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