exception is -ma-, which can co-occur with nu when marking alternatives in double questions, see Hoffner and Melchert [2008: 397−398]). Prepositive connectives are: Hittite: nu, ta, su (the latter two connectives in Old Hittite); Luvian: a-; Hier. Luvian: a-, nu; Palaic: a-, nu; Lycian: me, se (the latter also used for coordination between NP’s); Lydian: fak, nak, ak (compounded with the enclitic conjunction -k). Obviously, there are some exceptions to these rules, but on the whole they apply consistently throughout the history of Anatolian. In Hittite, the choice between nu and -ma- or -(y)a- (or prepositive or postpositive man in non-assertive clauses) results in two distinct patterns: a) Sentences with no topicalized or contrasted constituents start with nu followed by the enclitics. b) Other sentences have some accented constituent in initial position, which is separated from the remaining part of the sentence by the enclitics. Since -ma- indicates disconti-

277

278

IV. Anatolian nuity in a text or in the course of events, as argued in Luraghi (1990: 50−54), it can occur in cases of topic shift. Its occurrence is also connected to initial verbs (see Luraghi 1990: 52, 96−99; Bauer 2011). The extension of nu as a sentence introducer was probably brought about by the need to extract all enclitics from the sentence, in order to allow for a sentence pattern where no constituents were separated from the others, as argued in Luraghi (1998b). Wackernagel’s enclitics marked the left sentence boundary in such a way that any word or constituent that preceded them was extraposed, thus receiving particular emphasis. When hosted by nu, Wackernagel’s enclitics were no longer real second-position clitics. Rather, they were placed at the beginning of the sentence, and the sentence introducer nu occurred for prosodic reasons because, being a prepositive, it could start a sentence and host enclitics. As noted above, the prosodic nature of clusters containing nu and P2 clitics is unclear, as nu is often thought to be proclitic. In Lydian we find the following order for the enclitics, partly according to Gusmani (1964: 46): a) connective -k; b) connective -m; c) pronominal dative; d) particle -t (also spelled -it, -at); e) reflexive particle; f) pronominal nominative; g) pronominal accusative; h) particle -in. The connectives in slots a) and b) can, and often do, cooccur with each other and with prepositive connectives. The first of the two is the coordinating conjunction, which can also function as a phrasal conjoiner. The function of the particle -t is not clear; sometimes it also displays the form -it, apparently when it occurs together with the reflexive particle -s. The latter is homophonous to the nominative of the third person pronoun. It has been identified relatively recently and it can help to explain a number of the passages where the nominative and accusative of the third person pronoun were formerly taken to co-occur (such cooccurrence is impossible in the other Anatolian languages, see below, 3.1).

1.3. Initial verbs As I have mentioned above, in spite of their basic OV order, the Anatolian languages also allowed for initial verbs in certain contexts. The alternation between final and initial verb can be shown to go back to Indo-European, where it was most likely used with much greater frequency than in Anatolian (see Delbrück 1901: 38−40, 80−83; Dressler 1969; Luraghi 1990: ch. 5, 1995). According to Bauer (2011), initial verbs in Hittite are more frequent in texts which are closer to the spoken language. In Luraghi (1990), I described a number of sentence patterns that allow initial verbs: a) imperatives or emphatic or contrasted verbs, as in: (10) pai= mu DUMU.É.GAL-in give:2SG.IMP 1SG.OBL palace.servant:ACC.SG ‘Give me a palace servant.’ KBo 17.1 ii 2′ (Hittite). (11)

kuenzi= ma=an LUGAL-us huis[nu]zzi= ya=[an kill:3SG.PRS CONN 3SG.ACC king:NOM let.live:3SG.PRS and 3SG.ACC LUGAL-u]s king:NOM ‘The king may kill him, or the king may let him live.’ KBo 6.26 21−22 (Hittite);

22. The syntax of Anatolian: The simple sentence (12) zas= pa= ta kuwatin zammitatis NA4harati auimmis flour:NOM grindstone:ABL come:PART.NOM this:NOM CONN PTC as auiddu= pa= sta malhassassis EN-as haratnati come:IMP.3SG CONN PTC ritual:ADJ.NOM lord:NOM offence:ABL waskulimmati sinful:ABL ‘As this flour has come from the grindstone, so may the Lord of the ritual (i.e. the person for whom the ritual is performed) come from sinful offence.’ KBo 29.6 i 22−24 (Cun. Luvian); b) verbs that introduce some sort of discontinuity, either at the textual level (as in the case of descriptions or other digressions) or in the course of events (see Luraghi 1990: 97−99), as in (13d, i), in which harkanzi and tarueni initiate side remarks which interrupt the description of the ritual. In cases such as this, initial verbs are usually associated with the adversative particle -ma-, as also noted in Luraghi (1990) and Bauer (2011): hantezumni tehhi #b es= a namma anda (13) #a apus DEM.ACC.PL porch:D/L put:1SG.PRS 1PL.NOM PTC again inside D Hantasepus harwani GIŠ-as #d harkanzi=ma= paiwani #c2 two H.:ACC.PL have:1PL.PRS wood:GEN have:3PL.PRS go:1PL.PRS D GIŠ an Hantasepes anduhsas harsarr= a SUKURHI.A= ya PTC PTC H.:NOM.PL man:GEN and head:ACC.PL a lances and e ishaskanta # sakuwa= smet eye:NOM.PL POSS.3PL bloodstained:NOM.PL #f wesanda= ma isharwantus TÚGHI.A-us #g putaliyantess= a bound:PTCP:NOM.PL PTC wear:3PL.PRS PTC purple:ACC clothes:ACC #h anda=kan halinas tessummius tarlipit suwamus 2-ki inside PTC clay:GEN vessel:ACC.PL t.:INSTR full:ACC.PL twice petumini bring:1PL.PRS #i tarueni= ma= at eshar #l DUMU.É.GAL-is DHantasepan servant:NOM H.:ACC say:1PL.PRS CONN it blood:N/A.N LUGAL-i kissari dai king:D/L hand:D/L put:3SG.PRS ‘#a I put those in the front-porch. #b We go inside again, #c holding two H. divinities, made of wood. #d (The H. divinities hold human heads as well as spears; #e their eyes are bloodstained. #f They are wearing purple clothes #g and have high belts). #h Twice we bring inside the clay vessels full of t. #i (we call it blood); #l the palace servant puts a H. divinity in the hand of the king.’ KBo 17.1 i 18′−28′ (Hittite). According to Bauer (2011), initial verbs have the effect of indicating narrow focus on the first post-verbal constituent. While this description could fit the sentence in (13f, i) if taken out of context, the wider context shows that initial verbs rather introduce subtopics: in particular, DHantasepes in (13d) is clearly the topic of the description, rather than a focused constituent, as it does not introduce new information. The new informa-

279

280

IV. Anatolian tion is contained in the second part of the sentence, which functions as a comment with respect to this sub-topic. This also explains the initial verb in (13f), which concerns the same topic, while in (13i) the topic is a clitic pronoun. Examples of similar sentence patterns from other Indo-European languages are discussed in Delbrück. Imperatives could be fronted for emphasis, and the VO/OV alternation of the type in b) is typical of narrative texts, where the unemphatic style usually patterns with OV order. See further Luraghi (1995).

1.4. The right sentence boundary With the exception of Lycian, which, as we have seen, has basic VO order, the right boundary of an Anatolian clause is normally marked by the occurrence of a finite verb form. Non-finite subordinated verb forms usually occur immediately before the final finite verb. In Lydian they apparently were placed post-finally: (14) ak=

at amu mitidasta kave kantoru savvaštal 3SG:N/A.NT 1SG:NOM M.:DAT priest:DAT give:1SG.PRS preserve:INF ‘I will give it to the priest Mitidastal to preserve.’ 24.20−21 (Lydian). CONN

Elements that consistently occur in pre-final position, immediately preceding the final verb, are sentence negations and ku- words, which typically indicate focus (see Goedegebuure [1999] on the function of ku- words as focus markers in Hittite): (15) zawi= pa t[appas]a tiyammis pa= ti kuwatin [tapp]asa heaven:NOM behold CONN heaven:NOM earth:NOM CONN PTC as tiyammis nawa ayari [tiy]ammis=pa= ti [t]ap-PIŠ-sa earth:NOM NEG become:3SG.PRS.M/P earth:NOM CONN PTC heaven:NOM naw[a a]yari za= ha SISKUR-assa [...] apati nis NEG become:3SG.PRS.M/P this:NOM and ritual:NOM so NEG ayari become:3SG.PRS.M/P ‘Here are heaven and earth; as heaven does not become earth and earth does not become heaven, let this ritual likewise not become ...’ KUB 35.54 ii 41−45 (translation from Boley, 1993: 220) (Cun. Luvian); kuiski (16) takku LÚ.ULULU-as ELLAM-as KAxKAK= set free:GEN nose 3SG.POSS someone:NOM if man:GEN waki bite:3SG.PRS ‘If someone bites the nose of a free man.’ KBo 6.2 i 24 (Hittite). Indefinite pronouns are virtually never fronted; sentence negation is mostly fronted in rhetorical questions, as in (17) (note that here the predicate of the sentence is fronted and the subject is final):

22. The syntax of Anatolian: The simple sentence (17) UL= wa LUGAL-was aras= mis zik NEG PTC king:GEN friend:NOM 1SG.POSS.NOM 2SG.NOM ‘Are you not a friend of mine, the king?’ KUB 29.1 i 35. Some focus constituents, especially negations, indefinite pronouns and other ku-forms, but sometimes also NPs, can be placed in post-final position even in Anatolian. Zeilfelder (2004) offers an extensive discussion of negations in final position in Hittite, showing connections with verb fronting. Besides, any type of constituent can be added in post-final position as an afterthought (so-called “amplificatory” constituents), as in (18), where a postverbal subject is appositional to the enclitic pronoun that precedes the verb in the first sentence; in the second, the direct object occurs postverbally (another example is GIŠ-as in (13c), a genitive of material which refers to the preverbal direct object): (18) launaimis= as asd tarussa tiyammis wash:PTCP.NOM 3SG.NOM be:IMP.3SG statue:N/A earth:NOM [DINGIRMEŠ-e]nzi huhhursantinzi GUNNI-[tis a]= tta zaui h.:NOM.PL hearth:NOM CONN PTC here god:NOM.PL lahuniha adduwalza utarsa a= ta appa DINGIRMEŠ-[ ...-] word:N/A CONN 3SG.N/A.N back god:PL wash:1SG.PRET evil:N/A ‘Be it washed, the statue, the earth, the gods, the h.’s, the hearth. I have washed here the evil word, and the gods ... it back.’ KUB 35.54 iii 35−38 (Cun. Luvian).

2. The subject 2.1. Null subjects, subject clitics, nominal sentences In the Anatolian languages, pro-drop is affected by verbal transitivity. The pattern can be best observed in Hittite, but it is likely to be common Anatolian. Subject clitics are attested in the other Anatolian languages as well, apart from Lycian; whether their use corresponds to what we can see in Hittite is not clear (see Garrett 1990a: 143−145). Null subjects are allowed for all verbs in the first and second person singular or plural; for third person a set of unstressed subject pronouns is available, which are obligatorily used with intransitive verbs, in case there is no overt subject. Transitive verbs, in their turn, can never take an unstressed subject pronoun. Consequently, they take null subjects for third person, too, if there is no overt subject (see Luraghi 1990: 40−43). As shown in Garrett (1990a: 106−107), non-referential third person subjects (such as the subjects of weather verbs) are null with intransitive verbs. Garrett (1990a: 130−133) gives a full list of passages where intransitive verbs occur with null subjects. Beside the Old Hittite examples, that come from all text types, he also gives some Middle Hittite examples, all coming from the same text (a protocol for the royal guard), and some Late Hittite examples from copies of Old Hittite ritual texts. This rule was apparently still in the making in Old Hittite, in which, as shown by Goedegebuure (1999b), motion verbs often occurred without third person clitic subjects; see further Luraghi (2010a).

281

282

IV. Anatolian Hoffner (1969) argues that from the Middle Hittite period onwards the reflexive particle -z(a) became increasingly frequent in Hittite in nominal sentences with first and second person subjects, whereas it is never found with third person. Since -z(a) was in origin a deictic particle that indicated some particular involvement of the subject in the verbal process, an association with first and second person, which are deictic, rather than with third person, can perhaps have developed. In Old Hittite the particle did not seem to have any particular connection with first and second person. According to Boley (1993), the historical development is more complicated, and even in Late Hittite the situation may not be as straightforward as argued in Hoffner (1969); however, the frequency of the association of -z(a) or oblique pronominal clitics with first and second person subjects of nominal sentences remains striking. The connection between the particle -z(a) and first and second person subjects of nominal sentences is not clearly attested in the other Anatolian languages. Boley (1993: 220) argues that the particle -ti, the equivalent of -z(a) in Cuneiform Luvian, never occurs in nominal sentences. In Hieroglyphic Luvian the same particle can, but does not have to, co-occur both with first person subjects, in which case it can alternate with the oblique clitic pronoun, and with third person subjects, see Boley (1993: 223−224). In Late Hittite, nominal sentences with first or second person subjects either contain the particle -z(a) or the appropriate oblique form of the clitic personal pronoun, as shown in: (19) nu=

war=as LÚ-is esta uga= wa= z UL imma 3SG.NOM man:NOM be:3SG.PRET 1SG.NOM PTC PTC NEG besides

CONN PTC

LÚ-as man:NOM ‘He was a man, am I not a man, too?’ KUB 23.72+ obv 42. Nominal sentences with third person subject have subject clitics like other intransitive sentences only if there is no overtly expressed subject.

2.2. Subject marking Anatolian has two genders, normally referred to as common and neuter. While virtually all neuter nouns are inanimate, nouns that belong to the common gender can be either animate or inanimate. Neuter nouns can be better described as being inactive, given the constraint that they cannot occur as subjects of action verbs. In order to fulfill this function, neuter nouns can be transposed into the common gender through the gender changing suffix -ant-. So for instance we find the word tuppi, ‘clay tablet’, neuter, inactive, and tuppiyanza, same meaning, common gender, active, as in: (20) mahhan= smas kas tuppiyanza anda wemizzi when you:PL.OBL this:NOM.C tablet:NOM.C into find:3SG.PRS ‘When this tablet will reach you.’ Maşat 75.10, obv. 3−4. Occasionally, -ant- formations are also made from nouns of the common gender, as with tuzziyanza, ‘troop’, from tuzzi-, same meaning:

22. The syntax of Anatolian: The simple sentence (21) NAM.RAMEŠ= ma GUDHI.A UDUHI.A [tu]zziyanza sarwait CONN ox:PL sheep:PL troop:NOM.C take:3SG.PRS prisoner:PL ‘The troop took as booty prisoners, oxen and sheep.’ KUB 23.21 Vs. 29′−30′, or Cuneiform Luvian tiyammatis, ‘earth’, in example (25). Note further that the nominative plural of the -ant- derivatives is -antes, which can be analyzed as involving the suffix -ant- with the ending of the nominative plural common gender. Adjectives and anaphoric pronouns agreeing with -ant- derivatives display common gender agreement. According to the traditional analysis, -ant- is a derivational suffix with an ultimate syntactic function (i.e. to allow nouns of the neuter gender to be transposed into another gender class in order to function as subjects of transitive verbs, see e.g. Carruba 1992; Cotticelli and Giorgieri forthcoming; Rizza 2010). The alternative analysis, propounded in Garrett (1990a, b), views -anza and -antes as inflectional ergative endings (respectively singular and plural) of neuter nouns, which he reconstructs as deriving from a former ablative ending. The problem with this analysis is that instances such as the inflected forms of words such as utniyanza ‘population’ (-ant- formation from utne ‘country’) have to be taken as derived with another -ant- suffix (for denominal adjectives). This analysis, which is accepted for example in Hoffner and Melchert (2008) (see further Patri 2008 and Melchert 2011), remains problematic for various reasons (Melchert 2011: 162 admits that a form such as utniyanza “may reflect the same suffix diachronically”). One is the existence of common gender derivatives in -ant-. Scholars who view the “ergative” suffix as an inflectional ending distinguish between two -antsuffixes, the ergative and an “individualizing” derivational suffix; but the distinction between the two sometimes is not so straightforward, as shown by the discussion of the semantics of the suffix in Josephson (2003), which convincingly argues for a unitary treatment of the various instantiations of -ant. More problematic, instances such as tyammantis in (25), discussed below, derived from a common gender noun, are taken to be inflected in the ergative because of the co-occurrence with the ergative form tappasantis, regularly built to a neuter noun. While it is possible that the co-occurrence with an -ant- derivative from a neuter noun can have brought about the unexpected derivation also for a common gender noun, such an extension seems very unlikely in the case of an inflectional ending (there are more examples of this type from Hittite, see Garrett 1990a: 48−50). Besides, under this analysis it is not clear what forms such as tuzzianza in (21) should be taken to be, since here the noun is derived from a common gender stem, but there are no other forms from neuter nouns that could have attracted it into their inflection (an easy solution of course is to say that the suffix in tuzzianza is the “individualizing” suffix). It can further be remarked that occasionally -ant- derivatives can also be the subject of intransitive verbs (on the possible occurrence of -ant- derivatives with intransitive verbs see also Rieken 2005), as in: (22) kass= a=za URU-az parnanzass= a [UD]U.A.LUM DEM.NOM.C and PTC city:NOM.C house:NOM.C and ram DÙ-ru become:3SG.IMP ‘And let this city and house become the ram.’ KUB 41.8 iv 30.

283

284

IV. Anatolian Note that in this example the verb DÙ-ru, from the root kis- ‘become’ is intransitive and nowhere else does it trigger -ant- derivation for neuters. Besides, the form URU-az is an -ant- derivative from a common gender noun (on this and further examples see Neu 1989). A possible occurrence of a neuter noun as the subject of an action verb is: (23) mān= an handais walhzi zig= an ekunimi if 3SG.ACC heat:N/A strike:PRS.3SG 2SG.NOM 3SG.ACC cold:D/L dai put:IMP.2SG ‘If heat strikes it, put it in the cold.’ KBo 3.23 i 5−6, where handais is probably a neuter stem (see Rieken 1999: 218; Zeilfelder 2001: 164− 165). The relative freedom in the use of -ant- derivatives in unexpected contexts points toward a derivational, rather than inflectional, nature of the suffix. In the case of neuter subjects, the suffix -ant- has taken over a syntactic function. Inasmuch as it fulfils this function, the suffix shows a development that led it to become increasingly intergrated in inflectional morphology, that is, it shows a change from derivation to inflection. Note that such borderline phenomena, involving derivational affixes that fulfill a syntactic function are found elsewhere in Anatolian, notably in the case of “genitival” adjectives, known from Luvian and partly from Lycian and Lydian. In Luvian in particular there is no trace of the genitive case, which is replaced by inflected denominal adjectives (see Neumann 1982; Luraghi 1993 and 2008; and Melchert [2012]), as shown in: (24) iyandu= ku= wa zassin DUMU-annassi[n] annin warallin mother:ACC own:ACC go:3pl.IMP CONN PTC this:ADJ.ACC child:ADJ.ACC uwata[ndu] bring:3PL.IMP ‘Let them carry this child’s own mother.’ See ex. (33) (Cun. Luvian). Note that this is the only possibility for expressing an adnominal relation in Cuneiform Luvian, since neither nouns nor pronouns have a genitive ending. In such a case, one can rightly say that derivation is used in the service of syntax, rather than to enrich the lexicon, in a non-prototypical way. In other words, a suffix which was in origin derivational underwent an evolution by which its function eventually became syntactic. Synchronically, the suffix of genitival adjectives permits nouns to take a specific syntactic function, i.e. that of modifiers. The ergative function of the -ant- suffix may be seen as involving a similar evolution from derivation to the coding of grammatical relations, and thus from derivation to inflection. The development sketched here is fully compatible with the more detailed study of Goedegebuure (2013), which came to my attention only after the completion of this chapter (see especially pp. 206−209, and the claim that the change from individualizing derivational suffix to inflectional ending took place during the attested history of Hittite). A suffix with the same function is known from Luvian and from Lycian, although the use of the latter is harder to describe, because the evidence is restricted:

22. The syntax of Anatolian: The simple sentence (25) assa= ti elhadu tappasantis tiyammantis mouth:N/A PTC wash:3PL.IMP heaven:NOM earth:NOM ‘Let heaven and earth wash their mouths.’ KUB 9.6+ ii 14−16 (Cun. Luvian); (26) sê

(e)ne tesêti qãñti trmmilijêti 3SG.OBL oath:NOM.PL seize:3PL.PRS Lycian:NOM.PL ‘The Lycian oaths will seize him.’ TL 149.10 (Lycian). CONN

Thus the evidence points toward a common Anatolian origin of -ant- derivation for transposing neuter nouns into common gender when they serve as subjects of transitive verbs. Subsequently this suffix evolved into a morpheme that can be synchronically analyzed as a case ending. Concerning possible non-canonical coding of experiencer subjects in Hittite, mentioned in Patri (2007), see the discussion in Luraghi (2010b).

3. Compound predicates 3.1. Auxiliaries Hittite has a variety of compound verb forms. Since there is very little evidence from the other Anatolian languages, it is difficult to say if auxiliation of verbs is specific to Hittite, or if it was common Anatolian. Among Hittite auxiliary verbs, we find the following. (i) The verb har(k)-, ‘to have, to hold’. As an auxiliary, the verb occurs with the participle of another verb inflected in the nominative/accusative neuter. It is mostly attested for transitive verbs, although a few Old Hittite examples contain intransitive verbs. An example is piyan harta in: I NIR.GÁL-is LUGAL-us ANA ABU-YA (27) annissan= pat= an PTC 3SG.ACC Muwatallis:NOM king:NOM to father-my of-.old I hattusili sallanummanzi piyan harta give:PTCP have:3SG.PRET Hattusili:DAT exalt:INF ‘Of old Muwatallis the king gave him to my father Hattusili to exalt.’ Bo 86/299 i 10−13 (translation from Boley, 1992: 55) (Hittite).

Periphrastic forms with har(k)- are sometimes referred to as “perfect”; they have a durative and sometimes resultative meaning. (ii) The verb es-, ‘to be’, can be used as an auxiliary with the participle of a transitive or an intransitive verb that agrees in number and gender with the subject (Cotticelli 1991: 131−155 contains a list of all participles occurring with the verb ‘to be’ in Hittite); it is virtually only found in the past and is often translated as a pluperfect:

285

286

IV. Anatolian (28) kedas= ma ANA KUR.KURHI.A LUGAL URUhatti kuit UL DEM.D/L.PL CONN to country:PL king H. because not kuiski panza esta nu= ssan ser sakuwantariyanun anyone:NOM go:PTCP.NOM be:3SG.PRET CONN PTC over remain:ITER.1SG.PRET ‘Since no Hittite king had been in those countries (before), I remained up there for some time.’ KBo 5.8 i 37−38 (Hittite). Examples of the verb ‘to be’ with a participle in the preterite are not available from the other languages, possibly owing to the typology of the extant sources, but there are examples with the imperative, as (29) from Palaic: (29) kuwais= a= tta halputa takkuwantes asandu ...:NOM.PL CONN PTC ...D/L.SG ...:PTCP.NOM.PL be:3PL.IMP ‘And let the ...s be ...’ KUB 35.165 rev. 6′ (Palaic). (iii) The verb dai-, ‘to put’, occurs in its auxiliary use with the -uwan- supine of a verb in the iterative form. This periphrasis has inchoative meaning, and it denotes the beginning of an action or process that has some duration or that is repeated in time: URU arinna GAŠAN-YA ZAGHI.A wa tuel ŠA DUTU you:GEN of Sun.goddess A. Lady my land:PL danna sanhiskiuan dair take:INF look.for:ITER.SUP put:3PL.PERF ‘They started to continuously try to take your territories, Sun Goddess of Arinna, my Lady.’ KBo 3.4 i 24−25 (Hittite).

(30) nu=

CONN

PTC

For further discussion of compound predicates, see Luraghi (1998a) with literature and, among more recent works, Dardano (2005) on har(k)- and Daues (2007) on inchoative periphrases.

3.2. Serialized use of motion verbs Beside auxiliation, also serialization of verbs is attested in Hittite and possibly Anatolian. It involves the two motion verbs pai-, ‘to go’, and uwa-, ‘to come’. When serialized, the two verbs do not express their concrete meaning, but rather some type of verbal aspect. Syntactic peculiarities of the serial use of motion verbs are illustrated in the examples below: (31) uit= mu= kan namma kuwapi LÚKUR KUR.KUR HURRI come:3SG.PRS 1SG.OBL PTC besides when enemy country:PL Hurrian arha ME-is PREV take:3SG.PRET ‘Furthermore when it happened that the enemy took the Hurrian lands away from me.’ Kbo 4.14 ii 10 (Hittite)

22. The syntax of Anatolian: The simple sentence (32) LÚ.MEŠ URUnuhassi= wa kuit kurur nu= wa= sma it PTC because enemy CONN PTC 3PL.DAT go:2SG.IMP man:PL N. halkiHI.A-us arha harnik granary:PL.ACC out destroy:2SG.IMP ‘Since the population of Nuhassi is hostile, (go [it]) destroy their (=smas) granaries.’ KBo 4.4 i 41−42. Garrett (1990a: 74) also quotes the following example, from Luvian: (33) a. [iu]nni= wa DEN.ZU-anzanza kummaya[nza hat]ayannanza apan DEM.ACC go:1PL.PRS PTC moon.god:D/L.PL pure:D/L.PL h.:D/L.PL hizzaun[ni] deliver:1PL.PRS b. iyandu= ku= wa zassin DUMU-annassi[n] annin mother:ACC go:3PL.IMP CONN PTC DEM.ADJ.ACC child:ADJ.ACC warallin uwata[ndu] own:ACC bring:3PL.IMP c

annis= ku= wa= ti parnanza madduwati papparkuwati mother:NOM CONN PTC PTC house:ACC wine:INSTR purify:3SG.PRS

d. tatis= pa= wa= ti= a= ta [...]-tiyati pusuria[ti father CONN PTC PTC CONN 3SG.ACC ... INSTR dust:INSTR p]appasati sprinkle:3SG.PRS D e. p]a= wa iyandu EN.ZU-inzi [...] kummayanza hatayannanza CONN PTC go:3PL.IMP moon.god:NOM.PL pure:D/L.PL h.:D/L.PL apan hizzaindu this:ACC deliver:3PL.IMP ‘Let us hand him over to the Moongods’ pure h. and let them carry this child’s own mother. The mother purifies the house with wine and the father sprinkles it with ... and dust. Let the Moongods hand him over to the pure h..’ KUB 35.102+ ii 13′−18′, iii 1−3 (Cun. Luvian).

Serialized motion verbs occur together with another inflected verb form, and agree with it in tense and number. They can either occur in initial position, in which case they host P2 clitics as in (31) and (33a, b), or they can be preceded by a sentence connective that hosts P2 clitics, as in (32) and (33e). Besides, serialized motion verbs cannot take a direction or a source expression, as motion verbs normally do in their full lexical use. Pronominal clitics hosted by serialized motion verbs or by a prepositive conjunction that precedes the serialized motion verb in a sentence are syntactic arguments of the second verb. Thus in (31) the first person pronominal clitic =mu, which is hosted by the motion verb uit, is an argument of the verb arha ME-is ‘took away’; in (32) the third person plural pronominal clitic =smas, which is hosted by the connective nu and precedes the motion verb it, is an argument of the second verb, arha harnik ‘destroy’. This peculiarity in the behavior of clitics is indeed a proof of the fact that motion verbs in such constructions have lost their semantic autonomy: they behave as restructuring verbs, as shown

287

288

IV. Anatolian by clitic climbing. This points toward an increasing process of auxiliarization (see further van den Hout 2003, 2010 and Koller 2013).

Acknowledgment I thank Paola Cotticelli and Alfredo Rizza for helpful comments on an earlier version of this chapter.

4. References Bauer, Anna 2011 Verberststellung im Hethitischen. In: Thomas Krisch and Thomas Lindner (eds.), Indogermanistik und Linguistik im Dialog. Akten der XIII. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 21. bis 27. September 2008 in Salzburg. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 39−48. Boley, Jacqueline 1992 The Hittite periphrastic constructions. In: Carruba (ed.), 33−59. Boley, Jacqueline 1993 The Hittite particle -z/-za. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität. Carruba, Onofrio 1992 Le notazioni dell’agente animato nelle lingue anatoliche (e l’ergativo). In: Carruba (ed.), 61−98. Carruba, Onofrio (ed.) 1992 Per una grammatica ittita. Pavia: Iuculano. Cotticelli-Kurras, Paola 1991 Das hethitischen Verbum ‘sein’. Heidelberg: Winter. Cotticelli-Kurras, Paola 1995 Hethitische Konstruktionen mit verba dicendi und sentiendi. In: Onofrio Carruba, Mauro Giorgieri, and Clelia Mora (eds.), Atti del ii Congresso Internazionale di Hittitologia. Pavia: Iuculano, 87−100. Cotticelli-Kurras, Paola and Mauro Giorgieri forthcoming Hethitisch. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Dardano, Paola 2005 I costrutti perifrastici con il verb ḫar(k) − dell’ittito: stato della questione e prospettive di metodo. Orientalia (NS) 74: 93−113. Daues, Alexandra 2007 Die Funktion der Konstruktion -škewan dai/i-/tiye- im Junghethitischen. Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 49: 195−205. Daues, Alexandra 2009 Form und Funktion − die Wortstellung in den lykischen Grabinschriften. In: Elisabeth Rieken and Paul Widmer (eds.), Pragmatische Kategorien: Form, Funktion und Diachronie. Akten der Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 53−63. Delbrück, Berthold 1900 Vergleichende Syntax der indogermanischen Sprachen. Dritter Theil. Strassburg: Trübner. Dressler, Wolfgang 1969 Eine textsyntaktische Regel der indogermanischen Wortstellung (zur Anfangsstellung des Prädikatsverbums). Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 83: 1−25.

22. The syntax of Anatolian: The simple sentence Garrett, Andrew 1990a The Syntax of Anatolian Pronominal Clitics. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Harvard University. Garrett, Andrew 1990b The origin of NP split ergativity. Language 66: 261−296. Garrett, Andrew 1992 Topics in Lycian syntax. Historische Sprachforschung 105: 200−212. Garrett, Andrew 1994 Relative clause syntax in Lycian and Hittite. Die Sprache 36: 29−69. Goedegebuure, Petra 1999a The use and non-use of enclitic subject pronouns in Old Hittite. Paper read at the IV. Internationaler Kongress für Hethitologie, Würzburg, October 1999. Goedegebuure, Petra 1999b Focus Structure and Q-word Questions in Hittite. In: Evelien Keizer and Mirjam van Staden (eds.), Interpersonal grammar: a cross-linguistic perspective. [Thematic issue]. Linguistics 47: 945−967. Goedegebuure, Petra 2013 Split Ergativity in Hittite. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archäologie 102: 270−303. Gusmani, Roberto 1964 Lydisches Wörterbuch. Mit grammatischer Skizze und Inschriftensammlung. Heidelberg: Winter. Halpern, Aaron 1995 On the Placement and Morphology of Clitics. Chicago: CSLI Publications. Held, Warren 1957 The Hittite Relative Sentence. Baltimore: Linguistic Society of America. Hoffner, Harry A. 1969 On the use of Hittite -za in nominal sentences. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 28: 225−30. Hoffner, Harry A and H. Craig Melchert 2008 A Grammar of the Hittite Language. Winona Lake (IN): Eisenbrauns. van den Hout, Theo P. 2003 Studies in the Hittite phraseological construction. I. Its syntactic and semantic properties. In: Gary M. Beckman, Richard H. Beal, and Gregory McMahon (eds.), Hittite Studies in Honor of Harry A. Hoffner Jr. on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday. Winona Lake (IN): Eisenbrauns, 177−204. van den Hout, Theo P. 2010Studies in the Hittite phraseological construction, II. Its Origin. Hethitica 16: 191− 204. Josephson, Folke 2003 Semantics and Typology of Hittite -ant-. In: James Clackson and Birgit A. Olsen (eds.), Indo-European Word Formation. Proceedings of the Conference held at the University of Copenhagen, October 20 th−22 nd 2000. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum, 91−118. Justus Raman, Carol 1976 Relativization and topicalization in Hittite. In: Charles Li (ed.), Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press, 213−145. Koller, Bernhard 2013 Hittite pai- ‘come’ and uwa- ‘go’ as restructuring verbs. Journal of Historical Linguistics 3: 77−97. Luraghi, Silvia 1990 Old Hittite Sentence Structure. London: Routledge.

289

290

IV. Anatolian Luraghi, 1993 Luraghi, 1995

Silvia La modificazione nominale in anatolico. Archivio Glottologico Italiano 78: 144−166. Silvia The function of verb-initial sentences in some ancient Indo-European languages. In: Michael Noonan and Pamela Downing (eds.), Word Order in Discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 355−386. Luraghi, Silvia 1998a I verbi ausiliari in ittita. In: Giuliano Bernini, Pierluigi Cuzzolin, and Piera Molinelli (eds.), Ars Linguistica. Studi in onore di Paolo Ramat. Rome: Bulzoni, 299−322. Luraghi, Silvia 1998b The grammaticalization of the left sentence boundary in Hittite. In: Anna Giacalone Ramat and Paul Hopper (eds.), The Limits of Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 189−210. Luraghi, Silvia 2008 Possessive constructions in Anatolian, Hurrian, Urartean, and Armenian as evidence for language contact. In: Billie Jean Collins, Mary R. Bachvarova, and Ian C. Rutherford (eds.), Anatolian Interfaces. Oakville, CT: Oxbow Press, 147−155. Luraghi, Silvia 2010a Transitivity, intransitivity and diathesis in Hittite. In: Indoevropejskoe jazykoznanie i klassičeskaja philologija − XIV, vol. 2 [Indoeuropean linguistics and classical philology]. St. Petersburg: Nauka, 133−154. Luraghi, Silvia 2010b Experiencer predicates in Hittite. In: Ronald Kim, Norbert Oettinger, Elisabeth Rieken, and Michael Weiss (eds.), Ex Anatolia Lux. Anatolian and Indo-European studies in honor of H. Craig Melchert on the occasion of his sixty-fifth birthday. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave Press, 249−264. Melchert, H. Craig 1993 Cuneiform Luvian Lexicon. Chapel Hill: self-published. Melchert, H. Craig 1998 Poetic meter and phrasal stress in Hittite. In: Jay Jasanoff, H. Craig Melchert, and Lisi Oliver (eds.), Mír Curad. Studies in honor of Calvert Watkins. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität, 483−493. Melchert, H. Craig 2004 A Dictionary of the Lycian Language. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave Press. Melchert, H. Craig 2011 The Problem of the Ergative Case in Hittite. In: Michèle Fruyt and Michel Mazoyer (eds.), Variations, concurrence et evolution des cas dans divers domains linguistiques. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 161−167. Melchert, H. Craig 2012 Genitive case and possessive adjective in Anatolian. In: Vincenzo Orioles (ed.), Per Roberto Gusmani. Studi in ricordo. Linguistica Storica e Teorica. vol. 2. Udine: Forum, 273−286. Neu, Erich 1989 Zum Alter der personifizierenden -ant- Bildung des Hethitischen. Historische Sprachforschung 102: 1−15. Neumann, Günter 1982 Die Konstruktionen mit adjectiva genetivalia in den luwischen Sprachen. In: Erich Neu (ed.), Investigationes Philologicae et Comparativae. Gedenkschrift für Heinz Kronasser. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 149−161. Patri, Sylvain 2007 Lʼalignement syntaxique dans les langues indo-européennes dʼAnatolie. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

23. The lexicon of Anatolian

291

Rieken, Elisabeth 1999 Untersuchungen zur nominalen Stammbildung des Hethitischen. (Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten 44). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Rieken, Elisabeth 2005 Hethitisch. In: Michael P. Streck (ed.), Sprachen des Alten Orients. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 80−127. Rizza, Alfredo 2010 Contributi allo studio dellʼergatività in anatolico: basi teorico-tipologiche (sopra alcune recenti pubblicazioni). In: Atti del Sodalizio Glottologico Milanese 3 n.s. Milan: Dipartimento di Scienze dell’Antichità, Università degli Studi di Milano, 144−162. Zeilfelder, Susanne 2001 Archaismus und Ausgliederung: Studien zur sprachlichen Stellung des Hethitischen. Heidelberg: Winter. Zeilfelder, Susanne 2002 Komplexe Hypotaxe im Hethitische. In: Matthias Fritz and Susanne Zeilfelder (eds.), Novalis Indogermanica. Festschrift für Günter Neumann. Graz: Leykam, 527−536. Zeilfelder, Susanne 2004 Topik, Fokus und rechter Satzrand im Hethitischen. In: Detlev Groddek and Sylvester Rößle (eds.), Šarnikzel. Hethitologische Studien zum Gedenken an Emil Orgetorix Forrer. Dresden: Verlag der TU Dresden, 655−666.

Silvia Luraghi, Pavia (Italy)

23. The lexicon of Anatolian 1. Preliminary remarks 2. Linguistic situation of the Anatolian languages 3. Inherited lexicon 4. Proto-Anatolian lexicon

5. 6. 7. 8.

Loans Personal names Conclusions References

1. Preliminary remarks The chronological, geographical, and stylistic stratification of the Anatolian lexicon is, as is well known, highly divergent. A large and diverse Hittite corpus on the one hand, scattered and philologically highly debated Luwian texts and inscriptions with a restricted range of contents on the other hand make it difficult to acquire a systematic grasp of the material. We can observe a certain degree of foreign influence on all Anatolian languages, but as the cultural and political contexts are different − apart from the chronological difference of nearly two millennia − one would be well advised to speak rather about “Anatolian lexica”. But as, on the other hand, the Anatolian languages are clearly Indo-European and share a common heritage, it would be inappropriate to treat all of them as separate units. This situation forces us to use a twofold approach, analyzing the https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261288-023

292

IV. Anatolian inherited vocabulary in a comparative manner (although, for practical reasons, with a clear preference for Hittite as a starting point and a corresponding neglect of scantily attested and poorly understood languages like Palaic or Milyan) and the layers of loan words from an individualistic point of view. As a result, this article is divided into five sections: First, we provide a short survey of the linguistic situation of the Anatolian language family 2, taking especially into account lexicographical aspects. Second, we consider the inherited lexicon 3. Section 4 deals with the question of a common protoAnatolian lexicon and 5 with loanwords in the individual dialects. Personal names are treated separately in 6, as onomastic material poses different methodological problems.

2. The linguistic situation of the Anatolian languages The documented history of the Anatolian languages starts with personal names and isolated words which are transmitted in the Assyrian tablets from the city of Kaneš (modern Kültepe) in the 19th century BCE. Actual Hittite literature begins one century later, initiating a tradition which lasted until the 13th century BCE. This corpus involves religious, historical, medical, juridical, and administrative texts, but hardly any belles-lettres apart from some rare translations. It is clear from the cultural context that foreign influence on the lexicon was different in these genres, being definitely more obvious in religious texts than, for example, in juridical ones. The history of Luwian literature begins with some badly preserved cuneiform Luwian tablets from Hattuša containing mostly ritual texts, and some Luwian incantations inserted into Hittite rituals (Starke 1985; Melchert 2001). It is generally accepted that Luwian influence on Hittite increased in the course of time (Melchert 2005), whereas it is hardly possible to demonstrate any influence of Hittite on Luwian; but this can of course be a result of the fact that Hittite was and remained the official language of the administration, so that the documents might not show the actual situation of the spoken language in the community. The corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian (Hawkins 1995, 2000) contains mostly royal monumental inscriptions, seal impressions, and some letters. If there was any foreign influence on these texts, we have very few possibilities of proving this. The Lydian coins and about one hundred inscriptions date from the 7th to the 4th century BCE (Gusmani 1964). Similar is the situation concerning Lycian, transmitted in two forms, now thought to be separate languages. We have almost 200 inscriptions in Lycian A (Lycian proper) dating from the 5th and 4th century, but apart from the famous “Xanthos-bilingue”, these texts are epitaphs and rather restricted in content and vocabulary. Lycian coins document some further names. The scanty evidence of Milyan (sometimes called Lycian B) is less instructive for our question, as is the Carian material.

3. The inherited lexicon As Tischler (1979) has shown, Hittite should not be considered a mixed language as was thought at the beginning of hittitological research. He provides a list of 422 Hittite words with accepted Indo-European etymologies (263 ff.) which could of course now be

23. The lexicon of Anatolian enlarged due to further research (and will no doubt continue to be enlarged in the future), but this is unlikely to change the results. Although, contrary to the situation seen, for example, in a language as inundated by loanwords as Classical Armenian, there is an astonishing absence of lexemes belonging to the basic vocabulary, this can surely be due, as Tischler argues, to the “technical” character of the Hittite texts. It is debatable whether what is transmitted is actually “Hittite” or rather a collection of Hittite “Sondersprachen”. The majority of loan-words in Hittite do not belong to the basic vocabulary, so that, as already Goetze/Pedersen suspected (1934: IV), the proportion of inherited vocabulary and loans might not be so much different from what we see in Greek. Tischler (1979: 267) estimated the proportion of inherited to foreign vocabulary to be about 5 : 3 or 2 : 1 in Hittite, and it is not clear that now, 30 years later, an estimation would be principally different. Of course, there is a long list of new Indo-European etymologies for Hittite words (cf. Kloekhorst 2008, who nevertheless is sometimes skeptical about etymologies that had been accepted before). But on the other hand we have learned a lot more about languages like Hurrian (cf. Neu 1996) and Hattic (cf. the monumental monographs of Klinger 1996 and Soysal 2004) and have better chances of distinguishing non-Indo-European loans from Indo-European material still awaiting etymological explanation.

4. The Proto-Anatolian lexicon Although there is an exhaustive literature on common Anatolian phonology and morphology, a survey of the common Anatolian lexicon is still lacking. And with regard to the scanty attestation of Luwian it is indeed highly questionable if such a survey, apart from collecting known material, would show any relevant results in respect to semantic or lexicographical questions. It is known that, for example, Hittite idālu- forms an isogloss with Luwian ādduwal- ‘evil’ and can be derived via Proto-Anatolian *edwol- from an Indo-European transponat (i.e. a mechanical back-projection) *h1 edu̯ōl (cf. Kloekhorst 2008: 420 ff. with lit.); but the isolated fact that in common Anatolian ‘evil’ was conceptualized as ‘biting’ is not instructive. In any case we have no chance of determining in which semantic fields such common innovations took place and if there was any system or at least tendencies effective in the development of the lexicon, simply because the evidence is too scanty. Therefore, an equation like idālu : ādduwal is much more instructive with respect to morphology than to lexicography.

5. Loans 5.1. Hittite There are at least six known sources for loans in Hittite: first, there are a number of Hattic words, titles like l/tabarna- ‘king’ and tawannanna- ‘queen’, furniture names like halmasuit- ‘throne’, parts of buildings like kaštip- ‘gate, gateway’, and musical instruments like huhhupalli-, which all show the Hattic influence on religious cult and admin-

293

294

IV. Anatolian istration. What makes things complicated is the fact that for some of these words IndoEuropean etymologies have been proposed as well (cf. for example Oettinger 1995 for an etymology of tawannanna-; rejected by Soysal 1999). A further complication is due to the fact that some Hattic words look like loans themselves, for example kāzzue ‘drinking cup’, which, as Soysal (1999: 165) shows, is, together with Hurrian kāzi/kāsi, a loan from Akkadian kāsu-. The same can be the case with some Hurrian words in Hittite texts, for example ga(g)ari- ‘round (shape), disk’ (cf. Puhvel 1997: 15 ff. for details), which is probably transmitted from Akkadian kakka(t)u via Hurrian gaggari. The Middle Hittite bilingual text known as the “Epos der Freilassung” (Neu 1996) has improved our understanding of Hurrian grammar considerably, but, as the glossary in Neu’s monumental edition shows, the results concerning Hurrian lexemes in Hittite are somewhat disappointing. One does not find here Hurrian forms for any of the many Hittite words suspected to be Hurrian. But this can of course be due to chance. The mere existence of such a voluminous text in the Middle Hittite period in any case proves that Hurrian was a spoken language at that time. A third source for loans is Akkadian, but this material poses a hermeneutic problem, as we seldom can tell if an Akkadian word is a real loanword or a purely graphical façon d’écrire. It is true that Akkadograms do not show the phonetic complements which prove the purely graphical status of the Sumerograms, but this could be due to a simple difference in the writing conventions. If Akkadograms are loan words, then we can state that the semantic field for these loans is “civilization”: food, kitchenware, clothes, instruments and so on, and “administration”. The fourth layer is the somewhat restricted area of Indo-Iranian words in the hippological texts of Kikkuli (cf. the edition of Kammenhuber 1961 and the interpretation of Starke 1995). There has been a long dispute about how much Indo-Iranian influence there actually was in the kingdom of Mitanni and how many Aryan words there actually were in the Kikkuli text (cf. Mayrhofer 1982 for a synthesis), but it is beyond all doubt that termini technici like aikawartanna- ‘single turn’ are Indo-Iranian in origin (Starke 1995: 63 ff. supposes that aikawartanna- is the Luwian reflex of the Aryan basic form, but Kloekhorst 2008: 166 considers it to be a loan via Hurrian; both are possible). But this does not prove more than the fact that Indo-Iranians had extensive experience with horses and Hittites did not. A very special phenomenon is the fifth layer of loans in Hittite, namely the so-called “Glossenkeilwörter”. Hittite writers sometimes use a simple cuneiform sign to mark a word as foreign, comparable to italicization in a modern text (cf. already Rosenkranz 1955). As was seen very early (cf. for example Goetze 1957: 51), these words certainly have a connection to Luwian, but should not be considered to be simply Luwian words. We now know that the Glossenkeil material is heterogeneous in origin and that the Luwian or Luwoid part is not as large as was supposed in the beginning, although we still cannot determine the origin of every word of this type. Besides, it is an open question whether the Glossenkeil marks a word as “foreign” or rather as “strange”, because it is possible that at least some of these words were, from the point of view of an official writer, suspected to be a bit “substandard”. If so, this would at least prove that these words belong to the spoken language, but this of course does not exclude a foreign origin.

23. The lexicon of Anatolian The sixth layer of loans in Hittite is, of course, Luwian. As Melchert (Melchert 2005) has shown in detail, there are hints of a growing Luwian competition with Hittite in the documents, beginning in the Middle Hittite period and increasing dramatically in NeoHittite. But, as Melchert rightly emphasizes, our knowledge of the actual sociolinguistic situation is too restricted to judge whether this was a diachronic phenomenon proving an increasing influence of Luwian on spoken Hittite, or whether it is a sociolinguistic phenomenon showing an increasing acceptability of Luwian or Luwoid colloquialisms which might have existed in spoken Hittite all the time.

5.2. Luwian The Luwian languages, as has been stated above, are different in chronology and attestation, but in any case the material is too scanty to get a reliable impression of how the lexicon was structured. Furthermore, very much depends on the details of etymological interpretations which are still controversial. The most prominent example is the Luwian word for ‘horse’ found in Hieroglyphic Luwian azu(wa)/aśu(wa)-, Lycian esbe and possibly as a Luwianism in Hittite assussani- ‘groom, trainer of racehorses’. Recently a number of scholars have accepted this to be the regular continuation of Indo-European *ék̑u̯o- (for the literature cf. Neumann 2007: 73 f.), but, as Lipp has shown (2009: 286 f.), an Indo-Iranian origin is actually not excluded for assussanni- and the same holds for Lycian esbe (which, by the way, means ‘cavalry’, not ‘horse’, and a military terminus technicus could very well be an Iranian loan in an Iranian-dominated Lycia). However, Lipp’s argument that esbe could not be a direct loan from Median aspa- ‘horse’ because of the personal name Wizttasppa- = Median Vištāspa needs further discussion, as Wizttasppa is Milyan and, to be honest, we do not have the slightest idea about regular sound laws in Milyan and about how loans were transposed into that dialect. The rules might be very different from what is provable for Lycian A. Hieroglyphic Luwian azu(wa)/aśu(wa)- finally poses the problem of the reading. As Lipp argues (2009: 287), the reading ś for the sign Laroche 448 is proven by the acrophonic use of this sign for the word śurni- ‘horn’, and this does not fit Melchert’s hypothesis (Melchert 1994 and further literature cited in Lipp 2009: 287 n. 75) that the regular reflex of i.e. *k̑ in Luwian was an affricated spirant /z/ = [ts]. On the other hand, independent evidence for this sign is scanty, and one runs the risk of reading the Hieroglyphic sign in accordance with what one expects to be the reflex of *k̑, so that the argumentation becomes circular. Apart from this highly questionable example it is unfortunately not possible to show with certainty how much foreign influence the Luwian languages underwent in their history. In particular the very interesting question of whether there were “Hittitisms” in Cuneiform and Hieroglyphic Luwian corresponding to the Luwianisms in Hittite − as one would expect in a real contact situation − cannot be answered at the moment.

6. Personal names Onomastics are a special challenge in scantily attested languages, as there is no possibility to prove the correctness of an explanation. All we can achieve is plausibility. Now

295

296

IV. Anatolian the probability of pre-Anatolian material is higher in the area of toponymics than it is in respect to personal names, although it is universally agreed that there is much Anatolian material in the toponyms as well (cf. Tischler-del Monte 1978). In the following we will concentrate on the personal names. Starting with the Lycian material and comparing it with the rich collection of names by Zgusta (Zgusta 1964), Neumann (Neumann 1983) proposed the following classification of personal names: 1. appellatives used as personal names, like targasan- ‘donkey’; 2. forms with reduplication in the first syllable like mêmruwi- to Hittite maruwa-, Lycian *mruwi ‘red’; 3. passive participles like unuwêmi ‘the adorned one’ (cf. Hitt. unuwai‘adorn’); 4. diminutives with a suffix corresponding to Hitt. -(n)ni like pigrêi; 5. forms with the suffixes -la-/-li-, -dl-, -ije-/-ija-, -eti-, -asi-, -isa, -azi-, -aza- and -want-. Most of these types have onomastic parallels in earlier Luwian or Hittite names, although some of the suffixal formations can be Lycian innovations, and we cannot exclude the possibility that some of these names are originally nicknames. But the absence of the Indo-European type of bipartite compounds is clear, and the scanty evidence for this type cannot always be proven to be originally Luwian: If, for example, a Lycian PN natrbbijêmi in the Xanthos trilingue corresponds to Apollo-dotos in the Greek version, it is difficult to exclude the possibility that the Lycian type is formed after the Greek model. But of course we also cannot exclude the possibility that residues of Indo-European composition, although given up in the regular lexicon, survived in the onomastics.

7. Conclusions As we have seen, the problems of Anatolian lexicography are complicated and partly still unsolved. There can be no doubt about the principally Indo-European character of the Anatolian lexicon, but further research will be necessary before we can determine all relevant sociolinguistic and contact-linguistic details that are needed to get a real picture of the lexical structure of Anatolian. It can be shown that the influences of all languages in the linguistic area of Anatolia are many and diverse, hardly ever unidirectional and of a very different kind in detail, influenced by sociolinguistic, political, and cultural factors which have to be analysed carefully before one can risk any generalizations.

8. References Goetze, Albrecht 1957 Kulturgeschichte Kleinasiens. Munich: Beck. Goetze, Albrecht and Holger Pedersen 1934 Muršilis Sprachlähmung. Ein hethitischer Text mit philologischen und linguistischen Erörterungen. Copenhagen: Levin and Munksgaard. Gusmani, Roberto 1964 Lydisches Wörterbuch. Mit grammatischer Skizze und Inschriftensammlung. Heidelberg: Winter.

23. The lexicon of Anatolian Hawkins, John David 1995 The Hieroglyphic inscription of the Sacred Pool Complex at Hattusa (Südburg). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Hawkins, John David 2000 Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions. Volume I: Inscriptions of the Iron Age. (3 parts). (Studies in Indo-European Language and Culture 8.1). Berlin: De Gruyter. Kammenhuber, Annelies 1961 Hippologia hethitica. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Klinger, Jörg 1996 Untersuchungen zur Rekonstruktion der hattischen Kultschicht. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Kloekhorst, Alwin 2008 Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon. Leiden: Brill. Lipp, Reiner 2009 Die indogermanischen und einzelsprachlichen Palatale im Indoiranischen. Band I: Neurekonstruktion, Nuristan-Sprachen, Genese der indoarischen Retroflexe, Indoarisch von Mitanni. Heidelberg: Winter. Mayrhofer, Manfred 1982 Welches Material aus dem Indo-arischen von Mitanni verbleibt für eine selektive Darstellung? In: Erich Neu (ed.), Investigationes philologicae et comparativae: Gedenkschrift für Heinz Kronasser. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 72−90. Melchert, H. Craig 1994 Anatolian Historical Phonology. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Melchert, H. Craig 2001 Cuneiform Luvian corpus. (available at http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/Melchert/ CLUVIAN.pdf). Melchert, H. Craig 2005 The problem of Luvian influence on Hittite. In: Gerhard Meiser and Olav Hackstein (eds.), Sprachkontakt und Sprachwandel. Akten der XI. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, 17.−23. September 2000, Halle an der Saale. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 445−460. Neu, Erich 1996 Das hurritische Epos der Freilassung I. Untersuchungen zu einem hurritisch-hethitischen Textensemble aus Hattuša. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Neumann, Günter 1983 Typen einstämmiger lykischer Personennamen. Orientalia 52. 127−132. Reprinted 1994 in: Enrico Badalì, Helmut Nowicki, and Susanne Zeilfelder (eds.), Gunter Neumann, Ausgewählte Kleine Schriften. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität, 191−196. Neumann, Günter 2007 Glossar des Lykischen. Überarbeitet und zum Druck gebracht von Johann Tischler. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Oettinger, Norbert 1995 Anatolische Etymologien. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 108: 39−49. Puhvel, Jaan 1997 Hittite etymological dictionary. Vol. 4: Words beginning with K. Berlin: De Gruyter. Rosenkranz, Bernhard 1955 Die “Glossenkeil-Sprache” von Bogazköy. Živa Antika 51: 252−254. Soysal, Oğuz 1999 Review of Klinger 1996. Kratylos 44: 161−167. Soysal, Oğuz 2004 Hattischer Wortschatz in hethitischer Textüberlieferung. Leiden: Brill.

297

298

IV. Anatolian Starke, Frank 1985 Die keilschrift-luwischen Texte in Umschrift. (Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten 30). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Starke, Frank 1995 Ausbildung und Training von Streitwagenpferden. Eine hippologisch orientierte Interpretation des Kikkuli-Textes. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Tischler, Johann 1979 Der indogermanische Anteil am Wortschatz des Hethitischen. In: Erich Neu and Wolfgang Meid (eds.), Hethitisch und Indogermanisch. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität, 257−267. Tischler, Johann and Giuseppe del Monte 1978 Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der hethitischen Texte. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Zgusta, Ladislav 1964 Kleinasiatische Personennamen. Prague: Verlag der Tschechoslowakischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Suzanne Zeilfelder, Jena (Germany)

24. The dialectology of Anatolian 1. Preliminary remarks 2. External evidence 3. Family tree and isoglosses

4. Convergence 5. Conclusions 6. References

1. Preliminary remarks Any attempt to sketch the dialectal relationships within the Anatolian language family faces serious methodological difficulties. First of all, the diversity of the transmission of the linguistic material stretching over most of Asia Minor during one and a half millennia (cf. Zinko, this handbook) poses serious problems for the evaluation of the data in terms of the chronological and geographical stratification of shared features. Another issue at hand is the variety of the transmitted genres that more often than not leaves us with different kinds of linguistic registers that can hardly be compared with one another. There is a general consensus that only significant common innovations allow for any conclusions on the genetic unity of language or dialect groups. On the other hand, clear evidence has accumulated in the past decade that convergence leading to Sprachbundtype phenomena played a great role in the development of the Anatolian languages. Therefore, in each case of a shared feature, a decision must be made not only as to whether or not it was inherited from the proto-language, but also as to whether it arose in the stage of Common Anatolian as a unified linguistic speech community or is the result of the areal diffusion of an innovation that began its existence in a single separate dialect and was propagated onto the systems of the other dialects secondarily. As for the shared features that can be shown not to have been retained from Proto-Indo-European, https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261288-024

24. The dialectology of Anatolian the methodological approach adopted here is to regard changes consisting of the creation of a new bound inflectional morpheme as innovations of a common ancestor. Changes of morphosyntactic structure leading to an increased isomorphism among the dialects, e.g. by extending the function of a morpheme onto other categories while still keeping the inherited morpheme, are evaluated as cases of areal diffusion of a feature, thus sweeping across an already diversified linguistic area. As for phonological changes, a judgment is difficult, but at least in some cases relative chronology allows for an assignment to a linguistic stratum. Lexical borrowing, however, is so easily performed that hardly any conclusion can be based on it. This is true to almost the same degree of the adoption of derivational morphemes and function words that can be easily analyzed (for a typology of borrowing cf. e.g. Thomason 2001: 59−98). Obviously, this simplified approach considering only prototypical borrowing phenomena together with their respective causes allows for conclusions in which only a limited degree of confidence can be placed, but it also leads to a coherent picture of the filiation of the Anatolian languages that future research may use as a point of reference. Contra Garrett (1999) and Ivanov (2001), there is no question that we can start from the basic assumption that the attested Anatolian languages go back to a common ancestor, Common Anatolian, that must be reconstructed as an intermediate step between Proto-Indo-European and the Anatolian daughter languages. There are too many common innovations to allow for any other conclusion, among them the nominative of the 2nd singular personal pronoun *ti, the u-vocalism of the dative-accusative of 1st singular personal pronoun *ammu (Yakubovich, 2010: 6 fn. 4), the 1st plural active of the present tense in *-w(e)ni, the 3rd singular active of the imperative in *-u, the specifics of the formation of the Anatolian ḫi-conjugation and the mediopassive in -r (cf. Melchert 2001: 232), and the demonstrative pronoun *obo- < PIE *o-b ho- (cf. Lazzeroni 1960: 119). Some phonological changes such as the merger of voiced aspirates with voiced stops and the lenition rules are probably Common Anatolian as well, but according to what has been said above, this cannot be ascertained with the same degree of confidence. For the elucidation of dialectal relationships within Anatolian, Melchert (2003a: 265) rejects a family tree model and prefers the idea of a dialect continuum with varying isoglosses, whereas Oettinger (1978: 92, 2002: 52), Starke (1997: 468), and Yakubovich (2010: 6) present variant family trees differing from one another depending on the evaluation of the respective isoglosses. The specifics of earlier analyses have been rendered invalid by the rapid progress of Anatolian historical linguistics in the past decades (cf. Melchert 2003a: 265 f. for a brief summary). These models agree on the early separation of Hittite and on the assumption that Luwian (i.e. Cuneiform Luwian and Hieroglyphic Luwian), Lycian (i.e. Lycian A and B), and possibly Carian belong to the same group. Pisidian and Sidetic, which are too poorly attested to be considered here, are thought to belong here as well. This sub-family is very often called “Luwian” as opposed to Luwian proper, but “Southern Anatolian”, “Southwestern Anatolian”, and “Western Anatolian” have been used as well. Melchert (2003b: 177, fn. 7, followed by Yakubovich 2010) has recently proposed the term “Luwic”. The position of Lydian and Palaic within the stemma is highly controversial.

299

300

IV. Anatolian

2. External evidence While no consensus on the origin and date of a prehistorical intrusive migration of the Indo-European speakers into Anatolia has been reached (for a review of the current discussion cf. Melchert 2003b: 23−26), useful information can be drawn from the attested locations of the various Anatolian speech communities (cf. Zinko, this handbook). It is sufficiently clear from the distribution of personal names as documented by the Assyrian tablets that the city of Kaneš (modern Kültepe) on the upper Kızıl Irmak was mainly inhabited by the Hittites. A minority Luwian-speaking population also seems to have played a role in trade (Yakubovich 2010: 208−223 with further references). But, in general, the Luwians are thought to have had their original homelands south of the Kızıl Irmak in the Lower Lands and in Kizzuwatna. Whether one wants to claim that all of Southern Anatolia up to the west and even to the northwest had a Luwian population depends on a narrow or wide use of the term “Luwian”. Here it will be assumed that the so-called “Südgürtel” comprised several ethnic groups speaking closely related dialects of an areal continuum, i.e. the Luwians to the east, the Lycians in the Lukka-lands (classical Lycia), and the Carians on the southern part of the Aegean coast (classical Caria and possibly beyond). The Lydians may or may not have inhabited their later homelands already in the 2nd millennium, but it is agreed that they lived rather in isolation somewhere in the northwest of Anatolia (on this problem cf. Beekes 2003; van den Hout 2003; Yakubovich 2010: 112−117). The Palaeans are located northwest of the Kızıl Irmak in classical Paphlagonia. The crucial question concerns the central part of the Hittite Empire around Ḫattuša within the bend of the Kızıl Irmak. While it had been agreed that the Hittite dynasty coming from Kaneš expanded its territory and subjugated the indigenous Hattic population, Yakubovich (2010: 227−239) has recently made a strong claim that already the Luwians constituted the culturally and politically dominant population of this area. He bases his argument on the Luwian origin of important political terminology in Hittite and of most of the royal names of the Hittite kings, on the mention of the Land of Lu(wi)ya (and Pala) in the Hittite Laws, and on the accepted status of Luwian (and Palaic) as official languages of religious performance in the Old Hittite state cult. A geographically central position of Luwian stretching over a wide territory must, of course, have far-reaching consequences for the evaluation of the linguistic data. Obviously, etymologies of ethnic names, which are in general transferable, cannot be used as indications for the reconstruction of genetic relationships (Gusmani 1995: 13). Nevertheless it may be of interest that, contrary to the claim of Starke (1997: 475 fn. 97) and Melchert (2003b: 14 fn. 8), the names of Lukka and Luwiya can easily be derived from a common inherited source: Proto-Indo-European *luk wos ‘wolf’, variant of the more common *wl̥ k wos, would undergo a dissimilatory loss of the labial component of the labiovelar before *o (cf. Katz 1998: 319 f. with fn. 8 for the sound change in Hittite and Melchert 1994: 284 f. for Lycian) yielding the attested /lukkā/ . A derivative *luk w(i)yo- ‘belonging to the *luk wo-’, however, must have developed by normal Proto-Anatolian and Luwian sound law into *lug w(i)yo- and further into *lu(wi)yo- (Melchert 1994: 61, 239), showing up as (differently Carruba 1996: 28 assuming irregular *Lukija > *Lu(h)ija > Luwija (sic) and Yakubovich 2010: 243 f.: lu(wi)ya- < *loukiyo- ‘pertaining to the plain’). Moreover, since the name of the Lydians may also go back to lu(wi)ya- by the typical Lydian sound change *y > d (cf. Beekes 2003, Gérard 2003, and Widmer 2004, contra Gusmani 1995: 13, < *h1 l(e)ud ho-

24. The dialectology of Anatolian ‘free’), the ethnic groups of a huge area in the south and west of Anatolia would have borne names derived from the same root.

3. Family tree and isoglosses 3.1. Lycian A and Lycian B There is enough evidence to consider Lycian A and Lycian B (also termed Milyan) as two different linguistic varieties, probably dialects. While Lycian A shows several minor phonological innovations (*s > h, e.g. in the possessive suffix -ehe/i- vs. B -ese/i-, *w > 0̸ before syllabic resonants in the ethnic suffix -ñne/i- vs. B -wñne/i-, and *k w > t before front vowels e.g. in ti ‘who’ vs. B ki), there can be no doubt that, contra Carruba (1996: 34 f.) and Starke (1982: 424, 1997: 476 fn. 108), these two linguistic varieties belong to a common subgroup (Lycian or Proto-Lycian) sharing significant innovations such as the change of *o > e and the specifically Lycian umlaut rules (cf. Melchert 2003b: 176 fn. 6), which are not shared by any other Southern Anatolian language and, by relative chronology, can be shown to be late: Proto-Anatolian *g w > Southern Anatolian *w must precede the delabialization of labiovelars in Lycian, which, in turn, must precede the merger of *o with *e, which precedes at least one of the umlaut rules (cf. Melchert 1994: 328 for parts of this chronology). As regards the filiation, there is uncontroversial evidence that Common Lycian itself cannot be derived from any of the Luwian languages of the 2nd millennium. Thus, Lycian lacks the merger of *o with *a. It also kept the inherited genitive plural in -ẽ < *-om, the dative-locative plural in -e < *-os, and the enclitic conjunction me < Anatolian *-mo (cf. Gusmani 1960; Starke 1990: 2; Melchert 2003a: 267 f., 2003b: 175).

3.2. Cuneiform (Kizzuwatna) Luwian and Hieroglyphic (Empire and Iron Age) Luwian The two varieties of Luwian are differentiated by several distinctive features (cf. Melchert 2003b: 171−175 for the following list). Cuneiform Luwian has replaced completely the inherited genitival forms *-os, *-oso, and *-osyo with a relational adjective in -ašša/ i- (for a different view cf. Yakubovich 2010: 38−45). As a consequence, a stem in -aššanza- was built in order to indicate the plural of the underlying noun referring to the possessor. Further differences are the first and second plural personal pronouns where Cuneiform Luwian ānza(š) and unza(š) contrast with Hieroglyphic Luwian /antsunts/ and /untsunts/, with innovations on both sides. In the other cases, Cuneiform Luwian is the more conservative variety, for instance as regards the spread of the common gender nominative plural ending /-nzi/ to the accusative in Hieroglyphic Luwian while original /-nz/ has been retained in Cuneiform Luwian. Other innovations of Hieroglyphic Luwian are the common gender accusative plural of the 3rd person clitic pronoun in /-ada/, the dative plural /-mants/ ‘to them’, and the 1st singular preterit in /-han/ (competing with /-ha/) whereas Cuneiform shows older -aš, -mmaš, and -ḫa, respectively. In addition,

301

302

IV. Anatolian Hieroglyphic Luwian has lost the orthotonic conjunction */pā/ and the enclitic sentence particle */-tar/ (Yakubovich 2010: 62−68). Less secure is the loss of the imperfective suffix -zza- in Cuneiform Luwian, while the replacement of a(ya)- ‘make, perform’ with /itsiya-/ in Hieroglyphic Luwian is only a change in progress (Yakubovich 2010: 54−62). In the past decade, evidence has accumulated that the Luwian glosses embedded in Hittite cuneiform texts (mostly the so-called “Glossenkeilwörter” marked by one or two little wedges) linguistically belong to the Hieroglyphic Luwian variety rather than to the cuneiform-written language of the Kizzuwatna rituals (cf. Melchert 2003b: 173; van den Hout 2006: 237; Rieken 2006). Furthermore, mistakes in the transmission of the Kizzuwatna rituals are best explained by a “Hieroglyphic” Luwian linguistic background of the scribes. Therefore, Yakubovich (2010: 26−38) proposes to term the Luwian variety used in the center of the Hittite state as “Empire Luwian” (with its descendent in the first millennium being called “Iron Age Luwian”), rejecting the notion that it was a Luwian dialect of Western Asia Minor or that it was heavily influenced by such (thus van den Hout 2006: 237 fn. 114).

3.3. Southern Anatolian (Luvic) It is generally acknowledged that Luwian and Lycian share a large number of phonological and morphological innovations, some of which can be shown to exist also in Carian. But few of these innovations stand up to close scrutiny when it comes to their significance and exclusiveness. The following list draws heavily on the one of Melchert (2003a: 269), although the criteria applied here are much stricter. New inflectional morphology has been created only in two instances: First, the suppletive paradigm of denominal verbs in -ā- and -ai- (with lenition) as in Cuneiform Luwian 3rd plural preterite witanta vs. 3rd plural imperative witaindu and Lycian A 3rd singular present xttadi vs. 3rd plural present xttaiti (cf. Hajnal 1995: 152−156 and 2003: 192 f., but also Rieken 2005: 69 f. for the unclear distribution and origin of these). Second, the grammaticalization of a relational suffix competing with or being substituted for the genitive (Cuneiform Luwian -ašša/i-, Hieroglyphic Luwian /-asa/i-/, Lycian A -a/ehe/i-, B -a/ese/i-, and probably Carian -s/-ś). Among derivational morphemes the agent noun suffix *-Vtyo- (Hieroglyphic Luwian /-aza/, Lycian A -aza-, Carian -š-, cf. Hajnal 2003: 193) and the ethnic suffix *-wenno/i- (Cuneiform Luwian -wanna/i-, Hieroglyphic Luwian /-wanna/i-/, Lycian A -ñne/i-, B -wñne/i-, Carian -yn-/-ýn-) show specific semantic developments. The phonological developments from Proto-Anatolian *g > y > 0̸ before front vowels and *k̑ > *ts are shared, but being rather trivial they cannot be claimed to be common innovations with any confidence. In connection with this, it ought to be mentioned that Hajnal (2003: 195−199) has conclusively shown that *ts and the other inherited sibilants develop differently in the various Southern Anatolian languages and dialects. It is only the consonant clusters *st and *sḫ that merge with *ts < *k̑, but this is again a trivial change. Therefore, contrary to what Hajnal argued, the sibilants do not lead even to the assumption of a “Late Luwian” isogloss. In none of the instances of the shared features cited above have new morphemes been created which would allow us to posit with confidence a node within the Anatolian

24. The dialectology of Anatolian family tree. On the contrary, in each case, it can be shown that the forms were inherited and existent in non-Southern Anatolian languages (stems in *-eh2 - and *-eh2 ye/o- in Hittite and Palaic, the suffix *-oso- or *-eh2 so- in Hittite and Lydian, *-wen- and *-tyosuffixes in Hittite, the latter also in Lydian). As a consequence, the observed changes are basically a matter of distribution and, therefore, may very well have spread by areal diffusion within the Southern Anatolian group. The picture changes once Lydian is included in the group. Two important innovations of inflectional morphology are shared by the Southern Anatolian languages and Lydian. First, the original ending *-mi of the 1st singular present was changed to -wi (Cuneiform Luwian -wi, Hieroglyphic Luwian /-wi/, Lycian -u, Lydian -w/-u). Second, a newly created ending of the nominative plural in *-insi was substituted for inherited *-ōs, *-es, or *-eyes. It is reflected in Cuneiform Luwian -inzi, Hieroglyphic Luwian /-intsi/, and probably Carian -š (cf. Hajnal 2003: 202 f.). Lycian A shows nasalization of a preceding vowel plus the ending -i, e.g. mãhãi ‘gods’ < *-a-inhi < *-a- plus -insi. The same development probably has also taken place in the thematic stems with i-mutation yielding *-ĩhi > *-ĩi > either -ĩ or -i, which cannot be distinguished in writing (Melchert 1994: 291, 317 f., 325). Lycian B, however, has replaced the nominative plural with the accusative plural -z < *-ns. In Lydian, the accusative plural ending -s [ç] < *-ntsi beside -ś [s] < *-nts (cf. Gérard 2005: 80−82 with further references) implies the existence of a nominative plural in *-ntsi at least at some stage. This is probably reflected by the Lydian nominative plural case ending -s, although it cannot be excluded that the palatalization of the sibilant originated in the position after -i-. As a phonological change, the development of Proto-Anatolian *-ǣ- (< Proto-Indo-European *-eh1 -) to long -ā- in Luwian, Lycian, and Lydian (Melchert 1994: 265, 312, 368) should be mentioned but, since it cannot be dated even in terms of relative chronology, it cannot be given much weight either. One lexical item, *duwV- ‘place’, is listed here, because it is, at least, part of the basic vocabulary. It is attested as Hieroglyphic Luwian /tuwa-/, Lycian A tuwe-, and Lydian (da-)cu(we)-. The two significant innovations by which new inflectional morphemes have been created allow us to posit a node in the Anatolian family tree. The branch comprises the Southern Anatolian languages and Lydian, or rather putting it differently: We must assume that Lydian, in spite of its otherwise “strange looks”, belongs to the Southern Anatolian group.

3.4. Hittite and Palaic Palaic is, normally, grouped with either Hittite or the Southern Anatolian languages (cf. section 1). Hittite, on the other hand, is regarded as having been isolated, unless it is joined with Palaic. However, none of the isoglosses suggested so far involve newly created morphology. In each case, the change consists of a choice among several inherited morphemes or a shift of a category’s function, mostly extending it. Moreover, the phonological developments can often be shown to have spread rather late by areal diffusion (for an up-to-date list cf. Melchert 2003a: 269 and section 4). Both Palaic and Hittite are notorious for their conservatism.

303

304

IV. Anatolian

4. Convergence 4.1. Prehistoric convergence The features mentioned below are taken from the list of isoglosses given by Melchert (2003a: 269, with further references). But they are restricted exclusively to those that are shared by several of the Anatolian languages originating in the choice of the same morpheme out of several competing inherited forms. As a consequence, the morphosyntactic categories were restructured and the system as a whole was simplified considerably. The mi- and the ḫi-conjugation had begun to merge very early as can be seen from the identical plural endings even in Hittite, which is most conservative in this respect. In addition, once the preterite of the mediopassive was recharacterized by reflexive particles, the unmarked set of endings was free for new use. While Hittite and Lydian chose the r-endings for the 3rd plural preterite, Palaic, Luwian, and Lycian went for the original 3rd plural preterite of the mediopassive *-nto. Its 3rd singular counterpart *-to was generalized in Luwian, Lycian, probably in Carian, and possibly in Lydian, but not in Hittite and Palaic. While Hittite kept both the reflexes of *-m and *-h2 e (and contaminated both in the ḫi-conjugation as -ḫun), the other Anatolian languages chose -ḫa < *-h2 e alone, except for Lydian, which had -n < *-m instead. As a participle suffix, *-ont- was chosen in Hittite and Lydian, whereas the Southern Anatolian languages employ *-omno- instead and Palaic uses both of them. The infinitive in -una (Palaic, Luwian, probably Lycian and Carian) is an inherited case form of a verbal abstract as are Hittite -anna and -wanzi and Lydian -l. In the noun inflection, two structural innovations based on inherited morphological forms spread among the Southern Anatolian languages: the i-mutation and the use of relational adjectives substituted for or competing with the genitive. In the latter case, however, Lydian uses an -l- suffix as opposed to the other languages showing the reflex of an -s- suffix. The extension of the oblique 2nd singular pronoun *-du to the dative of 3rd singular is shared by Luwian, Palaic, and possibly Lydian. It is a well-known fact that phonological features are prominent in cases of areal diffusion, and Anatolian is no exception (cf. also Watkins 2001: 52−54 for a more comprehensive, but simplified presentation). There are several phonological developments posterior to Common Anatolian shared by most or all members of the family, which either lead to the same result, but differ in the way it is accomplished or have the general process in common, but apply it differently in detail or at different times. In neither case can they be said to be a common linguistic change within a unified speech community. The loss of *o is shared by most or all Anatolian languages, but occurs independently as is shown by the fact that Lycian merged it with *e, Hittite with *a, and Luwian with *e and a (cf. Melchert 1994: 310 with further references). The same is true for the loss of Common Anatolian *ǣ (> ā in the Southern Anatolian languages, > ē in Hittite and Palaic). Also the correlation of vowel length and accent was established under slightly different conditions (cf. Melchert 1994: 147, 264 for the divergent outcome of *á in closed syllables) and, even when working the same way, sometimes led to different results due to an already diversified input, e.g. in the ablative of the i-stems in Hittite with unaccented shortened /-ats/ < *-adi < *´-oyodi as opposed to Luwian /-ādi/ < *-óyodi with a different position of the accent (for details cf. Rieken 2005: 64, 67). The devoicing of initial stops and fricatives occurs in Anatolian throughout, but borrow-

24. The dialectology of Anatolian ings show that it took place in Luwian later than in Hittite (Melchert 1994: 18−21, 2003b: 181). It is very clear from the evidence just provided that there was intensive language contact that led to a distinct isomorphism between the languages without weakening their social role within their respective speech communities.

4.2. Convergence of Hittite and Luwian in prehistoric and historical times The documentation of the cuneiform tablets in the second half of the second millennium allows us to focus on the development of Hittite and Luwian in particular. The equilibrium that must have lasted between Luwian and Hittite for several hundred years gave way to an ever-increasing influence of Luwian on Hittite. In addition to simplifying the morphosyntactic structure of the language in a fashion parallel to Luwian, Hittite had taken some 75 loan words, revealing a cultural and political dominance over the Luwians already by the time of its first attestation and, more importantly, a couple of suffixes (cf. Melchert 2005). This development may be dated to the time of the conquest of Ḫattuša and the Luwian dominated area that was to become the center of the Hittite empire (Yakubovich 2010: 207−260). It also renders very probable the claim of Yakubovich (2010: 182−205) that the Hittite reflexive pronoun *-ti > -z was borrowed from Luwian (Proto-Indo-European *toi would have yielded -te in Hittite). Though a morphosyntactic marker, it could be easily identified as a separate morpheme, thus fulfilling (like the borrowing of conjunctions and subordinators) the pre-conditions for borrowing even in times of less intensive contact. After the end of the Old Hittite period, the linguistic situation in the Hittite empire changed again. Hittite kept its political and cultural dominance, but incompetence-driven interference of a Luwian majority led once more to an intensified isomorphism, this time with Luwian clearly imposing its structure on Hittite. For example, within the nominal system, the merger of the nominative and accusative plural, the merger of dative-locative and allative singular, the merger of the genitive singular and plural, and the merger of the ablative and instrumental produced a pattern that matches that of Hieroglyphic (Empire) Luwian exactly. The pronominal system was also adapted by syncretism to Luwian morphosyntactic structure. The use of postpositions with the dative-locative exclusively imitates Luwian syntax as does the reduction of the number of local particles from five to one (for a full list cf. Rieken 2006 and Yakubovich 2010: 333−367). After 1320 BCE, code-switching on the level of the word is widespread (cf. Melchert 2005 and van den Hout 2006). At this point, Hittite is about to lose its cultural and political dominance, which probably ended with the downfall of the Hittite empire.

5. Conclusions The method applied here has been to accept only the creation of new morphemes and the change of morphosyntactic structures as indicators of genetic relationship and areal diffusion, respectively. Although this seems to simplify the real, very complex processes

305

306

IV. Anatolian considerably, the investigation has yielded a clear and consistent picture of the dialectology of the Anatolian languages without prompting any self-contradictory results. Thus, after the split of Common Anatolian, Hittite, Palaic, and Common Southern Anatolian evolved as divergent languages by separate genetic development. The isoglosses that occur between these languages can best be described in terms of areal diffusion. The changes yielding a distinct isomorphism together with a simplification of morphosyntactic structure are typical of a situation of intensive language contact in equilibrium. In the second half of the 2nd millennium, Hittite undergoes another period of changes involving structural convergence with intensified lexical borrowing from Luwian, which has by then become the majority language. In a second step, Southern Anatolian split into Luwian, Lycian, Carian, and Lydian. Again, no isoglosses exist among these languages that would allow for positing another node in the family tree (except for Lycian A and B which are still very close to each other), and we must regard the region involved as one linguistic area. As Watkins (2001: 55 f.) has pointed out, fragmentation of languages can take place at the same time as the formation of a linguistic area. Therefore, it has to be considered seriously that what has been presented above as four successive periods of linguistic development (1. Common Anatolian split, 2. convergence, 3. Southern Anatolian split, 4. convergence) really went on in two phases with a possible overlap. Nevertheless, it is important to discriminate between the various types of processes and the languages or respective geographical areas involved.

6. References Beekes, Robert. S. P. 2003 Luwians and Lydians. Kadmos 42: 47−49. Carruba, Onofrio 1996 Neues zur Frühgeschichte Lykiens. In: Fritz Blakolmer, Karl R. Krierer, Fritz Krinzinger, and Alice Landskron-Dinst (eds.), Fremde Zeiten. Festschrift für Jürgen Borchardt zum sechzigsten Geburtstag am 25. Februar 1996 dargebracht von Kollegen, Schülern und Freunden. Wien: Phoibos, 25−39. Drews, Robert (ed.). 2001 Greater Anatolia and the Indo-Hittite Language Family. Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man. Garrett, Andrew 1999 A new model of Indo-European subgrouping and dispersal. In: Steve S. Chang, Lily Liaw, and Josef Ruppenhofer (eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, February 12−15, 1999. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society, 146−156. Gérard, Raphaël 2003 Le nom des Lydiens à la lumière des sources anatoliennes. Le Muséon. Revue dʼétudes orientales 116 : 4−6. Gérard, Raphaël 2005 Phonétique et morphologie de la langue lydienne. Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters. Giorgieri, Mauro, Mirjo Salvini, Marie-Claude Tremouille, and Pietro Vannicelli (eds.) 2003 Licia e Lidia prima dellʼellenizzazione. Atti del Convegno internazionale, Roma, 11−12 ottobre 1999. Rome: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche.

24. The dialectology of Anatolian Gusmani, Roberto 1960 Concordanze e discordanze nella flessione nominale del licio e del luvio. Rendiconti dell’Istituto Lombardo di Scienze e Lettere. Classe di lettere e scienze morali e storiche 94: 497−512. Gusmani, Roberto 1995 Zum Stand der Erforschung der lydischen Sprache. In: Elmar Schwertheim (ed.), Forschungen in Lydien. Bonn: Habelt, 9−19. Hajnal, Ivo 1995 Der lykische Vokalismus. Methode und Erkenntnisse der vergleichenden anatolischen Sprachwissenschaft, angewandt auf das Vokalsystem einer Kleincorpussprache. Graz: Leykam. Hajnal, Ivo 2003 “Jungluwisch” − Eine Bestandsaufnahme, In: Giorgieri et al. (eds.), 187−205. van den Hout, Theo P. J. 2003 Maeonien und Maddunašša: zur Frühgeschichte des Lydischen. In: Giorgieri et al. (eds.), 301−310. van den Hout, Theo P. J. 2006 Institutions, Vernaculars, Publics: the Case of Second-Millennium Anatolia. In: Seth L. Sanders (ed.), Margins of Writing, Origins of Cultures. (Oriental Institute Seminars 2.) Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 217−256. Ivanov, Vyacheslav V. 2001 Southern Anatolian and Northern Anatolian. In: Drews (ed.), 131−83. Katz, Joshua T. 1998 How to be a dragon in Indo-European: Hittite illuyankaš and its Linguistic and Cultural Congeners in Latin, Greek, and Germanic. In: Jay Jasanoff, H. Craig Melchert, and Lisi Oliver (eds.), Mír Curad. Studies in honor of Calvert Watkins. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität, 317−334. Lazzeroni, Romano 1960 Considerazioni sulla cronologia di alcune isoglosse delle lingue anatoliche. Annali della scuola normale superiore di Pisa, classe di lettere e filosofia, Serie II. 29: 103−124. Melchert, H. Craig 1994 Anatolian Historical Phonology. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Melchert, H. Craig 2001 Critical Response to the Last Four Papers. In: Drews (ed.), 229−235. Melchert, H. Craig. 2003a The dialectal position of Lydian and Lycian within Anatolian. In: Giorgieri et al. (eds.), 265−272. Melchert, H. Craig 2003b Language. In: H. Craig Melchert (ed.), The Luwians. (Handbook of Oriental Studies 1: The Near and Middle East, Vol. 68.) Leiden: Brill, 170−210. Melchert, H. Craig 2005 The Problem of Luvian Influence on Hittite. In: Gerhard Meiser and Olav Hackstein (eds.), Sprachkontakt und Sprachwandel. Akten der XI. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, 17.−23. September 2000, Halle an der Saale. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 445−460. Oettinger, Norbert 1978 Die Gliederung des anatolischen Sprachgebietes. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 92: 74−92. Oettinger, Norbert 2002 Indogermanische Sprachträger lebten schon im 3. Jahrtausend v. Chr. in Kleinasien. Die Ausbildung der anatolischen Sprachen. In: Helga Willinghöfer and Ute Hasekamp (eds.), Die Hethiter und ihr Reich. Das Volk der 1000 Götter [anla¨ßlich der Ausstellung “Die

307

308

IV. Anatolian Hethiter. Das Volk der 1000 Go¨tter” vom 18. Januar bis 28. April 2002 in der Kunstund Ausstellungshalle der Bundesrepublik Deutschland in Bonn]. Stuttgart: Konrad Theiss, 50−55. Rieken, Elisabeth 2005 Neues zum Ursprung der anatolischen i-Mutation. Historische Sprachforschung 118: 48−74. Rieken, Elisabeth 2006 Zum hethitisch-luwischen Sprachkontakt in historischer Zeit. Altorientialische Forschungen 33: 271−285. Starke, Frank 1982 Die Kasusendungen der luwischen Sprachen. In: Johann Tischler (ed.), Serta indogermanica. Festschrift für Günter Neumann zum 60. Geburtstag. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität, 407−425. Starke, Frank 1990 Untersuchungen zur Stammbildung des keilschrift-luwischen Nomens. (Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten 31). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Starke, Frank 1997 Troia im Kontext des historisch-politischen und sprachlichen Umfeldes Kleinasiens im 2. Jahrtausend. Studia Troica 7: 447−487. Thomason, Sarah G. 2001 Language Contact: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Watkins, Calvert 2001 An Indo-European linguistic area and its characteristics: Ancient Anatolia. Areal diffusion as a challenge to the comparative method? In: Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald and R. M. W. Dixon (eds.), Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 44−63. Widmer, Paul 2004 Λυδία: Ein Toponym zwischen Orient und Okzident. Historische Sprachforschung 117: 197−203. Yakubovich, Ilya S. 2010 Sociolinguistics of the Luvian language. Leiden: Brill.

Elisabeth Rieken, Marburg (Germany)

V. Indic 25. The documentation of Indic 1. Introduction 2. Old Indo-Aryan 3. Middle Indo-Aryan

4. Hybrid Sanskrit 5. Modern Indo-Aryan 6. References

1. Introduction Indic languages, also referred to as Indo-Aryan languages, are currently spoken principally in South Asia on the Indian subcontinent and adjacent islands (see Cardona 2007b: 2−6). This area includes the countries of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and Bhutan as well as the islands of Sri Lanka and the Maldives. Varieties of Romani (Matras 2002), spoken in various countries of the Middle East, Europe, and the United Kingdom as well as in North America, represent an early migration of Indo-Aryan speakers from the subcontinent; more recently, speakers of these languages have migrated throughout the world. In South Asia, Indic languages coexist with Iranian, Dravidian, Austro-Asiatic or Munda, and Tibeto-Burman languages. Indo-Aryan is one of the two main groups of the Indo-European subgroup called Indo-Iranian. Indic languages have a long history of transmission, represented in three major stages: Old, Middle, and New (or Modern) Indo-Aryan. These terms must be understood as referring to linguistic states characterized by particular linguistic features (Cardona 2007b: 9−18). It is known that a polished variety of Indo-Aryan coexisted with Middle Indo-Aryan vernaculars. The former is called saṁskr̥ta (‘perfected, adorned, made pure [by grammar]’) as opposed to vernacular dialects called in common prākr̥ta (see 3.5.1), whence the terms ‘Sanskrit’ and ‘Prakrit’. Sanskrit itself had various dialectal variations, many of which are described by the grammarian Pāṇini (ca. 5 th c. BCE), who distinguishes between a spoken standard language (bhāṣā) and Vedic (chandas), which itself also had different dialects. The major sources available are an extraordinarily wideranging array of literary works; there are also inscriptions in Sanskrit, the most ancient of which are from the first century BCE (Salomon 1998: 86). The earliest works in Old Indo-Aryan were transmitted orally, as were also Middle Indic texts of Theravāda Buddhists and of Jainas (see 3.4, 3.5.2). Texts continue to be transmitted orally in modern times, and the most ancient manuscript materials known thus far are Buddhist scrolls from Gandhāra (Salomon 1999). Modern scholars of comparative Indo-European studies are mainly concerned with early Indo-Aryan as a source for reconstructing Proto-Indo-European. To this end, earliest Vedic, represented predominantly by the R̥gveda (see 2.1.1), serves as the principal source of information. Indeed, before Anatolian languages had been investigated, Vedic Sanskrit in conjunction principally with Iranian and Homeric Greek served as the model for Proto-Indo-European, and it still is recognized as retaining very archaic features such as its pitch accent system. In addition, Indic supplies rich sources of information for investigating how early Indo-European phonological and grammatical systems developed https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261288-025

310

V. Indic and interacted with languages of other families over millennia. The archaic Middle Indic stage represented in Aśoka’s inscriptions (3.2) supplies a fair picture of the dialectal diversity of Indic in the 3 rd century BCE, complementing information about Old IndoAryan known from Yāska and Patañjali (see 2.1.2). The latter also supplies valuable information concerning the interaction of Sanskrit and vernaculars as known at his time, showing that what was viewed as correct Sanskrit usage was required in certain spheres, ritual performance in particular, while vernaculars were acceptable in others. The array of Prakrits described by grammarians and known from literary works (see 3.5.3) further enriches our knowledge of how early Indo-Aryan developed. Thus, one witnesses the steady replacement of earlier inflectional nominal morphology towards a system which uses constructions with postpositions. Though not yet developed in the latest Middle Indo-Aryan represented in Apabhraṁśa texts, moreover, Modern Indic shows a replacement of the earlier subject-object syntax with a semi-ergative system, which in turn has been eliminated anew in eastern Indo-Aryan languages. In sum, Indic supplies a source of evidence for reconstruction and for the study of how structures changed continuously over time that is difficult to match elsewhere in the Indo-European domain.

2. Old Indo-Aryan Old Indo-Aryan is represented by a rich literature which stretches over millennia.

2.1. Vedic 2.1.1. Major Vedic texts The earliest Indic literary works are Vedic texts traditionally associated intimately with ritual (see Gonda 1975 for a fairly recent overview). These are the R̥gveda, Sāmaveda, Yajurveda, and Atharvaveda, respectively associated with different ritual officiants: hotr̥ , udgātr̥ , adhvaryu, and brahman (as accepted in the Atharvaveda tradition). In the Indian scholastic traditions, the term veda is considered an instrument noun designating works which are viewed as means of knowing ways of attaining goals not knowable through perception or inference; in western scholarship the same term is generally considered an abstract noun referring to sacred knowledge. Each of the Vedas had different branches (śākhā) or recensions, attributed to a particular learned teacher and maintained by groups of students constituting what is called a caraṇa. The extant texts were transmitted orally and reflect dialectal developments (see Pinault 1989; Witzel 1989, 1991). The most ancient Vedic work is the R̥gveda, generally assumed to have been compiled by the middle of the second millennium BCE. In the prevalent recension, the Śākala śākhā of Śākalya, this consists of 1028 hymns (sūkta), eleven of which constitute a separate supplement (khila). These hymns are composed in verses (r̥c) of different meters and distributed among ten “books” called maṇḍala, with an alternative division into groups called aṣṭaka (‘octad’). It is generally accepted that books 2−8, each ascribed to a particular family, make up the most ancient core of the R̥gveda. The verses of this text

25. The documentation of Indic are sung with particular chants (sāman), set forth in the Sāmaveda, best known from the Kauthuma recension. The Veda that bears the closest association with various rituals in particular orders is the Yajurveda, which contains metrical and non-metrical mantras (the latter called yajus). Mantras are segments, from all Vedas, recited as accompaniments to ritual acts. The proper use of mantras and the ends these serve are portrayed in texts known as brāhmaṇa, which also recount legends that serve to explain backgrounds of rites. Traditionally, mantras and brāhmaṇas together constitute a Veda. Works of the Kr̥ ṣnayajurveda (‘black Yajurveda’) include both mantra and brāhmaṇa texts and are known in the following major recensions: Taittirīya, Maitrāyaṇī, Kāṭhaka, and Kapiṣṭhala. A single work of the Śuklayajurveda (‘white Yajurveda’) is known from one major work, the Vājasaneyisaṁhitā in two recensions: Mādhyandina and Kāṇva. This work is associated with a separate brāhmaṇa text, the Śatapathabrāhmaṇa (‘hundred-path brāhmaṇa’), which has a particular linguistic feature: other Vedic texts are recited with three basic pitches: udātta (‘high’), anudātta (‘low’), svarita (combination of the high and low), as well as super high (udāttatara) and super low (sannatara) pitches resulting from tonal sandhi; the Śatapathabrāhmaṇa on the other hand, is recited with only high and low pitches, the svarita accent having been replaced by a high in the system known as the bhāṣika accentual system (see Cardona 1993). The Atharvaveda largely stands apart in that this work does not relate exclusively to standard rites but includes also materials such as mantras used for healing. As noted, in addition to mantra texts, the Vedas include also brāhmaṇas, and there are such works associated with each Veda: R̥gveda: Aitareyabrāhmaṇa, Kauṣītakibrāhmaṇa (= end of the Kauṣītakyāraṇyaka), Śāṅkhāyanabrāhmaṇa; Sāmaveda: Tāṇḍyamahābrāhmaṇa (Pañcaviṁśabrāhmaṇa), Ṣaḍviṁśabrāhmaṇa, Sāmavidhānabrāhmaṇa, Ārṣeyabrāhmaṇa, Chāndogyabrāhmaṇa, Jaiminīyabrāhmaṇa, Jaiminīyopaniṣadbrāhmaṇa; Śuklayajurveda: Śatapathabrāhmaṇa (see above) in both Mādhyandina and Kāṇva recensions; Kr̥ ṣṇayajurveda: Taittirīyabrāhmaṇa; Atharvaveda: Gopathabrāhmaṇa. A series of Vedic works, called āraṇyaka (‘related to the forest’) deal with more speculative issues concerning both metaphysical questions and questions about language. These texts, though not as numerous or widely distributed, are also associated with founders of Vedic branches, as are brāhmaṇas: R̥gveda: Aitareyāraṇyaka, Kauṣītakyāraṇyaka, Śāṅkhāyanāraṇyaka; Kr̥ ṣṇayajurveda: Taittirīyāraṇyaka. In a similar speculative vein and including theological disputations are texts called upaniṣad, again associated with different Vedas: R̥gveda: Aitareyopaniṣad (= adhyāyas 4−6 of Aitareyāraṇyaka), Kauṣītakyupaniṣad (included in Kauṣītakibrāhmaṇa), Bāṣkalamantropaniṣad (said to pertain to the Bāṣkala śākhā); Sāmaveda: Chāndogyopaniṣad, Ārṣeyopaniṣad, Jaiminīyopaniṣad, Kenopaniṣad (= 4.18−21 of Jaiminīyopaniṣad); Śuklayajurveda: Īśāvāsyopaniṣad (= adhyāya 40 of Vājasaneyisaṁhitā), Br̥hadāraṇyakopaniṣad (= last part of 14 th kāṇḍa of Śatapathabrāhmaṇa); Kr̥ ṣṇayajurveda: Taittirīyopaniṣad, Kaṭhopaniṣad, Maitrāyaṇyupaniṣad; Atharvaveda: Muṇḍakopaniṣad, Māṇḍūkyopaniṣad, Śaunakopaniṣad, Praśnopaniṣad. Mantras are used in certain rites that are performed with several fires. The performance of these rites varies from school to school, and there are different ritual treatises, called śrautasūtra, which describe these rituals in detail and include in several instances details about differences in performance ascribed to various teachers: R̥gveda: Āśvalāyanaśrautasūtra, Śāṅkhāyanaśrautasūtra; Sāmaveda: Lāṭyāyanaśrautasūtra, Drāhyāyaṇaśrautasūtra, Jaiminīyaśrautasūtra; Śuklayajurveda: Kātyāyanaśrautasūtra; Kr̥ ṣṇaya-

311

312

V. Indic jurveda: Baudhāyanaśrautasūtra, Bhāradvājaśrautasūtra, Āpastambaśrautasūtra, Satyāṣāḍhaśrautasūtra (Hiraṇyakeśiśrautasūtra), Mānavaśrautasūtra, Vādhūlaśrautasūtra, Vārāhaśrautasūtra, Vaikhānasaśrautasūtra; Atharvaveda: Vaitānaśrautasūtra. As can be seen, the largest number of such works pertains to the Kr̥ ṣṇayajurveda. In addition, there are rites characterized as pertaining to the home (gr̥hya) and which do not require the several ritual fires. These rites, such as those associated with birth, death, marriage, and entrusting a student to a teacher, are described in works called gr̥hyasūtra: R̥gveda: Āśvalāyanagr̥hyasūtra, Kauṣītakigr̥hyasūtra, Śāṅkhāyanagr̥hyasūtra; Sāmaveda: Kauthumagr̥hyasūtra, Gobhilagr̥hyasūtra, Drāhyāyaṇagr̥hyasūtra, Khādiragr̥hyasūtra, Jaiminīyagr̥hyasūtra; Kr̥ ṣṇayajurveda: Baudhāyanagr̥hyasūtra, Bhāradvājagr̥hyasūtra, Āpastambagr̥hyasūtra, Hiraṇyakeśigr̥hyasūtra, Kāṭhakagr̥hyasūtra, Laugākṣigr̥hyasūtra, Mānavagr̥hyasūtra, Vaikhānasagr̥hyasūtra; Atharvaveda: Kauśikasūtra. Rites performed in accordance with practices described in śrautasūtras occur in a ritual area which has to be measured accurately. There are texts, called śulbasūtra − so named because a rope or string (śulba) is used − which describe mensuration: Kātyāyanaśulbasūtra (Śuklayajurveda); Baudhāyanaśulbasūtra, Āpastambaśulbasūtra, Laugākṣiśulbasūtra, Mānavaśulbasūtra (Kr̥ ṣṇayajurveda).

2.1.2. Vedic ancillaries (vedā n ˙ga) The appropriate performance of Vedic rites requires a knowledge of just how ritual acts must be carried out and when they must be performed. Works describing rituals, like those noted in 2.1.1, are included among texts called kalpa. Astronomical works relative to determining the proper times for rituals fall in the area called jyotiṣa. These are two of six groups of Vedic ancillaries (vedāṅga ‘constituent subsidiary parts of the Veda’) considered necessary to the proper maintenance of the texts and their application. The other four are more closely connected with language: metrics (chandas, chandoviciti), phonetics (śikṣā), grammar (vyākaraṇa), and etymological explanation (nirukta). The correct recitation of Vedic mantras in ritual performance is crucial to these rites having desired effects. The information concerning various meters to ensure the proper recitation of metrically governed mantras is contained in works on metrics, the earliest of which is Piṅgala’s Chandaḥsūtra. This describes both Vedic and non-Vedic metrical structures. Mantras recited in the course of rites must also be uttered correctly. In this connection, there are works concerning phonetics, called śikṣā. Some of these indeed concerned details of pronunciation; for example, there is a śikṣā text, the Atharvavedīyadantyoṣṭhyavidhiḥ, specifying words in the Atharvaveda which have labio-dental (dantyoṣṭhya) v as opposed to bilabial b, which is understandable in view of the fact that v merged with b in some dialects. Comparably, the fourteenth chapter of the R̥gvedaprātiśākhya (see below) describes faults (doṣa) of pronunciation that are to be avoided. Other śikṣā texts concern more general issues of phonetics, including descriptions of speech production. The two most ancient such descriptions are to be found in two prātiśākhya works that are probably pre-Pāṇinian: the R̥gvedaprātiśākhya of Śaunaka and the Taittirīyaprātiśākhya, respectively associated with the Ṛgveda and the Taittirīyasaṁhitā of the Kr̥ ṣṇayajurveda. These texts contain sections describing how sounds are produced; the latter is particularly precise concerning the flow of air through the glottal aperture and the positioning of organs in the oral cavity.

25. The documentation of Indic Prātiśākhyas more generally concern the relation of different recitations (pāṭha) of Vedic texts. Each of the Vedas is recited in continuous fashion, showing the effects of segmental and suprasegmental sandhi rules. This recitation is called saṁhitāpāṭha because the words in verse sections are pronounced in maximum contiguity (saṁhitā), without pauses. For example, the first verse of the R̥gveda is: a̠gnimī̀lepu ̣ ̠ rohìtaym̐ya̠jñasyàde̠vamṟ̥tvijàm | hotā̀raṁratna̠dhātàmam (‘I praise Agni set at the fore, the god functioning as Hotr̥ performing sacrifices at the right time, who best makes treasure.’), a verse in the gāyatrī meter, consisting of three octosyllabic sections; a break, shown by the vertical stroke, is observed between the final eight-syllable verse section and the preceding two sections. Within each section, however, no pause is observed between words, including members of compounds. Thus, pu̠rohìtaym̐ya̠jñasyà has ym̐y, with nasalized y (ym̐) instead of -m followed by y-. Tonal sandhi is also observed, so that the first syllable of ī̀lẹ is pronounced with a high-low tone conditioned by the high pitched syllable in a̠gnim, and the second syllable of ī̀lẹ is pronounced with a mid-tone. Although the text thus recited is traditionally acknowledged to be the original text, said to be ‘seen’ by insightful seers (r̥ṣi), it is also artificially derived from a posited text in which pauses are observed between segments called pada, corresponding for the most part to syntactic words; this text is called padapāṭha (‘word recitation’). The padapāṭha corresponding to the text cited above is: a̠gnim | i̠ le̠̣ | pu̠raḥ-hìtam | ya̠jñasyà | de̠vam | ṟ̥tvijàm | hotā̀ram | ra̠tna̠-dhātàmam | recited with pauses represented here by vertical strokes and dashes (as between the constituents of the compound ra̠tna̠-dhātàmam). Thus, in a̠gnim | i̠ le̠̣ | the vowel a̠ of the first syllable is pronounced with an extra-low tone (represented by a substroke in imitation of the script being transcribed) and both vowels of the enclitic verb form i̠ le̠̣ are also pronounced with low tone. The earliest padapāṭha extant stems from the scholar Śākalya, whose work Pāṇini knew and to whom he refers by name. There are phonological rules formulated to describe how the saṁhitāpāṭha is formed from the padapāṭha. Such rules are formulated in treatises called prātiśākhya because they relate to branches (śākhā) in Vedic traditions. Two of the earliest sets of such rules are found in the R̥gvedaprātiśākhya and the Taittirīyaprātiśākhya. From the point of view of historical and comparative linguistics, the importance of such early śikṣā and prātiśākhya texts lies in attesting the precise pronunciation of Sanskrit in various dialects and in illustrating how Vedic texts could undergo changes in the course of their oral transmission. For example, the description of how a and ā are produced makes it clear that the short vowel was a central sound as opposed to a low-vowel ā: the PIE short vowels *e, *o, and *a were centralized and merged into a (ǝ) in IndoIranian. Historical developments resulted also in sequences Cy, Cv instead of Ciy, Cuv. For example, the R̥gveda text codified in the Śākala version and to which corresponds the padapāṭha composed by Śākalya has vi̠ ryā̀ṇi (‘heroic acts’ [nom-acc. nt. pl.]) although the verse in question may be hypometric; the expected meter is reestablished by reciting vi̠ riyā̀ṇi. The R̥gvedaprātiśākhya accepts the disyllabic pronunciation along with a hypometric line, which it recognizes and describes. At the same time, however, the author of this work, Śaunaka, notes that theoretically one can have iy and uv instead of y and v, but this is done only to establish a metrically ideal sequence in order to provide for metrical lengthening in the appropriate syllable (see Cardona 1998). Pāṇini, who can be dated no later than the late 5 th to early 4 th century BCE, and who stemmed from Śalātura in the north-west of the subcontinent, composed a set of approximately 4,000 grammatical and phonological rules in eight chapters, so that the

313

314

V. Indic text is called aṣṭādhyāyī (‘collection of eight chapters’). Pāṇini describes a living language, which scholars agree is most comparable to the late Vedic found in texts such as the Aitareyabrāhmaṇa. This is evident from usages described in certain rules. Moreover, Pāṇini provides for usages which, though current in his language, are not well attested in earliest Sanskrit literature; for example, the compound type keśākeśi- as in keśākeśi yuddham ‘battle carried out with each opponent grabbing the other by the hair’. In brief, the Aṣṭādhyāyī supplies valuable documentation for Old Indo-Aryan as currently used in the time of Pāṇini and also attests to dialectal variants particular to certain areas. Changes in the language are reflected in statements and discussions of the two earliest Pāṇinian commentators whose works are fully extant, namely Kātyāyana (ca. 3 rd c. BCE) and Patañjali (mid 2 nd c. BCE), the latter the author of the Mahābhāṣya (‘great commentary’) incorporating Kātyāyana’s statements (called vārttikas) as well as his own discussions. For example, though Pāṇini provides for the use of second plural active perfect forms such as cakra (‘you all did’) and ūṣa (‘you all stayed’), Patañjali notes that such forms were not used at his time; instead, one used participial forms: kr̥tavantaḥ (‘you all [masc.] did’), uṣitāḥ (‘you all stayed’). Patañjali also remarks on the existence of large dialect areas, and speaks of usages particular to given areas. For example, he notes that a finite form such as śavati ‘goes’ is particular to the area called Kamboja (kambojeṣu [loc. pl.]), which fits with the fact that šav ‘go’ is an Iranian verb corresponding etymologically to Skt. cyu (cyavate ‘moves from’). The same observation was made some time before Patañjali by the etymologist Yāska in his work called Nirukta. The purpose of the Vedic ancillary nirukta is to explain, through etymological derivation of nominals from verbal bases, the meanings of particular Vedic words. Both the Nirukta and the Mahābhāṣya supply evidence of changes in Sanskrit from Vedic to post-Vedic. For example, they both cite a verse from the R̥gveda (10.71.2) that has the phrase yatra̠ dhīrā̱ manàsā vāca̠m akràta (‘... where wise men created speech with their mind’) and substitute ákr̥ṣata (3pl. aor. mid.) ‘made’, a form of the productive sigmatic aorist, for the Vedic root aorist form akràta.

2.2. Other post-Vedic Sanskrit There are additional works in Sanskrit considered in association with the Vedas and said to constitute a set of ancillaries called upāṅgas: purāṇa (texts preserving traditional lore concerning topics such as ruling lineages, world creation, and dissolution); nyāya (logic); mīmāṁsā, pūrvamīmāṁsā (dealing with exegetical principles for reconciling brāhmaṇa texts as they pertain to ritual) as well as uttaramīmāṁsā (which treats philosophicalreligious ideas); and dharmaśāstra (rules of duty and behavior). In addition, there are works referred to as upaveda, dealing with the following areas: medicine (āyurveda), archery (dhanurveda), music (gāndharvaveda), and government (arthaśāstra). There is, further, a large body of literature in both belles lettres and other spheres, which is far-ranging: works of drama and poetry such as those composed by Aśvaghoṣa (Buddhacarita, Saundarananda), Bhāsa (e.g., Svapnavāsavadatta), Kālidāsa (e.g., Śākuntala, Vikramorvaśīya, Kumārasambhava, Raghuvaṁśa), Śūdraka (Mr̥cchakaṭhika), Bhavabhūti (Uttararāmacarita, Mahāvīracarita, Mālatimādhava), Bhāravi (Kirātārjunīya), and Māgha (Śiśupālavadha); the epic poems Rāmāyaṇa of Vālmīki and Mahābhāra-

25. The documentation of Indic ta; didactic literature such as the Pañcatantra and Hitopadeśa; treatises on grammar, logic, poetics, astronomy, and mathematics. Moreover, Sanskrit is not restricted to Hindu works; Buddhist and Jaina scholars used Sanskrit in original texts and commentaries (see 4). Of particular linguistic interest is the distribution of language usage generally observed in dramas − with exceptions − in which Sanskrit is used by a king and his advisors, heroes, priests, sages, and comparable persons who would be involved in discourses of a high register, but various Prakrits are used by women, including queens and heroines, the amusing vidūṣaka, and servants, as well as in lyrics chanted by women. This distribution of languages, including the use of particular Prakrits, is described in the Nāṭyaśāstra, a treatise on dramaturgy traditionally attributed to Bharata and which scholars generally agree is a composite work, evolved during a period about which opinions differ (ca. 2 nd c. BCE to 4 th c. CE). The precise dates of other individual authors are objects of dispute, and it is acknowledged that many works in their extant form represent the product of accretion, but there can be no doubt at all that the use of Sanskrit as a vehicle of composition stretches from a time in the early centuries BCE down to the eighteenth century CE, and even nowadays literary works continue to be produced in Sanskrit. Nevertheless, it also cannot be doubted that by the 2 nd century BCE the use of Sanskrit as a vernacular in common intercourse was quite limited and Sanskrit had ceased to be the first language of any but a select few.

3. Middle Indo-Aryan 3.1. Introduction Documents representing Middle Indo-Aryan (v. Hinüber 2001) are both epigraphic and literary. The earliest attested epigraphic materials are the inscriptions of Aśoka (3 rd c. BCE), and there are also later Prakrit inscriptions. Literary documents are represented in Pāli (Norman 1983; v. Hinüber 2000) and Ardhamāgadhī − associated most prominently with Theravāda Buddhist and Jaina literatures respectively − as well as in various other Prakrits, the latest stage of which is Apabhraṁśa.

3.2. Aś okan inscriptions The Aśokan inscriptions contain edicts, inscribed on rocks and pillars, of the emperor Aśoka. These were composed at his chancellery in Pāṭaliputra near modern-day Patna in eastern India (Bihar) and copied through his empire. This spread from the extreme east (Kaliṅga, modern day Orissa) to the extreme west (Girnār, Junagadh district, Saurashtra, Gujarat), south to what is now Karnaṭaka, and in the north-west as far as modern Kandahar in Afghanistan (see Salomon 1998: 136−140); a map showing the sites of inscriptions is given by Salomon (1998: 135) and reproduced in Oberlies (2007: 164). Almost all of these inscriptions are in Middle Indic dialects, though there are also documents in Aramaic and Greek at the north-western limits of the empire. The inscriptions give a fairly good representation of major Middle Indic dialects in the third century BCE. The three

315

316

V. Indic principal areas are eastern, western and north-western (Oberlies 2007: 164−165), delineated in general by isoglosses summarized by Oberlies (2007: 165). The eastern dialect of the originals composed in the chancellery was converted to conform with the regional dialects where Indo-Aryan dialects were used, but not in the areas of Aramaic and Greek usage or in the deep south, where Dravidian was dominant. For example, in the fourteenth major rock edict, the eastern form of the instrumental singular of the word for ‘king’, corresponding to OIA rājñā, is found at Dhauli (Puri district, Orissa): lājinā, with an epenthetic vowel -i- and l- instead of r-; Girnar has a western form (rāñā) with r- and consonant assimilation; comparably, Shāhbāzgaṛhī (Peshawar District, North-West Frontier Provinces, Pakistan) has raña. Eṟṟaguḍi (Kurnool district, Andhra Pradesh) has lājinā, as in the language of the chancellery. The Aśokan documents are also characterized epigraphically by a difference in scripts. Except for the north-west inscriptions at Mānsehrā (Hazra District, North-West Frontier Provinces, Pakistan) and Shāhbāzgaṛhī, inscriptions appear in a script called brāhmī, which is written from left to right and distinguishes short and long vowel symbols. North-western inscriptions appear in a script called kharoṣṭhī, which is written from right to left and in which single symbols are used to represent etymological short and long vowels. The Prakrit particular to the north-west has been given the name gāndhārī, which is applied more generally to a Prakrit from what has been dubbed “greater Gandhāra” that is represented also in literary documents (Salomon 1999: 3). Literary and inscriptional Gāndhārī materials are all written in Kharoṣṭhī.

3.3. Early literature in Kharos thı̄ script Kharoṣṭhī is used, as noted (3.2), in both inscriptions and literary documents. The major representative of the latter is a version of the Buddhist Dharmapada (Pkt. dhammapada), which the editor of the standard and model edition, John Brough (1962), called the Gāndhārī Dharmapada and which Salomon has preferred to call the Khotan Dhammapada for reasons given in Salomon (1999: 57 n. 1). In addition, Lenz (2003) has completed “an edition and study of fifteen fragmentary verses of a new Gāndhārī version of the Dharmapada” (Lenz 2003: xiii). Lenz’s work is part of a series of editions and studies initiated by Richard Salomon and continued by his colleagues and students (Salomon 2000; Allon 2001; Glass 2007) of Buddhist texts in Kharoṣṭhī preserved in birchbark fragments at the British Museum. The manuscripts in question not only are important for appreciating the early history of Buddhism; datable to a period from around the early first century to the middle second century CE (Salomon 1999: 10, 154), they are the earliest extant manuscripts in an Indo-Aryan language.

3.4. Pā li In modern scholarship, “Pāli” is used to name a language, though this is not the original value of the term (Norman 1983: 1−2). Pāli (Oberlies 2001, 2007) is the language in which the major documents of Theravāda Buddhism, both canonical and non-canonical, have been maintained. The Pāli canon is principally arranged in three groups referred to

25. The documentation of Indic as piṭaka (‘basket’): the Tipiṭaka (Skt. tripiṭaka), which consists of the Vinayapiṭaka (group of texts concerning rules of behavior in Buddhist assemblies); Suttapiṭaka (collection of texts considered to represent the direct teachings and dialogs of the Buddha); and the Abhidhammapiṭaka (texts dealing with more philosophical and ethical issues). Each of these is subdivided, with differences in different traditions (surveys of the canonical literature: Geiger 1956: 9−24; Nakamura 1987: 22−56; Norman 1983: 15−107; v. Hinüber 2000: 7−75). For example, Buddhists of Sri Lanka, Burma (Myanmar), and Thailand disagree concerning the contents in the Khuddanikāya (‘collection of short pieces’). One of the most famous works included in the Khuddanikāya is the Dhammapada, which has a Gāndhārī counterpart (see 3.3). The non-canonical literature is extensive (Geiger 1956: 25−58; Norman 1983: 108−183; v. Hinüber 2000: 76−193), dating from the time of the canon’s completion to modern times, composed predominantly in Sri Lanka and Burma, and covering a broad range of topics. This literature includes chronicles, commentaries (the most famous being those of Buddhaghoṣa [5 th c. CE] − who carried out translations from early Sinhala), and grammars. Of particular interest for historical reasons is the Milindapañho (‘Questions of Milinda’), which portrays a dialog between the Bactrian king Milinda (Menander) and the Buddhist monk Nāgasena and probably represents a translation from a Sanskrit original. There are several Pāli grammars (see Norman 1983: 163−166), the earliest of which is the Kaccāyanavyākaraṇa (ca. 7 th c. CE but possibly posterior to the Pāṇinian Kāśikāvr̥tti). Also worthy of special note are Aggavaṁsa’s Saddanīti, composed in Burma in 1154 and Moggallāna’s Moggallānavyākaraṇa, also composed in the 12 th c. CE. The canonical literature was originally transmitted orally, different parts being memorized and recited by reciters referred to as bhāṇaka. According to Buddhist tradition, the canon began to be compiled at a council held in Rājagaha (Skt. rājagr̥ha) at the time of the Buddha’s death, that is, 543 BCE as reckoned by the southern Buddhists, but ca. 400 BCE according to many modern scholars (see Cousins 1996). It was subsequently developed at a second council one hundred years later in Vesālī, and brought to completion at a third council at Pāṭaliputra under Aśoka. The Pāli texts reflect dialectal diversity. It is well known that the Buddha wished his teachings (buddhavacana ‘sayings of the Buddha’) to be transmitted in dialects of disciples, not in an elevated language. In an oft-cited famous passage from the Cullavagga of the Vinayapiṭaka (5.43) that has been the object of different interpretations (see Lamotte [1958] 1976: 610−611; Brough 1980; Seyfort Ruegg 2000), the Buddha upbraids disciples who wish to change the way his teaching was transmitted by upgrading the language in which this was recited; instead, he allows the teaching to be recited according to individual speech habits. This passage contains the commonly used vocative plural form bhikkhave, which contrasts with the synonymous term bhikkhavo. Traditionally, the language of the Buddha is considered to be Māgadhī, in accordance with his coming from the east, although Gotama the Buddha (‘enlightened one’) was born at Lumbini (Aśokan luṁmini), a grove lying between Kapilavatthu (Skt. kapilavāstu) and Devadaha, modern day Rummindeī in the Bhairwa district of Nepal, the site of a minor Aśokan rock inscription in which the emperor, on the twentieth anniversary of his consecration, does honor to Śākyamuni Buddha. In the inscription, this is said to be his birthplace (hida bhagavaṁ jāte ti ‘because the lord was born here’) and identified as the village Luṁmini (luṁminigāme). It was long maintained that bhikkhave represents a Magadhism, and Lüders (1954: 13−18) made eastern -e opposed to western -o the first part of his evidence in arguing that the original Buddhist canon had been composed in an

317

318

V. Indic eastern dialect (see Lamotte 1976: 618−622). It is generally accepted that Pāli as known from the Theravāda texts was a lingua franca, not a single individual language particular to one dialect area.

3.5. Other Middle Indic dialects 3.5.1. Introduction The term prākr̥ta is used in opposition to saṁskr̥ta. Thus, in his Kāvyādarśa (alias Kāvyalakṣaṇa) the seventh-century poetician Daṇḍin speaks (1.33) of saṁskr̥ta (saṁskr̥taṁ nāma) as the divine speech (daivī vāk) described (anvākhyātā ‘explained’) by great sages (maharṣibhiḥ), that is by scholars such as Pāṇini. This language is opposed to prākr̥ ta, which is of several kinds (anekaḥ prākr̥takramaḥ ‘the variety of prākr̥ ta is multiple’). Daṇḍin also subdivides prākr̥ ta speech into three types, depending on whether the terms in question have the following characteristics: they are located in Sanskrit (tadbhava), whence they derive by statable changes; they are identical with Sanskrit terms (tatsama), that is, lexical items have the same shape as in Sanskrit, without change, though different endings occur with them; they are regional (deśī) terms neither identical with Sanskrit etyma nor derivable from them. The Nāṭyaśāstra ascribed to Bharata similarly says (14.5) that the speech recited in dramas (pāṭhyam) is of two kinds (dvividham): saṁskr̥ tam and prākr̥ tam. It also (17.3) subdivides the latter into the three types noted, but using, instead of tadbhava, the more picturesque vibhraṣṭam (‘fallen, corrupt’), thus emphasizing that prākr̥ ta words are viewed as “corruptions” of saṁskr̥ ta counterparts. This is explained later as involving the loss of sounds. Nevertheless, Bharata’s choice of words recalls Patañjali’s use of apabhraṁśa with reference to Middle Indic terms such as gāvī, viewed as a corruption of Skt. gauḥ (‘cow’). For, in the immediately preceding verse (17.2), the Nāṭyaśāstra is clear about how the two types of speech are related: prākr̥ ta is nothing other than (etad eva) saṁskr̥ ta divested of the qualities imparted by grammatical effort which result in the purity of saṁskr̥ ta (saṁskr̥taguṇavarjitam). Thus, the term prākr̥ta is treated as derived from prakr̥ti (‘original matter, source’) and Sanskrit, which is considered to supply the major part of its lexical inventory, is viewed as the source of Prakrits. This portrayal of how prākr̥ ta is related to saṁskr̥ ta is the prevalent one among Indian scholars. Another position is also taken, for example, by the eleventh-century Śvetāmbara Jaina scholar Namisādhu, in his commentary on verse 2.12 of Rudraṭa’s (9 th c.) Kāvyālaṅkāra. In accordance with a passage he cites, which says that Ardhamāgadhī is established as the speech of the gods (devānaṁ bāṇī) in the teaching of sages (ārisavayaṇe), Namisādhu grants priority to prākr̥ ta and explains prākr̥ta as a compound whose first constituent is prāk equivalent to pūrvam (‘before’), so that it refers to what was brought about (kr̥tam) before saṁskr̥ ta. That is, he goes on to explain, this speech is what is comprehensible to speakers such as children and women, who do not command Sanskrit. Under this view, saṁskr̥ ta results from prākr̥ ta through a purification by grammar. Under the traditional view that Prakrits derive from Sanskrit, grammarians of Prakrits − composing in Sanskrit − then explain forms, both bases and affixes, in these dialects as derived from Sanskrit terms by rules of change. Grammarians of Pāli (see

25. The documentation of Indic 3.4) are a notable exception to this practice in that they describe Pāli forms in Pāli and without recourse to Sanskrit sources. Thus, both by its antiquity and from the point of view of its grammarians, Pāli stands apart as a distinct Middle Indo-Aryan language.

3.5.2. Ardhamā gadhı̄ Ardhamāgadhī (‘half Māgadhī’) is thus called because, as was noted in commentaries, it is characterized by -e instead of -o in the nominative singular of a-stems but, unlike pure Māgadhī, also has r and s instead of l and ś (Pischel 1965: 16; see also Bubenik 2007: 207−208). This is a major dialect well established in the canonical texts of another great religious tradition, that of the Jainas, preeminently represented by the 24 th and final titthagara (Skt. tīrthakara, lit. ‘ford maker’, i.e., one who enables people to cross the ocean of life and rebirth), Vaḍḍhamāṇa (Skt. vardhamāna) Mahāvīra, whom Śvetāmbara Jainas consider to have lived from 599 to 527 BCE and Digambara Jainas say died in 510 BCE (Dundas 2002: 24). Like the Buddha, Mahāvīra was from the east of the subcontinent; he is traditionally considered to have been born in Kuṇḍagrāma (alias Kuṇḍapura), near Vaiśālī (Schubring 1962: 31−32; Dundas 2002: 25). The Jaina canon (Schubring 1962: 73−125; Dundas 2002: 73−76) has twenty-five parts, distributed among five groups: 12 aṅga, 12 uvaṅga (Skt. upāṅga), 7 cheyasutta (chedasūtra), 4 mūlasutta, and 10 paiṇṇa (prakīrṇaka). As in the case of the Pāli canon (3.4), the first major group of the Jaina canon is viewed as a basket (piḍaga, Skt. and Pāli piṭaka) of teachings (Schubring 1962: 73). Also parallel to the Theravāda tradition, it is accepted that originally the oral teachings of Mahāvīra were received by disciples and that these teachings were later regularized at councils, the final redaction being carried out at the council of Valabhī around the 5 th c. CE (Dundas 2002: 22).

3.5.3. Other Prakrits Jaina non-canonical literature is extensive and includes not only prose commentaries and stories but also poetry, dating back to Vimalasūri’s (ca. 300 CE) Paümacariya (‘Life of Padma [= Kr̥ ṣṇa]’). The language typical of these works has been labelled “Jaina Māhārāṣṭrī” (see Balbir 1989). Māhārāṣṭrī (‘language of Māhārāṣṭra’) is viewed as the premier Prakrit. Thus, after speaking of Sanskrit and Prakrits in general, Daṇḍin (see 3.5.1) goes on (Kāvyādarśa 1.34) to say that the learned consider the language (bhāṣām) used in Māhārāṣṭra (māhārāṣṭrāśrayām) the preeminent (prakr̥ṣṭam) Prākrit. Māhārāṣṭrī is not only one of the several Prakrits used in dramas but also is the language of independent poetic works like the long poem Gaüḍavaho of Vākpatirāja (Pkt. vappairāya) in the eighth century and also of the verses in the anthology Sattasaī (Skt. saptaśatī) attributed to Sātavāhana (ca. 3 rd c. CE). Another major Prakrit used in dramas is Śaurasenī (also Śūrasenī, Sūrasenī) ‘language of Śūrasena’ (near Mathurā). A famous drama composed solely in Prakrits − Māhārāṣṭrī and Śaurasenī − is Karpūramañjarī of Rājaśekhara (10 th c.). These Prakrits are named after given areas. Another one, Paiśācī, has also been considered to be so named (see Pischel 1965: 29), but in Indian tradition this is said to be the language of the Piśācas, demons. Though known from statements of grammarians, no

319

320

V. Indic literary work survives composed in this Prakrit. Nevertheless, the 11 th c. CE Kashmiri polymath Kṣemendra based his Br̥hatkathāmañjarī on a work in Paiśācī, the Vaḍḍakahā by Guṇāḍhya, to whom another work (Ratnaprabhā) has been attributed (Bhayani 1989: 23). There is a fairly large number of Prakrits mentioned by grammarians of Prakrit as well as theoreticians of poetics (see Pischel 1965: 1−34). For example, in the second chapter (2.12) of his Kāvyālaṅkāra, Rudraṭa (see 3.5.1) mentions six languages (bhāṣāḥ): Prākr̥ ta, Saṁskr̥ ta, Māgadhī, Paiśācī, Sūrasenī, and Apabhraṁśa. There has been disagreement concerning the degree of confidence to be placed in Prakrit grammarians’ statements when editing Prakrit passages in dramas (see Steiner 1997: 157−165).

3.5.4. Apabhram ˙ ś a In the passage just mentioned, Rudraṭa says of Apabhraṁśa in particular that it has many varieties (bhūribhedaḥ) due to particular areas (deśaviśeṣāt) in which it appears. On the basis of Apabhraṁśa phonology and grammar, it is universally accepted that this represents the latest stage of Middle Indo-Aryan, and scholars have accepted that modern Indo-Aryan languages stem from particular Apabhraṁśa varieties. Just as Old and Middle Indo-Aryan coexisted, so also did Apabhraṁśa dialects coexist with earlier dialects. Moreover, although the term apabhraṁśa at an early time was used with reference to Middle Indic forms considered to be corruptions of Sanskrit forms, the same term came to be used of a literary language used in composing works of various types (Bhayani 1989: 22−44). The earliest complete independent works in Apabhraṁśa are those of Sayambhueva (Svayambhūdeva) (late 9 th c.), who composed two purāṇas, Paümacariu (Skt. padmacaritam) and Riṭṭanemicariu (ariṣṭanemicaritam).

4. Hybrid Sanskrit Although Ardhamāgadhī is the language of the Jaina canon and non-canonical Jaina works were composed in Jaina Māhārāṣṭrī (3.5.2−3), later commentaries (ṭīkā) on Jaina works came to be composed in Sanskrit, which was also used for independent works, including the famous doxography of Haribhadrasūri (8 th c. CE), Ṣaḍdarśanasamuccaya (‘Compendium of six philosophical views’). As v. Hinüber (1989: 348) has noted, the language of these works is simply Sanskrit and they differ solely in that they are ‘... texts, the language of which is distinguished from standard Sanskrit by a specific Jaina vocabulary such as technical terms or vernacular words only.’ On the other hand, forms like śākyamunisya or śakyamunisya ‘of Śākyamuni’ (Skt. śākyamuneḥ) are non-Sanskrit (Edgerton [1953] 1970: 74; Damsteegt 1978: 108−109) and can be explained on a Middle Indo-Aryan model. Such non-Sanskrit forms, both nominal and verbal, occur in literary works of the northern Buddhists, datable as early as the 2 nd c. BCE, which exhibit also phonological features contrary to norms in Sanskrit. Accordingly, Edgerton spoke of Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit. Since Edgerton’s monumental work of 1953, a great deal has been written in connection with Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit (see Brough 1954; Lamotte 1976: 634−645; Damsteegt 1978: 238−266; v. Hinüber 1989, 2001: 68−71;

25. The documentation of Indic Salomon 1998: 83−86), including critiques of Edgerton’s criteria and his application of them. Moreover, as can be seen from Damsteegt’s work, the phenomena at issue appear in epigraphic materials that are not exclusively Buddhistic but also Jaina, Hindu, and secular, so that it is more appropriate to speak of Hybrid Sanskrit. This language reflects the influence of Sanskrit, which continued to be used during periods when Prakrits had gained status, resulting in a mixed language used as a distinct vehicle for literary creation.

5. Modern Indo-Aryan Literary documents in Modern Indo-Aryan begin to appear as early as the twelfth century CE (Shapiro 2007: 254−255; Cardona and Suthar 2007: 661). There are early works which serve to illustrate the transition between Apabhraṁśa (3.5.4) and the modern stage. Important among these is Dāmodara’s (12 th c.) Uktivyaktiprakaraṇa, which is composed in Sanskrit and gives equivalents in this language of Old Kosalī expressions, which he refers to as apabhraṁśa. For example, under verse 9 (Jina Vijaya 1953: 4, lines 4−5), Dāmodara remarks that in the vernacular, to which he refers using the instrumental singular apabhraṁśabhāṣayā (‘Apabhraṁśa language’), one says dharmu āthi (‘There is duty’) and dharmu kīja (‘Duty is carried out’), for which the Sanskrit equivalents are dharmaḥ asti and dharmaḥ kriyate. Several modern Indo-Aryan languages have long, distinguished literary histories, including such classics as Tulsidas’ (14 th c. CE) Rāmacaritamānasa in Avadhi, and Panjabi (Shackle 2007) is the language of the sacred book of the Sikhs, the Ādi Granth (Shackle 2007: 583). Some now have the status of national languages: Hindi (Shapiro 2007), Urdu (Schmidt 2007), Bangla (Dasgupta 2007), Nepali (Riccardi 2007), and Sinhala (Gair 2007), respectively, in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, and Sri Lanka. Their distribution on the subcontinent reflects to a good extent the linguistic geographic divisions of earlier Indo-Aryan: eastern (Bangla, Asamiya [Goswami and Tamuli 2007], Oriya [Ray 2007]), western and southwestern (Gujarati [Cardona and Suthar 2007], Marathi [Pandharipande 2007], Konkani [Miranda 2007]), and north-western. The last is represented by the large Dardic group (Bashir 2007), including Kashmiri (Koul 2007), spoken principally in the Kashmir valley of the state of Jammu and Kashmir. Between the eastern extreme and the large Hindi area of the midlands there is a transitional area on the east, with Maithili (Yadav 2007), Mahagi (S. Verma 2007), and Bhojpuri (M. K. Verma 2007) as major languages, and to the west a group of languages in Rajasthan, blending into dialects of Gujarati. Across this broad area, as also throughout the Republic of India, Hindi serves as a lingua franca, with several varieties influenced by local languages such as Bangla, Gujarati, and Marathi. Also settled in different parts of India are speakers of Sindhi (Khubchandani 2007), with large groups in Delhi, Maharashtra, Gujarat (KutchSaurashtra), Rajasthan (Jaisalmer district), and Madhyapradesh; most Sindhi speakers still remain in Pakistan, in the Sindh and Lasa B’elo (Baluchistan) regions. These languages are written in various scripts (Salomon 2007), with special combinations and diacritics used to represent sounds such as aspirates, retroflex consonants, and implosives: Roman and Perso-Arabic as well as Devanāgarī and other scripts derived from Brāhmī.

321

322

V. Indic

6. References Allon, Mark 2001 Three Gāndhāri Ekottarikāgama-type Sūtras. British Library Kharoṣṭhī Fragments 12 and 14. Gandhāran Buddhist Texts, Volume 2. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Balbir, Nalini 1989 Morphological evidence for dialectal variety in Jaina Māhārāṣṭrī. In: Caillat (ed.), 503− 525. Bashir, Elena 2007 Dardic. In: Cardona and Jain (eds.), 818−894. Bhayani, H. C. 1989 Apabhraṁśa Language and Literature, A Short Introduction. B. L. Series No. BLIL: 1 (Serial No. 7). Delhi: B. L. Institute of Indology. Brough, John 1954 The language of the Buddhist Sanskrit texts. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 16: 351−375. Brough, John 1962 The Gāndhārī Dharmapada, edited with an Introduction and Commentary. London: Oxford University Press. Brough, John 1980 Sakāya niruttyā: cauld kale het. In: Heinz Bechert (ed.), Die Sprache der ältesten buddhistischen Überlieferung /The Language of the Earliest Buddhist Tradition (Symposien zur Buddhismusforschung II). Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Philologisch-Historische Klasse, Dritte Folge, 117, 35−42. Bubenik, Vit 2007 Prākrits and Apabhraṁśa. In: Cardona and Jain (eds.), 204−249. Caillat, Colette. (ed.) 1989a Dialectes dans les littératures indo-aryennes, Actes du colloque international organisé par l’UA 1058 sous les auspices du C.N.R.S. Paris: Collège de France, Institut de Civilisation Indienne. Caillat, Colette 1989b Sur l’authenticité linguistique des édits d’Aśoka. In: Caillat (ed.), 413−432. Cardona, George 1993 The bhāṣika accentuation system. Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik 18: 1−40. Cardona, George 1998 Ideal and performance in Sanskrit. In: Professor Rajendra I. Nanavati (ed.), PurāṇaItihāsa-Vimarśaḥ: Essays in Honour of Prof. S. G. Kantawala. Delhi: Bharatiya Vidya Prakashan, 313−335. Cardona, George 2007a Sanskrit. In: Cardona and Jain (eds.), 104−160. Cardona, George 2007b General Introduction. In: Cardona and Jain (eds.), 1−45. Cardona, George and Babu Suthar 2007 Gujarati. In: Cardona and Jain (eds.), 659−697. Cardona, George and Dhanesh Jain (eds.) 2007 The Indo-Aryan Languages. London: Routledge. [Paperback edition with corrections.] Chatterji, Suniti Kumar 1953 see Jina Vijaya. Cousins, L. S. 1996 The Dating of the Historical Buddha: A Review Article. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 6: 57−63.

25. The documentation of Indic Damsteegt, Th. 1978 Epigraphical Hybrid Sanskrit, Its Rise, Spread, Characteristics and Relationship to Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit. (Orientalia Rheno-Tractina 23). Leiden: Brill. Dasgupta, Probal 2007 Bangla. In: Cardona and Jain (eds.), 351−390. Dundas, Paul 2002 The Jains, Second edition. London: Routledge. Edgerton, Franklin 1970 [1953] Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Dictionary, Volume 1: Grammar, Volume II: Dictionary. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. [New Haven: Yale University Press]. Fussman, Gérard 1989 Gāndhārī écrite, Gāndhārī parlée. In: Caillat (ed.), 433−501. Gair, James W. 2007 Sinhala. In: Cardona and Jain, 766−817. Geiger, Wilhelm 1956 Pāli Literature and Language. [Authorized English Translation by Batakrishna Ghosh, Second edition of Pāli. Literatur und Sprache, Grundriss der indo-arischen Philologie und Altertumskunde I/7. Strassburg: Trübner]. Calcutta: University of Calcutta. Glass, Andrew 2007 Four Gāndhārī Saṃyuktāgama Sūtras: Senior Kharoṣṭhī Fragment 5. Gandhāran Buddhist Texts, Volume 4. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Gonda, Jan. (ed.) 1975 Vedic Literature [Saṃhitās and Brāhmaṇas], A History of Indian Literature, volume 1, fascicle 1. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Goswami, G. C. and Jyotiprakash Tamuli 2007 Asamiya. In: Cardona and Jain (eds.), 391−443. von Hinüber, Oskar 1989 Origins and varieties of Buddhist Sanskrit. In: Caillat (ed.), 341−367. von Hinüber, Oskar 1994 Untersuchungen zur Mündlichkeit früher mittelindischer Texte der Buddhisten (Untersuchungen zur Sprachgeschichte und Handschriftenkunde des Pāli III). Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Mainz, Abhandlungen der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse, Jahrgang 1994, Nr. 5. Stuttgart: Steiner. von Hinüber, Oskar 2000 A Handbook of Pāli Literature. (Indian Philology and South Asian Studies 2). Berlin: De Gruyter. von Hinüber, Oskar 2001 Das ältere Mittelindisch im Überblick. 2., erweiterte Auflage. (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, Sitzungzberichte 467. Veröffentlichung der Kommission für Sprachen und Kultur Südasiens 20). Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Jina Vijaya, Acharya Muni 1953 Ukti-Vyakti-Prakaraṇa of Dāmodara (An Elementary Handbook of Sanskrit Composition with Parallel Illustrations in Old Kosalī of the Twelfth Century), edited ... with an exhaustive linguistic study of Old Kosalī of the text by Dr. Suniti Kumar Chatterji. (Singhi Jain Series 39). Bombay: Singhi Jain Shastra Shikshapith, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan. Khubchandani, Lachman M. 2007 Sindhi. In: Cardona and Jain (eds.), 622−658. Koul, Omkar N. 2007 Kashmiri. In: Cardona and Jain (eds.), 895−952.

323

324

V. Indic Lamotte, Étienne 1976 [1958] Histoire du bouddhisme indien des origines à l’ère Śaka. (Publications de l’Institut Orientaliste de Louvain 14). Louvain-la-Neuve: Université de Louvain, Institut Orientaliste. Lenz, Timothy 2003 A New Version of the Gāndhārī Dharmapada and a Collection of Previous-Birth Stories, British Library Kharoṣṭhī Fragments 16 + 25. Gandhāran Buddhist Texts, Volume 3. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Lüders, Heinrich 1954 Beobachtungen über die Sprache des buddhistischen Urkanons, aus dem Nachlass herausgegeben von Ernst Waldschmidt, Abhandlungen der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Klasse für Sprachen, Literatur und Kunst, Jahrgang 1952, 10. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Matras, Yaron 2002 Romani: A Linguistic Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Miranda, Rocky V. 2007 Konkani. In: Cardona and Jain (eds.), 729−765. Nakamura, Hajime 1987 Indian Buddhism. A Survey with Bibliographic Notes. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. [Originally Tokyo, 1980; reprinted 1989, 1996.] Norman, K. R. 1983 Pāli Literature, including the canonical literature in Prakrit and Sanskrit of all the Hīnayāna schools of Buddhism. A History of Indian Literature, volume VII, fascicle 2. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Norman, K. R. 1989 Dialect forms in Pali. In: Caillat (ed.), 369−392. Oberlies, Thomas 2001 Pāli, A Grammar of the Language of the Theravāda Tipiṭaka with a Concordance to Pischel’s Grammatik der Prakrit-Sprachen. (Indian Philology and South Asian Studies 3). Berlin: De Gruyter. Oberlies, Thomas 2007 Aśokan Prakrit and Pāli. In: Cardona and Jain (eds.), 161−203. Pandharipande, Rajeshwari 2007 Marathi. In: Cardona and Jain (eds.), 698−728. Pischel, Richard 1965 Comparative Grammar of the Prākr̥it Languages. [Translation by Subhadra Jhā of Grammatik der Prakrit-Sprachen. Strassburg: Trübner, 1900]. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Pinault, Georges-Jean 1989 Reflets dialectaux en védique ancien. In: Caillat (ed.), 35−96. Ray, Tapas S. 2007 Oriya. In: Cardona and Jain (eds.), 250−285. Riccardi, Theodore 2007 Nepali. In: Cardona and Jain (eds.), 538−580. Salomon, Richard 1998 Indian Epigraphy. A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages. New York: Oxford University Press. Salomon, Richard 1999 Ancient Buddhist Scrolls from Gandhāra. The British Library Kharoṣṭhī Fragments. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

26. The phonology of Indic

325

Salomon, Richard 2000 A Gāndhārī Version of the Rhinoceros Sūtra, British Library Kharoṣṭhī Fragment 5B. Gandhāran Buddhist Texts, Volume 1. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Salomon, Richard 2007 Writing systems of the Indo-Aryan languages. In: Cardona and Jain (eds.), 67−103. Schmidt, Ruth Laila 2007 Urdu. In: Cardona and Jain (eds.), 286−350. Schubring, Walther 1962 The Doctrine of the Jainas Described after the old Sources ... [Translation by Wolfgang Beurlen of the revised German edition of Die Lehre der Jainas, nach den alten Quellen dargestellt, Grundriss der indo-arischen Philologie und Altertumskunde, III.7. 1934. Berlin: XXX]. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Seyfort Ruegg, David 2000 On the expressions chandaso āropema, āyataka gītassara, sarabhañña and ārṣa as applied to the ‘Word of the Buddha’ (buddhavacanam). In: Ryutaro Tsuchida and Albrecht Wezler (eds.), Harānandalaharī, Volume in Honour of Professor Minoru Hara on his Seventieth Birthday. Reinbek: Verlag für Orientalistische Fachpublikationen, 283−306. Shackle, Christopher 2007 Panjabi. In: Cardona and Jain (eds.), 581−621. Shapiro, Michael C. 2007 Hindi. In: Cardona and Jain (eds.), 250−285. Steiner, Roland 1997 Untersuchungen zu Harṣadevas Nāgānanda und zum indischen Schauspiel. (Indica et Tibetica 31). Swisttal-Odendorf: Indica et Tibetica Verlag. Verma, Manindra K. 2007 Bhojpuri. In: Cardona and Jain (eds.), 515−537. Verma, Sheila 2007 Magahi. In: Cardona and Jain (eds.), 498−514. Witzel, Michael 1989 Tracing the Vedic dialects. In: Caillat (ed.), 97−265. Witzel, Michael 1991 Notes on Vedic dialects (1). Zinbun 1990: 31−70. Yadav, Ramawatar 2007 Maithili. In: Cardona and Jain (eds.), 477−497.

George Cardona, Philadelphia PA (USA)

26. The phonology of Indic 0. 1. 2. 3. 4.

Introduction Vowels Sonorant consonants Consonants (obstruents) Morphophonology

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261288-026

5. 6. 7. 8.

Accent Syllable Abbreviations and symbols References

326

V. Indic

0. Introduction Old Indic (Old Indo-Aryan) covers a vast span of time, possibly over a millennium, from the divergence of Indic from Proto-Indo-Iranian up to the emergence of Middle Indic. While Old Indic is best represented by Sanskrit of the Vedic Saṁhitās, especially the R̥gveda, their existing texts have been orthoepically normalized by later redactors, and phonetic and phonological details of their language are explained in even later sources such as Pāṇini’s grammar Aṣṭādhyāyī and phonetic guides called the Prātiśākhyas. This article describes the phonology of the extant Vedic texts, primarily the R̥gveda, referring to those native grammatical works, and also discusses putative pronunciation and prehistory where it is philologically reconstructible.

1. Vowels 1.1. Simple vowels Old Indic has three simple vowels /a, i, u/, each with long counterparts /ā, ī, ū/, and two syllabic liquids /r̥ / and /l̥ / (the circle underneath marks syllabicity). As /l̥ / occurs only in one lexeme (1.2) and does not contrast phonemically with /r̥ /, there is no strong basis for considering it an independent phoneme. High vowels /i/ and /u/ alternate with the glides /y/ and /v/ just as /r̥ / and /l̥ / do with the liquids /r/ and /l/, e.g. ví- m. ‘bird’ vs. váyaḥ nom.pl., kr̥ ‘do’ vs. ákaram aor.act.1sg., so they can also be viewed as syllabic counterparts of glides (/y̥/ and /v̥/) respectively, distinct from /a/ which alternates only with /ā/ or zero. Since /a/ and /ā/ are the only simple vowels that do not alternate with sonorant consonants, they stand apart from the other vowels. According to the R̥gveda-Prātiśākhya, /r̥ / is pronounced as an /r/ accompanied by extra-short /a/ on both sides of it (R̥Pr. 13.34). Long vowels are double-length counterparts of the short vowels (ŚCĀ 1.2.21), except that short /a/ is taught to be phonetically saṁvr̥ta ‘closed’ (presumably a mid vowel like [ə]) and is different in quality from /ā/ which is vivr̥ta ‘wide open’ (like [ɑː/aː]). Tab. 26.1: Old Indic vowels and syllabic sonorants and diphthongs Vowels front

back

i ī [iː]

u ū [uː]

mid

a [ə]

low

ā [ɑː]

high

aā

iī

uū

[low]

+

−

−

[back]

+/−*

−

+

*Triggers palatalization if originating from PIE *e/ē.

Syllabic sonorants r̥ [r̩ ] r (l̥ [l̩ ]) Diphthongs e [eː] o [oː] ai [ai]* au [au]* * The /a/-parts are ‘more wide open’ (vivr̥tatarau) according to Patañjali on Aṣṭ. 1.1.9 [1.62:2]

26. The phonology of Indic Although not phonemic, triple-length vowels (pluta) written /a3/ etc. occur in certain discourse contexts such as the end of yes-no and alternative questions (Strunk 1983: 41 ff.), addressing from afar etc., or in certain ritual utterances such as o3m or śrau3ṣat (Aṣṭādhyāyī 8.2.82−108).

1.2. Origin of simple vowels /a/ goes back to PIIr. *a < PIE *e and *a as well as PIE *o when not lengthened by Brugmann’s Law (see below, this section) and from the PIE syllabic sonorants *m̥ and *n̥ when they occur between consonants other than laryngeals or between consonants and word boundaries, as in Skt. dáśa ‘ten’, Av. dasa from PIE *dék̑m̥, apád- ‘footless’ from PIE *n̥-pód-, *tatá- ‘extended’ from PIE *tn̥-tó-. /i/ goes back to PIE *i, PIE laryngeal between consonants or in pausa after a consonant (*H /C_{C, #}) as in pitár- m. ‘father’ < PIE *ph2 tér- and most likely jáni- ‘woman’ (cf. instr. pl. jánib hiḥ) < PIE *gwénh2 -, or results from PIIr. *r̥ as part of the law *r̥ > ir/_HV as in tirás ‘through’ from PIE *tr̥ h2 ós (Lubotsky, The Phonology of Indo-Iranian, this handbook, 6.3). /u/ goes back to PIE *u, and results from PIE *r̥ > ur/_HV after a [+labial] consonant of PIE such as guru ‘heavy’ < PIE *gwr̥ h2 ú-, or PIIr. *r̥ > ur /_s# as in pitúr abl.-gen.sg. of pitár-/pitŕ̥- m. ‘father’ from PIIr. *pitŕ̥ -s, or dad húr perf.act.3pl. of d hā ‘put’ from PIIr. *da-dhH-ŕ̥ s. /r̥ / is the usual outcome from PIE *r̥ and *l̥ (via PIIr. *r̥ ~ [*l̥ ]?) with /l̥ / occurring only in the zero grade of the verbal root kalp/kl̥ p ‘fit, be arranged’ such as in cā-kl̥ p-ré perf.mid.3pl. ri instead of r̥ resulted from medial sequences of PIIr. *r̥ and *i̯ , e.g. mriyapres.stem of mar/mr̥ ‘die’ < PIIr. *mr̥ -i̯ a-. /ā/ comes from PIIr. *ā < PIE *ē, *ō, PIIr. *aH/_{C, #} (final -VH is shortened before a vowel, see Kuiper 197: 318 f.), PIE *o in non-final open syllables such as Skt. cá-kāra perf.act.3sg. of kar/kr̥ ‘do’ < PIE *k wé-k wor-e (Brugmann’s Law; see Lubotsky, The Phonology of Indo-Iranian, this handbook, 2.2.2), and from the sandhi of -ar/_ r- (2.1). It also comes from contraction of two /ā˘/’s, e.g. pā´nti < *paHánti pres.act.3pl. of pā ‘protect’. /ī/ comes primarily from PIE *iH/_{C, #}, as in prītá- ‘pleased’, from PIE *r̥ H, *l̥ H/_C > īr, as in kīrtí- f. ‘fame’, from contraction or coalescence of *i(H)i as in ījé perf.mid.1/3sg. of yaj/ij ‘worship’, and from the sandhi of -iḥ > ī/_ r- (2.1). /ū/ comes from PIE *uH/_{C, #}, as in b hū´mi- f. ‘earth’, from PIE *r̥ H, *l̥ H > ūr/_C, typically in a labial context as in pūrṇá- adj. ‘full’ < PIE *pl̥ h1 -nó-, from contraction or coalescence of *u(H)u as in ūcúḥ perf.act.3pl. of vac ‘speak’, and from the sandhi of -uḥ > ū/_ r- (2.1). /r̥̄ / is an analogically lengthened counterpart of /r̥ / found in plural accusative and genitive forms of r̥-stems, e.g. svásr̄j ḥ, acc.pl. of svásr̥- f. ‘sister’, or pitr̥̄ṇā´m, gen.pl. of pitŕ̥- m. ‘father’. Cf. also the metrically heavy /r̥ / as in R̥V mr̥láta ̣ ‘be merciful’ (3.3c).

327

328

V. Indic

1.3. “Complex” vowels, diphthongs, and their origins /e/ [eː] and /o/ [oː] from PIE *ei̯ /*oi̯ and *eu̯/*ou̯ had become long monophthongs by the time of the native grammarians, although they treat them as sandhy-akṣara ‘composite syllables’ and were aware of their diphthongal origin (Deshpande 1997: 162 f.). That /e/ and /o/ were diphthongs up to some time in pre-Vedic Old Indic is supported by the Mitanni Indic form a-i-ka- [aika] ‘one’ in Kikkuli’s Hittite document on horse training instead of éka- in Sanskrit. In Indic documents as well, /e/ and /o/ are pronounced [ai̯ ] and [ai̯ ] in ritual formulae (Hoffmann 1975−1976: 552 ff.). Even in synchronic alternation, they are pronounced as diphthongs in pluti lengthening ([aːi] and [aːu], Aṣṭ. 8.2.107), sandhi such as manyo C- vs. manyav V- (4.2.[g]), and vowel gradation such as manyú- m. ‘fury’ : manyáv-e dat.sg. The diphthongs /ai/ and /au/ originate from PIE *ēi̯ /*ōi̯ and *ēu̯/*ōu̯, which are the lengthened-grade alternants of PIE *i and *u, and from vr̥ ddhi-formation (4.1). Although they are reconstructed as PIIr. *āi̯ and *āu̯ with long *ā, they are pronounced in Sanskrit with short /a/ according to the native grammarians ([aiː] and [auː] in pluti, Aṣṭ. 8.2.106), and traces of pronunciation with *ā are found only in sandhi, e.g. devā´v aśvínā for /deváu aśvínā/. /ai/ and /au/ also come from some combinations of /a/ + /i, u/ such as augment á- + stems beginning with /i/ and /u/, where originally a root-initial laryngeal blocked coalescence, e.g. ainot impf.act.3sg. of ay/i ‘impel’, aub hnāt impf.act.3sg. of vab h/ub h ‘confine’.

1.4. Other vowel-related phenomena a) Sequence of vowels (diaeresis): A sequence of vowels within a word is very rare in the current Vedic texts: among very few such cases are títaü- n. ‘sieve’ and práüga- n. ‘the front part of the drawbar of a cart’. However, there must originally have been many more vowel sequences within or between words, such as R̥V /váreniam/, /práti agníḥ/, /devó anayat/, which are orthoepically normalized as váreṇyam, práty agníḥ, devò ’nayat respectively in the existing recension. In a few words, original /ayi/ is also monophthongized to /e/ by redactors, as in trisyllabic śréṣṭ ha- /śráy-iṣṭha-/ ‘most beautiful’ (see below). b) Apparent diphthongs and long vowels: In the case of śréṣṭ ha-, /é/ is metrically scanned as disyllabic /áyi/, in a quarter of its occurrences in the R̥gveda, but they are all normalized to śréṣṭ ha- (Lubotsky 1995: 217). There are many similar words or morphemes with coalesced vowel sequences in the existing recension of the R̥gveda, e.g. tred hā´ ‘threefold’ to be read [trayidhā´], pā´nti pres.act.3pl. of pā ‘protect’ to be read [páanti], the genitive plural ending -ām as in apā´m ‘of waters’ to be read [-áā˘m]. c) Shortening and lengthening of vowels: The study of R̥gvedic meter reveals that /e/ and /o/, which are usually pronounced long in Old Indic, are metrically treated as short when they are followed by /a/ (Oldenberg 1909: 447 ff., cf. Cardona 2003: 113), e.g. R̥V 3.4.2b mitró agníḥ − g − − or 3.54.7a dūréante − g − −. The /a/ in this context is elided in a later sandhi rule called abhinihita. Rhythm-motivated lengthening, such as R̥V śrud hī́ for śrud hí aor.ipv.2sg. of śrav/śru ‘hear’, is observed in the R̥gveda. d) Epenthesis and loss of vowels: When a syllable followed by /y/ or /v/ would become superheavy, i.e. would end up being more than two morae long (-VCC{y/v} or

26. The phonology of Indic

329

-V̅C{y/v}), the vowels /i/ and /u/ are respectively inserted before them (Sievers’ Law; Schindler 1977: 57), e.g. kártva- /kártuva-/ adj. ‘to be done’, kŕ̥tvya- /kŕ̥ tviya-/ adj. ‘capable’. There is some inconsistency in spelling as pairs like aśviyá- adj. ‘consisting of horses’ vs. áśvya- (usually /áśviya-/) adj. ‘connected with horses’ show (Wackernagel 1896: 200 ff.), so the original pronunciation can be reliably restored only from Vedic meter. There are morphemes exempt from this rule such as the future suffix -sya-. Another common type of epenthesis is the insertion of /i/ not originating from *H, added for example to perfect stems ending in a heavy syllable before endings beginning with a consonant, such as vad ‘speak’, ūd-i-ma perf.act.1pl. Syncope of high vowels such as kr̥ṇvaḥ for /kr̥ -ṇu-vas/ pres.act.1du. of kar/kr̥ ‘do’ occasionally occurs, and there are a few suspected cases of aphaeresis, e.g. monosyllabic iva ‘like, as’ in the R̥gveda, or R̥V śmasi ~ uśmási pres.act.1pl. of vaś/uś ‘want’.

2. Sonorant consonants 2.1. Phonemes Old Indic has nine sonorant consonants: the glides /y/ and /v/, the liquids /r/ and /l/, and the nasals /m/, /n/, /ṇ/ [ɳ], /ṅ/ [ŋ], and [ɲ] (see below). Tab. 26.2: Old Indic sonorant consonants Glides Liquids Nasals

y [j] [ ɲ]

v [w/ʋ/v] r m

l n

ṇ [ɳ ]

ṅ [ŋ]

ṃ/ṁ

y

v

r

l

m

n

ṇ

ṅ

ṃ/ṁ

[sonorant]

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

[consonantal]

−

−

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

[continuant]

+

+

+

−

−

−

−

−

+

+

+

[labial] [coronal]

+

+ +

+

[dorsal] [distributed]

+ −

−

−

+

/y/ and /v/ are glides, and pattern as non-nucleus alternants of /i/ and /u/ in sandhi and vowel gradation. In later Sanskrit, they gradually came to be pronounced as an alveolopalatal stop and a labiodental fricative in certain contexts (Vāj.Pr. 1.81 and TPr. 2.43; Varma 1929: 126 ff.). According to some Prātiśākhyas, /l/ is pronounced at the teeth (dantya) or the root of the teeth (danta-mūlīya), and /r/ at the root of the teeth (danta-mūlīya) or the alveolar ridge (barsvya), although the exact manner of articulation is not clear. The two liquids show a slightly different distributional pattern in Indic. While /l/ occurs in gemination

330

V. Indic both within and across words (kṣullaká- adj. ‘small’, tiṣṭ hel lambeta < /tiṣṭhet/), Old Indic /r/ is never geminated and a sequence of two /r/’s across morphemes or words is avoided, e.g. prātā´ rát hena < /prātár ráthena/ or TS nī-rohá- ‘descender’ < /nir-rohá-/. Besides being subject to gemination, /l/ blocks spreading of retroflexion from /r/ or /ṣ/ to /n/ as coronal stops do, so Old Indic /l/ patterns as a non-continuant while /r/ is a continuant. /r/ becomes visarga ḥ in absolute final position and becomes indistinct from /s/ in surface forms (4.3[e]). /n/ changes to /ṇ/ when immediately followed by a retroflex stop. Non-final /n/ also becomes /ṇ/ when it is not immediately followed by a dental stop and is preceded by /r/, /r̥ /, /r̥̄ / or /ṣ/, even if vowels and consonants other than coronal non-continuants (dental, retroflex, alveolo-palatal stops and /l/) and fricatives intervene. This occurs usually within the same word, e.g. r̥g hāyámāṇam < /r̥ ghāyámānam/, coṣkūyámāṇaḥ < /coṣkūyámānaḥ/, but across boundaries of some closely connected words as well, e.g. R̥V prá ṇayanti. Unlike the retroflexion of /s/ to /ṣ/ which is local assimilation, the latter is an autosegmental spreading of the distinctive feature [−anterior] which anchors on the tier of coronal non-continuants (Kobayashi 2004: 154), so it is blocked when another coronal non-continuant intervenes. While /ṇ/ is an allophonic variant of /n/ in most cases, /ṇ/ also occurs without a clear conditioning context, as in aṇu- adj. ‘minute’ vs. ánu preverb ‘after’, so it needs to be posited as an independent phoneme (Emeneau 1946: 89). is an allophone of /n/ before an alveolo-palatal stop. So is /ṅ/ before a velar stop in most cases, but a few stems ending in an alveolo-palatal obstruent take an inserted nasal before it, and there are words that end in ṅ by assimilation and final sandhi (4.4[h]), e.g. prā´ṅ nom.sg. of prā´ñc- adj. ‘turned forward’, yúṅ nom.sg. of yúj- m. ‘yoke fellow’, īdŕ̥ṅ nom.sg. of īdŕ̥ś- adj. ‘such’.

2.2. Origin /y/ and /v/ are inherited from PIIr.=PIE *i̯ and *u̯, respectively. They also occur as offglides of *i and *u, especially where a PIE laryngeal after them is lost, e.g. yúvanadj. ‘young’ < *h2 i̯ u-Hen-. Indic /r/ and /l/ are of disputed origin. Since Old Iranian has no /l/ documented, and since /r/ is 90 times more common than /l/ in the R̥gveda, some scholars consider that PIE *l and *r have merged to *r in Proto-Indo-Iranian (Bartholomae 1895−1901: 23). However, their less disproportionate distribution in later Vedic Saṁhitās, and the possible Proto-Indo-European origins of some of Indic (and later Iranian) words with /l/ such as Skt. leh/lih ‘lick’, Persian lištan and Kurdish listin ‘id.’, make us suspect that *l merged with *r only in Vedic dialects, especially in the dialect of the R̥gveda, while it remained distinct from *r in other, undocumented dialects of Old Indic. /n/ comes from PIE *n, or from *n̥ followed by a sonorant consonant, e.g. ta-tanvás- < *-tn̥-u̯- pf.act.ppl. of tan ‘stretch’, and from *m̥ followed by a labial sonorant consonant as well, e.g. ja-gan-vás- < *-gm̥-u̯- ~ ja-gm-úṣ- < *-mu- pf.act.ppl. of gam ‘go’. /m/ comes from PIE *m, or from *m̥ followed by a non-labial sonorant consonant, j -i̯ ḗt (with analogical j). e.g. Skt. gam-yā´t aor.opt.act.3sg., YAv. jamiiāt̰ < PIE *gwm

26. The phonology of Indic

331

3. Consonants (obstruents) 3.1. Phonemes Old Indic has voiceless/voiced and aspirated/unaspirated stops at five places of articulation, namely velar, alveolo-palatal, retroflex (= [apical] postalveolar), dental, and labial. Though aspiration is transcribed with h, the aspiration of the voiced aspirates is [ɦ] and is different from that of the voiceless aspirates, [h] (TPr. 2.9, 10, Allen 1953: 35). If we add five nasals to the stops, we get a five-by-five matrix of non-continuants that looks perfectly symmetrical at first sight, but actually there are several gaps in it. , and usually /ṅ/ as well, are allophones of /n/ before an alveolo-palatal and velar stop respectively; there is practically no /j h/ in early Old Indic, and /c h/, /ḍ h/ and sometimes /ḍ/, are prosodically clusters. Between vowels and glides, /ḍ/ and /ḍ h/ are replaced by their allophones /ḷ/ [ɭ] and h /ḷ / [ɭɦ] in the existing R̥gveda text (Witzel 1989: 165 ff.). Old Indic has three voiceless sibilants, alveolo-palatal /ś/ [ɕ], retroflex /ṣ/ [ʂ] and dental /s/, and one voiced glottal fricative h [ɦ]. Besides these phonemes, there are voiceless glottal, velar and bilabial fricatives /ḥ, h, ḫ/ which occur as allophones of /s/ and /r/ (4.4 [i]).

Tab. 26.3: Old Indic obstruents voiceless unaspirated p t ṭ [ʈ] c [c/tɕ] k k

labial dental retroflex alveolo-palatal velar glottal

p ph b bh t

voiceless aspirated ph th ṭh ch kh kh

th d dh ṭ

voiced unaspirated b d ḍ [ɖ] j [ɟ/dʑ] g g

voiced aspirated b h[bɦ] dh ḍh jh gh gh

ṭh ḍ ḍh c ch j

voiceless fricative [ɸ] s ṣ [ʂ] ś [ɕ] [x] [h/ç] h [ɦ]

jh k kh g gh s

ṣ

ś

h

[son]

− −

− −

− −

− −

− −

− −

− −

− −

− −

− −

− − − −

[cons]

+ +

+ +

+ +

+ +

+ +

+ +

+ +

+ +

+ +

+ +

+ + + +

[cont]

− −

− −

− −

− −

− −

− −

− −

− −

− −

− −

+ + + +

+ +

+

+

+ + + +

[voiced]

+ +

[spread glottis]

+

+

[labial]

+ +

+ +

[cor]

+ +

+ +

+ +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+ +

+ +

+ +

+ +

+ +

+ +

[dorsal]

+

+ + + + +

+ +

[dist]

+ +

+ +

− −

− −

+ +

+ +

+ − +

[ant]

+ +

+ +

− −

− −

− −

− −

+ − −

332

V. Indic

3.2. Proto-Indo-European laryngeals The three laryngeals in Proto-Indo-European, *h1, *h2, and *h3, have merged to *H, except that *h2 has left its trace by aspirating a preceding voiceless stop (for voiced stops, see Lubotsky, The Phonology of Indo-Iranian, this volume, 6.2), as in pr̥t hú- adj. ‘broad’, Av. pərəθu- < PIE *pl̥ th2ú-. Then *H lost its segmental status in Indic. It lengthened a preceding syllable nucleus, but left no trace if it was between a consonant and a vowel. Between consonants or in pausa after a consonant, it developed to /i/ (1.2). In the R̥gveda, original laryngeals in the context C_V sometimes make the preceding syllable heavy (long by position) in metrical scansion, e.g. the first syllable of jána- m. ‘people’ < PIE *g̑ónh1o-, so they still had some trace in the days of the R̥gvedic poets (Gippert 1997).

3.3. Origins a) Voiceless unaspirated stops: /k/ has its origin in PIE *k or *k w in a non-palatalizing context, i.e. before a back vowel or a consonant other than *i̯ . Even in a palatalizing context, PIE *k or *k w might end up as Old Indic /k/ due to paradigmatic leveling, e.g. cay/ci ‘notice’, ci-kā´y-a perf.act.3sg. < *k wi-k woi̯ -e vs. ci-ky-úr 3pl. < *k wi-k wi̯ -rjs. ́ The cluster kṣ can come from PIE *k, *g, *g h, *k w, *gw, *gwh, *k̑, *g̑, *g̑ h + *s through devoicing, deaspiration, and depalatalization, and from the “thorn” cluster *tk̑ etc. as in ŕ̥kṣa- m. ‘bear’ < PIE *h2 r̥ tk ́ ̑ o-. /t/ and /p/ go back to PIE *t and *p respectively. The former also comes from occlusion of /s/ in a few words (4.4[f]). In early Old Indic, /ṭ/ is in the process of being established as an independent phoneme. It is mostly a conditioned allophone of /t/ when immediately preceded by /ṣ/ within the same word, and also across words in the R̥gveda, e.g. agníṣ ṭvā (agníḥ tvā in normal sandhi). /c/ comes from Proto-Indo-Iranian secondary palatal *č, which in turn goes back to PIE *k and *k w before a front vocoid, namely *e, *ē, *i or the glide *i̯ , e.g. cakrá- n. ‘wheel’ < PIIr. *čakra- < PIE *k wek wlo-. b) Voiceless aspirated stops: /k h/, /t h/ and /p h/ originate from combinations of PIE *k/*k w in non-palatalizing contexts, *t and *p plus *h2 , respectively (Kuryłowicz 1935: 46 ff.). A few Old Indic words with voiceless aspirates have cognates with aspirates in other Indo-European languages, e.g. Br.+ sk halate ‘goes astray’ vs. Greek σφάλλω ‘I make fall’, and such voiceless aspirates might have been allophones of unaspirated voiceless stops after initial *s (cf. Klingenschmitt 1982: 168). As in the case of /ṭ/, /ṭ h/ was originally an allophone of /t h/ after /ṣ/, but there are a few words with lexical /ṭ h/ already in the R̥gveda, such as jaṭ hára- n. ‘womb’. /c h/ comes from PIIr. *sć < PIE *sk̑ (*sk according to Lubotsky 2001), e.g. the suffix -cc ha- as in gácc hasi pres.act.2sg. of gam ‘go’ < PIE *gwm̥-sk̑é-si. Because of its origin as a cluster, this sound is a geminate [cch ], except word-initially after a word ending in a long vowel (other than the preverb ā´ or the prohibitive particle mā´ ) where gemination is optional. Synchronically, /c h/ is a stop counterpart of /ś/ (4.4[g]).

26. The phonology of Indic c) Voiced unaspirated stops: /g/ comes from PIE *g or *gw in non-palatalizing contexts, and /d/ and /b/ from *d and *b respectively. Few words have inherited /b/, e.g. bála- n. ‘power’ < PIE *bélo-, Latin dē-bilis ‘weak’. /ḍ/ comes from PIIr. *žd < PIE *sd after *i, *u and *r/*r̥ , that is the context retroflexing *s (‘RUKI’ rule, 3.4.[g]), e.g. R̥V mr̥ḷáta −gg pres.ipv.act.2pl. of mr̥ḍ ‘be merciful’ < PIIr. *mr̥ žd, OAv. mərəždātā. /j/ has two origins, Proto-Indo-Iranian primary palatal *ȷ´ < PIE *g̑, and Proto-IndoIranian secondary palatal *ǰ which goes back to PIE *g or *gw followed by a front vocoid. Depending on its origin, it shows different sandhi between morphemes and in word-final position, e.g. iṣ-ṭá- vb.adj. of yaj ‘worship’ < PIE *Hi̯ ag̑, vs. vik-tá- vb.adj. of vej/vij ‘set in motion’ < PIE *u̯ei̯ g. Voiced unaspirated stops also result from deaspiration of PIE *g h, *gwh, *d h, and *b h when another aspirate occurs at the onset of the following syllable (Grassmann’s Law), e.g. d har/d hr̥ ‘hold’, da-d hr-é perf.mid.3sg. Greek (ἄ-)ιστος ‘(un)seen’, etc. (Mayrhofer 1986: 100). It also applies synchronically to an /s/ trapped between heteromorphemic stops, as in ut-t hā ‘get up’ < /ut-st hā/. This is one of the sound changes that demarcate Indic from the rest of Indo-European. Underlying this innovation is a preference of Indic to have uninterrupted occlusion of stops across a syllable boundary (6.3). d) In clusters of three or more obstruents other than stop + /s/ + stop (c), the first consonant tends to be deleted, e.g. nád-bhyaḥ dat.pl. of nápt-/ nápāt- ‘grandson’ < /nápt-b hyas/, although the exact condition is hard to formulate (Gotō 2006: 205 ff.). e) PIIr. *ȷ´h and *ǰ h, and sporadically other voiced aspirates as well, were debuccalized and became /h/, e.g. hán-ti pres.act.3sg. of han ‘smite’ < PIIr. *ǰ hán-ti < PIE *gwhénti vs. g hn-ánti 3pl. < PIIr. *g hn-ánti < PIE *gwhn-ónt(i), ihá ‘here’ vs. Pāli id ha. f) PIIr. *š, a posterior alternant of *s after a front vowel, *r/*r̥ or a palatal/dorsal stop, or the outcome of *ć and *ȷ´ before voiceless dental stops, became retroflex /ṣ/, e.g. júṣṭa- ‘enjoyed’ vs. Av. zuštō < PIIr. *ȷ´ušta-. g) Proto-Indo-Iranian or post-Proto-Indo-Iranian voiced sibilants *z, *ź/ž ([ʒ] or [ʑ]) and *ź h/ž h were eliminated in the surface representation of Sanskrit. *z, which comes from *s in a voicing context, was lost as in med hā´ f. ‘wisdom’ < PIE *mn̥z-d heh1 (cf. Görtzen 1998: 308 ff.). *ź/ž and *ź h/ž h became /ṣ/ before a voiceless stop as in iṣ-ṭá- vb.adj. of yaj ‘worship’ ā; + /i-, ī-/ > e; + /u-, ū-/ > o; + /r̥ -/ > ar ; /-ā/ + /r̥ -/ > ār when the ā is a preverb and the r̥ is part of a root, or > ar̥ in Vedic, e.g. sapta-r̥ṣáyaḥ ‘seven seers’ (cf. Gotō 2000: 148 fn. 5); + /e-, ai-/ > ai; + /o-, au-/ > au. b) /-i, -ī/: + /i-, ī-/ > ī; + other V > -y, or > /-i(y)/ (written -y) in Vedic (see Sievers’ Law 1.4[d]). c) /-u, ū/: + /u-, ū-/ > ū; + other V > -v, or > /-u(v)/ (written -v) in Vedic (see Sievers’ Law 1.4[d]). d) /-r̥ /: + /r̥ -/ > r̥̄ ; + other V > -r.

335

336

V. Indic e) [wd.] /-e/: + /a-/ > -e ’- or -e a- usually in Vedic; + other V > -a. Final anudātta /-e/ becomes -ā before an initial udātta vowel in the Maitrāyaṇī Saṁhitā (Lubotsky 1983: 168 ff.). [mph.] /-e/: + V > ay. f) [wd.] /-ai/: + V- > -ā. [mph.] /-ai/: + V- > -āy. g) [wd.] /-o/: + /a-/ > -o ’-, or -o a- usually in Vedic; + /u-/ > -a; + other V > -av. [mph.] /-o/: + V > -av. h) [wd.] /-au/: + /u-/ > -ā; + other V > -āv. [mph.] /-au/: + V > -āv. i) [wd.] Tone sandhi: If in vowel sandhi either vowel has an udātta, the resulting vowel takes on udātta accent. For cases where svarita accent results, see 5.2. j) Final /ī/, /ū/ and /e/ in a few morphemes and lexical items, such as those in dual nom.-acc. forms like agnī́ nom.-acc.du. of agní- m. ‘fire, Agni’, some of which result from coalescence of the stem-final vowel and *-ih1 , verb forms like b har-ete pres.mid.3du. of b har/b hr̥ ‘carry’, forms of the paradigm of the remote-deixis demonstrative adás like amī́ m.nom.pl, locative forms of personal pronouns like tvé ‘in you’, asmé ‘in us’, yuṣmé ‘in you (pl.)’, and the particle u, are called pragr̥hya and are usually not subject to word sandhi (Malzahn 2001: 8 ff.).

4.3. Sandhi of sonorant consonants a) /m/ and /n/: Word-final /m/ is assimilated to a following non-continuant (stop and nasal) in place of articulation, e.g. /tám juṣasva/ > táñ juṣasva. When followed by /y, v, l/, it becomes their nasalized counterparts /ỹ, ṽ, ˜l/ (written m̐y, m̐v and m̐l) respectively. Word-final /n/ is assimilated to a following alveolo-palatal obstruent and becomes ñ. b) Anusvāra and anunāsika: When /m/ is followed by /r/ or fricatives /ś, ṣ, s, h/, it becomes a postvocalic nasal segment called anusvāra (R̥Pr. 4.15), written ṃ in transcription, or ṁ to distinguish it from a conventional use of ṃ for a nasal homorganic to the following stop (Aṣṭ 8.4.58, 59, e.g. táṃ juṣasva as equivalent to táñ juṣasva). An anusvāra usually has no occlusion or a fixed place of articulation (Cardona 2013: 43). /m/ followed by /y/, /v/ and /l/ becomes their nasalized counterparts (anunāsika) written m̐y m̐v and m̐l respectively (R̥Pr. 4.7). There is significant dialectal variation as to the conditioning contexts of anusvāra and anunāsika; e.g. the R̥gveda shows cases of unetymological nasalization, e.g. ā´m̐ ~ ā´ adv. ‘towards’ (m̐ represents nasalization). c) A word-final /n/ following /ā/ becomes an anusvāra, or an anunāsika when its origin was *-ns as in the masculine accusative plural ending or the masculine nominative singular, e.g. devā´m̐ ihá, jaghanvā´m̐ ápa, or devā´m̐s tvám with original sibilant recurring before a voiceless stop. After /ī/ and /ū/, *-ns becomes m̐r. d) Word-final /n/ and /ṅ/ preceded by a short vowel are geminated when a word beginning with a vowel follows (originally for /n#/ < *-nt, see Oldenberg 1909: VI). e) Word-final /r/ becomes visarga /ḥ/, and merges with final /s/ (4.4[i]) except when preceded by /a/ and followed by a vowel, e.g. /prātár/ adv. ‘in the early morning’, prātáḥ sutám, prātár áhnaḥ.

26. The phonology of Indic

4.4. Sandhi of obstruents Word sandhi applies between words and between members of a compound except in old compounds such as dū-ḍáb ha- adj. ‘hard to deceive’ < /duž-dábha-/ < /dus-dábha-/ instead of ×durdábha-. It also applies between a stem and a desinence beginning with an obstruent, namely -b his, -b hyas, -b hyām, and -su. a) [mph.] Voicing and aspiration, or the laryngeal features, of an obstruent cluster, spread regressively from the rightmost segment, e.g. á-vr̥k-ta aor.mid.3sg. of varj/vr̥j ‘avert’ or á-b hut-si, aor.mid.1sg of bod h/bud h ‘awake’. An exception to this rule is the combination of a voiced aspirate + a voiceless dental stop such as vr̥d-d há-, vb.adj. of vard h/vr̥d h ‘grow’ (Bartholomae’s Law, 3.4). b) [mph.] Palatal obstruents undergo different sandhi depending on their origin. /c/, /j/ and /h/ from Proto-Indo-Iranian secondary palatal *č, *ǰ and *ǰ h becomes /k/ (/g/ when voiced) before all consonants, e.g. rik-t há- n. ‘legacy’ from rec/ric ‘leave’, rugṇá- n. ‘crack’ from roj/ruj ‘crack’. The aspiration and voicing of /h/ spread to /t/ in the context of Bartholomae’s Law (3.4), e.g. drug-d há-, vb.adj. of droh/druh ~ drog h/ drug h ‘deceive’. c) [mph.] /ś/, /j/ and /h/ from Proto-Indo-Iranian primary palatal *ć, *ȷ´ and *ȷ´ h are more complex. Before /t/, they become /ṣ/, e.g. iṣ-ṭá-, vb.adj. of yaj/ij ‘worship’, cf. ak-távb.adj. of añj ‘smear’ with original *ǰ. They remain unchanged before /n/, but /j/ -o ’-; -as + other V- > -a; -ās + V- > -ā; -{other V}s + V- > -r. Anudātta -as + udātta V- > -ā (Maitrāyaṇī Saṁhitā). [mph.] -s-V- > -s, e.g. uṣásaḥ gen.-abl.sg. of uṣás- ‘dawn’. k) [wd.] Word-final stops are deaspirated, and assimilate to the initial sound of the following word in voicing. In absolute final position, they are either voiced or voiceless (Cardona 2003: 115). Final /t, d/ becomes a corresponding alveolo-palatal stop before an initial alveolo-palatal obstruent by assimilation, e.g. táj jahi < /tád jahi/, aruhac c hukrám < /aruhat śukrám/. In the Maitrāyaṇī Saṁhitā, final /t, d/ becomes ñ when followed by /ś/. l) [wd.] Word-final stops are assimilated in manner to a following nasal and become corresponding nasals, e.g. /tád naḥ/ → tán naḥ. /t, d/ become l before /l/. [mph.] /d/ is assimilated to /n/ before some nasal-initial suffixes, e.g. /sad + -ná-/ → sanná(AV+).

5. Accent 5.1. Underlying system Old Indic words have an accent called udātta (lit. ‘heightened’), marked with acute accent symbol in roman transcription. In Proto-Indo-European, the accent might have been concomitant with ablaut, but the accent of Old Indic is often lexical and independent of ablaut. There are a few words which preserve kinetic accentual patterns, such as pánt hā- m. ‘path’, pánt hāḥ nom.sg. < PIE *pént-oh2 -s, pat h-áḥ gen.-abl.sg. < *pn̥t-h2 -és (cf. Gotō, this handbook, 1.2.9), but columnar accent has largely taken over, e.g. śvánm. ‘dog’, śvā´n-am acc.sg., and śún-aḥ gen.sg. instead of *śun-áḥ expected from the ablaut. Aside from roots and endings, suffixes which derive nominal and verbal stems have their own accentual properties that interact with the accent and ablaut of the base or overwrite the original accent, e.g. priy-á- adj. ‘dear’ < PIIr. *priH ‘please’ + *-á- vs. práy-as- n. ‘pleasure’ < *práyH + *-as-, or vásu- ‘good’ vs. two of its secondary derivatives meaning ‘wealth’, vasú-tā f. with preaccenting -tā and vasu-tvá- with accented -tvá-. There are pairs which are identical in form but have different accentuation and meaning, such as ápas n. ‘work’ vs. apás- adj. ‘active’ or bráhman- n. ‘poetic formula’ vs. brahmán- m. ‘poet, priest’, and accent seems to function as a way of internal derivation in such cases. Nominal compounds also have autonomous accentual patterns: For example, case-governing compounds like hari-yójana- n. ‘yoking of tawny horses’ have udātta on the second member, while exocentric compounds like hári-yogam (rát ham) ‘(chariot) yoked with tawny horses’ have udātta on the first member (see Gotō, this handbook, 1.5).

26. The phonology of Indic In the Underlying Representation, Old Indic accent is culminative, i.e., every fully inflected orthotonic word has in principle one udātta accent, e.g. hí, agníḥ, váṣaṭkr̥tasya etc. When a vowel with udātta drops by syncopation and so on, the following vowel, which is naturally unaccented, takes on a complex accent of high and low called svarita, e.g. kvà ‘where’ < /kúva/. Finite verb forms of the main clause, vocative forms of nouns, the second elements of repeated nouns such as gr̥hé-gr̥he ‘in each house’, some clitics such as ca ‘and’, and pronouns such as ena- ‘he, she, it’ (Gotō, this handbook, 2.2.2), do not carry an udātta. At the beginning of an utterance, a vocative form takes on an initial udātta, and a finite verb the original accent, e.g. R̥V 8.60.3a ágne kavír ved hā´ asi ‘Agni, du bist der Seher, der Meister [O Agni, you are the seer, the master]’ (Geldner) ‘O Agni, you are the sage poet and ritual expert’, R̥V 9.70.7a ruváti b hīmó vr̥ṣab háḥ ‘The fearsome bull bellows forcefully’ (Jamison and Brereton 2014). The particle vā´vá ‘indeed’ (Yajurveda+), infinitives in -tavái such as gántavái from gam ‘go’, some compounds consisting of inflected nominals like bŕ̥has-páti- m. name of a deity, or some copulative compounds of deities (devatā-dvandva) such as mitrā´váruṇā nom.-acc.du. ‘Mitra and Varuṇa’, carry two udātta accents. índrā-bŕ̥haspátī nom.acc.du. ‘Indra and Br̥ haspati’ even has three udātta accents.

5.2. Surface systems In the Surface Representation, every syllable has an accentual property of either udātta, svarita, or anudātta. Udātta is high, anudātta is low, and svarita is a combination of high and low according to most authorities (Aṣṭ. 1.2.29−32, TPr. 1.38−40, Vāj.Pr. 1.108−110, ŚCĀ 1.1.16), but the svarita carries the peak pitch in the R̥gveda and other schools (R̥Pr. 3.4). Systems of notation and recitation (or chanting in the Sāmaveda) greatly differ among schools (śākhā). Syllables which are neither udātta nor svarita are anudātta, but an anudātta syllable immediately following an udātta syllable becomes svarita (Aṣṭ. 8.4.66); and anudātta syllables following a svarita syllable are pronounced at the same register as udātta (Aṣṭ. 1.2.39) except for the one preceding an udātta or a svarita syllable, which is pronounced low (ŚCĀ 3.3.25) or superlow (Aṣṭ. 1.2.40). In other words, udātta is unmarked and svarita is the prominent accent in the Surface Representation of most schools. Svarita resulting from deletion of /a/ after udātta /e/ or /o/ ( puttrá- m. ‘son’. As the syllable boundary falls between the geminate in this case, this rule suggests that the same consonants are preferred to span a syllable boundary. Also to be noted is the fact that there are few minimal pairs of -C1 C2 vs. -C1 C1 C2 -, e.g. átra ‘here’ vs. R̥V áttra- n. ‘aliment’ < /ád-tra-/; in other words, the gemination in clusters is such an old phenomenon that -C1 C2 -:-C1 C1 C2 - is practically nondistinctive in Indic (cf. PIE degemination, Mayrhofer 1986: 111 f.). The Prātiśākhyas also teach that in stop clusters the occlusion of the first stop is not released (abhinidhāna), and that the stop of a stop-nasal cluster is pronounced with nasalized implosion (yama). These manners of pronunciation seem to imply that in addition to geminates, consonants with uninterrupted occlusion are preferred across a syllable boundary in Old Indic (Kobayashi 2004: 38).

Acknowledgment I thank George Cardona, Alexander Lubotsky, Chlodwig Werba, and the editors of this volume for their kind comments. All errors are mine alone, of course.

7. Abbreviations and symbols Grammatical terminology and symbols 1 2 3 abl. acc. act. adj. adv. aor. caus. dat. du. f. gen. impf. inf. inj.

first person second person third person ablative accusative active adjective adverb aorist causative dative dual feminine genitive imperfect infinitive injunctive

ipv loc. m. mid. mph. n. nom. perf. pl. ppl. sg. vb.adj. wd. σ ×

+

imperative locative masculine middle morpheme neuter nominative perfect plural participle singular verbal adjective word syllable unattested and later / combined with.

342

V. Indic Languages Av. OAv. PIE

Avestan Old Avestan Proto-Indo-European

PIIr. Skt. YAv.

Proto-Indo-Iranian Sanskrit Younger Avestan.

Aṣṭādhyāyī Atharvaveda, Śaunaka recension R̥gveda-Prātiśākhya R̥gveda

ŚCĀ TPr. TS Vāj.S Vāj.Pr.

Śaunakīyā Caturādhyāyikā Taittirīya-Prātiśākhya Taittirīya-Saṃhitā Vājasaneyi-Saṃhitā Vājasaneyi-Prātiśākhya

Texts Aṣṭ. AV R̥Pr. R̥V

8. References Allen, William Sidney 1953 Phonetics in Ancient India. London: Oxford University Press. Allen, William Sidney 1962 Sandhi: The Theoretical, Phonetic, and Historical Bases of Word-Junction in Sanskrit. The Hague: Mouton. Allen, William Sidney 1974 χθών, ‘ruki’ and related matters: a reappraisal. Transactions of the Philological Society 72: 98−126. Bartholomae, Christian 1895−1901 Vorgeschichte der iranischen Sprache. In: Grundriss der iranischen Philologie, 1-I. Strassburg: Trübner. Byrd, Andrew Miles 2015 The Indo-European Syllable. Leiden and Boston: Brill. Cardona, George 1993 The bhāṣika accentuation system. Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik 18: 1−40. Cardona, George 2003 Sanskrit. In: George Cardona and Dhanesh Jain (eds.), The Indo-Aryan Languages. London and New York: Routledge, 104−160. Cardona, George 2013 Developments of nasals in early Indo-Aryan: Anunāsika and anusvāra. Tokyo University Linguistic Papers 33: 3−81. Cooper, Adam I. 2014 Reconciling Indo-European Syllabification. Leiden and Boston: Brill. Deshpande, Madhav M. 1997 Śaunakīyā Caturādhyāyikā. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Emeneau, Murray B. 1946 The nasal phonemes of Sanskrit. Language 22: 86−93. Gippert, Jost 1997 Laryngeals and Vedic metre. In: Alexander Lubotsky (ed.), Sound Law and Analogy. Papers in honor of Robert S. P. Beekes on the occasion of his 60 th birthday. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 63−79.

26. The phonology of Indic Görtzen, Jens 1998 Die Entwicklung der indogermanischen Verbindungen von dentalen Okklusiven mit besonderer Berücksichtigung des Germanischen. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität. Gotō, Toshifumi 2006 Ai. ádbhuta-, ádabdha- jav. abda-, dapta- und ai. addhā´, aav. ap. azdā. In: Günter Schweiger (ed.), Indogermanica: Festschrift Gert Klingenschmitt. Indische, iranische und indogermanische Studien dem verehrten Jubilar dargebracht zu seinem fünfundsechzigsten Geburtstag. Taimering: Schweiger VWT-Verlag, 193−212. Hoffmann, Karl 1975−1976 Aufsätze zur Indoiranistik. Vol. 1, 2. Ed. by Johanna Narten. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Jamison, Stephanie W. and Joel P. Brereton 2014 The Rigveda: The Earliest Religious Poetry of India. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Keydana, Götz 2012 Evidence for non-linear phonological structure in Indo-European: The case of fricative clusters. In: Benedicte Nielson Whitehead, Thomas Olander, Birgit Anette Olsen, and Jens Elmegård Rasmussen (eds.), The Sound of Indo-European: Phonetics, Phonemics, and Morphophonemics. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 223−241. Klingenschmitt, Gert 1982 Das altarmenische Verbum. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Kobayashi, Masato 2004 Historical Phonology of Old Indo-Aryan Consonants. Fuchu, Tokyo: Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies. Kuiper, Franciscus Bernardus Jacobus 1997 Selected writings on Indian linguistics and philology. Ed. by Alexander Luotsky, Marianne S. Oort, and Michael Witzel. Amsterdam and Atlanta: Rodopi. Kuryłowicz, Jerzy 1935 Études indoeuropéennes (=Polska Akademja Umiejętności. Prace Komisji Językowej 21). Cracow: Gebethnera and Wolffa. Kuryłowicz, Jerzy 1968 Indogermanische Grammatik. Band II. Akzent· Ablaut. Heidelberg: Winter. Lipp, Reiner 2009 Die indogermanischen und einzelsprachlichen Palatale im indoiranischen. Band I: Neurekonstruktion, Nuristan-Sprachen, Genese der indoarischen Retroflexe, Indoarisch von Mitanni. Band II: Thorn-Problem, indoiranische Laryngalvokalisation. Heidelberg: Winter. Lubotsky, Alexander 1983 On the External Sandhis of the Maitrāyaṇī Saṃhitā. Indo-Iranian Journal 25: 167−179. Lubotsky, Alexander 1995 Reflexes of intervocalic laryngeals in Sanskrit. In: Wojciech Smoczyński (ed.), Kuryłowicz Memorial Volume. Part One. Krakow: Universitas, 213−233. Lubotsky, Alexander 2001 Reflexes of Proto-Indo-European *sk in Indo-Iranian. Incontri Linguistici 24: 25−57. Malzahn, Melanie 2001 Sandhiphänomene im Rigveda als Reflexe von Archaismen und Dialektismen. Dissertation, University of Vienna. Mayrhofer, Manfred 1986 Indogermanische Grammatik, Band I.2 Lautlehre. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Oldenberg, Hermann 1909 Ṛgveda. Textkritische und exegetische Noten. Erstes bis sechstes Buch. Berlin: Weidmann.

343

344

V. Indic Schindler, Jochem 1977 Notizen zum Sieverschen Gesetz. Die Sprache 23: 56−65. Strunk, Klaus 1983 Typische Merkmale von Fragesätzen und die altindische ,Pluti‘. Munich: Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Varma, Siddheshwar 1929 Critical Studies in the Phonetic Observations of Indian Grammarians. London: Royal Asiatic Society. Wackernagel, Jacob 1896 Altindische Grammatik. Band I: Lautlehre. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Witzel, Michael 1989 Tracing the Vedic Dialects. In: Colette Caillat (ed.), Dialects dans les litteratures indoaryennes. Paris: College de France, 97−264.

Masato Kobayashi, Tokyo (Japan)

27. The morphology of Indic (old Indo-Aryan) 1. 2. 3. 4.

Introduction Nouns Numerals Pronouns

5. Verbs 6. Abbreviations and notes on transcription 7. References

1. Introduction The present chapter will present only the main issues in the morphology of the grammatical categories indicated above with emphasis on historical grammar. Old-Indo-Āryan [OIA] morphological elements are largely inherited from Proto-IndoEuropean [PIE] via Proto-Indo-Iranian [PII] (Proto-“Aryan”) and agree very well with those of Old Iranian (Avestan [Av.] and Old Persian [OPers.]). The oldest forms are represented in the poetic language of the R̥gveda [RV] (ca. 1200 BCE), followed by the Atharvaveda and other Vedic mantras (ca. 1000 BCE−), almost all of which are in verse. The earliest prose is attested in the brāhmaṇas of the Yajurveda-Saṁhitās (ca. 800 BCE−), the Brāhmaṇas (7 th c. BCE−), and the oldest Upaniṣads (6−5 th c. BCE). The language of these texts is “Vedic”, and has been transmitted for the most part with accent. The succeeding stage of OIA is “Classical Sanskrit”, as dealt with in the standard grammar of Pāṇini (ca. 380 BCE). The “Epic Sanskrit” of the Mahābhārata and Rāmāyaṇa shows popular features. Vedic, especially the language of the R̥gveda, is the major focus for reconstructing PII and PIE, and for comparative IE linguistics in general. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261288-027

27. The morphology of Indic (old Indo-Aryan)

2. Nouns 2.1. Inflectional patterns We begin with a discussion of the inflectional patterns of the noun as inherited from PIE. The term “dynamic” refers to an inflectional pattern characterized by accented *-e(rarely, *-o-) vocalism in a particular position (indicated by ; other elements are in unaccented zero or *-o- grade). The dynamic scheme is based on a trisyllabic structure A-B-C which generally corresponds to root + suffix + ending, the canonical form of an Indo-European word. A formation without suffix (consisting of root + ending) is regarded as being of the form B-C. The “strong form” in a paradigm (e.g. nom. sg. in nouns) has *-é- (rarely, *-ó-) in A or B; the “weak form” (e.g. an oblique case) has *-é- in A, B, or C. The place of *-é- in a weak form does not recede beyond that of the strong form. An acrodynamic pattern shows A -B-C in both strong and weak forms; a proterodynamic pattern shows A -B-C in strong forms and A- B -C in weak forms; the accented syllable in an amphidynamic pattern alternates between A -B-C and A-B- C in strong and weak forms, respectively; and a hysterodynamic type opposes A- B -C in strong forms to A-B- C in weak ones. The reconstructed endings (C), however, do not illustrate the whole range of possible ablaut grades, but some have only a full-grade (e.g., dat. sg. *-ei̯ , nom. pl. *-es) or zero-grade form (e.g., acc. pl. *-m̥s, *-ns). These inflectional schemes also apply to the verbal formations.

2.2. Grammatical categories Like PIE and other older languages, OIA distinguishes three genders: masculine [m.], feminine [f.], and neuter [n.]. Nouns consist of substantives and adjectives. The latter are declinable in three genders. Words designating male and female beings are m. and f., respectively; there are suffixes that allow derivation of feminines from masculines (“motion suffixes”) (cf. 2.6). Inanimate objects and concepts are m., f., or n., largely depending on the suffixal stem class to which they belong. Words for trees are m. (: vr̥kṣá- m. ‘tree’), herbs are f. (: óṣadhi-), and fruits n. (: phála-). Animals are represented either by m. (śván- ‘dog’ < *k̑u̯én-, f. śunī́- ‘she-dog’) or f. (gáv- ‘cow’, ‘cattle’ < *gwóu̯-). OIA has three numbers: singular [sg.], dual [du.], and plural [pl.]. The du. is used to refer to two persons or objects in general, whether or not they constitute a pair. There are eight cases: nominative [nom.] for the subject; vocative [voc.] for addressing a person (or thing); accusative [acc.] for the direct object or goal; dative [dat.] for the indirect object or benefactive; genitive [gen.] to indicate possession or a partitive construction (or more generally, an adnominal structure); instrumental [inst.] for means, path, or association; ablative [abl.] to indicate separation; and locative [loc.] to indicate location. The vocative is unaccented unless it stands in sentence-initial position, where it always takes initial accent regardless of the location of its lexical accent.

345

346

V. Indic

2.3. Thematic and athematic inflections, terminations, and endings The nominal stem carries the lexical meaning, and is in most cases bound to one of three genders. Every inflected form terminates with an ending which indicates at the same time number, case, and in part, gender. Stems fall into two overarching inflectional categories: thematic and athematic, depending upon whether or not a vowel -a- (< PIE *-e/o-) precedes the endings. Neuters are inflected like masculines except for having their own endings in the nom. = acc. of all three numbers. Many nouns belong to the thematic type (-a- stem; -a- < PIE *-e/o-), e.g. devá‘heavenly; god’: sg. nom. devás, voc. deva, acc. devám, inst. devéna (also devénā, devā´ ), abl. devā´t, dat. devā´ya, gen. devásya, loc. devé; du. nom.-acc. devā´ or deváu, voc. devā or devau, inst.-dat.-abl. devā´bhyām, gen.-loc. deváyos; pl. nom. devā´s (also devā´sas), voc. devās (also devāsas), acc. devā´n, inst. deváis (also devébhis), abl.-dat. devébhyas, gen. devā´nām, loc. devéṣu. The terminations (themat. vowel + endings) are: − sg. nom. m. °as < PII *-as < PIE *-o-s, voc. °a < *-a < *-e, acc. °am, nom.-acc. n. °am < *-am < *-o-m, inst. °ā < *-ā < *-e/o-h1 , usually °ena < *-ai̯ na, dat. °āya < *-āi̯ a (remodelled after gen.*-asi̯ a, cf. OAv. -āi.ā, -āiiā beside Av. °āi < PII *-āi < *-o-ei̯ ), abl. °āt < *-āt/*-aat < *-o-at/d or the like, gen. °asya < *-asi̯ a < *-o-si̯ o, loc. °e < *-ai̯ < *-oi̯ ; − du. nom.-voc.-acc. m. °ā < PII *-ā < *-o-h1 , and °au, n. °e < *-ai̯ < *-o-ih1 , inst.dat.-abl. °ābhyām < *-āb hi̯ ā (instead of PII *-ai̯ b hi̯ ā), gen.-loc. °ayos (a contamination of PII gen. *-ai̯ i̯ ās < *-oi̯ -h1 ōs and loc. *-ai̯ i̯ au̯ < *-oi̯ -h1 ou̯); − pl. nom.-voc. m. °ās < *-o-es (collective °ā has been generalized in Iran. like in Pāli; in Vedic, Av., and Pāli also hypercharacterized -°ās-as), acc. °ān(s) (ā after °ās, PII *-ans < *-o-ns), nom.-acc. n. °ā, °āni < *°o-h2 (collective), inst. °ais < *-āi̯ š (in the RV and older language also °ebhis from the pronominal inflection), dat.-abl. °ebhyas < *-ai̯ b hi̯ as, gen. °ānām, also /°ānaam/, < *-ānām/-ānaam, loc. °eṣu < *-ai̯ šu < *-oi̯ su. For athematic inflections the endings are: − sg. nom., m. f. -s < PII, PIE *-s, or 0̸ (in the case of a long-grade stem), voc. 0̸, acc. m. f. -m, -am < *-m, *-m̥, nom.-acc. n. 0̸, inst. -ā < *-eh1 , or lengthening of the stem-vowel ( a/_consonant or *H + vowel, or *-n̥ > ā/_H + consonant; and in the pl.: *-n̥-h2 > a/_(±H +) vowel, or *-n̥-h2 > ā/ elsewhere. Similar is also the case with -ī˘ and -ū˘.

27. The morphology of Indic (old Indo-Aryan)

2.4.9. -ínThe suffix -ín-, which appears in both primary and secondary formations, shows columnar accent without ablaut; the nom. sg. m. ends in -ī. Examples of primary formations are arcín- ‘radiating’, javín- ‘speedy’. This type frequently occurs as a final member of compounds, e.g., abhy-ā-vartín- ‘returning towards’, uktha-śaṁsín- ‘saying official speeches’. Examples of secondary formations from nouns (very productive, especially from -a- stems) include keśín- ‘characterized by hair’ (: kéśa-), ūrmín- ‘(always) waving’ (: ūrmí-), hiraṇín- ‘decorated with gold’ (*hiraṇ-). -ín- is used to indicate that someone/ something possesses something or some quality as its essential, habitual, or characteristic aspect, whereas -vant- (with variant -mant-) designates also an incidentally possessed feature.

2.4.10. pa´nthā The stem variations pánthā-, path-, pathí- ‘path’ are due to phonological developments from hysterodynamic *pont-éh2 -s, pont-éh2 -m̥, *pn̥t-h2 -és, pont-oh2 -és, pn̥t-h2 -m̥s, *pn̥th2 -b hís, with the change of *th2 to th according to a general rule of OIA paradigmatic levelling of the aspirate. Contrast Avestan, which retains θ only in the cases where h2 follows directly after t: sg. nom. pánthās (YAv. paṇt`), acc. pánthaām (YAv. paṇtąm; also pánthānam, YAv. paṇtānəm), gen. abl. pathás (Av. paθō), loc. pathí (OAv. pa iθī), pl. nom. pántha ās (also pánthānas, YAv. paṇtānō), acc. pathás (Av. paθō), inst. pathíbhiṣ (OAv. pad əbīš), loc. pathíṣu.

2.4.11. -añcA suppletive paradigm serves for adjectives of direction, mainly made from prepositions: strong -áñc- (nom.-acc. n. in -ác-) < *h2 ank/*h2 n̥k ‘bend’, weak -īc-/(°ā/ū)c- < *h3 k w ‘look, glance’, fem. -īcī-/(°ā/ū)cī-, e.g. m. sg. nom. praty-áṅ (< *-áṅks) ‘turned toward’, acc. praty-áñc-am; n. nom.-acc. °-ák; inst. pratīc-ā´, abl. gen. °-ás, pl. nom. praty-áñcas, acc. pratīc-ás; likewise ny-, úd-, etc.; with secondary -y-: tir-y-áñc- ‘transverse’, samy-áñc- ‘united’; with weak stems in °ā´c- (< *°ó-h3 k w-): prā´ñc-/prā´c-, f. prā´cī- ‘forward’, devā´cī- ‘turned towards the gods’, in °ūc: víṣv-añc-/víṣūc-.

2.4.12. -ánt-ánt-/-nt-/-at- is used for active participles of the present and aorist, inflected hysterodynamically: m. sg. nom. s-án ‘being’, acc. s-ánt-am, n. nom. acc. s-át, gen. s-at-ás, pl. nom. s-ánt-as, acc. s-at-ás, n. pl. s-ā´nt-i; f. s-at-ī́-. This inflectional scheme has been introduced also into thematic stems in OIA: bhávan ‘becoming’, °vant-am, °vat-as, pl. °vant-as, °vat-as; f. °vantī-. mahā´nt- ‘big, great’ (f. mahatī́-), br̥hánt- ‘tall, high’ (f. br̥hatī́-), and dánt- ‘tooth’ (an old part.) follow this scheme. jár-ant- ‘old’ is amphidy-

351

352

V. Indic namic: jár-ant-am, jur-at-é, jur-at-ā´m, jár-at-ī-. The acrodynamic inflection in the reduplicating stems is due to the consistently accented pres. stem. Hence, m. nom. dád-at, acc. °-at-am, sg. gen. and pl. nom. acc. °-at-as ‘giving’. -vant- (variation -mant-) with possessive meaning follows the same scheme with two exceptions: nom. sg. m. in -vān/ -vāṁ, -mān/-māṁ, voc. -vas, -mas (in Classical Sanskrit -van, -man). The PII suppletive nom. sg. *-u̯ās, *-mās are contaminated into *-vāṁs, *-māṁs in OIA. bhávant- for the respectful expression of the 2 nd person (Br.+) is an allegro-form of bhágavant- ‘fortunate one’, thus the nom. sg. is bhávān (:: part. °ăn); Ved. voc. sg. bhágavas has developed into bhávas, bhagoḥ (BĀU), and very common bhoḥ.

2.4.13. -va´̄ m ˙ s-vā´ṁs-/-úṣ- serves for the act. perf. part. which is inflected hysterodynamically; ṁ is introduced from -vant- stem: sg. nom. cakr̥-vā´n/vā´ṁ, acc. -vā´ṁs-am, gen.-abl. cakr-úṣas, pl. nom. cakr̥-vā´ṁs-as, acc. cakr-úṣ-as, n. sg. cakr̥-vát (analogic); voc. cákr̥-vas. On the mid. -āná-, cf. 5.8.2.

2.5. -tara-, -tama-; -(ı̄ )yā m ˙ s-, -isthaComparatives and superlatives are expressed in two series. 1. The inherited secondary suffixes -tara- (PIE *-tero-) and -tama- (*-tm̥-h2 -o-) are added to nominal stems. Forms of this Indo-Iranian gradation system are in the RV rather limited, but increase more and more in the younger language: tavás-tara-, -tama- ‘stronger, -est’, pitr̥ ́ -tama- ‘most fatherly’; from pronominal stems í-tara- ‘another’, ka-tará-, -tamá- ‘who/what of two/ among many’; with pronominal inflection út-tara- ‘upper, further’, -tamá- ‘upmost’. aśvatará-, °tarī́- ‘mule, she-mule’ (AV+) can be interpreted as ‘one rather a horse (than a donkey)’. There are also forms with -ra- and -má- from prepositions and adjectives in -a : ádhara-, adhamá- ‘lower, -est’, paramá- ‘farthest, highest’, madhyamá- ‘central’. 2. The primary suffixes are -(ī)yāṁs-/(ī)yas- and -iṣ-ṭha-. The nasal in °yān/°yāṁ, °yāṁsam, °yāṁs-au, °yāṁs-as, °yāṁsi is introduced from -vant-, as in the case of -vā´ṁs-/-úṣ-. Forms without ī are preserved in jyā´-yāṁs- ‘having priority, older’, bhū´-yāṁs- ‘more’ (and limited almost to the RV: vás-yāṁs- ‘better’, náv-yāṁs- ‘newer’, etc.), and in the forms °e-yāṁs- such as śréyāṁs- ‘excellent’, préyāṁs- ‘dearer’; but the majority show -ī- already in the RV, where bhávīyāṁs-, vás-īyāṁs-, náv-īyāṁs- etc. occur alongside the forms just mentioned. The suffix goes back to *-i̯ ōˇs and its Sievers’ variant *-ii̯ ōˇs- in the strong cases (with accented root), and *-(i)i̯ es- in the weak cases (accented endings); f. *-(i)i̯ es-ih2 -. Zero-grade *-is- is found in máh-iṣ-ī- ‘the first wife of a king’ (*‘the greater [wife]’), mah-iṣ-á-, -iṣ-ī́- ‘buffalo’ (*‘a bigger [bull, cow]’). The superlative suffix is built to this *-is- with *-th2 o- (beside *-to- in Gk., and presumably in Iranian; also in ordinal numbers). The suffixes are added directly to the root, e.g., svād-ú- ‘sweet’, svā´d-īyāṁs-, -iṣṭha- (cf. Gr. hēd-ú-s, hēd-ī́ōn, hḗd-isto-s;), bhū´-ri- ‘many’, bhū´-yāṁs-, °y-iṣṭha-; a-śrī-rá/lá- ‘not beautiful’, śré-yāṁs- ‘more beautiful, excellent’, °ṣṭha- (also /śráyiṣṭha-/, < *k̑réi̯ H-isth2 o-).

27. The morphology of Indic (old Indo-Aryan)

2.6. -a´̄ -, -ı̄ - and other motion suffixes; -ká-, -(i)ka´̄ -; vr̥ ddhi-formations; Caland system Suffixes used for deriving feminines from more basic formations (motion suffixes) are: 1. -ā- < -éh2 -/*-h2 - and 2. -ī-/yā´- < *-i̯ h2 -/*-i̯ éh2 -. 1. is usual from -a- stems, replacing -a- (*-o-) with -ā- (*-eh2 -): áśvā- ‘mare’, kr̥ṇv-ānā´- ‘making (for herself’); without m. counterparts, e.g. īṣā´- ‘pole (of a chariot)’, or verbal abstracts, e.g. krīḍā´- ‘play’, jarā´‘aging’. The suffix-part is originally full-grade as in PIE: sg. priyā´, °yā´m, pl. nom °yā´s(as), acc. °yā´s, inst. °yā´bhis. However, the inst. sg. is °yáyā beside °yā´ as in the pronominal or -ī- stem inflection, and dat. °yā´yai, gen. °yā´yās, loc. °yā´yām after the -īstem; thus already in PII. (Root nouns terminating in ā are inflected as sg. nom. [m., n.] sthā´-s, inst. sthā´, gen. sth-ás.) 2. is used also for derivation from many -a- stems (predominantly substantives in the vr̥kī́- and adjectives in the devī́- inflection), and always from -u- (from weak forms) as well as consonant stems (mostly in devī́- inflection), cf. also 2.4.2: urvī́- ‘wide’ (: urú-), pūrvī́- ‘many’ (*pl̥ h1 -u̯-ih2 -: purú- < *pl̥ h1 -ú-), bhágavatī-, nā´rī- ‘woman’ (: nár-). Occasionally the full-grade nom. survives only fossilized, as in chāyā´- < *sk̑éh1-i̯ h2 -0̸, *sk̑h1 -(i)i̯ éh2 -s ‘shadow’, cf. Gk. skiā´. Mere lengthening of the terminal vowel (cf. *-o- :: *-e-h2 -) may also serve for the f. of -u- stems in vadhū´- ‘young wife’ < *(H)u̯ad h-u-h2 - (?), śvaśrū´- ‘mother-in-law’, assimilated from *su̯ék̑r-u-h2 - :: śváśura- ‘father-in-law’ < *su̯é-k̑ur-o-, tanū´- ‘body’. Special f. formations: -ī- added to strong -i- stems, e.g. agnā´yī- ‘wife of god Agní’, vr̥ṣākapā´yī- ‘wife of Vr̥ ṣā´kapi’; to -u-: manāvī́- ‘wife of Mánu’ (YSp+); old formation -nī- in pátnī- ‘mistress, wife’ :: páti- ‘lord, husband’, cf. Gk. pótnia :: pósis; for the (first) wife of a god or person: Indrāṇī́-, Mudgalā´nī-; for colour adjectives in -ta-: énī:: éta- ‘varicolored’, háriṇī- :: hárita- ‘yellowish’; individualizing -n- perhaps in ásiknī(-knī- for -tnī-) ‘dark night, darkness’ :: ásita- ‘black’, páliknī- :: palitá- ‘grey’. -ká- m., n., -(i)kā´- f. are productive as diminutive suffixes: kumāraká- ‘little boy’, f. kumārikā´- (AV+), śiśuká- ‘little baby’, śakuntaká- YSm, śakuntikā´- ‘little bird’, muṣká‘testicle, *little mouse’; -la- as diminut. suffix in vr̥ṣalá- ‘man of low esteem’ (< ‘*little bull [vr̥ ́ ṣaṇ-] not having his own cattle herd’), Śakúntalā- *‘little bird or partridge’ ŚB. -ā´- for abstract and -ú- for agent noun build a system, e.g., desid. jigī-ṣa-te ‘desires to gain’, °ṣā´- ‘desire to gain’, °ṣú- ‘desiring to gain’ (jay/ji ‘win’), bhík-ṣa-te ‘desires to have a share for oneself, begs’, °ṣā´- ‘begging’, °ṣú- ‘beggar’ (bhaj ‘share’); denom.: namas-yá-ti, -yā´-, -yú- ‘shows, showing (of) respect’. Old vr̥ ddhi-formations are preserved, e.g. in dev-á- ‘heavenly; god’ (*dei̯ u̯-ó- from *di̯ éu̯-/diu̯- ‘heaven’; cf. OLat deiuos, Lat. dīuus, deus), pad-á- ‘footprint, -step’ (*pedó- from *pd- of *ped-, pṓd ‘foot’), bheṣaj-á- ‘medicament’ (: bhiṣáj- ‘medical doctor’), deś-á- ‘region’ (: díś- ‘direction’), náv-a- ‘new’ (: nú, nū´ ‘now’), etc. Inner-Indic vr̥ ddhiforms show lengthened grade: dáiv-a- ‘belonging to, coming from heaven’ (AV+, cf. dáiv-i ya- ‘godly’), bháiṣaj-yá- ‘healing power’ (YS+), sā´rath-i- ‘charioteer, fellow-driver’ (: sa-rátha- ‘driving the same chariot’), in patronymics as Plā´yog-i-, Váidadaśv-i-, Mārtāṇḍá- ‘descendent of a dead egg’. The Caland system remains only in fossils, e.g., śvitrá- ‘white’ (AV+) :: śvity-áñc-, śvitīcí- ‘whitish’, śiti-pád- ‘white-footed’ (with loss of v); saci-víd- ‘knowing together, with the same vision’, sáci adv. ‘together’ (cf. ā´-sk-ra- ‘accompanying’); r̥ji-pyá- epithet of an eagle :: r̥jrá- ‘quick’ (or ‘brightly red’, but cf. r̥j-ú- ‘straight’); gabhīrá- ‘deep’ :: gabhi-ṣák ‘deep inside’; in proper names as R̥jíśvan- *‘with quick dogs’ beside r̥jrā´śva-

353

354

V. Indic *‘with quick horses’; as independent free-standing items: e.g., śukrá- ‘white and bright’ :: śúci- ‘pure and bright’ and śakrá- ‘strong, powerful’ :: śácī- ‘power, energy’ (from *śaci-?).

3. Numerals 3.1. Cardinals The cardinals ‘2’ to ‘1,000’ consist of inherited material. ‘1’ to ‘4’ are inflected by genders and cases. éka- ‘one’ follows the nominal -a- inflection with some (historical and inner-Indic) pronominal forms, e.g., in the RV: m. sg. nom. ék-as, acc. °am, inst. °ena (of pron. origin :: Av. aēuuā˘), gen. °asya, loc. °asmin (pronom.), pl. ‘some people’ nom. éke (pronom.), dat. ékebhyas; n. nom.-acc. ékam, pl. *ékā in ékam-ekā śatā´; f. sg. nom. ékā, acc. °ām, inst. °ayā, gen.-abl. °asyās (pronom.). d(u)va- ‘2’ is inflected in the dual: m. nom. dvā´, dváu, acc. dvā´, inst. dvā´bhyām, gen.-loc. dváyos; n. dvé; f. dvé, dvā´bhyām. tráy-/tri- ‘3’ is inflected in the pl.: m. nom. tráyas, acc. trī́n, inst. tribhís, dat.-abl. °bhyás, gen. trayāṇā´m (YSp+; trīṇā´m RV 1×), loc. triṣú; n. nom.-acc. trī́(ṇi); f. ti-sra-/ti-sr̥-: nom.-acc. tisrás, inst. tisr̥ ́ bhis, dat.-abl. °bhyas, gen. tisr̥ ̄ ṇā´m, loc. tisr̥ ́ ṣu; multiplicative adv. trís serves sometimes for the cardinal. catvár-/catru- ‘4’: m. nom. catvā´ras, acc. catúras, inst. °bhís, gen. °ṇā´m; n. nom.-acc. catvā´ri; f. nom. acc. cátasras, inst. catasr̥ ́ bhis. ‘5’ to ‘7’, and ‘9’ to ‘19’ are adjectives without gender-difference; nom.-acc. has no ending: páñca-, ṣáṣ-, saptá-, náva-, dáśa- (nom.-acc. dáśa, inst. daśábhis, gen. daśānā´m, loc. daśásu RV). Both indeclinable and declinable uses occur in the RV, e.g., saptá raśmibhis ‘with seven sunrays’ beside saptábhiḥ putráis ‘with seven sons’. ‘8’ has the dual form in nom.-acc.: aṣṭáu or aṣṭā´, inst. aṣṭābhís. ‘11’ to ‘19’ look like Bahuvrīhi (possessive) compounds, nom.-acc. ékādaśa, nom.-acc. duvā´daśa, nom.-acc. cáturdaśa, nom.-acc. páñcadaśa in the RV. ‘20’ … ‘50’ are feminine collective substantives: viṁśatí-, triṁśáti-, catvāriṁśát-, pañcāśát-; inflected in the sg., but also pl. acc. in tisráḥ pañcāśátas ‘150’. ‘60’ … ‘90’ are f. collectives with -tí-: ṣaṣtí- ‘60’, aśītí- ‘80’ etc., sg. and pl.: gen. saptatīnā´m, navatīnā´m, acc. navatī́s. ‘100’ is n. collective śatá-, inflected as a nominal -a- stem in sg., du., and pl.; an indeclinable use is known only in the instrumental case, five times in the RV, e.g., śatám ūtíbhis ‘with 100 helps’. ‘1,000’ is sahásra- n. collective nominal -a- stem; attested in the sg. and pl.; there is also an indeclinable use of sahásram, many times in the instrumental. The counted things are expressed in the gen. sg., gen. pl., or appositionally in the same case. Numbers intermediate between 20 and 100 are, in principle, expressed by dvandva (copulative) compounds formed by prefixing the accented unit to the decade, e.g., in the RV tráyas-triṁśat- ‘33’, cátustriṁśat- ‘34’. For ‘36’, a complexive compound with -áis used: ṣaṭtriṁśá-. Other examples in the RV: ékaṃ ca … viṃśatíṃ ca, tríḥ saptá-, and triṣaptá- ‘21’, trí-ekādaśá- ‘33’, tríḥ ṣaṣṭís ‘180’, saptatíṃ ca saptá ca ‘77’, catúrbhis … navatíṃ ca (inst.) ‘94’, navatír náva, náva … navatím ‘99’, etc.

27. The morphology of Indic (old Indo-Aryan)

3.2. Ordinals Ordinals are formed with -thá- (*-th2 o-), -má- (*-mó-), and -(t)ī́ya-; mostly traced back to PII: pra-tha-má- ‘1st’; dvi-tī́ya-‘2nd’; tr̥t-ī́ya-‘3rd’; tur-ī́ya- < *k wtur-ih2 o- (RV+) or catur-thá- (AV+) ‘4th’; pak-thá- (RV) or pañca-má- (AV+) ‘5th’; ṣaṣ-ṭhá- (AV+) ‘6th’; saptá-tha- (RV), sapta-thá- (KSp), or sapta-má- (AV+) ‘7th’, aṣṭa-má- ‘8th’, nava-má- ‘9th’, daśa-má- ’10th’, also katitháś cid ‘the so-and-so maniest’. From ‘11th’: ekā-daśá-, dvā-d° (YSm+), trayo-d° (AV+), etc., distinguished from the cardinals with their oxytone; only later ekādaśa-ma- etc. ‘20th’ to ‘50th’ are built with -śá-: YSm+ trayo-viṁśá- ‘23rd’, dvāpañcāśá- ‘52nd’, also triṁśat-tamá- ‘30th’ (ŚB); ‘60th’ to ‘90th’ with -á-: eka-ṣaṣṭá- ‘61st’ ŚB; from ‘100’ with -tamá-: ekaśata-tamá- ‘101st’ ŚB; f. forms: caturthī́-, pañcamī́, saptáthī-, and otherwise with -ā´- or -ā-. ekādaśá-, trayodaśá-, aṣṭāviṁśá-, ekaṣaṣṭá- etc. mean homonymously ‘11th…’ and ‘consisting of 11…’ (Sommer-compounds).

4. Pronouns 4.1. Personal pronouns Personal pronouns exist for the 1st and 2 nd person. They distinguish no gender, and the singular and plural are built from different stems: 1st: sg. nom. ah-ám, acc. mā´m (also /mā˘´am/ or /mā˘ám/ < *mḗ/*mē + *om/*óm) or enclitic mā, inst. máy-ā, dat. má-hya(m) or me, abl. m-át, gen. má-ma or me, loc. máyi; du. nom. vā´m (RV), āvám (YSp+), acc. āvā´m (KS-KpSp, Br.+) or nau, inst. āvābhyām (JB+), dat. āvā´bhyām (ŚBK, TĀ+) or nau, abl. āvābhyām (KS, Br.+), āvát (KSp, TSp), gen. āváyos (YSm+) or nau; pl. nom. vay-ám, acc. asmā´n (for PIE *n̥s-mé) or nas (instead of PII *nās < PIE *nōs), inst. asmā´-bhis, dat. asmá-bhya(m) or nas (< *nos), abl. asm-át, gen. asmā´kam (PII formation; PIE *n̥s-mé-ōm) or nas (< *nos), loc. asmā´-su; in addition, asmé (< loc. *n̥s-mé-i̯ ) is used for dat., gen., and loc. in the mantra language. 2 nd: sg. nom. tv-ám (also /tuvám/: < *tū/tū´ + ám, cf. OAv. tuuə̄m, OPers. tuvam, Pāli tuvaṃ), acc. tvā´m (also /tvā˘ám/, < *tu̯ē+ *óm, cf. Av. θβąm, OPers. θuvām, Pāli taṃ < tvām) or enclitic tvā, inst. tvā´ (/tvaā´/ or /tuvā´/) RV, t(u)váy-ā RV+, dat. tú-bhya(m) or te, abl. t(u)v-át, gen. táva or te, loc. t(u)vé (RV and some mantras) or tváy-i (AV+); du. nom. yuv-ám, acc. yuvā´m or vām, dat. yuvá-bhyām (6× RV) or yuvā´bhyām (RV+) or vām, abl. yuv-át, (Classical Sanskrit inst.-abl.-dat. yuvābhyām), gen. yuv-ós (RV) or yuváyos (YSm, Kh+) or vām; pl. nom. yūyám (PIE *i̯ ūs, cf. OAv. yūš, YAv. yūžə̄m), acc. yuṣmā´n (*usmé) or vas (PII *u̯ās < PIE *u̯ōs), inst. yuṣmā´-bhis, dat. yuṣmá-bh(i)ya-m or vas (*u̯os), abl. yuṣm-át, gen. yuṣmā´kam (PII formation, PIE *us-mé-ōm) or vas, loc. yuṣmé (RV and some mantras) or yuṣmā´su (YSm+).

4.2. Demonstrative pronouns sá-/tá- “that; he, she, it” is the most representative among demonstrative pronouns, used in deictic (“der-deixis”), anaphoric, 3 rd person value, also appositionally (quasi-adjecti-

355

356

V. Indic val). OIA preserves, like OIran, the old pronominal inflection well in three genders: -sm-, -e- (i.e. -ai̯ - < *-oi̯ -), inst. sg. -na and gen. sg. -sya seem to be of pronominal origin: m. sg. nom. sá (secondary also sá-s), acc. tá-m, inst. téna, dat. tá-smai, abl. °-smāt, gen. °-sya, loc. °-smi-n; pl. nom. té, acc. tā´n, inst. táis and té-bhis, dat.-abl. tébhyas, gen. °-ṣ-ām, loc. °-ṣu; n. nom.-acc. sg. tá-d, pl. tā´(ni); f. sg. nom. sā´, acc. tā´-m, inst. táyā, dat. tá-syai, abl. gen. °-syās, loc. °-syām; pl. nom.-acc. tā´s, inst. tā´-bhis, dat.abl. °-bhyas, gen. °-s-ām, loc. °-su; − du.: nom.-acc. m. tā´, táu, f. n. té, inst.-dat.-abl. m. f. tā´-bhyām, gen.-loc. m. n. táy-os. eṣá-/etá- ‘this’ (deictic, anaphoric, also ‘this known’, ‘the following’, and ‘he, she, it’ in the sphere of both speaker and listener) follows sá-/tá- in inflection. The Ved. pron. syá/tyá- ‘this one here, that well known one’ is a PII derivation, and shows a similar distribution: m. sg. nom. s(i)yá, acc. t(i)yám, gen. ti yásya; du. nom. t(i)yā´; pl. nom. t(i)yé, acc. ti yā´n, inst. ti yébhis; f. sg. nom. s(i)yā´, acc. t(i)yā´m, inst. tyā´, gen. tyásyās; du. nom. tyé; pl. nom. acc. tyā´s; n. t(i)yád, tyā´ni. The pron. for proximal deixis ‘this here’ is made up of a-, ai̯ -/i-, and ima- with oxyton: − m. sg. nom. ay-ám, acc. imá-m, inst. e-nā´ dat. a-sm-ái, abl. a-smā´t, gen. a-syá, loc. a-smí-n; pl. nom. imé, acc. imā´n, inst. e-bhís, dat.-abl. e-bhyás, gen. e-ṣ-ā´m, loc. eṣú; − n. nom.-acc. sg. i-d-ám (*id + ám), pl. imā´, imā´-ni; − f. sg. nom. iy-ám, acc. imā´-m, inst. ay-ā´, dat. a-syái, abl. gen. a-syā´s, loc. a-syā´m; pl. nom.-acc. im-ā´s, inst. ā-bhís, dat.-abl. ā-bhyás, gen. ā-s-ā´m, loc. ā-sú.; − du.: nom.-acc. m. imā´, imáu, f., n. imé, inst.-dat.-abl. m. f. ā-bhyā´m, gen.-loc. m. n. ay-ós. The inst. sg. m./n. in origin seems to be preserved in adv. a-nā´ ‘thereby, then’ ( beside *a-ná ?), cf. inst. Av. anā˘, OPers. anā, and adv. ca-ná, Av. -cinā˘ ‘(not) at all’ (4.3). The stem aná- ‘this here’ in inst. sg. anéna has come into being from anā´ (reanalyzed as having inst. -ā) in PII, cf. YAv. anahmāt̰ , OAv. anāiš. a-nā´ has been reformed to e-nā´, and this was introduced into téna and nominal -a-stems. Enclitic ena- is used for ‘he, she’, and, AV+ also ‘it’, especially to refer to someone/ something discussed in the immediate context: m. sg. acc. enam, inst. enā˘, du. gen. enos; f. sg. acc. enām, du. acc. ene; after the RV one finds in addition m. du. acc. enau, n. sg. acc. enad (seldom nom. in Br.), pl. enāni (YSp+), m./n. sg. inst. enena, du. gen.-loc. enayos. The stem seems to be an inner-Indic formation based on the enclitic use of enā´. To these add m. sg. asmai, asmāt, asya, asmin, ebhis, ebhyas, eṣām, eṣu; f. asyai, asyās, asyām, ābhis, ābhi yas, āsām, āsu; n. sg. asya. In the RV, also paroxytone ásya, ásmai, ā´bhis, and énām VIII 6,19 occur in first position in a pāda with a strong restrictive function. − Other enclitics īm (many times in the RV, and in some mantras), ī (11× RV) are used for acc. sg. m. f., and also in other numbers, in particular, proleptically (cataphorically). Instead of the expected n. *id., only adv. íd occurs. sīm appears in the older parts of the RV as an anaphoric acc. without difference of gender and number. These forms serve also as particles in an emphasizing function, or for avoiding hiatus. The distal deictic pron. ‘that there, that over there’ (also ‘so-and-so’, ‘that in question’) is asáu, adás, amu-: m.: sg. nom. a-sáu, acc. amú-m, inst. amú-nā (YSm+), dat. amú-ṣmai, abl. °-ṣmāt, gen. °-ṣya, loc. °-ṣmin (AV+); pl. nom. amī́, acc. amū´n (AV+), dat.-abl. amī́-bhyas (AV+), gen. amī́-ṣām; n. sg. nom. adás, pl. amū´; f.: sg. nom. asáu,

27. The morphology of Indic (old Indo-Aryan) acc. amū´m, inst. amuyā´, dat. amúṣyai (YSm+), abl.-gen. °ṣyās (AV+), loc. °ṣyām (YSm+); du. nom. amū´ (AV+); pl. nom.-acc. amū´s. The forms have been largely remodelled in contrast to OIran. *au̯a-: OAv. nom. sg. m. huuō, n. auuat̰ , f. hāu, and other forms from auua-. Nom. sg. m. a-sáu could go back to PII *sa(-s) + u with preservation of hiatus, and the f. sg. *sah2 -u, each prefixed with preceding a-; n. adás perhaps from reinterpretation of adó < ada-u.

4.3. Interrogative, indefinite, and relative pronouns Interrogative pron. ká-/kí- serves as subst. and adj. The inflection is just like tá- except for m. nom. sg. ká-s with nominal -s. The original suppletion with *k wí/*k wéi̯ - and *k wé-/ *k wó- (in the adv. *k wú- as well) has retreated largely in favour of ká-. In the n. sg., kím, a new form without secondary palatalization, appears more frequently than the original ká-d already in the RV. The historical n. sg. nom.-acc. ci-d (which became an enclitic in PII) is used as adv. ‘at all, if any, even’, whereas OIran. preserves it partially (YAv. cit̰ beside Av. kat̰ , YAv. cīm; cf. also m. Av. ciš beside kə̄, kō). One supposes an old inst.formation behind caná (Av. -cinā˘) ‘(not) at all, in any case’, cf. 4.2. ká- is used with ca, caná or cid (Post-Ved. also api) as an indefinite pron.; also káyain káyasya cid 3× in the RV. The combination ká- cid (RV+) or ká- ca (YSp+), used in a relative sentence, means generalizing ‘whoever, whatever’; in Classical Sanskrit this value is seen in the collocation ya- + kaś cana and ka- + api. sama- occurs only in the RV in the m.: sg. ‘someone, everyone’ sama-m, -smai, -smāt, -sya, -smin, pl. ‘all’ same. The relative pron. yá- is inflected like ká-. Also diminutive m. pl. nom. yaké is attested in the RV. yá- serves as the basis for the relative adverbs yá-thā ‘in which manner, as’, yá-tra ‘where’, etc.

4.4. Possessive pronouns s(u)vá- ‘one’s own, belonging to … self’ has its origins in the possessive pronoun for the 3 rd person, as is rendered obvious from Iran. *hu̯á- (OAv. xva-, huua-, hauua-; OPers uva-°) beside *má- ‘my’ (OAv. ma-) and *tu̯á- ‘your’ (OAv. θβa-). However, it is used also in the 2 nd or 1 st person in OIA, where expressions with the genitive of personal and demonstrative pronouns are preferred. tvá- ‘your’ is found only in f. inst. pl. tuvā´bhis RV II 20,2. The pron. inflection of s(u)vá- is scarcely observed in the RV: loc. sg. n. svásmin only I 132,2bc against 32 occurrences of své.

5. Verbs 5.1. Categories of verbal inflection Every finite form terminates with a personal ending which designates a combination of person (1st, 2nd, or 3rd ), number (sg., du., or pl.), and diathesis (“voice”, active or middle/

357

358

V. Indic mediopassive). Many verbal stems are inflected in the act. When middle endings are used in addition to them, they have a function of direct-reflexive (or reflexive: ‘asks himself’), indirect-reflexive (or affective: ‘asks someone in his own interest’, ‘gives something to himself’), possessive-affective (‘washes his hands’, ‘asks about his own obligation’), reciprocal (‘ask each other’), patientive (“passive”: ‘is asked’), or the like. Middle inflections are used also for instances where a subject’s state or its change is expressed. Some verbs are inflected only in the middle (media tantum). There are four categories of endings: primary, secondary, perfect, and imperative. “Secondary endings” are fundamental, indicating only person, number, and diathesis, whereas “primary endings” designate in addition the present time (‘is asking’). Perfect endings indicate, together with the perfect stem, a state of the subject which it has attained as the result of a verbal action (‘has seen [and now knows]’). Special imperative endings exist for only 2 nd and 3 rd persons.

5.1.1. Aktions-, Verhaltens-, and Rektionsart The verbal root conveys the lexical meaning of the verb. By means of suffixes, infixes, or reduplication, “tense stems” are formed. These include, in the first place, the present and aorist stems (aspect-stems). The future is morphologically only a special type of present. Some noematic categories belonging to the lexical meaning of the verb are relevant for the morphology: 1. Aktionsart [action type], i.e., a. the action signalled by a root or verb is punctual (without time extension), momentary (with short duration), or durative (with longer duration); b. it is terminative (i.e. has a beginning or ending); c. it is iterative (involves repetition), inchoative (in its initial phase; said of a pres.), or ingressive (already in process; said of the aorist and perfect); 2. Verhaltensart, i.e., a. a verb designates an action (facientive or agentive), change of state (fientive), or state (statutive or essive); b. related to (2a), the action designated may or may not involve intention; c. it may be factitive (e.g. in the causative) or patientive (e.g., in the passive); 3. Syntactic governance (rection): the action may be transitive or intransitive.

5.1.2. Aspect and suppletion The present stem is originally used for the imperfective aspect, i.e. the view of a verbal action in its ongoing phase. The aorist stem signals perfective aspect, the view of a verbal action in its closed phase, i.e. to express merely whether the action happens without regard for any of its internal phases. The perfect system designates a state of the subject which it has attained as the result of a verbal action (nacto-stative). If a root’s meaning has a punctual Aktionsart (“aorist-roots”), the root can serve as an aorist stem without any marking: athematic root aorist. Otherwise, an aorist stem is formed in the ways given in 5.5. A root having a lexical meaning with a distinctively durative Aktions-

27. The morphology of Indic (old Indo-Aryan) art (“present-root”) can function as a present stem: athematic root pres. If not, a present stem is formed in ways indicated in 5.1.3. In extreme cases, suppletion (suppletive paradigm) occurs. The root han ‘smite, slay, destroy’ serves directly as a present stem: hán-ti ‘slays’, ghn-ánti ‘they slay’. Even if a repeated action is meant, no special formation is necessary, because the root itself includes such a meaning (noeme) which emerges as a relevant component from the context. han cannot build an aorist because of its extremely durative Aktionsart. vadh i, a counterpart with a punctual Aktionsart, provides the aorist function: athematic root aorist á-vadhī-t. Likewise, the root ay/i ‘go’ has present forms é-ti, y-ánti, ái-t, ā´y-an ‘goes, they go; s/he, they went’, but it has no aorist. The latter is supplied by gā: root aorist ágā-t, á-gur. gā means properly ‘stride’, i.e. ‘spread the legs’ and has its own present, jígā-ti *‘spreads the legs repeatedly’ in the RV. as/s ‘exist, be’ (ás-ti, s-ánti) has only the present stem, and bhav i/bhū (*bhu̯ā) ‘come into being, become’ provides the aorist for it: á-bhū-t, á-bhūv-an; the latter has its own pres. bháv-a-ti, the opt. of which is usually supplied by s-yā´-t from as. These phenomena are required by the logic rooted in the principle of stem formation. Some other examples of this principle: instead of dá-dā-ti ‘gives’, one finds also or preferably present prá-yacchati (yam ‘stretch and hold out [the arms]’); a factitive of é-ti ‘goes’ is provided by náy i-a-ti ‘leads’ or é-tave kr̥ ‘make (someone) to go’. Some such cases are due to particular conditions: in the case of imperfect 2 nd and 3 rd sg. of ad ‘eat’ (ind. át-ti), phonologically ambiguous *ā´t is avoided and supplied with ā´va-ya-s, -t, supposedly of denominative origin. Meanwhile, ad ‘eat’ (< ‘bite, chew’ with iterative-durative Aktionsart) shows a suppletive aorist ghas ‘eat, consume, devour’.

5.1.3. Present stem formations There are many formations for the present stem. Athematic root presents from roots with durative Aktionsart correspond roughly to the 2 nd class of traditional Pāṇinian grammar [A1]. In other instances, the present stem must be marked in order for the verb to function in the imperfective aspect; a marked stem-formation serves thus to modify (extend) the duration of the action which the verb’s root originally signifies: [B1] with a thematic vowel -a- (*-e/o-) appended to the accented full-grade root, when no change of the Verhaltensart is involved (1 st class), e.g. bhav i-a-ti ‘come into being, becomes’; [B2] with a thematic vowel -á- appended to the zero-grade of the root, predominantly for signalling a pushing or urging action of short duration, or for a factitive meaning (6 th class), e.g. tud-á-ti ‘push’, -tirá- ‘make traverse’, krīḍ-á- ‘play, frisk’; dáś-a-ti ‘bite’ (daṁś) with secondary accent; [B3] with a themat. vowel -a- appended to the long-grade root to signal the terminative or iterative-durative function, e.g. cā´y-a- ‘perceive’, dhā´va- ‘run (towards)’; [B4] with the suffix -ya- predominantly built to the zero-grade root, when a fientive meaning (a natural process, non-intentional action, etc.) is additionally expressed (4 th class), e.g. dī́v-ya-ti ‘gamble’, páś-ya- ‘see’, gā´-ya- ‘sing’ with full-grade root; vac -yá-te ‘totter’ (vañc), mriyá-te ‘die’, and dhriyá-te ‘get ready (to do something)’ with passive accent; (ava)-d-yá-ti to dā ‘divide, separate’; gr̥bhā-yá- ‘grasp’ < *gr̥b hn̥H-i̯ é- extended from the nasal-infix stem gr̥bh-nā´-ti; jā´ya-te ‘be born’ is marked as a fientive present through its accent; [B5] with the suffix -áya-: [B5a] predominantly to

359

360

V. Indic the zero-grade root, when an iterative Aktionsart is additionally marked (10 th class), e.g. chad-áya- ‘appear, appear pleasant’ (chand), hv-áya- ‘call’ (hvā); [B5b] to the *-o-grade root (thus -ā- in an open, -a- in a closed syllable, including one closed by a laryngeal) for expressing a derived factitive Verhaltensart (causative), cf. 5.7.4; − athematic formations: [A2] with reduplation in -í- or -á- (also assimilated into -ú-) for the iterative or factitive (3 rd class); [A3] with infix -ná-/-n-, predominantly for changing to factitive: [A3a] 7 th class, if the root ends with a consonant (yu-ná-k-ti, yu-ñ-j-ánti), [A3b] 5 th class (traditionally with -nu-), or 8 th class (with -u-), if the root ends with u (śr̥-ṇá-u̯-ti, śr̥-ṇv-ánti), or by adding the ready-made suffix -nó-/-nu- (kr̥-ṇó-ti, kr̥-ṇv-ánti), [A3c] 9 th class, if the root ends with a laryngeal (gr̥bh-ṇā´-ti, -ṇ-ánti, -ṇī-té < *gr̥b h-ná-H-ti, *-nH-ánti, *-n-H-tái̯ ), cf. 5.4.1.3. A small group of acrodynamic athematic presents, alias “Narten-presents” [A4], show a heightened grade in the root syllable, cf. 5.4.1.1. This marking seems to indicate durative or iterative Aktionsart. Other smaller groups of thematic formations include: [B6] inchoative presents with -cha- < *-sk̑é-, most of PIE origin, e.g. gácha-ti < *gwm̥-sk̑é- ‘go’ from gam ‘go’ (originally ‘tread firmly, stamp’) with secondary accent, pr̥chá-ti < * pr̥k̑-sk̑é- ‘ask’ from praś ‘ask, search’, vr̥-ścá- < *u̯r̥k-sk̑é‘cut down’; [B7] themat. stems with reduplication, i.e. tíṣṭh-a-ti ‘stand’, inherited sī́da-ti ‘sit down’ (before PIE already *sī́d-e- from *si-zd-e-); the iteration signals durative action; [B8] some forms with -va-, i.e. jī́-va- ‘live’, tū´r-va-ti ‘overpower’, dhán(u)-va- ‘run, flow’; [B9] thematized nasal presents, e.g. śúndh-a- ‘clean’ (śodh), pínv-a- ‘make full of’ (: pi-n-v-āná-).

5.2. Endings The active endings in the “primary” series (for the present indicative and some subjunctive forms) are, in the order sg. 1st , 2nd, 3rd; du. 1st, 2nd, 3rd; pl. 1st, 2nd, 3rd: -mi, -si, -ti; -vas, -thas, -tas; -masi/-mas, -tha/-thana, -anti/-nti/-ati. The more fundamental “secondary” series shows: -m/-am, -s, -t; -va, -tam, -tām; -ma, -ta/-tana, -an/-n/-ur. The primary middle endings are: -e, -se, -te (“stative” -e); -vahe, -āthe (°ethe in thematic), -āte (°ete); -mahe, -dhve, -nte/-ate (“stative” -[i]ré); secondary: -i, -thās, -ta; -vahi, -āthām (°ethām), -ātām (°etām); -mahi, -dhvam, -anta/-nta/-ata/-ran/-ram. 1 st sg. act. -mi is added to thematic stems, where historically -ā < *-oh2 is expected (cf. OAv. ind. -ā); this latter is preserved in the subjunctive.

5.3. Moods With the help of moods a speaker adds his attitude to the contents of what he utters: indicative [ind.], injunctive [inj.], and strongly modal: subjunctive [subj.], optative [opt.], and imperative [iptv.]. The indicative serves for reporting in general. The indicative present designates the action in progress or process. The indicative aorist with secondary endings expresses a concluded action with the help of the augment (á-). It designates an immediate, actual past, or states facts of the remote past. The Middle Indo-Aryan preterite is based on the aorist in the latter function, which occurs largely in speaking. There

27. The morphology of Indic (old Indo-Aryan) are also special usages such as ingressive (the action or state has already started) or designation of antecedence in time. The preterite of the present is the imperfect [ipf.]; it designates with augment and secondary endings the non-actual or historical past. The perfect indicative reports an attained state. The injunctive is formed from present, aorist, or sometimes perfect stems, with secondary endings, so that it designates in itself only a person and a number (originally the aspect of its stem as well). Its principal function is simple reference (Erwähnung, “memorative”), used concretely to express general circumstances or the truth without limitation to some period, to represent data or someone’s qualification, to refer to a myth or affair that everybody knows, etc. With mā´ ‘not, lest’, the inj. is used for the prohibitive sentence: the injunctive aorist for a preventive function (‘don’t X’), the injunctive present for the inhibitive (‘stop … X-ing’). The augment is often lengthened before a root beginning with a laryngeal, e.g. ā´naṭ < *é-h2 nek̑-s/-t ‘you have attained, ... has attained’; thus a “vr̥ ddhi” appears before a verb beginning with a vowel, e.g. ā´s-an < *é-h1 s-ent ‘they were’ (as), ái-t < *é-h1 ei̯ -t, ā´y-an < *é-h1 i̯ -ent ‘went’ (ay).

5.3.1. Subjunctive The subjunctive is formed from the full-grade stem with the suffix -a- (*-e/o-); in the intensive and zero-grade thematic present, however, it is formed from zero-grade or weak stems. Its functions are prospective (future, expectation) and voluntative (speaker’s will, intension). Secondary and primary endings are used; in some cases, there are also elements making the form clearer. Act.: sg. -āni/-ā/-a-m, -a-si/-a-s, -a-ti/-a-t; du. -ā-va, -a-thas, -a-tas; pl. -ā-ma, -a-tha/-a-thana, -a-nti/-a-n; mid.: sg. -ai, -a-se/-a-sai, -a-te/ -a-tai; du. -ā-vahai, -aithe, -aite; pl. -ā-mahe/-ā-mahai, -a-dhve/-a-dhvai, -a-nte/-a-nta. The forms in -anta in the 3 rd pl. mid. of the thematic present are originally injunctives but are used also as subjunctives in the RV, e.g. bhájanta, tiránta, janáyanta etc.; °ā˘ntai appears in Vedic prose. A new formation for the 2 nd sg. mid. such as nayāsai, paśyāsai occurs from the AV onward, and 3rd sg. °āntai/-antai YSP Br. Hypermarked forms such as várdha ās, áva-padāti, marāti occur, and their number increases slightly from the AV on. Short-vowel subjunctives are formed in the reduplicating and -nā- presents, and athematic root-aor., e.g., dadh-a-, dad-a-, jah-a- (cf. OAv. zaz-a-), min-a-, aśn-a-, aor. dh-a-. The category subjunctive ceases to exist in Post-Vedic and only the 1 st persons survive integrated into the imperative. The subjunctive aorist is sometimes inflected in the active even when forms in the other categories of the same verb are inflected throughout in the middle (a similar case is observed also in the indicative perfect).

5.3.2. Optative The optative is formed in athematic inflections with suffix -yā´-/-ī- ( devāna]) perhaps reflects that this syllable is still metrically heavy despite the absence of either vowel nasalization or a consonant cluster, suggesting an underlying stem *ppiya- which makes position. Another feature of the inscription at Rummindei is the merger of /l/ and /r/ resulting in /l/. Let us compare these two inscriptions again. The Shāhbāzgaṛ hī inscription in the far West attests a form raja, equivalent no doubt to nom. sg. rājā without marking vowel length. At Rummindei in the East the form lājina is an inst.sg. agreeing with devānapiyena. Note that, in comparison with Sanskrit rājñā an [l] appears, the consonant cluster is separated by epenthetic vowel [i], and the final [ā] is shortened. Another difference is that at Shāhbāzgaṛ hī the nom.sg. devanam ˙ priyo ends in [-o], while the Rummindei pillar tells us that hida bhagavam ˙ jāte ‘here the lord (Buddha) was born’, indicating that the nom.sg. of a-stems ended in [-e].

421

422

V. Indic

3.1.1. Eastern Inscriptional Middle Indic The merger of [r, l] in favor of [l] and the nom.sg. [-e] of a-stems would become the most iconic elements of the Māgadhī Prākrit used in Classical Sanskrit drama, so named after Aśoka’s homeland, Magadha. In fact, this Eastern Inscriptional Middle Indic has other features which distinguish it regionally. The eastern Aśokan inscriptions attest to a merger of [ś, s, ṣ], which is represented by a single sibilant and a merger of [ñ, ṇ, n] represented by one character . Consonant clusters are more often reduced or resolved by insertion of an epenthetic vowel, like in lājina. Where one finds Sanskrit [kṣ], Eastern Inscriptional Middle Indic has [kh]. Other differences include a present middle participle in [-mīna-], and loc. sg. masc./nt. in [-(s)si]. Although Patañjali evidently despised the Eastern bhāṣā ‘patois’, it must have been very prestigious in its day, as it was the language of Aśoka’s capital Pāṭaliputra. Because this dialect is also the language of the Eṟ ṟ aguḍi edict in Andhra Pradesh, and it seems unlikely that the dialect of Pāṭaliputra was spoken as far south as Andhra, the Aśokan inscriptions must represent not the vernacular but an elevated political register of Middle Indic deemed suitable for imperial proclamation; Aśoka's own Pāṭaliputra dialect was the default used for all pillar edicts and minor rock edicts with other versions of Middle Indic appearing only on the Western and Northwestern frontier. It was the official administrative language of the Mauryan dynasty and a dialect bound to the political fortunes of that empire; for all inscriptions in this dialect are Mauryan, and none post-date its fall.

3.1.2. Western Inscriptional Middle Indic The western dialect of Middle Indic is best represented by the Aśokan inscriptions at Girnār in Gujarat. This dialect also attests to the merger of the Old Indic sibilant series, but it retains the distinction between [l] and [r] and its nasals remain distinct. Where one finds Sanskrit [kṣ], Western Inscriptional Middle Indic generally has [cch]. Furthermore, Western Inscriptional Middle Indic more often retains clusters rather than adding an epenthetic vowel, especially if these clusters involve a semivowel. Western Inscriptional Middle Indic features a loc. sing. m./n. in [-e] or [-mhi], and a gerund in *-tvā > [-tpā]. Salomon (1989: 74) notes that this Western dialect often differs from eastern and northwestern inscriptions in vocabulary; for example, Girnār attests a paṃthesū ‘along the roads’ instead of mag(g)esu ‘id.’.

3.1.3. Northwestern Inscriptional Middle Indic The Shāhbāzgaṛ hī and Mānsehrā inscriptions, found in Afghanistan and Pakistan respectively, are believed to represent an early form of Gāndhārī and constitute a third dialect of early Middle Indic. This dialect retains the respective distinctions between sibilants, nasals, and liquids. While the precise pronunciation of [kṣ] is unknown, it is represented by a distinct character, which suggests it did not merge with another phoneme. This dialect preserves internal consonant clusters, although when [r] is first in such a cluster, it often metathesizes with a preceding vowel, *dharma > dhrama. Special developments

30. The dialectology of Indic involving sibilants include [ṣy] merging with [ś] and [sv, sm] > [sp] (e.g. future stem manuśa- < *manuṣya, and pronominal loc. sg. m./n. in [-spi] < *-smin).

3.1.4. Post-Mauryan inscriptions The institution of kingship which preserved Middle Indic in inscriptional forms did not end with the fall of the Mauryas but was continued by the polities which followed. The Yuga Purāṇa tells us that the Śun˙ga empire was founded when the last Maurya emperor, Br̥ hadratha, was assassinated in 185 BCE by his senānī ‘army commander’ Puṣyamitra Śun˙ga. Whether this is historically true or not, a Puṣyamitra did leave behind Middle Indic inscriptions which proclaimed that he had completed two horse sacrifices, suggesting he had a public investment in Vedic ritual. Note that Puṣyamitra uses neither the Eastern Inscriptional Middle Indic of the Mauryas nor Sanskrit, which was still very much a hieratic language in the 2 nd century BCE. A more westerly dialect of Middle Indic, which Émile Senart (1881, 2: 488) dubbed “Monumental Prakrit”, remains the default language of these imperial proclamations. The earliest Sanskrit inscription is found at Ayodhyā. It is dated to the first century BCE on the basis of its claim that this inscription was commissioned senāpateh ̣ puṣyamitrasya ṣaṣthena ‘by the sixth descenḍ ed from General Puṣyamitra.’ Note that Classical Sanskrit would have probably used an abl.sg. puṣyamitrāt* rather than the gen.sg. The Junāgaḍh inscription of Rudradāman in 150 CE is a turning point from the Pre-Classical Sanskrit style to the poetic Sanskrit of the Classical period and constitutes the first praśasti. Even so, Epigraphical Hybrid Sanskrit, a mixture of Sanskrit and Middle Indic, remained the dominant language of inscriptions until the 3 rd century CE. With the rise of the Guptas, however, Classical Sanskrit would become the standard for political discourse, scholastic texts, and the literary arts.

3.2. Scriptural Middle Indic Besides the state, other institutions of power include the monastic orders of Buddhists and Jains. The oldest strata of texts preserved by these orders are believed to have originated as oral compositions which were at first transmitted orally and then translated into a variety of literary Middle Indic languages. It merits pointing out that these are “scriptural” dialects of Middle Indic because they are best known from Buddhist and Jain scripture, but by no means were they used exclusively for scripture.

3.2.1. Buddhist Middle Indic The oldest Buddhist texts are written in a script called Kharoṣṭhī, which, because it is derived from Aramaic, does not distinguish vowel length. Kharoṣṭhī script is primarily used to record a Middle Indic language called Gāndhārī, named after the region in which it was found. Ancient Gandhāra constituted the territory around the Indus, Swat, and

423

424

V. Indic Kabul river valleys in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Its capital, Taxila, is believe to be the home of Pāṇini, the creator of Classical Sanskrit, and Kharoṣṭhī may have been the lipi to which Aṣṭādhyāyi 3.2.21 refers. Under the patronage of Kuṣāṇas, Kharoṣṭhī spread along the Silk Road: northwest into Bactria and northeast into the Tarim Basin. Gāndhārī was a major language of Buddhist literature, the best represented genre being sutra texts such as the Dharmapada, but commentaries, devotional songs, and scholastic treatises are also well represented. It was the administrative language of Gāndhāra, but it was also a literary one into which old texts were translated and in which new ones were composed. Gāndhārī undergoes many changes during its period of use (2 nd c. BCE−4 th c. CE), and appears to be a more advanced stage of the language of the Northwest Middle Indic found in the Aśokan inscription at Shāhbāzgaṛ hī. In Gāndhārī, intervocalic consonants are sometimes voiced, becoming fricatives. Consider the form which is derived from bodhisattva and likely pronounced [bozizatva]. This lenition is often hard to detect, as the spelling is under progressively greater influence from Sanskrit. Salomon remarks that Gāndhārī sat[t]a ‘seven’ is “corrected” later to sapta due to the influence of Sanskrit. The quality of final vowels was evidently neutralized in light of the diverse finals of the m. and n. a-stem [-e, -o, -u, -a], with all variants potentially appearing within a given text. In coda position, [r] within clusters is sometimes metathesized into a preceding onset; compare Sanskrit durgati, Pāli duggati, and Gāndhārī drugadi ‘bad fate.’ While Gāndhārī maintains its set of sibilants, [s, ś, ṣ], it gradually loses the distinction between [n] and [ṇ] as well as the distinction between aspirated and unaspirated consonants. Thomas Burrow (1937) believed that the Aśokan edicts at Shāhbāzgaṛ hī and Mānsehrā represented two distinct dialects of Middle Indic. The former, originally on the eastern side of the Indus, was marked by Old Indic [-as] > [-o], as attested by gen.sg.m. raño from *rājñas at Shāhbāzgaṛ hī. The latter dialect, on the west side of the Indus, was marked by Old Indic [-as] > [-e]; compare gen.sg.m. rajine from the edict at Mānsehrā. For Burrow, the former was the direct ancestor of Gāndhārī while the latter the direct ancestor of Niya. Salomon (1998: 78), on the other hand, notes that final-vowel marking in Gāndhārī is highly inconsistent and not a probative distinction. A better model, perhaps is to consider Gāndhārī as the Northwestern Middle Indic that stayed in Gandhāra, while Niya is Northwestern Middle Indic exported along the Silk Road into the Tarim Basin where, in the 3 rd century CE, it became the administrative language of the oasis kingdom of Kroraina. It shares more features with the Northwest Middle Indic of the Aśokan inscriptions than it does with Gāndhārī. In addition, however, it has independent innovations as well; Niya uses a single ending [-a] for nom. and acc. of both sing. and pl. There is a tendency in Niya to confuse voiced and voiceless stops, and to deaspirate aspirates. A suffix [-tu], which Burrow (1937: 49) believed to be taken from the pronoun, marks the second person of all tenses of the verb. Pāli, the liturgical language of Theravada Buddhism, appears to be the most archaic Middle Indic language. The Pāli canon, or tipiṭaka, comprises three ‘baskets’ of texts: sutta, vinaya, and abhidhamma. The Abhidhammapiṭaka ‘basket of higher dharma’ consists of scholastic texts on topics of psychology, philosophy, and metaphysics. They are attributed to the arhats ‘worthies’ or chief disciples of the Buddha. The Vinayapiṭaka ‘basket of discipline’ constitutes the system of monastic codes. The Suttapiṭaka contains teachings mostly attributed to the Buddha in his own words as well as other collections like the Theragāthā and Therīgāthā, which are anthologies of songs composed by elder

30. The dialectology of Indic monks and nuns. The Pāli canon was exported to Śrī Laṅkā, continuing there its life as a literary language. The Visuddhimagga, believed to have been composed by the great Theravada commentator Buddhaghosa in 430 CE, is a comprehensive manual which explains and systematizes the Buddha’s teachings and would critically contour the Theravada doctrine as it spread throughout Southeast Asia. The Mahavam ˙ śa, an epic which chronicles the legendary history of of Śrī Laṅkā, is also composed in Pāli. That many of the suttas are attributed to the Buddha is linguistically problematic. The narrative provided by the Pāli canon is that the Buddha was born and preached in Magadha some two hundred years before the birth of Aśoka. While the Pāli canon is archaic, it does not have features which resemble the language of the Aśokan inscriptions from Magadha. Rather, it resembles more the language of the Girnār inscription in the West or the “Monumental Prakrit” which proliferated after the fall of the Mauryas. For one thing, it maintains distinct nasals, does not merge [l] and [r], and resolves final *[-as] as [-o] and not as [-e]. Unlike the Girnār inscription, Pāli loses consonant clusters, including even those with an [r]; compare Sanskrit pūrva with Pāli pubba. Yet, in some passages Pāli does attest Eastern features. For example, whenever the Buddha directly addresses the monks, he uses the voc. pl. bhikkhave rather than bhikkavo, which shows the Eastern reflex of *bhikṣavaḥ. This suggests some core material may be of an easterly origin, subsequently translated into a more western dialect. Warder (2000: 284) argues that Pāli was spoken in Avanti, an ancient kingdom believed to have been in the Malwa region in western Madhya Pradesh and southeastern Rajasthan. Hirakawa and Groner (2007: 119), on the other hand, place Pāli in the ancient kingdom of Śūrasena, which lay north of Avanti but south of Kurukṣetra and Pañcāla. Pāli cannot be the direct descendant of any attested form of Vedic Sanskrit. Compare Pāli jhāyati ‘burns’ with Sanskrit kṣāyati. The Sanskrit outcome [kṣ] is the result of a thorn cluster *dhgwh-. The Old Indic from which Pāli is descended evidently deleted the initial dental, resolving *dhgwh- into *gwh-. This would indicate that if Pāli had a homeland, it was not one of the regions of Vedic dialect: Gandhara, the Panjab, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh. Another theory, however rejects the assumption that Pāli ever had a regional origin. Keeping in mind the rapid spread of Buddhism from far East to the Northwest, Pāli may have begun life as a lingua franca of trade routes. In this model, a pre-canonical Buddhist vernacular would have no homeland but rather be what Helmer Smith (1952: 178) dubbed a koine gangétique which absorbed forms from all over the trade routes. From *ksana, for example, Pāli receives both western chan ̣a ‘leisure, festival’ and eastern ̣ khan ̣a ‘instant’, not because one is more original, but because a community of traders and peripatetic ascetics would have had a translocal vocabulary. According to this theory, what began as a language accessible all over North India was then artificially re-engineered as a liturgical language. This accounts for Pāli forms like brāhman ̣a when *bamhan ̣a is the expected outcome. The process of transforming a translocal Middle Indic into an archaic liturgical language produced hypercorrections, for example the name Yamataggi in place of the Vedic seer Jamadagni.

3.2.2. Jain Middle Indic Three Middle Indic languages are associated with particular Jain sects. Ardhamāgadhī, also called Ārṣa, is the language of the canonical texts of the Śvetāmbaras. Jain Māhā-

425

426

V. Indic rāṣṭrī is used by Śvetāmbara Jains for non-canonical compositions. A third language, Jain Śauraseṇī, is the language of the canonical texts of the Digambaras. This threefold division mirrors the three primary Dramatic Prakrits, which are conceived of as the dialects of three regions of North India: Mahārāṣṭra in the West, Magadha in the East, and Śūraseṇa in the center. The extension of this nomenclature maps Jain texts to East, Center, and West. Śvetāmbara Jains assert that Ardhamāgadhī is the language spoken by Mahāvīra, the founder of Jainism, long ago in Magadha. An origin for Ardhamāgadhī in Magadha itself seems unlikely, as the language differs from the eastern Aśokan inscriptions. Its voicing, frication, and loss of intervocalic stops is more progressed than Pāli but less so than in the Dramatic Prakrits. It shares one iconic feature with Māgadhī Prakrit: the nom.sg.m. a-stem is in [-e]; but unlike Māgadhī it has both [l] and [r], and for that reason has been dubbed “half Māgadhī”. Helmer Smith (1952: 178) argued, however, that Ardhamāgadhī, like Pāli, was the normalization of a translocal Middle Indic koine gangétique, and has no regional affiliation. Jain Māhārāṣṭrī is closely related to Māhārāṣṭrī Prakrit; but as Pischel (1957: 20) notes, “it is in no way fully identical to it”, pointing out that Jain Māhārāṣṭrī has clearly been under the influence of Ardhamāgadhī and gained some of its peculiarities such as a t-stem nom. in [-m], an infinitive in [-ittu], and an absolutive in [-ttā]. One of the earliest examples of a Jain Māhārāṣṭrī text, the Paumacariya, is a telling of the Rāmāyan ̣a dated to the 3 rd or 4 th century CE. Jain Śauraseṇī shares only superficial features with the Dramatic Prakrit known as Śauraseṇī. Both Dramatic Śauraseṇī and the canonical language of the Digambaras have a nom.sg.m. a-stem in [-o]; because this language is neither Ardhamāgadhī nor Māhārāṣṭrī, it is assigned to the only remaining option. However, Pischel (1957: 21) notes that “… even a preliminary investigation of the dialect will show it has such forms and words as are altogether foreign to Śauraseṇī.” He points to its loc. sg. in [-mmi] which it shares with Māhārāṣṭrī as well as its absolutive in [-ttā], a feature of all Jain Middle Indic dialects. While Dramatic Śauraseṇī has karedi < *karati, Jain Śauraseṇī, Jain Māhārāṣṭrī, and Ardhamāgadhī all attest a karadi. Findings suggest this Jain Śauraseṇī may be more closely related to Ardhamāgadhī than previously imagined. Dundas (1992: 80) argues that “everything points to the existence of an original and ancient shared Jain textual tradition which gradually bifurcated.” Both Śvetāmbaras and Digambaras believe in an ancient lost body of Jain literature called the pūrvas ‘ancient (texts)’. If this lost textual transmission existed, was it in a common ancestor to Ardhamāgadhī and Jain Śauraseṇī? Or another Middle Indic dialect altogether? For the Śvetāmbaras, this lost material was located in the third chapter of the lost final limb of a twelve-limb canon. This twelfth limb was called Dr̥ṣṭivāda and the third chapter Pūrvagata. As Dr̥ṣṭivāda means ‘Disputation about Views’ the Pūrvagata may have been the opening arguments by adherents of heretical doctrines, much like the pūrvapakṣa in Indian philosophical texts. While some variation exists between Śvetāmbara sects, the most important texts are the eleven surviving limbs (an˙gas) and the twelve subsidiary limbs (upān˙gas). The Digambara textual tradition is much less well-known than the Śvetāmbara, and consequently, Jain Śauraseṇī is less well understood. The Digambaras reject the Śvetāmbara canon, believing the original twelve-limb canon to be long lost. According to tradition, by the time of Dharasena, the 33 rd teacher in succession after Mahāvīra, there was only one an˙ga remaining. This limb would be lost too, but Dharasena would transmit two texts: the Ṣaṭkhaṅḍāgama ‘Scripture of Six Parts’ and

30. The dialectology of Indic the Kaṣāyaprābhṛta ‘Treatise on Passions’. The Digambaras maintain that this is all that remains of the lost pūrvas.

3.3. Dramatic Prakrits When one speaks of Prakrit, Māhārāṣṭrī constituted both the aesthetic ideal and the descriptive standard; the Prakrit grammarians explain the other Dramatic Prakrits as deviations from the Māhārāṣṭrī norm. It may have arisen as the living language of the northwestern Deccan or as the courtly language of the Sātavāhanas, an empire which covered much of central India from 230 BCE to 220 CE. The compilation of the Gaha Sattasai, an anthology of 700 Māhārāṣṭrī poems, is attributed to Hāla, a Sātavāhana king. Weber produced the first critical edition of the Sattasai in 1881. Based on seventeen manuscripts, this edition contains 964 poems in total, but only 450 of these were common to all manuscripts. The text is generally dated to the early first millennium CE and was well-known in literary circles in India by the late first millennium. Early reference to Prakrit is found in the Nāṭyaśāstra, a dramaturgical text dated to the beginning of the first millennium. The Nāṭyaśāstra provides rules for the appropriate use of seven Dramatic Prakrits on the theatre stage: Māgadhī, Āvantī, Prācyā, Śauraseṇī, Ardhamāgadhī, Bāhlīkā, and Dākṣiṇātyā; of these, only Māgadhī and Śauraseṇī seem to have been institutionalized in Classic Sanskrit theatre. Sanskrit is used for speech and song by the gods and culturally elite human males; thus Sanskrit dominates the play. Śauraseṇī is used only for the speech of the vidūṣaka, the king’s jester, and female cultural elites. When these women sing, they sing in Māhārāṣṭrī. Māgadhī, on the other hand, is the language of ascetics or working-class characters. A number of dialects (Śākārī, Cāṇḍālī, Śābhārī, Ḍhakkī) appear to be occupation-specific variants of Māgadhī. All Dramatic Prakrits are subject to the typical Middle Indic reduction of the vocalic inventory and of consonants in clusters. Śauraseṇī and Māhārāṣṭrī both use the [-o] nom.sg. ending for the a-stem and merge all sibilants into dental sibilant [s]. They both undergo successive stages of voicing, spirantization, and elimination of intervocalic stops leaving vowels in hiatus for most forms. Śauraseṇī patterns with Māgadhī, however, by restoring dental stops; Compare Sanskrit nom.sg. prākr̥tah ̣ ‘Prakrit’, Māhārāṣṭrī pāuo ‘id.’, and Śauraseṇī pāudo ‘id.’. Voiced aspirates typically lose occlusion and are reduced to [h]; compare Sanskrit nom. sg. prābhr̥tah ̣ ‘offering’, Māhārāṣṭrī pāhuo ‘id.’, and Śauraseṇī pāhudo ‘id.’. Māgadhī operates along the same principles, but its nom.sg. a-stem is in [-e], and it has a single sibilant [ś]; compare Sanskrit nom. sg. puruṣah ̣ ‘man’ with Śauraseṇī puriso ‘id.’ and Māgadhī puliśe ‘id.’. Māgadhī tolerates [ś] before consonant clusters, compare Sanskrit nom.sg. śuṣkah ̣ ‘dry’ with Māgadhī śuśke ‘id.’, and it replaces [cch] with [śc]; compare Sanskrit gaccha ‘go!’ with Māgadhī gaśca ‘id.’. While this last form looks archaic on the surface, it is important to note that [śc] is very likely a secondary development. Consider that Sanskrit pakṣa ‘wing’ is cognate with Māgadhī paśka ‘id.’, presumably via a Proto- Māgadhī *pakkha. In Māgadhī, both [y] and [j(h)] are captured by a character which may have a [ž] or [z] quality, compare Sanskrit jāyate ‘is born’ with Māgadhī yāyade ‘id.’. The most striking feature of Māgadhī, however, is one shared with the eastern Aśokan inscriptions: the conversion of all [r] sounds to [l].

427

428

V. Indic Of these three, only Māhārāṣṭrī has a literary life beyond its prescribed use in drama. Other important works in Māhārāṣṭrī include the Setubandha and the Gaud ̣avaho. It is important to note that whatever their spoken origins, the Dramatic Prakrits as we know them are highly artificial languages produced by applying transformation rules to Classical Sanskrit. These transformational rules are codified by grammars like the Prākr̥ taprakāśa of Vararuci and the Siddhahemaśabdānuśāsana of Hemacandra Sūri. The Dramatic Prakrits are no more the living vernacular than Classical Sanskrit but rather dramatized depictions of Prakrits. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a speech community that would tolerate the polysemy that loss of intervocalic stops produces without producing new words or compounds to disambiguate meaning. Paiśācī or Cūlikapaiśācī is a Dramatic Prakrit known only from grammarians. A lost anthology of stories called the Br̥hatkathā, attributed to Guṇāḍhya, was supposedly composed in this language. Sadly, no complete work in Paiśācī survives, although there are fragments. Bhāmaha, in his commentary on Vararuci, calls Paiśācī bhūtabhāṣā, which is generally taken to mean ‘the language of ghosts.’ Andrew Ollett (2014: 406) argues Paiśācī’s name is something of a misinterpreted literary joke, interpreting Daṇḍin’s use of bhūtabhāṣā as simply meaning a ‘dead language’, not the ‘language of the dead’. It would be Uddyotanasūri’s comical placement of bhūtabhāṣā in the mouths of ghosts that would give Paiśācī a new literary life. The most iconic feature of this Prakrit is the apparent devoicing of intervocalic stops (Compare Sanskrit bhagavatī with Paiśācī phakkavatī). The grammatical rules at work in Paiśācī could simply be the reverse application of the voicing rules applied to produce the other Dramatic Prakrits. For von Hinüber (1981), however, the supposed devoicing in Paiśācī is actually a fiction of orthography. According to his theory, at some point in the development of Middle Indic, the character no longer represents voiced velar stop [g] but rather voiced velar fricative [γ] due to lenition. After this shift, the character is repurposed to mark [g]. For von Hinüber, the odd appearance of Paiśācī is due to the distorting lens of this orthographical shift.

3.4. Apabhraṁśa Patañjali describes gāvī, gonī, and gotā as apabhraṁśa ‘fallen’ perversions of the proper Sanskrit go ‘cow’. The Nāṭyaśāstra characterizes Apabhraṁśa as marked by the ending [-u], presumably the historical outcome of Sanskrit *[-aḥ]. The text claims it is the language of the Ābhīras. Little is known about these Ābhīras, but Samudra Gupta records them on the Allahabad pillar as one of the nations he conquered, and it is generally believed they were a nomadic people who lived west of Mathura up to the Rann of Kutch. It is clear that up to and during the Gupta reign, Apabhraṁśa was a pejorative term for some Indic vernaculars. While Kālidāsa provides certain songs in Apabhraṁśa, it is best to consider this “Dramatic Apabhraṁśa” a stylized dramatic representation of language like the other Dramatic Prakrits. Consider that in Kālidāsa’s Vikramorvaśīyam, King Purūravas sings in Apabhraṁśa only after Urvaśī has vanished and he is madly searching for her, asking the forest animals for her whereabouts. Apabhraṁśa then, is portrayed as the language in which madmen communicate with animals. The literary prestige of Apabhraṁśa, however, would rise in the centuries following the Guptas. Between the 5 th and 12 th centuries CE, Apabhraṁśa was used by Jain poets.

30. The dialectology of Indic Epic literature, biographies, and more secular poetry were composed in Apabhraṁśa during this period as well. Abdul Rahmān’s Saṁdeśa Rāsaka is an example of a literary Apabhraṁśa overlapping chronologically with compositions in early New Indo-Aryan, sometime in the 12 th or 13 th centuries CE, and the influence of Apabhraṁśa literature on early compositions in New Indo-Aryan blurs the boundaries between the two. Like other literary languages of India, Apabhraṁśa was heavily theorized. The 12 th century grammarian Kramadīśvara articulates a threefold categorization of Apabhraṁśa as Nāgara, Upanāgara, and Vrācaṭa. Rather than referring to specific languages, this threefold division may have been a way of conceptualizing the continuum of vernacular speech within a given region as proper to an urban, suburban, or rural milieu.

4. New Indo-Aryan New Indo-Aryan, or NIA, refers to the Indic languages which emerged in medieval and early modern India and are spoken today. Many are attested already by inscriptions in the first centuries of the 2 nd millennium CE. While the linguistic features and literary histories of each of these languages cannot be exhaustively presented here, a few notes will be made about the languages in the Indic dialect continuum. Note that the following divisions do not recapitulate diachrony but rather geography. An in-depth linguistic study of a given language should be pursued with an appropriate language-specific treatment, for example Thomas Oberlies’ A Historical Grammar of Hindi, in conjunction with Colin Masica's The Indo-Aryan Languages. As Masica (1991: 454) notes, “just about every conceivable way of carving up the NIA pile has been advocated by one scholar or another.” In part, this is due to the prevalence of polyglotism in India. Frequently, a speaker knows a home language as well as the lingua franca. This results in the proliferation of non-genetic areal features which blurs the linguistic history of a particular dialect. It is also difficult for field linguists to determine if two languages are mutually intelligible when both the informant and the translator share complete or partial knowledge of another language. When the informant’s native language is endangered, this is the typical scenario. The following geographic designations have been used to divide up New Indo-Aryan: Upper and Central Gangetic Indo-Aryan comprises Hindustani, Bihari, and Rajasthani; West Indo-Aryan comprises Gujarati, Maraṭ hi, and Konkaṇi; Northwest Indo-Aryan comprises Sindhi, Panjabi, and Dardic; Greater Himalayan Indo-Aryan comprises Western, Central, and Eastern Pahari; East Indo-Aryan comprises Oḍia, Bangla, and Asamiya; and, as non-contiguous NIA, Sinhala and Řomani are each treated independently. There are a few supra-regional tendencies worth noting here. Initial [v-] > [b-] is generally an areal feature which extends from eastern Rajasthani and Kumauni all the way to Asamiya and Nepali. Note that in Marwari, a dialect of Rajasthani spoken west of the Aravalli mountains, initial *[v-] has also become [b-], but because *[b-] has become a voiced bilabial implosive [ɓ-], the old phonemic contrast is preserved. Another supra-regional tendency is post-nasal voicing, which seems limited to Northwest IndoAryan and Greater Himalayan Indo-Aryan. Excluded from both these supra-regional tendencies, West Indo-Aryan preserves both initial [v-] and post-nasal voiceless stops.

429

430

V. Indic

4.1. Upper and Central Gangetic Indo-Aryan These languages are located in the Upper and Central Gangetic Plain. Mountain ranges surround this region, separating it from other NIA subgroups. The Himalayas form a natural boundary to the north, the Satpura and the Vindhya mountain ranges to the south, the Thar desert to the west, and to the east the Chota Nagpur Plateau and the Rajmahal hills.

4.1.1. Hindustani The plains of Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Chhattisgarh are home to a number of Hindustani dialects. “Western Hindi” consists of Haryanvi, Braj, Bundeli, and Kannauji. Haryanvi, spoken in Haryana, is both the westernmost and northernmost dialect of Hindustani. Braj is spoken in the area around Mathura and Vrindavan. Braj Literature begins in the 14th century, but its most renowned work is the 16 th century Sursagar by Surdas. Bundeli is spoken to the south, beginning around Gwalior and continuing as far as Chhindwara. Kannauji is the easternmost “Western Hindustani” dialect, as Kannauj is roughly 130 km away from Lucknow. “Eastern Hindi” consists of Avadhi, Bagheli, and Chhattisgarhi. Avadhi is centered around Lucknow. Like Braj, it has a literary history which dates back to the 14 th century. Maulānā Dāūd’s Candāyan may be the earliest work in Avadhi, but Tulsidas’ Ramcharitmana is perhaps its most famous. Bagheli is very similar to Avadhi, but is spoken in southeastern Madhya Pradesh. Chhattisgarhi is both the easternmost and southernmost Hindustani dialect, spoken in the state of Chhattisgarh. Hindi and Urdu originated as Khariboli, the dialect of Hindustani spoken around Delhi. This developed first into a prestigious urban dialect and from there into the lingua franca of the Indo-Gangetic plains. Both Hindi and Urdu emerged from this Khariboli koine. While Hindi became the national language of India, Urdu became the national language of Pakistan. The differences between Hindi and Urdu are stylistic. While Hindi borrows heavily from Sanskrit and is written in Devanāgarī, Urdu borrows from Persian and Arabic and is written in a form of the Perso-Arabic abjad. Dakhini is the dialect of Urdu spoken around Hyderabad in Telangana.

4.1.2. Bihari Further to the East is the Bihari group, a designation which predates the breakup of Bihar and Jharkhand but includes several NIA languages geographically located in both states. The languages in the Bihari group with the largest populations of speakers are Bhojpuri, Magahi, Maithili, and Bajjika. Bhojpuri is spoken in eastern Uttar Pradesh as well as western Bihar, and was initially categorized as “Eastern Hindi” by Beams (1872) on the basis that it lacks the complex verbal system of Magahi or Maithili. It is named after the dialect spoken in Bhojpur, just as the dialect spoken near Varanasi is often called Banarasi. Northern Bhojpuri is spoken in Deoria and eastern Gorakhpur. Dialects of Bhojpuri spoken east of the Gandak river are called Madhesi. Nagpuria Bhojpuri is the dialect spoken in the South near Ranchi, the capital of Jharkhand. It is not to be

30. The dialectology of Indic confused with Nagpuri-Sadri which is a separate Bihari language spoken in Jharkhand. Magahi is spoken south of the Ganges and primarily in southern Bihar and northern Jharkhand. “Eastern Magahi” collectively designates the many dialects of Magahi spoken in southeast Bihar and northeast Jharkhand as well as along the western borders of Orissa and Bengal. Maithili, spoken north of the Ganges in Bihar and in Nepal, has a long literary history, with the poems of Vidyapati in the 14 th century considered to be a high watermark. Bajjika is spoken in north-central Bihar. Standard Bajjika is the dialect spoken around Vaishali and Muzaffarpur. Dialects of Bajjika show the influence of Bhojpuri in the west, Maithili in the east, and Magahi in the south. Finally, Aṅgika is spoken on the border shared by Bihar and West Bengal. Aṅgika has sufficient affinities with the East Indo-Aryan subgroup to defy easy categorization.

4.1.3. Rajasthani Rajasthani is spoken in India’s largest state by area. Much of Rajasthan is the vast Thar desert, bordered on the West by the Rann of Kutch and on the East by the Aravalli mountain range which cuts a diagonal from the southwest to the northeast. The main dialects of Rajasthan are Marwari, Mewari, Ḍhunḍhari, Mewati, Harauti, and Nimadi. Marwari is spoken west of the Aravalli range, and thus does not really belong to the Gangetic Plain. Marwari has a series of voiced implosive stops. Shekhawati, the dialect of Marwari spoken in the northeastern districts of Churu, Jhunjhunu, and Sikar, is reported to have contrastive tone. Mewari is spoken on the eastern side of the Aravallis, while Ḍhunḍhari is the dialect spoken around Jaipur, the state capital. Mewati is spoken on the Haryana border, a dialect of which, Gujri, is spoken in Jammu and Kashmir. Harauti is the dialect spoken in eastern-central Rajasthan, from Bundi and Kota up to Madhya Pradesh, while Malvi is a dialect of Rajasthani spoken in the western parts of Madhya Pradesh itself. Another dialect of Rajasthani not spoken in Rajasthan proper is Nimaḍi, spoken further south in the Satpura range in the Nimar district, which is also home to Nahali, a language isolate. South of Udaipur are a number of Bhili dialects which are thought to be more closely related to Gujarati or Maraṭ hi. Finally, the dialects called Lambani or Banjari seem to have originated as a western dialect of Rajasthani but have spread all over India, especially in the Deccan. The Banjaras are nomadic merchants and craft specialists whose culture shows numerous sociological parallels to that of the European Řomani, to whom they are not directly related.

4.2. West Indo-Aryan West Indo-Aryan languages are all spoken from the Rann of Kutch to the Konkan. They are primarily spoken along the coast of the Arabian Sea, although Maraṭ hi penetrates deeply into the interior as well. While these languages may form a genetic group, this is difficult to determine, because Gujarati has been influenced by Hindustani to the east and Rajasthani, Persian, and Sindhi to the north. Maraṭ hi and Konkaṇi, on the other hand, were spoken from their inception in an area where the Satpura mountains and the Deccan plateau served as physical barriers to language contact. Even if they form only

431

432

V. Indic a geographical group and not a genetic one, they certainly are not better categorized in any other subgrouping.

4.2.1. Gujarati Gujarati is the official language of the state of Gujarat, but speakers of Gujarati are found all over the world. The standard dialect is spoken in the area north of Vadodara and Amdavad. Kathiawadi is the dialect spoken around the Kathiwar peninsula. There is a distinction between Hindu and Parsi dialects of Gujarati, with the latter admitting many Persian borrowings. Sauraṣṭ ri is a dialect of Gujarati spoken in Madurai by a weaver community believed to have migrated from the Kathiawar peninsula to Tamil Nadu a millennium ago. Gujarati has a long literary history; its earliest text is Śālibhadrasūri’s Bharateśvarabāhubali in the 12 th century, but the most famous work of Old Gujarati is the Vasantavilāsa probably from the 14 th or 15 th century. Gujarati inscriptions from the Kacch and Kathiawar regions date back to the 15 th century, but Gujarati features can be seen influencing earlier Sanskrit inscriptions as well. These inscriptions are usually written in Devanāgarī or a local script called Boriyā. Today Gujarati is written in its own script related to Devanāgarī.

4.2.2. Marathi The Maraṭ hi dialects are located primarily in Mahārāṣṭ ra state. It is believed that Maraṭ hi descends directly from Mahārāṣṭ rī Prākrit and Mahārāṣṭ rī Apabhraṁśa. It has a rich literary tradition, and, among the NIA languages, the most abundant epigraphical legacy. Yādavas of Devagiri and the Śilāhāras of northern Konkan commissioned hundreds of inscriptions in Maraṭ hi as early as the 11 th century. Maraṭ hi literature dates to about the same period, when the astrological text Jyotiṣratnamala is thought to have been composed. The Līḷācarītra is a 13th-century biography of the peripatetic Chakradhar Swami; it is a particularly interesting text for linguists as it contains the reported colloquialisms of the many places he traveled. Other significant texts from the 13 th century include the works of the bhakti poets Dñāneśwar and Nāmdev. The chief dialects of Maraṭ hi are Deśi, Varhaḍi, and Jhadi Boli. Khandeśi, spoken in the valley of the Tapti river, is sometimes treated as a dialect of Maraṭ hi, Gujarati, or a separate language like the Bhili dialects. Standard Maraṭ hi is a literary language, but it is most similar to the Deśi dialect spoken from Marathwada up to Pune in the eastern interior regions of the Konkan coast. There is also a dialect of Maraṭ hi called Konkaṇi which is spoken further west on the coast itself. This dialect is not to be confused with the separate and distinct Konkaṇi language spoken in Goa. Another major dialect is Varhaḍi, which is spoken in the northeastern Vidarbha district of Mahārāṣṭ ra as well as in neighboring Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh. It has been heavily influenced by Hindustani, and one important phonetic feature which distinguishes it from the standard is that Standard Maraṭ hi [ḷ] surfaces as [y] in Varhadi. Jhadi Boli is spoken in the forest regions of east-central Mahārāṣṭ ra. Thanjavur Maraṭ hi is spoken in Tamil Nadu. Finally,

30. The dialectology of Indic there is also a dialect of Maraṭ hi with heavy Hebrew and Aramaic borrowings, typically dubbed Judeo-Maraṭ hi, spoken by the Bene Israel, a Jewish ethnic minority in India.

4.2.3. Konkan i Most speakers of Konkaṇi reside in Goa. There was, however, a significant diaspora following the Portuguese invasion, and Konkaṇi speech communities are found in neighboring states as well. In Goa proper, there is a Goa Hindu Konkaṇi, spoken everywhere in the state, and two regional dialects spoken by Christian communities. Bardes Christian Konkaṇi is spoken in the talukas ‘counties’ of Bardes and Tiswadi north of the Zuari river. Saxtti Christian Konkaṇi is the dialect spoken south of the Zuari river in the talukas of Saxtti and Mormugao. Together these regions constitute the “Old Conquests” seized by the Portuguese in the early 16 th century. The rest of Goa was seized in the 18 th century and occupied until 1961. Outside of Goa, Konkaṇi dialects are also sectarian. Saraswat Brahmans in coastal Karnataka and Kerala speak Southern Saraswat Konkaṇi, while Christians speak Karnataka Christian Konkaṇi.

4.3. Northwest Indo-Aryan The catalogue of Northwest Indo-Aryan languages is immense, in part because of the overwhelming physical barriers of the region. Northwest Indo-Aryan is spoken along the Indus river valley, all the way up to the intimidating heights of the Hindu-Kush and the Karakoram mountain ranges. Historically, speakers have been relatively isolated in their inaccessible valleys producing one of the most diverse linguistic areas in the world.

4.3.1. Sindhi Most Sindhi speakers are in the Sindh and Balochistan regions of Pakistan, where their language has been influenced by the administrative languages of Persian, Arabic, and Hindustani, as well as by its linguistic neighbors Balochi, Brahui, and Gujarati. Sindhi is also spoken outside of Pakistan in parts of Gujarat and Rajasthan. The five major dialects of Sindhi are Vicholi, Lari, Lasi, Thari, and Kachhi. Four dialects are spoken within the borders of Sindh itself. Siraiki, in Upper Sindh, is not to be confused with the Punjabi language of the same name. Vicholi, considered the standard dialect, is spoken in central Sindh, while Lari is the dialect in southern Sindh. Lasi is spoken on the western frontier of Sindh and in Balochistan. The Sindhi spoken in the Thar desert of the Jaisalmer district of Rajasthan is called Thari. In Gujarat, Kachhi is spoken along the Rann of Kutch and in the Kathiawar peninsula. The most striking aspect of Sindhi phonology is its series of voiced implosives, articulated with ingressive air-stream mechanism, believed to be the outcomes of geminated voiced stops. Compare Sanskrit padma ‘lotus’, Pāli pabba ‘id.’, and Sindhi [paɓuṇi] ‘lotus plant fruit’. The number of voiced implosives differs from dialect to dialect, but

433

434

V. Indic all have at least one, and curiously none have a dental. In Sindhi an historical dental + [r] > retroflex; compare Sindhi tẹ ‘three’ with Hindi tīn ‘id.’ which has lost all trace of an initial cluster *[tr].

4.3.2. Panjabi The Panjab, from Persian panj āb ‘five waters’, is a region which encompasses the area of the five tributaries of the Indus. George Grierson (1916) mistook the influence of Hindustani on eastern dialects of Panjabi and categorized it as a far western dialect of Hindustani while grouping western dialects of Panjabi, Hindko, and Saraiki as “Lahnda” languages, a word which simply means ‘western’ in Panjabi. Today, Panjabi is considered to be merely one language in a “Panjabi language group” which contains the separate languages Saraiki, Hinko, and Panjabi. Panjabi is the official language of both the Pakistani province of Panjab and the Indian state of the same name. In India, the language is written in a form of nāgarī called Gurmukhī ‘from the Guru’s mouth’, while in Pakistan it is written in a form of the Perso-Arabic abjad called Shahmukhī ‘from the King’s mouth’. Majhi, spoken around Lahore and Amritsar, is considered to be the standard dialect. Other dialects of Panjabi include Doabi, spoken in the region between the Beas and the Sutlej. Malvai and Puadhi are spoken south of the Sutlej along the boundary of the Haryanvi language area. Panjabi has a very old literary history going back to the 12 th century. In the late 15 th century, Guru Nanak composed the foundational texts of Sikhism in his native Panjabi, influenced by previous Sufi and Bhakti poets who composed in Persian, Hindustani, and Maraṭ hi. The Arya Samaj, a Hindu nationalist group, has used the association of Panjabi with Sikhism to successfully persuade many Panjabi-speaking Hindus to return to their “mother tongue” of Hindi as an act of solidarity. Many languages in the Panjabi group have tone. This is not the inherited pitch-accent of Indo-Iranian, but an innovation. One of the major differences between Panjabi and Hindko is the number of tones. Standard Panjabi has a two-tone system. The low tone is the result of the loss of aspiration in syllable onset; if this aspirate was word-initial, it became devoiced. Compare Panjabi kə̀r ‘house’ with Hindi ghər ‘id.’. A high tone is the result of loss of aspiration in syllable-coda position. Although there are exceptions, typically the lack of historical aspiration results in a third option: neither high nor low tone. Pothohari, spoken on the Pothohari Plateau, shares this system with Panjabi as does the Western Pahari languages of Dogri and Kangri. Hindko is spoken in parts of northern Panjab and is the majority language in the province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. As opposed to Panjabi, Hindko has a one-tone system. The eastern dialects of Hindko in the Hazara division have a high tone produced like the Panjabi high tone. Hazara Hindko lacks a contrastive low tone, however, and it retains aspirated onsets. Western dialects of Hindko, spoken in Peshawar, also lack a low tone. Peshawari Hindko generates a high tone in two ways, by deaspiration in syllable-coda position and by devoicing in syllable-onset. Compare Standard Panjabi tì ‘daughter’ with Hazara Hindko dhi and Peshawari Hindko t‘í ‘id.’. Saraiki appears to be a transitional language between Panjabi and Sindhi. Spoken in Upper Sindh as well as the southern Panjab, it is sometimes considered a dialect of

30. The dialectology of Indic either Sindhi or of Panjabi due to a high degree of mutual intelligibility. Like Sindhi, it possesses a set of implosive voiced stops and lacks contrastive tone. Notice Saraiki vədh ‘more’ retains voiced aspiration while Standard Panjabi və́d ‘id.’ loses it but generates a high tone. There is a political movement in Pakistan to declare Saraiki the administrative language of its own region.

4.3.3. Dardic Scattered throughout the isolated mountains and valleys of the Hindu-Kush and Karakoram, the Dardic languages elude conclusive proof of their unity. Their similarities are often due to shared archaisms and not innovations. Indeed, the Dardic languages are the most archaic of all NIA languages. One shared innovation which is suggestive of common ancestry is the retroflex affricate series [c̣, c̣h, j̣, ẓh], which are the result of Old Indic consonant clusters. Another similarity is that most Dardic languages show the loss or partial loss of aspiration, often resulting in tone; compare Sanskrit dhūma ‘smoke’ with Pashai dū́ um ‘id.’. This similarity is likely to be areal, not genetic, however. Joan Baart (1997: 20) observes that in Kalam Kohistani aspiration is in the process of evolving into a tonal system. Our knowledge of Dardic is often out of date due to the rise of the Taliban and the subsequent war in Afghanistan. Not only is it difficult for linguists to do new fieldwork, but more importantly, war is devastating traditional ways of life. Languages with only a few thousand speakers easily vanish due to the death or relocation of its speakers. In addition, all these languages are under pressure from Pashto and Urdu, the administrative languages of Afghanistan and Pakistan, respectively. George Grierson (1919) originally conceived of Dardic as a third branch of IndoIranian and included in it the Kafiri languages, a term derived from the Arabic word for ‘infidel’. Georg Morgenstierne, whose fieldwork documented many of the languages of the Hindu-Kush for the first time, separated Dardic and these so-called Kafiri languages. Morgenstierne (1961) argued that Dardic was properly Indo-Aryan, while Kafiri was, in fact, a third branch of the Indo-Iranian family. The designation Kafiri has been abandoned in favor of the term Nuristani, coined by Richard Strand (1973). Dardic comprises six groups of languages: Kashmiri, Shina, the Chitral group, the Kohistan group, the Kunar group, and the Pashai group. The Kunar and Pashai language groups are spoken primarily in eastern Afghanistan but also in parts of Chitral, Pakistan. The Kunar group of languages is located for the most part in the lower Hindukush in and around the Kunar river valley in east Afghanistan and Pakistan. Gawar-Bati, Shumashti, and Grangali-Ningalami seem somewhat more closely related. It is not clear if Dameli, spoken in the Damel valley on the left bank of the Chitral river, belongs to the Kunar group or to Nuristani. The Pashai group of languages is spoken further west, north of the Kabul River in Afghanistan, in four mutually unintelligible languages with dialects typically named after localities. All Pashai languages, however, have a number of shared features; for example, feminines in [-c] and masculines in [-k]. The Chitral and Kohistan groups are primarily spoken in the Malakand and Hazara divisions of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan. The lingua franca of Chitral prior to the Soviet-Afghan war was Khowar. In a part of the world where many of the

435

436

V. Indic languages documented have no more than a few thousand speakers, Khowar stood out with over 300,000 speakers. The two best known languages of the Chitral group, Khowar and Kalasha-mun, are considered to be the most archaic Indo-Aryan languages spoken today. Whereas most other NIA languages have developed ergativity or split-ergativity, Khowar and Kalasha-mun retain the nom-acc system of Old Indic, as well as the verbal augment. Kalasha-mun retains the Old Indic voiced aspirate series, whereas Khowar has lost it and instead produced a pitch accent; compare Skt bhūmi ‘earth’ with Khowar buúm ‘id.’. Kalasha-mun has a number of other archaisms, including preservation of the augment, as evident in forms kārim ‘I do’ and akārim ‘I did’, alongside fascinating peculiarities such as a series of retroflex vowels. The Kohistan group is divided into two language groups: Indus Kohistani and SwatDir Kohistani. Indus Kohistani, also known as Maiyã, is spoken primarily in the Upper Kohistan and Lower Kohistan districts in Pakistan. Some important dialects on its fringe are Chiliso Gabar, Bhatise, and Kanyawali. Chiliso and Gabar are dialects spoken on the east bank of the Indus in Kohistan with heavy borrowing from Kohistan Shina. Bhatise is on the east bank of the Indus opposite Besham. Instead of the pitch accent system of other varieties of Indus Kohistani, Bhatise has a complex system of interacting tones and stress accents. Finally, Kanyawali is a dialect of Maiyã spoken in the Tangir valley. Swat-Dir Kohistani is spoken in the districts of Swat, Upper Dir, and Lower Dir in the Malakand division of Pakistan. Kalam Kohistani and Dashwa are spoken in northern Swat, while Rajkot/Patrak and Kalkot are spoken in Dir. Torwali is a language spoken in the Swat valley north of Madyan. Outside of Pakistan, Tirahi is spoken around Jalalabad in Afghanistan. Although influenced by surrounding Pashai, it appears to be more closely related to Kohistani. In light of some “Lahnda”-type features, Morgenstierne (1965: 138−139) suggested it may be a transplant from the Peshawar district. Another Kohistani language documented in Afghanistan is Wotapuri-Katarqalai, now believed to be extinct. Shina is the majority language in Gilgit-Baltistan, the northernmost administrative territory of Pakistan, but it is also spoken in the Kashmir valley and Ladakh. The prestige dialect is Gilgiti, centered around the capital city. Dialects of Shina are typically named after the valley in which their speakers dwell. Thus, Astori speakers are in the Astore district, and Kohistani Shina is the dialect spoken to the south in Upper and Lower Kohistan. Except for Brokskat, spoken in eastern Baltistan and Ladakh, a tone or pitch accent is common to all dialects of Shina. In Gilgiti, a long vowel is analyzed as having two morae. If the accent falls on the first mora, the result is a high falling pitch on the vowel. If the accent falls on the second mora the result is a low rising pitch. This system seems to be similar to the Burushaski and the Khowar pitch accent. There are a few dialects of Shina outside of the contiguous Shina area. Palula is an archaic dialect originally from the Chilas district transplanted to Lower Chitral. Sawi is a transplant of the same archaic dialect but to Kunar in Afghanistan. Ushojo is spoken in the Bishigram valley near the Swat river; it has similarities to Kohistani Shina. All dialects of Shina retain three contrasting sibilants: [s, ṣ, š]. The Kashmir valley is divided from the Western Pahari languages on the east by the Greater Himalayas and from the rest of Dardic on the west by the Pir Panjal range. Kashmiri, the language of this valley, is distinctive within Dardic for two reasons. First, it has a long attested literary history and second, it has administrative status in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. The earliest specimen of Kashmiri is the Chummāsaṃketa-

30. The dialectology of Indic prakāśa, which is a Sanskrit commentary on brief aphorisms in Old Kashmiri. Its date is uncertain, but it predates Śitikaṇṭha’s Mahānayaprakāśa. The Mahānayaprakāśa is a tantric text in Old Kashmiri whose dating is also debated. Grierson (1929: 73−76) believed it to be a work of the 15 th century, archaized by Śitikaṇṭha’s knowledge of Kashmiri Apabraṃśa. Sanderson dates the text closer to the 12th century, noting that the poetry of Lāl Ded, a Śaiva mystic firmly dated to the 15 th century, is far closer to modern Kashmiri than Śitikaṇṭha’s text. Another consideration, however, is that Kashmiri orthography was not standardized at this time, and there is no real critical edition of her work. Lāl Ded’s poetry has remained perennially popular in Kashmir to this day, and it is a distinct possibility that later forms may have crept into the texts. The prestige dialect of Kashmiri is spoken in Srinagar, and it is this dialect which is the written standard. The local script of Kashmir, Śāradā, developed directly from the Gupta script and has been in use since the 10 th century. Today, Śāradā is used only by paṇḍits; most use a form of Devanāgarī or Perso-Arabic abjad with additional diacritics. Kashmiri has a set of central vowels [ɨ, ɨ̄, ə, ə̄] and V2 syntax that distinguishes it from other Indo-Aryan languages. Regional dialects of Kashmiri inside the valley include Maraz in the south and southeast and Kamraz in the north and northeast. Outside of the valley, Poguli is spoken in the Pogul and Paristan valleys to the west. Kashtawari, spoken in the Kashtawar valley to the southeast, has retained archaisms that standard Kashmiri has lost.

4.4. Greater Himalayan Indo-Aryan Pahari means ‘hill speech’, and thus from the outset the Pahari languages were geographical rather than genetic designations. Western Pahari is primarily spoken in Himachal Pradesh, Central Pahari in Uttarkhand, and Eastern Pahari in Nepal.

4.4.1. Western Pahari Western Pahari languages have more affinities with the Northwestern group of NIA languages than with Central or Eastern Pahari. The Dogri-Kangri dialect chain, located on the borders of Jammu and Himanchal Pradesh, constitute the best documented Western Pahari languages. Kangri and Dogri were once considered dialects of Panjabi, as they possess the same two-tone system. Pothohari, spoken further northwest on the Pothohar Plateau, is still classified as a Panjabi language because it has the same two-tone system, although it resembles a Western Pahari language in other respects. The designation of each of these languages as “Panjabi” has been predicated on the assumption that the two-tone system is a genetic feature of Panjabi rather than an areal one. Western Pahari languages do borrow heavily from their neighbors, but they are more similar to each other than to Panjabi, Rajasthani, or Dardic. The eastern limit of Western Pahari is Jaunsari, spoken in the Dehradun district of Uttarkhand but containing many Central Pahari affinities. Mandeali is spoken primarily in the Mandi valley. Some have attempted to standardize a “Himachali” from the dialects of this region, but the official administrative language of Himachal Pradesh is Hindi.

437

438

V. Indic

4.4.2. Central Pahari The mountains of Uttarkhand are home to two major languages, both of which are vanishing due to the pressure of Hindi: Garhwali, in the northwest of the state, and Kumauni in the southeast. A third language, Baṅgani, whose status is controversial, is also found in the northwestern tip of Uttarkhand. Kumauni is splintered into a number of regional variants: Central Kumauni in the districts of Almora and northern Nainital, Northwestern Kumauni in Pithoragarh, and Southeastern Kumauni in southeastern Nainital. Western Kumauni is spoken west of Almora and Nainital in the Garhwali division. Garhwali was once the official language of the Kingdom of Garhwal, with medieval inscriptions surviving from the 14 th century. The standard dialect of Garhwali is Srinagariya, spoken around Srinagar in the Pauri district. Other regional dialects of Garhwali include Majh-Kumaiya, along the border of Garhwal-Kumaon and in the Kumayun hills; Badhani, in the Chamoli district; Nagpuriya, in Rudraprayag; Tihriyali, in Tehri Garhwal; and Ranwalti, in the Yamuna valley of Uttarkashi. Another language spoken in Uttarkashi is Baṅgaṇi, which began to receive scholarly attention when Claus-Peter Zoller (1988) argued that, unlike the rest of Indo-Iranian, Baṅgaṇi was a centum language. He pointed out that its old lexicon contained many forms like kɔpɔ ‘hoof’ (compare Skt. śapha ‘id.’) and dɔkɔ ‘ten’ (compare Skt. daśa ‘id.’). Later, van Driem and Sharma (1996) stated that they were unable to elicit Zoller’s “kentum” forms from their informants. In follow-up fieldwork, Abbi (1997) confirmed the existence of Zoller’s forms and found other peculiarities, including forms which had not undergone the RUKI rule, such as muskɔ ‘bicep’ from *mūs ‘mouse’, a semantic development paralleled by Latin mūsculus ‘little mouse’, the source of French muscle. This suggests that an Indo-European but non-Indic speech community switched to an Indic language preserving a core set of lexical items. Linguists have yet to agree on a compelling scenario for this phenomenon, and thus the origins of this aberrant core vocabulary in Baṅgaṇi remain mysterious.

4.4.3. Eastern Pahari Nepali is the best known language of the Eastern Pahari group. It is the national language of the Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal as well as a lingua franca of the Himalayas. It is spoken in India as far west as Kashmir and as far east as Arunchal Pradesh. Nepali speakers can also be found in Myanmar, Bangladesh, and Bhutan. Nepali is characterized by a number of interesting linguistic features, including a complex system of honorifics and infixes which mark verb stems as negative, impersonal, transitive, or causative. The two major dialects of Nepali are Gorkha and Jumli. Gorkha is the standard dialect of the Kathmandu valley. The Darjeeling-Kalimpong dialect, spoken in Darjeeling, is very similar to Gorkha. Jumli is the best known of the western dialects, spoken around Baitadi and Doti. It has many affinities with Kumauni, which is spoken in southeast Uttarkhand. Palpa, now extinct, was the dialect spoken around Lumbini, the birth place of the Buddha. Like Jumli, it had features of Kumauni and Nepali. Nepal has a rich epigraphical history, but most of it is Sanskrit. These Sanskrit inscriptions often show the influence of Nepali or Newari, the Sino-Tibetan language

30. The dialectology of Indic indigenous to the Kathmandu valley. The Nepali inscriptional record begins under the western Mallas kingdom in the 13 th century. Nepali translations of Sanskrit texts on mathematics and astrology, such as the Khaṇḍakhādyaka, begin appearing by the late 15 th century. Due to the dominance of the Sanskrit and Newari tradition, however, the Nepali literary arts had a slow start. Nepali poetry is considered to have begun in the 19 th century, with Bhanubhakta's adaptation of the Rāmāyaṇa.

4.5. East Indo-Aryan East Indo-Aryan languages are shielded from the Central Gangetic Plains geographically by the Rajamahal hills and the Chota Nagpur plateau and demographically by Muṇḍaspeaking populations. East Indo-Aryan is bound on the North by the Himalayas and on the East by the Patkai range. Bangla, Asamiya, and Oḍia each use an orthography which developed from the Gauḍī script, which itself is the eastern development of the Siddhamātṛkā script. The Charyapada, an anthology of poems in the Vajrayāna Buddhist tradition, collects materials from between the 8th and 12th centuries CE. The poems seem to capture the transition from a late Apabhraṁśa to early forms of Bangla, Asamiya, and Oḍia. Some of the poems already bear linguistic innovations of Bangla and Asamiya, suggesting that Bangla, Asamiya, and Oḍia were already distinct by this period. The easternmost language in this subgroup is Bisnupur Manipuri. Formerly spoken in Manipur, the language is now dispersed throughout Assam, Tripura, and northeast Bangladesh.

4.5.1. Od ia Oḍia is the official language of the state of Oḍisha, although many Dravidian and Muṇḍa languages are spoken in the region as well. The language is sometimes referred to as Oriya and the state Orissa because voiced retroflex stops surface as flaps intervocalically and word finally. In the Oḍia script, however, the phonemic spelling is preserved. After Maraṭ hi, Oḍia has the most abundantly attested inscriptional record. The earliest of these is dated to 1051 CE, but Sanskrit inscriptions from previous centuries already contain traces of Oḍia features. The Mādaḷāpāñji, ‘the Drum Chronicle’, represents the collected records of the Jagannath Temple in Puri. Its oldest stratum is the earliest prose literature in Oḍia, dating back to the 12 th century. The dialect of Oḍia spoken around Puri is taken to be the standard, while the Northern, Western, and Southern regional dialects show influence from Bangla, Hindi, and Telugu, respectively. Bhatri is a dialect of Oḍia spoken by former Gond tribesmen in Bastar district in southern Chhattisgarh. Halbi, also spoken in Bastar, has features of both Oḍia and Maraṭ hi.

4.5.2. Bangla The official language of the Indian state of West Bengal and the nation of Bangladesh is Bangla, for the term bāŋāli properly refers to a member of the speech community and

439

440

V. Indic not the language itself. Bangla has a long literary history but is better known for its recent literature. Rabindranath Tagore, the “Bard of Bengal”, was the first non-European to win the Nobel Prize in Literature; he composed the national anthems of both India and Bangladesh. Bangla has many striking phonological differences from other NIA languages. Its vowel harmony and lack of contrastive vowel length make it similar to the Muṇḍa languages which surround it. Bangla also has a reduced sibilant inventory; while it technically possesses both /s/ and /š/, they contrast infrequently. /š/ is the most frequent sibilant, while /s/ regularly surfaces in clusters /sk, st, sp, sr, sn, sl/. The eastern dialects of Bangla have an alveolar series rather than a retroflex series contrasting with the dentals. Chatgaya, a distinct language spoken around Chittagong in southeast Bangladesh, is related to Bangla but has developed contrastive tone.

4.5.3. Asamiya Asamiya is spoken primarily in the Brahmaputra and Barak valleys in the state of Assam, separated from Bangla-speaking areas by the Khasi-Garo hills. Asamiya has lost its retroflex stop series, which is unusual for a language of India. Even more unusual, the Old Indic sibilant series /s, ṣ, ś/ have merged into a single velar fricative /x/, while Old Indic palatal /c(h)/ has become alveolar /s/. Kinship terms in Asamiya always specify for seniority or juniority. Another interesting feature of Asamiya is the use of enclitics which categorize the size and shape of the nouns to which they are bound. Central and Eastern Asamiya dialects have medial stress, while in Western Asamiya stress is wordinitial. Differences in word stress, speech intonation, vowel quality, and degree of palatalization can strain intelligibility between the eastern and western dialects of Asamiya. Western Asamiya is spoken around Guwahati, Darrang, and Goalpara while the Eastern dialect is spoken primarily in the districts of Sivasagar and Lakhimpur as far west as Sonitpur and Nowgong. The Central dialects span the intermediate regions, although dialects of these regions more often agree with the eastern language. Literary Asamiya developed during the 15 th and 16 th centuries under the playwright Śaṅkaradeva. Kaviratna’s translation of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa introduced many Sanskrit borrowings into prose Asamiya. By the 17th century, administrative documents, known as the Burañjīs, had introduced Arabic and Persian borrowings into Asamiya. In the neighboring state of Nagaland, the lingua franca is Nagamese, a stable creole of Asamiya and the languages of the Naga tribes which are Sino-Tibetan.

4.5.4. Sinhala Sinhala is spoken in Śrī Laṅkā with no close kinship to any other NIA language, save perhaps Dhivehi, spoken in the Maldives. The Sinhala script is a variety of the Southern Brāhmī which developed under the Pallavas in the 6 th century CE. Pāli, also written in this script, is the literary language that accompanied the first Indic-speaking migrants to Śrī Lan˙kā. The ancestor of Sinhala is attested in the inscriptional record by the late 3 rd or early 2 nd century BCE. The oldest inscriptions are in a Sinhala Prakrit. This language

30. The dialectology of Indic developed in the first millennium into Eḷu, which Suniti Kumar Chatterji (1926: 15) described as “sort of a Sinhalese Apabhraṁśa”. Sinhala Prakrit already attests to the major phonological changes which make Sinhala unique. Final [-e] in some forms has been explained by affinity with Eastern Inscriptional Middle Indic, but this seems to be the only feature in common. For example, Eḷu retains the distinction between [r] and [l]. These inscriptions indicate that Sinhala maintained contrastive [ṇ] and [ḷ] centuries longer than mainland Indic. It is a very real possibility that early migrants to Śrī Lan˙kā did not constitute a homogenous speech community but rather spoke a variety of Middle Indic dialects. Sinhala is an Indic enclave surrounded by Dravidian languages. Contact with Dravidian has deeply influenced Sinhalese syntax. Much like Tamil, Sinhala has considerable diglossia; Literary Sinhala differs from Colloquial Sinhala in every respect save phonology. Sinhala phonology, however, cannot be wholly attributed to contact with Dravidian and seems either to have developed independently or to have been influenced by a substrate language which no longer exists. One clue as to what this language may have been like is possibly to be found in the Vedda language. Initially thought to be a dialect of Sinhala, Vedda appears to be a creole of Sinhala and an unknown aboriginal language of Śrī Lan˙kā. Perhaps it is from contact with this unknown language family that Sinhala lost aspiration. Compare Sanskrit dhanus ‘bow’ with Sinhala dunna ‘id.’ and Dhivehi duni ‘arrow’. Sinhala and Dhivehi also both possess a series of prenasalized stops [mb, n d, ṇḍ, ñj, ŋg] which contrast with nasal + voiced stop. Compare Sinhala aŋgə ‘horn’ and aŋgə ‘features, components’. Sinhala has a number of phonotactic processes worth noting. All non-high short vowels in medial position undergo reduction to [ə]. The glides [y] and [w] break up vowel hiatus following front and non-front vowels, respectively. The fricatives [s] and [h] alternate medially, with [h] becoming [s] word-finally and in gemination. Sinhala features a few interesting morphophonological processes as well. One is grammaticalized umlaut, in which certain specific morphological processes trigger vowel fronting. Sinhala also has grammaticalized gemination, once again triggered by certain specific morphological processes. In cases of gemination, the prenasalized stop series becomes nasal + voiced consonant. An example which illustrates both grammaticalized umlaut and gemination is Sinhala bænda ‘tie-PAST’ beside bandinəwa ‘tiePRES’.

4.6. Rˇ omani A study of NIA would not be complete without a discussion of the “Gypsy languages”: Řomani, Domari, Lomavren, and the nearly extinct Ḍumāki, the only one of these languages to remain, broadly speaking, in situ. The root of the names of each of these languages is cognate. Although often designated by the offensive term “Gypsies”, they call themselves Řom, Dom, and Lom, respectively, all of which derive from a common root *[ḍom]. These languages appear to be a form of Indic which was born in the Upper Gangetic Plains but matured among the Northwest Indo-Aryan languages. Although some are now settled, speakers of all of these languages historically practiced commercial nomadism, specializing in metalwork, crafting, and music. Řomani, Domari, Lomavren, and Hunza valley Ḍumāki lack the shared innovations that would suggest a unified

441

442

V. Indic speech community. Rather, the first three must be the products of independent migrations out of India. Řomani dialects are found throughout Europe, but they all share hundreds of roots from the period antedating their entry into Europe, the majority of which are Indic. After Indic, Greek has left the greatest impact, as there are perhaps 250 Greek roots common to all Řomani dialects, which share Iranian and Armenian roots as well. The absence of Arabic roots in the lexicon suggests that Proto-Řomani acquired its Iranian loans prior to the rise of Arabic as an administrative language in Syria and Persia, which probably means prior to the establishment of Damascus as the capital of the Umayyad Caliphate in the late 7 th century. Domari, on the other hand, has a heavy Arabic influence, as it never entered Europe but spread throughout Egypt and the Middle East. Its best known dialect is Palestinian Domari or “Syrian Gypsy”, which is spoken by the Dom community in Jerusalem. The four major dialect groups of Řomani are Balkan Řomani, Vlax, Central Řomani, and Northern Řomani. Balkan Řomani is an extremely conservative group which spans Turkey, Macedonia, Greece, Albania, Kosovo, and southern Bulgaria, although Ursari is spoken further north in Romania. The Drindari-Kalajdži-Bugurdži subgroup is spoken in northeastern Bulgaria and is less conservative than its southern neighbors. All Balkan dialects are marked by greater Greek influence as well as Turkish influence. Abruzzian, Calabrian, and Molisean Řomani are spoken in the south of Italy, but appear to be dialects of Balkan Řomani. The Vlax branch is divided into Northern Vlax and Southern Vlax. Northern Vlax is spoken primarily in Romania, while Southern Vlax has spread outside of Romania into the Balkans. Kalderaš is the best documented variety of Northern Vlax and has had a considerable global diaspora. Lovari is another Northern Vlax language which emerged from Translyvania and spread to Hungary where it is the dominant Řomani dialect. Central Řomani is spoken primarily in the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary. Northern Central Řomani comprises West Slovak Řomani and East Slovak Řomani which, following the extinction of Bohemian Řomani, have become the dominant Řomani dialects in the Czech Republic. North Central dialects are spoken as far north as southern Poland and as far east as Transcarpathian Ukraine. Southern Central Řomani, called ahi dialects due to their imperfect/pluperfect suffix, show considerable Hungarian influence. Vend is spoken in western Hungary, Premurkje in northern Slovenia, and Romungro in eastern Hungary and Slovakia. The western limit of this group is Roman, which is spoken in the Burgenland district of eastern Austria. Northern Řomani is divided into four subgroups: Northeastern, Northwestern, British, and Iberian Řomani. Northeastern Řomani consists of Xakaditka in Russia, Polska in central Poland, and Čuxny in Latvia and Lithuania. Northwestern Řomani consists of Manuš spoken in France and Sinti in Germany, Austria, and the Netherlands. The Finnish dialect of Řomani is closely related to Sinti-Manuš. Laiuse Řomani, a dialect once spoken in Estonia, may have been related to Finnish Řomani, but it was extinguished by Nazi genocide. The British Řomani and Iberian Řomani subgroups are now extinct. British Řomani was known from the Kååle dialect in Wales, and Iberian Řomani survives only as a secret vocabulary in the Spanish dialect of Caló and the Basque dialect of Errumantxela. When Řomani survives total extinction, remaining as a secret dialect, a secret vocabulary furnished with the grammar of another language, it is called Para-Řomani. Lomavren, the secret language of the Lom of Armenia, underwent a comparable development; it has the grammar of an Armenian dialect but an Indic root lexicon.

30. The dialectology of Indic Řomani, Domari, and Lomavren all show developments which Ralph L. Turner (1926) compared to Śauraseṇī Prakrit, suggesting an origin in the Upper Gangetic Plains. Namely, Old Indic */r̥ / > /i, u/, */sm/ > /mh/, */tv/ > /pp/, /kṣ/ > */kkh/, */t(h), d(h)/ > / l/, and */-m-/ > /-v-/. Compare Sanskrit bhūmi ‘earth’ with Řomani phuv ‘id.’. Like Northwest Indo-Aryan, however, these languages retain initial dental + /r/ clusters. Compare Sanskrit trīn ̣i ‘three’ with Řomani trin ‘id.’ and Domari taran ‘id.’. Domari and Lomavren, however, do not retain initial labial + /r/ clusters as seen when comparing Sanskrit bhrātar- with Řomani phral, Lomavren phal, and Domari bar. Note that the extinct dialect of Řomani once spoken in Wales lost this [r]; Kååle phal ‘brother’ is the source of English pal. In Domari the voiced aspirates were deaspirated, while in Řomani and Lomavren they were devoiced independently, as can be seen by comparing Sanskrit dugdha ‘milk’ with Řomani thud ‘id.’ and Lomavren luth ‘id.’. That is, Lomavren devoices a preform *dudh while Řomani has a preform *dhud, suggesting Řomani transferred aspiration before devoicing its voiced aspirates. Among the three, only Řomani changes initial /v-/ to /b-/, as can be seen by comparing Sanskrit viś- ‘to enter’ with Řomani beš ‘sit’ Domari wēs ‘id.’ and Lomavren ves- ‘id.’. The borrowing of Iranian veš ‘forest’ into Řomani suggests /v-/ > /b-/ occurred prior to the departure from the subcontinent. As least, it appears transfer of aspiration occurred after /v-/ > /b-/. Compare Sanskrit vr̥ddha- ‘old man’ with Řomani phuřo ‘id.’ and Domari wuda ‘id.’. These forms show that in Řomani initial /v-/ became /b-/ giving a form *buḍho. Next, transfer of aspiration produced *bhuḍo and only then did devoicing of voiced aspirates occur. Domari, on the other hand retained wuḍho and deaspirated the /ḍh/. These forms also show that Domari merged its retroflex and dental series, while Řomani produced a uvular /ř/ which remained distinct from its dentals. Finally, Ḍumāki is the nearly extinct language spoken by the Ḍoma of the Hunza valley in northwestern Pakistan. Most Ḍoma speak Shina as well; thus Ḍumāki grammar looks very Dardic, and its linguistic history is difficult to recover. Ḍumāki does not have the archaism of Řomani, Domari, and Lomavren, preserving neither intervocalic dentals nor dental clusters. Compare Sanskrit madhu with Ḍumāki mō ‘wine’ and Řomani mol ‘id.’.

5. Nuristani Up until the end of the 19 th century, the peoples of the Hindu Kush in northeast Afghanistan and north Pakistan had resisted conversion to Islam, for which reason the area was called Kafiristan ‘the land of the infidels’. Morgenstierne astutely distinguished within these Kafiristani languages an eastern moiety of Indo-Aryan, the Dardic subgroup, and a western moiety which was something else. When the western half of Kafiristan fell in 1895 to Abdur Rahman, the Emir of Kabul, the region was renamed Nuristan ‘the land of light’. The Nuristani languages are Ashkun, Kati, Tregami, Prasun, and Waigali, which is also known as Kalasa-ala. The relationship of Nuristani to Indic and Iranian is controversial. Like Iranian, these languages do not have aspirated stops, but the loss of aspirated stops could have occurred independently. Like Indic, Nuristani retained Proto-Indo-Euro-

443

444

V. Indic pean /s/ long after Iranian had lost it. The Nuristani reflex of the double dental law patterns with Indic, producing /-tt-/ rather than Iranian /-st-/. In its palatal and labiovelar reflexes, Nuristani looks remarkably similar to what is reconstructed for ProtoIndo-Iranian, allowance made for the loss of aspiration. The palatal *[k̑], which yields sibilants in Indic and Iranian, retains occlusion in Nuristani. Compare Sanskrit śvan‘dog’ with Avestan span- ‘id.’ and Waigali cū˜ ‘id.’. Morgenstierne argued that Nuristani does not apply the RUKI rule after */u/ based on Kati mū˜sə ‘mouse’ and Ashkun musā ‘id.’. Irén Hegedűs (2012: 149) adds that RUKI does not operate in thorn clusters or historical */k̑s/, instead yielding Proto-Nuristani */ c/. Compare Sanskrit r̥kṣa- ‘bear’ with Waigali ōc˙ ‘id.’. Her hypothesis is that */k̑/ had become affricate */c/ before the RUKI sound law occurred. The sequence */k(w)s/ has a distinct outcome as well. Compare Sanskrit kṣura- ‘razor blade’ and Waigali čū¨r ‘large knife’. She points out that RUKI following */i/ may be a later development as well. /l, r/ does retroflex /s/, but then is lost; compare Sanskrit varṣa- ‘rain’ with Waigali waṣ ‘id.’. Retroflexion of /s/ behaves quite differently in Nuristani than it does in Indic or Iranian, and on that basis Hegedűs (2012: 145) argues that “Nuristani was the earliest sub-branch to split off from the Aryan branch of PIE and as such had a phonotactic context quite different from that in Indic and Iranian.” Such an argument effectively positions RUKI as the shared innovation of Indo-Iranian with Nuristani preserving the Proto-Aryan state of affairs. It bears mentioning, however, that RUKI in Iranian and Indic is triggered by an [r] which was historically *[l] in addition to an original *[r]. The sound change of *[l] > [r] post-dates the breakup of Indic and Iranian by virtue of dialects of Vedic which maintain the distinction between [l] and [r]. Another possibility is that Indo-Iranian RUKI, like Nuristani, was originally triggered by both *[r] and *[l], but in Indic, [l] ceased to trigger RUKI and subsequently the dental [s] allophone was analogically restored. Because *[l], *[r] > [r] in Iranian, no trace of [l]-RUKI would be detectable, and instead Iranian would appear to have undergone RUKI after the merger of *[l] and *[r]. Thus, whatever species of RUKI did occur at the common Indo-Iranian period, its history is obscured by independent developments in Indic and Iranian. Even if Indic, Iranian, and Nuristani are only equally archaic, there is a great deal more to learn about Indic and Iranian from Nuristani, and future fieldwork is a desideratum.

6. References Abbi, Anvita 1997 Debate On Archaism of Some Select Bangani Words. Indian Linguistics 58: 1−14. Adhikary, Surya Mani 1988 The Khaśa kingdom: a trans-Himalayan empire of the Middle age. (Nirala History Series 2). Jaipur: Nirala Publications. Baart, Joan L. G. 1997 The Sounds and Tones of Kalam Kohistani. Islamabad: National Institute of Pakistan Studies, Quaid-i-Azam University and Summer Institute of Linguistics. Beams, John [1872] 1966 A Comparative Grammar of the Modern Aryan Languages of India. Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal.

30. The dialectology of Indic Bühler, Georg 1898 On the Origin of the Indian Brāhma Alphabet. (Indian Studies No. III). 2nd edn. Strassburg: Karl J. Trübner. Burrow, Thomas 1937 The Language of the Kharoṣṭhi Documents from Chinese Turkestan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Caillat, Colette (ed.) 1989 Dialectes dans les littératures indo-aryennes. Paris: Collège de France. Cardona, George and Dhanesh Jain (eds.) 2003 The Indo-Aryan Languages. Routledge Language Family Series. New York: Routledge. Chatterji, Suniti Kumar 1926 The Origin and Development of the Bengali Language. 2 Vol. Calcutta: Calcutta University Press. van Driem, George and Suhnu R Sharma 1996 In search of kentum Indo-Europeans in the Himalayas. Indogermanische Forschungen 101: 107−146. Dundas, Paul 2002 The Jains. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge. Fussman, Gérard 1989 Gāndhārī écrite, Gāndhārī parlée. In: Colette Caillat (ed.), Dialectes dans les littératures indo-aryennes. Paris: Collège de France, 433−501. Gair, James W. 1982 Sinhala, an Indo-Aryan Isolate. South Asian Review 6: 51−64. Grierson, George Abraham 1916 Linguistic Survey of India, Vol. IX. Indo-Aryan familiy, central group; Pt. I. Specimens of Western Hindī and Pānjˇābī. Calcutta: Office of the Superintendent of Government Printing. Grierson, George Abraham 1919 Linguistic Survey of India, Vol. VIII. Indo-Aryan familiy, North-western group; Pt. II. Specimens of the Dardic or Piśācha languages (including Kāshmīrī). Calcutta: Office of the Superintendent of Government Printing. Grierson, George Abraham 1929 The Language of the Mahā-naya-prakāśa: an Examination of Kāshmīrī as Written in the Fifteenth Century. Memoirs of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 11: 73−130. Hegedűs, Irén 2012 The RUKI-rule in Nuristani. In: Benedicte Nielsen Whitehead, Thomas Olander, Birgit Anette Olsen, and Jens Elmegård Rasmussen (eds.), The Sound of Indo-European: Phonetics, Phonemics, Morphophonemics. (Copenhagen Studies in Indo-European, Vol. 4). Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 145−167. von Hinüber, Oskar 1981 Die Paiśācī und die Entstehung der sakischen Orthographie. In: Klaus Bruhn and Albrecht Wezler (eds.), Studien zum Jainismus und Buddhismus: Gedenkschrift für Ludwig Alsdorf. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 121−127. Hirakawa, Akira and Paul Groner 2007 A History of Indian Buddhism: From Śākyamuni to Early Mahāyāna. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Kielhorn, Franz 1962 The Vyākaraṇa Mahābhāṣya of Patañjali. 3rd edn. Pune: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. Masica, Colin 1993 The Indo-Aryan Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

445

446

V. Indic Matras, Yaron 2002 Romani: A Linguistic Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Morgenstierne, Georg 1926 Report on a Linguistic Mission to Afghanistan. Oslo: Instituttet for Sammenlignende Kulturforskning, Serie CI−2. Morgenstierne, Georg 1932 Report on a Linguistic Mission to Northwestern India. Oslo: Instituttet for Sammenlignende Kulturforskning. Morgenstierne, Georg 1961 Dardic and Kāfir Languages. The Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition, Vol. 2, Fasc. 25. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 138−139. Morgenstierne, Georg 1973 Indo-Iranian Frontier Languages. 2nd rev. edn. Vols. 1−4. Oslo: H. Aschehoug. Morgenstierne, Georg 1975 Irano-Dardica. (Beiträge zur Iranistik, Band 5). Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag. Oberlies, Thomas 2005 A Historical Grammar of Hindi. Graz: Leykam. Ollett, Andrew 2014 Ghosts from the past: India’s undead languages. Indian Economic and Social History Review 51: 405−445. Pischel, Richard 1965 Comparative Grammar of the Prakrit Languages. 2nd edn. Translated by Subhadra Jhā. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Salomon, Richard 1998 Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and Other Indo-Aryan Languages. New York: Oxford University Press. Salomon, Richard 2001 “Gādhārī Hybrid Sanskrit”: New Sources for the Study of the Sanskritization of Buddhist Literature. Indo-Iranian Journal 44: 241−252. Sanderson, Alexis 2007 The Śaiva Exegesis of Kashmir. In: Dominic Goodall and André Padoux (eds.), Mélanges tantriques à la mémoire d’Hélène Brunner). (Collection Indologie 106). Pondicherry: Institut français de Pondichéry, 231−442. Saxena, Anju 2004 Himalayan Languages: Past and Present. (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 149). New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Senart, Émile 1881 Les inscriptions de Piyadassi. 2 vols. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale. Sharma, R. N. 1987 The Aṣṭādhyāyī of Pāṇini. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers. Sims-Williams, Nicholas (ed.) 2003 Indo-Iranian Languages and Peoples. Proceedings of the British Academy. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. Singh, Pashaura 2012 Revisiting the Ārya-Samāj movement. In: Johannes Bronkhorst and Madhav Deshpande (eds.), Aryan and Non-Aryan in South Asia. New Delhi: Manohar Publishers & Distributors. Smith, Helmer 1952 Le futur moyen indien. Journal Asiatique 240: 169−183. Strand, Richard F. 1973 Notes on the Nūristāni and Dardic Languages. Journal of the American Oriental Society 93: 297−305.

31. The evolution of Indic

447

Turner, Ralph L. 1926 The position of Romani in Indo-Aryan. Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society, 3rd series 5: 145−189. Warder, A. K. 2000 Indian Buddhism. 3rd rev. edn. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Witzel, Michael 1989 Tracing the Vedic Dialects. In: Colette Caillat (ed.), Dialectes dans les littératures indoaryennes. Paris: Collège de France, 97−265. Zoller, Claus Peter 1988 Bericht über besondere Archaismen im Bangani, einer Western Pahari-Sprache. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 49: 173−200.

Caley Smith, Cambridge, MA (USA)

31. The evolution of Indic 1. Old, Middle, and New Indic 2. Phonology 3. Morphology

4. Abbreviations 5. References

1. Old, Middle, and New Indic It is possible to trace a steady development of Sanskrit from the Ṛgveda through the later Vedic texts. The grammar was gradually simplified, mostly by eliminating archaic forms and by reducing the rich varieties of nominal and verbal categories. Side by side with the evolution of Sanskrit the popular vernacular which co-existed with the Vedic “high speech” developed into what is called Middle Indo-Aryan (MIA). Its rise as a literary language coincides with the foundation of the new religions of Buddhism and Jainism in the middle of the first millennium BCE. The first accurately datable documents of this linguistically developed stage of Indo-Aryan are the inscriptions of King Aśoka. MIA can be divided into three linguistic, albeit not strictly chronological, stages − Old, Middle and New Middle Indo-Aryan − covering a period ranging from approximately 500 BCE to 1000 CE. Old MIA is represented by Aśokan Prakrit, Pāli, and Ardha-Māgadhī. The next stage comprises younger Prakrits such as Jaina Māhārāṣṭrī. And the final phase of MIA is instantiated by Apabhraṃśa, which evolved from Prakrit under the influence of the much more developed vernaculars. Nor did this process stop at a particular point, as was the case with Sanskrit, but it transformed MIA in its entirety into what would become New Indo-Aryan. Vedic texts are composed in a − deliberately − archaic form of Sanskrit. The then spoken language was already, it seems certain, far more developed. From it quite a number of features intruded into the hieratic “high speech” of the Veda, where a number https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261288-031

448

V. Indic of words of “Prakritic” origin are found. From these odd forms conclusions can be drawn concerning “Vedic Prakrit”. It turns out that almost all typical characteristics of Middle Indo-Aryan (with the striking exception of the “law of mora”; see, however, 2.1.2 below) are seen to have arisen long before that languageʼs first documents appear in the 3 rd century BCE. Comparing the MIA languages with both Vedic and Classical Sanskrit, certain features can be found that go back to dialects differing from both. And though there are not many of these, they suffice to show that early Indo-Aryan, though on the whole remarkably uniform, did possess some variation. Moreover, they show that MIA cannot be derived directly from Classical Sanskrit which for its part is not directly descended from Vedic Sanskrit. This state of affairs may be exemplified by the vocabulary of the languages mentioned above. Even within Vedic Sanskrit old words were continuously dropping out of use, e.g. ápas- ʻworkʼ, aṣṭhīvánt- ‘knee’, kr̥ ́ śana- ʻpearlʼ, udŕ ̣ca- ʻendʼ, tatá- ʻdaddyʼ, tya‘this one’, dúrya- (pl.) ‘dwelling’, nanā´- ʻmumʼ, pā´ka- ‘ignorant’, baṣkáya- ‘calf’, viklidhá- ‘having projecting teeth’, sápa- ‘semen’, sūnú- ‘son’, √am ʻto seize, to swearʼ, √av ʻto helpʼ, √kṣi ‘to dwell’, √śnath ʻto pierceʼ, oṣam ʻquicklyʼ (JaimBr I 205 [replaced by kṣipram, PañcaBr XII 13,23]); while new ones regularly turned up, borrowed from various sources, such as the (Prakrit) vernaculars (see 2.1.2), Dravidian (daṇḍa- ʻstickʼ, RV+), Austro-Asiatic (kuliśa- ʻaxeʼ, RV+) or altogether unknown languages (ghoṭaʻhorseʼ, ĀpŚS XV 3,12). Some words which appear in Vedic texts turn up again, after disappearing from the later Sanskrit literary tradition (cf. Pkt. taya- ʻthis oneʼ < RV+ taká-), even in modern Indian languages (cf. H. āṭā ʻflourʼ). On the other hand, a number of old words unknown to Classical Sanskrit are preserved in MIA: P. kasambu- ʻrefuseʼ (kásāmbu-, AVŚ XVIII 4,37), kūṭa- ʻwithout hornsʼ (kūṭá-, AVŚ+), saddhiṃ ʻtogetherʼ (sadhryàk, RV), Pkt. ojjha- ʻentrailsʼ (ū´vadhya-, RV). And finally a number of words of Indo-European origin first appear in the various stages of MIA: P. (a)sāta- ʻ(un)happinessʼ (cf. Latin quiētus), Ap. tūra- ʻcheeseʼ (cf. Greek τυρός).

2. Phonology The governing principle is that, as a rule, the prosodic structure of a word remains unaltered despite grave phonological mutations.

2.1. Vowels Sanskrit possesses the vowels a, ā, i, ī, u, ū, ṛ, ṝ, ḷ, e, o, ai, and au − in Vedic with accentual and prolonged variants. 1. a and ā, 2. ˘ī, e and ai and 3. ū˘, o and au belong to distinct series of gradation. Alternations within a word involving members of these series may have morphological significance. Inconsistencies due to phonetic developments partly peculiar to Sanskrit make OIA morphology extremely complicated. Thus from early on there is confusion in the system, which only steadily increased. Many Ablautentgleisungen or ‘vowel gradation gaffes’ (as early as RV, as proved e.g. by khédā-) are the result of analogy and levelling that worked especially within paradigms.

31. The evolution of Indic

2.1.1. Excursus: The pronunciation of vowels It goes without saying that so simple a picture of the vowels as that sketched here cannot convey even a faint idea of the variations in their pronunciation. The normative description of the vowel system by the Indian grammarians (most notably by Pāṇini in the 5 th century BCE) as well as the persistent use of the Devanāgarī script − or of scripts derived from it −, which has no way of representing additional vowels or shades of pronunciation, obscure the fact that this system did not have the (deceptive) simplicity generally ascribed to it. Especially with regard to the evolution of Indic a more differentiated picture is called for, one that addresses the actual pronunciation. As is the case with all phonemes, vowels also have variants, distinguished by (e.g.) timbre. Merging into one another, they form a kind of continuum. As allophones, they are either conditioned by the context (i.e. phonologically by assimilation and dissimilation) or are context-free. These variations were as a rule not recorded when they had no semantic or grammatical bearing. There are clues that already in Vedic Sanskrit a differed from ā not only in quantity but also in quality. This is recorded by Pāṇini in his final aphorism “a a” (8.4.68) which has to be interpreted as “[ɔ] a”, i.e. the a used in the Aṣṭādhyāyī to describe the formation of Sanskrit is in reality pronounced as [ɔ]. This pronunciation of a (as in English long) which sometimes seems to have tended more towards [ʌ] (as in English bunch) or − especially in the vicinity of palatals (cf. H. yah [yǝh]) − towards [ǝ] (as in English again) is confirmed by a number of facts from across the history of Indo-Aryan of which some selected examples may be given. Being much more closely pronounced, the more so when final, /a/ was represented by o when it was affectively lengthened: śóṁsā móda(−)iva, TaittSaṃ III 2,9.5 = KauṣBr XIV 3, stands for śáṁsā mádeva “Recite! May both of us find delight!”. In Greek the a of Indian words was represented variously by α, ε and ο (cf. Σανδράκοττος [Candragupta], Arrian Anab. V 6,2 / Σανδροκόττος, Arrian Indike V 3, Μέθορα [Mathura], ibid. VIII 5, Καμβισθόλοι [Kāpiṣṭhala], ibid. IV 8), while Greek α, ε and ο could be rendered in different words by a, e or o in Indic languages (cf. Skt. khalīna- ʻbridleʼ [χαλινός], Mahābhārata, harija- ʻhorizonʼ [ὁρίζων], Bṛhatsaṃhitā; Aś Pkt. Aṃtiyako ‘Antiochus’ [RE II Girnār] ~ Aṃtiyoke [ibid., Kālsī, Jaugaḍa]). The name Apsaras (to be precise: the gen. pl. apsarasām) is etymologized as apsu rasaḥ ʻthe essence in the watersʼ, Rāmāyaṇa 1,44.18 (cf. AVP V 29,2). Beng. āgun ʻfireʼ points back to an anaptyctic (MIA) aggani- (: aggɔni-) from agni-. In texts composed in old NIA -a and -u not infrequently rhyme: … hetu/… sameta, Nalarāyadavadantīcarita 140/297. And finally, a number of Dravidian loans were incorporated into Sanskrit by substituting a for an original u or ŏ: mallikā- ʻjasmineʼ (Tam. mullai, Kan., Tel. molle). On the other hand, Sanskrit loans into Dravidian had their a replaced by e after palatals: Tam. celam ʻwaterʼ (Skt. jalam). There are indications too that short i and especially short u were more open than the corresponding long vowels. Both were drawn closer to ĕ and ŏ. The interchangeability of u and (short) o − as documented by the rendering of Indic u by Greek ο and vice versa (Arrian Σανδροκόττος = Candragupta, Aś Pkt. Turamaya = Πτολεμαίος) or later on by doublets such as collaga-, Municandra 7.11, ~ cullaga-, Doghaṭṭī 88,15, or the Apabhraṃśa rhyme of u und o (…. jōḍiu/… kōḍio, Kumārapālapratibodha 424,21*−23*) − is reflected in the nom. sg. of the Ap. a-stems, which ended in -u as a result of the shortening of -o (see 3.1.2).

449

450

V. Indic In Vedic Sanskrit a number of significant alternations of vowels are reflected in parallel stanzas and formulas which were orally handed down and therefore subject to influences of actual pronunciation. The most common hesitation is between ˘ī, e and ai. The same phenomenon is met with in the manuscript tradition of the Sanskrit Epics. It points to the early existence of a short mid-vowel in Indic languages (i.e. ĕ). And doublets like MIA diara- ~ de(v)ara- ʻbrother-in-lawʼ or viyaṇā- ~ veyaṇā- ʻpainʼ (vedanā-) indicate that this ĕ must have been pronounced somewhere between e and i. The monophthongal e and o both have open and closed varieties. Being closely pronounced, e can alternate with ī (Vedic gavī́dhuka- ~ gavédhuka-) and rhyme with it (Ap. … dīsai/… karesai, Bhavisatta Kaha 19,5). The same holds for ū and o (Vedic cū´ḍa- ~ cóḍa-).

2.1.2. Vowels in Middle Indo-Aryan In MIA 1. ṛ, ṝ and ḷ were eliminated yielding a, i or u according to the context and 2. the diphthongs ai and au were monophthongized resulting in e and o: Pkt. 1. ghayaʻgheeʼ (ghṛta-), hiyaya- ʻheartʼ (hṛdaya-), pucchā- ʻquestionʼ (pṛcchā-), 2. vejja- ʻphysicianʼ (vaidya-), jovvaṇa- ʻyouthʼ (yauvana-). Both developments were foreshadowed in Vedic texts (cf. section 1): 1. víkaṭa- ʻdeformedʼ (víkṛta-), durhaṇāyú- ʻenragedʼ (durhṛṇāyú-), śithirá- ʻlooseʼ (*śṛthirá-), kuru ʻdo!ʼ (kṛṇu), múhur ʻsuddenlyʼ (*mr̥ hur) ́ (compare also the “hyper-Sanskritism” pṛṣṭhavā´t, MaitrSaṃ III 11,11: 158.9, for paṣṭhavā´ṭ, Kāṭh XXXVIII 10: 112.4, TaittBr II 6,18.3), 2. Etaśa, KauṣBr XXX 5, ~ Aitaśa, AitBr VI 33, kevárta- ʻfisherʼ (kaivárta-), somya- ʻdear oneʼ (saumya-). These phenomena, however, are very rare, the first one mostly being caused by dissimilation (ṛ_r). In popular Sanskrit they increase in number, and the replacement of ṛ by another sound is no longer bound to a particular phonetic context: uḍupa- ʻmoonʼ (ṛtupa-), bhaṭa- ʻsoldierʼ (bhṛta-), ogha- ʻfloodʼ (augha-), komala- ʻtenderʼ (*kaumӑra- ← kumāra-). As a consequence of the elimination of ṛ and also of ai and au the system of gradation collapsed. Where Sanskrit had the series bhṛta-, bharati, bhartum, bhārayati, Pali has bhata-, bharati, bhattuṃ, bhāreti. Prakrit diṭṭha-, daṃsaṇa-, daṭṭhavva- correspond to Sanskrit dṛṣṭa-, darśana-, draṣṭavya-. In such series regularity can no longer be perceived by speakers and we find either one form being generalized (Pkt. bharai, bhariuṃ, bhariya-) or a new grade form being created from a, i, or u out of ṛ (Pkt. bhāḍī- ʻhire chargeʼ ← bhaḍa- ʻmercenaryʼ < bhṛta-). While this vowel alternation has maintained itself, albeit much reduced in scope, as a grammatical formative in the verb (see discussion of causative 3.4.1 [p. 465−466]), it ceased to have any significance in the formation of the noun. Short vowels other than ṛ are in general retained unchanged before single consonants and consonant groups in MIA (on ĕ and ŏ see 2.1.1 and 2.1.3): Pkt. ajja ʻtodayʼ (adya), pivai ʻdrinksʼ (pibati), vijjā- ʻknowledgeʼ (vidyā-), uvari ʻaboveʼ (upari), puppha- ʻflowerʼ (puṣpa-). Long vowels, however, are generally shortened before two or more consonants (by the law of mora). And these short vowels converge with the OIA short vowels: Pkt. maṃsa- ʻmeatʼ (māṃsa-), tikkha- ʻsharpʼ (tīkṣṇa-), puvva- ʻformerʼ (pūrva-). Sometimes the law of mora was affected by the simplification of a consonant group: Pkt. pāsa- ʻsideʼ (pārśva-), īsara- ʻlordʼ (īśvara-), mūya- ʻurineʼ (mūtra-). The lengthening of

31. The evolution of Indic a preceding short vowel (attested by kāṭá- < *kaṭṭá- < kartá- for Ṛgvedic Prakrit) foreshadows a phonetic law of NIA (see 2.2.3). Since long vowels may alternate with short nasalized vowels − an equivalence found already in Vedic texts (apīṣan, AVŚ IV 6,7 = AVP V 8,6, ~ piṃṣánti, AVŚ XIV 1,3 = AVP XVIII 1,3 [√piṣ]) − such a secondary long vowel may be replaced by a short nasalized vowel: Pkt. aṃsu- ʻtearʼ (< *āsu- < aśru-). Their equivalence is shown (inter alia) by doublets such as °heo, Municandra 7a.10, ~ heuṃ, Doghaṭṭī 88,6 or by the rhyming of -ā and -aṃ in Apabhraṃśa texts (āhāsivi − namaṃsivi, Bhavisatta Kaha 74,6). A forerunner of the law of mora is probably to be observed already in Vedic texts in the phenomenon that a long vowel is oftened shortened before a double consonant at the seam of individual members of compounds. Otherwise, shortening in accordance with the law of mora is seldom encountered in Sanskrit. There are only a few examples such as margaʻpathʼ (~ mārga-), ĀpGṛS XX 12; antra- ʻentrailʼ (~ āntra-), Rāmāyaṇa 5,22.35 (v.l. āntra-); ahnāya ‘forever’, Mahābhārata 3,36.10 (~ āhnāya, JaimBr II 74); kalya- ʻpertaining to the morningʼ (~ kālya-), Mahābhārata 3,83.101 (v.l. kālyam).

Much more frequent are the effects of assimilations and dissimilations (immediate or distant) on vowels. There is a marked tendency for a to shade over into i and u in the vicinity of palatals and labials respectively: Pkt. āiṇṇa- ʻthorough-bredʼ (ājanya-), miñjāʻmarrowʼ (majjan-), tūliya- ʻcottonʼ (tūlaka-), nimugga- ʻsubmergedʼ (nimagna-). The same may happen with a before the velar nasal which had a slight palatal quality: Pkt. iṅgāla- ʻemberʼ (aṅgāra-), Ap. cikkamai ʻwalks aboutʼ (caṅkramati); cf. irgala- on which see 2.2.1. But it is also the case that i and u are assimilated to a nearby labial or palatal: P. ucchu- ʻsugarcaneʼ (ikṣu-), vālikā- ʻsandʼ (vālukā-). Such an assimilation is found as early as Vedic Sanskrit: syoná- < *siyoná- < *su-yoná-, mithyā´ < *mithiyā´ < mithuyā´.

The contraction of -aya- to -e- and -ava- to -o- widely found in MIA involved as well an assimilation (-e- < *-a{y}i- < -aya- // -o- < *-a{v}u- < -ava-): P. neti ʻleadsʼ (nayati), Aś Pkt. olodhana- ʻharemʼ (avarodhana-). And -ayi- and -ayū˘- fared in the same way. This development is found already in Vedic Sanskrit: kṣeṇá-, MaitrSaṃ II 9,8: 126.7, ~ kṣayaná-, Kāṭhaka XVII 15: 248.3; tó-to, ŚatBr III 3,1.11, ~ táva-tava, MaitrSaṃ I 2,4: 13.10. And even the resolution of e into aya is encountered: pratyayanastva-, TaittBr I 1,9.6, vs. prātyenasya-, Kāṭhaka VIII 3: 85.13.

In part, such assimilations carried morphological significance. Thus the ending °(y)e of obl. sg. of Pkt. ā- and ī-/ū-stems goes back to °yā˘ (Pkt. mālāe/devīe < P. mālāya/devīyā). And the case endings of Ap. show, in part, extensive assimilation: gen. sg. °aha < °ahu (see 3.1.2). Not only palatals and labials but also other consonants may affect vowels. Cerebrals closing a syllable may “muffle” i to ě and u to ŏ: P. nekkha- ʻnecklaceʼ (niṣka-), Pkt. pokkhariṇī- ʻlotus pondʼ (puṣkariṇī-), soṇḍā- ʻelephantʼs trunkʼ (śuṇḍā-). The same effect was achieved by a following h: Pkt. vebbhala- ʻagitatedʼ (*vehvala- < vihvala-). Likewise, vowels are subject to dissimilations caused by neighbouring vowels: Pkt. nauiṃ ʻninetyʼ (navati-), P. dakkhita- ʻconsecratedʼ (dīkṣita-), Pkt. teicchā- ʻmedical attendanceʼ (< Aś Pkt. cikī˘(c)chā- < cikitsā-), dugañchā- ʻdisgustʼ (jugupsā-).

451

452

V. Indic Doublets and hesitation in writing (both within one language and between more than one) are indicative of the latitude of allophonic variation: P. rajassira- ~ Pkt. rayassalaʻdirtyʼ (rajasvala-), Pkt. silāgā-, Bṛhatkalpabhāṣya-Ṭīkā I 88,30, ~ salāgā- ʻsmall stickʼ Āvaśyaka-Erzählungen 8,25* (śalākā-); vāhiṇiyā-, Dharmopadeśamālā-Vivaraṇa 111,30, ~ vāhaṇiyā- ʻrideʼ, Āvaśyaka-Erzählungen 11,25, 13,8* (vāhanikā-), haladdā- / haladdī~ haliddā- ʻturmericʼ, Ausgew. Erz. 86,12* (haridrā-), siṭṭhi-, Sukhabodhā 57a.2, Kalpasūtra 50,24 ~ seṭṭhi- ʻhead of a guildʼ, Paumacariya 2,3 (śreṣṭhin-), heṭṭhā, Ausgew. Erz. 7,4 ~ hiṭṭhā ʻbelowʼ, Municandra 7a.11 (adhástāt, see 2.3).

2.1.3. Vowels in Apabhraṃ s´ a The most conspicuous feature of the Apabhraṃśa vowel system is that its inventory was enhanced by short e and o as phonemes, not restricted to a particular position in the word (see 2.1.1). This ĕ is used (e.g.) in the endings of the instr. sg. and the loc. sg. m./ n. of a-stems (-ĕṃ, -ĕ), of the instr. sg. of all fem. stems (-ā˘ĕ, -ī˘ĕ, -ū˘ĕ), of the voc. sg. of fem. a-stems (-ĕ), in the ending -hĕ of the fem. a- and of all i- and u-stems, in the pronominal forms amhĕ and tumhĕ and in the absolutive in -ĕvi, while ǒ is employed in the gen. sg. ending -hǒ of the m. and n. a-stems (see Table 31.2, 3.1.2) and the 2pl. imp. in -ahǒ (alternating with -ahu and -aha, see Table 31.6, 3.4.1). The short finals are the result of an Apabhraṃśa phonetic law according to which every long final vowel of polysyllabic words undergoes shortening unless the old (Pkt.) length is protected by a following enclitic. Another consequence of such shortening was that the nom./acc. sg. of all feminine stems ended in a short vowel (see 3.1.2). Finally this sound law was extended to monosyllabic words: ju ʻwhoʼ (yaḥ), su ʻheʼ (saḥ), ti ʻtheyʼ (te). In MIA vocalic allophony concerned in the main single words, though occasionally it affected morphology as well (see 2.1.2 [p. 450]). In Apabhraṃsa it was morphology that was widely affected. Thus, the frequent replacement of final -a by -u (ajju ʻtodayʼ < adya) had a bearing on numerous paradigms: majjhu ʻmy, for meʼ (Pkt. majjha[ṃ] < mahya[m]), ehu ʻthis oneʼ (Pkt. esa ~ eso < eṣa[ḥ]), (2sg. imp.) bhaṇu ʻspeakʼ (bhana), (2pl. imp.) calahu ʻmove on!ʼ (*caratha [:: carata]).

2.1.4. Vowels in New Indo-Aryan NIA languages have vowel systems ranging from only six (Oriya and Marathi) to thirteen vowels (Sinhalese). What might be called the normative system, in that it is “closest” to Sanskrit, is the ten-vowel system of Hindi and Panjabi. It consists of ī, i, e, ai; ā, a; ū, u, o, au. The diphthongs ai and au, which are retained as written symbols, are monophthongized to [æ], an open front vowel, and [ɔ], an open back vowel. Nasalized vowels are a very prominent feature of most NIA languages. Historically, such nasalization arises from a nasal which is absorbed by the preceding vowel (pāṁc ʻfiveʼ < pañca-) or else developed in the context of long vowels (sāṁp ʻserpentʼ < *sāp < sarpa-). Assimilations continue to affect vowels (there are no clear examples of dissimilations): H. uṁglī ʻfingerʼ (aṅguli-), buṁd ʻdropʼ (bindu-). But two chief changes affect

31. The evolution of Indic the vowel systems of the modern period of the majority of Indo-Aryan languages: 1. the coalescing of vowels left in contact by the loss of intervocalic stops in Prakrit (see 2.2.2) and 2. the compensatory lengthening of a short vowel before a simplified consonant group (see 2.2.3).

2.2. Consonants Sanskrit possessed the following consonants, all of which, with the exception of ñ, were independent phonemes: (velars) k kh g gh ṅ, (palatals) c ch j jh ñ, (cerebrals) ṭ ṭh ḍ ḍh ṇ, (dentals) t th d dh n, (labials) p ph b bh m, (sibilants) ś ṣ s and the sound h. The extant text of the Ṛgveda has -ḷ(h)- from -ḍ(h)-, a feature shared by Pāli and many Prakrit languages (P. kīḷati ʻplays, sportsʼ < RV krīḷati ~ Skt. krīḍati), and a number of such retroflex -ḷ- persist in classical Sanskrit in the form of -l- (nala- ʻreedʼ < naḷa- < naḍa-). The predominance of r over l in the Ṛgveda accords with its western origin, for the same phenomenon is seen in Iranian (Vedic pūrṇá-/Avestan pərəna- vs. Latin plēnus). But from the time of the late Ṛgveda there is some confusion between r and l, and l begins to intrude into words with original r − a process that gains ground: úpala-, klóśa-, lóman-, lóhita-, ślóka- RV+; gláha- (√grah), √lap (: RV √rap), √likh (: RV √rikh) AV+; kṣālayati (: RV √kṣar) ŚatBr+. In part, r- and l-forms of one and the same word are used to differentiate shades of meaning: √car ʻto go, to moveʼ, √cal ʻto sway, to waverʼ.

2.2.1. Consonants in Middle Indo-Aryan The inventory of consonants in MIA is basically the same as in (Vedic) Sanskrit, except that ñ (from jñ or ny) has achieved phonemic status. Apart from -n and -m, which developed into -ṃ, MIA words lost all final consonants and, by analogy, even -ṃ may be dropped: Pkt. kohā ʻout of angerʼ (krodhāt), aggiṃ ʻfireʼ (agnim), kuvvaṃ ʻdoingʼ (kurvan), iyāṇi ʻnowʼ (idānīm). In MIA initial single consonants − except y- and ś-/ṣ- (which, in part, developed into j-/0̸- and ś-/s-) − remain unaltered. But k-, t-, p- and b- are often aspirated in the presence of a following -S-, -r- or -l-: P. khīla- ʻpostʼ (kīla-), thusa- ʻhusk of grainʼ (tuṣa-), pharusa- ʻroughʼ (paruṣa-), bhusa- ʻchaffʼ (busa-). In the older variants of MIA − Aś Pkt. and Pāli − intervocalic single consonants remain (for P. -ḷ(h)- see 2.2, for other exceptions see below), whereas in the linguistically more advanced Prakrits (at first in the eastern ones) unaspirated and aspirated single intervocalic tenues were voiced: AMg. loga- ʻworldʼ (loka-), āghāi ʻtellsʼ (ākhyāti). Still later on unaspirated mediae, whether old or new, were dropped (for -b- see below): JM. pāya- ʻfootʼ (pāda-), loya- ʻworldʼ (for the -y- see below). And aspirated mediae, old and new ones, were reduced to -h-: JM. meha- ʻcloudʼ (megha-), muha- ʻfaceʼ (mukha-). The labials p and b develop into v: JM. niva- ʻkingʼ (nṛpa-), savala- ʻspottedʼ (śabala-). When a v of this kind stands before u it may be elided: JM. niuṇa- ʻskilledʼ (nipuna-). But it is also the case that genuine intervocalic -v- is sometimes dropped: JM. aḍaī- ʻjungleʼ (aṭavī-).

453

454

V. Indic These developments were foreshadowed in Vedic Sanskrit: 1. árbhaga- ʻjuvenileʼ (~ árbhaka-), váṁsaga- ʻbullʼ (*varṣaka-), RV; 2. maireya- ʻintoxicating drinkʼ (← madira-), Pāṇini 6.2.70; 3. sévate ʻassociates withʼ (← √sap), RV+. In the course of time, they yielded a number of hyper-Sanskritisms: nepathya- ʻdressʼ (← Pkt. nivattha- ʻdressedʼ), prasabham ʻviolentlyʼ (← pra-√sah), Mahābhārata+; varṣābhū- ʻborn in the rainsʼ, Pāṇini 6.4.84 < varṣāhū´- ʻshouting in the rains = frogʼ, VājSaṃ XXIV 38.

The deocclusion of Vedic -dh- and -bh- into -h- (dahrá- < dabhrá-) does not anticipate the Prakrit sound change -h- < -Ch- but has taken place only in a special phonetic environment (for details see Kobayashi 2004: 83−91). Characteristic of most Prakrit languages is the change of each intervocalic -n- into -ṇ-: vaṇa- ʻforestʼ (vana-). This change is seen as early as the Ṛgveda: sthāṇú- ‘trunk of a tree’ (RV+), sthū´ṇa- ‘post’ (RV+), √paṇ ‘praise’ (~ √pan), guṇá- ‘thread’, TaittSaṃ VII 2.4.2.

This means that in younger MIA only intervocalic OIA ḍh, ṇ, m, h, and partly r, l, and s (see below) remain unaltered: daḍha- ʻfirmʼ (dṛḍha-), saraṇa- ʻrecollectionʼ (smaraṇa-), majjhima- ʻmiddleʼ (madhyama-), dahai ʻburnsʼ (dahati), dāsa- ʻservantʼ (dāsa-). Old r was largely replaced by l in the eastern parts of the MIA linguistic area: Aś. Pkt. palasata- ʻrhinocerosʼ (parasvant-). And this (basically) eastern l intruded into (more) western languages, such as Pāli (māluta- ʻwindʼ < māruta-). By a certain time this process was accomplished and subsequently r and l were (strictly) kept apart. The three sibilants (ś, ṣ, s) were conflated into just one, either ś or s, the first being a feature of the eastern languages and the second of western languages. As a suffixal element s, which may have developed secondarily out of -ss- (< -sy-/-[i]ṣy-), may result in -h- (see also 3.4.1): Aś. Pkt. dāhaṃti ʻthey will giveʼ (dāsyanti). The hiatus which resulted from the dropping of intervocalic unaspirated consonants was, in part, closed by y and − more rarely − by v (see 2.2.2): Pkt. gīya- ʻsungʼ (gīta-), Aś Pkt. cāvudasa- (caturdaśa-), Pkt. juvala- ʻpairʼ (yugala-). The former, the so-called ya-śruti, has left traces in certain languages on adjoining vowels (see 2.1.2). Intervocalic consonants may, however, be affected by distant sounds. Dentals following an ṛ that was replaced by a, i, or u tended to be cerebralized (Aś. Pkt. puṭhavīʻearthʼ < pṛthivī-), a development discernible from early on (cf. víkaṭa- < vikṛta-, RV [see 2.1.2]). The same happens after r or ṣ: Aś. Pkt. paṭi+ (prati+), osuḍha- ʻmedical herbʼ (auṣadha-) (cf. āḍhyá- < *ārddhya-, ŚatBr IX 5,1.17). Consonant groups fared quite differently. They were either assimilated or split up by an inserted vowel. The first development is basically encountered in the western, the second in the eastern MIA languages. The general principle behind consonantal assimilation is that the occlusive is dominant in all positions, but that dentals are adapted to a following y and that, if the first consonant is a sibilant, the whole group is aspirated (all examples are taken from Pāli): sappa- ʻsnakeʼ (sarpa-), pakka- ʻripeʼ (pakva-), vuccati ʻis calledʼ (ucyate), sacca- ʻtruthʼ (satya-), ajja ʻtodayʼ (adya), hattha- ʻhandʼ (hasta-). If two occlusives or two nasals are in contact the first is assimilated to the second: mutta- ʻliberatedʼ (mukta-), ninna- ʻlow landʼ (nimna-). Among the non-occlusives sibilants and nasals dominate over approximants: assa- ʻhorseʼ (aśva-), kamma- ʻworkʼ (karman-). And within the approximants

31. The evolution of Indic (including v in this group) the power of resistance diminishes in the order l, v, y, r: kallāṇa- ʻauspiciousʼ (kalyāṇa-), sabba- ʻallʼ (*savva- < sarva-). Hence, the hierarchy of consonants is as follows: 1. (non-palatal) occlusives, 2. nasals, 3. palatals, 4. sibilants, and 5. l → v → y → r. Clusters of three consonants are assimilated according to the same principles, except that the last consonant is not taken into account unless it is a sibilant or a -y- following a dental. Initially the same rules apply, but only the second consonant of a cluster is retained: thana- ʻbreastʼ (stana-). This assimilation of consonant clusters is again foreshadowed in the Vedic “Prakritisms”: akkhalīkr̥ ́ tya (akṣára-), kāṭá- (kartá-), jájjhatīḥ (jákṣatī-), kṛcchrá- (*kṛpsra-), (all) RV; kṣullaka- (kṣudraka-), AVŚ II 32,5; lajjate (rajyate), AitBr III 22,7; nāpita- ʻbarberʼ (*nhāpita← snāpayati ʻbathes someoneʼ), ŚatBr III 1,2.2; abhyātta- (abhyāpta-), ChāndUp III 14.2, (ni)bhālay° (smāray°), ChāndUp VI 12.2, 13.2 (cf. [gandh]ācchādane, VārGṛS XII 2, ~ [gandh]otsadane, MānGṛS I 9,26); on āḍhyá- see above. And its operation is proved by a number of hyper-Sanskritisms: vyautsat, KapSaṃ V 9: 57.10 ~ vyaucchat, Kāṭhaka VII 10: 71.22; bhṛjyéyur, MaitrSaṃ I 10,11: 151.6, Kāṭhaka XXXVI 6: 73.1 (: bhṛjjā´ti); prasaktáḥ, AVŚ VII 50,3 ~ prasattáḥ, RV 5.60.1; udyá-, ŚatBr XIV 6,8.2 ~ ujjyá-, BṛhadUp III 8,2. Obviously, the assimilation of consonant clusters was felt as characteristic of vernaculars. Indeed, geminates have almost always been removed by substituting (often erroneous) clusters when words are taken over into Sanskrit: ŚatBr XIV 9,4.22 argaḍa- ‘bolt for fastening a door’ (Kāṇva argala-) / Gaṇapaṭha ad Pāṇini 5.1.4 irgala- ← (MIA) aggaḷa-, Up+ paṇḍita- ʻwiseʼ (← [MIA] paṇṇā- < prajñā-), Mahābhārata+ akṣauhiṇī- ʻarmyʼ ← (MIA) akkhohiṇi- < *akṣobhiṇī- ʻnot to be movedʼ, muktā- ʻpearlʼ ← (MIA) muttā- < mūrta- ʻcoagulatedʼ. That these substitutions almost always went wrong is quite often attributable to folk etymologies: lubdhaka- ʻgreedyʼ ← (MIA) ludda(ka)- ʻhunterʼ (< raudra- ʻcruelʼ). Although geminate consonants as a rule are avoided in Sanskrit, sometimes they are used for the sake of emphasis: iyattaká- ʻso smallʼ, RV 1.191.11/15 (magic spells).

Geminates still persist in some NIA languages like Lahnda and Panjabi. But in the majority they have been simplified, a process observable already in early MIA (see 2.2.3). Clusters of different consonants were also eliminated by splitting them up with the help of a vowel. In such cases most often 1. a, 2. i, and 3. u are used if the neighboring syllables contain 1. ā˘, 2. ˘ī or a palatal, or 3. ū˘ or a labial, respectively: 1. ratana- ʻgemʼ (ratna-), 2. aggini- ʻfireʼ (agni-), gilāna- ʻsickʼ (glāna-), 3. kurūra- ʻbloodyʼ (krūra-), sumarati ʻremembersʼ (smarati). The anaptyctic split too is encountered in Vedic texts: anarihan-, GopBr II 3.6: 193.1 ~ anarhan-, AitBr VII 33,8; dahara-, ChāndUp VIII 1.1−2 ~ dahrá-, Kāṭhaka 33.5: 30.16 (from older dabhrá-, RV [on which see above, this section]); malihá-, MaitrSaṃ IV 4,9: 60.20 ~ malhá-, Kāṭhaka XIII 1: 179.5; °valiśa-, KapS I 2: 3.10 ~ °valśa-, Kāṭhaka I 2: 1.10; Tārukṣya, AitĀr 3.1.6 ~ Tārkṣya, ŚāṅkhĀr 7.19; °paráśva-, MaitrSaṃ IV 1,2: 2.14 ~ °parśvá-, Kāṭhaka XXXI 1: 1.2 (cf. mārisa, Mahābhārata+ ~ mārṣa, Kāṭhaka-Gṛhyasūtra XXIV 9).

455

456

V. Indic

2.2.2. Consonants in Apabhraṃ s´ a Apabhraṃśa has the same inventory of sounds as Prakrit, albeit enhanced by ṽ. This goes back to intervocalic -m-: kuṽara- ʻprinceʼ (kumāra-), gāṽa- ʻvillageʼ (grāma-). If the v is dropped before a u (see 2.2.1), the nasality is transferred to this u: nom. sg. (gāũ, here written:) gāuṁ ʻ villageʼ, (nāũ, here written:) ṇāuṁ ʻnameʼ. The same happens when the v is turned into a vowel: 1sg. ind. pr. jāṇauṁ ʻI knowʼ < *jāṇaṽi < jānāmi. This ṽ may, however, develop by dissimilation into pure v: paṇavai < *paṇaṽai (< praṇamati). On the other hand -v- may become (via -ṽ-) -m-: jema ʻlikeʼ (*yevaṃ < yathā X evam). In Sanskrit, too, the interchangeability of m and v is encountered: pramadana- ‘playing of instruments’, MānGṛS I 9,28 ~ pravadana-, VārGṛS XIII 1 (cf. √mreḍ < √*vreḍ < vraiś+d). Instructive is the case of √śmañc, TaittĀr VI 7.1, which obtained its -m- by assimilation (cf. √śvañc, RV+), as did bhāvinī- ʻbeautiful womanʼ, Mahābhārata+, which obtained its -v- by dissimilation (< bhāminī-).

The development of suffixal -s- into -h- is characteristic of Apabhraṃśa. Thus the gen. sg. of the Apabhraṃśa masc. a-stems in °ahu derives from an earlier °as(s)a. And the ending of the 2sg. ind. pres. is °hi from °si. This phonetic change is seen also in the numeral (°)daha- from (°)daśa(n)-. The many hiatuses that were induced in MIA by the dropping of intervocalic consonants were partly closed in Apabhraṃśa by various kinds of contractions. Peculiar to Apabhraṃśa is the contraction of -ā˘yā˘- to -ā-: piyāra- ʻdearerʼ < piyayara- < priyatara-, lehāraya- ʻscribeʼ < *lehayāraya- < lehakāraka-, khāi ʻeatsʼ < *khāyai < khādati, vāmaʻeffortʼ < vyāyāma- (see also 2.1.2). Contraction of vowels in contact is encountered in Vedic in the word duhitṛ- ʻdaughterʼ, which is several times dissyllabic in Vedic texts and whose nom. duhitā evidently is to be pronounced /dhītā/ at AitBr VII 13,8, a contraction of *dhiitā from *dihitā < duhitā. Note that this peculiar phonetic development appears in a term of relationship (cf. “allegro vocatives”).

2.2.3. New Indo-Aryan The most conspicuous feature of the NIA consonant system is its treatment of MIA clusters. They were simplified after a short vowel, the latter being in turn compensatorily lengthened (see 2.1.2). Since almost all intervocalic OIA consonants were dropped in (late) MIA (see 2.2.1), most of the intervocalic and final consonants of NIA go back to clusters which have been thus simplified.

2.3. Sporadic sound-changes in Indo-Aryan Repeated mention has been made of sporadic sound changes such as vocalic 1. assimilation and 2. dissimilation. Note that these changes affected consonants too throughout the history of Indo-Aryan:

31. The evolution of Indic 1. Vedic upamlupta- ʻhiddenʼ (upamlukta-), Pkt. kuṇima- ʻcarcassʼ (*kuṇiva- < kuṇapa-). 2. Vedic ásiknī- ʻblackʼ (*ásitnī-), takmán- ʻfeverʼ (*tapmán-), púṣpa- ʻflowerʼ (*púṣman-), (mánuś ca ...) manā´yī- ‘wife of Manu’, MaitrSaṃ I 8,6: 122,19 (~ mānā´vi-, ŚatBr I 8,1.26), Aś. Pkt. hida ʻhereʼ (*h-idha [with emphatic h-]), Pkt. ālānaʻtethering postʼ (ādāna-), ciṭṭhai ʻstandsʼ (tiṭṭhai < tiṣṭhati), sattarasa- (sattadasa- ‘seventeen’ [and likewise *trerasa- > telasa-]), (H. lonī ʻfresh butterʼ *h2 a: *h2 ag̑- ‘drive’, Av. az-, Khot. hays-, OI aj-; *b hágo- ‘allotment, god’, Av. baγa-, OP baga-, Parth. bg, Sogd. βγ, OI bhága-. b) Preservation of IIr. *a < IE *e, *o (*o only in closed syllables; in open syllables *o appears as ā in Indo-Iranian [Brugmann’s Law]): *bhéreti ‘brings’, IIr. *b hárati, Av. baraiti, OP bara nti (3.pl.), OI bhárati; *sólu̯o- ‘whole’, IIr. *sáru̯a-, Av. hauruua-, OP haruva-, MP harw, Parth. hrw, Khot. har-biśśa-, OI sárva-. c) *n̥ between consonants, in absolute Anlaut before a consonant, or after consonant before pause (*n̥ → a / [C, #]_ [C, #]):*k̑m̥tóm ‘hundred’ (with early assimilation to *n̥ before t), IIr. *ćatám, OI śatám, Av. satəm, Khot. sata, Sogd. sd, MP sad; *n̥ ́ -g̑n̥h1 to- ‘unborn’, IIr. *áȷ́aHta-, OI ájāta-, Av. azāta-; *Hnéh3 mn̥ ‘name’, IIr. *Hnā́ma, OI nā́ma, Av. nąma, OP nāma, Khot. nāma. The same applies for *m̥, but only between consonants: *h2 m̥b hí ‘toward’, IIr. *ab hí, OI abhí, Av. aibī, aiβi, OP abiy. d) a may also continue an anaptytic vowel before *r̥ or *m̥ before pause (r̥, m̥ → ar, am /_#): *i̯ ēk u̯r̥ ́ ‘liver’, Av. yākar, MP ǰagar, OI yakr̥ ́ t; *ph2 tér-m̥ ‘father (acc.)’, IIr. *ph2 tár-m̥, Av. pitarəm (but see 3.2). 2.2. Ir. i, u continue IIr. and IE *i, *u : IIr. *g u̯r̥Hí- ‘mountain’, OI girí-, Av. gairi-, Khot. ggari-; *pl̥ h1 ú- ‘much, many’, IIr. *pr̥h1 ú-, OI purú-, Av. pouru-, OP paruv. 2.2.1. Furthermore, in all Iranian languages i can represent the result of a lost interconsonantal laryngeal or a laryngeal before pause under certain conditions (see 5.3.1). In these cases we probably have to reconstruct already in Indo-Iranian an epenthetic vowel i following the laryngeal: *ph2 tér-m̥, PIr. *pHi tár-m̥, Av. pitarəm, MP pidar.

483

484

VI. Iranian 2.2.2. When i, u are not the nucleus of a syllable, the non-syllabic allophones i̯ , u̯ appear, respectively: *i̯ ēk u̯r̥ ́ ‘liver’, Av. yākar, *tréi̯ es ‘three’, Av. ϑraiiō, Parth. hry /hrē/ (< *ϑrai̯ ah); *u̯éh1 -n̥t-o- ‘wind’, Av. vāta-, MP wād. 2.3. Besides ă there was also an ā in Proto-Iranian. Its source is mainly IIr. *ā < IE *ē, *ō, which in turn represent the morphophonological lengthening of *e, *o: *ph2 tḗr ‘father (nom.)’, Av. ptā, tā, OP pitā, OI pitā́; *d hoh1 tṓr ‘establisher’, Av. dātā, OI dhātā́. 2.3.1. Further sources are: a) *ō from IE *o in an open syllable, except in absolute final position: *g̑ónu ‘knee’, IIr. *ȷ́ānu, Av. zānu, MP zānūg, Parth. z˒nwg, Khot. ysānū; *dóru ‘wood’, IIr. *dā́ru, Av. dāuru, OP dāruv, MP dār. This process is known as Brugmann’s law, and it applies only to IE *o, not to IE *h3 e- (Lubotsky 1990). Therefore, we can postulate that the pre-IIr. change of o to ō in an open syllable (Katz 2003: 64) happens before *h3 e > *(H)o. At the time of this law laryngeals were still present at least after a consonant and before a vowel. Therefore, laryngeals in this position close the syllable, and Brugmann’s law does not apply: *róth2 o- ‘chariot’, IIr. *rath2 a-, Av. raϑa, MP rah, Khot. rraha-, OI rátha-. b) IIr. *aH (< IE *e, *o + H) before a consonant or pause: *meh2 ter- ‘mother’, Av. mātar-, OP °mātar-, MP mād(ar), Khot. māta; *pleh1 i̯ os ‘more’, Av. frāiiō, MP frāy; *d hoh1 tór- ‘establisher’, Av. dātar-, MP dādār, OI dhātár-. We are not sure about the chronology of this change, but it surely happened after Proto-Indo-Iranian times. According to Lubotsky (1992), roots with a non-initial laryngeal show a shift of the accent in Indo-Iranian in the i- and u-stems making all of them oxyton. This happens also when the laryngeal is in the VHC position, so that if Lubotsky is right, the laryngeal would still have been present at that time. In my opinion, the laryngeal accent shift does not affect the Iranian languages, but only Indo-Aryan. This implies that the disappearance of the laryngeal occurred after the separation of Indo-Aryan from the Iranian languages (Cantera 2002). c) ā may furthermore continue a syllabic nasal + H before consonant. Again we cannot be sure whether this treatment had already taken place in Proto-Iranian or not: *g̑n̥h1 tó- ‘born’, Av. zāta-, MP zadag, Sogd. z˒tk, Bal. zātk; *b hrm̥Hsk̑et ‘saunters’ Av. brāsat̰ . d) PIr. *ā can also be the result of compensatory lengthening resulting from the simplification of the group mm in a final syllable after a short vowel (Schindler 1973): *d hg̑ hóm-m ‘earth’, IIr. *ȷ́hzām (OI kṣā́m) > PIr. *ȷ́zām, Av. ząm. 2.3.2. In the Old Iranian languages (Avestan and Old Persian), the quantity opposition has been neutralized in final syllables. In Old Avestan, every final a is long. In Young Avestan, they are all shortened except in monosyllables. In Old Persian, every final a was lengthened to ā. Sogdian and Khotanese also do not differentiate a/ā in final position. But this neutralization does not go back to Proto-Iranian. In Ossetic, where final a is generally lost (I., D. avd ‘seven’ < *hapta, I., D. dæs ‘ten’ < *daća), the Digor dialect preserves final ā as æ: fɨdæ < *pitā, madæ < *mātā (Thordarson 1989: 459).

33. The phonology of Iranian 2.4. The historical phonemes ī, ū most likely did not exist in Proto-Indo-Iranian or even Proto-Iranian. Their chronology depends again on the (probably late) change of i, u + H to ī, ū before consonant or pause. In any case, this process is common to all Iranian languages: *g u̯riH-u̯eh2 - ‘neck’, Av. grīuuā-, MP grīw, Pašto grəwa; *b huh2 mi- ‘ground, land’, Av. būmi-, OP būmi-, MP būm, Sogd. βwmh, Chwar. bwm. 2.5. In Indo-Iranian there were four different diphthongs: *ai̯ , *au̯ (from IE *ei̯ , *oi̯ and *eu̯,*ou̯, respectively) and their long counterparts *āi̯ and *āu̯ (from IE *ēi̯ , *ōi̯ and *ēu̯, *ōu̯, respectively). While in Indo-Aryan, short diphthongs became monophthongs and long diphthongs were shortened, in Iranian, all four diphthongs remained unchanged: *léu̯kos, IIr. *ráu̯cah- (with c through the influence of cases whose desinences began with *e), Av. raocō, OP rauca, MP rōz, OI rócaḥ; *séi̯ (H)neh2 - ‘army’, IIr. *sái̯ (H)nah2 -, Av. haēnā-, OP hainā-, MP hēn, Khot. hīnā-, OI sénā-; *-oi̯ (loc.sg. o-stems), OAv. -ōi (YAv. -e), OP -aiy, OI -e; *-ōi̯ (dat.sg. o-stems), OAv. -āi, cf. OI -āya; *g u̯ṓus ‘cow’, Av. gāuš, OI gáuḥ; *stḗu̯mi ‘I praise’, OAv. stāumi, OI stáumi.

3. Nasals In Iranian the two nasals of IE and IIr., dental-alveolar n and bilabial m, are continued without changes: *g̑ónu ‘knee’, IIr. *ȷ́ānu, Av. zānu, MP zānūg, Parth. z˒nwg, Khot. ysānū; *meh2 ter- ‘mother’, Av. mātar-, OP °mātar-, MP mād(ar), Khot. māta. 3.1. From IE on, both nasals have syllabic allophones. The syllabic allophone of *n̥ apparently developed to a already in Proto-Iranian, since there is no difference in treatment between n̥ and a in any position: *g̑n̥h1 tó- ‘born’, PIr. *ȷ́aHta-, Av. zāta-, is identical to *meh2 ter-, PIr. *maHtar-, Av. mātar-. 3.2. The same is true for *m̥ in all positions except before a pause, where it does not yield a, but am, for instance in the acc.sg. of the athematic consonantal stems. However, in such instances m could be the result of analogy based on stems ending in vowels. Although we are not sure if these developments took place already in Proto-Iranian, they are common to all Indo-Iranian languages.

4. Liquids As in Indo-Aryan, in most Iranian languages as well the opposition between r and l was neutralized, for instance in Avestan and Old Persian. Loanwords in OP often show r for l (Bābiru- ‘Babylon’), and only rarely l (Labnāna- ‘Lebanon’). 4.1. In fact, in the old languages l appears only in these rare loanwords. Later in many Iranian languages l reappears, mostly due to secondary developments: WIr. *rd → l (NP sāl < *ćarda-), Bactr. λ corresponds to PIr. *d (λιζα ‘citadel’ < *diȷ́ah2 -); in Pašto l from δ < t, d, ϑ is quite frequent: las ‘ten’ < *daća; plār ‘father’ < *pitáram; in Khot. *r̥

485

486

VI. Iranian becomes in certain contexts il, ul, independently of whether its IE origin is r or l (Khot. puls- ‘ask’ < *pr̥k̑-sk̑e-). 4.2. But in the Iranian languages we also find some instances of l that could continue IE *l (Mayrhofer 1989: 10; Tremblay 2005: 679−680 mentions the possibility of one or several Iranian dialects in which IE *r and *l merged into l, not r): a) Although in Parthian, IE *l usually yields r (rwž ‘day’ < *leu̯kos), in some words it appears as l (Henning 1958: 1002; Klingenschmitt 2000: 213): l˒b (MMP r˒b) ‘request’, NP lābe from the IE root *lep- (“Schallwurzel” Mayrhofer 1992: 432); tl˒zwg ‘scales’, cf. OI tulā́-; kl˒n ‘great’, cf. Lith. kélti ‘raises, elevates’. (Parth. larz- ‘tremble’ < *h1 le-h1 lig̑- is probably a dissimilation like Sogd. wlrz-/wdrz- [Sims-Williams 1989: 179] and NP larzīdan). b) New Persian (Hübschmann 1895): lab ‘lip’, cf. Lat. labium; lištan ‘to lick’, *lei̯ g̑ h-, Gr. λείχω; āludan ‘to soil’, cf. Lat. lutum; MP galōg, NP galu ‘throat’ possibly from an IE root *g u̯el-; ālixtan ‘to spring’, cf. OE lācan, Lith. láigyti; āluftan ‘be mad’, OI lobh-, IE *leu̯b h. c) Ossetic (Miller 1903: 36): læsæg ‘salmon’, cf. Toch. laks; ilivd ‘unhappy’, from the IE root *leu̯b h; fællayun ‘be tired’, OI mlā́yati; wal, Waxī wul ‘turn’, OI vālayati. (Some instances of l in Ossetic, like liʒɨn ‘to flee’, IE *lei̯ k u̯, or alɨ ‘every’ < **solu̯i̯ o-, are the result of the special development of PIr. *ri/ri̯ to l in this language.) Although in these languages we find some cases of l going back to *r (Parth. d˒lw ‘wood’), thus proving that at a certain time r and l no longer stood in functional opposition, evidence found in New Persian and Ossetic proves that in Proto-Iranian the opposition between l and r was still not neutralized. 4.3. Both phonemes have syllabic allophones *r̥, *l̥ , respectively, when they function as syllabic nuclei: *g hr̥b hH-tó- ‘seized’: Av. gərəpta-, MMP gryft, Khot. °grautta-, cf. OI gr̥bhītá-; *pl̥ th2 ú- ‘wide’, Av. pərəθu-, OI pr̥thú-. Both merged into *r̥ in Proto-Iranian. Since the development into -ar in final position is common to all Iranian languages (*i̯ ēk u̯r̥ ́ ‘liver’, Av. yākar, MP ǰagar), this process as well could already have happened in Proto-Iranian.

5. Laryngeals Although the laryngeals are not directly attested in any historical Iranian language, there is evidence of their existence in Proto-Iranian. Although in Indo-European there were three different laryngeals, in Proto-Iranian all three seem to have merged into one (in Proto-Indo-Iranian a distinctive *h2 most likely remains [Gippert 1997]). Clear traces of the laryngeals were preserved in Iranian until the historical languages in at least two positions: initially and between vowels, that is, when they function as non-syllabic. For other positions the evidence for the survival of laryngeals is not as certain, but we have data that point in that direction. 5.1. In initial position there is twofold evidence of the laryngeals lasting until the historical Iranian languages: 1. the presence of hiatus in compounds whose second member

33. The phonology of Iranian begins with laryngeal (OAv. huuapō ‘performing skillful work’ Y. 44.5 [3 syllables], RV su vápas- besides svápas; x vaēta- ‘of easy access’ [3 syllables], x vāϑra- ‘comfort, happiness’ [3 syllables]); 2. the lengthening of the final vowel of the first member of a compound when the second begins with a laryngeal (Mayrhofer 2005: 37 ff.) (*h1 su-h2 néro-, OI sūnára-, OP ūnara-; *°h1 u̯asu-, OI viśvā́vasu-, Av. aš ̣āuuaŋhu-; OP dāraya-vau-, but NP dārā < *dārai̯ ā-va[h]u-). 5.2. The metrics of the Gāϑās also provide evidence of the preservation of laryngeals in intervocalic position until historical times or shortly before. Orthographic long vowels that go back to two short vowels with a laryngeal between them are to be counted metrically as two short vowels (Pirart 1986): *d heh1 -e-t ‘will create’ (3.P.Sg.Aor.Subj.Akt.), *d heh1 - (Y 29.10), OAv. dāt̰ /da˒at̰ / besides dāt̰ /dāt̰ / ‘gave/created’ (3.P.Sg.Aor.Inj.Akt.) < *d heh1 -t/*deh3 -t; *u̯éh1 -n̥t-o- ‘wind’, OAv. vāta- (Y 44.4), OI vā́ta- (differently Pirart). 5.3. In other positions we do not have evidence of the laryngeals in the historical languages, and the results of their loss are similar in all Iranian languages, although in some positions such as between consonants (especially in initial syllables) uncertainty remains. 5.3.1. Between consonants the result in Indo-Aryan is the vocalization as ˘ī. The same is true for Iranian, but only under certain conditions. Since the i- vocalization is specific to the Indo-Iranian languages, i-epenthesis was most likely already an Indo-Iranian phenomenon (H → Hi /C_C). (Tichy [1985] postulates an “i-farbige Entsprechung zu dem ‘e muet’ des Französischen”. But the explanation of this evolution is controversial. An attempt to explain the i-vocalization independently in Indo-Aryan and Iranian is made by Kobayashi [2004: 132 ff. with further references and discussion of alternative proposals].) Nevertheless, in Iranian the laryngeal disappeared in several positions of the word without leaving traces of the vowel i. This is true for the laryngeal between consonants in all positions of the word except the last syllable; *átHt hi- ‘guest’: Av. asti-, OI átithi-; *g u̯m̥b hHró- ‘deep’: Av. jafra-, Parth. jfr, NP zarf, Pašto žawar, cf. OI gabhīrá-; *g hr̥b hH-tó- ‘seized’: Av. gərəpta-, MMP gryft, Khot. °grautta-, cf. OI gr̥bhītá-; *témHsro- ‘darkness’: Av. tąϑra-, MMP t˒r, Khot. ttāra- ‘dark’, cf. OI támisrā; *dreu̯Hnes ‘goods, property’: Av. draonah, Phl. drōn, cf. OI dráviṇas; *pn̥th2 b his ‘way, path’ (Instr.Pl.): OAv. padəbiš cf. OI pathíbhis; *mléu̯Hti ‘speaks’: Av. mraoiti, cf. OI brávīti; *u̯i-sh2 to- ‘loosened’: Av., OP višta° in PN Vištāspa-, cf. OI víṣita. Some apparent exceptions were explained away by Insler (1971). It seems that in the initial syllable the development of the laryngeal is not the same in every Iranian language, since it is preserved in some Iranian languages as ĭ or ī (Tremblay 2005: 682): Yidgha-Munǰi liī ‘he gave’ < *dīta-; Waxī δεt < *dĭta-). The examples of preservation in non-initial syllables seem to me less certain (Tremblay 2005: 681). A special problem is the word for ‘father’. Several forms show the expected loss of the laryngeal: OAv. N.Sg. p(a)tā Y 44.3, 45.11, 47.2, tā Y 47.3; Acc.Sg. p(a)tarəm Y 31.8, 45.4; Dat.Sg.: fəδrōi Y 53.4; YAv.: N.Sg. p(a)tā˘ca Yt 13.83, 19.86; N.Pl. p(a)tarō PV 7.72; Acc.Pl. fəδrō V 19.43; Dat.Pl. ptərəbiiō V 15.12; in other attested forms, however, the i from *h2 is present: OAv.: Dat.Sg. piϑrē; YAv.: N.Sg. pita Y 9.5, 11.4, Yt 17.16, V 12.3; Acc.Sg. pitarəm V 12.1; Dat.Sg. piϑre Yt 14.46. Mainly two positions have been defended:

487

488

VI. Iranian 1. The presence or absence of i depends on the stress. Accordingly, h2 > ø when the stress is displaced from the suffix to the ending, that is, when the laryngeal is not directly pretonic (Schmidt 1879: 33 f.; Bartholomae 1897; Hoffmann 1958: 15). 2. H → ø /#C_CC. According to this explanation the i would belong originally to the weak cases and later it was generalized also to the strong cases such as the nominative and accusative (Kuryłowicz 1935: 67; Beekes 1981: 282 ff.) According to Tichy (1985) the laryngeal became i in Iranian in the word for ‘father’ analogically from the vocative. Already in IE the vocative showed an expressive vocalization *ph2 ter to *pə́2 ter, which would have allowed the retraction of the stress to the first syllable, as expected in the vocative. The most likely distribution of the presence or absence of i in the initial syllable has been proposed by Lipp (2009: 2. 353 ff.): it is preserved when it is pretonic, but disappears when post-tonic or in the groups CHCC. 5.3.2. Whereas in initial syllables the distribution is H → i /#C_C′ and H → ø / #C_CC and in middle syllables H → ø unconditionally, in final syllables the regular development is vocalization to i. This has a nice correspondence in Indo-Aryan (Jamison 1988): Indo-Aryan H → ĭ /C_C(C)V(#) [vámiti] H → ī /C_C# [avamīt]

Iranian H → ø /C_C(C)V(#) H → i /C_C#

Most of the examples of this treatment in Iranian belong to the s-stems of roots with ultima laryngalis (the development to i is regular only in N.-Acc.Sg. Elsewhere it is analogical): *kreu̯h2 s- ‘meat’: Av. xr(a)uuiš-(iiaṇt-) (with frequent xruu° analogic to xruui°), cf. OI kravíṣ-, Gr. κρέας; *teu̯h2 s ‘power’: Av. təuuiš (Av. təuuišī is probably secondary from təuuiš-. Old Indian tuvíṣ- in tuvíṣṭama- is a contamination of *taviṣ- and tuví°; see Mayrhofer 1992: 639 with bibliography.); *sterh3 s ‘bedding’: Av. stairiš-. A significant exception to this rule is the very frequent verb mraot̰ < *mleu̯H-t, by analogy with mraoiti. A similar analogy, although in the opposite direction, is OI brávīti instead of *bráviti, following ábravīt (a further difficulty is represented by OP p-ϑ-i-m). 5.3.3. In absolute final position the laryngeal is vocalized as i in several endings: a) N.Acc.Pl. -h2 : Av. afšmānī ‘verses’ (Y 46.17), sāx və̄nī ‘teachings’ (Y 53.5), OP taumani ‘powers’ (if not dual taumanī, cf. Hoffmann-Forssman 2004: 144); b) 1.p.plural. middle °maidī˘ (OI °mahi) < *°med hh2 ; c) 1.p.dual.middle °uuaidī (OI °vahi); d) 1.p.sg.middle in aojī (Y 43.8). The same vocalization appears in the substantive OAv. jə̄ni-, YAv. jaini ‘woman’, OI jáni- < IE *g u̯enh2 -. Sometimes the different n.-acc.pls. like afšmānī, sāx və̄nī, OP taumani instead of the more frequent dāmąm, nāmąm, haxəmąm, etc. have been explained as dialectal variants (Kuiper 1978), but in fact they are different formations. Av. dāmąm, etc. correspond to OI kármā with secondary reintroduction of the nasal, analogical to other consonant stems in which the final consonant does not disappear in the neuter plural, e.g. manå ‘thinking’ (< *-ās), and continue an old IE collective in °ōn. Forms like afšmānī are hypercharacterized with h2 like OI kármāni (Cantera 2001−2002).

33. The phonology of Iranian 5.3.4. After a consonant and before a vowel the laryngeals disappear [H→ø /C_V] without leaving any vocalic trace after the working of Brugmann’s law (2.3.1a): *róth2 o‘chariot’, Av. raϑa-, OI rátha-; *k̑oph2 ó- ‘hoof’, Av. safa-, OI śaphá-. 5.3.5. After a vowel and before a consonant (or pause) the laryngeal disappears, causing lengthening of the preceding vowel, as in most Indo-European languages (2.3.1b). 5.3.6. More complicated is the development of laryngeals after a resonant. Probably *RH > ər (R = r, l) already in Proto-Indo-Iranian, as Uralic loanwords seem to show (Katz 2003: 65). The treatment of this group depends strongly on the position of the stress and the syllabic structure. In Iranian, the treatment of the group RH is similar to that of NH under similar circumstances (*RHV > arV), but not in Indo-Aryan: a) *n̥HV > anV: *tn̥Hú- ‘thin’, tanuk (MMP tnwk, Phl. tnwk’) [< *tanúkakah/-am], OI tanú-. (An apparent exception is Av. āsna- ‘innate’ < *°g̑nh3 -ó-. However, the loss of the laryngeal in this word is already Indo-European, cf. Gr. νεογνóς [Mayrhofer 2005: 99]) b) *r̥HV > arV: *g u̯r̥Hí- ‘mountain’, Av. gairi-, OI girí; *tr̥h2 ós ‘through’, Av. tarō, OI tirás; *u̯r̥Hú- ‘wide’, Av. vouru°, OI urú-. c) l̥ HV > arC : *g̑ hl̥ h3 eni̯ o- ‘golden’, Av. zarańiia-, OI híraṇya-; *pl̥ h1 ú- ‘much, many’, Av. pouru°, OI purú-. 5.3.6.1. Before consonants the regular outcome of the group *N̥H is *ā, but very often the nasal is reintroduced, as in Indo-Aryan (duuąsaiti ‘he flies’ < du̯ānsati < *dhu̯enHsk̑e-ti): *-n̥HC > āC: *g̑n̥h1 tó- ‘born’, Av. zāta-, OI jātá-; *n̥h3 d hró- ‘weak’, OAv. ādra-, OI ādhrá-; *m̥HC > āC: *b hrm̥Hsk̑et ‘saunter’, Av. brāsat̰ . 5.3.6.2. Generally it is admitted that in Iranian R̥HC > arC. But this rule must be further specified in order to account for a great number of exceptions. The results of this group depend strongly on the position of the accent and the phonetic context (Cantera 2001a). When the resonant is in a stressed syllable, the result is always arC: *tr̥ ́ h2 u̯a- ‘overcoming’, Av. tauruua-, OI tū́rva-; *h2 u̯ĺ̥ h1 neh2 ‘wool’, Av. varənā, OI ū́rṇā. Elsewhere the result depends on the phonetic context. It is often the same as under the accent: *d hl̥ Hg hó- ‘long’, Av. darəγa-, OI dīrghá-; *str̥h3 tós ‘extended, laid out’ Av. starəta-, OI stīrṇá-, cf. Lat. strātus. But in a labial context the result differs. After a labial consonant (p, b, m, u̯) or before a syllable with u̯, H disappears without trace: *pl̥ h1 nó- ‘full’, Av. pərəna-, Phl. purr, OI pūrṇá-; *(u̯)r̥Hd hu̯ó- ‘upright’ (with dissimilation of the first u̯ in Indo-Iranian), Av. ərəδβa-, Phl. ul, OI ūrdhvá-; *°ml̥ h3 d hó- ‘head’, Av. kamərəδa-, Bactr. Καμιρδο (Phl. kamāl continues *kamarda-, probably due to a different accentuation: *ka-mr̥ ́ da-), cf. OI mūrdhán-; *u̯r̥h1 g̑í° ‘strong, efficacious’, Av. vərəzi°, cf. OI ū́rj‘nourishment, strengthening’; *sp hr̥h1 -to- ‘trampled’, cf. Phl. spurdan (< *spr̥h1 tanai̯ ), spar- (< *spr̥h1 a-, cf. OI sphuráti ‘kicks away’).

6. Plosives The consonantal system of Proto-Iranian is very close to that of Proto-Indo-Iranian. The main difference between the two is the loss of the aspirates; however, only the loss of the

489

490

VI. Iranian voiceless aspirates can be attributed to Proto-Iranian. This characteristic is also shared by Nuristanī. Nevertheless, since the loss of the voiceless aspirates in Nuristanī does not lead to the appearance of voiceless fricatives, both evolutions are probably independent (Buddruss 1977). Concerning the controversial position of Nuristanī relative to Iranian, see Cardona and Jain (2003: 26 ff.) and Lipp (2009: 1. 334 ff.). 6.1. The voiced aspirated plosives lost their aspiration in all Iranian languages. Consequently IIr. *b h, *d h, *ȷ́ h, *g h, (*g u̯h) appear in Iranian as *b, *d, *ȷ́, *g, respectively (in certain cases the IIr. voiced aspirates appear as voiceless fricatives in the Iranian languages [Tremblay 2005: 675]: Av. daϑā-, MMP dh-, NP deh-, Bactr. λαυ- < *dad hah1 -; Av. nāfa-, NP nāfe < *nā́b ha-, etc.). Nevertheless, we have evidence of the existence of voiced aspirates in Proto-Iranian at an early time. According to Bartholomae’s law the sequence of voiced aspirated stop + voiceless stop produces in Indo-Iranian a group of two voiced stops, and the aspiration is transferred from the first stop to the second one [D hT > DD h]: OI buddhá- < *b hud h-tá-, OAv. aogədā < *au̯g hta. Since this treatment is identical in Indo-Aryan and Iranian, it could be Indo-Iranian. But a difference in the application of this law in Iranian and Indo-Aryan proves the survival of the voiced aspirated stops until Proto-Iranian: only in Iranian does Bartholomae’s law apply also to the group voiced aspirated stop + s: OAv. aogəžā < *au̯g hsa; Av. diβža- < IIr. *d hib hsa-, OI dipsa- [Jaiminīya-Brāhmaṇa, Pāṇini dhī˘psa-]. Otherwise we would have to postulate the application of Bartholomae’s law to s also for Proto-Indo-Iranian followed by devoicing of *z h in Indo-Aryan (Kobayashi 2004: 106). Tremblay (2005: 675) points out that since Bartholomae’s law is still productive in Old Avestan, the voiced aspirates must have still been present shortly before or even during the Old Avestan period. But although this argument may appear persuasive, it is not compelling. The only serious evidence for the preservation of the voiced aspirates in Indo-Iranian is the fact that the conditions for Bartholomae’s law in Indo-Aryan and Iranian are not exactly the same. 6.2. The voiceless aspirates became fricatives (7.2) 6.3. Leaving aside these two exceptions, the phonological system of the Iranian occlusive stops nearly continues the Indo-Iranian one: IE, IIr. *p : *pistó-, Av. pištra- ‘mill’, NP pist ‘flour’, cf. OI piṣṭá- ‘crushed’, Lat. pistus. IE, IIr. *t : *témHsro- ‘darkness’: Av. tąϑra-, MMP t˒r, Khot. ttāra- ‘dark’, cf. OI támisrā. IE *k, *k u̯, IIr. *k : *kók̑so- ‘armpit’, Av. kaša-, Sogd. ˒p-kš ‘side’, NP kaš, cf. OI kákṣa-. IE, IIr. *b, *b h, (*bh2 ) > b : *b héreti ‘carries’, Av. baraiti, OP barati, cf. OI bhárati. IE, IIr. *d, *d h, (*dh2 ) > d : *dék̑m̥ ‘ten’, IIr. *dáća, Av. dasa, MP, NP dah , cf. OI dáśa. IE, IIr. *g/g u̯, *g h/g u̯ h, (*gh2 ) > *g : *g hr̥b hH-tó- ‘seized’: Av. gərəpta-, MMP gryft, Khot. °grautta-, cf. OI gr̥bhītá-.

33. The phonology of Iranian

7. Fricatives 7.1. In the Iranian languages a new series of voiceless fricatives f, θ, and x emerged (in some Iranian languages, like Balochi [Korn 2005: 80 ff.], Khotanese, and Parāčī [Tremblay 2005: 676], there is a “Rückverwandlung” of these sounds back to the corresponding stops p, t, k). There are at least two different sources for these sounds. Most of them are the result of spirantization in consonant clusters: an initial plosive consonant is spirantized when directly preceding another consonant (K → X /_C): p > f : *protm̥mó‘first’, Av. fratəma-, OP fratama-, OI prathamá-; t > ϑ : *trei̯ es ‘three’, Av. ϑraiiō, Parth. hry /hrē/ (< *ϑrai̯ ah); *k u̯etu̯ores ‘four’, Av. caϑβārō, MMP ch˒r, Phl., NP cahār, Parth. cf ˒r (< *caϑβārah); k > x : *k u̯ek u̯ló- ‘wheel’, Av. caxra-, MMP chr, OI cakrá-. This evolution does not occur after s/š : Av. strī- ‘woman’, Khot. striyā-, MSogd. (˒)stryč (< *strīčī-ā-); Av. tištriia- ‘Sirius’ < *t(r)istrii̯ a-, cf. OI tiṣyà-. 7.1.1. The development of pt in Iranian is controversial. This group appears as ft or its outcome in all Iranian languages, except in Avestan, where we find three different treatments: 1. preservation: hapta ‘seven’ and its derivatives, ptā ‘father’, napta- ‘moist’, vīpta- ‘subjected to pederasty’, supti ‘shoulder’, °gərəpta- ‘seized’, āiiapta- ‘attainment’, etc.; 2. occasionally evolution to ft: PV 18.52 gərəftəm, Yt 5.92 taftō ‘sick with fever’. Sometimes ft appears in some manuscripts while others show pt. The readings with ft are probably due to the influence of Persian pronunciation; 3. In initial position, pt is sometimes simplified to t : tā ‘father’, tūiriia- ‘uncle on father’s side’. Since this seems to be the only exception to the rule K → X /_C, it has sometimes been thought to be a “Rückverwandlung” (Bartholomae 1895: 165). Actually, we do not have certain evidence that the evolution K → X /_C took place already in Proto-Iranian. Tremblay (2005: 676) tries to date the evolution K → X /_C after K h → X, but the evidence he points out (N72 vī.manāt̰ < * omn̥t h-neh2 -) is not compelling. 7.2. The voiceless aspirated stops *p h, *t h, *k h are the second source of the Iranian voiceless fricatives. Although some of these sounds could be merely expressive, they arise mostly from the contact of a voiceless stop + h2 . The most illustrative example of this treatment is provided by the word *pantā- ‘way, path’. In Indo-European, the inflection of this word was n.sg. *péntōh2 s, g. *pn̥th2 és. In Avestan, we find the expected results: paṇtā̊ (instead of OI pánthāḥ, with analogical th) and g. paϑō. Other examples are: *róth2 o- ‘chariot’, Av. raϑa-, OP u-raϑa-, Khot. rraha-, Phl. ls, MMP rhy /rah/, OI rátha-; *pl̥ th2 ú- ‘broad’, Av. pərəθu-, OI pr̥thú-; Av. kafa- ‘foam’, NP kaf, OI kapha‘slime’. The presence of s/š also blocks the development of the fricative: *sti-sth2 -é‘stand’, Av. hišta-, Khot. ṣṭa-, Sogd. ˒wst-, Parth. ʿ št, OI tíṣṭha-. 7.2.1. Occasionally the voiceless aspirates may arise through an assimilation of aspiration. This is a possible explanation for *ahmā́xam (OP amāxam, Sogd. m˒x) besides *ahmā́kam (Av. ahmākəm, Khot. mā) (Tremblay 2005: 677). Therefore we may infer either 1. that this change does not happen in Proto-Iranian, but later (since the aspiration of s is also later) or 2. that this phonetic rule remained alive for a long period of time. 7.2.2. A further source for x in Iranian is IE *s, Ir. *h before u̯ in initial position (h → x /#_u̯): *su̯ei̯ d- ‘to sweat; sweat’, Av. x v īsat̰ , x vaēδa-, MP xwistan, xwēy, Khot. ā-hus-, hvī, Sogd. γwys-, Pašto xwala, Oss. xīd, xed.

491

492

VI. Iranian

8. Affricates 8.1. A phenomenon belonging to the period of Proto-Indo-Iranian is the development of affricates out of the IE occlusive palatal stops. In Proto-Iranian (and Indo-Iranian), we find two different series of palatal consonants: one resulting from the evolution of IE palatals (*k̑, *g̑, *g̑ h), the other the result of secondary palatalization of old velars and labiovelars before front vowels. Note that the palatalization of the old (labio)velars happens not only before i but also before a when the latter goes back to IE *e. That means that this palatalization happened before the merger of *e and *o into a. The exact phonetic character of these two series is controversial. It is difficult to determine if both were already affricates or still plosives with different points of articulation or whether one set was affricated and the second plosive with the same (or similar) point of articulation (this is the solution proposed by Kobayashi 2004: 74). Although their true phonetic nature remains uncertain, we use *ć, *ȷ́, *ȷ́ h as conventional symbols for the primary palatals of Proto-Iranian and *č, *ǰ, *ǰ h for the secondary palatals. 8.2.1. In Proto-Iranian, the first series (*ć, *ȷ́, *ȷ́ h) is widely held to have been composed of affricates, but their exact point of articulation cannot be decided: they could be postalveolar (Tremblay 2005: 679; Lipp 2009: 1. 334) or dental-alveolar affricates (Mayrhofer 1983). In the transition from Proto-Iranian to the Old Iranian languages, their treatment diverges. In all Iranian languages except the southwestern ones, the alveolar or prepalatal affricate /ʦ/ evolves to the corresponding alveolar sibilant /s/. On the other hand, in Old Persian the voiceless alveolar palatal evolves to /ϑ/: *dek̑m̥, IIr. *daća ‘ten’, OP (in the Elamite transmission) daϑapati- ‘decurion’, OP daϑama ‘tenth’, Phl., NP dah (< *daϑa), Av. dasa ‘ten’, Parth. . (A similar split occurs in the Romance languages: Latin k evolved to /ʧ/ in Proto-Romance, then went over to /ʦ/, attested in some NorthItalian dialects and in old phases of other languages like French or Spanish. Finally, /ʦ/ becomes /s/ in French, Provençal, Catalan, Portuguese, etc. and /ϑ/ in Spanish and NorthItalian.) For evidence of the continuation of these sounds as affricates after Proto-Iranian, see Klingenschmitt (1975). According to Katz (2003: 40), PIr. *ć is the result of a secondary evolution from *s. Affricates are also the results in Nuristanī (Buddruss 1977). Therefore, Mayrhofer (1983) sees here an isogloss between Proto-Iranian and Nuristanī, but this coincidence depends on the point of articulation we choose for Proto-Iranian. In Nuristanī, dental affricates are postulated. On the other hand, it is not to be excluded that these sounds were affricates already in Indo-Iranian. The outcomes s, z in most Iranian languages point to dental or (post-)alveolar affricates. A further argument is the fact that PIr. *ć and the group t+s show the same evolution: OI matsya- ‘fish’, Phl. m˒hyk’, NP māhi, but Av. masiia-. On the other hand, the outcome Khot. śś, Waxī š < *ću̯- and Khot. śś < *ćr speak for a prepalatal or even palatal affricate /ʧ/ (Tremblay 2005: 678). In any case, the affricates resulting from the primary palatals remained always differentiated from the results of the secondary palatalization, the latter probably with a more palatal point of articulation. 8.2.2. The voiced /ʣ/ (from the primary palatal *g̑) shows a parallel evolution. In all Iranian languages except those of the SW, /ʣ/ evolves to /z/. In the SW, /ʣ/ evolves to [δ], but due to the lack of a phoneme /δ/ it merged with /d/: *g̑enh3 , IIr. *ȷ́anH- ‘know’,

33. The phonology of Iranian OP adāna , Av. zan-, Phl., NP dānistan, Parth. , Kurd. zānin; IIr. *ȷ́ hr̥d- ‘gold’, Av. zərəd-, Phl., NP dil (< *dr̥d-). dil, Parth. , Kurd. zar. 8.3.1. More difficult is the determination of the phonetic character of the second series of palatals (*č,*ǰ,*ǰ h). In all Iranian languages they appear as affricates, but if they were already affricates in Proto-Iranian, we must assume a point of articulation different from that of *ć,*ȷ́,*ȷ́ h. This is most easily done by assuming for *ć,*ȷ́,*ȷ́ h a (post-)alveolar point of articulation and a prepalatal one for *č,*ǰ,*ǰ h. The opposition would then have been: *ć,*ȷ́,*ȷ́ h /ʦ/, /ʣ/, /ʣ h/ :: *č,*ǰ,*ǰ h /ʧ/, /ʤ/, /ʤ h/. A second possible explanation is that the first series consisted of post-alveolar affricates in Proto-Iranian and the second series (from IE velars) remained plosive. Afterwards, the affricates changed to sibilants (s, z) or fricatives (ϑ, δ) and the former palatal plosives became post-alveolar affricates (/ʧ/, /ʤ/). In any case, in all Iranian languages the series of secondary palatals seems to be continued by affricates. 8.3.2. The palatal affricates č /ʧ/, ǰ /ʤ/ remain affricates in the Iranian languages, partly as prepalatal /ʧ/, /ʤ/, /ʤ h/ and partly as dental-alveolar /ʦ/, /ʣ/. In Khotanese, /ʧ/, /ʤ/ become /ʦ/, /ʣ/ , , but remain as /ʧ/, /ʤ/ before palatal vowels (Emmerick 1989: 213): Khot. tcārman- ‘hide’ < *čarman-, Av. carəman-, OI cárman-; Khot. pātcu ‘then’ < *paščā˘m, cf. Av. pasca, OI paścā́; Khot. jsan- ‘kill’ < *ǰan-, Av. zan-, OI han-, but dajä ‘flame’ < *daǰi-. In Avestan, the evolution /ʧ/, /ʤ/ > /ʦ/, /ʣ/ seems to be attested. Actually, s does not palatalize before c, as it does in OI: cf. Av. pasca, unlike OI paścā́ < *pas(t)čaH or sandhi forms like Av. manasca. Therefore, we must probably consider Av. as /ʦ/. The fact that n also does not palatalize before c points in the same direction. The change to the dental-alveolar is attested for the voiceless affricate also in most modern East Iranian languages in initial position (Skjærvø 1989: 378). 8.3.3. In other Iranian languages, however, /ʧ/, /ʤ/ remain palatal. In Parthian, is the orthographic representation of /ʧ/, as is evident from the palatalization of s in pš ‘then’ (< *paščā) and from its evolution to the palatal fricative ž /ʒ/ in intervocalic position (Parth. wižīn- ‘choose’ < *u̯i-čin-). The stage /ʧ/ is preserved in Balochi (Korn 2005: 85). The same is true for its voiced counterpart. It also applies for Sogdian, cf. pšy ‘after’ (Gershevitch 1954: 56). Among the modern East Iranian languages, the voiceless č remains /ʧ/ initially in Yaghnōbī, Waxī, Yidhga-Munǰī, and Parāčī and intervocalically in Yaghnōbī and Parāčī (Skjærvø 1989: 378).

9. Sibilants In Proto-Iranian there are probably the following sibilant phonemes: *s, *š /ʃ/ and *ž /ʒ/. The voiced sibilant z is an allophone of s in contact with voiced consonants. 9.1. The voiceless sibilant s continues IIr. and IE *s. In most positions this s becomes the aspirate h: *h1 ésmi ‘I am’, IIr. *h1 ásmi, Av. ahmi, OP amiy, Sogd. ʿ ym, ˒ym, OI ásmi, Khot. mä, ime; *h1 és(s)i ‘you are’, IIr. *h1 ási, Av. ahi, OI ási; *h1 sénti ‘they are’, IIr. *h1 sánti, Av. həṇti, OP ha ntiy, Sogd. ˒nt, Khot. īndä, OI sánti; IIr. *mah1 as-(a-) (cf. IE

493

494

VI. Iranian *meh1 n̥s ‘moon, month’), Av. mā̊ŋha-, OP māh-, Sogd. m˒x, Bactr. μαο, MP, NP māh. But this change does not go back to Proto-Iranian: the ending -as of the OP nominative singular of the thematic stems is still reproduced in Elamite (Mayhofer 1989: 7, with further references), and the old Persian name for Elam is (H)uža- showing that the aspiration applied to the loanword *Sūša(n). In any case the aspiration occurred before the development of ć /ʦ/ to s in all Iranian languages except Old Persian, for it does not affect the newly emerged s. 9.2.1. Although s mostly disappears, it remains in certain positions, e.g. in contact with voiceless occlusives and affricates (but in contact with voiced occlusives it mostly becomes z; after voiceless velars it becomes š, as we will see later): IIr. *st hū́nā ‘column’, Av. stū˘nā, OP stūnā, Khot. stunā, MP stūn, OI sthū́ṇā; *sp (h)erh1 - ‘trample’, Av. spar-, MP spurdan, Khot. āspar-, OI sphuráti ‘kicks away’. 9.2.2. Also before n, s is kept in several Iranian languages (Sogdian and several Pamir languages), but in the course of history it has been lost in many others (Pašto, Ossetic, etc.): *snusó- ‘daughter-in-law’, Sogd. šwnšh, Šughni zinạž ̣, but Chwar. ˒nh (< *nušā-), Pašto ṇor (< *nušā- + or), Oss. nostæ, OI snuṣā́; *snei̯ g u̯h- ‘snow’, IIr. *snai̯ g h-, Av. snaēž-, Sogd. šnyš, Šughni žiniǰ, Roš. žinīǰ, Bart. žinīž. 9.2.3. Also before r, s is at least partially preserved. Avestan shows three different developments (Cantera 2001b: 38 n. 14): 1. s is preserved: Av. sraxtim (N 79), OI sraktí- ‘corner’; 2. s disappears: raonąm (g.pl. rauuan- ‘river’) from the root *sreu̯- ‘flow’; 3. *sr > ϑr: Av. ϑraotō.stāk- ‘flowing’ < *srau̯tas-tāk- (cf. OI srótas- ‘stream’), MP rōstāg; ϑrąsa- ‘slithering’ < IE *slonko, cf. Germ. Schlange; ϑraxti- ‘corner’ OI sraktí-. In Old Persian, s regularly disappears in this position: OP rau̯tah- ‘river’, MP, NP rōd, OI srótas-. 9.2.4. After i, u, r, and velar stops, Proto-Ir. *s is not aspirated, but palatalized (9.3.2) 9.3. A remarkable development that splits Proto-Iranian apart from Proto-Indo-Aryan is the double dental law. When two dentals appeared in contiguity in Proto-Indo-European, it appears that a sibilant arose between them, and the resultant phonetic collocation produced four different outcomes in the Indo-European languages: tst (Anatolian), tt (Indic), st (Iranian, Balto-Slavic, Greek), and ss (Italic, Celtic, Germanic). The secondary nature of this s in Iranian is proved by the fact that it does not undergo the palatalization noted in 9.2.4. The contiguous dentals may be either both voiceless (*tt > st: *cit-ti‘insight’, Av. cisti-, OI cittí-) or the first may be voiced and the second voiceless (dt > st: *ped-tí ‘foot-soldier’, OP pasti-, Oss. fest(æg), OI pattí-; *u̯id-tó- ‘found’, Av. vista-, OI vittá-). For the failure of this new s to undergo palatalization after i, u, r, k, cf. cisticited above. A further secondary source for Proto-Iranian *s is *sć /sts/ (Av. sand‘appear’ < *sćand-, OI chand-; so also the formant -sa- of the inchoative from IE *sk̑e-). 9.4.1. The palatal sibilant š /ʃ/ is phonemic only when it is the Iranian result of the IIr. group *ćs (IE *k̑s or tautosyllabic groups *k̑T) > Ir. š, or of the groups of an affricate

33. The phonology of Iranian *ć / *ȷ́ (< IE *k̑ / *g̑) + t. Only in these cases are minimal pairs like *šita- ‘inhabited’ (< IIr. *ćsita-) / *sita- ‘harnessed’, *yasta < *yat-ta- ‘located’ / *yašta ‘sacrificed’ (< *yaȷ́ta-) possible. Well known examples of *ćš- > š are: *kok̑so- ‘armpit’, Av. kaša-, Sogd. ˒p-kš ‘side’, NP kaš; *ćšái̯ tra-, Av. šōiϑra-, OI kṣétra-. The Khotanese outcome of *ćš is problematic. Some forms show kṣ /tṣ/ (the usual writing for the correspondence of Old Iranian *xš) for *ćš. Khot. kṣīra- ‘country, kingdom’, Tumshuq xšera- corresponds to Av. šōiϑra-, OI kṣétra-. On the other hand, if Khot. kaṣa- (Bailey 1979: 56) ‘belt’(?) goes back to *kaćša-, Av. kaša- ‘armpit’, then it would mean that *ćš > ṣ, and not kṣ. If, in fact, *ćš > kṣ, then the evolution *ćš > š did not happen in Proto-Iranian, but independently in the Iranian languages. Nevertheless, it cannot be excluded that kṣīra- is an analogical formation to kṣāra- ‘power, dominion’ (< *xšaϑra-). A further problem is Av. aši- ‘eye’. The Av. form seems to continue a *ćš, but the IE correspondences speak for a cluster *k u̯s (Mayrhofer 1992: 43). Therefore, we would expect *axši-. The groups of affricate *ć, *ȷ́ (from IE *k̑, *g̑) + t evolve in Iranian to št: *h2/3 oćtóH ‘eight’, Av. ašta, MP hašt, Sogd. ˒št, Khot. haṣṭa, OI aṣṭā́; *pik̑tó- ‘cut, adorned’, Av. nipixšta-, OP nipišta-, MP nibišt, OI piṣṭá-; *h2 eg̑tlo- ‘whip’, Av. aštrā-, MP aštar . In view of OP ufrastam it would be possible to postulate that the change ćt/ȷ́t > št does not happen in Proto-Iranian, but later. However, the form ufrastam besides ufraštam is probably due to the influence of the present stem frasa-. In some Iranian languages (like Sogdian and Bactrian among others), the regular outcome of k̑t (and g̑t) is xšt (and also occasionally in Young Avestan): YAv. yaxšti- ‘stalk’, OI yaṣṭi- < *i̯ ek̑ti- (Tremblay 2009). 9.4.2. In all other cases š is an allophone of s under the conditions named by the mnemonic term “RUKI”. This evolution affects the Indo-Iranian and partially also the Balto-Slavic languages. According to it, s > š after i, u (including instances where these are the second element of diphthongs), r, and an IE occlusive velar, labiovelar or palatal (*k, *k u̯, *k̑, *g, *g u̯,*g̑; when the stop is a voiced aspirate, the outcome is ž, 9.5.1): *pistó- ‘crushed’, Av. pištra- ‘flour’ (*pistró-), OI piṣṭá- ‘crushed’, Lat. pistus; *mū˘s‘mouse’, Av. mūš, MP mušk, NP muš; *h2 u̯r̥sén- ‘male’, Av. varəšna-, MP, NP gušn, Sogd. wšn-, Chwar. ˒wšn ‘stallion’, Oss. wyrs, urs ‘id.’; *u̯ōk u̯s ‘word, speech’ (nsg.), Av. vāxš, Lat. uōx; * h2 u̯egs- ‘grow’, Av. vaxš-, MP waxšīdan, Khot. huṣṣ-, Sogd. ˒γwš˒y-. 9.4.3. The effects of this phonetic change also appear in the results of the IE tautosyllabic groups of dental with dorsal (subject to widespread metathesis), formerly known as “thorn-groups”. Consequently, we may assume that in these groups the dental has evolved to *s in Proto-Iranian or even probably already in Proto-Indo-Iranian. When the dorsal is palatal (9.4.1), then the result of the group is *š. With other voiceless dorsals the result is *xš, with š because of the influence of the dorsal: *tketlo-/*kþetlo- ‘dominion’, Av. xšaϑra-, OP xšaça-, MP, NP šahr, Khot. kṣāra-, Parth.-Inscr. xštr. 9.4.4. In all Iranian languages (but not in Indo-Aryan), s also becomes š after a labial (p, b, b h; when the stop is a voiced aspirate, the outcome is ž) (IIr. *drapsa- ‘banner’, Av. drafša-, MP drafš, Sogd. ˒rδ˒yšp), but this development seems to have occurred independently in the individual Iranian languages, since it also affects secondary s < *ć in the languages where *ć > s (*pk̑u- ‘cattle’, Av. fšumaṇt- ‘possessing cattle’, OI

495

496

VI. Iranian kṣumánt-; MP šwb˒n ‘shepherd’ < *fšu-pāna-; Av. fšuiiaṇt- ‘shepherd’, Khot. kṣundaa‘husband’ < *fšui̯ antaka-; but not s < *sć, vid. Av. x vafsa- ‘sleep (pres. stem)’, Sogd. ˒ wβs, Khot. hūs-, Yaghn. ūfs-) and also when s results from groups like *ts (Av. nafšu ‘grandson (loc.pl.)’ < *naptsu). In groups of three consonants, this evolution does not always take place. This applies to the three Av. exceptions: Av. xrafstra-, OAv. fsəratū(Geiger and Kuhn 1895−1904: 1.1., 16; Narten 1986: 186; Tremblay 1999: 543, n. 8), Av. afsman-. It is most likely also the consonantal cluster that is responsible for the preservation of s in MP, NP pestān ‘mamma’, cf. Av. fštāna- ‘female breast’, Sodg. ˒štnh and OI stána- (< *pstána-). 9.4.5. In Indo-Iranian (and Indo-European), z is an allophone of s (< IE *s) in contact with a voiced consonant (*mn̥s-d háH- ‘wisdom’, Av. mazdā-, OI medhā́-; *mii̯ as-d hHa‘sacrifical food’, Av. miiazda-, MP mēzd; in many works on Iranian languages z is also used for Iranian *ȷ́, but this can lead to errors). Furthermore, z is an allophone of s when arising in voiced dental groups D+D (h) (mostly resulting from the working of Bartholomae’s law in groups d h+t > dd h, 6.1): OAv. vərəzda- ‘grown’ < *u̯r̥d zd ha- < *u̯r̥d hzto-. Moreover, as already mentioned, in Iranian the sonorization of a consonant after a voiced aspirate affects not only occlusives, but also the sibilant (unlike in Old Indo-Aryan). This should be a further source for z, but as far as I can see, wherever it is attested, the voiced aspirates are always dorsal or labial, and the result is consequently not z, but ž (9.5.2.1, 9.5.2.2). 9.5.1. As in the case of š, I ascribe phonemic character to ž only in consequence of the Proto-Iranian development ȷ́ hs > ȷ́z > ž, and in the group *ȷ́ ht > žd, according to Bartholomae’s law. In all other positions, it is an allophone of š in contact with voiced consonants. The development ȷ́z > ž is parallel to *ćs > š: OAv. °uuažat̰ ‘will convey’ < *u̯eg̑ hs-e-t (3.p.sg.subj.s-aorist). A certain example of the evolution *ȷ́ ht > žd is OAv. gərəždā ‘lamented’. As far as I know, we do not have certain examples in Iranian of the tautosyllabic group g̑ (h)d (h) becoming *ȷ́z. The expected result is ž, parallel to *k̑t (OI kṣ, Ir. š). Ir. zam- (n.sg. *zām-s, Av. zå) is not lautgesetzlich from *ȷ́z (< *g̑ hd h- < * d hg̑ h), but is analogical to the weak cases, which have zǝm-, where the initial consonant cluster has simplified (ǝ is purely anaptyctic, and instr.sg. zǝmā is monosyllabic). The expected form in the strong cases is *žam- (cf. OI kṣam-). 9.5.2.1. As an allophone of š, ž appears clearly in the group resulting from tautosyllabic G hD, provided G h is not palatal: *d hg u̯her-, *g u̯hd her- ‘flow’, Av. γžar-, Chwar. m/βžry‘to flood’, Oss. I. æǧzælyn; D. æǧzælun ‘to pour’, OI kṣar-. 9.5.2.2. Also the group *b hš (< IE *b hs) evolves to *bž as a result of Bartholomae’s law: Av. diβža- ‘deceive’ < Ir. *dib hša- < IIr. *dib hsa- < IE *d hib hso-, OI dípsa-; Av. vaβža- ‘wasp’ < *u̯ob hso-. 9.5.2.3. Furthermore, an allophone ž of š appears in voiced contexts (but not before m, cf. Av. dušmata- beside dužuxta- or dušmanah-, but duždaēnā-). One of the surest positions is before voiced occlusives, as in the variants duž-, niž- of the corresponding prefixes: Av. nižbərəti- ‘bears forth’, duždā- ‘of bad insight’ (Waṇ. ləṛ, leṛə, lar- ‘to ache’,

33. The phonology of Iranian Skjærvø 1989b: 405), duždōiϑra- ‘of evil gaze’, dužgaṇti- ‘ill-smelling’, dužuuacah‘of bad utterance’, MP dwjbwrd, dwjdyl, dwjgn, dwždynyy, dužrw˒n, nyjd˒d. Analogical reintroductions of duš- are of course always possible. Other restitutions are responsible for forms like Av. ašbərət- ‘that brings much’, aš.dānu- ‘having much corn’, etc. 9.5.2.4. At a morpheme boundary š becomes ž also in intervocalic position: Av. dužaŋ vha- ‘hell’, dužani- ‘ill-smelling’, dužazōbā- ‘infamous’, dužāϑra- ‘unhappy’, dužāpiia- ‘difficult of access’, dužita- ‘id.’, yūžəm ‘you (pl.)’ < *yūš-am, OP nižāyam ‘I went away’ (< *nis-āi̯ am), Parth. dwj˒rws, etc., but not in other positions: Av. ušah- ‘dawn’, Sogd. ˒wš˒˒y kyr˒n ‘East’, Waxi yišīγ, Balochi pōšī ‘the day after tomorrow’ < * upau̯šah-.

10. Accent In Proto-Iranian, the position of the accent is free and it consists of pitch prominence, as in Indo-Iranian. Although in several Iranian languages the accent developed into a conditioned dynamic accent following quantitative rules similar to that of Classical Latin (Back 1978: 30; Huyse 2003: 47 ff.), and this kind of accentuation could also have replaced a former generalized stress on the initial syllable (Thordarson 1990; Huyse 2003: 55 ff.), we have evidence that Proto-Iranian preserved the old free dynamic accent we know from Old Indo-Aryan. This evidence is of three kinds: a) Proto-Iranian phonetic developments depending on the position of the accent; b) free dynamic accent in Avestan (and probably Old Persian); c) survival of the old accentuation in some modern Iranian languages. 10.1. Several phonetic developments are related to the accent and therefore allow us to infer its original position. Some of these probably belong to the Proto-Iranian period and thus allow us to determine the position of the accent at that stage. The treatment of the group R̥HC in a labial context differs for stressed and unstressed R̥ (s. 5.3.6.2). Hence, we know that the words containing this group quite often share the same stress in IndoAryan and Proto-Iranian: *pḷh1 nó- ‘full’, Av. pərəna-, Phl. purr, OI pūrṇá-; *(u̯)r̥Hd hu̯ó‘upwards’ (in Indo-Iranian with dissimilation of the first u̯), Av. ərəδβa-, Phl. ul, OI ūrdhvá-; *h2 r̥h3 u̯érah2 - ‘plant’, Av. uruuarā-, Phl. ˒wlwl, MMP ˒wrwr, OI urvárā(Cantera 2001b: 39 ff.); *h2 u̯ĺ̥ h2 neh2 - ‘wool’, Av. varənā-, OI ū́rṇā-. 10.2. Similarly, we can infer the position of the accent in Avestan, although it is not noted orthographically, from some phonetic developments depending on it (Huyse 2003: 50). The clearest consequence of this for Avestan phonology is the “voicing opposition of r̥” depending on the position of the accent (De Vaan 2003). In post-tonic position, r becomes voiceless in the groups *rk, *rt, *rp; this formulation assumes a stage in which *r̥ ́ had become *ə́r, so that here, too, as well as in the case of original V́ r, the r can be termed “post-tonic”. The result is Av. hrk, š ̣, hrp, respectively. The accent position we can deduce through this method mostly agrees with its Vedic counterpart; sometimes, however, it is ambiguous, and rarely it is different (De Vaan 2003). The same accent is

497

498

VI. Iranian shown in Av. maš ̣iia-, OI mártya- ‘man’; Av. aməš ̣a-, OI amr̥ ́ ta- ‘immortal’; Av. amərətatāt- ‘immortality’, cf. OI sarvátāt- ‘wholeness’; Av. pəš ̣anā-, OI pr̥ ́ tanā- ‘battle’; Av. vəhrka-, OI vr̥ ́ ka- ‘wolf’; Av. bāš ̣ar- ‘rider’, OI bhártar- ‘husband’; and in other forms the same accent can be assumed according to the morphological formation. Since the “voicing opposition of r̥” must be dated to the early Young Avestan period, we can be sure that at the beginning of this period the Avestan language still had the IndoIranian free dynamic stress. 10.3. In some modern Iranian languages (especially Pašto, Waxī, and Yidgha-Munǰī), we find among very numerous differences some coincidences with Vedic in the position of the accent (Mayrhofer 1989: 15 with further references). Significant are coincidences in Pašto like: áspa ‘mare’ (Ved. áśvā); špa ‘night’ (Ved. kṣapā́-); zā́ma ‘jaw’ (Ved. jámbha-); luná ‘corn, ulcer’ (Ved. dhānā́ḥ); tóra ‘black’ (Ved. támisrā).

11. Syllable structure Regarding syllabic structure we can distinguish three different kinds of sounds, according to their capacity to form syllabic nuclei: 1. sounds that always comprise syllabic nuclei (nuclear sounds); 2. sounds that can occur as syllabic nuclei, but may also appear in non-nuclear position (nucleus-capable sounds); 3. sounds that can never constitute syllabic nuclei, but only syllabic margins (marginal sounds). In Iranian, only the vowels a, ā belong to the nuclear sounds. The most important difficulties in Iranian syllabification concern the conditions under which a nucleus-capable sound becomes a nucleus. In principle, and as far as we can see, the same rules apply for Proto-Iranian as for Proto-Indo-Iranian and Indo-European. These entail first a general rule that a nucleus-capable sound becomes a nucleus between two non-syllabic sounds (which could be sounds with the characteristic [−syllabic] or [±syllabic]) (Schindler 1977). A more particular rule applies when in a syllable there is no nuclear sound, but two (or more) nucleus-capable sounds. Under these circumstances the first nucleus-capable sound starting from the right becomes the nucleus [+syllabic] (Schindler 1977: 56). This tendency to produce a reduced coda seems to be even stronger in Iranian than in Indo-Aryan (Kobayashi 2004: 33). Although the general rule stated above also applies to the laryngeals, this is not true for the second, more particular one. If there are other nucleus-capable sounds in the syllable, then they become the nucleus: CRHC > CR̥H̯C (OI śū́ra- ‘hero’, Av. sūra- < *ćuh̯1 ra-), but CHRC > CH̯R̥C (Av. hita‘bound’, OI sitá- < *sh̯2 ita-). In Indo-Iranian and Indo-European, when in the last syllable of a word there was a non-laryngeal nucleus-capable sound at the onset of the syllable, then it was realized as syllabic if following a heavy syllable. This corresponds to Schindler’s formulation of Sievers-Lindeman’s law (Schindler 1977). In the Old Iranian languages, this rule is no longer active. In Old Persian, i̯ , u̯ regularly became ii̯ , uu̯ after a consonant, independently of the context (Hoffmann 1976; Hock 1997): OP aniya- ‘other’, OI anyá; haruva- ‘whole’, OI sarvá-. Nevertheless, we find in Old Persian traces of an older stage in which this development was not generalized. The changes *či̯ > šy-,*ti̯ > *ϑi̯ > šy, and *tu̯ > ϑu̯ seem to require direct contiguity of the consonant and the non-

33. The phonology of Iranian

499

syllabic glide. However, subsequently even these groups participated in the evolution of i̯ , u̯ into ii̯ , uu̯. This may be seen in the following forms: OP ašiyavam ‘I went’ < *ači̯ au̯am, OP °mạršiyu- ‘death’ < *mr̥ϑi̯ u-, and OP ϑuvām ‘you (acc.)’, Av. ϑβąm. Therefore, it is obvious that in Proto-Old-Persian both *ii̯ , uu̯ and i̯ , u̯ existed in postconsonantal position. We unfortunately do not know anything about their original distribution. In Avestan, from the earliest period Sievers-Lindeman’s law is no longer alive, for in several suffixes with nucleus-capable sounds, these remain non-syllabic even after a heavy syllable, e.g. Y 50.2 dāhuuā (disyllabic) (Schindler 1977; Monna 1978: 97 ff.; Pirart 1986). Schindler points out that two forms could attest to the working of this law in proto-Avestan: hauguua- (trisyllabic, Y 46.16,17 and 51.17,18, but see the critique by Pirart 1986: 187 f.) and perhaps mərəṇgduiie (Y 53.6 *mr̥ng-duu̯ai̯ ). Therefore in ProtoIranian, Sievers-Lindeman’s law might have been productive, but it ceased to work after the beginning of the attested history of the Iranian languages.

12. Abbreviations Av.

Bactr. Bal. Bart. Chwar. D. Germ. Gr. I. IE IIr. Ir. Khot. Kurd. Lat. Lith. MMP MP MSogd.

Avestan (used when the form in question does not show any special features of either OAv. or YAv. except for the length of the final vowel) Bactrian Balōčĩ Bartangī Chwarezmian Digor German Greek Iron Indo-European Indo-Iranian Iranian Khotanese Kurdish Latin Lithuanian Manichean Middle Persian Middle Persian Manichean Sogdian

NP OAv. OE OI OP Oss. Parth. Phl. PIr. PN PV Roš. RV Sogd. SW Toch. Ved. Waṇ. WIr. Y Yaghn. YAv. Yt

New Persian Old Avestan Old English Old Indic (Sanskrit/ Vedic) Old Persian Ossetic Parthian Pahlavi Proto-Iranian Personal name Pahlavi Videvdad Rošanī Rigveda Sogdian Southwest Tocharian Vedic Waṇeci (closely related to Pašto) Western Iranian Yasna Yaghnōbī Young Avestan Yašt

500

VI. Iranian

13. References Back, Michael 1978 Die sassanidischen Staatsinschriften: Studien zur Orthographie und Phonologie des Mittelpersischen der Inschriften zusammen mit einem etymologischen Index des mittelpersischen Wortgutes und einem Textcorpus der behandelten Inschriften. Leiden: Brill. Bailey, Harold Walter 1979 A Dictionary of Khotan Saka. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bartholomae, Christian 1895 Awestasprache und Altpersisch. In: Geiger and Kuhn (eds.), Erster Band, erste Abteilung, 152−246. Bartholomae, Christian 1897 Die neunte Präsensklasse der Inder. Indogermanische Forschungen 7: 50−81. Beekes, Robert S. P. 1981 The neuter plural and the vocalization of the laryngeals in Avestan. Indo-Iranian Journal 23: 275−287. Buddruss, Georg 1977 Nochmals zur Stellung der Nuristan-Sprachen des afghanischen Hindukusch. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 36: 19−38. Cantera, Alberto 2001a Die Behandlung der idg. Lautfolge (C)ṚHC- im Iranischen. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 61: 7−27. Cantera, Alberto 2001b Die indogermanischen Vorformen von av. #uruu- und verwandte Probleme. Indogermanische Forschungen 106: 33−60. Cantera, Alberto 2001−2002 Consideraciones sobre la formación del nominativo-acusativo plural de los nombres neutros en indoeuropeo. Veleia 18−19: 237−255. Cantera, Alberto 2002 Laryngeal accent shift y la cronología de la desaparición de las laringales en indoiranio. In: Alberto Bernabé, Margarita Cantarero, José Carlos de Torres, and José Antonio Berenguer (eds.), Presente y futuro de la lingüística en España. La Sociedad Española de Lingüística 30 años después. Madrid: SEL, 16−26. Cantera, Alberto 2007 The accusative of the i- and u-stems with presuffixal full or large grade in Avestan. In: Maria Macuch, Mauro Maggi, and Werner Sundermann (eds.), Iranian Languages and Texts from Iran and Turan. Ronald E. Emmerick Memorial Volume. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 9−20. Cardona, George and Dhanesh Jain (eds.) 2003 The Indo-Aryan languages. London: Routledge. De Vaan, Michiel 2003 The Avestan vowels. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Emmerick, Ronald E. 1989 Khotanese and Tumshuqese. In: Schmitt (ed.), 204−229. Geiger, Wilhelm and Ernst Kuhn (eds.) 1895−1904 Grundriß der Iranischen Philologie. Strassburg: Trübner. Gershevitch, Ilya 1954 A Grammar of manichean Sogdian. Oxford: Blackwell. Gippert, Jost 1997 Laryngeals and Vedic metre. In: Alexander Lubotsky (ed.), Sound law and analogy. Papers in honor of Robert S. P. Beekes on the occasion of his 60 th birthday. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 63−79.

33. The phonology of Iranian Henning, William B. 1958 Mitteliranisch. In: Spuler (ed.), 20−130. Hock, Hans Henrich 1997 Nexus and ‘extraclausality’ in Vedic, or ‘sa-figé’ all over again: A historical (re)examination. In: Hans H. Hock (ed.), Historical, Indo-European, and lexicographical studies: A festschrift for Ladislav Zgusta on the occasion of his 70 th birthday. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 49−78. Hoffmann, Karl 1958 Altiranisch. In: Spuler (ed.), 1−19. Hoffmann, Karl 1976 Zur altpersischen Schrift. In: Johanna Narten (ed.), Aufsätze zur Indoiranistik, Vol 2. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 620−645. Hübschmann, Hermann 1895 Persische Studien. Strassburg: Trübner. Huyse, Philip 2003 Le y final dans les inscriptions moyen-perses et la ‘loi rythmique’ proto-moyen-perse. Paris: Peeters. Insler, Stanley 1971 Some problems of Indo-European ə in Avestan. Language 47: 573−585. Jamison, Stephanie W. 1988 The Quantity of the Outcome of Vocalized Laryngeals in Indic. In: Alfred Bammesberger (ed.), Die Laryngaltheorie und die Rekonstruktion des indogermanischen Laut- und Formensystems. Heidelberg: Winter, 213−226. Katz, Hartmut 2003 Studien zu den älteren indoiranischen Lehnwörtern in den uralischen Sprachen. Posthumously edited by Paul Widmer, Anna Widmer, and Gerson Klumpp. Heidelberg: Winter. Klingenschmitt, Gert 1975 Altindisch śáśvat. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 33: 67−78. Klingenschmitt, Gert 2000 Mittelpersisch. In: Bernhard Forssman and Robert Plath (eds.), Indoarisch, Iranisch und die Indogermanistik. Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 2. bis 5. Oktober 1997, Erlangen. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 191−229. Kobayashi, Masato 2004 Historical phonology of old Indo-Aryan consonants. Tokyo: Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies. Korn, Agnes 2005 Towards a Historical Grammar of Balochi: Studies in Balochi Historical Phonology and Vocabulary. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Kuiper, Franciscus Bernardus Jacobus 1978 Old East Iranian *nāmani. Indo-Iranian Journal 20: 83−94. Kuryłowicz, Jerzy 1935 Études indoeuropéennes. Krakow: Gebethnera i Wolffa. Lubotsky, Alexander 1990 La loi de Brugmann et *H3e-. In: Jean Kellens (ed.), La reconstruction des laryngales. Liège: Bibliothèque de la Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres de l’Université de Liège, 129−136. Lubotsky, Alexander 1992 The Indo-Iranian laryngeal accent shift and its relative chronology. In: Robert Beekes, Alexander Lubotsky, and Jos Weitenberg (eds.), Rekonstruktion und relative Chronologie. Akten der VIII. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft Leiden, 31. August− 4. September 1987. Innsbruck, Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität, 261−269.

501

502

VI. Iranian Mayrhofer, Manfred 1983 Lassen sich Vorstufen des Uriranischen nachweisen? Anzeiger der österrischischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 120: 249−255. Mayrhofer, Manfred 1989 Vorgeschichte der iranischen Sprachen; Uriranisch. In: Schmitt (ed.), 4−24. Mayrhofer, Manfred 1992−1996 Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen. Vol. 1. 1992. Vol. 2. 1996. Heidelberg: Winter. Mayrhofer, Manfred 2005 Die Fortsetzung der indogermanischen Laryngale im Indo-Iranischen. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Miller, Wsewolod 1903 Die Sprache der Osseten. In: Geiger and Kuhn (eds.), Appendix to Vol. I, 152−246. Monna, Maria Cornelia 1978 The Gathas of Zarathustra. A reconstruction of the text. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Narten, Johanna 1986 Der Yasna Haptaŋhāiti. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Pirart, Éric 1986 Le traitement des laryngales intervocaliques en vieil-avestique métrique. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 47: 159−191. Schindler, Jochem 1973 Bemerkungen zur Herkunft der idg. Diphthongstämme und zu Eigentumlichkeiten ihrer Kasusformen. Die Sprache 19: 148−157. Schindler, Jochem 1977 Notizen zum Sieversschen Gesetz. Die Sprache 33: 56−65. Schmidt, Johannes 1879 Zwei arische a-Laute und die Palatalen. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 25: 1−179. Schmitt, Rüdiger (ed.) 1989 Compendium linguarum iranicarum. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Sims-Williams, Nicholas 1989 Sogdian. In: Schmitt (ed.), 173−192. Sims-Williams, Nicholas 1989a Modern East Iranian languages. In: Schmitt (ed.), 370−383. Skjærvø, Prods Oktor 1989b Pashto. In: Schmitt (ed.), 384−410. Skjærvø, Prods Oktor 2009 Old Iranian. In: Gernot Windfuhr (ed.), The Iranian Languages. London: Routledge, 43−195. Spuler, Bertold (ed.) 1958 Handbuch der Orientalistik I, 4. Iranistik. 1. Linguistik. Leiden: Brill. Thordarson, Fridrik 1989 Ossetic. In: Schmitt (ed.), 456−479. Thordarson, Fridrik 1990 Old Ossetic accentuation. In: Dina Amin, Manouchehr Kasheff, and Alireza Shapour Shahbazi (eds.), Iranica Varia. Papers in Honor of Prof. E. Yarshater. Leiden: Brill, 256−266. Tichy, Eva 1985 Avestisch pitar-/ptar-. Zur Vertretung interkonsonantischer Laryngale im Indoiranischen. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 45: 229−244.

34. The morphology of Iranian

503

Tremblay, Xavier 1999 Ist jungawestisch nāismi, nāist Präsens oder sigmatischer Aorist? In: Heiner Eichner and Hans Christian Luschützky (eds.), Compositiones indogermanicae in memoriam Jochem Schindler. Prague: Enigma Corporation, 537−543. Tremblay, Xavier 2005 Bildeten die iranischen Sprachen ursprünglich eine genetische Familie oder einen Sprachbund innerhalb des indo-iranischen Zweiges? Beiträge zur vergleichenden Grammatik der iranischen Sprachen V. In: Gerhard Meiser and Olav Hackstein (eds.), Sprachkontakt und Sprachwandel. Akten der XI. Fachtagung der indogermanischen Gesellschaft 17.−23. September 2000, Halle an der Saale. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 673−688. Tremblay, Xavier 2009 Les prépalatales indo-européennes devant dentale en iranien. Essais de grammaire comparée des langues iraniennes XIV. In: Éric Pirart and Xavier Tremblay (eds.), Zarathushtra entre l’Inde et l’Iran. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 327−355.

Alberto Cantera, Berlin (Germany)

34. The morphology of Iranian 1. Introduction 2. Nominal morphology (including nouns, adjectives, adverbs, number words, and pronouns)

3. 4. 5. 6.

Compounds Verb morphology Abbreviations References

1. Introduction 1.1. Reconstructing Old Iranian morphology Any description of the morphology of Avestan is hampered by the incomplete inventory of forms and by the changes to the text as transmitted over millennia by the oral transmitters and then by the manuscript scribes. The manuscript basis for many texts is also very fragile (see Documentation). Nevertheless, by applying the method outlined by Hoffmann (1970: 187−188 = I: 274−275), it is possible to retrieve with a fair degree of certainty the forms of the texts as first “crystalized”, i.e. at the point from which the transmitted text was no longer subject to change (see Skjærvø 2005−2006: 14−20). It has also been shown that the orthography of Avestan reflects a consistent phonological system (Morgenstierne 1942), so that it is possible to establish a cohesive morphology and to reconstruct proto-forms from which the forms in the manuscripts can be derived by consistent phonological rules, e.g. the rules for palatalization and labialization of vowels and consonants. We still need a description of scribal habits to rule out the possibility that what may appear as a surprising archaism or a lectio difficilior in Geldner’s apparatus is, in fact, a https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261288-034

504

VI. Iranian quirk of a scribe. Thus, it is prudent to bear in mind the words of Karl Hoffmann, who famously said of the use of the lectio difficilior in Avestan studies: “… denn damit könnte jedem sinnlosen Schreibfehler der Rang einer lectio difficilior zugesprochen werden. Auch die lectio difficilior muss im Rahmen der philologischen und linguistischen Möglichkeiten liegen.” [… for in that manner the status of lectio difficilior could be accorded to every nonsensical scribal error. Even the lectio difficilior (sc. to be accepted as a correct reading) must fall within the framework of philological and linguistic possibilities.] (Hoffmann 1969a: 28 [= I: 269]). Geldner’s edition is imperfect in many ways (e.g. Hoffmann 1970; Cantera 2014, especially chapters 1−2; Skjærvø 2005−2006: 4− 22), and many errors were corrected by Bartholomae (1904, 1906, 1979), but before using forms from Geldner for linguistic arguments, it is still indispensable to check all available manuscripts, many of which can be seen at the Avestan Digital Archive (ADA: http://ada.usal.es/).

1.2. Spelling conventions In Old Avestan all final vowels are long, but in Young Avestan they are short, except in monosyllables. In this chapter Av. -ā˘, -ī˘, -ū˘ should be understood as referring to OAv. -ā, -ī, -ū, YAv. -a, -i, -u. OAv. ˘ī and ū˘ before -m are regularly written long in the manuscripts but, apparently, short or long according to their etymological values, before -š (-ī˘š, -ū˘š). In YAv., however, the original length distinctions are no longer observed and, in the manuscripts, new patterns have been created (see de Vaan 2003: 205−333). In this treatment, length in OAv. examples has been left more or less as in the mss., but in YAv. and OPers. examples, ˘ī and ū˘ are used to emphasize the non-etymological value of the manuscript spellings. On the morphophonology of Av. and OPers., see Hoffmann and Forssman (1996: 51−113) and Skjærvø (2007b: 860−865). For the vowels, see de Vaan (2003) and Cantera (2014: 320−321), who, among other things, shows that the length alternation in Geldner’s ae versus aō is not standard, the oldest Iranian mss. having aē and aō.

1.3. Changes in the orally transmitted Avestan text Several features of the extant text may be attributed to the way it was orally transmitted (Skjærvø 2003−2004, 2005−2006). Changes that may be ascribed to the teaching and learning process include the following: − OAv. “repetition of preverbs in tmesis” proved by the meter; cf. Y. 48.7 nī aēš əmō nī.diiātąm pa itī rəməm pa itī.siiōdūm ‘let wrath be tied down, let obstruction be cut back!’, which must be read as nī aēš əmō diiātąm pa itī rəməm siiōdūm (5 + 7 syllables). − Introduction of final -ō in the first member of compounds: daēuuō.dāta- ‘established by demons’, baγō.baxta- ‘assigned by the assigner’, as well as at (real/assumed) morphological junctures: OAv. drəguuō.d əbīš < *drugu̯adbiš ‘with the wicked’, gūšō.dūm < *gušadu̯am ‘listen!’; comparatives and superlatives in -ō.tara- and -ō.tama-; nouns in -tāt-: OAv. karapō.tāt- ‘the title of karpan’.

34. The morphology of Iranian − False divisions: OAv. gə̄uš.āiš < gaoša- ‘ear’, YAv. uziiō.rəṇtəm < uziiaraṇt- ‘coming up’, vī˘manō.hiia- from vī˘manahiia- ‘*agnosticism’; parō.katarštəma- from *parā˘ka.tarštəma- ‘most feared by the other side(?)’. − Changes to be ascribed to the acoustic nature of the recital include the analysis of stops, affricates, and m as geminates: OAv. intervocalic t > t̰ .t: gat̰ .tōi, gat̰ .tē ‘to go’, åŋ́hāt̰ .təm ‘would be; − YAv. č > t̰ .c: frātat̰ .caiiat̰ < *frātacaiia- ‘flow forth’; − OAv. m > m.m: hə̄m əmiiāsa itē, hə̄m.miiāsa itē for *hə̄m-iiā˘sa itē ‘is being steered’; aēšəm.mahiiā for aēš əmahiiā ‘of Wrath’. − Restoration of non-sandhi forms in sandhi: -š.h- for -š- before a vowel, e.g. a iβiš.huta‘filtered, pressed’, ārma itiš.hāg ət̰ ‘following (Spəṇtā) Ārmaiti’, pasuš.ha uruua- ‘cattle-guardian’; − -š- for -ž- before a voiced consonant, e.g. xšuuaš.gāiia- for *xšuuažgāiia- ‘distance of six steps’. − Various analogies in YAv.: nom.-acc. pl. fem. forms of neut. a-stems, e.g. nom.-acc. sg. nmānəm, pl. nmānå; − nom.-acc. pl. fem. forms of adjectives or instr. pl. m.n. forms of determiners modifying nom.-acc. pl. of neut. n-stems: pauruuå dātå dāmąn aš ̣aonī˘š ‘the first-established Orderly creations’, karšuuąn yāiš hapta ‘the seven continents’. Changes due to false memorization and analogies in the oral transmission include many hapax forms: maδuš parallel with gen. forms in V. 14.17 gə̄uš vā x varəθahe vā huraiiå vā maδuš vā ‘of food of (from) cattle or of liquor or of mead’; no other gen. of maδuis found, and the transmitter may have been influenced by the nom.-acc. maδu, which must have been well known to him, e.g. V. 5.53 etc. x varəṇti gąmca yaomca maδuca ‘they consume meat, barley, and mead’. Changes due to false memorization or, perhaps, abbreviations in the text (indicated here as “°”; these are quite common in the mss. but not yet studied) include confusion of gender: aētat̰ druxš/nasu ‘this demon of deception/death’ for aēša druxš/nasuš or aētąm drujim/nasāum (V. 9.45, etc.; for ms. aēt° dr°/nas° or similar?); − “wrong” endings, e.g., zraiiā vouru.kaš ̣aiia ‘the Vourukasha sea’ (Y. 65.4 = Yt. 5.4 = Yt. 8.31; for ms. zr° v° or similar?) beside correct zraiiaŋhō vouru.kaš ̣ahe (Yt. 5.42) (cf. also Beekes 1999: 63). Scribal errors abound, many of which are obvious, but some of which have been regarded as genuine linguistic forms, e.g. ziiānīm, acc. sg. of ziiāni- ‘harm’, on the basis of the manuscript reading ziiåiienīm, which, however, is an error for *ziienīm (Hoffmann 1969b = II: 513−515); but see Cantera (2014: 50, 70, 317 n. 337, 326).

1.4. Old Persian The main obstacle to understanding the morphology of OPers. lies in its simplified orthography (deficiency of the sign inventory and non-marking of several consonants) and the fact that the language in the texts is situated at the end of the OPers. period and the beginning of the post-OPers. period (Schmitt 1999; Skjærvø 1999a: 158−160). OPers. final -ā is from proto-Ir. *-a, *-ā, or *-āC, while final -a is from proto-Ir. *-aC. Short or long ˘ī and ū˘ are not distinguished: non-final ˘ī is written or ; ū˘ is written or ; in final position, they are written . After h, i

505

506

VI. Iranian (and ī?) is not usually written in Darius’s inscriptions but is frequently represented in those of Xerxes. In OPers., h is often missing where expected by etymology, e.g.: *hu-, OPers. ; *ahmi, OPers. ahmiy and ; *a-hi- = OPers. , etc. Original final consonants are missing, notably PIr. -h, -t, and -n. In transcriptions, these letters are often added as superscripts, e.g., abara h, abara t, abara n ‘you, he, they carried’, although they probably had no phonetic value. The case of - hm- differs, as may have denoted both voiced and preaspirated -m-, cf. Av. and (ahmi, am ˛ i). The OPers. ending 3 rd sg. -š is most easily explained by a proportion with endingless 2 nd and 3 rd persons: 2 nd sg. abara: 3 rd sg. abara = 2 nd sg. āiš: 3 rd sg. X; X = āiš ‘he came’ (Allegri-Panaino 1995); OPers. sg. n. aniyašciy < *ani̯ at-cit can be explained similarly: sg. m. aniya: sg. m. aniyaš-ciy = sg. n. aniya: sg. n. X; X = aniyašciy; thus also sg. n. avašciy and cišciy (see 2.4.2 and 2.4.4).

1.5. Inflectional categories The nominal and verbal morphological categories and the morphophonological ablaut system show close affinity with those of OIA, with some greater archaisms and innovations on both sides. Both nominal declension and verbal conjugation are characterized by quantitative ablaut (lengthened, full, and zero-grade forms) in the athematic classes, as well as in adverbs and compounds, affecting the root, and/or the suffix formant, and/ or the ending. Other synchronic alternations in proto-Indo-Iranian (PIIr.) and proto-Iranian (PIr.) include the ru(p)ki phenomenon, whereby an s is retracted to š after the five segments designated in the rule, assimilation and, in Avestan, palatalization and labialization. In the following, asterisked forms are PIr. unless otherwise indicated. Translations usually give the basic meaning of a word.

2. Nominal morphology (including nouns, adjectives, adverbs, number words, and pronouns) PIr. maintained fairly intact the triple gender (m., f., n.) and number (sg., du., pl.) systems together with eight cases inherited from PIIr.; vocalic and consonantal declensions in nouns and adjectives; and the distinction between athematic and thematic (a-)stems. The distribution of genders in nouns is also that of PIIr., with some individual Iranian features, e.g., vak-/vac- is fem. in OIA (Latin vōx f.) but masc. in Av. Vowel stems include m./n. a-stems, f. ā- and ī-stems, m./f./n. i- and u-stems, mono/ polysyllabic m. ai- and m./f. au-stems. Consonant stems end in any consonant (including laryngeal H) except fricatives, affricates, and glides. There are several kinds of suppletive stem-systems: 1. Alternating vowel and consonant stems: Av. zā-/zam- ‘earth’, ziiā-/ziiam- ‘winter’; OAv. sauua- ‘life-giving strength’, (sg. loc.; pl. nom.-acc., instr.), sauuah- (sg. nom., instr., gen.; pl. gen.) ušā- ‘dawn’ (YAv. sg. acc., abl.), ušah- (Av. sg. nom., YAv. sg.

34. The morphology of Iranian acc., pl. loc.); YAv. kaniiā- ‘young woman’ (YAv. sg. nom., acc.), ka inīn- (YAv. sg. acc., gen., pl. nom.), ka inī- (sg. gen., pl. acc. dat.-abl.). 2. Alternating consonant stems: asan-/asman- ‘stone, sky’ (cf. Schmitt 2014: 139−140); *āh-/°āhan ‘mouth’, Av. åŋh-,°åŋhan-; *nāh-/nāhan- ‘nose’, OPers. nāh-, Av. nåŋhan-; napah-/napat-/naptar- ‘grandson’ (2.2.4.12); °carat- ‘walking’: nom.-acc. pl. °carąn; raϑaēštā-/raϑaēštar- ‘charioteer’; xšapan- ‘night’ (OPers. xšap-) has xšapar- in compounds (°xšaparəm ‘for a period of x nights’, rhyming with °aiiarəm). 3. YAv. sāstar- ‘(false) teacher’ has the simplified weak stem sāθr- (YAv. gen. sg./pl.).

2.1. Case endings: general observations The eight cases of PIr. were nominative, vocative, accusative, genitive, dative, ablative, instrumental, and locative, with the following case syncretisms: − sg.: OAv. gen. = abl. except in a-stems (YAv. distinct); − du.: dat. = abl. = instr.; YAv. gen. = loc. (OAv. distinct); − pl.: dat. = abl.; − fem.: nom. = acc.; − sg., du., pl. n.: nom. = acc. In OAv. only masc. a-stems have eight distinct endings in the singular. OPers. has six cases, with gen. = dat. Endings with PIIR. *-s, PIr. *-h preserve the -s in sandhi (-s °) before c and t (OPers. -š-c °). The gen. pl. ending -ąm is disyllabic in OAv. Certain endings show ablaut, notably the gen. sg. ending, which, in i-, u-, and nstems, has zero-grade *-h/š or full-grade *-ah corresponding to full and zero grade of the stem formant. In YAv., the b in *-biš, *-bi̯ ā˘, *-bi̯ ah often become β and u̯ (-uu-) after a vowel (Skjærvø 2007a: 322−323; de Vaan 2005: 669−672). An additional -ā˘ is frequently found in the Av. dat., abl., loc. sg. and Av., OPers. loc. pl.

2.2. Nouns and adjectives 2.2.1. a-stems These include several types of derived forms, among them: − Adjectives from nouns, often accompanied by lengthened (or full) grade of the first syllable of the noun and/or the stem formant: Av. ma iniiauua- ‘belonging to the other world’ < ma iniiu- ‘spirit’; narauua- ‘son/descendant of Naru’; āpa- ‘waterlogged’ < ā˘p- ‘water’; haoząθβa- ‘the fact of being from a good lineage’ < huzaṇtu- ‘of good lineage’; upa iri-z (ə)ma- ‘living upon the earth’ < zam- ‘earth’; hazaŋrō.zima- ‘period of a thousand years’ < ziiam- ‘winter’; raθβiia- ‘according to the ratu’; hu-paθmaniia‘the fact of having good flights’ < *paθman- ‘flight’; − OPers. huvāipašiya- ‘own’ < h uvaipašiya- ‘self’; mārgava- ‘Margianian’ < margu- ‘Margiana’; from noun with long stem vowel: pārsa ‘Persian’ < pārsa ‘Persia’. − Nouns and adjectives in -na-, -ana- from verbs (various functions), e.g. Av. √i̯ az ‘sacrifice’: yasna- ‘sacrifice’, √fras ‘ask’: YAv. frašna- ‘question’, √x vap- ‘sleep’:

507

508

VI. Iranian

− −

−

−

x vafna- ‘sleep’, √stā ‘stand’: YAv. °stāna-, OPers. stāna- ‘place (for ..)’; − ham + √gam/jam ‘come together’: YAv. haṇjamana- ‘gathering’, √u̯ah ‘wear’ vaŋhana‘dress’, √pak/pac ‘cook’ pacina- ‘cooked meal’; − OPers. ā + √u̯ah ‘inhabit’: āvahana- ‘settlement’; ham + √ar ‘move’: hamarana- ‘battle’; √draug/j ‘lie’: draujana‘lier’. Patronymics in -ā˘na-, e.g. jāmāspa-: YAv. jāmāspana-; − with full grade of the stem formant, pouruδāxšti-: pouruδāxštaiiana- (cf. Schmitt 2003: 367). Nouns and adjectives in -ka-, -aka-, -kā-, e.g. YAv. maš ̣iia- ‘man’: maš ̣iiāka- ‘people’; ja inī- ‘woman’: ja inikā-; pasu- ‘sheep’: pasuka-; nā irī- ‘woman’: nā irikā-; from compounds, a-pər ənāiiu- ‘not yet adult’: YAv. a-pər ənāiiukā˘-; ə-uuər əzikā- ‘producing (varz-) nothing (good)’; − OPers. *vazar/n- ‘greatness’: vazạrka-; *ạršti- ‘spear’: ( hu)ā˘rštika- ‘(good) spearman’; *mariya-: marīka- ‘young man’; *banda- ‘bond’: ba ndaka- ‘bondsman’; kạrnuvaka- ‘workman, artisan’, cf. kạrnau- ‘do, make’. Adjectives in -i̯ a- denoting appurtenance, including derivatives from place names, often have lengthened grade in the first syllable, e.g. māna- ‘house’: YAv. māniia-, OPers. māniya- ‘belonging to the house’; *agra- ‘tip’: YAv. aγriia-, OPers. agriya‘foremost’; *θanuvan- ‘bow’: θanuvaniya- ‘archer’; *xšayaθa- ‘rule’: xšāyaθiya‘king’; aθurā- ‘Assyria’: aθuriya-; *ham- (or *hama-?) + miça- ‘same + contract’: hammiçiya- ‘conspirator’ (Schmitt 2014: 188−189); − with k > c before the suffix: maka- ‘Makran’: maciya-. -ka- + ii̯ a- > OPers. -ciya-, e.g. *ā- + kaufa- ‘by/on + mountain’: ākaufaciya- ‘mountain-dwellers’.

2.2.1.1. The thematic declension In the dat.-instr.-abl. du. and dat.-abl. and loc. pl., the them. vowel is replaced by the diphthong *-ai-, Av. -aē-, -ōi-, -aii-. Nom. sg. m. PIIr. *-as > PIr. *-ah, Av. -ō, -as °: haomō ‘haoma’; − rarely -ə˘̄ : ciθrə̄ ‘brilliant’; − OPers. -a: baga vazạrka ‘great god’. Voc. sg. m. *-a, Av. -ā˘, OPers. -ā: Av. ahurā˘ ‘lord’, OPers. martiyā ‘man’. Acc. sg. m. and nom.-acc. sg. n. PIr. *-am, Av. -ə˘̄ m, OPers. -am: Av. m. ahurəm; OPers. m. pārsam ‘Persia(n)’; n. Av. aš ̣əm ‘(cosmic) order’; YAv. nmānəm ‘house’ − -i̯ am, -u̯am (with various changes produced by palatalization and labialization): *mari̯ am > YAv. ma irī˘m ‘rogue’; *gai̯ am > Av. gaēm ‘life’; *gau̯am, YAv. gaom ‘milk’; *dai̯ u̯am, YAv. daēū˘m ‘demon’; *u̯idai̯ u̯am, YAv. vī˘dōiiū˘m ‘discarding the demons’; *hau̯i̯ am ‘left’, YAv. hōiium (Pers. mss.), hōim (Indic mss.). See Cantera (2014: 336−338). Instr. sg. m./n. *-ā, Av. -ā˘: xšaθrā˘ ‘command’; − OPers. -ā. Dat. sg. m./n. *-āi, Av. -āi: ahurāi; − OAv. also *-āi̯ ā˘: yātāiiā ‘(what is) asked for’; aš ̣ā(i).yecā < *aš ̣āiiacā (Hoffmann 1975 = II, 605−619); − OPers. = gen. Abl. sg. m./n. *-āt, Av. -āt̰ , OAv. also -āat̰ : aš ̣āt̰ , vīrāat̰ ° ‘man’; − + *-ā: YAv. -āδa: xšaθrāδa (but zraiiaŋhaδa [Yt. 8.47] is probably an example of ms. vacillation between -at̰ and -aδa, not of -āt̰ + -ā [Bartholomae 1904, col. 1702; Hoffmann and Forssman, § 86.1]); − OPers. -ā:, anā pārsā ‘throughout this Persepolis’ (rather than ‘this Persia’; Schmitt 2009: 154, 2014: 228).

34. The morphology of Iranian Gen. sg. m./n. *-ahi̯ a, OAv. -ahiiā, -ax́iiā °: ahurahiiā, spəṇtax́iiā° ‘life-giving’, palatal. -ex́iiā in ps.-OAv. gaiiex́iiā°; − YAv. -ahe: haomahe; rarely -aŋ́hā °: aš ̣aŋ́hā°; OAv, -ahē only in Zaraθuštrahē; − YAv. palatal. -ehe: gaiiehe; − OPers. -ahạyā: martiyahạyā. Loc. sg. m./n. *-ai, OAv. -ōi, -aē°, YAv. - i̯ e; + -ā: *-ai̯ ā, OAv. -ōiiā, YAv. -aiia, OPers. -aiy, -ayā: OAv. š́ iiaoθ anōi ‘action’, x vāθrōiiā ‘comfort’, mar əkaēcā ‘destruction’, YAv. nmāne, nmānaiia, OPers. pārsaiy, dastayā ‘hand’; − palatal. YAv. *- i̯ e: *ahū˘ ire < ahura(Skjærvø 2005: 203−205). Nom.-voc.-acc. du. m. *-ā, Av. -ā˘: Av. zastā˘ ‘hand’, YAv. rə̄na ‘leg’, OPers. gaušā ‘ear’. Nom.-acc. du. n. *-ai > OAv. -ōi, YAv. - i̯ e: OAv. š́ iiaoθ anōi, YAv. x var əθe ‘foods’. Dat.-instr.-abl. du. m. PIr. *-aibi̯ ā˘ > OAv. -ōibiiā, YAv. -aē ibiia, -aēβe, OPers. -aibiyā: OAv. zastōibiiā, YAv. zastaē ibiia ‘hand’, gaošaēβe, OPers. dastaibiyā. Gen. du. m. *-āi̯ āh, Av. -aiiå: OAv. rānaiiå ‘leg’, YAv. vī˘raiiå ‘man’. Loc. du. m. *-ā˘i̯ ah, OAv. -aiiō, -ōiiō: zastaiiō, ubōiiō ‘both’; − OPers. = gen. -āyā: gaušāyā. Nom.-voc. pl. m. *-ā, Av. -ā˘, palatalized *- i̯ ēˇ: OAv. maš ̣iiā, pa uruiiē ‘first’ (Y. 36.1?), YAv. yazata ‘god’, a ire < a iriia- ‘Aryan’, OPers. āmātā ‘*noble’; − *-āhah, Av. -åŋhō, OPers. -āha: OAv. maš ̣iiåŋhō, YAv. yazatåŋhō ‘deity’, OPers. bagāha ‘god’. Acc. pl. m. *-anh > *-əŋh, OAv. -ə̄ṇg, -ąs °: maš ̣iiə̄ṇg, sə̄ṇghąs° ‘announcement’; − YAv. -ə̄(s°), -ąs °: spəṇtə̄, aməš ̣ə̄s° ‘immortal’, yazatąs°; − YAv. -ą: haomą, paoiriią ‘first’ (pao iriiąn [Yt. 13.150, mss. paoiriiṇn, paoiriiąm] with common ms. variation -ąn/-ąm for -ą, not < *-ān [Bartholomae 1904, col. 875; Hoffmann and Forssman, § 87.4]), amaš ̣iią ‘devoid of men’; − -u̯ə̄ > -(u̯)ū: daēuuū, daēū < daēuua- ‘demon’; − OPers. -ā: martiyā (perhaps -ān, if Szemerényi [1991: 1956−1960] is right that sakām before p- in DB 5.21−22 is for *sakān [Schmitt 2014: 243: acc. pl. m. ‘Sakām’]). Nom.-acc. pl. n. *-ā: Av. š́ iiaoθ anā˘, OPers. āyadanā ‘place of sacrifice’. Instr. pl. m./n. *-āiš = Av.: maš ̣iiāiš; − OPers. -aibiš: martiyaibiš. Dat.-abl. pl. m./n. *-aibi̯ as > *-aibi̯ ah, Av. -aē ibiiō, OAv. -ōibiiō, -ōibiias °: yazataē ibiiō, yasnōibiiō, dātōibiias° ‘law’. Gen. pl. m./n. *-ānām, Av. -anąm: yasnanąm, YAv. maš ̣iiānąm with secondary i̯ a > i̯ ā; − OPers. -ānām: bagānām. Loc. pl. m.n. *-aišu, Av. -aēšū˘: OAv. maš ̣iiaēšū, YAv, aspaēšu ‘horse’; − + -ā˘ > YAv. -aēšuua, OPers. -aišuvā: YAv. mazdaiiasnaēšuua ‘Mazdayasnian’, OPers. mādaišuvā ‘Mede’.

2.2.2. ā - and ı̄ -/iā -stems (fem.) These include nouns and adjectives. Fem. ī-stems fall into two categories, commonly called the “devī-” and “vr̥kī-declensions”. The devī-declension is largely parallel to the ā-stems, with stem formant: -ī-/-i̯ ā-. Most Av. ī-stems belong to this declension, and many are derived fem. nouns or adjectives, e.g.: PIIr. *pr̥Hu- ‘much’: PIr. *paru-, f. *paru̯ī-, YAv. po uru- ‘much’, f. pao irī-; aš ̣ā˘uuan- ‘orderly’, f. aš ̣aonī- and aš ̣āuua irī-; astuuaṇt- ‘having bones’, f. astuua itī-; xraoždiiah- ‘harder’, f. xraoždiiehī-; *u̯ahi̯ ah- ‘better’, f. vahehī-; ahura- ‘lord’, f. ahurānī- ‘lady’; pa iti- ‘master’: paθnī- ‘mistress’. − On the ‘vr̥kī-declension’ see 2.2.4.10.

509

510

VI. Iranian In OPers., PIr. āp- ‘water’, māh- ‘month’, and pantā-/paθ- appear to have some forms from ī-stems.

2.2.2.1. ā -stem declension Nom. sg. *-ā = OAv.; YAv. -a, palatal. - i̯ e, OPers. -ā: Av. daēnā˘ ‘daēnā’ < *dai̯ anā-, na ire ‘manly’ < *nari̯ ā, OPers. hainā ‘army’. Acc. sg. *-ām, *Av. -ąm, OPers. -ām: Av. daēnąm, OPers. taumām ‘family’. Voc. sg. *-ai, Av. - i̯ ē˘: OAv. bər əxδē ‘*exalted’. (On Y. 53.3 pourucistā nom. [subj. of tə̄ṇcā.tū (4.5.11)], see Kellens-Pirart III: 268 [voc. Bartholomae 1895: 234; Hoffmann and Forssman, § 88.2; Schwartz 2009: 429]). Instr. sg. *-ā, *-ai̯ ā: Av. daēnā˘, daēnaiiā˘, OPers. framānāyā. Dat. sg. *-āi̯ āi, Av. -aiiāi: Av. daēnaiiāi. Abl. sg. OAv. = gen.; YAv. -aiiāt̰ : daēnaiiāt̰ , OPers. haināyā. Gen. sg. *-āi̯ āh, Av. -aiiå(s°), OPers. -āyā: Av. haēnaiiå(s°), OPers. taumāyā. Loc. sg. *-āyā, YAv. -aiia: grīuuaiia ‘neck, ridge’, OPers. aθurāyā ‘Assyria’. Nom-voc.-acc. du. *-ai, Av. *- i̯ ḗ: OAv. ubē, YAv. uruua ire ‘plant’. Dat.-instr.-abl. du. *-ābi̯ ā, YAv. -ābiia: vąθβābiia ‘herd’. Nom.-voc.-acc. pl. *-āh, Av. -å(s°), OPers. -ā: Av. daēnå(s°), OPers. stūnā ‘column’. Gen. pl. *-ānām, Av. -anąm: gaēθanąm ‘herd’. Dat.-abl. pl. *-ābi̯ ah, Av. -ābiiō, -ābiias°, YAv. -āu(ua)iiō: OAv. daēnābiiō, YAv. gaēθāuuaiiō, vōiγnāuiiō kind of disaster (dat.-abl. pl. haēnə̄biiō < haēnā- ‘army’ [Yt. 10.93] is in anticipation of draomə̄biiō [n-stem], rather than analogy with ah-stems [Hoffmann and Forssman, § 88.4], despite the qualifying m./n. druuat̰ biiō, the only example of the dat.-abl. pl. of druuaṇt- ‘wicked’.). Instr. pl. *-ābiš, OAv. -ābīš: daēnābīš. Loc. pl. *-āhu, Av. -āhū˘; + -ā: Av. -āhuuā˘, OPers. -ā huvā: OAv. gaēθāhū, YAv. u pa ruuatāhuua ‘mountain’, OPers. maškā huvā ‘inflated skin’.

2.2.2.2. ı̄ -/iā -stem declension Nom. sg. *-ī = OAv.; YAv. -i, OPers. -ī˘y, also analogical -iš: Av. nā irī˘ ‘woman’, vaŋ vhī ‘good’, OPers. huvārazmī˘y, huvārazmiš ‘Choresmia’, hara huvatiš ‘Arachosia’, but in Elamite transcription for *-tī (Hoffmann 1976: 641 n. 38). Acc. sg. *-īm, OAv. -īm, YAv, OPers., -ī˘m: Av. vaŋ vhī˘m ‘good’, OPers. būmī˘m ‘earth’. Voc. sg. *-i, Av. -ī˘: Av. vaŋ vhī˘; − YAv. analogical - i̯ e: aš ̣aone. Instr. sg. *-i̯ ā: Av. vaŋhuiiā˘. Dat. sg. *-i̯ āi, Av. -iiāi: Av. vaŋhuiiāi, astuua iθiiāi. Abl. sg. OAv. = gen.; YAv. -iiāt̰ : bar əθriiāt̰ ‘womb’, druuō.iθiiāt̰ < *druua iθiiāt̰ < m. druuaṇt- ‘wicked’. Gen. sg. *-i̯ āh, Av. -iiå(s°), OPers. -iyā: Av. vaŋhuiiå; YAv. vana iṇtiiås° < m. vanaṇt‘victorious’; druua itiiås° (-t- for -θ-); OPers. abl. hara huvatī˘yā. Loc. sg. *-(i)i̯ ā, YAv. - i̯ e: pər əθβe < m. pər əθu- ‘wide’; OPers. hara huvatī˘yā. Nom-voc.-acc. du. *-ī, Av. -ī˘: OAv. azī ‘fertile cow’, YAv. saŋhauuāci pr. n.

34. The morphology of Iranian Nom.-voc.-acc. pl. *-īš, Av. -ī˘š: Av. vaŋ vhī˘š. Gen. pl. *-īnām, Av. -inąm: aš ̣aoninąm. Dat.-abl. pl. *-ībi̯ ah, Av. -ī˘biiō: OAv. šiie itibiiō < šiie itī- ‘settlement’, YAv. aš ̣aonibiiō. Instr. pl. *-ībī˘š, -ibī˘š: YAv. āzīzanā itibī˘š ‘about to give birth’. Loc. pl. *-īšu, YAv. -ī˘šu; + -ā: YAv. -ī˘šuua: YAv. xšaθrī˘šu ‘female’, bar əθrī˘šuua.

2.2.3. i- and u-stems, ai- and au-stems i-stems include some derived adjectives denoting appurtenance; these often have lengthened grade in the first syllable: YAv. āhū˘ iri- < ahura (mazdā); hāuuani- ‘(time) for the haoma pressing’ < hauuana-; vār əθraγni- ‘victorious’ < vər əθraγna-; a iβimiθri- ‘(somebody) acting against a contract’ < miθra-; − OPers. yāu hmaini-/-mani ‘*being in control’ < *yau hman- ‘harnessing’ (?) < √i̯ aug ‘harness’ (Skjærvø 2011: 327; Hoffmann 1955: 84−85 = I: 56−57, read yāhu-maini- suggesting something like ‘mit siedender Vergeltungskraft’, cf. Schmitt 2009: 109, 2014: 292); bāgayādi-, month name: ‘(month) devoted to sacrifices to the god’ < baga- + *yāda- < √i̯ aȷ;́ − nouns denoting ‘somebody in charge of’: OAv. dąmi- ‘the one in charge of the dāman- (cosmic) “bonds” (reins?)’; YAv. uštrō.stāni- < uštrō.stāna- ‘camel stall’; − patronymics in -āni-: āθβiiāni- < āθβiia-. i- and u-stems have protero- and hysterodynamic ablaut: stem formant in full or zero grade, respectively, in the gen.-dat. sg., with appropriate consonant changes before i̯ , u̯. YAv. pəš ̣u-/pər ətu- ‘ford’ have accent-conditioned alternations (Hoffmann and Forssman § 93.1, Tremblay 1998: 201−202). All i- and u-stems typically take the full grade of the stem formant in the voc., loc. sg., and nom. pl. Diphthong-stems are monosyllabic (gao- m., f. ‘bull, cow’, with acc. from gā-; diiau‘sky’) and polysyllabic. The latter have forms with full or long grade of the stem formants: *-i-/-ai̯ -/-āi̯ -, and *-u-/-au̯-/-āu̯-. Av. ai-stems include haxai- ‘companion’, kauuai- ‘poet’, xštauuai-, a legendary people, sāuuaŋhai-, a calendrical ratu; − Av. au-stems include m. hiθau- ‘?’, bāzau- ‘arm’, pər əsau- ‘rib’, gar əmau- ‘heat’, masc. adjectives in °bāzau- and °fšau- ‘cattle’, and f. daŋ́hau-, OPers. dahạyau- ‘land’, YAv. nasau- ‘carcass (of a demon)’. These differ from i-/u-stems only in the nom. and acc.

2.2.3.1. i- and u-declensions Note that ˘ī and ū˘ are used to emphasize the non-etymological value of the manuscript spellings. Nom. sg. m./f. -iš; -uš: Av. ārma itiš ‘Ārma iti’, OPers. šiyātiš ‘happiness’; − Av. aŋhuš ‘world’, OPers. marguš ‘Merv’; − ai-stems: *-ā, Av. -ā˘: kauuā˘, haxā˘; − au-stems: -āuš: Av. °bāzāuš, OAv. hiθāuš, OPers. dahạyāuš (but YAv. daŋ́hau-, nasau-: daŋ́huš, nasuš); − gau-: Av. gāuš. Voc. sg. m./f. *-ai, Av. - i̯ ē˘; *-au, YAv. -ao°, -u̯ō, -ō after i̯ : OAv. ārma itē, YAv. hāuuane; − ratuuō ‘ratu’, ma iniiō < ma iniiu- ‘spirit’, vaiiō ‘Vaiiu’; − ai-stems: YAv. sauuaŋ́he; − gau-: YAv. gao°.

511

512

VI. Iranian Acc. sg. m./f. -im; -um: Av. ārma itī˘m, OPers. šiyātim; − Av. ahū˘m, OPers. margum; − ai-stems: *-āi̯ am, Av. *-ā˘i̯ am > -āim, -aēm: Av. haxāim; YAv. kauuaēm; − au-stems: *-āu̯am, Av. *-ā˘u̯am > -āum, -aom, OPers. -āvam, -āum: YAv. °fšāum / °fšaom, nasāum, daŋ́haom (on the diphthongs, see de Vaan 2000), OPers. dahạyāvam, dahạyāum; − gau-: Av. gąm. Nom.-acc. sg. n. *-i, *-u: YAv. zaraθuštri ‘following Zarathustra’; − po uru ‘much’. Instr. sg. m./f. *-ī, *-ū: OAv. ārma itī, YAv. axti ‘pain’; − OAv. xratū ‘wisdom’; − YAv. n. vohu. − Hysterodynamic: *-u̯ā, Av. -u̯ā˘: Av. xraθβā˘, YAv. labialized xruuī.druuō ‘with a bloody club’. Dat. sg. m./f. *-ai̯ ai, OAv. -ōiiōi, YAv. -ə̄e, -aiiaē°; *-au̯ai, -auuē, -auue /-aoe: OAv. axtōiiōi, YAv. frauuaš ̣ə̄e ‘fravashi’, °patə̄e < pa iti- ‘master’, āzū˘taiiaē° < āzu iti- ‘libation’; − OAv. vaŋhauuē, YAv. ma iniiauue, zaṇtaoe ‘tribe’. − Hysterodynamic: *-i̯ ai, OAv. -iiaē°; *-u̯ai, -uiiē, YAv. -u̯ i̯ e: OAv. pa iθiiaē°, YAv. pa iθe < pati-; − OAv. ahuiiē; YAv. aŋ vhe, xraθβe, rašnuuaē° ‘Rašnu’; − ai-stems: YAv. *haš́ ē < *hači̯ ai; − au-stems: YAv. °fšauue; − gau-: OAv. gauuōi, YAv. gauue/gaoe. Abl. sg. m./f.: OAv. = gen.; YAv., OPers. *-ait, YAv. -ōit̰ ; *-aut, YAv. -aot̰ , OPers. -auv, -auš: YAv. garōit̰ (āxštaēδa V. 3.1 is likely to be from āxšta- ‘stand near’ [Kellens, 1984: 192] rather than a noun [Bartholomae, col. 311; Hoffmann and Forssman, § 95.2]); − ma iniiaot̰ ; − au-stems: YAv. hiθβat̰ (apparently to hiθau- in unclear context [Y. 19.15]. Bartholomae’s ‘bedrängt’ [col. 1813] is speculation. Kellens [2010: 45] apparently assumes a thematic hiθβa- ‘amitié’ from hiθau- [Barth. ‘Genosse’]), OPers. bābirauv, bābirauš ‘Babylon’; − gau-: YAv. gaot̰ . Gen. sg. m./f. *-aiš, Av. -ōiš; *-auš, OAv. -ə̄uš, Av. -aoš: OAv. garōiš ‘mountain’, OPers. fravạrtaiš pr. n.; − OAv. ma iniiə̄uš, paraoš, YAv. ma iniiaoš, OPers. kurauš ‘Cyrus’. − Hysterodynamic: *-u̯ah, Av. -u̯ō, -u̯as°: YAv. xraθβō < xratu- ‘wisdom’; saŋ vhas° < saŋhu- ‘announcement’; − gau-, diiau-: Av. gə̄uš, YAv. diiaoš. Loc. sg. m./f. Av. -ā˘; *-ā˘u, OAv. -aō˘, -āu, YAv. -u̯ō, + -ā: -auu̯a, OPers. -auvā: OAv. vīdātā < vīdā iti- ‘setting apart’; YAv. gara < ga iri-; − OAv. pər ətaō˘ ‘ford’, xratāu (see Skjærvø 2005), YAv. gātuuō, gātauua ‘place’, OPers. Bābirauv and gāθav-ā; − au-stems: OPers. dahạyauvā. Nom.-voc.-acc. du. m./f. *-ī, *-ū; *-ū: YAv. gairi; − Av. ma iniiū˘; − ai-/au-stems *-ā: YAv. hysterodynamic haš́ a (haxaiia [V. 4.44; Hoffmann and Forssman, § 95.3] in ungrammatical brāθra vā haxaiia vā ‘brothers or companions’); − YAv. bāzauua (but YAv. daŋ́hu.); − gau-: YAv. gāuua. Nom.-voc.-acc. du. n. *-ī, YAv. -i: aši ‘evil eye’. Dat.-abl.-instr. du. m./f. *-ibi̯ ā, Av. -ibiiā˘; *-ubi̯ ā, Av. -ubiiā˘, YAv. -uβe: YAv. ašibiia; − OAv. ahubiiā, YAv. pasubiia ‘cattle’; − au-stems: bāzuβe. Gen. du. m./f. *-uu̯āh, Av. -uuå: OAv. trisyllabic ahuuå, YAv. pasuuå; − gau-: YAv. °gauuå. Loc. du. m./f. *-uu̯ah, OAv. -uuō: aŋhuuō. Nom.-voc. pl. m./f. *-ai̯ ah, Av. -aiiō; *-au̯ah, Av. − auuō: ārmataiiō, arštaiias° ‘spear’; − OAv. xratauuō, YAv. vaŋhauuas°; − ai-/au-stems *-āi̯ ah, Av. -aiiō, -aiias°; *-āu̯ah, Av. -ā˘uuō: OAv. kāuuaiias°; − YAv. daŋ́hāuuō, °fšauuō, OPers. dahạyāva; − gau-: gauuō (Aog. 84). Acc. pl. m./f. *-inš, *-įš, Av. -ī˘š; *-unš, *-ųš, Av. -ū˘š: YAv. aš˘̣īš ‘reward’, YAv. gairī˘š; − OAv. xratūš, YAv. bar əšnū˘š ‘height’; − gau-: Av. gå. Nom.-acc. pl. n. *-ī˘, *-ū˘: YAv. zaraθuštri; − Av. vohū˘.

34. The morphology of Iranian Gen. pl. m./f. *-ī˘nām, Av. -inąm; *-ū˘nām, Av. -unąm: OAv. nā irinąm, YAv. ga rinąm; − Av. vohunąm, OPers. parū˘nām. − Hysterodynamic: YAv. vaŋhuuąm (Hoffmann 1976: 595−596), raθβąm; − ai-/au-stems: YAv. hysterodynamic kaoiiąm, haš́ ąm; − (Y)Av. dax́iiunąm, OPers. dahạyū˘nām; − gau-: gauuąm. Dat.-abl. pl. m./f. *-ibi̯ ah, YAv. -ibiiō, -iβiiō; *-ubi̯ ah, Av. -ubiiō, -u iβiiō: YAv. frauuaš ̣ibiiō; − OAv. po urubiiō, YAv. ratubiiō, hinu iβiiō ‘*bond’; − ai-stems: xštəuuiβiiō. Instr. pl. m./f. *-ibiš, YAv. *-iβiš, *-iu̯iš, *-ubiš, *-uβiš, *-uu̯iš contracted to - u̯˘īš, -uš: YAv. ažī˘š° ‘snake’; − vaŋhəuuī˘š, auuaŋhū˘š/auuaŋhī˘š ‘un-good’, yātuš < yātu- ‘sorcerer’; − gau-: YAv. gaobī˘š. Loc. pl. m./f. -išu, YAv. -ī˘šu; *-ušu, Av. -ušū˘, + -ā: YAv. -ušuua, -uš.huua: YAv. hā itī˘šu ‘section’; − OAv. po urušū, YAv. vaŋhušu, gātušuua, pasuš.huua; − au-stems: OPers. dahạyušuvā. i

2.2.3.2. Some special i- and u-stems YAv. vi- ‘bird’: nom. sg. viš, nom. pl. vaiiō, gen. pl. vaiiąm; − *raHi-/ raHi̯ - ‘wealth’, Av. raē-/rā˘ii: sg. acc. raēm, gen. rāiiō, instr. raiia, pl. OAv. nom. rāiiō, YAv. acc. raēš, gen. pl. raiiąm. − Fem. *jani- ‘woman’: OAv. nom.-voc. pl. jə̄naiiō, YAv. gen. sg. janiiōiš (So most mss. [see Geldner, ADA]. Pirart’s [1993] preference for janiiaoš [which he emends to *janiiuš] has the support only of Mf1 [jańiiaoiš] and K4 [jańiiaōš]; J2 has janiiə̄uš.). − The city name YAv. raγā- (nom. raγa, acc. raγąm, OPers. instr.-abl. ragāyā) has abl. rajōit̰ . A small set of neut. u-stems have amphidynamic ablaut (-ā- < PIE -o-): PIr. *Hāi̯ u-/ Hi̯ au-: sg. nom.-acc. āiiu ‘time/life-span’, gen. yaoš, dat. yauue/yaoe, instr. yauua; − dāuru ‘wood’, loc. sg. drao°; − *zānu ‘knee’, dat.-abl. pl. žnubiias°. − In compounds: OAv. dar əgāiiu- ‘bestowing long life’ < *darga-Hi̯ u-, YAv. darši.dru- ‘with a defiant mace’, YAv. frašnu- ‘with protruding knees’.

2.2.4. Consonant stem declensions These can end in any consonant except fricatives, affricates, and glides. Several declensions show ablaut. Typically, strong cases are the nom., acc. sg., nom.-voc.-acc. du., and the nom. pl. The ablaut is sometimes obscured by vowel shortening/lengthening (de Vaan 2003, § 4), e.g., āp-/ap- ‘water’ has acc. sg. āpəm, nom. pl. āpō, acc. pl. apō, but the nom. pl. is sometimes also transmitted as apō, the gen. sg. as āpō, and the acc. sg. is apəm° before enclitics (de Vaan 2003: 606).

2.2.4.1. Consonant-stem endings Sing. nom. m./f. zero or *-h/-š/-s; − voc. zero; − acc. m./f. *-am, Av. -ə˘̄ m, nom.-acc. n. zero; − instr. *-ā, Av. -ā˘; − dat. *-ai, OAv. -ōi, Av. - i̯ ē˘, -aē°; − abl. OAv. = gen.; YAv. *-at̰ , proterodyn. -t̰ , zero; − gen. *-ah, -as°, Av. -ō, -as°, proterodyn. *-h; − loc. *-i, *-i˒ā, Av. -ī˘, -iiā˘, YAv. - i̯ e. − Dual nom.-voc.-acc. m./f. *-ā, Av. -ā˘; − n. *-ī, Av. -ī˘;

513

514

VI. Iranian − instr.-dat.-abl. *-bi̯ ā, YAv. -biia; − gen. *-āh, Av. -å. − Plur. nom.-voc. m./f. *-ah, -as°, Av. -ō, -as°; − acc. m./f. PIE *-n̥s, PIr. *-ah, -as°, Av. -ō, -as° (r-stems PIIr. *-r̥nš, Av. -ər ąš, YAv. -rə̄š); − n. zero or *-i, Av. -ī˘; − instr. PIr. *-biš, Av. -bī˘š, YAv. *-βiš, *-u̯˘īš; − dat.-abl. *-bi̯ ah, *-bi̯ as°, Av. -biiō, -biias°, YAv. -βiiō, *-u̯i̯ ō; − gen. *-ām, Av. -ąm; − loc. *-hu/-šu/-su, + -ā: YAv. disyllabic -huua/-šuua. Av. -ī˘ and YAv. - i̯ e palatalize preceding n, t, r (i-epenthesis); YAv. - i̯ e palatalizes ŋh > ŋ́h in h-stems. If palatalization is not visible, - i̯ e behaves as -e.

2.2.4.2. Stems in labial stops (p) The only stems in labial stops are Av., OPers. āp-/ap-, Av. kəhrp-/kər əp- ‘body, form’, *var əp- (uncertain meaning) and OPers. xšap- ‘night’ (gen.-dat. sg. xšapa). Of these, āp-/ap has normal ablaut, while kər əp- has the strong stem kəhrp-. The labial becomes f before the nom. -š (< *s by ru(p)ki) (Av. nom. sg. āfš, k ərəfš; loc. pl. var əfšuua). OPers. āp- may have nom. sg. from āpī- in āpī˘šim parābara ‘the water carried it (= the army) away’ (Schmitt 2014: 131: loc. sg. api-, 2009: 50 ‘im Wasser trug es ihn fort’). Before endings with b, the labial was assimilated and the geminate simplified (*ap-b > ab-): OPers. instr.-abl. pl. abiš, YAv. dat.-abl. pl. a iβiiō.

2.2.4.3. Stems in dental stops (d, t, n t) Stems in d include OAv. išud- ‘due, debt’, zər əd- ‘heart’, Av. vər əd- ‘growth’, OPers. θar(a)d- ‘year’, and *pād-/pad- ‘foot’, which has YAv. acc. sg. pāδəm, nom.-acc. du. pāδa, reintepreted as them., whence dat.-abl.-instr. du. YAv. pāδauue, OPers. pādaibiyā, YAv. gen. du. pāδaiiå, and in compounds (°pāδahe, °pāδåŋhō). No nom. sg. is attested. On OPers. viθ- ‘house’, see 2.2.4.9. Stems in t include root-nouns in t (cāt- ‘well’; n. ast- ‘bone’) and root nouns from verbal roots ending in a vowel or r (Av. °xšnut- ‘satisfying’, °bər ət- ‘carrying, riding’); adjectives in -āt-; and fem. stems with suffix -tāt-, making abstract nouns from adjectives and also used to “quote” words, e.g.: OAv. ha uruuatāt- ‘wholeness’, amər ətatāt- ‘not dying (before one’s time)’, kəuuitāt- ‘the word/title of kauui (‘poet’)’, YAv. kahrkatāt‘the term kahrka “chicken”’. These have nom. sg. in -s < *-ss < -ts: YAv. °bər əs, °xšnus, ha uruuatās; tāt-stems have OAv. -tås° before enclitics: OAv. auuaētās ‘the word “woe”’, amər ətatås°. The n. ast- ‘bone’ has nom.-acc. pl. (rather than sg.?) as° in OAv. ascīt̰ , YAv. asca, YAv. also asti. Other endings are regular. tāt-stems have some shortened forms in YAv.: dat.-abl.-instr. du. ha uruuat̰ biia (bruuat̰ .biiąm < brū- ‘eyebrow’ in gen. function [V. 8.41 etc.: aṇtarāt̰ naēmāt̰ bruuat̰ .biiąm ‘from between the eyebrows’] looks like a hybrid between dat.-abl. du. and gen. pl. and must be unrelated to OIA -bhyām). − The āt-stem cāt- has only loc. sg. cā iti; − fraptər əjāt- ‘winged’ and rauuascarāt‘roaming the open spaces’ have suppl. nom.-acc. pl. n. fraptər əjąn and rauuascarąn. Stems in nt include: − Adjectives in Av. -aṇt- and active present and aorist participles in -aṇt-. Adjectives and athematic verbs have ablauting -aṇt-/-at-, while thematic verbs have no ablaut. In the participles, -ąs < *-ants is found in a few words: YAv. fšuiiąs ‘husbandman’,

34. The morphology of Iranian xšaiiąs ‘ruling’, but more often *-ant-s > *-anss appears to have been simplified to *-ans (or the t was lost, cf. nk-stems, 2.2.4.4) early enough to become *-aŋh, which developed as in the thematic acc. pl. (YAv. jaiδiią ‘imploring’), but most often was replaced by -ō in both adjectives and participles: bər əzō < bər əzaṇt- ‘tall’, barō < baraṇt- ‘carrying’. The acrostatic participle stauuaṇt- has nom. sg. m. OAv. stauuas < *stáu̯n̥ts. OPers. nom. sg. tunuvā ‘powerful, rich’, if from tunau-/tunu- ‘be mighty’, may have -ā after the u̯ant-stems. The voc. sg. bər əza may be in analogy with the nom. bər əzō. The nom.-acc. sg. n. of adjectives and athematic participles has Av. -at̰ : bər əzat̰ , ah/h- ‘be’: YAv. hat̰ . Thematic verbs have -ən < -ant: *i̯ asahi̯ a- ‘seek glory’: OAv. yasō.x́iiə̄n, mānaiia- ‘resemble’: YAv. mąnaiiən. The nom.-acc. pl. n. also appears to have -ən: √raiθβ ‘mingle’: rōiθβən (Kellens-Pirart III: 64) (Y. 31.7, unless it is n. sg. agreeing with n. pl. noun [Kellens-Pirart II: 311]). − Adjectives in -uuaṇt-/-uuat-, -maṇt-/-mat- show nom., voc. -uuah-, -mah- (sg. nom. OAv. drəguuå ‘possessed by the Lie’; YAv. xratumå ‘wise’, voc. *YAv. druuō < *drugu̯ah). Those from h-stems have Av. -a(ŋ)h-uuaṇt- > -aŋ vhaṇt- (OAv. aojōṇghuuat̰ with variants), which regularly became YAv. -aŋhuṇt- but in mss. was frequently replaced by -aŋ vhaṇt-. Pronominal adjectives have nom. sg. m. in -uuąs: OAv. θβāuuąs ‘like you’; YAv. cuuaṇt- ‘how much’: cuuąs (apparently also cū < *cuuaŋh? both with problematic syntax); − loc. sg. with full grade: YAv. astuua iṇti; − nom.acc. pl. n. with zero ending and long grade of the stem formant: OAv. mīždauuąn ‘remunerating’. − Av. mazāṇt-, perhaps an old Hant-stem: acc. sg. m. mazā/åṇtəm, nom.-acc. sg. n. mazāt̰ . The final t of t-stems was assimilated to OAv. d, YAv. δ, t̰ before endings with b, e.g., instr. pl. OAv. azd əbīš, drəguuō.d əbīš, YAv. azd ibīš, haδbīš, cuuat̰ .biš, yātumat̰ .bīš; − dat.-abl. pl. OAv. °bər əd ubiiō < °bər ət- ‘riding’, YAv. druuat̰ biiō; bər əzant- has YAv. bər əzənbiia (-anb-); similarly thematic participles: YAv. t̰ bišiia- ‘hate’: t̰ bišiiaṇbiiō. In the loc. pl. PIr. *-asu < *-ṇtsu: OAv. drəguuasū. Thematic forms are common: Av. saošiiaṇtaē ibiiō < saošiiaṇt- ‘revitalizer’, OPers. tunuvantahạyā. Apparent athematic stem forms of participles of thematic verbs also occur: YAv. dat.-abl. pl. γžāraiiat̰ .biiō < γžāraiiaṇt- ‘*overflowing’, gen. dat. sg. xšaiiatō < xšaiiaṇt- ‘being in command’, but these may have lost their n late in the ms. tradition (Instead of ṇt [ ], many mss. write nt , in which the n was more exposed to being lost.).

2.2.4.4. Stems in velar stops (g, k, nk) Stems in g, k (only Av.) include root nouns and nk-stems. Root nouns: f. drug-/druj- ‘deception’, the cosmic ‘Lie’, f. vak-/vac- ‘word, speech’; and °hāk-/°hāc- ‘following’. Those with vowel a have normal ablaut. The velar becomes -x- before the nom. -š (< *s by ru(p)ki; no loc. pl. forms) and j/c outside of the nom. The acc. sg. ending -əm is palatalized to YAv. -im, e.g., nom. sg. Av. druxš, vāxš, YAv. °hāxš; − acc. sg. OAv. drujə˘̄ m, YAv. drujim, vācəm/vācim, °hācim; − nom. pl. vācō; − gen.sg./acc. pl. vacō, °hācas°; − nom.-acc. sg. n. °hāg ət̰ (perhaps not directly from *-ākt, but for final -āk with non-released -k [cf. -t̰ ; Hoffmann and Narten 1989: 71]).

515

516

VI. Iranian Before b, we would expect YAv. *-γb-/*-γβ-, but this group is not found in Av. Instead we have forms apparently based on the nom. sg.: instr. vaγž ibiš, dat. abl. vaγž ibiiō (Skjærvø 2007a: 326−327). nk-stems (few case forms are attested), have ablauting suffix -Hānk-/-Hanc-/-Hn̥c-, which combined with preceding a or i to -ānk-/-anc-/-āc- (-ac-), -i˒ānk-/-i˒anc-/-īc-. The stop itself appears only in the nom.-acc. sg. n., which ends in -āg ət̰ . In the nom. sg. m. the -k/x- was lost: YAv. apąš ‘backward-turning’, paiti.yąš ‘turning toward’, uziiąš ‘upwards’, *niiąš ‘downwards’ (Hoffmann and Forssman, § 98.2: ‘nisiiąš’; see JamaspAsa 1982: 71), viš < *vįš ‘going to all sides’ (note that Av. ą/į is ambiguous with regard to length). With lengthened grade: acc. sg. °niiåṇcim ‘turning down, laying low (men)’, huna iriiåṇcim ‘turned to skill, skillful’, gen. sg. huna iriiåṇcō, nom. pl. niiåṇcō, and thematized vīžuuaṇca ‘going in all directions’. Forms such as parāca, fraca, vīca were analyzed as instr. sg. by Bartholomae, but are probably preverbs + -ca; tarasca ‘through(out)’ matches OIA tiraścā́, instr. sg. of tiryak-.

2.2.4.5. n-stems n-stems include an-, u̯an-, and man-stems (m after u), as well as Han-, i̯ an-, and instems. Most an-, u̯an-, man-, and Han-stems show ablaut in the stem formant. The root noun °jan- has zero grade -γn-: vər əθrajan- ‘obstruction-smashing’: nom. sg. OAv. vər əθrə̄m.jā, YAv. vər əθraja, °jå, acc. sg. °janəm, nom. pl. °janō, dat. sg. °γne, gen. pl. °γnąm. n-stems have regular nom. sg. m. *-ā (OAv. aduuå [Y. 31.2] may be nom.-pl. n. of aduuah- ‘dustless’ [OIA adhvasmán-; Skjærvø 2008b: 302]), n. *-a < *-n̥, Av. -ā˘. Before the zero grade -n-, various consonantal changes occur. The proterodyn. gen. sg. has *-aŋh, OAv. -ə̄ṇg, YAv. -ą, abl. sg. -ən and -ənda < PAv. -ənt̰ . The loc. has full grade *-ani, neut. n-stems also *-ān. Examples: uxšan- ‘bull’: nom. sg. OAv. uxšā, nom. pl. OAv. uxšānō, YAv. dat. sg. uxšne, gen. sg. uxšnō; − xšapan- ‘night’: YAv. nom. sg. xšapa, acc. sg. xšapanəm, loc. sg. xšafne (< - i̯ e), nom. acc. pl. xšapanō, gen. pl. xšafnąm, loc. pl. xšapō.huua; − asan- ‘stone, sky’: YAv. acc. sg. asānəm (? in unclear context Yt. 14.59), nom. (acc.) pl. asānō, gen. sg. ašnō, but OAv. acc. pl. asə̄nō /asə̄nō; − asman‘sky’: acc. sg. YAv. asmanəm ‘sky’, OPers. asmānam. u̯an-stems have weak forms in YAv. -ū˘n-. Because of the morphophonological vagaries of u̯, u̯an-stems may not be recognizable as such, cf. uruuan- ‘soul’: nom. sg. uruuā˘, acc. sg. uruuānəm, nom. pl. uruuānō, dat. sg. YAv. dat. sg. urū˘ne, gen. sg., acc. pl. u runō; yuuan-/yū˘n- ‘a youth’; aδβan- ‘road’ < *ad hu̯an-; Av. span-/spa-/sū˘n- ‘dog’ < PIIr. *ć(u)u̯an-/ću̯n̥-/ćun-. YAv. aθaru̯an- ‘priest’ has āθrauuan- in strong cases, aθa urun- in weak cases. The zero grade -un- combines with a preceding ā˘ to āun, aon (de Vaan 2003: § 17.3). They have voc. sg. forms in YAv. -um (-əm), with the final -n apparently assimilated to the preceding labial u̯(ə), e.g. aš ̣āum (see Tichy 1986), āθraom, yum. man-stems have weak forms in -mn or -man-: a iriiaman- a deity, ‘*community’: instr. sg. OAv. a iriiamnā, YAv. gen. sg. a iriiamanō (-nas °); loc. sg. a iriiama ini; − n. nāman- ‘name’: nom.-acc. sg. YAv. nąma, pl. OAv. nāmə̄nī; − mazan- ‘greatness, size’: nom.-acc. sg. YAv. maza, instr. sg. OAv. mazə̄nā; OPers. baršnā < *barzan- ‘height,

34. The morphology of Iranian depth’ [Schmitt 2014: 87: man-stem]; − ąnman- ‘breath’: OAv. nom.-acc. sg. ąnmā, dat. sg. OAv. ąnmə̄nē, loc. sg. ąnmə̄nī; − cašman- ‘eye’: dat. sg. YAv. °cašma ine, gen. sg. OAv. cašmə̄ṇg, loc. sg. OAv. cašma inī, cašmąm (for cašmąn); − YAv. bar əsman- the sacred twigs: YAv. abl. sg. bar əsmən, gen. sg. barəsmą; − vaēsman- ‘entrance’: YAv. abl. vaēsməṇda with -ā˘ (de Vaan 2001; the d shows that the -t was unreleased -t̰ ). The nom.-acc. pl. n. has zero ending and long grade of the stem formant or -i with full grade; OAv. anafšmąm (for °mąn) ‘without *rhythm’, nāmə̄nī, Av. nāmąn (The proto-form of the disyllabic n. spə̄n [negated adj. disyllabic aspə̄n] is uncertain: < *ćuH-an ‘life-giving strength’ or < *ćuH-ant ‘giving life-giving strength’.). The loc. pl. has *-ahu < *-n̥hu, *-ahuu̯ā: dāman- ‘creation’: YAv. dāmōhu, dāmahuua. (YAv. has thematic nom.-acc. du. uua dąma ‘both creations’, and gen. du. uuaiiå … dāmąn.). Han-stems include mąθrān- ‘poet’ < *manθra-Han-: OAv. trisyllabic mąθrā (mąθra˒ā); and, possibly, mar ətān-/mar əθn- if < *marta-Han-/martaHn-/martHn- ‘*mortal’: nom. sg. YAv. mar ata, gen. sg. mar əθnō, abl. sg. mar əθnat̰ . nom. pl. mar ətānō < *marta˒ānō (? Y. 30.6, meter inconclusive). In the instr. pl., after -a- < *-n̥-, YAv. had *-βiš > *-uuiš (*-aoiš), which was modified by various analogies to produce the moderately productive ending -ī˘š: nāmə̄nī˘š, aš ̣aonī˘š, and sū˘nī˘š. These forms replaced the expected YAv. *nāməu̯iš, *aš ̣au̯əu̯iš, and *spau̯iš > *spaoiš/*spəuuiš (see Tichy 1985; Skjærvø 2007a: 323. The hapax dāmə̄bīš < dāmanafter h-stems?). In the dat.-abl. pl., the b of the ending *-abi̯ ah is preserved in OAv. duuąnma ibiias° ‘clouds’ and YAv. aš ̣auuabiiō, uruuō ibiiō, but the genuine YAv. form must have been *-aβi̯ ah > -au̯i̯ ah > -aoiiō, found in aš ̣āuuaoiiō, rasmaoiiō < rasman- ‘battle line’. i̯ an-stems include the proper name m. fraŋrasiian-: nom. sg. fraŋrase < *-i̯ ā, acc. sg. fraŋrasiiānəm, and some terms for women: kaniian- ‘young woman’, kax var əiδiian-, kind of female sorcerer, and kāiiaδiian-/kaiie iδiian-, kind of female sorcerer. Feminine i̯ an-stems have various forms from stems in -iiā- (nom. ka ine), -ī- (gen. sg. ka iniiå, kax var əiδiiås°, kā iδiiås°, acc. pl. ka iniiō), or -ī˘n- (acc. sg. ka inī˘nəm, gen. sg./nom. pl. ka inī˘nō). Gen. pl. forms in -inąm are from ī- or ˘īn-stems. in-stems include Av. fraxšnin- ‘having foreknowledge’: nom. sg. m. Av. fraxšnī˘, nom.-acc. sg. n. YAv. fraxšni; − YAv. par ənin- ‘winged’: nom. pl. par ənī˘nō.

2.2.4.6. r/n-stems Neuter r/n-stems have r-stem nom.-acc. sg. *-r̥ (some also nom.-acc. pl. *-ār), but other cases as n-stems. Examples: aiiar/n- ‘day’: nom. sg. YAv. aiiar ə, gen. sg. aiią; loc. sg. aiiąn; nom.-acc. pl. OAv. aiiār ə̄, YAv. aiiąn; − YAv. *azar/n- ‘day’: loc. sg. asni, asne (< - i̯ e); − YAv. baēuuar/n- ‘10,000’: nom.-acc. pl. baēuuąn, baēuuani, instr. pl. baēuuar əbīš°; − *huu̯ar-/n- ‘sun’: nom. sg. OAv. huuar ə˘̄ , gen. *huu̯aŋh: OAv. x və̄ṇg, YAv. hū < *huu̯ū < *huu̯ə̄ (also YAv. hūrō, cf. OIA sū́ras); − YAv. karšu̯ar/n- ‘continent’: nom.-acc. pl. karšuuąn, loc. pl. karšuuōhu; − YAv. uruθβar/n- ‘intestine’: loc. pl. u ruθβō.huua; − YAv. θanuuar/n- ‘bow’: nom.-acc. sg. θanuuar ə, abl. them. θanuuanāt̰ ; − OAv. sax var/n- ‘announcement, word’ < √saŋh/sah ‘announce’ (?): nom.-acc. pl. sax vār ə̄ ; − OAv. sāx var/n- ‘instruction’ < √sāh ‘instruct’: nom.-acc. du. sāx və̄nī; − YAv. *yār/n- ‘season, year’: nom. sg. yār ə, gen. sg. yå if from *ya˒ə̄ < *ya˒əŋh; − OPers.

517

518

VI. Iranian *vazar/n- ‘greatness’ (cf. vazạrka- ‘great’): instr. sg. vašnā (thus Skjærvø 1999c: 38− 39, against the common derivation from √u̯as ‘wish, will’ [e.g. Schmitt 2009, 2014: 277 with lit.], comparing OAv. vasnā [cf. Skjærvø 2008a: 513−514]). YAv. m. θri.zafan- ‘with three mouths’ (*θri.zafu̯ar/n-?) has sg. nom. θri.zafå, acc. θrizafanəm, voc. sg. θri.zafəm (< °zafu̯ən?).

2.2.4.7. m-stems These include Av. *zā-/zam-/zm- ‘earth’ and zi̯ ā-/zi̯ am-/zim- ‘winter’, which have nom. sg. zå, ziiå(s°), acc. sg. ząm, ziiąm, instr. sg. monosyllabic z əmā, abl. z əmāat̰ °, loc. sg. zəmi < *zámi (mss. also zəme < *-ii̯ ā), in compounds °sm-: upasma- ‘(living) in the earth’ (The gen. sg./nom. pl. forms zəmō and zimō are often interchanged in the mss.); ham- ‘summer’: loc. sg. *hami (FO 25b, mss. hama); and dam- ‘house’: OAv. gen. sg. də̄ṇg°, Av. loc. sg. dąm, YAv. dąmi.

2.2.4.8. h-stems h-stems comprise several common neuter nouns (e.g. manah- ‘thought’, zraiiah-, OPers. drayah- ‘sea’), a few masculine adjectives, most of them in compounds with neuter hstems, e.g. humanah- ‘having good thoughts’, and nouns derived from verbs with laryngeals (OAv. disyllabic dāh- gift’ = da˒ah- < daH- and yāh- ‘*audition’ = *ya˒ah- < *yaH-), the fem. ušā-/ušah-, as well as m. māh- ‘moon’, āh-/āhan- ‘mouth’, and nāh-/ nāhan-, OPers. nāh- ‘nose’. The word for ‘moon’ has OAv. nom. sg. disyllabic må, but gen. sg. monosyllabic (?) mə̄ṇg. h-stems also include active perfect participles in -u̯āh-/-u̯ah-/-uš- and comparatives in -ī˘i̯ āh-/-ī˘i̯ ah-, OPers. -ī˘yah- (strong stem Av. -iiāh-, OPers. -ī˘yāh-, weak stem Av. -iiah-). Intervocalic h > Av. ŋh (palatal. ŋ́h), except for loc. sg. -ahī˘ (+ -ā: YAv. -ahiia, -ahe < *-ahi˒a, OPers. drayahạyā), nom.-acc. du. n. *-ahī, loc. pl. *-ahu < *-asu < *-as-su. In root nouns, “laryngeal” stems have long vowel Av. -åŋh- throughout. Nom. sg. m./f. *-āh, Av. -å, OPers. -ā: °manå ‘having a … mind’, OPers. aspacanā proper name; huda˒ah-: ‘(giving) good gifts’: hudå < °da˒å; *u̯idu̯ah- ‘knowing’: vīduuå; spaniiah- ‘more lifegiving’: spaniiå; OPers. tauvīyā ‘more powerful’; OAv. ušå; − voc. sg. m. -ah, Av. -ō: YAv. humanō; − nom.-acc. sg. n. *-ah, OAv. -ə̄, Av. -ō, -as°, OPers. -a, -aš °: draya, manašcā (beside manasca) < *-as-ca. Acc. sg. m. *-aham, Av. -aŋhəm; − māh-, āh-, nāh-, ušah-, “laryngeal” stems, and u̯ah-stems have acc. sg. m. *-āham, Av. -åŋhəm; OPers. has nāham; -i̯ ah-stems have OAv. -iiåŋhəm (trisyllabic by Sievers’ Law), YAv. -iiaŋhəm. Gen.-dat. OPers. māhạyā h in the dating phrase [Schmitt 2014: 208−209: loc. ‘māhy-ā’]? Nom.-acc. du. m. *-(i̯ )ahā > OAv. -aŋhā, YAv. -iiaŋha; *-u̯āhā > YAv. -uuåŋha. Nom. pl. m. *-ahah, Av. -aŋhō, but *-u̯āhah, *-i̯ āhah, Av. -uuåŋhō, -iiåŋhō; − nom.acc. pl. n. *-āh: Av. manå; OAv. vax́iiå, YAv. vaŋ́hås°. Other cases have *-ah- before vowel, Av. -aŋh- (dat. -aŋ́he), except u̯ah-stems, which have -uš-.

34. The morphology of Iranian Loc. pl. *-ahu(u̯ā) < *-asu: YAv. ązah- ‘constriction’: ązahu, rauuah- ‘open space’: rauuōhu, raocah- ‘light’: raocōhuua. Before endings in b, the expected form of the ah-stems, *-azb-, has been replaced by -ə̄b-, OPers. -ab- (as if *-ah b-): Av. vacə̄bīš; YAv. staoiiə̄bīš ‘stronger’; OAv. dat.-abl. pl. hudåbiiō (4 sylls.) < °da˒ə̄biiō < °da˒ah-, OPers. raucabiš ‘days’. A few nouns have -hib-: ązah- ‘constriction, tight place’: dat.-abl. pl. ązaŋhibiiō. u̯ah-stems have -ū˘ž-: YAv. dadū˘žbīš.

2.2.4.9. Stems in sibilants These include stems in s (OPers. θ) and z (< PIIr. *ć, *ȷ́ = tś, dź < PIE *k̑, *g̑), -iš and -uš, e.g. m. °sna iθiš- ‘carrying a weapon’, n. sna iθiš- ‘weapon’, YAv., OPers. hadiš‘homestead; palace’, YAv. ar əduš a degree of sin. The s and z appear as š in the nom. sg. -š and loc. pl. -šu, with degemination in the latter: OAv. maz- ‘great’: maš, YAv. spas- ‘spy’: spaš, barš < bar əz- ‘high’, OAv. ahūm.biš ‘world healer’, loc. pl. nāšū < nās- ‘obtainment’. Both sibilants appear as Av. ž before b: Av. vis-: dat.-abl. pl. vī˘ž ibiiō; instr.-dat.-abl. du. YAv. sna iθī˘žbiia, but OPers. instr. pl. viθbiš-cā ‘and throughout the “houses”’ (Schmitt 2009: 46: “(und) zusammen mit den Häusern,” cf. Schmitt 2014: 281: exact meaning of viθ- uncertain).

2.2.4.10. Laryngeal stems (*aH, *iH, *uH) *aH/ā-stems are represented by YAv. f. xā- ‘wellspring’, Av., OPers. mazdaH- ‘who places (all things) in (his) mind, all-knowing’, Av. paṇtā- ‘path’, and Av. m. hizuuā-/ hizū- ‘tongue’; *iH-/ī-stems by Av. and OPers. fem. forms of adjectives in Av. -aēna-, OPers. -aina-: Av. -aēnī-, OPers. -ainī-, *°jiH- ‘living’, and Av. fem. patronymics in -f əδrī- ‘whose father (is)’ (Yt. 13); and *uH-/ū-stems by YAv. sū- ‘profit, benefit’, Av. °sū- ‘giving life-giving strength’, Av., OPers. f. tanū- ‘body’, OAv. f. fs əratū- ‘?’, YAv. hū- ‘pig’, and f. aγrū- ‘not (yet) pregnant’. Typically these stems add the nom. sg. endings directly to the stem: nom. *°dā˘H-s ‘giver, placer’ > *°dāh > Av. (maz-)då, OPers. °(maz-)dā; *°staH-s > *°stāh: raϑaēštå ‘charioteer’ (acc.s./nom.pl. also r-stem); YAv. nom. xå; Av. nom. m. °jī˘š, YAv. sū˘š; Av., OPers. f. tanū˘š ‘body’; m.(?) YAv. hū˘š. Before vowels, the laryngeal was lost with hiatus (or inserted glide) in OAv., but contraction in YAv. and OPers.: acc. sg. *mazdaH-am > Av. mazdąm (OAv. trisyllabic), OPers. °mazdām; *°jii̯ -am, *°suu̯-am > YAv. °jī˘m, °sū˘m; − gen. sg. *mazdaH-as > *mazda’ah, OAv. trisyll. mazdå (OPers. hypercharacterized °mazdāhah and other forms); − dat. sg. OAv. °jiiōi; − nom.-acc. pl. *-ah/-n̥s > *-ah: OAv. °jiiō (but acc. pl. huf əδrīš [Vr. 2.7; Hoffmann and Forssman, §§ 90.4, 91.2], according to the ī-/i̯ ā- declension, 2.2.2.2), °suuō, YAv. aγruuō; − nom.-acc. du. YAv. *priH-ā > friia ‘dear’. Av. paṇtā-/paθ- ‘path’ < *pantaH/ pn̥tH- has holokinetic ablaut with tH- > *θ- before vowel: YAv. nom. sg. *pantāH-s > paṇtå, acc. sg. paṇtąm; YAv. gen. sg./Av. acc. pl. paθō, OAv. loc. sg. pa iθī, YAv. gen. pl. paθąm; − instr. pl. OAv. pad əbīš; − nom. pl. nstem: paṇtānō. In OPers., the word is apparently a fem. ī-stem: acc. sg. paθī˘m.

519

520

VI. Iranian Av. m. hizuuā-/hizū- ‘tongue’ has acc. hizuuąm; OAv. instr. sg. disyll. hizuuā (mss. also hizuuå), gen. hizuuō (trisyllabic hizuu̯ō ?), YAv. instr. hizuuō < °-u̯a. OPers. n-stem: acc. hạzānam.

2.2.4.11. r-stems r-stems include the root-nouns OAv. gar- ‘song’, sar- ‘union’, which have no ablaut (palatalized dat. sg. ga irē, loc. sg. sa irī), and star- ‘star’; words denoting people: nar‘man, hero’, OAv. p (i/a)tar-, YAv., OPers. pitar-, ‘father’, mātar- ‘mother’, OAv. dug ədar-, YAv. duγdar- ‘daughter’, YAv. x vaŋhar- ‘sister’, brātar- ‘brother’, zāmātar- ‘brother-in-law’ (naptar-, see 2.2.4.12), and agent nouns in -tar-, e.g.: pātar- ‘protector’, dātar‘maker, giver’, zaotar- ‘libator’, OPers. framātar- ‘commander’. The kinship terms and nar- have full grade (*-ar-) in strong cases, while the agent nouns and star- have lengthened grade (*-tār-). r-stems behave partly like i-/u-stems and partly like consonant stems. Like the latter they have nom. sg. -ā˘: Av. nā, OAv. ptā (tā in Y. 47.3 is more likely to be the demonstrative pron. instr.: tā spəṇtō ‘life-giving through it [sc. the mainiiu]’.), Av. dātā˘, YAv. pita, OPers. pitā. The voc. sg. has zero grade of the suffix (*-r̥, Av. -ar ə): YAv. nar ə, pitar ə, dātar ə. Like i-/u-stems they have acc. pl. -nš: *-r̥nš > *-r˜̥š (with nasalized vocalic r̥), which was written -ərąš or -ərə̄š, with the usual substitution of ą or ə̄ for *ᶕ: YAv. nərąš, mātərąš°, nərə̄š and nərə̄uš (Hoffmann and Narten 1989: 73−74). Also like i-/u-stems, they have both protero- and hysterodynamic gen. sg. forms, e.g.: YAv. gen. narš, zaotarš, but piθrō, OPers. piça, dat. OAv. f əδrōi, Av. piθrē˘; YAv. abl. sg. nər ət̰ . Before b, an epenthetic vowel is inserted: instr. pl. gar ō.bīš < *gar ə˘̄ biš; − dat.-abl. pl. OAv. nər əbiiō, -biias°, YAv. stər əbiiō, ptər əbiiō, but nəruiiō < *nər əβiiō. The gen. pl. of star- is OAv. disyllabic strə̄m°. Neut. r-stems: vadar- ‘weapon’: nom.-acc. sg. YAv. vadar ə < *u̯adr̥; − OAv. aodar‘cold’: abl.-gen. sg. aodər əš, YAv. instr. sg. aodra; − YAv. vaŋhar- ‘spring’: loc. sg. vaŋri. ātar-/āθr- ‘fire’ was probably originally a neut. r-stem, with nom.-acc. sg. *ātr̥-. As a masc. noun, the endings were apparently added onto this form (Hoffmann 1988: 58; Hoffmann and Narten 1989: 73 n. 126): *ātr̥-š, *ātr̥-m, Av. ātarš, ātrə˘̄ m, Av. voc. sg. ātar ə, nom. pl. ātarō, dat.-abl. pl. ātər əbiiō, dat. āθrē˘, gen. āθrō, YAv. abl. sg. āθrat̰ .

2.2.4.12. ‘grandchild’ This has the suppletive paradigm: napah-: nom. sg. *-āh: Av. napå(s ə); voc. *-ah: Av. napō; − napāt-/napt-: acc. sg. napātəm, loc. pl. OAv. nafšū < *nap-šu with loss of -t-; OPers. napā < *napāh or *napāt; − naptar-/*nafθr-: acc. sg. naptārəm, naf əδrəm (Y. 17.11 following xšaθrəm), abl. sg. naf əδrat̰ , gen. sg. naf əδrō.

34. The morphology of Iranian

2.2.5. Adjectives: comparative and superlative The comparative and superlative of adjectives (including participles) and adverbs are made with the suffixes -tara- and -təma- or -iiah-, f. -iiehī- (- i̯ ehī-) and -išta-. The forms in -tara-, -təma- are built on the (weak) stem of adjectives with appropriate sandhi before the ending. When the base adjective is an a-stem, it often shows the compositional form in -ō before the suffix. This is the productive type and can be made from all kinds of adjectives, even another superlative.: draējištō.təmaēšuuaca ‘among the “most poorest”’. Simple and derived adjectives and adverbs: OAv. f əraša- ‘perfect’: f ərašō.təma-; YAv. baēšaziia- ‘healing’: baēšaziiō.tara-, -.təma-; amauuaṇt- ‘powerful’: amauuastara-, °uuastəma- (< *-u̯n̥t s-t-). − Pres. participles: YAv. haṇt-: hastəma- ‘best’; ta uruuaiiaṇt‘overcoming’: ta uruuaiiąstəma- (< *-ī˘ant s-t-). Compounds: huδāh- ‘giving good gifts’: huδāstəma-; hubao iδi- ‘smelling good’: hubao iδitara-, -təma-; yāskər ət- ‘*competitive’: yāskər əstara-, -stəma- (-st- < -t st-). Analogically: aš ̣auuan-: aš ̣auuastəma- (for *-uuat- < *-u̯n̥-t-) and vər əθrajan- ‘obstruction-smashing’: vər əθrająstara-, -stəma-; aš.xraθβastəma- ‘having the greatest wisdom’ (< *aš.xratu- ‘having great wisdom’?). From adverbs adjectives can be formed ending in -ara-, -ama-, as well as in -tara-, -tama-: apa- ‘back’: Av., OPers. apara- ‘future’, apə̄ma- ‘last’; upa- ‘up above’: upara-, upəma-; YAv. aδara- ‘below’; aṇtara- ‘inner’: aṇtəma- ‘innermost (clothing); (maiδi̯ a‘middle’:) maδəma- ‘middle’; OPers. apatara- ‘*beyond’; YAv., OPers. fratara(fraθara-) ‘better’, Av. fratəma-, OPers. fratama- ‘foremost’; YAv. nitəma- ‘lowest’; ustəma- ‘last’. Comparatives in Av. -iiah-, OPers. -ī˘yah- and superlatives in Av., OPers. -išta- are made from the root in the full grade, with appropriate sandhi before the ending. Adjectives with no suffix: Av. maz- (and mazāṇt-) ‘great’: maziiah-, mazišta-; − ustems: Av. āsu- ‘fast’: āsiiah-, āsišta-; driγu- ‘poor’: draējišta-; ər əzu- ‘upright’: razišta-; vaŋhu- ‘good’: vahiiah- (OAv. also vax́iiah-, YAv. vaŋ́hah-, f. vahehī-), vahišta-; − with suffixes: Av. masita- ‘long’: masiiah-; Av. uγra- ‘strong’: aojiiah-, aojišta-; namra- ‘pliable’: OAv. nąmišta-; YAv. xrū˘ždra- ‘hard’: OAv. xraoždišta-; Av. bū˘ iri- ‘plentiful’: YAv. baoiiah-, dbōišta- (-ōi- < -əuui- < -au̯i-); OPers. tunuvant- (pr. ptc.): tauvī˘yah-; Av. xratumaṇt- ‘wise’: xraθβišta-; OAv. z arazdā- ‘confident’: z arazdišta-; − with internal n: Av. taxma- ‘firm’: tąš́ iiah-, taṇcišta- < *tn̥k-ma-,*tanč-; − with internal laryngeal: dar əγa- ‘long’: drājiiah-, drājišta- < PIIr. *dr̥Hg ha-/draHj h-; OAv. ādra- ‘lowly’: nā idiiah- < PIIr. *Hn̥Hd-/HnaHd-; YAv. srī˘ra- ‘beautiful’: sraiiah- Av. sraēšta- < PIIr. *ćriH-/ćraiH-; YAv. stū˘ra- ‘sturdy, thick’: staoiiah-, stāuuišta- < PIIr. *stHu-/staHu̯-; sūra- ‘life-giving’: Av. səuuišta- < *ćuH-/ćau̯H-. With extended suffix -ištiia-: zəuuištiiåŋhō ‘strongest’, cf. zāuuar- ‘strength’ (of feet) (cf. Schmitt 2011: 245). A few adjectives have both kinds of superlative, but with semantic differentiation; po uru- ‘much, many’: frāiiah- fraēšta- < PIIr. *pr̥H-u-, *praH-i̯ ah-, *praH-išta-, and OAv. superlative po urutəma- ‘most numerous’; spəṇta- ‘life-giving’: spaniiah-, spə̄ništa‘more/most lifegiving’ OAv. spəṇtō.təma- ‘being spəṇta- in the highest degree’; Av. aka-: OAv. aš́ iiah-, acišta- ‘more/most evil’, YAv. akatara- ‘worse (for)’.

521

522

VI. Iranian

2.2.6. Adverbs Invariable particles: Av. a ipī˘ ‘hereafter’, OPers. azdā ‘*well-known’, OAv. d aibitā ‘from of old’ (?), OPers. duvitā-(paranam); Av. mošu° ‘soon’; Av. pa iti ‘in turn’, OPers. °patiy ‘in addition’; OAv. arə̄m ‘*in due measure’; OAv. nū, Av. nūrəm, OPers. nūram ‘now’; OAv. adə̄ ‘below’; auuar ə̄ ‘hither!’; nana ‘one way or another’; Av. u itī˘ ‘thus, quote’; YAv. bāδa ‘*frequently’, sup. bā iδištəm (de Vaan 2015: “clearly, visibly”). With ending *-s (Schindler 1987): aš° ‘greatly’ < *m̥g̑-š (cf. maz-), OAv. ər əš ‘truly’, YAv. arš < *Hr̥g̑-š (cf. ər əzu-); cf. OAv. āuuiš ‘openly’. Case forms: nom.-acc. n. sg. YAv. daršat̰ , OPers. dạršam ‘strongly’; YAv. dar əγəm, OPers. dargam ‘for a long time’; YAv. po urum ‘in front’, OPers. paruvam ‘before’; YAv. pao irīm, bitīm, OP duvitī˘yam, YAv. θritīm, OP çitī˘yam ‘first(ly), secondly, thirdly, for the first/second/third time’; YAv. ha i θīm ‘truly’ < ha iθiia-; YAv. kambištəm (cf. OPers. kamna- ‘little, few’ < *kn̥bna-); OAv. vasə̄, Av. vasō ‘at will’ < vasah-; YAv. paitiiaog ət̰ ‘in response’; − abl. sing: Av. dūrāt̰ , OPers. dūradaš ‘from far away’ (cf. avadaš, 2.4.5); − loc. sg.: Av. dū irē˘, OPers. dūraiy (apiy) ‘far away’; YAv. a irime, armaē° ‘in peace’; OPers. ašnaiy ‘close’, vasaiy (also read as vasiy) ‘greatly’ (Schmitt 2014: 276). Compounds: YAv. frā.āpəm ‘with the stream’; pa itiiāpəm ‘against the stream’; yaθā.kər ətəm ‘as it is done’; OPers. pati-padam ‘in place’; ni-padiy ‘in the footsteps of, close behind’; − univerbated OPers. pasāva (< pasā-ava) ‘afterward’.

2.3. Number words Cardinals, ordinals, and other number words are attested in YAv. (here unmarked), while OAv. has hardly any. In OPers., few numerals are spelled out, but several are found in Elamite texts. The cardinals ‘three’ and ‘four’ have archaic fem. forms with the suffix *-hr-/-šr-.

2.3.1. Cardinals OAv. has only ‘one’, ‘ten’, and ‘both’. 1: Av. aēuua-, OPers. aiva-: masc. YAv. acc. aōim, ōim, ōiium, etc., instr. Av. aēuuā˘, YAv. gen. m. aēuuahe, loc. m. aēuuahmi; − fem. nom. aēuua, acc. aēuuąm, instr. aēuuaiia°, gen. aēuuaŋ́hå. 2: *duu̯a-, *duu̯i- (bi° in compounds): duua (dúu̯a): m. duua, f./n. duiie, duuaē°; dat.-abl.-instr. m. duuaē ibiia, gen. m. duuaiiå. ‘Both’: OAv., OPers. ubā, YAv. uua (úu̯a), f./n. nom.-acc. OAv. ubē, YAv. uiie < *uu̯ i̯ e, instr.-dat.-abl. OAv. ubōibiiā, YAv. uuaēibiia (FO 2b.41 ubōiia may belong here or to the loc.), gen. uuaiiå(s°) (FO), loc. OAv. ubōiiō, YAv. uuaiiō (FO); − OPers. gen.dat. pl. ubānām. − Indecl. YAv. uuaēm ‘both’ < *uβai̯ am. 3: θri- (YAv. θri°): nom. m. θrāiiō, θraiias°, acc. m. θrī˘š, gen. θraiiąm, dat.-abl. θribiiō, nom. f. tišrō, gen. tišrąm, tišranąm, n. θrī. 4: caθβar-/catur- (YAv. caθru°): nom. m. caθβārō, caθβaras°, acc. caturə̄, gen. caturąm, nom./acc. f. cataŋrō, n. catura.

34. The morphology of Iranian 5−10: paṇca, xšuuaš, hapta, ašta, nauua, dasā˘, gen. paṇcanąm, nauuanąm, dasanąm. 11−19: duua.dasa, paṇcadasa-, xšuuaš.dasa-. 20−50: compounded with -sant-/-sat-: vī˘sąs°, vī˘sa iti; θrī˘sąs, θrī˘satəm, gen. θrī˘satanąm; caθβar əsatəm, paṇcāsatəm, instr. pancasat̰ bī˘š°. 60−90: fem. ti-stems: xšuuašti-, haptā iti-, aštā iti-, nauua iti-. 100, 1000: neut. a-stems: sata-, hazaŋra-: sg. satəm, hazaŋrəm, du. duiie sa ite, duiie hazaŋre, pl. tišrō sata ‘300’, caθβārō sata ‘400’, nauua hazaŋra ‘9000’, etc. Compounded numerals: paṇcāca vī˘sa iti ‘25’, θraiiasca θrī˘sąsca ‘33’, paṇcāca hapi tā ti- ‘75’, nauuaca nauua iti ‘99’; duiie nauua iti ‘180’, nauuaca … nauua itī˘šca nauuaca sata nauuaca hazaŋra nauuasə̄sca baēuuąn ‘9 + 90 + 900 + 9000 + 9 times 10,000 = 99,999’.

2.3.2. Ordinals 1st: Av. fratəma-, OPers. fratama ‘foremost, first’; − 2 nd, 3 rd: OAv. d aibitiia-, YAv. bitiia-, OPers. duvitī˘ya-; Av. θritiia-, OPers. çitī˘ya-; − 4 th: tū˘ iriia- (cf. āxtū˘ irim [2.3.3]); − 5 th, 6 th: with root vowel -u-: puxδa- < *puxθa-, xštuua- (Hoffmann 1965: 189−190); − 7 th: haptaθa-; − 5 th, 8 th−10 th: paṇcama-, aštəma-, naoma- < nau̯ama- (de Vaan 2000: 524), dasəma-; − 11th−19 th: = cardinals: aēuuandasa-, duuadasa-, θridasa-, caθrudasa-, paṇcadasa-, xšuuaš.dasa-, hapta.dasa-, ašta.dasa-, nauua.dasa-; − 20 th: vī˘sąstəma-.

2.3.3. Other number words Multiplicatives: ‘once’ to ‘four times’: YAv. ha-kər ət̰ , OPers. ha-karam ‘once’ < *sm̥-, biš, θriš, caθruš, beside bižuuat̰ , θrižuuat̰ ; − ‘six/nine times’: xšuuažaiia, naomaiia; − ‘-fold’: vī˘sa itiuuå, θrī˘saθβå, θrī˘sataθβəm, caθβar əsaθβå, paṇcasaθβå, xšuuaštiuuå, hapta iθiuuå, ašta iθiuuå, nauua itiuuå, satāiiuš, hazaŋrāiš, baēuuarōiš. The form nauuasə̄s° (OIA °-śaḥ) is used in nauuasə̄sca baēuuąn ‘90,000’. The ‘-th time’ is formed with the prefix ā-: āt̰ bitī˘m/āδbitī˘m, āθritī˘m, āxtū˘ irī˘m. Fractions have the formant -hu̯a-/-šu̯a-: θrišuua-, caθrušuua-, paŋtaŋ vha-, haptahuua-, aštahuua-; − OPers. in Elamite transcriptions: = *çišuva-, = *čaçušuva-, = *aštauva-, etc. (Hoffmann 1965 = I: 82−90).

2.4. Pronouns The Av. pronouns are of the PIIr. type: personal, demonstrative, reflexive-reciprocal, relative, interrogative, and indefinite (indefinite relative). Except for the personal pronouns, most of them are inflected according to the a- and ā-declensions. Special pronominal case endings and suffixes inherited from PIE include the nom. sg. f. *-ai (OAv. -ōi, -aē °) (only in the possessive pronouns), nom.-acc. sg. n. *-at (YAv. -at̰ , OPers. -a, -aš°; see 1.4); nom. pl. m. *-ai (YAv. - i̯ e, OPers. -aiy); the element *-hm- (Av. -hm-, OPers. - hm-) in several obl. cases masc.-neut.; and *-hi̯ - (Av. -ŋ́h-, OAv. also -x́ii-, OPers. -hạy-) in several obl. cases fem.; instr. sg. m./n. -ā˘ or -nā˘; and gen. pl. m. *-aišām, f. *-āhām.

523

524

VI. Iranian Pronominal forms are also found among “pronominal” adjectives, including Av. aniia-, OPers. aniya- ‘other’; Av., OPers. hama- ‘one and the same’; OPers. haruva‘whole’; Av. vī˘spa-, OPers. visa- ‘every, all’: nom.-acc. sg. n. YAv. aniiat̰ (but vīspəm), OPers. aniya, aniyaš-ciy (see 1.4); − dat. sg. m. YAv. aniiahmāi, vī˘spəmāi (< *vispəm˛āi < *vispahmāi ?); − gen., dat., loc. sg. f.: OPers. gen.-dat. hamahạyāyā, loc. haruvahạyāyā; − nom. pl. m. YAv. aniie, vīspe, OPers. aniyaiy, visaiy; − gen. pl. m. YAv. aniiaēšąm, vī˘spaēšąm (f. vī˘spanąm).

2.4.1. Personal and possessive pronouns The personal pronouns distinguish three persons; the 3 rd person has three genders. Many have enclitic forms, including the 2 nd sg./pl. nom. For the 3 rd person, the weak distal ha-/ta- is used, as well as the inherited stem system i-/hi-. 1st sg. nom. *aȷ́am, Av. azə˘̄ m, OPers. adam (OAv. ascīt̰ is probably not enclitic *az [Hoffmann and Forssman, § 11.1], but as° ‘bone[s]’ [Kellens−Pirart I: 163 ‘noyau’, II: 207; Skjærvø 2008a: 511].); − acc. *mām = OPers, Av. mąm, enclitic Av., OPers. mā, YAv. also mē (= gen.-dat.); − dat. *mabi̯ a(h), OAv. ma ibiiā, ma ibiiō, YAv. māuu ōiia, māuu aiia° < *mau̯i̯ a < *maβi̯ a; − abl. *mat, Av. mat̰ , OPers. univerbated hacā-ma ‘from me’; − gen. *mana, YAv. mana (OAv. kə̄ mə̄ nā θrātā vistō Y. 50.1 is probably ‘which man/hero [nā] is found as my [mə̄] protector?” [Bartholomae 1904, col. 1104] and does not have mə̄.nā for *manā [Hoffmann and Forssman, § 114.1] with the OPers. “manā kạrtam construction” [Kellens-Pirart, III: 210 on Y. 46.19: “complément d’agent”].), OPers. manā; − gen.-dat. enclitic *mai, OAv. mōi, YAv. mē, OPers. -maiy. 1st du. nom., perhaps OAv. enclitic vā (In Y. 29.5 at̰ vā/vå ustānāiš ahuuā zastāiš frīnəmnā ahurāi ā, the mss. are fairly equally divided between vā and vå, which could be acc. of direction with ustānāiš ‘up-stretched toward you [all].’ Hoffmann and Forssman, § 114.2, also have ə̄əāuuā as acc. with a query, but this is quite probably for auuā, preverb going with dāiiāt̰ [OIA ava-dhā-]. They also list enclitic nā [Y. 45.2], which can also be from a possessive na- [Beekes 1988: 138].). 1st pl. nom. *u̯ai̯ am, Av. vaēm, OPers. vayam; − acc. YAv. *ahma (Yt.1.24 Bartholomae 1904; mss. ahmi yą[m/n] aməš ̣ə̄ spəṇtə̄ ‘us, the Life-giving Immortals’), enclitic *nāh, OAv. nå, YAv. nō (= gen.-dat.); − instr. ə̄hmā (Y. 29.11 ahurā nū nå auuar ə̄ ə̄hmā rātōiš yūšmāuuatąm ‘O lord, come now down to us [in foreknowledge] of the gift [worthy] of ones such as you [all, given] by us!’ [cf. 2 nd pl. instr. xšmā]); − abl. OAv. ahmat̰ ; − gen. *ahmākam, YAv. ahmākəm, OPers. amāxam (< *amāk ham < *a hmākam?); − gen.-dat. encl. *nah, OAv. nə̄, YAv. nō. 2 nd sg. nom. *tuu̯am, OAv. tuuə̄m, YAv. tū˘m < *tuu̯əm, OPers. tuvam, encl. Av. tū; − acc. *tu̯ām, Av. θβąm, OPers. θuvām, encl. *tu̯ā, Av. θβā; − instr. *tu̯ā, YAv. θβā; − dat. *tabi̯ a(h), OAv. ta ibiiā°, ta ibiiō; − abl. *tu̯at, Av. θβat̰ ; − gen. *tau̯a, Av. tauuā˘; − gen.dat. encl. *tai, OAv. tōi, YAv. tē, OPers. -taiy; − loc. OAv. θβōi (monosyll.? Y. 48.8; Skjærvø 2005: 204 n. 38). 2 nd du. gen. YAv. y auuākəm. 2 nd pl. nom. *yūš +-am > *yūžam, Av. yūžə˘̄ m; encl. Av. yūš; − acc. encl. *vāh, OAv. vå, YAv. vō (= gen.-dat.); − instr. *ušmā, Av. xšmā; − dat. °mabi̯ a(h): OAv. yūšma ibiiā, xšma ibiiā, YAv. yū˘šmaoiiō, YAv. xšmāuu ōiia; − abl. OAv. xšmat̰ , Av. yūšmat̰ ; − gen. yū˘šmākəm, xšmākəm; − encl. gen.-dat. *u̯ah, Av. vō.

34. The morphology of Iranian The OAv. possessive pronouns are a-stems with pronominal inflection: ma-, θβa-, ahmāka-, xšmāka-, yū˘šmāka-: sg. nom. m. mə̄, θβə̄, f. θβōi; in the 2 nd pl. the gen. of the pers. pron. is used (1st pl. not attested). 3 rd person ha-/ta-: nom. sg. m. *hah, YAv. hō, has°/hə̄ °, f. hā, nom.-acc. n. tat̰ , nom. pl. m. OAv. tōi, YA. tē; acc.-instr. regular a-stem forms, təm, etc. − Enclitic: sg. gen.dat. m. OAv. hōi (= f./n.), YAv. hē, or with ruki šē; OPers. -šaiy; − gen.-dat. pl. OPers. -šām. 3 rd person i-/hi-/di-: most forms are enclitic, except nom. sg. f. and du. n. hī. Nom. f. sg. hī (Y. 31.10); − acc. sg. m. Av. ˘īm, YAv., OPers. -dim, -šim; − acc. sg. f. Av. hī˘m; − nom.-acc. sg. n. OAv. īt̰ , YAv. dī˘t̰ ; − nom.-acc. du. f. hī (Y. 44.18), n. hī (Y. 30.3); − acc. pl. m. OAv. īš, YAv. dī˘š, OPers. -šiš, -diš, f. Av. hī˘š, n. OAv. ī, YAv. ī, dī (see also Skjærvø 2003−2004: 33−34).

2.4.2. Demonstrative pronouns The demonstrative pronouns have three-way deixis of varying emphasis. They have two (or more) stems, one for the nom. m./f., the other for the other cases, or more complex distribution. There are two proximal pronouns: aii-/ima- and (obl.) a- ‘this’ are used of things near the speaker and things in this world, as opposed to in heaven, but also something impending, hence ‘the following’; aēša-/aēta- ‘this’, with pronominal declension, partly overlaps with aii-/ima-, but most frequently refers to the matter at hand; in the legal books of the Avesta, it is therefore used in the sense of ‘this X in question’, ‘the aforementioned’. aii-/ima-: sg. nom. m. *ai̯ am, OAv. aiiə̄m, YAv. aēm, f. *ii̯ am, Av. īm (Y. 45.3), YAv. ˘īm; OPers. m./f. iyam. − From ima-: acc. sg. m. YAv. iməm, f. Av. imąm; nom.-acc. n. imat̰ , OPers. ima; nom. pl. m. YAv. ime, OPers. imaiy; nom.-acc. pl. f. YAv. imå(s°); n. Av. imā; OPers. pl. instr.-abl. imaibiš, gen.-dat. imaišām. a-: sg. instr. m. YAv., OPers. anā˘ (Bartholomae 1904, cols. 112−114 and Beekes 1988: 139 assign this form to ana-. Hoffmann and Forssman, § 121 assume ana- is a secondary development from forms of a-.), f. *ai̯ ā: OAv. ōiiā, YAv. aiia, āiia (in āiia z əmā ‘throughout this earth” with rhythmic lengthening); gen. m. OAv. ahiiā, YAv. ahe, aŋ́he; − dat., abl., loc. m. ahmāi, ahmāt̰ , ahmī˘; f. Av. aŋ́hāi (ax́iiāi), aŋ́hāt̰ , aŋ́hå(s ə); − loc. f. YAv. aŋ́he < *ahi̯ ā (e.g. Y. 9.28 ahmi nmāne … aŋ́he vīse ‘in this house, in this town’), OPers. ahạyāyā; − du. gen. m. OAv. ås°, Av. aiiå; − instr.-dat.-abl. f. ābiiā; − pl. instr. m. Av. āiš, YAv. aē ibiš, f. ābīš; − dat.-abl. m. Av. aē ibiiō, f. OAv. a ibiias° (Y. 53.5, Insler 1975: 325), YAv. ābiiō; − gen. m. aēšąm, f. åŋhąm; − loc. m. Av. aēšuua, f. OAv. āhū, YAv. āhuua. OAv. (nom.) huuō ‘he, that one’ may originally have had 2nd-person deixis: ‘he, that one (near you)’ (Watkins 2000), but in OAv. it mostly functions as a 3 rd sg. pers. pron. like YAv. hō. The obl. stem ana- is found in masc. gen. du. YAv. anaiiå, instr. pl. Av. anāiš (but Abl. anahmāt̰ naēmāt̰ in Nir. 81.1 is suspect: according to the Pahlavi translation, it may be a corruption of *aēuuahmāt̰ .). Judging from Y. 53.8(?), it can, apparently, be used with “derogatory” deixis.

525

526

VI. Iranian The strong distal pronoun is hāu/auua- ‘yonder’, notably used about things in heaven; but it is also anaphoric, especially in OPers. It has sg. nom. m./f. Av. hāu, OPers. m./f. hauv. Other cases are from auua- with pronominal declension. Note acc. m. sg. OAv. auuə̄m (Y. 49.10 auuə̄mīrā for auuə̄m īrā ‘set yonder [sky?] in motion!’), YAv. aom, pl. YAv. auuū, aū; − instr. m. sg. Av. auuā˘, OPers. avanā; − OPers. nom.-acc. n. sg. ava, avašciy.

2.4.3. Reflexive and reciprocal pronouns Av. x va- ‘own’ with pronominal inflection (sg. nom. m. x və̄, f. x vaē°, etc.; Av. x vatō ‘by oneself’); YAv. them. x vaēpa iθiia- and hauua- (dat. sg. m. hauuāi, dat. and gen. sg. f. hauuaiiāi, haoiiāi, hauuaiiå, haoiiå). The dat. sg. m. huuāuuōiia appears to be ‘self’. But generally in this value YAv. uses tanū- ‘body’, with or without hauuā- or x vaēpa iθiiā-. OPers. has huvaipašiya- ‘self’ and huvāipašiya- ‘own’ [Schmitt 2014: 270: noun ‘Eigentum, Eigenbesitz’].

2.4.4. Relative, interrogative, and indefinite pronouns The relative pronoun has the PIIr. stem *i̯ a-, which in OPers. was univerbated with the 3 rd person pronoun to form the system haya-/taya-. The nom.-acc. n. is OAv. hiiat̰ (of unclear origin), YAv. yat̰ (archaizing also hiiat̰ ). It has pronominal inflection, with f. *i̯ ahi̯ - > YAv. yeŋ́h-: gen. yeŋ́hå, abl. yeŋ́hāt̰ , loc. yeŋ́he. OPers. has instr. sg. m. tayanā. The interrogative and indefinite pronouns are formed from the PIIr. stems ka- and ci-, with pronominal inflection: sg. nom. m. OAv. kə̄, YAv. kō, Av. kas°, ciš; f. kā; − acc. Av. kə˘̄ m, YAv. cī˘m, f. kąm; − nom.-acc. n. Av. kat̰ , YAv. cī˘t̰ ; − instr. Av. kā, YAv. kana; − dat. m. kahmāi; − gen. m. OAv. kahiiā, cahiiā, YAv. kahe, f. kaŋ́hå(s°); − loc. m. YAv. kahmi, cahmi, f. OAv. kahiiā°, YAv. kaŋ́he; − pl. nom. m. OAv. kōi, YAv. kaiia (them.), caiiō; − acc. m. kə̄ṇg; − nom.-acc. n. kā, Av. cī˘°; − gen. f. kaŋhąm; − dat.-abl. Av. kaē ibiiō. The interrogative pronouns ka- and ci- and katā˘ra- ‘which (of two)’ can be made indefinite by means of the particle -cit̰ , repetition, or a combination of the two, e.g. nom. m. kascī˘t̰ , OPers. kašciy ‘anybody’; − acc. m. kəmcī˘t̰ ‘each’; − OPers. nom.-acc. n. cišciy ‘anything’; − dat. m. kahmāicī˘t̰ ‘to whomsoever’; − gen. m. kahe kahiiācī˘t̰ ‘of each and everyone’; − loc. m. kahmi kahmicī˘t̰ ‘in each and every’; − loc. f. kaŋ́he kaŋ́he (only in Yt. 5.101 kaŋ́he kaŋ́he apaγžā ire ‘at each and every outlet’, although apaγžārais usually masc.). Indefinite relative pronouns and indefinite adverbs are formed in the same way: yat̰ cī˘t̰ ‘whatever, whenever’, kuuacī˘t̰ ‘wherever’. The indefinite particles -ca and -cina < *-cana are less common, e.g. OAv. nom. sg. m. yas° … cī˘šcā, YAv. yō cī˘šca ‘whoever’, pl. OAv. yōi … caiiascā, pl. n. yā … cīcā, YAv. yā cī˘ca; kaθacina ‘howsoever’. The relative and interrogative pronouns referring to two are yatāra- and katāra-: nom. sg. YAv. m. katarascit̰ ‘each (of the two)’; nom. pl. m. yatāra. The negative indefinite pronouns are identical with the interrogative pronouns prefixed with the negation: YAv. naēciš ‘nobody’, māciš ‘(let) nobody’, naēδa.cit̰ ‘nor anything’; OPers. naiy … kašciy/cišciy ‘nobody, nothing’.

34. The morphology of Iranian

2.4.5. Correlative pronominal adjectives/adverbs These are adverbs of place, time, and manner with modal and spatial suffixes: i- ‘here and now’: OAv., OPers. idā, YAv. iδa ‘here’; Av. iθā˘ ‘in this manner’; YAv. iθra ‘here’; − āeta- ‘this’: YAv. aētaδa ‘here’; aētauuaṇt- ‘this much’; − a- ‘then, there’: OAv. adā, YAv. aδa, OPers. ada°, adakaiy ‘then’; YAv. aδāt̰ , OPers. a hmata from the stem ahma+ -tas ‘from there’ (Schmitt 2014: 129: amata, cf. OInd. áma-); Av. aθā ‘in that manner’; Av. aθrā˘ ‘there’; YAv. auuaṇt-, OPers. avā ‘that much’; − auua-: YAv. auuaδa, OPers. avadā ‘there’; OPers. avadaš ‘from there’ (for *au̯adat. The ending -daš is to be explained by a proportion [Hoffmann and Forssman, 1980 = III: 744−745]: bābirauv ‘in Babylon’: hacā bābirauš ‘from Babylon’ = avadā ‘there’: X; X = hacā avadaš ‘from there’.); YAv. auuaθa, OPers. avaθā ‘in that manner’; YAv. auuaθra ‘there’; YAv. auuauuaṇt- ‘that much’; OPers. avākaram ‘of that kind’; − ātara- ‘that one (of two)’: YAv. yatāra- ‘which’, katāra- ‘which?’, ātaraθra ‘on that side’; − ya-, rel.: OAv., OPers. yadā, YAv. yaδa ‘when’; YAv. yaδāt̰ ‘whence’; Av. yaθā ‘in what manner’; Av. yaθrā˘ ‘where’; Av. yauuaṇt- ‘as much (… as)’; − ka-, ku-, c- interrog.: OAv. kadā, YAv. kaδa ‘when?’; Av. kaθā ‘in what manner?’; OAv. kudā ‘where?’, YAv. kudat̰ ‘from where?’; Av. kuθrā˘ ‘where?’; YAv. cuuaṇt- ‘how much?’; OPers. ciyā˘karam ‘how much?, of what kind?’ (Schmitt 2014: 158−159); − aniia- ‘other’: OAv. aniiada° ‘elsewhere’, OAv. aniiāθā ‘differently’.

3. Compounds Exclusively nominal prefixes include: − a- (ə-), an- ‘not, non-, lacking’: OAv. adrujiiaṇt- ‘non-deceiving’, YAv. anaš ̣auuan‘not orderly’, anaγra- ‘beginningless’, aŋhaošəmna- ‘not drying out’, əuuiδuuah- ‘ignorant’, afratat̰ .kušī- ‘not yet flowing forth’ < perf. part. act. f. of √tak/c, əuuisti- ‘fact of not finding’, asrušti- ‘non-hearing’; − OPers. a-yāu hmaini- ‘*not in control’ (?) (see 2.2.3). − hu- (Av. also x v-, OPers. huv-) ‘good’ and duš-, duž- ‘bad, evil’: Av. hu-/dušiti- ‘good/ bad dwelling’; x vīti- < (*hu-iti-)/dužiti- ‘good/bad going > comfort/discomfort’; hū˘iti< *hu-uti- ‘somebody whose weaving is good’ > ‘artisan’, hu-/duždāh- ‘giving good/ bad gifts’ < °da˒ah-; hu-/duš ə.xšaθra- ‘having good/bad command’; − OPers. huv-asa‘having good horses’, huv-asabāra- ‘good horseman’; dušiyāra- ‘bad season, famine’, YAv. hu-/dužiiāriia- demoness of good/bad harvest. Preverbs used as prefixes typically have meanings that differ slightly from their values as preverbs, cf. apa ‘in the back, backward’ (preverb: ‘back, backward’): apakauua‘with a hump in the back, humpback’; − fra ‘in front’ (preverb: ‘forward, forth:): frakauua- ‘hump-chested’, fraiiara- ‘morning’ < fra + aiiar-; − vī ‘to the side(s), away’ (Benveniste 1970): vī.bāzu- ‘(the length of) the arms held out to the sides’, vī.āpa‘from which the water has gone away, waterless’, vīdaēuua- ‘keeping the daēuuas away’, vī.xrūmaṇt- ‘(blow) that causes blood to flow to all sides’. In other instances compounds as well as their individual elements can be made from nouns, adjectives, adverbs, and other compounds. If one member of the compound is a

527

528

VI. Iranian word that normally contains two parts, only one part can usually be used in the compound, e.g. ahuraδāta-, mazdaδāta- ‘set in place by Ahura Mazdā’. A few compounds have more than two members (“univerbated phrases”): YAv. frādat̰ .vīspąm.hujiiā iti- ‘(the ratu) called the one who furthers all good living’, druxš.vīdruxš ‘who is the most Liedispelling for the Lie’, draoγō.vāxš.draojišta- ‘who belies the lying word the most’, and names of texts: xšmāuuiia.gə̄uš.uruuā- hā iti- ‘the section beginning with xšmāuuiia gə̄uš uruuā’ (= Y. 29). The final vowel of the first member usually becomes ō, whether from an a-, ā-, or anstem: daēuuō.dāta- ‘established by daēuuas’; daēnō.dis- < daēnā- ‘showing (the path) to the daēnā’; zruuō.dāta- < zruuan- ‘established by/in Time’’; − or an indeclinable in -a: hupō.busta- < hu + upa- ‘well-scented’; haptō.karšuuairī- < hapta ‘belonging to the seven continents’. Nouns as second members of compounds are sometimes in the zero grade, e.g. frādat̰ .fšu- ‘cattle-furthering’ < pasu-; ər əduuafšnī- ‘having perky breasts’ < fštāna-; dar əgāiiu- ‘long-lived’ < *°Hi̯ u- < āiiu-; spitāma- (3 sylls.) ‘having *swollen power’ < *°Hma- < *Hama-. Caland systems include xšuuiβra-: xšuuiβi.išu- ‘having vibrant arrows’; tiγra-: tiži.aršti- ‘having sharp spears’; jafra-: ja iβi.vafra- ‘with deep snow’; namra-: nąmi.ąsu‘having soft shoots’; bər əzaṇt-: bər əzi.gāθra- ‘singing loud songs’; *x vanaṇt-: *x va ini.raθa- ‘having singing wheels’, name of the central continent, Xvaniraθa. The first member of a compound may be a case form: nom. YAv. afš.ciθra- ‘containing the seed of water’, aβ əždāna- < āfš-d° ‘being containers of water’; − acc. OAv. vər əθrə̄m.jan- ‘obstruction-smasher’, ahūm.biš- ‘world-healer’, YAv. vīrəṇjan- ‘mansmasher’ < vīrəm + jan; nasūm.kər ət- ‘corpse-cutter’; − adverbial acc.: dar əγəm.jīti‘long life’; − gen. drujas.kanā- ‘the den of the Lie’; − dat. yauuaējī- ‘forever living’; − loc.: bər əzi.rāz- ‘ruling on high’; ma iδiiōi.šad- ‘sitting in the middle’; raθaēštā- ‘standing on a chariot, warrior’; zəmar ə.guz- ‘hiding in the ground’, with “locatival” zəmar ə. “Open dvandvas” consist of two words in the dual: OAv. gāuuā azī ‘a bull and a (fertile) cow’; YAv. miθra ahura ‘Miθra and Ahura (Mazdā)’, instr.-dat.-abl. ahuraēibiia miθraēibiia; pasu vī˘ra ‘cattle and men’, gen. pasuuå vīraiiå; āpa uruua ire ‘water and plants’, saŋhauuāci ar ənauuāci ‘the two (sisters) Saŋhauuācī and Arnauuācī’. āmreḍita compounds are adverbial phrases consisting of repeated words: OAv. narə̄m narəm ‘man for man’; YAv. nmāne nmāne ‘in house after house’.

4. Verb morphology The Old Iranian verb has finite and non-finite forms, distributed over the categories of “tense” or “aspect”, signaling an action as taking place before, during, or after the present time of the speaker and as having been completed or not; − “mood”, describing an action as real, unreal, foreseen, etc.; − and “voice” (diathesis), describing the action as affecting another (active), being done in the subject’s interest (middle), or suffered by the subject (middle, passive). Finite forms have the categories of “number” and “person”, while non-finite forms behave like nouns (infinitives) and adjectives (participles).

34. The morphology of Iranian

4.1.1. Aspect and tense The present and imperfect express the imperfective (durative, repetitive) aspect, the aorist the perfective/completive aspect, the perfect the resultative aspect: what one has (always, never) done or what happened and now is. The pluperfect is the past of the perfect. The notion of past could be emphasized by the addition of the augment (a-) to a more primitive form of the verb in the present and aorist known as the injunctive. In OPers., the past tenses always have the augment; in Av. the augment is rare. Thus, the common past narrative tense is the present injunctive in YAv. and the augmented imperfect (= present injunctive plus the augment) in OPers. In YAv. there are few clear examples of the augment, as the preverb ā- is frequently shortened to a- and the augment can be lengthened to ā-. Suppletion or the use of different verbal roots to signal different tense, aspect, or mood stems is found in Av. pres. mrao-, aor., perf. vac-; Av. pres. vaēna-, OPers. pres. vaina- ‘see’, Av. aor., perf. dar əs-, OPers. iptv. dī-. YAv. and OPers. have several aorists, mainly in the optative and imperative; augmented and subjunctive aorists are rare. The perfect optative is used to signal “irrealis” modality in YAv. and OPers. Av. has a future formed with the suffix *-hi̯ a- (4.2.1), not attested in OPers. Both YAv. and OPers. have a preterite optative used to express repeated or habitual past action (cf. English ‘he would go’). It takes the augment regularly in OPers. and occasionally in YAv. A periphrastic perfect formed by the perfect participle in -ta plus the verb ‘be’ is seen occasionally in YAv.; in OPers., it appears to have replaced the old perfect indicative in the value of a conclusive statement: ima taya manā kạrtam ‘(all) this that I have done’ contrasting with the narrative imperfect (Skjærvø 1985; Jügel 2015, chapter 10). On OAv. mə̄.nā … vistō, see 2.4.1. OPers. has a “potentialis” formed with the participle +√kar signaling ability to do; + √bau designating completed action.

4.1.2. Moods The moods are indicative, subjunctive, imperative, optative, and (pres., aor.) injunctive. The subjunctive is formed from the indicative by lengthening the thematic vowel in the thematic conjugations and by adding a thematic vowel in the athematic conjugations. The subjunctive forms of athematic verbs are formally often indistinguishable from thematic indicative forms. Athematic verbs frequently adopt thematic subjunctive endings. In the optative, athematic verbs add the formant *-i̯ ā-/-ī- (Av. -iiā-, OPers. -iyā-) to the root; thematic verbs add -ī- to the thematic vowel to obtain the opt. formant *-ai-, Av. -aē-, -ōi-, -aii-, OPers. -ai-, -ay-. The stem of the imperative is identical with that of the indicative.

529

530

VI. Iranian

4.1.3. Voice Some verbs have only active forms, some only middle forms, and some both act. and mid. forms. Only in the third group can the middle forms have a function different from that of the active forms. Intransitive verbs usually have only active or only middle forms, while transitive verbs can take both active and middle forms. If they do, the distinction between the two forms is usually “active ~ passive”; more rarely, the middle denotes that the action is being performed in the interest of the subject; this is the case when the verb has a special passive form in -i̯ a- (Av. -iia-, OPers. -iya-; see 4.2.1). Rarely, the middle forms of a verb have the same meaning as the active ones. Examples: middle only: maniia- ‘think’, yaza- ‘sacrifice’, āh- ‘sit’; − mid. = pass.: aza- act. ‘lead (away)’, mid. ‘be led away’, vaēna- act. ‘see’, mid. ‘be seen’; − mid. = action in the interest of the subject: pacaact. ‘cook’, mid. ‘cook for oneself’, var əδaiia- act. ‘increase’ (trans.), mid. ‘increase (intrans.); − mid. = act.: fracara- act., mid. ‘go forth’; OPers. ah- ‘be’, ai- ‘go’, both with imperf. 3 rd pl. act. and mid. (āha, āha ntā; āiša, āya ntā); − differentation of meaning: hišta- act. ‘stand = take up a position’, mid. ‘stand = be standing’, bara- act. ‘carry’, mid. ‘ride’; daδā-/daδ- act. ‘make, give’, mid. ‘take (on), receive’.

4.2. Present stem formations The athematic present conjugations have present stems ending in a consonant or in a vowel, short or long (laryngeal stems). All athematic stems show ablaut (full and zero grade in the root syllable: Av. mrao-/mru- ‘say’ or the stem formant: Av. -nao-/-nu-, OPers. -nau-/-nu-), and sandhi occurs between the final consonant of the stem and the initial consonant of the endings. The following types occur: A. Root stems, modified by ablaut and sandhi changes, e.g.: Av. ah-/as-/h- ‘be’, aē-/i‘go’, jan-/ja-/γn- ‘strike down’, vas-/us- ‘wish’, stao-/stu- ‘praise’, mrao-/mru- ‘say, speak’, OPers. ah-/as-/h-, ai-, dī- ‘rob’ (< PIIR. *ȷ́ī-), jan-, pā- ‘protect’, ā-xšnau-/ ā-xšnu- ‘hear’. “Narten” presents have lengthened grade in the pres. ind. and injunctive sg.: √taš ‘fashion’: Av. 3 rd sg. tāšti; √naid ‘scorn’: YAv. 1st sg. nāismī (for *nāin-mi after 3 rd sg. inj. nāist; Tremblay 1999). OAv. 1st sg. stāumī, often cited as a Narten-pres., is found in one branch of the Yasna mss. only, the other two branches having staomī. Cf. de Vaan (2003: 377). B. Reduplicated stems: the reduplicated syllable has 1. short vowel: Av. daδā-/daδ‘place, give’, didaē-/di idii- ‘see’, hiš.hak-/hišc- ‘follow’, OPers. dadā-; − 2. long vowel, diphthong, or two consonants (intensives): √zbā/zū ‘invoke’: Av. zaozao-/zaozu- ‘keep invoking’; √kar/kṝ (PIr. *kar) ‘sing’: car əkar-/car əkər ə- ‘keep singing’; √sanh/sah ‘proclaim’: sąsaŋh- ‘keep announcing’. Note √i̯ ā/ī ‘request’: *ii̯ H-, Av. ii̯ -/ī˘- (cf. OIA iyé, ī́mahe). Some reduplicated stems are thematic, e.g. √rah/rš ‘move away’: rārəšiia-. C. Stems with n-infixes are built to roots of the type C1VC2 (or C1VC2C3), with infixation of -n- before the last cons.: C1V-na-C2-/C1V-n-C2-. Three main types occur: 1. Stems from roots ending in a consonant other than u̯ or H: √caiš/ciš ‘assign’: PIIr. *ci-na-s-/*ci-n-š-: Av. cinah/s-/cī˘š-; √u̯aid/u̯id ‘find’: PIIr. *u̯i-na-d-/u̯i-n-d-: Av. vinad-/ viṇd-; √mark/mr̥ k/mr̥ c ‘destroy’: *mr̥-na-k-/*mr̥-n-k-: Av. *mər ənak-/mər əṇk/mər əṇc-.

34. The morphology of Iranian 2. Stems from roots ending in H: CV-na-H-/CV-n-H- > PIIr. *fri-na-H-/*fri-n-H‘*receive as guest friend’: YAv. frī˘nā-/frī˘n-; *mit-na-H- ‘dwell’: Av. miθnā-; PIr. *ȷ́ānā-/ ȷ́ān- ‘know, savoir’: Av. zānā-/zān-, OPers. dānā-; PIIr. *ȷ́i-na-H-/*ȷ́i-n-H- ‘take away’: YAv. zī˘nā-/zī˘n-, OPers. dī˘nā-. Before consonants, the weak forms tend to lose their n, nasalizing the preceding vowels, sometimes also losing the nasalization, e.g.: √hauH/ huH ‘engender/impel’: OAv. huuąmahī = *hųmahī < *hunm-, friiąmahī = *frįmahī < *frinm-, cīšmahī < *čįšm- < *činšm-; YAv. viste < *vįste < *vind s-tai. 3. Stems from roots ending in u̯: CV-na-u̯-/CV-n-u̯-. The u̯ combined with the infix -na- to produce the suffix -nau-/-nu-: √srau/sru ‘hear’: *sr̥-na-u-/*sr̥-n-u-: Av. s urunao-/ s urunu-; √dbau/dbu ‘deceive’: OAv. d əb ənao-. This type is also formed, as a suffix formation, from roots that do not end in u̯: √kar ‘do, make’: Av. kər ənao-/kər ənu-, OPers. kunau- (for *kr̥nau-, with irregular sound development in a “high-frequency” word. On the OPers. forms, see Cowgill 1986: 262−264, Hoffmann II: 587−588, Sims-Williams 1981: 4. Interpretation of the short forms in ku- as aorist still in Schmitt 2014: 200, see on endings below); PIIr. √Hnać/Hn̥ć ‘reach’: YAv. ašnao-/ašnu-; √sri ‘lean’: s irinao-/ s irinu-; √darš/dr̥ š ‘dare’: Av. daržnu-, OPers. dạršnau-. Thematic present stems ending in the vowel a show numerous subtypes: Stems with -a- added to the root: 1. root with zero grade, e.g. √vais/vis (mid.) ‘be ready’: Av. vī˘sa-; √harz/hr̥ z ‘release’: hər əza-, OPers. °hạrda-; − 2. root with full grade, e.g. Av. bara- ‘carry’; naiia- ‘lead’; bauua- ‘become’; maēza- ‘urinate’; saoca- ‘burn’; OPers. bara-, naya-, bava-, vaina- ‘see’; − 3. root with long grade, e.g. Av. brāza‘shine’, frāda- ‘make prosper’. Stems with -i̯ a- added to the root: 1. root with zero grade, e.g. √u̯axš/uxš ‘grow’: Av. uxšiia-; YAv. √baud/bud ‘notice’: bu iδiia-; √mar/mr̥ ‘die’: miriia-; √draug/drauj/drug/ druj ‘tell a lie’: druža- < *druji̯ a-; OPers. mạriya, d urujiya-; √gad/jad ‘ask for’: jadiya-; 2. − root with full grade, e.g. Av. √ah ‘shoot’: aŋ́ha- < *ahi̯ a-, √pad ‘lie (down)’: pa iδiia-, √man ‘think’: ma iniia-, OPers. maniya-; √sak/sac ‘*master’: saš́ a- < *sač-ya-; 3. − root in -ā- < *-aH-, often with -āi̯ - > -ai̯ - (distinct from the type in -ai̯ a-), e.g. °stā˘ya- ‘place’; θrāiia- ‘protect’; √grab/gr̥ b ‘seize’: gə uruuā˘iia-, OPers. gạrbāya- (cf. Av. gər əβnā-); √zan ‘be born’: Av. zaiia- < *ȷ́āi̯ a- < PIE *g̑n̥H-i̯ a-. The pres. *zarnī˘i̯ a‘become angry’ (Kellens 1984: 163) is attested only by pres. participle zar animna-, cf. OIA hṛṇīyámāna- (active OAv. zar ana- ‘make angry’). See also Oettinger (1992). On passives and denominatives in -i̯ a-, see 4.2.1. Stems with -ai̯ a- added to the root (transitive, with a few exceptions): 1. root with zero grade, including roots in -ā-, e.g. √barg/barj ‘*strengthen’: Av. bər əjaiia-; √sand ‘appear, seem’: YAv. saδaiia-, OPers. θadaya-; √ȷ h́ u̯aH/ȷ h́ uh ‘invoke’: Av., OPers. zbaiia< *ȷ́uHai̯ a- (OIA hváya-); − 2. root with full grade, e.g. Av. √āp ‘reach’: apaiia- ‘reach’ < *āpai̯ a-; √dais ‘show’: daēsaiia-; √band ‘bind’: baṇdaiia-; √darz ‘tie up’: dar əzaiia-; OPers. √tarH/tr̥ H ‘traverse’: °taraya- < *tarHai̯ a-; √gaud ‘hide’: °gaudaya-; − 3. root with lengthened grade, non-causative, e.g. Av. √dar ‘hold’: dāraiia- ‘hold’, OPers. dāraya-. On causative and denominative verbs, see 4.2.1. Stems with -sa- < *-sća- < *-sk̑e- added to the root: 1. root with zero grade, e.g. √ǰam/ǰm̥ ‘come’: Av. jasa- (OIA gaccha-); √i̯ am/i̯ m̥ ‘grab’: °iiasa-, OPers. °yasa-; √tars ‘fear’: Av. tər əsa-, OPers. tạrsa-; − 2. root in -ā-, e.g. Av. yāsa- ‘ask for’; √ȷnā, ́ OPers. xšnā- ‘know, connaître’: xšnāsa-. Stems with -hiia-/-šiia- added to the root in the full grade = the future tense, see 4.2.1.

531

532

VI. Iranian Vestigial thematic stem formations: 1. -uua-: Av. juua-, OPers. jīva- < *ǰīu̯a- ‘live’; Av. fiiaŋ vha- ‘hail’, °ha uruua- ‘guard’; − expanded by -i̯ a-: raēθβaiia- ‘mingle’ (θβ < θu̯); ta uruuaiia- < *tr̥Hu̯ai̯ a- ‘overcome’; − 2. -da-: in °x vabda- ‘sleep’ < √hu̯ap in auuaŋ vhabda- ‘go to sleep’; ni.x vabdaiia- ‘put to sleep’ (cf. Vine 1982); − 3. *-ha-/-ša-: √bag ‘give out’: baxša-; √grab: g ərəfša- (Hoffmann and Forssman, §§ 138.13b: desiderative without reduplication, cf. OIA jí-ghr̥kṣa-); √hak ‘follow’: haxša- ‘make follow’ (or aorist [Hoffmann and Forssman, § 202.2]; if so, to caus. hācaiia-. Cf. Kellens 1984: 367−369 with n. 29). Stems with n-infix and -a- added to the root of the type C1VC2: C1V-n-C2a-: √kart/ kr̥ t ‘cut’: kər əṇta-; √haic/hic ‘pour’: hiṇca-; √paić/pić ‘inscribe’: OPers. *pi nθa- (if not to be read as paiθa-, cf. MPers. ni-bēs-, but see Schmitt 2014: 224); − secondary formations of athem. verbs with n-infix: √mark/mr̥ c: OAv. mər ə-ṇ-k-, YAv. mər əṇca-; OAv. vina-d-, YAv. viṇda-. Stems with reduplication and -a- added to the root: 1. simple reduplication: √stā ‘stand’: Av. hišta-, OPers. hišta-; √had ‘sit’: Av. °hiδa-; √hmar ‘memorize, recite’: hišmara-; − 2. full reduplication: √gžar ‘gurgle’: Av. γžar ə.γžara- ‘roar’; √jan/gn: ‘smash to pieces’: jaγna- (with nasal dissimilation); − expanded by -i̯ a-: OAv. √rah/rš ‘move away (from)’ rār əšiia- (According to Hoffmann and Forssman, § 138.8, rā- in rār əšiiąn in Y. 32.11 is disyllabic, but this cannot be determined from the meter, as the 2 nd halfline of the Ahunauua itī meter has variable syllable numbers; the same holds for rār əšiiaṇtī in Y. 47.4 and rār əšō in Y. 49.2, although, in the Spəṇtāmaniiū meter, 2 nd halflines of 6 (rather than 7) syllables are rare.); √i̯ ah/iš ‘boil’ intr.: yaēšiia- < *i̯ a-iš-i̯ a-. Stems with reduplication and -ha-/-ša- added to the root (desideratives): OAv. √dra(n)g ‘hold firmly’: dīdraγža-; Av. √xšnā: zixšnåŋha-; √mark mī˘mar əxša- ‘seek to destroy, abort’; √srau/sru: susruša-; √sak/sac: sixša- ‘learn’ < *si(š)xša- (cf. sācaiia‘teach’); √dab h ‘deceive’: diβža- < *di(d)βža- (by ru[p]ki: *di-db-ža- < *di-db h + sa-. In OIA, the group bž was replaced by ps: dipsa-.); √ai/i: iša- ‘desire to come’ (Kellens 1984: 196).

4.2.1. Derived conjugations These include future, passive, causative, and denominative verbs. The future is formed with -hiia-/-šiia-/-siia- added to the root in the full grade (no OPers. examples): Av. √u̯ak ‘say’: vaxšiia-, √sauH ‘(re)vitalize’: saošiia-; YAv. √dā: dāhiia-, √zan: ząhiia-, √u̯aid: *vaēsiia-, √nai ‘lead’: naēšiia-, √harz: har əšiia-, OPers. patiy-ā-va nhạya- (in Elamite transcription ) if from √u̯an ‘implore’ (Schmitt 2014: 275: futurum historicum: ‘then I should implore’; see under causatives below). YAv. vaŋ́ha- from √u̯an ‘win’ can be from *u̯anhi̯ a- or u̯ahi̯ a-. The root √bau, which frequently resists full grade, has bū˘šiia-. The passive is formed with the suffix -i̯ a- with the root in the zero or full grade: Av. √kar/kr̥ : kiriia- (< *kr̥i̯ a-), √sauH/sū: sū˘iia-, √jan: janiia-, √bar: ba iriia-, √i̯ az: yeziia-, √u̯aip ‘*vibrate’: vifiia- ‘be buggered’; OPers. kạriya- (< *kr̥i̯ a-), janiya-, bariya-, yadiya-; √*ćanh/ćn̥h, OPers. √θanh/θah ‘announce’: θahạya-. In Av. this form normally takes middle endings, but in YAv. and OPers. active endings are also well attested (Skjærvø 1999b: 187). In YAv. it is sometimes not possible to

34. The morphology of Iranian determine whether the original form of a 3 rd sg. or pl. is -ti, -ṇti or -te, -ṇte (Kellens 1984: 129−130). Causative verbs are formed with the suffix -ai̯ a- added to the root in the lengthened or full grade. In Av., a long ā in the root may be shortened. The causative is transitive when it corresponds to a passive or intransitive verb. It is factitive ‘make somebody do something’ when it corresponds to a transitive verb: √tak/c ‘run, flow’: tācaiia-, √u̯aip: vaēpaiia- ‘bugger’, √sauH/sū: OAv. sauuaiia-, YAv. sāuuaiia-. Denominatives are formed with the suffix -i̯ a- added to a noun, e.g. Av. ar əzaiia- ‘do battle’ < ar əza-; aēnaŋ́ha- ‘commit sin against’ < aēnah-; bišaziia- and baēšaziia- ‘heal’ < bišaz- ‘doctor’, baēšaza- ‘medicine’; nəmax́iia- ‘do homage’ < nəmah-; viiāxmaniia‘*discuss, debate’ < viiāxman- ‘*verbal contest’; OPers. patiy-avahạya- ‘*pray for help in (re)turn’, cf. Av. auuah- ‘help’ (?) (see under future above); − verbs denoting ‘seeking, desiring’: aŋhuiia- ‘seeking the ahu (new life)’, aš ̣aiia- ‘seeking Order’; with matching nouns in -i̯ ā-: aŋhuiiā-, adjectives in -i̯ u-: aŋhuiiu-. See also Tucker (2004).

4.3. Aorist The aorist is formed in one or more of four ways from verb stems: − root aor., thematic aor., s-aor. (made by adding PIIr. *-s-, PIr. -h-/-š-/-s-), or reduplicated thematic aor. with zero grade of the root. Some verbs have aorists from several classes, e.g. √man: man- (injunctive maṇtā) and maŋh-/mąs- (injunctive mə̄ŋ́hī, mąstā); √u̯an: van- (optative va inī˘t̰ ), vaŋh-/vąs-, and vana- (optative vanaēmā).

4.4. Perfect The perfect stem is formed by reduplication, except ād-/āδ- ‘say’ (invariant) and vaēd-/ vaēδ- (vaēθ-) ‘know’. Many perfect forms are found only in FO, a list of Avestan words with Pahlavi equivalents. The perfect has the strong stem in the indicative sg. and the subjunctive, the weak stem elsewhere, with some exceptions. Roots of the type C1aC2 have long -a- in the 3 rd sg.: OAv. √nas: °nə̄nāsā ‘has perished’. OPers. attests only caxr-, weak stem of *cakā˘r< √kar ‘made, do’. The vowel of the reduplicated syllable is usually a, i, or u, in harmony with the vowel of the root, e.g. √kan ‘love’: ca-kan-; √dā: da-δa-; √kaēθ/ciθ ‘distinguish’: ci-kaēθ-; √raēθ/riθ ‘pass away’: iri-riθ-; √raod/rud ‘weep, howl’: uru-raoδ-; √hāi̯ /hi ‘bind’: hišāii-; √x vap ‘sleep’: hušx vaf- for *hušu̯af-. Exceptions include a few verbs whose reduplicated syllable has long ā: √dars ‘see’: dā-dar əs-; √dar ‘hold’: dādr- (YAv. daδr-); √par ‘fill’: pā-fr-; √kar: cā-xr-. The stem bābuu- to √bau ‘become’ is probably for *bāuu- < *bāβu̯-, with reintroduction of the b of the stem, while YAv. buuāuu- is from *buβāu̯-. Roots beginning with ā˘- have long ā- representing both the root syllable and the reduplication: √āp: āp-, √ah: åŋh-; − roots beginning with ai-/i- have iiaē- = ii̯ aē- (spelled īaē-, yaē-): √ai/i: iiaē-/īaē-, √aiš/iš ‘seek’: yaēš-.

533

534

VI. Iranian

4.5. Endings As is the case with nouns, verb stems are classified as thematic and athematic. The endings are basically the same in the two classes, but in the athematic conjugations frequent morphophonological changes result from the combinations of final consonants of the stem with the initial consonants of the endings. The passage of athematic verbs into the thematic conjugation is frequent both in Av. (where it is sometimes the result of poor ms. transmission and/or liturgical practice) and in OPers. There are two main types of endings: those of the pres. and aor. systems, and those of the perf. system. Both these groups are further subdivided into primary and secondary endings. The former signal nonpast tense in the indicative, whereas the latter are inherently unmarked for tense but are associated with the imperfect, aorist, pluperfect, and injunctive. In addition, the imperative, which has only in part its own set of endings, elsewhere employs those of the injunctive. The subjunctive takes both primary and seconday endings, whereas the optative takes only secondary endings. The endings are on the whole those of PIIr. The isolated 3 rd sg. passive has -ī˘: OAv. aor. √u̯ak/vac: auuācī, vācī; √srau: srāuuī; √mrauH ‘mistreat’: mraoī; YAv. pres. √jan ja ini; √ar ‘set in motion’: ər ənāuuī < ər ənao-; perf. √ād ‘say’: ā iδi. In the 3 rd pl. pres. we often have stress-conditioned zero grade endings, and in the 2 nd and 3 rd sg. opt. the same is true of the suffix + ending complex: pres. -əṇti, -ən ~ -a iti and -at̰ < *-n̥t-, opt. -iiå-, -iiāt̰ ~ -īš, -īt̰ : e.g. pres. ah- ‘be’: h-əṇti ~ h-iiāt̰ ; dā‘place, give’: da-d-a itī, da-d-at̰ , da- id-īt̰ .

4.5.1. Present indicative active (primary endings) 1st sg. athem. *-mi, them. *-ā, *-āmi, Av. -ā˘, -āmī˘, YAv. palatalized -emi: athem. Av. ahmī˘, staomī˘, YAv. daδāmi, °frī˘nāmi, √hauH: hū˘nāmi, kər ənaomi, cinahmi < √kaiš/čiš ‘*assign’; OPers. a hmiy, ahmiy; − them. OAv. yāsā, auuāmī ‘help’, YAv. °zbaiia, yāsāmi, ufiiemi ‘weave’, OPers. vaināmiy. 2 nd sg. athem. *-si, PIr. -hi/-ši, them. *-ahi, palatalized YAv. -iiehi: athem. √ah: Av. ahī˘; √pā ‘protect’: pāhi, √u̯as/us ‘wish’: vašī˘ < *u̯ać-ši; √hap ‘grasp’: OAv. hafšī, YAv. daδāhi, kər ənū˘ši (for *kər ənaoši after iptv. kər ənū˘ iδi ? Hoffmann and Forssman, § 180.1, emend to kər ənūše, but the form is parallel with 3 rd sg. act. kər ənao iti. See Kellens 1984: 174.); − them.: OAv. °vaēnahī, YAv. √pars/fras ‘ask’: pər əsahi, ja iδiiehi. 3 rd sg. *-(a)ti: athem. Av. astī˘, aē itī˘, pā iti, stao iti, OAv. vaštī, haptī, YAv. tāšti, daδā iti; √hak: hišhaxti; √kaiš/čiš: cinasti, °grəβnā iti, kər ənao iti, √u̯aid: vinasti < u̯inad s-ti, OPers. astiy, aitiy, kunautiy; − them. Av. bara itī˘, OAv. dābaiie itī; YAv. √u̯axš ‘grow’: uxšiie iti; OPers. °baratiy, θātiy < *θahatiy < PIr. √ćanh (alternatively from PIr. √ćā, see Schmitt 2014: 256). 1st du. athem. *-u̯ahi: OAv. usuuahī. 3 rd du. *-(a)tah, *-aθah: athem. YAv. stō; √mrau/mru ‘speak, say’: °mrū˘tō (mss. ārmutō Nir. 6 [24]; hunutō in Nir. 90 [108] [Kellens 1984: 170] is an unacceptable emendation.); − them. baratō, √i̯ aud ‘fight’: yu iδiiaθō. 1st pl. athem. *-mahi, them. *-āmahi, YAv. -ā˘mahi: Av. mahī˘ < *hmahi, OAv. us ə̄mahī, dad əmahi°, YAv. usmahi, dąnmahi < *dad-m-; OPers. a hmahạy; − them.: OAv.

34. The morphology of Iranian sə̄ŋhāmahī, YAv. yāsāmahi, zbaiiamahi; OPers. θahạyāmahạy < θahạya- ‘be said, be called’ (Schmitt 2014: 257 assumes full grade θa nh- in all forms in θah-). 2 nd pl. *-(a)θa, athem. *-ta after s, š: athem. OAv. stā, uštā (Hoffmann and Forssman, § 153.2 pres. inj., but the context indicates ind. [Kellens 1984: 86]); − them. išaθā ‘*wish to come’. 3 rd pl. athem. zero grade *-n̥ti, Av. -a iti, athem./them. full grade *-anti, Av. -əṇtī˘, Av. *-u̯anti > -uua iṇti, YAv. palatalized -e iṇti, -iṇti: athem. OAv. dada itī, ye iṇtī, Av. həṇtī˘, YAv. kər ənuua iṇti, OPers. ha ntiy; − them. Av. marəṇtī˘, bauua iṇtī˘, YAv. barəṇti, ja iδiie iṇti, √tak/c: taciṇti; drujiia- ‘lie’: družiṇti; vər əziia- ‘work’: vər əziṇti, √u̯ā ‘blow’: våṇti < *u̯aHanti.

4.5.2. Present indicative middle (primary endings) 1st sg. *-ai, OAv. -ōi, Av. - i̯ ē˘: athem. OAv. aojōi, °dadē, √i̯ ā/ī: °iiōi (OIA iyé), Av. °mrū˘iiē˘ < *mruu̯ i̯ e, YAv. da iθe < *da iδe, √gan/jan: °γne; − them. yaza-: °iieze, yasa-: °iiese, OPers. maniyaiy. 2 nd sg. athem. *-hai/-šai, postvocalic Av. -ŋ́hē˘, them. *-ahai, YAv. -aŋ́he, YAv. palatalized -ehe: OAv. √pā: °påŋ́hē. YAv. taxše ‘flow’ and raose ‘grow’ (Y. 10.4, 17) are both problematic, as the pres. stems are them. taca- (act.) and raoδa- (mid. only: raoδahe Y. 10.4). − them. *u̯ači̯ a- ‘undulate’ (OIA vacya-): vaš́ aŋ́he, xšaiiehe. 3 rd sg. *-(a)tai, athem. Av. -tē˘, -taē, them. YAv. °a itē˘, °ataē°, YAv. palatalized -ete: athem. Av. √u̯as ‘wear’: vastē˘; √dā ‘give’: dastē˘; √d hā ‘place’: dazdē˘; mrū˘ ite; OAv. √u̯arH/u̯r̥ H ‘choose’: vər əṇtē; YAv. √āh ‘sit’: āste; PIIr. √ȷ́i̯ aH/ȷ́iH ‘destroy’: YAv. °ziṇte; viste < *u̯ind s-tai; √mark: mər əγ əṇte < *mr̥nxtai; − them. Av. yaza itē˘, YAv. hacataē°, xšaiiete; − *-ai, YAv. - i̯ e: OAv. isē; YAv. √mrau: mrū˘iie < *mruu̯ i̯ e; √gan ‘strike’: °γne. OAv. sruiiē is ambiguous; Hoffmann and Forssman (§ 159.1) 3 rd sg.; cf. Kellens in Kellens-Pirart (II: 320): perhaps 1sg. pres. ind. < *sruu̯ai (thus Skjærvø 2013: 193; Kellens 1984: 126 pass. sruiia-). 3 rd du. athem. *-ātai, YAv. -ā ite, them. *-aitai, *-aiθai, OAv. -aētē, YAv. -ōiθe: athem. YAv. √zā ‘*walk’: zazā ite (Hoffmann II: 377); − them. OAv. pər əsaētē, YAv. carōiθe. 1st pl. *-(ā)madai, athem. Av. -(ā˘)ma idē˘, -madaē°: OAv. athem. dad əma idē, aog əmadaē°, YAv. mrū˘ma ide; daδ əma ide, cī˘šma ide < *ci-n-š-; − them. Av. yazama idē˘, OAv. °jasāmaidē, vīsāmadaē°, YAv. ma iniiāma ide (probably for YAv. *mainiiamaide; āstāiiamaide ‘we place’ shows the expected YAv. form). 2 nd pl. *-(a)du̯ai, athem.: OAv. *-duu̯ i̯ ē > disyll. -duiiē, them. YAv. *-aδu̯ai > *-aδβe > -aθβe: OAv. athem. mər əṇgduiiē; − them. OAv. dīdraγžō.duiiē, YAv. °caraθβe. 3 rd pl. athem. *-n̥tai, Av. -a itē˘, them. *-antai, Av. -əṇtē˘; *-u̯antai > *-u̯əntai > -uṇtaē°, palatalized Av. -eṇtē˘, YAv. -iṇte: athem. OAv. mər əṇca itē, YAv. aojaitē; − them. frādəṇtē, Av. ma iniieṇtē˘, haciṇtē˘; YAv. √snaig ‘snow’: snaēžiṇtaē°; √āp: āfəṇte < *āf-i̯ a-; fiiaŋ vha‘hail’: fiiaŋhuṇtaē°; − *-(ā)rai, YAv. -(ā) ire: YAv. √sai ‘lie’: saēre, sōire; √gan: °γnā ire (Geldner [ms. F1] °γrāire; see Hintze 2005.); √mrau: *mruuā ire; √āh: åŋhā ire.

535

536

VI. Iranian

4.5.3. Perfect active (primary endings) 1st sg. Av. -ā˘: OAv. vaēdā, ādā (Y. 35.8), YAv. vaēθā°; cikaēθa, dādar əsa; √du̯aiš ‘antagonize’: diduuaēša; √raud ‘prevent’: ° urū˘raoδa. 2 nd sg. Av. -θā˘, -tā˘ after s: OAv. vōistā < *u̯aid s-t ha, Av. dadāθā˘, YAv. vauuaxδa < -xθa (FO). 3 rd sg. Av. -ā˘: Av. tatašā˘, OAv. vaēdā, °nə̄nāsā, hišāiiā, YAv. vaēδa, āδa, daδa; √bar: bauuara < *baβara; cakana, vauuaca, daδāra, vī˘uuaēδa, hušx vafa, √bau: buuāuua; √aiš: yaēša. 3 rd du. *-ātr̥, Av. -ātar ə̄: YAv. √i̯ at ‘line up’: yaētatar ə (FO), vaocātar ə̄, vāuuərzātar ə̄. 1st pl. Av. -mā˘: OAv. vaox əmā, YAv. diduuī˘šma, susrū˘ma; √i̯ at: yaēθmā. 3 rd pl. *-r̥, Av. -ar ə̄: OAv. åŋhar ə̄, ādar ə̄, cāxnar ə̄, Av. vaonar ə˘̄ ; YAv. √u̯aid: vī˘δar ə; √āh: åŋhar ə; ādar ə, dāδar ə, baβrar ə, cāxrar ə; bābuuar ə, irī˘riθar ə; √had ‘sit’: °šastar ə ‘are settled’ < *ha-zd s-tar ə (Yt. 19.8 about the mountains; thus, rather than < √stā [Bartholomae 1904, col. 1601; cf. Hintze 1994: 91]?).

4.5.4. Perfect middle (primary endings) 1st sg. *-ai, YAv. - i̯ e: YAv. susruiie. 3 rd sg. *-ai, OAv. -ōi, YAv. - i̯ e: OAv. √ar: ārōi, dādrē, pafrē, vāuuər əzōi, YAv. ā iδe; i da δe, mamne, vaoce, vaoze. 3 rd du. *-ātai, Av. -ā itē: YAv. mamanā itē. 3 rd pl. *-arai, Av. *-a ire: YAv. †cāxrare (V. 4.46 [PVS and the best IVS; the best PV mss. have cāxrarə and cāxrarən, see ADA], cf. Kellens 1984: 412, but context and syntax are very unclear. FO raire, Pahl. rād ‘generous’ is out of context [Kellens, ibid.: < rā ‘give’].).

4.5.5. Injunctive present (imperfect), aorist, and perfect (pluperfect) active (secondary endings) 1st sg. athem. *-am (ā-stems -m), them. *-am, Av. -əm, YAv. palatalized -im. − Pres. inj. athem. YAv. mraom < -au̯əm, daδąm; OPers. avājanam < ava a-j°; − them. YAv. °barəm, bər əjaēm < -ai̯ əm impf. °abaom < -au̯əm; OPers. abaram. − Aor. inj. OAv. root √dars ‘see’: dar əsəm, OAv. √rād ‘*direct (at)’: rādəm; indic. viiādar əsəm < *u̯i-a-d°; − YAv. them. °vaocim. 2 nd sg. athem. *-h/-š (ā-stems *-h, Av. -å), them. *-ah, Av. -ō. − Pres. inj. OAv. √ah ‘shoot’: as (Y 34.8); mraoš, dadå; − them. Av. jasō; OPers. °gaudaya; impf. YAv. apər əsō. − Aor. inj. OAv. root då, cōiš; √u̯arz ‘work, produce’: var əš° (or s-aor. < *u̯arȷ́[-š]-š); − s-aor. √dais ‘show’: dais; − them. tašō; − redupl. YAv. °uuaocō. 3 rd sg. athem. *-t (On combinations of dentals and sibilants before final -t [-T S-t, -S-t, -T-S-t], see Tremblay 1999: 538.). − Pres. inj. athem. Av. mraot̰ , OAv. as; √ai: upāit̰ ; staot̰ , tāšt, dadāt̰ , cinaot̰ , cinas; √danh ‘teach’: didąs < *°dans-t; impf. √gan: ajə̄n (Skjærvø 2004; Kellens-Pirart III: 226 < ā √gam; Hoffmann and Forssman, § 153.2 < *ā-jant); OAv. paitiiāmraot̰ < patii̯ -a-m°, YAv. °akər ənaot̰ , OPers. avāja < *au̯a-a-jant; āiš,

34. The morphology of Iranian adadā, akunauš, adạršnauš (see 1.4); YAv. ās ‘was’ (< *as or *a-as), nāist (not aor. [as Hoffmann and Forssman, § 201.1; Kellens 1995: 42]; see Tremblay 1999), daδāt̰ , kər ənaot̰ ; − them. *-at: Av. jasat̰ , impf.: YAv. apər əsat̰ , OPers. abara. − Aor. root OAv. dāt̰ , cōišt; √kar: cōrət̰ ; √dars (√dar, √darz?): dār əšt/dōr əšt; √gam: °jə̄n; √i̯ aug ‘harness’: yaog ət̰ (see 2.2.4.4); − s-aor. √u̯an ‘win’: vąs < *van-s-t; √sand ‘appear’: sąs < *sā˘nds-t; √xšnau ‘favor, be pleased with’: xšnāuš; − them. OAv. tašat̰ ; √nas ‘perish’: nąsat̰ ; vaocat̰ ; augmented: anąsat̰ , ə̄.vaocat̰ ; YAv. root vaxšt; − them. °uuaocat̰ ; OPers. root adā. − Perf. YAv. tatašat̰ , °dadat̰ / °daθat̰ , jaγmat̰ . 1st du. athem. *-u̯a: OAv. ahuuā < ā-(a)huuā. 3 rd du. *-tam, Av. -təm. − YAv. impf. auuāitəm < *au̯a-a-itam; − them. jasatəm, OPers. ajīvatam. 1st pl. athem. *-ma. − Ind. OPers. aku nmā (see 4.2 under C 3); − them. *-āma: OAv. u ta ruuaiiāmā, OPers. °atarayāmā. − Aor.: OAv. athem. dāmā; − them. Av. °uuaocāmā˘; augmented. OAv. ə̄uuaocāmā. 2 nd. pl. athem. *-ta, them. *-ata. − Pres. inj. OAv. mraotā, d əb ənaotā, YAv. °srinaota; − them. ta uruuaiiata. − Aor.: root Av. dātā˘, OAv. ciuuištā, YAv. cōišta (P. 25?). 3 rd pl. athem. zero grade *-n̥t, Av. -at̰ , athem. full grade = them. *-ant, Av. -ən, -au̯ən > -aon/-āun (de Vaan 2003: 376), YAv. palatalized -in. − Inj. YAv. √ai/i auuaēn < *au̯ai̯ ant, OAv. jīgər əzat̰ , dadat̰ , OPers. ind. āha, avājana, akunava, akunavaša [with -š- after akunauš]; − them. OAv. bąnaiiən, YAv. °δāraiiən, baon, tacin, uxšin, OPers. abara. − Aor.: OAv. root gmən, yūjən; − s-aor. YAv. ståŋhat̰ , uruuāxšat̰ (rather than 3 rd sg. subj. [Hoffmann and Forssman, § 201.2; Kellens 1986: 386]?). − Perfect inj. = pluperf. *-r̥š in OAv. cikōitər əš < *cikaitr̥š (Jasanoff 1997).

4.5.6. Injunctive present (imperfect) and aorist middle (secondary endings) 1st sg. athem. *-i: OAv. aojī; − them. *-ai, YAv. - i̯ e. − Pres. inj. YAv. °ba ire, impf. aguze, OPers. amaniyaiy. − Aor. s-aor. √man: OAv. mə̄ŋ́hī < maŋ-h-i; √pars/fras mid. ‘consult’: frašī < PIIr. *frać-š-i; YAv. √rā ‘give’: °rāhī; OPers. augmented √dar: adaršiy. 2 nd sg. athem. *-ha/-ša, them. *-aha, YAv. -aŋha. − athem. OAv. √man: mə̄ṇghā < maŋ-ha; √aug ‘speak’: aoγžā < *aug h-ša; − them. √θβars ‘fashion’: °θβər əsaŋha. − Aor.: OAv. root dåŋhā. 3 rd sg. athem. *-ta, them. *-ata. − Pres. inj. athem. OAv. aog ədā, dazdā, √garz ‘wail’: gər əždā, YAv. aoxta; √hau ‘press (haoma)’: hunū˘ta; √zi̯ ā/zī ‘destroy’: °ziṇta; √u̯ar: fraorəṇta, impf. °āmrūta; OPers. aku ntā (see 4.2 under C 3); − them. OAv. maniiātā (secondary -ā-), YAv. yazata, ma iniiata, impf. OPers. °apatatā. − Aor.: root OAv. maṇtā, fraštā; YAv. √srai/sri ‘lean’: °srīta; − s-aor. Av. mąstā˘, YAv. xšnaošta; − them. gušatā (The classification of OAv. athem. gūš- and them. gūša- is uncertain [Kellens 1984: 357, 365, 381: both aor.; Hoffmann and Forssman 1996: 297: pres. guša-, aor. guš-].). 1st du. athem. *-u̯adi. − Ind. OAv. -uua idi. − Aor. root duua idī. 3 rd du. athem. *-ātəm, them. *-aitam, Av. -aētəm. − Pres. inj. OAv. jasaētəm. − Aor. athem. root OAv. augmented asruuātəm, YAv. them. °caēšaētəm (Hoffmann and Forssman § 145.2 pres. inj.). 1st pl. *-madi, OAv. -ma idī, YAv. -ma ide. − Aor. root OAv. var əma idī, YAv. √i̯ aug: yaoxma ide (Yt. 4.1?); − s-aor. OAv. mə̄hma idī < *mn̥-s-m°, augmented amə̄hma idī.

537

538

VI. Iranian 2 nd pl. *-du̯am, OAv. -dūm. − Aor. root OAv. √θβars: θβar ōždūm, augmented asrūdūm (or s-aor. asrūždūm); − them. gūšō.dūm. 3 rd pl. athem. *-n̥ta, Av. -ata, them. *-anta, Av. əṇtā˘, -iiaṇtā˘, -au̯ənta > -āuṇta, YAv. palatalized: -iṇta. − Pres. inj. athem. OAv. vər ənātā (secondary -ā-); − them. OAv. duuārəṇtā, ma iniiaṇtā, YAv. yazəṇta, ja iδiiaṇta; √u̯ark/c ‘?’: vər əca-: fraor əciṇta; augm. √dau̯ ‘chatter’: adāuṇta. − Aor. root √kai/ci ‘gather’: °š́ iiātā (-ā- secondary) < *°či̯ -n̥ta.

4.5.7. Present/aorist/perfect subjunctive active 1st sg. athem. *-ā, OPers. -aniy; palatal. Av. -enī˘, them. disyll. *-ā, di-/trisyll. *-āni. − Pres. athem. Av. aŋhā˘, aiienī˘, OAv. √tauH/tuH ‘be able’: tauuā; YAv. °mrauua, °mrauuāni, janāni, OPers. ahaniy; − them. OAv. zbaiiā; 4-syll. sə̄ṇghānī; trisyll. ufiiānī, YAv. jasāni, ufiieni, OPers. kunavāniy (Thus Schmitt 2014: 200; Hoffmann and Forssman, § 180.3 have mid. kunavānaiy, needlessly.). − Aor. root OAv. √gam: jimā; dar əsānī, YAv. root buua; − them. OAv. √par ‘traverse’: disyll. °frā; vaoca° (for -ā °); − s-aor. OAv. √u̯arz: var əšā < *u̯arȷ́-š-ā. 2 nd sg. athem. *-ahi, *-ah, Av. -ō, them. -āhi, *-āh, Av. -å. − Pres. YAv. s irinauuāhi, aŋhō, OPers. āhạy < *ahahi; − them. YAv °srāraiiå, OPers. vaināhạy. − Aor.: OAv. root trisyll. dāhī; − them. √par/fr ‘traverse’: YAv °frå. 3 rd sg. athem. *-ati, *-at, them. *-āti. − Pres. athem. YAv. aŋha iti, Av. aŋhat̰ , dadat̰ (OAv. pāt̰ appears in the second halfline of the Ahunauuaitī meter and can be scanned as monosyll. pres. inj. [Kellens 1995: 34] or disyll. subj. [Hoffmann and Forssman, § 155.3.]), YAv. daθat̰ , √kai/ci ‘expiate’: cikaiiat̰ ; hunauuat̰ , OPers. ahatiy, kunavātiy; − them. YAv. jasā iti; OAv. trisyll. °išāt̰ , YAv. √frād ‘further’: frāδaiiāt̰ . − Aor. root OAv. jima itī, jimat̰ , buua itī, buuat̰ , trisyll. dā itī, disyll. dāt̰ (I see no good reason for assigning OAv. vīdā itī, vīdāt̰ to √ 3vid [OIA. vidh; Kellens 1984: 365−366] rather than to vi-d hā‘distribute’ [Hoffmann I: 242: OIA. vidh- secondarily formed from vi-dhā-].); − s-aor. var əša itī, √gam: jə̄ṇghati° < *jaŋ-h-; √nai: naēšat̰ ; √u̯an: və̄ŋhat̰ ; YAv. ståŋha iti; √spā ‘throw (away)’: spåŋha iti; − them. Av. vaocāt̰ . − Perf. YAv. °pāfrāiti (The mss. are equally divided between -ti and -te, but the syntax seems to require the active.). 1st du. them. *-āu̯a. − Pres. them. YAv. juuāuua. 3 rd du. athem. *-atah, them. *-ātah. − Pres. athem. YAv. cikaiiatō, them. YAv. jasātō. 1st pl. secondary *-āma: athem. − Pres. OAv. åŋhāmā, YAv. √šai/ši ‘dwell’: °šaiiama (also with secondary -ā-), janāma; − them. OAv. tauruuaiiāma, YAv. bauuāma. − Aor.: root OAv. trisyll. dāmā, YAv. dar əsāma; − s-aor. √nas ‘reach’: nāšāmā; − them. Av. vaocāmā˘. 2 nd pl. them. *-āθa. Pres. OAv. azāθā. − Aor. root OAv. √cai ‘pick’: °caiiaθā; trisyll. dātā. 3 rd pl. athem. *-anti, Av. -əṇtī˘, *-ant, Av. -ən, them. *-ānti, Av. -åṇtī˘, *-ānt, Av. -ąn, (palatalized -in ?) − Pres. OAv. zazəṇtī, Av. aŋhən, vasən, kər ənaon < -au̯ən, OAv. dadən, YAv. daθən, *cikaēn < -ai̯ ən; − them. OAv. 4-syll. išåṇtī, YAv. baråṇti, daržnuua inti < *dr̥š-nu-anti, OAv. vər əziiąn, YAv. °barąn. − Aor.: root OAv. rādəṇtī, buua iṇtī, °jimən, disyll. dąn, YAv. bun < *buu̯ən; − s-aor. OAv. xšnaošən, var əšəṇtī; √u̯an: OAv. və˘̄ ṇghən, YAv. vaŋhən; jaŋhəṇti (thus the PVS mss. of the Jp1 group [see ADA], against the PV mss. -ṇtu). − Perf. vaēθəṇti, iieiiąn < *ii̯ ai̯ ān with shortening of -ā- (OIA. iyā́y-) (The mss. all point to iieiiąn [see ADA] with the exception of S1 [īeiiən].).

34. The morphology of Iranian

4.5.8. Present/aorist subjunctive middle 1st sg. athem. Av. -āi, YAv. -āne, palatalized -ene, them. OAv. disyll. -āi. − Pres. athem. OAv. aojāi, frīnāi, YAv. °mrauuāne, kər ənauuāne; − them. OAv. √īs ‘be able’: isāi, YAv. yazāi, yazāne, hācaiiene. − Aor. root OAv. mə̄nāi; trisyll. dānē; YAv. °uuarāne; − s-aor. xšnaošāi, haxšāi, mə̄ŋhāi, var əšāne; − them. OAv. √kas ‘look’: xsāi (syllable count cannot be verified [2 nd halfline of the Ahunauuaitī meter]). 2 nd sg. athem. *-ahai, OAv. -aŋhōi, *-aha, OAv. -aŋhā, them. *-āhai, YAv. -åŋ́he. − Pres. YAv. pər əsåŋ́he; OAv. √i̯ ā/ī: °iiaŋhā (Y. 30.7); OPers. maniyāhaiy. − Aor.: OAv. root dåŋ́hē < *da˒ahai; − s-aor. råŋhaŋhōi. 3 rd sg. athem *-atai, Av. -a itē˘, -ataē°, them. *-ātai, YAv. -ā itē˘, OPers. -ātaiy. − Pres. OAv. vər ənauuā itē (secondary -ā-), YAv. ər ənauuataē°, daθa ite; − them.: yazā ite, OPers. vạrnavātaiy, yadātaiy. − Aor.: root OAv. °iiama itē, Av. trisyll. dāitē˘; − s-aor. var əšaitē, mar əxša itē; − them. √u̯ar ‘*ward off’: vāurāitē < *u̯ā-ur-. 3 rd du. *-aitai. − Aor. root OAv. jamaētē. 1st pl. primary. *-āmadai, OAv. -ā˘ma idē. − Pres. athem. √hak/c: OAv. √hak: hišcama idē (cf. pres. ind. hišhaxti); √kaiθ/ciθ ‘note’: cinaθāma ide; − them. isāma idē (Kellens 1984: 252). − Aor. s-aor. YAv. √kā ‘enjoy’: kåŋhāma ide. 2 nd pl. athem. *-adu̯ai, OAv. -aduiiē. − Aor. root trisyll. daduiiē < *da˒adu̯ai. 3 rd pl. athem. *-antai, Av. -əṇtē˘, -uuaṇte, them. *-āntai, Av. -åṇtē˘. − Pres. OAv. dadəṇtē, YAv. ər ənauuaṇte; − them. OAv. √hak: hacåṇtē; YAv. yazåṇte. − Aor. root OAv. √ar ‘move’: frārəṇtē; yaojaṇtē; trisyll. dåṇtē, YAv. °δåṇte.

4.5.9. Present/aorist/perfect optative active 1st sg. disyll. *-i̯ ām, OAv. -iiə˘̄ m. − Pres. √ah: x́iiə̄m. − Aor. OAv. diiąm. − Perf. YAv. jaγmiiąm. 2 nd sg. athem. *-i̯ āh, *-i̯ ās°, *-īš, Av. -iiå(s°), YAv. -ī˘š, them. *-aiš, Av. -ōiš. − Pres. athem. OAv. x́iiå, YAv. janiiå, xšnuiiå, °da iθiiå, da iδī˘š; − them. barōiš; − Preterite them. YAv. auuaēnōiš, °šāδaiiōiš (augmentless, see 4.1.1). − Aor. YAv. jamiiå, dā˘iiå. 3 rd sg. athem. *-i̯ āt, *-īt, Av. -iiāt̰ , -ī˘t̰ , them. *-ait, Av. -ōit̰ . − Pres. athem. OAv. x́iiāt̰ , usiiāt̰ , janiiāt̰ , da idīt̰ ; √mark/c: mər ąš́ iiāt̰ ; √sāh: sāhīt̰ ; YAv. da iδī˘t̰ ; − Pret. athem. OPers. avājaniyā; − them. Av. jasōit̰ , xšaiiōit̰ ; Pret. YAv. √bar: auuarōit̰ ; OPers. vināθayaiš. − Aor. athem. OAv. diiāt̰ , √saŋh/sah: sax́iiāt̰ ; YAv. jamiiāt̰ , vainī˘t̰ ; OPers. biyā < *būi̯ āt or *bu̯-ii̯ āt; − s-aor. YAv. °jaŋhōit̰ , zahī˘t̰ ; − them. vaocōit̰ , √sāh: sīšōit̰ . − Perf. YAv. √ah: åŋ́hāt̰ , vaoniiāt̰ ; √had: hazdiiāt̰ < *ha-sd-; OPers. caxriyā. 3 rd du. athem. *-i̯ ātam/-ītam. − Pres. athem. or perf. da iδītəm. − Perf. YAv. √ah: åŋ́hāt̰ .təm < āh-i̯ ātam. 1st pl. *-i̯ āma/-īma, them. *-aima. − Pres. athem. OAv. x́iiāmā; − them. OAv. vanaēmā, YAv. jasaēma. − Aor. athem. OAv. buiiāmā, var əzima°; √zā ‘leave behind’: zaēmā < *ȷ́aH-īma; YAv. buiiama; − s-aor. √nas ‘reach’: nāšī˘ma; − them. vaocaēmā, YAv. √āp: apaēma. 2 nd pl. -i̯ āta/-īta, them. *-aita. Pres. athem. OAv. x́iiātā; − them. °θβər əsaēta. − Aor. athem. YAv. bū˘iiata. 3 rd pl. *-i̯ ārš, *-i̯ ān/-īn, them. *-ai̯ an, YAv. -aiiən. − Pres. athem. YAv. hiiār ə, da iθiiār əš, °da iθiiąn; − them. √pak ‘cook’: pacaiiən; − from ā˘iia-stems: √darz: °dar əzaiiaēn

539

540

VI. Iranian < *-ai̯ ai̯ an (Skjærvø 2007: 321−322); √snā ‘wash’: snāδaiiən ‘wash’ (for *snāiiaiiən, Skjærvø 2007: 322); − preter. YAv. √pat ‘fall’: apataiiən. − Aor. athem. YAv. jamiiār əš, jamiiąn; − s-aor. √aiš ‘seek’: °aēšiiąn. − Perf. YAv. √sak/sac: °saciiār əš < *°sašciiār əš < sa-sc- (?); √bar: °baβriiąn.

4.5.10. Optative middle 1st sg. athem. *-īi̯ -a, Av. -iiā˘, them. *-aii̯ ā˘, OAv. -ōiiā, YAv. -aiia. − Pres. athem. YAv. √tan ‘stretch’: tanuiia; − them. OAv. √aiš: isōiiā; √u̯ar ‘*ward off’: vāuraiiā < *u̯ā-u̯ra(Kellens 1984: 195); YAv. haxša-: haxšaiia. − Aor. athem. OAv. √dā mid. ‘*obtain’: diiā (dii̯ ā). 2 nd sg. athem. *-ī-ša, them. *-aiša. − Pres. athem. OAv. xšnəuuīšā, YAv. āhī˘ša, °mruuī˘ša, da i θī˘ša; − them. yazaēša, OPers. them. yadaišā. − Aor. OAv. athem. dīšā, YAv. √raik ‘leave’: °raēxšī˘ša; − them. mid. ‘rule’: √xšā: xšaēša. 3 rd sg. athem. *-ī-ta, them. *-aita. − Pres. athem. OAv. da idītā, YAv. aojī˘ta, °γnī˘ta, °mruuī˘ta, da i θī˘ta; − preter. OAv. °āmruuītā. − them. OAv. var ədaiiaētā, YAv. azaēta; − preter. frāiiazaēta. − Aor. root √dar: drītā, OAv. them. √xšā: xšaētā. 3 rd du. them. *-ai̯ ātam. − Pres. them. YAv. °caraiiatəm; − preter. apər əsaiiatəm. 1st pl. athem. *-īmadi, them. *-ai-madi, OAv. -ōima idī, YAv. -ōima iδe. − Pres. OAv. vāurōima idī, (ps.-OAv. °vaēnōima idī), YAv. √baud ‘be(come) aware’: bū iδiiōima iδe. − Aor. root OAv. ma inima idi°. 2 nd pl. them. *-ai-du̯am, YAv. -ōiδβəm. − Pres. YAv. rāmōiδβəm. 3 rd pl. athem. *-ī-ram, them. *-ai̯ -anta. − Pres. YAv. yazaiiaṇta, °snaiiaiiaṇta < snā-i̯ a-; − preter. OPers. akunavaya ntā. − Perf. YAv. √u̯az mid. ‘drive’ intrans.: vaozī˘rəm.

4.5.11. Imperative present/aorist active 2 nd sg. athem. *-di, zero, OAv. -dī, zero, YAv. -δi, OPers. -diy, them. *-a, YAv. palatalized - i̯ e. − Pres. athem. OAv. √ah: zdī; idī; dazdī < *dad z-di; cīždī < *cįš-di, YAv. √jan/jn̥: ja iδi; mrū˘ iδi, dazdi, kər ənū˘ iδi, OPers. °idiy, jadiy; − them. OAv. pər əsā, YAv. jasa, nase < *nasi̯ a, OPers. pạrsā; − no ending: √par ‘fill’: OAv. pər ənā. − Aor.: Av. root dā idī, OAv. √gam/gm̥: ga idī, OPers. √dai/dī ‘see’: dīdiy (Schmitt 2014: 168: haplology from *dī-dī-di); − Aor. them.: OAv. vaocā, sīšā; − ending *-i: s-aor. OAv. dōišī (Y 33, 13; Kellens 1984: 393) (OAv. cə̄uuīšī < *cōišī Y 51, 15 may be 1st sg. mid.: “I have assigned myself [to you]” [Skjærvø 2008a: 511]. Kellens 1984: 382 and Hoffmann and Forssman § 199.1 assign it to the passives in -i.). 3 rd sg. athem. *-tu, them. *-atu, OAv. labialized -ōtū. − Pres. athem. Av. astū˘, mraotū˘, OAv. sāstū, dadātū, tə̄ṇcā.tū (ms. tə̄mcā.tū) < *tanca- ‘draw (the bow) firmly’ (KellensPirart III: 268, cf. 2.2.2.1); YAv. pātu, OPers. pātuv, *astuv (Elamite ), dadātuv, kunautuv; − them. OAv. īratū < īra- ‘set in motion’; vər əziiō.tū, YAv. mitaiiatu < mitaiia‘dwell’; OPers. baratuv. − Aor.: OAv. dātū; √gam: jaṇtū; YAv. bar ətu. 2 nd pl. athem. *-ta, them. *-ata. − Pres. athem. OAv. °zān atā; YAv. pāta, °šaēta, staota, nī˘sta, dasta; − them. jasatā, YAv. dāiiata. − Aor.: OAv. dātā, sraotā, √sand: sąstā < *sā˘nd-s-ta.

34. The morphology of Iranian 3 rd pl. *-antu. − Pres. athem. OAv. hə̄ṇtū, YAv. *həṇtu, °iiaṇtu, °frī˘nəṇtu; OPers. pā tuv − them. patəṇtu, °uuāδaiiaṇtu (In the mss., the YAv. ending is frequently corrupted to -ṇti or -ṇtō; cf. Skjærvø 1999b: 189 n. 5, 2005: 201−202.). − Aor.: OAv. √hac/sc ‘follow’: scaṇtū. n

4.5.12. Imperative present/aorist middle 2 nd sg. athem. *-su̯a/-šu̯a, Av. -h/-š/-suuā˘, them. *-ahu̯a, Av. -aŋ vha, OAv. -ahuuā, labialized -ōhuuā, OPers. -a huvā. − Pres. athem. Av. dasuuā˘ < *da-d-su̯a, OPers. ku nšuvā (see 4.2 under C 3); − them. OAv. °baxšō.huuā, YAv. yāsaŋ vha, OPers. °paya huvā. − Aor.: OAv. root dāhuuā, √ar: °ār əšuuā; kər əšuuā; √pars/fras: frašuuā < *frać-šu̯a; − them. gūšahuuā. 3 rd sg. athem. OAv. -ąm, YAv. *-tąm, them. *-atām. − Pres. them. Av. vər əziiātąm (secondary -ā-), OPers. vạrnavatām. − Aor. root OAv. disyll. °dąm; √u̯ac: °ūcąm; YAv. bər ətąm. 2 nd pl. *-du̯am, OAv. *-dūm < *-du̯əm, YAv. -δβəm < *-δu̯am, them. *-adu̯am, OAv. labialized -ōdūm, YAv. -aδβəm. − Pres. athem. OAv. °dazdūm < *da-d z-du̯am; √i̯ ā/ī: °idūm, √sāh: sāzdūm; − them. vaēdō.dūm, YAv. dāraiiaδβəm. − Aor.: OAv. root/s-aor. °uuōizdūm < *u̯aid z-du̯am or *u̯aid-s-du̯am; − s-aor. θrāzdūm; − them. gūšōdūm. 3 rd pl. athem. -rām, them. *-antām, OAv. -əṇtąm. − Pres. athem. OAv. √jan: jə̄n ərąm; xrūnā- ‘bleed’ (active): xrūn ərąm (Kellens-Pirart II: 231, 243, but not in Kellens 1984: 393 and 1995. See Skjærvø 2004a: 278.); − them. √xraus ‘howl’: °xraosəṇtąm. − Aor.: root OAv. xšə̄ṇtąm.

4.6. Non-finite forms Non-finite forms of the verb comprise participles, verbal adjectives expressing necessity, and infinitives. Athematic verbs form the present participle from the weak stem of the root. Active present participles of the present and aorist stems have the formant *-ant-/-n̥t-, those from the perf. stem have -uuah-/-uš-. Participles from athematic verbs have strong stems in -aṇt- and weak stems in -at(secondarily -āt-) and are declined like adjectives in -aṇt-, e.g. hatō, gen. sg. of haṇt‘being’. Acrostatic presents have fixed at- from *-n̥t-. Thematic verbs have fixed stems in -aṇt- (-əṇt-). Pres.: OAv. athem. həṇt-, °iiaṇt-, s urunuuaṇt-; stauuat- < -u̯n̥t; − them. baodaṇt-, uxsiiaṇt-, °drujiiaṇt-; − future part. saošiiaṇt- ‘he who shall revitalize’; − fem. athem. √šai/ši: šiie itī-; − them. maēka iṇtī- ‘sparkling’; OPers. yaudantī-; − YAv. athem. °iiaṇt-, haṇt-/hāt- (for *hat-), daδaṇt-/daθaṇt-, kər ənuuaṇt-; OPers. tunuva nt(a)- < √tau̯ ‘be strong, powerful’. − them. barəṇt-, družiṇt-, srāuuaiiaṇt-; − fut. part. būšiiaṇt-; − fem. athem. ha itī-; them. barəṇtī-, būšiie iṇtī-. − Aor.: OAv. root. daṇt-, YAv. °buuaṇt-; − them. √han ‘gain’: hanaṇt-. The perf. part. act. has the formant -uuah-/-uš- built to the weak stem, with the exception of YAv. vauuanuuah- ‘having won’ and haŋhanuš- ‘having gained’: OAv.

541

542

VI. Iranian vīduuah-/vīduš- ‘knowing’, √nas: nąsuuah- ‘having lost’; − YAv. √kaēθ: cikiθβah-, ciciθβah-/ciciθuš-; daδuuah-/daθuš-; vīδuuah-/vīθuš- (for expected *daδβah-, *vīδβahafter OAv. *daduuah-, vīduuah-?); √u̯ak: vaox vah-/vaokuš- (Skjærvø 1997); vauuanuuah-/vaonuš-; √i̯ at: yōiθβah-/yaētuš-; √zā: zazuuah-/zazuš-; √gan: jaγnuuah-; √taš ‘fashion’: taršuuah- < *tat̰ šu̯ah-; √āh: åŋhuš-; √gam: jaγmuš-; √man: mamnuš-; √tak/c: tat̰ kuš-; √u̯arz: vāuuər əzuš-. There are two adjective formations from the perf. stem and with similar function, one in -u-: nom. sg. OAv. vīduš, YAv. vī˘θuš ‘knowing’; zazuš ‘winning’ (P. 26); acc. sg. jiγā urum ‘waking’; and one in -θβan-, nom. sg. -θβā: OAv. ciciθβā, YAv. yōiθβā. On the type caxri-, see Grestenberger (2013). The middle participles of thematic verbs end in Av. -əmna-, OPers. -amna-, those of athematic verbs, including the perfect, end in Av. -ā˘na-, with the exception of the OAv. pres. frīnəmna- and s-aor. OAv. xšnaošəmna- (Kellens 1984: 395; unless we are dealing with a thematized s-aor. or a pres. stem xšnaoša-) ‘seeking to obtain the favor (of)’: YAv. pres. √aog ‘speak’: aojā˘na-; √gan: γnāna-; mruuāna-, hunuuana-, daθāna-; − s-aor. maŋhāna-, mar əxšāna-; − perf. OAv. āpana-, vāuuər əzāna-, YAv. apāna-, daδrāna-, haŋhanāna-, mamnāna-, vauuazāna-, √raiθ/riθ ‘die’: iririθāna-; √part ‘fight’: pāpər ətāna-; √zar ‘be angry’: zazarāna-. The stem vowel of thematic participles undergoes the usual changes in i̯ a-stems, after a palatal consonant, and after -uu-: YAv. ma iniia- mid.: ma inimna-; yaziia- ‘be sacrificed’: yezimna-; haca-: hacimna-; dauua- ‘deceive’: daomna-; − “regular” forms have often been reintroduced in the iia-stems, e.g., cf. ja iδiia- ‘ask for’: mss. ja iδiiamnå, ja iδimnå (Y. 68.21). Past participles have -ta- added, if possible, to the zero grade of the root, before which regular sandhi changes occur: √š́au ‘impel’: YAv. š́ ū˘ta-; √draug: YAv. druxta-, OPers. d uruxta-; √dab ‘deceive’: YAv. dapta- (for PIr. *dabda-); dāta-; Av., OPers. √band: basta-; YAv. √spas ‘look’: spašta-; √u̯arz: varšta- < *u̯r̥šta-; √x vah ‘thrash’: x vasta-; √man: mata-; √kar: kər əta-, OPers. kạrta-; YAv. √star ‘stun’: stər əta-; √starH ‘spread out’: star əta-; aoxta- < aog- ‘speak’. Verbal adjectives in -θa-, -θβa- < *-tu̯a- built to the full grade and -iia- added to the zero grade express ‘that which should or can be done’ (participles of necessity/gerundives): − YAv. √tramp ‘satisfy’: θrąfδa-; draoxδa-; − mąθβa-, vax əδβa-, varštuua-; − √aiš ‘speed (along)’ transitive: išiia-; √karš ‘plow’: karšiia-. -iia- can also be used with nouns: yesniia- vahmiia- ‘worthy of sacrifices (yasna-) and hymns’, abstract nouns yesniiata- vahmiiata-. Less amenable to precise semantic characterization is the suffix -tu̯ant-: stər əθβaṇt- ‘(weapon) containing = causing paralysis’, fracar əθβaṇt- ‘going forth’ (nom. sg. fracar əθβå, Y. 62.8).

4.7. Infinitives Infinitives may be formed from pres. and aor. stems. The infin. in OAv. -diiāi, YAv. -δiiāi has middle/passive function. − Pres. athem. OAv. √nas ‘reach’: āždiiāi < *ā-Hn̥ć-; √jan: ja idiiāi; √marz ‘wipe (out)’: °mər ąždiiāi < *mr̥nȷ́-; √mark: mər əṇgdiiāi; YAv. dazdiiāi < *da-d z-di̯ āi; √u̯arH: ° vər əṇdiiāi; − them.: √dab: diβža idiiāi; vər əziie idiiāi, θrāiiō.diiāi; YAv. vaza iδiiāi. − Aor. athem. OAv. √ar ‘to rise (up)’ °ər əidiiāi; √būš- ‘strengthen/adorn’ (?): būždiiāi; √dar/dr̥ : dər əidiiāi.

34. The morphology of Iranian

543

Other infinitives are neutral with regard to diathesis. In OAv., these comprise several formations similar to dative sg. forms: *-ai: √pā: pōi; − *-u̯ai: dāuuōi, vīduiiē < *u̯id-u̯ai; − *-tai: √gam: gat̰ .tōi, √ah: stōi/stē, √ai: itē, √saŋh: sastē; − *-u̯anai: vīduuanōi, √ar ‘obtain’: uruuānē < *r̥-u̯anai (?); − *-ahai: frādaŋ́hē srāuuaiiaŋ́hē. See also Kellens (1994). In YAv., the neutral infinitive is identical with the dative of an action noun in -ti, with the endings -tə̄e, -taiiaē °: uxtə̄e, pati-√stā ‘withstand’: pa itištātaiiaē°. In OPers. it has the ending -tanaiy with the root in the full (e-)grade: ka ntanaiy, bartanaiy, √kar: cartanaiy < *kert-.

5. Abbreviations ADA Aog. Av. FO FrW. IVS Nir. OAv. OIA OPers. Pahl.

Avestan Digital Archive at http://ada.usal.es/ Aogəmadaēcā (Young and Old) Avestan Frahang ī oīm Fragment Westergaard Indian Videvdad Sade mss. Nīrangestān Old Avestan Old Indo-Aryan Old Persian Pahlavi

P. PIIR. PIr. ps.-OAv. P PVS Vr. Y. YAv. Yt. V. XA.

Pursišnīhā Proto-Indo-Iranian Proto-Iranian OAv. form in YAv. text Pahlavi Videvdad mss. Persian Videvdad Sade mss. Vispered Yasna Young Avestan Yašt Videvdad Xorde Avesta.

6. References Allegri, Maurizio and Antonio Panaino 1995 On the š-Ending in Old Persian akunauš and Similar Forms. With a Contribution by Ilya Gershevitch. In: Bert G. Fragner, Christa Fragner, Gherardo Gnoli, Roxanne HaagHiguchi, Mauro Maggi, and Paula Orsatti (eds.), Proceedings of the Second European Conference of Iranian Studies. Rome: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, 1−33. Bartholomae, Christian 1895−1901 Vorgeschichte der Iranischen Sprachen and Awestasprache und Altpersisch. In: Wilhelm Geiger and Ernst Kuhn (eds.), Grundriss der Iranischen Philologie. Vol. I. Strassburg: Trübner, 1−248. Bartholomae, Christian 1904 Altiranisches Wörterbuch. Strassburg: Trübner. Bartholomae, Christian 1906 Zum altiranischen Wörterbuch, Nacharbeiten und Vorabeiten. Strassburg: Trübner. Bartholomae, Christian 1979 Altiranisches Wörterbuch zusammen mit den Nacharbeiten und Vorarbeiten. Berlin: De Gruyter. [Reprint of Bartholomae 1904 and 1906.] Beekes, Robert S. P. 1988 A Grammar of Gatha-Avestan. Leiden: Brill.

544

VI. Iranian Beekes, Robert S. P. 1999 Review of Hoffmann-Forssman 1996. Kratylos 44: 62−71. Benveniste, Emile 1970 Que signifie Vidēvdāt. In: Mary Boyce and Ilya Gershevitch (eds.), W. B. Henning Memorial Volume. London: Lund Humphries, 37−42. Brandenstein, Wilhelm and Manfred Mayrhofer 1964 Handbuch des Altpersischen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Cantera, Alberto 2014 Vers une édition de la liturgie longue zoroastrienne: Pensées et travaux préliminaires. (Studia Iranica, Cahier 51). Paris: Association pour l’avancement des études iraniennes, 2014 (see Skjærvø 2016). Cowgill, Warren 1968 The Aorists and Perfects of Old Persian. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung 82: 259−268. Duchesne-Guillemin, Jacques 1936 Les composés de l’Avesta. Liège: Droz. Geldner, Karl Friedrich 1896 Avesta. The Sacred Book of the Parsis. Vols. 1−3. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Gotō, Toshifumi 2013 Old Indo-Aryan Morphology and Its Indo-Iranian Background. (Veröffentlichungen zur Iranistik 60). Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Grestenberger, Laura 2013 The Indo-Iranian cákri-type. Journal of the American Oriental Society 133: 269−293. Hale, Mark 2004 Avestan. In: Woodard (ed.), 742−763. Hintze, Almut 1994 Der Zamyād-Yašt. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Hintze, Almut 2005 Indo-Iranian *gar ‘to Raise Aloft’. In: Schweiger (ed.), 247−260. Hoffmann, Karl 1955 Altpers. afuvāyā. In: Hans Krahe (ed.), Corolla Linguistica. Festschrift Ferdinand Sommer zum 80. Geburtstag am 4. Mai 1955 dargebracht von Freunden, Schülern und Kollegen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 80−85. [= Hoffmann I: 52−57.] Hoffmann, Karl 1958 Altiranisch. In: Bertold Spuler and Hermann Kees (eds.), Handbuch der Orientalistik. Vol. I/IV/1. Leiden and Cologne: Brill, 1−19. [= Hoffmann I: 58−76.] Hoffmann, Karl 1965 Zu den altiranischen Bruchzahlen. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung 79: 247−254. [= Hoffmann I: 183−190 and addendum p. 338.] Hoffmann, Karl 1969a Die av. Verbalformen jauua Yt. 5, 63, niδātaē-ca Yt. 13, 66 und fraδātaē-ca Yt. 13, 68. In: Istituto di Glottologia dell’Università di Roma (ed.), Studia classica et orientalia A. Pagliaro oblata III. Rome: Istituto di Glottologia dell’Università di Roma, 17−32. [= Hoffmann I: 258−273.] Hoffmann, Karl 1969b Zur Yasna-Überlieferung. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 26: 35−38. [= Hoffmann II: 513−515.] Hoffmann, Karl 1970 Zur awestischen Textkritik: Der Akk. Pl. mask. der a-Stämme. In: Mary Boyce and Ilya Gershevitch (eds.), W. B. Henning Memorial Volume. London: Lund Humphries, 187− 200. [= Hoffmann I: 274−287.]

34. The morphology of Iranian Hoffmann, Karl 1975 Präteritaler Optativ im Altiranischen. In: Hoffmann 1976 [= Hoffmann II.], 605−619. Hoffmann, Karl 1975−1976 Aufsätze zur Indoiranistik. Vols. 1−2. Edited by Johanna Narten. Wiesbaden: Reichert [= Hoffmann I, II]. Hoffmann, Karl 1988 Avestan Language I−III. In: Ehsan Yarshater (ed.), Encyclopædia Iranica III. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 47−62. [= Hoffmann III: 864−879.] Hoffmann, Karl 1992 Aufsätze zur Indoiranistik. Vol. 3. Edited by Sonja Glauch, Robert Plath, and Sabine Ziegler. Wiesbaden: Reichert. [= Hoffmann III.] Hoffmann, Karl and Bernhard Forssman 1980 Altpersisch avadaš oder avadaša? Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 39: 37−41. [= Hoffmann III: 744−748.] Hoffmann, Karl and Johanna Narten 1989 Der sasanidische Archetypus. Untersuchungen zu Schreibung und Lautgestalt des Avestischen. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Hoffmann, Karl and Bernhard Forssman 1996 Avestische Laut- und Flexionslehre. (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 85). Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität. 2 nd revised and expanded edn., 2004. JamaspAsa, Kaikhusroo M. 1982 Aogəmadaēcā: A Zoroastrian Liturgy. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Jackson, A. V. Williams 1892 An Avesta Grammar in Comparison with Sanskrit. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. [Reprint 1968. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.] Jasanoff, Jay H. 1997 Gathic Avestan cikōitərəš. In: Alexander Lubotsky (ed.), Sound Law and Analogy. Papers in Honor of Robert S. P. Beekes. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 119−130. Jügel, Thomas 2015 Die Entwicklung der Ergativkonstruktion im Alt- und Mitteliranischen: Eine korpusbasierte Untersuchung zu Kasus, Kongruenz und Satzbau. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Kellens, Jean 1974 Les noms-racines de l’Avesta. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Kellens, Jean 1984 Le verbe avestique. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Kellens, Jean 1989 Avestique. In: Rüdiger Schmitt (ed.), Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 32−55. Kellens, Jean 1994 Retour à l’infinitif avestique. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 55: 45−59. Kellens, Jean 1995 Liste du verbe avestique. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Kellens, Jean 2010 Études avestiques et mazdéenes vol. 3: Le long préambule du sacrifice (Yasna 16 à 27.12, avec les intercalations de Visprad 7 à 12). Paris: De Boccard. Kellens, Jean and Éric Pirart 1988−1991 Les textes vieil-avestiques, I−III. Wiesbaden: Reichert [= Kellens-Pirart I, II, III.] Kent, Roland G. 1953 Old Persian Grammar, Texts, Lexicon. 2 nd rev. edn. New Haven: American Oriental Society.

545

546

VI. Iranian Morgenstierne, Georg 1942 Orthography and Sound System of the Avesta. Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap 12: 30−82. [Repr. in idem. 1975. Irano-Dardica. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 31−83.] Oettinger, Norbert 1992 [1994] Zu den Verben auf vedisch -anyá- und hethitisch anni̯ e-. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 53: 133−154. Pirart, Éric 1993 Avestique janiiaoš. Indo-Iranian Journal 36: 337−340. Reichelt, Hans 1909 Awestisches Elementarbuch, Heidelberg: Winter. [Reprint 1967. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.] Schindler, Jochem 1982 Zum Nom. Sg. m. der nt-Partizipien im Jungavestischen. In: Erich Neu (ed.), Investigationes Philologicae et Comparativae. Gedenkschrift für Heinz Kronasser. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 186−209. Schindler, Jochem 1986 Zum Jüngstawestischen: Die femininen Komparativa auf -iiaiiå. Die Sprache 32: 384−390. Schindler, Jochem 1987 Zur avestischen Kompositionslehre: aš.- ‘groß’. In: George Cardona and Norman H. Zide (eds.), Festschrift for Henry Hoenigswald on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday. Tübingen: Narr, 337−348. Schmitt, Rüdiger (ed.) 1989a Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Schmitt, Rüdiger 1989b Altpersisch. In: Rüdiger Schmitt (ed.), Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 56−85. Schmitt, Rüdiger 1994 Die Zahlreihe zwischen „10“ und „20“, zum Beispiel im Iranischen, HS 107: 12−29. Schmitt, Rüdiger 1999 Beiträge zu altpersischen Inschriften. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Schmitt, Rüdiger 2003 Onomastische Bemerkungen zu der Namenliste des Fravardīn Yašt. In: Carlo Cereti, Mauro Maggi, and Elio Provasi (eds.), Religious Themes and Texts of Pre-Islamic Iran and Central Asia. Studies in Honour of Professor Gherardo Gnoli on the Occasion of His 65 th Birthday on 6 December 2002. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 363−374. Schmitt, Rüdiger 2004 Old Persian. In: Woodard (ed.), 717−741. Schmitt, Rüdiger 2009 Die altpersischen Inschriften der Achaimeniden. Editio minor mit deutscher Übersetzung. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Schmitt, Rüdiger 2011 Iranische Personennamen in der griechischen Literatur vor Alexander d. Gr. Iranisches Personennamenbuch V/5a, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse. Sitzungsberichte, Vol. 823. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Schmitt, Rüdiger 2014 Wörterbuch der altpersischen Königsinschriften. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Schwartz, Martin 2009 Pouruchista’s Gathic Wedding and the Teleological Composition of the Gathas. In: Sundermann, Hintze, and de Blois (eds.), 429−447.

34. The morphology of Iranian Schweiger, Gunter (ed.) 2005 Indogermanica. Festschrift Gert Klingenschmitt. Indische, iranische und indogermanische Studien dem verehrten Jubilar dargebracht zu seinem fünfundsechzigsten Geburtstag. Taimering: VTW. Sims-Williams, Nicholas 1981 The Final Paragraph of the Tomb-Inscription of Darius I (DNb, 50−60): The Old Persian Text in the Light of an Aramaic Version. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 44: 1−7. Skjærvø, Prods Oktor 1985 Remarks on the Old Persian verbal system. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 45: 211−227. Skjærvø, Prods Oktor 1997 Avestica I: A Perfect Participle, vaox våŋhō. Journal of the American Oriental Society 117: 145−147. Skjærvø, Prods Oktor 1999a [publ. 2002] Methodological Questions in Old Persian and Parthian Epigraphy. Bulletin of the Asia Institute 13: 157−167. Skjærvø, Prods Oktor 1999b [publ. 2002] Review of Helmut Humbach and Pallan R. Ichaporia. 1998. Zamyād Yasht. Yasht 19 of the Younger Avesta. Text, Translation, Commentary, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Bulletin of the Asia Institute 13: 182−190. Skjærvø, Prods Oktor 1999c Avestan Quotations in Old Persian? In: Shaul Shaked and Amnon Netzer (eds.), IranoJudaica. Vol. 4. Jerusalem: Makhon Ben-Tsevi, 1−64. Skjærvø, Prods Oktor 2003−2004 The Antiquity of Old Avestan. Nāme-ye Irān-e Bāstān. The International Journal of Ancient Iranian Studies 3: 15−41. Skjærvø, Prods Oktor 2004 Smashing Urine: On Yasna 48.10. In: Michael Stausberg (ed.), Zoroastrian Rituals in Context. Leiden: Brill, 253−281. Skjærvø, Prods Oktor 2005 Avestica III: Notes on the Avestan Locative Singular. In: Dieter Weber (ed.), Languages of Iran: Past and Present. Iranian Studies in Memoriam David Neil MacKenzie. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 197−206. Skjærvø, Prods Oktor 2005−2006 The Importance of Orality for the Study of Old Iranian Literature and Myth. Nāme-ye Irān-e Bāstān. The International Journal of Ancient Iranian Studies 5: 1−23. Skjærvø, Prods Oktor 2007a Avestica V: The Thematic Optative 3 rd Plural in -aiiaēn and the Instrumental Plural of n-stems and Some Other Consonant Stems. In: Alan J. Nussbaum (ed.), Verba Docenti. Studies in Historical and Indo-European Linguistics Presented to Jay H. Jasanoff by Students, Colleagues, and Friends. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave, 321−328. Skjærvø, Prods Oktor 2007b Avestan and Old Persian Morphology. In: Alan S. Kaye (ed.), Morphologies of Asia and Africa. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 853−940. Skjærvø, Prods Oktor 2008a Tahādī. Gifts and Counter-Gifts in the Ancient Zoroastrian Ritual. In: Beatrice Gruendler and Michael Cooperson (eds.), Classical Arabic Humanities in their Own Terms. Festschrift for Wolfhart Heinrichs on his 65 th Birthday Presented by His Students and Colleagues. Leiden: Brill, 493−520.

547

548

VI. Iranian Skjærvø, Prods Oktor 2008b The Horse in Indo-Iranian Mythology. Review article of Philippe Swennen. 2004. D’Indra à Tištrya. Portrait et évolution du cheval sacré dans les mythes indo-iraniens anciens. Journal of the American Oriental Society 128: 295−302. Skjærvø, Prods Oktor 2009 Old Iranian languages. In: Gernot Windfuhr (ed.), The Iranian Languages. London: Routledge, 43−195. Skjærvø, Prods Oktor 2011 Review of Schmitt (ed.). 2009. Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 106: cols. 325b−328b. Skjærvø, Prods Oktor 2012 [publ. 2016] Review of Cantera 2014. Bulletin of the Asia Institute 26 [2012]: 163−183. Skjærvø, Prods Oktor 2013 Gathic Quotations in the Young Avesta. In: Éric Pirart (ed.), Le sort des Gâthâs et autres études iraniennes. In Memoriam Jacques Duchesne-Guillemin. Leuven: Peeters, 177−199. Sundermann, Werner, Almut Hintze, and François de Blois (eds.) 2009 Exegisti Monumenta. Festschrift in Honour of Nicholas Sims-Williams. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Swennen, Philippe 1995 Les participes présents féminins actifs dans l’Avesta. Annali dell’Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli 55: 207−216. Szemerényi, Oswald 1991 Iranica V, no. 66. OP Sakām. In: Patrick Considine and James T. Hooker (eds.), Scripta Minora. Vol. IV. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität, 1,956− 1,960. Tichy, Eva 1985 Jungawestisch sūnīš. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 98: 150−161. Tichy, Eva 1986 Vedisch r̥tā́van- und awestisch aš ̣auuan-. Die Sprache 32: 91−105. Tremblay, Xavier 1996a Zum suffixalen Ablaut o/e in der athematischen Deklination des Indogermanischen. Die Sprache 38: 31−70. Tremblay, Xavier 1996b Un nouveau type apophonique des noms athématiques suffixaux de l’Indo-européen. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique 91: 97−145. Tremblay, Xavier 1998 Sur parsui du Farhang-i-ōim, ratu, pərətu-, pitu- et quelques autres thèmes avestiques en -u. Essais de grammaire comparée des langues iraniennes III. Studia Iranica 27: 187−204. Tremblay, Xavier 1999 Ist jungawestisch nāismi, nāist Präsens oder sigmatischer Aorist? In: Heiner Eichner and Hans Christian Luschützky (eds.), Compositiones Indogermanicae in Memoriam Jochem Schindler. Prague: Enigma, 537−543. Tucker, Elizabeth 2004 Denominative Verbs in Avestan: Derivatives from Thematic Stems. In: John H. W. Penney (ed.), Indo-European Perspectives: Studies in Honour of Anna Morpurgo Davies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 548−561. Tucker, Elizabeth 2009 Old Iranian Superlatives in -išta-. In: Sundermann, Hintze, and de Blois (eds.), 509− 526.

35. The syntax of Iranian

549

de Vaan, Michiel 2000 Die Lautfolge āum im Vidēvdād. In: Bernhard Forssman and Robert Plath (eds.), Indoarisch, Iranisch und die Indogermanistik: Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 2. bis 5. Oktober 1997 in Erlangen. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 523−533. de Vaan, Michiel 2001 Avestan vaēsməṇda. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 61: 185−192. de Vaan, Michiel 2003 The Avestan Vowels. (Leiden Studies in Indo-European 12). Amsterdam: Rodopi. de Vaan, Michiel 2005 The Reflex of Intervocalic *b in Avestan. In: Schweiger (ed.), 665−679. de Vaan, Michiel 2015 Young Avestan bāδa. Estudios Iranios y Turanios 2: 219−232. Vine, Brent 1982 Indo-European Verbal Formations in *-d-. PhD dissertation, Harvard. Watkins, Calvert 2000 ‘sá figé’ in Indo-Iranian and Anatolian. In: Almut Hintze and Eva Tichy (eds.), Anusantatyai. Festschrift für Johanna Narten zum 70. Geburtstag. Dettelbach: Röll, 263−281. Westergaard, Niels L. 1852−1854 Zendavesta or the Religious Books of the Zoroastrians Edited And Translated with a Dictionary, Grammar, &c. Vol. I. The Zend Texts. Copenhagen: Berling Brothers. [Reprinted 1993. Wiesbaden: Reichert, with introduction by Rüdiger Schmitt.] Woodard, Roger D. (ed.) 2004 The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World’s Ancient Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Prods Oktor Skjærvø, Cambridge, MA (USA)

35. The syntax of Iranian 1. Word classes 2. Nominal morphosyntax and adpositional phrases 3. Verbal morphosyntax and periphrastic formations 4. Adverbials and conjunctions

5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Phrasal syntax Clausal syntax Abbreviations Selected bibliography References

1. Word classes The opposition between adjectives and substantives is blurred and the category “noun” will be sufficient for most syntactic analyses. An adjective is not marked differently for attributive or predicative use. For Adverbs see 4, where conjunctions will be discussed, too. For particles see 6.2. Since nominal forms can have case government typical of verbs (cf. 5.2), the status of word classes is a morphological rather than a syntactic one. Pronouns will be considered in 5.3, numerals in 5.5. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261288-035

550

VI. Iranian

2. Nominal morphosyntax and adpositional phrases 2.1. The use of cases For cases governed by nouns see 5.2, and by prepositions see 2.2. For cases used to express adverbials see 4. In OP the form of the genitive has taken over the functions of the dative completely (by syncretism). The nominative marks the grammatical (or surface) subject, and the predicative noun. Double nominatives are the counterparts of double accusatives in middle and passive constructions, e.g. at̰ hōi aoǰī zaraϑuštrō pauruuīm haiϑiiō ‘thus I declare myself to him first as the real Zaraϑuštra’ (Y 43.8). The accusative marks the direct object. Furthermore, it expresses direction in combination with verbs of movement, e.g. OP pasāwa adam bābirum ašiyawam ‘afterwards I went to Babylonia’ (DB I 83−84). Some verbs require a double accusative, like ‘ask’, e.g.: tat̰ ϑβā pərəsā ‘I ask you for that’ (Y 44.8) (MP + ō ‘to’ or az ‘from’). With ‘do’ the meaning is ‘make sb. sb.’ cf. OP haya dārayawaum xšāyaϑiyam akunauš ‘who made Darius king’ (DNa 5−6). Furthermore, the accusative functions as a lexical case for several adverbial (e.g. temporal or spatial) expressions: yat̰ upaŋhačat̰ … yiməm … darəγəm-čit̰ aipi zruuānəm ‘which followed Yima for a long time after’ (Yt 19.31), cf. 4. The accusativus graecus is found in OP with the verb ‘be’, e.g. yaϑā mām kāma ‘as (it was) my desire’ (DB IV 35−36); auramazdā ϑuwām dauštā biyā ‘may Auramazdā be a friend unto you (sg.)’ (DB IV 55−56). The accusative functions are continued by the direct case or the preposition ō ‘to’ in MP. The dative marks the indirect object. Marking the thematic role of a “goal”, the dative expresses functions such as directive, dativus finalis, and dativus (in)commodi: uruua parāiti parō.asnāi aŋuhe ‘the soul goes forth to the future life’ (Vd 13.8); xš ̣numaine ahurahe mazdā̊ ‘to satisfy Ahura Mazdā’ (Y 22.23); awa-taiy auramazdā učāram kunautu ‘may Auramazdā make that successful for you’ (DB IV 76). Furthermore, the dative can encode the logical subject, e.g. puϑrəm … aniiahmāi arš ̣ānāi varštəm ‘a boy, fathered by another man’ (Yt 17.58). Dative functions are continued in MP by the oblique case, the preposition ō ‘to’, and the postposition rāy ‘for’. The genitive marks nominal attributes (cf. 5.2). The semantic correlation can be possessive, subjective, or objective. When attributed to numerals, measures, or verbs like ‘give’, it has a partitive meaning: yat̰ vā maš́ iiō maš́ iiānąm xš ̣udranąm para.gəuruuaiieiti ‘or when a man receives sperm of men’ (Vd 8.32). The genitive can be governed by verbs, too, cf.: nōit̰ … apąm āstriiā̊nte ‘They shall not sin against the water!’ (Vd 6.29). Moreover, it encodes the possessor in a copulative possessive construction, e.g. druǰō aogarə … ā̊ŋhāt̰ (lit.) ‘the power would have been (that) of the Drug’ (Yt 13.12), cf. 3.4.1. The instrumental mostly encodes the meaning ‘with’ (instruments, MP preposition pad, company, MP preposition abāg, etc.). As such, instrumentals can be used to coordinate nouns in a meaning similar to -čā˘, e.g. yezī aϑā stā haiϑīm mazdā aš ̣ā vohu manaŋhā ‘if you (pl.) are really so, Mazdā (together) with Order and Good Thought’ (Y 34.6). Close to the thematic role “instrument” is the one of “causer”: gaomaēzəm gauua dātaiiā ‘cow’s urine, which is produced by the cow’ (Vd 19.22). The latter is used with passives, too: yā zī vāuuərəzōi … daēuuāiš-čā maš ̣iiāiš-čā ‘who are made … by Daēvas and men’ (Y 29.4). The instrumental of respect is found in: vīspa tarš ̣u-ča xš ̣uδra-ča masana-ča

35. The syntax of Iranian vaŋhana-ča sraiiana-ča ‘all things solid and liquid in size, goodness, and beauty’ (Yt 19.58). Instrumentals appear like subjects with impersonal verbs (cf. Schwyzer 1929). In OP, however, the instrumental occurring with numbers does not mark the subject, as has been suggested earlier, cf. 5.5. For a figurative use, see Vd 8.14 in 4. The ablative mostly denotes a direction ‘(away) from, of’ (local and temporal, MP preposition az): nipātū pairī daēuuāat̰ -čā t̰ baēšaŋhat̰ maš́ iiāat̰ -čā ‘let it protect us from Daēva and man (and their) hostility’ (Y 58.2). It can occur with the preposition hačā ‘from’: ϑβahmāt̰ vaočaŋ́hē maniiə̄uš hačā ‘to speak in accordance with your inspiration’ (Y 28.11). In a figurative sense, the ablative carries a causal meaning: ϑβaēš ̣āt̰ ‘from fear’ (Y 57.18). For the ablative used for comparison, see 5.4. The locative usually answers the question ‘where?’, both in time and space (MP preposition pad and dar), cf. ima taya manā kṛtam mādai ‘this is what I have done in Media’ (DB II 91−92); yā … hištəṇta … hamaiia gātuuō ‘who stood in one and the same place’ (Yt 13.53). Furthermore, it can express a directive meaning, e.g. yō xš ̣aϑriš ̣uua auuāiti ‘when he approaches the females’ (Yt 14.12). Quite close to its adverbial use is the locative of emotion, cf. mahmī manōi ‘to my resentment’ (Y 32.1). A vocative − being usually clause-external − is expressed, if integrated into a clause, by means of an apposition, and it is inflected accordingly: ā ϑβā ātrəm gāraiiemi ‘I sing a song of praise to you, the fire (O fire)’ (Any 2). Attributes are assigned vocative case as well, aš ̣i srīre ‘O beautiful Aši’ (Yt 17.6), even if the referent is nominative, cf. druxš ax vāϑre ‘O loathsome Druxš’ (Vd 18.30).

2.2. Adpositional phrases There are various adpositions in use, some reinforcing the function of their governed cases: cf. hadā ‘with’ + instr., e.g. hadā kamnaibiš martiyaibiš ‘with a few men’ (DB I 56−57), or hačā ‘from’ + abl. (see Korn, this handbook, 4.3). Several of them can govern more than one case, e.g. pasā + acc. dārayawauš … pasā tanūm mām maϑištam akunauš ‘Darius … made me the greatest after himself’ (XPf 30−32), and + gen./dat. haya aniya kāra pārsa pasā manā ašiyawa mādam ‘the other Persian army went behind me to Media’ (DB III 32−33). Pre- or postposing can trigger a change of meaning, cf. hačā as a preposition meaning ‘from’, and as a postposition, ‘in accordance with’ (see Hale 1993). However, what sometimes seems to be a postposition can in fact be a preposition with a fronted noun, cf. yezī ahiiā aš ̣ā pōi mat̰ xš ̣aiiehī ‘if you can protect this together with Order’ (Y 44.15). It is not clear, however, whether the prepositional phrase is to be connected with the subject or the logical object of the infinitive. There are inflected nouns which tend to be interpreted like prepositions, e.g. wašnā lit. ‘with the favour of’ or ‘in accordance with’, cf. MMP wašn ‘on account of’.

3. Verbal morphosyntax and periphrastic formations 3.1. Tense, aspect, and mood While the OAv. system is largely the same as that of PIIr. (see Kümmel, this handbook, 6.1), both OIr. languages show a decline of the aorist, the forms of which are partly

551

552

VI. Iranian incorporated into the present tense system (Kellens 1984: 376). So OP and Av. already point to a functional change of the verbal stem, from one marked for aspect (as in PIE) to one marked for tense (from MIr. onwards at the latest). In OP the imperfect functions as the unmarked past tense. Therefore OP is rich in augmented forms, in contrast to Av., where the injunctive is used instead. In OP the aorist is only productive within the modal system, e.g. the opt. aor. used as an irrealis of the present. Indicative attestations of the aorist are formulaic or allow non-aorist interpretations. Its main function is to express a completed action. A clear example of the aspectual use of the perfective aorist to express coincidence of assertion and situation time is found in: ahmāi as-čīt̰ vahištā vohū čōiš ̣əm manaŋhā ‘to him I indeed assign the best things by (my) good thought’ (Y 46.18). For aspect in MP see Jügel (2015a: 82). The inherited perfect is nearly extinct in OP, where only once an opt. perf. occurs as an irrealis of the past. The gap of the resultative forms is filled by the PP construction (see 3.4.2). The opt. pres. primarily denotes wishes (see now Mumm 2011 for a more refined description). A peculiarity is the augmented opt. pres. in Av. expressing iterativity in the past, which Hoffmann (1976: 605 ff.) sees as the starting point for the preterit optative that is attested in Middle and New Iranian languages. The subjunctive, besides its function as a potentialis, may be syntactically triggered by conjunctions like Av. yezi, OP yadiy ‘when’. Moreover, the subjunctive is used to express an action depending on another one, e.g. yazaēš ̣a mąm zaraϑuštra … ǰasāni tē auuaŋ́haē-ča rafnaŋ́haē-ča azəm yō ahurō mazdā̊ ‘you may worship me, Zaraϑuštra, … (and) I, Ahura Mazdā, will come to your aid and support’ (Yt 1.9). The interpretation as a future is possible, especially when used with adverbs like OP aparam ‘later’. The imperative system is well elaborated. Positive orders are expressed by the pres. imv.; for negative orders the negational particle mā (preserved in Modern Iranian languages like Kurdish) is used with various forms (see Table 35.1). Several forms are in competition, cf. the wide use of the subjunctive illustrated by Kellens (1984: 260 ff.). Therefore, Table 35.1 gives only a tentative overview of the common use of synthetic verbal forms, mostly following Kellens (1984, 1985, where a detailed description is found).

3.2. Diatheses OIr. exhibits active and middle voice. There are activa and media tantum, so that a functional difference can be deduced only from those transitive verbs which occur with both diatheses. Intransitive verbs usually take only active or only middle endings. The middle can be used as a passive or a reflexive. Its basic function is to denote actions performed with specific reference to the subject. The uses of active and middle endings can imply diverse lexical meanings, e.g. Av. bar- meaning ‘carry’ in the active vs. ‘ride’ in the middle. Additionally, it is possible to express passiveness by intransitivation, i.e. by adding the suffix -ya- to the stem. Another way is to use the pl. with unspecific or impersonal reference, e.g. yat̰ bā paiti fraēštəm uskəṇti ‘where indeed “they” frequently dig out [dead bodies]’ (Vd 3.12). The agent, if any, can be introduced into the clause in an

35. The syntax of Iranian

553

Table 35.1: Verbal categories of Old Persian and Avestan OP

Av. present

realis

indicative present

potential

subjunctive present

imaginary

optative present past

realis

imperfect

injunctive present

iterative

augmented optative present

irrealis

optative perfect resultativity

realis

−

indicative perfect

potential

−

subjunctive perfect imperative

prescriptive precative

imperative present

imperative or optative present

optative aorist

optative present or aorist

inhibitive

mā + injunctive present

preventive

mā + injunctive present

mā + imperative or optative present

corrective

mā + optative present

?

oblique case, usually the instrumental (see 2.1), or also as a prepositional phrase as in OP taya-šām hačā-ma aϑanhya ‘what has been said to them by me’ (DB I 19−20). The latter becomes the regular way in MIr. (Khotanese uses the postposition jsa). For a passive interpretation of the ergative construction, see 3.4.2.

3.3. Verbal nouns 3.3.1. Participles OIr is rich in participles. For present, aorist, and perfect, Av. exhibits active and middle participles. In OP, most of these are lexicalized; only the PP in -ta- is highly productive. Participles can be used as nominals (adjectives and nouns) and as the head of a participle phrase which is related to the matrix verb in various logical ways. Their aspecto-temporal interpretation is usually similar to that of their underlying stem: aorist as perfective, present as imperfective and perfect as resultative. For examples see 6.5.

554

VI. Iranian

3.3.2. The infinitive The primary function of the infinitive is to express purpose. The imperative function is according to Kellens (1994 [1995]: 59) “en tout cas une illusion [in any case an illusion]”. Infinitives can be governed by verbs (including ‘be’), adjectives, and nouns. Their subject can be the subject or the object of the governing verb, or, if it refers to a person, the indirect object, too. There are accusativus cum infinitivo constructions, e.g. with the verb Av. vas- ‘want’. The correlation with the temporal system as well as the interpretation of the diatheses depends on the context. Av. has infinitives derived from various stems. The infinitive in -diiāi cannot be proven to pertain to the middle voice (see Gippert 1984). Actants of the infinitive appear in various cases. Matrix verbs usually cut their infinitive clause in two and occur directly before the infinitive (still common in MIr.) cf. utā ima stānam hauw niyaštāya kantanaiy ‘and he ordered this niche to be dug out’ (XV 20−21). For more details, see Kellens (1994 [1995]), Gippert (1978). For an example, see 6.5.

3.4. Periphrastic formations The possessive construction and constructions with the PP in °ta- will be discussed in more detail in 3.4.1−2. The evolution of complex predicates still awaits a thorough examination (for Early New Persian, see Fritz 2009; for NP, Samvelian 2012). Clear examples are found in MP: ardaxšīr … šamšēr ō kār kard/grift ēstēd ‘Ardaxšīr made use of the sword’ (KN 13.16), kē … ō kār nē hamē šawēd ‘which is never used’ (Šāyist nē šāyist § 20), cf. NP be kār bordan ‘to use’, and be kār āmadan ‘to be used”. Double accusatives might be a hint that one object is more closely connected to the predicate, cf. yō narəm vīxrūməṇtəm x varəm ǰaiṇti ‘who beats a man a bleeding wound’ (Vd 4.30), where x varəm ǰaiṇti might be understood as ‘to wound’. Periphrastic formations rendering aktionsart concepts are built by ‘stand’ + participle, e.g. tē hištəṇti γžarə.γžarəṇtiš ‘they are undulating up and down’ (Vd 5.19); or ‘sit down’ + participle, e.g. yā tat̰ … nigā̊ŋheṇti nišhaδaiti ‘who sets about to devour it’ (Y 10.15), cf. Benveniste (1966). Other periphrastic formations appear in modal expressions. Attested are xšāi̯ a- ‘rule’ in the sense ‘can, be allowed’, and tau̯- ‘be strong’ in the sense ‘be able’.

3.4.1. Possessive construction OIr. does not possess a verb ‘have’. Instead, the verb ‘be’ is used with the possessor in the gen./dat., cf. dārayawauš puçā aniyai-či āhantā ‘Darius had other sons as well’ (XPf 28−29), and aita xšaçam hačā paruwiyata amāxam taumāyā āha ‘that kingship from ancient times belonged to our family’ (DB I 45−46). The same situation is found in Av. Sometimes the genitive is clearly visible, e.g. yā xš ̣māuuatō ‘which belongs to one like you’ (Y 49.6). Whether Y 68.22 is an instance of a dativus commodi or a possessive dative cannot be decided: nəmō ahurāi mazdāi ‘homage shall be for Ahura Mazdā’, or ‘Ahura Mazdā may have homage’. For the term “possessive construction”, introduced by Benveniste for the ergative construction in OP, cf. 3.4.2.

35. The syntax of Iranian

3.4.2. Past participle constructions In OP the construction with a PP in °ta- and the auxiliary verb ‘be’ (the “manā kṛtam construction”) is used to express perfectivity. In this construction the logical object is assigned the nominative case, and the logical subject is assigned the gen./dat. case. The main verb occurs as a PP and the finite element is represented by ‘be’. The auxiliary is generally omitted in present tense, except for two instances under focal stress in DB IV 46 and 51. With the past auxiliary the construction expresses resultativity with reference to a past event, e.g. taya hačā amāxam taumāyā parābṛtam āha ‘which had been taken away from our family’ (DB I 61−62). The subjunctive auxiliary implies perfectiveness in the future, e.g. yadi kāra pārsa pāta ahati ‘if the Persian people will be protected’ (DPe 22). These uses are clearly grammaticalized as a substitution for the lost aorist and perfect tenses. As this construction is indifferent as to diathesis (Lazard 1984), we have good reason to refer to the PP construction, already in OP, as an ergative construction (cf. Jügel 2015a: 107). In Avestan this construction occurs as well. Delbrück (1897: 484) cautiously suggests that it represents the result of an action or event with respect to the patient. This was a gap in the PIE system because the synthetic perfect represented the result only with respect to the agent. The construction is generally the same as in OP. The status of the case of the logical subject is unclear, however. Several cases come into consideration, especially gen./dat., and instr. Probably the case of the logical subject was not yet grammaticalized in this construction but triggered by its thematic role. Another formation employing the PP is the “potential construction” with the auxiliary ‘do’. It is well established for MIr. languages like Choresmian, Parthian, Khotanese, and Sogdian (cf. Korn, this handbook, 4.1). This construction does not, however, occur in Av. and the OP examples are debatable, cf. OP yanaiy dipim naiy nipištām akunauš (lit.) ‘where he did not make (= manage to have) the inscription written’ (XV 22−23). The PP combined with ‘become’ is considered a terminative with a passive value, cf. OP [yaϑā] kantam abawa ‘when it was dug’ (DSf 25). There are approximately ten instances of the PP with ‘become’ in YAv., cf. yāhuua t̰ bištō bauuaiti (lit.) ‘in which he becomes (someone who is) offended’ (Yt 10.28).

4. Adverbials and conjunctions All cases except for the vocative and the nominative can be used to form adverbial expressions, e.g. acc. fraēštəm ‘mostly’ (Yt 13.105), vīspā aiiārə̄ ‘for all days’ (Y 43.2); dat. vīspāi yauuē ‘for the whole lifespan’ (Y 28.8); gen. ϑriš yārə̄ ‘thrice a year’ (Nirangestan 11); abl. dūrāt̰ hača ahmāt̰ nmānāt̰ ‘far away from this house’ (Y 57.14); instr. paoiriia ‘at first’ (Y 23.1); loc. uštā ‘at wish’ (Y 33.10). An adjective constructed as a predicative can be used like an adverb, too, cf. the nom. apaš ̣i vazaite arštiš ‘backwards the spear is flying’ (Yt 10.20). In OP the so-called figura etymologica is the only attested way to form adverbs that modify verbs. These adverbs are structurally predicatives, cf. taya duškṛtam akariya ‘it was made badly-made’ (XPh 42), awam ubṛtam abaram ‘him I treated well-treated’ (DB IV 66). The same occurs in Av., cf. hubərətō baraiti ‘he treats well-treated’ (Yt 10.112), cf. also Hoffmann (1952/1956). However, most common for fixed expressions is the accusative. For instance, the acc. sg. n. of interrogatives

555

556

VI. Iranian tends to be lexicalized in YAv., kat̰ ‘what?’> ‘how?, when?’, čim ‘which?’ > ‘why?’. A special function of adverbs is to specify the temporal relation between actions, e.g. OP aparam ‘later’ + pres. subj. for the future tense. Furthermore, there are inherited adverbs like Av. nū ‘now’, aipī ‘henceforth’, or pronominal adverbs like OAv. adə̄ / OP adā ‘then’, idā ‘here’, kudā ‘where?’, Av. auuat̰ / OP avā ‘thus’. Such adverbs can occur as correlatives, e.g. yaϑā … aϑā ‘as … so’; aϑrā … yaϑrā ‘there … where’. There is disagreement among scholars about whether several functional words are to be classified as particles, adverbs, or conjunctions (cf. 6.2). Even so, -čā˘/ utā ‘and’, or -vā˘ ‘or’ are well-accepted conjunctions. -čā˘ does not usually coordinate two words having the same referent. Hence, it rarely coordinates adjectives. A conjunction can be specified by a correlating adverb, cf. yaϑā kantam abawa pasāwa ϑikā awaniya (lit.) ‘when it became dug out, then gravel was filled in’ ≈ ‘after it was dug out, gravel was filled in’ (DSf 25). Several pronominal forms have become conjunctions, like Av. yezi = OP yadiy ‘when’, ϑβā˘t … ϑβā˘t ‘be it … be it’, or OAv. hiiat̰ = YAv. yat̰ used as an all-purpose conjunction. Relative pronouns tend to be used for ‘when’ (probably a former free relative clause), e.g. yōi paϑa uzbarəṇte spānas-ča irista naraē-ča irista ‘when dead dogs or dead men are carried away on a path’ (Vd 8.14); or ‘that’: aētat̰ tē … aiŋ́he … dąnmahi yat̰ ϑβā diduuīš ̣ma ‘this we will give to you for that (reason), that we offended you’ (Y 68.1). They can occur in combination with enclitic particles: ya-čiy waināmiy hamiçiyam ya-čiy naiy waināmiy ‘whether I see a rebel or not’ (DNb 35−37). A common interjection in Av. is vaiiōi, also auuōi ‘woe!’.

5. Phrasal syntax 5.1. Impersonal and experiencer verbs Weather verbs are considered impersonal verbs in OIr. (Brugmann 1925). In MIr. and NIr., however, they commonly receive a subject, e.g. MP wārān wārīd (lit.) ‘rain rained’ (Mēnōg-i Xrad 62.36). The perfect of tauu- ‘to be able’ is a possible candidate for an impersonal verb, cf. yezi tūtauua ‘if it is possible’ (Vd 6.32). MP exhibits impersonal constructions for this expression, e.g. u-tān griftan nē tuwān ‘and you (pl.) cannot catch (them)’, lit. ‘and to you it is not possible to catch’ (KN 4.12). A clear instance of an experiencer verb in OIr. is Av. səṇd-, OP ϑa nd- ‘to seem’; cf. awahyā paru ϑadayāti taya manā kṛtam ‘to him what I have done should seem (too) much’ (DB IV 48−49). Furthermore, a verb in the middle voice can have an experiencer as its subject, e.g. nōit̰ framnīm brāϑranąm āzūzušte ‘nor does he enjoy supremacy over (his) brothers’ (P 43).

5.2. Nominal phrase Adjectives agree with the noun they refer to in gender, case, and number. In OP, adjectives may precede or follow the word they refer to, e.g. pārsa- in imam pārsam kāram pādi! yadi kāra pārsa pāta ahati… ‘Protect this Persian people! If the Persian people

35. The syntax of Iranian will be protected…’ (DPe 21−22). However, postposing seems to be preferred. Except for kinship relations, e.g. wištāspahyā puça ‘son of Hystaspes’ (DB I 2−3), cf. Av. sāiiuždrōiš puϑra ‘the sons of Sāiiuždrī’ (Yt 5.72), the genitive attribute usually follows its head noun in OP, cf. xšāyaϑiya ahyāyā būmiyā wazṛkāyā ‘king of this great world’ (DNa 11−12), or haya maϑišta bagānām ‘who (is) the greatest of the gods’ (DPd 1−2). Appositions agree in case and number with their referent, e.g. wašnā auramazdāhā mana-čā dārayawahauš xšāyaϑiyahyā ‘by the favour of Auramazdā and of me, (of) Darius, (of) the king’ (DPd 9−11). Deverbal nouns can keep the verbal case frame, e.g. mazdā̊ sax vārə̄ mairištō ‘Mazdā (is) he-who-remembers-best the sayings’ (Y 29.4), mairištō ← mar- ‘remember’. Otherwise both the logical object and the logical subject are assigned the genitive case, cf. parūwnām framātāram ‘a commander of many’ (DNa 7−8), and təmaŋhąm vā aiβi.gatō ‘at the onset of darkness’ (Vd 8.4). Adverbial cases usually do not differ with non-finite verbs, e.g. the ablative in raēkō … hača aŋhā zəmat̰ ‘the retreat from this earth’ (Yt 17.20), raēkō ← raēk- ‘leave’ − finite forms of this verb are not attested with the ablative, though. Examples of cases governed by nominals are the following: gen. friϑąm gə̄uš-ča vāstrahe-ča ‘rejoicing in cows and pasture’ (Yt 13.100); dat. yōi zarazdā̊ aŋhən mazdāi ‘who are confident in Mazdā’ (Y 31.1); instr. aš ̣ā hazaoš ̣ō ‘concordant with order’ (Y 29.7); abl. akāt̰ manaŋhō … čiϑrəm ‘the offspring of (from) the evil thought’ (Y 32.3); loc. zaiia raϑōišti ‘equipment for a warrior’ (Vd 14.9).

5.3. Pronouns OIr. exhibits a rich pronominal system with possessive pronouns distinct from the personal ones, and with special reflexive, interrogative, indefinite, and demonstrative pronouns. The stressed personal pronouns, the use of which is marked (e.g. contrastive), have enclitic variants in the oblique cases. Dropping the subject pronoun (“pro-drop”) is common, e.g. OAv. čiš ahī ‘Who are (you)?’ (Y 43.7). Besides the reflexive pronoun, tanū- ‘body’ can be used, e.g. āat̰ azəm tanūm aguze ‘thus I hid myself (lit. the body)’ (Yt 17.55), cf. MP xwēš tan ‘oneself’, lit. ‘own body’. Possessives of the 3 rd person can be expressed by demonstratives, cf. ahiiā xratū frō mā sāstū vahištā ‘by his wisdom, let him teach me the best’ (Y 45.6). Pronouns can be used cataphorically, e.g. ax́iiāčā x vaētuš yāsat̰ … ahurahiiā uruuāzəmā mazdā̊ ‘for his (bliss) the family entreats … for Ahura Mazdā’s bliss’ (Y 32.1), or anaphorically. Demonstrative pronouns, which appear like articles, precede their determinatum and agree like adjectives with it, cf. tə̄m aduuānəm ‘this path’ (Y 34.13). Others may precede or follow their head noun: kāra haruwa ‘the whole people’ (DB I 40), or hačā wispā gastā ‘of all harm’ (A 2Sd 4). Relative pronouns appear like articles when the referent occurs inside the relative clause, e.g. tąm yazata yō (rel.) yimō xš ̣aētō … satəm aspanąm ‘for her the brilliant … Yima sacrificed one hundred horses’ (Yt 5.25), when the referent is missing, e.g. yaiiā̊ spaniiā̊ ūitī mrauuat̰ yə̄m (rel.) aṇgrəm ‘of which two the life-giving one shall tell the evil one as follows’ (Y 45.2), when the relative clause is preposed, cf. vahištəm ϑβā vahištā yə̄m (rel.) aš ̣ā vahištā hazaošəm ahurəm yāsā ‘the best one, you, the beingin-harmony-with-the-best-order-Ahura, I ask (you) for the best’ (Y 28.8), hayā (rel.) amāxam taumā ‘our family’ (DB I 8), or when the relative pronoun introduces an apposi-

557

558

VI. Iranian tion, so that the distinction between appositions in the nominative and nominal relative clauses is a question of interpretation, cf. daēuuō yō apaoš ̣ō ‘the Daēva [who (is)] Apaoša’ (Yt 8.21), kāsaka haya kapautaka ‘the stone which (is) blue (i.e. lapis lazuli)’ (DSf 37). Such constructions were the starting point of the so-called iḍāfat construction of later times, Persian eẓāfe (see Korn, this handbook, 4.3). The case of the referent can spread over the whole appositional phrase, cf. pariy gaumātam tayam (rel.) magum ‘about Gaumāta the magus’ (DB I 54), yaϑa mąm-čit̰ yim (rel.) ahurəm mazdąm ‘as myself, Ahura Mazdā’ (Yt 10.1). In YAv. if the relative pronoun is polysyllabic, it can be substituted by yat̰ .

5.4. Comparison The noun representing the standard of comparison is marked by the ablative, e.g. fratara maniyai afuwāyā ‘I regard myself as superior to fear’ (DNb 38), āat̰ yimō imąm ząm vīš ̣āuuaiiat̰ aēuua ϑriš ̣uua ahmāt̰ masiiehīm yaϑa para ahmāt̰ as ‘then Yima made this earth go apart by one-third larger than that what (lit. how) it was before’ (Vd 2.11); or aniiō ϑβāt̰ ‘other than you’ (Vd.2.2). yaϑā˘ connects compared clauses, e.g. yadiy waināmiy hamiçiyam yaϑā yadiy naiy waināmiy ‘when I see a traitor, as (well as) when I do not see (one)’ (DNb 39−40). A verb with parə̄ ‘over’ occurs once governing the instr. (Y 34.5). Comparative or superlative forms can be coordinated with positives to enforce contrasting judgments, e.g. hī vahiiō akəm-čā ‘they (are) two: a better and a bad (one)’ (Y 30.3).

5.5. Numerals Numerals precede their determinatum. When they are used as attributes, they behave like adjectives, cf. XIX hamaranā akunawam ‘I fought nineteen battles’ (DB I 56). The frequent OP phrase (with various numbers), e.g. X raučabiš ϑakatā āha ‘ten days had passed’ (DB I 56), led to the assumption that there were instrumental subjects in OP. It is more convenient to consider the numeral as the subject and raučabiš depending on it, so to say ‘ten in terms of days’. This is confirmed by I rauča ϑakatam āha ‘one day had passed’ (DB III 8), where rauča is nom., not instr. Thus the numeral seems to govern a special case: “n = 1 with nom., n > 1 with instr.” (but cf. II karšā [Wa 1], CXX karšayā [Wc 1]). In Av. we find the gen. pl. with the numerals ‘100’ and higher.

6. Clausal syntax Determining the unmarked word order is particularly difficult in OIr. because OAv. is a poetically composed text and the OP royal inscriptions are not instances of the spoken language either (on this matter, see Hale, this handbook, 6). The position of clitics and stylistic features like repetition (see Gropp 1967; Jügel 2015b, 2016) help to structure the text. The subject and the verb, which usually occupies final position, constitute the

35. The syntax of Iranian verbal frame. Conjunctions are placed initially, clitics usually stand in Wackernagel position (see 6.2 and cf. Hale, this handbook, 5). Sentential adverbs tend to occur at the clausal border. All other constituents may be grouped within the verbal frame, or extraposed (see 6.6). There is a rich variety of stylistic techniques, e.g., mirroring, parallelism, and chiasmus. On stylistic devices see for instance Sadovski (2008).

6.1. Agreement Nominal agreement between the referent and its adjectival or pronominal attributes encompasses gender, case, and number. If an adjective refers to more than one noun, it may agree only with one of them in gender and number. Analogously, a verb may agree in person and number only with the nearest noun when the subject consists of more than one. Neuter subjects in the plural occur with singular verbs (disagreement in number is still common in MIr. and NIr.). Free relatives can be resumed by plural demonstratives, in a sense like ‘whoever … they’. If two nouns are coordinated, they may be marked as duals, even if they refer to singular or plural entities (so-called “open dvandvas”), cf. yāuuaranā fəraš ̣aoštrā ǰāmāspā ‘whose choice is Frašaoštra and Jāmāspa’ (Y 12.7).

6.2. Clitics, particles, and negation Clitics occur after the first word of the sentence or of a hemistich in the so-called Wackernagel position. Series of enclitics are possible: tāiš zī nā̊ š́ iiaoϑanāiš biieṇtē ‘for by those actions they are frightening us’ (Y 34.8), and still so in later Iranian languages, e.g. MP: ēg-iz-iš, Bactrian: ταδο-ι-ανο, Kurdish (Sorani): bō-m-ī bās bıka ‘tell me about it’. The order is by no means random, though. -čā˘, e.g., cannot occur after another clitic (v. Kellens and Pirart 1990: 190 ff.). If a personal pronoun follows another one in Av., it can only be tonic, e.g. yā tōi ə̄hmā (Y 43.10). It is a question of interpretation whether certain particles are to be interpreted as modal particles or as conjunctions, e.g. zī (Ved. hí), causal conjunction ‘because, for’ or affirmative particle like German ja, cf. tōi zī dātā… ‘for they have been established…’ or ‘diese sind ja geschaffen…’ (Y 48.12). An important function of the particles is to structure the discourse and to mark the beginning of a phrase (hence their closeness to conjunctions). Some are modal particles, e.g. emphatic -čīt̰ ‘even, precisely’ as in nū-čīt̰ ‘immediately’, činā with negations, tū with modals, nā (also nū) with nōit̰ ‘by no means’. Generally one must be careful not to take the contextual meaning to be the function of the particle. Characteristically, at̰ (besides āat̰ ) marks the beginning of a phrase (for details see Kellens and Pirart 1990: 105 ff.). It occurs with clitics like -čā˘ ‘and’, correlates with conjunctions like hiiat̰ ‘when’, and may sometimes be translated as ‘and, then, so, furthermore’ or French ‘alors’. For more details, see Kellens and Pirart (1990: 99−193). The common negative particle is Av. nōit̰ , naē°; OP naiy. Av. nōit̰ goes back to < *na + *id (in three passages a disyllabic reading is possible: Y 32.15, 46.1, 47.4; cf. Kellens and Pirart, 1990: 172 f.). OP naiy could be derived from *nai̯ or *nai̯ d. The negation occurs usually before the word which is under its scope, either at the beginning

559

560

VI. Iranian of a clause as in nōit̰ mōi vāstā xš ̣mat̰ ‘I have no (other) pastor than you’ (Y 29.1), or after, e.g., a subordinator: yōi nōit̰ aš ̣əm mainiiaṇtā ‘who do not understand the Order’ (Y 34.8). For negated imperatives, mā is used.

6.3. Tmesis Tmesis can be used to detect metrical boundaries because preverbs are mostly fronted to absolute clause-initial position or put after the metrical boundary, e.g. ā mōi rafəδrāi zauuə̄ṇg ǰasatā ‘come hither to my calls for support’ (Y 28.3). Sometimes the landing position is after the conjunction and the enclitic pronoun, if present. Apart from that, tmesis can be caused by an enclitic pronoun standing in Wackernagel position, cf. paiti dim pərəsat̰ zaraϑuštrō ‘of her Zaraϑuštra asked’ (Yt 5.90). The enclitic pronoun separates syntagmas, too, cf. tāiš vā̊ yasnāiš paitī stauuas aiienī ‘with these offerings I will come before you praising’ (Y 50.9). Sometimes it is not clear whether we have tmesis of verb + preverb or whether we have a verb + preposition, cf. pairi.tē haoma … daδąmi imąm tanūm ‘I offer to you, … Haoma, this body’ (Y 10.14). Few instances in OAv. show postposed preverbs, e.g. yə̄ ϑβat̰ mazdā asruštīm akəm-čā manō yazāi apā ‘I who would pray away from you disobedience and bad thinking’ (Y 33.4). Nominal phrases can be split by other elements as well, cf. hiiat̰ hōi vohū vaxš ̣at̰ manaŋhā ‘that one should increase for him through good thinking’ (Y 31.6). A possibly later development is the doubling of the fronted preverb in preverbal position, e.g. ā mā aēš ̣əmō hazas-čā rəmō āhišāiiā dərəš-čā təuuiš-čā ‘Wrath and restraint, obstruction as well as fetter and brutality bind me.’ (Y 29.1). If we want to restore a syllabic pattern of 7+9, one might delete the prefixed ā- and the third -čā, which might have entered the text in the course of later redaction.

6.4. Clause connection Clauses may be connected by particles or conjunctions, by pronominal connection, or by simple juxtaposition, with deletion of shared constituents (gapping) being quite common, cf. xš ̣aiiamnəm aš ̣auuanəm dāiiata axš ̣aiiamnəm druuaṇtəm ‘Make (pl.) the follower of Order a ruling one, (make) the follower of Lie a not-ruling one!’ (Y 8.5). Sometimes only the preverb remains as auuā does in kaϑā druǰəm nīš ahmat̰ ā nīš nāšāmā tə̄ṇg ā auuā yōi… ‘how shall we take away from us the Lie, (how shall we bring it) down upon those who…?’ (Y 44.13); or only the negation remains: ā̊s-čā hudā̊ŋhō ərəš vīš́ iiātā nōit̰ duždā̊ŋhō ‘of these two, the munificent discriminate rightly, not (do) the avaricious ones’ (Y 30.3). Deletion of parts other than the subject of a sentence is rather uncommon in OP, cf. the repetition in XPb 23−25 taya manā kṛtam idā utā taya-maiy apataram kṛtam ‘what I have done here and what I have done far away’, but cf. the coordination of objects: mām auramazdā pātu … utā-maiy wiϑam utā imām dahyāum ‘Let Auramazdā protect me and my family and this land!’ (DNa 51−53). The common order of, e.g., at̰ … hiiat̰ may be changed if the subclause is long (cf. Kellens and Pirart 1990: 110). Parenthesis is quite common, cf. nū īm vīspā čiϑrə̄ zī

35. The syntax of Iranian mazdā̊ŋhō.dūm ‘now to this, you all − for (it is) brilliant − pay attention!’ (Y 45.1). For comparison of clauses see 5.4.

6.5. Subordinate clauses Subordination can be indicated by the use of conjunctions (cf. 4) or the plain verbal mood (cf. 3.1), cf. the pres. opt. nipāraiiaṇta in: haxš ̣āne narəm … nāirikąm … ząm ahuraδātąm nipāraiiaṇta ‘shall I persuade the man (and) … the woman to (lit. [that] they should) arrogate for themselves the land created by Ahura?’ (Vd 19.26). The use of mood may bring a special nuance into relative clauses which illustrates the link between relative pronouns and conjunctions, 1. indicative → causal: kāram hamiçiyam haya manā naiy gaubataiy, awam ǰatā “the rebellious army which (/because it) does not call itself mine, defeat that!” (DB II 83−84) vs. 2. subjunctive → conditional: martiya haya drauǰana ahatiy … ufraštā-diš pṛsā ‘the man who shall be (/if he is) a follower of Falsehood, … punish them severely!’ (DB IV 68−69), cf. Kellens (1985: 111). Non-finite verbal forms can indicate subordinate clauses as well, e.g. infinitives for final clauses, cf. at̰ mazdā taibiiō xšaϑrəm … vōiuuīdāitī aēibiiō sastē ‘then, o Mazdā, the dominion shall be presented to you … for (you) to announce (it) to these’ (Y 30.8). Participles can be interpreted as converbs (in absolutive constructions). The pres. part. expresses simultaneity, cf. stauuas in: at̰ frauuaxš ̣iiā vīspanąm mazištəm stauuas aš ̣ā ‘Thus I shall proclaim the greatest one of all, praising (him) by the Order’ (Y 45.6). The perf. part. in these cases expresses resultativity, cf. nąsuuā̊ in: yehiiā uruuā xraodaitī … aš ̣ahiiā nąsuuā̊ paϑō ‘whose soul will make (him) shudder … having strayed (/for he has strayed) from the path of Order’ (Y 51.13). The aor. part. expresses anteriority, cf. starānō in: zaota … pasča barəsma frahišta pərənəm-ča barəsma starānō ‘The priest … has taken his place behind the altar grass after having spread full altar grass’ (Yt 10.138), as does the PP in °ta-, cf. mazdaiiasnō … frauuarānē āstūtas-čā frauuarətas-čā ‘I choose to be a worshipper of Mazdā, having praised and having chosen’ (Y 12.8). In conditional syntagmas, the order of protasis and apodosis is irrelevant. The moods are used according to their general function, e.g., the opt. perf. for an irrealis condition, cf. yeiδi zī mē nōit̰ daiδīt̰ upastąm … frauuaš ̣aiiō ‘for if the Fravašis had not given me aid’ (Yt 13.12). Relative clauses usually follow their head which can be a personal pronoun, too. They can even be extraposed outside the verbal frame of the matrix clause, a feature common up to New Iranian, cf. OP awam kārami ǰadiy i[haya manā naiy gaubataiy] ‘that army (you are to) defeat, which does not call itself mine” (DB III 14−15). By means of the demonstrative pronoun ān + eẓāfe (see 5.3), a relative clause can be preposed in MP yielding the structure ān ī + relative clause + referent. This ān ī is reminiscent of the OP relative pronoun, which is composed of the demonstrative pronoun ha-/ta- and the relative pronoun ya-, neither of which occurs alone in OP. A correlation between demonstrative and relative pronoun might have been the starting point of this formation. Free relative clauses are very common, cf. taya manā kṛtam idā ‘what I have done here’ (XPb 23−24), at̰ yə̄ akəm drəguuāitē … varəšaitī ‘so who does evil to the one possessed by the Lie’ (Y 33.2). Topicalization around the relative pronoun is attested, cf. martiya taya pariy martiyam ϑātiy awa mām naiy wṛnawataiy ‘a man, what (he) says against a man, that does not convince me’ (DNb 21−23).

561

562

VI. Iranian Indirect speech is not attested in OP, and it is uncommon in MP. Cf. Reichelt (1909: 372 ff.) and Skjærvø (2006: 119 ff., 2009: 153 ff.) for examples of various subordinate clauses.

6.6. Topic and focus New topics occur usually at the beginning of a phrase, they may be undetermined and followed by attributes, cf. pasāwa aiwa martiya maguš āha gaumāta namā hauw… ‘afterwards there was one man, a magus, Gaumāta by name, he…’ (DB I 35−36). Frame settings (all-new information) can be realized by verbs in clause-initial position, cf. ϑātiy dārayawauš ‘proclaims Darius’ (DB I 6). This is a typical feature of inscriptions and other official documents, and still occurs in MIr. Topic agreement between xšaçam and the pronoun awa is shown in xšaçam taya …, awa adam patipadam akunawam ‘the kingship, which …, that I reinstated’ (DB I 61−62). Emphasis can be achieved by cleft constructions, e.g. kə̄ huuō yə̄… ‘who is he, who…?’ (Y 46.9). The following OP example shows a combination of fronting and clefting yielding a focused topic setting: naiy āha martiya naiy pārsa naiy māda naiy amāxam taumāyā kaš-čiy haya… ‘there was no man, neither a Persian nor a Mede nor anyone of our family, who…’ (DB I 48−49). On cleft constructions in Avestan and Old Persian, see Widmer (2012). For emphasis, particles can be used, cf. 6.2, e.g. azə̄mčīt̰ ahiiā mazdā, ϑβąm mə̄ŋ́hī paouruuīm vaēdəm ‘as for me, I consider you, o Mazdā, as the first owner of this’ (Y 29.10). The usual focus position is in front of the verb, cf. wašnā auramazdāha ima adam akunawam ‘by the favour of Auramazdā this I did’ (DB I 68), which is the common position of the negation or of adverbs, cf. kāra-šim hačā dṛšam atṛsa ‘The people feared him very much.’ (DB I 50−51). Right-dislocation is found, too, cf. awam xšāyaϑiyam akunauš ahyāyā būmiyā ‘him he made king − of this earth’ (XPf 23−25); āuuiš nā̊ aṇtarə hə̄ṇtū nəmax vaitīš čiϑrā̊ rātaiiō ‘between us shall be manifest the remarkable gifts with homage’ (Y 33.7). To introduce personal or place names, parenthetical nominal clauses are used (see ex. DB I 35−36 above), a feature that was probably taken from colloquial speech (Hoffmann 1958: 19). See further Hale (this handbook, 3).

6.7. Sentence types The usual declarative sentence does not exhibit special features. Nominal clauses are frequent, and the copula in the present is generally omitted, cf. adam dārayawauš ‘I (am) Darius’ (DB I 1), OAv. kudā aš ̣əm vohu-čā manō ‘where (is) the Order and the Good Thought?’ (Y 29.11), but it is present if emphasized, cf. adam bṛdiya amiy ‘I am Smerdis’ (DB I 39). Only one question is attested in OP: yadi-patiy maniyāhaiy […] čiyākaram awā dahyāwa ‘but if you shall think: ‘How many (are) those countries?”’ (DNa 38−39). If taya is to be understood after the matrix verb in this example, it would correspond to MP where direct speech is introduced by a conjunction. Questions are usually introduced by an interrogative pronoun or contain an interrogative particle. They can be emphasized by particles like nā in Av. Multiple wh-questions are possible, cf.

35. The syntax of Iranian

563

kuϑrā aiiā̊ kahmāi vananąm dadā̊ ‘Where (and) to which of these two will you give the victory?’ (Y 44.15). Disjunctive questions are construed by means of katārə˘̄ m … vā … vā. In MP, the interrogative pronoun usually appears directly before the finite verb (not in-situ!), cf. u-šān ruwān ō kū šawēd? ‘and where does their soul go?’ (Ayātkār ī Žāmāspīk § 4). In imperatives the verb is not necessarily fronted, cf. tat̰ mōi … vaočā ‘tell me that …’ (Y 31.5).

7. Abbreviations abl. acc. Any aor. Av. A2 S dat. DB DN DP DS gen. imv. instr. KN loc. MIr. MMP MP n. nom.

ablative accusative Nirang ī Ātaš aorist Avestan inscription of Artaxerxes II. at Susa dative inscription of Darius at Behistūn inscription of Darius at Naqš-e Rostam inscription of Darius at Persepolis inscription of Darius at Susa genitive imperative instrumental Kārnāmag ī Ardaxšīr locative Middle Iranian Manichean MP Middle Persian neuter nominative

NIr. NP OAv. OIr. OP opt. P part. perf. PIE PIIr. PP pres. rel. subj. Vd Wa Darius Wc Darius, XP XV Y YAv. Yt

New Iranian New Persian Old Avestan Old Iranian Old Persian optative Pursišnīhā participle perfect Proto-Indo-European Proto-Indo-Iranian past participle/verbal adjective present relative pronoun subjunctive Vidēvdād inscription on weights A inscription on weights C inscription of Xerxes at Persepolis inscription of Xerxes at Van Yasna Young Avestan Yašt

The language of the examples is implicit in the abbreviation of the source: the inscriptions of Darius, Xerxes and Artaxerxes II. are OP, see above; P, Vd, Y, Yt are Avestan. represents additions and alterations to the text.

8. Selected bibliography After the completion of this article in 2008, further literature on the syntax of Iranian has been published, e.g.: Windfuhr, Gernot (ed.). 2009. The Iranian Languages. London/

564

VI. Iranian New York: Routledge; and West, Martin. 2011. Old Avestan Syntax and Stylistics. Berlin: De Gruyter. Bichlmeier, Harald 2011. Ablativ, Lokativ und Instrumental im Jungavestischen − ein Beitrag zur altiranischen Kasussyntax. (Studien zur historisch-vergleichenden Sprachwissenschaft 1). Hamburg: Baar. For a survey of Middle Iranian syntax see: Brunner, Charles J. 1977. A Syntax of Western Middle Iranian. Delmar, NY: Caravan Books; and Heston, Wilma Louise 1976. Selected problems in fifth to tenth-century Iranian syntax. University of Pennsylvania Dissertation. Ann Arbor: Xerox University Microfilms. Durkin-Meisterernst, Desmond 2014. Grammatik des Westmitteliranischen (Parthisch und Mittelpersisch). Sitzungsberichte der phil.-hist. Klasse 850, Veröffentlichungen zur Iranistik 73, Grammatica Iranica, Band 1. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

9. References Bauer, Brigitte 2000 Archaic Syntax in Indo-European. The Spread of Transitivity in Latin and French. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Benveniste, Émile 1966 Le verbe stā- comme auxiliare en iranien. Acta Orientalia 30: 45−49. Brandenstein, Wilhelm and Manfred Mayrhofer 1964 Handbuch des Altpersischen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Brugmann, Karl 1925 Die Syntax des einfachen Satzes im Indogermanischen. (Beiheft zu Indogermanische Forschungen 43). Berlin: De Gruyter. Čunakova, Olga Michajlovna 1987 Kniga dejanij Ardašira syna Papaka [The book of the deeds of Ardashir, son of Papak]. Moscow: NAUKA. Delbrück, Berthold 1897 Vergleichende Syntax der indogermanischen Sprachen, Vol. 4/2, Strassburg: Trübner. Fritz, Sonja 2009 Die “komplexen Verben” des Neupersischen in Umgangssprache und Literatur − eine areallinguistische und kulturhistorische Betrachtung. Iranistik: Deutschsprachige Zeitschrift für iranistische Studien (Tehran) 6: 5−55. Geldner, Karl Friedrich 2003 Avesta − The Sacred Books of the Parsis. Teheran: Asāṭīr. Gippert, Jost 1978 Zur Syntax der infinitivischen Bildungen in den indogermanischen Sprachen. Frankfurt: Lang. Gippert, Jost 1984 Ein indo-iranischer Infinitiv des Mediopassivs? Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 43: 25−44. Gropp, Gerd 1967 Wiederholungsformen im Jung-Awesta. Hamburg: Buske. Hale, Mark 1988 Old Persian Word Order. Indo-Iranian Journal 31: 27−40. Hale, Mark 1993 Tmesis and Movement in Avestan. Indo-Iranian Journal 36: 29−43.

35. The syntax of Iranian Hoffmann, Karl 1952/1956 Zum prädikativen Adverb. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 1: 42−53. [Reprinted 1976 in Johanna Narten (ed.), Karl Hoffmann. Aufsätze zur Indoiranistik, 339−349.] Hoffmann, Karl 1958 Altiranisch. In: Bertold Spuler and Hermann Kees (eds.), Handbuch der Orientalistik, Vol. 4: Iranistik, 1st part: Linguistik. Leiden: Brill, 1−19. Hoffmann, Karl 1976 Präteritaler Optativ im Altiranischen. In: Johanna Narten (ed.), Karl Hoffmann. Aufsätze zur Indoiranistik. 2 vols. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 605−619. Humbach, Helmut and Prods Oktor Skjærvø 1991 The Gāthās of Zarathushtra − and Other Old Avestan Texts. Heidelberg: Winter. JamaspAsa, Kaikhusroo M. and Helmut Humbach 1971 Pursišnīhā − A Zoroastrian Catechism, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Jügel, Thomas 2015a Die Entwicklung der Ergativkonstruktion im Alt- und Mitteliranischen − Eine korpusbasierte Untersuchung zu Kasus, Kongruenz und Satzbau. (Iranica 21). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Jügel, Thomas 2015b Repetition analysis function (ReAF) I: Identifying textual units in Avestan. Indogermanische Forschungen 120: 177−208. Jügel, Thomas 2016 Repetition analysis function (ReAF) II: Interpreting Repetitions in Avestan. Indogermanische Forschungen 121: 1−38. Kellens, Jean 1984 Le verbe avestique. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Kellens, Jean 1985 Le système modal du vieux-perse. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 45: 105− 125. Kellens, Jean 1989 Avestique. In: Rüdiger Schmitt (ed.), Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum, 32−55. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Kellens, Jean 1995 Retour à l’infinitif avestique. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 55 [1994]: 45−59. Kellens, Jean and Eric Pirart 1988−1991 Les textes vieil-avestiques, Vol. 1: Introduction, texte et traduction, 1988; Vol. 2: Répertoires grammaticaux et lexique, 1990; Vol. 3: Commentaire, 1991. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Kotwal, Firoze M. 1969 The supplementary texts to the Šāyest nē-šāyest. Copenhagen: Munksgard. Lazard, Gilbert 1984 Deux questions de linguistique iranienne. In: Jean Taillardat, Gilbert Lazard, and Guy Serbat (eds.), Émile Benveniste aujourdhui II. Leuven: Peeters, 239−248. Messina, Giuseppe 1939 Libro apocalittico persiano Ayātkār i Žāmāspīk. Roma: Pontificio Istituto Biblico. Mumm, Peter-Arnold 2011 Verbale Indefinitheit − Eine theoretische Überlegung mit Illustration am avestischen Corpus. In: Annette Endruschat and Vera Ferreira (eds.), Sprachdokumentation und Korpuslinguistik − Forschungsstand und Anwendung. Akten des 8. Deutschen Lusitanistentags. (Sprache − Kultur − Gesellschaft 7. Beiträge zu einer anwendungsbezogenenen Sozio- und Ethnolinguistik). Munich: Meidenbauer, 131−142.

565

566

VI. Iranian Narten, Johanna (ed.) 1975−1976 Karl Hoffmann. Aufsätze zur Indoiranistik. 2 vols. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Reichelt, Hans 1909 Awestisches Elementarbuch. Heidelberg: Winter. Sadovski, Velizar 2008 Einleitendes zum Periodenbau und einigen figurae per ordinem im Avesta und Veda. In: Markus Ritter, Ralph Kauz, and Birgitt Hoffmann (eds.), Iran und iranisch geprägte Kulturen. Studien zu Ehren von Bert G. Fragner; überreicht an seinem 65. Geburtstag. (Beiträge zur Iranistik 27). Wiesbaden: Reichert, 242−255. Samvelian, Pollet 2012 Grammaire des prédicats complexes − les constructions nom-verbe. Paris: Lavoisier. Schmitt, Rüdiger (ed.) 1989 Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Schmitt, Rüdiger (ed.) 1991 The Bisitun Inscriptions of Darius the Great − Old Persian Text. Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum. London: School of Oriental and African Studies. Schmitt, Rüdiger (ed.) 2000 The Old Persian Inscriptions of Naqsh-i Rustam and Persepolis. Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum. London: School of Oriental and African Studies. Schweiger, Günter 1998 Kritische Neuedition der achaemenidischen Keilinschriften. Taimering: VWT-Verlag. Schwyzer, Eduard 1929 Die sog. mißbräuchlichen Instrumentale im Awesta. Indogermanische Forschungen 47: 214−271. Skjærvø, Prods Oktor 2003 Introduction to Young Avestan. http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~iranian/Avesta/index.html. Skjærvø, Prods Oktor 2006 Introduction to Old Avestan. http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~iranian/OldAvestan/index.html. Skjærvø, Prods Oktor 2009 Old Iranian. In: Gernot Windfuhr (ed.), The Iranian Languages. London/New York: Routledge. Widmer, Paul 2012 Satzspaltung im Avestischen und Altpersischen (mit einem Ausblick auf das Mittelpersische). Indo-Iranian Journal 55: 119−137.

Thomas Jügel, Paris (France)

36. The lexicon of Iranian 1. Introduction 2. Sky, celestial elements, and atmospheric processes 3. Earth, physical and chemical elements 4. Animate nature https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261288-036

5. 6. 7. 8.

Biological life, life functions, everyday life Personal and family life Abbreviations References

36. The lexicon of Iranian

1. Introduction This article provides an account of the inherited PIE and PIIr. nominal lexicon in PIr. as well as of common Iranian lexemes reaching beyond the borders of the individual Iranian branches and languages. It is based on the lexical database of the present author’s Etymological Dictionary of the Iranian Noun (Sadovski, To appear1), a component of the Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series (LIEEDS), as well as on a parallel study of the development of the inherited lexicon, phraseology and (appellative and onomastic) compounds (based on inherited syntagms and formulae) from PIIr. to Iranian (Sadovski, To appear2). The present treatment concentrates on the inherited vocabulary of the different periods (PIE; PIIr., PIr. or common Iranian) subdivided according to word-fields of interest for lexico-semantic typology and language reconstruction and taking into account semantic change such as metaphoric shifts of meaning between word-fields. Collections of material that are now in print include (etymological) dictionaries such as Cheung (2007), Schmitt (2014), Rastorgueva and Ėdel’man (2000−2007), and Ėdel’man (2011−2015). Important for Proto-Iranian are also Mayrhofer (1986−2001) and Mayrhofer (2005), as well as lexicological bibliographies such as Heidermanns (2005) and Mayrhofer in Gouws et al. (2008−2013), classics such as Bartholomae ([1904] 1979), Abaev ([1958− 1989] 1996), and the four main compendia on Iranian languages: Schmitt (1989), Windfuhr (2009), Rastorgueva (1981−1991) (continued as Efimov 1997−2008), and Geiger and Kuhn ([1895−1901] 1974a, [1898−1901] 1974b). Also important are the historically oriented glossaries of individual Iranian languages and texts. For OIr. these include, above all, Kellens and Pirart (1988−1991: 2, 195−333), Hintze (1994: 401−470, 2007: 327−367), as well as Kent (1953: 164−215) and Brandenstein and Mayrhofer (1964: 99−157). The MIr. material, if not otherwise indicated, is prevailingly based on the following sources: for MPers., the lexicographical corpora of MacKenzie ([1971] 1990) and Durkin-Meisterernst (2004) (also Nyberg 1974: vol. 2 and Back 1978; on the problematics of a dictionary of MPers., cf. Shaked 2002) as well as the grammar of DurkinMeisterernst (2014); for Khotanese, Bailey (1979) and Emmerick and Skjærvø (1982− 1997); for Scythian, Mayrhofer (2006); for Alanic, Lubotsky (2015); for Bactrian, Davary (1982), Sims-Williams (2000−2007, 2010), cf. also Humbach (1966−1967); for Chwaresmian, Benzing and Taraf (1983), Samadi (1986), and MacKenzie (1999); for Sogdian, Gharib (1995), Lurje (2010), Yakubovič (2013), and especially Sims-Williams and Durkin-Meisterernst (2012) and Sims-Williams (2016a, 2016b). The last decades have showed an increasing lexicological and etymological activity in the field of NIr. (cf. now the surveys in Tremblay 2005b, 2008, 2009 and in Kümmel, To appear1, 72 f. with useful lists of lexical reconstructions pp. 86−102, to which also the present work explicitly refers for NIr.). For Baloči, issues of etymology are discussed in several works by Agnes Korn (e.g. 2003, 2005, 2006, and 2009), cf. also Morgenstierne (1932); on the local variants in Oman, see Collett (1983), on those of Marw, Elfenbein (1983). A comprehensive dictionary, edited by Adriano V. Rossi and Ela Filippone, is in preparation at L’Orientale University of Naples in co-operation with the Balochi Academy in Quetta, Pakistan; and a series of relevant articles has appeared in the (Newsletter of) Balochistan Studies. Completely differently organized is Mahmoodzahi (1991). For Ossetic, beside the classical study Hübschmann ([1887] 1969) and the fundamental dictionary Abaev (1996) (to be used together with Abaev 1997), cf. Kozyreva (1962), Bielmeier

567

568

VI. Iranian (1977), Abaev (1997), and the etymological annex to Cheung (2002: 148−255) as well as the posthumous magnum opus of Thordarson (2009); on lexical archaisms, cf. also Gershevitch (1952 [= 1985: 114−126]). For Pašṭō, see the new edition (Morgenstierne 2003) of the classical etymologicon Morgenstierne (1927) by Elfenbein, MacKenzie and Sims-Williams (reviews: Cheung 2005 and Tremblay 2005a); of historical value is Geiger (1893); De Chiara (2008) corrects a series of etymologies displayed in these works and offers new ones. The main dictionary of Waxī is Steblin-Kamenskij (1999). For the Pamir languages, beside the new edition Morgenstierne (1974), we have lots of new material, especially on Šughnī, in Karamšoev (1988−2005); on Parāči, in Kieffer (1979, 1980). Kurdish in its variants is etymologically documented by Cabolov (2001); on individual word-families, cf. Kurdoev (1960) and Kurdoev and Jusupova (1983 on Soranī), Omar (1992 on Kurmancī), and Karimi Doostan (1990 on the Badra dialect); cf. also Gülensoy (1994); historically relevant is Houtum-Schindler (1884−1888). For NPers., beside traditional interpretations of inherited and foreign words in historically oriented dictionaries or thesauri − above all, Dehxodā (1946−1981) and Steingass ([1892] 1963) − there are the still very useful aperçus of (the pre-Islamic revolution) NPers. lexicon in Lambton ([1954] 1988) and Pejsikov (1975), and, with a focus on modernization of vocabulary in the late 19 th and early 20 th century, Belgorodskij (1936), Hinz (1937), and Lescot (1939); for Tajikī: Rosenfeld (1961); of historical value are the (antiquated) classical etymologica of NPers. Horn ([1893] 1988; to be read together with Hübschmann 1895) and Vullers ([1855−1867] 1962), whose volume III is dedicated to word-families in Persian and beyond. Beside the “straight” etymological dictionaries, an important source for lexicological and derivational studies is the reverse dictionaries. For OIr., see now especially Schmitt (2014: 297−328; important predecessors for OPers. are Pohl 1975 and Hinz 1975: 281− 299, cf. Hinz 1942: 155−160); for O/YAv. see Bartholomae (1979: 1901−2000); for ManMPers. and ManParth., R. Zwanziger in Boyce 1977: 107−172; limited to the latter’s “Word-List”). For NPers., Majidi (1995) is an excellent research instrument with relevance to word formation. On the history of classical Modern Persian lexicography, cf. now Baevskij (2007), an updated version of the Russian edition (Baevskij 1989 revised by Perry); with regard also to the modern period, cf. Moayyad (1962); on Ossetic lexicography, cf. Kozyreva (1964). For the etymological reconstructions of PIr., this account uses several special characters based mainly on (phonetic) values used by the IPA and thus differing from the traditional designations of the PIr. phonemes concerned − ʦ instead of ć, ʧ instead of č, ʣ instead of ȷ́, ʤ instead of ˇȷ. The reason for this is the desire to avoid phonologically ambivalent graphemes (which, moreover, have sometimes varied in the history of scholarship) or which may be too overtly homographic with characters used for representation of PIIr. (whose phonemic or phonetic values are not necessarily identical with the ones presumed for PIr.). The present author is largely skeptical both about the universal taxonomical applicability of pre-defined, hierarchical conceptual systems and of the compatibility of such taxonomies (almost exclusively structured on modern cognitive categories) with the notional worlds of speakers of ancient language stages. Still, for purposes of presentation of the Ir. word material, we employ a combination of three widely-used conceptual systems: that of Hallig − Wartburg (1963; and its modified version applied in the Französisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch), the one of Dornsieff (82004, originally prepared for but not applied in the project of a Greek thesaurus based on Liddell −

36. The lexicon of Iranian Scott), and that of Roget (Kipfer 2005). For the history and the constraints of these systems, cf. Büchi (1996) and Sadovski (To appear2). We proceed now to the material of this study of the inherited Iranian nominal lexicon according to semantic word-fields.

2. Sky, celestial elements, and atmospheric processes 2.1. Inherited lexemes for ‘sky and celestial bodies’ logically also designate heaven and various celestial divinities of both the Indo-Iranian and the Mazdean(-Zoroastrian) pantheons. In Iranian, the word for ‘sky, heaven’, Ir. *aʦman-, functioning especially as a sacred [loan-]word (cf. Schmitt 2014: 139 f.) and prominent also as ‘stone’, has replaced PIE *di̯ u-: YAv. asman-, OPers. asmān-, Parth. ʾ(ʾ)smʾn āsmān, Sogd. ʾsmʾn smān. The inherited designation for ‘star’ is *stār-, star-, stər-: OAv. star-: strə̄m, YAv. star-: stārəm and, as is often the case in Iranian, has beside it a derivative, *stāraka-, in the same value: MPers. stʾlk, ʿstʾrg stārag; Parth. ʾstʾrg; Sogd. ʾstʾrʾk, ʾstry; NPers. sitāra h. Similar to the differentiation in Ved. between sú var ‘sunlight’ and its derivative sū́ri yaas name of the sun-god (EWA, s.vv.), in Iranian we find the broader concept *súu̯ar, suu̯án- ‘sunlight’, in OAv. huuarə̄, x və̄ṇg; YAv. huuarə; MPers. hwl, xwr xwar, and ‘sun’, especially in lexical compounds like *suu̯ar-(x)šai̯ ta- YAv. huuarə.šaēta- ‘(the) sunlight-bright (one); sun’; MPers. xwaršēd; NPers. xuršēd as well as in PN compounds like *Huu̯ar-dāta-, *Huu̯ar-farnah-, *Huu̯ar-pāta- (Zadok 2009). A derivative *suu̯aru̯āh, suu̯aru̯ant- ‘with sunlight, sun’ is seen in Digor xor, Iron xur. Of special relevance is the presence of the celestial elements as divine protectors of the individual days of the month in the Zoroastrian calendar (Schmitt 2000), seen particularly in PNs. Cf. the inherited word for ‘moon’: *mānas-, maas- YAv. mā̊ŋhəm, MPers. mʾh māh, Parth. mʾh, NPers. māh ~ māng, and the derivative *maasi̯ ā- Digor mæjæ, Iron mæj. As a compositional term, we find it in PNs of the meaning ‘protected/given by the moon(-god)’, e.g. *Māh(i)-pāta- or *Māhi-dāta-. Still more complex is the transfer of the designation of the social ‘contract’ and the corresponding IIr. deity Miθra to the domain ‘sun’ and thus also to the calendar. PIr. *miθra- YAv. miθra-; OPers. miça-; Sogd. myδr-, myš-; Bactr. μιυρο; Yidgha m’īra is attested in a series of theophoric and calendar-related names such as OPers. *Miça-pāta-, cf. Schmitt (1978, 2000), Zadok (2009: 360 ff.). 2.2. Lexemes belonging to the semantic field ‘atmosphere and weather processes’ similarly designate also notions of mythology and (mythical) cosmology: so *u̯āi̯ u- ~ u̯āi̯ āu̯‘wind/Wind’ YAv. vaiiō, vaiiuš; Waxi wüy, especially as a divine name *u̯āi̯ u- is present also as (first) term in theophoric and calendar-related PNs such as *Vāyu-kr̥ta-. The appellative *u̯āta- ‘wind’ YAv. vāta-; MPers. wʾt, wʾd; Sogd. wʾt wāt; Khotan. bātä; NPers. bād is largely used both in direct and metaphoric value, also in PNs such as *Vatāspa- ‘whose horse(s) is/are (like) the wind’. Further common Iranian lexemes of this semantic sphere are ‘air’: *antaru̯āʣa- MPers. ʾndrwʾd andarwād, ʾndrwʾz andarwāz, Parth. ʾndrwʾz andarwāz and ‘storm’: *branθi- Khotan. branthä, brīnthu; brīnthä. Of IIr. origin is ‘cloud; sky’: *abra- YAv. aβra-; OPers. *abra- (also in compound PNs like *Abra-dāta- and *Abra-kāma-); MPers. ʾbl, ʾp̄l abr; NPers. abr; Bal. haur, hawar and ‘cloud’, with the connotation of ‘wetness, humidity’: *mai̯ ga-, mai̯ gā- YAv. maēɣa-,

569

570

VI. Iranian MPers. mēɣ, Parth. myg, NPers. mēɣ. The IE word for ‘cloud/heaven’ remains in Iranian in the sense of ‘humidity’: *nabas- OAv. nabåsca; Pṣ̌ t. naw; Yidgha nīv, novo, cf. ‘damp, humid’: *nafta- MPers. npt naft, NPers. naft, also naftaka- BuddhSogd. nβtʾk, nβtcʾ(h); ManSogd. nβtyy navdē. The words for various weather processes reach back to PIE, e.g. in the case of the word-family ‘snow’: *snai̯ xr- MPers. snyhl snēxr. From the same root for ‘to (fall and) stick’ (Hoffmann 1965), we have *sniga-/snai̯ ga- Šuγn. žiniǰ, Xufi žinīǰ, Bartangī žinīǰ; suffixed: *snai̯ ʤaka- MPers. snyck snēzag. Of shared heritage between OInd. and OIr. is the word for ‘hail’: *ʣrādunī- OPers. *drādunī-; Sogd. ẓyδn; Baškardī dərāyén, drāʾen. A specific Iranian term for ‘hail’ is also *fi̯ asu- YAv. fiiaŋhumca, the verb ‘to hail’ being *fi̯ asu̯a- YAv. +fiiaŋhuṇtaēca. Another conceptual group exhibits (PIr.) specializations of meaning, as in the case of the original ‘rain’-word: *u̯āra- Waxi wür, *u̯afrā˘- ‘snow; cold’: YAv. vafra; MPers. wpl, wpr wafr; Parth. wfr; KurdSor. wafer; Yaghn. waf(i)r; Pṣ̌ t. w’āwra; *mai̯ θa- ‘snow’: Digor met, Iron mit; and *iʦu-/isʦu- ‘icy’: YAv. isu- and *iʦuka- ‘frost’: Pṣ̌ t. as’ay.

3. Earth, physical and chemical elements 3.1. Among the lexemes designating ‘earth forms, shapes, and configurations’, PIr. inherited the most important IE words for ‘earth’: (1) *ʣam-, ʣā-, ʣm- YAv. zā̊, ząm, zəm-, zəmi, developing derivatives such as *ʣamīkā- Bactr. ζαμιγο, ζαμιιο; MPers. zmyk, zmyg, zmyq zamīg, *ʣamadā- Yazgh. zəmāδ, Xufi zimāδ, Šuγn. zimāδ, and *ʣamaxāDigor zænxæ, Iron zæxx, (2) *būmi- YAv. būmi-, Sogd. βwmh (Ved. bhū́mi-), and (3) from an original metaphor ‘the broad one’, the subst. fem. *pərθu̯ī- YAv. pərəθβīm (Ved. pr̥thivī́-). With the specific connotation of ‘ground’, we find PIr *budna- inherited from PIE, mostly in the form *buna- OAv. būna-; YAv. būna-; Parth., MPers. bwn, bun; NPers. bun; also the derivative *budnaka- Bactr. βοναγο. The substance ‘dust, earth’ figures in IIr. *(H)āsa-ka- (cf. Ved. ā́sa-) MPers. hʾk’, NPers. xāk, Bal. hāk. The most significant main relief forms are genuine Iranian words, including ‘mountain’: *gariYAv. ga iri-, Sogd. ɣr-, Bactr. γαρο, Yaghn. ɣar, Pṣ̌ t. ɣar. Also *kau̯fa(h)- YAv. kaofa-; OPers. kaufa; MPers., Parth. kwf kōf; NPers. kōh; Zaz. ko. The OIr. word is reflected also in PNs of the type *Kaufa-zāta- ‘mountain-born’ (Zadok 2009: 337). There is a clear affinity of metaphoric and metonymic transitions between the semantic fields ‘relief form’ and ‘body part’ (cf. 4.1.); thus, ‘mountain saddle’ > ‘shoulder’: *kau̯faka- MPers. kwpk kōfag, Bal. kōpag; ‘ear’ > ‘slope’: *karnā- Roshani čāwn; > ‘forehead; peak’ (cf. 5.1.): *ʧakāta- MPers. ckʾt’ čagād, Sogd. ckʼt, KurdKurm. čîya; ‘neck, mane’ > ‘hill’: *grīu̯aka- MPers. glywk grīwag, NPers. girīwa. Various derivatives of inherited stems for ‘deep’ come to mean ‘deepening, valley’: *ʤamfnu- YAv. jąfnu- or ‘side, edge, shore’: *ʣambaka- ChrSogd. zmpy, zmpw zambē, zambō. The most widespread lexeme for ‘valley’ within Iranian is *dara- MPers. dr; Sogd. δryh; Khotan. dara-; Munji daro, dara; in other NIr. languages it means ‘ravine’: Parāči dūr, Sariqoli δer. Geographical forms met by Iranians only later in their migrations still exhibit common Iranian designations, e.g. ‘ice’: *ai̯ xa- YAv. aēxa-, Chwrsm. ʾyx-, Digor ex, Iron ix, Yaghn. īx, Parāči īx (NPers. yax) or at least designations common to (certain) NIr. languages. Thus, ‘glacier’: *i̯ aʣā- Sariqoli yoz, Waxi yaz, Kati yūc.

36. The lexicon of Iranian 3.2. In the semantic domain of ‘waters and water-basins’, the two main words for ‘river, water’ are *dānu- YAv. dānu-, Alan. *δānu-, Oss. don and *srau̯tas- OPers. rautah-; YAv. θraotō.s°; MPers., Parth., Sogd. rwd rōd; NPers. rōd; Bal. rōt. The nomen actionis ‘course’, *taxman-, develops the meaning ‘current (water)’: YAv. taxman-; Bactr. ταχμο, just as is the case with *tāʧi- Khotan. ttāji/ttāja. The combination of the last two lexical elements appears in compounds like ‘course of a river’: *srau̯tas-tāʧ- YAv. θraotō.stācō, θraotō.stācąm, or *srau̯tas-tāka- MPers. lw(t)stʾk rōstā, rōstāgą; Parth. rwdystʾg; NPers. rōstā. For ‘large river’ one finds *paruta- YAv. pauruta-, Chwrsm. pwrd, Digor ford, Iron furd. The semanteme ‘source, fountain’ is closely related to the notion of ‘digging up’ artificial fountains: *xā-/xaʾ- YAv. xå, xąm. *xāxā- BuddhSogd. ɣʾɣh, xʾx; Khotan. khāha, khāhe; in the meaning ‘source’: *xākā- Ormuri xākɔ, Yaghn. xok as well as *xānii̯ a- YAv. xąniia-, MPers. hʾn’, Parth. xʾn, Bal. kān. Also *xānii̯ aka- NPers. xānī, Bal. kānīg. A shared concept for ‘bay’ and ‘shore, bank’ goes back to a semanteme ‘cut’: Ir. *kárta- meaning ‘shore’ in YAv. kaṣˇa- and ‘riverbank’ in *pati-kartā- Xufi piǰōg, Roshani piǰōg. The basic inherited concepts for ‘standing water basins’ are ‘sea, pond’: *ʣrai̯ as- YAv. zraiiō, Yazgh. ɣˇůy; ‘lake, sea’: *u̯ari- YAv. vairi-, MPers. wl war; and ‘fountain; pond’: *ʧāt- YAv. cāiti-, Sogd. cʾt čāt, Bactr. σαδο, MPers. čāh, Bal. čāt, NPers. čāh. For geographical terms and (para)toponyms, see Rozova and Savina (1975) with Tajik evidence. Characteristic of the wordfield ‘water (as substance)’ are, beside the obviously ancient root-noun *ā́p-/*ap- ‘water’ (meaning also ‘current of water, river, etc.’), the various words for ‘drop’: *ʦrasʧa- YAv. srasciṇtaē°, Chwrsm. cš-, Pṣ̌ t. cac-, also *ʦraska- Parth. srsk srask, MPers. sl(y)šk’ srešk, NPers. sirišk, Waxi xˇak and *ʦrakā- Sariqoli xˇōk-, xˇikt. Here belongs also the notion of ‘foam’: *kafa-, kafā- YAv. kafa-, MPers. kp kaf, NPers. kaf, Bal. kap, Yaghn. xaf(a). The inherited word (PIIr. *phaiman-) is attested in the substantivized derivatives *fai̯ mna- NPers. fīn and *fai̯ mnakā- perhaps in Sogd. pymʾkh, NPers. fīnak, Digor finkæ, Iron fynk. 3.3. The sphere of ‘earth characteristics, terrains, and their constitution’ includes, e.g. ‘stone’: *aʦan- YAv. asān-, OPers. asā, Bactr. αþνη-. Old and widespread is also *aʦanga- YAv. asəṇga-, OPers. aθanga-, Parth. ʾsn(n)g asang, Bactr. ασαγγε, Yaghn. sank(a), KurdKurm. seng. Related to the family of ‘mountain’ is the notion of ‘stone heap’: *gāri̯ a- Waxi ɣˇor ~ ɣor. Of more recent age are *grai̯ a- ‘clay’ Yidgha ɣuroi, Šuγn. ǰirāy and *ʦikā- ‘gravel’ OPers. θikā-, also in NIr.; from its root is built *ʦikatā- ‘sand’ Sogd. šykth, MPers. sygd, Digor sigit, Iron syǧyt. 3.4. Words for ‘minerals (esp. metalloids) and (physical) processes related to them’ generally belong to younger lexical strata, showing mostly inner-Iranian correspondences. Thus, ‘salt’ (cf. 4.5.): *namadā- Khotan. namva, namve; another derivative is *namaθkā- Parth. nmydk, Sogd. nmʾδkh, NPers. namak, Sanglechi nəmēɣδ. Words like ‘charcoal’: *nigāra- Šuγn. nižōr; Xufi, Roshani nižůr lead to the subject of physical processes like ‘to burn’ *θau̯a-/θau̯i̯ a- : θuta-: Chwrsm. θw-: θw(y)d; Bartangī θīw-: θud, θad; Waxi θaw-, θit : θət and ‘burning, flame’: *θāu̯a- Sogd. pr-δʾw, Chwrsm. θʾw θāw, Ashkun dau, Waigali dāu. While this last word is particularly widespread in Iranian, we also find the two main inherited words for ‘fire/Fire’ as phenomenon and as deity, viz. *agni- in OIr. PNs such as YAv. Dāštāɣni-, OPers. *Agni-farnah- and continuing up to NIr., if Yazgh. aɣnág ‘flintstone’ is to be interpreted as ‘fire-stone’. The fundamental (I)Ir. term for ‘fire/Fire’, however, remains *ātər-, āθr- YAv. ātarš, ātrəm, āθrō; Parth.

571

572

VI. Iranian ʾtrw; Bactr. αδορ- ~ αϑþο; MPers. ʾtwr, ʾdwr ādur; NPers. āðar, [ātaš]; Oss. art. Further regional concepts in the sphere of ‘fire’ are *angāra- Ashkun, Waigali aṅā́; Kati aṅā́ and *θau̯nā- Digor tunæ ‘beam’. Derivatives of the word for ‘fire’ mean not only ‘igneous’ but also ‘ash’: *āθrii̯ a- ~ *āθəri̯ a- ~ *ātəri̯ a- YAv. ātriia-; Khotan. āhära-; Roshani, Bartangī, Roshorvi aθēr; also *āθraka- Sogd. ʾʾšʾk, ʾʾšʾy āśe. But the special term for ‘ash(es)’ is *pānsnu- YAv. pąsnu-, Khotan. phānä, Digor funuk, Iron fænyk. Iranian exhibits two old words for ‘smoke’: *dūta- YAv. dūta-; Parth., MPers. dwd dūd; Chwrsm. δwd; NPers. dūd; Šuγn. δūd and also *dūmá- Khotan. dumä, duma-; Ashkun dūm. OPers. in particular displays several designations for precious stones, cf. Bleichsteiner (1930) and now Schmitt (2014). Semantic shifts may play a role here, as in the word for ‘pearl’: *mudrā- Bactr. μολρο, Khotan. mūra (Ved. mudrā-) meaning also ‘precious stone’. 3.5. Metals: The word *ʣarani̯ a- that, as shown by Ved. híraṇya-, might in IIr. have originally possessed a larger meaning of ‘noble metal’ (cf. Rau 1974), is clearly focused on the semanteme ‘gold’ (also ‘golden’): YAv. zaraniia-; OPers. daraniya-; Sogd. zyrn, zyn; Bactr. ζαρο; Digor zærijnæ; Iron zærin. Its main derivative, with the material adjective suffix, is *ʣaranai̯ na- ‘golden’: YAv. zaranaēna-; MPers. zlyn’, zryn zarrēn; NPers. zarrīn. The inherited lexeme for ‘silver’ is *ə/arʣata-: YAv. ərəzata-, OPers. a ̣rdata-, Chwrsm. ʾžyd; Digor ærzæt, Iron ærzæt. The metal ‘copper’, derived from a color word for ‘reddish’, is called in Iranian *rau̯da- MPers. lwd, rwy; NPers. rōy; Bal. rōd. The derivational base of the main words for ‘iron’ is *aʦu̯an- ~ aʦun-, contained in ‘iron’ (> ‘ploughshare’ by synecdoche): *aʦu̯ana- Digor æfsæn, Iron æfsæn. Further derivatives of the same stem in the meaning ‘iron’ are: *aʦu̯ani̯ a- Chwrsm. ʾspny, spny (ə)spanī; Khotan. hīśśana-; Šuγn. sipin; Waxi (y)išn, and *āʦu̯ani̯ ā- MPers. ʾsyn āsen; Munji yūspən. Also *āʦuna- Parth. ʾswn āsun, MPers. ʾ(ʾ)hwn āhun; NPers. āhan, Talishi osыn. ‘Made of iron’ is *aʦu̯an(i̯ )ai̯ naka- BuddhSogd. ʾspnʾynʾy, ʾspynynch; ManSogd. ʾspnyn(y); ChrSogd. spnync spənēnē, spənēnč. On the designations for metals in Ossetic, cf. Joki (1962).

4. Animate nature 4.1. Plants: General concepts concerning subdivisions and parts of plants, which then develop the usual metaphoric connotations and phraseological contexts (‘roots of evil’, ‘fruits of work’, etc.), mostly go back to PIIr. and PIE lexemes. This is especially true of the various elements of plants such as ‘root’: *rau̯taka/rau̯θaka- Bal. rōtag (borrowed in Brahūi as rōtk), ‘fruit’: *bara(ka)- Sogd. βrʼk, βryy, bry, brw varē; Chwrsm. βrk, and the two words for ‘leaf’: *parna- YAv. parəna-; Sogd. prn; MPers. pl, pr parr; KurdKurm. p her̄ ; NPers. parr (together with the derivative *parnaka- Parth. prg parrag) and *u̯arka- YAv. varəka-; MPers. wlg, włg warg; KurdKurm. belg; Gīlakī bərg; NPers. barg, with derivative *u̯arkara- Parth. wrgr wargar, Sogd. wrkr, Khotan. bāggara-. The word for ‘bud’, *tau̯ka- Digor tog, Iron tug, Yidgha tūga, develops the metaphoric meaning ‘blood’ (5.1.3.), just like the archaic word for ‘bough, branch’ also means ‘antlers’ (5.1.): *k͡ɕāxā- / k͡ɕākā- Ved. śā́khā- < PIIr. *(t)ćākhā-; for Iranian, see MPers. šʾk’ šāg ~ šʾhʾn šāxān; specialized for ‘branch’ is *ʧangā- NPers. čang, Pṣ̌ t. c’ānga. Also

36. The lexicon of Iranian of PIIr. origin is *rudmii̯ a- ‘sprouting’ YAv. uruθmiia- < *rud hmiya-. Further elements of plants provide a bridge to the conditio humana; thus, the diverse words for ‘seed’ (5.2.): *bīʣaka- Sogd. βyzʾk vīzē < PIIr. *bīja-, Ved. bīja-. *ʧiθra- (O/YAv. ciθra-, OWIr. ciça-; richly attested in MIr. and NIr.) means ‘(human) seed’ and thence ‘descent, origin, nature’ (5.2.); cf. its derivative *ʧiθraka- Parth. cyhrg čihrag, MPers. cyhlk čihrag, NPers. čihra. The connotations of ‘seed(s)’ and ‘genus’ (5.2.) are visible in *tau̯xman- YAv. taoxma; Parth. twxm, Bactr. τοχμανο, Yaghn. taxm, NPers. tuxm. The names of (cultural) plants in Modern Iranian languages of Pamir and Eastern Afghanistan have been the object of exemplary studies such as Schapka (1972a) and Steblin-Kamenskij (1982); the quota of inherited (I)Ir. notions is very high, reflecting the already generic categories of concepts like ‘grain, corn’ (5.2.): *dānā- Šuγn. δůn; Xufi, Roshani δōn and its derivative *dānaka- ‘seed, seed(ling)s’ Yazgh. δan’āg, Šuγn. δůnǰ, also NPers. dāna. In competition with the common IE word for ‘grass’, *tərnaMPers. tlk; Khotan. ttarrä, ttarre, is *margii̯ ā- ‘grass’, a feminine substantivation of an appurtinative adj. derived from *margā-, whose meaning in Iranian is ‘meadow, grass, woods’ (rather than ‘road’, as in Indic). The continuant of the PIE word for ‘wood, tree’ is *dāru- YAv. dāuru-; MPers. dʼl dār; NPers., Bal. dār, which coexists, particularly in MIr., with its derivative *dāruka‘wood’ Parth. dʼlwg dālū˘g; Sogd. δʼrwʼk, δʼrwq ð’āruk; also NIr.: Yaghn. dork, Šuγn. δōrg. The former word signifies both the material and the plant, while Ir. *u̯an-, u̯anā-, together with derivatives *u̯anakā- *u̯anāka- *u̯anasika-, is specialized in the meaning ‘tree’ (and ‘wood’ in the sense of ‘forest’). Among the various species, the category of fruit-trees comprises terms for fruit pervasive in moderate and subtropical zones, such as *amarnā- ‘apple’, *padka- ‘apple/poplar?’, *gau̯ʣā- ‘walnut’, *nāxa- ‘apricot’, but also *ərmāka- ‘date(-tree/fruit)’. Shrubs and various bush types are partly described with terms of a more generic character in the proto-language but with specialization of meaning, just as an earlier ‘thorny bush’ (Gmc. *wart) develops to ‘rose’ not only in Greek but also in Iranian: *u̯ard- ~ u̯ərd- (with a deriv. *u̯ərdaka-) in MPers. gwl gul, Parth. wʾr, Sogd. wrd warδ, NPers. gul, borrowed via Turkic into SSlav. and other European languages. Of OIr. attestation are lexemes like ‘ivy’: *θanū- YAv. θanuuas-ca, cf. NPers. san, while ‘blackcurrant’: *ʤanata- is limited to Bajui ɣˇinīd, Xufi ɣˇenūd. Such plant names form interesting isoglosses, e.g. *dramna- ‘a shrub, wormwood’, attested in WMIr.: MPers. dlmnk, NPers. dirmana, shows up in Yaghn. dirawna and in the Pamir languages: Ishk. dərəm; Munji lərīvä(n); Šuγn., Xufi, Roshani, Bartangī cūδm. Beside the more generic concepts for ‘grain, corn’ cited above, cereals are represented by common Iranian lexemes such as *arʣana- ‘millet’ and *kaʦaka- ‘barley’. The word *i̯ au̯a-, so well attested in the last meaning in Indic, has undergone semantic broadening to ‘grain’, in which value it is employed in competition with or parallel to *ʤāra- of the same meaning. Beside various vegetables such as ‘garlic’, perhaps *ʦigra-, other plants of practical use occur in the inherited lexicon, including prairie and forest plants spread throughout Eurasia, such as ‘birch’: *barʣā- < PIIr. *b hr̥Hȷ́a- (Ved. bhūrja-) in Alan. *barzā, Digor bærzæ, Iron bærz, partly in the form fərʣā- Waxi fürz. These alternate with spatially more limited terms, often adapting old loanwords, e.g. ‘jujuba’: *ʦinʦitā- Khotan. śīṃja, śiji; Wanetsi sinj’ī; Munji siǰīä or *ʦinkatā- Sogd. synkt-. Similarly, aquatic plants or those growing close to water, such as ‘willow’: *u̯ai̯ ti- YAv. vaēti-, Khotan. bī, MPers. wyt wēd, NPers. bēd, Bal. gēt continue well-established IE words, while *gaʣa- ‘reed; firewood; tamarisk’ is limited to MIr. and NIr. Among the

573

574

VI. Iranian medicinal and cultic plants, the word for ‘soma plant’, *anʦu- YAv. ąsu-, is of common PIIr. heritage, derived from *anćú- Ved. aṁśú-, both Indic and Iranian showing traces of the semantic specialization from ‘stem, stalk’ to the ‘(soma/haoma) stalk’ par excellence. 4.2. Animals and humans: Both spheres contain notions from the domains of ‘biological life, life functions, everyday life’ (5.), especially joint concepts of ‘body parts, anatomy; body secretions’ (5.1) and ‘gender, sex, procreation, birth’ (5.2) of both humans and animals. Cf. the metaphorical use of *əršān- ‘male, bull, stallion’ (5.2). Such generic categories come into existence by substantivization of (qualitative) adjectives, together with semantic change. Thus, the notion of ‘animal’, *ʣu̯ara-, from an agentival adj. ‘going crookedly’; analogously, *mərga- ‘(wild) animal’ → ‘bird’, cf. the shift from *āʦu- < *aHʦú- ‘fast’ → ‘antelope, deer’, also suffixed: *āʦu-ka-. The same is true of notions from the sphere of ‘cultivation’ like ‘wild’: cf. *kau̯fi̯ aka- MPers. kwpyk’ kōfīg, NPers. kōhī, KurdKurm. k hûvî ‘deer’. 4.2.1. Among domestic animals, Iranian of all periods possesses several avatars of the PIIr. root noun for ‘dog’ (*ć[u]u̯ā́n-/ ćun-) with no essential phonetic change, as *ʦ(u)u̯ān- / ʦun-: YAv. spā, spānəm / sūnō; also the adjective ‘doglike; dog’: *ʦu̯akaYAv. spaka- (cf. Hdt. 1,110,1 concerning the “Persian” word for ‘dog’, σπακα); while Parth. ʽyspg preserves the initial cluster, as do some CtrIr. dialects (NE, SE) and most Pamir languages, MPers. sgʾn sag- and NPers. sag exhibit a different isogloss. In addition, original diminutives like *kuta- ‘dog’ abound since MIr.: Sogd. ʾkwt-y; Bactr. κοδο; Šuγn., Xufi, Roshani, Bartangī kud, cf. the derived feminine *kutī- ‘bitch; dog’, as well as *ʦu̯aʧī- ‘bitch’. *gadu̯a- ‘dog’ is largely limited to the Pamir domain. Just as was the case in PIE, Iranian distinguishes between ‘(small) cattle; sheep’, *paʦú- ~ fšu-, and ‘large farm animals, cattle’, *stau̯ra-. By metonymic extension, the root noun for ‘cow’, *gāu̯-, develops the connotation ‘cattle’, as does its derivatives *gau̯ma- (Digor ɣom) and *gau̯ka- (Chwrsm. ɣwk); on the other hand, the derivative *gau̯aʣna-develops the meaning ‘deer’ in YAv. gauuasna-; Sogd. ɣʾwzn, ɣwznh; also as a LW in Armen. gavazan. The inherited word for ‘one-year old’ > ‘calf’ (PIE *u̯et-só-), *u̯aʦa- Digor wæs, Yazgh. wůs, has already developed the generic meaning ‘calf (of any age)’, as have its derivatives *u̯aʦa-ka- (Khotan. basaka-), *u̯aʦa-ka-ka- (Ormuri ɣoskák), and *u̯aʦ-i̯ a-ka- (MPers. whyk, whyg wahīg); but beside the generic word for ‘lamb’, *u̯arān-, u̯arn- (MPers. wlʾn warān, KurdKurm. beran) with the diminutives *u̯araka- and *u̯arnaka-, several Iranian languages differentiate between ‘lamb (up to 1 year old)’, *āgara- (Xufi ažor, Roshani ažor) or *āgarī- (Xufi ažær. Roshani ažēr), and ‘lamb of 1(-2) years’, *san-ʤāma- (Šuγn. anjům), *san-ʤāmī- (Šuγn. anjēm). Further small-cattle designations include ‘he-goat, billy goat’: *aʣa- (YAv. azō; MPers. ʾz) with its derivative *aʣaka- MPers. ʾzg; NPers. azg, as well as *buʣa- YAv. būza-; MPers. bwc buz; NPers. buz. The latter is the most common term in Iranian, as opposed to the regionally more limited *tura- ‘goat’ Khotan. ttura pl., Digor dzæbo-dur, Iron dzæbi-dyr. The designations of ‘young (animal): kid, calf’ come from a semanteme ‘grown up’: *fragāma- (Waxi rüɣˇum), *fragāmaka-, just as do the terms for ‘young cow’: *fragāmakā- and *fragāmaʧī- (Šuγn. farɣēmc). Well-known PIE and PIIr. terms are reflected in ‘male, bull, stallion’ (5.2): *əršān- and ‘horse’: *áʦu̯a- with the derived fem. *áʦu̯ā- ‘mare’ (beside more regional [Pamir] *bāraʧī- and *mātakā- ‘mare’); on terms for horses, see Sadovski in Sadovski and Panaino (2013: 7 ff. on Avestan) and

36. The lexicon of Iranian Benveniste 1931). Of IIr. diffusion are *uštra- ‘camel’ and *xara- ‘(± little) donkey’. *xaraka- (and *xarā- ‘she-ass’) ‘mule, hinny’. This latter meaning appears as a derivative of both ‘horse’ and ‘donkey’: *aʦu̯a-tara- and *xara-tara(-ka)-. Among the creatures of fields and forests, the large rapacious animals have archaic and well-spread designations, e.g. ‘bear’: *(H)ə́rk͡ɕa- YAv. arša- and ‘wolf’: *u̯ə́rka- (‘she-wolf’: *u̯ərʧī-) or a series of names (sometimes tabuistically changed), such as ‘fox’: *rau̯paka- (Kurd.), *rau̯paʦā- (Shuγnī group), *rau̯pāʦa- (OPers. *raupāθa-, Sogd. rwpsh rōp[a]s), but also *rau̯pā˘ʦaka- and *rau̯pi-. The IIr. words for ‘boar’: Ir. *u̯arāʣa- share the same mythological significance, as avatars of deities of war (such as Vərəθraγna-); also more exotic animals like the ‘leopard’: *pərdanga- share designations beyond the branches, cf. MPers. płng palang, Sogd. pwrδnk, Pṣ̌ t. pṛāng. We can even reconstruct a PIIr. *pića- ‘leopard’ based on Ved. piśá- and PIr. *piʦa- (Kulikov 2009), and *kuu̯astra- means both ‘leopard’ and more generally ‘predator’. Some names of aquatic animals are of IE origin, e.g. ‘otter’: *udrā˘- m./f. and *udraka- (derivatives from the word for ‘water’) or common IIr. formations like ‘turtle’: *kaʦi̯ apa-, *kaʦi̯ apaka-, cf. Ved. kaśyápa- ‘id.’. 4.2.2. In the semantic field ‘birds’, beside archaic PIE lexemes denoting associated concepts like ‘egg’, *(H)āu̯i̯ ā˘- (cf. Schindler 1969), or ‘nest’, *āsadi̯ a- (on concepts of ‘bird’, esp. in Old Iranian, see Benveniste 1960), there are many common IIr. terms, particularly for birds of prey, such as ‘falcon, hawk’: *ʦi̯ ai̯ na- (YAv. sāena-, MPers. syn, NPers. sī-murġ), cf. Ved. śyéna-. The variation in ‘eagle, vulture’ − *ʧarka/u-, *ʧarkāʦa- (Alan. *čarkasi, Oss. cærgæs) vs. karkā˘ʦa- (YAv. kahrkāsa-, Chwrsm. krkys) − bespeaks different ablaut grades rather than tabuistic modifications or adaptations of loanwords. Of IIr. origin are words for ‘feathered game’ such as ‘partridge’: *kapa-, *kapaka- and *tatar- and ‘pigeon’: *kapau̯tatara-, *kapau̯tikā-. There is a mutual relationship between color denominations such as ‘blue, green’ and bird designations like ‘pigeon’: if *axšai̯ naka- primarily means ‘(dark) blue’ and then ‘pigeon’, *kapau̯taand *kapau̯taka- are primary lexemes of the domain ‘birds’ that have developed the connotation ‘blue, green’. On birds in Iranian, see Goodell (1979) and Schapka (1972b on Persian). The Iranian term for ‘chicken’ is *kárka- (YAv. kahrka-), cf. ‘rooster, hen’: *kərka-, fem. *kərkā- ‘hen’ with derivative *karki̯ ā- (Pṣ̌ t. čirga). Aquatic and barnyard birds include ‘duck’: *āti-, *ātikā- (< PIIr. *aHti-). Terms for ‘fish’ are *maʦi̯ a- (YAv. masiia-, Waigali maċ) < PIIr. *matsya-, Ved. mátsya-; also *māʦi̯ ā˘ka- (MPers. mʾhyk’, mʾhyg; NPers. māhī) as well as *kapa- (Khotan. kavä/kava, kave; Yidgha kap). Reptiles are represented by ancient terms for ‘snake’ and ‘(primordial) dragon’, such as *aʤi- (YAv. aži-, Yidgha īž), Ved. áhi- < PIIr. *(H)aǰ hi-, or younger ones, such as *du̯axsa- (in Pamir and Waxi, Sanglechi woxs, Waxi fuks); mythologically relevant (as incarnation of diseases and demons) is also ‘worm’: *kərmi- < PIIr. *kr̥mi-, cf. Ved. kŕ̥mi-. Among the various inherited words for ‘insects’, those that prevail designate primarily harmful creatures (daēva-friendly in Zoroastrian cosmology) and show a large degree of tabuistic modification in the order of their consonants within the IE languages. These include *fruši- ‘flea’ and *u̯abza- / *u̯abzakā˘‘wasp’; cf. also ‘fly’: *makaʦā-, *makaʦaka- < PIIr. *makaćā˘-, Ved. makáśa- and ‘spider’: *u̯arnau̯a- / *u̯arnau̯aba-; an inherited lexeme for an innocent insect is that for ‘ant’: *maru̯i- (YAv. maoiri-), *maru̯iʧi/a(ka)- (Sogd. mʾwrc), with a permuted order of consonants relative to its Indic cognate: cf. Ved. vamrá-, vamrī́- < PIIr. *u̯arm-.

575

576

VI. Iranian 4.2.3. All inherited PIIr. lexemes for ‘human being’ are present in Iranian, starting with the generic ‘mortal; (hu)man’ (5.): *marta- (YAv. maṣˇa-), *mártii̯ a- (YAv. maṣˇiia-, OPers. martiya-) and including *ʣana- < *ȷ́ánHa- ‘the born one’ (OPers. *dana-, zana-; Khotan. ysani-), *dasa- (OPers. dahā, Sogd. δx, Khotan. daha-), and the gender-characterized ‘(hu)man’: *(H)nar- (Av. nar-; MPers. nl, nr nar) < PIIr. *Hnar-, Ved. nár- and its derivatives, signaling concepts for ‘male’ like *(H)nari̯ a- (5.2). The lexical range of ‘woman’ contains both generic pendants to masculine words like *ʤáni- (YAv. jaini-; MPers. zn’, zn zan; NPers. zan) and specific terms for ‘female, woman’ like *strī-/*str̥i̯ ā- (YAv. strī-, Waxi strəy) and *strīʧī-/strīkā- (5.2). Two other lexical groups belonging here are *i̯ au̯šā, i̯ au̯šan- ‘female, woman’ (Digor wosæ, Iron us) and *kanii̯ ān-, kanīn- ‘girl’ (< *kaniHan-/kaniHn-) YAv. kaniiā, kainīn-, with the diminutive derivatives *kanii̯ akā- (MPers. knyk, knyg kanīg) and *kanīʧī- ‘(young) girl’ (Sogd. knc, NPers. kanīz).

5. Biological life, life functions, everyday life A number of derivatives of the PIE root *gwih3 ‘live’ have survived in Iranian, e.g. the *-i- abstract / n. act. ‘life’: *ʤīti- YAv. -jīti- (< PIIr. *ȷˇiHti-), formations with other suffixes like *ʤīnākā- Sogd. žynʾkh, Bactr. ζιναγο, and especially those with the suffix -u̯o-, including, with full-grade of the root, *ʤi̯ āu̯a- Bactr. ζαο, ζαοι, etc. (< PIIr. *ȷˇi̯ aHu̯a-) and especially, with zero-grade of the root, the avatars of the IE adj. *gwih3 -u̯ó(on PIE, cf. Klein 1988: 258 ff.) ‘alive, living’: *ʤīu̯a- YAv. juua-, OPers. jīva-, Parth. jyw- < PIIr. *ȷˇiHu̯á- (Ved. jīvá-) with its derivative *ʤīu̯ii̯ a- YAv. jīuuiia- ‘belonging to/ necessary for living’ (cf. EWA 1,594 with lit.). The -ro- derivative has the connotation of ‘lively, vivacious’: *ʤīra- YAv. jī˘ra-, MPers. zyr zīr, KurdKurm. jîr < ePIr. *ʤiHrá-. The main continuously attested item for the concept ‘dead’ is *mərta- YAv. mərəta-; MPers. mwlt’, mwrd; Parth. mwrd; Sogd. mrt-, mwrt-; Oss. mard; NPers. murd; Bal. murt with its derivative *mərtaka- ‘dead; corpse’ MPers. mwrdg murdag, Yaghn. murta. The derivatives for ‘death’ are either n. act./abstr. *mərtu- ~ mərθu̯- BuddhSogd., ManSogd. mwrδw murθu; Parth. mwrt murt or agentivals, as in Ved. mr̥tyú-: PIr. *mərθi̯ uYAv. mərəθiiu-, OPers. -m-r-š-i-y-u /-məršiyu-/. Rarely, they are substantivizations of -ro- adjectives: *mərθra- Sogd. myδr-, Bactr. μορλο or other formations: *márka- ‘death, destruction’ OAv. marəka-; YAv. mahrka-; Parth. mrd; MPers. mlt, mrd mard; NPers. mard. (On ‘mortal; [hu]man’ − *márta-, *mártii̯ a-, see above, 4.2.3) Cf. further *au̯šas‘death’ YAv. aošah-, MPers. hwš, NPers. hōš. The notions of ‘age’ and ‘time’ are strongly interconnected in Iranian cosmology and anthropology in the notion of *ʣaru̯ānYAv. zauruuan- (cf. now Panaino, To appear); MPers. zarwān; Digor zærwæ, zæræ. For the meaning ‘old’, beside the PIE Erbwort *ʣarant- < ePIr. *ʣarHant- Oss. zærond, Iranian uses *kafu̯an-/*kapun- Parth. kfwn kafwan; MPers. khwbn’, qhwn kahwan; NPers. kahun, kuhan, with derivatives *kapunaka- Bactr. καβογγο and *kafnaka- Parth. kfng kafnag. On the semantic field of ‘old age’ in Sogdian, cf. Emmerick (1969). For ‘young, new’, beside derivatives of *h2 i̯ u-Hon- ‘young’ (← *h2 ói̯ u-/h2 éi̯ u- ‘vigor, etc.’ below) or *nau̯a- ‘new, fresh, etc.’ YAv. nauua-; Roshani, Bartangī nā˘w < PIIr. *náwa(Ved. náva-) with derivative *nau̯aka- MPers. nwk nōg, Bactr. νωγο, Digor næwæg, Iron næwæg, in NIr. we find *ʦraxta- ‘fresh, new’ Waxi ṣəɣˇd. PIE *h2 ói̯ u-/h2 éi̯ u-, PIIr.

36. The lexicon of Iranian *Hā́i̯ u-/Hái̯ u- ‘vigor, vitality; lifetime’ > *āi̯ u- YAv. āiiu-, gen. yaoš; Alan. *yāwa; Digor jawæ; Iron jaw. 5.1. Body parts, anatomy; body fluids: Onomasiological themes, including the role of metaphoric and metonymic processes, have been explored more in the field of body-part terminology than in other lexical domains, especially by Filippone (2006; 2010 for hand, fingers and individual finger names in Ir. and beyond; and 2000−2003 for the fingers in Balochi); for concepts of ‘head’ and its parts, see Nussbaum (1986) and Filippone (1995 ‘pupil of the eye’). Generic terms of anatomy such as ‘body part’: *san-dāman- YAv. haṇdāma; Yidgha hadamë spread as Iranian LWs, e.g. in Khowar hʌ’dām. We discover some surprising pars pro toto designations of ‘body, self’, such as *grīu̯ā- ‘neck’ (see also below); for usual developments like *mərtaka- ‘dead body’, cf. 5.; also, *madi̯ āna‘middle of the body, waist’. In this section, we shall distinguish between concepts of ‘body in general’, ‘body fluids’, and ‘biological systems’ within the organism (both of animals and humans). 5.1.1. Starting with the domains of ‘trunk’ and ‘head’, inherited formations for ‘back, backbone’: *pəršti- YAv. paršti-, Bactr. (α)σπαρσο, Parth. pwšt, NPers. pušt, KurdKurm. pišt stand beside specific Iranian ones: Pamir *kamaka- Šuγn. čůmč, Sariqoli čomǰ, Sanglechi kamak. For ‘tail’: *duma- / dumba- YAv. duma-; MPers. dwm(b) dum(b); Sogd. δwm, δwnp; Bal. dumb; NPers. dum(b); also its derivative *dum(b)aka- Khotan. dumaa-, Bal. dumbag. Beside PIr. *pāʣas- ‘side’ YAv. pāzah-uuaṇt-, Bactr. παζο, Waxi pʉz, Sariqoli puz < PIIr. *pā́ȷ́as-/páHȷ́as- (Ved. pā́jas-), we find in the Pamir languages *ʣamb(i)i̯ a- Šuγn. zīm(bā́), Yazgh. zā˘m(b) ‘half, side; bottom/behind’. The inherited IIr. word for ‘belly’, *udara-, is best preserved in EIr. YAv. uδara-, Chwrsm. ʼwδy˘r uðər, Yaghn. dara and *udaraka- Pṣ̌ t. l’əray; some alternative lexemes are, in both E and WMIr., *ʤaθāra- MPers. zahār, Khotan. jsahāra-, or, mostly in Pers.: *skamba- MPers. ? aškamb, NPers. šikam and *skambaka- NPers. šikámpa; in OIr. cf. also *mərʣānaYAv. mərəzāna-. A rich palette of semantemes gives rise to the notion of ‘navel, umbilical cord’, also ‘(extended) family, gens’ (Kümmel, To appear2): *nāf-/nāfah- YAv. nāfō < PIIr. *nāb h(h)- ~ *náb hah-; cf. *nāfa- < *nāb ha- YAv. nāfāi; M/NPers. nāf, and its derivative ‘navel; umbilical cord’: *nāfaka- MPers. nʾp̄k, nʾpg, nʾfg nāfag; Bal. nāpag; cf. also the -i-stem ‘navel’: *nāfi- Khotan. nehä; Digor naf(f)æ; Xufi, Roshani nēf < PIIr. *nā́b h(h)i- (Ved. nā́bhi-). For ‘head’, the original IE item is alive and well in Iranian: *ʦaras- YAv. sarah-; MPers., NPers. sar; but the popular term *kamard-/kamərd- YAv. kamərəδa-, which in Zoroastrian has “daēvic” value, is the normal term for ‘head’ in the rest of Iranian: Bactr. καμιρδο, MPers. kmʾl kamāl (= NPers.), cf. *kamərdakā- Yidgha kyɛmalɣo; isolated is *u̯agdana- neut. in YAv. vaɣδanəm. The original notion of ‘(the part coming) to the eye(s)’, *anīka-, means in Iranian, as in Vedic (IIr. *áni-Hka-) and beyond (EWA 1,73), ‘front’, ‘face’, or ‘forehead’ MPers. anīg; NPers. pēš-ānī; cf. *anīʧaka- ‘forehead’ Bal. (h)anīčag. A similar vacillation between ‘front side’ and ‘forehead’ is seen in *tāraKhotan. ttāra-, NPers. tār (Oss. ‘breast’: Iron tar); the meanings ‘forehead’ and ‘peak’ are embodied in *ʧakāta- MPers. ckʾt’ čagād, Sogd. ckʼt, KurdKurm. čîya. Other words for ‘front part; anterior, first’ come to mean also ‘face’: *nasu̯ant- MPers. nxwyn naxwēn, nhwst, nxw(y)st naxust; NPers. nuxušt; Yaghn. nax. The neutral IIr. word for ‘face’ is *rau̯das- MPers. lwd, rwy; NPers. rōy. Metaphorical connotations of ‘face’ are con-

577

578

VI. Iranian tained in the semantemes of words like *ʧiθra- ‘clear, visible; shape, appearance, face; phenomenon’ O/YAv. ciθra-, Parth. cyhr, NPers. čihr < PIIr. *ćitrá- (Ved. citrá-) with its derivative *ʧiθraka- ‘face; proof’ Parth. cyhrg čihrag, Alan. cyhrg. Characteristic of all kinds of body/head parts is the frequent use of diminutives of inherited lexemes; cf. for ‘nose’ the transponat *nāsaʧi- Sogd. nyc, Yaghn. nays, Šuγn. nε̄j, or the implementation of words from other (socio)linguistic registers instead of traditional designations: cf. *u̯ai̯ ni- ‘nose’ Bal. gīn, KurdKurm. bên, with its derivative *u̯ai̯ nii̯ aka- MPers. wynyk, wynyg; NPers. bīnī. By contrast, continuous preservation of lexical archaisms of PIE/ PIIr. age is seen in the two main designations for ‘eye’: *axš- > *aš- O/YAv. aš- in instr. du. ašibiiā˘, Ashkun aċ’ī, Prasun ižī˜ and *ʧak͡ɕman-, O/YAv. cašman-, Khotan. tceiʾman-, M/NPers. čašm < *ćaćšman-, cf. Ved. cákṣman-; similarly, ‘eyebrow’ is *brū- YAv. bruuat̰ .biiąm; Waigali ačī-brǖ < PIIr. *b hruH- (Ved. bhrū́-) < PIE *h3 b hruH- (cf. EWA 2,283), with derivatives PIr. *brūkā- MPers. blwk, brwg brūg; Šuγn. wruɣ and *brūʧīSanglechi vrīc. For ‘ear’: *(H)au̯š-/(H)uš- YAv. du. uši [ahuric], OP du. uši, MPers. ʾwši(y) oš(i), NPers. hōš < PIIr. *Hau̯š-/*Huš- < PIE *h2 ó/éu̯s- ‘ear, hearing’, with derivative *(H)au̯šaka- MPers. hwšk, hwšg hōšag; NPers. xōša. While this PIE inheritance in Iranian mostly developed the meaning ‘intelligence’, the (popular) PIIr. lexeme *gau̯ša- OAv. gə̄uša-; YAv. gaoša-; OPers. gauša-; Parth., MPers. gōš; NPers. gōš; Yaghn. ɣūš kept its focus on the field of ‘(organ of) hearing’; and *karna- YAv. karəna- [daēvic] < PIIr. *kárna- (Ved. kárṇa-), used mostly to designate the anatomic organ ‘ear’, is well attested in continuants of the oxytone derivative *karná- ‘having (marked) ears’, Ved. karṇá- ‘aurītus’; VS: ‘having long ears’ but often means ‘deaf’, e.g. in Sogd. krn, MPers. kl, ManMPers. qr karr, NPers. kar(r). Among the words for ‘mouth’, one finds the old -r/n- heteroclitic *ʣafar < *ʣap/ bhar YAv. zafarə, MPers. zpl zafar, NPers. zafar vs. *(°)ʣafan- YAv. zafənəm, especially in compounds: YAv. θri.-, anu.zafan- (but with the -r- stem, cf. YAv. vīzafār-); from MIr. on we meet *kasman- ‘mouth’ Chwrsm. kʾm kām, NPers. kām, Oss. kom. Of the elements forming the mouth, the two words for ‘lip’, which elsewhere in the IE languages are found in complementary distribution, are both attested in Iranian: *au̯šta- YAv. aošta-, Khotan. auṣṭä < *áu̯štha- (Ved. óṣṭha-) and *labi- Parth. lb; MPers. lp, lb lab; NPers. lab. The largely (tabuistically) varying PIE versions of the word for ‘tongue’ (and ‘language’) are preponderantly preserved in forms beginning with *siʣu̯°; thus, *siʣu̯ā- ~ siʣuu̯- O/YAv. hizuuā-, Pamir languages (Šuγn., etc.) ziv, Pṣ̌ t. ž’əba; cf. the -n- stem *siʣu̯ān- OPers. hạzān-; Parth. ʽzbʾn izbān, ʾwzwʾn, ʿzwʾn uzwān, izwān; NPers. zabān, and (diminutive) derivatives such as *siʣu̯āka- Alan. *(i)zvāki, Oss. ævzag and *siʣūka- ‘tongue’ Waxi zik. For ‘tooth; mouth’: *gaštra- Chwrsm. ɣš, Pṣ̌ t. ɣāṣ, Waxi ɣˇaṣ belongs as n. instr. ‘means of biting’ to the sphere of the verb ‘to bite’, as does *gaʣa- MPers. gc-, gz-ytn gaz-īdan; NPers. gaz-, gaštan, and *gāʣa- Zaz. gāz similar to the semantic variety within the family of PIE *g̑ómbh-o- (Gr. γόμφος ‘pin, nail’) > PIIr. *ȷ́ámbha- > PIr. *ʣamba- ‘tooth’ Khotan. ysami-*: ysīmä vs. coll. fem. *ʣambā‘(row of) teeth’ Pṣ̌ t. z’āma. Otherwise, the inherited word for ‘tooth’, *dant-, is omnipresent, both as heir of the old root-noun YAv. daṇt-, Yazgh. δand (δān) < PIIr. *(H)dánt-/(H)dat- (Ved. dánt-) and in suffixal derivatives such as *dantān- YAv. daṇtān-; Parth., MPers. dndʾn dandān; NPers. dandān; Sariqoli δanda/un, *dantakaKhotan. dandaa-; Yaghn. dindak, and *dantāka- Sogd. dntʾk, dntʾ; Oss. dændag. For ‘fang, canine tooth’ of both humans and animals (and beings of Zoroastrian mythology), the term *anʦū˘r(a)- is used, YAv. tiži.asūra- (vs. tiži.dąstra- ‘with sharp tusks’ < *danš-

36. The lexicon of Iranian tra- ‘means of biting’); Sogd. ʾnsʾwr; ʾswr ’ansur; Digor ænsur(æ); Iron æssyr. For ‘notch’, ‘corner of the mouth, cheek’, one finds *sraxu̯a- Khotan. rahā, NPers. rux ‘cheek, face’, Sariqoli rak ‘forehead’, cf. Armen. erax ‘mouth, spout’ < PIIr. *sráku̯a(Ved. srákva- ‘tooth, fang’) ~ RV+ sŕ̥kvan- m. ‘(corner of the) mouth, lock-jaw’; TochB särwāna ‘face’. On the level of inherited phraseology, the IIr. collocation ‘TO GRIND UP THE [TWO] JAWS’ AVŚ hánū … jambhaya ~ YAv. hąm +zanauua zəmbaiiaδβəm contains the word for ‘jaw, jowl’: *ʣan(H)u- YAv. +zanauua [du.], Khot. ysanuva, Pṣ̌ t. z’əna < PIIr. *ȷ́án(H)u- (Ved. hánu- with irreg. h-, perhaps with already IIr. *ȷ́[h]°; analogy?) < PIE *g̑en(H)u-; derivative *ʣanuka- MPers. dnwwg danūg; Bal. zanūk, zanīk. The MIr.+ word for ‘chin’ is *ʣanaxā- Parth. znx zanax, NPers. zanax; on the relationship between ‘chin’ and ‘knee’, see Narten 1969 [1970]). The inherited word for ‘neck’, *grīu̯ā- YAv. grīuuā- (daēvic), shows various semantic transitions; on the one hand, with a totumpro-parte specialization, to ‘mane’, as in Bulg., Russ. gríva, on the other, to ‘neck, throat’, as in MPers., Pahl. glyw’ grīw, and even a pars-pro-toto generalization to ‘body, soul, self’, in ManMPers. gry(y)w and in Parth. gryw grīw. The special lexeme for ‘throat’ means also ‘neck’: *garda- Sogd. ɣrδʾ(kh), Chwrsm. ɣrδk. 5.1.2. For body limbs, Iranian presents the full range of words for ‘arm’: *arma- Sogd. ‘pš-’rm’y ‘with arms behind’; MPers., Npers. arm < PIr. *Har(H)ma- < PIIr. *Hr̥Hmá(AV+ īrmá- ‘foreleg’) < PIE *h2 r̥H-mo- and *bāʣāu̯-/*bāʣu- YAv. bāzu-; MPers. bʾcʾy, bʾzʾw bāzā(w); Parāči båz < PIIr. *b haHȷ́ hú- (Ved. bāhú-) < PIE *bheh2 g̑hu-; on the common IIr. ritual term − and compositional type − YAv. uz-bāzu- ~ Ved. úd-bāhu-, cf. Sadovski (2001: 101). Its derivatives are *bāʣuka- MPers. bāzūg, Khot. bāysua-, Digor bazug, Iron bazyg, the appurtenative > diminutive *bāʣuna- ‘armlet’ KurdKurm. basin, as well as the word for ‘wing’, *bāʣura- YAv. [snāuuar.]bāzura-, Alan. bāzura-, Bal. bāzul (also ‘arm’). The concurrent lexeme for ‘wing’ in NIr. is *ʧanga- NPers. čang; Oss. cong, cæng-; Pṣ̌ t. cāng. The parts of the arm start with four PIE inherited words for ‘shoulder’: *amsa- (> amha-), perhaps Khotan. *ama- (Emmerick − Skjærvø 1997: 153 f.); Digor onæ, ionæ; Iron on < PIIr. *Hámsa- (Ved. áṃsa-), perhaps from PIE *h3 emso-; *ʦup/fti- YAv. supti-, Khot. suta-, MPers. swpt’ suft, NPers. suft; based on instr.sg.: ʦufti̯ ā- Digor sufcæ, sifcæ; Iron syfc < PIIr. *ćúpti- (Ved. śúpti-) < PIE *(s)k̑up-ti-; from PIE *sph2 -ii̯ o- > PIIr. *(s)phii̯ á- ‘shoulder-blade’ (Ved. sphyá-) > PIr. *fii̯ a- we possess only the derivative *fii̯ āka- ‘shoulder’ BuddhSogd. byk; Digor fijjagæ; Iron fyjjag, fijag; finally, ‘(upper/ fore-)arm, shoulder’: *dau̯š- YAv. daoš-, MPers. dwš dōš, NPers. dōš < PIIr. *dauš(Ved. dóṣ-) < PIE *dous-; derivative *dau̯šikā- ‘upper arm’, perhaps in Pṣ̌ t. leča. A fifth word of inner-Iranian provenience is NIr. *āraʦa- Waigali araš’a. For ‘armpit; bay’, both *kaša- YAv. kaša- and the prep. government compounds *upa- (/api-)kaša- Sogd. ʾpkš; Yaghn. kapaš are of PIE origin < PIIr. *káćša- (on prep. + -kákṣa- → cmpd. in °kakṣá-, cf. Sadovski 2000: 470) < PIE *k(w)ók̑so-/*-eh2 -. Another archaism is ‘ulna; elbow’: *araθni- YAv. frārāθni-, OPers. ā˘rašni-, Tati arešni, Waxi arə́t ‘elbow, ell’ < PIIr. *Haratní-, RV+ aratní- vs. RV+ ā́rtnī- ‘elbow’; PIr. *arθn- YAv. arəθnå, in NIr. cmpds. *-ā˘r(θ)ni- > Šuγn. -ε̄rn. *ʧankada- ‘elbow’ (: *ʧanga- ‘wing’ above) is reconstructed on the basis of YAv. +ciṇkaδauuatō and Pṣ̌ t. cang’əl, cf. Morgenstierne (2003: 17). The continuant of the -to- derivative of the PIE word for ‘hand’ is *ʣásta- O/YAv. zasta-; OPers. dasta-; M/NPers., Yaghn. dast < PIIr. *ȷ́ hásta- < PIE *g̑ hés-to-; its competitor, PIIr. *g(h)ábhasti-, coexists in Ved. gábhasti- and PIr. *gábasti- Khotan. ggośtä,

579

580

VI. Iranian gauśta; Waxi gawust ‘fist’; also perhaps *gaba- MPers. gw’ gaw, and YAv. gauua‘hand’ (daēvic), if it stands for *gaβa-. ‘Fist’ itself is PIr. = PIIr. *mušti- (Ved. muṣṭí-) < PIE *mus-ti- YAv. mušti-; Khotan. muṣṭu, NPers. mušt, KurdKurm. mist. For ‘palm’: *(su-)pāni- Munji p’ε̄no, Waxi pūn could be a common PIIr. *pāní- (Ved. pāṇí-) or a (substrate) LW (in Indic). On the family of ‘finger’, *anguri-, and ‘finger, thumb; toe’, *angušta-, see now Filippone (2010) with data on individual finger-names in Iranian. In the domain of terminology for parts of the leg, (N)Ir exhibits a derivative of inherited *pād- ‘foot’ in the value ‘leg’: *padī-, padii̯ ā- Yidgha p’alo, pol’o, p’ō˘lo; Munji p’ālo, -a; Waxi paδ. Limited to WNIr. is the variation *nangā- ~ *langā- ‘foot, leg’ NPers. lang, KurdKurm. ling, Zaz. ling/ning. Of PIE origin are the lexemes for ‘hip’: *ʦrau̯ni- YAv. sraoni-; Khotan. ṣṣūni*, ṣūñä beside ṣṣūñi, ṣūñvā/ṣūñyā; NPers. surūn < PIIr. *ćráu̯ni- (Ved. śróṇi-, cf. the identical collocation in the cmpd. ‘broadhipped’, Ved. pr̥thú-śroṇi- = YAv. pərəθu.sraoni-) < PIE *k̑lou̯ni- and for ‘thigh’: *ūrúYAv. *uruca and spitii-uru-, Khotan. hurā < PIIr. *uHrú- (Ved. ūrú-), PIE *uh2 -ru-/ *u̯eh2 -ru-, (cf. Lat. vārus ‘bow-legged’) and *saxt(i)- OAv. du. haxtiiå, YAv. haxti, MPers. haxt, Oss. aɣd < PIIr. *sáktH- (Ved. sákthi-) < PIE *sokwtH-i- (Lubotsky, To appear). An Iranian innovation is the semantic specialization of *patištāna- (*)‘support’ → ‘thigh’ YAv. paitištāna-, Sogd. pčtʾn, Pṣ̌ t. pat’un. Concerning the word for ‘knee’, beside Narten (1969 [1970]), see Nussbaum (1986) on its IE ablaut patterns: Ir. *ʣānu~ ʣnu- YAv. zānu ~ ā žnubiiascit̰ ‘up to the knees’ (vs. cmpds. fra-šnu-, ā-xšnu-, cf. Sadovski 2000: 466 and 472), Bal. zān, Šuγn. zůn; with derivative *ʣānuka- Parth. zʾnwg (> Pahl. zʾnwk’ zānūg), ManMPers. dʾnwg dānūg, NPers. zānū; and, with zero grade, *ʣnūka- MPers. šnwk, ʽšnwg šnūg. Regarding *asʧīu̯a- ‘knee joint?’ YAv. ascuua- ‘shank, shin’ < *ascīua-, Lubotsky (2002) reconstructs PIIr. *Hast-(s)čiHua- ‘shank, shin’ (> → Ved. aṣṭhīvánt- ‘id.’) < PIE *h3 est- + (s)kiHu-. Inherited is the well-attested *pāršnā- ‘heel’ YAv. pāšnā-, Khotan. pārrā-, Pṣ̌ t. pṣa < PIIr. *pāršnaH- with derivative *pāršnaka- MPers. pʾšnk pāšnag, NPers. pāšna; also *pāršni- Munji p’āngyo, Yidgha p’äṇio, etc. < PIIr. *pā́ršni- (Ved. pā́rṣṇi-) ← < PIE *t(s)pērsneh2 - (Lubotsky 2006 and To appear) as well as the lexical innovation *na/ipərku- ‘heel, sole’ Sariqoli naburg. Finally, the semanteme of ‘hoof’ is represented by two word-families: ancient *ʦafaYAv. safa-, Khotan. sahä, Pṣ̌ t. swa (< *[s]ʦafa-) < PIIr. *sćapHá- (Ved. śaphá-) < PIE *skepHo-/skopHo- with derivative *ʦafatakā- Oss. sæftæg and inner-Iranian *ʦumbaMPers. swmb sumb, NPers. sumb with derivative *ʦumbaka-, Iranian LW in Armen. smbak, perhaps related to the verb MP swmb- sumb, swptn suftan ‘to bore, pierce’ (cf. Waxi sərv ‘hole, cavity’ < PIr. *subra- < PIIr. *ću̯ab hra-/ćub hra-), the ‘hoof’ being here defined from the pragmatic viewpoint of horse-breeders. 5.1.3. Regarding the Iranian terminology for the internal organs, the following paragraphs will display some lexical highlights according to the individual biological systems of the organism; on the corresponding secretions or body fluids, see 5.1.4. Starting with the nervous system and notions like ‘brain’ and ‘spinal cord’ (on *pəršti- ‘backbone’, see above), a common denotation for ‘brain(s)’ is *mastərgan-/°gnYAv. mastərəɣnas-ca, MPers. mstlg mastarg, Wanetsi mastr’āɣze, Orm. mastə́rγ, Pṣ̌ t. mast’arɣay [Pers. LW?] < PIIr. *mastr̥g han- / mastr̥ǰ han- (AVP+ mastr̥han-); on possible PIE *mest-(m)r̥gh-n-, see Lubotsky (To appear). The frequent designations of the concepts of ‘brain’ and ‘marrow’ by the same word provide a bridge to the semantic field of the musculoskeletal system: derivatives of both

36. The lexicon of Iranian IIr. *mastr̥g h/ǰ han- and its variant *mast(i)- stand also for ‘marrow’, so e.g. *mastakaKhotan. māstaa-, Parāči mhastō/u and *mazga- ‘marrow, core, brain’ YAv. mazga-, MPers. mazg, Sogd. mɣz-, Pṣ̌ t. māɣz’ə ~ māzɣ’ə < PIIr. *masg ha- < PIE *mosg ho(< *mostg ho-, cf. Lubotsky, To appear) ~ PIE *mosg h-en- > PIIr. *masǰ (h)án- (Ved. majján-, with loss of aspiration regular in *žǰ h, Lubotsky 2001: 39) > PIr. *mazʤan‘marrow’ Khotan. mäjsā, mijsā. The PIE lexemes for ‘bone’ are continued by *(H)astO/YAv. ast-, M/NPers. ast < PIIr. *Hást(H)- (Ved. ásthi-) < PIE *h3 estH-, with derivatives *(H)astaka- Sogd. ʾstkʾ, ʾstk əstak-; Chwrsm. ʼsty˘k ʼastəg; Khotan. āstai, āstaa-; Oss. æstæg and *(H)astai̯ na- ‘osseous, made of bone’ YAv. astaēna-, MPers. astēn. The basic word for ‘rib’ shows old ablaut *parʦu-/*pərʦu- YAv. parəsui, pərəsu-; Waxi pürs < *párću- (párśu-) < PIE *perk̑-u-, with derivatives of both vowel grades, viz. *parʦukāMPers. pʾhlwk pahlūg, KurdKurm. p harsû and *pərʦukā- Digor færskʾæ, Pṣ̌ t. puṣṭ’əy. Terms relating to the muscular system normally designate its “products” as well; thus, *snāu̯ar, snāu̯an- < *snáHu̯ar means ‘tendon’ (also ‘sinew’, 7.6) YAv. snāuuarə°, Digor nawær < PIIr. *snáHu̯ar-/snáHu̯an- (Ved. snā́van- ‘sinew’), PIE *s(h2 )neh1u̯r̥-/-un-; and *māns(a)- ‘meat’ < PIIr. *mānsá-, *mās- (Ved. māṃsá-, māṃs°, mā́s-) < PIE *mēms(o-), mēs- pragmatically stands for ‘muscle mass’, beside the specialized *dərbda- ‘bundle of muscles’ YAv. dərəβδa- < PIIr. *darbh- ‘to tie in a bundle’. Within the integumentary system, ‘skin’ is designated as ‘cover’: *pau̯astā- OPers. pavastā- ‘clay cover-film’; MPers. pwst’, pwst post; Sogd. pwst(h); NPers. post < PIIr. *pau̯ástā˘- (Ved. pavásta- ‘cover’) and, more widely, as *ʧarman- ‘hide, leather’ YAv. carəman-, OPers. carman-, Khot. tcārman- < PIIr. *čárman- (Ved. cárman-) < PIE *(s)ker-men-. ‘Leather (± made of goatskin?)’ is called *(H)iʣai̯ na- YAv. izaēna- vs. PIr. *(H)aʣina- YAv. azina-uuaṇt- < PIIr. *Haȷ́ína- ‘hide, skin’ (Ved. ajína-) < PIE *h2 eg̑ino-. The numerous words for ‘hair’ (collective and singulative) include common IE heritage like *rau̯man- NPers. rōm < PIIr. *Hraúman- (Ved. r/lóman-) < PIE *Hreumen-; *u̯arʦa- YAv. varəsa-, ChrSogd. wrs < PIIr. *u̯áRća- (Ved. válśa- ‘sprout’) < PIE *uolk̑o-; and (MIr.+) *drau̯a- BuddhSogd. ẓw-, Yaghn. diraw; of inner-IIr. distribution is *gai̯ ʦa- YAv. gaēsa-, M/NPers. gēs (~ PIr. kai̯ ʦa-? Waigali kyeċ, kēċ, Kati keċ-) < PIIr. *g/kaíca- (Ved. kéśa-; g/k alternation implies a substrate word?) with derivative *gai̯ ʦaka- Khotan. ggīsaa-. The connotations ‘hair; color’ co-exist in *gau̯na- (Morgenstierne 1974: 25 [deriv. of ‘cow’?]) YAv. gaona-, Khotan. ggūna-, Pṣ̌ t. ɣūná < PIIr. *gauná- (Ved. guṇá-, Lubotsky [p.c.]: Iranian LW in Indic). Beside the metonymic uses of words for ‘neck’ (see above), the concept of ‘mane’ is expressed by inner-Iranian *bəršti- Alan. *βarčya, Digor barcæ, Iron barc. Instead of PIIr. *smáćru- (Ved. śmáśru-) ‘beard’, (N)Ir. uses continuants of *upās(a)nā- Šuγn. bůn and *fragai̯ si̯ a- Waxi rɣˇiṣ. The IE word family for ‘nail, claw’ (of fingers and toes) includes *naxa- Digor nix, Iron nyx < PIIr. *(H)nā˘kHá-, Ved. nakhá- (or ← r.-n. *nāx-/nax- < PIE *h3 negh-) and various innovations, such as (transponat) *nāxun- Parth. nʾxwn, MPers. nʾhwn nāxun, NPers. nāxun, *nagnū- KurdKurm. neynuk, Zaz. nengū (related to a *nagra-? Talishi nangыr), *naxara-(ka-) Sanglechi narxōk, *naxau̯ara-? Sariqoli našɛwr. In Iranian, ‘fat, grease’, as bodily substance and as product, is *ʧarpa- Sogd. crp, M/NPers. čarb, Oss. carv. In the designations of organs of the respiratory system, for the meaning ‘lungs’ the word-family of YAv. suši (du.), Khot. suv’ä, M/NPers. suš ‘lung’, Oss. sus/sos (< PIIr. *ću̯as ‘to hiss, pant’ < *k̑u̯es) replaces PIIr. *plaumán- ‘lung’ (Ved. klomán-) < PIE *pleu-mon-; for the semanteme ‘chest, breast’, the old word for ‘extensiveness; wide space’, *u̯aras- YAv. varas-; MPers. wl, wr war; NPers. bar < PIIr. *Hu̯árHas- (Ved.

581

582

VI. Iranian váras- ‘id.’) < PIE *h1uerH-es-, is used, just as is *u̯axšaka- Digor wæsqæ, usqæ; Iron wæxsk; whereas *fštāna- YAv. fštāna-, MPers. f/pistān, NPers. pistān expands into the field ‘breast, nipple, teat’ < PIIr. *pstána- (Ved. stána-) < PIE *psten-. Closely connected to this word-field are the terms for organs of the circulatory system. ‘heart’: *ʣārd-/*ʣərd- O/YAv. zərəd-, Parth. zyrd, MPers. dyl dil, NPers. dil, with derivative *ʣərdai̯ a- YAv. zərəδaiia-, BuddhSogd. δrẓy(h), ManSogd. δrjyy, Oss. zærdæ. Specific Iranian derivatives of an older root show up in ‘blood’: *u̯asun- YAv. vohun-, Talishi xün; cf. *u̯asu- in YAv. vaŋhu-tāt- ‘blood’, vaŋhuθβa- ‘bloodshed’; VS+ vásā‘(melted) fat’ < PIIr. *u̯ás-aH-; for *tau̯ka- ‘bud, blood’, see 4.1. ‘Spleen’: *spərʣanYAv. spərəzan-; MP spwrz spurz, spwł spul (< SWIr. *spr̥dan-); Yidgha spərzə. In the word-field ‘blood vessels’, cf. *rasā- ‘vein’ YAv. raŋhā- ‘river Rasā, Ved. Rasā́-’; with derivative *rasakā- > *rahakā-, MPers. lhk, lk, rg rahg > rag (=NPers.); Khot. rrā [pl.] < PIIr. *Hrása- (Ved. rása-) ‘sap, juice (of plants), liquid, essence’. The inventory of organ names of the digestive system contains, first, general terms for ‘intestine(s)’ of animals and humans, such as ‘entrails, innards’ (also as products): *ruθu̯ar/n- YAv. uruθβarǝ, uruθβąn < PIIr. *(H)rutu̯ar-, (H)rutu̯an- ‘intestine(s)’ and, with another suffixation and ablaut grade, MIr.+ *rau̯tā˘- ‘gut, intestine(s); string’ MPers. lwt rōd, Bal. rōt, Yaghn. ruta, with derivative *rau̯tīka- MPers. lwtyk rōdīg, KurdKurm. ruvī and *rau̯taka- Chwrsm. rwdk rōdg, NPers. rōda. The IE name of the ‘liver’ is continued by PIIr. *(H)iákr̥-, (H)iakn- (Ved. yákr̥-t / yakn-V´-) > PIr. *(H)i̯ akar, (H)i̯ akanYAv. (yākarə/) yakarə, MP ykl ǰagar, Bal. ǰagar, Yidgha yēɣən and, specifically in Pamir languages, *θātā-? Šuγn. θōd, Yazgh. θed. Terms for organs of the urogenital system include concepts like ‘kidney’, *u̯ərdkaYAv. vərəδka-, Khot. bilga-, Waxī wultk < PIIr. *u̯r̥tká- (Ved. vr̥kká-); ‘urethra’: *mai̯ ʣakā- Digor mesgæ, Iron mizg; ~ PIr. *(H)miz- < PIIr. *Hmiȷ́ h- (Ved. meh/mih) < PIE *h3 meig̑h- ‘to urinate’. Of the reproductive system, beside PIr. *gərda- ‘penis’ YAv. gərəδa- in gərəδō.kərəta- ‘cutting off the genitals?’, limited to PIIr. < *gr̥dá- (Ved. gr̥dá-), Iranian shows various innovations like *gura- ‘testicle/penis’ Šuγn. ɣur, Yazgh. ɣər, or the fem. derivative *dumā- ‘vulva’ Šuγn., Bartangī δam, apparently the -ā-stem counterpart of *duma- / dumba- ‘tail’; ‘penis’, on which see 5.1.1 above. 5.1.4. Logically correlated to the designations of organs is the word-field ‘body fluids, secretions’. Cornerstones of the inherited vocabulary here are words like ‘tear’, *(H)aʦru- YAv. asru-, MPers ʾls ars (=NPers.), KurdKurm. asr ~ hêsir < PIIr. *Háćru(Ved. áśru-) < *h2 ek̑ru-, with derivative *(H)aʦruka- Chwrsm. ʾšwk əššūg, Khotan. āṣkä, NPers. ašk, Waxi yaṣk. ‘Milk’, both human and of animals, is *xšīra- MPers. šyl, šyr šīr (= NPers.); Munji xšī́ro < ePIr. *xšiHrá-, limited to PIIr., *kšiHrá- (Ved. kṣīrá-), as is perhaps ‘milk, buttermilk’ *pai̯ as- YAv. paiiah-, Munji p’ayo < PIIr. *pái̯ Has(Ved. páyas- ‘milk; juice, sperm, life-sap’) < PIE *peiH-os-. Well established within IE is the lexeme for ‘sweat’: PIr. *su̯ai̯ da- YAv. x vaēδa- (Jamison 2011[2015]), MPers. hwyd xwēy, Chwrsm. ʾxyδ, Yazgh. xˇ wiδ < PIIr. *su̯ái̯ da- (Ved. svéda-), a derivative of PIIr. *su̯ai̯ d/*su̯id- ‘to sweat’ < PIE *su̯ei̯ d/*su̯id- ‘id.’. The Iranian words for ‘urine’ coincide in part with those for ‘urethra’ (5.1.3.); thus, *mai̯ ʣaka- Khotan. mīysai, Bal. mēzag, appurtenative derivative of *mai̯ ʣa- < PIIr. *Hmai̯ ȷ́ha-, cf. Ved. á-meha- ‘retention of urine’; others contain the semantics of ‘means for washing’ typical of IIr., cf. *mūθra- ‘urine’ OAv. mūθra- < PIIr. *múHtra- (Ved. mū́tra-) < PIE *muH-tro-, n. instr., similar to PIE *muH-dlo- > PSlav. *mūdla- > Cz. mýdlo, Russ. mylo ‘soap’ (~ myt’ etc.

36. The lexicon of Iranian ‘to wash’). Among the expressions for ‘excrement’, *gūθā˘- < ePIr. *guHϑHa- YAv. °gūθa-, MPers. gwh gūh (= NPers.), Yaghn. ɣūt corresponds to Skt. gūtha- in karṇagūtha- ‘ear-wax’ < PIIr. *guHtHa- < PIE *g(w)uH-tHo-, perhaps related to the word for ‘cow’; NIr. possesses *ʦakan(a)- Ormuri (ə)skan or develops euphemisms and metaphors like *gau̯-riša- ‘cow dung’ and *dərti- ‘dung’. Isolated is *sixra-, ‘liquid feces’ YAv. hixra-. 5.2. Gender, sex, procreation, birth: In 4.1. we mentioned the affinity of the semantic fields of ‘(human) seed’, ‘genus’ and ‘descent, origin, nature’ in relation to the PIr. lexemes *ʧiθra-, *ʧiθraka-,*bīʣaka-, and *tau̯xman- together with its derivative *tau̯xmaka-. MPers. twhmk, twhmg tōhmag means ‘seed; extended family’, as does *tau̯xmii̯ aka- in Bactr. τοχμιγο. The “gender” words such as ‘female, woman’, *ʤáni-, *strī- ~ *str̥i̯ ā-, *strīʧī-/strīkā-, and *i̯ au̯šā, i̯ au̯šan-, as well as ‘girl’, *kanii̯ ān-, kanīn< ePIr. *kaniHan-/kaniHn-, with its derivative *kanii̯ akā- and *kanīʧī-, have been discussed in 4.2., as were the semantic fields ‘man’ and ‘male’, centering around *narand *nari̯ a-, *ʣana-, *dasa-, and *əršān- ‘male, bull, stallion’. Another PIE term, *u̯iHro-, is preserved rather in the axiologically marked meaning ‘man, hero’: PIr. *u̯īrá- O/ YAv. vīra-; MPers. wyl, wyyr wīr; Yaghn. vir < PIIr. *u̯iHrá- (Ved. vīrá-). The technical term for ‘pregnant’, *āpuθra- MPers. ʾpws, ʾbwws ābus; NPers. ābis; Bal. āpus, is an old bahuvrīhi-compound of the éntheos type, originally meaning ‘having a little one (young animal / human child, PIIr. *putrá- < PIE *putló-) “at” (one’s body, etc.)’. For ‘birth’, one finds various derivatives of the root PIr. *ʣan(H) < PIIr. *ȷ́anH< PIE *g̑enh1-, cf. v. adj. *ʣāta- ‘born’ YAv. zāta-, Chwrsm. zʾd, Bactr. ζαδο < *ȷ́aHtá< PIE *g̑n̥h1-to-; thus, the n. act./abstr. in -ti-, *ʣāti- Sogd. zʾt zāt, Chwrsm. ʾw-zʾ, and in -tu-, *ʣantu- Av. zaṇtu- ‘*birth-place, region’ < PIIr. *ȷ́anHtu-, as well as *ʣanθraYAv. ząθra- and *ʣanθa- O/YAv. ząθa- < *ʣan(H)tha-. This last word is the derivational basis of the lexeme for ‘descendant’: *ʣanθaka-/ʣanhaka- Parth. zhg, zẖg; MPers. zhk, zʾhk, zhg zahag; Bal. zahg; cf. with a diff. suffix *ʣanaka- MPers. zng zanag, Bactr. ζαγγο, Oss. zænæg < *ȷ́anHaka- ‘descendant, species, kind’. As a transition to the next section, the concept *nišā- ‘birthmark’, e.g. Šuγn. naɣˇ, and ‘distinctive feature’ (of a gens, especially between the members of a [hero’s/royal] family, etc.) is of relevance both in (folklore) genealogy and in the context of popular medicine-and-magic related to birth. 5.3. Health, diseases, medicine, medicaments: The leading expression for ‘healthy’ in Iranian is *druu̯a- YAv. druua-, Bactr. λρουο < PIIr. *d hruHá- (Ved. dhruvá- ‘fixed, firm’), with derivative *druu̯aka- BuddhSogd. δrʾwk; Bactr. λρογο, λρουγο, δδρογο. The abstr. ‘health’, *druu̯atāt- YAv. druuatāt-; Sogd. δrwth, δrwtʾtwh, is personified in the Avesta into one of the main Zoroastrian divinities, one of the Aməṣ̌ a Spəṇtas. The opposite meaning ‘ill, sick’, is displayed, e.g., in *bazda- YAv. bazda- which, if from PIIr. *b hadzd há- (Ved. baddhá-) (with archaic -zd- preserved, unlike in basta-, where the productive *-ta-suffix has been restored), shows the connotation ‘bound, fettered’ (by a [demon of] disease, etc.), also in ‘foul, rotten’: *pūta- Khotan. puva-, Digor fud, Iron fyd, with derivative *pūtaka- MPers. pwtk pūdag. The inherited PIIr. word for ‘sickness, suffering, disease, illness’ is *HámH-u̯a- YAv. amaiiauuā- (cf. Ved. ámīvā-); in PIr. cf. also *nai̯ ʣa- YAv. naēza-, Sogd. nʾyz-kyn; KurdKurm. nēz, Digor nez, Iron niz. Also of Iranian diffusion is *darta- ‘pain’ MPers. dlt’, drd dard (= NPers.); Chwrsm. δrd; Bactr.

583

584

VI. Iranian λαρ-σο; Zaz. derd. The generic (inner-)Iranian concept of ‘wound’ is *ʤanθma(n)Parth. jxm; MPers. ztm, zʾhm zahm, zaxm; NPers. zaxm. As an instance of a specific suffering, the Ir. lexeme for ‘blind’, *(H)anda- YAv. aṇda-, Sogd. ʾnt and, Ormuri ond, continues the PIIr. *Hand há- (Ved. andhá- ‘blind, dark’) < PIE *h2 end ho-. With regard to pharmaka, positive or negative, the concept of ‘means of killing, poison’ is expressed by a n. instr. *ʤanθra- OAv. *jąθra- → paitī.ająθrəm; Parth. jhr žahr; MPers. zʾhl, zhr zahr (= NPers.); KurdKurm. žahr/jeʾr with derivative *ʤanθraka‘poison, gall’ MPers. zʾhlk’, zhlk’ zahrag; NPers. zahra. On the other side of the scale, the notion ‘healing, remedy’ is inherent in the root O/YAv. °biš-. From this is built a noun for ‘healer, “medicine man”’, PIIr. *b hišáȷ́- (Skt. bhiṣáj-) and its derivatives, PIr. *bišāʣa- MPers. byšʾc, byšʾz bišāz, *bišaʣ-ka- OPers. *bišadka-; Parth. bzyšk bizešk; NPers. bizišk, pezešk; Tājik. pizišk, as well as the vr̥ ddhi-derivative *bai̯ šaʣa- ‘healing; neut.: remedy’ YAv. baēšaza-; MPers. byš(ʾ)z, byšʾc, byšʾz bēšā˘z < PIIr. *b hai̯ šaȷ́-á-, Ved. bheṣajá-. Note also the n. instr. ‘means of purification’: *bixθra- YAv. bixəδra- < PIIr. *b hig-tra- (cf. Milizia 2012). On the Avestan and Middle Iranian Zoroastrian medical tradition, see Sohn (1996) and, more recently, Delaini (2014); cf. also Hovelaque (1875), Casartelli (1886), Verrier (1887), Fichtner (1924), and Bana (1951).

6. Personal and family life 6.1. Individual; identity, personality: For the 1st pers. sg. of the personal pronoun ‘I’, Iranian, like most IE languages, displays continuants of inherited *aʣám OAv. azə̄m, YAv. azəm; OPers. adam; Tumshuq. asu, azu; Prasun unjū, unzū < PIIr. *Haȷ́ ham (Ved. ahám) < PIE *h1 eg̑h2 -om and *aʣā́ CtrNE (Kašani, Farizandi, Natanzi) äzä, Pṣ̌ t. zə, Munji za, PIIr. *Haȷ́ hā́ < *°-aH < PIE *h1 eg̑-óh(2) (Gr. ἐγώ, etc.), both of which represent univerbations of elements such as PIE *-óm and *-é/óh(2) with a stem *h1 eg̑-. In at least one case, namely OAv. as-cīt̰ (beside OAv. azə̄), Iranian seems to continue this stem without a second element, i.e., as if we had PIr. *áʣ < PIIr. *Háȷ́ h. However, the situation is not completely clear because of the hapax status of this form, and an alternative interpretation would work with a vowel loss or secondary ablaut in the particle sequence PIIr. *Haȷ́ h-H-ča. ‘(Of) me, mine’ is PIIr. *mana Bactr. μανο < PIIr. gen.*Hma-na < PIE *h1 me+ne, cf. OCS gen. mene. There are several words for ‘oneself’, standing for various original case-forms or derivatives of the stem PIr. = PIIr. *su̯a- < PIE *su̯e-, namely *su̯ai̯ Digor xe, Iron xi, *su̯atā˘ka- Chwrsm. xdʾk, xdʾc; Digor x wædæg, and *su̯atas YAv. x vatō; MPers. hwt’, xwd x wad; Parth. wxd x wad; Bactr. χοαδο; Digor xwæd-; Waxi xˇat. Pronominal adjectives expressing the notion ‘same, identical’ (and then functioning as derivational bases for abstracts like ‘identity’) are *sama- Bactr. υαμο with derivative *samaka- Bactr. υαμγο. Prominent among the terms for ‘shape; face’, close to the notion of ‘person(ality), identity, individuality’, are *ʧiθra- ‘clear, visible; shape, appearance, face; phenomenon’ and *rau̯das- ‘face, etc.’ (5.1). Group identity and otherness are primarily denoted by personal pronouns and pronominal adjectives such as *asma- ‘us’ OAv. ahm, YAv. ahma, Khotan. maha, Parāči mâ, with derivative *asmākam ‘our’ YAv. ahmākəm; OPers. amāxam; Bactr. αμαχο, μαχο; Oss. max and *asmāʧi̯ a- Wanetsi moš; Ishk. mьš, miš; Sanglechi mič; the opposed notion is ‘other’, in the appurtenative pronominal adjectives *ani̯ a- OAv. ańiia-; YAv.

36. The lexicon of Iranian ańiia-/ainiia-; OPers. aniya-; Khotan. añä, aña; Tumshuq. añi; Yaghn. áni, ánĕ with derivatives *ani̯ aka- Bactr. (α)νιγο as well as *antara- YAv. aṇtara-; Bactr. ανδαρο; Oss. ændær with *antāra- Munji yudū́r, Wanetsi nor. 6.2. Family and relatives 6.2.1. The affinity between the domain of ‘body parts related to birth and growing’ and ‘family, relatives’ is expressed in the meanings ‘navel, umbilical cord’ and ‘(extended) family, gens’ of the continuants of PIr. *nāf-/nāfah- (5.1.1[end]), as well as in the common semantemes ‘seed’ and ‘extended family’ of a series of inherited lexemes, e.g. *tau̯xmii̯ aka- (5.2). Derivatives of the first-mentioned base provide one of the semantic paths to arrive at the notion of ‘relative’: *nāfii̯ a- YAv. nāfiia-; Pṣ̌ t. nuy, nyāy, cf. also the idea of ‘next of kin’ as ‘next on navel’, *nabā-nazdišta- YAv. nabā-nazdišta-, continued in MPers. nbʾnzdšt’, PIIr. *náb hā názdištha- (Ved. nā́bhānédiṣṭha-). Beside the metonymic use of various terms for ‘house, home’ (cf. also 6.4.) to designate the ‘(extended) family’, in NIr. the meaning ‘household, family’ is also characteristic of the semantic range of *kāra- Pṣ̌ t. kor (otherwise also ‘people’, esp. ‘army’, OPers. kāra-, derivative in MP kārīk ‘warrior’) and in Pamir languages is even individualized as ‘man’, Šuγn. čōr, Xufi čůr. Adjectives like ‘belonging to the house/home, domestic’ as nouns also adopt the meaning ‘head of the household (> hus-band)’. This is seen above all with *dmānii̯ a(ka)- YAv. nmāniia-, OPers. māniya-, MPers. mānīg; cf. Pṣ̌ t. m’ena, f. Various innovations such as Iranian *abik͡ɕai̯ θnī- denote the ‘lady of the house’, NIr.: Digor æfsijnæ, Iron fsīn, beside the ancient term *dmāna-paθnī- ‘wife; mistress’ YAv. dəmąnō.paθnī-, nmānō.paθnī-; with the same second term, Iranian continues an old (euphemistic) IIr. compound for ‘concubine’, *sa-paθnī- YAv. ha-paθnī-, Šuγn. abīn, Xufi abēn < PIIr. *sa-pátniH- (Ved. sapátnī-), PIE (transponat) *sm̥-pót-nih2 -, with derivative *sa-paθn-ānʧī- Sogd. pnānč. For ‘widow’ we find PIr. *u̯idau̯āYAv. viδauuā- (in n.sg. vaδu viδauua ‘widow[ed] bride’) < PIIr. *Hu̯id h(H)áu̯aH- (Ved. vidhávā-), with derivatives *u̯idau̯aka- MPers. wdpk’ wēwag, NPers. bēwa and u̯idau̯aʧī- Oss. idædz. 6.2.2. The series of principal family members opens with the inherited stem for ‘mother’, *mātar-/māθr-, with usual n.sg. *mātā YAv. mātar-, māta; OPers. cmpd. ha-mātar-; MPers. mādar, mād; Khotan. māta, mātaru, merä; Tumshuq. māḏar-; NPers. mādar; Bal. māt. The stem allomorphs for ‘father’ in PIr. are *pitar-/*ptar-/*fθr- (~*piθr-), n.sg. *pita, all of them in OAv. ptarə̄m, fəδrō, piθrē, n.sg. (p)tā; YAv. pita/ptā°, pitarəm; OPers. pitā, piça; Sogd. (ʾ)ptr-y, ptr-, pṯ r-ptar-; NPers. pidar; Bal. pit, pis(s); Digor fidæ; Iron fyd. The development of the consonant clusters in the Iranian word for ‘father’ (and ‘daughter’; for both, cf. G. Schmidt 1973) is decisive for the reconstruction of the treatment of complex clusters of consonants + laryngeal of the type CHCC(-́) in correlation with the position of the accent. Its derivative ‘father’s brother’: *ftəru̯ii̯ a- YAv. tūiriia< PIIr. *pHtr̥u̯ia- (Ved. pitr̥vya-) sometimes means ‘(hostile) relative’. 6.2.3. The direct vertical line of descent is represented by various inherited words for ‘child’: PIr. *puθra- ‘son’ O/YAv. puθra-, OPers. puça-, Sogd. °pδr p(ə)š-, MPers. pws pus → pwsl, Waxi pətr (in Avestan, hunu- ‘son’ < PIIr. *suHnú-, Ved. sūnú-, is a strictly daēvic concept, but in OIran., PN *hūnu- has the generic meaning ‘son’) with derivative

585

586

VI. Iranian *puθra-ka- ‘(little) son’ Sogd. °pyδrʾk °pəθrē, °pšyy °pšē; Bal. pussag; PIr. *dugdar-/ *dugdr- ~ *duxtar-/duxθr-, n.sg. dugdā ‘daughter’ OAv. dugədar-/dugədr-; YAv. duɣδar-/duɣδr- < *-gd-, with Bartholomae’s law; Bactr. λογδα, λογδο < *-gd-/-xt- vs. productively formed OPers. *duxtar-, *duxtā; MPers. dwht, dwxt duxt, dwhtl duxtar; NPers. duxt, duxtar < PIIr. *d hug hd hā́/d huǰ hitr- (Ved. duhitár-) < PIE *d hugh2 -ter-; with marked fem. derivation: *duxθrī- ‘daughter, virgin; princess’ OPers. duxçī-; MPers. dwxš duxš, beside the (N)Ir. derived feminine (of *puθra- ‘son’) *puθrī- Yazgh. pöc, Šuγn. -bic. Specific NIr. words for ‘daughter’ are built as fem. derivatives of generic concepts of ‘descendant, child’ such as *fraʣani̯ ā- Šuγn. rizīn, Bartangī razen. The originally generic meaning of ‘descendant, species, kind’ in such derivatives prevails, however, in *ʣātaka- Chwrsm. zʾdy˘k, zʾdyc; MPers. zʾtk, zʾdg zādag; NPers. zāda; Bal. zātk, zāxt, zāk; cf. also above, 5.2, on the word-family of *ʣanaka- and *ʣan(θ/h)aka- < *ʣanthaka-. The originally generic meaning of *puθra- (‘young animal; child’) shows up in the cmpd. ‘childless’: *apuθra- YAv. apuθra-; Pṣ̌ t. bur, b’ura. 6.2.4. Further direct relatives in the vertical line of descent may have both the specific meaning ‘grandson’ and the generic ‘descendant’; thus, the root-noun *napāt-/*naftOAv. loc.pl. nafšu-cā; YAv. acc.sg. napāt-əm, n.sg. napå(sə-); MPers. np nab ~ npt naft < PIIr. *nápāt-/*napt- (Ved. nápāt-) < PIE *nepot- (no laryngeal, cf. Phryg. nevotan). The original meaning ‘grandson’ shows up in derivatives, particularly with the -tarsuffix found with other names for relatives: *naftar-/nafθr-, n.sg. *naftā YAv. naptārəm/ nafǝδr- (Ved. TS. náptār-am / RV+ náptr-), with suffix -(a-)ka- built to the weak stem *naft-: *naftaka- Bal. naptag or directly to the pseudo-root *nap°, *napaka- NPers. nawa; cf. also the dvandva-compound *napā-puθra(ka)- MPers. *nabāpusag?, NPers. nawāsa, Waxi nəpüs (Gershevitch 1963). OInd. and OIr. share an inherited (PIIr. < PIE) divinity ‘grandson of the waters’, RV+ apā́ṃ nápāt ~ YAv. apąm napāt-/naptar- (most recently Sadovski, To appear3 , with lit.). To this, the derived feminine is *naftī- YAv. napti ‘granddaughter’, built not on the -tar- suffix but on the weak stem of *napāt-/ *napt-. 6.2.5. In the collateral line (horizontal and vertical), all main concepts are of inherited origin. Thus, ‘brother’: *brātar-/*brāθr-, n.sg. *brātā YAv. brātar-; Bactr. β(α)ραδο, βραδαρο, βραδ(α)ρανο; MPers. blʾt-l, brʾd-r brād, brādar; NPers. birādar; Yaghn. virot, varot; Pṣ̌ t. wror with derivative ‘brother’s son’: *brāθrii̯ aka- Bactr. βραυριγο, βραρηγο, as well as ‘sister’: *su̯asār-/su̯asr-, n.sg. *su̯asā YAv. x vaŋha(r-); MPers. xwh xwah ~ hwʾhl, xwʾr xwahar/xwār, with derivatives, especially in NIr., having the semantics ‘sister’s child’: *su̯asrii̯ ā˘- Munji xur’ī, Yazgh. x wer and *su̯asrii̯ aka- Pṣ̌ t. xwəray’ay; of inner-Iranian attestation is *su̯arʣa- YAv. x varəzišta-; MPers. hwʾlyst’, xwʾryst xw ālist/ xw ārist (≠ PIr. *su̯arʣa- ‘food’, NPers. x wāl). 6.2.6. Among the concepts for ‘relationship through marriage’, we have already seen different lexemes for ‘man’ and ‘woman’ in 4.2. The notion ‘becoming related by marriage’ can be reconstructed within Iranian as *pagVšaka- (Martin Kümmel, p.c.): Sogd. pɣšʾk, pɣšy; Bactr. παχþιιο; Waxi bakṣt < *ham-p°. Both PIE words like *u̯ad [h]ū- ‘bride’ Sogd. wδwh; BuddhSogd. wδ-; ManSogd. wδw; ChrSogd. wdw, wd- wð’u; Chwrsm. wy˘δ, wuδ, wy˘δ; Bactr. ολο, οολο-; Munji, Yidgha w’ulo and later formations like *kāpai̯ na‘bride money, bridewealth’ MPers. kʾpyn kābēn; Chwrsm. kʾbyn; NPers. kābīn, kāwīn

36. The lexicon of Iranian

587

(cf. Armen. kapēnk‛ ) belong here. The terms for almost all the positions in this tree of relatives, whether from the point of view of the wife or of the husband regarding the partner’s side of the family, are highly archaic. Starting from the position of one of the married partners, the lexeme for ‘mother-in-law’ is *su̯aʦrū- Sogd. ‛ɣwšh, NPers. xusrū, Talishi häsы, Munji xúšo, Yidgha xušō˘ < PIIr. *su̯aćrúH- (Ved. śvaśrū´-) < PIE *suek̑rúH-, and the noun for ‘father-in-law’ is *su̯aʦura- YAv. x vasura-; KurdKurm. xazūr; Pṣ̌ t. sxar, sxər, xwsar < PIIr. *su̯áćura- (Ved. śváśura-) < PIE *suék̑uro-, with no vr̥ ddhi, as opposed to Germ. Schwager < *su̯ēk̑uró- ‘belonging to the *suék̑uro-’. 6.2.7. From the position of the parents of the bride and of those of the groom, ‘son-inlaw’ is designated in PIr. *ʣāmātar-/*ʣāmāθr-, n.sg. *ʣāmātā YAv. zāmātar-; Parth., Chwrsm. zʾmʾd zāmād; MPers. dʾmʾt, dʾmʾd dāmād; NPers. dāmād; Juh. domor, with derivative *ʣāmātaka- Sogd. *zʾmtʾk, zʾmtʾyty zāmtē < PIr. *dzā́ma(Htar)- (Ved. jā́mātar-), cf. *ʣāmau̯i̯ a- ‘son-in-law’s brother’ YAv. zāmaoiia-; from the same base, without the family relationship suffix, *ʣāma- means both ‘son-in-law’ and ‘relative’. ‘Daughter-in-law’ is *snušā- Sogd. šwnšh šunš’a, NPers. sunār, Bal. nišār, Pṣ̌ t. nẓōr < PIIr. *snušáH (Ved. snuṣā́-) ~ *snau̯š- Bactr. ασνωηο, ασονωυο; Digor nostæ. 6.2.8. From the perspective of the wife, the ‘husband’s brother / brother-in-law’ is designated by the PIr. term *θai̯ u̯ár- (with θ° ← *d h° by a not quite regular sound development or analogy) Parāči hīwar; Yaghn. s’ewĕr, sīwir; Pṣ̌ t. lew’ar < PIIr. *da(H)iu̯ár(Ved. devár-), as opposed to the fem. correspondent, later Ir. *sama-katā- ‘woman in the same house = sister-in-law (husband’s brother’s wife )’ Šuγn., Bartangi miǰād. *i̯ ātar-/i̯ āθr- NPers. yārī, Pṣ̌ t. yor denotes, from the point of view of the husband, traditionally the ‘sister-in-law’ and, in case two brothers marry, the family relationship of the women to one another.

7. Abbreviations (languages, grammatical terms, general terms, and texts) abstr. adj. Alan. Arab. Aram. Armen. AV AVP AVŚ Bactr. Bal. BuddhSogd. Bulg. Chant. ChrSogd.

abstract (noun) adjective Alanic Arabic Aramaic Armenian Atharvaveda Atharvaveda-Paippalāda Atharvaveda-Śaunaka Bactrian Balochi Buddhist Sogdian Bulgarian Chantian Christian Sogdian

Chwrsm. cmpd. coll. CtrIr. CtrNE

Ctr NW Ctr SE CtrSW Cz. du.

Chwaresmian compound collective Central Iranian Central NE dialects (Kašani; Farizandi; Natanzi) Central NW dialects (Xunsari) Central SE dialects (Yazdi, Kermani) Central SW dialects (Isfahani) Czech dual

588

VI. Iranian EIr. ePIr. esp. Fārs Dial. f./fem. Finnougr. gen. Georg. Germ. Gmc. Gr. Hungar. instr. IIr. Ir. Ishk. Juh. Khotan. KurdKurm. KurdSor. Lat. loc. LW m. ManMPers. ManParth. Mans. ManSogd. Mazand. MPers. n. n. abstr. n. act. neut. n. instr. NIr. NPers.

Eastern Iranian Early Proto-Iranian especially Fars dialects feminine Finno-Ugric genitive Georgian German Germanic Greek Hungarian instrumental Indo-Iranian Iranian Ishkashmi Juhuiri Khotanese Kurdish (Kurmanci) Kurdish (Sorani) Latin locative loanword masculine Manichaean Middle Persian Manichaean Parthian Mansian Manichaean Sogdian Mazandarani Middle Persian nominative or noun abstract noun noun of action neuter noun of instrument Modern Iranian Modern Persian

OAv. OPers. Oss. OWIr. Pahl. Parth. pers. Phryg. PIIr. PIran. pl. PSlav. prep. Pšt. PN r.-n. Russ. RV sg. Sogd. STati subst. Šuγn. SWIr. Tochar. TS Tumshuq. Turk. v. adj. Ved. VS WMIr. WNIr. Yaghn. YAv. Yazgh. Zaz.

Old Avestan Old Persian Ossetic Old Western Iranian Pahlavi Parthian person Phrygian Proto-Indo-Iranian Proto-Iranian plural Proto-Slavic preposition(al) Pashto personal name root-noun Russian Rigveda singular Sogdian South Tati substantive Shughni Southwest Iranian Tocharian Taittirīya-Saṁhitā Tumshuqese Turkic verbal adjective Vedic Vājasaneyi-Saṁhitā Western Middle Iranian Western Modern Iranian Yaghnobi Young Avestan Yazghulami Zazaki

8. References Abaev, Vasilij I. 1996 Istoriko-ėtimologičeskij slovar’ osetinskogo jazyka [Historical-etymological dictionary of Ossetic]. I−IV. Moscow: Rossijskaja Akademija Nauk. [First published Moscow: Akademija Nauk SSSR 1958−1989.]

36. The lexicon of Iranian Abaev, Vasilij I. 1997 Corrections and additions to the Ossetic etymological dictionary. In: Hans Henrich Hock (ed.), Historical, Indo-European, and lexicographical studies: A festschrift for Ladislav Zgusta on the occasion of his 70 th birthday. (Trends in linguistics / Studies and monographs 90). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 197−219. Back, Michael 1978 Die sassanidischen Staatsinschriften. Studien zur Orthographie und Phonologie des Mittelpersischen der Inschriften zusammen mit einem etymologischen Index des mittelpersischen Wortgutes und einem Textcorpus der behandelten Inschriften. (Acta Iranica 18). Leiden: Brill. Baevskij, Solomon I. 1989 Rannaja persidskaja leksikografija XI−XV vv. [Early Persian lexicography of the 11th− 15th centuries]. Moscow: Nauka. Baevskij, Solomon I. 2007 Early Persian Lexicography: Farhangs of the eleventh to the fifteenth centuries. Transl. by N. Killian. Revised and updated by John R. Perry. (Languages of Asia Series 6). Folkestone: Global Oriental. Bailey, Harold W. 1979 Dictionary of Khotanese Saka. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bana, Hormazd R. 1951 Diseases in the Ardibehesht Yasht. In: Rustom Pestonji Masani et al. (eds.), Professor Poure-Davoud Memorial Volume. […] Papers on Zoroastrian and Iranian subjects, contributed by various scholars in honour of Prof. Ebrahim Poure Davoud, Vol. II. Bombay: Iran League, 205−223. Bartholomae, Christian 1979 Altiranisches Wörterbuch. Berlin: De Gruyter. [First published 1904. Strassburg: Trübner.] Belgorodskij, Nikolaj Aleksandrovič 1936 Sovremennaja persidskaja leksika [Modern Persian lexicon]. (Trudy Instituta jazyka i myšlenija im. Marra 7). Moscow: Akademija Nauk SSSR. Benveniste, Émile 1931 Une différenciation de vocabulaire dans l’Avesta: mots nobles et populaires. In: Walther Wüst (ed.), Studia Iranica. Ehrengabe für W. Geiger zur Vollendung des 75. Lebensjahres. Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 219−227. Benveniste, Émile 1960 Les noms de l’oiseau en iranien. In: Bernfried Schlerath (ed.), Festgabe für Herman Lommel zur Vollendung seines 75. Lebensjahres am 7. Juli 1960. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 15−21. Benzing, Johannes and Zahra Taraf 1983 Chwaresmischer Wortindex. Mit einer Einleitung von Helmut Humbach herausgegeben von Zahra Taraf. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Bielmeier, Roland 1977 Historische Untersuchung zum Erb- und Lehnwortschatzanteil im ossetischen Grundwortschatz. (Europäische Hochschulschriften 27, 2). Frankfurt: Lang. Bleichsteiner, Robert 1930 Altpersische Edelsteinnamen. Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 37: 93−104. Boyce, Mary 1977 A Word-List of Manichaean Middle Persian and Parthian. With a reverse index by Ronald Zwanziger. (Acta Iranica 3, 2, Suppl.) Leiden: Brill. Brandenstein, Wilhelm and Manfred Mayrhofer 1964 Handbuch des Altpersischen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

589

590

VI. Iranian Büchi, Eva 1996 Les Structures du ‹ Französisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch ›. Recherches métalexicographiques et métalexicologiques. (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie 268). Tübingen: Niemeyer. Cabolov, Ruslan L. 2001−2010 Ėtimologičeskij slovarʼ kurdskogo jazyka [Etymological dictionary of the Kurdish language]. Tom 1: A−M. Tom 2: N−Ž. Moscow: Vostočnaja Literatura RAN. Casartelli, Louis Charles 1886 Traité de médecine mazdéenne. Louvain: Peeters. Cheung, Johnny 2002 Studies in the Historical Development of the Ossetic Vocalism. (Beiträge zur Iranistik 21). Wiesbaden: Reichert. Cheung, Johnny 2005 Review of Morgenstierne 2003. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 68: 127−129. Cheung, Johnny 2007 Etymological Dictionary of the Iranian Verb. (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series 2). Leiden: Brill. Collett, Nigel A. 1983 A grammar, phrase book and vocabulary of Baluchi (as spoken in the Sultanate of Oman). Abingdon: Burgess and Son. Davary, Gholami Djelani 1982 Baktrisch. Ein Wörterbuch auf Grund der Inschriften, Handschriften, Münzen und Siegelsteine. Heidelberg: Groos. De Chiara, Matteo 2008 Studi sul lessico e sulla fonetica della lingua pashto. Unpublished PhD thesis. Università degli Studi di Napoli “L’Orientale”. De Chiara, Matteo, Mauro Maggi, and Giuliana Martini (eds.) 2011 Buddhism among the Iranian Peoples in Central Asia (= Multilingualism and History of Knowledge, Volume II. ed. by Jens E. Braarvig, Markham J. Geller, Gebhard Selz, and Velizar Sadovski). (Iranische Onomastik 11). Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Dehxodā, ʿAlī Akbar 1946−1981 Loġātnāme [Dictionary]. Tehran: Mo’assese-ye Entešārāt va Čāp-e Dānešgāh-e Tehrān. Delaini, Paolo 2014 Medicina del corpo, medicina dell’anima. (Indo-Iranica et Orientalia. Series Lazur, ed. by Antonio Panaino and Velizar Sadovski, no. 9). Milan: Mimesis. Dornseiff, Franz 2004 Der deutsche Wortschatz nach Sachgruppen. 8. Aufl., völlig neubearb. und mit einem vollst. alphabet. Zugriffsreg. vers. Aufl. von Uwe Quasthoff. Mit einer lexikographischhistorischen Einführung und einer ausgewählten Bibliographie zur Lexikographie und Onomasiologie von Herbert Ernst Wiegand. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Durkin-Meisterernst, Desmond 2004 Dictionary of Manichaean Middle Persian and Parthian. (Corpus Fontium Manichaeorum. Dictionary of Manichaean Texts III. Texts from Central Asia and China, part 1). Turnhout: Brepols. Durkin-Meisterernst, Desmond 2014 Grammatik des Westmitteliranischen (Parthisch und Mittelpersisch). (Sitzungsberichte der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Phil.-hist. Klasse, 850. Band / Grammatica Iranica, ed. by Velizar Sadovski, Nr. 1). Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.

36. The lexicon of Iranian Ėdel’man, Džoj I. 2011−2015 E˙timologičeskij slovarʼ iranskich jazykov [Etymological dictionary of the Iranian languages]. Tom 4: i−k, 2011. Tom 5: l−n, 2015. (Tom 1−3: see Rastorgueva − Ėdel’man 2000−2007). Moscow: Nauka. [Continuation of Rastorgueva and Ėdel’man 2000−2007.] Efimov, V[alentin] A. (ed.) 1997−2008 Osnovy iranskogo jazykoznanija [Fundamentals of Iranian linguistics]. Novoiranskie jazyki [Modern Iranian languages] [III]. Severo-zapadnaja gruppa [The northwest group], II. 1997. Sredneiranskie i novoiranskie jazyki [Middle and modern Iranian languages]. 2008. Moscow: Nauka. [Continuation of Rastorgueva (ed.) 1981−1991.] Elfenbein, Josef 1983 A Brahui supplementary vocabulary. Indo-Iranian Journal 25: 191−209. Emmerick, Ronald E. 1969 ‘Old age’ in Sogdian. In: Studia classica et orientalia Antonino Pagliaro oblata. Band II. Rome: Herder, 131−137. Emmerick, Ronald E. and Prods Oktor Skjærvø 1982−1997 Studies in the Vocabulary of Khotanese. I−III. (Sitzungsberichte der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Klasse. Band 401; 458; 651. / Veröffentlichungen der Iranischen Kommission 12; 17; 27). Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. EWA 1−3: See Mayrhofer, 1986−2001. Fichtner, Horst 1924 Die Medizin im Awesta. Leipzig: Pfeiffer. Filippone, Ela 1995 The “pupil of the eye” in the Iranian languages. (Etnolinguistica dell’area iranica 5). Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale, Dipartimento di studi asiatici. Filippone, Ela 2000−2003 The fingers’ names in Balochi. Balochistan Studies 8−10: 59−89. Filippone, Ela 2006 The Body and the landscape. Metaphorical strategies in the lexicon of the Iranian languages. In: Antonio Panaino and Riccardo Zipoli (eds.), Proceedings of the 5 th Conference of the Societas Iranologica Europæa held in Ravenna, 6−11 October 2003. Vol. II. Classical & contemporary Iranian studies. Milan: Mimesis, 365−389. Filippone, Ela 2010 The Fingers and their Names in the Iranian Languages. (Onomasiological Studies of Body Part Lexicon, I). (Sitzungsberichte der ÖAW. Phil.-hist. Klasse, 811. Band / Veröffentlichungen zur Iranistik, Nr. 55). Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Geiger, Wilhelm 1893 Etymologie und Lautlehre des Afghānischen. (Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Klasse 20, 1). Munich: Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Geiger, Wilhelm and Ernst Kuhn (eds.) 1974a Grundriss der iranischen Philologie. Band I,1. Berlin: De Gruyter. [First published 1895−1901. Strassburg: Trübner.] Geiger, Wilhelm and Ernst Kuhn (eds.) 1974b Grundriss der iranischen Philologie. Band I,2. Berlin: De Gruyter. [First published 1898−1901. Strassburg: Trübner.] Gershevitch, Ilya 1952 Ancient survivals in Ossetic. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 14. 483−495. [Reprint in Gershevitch 1985: 114−126.]

591

592

VI. Iranian Gershevitch, Ilya 1963 Agricultural terms in Iranian. In: Bobodzˇan G. Gafurov (ed.), Trudy dvadcať pjatogo meždunarodnogo kongressa vostokovedov, Moskva, 9−16 avgusta 1960. Band II. Moscow: Izdateľstvo vostočnoj literatury, 293−358. Gershevitch, Ilya 1985 Philologia Iranica. Selected and edited by Nicolas Sims-Williams. (Beiträge zur Iranistik 12). Wiesbaden: Reichert. Gharib, Badresaman 1995 Sogdian Dictionary. Sogdian−Persian−English. Tehran: Farhangan. Goodell, Grace 1979 Bird lore in Southwestern Iran. Asian Folklore Studies 32: 131−153. Gouws, Rufus Hjalmar, Ulrich Heid, Wolfgang Schweickard, and Herbert Ernst Wiegand (eds.) 2008−2013 Wörterbücher / Dictionaries / Dictionnaires. An International Encyclopedia of Lexicography. Vol. 1−3, 2008. Supplementary Volume 2013. (Handbücher zur Sprachund Kommunikationswissenschaft 5, 1−4). Berlin: De Gruyter. Gülensoy, Tuncer 1994 Kürtçenin etimolojik sözlüğü. Deneme. [Etymological dictionary of Kurdish. A specimen]. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi. Hallig, Rudolf and Walther von Wartburg 1963 Begriffssystem als Grundlage für die Lexikographie; Versuch eines Ordnungsschemas. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Heidermanns, Frank 2005 Bibliographie zur indogermanischen Wortforschung. Wortbildung, Etymologie, Onomasiologie und Lehnwortschichten der alten und modernen indogermanischen Sprachen in systematischen Publikationen ab 1800. Band I−III. Mit einer CD-ROM. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Hintze, Almut 1994 Der Zamyād-Yašt. Edition, Übersetzung, Kommentar. (Beiträge zur Iranistik 15). Wiesbaden: Reichert. Hintze, Almut 2007 A Zoroastrian Liturgy. The Worship in Seven Chapters (Yasna 35−41). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Hinz, Walther 1937 Neue Formen des persischen Wortschatzes. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 91: 680−698. Hinz, Walther 1942 Altpersischer Wortschatz. (Abhandlungen zur Kunde des Morgenlandes hrsg. von der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 27.1). Leipzig: Brockhaus. Hinz, Walther 1975 Altiranisches Sprachgut der Nebenüberlieferungen. (Göttinger Orientforschungen, III. Reihe: Iranica, 3). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Hoffmann, Karl 1965 Idg. *snei̯ g u̯h. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 18: 13−28. [Reprint in Hoffmann 1976, 442−454.] Hoffmann, Karl 1975−1992 Aufsätze zur Indoiranistik. Band 1, 1975 and Band 2, 1976 ed. by Johanna Narten. Band 3, 1992 ed. by Sonja Glauch, Robert Plath, and Sabine Ziegler. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Horn, Paul 1988 Grundriss der neupersischen Etymologie. (Sammlung indogermanischer Wörterbücher, IV). Hildesheim: Georg Olms. [First published 1893. Strassburg: Trübner.]

36. The lexicon of Iranian Houtum-Schindler, Albert 1884−1888 Beiträge zum kurdischen Wortschatze. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 38[1884]: 43−116; 42[1888]: 73−79. Hovelaque, Abel 1875 Les médecins et la médecine dans l’Avesta. Paris: sine nomine. Online under http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6580472g (last access: 15. 10. 2013). Hübschmann, Heinrich 1969 Etymologie und Lautlehre der ossetischen Sprache. (Sammlung indogermanischer Wörterbücher 1). Amsterdam: Oriental Press. [First published 1887. Strassburg: Trübner.] Hübschmann, Heinrich 1895 Persische Studien. Strassburg: Trübner. Humbach, Helmut 1966−1967 Baktrische Sprachdenkmäler. Teil 1, mit Beiträgen von Adolf Grohmann, 1966. Teil 2: Abbildungen, 1967. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Jahani, Carina and Agnes Korn 2003 The Baloch and their Neighbours. Ethnic and linguistic contact in Balochistan in historical and modern times. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Jamison, Stephanie 2011 Avestan xšuuīd: A Relic of Indo-Iranian Ritual Vocabulary. Bulletin of the Asia Institute 25[2015]: 19−29. Joki, Aulis J. 1962 Finnisch-ugrisches im Ossetischen? In: Commentationes Fenno-Ugricae in honorem Paavo Ravila. (Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seuran toimituksia / Mémoires de la Société FinnoOugrienne 125). Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura, 147−170. Karamšoev, Dodchudo 1988−2005 Šugnansko-russkij slovarʼ: v trech tomach [Šuγni-Russian dictionary: in three volumes]. Tom I, 1988. Tom II, 1991. Tom III, 1999. Tom IV[!], 2005. Moscow: Nauka. Karimi Doostan, Gholam Hossein 1990 An Etymological Dictionary of Kurdish Dialect of Badra, Ilam. With its phonemic description. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Shiraz. Kellens, Jean and Éric Pirart 1988−1991 Les textes vieil-avestiques. 3 vols. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Kent, Roland G. 1953 Old Persian. Grammar. Texts. Lexicon. New Haven: American Oriental Society. Kieffer, Charles M. 1979 Études parāči. IV. Le lexique parāči: Glossaire. Studia Iranica 8. 67−106, 245−267. Kieffer, Charles M. 1980 Études parāči. IV. Le lexique parāči: Glossaire. Studia Iranica 9. 99−119, 233−249. Kipfer, Barbara Ann 2005 Roget’s 21st century thesaurus in dictionary form. 3 rd edn. […]. Edited by the Princeton Language Institute. New York: Bantam Dell. Klein, Jared S. 1988 Proto-Indo-European *gwiH3 - ‘live’ and related problems of laryngeals in Greek. In: Alfred Bammesberger (ed.), Die Laryngaltheorie und die Rekonstruktion des indogermanischen Laut- und Formensystems. (Indogermanische Bibliothek. 3. Reihe: Untersuchungen). Heidelberg: Winter, 257−279. Korn, Agnes 2003 Balochi and the Concept of North-West Iranian. In: Jahani and Korn (eds.), 49−60. Korn, Agnes 2005 Towards a Historical Grammar of Balochi. Studies in Balochi Historical Phonology and Vocabulary. (Beiträge zur Iranistik 26). Wiesbaden: Reichert.

593

594

VI. Iranian Korn, Agnes 2006 Parthian Month Names and Calendars. Parthica. Fascicoli monografici 8 (= Antonio Invernizzi [ed.], Papers presented to David Sellwood. Pisa 2006[2007]): 153−167. Korn, Agnes 2009 Archaismus und Innovation im Verbalsystem des Balochi. Iranistik. Deutschsprachige Zeitschrift für iranistische Studien 12: 103−112. Kozyreva, T[amara] Z[aurbekovna] 1962 Leksika osetinskogo jazyka s točki zrenija ee istoričeskogo proischoždenija [Lexicon of Ossetic from the point of view of its historical origin]. Izvestija Severo-Osetinskogo naučno-issledovateľskogo instituta. Jazykoznanie 23: 45−63. Kozyreva, T[amara] Z[aurbekovna] 1964 Iz istorii osetinskoj leksikografii [From the history of Ossetic lexicography]. Izvestija Severo-Osetinskogo Naučno-Issledovatel’skogo Instituta. Jazykoznanie 24: 143−156. Kulikov, Leonid 2009 Vedic piśá- and Atharvaveda-Śaunakīya 19.49.4 = Atharvaveda-Paippalāda 14.8.4: A note on the Indo-Iranian bestiary. Journal of Indo-European Studies 37: 141−154. Kümmel, Martin J. Der Beitrag der jüngeren iranischen Sprachen zur Rekonstruktion des UrindoiraTo appear1 nischen. In: Antonio Panaino, Claudia Fabrizio, Hans Christian Luschützky, Céline Redard, and Velizar Sadovski (eds.), Linguistic Studies of Iranian and Indo-European Languages. Proceedings of the Symposium in memory of Xavier Tremblay (1971−2011). (Sitzungsberichte der ÖAW. Phil.-hist. Klasse: Iranische Onomastik). Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 72−102. Kümmel, Martin J. *nāf-. To appear2 Kurdoev, Kanat K. 1960 Kurdsko-russkij slovar’ okolo 34000 slov s prilozˇeniem kratkogo grammaticˇeskogo ocˇerka kurdskogo aˆzyka [Kurdish-Russian dictionary of nearly 34,000 words with the addition of a short grammatical sketch of the Kurdish language]. Moscow: Akademiaˆ nauk SSSR, Institut vostokovedeniaˆ. Kurdoev, Kanat K. and Zara A. Jusupova 1983 Kurdsko-russkij slovar’ (sorani) [Kurdish (Sorani)-Russian dictionary]. Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe Izdateľstvo Inostrannyx i Nacionaľnyx Slovarej. Lambton, Ann K. S. 1988 Persian Vocabulary. 5 th reprint. London: Cambridge University Press. [First published 1954.] Lescot, Roger 1939 La réforme du vocabulaire en Iran. Revue des études islamiques 13: 76−96. Lubotsky, Alexander 2001 Reflexes of Proto-Indo-European *sk in Indo-Iranian. Incontri Linguistici 24: 24−57. Lubotsky, Alexander 2002 The Indo-Iranian word for ‘shank, shin’. Journal of the American Oriental Society 122: 318−324. Lubotsky, Alexander 2006 Indo-European ‘heel’. In: Raffaella Bombi, Guido Cifoletti, Fabiana Fusco, Lucia Innocente, and Vincenzo Orioles (eds.), Studi Linguistici in Onore di Roberto Gusmani. Alessandria: Editioni dell’Orso, 1005−1010. Lubotsky, Alexander 2015 Alanic Marginal Notes in a Greek Liturgical Manuscript. (Sitzungsberichte der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Phil.-hist. Klasse, 859. Band / Grammatica Iranica, ed. by Velizar Sadovski, Nr. 2). Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.

36. The lexicon of Iranian Lubotsky, Alexander To appear Etymological Dictionary of Indo-Iranian. (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series). Leiden: Brill. Lurje, Pavel B. 2010 Personal Names in Sogdian Texts. (= Iranisches Personennamenbuch, Band II, Faszikel 8). (Sitzungsberichte der ÖAW. Phil.-hist. Klasse, 808. Band: Iranische Onomastik 8). Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. MacKenzie, David Neil 1990 A concise Pahlavi dictionary. London: Oxford University Press. [First Published 1971.] MacKenzie, David Neil 1999 Iranica Diversa. 2 vols. Rome: Istituto italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente. Mahmoodzahi, Mossa 1991 An Etymological Glossary of Baloochi Language. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Shiraz. Majidi, Mohammad-Reza 1995 Strukturelle Grammatik des Neupersischen (Fārsi). Band 3: Rückläufiges persisches Wörterbuch. Eine lexikalisch-morphologische Untersuchung mit Methoden der Linguistischen Datenverarbeitung. (Strukturelle Grammatik des Neupersischen 3). Hamburg: Buske. Mayrhofer, Manfred 1986−2001 Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen. (Indogermanische Bibliothek. II. Reihe: Wörterbücher). I: A−D. [1986−]1992. II: N−H. [1992−]1996. III: Die jüngere Sprache. [1996−]2001. Heidelberg: Winter. Mayrhofer, Manfred 2005 Die Fortsetzung der indogermanischen Laryngale im Indo-Iranischen. (Sitzungsberichte der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Phil.-hist. Klasse, 730. Band). Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Mayrhofer, Manfred 2006 Einiges zu den Skythen, ihrer Sprache, ihrem Nachleben. (Sitzungsberichte der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Phil.-hist. Klasse, 742. Band / Veröffentlichungen zur Iranistik, Nr. 36). Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Milizia, Paolo 2012 The etymology of the Avestan hapax bixəδra- and the exegesis of Vidēvdād 19.21. IndoIranian Journal 55: 101−117. Moayyad, Heshmat 1962 Zum Problemkreis und Stand der persischen Lexikographie. Annali dell’Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli, N. S. 12: 1−81. Morgenstierne, Georg 1927 An Etymological Vocabulary of Pashto. (Skrifter utgitt av det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo, Hist.-fil. klasse 1927, 3). Oslo: Aschehoug [later Universitetsforlaget]. Morgenstierne, Georg 1932 Notes on Balochi etymology. Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskab 5: 37−53. Morgenstierne, Georg 2003 A New Etymological Vocabulary of Pashto. Compiled and ed. by Josef Elfenbein, David Neil MacKenzie, and Nicholas Sims-Williams. (Beiträge zur Iranistik 23). Wiesbaden: Reichert. Narten, Johanna 1969 Idg. ‘Kinn’ und ‘Knie’ im Avestischen: zanauua-, zānu-drājah-. Indogermanische Forschungen 74[1970]: 39−53. Nussbaum, Alan 1986 Head and Horn in Indo-European. Berlin: De Gruyter.

595

596

VI. Iranian Nyberg, Henrik Samuel 1974 A Manual of Pahlavi. II: Glossary. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Omar, Feryad Fazil 1992 Kurdisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch (Kurmancî) / Ferhenga kurdî-elmanî. Berlin: Kurdische Studien / Verlag für Wissenschaft und Bildung. Panaino, Antonio To appear Av. zruuan-. Pejsikov, Lazar’. S. 1975 Leksikologija sovremennogo persidskogo jazyka [Lexicology of Modern Persian]. Moscow: Izdateľstvo Moskovskogo universiteta. Pohl, Heinz Dieter 1975 Rückläufiges Wörterbuch des Altpersischen. Klagenfurter Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 1: 11−26. Rastorgueva, Vera S. (ed.) 1981−1991 Osnovy iranskogo jazykoznanija [Fundamentals of Iranian linguistics]. Sredneiranskie jazyki [Middle Iranian languages]. 1981. Novoiranskie jazyki [Modern Iranian languages] [II.]. Vostočnaja gruppa [The eastern group]. 1987. Novoiranskie jazyki [Modern Iranian languages] [I.], Severo-zapadnaja gruppa, I [The northwest group, I]. 1991. Moscow: Nauka. Rastorgueva, Vera S. and Džoj I. Ėdel’man 2000−2007 E˙timologičeskij slovar’ iranskich jazykov [Etymological dictionary of the Iranian languages]. Tom 1: a−ā, 2000. Tom 2: b−d, 2003. Tom 3: f−h, 2007. Moscow: Vostočnaja Literatura. [Tom 4−5: see Ėdel’man 2011−2015.] Rau, Wilhelm 1974 Metalle und Metallgeräte im vedischen Indien. (Abhandlungen der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse / Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur [Mainz]; Jg. 1973, Nr. 8). Wiesbaden: Steiner. Rosenfeld, A. Z. 1961 Tadžiksko-persidskie jazykovye otnošenija (po materialam leksiki) [Tajik-Persian linguistic relationships (according to the materials of the lexicon)] Učenye zapiski Leningradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta 294 (filol. 12): 12−42. Rozova, L. I. and V. I. Savina 1975 Slovar’ geograficheskikh terminov i drugikh slov, formirui͡ushchikh toponimii͡u Tadzhikskoǐ SSR [Dictionary of geographical terms and other words forming the toponymy of the Tadjik SSR]. Moscow: Nauk. Sadovski, Velizar 2000 Die exozentrischen Zusammensetzungen mit Vorderglied Präverb/Präposition im R̥gveda: Entheos-Komposita und präpositionale Rektionskomposita. In: Bernhard Forssman and Robert Plath (eds.), Indoarisch, Iranisch und die Indogermanistik. Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 2. bis 5. Oktober 1997 in Erlangen, 455−473. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Sadovski, Velizar 2001 Bahuvrīhis und Rektionskomposita im R̥gveda und Avesta: Reinterpretationen ursprünglicher Entheos-Komposita als Ausgangspunkt für die Herausbildung neuer präpositionaler Rektionskomposita. In: Stefan Wild and Hartmut Schild (eds.), Norm und Abweichung. Akten des 27. Deutschen Orientalistentags, Bonn, 28.09.−02.10.1998, 101−120. (Kultur, Recht und Politik in muslimischen Gesellschaften 1). Würzburg: Ergon. Sadovski, Velizar To appear1 Etymological Dictionary of the Iranian Noun. (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series). Leiden: Brill.

36. The lexicon of Iranian Sadovski, Velizar Studies in historical lexicology and phraseology: from Proto-Indo-Iranian to IraTo appear2 nian. (Sitzungsberichte der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Phil.-hist. Klasse, 850. Band / Grammatica Iranica, Nr. 6). Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Sadovski, Velizar Vedic and Avestan parallels from ritual litanies and practices. In: Lucien van Beek, To appear3 Alwin Kloekhorst, Guus Kroonen, Michael Peyrot, Tijmen Pronk, and Michiel de Vaan (eds.), Indo-Iranian and its Indo-European origins: Proceedings of the workshop in honour of Alexander Lubotsky on the occasion of his 60 th birthday, Leiden University, April 8−9, 2016. Sadovski, Velizar and Antonio Panaino 2013 Disputationes Iranologicae Vindobonenses, II. (Sitzungsberichte der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Phil.-hist. Klasse 845: Veröffentlichungen zur Iranistik 65). Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Samadi, Mahlagha 1986 Das chwaresmische Verbum. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Schapka, Ulrich 1972a Vokabular der im östlichen Afghanistan gesammelten gebräuchlichen Pflanzennamen. Nach den Unterlagen von Otto H. Volk zusammengestellt und bearbeitet. Würzburg: Orientalisches Seminar der Universität Würzburg. Schapka, Ulrich 1972b Die persischen Vogelnamen. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Universität Würzburg. Schindler, Jochem 1969 Die indogermanischen Wörter für ‘Vogel’ und ‘Ei’. Die Sprache 15: 144−167. Schmidt, Gernot 1973 Die iranischen Wörter für ‘Tochter’ und ‘Vater’ und die Reflexe des interkonsonantischen H(ə) in den idg. Sprachen. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 87: 36−83. Schmitt, Rüdiger 1978 Die theophoren Eigennamen mit altiranisch *Miθra-. In: Jacques Duchesne-Guillemin (ed.), Études Mithriaques. Actes du 2 e Congrès International Téhéran, du 1er au 8 septembre 1975. (Acta Iranica 17). Leiden: Brill, 395−455. Schmitt, Rüdiger (ed.) 1989 Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Schmitt, Rüdiger 2000 Kalenderbezogene Personennamengebung im vorislamischen Iran. In: Laurent Dubois and Emilia Masson (eds.), Philokypros. Mélanges de philologie et d’antiquités grecques et proche-orientales dédiés à la mémoire d’Olivier Masson. (Minos: Suplementos, 16). Salamanca: Universidad de Salamanca, Seminario de Filología Clásica, 267−276. Schmitt, Rüdiger (ed.) 2014 Wörterbuch der altpersischen Königsinschriften. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Shaked, Shaul 2002 Towards a Middle Persian dictionary. In: Philip Huyse (ed.), Iran. Questions et connaissances. Actes du IV e Congrès Européen des études iraniennes organisé par la Societas Iranologica Europaea Paris, 6−10 septembre 1999. Vol. I. La période ancienne. (Studia Iranica − Cahier 25, 1). Paris: Association pour l’Avancement des Études Iraniennes, 120−134. Sims-Williams, Nicholas 2000−2007 Bactrian documents from Northern Afghanistan. (Studies in the Khalili Collection 3 / Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum, Part II: Inscriptions of the Seleucid and Parthian Periods and of Eastern Iran and Central Asia, Vol. VI: Bactrian). Vol. I: Legal and

597

598

VI. Iranian economic documents. 2000. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Vol. II: Letters and Buddhist texts. 2007. Oxford: Nour Foundation, Azimuth Editions. Sims-Williams, Nicholas 2010 Bactrian Personal Names. (= Iranisches Personennamenbuch, Band II, Faszikel 7). (Sitzungsberichte der ÖAW. Phil.-hist. Klasse, 806. Band: Iranische Onomastik, Nr. 7). Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Sims-Williams, Nicholas 2016a A Dictionary: Christian Sogdian, Syriac and English. (Beiträge zur Iranistik 41). Wiesbaden: Reichert. Sims-Williams, Nicholas 2016b English index to the Dictionaries of Manichaean and Christian Sogdian. Online at academia.edu 2016 (last access 12.07.2016). Sims-Williams, Nicholas and Desmond Durkin-Meisterernst 2012 Dictionary of Manichaean Sogdian and Bactrian. (Dictionary of Manichaean Texts, Vol. III/2). Turnhout: Brepols. Sohn, Peter 1996 Die Medizin des Zādsparam. Anatomie, Physiologie und Psychologie in den Wizīdagīhā ī Zādsparam, einer zoroastrisch-mittelpersischen Anthologie aus dem frühislamischen Iran des neunten Jahrhunderts. (Iranica 3). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Steblin-Kamenskij, Ivan M. 1982 Očerki po istorii leksiki pamirskich jazykov. Nazvanija kuľturnych rastenij [Essays on the history of the lexicon of the Pamir languages. Names of cultural plants] Moscow: Nauka. Steblin-Kamenskij, Ivan M. 1999 Ėtimologičeskij slovar’ vachanskogo jazyka [Etymological dictionary of the Wakhi language]. St. Petersburg: Peterburgskoe Vostokovedenie. Steingass, F[rancis Joseph] 1963 A comprehensive Persian-English dictionary. 5 th edn. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. [First published 1892. London: Lockwood.] Thordarson, Fridrik 2009 Ossetic Grammatical Studies. (Sitzungsberichte der ÖAW. Phil.-hist. Klasse 788: Veröffentlichungen zur Iranistik, Nr. 48). Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Tremblay, Xavier 2005a Review of Morgenstierne 2003. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique 100: 173−184. Tremblay, Xavier 2005b Iranian Historical Linguistics in the Twentieth Century [Part One]. Indo-European Studies Bulletin 11/1: 1−23. Tremblay, Xavier 2008 Iranian Historical Linguistics in the Twentieth Century Part Two. Indo-European Studies Bulletin 13/1: 1−51. Tremblay, Xavier 2009 Iranian Historical Linguistics in the 20th Century, especially since the publication of the Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum (1989). Part Three: Old Persian, Middle, and New Iranian Languages. Indo-European Studies Bulletin 14/1−2: 341−351. Verrier, Eugène 1887 La médecine dans l’Avesta ou traité de médecine mazdéenne traduit du pahlavi. Journal de médecine de Paris 13: 141−152. Vullers, Johann August 1962 Lexicon Persico-Latinum etymologicum. Cum linguis maxime cognatis Sanscrita et Zendica et Pehlevica comparatum e lexicis Persice scriptis Borhâni Qâtiu, Haft Qulzum et Bah’ari agam et Persico-Turcico Farhangi-Shuûrî confectum, adhibitis etiam Castelli,

37. The dialectology of Iranian

599

Meninski, Richardson et aliorum operibus et auctoritate scriptorum Persicorum adauctum. Accedit appendix vocum dialecti antiquioris, Zend et Pazend dictae. Vol. 1−3. Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt. [First published 1855−1867. Bonnae ad Rhenum: Marcus.] von Wartburg, Walther 1922−2002 Französisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch. Eine Darstellung des galloromanischen Sprachschatzes (25 Bde.). Leipzig: Teubner. Windfuhr, Gernot (ed.) 2009 The Iranian Languages. (Routledge Language Family Series). London: Routledge. Yakubovič, I[ľja] S. 2013 Novoe v sogdijskoj ėtimologii [New developments in Sogdian etymology]. (Studia philologica). Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskoj kuľtury. Zadok, Ran 2009 Iranische Personennamen in der neu- und spätbabylonischen Nebenüberlieferung. (= Iranisches Personennamenbuch, Band VII, Faszikel 1B). (Sitzungsberichte der ÖAW. Phil.-hist. Klasse, 777. Band: Iranische Onomastik, Nr. 4). Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Velizar Sadovski, Vienna (Austria)

37. The dialectology of Iranian 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Definition Origins Name and main features Classification Documentation and history

6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Old Iranian Middle Iranian New Iranian Bibliography References

1. Definition Since the mid-19 th century, the ethnic-linguistic term “Iranian” has been used to denote a major group of languages currently spoken in a wide area spread across the Iranian Plateau and stretching from Central Turkey, Syria, and Iraq in the west to parts of Pakistan, most of Afghanistan, and the western frontier of China in the east and from the Caucasus area, Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan in the north-west, as well as the Central Asian republics of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan in the north-east down to the Persian Gulf and the Musandam peninsula in Oman across the Strait of Hormuz in the south (not to mention the diaspora communities, particularly those of Europe, Israel, and North America). In medieval times, before the spread of the Turkic peoples, Sakas and Sogdians were established even further east, up to northern Mongolia and the region that later became known as Chinese Turkestan (Xinjiang province). In a still earlier period, before the rise of the Achaemenids, Iranian-speaking peoples were to be found along the northern and western shores of the Black Sea. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261288-037

600

VI. Iranian

2. Origins Within the Indo-European language family, the Iranian and Indo-Aryan language groups constitute the Indo-Iranian or Aryan branch, together with the Nūristānī languages (formerly called Kāfirī, not to be confounded with the Dardic languages belonging to the Indo-Aryan group). The precise relationship of this third subgroup to the other two is much disputed. On the basis of the combined linguistic, ethnological, and archaeological evidence, it seems probable that the Nūristānī group originally belonged to the IndoAryan branch but separated from it before the migration of the Indo-Aryans into the Indian subcontinent, while the common features shared with the Iranian languages result from later intensive contacts (Degener 2002). The Indo-Aryan and Iranian tribes parted around 2000 BCE, but the discussion of the original homeland of the Indo-Iranians is not yet closed, although the Central Asian steppes and the area to the east and northeast of the Caspian Sea seem to be the most likely candidates (Parpola 2002). From there, Iranian tribes migrated westwards over the Iranian Plateau about a millennium later, and the names of the Parsuaš (Persians) and Matai (Medes) are attested in the Assyrian inscriptions around the middle of the 9 th century BCE.

3. Name and main features The New Persian name Īrān goes back to MPers. Ērān and is ultimately derived from OPers. ariya- (< Ir. *arya-), a term originally used as a self-designation for all speakers of Aryan/Indo-Iranian in India and Iran. Indo-Aryan and Iranian languages share a number of exclusive innovative features on the phonological, morphological, syntactical, and lexical levels against the other IE language groups, such as the development of PIE *a, e, o to PI-Ir. *a (and PIE *ā, ē, ō to PI-Ir. *ā), the palatalization of PIE *k, k u̯ to PI-Ir. *č before front vowels, the development of PIE *s to I-Ir. *š after *i, u, r, k and their allophones, etc. Despite these similarities, Iranian languages also differ from Indo-Aryan by a number of characteristic innovations such as the loss of voiced aspirates: PIE, PIIr. *b h, d h, g h > Iran. *b, d, g, the development of the voiceless fricatives: PI-Ir. *p, t, k >Iran. *f, θ, x preceding a consonant, the depalatalization of PIIr. *ć, *ȷ́ h to Iran. *ʦ, ʣ etc. The development of *s to *h (intervocalically and in initial position before vowels) − also characteristic of Greek and Armenian − is a fairly late Proto-Iranian sound change of the early 1st millennium BCE.

4. Classification Mainly on the basis of historical, extra-linguistic criteria, three chronological stages can be discerned in the development of the Iranian languages, commonly referred to as Old, Middle, and New (Modern) Iranian: the transition from Old to Middle Iranian concurred more or less with the breakdown of the Achaemenid empire (4 th/3 rd centuries BCE), while the arrival of the Arabs, the decline of the Sasanian empire, and the rapid expansion of Islam (7 th cent. CE) coincided with the passage from Middle to New Iranian in

37. The dialectology of Iranian the West, which only occurred in the 11th/12 th centuries CE in the East. On the basis of phonological, morphological, and lexical criteria, the Iranian dialects and languages are furthermore divided into western and eastern groups, each with two further subgroups according to the four geographical quadrants (NW, SW, NE, SE), and all more or less separated from one another by the hardly populated regions of the large salt deserts Dašt-e Kavīr and Dašt-e Lūt. This distribution is only fully distinguishable in the modern languages, however.

5. Documentation and history Of the Old Iranian languages, only Avestan and Old Persian are attested by texts of a (very) limited corpus with thematically restricted contents, while Median and Scythian are only known through indirectly transmitted words and names. Our fragmentary − especially: lexical − knowledge of the earliest levels needs therefore to be complemented by materials from the Middle and New Iranian languages, as well as from the collateral tradition (i.e. attestations of Iranian forms, chiefly names, in non-Iranian sources). Actually, of all the Iranian languages, Persian is the only one for which textual evidence is known for all three periods. Modern Yaɣnōbī belongs to the same dialect group as Sogdian on the Middle Iranian level, but is not a direct descendant; similarly, Bactrian seems to be closely related to modern Yidɣā and Munǰī, while Wakhī shares distinct reflexes with Khotanese(/Tumshuqese) and Ossetic with Alanic.

6. Old Iranian Old Iranian includes the Kleincorpussprachen Avestan and Old Persian, as well as the indirectly attested languages Median and Scythian (with its varieties) and the non-attested ancestors of most Middle and Modern Iranian languages.

6.1. Avestan Avestan is the ritual and literary language of the Zoroastrian scriptures, the Avesta. The earliest parts of the corpus are the Gāthās (‘songs’) and the Yasna Haptaŋhāiti (‘service consisting of seven chapters’) as well as some further Yasna fragments, transmitted in the archaic Old Avestan or Gāthic dialect, which was close to Vedic Old Indic. Later or Younger Avestan is attested in a larger corpus including the Yashts (‘hymns’) and the Vīdēvdād (‘Law against the demons’), but the language is not the direct descendant of Old Avestan (a few Young Avestan texts like the Yeŋ́hē Hātąm prayer are written in Pseudo-Old Avestan imitating the Gāthic dialect). It has been argued that there existed a third “Middle” Avestan dialect, clearly presenting more archaic specifics than Young Avestan, but different from Old Avestan (Tremblay 2006). The Avestan language presents several dialectal features, but it is hard to determine at what stage of the composition, transmission, or copying of the “original” text they were introduced. The whole

601

602

VI. Iranian of the Avestan corpus constitutes less than one tenth of the Vedas, and the Old Avestan parts are only half of the tiny Old Persian inscriptional corpus. Moreover, Avestan has no immediate descendant on the Middle and New Iranian levels and for a long time, the entire corpus was transmitted orally, before it was written down in a specially invented and elaborate alphabetic script, presumably in late Sasanian times. For all these reasons, Avestan phonology, morphology, and partly syntax are fairly well known, but the precise meaning of many Old Avestan hapax legomena is difficult to grasp. Avestan is usually counted among the eastern dialects (further details in Skjærvø 1995: 159 ff.), but it does not present the typical phonological developments of East-Iranian languages in later periods.

6.2. Old Persian Old Persian is the language of the Achaemenid royal inscriptions (ca. 558−330 BCE), among which the Bīsotūn inscription of Darius I (521/520 BCE) is the oldest written Iranian text and perhaps the first written in the proper cuneiform script. The language of the inscriptions is not entirely identical with the south-western dialect of Fārs, but being a “mixed” court language, it contains many extraneous words and elements (Schmitt 1984; Bruno Tibiletti 1992), which is hardly surprising in a multi-ethnic empire. Later Old Persian inscriptions present a number of features anticipating (Proto-)Middle Persian.

6.3. Median No authentic Median texts have been found so far, and the language is known only through indirect testimony in New Assyrian, “medisms” in Old Persian (and the NeoBabylonian translations of the Achaemenid inscriptions) and Greek loanwords. On the basis of the very few distinctive phonological features (Med. sp vs. OPers. s < PIE *k̑u̯, Med. z vs. OPers. d < PIE *g̑ and g̑ h, Med. s vs. OPers. θ Arm. hr or Ir. *d > Arm. h vs. Parth. *δ and MPers. y). Thus, the Classical Armenian triplets sparapet ‘generalissimo’, spay ‘army’, and spah ‘sepoy’ are derived, respectively, from Parth., MPers., and a presumed special “Zoroastrian” stratum of MPers. in which *d was represented by h.

7.1. Parthian Parthian was a local language in the area east of the Caspian Sea and became the official language of the Arsacid dynasty (ca. 247 BCE−224 CE). It is known from a few inscriptions (the longest of which are actually the Parthian versions of the bi- and trilingual royal inscriptions of the first Sasanian rulers in the 3 rd century CE), coin legends, a large archive on ostraca from the capital Nisa, as well as from the Manichaean texts from Turfan. In later texts from Turfan, Parthian and Middle Persian are sometimes mixed (Durkin-Meisterernst 2003). Parthian sometimes agrees with Sogdian against Middle Persian.

7.2. Middle Persian Middle Persian was one of the local languages of south-western Iran and became the official language of the Sasanian dynasty (224−651 CE). It is known from royal and private inscriptions, Manichaean texts, a translation of the Psalms of David (the Pahlavi Psalter), legends on coins and seals, documents on papyrus and parchment from late Sasanian and early Islamic times, and from the Mazdean “Pahlavi” books which postdate the Sasanian period (9 th−10 th centuries CE).

603

604

VI. Iranian

7.3. Bactrian Bactrian was the official language of the Kushan empire (1st−3 rd centuries CE), situated in northern Afghanistan. With the exception of the one − still unpublished − Manichaean Bactrian leaf in Manichaean script, Bactrian is written in a variant of the Greek script, a heritage after the conquest of Bactria by Alexander the Great in 323 BCE, with the use of an additional sign þ for *š and the abandonment of ξ and ψ. Linguistically, Bactrian occupies an intermediate position between western Parthian and eastern Sogdian and Choresmian. A large collection of economic and legal documents and letters on leather, cloth, and wood written in the Graeco-Bactrian cursive script and datable within a range from 342 to 781 CE constitute the most enriching source for the knowledge of the language (Sims-Williams 2002).

7.4. Sogdian Sogdian is the language of the kingdom of Sogdiana (present-day Uzbekistan and Tajikistan). It served as a sort of lingua franca for the merchants on the Silk Road trading with China. Several chronological stages or local variants can be discerned: the oldest level with substantial materials is that of the “Ancient Letters” from the early 4 th century CE and written in “Sogdian” script, ultimately derived from Aramaic script like its Manichaean and Buddhist counterparts. The official documents of the last independent ruler of Penjikent from Mount Muɣ near Samarkand date from the 8 th century CE and are written in a cursive variant of the Sogdian script. Manichaean texts were written in the Sogdian and Manichaean script and contain many original works as well as translations from Parthian and Middle Persian. Christian Sogdian texts, mostly translations from Syriac, were written in Nestorian Syriac script, while Buddhist texts written in Buddhist Sogdian script are mainly translations from Chinese. Late Sogdian inscriptions with Turkish elements go back to the 10 th−11th centuries CE. The oldest and latest strata of Sogdian differ considerably with regard to nominal and verbal inflection, but all in all, dialectal differences seem to be trivial given the long chronological and wide geographical settings. Sogdian borrowed many loanwords from the two Western Iranian languages and lent itself many words to Turkish Uighur. The three neighbouring languages Bactrian in the south, Choresmian in the west, and Khotanese in the east share many linguistic features with Sogdian.

7.5. Choresmian Choresmian was spoken in the area around the delta and along the lower course of the Oxus river (Āmū Daryā). Two chronological stages can be distinguished: Middle Choresmian, written in an indigenous variant of the Aramaic script, and attested in some inscriptions on silver vessels, coin legends, and documents on leather and wood mostly dating from ca. 200−700 CE. The interlinear Late Choresmian glosses of the 13 th century CE found in a number of Arabic works make use of a modified Arabo-Persian script and constitute the main source for study of the language.

37. The dialectology of Iranian

7.6. Khotanese and Tumshuqese Khotanese was spoken in the Buddhist kingdom of Khotan located along the western part of the Southern Silk Road in Chinese Turkestan, while Tumshuqese was spoken on the Northern Silk Road in a local kingdom in the area of Kucha. Both languages are written in different variants of the Brāhmī script. At least two chronological stages of the language can be discerned in the few Tumshuqese texts, while three chronological stages are attested in the numerous Khotanese documents of Buddhist colouring: Old (5 th−6 th centuries CE), Middle (7 th−8 th centuries CE) and Late (9 th−10 th centuries CE) (Skjærvø 2002: lxx−lxxi).

7.7. Alanic Alanic appears to be an ancient relative of Ossetic, although the textual evidence is limited to a funerary inscription dated from the time between the 10 th and 12 th centuries CE, two verses in one of the writings of the Byzantine author Johannes Tzetzes in the 12 th century and some thirty marginal glosses intended to identify Christian feasts and liturgical calendar dates in a Byzantine Greek manuscript copied in 1275 CE (Alemany 2000; Engberg and Lubotsky 2003). Other related dialects are Sarmatian, of which we have only some onomastic traces, and Jassic, the language of an Alanic-Ossetic tribe installed in Hungary from the 13 th century CE onwards, for which a word-list of 34 words dated after 1422 CE and related to daily goods and agricultural products is preserved.

8. New Iranian In addition to the numerous non-literary dialects, several New Iranian languages (and their dialects) possess a more or less long literary tradition, such as Persian (Fārsī, with its variants Darī in Afghanistan and Toǰīkī in Tajikistan), Ossetic (though situated in the Caucasus area, the language belongs to the north-eastern subgroup with its two main variants, the generally more archaic western dialect Digoron, limited to some scattered communities in North Ossetia, and the eastern dialect Iron, spoken by a large majority of Ossetians), Kurdish (with its three − strongly diverging − northern, central, and southeastern main variants), Balōčī and its numerous dialects (belonging to the north-western subgroup, but as a result of repeated migrations presently spoken in eastern Iran and western Pakistan, as well as in southern Afghanistan and Central Asia), and Paṣ̌ tō (mainly spoken in Afghanistan and Pakistan).

9. Bibliography When the Grundriß der iranischen Philologie was published at the turn of the 19 th−20 th century, it contained full descriptions of only Avestan, Old, and Middle Persian among

605

606

VI. Iranian the Old and Middle Iranian languages. Since then, the discoveries made during the Turfan and other expeditions in the early 20 th century have led to a tremendous increase in our knowledge of Middle Iranian languages and scripts, as can easily be seen when comparing the subsequent surveys in the relevant volumes and chapters of the Handbuch der Orientalistik (Spuler 1958) or Current Trends in Linguistics (Sebeok 1969). The comprehensive chapters in the Osnovy iranskogo jazykoznanija (Rastorgueva 1979, 1981, 1982, 1987, 1991 and 1997) offer some room for historical grammar, while the shorter Jazyki mira. Iranskie jazyki (Jarceva and Rastorgueva 1997, 1999, 2000) addresses a larger public beyond the small community of Iranists. The most up-to-date and most comprehensive surveys are to be found in the Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum (Schmitt 1989 − with an abridged version in Schmitt 2000) and The Iranian Languages (Windfuhr 2009); while the former volume accords greater importance to phonological and morphological matters and covers in principle all Iranian languages, the latter proposes a more typological approach to the principal languages representing the three chronological periods and four geographical quadrants. From an Indo-Europeanist point of view, one may also want to consult the brief overview by Sims-Williams (1998), as well as the useful presentation of Skjærvø (2006). One gets a good impression of the huge progress achieved in the philological and linguistic fields during the last quarter of a century by comparing the survey of Lazard (1985) with the more recent state-of-theart reports in Cereti and Maggi (2005). The secondary or collateral tradition is dealt with in chapters 2.0.6 and 3.0.4 of the Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum as well as by Schmitt (2005). Finally, the etymological dictionaries of Cheung (2006) and Rastorgueva and Èdel’man (2000, 2003, 2007) seek to bridge the gap between Iranists and IndoEuropeanists.

10. References Alemany, Agustí 2000 Sources on the Alans. A Critical Compilation. In: Nicola Di Cosmo and Denis Sinor (eds.), Handbuch der Orientalistik. Abt. VIII, Band 5. Leiden: Brill. Bruno Tibiletti, Maria Grazia 1992 Elementi ‘stranieri’ nelle iscrizione anticopersiane. In: Giancarlo Bolognesi and Ciro Santoro (eds.), Studi di linguistica e filologia. Charisteria Victori Pisani oblata. II/2. Galatina: Congedo Editore, 69−137. Cheung, Johnny 2006 Etymological Dictionary of the Iranian Verb. Leiden: Brill. Degener, Almuth 2002 The Nuristani Languages. In: Sims-Williams (ed.), 103−117. Durkin-Meisterernst, Desmond 2003 Late Features in Middle Persian Texts from Turfan. In: Ludwig Paul (ed.), Persian Origins − Early Judaeo-Persian and the Emergence of New Persian. Collected Papers of the Symposium, Göttingen 1999. (Iranica 6). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1−13. Engberg, Sysse and Alexander M. Lubotsky 2003 Alanic Marginal Notes in a Byzantine Manuscript: a Preliminary Report. Nartamongae: the Journal of Alano-Ossetic Studies 2: 41−46. Geiger, Wilhelm and Ernst Kuhn (eds.) 1895−1904 Grundriß der Iranischen Philologie. I (Abteilung 1−2; Anhang). II. Strassburg: Trübner. [Repr. 1974. Berlin: De Gruyter].

37. The dialectology of Iranian Jarceva, Viktoria Nikolaevna and Vera S. Rastorgueva (eds.) 1997−2000 Jazyki mira. Iranskie jazyki [Languages of the world. Iranian languages]. I. Jugozapadnye iranskie jazyki [South-western Iranian languages], 1997; II. Severo-zapadnye jazyki [North-western languages], 1999; III. Vostočno-iranskie jazyki [Eastern Iranian languages], 2000. Moscow: Indrik. Lazard, Gilbert 1985 Les études de philologie iranienne. In: Gherardo Gnoli (ed.), The First European Colloquium of Iranology (Rome, June 18 th−20 th, 1983). (Orientalia Romana 6). Rome: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, 53−71. Lubotsky, Alexander M. 1998 Avestan x varənah-: the etymology and concept. In: Wolfgang Meid (ed.), Sprache und Kultur der Indogermanen. Akten der X. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft Innsbruck, 22.−28. September 1996. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität, 479−488. Lubotsky, Alexander M. 2002 Scythian Elements in Old Iranian. In: Sims-Williams (ed.), 189−202. Mayrhofer, Manfred 2006 Einiges zu den Skythen, ihrer Sprache, ihrem Nachleben. (Sitzungsberichte der Österreichen Akademie der Wissenschaften 742). Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1−22. Parpola, Asko 2002 From the Dialects of Old Indo-Aryan to Proto-Indo-Aryan and Proto-Iranian. In: SimsWilliams (ed.), 43−102. Rastorgueva, Vera S. (gen. ed.) 1979−1997 Osnovy iranskogo jazykoznanija [Fundamentals of Iranian linguistics]. I. Drevneiranskie jazyki [Old Iranian languages], 1979; II. Sredneiranskie jazyki [Middle Iranian languages], 1981; III/1. Novoiranskie jazyki: zapadnaja gruppa, prikaspijskie jazyki [New Iranian languages: Western group, Caspian languages], 1982; III/2. Novoiranskie jazyki: vostočnaja gruppa [New Iranian languages: Eastern group], 1987; IV/1. Novoiranskie jazyki: severo-zapadnaja gruppa I [New Iranian languages: North-western group I], 1991; IV/2. Novoiranskie jazyki: severo-zapadnaja gruppa II [New Iranian languages: North-western group II], 1997. Moscow: Nauka. Rastorgueva, Vera S. and Džoj Ju. Èdel’man 2000−2007 Ètimologičeskij slovar’ iranskich jazykov [Etymological dictionary of the Iranian languages]. Vol. 1: a-ā, 2000. Vol. 2: b-d, 2003. Vol. 3. f-h, 2007. Moscow: Vostočnaja literatura. Schmitt, Rüdiger 1984 Zur Ermittlung von Dialekten in altiranischer Zeit. Sprachwissenschaft 9: 183−207. Schmitt, Rüdiger (ed.) 1989 Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Schmitt, Rüdiger 2000 Die iranischen Sprachen in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Schmitt, Rüdiger 2003 Die Sprache der Meder − eine große Unbekannte. In: Giovanni B. Lanfranchi, Michael Roaf, and Robert Rollinger (eds.), Continuity of Empire (?). Assyria, Media, Persia. (History of the Ancient Near East / Monographs 5). Padua: S.A.R.G.O.N., 23−36. Schmitt, Rüdiger 2005 Middle Iranian Words and Names in the Foreign Tradition. In: Carlo G. Cereti and Mauro Maggi (eds.), Middle Iranian Lexicography. Proceedings of the Conference held in Rome, 9−11 April 2001. Serie Orientale Roma XCVIII. (Orientalia Romana 8). Rome: Istituto Italiano per l’Africa e l’Oriente, 49−68.

607

608

VI. Iranian Sebeok, Thomas A. (ed.) 1969 Current Trends in Linguistics. V. Linguistics in South Asia.; VI. Linguistics in South West Asia and North Africa. The Hague: Mouton. Sims-Williams, Nicholas 1998 The Iranian Languages. In: Anna Giacalone Ramat and Paolo Ramat (eds.), The IndoEuropean Languages. London: Routledge, 125−153. Sims-Williams, Nicholas (ed.) 2002 Indo-Iranian Languages and Peoples. (Proceedings of the British Academy 116). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sims-Williams, Nicholas 2002 Ancient Afghanistan and its Invaders: Linguistic Evidence from the Bactrian Documents and Inscriptions. In: Sims-Williams (ed.), 225−242. Skjærvø, Prods Oktor 1995 The Avesta as Source for the Early History of the Iranians. In: George Erdosy (ed.), The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia. Language, Material Culture and Ethnicity. Berlin: De Gruyter, 155−176. Skjærvø, Prods Oktor 2002 Khotanese Manuscripts from Chinese Turkestan in the British Library. A Complete Catalogue with Texts and Translations. With contributions by Ursula Sims-Williams. (Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum, Vol. V, texts VI.) London: The British Library. Skjærvø, Prods Oktor 2006 Iran. vi. Iranian Languages and Scripts. Encyclopaedia Iranica XIII/3. Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda, 344−377. Spuler, Bertold (ed.) 1958 Handbuch der Orientalistik. I, IV: Iranistik. I. Linguistik.; II. Literatur, Lieferung 1−2. Leiden: Brill. Tremblay, Xavier 2006 Le pseudo-gâthique. Notes de lecture avestiques II. In: Antonio Panaino and Andrea Piras (eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of the Societas Iranologica Europæa, held in Ravenna, 6−11 October 2003. Vol. I. Ancient and Middle Iranian Studies. Milan: Mimesis, 233−281. Windfuhr, Gernot (ed.) 2009 The Iranian Languages. London: Routledge.

Philip Huyse, Paris (France)

38. The evolution of Iranian 0. Introduction 1. The vertical perspective: periods 2. The horizontal perspective: isoglosses vs. areal features 3. Changes in morphological categories https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261288-038

4. Typological points: synthetic vs. analytic, inflectional vs. agglutinative patterns 5. Abbreviations 6. References

38. The evolution of Iranian

0. Introduction This section focuses on how the languages of the Iranian (Ir.) branch evolved in the stages following the oldest attestations. It will sketch some major trends in the various fields of grammar, with a certain focus on material that has become available after the publication of Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum (CLI) (Schmidt 1989). Needless to say, this chapter can only present a selection of features and is by no means an exhaustive account.

1. The vertical perspective: periods 1.1. The periodization into Old, Middle, and New stages (OIr., MIr., NIr.) makes particularly good sense for Iranian, coinciding as it does with both important political and cultural phases in the history of the relevant regions which set the terms for the surfacing of new speech varieties. On the other hand, most Ir. languages are only attested from one of the periods. Indeed, Persian is the only Ir. language attested in all three (OP, MP, NP) − one of the Indo-European languages with the longest documented history. Still, there is a considerable degree of continuity and overlapping between the periods, effecting, for instance, the classification of Choresmian as MIr. despite its being attested mainly in the 12 th−13 th centuries. Also, parallel phenomena have occurred at diverse points in various Ir. languages. This subsection will illustrate these points using the example of the evolution of phonological systems in Iranian. 1.2. The Old Iranian varieties − of which only Avestan and Old Persian are attested with a text corpus each − are likely to have been a continuum of dialects, with only OP and presumably the (unattested) OIr. stage of Khotanese being set somewhat apart from the other dialects by a small set of distinctive isoglosses (Sims-Williams 1996: 649). The existence of a Median sound change *hw- > f-, which would be the only feature differentiating Median from other OIr. varieties, remains questionable (cf. Skjærvø 1983a; Lubotsky 1998, 2002: 191−195; see also 2.1 and 2.2 as well as Huyse, this handbook, 6.3). 1.3. While the differences between Proto- and Old Ir. are somewhat minor, more marked developments begin in the later stages of Old Iranian. This applies, for instance, to the monophthongization of aw(a) and ay(a) to ō and ē, respectively, in late Old Iranian (Werba 2006: 284 f.). As far as consonants are concerned, it seems that the first change affected the voiced stops, which yielded fricatives (b, d, g > β, δ, γ, maybe also ǰ > ž). This change operated in postvocalic position in Western Iranian, which is also characterized by a loss of final syllables (cf. 1.5 and 3.2), and generally in Eastern Iranian, except for Khotanese, which preserves word-initial stops as does Western Iranian. In a parallel way, postvocalic voiceless stops become voiced (-p, -t, -k > -b, -d, -g, and perhaps -č > -ǰ, cf. Korn 2005a: 323−327) in Western Iranian (with the exception of Balochi) and in Khotanese, a process which may have started as early as the 5 th century BCE (Schmitt 1976: 376). There is also a widespread tendency in MIr. to reduce consonant clusters with compensatory lengthening of the preceding vowel, e.g. MP tārīg, Khotanese ttāra- ‘dark’ vs. Avestan tąϑra-; Khotanese ṣvīda- ‘milk’ < *xšwifta- (CLI 211).

609

610

VI. Iranian 1.4. The New Iranian stage sees the phonemic systems of several languages being adjusted to those of neighboring languages. This applies to several varieties at the periphery of the Ir.-speaking world: Ossetic has acquired glottalized stops, which are typical for Caucasian languages (cf. Thordarson 2009: 66 f.). Balochi has lost its fricatives (which have re-entered Eastern Balochi secondarily) and acquired retroflex consonants (perhaps under the influence of Indic). Khotanese, Pashto, Yidgha, etc. have retroflex consonants as well. Glottalized and retroflex consonants are mostly, but by no means exclusively, found in loanwords in these languages. Sound changes that have proceeded independently in numerous Ir. languages include the creation of dental affricates (ʦ, ʣ) replacing the palatal affricates (č [ʧ], ǰ [ʤ]) in all or certain contexts. This applies to many Eastern Ir. languages (sometimes with a further change to s, z, CLI 168), e.g. Khotanese ( ts, dz, CLI 213), Bactrian, and Pashto (but not to Sogdian), and also to some dialects of Fārs (Salāmī 2004: 35 f.) and Zazaki. 1.5. Accent is another feature that frequently shows areal influence. The study of its development is impeded by the fact that it is not marked in any of the various scripts employed for Ir. languages. However, the position of the accent can sometimes be inferred from indirect evidence. For instance, the loss of final syllables in Western Iranian is commonly attributed to effects of the accent, i.e. the accent is likely to have been on the syllable (or one of the syllables) preceding the last one at a certain stage (CLI 108). In New Persian, it is generally the last syllable of nominals that is accented (while verbal prefixes attract the accent), but it is not clear when and how exactly this system came about (cf. Cantera 2006: 150−152). The NP pattern has been adopted by languages within its sphere of influence. For instance, the Balochi dialects spoken in Iran, Afghanistan and Turkmenistan largely follow the NP pattern. Conversely, Ir. languages within the Indic sphere tend to show stress patterns governed by syllable quantity: in Khotanese, the accent may have fallen on the last heavy syllable of the word, with the final syllable considered as extrametric, hence unaccented (cf. Emmerick 2009: 383 f.). A similar pattern appears to operate in Karachi Balochi (cf. Korn 2005a: 67−70). The only NIr. language with phonemic (and grammatically relevant) stress is Pashto (CLI 389).

2. The horizontal perspective: isoglosses vs. areal features 2.1. Ir. languages have commonly been divided into an Eastern (EIr.) and a Western (WIr.) subfamily, with each being additionally divided, to a certain extent, into Northern and Southern subgroups. For example, Parthian, Talyshi, Southern Tati, and Vafsi (the last three forming a subgruop called Tatic by Stilo), Zazaki, Semnani, Gilaki, Kurdish (Kurmanji and Sorani), and Balochi are classified as North Western Iranian, whereas Persian, Luri, Caucasian Tat, etc. are treated as South Western Iranian. Sound changes, and to a certain extent also morphological and syntactic features and the distribution of lexical items, have been used to assign these languages to one or the other of these branches. While isoglosses are an indispensable tool for establishing sub-branches of a language family, many of them have not stood the test of closer scrutiny, and dichotomies like Eastern vs. Western, Northern vs. Southern become increasingly blurred as new material and new interpretations have emerged.

38. The evolution of Iranian OIr. in particular does not lend itself to an Eastern vs. Western division (see 1.2), and in the later stages, common features may be the result of language contact rather than of a specifically close genetic relationship. For instance, it seems questionable whether a reconstructed EIr. protolanguage would differ from Proto-Iranian, rather suggesting the concept of a sprachbund for Eastern Iranian (Sims-Williams 1996: 651), the branch including Khotanese and Tumshuqese, Sogdian, Yaghnobi, Choresmian, Bactrian, Ossetic, the Pamir languages (Wakhi, Yidgha, Munji, Yazghulami, Shughni, etc.), and Pashto. Similarly, other material does not always match the hitherto assumed isoglosses. Examples include lexical items which used to be considered as exclusively EIr. (SimsWilliams 1996: 651), but have been since discovered in one or another WIr. language (e.g. *abi-ar- ‘find’, *gari- ‘mountain’, *kuta/ī- ‘dog’). The SWIr. isogloss PIE *tr > OP ç > s(s) (vs. NWIr. ϑr > hr) is shared by Kurdish and Balochi − varieties classified as NWIr. on the basis of their treatment of the PIE palatals (*k̑, *g̑ (h) > s, z), which e.g. implies that Kurdish (cf. MacKenzie 1999, 2: 676) and Balochi cannot descend from Median (which had ϑr). WIr. language changes presumably induced by contact with Persian can be dated to all three periods. Rather than having increased steadily, Persian influence is likely to have taken the form of waves, which could quite well be linked to the periods of political power of the Achaemenid, Sasanid, and later empires. 2.2. As a rule, the lexicon is the prime field to mirror language contact, and Ir. languages are no exception, starting with the less easily identifiable loanwords in Proto-Iranian (among these terms for animals and plants, cf. Lubotsky 2001) and extending to the large portion of adopted vocabulary (from Semitic, Turkic, and many other sources) found in Ir. varieties today. There is not always a discernible motive for the borrowing of a specific item; rather, borrowing mirrors the multilingual situation of the vast majority of speakers of Ir. languages in past and present times. There is also a considerable amount of borrowing among Ir. varieties. This applies to the (presumably Median) OIr. variety from which OP borrowed a considerable number of terms, and to the likewise closely related NWIr. varieties from which Middle and New Persian adopted numerous lexical items. Predictably, loanwords from the respective ecclesiastical and liturgical languages are common in religious texts: owing to the status of MP as a liturgical language of the Manichean church, MP terms have entered other Manichean languages, including terms for key concepts (e.g. gyān ‘soul’ used in Parthian texts). Buddhist terminology (from Old and Middle Indic) in various MIr. languages reflects Parthian features, e.g. Manichean Sogdian z’δmwrδw ‘birth-and-death, saṁsāra’ (cf. Sundermann 1982; Korn 2013: 101−102). While it is not known to what extent such terms were used in the spoken languages, Avestan loanwords in MP and NP (e.g. NP ātaš ‘fire’, cf. Klingenschmitt 2000: 217−229), which have entered the language through Zoroastrianism, show that even clearly religious terms may become words of everyday speech. Ir. loanwords in other languages have played an important role in establishing a relative (and sometimes even absolute) chronology of sound changes. The Parthian and MP borrowings in Armenian are a particularly clear case. For instance, Arm. words such as ǰatuk ‘sorcerer’ (OIr. *yātuka-) indicate that the sound changes OP *ǰ > MP z and (the necessarily subsequent change) OP *y- > MP ǰ- preceded the voicing of the stops (cf. Korn 2003: 55).

611

612

VI. Iranian

3. Changes in morphological categories 3.1. The history of Ir. languages attests various changes in grammatical categories. Some of these may (also) be attributed to the influence of neighboring languages. Nominal and verbal morphology underwent a major refashioning in the MIr. period. The inherited system of eight cases is subject to syncretism already in the later layers of the OIr. texts, and their subsequent developments are parallel in many Ir. languages as well. OP (and all later languages) show a coalescence of the genitive and dative. This is followed by a conflation of the ablative and instrumental. The resulting pattern of six cases is shown by Khotanese and by the inflection of the “light stems” in Sogdian. A coalescence of the nominative and accusative then produces the system of late Khotanese (Emmerick 1968: 250) and of Choresmian, which has a nominative-accusative, a locative-instrumental(-ablative) and a genitive-dative. The instrumental-ablative tends to be replaced by the use of the gen.-dat. with an adposition in later Khotanese (Emmerick 1968: 250; Weber 1980: 132) and in Sogdian (cf. Sims-Williams 1982: 70). Subsequently, the OIr. gen.(-dat.) becomes a general oblique (obl.) case, and the resulting two-way distinction of direct (dir.) vs. obl. is displayed by the older stages of Middle Western Iranian, Bactrian, and by the “heavy stems” in Sogdian; the later inflection of the “light stems” is similar to some extent (Sims-Williams 1982: 68−70). The derivation of the obl.sg. from the OIr. gen.sg. -ahya (cf. Emmerick 2009: 384, 387) is confirmed by the facts that the obl.pl. -ān (< -ānām, see also 3.2) and the obl. of the personal pronouns undoubtedly go back to OIr. genitives (see 3.3). Some EIr. languages are exceptions in that their obl. derives from the instrumental (sg. *-ana, pl. -abiš), e.g. Wakhi -en, pl. -ǝv and similarly in Yidgha and Munji, i.e. from the forms that the Khotanese instrumental-ablative is likely to go back to (cf. Weber 1980: 133; SimsWilliams 1990: 276−278; Emmerick 1968: 257−259, 268). While the direct case is usually the outcome of the OIr. nom. and acc. (implying an intermediary stage with a generalization of the stems in -a), the kinship terms (all in -r) behave somewhat differently. The OIr. accusative gives the obl. form in Persian and Parthian (pidar, mādar, dir. pid, mād, cf. Sims-Williams 1981: 166 ff.), but the Balochi dialectal forms involve the outcome of the OIr. genitive forms, probably implying a Middle Balochi system with obl. pis(s), mās (< OIr. gen. piϑrah, māϑrah) and dir. pit ‘father’, māt ‘mother’ (< OIr. nom. or voc. pitā / pitar, mātā / mātar). The kinship terms have an obl. stem in -r in some NWIr. varieties, as for instance in Zazaki /pēr-, mār-/ ‘father, mother’ vs. dir. /pī, may/ (the -r is even generalized for feminine animates in some varieties) and in Tatic (Stilo 2004: 224), which might perhaps likewise go back to the gen. forms. In Pashto, their obl. also derives from the OIr. genitive, but the direct case is from the accusative (CLI 406). Numerous NIr. languages (among them Semnani, Kurmanji, Pashto, Yaghnobi) have preserved the MIr. two-case-system, and the far-reaching functions of the oblique (including the marking of direct and indirect objects, of the possessor, and of the agent in ergative constructions). Some Ir. languages add new cases to this system. For instance, an innovation apparently common to Gilaki and Balochi has led to the obl. marker being shifted to a neogenitive while a marker -ā is introduced for the remaining obl. functions, perhaps a “consequence of the functional overloading of the genitive when it became a marker of the direct object” (thus Thordarson 2009: 169, speaking about the Ossetic dative). The

38. The evolution of Iranian Ossetic case system seems to have been adjusted to that of neighboring Caucasian languages (CLI 382; Weber 1980: 128 ff.) by grammaticalizing combinations with various postpositions, yielding a system of nine cases. A suffix derived from *arda- ‘side’ gives a neo-dative also in Shughni and Wakhi (Weber 1980: 133). Prefixing of OIr. hača ‘from’ to personal pronouns yields possessive pronouns in Talyshi, Southern Tati, and several Eastern Ir. languages; in the latter, other prepositions can be prefixed to personal and demonstrative pronouns as well (cf. Wendtland 2009: 182−184). In Persian, the substitution of the synthetic inflexion by adpositional phrases is complete: the dir. and obl. case merge already in MP (thus sg. -Ø, pl. -ān, as also in the later Bactrian texts). Syntactic relations are expressed in analytical form, e.g. the enclitic particle -rā (< OP rādiy ‘on account of’) marks (inter alia) identified direct objects in NP (see 3.4). Many MIr. and NIr. languages show group inflection, i.e. the case marker is only used on the last of several coordinated nouns, as for instance in Sogdian (Sims-Williams 1982: 68), Balochi, and Gilaki. 3.2. The widespread loss of final syllables in MIr. also had the effect of eliminating much of the inflectional plural marking. Novel plurals are of the agglutinative type and come about in two ways: either an abstract or collective suffix is grammaticalized as a pl. marker, or a pl. case ending is reinterpreted as a pl. suffix. The latter is the case in NP, where the obl.pl. ending -ān is generalized as pl. marker (already in the MP stage, cf. e.g. Skjærvø 1983b, and similarly also e.g. in Sorani). Much more common is the pl. suffix -hā (< abstract suffix *-iyaϑwa, Sims-Williams 2004: 539). As shown by forms like MP šahrestānīhā ‘regions’, its generalization as a pl. marker proceeded via a stage where the suffix had a collective and/or distributive function (cf. CLI 155). This is also reflected by the fact that NP -ān is still regarded as more polite for humans while inanimates (with the exception of setāregān ‘stars’) have only -hā. In other Ir. varieties (e.g. Kurmanji, Balochi), -ān is still the suffix of the obl.pl. while the direct case is not marked. In some languages, -hā and/or -ān are used besides other pl. markers, the latter e.g. in Talyshi and Tati as well as in Pashto and other EIr. varieties (cf. Thordarson 2009: 181; CLI 379; Wendtland 2009: 178 f.). Other collective suffixes used as pl. markers include -gal (‘group, herd’), which is employed e.g. in varieties of the Kurdish and Luri groups and in some of the Central and Fārs dialects, and EIr. -t (< abstract-collective *-tā, Sims-Williams 1979: 337; 1990: 276) in Sogdian, Yaghnobi, Ossetic, Yazghulami, and Wakhi, to which the case endings of the singular (if any) are attached (cf. CLI 379). Inflectional plurals are found in Zazaki, Semnani, Bactrian, Pashto, etc., usually with a palatal vowel as dir.pl. marker, perhaps deriving from a plural of the i-stems or from a pronominal ending (Nicholas Sims-Williams, p.c.). Some forms of the dual are found in several languages, but the category “has not survived as a functioning feature” (Emmerick 5.1.1 for Khotanese). In Sogdian, it is reinterpreted as a form following numerals (hence called “numerative”); the Pashto numerative might derive from a dual as well (Sims-Williams 1979: 339−341). 3.3. Developments in the pronominal system are largely parallel to those of the nouns as far as case is concerned (see 3.1). Insofar as there are differences between nominal

613

614

VI. Iranian and pronominal paradigms (e.g. in the elements used for the formation of neo-cases), the demonstratives are in a kind of pivotal position, in some features agreeing with the nouns, in others with the pronouns of the 1st and 2 nd persons. In those Ir. varieties which have a two-case system, the obl. of the 1st and 2 nd person derives from OIr. sg. mana, tawa; pl. ahmāk/xam, ušmāk/xam; this form is the basis for the obl. forms of the pronouns e.g. in Ossetic (CLI 472; Thordarson 2009: 84, 176). In the plural, the obl. form is often the common one for both dir. and obl. case, and this applies to the New Persian pronouns in general. Yaghnobi likewise has 1sg. man for dir. and obl., but the 2sg. has two different forms (dir. tu, obl. taw) − a typologically noteworthy pattern. Likewise remarkably, Bactrian and various Pamir languages share the peculiarity of having a 2pl. pronoun that is based on the 2sg. (e.g. Bactr. τoμαχο / τωμαχο, Sims-Williams 1996: 651). Enclitic pronouns (pronominal clitics) have been preserved in most MIr. and NIr. languages (exceptions include Zazaki and Kurmanji), and are widely used to index the possessor (NP ketāb-am ‘my book’) as well as direct and indirect objects, and the agent of ergative constructions (see 3.4 and 3.8). There is considerable freedom regarding the elements of the sentence to which they may be affixed, Wackernagel’s position being one option (which some languages define as the position after the first word, others as the one after the first constituent of the clause). Also a common position for a pronominal clitic, specifically one indexing the agent in an ergative construction, is after the object. In some varieties, clitics may be inserted between prefix and verb, as for instance in Kurdish, e.g. Sorani da-m-dayt-ē ‘you give [it] to me’ (with the adposition -ē ‘to’ suffixed to the verb and the enclitic pronoun -m- as its complement infixed between the present prefix and the verb, Jügel 2009: 153) and Vafsi (cf. Stilo 2004: 239). 3.4. The transformations of the case system are paralleled by a change in the criteria determining case assignment, specifically in the marking of the direct object. In the OIr. and the more archaic MIr. languages, it is the syntactic context that triggers a certain case (adapting terminology used by Bashir 2008: 49−52, this might be termed “syntactic object marking”, SOM, e.g. Avestan uta druuā̊ aspəm viste ‘the wicked one obtains the/ a horse’, JamaspAsa 1982: § 82), but in the vast majority of NIr. languages, case marking “depends on inherent semantic properties of the object (animacy, person) or its referential status (definite, indefinite, specific, non-specific)” (Bashir 2008: 52). For this phenomenon, “[t]he term ‘identified object marking’ (IOM) has been used to refer to casemarking patterns in which the more salient or affected a D[irect] O[bject] is − with salience ranked according to animacy and/or definiteness scales − the more likely it is to be case-marked” (ibid.), with different features being relevant in the various languages. For instance, identified direct objects ([±animate]) are marked with the particle -rā in NP (see 3.1), while the generic noun is used for an unidentified object, e.g. asbØ mībīnam ‘I see a horse / horses’ (unmarked for case and number) vs. asb-rā mībīnam ‘I see the (a specific) horse’. In the Vafsi present system and in Ossetic, on the other hand, only animate identified direct objects are in the obl. (which in Ossetic has developed into the gen.), while other objects are unmarked (Stilo 2004: 243; Thordarson 2009: 131−140). 3.5. Animacy / individuation thus arises as a nominal category, while gender distinctions are subject to loss. The neuter is “somewhat marginal” (Sims-Williams 1990: 275) al-

38. The evolution of Iranian ready in Sogdian and Khotanese (Emmerick 2009: 384) and absent from the other MIr. languages. A two-way distinction (masculine, feminine) is preserved in much of EIr. (although some languages are losing it, among these Bactrian, cf. Sims-Williams 2000: 24). There is no trace of gender in attested Western MIr., but masculine and feminine gender must have existed in the (unattested) predecessors of Kurdish (MacKenzie 1954), Zazaki, etc. 3.6. As in the nominal system, some verbal categories are lost, among these the OIr. aorist and perfect, and new ones emerge. The MIr. and NIr. verb is based on the dichotomy of present stem (deriving from the various OIr. present stem formations) vs. past stem (from the verbal adjective / perfect passive participle in -ta-), resulting in a number of synchronically unpredictable paradigms (see also 3.10). To the inherited present stems, many MIr. and NIr. languages add those deriving from OIr. causative stems. Often, these then transitive presents form a pair with an intransitive stem from the zero grade of the same root, thus e.g. Khotanese hamīh- ‘change (tr.)’ (< *fra-maiϑaya-) vs. hamäh- ‘change (itr.)’ (< *fra-miϑa-, Emmerick 5.3.1) and Balochi sōč- (< *-au-) ‘burn (tr.)’ vs. suč- ‘burn (itr.)’ (< *-u-). Transitive verbs may be converted into intransitives by adding -s- (< PIE *-sk̑e-) in Khotanese, Sogdian, MP, Parthian (Weber 1970: 307, 11), and Choresmian (CLI 198). Conversely, intransitives may be converted into transitives (and transitives made causative) by adding a suffix to the present stem, as e.g. Ormuri -āw-, Parachi -ēw- (CLI 380), NP and Yaghnobi -ān-, MP and Balochi -ēn- (the latter also has a double causative in -āēn-), while Sorani combines -ān- and -ēn- in the causative paradigm. Instead of, or in addition to, possessing a past stem deriving from the verbal adjective, many Ir. languages also employ secondary past stems, which are derived from the present stem with the suffixes *-it-, *-āt-, or -ist- (cf. Durkin-Meisterernst 2000: 81−87; Paul 2003: 67−70). Bactrian shares the use of *-āt- with Sogdian and a subgroup of NWIr. that includes Parthian, Zazaki, and Vafsi, while Khotanese has *-ita-, as do Persian, Balochi, and Kurmanji. Synchronically, the present and past stems are subject to a certain amount of redistribution. For instance, the inherited present stems become limited to modal formations in Zazaki, where the new present stem is formed by suffixing -en- (see also 3.10). There are also imperfects based on the present stem in Sogdian, Yaghnobi, Tumshuqese (CLI 221), and some varieties of Talyshi. 3.7. While OIr. expresses mood (see 3.9) and voice distinctions by suffixes, these formations are for the most part supplanted by analytical constructions in the subsequent stages. The OIr. middle survives in the more archaic MIr. languages (Khotanese, Sogdian), though even there only a few verbs are used both in the active and the middle (see Sims-Williams 1994), and is lost elsewhere. The 3pl. middle endings survive in Choresmian (which also has the middle ending for the 3sg.) and Yaghnobi (cf. Tremblay 2002 for discussion). The OIr. passive in -ya- is preserved to a slightly larger extent; it survives in a few verbal stems in Khotanese (Emmerick 5.3.1, 6.1.3), Sogdian (Gershevitch 1954: § 540), and MP (Henning 1934: 210−212), as well as in some NWIr. varieties. Other Ir. languages have morphological passives as well, among these Sorani (suffix -rV-). Eastern Balochi has even acquired a new passive in -īǰ- (from Indic, Bashir 2008: 61−64). It is

615

616

VI. Iranian typologically noteworthy that such passives co-occur with ergative constructions in the same language (see 3.8). In analytical passives, the most commonly used auxiliary is (OIr.) *baw- ‘become’ (as for instance in Sogdian, Parthian, MP, and Balochi). Otherwise verbs of movement are employed, viz. *čyaw- ‘move forward’ in Khotanese (besides other constructions, Emmerick 6.1.3; 2009: 398), Christian Sogdian, Ossetic, Pashto, some Pamir languages, and NP (where šudan has shifted in meaning from ‘move forward’ to ‘become’), and hatın (*ā-i- / ā-gmata-) ‘to come’ in Kurmanji. To some extent, intransitive verbs (see 3.6) may be used for the middle or passive voice. This includes stems which are (diachronically or synchronically) inchoatives, as “the inchoative is typically seen as an action that happens all by itself” (Stilo 2004: 240), thus e.g. stems suffixed with -s- in Sogdian (e.g. yγwsty ‘is taught, learns’ vs. ywc‘teach’, Gershevitch 1954: § 826), and the Vafsi stems suffixed with -uæ (present) / -i-a (with past morpheme -a, e.g. ær-koš-i-a ‘[people] were killed’, ha-koš-i-a ‘[the fire] was killed, i.e. went out’, Stilo 2004: 241). Another strategy to express voice and transitivity is seen in the system of complex predicates, i.e. the combination of nominals with semantically bleached verbs (“light verbs”). This strategy of creating new verbs is extremely common in many NIr. languages. The most common light verbs are ‘do’ (as e.g. in NP kardan, Ossetic kænyn, Wakhi tsar-, etc.) for complex predicates expressing [+control] and other nuances, and ‘become’ (NP šodan, Ossetic uyn, Wakhi wots-, etc.) broadly for the meaning [+affected], yielding pairs of the type NP tarǰome kardan ‘to translate’, tarǰome šodan ‘to be translated’ (cf. Thordarson 2009: 77−81; Bashir 2009: 833). In Zazaki, ‘do’ and ‘become’ are used with some preverbs in a similar way, e.g. /ā-kar-/ ‘open (tr.)’ vs. /ā-bī-/ ‘open (itr.)’ (Paul 1998: 96). To this system further light verbs are added chiefly, but by no means exclusively, in languages in contact with NP. 3.8. The category of transitivity becomes increasingly relevant in the stages following OIr. (for tr. and itr. verb stems, see 3.6), especially as far as ergativity is concerned (see below). This is the effect of the past stem being based on the integration of a nominal form (viz. the verbal adjective / perfect passive participle) into the verbal paradigm, which is then combined with various auxiliaries to give the forms of the past / perfect domain. Intransitive verb forms mostly use the copula. For transitive verbs, one strategy is the selection of a transitive auxiliary as e.g. in Sogdian, which uses the verb ‘hold’ for this purpose (e.g. ˒krtw-δ˒rt ‘he did’, CLI 189), effecting a new transitive inflection; in Choresmian the formation with ‘hold’ is generalized for the past of all verbs. The Khotanese transitive paradigm uses another participle formation (cf. Sims-Williams 1997: 322−323) with the copula in the past domain. Alternatively, an ergative pattern arises by the combination of an agent in the obl. case (which includes the enclitic pronouns) with the past stem, to which the copula or the verbal endings − agreeing with the patient − are suffixed. This applies e.g. to Bactrian, Parthian, Pashto, MP, Kurmanji as well as an older layer of Sogdian (CLI 189). In Balochi (and perhaps in Yaghnobi), verbal agreement is limited to the marking of number for a 3pl. patient. Consequently, ergativity in Ir. languages shows a split that agrees with the typological tendency observed by Trask (1979: 388): if there is a tense / aspect split in a given ergative system, it is the past tense / perfective aspect that shows ergativity while the

38. The evolution of Iranian present or imperfective domain patterns NOM/ACC. However, as Ir. ergativity is of the morphological or “surface” type, this statement requires modification insofar as it is the forms based on the past / perfect stem (independent of their tense / aspect function) that show ergativity, including modal forms (e.g. the subjunctive past in Balochi, see 3.9), and the forms based on the present stem may include past tenses (thus e.g. in Sogdian and Yaghnobi, see 3.6). Owing to developments in the nominal and pronominal systems and the use of IOM in most NIr. varieties (see 3.4), case marking patterns in Ir. varieties with ergativity are rarely limited to “purely” ergative vs. nominative/accusative types (cf. Lazard 2005 for a survey) and exhibit all theoretically possible types of argument marking listed by Comrie (1978: 332), including the “double oblique” type with subject and object both in the obl., the verb variously agreeing with the subject (as in Vafsi) or the object (as in Balochi, cf. Korn 2008), or with neither of them (as in Talyshi and the Pamir languages). Persian has come full circle from NOM/ACC through ergative to a novel NOM/ACC system (and so have some other NIr. varieties); the use of the NP pronominal clitics (goft-eš ‘s/he said’, raft-eš ‘s/he went’) for the subject in the past domain is the only reflex of the ergative construction. In Sorani, Semnani, Zoroastrian, and Judeo-Yazdi, etc., the pronominal clitics have become verbal affixes for transitive verbs in the past domain (cf. Scheucher 2006). The results here are two different inflectional paradigms depending on transitivity. 3.9. Some of the OIr. moods survive in Middle and New Iranian. The subjunctive is generally preserved in MIr. languages and in Ossetic (which also preserves the optative, see Lazard 1992) while modal categories are predominantly expressed by novel formations in other NIr. languages. This is predominantly achieved by the grammaticalization of particles, e.g. the prefix bi-, which is used for the future and conditional or subjunctive (sometimes also for a subjunctive past, as in Gilaki and Balochi, which combine the prefix with a suffix -ēn- for this purpose) in many NIr. languages including Pashto (CLI 395), NP (Jahani 2008), Vafsi (besides other modal prefixes, Stilo 2004: 241−242), etc., while the particle kām has modal and/or future uses in Sogdian, Choresmian (see 4.4), and some Central dialects (cf. CLI 256). 3.10. While OIr. verb stems originally indicate aspect, those of later languages indicate tense. A new aspect opposition is found in various NIr. languages, often matching aspectual systems in neighboring languages, and often marked by preverbs. In New Persian, the prefix mī- marks the imperfective aspect. However, in contemporary Modern Persian it does so only in the past tense (kard ‘did’ vs. mī-kard ‘was doing’), while it has been generalized in the present tense (with the exception of the copula and dār- ‘hold, have’), probably because the present tense is seen as an inherently imperfective category (cf. Fritz 1982: 27−28; Jeremiás 1993: 100). In various other Western NIr. languages, other prefixes fulfill the same or a similar function (Jeremiás 1993: 103). Conversely, verbs may be rendered perfective by the prefixing of wə- in Pashto while accent shift achieves this for those verbs that show some other preverb already (Fritz 1982: 27; CLI 395). In Ossetic, any imperfective verb may be converted into a perfective one by the use of one of several preverbs. While this system is strikingly parallel to the one found in Slavic languages, influence from Russian does not date back long enough

617

618

VI. Iranian to be the decisive factor, so language contact with Georgian and other Caucasian languages may have triggered the Ossetic aspect system (Fritz 1982: 27; Thordarson 2009: 67). Still another method employed to express imperfectivity in some NIr. languages is the use of locational expressions (“being in the state of doing”): various Balochi dialects use the infinitive in the obl. case or the present participle + the copula (while others have the prefix a-). Similarly, the Talyshi present tense is a periphrasis of a verbal noun in a locative expression plus the copula (CLI 256).

4. Typological points: synthetic vs. analytic, inflectional vs. agglutinative patterns 4.1. Ir. languages show various periphrastic constructions replacing older analytical ones e.g. in the case system (see 3.1), for the passive voice (see 3.7), and also in the expression of aktionsart or modal categories (see 3.9). Among the modal constructions that can claim the longest traceable history and widest use is the potential construction composed of the perfect passive participle plus a finite form of ‘to do’ as an expression for ‘to be able’ (cf. Sims-Williams 2007). This pattern is attested already in Old Persian, and it is found in Choresmian, Parthian, Khotanese, and Sogdian, e.g. Khotanese ne balysu (…) jsīḍu yan-īndä (not Buddha.ACC deceive.PP.ACC do.PRS-3PL ) ‘they cannot deceive the Buddha’ (Emmerick 1987: 279). It is still in use in several New Ir. languages today, among these the Eastern Ir. varieties Munji and Yaghnobi and in Balochi. Other periphrastic constructions yield aktionsart patterns, thus e.g. a periphrasis with ‘stand’ signalling a progressive in various Ir. languages, to which Avestan examples such as Yt 5, 123 … hištaite dražimnō arǝduuī ‘Arǝduuī is wearing…’ (lit.: ‘A. stands wearing…’) have been compared (Benveniste 1966: 48). The pattern is grammaticalized e.g. in Tajiki (xonda istoda-am ‘I am reading’, cf. Jeremiás 1993: 102−105) and Buddhist Sogd., e.g. wyn˒m ˒štn ‘I am seeing’ (Benveniste 1966: 47), and yields a perfect in Middle Persian and Parthian (cf. Henning 1934: 246) and the present tense in Yaghnobi (wēnomišt ‘I see’). Similarly, the verb ‘hold’ forms a progressive in NP (see 4.4) and several other NIr. languages (Jeremiás 1993: 100, 103, 110) and is also used for the transitive perfect in some Middle EIr. languages (see 3.8). 4.2. While substitution of synthetic constructions by analytic ones is certainly the overall trend in the stages following OIr., synthetic structures play an important role in Iranian. This includes noteworthy archaisms, among these e.g. several cases in Ossetic (four according to Thordarson 2009: 124, 127, 131 f., 147, 157, or even more, Weber 1980), the augment in Yaghnobi, causative vs. intransitive verbal stem pairs (see 3.6) and morphological passives (see 3.7). New synthetic forms developed through the borrowing of suffixes (cf. the Eastern Balochi passive in 3.7) or by the combination of inherited elements, such as the irrealis in Gilaki and Balochi (employing the prefix be- and the suffix -ēn- added to the past stem), or by using adpositions and auxiliaries that become clitics (see 3.1, 3.8−3.9 and 4.1).

38. The evolution of Iranian 4.3. The noun phrase shows divergent developments. NP, Kurdish, and Zazaki display a right-branching pattern in which attributes and adjectives are joined to the head noun by an element called eẓāfe, which in Kurmanji and Zazaki has different forms depending on gender, etc. (see Paul 1998: 30−50 for Zazaki). Accordingly, these languages employ prepositions and have the relative clause after the head noun. The latter also applies to otherwise left-branching Ir. languages that have genitives and adjectives preceding the head noun and a general preference for postpositions (thus e.g. Ossetic, Gilaki, and Balochi). However, the patterns are not entirely consistent, with e.g. at least a few prepositions also in the left-branching Ir. languages. Conversely, some adjectives precede their head noun also in right-branching Ir. languages. This “quite mixed typology” has been interpreted as the effect of Iranian being “sandwiched between typical VO [right-branching] languages” like Arabic “and typical OV [left-branching] languages (Turkic […], North Caucasian […], and Indic […])” (Stilo 2005: 38). While it appears hard to show how such an overall position would translate into factors shaping the development of an individual Ir. variety, noun phrase structure indeed seems liable to be influenced by neighboring languages. One might also interpret (cf. Thordarson 2009: 174 f.) the use of prepositions, postpositions, and circumpositions (as e.g. in Pashto and the Pamir languages) as a reflex of the older flexibility of adpositions, with individual Ir. languages adjusting their preference owing to contact with their respective neighboring languages. This becomes particularly clear when looking at diverging patterns of historically closely related languages, e.g. differences within the Ir. languages of Iranian Azerbaijan (Donald Stilo, p.c.), or the dialects of Balochi. 4.4. The developments in Iranian result in some typologically noteworthy morphological patterns. Some modal and aktionsart constructions contain two finite verb forms, among these patterns of the type NP mī-tavān-am be-rav-am ‘I can go’ (lit.: ‘I can [indicative], I go [subjunctive]’) or dār-am mī-x wān-am ‘I am presently reading’ (lit.: ‘I hold / have, I am reading’), and the Khotanese perfect system (see 3.8), whose modal forms consist of the copula plus the (inflected) perfect and pluperfect tense, e.g. auttä vätāya ‘it would have lasted’ (Emmerick 2009: 396). The grammaticalization of auxiliaries and particles also leads to verb forms in which particles are suffixed to the verbal ending, so that these become quasi-infixes. In Choresmian and Sogdian, the particle kām is suffixed to the present and the subjunctive to yield a future and a conditional, respectively (see also the Yaghnobi present tense in 4.1). Similarly sandwiched are clitics within a verb form such as Yaghnobi na-k-tifarant ‘when they don’t give [it]’, the subordinator -k- following the negation) and Sorani clitics as in 3.3. 4.5. The evolution of Ir. languages shows noteworthy instances of both continuity and innovation. In a number of cases, NIr. languages preserve elements with striking fidelity, among these e.g. the intervocalic voiceless stops in Balochi and EIr. languages, the mobile accent in Pashto, the morphological patterns mentioned in 4.4, plus numerous lexical items. On the other hand, innovations have been carried out independently or by related varieties as a group, and processes differ in the role that language contact may have played.

619

620

VI. Iranian

5. Abbreviations acc. CLI dat. EIr. gen. IOM Ir. itr. MIr. MP NIr.

accusative Schmitt 1989 dative Eastern Iranian genitive identified object marking Iranian Intransitive Middle Iranian Middle Persian New Iranian

nom. NP obl. OIr. OP PIE pl. sg. tr. WIr.

nominative New Persian oblique case Old Iranian Old Persian Proto-Indo-European plural singular transitive Western Iranian

6. References At the time of writing of this chapter, Windfuhr (2009) had not yet been published, and only some draft chapters were available to me. For a survey of Ir. languages, see CLI. Bashir, Elena 2008 Some Transitional Features of Eastern Balochi: An Areal and Diachronic Perspective. In: Carina Jahani, Agnes Korn, and Paul Titus (eds.), The Baloch and Others: Linguistic, historical and socio-political perspectives on pluralism in Balochistan. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 46−82. Bashir, Elena 2009 Wakhi. In: Windfuhr (ed.), 824−862. Benveniste, Émile 1966 Le verbe stā- comme auxiliaire en iranien. Acta Orientalia 30: 45−49. Cantera, Alberto 2006 Review of Philip Huyse. 2003. Le y final dans les inscriptions moyen-perses et la ‘loi rhytmique’ proto-moyen-perse. Studia Iranica 35: 148−153. Comrie, Bernard 1978 Ergativity. In: Winfred Lehmann (ed.), Syntactic Typology: Studies in the Phenomenology of Language. Sussex: The Harvester Press, 329−394. Durkin-Meisterernst, Desmond 2000 Zum parthischen Verbum. In: Forssman and Plath (eds.), 75−88. Eichner, Heiner, Bert Fragner, Velizar Sadovski, and Rüdiger Schmitt (eds.) 2006 Iranistik in Europa − Gestern, heute, morgen. (Veröffentlichungen zur Iranistik 34). Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Emmerick, Ronald 1968 Saka Grammatical Studies. London: Oxford University Press. Emmerick, Ronald 1987 Auxiliaries in Khotanese. In: Martin Harris and Paolo Ramat (eds.), Historical Development of Auxiliaries. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 271−290. Emmerick, Ronald 2009 Khotanese and Tumshuqese. In: Windfuhr (ed.), 377−415. Emmerick, Ronald To appear Appendix. Khotanese and Tumshuqese: A Survey. In: Ronald Emmerick, An Introduction to Khotanese. Wiesbaden: Reichert. [cited by section number]

38. The evolution of Iranian Forssman, Bernhard and Robert Plath (eds.) 2000 Indoarisch, Iranisch und die Indogermanistik. Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 2. bis 5. Oktober 1997 in Erlangen. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Fritz (Gippert-Fritz), Sonja 1982 Ist das Bulgarische eine Aspekt- oder Tempussprache? Die Slawischen Sprachen 1: 24−32. Gershevitch, Ilya 1954 A Grammar of Manichean Sogdian. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Henning, Walter B. 1934 Das Verbum des Mittelpersischen der Turfanfragmente. Zeitschrift für Indologie und Iranistik 9: 158−253. [= id. 1977: Selected Papers I. (Acta Iranica 14). Leiden: Brill, 65−160]. Jahani, Carina 2008 Expressions of future in Classical and Modern New Persian. In: Karimi, Samiian, and Stilo (eds.), 155−176. Jahani, Carina and Agnes Korn (eds.) 2003 The Baloch and Their Neighbours: Ethnic and Linguistic Contact in Balochistan in Historical and Modern Times. Wiesbaden: Reichert. JamaspAsa, Kaikhusroo 1982 Aogəmadaēčā. A Zoroastrian Liturgy. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Jeremiás, Éva 1993 On the Genesis of the Periphrastic Progressive in Iranian Languages. In: Wojciech Skalmowski and Alois van Tongerloo (eds.), Medioiranica. Proceedings of the International Colloquium organized by the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven from the 21st to the 23 rd of May 1990. Leuven: Peeters, 99−116. Jügel, Thomas 2009 Ergative Remnants in Sorani Kurdish? Orientalia Suecana 58: 142−158. Karimi, Simin, Vida Samiian, and Donald Stilo (eds.) 2008 Aspects of Iranian Linguistics. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Klingenschmitt, Gert 2000 Mittelpersisch. In: Forssman and Plath (eds.), 191−229. Korn, Agnes 2003 Balochi and the Concept of North-West Iranian. In: Jahani and Korn (eds.), 49−60. Korn, Agnes 2005a Towards a Historical Grammar of Balochi: Studies in Balochi Historical Phonology and Vocabulary. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Korn, Agnes 2005b Das Nominalsystem des Balochi, mitteliranisch betrachtet. In: Günter Schweiger (ed.), Indogermanica: Festschrift Gert Klingenschmitt. Indische, iranische und indogermanische Studien dem verehrten Jubilar dargebracht zu seinem fünfundsechzigsten Geburtstag. Taimering: VWT-Verlag, 289−302. Korn, Agnes 2008 Marking of Arguments in Balochi Ergative and Mixed Constructions. In: Karimi, Samiian, and Stilo (eds.), 249−276. Korn, Agnes 2013 Footnotes on a Parthian Sound-Change. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 76: 99−110. Lazard, Gilbert 1992 Subjonctif et optatif en ossète. Studia Iranica 21: 57−66.

621

622

VI. Iranian Lazard, Gilbert 2005 Structures d’actances dans les langues irano-aryennes modernes. In: Dieter Weber (ed.), Languages of Iran: Past and Present. Iranian Studies in memoriam David Neil MacKenzie. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 81−93. Lubotsky, Alexander M. 1998 Avestan x varənah-: the etymology and concept. In: Wolfgang Meid (ed.), Sprache und Kultur der Indogermanen. Akten der X. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft Innsbruck, 22.−28. September 1996. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität, 479−488. Lubotsky, Alexander 2001 The Indo-Iranian substratum. In: Christian Carpelan, Asko Parpola, and Petteri Koskikallio (eds.), Early Contacts between Uralic and Indo-European: Linguistic and Archeological Considerations. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura, 301−317. Lubotsky, Alexander 2002 Scythian elements in Old Iranian. In: Nicholas Sims-Williams (ed.), Indo-Iranian Languages and Peoples. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 189−202. MacKenzie, D. Neil 1954 Gender in Kurdish. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 16: 528−541. [= id. 1999: Iranica Diversa II: 353−366]. MacKenzie, D. Neil 1999 Iranica Diversa. 2 vols. Rome: Istituto italiano per l’Africa e l’Oriente. Paul, Ludwig 1998 Zazaki. Grammatik und Versuch einer Dialektologie. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Paul, Ludwig 2003 The Position of Balochi among Western Iranian Languages: The Verbal System. In: Jahani and Korn (eds.), 61−79. Salāmī, ‛Abdonnabī 2004 Ganǰīne-ye gūyeš-šenāsī-ye fārs 1 [A Treasury of Persian dialectology]. Tehran: Farhangestān-e zabān-o-adab-e fārsī 1384 h.š. Scheucher, Bernhard 2006 Teilergativität in den modernen westiranischen Sprachen. In: Eichner et al. (eds.), 169− 193. Schmitt, Rüdiger 1976 Der Titel „Satrap”. In: Anna Morpurgo Davies and Wolfgang Meid (eds.), Studies in Greek, Italic and Indo-European Linguistics offered to Leonard R. Palmer on the occasion of his Seventieth Birthday June 5, 1976. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität, 373−390. Schmitt, Rüdiger (ed.) 1989 Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Sims-Williams, Nicholas 1979 On the Plural and Dual in Sogdian. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 42: 337−346. Sims-Williams, Nicholas 1981 Notes on Manichaean Middle Persian Morphology. Studia Iranica 10: 165−176. Sims-Williams, Nicholas 1982 The Double System of Nominal Inflexion in Sogdian. Transactions of the Philological Society: 67−76. Sims-Williams, Nicholas 1990 Chotano-Sogdica II: Aspects of the Development of nominal Morphology in Khotanese and Sogdian. In: Gherardo Gnoli and Antonio Panaino (eds.), Proceedings of the First European Conference of Iranian Studies, held in Turin, September 7 th−11th, 1987 by the

38. The evolution of Iranian Societas Iranologica Europaea. Part 1: Old and Middle Iranian Studies. Rome: Istituto Italiano del medio ed estremo oriente, 275−296. Sims-Williams, Nicholas 1994 The Middle Voice in Middle Iranian (handout of a paper presented at the Symposion anläßlich des 25-jährigen Bestehens der Kommission für Iranistik an der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 4.−5. Nov. 1994). Sims-Williams, Nicholas 1996 Eastern Iranian languages. In: Ehsan Yarshater (ed.), Encyclopædia Iranica VII, 649−652. Sims-Williams, Nicholas 1997 The denominal suffix -ant- and the formation of the Khotanese transitive perfect. In: Alexander Lubotsky (ed.), Sound Law and Analogy. Papers in honor of Robert S. P. Beekes on the occasion of his 60 th birthday. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 317−325. Sims-Williams, Nicholas 2000 Bactrian Documents from Northern Afghanistan I: Legal and Economic Documents. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sims-Williams, Nicholas 2004 The Parthian Abstract Suffix -yft. In: John H. W. Penney (ed.), Indo-European Perspectives. Studies in Honour of Anna Morpurgo Davies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 539−547. Sims-Williams, Nicholas 2007 The Sogdian potentialis. In: Maria Macuch, Mauro Maggi, and Werner Sundermann (eds.), Iranian Languages and Texts from Iran and Turfan. Ronald E. Emmerick Memorial Volume. (Iranica 13). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 377−386. Skjærvø, Prods Oktor 1983a Farnah-: mot mède en vieux-perse? Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 78: 241−259. Skjærvø, Prods Oktor 1983b Case in Inscriptional Middle Persian, Inscriptional Parthian and the Pahlavi Psalter. Studia Iranica 12: 47−62, 151−181. Stilo, Donald 2004 Vafsi Folk Tales. Twenty Four Folk Tales in the Gurchani Dialect of Vafsi as Narrated by Ghazanfar Mahmudi and Mashdi Mahdi and Collected by Lawrence P. Ellwell-Sutton. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Stilo, Donald 2005 Iranian as a Buffer Zone between Turkic and Semitic. In: Éva Csató, Bo Isaksson, and Carina Jahani (eds.), Linguistic Convergence and Areal Diffusion. Case Studies from Iranian, Semitic and Turkic. London: Routledge Curzon, 35−63. Sundermann, Werner 1982 Die Bedeutung des Parthischen für die Verbreitung buddhistischer Wörter indischer Herkunft. Altorientalische Forschungen 9: 99−113. [= id. 2001: Manichaica Iranica I. Rome: Istituto Italiano per l’Africa e l’Oriente, 165−181]. Thordarson, Fridrik 2009 Ossetic Grammatical Studies. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Trask, Robert 1979 On the origins of ergativity. In: Frans Plank (ed.), Ergativity: Towards a theory of grammatical relations. London: Academic Press, 385−404. Tremblay, Xavier 2002 Ist die Aktivendung 3Pl -āra in einigen ostiranischen Sprachen inneriranische Entwicklung oder indogermanisches Erbe? (mit einem Exkurs über die athematischen Endungen des Chwaresmischen). Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 62: 259−287.

623

624

VI. Iranian Weber, Dieter 1970 Die Stellung der sog. Inchoativa im Mitteliranischen. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Göttingen. Weber, Dieter 1980 Beiträge zur historischen Grammatik des Ossetischen. Indogermanische Forschungen 85: 126−137. Wendtland, Antje 2009 The Position of the Pamir Languages within East Iranian. Orientalia Suecana 58: 172−188. Werba, Chlodwig 2006 mavāred-rā na-bāyad ziyād kard be joz-e ehtiyāj [Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity]. (Indo-)Iranische Rekonstrukte als textkritisches Korrektiv in der Altiranistik. In: Eichner et al. (eds.), 261−306. Windfuhr, Gernot (ed.) 2009 The Iranian Languages: Typology and Syntax. London: Routledge.

Agnes Korn, Paris (France)

VII. Greek 39. The documentation of Greek 1. Introduction 2. A refining of the terms synchronic, diachronic, and historical

3. Distinguishing text and performance 4. Alphabetic literacy 5. References

1. Introduction Documentation for the Greek language extends from the present all the way back to the middle of the second millennium BCE. In other words, Greek has been documented for roughly 3,500 years of human existence. Since Greek has survived as a living language, in a variety of dialects, all the way into the present, the current repertoire of linguistic evidence includes the sum total of the speech of all native speakers of Modern Greek whose speaking can be heard and seen directly. Alternatively, Modern Greek speech can be heard and seen indirectly by way of the technologies of audio and video recording. Also, Modern Greek speech is available for recording by way of online, printed, typewritten, or handwritten texts. As linguists work their way backward in time, however, both the mode and the availability of recordings become ever more restricted. When it comes to the mode of recordings, the linguistic evidence is confined to printing and writing once we leave behind the modern period and reach back into the premodern period; and, as we work our way further back in history to a time that predates the invention of the printing press in the era of the West European Renaissance, all we have left is the written text. Unfortunately, when it comes to the availability of written texts recording the Greek language before the era of print, not only the number of surviving texts but even the number of the various kinds of surviving texts diminishes significantly. I make a special point here of distinguishing between the open-endedness of the available evidence of Greek as it is spoken in the present and the restrictedness of availability as we move backward in time. In this light, we need to distinguish further between the number of texts stemming from a given historical era and the number of the various kinds of texts that reflect the Greek language as spoken in that era. A case in point for making such a distinction is the historical era of the Byzantine Empire, which flourished for about a millennium, all the way until the capture of Constantinople in 1453 CE. In the historical era that covers this vast stretch of time, overlapping with and extending even beyond the medieval period of West Europe, the Greek language underwent massive changes, but these changes are now most difficult for linguists to trace because the kinds of discourse that were committed to writing in this era were so heavily influenced by earlier kinds of discourse that dominated Greek civilization in earlier times. For example, the standard prose used for official documentation in the Byzantine era was based not on the everyday Greek language spoken by everyday people, but rather on a form of prose that evolved in a period of Greek civilization generally known as the Second Sophistic movement, culminating in the second and third centuries https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261288-039

626

VII. Greek CE, and this form of prose was in turn based on a still earlier form of prose that culminated in the city-state of Athens in the fourth century BCE (Horrocks [1997] 2010). In general, the Byzantine civilization of the medieval era is the primary historical context for the preservation of texts from ancient Greek civilization, by way of manuscript traditions. These texts include a sizable representation of works by authors who flourished in the so-called classical period, dated to the fifth and the fourth centuries BCE. Some of the most celebrated of these authors are Pindar, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Herodotus, Thucydides, Plato, and Aristotle. The transmission included even earlier as well as later works. Among the later works are the Septuagint, which was a Greek version of the Hebrew Bible, and the Christian New Testament. Among the earlier works are the Homeric Iliad and Odyssey. After the Byzantine era, the manuscript traditions of ancient Greek texts were continued by the print culture that began in the era of the West European Renaissance, and the availability of classical Greek texts has been safeguarded in print form ever since, into modern times. Other sources for the ancient Greek language are 1. inscriptions found from all reaches of the ancient Greek-speaking world and 2. papyri found predominantly in Egypt. A vast corpus of Greek inscriptions is easily accessible on line: http://epigraphy.packhum.org/inscriptions/ In the case of papyri, linguists can turn to another important resource on line: http://library.duke.edu/rubenstein/scriptorium/papyrus/texts/greek/introduction.html For the first time in this presentation, I speak here of documentation in specific historical contexts, and here is where we need to take a second look at the term “documentation” itself. This term presents us with a complication that escapes notice at first sight. In most cases of textual evidence for the history of the Greek language, the actual text that we are reading is intended not as a documentation of some form of communication conveyed by language: rather, it is intended as the communication itself, which can be seen as a special form of language that communicates in its own right. In such cases, as we will see later on, the communication is its own documentation, in the sense that the written text can speak in ways that an everyday speaker may not be able to speak. That said, I turn to something else that further complicates the nature of the textual evidence for the history of the Greek language. This something is the fact that even the everyday speech of Modern Greek today is heavily influenced by written prose traditions stemming from the Byzantine era. This influence affects not only the prose that Modern Greek speakers use in producing official texts of documentation but also their everyday speech, which is pervaded by patterns stemming from a bookish form of prose derived ultimately from Byzantine civilization and known today as καθαρεύουσα, the ‘pure’ language. The other side of the coin is δημοτική, the ‘popular’ language of Modern Greek, which cannot be disentangled from the influence of the concurrent καθαρεύουσα − any more than this “pure” language can ever be completely “purified” of the δημοτική (Horrocks 2010). That said, the fact still remains that synchronic studies of Modern Greek in all its varieties are a most accurate point of departure for an overall diachronic study of Greek in all its manifestations over the roughly 3,500 years of its documented history. Such a diachronic study of the Greek language ideally depends, of course, on synchronic studies that focus not only on Modern Greek but also on all documented Greek texts as we find them attested throughout the history of Greek civilization.

39. The documentation of Greek

2. A refining of the terms synchronic, diachronic, and historical In speaking here, just moments ago, about synchronic and diachronic studies of the Greek language, I am making a distinction between the terms diachronic and historical in relation to the term synchronic. I argue for the necessity of making two kinds of correlation (Nagy 2011 § 10): 1. diachronic perspectives need to be correlated with synchronic perspectives 2. these two perspectives need to be correlated in turn with historical perspectives. In using the terms synchronic and diachronic, I follow the definitions of Ferdinand de Saussure ([1916] 1972: 117): Est synchronique tout ce qui rapporte à l’aspect statique de notre science, diachronique tout ce qui a trait aux évolutions. De même synchronie et diachronie désigneront respectivement un état de langue et une phase d’évolution. [Everything that relates to the static side of our science is synchronic; everything that has to do with evolution is diachronic. Similarly synchrony and diachrony designate respectively a language-state and an evolutionary phase. (Trans. Baskin 1959: 81)]

I note especially the equation here, in terms of the definitions worked out by Saussure, between the terms diachronic and evolutionary. And now I need to add that a diachronic or evolutionary perspective is not the same thing as a historical perspective (Nagy 2011 § 12; Nagy 1996a: 21 fn. 18): It is a mistake to equate diachronic with historical, as is often done. Diachrony refers to the potential for evolution in a structure, whereas history is not restricted to phenomena that are structurally predictable.

This formulation can be applied in the specific context of explaining a phenomenon I have described as diachronic skewing (Nagy 2011 § 14). Here is an example: in Homeric poetry, the narrator refers to his medium as an act of singing (as at Iliad I 1: ἄειδε) even though the historical evidence indicates that this medium had already become an act of reciting (Nagy 1996a: 21). Here I find it relevant to cite a formulation by the anthropologist Pierre-Yves Jacopin (1988: 35−36): “Both synchrony and diachrony are abstractions extrapolated from a model of reality.” In applying this formulation, I highlight the term model (Nagy 2011 § 16): Both synchronic and diachronic perspectives are a matter of model building. We can build synchronic models to describe and explain the workings of a structure as we see it attested in a given historical context. We can likewise build diachronic models to describe and explain how that given structure may have evolved from one of its phases into other phases. What we have built, however, is a set of models to be tested on historical realities. The models are not the same thing as the realities themselves. And the realities of history as a process are not dependent on such models. History may either confirm or upset any or all aspects of our models, since the contingencies of history do not need to follow the rules of existing structures.

627

628

VII. Greek The aim, then, in applying synchronic and diachronic perspectives is to build synchronic and diachronic models for the description of linguistic structures and for visualizing the evolution of these structures (Nagy 2011 § 17). I offer here two different ways of further delimiting these terms synchronic and diachronic, thus bringing them into sharper focus (Nagy 2011 § 20): 1. The terms synchronic and diachronic need to be applied consistently from the objective standpoint of an outsider who is thinking about a given structure, not from the subjective standpoint of an insider who is thinking within that structure (Nagy 1996a: 4). Such an objective standpoint enhances the synchronic as well as the diachronic perspectives that are needed for describing structures and for explaining how these structures evolve. This way of looking at a given structure helps avoid the pitfall of assuming that one’s own synchronic or diachronic perspectives are identical with the perspectives of those who were part of the culture in which that structure was historically anchored. Such an assumption runs the risk of misreading the historical context in which the structure is attested. 2. Whereas synchronic and diachronic perspectives are needed to describe a given structure as it exists at a given time and as it evolves through time, historical perspectives are needed to describe what actually happened to that structure. As I noted already, what happened in history can be unpredictable, since we cannot predict the contingencies of history. So, when it comes to reconstructing what happened to a given structure, it is not enough to use a purely diachronic perspective. As I have also already noted, a purely diachronic perspective is restricted to phenomena that are structurally predictable. And now I add a third delimitation (Nagy 2011 § 21): 3. In analyzing a given structure, synchronic and diachronic perspectives need to be applied before historical judgments or prejudgments can be made. This third delimitation is especially important in situations where we find little or no historical evidence for earlier attestations of a given structure. I am addressing here one of the biggest problems faced by historians when they try to view structures over time (Nagy 2011 § 22): If they apply only a historical perspective as they reconstruct a given structure backward in time, back to the era when that structure is actually documented, they find themselves limited to the realities they find in that era. And the only way they can reconstruct further back in time is to find further documentation stemming from earlier eras.

By contrast, a diachronic perspective provides also for the reconstruction of realities that are historically undocumented. And reconstruction from a diachronic perspective is not restricted to the hindsight of history (Nagy 2011 § 23): A diachronic perspective not only makes it possible to reconstruct backward in time by tracing the evolution of a given structure back to undocumented phases of that structure. It also makes it possible to reconstruct forward in time.

In previous work (Nagy 2008: 19), I applied the concept of reconstructing backward and forward in time with reference to the term Common Greek, which follows a diachronic model developed by linguists. I offer here a summary (Nagy 2011 §§ 24−25):

39. The documentation of Greek I am speaking here about the historical evidence for a chronological demarcation between pre-documented and documented eras of the Greek language. Experts used to place this demarcation somewhere around the eighth century BCE, which is the era when alphabetic writing was first being introduced into the Greek-speaking world. The Greek language as it existed in what was understood to be the pre-documented era on the farther side of this demarcation could only be reconstructed diachronically, all the way back to a hypothetical proto-language known to linguists as Common Greek. This proto-language, Common Greek, is not a historical reality but a construct, a diachronic model. But then a major shift in demarcation took place, signaled by the decipherment of Linear B, which was a system of syllabic writing that dates back to the second millennium BCE. Once the decipherment revealed that the language written in this script was an earlier form of Greek, the documented era of the Greek language needed to be pushed back into the second millennium BCE, and this newly demarcated older era could now reveal new historical facts about the language. These new facts in some ways confirmed but in other ways contradicted the reconstructions achieved by way of diachronic perspectives that had already been developed before the decipherment of Linear B (Nagy 2008: 33; see also Nagy 1969). Those previous reconstructions, which were dominated by the hindsight of later history, needed to be modified in the light of earlier history. So now a new diachronic model of Common Greek needed to be built by way of reconstructing backward in time, even farther back than before. And, now that an earlier historical phase of Greek had been discovered, this discovery required re-adjustments in how we reconstruct forward in time from that earlier phase to later phases. From this example, we can see that the diachronic process of reconstructing forward as well as backward in time depends on the data provided by historical evidence. But the actual reconstruction of structures depends primarily on diachronic and synchronic perspectives and only secondarily on a historical perspective. I say this because the historical perspective works only by hindsight, whereas the diachronic perspective allows for foresight as well, so to speak, by way of the procedure I describe here as reconstructing forward in time.

To show how this procedure works, I will now highlight another diachronic model. This model is yet another construct built by linguists, and this one is even broader in scope than the model of Common Greek. I have in mind here the diachronic model of IndoEuropean or Common Indo-European or Proto-Indo-European. I focus here on an example of what kinds of things we can find when we reconstruct forward as well as backward in Indo-European linguistics (Nagy 2011 § 26): The example centers on the etymology of the Greek word pontos (πόντος) ‘sea’, which is cognate with the following words in other Indo-European languages: Latin pōns ‘bridge’, Armenian hun ‘ford’, Old Church Slavonic рǫtǐ and Old Prussian pintis ‘path’, Sanskrit pánthāḥ and Avestan pantå ‘path’. When we reconstruct all these words backward in time, back to an undocumented common proto-language known to linguists as Common IndoEuropean or Proto-Indo-European, such reconstruction backward in time does not help us fully comprehend the semantic relationship of the meaning ‘sea’ in Greek with such divergent meanings as ‘bridge’, ‘ford’, and ‘path’ in the other Indo-European languages. It is only after we reconstruct forward in time, taking into account all the comparative evidence we derive from the cognate languages that we factored into our reconstruction backward in time, that we can comprehend more fully the convergent meaning that unifies diachronically the divergent meanings of these words. This convergent meaning has to do with a crossing, over a dangerous body of water or over some other dangerous zone, which sacralizes the one who succeeds in achieving such a dangerous crossing (Nagy 2008: 48−49; following Benveniste 1954/1966: 296−298). Only then, only after we have reconstructed forward in

629

630

VII. Greek time, can we understand the contexts of the word pontos (πόντος) ‘sea’ in the earliest attested phases of Greek poetry, where we see expressions of dread about dangerous sea crossings and references to the sacralizing effect of such crossings. Further evidence comes from the derivative form Hellēs-pontos (Ἑλλήσ-ποντος), which is the name of a famous strait that we know as the Hellespont and which means etymologically ‘the crossing of Helle’, referring to a myth about a dangerous crossing of this strait by a girl named Helle and by her brother, who are being carried across the dangerous waters by a ram with a golden fleece: the girl falls off the ram and drowns in the Hellespont while her brother succeeds in crossing the strait and is thus sacralized (Nagy [1979] 1999: 339−340).

This example shows that diachronic analysis, by way of reconstructing forward in time, can enhance not only historical analysis but also synchronic analysis, since a purely synchronic analysis of the attested contexts of pontos (πόντος) would yield only the meaning ‘sea’. The underlying sense of a dangerous crossing that sacralizes would be impossible to recover without applying a diachronic perspective (Nagy 2011 § 27).

3. Distinguishing text and performance The written texts that linguists use as documentary evidence for the synchronic, diachronic, and historical study of the Greek language need to be viewed in a variety of ways, depending on the varied reasons for the production of such texts in the historical past. For an understanding of these reasons, we need to distinguish between the reading of words in a text and the performance of words that may or may not be recorded as a text. I start with the case of the Linear B tablets, already mentioned, which represent the earliest attested form of writing in the Greek language, dating as far back as the fourteenth or even fifteenth century BCE. The purpose of these texts was to record inventories of various administrative activities that were controlled or at least overseen by the bureaucracies that controlled the administrative centers of the so-called “Mycenaean” empire − centers that are nowadays commonly described as “palaces.” At a later point in my presentation, I will return in more detail to these texts written in the script known as Linear B, which was a syllabary. Here I note simply the fact that these tablets were meant to record facts. In this sense, the Linear B tablets are a shining example of “documentation.” A telling fact about these tablets is that Michael Ventris, who deciphered the Linear B syllabary in the year 1952, used the word “documents” in the title of the book that he co-authored with the linguist John Chadwick about the discovery procedures of the decipherment, Documents in Mycenaean Greek (Ventris and Chadwick 1956). Relevant here is the archaeological evidence for the use of parchment by scribes writing in an earlier and related script, Linear A, at the administrative center of Zakro in Crete (Weingarten 1983). These scribes, who were speakers of a non-Greek language, wrote on parchment for making permanent archival records, whereas they wrote on clay tablets for making temporary records. I infer that the scribes writing in Linear B during the Mycenaean era followed an analogous procedure: they would write their temporary records on clay tablets, and these records would then be transferred at the end of a given fiscal year from clay to parchment (the notion of a fiscal year is indicated by references in the Linear B tablets to the current year as opposed to the immediately preceding and

39. The documentation of Greek following years). There is an irony to be noted here: when the administrative centers of the Mycenaean era were destroyed by fires, the temporary records of the Linear B scribes were made permanent for archaeologists because they were baked and thus preserved by the same fires that must have destroyed the permanent records recorded on parchment (Nagy 2008). But we must reckon also with other kinds of texts − texts that were meant for the recording not of facts, as in the case of the Linear B tablets, but of various forms of verbal art − namely, of song, poetry, and prose. In the case of the texts that recorded such verbal art, the primary reason for writing down the words produced by way of song, poetry, and prose was not necessarily an intent to preserve the content of these words as a form of documentation. In some notable cases, such content was preserved not by way of writing but by way of oral traditions of performing song, poetry, and prose. The most notable of all such cases was Homeric poetry, as represented by the over 15,000 verses of the Iliad and the over 12,000 verses of the Odyssey. The textual tradition of this massive corpus of verses preserves one of the earliest attestations of Greek poetry recorded in writing (though there are poetic inscriptions that are even earlier in date: Nagy 1996b: 34−36). The prestige of this tradition was enormous in the history of Greek civilization − but not because the Iliad and the Odyssey had been written down. At least initially, the preservation of Homeric poetry was maintained by way of oral traditions of performance, not by way of writing. Only eventually, toward the end of the sixth century BCE, according to my estimation, were the verses of the Homeric Iliad and Odyssey written down (Nagy 2008/2009, 2009/2010). And, even then, the purpose for recording these verses as a text was primarily to help remember how to perform them, not to read them. In short, the performance of Homeric poetry was primary, and the writing down of this poetry as a text was secondary. The terms performance and text, as a pair, cannot be considered the equivalent of another pair of terms, orality and literacy. Still, there is a link between performance and orality, matching the obvious link between text and literacy. In what follows, I propose to consider these matching links. The concept of orality stems from ethnographic descriptions of oral poetry in particular and of oral tradition in general (Nagy 2001). A basic work on these two concepts is The Singer of Tales, by Albert B. Lord ([1960] 2000). This book documents the research of Lord’s teacher, Milman Parry, on oral traditions in the former Yugoslavia, 1933−1935 (Parry 1971). Parry was a professor of ancient Greek, seeking new answers to the socalled Homeric Question. Basically, the “question” came down to this: were the Homeric Iliad and Odyssey composed with or without the aid of writing? Parry’s project, the comparing of Homeric poetry with the living oral traditions of South Slavic heroic poetry, led him to conclude that the Homeric texts were indeed the products of oral composition. Parry’s research was continued by his student, Albert Lord, whose Singer of Tales represents the legacy of their combined efforts. By the classical period, in the fifth century BCE, Homeric poetry was static or fixed, not fluid. This fixity has led to the inference that this poetry had always been a written text. The term written text, however, is too imprecise for describing what had been a process of gradual fixation in the ongoing tradition of performing Homeric poetry. This process can be described in terms of a progression from transcript to script. By transcript I mean the broadest possible category of written text: a transcript can be a record of performance, even an aid for performance, but not the equivalent of

631

632

VII. Greek performance (Nagy 1996b: 34−36, 65−69). We must distinguish a transcript from an inscription, which can traditionally refer to itself in early phases of the Greek evidence as an equivalent of performance (Nagy 1996b: 34−36). As for script, I mean a narrower category, where the written text is a prerequisite for performance (Nagy 1996b: 32−34). In considering such categories, we need to ask what happens when oral traditions become written traditions − or when oral traditions come into contact with pre-existing written traditions. In the history of scholarship on this question, the work of Parry and Lord is pivotal. Their fieldwork on the living oral traditions of the former Yugoslavia gave them an opportunity to test the living interactions of oral and literary traditions. They observed that the prestige of writing as a technology, and of the culture of literacy that it fostered, tended to destabilize the culture of oral traditions − in the historical context they were studying. What they observed, however, was strictly a point of comparison with other possible test cases, not some kind of universalizing formulation (Mitchell and Nagy 2000: xiii). For example, Lord himself makes it clear in his later work that there exist many cultures where literary traditions do not cause the destabilization of oral traditions and can even coexist with them (Lord 1991; see also especially Lord 1986). In general, the textualization or Verschriftung of any given oral tradition needs to be distinguished from Verschriftlichung − that is, from the evolution of any given culture of literacy, any given Schriftlichkeit (Oesterreicher 1993). For Parry and Lord, the opposition of literacy and orality − of Schriftlichkeit and Mündlichkeit − is a cultural variable, not a universal. Moreover, their fieldwork experiments led them to think of literacy and orality as cognitive variables as well (Mitchell and Nagy 2000: xiv). Despite this stance of Parry and Lord, it has been claimed − many times and in many ways − that the Parry-Lord “theory” is founded on a hard-and-fast distinction between orality and literacy. These claims stem from unfamiliarity with the ethnographic dimension of Parry’s and Lord’s work, and, more generally, from ignorance about the observable mechanics and aesthetics of oral traditions (Mitchell and Nagy 2000: xiv). Humanists today may be tempted to romanticize literacy as the key to “literature”, often equated with “high” culture (on empirical approaches to distinctions between “high” and “low” culture, as occasionally formalized in distinctions between oral and written traditions, see Bausinger 1980). And yet, the only universal distinction between oral and literary traditions is the historical anteriority of the first to the second. Beyond this obvious observation, it is pointless to insist on any universalizing definitions for the “oral” of “oral tradition.” “Oral tradition” and “oral poetry” are terms that depend on the concepts of “written tradition” and “written poetry.” In cultures that do not depend on the technology of writing, the concept of “orality” is meaningless (Lord 1995: 105 n. 26). From the standpoint of comparative ethnography, “Written is not something that is not oral; rather it is something in addition to being oral, and that additional something varies from society to society” (Nagy [1990] 1994: § 16). The technology of writing has nothing to do with whether there can or cannot be poetics or rhetoric. Poetics and rhetoric can exist without writing. It is needless to posit a dichotomy between orality and text in the history of Greek civilization. But the question remains: is there a dichotomy between performance and text? To find an answer, we must consider how the technology of writing relates to the production of texts. Further, we must consider the rationale behind the production of texts.

39. The documentation of Greek As we are about to see, the text was meant not only for reading as we understand the phenomenon of reading. It was meant also for performance. This formulation can be justified on the basis of observations made by Aristotle in his Poetics concerning the reading of texts. As we will see presently, these observations show that the ancient Greeks, including Aristotle himself, regarded reading as a reenactment of live speech. Such a sense of reenactment was driven by their writing system. When Aristotle in the Poetics (1456b: 20−38) speaks about syllables and about the consonants and vowels that delimit them, he is doing far more than that. By hindsight, we can say he is demonstrating a remarkably accurate linguistic understanding of the sound system or phonology of the Greek language as spoken in his time, the fourth century BCE (Nagy 2009a: 419−420). Just as remarkable is the phonological accuracy of the writing system inherited by Aristotle and his contemporaries in reproducing the language that went into the texts they produced. That system is what we know as the Greek alphabet, which had been derived many centuries earlier from the Phoenician alphabet. The ancient Greek text, as produced by way of alphabetic writing, was a most accurate sound-recording of the ancient Greek language.

4. Alphabetic literacy From the very earliest times, the Greek alphabet excelled in phonological accuracy. The same cannot be said about the Linear B syllabary, which can represent syllables only by way of signs that stand for vowel or consonant+vowel, since this syllabary has no signs that stand for vowel+consonant. And the phonological accuracy of the Greek alphabet cannot even be matched by the earlier Phoenician alphabet from which it was derived. The writing system of the Phoenicians, in the course of its evolution, had dispensed with the representation of vowels. We see the same principle in the writing system of Hebrew, a language closely related to Phoenician. It was a loss of phonological accuracy for the alphabets of these two Semitic languages to dispense with vowels, but there was a compensatory gain in morphological accuracy. That is because, in both Phoenician and Hebrew morphology, the consonants in the “root” of any word were a constant while the vowels were a variable. So the morphological integrity of the individual word could be maintained by writing only the consonants in the Semitic alphabets − provided that each word was divided from the next. By contrast, in the process of borrowing the writing system of the Phoenicians, the writing system of the Greeks developed a way to represent vowels. The historical consequences are vast. In effect, the ancient Greeks thus developed the first “pure” alphabetic system. One linguist (Gelb 1963: 184) has described this development as “the last important step in the history of writing.” He adds that, “from the Greek period up to the present, nothing new has happened in the inner structural development of writing.” In other words, the Greek alphabet “conquered the world,” since “we write consonants and vowels in the same way as the ancient Greeks did.” From one perspective, this development can be counted as a shining example of the Greek “miracle” (for an overall critique of such a way of thinking about the Greeks, see Gernet 1983). From another perspective, it is simply a contingency − something that happens at the right time and at the right place. In this case, what happened is that

633

634

VII. Greek certain consonants as pronounced in Phoenician were simply not heard in Greek. The prime example is the Phoenician consonant /’/, a “glottal stop” that was represented by the Phoenician letter {’} called /’ālep/. The principle is acrophonic: {’} as in /’ālep/ meaning ‘ox’, {B} as in /bêṯ/ meaning ‘house’, and so on. The principle applies to this day, as when we say {B} as in /boy/. But the consonant /’/ of the syllable /’a/ as spelled by the letter called /’ālep/ in Phoenician was simply not heard by native speakers of ancient Greek, whereas the consonant {b} of the syllable [be] as spelled by the letter called /bêṯ/ in Phoenician was clearly heard, as we see in the Greek letter {B} for /bēta/. So the Greek letter {A} for /alpha/, borrowed from the Phoenician letter {’} for /’ālep/, represented acrophonically the vowel /a/ of /alpha/, not the consonant /’/ of /’ālep/. The principle applies to this day, as when we say {A} as in /apple/. Similarly, the Greek letters {E} and {O} for the vowels /e/ and /o/ came from Phoenician letters for the consonants {h} and {‘} in word-initial sequences of /he-/ and /‘a-/ that were heard as /e-/ and /o-/ respectively in ancient Greek. Finally, the Phoenician letter {H}, pronounced as /ḥêṯ/, was heard as /ēta/ by speakers of East Ionian Greek dialects that had no wordinitial /h-/, while it was heard as /hēta/ by speakers of other dialects; so, thanks to the loss of word-initial /h-/ in their dialect, the East Ionians gained another vowel in their alphabet − a vowel that was borrowed only later into the writing systems of other Greeks (Nagy 2008: 37). In early Greek alphabetic writing, the practice of dividing words from each other by way of blank spaces or special marks is well attested, as we see from inscriptions dating from before the classical period of the fifth century BCE. But this practice, parallel to what we find in texts written in Semitic alphabets, became obsolescent with the advent of the classical period, by the time of the fifth century BCE. The dividing of words from each other in writing was replaced by the practice of scriptio continua, which is a mode of writing that runs words together, and this practice persisted all the way through the 9th and 10th centuries CE. From then on we see a shifting back to the practice of dividing the words from each other by way of blank spaces, and this newer practice continues to this day in the editing of classical Greek texts. So the question is, why was scriptio continua a basic feature of ancient Greek literacy for a period that covers well over a thousand years? For the modern reader, the continuous flow of letters in scriptio continua, without blank spaces between words, actually impedes the cognitive flow of reading itself. We can pick out the words more readily when we see them separated from each other by blank spaces. I use here the metaphor of picking out the words because it applies to the cognitive process of reading in the ancient world as well. That is what we see, for example, from the meaning ‘pick out, select’ inherent in the use of legein (λέγειν) in referring to the ancient practice of reading out loud from a text (as in Plato Theaetetus 143c and in the Attic orators; Nagy 2009a: 420−421). The ancient Greek reader, while reading out loud, has to pick out the words. Granted, the reader also has to pick out the overall meaning from the continuous stream of letters that are being read, but the fact is that the basic unit of meaning for readers of Greek in ancient as well as in modern times is still the word. So by now the question deepens: why were words run together in scriptio continua if they impeded the cognitive flow of reading? The answer is simple: scriptio continua promoted the phonological realism of continuity in speaking or singing or reciting in ways that people really spoke and sang and recited. Stopping at the wrong place between words could impede the flow, the continui-

39. The documentation of Greek ty. Stopping could only be allowed at the right place, that is, at the end of a word that coincides with the end of a phrase or a clause, with the end of a colon or a verse. That would be phonologically right. Stopping elsewhere would be phonologically wrong, ruining the rhythmic and melodic contour of the phrasing (Nagy 2009a: 421; see also Nagy 2009b). The systematization of when to stop and when not to stop between words is evident in some surviving ancient texts. We see a striking illustration in a set of papyri dating from the second century CE featuring the songs of Bacchylides, a poet who flourished in the early fifth century BCE: the formatting of these texts shows most clearly that scriptio continua is being coordinated with the placements of line-endings that correspond to the ends of cola (Nagy 2000). Even if the process of reading such texts in scriptio continua was cognitively more difficult than the process of reading the more recent scriptio discontinua as simulated in the printed pages of modern editions, the older way of formatting offered the advantage of reading something that was far closer to the reality of live performance. Viewed in this light, the device of scriptio continua can be counted as yet another aspect of the overall accuracy and precision of the Greek writing system in representing the reality of Greek speech and song. Maybe it was no “miracle,” but it was a most effective device for bringing ancient Greek song and speech back to life for those who listened to it being read back to them out loud. It can be said that the experience of seeing words run together in scriptio continua impedes not so much the general process of reading but the specific process of “silent reading” (Saenger 1997: 11). This term silent reading refers to a way of reading that dispenses with the ancient practice of reading out loud. There has been a long debate over the validity of such a dichotomy, without a clear outcome (Gavrilov 1997). This much is certain, however: from the standpoint of cognitive psychology, the mental process involved in reading out loud requires in its own right an element of “silent reading” − since the sequence of cognition in reading letters one after the other is moved forward by the reader’s hearing the actual sequence of what is being sounded out loud. That is because this sequence of letters serially turning into sounds is given meaning by the serial sounding out of words that take shape as the sequence continues, helping the reader keep moving ahead to the finish. What I just said applies even if the reader mechanically sounds out letters without at first “recognizing” the meaning of what is being sounded out. For the process of reading out loud to be successful, what really matters is that the sequence of letters being read out loud must be “recognized” ex post facto. The sequence of sounds being read out loud by the reader is what drives the reader’s process of “recognition”. Such is the idea expressed by the word anagignōskein (αναγιγνώσκειν), which means ‘read out loud’ and, more basically, ‘recognize’.

5. References Baskin, Wade 1959 Course in General Linguistics. New York: Philosophical Library. (Translation of de Saussure 1972 [1916].)

635

636

VII. Greek Bausinger, Hermann 1980 Formen der “Volkspoesie.” 2nd edn. Berlin: Schmitt. Benveniste, Émile 1954 Problèmes sémantiques de la reconstruction. Word 10: 251−264. [Reprinted in Benveniste 1966: 289−307.] Benveniste, Émile 1966 Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris: Bibliothèque des sciences humaines. Chadwick, John 1967 The decipherment of Linear B. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gavrilov, Alexander K. 1997 Techniques of Reading in Classical Antiquity. Classical Quarterly 47: 56−73. Gelb, Ignaz J. 1963 A study of writing. 2nd edn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gernet, Louis 1983 Les Grecs sans miracle (ed. Riccardo Di Donato). Paris: La Découverte / Maspero. Horrocks, Geoffrey C. 2010 [1997] Greek: a history of the language and its speakers (Section I). 2nd edn. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Householder, Fred W. and Gregory Nagy 1972 Greek: A Survey of Recent Work. (Janua Linguarum, Series Practica 211). The Hague: Mouton. Revised edn. by Nagy 2008. Jacopin, Pierre-Yves 1988 Anthropological Dialectics: Yukuna Ritual as Defensive Strategy. Schweizerische Amerikanisten-Gesellschaft, Bulletin 52: 35−46. Lord, Albert B. 1986 Perspectives on Recent Work on the Oral Traditional Formula. Oral Tradition 1: 467− 503. Lord, Albert B. 1991 Epic Singers and Oral Tradition. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Lord, Albert B. 1995 The Singer Resumes the Tale (ed. Mary L. Lord). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Lord, Albert B. 2000 [1960] The Singer of Tales. (Harvard Studies in Comparative Literature 24). 2nd edn. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Mitchell, Stephen and Gregory Nagy 2000 Introduction to the Second Edition. In: Lord, vii−xxix. Nagy, Gregory 1969 Review of Chadwick 1967. General Linguistics 9: 123−132. Nagy, Gregory 1994 [1990] Pindar’s Homer: The Lyric Possession of an Epic Past. Revised paperback version. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Nagy, Gregory 1996a Poetry as Performance: Homer and Beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nagy, Gregory 1996b Homeric Questions. Austin: University of Texas Press. Nagy, Gregory 1999 [1979] The Best of the Achaeans: Concepts of the Hero in Archaic Greek Poetry. Revised edn. with new introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Nagy, Gregory 2000 Reading Greek Poetry Aloud: Evidence from the Bacchylides Papyri. Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 64: 7−28.

39. The documentation of Greek

637

Nagy, Gregory 2001 Orality and Literacy. In: Thomas O. Sloane (ed.), Encyclopedia of Rhetoric. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 532−538. Nagy, Gregory 2008 Greek: An Updating of a Survey of Recent Work. Electronic publication, chs.harvard.edu. Washington DC. Updated edition of Householder and Nagy 1972: 15−70. Nagy, Gregory 2008/2009 Homer the Classic. (Hellenic Studies 36). Cambridge, MA: Center for Hellenic Studies. [The 2008 online version is available at chs.harvard.edu. The 2009 printed version is distributed by Harvard University Press.] Nagy, Gregory 2009a Performance and text in ancient Greece. In: George Boys-Stones, Barbara Graziosi, and Phiroze Vasunia (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Hellenic Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 417−431. Nagy, Gregory 2009b Traces of an ancient system of reading Homeric verse in the Venetus A. In: Casey Dué (ed.), Recapturing a Homeric Legacy: Images and Insights from the Venetus A Manuscript of the Iliad. (Hellenic Studies 35). Cambridge, MA: Center for Hellenic Studies, 133−157. Nagy, Gregory 2009/2010 Homer the Preclassic. Berkeley. [The 2009 online version is available at chs. harvard.edu. The 2010 printed version is published by the University of California Press.] Nagy, Gregory 2011 Diachrony and the Case of Aesop. Published online 2011 at chs.harvard.edu in Classics @ Issue 9 (Defense Mechanisms in Interdisciplinary Approaches to Classical Studies and Beyond). Oesterreicher, Wulf 1993 Verschriftung und Verschriftlichung im Kontext medialer und konzeptioneller Schriftlichkeit. In: Ursula Schaefer (ed.), Schriftlichkeit im frühen Mittelalter. Tübingen: Narr, 267−292. Parry, Milman 1971 The Making of Homeric Verse: The Collected Papers of Milman Parry (ed. Adam Parry). Oxford: The Clarendon Press. Saenger, Paul 1997 Space Between Words: The Origins of Silent Reading. Stanford: Stanford University Press. de Saussure, Ferdinand 1972 [1916] Cours de linguistique générale. Critical edn. by Tullio de Mauro. Paris: Payot. Svenbro, Jesper 1993 Phrasikleia: An Anthropology of Reading in Ancient Greece. Translated by Janet Lloyd. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Ventris, Michael and John Chadwick 1956 Documents in Mycenaean Greek. 1st edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Weingarten, Judith 1983 The Use of the Zakro Sealings. Kadmos 22: 8−13.

Gregory Nagy, Cambridge, MA (USA)

638

VII. Greek

40. The phonology of Greek 1. The phonological system of Indo-European 2. Vowels 3. Consonants

4. The accentual system 5. Morphophonemics 6. References

1. The phonological system of Indo-European The communis opinio holds that Proto-Indo-European had the following phonemes: Stops

Spirant

Labials

b

p

bh

Dentals

d

t

dh

Palatals

g̑

k̑

g̑h

Velars

g

k

gh

w

Labiovelars

g

w

a

Liquids

s

n

Semivowels w

l, r y

gwh

k

h1 h2 h3

u o

Nasals m

Pharyngeals/ Glottals

Vowels i e

Laryngeals

(ī)

(ū) ē

ō (ā)

In assessing this system, the following points need to be taken into account: a) The long vowels *ī, *ū, and *ā cannot be proven to have existed in PIE because of a later development that a short vowel + laryngeal before a consonant produces a long vowel with loss of the laryngeal. On the other hand we know from the ablaut system that *ē and *ō did exist. b) The short vowel *a of non-laryngeal origin is rare in PIE. What its status might have been in pre-PIE is a matter of conjecture. c) The laryngeal *h2 colored an adjacent *e (either preceding or following) to *a, while *h3 colored an adjacent *e bidirectionally to *o, after which the rule articulated in a) applied. In the case of *h1 only the rule in a) applied, and the vowel was consequently lengthened to *ē. d) The sonorant consonants *y, *w, *r, *l, *m, and *n stood in allophonic variation with their syllabic counterparts *i, *u, *r̥ , *l̥ , *m̥ and *n̥, respectively. And these syllabics in turn generally gave long or more complex outcomes when followed by a laryngeal plus consonant. The cover term used for the sonorant is *R and its syllabic counterpart is *R̥. These sounds may collectively be called “resonants”. e) When appearing between non-syllabics the laryngeals were subject to “vocalization” (more realistically, anaptyxis) and in this way functioned schematically much as the resonants (*H : *H̥). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261288-040

40. The phonology of Greek

639

f) An apparent regional phenomenon of Indo-European, seen in Greek, Indo-Iranian, and Armenian, is the existence of a set of voiceless aspirates (*ph, *th, *k̑h, *kh, *kw h). These are not normally treated today as part of the phonemic inventory of the proto-language. At least, some instances of these sounds result from the sequence of a voiceless stop + *h2 , as in the case of the second singular -tha (< *-th2 e) of the perfect (Gk oĩstha : Skt. véttha ‘you know’). In other instances these sounds may have had affective or onomatopoeic value within a broader range of Indo-European languages, as in the word for ‘laugh’ Gk. kakházō : Skt. kákhati : Lat. cachinnō. The system just described is a sufficient basis for treating the historical phonology of Greek.

1.1. From PIE to Greek: obstruents Whereas the plain voiced and voiceless stops of PIE did not change, the PIE voiced aspirates underwent devoicing while preserving their aspiration: (1)

PIE *bher- ‘carry’ *h1 rudhrós ‘red’ *g̑hans- ‘goose’

Old Indic bharrudhiráhaṁsá-

Greek phereruthrós khān (Doric) < *khans

Mycenaean, the earliest recorded Greek variety (14th−12th c. BCE), continued PIE labiovelars, spelling *kw, *gw, and *kwh via the syllabograms QI, QE, QO, QA (see Bartoněk, 2003: 138). In alphabetic Greek, however, these sounds are represented by either labials or dentals. Adjacent to u labiovelars had undergone dissimilation to plain velars already in Proto-Indo-European. (2)

*artopokwoi > Myc. a-to-po-qo /artopokwoi/ > *artopópoi > artokópoi ‘bakers’ (with dissimilation) *gwoukwolos > Myc. qo-u-ko-ro /gwoukolos/ > boukólos ‘cowherd’ *throkw hā > Myc. to-ro-qa /t(h)rokw hā/ > trophḗ ‘nourishment’

A salient feature of Mycenaean Greek was the existence of two affricate phonemes /t s/ and /dz/ (or perhaps /ʧ/ and /ʤ/, see Bartoněk, 2003: 142−143). These two arose before the time of the earliest Linear B documents (14th c. BCE) as a consequence of various palatalizations and affrications (to be discussed in 3.5 and 3.6). In Linear B documents they are spelled by syllabograms ZE, ZA, ZO: (3)

/t s/ su-za /sūtsai/ (< *sūkjai) ‘fig-tree’ (Hom. sukéę̄ ) /dz/ to-pe-za /torpedza/ (< *(kw)tr̥-pedja) ‘table’ (Attic trápeza) me-zo /medzōs/ (< *megjōs) ‘bigger’ (Attic meízōn) ze-u-ke-si /dzeuges(s)i/ ‘with horses and carriages’ (DatPl) (< *jeuges-si) (Attic zeúgesi)

It could well be that the system with two affricates (non-continuous strident consonants) survived into Classical Arcadian (see 3.5).

640

VII. Greek PIE *s remains in Greek only adjacent to itself, a voiceless stop, or when final. Elsewhere before a vowel it becomes h, which is maintained in initial position except in psilotic dialects (notably East Ionic and Lesbian) but is lost medially. Linear B shows a character transliterated a2 which is generally thought to represent /ha/, as in pa-we-a ‘pieces of cloth’ /pharweha/, alphabetic Greek phárea; but this representation is inconsistent, and otherwise there is no direct trace of medial h anywhere in Greek. On the treatment of s in consonant clusters see 3.7 below.

1.2. From PIE to Greek: resonants Of the resonants, *r, *l, *m, and *n remain in Greek, but their corresponding syllabic variants show various outcomes. PIE syllabic nasals are reflected as a in alphabetic Greek: (4)

*tn̥tós ‘stretched’ > Gr tatós *-gwm̥tós > Gr -batós

In Mycenaean a may alternate with o in both instances: (5)

pe-ma /sperma/ ~ pe-mo /spermo/ ‘seed’ < *spermn̥ de-ko-to /dekotos/ ‘Dekotos’ (name) < *dek̑m̥tós (Attic-Ionic dekatós ‘10 th’)

PIE syllabic liquids are reflected as ra/ar and la/al: (6)

*dhr̥s- ‘dare’ > Gr thrasús *k̑r̥d- ‘heart’ > Gr kardíā (also kradíā) *ml̥ du- ‘soft’ > Gr bladeĩsˑ adúnatoi ‘powerless’ (Hesych.)

Mycenaean, however, (together with Arcado-Cypriot and Aeolic) shows reflexes or/ro for *r̥. (7)

qe-to-ro-po-de /kwetrópodes/ ‘fourfooted’ (in compounds) (Attic-Ionic tetrápodes) to-pe-za /torpedza/ ‘table’ (< *tr̥pedja) ‘table’ (Attic-Ionic trápeza) if indeed from the zero-grade *(kw)twr̥- (see Frisk 1960−1972: 914)

Although the vocalic resonants *i and *u remain as such in Greek, their non-syllabic counterparts *y and *w are subject to widespread loss depending in part on the dialect. In Mycenaean the labiovelar glide (semivowel) was retained in all positions: wa-na-ka /wanaks/ ‘ruler’, ko-wa /korwā/ ‘girl’ > Ionic koúrę̄ (see 1.5.2), di-wo /diwos/ ‘Diós’ (Gen of Zeús). This glide is not present in the earliest documents of Attic-Ionic but it survived in many dialects into the classical period (in Pamphylian it remained a phoneme deep into Hellenistic times, see Bubenik 1989: 230). The palatal glide was lost already in Mycenaean with a sole relic -w(i)j- observable in the Linear B documents (me-wi-jo ~ me-u-jo /mew(i)jōs/ ‘smaller’ > Attic-Ionic meíōn). The palatal glide in initial position was weakened to h-, which could be missing as indicated by alternative spellings jo-do-

40. The phonology of Greek so-si /jō(s) dōsonsi/ ‘as they will give’ (Attic hōs dṓsousi) ~ o-a-ke-re-se /(h)ō(s) agrēsei/ ‘as he will take’ (cf. Aeolic agrei ‘take!’); in other words, however, j- was strengthened to dj- which underwent the same development as -dj- in medial position, see examples in (3) and discussion in Section 3.5.

1.3. From PIE to Greek: laryngeals The lengthening and coloring effects of the laryngeals in Greek are illustrated in the Classical triad títhēmi ‘I place’, (Doric) hístāmi ‘I set up’, and dídōmi ‘I give’(*dheh1, *steh2, *deh3, respectively). Their effects on a following e-vowel are illustrated in the verb estí ‘is’ (*h1es), ágō ‘I drive, lead’ (*h2 eg̑) and ópsomai ‘I will see’ (h3 ek w ). Their “vocalization” is unique in Indo-European in that each laryngeal shows a different coloration which matches the timbre of the long vowel outcomes given above. Thus *h̥1 appears as e, *h̥2 as a, and *h̥3 as o as in the verbal adjectives in -tó-: *dhh̥1 tós > thetós ‘placed’, *sth̥2 tós > statós ‘set up’, and *dh3 tós > dotós ‘given’. These three reflexes are also found in initial position (where they were formerly treated as prothetic vowels) as in érebos ‘darkness’ from *h1regw-, anḗr ‘man’ from *h2 nēr, and omíkhlē ‘mist, fog’ from *h3 migh-. When following syllabic resonants and preceding consonants the most widely accepted opinion is that there is a distinction between the treatment of *iHxC and *uHxC, on the one hand, and all other resonants, on the other hand. The former two resonants seem to undergo simple lengthening while the remaining resonant show Rāx at least when the accent follows and axRax when the accent is on the resonant (by ax is meant the vowel corresponding to the coloration of each laryngeal: a1 = e, a2 = a, a3 = o): (8)

*píHw-on- ‘fat’ > pī́on-, Skt pī́van*ébhuh2 t ‘s/he was’ > éphū *g̑n̥h1 tós ‘born’ > kasí-gnētos ‘brother’ (< ‘born together with’) but *g̑ń̥h1 tis ‘birth’ > génesis *k̑m̥h2 tós ‘wrought with toil’ > polú-kmētos (*ā) but *k̑ḿ̥h2 tos ‘toil’ > kámatos *str̥h3tós ‘laid down’ > strōtós

2. Vowels 2.1. The vowels of Ionic-Attic, Arcado-Cypriot, Aeolic and Doric dialects After the fall of the Mycenaean civilization Proto-Ionic was formed in the area of Attica. During the “Great Migration” of Ionians (10th c. BCE) the Ionic dialect spread to Euboea (W. Ionic), the Cyclades (Central Ionic) and ultimately to Asia Minor (East Ionic). The Ionic- speaking areas are linked by several isoglosses and together with Attic form a higher Attic-Ionic taxon characterized by the fronting and raising of Proto-Greek *ā to ę̄. In Attic, however, this raising either did not occur or was later undone after e, i, r (see 2.4). Attic in common with Euboean (but not Central or East Ionic) changed the Proto-Greek affricate *ts into tt; East and Central Ionic lost the initial *h- (< *s), so-

641

642

VII. Greek called psilosis; but on the other hand, the Attic-Ionic fronting of Proto-Greek high back *u to ü did not fully affect Euboea. Before the Persian wars (490−479), East Ionic enjoyed the highest status among the Greek dialects. Ionic writers (Herodotus, Hippocrates) developed the first literary prose and Ionic influence is apparent even in Attic inscriptions of that time. After the Persian wars, Attic gradually replaced Ionic as the most prestigious among the Greek dialects. The reasons have to do with the increasing political power of Athens exerted in the First Maritime League, during which Athens became the center of commerce and culture. This development gradually changed the direction of linguistic influence and now it was Attic which was imitated by the Ionians (and other Greeks). Some traces of Attic influence can already be seen in Ionic inscriptions of the 5th c.; in the 4th c. the majority of Ionic insular inscriptions show at least a mixture of Attic forms and in the 3rd c. 80 % of all inscriptions are in Attic-Ionic (Hellenistic) Koine, with only 4 % in “pure” Ionic (see Bubenik 1989: 175−182). In what follows it will be expedient to refer to the best known Greek variety − Classical Attic − as a touchstone for the other varieties. The vocalic phonemes of Classical Attic (5th c. BCE) consisted of seven long (ī ē ̣ ę̄ ā ǭ ọ̄ ū) and five short (i e a o u) vowels. The long vowels can be represented by the familiar triangular four-grade vocalic system contrasting high, mid-high and mid-low vowels on both axes, and a low /ā/. Greek dialects can be dichotomized into two major groups: those possessing a threegrade vocalic system (ī ē ā ō ū), i.e. without the opposition of mid-high and mid-low vowels, and those possessing a four grade vocalic system. The former system is found in Mycenaean, the Arcado-Cypriot group, Lesbian (Aeolic) and “strict” Doric dialects (Laconian, Messenian, Central Cretan and Cyrenaean). The latter system is found in Attic-Ionic, North-West dialects, Saronic dialects (Corinthian, Megarian and Argolic), East Aegean Doric, and Pamphylian. The dialect spoken in Boeotia did not possess the contrast between a mid-high /ọ̄/ and mid-low back vowel /ǭ/. The traditional reconstruction of the vocalic system of the Attic dialect at the beginning of the Hellenistic period (ca. 350 BCE) presents an asymmetric system of long vowels (ī ē ̣ ę̄ ā ō ū ṻ) maintaining the mid-high versus mid-low contrast only on the front axis. On the back axis the fronting of the high back vowel ū > ṻ, the raising of mid vowels, and the monophthongization of ou to ū (via ọ̄) can be portrayed as a “dragchain”, but their relative chronology is difficult to establish (cf. Bubenik 1983: 45−49). There were at least five short vowels (i e a o ü). For further details of the subsequent development, especially the contentious issue of the loss of phonemic length, see Teodorsson (1974, 1977) and Threatte (1980).

2.2. The diphthongs of Classical Attic In terms of surface contrasts Classical Attic possessed five short (ui, oi, ai, eu, au) and four long diphthongs (ēi, ōi, āi, ēu). [ei] can be regarded as a combinatory variant of /ẹ̄/ before a vowel, while long diphthongs [ōu] and [āu] result only from the contraction of o + au and e + au, respectively. These diphthongs occur in all environments with the following restrictions: a) short diphthongs do not occur before high vowels; b) diphthongs [ei] and /ui/ do not occur before consonants; and c) long diphthongs [āu], [ōu] and [ēu] occur only before consonants.

40. The phonology of Greek

2.3. Monophthongization of Proto-Greek diphthongs *ei and *ou The dates proposed for the onset of this process vary from the 7th to the 5th c. BCE according to different scholars (Schwyzer 1939: 233; Bartoněk 1966: 77; Allen 1974: 74). The monophthongization of ai in Boeotian preceded the same development in Hellenistic Koine by several centuries. At the end of the 4th c. we already find spellings such as Theibēō [thẹ̄bę̄ō] versus Attic Thēbaíou [thę̄baíọ̄]. As this example shows even the raising of the front half-open vowel took place much earlier in Boeotian.

2.4. Fronting and raising of Proto-Greek *ā in Attic-Ionic Proto-Greek *ā remained unchanged in all dialects with the exception of Attic-Ionic where *ā was fronted and subsequently raised (ā > ǣ > ę̄). Within the Attic-Ionic group Attic differs from the rest of the Ionic dialects in not having ę̄ but ā after front vowels e, i and liquid r; e.g. oikíā (Ionic oikíę̄), khǭrā (Ionic khǭrę̄). Two proposals have been offered to explain this distribution of reflexes in the Attic-Ionic group of dialects: a) Attic retained Proto-Greek *ā after front vowels and r while Ionic fronted ā in all environments; b) Attic-Ionic fronted *ā to ǣ and then Attic changed ǣ back into ā after front vowels and r. Some Attic words show ę̄ after r but in many of these cases r was originally followed by w, e.g. kórę̄ (< *korwā) ‘girl’, dérę̄ (< *derwā) ‘neck’; however, there are also instances where there was no w, e.g. eirę̄nę̄ ‘peace’, krę̄nę̄ ‘source’ (< *eirānā, *krānā preserved in Doric īrānā, krānā). The retrogressive theory b) (Lejeune 1972) is apparently more successful in explaining all the above forms in terms of relative-absolute chronology of historical sound change.

2.5. Compensatory lengthening 2.5.1. First compensatory lengthening In the majority of Greek dialects, with the exception of the Aeolic group (Thessalian and Lesbian, but not Boeotian), Proto-Greek consonant clusters of a sibilant followed by liquid, nasal or velar semi-vowel were affected by the fricative weakening (s > h), the voiceless glottal fricative was subsequently lost and this loss was accompanied by the First compensatory lengthening of the preceding short vowel, e.g. *selasnā > selānā ‘moon’, *kheslioi > khēlioi ‘thousand’ (in Doric dialects). In the same dialects clusters of a sibilant following liquid or nasal were simplified by the loss of the sibilant accompanied by compensatory lengthening of the preceding short vowel (this change was limited to the sigmatic aorist); and finally, the cluster *ln was simplified by the loss of n and accompanied by the compensatory lengthening, e.g. *ephansa > ephāna ‘I showed’, *stalnā > stālā ‘stele’. The First lengthening is usually placed around 1000 BCE since the resulting ā was subject to the fronting (ā > ǣ), which is supposed to have taken place during the 9th/8th c. BCE in the Attic-Ionic group (see Schwyzer 1939; Risch 1955; Bartoněk 1966; Lejeune 1972).

643

644

VII. Greek

2.5.2. Second and Third compensatory lengthening The Second lengthening of the type *pantja > pansa > pāsa ‘all’ became a source of a new Attic-Ionic /ā/. Its environment includes the secondary medial cluster -ns- (resulting from Proto-Greek *-ntj/i- through affrication and depalatalization) and the primary final -ns in the accusative plural (contrast Attic tous with Laconian tōs). The Second lengthening did not diffuse to certain dialects (Thessalian, Arcadian, West Argolic, Central Cretan) where forms such as pansa ‘all’ (Fem) and pheronsa ‘carrying’ are found. In Lesbian, Cyrenaean (and apparently also in Theran) the palatal glide metathesized with the cluster -ns-: *pherontja > pheronsja > pheroinsa > pheroisa. The Third lengthening was limited to the clusters of nasal or liquid plus velar glide; it compensated for the loss of w after sonorants by the lengthening of the preceding vowel. Its geography included Ionic speaking regions (but not Attic and Euboean), Argive (the dialect of Argos but not Argolic), Cretan, Cyrenaean and East Aegean Doric. Elsewhere, w was lost without any effect on the preceding vowel: (9)

*korwā > Cretan kōrā, Ionic (with raising) koúrē [kọ̄rę̄] versus Attic [kórę̄] ‘girl’ *ksenwos > Cretan ksēnos, Ionic (with raising) kseĩnos [ksẹ̄nos] versus Attic ksénos ‘guest’.

2.6. Vowel sequences in dialects 2.6.1. Height dissimilation As in the Aeolic and Doric dialects (and also in Cypriot) a mid front vowel was subject to regressive height dissimilation before a back mid vowel: e > i / _o. Contrast Lesbian khrúsios, Thessalian líthios with Ionic (Homer) khrúseos ‘golden’, lítheos ‘made of stone’. The situation in the Cretan dialects during the Hellenistic period was quite complex. This dissimilation is documented in Central Cretan and in the eastern transitional region (kosmiontes ‘being members of the body of chief magistrates’) but not in the dialects spoken in the western and eastern parts of the island. There e of contract verbs was syncopated in closed syllables (kosmontes) while in open syllables e and o contracted to ō. The opposite process, progressive height dissimilation after a short front mid vowel (o > u / e_), was a common phenomenon in many dialects: Ionic, East Aegean Doric, Cyrenaean, Megarian (see Buck 1955: 40) and in the texts of various early authors (including Homer), e.g. philéontas versus phileũntas ‘loving’ (Acc. Pl.).

2.6.2. Height assimilation In various dialects a low vowel was subject to regressive height assimilation before a back mid vowel: a > e /_o. There is both literary and inscriptional evidence from West Greek dialects for this assimilation. In Rhodian it was followed by contraction (ao > eo > ọ̄), in Central Cretan and Boeotian by regressive height dissimilation (ao > eo > io)

40. The phonology of Greek

645

and the resulting eo remained unchanged in Aetolian and Phocian; contrast Attic timǭ˜ntes (< timáontes) with Rhodian timountes [tīmọ̄ntes], Central Cretan timiontes and Aetolian timeontes ‘honoring’ (Nom. Pl.).

2.7. Contractions in Attic and other dialects For the traditional presentation of the Attic rules of contraction see Lejeune (1972: 260− 263). The following generalizations can be made: (i) A vowel resulting from the contraction is always long. (ii) If one of the contracting vowels is round, the resulting vowel will be round. (iii) If one of the contracting vowels is low, the resulting vowel will be low. Rules (ii) and (iii) are not valid for other dialects (Doric, Aeolic, Arcado-Cypriot). For Doric an additional subrule has to be built into (ii): If one of the contracting vowels is ā the resulting vowel will be ā. Rule (iii) has to be replaced by the Doric rule: The contraction of a with ē results in ē. The cardinal difference between the Attic and the Doric type of contraction emerges from the instances where one of the contracting vowels is ā. The Doric vowels could be hierarchized ā ō ē (the surviving vowel of a sequence of two will be that which occurs first in this series), while the Attic hierarchy would be ō ē ā. The feature [+round] is dominant in Attic, but in Doric it is the feature [+low]; contrast: (hāélios →) Attic hḗ˛lios with Doric hā́lios ‘sun’; (peināomen →) Attic peinǭ˜men with Doric peinā˜mes ‘we are hungry’. The results of contraction in Attic and Doric are identical only for a + o, since in this case regressive assimilation operated in Doric (as it did in the case of a + e): (13) timáomen timáete peināomen peināete

Attic-Ionic timǭ˜men timā˜te peinǭ˜men peinę˜̄ te

Doric timō˜mes timē˜te peinā˜mes peinā˜te

‘we honor’ ‘you honor’ ‘we are hungry’ ‘you are hungry’

A salient form of the North West dialects (and Boeotian) is the middle participle in -eimenos (or -ēmenos) of verbs in -e- (vs. Attic -oúmenos) traditionally explained as due to analogy with forms where ei (or ē) goes back to e + e (such as the infinitive in -eisthai). However it can be argued that Attic ou [ọ̄] results from e + o by regressive assimilation, while North West ei [ẹ̄] is the result of progressive assimilation (phileomenos > phileemenos > philē ̣menos).

3. Consonants 3.1. The consonantal phonemes of Greek dialects The 15 consonantal phonemes of Greek dialects (p, b, ph, t, d, th, k, g, kh, m, n, r, l, s, h) can be exhaustively described by means of 10 distinctive features (consonantal, vocalic, sonorant, voiced, nasal, aspirated, continuous, anterior, coronal, strident).

646

VII. Greek

3.2. Phonology of aspirates Aspirates cluster only with aspirates, voiceless stops, sonorants, and s. A cluster of two aspirates can only be of the type peripheral + coronal. Greek dialects do not allow for the sequence aspirate + sibilant (similarly, Modern Greek does not allow for the sequence fricative + sibilant). Thus in the formation of the sigmatic future the aspirate is deaspirated or its aspiration ‘thrown back’: gráph-ō ‘I write’, gráp-s-ō (Fut.), trékh-ō, ‘I run’, thrék-s-ō (Fut.), respectively. There are two synchronic processes which can be identified on the basis of variation in the spelling of aspirates prevocalically or in clusters. They are metathesis: [khalkos] > [kałkhos], Cretan kaukhos ‘copper’; Thessalian Petthalos, Boeotian Phettalos, Attic Thettalos ‘Thessalian’) and the anticipation of aspiration (Attic enthaũtha ~ entaũtha ‘here, there’). The phonetic reconstruction of clusters phth and khth remains controversial. According to Allen (1974: 25) there is no phonetic improbability about both consonants of these two clusters being aspirated, while Lupaş (1972: 16) suggests that the first consonant in the cluster was actually a voiceless lenis stop which also occurred before s (as in epigraphic ekhphérō [eg̣phérǭ] ‘I carry out’ and psēphos [ḅsęˆphos] ‘pebble’). This analysis is based on the observation that consonant clusters /ps/ and /ks/ could be spelled with the aspirate before the adoption of the Ionic alphabet: ps ~ phs ks ~ khs.

3.3. Grassmann’s Law The well-known phenomenon of “Grassmann’s Law” (1863), stating basically that the leftmost of the two non-adjacent aspirates is deaspirated (as in tí-thē-mi ‘I put’ from “underlying” *thí-thē-mi) was the subject of various controversies during the previous decades, among them whether GL is a synchronic rule of Greek (and Sanskrit). For instance, the three allomorphs of the root of the verb ékhō ‘I have’, Aor. éskhon, Fut. héksō (ekh ~ eskh ~ hek) were derived from the same underlying form *sekh by several rules among them the rule which copied the diachronic process of fricative weakening (s > h) followed by GL: *sekh > hekh > ekh; in the future the constraint against aspirate + s applied: *sekh-s > hekh-s > heks. Similarly, the two alternants seen in tréph-ō ‘I nourish’ and thrép-s-ō (Fut.) would be derived from the underlying diaspirate root *threph-. Miller (1974) showed that there is no need for GL in synchronic derivations of the above forms by formulating a subrule of deaspiration labeled “aspirate throwback” limited to the sequence tr- as in trikh-ós (Gen.) ~ thrík-s ‘hair’. There are only isolated examples of aspirate throw-back to a bilabial stop (as in phrourós ‘watcher’: pro-horáō) and no examples to a velar stop followed by r.

3.4. Fricati(vizati)on of ancient aspirates As shown by Modern Greek, the ancient aspirates /ph/, /th/, /kh/, were at a certain period changed into fricatives /f/, /θ/, /x/. The beginnings of this process are usually placed in the Greco-Roman period (starting ca. 150 BCE). Certain spellings found in inscriptions from dialectal areas suggest that this process could have started much earlier. For in-

40. The phonology of Greek

647

stance, Aristophanes and Thucydides transcribe Laconian /th/ before vowels with sigma (as in siós = theós ‘god’) and the same spelling occurs in the inscriptions from Sparta beginning in the 4th c. (as in anesēke = anéthēke ‘dedicated’). This apparently indicates that the ancient dental aspirate changed into the interdental fricative (th > θ) in Laconian as spoken around 400 BCE and consequently the spelling with sigma represented better the new phonetic reality. However, positive evidence for the frication of ph and th is found no earlier than the 1st c. CE in Pompeian spellings such as Dafne (= Dáphnē), lasfe (= lásthē ‘mockery’), see Schwyzer (1939: 158) for their evaluation. The environments for the frication of aspirates which come most readily to mind are the relatively difficult clusters phth and khth; the same might be true of the clusters sph, sth and skh. Inscriptional evidence can only be indirect insofar as the fricatives only occurred as allophones of aspirates. For instance, there are spellings like ss for sth (in late Elean inscriptions of 4th−2nd c. BCE) which could be interpreted as reflecting the phonetic realization [sθ] of the cluster /sth/. Summarily, as shown in Table 1, we can state that the fricative allophones of the aspirate phonemes, which occurred in Early Hellenistic Koine, were phonemicized in Late Hellenistic Koine: Tab. 40.1: Phonemicization of fricative allophones in Late Hellenistic Koine Early Hellenistic Koine

>

Late Hellenistic Koine

/p/

/ph/

[f]

/b/

/p/

/f/

/b/

/t/

/th/

[θ]

/d/

/t/

/θ/

/d/

/k/

/kh/

[x]

/g/

/k/

/x/

/g/

It is more difficult to establish at which period the fricative pronunciation of the voiced stops developed. There is some sporadic evidence for this process (b > β/v, d > ð, g > γ/j) seen in (pre)-Hellenistic spellings from various dialectal areas (such as Elean boikiar = oikíās, Corinthian zeka = déka, Boeotian iṓga for = égōge) and it may be assumed that the opposition of voice in continuants became fully phonemic during the transitional period of ca. 300−600 CE (see Bubenik, 1983: 108−110).

3.5. Dental and velar palatalization In Proto-Greek a dental obstruent /t/ before the palatal semivowel /j/ was palatalized and subsequently affricated: *tj > *t’j > *t’s’j; similarly, a velar obstruent was palatalized and affricated: *kj > *k’j > *t’s’j. After the palatal glide had been lost this palatal affricate was depalatalized and merged with the Proto-Greek cluster *ts. This cluster could be subject to progressive assimilation ts > tt (in Boeotian, Attic and Central Cretan) or to regressive assimilation ts > ss (in other dialects). Their voiced counterparts, *dj and *gj, were palatalized and affricated in a similar fashion but the resulting affricate [dz] was simplified to [z] with the intermediate realization as the cluster [zd] (in some dialects, especially in South Italy, the intermediate cluster [dz] is found): *wridja ‘root’ > Myc wi-ri-za /wridza/, Attic hríza [r̥ ízda], later [r̥ íza]. The manifold evidence reflecting the intermediate stage [zd] includes both comparative-etymological considerations, such as the fact that Gr. όzos ‘branch, twig’ is cognate with Gothic asts ‘id.’ (PIE *h2 o-zd-os

648

VII. Greek ‘sitting at the tree’, cf. Hittite ḫašdwḗr ‘brush, twigs’ [*what sits by the tree’]) and internal reconstruction, e.g. Athḗnaze ‘to Athens’ < *Athēnans-de with the allative suffix -de preceded by the accusative. Note also the treatment of as a long consonant in Greek poetry. Similarly, Lesbian /wrizda/ spelled brisda. On the basis of reflexes of the Proto-Greek clusters *t(h)j, *k(h)j, *ts, *ss (and *tw) and several other isoglosses, the Classical dialects can conveniently be classified into four broad groups: 1. Arcado-Cypriot and Ionic dialects show consistently a geminate sibilant /ss/ for PG *k(h)j and *tw, and a sibilant /s/ for PG *t(h)j, *ts and *ss: *kārukjō > kērússō ‘I proclaim’, *sēmitwon > ēmisson ‘half’ (Arcadian), *methjos > mésos ‘middle’. 2. Aeolic and West dialects display a geminate sibilant /ss/ for all these clusters: kārússō, hēmisson (Thessalian, Delphian), méssos (Lesbian). 3. Salient features of Aeolic are the labial reflexes for PG labiovelars before /e/ (3.6) and the gemination in sonorant clusters (3.7). 4. Attica, Euboea and Boeotia represent a transitional area where PG *k(h)j, *tw and partly even *t(h)j developed into a geminate obstruent /tt/. This geminate could have belonged to the Aeolic basilect, surviving in Boeotian (and extended to [Western?] Attic), but eliminated partially in Thessalian and wholly in Lesbian: méttos ‘middle’, tu ‘you’ (Boeotian) versus Attic mésos and su (as if from *twu but most likely the result of analogy based on the accusative *twe > se). However, cf. Attic tḗmeron ‘today’ (*ky-āmeron), tháttōn ‘quicker’ (*khy, cf. takhús ‘quick’), and eréttō ‘I row’ (*eret-yō, cf. erétēs ‘rower’), see Chadwick (1969: 92). On the differing treatments of Attic mésos and eréttō, (also krẹ̄ttōn ‘better’, melitoũtta ‘sweet’, etc. [early restoration of *tj at a synchronic morpheme boundary followed by pan-Greek palatalization of both *k(h)j and *t(h)j to *tš, whence *ts > tt w ss]) see Pedersen (1923).

3.6. Reflexes of Proto-Greek labiovelars in Classical dialects The following data from Classical dialects illustrate post-Mycenaean labial development in Aeolic dialects and palatal development of Proto-Greek labiovelars in other dialectal groups: (14) *kwis (PIE, Myc) > kis (Thessalian), t sis (Arcadian) ‘who’ *kwēle- (Myc) > pēlothen (Lesbian), tēlóthen (Ionic) ‘from afar’ *gwel-/*gwol- > bellomai (Thessalian), boúlomai (Ionic), dēlomai (West) ‘I wish’ *t(h)rokwhā (Myc) > trophḗ ‘nourishment’ (see Bartoněk, 2003: 138). According to Lejeune (1972: 50) the palatalization started in the environment before front vowels, where the velar articulation developed a following palatal glide which entailed a fronting of the obstruent and the subsequent loss of the labial component. In Arcado-Cypriot the affricate underwent the same development as the affricate resulting from the dental and velar palatalization (3.5). The affricate stage is probably documented by Arcadian /tsis/ ‘who’ (< *k wis) spelled by a special grapheme of the epichoric alphabet or by the digraph TZ as in tzetrakatiai /tsetra-/ ‘400’ (< *k wétwr̥ -), Attic tetrakósiai. In Cypriot the affricate lost its closure completely, hence sis /sis/ ‘who’. Ionic dialects

40. The phonology of Greek

649

diverged at the affricate stage by losing its fricative component, t sis > tis, and Thessalian kis lost the labial component of PG *kwis without undergoing palatalization. In ArcadoCypriot the voiced labiovelar *gw underwent parallel development but the voiced affricate *dz was subsequently deaffricated: déllō (zéllō Hesychius), bállō (Ionic) ‘I throw’, dérethron (zérethron Strabo), bárathron (Ionic) ‘pit’. That the palatal development could have taken place even in West Greek dialects is demonstrated by Heraclean dēlomai, Delphian and Locrian deilomai which correspond to the forms with labial development in other dialects (Boeotian beilomai, Thessalian bellomai). In Aeolic dialects Proto-Greek labiovelars are reflected as labials in the environment before non-high vowels /e, o, a/. The same is true of all the other dialects before back non-high vowels /o, a/. A labial obstruent before /e/ where all the other dialects show a dental obstruent is a salient feature of the Aeolic dialects (Lesbian pēlothen versus Ionic tēlóthen ‘from afar’). As noted in 1.1, labiovelars were already in Proto-Indo-European regularly delabialized adjacent to /u/ as in *g wouk wolos > Myc g woukolos (spelled qo-u-ko-ro) > boukólos (Homer) ‘cowherd’ versus *amphik wolos > amphípolos (Homer) ‘handmaid’; and before /o/ dissimilatory delabialization is occasionally encountered, as in kṓs ‘how?’, kóteros ‘which of two?’, both found in Ionic authors (vs. Attic pṓs, póteros).

3.7. Development of Proto-Greek sonorant clusters in dialects A divergent development of PG sonorant clusters is particularly important for the classification of Ancient Greek dialects, especially for establishing a dichotomy between Aeolic (North East group) and all the other dialects. Their development can conveniently be studied under four headings: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Sonorant + Sibilant (*ms, *ns, *rs, *ls) Sibilant + Sonorant (*sm, *sn, *sr, *sl) Lateral + Nasal (*ln) Sonorant + Palatal glide (*nj, *rj, *lj)

Pertinent data are presented in (15): (15) a. Aeolic Doric Ionic b. Aeolic Doric c. Aeolic Doric d. Aeolic Ionic

énemma éneima émmi ēmi

ékrinna éphāna éphēna selánnā selānā stállā stālā kténnō kteínō

éstella éstēla éstēla khéllioi khēlioi

ekáthāra ekáthēra khérras (Acc. Pl.) khēr

phthérrō phtheírō

stéllō stéllō

In (a) and (b) in Aeolic the sibilant is assimilated completely to the sonorant (by progressive assimilation in [a] and regressive assimilation in [b]). In other dialects the sibilant was weakened (s > h), then lost and the preceding vowel lengthened compensatorily; contrast *estelsa > *estelza > éstella (Aeolic) with *estelsa > estelha > estēla (Doric) ‘I

650

VII. Greek sent’; *esmi > ezmi > émmi (Aeolic) with *esmi > ehmi > ēmi (Doric) ‘I am’. All the examples in (a) are those of a sigmatic aorist; if s belongs to other inflectional classes (such as the 2nd Sg. Perf. Middle péphan-sai ‘you have appeared’, éstal-sai ‘you have sent out’) or derivational classes (such as apóphan-sis ‘declaration’, káthar-sis ‘cleansing’), it remains unaffected. In Homer and in Ionic writers the PG cluster *rs remained while in Attic it was completely assimilated (*rs > rz > rr): ársēn versus árrēn ‘male’. In Attic there are quite a few examples showing the Aeolic treatment -nn- < *sn, e.g. zōnnūmi ‘gird’ (< *jōsnūmi), sbénnūmi ‘extinguish’ (< *sgwésnūmi). In (c) the cluster *ln shows the progressive assimilation as in (a): *stal-nā > stállā (Aeolic) versus stālā (Doric) ‘stele’, unlike regressive assimilation in (b): *selas-nā > selannā (Aeolic) versus selānā (Doric) ‘moon’. The Attic form (ap)óllūmi ‘I destroy’ shows the Aeolic development through nasal assimilation (< *olnūmi). In (d) in Aeolic dialects the palatal glide is assimilated completely to a preceding liquid or n in the environment after front and high back vowels /i, e, u/, whereas in other dialects one finds loss of the glide with compensatory lengthening. However, after l glide assimilation is common to all dialects with the exception of Cypriot and Elean, in both of which one finds ailos ‘another’ for earlier *aljos. In all dialects a metathesis of the palatal glide in the clusters *rj and *nj took place after the back non-high vowels /o, a/: (*gwm̥-) > ban-jō > baínō ‘I walk’, *mor-ja > moĩra ‘portion’.

4. The accentual system 4.1. The general limiting rule A binary accentual opposition in Attic was recognized from the time of Plato (Cratylus 399 A). A term oksús ‘acute’ was applied to the positive, culminative feature occurring only once in each full word (= high pitch); and the term barús ‘grave’ was applied to the negative, non-culminative feature occurring in all the other syllables (= low pitch) with the exception of the syllable immediately following the high pitch. The post-tonic syllable carried a falling glide starting at a high pitch and finishing low. The accentuation rules and graphic notations for different types of accent were elaborated by Aristophanes of Byzantium (about 200 BCE) in order to teach foreigners the “correct” accent in pronouncing the Attic based Hellenistic Koine. His rule of recession, limiting the distance of the accent from the end of the word, is presented in various school grammars in lengthy and atomistic statements referring to the last three syllables. Jakobson ([1937] 1971: 263) simplified considerably the rule of recession by introducing the concept of mora: “The span between the accented and the final mora cannot exceed one syllable”. Allen (1973: 234) further simplified the rule by introducing the new notion of “contonation” (= the combination of high pitch + falling glide): “Not more than one mora may follow the contonation”. In Attic (and apparently in other Ionic dialects) the phonological opposition between the falling melodic pattern (= circumflex) and the high pitch without falling glide (= acute) only existed in long vowels (or diphthongs) in final syllables as in the following minimal pairs: phōˆs ‘light’ versus phṓs ‘man’; heîs ‘one’ vs. heís ‘having sent’ (Part. Aor. of híēmi); theāˆs ‘of the goddess’ vs. theā́s (Acc. Pl.). In the penultimate syllable this alternation was predictable since it was governed by the general limit-

40. The phonology of Greek ing rule. For instance, the pair oîkoi ‘houses’ vs. oíkoi ‘in the house’ features the monomoric /oj/ in the plural vs. the dimoric /o+i/ in the locative singular: /óikoj/ vs. /oíko+i/. In Aeolic the accent was not contrastive as in Attic since it recedes to its full limit which makes the mora irrelevant for the accentual description (cf. Garde 1968: 148). Thus the following pairs of words would be homophonous in Aeolic (pronounced as in the first of each pair): tómos ‘a cut’ and tomós ‘cutting’; ékhthrā ‘hatred’ and ekhthrā́ ‘hated’ (Fem); thērótrophos ‘feeding on beasts’ and thērotróphos ‘feeding wild beasts’.

4.2. Minor rules In Attic there were three minor accentual rules: 4.2.1. The scope of the “Final Trochee” rule is actually covered by the general limiting rule: If the high pitch occurs on a penultimate syllable containing a long vowel or a diphthong and the final vowel is short, it must occur on the first mora, i.e. the accent will be circumflex and not acute (e.g. gunaîkes ‘women’ versus Doric gunaíkes). 4.2.2. According to “Wheeler’s Law” original polysyllabic oxytones became paroxytones if the penultimate syllable contained a short vowel and the weight of the antepenultimate syllable was heavy (i.e. if the word had a dactylic ending): patroktónos ‘parricide’, poikílos ‘many-colored’, agkúlos ‘crooked’. The original location of the accent on the ultima is preserved in Vedic (pitr̥ghnás, peśalás, aṅkurás) and in Greek in compounds which do not have a dactylic ending (hippophorbós ‘horse-keeper’, stratēgós ‘commander of an army’). 4.2.3. According to “Vendryes’ Law” a word with a properispomenon accent, as erē˜mos ‘desert’, retracts the accent to the preceding syllable, if it is light (contrast andreĩos ‘manly’ with érēmos ‘void of’). According to Lejeune (1972: 298), Vendryes’ Law also operates across word boundaries: egṓ=ge → égōge ‘for my part’ (vs. Doric egṓga), emoí+ge → émoige (Dat.).

4.3. Enclisis of accent Full words (hosts) followed by enclitics form a phonological unit (phonological word) which serves as the domain for the rules of accentuation. The accent of the host serves now as the accent of the resulting phonological word (e.g. anḗr=tis ‘a man’). Where the accent of the host, if applied to the phonological word, would be in disagreement with the general limiting rule, a secondary accent is added to make it comply with the general rule (e.g. ánthrōpós=tis ‘a human (being)’). The secondary accent cannot be added to the words with circumflex in the final syllable (e.g. kalouˆ=tinos ‘of someone who is nice’ not *kaloú=tinos) or the acute on the penultimate syllable (e.g. hoútō=pōs ‘somehow’). There is a secondary accent added in combinations such as oĩkoí=tinōn ‘houses of some’ where the general rule is violated. The same happens in the inflection of i-

651

652

VII. Greek stems and eu-stems (póleōs ‘of the city’, pḗkheōs ‘of the forearm’) after the metathesis of length from earlier *pólēj-os > pólēos > póleōs.

5. Morphophonemics 5.1. Analogical accent leveling Doric dialects, compared with Attic, show the effects of analogical leveling in verbal paradigms: elábomes (1 Pl.), elábon ‘they took’ (accent on the root) versus Attic élabon; ephilíomes (1 Pl.), ephilíon ‘they loved’ versus ephíloun; tuptoménoi ‘hit’ (Masc. Pl.) versus tuptómenoi. Hellenistic Greek solved anomalies of both the Attic and Doric systems by borrowing the ending of the sigmatic aorist -san (elábo-san). The extra-syllable in the 3rd Pl. made it possible to keep the accent on the root in the plural (as in Doric) satisfying at the same time the verbal recessive accent (as in Attic).

5.2. Function of accent in Ancient Greek dialects If the accent constantly occurs at a certain point in the word it fulfills a demarcative function. In Aeolic (Lesbian) this function was clearly pronounced since the location of the accent in all full words was invariably fixed by the general limiting rule, i.e. the high pitch always receded to its full limit. (Among living languages the Lesbian accent pattern is reminiscent of that found in certain Slavic Macedonian dialects which automatically stress the antepenultimate syllable). Certain quasi-nominal and nominal forms have to be described as underlyingly accented on the ultima, penult, or antepenult (agapē-tós ‘lovable’, lip-ṓn ‘having left’, pepaideu-ménos ‘(having been) educated’; sophós ‘wise’, potamós ‘river’, phílos ‘friend’, ánthrōpos ‘man’). In Aeolic (sóphos, pótamos) the accent is described automatically by the general limiting rule (as expressed neatly by Garde [1968: 148] “in Lesbian the law of limitation becomes the law of fixation”). We know much less about the nature of the accent pattern of numerous West Greek dialects. For instance, there could be a considerable variation in the prosodic systems of Saronic dialects (Megarian, Corinthian, East Argolic) which were in direct contact with Attic. The reconstructed paradigms for strict Doric Laconian (see Bubenik 1983: 153− 160, 169−171) show the accent distributed “columnarly” throughout the plural subparadigms as a result of the process of analogical leveling (elégomes, elégete, elégon ‘they said’; aggéloi ‘messengers’, aggélōn, aggélois, aggélōs).

6. References Allen, William Sidney 1973 Accent and Rhythm. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Allen, William Sidney 1974 Vox Graeca. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

40. The phonology of Greek

653

Bartoněk, Antonín 1966 Development of the long-vowel system in ancient Greek dialects. Opera Universitatis Purkynianae Brunensis. (Facultas Philosophica 106). Prague: Státní pedagogické nakladatelství. Bartoněk, Antonín 2003 Handbuch des mykenischen Griechisch. Heidelberg: Winter. Bubenik, Vit 1983 The Phonological Interpretation of Ancient Greek: A Pandialectal Analysis. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Bubenik, Vit 1989 Hellenistic and Roman Greece as a Sociolinguistic Area. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Buck, Carl Darling 1955 The Greek Dialects. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Chadwick, John 1969 Greek and Pre-Greek. Transactions of the Philological Society. [1970]. 80−98. Frisk, Hjalmar 1960−1972 Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. 3 Bde. Heidelberg: Winter. Garde, Paul 1968 L’accent. Paris: Presses universitaires de France. Jakobson, Roman 1971 [1937] On ancient Greek prosody. In: Roman Jakobson, Selected Writings. I. Phonological Studies, Second, expanded edition. The Hague: Mouton, 262−271. Lejeune, Michel 1972 Phonétique historique du mycénien et du grec ancien. Paris: Klincksieck. Lupaś, Liana 1972 Phonologie du grec attique. The Hague: Mouton. Miller, D. Gary 1974 Some problems in formulating aspiration and deaspiration rules in Ancient Greek. Glossa 8: 211−224. Pedersen, Holger 1923 Das auf einen t-Laut zuruckgehende s and ss in Griechischen. ANTIDŌRON. Festschrift Jacob Wackernagel. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 110−116. Risch, Ernst 1955 Die Gliederung der griechischen Dialekte in neuer Sicht. Museum Helveticum 12: 61− 76. Schwyzer, Eduard 1939 Griechische Grammatik. Band 1. Algemeiner Teil. Lautlehre. Wortbildung. Flexion. Munich: Beck. Teodorsson, Sven-Tage 1974 The Phonemic System of the Attic Dialect 400−300 BCE (Studia Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia 32). Lund: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis. Teodorsson, Sven-Tage 1977 The Phonology of Ptolemaic Koine. (Studia Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia 36). Lund: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis. Threatte, Leslie 1980 The Grammar of Attic Inscriptions. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Vit Bubenik, St. John’s, Newfoundland (Canada)

654

VII. Greek

41. The morphology of Greek 1. 2. 3. 4.

Nominal inflection Nominal declensions Numerals Pronouns: demonstrative, relative, interrogative, indefinite

5. Personal pronouns 6. Verbal system 7. References

1. Nominal inflection The inflectional categories of the IE noun (including adjectives and pronouns) are represented in Greek as follows: a) Gender: masculine, feminine, neuter. Gender is inherent for non-motional substantives (i.e. those incapable of changing gender) and inflectional for adjectives and pronouns. The feminine is formed by means of the derivative suffixes -ā-, -ia-/-iāin non-compounded adjectives (type agat hós : agat hḗ ‘good’, barús : bareîa ‘heavy’) and in motional substantives (type doûlos ‘slave’ : doúlē, hiereús ‘priest’ : hiéreia). b) Number: singular, plural, dual. Dual, which is still well attested in Mycenaean, progressively disappeared. It is used inconsistently in Homer, and is practically nonexistent in Classical times, except in Attic. The ending of the neuter plural (-a) goes back to an inherited singular collective *-(e)h2 , which is still recognizable in the pairs kúkla ‘wheelage’ : kúkloi ‘wheels’, kéleut ha : kéleut hoi ‘paths’ and especially the socalled construction tà zôia trék hei ‘the animals (pl.: *‘the collectivity of animals’) runs (sg.)’. c) Case: nominative, vocative, accusative, genitive, dative in Classical Greek. Locative, instrumental, perhaps also ablative, were also still attested with specific endings in Mycenaean. Old forms of these cases are recognizable in adverbs and conjunctions (1.4). The IE eight case system has been progressively reduced by syncretism: already in Mycenaean and in Homer, as in Classical Greek, the genitive took over the function of the former ablative. Dative, locative, and instrumental have merged in the Homeric and Classical “dative”. A different pattern of syncretism, with the merging of locative and ablative, is attested in Arcadian, Cyprian, and probably in Mycenaean. 1.1. Nouns and adjectives may be athematic (reflecting inherited ablaut patterns together with specific Greek innovations, to different degrees) or thematic (columnar accent, no traces of ablaut, and -o/e- preceding the endings). Nouns are conventionally divided into three declensions: the first (stems in -ā- and -ia/-iā-) and third (stems in a stop, -s-, sonorant, and heteroclitics) are athematic, the second (-o-stems) is thematic. 1.2. An overview of the Proto-Greek endings (either attested or assured by reconstruction) is given in tables 41.1 and 41.2. Because Greek, like Proto-Indo-European, is a flectional language, it is often difficult to separate the ending from the stem. The following tables therefore do not aim in all cases at a rigid segmentation between stem and ending. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261288-041

41. The morphology of Greek

655

Tab. 41.1: The assumed Proto-Greek Endings: athematic Singular

Plural

Dual

Nom.

*-s, *-ø,

*-es (*-ai)

*-e (*-i̯ e; length)

Voc.

*-ø

*-es (*-ai)

*-e (*-i̯ e; length)

Acc.

*-n (*-m)/*-a

*-ns/*-as

*-e (*-i̯ e; length)

Neuter

*-ø

*-a

*-i̯ e

Gen.

*-os/*-es (*-[e]s)

*-ōn (*-ā hōn)

*-oin (*-ain)

Dat.

*-ei̯

*-si

*-(o)in (*-ain)

Loc.

*-i/*-ø

*-si

-

Instr.

*-ē

*-b hi

-

[Directive

*-de

*-de

-]

Tab. 41.2: The assumed Proto-Greek Endings: thematic Singular

Plural

Dual

Nom.

*-o-s

*-o-i̯

*-ō

Voc.

*-e-ø

*-o-i̯

*-ō

Acc.

*-o-n (*-o-m)

*-o-ns

*-ō

Neuter

*-o-m

*-a

*-e

Gen.

*-o-si̯ o

*-ōn

*-oin

Dat.

*-ōi̯

*-oisi

*-oin

Loc.

*-o-i

*-oisi

-

Instr.

*-ō

*-ōis

-

[Directive

*-on-de

*-ons-de

-]

The endings of the first (in brackets in tab. 41.1) and third declensions were for the most part the same in Proto-Greek, although this was synchronically hardly recognizable for several reasons: a) phonetic changes (especially contractions) took place in the different stems, b) a redistribution of endings occurred due to syncretism, and c) some endings of the first declension are analogical to those of the -o-stems, namely nom.voc. pl. -ai, dat. pl. -ais (and -āis), dual nom. acc. voc. -ā, gen. dat. dl. -ain, which are the counterparts of -oi, -ois (from instr. pl. -ōis), -ō, -oin of the -o-stems (2.1.2, 2.2.2).

656

VII. Greek Several case endings may be traced back to PIE: a) singular: nom. *-s and -ø (with lengthened root or suffix vowel in the animates), acc. *-n (PIE *-m) with allophone *-n̥ (-a: PIE *-m̥) in consonantal stems, gen. *-o/es (PIE *-és, *-os, *-s according to the flexion type), dat. -ei, loc. -i (secondarily generalized as “dative” by syncretism), instr. -ē. Also thematic gen. sg. -oio (*-osi̯ o : Ved. -asya). b) plural: acc. *-ns (PIE *-m̥s) with allophone *-n̥s (-as) in consonantal stems, neuter nom. acc. voc. -a (PIE *-h2 ); gen. *-ōn (by generalization of thematic PIE *-ōm, from *-o-om); instr. athem. -p hi (PIE -b hi[s]: Ved. -bhis), them. -ōis (PIE *-ōi̯ s : Ved. -ais). c) dual: nom. voc. acc. -e (type pód-e ‘two feet’) and themat. -ō (type híppō ‘two horses’) go back to PIE *-h1 (e) and *-o-h1 (e) (: Ved. -ā). Hom. ósse ‘both eyes’ (neut.*h3ok u̯-i̯ h1 : Lit. akì, OCS oči) is a reflex of inherited *-i̯ h1 . Two other endings, which may be considered innovations of Proto-Greek, have replaced the inherited ones: dat. pl. -si, them. -oisi (with allophones -hi, -oi hi attested in Mycenaean) is a remodeling of PIE loc. *-su, *-oi̯ su, probably by analogy with loc. sg.*-i; and gen. dat. dual *-(o)ii̯ i(n/s), may be a remodeling of *-(o)ii̯ ou̯ (PIE *-oi̯ Hou̯, cf. Av. -aiiō) based on dat. pl. *-(oi)si (2.1.2). 1.3. Some inherited case-endings are still attested in Mycenaean and/or in Homer: Dat. -ei (PIE *-éi̯ : Lat. -ī, OLat. , Ved. -e): Myc. -e /-ei̯ /, Hom. diī́ (cf. Cypr. proper name ti-we-i-pi-lo-se /Diwei-p hilos/). Loc. Myc. -i /-i/ (PIE *-i: Lat. -e, Ved. -i), also as dative. Instr. Myc. -e /-ē/ (PIE *-eh1 , them. *-o-h1 : Ved. Av. -ā), e.g. e-re-pa-te /elep hantē/ ‘with ivory’. Cf. adverbial forms in -ē, -ō, -ā (1.4). Instr.pl. Myc. /-p hi/, Hom. -p hi (PIE -b hi[s]: Ved. -bhis), e.g. Hom. (w)ī́p hi ‘by force’. Hom. -p hi(n) is used also as locative (óresp hi ‘on the mountain’) and as a metrical substitute for other oblique cases, e.g. Ilióp hi (for gen. *Ilíoo). Two morphs for local relations are attested in Mycenaean and Homer: a) the “directive” -de, actually a postposition added to the accusative ending, e.g. Myc. a-mo-te-jona-de /( h)armoteiōna-de/ ‘to the wheelwrights’ workshops’, Myc. do-de /dō(n)de/ ‘to the house’. It survives residually in some adverbial forms in Homer (klisíēnde ‘to the hut’, dómonde ‘to the house’) and in Attic oíkade ‘to the house’, At hḗnaze ‘to Athens’. b) -t hen, which expresses origin, e.g. Myc. a-po-te-ro-te /amp hoterōt hen/ ‘from both sides’, Hom. oíkot hen ‘from the house’, ouranót hen ‘from the sky’, t heót hen ‘from a god’. In Homer -t hen may occur also with pronouns (e.g. sét hen ‘of/from you’), and have locative and directive function. 1.4. Fossilized case forms of nominal stems survive as adverbs, e.g. Att. aién ‘always’ goes back to an endingless loc. *ai̯ u̯-én-0̸, Ion. aieí, Att. aeí ‘id.’ to loc. *ai̯ u̯és-i, Lac. aē to instr. *ai̯ u̯-éh1 . Cf. also (loc.) oíkoi ‘at home’, Delph. (abl.) woíkō ‘from the house’. Old adjectival and pronominal case forms are recognizable in adverbs and conjunctions: a) Loc. -oi̯ : Att. poî ‘whither?’, hoî ‘whither’, hópoi ‘id.’. Cf. also ekeî ‘there’ (*eke-í), also WGr. teîde ‘here’, which corresponds to Att. toûde, in which toû- is actually a genitive, as shown by Thess. hoi ‘where’ (: Att. hoû).

41. The morphology of Greek

657

b) Instr. -ā (*-eh2 -eh1 ): Lac. tautā hāt(e) ‘in such a way as’, Lesb. oppā ‘where’, allā ‘elsewhere’. The form may be remodeled as -ā+i, cf. Cret. allāi ‘otherwise’, Heracl. pantāi ‘in all directions’. Ion. Att. pêi, hóppēi, taútēi may conceal both -ē(i) and/or the outcome of *-ā(i). c) Instr. -ō (*-o-h1 ): Hom. opíssō ‘behind, backwards’ (*opi-ti̯ o-h1 , cf. Hitt. appezzia‘rear’), prós(s)ō ‘before, foreward’ (*proti-o-h1 ), also ánō ‘upon’, kátō ‘below’. Also h ō- (*i̯ o-h1 ) in Hom. hṓ-s, hṓs-te ‘like’ (*‘in the manner which ...’) also hō-, Hom. h ṓ-s ‘so’ (from *so-h1 ). d) Instr. -ē (*-eh1 ): Cyren. allē pē ‘elsewhere’, Cret. wekaterē ‘in each place’, El. tautē ‘here’, Lac. hopē ‘in such a way as’, pē-poka ‘until now’ (: Att. pṓpote). e) Abl. -ō: Cret. ō, ópō, Lit. Dor. hō, pō, hopō. Meaning and form (*-ōd) are originally different from that of the instrumental.

2. Nominal declensions 2.1. The first declension The first declension consists of -ā- and -iă-stems (nouns, adjectives), which are very productive in Greek. The stems in -ā- became phonetically -ǟ-, later -ē- in Attic-Ionic (except after e, i, r in Attic). They go back to different IE types: a) Stems in -ā- (PIE *-eh2 -) with static accent, both feminine and masculine, e.g. poinḗ ‘punishment’ (*k u̯oi̯ néh2 -: Av. kaēnā, OCS cěna ‘price’), hēmérā ‘day’ (Hom. hēmérē), k hṓrā ‘land’, kórē ‘girl’ (Myc. ko-wa /korwā/) and masc. polī́tēs ‘citizen’, erétēs ‘rower’ (Myc. e-re-ta /eretās/). Cf. also the stems in -iā- (PIE *-ii̯ eh2 -) both feminine, e.g. p hilíā ʼfriendshipʼ, p hutalíā ‘vineyard’ (Myc. pu-ta-ri-ja) and masculine, e.g. neaníās ‘young man’. b) Fem. stems in -i(i̯ )a-/-i(i̯ )ās (PIE *-ih2 -/-iéh2 -s) with mobile accent, which have two different syllabification types: a) nom. -ia-, gen. -íās (PIE *-ii̯ h2 -/-ii̯ eh2 -s): pótnia ‘mistress’, gen. potníās (Myc. po-ti-ni-ja < IE *pótnih2 : Ved. pátnī), b) nom. -i̯ a, gen. -i̯ ās (PIE *-i̯ h2 -/-i̯ eh2 -s): Att. trápeza ‘table’, gen. trapézās (Myc. to-pe-za /torped za/), ároura ‘corn-land’ (Myc. a-ro-u-ra).

2.1.1. Attic paradigm Singular

Plural

Dual

Nom.voc.

poinḗ

poinaí

poinā́

Acc.

poinḗn

poinā́s

poinā́

Gen.

poinês

poinôn

poinaîn

Dat.

poinêi

poinaîs

poinaîn

Cf. also paroxytonic k hṓr-ā, acc. -ān, gen. -ās, dat. -āi, nom.pl. k hôrai, but gen.pl. k horôn.

658

VII. Greek

2.1.2. On the endings Singular: The vocative outside Attic is occasionally also -a˘ (cf. OCS -o), e.g. Hom. númpha ‘bride’, probably by generalization of the sandhi variant *-a˘(H) from *-eh2 # V-. The genitive is -ês (PGr. *-âs < PIE *-éh2 -es : Lith. -ôs) in oxytone words, as against -ēs in paroxytons (k hṓrās, kórēs : PGr. *k hṓrās, *kóru̯ās). Dat.sg. -êi (PGr. *-âi : IE *-éh2 -ei̯ ), besides -ēi (PGr. *-āi). The nominative -ai comes analogically from -oi of the -o-stems. Plural: Accusative -ā́s, -ās < PGr *-ān-s : PIE *-eh2 -ns). Genitive -ôn < -ā́hōn comes from PGr. *-ā́sōm of pronominal origin (as against PIE *-éh2 -ōm): Myc. /-ā hōn/, Hom. -ā́ōn (and -éōn, with shortening before a long vowel), Dor. -ân (by contraction). The form -ôn is extended to all types of the first declension. Attic Dative -aîs, -ais is analogical to -oîs, -ois of the -o-stems. Other variants, namely -ēsi(n), -aisi (inscriptions), as well as Hom. -ēis, -ēisi(n), -aisi(n) (analogical to -oisi of the -o-stems), go back to remodelings of dat.-loc. *-ā-si (PIE *-eh2 -su). The inherited form is attested in Myc. a-i /-ā hi/, with later analogical restoration of -s- in the dialects of the first millennium. Dual: Nom. voc. acc. Att. -ā (also Hom. e.g. aik hmētā́ ‘two fighters’) is analogical to -ō of the -o-stems, according to the proportion pl. -oi : du. -ō :: pl. -ai : du. X, whence X = -ā. The feminine form was PGr. *-ō (Myc. -o /-ō/, e.g. to-pe-zo /torped zō/ ‘two tables’), which survives sporadically cf. OAtt. megalō, Epic kalupsaménō (Hsd.). Inherited PIE *-eh2 -ih1 (: Ved. -e, OCS -ě), would have yielded *-ai̯ , which would be homophonous with plural -ai. The genitive/dative -aîn, -ain is probably analogical to -oin of the -o-stems (2.2.2). Cf. also Arc. tois kranaioun ‘in/to both sources’ and Tindaridaius, which point to PGr. *-aii̯ u(-s/n) analogical to thematic *-oii̯ u(-) (1.2). Some inherited case forms are still attested in Mycenaean, namely loc. sg. -a /-ai/ (*-eh2 -i), instr. sg. -a /-ā/ (*-eh2 -eh1 ), and instr. pl. -a-pi.

2.1.3. Masculine stems have some specific endings Nom. sg. polī́tēs (PGr. *-ā-s, with -s from the -o-stems: Myc. -a /-ās/ rather than /-ā/, cf. Myc. te-re-ta, but El. telesta ‘official’). Cf. also -ă, probably the vocative form, in Hom. nep helēgerétă ‘cloud-gatherer’, hippótă Néstōr ‘horseman’ (= hippótēs Hom. +). Voc.sg. polī́tă, déspota. Gen.sg. Att. polī́tou (by direct extension from the o-stems). The evidence of other dialects allows for the reconstruction of PGr. *-ā (h)o (from *-ā[s]o, with *-so probably from the pronominal flexion): Myc. -a-o /-ā (h)o/, Hom.-Ion. -āo (and -eō with quantitative metathesis: Atreídeō), -āo or -ā (by contraction) in other dialects. Nom. voc. acc. dual -ā may go back to *-ā+e or to *-ai̯ -e. Myc. -a-e /-a(h)e/ (e.g. eqe-ta-e) points to *-ai̯ -e (i.e. dual *-ai̯ from PIE *-eh2 -ih1 , cf. Ved. -e, OCS -ě ) with addition of -e from the consonantal stems.

2.2. The second declension The second declension consists of masculine, feminine, and neuter -o-stems corresponding to different suffixes which may be traced back to PIE and are very productive in Greek. They have -o- in all cases (except -e- in the voc. sg. and neuter nom. voc. acc.), and have fixed accent except for voc.sg. ádelp he.

41. The morphology of Greek

659

2.2.1. Attic paradigm (p hílos ‘friend’, métron ‘measure’) Singular Nom.

h

p ílos h

Plural

Dual

h

p ílō

h

p íloi

h

Voc.

p íle

p íloi

p hílō

Acc.

p hílon

p hílous

p hílō

Gen.

p hílou

p hílōn

p híloin

Dat.

p hílōi

p hílois

p híloin

Neuters: Nom. voc. acc. sg. métron, pl. métra, du. métrō.

2.2.2. On the endings Singular: Attic gen. -ou [-ọ̄] is from *-o-so of pronominal origin (cf. Hom. teo from PIE *k u̯e-so : OCS česo). Inherited *-osi̯ o (Ved. -asya, Fal. -osio, Arm.-oy) is still attested in Myc. -o-jo /-oio/, Hom. -oio (also Thessalian -oio, -oi). Dat. sg. -ōi (PGr. *-ōi̯ , PIE *-o-ei̯ ). Cf. also Arc. Boeot. El. -oi (shortened form of *-ōi̯ rather than a former loc.*-oi̯ ). Plural: Nom. voc. -oi is of pronominal origin (probably inherited, cf. Lith. -ai, OCS -i; PIE *-ōs from *-o-es has left no trace in Greek). Acc. -ous [-ọ̄s] (PIE *-o-ns). Cf. also Thess. Arc. -ŏs, Lesb. -ois, as well as -ōs in dialects of Doris seuerior). Gen.pl. -ōn (PGr. *-ōm, PIE *-o-om). Dat. -ois comes from PGr. *-ōi̯ s (instr. PIE *-ōi̯ s) and/or -oisi (dat.loc. PGr. *-oi̯ si) with elision of -i before a vowel. Cf. Myc. instr. -o /-ōis/ (e-re-pate-jo ‘of ivory’) and dat. loc. pl. -o-i /-oi hi/ Hom. -oisi, -ois(i). Dual: Nom. voc. acc. -ō (*-o-h1 ) also in the neuters. Gen. dat. -oin (Att. híppoin, Hom. híppoiïn) may go back to a former loc. *-oi̯ Hin. Arc. Didumoiun points to a PGr. *-oi̯ Hu- (1.2). Them. -oin has been extended to the third declension, cf. podoîn (Hom. podoîin), and provided the model for -ain (2.1.2). Some inherited case forms are still attested in Mycenaean: loc. sg. /-oi/ (PIE *-o-i̯ ); instr. sg. -ō (PIE *-o-h1 ). Cf. also Hom. -op hi, e.g. apò k halkóp hi, Boeot. Epipatróp hi-on ‘patronymic’.

2.2.3. Contracted types Vowel contraction after the dropping of *-i̯ -, *-u̯- (at different chronological stages) gives rise to contracted variants, e.g. ostoûn ‘bone’ (*ostéi̯ on), noûs ‘mind’ (*nóu̯os). A special type is the so-called “Attic” declension of -o-stems of the structure *Cāu̯-o- (e.g. *nāu̯ó‘temple’ from PGr. *nasu̯ó-), which yields *Cāu̯o- and, with quantitative metathesis, -eō-: sing. nom. neṓs (*nāu̯ós), acc. neṓn (*nāu̯óm), gen. neṓ (*nāu̯óso), dat. neṓi (*nāu̯ṓi̯ ); plur. nom. voc. neṓi (*nāu̯oí), acc. neṓs (*nāu̯óns), gen. neṓn (*nāu̯ṓn), dat. neṓis (*nāu̯ṓis); dual nom. voc. acc. neṓ, gen. dat. neṓin.

660

VII. Greek

2.3. The third declension The third declension consists of stems in stops, -s-, sonorants and semivowels, and heteroclitic nouns. They reflect, to different degrees, PIE flexional patterns. The dialects show a tendency to simplify the inherited qualitative and quantitative ablaut patterns, which still survive in Homer and, in spite of the scarcity of the data, in Mycenaean. The different stems show in Attic, with few exceptions (nom. sg. and dat. pl.), a uniform vocalism and full grade. The case endings are the same for all dialects, except that of dat. pl. -si, which is in competition with allomorphs which have been created within Greek, namely -essi (type pód-essi, pánt-essi: Att. posí, pâsi) in Homer, in Aeolic and some West Greek dialects (also sporadically -ssi, type póli-ssi in other dialects), as well as -ois (type k hrēmátois: Att. k hrḗmasi) in North West dialects. 2.3.1. Stems in stops have normally no trace of the inherited ablaut except in root-nouns, which show generalization of full grade of the root and movable accent, e.g. poús ‘foot’ ( instead of ), gen. podós (*pód-s: Ved. pā́t, gen. *péd-s, cf. Lat. ped-is), núk-s ‘night’, gen. nuktós (*nok u̯t-). Suffixal formations have static accent: -nt- e.g. pánt- ‘all’, nom. pâs (Toch. po), andriánt- ‘man’s figure’ (nom. andriás, Myc. instr. a-di-ri-ja-te /andriāntē/), also in participles (6.9.2); *-u̯ent- e.g. k haríent- ‘gracious’ (nom. k haríeis: PIE *g̑ hr̥Hi-u̯ént-). Cf. also stems in -k-, e.g. ónuks ‘nail’ (Myc. o-nu, acc. o-nu-ka), p húlaks ‘guardian’, gunḗ ‘woman’ (Myc. dat.pl. ku-na-ki-si /gunaiksi/) and some neuters in *-t- (dropped in nom. voc. acc. sg.), e.g. méli ‘honey’ (*méli-t-: Hitt. militt-, Got. miliþ), álphi ‘barley’ (*h1 alb hi-t-), which may be secondarily formed on -i-stems. Attic paradigm (p húlaks ‘guardian’) Singular

Plural

Dual

Nom.

p húlaks

p húlakes

p húlake

Voc.

p húla

p húlakes

p húlake

Acc.

p húlaka

p húlakas

p húlake

Gen.

p húlakos

p hulákōn

p hulákoin

Dat.

p húlaki

p húlaksi

p hulákoin

Stem-final dentals are lost before -s, cf. dat. pl. po-sí (*pod-sí : Hom. possí), dat. pl. pâsi (*pánt-si : Myc. pa-si /pansi/). 2.3.2. -s-stems show generalization of full grade of the suffix through the whole paradigm. Some formations: a) neuters in -o/es- (type CéC-es-): génos ‘race, kin’, gen. génous, Hom. gén-eos (PIE *g̑énh1 -os, gen. *g̑énh1 es-os : Lat. genus, -eris, Ved. jánas, -asas), étos ‘year’, Myc. we-to (*u̯ét-es- : Lat. uetus ‘old [man]’), klé(w)os ‘glory’ (*k̑léu̯-es-: Ved. śrávas-). Also with zero grade of the root, e.g. r hîgos ‘frost’ (*srī́g-es-: Lat. frīgus). b) compounded adjectives in °CeC-és-: suggenḗs, acc. -ê (*-és-m̥), gen. -oûs, Hom. -éos (*-és-os), Hom. eukleḗs (Ved. suśravás-) ‘having good fame’.

41. The morphology of Greek

661

c) feminine in -os-: Att. héōs ‘dawn’, Hom. ēṓs (PGr. *au̯u̯ṓs < *au̯sṓs : PIE *h2 éu̯sōs: Ved. uṣā́s), gen. Att. héō, Hom. ēoûs (PGr. *au̯sós-os, remodeled from PIE *h2 (e)u̯s-s-és: Ved. uṣás). d) neuters in -as- (*-h2 s-): kréas (kréu̯-h2 s-: Skt. kráviṣ- ‘raw flesh’), gen. kréōs (< *-a hos), kéras ‘horn’ (Myc. ke-ra-: PIE *k̑érh2 s-). Endings are not recognizable in Attic, as in other dialects, once PGr. *- h- (from *-s-) has been dropped and the vowels have undergone contraction. The stem remains recognizable in nom. acc. génos, and dat. pl. Hom. génessi (but Att. génesi, with -ss- > -s-). Otherwise gen. génous (*génes-os : Hom. géneos, Myc. -e-o /-e hos/), dat. génei (*génes-i, Myc. -e-i /-e hi/); plural nom. voc. acc. génē (*génes-a : Hom. génea), gen. genôn (*genésōn : Hom. genéōn). 2.3.3. Stems in liquids and nasals reflect, at least in part, inherited accent and ablaut patterns in some words. Most of them show generalization of one of the full grades of the predesinential suffix in all cases with uniform vocalism and static accent, namely -ōR /-oR-, ēR /-eR- (except dat. pl. -R̥-si), also, with lengthened grade, -ēr- and -ōn-. 2.3.3.1. Some stems in -r- betray old accent patterns, e.g. patḗr ‘father’ (Myc. pa-te), acc. patéra, gen. patrós (: PIE *ph2 -tḗr, -tér-m̥, -tr-és : Skt. pitā́, pitáram, gen. Lat. patris); partial leveling is attested in acc. pl. patér-as, gen. patér-ōn (but Hom. patrôn), inversely in Hom. gen. patér-os, dat. patér-i with secondary full grade. A similar situation is that of mḗtēr ‘mother’ (Myc. ma-te /mātēr/), t hugátēr ‘daughter’ (Myc. tu-ka-te, dat. pl. tu-ka-ṭạ-ṣị /-tarsi/) or that of anḗr ‘man’, gen. andrós (*h2 nér- /*h2 nr-és), which shows leveling in Attic (acc. ándra, dat. andr-í, nom. pl. ándr-es) as against Homer (acc. anéra [PIE *h2 nér-m̥], anéres, beside gen. anéros, dat. anéri, with secondary full grade). In the case of k heír ‘hand’, gen. k he(i)rós (PIE *g̑ hés-ōr, gen. *g̑ h(e)s-r-és, dat. *g̑ h(e)sér(-i): Heth. keššar, loc. kiššari), Att. acc. k heîr-a, gen. k heirós go back to *k hesr-V, with generalization of the full grade. Nom. k heír [khẹ̄r] is analogical to gen. k heir-ós etc., and dat. pl. k hersí goes ultimately back to *k hēr-sí, from *k he(s)r-sí, by Osthoff’s law. A secondary stem k her- (Hom. dat. k herí, nom. pl. k hér-es, acc. -as, gen. -ôn) has been created on the dat. pl. k her-sí. Generalization of a single stem variant is widely attested, cf. astḗr ‘star’ (Hitt. ḫašter-) or the agent nouns Hom. dotḗr ‘giver’ (PIE *dh3 -tḗr acc. *dh3 -tér-m̥, gen. *dh3 -tr-és), dṓtōr (*déh3 -tōr, *déh3 -tór-m̥, *déh3 -tr̥-s), r hḗtōr ‘orator’. Generalization of lengthened grade is also found, e.g. in iātḗr ‘physician’ (Myc. i-ja-te /(h)iātēr/), mnēstḗr ‘suitor’. Attic paradigms Sg.nom.

anḗr

k heír

r hḗtōr

mnēstḗr

acc.

ándra

k heîra

r hḗtora

mnēstêra

gen.

andrós

k heirós

r hḗtoros

mnēstêros

dat.

andrí

k heirí

r hḗtori

mnēstêri

Pl. nom.

ándres

k heîres

r hḗtores

mnēstêres

dat.

andrási

h

k ersí

h

r ḗtorsi

mnēstêrsi

662

VII. Greek Some neuters with regularized vocalism go back to the remodeling of *-r-/-n- heteroclitics, e.g. éar ‘spring’, gen. éaros (PIE *u̯és-r̥/n-, cf. OCS vesna), pûr ‘fire’, gen. purós (PIE *péh2 -u̯r̥-0̸ : Hitt. paḫḫur, Umbr. pir, OE fýr), gen. *ph2 -u̯én-s (Hitt. paḫḫu̯enaš). 2.3.3.2. Some stems in -n- retain old accent patterns, e.g. (w)arḗn ‘lamb’, gen. (w)arnós, dat.pl. (w)arnási, with partial analogical leveling of vocalism and/or ablaut (but acc. [w]árna). This is the case for kúōn ‘dog’, gen. kunós (PIE *k̑[u]u̯ṓ[n], *k̑u-n-és : Ved. śuvā́, gen. śúnas), but acc.sg. kúna instead of *kúona (PIE *k̑u-ón-m̥ : Ved. śuvā́nam) with zero-grade from the oblique cases, and dat. pl. kusí analogically formed instead of *pasí (*k̑u̯n̥-sú : Ved. śvasú). Inherited dat. pl.*-n̥-si yields -asi, analogically also -esi (in *-en-stems), -osi (in *-on-stems), cf. p hrḗn ‘mind’ (earlier ‘midriff’), gen. p hren-ós, dat. pl. p hresí (but p hrasí Pindar). Generalization of one stem variant is recognizable in poimḗn ‘shepherd’, gen. poiménos, dat. pl. poimési (instead of *poimási < *-n̥si) from PIE *póh2 i-mōn, gen. *p(o)h2 imén-s (Lith. piemuõ, gen. piemẽns); téktōn ‘carpenter’, gen. téktonos (Myc. nom. te-koto, pl. te-ko-to-ne /-ones/ : Ved. tákṣan-), dat. pl. téktosi (but still Myc. te-ka-ta-si /tektasi/ < *-n̥si). Cf. also k ht hṓn ‘earth’, gen. k ht honós (*g̑ hþōm-, PIE *d hég̑ h-ōm-0̸, gen. *d hg̑ hm-és: Hitt. tēkan, taknāš); agṓn ‘contest’, gen. sg. agôn-os, dat. pl. agôsi. Attic paradigms Sg.nom.

arḗn

kúōn

poimḗn

téktōn

agṓn

acc.

árna

kúna

poiména

téktona

agôna

gen.

arnós

kunós

poiménos

téktonos

agônos

dat.

arní

kuní

poiméni

téktoni

agôni

Pl. nom.

árnes

kúnes

poiménes

téktones

agônes

dat.

arnási

kusí

poimési

téktosi

agôsi

Some remarkable suffixes: a) -īn- (*-ih2 -n-), e.g. ōdī́n- ‘pang’ (stem by reanalysis of acc. *h1 ōd-u̯-ih2 -m), b) *-on- (*-h3on-) ‘possessive’, e.g. gastrṓn ‘pot-belly’, personal name Rhínōn (cf. Lat. Nasō), also individualizing strabṓn ‘squinting’, c) -(e)ṓn-, gen. -(e)ônos (*-[e]iōn-) for local designations, e.g andrṓn, Ion. andreṓn ‘men’s hall’, Myc. a-mo-te-jo-na-de /(h)armoteiōna-de/ ‘to the wheelwrights’ workshops’. Old hysterodynamic neuters in *ˊ-men- (gen. *-mn-és) develop to heteroclitics of the type ónoma ‘name’, with regularization of zero grade (nom. *-mn̥, gen. *-mn̥-t-os : -matos, cf. 2.3.5.c. 2.3.4. Stems in -i- and -u- have ablauting and non-ablauting PIE flexion and a partly parallel development within Greek. 2.3.4.1. Ablauting -i-stems of the type básis ‘step(ping)’ (*g u̯m̥tí-: Ved. gatí-) or pólis ‘city’, with nom. sg. *-i-s, gen. *-éi̯ -s [Ved. gatés)], loc. *-ēi̯ -ø [or *ēu̯-ø], nom. pl. -ei̯ es) have become non-ablauting in Homer, as well as in other dialects (gen. -i-os, dat. -ī [*-i-i], pl. nom. -i-es, acc. -i-as or -īs, gen. -i-ōn, dat. -i-si ). In Attic, on the contrary, an innovatory ablaut has been created in the oblique cases of the singular and in the

41. The morphology of Greek plural, on the basis of the endingless loc. *-ēi̯ -ø, namely “dat.” *pólēi, gen. *pólēi̯ -os, whence Att. pólei, póleōs, as well as nom. pl. póleis ([ẹ̄]), from *-éi̯ -es, extended to the accusative, gen. -éōn, dat. -esi. The non-ablauting type is represented by Att. oîs ‘sheep’ (Hom. óïs), gen. oiós: Ved. ávi-, gen. ávyas), acc. oîn, dat. oií, pl. nom. oîes, dat. oîsi. Some -i-stems have been enlarged by -t- or -d-, cf. k háris (PIE *g̑ hr̥Hi-), gen. k hári-t-os, t hémis ‘law’, gen. t hémitos, or éris ‘quarrel, rivalry’, gen. éridos. Also -oi̯ -stems (type Sapp hṓ) are attested, e.g. peit hṓi- ‘persuasion’, nom. peit hṓ (*ṓi̯ -ø), gen. peit hoûs (*-ói̯ -os). 2.3.4.2. The ablauting -u-stems, e.g. présbus ‘old man’ (*pres-g u̯ú- ‘going [from] in front’) or Hom. (w)ástu ‘city’ (cf. Ved. vā́stu-) or barús ‘heavy’ (*g u̯r̥h2 -ú- : Ved. gurú-, Goth. kaurus), have created a new ablaut in the singular on the basis of the endingless locative *-ēu̯-ø (Ved. -au, Goth. -au), which is sporadically attested in Myc. -e-u /-ēu/ (e.g. pa-ro ra-ke-u ‘from Lakhus’), whence gen. sg. -eōs (*-ēu̯-os ← PIE *-éu̯-s), dat. -ei (*-ēu̯-i ← *-ēu̯-ø). The Attic paradigm: nom. présbus, acc. présbun, gen. présbeōs, dat. présbei, pl. nom. présbeis, gen. presbéōn, dat. présbesi. Some types of -u-stems: a) Non-ablauting stems, e.g. mét hu ‘mead’, gen. mét huos (*méd hu-: CLuv. maddu(i)‘sweet’, Ved. mádhu-) or thrânus ‘beam’, Myc. nom. pl. ta-ra-nu-we /thrānues/. b) The old proterodynamic Hom. dóru ‘wood’ (: Ved. dā́ru), gen. do(u)rós (*dor-u̯-ós ← PIE *dréu̯-s: Ved. drós) has also a heteroclitic variant with gen. doúratos, pl. doúrata. c) -ū-stems (nom. -ūs, gen. -ŭos) may go back to *-uH- (op hrûs ‘eye brow’: Ved. bhrūs, gen. bhrúvas) or to a remodeling of *-ou̯- (Hom. nékūs ‘corpse’ [← *ou̯-s], gen. nékŭos [*-u-os]). d) Diphthongal -ou̯- stems, cf. hḗrōs ‘hero’ (*Hi̯ ērou̯-), with nom. -ōs (instead of *-ōu̯s) have been remodeled on the basis of acc. *-ō-m < *-ōu̯m, secondarily gen. hḗrō with ‘Attic’ declension (Hom. gen. hḗrōos), dat. Myc. /hērō(h)ei/ in ti-ri-se-ro-e ‘to the Thrice-hero’. 2.3.4.3. The so-called stems in “long” diphthongs are actually former ablauting stems: a) D zeús (Att. Zeús), gen. Di(w)ós (*di̯ -ḗu̯-s/*di-u̯-és: Ved. dyáus/divás) Myc. di-wo /Diwos/, di-we /Diwei/ (Hom. Diós, Dií ). b) Att. naûs ‘ship’ (*nā́u̯-s : Hom. nēûs, Ved. náus), acc. naûn (← *nā́u̯-m̥ : Hom. nêa), gen. neōs (*nāu̯-ós with quantitative metathesis, cf. Hom. nēós). c) Att. boûs (*g u̯ṓu̯-s: Ved. gáus), boûn (*g u̯óu̯-m̥ : Hom. bōn), gen. boós (*g u̯ou̯-ós). Myc. qo-o /g wōns/ (acc. pl.), dat. qo-we /g wowei/. d) The -ēu̯-stems with no ablaut, e.g. hiereús ‘priest’, k halkeús ‘bronze-smith’ (Myc. i-je-re-u, ka-ke-u) are a Greek innovation: Att. nom. sg. -eús (*-ḗu̯-s), acc. -éa [ā] (*-ḗu̯-m̥ : Hom. - ḗa), gen. -éōs (*-ḗu̯-os : Hom. -ḗos and-eōs), Plur. nom. -eîs (*-ḗu̯-es : Hom. -ēes), dat. -eûsi (*-ḗu̯si). The origin of *-ēu̯- remains obscure (generalization of the vocalism of loc. sg. *-ēu̯-ø? *-e-e-u-?). A suffix -eús is also frequent in onomastics for “short” forms of compounds. 2.3.5. The heteroclitics include four types, of which a) and b) go back to PIE neuter stems with -r-/-n-, whereas c) and d) have been secondarily created in Greek. All of them have a -t- in the oblique and plural cases, which is a specific Greek innovation:

663

664

VII. Greek a) -ar/-atos (*-r̥/*-n̥-t-os), e.g. hêpar ‘liver’ (PIE *Hi̯ ḗk u̯-r-ø: Av. yākar ə, Lat. iecur), gen. hḗpatos (← *Hi̯ ék u̯-n̥-s, cf. Ved. yaknás, Lat. iecinis), áleip har ‘unguent’, gen. aleíp hatos (Myc. a-re-pa, instr. a-re-pa-te), Hom. êar ‘blood’ (IΕ *h1 ḗsh2 -r̥, gen. *h1 ésh2 -n̥-s : Hitt. ēšḫar, gen. eš(ḫ)anaš, Ved. ásr̥k, asnás). b) -ōr/-atos (*-ōr/*-n̥-t-os), e.g. húdōr ‘water’ (Umbr. utur), gen. húdatos, remodeled from PIE collective *u̯éd-ōr-ø (Hitt. u̯idār), gen. *ud-n-és (cf. Hitt. u̯ed[e]naš), loc. *ud-én(i): Ved. udán), also Myc. /°k(a)rā hōr/ ‘head’ (PIE *k̑r̥h2 s-ōr, oblique cases *k̑r̥h2 s-n̥-C-) : instr. se-re-mo-ka-ra-o-re /°k(a)rā horē/ ‘with the head of a se-re-mo ...’, pl. se-re-mo-ka-ra-a-pi /°k(a)rā hap hi/. c) -ma/-matos (*-mn̥/*-mn̥-t-os), from hysterodynamic neuter-men-stems, (cf. 2.3.5.1 [end]), e.g. ónoma/onómatos ‘name’, spérma/spérmatos ‘seed’ (*spérmn̥) and Myc. pe-mo, also pe-ma, Hom. hárma, -atos ‘chariot’ (Myc. a-mo ‘wheel’, pl. a-mo-ta, dat. pl. a-mo-si). d) -u/-atos (*-u-/*-u̯-n̥-t-os, from former neuter -u- stems, cf. 2.3.4.2), e.g. gónu- ‘knee’, gen. gónatos (*g̑ón-u, gen. *g̑én-u-s : Hitt. genu-, genuu̯aš), Hom. dóru, gen. dóratos ‘wood’ (PIE *dór-u- ‘wood’: Hitt. tāru-, Ved. dā́ru-, gen. *dr-éu̯-s : Ved. drós) beside Hom. gen. dourós (*dor-u̯-ós). 2.4. Adjectives are built to nominal stems and with the same endings as nouns. Feminine has a specific form in the simplicia which is expressed by the motional suffixes: a) -ā-, Att. -ē- vs. masc. -o-stems and b) -i(i̯ )a-/-i(i̯ )ā- vs. other stems. For a), cf. agat hḗ vs. masc. agat hós, -ón ‘good’, né(u̯)ā (Lat. noua) vs. né(u̯)os, -on ‘new’. For b), cf. mélaina ‘black’ (*mélan-i̯ a) vs. mélas, -an, Att. bareîa ‘heavy’ (*baréu̯-i̯ a) vs. barús, hēdeîa ‘sweet’ vs. hēdús; Hom. pī́(u̯)eira ‘fat’ (*píHu̯eri̯ a-: Ved. pī́varī) vs. *pī́(u̯)ōn (*píHu̯ōn: Ved. pī́vā). Cf. also k haríessa ‘gracious’ vs. masc. k haríeis, -en: fem. -(w)essa (Myc. /-wessa/) goes back to *-u̯n̥t-i̯ a-, with -e-vocalism analogic to masc. *-u̯ent- (Hom. Att. -eís, Myc. /-went-/). Compounds (except for proper names) have no specific feminine form, e.g. á-dikos ‘unjust’ both masc. and fem., but díkaios, fem. dikaíā. 2.4.1. Comparative and superlative are built by means of two suffix sets: 2.4.1.1. Comparative *-i(i̯ )os- (PIE *-i̯ [i̯ ]os-, originally intensive), later -i(i̯ )on- : superlative -isto- (PIE *-is-t[h2 ]o-: Ved. -iṣṭha-). Comparative *-i(i̯ )os- is attested in Mycenaean, and survives in Attic in residual forms. Some examples: hēdús ‘pleasant’ : hēdíōn, acc. sg. hēdíōna, pl. nom. acc. hēdíones, -as beside Att. acc. sg., nom. acc. pl. neut. h ēdíō, nom. acc. pl. masc. hēdíous (*-ii̯ os-m̥, -a, -es, -n̥s) : superl. hḗdistos (PIE *su̯ādii̯ os- : *su̯ād-ist[h2 ]o- : Ved. svā́dīyas-, svā́diṣṭha-); mégas ‘high’ : meízōn (Att. pl. meízous, neut. meízō, Myc. me-zo-e /med zohe(s)/, me-zo-a2 /med zoha/) : mégistos (*meg̑i̯ os- : meg̑ist[h2 ]o-, cf. Av. mazišta-); kakós : kakíōn (Myc. ka-zo-e /kat sohe(s)/ (*kak-i̯ os-) : kákistos. 2.4.1.2. Comparative -tero- (PIE *-tero-) : superlative -tato- (PIE *-tm̥-to-), e.g. makrós ‘big’ : makróteros : makrótatos. PIE *-tero- was originally contrastive, as attested in Myc. /-tero-/, e.g. wa-na-ka-te-ro /wanaktero-/ ‘belonging to the wanaks’, also Alph.Gr. arrénteron ‘masculine’, t hēlutérā ‘feminine’. Some forms have been lexicalized, e.g. deksíteros (to deksiós) ‘right’ vs. aristerós ‘left’, or próteros ‘former’ (Av. fratara-).

41. The morphology of Greek

665

Both sets may occasionally occur with one and the same adjective, e.g. to glukús ‘sweet’, glukú-teros, -tatos and gluk-íōn (Hom.), -istos (Bacch.). 2.4.1.3. Some adjectives belonging to the basic vocabulary build comparatives and superlatives by means of suppletion, e.g. agat hós : ameínōn (and Hom. areíōn and p hérteros) : áristos, and : beltíōn : béltistos.

3. Numerals The system of numerals possesses three series, corresponding to three dimensions: cardinals (: amount), ordinals (: order), and multiplicatives (: repetition). The cardinals ‘1’ to ‘4’, the centenials ‘200’ to ‘900’ and ‘1000’ are declined, all others are not. The ordinals are, with the exception of ‘first’ and ‘second’, derived from the corresponding cardinal by means of the suffix *-to- (and -ostós from ‘20th’ on), and, exceptionally, *-u̯o(*ógdou̯o- ‘8th’) and *-o- (*-Ho-, cf. hébdomos ‘7th’). Multiplicatives are built by means of adverbial suffixes added to the cardinals (PIE *-is for ‘2’ and ‘3’, -(á)kis, which is a Greek innovation, from ‘4’ on).

3.1. From ‘1’ to ‘19’ in Attic a) cardinals h

b) ordinals

c) multiplicatives

‘1’

h

eîs, mía, én

prôtos

h

‘2’

dúo

deúteros

dís

‘3’

treîs

trítos

trís

‘4’

téttares

tétartos

tetrákis

‘5’

pénte

pémptos

pentákis

‘6’

h

h

h

‘7’

h

h

h

‘8’

oktṓ

ógdoos

oktákis

‘9’

ennéa

énatos

en(n)ákis

‘10’

déka

dékatos

dekákis

‘11’

h

h

h

éks

eptá

éndeka

ektós ébdomos

endékatos

ápaks

eksákis eptákis

endekákis

3.1.1. On the forms ‘1’: a) heîs, neut. hén (*sém-), fem. mía (*sm-ii̯ h2 - cf. Arm. mi < *smii̯ o/ā˘-). Cf. also fem. Thess., Lesb., Boeot., and Hom íā. b) prôtos, (WGr. Boeot. prâtos from PIE *pr̥h2 tó- (prôtos with -o-vocalism analogical to pró).

666

VII. Greek ‘2’: a) dúo, dúō (PIE *du̯ō :Ved. duvā́[u], Lat. duō), Myc. instr. du-wo-u-pi /duwoup hi/. b) deúteros, cf. deúomai ‘I lack, am inferior’). c) dís ‘twice’ (*du̯i-s: Lat. bis). In compounds di° : dípous ‘biped’, Myc. di-wi-ja-me-ro /dwi-āmeron/ ‘period of two days’. ‘3’: a) treîs (PIE *tréi̯ es : Ved. tráyas, Lat. trēs), n. tría (*trii̯ h2 : Lat. tria). b) trítos (*tri-to- : Toch. B trite). c) trís ‘thrice’ (*tri-s: Lat. ter). tri°: trípous ‘three-footed’ (Myc. ti-ri-po-de /tripode/ ‘two tripods’). ‘4’: a) téttares, neut. téttara (Thess. Boeot. péttares, Ion. tésseres). The syllable -ttargoes back to the generalization of the zero grade *-tu̯r̥-. Dor. tétores shows the inherited -o-grade (*k u̯étu̯or-es : Ved. catvā́ras, Lat. quattuor from *k u̯ətu̯or-), with loss of -u̯- by extension from the outcome of dat. *tetu̯r̥si (PIE Loc.*k u̯tu̯r̥-su). Hom. písures is obscure. b) tétartos, with analogical full grade *k u̯étu̯r̥-to- : Lit. ketvir˜tas) (PIE *k u̯tu̯r̥-to-, cf. Ved. tur-), cf. the personal name Turtaîos (*turto- from *k u̯r̥to- cf. Lat. quartus). c) tetra°, Thess. petro° from *k u̯etr̥ °, with secondary full grade. The original form *k u̯tu̯r̥ ° is attested in trápeza ‘table’ (: Myc. to-pe-za, from * k u̯tu̯r̥-pedi̯ a-), also Hom. tru-p háleia ‘helmet’. ‘5’: a) pénte (PIE *pénk u̯e : Ved. páñca, Lat. quīnque). b) pémptos (*pénk u̯-to-, with secondary full grade, cf. Ved. pakthá- *pn̥k u̯-t[h2 ]ó-). ‘6’: a) héks (PIE *s[u̯]éks : Ved. ṣáṭ, Lat. sex). b) héktos (*su̯ek̑-to-, PIE *suk̑-to- : OPr. uschst). ‘7’: a) heptá (PIE *septḿ̥: Ved. saptá, Lat. septem). b) hébdomos (*sept°mo- from *septm̥Ho-: Lat. septimus); -bd- is analogical to ógdoos ‘eight’. ‘8’: a) oktṓ (PIE *h3ek̑teh3? : Ved. aṣṭā́[u], Lat. octō). b) ógdo(u̯)os, with voiced -gdprobably from IE *h3ok̑th3 -u̯o- (cf. Lat. octāuus). ‘9’: a) ennéa (PIE *h1 n[n]éu̯m̥: Ved. náva, Lat. nouem.), Myc. e-ne-wo-pe-za. b) énatos, Hom. eínatos. ‘10’: a) déka (PIE *dék̑m̥[t]-: Ved. dáśa, Lat. decem). b) dékatos : *dék̑m̥-to- (Lith. dešim̑tas), also Arc. Lesb. dékotos. Numerals from ‘11’ to ‘19’ are compounds with °deka (héndeka ‘11’, d(u)ṓdeka ‘12’, ordin. hendékatos, dōdékatos) or composed with monad and -kaì déka (e.g. treîs/tría kaì déka, … pentekaídeka, ordin. trítos kaì dékatos, ..., pémptos kaì dékatos, and so on).

3.2. From ‘20’ on in Attic: ‘20’

eíkosi(n)

eikostós

eikosákis

‘100’

h

h

h

ekatón h

ekatostós

ekatontákis

h

‘1000’

k ílioi

k iliostós

‘10000’

múrioi

muriostós

3.2.1. On the forms ‘20’ a) eíkosi, Hom. e(w)eíkosi (*u̯īk̑m̥-ti : Ved. viṃśatí-, Lat. uīgintī). b) eikostós (e- is prothetic), Boeot. wikastos. From ‘21’ on, a) heîs (mía, hén) kaì eíkosi. b) prôtos kaì eikostós and so on.

41. The morphology of Greek Decads from ‘30’ to ‘90’ are built with -kónta (neut. pl. of *-dk̑omt-, cf. Arm. -sown), and with secondary -ḗ-konta). Ordinals -kostós e.g. triákonta (Lat. trīgintā, Ved. triṃśát) : triakostós, tettarákonta (Lat. quadrāgintā, Ved. catvāriṃśát) : tettarakostós and so on. ‘100’: a) hekatón (PIE *k̑m̥tóm : Ved. śatám, Lat. centum); he- instead of ha- (*sm̥-) is analogic to *hen- ‘1’. b) hekatostós. Further hundreds are built with -ósioi, ordin. -osiostós, e.g. ‘200’ diākósioi : diākosiostós, triākósoi and so on. ‘1,000’: a) k hílioi [ī], from*g̑ hesl-i̯ o-: Lesb. k héllioi, cf. Ved. sa-hásram < *sm̥-g̑ heslom), b) k hiliostós. From ‘2,000’ on, disk hílioi : disk hiliostós and so on. ‘10,000’: a) múrioi [ū] (also ‘numberless’) : b) muriostós. From ‘20,000’ on, dismúrioi : dismuriostós and so on.

4. Pronouns: demonstrative, relative, interrogative, indefinite The pronouns reflect inherited PIE patterns in many respects: a) they are often enlarged by enclitic or deictic particles and have specific endings: -0̸ instead of -s in nom. sg. masculine, -d in nom. acc. sg. of neuters, gen. sg. *-so, gen.pl. *-sōm in demonstratives. There is also suppletion *so-/*to- and *sā-/*tā- in demonstrative pronouns and alternation of -i- with -o/e- in relative and interrogative pronouns. 4.1. The system of demonstrative pronouns includes three main stems which reflect three different types of deixis, namely a) close proximity to the speaker (hic-deixis), b) to the addressee (iste-deixis) and c) reference to someone/something not present (illedeixis), as well as d) an anaphoric. Their flexion follows basically the pattern of the -oand ā-stems, with the exception of nom. sg. masc. and nom. sg. neuter: a) Att. hóde, hḗde, tóde ‘this’ goes back to the outcomes of the inherited deictic *só, *séh2 , *tód with addition of the particle -de. The unenlarged form survives as the definite article, which is still not fully developed in Homer (4.2). The creation of the article led to the recharacterization of the hic-demonstrative by means of particles, as attested by some dialects: ho-ni (Arc., Boeot.), ho-nu (Cypr.), ho-ne (Thess., probably equivalent to hoûtos). b) Att. hoûtos, haútē, toûto ‘that’ goes back to *so-/*seh2 -, with the addition of the particle -u- (cf. Ved. a-sáu) and adjectival -to-. An old reduplicated form is attested in Myc. to-to (*tod-tod : Ved. tát-tad), OAtt. toto. c) Att. ekeînos, ekeínē, ekeînon ‘that one’ is a conflation of deictic -ke (PIE *k̑e : Lat. ec-ce) and the stem *-e/ono-, *-eneh2 - (: ONors. enn, inn, Lith. anàs ‘that one’). Initial e-, which is absent in Lesb. kênos and Dor. tênos (with t- analogic to *-toforms), may be deictic (cf. Ved. a-saú) or simply prothetic. d) Att. autós, autḗ, autó (*au̯-tó-/-téh2 -, cf. aû ‘again’, Lat. autem) is originally anaphoric, having replaced IE *h1 ei̯ -/*h1 i- (: Lat. is). It has two other functions, namely identity (ho autòs patḗr ‘the same father’ cf. Lat. idem) and strong emphasis (ho patḕr autós ‘the father himself’, cf. Lat. ipse). The last of these functions is frequent with reflexive pronouns, to which it is added (5.1−5.2). Old anaphoric forms are also acc. min ‘him, her’ (Myc. mi) probably from *im-im (with secondary loss of i-), Cypr. in ‘id.’.

667

668

VII. Greek 4.2. Homeric hó, hḗ, tó functions still as deictic, eventually as the article, e.g. ho páïs (Il. 6.467), but also as relative. The stem *so-/*seh2 -/*to- has partially replaced the relative stem *Hi̯ o-/*Hi̯ eh2 - in Homer and in many other dialects (also in Literary Ionic). Cf. also Att. hos, exclusively in the phrase ê d’ hós ‘he said’. The paradigm: Sg. nom. hó (: Ved. sá, sáḥ), acc. tón (: Ved. tám); neutr. nom. acc. tó (: Ved. tád); gen. toû, Hom. toîo (: Ved. tásya), dat. tôi (Myc. to-me /tosmei/? cf. Ved. tásmai, Goth. Þamma). Pl. nom. hoí, WGr. toí (: Ved. té, Goth. þai), acc. toús [tọ̄s] (*tóns : Ved. tā́n, Goth. þans); neutr. nom. acc. tá (: Ved. tā́ni, Goth. þō); gen. tôn; dat. toîsi (cf. Ved. loc. téṣu), toîs (: Ved. instr. táis). Du. nom. acc. tṓ (: Ved. táu); gen. dat. toîn. 4.3. The relative pronoun hós, hḗ, hó goes back to IE *Hi̯ o-, fem. *Hi̯ eh2 - (Ved. yá-, fem. yā́-). Outside Attic it has been replaced by *so-/to-, *sā-/tā- except in nom. sg. masc. and fem. 4.4. The interrogative/indefinite pronouns are built on the suppletive stems *k u̯i- (Lat. quis and indefinite ali-quis, also relative quī; Hitt. kuiš) and *k u̯o- (Ved. ká- ‘who, which?’). The latter is only attested in the correlative series (4.7). Interrogative tís, neutr. tí ‘who?, which?’, ‘what?’ are accented, as against indefinite tis, ti (‘someone’, ‘something’), which are enclitic. With the exception of the nominative singular, the whole flexion is built on tin-, by reanalysis of acc. sg. *k u̯i-n from *k u̯i-m (: Lat. quem). A thematic stem is attested in gen. sg. toû / tou (Hom. téo, teû), dat. tôi / tōi (Hom. téōi) from *k u̯éso, dat. *k u̯éōi̯ . Cf. also Hom. gen. pl. téōn, dat. pl. téoisi. 4.5. The relative indefinite Att. hós tis, hḗ tis, hó ti ‘whoever, whatever’ goes back to the combination of the relative with the indefinite stem *k u̯i-. In some dialects the relative stem is not inflected, e.g. Arc. otis, Lesb. óttis (*Hi̯ od-k u̯i-). Hom. hós te ‘who/which’ (with addition of generalizing te < *k u̯e) is frequent in similes and general statements and has disappeared from common use in Classical Greek.

4.6. Paradigms in Attic Relative Sg. Nom. masc./neut.

h

h

Acc.

h

h

Gen.

Indefinite

Relative indefinite

tis, ti

h

tiná

h

h

tinós (tou)

h

Dat.

h

tiní (tōi)

h

Pl. Nom.

h

tinés, tiná

h

ós, ó ón, ó

oû ôi

oi, ha

ós tis ón tina

oû tinos ṓi tini oí tines, há tina

Additional forms also found for the nominative plural of the relative indefinite pronoun are hátta, Hom. hássa from *Hi̯ ə2 k u̯i̯ ə2. 4.7. Relative, interrogative/indefinite and demonstrative pronouns build correlative series. For example, poîos ‘of which type?’ : hopoîos ‘of whatever type’ : Hom. toîos, Att.

41. The morphology of Greek

669

toioûtos ‘of such type’ (*k u̯osi̯ o- : * hok u̯osi̯ o- : *tos-i̯ o- or *toi̯ s-i̯ o- ?); pósos ‘how much?’ : hopósos ‘however much’ : Hom. tós(s)os, Att. tosoûtos ‘so much’ (*k u̯oti̯ o- : * ho-k u̯oti̯ o- : *toti̯ o-, cf. Lat. toti-dem ‘so many times’). Cf. also the correlative series of adverbs with fossilized case endings (1.4).

5. Personal pronouns Only the pronouns of first and second person have full paradigms. They are suppletive and contain two sets of forms, tonic and atonic (enclitic). The latter are not attested in the nominative and vocative. There is no specific pronoun of the third person: the stem *su̯e-, attested in acc., gen., dat. sg., is actually reflexive. The stems of the personal pronouns are the basis of reflexive and possessive pronouns.

5.1. First person (Attic) Sing.

Plur.

Dual

egṓ

h

nṓ

emé, me

h

nṓ

Gen.

emoû, mou

h

nôin

Dat.

emoí, moi

h

nôin

Nom. Acc.

ēmeîs ēmâs ēmôn ēmîn

Reflexive: em-autón, gen. -oû, dat. -ôi. In plural both pronouns are inflected, cf. acc. h ēmâs autoús, gen. hēmôn autôn, dat. hēmîn autoîs. Cf. also Ion. emeōutón, -oû, etc. Possessive: emós, pl. hēméteros (also Hom. acc. hāmón), du. nōḯteros. On the case forms: Singular: Nom. egṓ (PIE *[h1 ]eg̑oh2 -: Lat. egō; *[h1 ]eg̑h2 -óm: Ved. ahám, Av. azəm, Goth. ik), also Hom. egṓn, with -ō- analogical to egṓ. Acc. emé with e- of obscure origin. (PIE *mē: Ved. mā́m, OLat. mē-d); enclit. me (PIE *me: Goth. mi-k). Gen. emoû: *emé-so (Hom. eméo, emeû). Other forms: Dor. emé-os, Hom. emét hen, also emeîo (*-é-si̯ o?); enclit. Att. mou, Hom. meu (*me-so). Dat. emoí, Lit. Dor. emín; enclit. moi (PIE *moi̯ : Ved. me, Av. mōi, mē). Plural: The aspiration of the stem *hāme- (from *amme-, the regular outcome of *n̥sme-) may be analogical to that of 2. pl. hūme (from * humme- < *Hi̯ usme-). In Attic the forms have been recharacterized by the addition of nominal endings, nom. -es, acc. -as, gen. -ōn. Nom. Att. hēmeîs (* hammé+es: PGr. *n̥s-me: Hom. Lesb. ámmes, Dor. hāmé). Acc. hēmâs (* hammé +as: Hom. hēméas, PGr *n̥s-mé : Hom. Lesb. ámme [: OAv. ǝ̄hmā]). Gen. hēmôn (* hammé+ōn, PGr. *n̥smé-ōn: Hom. hēméōn [disyllabic], Lesb. amméōn, Dor. h āméōn). Dat. hēmîn (ī !) from PGr. *n̥s-mi(n): Hom. Lesb. ámmi(n), Dor. hāmín, hāmîn. Dual: Nom.acc. nṓ (cf. Av. nā), Hom. nôï; gen. dat. -ōin, Hom. -ôïn probably analogical to pl. hēmín (Hom. ámmin).

670

VII. Greek

5.2. Second person (Attic) Sing.

Plur.

Dual

sú

h

sp ṓ

Acc.

sé, se

h

sp hṓ

Gen.

soû, sou

h

sp hôin

Dat.

soí, soi

h

sp hôin

Nom.

umeîs umâs umôn umîn

h

Reflexive: se-autón, se-autoû, se-autôi (whence sautón, sautoû, sautôi), pl. acc. humâs autoús, gen. humôn autôn, dat. humîn autoîs. Cf. also Ion. hseōutón, -oû, etc. Possessive: sós (*tu̯o- : Av. θuuǝ̄), Hom. teós (OLat. tuos, Class. tuus), pl. huméteros (also Hom. Dor. humós, Lesb. úmmos), du. sp hōíteros. On the case forms: Singular: Nom. sú, WGr. tú (PIE *túH: Lat. tu, Av. tū). Acc. sé, Cret. twe (*tu̯é, cf. Ved. tvā́m = Av. θβąm, with addition of the particle *-om). Gen. Att. soû (*tu̯é-so: Hom. séo, seîo, seû), also Hom. Lesb. sét hen; Dor. téos, teûs (*téu̯-o) Enclit. sou, Hom. seu, Lit. Dor. teos. Dat. Att. soí (*tu̯oi̯ ), and toí remodelled from encl. *toi̯ (Hom. toi: Ved. te, av. tōi, tē). Other forms: Hom. teḯn, Lit.Dor. tín. Plural: Nom. hūmeîs (PGr. *Hi̯ us-mé-: Hom. Lesb. úmmes, Dor. hūmé). Acc. hūmâs (*i̯ ummé+as: Hom. hūméas), PGr. *Hi̯ us-mé-: Hom. Lesb. úmme. Gen. hūmôn < * humméōn (*Hi̯ usme-): Hom. hūméōn, hūmeíōn (disyllabic), Lesb. umméōn. Dat. hūmîn (ī!) PGr *Hi̯ us-mi(n): Hom. Lesb. úmmi(n), Dor. hūmín, hūmîn. Dual Nom. acc. sp hṓ (Hom. sp hôï ), gen. dat. sp hōin, Hom. sp hôïn (like nôï, cf. 5.1 [end]). 5.3. The third person may be expressed by means of the anaphoric autós (also acc. sg. min cf. 4.1.d). The current form is a former reflexive pronoun: acc. he (*su̯e: Pamph. ), gen. hoû (Hom. héo, heû, heîo, also hét hen), dat. hoî (*su̯oi). The plural stem is built on *sp he-/*sp hi-: Att. sp hâs, gen. sp hôn (Hom. sp héas, sp héōn), dat. Att. Hom. sp hísi(n), Hom. sp hin. Other forms: Myc. pe-i /sp he hi/, Arc. sp heis as well as sp hesin. Dual: Hom. nom. voc. acc. sp hôe (-e probably analogical to ámme : ámmin), gen. dat. sp hôïn. Reflexive: he-autón, gen. -oû, dat. -ôi, Ion. heōutón, -oû and so on. Possessive: 3rd Pers. Hom. heó-s (*seu̯ó-: OLat. souo-s > suu-s, Av. hauuō), hós (*su̯o-: Ved. svá-), pl. sp héteros, du. Hom. sp hōḯteros.

6. Verbal system The verbal system of Greek is fairly conservative and reflects the inflectional categories of PIE in many respects. Person and number (singular, plural, dual) are expressed by means of personal endings. Within the voice system, the opposition active/middle, expressed by two sets of

41. The morphology of Greek endings, basically reflects the PIE situation. The passive voice is specifically marked only in the aorist and future stems. Aspect is based on the opposition of three aspectual (often incorrectly called “temporal”) stems, namely present, aorist, and perfect. The category tense consists of a threefold opposition: present, past, future. Within the aspectual stems present and perfect, the temporal opposition is expressed by means of endings (primary in present and future / secondary in the past tenses, imperfect, pluperfect). The aorist stem shows only secondary endings. Indicative past tenses are marked in Classical Greek by means of the augment. There are four moods: indicative, subjunctive, optative (the latter two with specific suffixes), imperative (with special endings). The paradigm includes old forms of the injunctive (indifferent to tense: augmentless forms with secondary endings), which is most probably still alive in Mycenaean. The verb has nominal forms, namely infinitives, participles (in all stems), as well as verbal adjectives. 6.1. The aspectual system is based on an opposition present /+Verlaufschau/ (imperfective) vs. aorist /-Verlaufschau/ (perfective): the last has two functions, punctual and complexive (i.e. indifferent to the opposition). With non-telic lexemes, the aorist is realized as [initive], with telic lexemes as [finitive]. This is evident, on the one hand, in the case of the non-telic lexeme in impf. ebasíleue ‘was king’ (for a while) vs. aor. ebasíleuse ‘began to be king’ (initive) and ‘was king’ (bare preterite). On the other hand, cf. the telic lexeme in impf. ép heuge ‘was fleeing’ vs. aor. ép huge ‘escaped’. Both stems stand in opposition to the perfect, which is /postterminative/, whence mostly stative (with telic lexemes, e.g. pép heuge ‘is safe’), but also intensive or “anomalous” with non-telic lexemes (e.g. kékrage [ā] ‘shouts’). Beginning with Classical times, the perfect may be used as a preterite tense, namely as an alternative to the aorist. 6.1.1. Some lexemes are defective, e.g. eimí ‘I am’, eîmi ‘I go’ (no aorist), aor. Hom. étlēn ‘I endured’ (no present), Hom. elégmēn ‘I lay down’ (cf. keîmai ‘lie’). Suppletion is well attested, e.g. horáō : eîdon :: heṓraka ‘see’, b hérō : ḗnenkon ‘bear, endure’ (: enḗnokha). In the case of ‘say’ three different lexemes are involved, cf. légō : erô : eîpon : eírēka. The same applies for ‘go’: Att. érk homai : eîmi (but Hom. eleúsomai) : êlt hon : elḗlut ha (Hom. elḗlout ha). Some lexemes which have a full paradigm in Classical times are in Homer still defective and may stand in suppletion, e.g. Att. hélkō : hélkusa- ‘drag’, but Hom. hélkō (and erúō) : erusa-. Some of the suppletive pairs may be inherited, e.g. b hérō : ḗnenkon in view of OAv. bar : nas ‘id.’, OIr. berid : ro · uc(ca)i ‘id.’ 6.1.2. The derivative category actionality (Aktionsart) may be recognized only in some reduplicated presents (e.g. ísk hō ‘I hold (strongly)’ vs. ék hō ‘I hold’, pamp haínei ‘shines brightly’), in the iterative type ork héomai ‘I dance’ vs. érk homai, and in the factitive types in /-ō-/ of the sorts neō- ‘make new’ and step hanō- ‘crown’ (6.3.2.b, 6.3.3.a, 6.3.3.b, 6.3.3.c). 6.2. The augment is a prefix *é- which occurs in the past tenses of the indicative in Classical Greek (also in the “gnomic” aorist) as a rule: ép heron ‘I was carrying’ (: Ved.

671

672

VII. Greek ábharam), égnōn ‘I knew’. In Homer its presence is mainly conditioned by metrical considerations and by the internal rules of Wortumfang; it is totally lacking in the socalled iteratives (type kalésketo). In Mycenaean it is not attested, with two exceptions: a-pe-do-ke /ap-edōke/ ‘he paid’ and a-pe-e-ke /ap-e hēke/ ‘he sent’ as against regular apu-do-ke /apu-dōke/ (1x), do-ke, a-pi-e-ke /amp hi- hēke/). The augmentless (injunctive) forms have a “memorative” function. This fits into the nature of Linear B tablets, where the essential is the bare statement of facts. Some formal devices: a) If the verb has an initial vowel, this is lengthened, cf. e.g. êgon ‘I was leading’ (PGr. *ā́gom : PIE *é-h2 eg̑-), ḗgeira ‘I awoke’ (PGr. *ḗgersa : PIE *é-h1 g̑er-), ōrnúmēn ‘I was raising up’ (PGr. *ōrnu- : PIE *é-h3rnu-). The lengthening in the last two cases goes back to the contraction of é- with the initial laryngeal of the root. b) If the verb has initial *s-, *i̯ -, or *u̯- the augment undergoes contraction: heipómēn ‘I was following’ from *é-sek u̯-o-, eirgazómēn ‘I was working’ from *é-u̯erg-o- (in both cases : [ẹ̄] from -ee-). In a case like érrei ‘it was flowing’ from *é-sreu̯-e (Hom. érree), the augment has provided an environment for assimilatory germination of root-initial *sr-. c) In verbs with initial *u̯-, the augment may be *ē-, e.g. heṓrōn ‘I saw’ from *ē-u̯órāom (cf. Lat. uereor ‘I respect’). Secondary ē- is found also in Att. ēboulómēn ‘I wanted’, ḗmellon ‘I was about (to)’. 6.2.1. Reduplication, irrespective of its being the mark of an aspectual stem or of actionality, shows two types which are common to all stems: a) Syllabic, i.e. repetition of the first consonant (type CV-CVC-: pres. Ci-CVC-, perf. Ce-CVC-, also aor. Ce-CC-): pres. dí-dōmi ‘I give’, Myc. di-do-si /didonsi/ besides perf. dé-dōka, aor. pe-pit heîn ‘to convince’ besides perf. pé-peika and medpass. pépeismai. Roots with initial vowel have lengthening of the vowel in lieu of reduplication, e.g. perf. ḗgmai (: ágō ‘I lead’), ḗlpika (: elpízō ‘I hope’). The syllabic reduplication may become unrecognizable in lexemes with initial *(H)i̯ -,*u̯-, and *s, cf. perf. heîka from perf. *i̯ e-i̯ ē- beside pres. híēmi ‘I send’, Myc. 3rd pl. i-je-si /hihensi/ with secondary e-vocalism of the root (*i̯ i-i̯ ē-, actually *Hi̯ iHi̯ eh1 -, cf. Att. híēmi [ī]) or perf. eírēka ‘I have said’ (*u̯e-u̯rē-), and eílēp ha ‘I have taken’ (PGr. *se-slāb-), where designates [ẹ̄] from the first compensatory lengthening. b) Full reduplication, i.e. repetition of the lexeme, e.g. aor. agageîn (: pres. ágō), Hom. pres. pamp haínei ‘shines’. On specific reduplication types in the perfect stem, cf. 6.6.1. 6.3. The different present and aorist stems mostly reflect PIE inherited formations, which are fully integrated into the aspectual system either as the present or as the aorist: in this case, their original Aktionsart is not recognizable. 6.3.1. Athematic present stems: a) root presents (type CéC-ti/CC-énti): Att. eimí ‘I am’ estí, 3pl. eisí (Myc. e-e-si /e hensi/ (PIE *h1 ésmi/*h1 s-énti : Hitt. ēšzi [-tsi]/ašanzi, Ved. ásti/sánti); p hēmí ‘I say’,

41. The morphology of Greek

b)

c)

d)

e)

3pl. p hasí (Myc. pa-si /p hāsi/ ‘says’); middle keîmai ‘I lie’, 3sg. keîtai (*k̑éi̯ [t]o[i]: Hitt. kitta[ri], Ved. śáye), 3.pl. keîntai (but Hom. kéatai) from *k̑éi̯ -n̥toi. reduplicated presents (type Ci-CéC-ti/Ci-CC-énti): tít hēmi ‘I put’, 1pl. tít hemen, middle tít hemai (PIE *d hí-d héh1 -/*d hi-d hə1-ˊ ); dídōmi ‘I give’, 1pl. dídomen, middle dídomai, Myc. di-do-si /didonsi/, middle di-do-to /didotoi/ (PIE *di-déh3 -/*di-də3 -ˊ ); hístēmi, 1pl. hístamen ‘make stand’, middle hístamai ‘I stand up’ (*si-stéh2 -/*si- stə2-ˊ ). -n-infix presents (type CC-né-H-ti/CC-n-H-énti): Hom. dámnēmi ‘I subdue’, 1st pl. dámnamen (*dm̥-né-h2 -/*dm̥-ń-h2 -), whence Att. damázō; (ap)óllumi [ū] ‘I kill’ (*olnū/u- remodeled from *h3 l̥ -né-h1 -mi/*h3 l̥ -n-h1 -mé-); stórnumi [ū] ‘I spread, extend’ (*str̥-nū/u- remodeled from *str̥-né-h3-ti (: Ved. str̥ṇā́ti/str̥ṇīmáḥ), whence Att. storénnumi ‘id.’, created on aor. stores(a)-. The -nū-/-nu-ablaut (instead of *-neu-/-nu-) is a Greek innovation on the model of -ē-/-ĕ-, -ā-/-ǎ-, -ō-/-ŏ-. Gr. -nū-/-nu- may continue either inherited *-néH-/-nH(more specifically, *-néh3 -/-nh3 -) or *-néu̯-/-nu- (Ved. str̥ṇóti/str̥ṇumás ‘lay low’). Suffix -nū-/-nu- (type CC-néu̯-ti/CC-nu̯-énti): órnumi ‘I rouse’ (*Hr̥-néu̯-: Hitt. arnu-mi ‘stir’, ‘transport’, causative to ār-ḫḫi ‘arrive’, also arnušk-) : Ved. r̥ṇóti ‘raises up’. Also with secondary full grade of the root, cf. deíknumi ‘I show’. Other presents go back to secondary thematization, e.g. tínō ‘I pay’ (*k u̯i-n-u̯o/e-), p ht hínō ‘I perish’ (*d hg u̯hi-n-u̯o/e-). A survival of -o-grade presents (type Lat. molō ‘I grind’) may be Hom. óromai ‘I see’.

6.3.2. Thematic present stems (some of them originally athematic): a) root presents (type CéC-o/e-): p hérō ‘I bear, take’, Myc. pe-re /p herei/ (*b hér-o/e-: Ved. bhárati), Hom. démō ‘I build’ (*démH-o/e- : Luv. tama-mi ‘id.’), ágō ‘I lead’, Myc. a-ke /agei/ (: *h2 ég̑-o/e-), ék hō ‘I keep, hold’, Myc. e-ke /(h)ek hei/ (PIE *ség̑ ho/e- ‘hold, overcome’), 3rd pl. e-ko-si /(h)ek honsi/ (: Att. ék housi), eúk homai ‘I declare emphatically’ (Myc. e-u-ke-to /euk hetoi/) (PIE *h1 eu̯gu̯h- : Ved. óhate). b) reduplicated (type Cí-CC-o/e-): hízdō ‘I sit down’ (PIE *si-sd-o/e-: Ved. sī́dati, Lat. sīdō), gígnomai ‘I become’, tíktō ‘I beget’. Some of these may express intensive Aktionsart as against the non-reduplicated present: mímnō ‘I stand, resist’ (PIE *mimn-o/e-: Hitt. mimma-ḫḫi ‘reject’, CLuv. mimma-ḫḫi ‘respect’) vs. ménō ‘I remain’, ísk hō ‘I hold strongly’ vs. ék hō. c) -n-suffix presents: op heílō, op héllō ‘I owe’, Myc. o-pe-ro-si /op hellonsi/ (PIE *h3 b heln-o/e-). There is a variant of -n-infixed presents enlarged by -ano/e-, cf. ma-n-t háno/e- ‘learn’, pu-n-t h-ánomai ‘I inquire’ (PIE *b heu̯d h-, cf. Ved. bódhate). d) -sko/e-presents (type CC-sk̑ó/é-): érk homai ‘I go’ (*h1 r̥-sk̑ó/é-, PIE *h1 er- ‘arrive’: Hitt. arški-mi ‘arrives’, Ved. r̥cháti), gignṓskō ‘I know’. Characteristic of Homeric and Ionic are the augmentless -sko/e- preterites, which are mostly iteratives (e.g. kalésketo ‘called repeatedly’, ídeske ‘used to see’), but not always (e.g. éske ‘was’). They have close parallels in Hittite -šk-verbs, although their functions are not identical. e) Primary *-i̯ o/e- presents, with zero grade (type CC-i̯ ó/é-) or full grade (CéC-i̯ o/e-) of the root. Their form depends on the phonetic outcome of the final consonant of the lexeme in contact with *-i̯ o/e-. Type CC-i̯ ó/é-: baínō ‘I come’ (*g u̯m̥-i̯ o/e- : Lat. ueniō), hállomai ‘I jump’ (*sl̥ -i̯ o/e- : Lat. saliō), maíomai ‘I inquire’ (*mn̥s-i̯ o/e-), bláptō ‘I hinder’ (*mlab-i̯ o/e-, cf. blábē ‘wound’ remodeled from *ml̥ k u̯-i̯ o/e- : Ved.

673

674

VII. Greek mr̥cyá-), nízdō ‘I wash’ (*nigu̯-i̯ o/e), kaíō ‘I light, burn’ (*kau̯-i̯ o/e-). Type CéC-i̯ o/e: t heínō ‘I strike, kill’ (*gu̯hén-i̯ o/e-, remodeled from *gu̯hén-ti / *gu̯hn-énti : Ved. hánti/ghnánti), ageírō ‘I collect’ (Myc. a-ke-re /agerrei/), kléptō ‘I steal’ (*klép-i̯ o/ e-, Goth. hlifan), eréttō ‘I row’ (*eret- secondary root vs. PIE *h1 erh1 -), házomai ‘I revere’ (*Hi̯ ag̑-i̯ o/e-, cf. Ved. yáj-a-). f) Denominatives in *-i̯ o/e-, with phonetic outcomes like in (e): timáō ‘I honour’ (: timā́, *tīmāi̯ o/e-), p hiléō ‘I love’ (p hílos ‘friend’, *p hilé-i̯ o/e-), ōnéomai ‘I buy’ (: ônos ‘price’, cf. Ved. vasna-yá- : vasná- ‘price’), onomaínō ‘I name’ (ónoma, *onomn̥-i̯ o/ e-, cf. Hitt. lamnii̯ a-); teléō ‘I complete’ (: télos ʼendʼ, *teles-i̯ o/e-: Hom. teleíō), elpízō ‘I hope’ (*elpi-d-i̯ o/e-), p huláttō ‘I guard’ (: p húlaks ‘guardian’), basileúō ‘I rule’ (: basileús ‘king’, *g wasil-ēu̯-i̯ o/e-, Myc. part. qa-si]-re-wi-jo-te?: Att. -eúo/eis analogical to aor. -eusa-, the regular outcome of *-eu̯i̯ o/e- being -eío/e-, still attested in Elean). N.B. The denominative verba vocalia are attested as athematic (types tímāmi, p hílēmi) in Mycenaean − te-re-ja /teleiā/ ‘performs the /teleiā/’ (the function of a tere-ta, inf. te-re-ja-e /teleiā hen/), po-ne-to /ponētoi/ ‘works’ (: Att. poneîtai) − as well as in Arcadian and Cyprian, and (with generalization of the lengthened grade, the socalled “Aeolic” inflection) in Thessalian, and partly in Lesbian. N.B. -ázo/e and -ízo/e- become very productive and are extended to all types of stems: ergázomai ‘I work’ (: érga), atimázō ‘I dishonour’ (: átimos), k harízomai ‘I favour’ (: k háris), oneidízō ‘I blame’ (: óneidos). g) -éi̯ o/e- presents with different grades of the root. Type CC-éi̯ o/e-: ktáomai ktômai ‘I get’ (if from *tkh2 -éi̯ o/e-), spáō ‘I draw’ (*sph2 -éi̯ o/e-). h) Other present stems are mostly Greek creations: -ko/e- (Att. diṓkō ‘I pursue’, cf. Hom. díemai ‘I run, flee’), -k ho/e- (nḗk hō ‘I swim’ besides náō ‘id.’). 6.3.3. Some present formations are more or less clearly associated with actionality patterns: a) The type CoC-éi̯ o/e- is iterative-intensive (e.g. ork héomai ‘I dance’ vs. érk homai) or causative (p hobéō ‘I terrify’ vs. p hébomai ‘I flee’: PIE *b heg u̯- : OLit. be˙́gmi ‘I flee’). Cf. also with lengthened grade of the root in pōtáomai, a variant of potéomai ‘I flutter’ vs. pétomai ‘I fly’. b) Presents in -óō (first attested in Classical Greek) from *-ō-i̯ o/e-, besides aor. -ō-sa(Hom.+), include two types of factitives in /-ō-/ : (i) deadjectival, of the type neóō ‘I make new’ (: néos), a remodeling of neáō, cf. Hitt. neu̯aḫḫ-mi, Lat. nouāre from *neu̯eh2 -i̯ o/e-, eleut heróō ‘I make free’ (ii) denominal, of the type step hanóō ‘I crown’ (*-oh1 -i̯ o/e-) *‘provide/endow with a crown’). c) Full reduplicated presents are intensive, e.g. Hom. pamp haínei ‘shines brightly’. d) Presents in -éō of the type r hīgéo/e- ‘shiver with cold’ (*srīg-ē-i̯ o/e- : Lat. rigēre) are stative (PIE *-ē- from instr. -eh1 -). e) Some -t ho/e-present stems seem to have also a stative function, e.g. Hom. plēt ho/e‘be full’ vs. impf. epímplato ‘was becoming full’, aor. éplēto, eplḗst hē ‘became full’. 6.4. Aorist stems: a) Athematic: The inherited type CéC-t/CC-ént, mid. CC-tó is recognizable in Hom. ôrto ‘stirred up’ (: *(é)h3 r-to: Ved. ā́rta), Myc. qi-ri-ja-to /k wriato/ ‘bought’ (: Hom. príato): PIE *k u̯rii̯ ə2- (Toch. B pret. käryā-). It is continued by the obscure k-aorists

41. The morphology of Greek

b)

c)

d) e) f)

of the type ét hēke, Boeot. anét hē (*d héh1 -t ‘put’), 1pl. ét hemen, 3pl. Dor. ét hen (*d heh1 -, cf. Hitt. tēzzi ‘says’, Lat. fēcī), édōke ‘gave’, Myc.(apu-)do-ke /(apu)dōke/ (*déh3 -t : Ved. ádāt). The full grade is inherited also in 1/2pl. in some verbs, e.g. ébēn ‘I came’, 1pl. ébēmen, 3pl. ébēsan, Hom. éban (*é-g u̯eh2 -, 1pl. é-g u̯eh2 -me, 3pl. *é-g u̯h2 -ent : Ved. ágām, 1pl. agāma, 2pl. agāta, 3pl. agur ← *-ent). Thematic: ḗlut he ‘went’ (PIE *h1 lud h-é-t: OIr. luid, Toch.B lac); élipe ‘left’ (*lik u̯-é-t, Arm. elikʽ); eîde ‘saw’, Myc. wi-de /wide/, Hom. íde (*u̯id-ó/é- : Ved. ávidat, Arm. egit); egéneto, Myc. pa-ro-ke-ne-[to] /paro-geneto/ ‘presented himself’, Hom. géneto. Sigmatic, with regularized -sa-, extended to the whole paradigm from 1sg. -sa(*-sm̥-), except for 3sg. -se, and different regular(ized) grades of the root. The inherited -s-aorist originally had lengthened grade (Cḗ[R]C) throughout the active paradigm but in Greek shows normal grade like the present. This perhaps began with CeRC roots, where Osthoff’s Law would regularly have shortened the long vowel of the root, e.g. (é)deiksa ‘I showed’ (from *dēi̯ k-s-: Av. dāiš, Lat. dīxī); edeksámēn ‘I received’, Myc. de-ka-sa-to /deksato/ (PIE *dek̑-, cf. Ved. dāś ‘revere’). By analogy with -C-sa- intervocalic -s- is not dropped, cf. élusa [ū] ‘I solved’ (: lúō); ēleuthérōsa ‘I made free’, Myc. e-re-u-te-ro-se, also in roots ultimae laryngalis, e.g. ekálesa ‘I called’, Hom. kalessa- (← PIE *kl̥ ēh1 -s-: Hitt. kalēšš-mi?); edámasa ‘I tamed’, Hom. damassa- (← *demh2 -s-, cf. Hitt. damešš-mi), estóresa ‘I spread out’ (*store- by metathesis of *stero- : PIE *sterh3 -). In some cases -s- has been dropped (and not reintroduced analogically), e.g. Hom. ék heua ‘I poured’ from *ég̑ heu̯-s-m̥. With lexemes ending in a resonant, -R-s- has given rise to asigmatic forms, with regular lengthening of -e- before -rs- or -ls-. e.g. ḗgeira ‘I woke up’, ḗggeila ‘I sent’ (*egersa, *angelsa, both with = [ẹ̄]), Myc. part. a-ke-ra2-te /agerrantes/ ‘having collected’ (: Att. aggeírantes) or /agellantes/ ‘having sent’ (: Αtt. aggeílantes ), émeina ‘I remained’ (*men-sa). Reduplicated (type Cé-CC-e/o-): Att. eîpe ‘said’, Hom. éeipe (*[é]u̯e-u̯k u̯-e-t : Ved. ávocat); other forms have been created within Greek, e. g. Att. ḗgage ‘led’. The so-called “alpha-thematic” -a-aorist (type eîpa, ḗneika vs. eîpon, ḗnegkon) goes back to the generalization of 1sg. -a from *-C-m̥. The so-called “passive” aorist with -ē-, -t hē-, originally with zero-grade of the root, has active secondary endings. It expresses originally the inception of a state: emánēn ‘I went mad’ (*mn̥-eh1 -: Lit. mine˙́ti, OCS mьněti ‘think’), ekhárē ‘became glad’ beside pres. maínomai ‘I rage’, k haírō ‘I rejoice’. The suffix -ē- (*-eh1 -) is attested in other languages as stative, also as inchoative in the conflational forms *-ē-s- (Hitt. lukkešš-mi ‘become light’), *-ē-sk̑- (Lat. lucēscō). The allomorph -t hē-, whatever may be its origin, is attested mostly in verbs ending in a vowel, probably to avoid hiatus, e.g. elút hē ‘was solved’, ep hilḗt hē ‘was beloved’. Both morphemes may coexist, e.g. emígē and emík ht hē ‘got in contact’.

6.5. Future stems: a) -s-future (type CéC-s-o/e-, secondarily CVC-s-o/e-): lúsō ‘I shall solve’, dṓsō ‘I shall give’ (Myc. do-se /dōsei/, pl. do-so-si /dōsonsi/), step hanṓsō ‘I shall crown’, deíksō ‘I shall show’, Hom. ópsomai ‘I shall see’ (*h3 ék u̯-s-o/e-), déksetai ‘will accept’. As in the case of the aorist (6.4.c), between vowels -s- remains intact by analogy with -C-s-o/e- (deík-s-o/e-). In lexemes with final laryngeal, however, -s- is dropped and

675

676

VII. Greek

b)

c) d) e)

gives rise to the so-called “Attic” contracted future: erô, Hom. (u̯)eréō ‘I shall speak’ (*u̯érh1 -s-o/e-), teméō ‘I shall cutʼ (*témh1 -s-o/e-), elô ‘I shall drive’ from eláō (*h1 elh2 -s-o/e-), ap-olô ‘I shall kill’ (*h3 elh1 -s-o/e-), omoûmai ‘I shall swear’ (*h3omh3 -s-o/e-). The -s-future may go back to a desiderative (OLat. faxō) and/or to former subjunctives to -s-aorists. “Attic” future with verbs in liquid or nasal (type Att. agerô ‘I shall collect’ aggelô ‘I shall send’, menô ‘I shall remain’, from *ager-és-o/e-,*angel-és-o/e-, *men-éso/e-) is due to analogical extension, or goes back to a morpheme *-es- extended from *-h1 -s-. Such extension is obvious in the case of the presents in -ízo/e-, cf. fut. nomiô ‘I shall consider’ (: nomízō). “Doric” future in -séo/e- : dōséō, Cret. deikséō, as well as Hom. esseîtai (also Attic, always middle). This is connected with a former PIE desiderative in *-s(i̯ )o/e- (e.g. *deh3 -si̯ é-ti : Ved. dāsyáti, Lit. dúosiu, 3sg. duõs). Some futures go back to PIE athematic subjunctives (suffix *-o/e-): ésomai ‘I shall be’ 3pl. ésontai, Myc. e-so-to /es(s)ontoi/ (PIE *h1 és-o/e -: Ved. ás-a-t[i], Lat. erit), Hom. édomai ‘I shall eat’ (*h1 éd-o/e- : Ved. ádat[i]). Passive: like the corresponding aorist (6.4.f), but with medial primary endings, i.e. manḗ-s-o-mai, lut hḗ-s-o-mai.

6.6. The perfect stem has reduplication, except in the case of oîda ‘I know’/ídmen, the resultative perfect of eîdon ‘I saw’ (PIE *u̯ói̯ d-h2 e/*u̯id-mé: Ved. véda/vidmá) and a characteristic set of endings (cf. 6.8.3). Perfect formations include the following: a) with CoC-/CC- ablaut (subjunctive CeC-): pépoit ha / pépit hmen ‘trust’, Hom. mémona, but impv. 3sg. memátō (*me-mn̥-tōd : Lat. mementō). Most of the verbs show a regularized ablaut grade, cf. Att. pépont ha ‘I have suffered’, pl. pepónt hamen, pepónt hate (: Hom. pépast he); pép heuga ‘I am safe’, pl. pep heúgamen (Hom. part. pep hugménos); and, with zero-grade, elḗlut ha ‘I have gone’ (Hom. eilḗlout ha), pl. elēlút hamen. b) -ka-perfect (3sg. -ke), with -k- of uncertain origin, restricted originally to the singular active, although the tendency is for leveling to one ablaut grade and for the generalization of the -ka-perfect (e.g. léluka/lelúkamen, lelúkasi). Inherited patterns still survive in Homer, e.g. héstēka ‘I stand’/héstamen, 3pl. héstâsi; tét hnēka ‘am dead’/tét hnamen, tét hnâsi (Attic also hestḗkamen, hestḗkasi) and tét hnḗkamen, tet hnḗkasi), Hom. deídō, deídia ‘I fear’/deídimen (*de-du̯oi̯ -/*de-du̯i-), remodeled to dédoika/dedoíkamen, dedoíkasi). c) “aspirated” perfect: tétrop ha ‘I have turned’, eílēp ha ‘I have taken’, tétak ha ‘I have arranged’ from *te-trop-, *se-slāb-, *te-tag-. The aspiration is due to the extension of the phonetically conditioned variant in medial forms, cf. 2pl impv. teták ht hō (*-tag-st hōd), inf. teták ht hai (*-tag-st hai̯ ). 6.6.1. Special types of reduplication: a) So-called “Attic” reduplication in lexemes of the structure VC(C): repetition of the first vowel and consonant, and lengthening of the root vowel, e.g. elḗl(o)ut h-a ‘I have gone’, ólōl-a ‘am dead’, ópōp-a ‘I have seen’. The structure VC-VːC originally goes back to *HCe-HC- (e.g. elḗl(o)ut h- from *h1 le-h1 l(o)ud h-) and has spread secondarily within Greek to roots of the structure VC-, e.g. Hom. part. edēdṓs to ed- ‘eat’ (*h1 ed-, pres. est híō).

41. The morphology of Greek b) e- (or */he-/) as reduplication in lexemes of the structure CCVC(C), e.g. éstrōtai ‘is extended, spread out’ (: stórnumi, PIE *sterh3-), Hom. ép ht hitai ‘is dead’, part. ep ht himénos, Myc. e-qi-ti-wo-e /(h)e-k wt hiwohe(s)/ ‘dead’ (: p ht hínō ‘I perish’, PIE *d hg u̯hei̯ -). The starting point of */he-/ is *se-sVC(C)- in roots of the structure seC(C)-, e.g. héstēka ‘I stand’ (*se-stē-), ésk hēka ‘I hold’ (*se-sk h-ē-). 6.6.2. Two further formations may be considered as Greek innovations within the perfect stem: a) the pluperfect, with augment and special endings (e.g. sg. Att. e-dedoík-ē or ededí-ē, -ēs, -ei, 3pl. -[e]san, originally ‘I feared’, etc.). b) the future perfect, probably a former reduplicated desiderative, which has been assimilated to the perfect stem: gegrápsetai ‘it will be written’, hestḗksō ‘I shall be standing’, tet hnḗksō ‘I shall be dead’, also middle hestḗksomai, Hom. dedéksomai ‘I shall receive’ (in fact synonymous with déksomai).

6.7. Moods 6.7.1. The subjunctive is characterized by the suffix *-o/e-, which is recognizable in athematic stems (the so-called “short vowel” subjunctives in Homer and some dialects) and has been contracted (-ō-/-ē- from *-o-o-/*-e-e-) in thematic stems. It has primary endings in most of the dialects, but secondary endings are attested in others. This points to a coexistence of both sets of endings in Proto-Greek, as in Proto-Indo-European. a) Athematic: Hom. (= Fut.) édomai ‘I shall eat’ (*h1 éd-o/e- : Ved. 3sg. ádat[i]), t hḗomen ‘let’s put’, gnṓomen ‘let us know’, also *-s-o/e- in -s-aorists, e.g. Hom. erússomen ‘let us draw’, Cyren. 2sg. poiēses. b) Thematic: *p hérō-/*p hérē- (*b hér-o-o-, *b hér-e-e-), e.g. 2sg. p hérē(i)s, 3sg. p hérē(i) 1pl. p hérōmen, 2pl. p hérēte. Extension from them. -ō-/-ē- to non-thematic stems is regular in Attic, e.g. íōmen, eídōmen ‘let us see’ (but Hom. íomen, eídomen), also *-s-ō/ē-: deíksō, deíksēis. Cf. also Hom. Ion. duneṓmet ha (from *-ē-o- by quantitative methatesis) vs. Att. dúnōmai, dúnētai. 6.7.2. The optative has zero-grade of the root and the ablauting suffix -iē- (-i̯ ē-/ī- [PIE *-i̯ eh1 /*-ih1 -]) in athematic stems, as against non-ablauting -oi- (PIE *-o-i̯ h1 -) in thematic ones: a) Athematic: sg. eíēn, eíēs, eíē, pl. eîmen (*é[h]ī-men), eîte, eîen (PIE *h1 s-i̯ éh1 -m̥, *h1 s-i̯ éh1 -s, *h1 s-i̯ éh1 -t / *h1 s-ih1 -mé-, *h1 s-ih1 -té-, *h1 s-ih1 -ént : OLat. siem, siēs, siet / sīmus, sītis, sient). b) Thematic: p héroimi (← *p héroia : PIE *b hér-o-ih1 -m̥, Ved. bháreyam, cf. Arc. ekselaunoia ‘I could banish’), p hérois (PIE *b hér-o-ih1 -s : Ved. bháres), p héroi (PIE *b héro-ih1 -t : Ved. bháret), p héroimen (PIE *b hér-o-ih1 -me : Ved. bhárema), p héroite (PIE *b hér-o-ih1 -te : Ved. bháreta), p héroien (← p héroia : PIE *b hér-o-ih1 -n̥t : Av. baraiiən), cf. -oian, also -oin in other dialects. c) The so-called “Aeolic” aorist optative (attested in Homer and regular in Attic) is restricted to 2sg. and 3sg. and pl.: deíksaimi, -saimen, -saite but 2sg. deikseias, 3sg.

677

678

VII. Greek -seie, 3pl. -seian (but in Homer also -sais, -sai, -saien). Its origin remains controversial. A special type is Cret. 3sg. -siē, 3pl. -sien, e.g. werksien ‘they should do’. 6.7.3. The imperative has no specific suffix of its own. The endings are in part inherited, in part created within Greek (cf. 6.8.4). Its paradigm includes old forms of the injunctive which reflect the inherited pattern in negative orders (mḗ p hére ‘do not bring’, pl. mḗ p hérete).

6.8.

Verbal endings

6.8.1. Verbal endings (Attic): active Primary

Athematic

Thematic

Sg.1. 2. 3.

-mi -s -si

-ō -eis -ei

tít hēmi tít hēs tít hēsi

p hérō p héreis p hérei

Pl.1. 2. 3.

-men -te -āsi

-o-men -e-te -ousi

tít hemen tít hete tít heāsi

p héromen p hérete p hérousi

Du.2. 3.

-ton -ton

-e-ton -e-ton

tít heton tít heton

p héreton p héreton

Sg.1. 2. 3.

-n -s -ø

-o-n -e-s -e-ø

etít hēn etít heis etít hei

ép heron ép heres ép here

Pl.1. 2. 3.

-men -te -san

-o-men -e-te -o-n

etít hemen etít hete etít hesan

ep héromen ep hérete ép heron

Du.2. 3.

-ton -tēn

-e-ton -é-tēn

etít heton etit hétēn

ep héreton ep herétēn

Secondary

6.8.1.1. On the active endings Athematic, primary: Att. -mi, -s, -si (*-mi, *-si, *-ti, conserved in West Greek), Myc. 3sg. and pl. /-si/, pl. /-nsi/ from PIE *-ti, *-nti, respectively (with East Greek assibilation). 1pl. -men (PIE *-me+n, originally secondary *-me : Ved. -ma) vs. WestGr. -mes (PIE primary *-mes : Ved. -mas). 2pl. -te (PIE *-te : Ved. -ta [secondary ending]). 3pl. -āsi (*-ansi from *anti ← *-n̥ti, *-nti (: WGr. *-nti). Du. 2. 3. -ton (PIE *-tom, cf. Ved. 2du. -tam [secondary ending]). Athematic, secondary: 3sg. /-0̸/, pl. /-n/ (PIE *-t, *-nt). Att. 3.pl. -san from East Gr. *-an (*-a-n-t ← *-n̥t), recharacterized by -s-. Cf. also Hom. -n (éban < *ég u̯h2 ent) vs. Att. ébē-s-an. Aor. pass. -(t h)en (from *-[t h]ē-nt by Osthoff’s law); Arc. Cypr. Boeot.

41. The morphology of Greek

679

-an, type ét hean. 3du. (Att. Hom.) -ton, -tēn, WestGr. -tān, -tēn (PIE *-teh2 m : Ved. -tām). Thematic: like athematic, added to thematic vowel -o/e-. Specific endings: 1sg. -ō : -oh2 (better than *-oh2 o). 2sg. -eis, 3sg. -ei, secondary -es, -e (i.e. -e-ø from *-e-t). Primary -ei-s, -ei-ø is a Greek innovation as against *-e-si, *-e-ti of other languages (Ved. -ati, OLat. -it, Goth. -iþ). PGr. *-e-i (probably from *-e-ø-i) underlies -ei-s : -ei-ø analogical to secondary -s : -ø.

6.8.2.

Verbal endings: middle

Primary

Athematic

Thematic

Sg.1. 2. 3.

-mai -sai -tai

-o-mai -ēi -e-tai

tít hemai tít hesai tít hetai

p héromai p hérēi p héretai

Pl.1. 2. 3.

-met ha -st he -ntai

-o-met ha -e-st he -o-ntai

tit hémet ha tít hest he tít hentai

p herómet ha p hérest he p hérontai

Du.2. 3.

-st hon -st hon

-e-st hon -e-st hon

tít hest hon tít hest hon

p hérest hon p hérest hon

Sg.1. 2. 3.

-mēn -so -to

-ó-mēn -ou -e-to

etít hemēn etít heso etít heto

ep herómēn ep hérou ep héreto

Pl.1. 2. 3.

-met ha -st he -nto

-ó-met ha -e-st he -o-nto

etit hémet ha etít hest he etít hento

ep herómet ha ep hérest he ep héronto

Du.2. 3.

-st hon -st hēn

-e-st hon -é-st hēn

etít hest hon etít hést hēn

ep hérest hon ep herést hēn

Secondary

6.8.2.1. On the middle endings Other than the thematic vowel (-o/e-), there is no difference between athematic and thematic stems. Primary: 1sg. -mai (*-m-h2 e-i, or *-maH+i from *-m̥h2 +i ). 2sg., 3sg. and pl. -sai, -(n)tai from PIE *-soi̯ , *-(n)toi̯ . Myc. -to /-to(i)/, /-nto(i)/ reflect the inherited -o-vocalism, which has remained unaltered in Arcadian and Cyprian. The -a- vocalism of -tai, -ntai (and -[s]ai) in all other dialects is due to the influence of 1sg. -mai (Indoiran. *-ai̯ : Ved. -e) by columnar analogy. 1pl. -met ha (PIE *-med hə2 : Ved. -mahi). Hom. -mest ha (also in poetry) is metrically conditioned or from *-mes-d hə2 (cf. Hitt. -u̯ašta ?). 2pl. -st he, also -t he (e.g. hêst he ‘you sit down’) < *-(s)d hu̯e (cf. Ved. -dhvam, Hitt. -tuma-). Secondary: 1sg. -mān (PGr. *-maH+m from *-C-m̥-h2 (PIE *-h2 : Ved. -i), cf. Hom. elégmēn ‘I laid myself down’, edégmēn ‘I received’? 2sg., 3sg. and pl. -so, -(n)to (: Av.

680

VII. Greek -ha, Ved. Av. -ta, -nta; Lat. 2sg. -ris [*-se+s], -tur, -ntur). Greek has no trace of t-less medial endings. 3pl. -nto, also -ato (*-n̥to) in vocalic stems: Hom. hḗato ‘they were sitting’ (: Ved. ā́s-ata) but Att. kát hēnto ‘id.’.

6.8.3. Perfect endings Perfect endings: léluk-a, -as, -e; pl. lelúk-amen, -ate, -āsi(n); du.1.2.3. lelúkaton. On the endings: Att. 1sg. -a (PIE *-h2 e : Ved. -a), 2sg. -as (like aor. 1. sg. -a, 2. sg. -as). PIE *-th2 e (Ved. -tha) survives in (w)oîst ha ‘you know’ (: Ved. véttha), also in impf. êst ha ‘you were’. 3sg. -e (PIE *-e : Ved. -a). 3pl. -āsi < *-ansi < *-a-n-ti ← *-ati from *-n̥ti (no trace of *-ēr/*-r̥[s] : Ved. -us). Cf. the variants Dor. -anti, Hom. -āsi (also °gegáasi ‘they are born, live’). Pluperfect: elelúk-ē, -ēs, -ei; pl. elelúk-emen, -ete, -esan; du. 2. elelúk-eton, 3. elelukétēn (later -ein, -eis, -ei, -eimen, -eite, -eisan, -eiton, -eitēn). Cf. Hom. 1sg. -ea, 2sg. -ēs. Middle: Perf. lélumai, -sai, -tai; pl. lelúmet ha, lélust he, léluntai. Pluperf. elélumēn, -so, -to, etc. In Homer 3pl. -atai, pluperf. -ato from *-n̥to(i), e.g. Hom. eirúatai ‘are drawn up = beached’ (: erúō). Subjunctive and optative are periphrastic: subj. leluménos ô, êís, etc., Opt. leluménos eíēn, eíēs, etc.

6.8.4. Imperative Active: 2sg. athem. -t hi, e.g. ít hi (*h1 i-d hi ‘go!’ : Ved. ídhi; Hitt. it ‘go on!’ [interjection]). Also -0̸, e.g. ómnu ‘swear!’, probably *dídō-0̸, *ti-t hē-0̸ remodeled as dídou, tit hei), and surely hístē ‘stand up!’ (*si-steh2 -0̸, cf. Lat. stā). Them. -0̸, e.g. p hére ‘carry!’ (*b hér-e-0̸ : Ved. bhára), secondarily idé ‘see!’ (*u̯id-é0̸), lûe ‘solve!’. Other endings: -on (*-om) in -s-aorist: deîk-son ‘show!’, as the continuant of PIE *-s-i < *-s-e-si. Also -s in dó-s ‘give!’, t hé-s ‘put!’, sk hé-s ‘hold!’. 3sg. -tō (PIE *-tōd : Ved. -tāt, Lat. -tō). 3pl. -ntōn, them. -óntō+n < *-(n)tōd (dial. -ntō). Cf. also the dialectal variants: athem. -tōn, -tōsan, them. -é-tōsan, Lesb. -o-nton (= Pamph. -odu). Middle: 2sg. -so (p hérou < *-e-so : Hom. -eo), a former injunctive; in the -s-aorist, -sai probably from *-s-e-soi̯ by haplology, with -a-vocalism analogic to middle. 3sg. -st hō remodeled on act. -tō. 3pl. -(o)st hōn remodeled on act. -(n)tōn, like other variants: -(e)st hō (Ion., et al.), -(e)st hōn; Lesb. -est hon (= Pamph. -sdu), and -(o)nsthō, whence -(o)st hō (Att. epimelóst hōn).

6.9. Nominal forms Every stem in every voice has an infinitive form and a participle; verbal adjectives are also attested for most verbs.

41. The morphology of Greek 6.9.1. Infinitives are not recognizable as case forms synchronically, although they may certainly be traced back to old case forms of verbal abstracts: a) thematic infinitives have in Attic a termination -ein [-ẹ̄n] : p hérein, ék hein (Myc. eke-e /(h)ekhehen/). This goes back to *-e-sen, an endingless locative *-sen-0̸ (cf. Myc. e-re-e /ere hen/ ‘row’ < *h1 erə1-sen-0̸) and Ved. -sáni, e.g. tarī-ṣáṇi ‘come through’: *terə2-sén-i) or to *-es-en (e.g. *ség̑ h-es-en-0̸). b) athematic infinitives show a termination *-nai : Att. eînai, didónai, aor. doûnai, aor. ‘pass.’ -(t h)ēnai, perf. eidénai. This may be a variant of *-enai̯ (from *-henai̯ or *-senai̯ , or *-u̯enai̯ , cf. Cypr. dowenai). Final -ai is obscure (a former locative *-eh2 -i? a former dative *-ei̯ remodeled to -ai on the basis of directive *-a?). c) Common to all dialects are -sai in the -s-aorist (e.g. lûsai, deîksai), and medial -(e)st hai (e.g. lúest hai, lúsast hai). The latter is probably a remodeling of *-sai̯ by analogy to middle 2pl. -st he, impv. -st hō(n). Cf. also Hom. dék ht hai (*dekst hai̯ ) Infinitive forms differ from one dialect to another. Thematic -ĕn (type p hérĕn) is attested in several West Greek dialects, athematic -men is regular in West Greek, as well as in Thessalian and Boeotian. Mixed types are attested in Thessalian and Boeotian (type p herémen) and in Lesbian (type dómenai, but dídōn). The Homeric language possesses all types with the exception of “Doric” -ĕn. All this points to a great variety of infinitive formations in Proto-Greek, which has been reduced in every dialect group and in each dialect.

6.9.2. Participles a) Active *-(o)nt-, fem. -(o)nti̯ a (PIE *-[o]nti̯ h2 ): Att. tit heís ‘putting’, fem. tit heîsa, iṓn ‘going’, Μyc. i-jo-te /iontes/ (PIE *h1 i-ont-), ioûsa, Att. ṓn ‘being’, oûsa, Ion. Hom. eṓn, eoûsa (Myc. a-pe-o /ap-e hōn/ ‘absent’, a-pe-a-sa /ap-e has(s)ai/), Arc. easa, Cret. iatta (PIE *h1 s-ont-: Lat. sons, *h1 s-n̥t-i̯ h2 : Ved. satī́ ). Thematic p hérōn, p hérousa. Cf. also hekṓn ‘willingly’, Ved. uśánt- ‘id.’, but Hitt. u̯ekkant- ‘desired’. b) Middle athem. -menos (*-mh1 n-o-: Av. -mna-, cf. Lat. alumnus), them. -ó-menos : tit hé-menos, p heró-menos. c) Perf. -(u̯)ot- except in nom. sg. -(u̯)ṓs, fem. -uîa (PIE *-u̯os-, fem. *-us-i̯ ə2): tet hēkṓs (fem. tet hēkuîa, gen. tet hēk-ót-os), lelukṓs (fem. lelukuîa, gen. lelukótos). Myc. /-wōs/*, /-wo h-/, pl. nom. -wo-e /-wohes/, acc. neut. -wo-a2 /-woha/ show that the introduction of -t- (Hom. Att. -ótes, neut. -óta from *-u̯ótes, *-u̯óta) in the oblique cases and in the plural, as attested in first millennium Greek, has still not taken place in Mycenaean. Aeolic dialects show a perf. act. ppl in -nt- (e.g. -ontes, -onta), which underlies Hom. -ôtes, -ôta(s), -ôti, e.g. acc. sg. tet hnēôta ‘dead’, dat. tet hnēôti. Middle -ménos : tet heménos, leluménos, Myc. (a-pu-)ke-ka-u-me-no /(apu)kekaumenos/ ‘burnt (away)’ (: kaíō ‘I burn’), de-de-me-no/dedemenō/ (nom. neut. du.) ‘bound’ (cf. déō ‘I bind’). 6.9.3. Verbal adjectives (*-to-), often as second member of compounds, e.g. k hristós, Myc. ki-ri-ta /k hrista/ (neut.) ‘anointed, painted’ (: k hríō). Cf. also the gerundival adjectives in -téos (Myc. -te-jo/-te-o), e.g. poiētéos ‘which must be done’, Myc. qe-te-jo/qete-o /k weite(i)o-/ ‘which must be paid’, also impersonal -téon (type poiētéon ‘one has to do’).

681

682

VII. Greek

7. References Buck, Carl Darling 1955 The Greek Dialects. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Chantraine, Pierre 1933 La formation des noms en grec ancien. Paris: Klincksieck. Chantraine, Pierre 1958 Grammaire homérique I. Phonétique et morphologie3. Paris: Klincksieck. Chantraine, Pierre 1973 Morphologie historique du grec ancien2. Paris: Klincksieck. Kölligan, Daniel 2007 Suppletion und Defektivität im griechischen Verbum. Bremen: Hempen. Risch, Ernst 1974 Wortbildung der homerischen Sprache. Zweite, völlig überarbeitete Auflage. Berlin: De Gruyter. Rix, Helmut 1976 Historische Grammatik des Griechischen. Laut- und Formenlehre. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Martín S. Ruipérez 1954 Estructura del sistema de aspectos y tiempos del verbo griego. Salamanca: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. [Reprinted 1991. Madrid: Fundación Pastor de Estudios Clásicos.] Schwyzer, Eduard 1939 Griechische Grammatik. Band 1. Allgemeiner Teil. Lautlehre. Wortbildung. Flexion. Munich: Beck. Sihler, Andrew L. 1995 New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tucker, Elizabeth F. 1990 The Creation of Morphological Regularity: Early Greek Verbs in -éō, -áō, -óō, -úō and -íō. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Waanders, Frederik M. J. 2002 Greek. In: Jadranka Gvozdanović (ed.). Indo-European Numerals. Berlin: De Gruyter, 369−388.

José Luis García Ramón, Köln (Germany)

42. The syntax of Greek 0. 1. 2. 3.

Archaic Greek Word classes and flexions Nominal and pronominal morphosyntax Verbal morphosyntax

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261288-042

4. 5. 6. 7.

Adverbials Word order Sentence syntax References

42. The syntax of Greek

0. Archaic Greek Archaic Greek is essentially represented at the beginning of the first millennium BCE by the poems of Homer and Hesiod (in the following paper, I will write Homer in reference to both these authors). Nevertheless, the decipherment of the clay tablets in Linear B made available written documents from the second millennium BCE. Despite the use of a syllabic writing system unsuited to the Greek language and the limited genre of these texts, Mycenaean documents provide some information about syntax. On the other hand, archaic alphabetical inscriptions (the oldest dated from the end of the eighth century BCE), being rare in that period and belonging to various dialects, do not furnish an available corpus for syntactic investigation.

1. Word classes and flexions Like all ancient Indo European (IE) languages, Ancient Greek is flexional. Part of the vocabulary is invariable (infinitives, adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions, particles, exclamations). But nouns, pronouns, adjectives and verbs are flexional. A flexional ending in nouns, adjectives, pronouns, and participles indicates case, number, and gender, and in finite verbs person, number, tense, voice, and mood. (For more details, see García Ramón, this handbook.) That is still true today in Modern Greek. Nominal endings are present in every word of an appositive and subject predicative noun phrase.

2. Nominal and pronominal morphosyntax 2.1. Cases The Ancient (archaic and classic) Greek case system consists of five cases: nominative, vocative, accusative, genitive, and dative. Only the first four remain in Modern Greek. The first three cases have the same uses as in other IE languages. The vocative is used to address someone or for an exclamation. The nominative indicates the subject of a finite verbal form, the nominal predicate or the complement of a copular verb. It is used to designate a nominal word outside a syntactic construction, for example in a title. We find it instead of the vocative, often with the particle ô, and when the vocative does not exist (in dual, plural, and with personal, possessive, and deictic pronouns). For the accusative, genitive, and dative with prepositions, see 4 below. Without a preposition, the accusative is the case used for the object of a verbal form (finite or not), an internal object, the agent of an infinitive, a predicative object, and to express duration in time or space. Some verbs are constructed with two object accusatives (verbs meaning to teach, to answer, to hide, to deprive) (Jacquinod 1989). When such structures are passivized, the animate object becomes subject and the inanimate object remains an accusative. It is only in poetry that we find a double accusative of the whole and of the part affected. Only in prose does the passivized form of this pattern remain: with an adjective or a participial, the accusative can indicate the part or the

683

684

VII. Greek quality concerned, but only for the inherent part of the person (or of the thing) described (acc. of respect or relation, known in Linear B). The so-called Greek genitive corresponds to genitive and ablative in Sanskrit. Thus it is different from the Latin or Sanskrit genitive and not restricted to noun complementation. It has many syntactic functions and also such semantic values as partitive. We find it in all syntactic roles within the sentence, but when it has a partitive value it is very rarely employed in subject function. As predicate or copular complement its values are numerous and often very clear, designating part of a whole, possession, extraction, age, price, main characteristics, etc. Some verbs take the genitive as their normal object and others allow both genitive and accusative objects. If there is a choice with the accusative, the genitive object has a partitive value. The genitive may also serve as a complement of adverbs (to indicate separation, part of a quantity, or intervals of space or time), of numerous positive adjectives, and of comparative and superlative forms. A great number of genitives are nominal complements, and it is difficult to separate this syntactic use from the different semantic values, notably partitive. It indicates possession, filiation, substance, dimension, value, age, etc. Furthermore, it represents the object with an agent noun and the agent or object with an action noun. The genitive case provides the main absolute case in ancient Greek like the ablative in Latin. The accusative has only a limited role in this value. In the first millennium BCE, the Greek dative results from syncretism and corresponds to what are called dative, locative and instrumental in Sanskrit. As a result, the semantics of the Greek dative is very rich, and it is therefore all the more notable that it disappears in Modern Greek. In addition to serving as a complement of adjectives or verbs, it is very frequently an adverbial complement as well. The locative dative occurs within prepositional phrases, except with nouns of time (providing a date) or space (indicating locality without change). In contrast, the dative “proper” and instrumental appear often without a preposition. As indirect object the dative “proper” often has the feature of animacy and represents the beneficiary, the recipient, or the experiencer (whence also the possessor). When inanimate, it indicates the goal of the action. As adverbial, without a preposition, it has all the semantic values of the IE instrumental: instrument, manner, cause, substance, comitative, etc. The comitative, preserved without a preposition for troops or war-ships (dativus naualis), occurs often with the preposition sún. In the function of verb or adjective complement, the dative has the various semantic features noted above. For instance, it signals comitative value with verbs meaning ‘to fight’ or ‘to frequent’, as well as with adjectives meaning ‘common’ or ‘in agreement’. Although a specific plural instrumental form (with ending -phi) still exists in Linear B, this form has already lost its specific value in Homer and then disappears. Notable also is the use of an iterated dative-locative (we-te-i- we-te-i ‘annually’), as in Sanskrit. This is an isolated use, occurring elsewhere only in Cypriot a-ma-ti a-ma-ti ‘every day’.

2.2. Number There are three numbers: singular, dual, and plural. The dual is unknown to Ionic, but frequent in Attic inscriptions and texts in the classical period and naturally in the archaic period. It disappears in Modern Greek. It is used for two items (natural or occasional

42. The syntax of Greek pairs), regularly so in Linear B, but it ceases to be obligatory in Homer, where the plural can appear even with the numeral ‘two’ and both dual and plural can appear even within the same phrase. Singular is used for one thing or for a collection of things, plural for several things or to denote the various aspects of a thing. The plural neuter was originally a collective; hence, the famous rule called ta zôia trékhei, ‘the animals run’, with singular verb and (neuter) plural subject, obligatory in classical Attic but optional in Homer.

2.3. Determiners of the noun. Is there an article in archaic Greek? In Homer, one finds the three classical pronoun-adjective demonstratives with their wellknown senses: hóde is used for what is near the speaker, keînos (Classical ékeinos) for what is distant, and hoûtos for what is considered as neither near nor distant. Is there an article in archaic Greek? In the tablets written in linear B (second millennium BCE), there is no article. In Homer, the determiner ho, hē, tó (which corresponds to the Sanskrit demonstrative sá, sā́, tát and furnishes the definite article of the classical period) has almost always a demonstrative value, as do a great number of its derivatives. It is frequent as a pronoun. With a nominal form, it often has a demonstrative value, but it tends to become anaphoric or distinctive. In some cases, it seems to be a mere article with substantives or adjectives. It substantivizes adjectives or participles (tá tʼ eónta: article − particle − part. pres. of to be, neut. pl.: ‘the present things’). It also substantivizes an adverb (andrôn tôn tóte ‘of the men of that period’, where tóte is an adverb: literally ‘of the men − of those − at that period’ or ‘men [genitive] − the [genitive] − then [adverb]’). In a cataphoric role, it can announce an infinitive or a subordinate clause. It also frequently competes with the relative, producing a new type of determination.

2.4. Personal pronouns Persons. For the third person Greek uses demonstrative pronouns, often the determiner ho, hē, tó and the pronoun of identity autós, autḗ, autó. One finds also the survival of an archaic network of pronouns in -i- in the form min, frequent in Homer and Ionic, now attested in linear B. We find rarely in, and nin appears later, but is an archaism. Case. Pronouns have no vocative. The nominative is naturally used instead. The nominative of the personal pronoun is not needed to indicate the subject of the verb, the person of the verb being always clear. Its use is therefore emphatic. Forms with the ending -oi, considered in the classical period only as singular datives, seem to be also genitives in archaic Greek, as in Sanskrit (for instance, first pers. moi − Skt. me [genitive/ dative]). These last forms are often used to indicate the person concerned by the state of affairs in a broad sense: the so-called ethical dative or dativus sympatheticus. Min (and nin) are used as accusative. Gender. The proper personal pronouns and min/nin are unaffected by gender. Number. Min is third singular but later may be used as a plural (similarly for nin). Reflexive uses. In the archaic period, there was no specific reflexive form. But in the third person, according to the tradition, the forms built on the root *swe/sewe were tonic

685

686

VII. Greek in the case of a direct reflexive. Besides, the pronoun of identity autós, autḗ, autó can reinforce a reflexive personal pronoun, but it is not required and the two words can be separated, while they fuse together in the classical period. In is a (reflexive) dative in Hesiod.

3. Verbal morphosyntax 3.1. Verbal stems In Ancient Greek verbs have four or five stems (comprising both finite and nominal forms). Their values are fundamentally aspectual: − the present stem is durative − the aorist stem is completive − the perfect indicates a state resulting from a previous action. Greek also created future stems for the future (temporal value); and there sometimes exists a future perfect stem for an action performed in the future.

3.2. Voice In both finite and nominal forms, the Greek verb has three voices: active, middle, and passive. Middle and passive voices are often not formally distinguished, except in the aorist and to some extent in the future. We may therefore speak of “middle-passive” if no morphological distinction is made. The middle is a category that covers a large area of semantic space, all of which shares the feature that the action in some way devolves upon the subject. This may range from an indication that the subject is involved in the action, either as a matter of selfinterest (non-reflexive) or more directly (reflexive): active loúō ‘I wash’ / middle loúomai ‘I wash myself’ or, at the other extreme, that the subject is the patient (traditional passive): loúomai ‘I am washed’.

3.3. Finite forms 3.3.1. Mood There are four finite moods: indicative, imperative, optative, and subjunctive. With both finite and nominal forms, two negations exist (mḗ and ou[k]) and also one or two particles (án in Attic, án and ke[n] in Homer). Their role is important, but their uses are not completely identical in archaic and in Classical Greek.

42. The syntax of Greek

Imperative (neg. me¯´) The imperative occurs in a jussive sentence in the second or third person. In first person exhortations (usually plural) the subjunctive appears. In 2nd person prohibitions the imperative is employed with the present stem and the subjunctive with the aorist. Both present and aorist occur with imperatives in the 3rd person.

Indicative The indicative represents a factual presentation (neg. ou). But the imperfect or the aorist indicative with án signifies an impossibility (counterfactual). This use is attested as early as Homer. In this author, ei with the imperfect or the aorist indicative marks a conditional sentence, which is later used for expressing regret.

Optative in independent clauses In classical Attic, the optative without án signifies a wish (cupitive optative, − neg. mḗ) and with this particle a possibility, but the speaker has no control over its realization (potential optative − neg. ou). A cupitive optative is often preceded by eíthe or ei gár (in Homer, also aíthe or aì gár, sometimes hōs).

Subjunctive in independent clauses In jussive sentences, the subjunctive is hortative or prohibitive (neg. mḗ). In questions, it is deliberative (neg. mḗ).

Optative in dependent sentences As in independent clauses the optative indicates a possibility. But, in dependent sentences, it is used also for repetition in the past (without particle) (neg. mḗ). Ancient Greek has developed the so-called oblique optative, that is to say, an optative used instead of an indicative in a dependent clause when the main clause contains a past tense. This optative has the temporal value which the corresponding indicative would have had. A future of this optative has been created to replace an indicative future.

Subjunctive in dependent sentences The subjunctive indicates eventuality, but also, in some dependent clauses repetition in the present or in the future (normally with modal particle and neg. mḗ).

687

688

VII. Greek

3.3.2. Tense in moods In the imperative, subjunctive and optative, the choice of a stem is aspectual. Time is a relevant factor only in the indicative and in the oblique optative.

Tense in the imperative The main choice is between a present and an aorist stem, depending on aspect. The present is used for an action that must be continued or to establish a stable relation (present of agreement). In prohibitions the choice of aspect is directly linked to mood: imperative for the present, subjunctive in the aorist. This use of the aorist subjunctive most likely represents a continuation of the Proto-Indo-European employment of the aorist injunctive in prohibitions. The perfect stem retains its habitual value in imperatives.

Tense in the subjunctive The tenses (present, aorist and perfect) have their aspectual values. Simultaneity and anteriority are secondary effects of these.

Tense in the optative Here again the value of the tenses (present, aorist and perfect) is aspectual with one exception: the so-called oblique optative, which has a future; cf. 3.3.1 above.

Tense in the indicative The present indicative locates the state of affairs at the moment of utterance without regard to its past or future points of delimitation. It possesses also a generic value. After Homer, the present begins to be employed also in past value (historic present), alternating in narrative texts with the imperfect and the aorist. The Imperfect indicative and the aorist indicative comprise the main tenses in narrative texts. Constructed on a present stem, the imperfect presents an action as open, not completed or compact. It provides a frame of reference in which other actions can take place and can express a repeated action or have a conative value. Often an imperfect serves to trace a narrative path (see discussion of the imperfect of akolouthía in Culioli 2000). The aorist indicative presents a fact as completed or compact in the past. The effect can be terminative. But in verbs of state, the value can be ingressive. Presented as compact, the action situated in the past expresses anteriority. But occasionally the aorist

42. The syntax of Greek is employed generically, without direct designation of past, for habits or general truths, in proverbs or maxims (the so-called gnomic aorist). The future indicative stands outside the opposition between present and aorist. It simply presents a fact as future. Being situated in future, it can express a modal nuance and can be used to express an order. The future perfect, when it exists, presents a fact as resulting in the future from a preceding completed action. The Perfect indicative designates a state in the present resulting from a past action. With telic verbs, its value is stative-terminative; but with stative verbs, it has an intensive value. The pluperfect indicative, representing a past tense of the perfect, locates the resulting state in the past. In many cases, it is simply a past in the past.

3.4. Nominal forms of the verb (infinitive and participle) As early as Homer, the Greek language has a participle and infinitive for each of the four stems of the verb (in active and in middle and for finite forms of the true passive).

3.4.1. Infinitive The ending of the infinitive does not give any information about case, number or gender. As regards agreement, the infinitive functions as a singular neuter noun. The choice of the stem is aspectual (future with the modal value of will), except in the accusative plus infinitive construction with verbs of saying or thinking (the future infinitive appears only in this case with a temporal value). The infinitive can be used independently in several constructions with very great freedom in the archaic period. As the main verb of its clause, the infinitive can indicate an order or a wish (neg. mḗ for a prohibition). It can have the same value as a 2nd sg. Imperative and can also be used as an exclamation. It completes a verb by indicating a purposive consequence or a goal (Hom. árkhe mákhesthai ‘order to fight’ and may exhibit the same syntax with a noun: krátos kteínein ‘the strength to kill’, thaûma ídesthai ‘wonder to be seen’ or with an adjective: álkimos mákhesthai ‘gallant to fight’. In these examples, the infinitive corresponds to a dative and sometimes a construction with infinitive plus dative, like essoménoisi puthésthai ‘for future generations for knowing’ = ‘so that future generations may know’ corresponds to a Sanskrit double dative. There is furthermore an absolute infinitive, like (hōs) emoì dokeîn ‘(as) it seems to me’, a speakercentered phrase. We observe here some freedom in the choice of voice. The use of the infinitive as an indeclinable noun is post-Homeric. But as early as Homer, an infinitive can be the object of a verb denoting power or will, and is employed with a large number of other verbs, some personal, some not. This infinitive is called dynamic (neg. mḗ) and the choice of the stem is purely aspectual. For the construction accusative plus infinitive, see 6.2.4.

689

690

VII. Greek

3.4.2. Participle The participle is the adjectival form of the verb whose stem and voice it inherits. It is commonly used and it is the most frequently used mood after the indicative. As a nominal form, it can occupy the role of a noun or be used attributively, modifying the noun with which it agrees. Like a relative clause, it may be in apposition to a noun, expressed or not. The participle functions also as an obligatory or optional constituent with a main verb. It is frequently used as a non-obligatory satellite and, finally, in the genitiveabsolute constructions.

4. Adverbials Prepositions In Ancient Greek eighteen words constitute the class of what are labelled “proper prepositions”. They may function as prepositions or preverbs, and in Homer they can also be used as free adverbs (Luraghi 2003: 75−81), thus recapitulating the threefold status of the so-called “preverbs” in Indo-European. These prepositions occur in Ancient Greek with three cases: accusative (in allative or durative value), genitive (in ablative or partitive value), or dative (in locative or instrumental value). Genitival governance of preverbs is found only with so-called “improper prepositions”, which are ancient nouns in prepositional use. Ancient Greek prepositions may be divided into three groups, depending on the number of cases they govern. Thus, in Homer we find: − with one case : antí, apó, ek, and pró with genitive; eis with accusative; and en and sún with dative − with two cases : diá, katá, and hupér with genitive and accusative − with three cases : amphí, aná, epí, metá, pará, perí, prós, and hupó. The dative is less frequent in prose of the classical period and ceases to be used with amphí and metá. Aná is then constructed only with the accusative. The partitive genitive becomes more frequent, but in Modern Greek only the accusative occurs with proper prepositions.

5. Word order Greek shows great freedom in its word order. Nevertheless some rules or tendencies may be noted. It is difficult to speak about word order in archaic Greek because of the great difference between the two main groups of texts of this period: Linear B consists only of administrative documents, some of which are written almost asyntactically (e.g., as lists), and the Homeric poems are composed in a very elaborated and artificial language. The first place in a sentence is tonic, and the second position is the place for unstressed words, including numerous sentence particles and some coordinating conjunc-

42. The syntax of Greek tions. The first place is the most prominent from a discourse point of view, and the choice of the first item of a sentence is often related to information structure. It is also the place of interrogatives, demonstratives, negations, and also of some non-enclitic coordinating conjunctions like kaí ‘and’ or allá ‘but’. In the latter instances, the conjunctions may be considered extra-sentential, and the information structure of the sentence begins with the second position element. The order determiner determined (e.g. adjective + noun) is unmarked and hence nonexpressive. But a determiner can also be postposed, and sometimes the two are widely separated. In Linear B, adjectives tend to precede the noun, but this is often obscured by the fact that when items are being listed the noun naturally takes precedence (Ventris and Chadwick [1956] 1973: 90). An adverb generally precedes the verb it modifies and subordinating conjunctions (with the frequent exception of relatives) occur at the beginning of the clause. The verb has no fixed place, but in Linear B the most frequent order is subject − verb − object. However, the introductory word o-/jo- (‘what?’) is usually followed immediately by a verb (to which it is joined in the script). For instance: KN Ta 711 o-wi-de … ‘what has seen …’. Demonstratives are placed either before or after the noun they determine, from which they may be separated. Normally no article accompanies the three true demonstratives (cf. 2.3 above) in Homer (there are only three exceptions to this, all involving the structures art. + noun + dem. / dem. + art. + noun, which become exceeding common later). In Classical Greek, the article does not precede the demonstrative, but ho autós means ‘the same’ as opposed to autós alone which means ‘(by) himself’. In Homer these two senses exist without an article (ho autós ‘the same’ is very rare). “Proper prepositions” are normally followed by their object (preposition + noun). In prose, perí sometimes appears post-nominally with a shift in accent (péri). In poetry the same phenomenon occurs also with epí, metá, and hupó, again entailing accent shift. If the prepositional phrase involves also an adjective, the preposition can appear in the centre of the group (adj. − prep. − noun). The relative position of subordinate clauses and main clauses is in general not fixed, although certain tendencies may be observed. Often, a conditional protasis precedes the apodosis, and a temporal clause indicating anterior facts or an absolute participial appear before the main verb. On the other hand, completives, temporal clauses that indicate posterior facts, finals, and consecutive clauses follow the main clause (Crespo, Conti, and Marquieira 2003: 365−370), producing a chronological ordering of clauses.

6. Sentence syntax (N.B. Linear B provides very little evidence for sentence syntax. The corpus includes only one complex sentence (Ta 711) showing a main clause followed by a temporal clause introduced by o-te ‘when’.)

691

692

VII. Greek

6.1. Verbal and non-verbal sentences In Ancient Greek, a predicate may be either verbal or non-verbal. Most frequently, the predicate is a finite verbal form, but all other categories of words can have this function. The nominal sentence is largely used with noun or pronoun as predicate, but other categories are possible.

6.2. Complex sentences If there are several clauses in a sentence, they are juxtaposed, coordinated or subordinated. But in the case of hypotaxis two systems are prominent: the conditional system and correlation.

6.2.1. The conditional system In the conditional system, there is a dependency between the two parts, the protasis and the apodosis. The protasis is neither a complement nor an adjunct clause. In Archaic Greek there is a large degree of freedom in each type of clause, larger than in Classical Greek. All the finite moods except the imperative, the two types of negation (mḗ and ou[k]) and the particles (án in Attic, án and ke[n] in Homer) occur. According to Basset (1989: 241), these particles indicate the direction in which the discourse is heading (i.e. they are cataphoric), in opposition to the augment, which indicates what has already occurred in the discourse. The protasis is introduced by Attic-Ionic ei or Aeolic ai, with in some cases contraction of the particle with the conjunction (*ei+án > eán or ḗn). In Classical Greek, the negation is always mḗ in the ei-clause. In Homer, the protasis contains the factual negation ou with an indicative of reality. The subjunctive in the protasis indicates an eventual fact (represented as being outside of reality: Basset, 1989: 126− 129), and a particle can appear (in Classical Greek such a combination expresses repetition in the present). The future in such clauses (impossible in Classical Greek) has a similar value. The optative is used in the protasis to present an imaginary fact as a condition (normally optative and án in the main clause) or a repetition in the past. In Classical Greek, the unreal is expressed by a past indicative (with án in the main clause). This use makes its first appearance in Homer.

6.2.2. Correlation Noteworthy in Homer is the importance of the correlative system with the same items as in Sanskrit. The order *yó- … *tó- …, (in Greek *yo- becomes ho-) with the relative in first position is the more frequent in Homer as in Vedic. This system is able to express a wide variety of relations: manner (hṓs … tṓs …), time (hḗmos … tḗmos …), goal (hóphra … tóphra …), quality (hoîos … toîos …), quantity (hósos … tósos …), etc. But as early as Homer, the inverse order is possible, and the correlative *to- can be omitted.

42. The syntax of Greek

6.2.3. The relative system The relative system is originally nothing but a correlative system with the simple flexion of the two items *yo- … *to- …. If the correlative is missing, the relative clause has a nominal function; if it is present or replaced by another nominal item and follows the relative, this furnishes an anaphor of the relative. The anaphor and the relative generally agree in gender and number, but not in case, each member of the diptych being defined within its own clause. In Classical Greek, there is often an attraction of the relative to the case of its anaphor. In Homer, there is sometimes “inverse attraction”, the anaphor taking the case of the relative. And this anaphor can be in the relative, or after. When to- precedes the relative it is cataphoric, and the relative has an appositional value. The details concerning the (very free) use of finite moods, negation and particles in Homer is complex. Subjunctive, optative, and particles are more frequent than in Classical Greek and depend on the meaning of the relative. In later Greek, even the imperative is possible in correlative clauses.

6.2.4. Other subordinate clauses It is impossible to examine all the varieties of subordinate clauses. The following provides only the most interesting facts.

Complement clauses The syntax of the complement (or completive) clauses depends on the sense of the main verb. In some cases, we have either a participle or an infinitive. As in Latin, the construction of the infinitive-clause (the so-called accusativus cum infinitivo) occurs, as complement clause, with verbs of thinking or saying. This construction, which is not PIE, is frequent in Homer and is found as early as the second millennium BCE (two examples in linear B). Normally the subject of the infinitive is an accusative. Contrary to Latin, it is not necessary to express the subject of this infinitive when it is the same as the subject of the main verb; in this case, attributes are in the nominative. In this construction, and only here, the tenses of the infinitive have a temporal value and express simultaneity (present), anteriority (aorist) or posteriority (future) if the modal value of the clause in which they occur is indicative; and the negation is ou, which is exceptional with an infinitive. In the post-Homeric language the infinitive came to be used as an equivalent, not only for the indicative, but also for other moods (Monro 1891: 208). Infinitive clauses occur as complements after verbs of willing, possibility, obligation, and various other locutions, where they represent the “dynamic infinitive” (cf. 3.4.1). In such cases the “tense” of the infinitive has aspectual value and the negation is mḗ. With a verb of hearing, knowing, or feeling, the complement clause contains a participle instead of an infinitive, with the same rules as above.

693

694

VII. Greek Naturally, in numerous clauses, the complement-clause contains a finite verb. It is possible to employ the subjunctive alone with a verb of willing, an archaism still found in the classical period. With a verb of fearing, this subjunctive is preceded by the expletive negation mḗ (like nē in Latin) whose origins betray the negative polarity context of such a verb but which ends up functioning as a conjunction. If the subordinate is negative, the two negations mḕ ou (cf. Latin nē non) can be found together. The complement-clause of verbs of saying or perception can be introduced by the conjunctions hōs or hóti. The moods are the same as in direct speech (except for the oblique optative, see above, and, contrary to Latin, the moods in the indirect question are the same as in the corresponding direct question). Even in Classical Greek, there is no clear limit between direct and indirect speech. Even with the conjunctions hōs or hóti, it is possible to have an imperative in the “subordinate”. Therefore the conjunctions hōs or hóti seem primarily to provide a demarcation between the verb and what is said or perceived. Finally, we note the interesting phenomenon of prolepsis: the subject of the subordinate appears as object of the main verb. Instead of ‘I say that Cyrus (nominative) is dead’, one finds ‘I say Cyrus (accusative) that (he) is dead’.

Adverbial (or adjunct) clauses The syntax of adverbial clauses depends on the type of clause and on the introductory conjunction. The syntactic possibilities (moods, tenses, negations) are numerous, more so in Homer than in Classical Greek. The largest choice is found in temporal clauses depending upon their context (real fact, virtual, possible, unreal, repeated in the present or in the past). Note that the conjunction prín ‘before’ generally appears with an infinitive in Homer (in Classical Greek, only if the main clause is affirmative). However, the most frequent mood is the indicative (negation ou) in causal-clauses and subjunctive (negation mḗ) in purpose-clauses. If the subordinate is negative Homer has normally only mḗ (without conjunction), thereby paralleling Latin, which shows only nē in such cases.

7. References Basset, Louis 1989 La syntaxe de lʼimaginaire. Étude des modes et des négations dans lʼIliade et dans lʼOdyssée. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient Méditerranéen. Chantraine, Pierre 1953 Grammaire homérique II. Syntaxe. Paris: Klincksieck. Crespo, Emilio, Luz Conti, and Helena Marquieira 2003 Sintaxis del Griego Clásico. Madrid: Editorial Gredos. Culioli, Antoine 2000 Essai de bilan. In: Jacquinod et al. (eds.), 19−26. Duhoux, Yves 1992 Le verbe grec ancien. Éléments de morphologie et de syntaxe historiques. Louvain-laNeuve: Cabay.

43. The lexicon of Greek

695

Humbert, Jean 1954 Syntaxe grecque. 2nd edn. Paris: Klincksieck. Jacquinod, Bernard 1989 Le double accusatif en grec, dʼHomère à la fin du Ve siècle avant J. C. (BCILL 50). Louvain: Peeters. Jacquinod, Bernard (ed.) 1994 Cas et prépositions. Actes du colloque de Saint-Étienne, 4−6 juin 1993. Saint-Étienne: Presse Universitaire de Saint-Étienne. Jacquinod, Bernard (ed.) 1999 Les complétives en grec ancien. Actes du colloque international de Saint-Étienne, septembre 1998. Saint-Étienne: Presse Universitaire de Saint-Étienne. Jacquinod, Bernard, Jean Lallot, Odile Mortier-Waldschmidt, and Gerrigje Catharina Wakker (eds.) 2000 Études sur l’aspect verbal chez Platon. Saint-Étienne: Presse Universitaire de SaintÉtienne. Kühner, Rafael and B. Gerth 1898−1904 Ausführliche Grammatik des griechischen Sprache. Satzlehre (2 volumes). Hannover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung. Luraghi, Silvia 2003 On the Meaning of Prepositions and Cases. The expression of semantic roles in Ancient Greek. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Monro, D. B. 1891 A Grammar of the Homeric Dialect. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Palmer, Leonard R. 1963 The interpretation of Mycenaean Greek Texts. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Rijksbaron, Albert 1994 The syntax and semantics of the verb in classical Greek. An introduction. Amsterdam: Gieben. Schwyzer, Eduard and Albert Debrunner 1950 Griechische Grammatik. Band 2. Syntax und syntaktische Stilistik. Munich: Beck. Ventris, Michael and John Chadwick 1973 [1956] Documents in Mycenaean Greek. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Vilborg, Ebbe 1960 A Tentative Grammar of Mycenaean Greek. Gothenburg: Elanders boktryck.

Bernard Jacquinod, Saint-Etienne (France)

43. The lexicon of Greek 1. Introduction 2. The inherited vocabulary 3. Loan words https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261288-043

4. Special problems of the Ancient Greek lexicon 5. Word formation 6. References

696

VII. Greek

1. Introduction 1.1. Preface 1.1.1. Our discussion of the Greek lexicon will focus on the stage of the language starting from the Mycenaean period and extending until the beginning of the Koine, an interval of about 1100 years. In what follows all references to Greek will refer to this period unless otherwise specified. For a general introduction to all aspects of the history of Greek until late antiquity see Christidis (2007). An investigation of the Greek lexicon must take into account chronological, dialectal, and stylistic levels. In this chapter I will select for discussion a few salient points.

1.2. Chronology 1.2.1. Proto-Indo-European: The Greek language descends from Proto-Indo-European through generations of speakers who had no means of recording their language. In the course of time, individual groups of speakers left their original language communities and found new areas to live in, bringing their language with them and subsequently adjusting it to new living conditions. Nowhere is this adaptation better seen than in the lexicon. The language of the groups of now scattered speakers had the same underlying grammar but subsequently developed independently in different places. A considerable part of the Greek lexicon dates back to the Proto-Indo-European period. See section 2 below. 1.2.2. Balkan period: For centuries the ancestors of the Greeks lived in the Balkan area. It is unclear whether the neighboring Proto-Greeks, Proto-Armenians, Proto-Phrygians and Proto-Albanians (who all split off from the Proto-Indo-European-speaking language community) were in the first instance speakers of a joint intermediate proto-language which broke up afterwards, or whether this was a sprachbund in which neighboring languages mutually influenced each other (cf. Hajnal 2003: 117−145). 1.2.2.1. Among the joint features shared by Greek and Armenian is the word for ‘god’ θεός < *d hes-ó- (< older *d hh1 s-ó-), cognate with Armenian di-kʽ ‘gods’ (plural) ‘base of a statue’; árosi- ‘ploughing; cultivated land’, bóustasi- ‘place where cattle stand overnight’, próbasi- ‘flock’, but partly they can be used syntactically as infinitive-like verbal nouns (cf. Thucyd. 1, 137, 4 tḕn tõn gep hurõn ... diálusin ‘for the demolition of the bridges’). 5.2.3.5. The history of abstracts in Greek: The forms in -si-, typical of Mycenaean and Attic-Ionic, ought to stand beside Doric and Aeolic forms in -ti- (for the characteristic South Greek sound change of -ti- to -si-, see 1.2.3). Although it is true that individual formations in -ti- can be found in the latter dialects (among others, epic-poetic mḗti‘cleverness, plan’ and p háti- ‘rumor, report’, furthermore ámpōti- ‘ebb’ in Herodotus), they otherwise show only -si-forms. This phenomenon can be explained if we assume that the Attic-Ionic forms in -si- were so popular that even the Dorians and the Aeolians used them. The Ionic philosophers and scientific authors were responsible for this popularity. Furthermore, although the behavior of the root syllable in these forms dates back to the proto-language, the suffix ablaut has undergone refashioning according to the dialects, with Attic showing a lengthened-grade -sēy- in the Gen. (cf. e.g. -seōs < *-sēyos) and the replacement of *-sisi by -sesi in the Loc. Pl., whereas in Ionic, there is simplification to a general -si(-) throughout the paradigm.

43. The lexicon of Greek

5.3. Composition 5.3.1. Limitations of space preclude a thorough discussion here of Greek compound formation. In this and the following sections I will provide only a single example of the most common types of compounds, together with some remarks, referring the reader to the sources mentioned in 5.1.2 for further reading. All real compounds in Greek are nouns (cf. Risch 1974: 181). The great number of compound verbs such as Homeric ekp hére- ‘carry out’ have to be treated separately (the so-called pre-verbs emerged from originally independent adverbs). Among nominal compounds, one occasionally observes contractions representing internal sandhi developments attendant upon the univerbation of two-word expressions (cf. Risch 1974: 213 f.). An example is despótē- ‘householder’ (lit. ‘lord of the house’) (perhaps already Mycenaean as , but not in Homer, because its cretic prosodic structure excluded it from the hexameter) < Proto-Greek *dens + pot- < Proto-Indo-European *dem-s (Gen. Sg. of *dom- ‘house, farm, the extended family living in a farm’ + *pot- ‘lord’, cf. Chantraine 1999: 266 f.). The average speaker was surely no longer able to understand the first member des-. This type of compound is traditionally termed determinative, because it indicates an internal dependency relationship, frequently, as here, Gen. + head noun. 5.3.2. The basic semantic structure of so-called possessive compounds (called bahuvrīhi’s according to Sanskrit terminology) is similar to nominal phrases, cf. Homeric arguró-tokso- ‘having a bow (tókso-) [made] of silver (arguró-)’ < *‘bow’ is ‘silver’. In the nominal phrase the owner is given in the dative case (‘to him the bow is silver’ = ‘he has a silver bow’), whereas in the possessive compound the nominal phrase adjectivally characterizes the owner (‘having a silver bow’). Possessive compounds date back to Proto-Indo-European times, but a multitude of independent Greek developments can be identified. 5.3.3. The basic semantic structure of so-called verb-noun compounds is equivalent to that of a verbal phrase. One part of the compound is a verbal derivative, the other part serves as a verbal complement (object, agent, adverbial, or adverb) (cf. Risch 1974: 189 ff.). Particularly common is the so-called verbal governance compound which specifies a verb together with its object. Because the compound is fundamentally adjectival, the verbal notion may usually be understood participially. An example is the Mycenaean personal name /Agé-lāwo-/ lit. ‘leading the folk’ and Homeric kouro-trop hó- lit. ‘child-nourishing’, then substantively ‘wet nurse, helper who raises children’. Verb-noun compounds also date back to Proto-Indo-European, again with typically Greek developments. 5.3.4. Derived compounds are an independent group. They are actually adjectival compounding derivations from two-member expressions, particularly preposition + object. Cf. Homeric einháliyo- ‘existing in the sea’ (of sea animals and the island of Cyprus; ein- with metrical lengthening instead of en-) < en + halí (cf. Meier-Brügger 1992 II: 35, 2002: 297)

707

708

VII. Greek

6. References Aura Jorro, Francisco 1985−1993 Diccionario micénico. 2 vols. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, Instituto de Filología. Bammesberger, Alfred and Theo Vennemann (eds.). 2003 Languages in Prehistoric Europe. Heidelberg: Winter. Bartoněk, Antonín 2003 Handbuch des mykenischen Griechisch. Heidelberg: Winter. Beekes, Robert S. P. 2000 European substratum words in Greek. In: Michaela Ofitsch und Christian Zinko (eds.), 125 Jahre Indogermanistik in Graz. Graz: Leykam. Beekes, Robert S. P. 2010 Etymological Dictionary of Greek. 2 vols. Leyden: Brill. Blanc, Alain and Alain Christol (eds.) 1999 Langues en contact dans l’Antiquité, Aspects lexicaux. Nancy: Presses universitaires. Burkert, Walter 1984 Die orientalisierende Epoche in der griechischen Religion und Literatur. (Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie 1984 / 1). Heidelberg: Winter. Cancik, Hubert and Helmuth Schneider (eds.) 1996−2003 Der Neue Pauly. Enzyklopädie der Antike. Stuttgart: Metzler. Chantraine, Pierre 1999 Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque, histoire des mots. nouvelle édition mise à jour. Paris: Klincksieck. Christidis, Anastasios-Phoibos (ed.) 2007 A History of Ancient Greek: from the Beginnings to Late Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DNP: See Cancik and Schneider (eds.) Etter, Annemarie and Marcel Looser (eds.) 1981 Ernst Risch. Kleine Schriften. Berlin: De Gruyter. Frisk, Hjalmar 1960−1972 Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. 3 Bde. Heidelberg: Winter. Hajnal, Ivo 1998 Mykenisches und homerisches Lexikon. Übereinstimmungen, Divergenzen und der Versuch einer Typologie. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität. Hajnal, Ivo 2003 Methodische Vorbemerkungen zu einer Palaeolinguistik des Balkanraums. In: Bammesberger and Vennemann (eds.), 117−145. Hajnal, Ivo 2006 Die Tafeln aus Theben und ihre Bedeutung für die griechische Dialektologie. In: Sigrid Deger-Jalkotzy and Oswald Panagl (eds.), Die neuen Linear B-Texte aus Theben. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 53−69. Holt, J. 1940 Les noms d’action en -sis (tis). Copenhagen: Munskgaard. Janda, Michael 2004 Annäherung an basileús. In: Thomas Krisch, Thomas Lindner, and Ulrich Müller (eds.), Analecta Homini Universali Dicata ... Festschrift für Oswald Panagl zum 65. Geburtstag. Band I. Stuttgart: Hans Dieter Heinz, 84−94. de Lamberterie, Charles 1979 Le signe du pluriel en arménien classique. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique 73. 319−332.

43. The lexicon of Greek de Lamberterie, Charles 1997 Review of James Clackson. 1994: The Linguistic Relationship between Armenian and Greek. Kratylos 42: 71−82. LfgrE: see Snell et al. (eds.) Lindner, Thomas 2003 Das Problem der ‘vorgriechischen’ Toponomie. In: Bammesberger and Vennemann (eds.), 105−108. LIV : See Rix (ed.) Masson, E. 1967 Recherches sur les plus anciens emprunts sémitiques en grec. Paris: Klinksieck. Meier-Brügger, Michael 1992 Griechische Sprachwissenschaft. 2 Bde. Berlin: De Gruyter. Meier-Brügger, Michael 2002 Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft. 8., überarbeitete und ergänzte Auflage unter Mitarbeit von Matthias Fritz und Manfred Mayrhofer. Berlin: De Gruyter. Meier-Brügger, Michael 2006 Zur Bildung von griechisch t heós. Incontri Linguistici 29: 119−125. NIL: See Wodtko, Irslinger, and Schneider Panagl, Oswald 2003 Paralipomena zur vorgriechischen Substratforschung. In: Bammesberger and Vennemann (eds.), 99−103. Peters, Martin 1993 Ein weiterer Fall für das Rixsche Gesetz, In: Gerhard Meiser (ed.), Indogermanica et Italica. Festschrift für Helmut Rix. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität, 373−405. Plath, Robert 1994 Der Streitwagen und seine Teile im frühen Griechisch, Sprachliche Untersuchungen zu den mykenischen Texten und zum homerischen Epos. Erlangen: Carl. Risch, Ernst 1974 Wortbildung der homerischen Sprache. Zweite, völlig überarbeitete Auflage. Berlin: De Gruyter. Risch, Ernst 1981a Ein Gang durch die Geschichte der griechischen Ortsnamen. In: Etter and Looser (eds.), 145−157. [Originally published 1965 in Museum Helveticum 22: 193−205.] Risch, Ernst 1981b Les différences dialectales dans le mycénien. In: Etter and Looser (eds.), 451−458. [Originally published 1966 in Leonard R. Palmer and John Chadwick (eds.), Proceedings of the Cambridge Colloquium on Mycenaean Studies (7th−12 April 1965), 150− 157. Cambridge: University Press.] Risch, Ernst 1981c Betrachtungen zu den indogermanischen Verwandtschaftsnamen. In: Etter and Looser (eds.), 647−654. [Originally published 1944 in Museum Helveticum 1: 115−122.] Rix, Helmut (ed.) 2001 Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben. Die Wurzeln und ihre Primärstämmbildungen. Unter der Leitung von Helmut Rix und der Mitarbeit vieler anderer bearbeitet von Martin Kümmel, Thomas Zehnder, Reiner Lipp und Brigitte Schirmer. Zweite erweiterte und verbesserte Auflage bearbeitet von Martin Kümmel und Helmut Rix. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Snell, Bruno, Michael Meier-Brügger, and Eva-Maria Voigt (eds.) 1955−2010 Lexikon des frühgriechischen Epos. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

709

710

VII. Greek Strunk, Klaus 2003 ‘Vorgriechisch’/‘Pelasgisch’: Neue Erwägungen zu einer älteren Substrathypothese. In: Bammesberger and Vennemann (eds.), 85−98. Vine, Brent 2004 On PIE Full Grades in Some Zero-Grade Contexts: *-tí-, *-tó-. In: James Clackson and Birgit Anette Olsen (eds.), Indo-European Word Formation. Proceedings of the Conference held at the University of Copenhagen October 20 th−22 nd 2000. Copenhagen: MuseumTusculanum, 357−379. Wodtko, Dagmar S., Britta S. Irslinger, and Carolin Schneider (eds.) 2008 Nomina im Indogermanischen Lexikon. Heidelberg: Winter.

Michael Meier-Brügger, Berlin (Germany)

44. The dialectology of Greek 1. Introduction 2. Dialectal corpus 3. Distribution of Greek dialects in the alphabetic period 4. The main dialectal groups

5. The problems of subgrouping; the position of Mycenaean 6. Greek dialects in contact 7. Emergence of the Koinē 8. References

1. Introduction From its earliest history until the Hellenistic period, the Greek language has been attested in a variety of local dialects. Unlike in modern languages, those dialects are not variant forms of a contemporary standard language before the appearance of Koinē, but they rather reflect separate developments of features inherited from the Common Greek period. The main aims of the dialectology of Greek are both synchronic and diachronic. One aim is the synchronic description of the attested dialectal features (dialectography). Another aim is the historical interpretation of the dialectal phenomena including the question of the relations between the individual dialects and the reconstructed Proto-Greek language (cf. Duhoux 1983: 7−10; Hajnal 2007: 132 f.) or Indo-European. Both approaches can further be subdivided on the phonological, morphological, syntactic, and lexical levels. However, given the specific circumstances of the preservation of the data, it is easily conceivable that sometimes not all of those approaches are possible. The divergent numbers of documents preserved in the individual dialects, their different character, and the different interactions or orthographical tendencies are the main obstacles to discovering the true dialectal features (Duhoux 1983: 15−18; García Ramón 1998: 1232). The dialectographical approach is also limited since synchronic linguistic facts are not always equally attested in every place within one dialectal region. The sociolinguistic varieties within the dialects are lost almost completely from us, even though efforts have been made to interpret particular facts in a sociolinguistic manner. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261288-044

44. The dialectology of Greek It is widely accepted that the existence and distribution of different dialects in Ancient Greece reflects cultural regionalism and the movement of the Proto-Greek tribes in the period after the collapse of Mycenaean civilization. Dialects played an important role as the manifestation of cultural diversity and independence of the poleis, although it seems that the notion of an abstract, superordinate “Greek language” was present among its speakers; besides, there also existed “an extensive passive knowledge of different dialects” (at least in Athens) (Morpurgo-Davies 1987: 13).

2. Dialectal corpus The sources of our knowledge of ancient Greek dialects include different sorts of information of varying value: 1. epigraphically attested material, 2. dialectal forms occurring in literary works, 3. ancient lexica and scientific works devoted to the grammar of Greek. Most important among these are the dialectal inscriptions. Epigraphical sources have been found in various parts of the Greek world, at different times written in different scripts. The most archaic documents are those from Crete and mainland Greece (Peloponnesus, Boeotia) written in the Linear B script. They date back to ca 1420−1180 BCE, the oldest documents being those from the so-called Knossos “Room of the chariot tablets”. The next attested inscriptions are those in the Cypriot syllabic script from ca. 1050 BCE until the 3rd c. BCE. After the gap of the so-called “Dark Ages” and after the adoption and adaptation of the Phoenician alphabet for Greek purposes a number of dialectal inscriptions occur from the 8th c. BCE onward first on pottery, then also on stone and other materials. These inscriptions use epichoric variants of the alphabet, which were eventually replaced in the 4th c. BCE by the Ionic alphabet all over Greece (in Athens in 403 BCE). Inscriptions from the most archaic period are extremely rare, and the number of the documents varies from dialect to dialect. Depending on the nature of the documents, their value for dialectology varies also. The literary sources include especially works written in literary forms of particular dialects: in the literary tradition, certain genres are connected with certain dialects, e.g. the Ionic dialect is used in historiography or iambs, Doric in choral lyric, or a particular mixture of Ionic with Aeolic elements in the epic tradition, etc. Some authors sporadically make reference to dialectal differences, while others use them for stylistic purposes. However, the material attested in literary works can be only partly used for dialectological purposes: sometimes it yields true vernacular material, but sometimes it is to some extent artificial and reflects other literary influences (cf., for example, the case of material quoted from the Lesbian poets, whose language exhibits many traces of the Homeric dialect, the so-called color Homericus). With the rise of philology in Hellenistic times ancient grammarians became confronted with divergent forms of Greek. First of all they explored literary works written in different literary dialects, but from time to time they made comments on vernacular forms as well. Caution is called for regarding the dialectal labels attributed by grammarians. The same problem arises in the case of ancient glosses, which were collected throughout antiquity and have been transmitted to us in the form of lexica (most notable the one by Hesychius). The material is interesting, although to a great extent it comes from obscure sources. Literary forms are given next to vernacular ones, and the dialectal

711

712

VII. Greek provenance is indicated. The glosses are of great importance for the exegesis of classical texts, but the question of how far they can be considered a reliable source of dialectological data, and especially whether the glosses attest to the real state of the vernacular spoken in the various regions of Greece, remains difficult to answer.

3. Distribution of Greek dialects in the alphabetic period From a synchronic point of view it is possible to distinguish between thirty dialectal regions in Greece of the first millennium BCE. All of these can be linguistically referred to with one of the four main dialectal groups, i.e. Attic-Ionic, Arcado-Cypriot, Aeolic, and Doric-Northwest Greek, which traditionally have been divided into East- and WestGreek (see 5). East Greek comprises Ionic-Attic and Arcado-Cypriot, Ionic-Attic being spoken in a large, but compact area from Mainland Greece to Asia Minor: 1. Attic, 2. Ionic: West Ionic in Oropos and Euboea; Central Ionic in the Ionic Cyclades; and East Ionic in Asia Minor (e.g. Miletus, Ephesos, Chios). Arcadian, a relic of pre-Doric settlements was spoken in a central area of the Peloponnesus, and Cypriot in Cyprus, though it was not until the 4th c. BCE that the island became entirely Hellenized (cf. Eteocypriot in Amathus or Phoenician in Kition). So-called West Greek consists of two dialectal groups, namely Aeolic and DoricNorthwest Greek. Aeolic is the name for three dialects: 1. so-called East Aeolic or Lesbian on the islands of Lesbos, Nesos, Tenedos and in the facing regions in Asia Minor, north of the Ionic territory (Assos, Kyme); 2. Thessalian in Central Greece; and 3. Boeotian between Attica, Megaris, Locris, Focis, and the Gulf of Euboea. So-called Doric-Northwest Greek comprises Northwestern dialects, such as Epirotic, Akarnanian, Aetolian, Aenanian, and also Locrian and Phocian with Delphic. Doric is a conventional label for several, to a great extent quite different dialects, arranged into three subgroups: Doris severior with Laconian, Heraclean, Messenian, Cretan; so-called Doris media with Theran with Melos, Rhodian, Island Doric with Doric settlements on the coast of Asia Minor (e.g. Cnidos); and Doris mitior comprising the dialects of Corinth and its colonies, the dialects of Argos and Aegina, and the dialect of Megara. Standing apart from this classification are Elean (Olympia) and the dialect of Achaia on the north shore of the Peloponnesus. Through the movements of Greek tribes throughout Greek history, local dialects were exported from their original homelands and spread through the whole Aegean world, to the coasts of Anatolia (e.g. Aeolic, Ionic), and then, during the colonization movement of the Archaic period (8th−6th c. BCE), the dialects, being mostly of Ionic and DoricNorthwestern stock, reached the coasts of the Black Sea, Southern Italy (around 750 BCE Pithekoussai was founded by West Ionians from Euboea), Sicily, Northeast Spain, and Southern France.

4. The main dialectal groups All dialectal groups display distinctive features on the phonological, morphological, syntactic and lexical levels, most striking being, of course, phonological (see Bubenik, this

44. The dialectology of Greek handbook) and morphological (see García Ramón, this handbook) developments from Common Greek. Syntax does not seem to have been much affected by dialectal differences (see Jacquinod, this handbook); in general, in all dialects the lexicon is of common Greek stock (see Meier-Brügger, this handbook). The most important dialectal features are as follows (cf. García Ramón 1998: 1232 f.; Palmer [1980] 1996: 59−64): Ionic-Attic: e.g.*ā > ē (entire Ionic area, with some exceptions in Attic), metathesis of length ēo > eō (cf. the so-called Attic declension in -[e]ōs) and ēa > eā; early disappearance of *u̯; *r̥ > ar/ra; 3pl. -san, e.g. éthesan ‘they placed’; 3sg. ên ‘s/he was’, verba vocalia in -áō, -éō ; gen. sg. póleōs ‘of a city’ (Ion. -ios); hēmeîs ‘we’, hūmeîs ‘you (pl.)’, apó ‘from’, pros ‘toward’. Arcado-Cypriot: e.g. *k u̯, g u̯ > t, d /_e, i, with occasional assibilation as the result of palatalization *k u̯i > t’i (special sign И used in Mantinea); e > i /_ Nasal, e.g. in ‘in’ = en, mínonsi ‘they remain’ = ménousi, *-o > -u, e.g. 3sg., pl. secondary middle -tu, -ntu (< *-to, *-nto), apú = apó; *r̥ > ro; *m̥, *n̥ > o; gen. sg. of masc. ā-stems -ao /a:o/ > -au; 3sg., pl. primary middle -toi, -ntoi; 3pl. -an, e.g. -ethean ‘they placed’; verba vocalia in -āmi, -ēmi; phonḗs ‘murderer’, hierḗs ‘priest’; pós = prós, pedá ‘with’ = metá; kás ‘and’ = kaí. Aeolic: e.g. *k u̯ /_ e, i > p; *r̥ > ro; o for a before or after liquids and as outcome of syllabic nasals and before n, e.g. onéthēke ‘dedicated’, dékotos ‘tenth’, strótagos ‘general’; athem. dat. pl. -essi; perf. act. ptcp. -nt-, e.g. Lesb. katelēlúthontos ‘having descended (gen.)’; themat. inf. -emen; patronym. adj. in -io- instead of genitive of father’s name; apú = apó, en + acc. ‘into’ = eis (Boeotian and Thessalian); ía/hía ‘1’ = mía. Doric-Northwest Greek: e.g. *ti > ti, e.g. entí ‘they are’, Ƒíkati- ‘20’; *er > ar e.g. phárō ‘I carry’; *r̥ > ra; ā + /ō˘/ > ā (e.g. ā-stems: gen. sg. masc. -ā, gen. pl. -ân) ā˘ + ē˘ > ē (e.g. inf. nikên ‘conquer’); 1pl. -mes; 3pl. éthen ‘they placed’ (= éthesan); verba vocalia -áō, -éō; Dor. future in -séō (*-séi̭o/e-), aor. and fut. in -ks- to verbs in -zō, e.g. Cret. dikáksei ‘will decide’; them. inf. -en, e.g. ágen ‘to lead’, éken ‘to have’ (= ágein, ékhein); athem. inf. in -men, -mēn (Rhod. -mein); apó, tétores ‘4’.

5. The problems of subgrouping; the position of Mycenaean It has been stated above (see 4) that some features (isoglosses) are shared by several dialects, which may point to a common prehistory. The most striking of these is the assibilation of ti to si, which divides the Greek speaking world in two large areas, namely East and West Greek. The synchronic distribution and the traditional model of ascribing different Greek dialects to several “waves” of Greek migrations into the Aegean world has been challenged after the discovery of the Mycenaean texts. Different models of subgrouping have been proposed: for example, according to Risch (1955: 61−76), one should speak about northern (Dor., Aeol.) vs. southern Greek (Ion., Att., Arc.-Cyp., Myc.); Coleman (1963: 58−126) classifies the dialects according to the traditional WestEast division, to the West continuum belong Elean, Dor., Achaean, NW; to the East continuum Thess., Lesb., Arc-Cyp., Myc. and Ion-Att. with so-called “bridging” dialects between, i.e. Boeotian and Pamphylian. For Cowgill (1966: 77−95) the early division includes four continua, i.e. West Greek (Dor.-NW), Aeolic, Ionic and finally “Achaean” with Arcado-Cypriot. Peters (1986: 303−319) proposed an “Old Peloponnesian” period

713

714

VII. Greek (Altpeloponnesisch) which allegedly was the proto-continuum of later dialects like Myc., Arc.-Cyp., Ion., and Aeolic (for brief reference and discussion see Hajnal 2007: 136− 141). One of the crucial issues in Greek dialectology is the problem of the position of Mycenaean. As the earliest attested variant of Greek, Mycenaean exhibits features which allow it to be assigned in conventional classification to the “East-Greek” continuum. It shares isoglosses with Ionic, e.g. the assibilation of /ti/ in 3rd person plural di-do-si ‘they give’ (for -onsi), to-so ‘so much’ (/tosso/), ku-su ‘with’ (for ksun), and especially Arcadian, e.g. 3rd sing. middle -to (for /toi/) next to Arcadian -toi (cf. déatoi ‘seems’), development of syllabic *r̥ to /ro/, Myc. a-pu and Arc. apú. On the other hand, one also finds features which link it to Aeolic (e.g. *r̥ > /ro/ Lesb., Thess. apú), patronym. adj. in -ios and adj. of material in -ios, although Aeolic is believed to be a member of the WestGreek continuum. It rather seems that Mycenaean shares a number of isoglosses with three non-Doric dialectal groups, resulting in a more archaic stage of phonology and morphology (sometimes, however, surprisingly innovative) than in dialects of the first millennium BCE, e.g. preservation of labiovelars in Myc., preservation of /w/, and so on. In the alphabetic period Arcadian and Cypriot are its closest relatives. The written records of Mycenaean exhibit a very uniform language. Sometimes, however, even there some sort of variation can be found, e.g. pe-ma vs. pe-mo < *spermn̥, dative-locative -ei vs. -i, or sporadic lack of assibilation, which led to the assumption that two “dialects” of Mycenaean existed, namely “normal” vs. “special” (Risch 1966: 150−157). These variations, however, have now been considered to be the manifestations of already existing tendencies of developments, anticipating the changes of the alphabetic dialects. It seems probable that the most striking differences between the individual Greek dialects, even between East and West Greek, began to emerge in post-Mycenaean times, when the tribal movements after the appearance of West Greeks in originally East Greek regions destroyed the old continua. In the period after the Greek tribes appeared in Greece (ca. 1900 BCE) the first dialectal split occurred. Forms of Mycenaean were spoken in South and Central Greece, forms which belong in the alphabetic period to the East Greek continuum. West Greek should probably be placed in Northwestern Greece, with a possible contact zone with the southern dialects, a zone which could have played an important role in the emergence of the Aeolic group (Risch 1979: 108; Hajnal 2007: 153 f).

6. Greek dialects in contact During all their history Greek dialects were in close contact to each other. This is true not only for the obvious relationship between the poleis and their colonies, but it seems that different sorts of contact existed also between dialects of different groups. Very probably such contacts existed already between Mycenaean and northern Greek, though the details remain obscure. During the alphabetic period different sorts of interactions can be observed, mostly caused by geographical proximity, e.g. between Boeotian, Attic, and West-Ionic; between Boeotian and Northwest Greek or Doric; along the coasts of Asia Minor important contacts took place between Asiatic Aeolic (Lesbian) and Ionic;

44. The dialectology of Greek or in the Peloponnesus between Arcadian and its Doric neighbours. It seems probable that even Attic, in contrast to Ionic, underwent some influence from mainland dialects. A special contact phenomenon is the emergence of Pamphylian on the Anatolian coast, which shares isoglosses with both Arcado-Cypriot and Doric. Apart from interdialectal contacts we can also observe constant influence of the written Attic standard, which occurs in dialectal, mostly official documents as a form of superstratum. On the other hand, one may also note a spread of some forms that were taken out of their original dialectal background and were then adopted in other regions of Greece, e.g. abstract nouns in -si, which were also adopted in Doric (instead of -ti), or forms with /a:/ instead of expected /e:/ in Attic (e.g. lokhagós), etc. This spread can be interpreted in various ways, the most obvious being the influence of Attic-Ionic political or scientific terminology, which reflects the growing prestige of Attic at the end of the 5th and in the 4th c. BCE (Meier-Brügger 2005: 437−444).

7. Emergence of the Koinē Not only in the earliest period, but even after Attic emerged as the literary standard in different regions of Greece in the 5th/4th c. BCE (see Horrocks 2.3, this handbook), each political entity in the Greek world used its own dialect in a variety of records, not only for the internal needs of the polis (honorary decrees, political documents), but also in international correspondence, with constantly growing influence from Attic. As a consequence of this influence, some dialectal forms came to be considered provincial, cf. Arc. śis and kás (corresponding to Cyp. sis, kás), both of which are attested only once, as opposed to regular tís and kaí. The predominance of the Attic model had an impact first of all on the Ionic dialect, which lost its distinctive features (see Horrocks 2.3, this handbook). The Macedonian court adopted this form of Attic as its official language and exported it to Asia. This particular form of Attic is known as koinē (diálektos), and it has been interpreted by Greek grammarians as one of the Greek dialects, distinct from the others. In different regions of Greece, however, different sorts of koinai emerged, of which the best known was the Doric Koinē, preserving general Doric features, but without local differences, and with an admixture of Attic forms. As in the case of the Doric Koinē, the Northwest Koinē (connected with the so-called Aetolian League) displayed the same mixture of native dialectal elements with Attic elements. Sporadically old dialects do occur on documents even during the Imperial period, e.g. east and west Cretan (attested since 300 BCE), Doric or Lesbian, in the forms of artificial, stylized documents, which contain, side by side with hyperdialectal forms, proper Lesbian forms as well. We do not know much about vernacular dialects in the Hellenistic period and during Roman times, but we can assume that strong regional differences could be found between forms of the Koinē in Egypt, Sicily, Rome, Asia Minor, or Syria. The uniformity of the written norm is no evidence for the same uniformity in the vernacular speech. The dialects of medieval and modern Greek reflect different forms of Koinē, and it is probable that some elements of ancient epichoric dialects were preserved in various regions of Greece.

715

716

VII. Greek

8. References Coleman, Robert 1963 The dialect geography of Ancient Greek. Transactions of the Philological Society 62: 58−126. Cowgill, Warren 1966 Ancient Greek dialectology in the light of Mycenaen. In: Henrik Birnbaum and Jaan Puhvel (eds.), Ancient Indo-European Dialects. Proceedings of the Conference on IndoEuropean Linguistics Held at the University of California, Los Angeles April 25−27, 1963. Berkeley: University of California Press, 77−95. Duhoux, Yves 1983 Introduction aux dialectes grec anciennes. Louvain-la-Neuve: Cabay. García Ramón, José Luis 1998 Griechische Dialekte. In: Hubert Cancik and Helmuth Schneider (eds.), Der Neue Pauly. Enzyklopädie der Antike, Band 4 (Epo-Gro). Stuttgart: J. B. Metzlersche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1231−1238. Hajnal, Ivo 2007 Die Vorgeschichte der griechischen Dialekte: ein methodischer Rück- und Ausblick. In: Ivo Hajnal (ed.), Die altgriechischen Dialekte. Wesen und Werden. Akten des Kolloquiums Freie Universität Berlin, 19.−22. September 2001, 131−156. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft Bd. 126. Meier-Brügger, Michael 2005 Sprachkontakte und Sprachwandel beim Zusammenspiel der altgriechischen Dialekte. In: Gerhard Meiser and Olav Hackstein (eds.), Sprachkontakt und Sprachwandel. Akten der XI. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 437−444. Morpurgo Davies, Anna 1987 The Greek notion of dialect. In: Claude Brixhe and René Hodot (eds.), Actes de la première recontre international de dialectologie grecque. Nancy: Presses Universitaires de Nancy, 7−28. Palmer, Leonard R. 1996 [1980] The Greek Language. 2nd edn. Norman, OK: The University of Oklahoma Press. Peters, Martin 1986 Zur Frage einer „achäischen“ Phase des griechischen Epos. In: Annemarie Etter (ed.), o-o-pe-ro-si. Festschrift für Ernst Risch zum 75. Geburtstag. Berlin: De Gruyter, 303−319. Risch, Ernst 1955 Die Gliederung der griechischen Dialekte in neuer Sicht. Museum Helveticum 12: 61−76. Risch, Ernst 1966 Les différences dialectales dans le mycénien. In: Leonard R. Palmer and John Chadwick (eds.), Proceedings of the Cambridge Colloquium on Mycenaean Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 150−167. Risch, Ernst 1979 Die griechischen Dialekte im 2. vorchristlichen Jahrtausend. Studii Micenei ed EgeoAnatolici 20: 91−111. Woodard, Roger D. 2004 Greek Dialects. In: Roger D. Woodard (ed.), The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World’s Ancient Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 650−672.

Wojciech Sowa, Kraków (Poland)

45. The evolution of Greek

717

45. The evolution of Greek 1. The earliest records: Mycenaean Greek 2. Archaic, Classical, and Hellenistic Greek 3. Medieval Greek

4. Modern Greek 5. References

1. The earliest records: Mycenaean Greek It is now generally agreed that “Greek” emerged as the product of contact, beginning around the end of the third millennium BCE, between migrants speaking an Indo-European dialect and the indigenous populations of the Balkan peninsula. Many words for commonplace objects (e.g. ἀσάμινθος /asáminthos/ ‘bathtub’, θάλασσα /thálassa/ ‘sea’) are of non-Indo-European origin, though there is little hope of identifying specific linguistic sources for these borrowings in the absence of independent evidence for the languages concerned. When the palace of Knossos on Crete was excavated in the early 20th century, clay tablets were discovered written in two different scripts, Linear A and Linear B. Since then, tablets and seals with Linear B inscriptions have also been found at Bronze Age sites across southern Greece, most importantly at Thebes, Pylos, and Mycenae: the civilization attested there is known as Mycenaean. With the decipherment of Linear B in the 1950’s, it was established that the Mycenaean documents were, as had long been suspected, administrative records and, most importantly, that their language was Greek. Greek therefore has the longest documented history of any European language, beginning with the Mycenaean dialect of the second half of the second millennium BCE, and continuing, albeit with interruptions in the record, down to the present day. The Greek dialects of the archaic and classical periods (7th−4th centuries BCE) have long been divided into East Greek and West Greek, based on their geographical distribution at that time (cf. Sowa, this handbook, and see 2.1 below). Interestingly, Mycenaean is already of East Greek type, showing, for example, the characteristic innovatory assibilation of /t/ before /i/ in certain lexical items and grammatical formants, as 3rd person plural e-ko-si /ékhonsi/ ‘they have’, cf. Attic (East Greek) ἔχουσι /ékhu:si/, vs. West Greek ἔχοντι /ékhonti/. It is now generally accepted, therefore, that Mycenaean, or dialects close to this prestigious written variety, were spoken throughout southern Greece during the Bronze Age, and that dialects that were later to evolve into the West Greek variants were spoken in northern Greece. The classical distribution is seen as the result of population movements, including the colonization of Magna Graecia (southern Italy and Sicily), Cyprus, and the Aegean islands and coasts of Asia Minor, in the period of resettlement following the collapse of the Mycenaean civilization around 1200 BCE. Linear B is a syllabic script, in which the majority of symbols represent vowels or consonants plus vowels. This, along with the failure to distinguish voiced and aspirated plosives systematically from plain voiceless plosives, makes it quite unsuitable for writing Greek, which has many consonant clusters and word-final consonants as well as phonological contrasts involving voice and aspiration. The implication is that the script must have been borrowed and only partly adapted for its new purpose, and similarities https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261288-045

718

VII. Greek with the still undeciphered Linear A (associated with the pre-Mycenaean civilization of Crete known as Minoan) make it almost certain that the Mycenaeans adopted their script from this source. One unfortunate consequence of the approximate spellings of Greek words, including the omission of final consonants, is that key details of the phonology and morphology of Mycenaean remain uncertain, though a reasonable overview can be reconstructed given our knowledge of Indo-European and of later Greek. The picture which has emerged is of an archaic East Greek dialect in which a number of features inherited from Indo-European remain intact, for example the labiovelar consonants (/kw, gw, kwh/), which later evolved into dentals (before front vowels) or labials (elsewhere) (cf. Bubenik, this handbook), and the instrumental plural case form -pi (/-p hi/) in the a-stem and consonant-stem paradigms, which otherwise survives only marginally in the language of Homeric epic (as -φι /-p hi/) (cf. García Ramón, this handbook). More recently, variation in the written record (e.g. in the treatment of original syllabic liquids and nasals, cf. Bubenik, this handbook, or in the incidence of assibilation of /t/ before /i/) have been taken to reflect change in progress, operating across the whole Mycenaean area but at different times/rates in different places, rather than, as formerly, providing evidence for two distinct Mycenaean dialects, viz. a “standard” already distinguished in key respects from later Greek and a sporadically attested “abnormal” variety that better anticipates later forms.

2. Archaic, Classical, and Hellenistic Greek 2.1. The Greek alphabet and the ancient Greek dialects The art of writing disappeared with the Mycenaean civilization, and the Greek world entered a “Dark Age”. But from the late 9th century BCE onwards we again start to find inscriptions, initially on pottery, later on stone and bronze. These, however, are written in a variety of alphabets adapted from the Phoenician writing system, in which redundant consonant signs were redeployed to note vowels, thus allowing for a much more accurate representation of the sounds of Greek. Since the Greek world of the archaic and classical periods was politically fragmented, with each city forming a “state” in its own right, it is unsurprising that we have evidence for the regional variety of Greek in this period, when each city used a normalized version of its own dialect for official purposes. Unfortunately, material from the early period is limited and not all areas are represented, while later dialect texts from many regions already show signs of influence from an emerging written standard known as the Koine (“common dialect”, see 2.3 and 2.4). Much of this variety, along with the distribution of the major subgroups, is now regarded as the result of population movement following the Mycenaean collapse, with new varieties emerging as peoples came into contact or settled in new areas. Before the decipherment of Linear B scholars were largely content to follow ancient traditions about different “tribes” of Greeks (Dorians, Ionians and Aeolians) arriving prehistorically in Greece in “waves”, each with its own distinctive dialect already formed. But many words of non-Greek origin, clearly borrowed from languages of the Aegean basin, show typical

45. The evolution of Greek dialectal differences, e.g. θάλασσα, θάλαττα /thálassa, thálatta/ ‘sea’, with /ss/ in most dialects but /tt/ in Attic and Boeotian. These two geminates usually represent different treatments of original groups of consonants (typically /ty/ and /ky/) in words and formants inherited from Indo-European, so the fact that the changes are replicated in loanwords shows that the latter must have been borrowed with such clusters intact in a period when all speakers of Greek were already in the Aegean area, and before the familiar dialect differences had emerged. The West Greek group is the least innovative, and is conventionally divided into Northwest Greek, a conservative subgroup located in what is assumed to have been the homeland of West Greek, and the more innovative Peloponnesian Doric, representing developments of varieties brought south by migrants in the post-Mycenaean period and then “exported” to the southern Aegean and Magna Graecia. The other major dialect groups, Ionic and Aeolic, are both now seen as post-Mycenaean developments, and Mycenaean (or a set of closely related varieties) is argued to be the ultimate origin of the whole East Greek group, comprising Arcadian, Cypriot, Ionic, and Attic. Arcadian and Cypriot form a conservative subgroup, representing Mycenaean’s closest descendants, while Ionic and Attic are more innovative, displaying developments of post-Myceneaen origin (e.g. the characteristic shift of original /a:/, preserved in Mycenaean, to /ɛ:/, as in μήτηρ /mɛ́:tɛ:r/ ‘mother’ < μάτηρ /má:tɛ:r/). Some of these innovations may be the result of contact with West Greek and, in the case of Attic, also with Boeotian (e.g. the adoption of /tt/). Aeolic, comprising Thessalian, Boeotian, and Lesbian, is also believed to be largely post-Mycenaean, though a West-Greek dialect may already have undergone some influence from the south in the border region of Thessaly during the Bronze Age. But the most characteristic Aeolic features are demonstrably post-Mycenaean (e.g. the treatment of labiovelars, still preserved in Myceaean, as labials even before front vowels, as in Boeotian πέτταρες /péttares/ beside Attic τέτταρες /téttares/ ‘four’). Thessalian probably represents Aeolic in its “purest” form, with Boeotian undergoing influence from Northwest Greek and Lesbian, the dialect of colonists in the eastern Aegean, from Ionic.

2.2. Literary dialects In the absence of a “standard” language, the earliest Greek literature also shows a dialectal character, with each genre employing a stylized variety reflecting the speech of the area where it acquired its definitive form. Accordingly, early literature provides supplementary evidence for the dialects of this period, but it is crucial to bear in mind that the dialects involved are always consciously distanced from local speech and that the dialectconditioning is by genre rather than the native speech of authors. Partly this was a matter of prestige (following past masters), but it was simpler in any case to accept the “traditional” literary dialects as a set of panhellenic norms than to reinvent compositional techniques and conventions for each dialect. The conventionalized quality of these literary languages not only facilitated their mastery by non-native speakers but also weakened the links with specific regions, thereby fostering a sense of common Greek “ownership”. Accordingly, literary dialects that came to be employed outside their regions of origin quickly took on a life of their own,

719

720

VII. Greek incorporating many “distancing” characteristics that stripped them of dialectal parochialism and rendered them fully acceptable, and accessible, to all Greeks. The impetus behind this approach came from the language of the earliest literature, the Homeric epics. These represent the culmination of a long oral tradition, and exhibit formulaic phraseology designed to fill designated slots in the traditional epic verse (the dactylic hexameter). Their language has an “old” Ionic quality overall, reflecting the dialect of the region where they took their final form, probably in the mid-8th century BCE, but they betray their earlier origins in the incorporation of many archaisms and of Aeolic elements originating with the adaptation of material composed in Aeolic-speaking areas. The retention of such non-Ionic forms is explained on the basis that they provided for rich formula systems incorporating metrical variants of Ionic, a precious resource to oral poets working within the parameters of a fixed meter. The prestige of the Iliad and Odyssey set the standard for all poetic diction thereafter, and the distancing effects of their archaizing “mixed” language, far removed from contemporary Ionic, were hugely influential. Thus the impact of Homeric practice is already apparent in the intermingling of epic phraseology with local dialects in both Aeolic personal lyric and Ionic elegiac and iambic poetry, while the language of choral lyric, which underwent its definitive development in the Dorian Peloponnese, similarly evolved into another artificial medium, exhibiting a set of standardized and non-specific “Doric” markers alongside traditional Aeolicisms and Homerisms. The main concern of writers in this genre was clearly to develop a panhellenic literary language of generally Doric character to rival the Ionic of the Homeric corpus. It is unsurprising that prose writing should have begun in Ionia, the most culturally dynamic part of the Greek-speaking world at this time. Genres such as philosophy and science demanded more precision than could be provided by the language of Homericstyle poetry, and composition in Ionic prose quickly superseded earlier attempts to adapt the traditional diction of epic to these new purposes. The big Ionian cities had already established a form of cultural and political union reflected in the use of a common variety for official purposes, and the literary language of the famous Ionian historian Herodotus is similarly standardized, though with some distinctive markers of its own (e.g. with /k-/ rather than /p-/ as a reflex of original labiovelars before back vowels, as in pronouns such as κῶς /kô:s/ for πῶς /pô:s/, ‘how?’).

2.3. The rise of Attic As in poetry, so in prose, the dialect of the first “classics” was quickly adopted as a standard, and literary Ionic duly became a panhellenic medium for historiography and technical writing. But the situation changed during the 5th century BCE with the rise of Athens as a military and economic power, and its emergence as the foremost cultural center of the age. The Athenian dialect, Attic, now evolved as a literary medium in its own right, employed, for example, in the tragic and comic drama that flowered in the city at this time. Much of the impetus behind this development came from Ionia, and visiting Ionian artists and intellectuals were at the forefront of the movement. It is no surprise, therefore, that the earliest Athenian literature is composed in an Attic that shows Ionic influence, in phonology, morphology, and lexicon, as well as in the rhetorical

45. The evolution of Greek elaboration of argument. Thus tragic dialogue, in recognition of the panhellenic ambitions of the genre, was written in a stylized Attic that avoids many “normal” words and adjusts its phonology towards the still prestigious Ionic (e.g. in the choice of /ss/ over / tt/ in relevant vocabulary). So too in prose writing, the pioneering Athenian historian Thucydides avoided /tt/ and other Attic markers in favor of Ionic equivalents in his monumental history of the Peloponnesian war. But the tide was already turning, and by the middle of the 4th century BCE the achievements of Athenian writers such as Plato and Demosthenes in moral philosophy and rhetoric had led to the emancipation of Athenian prose from its Ionic models, even though certain grammatical features that had infiltrated from Ionic had by then been naturalized in the mature literary style. Thus Ionic, as the dialect of a dynamic colonial movement, had long ago eliminated much inherited morphological irregularity that “old” Attic retained, and these anomalies had begun to be eliminated from literary Attic too. Henceforth, Ionicized Attic served as the standard language of Greek prose writing in all genres. The adoption of Attic as a literary language was paralleled by wider use of the dialect for official purposes. The process began with the emergence of an Athenian empire in the Aegean in the early 5th century. Much of the territory administered from Athens was Ionic-speaking, and the use of Attic as an administrative language, together with the resulting contact between speakers of Attic and Ionic, led to a process of convergence in which Ionic lost its distinctiveness. But at the same time Attic acquired many Ionic characteristics, so that the official form of the dialect, like its literary counterpart, progressively abandoned its more obviously Athenian characteristics. Furthermore, given widespread overseas service and the status of Athens as an imperial, cultural, and economic melting pot, many of the developments seen in official and literary Attic also started to find their way into Athenian speech. Even after the collapse of the Athenian empire in 404 BCE, the continuing cultural prestige of Athens, later reinforced by the city’s economic and military revival, led to the use of Attic for diplomatic purposes by Greeks from regions that had never been under Athenian control. And as more and more Greeks became familiar with official Attic, we also see traces of Attic influence even in dialect inscriptions, especially in the use of technical terminology. This extended version of Attic employed as a panhellenic resource is usually referred to as “Great Attic”, a variety which quickly evolved in turn into the Koine.

2.4. The Koine: Greek in the Hellenistic period The crucial step in the evolution of Great Attic into a “national” standard came with its formal adoption as an official and cultural language by the kingdom of Macedonia during the reign of Philip II (360/359−336 BCE). But the introduction of Greek civilization had begun during the 5th century, when famous Athenian artists had been invited to the court of king Archelaus, reflecting a desire on the part of an ambitious military power on the periphery of the Greek world to associate itself with the prestige of Hellenic culture. The subsequent Atticization of the Macedonian aristocracy, however, meant that (Great) Attic was soon imposed as the official language of the whole Greek-speaking world and

721

722

VII. Greek even beyond, as Macedonia first gained control over mainland Greece, and then, through the conquests of Alexander III (“the Great”, 356−323 BCE), emerged as the unquestioned ruler of the eastern Mediterranean. Many new cities were founded, such as Alexandria in Egypt, Pergamum in Asia Minor, and Antioch in Syria, and these quickly became major centers of Greek language and culture in the Hellenistic Age that ensued (conventionally dated 323 BCE−331 CE). After Alexander’s death, the empire broke up into a series of hereditary monarchies (most importantly the Antigonids of Macedonia and mainland Greece, the Ptolemies of Egypt, and the Seleucids of Syria), but the common study of “classical” Greek literature, much of it in Attic, together with the use of a common spoken and written language for diplomacy and business, namely the Koine, served to bind together the ruling classes of these diverse territories by cementing in place the idea of a common Greek culture based on a shared intellectual and linguistic heritage. The impact of Macedonian rule was swift. The old local dialects became increasingly marginalized, as the population became diglossic through the partly imposed, partly voluntary adoption of the Koine in an era when control of the standard was a prerequisite for the upwardly mobile. We pass through a period in which local dialect inscriptions show increasing signs of Koine influence into a period in which the Koine becomes the norm for all written purposes and the local dialects as such disappear from the written record. The Koineization process was eventually almost total, with the result that the dialects of medieval and modern Greek all descend from varieties of the Koine. In the new territories, Greek was dominant as the language of the ruling class, but it competed with the local languages, some of which, like Syriac and Egyptian, had long histories as written media with high levels of prestige. Out of self-interest, many inhabitants of the Hellenistic kingdoms became bilingual, and it was the Koine that they learned, whether in a local spoken form or as a written standard. But only in Asia Minor, and only after many centuries, did Greek finally supplant the traditional languages. Elsewhere the local languages remained the first languages of the indigenous populations, and Greek was seen throughout as the language of Greco-Macedonian invaders. But alongside the native populations there were also native Greek speakers, not only members of the Koine-speaking elite but also large numbers of impoverished colonists sent out from old Greece to populate the newly founded cities. The resulting mix of old local dialects was short-lived, however, and within a generation the popular speech of the new Hellenistic metropolises had begun to converge on the norm of the Koine. The form of Attic that provided the basis for the Koine had already evolved from the “fixed” Attic of classical literature, and this process continued, albeit slowly, as the spoken language changed and developed with time. Some markers of the Koine, mainly of Ionic origin, include the use of γίνομαι, γινώσκω /gí:nomai, gi:nó:sko;/ ‘I become’, ‘I know/judge’, rather than traditional Attic γίγνομαι, γιγνώσκω /gígnomai, gignó:sko:/, and a preference for /ss/ over Attic /tt/ in words like θάλασσα ‘sea’. As noted, there was also much simplification of morphology as well as the development of many characteristic lexical and syntactic features, often originating in the language of the Hellenistic bureaucracies and then percolating down. Most notable in this connection was the expansion of the “articular infinitive” (i.e. the infinitive turned into a neuter noun by prefixation of τό /tó/ ‘the’), used mainly as a gerund after prepositions. Its capacity to turn even the most complex proposition into an inflectable nominal was invaluable in legal and

45. The evolution of Greek philosophical discourse, though it quickly became a marker of written styles more generally. But the inherent lack of vitality in this universal business language led to sharp reactions among literary writers. Many Hellenistic poets reconnected with the past through the revival of ancient literary dialects (as in Apollonius’ “Homeric” epic the Argonautica or Theocritus’ imitations of Lesbian lyric), while others invented new literary dialects, such as the artificial “Doric” of Theocritus’ Idylls, which inaugurated the genre of pastoral poetry through the literary stylization of a dialect characteristic of rural backwaters. In prose composition too, the 3rd century BCE saw a reaction to “classical” rhetoric and the use of a mildly classicized Koine as a literary medium. Once again this manifested itself as a revival, this time involving a partial return to the precepts of Gorgias, a long-neglected 5th-century rhetorician. The impact of this movement, which began in Asia Minor and was known as Asianism, is apparent in a fashion for the emotive accumulation of synonyms, in the use of successions of antithetical clauses, and in the exploitation of metaphor, word-play and poetic vocabulary. But the principles of Gorgianic theory soon became mechanical conventions that encouraged the dominance of form over content, and a counter-revolution set in during the 1st century BCE, when a movement dedicated to the restoration of the best Attic practice, in language and rhetorical technique, came to the fore. The impact of this “Atticism” was profound and lasting.

2.5. The Roman period: Atticism and its consequences By the end of the 3rd century BCE southern Italy and Sicily (Magna Graecia) were already under Roman control, and thereafter the heartlands of the Hellenistic world fell steadily to military conquest as Rome was drawn into the affairs of the east. One by one the old Hellenistic kingdoms were defeated and their territories converted into Roman provinces, a process culminating in 31 BCE with the battle of Actium and the annexation of Egypt. Despite the formal imposition of Latin in the legal profession and the army, the Romans were largely content to use the Koine as the language of day-to-day administration in their new empire, insisting on Latin only when faced with the need to assert the realities of Roman rule in a public way. This laissez-faire approach, which guaranteed the survival of Greek as an international language, was supported by its established use as the dominant lingua franca of the east and by the entrenched prestige of its literary and scientific varieties as the vehicles of Hellenic/Hellenistic civilization, exposure to which had become a part of the educational curriculum for all aristocratic Romans. Greek intellectuals became increasingly involved in Roman cultural life and many travelled to Rome to teach (in Greek), just as wealthy Romans often chose to study with Greek masters abroad. Over time, as the economies of the eastern provinces, long devastated by warfare, began to revive, and rich Greeks came to be assimilated politically, the view established itself that Greek was simply the “other” Roman language. Earlier, however, the Romans had justified their acquisition of the culturally superior Hellenistic world on the grounds that the “glorious” Hellenism of the past had foundered and that the well-being of the civilization they so admired now depended on the imposi-

723

724

VII. Greek tion of a firm hand. This Roman emphasis on the virtues of the Greek past chimed well with the feelings of Greeks themselves, as their fortunes revived and artists and intellectuals began to reassert a cultural identity rooted in the achievements of an idealized “classical” period of political autonomy and artistic and scientific brilliance. Selling the Greek past to Rome quickly became a fast route to fame and fortune, and in the 2nd century CE there began a period of flamboyantly resurgent Hellenism known as the Second Sophistic. Antiquarianism was the order of the day and the Atticist movement found a sympathetic cultural context for the spread of its precepts to a wider audience. How better to celebrate the Greek revival than to reestablish the language of the ancients, whose prestige in the Roman world had so effectively advanced the cause of contemporary Hellenism? Henceforth, belletristic discourse was felt to demand the “purest” form of the language as embodied in the works of the “greatest” authors. By pitting an unchanging ideal, in which Attic was conceived as the timeless embodiment of linguistic excellence, against a supposedly debased contemporary language, this crucial development instituted an ideology (“language change is decay”) that was to shape linguistic judgments and authorial practice for nearly two thousand years. In practice, of course, this neo-Attic was a hard-won badge of class-membership rather than a new national language for all, and the Koine in both its written and spoken varieties survived and continued to evolve. But the highest, official and academic, forms of the Koine already had their own archaizing conventions, and under the impact of Atticism now started to incorporate Attic traits (though a distinction was always maintained, /ss/ vs. /tt/ being one of the major shibboleths). Innovation therefore became a process of retarded compromise with the changing realities of spoken Greek at all levels of society. The gap that opened up between the approved forms of written Greek (accessible only to a privileged minority and highly resistant to change) and the socially and geographically diversified varieties of spoken Greek (together with any simpler forms of Koine writing that reflected these more directly) became ever more problematical with the passage of time. Though it is customary to describe this situation in terms of diglossia, it was in fact more complex. While the spoken dialects of the illiterate became more remote from written Greek, the speech of the literate was always influenced by the Greek they had learned to write, just as the Greek they wrote was affected by the Greek they spoke, despite the efforts of the guardians of good usage to prevent this. Since prose composition in a dead language is difficult even for the most talented, the triumph of Atticist ideology led to the establishment of an “Atticizing” rather than a truly Attic style, involving the superimposition of key lexical and grammatical markers on a foundation reflecting more “normal” linguistic usage. Neo-Attic therefore changed over time, partly in line with fluctuating views of the key Attic markers, and partly as a result of changes that infiltrated the written language as elite speech evolved. Similar remarks apply to higher varieties of the Koine, where the Atticizing element was less, but a range of established “Koineisms” played a similar role. Even very basic Koine, used for the conduct of daily business, became more conservative because of the rigid training of clerical officials. Anyone who had been taught to write at all would naturally use certain “written” features that were obsolete in speech, even if in general their usage reflected contemporary speech quite directly. Even the barely literate were exposed to written Greek through unavoidable involvement with the

45. The evolution of Greek machinery of state, picking up expressions from material that was read to them and then dictating personal letters etc. in the form of loosely linked formulae. The linguistic historian is therefore hard pressed to find material free from the conservative conventions of written Greek, though one should not exaggerate the significance of these in texts which, whether through ignorance or choice, eschew the pretensions of the “high” pagan tradition. We are fortunate in having a vast collection of documentary papyri from Egypt (from the Ptolemaic to the Byzantine periods) and many private inscriptions from other areas, together with the Septuagint (a translation of the Old Testament dating from the 3rd−2nd centuries BCE) and, from the first centuries CE, the corpus of early Christian literature. Crucially, a distinct tradition of popular Christian writing survived the adoption of Christianity as the official religion in the reign of Constantine I (died 337 CE) and the advent of Atticized Christian writing that accompanied the integration of Christianity into the Greco-Roman tradition (see 3 below). These sources give us a good impression of the normal registers of Greek. Many deviations from classical norms were once thought to reflect the substrate effects of local languages, but though such effects cannot be wholly discounted, the majority are in fact evidence for “organic” changes that had affected the spoken language across the board. Spelling mistakes in low-level documents are particularly important as evidence of sound change, since the “correct” orthography of Greek remained traditional throughout late antiquity and the middle ages, and has been only partly modified for the writing of modern Greek. We may summarize here the changes in non-classicizing Greek that had occurred by late antiquity (5th and 6th centuries CE).

A: Phonology (i)

The vowel system had largely assumed its modern form, through fortition of the off-glide of diphthongs in /-u/ to a labial fricative (αυ /au/ and ευ /eu/ > /af, av/ and /ef, ev/), loss of vowel-length distinctions, and the successive raising of front vowels (both original and from other changes) to /i/ (“itacism”). The only change still to occur was the merger of /i/ and /y/, which takes place in the next period. The result was a 6-vowel system, /a, e, i, y, o, u/. (ii) The word accent of ancient Greek involved a rise-fall contonation, either spread over two syllables (with the locus of the rise marked by an acute accent in writing) or contained within one (marked by a circumflex accent). The rise was also associated with some increase in amplitude, and this became the dominant accentual feature by default when the circumflex contonation, which could fall only on long vowels or diphthongs, disappeared with vowel isochrony and contrast with the acute contonation was lost. (iii) The consonant system also changed, with the voiced plosives /b, d, g/ becoming fricatives (/v, ð, ɣ/) except after nasals, as in Modern Greek, and the aspirated plosives /ph, th, kh/ starting to follow suit (> /f, θ, x/). Geminates were also simplified in pronunciation, /h/ was lost, and in many areas final /-n/ started to disappear in casual speech except in a small set of forms where this was a distinctive marker (e.g. the accusative of the masculine and feminine singular of the definite article).

725

726

VII. Greek

B: Morphology and syntax (i)

(ii)

(iii)

(iv)

(v)

The optative mood was lost, the classical perfect declined through functional merger with the aorist (perfective), many irregular aorists were assimilated to the “weak” paradigm in -α /-a/, and the recharacterization of verbs of the -μι /-mi/ class as regular verbs in -ω /-o/ began to take effect. The loss of vowel length undermined the contrast between indicative and subjunctive forms (especially future indicative and aorist subjunctive). One consequence was the emergence of infinitival future periphrases, at first with μέλλω /ˈmelo/ ‘be about to’ and later with ἔχω /ˈexo/, originally meaning ‘be able to’. Masculine and feminine consonant-stem nouns start to show analogical accusative singulars in -αν /-an/ (as opposed to classical -α /-a/), based on 1st-declension -αν /-an/. This led later to remodeling as 1st-declension a-stems across the board. Homophony between 1st-declension accusative singular -ην /-in/ and 3rd-declension i-stem accusative -ιν /-in/ had a similar effect on the i-stems, though here the remodeling was never fully carried through. The dative case, the infinitive, and inflected participles all retreat in this period. Prepositional expressions largely replaced adverbial uses of the dative, while ὅτι /ˈoti/ or ἵνα /ˈina/ clauses, with finite indicatives and subjunctives respectively, encroached on the “reported speech” and “control” uses of infinitives (as in ‘X believed Y to have done Z’, ‘X ordered Y to do Z’). Participles were increasingly confined to use as subject-oriented adjuncts, in anticipation of the loss of agreement and the advent of uninflected gerunds in the next period. The basic word order of the language became VO, and verb-final order remained possible only when the object was preposed as a topic or contrastive focus.

3. Medieval Greek The Roman empire was divided between east and west in 395 CE, and Roman government in the west ceased in 476 CE. Thereafter the East Roman or Byzantine empire with its capital at Constantinople (founded by Constantine I in 330 CE), remained the sole “Roman” state until the city fell to the Ottoman Turks in 1453. The Byzantine establishment favored the traditional high styles as a symbol of imperial and cultural continuity, and classical revivals, with renewed commitment to Atticized writing, coincided with periods of prosperity or later, with a desire to reassert Byzantine self-confidence as the empire declined. But the theoretically “timeless” literary style still continued to change, partly through interference with changes in the speech of the elite and partly as different sets of Atticisms came to be thought of as essential markers of elevated diction. Notable in belletristic styles are a preference for marked word orders, tortuous sentence structures and dense accumulations of unusual vocabulary, along with a growing tendency to use the optative and perfect simply as high-style variants of the subjunctive and aorist. The intention was more to distinguish literary discourse from other usage than to imitate Attic Greek, and there emerged a characteristically Byzantine style of composition that an educated Athenian of the 4th century BCE would have struggled to read.

45. The evolution of Greek Simpler forms of Koine writing, still adapting slowly to changes in the vernacular, also continued in use for administration, technical writing, the composition of world chronicles, and popular Christian literature such as hagiography. In the earlier Byzantine period the Greek employed reflected change fairly directly, if one abstracts away from traditional genre markers. We may note the retreat of the dative case, the encroachment of ἵνα /ína/ ‘(in order) that’ + subjunctive into the domain of the infinitive, and the growing syntactic dissociation of inflected adjunct participles. But the military and economic disasters of the 7th and 8th centuries, including the loss of the middle east and north Africa to the Arabs, led to a collapse of literacy and a concentration of the elite in the capital, where a general elevation of style ensued. The later medieval Koine therefore continues the tradition of more elaborated composition, and the final product was a new “common language” of educated discourse, one increasingly reflecting the rules of contemporary Greek in terms of syntactic fundamentals like word order, even though convention still required this to be appropriately “antiqued”. But the process was increasingly superficial, involving approved lexical and phraseological substitutions, the strict deployment of classical morphology, retention of the dative, and the use of complement infinitives, by now largely replaced in the spoken language by finite ἵνα /ˈina/ clauses. This “middle style”, neither Atticized nor vernacular, eventually evolved into the standard written language of the Greek intelligentsia of the 17th and 18th centuries (cf. 4 below). Fortunately for the linguistic historian, the vacuum created by the early abandonment of basic forms of Koine writing is later compensated for by the experimental use of the vernacular for literary composition in the genres of epic/romance and satire. This short period of linguistic innovation, perhaps reflecting an attempt to establish a contemporary “Greek” identity in a diminished empire where the majority were native Greek speakers, ceased with the sack of Constantinople by the fourth crusade in 1204 and the western occupation of former Byzantine lands. Nonetheless, vernacular romances and chronicles reappear in the 14th century under the impact of western models, only to disappear finally with the advent of Ottoman rule. In this period we also start to have access to reasonable quantities of documentary evidence (monastery archives, legal records, etc.), much of it written in a simple, if formulaic, Greek which, despite admixture from the learned tradition, supplements the limited literary sources. This evidence is far from uniform. The mixed quality of the non-literary data has been mentioned, and the fact that much of the earlier and even some of the later literary material originated in court circles at Constantinople means that learned forms and features are not wholly absent, even if many of the later romances and chronicles, mainly from areas under western control, show a more consistently vernacular quality. Furthermore, most of the literary material is in verse, an inherently distorting factor, and though much attested variation in morphology reflects real-world dialect options, it is clearly motivated in this context by metrical considerations, as illustrated by the routine interchange of grammatically equivalent but metrically distinct endings like the innovative 3rd person plural present -ουν /-un/ alongside conservative -ουσι /-usi/. Nonetheless, a picture emerges of a language that is already an early form of modern Greek, and we have some tantalizing glimpses of the varieties of spoken Greek that continued and evolved through the Ottoman period into the 19th century. The opposition between these and the written Koine was to provide the basis for the last round of Greek

727

728

VII. Greek diglossia as an independent Greece emerged from the crumbling Ottoman empire (see 4). The principal characteristics of the Greek vernacular at the end of the Byzantine period are briefly summarized here.

A: Phonology (i)

Merger of /i/ and /y/ was completed, many words lost their unaccented initial vowels (“aphaeresis”), as in μάτι /ˈmati/ ‘eye’ < ὀμμάτιον /oˈmation/ (the ending -ιον /-ion/ had already started to develop to /-in/ in late antiquity), and words ending in /-ia, -ea/ tended to undergo “synizesis” to /-ja/, as in παιδιά /peðˈja/ ‘children’ < παιδία /peˈðia/. (ii) Loss of final /-n/ became widespread, and nasals were also lost before fricatives, as in νύφη /ˈnifi/ ‘bride’ < νύμφη /ˈnimfi/ etc. (iii) Clusters of voiceless obstruents comprising stop + stop or fricative + fricative (other than s) were dissimilated to give fricative + stop, as in ἑφτά /efˈta/ ‘seven’ < ἑπτά /epˈta/, etc. If the second element was /s/, the result is stop + /s/, as in ἔπαψα /ˈepapsa/ ‘I stopped’ < ἔπαυσα /ˈepafsa/.

B: Morphology and syntax (i) (ii)

(iii) (iv)

(v)

The dative case disappears, with its grammatical functions assigned to either the genitive or the accusative, in part by region. The 1st declension is regularized, with all feminines in -α /-a/ and -η /-i/ having genitives in -ας /-as/ and -ης /-is/, respectively (in ancient Greek some feminines in -α /-a/ had genitive -ης /-is/), and all masculines in -ας /-as/ and -ης /-is/ having genitives in -α /-a/ and -η /-i/, respectively in place of classical -ου /-u/. The assimilation of masculine and feminine consonant-stem and (to a lesser extent) istem nouns to the 1st-declension became routine. Adjectives with consonant-stem paradigms were either rebuilt with suffixes using regular (1st- and 2nd-declension) endings, or disappeared from popular speech. The participle evolves into an uninflected gerund in -οντας /-ondas/, and the infinitive retreats even from its residual use as a complement to control, aspectual, and auxiliary verbs (e.g. in future periphrases), being eventually replaced by να /na/ (< ἵνα /ˈina/) + subjunctive. The sole exception is the new periphrastic perfect ἔχω /ˈexo/ ‘I have’ + infinitive, a late back-formation to the innovative pluperfect εἶχα /ˈixa/ ‘I had’ + infinitive, originally meaning ‘I would/would have X’ but reinterpreted through use in counterfactual conditionals (cf. ‘If I had Xed/would have X-ed’). The future use of ἔχω /ˈexo/ + infinitive had disappeared earlier in favor of θέλω /ˈθelo/ + infinitive, originally ‘I want to X’, and the corresponding use of past-tense ἤθελα /ˈiθela/ to mean ‘I would X’ allowed for the redeployment of εἶχα /ˈixa/ plus infinitive as a pluperfect. Eventually θέλω /ˈθelo/ futures also replaced their infinitives with να /na/ + subjunctive, and this combination was finally reduced to the modern θα /θa/ + subjunctive.

45. The evolution of Greek (vi) There was extensive remodeling of the present (imperfective) stems of verbs on the basis of corresponding aorist (perfective) stems, as in μαθ-αίνω /maˈθeno/ ‘I learn’, based on aorist έ-μαθ-α /ˈemaθa/ in place of μανθάνω /manˈθano/, and there was also considerable change in the various sets of personal endings, as in 3rd person plural present and past -ουν /-un/ and -αν /-an/ (both imperfect and aorist), or in the aorist passive in -(θ)ηκα /-(θ)ika/.

4. Modern Greek The absence of an autonomous Greek-speaking state in the period of Ottoman rule inhibited intellectual and cultural life outside the areas that remained under western control, notably the Ionian islands and, for a time, Crete. The sole surviving “Greek” institution, the Orthodox Church, promoted its ancient traditions, including the use of traditional written Greek, as a symbol of religious continuity, and any potential for the evolution of a modern written standard was lost. Written Greek thus remained remote from the regional vernaculars spoken from southern Italy to eastern Anatolia (Pontus and Cappadocia), which now began to diverge quite strongly in peripheral regions. By the 18th century, however, intellectuals in both Ottoman lands and the Greek diaspora agreed that a standard language was an essential prerequisite for any independent state that might emerge from the declining empire. The debate about the form this language should take was conducted in a common style that had evolved out of earlier academic and administrative usage through the incorporation of lexical and grammatical innovations that had already affected educated speech. Some advocated this as the basis for a new standard, while others opted for the more archaizing language of church bureaucracy. At the extreme, arch-conservatives argued for “purification” in the direction of ancient Attic, and even for the restoration of Attic itself. But now for the first time, a radical minority, influenced by western use of vernacular languages in place of Latin, argued for a written language based on contemporary speech. Apart from arguments that implementation of this last proposal would engender loss of continuity with the past, opponents exaggerated the practical difficulties, citing the now extensive variation in regional usage. But the intelligentsia of Constantinople and other urban centers already spoke in a similar way, a “norm” that had continued indirectly to shape their written usage, as noted. Indeed, under the impact of the European Enlightenment, educational literature aimed at a wider audience had begun to appear during the 17th and 18th centuries using a “simplified” style that was probably not far removed from the spoken standard of the upper classes. Furthermore, the regional dialects of the Ionian islands and southern Greece had not diverged fundamentally from this elite variety, once allowance is made for differences of register. The issue still remained unresolved when, in 1833, Greek insurgents with western backing secured the establishment of an autonomous Greek state south of a line between Arta and Volos. The established style of the elite, many of whom now settled in Greece from areas outside the kingdom, was therefore adopted by default as the official language of the new country with its capital in Athens. But almost immediately an archaizing ideology took root, inspired by western admiration for ancient Greek culture and supported by ideologues who saw reconnection with the past as the way to establish a “modern

729

730

VII. Greek Greek” identity. The thinking that had characterized the Second Sophistic and various Byzantine “renaissances” returned, and the restrained proposals of moderates like the expatriate Adamantios Korais (1748−1833), involving retention of traditional orthography and morphology in surviving categories (but without reintroduction of dead ones) together with enrichment of the lexicon from ancient Greek, were swept aside. The product, with its alien accretions of ancient grammar, came to be known as katharevousa (“puristic language”), and this was soon enshrined as the official language of the state. The associated problems were virtually insuperable. Since katharevousa was a recent creation and nobody’s native language, there was nothing to appeal to in defining it, while interference from spoken Greek was inevitable, leaving the majority, given their limited educational opportunities, feeling unsure and uncomfortable, Above all, katharevousa’s association with the heavy hand of bureaucracy proved fatal to attempts to devise a “literary” style, and by the end of the 19th century creative writers were turning to “living” dimotiki (‘the language of the people’), in which they found the emotional resonance they desired. Interestingly, written dimotiki soon developed its own “puristic” qualities, as writers distanced their usage from that of officialdom by drawing on rural folk song as a source of literary validation and by imposing a regularized “popular” form on words borrowed from the learned tradition. Theoreticians of demoticism in the mid-20th century then cited such sources when they sought to codify good usage, thus institutionalizing the artificiality. In the real world, by contrast, Greeks had to deal at least passively with katharevousa simply by living in an environment where everything but creative literature was written in it, and so had come to accept elements of the official style in their everyday speech. Literary demotic, from which such features had been removed, thus came to be a rather specialized variety, artificially distanced from what was evolving as normal spoken usage. The history of Greek in the 20th century revolves around the resolution of this final phase of diglossia, in which two written varieties were opposed, neither of which reflected spoken norms straightforwardly. Instruction in dimotiki was, however, established in the primary school curriculum, a process involving limited orthographic reform. Unfortunately, the political and military crises of 20th-century Europe impinged heavily on Greece, and use of dimotiki outside this limited domain came increasingly to be associated with support for communism. Both the church and the conservative establishment therefore backed katharevousa consistently, particularly during the later stages of the second world war and its aftermath, when a civil war was fought between communist guerillas, who had provided much of the resistance to German occupation, and the forces of the newly elected government with its western (British and American) supporters. The progress of demoticism was dealt a further blow by the ultra-conservative military dictatorship of 1967−1974, which had seized power in a context of continuing political and economic difficulty and imposed a katharevousa gloss on even the language of primary education. The language question was finally settled with the reestablishment of civilian government and the decision to employ “demotic” as an official medium from the outset. This decision was reinforced by legalization of the communist party and the passing of an education act in 1976 that made “the Demotic language ... codified, without local peculiarities or extremes” the language of instruction at all educational levels. Though sheer relief at the demise of an incompetent and brutal regime clearly supported the process

45. The evolution of Greek of change, the speed and (relative) ease with which reform was accomplished exposed once and for all the essential vacuity of much traditionalist argument. It should be emphasized, however, that contemporary Greek is not the pure “demotic” employed and codified by its earlier advocates. As noted, the prolonged and polarized wrangling about the form of the written language ultimately had little impact on the evolution of spoken Greek, which had come to accept elements from the learned tradition as standard. Some writers acknowledged this reality directly in their work immediately after the fall of the dictatorship, and with the adoption of “demotic” as the official language of the state, the absorption of learned words and phrases (together with the associated grammatical forms) continued as “demotic” came to be employed in fields that were once the domain of katharevousa. Over the last 30 years, therefore, what is now known as Standard Modern Greek (SMG) has developed in both its written and spoken forms as a “mixed” language, with (mainly) demotic and (some) learned elements routinely used side by side. We may note as examples of the latter the use of certain ancient consonant-stem adjectival paradigms (e.g. ευγνώμων /evˈɣnomon/ ‘grateful’, ευτυχής /eftiˈçis/ ‘happy’), and the ancient plural paradigm of i-stem nouns in -ις /-is/ (like πόλις /ˈpolis/ ‘city’), now 1st-declension in the singular (thus nom./acc. πόλη /ˈpoli/, gen. πόλης /ˈpolis/, but with nom./acc. plural πόλεις /ˈpolis/, gen. plural πόλεων /ˈpoleon/). Similar examples can be given from verb morphology: e.g. the use of present middle participles (εργαζόμενες γυναίκες /erɣaˈzomenes jiˈnekes/ ‘working women’, the retention of the internal augment in many compound verbs (εισέπραξα /isˈepraksa/ ‘I levied’), and the frequent use of ancient stem formations (συσσώρευσα /siˈsorefsa/ ‘I accumulated’, in place of “demotic” -εψα /-epsa/) etc. There are also many fixed phrases incorporating ancient syntax and morphology, including genitive absolutes (Θεού θέλοντος /θeˈu ˈθelondos/ ‘God willing’) and ancient prepositions taking the dative (εν αντιθέσει προς /en andiˈθesi pros/ ‘as opposed to’), while many standard forms routinely exhibit non-demotic phonology, as in έκταση /ˈektasi/ ‘extension’ rather than έχταση /ˈextasi/, or ρεύμα /ˈrevma/ ‘current’ rather than ρέμα /ˈrema/, etc. Once institutional support for the diglossia that had originated in antiquity was removed, this state of affairs can be seen as a natural outcome of the complex historical circumstances in which the language evolved. The need for universal literacy in a modern state finally rendered any continuation of the inherently elitist gulf between spoken and written varieties untenable, just as the prolonged existence of a distinct written tradition based on a uniquely early standardization made the demoticists’ ambitions for a written language based on forms of speech unsullied by learned artificiality an impossible dream. Nonetheless, Greeks remain sensitive to language issues, and the role of ancient Greek in the school curriculum, as well as the proper use of material borrowed from the ancient/learned tradition, remain live political and educational issues.

5. References Browning, Robert 1983 [1969] Medieval and modern Greek. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hooker, J. T. 1980 Linear B: an introduction. Bristol: Bristol Classical Press.

731

732

VII. Greek Palmer, Leonard Robert 1980 The Greek Language. London: Faber and Faber. Tonnet, Henri 1993 Histoire du grec moderne. Paris: L’Asiathèque.

Geoffrey Horrocks, Cambridge (United Kingdom)