Journal of Language Relationship 16/1-2 9781463240134

Table of contents :
Table Of Contents / Содержание
Contributors / Сведения Об Авторам
Note For Contributors / Будущим Авторам
Issue 1 / Часть 1
Articles / Статьи
Evaluating The Sino-Tibeto-Austronesian Hypothesis
Lexicostatistical Studies in Khoisan I: The Ju-╪Hoan Relationship
Отражение южнолавянского *r в заимствованиях из старорумынского в цыганский
Replies / Ответы
Ответ А. С. Крыловой « Λексикостатистика новоиндоарийских языков взгляд полевого лингвиста »
Issue 2 / Часть 2
Articles / Статьи
Terena (Arawakan) -eúko ‘uncle’ and -ôko ‘aunt’: etymology and a kinship terminology puzzle
Anatolian linguistic influences in Early Greek (1500–800 BC)? Critical observations against sociolinguistic and areal background
К уточнению Фонологической системы языка кавказско - албанских палимпсестов
Some morphological parallels between Hokan languages
Book Reviews / Рецензии
Václav Blažek, Michal Schwarz. Raní Indoevropané v Centrální Asii a Číně: Kulturní vztahy v zrcadle jazyka

Citation preview

ɳɹʓʕʎʃʇ ʒɴɴʘ ʎˁ˫˵ˣ˻˙ ː˫˧ˣˁ༤

ʓˋ˧˘̀ «ʜ˘༤˥༤˥ˆ˘̀. ɳ˥˦˧˥˨˻ ̀˖˻˜˥˅˥ˆ˥ ˧˥ˊ˨˪˅ˁ»

ʒ˥˨˨˘˙˨˜˘˙ ˆ˥˨˫ˊˁ˧˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˻˙ ˆ˫ˢˁˣ˘˪ˁ˧ˣ˻˙ ˫ˣ˘˅ˋ˧˨˘˪ˋ˪ ʃˣ˨˪˘˪˫˪ ̀˖˻˜˥˖ˣˁˣ˘̀ ʒ˥˨˨˘˙˨˜˥˙ ɯ˜ˁˊˋˢ˘˘ ˣˁ˫˜

ɰ˙˚˛˙˜˯ ˴ˊ˯ː˙ʻ˙ʼ˙ ˛˙ʿ˜˞ʻʸ ʍˋːˊ˫ˣˁ˧˥ˊˣ˻˙ ˣˁ˫˵ˣ˻˙ ː˫˧ˣˁ༤

̘ 16, ˵ˁ˨˪˼ 1—2 (2018)

ʍ˥˨˜˅ˁ 2018

Russian State University for the Humanities Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Journal of Language Relationship International Scientific Periodical

Nº 16, issue 1–2 (2018)

Moscow 2018

ʍˀʿʸː˨ˌ˙˗˗˯ˍ ˜˙ʻˀ˞: † ɳ̀˵. ɳ˨. ʃɳɯʎʐɳ (ʍ˥˨˜˅ˁ – ʌ˥˨-ɯˣˊːˋ༤ˋ˨) / ˦˧ˋˊ˨ˋˊˁ˪ˋ༤˼ ʝ. ɯʄʝʎɹʒ (ɳˋˣˁ) ɳ. ɲʌɯɾɹʇ (ɲ˧ˣ˥) ʘ. ɲʨʇʓʕɹʒ (ɯˣˣ ɯ˧˄˥˧) ɳ. ʜ. ɳʦɸʒʃʎ (ʑˁ˧˘ː) ʍ. ɴɹʌʌ-ʍɯʎʎ (ʓˁˣ˪ˁ-ʜˋ) ʜ. ʇʐʒʕʌɯʎɸʕ (ʌˋ˙ˊˋˣ) ɯ. ʌʘɲʐʟʇʃʄ (ʌˋ˙ˊˋˣ) ɸː. ʍʨʌʌʐʒʃ (ɲˋ༤˱ˁ˨˪) ɯ. ʪ. ʍʃʌʃʕɯʒɹɳ (ʍ˥˨˜˅ˁ) ʌ. ʝɯʄʍɯʎ (ɲˋ˧˜༤˘)

ʍˀʿʸː˨ˌ˙˗˗ʸ˴ ː˙˕˕ˀʼˌ˴: ɳ. ɯ. ɸʦɲʐ (ˆ༤ˁ˅ˣ˻˙ ˧ˋˊˁ˜˪˥˧) ɴ. ʓ. ʓʕɯʒʐʓʕʃʎ (˖ˁˢˋ˨˪˘˪ˋ༤˼ ˆ༤ˁ˅ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˧ˋˊˁ˜˪˥˧ˁ) ʕ. ɯ. ʍʃʝɯʄʌʐɳɯ (˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˻˙ ˨ˋ˜˧ˋ˪ˁ˧˼) ɯ. ɳ. ɸʦɲʐ ʓ. ɳ. ʇʘʌʌɯʎɸɯ ʍ. ɯ. ʍʐʌʃʎɯ ʍ. ʎ. ʓɯɹʎʇʐ ʃ. ʓ. ʫʇʘɲʐɳʃʠ

ɾ˫˧ˣˁ༤ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˁˣ ʇ. ɳ. ɲɯɲɯɹɳʦʍ

© ʒ˥˨˨˘˙˨˜˘˙ ˆ˥˨˫ˊˁ˧˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˻˙ ˆ˫ˢˁˣ˘˪ˁ˧ˣ˻˙ ˫ˣ˘˅ˋ˧˨˘˪ˋ˪, 2018

Advisory Board: † Vyach. Vs. IVANOV (Moscow – Los Angeles, California) / Chairman W. BAXTER (Ann Arbor, Michigan) V. BLAŽEK (Brno) H. EICHNER (Vienna) M. GELL-MANN (Santa Fe, New Mexico) L. HYMAN (Berkeley) F. KORTLANDT (Leiden) A. LUBOTSKY (Leiden) J. P. MALLORY (Belfast) A. YU. MILITAREV (Moscow) V. F. VYDRIN (Paris)

Editorial Staff: V. A. DYBO (Editor-in-Chief) G. S. STAROSTIN (Managing Editor) T. A. MIKHAILOVA (Editorial Secretary) A. V. DYBO S. V. KULLANDA M. A. MOLINA M. N. SAENKO I. S. YAKUBOVICH

Founded by Kirill BABAEV

© Russian State University for the Humanities, 2018

ʘɸʇ 800(05) ɲɲʇ 80/84̀5

ɳ˥˦˧˥˨˻ ̀˖˻˜˥˅˥ˆ˥ ˧˥ˊ˨˪˅ˁ: ʍˋːˊ˫ˣˁ˧˥ˊˣ˻˙ ˣˁ˫˵ˣ˻˙ ː˫˧ˣˁ༤ / ʒ˥˨. ˆ˥˨. ˆ˫ˢˁˣ˘˪ˁ˧. ˫ˣ-˪; ʒ˥˨. ˁ˜ˁˊ. ˣˁ˫˜. ʃˣ-˪ ̀˖˻˜˥˖ˣˁˣ˘̀; ˦˥ˊ ˧ˋˊ. ɳ. ɯ. ɸ˻˄˥. Ɇ ʍ., 2018. Ɇ ̘ 1-2(16). Ɇ x + 167 ˨. Ɇ (ɳˋ˨˪ˣ˘˜ ʒɴɴʘ. ʓˋ˧˘̀ «ʜ˘༤˥༤˥ˆ˘̀. ɳ˥˦˧˥˨˻ ̀˖˻˜˥˅˥ˆ˥ ˧˥ˊ˨˪˅ˁ»: ʎˁ˫˵ˣ˻˙ ː˫˧ˣˁ༤).

Journal of Language Relationship: International Scientific Periodical / Russian State University for the Humanities; Russian Academy of Sciences. Institute of Linguistics; Ed. by V. A. Dybo. Ɇ Moscow, 2017. Ɇ No. 1-2(16). Ɇ x + 167 p. Ɇ (RSUH/RGGU Bulletin. Series: Philology. Journal of Language Relationship: Academic Journal).

ISSN 2073-6320

http://www.jolr.ru/ [email protected]

ɸ˥˦˥༤ˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻ˋ ˖ˣˁ˜˘: ʓ. ɴ. ɲ˥༤˥˪˥˅ Add-on symbols by S. G. Bolotov

ʑ˥ˊ˦˘˨ˁˣ˥ ˅ ˦ˋ˵ˁ˪˼ 10.06.2018. ʜ˥˧ˢˁ˪ 60×90/8. ɲ˫ˢ. ˥˱˨ˋ˪ˣˁ̀. ʑˋ˵ˁ˪˼ ˥˱˨ˋ˪ˣˁ̀. ʕ˘˧ˁː 1050 ˽˜˖. ʁˁ˜ˁ˖ ̘ɏ38 ʃ˖ˊˁ˪ˋ༤˼˨˜˘˙ ˴ˋˣ˪˧ ʒ˥˨˨˘˙˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˆ˥˨˫ˊˁ˧˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˆ˫ˢˁˣ˘˪ˁ˧ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˫ˣ˘˅ˋ˧˨˘˪ˋ˪ˁ 125993, ʍ˥˨˜˅ˁ, ʍ˘˫˨˨˜ˁ̀ ˦༤., 6 www.rggu.ru www.knigirggu.ru

Table of Contents / ʎ˙ʿˀ˛˄ʸ˗ˌˀ

Table of Contents / ʓ˥ˊˋ˧ːˁˣ˘ˋ

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Contributors / ʓ˅ˋˊˋˣ˘̀ ˥˄ ˁ˅˪˥˧ˁ˲

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Note for Contributors / ɲ˫ˊ˫˹˘ˢ ˁ˅˪˥˧ˁˢ

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

vii ix . x

Issue 1 / ʛʸ˜˞˰ 1 Articles / ʎ˞ʸ˞˰ˌ Giorgio Orlandi. Evaluating the Sino-Tibeto-Austronesian Hypothesis .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

[ɴ˄. ʋ˛˕ʸ˗ʿˌ. ʇ ˥˴ˋˣ˜ˋ ˨˘ˣ˥-˪˘˄ˋ˪˥-ˁ˅˨˪˧˥ˣˋ˖˘˙˨˜˥˙ ˆ˘˦˥˪ˋ˖˻]

George Starostin. Lexicostatistical Studies in Khoisan I: The Ju-ખHoan Relationship

. . . . . . . .

19

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

62

[ɱ. ʎ. ʎ˞ʸ˛˙˜˞ˌ˗. ʌˋ˜˨˘˜˥˨˪ˁ˪˘˨˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˋ ˘˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁˣ˘̀ ˦˥ ˜˥˙˨ˁˣ˨˜˘ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˁˢ I: ˧˥ˊ˨˪˅˥ ˢˋːˊ˫ ̀˖˻˜ˁˢ˘ ː˫ ˘ ‫˥˲ۆ‬ˁˣ]

ʈ. ɰ. ʋ˜˕˙˗. ʐ˪˧ˁːˋˣ˘ˋ ˿ːˣ˥˨༤ˁ˅̀ˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ *r ˅ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘̀˲ ˘˖ ˨˪ˁ˧˥˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˅ ˴˻ˆˁˣ˨˜˘˙. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[Mikhail Oslon. The reflexes of South Slavic *r in borrowings from Old Romanian into Romani]

Replies / ʋ˞ʻˀ˞˯ ɭ. ɾ. ʂ˙ʼʸ˗. ʐ˪˅ˋ˪ ɯ. ʓ. ʇ˧˻༤˥˅˥˙ «ʌˋ˜˨˘˜˥˨˪ˁ˪˘˨˪˘˜ˁ ˣ˥˅˥˘ˣˊ˥ˁ˧˘˙˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅: ˅˖ˆ༤̀ˊ ˦˥༤ˋ˅˥ˆ˥ ༤˘ˣˆ˅˘˨˪ˁ» . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . .

73

[Anton Kogan. Reply to the paper by A. S. Krylova “Lexicostatistics and the New Indo-Aryan languages: a field linguist's perspective”]

Issue 2 / ʛʸ˜˞˰ 2 Articles / ʎ˞ʸ˞˰ˌ Fernando O. de Carvalho. Terena (Arawakan) -eúko ‘uncle’ and -ôko ‘aunt’: etymology and a kinship terminology puzzle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

79

[Ɏɟɪɧɚɧɞɭ ɞɟ Ʉɚɪɜɚɥɶɸ. Ɇɨɪɮɟɦɵ -eúko ‫ލ‬ɞɹɞɹ‫ ތ‬ɢ -ôko ๑˪ˋ˪̀๏ ˅ ̀˖˻˜ˋ ˪ˋ˧ˋˣˁ (ˁ˧ˁ˅ˁ˜˨˜ˁ̀ ˨ˋˢ˼̀): ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜ˁ̀ ˧ˁ˖ˆˁˊ˜ˁ ˥ˊˣ˥˙ ˁˣ˥ˢˁ༤˘˘ ˅ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢˋ ˪ˋ˧ˢ˘ˣ˥˅ ˧˥ˊ˨˪˅ˁ]

Rostislav Oreshko. Anatolian linguistic influences in Early Greek (1500–800 BC)? Critical observations against sociolinguistic and areal background . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

93

[ʍ. ʉ. ʋ˛ˀˬː˙. ʇ ˅˥˦˧˥˨˫ ˥˄ ˁˣˁ˪˥༤˘˙˨˜˥ˢ ˅༤˘̀ˣ˘˘ ˣˁ ˧ˁˣˣˋˆ˧ˋ˵ˋ˨˜˘˙ ̀˖˻˜ (1500–800 ˆˆ. ˊ˥ ˣ.˽.): ˜˧˘˪˘˜ˁ ˨˥ ˨˪˥˧˥ˣ˻ ˨˥˴˘˥༤˘ˣˆ˅˘˨˪˘˜˘ ˘ ˁ˧ˋˁ༤˼ˣ˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜˥˖ˣˁˣ˘̀]

ʍ. ʇ˙˕˟ʸ. ʇ ˫˪˥˵ˣˋˣ˘˿ ˱˥ˣ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢ˻ ̀˖˻˜ˁ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˘˲ ˦ˁ༤˘ˢ˦˨ˋ˨˪˥˅ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [Roman Lolua. Towards specifying the phonological system of the language of the Caucasian Albanian palimpsests ]

. . . . . . .

119

Table of Contents / ʓ˥ˊˋ˧ːˁˣ˘ˋ

M. Zhivlov. Some morphological parallels between Hokan languages .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

138

[ʈ. ɭ. ɹˌʻ˕˙ʻ. ʐ ˣˋ˜˥˪˥˧˻˲ ˢ˥˧˱˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˦ˁ˧ˁ༤༤ˋ༤̀˲ ˢˋːˊ˫ ̀˖˻˜ˁˢ˘ ˲˥˜ˁ]

Book Reviews / ʍˀ˨ˀ˗ˊˌˌ VÁCLAV BLAŽEK, MICHAL SCHWARZ. Raní Indoevropané v Centrální Asii a Āínŕ: Kulturní vztahy v zrcadle jazyka. Praha: Nakladatelství Lidové noviny, 2017. 305 s. (ʎ. ɭ. ɯ˟˛˕ʸː) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. .

162

Contributors Svetlana Burlak — doctor of sciences (Philology), leading researcher, Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Moscow), [email protected] Fernando O. de Carvalho — adjunct professor, Federal University of Amapá, Amapá State, Brazil, [email protected] Anton Kogan — candidate of sciences (Philology), researcher, Department of Asian and African languages, Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Moscow), [email protected] Roman Lolua — Ph.D, research fellow, Arnold Chikobava Institute of Linguistics; visiting professor, Institute of Caucasiology of the Faculty of Humanities at Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, [email protected] Rostislav Oreshko — Ph.D, research assistant, Department of Ancient Near Eastern Studies, University of Warsaw, [email protected] Giorgio Orlandi — postgraduate student, Department of Humanities, Xiamen University, [email protected]

Mikhail Oslon — candidate of sciences (Philology), researcher, Institute of Linguistics, Russian Academy of Sciences (Moscow), [email protected] George Starostin — candidate of sciences (Philology), head of Department of the history and philology of the Far East, Institute for Oriental and Classical Studies, Russian State University for the Humanities (Moscow); senior researcher, Institute for Oriental and Classical Studies, Higher School of Economics (Moscow); external professor, Santa Fe Institute (New Mexico), [email protected] Mikhail Zhivlov — candidate of sciences (Philology), senior lecturer, Institute for Oriental and Classical Studies, Russian State University for the Humanities; researcher, School for Advanced Studies in the Humanities, RANEPA (Moscow), [email protected]

ʎʻˀʿˀ˗ˌ˴ ˙ʺ ʸʻ˞˙˛ʸ˦ ɯ˟˛˕ʸː, ʎʻˀ˞˕ʸ˗ʸ ɭ˗ʸ˞˙˕˰ˀʻ˗ʸ – ˊ˥˜˪˥˧ ˱˘༤˥༤. ˣˁ˫˜, ˦˧˥˱ˋ˨˨˥˧ ʒɯʎ, ˅ˋˊ˫˹˘˙ ˣˁ˫˵. ˨˥˪˧˫ˊˣ˘˜ ʃˣ˨˪˘˪˫˪ˁ ˅˥˨˪˥˜˥˅ˋˊˋˣ˘̀ ʒɯʎ (ʍ˥˨˜˅ˁ), [email protected] ɹˌʻ˕˙ʻ, ʈˌ˦ʸˌ˕ ɭ˕ˀː˜ʸ˗ʿ˛˙ʻˌ˩ — ˜ˁˣˊ. ˱˘༤˥༤. ˣˁ˫˜, ˨˪. ˦˧ˋ˦. ʟˋˣ˪˧ˁ ˜˥ˢ˦ˁ˧ˁ˪˘˅˘˨˪˘˜˘ ʃɳʇɯ ʒɴɴʘ, ˣˁ˫˵. ˨˥˪˧˫ˊˣ˘˜ ʣɯɴʃ ʒɯʎʝ˘ɴʓ (ʍ˥˨˜˅ˁ), [email protected] ʂʸ˛ʻʸ˕˰˳, ʗˀ˛˗ʸ˗ʿ˙ ʿˀ — ˁˊ˺˿ˣ˜˪-˦˧˥˱ˋ˨˨˥˧ ʜˋˊˋ˧ˁ༤˼ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˫ˣ˘˅ˋ˧˨˘˪ˋ˪ˁ ɯˢˁ˦˻ (ɲ˧ˁ˖˘༤˘̀), [email protected] ʂ˙ʼʸ˗, ɭ˗˞˙˗ ɾ˕˰ˌ˩ — ˜ˁˣˊ. ˱˘༤˥༤. ˣˁ˫˜, ˣˁ˫˵. ˨˥˪˧˫ˊˣ˘˜ ʐ˪ˊˋ༤ˁ ̀˖˻˜˥˅ ɯ˖˘˘ ˘ ɯ˱˧˘˜˘ ʃˣ˨˪˘˪˫˪ˁ ˅˥˨˪˥˜˥˅ˋˊˋˣ˘̀ ʒɯʎ (ʍ˥˨˜˅ˁ), [email protected] ʇ˙˕˟ʸ, ʍ˙˖ʸ˗ — Ph.D, ˣˁ˫˵ˣ˻˙ ˨˥˪˧˫ˊˣ˘˜ ʃˣ˨˪˘˪˫˪ˁ ̀˖˻˜˥˖ˣˁˣ˘̀ ˘ˢ. ɯ˧ˣ˥༤˼ˊˁ ʠ˘˜˥˄ˁ˅˻; ˦˧˥˱ˋ˨˨˥˧ ʃˣ˨˪˘˪˫˪ˁ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˥༤˥ˆ˘˘ ˆ˫ˢˁˣ˘˪ˁ˧ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˱ˁ˜˫༤˼˪ˋ˪ˁ ʕ˄˘༤˘˨˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˫ˣ˘˅ˋ˧˨˘˪ˋ˪ˁ, [email protected]

ʋ˛ˀˬː˙, ʍ˙˜˞ˌ˜˕ʸʻ ʉˌː˙˕ʸˀʻˌ˩ — Ph.D, ˣˁ˫˵ˣ˻˙ ˁ˨˨˘˨˪ˋˣ˪ ˥˪ˊˋ༤ˁ ɸ˧ˋ˅ˣˋˆ˥ ɲ༤˘ːˣˋˆ˥ ɳ˥˨˪˥˜ˁ ɳˁ˧˸ˁ˅˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˫ˣ˘˅ˋ˧˨˘˪ˋ˪ˁ, [email protected] ʋ˛˕ʸ˗ʿˌ, ɴ˄˙˛ʿ˄ˌ˙ — ˁ˨˦˘˧ˁˣ˪ ˆ˫ˢˁˣ˘˪ˁ˧ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˥˪ˊˋ༤ˋˣ˘̀ ʓ̀ˢ˽ˣ˼˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˫ˣ˘˅ˋ˧˨˘˪ˋ˪ˁ, [email protected] ʋ˜˕˙˗, ʈˌ˦ʸˌ˕ ɰ˕ʸʿˌ˖ˌ˛˙ʻˌ˩ — ˜ˁˣˊ. ˱˘༤˥༤. ˣˁ˫˜, ˣˁ˫˵. ˨˥˪˧˫ˊˣ˘˜ ʃˣ˨˪˘˪˫˪ˁ ̀˖˻˜˥˖ˣˁˣ˘̀ ʒɯʎ (ʍ˥˨˜˅ˁ), [email protected] ʎ˞ʸ˛˙˜˞ˌ˗, ɱˀ˙˛ʼˌˍ ʎˀ˛ʼˀˀʻˌ˩ — ˜ˁˣˊ. ˱˘༤˥༤. ˣˁ˫˜, ˖ˁ˅. ˜ˁ˱ˋˊ˧˥˙ ˘˨˪˥˧˘˘ ˘ ˱˘༤˥༤˥ˆ˘˘ ɸˁ༤˼ˣˋˆ˥ ɳ˥˨˪˥˜ˁ ʃɳʇɯ ʒɴɴʘ, ˨˪ˁ˧˸˘˙ ˣˁ˫˵ˣ˻˙ ˨˥˪˧˫ˊˣ˘˜ ʃʇɳ˘ɯ ɳʣʨ (ʍ˥˨˜˅ˁ), ˅ˣˋ˸˪ˁ˪ˣ˻˙ ˦˧˥˱ˋ˨˨˥˧ ʃˣ˨˪˘˪˫˪ˁ ʓˁˣ˪ˁ-ʜˋ (ʓʣɯ, ʎ˼˿ʍˋ˜˨˘˜˥), [email protected]

Note for Contributors Journal of Language Relationship welcomes submissions from everyone specializing in comparative-historical linguistics and related disciplines, in the form of original articles as well as reviews of recent publications. All such submissions should be sent to the managing editor: G. Starostin Institute for Oriental and Classical Studies Russian State University for the Humanities 125267 Moscow, Russia Miusskaya Square, 6 E-mail: [email protected] Articles are published preferably in English or Russian, although publication of texts in other major European languages (French, German, etc.) is possible. Each article should be accompanied with an abstract (not exceeding 300 words) and keywords. For more detailed guidelines on article submission and editorial policies, please see our website at: http://www.jolr.ru or address the editorial staff directly at [email protected].

ɯ˟ʿ˟˭ˌ˖ ʸʻ˞˙˛ʸ˖ ɾ˫˧ˣˁ༤ ɰ˙˚˛˙˜˯ ˴ˊ˯ː˙ʻ˙ʼ˙ ˛˙ʿ˜˞ʻʸ ˦˧˘ˣ˘ˢˁˋ˪ ˖ˁ̀˅˜˘ ˣˁ ˦˫˄༤˘˜ˁ˴˘˿ ˥˧˘ˆ˘ˣˁ༤˼ˣ˻˲ ˣˁ˫˵ˣ˻˲ ˨˪ˁ˪ˋ˙, ˁ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˧ˋ˴ˋˣ˖˘˙ ˥˪ ˅˨ˋ˲, ˜˪˥ ˨˦ˋ˴˘ˁ༤˘˖˘˧˫ˋ˪˨̀ ˅ ˥˄༤ˁ˨˪˘ ˨˧ˁ˅ˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥-˘˨˪˥˧˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜˥˖ˣˁˣ˘̀ ˘ ˨ˢˋːˣ˻˲ ˊ˘˨˴˘˦༤˘ˣ. ʒ˫˜˥˦˘˨˘ ˢ˥ːˣ˥ ˅˻˨˻༤ˁ˪˼ ˣˋ˦˥˨˧ˋˊ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥ ˖ˁˢˋ˨˪˘˪ˋ༤˿ ˆ༤ˁ˅ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˧ˋˊˁ˜˪˥˧ˁ ˦˥ ˁˊ˧ˋ˨˫: 125267 ʍ˥˨˜˅ˁ ʍ˘˫˨˨˜ˁ̀ ˦༤˥˹ˁˊ˼, ˊ. 6 ʒ˥˨˨˘˙˨˜˘˙ ˆ˥˨˫ˊˁ˧˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˻˙ ˆ˫ˢˁˣ˘˪ˁ˧ˣ˻˙ ˫ˣ˘˅ˋ˧˨˘˪ˋ˪ ʃˣ˨˪˘˪˫˪ ˅˥˨˪˥˵ˣ˻˲ ˜˫༤˼˪˫˧ ˘ ˁˣ˪˘˵ˣ˥˨˪˘ ɴ. ʓ˪ˁ˧˥˨˪˘ˣ˫ E-mail: [email protected] ʑ˧ˋˊ˦˥˵˪˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻ˋ ̀˖˻˜˘ ˦˫˄༤˘˜ˁ˴˘˘ — ˁˣˆ༤˘˙˨˜˘˙ ˘༤˘ ˧˫˨˨˜˘˙, ˲˥˪̀ ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣˁ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˦˫˄༤˘˜ˁ˴˘̀ ˨˪ˁ˪ˋ˙ ˣˁ ˊ˧˫ˆ˘˲ ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲ (˱˧ˁˣ˴˫˖˨˜˘˙, ˣˋˢˋ˴˜˘˙ ˘ ˪. ˦.). ʇ ˜ˁːˊ˥˙ ˨˪ˁ˪˼ˋ ˥˄̀˖ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ ˦˧˘˜༤ˁˊ˻˅ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˧ˋ˖˿ˢˋ (ˣˋ ˄˥༤ˋˋ 300 ˨༤˥˅) ˘ ˨˦˘˨˥˜ ˜༤˿˵ˋ˅˻˲ ˨༤˥˅. ʑ˥ˊ˧˥˄ˣˋˋ ˥ ˪˧ˋ˄˥˅ˁˣ˘̀˲ ˜ ˥˱˥˧ˢ༤ˋˣ˘˿ ˧˫˜˥˦˘˨˘, ˧ˋˊˁ˜˴˘˥ˣˣ˥˙ ˦˥༤˘˪˘˜ˋ ː˫˧ˣˁ༤ˁ ˘ ˪. ˦. ˅˻ ˢ˥ːˋ˪ˋ ˫˖ˣˁ˪˼ ˣˁ ˣˁ˸ˋˢ ˨ˁ˙˪ˋ ˦˥ ˁˊ˧ˋ˨˫: http://www.jolr.ru ˘༤˘ ːˋ ˣˋ˦˥˨˧ˋˊ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥, ˥˄˧ˁ˪˘˅˸˘˨˼ ˜ ˧ˋˊˁ˜˴˘˘ ˦˥ ˽༤ˋ˜˪˧˥ˣˣ˥˙ ˦˥˵˪ˋ ([email protected]).

x

Giorgio Orlandi Xiamen University, Department of Humanities; [email protected]

Evaluating the Sino-Tibeto-Austronesian Hypothesis This paper analyses and evaluates the alleged genetic relationship between Sino-Tibetan and Austronesian, proposed by the French sinologist Laurent Sagart. The aim of the following paper is neither to prove, nor to disprove the Sino-Tibeto-Austronesian superphylum but to argue whether the data presented in favour of this proposed genetic relationship do or do not stand the scrutiny of a historical linguist. This paper also considers the hypothetical homeland of Proto-Sino-Tibeto-Austronesian people, with an eye towards competing hypotheses, such as Sino-Indo-European. It is concluded that Sagart’s approach may be insufficient for proof of controversial cases of disputed genetic relationship, given the non-obvious relatedness of the languages he is comparing. Keywords: Sino-Tibeto-Austronesian hypothesis; Sino-Tibetan languages; genetic relationship of languages; comparative method.

“Der erste mir bekannte Sprachvergleicher im heutigen Sinne des Wortes ist der gelehrte Holländer Hadr. Relandus, der in seinem Dissertationes miscellaneae, Utrecht 1706–08, die weite Verbreitung des malaischen Sprachstammes, sogar Lautvertretunsgesetze zwischen Malaisch und Madegassisch nachweist” [Georg von der Gabelentz, Die Sprachwissenschaft: ihre Aufgaben, Methoden, und bisherigen Ergebnisse, 1891, p. 26].

Historical overview Since the beginning of Western scholarly interest in both Sino-Tibetan and Austronesian, a panoply of claims concerning a wider genetic relationship of these language families has been proposed until our days. Among these various proposals, ranging from quasi-scholarly publications to more serious works, we may remember (1) the Austric hypothesis, first proposed by Schmidt (1906) and then re-proposed by Reid (1994); (2) the “Indo-Chinese” hypothesis of Conrady (1896, 1916); (3) the Sino-Caucasian hypothesis of Starostin (1984, 1989, 1991, 2005); (4) the Sino-Indo-European argued for by Ulenbrook (1967) and Pulleyblank (1995ab, 1996), and somewhat reinforced by Beckwith (2002); (5) the Sapirian Sino-Dene hypothesis (1915), further strengthened by Shafer (1952); (6) the Hokan-Austronesian hypothesis of Rivet (1925, 1926); (7) the Japanese-Austronesian hypothesis of Kawamoto (1977, 1978, 1980, 1984, 1993); (8) the Quechua-Austronesian hypothesis of Kempler-Cohen (2012); (9) the Sino-Austronesian hypothesis (Sagart 1993); (10) the Sino-Tibeto-Austronesian hypothesis (Sagart 2004, 2005, 2008, 2013, 2016). To be fair, it must be remembered that the Malayo-Polynesian languages, a subgroup of the Austronesian family, were originally drawn near the Indo-European family after the great German philosopher and linguist Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767–1835) noted that nearly half of the vocabulary of Kawi, the poetic language of the Old Javanese texts, derives from Sanskrit (1836–1839). 1 Nevertheless, Humboldt did not explicitly claim that Ma1

Campbell and Poser (2008: 61) applauded Humboldt’s emphasis on grammatical structure. In their book they conclude that Humboldt determined Kawi as “Malayan” (Austronesian), in spite of the vocabulary of SanJournal of Language Relationship • ɳ˥˦˧˥˨˻ ̀˖˻˜˥˅˥ˆ˥ ˧˥ˊ˨˪˅ˁ • 16/1 (2018) • Pp. 1–18 • © The authors, 2018

Giorgio Orlandi

layo-Polynesian was a branch of Indo-European. Rather, this erroneous genetic relationship was argued for by Franz Bopp (1791–1867), who concluded that “[d]afs aber der Zufall bei allen diesen Wörtern sein Spiel getrieben habe, und bei allen anderen, die wir noch aus diesem Sprachgebiete dem Sanskrit gegenüberstellen können, ist unglaublich, zumal da bei einigen Wortklassen, nämlich bei den Pronominen und Zahlwörtern, worauf gerade bei Verwandtschaftsbestimmungen der Sprachen sehr viel ankommt, die Übereinstimmung fast durchgreifend erscheint” (1841: 7). Bopp’s view of the linguistic facts was utterly rejected by von der Gabelentz (1891: 164), who wrote: Es ist schrecklich verfürerisch in der Sprachenwelt umherzuschwärmen, drauf los Vocabeln zu vergleichen und dann die Wissenschaft mit einer Reihe neu entdeckter Verwandschaften zu beglücken. Es kommen auch schrecklich viele Dummheiten dabei heraus; denn allerwaertssind unmethodische Köpfe die vordringlichsten Entdecker.

It is extremely important to bear this chronology of facts in mind in our analysis of the Sino-Tibeto-Austronesian (STAN henceforth) hypothesis, because it illustrates one of the many illicit modifications of the standard comparative method. In other words, it tells us how the comparative method does not and therefore should not work. We owe the attempt to prove that Chinese and Austronesian are genetically related to Sagart (1990). In its earliest version, the theory linked only Sinitic, not Tibeto-Burman, and it seems that this early proposal was greeted by harsh critiques from South-East Asian specialists. Sagart has since modified his views, and now considers Chinese related to both Tibeto-Burman and Austronesian. This later proposal was, nonetheless, greeted by yet another round of criticism both from Austronesianists (Blust 1995, Li 1995) and Sinologists (Wang 1995, Pulleyblank 1996). 2 Leaving aside for a while the fact that any reader with at least half open mind would have to accept that something far more serious is afoot in the STAN than merely a few chance resemblances, the problem for some critics of the STAN (e.g. Pulleyblank 1996) is that their proposed explanation of the facts seems as implausible as their criticised linguistic scenario, perhaps even more so. 3 In the following paragraphs, theories concerning the existence of the STAN superphylum and other relative problems — from basic lexicon to the question regarding the Urheimat — will be independently discussed and evaluated.

Methodological considerations If it is a truism in historical linguistics that shared paradigmatic morphology, intended as the combination of morphological markers in a string, is the most stable system and, thus, has the skrit origin it contains. However, this is not exactly the opinion of Blust, who writes: “He noted the obvious fact that much of the vocabulary has been borrowed from Sanskrit, but suspected that under this layer of relatively recent borrowing was a deeper layer indicative of genetic relationship” (2013: 659). What emerges directly from Humboldt’s work, however, is closer to Campbell & Poser’s depicted picture. Humboldt recognised the borrowings and, unlike Bopp, did not fall prey of lexical similarities. Rather, he utilised, as proof of kinship, both grammatical structures and sound correspondences (Humboldt 1836–9: 208-210, 217, 219-220, 221). 2 STAN is partially accepted by Wolf (2010), who holds the view that Austronesian and Sino-Tibetan are two branches of the same “gigantophylum.” 3 On a personal note it should be premised that this author’s opinion toward the so-called “long-range comparisons” is unbiased. The two most promising superphyla which exist today, according to this writer’s opinion, are Indo-Uralic (Kortlandt 2010) and Yeniseic-Na-Dene, whose affiliation is prevalently built on paradigmatic morphology. 2

Evaluating the Sino-Tibeto-Austronesian Hypothesis

the strongest probatory force, then it is also true that any proposal of genetic relationship, no matter whether short-ranged or long-ranged, starts with the identifications of cognate forms in basic lexicon. 4 Starting from 1990, Sagart has been busy in providing Sino-Austronesian cognates, and in modifying or incrementing his earlier proposals. In one of his latest proposals (Sagart 2005), for example, Sagart has eliminated some of the false cognates which appeared in his early works, such as pú 僗, erroneously glossed as “breast.” 5 It is laudable that Sagart is not afraid of revising his positions when new information forces him to rethink a problem. Nevertheless, his newer sixty-one basic vocabulary comparisons between AN and Old Chinese 6 (OC henceforth) still remain problematic. First of all, it would be more accurate to compare Proto-Austronesian (PAN hereafter) forms with Proto-Sino-Tibetan (PST), because the addition of Tibeto-Burmese cognates can strengthen any lexical match between PAN and OC; conversely, if such cognates cannot be found, one would be more prone to interpret these lexical matches as a result of areal contacts between OC and PAN. 7 4

By “basic lexicon” is not necessarily meant, in this paper, the 100-word list proposed by Morrison Swadesh (1971). It must be remembered that this definition is not an absolute, and that in these years several scholars from the Moscow School have worked within this “paradigm,” trying to separate the “more stable” part from its “less stable” counterpart. For further knowledge, the interested reader should consult Dolgopolsky (1964) and Starostin (1984, 1991). See also the Leizpig-Jakarta list (2009). 5 The Jíyùn clearly indicates that the meaning of this character, a somewhat dialectal form, should be “chicken breast.” It follows that it does not match semantically the alleged Austronesian (AN hereafter) form riba. 6 The very notion of “Old Chinese” is somewhat misleading. By Old Chinese is generally meant the language from the Early Zhŷu (1046–771 BC) to the Western Hàn (206 BC–9 AD) period. Nevertheless terms such as “Old Chinese,” “Middle Chinese,” “Modern Chinese,” etc. leave the reader with the impression of a linguistic unity in space and time throughout present-day Chinese territory, reinforced by certain lingering adumbrations of the somewhat involved and generally rather special political unity that has allegedly existed from then to now. In fact, the old “Chinese” language spoken by the Zhŷu—not the earliest form of “Old Chinese”—was surely and undoubtedly different not only from the medieval language known as “Middle Chinese” but even from the so-called “Late Old Chinese” of the Hàn times. It is well-known that Hàn people, intended as the people of the Hàn dynasty—including its founder Liú BŌng—were descendant of Ch਻ (1030 BCE–223), therefore it is not merely possible but very probable that Ch਻-Hàn Chinese (i.e. Late Old Chinese) was not only different from Zhŷu Chinese (i.e. Early Old Chinese) but actually closer to Ch਻ Chinese (i.e. the old language of the Elegies of Ch৕). Ch਻ people were probably Hmong-Mien speakers, although the ruling class was undoubtedly Chinese-speaking. Middle Chinese is phonologically, typologically and lexically different from the Tibeto-Burman-looking Zhŷu Chinese, let alone ShŌng Chinese, and does not necessarily derive directly from the Old Chinese of the earliest classics (perhaps it comes from Ch਻-Hàn Chinese?). In this author’s opinion, the situation is, more or less, identical to the situation of India or of Italy and Greece. The Romans in Latium were undeniably speaking Latin after the Latino-Faliscan conquest of the Italian Peninsula. Today the people of Rome are speaking, nonetheless, a language which we now call ‘Italian.’ We have opted to use this term because vulgar Latin has evolved into a number of different “languages,” and not only into Italian, but this is a scholarly convenience. This is probably what happened in China. This view was somewhat presaged by Professor Branner, who writes that “early Chinese, the language of the classical texts, is perhaps truly a form of Tibeto-Burman; but medieval and modern Chinese belong to their own, distinct language family” (Branner 2000: 164). While this writer does not claim that Old Chinese and Middle Chinese are not related (they are and this fact is undeniable), we may agree on the fact that “the transition between early and medieval Chinese involved linguistic changes so fundamental that, for purposes of formal classification, we should consider the two types to have been different languages” (Ibid.). 7 Elsewhere, Sagart (2011c) cites few PST reconstructions, but they are too few and not easily verifiable. It is not clear why Proto-Tibeto-Burmese (PTB) *raƖ < PST *gRaƖ ‘chest,’ if not merely to account for PAN *baRaƖ. Similarly, why PTB *kraƖ < PST *t-gRaƖ? 3

Giorgio Orlandi

In addition, we must say that PAN was probably spoken during the sixth or fifth millennium BCE, while OC (which this author strongly suggests to rename as Zhŷu Chinese) was spoken, more or less, in the second millennium BCE. This leaves a gap of three or two millennia after the purported split of Sinitic from its ancestor proto-language. Needless to say, many things may have happened in the meantime. Even assuming that the two language families are genetically related, one might expect the effects of coincidence, lookalikes and Wanderwörter to distort the evidence and create false positives. What if PAN and PST true commonalities had mutated separately beyond the point of being recognised as more akin to each other? Of course we cannot dismiss the entire STAN hypothesis with the argumentum ex silentio, but this is a serious problem which needs to be taken into consideration. Furthermore, setting aside the fact that some Austronesianists (Li 1995, Blust 1995) have pointed out that PAN reconstructions do not belong to more general accepted reconstructed forms, another serious problem in this 61-word list is represented by the complete absence of numerals, pronouns, and basic kin terms. 8 It is true that personal pronouns may have few marked sounds (and thus phonetic resemblance may just be fortuitous), but to make a point in favour of a genetic relationship without so much as including body parts, basic numerals and pronouns, in the absence of paradigmatic morphology, is something the present writer has not seen in serious linguistic works in many years of experience. 9 Sagart’s work is much more serious than a mere amateurish venture, therefore he should widen his circle of evidence and include more stable basic vocabulary. There is another point which is likely to raise some eyebrows among the most conservative historical linguists. Sagart consistently compares OC monosyllables or sesquisyllables to the second part of AN disyllables (more rarely trisyllables). It is true that reconstructions fairly frequently involve tailoring or theoretical abstractions, but the manipulation of real language data is not methodologically admissible in comparative linguistics: [T]he criteria which have usually been considered necessary for a good etymology are very strict, even though there may seem to be a high a priori probability of relationship when similar words in languages known to be related are compared. In the case of lexical comparisons it is necessary to account for the whole word in the descendant languages, not just an arbitrarily segmented ‘root,’ and the reconstructed ancestral form must be a complete word (emphasis added). […] it is obvious that much stricter criteria must be applied to word-comparison between language whose relationship is in question. (Goddard 1975: 254–5, also quoted in Campbell 2003).

In Sagart (2005), instead, we still find comparisons between PAN *-qem and OC *b೪ïm (cloud, cloudy), or between PAN *-taq and OC *atha೪ (earth), PAN *-zem and OC *btshim೪ (sleep), etc. Leaving aside the fact that this method has been proven inadequate in comparative linguistics, some etymologies need to be adjusted. As the present writer’s expertise does not lie in Austronesian linguistics, this paper is not in a position to evaluate, let alone falsify Sagart’s hypotheses concerning PAN or AN forms. Hence, this paper will refrain from offering judgements about Austronesian. 8

Sagart cites very few body parts, most of which are strange and problematic (i.e. there are terms such as ‘palm’ but we do not find ‘hand,’ there are ‘brain’ and ‘head’ but no ‘heart’ and ‘belly.’ We find ‘woman breast’ but no ‘chest’ in general.). First, the character fú ᢇ does not mean ‘palm’ but ‘assist.’ In the Shuŵwén it is glossed as zu৔ ᕥ, with zu৔ ᕥ being a graphic variant of zu৔ బ ‘assist.’ Second, in *punuq ‘brain’ we find an unaccounted for syllable *pu-, while in *quluH ‘head’ *qu- is unmatched. *Kakay ‘foot’ finds “correspondence” only with Burmese, not with Chinese. 9 It is well known since the times of Johannes de Laet (1581–1649) that basic vocabulary consists of numbers one to ten, kinship terms, body parts and natural terms. 4

Evaluating the Sino-Tibeto-Austronesian Hypothesis

A look to etymologies and lexical comparisons In historical linguistics, the very notion of ‘basic vocabulary’ has played a major role as one source of evidence for genetic relationship. Of course, lexical similarities are not enough, and the testimony of morphological processes and sound correspondences is also required. Etymology, intended as the “historical search for earlier stages in languages and the origin of words” (Campbell, Poser 2008: 15), is also an important tool to establish linguistic relationship. During his academic career, Sagart (especially 1999) has provided many valid etymologies for OC. Nevertheless, in his lexical comparison between OC and PAN (2005), we find some farfetched etymologies which cannot throw light on sound correspondences. A few examples are given below: (1) yŢn 昘: First of all, yŢn 昘 does not mean ‘cloud,’ like in modern compounds, e.g., yŢn tiŊn ‘cloudy day,’ but ‘dark.’ The Shuŵwén glosses it as àn 敯, a graphic variant of the homophonous character àn 㘿 ‘dark.’ According to the Shìmíng, a Chinese dictionary compiled during Eastern Hàn times (25–220 AD) which employed phonological glosses, yŢn 昘 has the same meaning of yŢn 哕 ‘shade.’ The normal and neutral OC equivalent for ‘cloud’ is yún ḹ, and a comparison with it would make far better sense, because yŢn 昘 appears to be, instead, a descriptive predicate referring to shade. (2) dàn 準: Sagart (2005:164) compares PAN *-lem with OC *alïm೪ ‘dark.’ The first problem which this author finds in this comparison lies in the semantic domain. The Chinese character dàn 準 ‘dark’ is glossed as sŊngshèn zhŢ hŖi 㟹吂ᷳ湹 ‘mulberry black.’ Another explanation is offered by the Gu৒ngyùn, where we find that the character means ‘dark cloud’ (yún hŖi 暚湹). The second problem is that this rather rare character, which to the best of this author’s knowledge appeared for the first time in the spurious part of ZhuŊngz৓ (3rd century BC), is hardly considerable a “basic lexeme.” The third problem is that we are presented with an unaccounted-for segment (if we exclude that another part of the PAN word has not been compared), i.e. OC *-೪ vs PAN *-0? In the opinion of the present writer, this could be instead a good place to suggest that, perhaps, the words dàn 準 and shèn 吂 are etymologically related (they share the same phonetic component and essentially differ by type A/B syllable, which possibly reflects an old morphological connection). If so, it is most likely that this word for ‘dark’ simply goes back to ‘mulberry,๏ further complicating Sagart’s Austronesian comparison. It must be remembered that this would not be the only case of a colour term which seems to have emerged from an object or from a surface property. For instance, the Sanskrit term for ‘red,’ rudhirá (< PIE *hǣrudվrós), is applied equally to the colour ‘red’ and ‘blood,’ suggesting that, perhaps, this colour term emerged from the word for blood. This could also be true for the words dàn 準 and shèn 吂. (3) fú ㈞: As stated above, the character fú ㈞ (OC: *m-[p](r)a) does not mean ‘palm’ but ‘assist.’ In the Shuŵwén it is glossed as zu৔ ⶎ, with zu৔ ⶎ being a graphic variant of zu৔ Ỹ ‘assist.’ Sagart (2009) insists that this word is cognate to Benedict’s PTB *pa > pwa ‘palm,’ which makes it a Sino-Tibetan word, but this writer still remains unconvinced. The neutral OC equivalent for ‘palm’ is zh৒ng ㌴ (OC: *[k.t]aƖԸ), and is evidently unrelated to PAN *dapa. These few errors show nonetheless a certain negligence on Sagart’s part in his investigation of textual evidence. This writer thinks that the few remarks above suffice to demonstrate that a part of the data provided by Sagart (2005) sometimes contains rarely used or polysemantic words that should not be considered “basic lexicon”; at other times, the alleged cognancy appears to be semantically loose or imprecise. 5

Giorgio Orlandi

A closer look to stan morphology and sound correspondences In his famous work on comparative linguistics, Georg von der Gabelentz (1891: 168) stated that “Sprachvergleichung ohne Lautvergleichung ist gedankenlose Spielerei.” Every competent linguist agrees wholeheartedly with this statement, and so does Sagart (2005). Unfortunately, some of the sound correspondences which should prove in detail the existence of the STAN superphylum are not as regular as they might seem from a first look. It is true that, in Sagart (2005), sound correspondences appear to be generally genuine and quite regular, but there are also problems which deserve a mention (Cf. Tab. 1): (1) OC glottal stop /ൖ/ seems to correspond to PAN *-q, *H1 and *H2, but sometimes it is unmatched, e.g., PAN *qiCeluR : OC *aCƕ-lo[r]೪ ‘egg,’ PAN *-lem : OC *alïm೪ ‘dark,’ PAN *di : OC *bdï೪ ‘this,’ PAN *-daƖ : OC *bdrang೪ ‘old,’ 10 PAN *-zem : OC *btshim೪ ‘sleep,’ PAN *-kul : OC *[k](r)o[n]Ը ‘curled,’ etc.; (2) PAN velar nasal /Ɩ/ in one case corresponds to OC *-Ɩ and *-k without explained conditions, e.g. PAN *(q)uRung : OC *ak-rok ‘horn,’ PAN *beCeƖ ‘foxtail millet’ : OC *btsïk ‘Setaria italica’; PAN *siNaƖ : OC *blang ‘sunlight,’ etc.; (3) PAN final syllable initials *-N- and *-l- correspond to OC *l- and *(h)l- without explained conditions, e.g. PAN *siNaƖ : OC *blang ‘sunlight,’ PAN *daNum ‘water’ : OC *bt-hlïmԸ ‘liquid,’ PAN *b[e]lung : OC *along ‘cave,’ PAN *bulay : OC *bm-la[r] ‘snake,’ PAN *quluH1 : OC *bhluԸ ‘head,’ etc.; (4) as argued before, AN roots occur only in combination with an initial syllable, therefore it is questionable to compare only the last syllable of PAN with the entire OC word, e.g. PAN *kupit : OC *apit ‘close.’ Some points deserve a few remarks. First, the latest version of OC reconstruction (Baxter, Sagart 2014) seem to reject some of Sagart’s earlier proposals. For example, ‘far’ is reconstructed — rightly in this author’s opinion — with a final glottal stop which is unmatched in PAN. Second, if we accept the fact that Type A syllables had pharyngealised initials, then we must be aware that we are dealing with two different phonemes: thus, PAN *t- may correspond to OC *t-, *th-, *tห- and *thห-. This might be plausible, and this author does not exclude a priori these sound correspondences, but we must remember that plausibility by no means constitute proof (a posse ad esse non valet consequentia), and that the alleged sound correspondence, though somewhat regular, is quite unusual. Third, the Chinese character hán ⏓ ‘to hold in mouth’ deserves a special mention. This polyseme is reconstructed with a loosely attached iambic prefix *Cƕ- plus another *-m- affix before the initial consonant *-kห- which find no internal support. The new reconstruction undoubtedly matches much more the reconstructed PAN form, 11 however comparative evidence should not take the place of internal reconstruction. In historical linguistics it is not always recommendable to reconstruct morphemic boundaries in the language X on the basis of the same or of a similar morpheme which can be found on its relative language Y, let alone when the genetic relationship has yet to be established. 10

A reviewer has pointed out to me that the OC *-r- infix in this reconstruction is problematic, and that the word *daƖԸ matches much more the PAN string *-daƖ. The presence of an infix in OC seems to be confirmed by the dialects of Xiàmén and Cháozhŷu, where this word is respectively pronounced as ti՝Ɩ6 and tsiaƖ4. This writer finds no elements here that would require us to reconsider Baxter and Sagart’s reconstruction. 11 Another very important point needs to be clarified: in many cases striking similarities prove nothing. In the meantime, there are cases where real cognancy has been rendered almost unrecognisable based on today’s word shape by the accumulated multiplicity of sound changes. For example, Armenian erku, Italian due and German zwei ‘two’ share a common origin, despite their strikingly different shape. This is not to imply that Sagart is not aware of this fact, but that striking similarities between languages do not automatically imply genetic relationship. 6

Evaluating the Sino-Tibeto-Austronesian Hypothesis

Gloss

PAN

OC (Sagart 2005) mu[r]

OC (Baxter & Sagrt 2014)

body hair

*gumuN

*b

*mr[Ɩ][r]

egg (dialectal)

*qiCeluR

snake

*bulay

*b

sunlight

*siNaƗ

*blaƗ

*laƗ

water

*daNum

*bt-hlïmൖ (liquid)

*th[Ɩ]mൖ

flow

*qaLur

* hlu[r] (water)

*s.tur

horn

*(q)uRung

* k-rok

*C.[k]ຐrok

chew

*paqpaq

*am-paൖ-s

*[b]ຐras

cut off

*[p,b]utul

*ato[r,n]

*tຐonൖ-s

far

*ma-dwiN

* wa[r,n]

*C.֎wanൖ

high

*-kaw

* kaw

*CƖ.kຐaw

hold in mouth

*gemgem

*agïm (in mouth)

*CƖ-m-kຐ[Ɩ]m-s

curled

*-kul

*bN-k(h)ro[r,n]

*[k](r)o[n]Ո

speak

*kawaS

* m-kw-r-at-s

*[g]֮ບrat-s

bone

*kukut

* kut

*kຐut

head/brain

*punuq

*anuՈ

*nບ[u]Ո

elbow

*siku(H2)

* t-r-kuՈ

*t-[k]uՈ

hot

*qa(i)nget

* nget

*C.nat/C.Ɨet

put together

*pulung

*along

*lບoƗ

ruin

*r[i]bas

*bbet-s

*[b]e[t]-s

chicken

*kuka

* ke

*kບe

robe

*sabuk

* buk

*[b]˾k

broom

*CapuH1

*bt-puՈ

*[t.p]˾Ո

Setaria

*beCeng

*btsïk

*[ts]Ɩk

paddy/rice/grain

*Sumay

* mijՈ

*(C.)mບ[e]jՈ

stopper

*seƗseƗ

* sïk

*[s]ບƖk

a

* CƖ-lo[r]ൖ

*k.rຐorൖ

m-la[r]

*C˾.lAj

b a

b a

a a

b b

a

b

a a

Tab. 1. Unmatched sound correspondences between PAN and OC

Sagart’s discussion on shared morphology, though very interesting — and in some cases even eye-opening — sometimes seems far-fetched. PAN nominaliser and goal focus marker -ƕn finds correspondence only in Tibetan and Lepcha nominalising suffix -n, there is nothing whatsoever similar in Chinese. It is very interesting, instead, that Early Middle Chinese had contrasting pairs of transitive verbs with voiceless stop initials versus intransitive verbs with voiced stop initials, such as 㕟 *twan ‘to cut’ and *dwan 12 ‘broken off.’ EMC intransitive voicing is thought to reflect an OC prenasalised prefix *N- (Sagart 1994, 1999, 2003, 2005; Baxter, Sagart 2014). This seems to correspond to PAN actor focus prefix and infix *m-/-m-. 13 Leaving aside 12

This author utterly rejects the usual practice, which seems to date back to Karlgren (1889–1978), of omitting asterisks with Early Middle Chinese forms. Even though the transcribed Late Middle Chinese (LMC) systems are coherent and agree with each other, EMC phonological system still remains highly theoretical, for it represents the literary reading of characters according to an assemblage of northern and southern dialects from various epochs. Hence, it represents a mixtum compositum and not a real language. On the other hand, the alphabetic and segmental scripts of written Old Tibetan can phonetically attest Late Middle Chinese forms, which thus require no asterisks. 13 The parallel is surely very suggestive, but it is so if and only if we remain confined within the framework of Sagart’s hypotheses. In other reconstruction systems, such as Baxter (1992) or Starostin (1989a), there is no *N7

Giorgio Orlandi

the fact that Blust (1995: 287) finds problematic the correspondence between PAN “stative/ attributive” marker *ma- and OC transitive/intransitive prefix *N-, it must be remembered that the transitive and intransitive prefixes in Sino-Tibetan do not always occupy the same slots of PAN actor focus prefixes and infixes. Furthermore, it must be stressed that we are dealing with single phonemes for both PAN (*m-/-m-) and OC (*N-), and thus the risk of chance resemblance is dramatically high, especially when these isolated morphological markers (which can also be borrowed) are not integrated into a paradigmatic series. 14 Moreover, we need to remember that grammatical affixes tend to utilise only a subset of consonants and vowels, and typically this subset is made up of less marked segments (Campbell, Poser 2008: 189). In particular, as Maddieson (1984: 70) informs us, nasals are often found in grammatical morphemes because they “are rarely subject to confusion with other types of consonants” (quoted also in Campbell, Poser 2008: 218). Comparisons between PAN instrumental/beneficiary focus prefix *si- and ST valency-increasing *s- is instead very suggestive. Nevertheless, we need to remember that the use of prefixes is a typologically commonplace, and that they can be easily explained in terms of areal typology, contacts or mere accident (cf. Tab. 2). In brief, the evidence presented in favour of STAN is circumstantial and can easily be explained by non-genetic factors, therefore more effort is needed to guarantee a more solid plausibility for the proposed genetic relationship. Proto-Eastern Miwokan

Late Common IE

Declarative suffixes

Secondary affixes (active)

1 sg

*-m

*-m

2 sg

*-s‫׎‬

*-s

pronominal affix

3 sg

*-Ø

*-t < **Ø

1 pl

*-ma࣒

*-me(s)/-mo(s)

2 pl

*-to-k

*-te

Tab. 2. Coincidence between Proto-Eastern-Miwokan and Late Common IE (quoted from Campbell, Poser 2008: 188).

To sum up, Sagart’s (2005, 2011a) lexical comparisons, sound correspondences and shared morphological derivations present no robust evidence which would require us to reconsider our current understanding of both the Sino-Tibetan and the Austronesian families. 15 prefix we can compare with PAN *m-. For example, what in Sagart (and later in Baxter and Sagart 2014) has been reconstructed as *N-qwhหra ⳹ ‘to flower,’ in Baxter (1992) is *wra, in Schuessler (2009) is *(g)wrâ, and in Norman (2014) is *gwray. They are all respectable reconstruction systems, and yet in none of them the prenasalised *N- infix is reconstructed. Even those scholars who are broadly sympathetic with Sagart’s theories are not persuaded by the *N- infix (Mei 2012: 14-16). In addition, transitivity is normally expressed syntactically without morphology. 14 In addition, there is another issue which does deserve a brief comment. The reduction to monosyllables and the maintenance of prefixation and infixation are serious issues, but just how short these issues are argued in Sagart (2005) is incredibly stunning. This writer thinks that Sagart’s paper, with its fifteen pages to fill, should have dwelt a bit more on this serious problem, which instead is crammed into a mere eleven lines. In short, Sagart (1993, 2005) argues that only polysyllabic words were affected by phonological erosion, so that monosyllables could then act as refuges for prefixes and infixes. The present writer knows no other attested case of phonological erosion where the sound change was “aware” of morpheme boundaries. To sum up, this writer finds this ad-usum-delphini explanation of a serious phonological issue—which this author had pinned his hopes on—quite disappointing. 15 A colleague from Taipei has drawn my attention toward another 210-words list available on the internet: https://abvd.shh.mpg.de/austronesian/language.php?id=331 (University of Auckland, New Zealand). Setting aside that we find “nursery words” such as ‘mother’ and ‘father,’ this author finds several problems with the semantic 8

Evaluating the Sino-Tibeto-Austronesian Hypothesis

STAN Urheimat and Proto-STAN speakers As any good textbook for historical linguistics will teach with ample and documented historical examples, language reconstruction is not a mere teleological exercise, and comparative linguistics does not develop in a vacuum. Every language has its own history, and the speakers of that language are culturally, socially and politically connected with the history of that language. Therefore, when the linguists start their investigation with the language of a people, they also need to find out when and where this people started their journey before setting in a given part of the world. In order to complete this task, collective work and dialogue between specialists from different domains of academic research is needed. 16 Sagart presents many competing and stimulating ideas, which, though bring him into conflict with many Austronesianists, deserve special attention. In his earliest proposals (Sagart 1993: 2), Sagart first suggested that STAN should be associated with the Dàwènk਺u culture (4100–2600 BC) of today ShŌndŷng province. However, more recently, Sagart (2011) argues that the Yਸngsháo culture (5000–300 BC), a Neolithic culture which existed extensively along the Yellow River, corresponds to Proto-STAN homeland. It is interesting to see how Sagart’s depicted picture fits in with different approaches. This writer thinks that Sagart’s explanation of the historical and archaeological facts is very interesting but, unfortunately, not without problems. First, it contrasts with the general scenario about the origin of PST people. The PST Urheimat seems to have been somewhere on the Himalayan plateau, where the great rivers of East and South-East Asia have their source (Matisoff STEDT, Blench & Post 2013). Furthermore, the ShŌng dynasty (1600–1046 BC) probably originated somewhere near the Èrlਹgਸng cultural frontier, while the Zhŷu dynasty (1046–771 BC) is associated with the GuŌngshè culture of the second millennium BCE. 17 Now, if we accept Sagart’s scenario, we are forced to accept the fact of many words. A few examples will suffice to confirm this point. The character ji৒o 㞣 means ‘foot’ only in modern Chinese. The Shuŵwén glosses it as jìng ⬯ ‘calf of leg,’ or even ‘belly.’ In the 64th Chapter of L৒oz৓ there is a phrase whose meaning in English is “a travel of a thousand li starts with a single step (literally “under the foot”),” which in Chinese is rendered as qiŊnl৓ zhŢ xíng sh৓ yú zúxià ༓㔛அ⾜ጞ᪊㊊ୗ and not as *qiŊnl৓ zhŢ xíng sh৓ yú ji৒oxià *༓㔛அ⾜ጞ᪊㞣ୗ. The character kòu ᐧ, arguably a quite rare word, doesn’t mean ‘to steal’ in OC, which is rather expressed with the older and more common form dào ┓, but ‘to invade.’ In the Yànz৓ chƉnqiƉ [Annals of the Master Yan], a work which dates back no earlier than the III Century BCE, there is a passage which says: “The people who grow in Qi do not steal, they become burglars when they are [in the State of] Chu.” In Chinese this phrase is written as mín shŖngch৒ng yú Qí bù dào, rù Ch৕ zé dào Ẹ⏕㛗᪊㰺୙┓㸪ධᴆ๎┓. It is clear that even in Late Old Chinese the dominant form for ‘to steal’ was still dào ┓ and not kòu ᐧ. In other words, this author finds the alleged cognancy highly questionable, for it is made up of obscure, polysemantic, rare and imprecise words. 16 This, of course, does not imply that genetic relationship between languages can be established on extralinguistic grounds. Rather, as Gabelentz (1891: 157) has remarked: “Das einzig untrügliche Mittel, eine Verwandtschaft zu erkennen liegt in den Sprachen selbst.” 17 Moreover, we must make one point clear at the outset: the study of Ancient China is perennially distorted by the desire, natural enough itself, of discovering not the origin of the civilisations in China, but the origin of the civilisation of China (Bagley 1999: 135), if this imprecise and rather modern term really means anything. We need to be aware that a Neolithic site in present-day Chinese territory was not necessarily the homeland of the so-called Huáxià people, an entity never well-defined but always imagined in quasi-historicistic terms drawn from later periods, or of some Chinese-speaking people. However, many Chinese archaeologists, instead of working back from definite evidence, starts with the assumption of the uninterrupted cultural unity of China and try to force all the archaeological discoveries to fit in with the traditional narrative (Jia 1980; Wu 1989; Liu & Xiu, 2007; Wu et al. 2016). It follows that we are left with the strong impression that they are searching continuously and desperately for any scrap of data that can be taken as evidence to support the traditional view. This is not to imply that Sagart was driven into this cul-de-sac, but that the archaeological picture in China is not as clear as the general audience might imagine. 9

Giorgio Orlandi

that Proto-STAN inhabitants spoke their proto-language in the Hénán, ShਸnxŤ and ShŌnxŤ regions around 5000 BCE, and that PAN began to break up within the Taiwan Straits a millennium later, while PST people, essentially at the same time, break up into two branches, one of which (Proto-Sinitic) started their journey from the Himalayas and came back again in the vicinity of modern Zhèngzhŷu, Pánlóngchéng and YਸnshŤ cities, basically where it all began. This author may be not alone in thinking that this scenario is highly improbable. Sagart’s solution to this problem is as follows: after the break up of Proto-STAN, the Western group (i.e. PST) developed in situ. Nevertheless, despite Sagart’s efforts to link PST to Yਸngsháo culture, this scenario remains unproven. Yet, how such identifications can be reasonably made in first place, given that we have no linguistic evidence of PAN, PST and Proto-Sinitic speakers anywhere on the Asian continent until, respectively, a millennium and three millennia later, we do not learn. Moreover, the bases for distinguishing Proto-STAN from PAN or PST are also unknown to us. Although Sagart’s scenario may be true, from the viewpoints of linguistics and human migrations this interpretation of the Proto-STAN Urheimat remains fundamentally problematic and tells us little about linguistic interactions and further migrations of PAN and PST speakers. Sagart (2005, 2011a, 2016), in addition to archaeological researches, cites also anthropological and genetic studies in support of his thesis. In this author’s opinion, these researches may be a useful tool, since they can — and they do — throw some light on prehistoric migrations. Nevertheless, we must remember that language is independent of phenotypic traits, because human groups change their languages for different reasons in different epochs, and biological findings have been irrelevant, in detecting language relationship, throughout the entire history of linguistics. To sum up, although genetic studies may wink at Sagart’s hypotheses (cf. Ko et al. 2014), 18 what this discipline is able to tell us is that contemporary populations do show some connections based on genetic flow, which, with all due respect to these serious scholars, we already knew. What instead they are not able to tell us, on a firm footing, is that the ancestors of these populations were speaking the same language more than seven millennia ago. Nevertheless, based on the origin of the haplogroup E, which — Ko et al. (2014) say — is developed out of the haplogroup M9 on the south-east coast near Fúzhŷu (c. 8,136–10,933 years ago), Sagart (2016) claims that this scenario directly supports the STAN theory. This writer may be mistaken, but what Ko et al.'s genetic assumption seems to confirm is, instead, the scenario depicted by Bellwood (1997: 241–42): During the late fifth or fourth millennium BC colonists from the mainland of southern China (probably Zhejiang or Fujian) settled Taiwan (emphasis added) […] During the third millennium BC colonists moved into Luzon, and the Malayo-Polynesian subgroup now began its separation from the other primary subgroups of Austronesian which remained on Taiwan […] By at least 2000 BC ProtoMalayo-Polynesian began to break up, probably with settlement expanding in various directions into the southern Philippines, Borneo, Sulawesi and the Moluccas.

18

“At around the time when haplogroup E developed from M9 in the population that later carried it into Taiwan, the surrounding regions gave rise to M9a lineages that are now carried by Sinitic speakers. Thus, the Han, Liangdao Man, and Formosan haplogroup M9a/E lineages can be traced to an ancestral M9 mtDNA lineage (Figure 3). Additionally, the Tibetans have a high frequency of M9a lineages that is shown to have coalesced during the Neolithic and there is a hypothesized linguistic link between Sino-Tibetan and Austronesian languages” (Ko et al. 2014: 239). The problem with the use of genetic studies in linguistics is that they can be interpreted as a Rorschach test, where facts are analysed using complex algorithms, intuitive and generally preconceived interpretations, or both. For example, Oppenheimer (2004) used mtDNA molecular clock calculations to conclude that Polynesians are derived from Palaeolithic eastern Indonesians, denying thus the generally accepted “out of Taiwan” theory. This scenario was rejected by Bellwood (2008). 10

Evaluating the Sino-Tibeto-Austronesian Hypothesis

The evidence of a migration from the ShŌndŷng Peninsula to south-east China coasts is lacking. The only evidence Sagart has is that foxtail millet and proso millet (two of the main Austronesian cereals) are unknown archaeologically in the Yangtze valley and south of it. This view is only partially correct. First, the earliest domestication of foxtail millet took place in the middle of CíshŌn culture (6500–5000 BC), which originated in modern Hébŕi (Stevens et al. 2016). Second, foxtail millet is also thought to have reached Primorsky Krai (Eastern Siberia) around 3620 BCE (Kuzmin, 2013): should we include Eskimo-Aleut languages 19 into STAN, as well? Third, proso millet (panicum miliaceum) may have been domesticated independently in both Transcaucasian areas and East-Asian areas. Thus, the so-called “northern Chinese look” of early Austronesian agriculture does not prove convincingly the STAN hypothesis. Furthermore, in support of his thesis, Sagart pointed out that those Neolithic cultures, which he identified as Proto-STAN speakers, practised tooth avulsion (2011a: 147). This is extremely stimulating but, in this author’s opinion, more attention to the anthropological works of the specialists of the field would have saved him from establishing a cause-and-effect relationship. Tooth avulsion is a worldwide practice which is still largely diffused today in SubSaharan Africa. 20 For these reasons, all these uncertainties give the present writer the impression that the STAN hypothesis is still standing infirmly on one leg.

Competing hypothesis: STAN vs Sino-Indo-European Another criticism that has been levelled against STAN (Blust 1995) and that has apparently remained unanswered is that of competing hypothesis, which involves mutual exclusivity (i.e. if we accept, say, Sino-Indo-European or Sino-Caucasian, then STAN is an invalid superphylum and vice versa). In the specific case of Chinese, a panoply concerning a wider affiliation of Sinitic has been proposed at least since the 19th century. Despite the interesting and quite brave attempts of grouping Sinitic with other families there has been no general agreement on any of these stimulating or rather quite speculative proposals. For some scholars (e.g., Beckwith 2002), the most promising proposal is the Sino-Indo-European hypothesis (Pulleyblank 1995, 1996), which is the taxonomic affiliation that argues for the connection between Indo-European and Chinese (or even Sino-Tibetan). Publications about this subject vary from amateurish attempts (Ulenbrook 1967, Chang 1988, Tan 2001, Zhŷu 2002a, 2002b, Wei 2005b) to serious linguistic works (Pulleyblank 1996). 21 Nevertheless, it will be briefly demonstrated in this paragraph that (1) all these attempts are situated in the same realm of nondemonstrable relationship, albeit some works are undoubtedly different in quality; (2) they are not better than the STAN hypothesis, actually much worse. 22 19

Eskimo-Aleut languages are now spoken in north-east Siberia. However, Vovin (2015) suggested that, since Northern Tungusic languages have loanwords which are not found in Southern Tungusic, the Eskimo-Aleut was once much more widely spoken in eastern Siberia. This author agrees wholeheartedly with Vovin’s view. 20 In many cultures of Ethiopia, Sudan and East Africa, tooth avulsion appears to be related to the medical beliefs of those cultures, since canine, for example, are believed to be responsible for diarrhoea, fever and other diseases in children. For further understanding, the reader can consult this very insightful on-line paper by Mutai et al. 2010: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/20476714/. For a more technical discussion see also Schwartz (1946). 21 To be fair, both Chinese and Tibetan were wrongly regarded as Sanskrit, and thus as member of the IndoEuropean family, by Sir William Jones (1799a, 1799b). 22 The genetic relationship of Chinese and Indo-European has been proposed in several articles published on Sino-Platonic Papers (SPP) — a journal generally worth of praise for its critical power which unfortunately has 11

Giorgio Orlandi

The Sino-Indo-European superphylum was mainly advocated by Pulleyblank (1995, 1996) on the basis of a somewhat identical ablaut system, viz. EMC *a/*ƕ. Leaving aside the fact that Pulleyblank’s EMC ablaut system is based on the erroneous interpretation of the rather obscure terms of nèizhu৒n ‘inner turn’ and wàizhu৒n ‘outer turn,’ 23 we must remember that ablaut and vowel mutations are not typologically unusual features and are, instead, diffused in many worldwide languages, such as Semitic languages, etc. (Campbell 1997: 196). Long before Pulleyblank, Sapir (1915, 1925) had already noted similarities in ablaut and causative prefixes between Na-Dene and Sino-Tibetan. Nevertheless, these vocalic alternations could also be found in Sapir’s “Penutian”, a distinct language family. Therefore, the sort of structural “evidences” both Sapir (1915, 1925) and Pulleyblank (1995, 1996) had in mind can be easily explained as independently developed typological similarities rather than inherited traits. 24 Many etyma discussed by Pulleyblank (1996) were accepted and expanded, though with very different reconstructions, by Beckwith (2002: 149–150). Unfortunately, Beckwith’s reconstruction are not methodologically explicit. For example, he reconstructs forms such as MOC *mîna < *mbîna < *Cmbêna < PChi *Twêna for r৕ 㰅 ‘you’ (OC: *naԸ), or MOC *mîna < *mbîna < *Cmbêna < EOC *Cwêna for n৖ ⤛ ‘woman’ (OC: *nraԸ), or MOC dial. *rmay < *mray < EOC *marê for h৒i 㴟 ‘sea’ (OC: *m๗ิ˲Ը). Beckwith’s reconstructions routinely omit the final glottal stop [-Ո] which is strongly supported internally by many Sinitic languages. As it can be seen, all the real proposals of Sino-Indo-European that Beckwith might have had, unfortunately, are so buried under masses of obscure and unsupported reconstructions that it is quite hard to ferret them out. given these quasi-scholarly works a positive judgement that undoubtedly suffers from excessive indulgence — by Zhŷu (2002b, 2003) and Wei (2005a, 2005b). Nearly all these scholars say about Indo-European (IE)—a field in which they are evidently not at home—is false. The first methodical mistake which these scholars commit is that, in their attempt of inventing proofs where they do not exist, they do not compare Proto-Indo-European (PIE) with OC, but one of its many daughter languages with OC or with unsupported, obscure and invented proto-Chinese forms. They even claim to have discovered regular sound changes, such as OC *m- and PIE *m-, ignoring the fact that in PIE the *m- stem is an active declension. Furthermore, when Zhŷu compares Chinese xùn ṥ (OC: *s.[֎]֮i[n]-s) [2002b: 4], which means ‘be buried alive with the dead’ and not ‘die’ as he writes, with Latin mor-t(and not *mort-), he is ignoring the fact that Latin mor-t- ‘death’ (and not ‘die’) derives from PIE *mr๗-tó-, which in turn is obtained by back derivation from the adjectival form *n๗-mr๗-to- ‘immortal.’ Second, Zhŷu’s own theoretical views on IE studies seem to have congealed somewhere in the beginning of the 19th century, when it would have been quite difficult to find an Indo-Europeanist who would have accepted any need to reconstruct the laryngeal consonants. In part, the general resistance by those scholars outside IE linguistics to accepting laryngeals is excusable in view of their complexity and their “algebraic appearance,” but a great amount of IE comparative linguistics is practically impossible without them. What Wei (2005b) adds to Zhŷu’s dissertations is nothing but a further list of lexical comparisons riddled with incorrect etymologies, Wortakrobatik and other blatant errors. Given their lack of understanding of IE linguistics (see, e.g., Wei 2005b: 1–72, Zhŷu 2002b: 6, 2003: 3–17), it would seem that trying to make them understanding that, say, PIE *-t- was not an isolated marker which can be paralleled with the OC entering tone final *-t but is one of the various PIE verbal nouns (Beekes 1995: 249-251) would be as futile a task as explaining PIE verbal morphology to primary school students. If one thinks that it is important to stimulate younger scholars to take part in the discussion, then detecting these mistakes is of utmost importance, because the general audience may fall prey of these amateurish ventures into a field which should not allow the likes of Zhŷu and Wei free range. 23 The two terms do not indicate any quality of the vowel. See Lţ (1994: 271–283), still the best reference on the subject. 24 For a positive evaluation of the Sino-Dene hypothesis see Bengtson (1994). A relationship between SinoTibetan and Athabaskan was also advocated by Shafer (1952). For an evaluation of Shafer’s work, see Swadesh (1952a). 12

Evaluating the Sino-Tibeto-Austronesian Hypothesis

Be that as it may, there is one aspect of long-range comparisons which was nowhere mentioned by Beckwith and Pulleyblank, and that is never mentioned by many macrocomparativists who frequently invoke the Indo-European model in order to validate their reconstruction: workers in IE linguistics have demonstrated with abundant documentation that someone dealing with, say, Italic may benefit from someone working on Celtic or on Greek. On the contrary, a philologist working with classical documentation in Old Chinese will not find the solution to, say, a verb problem by looking at Latin, Slavonic or Tocharian. 25 Nevertheless, Beckwith (2002: 155) concludes his study on the subject in the following way: In sum, it is certainly possible that Tibeto-Burman and Chinese are genetically related, but since the best-supported etymologies appear to be shared not only with Japanese-Koguryoic but also with Indo-European, it is likely that the relationship is either one of shared loan influence from the same donor or one of common descent from the same intrusive ancestor. Further study is therefore needed to determine more precisely the history of the interrelationship of these four families (emphasis added).

Absit omen!

Closing remarks It is a truism in historical linguistics that non-relationship cannot be demonstrated. This author agrees wholeheartedly with this statement and, therefore, does not claim that Chinese (or Sino-Tibetan) and Austronesian cannot be related. Nevertheless, the genetic relationship between Sinitic and Austronesian still remains non-demonstrable due to the lack of common basic vocabulary, presence of unaccounted and unmatched segments and absence of productive sound correspondences. 26 Sagart’s argumentations, though interesting and stimulating, are still unable to offer valid morphological comparisons, let alone paradigmatic morphological comparisons. 27 More emphasis is needed on morphology, both its overall structure and its idiosyncratic alternations. There are also other problematic issues, such as those concerning the STAN Urheimat and the competing hypotheses. This author, nonetheless, remains openminded to STAN, and would like to suggest that the STAN controversy can be improved by abandoning emphasis on common etymologies and shifting the attention to (1) more solid predictive-productive morphological correspondences; (2) questions of chronology; (3) questions regarding the STAN homeland; (4) rejection of competing hypotheses. 25

The present writer has learnt this thing from Alonso de la Fuente’s review of M. Robbeets (2016). Sagart argues that AN *-q regularly corresponds to OC *-Ը, the source of the marked member among the two basic Chinese tones. However, those PAN examples which account for OC tonogenesis seem to be valid only for Chinese, while they add nothing to AN linguistics. Therefore, in this author’s opinion, they cannot be considered productive sound correspondences. 27 It is true, however, that morphosyntactic considerations are rarely invoked (or invoked in a quite tentative way) in support of the Sino-Tibetan hypothesis as well. The differences between Sinitic and Tibeto-Burman are quite striking and not always convincingly explained. It is up to the competent linguist to work within these divergences in both of these two categories, and to demonstrate that a genetic relationship is likely to exist between the two groups. Nevertheless, more efforts in reconstructing PST is needed. One of the most recent attempts (South Coblin 1986) is laudable but does contain methodological peculiarities. For example, far too many of South Coblin’s “reconstructed” proto-forms consist of long string of phonemes which eventually merged into zero in the received daughter languages. The best treatment of the family, especially from the Tibeto-Burman side, is Matisoff (2003). Unfortunately, from the Sinitic side, Matisoff adopted Karlgren’s system, which is obsolete and now quite inadequate. Curiously, in Greenberg’s opinion, Sino-Tibetan seems to be “one of the most solidly based and universally accepted linguistic stock in the world” (Greenberg 1996: 134). 26

13

Giorgio Orlandi

Literature Alonso de la Fuente, J. A. 2016. Martine Robbeets (2015): Diachrony of verb morphology. Japanese and the Transeurasian languages. Diachronica 33(4): 530–537. Bagley, Robert. 1999. Shang archaeology. In: M. Loewe, Edward L. Shaugnessy (eds.). The Cambridge history of ancient China: 124–231. Cambridge University Press. Baxter, William H. 1992. A handbook of Old Chinese phonology. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Baxter, William H., Laurent Sagart. 2014. Old Chinese: a new reconstruction. Oxford University Press. Beckwith, Christopher. 2002. The Sino-Tibetan problem. In: Christopher Beckwith. Medieval Tibeto-Burman Languages: 113–157. Leiden: Brill. Beekes, R. S. P. 1995. Comparative Indo-European Linguistics. An Introduction. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Bellwood, Peter. 1995. Austronesian prehistory in Southeast Asia: homeland, expansion and transformation. In: Peter Bellwood, J. Fox, D. Tryon (eds.) The Austronesians: 96–111. Canberra: Australian National University. Bellwood, Peter. 1997. Prehistory of the Indo-Malaysian Archipelago (2nd edition). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Bellwood, Peter. 2005. First farmers: The origins of agricultural societies. Oxford: Blackwell. Bellwood, Peter. 2007. Southeast China and the Prehistory of the Austronesians. In: T. Jiao (ed.). Lost Maritime Cultures: China and the Pacific: 36–53. Hawaii: Bishop Museum Press. Bellwood, Peter. 2008. Austronesian cultural origins: out of Taiwan, via the Batanes Islands, and onwards to western Polynesia. In: Alicia Sanchez-Mazas, Roger Blench, Malcolm D. Ross, Ilia Peiros and Marie Lin (eds.) Past human migrations in East Asia: matching archaeology, linguistics and genetics: 23–39. London: Routledge. Bellwood, Peter. 2011. The checkered prehistory of rice movement southwards as a domesticated cereal — from the Yangzi to the equator. Rice 4(3–4): 93–103. Benedict, Paul K. 1991. Austric: an ‘extinct’ proto-language. J. H. C. S. Davidson (ed.). Austroasiatic Languages: essays in honour of H. L. Shorto: 7–11. London: Psychology Press. Bengtson, John D. 1994. Edward Sapir and the “Sino-Dene” Hypothesis. Anthropological Science 102(3): 207–230. Blench, Roger M. 2012. Almost everything you believed about the Austronesians isn’t true. In: Dominik Bonatz, Andreas Reinecke, Mai Lin Tjoa-Bonatz (eds.). Crossing Borders: Selected Papers from the 13th International Conference of the European Association of Southeast Asian Archaeologists, Vol. 1: 122–142. Singapore: NUS Press. Blust, Robert A. 1995a. The prehistory of the Austronesian-speaking peoples: a view from language. Journal of World prehistory 9(4): 453–510. Blust, Robert A. 1995b. An austronesianist looks at Sino-Austronesian. In: William S-Y. Wang (ed.). The Ancestry of the Chinese Language. Journal of Chinese Linguistics Monograph Series 8: 283–298. University Of California Press. Blust, Robert A. 1996. The Neogrammarian hypothesis and pandemic irregularity. In: Mark Durie, Malcolm Ross (eds.). The Comparative Method reviewed: Regularity and irregularity in language change: 135–156. New York / Oxford: Oxford University Press. Blust, Robert A. 2003. Three notes on early Austronesian morphology. Oceanic Linguistics 42(2): 438–478. Blust, Robert A. 2005a. Must sound change be linguistically motivated? Diachronica 22(2): 219–269. Blust, Robert A. 2005b. The Oceanic languages. Oceanic Linguistics 44(2): 544–558. Blust, Robert A. 2008. Is there a Bima-Sumba subgroup? Oceanic Linguistics 47(1): 45–113. Blust, Robert A. 2010. The greater north Borneo hypothesis. Oceanic Linguistics 49(1): 44–118. Blust, Robert A. 2013. The Austronesian languages. Canberra: Asia-Pacific Linguistics. Blust, Robert A. 2014. Some recent proposals concerning the classification of the Austronesian languages. Oceanic Linguistics 53(2): 300–391. Bopp, Franz. 1841. Über die Verwandtschaft der malaisch-polynesischen Sprachen mit den indo-europäischen. Gelesen in der Akademie der Wissenschaften am 10. aug. und 10. dec. 1840. Berlin: Dümmler. Branner, David P. 2000. Problems in comparative Chinese dialectology: the classification of Miin and Hakka. Berlin / New York: Walter de Gruyter. Campbell, Lyle. 1997. Genetic classification, typology, areal linguistics, language endangerment, and languages of the north Pacific rim. In: Osahito Miyaoka, Minoru Oshima (eds.). Languages of the North Pacific Rim, Vol. 2: 179–242. Kyoto University. Campbell, Lyle. 2003. How to show languages are related: Methods for distant genetic relationship. In: Brian D. Joseph, Richard D. Janda (eds.). The Handbook of Historical Linguistics: 262–282. Blackwell Publishing. 14

Evaluating the Sino-Tibeto-Austronesian Hypothesis

Campbell, Lyle. 2013. Historical linguistics. Edinburgh University Press. Campbell, Lyle, William J. Poser. 2008. Language classification. History and method. Cambridge University Press. Chang, Tsung-Tung. 1988. Indo-European Vocabulary in Old Chinese. Sino-Platonic Papers 7: 1–54. Conrady, August. 1896. Eine indochinesische Causativ-Denominativ-Bildung und ihr Zusammenhang mit den Tonaccenten: Ein Beitrag zur vergleichen-den Grammatik der indochinesischen Sprachen, Insonderheit des tibetischen, barmanischen, siamesischen und chinesischen. Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz. Conrady, August. 1916. Eine merkwürdige Beziehung zwischen den austrischen und den indochinesischen Sprachen. In: Aufsätze zur Kultur- und Sprachgeschichte vornehmlich des Orients: Ernst Kuhn zum 70. Geburtstage am 7. Februar, 1916: 475–504. München: Verlag von M. & H. Marcus. Driem van, George. 2001. Languages of the Himalayas: an ethnolinguistic handbook. Leiden: Brill. Driem van, George. 2005. Sino-Austronesian vs. Sino-Caucasian, Sino-Bodic vs. Sino-Tibetan, and Tibeto-Burman as default theory. In: Yogendra Prasada Yadava, Govinda Bhattarai, Ram Raj Lohani, Balaram Prasain, Krishna Parajuli (eds.). Contemporary issues in Nepalese linguistics: 285–338. Kathmandu: Linguistic Society of Nepal. Edkins, Joseph. 1871. China's Place in Philology: an Attempt to show that the Languages of Europe and Asia have a Common Origin. London: Trübner & Co. Gabelentz von der, Georg. 1901. Die Sprachwissenschaft. Aufl. Leipzig. Goddard, Ives. 1975. Algonquian, Wiyot, and Yurok: Proving a distant genetic relationship. In: Dale M. Kinkade, Kenneth L. Hale, Otmar Werner (eds.). Linguistics and anthropology: in honor of C. F. Voegelin: 249–262. Lisse: The Peter de Ridder Press. Greenberg, Joseph H. 1996. In defense of Amerind. International journal of American linguistics 62(2): 131–164. Holman, E. W., C. H. Brown, S. Wichmann, A. Müller, V. Velupillai, H. Hammarström, S. Sauppe, H. Jung, D. Bakker, P. Brown, O. Belyaev. 2011. Automated dating of the world’s language families based on lexical similarity. Current Anthropology 52(6): 841–875. Hudson, Mark J. 1999. Japanese and Austronesian: an archeological perspective on the proposed linguistic links. In: K. Omoto (ed.). Interdisciplinary Perspectives on the Origins of the Japanese: 267–279. Kyoto: International Research Center for Japanese Studies. Humboldt von, Wilhelm. 1836–1839. Über die Kawi-Sprache auf der insel Java, nebst einer einleitung über die verschiedenheit des menschlichen sprachbaues und ihren einfluss auf die geistige entwickelung des menschengeschlechts. Berlin: Druckerei der Königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Jia, Lanpo. 1980. Early man in China. Beijing: Foreign Languages Press. Jones, Sir William. 1799a [delivered February 25, 1790]. Eighth anniversary discourse: on the Chinese. Asiatick Researches 2: 43–46. Jones, Sir William. 1799b [delivered February 23, 1792]. Ninth anniversary discourse: on the origin and families of nations. Asiatick Researches 3: 418–435. Kawamoto, Takao. 1977. Toward a comparative Japanese-Austronesian I. Bulletin of Nara University Education 26(1): 22–49. Kawamoto, Takao. 1978. Minami kara kita Ninhongo. Tŷkyŷ: Sanseidŷ. Kawamoto, Takao. 1980. Nihongo no kenryƉ. Tŷkyŷ: Kŷdansha. Kawamoto, Takao. 1984. Two sets of sound laws between Japanese and Austronesian. Bulletin of Joetsu University of Education 3: 31–50. Kawamoto, Takao. 1993. Several similarities between Japanese and the Austronesian languages. Paper presented at the Conference on Asia-Mainland/Austronesian Connections, University of Hawai’i at MŌnoa, May 10–13. Kempler-Cohen, E. M. 2012. Austronesian cognates in Quechua – Part 1: Proto-Oceanic disyllabic cognates in Proto-Quechua. The Philippine Journal of Linguistics 43: 1–46. Kortlandt, Frederik. 2010. Studies in Germanic, Indo-European and Indo-Uralic. Brill / Rodopi. Krippes, Karl A. 1992. The genetic relationship between Japanese and Austronesian revisited. Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher 64: 117–130. Ko, A. M. S., C. Y. Chen, Q. Fu, F. Delfin, M. Li, H. L. Chiu, M. Stoneking, Y. C. Ko. 2014. Early Austronesians: into and out of Taiwan. The American Journal of Human Genetics 94(3): 426–436. Kuzmin, Y. V. 2013. The beginnings of prehistoric agriculture in the Russian Far East: Current evidence and concepts. Documenta Praehistorica 40: 1–12.

15

Giorgio Orlandi

Li, Paul Jenkuei. 1995. Is Chinese genetically related to Austronesian? In: William S-Y. Wang (ed.). The Ancestry of the Chinese Language. Journal of Chinese Linguistics Monograph Series 8: 93–112. University Of California Press. Lਹ, XÎnkuí [㛶㕘櫩]. 1994. L৓ XŢnkuí y৕yán xué lùnjí 㛶㕘櫩婆妨⬠婾普 [Lਹ XŤnkuí's selected works in Linguistics]. BŕijŤng: Zhŷnghuá shƋjú. Liu, Li, Hong Xiu. 2007. Rethinking Erlitou: legend, history and Chinese archaeology. Antiquity 81(314): 886–901. Maddieson, Ian. 1984. Patterns of sounds. Cambridge University Press. Matisoff, James A. 2003. Handbook of Proto-Tibeto-Burman: system and philosophy of Sino-Tibetan reconstruction. University of California Press. Mei, Tsu-Lin. 2012. The causative *s- and nominalizing *s- in Old Chinese and related matters in Proto-SinoTibetan. Language and Linguistics 13(1): 1–28. Mutai, J., E. Muniu, J. Sawe, J. Hassanali, P. Kibet, P. Wanzala. 2010. Socioõcultural practices of deciduous canine tooth bud removal among Maasai children. International dental journal 60(2): 94–98. Ness, Immanuel. 2014. The global prehistory of human migration. John Wiley & Sons. Norman, Jerry. 2014. A model for Chinese dialect evolution. In: Richard VanNess Simmons, Newell Ann Van Auken (eds.). Studies in Chinese and Sino-Tibetan linguistics: Dialect, phonology, transcription and text: 1–26. Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica. Pietrusewsky, Michael. 1994. Pacific-Asian relationships: a physical anthropological perspective. Oceanic Linguistics 33(2): 407–429. Pulleyblank, Edwin G. 1965. Close/open ablaut in Sino-Tibetan. Lingua 14: 230–240. Pulleyblank, Edwin G. 1991. The ganzhi as phonograms and their application to the calendar. Early China 16: 39– 80. Pulleyblank, Edwin G. 1995a. Why Tocharians? Journal of Indo-European Studies 23(3–4): 415–430. Pulleyblank, Edwin G. 1995b. The historical and prehistorical relationships of Chinese. In: William S-Y. Wang (ed.). The Ancestry of the Chinese Language. Journal of Chinese Linguistics Monograph Series 8: 145–194. University Of California Press. Pulleyblank, Edwin G. 1996. Early contacts between Indo-Europeans and Chinese. International Review of Chinese Linguistics 1(1): 1–25. Reid, L. A. 1994. Morphological evidence for Austric. Oceanic linguistics 33(2): 323–344. Rivet, Paul. 1925. Les mélano-polynésiens et les australiens en Amérique. Anthropos 20: 51–54. Rivet, Paul. 1926. Les malayo-polynésiens en Amérique. Journal de la Société des Américanistes de Paris 18: 141–278. Sagart, Laurent. 1990. Chinese and Austronesian are genetically related. Paper presented at the 23rd International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics, Arlington, October 1990. Sagart, Laurent. 1993. Chinese and Austronesian: Evidence for a genetic relationship. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 21: 1–62. Sagart, Laurent. 1994. Old Chinese and Proto-Austronesian. Oceanic Linguistics 33(2): 271–308. Sagart, Laurent. 1995a. Some remarks on the ancestry of Chinese. In: William S-Y. Wang (ed.). The Ancestry of the Chinese Language. Journal of Chinese Linguistics Monograph Series 8: 195–223. University Of California Press. Sagart, Laurent. 1995b. Comments from Sagart. In: William S-Y. Wang (ed.). The Ancestry of the Chinese Language. Journal of Chinese Linguistics Monograph Series 8: 337–372. University Of California Press. Sagart, Laurent. 1995c. Questions of method in Chinese-Tibeto-Burman comparison. Cahiers de linguistique Asie orientale 24(2): 245–255. Sagart, Laurent. 1999. The roots of old Chinese. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Sagart, Laurent. 2001. Vestiges of Archaic Chinese derivational affixes in modern Chinese dialects. In: Hilary Chappell (ed.). Sinitic grammar: synchronic and diachronic perspectives: 123–142. Oxford University Press. Sagart, Laurent. 2003. The vocabulary of cereal cultivation and the phylogeny of East Asian languages. Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association 23(1): 127–136. Sagart, Laurent. 2004. The higher phylogeny of Austronesian and the position of Tai-Kadai. Oceanic Linguistics 43(2): 411–44. Sagart, Laurent. 2005. Sino-Tibetan-Austronesian: An updated and improved argument. In: Laurent Sagart, Roger Blench, Alicia Sanchez-Mazas (eds.). The peopling of East Asia: Putting together archaeology, linguistics and genetics: 161–176. London / New York: Routledge Curzon. Sagart, Laurent. 2006. On intransitive nasal prefixation in Sino-Tibetan languages. Cahiers de linguistique Asie orientale 35(1): 57–70. 16

Evaluating the Sino-Tibeto-Austronesian Hypothesis

Sagart, Laurent. 2008a. The expansion of Setaria farmers in East Asia. In: Alicia Sanchez-Mazas, Roger Blench, Malcolm D. Ross, Ilia Peiros and Marie Lin (eds.) Past human migrations in East Asia: matching archaeology, linguistics and genetics: 133–157. London: Routledge. Sagart, Laurent. 2008b. Reply to Matisoff on the Handbook of Proto-Tibeto-Burman: System and philosophy of Sino-Tibetan reconstruction. Diachronica 25(1): 153–155. Sagart, Laurent. 2009. PAn morphology in phylogenetic perspective. Paper presented at 11–ICAL (11ème conférence internationale sur la linguistique austronésienne), Aussois, June 22–25, 2009. Sagart, Laurent. 2010a. Is Puyuma a primary branch of Austronesian? Oceanic Linguistics 49(1): 194–204. Sagart, Laurent. 2010b. Why does the Tai-Kadai word for ‘ten’ end in -t? Paper presented at the 23èmes Journées de Linguistique d'Asie Orientale, Paris, July 1–2, 2010. Sagart, Laurent. 2011a. The homeland of Sino-Tibetan-Ausronesian: where and when? Communication on Contemporary Anthropology 2011(5): 143–147. Sagart, Laurent. 2011b. How many independent rice vocabularies in Asia? Rice 4(3–4): 121–133. Sagart, Laurent. 2011c. Sino-Tibetan-Austronesian: Making sense of non-final syllables. Paper presented at a symposium on Historical Linguistics in the Asia-Pacific Region and the Position of Japanese, Twentieth International Conference on Historical Linguistics Symposium, National Museum of Ethnology, Osaka, July 30, 2011. Sagart, Laurent. 2013. The higher phylogeny of Austronesian: A response to Winter. Oceanic Linguistics 52(1): 249–254. Sagart, Laurent. 2014. In defense of the numeral-based model of Austronesian phylogeny, and of Tsouic. Language and Linguistics 15(6): 859–882. Sagart, Laurent. 2016a. The wider connections of Austronesian: a Response to Blust (2009). Diachronica 33(2): 255–281. Sagart, Laurent. 2016b. Liangdao Man and Austronesian origins. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 44(1): 239–241. Sapir, Edward. 1915. The Na-Dene Languages, a preliminary report. American Anthropologist 17(3): 534–558. Sapir, Edward. 1925. The similarity of Chinese and Indian languages. Science 62(1607):xii. Schmidt, Wilhelm. 1906. Die Mon-Khmer-völker: ein bindeglied zwischen Völkern Zentralasiens und Austronesiens. Braunschweig: F. Vieweg und Sohn. Schwartz, J. 1946. The teeth of the Masai. Journal of dental research 25(1): 17–20. Shafer, Robert. 1952. Athapaskan and Sino-Tibetan. International Journal of American Linguistics 18(1): 12–19. Shafer, Robert. 1957. Note on Athapaskan and Sino-Tibetan. International Journal of American Linguistics 23(2): 116–117. Shafer, Robert. 1969. A few more Athapaskan and Sino-Tibetan comparisons. International Journal of American Linguistics 35(1): 67–67. Schuessler, Axel. 2009. Minimal Old Chinese and later Han Chinese: a companion to Grammata serica recensa. University of Hawaii Press. South Coblin, Weldon. 1986. A Sinologist's handlist of Sino-Tibetan lexical comparisons. Nettetal: Steyler Verlag. Starostin, S. A. 1984. Gipoteza o geneticheskix svjazjax sinotibetskix jazykov s enisejskimi i severnokavkazskimi jazykami. In: I. Vardul' (ed.). Lingvisticheskaja rekonstrukcija i drevnejshaja istorija Vostoka: 19–38. Moscow: Nauka. Starostin, S. A. 1989a. Rekonstrukcija drevnekitajskoj fonologicheskoj sistemy. Moscow: Nauka. Starostin, S. A. 1989b. Nostratic and Sino-Caucasian. In: V. Shevoroshkin (ed.). Explorations in language macrofamilies: 42–66. Bochum: Universitetsverlag N. Brockmeyer. Starostin, S. A. 1991. On the hypothesis of a genetic connection between the Sino-Tibetan languages and the Yeniseian and North-Caucasian languages. In: V. Shevoroshkin (ed.). Dene-Sino-Caucasian Languages: 12–41. Bochum: Universitetsverlag N. Brockmeyer. Starostin, S. A. 2005. Sino-Caucasian. Unfinished MS. Available online at: http://starling.rinet.ru (Tower of Babel Project). Stevens, C. J., C. Murphy, R. Roberts, L. Lucas, F. Silva, D. Q. Fuller. 2016. Between China and South Asia: A Middle Asian corridor of crop dispersal and agricultural innovation in the Bronze Age. The Holocene 26 (10): 1541– 1555. Swadesh, Morris. 1952a. "Athapaskan and Sino-Tibetan." Review of Shafer 1952. International Journal of American Linguistics: 178–181. Swadesh, Morris. 1952b. Lexicostatistic 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. Swadesh, Morris. 1971. The Origin and Diversification of Language. Ed. post mortem by Joel Sherzer. Chicago: Aldine. 17

Giorgio Orlandi

Tabbada, K., J. Trejaut, J. Loo, Y. Chen, M. Lin, M. Mirazon-Lahr, T. Kivisild, M. De Ungria. 2009. Philippine Mitochondrial DNA Diversity: A Populated Viaduct between Taiwan and Indonesia? Molecular Biology and Evolution 27(1): 21–31. Tan, J. M. 2001. Hàny৕ cíhuì de jìn yuán tànmì 㻊婆娆⼁䘬役㸸㍊䦀. BŕijŤng: Yuanzineng Publishing House. Ulenbrook, Jan. 1967. Einige Übereinstimmungen zwischen dem Chinesischen und dem Indogermanischen. Anthropos 3/4: 533–551. Vovin, Alexander. 2015. Eskimo Loanwords in Northern Tungusic. Iran and the Caucasus 19: 87–95. Wang, William S.-Y. (ed.). 1995. The ancestry of the Chinese language. Journal of Chinese Linguistics Monograph Series 8. University Of California Press. Wáng, X. Q., X. Liú. 1896. Shìmíng shƉ zhèng b৕ 慳⎵䔷嫱墄. Shànghਸi g਻jí Publishing House. Wei, J. L. 2005a. Review of Hàny਻ Yìn'ŷuy਻ cíhuì bਹjiào. Sino-Platonic Papers 166: 1–22. Wei, J. L. 2005b. Counting and Knotting: Correspondences between Old Chinese and Indo-European. Sino-Platonic Papers 162: 1–72. Wolff, J. U. 2010. Proto-Austronesian phonology with glossary. Southeast Asia Program Publications. 2 vols. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University. Wu, R. K. 1989. G৕rénlèixué ⎌Ṣ栆⬠. BŕijŤng: Wénwù chƋbਸn shè. Wu, Q., Z. Zhao, L. Liu, D. E. Granger, H. Wang, D. J. Cohen, X. Wu, M. Ye, O. Bar-Yosef, B. Lu, J. Zhang. 2016. Outburst flood at 1920 BCE supports historicity of China’s Great Flood and the Xia dynasty. Science 353 (6299): 579–582. Zhŷu Jíxù. 2002a. Hàny৕ Yìn'ŵuy৕ cíhuì b৓jiào 㻊婆⌘㫸婆娆⼁㭼庫 [Word comparisons between Chinese and IndoEuropean]. SìchuŌn Mínzú Publishing House. Zhŷu Jíxù. 2002b. Correspondences of the Basic Words between Old Chinese and Proto-Indo-European. SinoPlatonic Papers 115: 1–8. Zhŷu Jíxù. 2003. Correspondences of Cultural Words between Old Chinese and Proto-Indo-European. SinoPlatonic Papers 124: 1–19. Zohary, D., M. Hopf, E. Weiss. 2012. Domestication of Plants in the Old World: The origin and spread of domesticated plants in Southwest Asia, Europe, and the Mediterranean Basin. Oxford University Press on Demand.

ɴ˄. ʋ˛˕ʸ˗ʿˌ. ʇ ˥˴ˋˣ˜ˋ ˨˘ˣ˥-˪˘˄ˋ˪˥-ˁ˅˨˪˧˥ˣˋ˖˘˙˨˜˥˙ ˆ˘˦˥˪ˋ˖˻. ɳ ˨˪ˁ˪˼ˋ ˦˧˥˅˥ˊ˘˪˨̀ ˁˣˁ༤˘˖ ˘ ˥˴ˋˣ˜ˁ ˆ˘˦˥˪ˋ˖˻ ˥ ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˥ˢ ˆˋˣˋ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˢ ˧˥ˊ˨˪˅ˋ ˢˋːˊ˫ ˨˘ˣ˥-˪˘˄ˋ˪˨˜˘ˢ˘ ˘ ˁ˅˨˪˧˥ˣˋ˖˘˙˨˜˘ˢ˘ ̀˖˻˜ˁˢ˘, ˦˧ˋˊ༤˥ːˋˣˣ˥˙ ˱˧ˁˣ˴˫˖˨˜˘ˢ ˨˘ˣ˥༤˥ˆ˥ˢ ʌ˥˧ˁˣ˥ˢ ʓˁˆˁ˧˥ˢ. ʓ˪ˁ˪˼̀ ˦˧ˋ˨༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪ ˣˋ ˨˪˥༤˼˜˥ ˴ˋ༤˼ ˊ˥˜ˁ˖ˁ˪˼ ˘༤˘ ˥˦˧˥˅ˋ˧ˆˣ˫˪˼ ˨˫˹ˋ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘ˋ ˨˘ˣ˥-˪˘˄ˋ˪˥-ˁ˅˨˪˧˥ˣˋ˖˘˙˨˜˥˙ ˢˁ˜˧˥˨ˋˢ˼˘, ˨˜˥༤˼˜˥ ˦˧˥˅ˋ˧˘˪˼, ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅˫˿˪ ༤˘ ˊˁˣˣ˻ˋ, ˨˥˄˧ˁˣˣ˻ˋ ʓˁˆˁ˧˥ˢ ˅ ˋˋ ˦˥ˊˊˋ˧ː˜˫, ˨˪ˁˣˊˁ˧˪ˣ˻ˢ ˜˧˘˪ˋ˧˘̀ˢ ˘˨˪˥˧˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜˥˖ˣˁˣ˘̀. ʑ˥ˢ˘ˢ˥ ˽˪˥ˆ˥, ˥˄˨˫ːˊˁˋ˪˨̀ ˧̀ˊ ˅˥˦˧˥˨˥˅, ˨˅̀˖ˁˣˣ˻˲ ˨ ˆ˘˦˥˪ˋ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˦˧ˁ˧˥ˊ˘ˣ˥˙ ˨˘ˣ˥-˪˘˄ˋ˪˥-ˁ˅˨˪˧˥ˣˋ˖˘˙˴ˋ˅, ˅ ˪˥ˢ ˵˘˨༤ˋ ˅ ˜˥ˣ˪ˋ˜˨˪ˋ ˪ˁ˜˘˲ ˜˥ˣ˜˫˧˘˧˫˿˹˘˲ ˆ˘˦˥˪ˋ˖, ˜ˁ˜ ˨˘ˣ˥-˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˨˜ˁ̀. ʍ˻ ˦˧˘˲˥ˊ˘ˢ ˜ ˅˻˅˥ˊ˫, ˵˪˥ ˦˥ˊ˲˥ˊ, ˘˖˄˧ˁˣˣ˻˙ ʓˁˆˁ˧˥ˢ, ˣˋˊ˥˨˪ˁ˪˥˵ˣ˥ ˊ˥˜ˁ˖ˁ˪ˋ༤ˋˣ ˊ༤̀ ˪ˁ˜˥ˆ˥ ˧˥ˊˁ ˨༤˥ːˣ˻˲ ˘ ˦˧˥˪˘˅˥˧ˋ˵˘˅˻˲ ˆ˘˦˥˪ˋ˖ ˥ ˊˁ༤˼ˣˋˢ ̀˖˻˜˥˅˥ˢ ˧˥ˊ˨˪˅ˋ. ʂ˕˳˩ˀʻ˯ˀ ˜˕˙ʻʸ: ˨˘ˣ˥-˪˘˄ˋ˪˥-ˁ˅˨˪˧˥ˣˋ˖˘˙˨˜ˁ̀ ˆ˘˦˥˪ˋ˖ˁ; ˨˘ˣ˥-˪˘˄ˋ˪˨˜˘ˋ ̀˖˻˜˘; ˆˋˣˋ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˋ ˧˥ˊ˨˪˅˥ ̀˖˻˜˥˅; ˨˧ˁ˅ˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥-˘˨˪˥˧˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˙ ˢˋ˪˥ˊ.

18

George Starostin Russian State University for the Humanities / Higher School of Economics / Santa Fe Institute; [email protected]

Lexicostatistical Studies in Khoisan I: The Ju-੔Hoan Relationship 1 This paper is the first one in an intended series of publications on lexicostatistical relations between several linguistic groupings that have all been assigned by Joseph Greenberg to the hypothetical Khoisan macrofamily. Here, we examine the numbers and natures of various matches between the basic lexicon of two such groupings: the closely related cluster of Ju (North Khoisan) dialects and the Eastern ‫ۆ‬Hoan language, formerly considered an isolate but now widely regarded as the closest, and only non-controversial, genetic relative of Ju. Based on both superficial and etymological analysis of the data (including the reconstruction of a Swadesh wordlist for Proto-Ju), we conclude that there are from 32% to 44% matches between Proto-Ju and ‫ۆ‬Hoan (depending on the degree of strictness required from phonetic correspondences), which is translatable to a time depth comparable with such families as Fenno-Ugric and Kartvelian. Additionally, the distribution of cognates between the various stability layers of the basic lexicon is analyzed, leading to the conclusion that the matches are indeed indicative of genetic relationship rather than areal contact. Keywords: Khoisan languages, Ju languages, Eastern ખHoan language, lexicostatistics, glottochronology, comparative-historical method.

Introduction Despite significant progress that has been achieved over the past few decades in our understanding of the linguistic nature and historical relationships of the various «Khoisan» languages 2, there is still very little consensus on deep level genetic connections between low-level linguistic groupings, traditionally viewed as «Khoisan». Although practically all the researchers now working in the field seem to agree that Joseph Greenberg’s «Khoisan», including all the non-Bantu and non-Cushitic click languages of South and Central Africa, has not been convincingly shown to constitute a valid genetic entity, judgements differ significantly on what might be the deepest identifiable genetic links between the three commonly accepted «Khoisan» families (Northern, or Ju; Southern, or Tuu; Central, or Khoe) and the four known «Khoisan» language isolates (ખHoan, Kwadi, Sandawe, and Hadza) — particularly because the criteria for testing the plausibility of such links often depend on the personal intuitions and preferences of researchers 3. This research has been carried out as part of the Evolution of Human Languages project, supported by the Santa Fe Institute. Special gratitude goes to Dr. Bonny Sands, who provided the author with numerous insightful comments, corrections, and additional references at the early draft stage. 2 For a relatively complete summary of all these developments, see Rainer Vossen’s and Henry Honken’s succinct overviews in Vossen (ed.) 2013: 1–24. 3 See Greenberg 1966 for a comprehensive set of arguments in favor of Khoisan as a genetic unity; Güldemann 2014 for an overview of the current state of Khoisan classification from a grammatical and typological angle. The principal conclusions («two hypotheses seem to be promising to pursue in the future. In the order of probability these would be to join Sandawe with Khoe-Kwadi, and Kx’a (= Ju-ਮHoan /G.S./) with Tuu», p. 35) are conveniently consistent with the lexicostatistical conclusions in Starostin 2013, except that I would reverse the order of the two probabilities. 1

Journal of Language Relationship • ɳ˥˦˧˥˨˻ ̀˖˻˜˥˅˥ˆ˥ ˧˥ˊ˨˪˅ˁ • 16/1 (2018) • Pp. 19–62 • © The authors, 2018

George Starostin

A general unified framework for evaluating the various hypotheses on such links has been suggested in Starostin 2003, 2008, and further refined in Starostin 2013. It combines a formal lexicostatistical approach, serving as a common evaluation standard for all such hypotheses (applicable not only to «Khoisan» lineages but, in theory, to any of the world’s language families), with elements of the traditional comparative method and Greenberg’s multilateral comparison, and allows for a rough probabilistic ranking of competing hypotheses. However, the framework has not really been fully applied to all relevant data. In particular, inter-group comparison in Starostin 2013 has only been conducted (a) based on the abridged 50-item, rather than the complete 100-item variant of the Swadesh wordlist; (b) based on an automated algorithm of comparison (utilising Aron Dolgopolsky’s «consonant class method» of evaluating phonetic similarity 4), rather than the more fine-grained and historically significant method of establishing recurrent patterns of phonetic correspondences. Both of these decisions were intentional and technically inevitable within the scope of a general preliminary survey, resulting in a first-approximation classification scheme that should then be subject to additional revisions and refinements. The present paper is the first attempt at such a refinement, and is intended to provide additional insights into one of the most reliable and closest linkages confirmed by the overall survey, namely, the genetic connection between the Ju, or North Khoisan, cluster of closely related languages (or, perhaps, dialects of a single macro-language), and (Eastern) ખHoan (= ખH੏ã or ખHuã), an isolated language of Botswana. Such a connection could already be suspected from the lexical comparisons presented by Anthony Traill in his pioneering study of ખHoan (Traill 1973), and seemed plausible even to such a notorious «splitter» in the field of Khoisanology as E. O. J. Westphal (1974). Since then, the main proponents of a specific genetic (rather than areal) connection between Ju and ખHoan have been Henry Honken (1977, 1988) 5 and George Starostin (2003, 2008) 6. The most recent attempt for a comprehensive survey of the evidence relating the two small taxa is Heine & Honken 2010, where the authors provide their own reconstruction of the phonological system for Proto-Ju-ખHoan 7, illustrating it with numerous lexical examples. All in all, the total amount of lexical and grammatical isoglosses between Ju and ખHoan, coupled with numerous attested phonetic regularities between the observed etymological parallels, makes the Ju-ખHoan relationship proposal one of the most reliable and highly probable historical hypotheses about Khoisan languages in general. Nevertheless, in order to complete the formal testing of the hypothesis and to provide a stronger foundation for the genetic, rather than areal, interpretation of the evidence, we find it useful to present a detailed lexicostatistical evaluation of Ju-ખHoan, in accordance with the basic methodological guidelines laid out in Starostin 2013. A first attempt at such an evaluation For an up-to-date description of the Dolgopolsky method, see Kassian et al. 2015: 307. In his first publication on historical Khoisan linguistics (1977), Honken classifies ખHoan and Juઔ’hoan as «Ž1» and «Ž2» respectively, implying their close relationship without specifically commenting on it. In Honken 1988: 59, he explicitly states: «I have put Eastern ખhuã firmly in the Zhu family unlike Traill who regards it as a link between Zhu and Taa», providing several examples of lexical and phonetic isoglosses to strengthen his case. 6 In both of these sources, the primary argument for a close relationship between Ju and ખHoan is made on the basis of lexicostatistical analysis. However, Starostin 2008: 356–363 also presents a first approximation for a reconstruction of the «Proto-North-ખHoan» phonological system. 7 Heine and Honken have suggested the short name «Kx’a» to denote this taxon, based on the identical phonetic shape for the word ‘earth’ in both Ju and ખHoan. This seems to be more of a mnemonic tactic than a substantial decision (why should Ju-ખHoan be thought of as the ‘earth family’?), and it also bypasses the fact that the same word for ‘earth’ (kx’a) is also used in the unrelated extinct Kwadi language of Angola, which would complicate the matter even further. We prefer to stick to ‘Ju-ખHoan’ as a slightly more complex, but more accurate designation for this taxon. 4 5

20

Lexicostatistical Studies in Khoisan I: The Ju-ખHoan Relationship

was already carried out in Starostin 2003, where Proto-Ju (= Proto-North Khoisan) and ખHoan were found to have 43% matches on the Swadesh list. However, that comparison was merely a part of a much larger general study, not allowing the author to focus on specific issues of finding and evaluating lexicostatistical and etymological matches between the two taxa; moreover, it did not properly take into account the possible effects of areal diffusion, and employed somewhat lax and properly undefined criteria for establishing phonetic correspondences. Another important limitation is that it relied too heavily on limited and not wholly accurate lexical data for ખHoan, not being able to take into consideration a lot of data that have only been published over the past ten years (see our main sources below). A significant improvement has been offered in Starostin 2013, which already made use of much better data for both ખHoan and the different varieties of Ju. However, that study was also a general lexicostatistical evaluation of phonetic similarities (rather than regularities) between the different Khoisan lineages; and while the study itself, limited to the «ultra-stable» 50-item half of the Swadesh wordlist, confirmed the existence of a special link between Ju and ખHoan, it did not truly explore that link the way a thorough joint lexicostatistical-etymological study should have done. Consequently, this paper is an attempt to remedy that situation and provide a definitive lexicostatistical evaluation of the evidence for Ju-ખHoan, one that would allow us to formulate explicit historical statements about the relative chronology of these families, some particularities of their divergence, and their areal connections with other varieties of «Khoisan».

Data Complete and most up-to-date versions of the 110-item wordlists 8 for six different languagesɏ/ dialects of the Ju group and for (Eastern) ખHoan, accompanied by detailed annotations, are currently available at the Global Lexicostatistical Database (http://starling.rinet.ru/new100). The Ju lists differ significantly in quality, since only two of them are drawn from relatively recent sources that benefit from greater phonetic and semantic accuracy 9: Juઔ’hoan, based on Patrick Dickens’ dictionary (Dickens 1994), and Northwestern (Ekoka) !Xun (!Xung), based on the glossary in König & Heine 2008 (and largely coinciding, pending certain phonetic discrepancies, with the data in Heikkinen 1986). The availability of both these sources today is a strong advantage, since Juઔ’hoan and Ekoka represent two different sub-clusters of Ju dialects and are about as far removed from each other lexically as any two languagesɏ/ɏdialects of Ju can be. However, for the sakes of etymological and lexicostatistical accuracy, and as a necessary condition for a reliable reconstruction of the basic lexicon for Proto-Ju, it is imperative to also make use of older data, namely, the vocabularies collected by Lucy Lloyd, Dorothea Bleek, and Clement Doke, all of them eventually integrated in D. Bleek’s monumental comparative dictionary (Bleek 1956). We have specifically selected four varieties: The 110-item wordlist is a slightly expanded version of the standard 100-item Swadesh wordlist (with 10 additional items from the earlier 200-item version) commonly used in lexicostatistical studies conducted by the Moscow school of comparative linguistics. For specific details on the semantics of individual items and on the handling of potential synonyms, see Kassian et al. 2010. 9 This should not be understood as implying that these works are completely free of phonetic errors: in most cases, it makes sense to compare transcriptions by different specialists where they are available. Nevertheless, qualitative differences between most of the modern sources look relatively negligible when compared with the first systematic attempts at transcribing Ju (and other Khoisan) phonologies in the early 20th century. 8

21

George Starostin

(a) Lucy Lloyd's «!Kung», recorded in 1879–1880 from four young informants from around lake Ngami; typically correlated with what has been termed the «Central Dialect Cluster» in Snyman 1997, Treis 1998, and Sands 2010, but more recently re-aligned with the «North-Central» cluster by Florian Lionnet (2009) because of specific lexical, phonetic, and grammatical isoglosses; (b) Clement Doke’s «!HƇ๛» of Grootfontein (research originally published as Doke 1925), also typically grouped in the Central cluster (despite some significant discrepancies with Lloyd’s data, although it is often hard to understand if these discrepancies are real or due to inaccurate fixation); (c) Dorothea Bleek’s «કK’auકen» or «ખAu kwe» (the most modern transcription in Vossen 2013: 9 puts the dialect’s name as ખx’áó-ક’àeࠝ), recorded in the early 1920s at Sandfontein; this dialect is typically assumed to belong to the Southern cluster as well (Treis 1998: 468), although the issue remains open due to lack of modern data from the same region (Sands 2010) 10; (d) Dorothea Bleek’s «!O!kung», recorded in Central Angola in 1925; this dialect is lexically and phonetically very close to Ekoka !Xun, as well as to «Angolan !XƇ», a brief account of which was published as Snyman 1980. All four of these sources share the same advantages (sufficient in size to allow for a relatively complete and representative set of Swadesh-type wordlists; recorded a hundred or so years ago in communities slightly less linguistically susceptible to Khoe, Bantu, and European influence than they are today) and flaws (generally poor quality of transcription and possible semantic inaccuracies). In the case of this particular study, however, phonetic inaccuracies are not a significant problem as long as the necessary adjustments are made (i.e. there is a general understanding of what kinds of errors are typical for Lloyd’s and Bleek’s data); semantic inaccuracies are far more harmful for lexicostatistical data and can severely influence classifications and datings, but as long as the data may be compared with data from more recent and accurate sources, most of the potential errors may be successfully filtered out on the way from modern data to the reconstructed proto-wordlist 11. No «official» dictionary has so far been published for Eastern ખHoan, but enough lexical data have become available in the past few decades to make the language perfectly acceptable for lexicostatistical comparison. Most of that data have been collected by Jeffrey Gruber (G) and Chris Collins (C), our main source being the relatively recently published comparative grammar of the language (Collins, Gruber 2014), well illustrated by lexical and textual examples, and also heavily drawing upon previously published papers by the same authors (Collins 2001, 2002; Bell, Collins 2001; Gruber 1975). A few lacunae had to be filled in by data from the first ever published wordlist of ખHoan that was put together by Anthony Traill (1973); overall comparison of Traill’s data with Gruber’s and Collins’ materials shows that, while the quality of Traill’s transcription leaves a lot to be desired, his elicitation of ખHoan lexical equivalents for basic semantic notions was largely correct. Naturally, some data sources for other Khoisan languages have to be taken into consideration as well, since any serious study on the etymology or lexicostatistics of Ju-ખHoan has to take the areal factor into account. In particular, ખHoan is known to have been in tight contact Work on the documentation of ખx’áó-ક’àeࠝ is currently being conducted by Lee Pratchett (2017), but outside of several papers dealing with specific phonetic and grammatical issues, no comprehensive data collections have yet been made publicly available. 11 For the basic principles of reconstructing an «optimal» Swadesh-type proto-wordlist from attested lexical data (in accordance with which we reconstruct the Proto-Ju wordlist in this paper), see Starostin 2016. 10

22

Lexicostatistical Studies in Khoisan I: The Ju-ખHoan Relationship

with ઔGui, a Kalahari Khoe language, and through it (and, perhaps, directly as well), also with !Xóõ, a Taa language (Traill & Nakagawa 2000); although some of the resemblances between ખHoan and !Xóõ are not to be ruled out as potential evidence for genetic relationship on a deeper level than Ju-ખHoan (Starostin’s «Peripheral Khoisan»), specific binary isoglosses between the two languages without any parallels in the rest of «Peripheral Khoisan» are most likely explainable as results of diffusion. Most of the references to !Xóõ lexicon will be given according to Traill 1994; Kalahari Khoe references will be provided according to the reconstructions in Vossen 1997, except where specially noted. For the sakes of general convenience, we utilize here a unified system of transcription as is currently adopted for the purposes of the Global Lexicostatistical Database project; for the most part, it does not differ from IPA, except for a few details (such as the use of single-graph vs. digraph transcriptions for affricates: IPA ts = c, IPA tಝ = ², IPA tఁ = ఁ, etc.). In our transcription of click accompaniments, we also follow the old transcriptional convention by Rainer Vossen (1997), where voiced clicks are transcribed as ਷, ਹ etc. (instead of g਽, gਮ or ਽g, ਮg, etc.) and nasalized are transcribed as ਲ਼, ਵ etc. (instead of n਽, nਮ or ਽n, ਽n etc.).

Comparative procedure For the sake of historical accuracy, lexicostatistical comparison between Ju languages and ખHoan has to be carried out on the level of protolanguage reconstruction in the case of Ju 12. Although some details of Proto-Ju and the phonetic laws that tie it to its modern descendants still remain poorly understood (mostly in the sphere of tonology and non-productiveɏ/ɏfossilized nominal morphology), all the dialects are close enough to provide evidence for the basic phonetic shape of the protoforms, particularly with the aid of precious comparative data in J.ɍSnyman’s (1997) dialectal survey. It is very important not to rely exclusively on a single source, such as Patrick Dickens’ exhaustive dictionary of Juઔ’hoan, which, paradoxically, sometimes provides too much data for an accurate lexicostatistical analysis (for instance, many basic terms, such as body parts, are often represented in that dictionary by doublet forms — one inherited from Proto-Ju, one recently borrowed from Khoe; external comparison with other Ju dialects helps sort the situation out very easily). Although a definitive arealɏ/ɏhistorical classification for Ju dialects is still lacking, it seems clear from both phonetic and lexical evidence that the sharpest dividing line separates the Southern cluster, represented most prominently by Juઔ’hoan, from the Northern cluster, represented by Ekoka !Xun. The lexicostatistical implications are such that, quite often, one finds a binary opposition between Juઔ’hoan (and related dialects) and Ekoka (and related dialects), where simple distributional considerations are not enough to understand which of the two roots is a better candidate for the respective «Swadesh meaning» on the Proto-Ju wordlist. In such cases, we resort to «extra-distributional rules» 13 to help resolve the situation, wherever they are applicable. When no reasonable choice can be made, we may count two roots as «technical synonyms» and subject both of them to comparison with ખHoan. Theoretically, it is also possible to subject ‫ۆ‬Hoan data to the reconstruction procedure, since we know of at least one additional dialectal variety, Sasi, somewhat divergent from ‫ۆ‬Hoan proper; however, data on Sasi are extremely limited and, at best, show it to be slightly more archaic in terms of certain phonetic features, but not in terms of lexical stability. For more details on the differences between the two dialects, see Collins & Gruber 2014: 17–20. 13 For a complete list of said rules, illustrated by examples, see Starostin 2016. These typically have to do with internal etymologization or external analysis (checking for borrowings, etc.). 12

23

George Starostin

Matches between Proto-Ju reconstructions and ખHoan forms are evaluated on a somewhat fine-grained scale, allowing for a more insightful final analysis. The «evaluation marks» are as follows: + : Definitive lexicostatistical matches. To get a + mark, both parts of the comparison have to be reliably attested or reconstructed in the appropriate Swadesh meaning, and be phonetically compatible, i.e. agree with the basic correspondence patterns, identified in Starostin 2008 and in Heine & Honken 2010 (see below on the comparison between the two systems). «Phonetic compatibility» does not necessarily imply complete historical transparency of the correspondences between each of the segmental and suprasegmental features, but it does imply that the majority of segmental alignments should display pattern-like behavior 14. ± : Potential lexicostatistical matches. These pairings, also reliably attested or reconstructed in the appropriate Swadesh meaning, typically display a remarkable degree of phonetic similarity, but also feature at least one (preferably not more than one) major segmental discrepancy that cannot be explained according to our current understanding of the historical phonology of Ju-ખHoan. Such matches cannot be taken as direct evidence for relationship and should not be included into the main round of lexicostatistical calculations, but since we cannot claim to know everything there is to know about regular vs. sporadic developments from Proto-Ju-ખHoan to their modern descendants, it makes perfect sense to make note of such potential matches and include them in an alternate set of lexicostatistical calculations (see below). Ì : Etymostatistical (etymological) matches. Since this study is carried out on the data of a compact, binary taxon, tied together by sets of phonetic correspondences, it makes sense to expand the strict lexicostatistical analysis (demanding exact semantic matches between compared items) by also taking into consideration those situations where a Proto-Ju Swadesh item finds a good phoneticɏ/ɏsemantic match in ખHoan (or vice versa), but the meanings are semantically related rather than semantically identical. Based on typological (and simply logical) arguments, in any situation of language relationship we should be able to find such matches in addition to direct lexicostatistical ones, and comparing their numbers and their character to those of direct lexicostatistical matches should provide additional insight into the degree and nature of their relationship. - : No matches. There are no hitherto detected parallels between the compared items. (Given the deficiency of our knowledge on Ju and especially ખHoan lexicon, any of these pairings could turn out to be etymostatistical matches in the future, but it is highly unlikely that they will ever turn out to be direct lexicostatistical matches). ? : Insufficient data. These are the cases where the respective item is not attested in our sources on ખHoan (e.g. ‘bark’), or is insufficiently well attested in Ju idioms to be reconstructible (e.g. ‘round’). In all such cases, the Swadesh item is excluded from calculations, and any percentages are calculated out of the remaining items. The same also applies to a few cases where either the ખHoan item (e.g. ‘salt’) or the Proto-Ju (or, rather, «Common Ju») item (e.g. ‘fish’) is highly likely to have been borrowed from a third source, such as !Xóõ or Khoe. An additional factor to be taken into consideration is the distribution of detected cognates across the wordlist. In accordance with the well-known and empirically well confirmed «Yakhontov principle» (genetically related languages will share more matches on the more stable subFor instance, the exact factors determining the lack or presence of voicing during click articulation in JuખHoan cognates remain obscure; however, recurrent examples are available for all four types of possible correlations, confirming their regularity. In other words, it is impossible at present to offer unequivocal Proto-Ju-ખHoan reconstructions for such items (due to insufficient data or incomplete analysis of all the factors that could be involved), but it is possible to regard them as reliable cognates. 14

24

Lexicostatistical Studies in Khoisan I: The Ju-ખHoan Relationship

section of the lexicostatistical wordlist, while languages in contact will share more matches on the less stable sub-section), we separate the 100-item list in two halves and compare the numbers for all types of matches (definitive, potential, etymostatistical) separately, so that the nature of relationship between Ju and ખHoan could be assessed according to that parameter — and so that the results could also contribute to establishing a general benchmark for all such types of situations.

Correspondences Unlike deeper level lexicostatistical comparisons, where comparanda still have to be evaluated on the basis of phonetic similarity rather than phonetic correspondences, Proto-Ju and ખHoan forms have the benefit of actually being linked together by recurrent phonetic isomorphisms, as shown in Starostin 2008 and Heine & Honken 2010. Due to data limitations and certain unresolved issues with Proto-Ju itself, these isomorphisms have not yet been processed to the stage of a definitive, all-encompassing phonological reconstruction of Proto-Ju-ખHoan, but enough of them have been observed for us to be able to confidently propose common JuખHoan etymologies even in certain cases where the forms do not at all look alike. In the notes section for each individual comparison, we typically comment on the degree of regularity that may be inferred for specific Ju-‫ۆ‬Hoan segments, particularly when these segments are not phonetically identical. Where necessary and/or possible, additional examples to confirm the recurrent nature of the pattern are drawn upon from the available corpus of Ju‫ۆ‬Hoan etymological comparanda (most of it published either in Starostin 2008 or in Heine & Honken 2010). The complete list of correspondences observed between Ju and ‫ۆ‬Hoan basic lexicon items is given in the Appendix, with each correspondence enumerated so that it can be briefly referred to in the main section of the paper. A detailed description of the phonological systems of (Proto-)Ju and ‫ۆ‬Hoan lies well beyond the scope of the current paper. See Miller 2013 for an up-to-date brief account of Ju phonology and phonetics, Honken 2013 for the same concerning Eastern ‫ۆ‬Hoan, and the abovementioned papers by Starostin and Heine/Honken for comparisons between the two.

Abbreviations Language names: PJ = Proto-Ju; Ek. = Ekoka !Xun; Ju. = Ju‫’ۄ‬hoan; Kg. = (Lucy Lloyd's) !Kung; Kx. = ખX’áó-ક’àeࠝ; OK. = (Dorothea Bleek's) !O!Kung. Sources: C = Ch. Collins (for ‫ۆ‬Hoan); G = J. Gruber (for ‫ۆ‬Hoan); S = B. Sands (for ‫ۆ‬Hoan); HH = Heine, Honken 2010; SH = Sands, Honken 2014.

Juɍ/ɍ੔Hoan comparative wordlist 1. ALL (+) • PJ: *wòe-še (Ju. wè-šè, Kx. oá-si, Gr. we෨še-s‫ޙ‬, OK. wì-sè ~ wè-šè, Ek. w১hŖ-šŖ). × Preserved in all daughter dialects. No alternate stems. The reconstruction follows the Ekoka variant as phonetically more archaic in its vocalism; the variant *wè-še is also possible. Extra low tone in Ekoka is not, however, confirmed by the rest of the data. The form is morphologically complex: the derivation is transparently seen in Ekoka, cf. w১hà ‘for25

George Starostin

• •

ever’, w১hè ‘some time ago, already, just’. The meaning of the suffix *-še, however, remains unknown. ખHoan: ùŗ (G). Ju-ખHoan: A phonetically similar and compatible match 15. Since initial *w- in PJ is not prothetic, we have to suppose simplification in ખHoan (*woe ਘ ue). The suffix *-še may have been a PJ innovation. × HH: 14.

2. ASHES (-) • PJ: *t਍๔ (Ju. t১ิ, Kx. t՝෨, Kg. t෨՝෨ ~ tó). × Not attested in the Nothern dialects, except for the reduplicated variant t৤oิ-t৤oิ in Snyman 1980: 33. OK. ਹòŊ ‘ashes’ = Ju. ਹ১৤Ʊ ‘soap’, both forms probably having been borrowed from Khoe sources, cf. Proto-Khoe *ਹoa ‘ashes’ (Vossen 1997: 417); Ek. ਸ১hà ‘ashes’ probably belongs here as well, but the click correspondence is irregular (possibly a transcription error). • ખHoan: ਜ਼oe (T). × Only attested in Traill's records (as ਵoe ~ ਵue ~ ਵueվ), so the precise phonological shape is uncertain; however, the word is clearly not a possible match for PJ. • Ju-ખHoan: No lexicostatistical or etymological matches. 3. BARK (?) • PJ: *ਗ਼o๔ՖrVA (Ju. ਴oิԸòrò, Ek. ਴ùlì). × Reliably reconstructible for the PJ stage, although in many dialects, particularly those found in Bleek's dictionary, the meaning ‘bark’ is usually merged with ‘skin’ (Kx. ਲ਼o-si, Kg. ਲ਼߻ ~ ਲ਼ò ~ ਲ਼߽wa; see ‘skin’ below). • ખHoan: Not attested. 4. BELLY (+) • PJ: *੘ú (Ju. ਲú, Kx. ਲú, Kg. ਲù ~ ਲú, Gr. ਲ଄, OK. ਲú, Ek. ਲú). × Preserved in all daughter dialects. No alternate stems. Straightforward reconstruction. • ખHoan: !Ŷ (C, G); !଄ଇ ~ !óŵ ~ !Ʊ଄෨ (S). • Ju-ખHoan: A phonetically similar and compatible match (see corr. #12, #38a). × HH: 17 16. 5. BIG (Ì) • PJ: *੡àՖà (Ju. ਱ãԸ୮, Kx. ਱a/෨/, Kg. ਴Ըa, Gr. ެ਻Ըa෨, OK. ਴a ~ ਴á ~ ਴aa, Ek. ਴à ~ ਴ŊԸà). × Preserved in all daughter dialects. Correspondences are regular, indicating an original retroflex nasalized click and a glottal stop between the vowels. • ખHoan: (a) ੔՟৷, (b) ੟ਊo (C, G). × Both of these words are consistently glossed as ‘big’ in available sources, but textual examples offer no hint at their semantic differences. • Ju-ખHoan: No direct matches. However, (a) is a transparent etymological match with PJ *ਮվi ‘much, many’ (Ju. ਮվáí, OK. ਮվí, etc.; see MANY); the semantic shift ‘big’ ਠ ‘many’ is quite trivial, although the direction of the shift remains unclear in this case. The vocalic correspondence is unique (if we are talking about the coda as a whole), but there are not a lot of cases of Proto-Ju *-oe with reliable parallels in ખHoan. At least one attested case also involves ખHoan -ui (PJ *šoe ‘to take out / take off’ = ખHoan šui ‘to drop off’). 16 In Sands, Honken 2014: 252, the connection is put in doubt because of the incompatibility of Ju ਲand ખHoan !Ʊ-, but it is not certain that the aspirated accompaniment is phonologically primary in this case (most of the other sources agree on zero accompaniment, and even Sands herself records phonetic variation between !- and !Ʊ-). 15

26

Lexicostatistical Studies in Khoisan I: The Ju-ખHoan Relationship

6. BIRD (-) • PJ: *cഗŋ(m)-mà (Ju. cೱàmà, Kx. cama, Kg. caba, Gr. cೱauà, OK. cama, Ek. ŏೱámà). × Preserved in all daughter dialects. The word is morphologically complex; the second component is clearly identifiable as PJ *-ma ‘small; diminutive suffix’, cf. the corresponding plural form ŏೱá-௓Ʊè in Ek. Given the additional presence of Ek. ŏೱám ‘poultry, bird, aeroplane’, it is possible, but not certain, that the original root shape was *cೱŊm rather than *cೱŊ (with subsequent contraction *-mm- ਘ -m- in most dialects). • ખHoan: ੔৷-sì: (G). × The suffix -si is a diminutive morpheme. • Ju-ખHoan: H. Honken (1988: 60) quotes the ખHoan form cƱà෨ิma ‘bird’, apparently taken from Gruber's formally unpublished field records; if it really exists and has an ornithological meaning, it is clearly related to the PJ equivalent. However, no additional sources confirm this, and all text examples that can be elicited from existing sources clearly show that ਮ৓-sì is the most common and neutral generic term for ‘bird’ in this language. Pending further publications of data, we prefer to disregard this form for the time being. 7. BITE (±) • PJ: *ഗ੗ŋŗ (Ju. ਱áí, Kx. ਱à ~ ਱e(෨), Kg. ਱e෨ ~ ਱è෨, Ek. ೱ਱ŊŖ-‫)ލ‬. × The only divergent form is OK. ਲ਼à, unless Bleek's transcription of the dental click is erroneous (not highly likely). The Ek. form (a compound with ‫‘ ލ‬eat’ as the second part) is essential for the reconstruction, since this is the only dialect in which the preglottalized nasalized click has been explicitly elicited. Vocalic correspondences point to the diphthong *ae rather than *ai as the original constituent. • ખHoan: ੘ái (C). • Ju-ખHoan: Despite obvious phonetic similarity (click influx and vocalism match perfectly), the two forms cannot be considered a solid etymological match, since the preglottalized nasal click in PJ always corresponds to a nasal click in ખHoan as well (see HEAD below). Nevertheless, with two features matching out of three, the unique correspondence between click effluxes may reflect some undetected contamination, or even be part of a regular pattern, undetectable due to lack of data. We count this as a potential match with low probability. 8. BLACK (-) • PJ: *žŶ (Ju. žó, Kx. ž߽෨, Kg. ़ó ~ ़ò ~ ़߻, OK. ़o ~ ़u෨, Ek. ़ŵ). • ખHoan: ੔kxau (C). • Ju-ખHoan: No lexicostatistical or clearly defined etymological parallels. 9. BLOOD (+) • PJ: *੒ഗVƖ (Ju. ਽ೱáƖ, Kx. ਽ೱŠ, Kg. ਽ೱŠ ~ ਽ೱŠƖ). × Vocalic reconstruction is uncertain. This word is not attested in the Northern cluster, where the corresponding equivalents fluctuate between *਴oิru (Ek. ਴ŵิlú ~ ਴úิlú; cf. also Kg. ਴óru ~ ਴՝ru) and *yaru (OK. yalo ~ yalu, quoted as yàlò ~ yƈlà in Snyman 1980: 34). The former of these is probably inherited, but its dialectal distribution is quite sparse compared to *਽ೱaƖ; the latter has a phonetic shape that is highly atypical of Ju languages (with an initial y-) and is most likely of non-Ju origin. • ખHoan: ੒qഗí (C), ‫ۄ‬ഗí‫( ޝ‬S). • Ju-ખHoan: A plausible lexicostatistical match with recurrent phonetic correspondences. × SH: 238. 27

George Starostin

10. BONE (-) • PJ: *!ഗƉ (Ju. !ೱƈ, Kx. !ೱú෨, Kg. !ù ~ !ú, Gr. !ೱú෨, OK. !ೱu ~ !ೱo, Ek. !ೱú). × Preserved in all daughter dialects. Ju. shows the rare extra high tone on this root, possibly an archaic feature. • ખHoan: తáญ๔ (C) ਙ *tá๔. × Internal phonetic reconstruction derives all palatal plosives from original coronal stops. • Ju-ખHoan: No lexicostatistical matches; the closest etymological connection to PJ *!ೱƈ in ખHoan may be !ೱui ‘spine’ (C), but only provided that final -i can be explained away as an old suffixal extension, which is currently unclear. The ખHoan word has no known Ju equivalents. × In HH: 15, the comparison of PJ *!ೱƈ to ખHoan !ೱui is justified by reconstructing an obscure diphthong *-Vi (cf. PJ *!xo = ખHoan !xƈi ‘elephant’ for extra support), but this is not a phonologically viable explanation; it is more likely that morphological reasons are responsible for both cases. 11. BREAST (= CHEST /male/) (-) • PJ: *੘òՖá (Ju. ਲòԸá, Kx. ਲwa෨). × The reconstruction is approximate due to lack of data (initial click could have been *਼ instead of *ਲ). Essentially an isogloss between Ju. and Kx.; a much less stable root than the far more widespread and perfectly reconstructible *ku ‘female breast; milk’ (ਘ Ju. kù, Ek. kƉú etc.). Nevertheless, the only alternate candidate for PJ ‘/male/ chest’ is Ek. ŏ޷،, corresponding to various forms with the meaning ‘lungs’ in Ju dialects (Gr. sƅԸã, Cuito/Cuando šõԸã, etc.) and probably representing the results of a metonymic semantic shift. • ખHoan: !Ոਊ๔mŋ (C, G). × The meaning of this word is glossed as ‘chest (of humans’) in Collins 2001: 458; according to the same source, this item is lexically opposed to ਷oԸe ‘chest (of animal)’ and ਮxƉŢ ‘breast (of a non-human animal)’. • Ju-ખHoan: No lexicostatistical matches, although, interestingly enough, both words have parallels in Taa — ખHoan !ժ৤ิmŊ is practically the same item as !Xóõ ਲqŊƱma ‘sternum’ (the parallel may reflect either a genetic or an areal connection), while PJ *ਲòԸá is formally comparable with !Xóõ ਸú෨ ‘chest’). 12. BURN (tr.) (?) • PJ: *kƊՖú (Ju. kùԸú, Kx. kou ~ kau, Kg. kuú ~ koú ~ kóù, Ek. kƉԸú). × Preserved in all daughter dialects, often with polysemy ‘to burn / to roast’. • ખHoan: Not attested in reliable sources. Traill (1973: 29) quotes two different forms, ਰui and Ը਱am, both with the meaning ‘burn’. He does not specify, however, whether these stems are transitive or intransitive, and their existence has not yet been confirmed in published sources. 13. CLAW (= NAIL) (±) • PJ: *੣ƊՖrú (Ju. !ùԸúrú, Kx. ਭuru, Kg. ਭuru, Gr. ਼uೝù, OK. ਭulu ~ ਭ՝nu, Ek. !Ɖlú). × Preserved everywhere. Reliably reconstructed with a retroflex click, although the Ek. reflex !- instead of ਭ- is irregular; it may reflect a secondary contamination with *!uru ‘quiver’ (= Ju. !ùrù, etc.). Glottalic articulation in word-medial position is less certain (only attested in Ju.). • ખHoan: !Ŷ๔ (HH), !o๔Ֆo (C). • Ju-ખHoan: The potential relation between these two forms is problematic. The correspondence between Ju *ਿ and ખHoan ! is supported by at least two more significant examples (PJ *਼aԸma ‘to enter’ — ખHoan !aิm ‘to enter /plural action/’; PJ *਼ai ‘puff-adder’ — 28

Lexicostatistical Studies in Khoisan I: The Ju-ખHoan Relationship

ખHoan ਲai ‘snake’); however, the lack (or near-lack) of the second syllable in ખHoan is suspicious, since intervocalic *-r- is not supposed to get deleted in that language. On the other hand, it cannot be excluded that the *-ru component in PJ goes back to an earlier suffix. For now, it is preferable to asssess the connection as questionable, but possible. × In HH: 25, the etymology is accepted, but the PJ word is reconstructed with initial *!- rather than *ਿ-, following the Ek. variant, and also because, according to HH, PJ *ਿ- : ખHoan *!- is not a valid correspondence. This seems a less likely solution, in light of the examples quoted above. 14. CLOUD (?) • PJ: Not properly reconstructible. The best candidate is probably the PJ compound expression *੘!à=!kxúí, literally ‘rain-hair’ (Ju. ਲà=!kxúí, Kx. ਲà=kxwí-si, etc.). • ખHoan: Not attested. 15. COLD (±) • PJ: *੔àՖƊ (Ju. ਮàԸú, Kg. ਮáo ~ ਮa߃, Ek. ਿàò ~ ਿàԸŵ). × In the Southern cluster, this equivalent seems to have been replaced, cf. Kx. ਮxi෨, Gr. ਮxƖ෨ ‘cold’, probably the same root as Ju. ਮx୮ഺ ‘to tremble, to be frightened’ (thus, ‘cold’ = ‘shivery’). PJ *ਮàԸƉ is better distributed across dialect clusters and has no semantics other than simply ‘cold’, which makes it the optimal candidate. • ખHoan: ੔ਊ๔a (C). × This seems to be the most basic equivalent for the term, well illustrated by textual examples and preferable over more rare synonyms such as ਽aba ‘cold’ (C) and ਭqau ‘cold; ice’ (C). • Ju-ખHoan: Although the click and the first vowel match perfectly, there are irreconcilable differences concerning the second mora; we have to assume that *-u in PJ was an originally detachable morphological element in order to relate these two items, and there is no evidence for that so far. A serious counterargument comes from the side of external comparison, since the PJ form seems to be well correlated with !Xóõ (Taa) ਭâԸƅ ‘cold’ (see Starostin 2008: 387), implying that the labial vowel in this etymon is archaic. Nevertheless, for formal reasons we do not completely exclude the partial match from comparison. Additionally, ખHoan ਽aba ‘cold’ is well comparable to Ju. ਽àbò ‘to shiver’. 16. COME (Ì) • PJ: *cí (Ju. c৷, Kx. cí ~ ŏí, OK. cí ~ ŏi). × In many dialects, this meaning corresponds to two quasi-synonyms, the other one being PJ *੝àè. In two sources at least, it even seems to be the primary equivalent for the meaning ‘come’: Kg. ਷é ~ ਷é෨, Ek. ਷è. In Ju., however, the meaning of ਷àè is ‘to arrive (= reach the final destination)’ rather than ‘to come (to smbd.)’. In Ek., the old equivalent is still preserved in the imperative form (ŏí ‘come!’), indirectly confirming the original opposition of *cí ‘come’ vs. *਷àè ‘arrive’. • ખHoan: Őŋ (G, C). • Ju-ખHoan: Despite superficial similarity, the two forms do not regularly correspond to each other. A much better parallel for ખHoan ŏŊ is Ju. ŏá ‘to go and fetch’, Ek. ŏŊ ‘to fetch’, indicating that ‘come’ may have been the original meaning of the root, but in PJ only an old fused form *ŏa-a (where *-a is the common Ju transitive suffix) has been preserved. As for Ju *cí and *਷àè, neither of the two words finds any reliable etymological matches in ખHoan. 29

George Starostin

17. DIE (+) • PJ: *੣ae (Ju. !৭í, Kx. ਮé෨ ~ ਮéi ~ ਮí, Kg. ਭé ~ ਭè, Gr. ਿáí, OK. ਭé ~ ਭe, Ek. ਭŊŖ ~ ਭŖ). × Preserved in all daughter dialects. Singular subject action verb; the corresponding plural form is *੣ao (Ju. !àò, Kx. ਮau, Kg. ਭau, OK. ਭau, Ek. ਭàŵ). Both stems are reliably reconstructed with the retroflex click, and it is tempting to trace them back to a single root (*ਿa-) with different vocalic extensions. However, there is not a single other example that could hint at the productivity of this morphological operation on the PJ level; considering that all other known pairs of singular vs. plural action verbs in PJ are completely suppletive, etymological relationship between *ਿae and *ਿao cannot be reliably demonstrated without supporting external data. • ખHoan: šਝ (G, C). × The plural action equivalent is a composite form: šേ-ਲ਼à. • Ju-ખHoan: The correspondence between the PJ voiced/voiceless retroflex click and the ખHoan voiced/voiceless palatal fricative is recurrent (see more examples in the entries for ‘hand’, ‘water’, corr. #35b); vocalic correspondences are also easily reconciled, and cases where sporadic nasalization in ખHoan is missing in Ju. are well known (cf. PJ *ਸa ‘to stand /plural action/’ = ખHoan ਸã id., corr. #18). This is a sufficient basis to regard both forms as etymological and lexicostatistical matches. However, the singular/plural action suppletivism of Ju finds no parallels in ખHoan. 18. DOG (-) • PJ: *੟ho-š ~ *੟ho-e (Ju. ਹhৡ৸ ~ ਹhòà, Kx. !՝, Kg. ਮhwé ~ ਮwé, Gr. ਮೱhwÄ෨ ~ ƖਮೱhwÄ෨, OK. ਮwé, Ek. ਼hŵŖ). × Preserved in all dialects; however, there are at least three different morphological variants of this stem, with *ਹho-Š and *ਹho-e being the most frequent ones, and *ਹho-a only found in Ju. Although the origins of this diversity are unclear (probably a reflection of Pre-Proto-Ju's morphological productivity), the evidence seems to point to *ਹho- as the original root for all these forms. • ખHoan: తŔamà (C, G) ਙ *tema. × The old non-palatalized variant tœmà is still preserved in the Sasi dialect. • Ju-ખHoan: No lexicostatistical or clearly defined etymological parallels. 19. DRINK (±) • PJ: *Őh਌Ɩ (Ju. ŏhì, Kx. ŏí, Kg. šiƖ ~ ŏiƖ, Gr. š‫ޣ‬෨, OK. ŏ৸, Ek. š௉). × Preserved in all daughter dialects. Coda reconstruction is not fully secure, but loss of the final velar nasal in Ju. is a recurrent phenomenon, so all the listed forms are unquestionably related. • ખHoan: ŐƊ (C, G). • Ju-ખHoan: Despite some obvious phonetic similarity, it is hard to reconcile the codas: although cases in which a final velar nasal in PJ seems to leave no trace in ખHoan are relatively numerous (see corr. #16), the vocalic correspondence «PJ *-i(Ɩ) : ખHoan -u» remains unique. However, precise behavior of vowels in such specific contexts (between a palatal affricate and an unstable velar nasal coda) can hardly be predicted at the present time, and this means that the parallel can be provisionally accepted as a potential «weak» match. 20. DRY (-) • PJ: *੣kxau (Ju. !kx৭ú, Kg. ਿáo ~ ਭ áo ~ ਭào ~ ਭkxáo, Gr. ਿೱau, Ek. ਭkxŊŵ). × Preserved in all daughter dialects. Original retroflex click safely reconstructed based on the correspondence between Ju. and Ek. • ખHoan: ੒qഗau (C). 30

Lexicostatistical Studies in Khoisan I: The Ju-ખHoan Relationship

•

Ju-ખHoan: No lexicostatistical or clearly defined etymological parallels. (An alternate synonym in Ju., ਽ೱò ‘dry’, looks quite compatible with the form in ખHoan, but has to be discarded as non-reconstructible for the PJ level and most likely recently borrowed from a Khoe source, along with numerous other secondary equivalents for basic terms in Ju.).

21. EAR (+) • PJ: *੒ഗhúí (Ju. ਽ೱhúí, Kx. ਽wí, Kg. ਽úi, Gr. ਽hw୘, OK. ਽wí, Ek. ਽ೱhúí). × Preserved in all daughter dialects. PJ reconstruction relies on the full coincidence of the Ju. and Ek. forms. • ખHoan: ੒q՟ய஛ (C, G), ੒q՟ପ୾ (SH). • Ju-ખHoan: Correspondences are completely regular, with the uvular component of the efflux in ખHoan matching the glottalization in Ju (for a fully identical supporting example, cf. PJ *਽ೱվƅ ‘steenbok’ = ‫ۆ‬Hoan Ϫqվ஋ৠ id.); examples of «ખHoan oe = Ju. ui» are scarce, but examples of «ખHoan o = Ju u» are not (see corr. #12), so the vocalism is hardly problematic. × HH: 29; SH: 253. 22. EARTH (+) • PJ: *kxà (Ju. kxà, Kx. kxa, Kg. kxá, Gr. kxá෨, OK. kxa, Ek. kxà). × Preserved in all daughter dialects. Reconstruction is based on the completely coinciding forms in Ju. and Ek. Neither any of the modern dialects nor, as may be inferred, PJ itself make any clear lexical differentiation between ‘earth’ and ‘sand’, due to specific landscape conditions of the Ju people. • ખHoan: kxà (C, G). • Ju-ખHoan: An obvious match. Complete phonetic identity between both forms is interpretable in terms of regular phonetic correspondences, i.e. there is no need to assume areal diffusion, particularly since the isogloss is exclusive to Ju and ખHoan, but not to Tuu or Khoe. Of note, however, is the presence of the same word for ‘earth’ in Kwadi (Westphal 1966: 144), a language that is unrelated or very distantly related to JuખHoan, so in this case areal diffusion is a likely scenario. × HH: 13, 24. 23. EAT (+) • PJ: *Ֆ߱ (Ju. Ը‫ލ‬, Kx. m෨ ~ m, Kg. ‫ލ‬෨ ~ ‫ފ‬෨, Gr. Ը‫ލ‬෨, OK. m ~ ‫ލ‬, Ek. ‫)ލ‬. × Preserved in all daughter dialects. The root, just as it is attested in most dialects, should be reconstructed with a high-toned syllabic *‫ ލ‬preceded by a glottal stop (or a single preglottalized nasal consonant). • ખHoan: Ֆám (C, G). • Ju-ખHoan: A perfect match. ખHoan, unlike Ju languages, seems to generally lack syllabic nasal consonants, so the shift *m ਘ am is more probable than the opposite. × HH: 14 (advocating for the reconstruction *am). 24. EGG (-) • PJ: *੗u (Ju. ਱ù, Kx. ਱u෨, Kg. ਱ú, OK. ਱u ~ ਱ú, Ek. ਱ùƉ ~ ਱ŵú). × Preserved in all daughter dialects. • ખHoan: k՟৸Ֆӻ (C, G). × The alternate form ŏxui ~ ఁվxui, found in Traill 1973: 29, is not confirmed in newer sources. • Ju-ખHoan: No lexicostatistical or clearly defined etymological parallels. 31

George Starostin

25. EYE (+) • PJ: *੝àՖŋ (Ju. ਷àԸá, Kx. ਷a, Kg. ਷á ~ ਷a‫ ~ ؘ‬਷ೱá, Gr. ਷ƕԸa ~ ਷ೱa ~ ਷aԸa, OK. ਷a, Ek. ਷àԸŊ). × Preserved in all daughter dialects. Initial vowel is occasionally reduced, creating an odd «voiced glottalized» click effect (although such transcriptions are only attested in old sources). • ખHoan: ੖Ŷŋ, pl. ੖৸ӻ (C, G). • Ju-ખHoan: Despite the lack of phonetic similarity, both forms can be reconciled by means of recurrent correspondences. Examples of the ખHoan labial click corresponding to PJ dental *਽ also include such basic and semantically stable terms as ‘head’ q.v., ‘sky’ (ખHoan ਸ਼oaບ = PJ *ਲ਼aԸa), ‘duiker’ (ખHoan ਰೱu = PJ *਽ೱau), and possibly ‘one’ q.v. For the lack of voiced articulation in ખHoan, see corr. #38a. As for the diphthong oa in ખHoan, labial articulation here, judging by all attested cases of words with labial clicks, is automatic after such a click (corr. #1a) 17. The word should probably be reconstructed as *ਰaԸ-, perhaps with an original paradigm of sg. *ਰaԸ-a, pl. *ਰaԸ-i/N/, levelled in PJ. × HH: 18, 27. 26. FAT (-) • PJ: *ਖ਼í (Ju. ਲ਼áí, Kx. ਲ਼í, Kg. ਲ਼í ~ ਲ਼ai ~ ਲ਼áie, Gr. ਲ਼áí, OK. ਲ਼í, Ek. ਲ਼éí ~ ਲ਼í). × Preserved in all daughter dialects (sometimes glossed as ‘fat’, sometimes as ‘oil’; there seems to be no lexical differentiation between the two meanings). Original *-i diphthongized in Ju. and several other dialects. • ખHoan: ੒ui ~ ੒ഗui (T). × Not very reliable (attested only in A. Traill's old publication). • Ju-ખHoan: If Traill's notation for ખHoan is correct (although the strange variation between click effluxes makes it doubtful), the form is incompatible with the Ju. equivalent. 27. FEATHER (-) • PJ: Same word as ‘hair’ q.v. (sometimes used in conjunction with ‘bird’ q.v.). • ખHoan: Same word as ‘hair’ q.v. • Ju-ખHoan: Same lack of lexicostatisticalɏ/ɏetymological matches as in ‘hair’ q.v. 28. FIRE (-) • PJ: *dàՖá (Ju. dàԸá, Kx. dà, Kg. da෨ ~ d෨ೱa ~ da‫ؘ‬, Gr. dƕԸa ~ daԸa, OK. dà ~ dàa, Ek. dàԸà). × Preserved in all daughter dialects. First vowel sometimes gets reduced (see ‘eye’ for the same structure). • ખHoan: ਺oa (C, G). • Ju-ખHoan: No lexicostatistical or clearly defined etymological parallels. 29. FISH (?) • PJ: Technically reconstructible for the PJ stage as *ਭೱau (Ju. ਭೱàù, Kg. ਭೱau෨, OK. ਭೱau, Ek. ਭೱáú). However, all attested forms are plausibly interpreted as borrowings from a Khoe source (cf. Proto-Khoe *ਭೱau ‘fish’); these borrowings may have taken place either before the disintegration of PJ or already after, but there is no reason to think of them as inherited from a Proto-Ju-ખHoan, let alone earlier, stage of development. Ek. ਲòlŵ ‘fish’ is different, but etymologically obscure. In HH: 18, labial articulation of the vowel is considered to be primary in such cases, with the authors reconstructing Proto-Kxa *-oCa ਘ ખHoan -o-a, Ju *-a-a. However, since all of their examples involve items with ખHoan labial clicks or, at least, another labial consonant in the vicinity, it makes more sense to assume secondary labialization of the vowel in ખHoan. 17

32

Lexicostatistical Studies in Khoisan I: The Ju-ખHoan Relationship

• •

ખHoan: Not attested. Ju-ખHoan: Not reconstructible. The generic term ‘fish’ may not have existed in the protolanguage at all, given the geographical localisation of its descendants.

30. FLY (-) • PJ: Technically not reconstructible; a slightly more probable candidate for proto-status is PJ *੗om (Ju. ਱১௓ ‘to fly’, ਱১௓-৤ ‘to fly over (a village)’ = Kx. ਱o෨a ਙ *਱om-a ‘to fly about /of birds/’, OK. ਱oa ‘to mount up (in the sky)’), although all the parallels to the Ju. form are only attested in D. Bleek's old records and are somewhat questionable, both phonetically and semantically. In Ek., no separate lexical root for the meaning ‘to fly’ is attested; cf., perhaps, ŏŊŵ ‘to wake up, rise, stand up, fly up, jump up’ = Ju. šáú ‘to rise, get up’. Kx. tӼ, OK. tӼ෨ (as in soƖgu tӼ෨ ‘the arrow flies’) are not confirmed in modern sources. • ખHoan: kàlŋ (C, G). × This form is clearly related to !Xóõ kála ‘to go round, circle as vultures’, but the nature of the relationship (genetic? borrowing? if yes, in what direction?) remains unclear. • Ju-ખHoan: No lexicostatistical or etymological parallels. Overall, an unstable item that may not have had its own unique lexical representation at the Ju-ખHoan level. 31. FOOT (Ì) • PJ: *੒kxáí (Ju. ਽kxáí, Kx. ਽e ~ ਽xe෨, Kg. ਽kxe ~ ਽kxi ~ ਽xí ~ ਽e ~ ਽í, Gr. ਽ೱáí ~ ਽xáí, OK. ਽kxe ~ kxՄ, Ek. ਽kxáí). × Preserved in all daughter languages. • ખHoan: ੘áՖƊ (C, G). × Plural: ਲ৒Ըƅ. • Ju-ખHoan: No lexicostatistical parallels. However, the form in ખHoan is comparable to PJ *ਿuվ ‘track, footprint’ (Ju. !২վ, Ek. ਭ২); consonantal correspondences here are recurrent (see corr. #35, #37a), and although the vocalic correspondence is rare (corr. #5), it is not totally unique (cf. also at least ખHoan ਰೱu = PJ *਽ೱau ‘duiker’), so we do not have any firm grounds to definitively reject the comparison. Acceptance of this etymology would imply that the ખHoan form is more archaic in the meaning ‘foot’, since the semantic development ‘footprint’ ਘ ‘foot’ is typologically far less likely than the opposite. 32. FULL (?) • PJ: *੘àՖƖ (Ju. ਲ୮Ը৸, Kx. ਲӼ ~ ਲӼŠ, Ek. ਲàԸૂ). × Preserved in all daughter dialects. • ખHoan: Not attested. 33. GIVE (-) • PJ: *੒aՖa (Ju. ਽ೱ୮, Kx. ਽ೱã ~ ਽ೱa෨, Kg. ਽ೱá ~ ਽ೱà ~ ਽ೱ୮ ~ ਽á, OK. ਽a ~ ਽a෨, Ek. ਽àԸŊ ~ ਽à). × This is the most common equivalent for ‘give’ in most of the dialects. Vocalic reconstruction is unclear: technically, the coda -aԸa accounts for most of the attested variations, but some of the developments would still have to be irregular (such as the contraction *਽aԸa ਘ ਽ೱa in some of the dialects). It is also unclear whether nasalization of the vowel has to be set up as a PJ feature or if it appears in Ju. and some other dialects secondarily. An additional PJ root is *na ~ *neԸe, whose functions seem to be restricted to the imperative throughout: Ju. nà, Kx. na, Gr. na෨, OK. na, Ek. nèԸè. Finally, Kx. and Gr. yield evidence for a third root, *au ‘give’, whose semantic difference from *਽aԸa cannot be established from available sources; strange enough, it is not confirmed at all by more modern and reliable sources on Ju dialects. • ખHoan: šú (C, G). • Ju-ખHoan: No lexicostatistical or clearly defined etymological parallels. 33

George Starostin

34. GOOD (-) • PJ: *žã (Ju. ž୮, Kg. ़ã ~ ़a, Gr. ža෨ ~ ़a෨). × This is the most common and probably the inherited term for ‘good’ in Ju dialects. Several other phonetically similar forms, such as Kx. !ãŠ, Ek. k୭h৸, Gr. gãŠ, etc., do not correspond regularly to each other and are most plausibly explained as borrowings from various Khoe sources; cf. Proto-Khoe *!৮ഺ ‘good’ ਘ Nama ਲãŠ, !Ora, Naro !ãŠ, East Khoe *kãŠ, etc. (Vossen 1997: 445). • ખHoan: q՟৶ӻ (C, G). • Ju-ખHoan: No lexicostatistical or clearly defined etymological parallels. The ખHoan form is clearly the same word as !Xóõ qአ‘pretty, beautiful, nice’, but whether the similarity is due to common ancestry or recent borrowing remains unclear. 35. GREEN (-) • PJ: *੒ਊƖu (Ju. ਽୮஖h, Kx. ਽ãƅ, Kg. ਽áƖ ~ ਽àƖ ~ ਽բƖ ~ ਽ƅƖ, OK. ਽ãƖ, Ek. ਽h৤ެ). × Judging by available semantic notation, the root must have denoted the entire ‘blueɏ/ɏgreenɏ/ɏyellow’ spectrum in PJ. Reconstruction of the coda *-aƖu is set up to account for the correspondence between Ju -ãƅ and Ek. -aƖ. • ખHoan: za๔Ֆa (T). × Attested only in A. Traill's old publication, so somewhat dubious. • Ju-ખHoan: No lexicostatistical or clearly defined etymological parallels. 36. HAIR (-) • PJ: *!kxúí (Ju. !kxúí, Kx. !kxwe ~ !kxwi ~ !kwi, Kg. !kxwé ~ !kxwí, Gr. !kxwi, OK. kxwi ~ !wi, Ek. !kxúí). × Preserved in all daughter dialects. No lexical difference between ‘head hair’ and ‘body hair’. • ખHoan: ਜ਼u (C), ਜ਼ù (SH). • Ju-ખHoan: No lexicostatistical or clearly defined etymological parallels. 37. HAND (+) • PJ: *੢au (Ju. ਲ৭ú, Kx. ਲou ~ ਲau, Kg. ਸau, Gr. ਼৤২, OK. ਸau, Ek. ਸàò ~ ਸŊŵ). × Preserved in all daughter dialects. Correspondences indicate an original voiced retroflex click, still preserved in the Grootfontein dialect. • ખHoan: šíu (C, G), síu (SH). × The more archaic Sasi form is šáu. Odd consonantal gradation in the plural form: ŏœõ-qà (C, G). • Ju-ખHoan: PJ *਼au and ખHoan šíu are tied together by reccurent correspondences (#5a, #35b, #38a) and can be reliably traced back to the same proto-root. Cf. a perfect nearhomonymous example in Ju. ਲàú ‘to dig’ (ਙ*਼au?) = ખHoan šiu (C) ‘to dig’. × The possible connection is mentioned, but rejected in HH: 17, because the authors have not located the additional evidence for this correspondence. 38. HEAD (+) • PJ: *ഗਖ਼ŗ (Ju. ਲ਼áí, Kx. ਲ਼e ~ ਲ਼é ~ ਲ਼i ~ ਲ਼í, Kg. ਲ਼é, Gr. ਲ਼é෨, OK. ਲ਼é, Ek. ൜ਲ਼Ŗ). × Preserved in all daughter dialects. Preglottalized nasal click is reconstructed based on Ekoka data. • ખHoan: ഗੜਇ (C, G), ੜƉƆ (SH). • Ju-ખHoan: Despite the lack of phonetic similarity, Ju and ખHoan forms are connected by recurrent correspondences. The labial click in ખHoan corresponds to the dental click in Ju (corr. #32a), while the preglottalized nasalized efflux in Ek. and ખHoan coincide precisely. Labial vowel articulation in ખHoan is automatic after a labial click, and nasalization of the vowel may be secondary (influence of the nasal click, or a trace of some old 34

Lexicostatistical Studies in Khoisan I: The Ju-ખHoan Relationship

morphological feature). The hypothetical protoform would presumably look like *ೱਸ਼eon the Proto-Ju-ખHoan level 18. 39. HEAR (+) • PJ: *sàՖŋ (Ju. càԸá, Kx. cá ~ ŏೱa, Kg. sá ~ ssá ~ ssa‫ ~ ؘ‬sa‫ؘ‬, Gr. s‫ۉ‬Ըá, OK. sáa ~ saa, Ek. ŏà ~ ŏàԸŊ). × Preserved in all daughter dialects. Fluctuation between affricate (c-) and fricative (s-) articulation is resolved in favor of the fricative articulation as original; affricativization probably occurs under the influence of the glottal stop, especially considering that the first half of the complex vowel sequence is frequently reduced or even completely deleted in the actual articulation. • ખHoan: c஑ (C, G). • Ju-ખHoan: The forms are perfectly compatible (ખHoan c- is a regular correspondence for PJ *s-; lack of the glottal stop in ખHoan is the same as in ‘eye’ q.v.). × HH: 23 (reconstructed with *c-). 40. HEART (-) • PJ: *!kxŋ (Ju. !kxá, Kx. !a, Kg. !kxá ~ !xá, Gr. !ೱa, OK. kxa, Ek. !kxŊ). × Preserved in all daughter dialects. The velar affricate efflux is transcribed inconsistently in old sources, but these inconsistencies are not enough to amend the reconstruction, based on modern data from Ju. and Ek. Most of the dialects also reflect polysemy ‘heartɏ/ɏinside’, likely inherited from the PJ state. • ખHoan: !qഗࠫ (C, G). • Ju-ખHoan: There are no other plausible cases where PJ *kx (either as a non-click phoneme or as a click efflux) could be correlated with ખHoan *qೱ; vocalic correspondences cannot be properly resolved, either, implying that the two forms are not related. 41. HORN (+) • PJ: *!hú (Ju. !hƈ, Kx. !u෨ ~ !ú, Kg. !ú ~ !hú ~ !xú, Gr. ਿú, OK. !hú, Ek. !hú). × Preserved in all daughter dialects. Doke's transcription of a retroflex click for the Grootfontein dialect, instead of an alveolar one, is most likely erroneous, since it is not supported by any data outside that source. • ખHoan: !՟৸ (G). × Also attested in the reduplicated variant !վo-!վo. • Ju-ખHoan: A perfect etymologicalɏ/ɏlexicostatistical match with regular correspondences. × HH: 28. 42. I (+) • PJ: *mí (Ju. mí, Kx. m ~ me ~ mi, Kg. m ~ mé ~ mi ~ mŠ, Gr. m୘, OK. m ~ me ~ mi, Ek. mí ~ mŊ). × Preserved in all daughter dialects, along with the emphatic stem *mi-hi. A very rare case of word-initial *m-, reliably reconstructed for the PJ level. • ખHoan: ma (C, G). × Cf. also the possessive form: Ըàm ‘my’. • Ju-ખHoan: A clear match, although the vocalism remains unclear. Considering that both mí and mŊ are encountered in Ek., partially distributed depending on syntactic function (König & Heine 2001: 49), it is possible that both variants were already present in Proto-Ju-ખHoan. × HH: 14. In [Sands, Honken 2014: 249] it is tentatively suggested that the ખHoan form may be related to !Xóõ ਸ਼ৡ෨ิ ‘louse’ as a loan. Despite the phonetic similarity (involving a relatively rarely encountered labial click), a semantic shift from ‘head’ to ‘louse’ or vice versa is so completely unprecedented that the Ju-ખHoan etymology must take precedence here. 18

35

George Starostin

43. KILL (+) • PJ: *!hਇ (Ju. !hৡ, Kx. !ƅ, Kg. !úƖ ~ !hக ~ !húƖ ~ !xৡ, Gr. !hƅ෨, OK. !ƅ ~ !xƅ, Ek. !húƖ ~ !hৡ). × Singular action stem; the corresponding plural action stem is harder to reconstruct, since the two main attested forms, Ju. !ೱৠ৮ (ਙ *ਿೱõã, cf. Kx. ਭೱoã id.) and Ek. ਭೱޯ, do not properly correspond to each other. Amendment of the reconstruction to *!huƖ (cf. the variation in Ek.) is not out of the question, but on the whole, the correspondences seem rather suggestive of a nasalized vowel as the original coda. • ખHoan: !՟ள (G). × Singular action stem; the plural correlate is ਰŵŊ (C, G). • Ju-ખHoan: Singular action stems correspond to each other precisely; their plural action correlates seem to be less stable and are historically incompatible. × HH: 19, 28. 44. KNEE (Ì) • PJ: *੘xòà (Ju. ਲxòà, Kx. !wa-ਲ਼í, Kg. !óä ~ !xóä, Gr. !xwa, Ek. ਲx১৤). × In OK., the only attested equivalent for ‘knee’ is ਷߻m ~ g߻m (the second variant shows irregular click loss) = Ek. ਷১ิ‫‘ ލ‬knee-cap’; this is possibly an archaic root with this meaning, whereas most of the modern dialects use the compound form ‘knee-head’ (e.g. Ek. ਲx১৤ ೱਲ਼Ŗ; cf. also the form in Kx.) instead. • ખHoan: ੔ഗ՟਋mŗ (C, G). × Cf. also ਭòam ‘to kneel’. • Ju-ખHoan: No lexicostatistical matches. However, the ખHoan form is comparable to Ju. ਮೱվ১m ‘to kneel’ (no known parallels in other Ju dialects); discrepancies in vocalism may imply that the ખHoan form is an old derivative from the verb ‘to kneel’ — *ਮೱվ১m-e ਘ ਮೱվ৥m-Ŗ with assimilation (of note is the ultra-low tonal characteristics in both languages). 45. KNOW (-) • PJ: *!ഗhã (Ju. !ೱh୮, Kg. !ೱhã ~ !h৮, Gr. ਿೱhã). × This root is only preserved in the Southern dialect cluster. Its main alternative is OK. ਵi, Ek. ೱ਻৥hŢ ~ ೱ਻h৥০ ~ ೱ਻ìhŢ, which corresponds to the widespread (but not attested in Ju.) root *ೱਵai (Snyman 1997: 94) that means ‘to be able to, to know how (to do smth.)’ in several other dialects. This lexical distinction may be set up for the PJ level (*!ೱhã ‘to know smth.’ — *ೱਵai ‘to know how to do smth.’). • ખHoan: cí (C, G). × Probably the same word as ‘to see’ q.v.; distinct from ൜ਵ৓ ‘to know how’. • Ju-ખHoan: PJ *ೱਵai is clearly the same root as ખHoan ൜ਵ৓, reflecting a common Proto-JuખHoan root with the meaning ‘to be able, to know how’ (HH: 28). However, there are no direct lexicostatistical matches for the required meaning ‘to know (smth.)’: ખHoan has seemingly merged this meaning with ‘to see’, whereas PJ *!ೱhã is either archaic or may be itself borrowed from a Khoe source (cf. Proto-Khoe *!ೱã ‘to know’). 46. LEAF (-) • PJ: (?) *੘oa (Kg. ਲwá, Ek. ਲ১àิ). × The basic form for ‘leaf’ in Ek. corresponds to Ju. ਲòà ‘wet leaf’ (with a slight irregularity, since there is no pharyngealization in Ju.) and possibly to OK. gòa෨ ‘leaf’ with irregular click loss. The following alternate roots have been excluded from comparison for various reasons: (a) Ju. dòaิrà, Kx. dòra ‘leaf’; this is an areal isogloss with Naro toàิrà ‘leaf’, a word that also lacks a proper Common Khoe etymology and should probably be ascribed to some local substrate, affecting geographically contiguous areas occupied by Juઔhoan and Naro speakers; (b) Kg. ਱ೱóิbbu, Gr. ਱ೱúbú ‘leaf’ = Ju. ਱ùԸúbú ‘to come into leaf (vb.); leaf, cabbage (n.)’, a root that is hard to separate from the phonetically similar ਲùԸúbú ‘to swell, be bloated’ and whose primary meaning is most likely verbal. 36

Lexicostatistical Studies in Khoisan I: The Ju-ખHoan Relationship

• •

ખHoan: ภòิbŊ (C, G). × Cf. Sasi dòิ૪Ŋ id., reflecting the original coronal articulation. Ju-ખHoan: No lexicostatistical matches. It is tempting to compare Ju. dòaิrà with Sasi dòิ૪Ŋ, since the first syllable of both words is identical (right down to the pharyngealized articulation of the vowel); however, the second syllable is a stark mismatch, and given the observations about the areal connection between Juઔhoan and Naro, it is possible that the ખHoan form was borrowed separately from a distinct dialect of the same substrate (e.g. if *doิ-ra and *doิ-ba were morphologically different variants in these dialects). In any case, unless more correspondences between nominal structures *CV-ra and *CV-ba are discovered between Ju and ખHoan, it is premature to speak about common inherited lexemes in this particular case. × In HH: 19, the Ju-ખHoan match is accepted, but no explanation is provided for the morphological differences, and the areal distribution of the Ju form is not taken into account either.

47. LIE (-) • PJ: *šú (Ju. šú, Kx. šu ~ šú, Kg. šú ~ šù, Gr. šu෨, OK. šú ~ ŏu, Ek. šú). × Singular action verb; its plural action correlate is PJ *ਹà (Ju. ਹà, Ek. ਼à). Preserved in all daughter dialects. • ખHoan: ੔qíՖi (C, G). × Singular action verb; plural action correlate is !qվ৒u. • Ju-ખHoan: No lexicostatistical matches. It is possible to compare ખHoan !qվ৒u ‘to lie (pl.)’ with PJ *ਲվo ‘to sit (pl.)’ (q.v.), with a slight semantic shift and generally regular phonetic correspondences; however, no clear etymological parallels for ખHoan ਮqíԸi have been found in PJ. 48. LIVER (-) • PJ: *Őiࠣ (Ju. ŏh৸, Kx. ŏŠ, Kg. ŏiƖ, Gr. šޯ෨, OK. ŏŠ, Ek. šޯ). × Preserved in all daughter dialects. The correspondence between Ju. ŏ(h)- and Ek. š- is irregular, possibly reflecting a specific development *ŏ- ਘ š- before a syllabic nasal. • ખHoan: kúi (C, G). • Ju-ખHoan: No lexicostatistical or clearly defined etymological parallels. 49. LONG (-) • PJ: *੟aՖƖ (Ju. ਹ୮Ը৸, Kx. ਷Ӽ, Kg. ਹaԸáƖ ~ ਹáԸƖ ~ ਷aԸޯ, Gr. ਹaԸƖ ~ ਹƕԸբƖ, Ek. ਼ŊԸૂ). × Preserved in the majority of daughter dialects; the only deviation is found in OK., where Bleek lists ਮxana as the main equivalent for ‘long’ = Ju. ਮx৮ ‘far’, perhaps with additional suffixation. Coda reconstruction is not entirely secure, but the presence of a segmental nasal *-Ɩ most certainly is. • ખHoan: ŐàՖa (C, G). × Usually glossed as ‘tall’, but also as ‘long’ in Traill 1973: 30; there is no reason to suspect any lexical differentiation between the two submeanings. • Ju-ખHoan: No additional evidence has been uncovered so far for the possibility of click affricativization *ਮ ਘ ŏ in ખHoan, so the two forms have to be judged as incompatible. 50. LOUSE (+) • PJ: *cഗíࠣ (Ju. cೱ৸, Ek. ़ೱޯ). × Attested only in modern sources, but well reconstructible for PJ based on the Ju.-Ek. isogloss, although the voicing in Ek. is irregular (additional dialectal forms in Snyman 1997 show that voiceless *cೱ- is primary). • ખHoan: cഗí (G). × After Honken 1988: 64, cf. also cೱi෨ in Traill 1973: 30. • Ju-ખHoan: Both forms are perfectly compatible (see corr. #16 for the lack of the nasal coda in ખHoan). 37

George Starostin

51. MAN (-) • PJ: *!ഗhõã (Ju. !ೱh஌৮, Kx. !wã, Kg. !க ~ !ù ~ !ùƖ ~ !hৡ, OK. !ƅ). × In some dialects, the only form attested in the meaning ‘man = male human being / husband’ is PJ *਼oิ (Gr. ਼o෨, Ek. ਸ੡); in Ju. and several other dialects, however, the two roots are well distinguished, so that *!ೱhõã has the more narrow meaning ‘male human being’ and *਼oิ has the wider meaning ‘male’ (including, or sometimes restricted to, male animals). This is likely to have been the situation in PJ. Phonetically, the reconstruction *!ೱhõã is problematic; attested variants presuppose at least four irreconcilable variants (Ju. !ೱhõã, Kx. *!õã, Kg. *!ƅ, OK. /Snyman/ !xƅ = Ek. !xஔৡ ‘!Xun person’). Mechanistically tracing them back to four different proto-entries does not make sense; it is more likely that the Ju. variant is the most archaic, whereas the old sources fail to properly transcribe aspiration. As for the velar fricative efflux -x- in the Northern cluster, it may have appeared secondarily through contamination with *!xuni ‘to live, reside’ (cf. Ek. !xúnní, etc.). Finally, worth noting is the suppletive plural form *਴aeิ ‘men, males’: Ju. ਴৤èิ, Gr. ਴৤০, Ek. ਴àŖ. • ખHoan: Ֆ৶๔rţ-ৄਊ (C, G). × Suppletive plural: ਱àò ‘men’. The second part of this compound by itself (़৤) is used in the meaning ‘husband’. • Ju-ખHoan: No lexicostatistical or clearly defined etymological parallels. 52. MANY (Ì) • PJ: *੔hí (Ju. ਮháí, Kx. ਮhí, Kg. ਮhí ~ ਮxí ~ ਮxì, Gr. ਮೱhí, OK. ਮhí ~ ਽hí ~ ਮhí-ਮhí, Ek. ਿೱhí). × Preserved in all daughter dialects. Click efflux is reconstructed as simple aspiration, despite the (probably erroneous) transcription with a glottal stop in Doke's Grootfontein materials. The original vowel is *-i, undergoing regular diphthongization in Ju. • ખHoan: kí=ৄ਍a (C, G). × Cf. the form without the plural prefix in Traill 1973: 30: ़ua ~ Ɣƅã. • Ju-ખHoan: No lexicostatistical parallels, but PJ *ਮhí is cognate with ખHoan ਮվ৓ ‘big’ q.v. 53. MEAT (Ì) • PJ: *੣Ʊŋ (Ju. !há, Kx. !ha෨ ~ !á ~ ਭá෨ ~ ਮa, Kg. ਭhá ~ ਭhà ~ ਭa, Gr. ਿhá ~ ਭa෨, OK. ਭha, Ek. ਭhŊ). × Preserved in all daughter dialects; correspondences indicate an original retroflex click, still preserved in the Grootfontein dialect. • ખHoan: ੓àe๔ (C, G). × Cf. also ਭa෨ ‘animal’ (Traill 1973: 29): possibly the same root or even the same word (mistranscribed?), considering the natural polysemy ‘meatɏ/ɏanimal’ in South African languages. • Ju-ખHoan: In HH: 14, the ખHoan form is compared with Ju. ਭàԸé ‘to slaughter; to cut meat’; this is acceptable if the ખHoan noun originally meant something like ‘stripeɏ/ slice of meat’, i.e. represented a nominalization of the original verb. However, this is obviously not a lexicostatistical match. 54. MOON (Ì) • PJ: *੡úí (Ju. ਱úí, Kx. ਱wi, Kg. ਴wí ~ ਴wái ~ਵwi, Gr. ਻՝i, OK. ਴wi ~ ਴we, Ek. ਴úí). × Preserved in all daughter dialects. Correspondences clearly indicate a retroflex click in PJ. • ખHoan: ੟਌bţ (C, G). • Ju-ખHoan: No lexicostatistical parallels. However, the ખHoan form is comparable with Ju. ਮ৤๔Ըàbè ‘shiny’; all correspondences are recurrent (for the possible assimilative development *CaCI ਘ CiCI in ખHoan, see ‘knee / to kneel’ above plus additional examples, e.g. ખHoan ਮƱibi ‘dove’ = Ju. ਮáí-ਮábí id., ‫ۆ‬Hoan ਲ਼iԸni ‘to refuse’ = Ju. ਲ਼àní ‘to dissuade’, 38

Lexicostatistical Studies in Khoisan I: The Ju-ખHoan Relationship

corr. #1b), and the semantic shift from ‘to shine, shiny’ to ‘moon’ belongs to the trivial type. This would imply that the PJ equivalent for ‘moon’ may be more archaic. An alternate (but, it must be noted, not necessarily mutually exclusive) comparison for Ju. ਮ৤๔Ըàbè is ‫ۆ‬Hoan ਮàิԸnna ‘white’ q.v. 55. MOUNTAIN (-) • PJ: *ഗ੗òm (Ju. ਱òm, Kx. ਱um, Kg. ਱um, Gr. ਱২෨m, OK. ਱um, Ek. ೱ਱ò‫)ލ‬. × Preserved in all daughter dialects. There is, however, an unresolved problem connected with the polysemy ‘stoneɏ/ɏmountain’. Both of the major sources on Ekoka (König & Heine 2008; Heikkinen 1986) agree that this word, glossed as ‘hill’, is pronounced with a preglottalized nasal click rather than the regular nasal click, while ‘stone’ just has the regular nasal click — i.e. that we are dealing with two different roots. This is a very odd observation, considering the frequent and natural character of the ‘stoneɏ/ɏmountain’ polysemy in African (and world) languages and, at the same time, the impossibility to explain this difference in terms of morphological derivation. It may be further noted that C. Doke also marks a difference between the two words, but in his notation it is purely tonal (਱২෨m ‘mountain’ vs. ਱Ɖ෨m ‘stone’), and while such a differentiation may be easier to explain in terms of historical derivation (tonal alternations actually exist in Ju), it can hardly be correlated with the difference in click effluxes as observed in Ekoka. Naturally, since Ekoka is the only dialect in which the difference between the two types of nasal clicks has been systematically observed and notated, in all the other dialects *ೱ਱òm ‘mountain’ and *਱òm ‘stone’ would be expected to look completely identical. • ખHoan: !՟u (C). • Ju-ખHoan: No lexicostatistical or etymological parallels. 56. MOUTH (±) • PJ: *cഗí (Ju. cೱ৷, Kx. ci ~ ci෨, Kg. ci ~ cì, Gr. cೱ୘෨, OK. cí ~ cí෨, Ek. ŏೱí). × Preserved in all daughter dialects. • ખHoan: šൠญ (C, G). • Ju-ખHoan: Although the basic consonantal structures (as well as the main vowel) for both forms are perfectly compatible, and nasalization in ખHoan is negligible, proper common etymologization is seriously hampered by the fact that PJ *cೱ- would be expected to correspond to ખHoan cೱ- rather than š- (see ‘sleep’, ‘tooth’), whereas ખHoan š-, in turn, corresponds to either PJ *š- or a retroflex click, but not *cೱ-. The only way to circumvent this issue would be to set up a more complex protoform, e.g. *siԸi, with an irregular (or a contextually unique) reduction + affricativization ਘ *sƕೱi ਘ *cೱi in PJ and contraction + palatalization ਘ *si෨ ਘ ši෨ in ખHoan. Whether this scenario can be plausibly justified remains to be seen; however, it is not out of the question, and given the undeniable phonetic similarity between the two words, we can count this entry as a potential «weak» match. 57. NAME (+) • PJ: *!ú (Ju. !ƈ, Kx. !ú ~ !hú, Kg. !ù ~ !ú ~ ਲú, Gr. ਷଄, OK. !ú, Ek. !ú). × Preserved in all daughter dialects. Unexpected dental (rather than alveolar) click transcription in Doke's Grootfontein data might simply be a misprint. • ખHoan: !Ŷ (C, G). • Ju-ખHoan: A perfect etymological and lexicostatistical match. × HH: 17, 25 (reconstructed with the dipthong *ou to reflect the regular correspondence between Ju *u and ખHoan *o). 39

George Starostin

58. NECK (-) • PJ: *੣àƖi (Ju. !୮ഺ, Kx. !ӼŠ, Kg. ਭãƖ ~ ਭãƅƖ, Gr. ਿãƖ, OK. ਭãƖ, Ek. ਭ৤Ɩ). × Preserved in all daughter dialects. Retroflex click securely reconstructed, based on regular correspondences between Ju., Gr., and Ek. Coda correspondences fall under the recurrent pattern «Ju. -㊠~ -ãƅ : Ek. -aƖ» that we provisionally mark as reflecting PJ *-aƖi and *-aƖu respectively. • ખHoan: త՟yìŋ ~ త՟a (C, G). • Ju-ખHoan: No lexicostatistical or etymological parallels. 59. NEW (+) • PJ: *Ɣe (Ju. zé ~ zàíห, Kx. zé, Kg. zՄ-ma, Gr. ze෨, OK. Ɣe, Ek. ़৥hè). × Preserved in all daughter dialects. Correspondences are mostly regular and trivial, with the exception of the tonal pattern that ranges from simple rising in Ju. to ultra-low in Ek. It is not quite clear if the Ju. form zàíห, with a dipthong and pharyngealization, is merely a dialectal variant or a different root. • ખHoan: zਊ (C, G). • Ju-ખHoan: An acceptable lexicostatistical match. The vocalic correspondence between PJ *e and ખHoan a (rather than e or i) is almost unique, but it should be noted that monophthongic *e is very rare in PJ, and examples of PJ-ખHoan matches where it is present are even more scarce; for possible confirmation of regularity, cf. PJ *h=e — ખHoan ha ‘this’ q.v., PJ *ge ‘to stay /in a place/’ — ખHoan ga ‘to rise /pl./’ (although the latter example is semantically questionable). Additionally, it is not excluded that PJ *Ɣe ਙ *Ɣa-I with suffixation (cf. in that respect the odd variant zàíห in Ju.). 60. NIGHT (-) • PJ: *੝ú (Ju. ਷ú, Kx. ਷u ~ ਷u෨ ~ ਷ú, Kg. ਷ú ~ ਷u, Gr. ਷ú෨, OK. ਷ú, Ek. ਷ú). × Preserved in all daughter dialects. • ખHoan: c՟ਊo (C, G). • Ju-ખHoan: No lexicostatistical matches. Cf., perhaps, ખHoan ਽u (C) ‘yesterday’ as a possible etymological match for the PJ form (although the semantic link is problematic). 61. NOSE (-) • PJ: *ckxúࠣ (Ju. cೱৡ, Kx. ŏƅ, Kg. s෨க ~ cக ~ càƖ ~ c৮ৡ, Gr. cೱƅ, OK. cuƖ ~ cáƖ ~ ŏn, Ek. ŏkxáƖ ~ ŏೱޯ). × Preserved in all daughter dialects; however, correspondences here are rare and complex. In the initial position, Ek. and some other dialects point to an original affricate cluster *ckx- that must have been phonologically opposed to the simple glottalized affricate *ŏೱ- in PJ. The coda contains a velar nasal, presumably with a preceding labial vowel (reflecting the correspondence «Ju. -ƅ : Ek. -(a)Ɩ»), although this particular part of the reconstruction is provisional. • ખHoan: !qഗள (C, G). • Ju-ખHoan: Despite some phonetic similarity between the two forms (vocalism, glottalic articulation, etc.), there is no evidence to support click loss in PJ (or secondary click formation in ખHoan). 62. NOT (+) • PJ: *੒Ŷŋ (Ju. ਽óá, Kx. ਽wa ~ ਽ua෨ ~ ਽á, Kg. ਽úä ~ ਽úi, OK. ਽wa ~ ਽we ~ ਽wí ~ kwé ~ kwí, Ek. ਽ŵŊ). × Preserved in all daughter dialects. Note irregular click loss in some OK. subdialects, possibly caused by frequent usage of this auxiliary morpheme. 40

Lexicostatistical Studies in Khoisan I: The Ju-ખHoan Relationship

• •

ખHoan: ੒ഗ՟ர ~ ੒՟ரՖõ (C, G). × The Sasi form is recorded as ਲ਼க෨. Ju-ખHoan: Although correspondences between click effluxes are clearly irregular, unexplained fluctuation is already observable on the synchronic level within ખHoan itself; taking into consideration the auxiliary (grammatical) function of this negative particle, making it more prone to various irregular developments (e.g. of an assimilative nature, or resulting from undetected contractions with other auxiliary morphemes, etc.), we tentatively count this pair, reduced to the basic shape *਽U-, as an etymological and lexicostatistical match.

63. ONE (+) • PJ: *ਖ਼èՖe (Ju. ਲ਼èԸé, Kx. ਲ਼e ~ ਲ਼eé, Kg. ਲ਼eé, Gr. Ɩਲ਼ೱé, OK. ਲ਼é, Ek. ਲ਼èԸè ~ ਲ਼è). × Preserved in all daughter dialects. • ખHoan: ੜú (C, G). • Ju-ખHoan: Despite apparent phonetic dissimilarity, correspondences between these two items are actually quite regular: ખHoan ਸ਼ is a perfect match for PJ *ਖ਼, and differences in vocalism are explained by the general labialization of vowels in ખHoan after a labial click (actually, this is the same correspondence as in ‘head’ q.v.). 64. PERSON (Ì) • PJ: *ৄù (Ju. žù, Kx. žu, Kg. žú ~ ़ú, OK. ़u ~ žu). × This is one of the few Ju words that may have relied on tonal alternations to form the plural, something that is still preserved in modern Ju. (pl. žú); cf., however, such plural forms as Kx. žu෨-si, Kg. žu෨-siƖ, indicating productive analogical reformation in various dialects. The word occasionally gets lost or semantically shifted: cf. Gr. at৤ ‘person’ (an unclear replacement, seemingly of non-native origin due to its violation of standard Ju phonotactics; in the plural number, however, the old word is still retained as žù෨ ~ ़ù෨ ‘people’); Ek. !xஔৡ ‘person’, with the old word ़ù apparently shifting to the pronominal meaning ‘we /excl./’. Special mention must be made of the compound form *़ù-਽hõã, lit. ‘true person’, denoting North Khoisan-speaking people; given its presence in both Ju. and Ek., it is reconstructible for PJ as an archaic ethnic self-designation. • ખHoan: ੔ഗàm-kòญe (G). × Clearly a compound; second part may be a general morpheme for denoting people (cf. ਱áิ-kò෨e ‘Bushman’) and is possibly of Central Khoisan origin (cf. Proto-Khoe *kվoe ‘person’). The first part, however, cannot be explained away as a borrowing. Suppletive plural: ŏòŵ-!ŊԸŖ ‘people’ (C, G). • Ju-ખHoan: No lexicostatistical matches. In Ju., the word ਮೱàm means ‘south’; this agrees with the etymology of the exoethnonym ‘ખHoan’ (= !Xóõ ਮqƱƉã ‘south’) and formally permits to reconstruct Proto-Ju-ખHoan *ਮೱam ‘South’. If so, the Ju equivalent for ‘person’ is probably more archaic, which is made even more likely by its non-trivial paradigmatic features (tonal alternation as a grammatical means). Unfortunately, regular correspondences to PJ *़- in ખHoan remain unknown, so the word *़ù could be compared to either (a) ખHoan ŏòŵ- in ŏòŵ-!ŊԸŖ ‘people’ (where the second component is an additional plural marker) or (b) ખHoan ža ‘husband’. Comparison (b) is more phonetically similar in respect to consonantism, but not vocalism; comparison (a) is cumulatively better both phonetically and semantically, but would still need to be confirmed by further examples. In the absence of contradictory cases, we may still count it as a tentative etymological match. 41

George Starostin

65. RAIN (-) • PJ: *੢à (Ju. ਲà, Kx. ਲà, Kg. ਸa ~ ਼a, Gr. ެਿa, OK. ਸa ~ ਸà ~ ga෨, Ek. ਸà). × Preserved in all daughter dialects. For future purposes (such as tracing various morphophonological processes in the history of Khoisan linguistic lineages), it is perhaps worth noticing the similarity with *਼ú ‘water’ (see below), although the two roots were clearly distinct even on the PJ level. • ખHoan: ŏŵԸŊ (C, G). • Ju-ખHoan: No lexicostatistical or etymological parallels. 66. RED (+) • PJ: *੘ஒ ~ *੘ae (Ju. ਲ୮෨, Kx. ਲã෨, Kg. ਲã ~ ਲa, Gr. ਲãԸã, OK. ਲàì, Ek. ਲàŖ). × Preserved in all daughter dialects. However, while the Northern dialect cluster points to PJ *ਲae, the rest of the dialects rather agree on PJ *ਲã. This may be interpreted either as a rare, non-trivial combination of features (e.g. some special nasalized diphthong), or, more likely, as two morphological variants, indicating that the original root was simply *ਲa- and that it became fused with two different suffixal extensions (*ਲa-e vs. *ਲa-N). • ખHoan: !àՖa (C, G). • Ju-ખHoan: A perfect lexicostatistical and etymological match, especially if we interpret internal Ju evidence as reflecting original *ਲa-. For the correspondence between PJ voiced and ખHoan voiceless effluxes, see corr. #38a. 67. ROAD (?) • PJ: *੔hà (Ju. ਮƱà ‘path’, Kx. ਽a෨, Kg. ਮha, OK. ਽à෨, Ek. ਮƱà). × This is almost certainly the original PJ root denoting the default means of getting from one place to another (Dorothea Bleek seems to have mistranscribed a dental click for both Kx. and OK. instead of palatal articulation — a rather common error in her records). For modern languages, dictionaries occasionally observe lexicalized oppositions between the older ‘path’ and the more recent ‘road’ (= ‘enlarged path between settlements’), cf. Ju. ਱àmà (no etymology); Kg. kú, Ek. k২hù (originally, perhaps, = ‘footprint’, as this meaning is also attested for Kg.). Such oppositions are likely to reflect quite recent developments. • ખHoan: ้਋o (C, G) ਙ *dao. × The more archaic form d৒o is still preserved in the Sasi dialect. • Ju-ખHoan: ખHoan *dao ‘path, road’ is phonetically identical with !Xóõ dào and, further still, with Proto-Khoe *dao ‘road’; this is an areal word, ultimately of Khoe origin, that has replaced the original ખHoan term for this Swadesh meaning and must be excluded from lexicostatistical comparison. 68. ROOT (-) • PJ: (?) *੘ani (Ju. ਲ৤nì, Kx. ਲãŠ). × This Swadesh meaning is unstable in Ju, and semantic reconstruction is hindered by inadequacy of existing semantic descriptions. An alternate candidate for PJ status is the root *ਭari, cf. Ek. ਭŊlí ‘root; handle’, OK. ਭale ~ ਭare ‘branch (?); root fibre’, Kx. ਭari ‘root fibre’, Kg. ਭeri ‘root fibre’, Ju. ਭàrì ‘root’ (copied by Dickens from the earlier dictionary of J. Snyman); it is, however, seen here that most of the old sources have it in the specific meaning ‘root fibre’, so it is unclear if it should be properly eligible for straightforward semantic comparison. Cf. also Kg. !ubbe ‘root’, of unclear origin, perhaps = Ju. !úbè ‘species of shrub’. We very tentatively go along with Dickens' data on Ju., setting up *ਲani (or *਼ani, since diagnostic parallels in Northern dialects are lacking) as the potential protoform. 42

Lexicostatistical Studies in Khoisan I: The Ju-ખHoan Relationship

•

•

ખHoan: !qഗai (C). × Since the form is not attested in texts, it is not clear whether this is truly the generic term for ‘root’ in the language. Cf. other attested terms meaning ‘a kind of root’, e. g. !one, ਭժama etc. Ju-ખHoan: No lexicostatistical or etymological parallels.

69. ROUND (?) • This meaning is almost never attested in any of the available lexicographic sources on either Ju or ખHoan languages; the very concept of ‘roundness’ of an object is seemingly not inherent to these lineages, aside from a few very recent borrowings. 70. SAND (?) • PJ: *kxà. × Same word as ‘earth’ q.v. • ੔Hoan: Not attested. Possibly also same word as ‘earth’. 71. SAY (±) • PJ: *kò (Ju. kò, OK. ka ~ ke, Ek. kòè ~ kwèé ~ kƉyŊ). × Reconstructed based on the isogloss between OK. and Ek.; original root vocalism is not quite certain due to elements of suffixation in daughter dialects (cf. ka ~ ke in OK.). Another technically possible candidate is recorded in older sources: Kx. o=kxwi, Kg. o=kxwi ~ o=kxwì, Gr. o=kxw৷෨. It is a transparent compound from PJ *o ‘to do, make’ + PJ *kxúí, and both for Ju. and Ek. it is translated as ‘speak, talk (about smth.)’ rather than ‘say (smth. specific)’. Furthermore, Dickens even assigns the morpheme kxúí a pronominal rather than verbal meaning: ‘be thus, be so (e. g. of the sound, sight or way of doing something)’, although a more detailed analysis of contexts is needed to clarify the situation. • ખHoan: k਌Ֆţ (C, G). • Ju-ખHoan: PJ *kò and ખHoan k০ԸŢ constitute formal consonantal class matches, but root vowel correspondences are highly irregular. Despite this, we may count the pair as a «weak» etymological match, due to the semi-auxiliary nature of the word and, consequently, the possibility of undetected suffixes or enclitics to influence its vocalism in either of the two compared taxa. 72. SEE (+) • PJ: *séࠣ ~ *héࠣ (Kx. se෨ ~ sՄ෨, Kg. s෨íƖ, Gr. s‫ޣ‬, OK. siƖ ~ síƖ ~ süƖ ~ hƖ, Ek. hޯ ~ hŮ ~ šޯ). × For Ju. proper, Dickens translates the cognate form sé as ‘to look (at), look after, investigate’, while reserving the meaning ‘to see’ for Ju. h১ ຎ PJ *h১(ò) ‘to find’ (cf. Ek. h১-hò id.). Phonological reconstruction is problematic. Ju. and Kx. drop the nasal part of the coda in this root just as they do for the verb ‘to drink’ q.v., for not quite clear reasons; nevertheless, most of the dialects, including additional data from Snyman's general survey, confirm original *-Ɩ. Vocalism is tentatively reconstructed as *-ebased on Ju. data (in most dialects the two codas, -iƖ and -eƖ, seem to have merged). Initial *s- is occasionally found lenited to h-; this either means a unique positional development before a syllabic nasal, or reflects an original aspirated *sh- (not enough data to reach a definite conclusion). • ખHoan: cí (C, G). • Ju-ખHoan: A solid lexicostatistical and etymological match; correspondences are regular (for PJ *s : ખHoan *c, see ‘hear’; deletion of velar nasal coda in ખHoan is allpervasive, see corr. #16). 43

George Starostin

73. SEED (?) • PJ: (?) *!ó (OK. !߽, Ek. !ó). × Outside the Northern branch, this word is elicited as Ju. !ó ‘pip’, confirming PJ reconstructibility with a highly natural semantic narrowing in Ju. On the other hand, Ju. ਭàԸá ‘seed, kernel, marrow’, with the former meaning more precisely expressed by the compound ਭxàrà-ਭàԸá ‘plant seed’, corresponds to Ek. ਭ୮Ը୮ ‘bone marrow’, suggesting a more generalɏ/ɏabstract semantics of ‘pith, core substance’ for the protolevel. In older sources, the meaning is attested quite poorly. • ખHoan: (?) !uruญ (T). × Attested only in Traill 1973. Unreliable. • Ju-ખHoan: It is preferable to exclude this word from comparison, since PJ reconstruction is not particularly secure, and neither is the ખHoan entry. The Swadesh meaning ‘seed’ (as a general term) is quite unstable in Ju-Taa languages on the whole. 74. SIT (+) • PJ: *ഗਖ਼भࠣ (Ju. ਲ਼áƖ, Kx. ਲ਼i ~ ਲ਼í, Kg. ਲ਼ഺ ~ ਲ਼Š ~ ਲ਼íƖ-a, Gr. ਲ਼ޯ෨, OK. ਽Ɩ ~ ਽ޯ, Ek. Ů਽ޯ). × Preserved in all daughter dialects. Northern forms indicate an original preglottalized nasal click (cf. also the variants ൜ਲ਼íƖ /Western/, ਲ਼íƖ /Eastern/ in Heikkinen 1986: 23). Coda is probably the same as in ‘blood’ q.v. Singular action form; the corresponding plural stem is PJ *ਲho (Ju. ਲh৔, Ek. ਲhŵ, Kx. ਲò෨, OK. !o෨, etc.). • ખHoan: ഗਖ਼ŋ (C, G). × Suppletive plural action form: kí=ਭà (C, G). • Ju-ખHoan: A perfect lexicostatistical match; note the corresponding preglottalized nasal clicks. The plural action stems, however, do not correspond to each other and cannot be etymologized on a mutual basis. × HH: 21, 28. 75. SKIN (-) • PJ: *ਖ਼Ŷ (Ju. ਲ਼ó, Kx. ਲ਼o, Kg. ਲ਼߻ ~ ਲ਼ò ~ ਲ਼߽wa ~ ਲ਼óä, Gr. ਲ਼o෨ ~ ਲ਼owà, OK. ਲ਼o ~ ਲ਼ó, Ek. ਲ਼ŵ). × Preserved in all daughter dialects. Correspondences are regular. Some old sources seem to reflect an additional suffixal variant *ਲ਼o-a (or ਲ਼o-ba?) that is not confirmed in more recently transcribed material. • ખHoan: Őഗú (C, G). • Ju-ખHoan: No lexicostatistical or etymological parallels. Of note, perhaps, is the complete segmental correlation between ખHoan ŏೱú ‘skin’ and PJ *ŏೱu ‘house’, but since traditional San houses are made of branches and reeds rather than animal skins, the connection is highly dubious on semantic grounds. 76. SLEEP (+) • PJ: *cഗŋ (Ju. cೱá, Kx. cá ~ cೱa෨, Kg. cà ~ cá, Gr. cೱa෨, OK. cೱa ~ ca, Ek. ŏೱŊ). × Correspondences are regular and trivial, including the development *cೱ- ਘ ŏೱ- in Ekoka. • ખHoan: cഗ஑ (C, G). × HH: 21, 23. • Ju-ખHoan: A phonetically perfect lexicostatistical match. See corr. #18 for lack of nasalization in ખHoan. 77. SMALL (Ì) • PJ: *cഗe ~ *cഗe-mà (Ju. cೱè/-mà/, Kx. ce෨-ma ~ ce-ma, Kg. cé-ma ~ cé෨e-ma, Gr. cೱe෨-ma, OK. ce෨-ma, Ek. ŏೱŖ-mà. × In Ju., the simple form cೱè is used after nouns with diminutive suffixes (e.g. ŏೱu-ma cೱè ‘small house’); the compound form cೱè-mà (where -mà itself is a diminutive suffix) is used more frequently. Considering the data from the rest of the dialects, this situation is reconstructible for the PJ level, i.e. the PJ root *cೱe must have been most frequently used with the diminutive suffix *-mà. There is also no solid evidence for *mà 44

Lexicostatistical Studies in Khoisan I: The Ju-ખHoan Relationship

•

•

having ever functioned as an independent adjective ‘small’ on the same chronological level (some old sources list ma ‘small’ as a separate word, but textual examples always show it as a diminutive suffix, appended to nominal roots). ખHoan: ੒xഗ৹i (C, G). × Glossed as ‘narrow’ in some sources, but cf. tœma-si ਽xೱ৕i ‘the dog is small’, etc. (hardly ‘narrow’). Of special note is the common diminutive suffix -s০ (C, G), as well as ภìna (Sasi dàna) ‘small /child/’ (used primarily in the submeaning ‘young’, but also seemingly attested in auxiliary functions, cf. Sasi dana-si ‘a little’). Ju-ખHoan: No direct lexicostatistical matches. However, ખHoan ਽xೱ৕i may be tentatively compared with Ju. ਽ùԸí, Kg. ਽wí ‘thin (e.g. of paper)’, even though the click efflux correspondences are irregular; it is possible to suggest some rare type of dissimilation (e.g. *਽xೱuԸi ਘ ਽uԸi in PJ) to get past this obstacle. Likewise, it is not excluded that PJ *cೱe is the same morpheme as the diminutive suffix -si in ખHoan, but this also requires explaining an irregular correspondence (lenition due to the shifted cliticalɏ/ɏsuffixal status of the morpheme?). At least one of these etymologizations has a good chance of being correct, so we accept the situation as reflecting a «partial» match.

78. SMOKE (Ì) • PJ: *šórè ~ *šórà (Ju. šórà, Kx. šore ~ šori, Kg. šórre ~ šure, Gr. šo෨ೝୗ, Ek. šúlè). × Preserved in most daughter dialects; only for OK. Bleek lists the form ਽՝nu, of unclear origin (the original root is still preserved as ŏule ~ ŏuli ‘tobacco, snuff’). Correspondences are largely trivial, except for the unclear vocalic variation in the second syllable (cf. also Ju. šòrò ‘tobacco’, with yet another variant). • ખHoan: ้óe๔ (H&H) ਙ *dóe๔. • Ju-ખHoan: The ખHoan form corresponds precisely to Ju. d১৥ิ ‘to smoke out (bees), to make someone inhale smoke for medicinal purposes, etc.’. Since the overall semantics of the Ju. word may be generalized as ‘to make use of smoke’, zero-derivation of this verb from an original noun ‘smoke’ seems far more likely than the opposite scenario, in which case PJ *šórࢥ should be understood as an innovation (could ‘tobacco’ actually be the original meaning here?). × HH: 14, 22. 79. STAND (Ì) • PJ: */ഗ/੗ਇ (Ju. ਱ৡ, Kx. ਱ú, Kg. ਱ù ~ ਱ƅ ~ ਱úƖ-a, OK. ਱wa ~ ਱a, Ek. !ৡ ~ ਱ৡ). × Preserved in all daughter dialects. The Ek. form is listed as ൜਱ৡ (Western dialect) vs. ਱ৡ (Eastern dialect) in Heikkinen 1986: 25, conflicting with König & Heine's transcription of a simple nasalized click and impeding a precise reconstruction. Note that this is the singular subject action verb; the corresponding suppletive plural stem is PJ *ਸa (Ju. ਸà, Ek. ਸà, etc.). • ખHoan: !úi (C, G). Suppletive plural action form: ਸ৮ (ibid.). • Ju-ખHoan: This is a rare situation where a precise etymological match may be set up for the plural action stem (PJ *ਸa = ખHoan ਸã), but not for the singular one: despite a certain degree of phonetic similarity, discrepancies between click effluxes and codas remain unexplainable (the vowel at least could be explained away as extra suffixation, but the total lack of nasality in the ખHoan form is a grave problem that prevents common etymologization of both items). × HH: 21, 27 (plural action stem). 80. STAR (+) • PJ: *੔஺ (Ju. ਮƅh, Kx. ਹõӼ, Kg. ਮõ ~ ਮƅ, Gr. ਮùƖ, OK. ਮக ~ ਮ߿ ~ !৚, Ek. ਿ஖. × Preserved in all daughter dialects. • ખHoan: ੔ற (C, G). × Recorded as ਮ஗ for the Sasi dialect. 45

George Starostin

•

Ju-ખHoan: A perfect lexicostatistical match with fully regular correspondences. × HH: 19, 25.

81. STONE (Ì) • PJ: *੗ò߮ ~ *੗ù߮ (Ju. ਱òm, Kx. ਱um, Kg. ਱um ~ ਱om, Gr. ਱u෨m, OK. ਱um, Ek. ਱‫ ~ ފ‬਱ù‫ ~ ފ‬਱ò‫)ފ‬. × Preserved in all daughter dialects. See notes on ‘mountain’ for a possible lexical distinction between it and ‘stone’. • ખHoan: ੓՟਍ŋ๔ (C, G). • Ju-ખHoan: The ખHoan form is compared by Heine and Honken with Ju. ਴১ิԸ୮ ‘stone used to stroke the shaft of an arrow in order to straighten it’; word-initial correspondences are not perfectly regular, but may point to a complex click efflux (*਴Ʊ-) with different paths of simplification in both branches. For semantics, cf. also the Ju. compound form ਴১ิԸ୮!ೱàè ‘stony veld’, indicating that ‘stone’ (neutralɏ/ɏgeneric) may have been the original meaning. PJ *਱ò‫* ~ ފ‬਱ù‫ފ‬, on the other hand, finds no etymological parallels in ખHoan. 82. SUN (-) • PJ: *੒á߱ (Ju. ਽ám, Kx. ਽բm, Kg. ਽բm, Gr. ਽á෨m, OK. ਽բm). × The situation with this root is somewhat complicated from an areal perspective. In Ek., ਽ám is only attested in the meaning ‘day, hour’ (König & Heine 2008: 73), while the standard equivalent for ‘sun’ is gàò ~ gàԸŵ. This looks suspicious in light of the existence of Proto-Khoe *਽á‫‘ ލ‬sun’ (Vossen 1997: 492), which could theoretically be borrowed into the far younger PJ or into individual Ju dialects already post-separation. However, a more scrupulous analysis reveals that: (a) within Khoekhoe — the subgroup of Khoe that includes Nama and serves as the most common source for recent Khoe borrowings into Ju, the actual term for ‘sun’ is *sore-; (b) the general distribution very clearly speaks in favor of Proto-Ju status of *਽á‫ލ‬, regardless of whether its further connections with Khoe are horizontal or vertical; (c) Ek. gàò is quite likely related to Ju. gàԸáró, glossed as ‘to drink too little to quench one's thirst’ (Dickens 1994: 200), i. e. basically ‘(still) be thirsty’, implying that ‘thirst’ might be the original meaning for this root (the semantic shift ‘thirst’ ਘ ‘sun’ is unusual, but not impossible considering the widespread polysemy ‘sunɏ/ɏthirst’ in the San area. It seems that there are no clinching arguments at the moment to prove that PJ *਽á‫ ލ‬was borrowed from Khoe, or vice versa. • ખHoan: Őഗŋ (C, G). × With polysemy: ‘sunɏ/ɏday’. • Ju-ખHoan: No lexicostatistical or etymological parallels. 83. SWIM (?) • PJ: *d਍߮ ~ *d਎߮ (Kg. du‫ލ‬m, Ek. dƱ১‫)ފ‬. × This root, found in at least two different subgroups of Ju, is also attested in various water-related meanings, such as ‘wash’, ‘bathe’, even ‘shelter from rain’. Other dialects all show their own individual equivalents for the meaning ‘swim’, e.g. Ju. ़xà (no etymology); OK. ਱߻va ~ ਱òba (meaning given by D. Bleek as ‘to row across, swim across’). As with other San groups, the concept of ‘swimming’ is clearly not basic enough in Ju due to natural constraints. • ੔Hoan: Not attested. 84. TAIL (±) • PJ: *੣xŶŗ (Ju. !xúí, Kx. !hwí ~ ਮwi, Kg. ਭhwé ~ ਿhwé ~ ਭkxwè ~ ਭkxwé, OK. ਭwé, Ek. ਭxŵŖ). × Preserved in all daughter dialects. Click correspondences clearly indicate original retroflex articulation. 46

Lexicostatistical Studies in Khoisan I: The Ju-ખHoan Relationship

• •

ખHoan: ੖xƊţ (C, G). Ju-ખHoan: PJ and ખHoan forms perfectly match each other in everything (even tone!) except for the most important segment — the regular correspondence for ખHoan ਰ- in Ju is ਽- rather than ਿ-. Strictly speaking, this should invalidate the comparison (it is not found, for instance, in Heine & Honken's list of comparanda), but since the discrepancy concerns a rare type of click phonation that is absent in Ju languages altogether, it is not 100% certain that PJ *਽- : ખHoan ਰ- exhausts all possible types of correspondences before a complete list of parallels, based on a representative ખHoan dictionary, is presented. For now, it cannot be ruled out that ખHoan ਰ- is an innovation rather than an archaism (for instance, caused by labialization of the click efflux in certain contexts before labial vowels), which means that, in theory, ਰ- could correspond to more than one click type in Ju. Taking this into consideration, we may define this pairing as a potential match 19.

85. THAT (+) • PJ: *toՖà ~ *ndoՖà (Ju. t১Ըà, Kg. do‫ؘ‬, OK. doa, Ek. ndùԸà ~ ndòԸà ~ tùԸà ~ tòԸà). × Since word-initial nasal clusters are generally prohibited in Ju, the variation t- ~ d- ~ ndmust probably result from morphemic contraction: it is reasonable to assume that *torepresents the original root, while ndo- ~ do- are variants with an additional preposed deictic morpheme (ਙ *NV-to- ~ *VN-to?). Final -à is a general relative morpheme. • ખHoan: త৸a (C, G). × The more archaic variant t৔a is preserved in the Sasi dialect (Collins & Gruber 2014: 40). • Ju-ખHoan: A perfect lexicostatistical match. ખHoan shows no signs of voicing or nasalization as seen in Ju dialects, indirectly confirming that these variants are secondary. 86. THIS (±) • PJ: (A) *e (Ju. =è, Kg. e ~ é෨ya, Ek. Ŗ); (B) *Ɩ (OK. Ɩ, Ek. ૂެ). × Ekoka is the only Ju dialect in which both of these simple morphemes are attested: according to König & Heine, ૂެ “refers to objects close to the speaker or deictic centre” as well as Ŗ, but Ŗ “has a contrastive function (‘this, rather than any other one’)” (König & Heine 2001: 64–65). Even if this opposition is not confirmed beyond the Northern cluster, both pronominal forms look sufficiently archaic to suggest that it may have been inherited from PJ, with South-Central dialects simplifying it in favor of *e (at least in Ju.: the situation with the other dialects remains insufficiently well described). • ખHoan: hŋ (C, G). • Ju-ખHoan: Despite some phonetic similarity (mostly in terms of root structure), it is not easy to trace PJ *e and ખHoan hŊ back to a single protoform. However, the vocalic correspondence is not unique (corr. #6), and ‫ۆ‬Hoan h- may theoretically be equated with the Ju class prefix h= that typically precedes the pronominal morpheme (h=è ‘this’ for classes 1–4, opposed to k=è ‘this’ for class 5). In a recent presentation, Sands (2018) mentions this parallel together with an additional possible example (Ju ਲàӑ ‘burp’ : ખHoan ਺ƕuิ ‘heartburn’) as possible evidence for a special series of labio-velar clicks in Proto-JuખHoan. This actually echoes an earlier idea suggested in Starostin 2008: 358 («...some old influencing factor, for instance, a particular type of labial articulation after the click (either the click itself or the following vowel could be strongly labialized)»). However, due to the relative scarceness of evidence and lack of local typological support for separate labiovelarized clicks the suggestion remains somewhat speculative for now. 19

47

George Starostin

87. THOU (-) • PJ: *a (Ju. à, Kx. a-hi, Kg. a ~ á, Gr. à෨, OK. a ~ a-hi, Ek. à). × Preserved in all dialects, being encountered either as a simple monophonemic variant or in the emphatic variant *a-hƖ ~ *a-hi. Curiously, in a few dialects an additional variant with an extra labial phoneme is attested: (a) for Kg., Bleek lists a special subject form mԸa, distinguishing it from the more common object and possessive form a; (b) for Ek., König & Heine list a special subject form bà, especially in sentence-internal position. These phenomena most likely have a common origin, but the exact provenance of this labial prefix and its shape in PJ remain to be clarified. • ખHoan: ù (C, G). × In the Sasi dialect, there is also an additional “in-focus” form bù ~ bù෨ (Collins & Gruber 2014: 77). • Ju-ખHoan: Unlike the 1st p. sg. pronoun, forms for the 2nd p. sg. pronoun in Ju and ખHoan cannot be reconciled with each other. The situation could make sense from a more comprehensive perspective that also includes !Ui-Taa (South Khoisan) languages as part of the same family: considering that the system there is reconstructible as *a ‘thou’ (sg.) vs. *u ‘you’ (pl.), it is likely that Ju has preserved the original singular form, whereas ખHoan may have replaced it with the original plural. However, this solution formally lies beyond the scope of this binary analysis. It is also curious to note the similarity of the b- “in-focus” Sasi prefix to the m- ~ b- subject prefix in certain Ju dialects, even if the prefixes in question are joined to different root morphemes. 88. TONGUE (±) • PJ: *Thari (Ju. dh৤rì, Kx. tarí, Kg. tঔrri, Gr. ‫ޣ‬thálÄ, OK. tali, Ek. dhàlí). × Preserved in all daughter dialects. Correspondences between the initial consonant show irregular fluctuation of laryngeal features, including even a completely unexpected and very rare case of prenasalization in Gr., as recorded by Doke. This is consistent with the typologically aberrant (both for Africa and other world areas) phonetic behavior of the word ‘tongue’, reflecting an odd phonosemantic phenomenon that is difficult to explain in historical terms. • ખHoan: cèlŋ (C, G), c୻ೲàญ (SH). × Recorded as càla in the Sasi dialect. • Ju-ખHoan: Judgement on whether PJ *Thari and ખHoan cèlŊ are cognate or not has to be postponed. On one hand, the correspondences are notably irregular, since ખHoan c(rather than ఁ- ਙ *t-) is always found in roots where PJ has affricates or sibilants (see ‘hear’, ‘see’ on this list); vocalic patterns do not present a clear match, either. On the other hand, since the word-initial consonant or cluster in PJ remains altogether unclear, and since the word ‘tongue’ tends to behave irregularly in Khoisan languages on the whole, unique historical developments in this case seem highly likely; probability of cognacy is weak, but should not be ruled out. 89. TOOTH (+) • PJ: *cഗau (Ju. cೱàù, Kx. cೱou ~ cou ~ cau, Kg. c෨au ~ caù, Gr. cೱáú෨, OK. cau, Ek. ŏೱŊŵ). × Preserved in all daughter dialects. • ખHoan: cഗíú (C, G), cഗíù (SH). × Plural form: cೱœõ (G), cೱà޷-qà (SH). Recorded as cೱáu in the Sasi dialect. • Ju-ખHoan: A perfect lexicostatistical match with trivial correspondences. × HH: 17, 23. 90. TREE (-) • PJ: *੘hਊƖi (Ju. !୮ഺh, Kx. ਲãŠ, Kg. !áƖ ~ !áƖ-a ~ !ãƅ ~ ਲaƖ, Gr. ਲ୯Ɩ, OK. ਲ৮ৡ ~ ਲã ~ g৮ৡ, Ek. !৤hૂ ~ !h৤ૂ). × Preserved in all daughter dialects. However, phonetic correspondences here 48

Lexicostatistical Studies in Khoisan I: The Ju-ખHoan Relationship

• •

are complex and, in some aspects, unique. The basic structure of the word is more or less the same as in ‘neck’ q.v., which is reflected in the reconstruction of the coda *-aƖi for both items. Seemingly random fluctuations are, however, observed in click efflux articulation (ranging from simple velar release to prevoicing to aspiration), additional vowel properties (breathy articulation in Ju.) and in the tonal scheme. The provisional reconstruction with *ਲh- and ultra-low tone on the first mora merely reflects the fact that some particularly complex bag of features must have been present on the protolevel in order to yield such a large variety of reflexes. ખHoan: ੒ഗਆ (C, G). × Recorded as ਽ೱৡ in the Sasi dialect. Ju-ખHoan: It is worth noting that ખHoan ਽ೱৠ (Sasi ਽ೱৡ) is a perfect phonetic match for Ju. ਽ೱৡ ‘hunting bow’; semantically, such a link is possible, since traditional Bushman bows were «as a rule prepared from the wood of the Grewia flava» (Schapera 1930: 128), but requires setting up a chain of semantic shifts that is hard to accept without additional evidence. Ju *ਲh৤Ɩi finds no cognates in ખHoan.

91. TWO (-) • PJ: *cŋ ~ *c஑ ~ *c஑๔ (Ju. c৮ ~ c৮๔, Kx. ca ~ ŏa, Kg. sã ~ sã๔ ~ s෨a ~ ca ~ cã ~ ca෨๔ ~ z৮๔, Gr. sã෨, OK. cá ~ ca ~ ŏa, Ek. ŏŊ). × Fluctuation between different types of vocalic features remains unexplained (different variants are sometimes attested within the same welldescribed dialect, e.g. Ju.). • ખHoan: ੖Ŷŋ (C, G). • Ju-ખHoan: Unless the PJ entry can be shown to represent a rare case of click affricativization (*਽୭ิ ਘ *c୭ิ), which is not altogether excluded but requires far more confirming evidence, PJ and ખHoan forms have to be kept apart from each other. 92. WALK (GO) (±) • PJ: *ú (Ju. ƈ, Kx. ú, Kg. ù ~ ù෨, Gr. iú ~ Ըú෨, OK. ú, Ek. ú). × Preserved in all daughter dialects. • ખHoan: తào๔ (C, G). × Attested as tàoิ in the Sasi dialect. • Ju-ખHoan: The ખHoan verb *tàoิ may be tentatively analyzed as a fused formation from an early root *ta (which is still in use as an auxiliary pre-verb, indicating motion with the purpose of completing an action) and an unspecified second component — which, incidentally, could be fairly well associated with PJ *ú ‘to go’ (vocalic correspondences would be perfect except for unexplained pharyngealization). However, there are no definitive grounds for such a segmentation, and given the short monovocalic nature of the compared root, we can only accept this match as highly tentative (in any case, even if the suggested fusion were correct, it would constitute a near-complete lexical replacement in ખHoan). 93. WARM (HOT) (-) • PJ: *khúí (Ju. khúí, Kx. kwí ~ khwí, Kg. kwí ~ kwì ~ kwìya, OK. khwí, Ek. khúí). × Preserved in all daughter dialects. In all well documented sources the meaning is explicitly noted as ‘hot’ (antonymous to *ਮàԸƉ ‘cold’), and in PJ it seems to have been well distinguished from *ਭೱৡ ‘warm’ (Ju., Ek. ਭೱৡ, etc.). • ખHoan: k৹ru (C, G). × Always glossed as ‘hot’; the word is probably distinct from ‘warm’, for which cf. ਭo෨ ~ ਸuo ‘warm’ in Traill 1973: 32, possibly = ਭqೱo ‘warmth’ (C). • Ju-ખHoan: The words for ‘hot’ in PJ and ખHoan, despite some phonetic similarity, are probably not related (initial consonants do not perfectly correspond to each other, and 49

George Starostin

fossilized morphology has to be assumed for both groups to justify the connection). The words for ‘warm’, on the other hand, are most likely cognates, but better data are needed for ખHoan to ascertain the semantics. 94. WATER (+) • PJ: *੢ú (Ju. ਲƈ, Kx. ਲú ~ ਸu ~ ਸú, Kg. ਸù ~ ਸú, Gr. ਼ƅ, OK. ਸú ~ ਸó, Ek. ਸú). × Preserved in all daughter dialects. Retroflex click articulation is seen in the Grootfontein dialect and is unambiguously reconstructible for the proto-level. • ખHoan: ৄ਍ (C, G). • Ju-ખHoan: The correspondence between a retroflex click in PJ and an affricate in ખHoan (in this case, both phonemes even share the same characteristics of +voiced) is essentially the same as in the word for ‘hand’ (see above). Although the phonological and phonetic implications of this correspondence remain unclear, observing it specifically in two highly stable elements of the Swadesh wordlist makes coincidence highly unlikely. We count this as a direct lexicostatistical match. 95. WE (±) • PJ: [exclusive] *è (Ju. è, Kx. e, Kg. e, OK. e ~ e-hƖ, Ek. è); [inclusive] *߮ (Ju. ‫ފ‬, Kg. hm, Ek. ௓-h‫)ފ‬. × The basic opposition between exclusive and inclusive forms of the 1st p. pl. pronoun is observed in the majority of Ju dialects. For Ekoka, it is noted that è is now perceived as an archaic form, with speakers generally preferring the innovation ़ù (= ‘people’, see ‘person’ above). Both pronouns also have expanded (emphatic?) variants, well attested in Ju. (è-!á, ‫ފ‬-!á) and several other dialects. Special dual forms are more rare and transparently recent (Ju. è-cá, ‫ފ‬-cá ‘the two of us’, compounded with ‘two’ q.v.). • ખHoan: [exclusive] n-!ŋՖŗ (C, G); [inclusive] qà๔ŋ (C, G). × The variant of the inclusive pronoun in the Sasi dialect is slightly shorter: qà (Collins & Gruber 2014: 77). • Ju-ખHoan: There are no clear-cut isomorphisms between the 1st p. pl. sub-systems in PJ and ખHoan. Surprisingly, the closest morphemes are the suffixal extensions — PJ *-!a and ખHoan -!ŊԸŖ, which cannot be easily traced back to any recent grammaticalization patterns (but are probably further related to the productive diminutive plural ending -!àԸŊ in ખHoan). It is likewise reasonable to suggest a link between ખHoan qàิŊ and the regular plural ending -qà in the same language, but the exact nature of it is a matter of guesswork (one possible scenario, for instance, is that the original pronominal root was contractedɏ/ɏdeleted before the ending, i.e. *n-qa ਘ qa). It is also worth noting that a special dual variant of the pronoun is attested in ખHoan, where the nasal monophonemic root is represented by a labial allophone: m-ਰŵŊ ‘us two’ (Collins & Gruber 2014: 71). This can be easily ascribed to assimilative influence of the following labial click (ਙ *n-ਰŵŊ); on the other hand, the opposite scenario cannot be excluded, either, i.e. delabialization in front of a tightly adjacent nonlabial click: *m-!ŊԸŖ ਘ *n-!ŊԸŖ. Due to the uniqueness of this phonotactic environment, no examples are available to confirm or disprove such a development, meaning that it is possible to set up a tentative weak match between the exclusive pronoun in ખHoan and the inclusive pronoun in Ju (the disagreement in clusivity should not be a problem, since ખHoan must have remodeled the old opposition anyway). 96. WHAT (+) • PJ: *hà-Őí (Ju. h৤-ŏé) / (?) *m- (Ek. ਘ-). × Interrogatives in Ju are usually complex, consisting of a general interrogative marker, a nominal root, and (optionally) a final particle: 50

Lexicostatistical Studies in Khoisan I: The Ju-ખHoan Relationship

•

•

thus, Ju. h৤-ŏé = ha (question marker) + ŏi ‘thing’ + -e (final particle). There is significant variation between dialects concerning the selection of the components: thus, Ek. and some other Northern dialects show m instead of ha, cf. OK. m-pai (D. Bleek's data, second component is unique and unclear); Ek. ਘ-ŏá ~ ਘ-ŏŖ ~ ਘ-ŏí. Data from J. Snyman's comparative survey of Ju subdialects, although restricted to ‘who?’ rather than ‘what?’, show that variants of interrogative pronouns with initial ha- have a much wider distribution than variants with m-, the latter being largely restricted to the area between the Cuito and Cuando rivers. It may be suspected that m-initial forms are secondary in the Northern dialects, having penetrated them under the influence of Khoe, where *mã ~ *ma ‘who?, which?’ is one of the main interrogative stems (Vossen 1997: 379). However, this evidence is inconclusive; it is likewise possible that *m- is archaic, surviving on the Northern and Northwestern periphery of the Ju cluster. ખHoan: Ֆ৶๔rţ-yà (C, G). × Apparently, ખHoã has chosen the rare strategy of neutralizing the lexical opposition between ‘who?’ and ‘what?’ in favor of ‘who?’ (see notes on ‘who?’ below). The morpheme yà is a general question particle. Cf. also ఁini ‘what?’ in Traill 1973: 32, not confirmed in any of the later sources. The Sasi equivalent for ‘what?’ is ndŊ, “a question word which does not exist in ખHoã” (Collins & Gruber 2014: 192). Ju-ખHoan: Any comparisons between Ju and ખHoan interrogatives may be made only on the level of the general interrogative particle. Etymological identity of PJ *hà and ખHoan yà seems quite likely in light of the completely identical correspondence between PJ *ha ‘3rd p. sg.’ and ખHoan ya id. (although the deicticɏ/ɏpersonal and interrogative morphemes themselves are probably just homonyms). The nominal extensions of the pronouns are different, due to the lexical renewals of the words for ‘thing’ and ‘person’ in one or both subgroups after the split. Nevertheless, since the main interrogative meaning is carried by the haɏ/ɏya morpheme, we count both ‘what?’ and ‘who?’ as lexicostatistical matches between PJ and ખHoan.

97. WHITE (Ì) • PJ: *!àՖƊ (Ju. !àԸú, Kx. !áú, Kg. !áó ~ !kೱáó ~ !kxáó, Gr. ਲƕԸ৤২, OK. !áú, Ek. !àԸ১). × The structure of the stem, including a glottal stop between the two vowels, is very well confirmed by most modern sources (Ju., Ek.) as well as Doke's Grootfontein data. It also explains the variation observed between the forms recorded for Kg., where the glottal stop may have been incorrectly interpreted as part of the click efflux. The item is well attested in the majority of dialects and safely reconstructible for the PJ level. • ખHoan: ੔à๔Ֆnna (H&H). × Listed as ਮxaิna ~ ਮaิana in Traill 1973: 32. • Ju-੔Hoan: No lexicostatistical matches. PJ *!àԸƉ ‘white’ is most likely somehow linked to Proto-Khoe *!ೱú ‘white’ (Vossen 1997: 506), well represented in Kalahari Khoe and also preserved in Nama with an additional suffix (!u-ri). Borrowing from Proto-Khoe into PJ does not seem likely, since it is unclear why an original *!ೱu should have yielded a more complicated vocalic structure in PJ; more probable is the reverse situation (PJ *!àԸƉ ຐ Proto-Khoe *!ೱú with simplification of an unusual structure), or even the scenario according to which both forms are retained from a common ancestor of PJ and Proto-Khoe (in which case, of course, the PJ equivalent should automatically be projected onto the Proto-Ju-ખHoan stage as well). As for ખHoan ਮàิԸnna, this is a rare case of a *CVna structure for a ખHoan adjective; provided that -na is historically of suffixal origin, a possible parallel may be seen in Ju. ਮaิԸàbè ‘shiny’, further relatable to !Xóõ (Taa) ਮàิba id. Our understanding of the productivity aspects of early Peripheral Khoisan derivational morphology is insufficient to 51

George Starostin

assess the plausibility of two different derivational suffixes for the same root, but since there is ample evidence to back up the very presence of such derivational patterns at those stages, the etymological match between *ਮaิԸ-na and ਮaิԸ-be is acceptable. (Note that it does not necessarily invalidate the comparison of the Ju word with ‫ۆ‬Hoan ‘moon’, discussed above, since both forms can ultimately go back to the same root with different suffixes). 98. WHO (+) • PJ: *hà-ৄù (Ju. h৤-žòè, Kg. a-़u) / (?) *m- (Ek. ਘ-़Ŗ ~ ਘ-़ŵŖ). × In all Ju dialects, the animate interrogative pronoun is formed from the general interrogative morpheme + *़ù ‘person’ q.v. (sometimes also further extended with the deictic stem *-e: *hà-़ù-e ਘ Ju. ha-žoe). For discussion of the interrogative morpheme, see ‘what’ above. • ખHoan: Ֆ৶๔rţ-yà (C, G). × In the Sasi dialect, the phonetic shape is Ը৒lŢ-yà. A compound form, consisting of Ը৒ิrŢ ‘man’ q.v. and the general interrogative particle yà. See ‘what?’ for further notes. • Ju-ખHoan: A lexicostatistical match on the level of the general interrogative particle. See ‘what?’ for a more detailed commentary. 99. WOMAN (Ì) • PJ: *Ɣhau (Ju. Ɣhೱàú, Kx. Ɣau ~ Ɣou ~ Ɣóú, Kg. Ɣau ~ záú ~ sáú, Gr. zsháú෨, OK. cau ~ cáú, Ek. ़hŊŵ). × Preserved in all daughter dialects. Correspondences are generally regular and trivial; PJ *Ɣh- automatically becomes preglottalized in Ju., so there is no need to carry it over onto the proto-level as a phonological feature. In most modern dialects the word unambiguously denotes a female human being, and should be distinguished as such from PJ *de ~ *di ‘female (in general, incl. animals etc.)’. • ખHoan: Ֆ৶๔ri=ਫ਼ái๔ (C, G). × A compound form; the first part is Ը৒ิri ‘man’ q.v., while the second part, when in independent usage, means ‘female’ (listed as ਸaิai ~ ਸaiิ in Traill 1973: 32). Suppletive plural form: ਽qվà ‘women’ (Collins & Gruber 2014: 21). Distinct from ़৓u ‘wife’ (Collins & Gruber 2014: 92). • Ju-੔Hoan: PJ *Ɣhau ‘woman’ is a perfect etymological match for ખHoan ़৓u ‘wife’ (HH: 17), and it is safe to assume that this term may have been polysemous in the ancestral language (‘woman /in general/’ = ‘married woman’). Another transparent cognate from the same semantic field is PJ *de ~ *di ‘female’ = ખHoan ภe ‘mother’ (HH: 16). Nevertheless, ખHoan seems to have undergone lexical replacement, substituting the original term for ‘woman’ for a compound expression in which the ‘feminine’ part of the meaning is now denoted by the morpheme ਸáiิ, very likely diffused in ખHoan under Taa influence, cf. !Xóõ ਸáiิ ‘female’, also Nઔuકen tu ਸai ‘woman’, lit. ‘person-female’, i. e. the same model of compounding as in ખHoan. Therefore, we cannot qualify this situation as a lexicostatistical match. 100. YELLOW (-) • PJ: *੒ਊƖu (Kx. ਷ãƅ, Kg. ਽áƖ ~ ਽àƖ, Gr. ਽a෨Ɩ ~ ਷ãƖ, OK. ਽ãƖ). × Same word as ‘green’ q.v.; most of the old sources on Ju dialects indicate no lexical distinction between the basic ‘green’, ‘blue’, and ‘yellow’. In more modern and more detailed sources, we occasionally encounter separate entries for ‘yellow’, e.g. Ju ਸ১ิnì-ਲú, lit. ‘/the color of/ the jewel beetle's (ਸ১ิnì) belly (ਲú)’, and Ek. ਱ùƉ = ‘egg’ q.v. Naturally, these have to be interpreted as recent (completely transparent) semantic innovations. 52

Lexicostatistical Studies in Khoisan I: The Ju-ખHoan Relationship

• •

ખHoan: za๔Ֆa (T). × Same word as ‘green’; attested only in Traill 1973, thus not highly reliable from the phonetic or semantic aspect. Ju-ખHoan: No lexicostatistical or etymological matches.

101. FAR (-) • PJ: *੔xã (Ju. ਮx৮, Kx. ਮx৮෨ ~ ਮa ~ ਮa෨ ~ !ã෨ ~ !hã෨ ~ ਽xã෨ ~ ਽ã, Kg. ਮx୮ ~ ਮxá ~ ਮa, OK. ਮxa ~ ਽xa, Ek. ਿx୭). × The reconstruction is based on precise correspondences between Ju. and Ek. Old sources show a lot of fluctuation between the palatal and the dental (more rarely, the alveolar) click; this is not well understood (palatal clicks are frequently transcribed erroneously by L. Lloyd, D. Bleek and others, but the fluctuations look rather extreme in this particular case). • ખHoan: ੟৸a (C, G). • Ju-ખHoan: No lexicostatistical or etymological matches. 102. HEAVY (-) • PJ: *t਌h (Ju. t০h, Kx. ti, Kg. tí ~ t෨í, Ek. t০hì). × Preserved in all daughter dialects (where attested). Reconstructible for PJ with breathy vowel articulation and ultra-low tone. • ખHoan: ੓qô (C, G). • Ju-ખHoan: No lexicostatistical or etymological matches. 103. NEAR (+) • PJ: *toՖm (Ju. tòԸm, Kx. t՝m ~ toma ~ tum ~ dom, Kg. t෨ೱumm ~ tumma ~ tamma, OK. tum, Ek. tŵԸ‫)ލ‬. × Preserved in all daughter dialects. Some of the attested forms represent the complex «junctive» variant *toԸm-a (supposedly followed by a complement). • ખHoan: తŋ๔m (C, G). × Should go back to an earlier *taิm. • Ju-ખHoan: Consonantal correspondences between PJ and ખHoan are perfect; vocalism remains more complicated, but cf. HH: 18, where several additional examples of the same pattern (PJ *o : ખHoan a) are adduced. The authors provisionally interpret them as reflecting Ju-ખHoan *ao, without mentioning that all such instances occur exclusively before the labial nasal coda (e. g. ખHoan ೱ਽naิm ‘springhare’ = PJ *ೱਲ਼oิm id., ખHoan ਱ám ‘ripe, cooked’ = PJ *਱om id., etc.). The likeliest solution is that the coda simply influenced the original vocalism in PJ. Less clear is the correlation between glottalic articulation of the vowel in PJ vs. pharyngealization in ખHoan, but this, too, is not unprecedented (cf. ‘cold’ above, or PJ *਼aԸma ‘to enter’ — ખHoan !aิm id.). Overall, while the phonological and phonetic details still deserve closer scrutiny, the etymology as a whole can be evaluated as highly reliable. × HH: 22. 104. SALT (?) • PJ: *gúí (Ju. gúí, Kg. gwì, OK. gwí, Ek. gúí). × This is the most widespread and the least etymologically suspicious equivalent for ‘salt’ in Ju. Another root, attested as Kx. dabe, Ju. díbí and also recorded by Snyman for several other Ju subdialects, is most likely of Khoe origin (cf. Proto-Khoe *dobe ‘salt’ in Vossen 1997: 481). • ખHoan: qŋՖnŋ (C, G). × Clearly the same word as !Xóõ qáԸna ‘salt’. • Ju-ખHoan: No lexicostatistical or etymological matches. Judging by the situation in Ju, the meaning ‘salt’ is rather easily diffused across different Khoisan lineages, so it is highly likely that ખHoan qŊԸnŊ is a borrowing from Taa (rather than both being inherited from Proto-Peripheral Khoisan). 53

George Starostin

105. SHORT (-) • PJ: *!ò ~ *!ò-mà (Ju. !ò-mà, Kx. ਲò෨, Kg. !o-ma ~ !o෨-ma, OK. !o-!o, Ek. !ò). × Preserved in most dialects. The root can be used by itself or in conjunction with the diminutive suffix *-ma. • ખHoan: ੔éƊ (C, G). • Ju-ખHoan: ખHoan ਮéƉ is etymologically comparable with Ju. ਮ৤òվ ‘to lack, be short of’ (front vocalism in ખHoan is apparently caused by palatal influence of the click), but the Ju. form itself is not safely reconstructible for PJ. Additionally, there are still problems with phonetics (prosody) and semantics, so the etymology is not fully convincing. 106. SNAKE (Ì) • PJ: *੔ഗஒgà ~ *੔ഗஒwà (Ju. ਮೱ୮gà-mà ~ ਮೱà෨-mà, Gr. ਮೱ୮w୮, Ek. ਿೱ୮wà). × The generic term for ‘snake’, reconstructible for PJ, has an atypical bisyllabic structure, since *-ga ~ *-wa is not one of the few common syllables allowed in coda position. Most likely, the form is originally a compound, although the phonetic and semantic properties of its source morphemes are unclear. There are several terms denoting specific types of snakes in PJ that are even more widespread and simpler in structure, e.g. *ਵƖ ‘python’, *਽kxãƅ ‘blind snake’, *਼e ‘puff-adder’; the common word for the entire suborder may be some descriptive term (of a euphemistic nature?). It is useful to note that some old sources occasionally quote words for specific types of snakes in the general meaning ‘snake’: e.g. Kx. ਲe෨ ~ ਲì ‘snake’ (= ‘puff-adder’), OK. ਽৮ৡ ~ ਽wӼ ‘snake’ (= ‘blind snake’). Naturally, it is impossible to correctly assess the semantic scope of these forms from existing data. • ખHoan: ੘ái (C, G). • Ju-ખHoan: The ખHoan term for ‘snake’ is a near-perfect correspondence for PJ *਼ai ‘puffadder’ (see ‘claw /nail/’ on the possible correspondence between PJ *ਿ and ખHoan !), but there are no parallels in ખHoan for PJ *ਮೱ୮gà — another indirect hint at the nonarchaic nature of this compound. 107. THIN (-) • PJ: *ৄਊ๔m (Ju. ž৤ิm, Kx. žaิm, Kg. ža‫ލ‬m, Gr. žam). × A common Ju morpheme. The Ek. equivalent is ਭkxàí, perfectly corresponding to Ju. ਭkxàì ‘wrinkled’ and probably semantically innovative. • ખHoan: ੒xolo (C). • Ju-ખHoan: No lexicostatistical or etymological parallels. 108. WIND (-) • PJ: (?) *੔ഗa (Kx. ਮೱã ~ ਮೱa෨, Kg. ਮೱa ~ ਮೱã). × Although this root is quite widely distributed throughout the dialects (judging by J. Snyman's comparative data), it is oddly missing in both of the best described Ju varieties. In Ju., it has been replaced by màห, originally a verbal stem with the meaning ‘to blow /of wind/’ (cf. Ek. m৤ห ‘to blow’, etc.). In some of the Northern dialects we see a different replacement: OK. ਭuli, Ek. ਭ১hlì ~ ਭ১hlì-gŵ, likely cognate with Ju. ਭ১rò ‘whirlwind’, i.e. originally ‘strong wind’. On the other hand, the similarity between this root and Proto-Khoe *ਮೱã ‘wind’ (Vossen 1997: 507) suggests an alternate scenario — namely, areal borrowing from Khoe sources along the same lines as ‘fish’ q.v. If so, PJ *maห could have very well been both a verbal (‘blow’) and nominal (‘wind’) root, with narrow specialization to verbal usage after the nominal functions were taken over by the Khoe borrowing. A more insightful evaluation of the probabilities will only be possible in the context of a general study on the scope and nature of Ju-Khoe areal contacts. 54

Lexicostatistical Studies in Khoisan I: The Ju-ખHoan Relationship

•

•

ખHoan: ੔qഗui (C). × Similarity with !Xóõ ਮqƱùe ‘wind’ is hardly accidental, but in this case, borrowing is not an immediately obvious explanation, since there are visible phonetic discrepancies (glottalized click efflux in ખHoan vs. aspirated in !Xóõ) that should not be characteristic of recent contact. Ju-ખHoan: No lexicostatistical or etymological parallels (regardless of whether the comparison is made with PJ *ਮೱa or *maห).

109. WORM (?) • PJ: Not properly reconstructible due to lack of attestation. Only the Ju. word is known: ਵகԸৡ. • ખHoan: ਲõԸõ෨ ~ ਲƅԸƅ෨ ~ ਲƕԸu෨ (T). × Not attested in any reliable sources. • Ju-ખHoan: Although there is too little information for an etymological or lexicostatistical decision, it is curious that the Ju. and ખHoan forms are extremely similar to each other. However, the correspondence between a palatal click in Ju. (or PJ) and an alveolar click in ખHoan would be highly irregular, unless Traill's phonological transcription is in error — but no other examples of such errors could be detected upon careful analysis of the data in Traill 1973. 110. YEAR (-) • PJ: (?) *kuri (Ju. kúrí, Kx. kuri, OK. kuri). × Although the form is quite widely spread across Ju dialects, its projection onto the PJ level is highly dubious — like ‘fish’ and possibly ‘wind’ (see above), this is most likely a borrowing from Khoe *kúrí ‘year’ (Vossen 1997: 454). There is, however, very limited data on alternate candidates. In Ek., the meaning ‘year’ is expressed by the same word as ‘rain’ (ਸà) — possibly an archaism, but explicitly limited to just one dialect. For the Grootfontein dialect, Doke records ਻৤২ ‘year’, an isolated form with no parallels whatsoever. • ખHoan: k՟ஒӻ (C, G). • Ju-ખHoan: No lexicostatistical or etymological parallels. Data analysis The table below summarizes all our findings, once again classifying all matches into «solid» (confirmed by recurrent correspondence patterns), «dubious» (containing no more than one strong violation of observed patterns), «etymological» (potential cognates are only attested with a semantic shift), and non-existent. The 10 additional items (101–110) are marked separately (e. g. «8+1» means that there are 8 matches in the main wordlist and 1 more among the ten additional items). Match type

List half

Cases

Wordlist items

Solid

1st

21

Solid

2nd

8+1

Dubious

1st

6

‘claw /nail/’, ‘drink’, ‘mouth’, ‘tail’, ‘tongue’, ‘we’

Dubious

2nd

5

‘bite’, ‘cold’, ‘say’, ‘this’, ‘walk /go/’

Etymological

1st

5

‘foot’, ‘meat’, ‘moon’, ‘smoke’, ‘stone’

Etymological

2nd

9+1

No matches

1st

18

‘blood’, ‘die’, ‘ear’, ‘eat’, ‘eye’, ‘hand’, ‘head’, ‘hear’, ‘horn’, ‘I’, ‘kill’, ‘louse’, ‘name’, ‘new’, ‘not’, ‘one’, ‘star’, ‘tooth’, ‘water’, ‘what’, ‘who’ ‘all’, ‘belly’, ‘earth’, ‘red’, ‘see’, ‘sit’, ‘sleep’, ‘that’, ‘near’

‘big’, ‘come’, ‘knee’, ‘many’, ‘person’, ‘small’, ‘stand’, ‘white’, ‘woman’, ‘snake’ ‘ashes’, ‘bird’, ‘black’, ‘bone’, ‘dog’, ‘dry’, ‘egg’, ‘fire’, ‘hair’, ‘heart’, ‘leaf’, ‘night’, ‘nose’, ‘rain’, ‘sun’, ‘thou’, ‘tree’, ‘two’ 55

George Starostin

Match type

List half

Cases

Wordlist items

No matches

2nd

18 + 6

‘breast’, ‘fat’, ‘feather’, ‘fly’, ‘give’, ‘good’, ‘green’, ‘know’, ‘lie’, ‘liver’, ‘long’, ‘man’, ‘mountain’, ‘neck’, ‘root’, ‘skin’, ‘warm /hot/’, ‘yellow’, ‘far’, ‘heavy’, ‘short’, ‘thin’, ‘wind’, ‘year’

8+1

‘bark’, ‘burn’, ‘cloud’, ‘full’, ‘round’, ‘sand’, ‘seed’, ‘swim’, ‘worm’

2+1

‘fish’, ‘road’, ‘salt’

Excluded (lack of data) Excluded (borrowings)

The following conclusions may be drawn from these statistics. 1. Percentage of lexicostatistical matches between Proto-Ju and ‫ۆ‬Hoan on the 100-item wordlist may vary from 32ɏ% (29/90, only counting the «solid» matches) to 44ɏ% (40/90, counting «solid» and «dubious» matches together). Since the disintegration of Proto-Ju itself, based on lexicostatistical calculations between modern dialects, is tentatively dated to about 200 AD (Starostin 2013: 321), with the average Ju dialect replacing about 10–12% by the present day, this, according to Sergei Starostin's glottochronological method, yields a highly approximate figure of about 5000–5500 years of separation between modern Ju varieties and ‫ۆ‬Hoan in the worst case (all «dubious» matches discarded), or of about 4000–4500 years in the best case (all «dubious» matches included). The latter is an age roughly comparable with the most common glottochronological datings for such Eurasian families as, for instance, Fenno-Ugric (without Samoyed) or Kartvelian (together with the highly divergent Svan). 2. The number of direct solid lexicostatistical matches within the first («more stable») half of the Swadesh list vastly exceeds the number of such matches within the second half (21 against 8). This is significant evidence in favor of a genetic rather than areal connection between Ju and ખHoan, with the imminent underlying assumption of a common linguistic ancestor. 3. Conversely, the number of «etymological» matches is higher for the «less stable» part of the wordlist (9 against 5). This is an interesting observation that seems to agree with basic logic, since «less stable» lexical items should be expected to also be more prone to semantic change, in addition to outright elimination; however, it remains to be seen whether it may be generalized, since statistical data on this type of correlation has yet to be collected for representative samples. 4. There is currently no evidence that a majority, or even a significant portion, of lexical replacements that took place between Proto-Ju-‫ۆ‬Hoan and Proto-Ju or modern ‫ۆ‬Hoan are due to massive borrowing from other sources. We have been able to reliably identify no more than three borrowed items (of Taa or Khoe origin), and suspicions have been raised about a few more (e.g. ‘sun’), but on the whole, it seems as if the general process of disintegration was largely driven by internal factors. Finally, in light of the «Ju-Taa», or «Peripheral Khoisan», hypothesis that interprets the similarities between North Khoisan (Ju) and South Khoisan (!Ui-Taa) in terms of genetic relationship, the following observations must be made: — on one hand, binary comparisons between Ju and !Ui-Taa that do not find any parallels in ‫ۆ‬Hoan should not be regarded as significantly less reliable, since ‫ۆ‬Hoan is an isolated language, and its percentage of irretrievably lost Proto-Ju-Taa items should predictably be higher; — on the other hand, caution must be exercised when dealing with exclusive ‫ۆ‬Hoan-Taa isoglosses (such as ‘salt’, etc.) that do not find parallels in either !Ui or Ju languages, particularly when these isoglosses are exact or near-exact phonetic matches; most likely, such cases reflect recent contact that should not distort our general perspective of distant genetic relationship between these taxa. 56

Lexicostatistical Studies in Khoisan I: The Ju-ખHoan Relationship

Appendix: List of observed phonetic correspondences between Ju and ‫ۆ‬Hoan The table below lists all cases of phonetic correspondences that have been observed between Proto-Ju and Eastern ‫ۆ‬Hoan on the data of basic (Swadesh) lexical items and additional lexical items discussed in the main body of the paper (non-Swadesh meanings are listed in italics). It must be noted that this list does not aim at systematic completeness; thus, there are quite a few segments reconstructible for Proto-Ju (mostly in the non-click consonant domain) that find no ‫ۆ‬Hoan correlates in this table, and vice versa. Likewise, the table does not contain a special column for Proto-Ju-‫ۆ‬Hoan reconstructed phonemes, and while in quite a few cases one-to-many correspondence types are commented upon as to the issue of possible complementary distribution of reflexes, this is not always the case — for instance, there is currently no clear understanding of the principles that govern the reflexes of such vowel qualities as nasalization, glottalization, and pharyngealization, or of the seemingly chaotic distribution of voiced and voiceless reflexes of click phonemes. Such principles may or may not be uncovered at the next stages of etymological research on Ju-‫ۆ‬Hoan; in the meantime, what matters most is the recurrent nature of such correspondences, proving or at least increasing the probability of their non-accidental nature. The following types of correlations are included in the table: (a) phonetically identical segments between ‫ۆ‬Hoan and Proto-Ju (for such cases, especially if the involved phonemes are rare, recurrence is not necessarily required); (b) phonetically similar segments between ‫ۆ‬Hoan and Proto-Ju, differing by no more than one distinctive and commonly unstable feature 20 such as +/– voice (for consonants) or +/– raised (for vowels). If the correlation is one-to-one, with no alternate correspondences for either member of the pair, recurrence is not required. If there are conflicting one-to-many correspondences, it is recommended to establish complementary distribution (cf. #1 vs. #1a vs. #1b), or to provide at least as many examples as there are for group (c) cases; (c) «non-trivial» correspondences, such as #35b, in which the segments differ significantly from each other. To judge such cases as recurrent correspondences, we need to have no fewer than three examples of each (with precise matching semantics or meanings connected by the most trivial of semantic shifts). For additional examples of possible correspondences and additional comments on those listed in the table below, see Starostin 2008 and Heine & Honken 2010. Ju

a

ai

#

a

‘cold’, ‘comeɏ/ɏfetch’, ‘earth’, ‘hear’, ‘red’, ‘sleep’, ‘stand’, ‘interr. morpheme’, ‘3rd p. sg.’, ‘enter’

oa

‘eye’, ‘sky’ 21

1a

‘moonɏ/ɏshiny’, ‘dove’, ‘refuseɏ/ɏdissuade’ 22

1b

‘meatɏ/ɏcut meat’

2

i

‘die’

2a

ai

‘puff-adderɏ/ɏsnake’

3

i

‘be able’

3a

i ae

Items

ખHoan

ae

1

Unstability of features is well demonstrable through the analysis of closely related dialectal forms attested in the Khoisan-speaking area, where fluctuations between voiced/voiceless or high/mid articulation are well known, but the laws that govern such fluctuations have not been described to general satisfaction. 21 Regular development after labial clicks. 22 As a result of assimilation in *CaCi ~ *CaCe type structures. 20

57

George Starostin

Ju

ખHoan

ao

eu

‘shortɏ/ɏlack’

u

‘footɏ/ɏtrack’, ‘duiker’

iu

‘hand’, ‘tooth’, ‘womanɏ/ɏwife’, ‘dig’

e

‘femaleɏ/ɏmother’

6

a

‘new’, ‘this’

6a

u

‘head’, ‘one’

au

e i o oa oe

om u ui

Items

# 4 5

23

24

5a

6b

i

‘bigɏ/ɏmany’, ‘mouth’

7

o

‘not’

8

au

‘lieɏ/ɏsit’

8a

oa

‘stone’, ‘that’

9

oe

‘smoke’

10

ue

‘all’

10a

ui

‘tail’, ‘take off / drop off’

10b

am

‘near’, ‘springhare’, ‘ripeɏ/ɏcooked’

11

em

‘kneeɏ/ɏkneel’ 25

11a

o

‘belly’, ‘nail’, ‘horn’, ‘kill’, ‘name’, ‘star’, ‘water’, ‘steenbok’ 26

12

ui

‘smallɏ/ɏthin’

13

oe

‘ear’

13a

-০

-am

‘eat’

14

-m

-m

‘enter’

15

-/V/Ɨ V൜ V ৻

-i

‘blood’, ‘louse’, ‘see’

16

-a

‘sit’

16a

V

‘eye’, ‘moonɏ/ɏshiny’, ‘one’, ‘smallɏ/ɏthin’, ‘that’ 27

17

Vບ

‘cold’, ‘nail’, ‘meatɏ/ɏcut meat’, ‘enter’, ‘sky’

17a

व

‘die’, ‘ear’, ‘head’, ‘hear’, ‘mouth’, ‘not’, ‘sleep’, ‘stand’

18

V൜

‘footɏ/ɏtrack’, ‘red’, ‘refuseɏ/ɏdissuade’

18a

৻

‘kill’, ‘star’, ‘steenbok’

19

V

‘stone’

19a

Vບ

Vບ

‘smoke’, ‘springhare’

20

Vບ൜

Vບ

‘stone’

21

m

m

‘I’

22

Regular development after coronal affricates and fricatives. Possibly a regular development after labial clicks. 25 Only as a result of assimilation before an additional front vowel suffix. 26 Mid vowel o is a much more frequent ‫ۆ‬Hoan correspondence for PJ *u than ‫ۆ‬Hoan u, which is why HH's interpretation of this correspondence as reflecting a typologically unusual diphthong *ou in Proto-Ju-‫ۆ‬Hoan (HH: 17) is barely credible. There are a few reliable cases of ‫ۆ‬Hoan u : PJ *u attested as well (HH: 16), but if it turns out to be impossible to prove complementary distribution, it is more likely that additional vowel qualities will have to be set up for the ancestral state, e.g. +/–ATR differentiations (these are known to be phonologically relevant at least for Khoe languages, unlike labial diphthongs such as ou or uo, virtually unknown in Khoisan languages). 27 Correlations between different types of vowel phonation in PJ and ખHoan are clearly very complex. The complexity may be caused by different combinations of features in the protolanguage; the base timbre of the vowel they are associated with; and various types of assimilative / dissimilative interactions with click accompaniments. At present, we lack the data to conduct a more thorough investigation, and list all the possible patterns without evaluating them on behalf of the degree of their regularity. 23 24

58

Lexicostatistical Studies in Khoisan I: The Ju-ખHoan Relationship

Ju

ખHoan

t

*t ਘ ౭

‘that’, ‘near’

23

d

*d ਘ ຈ

‘smoke’, ‘femaleɏ/ɏmother’

24

c൜

c൜

‘louse’, ‘sleep’, ‘tooth’

25

ő

ő

‘comeɏ/ɏfetch’

26

s

c

‘hear’, ‘see’

27

č

z

‘new’

28

čƲ

ۤ

‘womanɏ/ɏwife’

29

kx

kx

‘earth’

30

h

y

‘interr. morpheme’, ‘3rd p. sg.’

31

ઔ

‘blood’, ‘ear’, ‘not’, ‘sit’, ‘smallɏ/ɏthin’, ‘refuseɏ/ɏdissuade’, ‘steenbok’

32

ઘ

‘eye’, ‘head’, ‘one’, ‘sky’, ‘duiker’

32a

ઔ

Items

#

!

!

‘belly’, ‘boneɏ/ɏspine’, ‘horn’, ‘kill’, ‘lieɏ/ɏsit’, ‘name’, ‘red’, ‘ripeɏ/ɏcooked’

33

ખ

ખ

‘bigɏ/ɏmany’, ‘cold’, ‘kneeɏ/ɏkneel’, ‘moonɏ/ɏshiny’, ‘star’, ‘shortɏ/ɏlack’, ‘be able’, ‘dove’

34

!

‘nail’, ‘puff-adderɏ/ɏsnake’, ‘footɏ/ɏtrack’, ‘enter’

35

‫ݪ‬

‘tail’

š/৉

‘die’, ‘hand’, ‘water’, ‘dig’

35b

‫ۅ‬

‘meat / cut meat’, ‘stand’, ‘stone’

36

C

‘nail’, ‘cold’, ‘die’

37

઩ ‫ۅ‬

C

Cਈ C༘ C൜

35a

28

Cਈ

‘moonɏ/ɏshiny’, ‘footɏ/ɏtrack’

37a

CƲ

‘not’, ‘dove’ 29

37b

Cx൜

‘smallɏ/ɏthin’

37c

‘puff-adderɏ/ɏsnake’, ‘stand’, ‘water’

38

C

‘belly’, ‘eye’, ‘hand’, ‘red’, ‘enter’, ‘dig’

38a

C༘

‘ripeɏ/ɏcooked’, ‘sky’

39

CƲ

‘stone’

39a

C൜

‘boneɏ/ɏspine’, ‘duiker’

40 40a

Cਈ

Cq൜

‘blood’

CƲ

CƲ

‘bigɏ/ɏmany’, ‘horn’, ‘kill’

41

CਈƲ

CqƲ

‘lieɏ/ɏsit’ 31

42

C൜Ʋ

‘kneeɏ/ɏkneel’

43

C൜Ʋ

30

CqƲ

‘ear’, ‘steenbok’

43a

Cx

Cx

‘tail’

44

൜C༘

൜C༘

‘head’, ‘sit’, ‘be able’, ‘springhare’

45

Very dubious, based on one example only; however, all the other segments in ‘tail’ match each other so precisely that it is tempting to suggest some sort of rare positional development (perhaps labialization of an original retroflex click before a labial vowel?). 29 Cf. also #39 below. This conflicts with #41, where aspiration is supposed to be preserved in both branches of the family. However, the examples are too semantically precise to be dismissed. 30 PJ does not differentiate between glottal stop and post-velar accompaniments; presumably, ખHoan is more archaic here, whereas in PJ they generally merged without a trace (see also corr. #43a). 31 Dubious, not because of the distinction in voice, but rather because uvular accompaniments in ખHoan would rather be expected to yield glottalization in PJ (see #43a). Nevertheless, Heine & Honken list several additional examples of similar cases (HH: 29), so this does look like a realistic correlation whose conditions are yet to be properly investigated. 28

59

George Starostin

References Bell, Arthur, Chris Collins. 2001. ખHoan and the typology of click accompaniments in Khoisan. In: Arthur Bell, Paul Washburn (eds.). Khoisan: Syntax, Phonetics, Phonology and Contact. (Cornell working papers in linguistics, 18): 126–153. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications. Bleek, Dorothea F. 1956. A Bushman Dictionary. New Haven: American Oriental Society. Collins, Chris. 2001. Aspects of plurality in ખHoan. Language 77(3): 456–476. Collins, Chris. 2002. Multiple verb movement in ખHoan. Linguistic Inquiry 33(1): 1–29. Collins, Chris, Jeffrey Gruber. 2014. A Grammar of ਮH১ã. Köln: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag. Dickens, Patrick. 1994. English-Ju਽’hoan / Ju਽’hoan-English Dictionary. Köln: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag. Doke, Clement M. 1925. An outline of the phonetics of the language of the Chû: Bushmen of north-west Kalahari. Bantu studies and general South African anthropology 2(3): 129–165. Greenberg, Joseph H. 1966. The Languages of Africa (2nd edition). The Hague: Mouton & Co. Gruber, Jeffrey. 1975. Plural predicates in ખHòã. In: Anthony Traill (ed.). Bushman and Hottentot linguistic studies. (Communications from the African Studies Institute, No. 2): 1–50. Johannesburg: University of the Witwatersrand. Güldemann, Tom. 2014. ‘Khoisan’ linguistic classification today. In: Tom Güldemann, Anne-Maria Fehn (eds.). Beyond ‘Khoisan’. Historical relations in the Kalahari Basin: 1–41. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Heikkinen, Terttu. 1986. Phonology of the !XƇ, dialect spoken in Ovamboland and western Kavango. South African Journal of African Languages (Pretoria) 6 (1): 18–28. Heine, Bernd, Henry Honken. 2010. The Kx’a Family: A New Khoisan Genealogy. Journal of Asian and African Studies 79: 5–36. Honken, Henry. 1977. Submerged features and proto-Khoisan. In: A. Traill (ed.). Khoisan linguistic studies 3. Communications from the African Studies Institute 6: 145–169. Johannesburg: University of the Witwatersrand. Honken, Henry. 1988. Phonetic correspondences among Khoisan affricates. In: R. Vossen (ed.). New perspectives on the study of Khoisan. Quellen zur Khoisan-Forschung/Research in Khoisan studies, Bd 7: 47–65. Köln: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag. Honken, Henry. 2013. Phonetics and phonology: Eastern ‫ۆ‬Hoan. In: Rainer Vossen (ed.). 2013. The Khoesan Languages: 84–87. London/New York: Routledge. Kassian, Alexei, George Starostin, Anna Dybo, Vasily Chernov. 2010. The Swadesh wordlist: an attempt at semantic specification. Journal of Language Relationship 4: 46–89. Kassian, Alexei, George Starostin, Mikhail Zhivlov. 2015. Proto-Indo-European-Uralic Comparison from the Probabilistic Point of View. Journal of Indo-European Studies 43 (3/4): 301–392. König, Christa, Bernd Heine. 2008. A Concise Dictionary of Northwestern !Xun. Köln: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag. Lionnet, Florian. 2009. Lucy Lloyd's !Xun and the Ju dialects. Linguistics colloquium, Institute for Asian and African Studies, Humboldt University, Berlin, 10 November 2009. Available online at: http://www.iaaw.huberlin.de/afrika/linguistik-und-sprachen/veranstaltungen/afrikalinguistischeskolloquium/paperswintersemester-2009-10/lucy-lloyds-xun-and-the-ju-dialects. Miller, Amanda L. 2013. Phonetics and phonology: Northern Khoesan. In: In: Rainer Vossen (ed.). 2013. The Khoesan Languages: 45–51. London/New York: Routledge. Pratchett, Lee James. 2017. A documentation of Groot Laagte ਮKx’aoਭ’ae and dialectal diversity in Southeastern Ju (Kx’a). Ms. Sands, Bonny. 2010. Juu subgroups based on phonological patterns. In: M. Brenzinger, Ch. König (eds.). Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium, January 4-8, 2003, Riezlern / Kleinwalsertal: 40–73. Köln: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag. Sands, Bonny. 2018. From Calgary to the Kalahari: An exploration of language diversity and endangerment. Presentation given at the University of Calgary, March 2, 2018. Sands, Bonny, Henry Honken. 2014. ‫’ۆ‬Amkoe body part terminology in comparative perspective. In: Tom Güldemann, Anne-Maria Fehn (eds.). Beyond ‘Khoisan’. Historical relations in the Kalahari Basin: 233–254. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Snyman, Jan W. 1980. The relationship between Angolan !Xu and Žuઔ'õasi. In: Jan W. Snyman (ed.). Bushman and Hottentot linguistic studies 1979: 1–58. Pretoria: University of South Africa. Snyman 1997: Snyman, Jan W. A preliminary classification of the !XƇƇ and Z‫נ‬huઔ'hõasi dialects. In: W. Haacke, E.ɍElderkin (eds.). Namibian languages: reports and papers: 21–106. Köln: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag. 60

Lexicostatistical Studies in Khoisan I: The Ju-ખHoan Relationship

Starostin, George. 2003. A lexicostatistical approach towards reconstructing Proto-Khoisan. Mother Tongue VIII: 81–128. Starostin, George. 2008. From modern Khoisan languages to Proto-Khoisan: The value of intermediate reconstructions. In: Smirnov, Ilya (ed.). Aspekty komparativistiki III. Orientalia et Classica: Trudy Instituta vostochnyx kul'tur i antichnosti XIX: 337–470. Moscow: RSUH Publishers. Starostin, George. 2016. From wordlists to proto-wordlists: reconstruction as «optimal selection». Faits de langues 47/1: 177–200. Starostin, Georgij. 2013. Jazyki Afriki: opyt postrojenija leksikostatisticheskoj klassifikacii. Tom I: Metodologija. Kojsanskije jazyki. Moscow: Jazyki slav'anskoj kul'tury. Traill, Anthony. 1973. “N4 or S7”: another Bushman language. African studies 32 (1): 25–32. Traill, Anthony. 1994. A !Xóõ dictionary. Köln: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag. Traill, Anthony, Hirosi Nakagawa. 2000. A Historical !Xóõ-ઔGui Contact Zone: Linguistic and other Relations. In: Batibo, Herman M., J. Tsonope (eds.). The State of Khoesan Languages in Botswana: 1–17. Mogoditshane: University of Botswana/University of Tromsø, Tasalls Publishing and Books. Treis, Yvonne. 1998. Names of Khoisan Languages and their Variants. In: Mathias Schladt (ed.). Language, Identity, and Conceptualization among the Khoisan: 463–495. Köln: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag. Vossen, Rainer. 1997. Die Khoe-Sprachen: Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der Sprachgeschichte Afrikas. Köln: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag. Vossen, Rainer (ed.). 2013. The Khoesan Languages. London/New York: Routledge. Westphal, Ernst O. J. 1974. Notes on A. Traill: “N4 or S7?”. African studies 33 (4): 243–247. Westphal, Ernst O. J. 1966. Linguistic research in SWA and Angola. In: Die ethnischen Gruppen Südwestafrikas. Wissenschaftliche Forschung in Südwestafrika, Bd. 3: 125–144. Windhoek: Südwestafrikanische Wissenschaftliche Gesellschaft.

ɱ. ʎ. ʎ˞ʸ˛˙˜˞ˌ˗. ʌˋ˜˨˘˜˥˨˪ˁ˪˘˨˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˋ ˘˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁˣ˘̀ ˦˥ ˜˥˙˨ˁˣ˨˜˘ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˁˢ I: ˧˥ˊ˨˪˅˥ ˢˋːˊ˫ ̀˖˻˜ˁˢ˘ ː˫ ˘ ‫˥˲ۆ‬ˁˣ ʓ˪ˁ˪˼̀ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤̀ˋ˪ ˨˥˄˥˙ ˦ˋ˧˅˥ˋ ˘˖ ˨ˋ˧˘˘ ˦༤ˁˣ˘˧˫ˋˢ˻˲ ˘˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁˣ˘˙ ˦˥ ˨˧ˁ˅ˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥˙ ༤ˋ˜˨˘˜˥˨˪ˁ˪˘˨˪˘˜ˋ ˧̀ˊˁ ̀˖˻˜˥˅˻˲ ˨ˋˢˋ˙, ˪˧ˁˊ˘˴˘˥ˣˣ˥ (˨˥ ˅˧ˋˢˋˣ ɸː. ɴ˧˘ˣ˄ˋ˧ˆˁ) ˦˧˘˵˘˨༤̀ˋˢ˻˲ ˜ ˆ˘˦˥˪ˋ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˜˥˙˨ˁˣ˨˜˥˙ ˢˁ˜˧˥˨ˋˢ˼ˋ. ɳ ˣˁ˨˪˥̀˹ˋ˙ ˦˫˄༤˘˜ˁ˴˘˘ ˦˧˥˅˥ˊ˘˪˨̀ ˊˋ˪ˁ༤˼ˣ˻˙ ༤ˋ˜˨˘˜˥˨˪ˁ˪˘˨˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˙ ˁˣˁ༤˘˖ ˊˁˣˣ˻˲ ˦˥ ˊ˅˫ˢ ˪ˁ˜˨˥ˣˁˢ: ̀˖˻˜ˁˢ ː˫, ˘༤˘ ˨ˋ˅ˋ˧ˣ˥˜˥˙˨ˁˣ˨˜˘ˢ (˦˫˵˥˜ ˥˪ˣ˥˨˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ ˄༤˘˖˜˥˧˥ˊ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˻˲ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪˥˅), ˘ ̀˖˻˜˫ ˅˥˨˪˥˵ˣ˻˙ ‫˥˲ۆ‬ˁˣ, ˜˥˪˥˧˻˙ ˊ˥ ˣˋˊˁ˅ˣˋˆ˥ ˅˧ˋˢˋˣ˘ ˧ˁ˨˨ˢˁ˪˧˘˅ˁ༤˨̀ ˜ˁ˜ ˘˖˥༤̀˪, ˣ˥ ˨ˋˆ˥ˊˣ̀ ˅˨ˋ ːˋ ˨˜˥˧ˋˋ ˨˵˘˪ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˄༤˘ːˁ˙˸˘ˢ ˧˥ˊ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˘˜˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜˥˅ ː˫. ʎˁ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˁˣ˘˘ ˜ˁ˜ ˦˥˅ˋ˧˲ˣ˥˨˪ˣ˥ˆ˥ (˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˋ ˨˲˥ˊ˨˪˅ˁ), ˪ˁ˜ ˘ ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˆ˥ (˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˋ ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅˘̀) ˁˣˁ༤˘˖ˁ ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˻˲ ˜˥ˆˣˁ˪˥˅ ˢˋːˊ˫ ̀˖˻˜ˁˢ˘ ː˫ ˘ ‫˥˲ۆ‬ˁˣ ˵˘˨༤˥ ༤ˋ˜˨˘˜˥˨˪ˁ˪˘˨˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˨˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘˙ ˢˋːˊ˫ ˣ˘ˢ˘ ˥˦˧ˋˊˋ༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˅ ˊ˘ˁ˦ˁ˖˥ˣˋ ˥˪ 32% ˊ˥ 44%, ˵˪˥ ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧ˣ˥ ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅˫ˋ˪ ˪ˁ˜˥˙ ːˋ ˆ༤˫˄˘ˣˋ ˧˥ˊ˨˪˅ˁ, ˜ˁ˜ ˢˋːˊ˫ ˱˘ˣˣ˥-˫ˆ˥˧˨˜˘ˢ˘ ˘༤˘ ˜ˁ˧˪˅ˋ༤˼˨˜˘ˢ˘ ̀˖˻˜ˁˢ˘. ʑ˥ˢ˘ˢ˥ ˽˪˥ˆ˥, ˁˣˁ༤˘˖˘˧˫ˋ˪˨̀ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˊ˘˨˪˧˘˄˫˴˘̀ ˜˥ˆˣˁ˪˥˅ ˢˋːˊ˫ ˧ˁ˖༤˘˵ˣ˻ˢ˘ ˨༤˥̀ˢ˘ ˄ˁ˖˘˨ˣ˥˙ ༤ˋ˜˨˘˜˘ (˄˥༤ˋˋɏ/ɏˢˋˣˋˋ ˫˨˪˥˙˵˘˅˻ˢ˘), ˵˪˥ ˊˁˋ˪ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˁˣ˘ˋ ˫˪˅ˋ˧ːˊˁ˪˼ ˘ˢˋˣˣ˥ ˥ ˆˋˣˋ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˢ ˧˥ˊ˨˪˅ˋ, ˁ ˣˋ ˥˄ ˁ˧ˋˁ༤˼ˣ˻˲ ˨˅̀˖̀˲ ˢˋːˊ˫ ˥˄˥˘ˢ˘ ˪ˁ˜˨˥ˣˁˢ˘. ʂ˕˳˩ˀʻ˯ˀ ˜˕˙ʻʸ: ˜˥˙˨ˁˣ˨˜˘ˋ ̀˖˻˜˘, ː˫ ̀˖˻˜˘, ̀˖˻˜ ખ˲˥ˁˣ, ༤ˋ˜˨˘˜˥˨˪ˁ˪˘˨˪˘˜ˁ, ˆ༤˥˪˪˥˲˧˥ˣ˥༤˥ˆ˘̀, ˨˧ˁ˅ˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥-˘˨˪˥˧˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˙ ˢˋ˪˥ˊ.

61

ʈ. ɰ. ʋ˜˕˙˗ ʃˣ˨˪˘˪˫˪ ̀˖˻˜˥˖ˣˁˣ˘̀ ʒɯʎ; [email protected]

ʋ˞˛ʸ˄ˀ˗ˌˀ ˳˄˗˙˜ໞʸʻ˴˗˜ː˙ʼ˙ *r ʻ ˊʸˌ˖˜˞ʻ˙ʻʸ˗ˌ˴˦ ˌˊ ˜˞ʸ˛˙˛˟˖˯˗˜ː˙ʼ˙ ʻ ˨˯ʼʸ˗˜ːˌˍ 1 ʓ˦༤˥˸ˣ˥˙ ˦˧˥˨ˢ˥˪˧ ˨ˋ˅ˋ˧ˣ˥˅༤ˁ˸˨˜˘˲ ˴˻ˆˁˣ˨˜˘˲ (˜˽༤ˊ˽˧ˁ˧˨˜˘˲ ˘ ˜˘˸˘ˣˌ˅˨˜˘˲) ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘˙ ˘˖ ˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˘˲ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪˥˅ ˦˥ˊ˪˅ˋ˧ːˊˁˋ˪, ˵˪˥: (1) ˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˘˙ ̀˖˻˜ ˊ˥ ˦˥˖ˊˣˋˆ˥ ˅˧ˋˢˋˣ˘ ˄ˋ˖˫˦˧ˋ˵ˣ˥ ˨˥˲˧ˁˣ̀༤ ༤ˁ˪˘ˣ˨˜˥ˋ -rr- ˅ˣ˫˪˧˘ ˨༤˥˅ˁ, (2) ˅ ˄ˁ༤˜ˁˣ˥˧˥ˢˁˣ˨˜˘˲ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪ˁ˲, ˅ ˪. ˵. ˅ ˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˋ, ˅ ˣˁ˵ˁ༤ˋ ˨༤˥˅ˁ ༤ˁ˪. r- > *rr-. ʇ˧˥ˢˋ ˪˥ˆ˥, ˢ˥ːˣ˥ ˨ˊˋ༤ˁ˪˼ ˣ˥˅˥ˋ ˣˁ˄༤˿ˊˋˣ˘ˋ, ˵˪˥ (3) ˅ ˿ːˣ˥˨༤ˁ˅̀ˣ˨˜˥ˢ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪ˋ, ˘˖ ˜˥˪˥˧˥ˆ˥ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁ༤˘ ˢˣ˥ˆ˥ ˨༤˥˅ ˣ˥˨˘˪ˋ༤˘ «˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥» ̀˖˻˜ˁ, ˄˻༤˥ ˊ˅ˁ ˥˪˵ˌ˪༤˘˅˻˲ ˁ༤༤˥˱˥ˣˁ /r/: ˢ̀ˆ˜˘˙ Ɇ ˦ˋ˧ˋˊ *œ (˘, ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˥, ˦ˋ˧ˋˊ *˰) ˘ ˪˅ˌ˧ˊ˻˙ Ɇ ˅˥ ˅˨ˋ˲ ˥˨˪ˁ༤˼ˣ˻˲ ˨༤˫˵ˁ̀˲ (˅ ˪. ˵. ˦ˋ˧ˋˊ *e ˘, ˅ˋ˧˥̀˪ˣ˥, ˦ˋ˧ˋˊ *i), ˜˥˪˥˧˻ˋ ˊˁ˅ˁ༤˘ ˧˫ˢ. -r- ˘ -rr- ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥. ʂ˕˳˩ˀʻ˯ˀ ˜˕˙ʻʸ: ˴˻ˆˁˣ˨˜˘˙ ̀˖˻˜, ˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˘˙ ̀˖˻˜, ˿ːˣ˥˨༤ˁ˅̀ˣ˨˜˘ˋ ̀˖˻˜˘, ̀˖˻˜˥˅˻ˋ ˜˥ˣ˪ˁ˜˪˻, ˘˨˪˥˧˘˵ˋ˨˜ˁ̀ ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˜ˁ

ʁˊˋ˨˼ ˦˥˙ˊˌ˪ ˧ˋ˵˼ ˥ ˨༤ˁ˄˥ ˘˖˫˵ˋˣˣ˥ˢ ˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˥ˢ ˁ˧˲ˁ˘˖ˢˋ Ɇ ˨˥˲˧ˁˣˋˣ˘˘ «ˊ˥༤ˆ˥ˆ˥» */r฿/. ɳ ˨˥˅˧ˋˢˋˣˣ˥ˢ ˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˥ˢ ༤˘˪ˋ˧ˁ˪˫˧ˣ˥ˢ ˽˪ˁ ˱˥ˣˋˢˁ ˦˥༤ˣ˥˨˪˼˿ ˨༤˘༤ˁ˨˼ ˨ ˥˄˻˵ˣ˻ˢ /r/, ˁ ˋˌ ˨༤ˋˊ˻ ˅ ˧̀ˊˋ ˨༤˫˵ˁˋ˅ ˅˘ˊˣ˻ ༤˘˸˼ ˦˥ ˨༤ˋˊ˫˿˹˘ˢ ˖ˁˊˣ˘ˢ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻ˢ: i > î ˘ e > ň. ʠˁ˹ˋ ˅˨ˋˆ˥ ˽˪˥ ˦˧˥̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˅ ˣˁ˵ˁ༤ˋ ˨༤˥˅ˁ: ༤ˁ˪. rŢsu- > *rrisu > *rrîsu > ˧˫ˢ. rîs ‘˨ˢˋ˲’; ˅ ˨ˋ˧ˋˊ˘ˣˋ ˨༤˥˅ˁ ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧˥˅ ˢˁ༤˥: ˨˧. ༤ˁ˪. interritŊre > ˧˫ˢ. întňrîtá ‘˧ˁ˖ˊ˧ˁːˁ˪˼’, ˣ˥ ༤ˁ˪. Ŗricius > *arici > ˧˫ˢ. arici ‘ˌː’ (ˣˋ **arîci). ʕ˥ ːˋ ˧ˁ˖˅˘˪˘ˋ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˲, ˵˪˥ ˘ ˦˥˨༤ˋ */r฿/, ˘ˢˋ༤˥ ˢˋ˨˪˥ ˦˥˨༤ˋ ˥˪˅ˋ˧ˊˋ˅˸˘˲ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˲ (˅ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪ˁ˲): *sita (˘˖ ˨༤ˁ˅.) > ˊ˘ˁ༤. sî´tň, ༤˘˪ˋ˧. sítň ‘˨˘˪˥’; *zidu (˘˖ ˨༤ˁ˅.) > ˊ˘ˁ༤. zîd, ༤˘˪ˋ˧. zid ‘˨˪ˋˣˁ’; ༤ˁ˪. vessica > ˊ˘ˁ༤. bňŽî´cň, ༤˘˪ˋ˧. bňŽícň ‘˦˫˖˻˧˼’; *žiru (˘˖ ˨༤ˁ˅.) > ˊ˘ˁ༤. jîr, ༤˘˪ˋ˧. jir ‘ːˌ༤˫ˊ˼’ (Rosetti 1986: 625). ʓ˪ˁ˧ˁ̀ ˊ˥༤ˆˁ̀ ˱˥ˣˋˢˁ */r฿/ («rr») ˨˥˲˧ˁˣ̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˢˁ˧ˆ˘ˣˁ༤˼ˣ˥ ˅ ˵ˁ˨˪˘ ˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˘˲ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪˥˅, ˵˼˘ ˥˦˘˨ˁˣ˘̀ ˣˋˣˁˊˌːˣ˻ ˘ ˥˄˧˻˅˥˵ˣ˻. ɳ ˄˥༤˼˸˘ˣ˨˪˅ˋ ˨༤˫˵ˁˋ˅ ˨༤ˋˊ˻ ˨˪ˁ˧˥ˆ˥ ˨˥˨˪˥̀ˣ˘̀ ˦˥˵˪˘ ˖ˁ˪ˌ˧˪˻. ʒ˫˜˥˦˘˨ˣ˻ˋ ˨˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅ˁ ˊˁ˿˪ ˊ˥˅˥༤˼ˣ˥ ˢˁ༤˥, ˪. ˜. ˥˨˥˄˻˙ ˖ˣˁ˜ ˊ༤̀ /r฿/ ˦˘˨ˁ༤˨̀ ˣˋ˦˥˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ (Rosetti 1986: 480; Densusianu 1938: 121) 2. ʐˊˣˁ˜˥ ˥˪ ˅ˣ˘ˢˁˣ˘̀ ˘˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁ˪ˋ༤ˋ˙, ˣˁ˨˜˥༤˼˜˥ ˣˁˢ ˘˖˅ˋ˨˪ˣ˥, ˫˨˜˥༤˼˖ˁˋ˪, ˵˪˥ ˽˪˥ */r฿/ ˨˥˲˧ˁˣ̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˅ ˴˻ˆˁˣ˨˜˘˲ (˨ˋ˅ˋ˧ˣ˥˅༤ˁ˸˨˜˘˲) ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘̀˲ ˘˖ ˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥. ʟ˻ˆˁˣ˨˜˘ˋ ˅༤ˁ˸˨˜˘ˋ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪˻ ˱˥˧ˢ˘˧˥˅ˁ༤˘˨˼ ˣˁ˵˘ˣˁ̀ ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧ˣ˥ ˨ XIII–XV ˅˅. ˅ ˜˥ˣ˪ˁ˜˪ˋ ˨ ˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˘ˢ ̀˖˻˜˥ˢ. ɳ ˣ˘˲ ˽˪ˁ ˱˥ˣˋˢˁ (˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˁˋˢˁ̀ ˜ˁ˜ /Ÿ/ ˘ ˧ˋˁ༤˘˖˫ˋˢˁ̀ ˧ˁ˨˜ˁ˪˘˨˪˥ ˘༤˘ ˜ˁ˧˪ˁ˅˥, ˪. ˋ. ˖ˁˊˣˋ̀˖˻˵ˣ˻ˢ [֚] 3) ˱˘ˆ˫˧˘˧˫ˋ˪ ˣˋ ˪˥༤˼˜˥ ˅ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘̀˲ ˘˖ ˧˫ˢ˻ˣʒˁ˄˥˪ˁ ˅˻˦˥༤ˣˋˣˁ ˦˧˘ ˦˥ˊˊˋ˧ː˜ˋ ˱˥ˣˊˁ ʒɴʎʜ, ˆ˧ˁˣ˪ ̘16-34-01044: «ʃ˖˫˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ˘ ˥˦˘˨ˁˣ˘ˋ ˅༤ˁ˸˨˜˘˲ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪˥˅ ˴˻ˆˁˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ ˅ ʒ˥˨˨˘˘». ɯ˅˪˥˧ ˄༤ˁˆ˥ˊˁ˧˘˪ ʓ.ɍɴ.ɍɲ˥༤˥˪˥˅ˁ, ʍˁ˧˜ˁ ɴ˧˘ˣ˄ˋ˧ˆˁ, ʍˁ˪ˋ ʇˁ˦˥˅˘˵ˁ, ɯ.ɍʓ. ʇˁ˨˼̀ˣˁ, ʇ.ɍɯ. ʇ˥ːˁˣ˥˅ˁ, ʓ.ɍɯ. ʌˁ˸˘ˣˁ, ʐ˧˨ˁ˪ˁ ʌ˘ˆ˥˧˘˥, ɳ.ɍɯ. ʑˁˣ˥˅ˁ, ɳ˥˙˴ˋ˲ˁ ʓˢ˥˵˘ˣ˼˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˘ ˁˣ˥ˣ˘ˢˣ˥ˆ˥ ˧ˋ˴ˋˣ˖ˋˣ˪ˁ. ʘ˨༤˥˅ˣ˻ˋ ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘̀: * — ˧ˋ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˘˧˥˅ˁˣˣˁ̀, ˣˋ ˖ˁ˨˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣˣˁ̀ ˱˥˧ˢˁ; ** — ˣˋ ˨˫˹ˋ˨˪˅˫˿˹ˁ̀ (˅ ˣˋ˜˥˪˥˧˻˲ ˨༤˫˵ˁ̀˲ ˥ː˘ˊˁˋˢˁ̀) ˱˥˧ˢˁ; > — ˊˁˌ˪ ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘; < — ˦˧˥˘˨˲˥ˊ˘˪ ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ ˘˖; ਙ — ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˥ ˘˖; ֚ — ˦˥༤˫˵ˋˣ˥ ˢ˥˧˱˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ ˘˖; ~ — ˣˁ˲˥ˊ˘˪˨̀ ˅ ˨˅˥˄˥ˊˣ˥ˢ ˅ˁ˧˼˘˧˥˅ˁˣ˘˘ ˨; : — ˣˁ˲˥ˊ˘˪˨̀ ˅ ˥˪ˣ˥˸ˋˣ˘˘ ˵ˋ˧ˋˊ˥˅ˁˣ˘̀ ˨; + — ˨༤˥ːˋˣ˘ˋ ˨. 2 ɳ˦˧˥˵ˋˢ, ʒ˥˨ˋ˪˪˘ ˦˘˸ˋ˪, ˵˪˥ ˅ XVI ˅. ˅ ˵ˁ˨˪˘ ˦ˁˢ̀˪ˣ˘˜˥˅ ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ r฿ ˦˥˨˪˥̀ˣˣ˥, ˣ˥ ˦˧˘˅˥ˊ˘˪ ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧˻, ˘˖ ˜˥˪˥˧˻˲, ˋ˨༤˘ ˢ˻ ˦˧ˁ˅˘༤˼ˣ˥ ˘˲ ˦˥ˣ˘ˢˁˋˢ, ˨༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪ ˨˜˥˧ˋˋ ˥˄˧ˁ˪ˣ˥ˋ. 3 ʇˁ˜, ˣˁ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧, ˱ˁ˜˫༤˼˪ˁ˪˘˅ˣ˥ ˅ ˦˥˧˪˫ˆˁ༤˼˨˜˥ˢ, ˨˧. ˦˥˧˪. riso ‘˨ˢˋ˲’ [уrrizu] ˘༤˘ [у֚izu]. 1

Journal of Language Relationship • ɳ˥˦˧˥˨˻ ̀˖˻˜˥˅˥ˆ˥ ˧˥ˊ˨˪˅ˁ • 16/1 (2018) • Pp. 62–72 • © The authors, 2018

ʐ˪˧ˁːˋˣ˘ˋ ˿ːˣ˥˨༤ˁ˅̀ˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ *r ˅ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘̀˲ ˘˖ ˨˪ˁ˧˥˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ʻ ˨˯ʼʸ˗˜ːˌˍ

˨˜˥ˆ˥, ˣ˥ ˘ ˅ ˘˨˜˥ˣˣ˥˙ (˘ˣˊ˘˙˨˜˥˙) ༤ˋ˜˨˘˜ˋ, ˆˊˋ ˅˥˨˲˥ˊ˘˪ ˜ ˘ˣˊ˘˙˨˜˘ˢ ˧ˋ˪˧˥˱༤ˋ˜˨ˣ˻ˢ ˖˫˄ˣ˻ˢ ࡖ ˘ ‫( ˙˘˴˘˖˥˦ ˋˊ̀˧ ˅ ڎ‬ʐ˨༤˥ˣ 2018˄). ʨ˪˥ ˖ˣˁ˵˘˪, ˵˪˥ ˜˥ ˅˧ˋˢˋˣ˘ ˜˥ˣ˪ˁ˜˪ˁ ˨ ˧˫ˢ˻ˣˁˢ˘, ˣˁ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧, ˊ˧.-˘ˣˊ. ‫ڎ‬omba- ‘˵༤ˋˣ ˜ˁ˨˪˻ ˊ˥ˢ˥˅’ (˅ ˣ˥˅˥˘ˣˊ˘˙˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲: ‫ڎ‬om) > ˴˻ˆ. Ÿom ‘˴˻ˆˁˣ; ˢ˫ː’ ˨˜˥˧ˋˋ ˅˨ˋˆ˥ ˖˅˫˵ˁ༤˥ ˜ˁ˜ [rrom] (˨ ˊ˥༤ˆ˘ˢ, ˧ˁ˨˜ˁ˪˘˨˪˻ˢ ˨˥ˣˁˣ˪˥ˢ, ˜ˁ˜ ˨ˋ˙˵ˁ˨ ˅˥ ˢˣ˥ˆ˘˲ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪ˁ˲ ˘ ˆ˥˅˥˧ˁ˲) ˘ ˪ˁ˜ ːˋ, ˅ˋ˧˥̀˪ˣ˥, ˖˅˫˵ˁ༤˥ ˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˥ˋ */r฿/, ˜˥˪˥˧˥ˋ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁ༤˥˨˼ ˅ ˴˻ˆˁˣ˨˜˘˙ ˘ˢˋˣˣ˥ ˅ ˽˪˥ˢ ˅˘ˊˋ. ɲ˥༤˼˸ˋ ˅˨ˋˆ˥ ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧˥˅ ˣˁ ˪ˁ˜˘ˋ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘̀ ˦˥˜ˁ˖˻˅ˁˋ˪ ˜˽༤ˊ˽˧ˁ˧˨˜˘˙ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪. ɳ ˨˅̀˖˘ ˨ ˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˘ˢ ˦༤ˁ˨˪˥ˢ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘˙ ˅ ˜˽༤ˊ˽˧ˁ˧˨˜˥ˢ (˜ˁ˜ ˘ ˅˥˥˄˹ˋ ˅ ˨ˋ˅ˋ˧ˣ˥˅༤ˁ˸˨˜˘˲ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪ˁ˲) ˘ˢˋˋ˪˨̀ ˣˋ˨˜˥༤˼˜˥ ˖ˁˆˁˊ˥˜. ʕˁ˜, ˜˽༤ˊ˽˧ˁ˧˻ ˘ ˄༤˘˖˜˘ˋ ˘ˢ ˆ˧˫˦˦˻ ˦˥ ˨ˋ˙ ˊˋˣ˼ ˨˥˲˧ˁˣ̀˿˪ ˨˪ˁ˧˥˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˘ˋ ˱˥˧ˢ˻ ˧̀ˊˁ ˨༤˥˅, ˨˧. ˜˽༤ˊ. vr๊ àm๊a ‘˅˧ˋˢ̀’ (˨˪.-˧˫ˢ. vreáme, ˨˥˅˧. vréme) ˘ ˊ˧., ˦˧˘˪˥ˢ ˵˪˥ ˅ ˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˘˲ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪ˁ˲, ˜ˁːˋ˪˨̀, ˣˋ˪ ˣ˘˜ˁ˜˘˲ ˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ ˪ˁ˜˘˲ ˱˥˧ˢ ˫ːˋ ˣˋ˨˜˥༤˼˜˥ ˨˥˪ ༤ˋ˪. ʓ˥˲˧ˁˣˋˣ˘ˋ /r฿/ ˫ ˨ˋ˅ˋ˧ˣ˥˅༤ˁ˸˨˜˘˲ ˴˻ˆˁˣ ˣˋ ˢˋˣˋˋ ˖ˁˆˁˊ˥˵ˣ˥. ʓ˜༤ˁˊ˻˅ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˅˦ˋ˵ˁ˪༤ˋˣ˘ˋ, ˵˪˥ ˥ˣ˘ ˁ˜˪˘˅ˣ˥ ˘ˢˋ༤˘ ˊˋ༤˥ ˨ ˧˫ˢ˻ˣˁˢ˘ ˅ ˨˧ˋˊˣ˘ˋ ˅ˋ˜ˁ, ˣ˥ ˦˥˪˥ˢ ˅ ˪ˋ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ˊ˥༤ˆ˥ˆ˥ ˅˧ˋˢˋˣ˘ ˘༤˘ ˅˥˥˄˹ˋ ˨ ˣ˘ˢ˘ ˣˋ ˥˄˹ˁ༤˘˨˼ (˵˪˥ ˨˥˅ˋ˧˸ˋˣˣ˥ ˣˋ˅ˋ˧˥̀˪ˣ˥, ˅ˋˊ˼ ˥ˣ˘ ˄˻༤˘ ˜˧ˋ˦˥˨˪ˣ˻ˢ˘ ˫ ˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˥˙ ˖ˣˁ˪˘, ˁ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˄˧˥ˊ̀˵˘ˢ˘ ˧ˋˢˋ˨༤ˋˣˣ˘˜ˁˢ˘ ˅ ˘˨˜༤˿˵˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ ˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜˥˅˥ˢ ˥˜˧˫ːˋˣ˘˘), ˘༤˘ ˅༤ˁˊˋ༤˘ ˪˥༤˼˜˥ ˜ˁ˜˘ˢ-˪˥ ˥˨˥˄˻ˢ ˁ˧˲ˁ˘˵ˣ˻ˢ ˅ˁ˧˘ˁˣ˪˥ˢ ˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ, ˦˧˥̀˅༤̀˅˸˘ˢ ˦˥˧ˁ˖˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˫˿ ˨˪˥˙˜˥˨˪˼ ˦˧˥˪˘˅ ˅༤˘̀ˣ˘̀ ˨˥˅˧ˋˢˋˣˣ˻˲ ˋˢ˫ ˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˘˲ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪˥˅. ʑ˧˘˅ˋˊˌˢ ˄˥༤ˋˋ ˘༤˘ ˢˋˣˋˋ ˘˨˵ˋ˧˦˻˅ˁ˿˹˘ˋ ˨˦˘˨˜˘ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘˙ ˨ ˱˥ˣˋˢ˥˙ /r฿/ ˅ ˜˽༤ˊ˽˧ˁ˧˨˜˥ˢ (˅ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˣ˥ˢ ˣˁ˸˘ ˊˁˣˣ˻ˋ (ʐ˨༤˥ˣ 2018ˁ), ˅ ˦˧˥˪˘˅ˣ˥ˢ ˨༤˫˵ˁˋ ˘˖ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˧̀ ɸɸ) ˘ ˜˘˸˘ˣˌ˅˨˜˥ˢ 4 (ʇ˥ːˁˣ˥˅ ˧˫˜.) ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪ˁ˲, ˢˋ˲ˁˣ˘˵ˋ˨˜˫˿ ˧ˋ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˜˴˘˿ ˘˨˪˥˵ˣ˘˜ˁ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘̀ («˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜ˁ̀» 5 ˱˥˧ˢˁ) 6, ˨˥˅˧ˋˢˋˣˣ˫˿ ༤˘˪ˋ˧ˁ˪˫˧ˣ˫˿ ˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˫˿ ˱˥˧ˢ˫, ˁ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˜˧ˁ˪˜˫˿ ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˫˿ ˨˦˧ˁ˅˜˫. ʑ˥˥˵ˋ˧ˌˊˣ˥ ˧ˁ˨˨ˢ˥˪˧˘ˢ ˣˁ˵ˁ༤˼ˣ˫˿, ˨˧ˋˊ˘ˣˣ˫˿ ˘ ˜˥ˣˋ˵ˣ˫˿ ˦˥˖˘˴˘˘ ˅ ˨༤˥˅ˋ. ʎˁ˵ˁ༤˥ ˨༤˥˅ˁ ɳ ˣˁ˵ˁ༤ˋ ˨༤˥џ˅ˁ ˨ˋ˅ˋ˧ˣ˥˅༤ˁ˸˨˜˘ˋ /Ÿ/ ˘ /r/, ˜ˁ˜ ˘ ˅˥ ˅˨ˋ˲ ˥˨˪ˁ༤˼ˣ˻˲ ˦˥˖˘˴˘̀˲, ˦˧˥˪˘˅˥˦˥˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˻ ˱˥ˣ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˘. ɳ ˊ˥˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˘˲ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˲ (˪. ˋ. ˘˨˜˥ˣˣ˻˲ ˘ˣˊ˘˙˨˜˘˲ ˘ ˆ˧ˋ˴˘˖ˢˁ˲) ˖ˊˋ˨˼ ˢ˥ːˋ˪ ˄˻˪˼ ˜ˁ˜ Ÿ-, ˪ˁ˜ ˘ r-, ˨˧. Ÿaj ‘˦ˁ༤˜ˁ’ : raj ‘ˆ˥˨˦˥ˊ˘ˣ’; Ÿyl ‘flatulentia’ : riŻ ‘ˢˋˊ˅ˋˊ˼,’ rin ‘ˣˁ˦˘༤˼ˣ˘˜’ (ˆ˧ˋ˴˘˖ˢ); Ÿoj ‘༤˥ː˜ˁ’ : rovlì ‘˪˧˥˨˪˼’. ʐˊˣˁ˜˥ ˅ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘̀˲ ˘˖ ˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˖ˊˋ˨˼ ˄˻˅ˁˋ˪ ˪˥༤˼˜˥ /Ÿ/. ʎˁ˵ˣˌˢ ˨ ˘˨˜˥ˣˣ˥˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˘˲, ˪. ˋ. ˧˥ˢˁˣ˨˜˘˲ ˨༤˥˅: ˜˽༤ˊ. ŸƏso ‘˥˵ˋˣ˼’, ‘˨ˢˋ˲’ (ɸɸ) ਙ ˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ. *rrî´su (˧˫ˢ. rîs; ˅ ˦ˁˢ̀˪ˣ˘˜ˁ˲: rride, ‘˨ˢˋ̀˪˼˨̀’, Densusianu 1938: 121) < ༤ˁ˪. rŢsus; ˜˽༤ˊ. ŸƏpa ‘̀ˢˁ’ ਙ ˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ. *rrî´pa (˧˫ˢ. rî´pň) < ༤ˁ˪. ripa; ˜˽༤ˊ. Ÿƕdƕōìna ‘˜˥˧ˋˣ˼’ ਙ ˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ. *rrňdňcína (˧˫ˢ. rňdňcínň; ˅ ˦ˁˢ̀˪ˣ˘˜ˁ˲: rradňcinra, Densusianu 1938: 121) < ༤ˁ˪. rŊdŢcŢna; ˜˽༤ˊ. Ÿàvda ‘˪ˋ˧˦ˋˣ˘ˋ’ ਙ ˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ. *rrábda, ˣˋ̀˨ˣ˥, ˣ˥ ˨˧. ˧˫ˢ. rňbdá ‘˪ˋ˧˦ˋ˪˼’ (˅ ˦ˁˢ̀˪ˣ˘˜ˁ˲: rrebda, Densusianu 1938: 121); ˜˽༤ˊ. Ÿàca ‘˫˪˜ˁ’ ਙ ˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ. *rráƀa (˧˫ˢ. raƀň) < (?) *ratia (Skok 1971: 92); ʇ˘˸˘ˣˌ˅˨˜˘˙ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪ — ˥˪˅ˋ˪˅༤ˋˣ˘ˋ ༤ˁˋџ˸˜˥ˆ˥, ˨ˁˢ˥ˆ˥ ˧ˁ˨˦˧˥˨˪˧ˁˣˌˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪ˁ ˣ˻ˣˋ˸ˣˋˆ˥ ˆ˥˨˫ˊˁ˧˨˪˅ˁ ʍ˥༤ˊˁ˅˘̀, ˢˁ˨˨˥˅˥ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˣˁ ˪ˋ˧˧˘˪˥˧˘˘ ʒ˫ˢ˻ˣ˘˘. 5 ʇ «˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˥ˢ˫» ̀˖˻˜˫ ˢ˻ ˖ˊˋ˨˼ ˫˨༤˥˅ˣ˥ ˥˪ˣ˥˨˘ˢ ˦˧ˁ˱˥˧ˢ˻ ˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˘˲ ˨༤˥˅ (˨ ˱˥ˣˋˢ˥˙ /r฿/), ˅ ˧ˁ˖ˣ˥ˋ ˅˧ˋˢ̀ (?) ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣˣ˻˲ ˨ˋ˅ˋ˧ˣ˥˅༤ˁ˸˨˜˘ˢ˘ ˴˻ˆˁˣˁˢ˘. «ʓ˪ˁ˧˥˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˘ˢ˘» ˢ˻ ˣˁ˖˻˅ˁˋˢ ˨༤˥˅ˁ, ˱˘˜˨˘˧˫ˋˢ˻ˋ ˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˘ˢ˘ ˦ˁˢ̀˪ˣ˘˜ˁˢ˘ ˊ˥ XVIII ˅. ˅˜༤˿˵˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥. 6 ʓ˫ˊ̀ ˦˥ ˅˨ˋˢ˫, ˜˽༤ˊ˽˧ˁ˧˻ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁ༤˘ ˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˘ˋ ˨˫˹ˋ˨˪˅˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻ˋ ˅ ˥˦˧ˋˊˋ༤ˌˣˣ˥˙ ˱˥˧ˢˋ (˪. ˋ. ˨ ˦˥˨˪˦˥˖˘˪˘˅ˣ˻ˢ ˁ˧˪˘˜༤ˋˢ): ˨ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻ˢ ˘˨˲˥ˊ˥ˢ ˣˁ Ɇ -a, ˨ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻ˢ Ɇ ˣˁ -u. 4

63

ʍ. ɳ. ʐ˨༤˥ˣ

˜˽༤ˊ. Ÿàta ‘˜˥༤ˋ˨˥’ ਙ ˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ. *rro๞áta (˧˫ˢ. roatň) < ༤ˁ˪. rota; ˜˽༤ˊ. Ÿƕkàr๊a ‘˦˧˥˲༤ˁˊˁ’ ਙ ˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ. *rrňko๞áre๞a (˧˫ˢ. rňcoáre) ֚ *rrňce (˧˫ˢ. réce, ˊ˘ˁ༤. rňce ‘˲˥༤˥ˊˣ˻˙’ < ༤ˁ˪. recens ‘˨˅ˋː˘˙’ ਙ ‘ˣˋˊˁ˅ˣ˘˙’, DER: 685, 694); ˜˽༤ˊ. ŸƏnōedo ‘˦˧˥ˆ˥˧˜༤˻˙’ ਙ ˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ. *rrî´ncedu (˧˫ˢ. rî´nced) < ༤ˁ˪. rancidus; ˜˽༤ˊ. ŸuƑìna ‘˧ːˁ˅˵˘ˣˁ’ ਙ ˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ. *rrugína (˧˫ˢ. rugínň) < ༤ˁ˪. *aerƉgina (DER 708); ˜˽༤ˊ. ŸƏma ‘˵ˋ˧˅̀˜’ ਙ ˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ. *rrî´ma (˧˫ˢ. rî´mň) ֚ rîmá ‘ˣ˿˲ˁ˪˼’ < ༤ˁ˪. rimŊre; ˜˽༤ˊ. Ÿƕgùla ‘˨ˋˢˋ˙ˣ˻˙ ˜˧˫ˆ’ (?) ਙ ˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ. *rrňgúla (˧˫ˢ. rňgúla ‘˧˥ˊ, ˦༤ˋˢ̀’) < ༤ˁ˪. rŖgula; ˜˽༤ˊ. ŸƏja ‘˖༤˥˙’ (˦˧˘༤. ֚ ˨˫˹.) ਙ ˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ. *rrî´݈a (˧˫ˢ. rî´ie ‘˦ˁ˧˸ˁ’) < *rrŊn݈a < ༤ˁ˪. arŊnea ‘˦ˁ˫˪˘ˣˁ’; ˜˽༤ˊ. Ÿƕvƕrìl ‘ˢ˥˧˥˨˘˪’ ਙ ˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ. *rrîu๞urá (˧˫ˢ. rîurá) ֚ *rrîu๞u (˧˫ˢ. rîu ‘˧ˋ˜ˁ’; ˅ ˦ˁˢ̀˪ˣ˘˜ˁ˲: rriu, Densusianu 1938: 121) < ༤ˁ˪. rŢvus; ˜˽༤ˊ. Ÿudìl ‘ˢ˥༤˘˪’ ਙ ˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ. *rrugá (˧˫ˢ. rugá ‘˦˧˥˨˘˪˼’; ˅ ˦ˁˢ̀˪ˣ˘˜ˁ˲: rruga, Densusianu 1938: 121) < ༤ˁ˪. rogŊre; ˜˽༤ˊ. ŸƕgušƏl ‘˲˧˘˦ˣˋ˪’ ਙ ˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ. *rrňguŽí ֚ ༤ˁ˪. ˦˧˘˨˪ˁ˅˜ˁ re- + ˧˫ˢ. gúŽň ‘˖˥˄’; ˜˘˸. Ÿàva ‘˧˥˨ˁ’ ਙ ˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ. *rro๞áu๞a (˧˫ˢ. róuň) ֚ ༤ˁ˪. rŵ[s]- (˜ˁ˜ ˧˫ˢ. ˊ˘ˁ༤. zíuň ֚ zi ‘ˊˋˣ˼’) (DER: 707). ʕˁ˜˘ˢ ˥˄˧ˁ˖˥ˢ, ˅ ˣˁ˵ˁ༤ˋ ˨༤˥˅ˁ ˣˁ˄༤˿ˊˁˋˢ ˨˘˪˫ˁ˴˘˿, ˁˣˁ༤˥ˆ˘˵ˣ˫˿ ˪ˁ˜˥˅˥˙ ˅ ˘˄ˋ˧˘˙˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲, ˨˧. ˘˨˦. /r฿/aíz ‘˜˥˧ˋˣ˼’. ʓ˧ˋˊ˘ ˄ˁ༤˜ˁˣ˥˧˥ˢˁˣ˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅ ˘ˢˋˋˢ ˦˧˥˪ˋ˖˫ ˅ ˁ˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˥ˢ, ˨˧. (˅ˁ˧˘ˁˣ˪) arãmãn ‘ˁ˧˫ˢ˻ˣ’ < *rrománu < ༤ˁ˪. rŵmŊnus ‘˧˘ˢ༤̀ˣ˘ˣ’. ɳ˨ˌ ˽˪˥ ˆ˥˅˥˧˘˪ ˥ ˪˥ˢ, ˵˪˥ ˄ˁ༤˜ˁˣ˥-˧˥ˢˁˣ˨˜˘ˋ ˣˁ˧˥ˊˣ˥༤ˁ˪˘ˣ˨˜˘ˋ ˆ˥˅˥˧˻ ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ ˧ˁ˖˅˘༤˘ ˧ˁ˨˜ˁ˪˘˨˪˻˙ ˦˧˘˨˪˫˦: ༤ˁ˪. r- > *rr-, ˜ˁ˜ ˅ ˘˄ˋ˧˘˙˨˜˥˙ ༤ˁ˪˻ˣ˘. ʎˁ˵ˁ༤˼ˣ˥ˋ ˧ˁ˨˜ˁ˪˘˨˪˥ˋ rr˅ ˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˥ˢ ˅ ˜ˁ˜˥˙-˪˥ ˢˋ˧ˋ ˥˪˧ˁːˋˣ˥ ˧ˁˣˣ˘ˢ˘ ˦ˁˢ̀˪ˣ˘˜ˁˢ˘ (Densusianu 1938: 37). ʕ˥˵ˣ˥ ˪ˁ˜ ːˋ, ˜ˁ˜ ˅ ˴˻ˆˁˣ˨˜˘˲ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘̀˲ ˘˖ ˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˘˨˜˥ˣˣ˥ ˧˥ˢˁˣ˨˜˘˲ ˨༤˥˅, ˘ˢˋˋˢ ˪˥༤˼˜˥ ˣˁ˵ˁ༤˼ˣ˥ˋ /Ÿ/ ˅˥ ˅˨ˋ˲ ˨༤ˁ˅˘˖ˢˁ˲, ˦˥˦ˁ˅˸˘˲ ˅ ˴˻ˆˁˣ˨˜˘˙ ˵ˋ˧ˋ˖ ˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˘˙: ˜˽༤ˊ. ŸƏndo ‘˧̀ˊ’ ਙ ˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ. *rrî´ndu (˧˫ˢ. rînd; ˅ ˦ˁˢ̀˪ˣ˘˜ˁ˲: rrînd, Densusianu 1938: 121) ਙ ˿˨༤. *rŗ้dˮ; ˜˽༤ˊ. Ÿùda ‘ˊ˻˸༤˥’ ਙ ˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ. *rrúda (˧˫ˢ. rúdň) ਙ ˿˨༤. *rƉd৤; ˜˽༤ˊ. Ÿƕtìja ‘˅˥ˊ˜ˁ’ ਙ ˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ. *rrňkí݈a (˧˫ˢ. ˊ˘ˁ༤. rňchíe) ਙ ˿˨༤. rak০ja ਙ ˪˫˧. rakÄ; ˜˽༤ˊ. ŸòƂa ‘˦༤ˁ˪˼ˋ’ ਙ ˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ. *rrók݈a (˧˫ˢ. róchie, róche) 7 ਙ ˿˨༤. (?), ˨˧. ˨˲˧˅. r১klja ਙ ɜɟɧɝ. rokol(y)a ਙ ˣˋˢ. Röcklein (Skok 1971: 156); ˜˽༤ˊ. Ÿùbla ‘˧˫˄༤˼’ ਙ ˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ. *rrúbla (˧˫ˢ. rúblň) ਙ ˿˨༤. (?) ਙ ˧˫˨. ˛˟ʺ˕˰; ˜˽༤ˊ. ĦusƏja ‘ʒ˥˨˨˘̀’ ਙ ˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ. ˊ˘ˁ༤. *Rrusî´݈a (˧˫ˢ. ˨˪ˁ˧. Rusía, ɴ˘ˣ˜˫༤˥˅˺: 5, ˪ˋ˦ˋ˧˼ Rúsia) ਙ ˿˨༤. Rus০ja (ˣ˥˅˥˸˪˥˜. Rùsija); ˜˘˸. Ħusàle ‘ʕ˧˥˘˴ˁ’ ਙ ˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ. *Rrusali݈e (˧˫ˢ. Rusálie, Rusále) ਙ ˿˨༤. ˘༤˘ ˵ˋ˧ˋ˖ ˊ˧˫ˆ˥ˋ ˦˥˨˧ˋˊ˨˪˅˥ (˨ ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˵. ˪˧˫ˊˣ˥˨˪̀ˢ˘) ˘˖ ༤ˁ˪. RosŊlia (DER: 710); ˜˽༤ˊ. Ÿƕtèzo ‘˹ˋ˜˥༤ˊˁ’ ਙ ˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ. *rrňtézu (˧˫ˢ. rňtez, retez) ਙ ˿˨༤. ?, ˨˧. ˧˫˨. ˛ˀя˞˴ˊ˰, ˦˥༤. rzeciŋdz (˅ˋˣˆ. retesz); ˜˽༤ˊ. Ÿygyjìl ‘˧˻ˆˁˋ˪’ ਙ ˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ. *rrîgî݈í (˧˫ˢ. rîgîí, ˣˁ˨˪. 3. ˋˊ. rî´gîie) ਙ ˿˨༤. *r৷gati (˫ˊˁ˧ˋˣ˘ˋ ˜ˁ˜ ˅ ˧˫ˢ.!); ˜˽༤ˊ. Ÿƕspìl ‘˧ˁ˨˨ˋ˘˅ˁˋ˪’ ਙ ˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ. *rrňsîpí (˧˫ˢ. risipí, ˅˥˨˪. ˊ˘ˁ༤. rîsîpí, ˨˪ˁ˧. rňsipí) ਙ ˿˨༤. *rasip- < *raz-syp-; ˜˽༤ˊ. Ÿƕzgƕjìl ‘ˣˋː˘˪’ ਙ ˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ. *rrňzgî݈á (˧˫ˢ. rňzgîiá) ਙ ˿˨༤. ? (˨˧. ˄˥༤ˆ. ˛ʸˊʼʸ˕˴˖). 7 ɳ ˨˪ˁ˧˥˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˥ˢ kŪ > k’ ˣˋ ˦˥˖ˊˣˋџˋ XV ˅., ˦˧˘˵ˌˢ, ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˥, ˅ ˧ˁ˖ˣ˻˲ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪ˁ˲ ˦˥-˧ˁ˖ˣ˥ˢ˫ (Rosetti 1986: 480). ʑ˧˘ˢˋ˧ˣ˥ ˅ ˽˪˥ ˅˧ˋˢ̀ ˣˁ˵ˁ༤˨̀ ˜˥ˣ˪ˁ˜˪ ˅༤ˁ˸˨˜˘˲ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪˥˅ ˴˻ˆˁˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ ˨ ˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˘ˢ.

64

ʐ˪˧ˁːˋˣ˘ˋ ˿ːˣ˥˨༤ˁ˅̀ˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ *r ˅ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘̀˲ ˘˖ ˨˪ˁ˧˥˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ʻ ˨˯ʼʸ˗˜ːˌˍ

ʓˋ˧ˋˊ˘ˣˁ ˨༤˥˅ˁ (ˢˋːˊ˫ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻ˢ˘) ɳ ˨˧ˋˊ˘ˣˣ˥˙ ˦˥˖˘˴˘˘ ˅˘ˊˣ˥, ˵˪˥ ˨˥˲˧ˁˣ̀ˋ˪˨̀ ༤ˁ˪˘ˣ˨˜˥ˋ -rr-: ˜˽༤ˊ. càŸa ‘ˣˁ˧˥ˊ’ (*‘˨˪˧ˁˣˁ’) ਙ ˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ. *Ɓárra (˧˫ˢ. ƀárň ‘˨˪˧ˁˣˁ’) < ༤ˁ˪. terra; ˜˽༤ˊ. kƕŸàr๊a ‘˦˧˥˄˥˧’ ਙ ˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ. *kňrráre๞a (˧˫ˢ. cňráre ‘˪˧˥˦˘ˣ˜ˁ; ˦˧˥˄˥˧’) < ༤ˁ˪. carraria; ˜˘˸. kyŸùca ‘˦˥˅˥˖˜ˁ’ ਙ ˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ. *kňrrúƀa (˫ˢˋˣ˼˸.; ˧˫ˢ. cňruƀň) ֚ *carru < ༤ˁ˪. carrus (DER: 140); ˜˘˸. kyŸƏl ‘ˣ˥˨˘˪’ ਙ ˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ. *kňrrá (˧˫ˢ. cňrá) < *carrŊre ֚ carrus (DER: 140); ˜˘˸. skuŸƏl / skoŸƏl ‘˅˻ː˘ˢˁˋ˪; ˫ˢˋˣ˼˸ˁˋ˪˨̀’ ਙ ˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ. *skurrá ֚ ༤ˁ˪. excurrere ‘˫˄ˋˆˁ˪˼’ (˅ ˪. ˵. ˥ ː˘ˊ˜˥˨˪˘), ˥˵ˋ˅˘ˊˣ˥, ˅ ˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˥ˢ ˨ˢˋ˸ˋˣ˘ˋ ˨ ˜˥˧ˣˋˢ cur‘˵˘˨˪˘˪˼’ (DER: 266), ˥ˊˣˁ˜˥, ˜ˁ˜ ˅˘ˊ˘ˢ, ˴˻ˆˁˣ˨˜˘˙ ˨˥˲˧ˁˣ̀ˋ˪ ˊ˥༤ˆ˘˙ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˙; ˜˽༤ˊ. bƕŸƕndƕюvo ‘˦˥˪˧˥˲ˁ (˄༤˿ˊ˥)’ ਙ ˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ. *borrîndӮu๞u (˧˫ˢ. borîndňu ‘˄༤˿ˊ˥ ˨ ˜˧˥˅˼˿ ˘ ˢ̀˨˥ˢ’) ˣˋ̀˨ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˦˧˥˘˨˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘̀, ˣ˥ ˨ ˦ˋ˧˅˥˙ ˵ˁ˨˪˼˿, ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˥, ˦˥ˊ ˅༤˘̀ˣ˘ˋˢ ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤ˁ borî´ ‘˄༤ˋ˅ˁ˪˼’ < *abhorríre (DER: 98); ˜˘˸. ōoŸòj ‘˅˥˧˥ˣ’ ਙ ˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ. *ōorró݈ (˧˫ˢ. cioroi) ˦˧˘ cioárň ‘˅˥˧˥ˣˁ’ < *ōorra ˣˋ˘˖˅ˋ˨˪ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˦˧˥˘˨˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘̀, ˣ˥ ˨˧. ˁ༤˄. sorrë (˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅˘ˋ rr); ˜˽༤ˊ. (v)uŸƏto ‘˦˧˥˪˘˅ˣ˻˙’ ਙ ˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ. ˦˧˘˵ˁ˨˪˘ˋ *urrî´tu (˧˫ˢ. urî´t) ˥˪ ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤ˁ *urrî´ (˧˫ˢ. urî´ ‘ˣˋˣˁ˅˘ˊˋ˪˼’) < *horríre (DER: 877). ʓ˿ˊˁ ːˋ ˜˽༤ˊ. cƏŸa ‘˵˫˪˼-˵˫˪˼’ ਙ ˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ. *ƀî´rra (˧˫ˢ. ƀîrň) ˄ˋ˖ ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘˘. ʕˁˢ, ˆˊˋ ˅ ༤ˁ˪˻ˣ˘ ˥˄˻˵ˣ˥ˋ -r-, ˘ˢˋˋˢ ˥˄˻˵ˣ˥ˋ -r- ˘ ˅ ˴˻ˆˁˣ˨˜˥ˢ: ˜˽༤ˊ. vƕюro ‘ˊ˅˥˿˧˥ˊˣ˻˙ ˄˧ˁ˪’ ਙ ˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ. *vӮru (˧˫ˢ. vňr) < ༤ˁ˪. verus; ˜˽༤ˊ. mùra ‘̀ˆ˥ˊˁ’ ਙ ˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ. *múra (˧˫ˢ. múrň) < ༤ˁ˪. ˢˣ. mora ˘ ˢˣ. ˊ˧. ʓ˧. ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˜˽༤ˊ. -ri- ਙ ˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ. -ri- < ༤ˁ˪. -lŢ-: ˜˽༤ˊ. burìka ‘˦˫˦˥˜’ ਙ (˨ˢˋˣˁ ˧˥ˊˁ) ˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ. *buríku < ༤ˁ˪. *umbulŢcus (˧˫ˢ. buríc) ʎ˥ ˋ˨˪˼ ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧ (˥ˊ˘ˣ?) ˣˁ «༤˘˸ˣˋˋ» ˊ˥༤ˆ˥ˋ /r฿/: ˜˽༤ˊ. pàpuŸa ‘˧˥ˆ˥˖’ ਙ ˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ. *pàpurra (˧˫ˢ. pápurň ‘˧˥ˆ˥˖’) ˦˧˘ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤ˁˆˁˋˢ˥ˢ ༤ˁ˪. *papura ֚ ༤ˁ˪. papyrus ਙ ˆ˧. ÞηÞήΪΩΫ. ʑ˧˘ ˽˪˥ˢ ˅ ˨˧ˋˊ˘ˣˣ˥˙ ˦˥˖˘˴˘˘ ˢˋːˊ˫ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻ˢ˘ ˅ ˨༤ˁ˅˘˖ˢˁ˲, ˦˥༤˫˵ˋˣˣ˻˲ ˴˻ˆˁˣˁˢ˘ ˵ˋ˧ˋ˖ ˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˥ˋ ˦˥˨˧ˋˊ˨˪˅˥, /Ÿ/ ʻ˜˞˛ˀ˩ʸˀ˞˜˴ ʻ ʺ˙ໞ˰ˬˌ˗˜˞ʻˀ ˚˛ˌ˖ˀ˛˙ʻ: ˜˽༤ˊ. vàŸo ‘˘˖˅ˋ˨˪˼’ ਙ ˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ. *várru (˧˫ˢ. var) ਙ ˿˨༤. *vুrˮ; ˜˽༤ˊ. dàŸo ‘˅˖ˣ˥˨ ˥˪ ˆ˥˨˪̀ ˣˁ ˨˅ˁˊ˼˄ˋ’ ਙ ˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ. *dárru (˧˫ˢ. dar; ˅ ˦ˁˢ̀˪ˣ˘˜ˁ˲: darrƆ, Rosetti 1986: 480) ਙ ˿˨༤. *dুrˮ; ˜˽༤ˊ. komàŸa ‘˜༤ˁˊ’ ਙ ˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ. *komo๞árra (˧˫ˢ. comoárň) ਙ ˿˨༤. *kom১ra < ˦˨༤. *komo഍ra (ਙ ༤ˁ˪. ca഍mara ਙ ˆ˧. ΥΜ÷θΪΜ ‘˨˅˥ˊ’); ˜˽༤ˊ. pàŸa ‘˦༤ˁˢ̀’ ਙ ˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ. *párra (˧˫ˢ. párň; ˅ ˦ˁˢ̀˪ˣ˘˜ˁ˲: parra, Densusianu 1938: 121) ਙ ˿˨༤. paๅra; ˜˽༤ˊ. sùŸo (ɸɸ) ‘˨ˋ˧˻˙’ ਙ ˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ. *súrru (˧˫ˢ. sur) ਙ ˿˨༤. *sƉrˮ; ˜˽༤ˊ. zgùŸa ‘˖˥༤ˁ ˅ ˦ˋ˵˘’ ਙ ˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ. *zgúrra (˧˫ˢ. zgúŸa, sgúŸa ‘˥˜ˁ༤˘ˣˁ’) ਙ ˿˨༤. *zgur...- (?), ˨˧. ˄˥༤ˆ. ˜ʼ˟˛ˏ˴, ˊʼ˟˛ˏ˴ ‘˸༤ˁ˜’, ˨ ˥˖˅˥ˣ˵ˋˣ˘ˋˢ ˊʼ- < *˜ː- (˦˥ ˁˣˁ༤˥ˆ˘˘ ˨ ˄˥༤ˆ. ʼ˙˛˴ю ‘ˆ˥˧ˋ˪˼’ (?), ɲɹʒ VI: 570) ਙ ˣˆ˧. άΥΩήΪ(Τ)η < άΥβΪϲΜ ‘˧ːˁ˅˵˘ˣˁ, ˣˁ˜˘˦˼, ˸༤ˁ˜’ (DER: 755). 65

ʍ. ɳ. ʐ˨༤˥ˣ

ɳ˥ ˅˨ˋ˲ ˦˧˘˅ˋˊˌˣˣ˻˲ ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧ˁ˲ ˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ. /r฿/, ˜ˁ˜ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀, ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˞˛ˌʻˌʸໞ˰˗˯˖ ˙˞˛ʸ˄ˀ˗ˌˀ˖ ˨༤ˁ˅̀ˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ *r ˦ˋ˧ˋˊ ˣˋ˦ˋ˧ˋˊˣ˘ˢ˘ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻ˢ˘ Ɇ ˖ˊˋ˨˼ ˦ˋ˧ˋˊ *a ˘༤˘ *o. ʨ˪˥ˆ˥ ˣˋ ˦˥ˣ˘ˢˁ༤ ʐ. ɸˋˣ˨˫˸˘ˁˣ˫: «... le même texte [Psaltirea Hurmuzaki] offre en outre rr à l’intérieur de quelques mots... là, rr semble avoir été introduite arbitrairement par le copiste» (Densusianu 1938: 121); ˦˧˘ ˽˪˥ˢ ˥ˣ ˦˧˘˅˥ˊ˘˪ ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧˻ (˦˧˥˦˫˨˜ˁˋˢ ˥ˊˣ˥˜˥˧ˋˣˣ˻ˋ): amarrň, hotarrň, izvorrele, oborri, omorri, orriiaŽul, pňharru, parrň, pňrrasi, vorroavň, zborrulu. ʁˁˢˋ˵ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥, ˵˪˥ ˅˥ ˅˨ˋ˲ ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧ˁ˲ (˜˧˥ˢˋ amarrň) ˖ˊˋ˨˼ ˥ː˘ˊˁˋ˪˨̀ ˘ˢˋˣˣ˥ rr Ɇ ˅˨ˌ ˽˪˥ ˨༤ˁ˅˘˖ˢ˻ (˜˧˥ˢˋ ˆˋ˧ˢˁˣ˘˖ˢˁ pňharru ˘ ˢˁˊ˼̀˧˘˖ˢˁ orriiaŽul, ˁ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ, ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˥, hotarrň) 8. ɹ˨˪˼, ˥ˊˣˁ˜˥, ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˴˻ˆˁˣ˨˜˘ˋ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘̀, ˆˊˋ ˢ˥ːˣ˥ ˦˥ˊ˥˖˧ˋ˅ˁ˪˼ ˜ˁ˜˘ˋ-˪˥ ˦ˋ˧ˋˊˣ˘ˋ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻ˋ. ʨ˪˥ ˣˋ˨˜˥༤˼˜˥ ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤˥˅, ˆˊˋ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˘ˢˋˋˢ ˴˻ˆ. Ÿ (˘ ˧˫ˢ. r ˦ˋ˧ˋˊ î): ˜˽༤ˊ. pyŸƏl ‘ˊ˥ˣ˥˨˘˪, ˦˧ˋˊˁˌ˪’ ਙ ˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ. *pňrrî´ (˧˫ˢ. pîrî´) ਙ ˿˨༤. *p˰r-, ˨˧. ˄˥༤ˆ. ˊ˘ˁ༤. ˚˛ˮ` ˜ˀ ‘˨˨˥˧˿˨˼’; ˜˽༤ˊ. vyŸƏl ‘˨˫ˌ˪’ ਙ ˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ. *vňrrî´ (˧˫ˢ. vîrî´) ਙ ˿˨༤. *v˰r-, ˨˧. ˄˥༤ˆ. ʻ˛ʸю ‘˨˫˿’; ˜˽༤ˊ. tyŸƏl ‘˪ˁ˹˘˪’ ਙ ˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ. *tňrrî´ (˧˫ˢ. tîrî´, ˣ˥ ˘ ˨˪ˁ˧. tirí, Oczko 2014: 284) ਙ ˿˨༤. *t˰r-, ˨˧. ˨˲˧˅. trূm, t৤rŖm ‘˪˧˫’ (˄˥༤ˆ. ˞˛ˏ˴ ‘˪˧˫’). ʐˊˣˁ˜˥ ˦˥ ˜˧ˁ˙ˣˋ˙ ˢˋ˧ˋ ˅ ˊ˅˫˲ ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤ˁ˲ Ɇ r: ˜˽༤ˊ. nƕzƕrìl ‘˅˘ˊˣˋˋ˪˨̀’ ਙ ˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ. *nňzňrí (˧˫ˢ. nňzňrí ‘ˢˋ˧ˋ˹˘˪˼˨̀; ˖ˁ˅˘ˊˋ˪˼’) ਙ ˿˨༤. *naz˰r৶ti; ˜˽༤ˊ. pƕrìl ‘˸˦ˁ˧˘˪’, ˜˘˸. ‘˦ˁџ˧˘˪’ ਙ ˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ. *pňrí (˪˥༤˼˜˥ ˨ ˦˧˘˨˪ˁ˅˜˥˙ ˧˫ˢ. opňrí ‘˥˸˦ˁ˧˘˪˼’ ˘ ˊ˧., ˨ˢ. ˣ˘ːˋ) ਙ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˥ DER: 582, ˨༤ˁ˅. *opariti (ˣ˥ ˨ˢ. ˣ˘ːˋ). ɳ ˵ˌˢ ːˋ ˪˫˪ ˊˋ༤˥? ʎˋ˦˥ˣ̀˪ˣ˥, ˘˖ ˜ˁ˜˘˲ ˘ˢˋˣˣ˥ ˱˥˧ˢ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˻ ˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˘ˋ ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤˻ ˦ˋ˧˅˥˙ ˆ˧˫˦˦˻: pîrî´, vîrî´, tîrî´. ʎˁ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧, tîr-î´ ˢ˥ːˋ˪ ˄˻˪˼ ˘˖ ˵ˋˆ˥-˪˥ ˪˘˦ˁ *tr๗-ti, *tr-া (˨˧. ˨˲˧˅. t৩ti, trূm/t৤rŖm), ˦˧˘ ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˻˲ ˅ˁ˧˘ˁˣ˪ˁ˲ ˅ ˘ˣ˱˘ˣ˘˪˘˅ˋ ˪˘˦ˁ ˨ˋ˧˄˨˜.-˴ˋ˧˜.˨༤ˁ˅. ˞˛໒˞ˌ ˨ ̀˪ˋˢ (< *terti), ˨˧. ˧˫˨. ˞ˀ˛ˀя˞˰. ʇˁ˜ ˄˻ ˪˥ ˣ˘ ˄˻༤˥, ˖ˊˋ˨˼ ˪˥˪ ːˋ ˧ˋ˱༤ˋ˜˨, ˵˪˥ ˘ ˦ˋ˧ˋˊ *a ˘༤˘ *o (˅ ˘ˢˋˣˁ˲). ʠ˪˥ ːˋ ˜ˁ˨ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˅˪˥˧˥˙ ˆ˧˫˦˦˻: nňzňrí, opňrí, Ʉ ˪˥ ˽˪˘ ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤˻ ˦˥ ˜˧ˁ˙ˣˋ˙ ˢˋ˧ˋ ˅ ˘ˣ˱˘ˣ˘˪˘˅ˋ ˜˙ʿˀ˛˄ʸ˞ ˴˞˰, ː˙˞˙˛˯ˍ ʻໞˌ˴ˀ˞ ˗ʸ ːʸ˩ˀ˜˞ʻ˙ -r-. ɳ ˨༤˫˵ˁˋ nňzňrí ਙ ˿˨༤. *naz˰r৶ti ˘ˢˋˋˢ ˋ˹ˌ ˧˫ˢ. zňrí ‘˅˘ˊˋ˪˼ ˨ˢ˫˪ˣ˥, ˖ˁ˅˘ˊˋ˪˼’ ਙ ˿˨༤. *z˰r৶ti. ɸ˧˫ˆ˘˲ ˅ˁ˧˘ˁˣ˪˥˅ ˘ˣ˱˘ˣ˘˪˘˅ˁ ˣˋ˪. ɯ ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤ opňrí, ˜˥˪˥˧˻˙ ˣˁ ˦ˋ˧˅˻˙ ˅˖ˆ༤̀ˊ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ ˘˖ *o-paๅriti, ˣˁ ˨ˁˢ˥ˢ ˊˋ༤ˋ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤̀ˋ˪ ˨˥˄˥˙ ˨ˢˋ˸ˋˣ˘ˋ ˊ˅˫˲ ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤˥˅: *paๅriti ˘ *p˰r৶ti ˅ ˦˥༤˼˖˫ ˦˥˨༤ˋˊˣˋˆ˥, ˵˪˥ ̀˅˨˪˅˫ˋ˪ ˘˖ ˋˆ˥ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘˙, ˨˧ˋˊ˘ ˜˥˪˥˧˻˲ ˦˧˘˨˫˪˨˪˅˫ˋ˪ ‘˦˧ˋ˪˼’: (1) ‘˥˄༤˘˅ˁ˪˼ ˜˘˦̀˹ˋ˙ ː˘ˊ˜˥˨˪˼˿’, ˅˥˖˅˧. ‘˥˸˦ˁ˧˘˪˼˨̀’ (ਙ *pariti), (2) ˅˥˖˅˧. (˥˄˻˵ˣ˥ ˥ ˊˋ˪̀˲) ‘˅˻˖˻˅ˁ˪˼ ˫ ˨ˋ˄̀ ˧ˁˣ˻ ˘༤˘ ˧ˁ˖ˊ˧ˁːˋˣ˘̀, ˥˄˻˵ˣ˥ ˣˁ ˨˫˨˪ˁ˅ˁ˲, ˦˥џ˪˥ˢ ˘༤˘ ˢ˥˵˥˙ (ਙ *p˰rœti), (3) ˅˥˖˅˧. (ˊ˘ˁ༤. ˥ ˜˫˜˫˧˫˖ˋ, ˢ˫˜ˋ, ˨˫˲˘˲ ˧ˁ˨˪ˋˣ˘̀˲) ‘˦˧ˋ˪˼, ˦˥˧˪̀˨˼’ (ਙ *p˰rœti), (4) ˅˥˖˅˧. (˥ ˧ˁ˨˪ˋˣ˘̀˲) ‘˅̀ˣ˫˪˼ ˥˪ ːˁ˧˻, ˦༤ˋ˨ˣˋ˅ˋ˪˼ ˥˪ ˨˥༤ˣ˴ˁ ˦˥˨༤ˋ ˊ˥ːˊ̀ (ਙ *p˰rœti) 9. ʨ˪˥ ˖ˣˁ˵˘˪, ʃ˖ ˣˁ˦˘˨ˁˣ˘˙ vorroavň ‘˨༤˥˅˥’, vorrovi ‘ˆ˥˅˥˧˘˪˼’ ˅ ˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˘˲ ˦ˁˢ̀˪ˣ˘˜ˁ˲ ˨༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪ ˅˻˨˥˜ˁ̀ ˅ˋ˧˥̀˪ˣ˥˨˪˼ ˨༤ˁ˅̀ˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˦˧˥˘˨˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘̀ ˽˪˥ˆ˥ ˆˣˋ˖ˊˁ. ʓˁˢ˥ ˨༤˥˅˥ voroávň ˅ˁːˣ˥ ˅˅˘ˊ˫ ˋˆ˥ ˅ˋ˧˥̀˪ˣ˥˙ ˨˅̀˖˘ ˨ ˧˫ˢ. vorbň ‘˪ː.’, ˥ ˵˼ˋ˙ ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘˘ ˊˁ˅ˣ˥ ˨˦˥˧̀˪ (˅˪˥˧ˁ̀ ˆ˘˦˥˪ˋ˖ˁ ˨˅̀˖˻˅ˁˋ˪ ˋˆ˥ ˨ ༤ˁ˪. verbum ‘˪ː.’), ˨ˢ. (Pamfil 2003: 21). ɳ˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˥, ˘ voroávň, ˘ vórbň — ˥˪ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤˼ˣ˻ˋ ˘ˢˋˣˁ ˥˪ ˊ˅˫˲ ˅ˁ˧˘ˁˣ˪˥˅ ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤ˁ (ˋ˨༤˘ ˽˪˥ ˅ˁ˧˘ˁˣ˪˻): voroví ˘ vorbí. ʕ˥ˆˊˁ ˘˨˪˥˵ˣ˘˜˥ˢ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘̀ ˢ˥ːˋ˪ ˄˻˪˼ ˵˪˥-˪˥ ˅˧˥ˊˋ ˫˜˧. ˊ˘ˁ༤. ʻ˙ʼ˙˛ˌя˞ˌ ‘ˆ˥˅˥˧˘˪˼’ (˨ ˊ˧˫ˆ˥˙ ˢˋ˪ˁ˪ˋ˖˥˙). 9 OPøRÍ, opňresc, vb. IV. 1. A turna peste ceva un lichid clocotit (apŊ, leſie, lapte etc.) pentru a spŊla, a curŊƂa de coajŊ, a gŊti etc.  Tranz. ſi refl. A provoca sau a cŊpŊta arsuri, turnând sau vŊrsând apŊ clocotitŊ sau alt lichid foarte fierbinte; a (se) arde. 2. Refl. (Mai ales despre copiii mici) A face rŊni ſi iritaƂii în unele pŊrƂi ale corpului, mai ales la încheieturi, din cauza transpiraƂiei, a urinei etc. 3. Refl. (Reg.; despre mŊlai, fŊinŊ, plante uscate) A se 8

66

ʐ˪˧ˁːˋˣ˘ˋ ˿ːˣ˥˨༤ˁ˅̀ˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ *r ˅ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘̀˲ ˘˖ ˨˪ˁ˧˥˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ʻ ˨˯ʼʸ˗˜ːˌˍ

˵˪˥, ˲˥˪̀ ˅ ˴˻ˆˁˣ˨˜˥ˢ ˘ˢˋˋ˪˨̀ ˪˥༤˼˜˥ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ‘˸˦ˁ˧˘˪˼’, ˱˥˧ˢˁ ˽˪˥ˆ˥ ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤ˁ ˅ ˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˥ˢ ˘˨˪˥˵ˣ˘˜ˋ ˣˋ ˘ˢˋˋ˪ ˥˪ˣ˥˸ˋˣ˘̀ ˜ ˨༤ˁ˅̀ˣ˨˜˥˙ ˱˥˧ˢˋ *pariti. ɳ ˦˥˖˘˴˘˘ ˦˥˨༤ˋ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˘༤˘ ˦ˋ˧ˋˊ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻ˢ ˅˻˨˪˫˦ˁˋ˪ ˪˥༤˼˜˥ ˥˄˻˵ˣ˻˙ /r/ (˅˘ˊ˘ˢ˥, ˅ ˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˥ˢ ˣˋ ˄˻༤˥ **ʎrr ˘ **rrC, ˲˥˪̀ ˅ ˘˨˜˥ˣˣ˥˴˻ˆˁˣ˨˜˘˲ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˲ CŸ, ŸC ˅˦˥༤ˣˋ ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˻), ˅ ˪. ˵. ˅ ˨༤ˁ˅˘˖ˢˁ˲, ˨˧. ˅ ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤ˁ˲: ˜˽༤ˊ. primìl ‘˦˧˘ˣ˘ˢˁˋ˪’ ਙ ˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ. *primí (˧˫ˢ. primí ‘˦˧˘ˣ˘ˢˁ˪˼’, ˨˪ˁ˧. priimí, DER: 666 ਙ ˿˨༤. *pri-j˰m-, ˨˧. ˄˥༤ˆ. ˚˛ˌ˂˖ʸ, ˚˛ˌè˖ʸ˖, ˚˛ˌˏ˖ʸ˖ ‘˦˧˘ˣ˘ˢˁ˿’; ˜˽༤ˊ. oprìl ‘˖ˁ˦˧ˋ˹ˁˋ˪’ (ɸɸ) ਙ ˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ. *oprí (˧˫ˢ. oprí ‘˥˨˪ˁˣ˥˅˘˪˼’) ਙ ˿˨༤. *o-p(˰)r(˨ ˦ˁˊˋˣ˘ˋˢ ˋ˧ˁ; ˨˧. pîrî´ ਙ *p˰r- ˄ˋ˖ ˦˧˘˨˪ˁ˅˜˘), ˨˧. ˄˥༤ˆ. ˙˚˛ʸю ‘˥˄˥˦˧˫’ ˘ ˢˣ. ˊ˧. ʃ˖ ˅˨ˋˆ˥ ˽˪˥ˆ˥ ˊˋ༤ˁˋˢ ˅˻˅˥ˊ, ˵˪˥ ˢˋːˊ˫ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻ˢ˘ ˅ ̀˖˻˜ˋ-˘˨˪˥˵ˣ˘˜ˋ ˨༤ˁ˅˘˖ˢ˥˅ ˅˨˪˧ˋ˵ˁ༤˥˨˼ ˊ˅ˁ ˁ༤༤˥˱˥ˣˁ ˱˥ˣˋˢ˻ /r/. ʐˊ˘ˣ ˘˖ ˣ˘˲ Ɇ ˢ̀ˆ˜˘˙ (˦ˋ˧ˋˊ ̀˪ˋˢ ˅ ˨༤ˁ˅̀ˣ˨˜˥ˢ ˘˨˪˥˵ˣ˘˜ˋ) ˦ˋ˧ˋˊˁ˅ˁ༤˨̀ ˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˥˙ ˱˥ˣˋˢ˥˙ /r/, ˁ ˊ˧˫ˆ˥˙ (˅˥ ˅˨ˋ˲ ˥˨˪ˁ༤˼ˣ˻˲ ˨༤˫˵ˁ̀˲, ˅ ˪. ˵., ˅˘ˊ˘ˢ˥, ˅˨ˋˆˊˁ ˅ ˣˁ˵ˁ༤ˋ) ˦ˋ˧ˋˊˁ˅ˁ༤˨̀ ˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˘ˢ /r฿/ (˧ˁ˨˜ˁ˪˘˨˪˻ˢ). ʨ˪ˁ ˧ˁ˖ˣ˘˴ˁ ˪˥˵ˣ˥ ˅˥˨˦˧˥˘˖˅˥ˊ˘༤ˁ˨˼ ˴˻ˆˁˣˁˢ˘ ˨ ˦˥ˢ˥˹˼˿ ˊ˅˫˲ ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅˫˿˹˘˲ ˱˥ˣˋˢ. ɳ ˴˻ˆˁˣ˨˜˥ˢ ˋ˨˪˼ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˦˧˥˨˪˥ˋ /r/ ˅ ˨˫˹ˋ˨˪˅˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˢ, ˆˊˋ ˢ˥ːˣ˥ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤ˁˆˁ˪˼ (˨ ˣˁ˪̀ː˜˥˙) ˨༤ˁ˅̀ˣ˨˜˘˙ ˘˨˲˥ˊ ˣˁ *-r˰ (˪. ˋ. ˦ˋ˧ˋˊ ˋ˧ˋˢ), ˵ˋˢ˫, ˥ˊˣˁ˜˥, ˦˧˥˪˘˅˥˧ˋ˵˘˪ ˣˁ˦˘˨ˁˣ˘ˋ ˅ ˨˪ˁ˧˥˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˥ˢ: ˜˽༤ˊ. ìforo ‘ˢˋ˪ˋ༤˼’ ਙ ˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ. *?íforu (˧˫ˢ. víhor ‘˅˘˲˧˼’, ˊ˘ˁ༤. vívor; ˅ ˦ˁˢ̀˪ˣ˘˜ˁ˲: vihorrulu, Densusianu 1938: 121) ਙ ˿˨༤. *vixor˰, ˨˧. ˄༤˘˖˜˫˿ ˱˥˧ˢ˫ (˨ *-ˮ-, ˁ ˣˋ *-o˅ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˋ) ˄˥༤ˆ. ʻˏ˦ˮ˛; ˜˥ˣˋ˵ˣ˥ˋ *-˰ ˘ˢˋˋˢ ˅ ˧˫˨. ʻˌ˦˛˰ Ɇ ˅˦˧˥˵ˋˢ, ˪˥ˆˊˁ ˣˋ˦˥ˣ̀˪ˣ˥, ˥˪˜˫ˊˁ ˥˜˥ˣ˵ˁˣ˘ˋ ˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ. *-u. ʇ˧˥ˢˋ ˪˥ˆ˥, ˅ ˴˻ˆˁˣ˨˜˥ˢ ˦˧˥˨˪˥ˋ /r/ ˅˻˨˪˫˦ˁˋ˪ ˅ ˨˫˱˱˘˜˨ˋ -ar- (˵ˁ˨˪˘˵ˣ˥ ˨༤ˁ˅̀ˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˦˧˥˘˨˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘̀): ˜˽༤ˊ. bufàri ‘˜ˣ˘ˆˁ, ˜˥˸ˋ༤ˌ˜’ ਙ ˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ. *bufári (˧˫ˢ. ˨˪ˁ˧. bucváriu, bucvári, bucvár, bufár ‘˴ˋ˧˜˥˅ˣˁ̀ ˜ˣ˘ˆˁ’) ਙ ˿˨༤. *bukˮvŊr(j)˰. ɳ ˣ˥˅˥ˆ˧ˋ˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘̀˲ ˵ˋ˧ˋ˖ ˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˘˙ Ɇ ˪˥༤˼˜˥ /r/: ˜˽༤ˊ. zàharo (ɸɸ), zàro ‘˨ˁ˲ˁ˧’ ਙ ˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ. *záharu (˧˫ˢ. záhar) ਙ ˣˆ˧. ΡηΰΜΪ(Ω); ˜˽༤ˊ. vorèzo ‘˧˘˨’ ਙ ˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ. *orézu (˧˫ˢ. oréz) ਙ (?) ˣˆ˧. ΩΪВΡΤ, ΩΪВΡΜ, ˨ ˣˋ̀˨ˣ˻ˢ ˥˜˥ˣ˵ˁˣ˘ˋˢ ˘ ˜˥˧ˣˋ˅˻ˢ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻ˢ ˅ ˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˥ˢ (DER: 584); ˜˽༤ˊ. kƕrƕmìda ‘˜˘˧˦˘˵’ ਙ ˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ. *kňrňmída (˧˫ˢ. cňrňmídň) ਙ ˨˧.-ˆ˧. ΥΠΪΜ÷ϲΟΜ (DER: 142). ʨ˪˥ ˖ˣˁ˵˘˪, ˵˪˥ ˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˘˙ ̀˖˻˜ ˦˥-˧ˁ˖ˣ˥ˢ˫ ˅˥˨˦˧˘ˣ˘ˢˁ༤ ˨༤ˁ˅̀ˣ˨˜˥ˋ ˘ ˆ˧ˋ˵ˋ˨˜˥ˋ /r/. ʠ˪˥ ˜ˁ˨ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˊ˧˫ˆ˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅-˘˨˪˥˵ˣ˘˜˥˅, ˪˥ ˦˥ ˴˻ˆˁˣ˨˜˥ˢ˫ ˅˘ˊˣ˥, ˵˪˥ ˣˋˢˋ˴˜˥ˋ ˘ ˪˫˧ˋ˴˜˥ˋ /r/ ˦˥ ˜˧ˁ˙ˣˋ˙ ˢˋ˧ˋ ˅ ˵ˁ˨˪˘ ˨༤˫˵ˁˋ˅ ˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˘˙ ˦ˋ˧ˋˊˁ˅ˁ༤ ˵ˋ˧ˋ˖ */r฿/: ˜˽༤ˊ. pahàŸo ‘˨˪ˁ˜ˁˣ’ ਙ ˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ. *pahárru (˧˫ˢ. pahár; ˅ ˦ˁˢ̀˪ˣ˘˜ˁ˲: pňharru, Densusianu 1938: 121) ਙ ˨˅ˣ. behhari (ˣˋ̀˨ˣ˥ ˥˜˥ˣ˵ˁˣ˘ˋ); ˜˽༤ˊ. tatàŸo ‘ˢ˫˨˫༤˼ˢˁˣ˘ˣ’ ਙ ˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ. *tatárru (˧˫ˢ. tňtár ˨ ˧ˋˊ˫˜˴˘ˋ˙) ਙ ˪˫˧. tatar; ˜˽༤ˊ. katƏŸo ‘ˢ˫༤’ (ɸɸ) ਙ ˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ. *katî´rru (˧˫ˢ. catî´r) ਙ ˪˫˧. katÄr. încinge, alterându-se. 4. Refl. (Despre plante) A se ofili, a se veſteji (din cauza cŊldurii); a se mŊna din cauza soarelui prea fierbinte apŊrut dupŊ ploaie (DEX). 67

ʍ. ɳ. ʐ˨༤˥ˣ

ʁˁˆˁˊ˥˵ˣ˥ˋ ˨༤˥˅˥: ˜˽༤ˊ. kƕpàra ‘˖ˁ༤˥ˆ ˅ ˅˘ˊˋ ˦˥ˊˁ˧˜ˁ ˣˋ˅ˋ˨˪ˋ’ ਙ ˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ. ? (˧˫ˢ. capárň) ਙ ˘˪. capárra ‘˖ˁ༤˥ˆ’ ˦˧˘ ˨˲˧˅. k৤para ˘ ˣˆ˧. ΥΜÞηΪΩ (˨˧ˋˊˣˋˆ˥ ˧˥ˊˁ) (DER: 136); ˣˋ˦˥˨˧ˋˊ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˻˙ ˘˨˪˥˵ˣ˘˜ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘̀ ˅ ˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˘˙ ˣˋ̀˨ˋˣ, ˥˪˨˫˪˨˪˅˘ˋ /r฿/ ˖ˁˆˁˊ˥˵ˣ˥; ˢ˥ːˋ˪ ˄˻˪˼, ˽˪˥ ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧ ˣ˥˅˥˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˥˙ ˱˥˧ˢ˻ ˅ ˜˽༤ˊ˽˧ˁ˧˨˜˥ˢ? ʇ˥ˣˋ˴ ˨༤˥˅ˁ (?) ɳ ˜˽༤ˊ˽˧ˁ˧˨˜˥ˢ ˋ˨˪˼ ˅˨ˋˆ˥ ˥ˊˣ˥ ˨༤˥˅˥ (˨༤˥˅˥-˅˻˨˜ˁ˖˻˅ˁˣ˘ˋ), ˊ༤̀ ˜˥˪˥˧˥ˆ˥ ˅ «˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˥ˢ» ˢ˥ːˣ˥ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤ˁˆˁ˪˼ ˥˪˨˫˪˨˪˅˘ˋ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˥˜˥ˣ˵ˁˣ˘̀. ʨ˪˥ ˨༤˥˅˥ (˅ ˧˥༤˘ ˨˥˿˖ˁ) ˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˻ ˊ˥༤ːˣ˻ ˄˻༤˘ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁ˪˼, ˣˋ ˊ˥˄ˁ˅༤̀̀ ˣ˘˜ˁ˜˥ˆ˥ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˅ ˜˥ˣ˴ˋ: ˜˽༤ˊ. bàtƕŸ ‘ˋ˙-˄˥ˆ˫’ ਙ ˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ. *bátňrr (˧˫ˢ. ˊ˘ˁ༤. bátîr, bátňr ‘˲˥˪̀; ˦˥ ˜˧ˁ˙ˣˋ˙ ˢˋ˧ˋ’) ਙ ˅ˋˣˆ. bátor ‘quoique, quand même’ (Cihac 1879: 481). ɳ˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˥, ˪ˁ˜˥ˋ ˜˥ˣˋ˵ˣ˥ˋ ˅ˋˣˆˋ˧˨˜˥ˋ -r ˅˨ˋˆˊˁ ˦ˋ˧ˋˊˁ˅ˁ༤˥˨˼ ˜ˁ˜ /r฿/. ɳ˥˖˅˧ˁ˹ˁ̀˨˼ ˜ ˧ˋ˱༤ˋ˜˨ˁˢ ˿ːˣ˥˨༤ˁ˅̀ˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ *r, ˅ ˴ˋ༤˥ˢ ˦˥ˣ̀˪ˣ˥, ˵˪˥ ˥ˣ˘ ˣˋ ˧ˁ˖༤˘˵ˁ˿˪˨̀ ˦ˋ˧ˋˊ ˨༤ˁ˅. *i ˘ *y. ɳ ˣˁ˵ˁ༤ˋ ˨༤˥˅ˁ ˅˨ˋˆˊˁ ˘ˢˋˋˢ *rrî-, ˥ˊˣˁ˜˥ ˽˪˥ ˣˋ ˖ˣˁ˵˘˪, ˵˪˥ ˣˁ ˨˪ˁˊ˘˘ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘̀ ˘˖ ˨༤ˁ˅̀ˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˅ ˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˥ˢ ˣˋ ˄˻༤˥ *ri- 10: ˧˫ˢ. Rîm ‘ʒ˘ˢ’ (˦˧˘, ˅˘ˊ˘ˢ˥, ˄˥༤ˋˋ ˣ˥˅˥ˢ Rim) < *Rrî´mu ਙ ˿˨༤., ˨˧. ˄˥༤ˆ. ʍˌ˖, ˨˧˲˅. Rৃm, Ríma < *RŠmˮ; ˪ˁ˜ːˋ rîmleán; ˧˫ˢ. rî´biƀň ‘ˣˋ˜. ˅˘ˊ˻ ˢˋ༤˜˘˲ ˧˻˄’ < *rrî´biƀa ਙ ˿˨༤., ˨˧. ˄˥༤ˆ. ˛ˏʺˌ˨ʸ < *ryๅbica; ˨˿ˊˁ ːˋ ˧˫ˢ. rî´mnic ‘˦˧˫ˊ’; ˘ ˢˣ. ˊ˧. (˅ ˪. ˵. rî´za ‘˧˘˖ˁ’, rîs ‘˧˻˨˼’). ʎˁ ˣˁ˵ˁ༤˼ˣ˥ˋ ˨༤ˁ˅. *rœ- ˣˁˊˌːˣ˻˲ ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧˥˅ ˣˋ˪, ˣ˥ ˋ˨˪˼ ˥ˊ˘ˣ ˣˁ ˣˁ˵ˁ༤˼ˣ˥ˋ ˨༤ˁ˅. *r˰-, ˜˥˪˥˧˥ˋ ˪˥ːˋ ˊˁˌ˪ ˪˅ˌ˧ˊ˥˨˪˼ (?): ˧˫ˢ. rîvní ‘ːˁːˊˁ˪˼’ < *rrňvní ਙ ˿˨༤., ˨˧. ˄˥༤ˆ. ˊ˘ˁ༤. ˛˂ʻ˗ʸ ˜ˀ ‘ˣ˧ˁ˅༤˿˨˼’ < *r˰v˰n-; ˨ˁˢ˻ˋ ˧ˁˣˣ˘ˋ ˣˁ˦˘˨ˁˣ˘̀: rňvni, ˖ˁ˪ˋˢ rîvni, rîmni, revni (˫˦˥ˊ˥˄༤ˋˣ˘ˋ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˲?) (Oczko 2014: 253). ɳ ˨ˋ˧ˋˊ˘ˣˋ ˨༤˥˅ˁ ˘ˢˋˋ˪˨̀ ˅˨ˋˆ˥ ˣˋ˨˜˥༤˼˜˥ ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧˥˅ ˣˁ ˨༤ˁ˅. *-ri- ˨ ˥˄˥˘ˢ˘ ˧ˋ˱༤ˋ˜˨ˁˢ˘ ˅ ˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˥ˢ, ˨˧. -rî- (˦˥ ˜˧ˁ˙ˣˋ˙ ˢˋ˧ˋ, ˥ˊ˘ˣ ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧) 11: ˧˫ˢ. tňrî´ƀň, ˥˄˻˵ˣ˥ ˢˣ. tňrî´ƀe ‘˥˪˧˫˄˘’ < *tňrrî´ƀa ਙ ˿˨༤., ˨˧. ˄˥༤ˆ. ˢˣ. ˞˛ˏ˨ˌ, ˨˲˧˅. ˢˣ. tr০ce ‘˪ː.’ < *t˰r৷ca, ˥˵ˋ˅˘ˊˣ˥, ֚ *t˰r- ‘˪ˋ˧ˋ˪˼’; ˪ˁ˜˘ˢ ˥˄˧ˁ˖˥ˢ, ˖ˊˋ˨˼ ˣˋ ˦ˁ˅˸˘˙ ˋ˧, ˪ˁ˜ ːˋ, ˜ˁ˜ ˅ ˥ˊˣ˥˜˥˧ˋˣˣ˥ˢ tîrî´ ‘˪ˁ˹˘˪˼’ (˨ˢ. ˅˻˸ˋ), ˵˪˥ ˢ˥ːˋ˪ ˆ˥˅˥˧˘˪˼ ˥ ˧ˁˣˣˋˢ ˅˧ˋˢˋˣ˘ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘̀; ʃ˨˜˥ˣˣ˻ˋ ˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˘ˋ ˨༤˥˅ˁ ˣˁ ri- ˪˘˦ˁ risipí ‘˧ˁ˨˨˻˦ˁ˪˼’, ridicá ‘˦˥ˊˣ˘ˢˁ˪˼’, ridíche ‘˧ˋ˦ˁ’, ˦˥-˅˘ˊ˘ˢ˥ˢ˫, ˅˥ ˅˨ˋ˲ ˨༤˫˵ˁ̀˲ Ɇ ˧ˋ˖˫༤˼˪ˁ˪ ˁ˨˨˘ˢ˘༤̀˴˘˘ _ň_i > _i_i (˨˧. ˅ˁ˧˘ˁˣ˪˻ rňsipi, rňdicá, rňdíche). ʕ˥ ːˋ ˜ˁ˨ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˨༤˥˅ ˣˁ re-, ˆˊˋ _ň_e > _e_e , ˨˧. retéz ‘˹ˋ˜˥༤ˊˁ’, revení ‘˅˻ˢˁ˵˘˅ˁ˪˼’ ˘ ˊ˧. ʍ˥ːˣ˥ ˊ˫ˢˁ˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˽˪ˁ ˁ˨˨˘ˢ˘༤̀˴˘̀ ˨˪ˁ༤ˁ ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣˁ, ˪. ˜. ˜ ˽˪˥ˢ˫ ˢ˥ˢˋˣ˪˫ ˫ːˋ ˨˪ˁ༤˥ ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˻ˢ ˦˧˥˨˪˥ˋ ˣˁ˵ˁ༤˼ˣ˥ˋ r-. ʨ˪˥ ˅ ˜ˁ˜˥˙-˪˥ ˨˪ˋ˦ˋˣ˘ ˪ˁ˜ ˫ːˋ ˨ XVII ˅. (˲˥˪̀ ˱˥˧ˢ˻ ˪˘˦ˁ risipi ˋ˹ˌ ˧ˋˊ˜˘) (Rosetti 1986: 450). ʑ˧˥˨˪˥ˋ ˣˁ˵ˁ༤˼ˣ˥ˋ r- ˅˻˨˪˫˦ˁˋ˪ ˅ ˦˥˖ˊˣ˘˲ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘̀˲, ˨˧. ˧˫ˢ. rip ‘ˆ˧̀˖ˣ˻˙’ ਙ ˣˆ˧. ΪВÞΩΫ (DER: 701), rif ‘ˢˋ˧ˁ ˊ༤˘ˣ˻’ ਙ ˪˫˧. rif (DER: 699). ´nň ‘˦ˁ˲˥˪ˣˁ̀ ˖ˋˢ༤̀’, ˜˥˪˥˧˥ˋ ˘ˣ˥ˆˊˁ ˅˥˖˅˥ˊ̀˪ ˜ ˿ːˣ˥˨༤ˁ˅̀ˣ˨˜˥ˢ˫, 11 ʓ˿ˊˁ ̀˅ˣ˥ ˣˋ ˥˪ˣ˥˨˘˪˨̀ ˧˫ˢ. ƀňrî ˨˧. ˨˲˧˅. c৤rina ‘˦˥˸༤˘ˣˁ’. ɳ˦˧˥˵ˋˢ, ˅ˋ˧˥̀˪ˣ˥, ˘ˢˋ༤ˁ ˢˋ˨˪˥ ˜˥ˣ˪ˁˢ˘ˣˁ˴˘̀, ˨˫ˊ̀ ˦˥ ˅ˁ˧˘ˁˣ˪ˁˢ ƀӮrnň, ƀárinň (DER: 826); ༤ˁ˪˘ˣ˨˜˥ˋ ˦˧˥˘˨˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘ˋ ˥˪ *terra ˦˥ˊ˪˅ˋ˧ːˊˁˋ˪˨̀ ˣˁ˦˘˨ˁˣ˘ˋˢ ˅ ˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˘˲ ˦ˁˢ̀˪ˣ˘˜ˁ˲: ƀerrinň, ˣˁ˧̀ˊ˫ ˨ ƀňrrňnň (Rosetti 1986: 480). 10

68

ʐ˪˧ˁːˋˣ˘ˋ ˿ːˣ˥˨༤ˁ˅̀ˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ *r ˅ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘̀˲ ˘˖ ˨˪ˁ˧˥˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ʻ ˨˯ʼʸ˗˜ːˌˍ

ʎ˥ ˘ -ri-: ˧˫ˢ. corítň ‘˜˥˧˻˪˥’ ਙ ˿˨༤. ?, ˨˧. ˄˥༤ˆ. ː˙˛ˌя˞˙, ˨˲˧˅. kòrito < *koryๅto; ˧˫ˢ. verígň ‘˖˅ˋˣ˥; ˜˥༤˼˴˥’ ਙ ˿˨༤. ?, ˨˧. ˄˥༤ˆ. ʻˀ˛ˌяʼʸ, ˨˲˧˅. vèriga < *ver০ga (˧˫ˢ. verígň ຐ ˜˽༤ˊ. virìga ‘˜˥༤˼˴˥’); ˧˫ˢ. périnň, ˅ˁ˧. pernň ‘˦ˋ˧˘ˣˁ’ (˦ˋ˧˅˻˙ ˅ˁ˧˘ˁˣ˪, ˅˘ˊ˘ˢ˥, ˄˥༤ˋˋ ˨˪ˁ˧˻˙, ˥ˊˣˁ˜˥ ˅˨˪˧ˋ˵ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˪˥༤˼˜˥ ˨ ˜˥ˣ˴ˁ XVII ˅., Oczko 2014: 215) ਙ ˿˨༤. ?, ˨˧. ˄˥༤ˆ. ˚ˀя˛ˌ˗ʸ, ˨˲˧˅. p৥rina < *perina (˧˫ˢ. périnň ຐ ˜˽༤ˊ. pèrina ‘˦ˋ˧˘ˣˁ’). ʓ༤ˁ˅˘˖ˢ˻ ˨ ˨˫˱˱˘˜˨˥ˢ -ica ˊˁ˿˪ -ri- (˅˨ˋ, ˜˧˥ˢˋ ƀňrî´ƀň, ˨ˢ. ˅˻˸ˋ): véveriƀň ‘˄ˋ༤˜ˁ’ ຎ *v৶verica; iríƀň ~ ieríƀň ‘̀˧˥˅ˁ̀ ˦˸ˋˣ˘˴ˁ’ຎ *jar৷ca ˘ ˣˋ˜. ˊ˧. ˨ ˢˋˣˋˋ ̀˨ˣ˻ˢ˘ ˘˨˪˥˵ˣ˘˜ˁˢ˘ (Pascu 1916: 254); ˨˧. ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˨ ˜˥༤ˋ˄ˁˣ˘ˋˢ toporî´Žte, toporíŽte ਙ toporište (˘˖ ˜ˁ˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ?) (Pascu 1916: 253). ʇˁ˜ ˄˻ ˪˥ ˣ˘ ˄˻༤˥, ˅˘ˊˣ˥, ˵˪˥ ˨༤ˁ˅. *y ˦˧̀ˢ˥ ˣˋ ˥˪˧ˁːˁˋ˪˨̀ ˅ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘̀˲ ˜ˁ˜ ˧˫ˢ. î. ɳ˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˥, ˣˁ ˣˁ˵ˁ༤˼ˣ˻˲ ˨˪ˁˊ˘̀˲ ༤˿˄˥ˋ ˨༤ˁ˅. *rV, ˆˊˋ V = *i, *y, ˊˁ˅ˁ༤˥ ˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ. *rrî (˪˥ˆˊˁ -ri- ˅ ˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˥ˢ ˥˄˺̀˨ˣ̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˦˥˖ˊˣ˘ˢ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘ˋˢ ˘˖ ˨༤ˁ˅̀ˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥). ɲˋ˖ ˽˪˥ˆ˥ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤˥ːˋˣ˘̀ ˧ˁ˨˦˧ˋˊˋ༤ˋˣ˘̀ ˢˋːˊ˫ ˧˫ˢ. *rrî ˘ *ri ˅ ˨༤ˁ˅˘˖ˢˁ˲-˘ˢˋˣˁ˲ ˥˄ˣˁ˧˫ː˘˪˼ ˣˋ ˫ˊˁˌ˪˨̀. ʑ˥˽˪˥ˢ˫ ˅˧̀ˊ ༤˘ ˫ˢˋ˨˪ˣ˥ ˧ˁ˨˨ˢˁ˪˧˘˅ˁ˪˼ ˪ˁ˜˘ˋ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘̀ ˧ˁ˖ˊˋ༤˼ˣ˥ 12. ʃ˨˲˥ˊ̀ ˘˖ ˽˪˥ˆ˥, ˢ˥ːˣ˥ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤˥ː˘˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˅ ˿ːˣ˥˨༤ˁ˅̀ˣ˨˜˥ˢ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪ˋ, ˘˖ ˜˥˪˥˧˥ˆ˥ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁ༤˘ ˨༤˥˅ˁ ˣ˥˨˘˪ˋ༤˘ «˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥» ̀˖˻˜ˁ, *y ˘ *i ˫ːˋ ˨༤˘༤˘˨˼. ʃ˖ ˣˁ༤˘˵˘̀ ˣˋ˨˜˥༤˼˜˘˲ ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧˥˅ ˣˁ *rrî ˢ˥ːˋ˪ ˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁ˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˽˪˥ ˨༤˘̀ˣ˘ˋ ˦˧˥˘˖˥˸༤˥ ˨˜˥˧ˋˋ ˅ ˦˥༤˼˖˫ *˟ ˅˅˘ˊ˫ ˦˧ˋˊ˸ˋ˨˪˅˫˿˹ˋˆ˥ */r฿/. ɳ˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˥, ˊ˧˫ˆ˘ˋ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻ˋ ˨ˢ̀ˆ˵ˁ༤˘˨˼ ˨˘༤˼ˣˋˋ, ˨˧. ˧˫ˢ. cobílň ‘˜˥˄˻༤ˁ’ ਙ ˿˨༤. *kob০la < *kobyๅla; ˧˫ˢ. vídrň ‘˅˻ˊ˧ˁ’ ਙ ˿˨༤. *v০dra < *vyๅdra ˘ ˪. ˊ. (Densusianu 1901: 273). ɳ ༤˿˄˥ˢ ˨༤˫˵ˁˋ, ˅ ˘˨˪˥˵ˣ˘˜ˋ ˣˋ ˄˻༤˥ ˊ˅˫˲ ˱˥ˣˋˢ /i/ ˘ /y/ 13. ʇˁ˜ ˄˻༤˥ ˦˥˜ˁ˖ˁˣ˥ ˅˻˸ˋ, ˣˋˢˣ˥ˆ˥˵˘˨༤ˋˣˣ˻ˋ ˨༤ˁ˅̀ˣ˨˜˘ˋ ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤˻ ˣˁ -Vr-, ˦˥˦ˁ˅˸˘ˋ ˵ˋ˧ˋ˖ ˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˘˙ ˅ ˴˻ˆˁˣ˨˜˘˙, ˧ˁ˨˦˧ˋˊˋ༤ˋˣ˻ ˅ ˣˌˢ ˢˋːˊ˫ -Ÿy- ˘ -ri- ˦˥ ˣˁ༤˘˵˘˿ *œ ˅ ˘˨˲˥ˊˋ ˥˨ˣ˥˅˻ ˨༤ˁ˅̀ˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤ˁ (pyŸƏl, tyŸƏl, vyŸƏl, ˣ˥ nƕzƕrìl, pƕrìl). ʑ˧˘ ˽˪˥ˢ ˅ ˨ˁˢ˥ˢ ˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˥ˢ ˽˪˥ ˦˧˥˪˘˅˥˦˥˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˘ˋ, ˅˘ˊ˘ˢ˥, ˅ ˜ˁ˜˥˙-˪˥ ˢ˥ˢˋˣ˪ ˣˁ˵ˁ༤˥ ˖ˁ˪˫ˢˁˣ˘˅ˁ˪˼˨̀, ˪ˁ˜ ˵˪˥ ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤˻ ˣˁ -rî´ ˨ˋ˙˵ˁ˨ ˣˋ˧ˋˊ˜˥ ˘ˢˋ˿˪ ˅ˁ˧˘ˁˣ˪˻ ˣˁ -rí, ˘ ˣˁ˥˄˥˧˥˪. ʨ˪˘ ˅ˁ˧˘ˁˣ˪˻ ˅ ˜ˁ˜˥˙-˪˥ ˨˪ˋ˦ˋˣ˘ ˫ːˋ ˦˧˘˨˫˪˨˪˅˫˿˪ ˅ ˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˘˲ ˦ˁˢ̀˪ˣ˘˜ˁ˲ (˅˻˸ˋ ˫˦˥ˢ̀ˣ˫˪ ˅ˁ˧˘ˁˣ˪ tirí XVI ˅.), ˣ˥ ˴˻ˆˁˣ˨˜˘ˢ ˣˋ ˥˪˧ˁːˁ˿˪˨̀ (˦˧ˁ˅ˊˁ, ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧˥˅ ˢˁ༤˥). ɳ ˜ˣ˘ˆˋ Oczko 2014 ˦˧˘˅ˋˊˋˣ˻ ˢˣ˥ˆ˥˵˘˨༤ˋˣˣ˻ˋ ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧˻ ˨༤ˁ˅˘˖ˢ˥˅ ˘˖ ˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˘˲ ˦ˁˢ̀˪ˣ˘˜˥˅ ˅ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˣ˥ˢ XVI–XVII ˅˅. (ˁ˅˪˥˧ ˧ˁ˨˦˘˨ˁ༤ˁ ˊˁˣˣ˻ˋ ˣˋ˨˜˥༤˼˜˘˲ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˧ˋ˙). ɳ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˧ˣ˥˙ ˵ˁ˨˪˘ ˜ˣ˘ˆ˘ ˊˁˌ˪˨̀ ˖ˁˆ༤ˁ˅ˣˁ̀ ˱˥˧ˢˁ ˨༤˥˅ˁ, ˁ ˖ˁ˪ˋˢ ˫˜ˁ˖ˁˣ˘̀ ˣˁ ˆ˥ˊ ˘ ˘˨˪˥˵ˣ˘˜ ˊˁˣˣ˻˲, ˁ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˅ˁ˧˘ˁˣ˪˻. ɳ˻˄˥˧ ˖ˁˆ༤ˁ˅ˣ˥˙ ˱˥˧ˢ˻ ˥˄˫˨༤˥˅༤ˋˣ ˨˥˅˧ˋˢˋˣˣ˻ˢ ༤˘˪ˋ˧ˁ˪˫˧ˣ˻ˢ ˅ˁ˧˘ˁˣ˪˥ˢ, ˣ˥ ˘ˢˋˣˣ˥ ˥ˣ Ɇ ˨˧ˋˊ˘ ˽˪˘˲ ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤˥˅, Ɇ ˨˫ˊ̀ ˦˥ ˢˁ˪ˋ˧˘ˁ༤˫, ˵ˁ˹ˋ ˅˨ˋˆ˥ ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˋˊ˘ˣ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˻ˢ ˅ ˦ˁˢ̀˪ˣ˘˜ˁ˲ (˪˥༤˼˜˥ ˫ ˥ˊˣ˥ˆ˥ ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤ˁ ˋ˨˪˼ ˅ˁ˧˘ˁˣ˪). ʑ˧˘˅ˋˊˌˢ ˘ˣ˪ˋ˧ˋ˨˫˿˹˘ˋ ˣˁ˨ ˨༤ˁ˅̀ˣ˨˜˘ˋ ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤˻, ˊˁˣˣ˻ˋ ˅ ˽˪˥˙ ˧ˁ˄˥˪ˋ, ˣˋ ˦˥˦ˁ˅˸˘ˋ ˅ ˴˻ˆˁˣ˨˜˘˙ (˦˥˦ˁ˅˸˘ˋ ˢ˻ ˊˁ༤˘ ˅˻˸ˋ) ˨ ˘˲ ˅ˁ˧˘ˁˣ˪ˁˢ˘ (˘ ˘˨˪˥˵ˣ˘˜ˁˢ˘ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘˙). ʐ˄˹ˋ˦˧˘ˣ̀˪˥ˋ ˢˣˋˣ˘ˋ ˣˁ ˽˪˥˪ ˨˵ˌ˪ ˣˁˢ ˣˋ̀˨ˣ˥. ʐ˄˻˵ˣ˥ ˨༤˥˅ˁџ ˨˥ ˨༤ˁ˅. *i ˘ *y ˧ˁ˖ˊˋ༤̀˿˪˨̀, ˨˧. Oczko 2014: 64, 65, ˆˊˋ ˆ˥˅˥˧˘˪˨̀, ˵˪˥ *y ˊˁˌ˪ î ˪˥༤˼˜˥ ˦˥˨༤ˋ r. ʨ˪˥ ˨˥˖ˊˁˌ˪ ˘༤༤˿˖˘˿ ˣˋ˦˥˨˧ˋˊ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅˘̀, ˣ˥ ˪˥˵ˣ˥ ˪ˁ˜ ːˋ ˥˪˧ˁːˁˋ˪˨̀ ˘ *i (˜˧˥ˢˋ ˪˥ˆ˥, ˦˧˘˅˥ˊ˘ˢ˻ˋ ʐ˵˜˥ pretcň ˦˧˘ ˨˲˧˅. pritka ˘ vedealň ˦˧˘ ˄˥༤ˆ. «vidœlo» ˣˋ ˢ˥ˆ˫˪ ˄˻˪˼ ˊ˥˅˥ˊ˥ˢ ˅ ˦˥༤˼˖˫ ˥˪ˊˋ༤˼ˣ˥˙ ˨˫ˊ˼˄˻ -i-, ˪. ˜. ˅ ˦ˋ˧˅˥ˢ ˨༤˫˵ˁˋ ˦ˋ˧˅˘˵ˣˁ ˱˥˧ˢˁ ˨ ̀˪ˋˢ preatcň, ˢˣ. pretci, -e, ˁ ˅˥ ˅˪˥˧˥ˢ Ɇ ˊˋ༤˥ ̀˅ˣ˥ ˅ ˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˥ˢ ˜˥˧ˣˋ ved-, DER: 889). ʎˋ̀˨ˣˁ ˘ ˦˥˖˘˴˘̀ ʒ˥˨ˋ˪˪˘ (Rosetti 1986: 307). 13 ʨ˪˥ˢ˫, ˣˁ ˦ˋ˧˅˻˙ ˅˖ˆ༤̀ˊ, ˦˧˥˪˘˅˥˧ˋ˵˘˪ ˧˫ˢ. prîsní ‘˄˧˻˖ˆˁ˪˼’, ˦˧˘˅˥ˊ˘ˢ˥ˋ ˜ˁ˜ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘ˋ ˘˖ ˨༤ˁ˅. prysnাti (Oczko 2014: 65). ʎˁ ˨ˁˢ˥ˢ ˊˋ༤ˋ, ˅ˋ˧˥̀˪ˣ˥, prîsní Ʉ ˣˋ ˵˪˥ ˘ˣ˥ˋ ˜ˁ˜ ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˙ ˅ˁ˧˘ˁˣ˪ pîrsní (˦˥ Scriban 1939: 990 prîsní Ɇ ˣˁ ˅˥˨˪˥˜ˋ) ਙ ˿˨༤. *pr๗ๅsnuti (˨˲˧˅. p৩snuti, ˄˥༤ˆ. ˚˛ˮ` ˜˗ʸ). 12

69

ʍ. ɳ. ʐ˨༤˥ˣ

ʎˁ -rî´: ˧˫ˢ. doborî´ ˘ oborî´ ‘˅ˁ༤˘˪˼’ (˅ ˦ˁˢ̀˪ˣ˘˜ˁ˲: oborri, Densusianu 1938: 121) ਙ ˿˨༤. *do-/obor৷ti (˨˧. ˨˲˧˅. obòriti ‘˨˅ˁ༤˘˪˼’); ˧˫ˢ. omorî´ ‘˫˄˘˅ˁ˪˼’, zamorî´ ‘˫ˢ˥˧˘˪˼’ (˅ ˦ˁˢ̀˪ˣ˘˜ˁ˲: omorri, Densusianu 1938: 121) ਙ ˿˨༤. *u-?/za-mor৷ti (˨˧. ˨˲˧˅. mòriti ‘ˢ˥˧˘˪˼’); ˧˫ˢ. coborî´ ‘˨˦˫˨˜ˁ˪˼˨̀’, ˢ. ˄., ֚ ˧˫ˢ. pogór ‘˨˦˫˨˜’ 14 ਙ ˿˨༤. ?, ˨˧. ˊ˧.-˧˫˨. ˚˙ʼ˙˛˰ ‘˅ˣ˘˖’ (˦˥˽˪˥ˢ˫, ˢ. ˄., ˽˪˥ ˥˪˻ˢˌˣˣ˻˙ ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤, ˁ ˣˋ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣˣ˻˙); ˧˫ˢ. oƀňrî ‘˖༤˘˪˼˨̀’ ਙ ˿˨༤. *o-c৶riti (˨˧. ˨˲˧˅. c৥riti se ‘˨˜ˁ༤˘˪˼˨̀’); ˧˫ˢ. zňdňrî´ ‘ˊ˧ˁ˖ˣ˘˪˼, ˖ˁˊ˘˧ˁ˪˼’ ਙ ˿˨༤. *za-d˰r- (˨˧. ˨˲˧˅. z৤drŖm ‘˖ˁˊˋ˧˫’); ˧˫ˢ. ocňrî´ (˅ˁ˧. ocňrí) ‘˥ˆ˥˅ˁ˧˘˅ˁ˪˼’ ਙ ˿˨༤. *u-?kor৷ti (˨˧. ˨˲˧˅. kòriti ‘˜˥˧˘˪˼’). ɳ ˵ˁ˨˪˘ ˨༤˫˵ˁˋ˅ ˦˥˜ˁ˖ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ ˣˁ˦˘˨ˁˣ˘ˋ -rri ˅ ˦ˁˢ̀˪ˣ˘˜ˁ˲ ˦˧˘ ˨˥˅˧. ˧˫ˢ. -ri: ˧˫ˢ. pojarí ‘˖ˁːˋ˵˼’ ਙ ˿˨༤. *požariti; ˅ ˦̀ˢ̀˪ˣ˘˜ˁ˲: pojerri-se-vor (Densusianu 1938: 121) (˅ Oczko 2014: 225 ˦˧˘˅˥ˊ˘˪˨̀ ˨ -ri, ˥˵ˋ˅˘ˊˣ˥, ˦˥ ˣˋˊ˥˨ˢ˥˪˧˫). ʐ˪˨˫˪˨˪˅˘ˋ ˪ˁ˜˥ˆ˥ ˣˁ˦˘˨ˁˣ˘̀ ˅ ˦ˁˢ̀˪ˣ˘˜ˁ˲ ˣˋ˦˥˜ˁ˖ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ (˵ˁ˨˪˼ ˦ˁˢ̀˪ˣ˘˜˥˅ ˨˥˅˨ˋˢ ˣˋ ˥˪˧ˁːˁˋ˪ -rr-, ˅ ˵ˁ˨˪˘ ˥˪˧ˁːˋˣ˘ˋ ˣˋ˦˥˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥); ˪ˁ˜, ˪˥༤˼˜˥ ˨ ˥ˊ˘ˣˁ˧ˣ˻ˢ -r-: dvori ‘˨༤˫ː˘˪˼’, blagodari ~ blagodňri ‘˄༤ˁˆ˥ˊˁ˧˘˪˼’. ʕ˥༤˼˜˥ ˣˁ -rí: ˧˫ˢ. zňrí ‘˅˘ˊˋ˪˼ ˨ˢ˫˪ˣ˥, ˖ˁ˅˘ˊˋ˪˼’ (˘ ˨ ˦˧˘˨˪ˁ˅˜ˁˢ˘: nňzňrí, ˨ˢ. ˅˻˸ˋ) ਙ ˿˨༤. *z˰r৶ti (˨˧. ˨˲˧˅. zr৥ti ‘˖˧ˋ˪˼, ˅˘ˊˋ˪˼’); ˧˫ˢ. dogorí ‘˧ˁ˖ˆ˥˧ˁ˪˼˨̀’, prigorí (˅˥˖˅˧.) ‘ːˁ˧˘˪˼˨̀’ ਙ ˿˨༤. *do-/pri-gor৶ti (˨˧. ˨˲˧˅. gòrjeti ‘ˆ˥˧ˋ˪˼’). ɳ˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˥, ˨˿ˊˁ ːˋ ˢ˥ːˣ˥ ˥˪ˣˋ˨˪˘: ˧˫ˢ. preapňrí ‘˫˄ˋˊ˘˪˼’ ਙ ˿˨༤. *prœp˰r৶ti; (˅ ˦ˁˢ̀˪ˣ˘˜ˁ˲: preapňri, ˣ˥ ˊˋˋ˦˧. preapňrînd, Densusianu 1938: 524). ɳ˨ˋ ˪˧˘ ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤ˁ ˣˁ -rí Ɇ ̀˪ˋ˅˻ˋ (˨˿ˊˁ ːˋ ˥˪ˣ˥˨˘˪˨̀ opňrí, ˥ ˜˥˪˥˧˥ˢ ˨ˢ. ˅˻˸ˋ), ˁ ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤˻ ˣˁ -rî´ Ɇ ˣˋ˪. ʕˋˢ ˨ˁˢ˻ˢ ˜ˁ˜ ˄˫ˊ˪˥ ˦˥ˊ˪˅ˋ˧ːˊˁˋ˪˨̀ (˲˥˪˼ ˘ ˣˁ ˅ˋ˨˼ˢˁ ˨˜˫ˊˣ˥ˢ ˢˁ˪ˋ˧˘ˁ༤ˋ) ˖ˁˢˋ˵ˋˣˣ˥ˋ ˣˁˢ˘ ˧ˁ˨˦˧ˋˊˋ༤ˋˣ˘ˋ. ɳ ˨˥˅˧ˋˢˋˣˣ˥ˢ ˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˥ˢ ˽˪˥ ˧ˁ˨˦˧ˋˊˋ༤ˋˣ˘ˋ ˦˥˵˪˘ ˨˥˅˨ˋˢ ˖ˁ˪ˌ˧˪˥. ʕˁ˜, ˘ˢˋ˿˪˨̀ ˅ˁ˧˘ˁˣ˪˻: oƀňrî´ ~ oƀňrí ‘˖༤˘˪˼˨̀’; ogorí ~ ogorî´ ‘˅˻ːˋ˵˼ [˦˥༤ˋ]’; dogorí ~ dogorî´ ‘˧ˁ˖ˆ˥˧ˁ˪˼˨̀’; ˪˥༤˼˜˥ izgorî´ (˅˥˖˅˧.) ‘ˆ˧ˋ˪˼˨̀, ˦˧ˋ̀’ (˥ ˖ˋ˧ˣˋ); zňdňrî´ ~ zňdňrí ‘ˊ˧ˁ˖ˣ˘˪˼’, ˨˿ˊˁ ːˋ ijderí (ijdňrí, izdňrí, jidňrí) ~ jidňrî´ ‘˘˖˥˄˧ˋ˪ˁ˪˼, ˪˥˧ˢ˥˸˘˪˼’; zňtňrî´ ~ zatňrí (˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˄ˋ˖ ˋ˧̀: zňtrí) ‘ˆ˫˄˘˪˼’; dîrî´ ~ dîrí ‘˪˥˦˪ˁ˪˼, ˨༤ˋˊ˘˪˼’ (DER: 292) ˘ ˢˣ. ˊ˧. ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤˻-˨༤ˁ˅˘˖ˢ˻ ˨ ˄˥༤ˋˋ ˘༤˘ ˢˋˣˋˋ ̀˨ˣ˥˙ ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘ˋ˙. ʃˢˋˋ˪˨̀ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˣˋ˜˥˪˥˧˥ˋ ˵˘˨༤˥ ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤˥˅ ˄ˋ˖ ˅ˁ˧˘ˁˣ˪ˁ -rî´, ˨˧. gňvňrí ‘ˆ˥˅˥˧˘˪˼’, ˅ˋ˧˥̀˪ˣ˥, ˄˥༤ˋˋ ˣ˥˅˻˲. ʃ˪ˁ˜, ˨˥˅˧ˋˢˋˣˣ˥ˋ ˧ˁ˨˦˧ˋˊˋ༤ˋˣ˘ˋ ˨˥˅ˋ˧˸ˋˣˣ˥ ˣˋ˦˥˜ˁ˖ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥. ʐˊˣˁ˜˥, ˦˥༤ˁˆˁ̀˨˼ ˣˁ ˧ˁ˄˥˪˫ Oczko 2014, ˢ˻ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤˥ː˘༤˘, ˵˪˥ ˽˪ˁ ˨˘˪˫ˁ˴˘̀ ˅˪˥˧˘˵ˣˁ. ɹ˨༤˘ ˪ˁ˜, ˪˥ ˢ˥ːˣ˥ ˨˵˘˪ˁ˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˨ˋ˅ˋ˧ˣ˥˅༤ˁ˸˨˜˘ˋ ˴˻ˆˁˣ˨˜˘ˋ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪˻ ˫ˊ˘˅˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻ˢ ˥˄˧ˁ˖˥ˢ ˨˥˲˧ˁˣ̀˿˪ ˅ˁːˣ˻˙ ˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˘˙ ˁ˧˲ˁ˘˖ˢ. ɳ ༤˿˄˥ˢ ˨༤˫˵ˁˋ, ˧ˁ˖˄˥˧ ˫˦˥ˢ̀ˣ˫˪˻˲ ˊ˧ˋ˅ˣ˘˲ ˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˘˲ ˨༤ˁ˅˘˖ˢ˥˅ (˅ ˘˲ ˨˥˅˧ˋˢˋˣˣ˥ˢ ˴˻ˆˁˣ˨˜˥ˢ ˥˄༤˘˜ˋ), ˨˫ˊ̀ ˦˥ ˅˨ˋˢ˫, ˦˧˥༤˘˅ˁˋ˪ ˨˅ˋ˪ ˣˁ ˊ˥˅˥༤˼ˣ˥ ˊ˧ˋ˅ˣˋˋ ˨˥˨˪˥̀ˣ˘ˋ ˱˥ˣ˥༤˥ˆ˘˘ ˜ˁ˜˘˲-˪˥ ˿ːˣ˥˨༤ˁ˅̀ˣ˨˜˘˲ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪˥˅ (˧ˁˣˣˋ˄˥༤ˆˁ˧˨˜˘˲?), ˁ ˘ˢˋˣˣ˥ Ɇ ˦˥˖˅˥༤̀ˋ˪ ˨ ˅˻˨˥˜˥˙ ˪˥˵ˣ˥˨˪˼˿ ˅˥˥˄˧ˁ˖˘˪˼ ˧ˋˁ༤˘˖ˁ˴˘˿ ˅ ˣ˘˲ ˊ˅˫˲ ˁ༤༤˥˱˥ˣ˥˅ /r/, ˥˪˧ˁ˖˘˅˸˘˲˨̀ ˜ˁ˜ ˊ˅ˋ ˱˥ˣˋˢ˻ ˅ ˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˥ˢ. ʨ˪˘ ˣˁ˄༤˿ˊˋˣ˘̀ ˢ˥ˆ˫˪ ˦˥ˢ˥˵˼ ˅ ˪. ˵. ˦˧˘ ˫˪˥˵ˣˋ14

70

ɳ˘ˊ˘ˢ˥, ˨˿ˊˁ ːˋ pogorî, ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ = coborî (DER: 2201).

ʐ˪˧ˁːˋˣ˘ˋ ˿ːˣ˥˨༤ˁ˅̀ˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ *r ˅ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘̀˲ ˘˖ ˨˪ˁ˧˥˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ʻ ˨˯ʼʸ˗˜ːˌˍ

ˣ˘˘ ˊˁ˪˘˧˥˅˜˘ ˢ˘ˆ˧ˁ˴˘˘ ˴˻ˆˁˣ ˘, ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˥, ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˧ˁˣˣˋˆ˥ ˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˥-˨༤ˁ˅̀ˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˜˫༤˼˪˫˧ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˅˖ˁ˘ˢ˥ˊˋ˙˨˪˅˘̀. ʇ˧˥ˢˋ ˪˥ˆ˥, ˢ˻ ˦˥˜ˁ˖ˁ༤˘, ˵˪˥ ˅ ˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˘˲ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪ˁ˲, ˥˜˧˫ːˁ˅˸˘˲ ˴˻ˆˁˣ, ˨˥˅ˋ˧˸ˋˣˣ˥ ̀˅˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥ ˨˥˲˧ˁˣ̀༤˘˨˼ ˊ˅ˋ ˱˥ˣˋˢ˻: */r฿/ ˘ */r/, ˜˥˪˥˧˻ˋ ˣˋ˦˥˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ ˥˪˧ˁːˁ˿˪˨̀ ˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˘ˢ˘ ˦ˁˢ̀˪ˣ˘˜ˁˢ˘. ʃ˖ ˪˥ˆ˥, ˵˪˥ ˫ ˴˻ˆˁˣ (ː˘˅˸˘˲ ˣˁ ˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˥̀˖˻˵ˣ˥˙ ˪ˋ˧˧˘˪˥˧˘˘ ˊ˥ ˨ˋ˧ˋˊ˘ˣ˻ ˘༤˘ ˜˥ˣ˴ˁ XIX ˅.) ˽˪˥ ˧ˁ˖༤˘˵˘ˋ ˥˨˪ˁ༤˥˨˼ ˣˋ˪˧˥ˣ˫˪˻ˢ, ˨༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪, ˦˥-˅˘ˊ˘ˢ˥ˢ˫, ˵˪˥ ˅ ˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˋ ˥ˣ˥ ˘˨˵ˋ˖༤˥ ˨˥˅˨ˋˢ ˣˋˊˁ˅ˣ˥. ʃ˪ˁ˜, ˅ ˧ˁˣˣˋ˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˋ ˢ˥ˆ༤˥ ˄˻˪˼ ˨༤ˋˊ˫˿˹ˋˋ ˧ˁ˨˦˧ˋˊˋ༤ˋˣ˘ˋ (ˊ༤̀ ˘˨˜˥ˣˣ˻˲ ˨༤˥˅ ˘ ˨༤ˁ˅˘˖ˢ˥˅; ˥ ˊ˧˫ˆ˘˲ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘̀˲ ˘ ˥ ˜˥ˣˋ˵ˣ˥˙ ˦˥˖˘˴˘˘ ˨ˢ. ˅˻˸ˋ): ˅ ˨ˋ˧ˋˊ˘ˣˋ (V_V)

˅ ˣˁ˵ˁ༤ˋ ˫ˣˁ˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁˣˣ˻ˋ ༤ˁ˪˘ˣ˨˜˘ˋ ˨༤˥˅ˁ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘̀ ˘˖ ˿ːˣ˥˨༤ˁ˅̀ˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥

r- > rr*r- ຐ rr-

-r- > -r-rr- > -rr*-r- (˦ˋ˧ˋˊ *œ, *˰) ຐ -r*-r- (˦˧˥˵. ˨༤˫˵ˁ˘) ຐ -rr(˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˥, ˨ ˜˥༤ˋ˄ˁˣ˘̀ˢ˘ ˦ˋ˧ˋˊ *i)

ʓˊˋ༤ˁˣˣ˻ˋ ˣˁˢ˘ ˅˻˅˥ˊ˻ ˣˋ ˦˧˘˅˥ˊ̀˪ ˜ ˜ˁ˜˘ˢ-༤˘˄˥ ˨˫ːˊˋˣ˘̀ˢ ˥ ˱˥ˣˋˢˁ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˢ ˨˪ˁ˪˫˨ˋ «˪˅ˌ˧ˊ˥ˆ˥» ˘ «ˢ̀ˆ˜˥ˆ˥» -r- ˅ ˿ːˣ˥˨༤ˁ˅̀ˣ˨˜˥ˢ ˽˦˥˲˘ ˋˆ˥ ˁ˜˪˘˅ˣ˻˲ ˜˥ˣ˪ˁ˜˪˥˅ ˨ ˊˁ˜˥˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˨˜˘ˢ. ʐˊˣˁ˜˥ ˅ˁːˣ˥, ˵˪˥ ˁ˜˫˨˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ ˥ˣ˘ ˄˻༤˘ ˊ˥˨˪ˁ˪˥˵ˣ˥ ˧ˁ˖༤˘˵ˣ˻, ˵˪˥˄˻ ˦ˋ˧ˋˊˁ˅ˁ˪˼˨̀ ˧ˁ˖ˣ˻ˢ˘ ˧˥ˢˁˣ˨˜˘ˢ˘ ˱˥ˣˋˢˁˢ˘. ʓˁˢˁ ˦˥˪ˋ˧̀ ˦˧˥˪˘˅˥˦˥˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˘̀ ˦˨༤. *y ˘ *i ˸˘˧˥˜˥ ˊˋˢ˥ˣ˨˪˧˘˧˫ˋ˪˨̀ ˅˨ˋˢ˘ ˨༤ˁ˅̀ˣ˨˜˘ˢ˘ ̀˖˻˜ˁˢ˘ ˧ˋˆ˘˥ˣˁ. ʕˁ˜, ˽˪˘ ˱˥ˣˋˢ˻ ˨༤˘༤˘˨˼ ˅˥ ˅˨ˋ˲ ˨༤ˁ˅̀ˣ˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲, ˜˧˥ˢˋ ˵ˁ˨˪˘ ˅˥˨˪˥˵ˣ˥˨༤ˁ˅̀ˣ˨˜˘˲ ˘ ˖ˁ˦ˁˊˣ˥˨༤ˁ˅̀ˣ˨˜˘˲ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪˥˅. ʒˁ˖ˣ˻ˋ ˧ˋ˱༤ˋ˜˨˻ ˊˁ˿˪ ˨༤ˋˊ˫˿˹˘ˋ ̀˖˻˜˘: ˧˫˨˨˜˘˙, ˄ˋ༤˥˧˫˨˨˜˘˙, ˢˁ˧ˆ˘ˣˁ༤˼ˣ˻ˋ ˫˜˧ˁ˘ˣ˨˜˘ˋ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪˻, ˦˥༤˼˨˜˘˙, ༤˫ː˘˴˜˘ˋ, ˅ ˵ˋ˸˨˜˥ˢ ˘ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˴˜˥ˢ ˽˪˥ ˧ˁ˖༤˘˵˘ˋ ˅ ˵ˁ˨˪˘ ˨༤˫˵ˁˋ˅ ˅˘ˊˣ˥ ˦˥ ˦˧ˋˊ˸ˋ˨˪˅˫˿˹˘ˢ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻ˢ. ɳ ˥˨˪ˁ༤˼ˣ˻˲ ˽˪˥ ˦˧˥˪˘˅˥˦˥˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˘ˋ ˦˧˥˦ˁ༤˥ ˊ˥˅˥༤˼ˣ˥ ˧ˁˣ˥. ʓ˫ˊ̀ ˦˧˥ ˧ˁ˨˨ˢ˥˪˧ˋˣˣ˥ˢ˫ ˅ ˽˪˥˙ ˨˪ˁ˪˼ˋ ˢˁ˪ˋ˧˘ˁ༤˫, ˨ˣˁ˵ˁ༤ˁ ˨༤˘̀ˣ˘ˋ ˽˪˘˲ ˊ˅˫˲ ˱˥ˣˋˢ ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ ˦˧˥˸༤˥ ˅ ˦˥༤˼˖˫ *y (˪ˁ˜˥˅ˁ ˨˥˅˧ˋˢˋˣˣˁ̀ ˨˘˪˫ˁ˴˘̀ ˅ ˄˥༤˼˸˘ˣ˨˪˅ˋ ˫˜˧ˁ˘ˣ˨˜˘˲ ˆ˥˅˥˧˥˅, ˅ ˪. ˵. ˅ ༤˘˪ˋ˧ˁ˪˫˧ˣ˥ˢ). ɳˋ˧˥̀˪ˣ˥, ˪ˁ˜˥˅ ˄˻༤ ˘ ˧ˁˣˣ˘˙ ˿ːˣ˥˨༤ˁ˅̀ˣ˨˜˘˙ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪, ˨ ˜˥˪˥˧˻ˢ ˜˥ˣ˪ˁ˜˪˘˧˥˅ˁ༤˘ ˧˫ˢ˻ˣ˻, ˘ ˘ˢˋˣˣ˥ ˽˪˥˪ ˱ˁ˜˪ ˥˪˧ˁ˖˘༤˨̀ ˅ ˨ˋ˅ˋ˧ˣ˥˅༤ˁ˸˨˜˘˲ ˴˻ˆˁˣ˨˜˘˲ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪ˁ˲.

ʇˌ˞ˀ˛ʸ˞˟˛ʸ ɲɹʒ = ɳ˥. ɴˋ˥˧ˆ˘ˋ˅, ʃ˅. ɴ˺༤˺˄˥˅, ʄ. ʁˁ˘ˢ˥˅, ʓ˪. ʃ༤˵ˋ˅, ʍ. ʒˁ˵ˋ˅ˁ, ʕ. ɯ˪. ʕ˥ˊ˥˧˥˅ ˘ ˊ˧. (˧ˋˊ.). 1971–2002. ɯˮ˕ʼʸ˛˜ːˌ ˀ˞ˌ˖˙˕˙ʼˌ˩ˀ˗ ˛ˀ˩˗ˌː. ʓ˥˱˘̀: ɯ˜ˁˊˋˢ˘˵ˣ˥ ˘˖ˊˁ˪ˋ༤˨˪˅˥ «ʑ˧˥˱. ʍ. ɸ˧˘ˣ˥˅». ɴ˘ˣ˜˫༤˥˅˺, ʫ. ɸ. 1840. ʉʸ˩ˀ˛˞ʸ˗˹ˀ ˚˛ʸʻˌ˕ˮ ʻʸ˕ʸ˦˙-˖˙˕ʿʸʻ˜ː˙ˍ ʼ˛ʸ˖˖ʸ˞ˌːˌ, ˜˙˜˞ʸʻ˕ˀ˗˗˙ˀ ʦ. ɱˌ˗ː˟˕˙ʻ˯˖ˮ. ʓˁˣ˜˪˦ˋ˪ˋ˧˄˫˧ˆ˺. ɳ˺ ˪˘˦˥ˆ˧ˁ˱̅˘ ʃˢ˦ˋ˧ˁ˪˥˧˨˜˥˙ ɯ˜ˁˊˋˢ̅˘ ʎˁ˫˜˺. ɸɸ = ɸˋˢˋ˪ˋ˧, ʒ. ʓ., ʑ. ʓ. ɸˋˢˋ˪ˋ˧. 1990. ʚ˯ʼʸ˗˜ː˙-˛˟˜˜ːˌˍ ˌ ˛˟˜˜ː˙-˨˯ʼʸ˗˜ːˌˍ ˜˕˙ʻʸ˛˰ (ː˱˕ʿ˱˛ʸ˛˜ːˌˍ ʿˌʸ˕ˀː˞). ʌ˙ʿ ˛ˀʿʸː˨ˌˀˍ ʇ. ʉ. ʛˀ˛ˀ˗ː˙ʻʸ. ʍ˥˨˜˅ˁ: ɯ˦˥˨˪˧˥˱. ʇ˥ːˁˣ˥˅, ʇ. ɯ. ʒ˫˜˥˦˘˨˼. ɱ˛ʸ˖˖ʸ˞ˌːʸ ːˌˬˌ˗ˁʻ˜ː˙ʼ˙ ʿˌʸ˕ˀː˞ʸ; ʍ˟˜˜ː˙-˨˯ʼʸ˗˜ːˌˍ ˜˕˙ʻʸ˛˰: ːˌˬˌ˗ˁʻ˜ːˌˍ ʿˌʸ˕ˀː˞. ʎˋ˥˦˫˄༤. ˧˫˜˥˦˘˨˼. ʐ˨༤˥ˣ, ʍ. ɳ. 2018a. ʦˊ˯ː ː˙˞˕˴˛˙ʻ-˖˙˕ʿ˙ʻʸ˴. ɱ˛ʸ˖˖ʸ˞ˌːʸ ː˱˕ʿ˱˛ʸ˛˜ː˙ʼ˙ ʿˌʸ˕ˀː˞ʸ ˨˯ʼʸ˗˜ː˙ʼ˙ ˴ˊ˯ːʸ ʻ ˛˟˜˜ː˙˴ˊ˯˩˗˙˖ ˙ː˛˟˄ˀ˗ˌˌ. ʍ˥˨˜˅ˁ: ʫ˖˻˜˘ ˨༤ˁ˅̀ˣ˨˜˥˙ ˜˫༤˼˪˫˧˻ (˅ ˦ˋ˵ˁ˪˘). ʨ༤ˋ˜˪˧˥ˣˣˁ̀ ˅ˋ˧˨˘̀ ˊ˥˨˪˫˦ˣˁ ˦˥ ˁˊ˧ˋ˨˫: www.rromanes.org/pub/Oslon/ʐ˨༤˥ˣ ʍ.ɳ. ʫ˖˻˜ ˜˥˪༤̀˧˥˅-ˢ˥༤ˊ˥˅ˁ̀.pdf. ʐ˨༤˥ˣ, ʍ. ɳ. 2018b. ɾ˜˞˙˛ˌ˩ˀ˜ːʸ˴ ˥˙˗ˀ˞ˌːʸ ˨˯ʼʸ˗˜ːˌ˦ ʿˌʸ˕ˀː˞˙ʻ. ʎˋ˥˦˫˄༤. ˧˫˜˥˦˘˨˼. ʨ༤ˋ˜˪˧˥ˣˣˁ̀ ˅ˋ˧˨˘̀ ˊ˥˨˪˫˦ˣˁ ˦˥ ˁˊ˧ˋ˨˫: www.rromanes.org/pub/Oslon/ʐ˨༤˥ˣ ʍ.ɳ. ʃ˨˪˥˧˘˵ˋ˨˜ˁ̀ ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˜ˁ ˴˻ˆˁˣ˨˜˘˲ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪˥˅.pdf. 71

ʍ. ɳ. ʐ˨༤˥ˣ

References BER = Vo. Georgiev, Iv. GŊlŊbov, J. Zaimov, St. Ilőev, M. Raőeva, T. At. Todorov et al. (eds.). 1971–2002. BŊlgarski etimologiően reőnik. Sofia: Akademiőno izdatelstvo «Prof. M. Drinov». Cihac, Alexandru de. 1879. Dictionnaire d’étymologie daco-romane. Francfort s/M: Ludolphe St-Goar. DD = Demeter, R. S., P. S. Demeter. 1990. Cygansko-russkij i russko-˨yganskij slovar’ (kêldêrarskij dialekt). Pod redakciej L. N. Āerenkova. Moskva: Apostrof. Densusianu, Ovide. 1901. Histoire de la langue roumaine. Tome 1. Les origines. Paris: Leroux. Densusianu, Ovide. 1938. Histoire de la langue roumaine. Tome 2. Le seizième siècle. Paris: Leroux. DER = Cioranescu, Alejandro. 1966. Diccionario etimológico rumano. Universidad de la Laguna. DEX = Academia RomânŊ. Dicƀionarul explicativ al limbii române (ediƀia a II-a revňzutň Ži adňugitň). 2009. Bucureƀti: Institutul de LingvisticŊ „Iorgu Iordan – Alexandru Rosetti”, Editura Univers Enciclopedic. Ginkulov, Ja. D. 1840. Naőertanie pravil valaxo-moldavskoj grammatiki, sostavlennoe Ja. Ginkulovym. Sanktpeterburg. V tipografii Imperatorskoj Akademii Nauk. Kožanov, K. A. Ms. Grammatika kišinjovskogo dialekta; Russko-cyganskij slovar’: kišinjovskij dialekt. Unpublished manuscript. Scriban, August. 1939. Dicƀionaru Limbiš RomâneŽtš. Iaſi. Oczko, Anna. 2014. RumuŮska sŭowiaŮszczyzna. ZapoƓyczenia poŭudniowosŭowiaŮskie w jŗzyku rumuŮskim w XVI i XVII wieku. Kraków: Collegium Columbinum. Oslon, M. V. 2018a. Jazyk kotljarov-moldovaja. Grammatika kêldêrarskogo dialekta cyganskogo jazyka v russkojazyőnom okruženii. Moskva: Jazyki slavjanskoj kuŬtury (in print). Online version available at: www.rromanes.org/pub/Oslon/ʐ˨༤˥ˣ ʍ.ɳ. ʫ˖˻˜ ˜˥˪༤̀˧˥˅-ˢ˥༤ˊ˥˅ˁ̀.pdf. Oslon, M. V. 2018b Istoriőeskaja fonetika cyganskix dialektov. Unpublished manuscript. Online version available at: www.rromanes.org/pub/Oslon/ʐ˨༤˥ˣ ʍ.ɳ. ʃ˨˪˥˧˘˵ˋ˨˜ˁ̀ ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˜ˁ ˴˻ˆˁˣ˨˜˘˲ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪˥˅.pdf. Pamfil, Carmen-Gabriela. 2003. O etimologie controversatŊ: vorbň < (v. rom. dvorbň < ) sl. dvorţba. Anuar de Lingvisticň Ži Istorie Literarň XXXIX-XLI: 7–30. Pascu, Gţorge. 1916. Sufixele româneŽti. Bucureſti: Socec & Co. Rosetti, Alexandru. 1986. Istoria limbii române. I. De la origini pînň la inceputul secolului al XVII-lea. Ediƀie definitivň. Bucureƀti: Editura ĮtiinƂificŊ ſi EnciclopedicŊ. Skok, Petar. 1971. Etimologijski rjeŏnik hrvatskoga ili srpskoga jezika. Zagreb: Jugoslavenska Akademija znanosti i umjetnosti.

Mikhail Oslon. The reflexes of South Slavic *r in borrowings from Old Romanian into Romani A thorough examination of North Romani (Kelderar and Kišyniovar) borrowings from Romanian dialects confirms that (1) Romanian has, until quite recently, rigorously preserved Latin -rr- word-internally, and that (2) in Balkan Romance dialects, including Romanian, Lat. r- > rr- word-initially. It also leads us to a new observation that (3) the South Slavic dialect which was the source of numerous loans into “Early Romanian” possessed two distinct allophones of /r/: a soft (palatalized) one — before *œ (possibly, also before *˰) — and a hard (non-palatalized) one — in all other contexts (in particular, before *e and probably before *i) — which yielded Romanian -r- and -rr-, respectively. Keywords: Romani, Romanian, South Slavic, language contact, historical phonology

72

Replies / ʋ˞ʻˀ˞˯ ɭ. ɾ. ʂ˙ʼʸ˗ / Anton Kogan (ʃˣ˨˪˘˪˫˪ ˅˥˨˪˥˜˥˅ˋˊˋˣ˘̀ ʒɯʎ, ʍ˥˨˜˅ˁ)

ʐ˪˅ˋ˪ ˣˁ ˨˪ˁ˪˼˿ ɯ.ɍʓ.ɍʇ˧˻༤˥˅˥˙ «ʌˋ˜˨˘˜˥˨˪ˁ˪˘˨˪˘˜ˁ ˣ˥˅˥˘ˣˊ˥ˁ˧˘˙˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅: ˅˖ˆ༤̀ˊ ˦˥༤ˋ˅˥ˆ˥ ༤˘ˣˆ˅˘˨˪ˁ» ɳ ˨˅˥ˋ˙ ˣˋˊˁ˅ˣˋ˙ ˨˪ˁ˪˼ˋ (ʇ˧˻༤˥˅ˁ 2017) ɯ. ʓ. ʇ˧˻༤˥˅ˁ ˦˧ˋˊ༤˥ː˘༤ˁ ˧̀ˊ ˦˥˦˧ˁ˅˥˜ ˘ ˊ˥˦˥༤ˣˋˣ˘˙ ˜ ˘ˣˊ˥ˁ˧˘˙˨˜˥˙ ༤ˋ˜˨˘˜˥˨˪ˁ˪˘˨˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˄ˁ˖ˋ ˊˁˣˣ˻˲, ˦˧˘˅ˋˊˋˣˣ˥˙ ˅ ˣˁ˸ˋ˙ ˧ˁ˄˥˪ˋ (Kogan 2016). ʇ˧˥ˢˋ ˪˥ˆ˥, ˋ˙ ˄˻༤˘ ˅˻˨˜ˁ˖ˁˣ˻ ˣˋ˜˥˪˥˧˻ˋ ˖ˁˢˋ˵ˁˣ˘̀, ˜ˁ˨ˁ˿˹˘ˋ˨̀ ˨ˁˢ˘˲ ˦˧˘ˣ˴˘˦˥˅ ˥˪˄˥˧ˁ ༤ˋ˜˨˘˜˘, ˅˜༤˿˵ˁˋˢ˥˙ ˅ ˨˪˥˨༤˥˅ˣ˻ˋ ˨˦˘˨˜˘. ɳ˨ˋ ˽˪˘ ˦˥˦˧ˁ˅˜˘, ˊ˥˦˥༤ˣˋˣ˘̀ ˘ ˖ˁˢˋ˵ˁˣ˘̀, ˄ˋ˖˫˨༤˥˅ˣ˥, ˘ˣ˪ˋ˧ˋ˨ˣ˻, ˣ˥ ˅ ˖ˣˁ˵˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥˙ ˨˅˥ˋ˙ ˵ˁ˨˪˘ ˣˋ˄ˋ˨˨˦˥˧ˣ˻, ˁ ˦˥˪˥ˢ˫ ˪˧ˋ˄˫˿˪ ˊˋ˪ˁ༤˼ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˥˄˨˫ːˊˋˣ˘̀. ʑ˧ˋːˊˋ, ˥ˊˣˁ˜˥, ˲˥˪ˋ༤˥˨˼ ˄˻ ˦˥˄༤ˁˆ˥ˊˁ˧˘˪˼ ɯ. ʓ. ʇ˧˻༤˥˅˫ ˖ˁ ˦˥˦˥༤ˣˋˣ˘ˋ ˄ˁ˖˻ ˢˁ˪ˋ˧˘ˁ༤ˁˢ˘, ˨˥˄˧ˁˣˣ˻ˢ˘ ˋ˙ ˅ ˲˥ˊˋ ˦˥༤ˋ˅˥˙ ˧ˁ˄˥˪˻. ʒˋ˵˼ ˘ˊˋ˪, ˅ ˦ˋ˧˅˫˿ ˥˵ˋ˧ˋˊ˼, ˥ ˢˁ˪ˋ˧˘ˁ༤ˁ˲ ˦˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁˢ ˜˫༤༤˫˘ ˘ ˥˧˘̀. ʘ˵ˋ˪ ˽˪˘˲ ˣ˥˅˻˲ ˊˁˣˣ˻˲, ˅ˣˋ ˅˨̀˜˥ˆ˥ ˨˥ˢˣˋˣ˘̀, ˦˥˖˅˥༤˘˪ ˫˪˥˵ˣ˘˪˼ ˧˥ˊ˥˨༤˥˅ˣ˥ˋ ˊ˧ˋ˅˥ ˘ ˨ˊˋ༤ˁˋ˪ ˋˆ˥ ༤˫˵˸ˋ ˥˪˧ˁːˁ˿˹˘ˢ ˧ˋˁ༤˼ˣ˫˿ ˜ˁ˧˪˘ˣ˫ ˆˋˣˋ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˥˪ˣ˥˸ˋˣ˘˙ ˣ˥˅˥˘ˣˊ˘˙˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅. ʒˁ˖˄˥˧ ˖ˁˢˋ˵ˁˣ˘˙ ɯ. ʓ. ʇ˧˻༤˥˅˥˙ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˴ˋ༤ˋ˨˥˥˄˧ˁ˖ˣ˻ˢ ˦˧˥˘˖˅˥ˊ˘˪˼, ˨༤ˋˊ˫̀ ˦˥˧̀ˊ˜˫ ˘ ˧˫˄˧˘˜ˁ˴˘˘, ˦˧ˋˊ༤˥ːˋˣˣ˻ˢ ˅ ˋˋ ˨˪ˁ˪˼ˋ.

ɼʸ˖ˀ˩ʸ˗ˌ˴ ː ˜ˀ˖ʸ˗˞ˌːˀ 1. ʃˣˊ˥ˁ˧˘˙˨˜˘ˋ ˢˋ˨˪˥˘ˢˋˣ˘̀, ˅˻˨˪˫˦ˁ˿˹˘ˋ ˅ ˨˪˥˨༤˥˅ˣ˥ˢ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘˘ ‘all’ ˘ ˦˧˥ˊ˥༤ːˁ˿˹˘ˋ ˊ˧.-˘ˣˊ. sarva- ‘˅˨ˋ’ (˲˘ˣˊ˘-˫˧ˊ˫ sab, ˦ˁˣˊː. sabh, ˣˋ˦. sabai ˘ ˪. ˊ.), ˥˄˺̀˅༤̀˿˪˨̀ ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ ˣˋ ˨˅̀˖ˁˣˣ˻ˢ˘ ˨ ˢˋ˨˪˥˘ˢˋˣ˘̀ˢ˘, ˅˥˨˲˥ˊ̀˹˘ˢ˘ ˜ ˦˧˥˪˥˪˘˦˫ sŊra- ‘˅ˋ˨˼, ˴ˋ༤˻˙’ (˦˥˪˲., ˲˘ˣˊ˜˥ sŊrŖ, ༤ˁ˲ˣˊˁ sŊrŊ ˘ ˪. ˊ. 1). ʘ˪˅ˋ˧ːˊˁˋ˪˨̀, ˵˪˥ ˊ˅ˁ ˊˁˣˣ˻˲ ˽˪˘ˢ˥ˣˁ ˣˋ ˨˅̀˖ˁˣ˻ ˣˁ ˦˧ˁ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˨˜˥ˢ ˫˧˥˅ˣˋ (ʇ˧˻༤˥˅ˁ 2017: 282). ʍˋːˊ˫ ˪ˋˢ, ˨˅̀˖˼ ˢˋːˊ˫ ˣ˘ˢ˘ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˅ˋ˧˥̀˪ˣ˥˙, ˣˁ ˵˪˥ ˅ ˨˅˥ˋ ˅˧ˋˢ̀ ˫˜ˁ˖˻˅ˁ༤ ˋ˹ˋ ɾ˿༤˼ ɲ༤˥˜ (Bloch 1919: 420). ʐ˄ˁ ˥ˣ˘, ˨˜˥˧ˋˋ ˅˨ˋˆ˥, ˅˥˨˲˥ˊ̀˪ ˜ ˦˧˥˘˖˅˥ˊˣ˻ˢ ˘.-ˋ. *solo-, *sol(e)u๞o- ‘˴ˋ༤˻˙’ 2. ʕˁ˜˘ˢ ˥˄1

ʑ˥༤ˣ˻˙ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˵ˋˣ˼ ˥˪˧ˁːˋˣ˘˙ ˽˪˘˲ ˊ˅˫˲ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ ˅ ˦˧˘˅༤ˋ˜ˁ˅˸˘˲˨̀ ˣˁˢ˘ ˊ༤̀ ˧ˁ˨˨ˢ˥˪˧ˋˣ˘̀ ˣ˥˅˥˘ˣˊ˘˙˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲ ˨ˢ. ˅ ˨˪ˁ˪˼ˋ (Kogan 2016: 239). 2 ʐ˪˧ˁːˋˣ˘̀ ˊˁˣˣ˥˙ ˥˨ˣ˥˅˻ ˅ ˊ˧˫ˆ˘˲ ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲ ˨ˢ. ˅: Pokorny 1959: 979-980.

˧ˁ˖˥ˢ, ˦˧˘˨˅˥ˋˣ˘ˋ ˥˪˧ˁːˋˣ˘̀ˢ ˊ˧.-˘ˣˊ. sarva- ˘ sŊra- 3 ˥ˊˣ˥ˆ˥ ˣ˥ˢˋ˧ˁ ˅ ˄ˁ˖ˋ ˊˁˣˣ˻˲ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˣˁˢ ˅˦˥༤ˣˋ ˥˦˧ˁ˅ˊˁˣˣ˻ˢ. ɳ˜༤˿˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ːˋ ˅ ˨˪˥˨༤˥˅ˣ˻ˋ ˨˦˘˨˜˘ ˥˄˥˘˲ ˨༤˥˅ ˅ ˜ˁ˵ˋ˨˪˅ˋ ˨˘ˣ˥ˣ˘ˢ˥˅, ˜ˁ˜ ˽˪˥ ˦˧ˋˊ༤ˁˆˁˋ˪ ɯ. ʓ. ʇ˧˻༤˥˅ˁ, ˫˵˘˪˻˅ˁ̀ ˨˜ˁ˖ˁˣˣ˥ˋ ˅˻˸ˋ, ˣˋ˴ˋ༤ˋ˨˥˥˄˧ˁ˖ˣ˥. 5. ʘ˪˅ˋ˧ːˊˁˋ˪˨̀, ˵˪˥ ˅ ˨˪˥˨༤˥˅ˣ˥ˢ ˨˦˘˨˜ˋ ˲˘ˣˊ˘˫˧ˊ˫ ˅ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘˘ ‘neck’ ˊˁˣ˥ ˣˁ˖˅ˁˣ˘ˋ ˆ˥˧༤ˁ, ˁ ˣˋ ˸ˋ˘ (ʇ˧˻༤˥˅ˁ 2017: 283). ʐˊˣˁ˜˥ ˫ ˲˘ˣˊ˘-˫˧ˊ˫ galŊ, ˅˜༤˿˵ˋˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˣˁˢ˘ ˅ ˄ˁ˖˫ ˊˁˣˣ˻˲, ˘ˢˋˋ˪˨̀ ˜ˁ˜ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ‘ˆ˥˧༤˥’, ˪ˁ˜ ˘ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ‘˸ˋ̀’ (ɲˁ˧˲˫ˊˁ˧˥˅ ˘ ˊ˧. 1972: 452) 4. ʑ˥˨˜˥༤˼˜˫ ˊˁˣˣ˥ˋ ˨༤˥˅˥ ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˘˨˜˥ˣˣ˻ˢ, ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥˵˪ˋˣ˘ˋ ˦˧˘ ˨˥˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˘˘ ˨˦˘˨˜ˁ ˄˻༤˥ ˥˪ˊˁˣ˥ ˘ˢˋˣˣ˥ ˋˢ˫, ˁ ˣˋ ˦ˋ˧˨˘ˊ˨˜˥ˢ˫ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘˿ gardan.

ɼʸ˖ˀ˩ʸ˗ˌ˴ ː ˱˞ˌ˖˙ໞ˙ʼˌ˴˖ 1. ɯ. ʓ. ʇ˧˻༤˥˅ˁ ˥˪˧˘˴ˁˋ˪ ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˥˨˪˼ ˘˨˜˥ˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˦˧˥˘˨˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘̀ ˣˁ˖˅ˁˣ˘̀ ˜˧ˁ˨ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˴˅ˋ˪ˁ ˅ ˄˥༤˼˸˘ˣ˨˪˅ˋ ˣ˥˅˥˘ˣˊ˘˙˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅ (˲˘ˣˊ˘˫˧ˊ˫, ˦ˁˣˊː., ༤ˁ˲ˣˊˁ, ˆ˫ˊː. lŊl, ˨˘ˣˊ˲˘ lŊlu, ˄ˋˣˆ., ˁ˨˨. lal ˘ ˪. ˊ. 5), ˦˧ˋˊ༤ˁˆˁ̀ ˅˻˅˥ˊ˘˪˼ ˋˆ˥ ˘˖ ˦ˋ˧˨. la’l ‘˧˫˄˘ˣ’ (ʇ˧˻༤˥˅ˁ 2017: 283–284). ʓ༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪ ˨˜ˁ˖ˁ˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˨˅̀˖˼ ˘ˣˊ˥ˁ˧˘˙˨˜˘˲ ˨༤˥˅ ˨ ˦ˋ˧˨˘ˊ˨˜˘ˢ ˦˥˨˪˫༤˘˧˫ˋ˪˨̀ ˘ ˣˁˢ˘ (ʇ˥ˆˁˣ 2005). ʐˊˣˁ˜˥ ˣˁˢ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˄˥༤ˋˋ ˅ˋ˧˥̀˪ˣ˻ˢ ˣˋ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤ˁˆˁˋˢ˥ˋ ɯ. ʓ. ʇ˧˻༤˥˅˥˙ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘ˋ ˨ ˦˥˨༤ˋˊ˫˿˹˘ˢ ˦˥̀˅༤ˋˣ˘ˋˢ ˫ ˨˫˹ˋ˨˪˅˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˆ˥ ‘˧˫˄˘ˣ’ ˊ˥˦˥༤ˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥˙ ˨ˋˢˁˣ˪˘˜˘ ‘˜˧ˁ˨ˣ˻˙’, ˁ ˜˥ˣ˪ˁˢ˘ˣˁ˴˘̀ ˊˁˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˨˫˹ˋ˨˪˅˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˨ ˘˨˜˥ˣˣ˻ˢ ˘ˣˊ˥ˁ˧˘˙˨˜˘ˢ ˦˧˘༤ˁˆˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻ˢ. ʨ˪˥ ˦˥˨༤ˋˊˣˋˋ ˢ˻ ˨˵˘˪ˁˋˢ ˥˪˧ˁːˋˣ˘ˋˢ ˅ˋ˧˥̀˪ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˦˧˥˪˥˪˘˦ˁ *lŵhila-, ˁ ˅༤˘̀ˣ˘ˋˢ ˨˥ ˨˪˥˧˥ˣ˻ ˨ˋˢˁˣ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ ˄༤˘˖˜˥ˆ˥ ˦ˋ˧˨˘ˊ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˨༤˥˅ˁ ˥˄˺̀˨ˣ̀ˋˢ ˦˥̀˅༤ˋ3 ʎˋ ˘˨˜༤˿˵ˋˣ˥, ˵˪˥ ˊˁˣˣˁ̀ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˁ, ˅˥˦˧ˋ˜˘ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤˥ːˋˣ˘˿ ʒ. ʕˋ˧ˣˋ˧ˁ (Turner 1966: 770), ˣˋ ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ ˪˥ːˊˋ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥˙ ˊ˧.-˘ˣˊ. sŊra- ‘˨ˋ˧ˊ˴ˋ˅˘ˣˁ; ˨˫˪˼, ˨˫˹ˣ˥˨˪˼’. 4 ʓ˧., ˣˁ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧, ˪ˁ˜˘ˋ ˜˥ˣ˪ˋ˜˨˪˻ ˫˦˥˪˧ˋ˄༤ˋˣ˘̀ ˊˁˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˨༤˥˅ˁ, ˜ˁ˜ galŖ mŖѐ hŊth ‫ڎ‬ŊlnŊ ‘˥˄ˣ̀˪˼ ˖ˁ ˸ˋ˿’, galŖ milnŊ ‘˥˄ˣ˘ˢˁ˪˼˨̀’. 5 ʑ˥༤ˣ˻˙ ˨˦˘˨˥˜ ˣ˥˅˥˘ˣˊ˘˙˨˜˘˲ ˱˥˧ˢ ˨ˢ. ˅ Kogan 2016: 250.

Journal of Language Relationship • ɳ˥˦˧˥˨˻ ̀˖˻˜˥˅˥ˆ˥ ˧˥ˊ˨˪˅ˁ • 16/1 (2018) • Pp. 73–78 • © The authors, 2018

ɯ. ʃ. ʇ˥ˆˁˣ / Anton Kogan

ˣ˘ˋ ˅ ˣ˥˅˥˘ˣˊ˘˙˨˜˘˲ ˱˥˧ˢˁ˲ ˊ˥༤ˆ˥ˆ˥ Ŋ ˣˁ ˢˋ˨˪ˋ ˥ː˘ˊˁˋˢ˥ˆ˥ ŵ 6. ɯ. ʓ. ʇ˧˻༤˥˅ˁ ˨˪ˁ˅˘˪ ˦˥ˊ ˨˥ˢˣˋˣ˘ˋ ˨ˁˢ˫ ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˥˨˪˼ ˧ˋ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˜˴˘˘ ˊˁˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˦˧˥˪˥˪˘˦ˁ, ˁ ˢˋːˊ˫ ˪ˋˢ, ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤ˁˆˁ˅˸ˁ̀˨̀ ʒ.ɍʕˋ˧ˣˋ˧˥ˢ (Turner 1966: 650) ˦˧ˁ˱˥˧ˢˁ *lŵhila-, ˅ˋ˧˥̀˪ˣˋˋ ˅˨ˋˆ˥, ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤̀ˋ˪ ˨˥˄˥˙ ˧ˋˆ˘˥ˣˁ༤˼ˣ˥ˋ ˥˪˧ˁːˋˣ˘ˋ ˊ˧.-˘ˣˊ. rudhira- ‘˜˧ˁ˨ˣ˻˙’. ʘ˪˅ˋ˧ːˊˋˣ˘ˋ ɯ. ʓ. ʇ˧˻༤˥˅˥˙ ˥ ˪˥ˢ, ˵˪˥ ˅ ˨˧ˋˊˣˋ˅ˋ˜˥˅˻˲ ˣ˥˅˥˘ˣˊ˘˙˨˜˘˲ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪ˁ˲ ˨˫˹ˋ˨˪˅˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˋ ‘˧˫˄˘ˣ’ ˖ˁ˪˧˫ˊˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ ˥˪༤˘˵˘˪˼ ˥˪ ˦˧˘༤ˁˆˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˆ˥ ‘˧˫˄˘ˣ˥˅˻˙, ˜˧ˁ˨ˣ˻˙’ ˅˅˘ˊ˫ ˣˋ˨˱˥˧ˢ˘˧˥˅ˁˣˣ˥˨˪˘ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢ˻ ˦˥˨༤ˋ༤˥ˆ˥˅, ˅˻˖˻˅ˁˋ˪ ˣˋˢˁ༤˥ ˨˥ˢˣˋˣ˘˙ ˘ ˦˧˘ ˽˪˥ˢ ˋˊ˅ˁ ༤˘ ˢ˥ːˋ˪ ˨˵˘˪ˁ˪˼˨̀ ˅ˋ˨˥ˢ˻ˢ ˁ˧ˆ˫ˢˋˣ˪˥ˢ. ʑ˧˘ˢˋ˧˻ ˘˖ ̀˖˻˜ˁ ʇˁ˄˘˧ˁ, ˦˧˘˅ˋˊˋˣˣ˻ˋ ˅ (ʇ˧˻༤˥˅ˁ 2017: 283), ˊˋˢ˥ˣ˨˪˧˘˧˫˿˪ ˥˪˨˫˪˨˪˅˘ˋ ˱˥˧ˢˁ༤˼ˣ˻˲ ˨˧ˋˊ˨˪˅ ˢˁ˧˜˘˧˥˅˜˘ ˆˋˣ˘˪˘˅ˣ˻˲ ˥˦˧ˋˊˋ༤ˋˣ˘˙, ˥ˊˣˁ˜˥ ˢ˻ ˣˋ ˖ˣˁˋˢ ˣˋ˨˥ˢˣˋˣˣ˻˲ ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧˥˅ ˱˫ˣ˜˴˘˥ˣ˘˧˥˅ˁˣ˘̀ ˦˥˨༤ˋˊˣ˘˲ ˅ ˜ˁ˵ˋ˨˪˅ˋ ˴˅ˋ˪˥˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘˙ ˅ ˘ˣˊ˥ˁ˧˘˙˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲. ʎˁ˦˧˥˪˘˅, ˘˖˅ˋ˨˪ˣ˻ˋ ˣˁˢ ˣˁ˖˅ˁˣ˘̀ ˴˅ˋ˪˥˅, ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ ˨˅̀˖ˁˣˣ˻ˋ ˨ ˨˫˹ˋ˨˪˅˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻ˢ˘, ˲ˁ˧ˁ˜˪ˋ˧˘˖˫˿˪˨̀ ˢ˥˧˱˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˢ ˥˱˥˧ˢ༤ˋˣ˘ˋˢ, ˥˪༤˘˵ˣ˻ˢ ˥˪ ˪ˁ˜˥˅˥ˆ˥ ˫ ˆˋˣ˘˪˘˅ˣ˻˲ ˥˦˧ˋˊˋ༤ˋˣ˘˙ 7. ʇ˧˥ˢˋ ˪˥ˆ˥, ˋ˨༤˘ ˦˧˘ˣ̀˪˼ ˪˥˵˜˫ ˖˧ˋˣ˘̀ ɯ. ʓ. ʇ˧˻༤˥˅˥˙, ˥˨˪ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˣˋ̀˨ˣ˻ˢ, ˦˥˵ˋˢ˫ ˦˧˘༤ˁˆˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˋ ‘˜˧ˁ˨ˣ˻˙’ ˘ ˨˫˹ˋ˨˪˅˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˋ ‘˧˫˄˘ˣ’ ˧ˁ˖༤˘˵ˁ˿˪˨̀ ˅ ˨˥˅˧ˋˢˋˣˣ˥ˢ ˘ˣˊ˥ˁ˧˘˙˨˜˥ˢ, ˆˊˋ ˣˁ ˨˘ˣ˲˧˥ˣˣ˥ˢ ˫˧˥˅ˣˋ ˥ˣ˘, ˣˋ˨˥ˢˣˋˣˣ˥, ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤̀˿˪ ˨˥˄˥˙ ˊ˅ˁ ˧ˁ˖ˣ˻˲ ˨༤˥˅ˁ, ˵˪˥ ˅ ˣˋ˜˥˪˥˧˻˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲ ˱˘˜˨˘˧˫ˋ˪˨̀ ˅ ˥˧˱˥ˆ˧ˁ˱˘˘ (˨˧., ˣˁ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧, ˧ˁ˖ˣ˥ˋ ˣˁ˦˘˨ˁˣ˘ˋ ˽˪˘˲ ˨༤˥˅ ˅ ˫˧ˊ˫: ϝϻ ‘˜˧ˁ˨ˣ˻˙’ ˘ Ϟόϟ ‘˧˫˄˘ˣ’). ɳˋ˨˼ˢˁ ˨˥ˢˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻ˢ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˘ ˪ˋ˖˘˨ ˥ ˪˥ˢ, ˵˪˥ «˥˨ˣ˥˅ˣ˻ˋ ˘˨˜˥ˣˣ˻ˋ ˴˅ˋ˪˥˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘̀ ˲˘ˣˊ˘, ˜ˁ˜ ˘ ˄˥༤˼˸˘ˣ˨˪˅˥ ˘˨˜˥ˣˣ˻˲ ˄ˁ˖˥˅˻˲ ˦˧˘༤ˁˆˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻˲, ̀˅༤̀˿˪˨̀ ˘˖ˢˋˣ̀ˋˢ˻ˢ˘ ˘ ˖ˁ˜ˁˣ˵˘˅ˁ˿˪˨̀ ˅ ˘˨˲˥ˊˣ˥˙ ˱˥˧ˢˋ 6

ɳ ˣˁ˸ˋ˙ ˢ˥ˣ˥ˆ˧ˁ˱˘˘ «ɸˁ˧ˊ˨˜˘ˋ ̀˖˻˜˘: ˆˋˣˋ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜ˁ̀ ˲ˁ˧ˁ˜˪ˋ˧˘˨˪˘˜ˁ» ˊˁˣˣˁ̀ ˆ˘˦˥˪ˋ˖ˁ ˱˥˧ˢ˫༤˘˧˫ˋ˪˨̀ ˨༤ˋˊ˫˿˹˘ˢ ˥˄˧ˁ˖˥ˢ: «ʎˁ༤˘˵˘ˋ ˣˋ˧ˋˆ˫༤̀˧ˣ˥ˆ˥ Ŋ ˅ ˨˥˅˧ˋˢˋˣˣ˻˲ ˘ˣˊ˥ˁ˧˘˙˨˜˘˲ ˱˥˧ˢˁ˲, ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˥, ˥˄˺̀˨ˣ̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˁˣˁ༤˥ˆ˘ˋ˙ ˨ ˄˻˪˫˿˹˘ˢ ˅˥ ˢˣ˥ˆ˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲ ˨ˋ˅ˋ˧ˁ ʃˣˊ˥˨˪ˁˣˁ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣˣ˻ˢ ˘˖ ˦ˋ˧˨˘ˊ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˨˫˹ˋ˨˪˅˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻ˢ lŊl ‘˧˫˄˘ˣ’» (ʇ˥ˆˁˣ 2005: 157). ʎˋ̀˨ˣ˥, ˦˥˵ˋˢ˫ ˥˦˘˨ˁˣˣ˻˙ ˨˴ˋˣˁ˧˘˙ ˘˨˪˥˧˘˜˥˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˧ˁ˖˅˘˪˘̀ ˨˥˅ˋ˧˸ˋˣˣ˥ ˣˋ ˫˦˥ˢ˘ˣˁˋ˪˨̀ ɯ. ʓ. ʇ˧˻༤˥˅˥˙, ˫˜ˁ˖ˁ˅˸ˋ˙ ˅ ˵˘˨༤ˋ ˁ˧ˆ˫ˢˋˣ˪˥˅ ˦˧˥˪˘˅ ˣˁ˸ˋ˙ ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘˘ ˣˁ ˥˪˨˫˪˨˪˅˘ˋ ˊ˥༤ˆ˥ˆ˥ Ŋ ˅ ˥˪˧ˁːˋˣ˘̀˲ ˦˧ˁ˱˥˧ˢ˻ *lŵhila-, ˦˧˘˅ˋˊˋˣˣ˻˲ ˅ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˧ˋ ʒ. ʕˋ˧ˣˋ˧ˁ. 7 C˧., ˣˁ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧, ˣˋ˜˥˪˥˧˻ˋ ˴˅ˋ˪˥˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘̀ ˨˥˅˧ˋˢˋˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˲˘ˣˊ˘-˫˧ˊ˫: baŠganŢ ‘˱˘˥༤ˋ˪˥˅˻˙’ ˥˪ baŠgan ‘˄ˁ˜༤ˁːˁˣ’ ˦˧˘ ˆˋˣ˘˪˘˅ˣ˥ˢ ˥˄˧ˁ˖˥˅ˁˣ˘˘ ˥˪ ˦˥˨༤ˋˊˣˋˆ˥ ˨༤˥˅ˁ baŠgan kŊ; sunahrŊ, sunahlŊ ‘˖˥༤˥˪˘˨˪˻˙’, ˣˋ˨˥ˢˣˋˣˣ˥ ˨˅̀˖ˁˣˣ˥ˋ ˨ sŵnŊ ‘˖˥༤˥˪˥’, ˣ˥ ˅˥˅˨ˋ ˣˋ ˘ˊˋˣ˪˘˵ˣ˥ˋ ˦˥˨༤ˋ༤˥ːˣ˥ˢ˫ ˨˥˵ˋ˪ˁˣ˘˿ sŵnŖ kŊ, ˱˫ˣ˜˴˘˥ˣ˘˧˫˿˹ˋˢ˫ ˜ˁ˜ ˆˋˣ˘˪˘˅ˣ˥ˋ ˥˦˧ˋˊˋ༤ˋˣ˘ˋ.

74

ˣˁ Ŋ» (ʇ˧˻༤˥˅ˁ 2017: 284). ɳ ༤˫˵˸ˋˢ ˨༤˫˵ˁˋ ˽˪˥ ˆ˘˦˥˪ˋ˖ˁ, ˪˧ˋ˄˫˿˹ˁ̀ ˦˧˥˅ˋ˧˜˘. ʐ˨˫˹ˋ˨˪˅༤ˋˣ˘ˋ ˪ˁ˜˥˙ ˦˧˥˅ˋ˧˜˘, ˦˥ ˅˨ˋ˙ ˅˘ˊ˘ˢ˥˨˪˘, ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤ˁˆˁˋ˪ ˧ˁ˨˦˘˨˜˫ ˄˥༤˼˸˘˲ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˧ˋ˙, ˁ ˦˧˥˨˪˥ˋ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˵˘˨༤ˋˣ˘ˋ ˦˧˘༤ˁˆˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻˲ ˘˖ ˨˪˥˨༤˥˅ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˨˦˘˨˜ˁ, ˜˥˪˥˧˻ˢ ˥ˆ˧ˁˣ˘˵˘˅ˁˋ˪˨̀ ɯ. ʓ. ʇ˧˻༤˥˅ˁ, ˣˋ ˢ˥ːˋ˪ ˨༤˫ː˘˪˼ ˣˁˊˋːˣ˻ˢ ˥˄˥˨ˣ˥˅ˁˣ˘ˋˢ. ʑ˧˘༤ˁˆˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻ˋ ˲˘ˣˊ˘-˫˧ˊ˫ gŵl ‘˜˧˫ˆ༤˻˙’ ˘ bhŊrŢ ‘˪̀ːˋ༤˻˙’ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤̀˿˪ ˨˥˄˥˙ ˦˥˜ˁ˖ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻ˋ ˜˥ˣ˪˧˦˧˘ˢˋ˧˻, ˦˧˘˵ˋˢ, ˅˥˦˧ˋ˜˘ ˫˪˅ˋ˧ːˊˋˣ˘˿ ɯ. ʓ. ʇ˧˻༤˥˅˥˙, ˘˲ ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˙ ˥˄༤˘˜ ˥˪ˣ˿ˊ˼ ˣˋ ˊˁˋ˪ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˁˣ˘˙ «˪˧ˁ˜˪˥˅ˁ˪˼ ˘˲ ˜ˁ˜ ˨ˁˣ˨˜˧˘˪˨˜˘ˋ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘̀» 8. ʐ˪˨˫˪˨˪˅˘ˋ ˱˥˧ˢ ˪˘˦ˁ *lŊਙ ˅ ˣ˥˅˥˘ˣˊ˘˙˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲, ˆˊˋ ˦˧˥˘˖˥˸ˋ༤ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˲˥ˊ l > ਙ (ʇ˧˻༤˥˅ˁ 2017: 284), ˢ˥ːˋ˪ ˘ˢˋ˪˼ ˨˘ˣ˲˧˥ˣˣ˥-˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˋ ˥˄˺̀˨ˣˋˣ˘ˋ: ˦˥ˊ˥˄ˣ˻ˋ ˱˥˧ˢ˻ ˦˥˦˧˥˨˪˫ ˪˧˫ˊˣ˻ ˊ༤̀ ˁ˧˪˘˜˫༤̀˴˘˘. 5. ʎ˥˅˥˘ˣˊ˘˙˨˜˘ˋ ˣˁ˖˅ˁˣ˘̀ ˨ˋˢˋˣ˘, ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ ˨˅̀˖ˁˣˣ˻ˋ ˨ ˊ˧.-˘ˣˊ. bŢja- ˘ ˣˋ ˫˪˧ˁ˪˘˅˸˘ˋ ˘ˣ˪ˋ˧˅˥˜ˁ༤˼ˣ˫˿ ˁ˱˱˧˘˜ˁ˪˫ j (˲˘ˣˊ˘-˫˧ˊ˫ bŢj, ˨˘ˣˊ˲˘ b’iju, ˜ˁ˵˵˲˘ bijj, ˜˫༤༤˫˘ bejja, ˄ˋˣˆ. bij, ˁ˨˨. biz ˘ ˊ˧. 9), ˊ˥༤ːˣ˻, ˦˥ ˢˣˋˣ˘˿ ɯ. ʓ. ʇ˧˻༤˥˅˥˙, ˄˻˪˼ ˦˧˘˖ˣˁˣ˻ ˨ˁˣ˨˜˧˘˪˘˖ˢˁˢ˘ (ʇ˧˻༤˥˅ˁ 2017: 285). ɸˁˣˣ˥ˋ ˫˪˅ˋ˧ːˊˋˣ˘ˋ, ˥ˊˣˁ˜˥, ˦˥ ˅˨ˋ˙ ˅˘ˊ˘ˢ˥˨˪˘ ˣˋ˅ˋ˧ˣ˥. ʑ˥ˊ˥˄ˣ˻ˋ ˱˥˧ˢ˻ ˢ˥ˆ˫˪ ˧ˁ˨˨ˢˁ˪˧˘˅ˁ˪˼˨̀ ˜ˁ˜ ˧ˋ˱༤ˋ˜˨˻ ˖ˁ˨˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣˣ˥˙ ˅ ˊ˧ˋ˅ˣˋ˘ˣˊ˘˙˨˜˥ˢ ˥˨ˣ˥˅˻ bŢjya-, ˣˁ ˵˪˥ ˫˜ˁ˖˻˅ˁ༤ ˋ˹ˋ ʒ. ʕˋ˧ˣˋ˧ (Turner 1966: 523). ʇ˥ˣˋ˵ˣˁ̀ ˆˋˢ˘ˣˁ˪ˁ ˅ ˜ˁ˵˵˲˘, ˁ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˜˧ˁ˪˜˘˙ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˙ ˅ ˜ˁ˵˵˲˘ ˘ ˨˘ˣˊ˲˘ ˥ˊˣ˥˖ˣˁ˵ˣ˥ ˫˜ˁ˖˻˅ˁ˿˪ ˣˁ ˄˥༤ˋˋ ˧ˁˣˣ˘˙ (˨˧ˋˊˣˋ˘ˣˊ˘˙˨˜˘˙) ˦˧˥˪˥˪˘˦ *bijja-, ˅˦˥༤ˣˋ ˖ˁ˜˥ˣ˥ˢˋ˧ˣ˥ ˦˧˥ˊ˥༤ːˁ˿˹˘˙ ˊ˧.˘ˣˊ. bŢjya-. 6. ʘ˪˅ˋ˧ːˊˁˋ˪˨̀, ˵˪˥ ˦˧˥ˊ˥༤ːˋˣ˘̀ ˊ˧.-˘ˣˊ. sƉrya-/ sƉriya- ‘˨˥༤ˣ˴ˋ’ «˫˪˧ˁ˪˘༤˘ ˅ ˦ˋ˧˅˥ˢ ˨༤˫˵ˁˋ r, ˅˥ ˅˪˥˧˥ˢ y» (ʇ˧˻༤˥˅ˁ 2017: 285). ɹ˨༤˘ ˦ˋ˧˅ˁ̀ ˵ˁ˨˪˼ ˊˁˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˪ˋ˖˘˨ˁ ˣˋ˨˥ˢˣˋˣˣˁ, ˪˥ ˅˪˥˧ˁ̀ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅8

ʐ˪ˣ˥˨˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ ˽˪˘˲ ˊ˅˫˲ ˨༤˥˅ ˘ ˘˲ ˪˧ˁ˜˪˥˅˜˘ ˅ ˨˪ˁ˪˼ˋ ɯ.ɍʓ. ʇ˧˻༤˥˅˥˙ ˣˋ˥˄˲˥ˊ˘ˢ˥ ˅˻˨˜ˁ˖ˁ˪˼ ˣˋ˨˜˥༤˼˜˥ ˊ˥˦˥༤ˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻˲ ˖ˁˢˋ˵ˁˣ˘˙. ʓ˫˹ˋ˨˪˅˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˋ ˲˘ˣˊ˘-˫˧ˊ˫ gŵl ‘˜˧˫ˆ, ˸ˁ˧’ ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ ˧ˋˆ˫༤̀˧ˣ˻ˢ ˥˪˧ˁːˋˣ˘ˋˢ ˊ˧.-˘ˣˊ. gŵla- ‘˸ˁ˧’. ɯˊ˺ˋ˜˪˘˅ˣ˥ˋ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ‘˜˧˫ˆ༤˻˙’ ˫ ˽˪˥ˆ˥ ˨༤˥˅ˁ ˖ˁ˱˘˜˨˘˧˥˅ˁˣ˥ ˫ːˋ ˅ ˧ˁˣˣˋ˨˧ˋˊˣˋ˘ˣˊ˘˙˨˜˫˿ ˽˦˥˲˫ (˨˧. ˦ˁ༤˘ gŵla- ‘˜˧˫ˆ༤˻˙; ˸ˁ˧’), ˦˥˽˪˥ˢ˫ ˅ ˊˁˣˣ˥ˢ ˨༤˫˵ˁˋ ˋˊ˅ˁ ༤˘ ˢ˥ːˣ˥ ˅˨༤ˋˊ ˖ˁ ˁ˅˪˥˧˥ˢ ˨˪ˁ˪˼˘ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤ˁˆˁ˪˼ ˦˧˥˴ˋ˨˨, ˦ˁ˧ˁ༤༤ˋ༤˼ˣ˻˙ ˥˄˧ˁ˖˥˅ˁˣ˘˿ lŊl ‘˜˧ˁ˨ˣ˻˙’ ˥˪ lŊl ‘˧˫˄˘ˣ’. ʑ˧˘༤ˁˆˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˋ ːˋ bhŊrŢ ‘˪̀ːˋ༤˻˙’ ˅ ˦˧˘ˣ˴˘˦ˋ ˣˋ ˢ˥ːˋ˪ ̀˅༤̀˪˼˨̀ ˨ˁˣ˨˜˧˘˪˘˖ˢ˥ˢ: ˅ ˊ˧ˋ˅ˣˋ˘ˣˊ˘˙˨˜˥ˢ ˅ ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅˫˿˹ˋˢ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘˘ ˘˨˦˥༤˼˖˫ˋ˪˨̀ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˁ guru-, ˁ ˨༤˥˅˥, ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ ˘ ˨ˋˢˁˣ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ ˪˥ːˊˋ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥ˋ ˲˘ˣˊ˘-˫˧ˊ˫ bhŊrŢ ˦˥˦˧˥˨˪˫ ˣˋ ˖ˁ˨˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˥. ʕ˧ˁˊ˘˴˘˥ˣˣ˥ ˦˧˥˪˥˪˘˦˥ˢ ˊ༤̀ ˽˪˥ˆ˥ ˦˧˘༤ˁˆˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˨˵˘˪ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˊ˧.-˘ˣˊ. bhŊrika- ‘forming a load, heavy’ (Turner 1966: 539). 9 ʑ˥༤ˣ˻˙ ˨˦˘˨˥˜ ˱˥˧ˢ ˨ˢ. ˅ Kogan 2016: 252.

ʐ˪˅ˋ˪ ˣˁ ˨˪ˁ˪˼˿ ɯ.ɍʓ.ɍʇ˧˻༤˥˅˥˙ «ʌˋ˜˨˘˜˥˨˪ˁ˪˘˨˪˘˜ˁ ˣ˥˅˥˘ˣˊ˥ˁ˧˘˙˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅: ˅˖ˆ༤̀ˊ ˦˥༤ˋ˅˥ˆ˥ ༤˘ˣˆ˅˘˨˪ˁ»

༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˨˦˥˧ˣ˥˙. ɳ ˫˦˥ˢ̀ˣ˫˪˥˙ ɯ. ʓ. ʇ˧˻༤˥˅˥˙ ˧ˁ˄˥˪ˋ ʇ. ʍˁ˨˘˜˘ ˥˪ˢˋ˵ˋˣˁ ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˥˨˪˼ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˲˥ˊˁ ˘ˣ˪ˋ˧˅˥˜ˁ༤˼ˣ˥ˆ˥ -y- > -jj- ˅ ˨˧ˋˊˣˋ˘ˣˊ˘˙˨˜˘˲ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪ˁ˲ (Masica 1991: 169). ɳ ˣ˥˅˥˘ˣˊ˘˙˨˜˫˿ ˽˦˥˲˫ ˆˋˢ˘ˣˁ˪ˁ ˧ˋˆ˫༤̀˧ˣ˻ˢ ˥˄˧ˁ˖˥ˢ ˫˦˧˥˹ˁ༤ˁ˨˼ ˘ ˖ˁ˜˥ˣ˥ˢˋ˧ˣ˥ˋ ˥˪˧ˁːˋˣ˘ˋ ˊ˧.-˘ˣˊ. sƉriya- ˊ˥༤ːˣ˥ ˄˻༤˥ ˦˧˘ˣ̀˪˼ ˅˘ˊ sƉrVj, ˵˪˥ ˘ ˥˄ˣˁ˧˫ː˘˅ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˅ ˧ˋˁ༤˼ˣ˥ ˖ˁ˨˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣˣ˻˲ ˣ˥˅˻˲ ˘ˣˊ˥ˁ˧˘˙˨˜˘˲ ˱˥˧ˢˁ˲ (˨˧. ˊˁ˜˲˘ˣ˘ sƉrŢj, ˲˘ˣˊ˘-˫˧ˊ˫, ˦ˁˣˊː., ˆ˫ˊː., ˜˫ˢ. sƉraj ˘ ˪. ˊ. 10). ʐ˄˺̀˅༤̀˪˼ ˦˥ˊ˥˄ˣ˻ˋ ˱˥˧ˢ˻ «˵ˁ˨˪˘˵ˣ˥ ˁˊˁ˦˪˘˧˥˅ˁˣˣ˻ˢ˘ ˨ˁˣ˨˜˧˘˪˘˖ˢˁˢ˘», ˜ˁ˜ ˽˪˥ ˊˋ༤ˁˋ˪ ɯ.ɍʓ. ʇ˧˻༤˥˅ˁ, ˢ˻ ˣˋ ˅˘ˊ˘ˢ ˅ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˁˣ˘˙.

ʌ˙˚˛ʸʻːˌ ː ˜˚ˌ˜ː˟ ʺˀ˗ʼʸໞˌ 3. ʑ˧ˋˊ˦˥༤ˁˆˁˋˢ˥ˋ ɯ.ɍʓ.ɍʇ˧˻༤˥˅˥˙ (ʇ˧˻༤˥˅ˁ 2017: 287) ˘˨˜˥ˣˣ˥ˋ ˦˧˥˘˨˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘ˋ ˄ˋˣˆ. agun ‘˥ˆ˥ˣ˼’, ˲˥˪̀ ˘ ˊ˥˦˫˨˜ˁˋ˪˨̀ ʒ. ʕˋ˧ˣˋ˧˥ˢ ˅ ˜ˁ˵ˋ˨˪˅ˋ ˥ˊˣ˥˙ ˘˖ ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˻˲ ˁ༤˼˪ˋ˧ˣˁ˪˘˅ (Turner 1966: 821), ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˢˁ༤˥˅ˋ˧˥̀˪ˣ˻ˢ, ˦˥˨˜˥༤˼˜˫ ˖ˁ˜˥ˣ˥ˢˋ˧ˣ˻ˢ ˥˪˧ˁːˋˣ˘ˋˢ ˊ˧.-˘ˣˊ. agni- ˅ ˄ˋˣˆˁ༤˘ ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˫˨˪ˁ˧ˋ˅˸ˋˋ ˄ˋˣˆ. agi ‘˥ˆ˥ˣ˼’. ʓ˜˥˧ˋˋ ˅ ˊˁˣˣ˥ˢ ˨༤˫˵ˁˋ ˢ˥ːˣ˥ ˆ˥˅˥˧˘˪˼ ˥˄ ˘ˢˋ˅˸ˋ˙ ˢˋ˨˪˥ ˅ ˦˧˥˸༤˥ˢ ˜˥ˣ˪ˁˢ˘ˣˁ˴˘˘ ˨˪ˁ˧˥ˆ˥ ˁˊˁ˦˪˘˧˥˅ˁˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˨ˁˣ˨˜˧˘˪˘˖ˢˁ 12 ˨ ˘˨˜˥ˣˣ˻ˢ ˨༤˥˅˥ˢ, ˦˧˘˅ˋˊ˸ˋ˙ ˜ ˦˥̀˅༤ˋˣ˘˿ ˅ ˨˥˅˧ˋˢˋˣˣ˥˙ ˄ˋˣˆˁ༤˼˨˜˥˙ ˱˥˧ˢˋ ˣˁ˵ˁ༤˼ˣ˥ˆ˥ a (< Ŋ) ˅ˢˋ˨˪˥ ˥ː˘ˊˁˋˢ˥ˆ˥ ՝.

ʌ˙˚˛ʸʻːˌ ː ˜˚ˌ˜ː˟ ˦ˌ˗ʿˌ 4. ɳ˥˦˧ˋ˜˘ ˫˪˅ˋ˧ːˊˋˣ˘˿ ɯ. ʓ. ʇ˧˻༤˥˅˥˙ (ʇ˧˻༤˥˅ˁ 2017: 286), ˲˘ˣˊ˘ mŊѐs ‘ˢ̀˨˥’ ˋˊ˅ˁ ༤˘ ˢ˥ːˋ˪ ˧ˁ˨˨ˢˁ˪˧˘˅ˁ˪˼˨̀ ˜ˁ˜ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˣ˥˙ ˨˘ˣ˥ˣ˘ˢ, ˜˥˪˥˧˻˙ ˨༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪ ˅˜༤˿˵ˁ˪˼ ˅ ˨˪˥˨༤˥˅ˣ˻˙ ˨˦˘˨˥˜. ʓ༤˥˅˥ ˽˪˥ ˥˪ˣ˥˨˘˪˨̀ ˜ ˜ˣ˘ːˣ˥ˢ˫ ˨˪˘༤˿, ˲ˁ˧ˁ˜˪ˋ˧ˣ˥ ˪˥༤˼˜˥ ˊ༤̀ ༤˘˪ˋ˧ˁ˪˫˧ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˲˘ˣˊ˘ ˘ ˣˋ˫˦˥˪˧ˋ˄˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ ˅ ˫˧ˊ˫. ɹˆ˥ ˣˋ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣˣ˥ˋ ˦˧˥˘˨˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘ˋ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˢˁ༤˥˅ˋ˧˥̀˪ˣ˻ˢ. ʑ˥ ˅˨ˋ˙ ˅˘ˊ˘ˢ˥˨˪˘, ˘˨˜˥ˣˣ˻ˢ ˥˪˧ˁːˋˣ˘ˋˢ ˊ˧.˘ˣˊ. mŊગsa- ‘ˢ̀˨˥’ ˅ ˲˘ˣˊ˘-˫˧ˊ˫ ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˫˨˪ˁ˧ˋ˅˸ˋˋ ˘ ˦˧ˁ˜˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ ˅˻˸ˋˊ˸ˋˋ ˣ˻ˣˋ ˘˖ ˫˦˥˪˧ˋ˄༤ˋˣ˘̀ mŊs 11. ɳ˜༤˿˵ˋˣˣ˥ˋ ːˋ ˅ ˣˁ˸˫ ༤ˋ˜˨˘˜˥˨˪ˁ˪˘˨˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˫˿ ˄ˁ˖˫ ˦ˋ˧˨˘ˊ˨˜˥ˋ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘ˋ gŵšt ˨˪˘༤˘˨˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ ˣˋ˙˪˧ˁ༤˼ˣ˥, ˘ ˣˋ˥˄˲˥ˊ˘ˢ˥˨˪˘ ˖ˁˢˋˣ̀˪˼ ˋˆ˥ ˜ˁ˜˘ˢ-༤˘˄˥ ˊ˧˫ˆ˘ˢ ˨༤˥˅˥ˢ ˢ˻ ˦˥ ˽˪˥˙ ˦˧˘˵˘ˣˋ ˣˋ ˅˘ˊ˘ˢ. 5. ʓ˫˹ˋ˨˪˅˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˋ mŖѐh ‘ˊ˥ːˊ˼’ ˘ˢˋˋ˪˨̀ ˅˥ ˅˨ˋ˲ ˊ˥˨˪˫˦ˣ˻˲ ˣˁˢ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˧̀˲ ˲˘ˣˊ˘ ˘ ˫˧ˊ˫. ɹˊ˅ˁ ༤˘ ˋ˨˪˼ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˁˣ˘̀ ˨˵˘˪ˁ˪˼ ˽˪˥ ˨༤˥˅˥ ˢˁ༤˥˘˖˅ˋ˨˪ˣ˻ˢ, ˜ˁ˜ ˫˪˅ˋ˧ːˊˁˋ˪ ɯ. ʓ. ʇ˧˻༤˥˅ˁ (ʇ˧˻༤˥˅ˁ 2017: 286). ʎˋ˪ ˅ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˦˧˘˵˘ˣ ˘ ˥˄˺̀˅༤̀˪˼ ˋˆ˥ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪ˣ˻ˢ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘ˋˢ. ɳ˥ ˅˨̀˜˥ˢ ˨༤˫˵ˁˋ, ˅ ˦˥༤˼˖˫ ˽˪˥ˆ˥ ˣˋ ˨˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅˫˿˪ ˣ˘˜ˁ˜˘ˋ ˱ˁ˜˪˻ ˘˨˪˥˧˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˜˘. ʑ˥˽˪˥ˢ˫ ˢ˻ ˨˵˘˪ˁˋˢ ˅˦˥༤ˣˋ ˥˦˧ˁ˅ˊˁˣˣ˻ˢ ˅˜༤˿˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ˅ ˄ˁ˖˫ ˘ˢˋˣˣ˥ ˽˪˥ˆ˥ ˨༤˥˅ˁ, ˁ ˣˋ ˋˆ˥ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˨˘ˣ˥ˣ˘ˢˁ bŊriš (< ˜༤.-˦ˋ˧˨. bŊriš ‘˥˨ˁˊ˜˘’). 10 ʑ˥༤ˣ˻˙ ˨˦˘˨˥˜ ˱˥˧ˢ ˨ˢ. ˅ Kogan 2016: 253. ɸˁˣˣ˥ˋ ˘˨˪˥˧˘˜˥-˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˋ ˧ˁ˖˅˘˪˘ˋ ˥˄ˣˁ˧˫ː˘˅ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˘ ˅ ˊ˧˫ˆ˘˲ ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧ˁ˲. ʓ˧., ˣˁ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧, ˲˘ˣˊ˘-˫˧ˊ˫ dhŢraj ‘˨ˁˢ˥˥˄༤ˁˊˁˣ˘ˋ, ˨˪˥˙˜˥˨˪˼, ˪ˋ˧˦ˋˣ˘ˋ’ < ˊ˧.-˘ˣˊ. dhŢrya-/ dhŢriya-. 11 ʓ༤˥˅˥ ˖ˁ˨˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˥, ˣˁ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧, ˅ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˧ˋ Platts 1884. ʓ˧. ˧˥ˊ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˻ˋ ˱˥˧ˢ˻, ˅˥˨˲˥ˊ̀˹˘ˋ ˜ ˊ˧ˋ˅ˣˋ˘ˣˊ˘˙˨˜˥˙ ˣˋˣˁ˖ˁ༤˘˖˥˅ˁˣˣ˥˙ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˋ mŊs, ˅ ˣˁ˘˄˥༤ˋˋ ˆˋˣˋ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ ˄༤˘˖˜˘˲ ˜ ˲˘ˣˊ˘-˫˧ˊ˫ ˘ˣˊ˥ˁ˧˘˙˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲: ˊˁ˜˲˘ˣ˘, ˦ˁˣˊː. mŊs-, ˁ˅ˁˊ˲˘, ˜˫ˢ. mŊsu.

*** ʐ˪ˊˋ༤˼ˣ˥ ˲˥˪ˋ༤˥˨˼ ˄˻ ˥˨˪ˁˣ˥˅˘˪˼˨̀ ˣˁ ˦˧ˋˊ༤ˁˆˁˋˢ˥ˢ ˅ ˧ˁ˄˥˪ˋ ɯ. ʓ. ʇ˧˻༤˥˅˥˙ ˢˋ˪˥ˊˋ ˥˪˄˥˧ˁ ༤ˋ˜˨˘˜˘ ˊ༤̀ ˅˜༤˿˵ˋˣ˘̀ ˅ ༤ˋ˜˨˘˜˥˨˪ˁ˪˘˨˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˫˿ ˄ˁ˖˫. ɳ ˣˁ˵ˁ༤ˋ ˨˪ˁ˪˼˘ ˁ˅˪˥˧ ˖ˁ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪: «ʓ˧ˁ˖˫ ˥˪ˢˋ˵˫, ˵˪˥ ˢ˥˘ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˘̀ ˥ ˢˋ˪˥ˊ˘˜ˋ ˣˁ˫˵ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˘˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁˣ˘̀ ˣˋ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤ˁˆˁ˿˪ ˣ˘ ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˥˨˪˘ ˦˥༤˫˵˘˪˼ «˦˧ˁ˅˘༤˼ˣ˻˙» ˨˪˥˨༤˥˅ˣ˻˙ ˨˦˘˨˥˜, ˦˥༤˼˖˫̀˨˼ ˪˥༤˼˜˥ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˧ˌˢ, ˣ˘ ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˥˨˪˘ ˦˥༤˫˵˘˪˼ ˋˆ˥ ˥˪ ˜ˁ˜˥ˆ˥-˪˥ ˥ˊˣ˥ˆ˥, ˦˫˨˪˼ ˘ˊˋˁ༤˼ˣ˥ˆ˥, ˘ˣ˱˥˧ˢˁˣ˪ˁ» (ʇ˧˻༤˥˅ˁ 2017: 279). ɳ ˵ˋˢ ˨˥˨˪˥̀˪ ˽˪˘ ˨ˁˢ˻ˋ «˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˘̀ ˥ ˢˋ˪˥ˊ˘˜ˋ ˣˁ˫˵ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˘˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁˣ˘̀», ˥˨˪ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˅˥ ˢˣ˥ˆ˥ˢ ˣˋ̀˨ˣ˻ˢ, ˦˥˨˜˥༤˼˜˫ ˣ˘ˆˊˋ ˅ ˊˁ༤˼ˣˋ˙˸ˋˢ ˪ˋ˜˨˪ˋ ɯ. ʓ. ʇ˧˻༤˥˅ˁ ˘˲ ˦˥༤ˣ˥˨˪˼˿ ˘ ˽˜˨˦༤˘˴˘˪ˣ˥ ˣˋ ˘˖༤ˁˆˁˋ˪. ʌ˘˸˼ ˥ˊˣˁːˊ˻, ˆ˥˅˥˧̀ ˥ ˪˧˫ˊˣ˥˨˪̀˲, ˅˥˖ˣ˘˜ˁ˿˹˘˲ ˦˧˘ ˨˥˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˘˘ ˨˪˥˨༤˥˅ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˨˦˘˨˜ˁ ˲˘ˣˊ˘, ˥ˣˁ ˜˧ˁ˪˜˥ ˥˄˺̀˨ˣ̀ˋ˪ ˦˧˘˵˘ˣ˫ ˨˅˥ˋˆ˥ ˨˜ˋ˦˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˥˪ˣ˥˸ˋˣ˘̀ ˜ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˧̀ˢ ˘ ˣˁ˸ˋˢ˫ ˢˋ˪˥ˊ˫ ˧ˁ˄˥˪˻ ˨ ˣ˘ˢ˘: «… ˜ˁ˜ ˅ ˊ˅˫̀˖˻˵ˣ˻ˋ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˧˘ …, ˪ˁ˜ ˘ ˅ ˪˥༤˜˥˅˻ˋ ˘༤˘ ˨˘ˣ˥ˣ˘ˢ˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˋ … ˅˲˥ˊ˘˪ ༤ˋ˜˨˘˜ˁ ˨ˁˢ˻˲ ˧ˁ˖ˣ˻˲ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪˥˅, ˖ˁ˵ˁ˨˪˫˿ ˄ˋ˖ ˦˥̀˨ˣ̀˿˹˘˲ ˦˥ˢˋ˪. ʑ˥˵˪˘ ˜ˁːˊ˥ˋ ˨༤˥˅˥ ˨˪˥˨༤˥˅ˣ˘˜ˁ ˘ˢˋˋ˪ 5-10 ˨˘ˣ˥ˣ˘ˢ˥˅… ɳ ˽˪˥˙ ˨˘˪˫ˁ˴˘˘ ˪ˁ˜˪˘˜ˁ ɯ. ʃ. ʇ˥ˆˁˣˁ ˘˖˄ˋˆˁ˪˼ ˅˜༤˿˵ˋˣ˘̀ ˅ ˨˦˘˨˥˜ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘˙ ˦˧˘ ˣˁ༤˘˵˘˘ ༤˿˄˥ˆ˥ ˨˘ˣ˥ˣ˘ˢˁ, ˣˋ ˦˧˥˪˘˅˥˧ˋ˵ˁ˹ˋˆ˥ ˘˨˪˥˧˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˜ˋ, ˢ˥ːˋ˪ ˦˧˘˅ˋ˨˪˘ ˜ ˅˜༤˿˵ˋˣ˘˿ ˅ ˨˪˥˨༤˥˅ˣ˻˙ ˨˦˘˨˥˜ ˨༤˥˅, ˦˧˘ˣˁˊ༤ˋːˁ˹˘˲ ˊ˧˫ˆ˘ˢ ˘ˊ˘˥ˢˁˢ, ˧ˁ˨˦˥༤˥ːˋˣˣ˻ˢ ˅ ˖˥ˣˋ ˲˘ˣˊ˘, ˘ ˫˦˥˪˧ˋ˄༤̀˿˹˘ˢ˨̀ ˪˥༤˼˜˥ ˣˁ ˥ˆ˧ˁˣ˘˵ˋˣˣ˥˙ ˪ˋ˧˧˘˪˥˧˘˘» (ʇ˧˻༤˥˅ˁ 2017: 285). ʑ˧ˋːˊˋ ˅˨ˋˆ˥, ˨༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪ ˨˜ˁ˖ˁ˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˫˪˅ˋ˧ːˊˋˣ˘ˋ ˥˄ ˥˪˨˫˪˨˪˅˘˘ ˦˥̀˨ˣ̀˿˹˘˲ ˦˥ˢˋ˪ ˊˁ༤ˋ˜˥ ˣˋ ˅˨ˋˆˊˁ ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅˫ˋ˪ ˊˋ˙˨˪˅˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥˨˪˘. ʕˁ˜, ˅ ˘˨˦˥༤˼˖˥12

ʕˁ˜˫˿ ˪˧ˁ˜˪˥˅˜˫ ˊ˥˦˫˨˜ˁˋ˪ ˘ ʒ. ʕˋ˧ˣˋ˧ (Turner 1966: 821).

75

ɯ. ʃ. ʇ˥ˆˁˣ / Anton Kogan

˅ˁ˅˸ˋˢ˨̀ ˣˁˢ˘ ˘ ˴˘˪˘˧˫ˋˢ˥ˢ ɯ. ʓ. ʇ˧˻༤˥˅˥˙ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˧ˋ ɲˁ˧˲˫ˊˁ˧˥˅ ˘ ˊ˧. 1972 ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪˘˖ˢ˻ ˨ˣˁ˄ːˋˣ˻ ˨˦ˋ˴˘ˁ༤˼ˣ˥˙ ˦˥ˢˋ˪˥˙ ʿˌʸ˕. (ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪ˣ˥ˋ). ʒˁ˖˫ˢˋˋ˪˨̀, ˣˋ༤˼˖̀ ˘˨˜༤˿˵˘˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˜ˁ˜˘ˋ-˪˥ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪ˣ˻ˋ ˽༤ˋˢˋˣ˪˻ ˥˨˪ˁ༤˘˨˼ ˣˋ˥˪ˢˋ˵ˋˣˣ˻ˢ˘, ˣ˥ ˜ˁːˊ˻˙ ˧ˁ˖, ˜˥ˆˊˁ ˘˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤ˁˆˁˋ˪ ˦˥ˊ˥˄ˣ˥ˋ, ˋˢ˫ ˣˋ˥˄˲˥ˊ˘ˢ˥ ˥˄˥˨ˣ˥˅˻˅ˁ˪˼ ˨˅˥ˋ ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˋ ˧ˋ˸ˋˣ˘ˋ, ˪. ˋ. ˦˥˜ˁ˖˻˅ˁ˪˼ ˅˻˨˥˜˫˿ ˅ˋ˧˥̀˪ˣ˥˨˪˼ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘̀ ˪˥ˆ˥ ˘༤˘ ˘ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˨༤˥˅ˁ ˘˖ ˥˦˧ˋˊˋ༤ˋˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪ˁ. ʓˊˋ༤ˁ˪˼ ˽˪˥ ˄ˋ˖ ˥˄˧ˁ˹ˋˣ˘̀ ˜ ˱ˁ˜˪ˁˢ ˘˨˪˥˧˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˜˘, ˜ˁ˜ ˦˧ˁ˅˘༤˥, ˦˥˦˧˥˨˪˫ ˣˋ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˥. ɳ ༤˿˄˥ˢ ˨༤˫˵ˁˋ, ˋˊ˅ˁ ༤˘ ˥˦˧ˁ˅ˊˁˣ˥ ˨˫ˊ˘˪˼ ˥˄˥ ˅˨ˋ˲ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˧̀˲, ˘˨˲˥ˊ̀ ˘˖ «˦˧ˋ˖˫ˢ˦˴˘˘ ˅˘ˣ˥˅ˣ˥˨˪˘», a priori ˦˧˘˦˘˨˻˅ˁ̀ ˘˲ ˁ˅˪˥˧ˁˢ ˣˋ˨˦˥˨˥˄ˣ˥˨˪˼ ˘༤˘ ˣˋːˋ༤ˁˣ˘ˋ ˧ˋ˸ˁ˪˼ ˦˧˥˄༤ˋˢ˫ ˅˻̀˅༤ˋˣ˘̀ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪˘˖ˢ˥˅ 13. ɳ ˨˅̀˖˘ ˨ ˽˪˥˙ ˦˧˥˄༤ˋˢ˥˙ ɯ. ʓ. ʇ˧˻༤˥˅ˁ ˫˪˅ˋ˧ːˊˁˋ˪ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˨༤ˋˊ˫˿˹ˋˋ: «ʓˁˢ˻ˢ ˦˧˥˨˪˻ˢ ˨˦˥˨˥˄˥ˢ ˥˪˨ˋ˵˼ ˪ˁ˜˘ˋ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪˘˖ˢ˻ ˄˫ˊˋ˪ ˦˧˘˄༤˘˖˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻˙ ˦˥ˊ˨˵ˌ˪ ˨˧ˁ˅ˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥˙ ˫˦˥˪˧ˋ˄˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥˨˪˘ ˨˘ˣ˥ˣ˘ˢ˥˅ ˅ ˜˥˧˦˫˨ˋ ˪ˋ˜˨˪˥˅» (ʇ˧˻༤˥˅ˁ 2017: 285). ʇ ˨˥ːˁ༤ˋˣ˘˿, ˣˋ ˄˻༤˥ ˦˥̀˨ˣˋˣ˥, ˅ ˵ˋˢ ˨ˋ˜˧ˋ˪ ˽˱˱ˋ˜˪˘˅ˣ˥˨˪˘ ˪ˁ˜˥ˆ˥ ˨˦˥˨˥˄ˁ. ʓ˥˅ˋ˧˸ˋˣˣ˥ ˣˋ ˦˥ˣ̀˪ˣ˥, ˜ˁ˜˘ˢ ˥˄˧ˁ˖˥ˢ ˧ˋ˖˫༤˼˪ˁ˪˻ ˦˥ˊ˨˵ˌ˪ˁ ˫˦˥˪˧ˋ˄˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥˨˪˘ ˨༤˥˅ˁ ˢ˥ˆ˫˪ ˫˜ˁ˖˻˅ˁ˪˼ ˣˁ ˋˆ˥ ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘˿. ʑ˥ˊ˨˵ˌ˪ˁˢ ˦˥ ˜˥˧˦˫˨ˁˢ ɯ. ʓ. ʇ˧˻༤˥˅ˁ ˅˥˥˄˹ˋ ˥˪˅˥ˊ˘˪, ˜ˁ˜ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀, ˣˋ˖ˁ˨༤˫ːˋˣˣ˥ ˅ˁːˣ˫˿ ˧˥༤˼. ʑ˧ˋˊ༤ˁˆˁˋˢ˻˙ ˋ˙ ˁ༤ˆ˥˧˘˪ˢ ˥˪˄˥˧ˁ ˨༤˥˅ ˊ༤̀ ˨˪˥˨༤˥˅ˣ˘˜ˁ, ˦˥-˅˘ˊ˘ˢ˥ˢ˫, ˢ˥ːˣ˥ ˜˧ˁ˪˜˥ ˨˱˥˧ˢ˫༤˘˧˥˅ˁ˪˼ ˪ˁ˜: ˥˪˄˘˧ˁ˪˼ ˨༤˥˅ˁ, ˥˄ˣˁ˧˫ː˘˅ˁ˿˹˘ˋ ˢˁ˜˨˘ˢˁ༤˼ˣ˥ˋ ˵˘˨༤˥ ˅˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘˙ ˅ ˅ˋ˄˜˥˧˦˫˨ˁ˲. ɯˊˋ˜˅ˁ˪ˣ˥˨˪˼ ˊˁˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˁ༤ˆ˥˧˘˪ˢˁ ˊˁ༤ˋ˜˥ ˣˋ ˄ˋ˨˨˦˥˧ˣˁ. ʎˋ˥˄˲˥ˊ˘ˢ˻ˢ ˫˨༤˥˅˘ˋˢ ˅˜༤˿˵ˋˣ˘̀ ˅ ༤ˋ˜˨˘˜˥˨˪ˁ˪˘˨˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˫˿ ˄ˁ˖˫ ˪˥˙ ˘༤˘ ˘ˣ˥˙ ༤ˋ˜˨˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˋˊ˘ˣ˘˴˻ ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀, ˜ˁ˜ ˘˖˅ˋ˨˪ˣ˥, ˨˪˘༤˘˨˪˘˵ˋ˨˜ˁ̀ ˣˋˢˁ˧˜˘˧˥˅ˁˣˣ˥˨˪˼ ˦˥˨༤ˋˊˣˋ˙. ʍ˥ːˣ˥ ༤˘ ˨˵˘˪ˁ˪˼ ˣˁ˘˄˥༤˼˸˫˿ ˅˨˪˧ˋ˵ˁˋˢ˥˨˪˼ ˅ ˪ˋ˜˨˪˥˅˥ˢ ˜˥˧˦˫˨ˋ ˨˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅˥ˢ ˦˧˘ˣˁˊ༤ˋːˣ˥˨˪˘ ˜ ˣˋ˙˪˧ˁ༤˼ˣ˥ˢ˫ ˨˪˘༤˿? ʫ˨ˣ˥, ˵˪˥ ˥˪˅ˋ˪ ˣˁ ˽˪˥˪ ˅˥˦˧˥˨ ˣˋ˥ˊˣ˥˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ ˘ ˖ˁ˅˘˨˘˪ ˜ˁ˜ ˥˪ ˲ˁ˧ˁ˜˪ˋ˧ˁ ˪ˋ˜˨˪˥˅, ˦˥ˊ˥˄˧ˁˣˣ˻˲ ˊ༤̀ ˨˥˖ˊˁˣ˘̀ ˜˥˧˦˫˨ˁ, ˪ˁ˜ ˘ ˥˪ ˨˦ˋ˴˘˱˘˜˘ ˜˥ˣ˜˧ˋ˪ˣ˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜˥˅˥ˆ˥ ˢˁ˪ˋ˧˘ˁ༤ˁ. ʕˁ˜, ˅ ̀˖˻˜ˋ ˲˘ˣˊ˘ ˨˪˘༤˘˨˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˋ ˧ˁ˖༤˘˵˘̀ ˅ ༤ˋ˜˨˘˜ˋ

˦˧˥̀˅༤̀˿˪˨̀ ˦˧ˋːˊˋ ˅˨ˋˆ˥ ˅ ˘˨˦˥༤˼˖˥˅ˁˣ˘˘ ˅ ˧ˁ˖ˣ˻˲ ˨˪˘༤̀˲ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘˙ ˘˖ ˧ˁ˖ˣ˻˲ ˘˨˪˥˵ˣ˘˜˥˅. ʑ˧˘ ˣˁ༤˘˵˘˘ ˊ˅˫˲ ˨˘ˣ˥ˣ˘ˢ˥˅, ˥ˊ˘ˣ ˘˖ ˜˥˪˥˧˻˲ ˫˨˅˥ˋˣ ˘˖ ˨ˁˣ˨˜˧˘˪ˁ, ˁ ˊ˧˫ˆ˥˙ — ˘˖ ˦ˋ˧˨˘ˊ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˘༤˘ (˵ˋ˧ˋ˖ ˦˥˨˧ˋˊ˨˪˅˥ ˦˥˨༤ˋˊˣˋˆ˥) ˁ˧ˁ˄˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ, ˨ˁˣ˨˜˧˘˪˘˖ˢ ˦˧ˁ˜˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ ˅˨ˋˆˊˁ ˦˧˘ˣˁˊ༤ˋː˘˪ ˜ ˜ˣ˘ːˣ˥ˢ˫ ˘༤˘ ˥˱˘˴˘ˁ༤˼ˣ˥ˢ˫ ˨˪˘༤˿, ˦ˋ˧˨˘˖ˢ ˘ ˁ˧ˁ˄˘˖ˢ ːˋ ˨˪˘༤˘˨˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ ˣˋ˙˪˧ˁ༤˼ˣ˻. ɹ˨༤˘ ˨˥˖ˊˁ˪ˋ༤˘ ˜˥˧˦˫˨ˁ ˥˪ˊˁ˅ˁ༤˘ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥˵˪ˋˣ˘ˋ ˪ˋ˜˨˪ˁˢ, ˣˁ˦˘˨ˁˣˣ˻ˢ ˣˁ ˣ˥˧ˢ˘˧˥˅ˁˣˣ˥ˢ ༤˘˪ˋ˧ˁ˪˫˧ˣ˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˋ, ˅˨˪˧ˋ˵ˁˋˢ˥˨˪˼ ˨ˁˣ˨˜˧˘˪˘˖ˢ˥˅ ˢ˥ːˋ˪ ˦˧ˋ˅˻˨˘˪˼ ˅˨˪˧ˋ˵ˁˋˢ˥˨˪˼ ˦ˋ˧˨˘˖ˢ˥˅ ˘ ˁ˧ˁ˄˘˖ˢ˥˅. ʑ˥˅˘ˊ˘ˢ˥ˢ˫, ˨ ˦˥ˊ˥˄ˣ˥˙ ˨˘˪˫ˁ˴˘ˋ˙ ˘ ˨˪˥༤˜ˣ˫༤ˁ˨˼ ɯ.ɍʓ.ɍʇ˧˻༤˥˅ˁ, ˦˥༤˫˵˘˅˸ˁ̀ ˄˥༤˼˸ˋˋ ˵˘˨༤˥ ˅˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘˙ ˊ༤̀ ˪ˁ˜˘˲ ˨ˁˣ˨˜˧˘˪˨˜˘˲ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘˙, ˜ˁ˜ mŊѐs ‘ˢ̀˨˥’ ˘ mahilŊ ‘ːˋˣ˹˘ˣˁ’ ˅ ˨˧ˁ˅ˣˋˣ˘˘ ˨ ˘˲ ˨˘ˣ˥ˣ˘ˢˁˢ˘ ˦ˋ˧˨˘ˊ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˦˧˥˘˨˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘̀ gŵšt ˘ aurat ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥. ʐ˦˘˨ˁˣˣ˻˙ ˨༤˫˵ˁ˙ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤̀ˋ˪ ˨˥˄˥˙ ̀˧˜˫˿ (˘ ˦˧˘˪˥ˢ, ˅ˋ˧˥̀˪ˣˋˋ ˅˨ˋˆ˥, ˣˋ ˋˊ˘ˣ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˫˿) ˘༤༤˿˨˪˧ˁ˴˘˿ ˪˥ˆ˥ ˱ˁ˜˪ˁ, ˵˪˥ ˧ˋ˖˫༤˼˪ˁ˪˻ ˦˥ˊ˨˵ˌ˪˥˅ ˦˥ ˜˥˧˦˫˨ˁˢ ˘ˣ˥ˆˊˁ ˢ˥ˆ˫˪ ˨˜˥˧ˋˋ ˅˅ˋ˨˪˘ ˅ ˖ˁ˄༤˫ːˊˋˣ˘ˋ, ˣˋːˋ༤˘ ˦˧˥̀˨ˣ˘˪˼ ˧ˋˁ༤˼ˣ˫˿ ˜ˁ˧˪˘ˣ˫. ʓ༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪ ˦˧˘˖ˣˁ˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˦˥༤˫˵ˋˣˣ˻ˋ ɯ. ʓ. ʇ˧˻༤˥˅˥˙ ˴˘˱˧˻ ˋˊ˅ˁ ༤˘ ˢ˥ˆ˫˪ ˧ˁ˨˨ˢˁ˪˧˘˅ˁ˪˼˨̀ ˅ ˜ˁ˵ˋ˨˪˅ˋ ˣˁˊˋːˣ˻˲ ˫˜ˁ˖ˁˣ˘˙ ˣˁ ˨˪˘༤˘˨˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˫˿ ˲ˁ˧ˁ˜˪ˋ˧˘˨˪˘˜˫ ˨༤˥˅ˁ. ʨ˪˥ ˅ ˨˅˥˿ ˥˵ˋ˧ˋˊ˼ ˖ˁ˨˪ˁ˅༤̀ˋ˪ ˣˁ˨ ˖ˁˊˁ˪˼˨̀ ˅˥˦˧˥˨˥ˢ ˥ ˪˥ˢ, ˅ ˜ˁ˜˥˙ ˢˋ˧ˋ ˽˪˘ ˴˘˱˧˻ ˅˥˥˄˹ˋ ˦˥˜ˁ˖ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻ ˊ༤̀ ༤ˋ˜˨˘˜˥˨˪ˁ˪˘˨˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˸˪˫ˊ˘˙. ɳˋ˨˼ˢˁ ˨˪˧ˁˣˣ˻ˢ˘ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤̀˿˪˨̀ ˣˁˢ ˥˪ˊˋ༤˼ˣ˻ˋ ˧ˋ˸ˋˣ˘̀ ɯ. ʓ. ʇ˧˻༤˥˅˥˙, ˜ˁ˨ˁ˿˹˘ˋ˨̀ ˖ˁˢˋˣ˻ ˜˥ˣ˜˧ˋ˪ˣ˻˲ ˨༤˥˅ ˅ ˜˥ˣ˜˧ˋ˪ˣ˻˲ ˨˦˘˨˜ˁ˲. ʒˋ˵˼ ˘ˊˋ˪, ˦˧ˋːˊˋ ˅˨ˋˆ˥, ˥ ˦˧ˋˊ༤˥ːˋˣ˘̀˲ ˖ˁˢˋˣ˘˪˼ ˥ˊˣ˘ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘̀ ˣˁ ˊ˧˫ˆ˘ˋ (˦˥˦˧ˁ˅˜ˁ ̘ɏ3 ˜ ˨˦˘˨˜˫ ˲˘ˣˊ˘, ˦˥˦˧ˁ˅˜ˁ ̘ɏ2 ˜ ˨˦˘˨˜˫ ˄ˋˣˆˁ༤˘) ˘༤˘ ˅˜༤˿˵˘˪˼ ˅ ˄ˁ˖˫ ˊ˅ˁ ˨˘ˣ˥ˣ˘ˢˁ ˨ ˥˪˧˘˴ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻ˢ˘ ˣ˥ˢˋ˧ˁˢ˘ (˦˥˦˧ˁ˅˜ˁ ̘ɏ7 ˜ ˨˦˘˨˜˫ ˲˘ˣˊ˘, ˦˥˦˧ˁ˅˜˘ ̘ɏ6 14 ˘ 10 ˜ ˨˦˘˨˜˫ ˄ˋˣˆˁ༤˘). ɳ༤˘̀ˣ˘ˋ ˪ˁ˜˘˲ ˦˥˦˧ˁ˅˥˜ ˣˁ ˧ˋ˖˫༤˼˪ˁ˪˻ ༤ˋ˜˨˘˜˥˨˪ˁ˪˘˨˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˦˥ˊ˨˵ˋ˪˥˅, ˥˵ˋ˅˘ˊˣ˻ˢ ˥˄˧ˁ˖˥ˢ, ˧ˁ˅ˣ˥ ˣ˫༤˿, ˘ ˥˦˧ˁ˅ˊˁˣˣ˥˨˪˼ ˘˲ ˦˥˽˪˥ˢ˫ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˦˥ ˢˋˣ˼˸ˋ˙ ˢˋ˧ˋ ˨˥ˢˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥˙. ʘ˵˘˪˻˅ˁ̀ ˅˨ˋ ˅˻˸ˋ˨˜ˁ˖ˁˣˣ˥ˋ, ˢ˻ ˣˋ ˨˵˘˪ˁˋˢ ˣˋ˥˄˲˥ˊ˘ˢ˻ˢ ˅ˣ˥˨˘˪˼ ˅ ˨˪˥˨༤˥˅ˣ˻˙ ˨˦˘˨˥˜ ˲˘ˣˊ˘

13

ɳ ˊˁˣˣ˥˙ ˨˅̀˖˘ ˣ˫ːˣ˥ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˥˪ˢˋ˪˘˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˲˥˪̀ ˧ˁ˖˅˘˪ˁ̀ ˨˘ˣ˥ˣ˘ˢ˘̀, ˊˋ˙˨˪˅˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥, ˲ˁ˧ˁ˜˪ˋ˧ˣˁ ˊ༤̀ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˧ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˨˥˨˪ˁ˅ˁ ˲˘ˣˊ˘ ˘ ˫˧ˊ˫, ˆ༤ˁ˅ˣ˻ˢ ˱ˁ˜˪˥˧˥ˢ, ˦˥˧˥ˊ˘˅˸˘ˢ ˪ˁ˜˫˿ ˨˘˪˫ˁ˴˘˿, ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˅˥˅˨ˋ ˣˋ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪ˣˁ̀ ˣˋ˥ˊˣ˥˧˥ˊˣ˥˨˪˼, ˁ ˅༤˘̀ˣ˘ˋ ˄˥༤ˋˋ ˦˧ˋ˨˪˘ːˣ˻˲ ˅ ˧ˁ˖ˣ˻ˋ ˽˦˥˲˘ ༤˘˪ˋ˧ˁ˪˫˧ˣ˻˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅. ʨ˪˥ ˅˘ˊˣ˥, ˅ ˵ˁ˨˪ˣ˥˨˪˘, ˘˖ ˪˥ˆ˥ ˱ˁ˜˪ˁ, ˵˪˥ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˣˁ̀ ˵ˁ˨˪˼ ˨˘ˣ˥ˣ˘ˢ˥˅ ˦˧˘˲˥ˊ˘˪˨̀ ˣˁ ˨ˁˣ˨˜˧˘˪˨˜˘ˋ, ˦ˋ˧˨˘ˊ˨˜˘ˋ, ˁ˧ˁ˄˨˜˘ˋ ˘ ˁˣˆ༤˘˙˨˜˘ˋ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘̀. ɳ˻ˊˋ༤ˋˣ˘ˋ ˦˥ˊ˥˄ˣ˥˙ ༤ˋ˜˨˘˜˘ ˥˄˻˵ˣ˥ ˣˋ ˨˥˦˧̀ːˋˣ˥ ˨ ˜ˁ˜˘ˢ˘-༤˘˄˥ ˪˧˫ˊˣ˥˨˪̀ˢ˘.

76

14 ʑ˥˦˧ˁ˅˜ˁ ̘6 ˜ ˨˦˘˨˜˫ ˄ˋˣˆˁ༤˘ ˅˻˖˻˅ˁˋ˪ ˥˨˥˄ˋˣˣ˥ ˨˘༤˼ˣ˥ˋ ˣˋˊ˥˫ˢˋˣ˘ˋ. ʑ˧ˋˊ༤ˁˆˁˋ˪˨̀ ˅ˣˋ˨˪˘ ˅ ˨˪˥˨༤˥˅ˣ˘˜ ˁˣˆ༤˘˴˘˖ˢ libhar ‘˦ˋ˵ˋˣ˼’ (< ˁˣˆ༤. liver), ˫˦˥˪˧ˋ˄༤̀ˋˢ˻˙ ˅ ˄˻˪˥˅˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˋ «˦˧ˋ˘ˢ˫˹ˋ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥ ˅ ˜˫༤˘ˣˁ˧˘˘» (ʇ˧˻༤˥˅ˁ 2017: 287). ʌˋ˜˨˘˜˫ ˨ ˦˥ˊ˥˄ˣ˥˙ ˨˱ˋ˧˥˙ ˫˦˥˪˧ˋ˄༤ˋˣ˘̀, ˣˋ˨˥ˢˣˋˣˣ˥, ˣ˘˜˥˘ˢ ˥˄˧ˁ˖˥ˢ ˣˋ༤˼˖̀ ˨˵˘˪ˁ˪˼ «˨˪˥˨༤˥˅ˣ˥˙». ʓ˧. ˊ˘ˁˆˣ˥˨˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˋ ˜˥ˣ˪ˋ˜˨˪˻ ˊ༤̀ ˨༤˥˅ˁ «˦ˋ˵ˋˣ˼», ˦˧ˋˊ༤˥ːˋˣˣ˻ˋ ˅ ˨˪ˁ˪˼ˋ (Kassian et al. 2010: 67): «ʐˣ ˅˻˧ˋ˖ˁ༤ ˦ˋ˵ˋˣ˼ ˘˖ ˪˫˸˘», «ʠˋ༤˥˅ˋ˵˼̀ ˦ˋ˵ˋˣ˼ ˄˥༤˼˸ˋ ˨˥˄ˁ˵˼ˋ˙».

ʐ˪˅ˋ˪ ˣˁ ˨˪ˁ˪˼˿ ɯ.ɍʓ.ɍʇ˧˻༤˥˅˥˙ «ʌˋ˜˨˘˜˥˨˪ˁ˪˘˨˪˘˜ˁ ˣ˥˅˥˘ˣˊ˥ˁ˧˘˙˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅: ˅˖ˆ༤̀ˊ ˦˥༤ˋ˅˥ˆ˥ ༤˘ˣˆ˅˘˨˪ˁ»

˦˥˦˧ˁ˅˜˘, ˦˧ˋˊ༤˥ːˋˣˣ˻ˋ ˅ ˨˪ˁ˪˼ˋ (ʇ˧˻༤˥˅ˁ 2017). ʑ˥˦˧ˁ˅˜˘ ˜ ˨˦˘˨˜ˁˢ ˄ˋˣˆˁ༤˘ (˘˨˜༤˿˵ˁ̀ ˧ˁ˨˨ˢ˥˪˧ˋˣˣ˻ˋ ˘ ˥˪˅ˋ˧ˆˣ˫˪˻ˋ ˅˻˸ˋ), ˥˧˘̀ ˘ ˜˫༤༤˫˘ ˦˧˘ˣ˘ˢˁ˿˪˨̀ ˣˁˢ˘, ˦˧˘˵˘ˣˁ ˵ˋˢ˫ — ˄˥༤ˋˋ ˆ༤˫˄˥˜˥ˋ ˅ ˨˧ˁ˅ˣˋˣ˘˘ ˨ ˣˁ˸˘ˢ ˖ˣˁ˜˥ˢ˨˪˅˥ ɯ. ʓ. ʇ˧˻༤˥˅˥˙ ˨ ˢˁ˪ˋ˧˘ˁ༤˥ˢ ˽˪˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅. ʒˋ˖˫༤˼˪ˁ˪˻ ༤ˋ˜˨˘˜˥˨˪ˁ˪˘˨˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˦˥ˊ˨˵ˋ˪˥˅ ˦˥ ˘˨˦˧ˁ˅༤ˋˣˣ˥˙ ˄ˁ˖ˋ ˊˁˣˣ˻˲ ˦˥˖˅˥༤̀˿˪ ˦˥˨˪˧˥˘˪˼ ˧˥ˊ˥˨༤˥˅ˣ˥ˋ ˊ˧ˋ˅˥, ˘˖˥˄˧ˁːˋˣˣ˥ˋ ˣˁ ˧˘˨. 1. ɳ ˖ˁ˜༤˿˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ˲˥˪ˋ༤˥˨˼ ˄˻ ˥˪ˢˋ˪˘˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˊˁːˋ ˨ ˫˵ˋ˪˥ˢ ˅˨ˋ˲ ˣˁ˸˘˲ ˅˥˖˧ˁːˋˣ˘˙ ˧ˁ˄˥˪ˁ ɯ. ʓ. ʇ˧˻༤˥˅˥˙ ˊˁ༤ˁ ˵˧ˋ˖˅˻˵ˁ˙ˣ˥ ˘ˣ˪ˋ˧ˋ˨ˣ˻ˋ ˧ˋ˖˫༤˼˪ˁ˪˻. ʍˣ˥ˆ˘ˋ ˅˻˨˜ˁ˖ˁˣˣ˻ˋ ˅ ˣˋ˙ ˨˥˥˄˧ˁːˋˣ˘̀ ˅ ˨˘༤˫ ˨˅˥ˋ˙ ˊ˘˨˜˫˨˨˘˥ˣˣ˥˨˪˘, ˣˋ˨˥ˢˣˋˣˣ˥, ˄˫ˊ˫˪ ˨˦˥˨˥˄˨˪˅˥˅ˁ˪˼ ˄˥༤ˋˋ ˁ˜˪˘˅ˣ˥ˢ˫ ˥˄˨˫ːˊˋˣ˘˿ ˜ˁ˜ ˅˥˦˧˥˨˥˅ ˆˋˣˋ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˜༤ˁ˨˨˘˱˘˜ˁ˴˘˘ ˘ˣˊ˥ˁ˧˘˙˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅, ˪ˁ˜ ˘ ˣˋ˜˥˪˥˧˻˲ ˢˋ˪˥ˊ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˦˧˥˄༤ˋˢ ༤ˋ˜˨˘˜˥˨˪ˁ˪˘˨˪˘˜˘ ˘ ˆ༤˥˪˪˥˲˧˥ˣ˥༤˥ˆ˘˘.

ʎ˙ː˛ʸ˭ˀ˗ˌ˴

ˁ˨˨. — ˁ˨˨ˁˢ˨˜˘˙ ˄ˋˣˆ. — ˄ˋˣˆˁ༤˘ ˆ˫ˊː. — ˆ˫ˊːˁ˧ˁ˪˘ ˊ˧.-˘ˣˊ. — ˊ˧ˋ˅ˣˋ˘ˣˊ˘˙˨˜˘˙ ˘.-ˋ. — ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˨˜˘˙ ˜༤.-˦ˋ˧˨. — ˜༤ˁ˨˨˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˙ ˦ˋ˧˨˘ˊ˨˜˘˙ ˜˫ˢ. — ˜˫ˢˁ˫ˣ˘ ˣˋ˦. — ˣˋ˦ˁ༤˘ ˦ˁˣˊː. — ˦ˁˣˊːˁ˄˘ ˦ˋ˧˨. — ˦ˋ˧˨˘ˊ˨˜˘˙ ˦˥˪˲. — ˦˥˪˲˥˲ˁ˧˘

ʎ˙ː˛ʸ˭ˀ˗ˌ˴ ˗ʸˊʻʸ˗ˌˍ ˴ˊ˯ː˙ʻ ˗ʸ ˛˙ʿ˙˜ໞ˙ʻ˗˙˖ ʿ˛ˀʻˀ ASS — ˁ˨˨ˁˢ˨˜˘˙; AWD — ˁ˅ˁˊ˲˘; BNG — ˄ˋˣˆˁ༤˘; BNJ — ˄ˁˣˊːˁ˧˘; BRJ — ˄˧ˁˊː; DGR — ˊ˥ˆ˧˘; DKH — ˊˁ˜˲˘ˣ˘; DUM — ˊ˫ˢˁ˜˘; GJR — ˆ˥ˊː˧˘; GRH — ˆˁ˧˲˅ˁ༤˘; GUJ — ˆ˫ˊːˁ˧ˁ˪˘; HIM — ˲˘ˢˁ˵ˁ༤˘; HND — ˲˘ˣˊ˘-˫˧ˊ˫; HNK — ˲˘ˣˊ˜˥; KCH - ˜ˁ˵˵˲˘; KNK — ˜˥ˣ˜ˁˣ˘; KUL — ˜˫༤༤˫˘;

KUM — ˜˫ˢˁ˫ˣ˘; LHD — ༤ˁ˲ˣˊˁ (ˢ˫༤˼˪ˁˣ˘); MAI — ˢˁ˙˪˲˘༤˘; MAL — ˢˁ༤˼ˊ˘˅˨˜˘˙; MAR — ˢˁ˧ˁ˪˲˘; MEW — ˢˋ˅ˁ˪˘; MND — ˢˁˣˊˋˁ༤˘; NEP — ˣˋ˦ˁ༤˘; ORY — ˥˧˘̀; PNJ — ˦ˁˣˊːˁ˄˘; PTH — ˦˥˪˲˥˲ˁ˧˘; PRY — ˦ˁ˧˼̀; RAJ — ˧ˁˊːˁ˨˪˲ˁˣ˘ (ˢˁ˧˅ˁ˧˘); ROM — ˴˻ˆˁˣ˨˜˘˙; SND — ˨˘ˣˊ˲˘; SNG — ˨˘ˣˆˁ༤˼˨˜˘˙; WGD — ˅ˁˆˊ˘; WPH — ˜˥˪ˆˁ˧˲˘

ʇˌ˞ˀ˛ʸ˞˟˛ʸ

ɲˁ˧˲˫ˊˁ˧˥˅, ɯ. ʓ., ɳ. ʍ. ɲˋ˨˜˧˥˅ˣ˻˙, ɴ. ɯ. ʁ˥ˆ˧ˁ˱, ɳ. ʑ. ʌ˘˦ˋ˧˥˅˨˜˘˙ (˦˥ˊ ˧ˋˊˁ˜˴˘ˋ˙ ɳ. ʍ. ɲˋ˨˜˧˥˅ˣ˥ˆ˥). 1972. ʘˌ˗ʿˌ˛˟˜˜ːˌˍ ˜˕˙ʻʸ˛˰ ʻ ʿʻ˟˦ ˞˙˖ʸ˦. ʍ.: ʓ˥˅ˋ˪˨˜ˁ̀ ˽ˣ˴˘˜༤˥˦ˋˊ˘̀. ʇ˥ˆˁˣ, ɯ. ʃ. 2005. ɴʸ˛ʿ˜ːˌˀ ˴ˊ˯ːˌ. ɱˀ˗ˀ˞ˌ˩ˀ˜ːʸ˴ ˦ʸ˛ʸː˞ˀ˛ˌ˜˞ˌːʸ. ʍ˥˨˜˅ˁ: ɳ˥˨˪˥˵ˣˁ̀ ༤˘˪ˋ˧ˁ˪˫˧ˁ. ʇ˧˻༤˥˅ˁ, ɯ. ʓ. 2017. ʌˋ˜˨˘˜˥˨˪ˁ˪˘˨˪˘˜ˁ ˣ˥˅˥˘ˣˊ˥ˁ˧˘˙˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅: ˅˖ˆ༤̀ˊ ˦˥༤ˋ˅˥ˆ˥ ༤˘ˣˆ˅˘˨˪ˁ. ɰ˙˚˛˙˜˯ ˴ˊ˯ː˙ʻ˙ʼ˙ ˛˙ʿ˜˞ʻʸ 15(3-4): 279–298.

References

Barkhudarov, A. S., V. M. Beskrovnyj, G. A. Zograf, V. P. Liperovskij. 1972. Hindi-russkij slovar' v dvukh tomakh. Moskva: Sovetskaja enciklopedija. Bloch, Jules. 1920. La formation de la langue marathe. Paris: É. Champion. Kassian, Alexei, George Starostin, Anna Dybo, Vasiliy Chernov. 2010. The Swadesh wordlist. An attempt at semantic specification. Journal of Language Relationship 4: 46–89. Kogan, Anton. 2016. Genealogical classification of New IndoAryan languages and lexicostatistics. Journal of Language Relationship 14(3-4): 227–258. Kogan, A. I. 2005. Dardskije jazyki. Geneticheskaja kharakteristika. Moskva: Vostochnaja literatura. Krylova, A. S. 2017. Leksikostatistika novoindoarijskikh jazykov: vzgl'ad polevogo lingvista. Journal of Language Relationship 15 (3-4): 279–298. Masica, Colin P. 1991. The Indo-Aryan languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Platts, John Tompson. 1884. A dictionary of Urdu, classical Hindi, and English. London: W. H. Allen & Co. Pokorny, Julius. 1959. Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Bern / München: Francke Verlag. Turner, R. L. 1966. A comparative dictionary of Indo-Aryan languages. London: Oxford University Press.

77

HND+SNG

-1.00

-0.75

HND+M AR

-0.50

HND+ROM

HND+WGD

-0.25

0.00

HND+SND

SNG+M AL

0.25

PTH+DGR

NEP+GRH

NEP+M AI

BNG+ORY

DGR+LHD

HND+RAJ

HND+PRY

GUJ+BNJ

ROM +DUM

M AR+KNK

0.50

RAJ+M EW

1.00

SND+KCH

DGR+HIM

PTH+HNK

HND+AWD

BNG+ASS

0.75

HIM +M ND

HNK+GJR

AWD+KUM

HND+DKH

1.25

HND+PNJ

ʍˌ˜. 1. ʒ˥ˊ˥˨༤˥˅ˣ˥ˋ ˊ˧ˋ˅˥ ˘ˣˊ˥ˁ˧˘˙˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅, ˦˥˨˪˧˥ˋˣˣ˥ˋ ˨ ˫˵ˋ˪˥ˢ ˦˧˘ˣ̀˪˻˲ ˣˁˢ˘ ˖ˁˢˋ˵ˁˣ˘˙ ɯ.ɍʓ.ɍʇ˧˻༤˥˅˥˙

-1.25

1.50

1.75

GRH

NEP

M AI

WPH

M ND

HIM

DGR

LHD

GJR

HNK

PTH

KCH

SND

KUL

KUM

AWD

PNJ

HND

DKH

BRJ

RAJ

M EW

PRY

BNJ

GUJ

WGD

ASS

BNG

ORY

DUM

ROM

KNK

M AR

M AL

SNG

2.00

Fernando O. de Carvalho Federal University of Amapá (UNIFAP), Amapá State, Brazil.

Terena (Arawakan) -eúko ‘uncle’ and -ôko ‘aunt’: etymology and a kinship terminology puzzle1 This paper addresses the etymology of the nouns for ‘uncle’ and ‘aunt’ in Terena, an Arawakan language of Brazil. Analogy based on the model of a pattern attested in Old Mojeño explains a feature of the form -eúko ‘uncle’ not accountable by regular sound change. The semantic side of the equations throws light on an aspect of the Terena kinship terminology that baffled anthropologists, supporting Oberg’s conjecture that these kinship terms had their meanings extended to include parallel parental siblings. Finally, additional lexical reconstructions for Proto-Mojeño and an alternative analysis for an allomorphy pattern in Paresi are discussed as well. Keywords: etymology; linguistic analogy; kinship terms; Arawakan languages.

1. Introduction This brief paper offers an etymological analysis of two lexemes of the Terena (Arawakan) kinship terminology: -eúko ‘uncle’ and ôko ‘aunt’. 2 I single out these two specific items for detailed consideration for two reasons: within a properly linguistic domain of concern, these items, and, notably, the noun -eúko ‘uncle’, raise an etymological problem, as matching it with its obvious cognates in the closely related Mojeño would seemingly demand the acceptance of a sporadic, non-regular process of consonant loss. See (1) for the currently accepted classification of Terena and Mojeño within the same ‘Bolivia-Parana’ branch of the Arawakan family. 3 Unless explicitly noted, all Terena data in this paper comes from the author’s own fieldwork activities at the Cachoeirinha Reservation, Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil. I am grateful to all my Terena consultants and friends for their patience and collaboration. I am also grateful to Ana Paula Brandão for discussion of data from Paresi and to an anonymous reviewer. All remaining flaws are my own. 2 The Terena phonemic inventory consists of the consonants p, t, k, m, n, ੇ, s, ಝ, r, l, w, j and the vowels a, e, i, o, u (see Bendor-Samuel 1961; Ekdahl, Butler 1979). A circumflex accent indicates greater length of the vowel where it occurs, in addition to a descending pitch curve (tâki [уtaୁ๛ki] ‘his/her arm’). The acute accent has no particularly salient pitch contour, and its lengthening effect is realized on the following consonant, not on the vowel above which it occurs (ásurupi [уas๛uഷupi] ‘guts, intestines’). 3 Some comments are in order: First, there is an emerging consensus that, within the Bolivia-Parana subgroup, Terena, Mojeño and Paunaka are closer to each other than any of these is to either Baure or Paikoneka (Jolkesky 2016; Carvalho 2017). Second, I have included early (17th century) documentations of Baure (Old Baure) and Mojeño (Old Mojeño) as dialects of the same language in order to avoid making the unnecessary and often indemonstrable assumption that these documents represent early stages of currently spoken varieties, as opposed to, say, extinct dialects whose speakers were either decimated by colonial action or simply shifted to some encroaching language (usually Spanish). The same applies to late 18th- and 19th-century sources on ‘Guaná’, which, like Kinikinau and Layana, are co-dialects of the same language as Terena (see Carvalho 2016b for details). 1

Journal of Language Relationship • ɳ˥˦˧˥˨˻ ̀˖˻˜˥˅˥ˆ˥ ˧˥ˊ˨˪˅ˁ • 16/2 (2018) • Pp. 79–92 • © The authors, 2018

Fernando O. de Carvalho

(1)

Terena and its closest relatives Bolivia-Parana subgroup Baure-Paikoneka branch Baure (Baure, Old Baure, Joaquiniano) Paikoneka Achane branch Paunaka Mojeño (Old Mojeño, Ignaciano, Trinitario, Javeriano, Loretano) Terena (Guaná, Chané, Kinikinau, Layana)

It can be shown, however, that instead of a sporadic process of consonant loss, simple analogical extension of a pattern observed elsewhere, namely in the kinship terminology of 17th century Old Mojeño, accounts for these developments. Finding a solution to this apparent difficulty constitutes a small yet real contribution to further understanding the historical development of Terena and its closest relatives. The second reason, closely tied to the semantic side of the etymologies, stems from the puzzlement expressed by certain anthropologists that engaged in the study of Terena culture and social structure in the early decades of the 20th century. This was expressed by Oberg (1948: 287) who stated that: 4 “(…) the Terena appear to have terms corresponding to uncle and aunt, for father’s brother and mother’s brother can be termed eungo or lulu, and father’s sister and mother’s sister can be termed ongo. A completely satisfactory explanation of these uncle and aunt terms cannot be made until more is known about the language and culture of the Terena.”

The need for special explanation seems to stem from the following fact: Terena kinship terminology has transparent, descriptive terms for parallel parental siblings: poԸi nzâԸa ‘father’s brother’ (lit. “my other father”; nzâԸa ‘my father’) and poԸi Ԅnõ‘mother’s sister’ (lit. “my other mother”; Ԅnõ ‘my mother’). Since -eúko ‘uncle’ and ôko ‘aunt’ apply to both parallel and cross parental siblings, the superposition in Ego’s parallel siblings, who can be denoted by either set of forms, is somewhat unexpected. Oberg’s (1948: 287; 1949: 30) own suggestion is that eúko ‘uncle’ and ôko ‘aunt’ would be originally ‘respect terms’ for mother’s brother and for father’s sister, respectively, and that, at some point, these would have been extended in their use, just like the vocatives même ‘mother (voc.)’ and tâta ‘father (voc.)’ were extended to all older people of the parental generation. This scenario certainly has some interesting parallels, as in the case of the Iroquoian languages Huron and Wyandot, in which extension of a term for ‘mother’s brother’ as referring to ‘mother’s sister’s husband’ was arguably facilitated by its previous use as a respect term used by younger men when addressing older men (Steckley 1993: 40–41). I will argue that, although Oberg’s (1948, 1949) intuition of a recent meaning extension in the reference of eúko and -ôko is correct, these were not respect terms but were most likely the referential terminology used exclusively for cross parental siblings, later extended to include parallel parental siblings as well. The complex terms for parallel siblings are, in turn, recent formations that lack cognates even in the closely related Mojeño language. The forms and given by Oberg (1948) are the first person singular possessive forms for eúko ‘uncle’ and -ôko ‘aunt’, respectively. A first-person singular possessor is marked in Terena by a [nasal] feature that docks to the left edge of the word and spreads rightwards until it is blocked by an obstruent consonant. A short, transitional nasal consonant appears preceding the obstruent, which, in turn, becomes contextually voiced (see Carvalho 2017a). Hence: eúngo ‘my uncle’, ôngo ‘my aunt’. 4

80

Terena (Arawakan) -eúko ‘uncle’ and -ôko ‘aunt’: etymology and a kinship terminology puzzle

The paper is organized as follows: Section 2.1 deals with the formal issues raised by an attempt to relate Terena -eúko ‘uncle’ and its Proto-Mojeño (PM) cognate *-ékuko ‘uncle’, arguing that analogical modification of a form *-ekuko ‘uncle’, reconstructed for a common ancestor of Terena and PM, accounts for the somewhat unexpected Terena form lacking a medial velar stop k. Section 2.2 briefly discusses evidence from a more distantly related language, Paresi, that is consistent with the reconstruction of *kuko ‘uncle’ (vocative) and *-ekuko ‘uncle’ (referential) proposed in section 2.1. Section 2.3. focuses on semantic issues. I argue that the reconstructed etyma *-ekuko and *-oko, until this point glossed simply as ‘uncle’ and ‘aunt’, respectively, had a more specialized meaning restricted to cross parental siblings only, that is: *-ekuko ‘mother’s brother’ and *-oko ‘father’s sister’. I rely on the early attestation of these meanings in their Old Mojeño reflexes and on evidence from other Arawakan languages to support the postulation of these etyma. The complementary forms for parallel parental siblings attested in PM and in Terena are not cognate and were independently innovated in each of these languages.

2. Terena -eúko ‘uncle’ and ôko ‘aunt’ 2.1. Formal issues Comparison of the Terena noun -eúko ‘uncle’ with its plausible cognate in Proto-Mojeño (henceforth PM), *-ékuko ‘uncle’, raises an etymological problem (see Carvalho & Rose 2018 for Proto-Mojeño phonology). Though the final syllable matches in accordance to regular (identity) sound correspondences, as well as the vowel e and the vowel u (see (2) below for some supporting cognate sets), a correspondence of PM *k to zero in Terena would require positing a sound change that lacks any motivation or independent support from regular developments. (2)

Identity regular correspondences for PM and Terena PM *e : Terena e PM *-eno ‘mother’ : Terena -êno ‘mother’; PM *-ope ‘bone’ : Terena ôpe ‘bone’; PM *-we-Ըo ‘to take’ : Terena wê(j)o ‘to take’. PM *u : Terena u PM *juku- ‘fire(wood)’ : Terena júku ‘fire(wood)’; PM *-woԸu ‘hand’ : Terena wôԸu ‘hand’; PM *une ‘water’ : Terena úne ‘water’. PM *k : Terena k PM *-piko ‘to fear’ : Terena -pîko ‘to fear’; PM *koti ‘pain’ : Terena kotí-we ‘pain’; PM *apokeԸe ‘soil, earth’ : Terena pokéԸe ‘earth, soil’. PM *o : Terena o PM *-owo ‘be, stay’ : Terena ôwo ‘be, stay’, PM *uko-hi ‘cloud’ : Terena úko ‘rain’; PM *-jeno ‘wife’ : Terena -jêno ‘wife’.

A solution to this problem is suggested by slightly broadening our perspective and including the cognate set for ‘aunt’ as well and, crucially, by looking at evidence from 17th century Old Mojeño (henceforth OM) in addition to the modern dialects of the language. 5 5 Except for the Old Mojeño forms given between angled brackets, thus preserving the original orthography of Marbán (1701), all forms from the Mojeño varieties were adapted from their source orthographies in agreement with IPA conventions. A source is therefore adapted as j for the palatal glide, the allographs appear

81

Fernando O. de Carvalho

Table 1. Forms for ‘uncle’ and ‘aunt’ in Terena and Mojeño 6 Terena

Ignaciano

Trinitario

‘Uncle’

-eúko

-ékuka

(apiaru)

‘Aunt’

-ôko

-aka

(apenru)

Old Mojeño (OM) -ekukoUHI  kukoYRF  -okoUHI  kokoYRF 

Trinitario forms will not be relevant now, as sources on the language give forms for ‘uncle’ and ‘aunt’ that do not have cognates in Terena (I will come back to these Trinitario forms in section 2.3, where the semantic aspects of the relevant etymologies are discussed as well). In Ignaciano, according to Ott & Ott (1983: 632), -aka means ‘sister of the grandmother’, while ápenaru means ‘sister of the mother’; -ékuka is given as a general term for ‘uncle’, in contrast to -ápijaru, reserved for the father’s brother (Ott & Ott 1983: 76, 633). There is no problem of either a formal or semantic nature in accepting that Ignaciano -aka is a cognate of OM -oko (and hence a reflex of PM *-oko) and of Terena -ôko. On the formal side of the etymology, Carvalho (2017b) and Carvalho & Rose (2018) provide extensive evidence for the merger PM *a, *o > a in Ignaciano, which is also relevant in the match of Ignaciano -ékuka : OM -ekuko. The divergent semantics of Ignaciano -aka ‘sister of the grandmother’ will be briefly discussed in section 2.3, though a detailed treatment of this semantic mismatch will not be the focus of the present contribution. The crucial dataset for addressing the etymological problem raised by Terena -eúko is the OM data from Marbán (1701), presented in table 1 in an adaptation of Marbán’s original orthography for the language (see Carvalho & Rose 2018 for the orthographic conventions of Marbán). Marbán (1701: 115–117) offers a discussion of kinship terms, carefully distinguishing vocative and referential forms (the latter described as ‘possessive’). He notes, for instance, that ‘my father’ does not occur with the possessive prefixes; if these must be present, a separate form is used, as in ‘your father’ (with the second person singular possessor pi-), ‘his father’ (with ma-, third person singular masculine possessor, for a male speaker) 7 and ‘her father’ (with su-, third person singular feminine possessor; see Marbán 1701: 115). Likewise, for ‘mother’, where ‘my mother’ is distinguished from ‘your mother’, ‘his mother’ and so on. Marbán (1701: 115) presents as meaning ‘my uncle’ and says that it admits the occurrence of person-marking prefixes, noting forms like ‘my uncle’ and ‘your (sg.) uncle’. However, these possessed forms call for the establishment of a distinct root, vowel-initial , with the first person singular and second person singular prefixes, nuand pi-, respectively, having their vowels lost to elision in internal sandhi with vowel-initial roots (see Carvalho & Rose 2018). This fact, in addition to the translation of as ‘my uncle’, here uniformly as k, and a glottal fricative is represented as h, not . Ott & Ott (1983) also use for a glottal stop, here represented as Ը. Sources on the Mojeño varieties other than Marbán (1701) usually employ an acute accentual mark signaling the syllable bearing word-level main stress. I have retained these when citing Mojeño forms. 6 In this section, mainly concerned with formal issues, I will refer to the meaning of the relevant cognate forms using the generic labels ‘uncle’ and ‘aunt’. The distinction between cross and parallel uncle/aunt will be discussed in detail in section 2.3, where tables 4 and 5 offer a summary of the reconstructed etyma advanced here. 7 Third person singular pronouns in Mojeño index the sex of the speaker in addition to the gender of the referent. Thus, ma- is third person singular masculine for male speakers, while female speakers use ੇi- instead (see Rose 2015 for details). 82

Terena (Arawakan) -eúko ‘uncle’ and -ôko ‘aunt’: etymology and a kinship terminology puzzle

despite the lack of any overt mark for a first person singular possessor, suggests the existence of two separate (albeit formally close) lexemes or terms: the vocative or address form and a referential term whose root is . Note also that there is no regular morphophonological process of vowel aphaeresis, in any documented variety of Mojeño, that could justify relating the free form and the bound root to the same underlying form, and I will therefore treat these as similar to the pairs (vocative) : (referential) ‘father’ and (vocative) and (referential) ‘mother’ noted above (see Carvalho & Rose 2018 for the reconstruction of *-ija ‘father’ and *-eno ‘mother’ for Proto-Mojeño). Finally, the same basic reasoning can be employed for recognizing two roots, one vocative and one referential, for ‘aunt’: the vocative is given by Marbán (1701: 115) as meaning ‘my aunt’, whose gloss underscores its address function, and the possessive forms he cites, ‘my aunt’ and ‘your aunt’. These possessive forms, after the identification of the prefixes nu- and pi- call for the recognition of a root ‘aunt’. Again, as no regular process of elision of word-initial velar stops exists in Old Mojeño or in any Mojeño variety, the free form and the bound root can be safely assigned to two independent terms or lexemes in OM. Finally, note that the distinct behavior of OM person-marking prefixes with the roots and follows from general properties of the morphophonology of the language: as noted in Carvalho & Rose (2018: 27), a prefix vowel in OM is regularly retained before a back (or non-front) vowel, as in ‘my grandson’ (Marbán 1701: 289), but is lost preceding a front vowel, as in ‘my work’ and ‘my husband’ (Marbán 1701: 502, 520), all with the first person singular prefix nu-. Based on the OM evidence reviewed above and on cognates attested for Ignaciano (-ékuka ‘uncle’ and -aka ‘aunt’), it is straightforward to reconstruct *-ékuko ‘uncle’ and *-oko ‘aunt’ for Proto-Mojeño. The two vocative forms found in OM, ‘uncle’ and ‘aunt’, have no attested cognates in the other Mojeño varieties. Nevertheless, and this is the central insight offered here, reconstructing the pairs *-ékuko (referential) : *kuko (vocative) ‘uncle’ and *-oko (referential) : *koko (vocative) ‘aunt’ both for Proto-Mojeño, and for an earlier proto-language shared with Terena (possibly the ‘Proto-Achane’ level suggested in Carvalho 2017b), makes it possible to account for the unexpected k-less form eúko ‘uncle’ in Terena. Moreover, this account is also consistent with comparative evidence from other Arawakan languages. I will now deal with these two aspects of the diachronic account offered, reserving section 2.2 to the evidence from a more distantly related language. The explanation I propose is based on an analogical modification of a form *-ékuko ‘uncle’, which is the expected, yet unattested, Terena match for Proto-Mojeño *-ékuko (see correspondences in 1 above). 8 This analogy-based account is sketched in (2) below. Table 2. Four-part (proportional) analogy underlying Terena *-ékuko > -eúko ‘Aunt’

‘Uncle’

Vocative

*koko

*kuko

Referential

*-oko

*-ékuko > -eúko

The crucial feature, for the present discussion, of the expected Terena cognate for PM *-ékuko ‘uncle’ is the presence of a medial velar stop, not present in the actually attested form -eúko ‘uncle’. When mentioning this expected yet unattested form I have retained the root-initial accentuation of the PM form. In fact, however, the nature of the comparative and diachronic relations between the PM and Terena prosodic systems remains unexplored and the identical position of the accentual marks in this case should not be seen as entailing a particular hypothesis on this matter or as having any implications whatsoever. 8

83

Fernando O. de Carvalho

Table 2 above presents the set of referential and vocative forms for ‘uncle’ and ‘aunt’ that I reconstruct for some shared, intermediate proto-language whose set of daughter languages minimally include Terena and Proto-Mojeño. As seen above, this state of affairs is faithfully retained in 17th century Old Mojeño (OM). The specific analogical change that took place in Terena appears in the shaded cell in table 2. Terena -eúko ‘uncle’ results from analogical modification based on the model implemented in the (arguably) semantically related forms for ‘aunt’: a vocative form with a kVkV shape matching a referential form with a VkV shape (*koko : *-oko). This proposal, which accounts for the Terena form which is otherwise surprising in view of attested sound correspondences with Proto-Mojeño, is entirely consistent with the traditional understanding of analogical changes as: “(…) a morphological transformation on the model of forms already existing in a language. When this occurs, purely phonetic developments in accordance with the sound laws are for the most part suppressed and obscured” (Szemerényi 1996: 27). 9 Finally, note that the apparently reduplicated shape is a generalized property of vocative, respect and other address forms in Terena kinship and social relations terminology, including tâta ‘father’ and mӼme ‘mother’ (cf. referential -háԸa and -êno, respectively) but also lûlu ‘address term for male elders’, ôtete ‘address term for female elders’ (cf. referential -ôte ‘grandmother’) and lêle ‘address term for older male individuals of the same generation as Ego’. Thus, the reconstructed pair *kuko (vocative) : *-ékuko (referential), was not compliant with the general pattern having -CVCV vocative forms matching referential forms that lack this apparently reduplicated shape, and the simple deletion of the medial *k of the referential form brought this pair in line with this structural pattern, one that is transparently manifested in the semantically related pair *koko ‘aunt’ (vocative) : *oko ‘aunt’ (referential). 2.2. Evidence from Paresi-Haliti I have proposed that the set of forms in table 2, identical to those attested in OM, can be assumed for Proto-Mojeño and for some earlier proto-language ancestor also shared with Terena. The fact that assuming this set of forms allows one to explain the formally difficult Terena form -eúko ‘uncle’ is arguably evidence for this. Nevertheless, as noted in section 1, Terena and Proto-Mojeño are very closely related and it would be good if evidence from other, more distant branches could offer additional support the reconstruction of the pattern in table 2 for a proto-language older than Proto-Mojeño itself. In Paresi (also Paresi-Haliti, Pareci), usually classified as either a ‘Central Arawakan’ (Payne 1991: 489) or ‘Paresi-Xinguan’ (Aikhenvald 1999: 67) language, one finds both koko, a vocative form for ‘uncle’ (as well as for ‘father-in-law’; Ana Paula Brandão, p.c.) 10 and the root -koke, the referential form for ‘uncle’ (Brandão 2014: 165). Besides, and perhaps of greater importance, -koke has a restricted vowelinitial allomorph -ekoke which occurs only with third person singular possessors. The restricted character of the allomorph -ekoke ‘uncle’ likely speaks for its inherited, primitive status, and hence for the existence, in Pre-Paresi, of the pair *-ekoke ‘uncle’ (referential) and *koko ‘uncle’ (vocative), a near-exact match to the situation attested in OM and projected back here as necessary to explain the odd Terena form -eúko ‘uncle’. By ‘morphological transformation’ in Szemerényi’s quote one should understand ‘formal modification’, as opposed to looser definitions of analogical changes that include simple semantic shifts and other changes that lack formal repercussions under the same label of ‘analogy’. See Hock (2003: 443–445) for discussion. 10 Polysemy involving ‘uncle’ and ‘father-in-law’ is certainly a reflection of a positive marriage rule with cross-cousins which is, in fact, found among the Paresi (see Florido 2008: 116–119). As seen in section 2.3 Paresi -ekoke ~ -koke denotes a cross-uncle, that is, ‘mother’s brother’. I keep the use of the simpler label ‘uncle’, however, since my main source on the language, Brandão (2014), also employs this generic gloss. 9

84

Terena (Arawakan) -eúko ‘uncle’ and -ôko ‘aunt’: etymology and a kinship terminology puzzle

Before proceeding, additional commentary is necessary on the synchronic status of the Paresi ekoke ~ -koke allomorphy. Brandão (2014: 128, 165), the primary source consulted here for this language, offers an analysis that differs slightly from mine: a single underlying form koke ‘uncle’ is posited, with the vowel e of -ekoke, the restricted allomorph in my analysis, being assigned to the third person singular possessor marker, ene-, instead. Paresi has two alternants of the third person singular marker that are completely predictable on phonological grounds: epreceding consonants (e.g. e-kahe ‘his/her hand’), en- preceding vowels (e.g. en-eare ‘his name’; see Brandão 2014: 164–165). For two items an additional allomorph ene- is postulated in Brandão’s account: ene-koke ‘his/her uncle’ and ene-zona ‘his/her ripe fruit’. Concerning the first of these forms, ene-koke ‘his/her uncle’, both my account and Brandão’s require the specification of lexically-conditioned allomorphy: a distributionally very limited allomorph ene- of the third person singular marker in her account, a root allomorphy pattern koke ~ -ekoke ‘uncle’ under my proposal. So, as they stand, both analyses invoke morphological idiosyncrasy, which seems in this case unavoidable and really demanded by the data. I think, however, that there are reasons for preferring the root-allomorphy analysis (koke ~ -ekoke) over the prefixallomorphy analysis (ene-, as well as en- ~ e-). Note, first, that comparative data from ProtoMojeño and the likely shared ancestor of Terena and Mojeño speaks in favor of this solution, if not for a synchronic analysis of modern Paresi, at least for an early stage of the language, where Pre-Paresi *-ekoke ‘uncle’ would match PM *-ékuko. Second, and perhaps more critically, the other occurrence of the ene- allomorph in Brandão’s (2014) account is likely amenable to an alternative analysis that eliminates the need to postulate a lexically-conditioned allomorph ene- for the third person singular prefix: ene-zona ‘his ripe fruit’ would be analyzable as enezona ‘his ripe fruit’ under the not far-fetched etymological equation with the independently attested verb H]R ‘to fall’ (Rowan 2001: 88), the semantic relation being established on the fact that ripe fruits are often identified as such once they fall off from trees. Still, a compromise or middle-ground solution is achievable if these options are understood as referring to different stages of the language: ene- could have developed in the modern language as a restricted allomorph after the sporadic absorption (reanalysis) of the root-initial e- of *-ekoke, whose existence is, after all, supported by comparative evidence. This will require delving into Paresi historical phonology and morphology, which lies outside the scope of the present contribution. 2.3. Semantics and the cross/parallel distinction among parental siblings Concerning the semantic issues involving Terena eúko ‘uncle’ and -ôko ‘aunt’, which relate to the ethnological problem brought up by Oberg (1948, 1949), the most important fact is that these terms are cognates of Old Mojeño terms for cross-uncle (mother’s brother) and crossaunt (father’s sister), respectively. The distinction between parallel and cross terminology for Ego’s parental generation is clear in the OM material of Marbán (1701: 346), where the following forms are found: ‘Aunt, sister of my mother’, , ‘Aunt, sister of my father’, ‘Uncle, brother of my father’ and , ‘Uncle, brother of my mother’. Before discussing the semantics of the etyma for parental cross siblings (‘father’s sister’ and ‘mother’s brother’), I will devote some space to the discussion of their complement, that is, the set of forms for parallel parental siblings, which are semantically unproblematic. Note that in this section I make use of the ordinary labels from kinship theory: FB= ‘father’s brother’; FZ= ‘father’s sister’; MB= ‘mother’s brother’ and MZ= ‘mother’s sister’ Based on cognates in Ignaciano and Trinitario that deviate semantically to a small degree, Proto-Mojeño forms are reconstructed for parallel parental siblings as in table 3 below (these reconstructions constitute an addition to the existing corpus of reconstructed PM etyma appearing in Carvalho & Rose 2018). 85

Fernando O. de Carvalho

Table 3. Proto-Mojeño terminology for parallel parental siblings ‘father’s brother’

‘mother’s sister’

*-api-ija-ru

*-api-eno-ru

Ignaciano

-ápijaru

-ápenaru

Trinitario

-apiaru

-apenru



Proto-Mojeño

Old Mojeño

The Trinitario cognates are given only with non-specific labels for ‘uncle’, -apiaru ‘tío’ (Gill 1993: 2), and for ‘aunt’, -apenru ‘tía’ (Gill 1993: 2). For the Ignaciano variety, available sources confirm the restriction to parallel parental siblings, that is, ‘mother’s sister’ and ‘father’s brother’ or, respectively: ápenaru ‘tía (hermana de madre)’ (Ott & Ott 1983: 74) and ápijaru ‘tío (hermano de padre)’ (Ott & Ott 1983: 76). The matching to OM ‘Aunt, sister of my mother’ (that is nu-apenoru), ‘Uncle, brother of my father’ (that is, nuapijaru) is transparent and based on the semantics of the OM and Ignaciano cognates, I reconstruct *-api-ija-ru and *-api-eno-ru for ‘father’s brother’ and ‘mother’s sister’, respectively, in Proto-Mojeño. These etyma include *-api-, the root for ‘two’, which occurs in combination not only with classifiers but in compounds with other lexemes, as in -ápiha ‘surname’, that is, -api-iha ‘second name’ (Ott & Ott 1983: 75), Trinitario api-miro ‘hypocritical’ (lit. “two faces”; Gill 1993: 2) and OM ‘two thorns, two hooks’, ‘two rivers’ and ‘two planting sites’ (Marbán 1701: 381). From the evidence of all compared dialects it seems safe to reconstruct a synchronic morphophonological rule for PM that elided the final vowel of *-api- preceding either *-ija- ‘father’ or *-eno- ‘mother’. The meaning of the two reconstructed etyma is thus purely descriptive, *-api-ija-ru ‘father’s brother’ (lit. “second father”) and *-api-eno-ru ‘mother’s sister’ (lit. “second mother”). The fully transparent morphology and compositional semantics of these formations suggests a recent innovation. Evidence from the suffixal morphology of these etyma provides additional evidence for this later formation. The suffix -ru is a Nominalizer (Olza Zubiri et al. 2002: 626–641) which likely derives from earlier suffixes having both Nominalizing and Gender-marking functions, a property noted both in more general discussions of Arawakan morphology (see e.g. Payne 1987: 64) and in first-hand descriptions of these languages, as in Hanson (2010: 167–179) for Yine, Brandão (2014: 204–209) for Paresi and Pet (2011: 22–23) for Lokono. The function of these morphemes as Gender-markers was lost in Mojeño and in other members of the family (see e.g. Payne 1991: 377), but remnants of this use remain in a few unproductive corners of the morphology, as in Ignaciano máimaru ‘widow, husbandless woman’ (that is, ma-ima-ru; Ott & Ott 1983: 271; where -ima ‘husband’ and ma- is a Privative prefix) versus Ignaciano majenare ‘widower, wifeless man’ (that is, ma-jena-re; Ott & Ott 1983: 279; -jena ‘wife’) and íha-ru ‘name of a woman’ vs. -íha-re ‘name of a man’ (Ott & Ott 1983: 219–220). Since in the case of the etyma *-api-ija-ru ‘father’s brother’ and *-api-eno-ru ‘mother’s sister’ the suffix *-ru is used with no regard for the Gender of the referent, their formation postdates the loss of the Gender-marking content of this morpheme, thus being a relatively late development. In Terena, terms employed for parallel parental siblings, as anticipated in section 1, are also transparent formations: poԸi nzâԸa ‘father’s brother’ (lit. “my other father”; nzâԸa ‘my father’) and poԸi Ӽnõ ‘mother’s sister’ (lit. “my other mother”; Ӽnõ ‘my mother’). These are, clearly, not cognate with the PM etyma *-api-ija-ru ‘father’s brother’ and *-api-eno-ru ‘mother’s 86

Terena (Arawakan) -eúko ‘uncle’ and -ôko ‘aunt’: etymology and a kinship terminology puzzle

sister’. All in all, this is consistent with the idea that the terminology for parallel parental siblings was recently and independently innovated both in PM and in Terena. 11 Dealing now with the terminology for cross parental siblings, the central claim made here is that Terena -eúko ‘uncle’ (that is, FB and MB), and -ôko ‘aunt’ (that is, FZ and MZ) were subject to semantic broadening, since the etyma they derive from had their meanings restricted to ‘cross uncle’ (MB) and ‘cross aunt’ (FZ), respectively. Table 4 below shows the etyma *-oko ‘father’s sister’ (FZ) and *-ekuko ‘mother’s brother’ (MB) reconstructed for the common ancestor of Terena and PM, focusing on the semantic mismatches between their reflexes. Table 4. Meanings of *-ekuko ‘MB’ and *-oko ‘FZ’ in Terena and two Mojeño dialects Etyma *-ekuko (MB) *-oko (FZ)

Mojeño Old Mojeño

Ignaciano

-ekuko

-ékuka

Terena -eúko

‘mother’s brother’

‘uncle’

‘uncle’

(MB)

(MB, FB)

(MB, FB)

-oko

-áka

-ôko

‘father’s sister’

‘grandmother’s sister’

‘aunt’

(FZ)

(FMZ, MMZ)

(MZ, FZ)

The semantic comparisons above lay out clearly a number of semantic diachronic correspondences. OM is conservative in retaining the semantic specialization to cross parental siblings of the reconstructed etyma. In Ignaciano, the sole modern dialect of the language where reflexes of these etyma are found, *-ekuko ‘mother’s brother’ had its meaning broadened to include ‘father’s brother’ as well. Ott & Ott (1983: 156) note that -ékuka is ‘palabra general’ (“generic word”) for ‘uncle’, while -ápijaru is, as noted above, a transparent, special term for ‘father’s brother’ (Ott & Ott 1983: 76). The etymon *-oko ‘father’s sister’ changed to mean ‘grandmother’s sister’ (‘tía (hermana de la abuela)’; Ott & Ott 1983: 632). 12 A reviewer questioned the inclusion of Ignaciano -aka ‘grandmother’s sister’ in the same etymology as OM -oko ‘father’s sister’ and Terena -ôko ‘aunt’, possibly on the grounds that the diverging semantics precludes comparability. I think that this is not really a problem, but given this paper’s focus on Terena, not on Mojeño, and the existence of certain unclear features in the meaning of the Ignaciano form (see footnote 12), I will comment only briefly on this. The postulated change from etymological *-oko ‘father’s sister’ (FZ) to Ignaciano -aka ‘grandmother’s sister’ (either FMZ or MMZ) consists, first and foremost, in ignoring or by-passing a generational difference in kin relations. This kind of semantic association is attested in many kinship systems and is, in fact, one of the defining properties of the Omaha/Crow terminological ‘skewing’ (Murdock 1949: 102; McConvell 2013: 154) where a single kinship term can refer to kin relations at Ego’s generation (G0) and also at the parental generation (G+1), 13 besides being also attested in diachronic se‘Recently’ here should be understood as meaning ‘after PM and Terena split from their last shared common ancestor’, which, as noted below, may be identified with the Proto-Achane level tentatively proposed in Carvalho (2017b). 12 The gloss provided by Ott & Ott (1983: 632) mentions no restriction to either FMZ or MMZ. Given the absence of any such specification, I have included a reference to either FMZ or MMZ as characteristic of the semantics of -aka. 13 In keeping with the traditional notation used in kinship theory, G0 denotes Ego’s generation (e.g. his siblings and ‘cousins’, whether classified together with siblings or not), G+1 stands for the generation ‘above’ Ego, that is, the generation of his parents and their siblings, G-1 is the generation immediately ‘below’ G0, that is, that of Ego’s children and the children of Ego’s siblings, and so on. 11

87

Fernando O. de Carvalho

mantic change, as in developments relating ‘grandson’ (G-2) and ‘nephew’ (G-1) in the IndoEuropean domain (see for example Mallory & Adams 1997: 239–240). Moreover, the fact that the sex of the connecting relative which was added as a function of the generational shift, in this case the grandmother (FM or MM), has changed (in the etymological meaning FZ the sole connecting relative is the male F) does not make the semantic association implausible, since the sex of the relative denoted by the term (the sister Z) is a more salient parameter in semantic change in kinship systems (see Hage 1999: 433) and this is kept constant in the change FZ > FMZ, MMZ. Given the typologically recurrent (even if ‘marked’; see McConvell 2013: 154) status of semantic associations (or terminological classifications) that span that divide between generations in kin relations, and the fact that marking/salience relations proposed as constraints on diachronic change in kinship terms are not violated by this hypothesis, I think there are no obstacles of a semantic nature to the acceptance of Ignaciano -aka ‘grandmother’s sister’ as a cognate of OM -oko ‘father’s sister’ and Terena -ôko ‘aunt’. For Terena, note that a single semantic broadening characterized by the loss of the cross/parallel distinction took place, that is: MB > (MB, FB) and FZ > (MZ, FZ). Terena -eúko ‘uncle’ (MB, FB) and -ôko‘aunt’ (MZ, FZ) are the reflexes of etyma that were restricted in their reference to cross uncles (MB) and cross aunts (FZ). If the etymologizations in table 4 are indeed correct, I conclude that the semantic properties of the Terena terminology for parental siblings that intrigued Oberg (1948, 1949) stem from an extension in the meaning of forms traceable to *-oko ‘father’s sister’ and *-ekuko ‘mother’s brother’ and extension that derived a more ‘classificatory’ terminology referring to both cross and parallel parental siblings. Given the variety of attested meanings in the terminology for parental siblings in OM, Ignaciano and Terena noted in table 4, it is perhaps necessary to discuss in greater detail the reasons for reconstructing the meanings *-ekuko ‘mother’s brother’ (MB) and *-oko ‘father’s sister’ (FZ), instead of, say, etyma with less specific meanings of the kind attested in Terena. In my view both the early attestation of the more specialized semantics denoting cross parental siblings in OM and comparative evidence from other Arawakan languages jointly furnish the required evidence for these semantic reconstructions and, therefore, for seeing Terena as definitely innovative. However, before discussing this in greater detail I will present in table 5 below a summary of the total set of forms for parental siblings reconstructed here for PM and for the shared ancestor of Terena and PM (identified here simply as ‘etyma’). Note that cognates of Terena -eúko and ôko in Proto-Mojeño are highlighted in bold, and so are the reconstructed etyma. 14 Table 5. Terena and Proto-Mojeño terms for ‘uncle’ and ‘aunt’ Meaning FB

Terena

-eúko poԸi -háԸa

Proto-Mojeño

Etyma

*api-ija-ru

—

MB

-eúko

*-ékuko (ref.) *kuko (voc.)

*-ekuko (ref.) *kuko (voc.)

FZ

-ôko

*-oko (ref.) *koko (voc.)

*-oko (ref.) *koko (voc.)

*api-eno-ru

—

MZ

-ôko poԸi -êno

14 It is a well-known fact to linguists working on South American indigenous languages that a form comparable to kVkV and meaning ‘uncle’, where V stands usually for a back vowel u or o, is found throughout a number of unrelated languages and language groups, in particular in the Amazon. These include families like Arawá (Dixon 2004: 17), Panoan (Oliveira 2014: 417) and, of course, Arawakan.

88

Terena (Arawakan) -eúko ‘uncle’ and -ôko ‘aunt’: etymology and a kinship terminology puzzle

As noted, both Terena and Mojeño have complex, derived terms for parallel parental siblings (MZ and FB); these, however, are not only not cognate, but are so transparent in formation that a recent origin, that is, one postdating their separation from the last shared common ancestor, can be safely ascribed to them. Note that the OM forms discussed in the present paper are conservative in that: (1) OM preserves both the form and meaning of the terms reconstructed for PM, including the distinct referential and vocative forms for MB and FZ, and (2) the specialized meanings of the PM forms for cross uncle (MB) and cross aunt (FZ), attested only in OM, are projected further back to the etyma reconstructed for the common ancestor of Terena and PM, tentatively identified with the Proto-Achane level suggested by Carvalho (2017b). The fact that OM was attested some three hundred years earlier than Terena and Ignaciano is not in itself a strong reason for taking its semantics to be more conservative. It is rather easy, even trivial, to find cases in which languages/varieties of younger (more recent) attestation preserve more conservative or archaic structures — a phonological contrast, a specific morphological formation — which are nevertheless absent from languages/varieties of earlier (older) attestation (see Kümmel 2015 for a recent discussion). In fact, Carvalho & Rose (2018: 24) note that the OM variety described by Marbán (1701) is less conservative than modern Ignaciano is in relation to the reconstructed accentual system of PM. In the specific case of the semantics of kinship terms, however, I think that the early attestation of OM material makes it virtually certain that the meanings of these specific lexemes are more conservative than those attested much latter for Ignaciano and Terena. The same historic and cultural context that produced our existing documents on the Old Mojeño language, almost entirely restricted to the work of Marbán (1701), was also characterized by a still significant preservation of pre-Columbian social institutions, attitudes, practices and behaviors, including marriage practices, residence patterns, religious beliefs and rituals of the Mojeñospeaking populations, all described to some extent in available sources (see Denevan 1966: 45–49; Saito 2015; Hirtzel 2016 and references therein). Given the well-known effects that “altered life conditions”, to use Murdock’s (1949: 199) apt phrase, have on the kinship systems (including kinship terminologies) of different peoples under the pressure of acculturation, notably as a result of changes on residence pattern, the influence of missionary activity and as a consequence of depopulation (see Eggan 1937: 39–40; Spoehr 1947; Murdock 1949: 199–202; Voget 1953; Balée 2014), it is much more probable than not that the modern Mojeño and Terena terminologies have been much more drastically affected by change, vis-à-vis their presumed etyma, than is the case with the kinship terminology attested for 17th OM. Though the relations between, on the one hand, kinship terminologies and, on the other hand, kinship systems and social institutions is a complex one, it would be surprising if the changes in demography and social structure to which native indigenous populations have been increasingly subject in the last centuries have failed to make the semantics of kinship terms in modern Mojeño and Terena communities less conservative and more innovative than the terminologies recorded from Mojeño speakers in the 17th century, when many of their pre-Columbian social institutions and belief systems were still preserved. Finally, evidence from more distantly related Arawakan languages is also consistent with the hypothesis of an older kinship terminological system showing bifurcate merging in Ego’s parental generation that is, one showing special terminology for cross parental siblings, or, in our case: *-ekuko for MB and *-oko for FZ. The Paresi term for ‘uncle’ discussed in the preceding section, -ekoke ~ -koke, although often glossed simply as ‘uncle’ actually means ‘mother’s brother’ (MB), as noted in ethnographic descriptions of the Paresi (see Bortoletto 1999: 58–59, fn. 27; Florido 2008: 117), the same being true for -nake ‘aunt’, or, more precisely, ‘father’s 89

Fernando O. de Carvalho

sister’ (FZ). 15 The same ethnographies also add that the terms for ‘father’ (aba) and ‘mother’ (ama), in turn, classify both ‘father’ and his brother (F, FB) and ‘mother’ and her sister (M, MZ), respectively. Likewise, in Mehinaku, a language of the Xinguan branch (see e.g. Carvalho 2015, 2016a), papa classifies ‘father’ and ‘father’s brother’, mama denotes both ‘mother’ and ‘mother’s sister’ and specific terms refer to cross parental siblings: kuku ‘mother’s brother’, aky ‘father’s sister’ (see Florido 2008: 119–124 and references therein). Mehinaku -aky (FZ), Paresi nake < *na-ake (FZ) are plausibly cognates of the etymon *-oko (FZ) in table 5 above, and the same holds for Paresi ekoke ~ -koke (MB), Mehinaku -kuku (MB) and the etymon *-ekoke (MB) proposed here. Unravelling the exact nature of these relations depends, however, on future comparative investigations aimed at working out the regular segmental correspondences matching, on the one hand, Terena and Mojeño and, on the other hand, Paresi and the Xinguan languages.

3. Concluding remarks This short contribution has provided an account to a specific formal difficulty arising from an attempt at relating the Terena noun -eúko ‘uncle’ to its cognates in the rather closely related Mojeño language. Instead of invoking a sporadic and unmotivated process of consonant loss, an account grounded on the analogical imposition of a pattern attested in 17th century Old Mojeño offers a principled explanation for the occurrence of -eúko instead of the predicted but unattested form *ékuko. The etyma reconstructed for an intermediate ancestor shared by Terena and Proto-Mojeño, and some of its specific features, such as the co-existence of referential and vocative forms for ‘uncle’ differing only by the presence of anlaut vowel in the referential form, are, moreover, supported by evidence from the more distantly related Paresi. As to the semantic changes to which the reconstructed etyma were subject, I have shown that *-ekuko ‘mother’s brother’ (MB) and *-oko ‘father’s sister’ (FZ) were subject to broadening changes in Terena, were their reflexes, -eúko and -ôko, respectively, also denote parallel kin relations. It was also shown that PM and Terena, which present cognate and specific forms for cross parental siblings have, nevertheless, independently innovated derived terms for parallel parental siblings. A reviewer suggests that this, combined with the evidence from other more distantly related Arawakan languages, such as Paresi and Waurá, briefly discussed here, suffice as evidence for the hypothesis that Proto-Arawakan lacked specific terms for parallel parental siblings. I opt here, however, for a more cautious approach, given that Terena and PM are closely related languages and only very cursory comparison with a few other southern Arawakan languages has been presented here. Moreover, recent and pioneering comparative overviews of Arawakan kinship terminologies stress a high degree of variation and heterogeneity throughout the family (see Florido 2008: 160–161), a fact that makes even more risky any inference based on a few closely related languages. Perhaps Proto-Arawakan had complex, derived terms for parallel parental siblings of the kind seen in Terena and in PM, or, perhaps, a single underived form classified both the relevant parent and its sibling, as seen above in section 2.3 where Paresi aba ‘F=FB’ and ama ‘M=MZ’ were noted. Relating the reconstructed etyma presented here to their cognates in other Arawakan languages remains, therefore, a task for the future, once low-level (bottom-up) reconstruction has been successfully and extensively carried at the less inclusive level of closely related languages forming terminal branches. 15 Paresi -nake ‘father’s sister’ likely includes a fossilized 1SG possessive prefix, *na-ake ‘my aunt’, and thus instantiates a vocative > referential shift.

90

Terena (Arawakan) -eúko ‘uncle’ and -ôko ‘aunt’: etymology and a kinship terminology puzzle

References Aikhenvald, Alexandra. 1999. The Arawakan language family. In: R. M. W. Dixon, Alexandra Aikhenvald (eds.) The Amazonian languages: 65–106. Cambridge University Press. Balée, William. 2014. Charles Wagley on changes in Tupí-Guaraní kinship classifications. Boletim do Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi 9 (3): 645–659. Bendor-Samuel, John. 1961. An outline of the grammatical and phonological structure of Terena, Vols. 1 and 2. Arquivo Lingüístico 090. Brasília: Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL). Bortoletto, Renata. 1999. Morfologia social Paresi: Uma etnografia das formas de sociabilidade de um grupo Aruak do Brasil central. MA Thesis, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Brazil. Brandão, Ana Paula. 2014. A reference grammar of Paresi-Haliti. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin. Cardoso de Oliveira, Roberto. 1976. Do índio ao bugre: O processo de assimilação dos Terêna. Rio de Janeiro: Francisco Alves. Carvalho, Fernando O. de. 2015. On the realization of nominal possession in Mehinaku: A diachronic account. International Journal of American Linguistics 81 (1): 119–132. Carvalho, Fernando O. de. 2016a. Obscure cognates and lexical reconstruction: Notes on the diachrony of the Xinguan Arawak languages. Boletim do Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi, Ciências Humanas, 11 (1): 277–294. Carvalho, Fernando O. de. 2016b. Terena, Chané, Guaná and Kinikinau are one and the same language: Setting the record straight on southern Arawakan linguistic diversity. LIAMES 16 (1): 39–57. Carvalho, Fernando O. de. 2017a. Fricative debuccalization and primary split in Terena (Arawakan) historical phonology. International Journal of American Linguistics (july/2017 issue). Carvalho, Fernando O. de. 2017b. On Terena (Arawakan) -pâho ‘mouth’: Etymology and implications for internal classification. Journal of Language Relationship 15 (2): 69–86. Carvalho, Fernando O. de and Françoise Rose. 2018. Comparative reconstruction of proto-Mojeño and the phonological diversification of Mojeño dialects. LIAMES 18 (1): 3–44. Denevan, William. 1966. The aboriginal cultural geography of the llanos de Mojos of Bolivia. Berkeley: University of California Press. Dixon, R. M. W. 2004. Proto-Arawá phonology. Anthropological Linguistics 46 (1): 1–83. Eggan, Fred. 1937. Historical Changes in the Choctaw Kinship System. American Anthropologist 39 (1): 34–52. Ekdahl, Muriel, Nancy Butler. 1979. Aprenda Terêna. Vols. 1 and 2. Brasília: Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL). Florido, Marcelo. 2008. As parentológicas Arawá e Arawak: Um estudo sobre parentesco e aliança. MA Thesis, University of São Paulo (USP), Brazil. Gill, Wayne. 1993. Diccionario Trinitario-Castellano. San Lorenzo de Mojos: Misión Nuevas Tribus. Hage, Per. 1999. Marking universals and the structure and evolution of kinship terminologies. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 5 (3): 423–441. Hanson, Rebecca. 2010. A grammar of Yine. Doctoral Dissertation, La Trobe University. Hirtzel, Vincent. 2016. Los espíritus-jaguares: cráneos-trofeos y chamanismo entre los Mojos (siglo XVII). Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Études Andines 45 (1): 227–252. Hock, Hans Henrich. 2003. Analogical change. In: Brian Joseph and Richard Janda (eds.). The handbook of historical linguistics: 441–460. Oxford / Berlin: Blackwell. Jolkesky, Marcelo. 2016. Uma reconstrução do proto-Mamoré-Guaporé (Família Arawák). LIAMES 16 (1): 7–37. Kümmel, Martin Joachim. 2015. Is ancient old and modern new? Fallacies of attestation and reconstruction (with special focus on Indo-Iranian). In: David Goldstein, Stephanie Jamison and Brent Vine (eds.). Proceedings of the 27th UCLA Indo-European Conference. Los Angeles, October 24th — 25th: 79–96. Bremen: Hempen. Mallory, J. P., D. Q. Adams. 1997. Encyclopedia of Indo-European culture. Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn. McConvell, Patrick. 2013. Granny got cross: semantic change of kami ‘mother’s mother’ to ‘father’s mother’ in Pama-Nyungan. In: Robert Mailhammer (ed.) Lexical and structural etymology: 147–184. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. Murdock, George P. 1949. Social structure. New York: The Macmillan Company. Oberg, Kalervo. 1948. Terena social organization and law. American Anthropologist 50 (2): 283–291. Oberg, Kalervo. 1949. The Terena and the Caduveo of Southern Mato Grosso, Brazil. Smithsonian Institution, Institute of Social Anthropology Publication N. 9. Washington: US Government Printing Office. Oliveira, Sanderson. 2014. Contribuições para a reconstrução do ProtoPáno. Doctoral Dissertation, Universidade de Brasília (UnB), Brazil. 91

Fernando O. de Carvalho

Olza Zubiri, Jesus, Conchita Nuni de Chapi, Juan Tube. 2002. Gramática Moja Ignaciana (morfosintaxis). Universidad Católica del Táchira. San Cristóbal: Venezuela. Payne, David. 1987. Some morphological elements of Maipuran Arawakan: Agreement affixes and the genitive construction. Language Sciences 9 (1): 57–75. Payne, David. 1991. A classification of Maipuran (Arawakan) languages based on shared lexical retentions. In: Desmond Derbyshire and Geoffrey K. Pullum (eds.) Handbook of Amazonian languages. Vol. 3: 355–499. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Pet, Willem. 2011. A grammar sketch and lexicon of Arawak (Lokono Dian). SIL E-books 30. Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL). Rose, Françoise. 2015. Innovative complexity in the pronominal paradigm of Mojeño: a result of contact? In: Francesco Gardani, Peter Arkadiev and Nino Amiridze (eds.) Borrowed Morphology: 241–267. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Rowan, Orlando. 2001. Dicionário Paresí-Português. Cuiabá: Sociedade Internacional de Lingüística. Saito, Akira. 2015. Guerra y evangelización en las misiones jesuíticas de Moxos. Boletín Americanista, Año LXV, 1(70): 35–56. Spoehr, Alexander. 1947. Changing kinship systems. Anthropological Series Volume 33 Number 4. Chicago: Field Museum of Natural History. Steckley, John. 1993. Huron kinship terminology. Ontario Archaeology 55: 35–59. Szemerényi, Oswald. 1996. Introduction to Indo-European linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Voget, Fred. 1953. Kinship changes at Caughnawaga. American Anthropologist 55 (3): 385–394.

Ɏɟɪɧɚɧɞɭ ɞɟ Ʉɚɪɜɚɥɶɸ. Ɇɨɪɮɟɦɵ -eúko ‫ލ‬ɞɹɞɹ‫ ތ‬ɢ -ôko ๑˪ˋ˪̀๏ ˅ ̀˖˻˜ˋ ˪ˋ˧ˋˣˁ (ˁ˧ˁ˅ˁ˜˨˜ˁ̀ ˨ˋˢ˼̀): ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜ˁ̀ ˧ˁ˖ˆˁˊ˜ˁ ˥ˊˣ˥˙ ˁˣ˥ˢˁ༤˘˘ ˅ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢˋ ˪ˋ˧ˢ˘ˣ˥˅ ˧˥ˊ˨˪˅ˁ ɳ ˨˪ˁ˪˼ˋ ˦˧ˋˊ༤ˁˆˁˋ˪˨̀ ˥˧˘ˆ˘ˣˁ༤˼ˣˁ̀ ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘˖ˁ˴˘̀ ˘ˢˋˣ ˨˫˹ˋ˨˪˅˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻˲ ๑ˊ̀ˊ̀๏ ˘ ๑˪ˋ˪̀๏ ˅ ˄˧ˁ˖˘༤˼˨˜˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˋ ˪ˋ˧ˋˣˁ, ˥˪ˣ˥˨̀˹ˋˢ˨̀ ˜ ˁ˧ˁ˅ˁ˜˨˜˥˙ ˨ˋˢ˼ˋ. ɳ ˵ˁ˨˪ˣ˥˨˪˘, ˣˋ˜˥˪˥˧˻ˋ ˥˨˥˄ˋˣˣ˥˨˪˘ ˧ˁ˖˅˘˪˘̀ ˱˥˧ˢ˻ -eúko ๑ˊ̀ˊ̀๏, ˣˋ ˘ˢˋ˿˹˘ˋ ˥˄˺̀˨ˣˋˣ˘̀ ˅ ˧ˁˢ˜ˁ˲ ˥˄˻˵ˣ˥˙ ˪ˋ˥˧˘˘ ˖˅˫˜˥˅˻˲ ˖ˁ˜˥ˣ˥˅, ˦˧ˋˊ༤ˁˆˁˋ˪˨̀ ˨˵˘˪ˁ˪˼ ˁˣˁ༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˢ ˦˧ˋ˥˄˧ˁ˖˥˅ˁˣ˘ˋˢ ˦˥ ˪˥˙ ːˋ ˢ˥ˊˋ༤˘, ˜˥˪˥˧ˁ̀ ˖ˁ˨˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣˁ ˅ ˨˪ˁ˧˥ˢ ˢ˥˲ˋˣ˼˥. ʓˋˢˁˣ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˋ ˨˥˦˥˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˘ˋ ˅ˋ˧˥̀˪ˣ˻˲ ˜˥ˆˣˁ˪˥˅ ˦˥˖˅˥༤̀ˋ˪ ˦˧˥༤˘˪˼ ˨˅ˋ˪ ˣˁ ˨˪˧ˁˣˣ˥˨˪˘ ˅ ˪ˋ˧ˢ˘ˣ˥༤˥ˆ˘˘ ˧˥ˊ˨˪˅ˁ ˫ ˪ˋ˧ˋˣˁ, ˊˁ˅ˣ˥ ˥˖ˁˊˁ˵˘˅ˁ˅˸˘ˋ ˁˣ˪˧˥˦˥༤˥ˆ˥˅, ˘ ˦˥ˊ˪˅ˋ˧ˊ˘˪˼ ˨˪ˁ˧˥ˋ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤˥ːˋˣ˘ˋ ʐ˄ˋ˧ˆˁ ˥ ˪˥ˢ, ˵˪˥ ˨˱ˋ˧ˁ ˦˧˘ˢˋˣ˘ˢ˥˨˪˘ ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅˫˿˹˘˲ ˪ˋ˧ˢ˘ˣ˥˅ ˧˥ˊ˨˪˅ˁ ˅ ˜ˁ˜˥˙-˪˥ ˢ˥ˢˋˣ˪ ˧ˁ˨˦˧˥˨˪˧ˁˣ˘༤ˁ˨˼ ˘ ˣˁ ˦ˁ˧ˁ༤༤ˋ༤˼ˣ˻˲ ˨˘˄༤˘ˣˆ˥˅. ʑ˥ ˲˥ˊ˫ ˊˋ༤ˁ ˅ ˨˪ˁ˪˼ˋ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ ˧̀ˊ ˊ˥˦˥༤ˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻˲ ༤ˋ˜˨˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˧ˋ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˜˴˘˙ ˊ༤̀ ̀˖˻˜ˁ ˦˧ˁˢ˥˲ˋˣ˼˥ ˘ ˁ༤˼˪ˋ˧ˣˁ˪˘˅ˣ˻˙ ˅ˁ˧˘ˁˣ˪ ˁˣˁ༤˘˖ˁ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢ˻ ˧ˁ˨˦˧ˋˊˋ༤ˋˣ˘̀ ˁ༤༤˥ˢ˥˧˱˥˅ ˅ ̀˖˻˜ˋ ˦ˁ˧ˋ˨˘. ʂ˕˳˩ˀʻ˯ˀ ˜˕˙ʻʸ: ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘̀, ̀˖˻˜˥˅ˁ̀ ˁˣˁ༤˥ˆ˘̀, ˪ˋ˧ˢ˘ˣ˻ ˧˥ˊ˨˪˅ˁ, ˁ˧ˁ˅ˁ˜˨˜˘ˋ ̀˖˻˜˘.

92

Rostislav Oreshko University of Warsaw / Center for Hellenic Studies (Harvard University)

Anatolian linguistic influences in Early Greek (1500–800 BC)? Critical observations against sociolinguistic and areal background 1 The paper addresses the question of the presence of Anatolian influence in Early Greek (conventionally, about 1500–800 BC). The first part addresses methodological questions of language contact, such as mechanisms of linguistic interaction and the scale of borrowings. In the second part, eleven important cases of presumable Anatolian lexical borrowings in Greek are critically analyzed. The results of the analysis suggest that the Anatolian influence on the vocabulary of Early Greek was minimal (if any), which strongly speaks against the possibility of influences in morphology, phonetics or phraseology. Keywords: Greek-Anatolian interaction, Early Greek language, Anatolian languages, Hittite language, Luwian language, Lydian language, Lycian language, Carian language

It would be fair to say that the existence of some cultural influence of Anatolia on Greek language and literature which may be dated as far back as the Late Bronze Age is at present taken practically for granted. The assessments of the extent and depth of this influence, as well as of its exact source (the Hittites, the Luwians or some other peoples of Western or Southern Anatolia), may vary considerably from scholar to scholar, but the very idea seems to have assumed by now in the eyes of many (if not all) the quality of an established fact, mirroring in a way a similar process of ‘recognition’ of more general ‘Oriental’ influences in the early Greek literature. This belief is rooted in the obvious fact of immediate geographic proximity of Anatolia and the Aegean, in the somewhat less obvious but still demonstrable fact of contacts between the Mycenaean Greeks and Anatolian peoples and, lastly, in a far more problematic — and often subconscious — belief that Anatolia as a part of the Ancient Near East was culturally superior to the Aegean world in the Late Bronze Age, which should allegedly have automatically made the Greeks receptive to cultural impulses from this region. The underlying belief in the importance of the Anatolian factor for the Early Greek language and literature generated over the years an imposing (even if not all too dense) swarm of publications claiming to have found one or the other concrete instance of Anatolian or, to apply the term most fre1 The current paper was submitted as a part of project ‘The Trojan Catalogue (Hom. Il. 2.816–877) and the Peoples of Western Anatolia in the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age. A Study of the Homeric Text in the Light of Hittite Sources and Classical Geographical Tradition’ (2015/19/P/HS3/04161), which has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Skůodowska-Curie grant agreement No 665778 with the National Science Centre, Poland. At the core of the paper lies the talk given at the conference ‘Language Change in Epic Greek and other Oral Traditions’ (Leiden, 27–29 October, 2016) and the initial variant of the paper profited from the discussions with Lucien van Beek (the editor of the proceedings volume) and from the critical comments of an anonymous peer reviewer, to whom I express my gratitude. My further thanks go to Craig Melchert and Ilya Yakubovich, both for helpful suggestions and for correction of linguistic infelicities. Needless to say, all responsibility for the text remains my own.

Journal of Language Relationship • ɳ˥˦˧˥˨˻ ̀˖˻˜˥˅˥ˆ˥ ˧˥ˊ˨˪˅ˁ • 16/2 (2018) • Pp. 93–118 • © The authors, 2018

Rostislav Oreshko

quently used for the most part of the 20th century, Hittite influence in the domain of Greek vocabulary, morphology or phraseology 2. The fact of geographic proximity of the Aegean and Anatolia and the existence of some sort of contact between the Greeks and the Anatolians in the Late Bronze Age is difficult to deny. However, these two factors still do not constitute a sufficient condition for existence of a cultural, linguistic or, even less so, literary influence of Anatolia on Greece. The very possibility and the direction of influence is determined by a far more complex and subtle combination of sociolinguistic factors which involve type and intensity of contact between two communities — which may or may not result in the situation of bilingualism — and, no less crucially, language attitudes within respective communities (see below for details). Due in part to the above mentioned preconceptions and in part to the almost complete absence of direct evidence, the sociolinguistic dimension of the process of the Greek-Anatolian interaction was until recently practically left out of consideration. Ilya Yakubovich (2010: 140– 157) was the first to look at the issue against a sociolinguistic background. However, his treatment is more of a critical overview of the relevant evidence rather than a linguistic analysis within the framework of methods that are current in modern sociolinguistic discourse. Some theoretical points of language contact were touched upon by Ivo Hajnal (2014: 107–110), who posed the question whether Early Greek and Anatolian might be described as a sort of Sprachbund, as was assumed in some earlier studies (e.g., Puhvel 1991a or Watkins 2000a), or if the nature of the language contact was more casual. In his analysis he drew upon considerations on contact-induced language changes presented in Thomason & Kaufman (1988: 37f., 65f.) which result from studies on modern and much better documented languages. As far as the question is concerned, Hajnal argued — rather unsurprisingly — against a Sprachbund scenario, coming to the conclusion that Greek-Anatolian contacts were rather confined in their extent and went exclusively in the direction East > West (i.e. Anatolia > Greece), resulting in some lexical borrowings but no structural changes in Greek (such as borrowing of morphological elements or changes in syntax). In a more recent treatment (2018), which largely repeats the argumentation of Hajnal 2014, a similar conclusion is reached. And yet, even while basically refuting the existence of bilingual communities on the Greek-Anatolian interface and accepting only a very limited number of Anatolian borrowings in Greek, Hajnal still quite optimistically assesses the existence of phraseological borrowings from Anatolia attested in the Iliad and other Early Greek literary works, ascribing them to an interaction on the level of ‘literary subjects and genres’. The idea that it is possible to speak about an interaction on literary level which leaves no perceptible traces in the lexicon of a language — neither in the domain of common words, nor even in the domain of onomastics which is arguably quite easily transferred from culture to culture — raises serious doubts and would require a detailed discussion. The aim of the present contribution is, however, to re-address in greater detail the sociolinguistic and areal aspects of the problem which Yakubovich and Hajnal touch upon only tangentially. 3 The popularity of the idea of Greek-Anatolian language contact is primarily due to the works of Jaan Puhvel and Calvert Watkins (see first of all Puhvel 1991 and the articles collected in Puhvel 2002, as well as Watkins 1995, 1998, 2000a, 2000b, 2007). For further literature and for a general good overview of the recent state of research in the field see Bianconi 2015. The recent monograph by Mary Bachvarova (2016), although building in part on linguistic argumentation, rather represents an elaboration of the topic from a literary/cultural perspective. The idea of more general ‘Oriental’ influences in Greek literature, inspired primarily by the works of Martin West (1997) and Walter Burkert (1992, 2004), recently saw a significant surge of interest (cf., e.g., López-Ruiz 2010, Haubold 2013, Metcalf 2015). 3 The question of sociolinguistic mechanisms of borrowings and ‘migration’ of terms in a certain area (Wanderwörter) was also recently discussed in two largely identical articles by Pozza-Gasbarra (2014a and 2014b). How2

94

Anatolian linguistic influences in Early Greek (1500–800 BC)? Critical observations against sociolinguistic and areal background

The first part of the paper will address the basic premises of the question about how and why a linguistic feature can be adopted from a foreign linguistic/cultural milieu, in other words, the sociolinguistic mechanisms of borrowing, with which the question of the scale (or hierarchy) of borrowings is further connected. In the second part I will give a critical revision the most important cases of supposed Anatolian lexical influence on Greek. Needless to say, the aim of this revision is not to give a full re-assessment of the situation — a task which would require a special monograph — but first of all to demonstrate the problems and caveats associated with the idea of Anatolian linguistic influence on Greek.

I. An analytical framework: mechanisms of linguistic interaction and the scale of borrowings 1) Quite naturally, theoretical issues concerning language interaction and mutual influence are rarely touched upon in discussions of dead languages attested through relatively small text corpora. Linguistic influences are here either quite obviously suggested by the material itself, as is, for instance, the case with the influence of the Prakrits on Tocharian or Greek on Coptic, or follow from more general historical considerations, as is the case with the influence of the Aegean substratum language(s) on Greek and comparable substratum scenarios, even if an exact quantitative assessment remains rather difficult in such cases. However, theoretical issues become crucial when one has to deal with interaction of two (or more) contemporary languages in neighboring regions (adstratum scenarios), when neither the direction nor the very existence of an influence is quite obvious. Geographic proximity and some contact between two communities, putative or actually documented, do not guarantee alone any linguistic or literary influence of one culture on the other. One can find numerous examples across the word when geographic proximity and contact between two linguistic communities result in no or practically no influence of one language on the other (let alone the literary level). An obvious example from the European linguistic area would be an extremely meager number of Celtic loanwords in standard British English, despite hundreds of years of close coexistence and significant intermixture of the two linguistic communities. The case is all the more remarkable given that the culture of different Celtic peoples, such as the Welsh or the Irish, at the end of 1st and beginning of 2nd can be in no way characterized (by modern scholars) as inferior to that of the Anglo-Saxons or the Normans. On the other hand, the heavy layers of Latin, French and Scandinavian borrowings in English show that the language was not just ‘open’ or ‘closed’, in a binary manner, to external influences — it was selective about the source. In other words, sociolinguistic factors play an extremely important and, in many cases, crucial role. Further examples, also strongly tied to the question of language attitude, would be the more than modest number of Slavicisms in German or of words of indigenous origin in the American variety of English; in both cases the borrowings are restricted to very specific — virtually terminological — spheres, such as plant and animal names, cuisine, names of specific household items, cultural practices etc. and have almost no exponents in the everyday lexicon. Thus, without at least a rough assessment of sociolinguistic factors and language attitudes it is impossible to make any a priori claims about linguistic or literary influences of one culture on another, and the case of Greek and Anatolian is no exception. A preliminary assessment of soever, the perspective adopted by the authors appears to be too general to be useful for the present inquiry. Unfortunately, I was unable to gain access to an earlier contribution of the authors to the question of Greek-Anatolian interference (Gasbarra-Pozza 2012). 95

Rostislav Oreshko

ciolinguistic factors in Aikhenvald–Dixon 2001: 14–16 recognizes seven relevant parameters which apply to both sides of interaction: a) Type of community, which refers both to its internal organization (‘tightly-knit’ vs. ‘loosely-knit’) and the degree of openness to interaction with neighbors. The lifestyle of a given community (e.g., nomadic communities of different types, village agriculturalists, urbanized societies etc.), social organization and even marriage patterns (which affect transmission of language between generations) may play an important part in it. b) Size of the community. c) Relations within a community, i.e. first of all hierarchical structure of a given society and relations between different strata. d) Type of contact with other communities, which involves both frequency of contact (regular vs. sporadic), circumstances (trade, religious/cultic interaction etc.) and, again, social level on which the contact takes place. e) Degrees of ‘lingualism’, which describes the mode of usage of two or more languages within a given community. It is crucial whether a certain multiethnic community may be described as bilingual or multilingual — or the nature of contact does not presuppose any degree of ‘lingualism’ at all. f) Type of language interaction: one-to-one interaction between two languages or interaction between one language and a group of closely-related languages. g) Language attitude, which describes more or less conscious strategies of dealing with foreign elements. This may range from unrestricted and unconditional acceptance of borrowings to creative adoption of external influences using internal capacities of one’s own language (‘loan translation’) to a complete ban on or ignorance of foreign elements. Needless to say, far from all of these factors can be assessed with any accuracy for the case of Greek-Anatolian interaction in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age (before ca. 800 BC). Still, some clues do exist and the situation they seem to imply is, to say the least, far from telling about any Anatolian influence on Greek. To begin with, judging from archaeological evidence, which is practically the only available source for the given period, the Greek-Anatolian contact zone was rather ‘slim’ in the Late Bronze Age, being effectively confined to the coastal zone of western (mainly its central part corresponding to Ionia) and possibly South Western Anatolia (Lycia). 4 Furthermore, it was not continuous, but concentrated in several pockets corresponding to major urban centers; with some probability one may speak about more or less continuous presence of some Mycenaean Greek communities only in Miletus/Milawanda, in the region of the lower Hermos (the archaeological site of Panaztepe) and, somewhat more speculatively, in Ephesos/Abasa and a couple of other cities. 5 In the Early Iron Age the territory of Greek settlement in western Anatolia expanded in quantitative terms, but the pattern remained essentially the same: urban centers in the narrow coastal zone which were open towards the sea with its trade routes but had rather little interest for the Anatolian hinterland beyond their respective city state territories (choras). There are hardly any reasons to assume that the mode of colonization of the West Anatolian coast was any different from colonization patterns obFor a general picture of the distribution of Mycenaean pottery see Mee 1978 and especially Mountjoy 1998 with maps on pp. 38 and 52. 5 It is quite probable that the Greek-speaking communities were also present in the Late Bronze Age Troy (Wilusa). However, there are strong doubts that Troy, as well as the whole north-western part of Anatolia (the Troad and Mysia), can be properly defined as ‘Anatolian’ in an ethnolinguistic sense (i.e. speaking one of the languages belonging to the Anatolian branch of the Indo-European languages). This question, which is the subject of the ongoing project of the author, will be addressed in detail elsewhere (cf., however, some considerations in Oreshko 2017). 4

96

Anatolian linguistic influences in Early Greek (1500–800 BC)? Critical observations against sociolinguistic and areal background

served for instance in Southern Italy or on the northern Black Sea coast or in Egypt (Naukratis), where the defining feature was creation of Greek enclaves in the foreign ethnolinguistic milieu with only very limited (if any) attempt of integration of (or into) the pre-existing communities. The Greek settlement in Pamphylia and Cilicia went quite possibly along somewhat different lines with a somewhat higher level of interaction with and integration into the local communities (as was also the case with Cyprus). However, there are no evidence that the Greek communities there functioned as ‘channels’ of Anatolian influences into Greek in general (i.e. core literary dialects as Attic-Ionic and Doric); if there was any Anatolian linguistic influence on Greek in Pamphylia, as the scarce evidence of the Pamphylian dialect seems to suggest, or Cilicia (where there is no evidence), it remained rather a local matter (cf. again the case of Cypriot dialect). 6 The only site in the inland Anatolia for which we have direct evidence suggesting some Greek presence in the Archaic period was Sardis (Sappho and Alcaeus); it is, however, questionable if this situation may be projected to back before 800 BC. The next factor about which one can make some reasonable guesses is the nature of contact with indigenous Anatolians in the Late Bronze Age. There is every reason to think that the driving force of Mycenaean presence in Anatolia was ‘economical’ considerations: trade and, probably even more so, piracy and raiding, as suggested by the evidence of archaeology and scarce textual sources (Hittite and Linear B) 7. This circumstance predicts rather precisely the type of Mycenaean Greek communities active in the Late Bronze Age in Western Anatolia: tightly-knit groups of male warriors and traders, probably not too different from the groups of Vikings active in the medieval Europe and beyond. Contact with indigenous Anatolian communities was characterized at best by a cautious (material) interest, but may have frequently been rather strained. Contact in the sphere of religion and cult, although frequently conjectured 8, remains a rather speculative possibility. In the Early Iron Age, the pattern must have changed: the Greek settlements founded in the course of Aeolian, Ionian and Dorian migrations on the west-Anatolian coast represented full-fledged communities which included women and groups of any age and social strata. Both the size of the Greek communities in Western Anatolia in the Early Iron Age and the sociolinguistic pattern of their coexistence and interaction with the local communities are extremely difficult to assess even approximately. However, if there is no reason to doubt contacts on the level of individuals and, accordingly, the existence of a number of Greek-Anatolian bilingual speakers 9, virtual absence of any literary evidence about long-term co-existence and/or intensive and regular interaction between Greek and, first of all, West-Anatolian communities in a specific common space and non-military context shows, at the least, that it was not common practice (again, the only exception seems to be Sardis). 6 For Pamphylian see, e.g., Filos in Giannakis 2014: s.v. with further literature. There is no evidence about Greek spoken in Cilicia, although the joint evidence of Greek sources and Luwian inscriptions from Cilicia (KARATEPE and ÇĔNEKÖY) implies that the Greeks did settle there; in all probability those Greek communities shifted to the local idiom (Luwian) soon after the settlement (cf. considerations in Yakubovich 2015). 7 The few mentions of the Mycenaean Greeks (‘Ahhiyawa’) in Hittite texts suggest quite tense relationships, if not open hostility (see Beckman et al. 2011 with an overview of the issue on pp. 1–6 and 267–283, cf. also de Fidio 2008: 99–102). The evidence of Linear B texts mentioning female captives (ra-wi-ja-ja) from the regions of the West Anatolian coast and the nearby islands (as ki-ni-di-ja ‘Knidian women’ or ki-si-wi-ja, possibly ‘Chian women’) indirectly supports this, also implying that slaves were possibly one of the main ‘articles of commerce’ of the Mycenaeans in Anatolia (for captive women cf. also Chadwick 1988: 91–92). 8 See, e.g., Rutherford 2008, Mouton–Rutherford 2015, Teffeteller 2015, cf. also Bachvarova 2016: 216–265 for religious festivals as milieus for inter-cultural encounters. 9 For bilingual individuals see, e.g., the examples adduced in Hawkins 2010: 220–221.

97

Rostislav Oreshko

However, probably the most significant if not crucial part in shaping the relationship between Greek and Anatolian (as any other language of the Ancient Mediterranean and beyond) was the Greek attitude to the foreign peoples in general and their languages in particular. The available evidence, however incomplete it is, plainly warns against the idea that Early Greek was readily open to any linguistic influences going from outside. Indeed, a very remarkable feature of the Greek picture of social cosmos was a sharp contrast between ‘Greek’ and ‘nonGreek’ (‘Barbarian’). It is quite probable that this attitude had crystallized only during the Persian wars at the beginning of the 5th century BC. However, it could not emerge overnight as a reaction to this encounter and its roots should lie much further back in the past. 10 An important criterion of the distinction ‘Greek’ vs. ‘Barbarian’ was, along with perceived ethic affinity, religion and the way of life, quite naturally, language. And, just as the pattern of the Greek settlement abroad in relatively closed communities correlates well with the Greek attitude to the ‘Barbarians’, the linguistic evidence, when seen from a broad areal and chronological perspective, shows that Greek was rather restrictive towards external linguistic influences or, at least, very selective. If one takes out of consideration the words which can with different grades of confidence be classified as coming from the Aegean substratum language(s), 11 the number of borrowings in classical Greek before Hellenistic period from any of the contemporary languages of the neighboring peoples is quite modest. In a nutshell, the picture may be sketched as follows: the influence of the languages of the Balkans, Illyrian and Thracian, is, as far as one can judge from the extremely limited knowledge of these languages, barely noticeable in Greek. Even if one adopts an optimistic approach and counts the words transmitted as glosses which have an appearance of usual borrowings (cf. definition of a borrowing bellow), 12 as Thracian terms as ΝΪЛέΩΫ ‘(a sort of) barley beer’, ΡϚΦΜΫ (ΡΠΦηΫ/ΡΠΤΦη) ‘wine’ ЎΩ÷ίΜϲΜ ‘large, broad sword’, άΥηΦ÷΢ ‘sword, knife’, ΡΠέΪΜϲΜ ‘(a sort of) pot’, 13 one may speak at best only about some Thracian influence in peripheral Greek dialects. 14 Likewise, there is hardly any reason to assume any significant influence of Phrygian on Greek. In this case even glosses, consisting in the most reliable cases practically only of the words of basic (non-terminological) vocabulary (such as, e.g., ΟηΩΫ ‘wolf’ or ΡϑΦΥΤΜ ‘garden-herbs, vegetables’), does not suggest any actual presence of Phrygian borrowings in Greek dialects. 15 On the other hand, there is demonstrably Greek influence in Phrygian which On the Greek ethnocultural picture in general see, e.g., Cartledge 1993; for the reflection of this picture in the Histories of Herodotus, one of the most important sources in this respect, see Laurot 1993, cf. further Munson 2005. For more specific discussion see Coleman 1997, Tuplin 1999, Hall 2002: 90–124 (esp. 111–117 for the linguistic factor). 11 For the substratum Aegean material in Greek s. most recently Beekes 2014, esp. Chapter 6 (‘The Pre-Greek Lexicon’), cf. also an overview by Silvestri in Giannakis 2014: sub ‘Pre-Greek Substrate’. However one assesses Beekes’ analysis of individual cases, the fact is that the number of words in Greek which defy more or less plausible explanation from Indo-European is rather significant. 12 However, the words attested as glosses but found nowhere else, i.e. in theory known to Greeks but not in actual use, can be more correctly defined as foreign words (cf. below). 13 Cf. Tzitzilis in Giannakis 2014: sub ‘Greek and Illyrian’ and ‘Greek and Thracian’ with further refs. 14 Note, however, that a whole layer of the terms associated with the cult of Dionysos, as ΣВΪάΩΫ, ΣϲΜάΩΫ, ΟΤΣВΪΜ÷ΝΩΫ, ΣΪϲΜ÷ΝΩΫ etc. may come from Thracian (or, more generally, from an East-Balkan linguistic adstratum), as many features of the Dionysian cult have clear association with Thrace. In general, there are good chances that the Thracian (or East-Balkan) element in the Greek lexicon is underestimated due to poor knowledge to linguistic situation there. A significant amount of words dubbed as ‘pre-Greek’ may come from this region. 15 The only two possible exceptions are ΟΩВ÷ΩΫ ‘cultic/religious guild’ (~ Greek ΣϲΜάΩΫ), a word frequently found in Greek inscriptions from Lydia and Phrygia, and ΞηΦΦΩΫ ‘priest of the cult of Cybele’, well attested in Greek and Latin authors. For the material cf. Haas 1966: 157–172 (with often far-fetched interpretations) and Sowa 2007 and Sowa 2008: 39–68. 10

98

Anatolian linguistic influences in Early Greek (1500–800 BC)? Critical observations against sociolinguistic and areal background

may possibly go back to a very early period, cf. lavag[e]ta- < ΦΜFΜΞϚέ΢Ϋ (Myc. ra-wa-ke-ta), vanakt- ‘king’ < (F)ξΧΜΨ (Myc. wa-na-ka) attested in the Old-Phrygian period (M-01b) or later άΩΪo- < άΩΪЅΫ ‘cinerary urn, coffin’, ΣΜΦΜ÷Π- ‘grave chamber’ < ΣηΦΜ÷ΩΫ/ΣΜΦη÷΢ ‘inner room, chamber; grave chamber’, ΥΩΪΩ- < poss. ΰЬΪΩΫ ‘piece of ground, land’. 16 Again, quite a similar situation is found with the Anatolian languages attested in alphabetic transmission after ca. 700 BC, such as Carian, Lydian and Lycian. There are no demonstrable borrowings from either Carian or Lycian into the core Greek dialects and there is only very slight lexical influence of Lycian on the variety of Greek spoken in Lycia which reflects local realities and customs (÷ΤΧΟΤΫ/÷ΠΧΟΤέ΢Ϋ ‘a supervisory authority (of elders)’ < Lyc. miñt(i)- and, more speculatively, ÞΠΜέΪΜ/ÞΤΠέΪΜ ‘a term of relationship’ (possibly, daughter-in-law)). 17 This is, however, contrasted with clear evidence of Greek influence in Lycian, both lexical (e.g., stala- < άέηΦΜ (Dor.) or trijere- < έΪΤϚΪ΢) and structural, which is perceptible even in the relatively scarce inscriptional material we possess. For Carian, we have a testimony of Strabo (14.2.28) that it absorbed many Greek words in it.18 Only in the case of Lydian there are some reasons to assume a somewhat stronger influence.19 There are at least three good cases of Lydian words in Greek which may be termed as proper ‘borrowings’ or, at least, as ‘well-known foreign words’ (ÞηΦ÷ήΫ, ΥΜВ΢Ϋ and ΝηΥΥΜΪΤΫ, for which cf. below) and the Lydian material preserved as glosses makes an impression of somewhat more substantial knowledge of Lydian by Greeks than can be assumed for Lycian and Carian. 20 This correlates well with the probable presence of a Greek community in Sardis noted above. However it might be, in Lydia as well as in Caria and Lycia the population finally completely shifted to Greek, which once again clearly demonstrates the sociolinguistic status of Greek as a prestige language of the region and the main direction of influence. Greek was arguably more susceptible to the influences going from the cultures of the Near East and the greatest number of borrowings can be attributed to two eastern language groups: Semitic (first of all west-Semitic) and Iranian (first of all Persian). The number of certain borrowings from each of these two groups comprises at least two dozens.21 However, these two cases make the statement about the selectiveness of Greek in absorbing foreign influences even clearer. As for Semitic influence, it is clear that it comes from an intensive cultural and trade interaction between coastal and maritime cultures of the Levant — Cf. Ligorio-Lubotsky 2013: 194. See Melchert in Giannakis 2014: sub ‘Greek and Lycian’ with further refs. It is noteworthy that the few Carian ‘glosses’ all but one of which are preserved by Stephen of Byzantium, have rather dubious appearance (for the material cf. Adiego 2007: 455, cf. 7–12 with further refs.). At least in one case the explanation is clearly wrong: ̴ΦηΝΜΧΟΜ has nothing to do either with ‘horses’ (allegedly ΜΦΜ) or with ‘victory’ (ΝΜΧΟΜ), but goes back in all probability to *ala-wanda- (with fortization /w/ > /Ν/ (> /b/)), which contains the usual toponymic suffix -wanda- with possessive function and is based on the noun ala/i- (attested in Luwian). Only the gloss by Eusthatius (ΥΩϼΩΧ/ΥΩΩΧ ‘sheep’) seems to be correct (< *HŊwo-). This evidence gives quite a clear idea of the level of acquaintance of the Greeks with Carian. 18 Str. 14.2.28: ÞΦΠϼάέΜ ͋ΦΦ΢ΧΤΥι ЉΧЅ÷ΜέΜ ϘΰΠΤ ΥΜέΜ÷Π÷ΤΞ÷ϑΧΜ, ШΫ ί΢άΤ ̯ϲΦΤÞÞΩΫ Ј έι ̤ΜΪΤΥι ΞΪηαΜΫ ‘It has many Greek words mixed in it up, as says Philippos who wrote Carica’. Phillipos which Stabo refers to is Philippos of Theangela (FrGrHist 741) who wrote a treatise on Carians and Lelegians (̪ΠΪϵ ̤ΜΪЬΧ ΥΜϵ ̥ΠΦϑΞβΧ) of which only four brief mentions are extant (fr. 5 preserved by Stephan of Byzantium which mentions a certain ̢ΠΜΞϑΧ΢Ϋ in connection with a Cilician city ̤ΜάέΜΦϲΜ hardly belongs here). Given that Philippos was born in a Carian city, it is quite likely that he spoke or at least had some passive knowledge of Carian. 19 However, there are reasons to asume that the case of Lydian is quite different in its essence. 20 For a discussion of Lydian material see Hawkins 2013: 155–194, cf. Gusmani 1964: 271–278. 21 For Semitic loan-words see Masson 1967 and Rosóů 2013, cf. also an overview by Zaborski in Giannakis 2014: sub ‘Semitic Loans in Greek’. For Iranian see Schmitt 1971, Brust 2005, cf. short overviews in Benvenuto in Giannakis 2014: sub ‘Greek and Iranian’ and Hawkins 2010: 226–227. 16 17

99

Rostislav Oreshko

‘Phoenicians’, comprising both the Phoenicians strictu sensu as well as the Syrian and Canaanite coastal peoples — and the Greeks, both in the Levant and in the Aegean and the wider Mediterranean, as is well documented by different sources. The presence of the Semitic borrowings perfectly correlates with the presence of the ‘Oriental’ influences in the material culture of the Aegean, especially strong around 800–550 BC. It is noteworthy that in the case of the earliest ‘Oriental’ words attested already in the Mycenaean Greek, such as sa-sa-ma ‘sesame’ or ku-mi-no ‘cumin’, it is more correct to speak about areal words (Wanderwörter), which were quite probably present in the Aegean substratum language(s) before the arrival of the Greeks, since nothing suggest that these words originated in one of the Semitic languages (for sesam cf. below). This applies to many of the alleged Anatolian ‘borrowings’ discussed below. Iranian or Persian influence in Greek dates after ca. 540 BC and clearly reflects significant political and cultural influence of the Persian Empire in the Eastern Mediterranean and Anatolia. Whether opposing or sympathizing the Persians (cf. ÷΢ΟΤά÷ЅΫ), the Greeks could not remain absolutely immune to this influence. However, even in this case the absolute majority of the Persian words in Greek represents specific terms reflecting peculiar habits and realities of the Persian culture (e.g., άΜέΪηÞ΢Ϋ/(ϕ)ΨΜέΪηÞ΢Ϋ ‘satrap’, (λ)ΥΤΧηΥ΢Ϋ ‘short sword’, λΧΜΨВΪΤΟΠΫ ‘trousers’, ÷ηΪΤΫ ‘a liquid measure’ etc.) and represent well known foreign words rather than true borrowings fully embedded in the Greek language. It is noteworthy that in several cases we seem to deal with loan-translations of Persian titles rather than borrowings (cf. ΝΜάΤΦΠВΫ ΝΜάΤΦϑβΧ ‘king of the kings’ or ΰΤΦΤηΪΰ΢Ϋ ‘commander of thousand’). Lastly, this picture may be complemented by literary evidence concerning foreign languages or, rather, almost complete absence thereof. The extant corpus of Greek texts conspicuously lacks both reasonably clear passages in foreign languages and any serious discussion of foreign linguistic material. 22 The few possible exceptions, such as a supposedly Lydian expression preserved in Hipponax fr. 92 (= 95 Degani) or a Persian phrase in Aristophanes’ Acharnians (100), corrupt as they are, only prove the rule. 23 The Greek society, as reflected in literary texts, appears to be monolingual par excellence, even if in the Aegean were arguably present elements of many different ethnicities. There is an obvious and stark contrast with such multi-ethnic and multi-lingual societies as existed, for instance, in the Hittite Empire, where at least five different languages were in some currency in the capital besides Hittite itself (Akkadian, Hurrian, Luwian, Palaic and Hattian) or in the Achaemenid Empire with its documented usage of at least three different administrative languages (Aramaic, Akkadian and Elamite) and arguable currency of at least two other Iranian languages besides Old Persian (Median and Avestan). In sum, there is fair amount of evidence that the Greek of the 1st millennium BC was on the whole restrictive towards external linguistic influences. One should note that, besides purely political factors — which are not always a sufficient condition for acquiring by a lan22 The foreign languages, such as Lydian or Carian, might have been touched upon in special works concerning local histories, as, e.g., Lydiaka by Xanthos the Lydian (FrGrHist 765) or Carica by Philippos of Theangela (FrGrHist 741, cf. above fn. 18). This material might have served as the source of glosses preserved in the compilation by Hesychius. Even if this was the case – for which there is little tangible evidence – this would again be rather an exception which proves the rule: both mentioned authors were in all probability of a mixed ethnic background and their interest to the local history and culture is quite natural. 23 For the Lydian expression in Hipponax’ text, which probably served as basis for several glosses of Hesych transmitted in a number of significantly deviating variants, see discussion in Hawkins 2013: 157–166. For a discussion of the Persian phrase in Aristophanes see Willi 2004. Similarly, a brief and rather naive discussion of Phrygian words in Plato’s Cratylus (410a) does not make an impression of a real interest to or knowledge of Phrygian (for a recent discussion against a linguistic background see Lamberterie 2013: 50–54).

100

Anatolian linguistic influences in Early Greek (1500–800 BC)? Critical observations against sociolinguistic and areal background

guage the status of a prestige idiom — this quality correlates with extreme richness of Greek in internal linguistic capacities, which allowed Greek to develop a number of literary and scientific registers highly prestigious and influential in the Mediterranean and beyond. Of course, one cannot simply project this picture back into Late Bronze Age. However, at least some of the prerequisites of the attitude to the foreign might well have been present already then and the situation of interaction between Greek and Anatolian communities at that time does not seem to be especially advantageous for formation of bilingual communities. Thus, even if there might have existed a number of exceptional cases, the overall picture of Greek-Anatolian contact does not imply any significant cultural or linguistic influences in either direction. 2) Now let us look how differences in intensity of language contact affect language change. The borrowing scale discussed in Thomason & Kaufman (1988: 74–95, cf. Thomason 2001, 59–98, esp. 70–71) represent, despite its understandable restrictions as any abstraction, a quite precise analytical instrument, at least under the normal scenario of a language contact. 24 The authors define four stages of contact intensity, but for the present purposes it would suffice to look at the first two. On the first stage, the most casual type of language contact with rather few bilingual speakers, one has borrowings exclusively in the lexical domain with no structural changes on any level. Moreover, one borrows only from non-basic vocabulary; in practice this means that one borrows first of all nouns (rarer verbs or adjectives) with specific or even technical meaning, i.e. terms that are simply absent in the receiving language, such as, for instance, names of some professions or titles, of specific objects or cultural practices, plant and animal names etc (cf. above for the possible Thracian or Persian borrowings). On the second, more intensive stage, when some proportion (still not the majority) of population is ‘reasonably fluent bilinguals’, some function words, such as conjunctions, can be borrowed, and some slight structural influence of one language on the other may be observed, such as sporadic usage of new syntactical structures or new phonemes in borrowed words (as contrasted with the adaption of borrowings to the phonetic system of one’s own language on the previous stage). Re-interpreted in less abstract terms, this means that in the situation of a language contact one starts always with acquiring separate words (or, rarer, their combinations), which for one or another reason appear to be important. It is quite obvious that this corresponds to the very first stage of language acquisition by a child (or by a person going on a trip abroad). Correct syntax and phonetics are much less important things and can be for the time being ignored; only after becoming a more or less fluent bilingual speaker, one may turn attention to the subtleties of phonetics, syntax and idiomatic expressions of the second language, which may become with time so familiar that they begin to influence the first language. For the present purpose the most significant inference of this brief survey is the primary importance of lexicon as an indicator of language contact. In order to be able to demonstrate an influence of one language upon another one needs to present a more or less significant number of clear lexical borrowings. Before that, there is simply no point to look for similarities in morphology, syntactical structures or idiomatic expressions: they simply cannot come into being if one is not a fluent bilingual speaker, which should necessarily leave perceptible traces in the lexicon. 3) Lastly, it is appropriate to address briefly the question of what is a borrowing (loanword) and what is its difference from a Wanderwort to avoid misconceptions. Thus, cheetah is a borrowing in English from Hindi, because (a) cheetahs do not live on British Islands and, consequently, neither Celts nor Anglo-Normans needed a special word for the animal; (b) cheetahs do live in India with which the British arguably had close contact from the early 17th century on and where they quite probably first saw the animal; (c) Hindi as a specific source language 24

Cf. also the hierarchy of lexical borrowing in Winford 2013: 176 (with further refs.). 101

Rostislav Oreshko

of borrowing — and not, for instance, a language of Iran, a land for which both the presence of cheetahs and, at some point, of the British subjects is documented — is indicated by joint evidence of the word's phonetics and semantics: in Hindi the word chŢtŊ means ‘variegated, spotted’ (< Skr. chitra), which is quite an appropriate description of the cheetah’s appearance (in contrast, in Farsi cheetah’s usual name is yuz palang). It is noteworthy that in this case the choice between the definition of the word as a true borrowing or as a foreign word — a word not fully embedded into a language and used in restricted number of contexts virtually as a terminus technicus — is not quite obvious; however, the fact that the word is known to the majority of English speakers and that the phrase ‘he rushed to his breakfast as a cheetah’ would make sense without any reference to Near Eastern or African context (cheetah = swift animal) still speaks in favor of the former possibility. Similarly, the fact that the word pajamas is ultimately a borrowing from Persian is defined by the fact that a word almost phonetically identical to it (pŊi-jŊme) is known in Farsi as a name for loose trousers not typical for Europe, and has there a transparent internal form (‘leg-garment’); one only needs to assume the relatively unproblematic semantic change ‘loose trousers’ > ‘loose (sleeping) suit’. The only difficulty is that the word is also attested in the languages of India, so the question arises how one should properly define it: as an Iranian borrowing or still as an Indian one. These two examples demonstrate the basic principles associated with linguistic borrowing: (a) one usually borrows first words for objects/notions absent in one’s own language; (b) the borrowed word has a phonetic form that is very close to the one in the source language with only basic adjustments to the phonetic system of the receiving language; (c) it has identical or very close semantics in both source and target language; (d) the most reliable criterion for defining the ultimate source of borrowing is etymological transparence in a given language; a rough idea where the word might come from may, however, be obtained by looking for the region where certain plant, animal, object or custom likely come from. There are, of course, some exceptions, e.g., the word alcohol, which is a borrowing from Arabic al-ko‫ܒ‬l ‘antimony’ (black powder used to highlight eyelids) with a non-trivial and multi-stage semantic change > ‘easily sublimated substance’ > ‘spirit’ > ‘ethanol’ > ‘hard liquor’; such cases are, however, extremely rare. As for Wanderwort, i.e. migrant cultural word, its principal distinction from a borrowing is that its ultimate source language is impossible to pinpoint with any certainty. A frequent mistake is to ascribe to a Wanderwort a certain origin simply on the basis of the earliest or relatively more frequent attestation in a given language (or a language group); as a typical example, one may mention the recurrent claim that sesame is a Semitic word, while in reality the distribution of wild species of the plant suggests that the word may ultimately come from a language of India or Sub-Saharan Africa.25 Most frequently Wanderwörter represent names of animals, culture plants, minerals, vessels etc. Quite often a Wanderwort is restricted to certain regions, in which case one may speak about an areal word.

II. Alleged Anatolian borrowings in Greek: a critical review The evidence for alleged influence of Anatolian languages on early Greek is based on the following representative cases: 1) Possibly the most popular correspondence figuring almost in every discussion of Greek-Anatolian linguistic contact is one between Greek ΟϑÞΜΫ ‘beaker, goblet’, whose lin25

102

For a recent and balanced discussion of the word see Hawkins 2013: 145–149.

Anatolian linguistic influences in Early Greek (1500–800 BC)? Critical observations against sociolinguistic and areal background

guistic predecessor is attested already in Linear B as di-pa, and Luwian tipas- (or, actually, tibas-, cf. below) ‘sky’. 26 This case is accepted as the most likely example of Anatolian lexical borrowing in Greek even by more cautious researchers, such as Melchert (2003: 184), Yakubovich (2010: 146) and Hajnal (2014: 110), and has triggered further speculations on Anatolian influence in the Greek mythological/literary tradition 27. Despite certain phonetic similarity of the words, the case represents at a closer glance a clear example of a linguistic chimera. The fact that has triggered the idea is that Hieroglyphic Luwian sign L.182 dubbed as CAELUM (‘sky’) is used in the writing of both the word for ‘bowl’ and for ‘sky’, from which one made a tacit inference that Luwian had the same word for both notions; in support a Hittite vessel name tapiššana- was pointed out. 28 Based on this, it was further supposed that the Greeks took over the word for ‘bowl’ (tipas-) from Luwians transforming it to depas. Both Anatolian and the Greek part of the equation are flawed by several misconceptions. The first concerns HLuw. sign L.182 (CAELUM) and its function in spellings of the words for ‘sky’ and ‘bowl’. As was already pointed out by Zs. Simon (2009: 248, fn. 5 and 2016) the attested form of the word for ‘bowl’ CAELUM.PI 29 cannot conceal the same word as (“CAELUM”)ti-pa-s- ‘sky’, for the obvious reason that the phonetic parts of the two words do not correspond, irrespectively whether one takes in the spelling of the word for ‘bowl’ as phonetic complement (which renders the final part of the word) or phonetic indicator (which renders its initial part). However, contra Simon 2016, there is absolutely no necessity to assume another word for ‘bowl’ homonymous with the Luwian word for ‘sky’. The sign CAELUM represents in all probability an ideogram referring to a hemispherical object, since perception of sky as a sort of hemisphere appears to be a universal found in many cultures. Consequently, the sign has nothing to do with the phonetics of the words it stands for and there is no reason to think that the usual Luwian word for ‘bowl’ corresponded to that for ‘sky’ in more than one labial consonant p/b. 30 On the other hand, despite surface phonetic similarity of the Luwian word for ‘sky’ with Greek ΟϑÞΜΫ, there are a few problems with it. First, the initial stops in Anatolian were in all probability by default voiceless (an areal feature) and Melchert’s (2003: 184) claim that some of them could be voiced if coming irregularly from older n- is an ad hoc assumption put forward only to explain just the present case. 31 A recent attempt of by Simon (2017: 258–260) to postuThe phonetic correspondence was noticed long ago (cf. review of the literature in Simon 2017(a): 248, fn. 8), but gained popularity mainly in the wake of the discussion by Neu (1999). 27 Watkins 2007, cf. García-Ramón 2011: 88–89 and Teffeteller 2015: 721 with further literature. 28 See Laroche 1960: 96–97 with further refs. 29 Three known attestations of the word CAELUM.PI (one on the KINIK bowl and two on the ANKARA silver bowl) has been supplemented recently by a fourth one on yet another bowl from the Ankara museum (ANKARA 3), see publication by ÇÈftçÈ–Hawkins (2016) and further discussions in Poetto 2017 and Simon 2017(b). 30 Given the fact that the spelling CAELUM.PI is attested already on the KINIK bowl, dated before 1200 BC, the interpretation of as phonetic indicator hinting at the initial syllable of the word might seem preferable, as this would accord with the usual Empire Period practice, seen, e.g., in such spelling as VIR.ZA/I for zŢdi- ‘man’, MONS+TU for PN Tudhaliya, LABARNA+LA for title labarna and, quite probably, DOMINUS.NA for nŊni- ‘leader, lord’ (cf. Oreshko 2014, 620). Unfortunately, cuneiform texts seem to attest no vessel name beginning with pi- (cf. list of vessels with determinative DUG in Tischler 2008: 218–219) so the possibility remains hypothetic. If one takes as phonetic complement, the simplest possibility would be to read the word as huppi- (huppa-) which is attested in cuneiform (a vessel of unclear form), connecting it with the family of words for vessels including ‫ܔ‬uppar(a)(from which ‫ܔ‬upp(a)rala- ‘potter’ is derived), ‫ܔ‬upparanni- ‘bowl’, ‫ܔ‬upruš‫ܔ‬i- ‘incense-burner’, ‫ܔ‬upurni- and ‫ܔ‬upuwaya-. 31 Cf. considerations by Katz 2001: 219 and Yakubovich 2013: 119. A form with the initial voiced dental is of course quite likely for the initial phase of development from PA *nebos- (< PIE *nebhos-), but it is difficult to imag26

103

Rostislav Oreshko

late a new ‘Luw(o)id language’ which allegedly lacked initial devoicing of dentals does not seem in any way convincing. 32 The character of the second stop is not without difficulties either: if in Kizzuwadna Luwian tappaš- clearly reflects the form with the stress on the first syllable effected by Āop’s Law, the i-vocalization of the first syllable of HLuw. ti-pa-s- seems to point out that the stress in this form was on the second syllable and, consequently, the labial of PA *nebos- should have remained voiced/lenis. 33 In other words, the most likely phonetic interpretation of HLuw. ti-pa-s- is /tibás-/ or /tebás-/ which is not quite the same as ΟϑÞΜΫ. Lastly, the Greek side of the correspondence is no less (if not more) problematic. The Homeric ΟϑÞΜΫ is not a ‘bowl’, but a ‘beaker’ or ‘goblet’, i.e. a much deeper vessel of a conical or bell-like shape, quite possibly on a stem, since stemmed drinking cups represented the most common type in the Aegean both in the 2nd and in the early 1st millennium BC (cf. kylix). Worse of that, the vessel referred in Linear B as di-pa was even further remote from whatever one might call a ‘bowl’. Its form is known quite exactly from the ideograms *202VAS and *241VAS+DI which follow the phonetically spelled name of the vessel: it represents a sort of jar with or without handles which could be fixed at the upper rim.34 The early meaning of di-pa may still be glimpsed in several Homeric passages, most famously in the description of Nestor’s ΟϑÞΜΫ in Il. 11.632–637 which implies that it was a large vessel provided with four handles.35 In sum, di-pa represents in all probability a word of Aegean substratum origin and has nothing to do either with the Luwian word for ‘sky’ (tibas-) or with that for ‘bowl’ whose reading is uncertain.36 ine that this distinction would have been preserved in the second part of the 2nd millennium BC, since devoicing in the initial position as an areal feature should have affected any stop irrespectively of its origin. 32 The idea expands upon an earlier very tentative suggestion by Yakubovich (2013: 119) to identify the ‘Arzawa Luwic’ as a separate dialect/language put forward to explain just the initial voiced character of the dental in ΟϑÞΜΫ. All the other alleged Greek-Anatolian correspondences on the basis of which Simon elaborates the idea are extremely fragile, since, as in many other works, the sociolinguistic dimension of the phenomenon is simply disregarded and the crucial question why to borrow? is not asked at all. So, it is not clear why one should adduce Hitt. pƉrpura/i- ‘lump, clump, ball’ in the first place to explain Greek ΝΩΪΝВΦΜ ‘cake made of poppy and sesame’ (attested only by Hesychius), which looks as a usual diminutive with the suffix -ήΦΩ- (cf. ΟηΥέήΦΩΫ or λΪΥέВΦΩΫ); even if no underlying *ΝЅΪΝΩΫ/΢ is attested, the morphology of the word alone speaks against a borrowing scenario, as does the not-too-impressive semantic correspondence (given the culinary associations of ΝΩΪΝВΦΜ, a connection with ΝΤΝΪУάΥβ ‘eat’ and ΝΩΪη ‘food’ may seem quite likely). As for the second comparison, ΝВΪάΜ ‘skin stripped off, hide’ vs. Hitt. kurša- ‘skin, hide, fleece, (hunting) bag’, it is quite impossible to reconcile the phonetic forms of the words using a borrowing scenario; again, it is not clear why ‘skin’ should be borrowed from Anatolia, since the Aegean was, without any doubt, pretty well supplied with locally produced skins and bags made thereof. No more clear is the need to borrow a name for ‘small round net (used esp. for oystercatching)’ (ΞηΞΞΜ÷ΩΧ) from Anatolia (cf. Hitt. kŊnk- ‘hang’): the Aegean fishermen were quite probably much more experienced in ‘oyster-catching' – as well as in any other type of activities connected with the sea – than their Central Anatolian colleagues and were probably well aware that the process of collecting oysters does not actually involve any ‘hanging’. Lastly, the toponym ̞ΜΤΧΤΫ, an allegedly ‘Luw(o)id’ counterpart of Greek ͊ΦΜϲΜ derived from Luwian tŊin- ‘oil’, represents an egregious example of a linguistic chimera whose existence is due exclusively to the recent ‘Luwian fashion’ (the name is ‘emended’ from ̤ϲΟΜΤΧΤΫ, the actual name given by Stephen of Byzantium as an older name of ͊ΦΜϲΜ, cf. Starke 1998: 457 and 475 with further refs.). 33 Cf. Kloekhorst 2008: s.v. nŖpiš with further refs. 34 For the ideogram see, e.g, Bernabé–Luján 2008: 224. The vessel di-pa and the respective ideograms figure, for instance, on the famous tablet PY TA 641 which features di-pa qe-to-ro-we, di-pa ti-ri-jo-we and di-pa a-no-we provided with ideograms featuring four-handled, three-handled and a jar without handles respectively. 35 Cf. already Ventris–Chadwick 1973: 326–327 and 493. 36 Only a brief mention deserves an idea going back to Furnée (see ref. in Puhvel 1997: s.v. kukupala-) and recently favored by Hajnal (2011: 111), that another Greek vessel name, ΥВÞΠΦΦΩΧ ‘big-bellied drinking vessel, beaker, goblet’ is somehow connected with Hittite DUGkukupal(l)a- or, apud Hajnal, with Hittite ‫ܔ‬upalla/i- ‘skull’. 104

Anatolian linguistic influences in Early Greek (1500–800 BC)? Critical observations against sociolinguistic and areal background

2) Another correspondence which is favorably mentioned both by Yakubovich (2010: 147) and Hajnal (2014: 110) is ΥВ÷ΝΜΦΩΧ ‘cymbal’ vs. Hittite GIŠ‫ܔ‬u‫ܔ‬upal whose meaning is generally defined as ‘a sort of percussion instrument’, 37 which is, however, by far not proven (cf. below). This connection is, however, not mentioned in either of Greek etymological dictionaries, and for a good reason: there are enough other possibilities to connect the Greek word, beginning with Greek ΥВ÷Ν΢ ‘drinking-cup, bowl; boat’ (with associated ΥВ÷ΝΩΫ and Υή÷ΝϲΩΧ), from which ΥВ÷ΝΜΦΩΧ is considered to be simply a diminutive; a connection with Skr. kumbhá- and Av. xumba- ‘pot’ and MIr. vessel names comm and cummal remains a possibility, although the underlying root for ‘hollow thing’ (as a bowl or ship) may equally be an Wanderwort. 38 As for GIŠ‫ܔ‬u‫ܔ‬upal, or, more precisely, GIŠ‫ܔ‬u‫ܔ‬ubal, given the non-geminate spelling of the labial, it presents no clear advantages in comparison with traditional connections. First and foremost, the meaning of the word is not established with any certainty. 39 The usual classification of GIŠ‫ܔ‬u‫ܔ‬ubal with the percussion instruments is based on the fact that the instrument could be ‘struck’ (Hitt. wal‫ܔ‬- and ‫ܔ‬azzik(k)-), which would fit, however, not only for ‘cymbals’ but also for a ‘tambourin’ or a ‘drum’. However, the verb as a technical term is in this case finally ambiguous and it is not excluded that we are dealing with a sort of string instrument with a specific technic of playing, comparable with a ‘lute’. But even if one accepts identification of GIŠ‫ܔ‬u‫ܔ‬ubal as a percussion instrument, the determinative of wood (GIŠ) regularly used with the word would favor rather meaning ‘tambourin’ or a ‘drum’. The determinative speaks at the same time more or less strongly against interpretation of GIŠ‫ܔ‬u‫ܔ‬ubal as ‘cymbal’, since manufacture of the latter from metal was essential for its characteristic shrill sound; a pair of ‘cymbals’ made of wood may function at best as a sort of castanets.40 Some distant connection of the Anatolian and Greek words is not excluded — as both ‘tambourin’ or ‘drum’ are finally ‘hollow things’ — but a borrowing scenario from Hittite into Greek appears to be highly unlikely. 3) In a way very similar (and even partly interrelated) case represents the alleged pair of correspondences Greek ΥВ÷ΝΜΰΩΫ ‘crown of a helmet’ — found only once in Homer (Il. 15.536) as a substantive 41, but also used adverbially ‘head-foremost’ — vs. Hitt. kupa‫ܔ‬i ‘a headgear’, which is known to be present also in Hurrian as kuwa‫ܔ‬i (cf. Yakobovich 2010: 147 and Hajnal 2014: 110). On the one hand, the word does not have a particularly foreign appearance, as The first term is attested in only one text (see Puhvel loc.cit.) which gives absolutely no indication what sort of vessel it is; one may note, however, that non-geminate spelling of the labial points to /b/. A connection with Akkadian kukubu ‘jar’ is quite likely (either as an Akkadian borrowing or as an areal term). As for Hitt. ‫ܔ‬upalla/i- (or, again, rather ‫ܔ‬uballa/i-, which may mean not ‘skull’ but ‘scalp’(!), cf. Puhvel 1991(b): s.v. hupallas-), it cannot by definition be seriously considered as an immediate source of the Greek word, even if some distant genetic connection is not completely excluded, which goes also for several other words in Greek and other IE languages (ΥВ÷Ν΢ and ΥВÞ΢, Lat. cupa or Skr. kƉpa, cf.,e.g., Beekes 2010: s.v.v. ΥВÞΠΦΦΩΧ, ΥВ÷Ν΢ 1 and 2). In fact, a more sensible comparison for ΥВÞΠΦΦΩΧ would be ‫ܔ‬uppar(a)- which seems to represent a generic word for ‘vessel’ (cf. above, fn. 30). In this case, one would have to assume an example of an areal word rather than specific borrowing from Anatolian. 37 See Puhvel 1991(b): s.v. huhupal-, basing apparently on earlier considerations of Furnée. 38 See Chantraine 1968–1980: s.v. ΥВ÷ΝΜΦΩΧ, Frisk 1960–1973: s.v. ΥВ÷ΝΜΦΩΧ, Beekes 2010: s.v. ΥВ÷ΝΜΦΩΧ. Cf. also Arm. *kumb- ‘emboss of a shield’, see Martirosyan 2009: s.v. 39 See detailed discussion in Schuol 2004: 108–112; for an earlier discussion cf. Dinçol 1998 with further refs. 40 Moreover, there are good reasons to identify ‘cymbals’ in galgalturi- which is used just with determinative for ‘copper’ (URUDU), cf. discussion in Schuol 2004: 124–129. 41 Note that Abbenes in Lexikon der Frühgriechischen Epos (LfgrE): s.v. ΥВ÷ΝΜΰΩΫ interprets the substantive meaning of the word as secondary having originated from wrong analysis of a different collocation. This is quite dubious as morphologically ΥВ÷ΝΜΰΩΫ does not look like an adverb and from the semantic point of view the expression has to be based on the word for “head”/“headgear”. 105

Rostislav Oreshko

there are several parallel formations in -ΜΰΩΫ in Greek, such as ΩЖΪϲΜΰΩΫ or άέЅ÷ΜΰΩΫ, and furthermore it is hardly possible to separate ΥВ÷ΝΜΰΩΫ from ΥВΝ΢/ΥВ÷Ν΢ ‘head’ and verb ΥήΝΤάέηβ ‘tumble head-foremost’; a connection with ΥВ÷Ν΢ ‘drinking-cup, bowl’ (and then with further IE words) is likely both typologically and in view of the doublet ΥВΝ΢/ΥВ÷Ν΢. 42 On the other hand, interpretation of the word as a borrowing from Anatolian has no obvious advantages. As a matter of fact, ΥВ÷ΝΜΰΩΫ is not a ‘helmet’ itself and the context of its sole attestation in Il. 15.536 does not make an impression that it is a special military terminus technicus taken over from a foreign tradition. It should be remembered that a borrowing scenario presupposes an exact or nearly exact correspondence in meaning. It is also noteworthy that the correspondence Anatolian ‫ ~ ݻ‬Greek ΰ is not regular (one would expect Υ/Ξ in Greek), even if not impossible. As for kupa‫ܔ‬i/kuwa‫ܔ‬i, whose precise meaning is not quite clear, it may well be a Hurrian word, since it does indeed frequently appear in Hurrian texts and similar formations in -a‫ܔ‬i are attested in Hurrian. 43 A connection with Hebrew kŵba’/qŵba‘ ‘helmet, turban’ looks very attractive; a Philistine connection of the Hebrew word is possible, but far from proven. More probable still seems that the word has been taken over into Hebrew from Hurrian (directly or indirectly) at the time of the Hurrian supremacy in Syria around 1400 BC and, consequently, there is no specific Aegean connection of the word at all. 4) Quite different is the situation with the next correspondence, the one that is generally favored by Classicists but more soberly assessed by Anatolianists. All three Greek etymological dictionaries mention the Hittite word (NA4)ku(wa)nna(n)-, whose meaning is generally cited as ‘copper; copper-ore (probably azurite); bead’, as a likely source of ΥВΜΧΩΫ ‘dark-blue enamel, lapis-lazuli’ (later also ‘blue copper carbonate’), which is attested already in Linear B (ku-wa-no) presumably in the same meaning. 44 It has, however, been pointed out that both words demonstrate certain phonetic similarity also with Akkadian uqnû which means ‘lapis lazuli; lapis lazuli color’, with which Ugaritic Ԉqn(Ԉ)u is quite probably connected; if one accepts the connection, the word may be properly defined as Wanderwort 45, which would most probably exclude it from the list of Anatolian borrowings, since there is no special reasons to connect either lapis-lazuli or dark-blue enamel with Anatolia. 46 However, the case proves to be even more problematic if one looks deeper into the Hittite material. 47 As a matter of fact, there is no contexts which speak for a meaning of (NA4)ku(wa)nna(n)- as ‘copper-ore’; the only meanings which may be with reasonable certainty inferred from the contexts is that ku(wa)nna(n)means ‘bead(s)’ when (predominantly) used with determinative for ‘stone’ (NA4), corresponding to Sumerographic NA4NUNUZ, and ‘copper’ when used without it. The meaning ‘copperore’ is only an assumption produced out of the wish to bridge the two divergent meanings of the word, namely ‘copper’ and ‘bead’, and, further, to connect it with Greek ΥВΜΧΩΫ. 48 However, ku(wa)nna(n)-, as was pointed already by Puhvel, is definitively not lapis-lazuli, which is See Chantraine 1968–1980: s.v. ΥВ÷ΝΜΰΩΫ, Frisk 1960–1973: s.v. ΥВ÷ΝΜΰΩΫ, Beekes 2010: s.v. ΥВ÷ΝΜΰΩΫ. See the detailed and balanced account of Puhvel 1997: s.v. kupahi-. Cf. also the short discussion and literature in Richter 2012: s.v. kub/wa‫ܔ‬i. 44 For the Greek word see Chantraine 1968–1980: s.v. ΥВΜΧΩΫ, Frisk 1960–1973: s.v. ΥВΜΧΩΫ, Beekes 2010: s.v. ΥВΜΧΩΫ; for the Hittite see Puhvel 1997: s.v. ku(wa)nna(n)- and Tischler 1977–1983: s.v. (NA4)ku(wa)nnan-, cf. also Yakubovich 2010: 147 with fn. 88, Giusfredi 2017. 45 See Giusfredi 2017: 14 with further refs. 46 The source of lapis-lazuli for the whole Near East and the Aegean was in the 2nd millennium BC in all probability Badakhshan in Afghanistan and the production of the blue enamel is connected first of all with Egypt. 47 See attestations in Puhvel 1997: s.v. ku(wa)nna(n)-. 48 See Puhvel 1997: 310. 42 43

106

Anatolian linguistic influences in Early Greek (1500–800 BC)? Critical observations against sociolinguistic and areal background

spelled in Hittite texts NA4ZA.GÌN, since both are mentioned side by side (KUB 29.4 I 8–10) and, furthermore, seems to have no specific color connotations. Neither does it mean ‘enamel’ or ‘glass’, since the Hittite language used different terms for this sort of materials (Hitt. zapzagior Akkadian MEKKU and ANZA‫ܓܓ‬U). The idea that ku(wa)nna(n)- designates a sort of mineral in Anatolian becomes even more dubious in view of the hitherto unrecognized Luwian piece of evidence, which is appropriate to address here briefly. Two texts of HLuw. corpus contain a title which may be read phonetically as kwan(n)anal(l)a- 49. The context of both attestations in conjunction with a ‘scribe’ clearly suggests the meaning ‘stone-mason, engraver’. 50 Morphologically the word is quite transparent: it represents a derivative from kwan(n)an(a)- with the Luwian suffix -alla/i- building names of professions. The root appears to be phonetically identical to that of ku(wa)nna(n)-. As for semantic side, the connection becomes clear when one considers the pictographic form of the ideogram used with the title: sign SA4 (L.402) represents a circle with a further small circle inscribed in it. In view of the phonetic correspondence with ku(wa)nnan- there can be little doubt that the sign depicts a bead. Consequently, the original semantics of kwan(n)anal(l)a- should be ‘bead-cutter’ which was then generalized to ‘stone-cutter’/‘engraver’. The interpretation corroborates the impression created by cuneiform texts that NA4ku(wa)nna(n)- means only ‘bead(s)’. If one dismisses the meaning ‘copper ore’ for the Anatolian word, its connection with ΥВΜΧΩΫ becomes rather illusive. There remains a slim possibility of a distant connection of the words if one proceeds from the assumption that the word was a Wanderwort with original meaning ‘lapis-lazuli’, which then took different meaning in different regions. However it is, the extant evidence gives no reason to see in the Greek word a borrowing specifically from any Anatolian language. 5) To the same semantical field as ku(wa)nna(n)- belongs a further word claimed to be an Anatolian borrowing. The Greek word for ‘lead’ whose standard literary form was ÷ЅΦήΝΟΩΫ, but the older Mycenaean form was mo-ri-wo-do (/moliwdos/), was connected by Melchert (2008) with Lydian word mariwda-. The latter represents a deity name attested only once in the Lydian corpus (LW 4: 4); however, its appearance in association with god Sanda (Sãntas) suggests that the name may be identical to HLuw. MarwŊy(a)-deities ((DEUS)mara/i-wa/i-i-zi-i (nom.pl.) in KULULU 2, §6) and further to CLuw. DMarwŊy(a)- and Hitt. DMark(u)waya-, whose name is connected with PIE stem *mergw- and, accordingly, interpreted as the ‘Dark ones’. The suggestion looks prima facie very attractive, since it presents a sensible explanation for the inner semantics of ÷ЅΦήΝΟΩΫ (‘dark metal’) and the idea to look for the source of the Greek word in Anatolia, which is considered to be a region with very old and rich metallurgical tradition, looks entirely sound. 51 That said, one should point out that almost every element of the hypothesis is fraught with uncertainty and that the resulting structure is extremely fragile. To begin with the Greek part, ÷ЅΦήΝΟΩΫ represents only the standard and the most frequent form, while dialects show many other variants, such as ÷ЅΦήΝΩΫ, ÷ЅΦΤΝΩΫ, ÷ЅΦΤΝΟΩΫ, ΝЅΦήΝΟΩΫ, ΝЅΦΤ÷ΩΫ, *ΝЅΦΤΝΩΫ (in Rhodian ÞΠΪΤ-ΝΩΦΤΝЬάΜΤ; cf. also ÷ΩΦήΝΪЅΫ ‘lead-colored’ (Hesych)). 52 Despite the fact that the Mycenaean mo-ri-wo-do is the oldest form, there are actually no special reasons to proclaim it ‘more correct’, since there are a priori no objective criteria BOYBEYPINARI 1 §11: SA4-na-na-la- and ĔVRĔZ fr. 2: (‘SA4’)kwa/i-na-na[-la]-, for the texts see Hawkins 2000: 530 and 336. 50 Cf. also discussion in Payne 2010: 183. 51 Besides Hajnal 2014: 111, the etymology is favored by Beekes (2010: s.v. ÷ЅΦήΝΟΩΫ). 52 See Chantraine 1968–1980: s.v. ÷ЅΦήΝΟΩΫ or Frisk 1960–1973: s.v. ÷ЅΦήΝΟΩΫ for the forms and discussion; cf. further Beekes 2010: s.v. ÷ЅΦήΝΟΩΫ. 49

107

Rostislav Oreshko

of this ‘correctness’. 53 The variation clearly shows that the word is originally non-Greek. In view of this variability, the connection with Latin plumbum, Bask berún or German Blei (OHG blŢo/blŢwes), suggested earlier, does not seem too outlandish (cf. also the variation ÷/Ν in Greek itself, seen, e.g., in ΝΦЬάΥβ vs. ÷ΩΦΠϼΧ). On the other hand, one should clearly realize that we do not have Lydian word for ‘lead’; the only known Anatolian word for the metal is Hitt. šulŊi. As for the Lydian Mariwda-, there is every reason to see in it a Luwic borrowing. The scarce evidence which we have on the reflection of PIE gw in Lydian suggests that it developed either to simple tectal k (as in kãna ‘wife’ < PIE *gwen-eh2) or to voiceless labiovelar kw (-qãn- ‘strike/hit’ < PIE *gwen- ‘strike’), as admitted earlier by Melchert (1994: 357). Consequently, PIE *mergw- should have reflected in Lydian as *marq- (or, less likely, *mark-). MarwŊ(y)a- on the other hand represents a specifically Luwic form reflecting the development gw > w. Thus, Lydian cannot be the source of Greek ÷ЅΦήΝΟΩΫ; nor is it likely to see it in Luwian, as marwa- proves to be rather far phonetically from any of the forms attested in Greek. As a result, the Anatolian origin of the word proves to be quite unfounded. 6) The third comparable case of a word for a material allegedly coming from Anatolia is Greek ϕΦϑίΜΫ ‘ivory’, which is attested already in the Mycenaean Greek (e-re-pa). Although less frequently than in the two previous cases, one still sporadically finds a claim that the word is a borrowing from Hittite (or Luwian) la‫ܔ‬pa-/la‫ܔ‬ba- (e.g., Hawkins 2013: 225) 54, or, at least, that it has come into Mycenaean through Hittite/Anatolian mediation (Gasbarra-Pozza 2013), which is based (in part) on the now obsolete idea that Anatolia was an important ivory production center (cf. Masson 1967: 80–83 or Chantraine 1968–1980: s.v.). An Anatolian source of ϕΦϑίΜΫ is, however, hardly credible. On the one hand, Anatolia is not and has never been a natural habitat of modern species of elephants. There were only two regions adjacent to the Mediterranean in which elephants could be found in the Late Bronze Age: Africa (primarily Sub-Saharan) and the valley of the Orontes in Syria (for the latter see ÇakÈrlar-Ikram 2016 and Pfälzner 2016). It is quite obvious that the words for ‘ivory, elephant’ found in the languages of the Mediterranean, if indeed borrowed, should come from either of these two regions. On the other hand, there is nothing in the phonetics of the Greek word which would in any way require the assumption of an Anatolian intermediary stage. On the contrary, assuming an Anatolian source, one would expect something like *ΦΜΞΝΜΫ/*ΦΜΥÞΜΫ in Greek. Thus, under the assumption that ϕΦϑίΜΫ and la‫ܔ‬pa-/la‫ܔ‬ba- are indeed foreign terms in Greek and Anatolian, one should conclude that both words are independent reflections of a term found in a third language. Taking into consideration the distribution of the elephant itself and that of the terms for it, the most obvious candidate would seem to be a language spoken in the Orontes valley — and not in Africa, as assumed in Beekes 2010: s.v. and indirectly implied in Frisk 1960–1973: s.v. The language of the Orontes valley in the Late Bronze Age could only be a dialect of Northwest Semitic, close either to Ugaritic or to the language of the Amorites. The problem is, however, that the Semitic terms for ‘ivory’ and ‘elephant’ are well known and they demonstrate no similarity with the Greek and Anatolian terms: cf. Akkadian pîru ‘elephant’ and šin pîri ‘elephant tooth > ivory’ (corresponding to Sum. ZÚ.AM.SI), which also yielded Hurrian šinniberi ‘ivory’ (and šinniberohhe ‘made of ivory’); both Akkadian and Ugaritic also used the simple word for ‘tooth’ for the material (šinnu and šn respectively). So far, no traces Inter alia the variants show that -d- was not an indispensable part of the word (cf. earlier attempts to explain it as secondary development from *-y-, see literature in the previous fn.). This in any case has bearing on the question of source, since the presence of -d- was the reason why Melchert connected the word specifically with Lydian (and not with Luwian). 54 For attestations and discussion of the Hittite word s. Puhvel 2001. 53

108

Anatolian linguistic influences in Early Greek (1500–800 BC)? Critical observations against sociolinguistic and areal background

of anything reminiscent of ϕΦϑίΜΫ or la‫ܔ‬pa-/la‫ܔ‬ba- have been attested in association with ivory in the Semitic tradition 55. Given this fact, an assumption that both in Hittite and Greek the term represents an inherited term of Indo-European origin becomes practically inevitable. Taking into consideration the Near Eastern terms, one may tentatively suggest that ϕΦϑίΜΫ or la‫ܔ‬pa-/la‫ܔ‬ba- reflects an old Indo-European term for ‘tusk’ or ‘bone’ or the like. 56 7) One more example of an Anatolian lexical borrowing in Greek cited by Hajnal 2014: 111 and also accepted by Yakubovich 2010: 47 is Greek έΩΦВÞ΢ ‘clew, ball of wool ready for spinning or of spun yarn; globular cake’ vs. Hitt./Luw. taluppi- ‘lump, clod (of earth or dough)’ and tarupp- ‘assemble, collect’, which goes back to Melchert (1998) elaborating upon an earlier suggestion of Joseph (1982). 57 The phonetic correspondence is rather exact and the somewhat divergent meanings of Greek and Anatolian words can be reconciled with some effort. However, there are strong doubts that a word of such semantics — especially when viewed against the rest of the evidence — can be borrowed at all. As noted above, a crucial prerequisite for a borrowing from a foreign language in a situation of casual language contact, is that the respective word is absent in the receiving language. This can hardly be the case with word for ‘clew’, since it is hardly possible to imagine that it was absent in Greek before the contact with the Anatolians. Such a basic thing is known in any culture which deals with wool of sheep (or other domestic animals), and should have been known both in the Aegean before the arrival of the Indo-European speakers and to the ancestors of the Greeks themselves for several millennia before their appearance in the Aegean. 58 Another factor speaking against the borrowing scenario is that, on a closer consideration, there is a significant semantic distinction between An attempt by West (1992) to rehabilitate an old idea that ϕΦϑίΜΫ comes from Semitic ’lp ‘ox, bull’ is unconvincing. As has already been pointed out by Masson (1967: 82), the word for ‘ox’ is never used for ‘elephant’ and has no associations with ‘ivory’ whatsoever. It would be quite weird if the Greeks would adopt a Semitic name for ‘ox’ when the terms both for ‘elephant’ and for ‘ivory’ were readily available. 56 The easiest way to reconcile the Greek and the Anatolian forms as inherited terms would be to assume a laryngeal metathesis in Anatolian la‫ܔ‬pa- < *‫ܔ‬lapa-, reconstructing the PIE root as *h2lebh- (and assuming an irregular — synharmonic? — change in Greek: *alébha- > *elébha-). Curiously, a word with a comparable phonetic shape is indeed attested in Luwian: it is a word hidden behind the logogram L.85, conventionally transcribed as HALPA or GENUFLECTERE, which is used in the writing of the name of the Syrian city Haleb/Aleppo giving a phonetic clue for the reading of the ideographic TONITRUS.URBS ‘City of the Storm-God’ (cf. Hawkins in Herbordt 2005: 253). The sign depicts something like a human leg (‘kneeling leg’ in the definition by Hawkins, for the forms cf. Laroche 1960: 51) giving reasons for an assumption that Luwian had a term for leg or its part which sounded like *halpa- or *hlapa-. This is reminiscent of the picture with the German term for ivory Elfenbein < OHG helfant-bein, which is a hybrid combining Greek ϕΦϑίΜΫ and the Germanic *baina- which means both ‘bone’ and ‘leg’ (cf. Kluge 2011: s.v. Elfenbein and Kroonen 2013: s.v. *baina-). One may tentatively suggest that in Luwian *hlapa- also meant both one of the long bones of the leg (shin bone or thigh bone) and could metaphorically be used for ‘ivory’. It is also noteworthy that the word for ivory may be attested in ASSUR letter e §§25, 29 as *317.CRUS2-pa-, where CRUS2 closely corresponds in shape to HALPA (the general trade context agrees with this interpretation, but is not specific enough to prove it). On the other hand, an old suggestion of Saussure to connect ϕΦϑίΜΫ with PIE root for ‘white’ seen, e.g., in Lat. albus (s. Masson 1967: 81 fn. 7 for refs.) does not seem improbable. The root for ‘white’ may now be reconstructed as *h2elbh- (cf. de Vaan 2008: s.v. albus) and thus is extremely close phonetically to *h2lebh-. However, it is usually supposed that the root is reflected in Greek ξΦίΤ ‘barley groats’, λΦίЅΫ ‘leprosy’ and the river name ̴ΦίΠϲΩΫ. Although a semantic development ‘white’ > ‘white thing’ > ‘bone’/‘ivory’ looks quite plausible, the formal explanation of the connection between the two roots remains elusive (could one think about an unsteady nature of the laryngeal in the root, oscillating between h1 and h2?). 57 It seems that a similar idea has been even earlier proposed by Furnée, cf. Beekes 2010: s.v. έΩΦВÞ΢. For the Hittite word see also Tischler 1991: s.v. taluppi-. 58 Cf., e.g., Barber 1991. 55

109

Rostislav Oreshko

the Hittite and Greek words. As for Hittite, there are strong doubts that taluppi- had anything to do with ‘wool’, since the latter material, ubiquitously attested in different forms in the Hittite cultic texts, 59 never appears in combination with taluppi-. In Greek, on the other hand, έΩΦВÞ΢ served as the basis for the denominal verb έΩΦήÞΠВβ ‘wind off carded wool into a clew for spinning’, which was used in the metaphorical sense ‘achieve, accomplish’, attested already in Homer (Il. 1.238, 4.490; Od.19.137). The evidence of this verb is important in two respects. First, it shows that έΩΦВÞ΢ and έΩΦήÞΠВβ were deeply embedded in the Greek language already in the relatively early period, which would hardly agree with its status of a recent borrowing. Second, the semantics of the verb shows that έΩΦВÞ΢ is first of all ‘wound/prepared wool’ which is essentially different from a simple ‘clump of wool’. Thus, the borrowing scenario rather poorly agrees with the evidence. If we are not dealing with just a chance similarity, a more likely explanation for the case of έΩΦВÞ΢ and taluppi- would then be an assumption that the words represent independent reflexes of a PIE stem with the general meaning ‘assemble, collect’ or the like, which would well account for differences in meaning. 60 8) All the three Greek etymological dictionaries make a mention of a possible correspondence between Greek ΣВΪάΩΫ, defined as a ‘cultic wand’ associated with the cult of Dionysos and HLuw. tuwarsa/i- ‘vineyard’ (with Beekes 2010: s.v. explicitly defining it as an Anatolian loan-word). 61 However, Yakubovich (2010: 147), pointing out the irregular correspondence of initial dentals, suggested that both may be borrowings from a third source. This may be the case, but it is even more likely that the two words are not related at all. Contrary to common assumptions, a connection of ΣВΪάΩΫ with ‘vine’ is all but nonexistent. As a matter of fact, ΣВΪάΩΫ is a ‘rod’ or ‘staff’ with which one can ‘strike’ and as such could even be used as a weapon. 62 The meaning ‘branch’ (ΥΦηΟΩΫ) or ‘rod, wand’ (ЎηΝΟΩΫ) is given as an explanation of the meaning of ΣВΪάΩΫ by Hesychius and is confirmed both by literary texts (cf., e.g., Eur. Bacch. 308: ̜ΜΥΰΠϼΩΫ ΥΦηΟΩΫ or 363: ΥΤάάϴΧΩή ΝθΥέΪΩή ‘(with) ivied staff’) and by the evidence of the vase painting where ΣВΪάΩΫ as a usual attribute of the Maenads is depicted usually with a pine-cone at the end and wreathed in ivy (or, much less often, in vine-leaves). 63 A very similar attribute of the Bacchic cult was ΧηΪΣ΢Ψ ‘giant fennel (Ferula communis)’, and sometimes one gets the impression that it is simply another term for ΣВΪάΩΫ (cf., e.g. Eur. Bacch. 147 or 1156). In fact, a scholiast even claimed that ΣВΪάΩΫ is an old name Besides two forms of the word for ‘wool’, ‫ܔ‬Ɖliya- and ‫ܔ‬Ɖlana-, frequently rendered simply by sumerogram SÍG (with or without a further logogram for color), one may mention the following Hittite terms: SÍG‫ܔ‬uttulli- ‘strand (of wool)’ < ‫ܔ‬uett(i)-/‫ܔ‬uttiya- ‘to draw, pull, pluck’; malkeššar ‘spun wool’ (?) < mŊlk- ‘spin’; SÍGkiš(ša)ri- ‘skein of carded wool(?)’; (SÍG)maišta- ‘fiber, flock or strand of wool’(?); SÍGe‫ܔ‬urati- ‘plug of wool’. Cf. further SÍGeššari-/ešri‘fleece’; SÍGaštula-; kunza/i-; zum(m)ina/i- (a sort of wool). In Luwian is attested šƉrit- ‘skein of wool’. 60 Melchert’s proposal (1998: 50) to separate a prefix ta- (< PIE *to-) in the word does not seem convincing to me in view of paucity of parallel formations in Hittite. More plausible looks Kloekhorst’s (2008: s.v. tarupp-) reconstruction of the root as *Treup- with development of a secondary epenthetic vowel after the dental. However, the position of the liquid may be different, and a reconstruction of the root as *Torp- with secondary development of epenthetic u before labial is also thinkable. Whatever the situation might be, there are good grounds to add here some Slavic evidence: *tˮlpa-/*t˰lpa- ‘crowd’ (cf. OCS ˞˕ˮ˚ʸ, Russ. ˞˙˕˚ʸ, Czech tlupa etc.) and Russ./Ukr. ˞˙˕˚ˀʼʸ/ ˞˙ʻ˚ˌʼʸ ‘fat and clumsy person’ (see Vasmer 1950–1958: s.v. ˞˙˕˚ʸ; the Baltic connection discussed by Vasmer does not seem quite convincing). 61 Cf. Chantraine 1968–1980: s.v. ΣВΪάΩΫ, Frisk 1960–1973: s.v. ΣВΪάΩΫ with further refs. A suggestion by Neumann (1961) to compare tuwarsa/i- with Greek έВΝΜΪΤΫ ‘celery pickled in vinegar (a Dorian salad)’, still mentioned by Hawkins 2010: 225, can hardly be taken seriously. 62 For literary and pictorial evidence for ΣВΪάΩΫ see Papen 1905 (pp. 41–45 for the use of ΣВΪάΩΫ as a weapon). 63 For pictorial evidence see Heinemann 2016: esp. 161–204. 59

110

Anatolian linguistic influences in Early Greek (1500–800 BC)? Critical observations against sociolinguistic and areal background

for ΧηΪΣ΢Ψ, 64 which does not seem quite improbable, given the fact that the same root ΣВΪά- is found in the names of several other plants (ΣήΪάϲΧ΢, ΣВΪάΤΩΧ, ΣήΪάϲέ΢Ϋ), neither of which is in any way connected with ‘vine’. In sum, ΣВΪάΩΫ is in no way a ‘vine-branch’, as many seem to tacitly assume, but is a sort of ‘staff’ functioning as an attribute of the orgiastic cult of Bacchus. Similarly, the latter deity is originally not a ‘god of wine’, but a god of ecstasy and cultic frenzy associated first of all with wild mountainous landscape and dancing. 65 The word may well be non-Greek in origin and may be connected, as many aspects of the Dionysian cult seem to be, with Thrace. As for the Luwian word, it is attested in Luwian texts only in the 1st millennium BC. The usual Anatolian (both Hittite and Luwian) word for ‘wine/vine’, wiyana-, written mostly logographically as (GIŠ)GEŠTIN, designated quite probably also ‘vineyard’ (GIŠKIRI6.GEŠTIN). It is also noteworthy that all the certain attestations of the word tuwarsa/i- (spelled as tu-wa/i+ra/isà- with or without ideogram VITIS) are confined to two inscriptions found in Central Anatolia (BOR §3–4 and SULTANHAN §2, 22, 34, 36) 66. In contrast, in KÖRKÜN §11 (South Eastern Anatolia) wi(ya)na/a- almost certainly means ‘vineyard’ and not ‘vine’. If not due to the chance of attestation, the picture might suggest that tuwarsa/i- is (predominantly) a Central Anatolian term. Both this observation and the chronology of the attestations suggest that the word may be connected with appearance (or, possibly, rather spread) in Anatolia of peoples of Balkan origin, Phrygians and their relatives. 67 Even so, it seems quite impossible to establish any semantic connection, even an indirect one, between tuwarsa/i- and ΣВΪάΩΫ due to entirely discrepant meanings. Instead, a connection with Armenian torr ‘vine, vine branch’ suggested by Simon (2013: 116–117) looks not improbable. However, contra Simon, the evidence suggests rather that torr may be a genuine Armenian word brought from the Balkan homeland and tuwarsa/i-, accordingly, may be a Proto-Armenian borrowing in the late Central-Anatolian dialects of Luwian. 9) There has been suggested a possible connection between Greek έВΪΜΧΧΩΫ and Luwian word usually read as tarwani- and interpreted as ‘a sort of ruler’ (with possible development from ‘judge’). 68 If one proceeds from this interpretation of the Luwian word, the fairly good phonetic correspondence makes a connection of the words very attractive, a possibility supported by the fact that specific professional titles are indeed often borrowed from language to language. The question would be rather if it is an Anatolian borrowing or an areal word of unclear origin, which is suggested by further possible cognates in Hebrew srn (applied to Philistine leaders) and Ugaritic srn. However, recent analysis by Melchert (forthcoming) essentially changes the perspective. Elaborating upon earlier considerations of Pintore, Melchert convincingly argued that the word, whose likelier reading is probably tarrawani-, is not a professional designation nor a title, but an adjective with the basic meaning ‘just, righteous’, which might be applied to a ‘king’ as well as to a ‘servant’ or even a ‘wife’. This analysis makes it clear that the word is genuinely Luwian; on the other hand, the meaning of the word now proves to be See Papen 1905: 12. See, e.g., Schlesier 2011 with further refs. The original meaning and etymology of the term ΣВΪάΩΫ will be addressed in greater detail elsewhere. 66 Besides that, there is an ambiguous attestation in MARAį 8, §6 of the word spelled as (VITIS)tu-wa/i-ri+i-ta, which may be phonetically interpreted as /t(u)warit(t)a/. It is doubtful that the word is to be simply amended to (VITIS)tu-wa/i-ri+i-sà!, but it may still be cognate with tuwarsa/i- (cf. discussion in Hawkins 2000: 254). 67 For the argument that peoples culturally and possibly linguistically related with the Balkans were present in Anatolia already in the 2nd millennium BC, see Oreshko 2017. 68 The suggestion goes back to F. Pintore (1979). For a detailed analysis and a survey of earlier literature, see Melchert forthcoming. 64 65

111

Rostislav Oreshko

rather distinct from that of έВΪΜΧΧΩΫ or, as far as one can judge, srn. It is not impossible that a usual collocation ‘righteous ruler’ would lead to perception of tarrawani- as a title on its own which might be borrowed into Greek and might be subsequently developed — with a sort of ironical twist — to ‘absolute/unjust ruler’. However, it is perhaps telling that in Luwian itself the word did not develop into a stand-alone title and remained an adjective with broad meaning. It would also be justified to ask the question why the Greeks had to borrow tarrawani-, a word with quite an ambiguous reference to ‘ruler’, ignoring a much more straightforward and widespread word, which was used in slightly different forms as the usual designation for ‘king’, as far as one can see, in all parts of the ‘Luwic world’, e.g. in HLuw. handawati-, Lycian xñtawat(i)-, Carian kΏou- and possibly reflected also in Lydian PN Kandaules (as a borrowing from Carian)? In fact, accepting the interpretation of tarrawani- as ‘righteous, just’ and taking the evidence unbiasedly, one should conclude that the word has nothing to do with έВΪΜΧΧΩΫ (which still might be a loanword in Greek). 69 10) One more example favorably assessed by Yakubovich (2010: 147) is Hitt. eš‫ܔ‬ar vs. Greek ϺΰβΪ ‘blood of the gods; serum (later)’, which goes back to a suggestion of Sayce (1922). However, neither of the Greek etymological dictionaries gives preference to this connection over other etymological suggestions, and with good reasons. There is an apparent phonetic discrepancy between the words: eš‫ܔ‬ar contains an additional sibilant which cannot just disappear in Greek; an expected outcome of the Hittite word in Greek would be *ϘάΥΜΪ or *ϺάΥΜΪ and the cluster -sk- is very stable in Greek. Moreover, one should note that besides Homer the word is rather well attested in later medical and natural philosophical literature referring to the ‘watery part of animal juices’. It is rather difficult to imagine how an allegedly poetic word taken over from a foreign tradition to refer in a sort of elevated style to ‘blood’ could so quickly lose all its ‘poeticness’ and assume such a technical meaning. A more likely explanation is that the word is genuinely Greek and originally referred to some ‘fluid of the body’; as a relatively vague term, it has been elevated by the Homeric tradition to a status of a poetic word, while in the everyday usage it kept its original meaning and was used by later scholars as a term. 11) Lastly, a mention should be made of my own (Oreshko 2013 (2015): 104–105) tentative suggestion concerning the bird name ΥВ÷ΤΧΟΤΫ mentioned in Il. 14.291 as the name used ‘in the language of men’ for the bird known ‘in the language of gods’ as ΰηΦΥΤΫ which represents in all probability a species of owl (eagle owl or long-eared owl). The bird is called ΥВΝΤΧΟΤΫ by Aristotle, which seems to be quite close to the Anatolian word for ‘copper’, already discussed above (ku(wa)nna(n)-), suggesting that ΥВΝΤΧΟΤΫ/ΥВ÷ΤΧΟΤΫ might be a loan-translation of ΰηΦΥΤΫ (or vice versa). However, in view of the evidence presented above one may doubt that the Greeks knew any Anatolian language so well as to be able to ‘translate’ a bird name. Moreover, an alternative and simpler explanation is available. Like the designation for another species of owl ΥήΥή÷(β)ϲΫ, adduced for comparison earlier, the word could have an onomatopoetic origin, imitating the characteristic call of many owls (‘ku’). This possibility is supported by evidence from other IE languages: in Celtic the word for ‘owl’ is reconstructed as *kawanno-, but has in several languages u-vocalization of the first syllable (Middle Welsh cuan or Old Breton cou(h)an) 70, thus corresponding quite close to Greek ΥВΝΤΧΟΤΫ/ΥВ÷ΤΧΟΤΫ. Moreover, the initial part of the word corresponds to that of OHG huwo (< *kuwo) and furthermore close to It is noteworthy that the phonetic side of the correspondence tarrawani- vs. έВΪΜΧΧΩΫ is also far from ideal, especially as far as vocalism is concerned. Proceeding from a borrowing, scenario the form which one would expect is something like *έΜΪ(Ϊ)ΜΧ(Τ)ΩΫ or *έΜΪ(Ϊ)(Ω)ήΧ(Τ)ΩΫ. 70 Matasoviŏ 2009: s.v. *kawanno-. 69

112

Anatolian linguistic influences in Early Greek (1500–800 BC)? Critical observations against sociolinguistic and areal background

that of Fr. chouette and Slavic word for the bird sova, which might well go back to something like *‫ݡ‬oࢤŊ. 71 It is thus very likely that ΥВΝΤΧΟΤΫ/ΥВ÷ΤΧΟΤΫ is simply an nd-suffix extension of the same onomatopoetic root and ΰηΦΥΤΫ is a more descriptive term referring to the ‘coppery’ appearance of the bird. III. Conclusions Before proceeding to the actual conclusions, it seems useful to take a glance at the Lydian borrowings in Greek, which represent, as noted above, the clearest (if not the only) case of an Anatolian influence on Greek, in order to realize once again what ‘normal’ loanwords should look like. There are three clear cases of Lydian words in Greek texts 72. The first one is ÞηΦ÷ήΫ ‘king’, a word known already to Homer as a personal name (of a Phrygian or Mysian leader), but used in its proper meaning by Hipponax of Ephesos in the 6th century BC (frs. 1, 7.4 and 47.1), once by Aeschylus (fr. 437) and by several later authors 73. The word represents an adoption of Lydian qaΖmΖu- ‘king’ well attested in Lydian texts and seems to be a true borrowing comprehensible to a general Greek speaker, albeit with somewhat restricted usage, still apparently bearing a perceptible ‘Oriental flavor’, and thus comparable with English sultan or raja. 74 The second word is ΥΜВ΢Ϋ, corresponding to Lydian kawe- ‘priest/priestess’; the word is used by Hipponax (fr. 3.1) and later attested epigraphically. 75 The word seems to be well known at least to the speakers of the eastern Ionian dialect. The third is ΝηΥΥΜΪΤΫ which refers to some specific type of aromatic unguent and is used both by Archaic poets, such as Hipponax (fr. 107.21) and Semonides of Amorgos (fr. 14d), and by some 5th century BC authors, such as Aristophanes (fr. 319), Aeschylus (fr. 14) or Ion of Chios (fr. trag. 24). 76 The source language of the term is not completely clear, but the joint evidence of Hipponax, who associates the usage of ΝηΥΥΜΪΤΫ with Croesus, and of some lexicographers, makes the Lydian origin of the word quite likely. The difference of these examples from those discussed above is obvious: the first two words almost exactly correspond to the Lydian counterparts phonetically and, more importantly, semantically, belonging to the category of professional designations/titles which are in general particularly frequently transferred from language to language. The third one is the name of a specific product and, as such, is very likely to be borrowed together with the product, as is the case with (eau de) cologne in English. The words clearly reflect cultural contacts between the Lydians and the Greeks, presumably mostly after ca. 700 BC, even if they still do not presuppose extensive bilingualism. The results of this survey are certainly rather discouraging: considering the evidence soberly and without obsessive concentration exclusively on Anatolian and Greek, one should state that among the most frequently cited cases there is not a single one which may be properly qualified as contact-induced borrowing from an Anatolian language into Greek dating to the Late Bronze Age or Early Iron Age. Due to the limited scope of the study it is not possible 71

Cf. Dersken 2008: s.v. *sovà. The number of possible Lydian words in Greek may be larger (cf. Hawkins 2013: 155–194), but it is difficult to say about some other words attested in Hipponax and elsewhere whether they were known to common Greek speakers or had restricted usage. 73 Cf. Hawkins 2013: 188–190. 74 It is noteworthy that the form of the word in Greek with Þ- corresponding to Lydian ku๞- suggests that it is a rather old borrowing, possibly dating back to the second millennium BC. 75 Cf. Hawkins 2013: 183–187. 76 Cf. Hawkins 2013: 156–157. 72

113

Rostislav Oreshko

to claim complete absence of any influence of the Anatolian linguistic milieu on Early Greek. However, in order to demonstrate it one would need to find more convincing examples meeting the usual criteria for loanwords. So far, there are only several cases in which some distant connection between the respective terms in Anatolian and Greek is not excluded, but it is not a borrowing strictu sensu. If there is something behind the similarity of the Greek and Anatolian words discussed above beyond accidental phonetic resemblance, it has to be explained not in the framework of a borrowing scenario, but in different terms, such as Wanderwort or areal features; the mechanisms of such a transfer is a separate and a complex question that cannot be addressed here. In keeping with what has been said above about methodology, this conclusion has farreaching consequences for the question of Greek-Anatolian language interference in general. The virtual absence of direct lexical borrowings is a strong indication that there was no GreekAnatolian bilingualism and that even the level of casual contact was extremely low. This necessarily means that any influence on the other levels of language, such as phonology, morphology or phraseology, is impossible by definition, since morphology and phonetics come after words; but the words, as one can see, did not actually come from Anatolian into Greek. Similarly, the absence of bilingual communities makes it rather unlikely that the Greeks had any access to Anatolian literary texts (oral or written) and, consequently, an explanation for any eventual similarities in phraseology or literary themes between Greece and Anatolia — or, wider, the Ancient Near East — should be sought along different lines, such as generic or typological similarity, common heritage or common cultural experience.

Literature Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y., R. M. W. Dixon, (eds.). 2001. Areal Difusion and Genetic Inheritance. Problems in Comparative Linguistics. Oxford / New York. Bachvarova, Mary R. 2016. From Hittite to Homer. The Anatolian Background of Ancient Greek Epic. Cambridge. Barber, E. J. W. 1991. Bronze Ages with special reference to the Aegean. Princeton University Press. Beckman, Gary, Trevor Bryce, Eric Cline (eds.). 2011. The Ahhiyawa Texts (SBL 28). Atlanta. Beekes, Robert S. 2010. Etymological Dictionary of Greek. Vols. 1–2. Leiden / Boston: Brill. Beekes, Robert S. 2014. Pre-Greek. Phonology, Morphology, Lexicon. Ed. by Stefan Norbrius. Leiden: Brill. Bernabé, Alberto, Eugenio R. Luján. 2008. Mycenaean Technology. In: Y. Duhoux, A. Morpurgo-Davies (eds.). A Companion to Linear B. Mycenaean Greek Texts and their World. Vol. 1 (Bibliothèque des Cahiers de l’Institut de Linguistique de Louvain 120): 201–233. Louvain-la-Neuve / Paris / Dudley. Bianconi, Michele. 2015. Contatti greco-anatolici e sprachbund egeo-micrasiatico. Stato della ricerca e nuove prospettive. Archivio Glottologico Italiano 100(2): 129–178. Brust, Manfred. 2005. Die indischen und iranischen Lehnwörter im Griechischen. Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität Innsbruck. Burkert, Walter. 1992. The Orientalizing Revolution: Near Eastern Influence on Greek Culture in the Early Archaic Age. Trans. by M. E. Pinder and W. Burkert. Cambridge / London: Harvard University Press. Burkert, Walter. 2004. Babylon, Memphis, Persepolis: Eastern Contexts of Greek Culture. Cambridge / London: Harvard University Press. Cartledge, Paul. 1993. The Greeks: A Portrait of Self and Others. Oxford University Press. Chadwick, John. 1988. The women of Pylos. In: J.-P. Olivier, T. G. Palaima (eds.). Texts. Tablets and Scribes: Studies Offered to Emmett L. Bennett, Jr. (Minos, Suppl., 10): 43–95. Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca. Chantraine, Pierre. 1968–1980. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque: histoire des mots. Paris: Klincksieck. Coleman, John E. 1997. Ancient Greek Ethnocentrism. In: John E. Coleman, C. A. Walz (eds.). Greeks and Barbarians: Essays on the Interactions between Greeks and non-Greeks in Antiquity and the Consequences for Eurocentrism: 175–220. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press. 114

Anatolian linguistic influences in Early Greek (1500–800 BC)? Critical observations against sociolinguistic and areal background

ÇakÈrlar, Canan, Salima Ikram. 2016. ‘When elephants battle, the grass suffers.’ Power, ivory and the Syrian elephant. Levant 48(2): 167–183. ÇÈftçÈ, Mine, John D. Hawkins. 2016. A New Inscribed Bowl in the Ankara Museum, Colloquium Anatolicum 15: 239–246. Dardano, Paola. 2013. Lingua omerica e fraseologia anatolica: vecchie questioni e nuove prospettive. In: M. Mancini, L. Lorenzetti (eds.). Le lingue del Mediterraneo antico. Culture, mutamenti, contatti: 125–150. Firenze: Carocci. Derksen, Rick. 2008. Etymological Dictionary of the Slavic Inherited Lexicon. Leiden / Boston: Brill. Dinçol, BelkÈs. 1998. Beobachtungen über die Bedeutung des hethitischen Musikinstruments GIŠhuhupal. Anatolica 24: 1–50. Fidio, Pia de. 2008. Mycenaean History. In: Y. Duhoux, A. Morpurgo-Davies (eds.). A Companion to Linear B. Mycenaean Greek Texts and their World. Vol. 1: 81–114. Louvain-la-Neuve /Paris / Dudley. Frisk, Hjalmar. Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. 1960–1973. Heidelberg: C. Winter. García Ramón, José Luis. 2011a. Idiome in hethitischer Literatur und in griechischer Dichtung. Anatolische bzw. akkadische Lehnübersetzungen oder indogermanische Phraseologie? In: Manfred Hutter, Sylvia HutterBraunsar (eds.). Hethitische Literatur. Überlieferungsprozesse, Textstrukturen, Ausdrucksformen und Nachwirken. Akten des Symposiums vom 18. bis 20. Februar 2010 in Bonn: 83–97. Münster: Ugarit. García Ramón, José Luis. 2011b. Sprachen in Kontakt im Griechenland und Kleinasien im 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. In: Dietrich Boschung, Claudia Maria Rehl (eds.). Historische Mehrsprachigkeit. Workshop des Zentrums für Antike Kulturen des Mittelmeerraumes (ZaKMiRa) und des Zentrums Sprachenvielfalt und Mehrsprachigkeit (ZSM) an der Universität Köln, Juli 2008: 23–45. Aachen: Shaker. Gasbarra, Valentina, Marianna Pozza. 2012. Fenomeni di interferenza greco-anatolica nel II millennio a.C.: l’ittito come mediatore tra mondo indoeuropeo e mondo non indoeuropeo. Annali dell’Istituto Orientale di Napoli N.S. 1: 165–214. Gasbarra, Valentina, Marianna Pozza. 2013. Pluralità di vie del prestito: i casi di itt. la anni- gr. ΦηΞήΧΩΫ e itt. kupa i-, gr. ΥВ÷ΝΜΰΩΫ. In: M. Mancini, L. Lorenzetti (eds.). Le lingue del Mediterraneo antico. Culture, mutamenti, contatti: 181–191. Roma. Giannakis, Georgios K. (ed.). 2014. Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics. 3 Vols. Leiden: Brill. Giusfredi, Federico. 2017. On Sumerian ku3(g)-an (a metal) and some allegedly derived words. Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires (N.A.B.U.) 2017(1): 13–16. Gusmani, Roberto. 1964. Lydisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg: C. Winter. Haas, Otto. 1966. Die Phrygischen Sprachdenkmäler. Sofia: Académie bulgare des sciences. Hajnal, Ivo. 2014. Die griechisch-anatolischen Sprachkontakte zur Bronzezeit — Sprachbund oder loser Sprachkontakt? Linguarum varietas 3: 105–116. Hajnal, Ivo. 2018. Graeco-Anatolian contacts in the Mycenaean Period. In: M. A. Fritz, B. D. Joseph, J. S. Klein (eds.). Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics: 2037–2055. Berlin: De Gruyter. Hall, Jonathan M. 2002. Hellenicity: Between Ethnicity and Culture. University of Chicago Press. Haubold, Johannes. 2013. Greece and Mesopotamia: Dialogues in Literature. Cambridge University Press. Hawkins, Shane. 2010. Greek and the Languages of Asia Minor to the Classical Period. In: E. J. Bakker (ed.): A Companion to the Ancient Greek Language: 213–227. Malden / Oxford / Chichester: Wiley—Blackwell. Hawkins, Shane. 2013. Studies in the Language of Hipponax (Münich studies in historical linguistics, Bd. 14). Bremen: Hempen Verlag. Heinemann, Alexander. 2016. Der Gott des Gelages. Dionysos, Satyrn und Mänaden auf attischem Trinkgeschirr des 5. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. Berlin / Boston: De Gruyter. Herbordt, Suzanne. 2005. Die Prinzen- und Beamtensiegel der hethitischen Grossreichszeit auf Tonbullen aus dem Nižantepe-Archiv in Hattusa. Mit Kommentaren zu den Siegelinschriften und Hieroglyphen von J. David Hawkins (BoŚazköy-‫ܓ‬attuša 19). Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern. Heubeck, Alfred. 1961. Praegraeca. Sprachliche Untersuchungen zum vorgriechisch-indogermanischen Substrat. Universitätsbund Erlangen. Joseph, Brian. 1982. The source of Ancient Greek έΩΦВÞ΢. Glotta 60: 230–234. Katz, Joshua T. 2001. Hittite ta-pa-ka-li-ya-. In: O. Carruba, W. Meid (eds.). Anatolisch und Indogermanisch. Anatolico e indoeuropeo. Akten des Kolloquiums der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Pavia, 22.-25. September 1998: 205– 237. Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität Innsbruck. 115

Rostislav Oreshko

Kloekhorst, Alwin. 2008. Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon. Leiden: Brill. Kluge, Friedrich. 2011. Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache. 25., durchgesehene und erweiterte Auflage, rev. von E. Seebold. Berlin: De Gruyter. Kroonen, Guus. 2013. Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Germanic. Leiden / Boston: Brill. Lamberterie, Charles de. 2013. Grec, phrygien, arménien: des anciens aux modernes. Journal des Savants 2013(1): 3–69. Laroche, Emmanuel. 1960. Les hiéroglyphes hittites. 1: L'écriture. Paris: Éditions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique. Laurot, Bernard. 1981. Idéaux Grecs et barbarie chez Hérodote. Ktema 6: 39–48. Ligorio, ̩rsat, Alexander Lubotsky. 2013. Phrygian. In: Y. B. Koryakov, A. A. Kibrik (eds.). Languages of the World: Relict Indo-European, Languages of Western and Central Asia: 180–195. Moscow: Academia. López-Ruiz, Carolina. 2010. When the Gods Were Born. Greek Cosmogonies and the Near East. Cambridge University Press. Martirosyan, Hrach K. 2009. Etymological Dictionary of the Armenian Inherited Lexicon. Leiden: Brill. Masson, Emilia. 1967. Recherches sur les plus anciens emprunts sémitiques en grec. Paris: Klincksieck. Matasoviü, Ranko. 2009. Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Celtic. Leiden / Boston: Brill. Mee, Cristopher. 1978. Aegean Trade and Settlement in Anatolia in the Second Millennium B.C. Anatolian Studies 28: 121–156. Melchert, H. Craig. 1994. Anatolian historical phonology (Leiden Studies in Indo-European 3). Amsterdam / Atlanta: Rodopi. Melchert, H. Craig. 1998. Once more Greek έΩΦВÞ΢. Orpheus 8: 47–51. Melchert, H. Craig. 2008. Greek mólybdos as a loanword from Lydian. In: B. J. Collins, M. R. Bachvarova, I. C. Rutherford (eds.). Anatolian interfaces. Hittites, Greeks and their neighbours: 153–157. Oxford. Melchert, H. Craig. Forthcoming. Iron Age Luvian tarrawann(i)-. Ms. Metcalf, Cristopher. 2015. The Gods Rich in Praise. Early Greek and Mesopotamian Religious Poetry. Oxford University Press. Mountjoy, Penelopa A. 1998. The East Aegean-West Anatolian Interface in the Late Bronze Age: Mycenaeans and the Kingdom of Ahhiyawa. Anatolian Studies 48: 33–67. Mouton, Alice, Ian Rutherford. 2015. Arzawan Rituals and Greek Religion. In: N. Chr. Stampolidis, Ç. Maner, K. Kopanias (eds.). NOSTOI: Indigenous Culture, Migration and Integration in the Aegean Islands and Western Anatolia during the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages: 709–736. Istanbul: Koç University Press. Munson, Rosaria Vignolo. 2005. Black Doves Speak: Herodotus and the Languages of Barbarians (Hellenic Studies Series 9). Washington, DC: Center for Hellenic Studies. Neu, Erich. 1999. Altanatolien und das mykenische Pylos: Einige Überlegungen zum Nestorbecher der Ilias. Archiv Orientální 67: 619–627. Oreshko, Rostislav. The Strange Case of Dr. FRATER and Mr. DOMINUS: a Re-consideration of the Evidence Concerning Luwian nani-. In: P. Taracha, M. KapeůuŽ (eds.). Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Hittitology (Warsaw, 5–9 September 2011): 614–631. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Agade. Oreshko, Rostislav. 2013 (2015). Hipponax and the Linguistic, Ethnic and Religious Milieu of Western Anatolia. Some Further Notes on: Hawkins Sh. The language of Hipponax. Hephaistos 30: 88–112. Oreshko, Rostislav. 2017. Hartapu and the Land of Maša. A New Look at the KIZILDAČ-KARADAČ Group. Altorientalische Forschungen 44(1): 1–21. Oreshko, Rostislav. Forthcoming. Gods of the Lydians, Cultural Contact and the Problem of Lydian Ethnolinguistic Identity. In: Proceedings of the Conference ‘In Search of the Golden Fleece’. Linguistic and Cultural Interactions between Greece and the Ancient Near East’, Oxford, January 27–28, 2017. Papen, Ferdinand Gaudenz von. 1905. Der Thyrsos in der griechischen und römischen Literatur und Kunst. Berlin: Reimer. Payne, Annick. 2010. ‘Writing’ in Hieroglyphic Luwian. In: Itamar Singer (ed.). Ipamati kistamati pari tumatimis: Luwian and Hittite Studies presented to J. David Hawkins on the occasion of his 70th birthday: 182–187. Tel-Aviv University: Institute of Archaeology. Pfälzner, Peter. 2016. The Elephants of the Orontes. In: D. Parayre (ed.). Le fleuve rebelle. Géographie historique du moyen Oronte d’Ebla à l’époque médiévale. Actes du colloque international tenu les 13 et 14 décembre 2012 à Nanterre (MaE) et à Paris (iNHa) (Syria, supplément IV): 159–182. Beyrouth: Presses de l'IFPO. Pintore, Franco. 1979. Tarwanis. In: O. Carruba (ed.). Studia Mediterranea Piero Meriggi dicata: 473–494. Pavia: Aurora. Poetto, Massimo. 2017. The Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscription ANKARA 3: A New Exegetic Approach. NABU 2017/2: 88–90. 116

Anatolian linguistic influences in Early Greek (1500–800 BC)? Critical observations against sociolinguistic and areal background

Pozza, Marianna, Valentina Gasbarra. 2014a. Multidirectional Lexical Borrowings in the Ancient Near East in the 2nd Millennium BC. Athens Journal of Philology 1(4): 245–258. Pozza, Marianna, Valentina Gasbarra. 2014b. Some Sociolinguistic Reflections on the Aegean-Anatolian Interference in the 2nd Millennium BC. Athens: In: ATINER'S Conference Paper Series, 3–14. The Athens Institute for Education and Research. Puhvel. Jaan. 1991a. Homer and Hittite. Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität Innsbruck. Puhvel, Jaan. 1991b. Hittite Etymological Dictionary, Vol. 3: Words beginning with H. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Puhvel, Jaan. 1997. Hittite Etymological Dictionary, Vol. 4: Words beginning with K. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Puhvel, Jaan. 2001. Ivory and Elephant in Hittite. In: G. Wilhelm (ed.). Akten des IV. Internationalen Kongresses für Hethitologie, Würzburg, 4.-8. Oktober 1999: 561–562. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Puhvel, Jaan. 2002. Epilecta Indoeuropaea. Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität Innsbruck. Richter, Thomas. 2012. Bibliographisches Glossar des Hurritischen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Rosóů, Rafaů. 2013. Frühe semitische Lehnwörter im Griechischen. Frankfurt am Main: Verlag Peter Lang. Rutherford, Ian. 2002. Some patterns in Lycian-Greek bilingualism. In: J. N. Adams, M. Janse, S. Swain (eds.). Bilingualism in ancient society: language contact and the written text: 197–219. Oxford University Press. Rutherford, Ian. 2008. The Songs of the Zintu‫ݻ‬is: Chorus and Ritual in Anatolia and Greece. In: B. J. Collins, M. Bachvarova, I. Rutherford (eds.). Anatolian Interfaces — Hittites, Greeks and Their Neighbours: 73–83. Oxford University Press. Sayce, Archibald H. 1922. Greek Etymologies: λϛΪ, ϷΰФΪ, оΩ÷÷ІΫ, ΩϽΧΩΫ, ΰΜΦоІΫ. The Classical Review 36: 19–20. Schlesier, Renate. 2011. Der bakchische Gott. In: R. Schlesier (ed.). A Different God? Dionysos and Ancient Polytheism: 173–202. Berlin / Boston: De Gruyter. Schmitt, Rüdiger. 1971. ‘Méconnaissance’ altiranischen Sprachgutes im Griechischen. Glotta 49: 95–110. Schuol, Monika. 2004. Hethitische Kultmusik. Eine Untersuchung der Instrumental- und Vokalmusik anhand hethischer Ritualtexte und von archäologischen Zeugnissen. Rahden, Westfalien. Simon, Zsolt. 2009. Die ANKARA-Silberschale und das Ende des hethitischen Reiches. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archäologie 99(2): 247–269. Simon, Zsolt. 2013. Die These der hethitisch-luwischen Lehnwörter im Armenischen. International Journal of Diachronic Linguistics and Linguistic Reconstruction 10: 97–135. Simon, Zsolt. 2016. Zum hieroglyphen-luwischen Zeichen CAELUM. NABU 2016(4): 159–162. Simon, Zsolt. 2017a. ΟϑÞΜΫ und die anderen: Spuren eines verschollenen luw(o)iden Dialekts? Wékwos. Revue d’études indoeuropéennes 3: 245–259. Simon, Zsolt. 2017b. Philologische Bemerkungen zur hieroglyphen-luwischen Inschrift ANKARA 3. NABU 2017/2: 86–88. Sowa, Wojciech. 2007. A note to Phrygian words in Greek. Studia Etymologica Cracoviensia 12: 153–170. Sowa, Wojciech. 2008. Studien zum Phrygischen. Göttingen: E. Cuvilier. Teffeteller, Annette. 2015. Songs by Land and Sea Descending: Anatolian and Aegean Poetic Traditions. In: N. Chr. Stampolidis, C. Maner, K. Kopanias (eds.). NOSTOI: Indigenous Culture, Migration and Integration in the Aegean Islands and Western Anatolia during the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages: 709–736. Istanbul: Koç University Press. Thomason, Sarah G. 2001. Language Contact: An Introduction. Edinburgh University Press. Thomason, Sarah G., Terry Kaufman. 1988. Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley / Los Angeles / London: University of California Press. Tischler, Johann. 1977–1983. Hethitisches Etymologisches Glossar. Teil I, A-K. Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität Innsbruck. Tischler, Johann. 1991. Hethitisches Etymologisches Glossar. Teil III, Lieferung 8: T, D/1. Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität Innsbruck. Tischler, Johann. 2008. Hethitisches Handwörterbuch — Mit dem Wortschatz der Nachbarsprachen, 2., vermehrte und verbesserte Auflage. Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität Innsbruck. Tuplin, Christopher. 1999. Greek racism. Observations on the character and limits of Greek ethnic prejudice. In: G. Tsetskhladze (ed.). Ancient Greeks. West and East: 47–75. Leiden / Boston / Köln: Brill. 117

Rostislav Oreshko

Vaan, Michiel de. 2008. Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the Other Italic Languages. Leiden / Boston: Brill. Vasmer, Max. 1953–1955. Russisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Ventris, Micheal, John Chadwick. 1973. Documents in Mycenaean Greek. Second Edition. Cambridge University Press. Watkins, Calvert. 1995. How to Kill a Dragon: Aspects of Indo-European Poetics. Oxford University Press. Watkins, Calvert. 1998. Homer and Hittite Revisited. In: P. Knox, C. Foss (eds.). Style and Tradition. Studies in Honor of Wendell Clausen: 201–216. Stuttgart / Leipzig: B. G. Teubner. Watkins, Calvert. 2000a. L’Anatolie et la Grèce: Résonances culturelles, linguistiques et poétiques. Comptes Rendus des Séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 2000(144-3): 1143–1158. Watkins, Calvert. 2000b. A Distant Anatolian Echo in Pindar: The Origin of the Aegis Again. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 100: 1–14. Watkins, Calvert. 2007. The Golden Bowl. Thoughts on the new Sappho and its Asianic Background. Classical Antiquity 26(2): 305–324. West, Martin L. 1997. The East Face of Helicon. Oxford University Press. West, Martin L. 1992. Elephant. Glotta 70 (3-4): 125–128. Willi, Andreas. 2004. Old Persian in Athens Revisited (Ar. Ach. 100). Mnemosyne 57: 657–681. Winford, Donald. 2013. Contact and Borrowing. In: R. Hickey (ed.). The Handbook of Language Contact: 170–187. Oxford / Chichester: Wiley–Blackwell. Yakubovich, Ilya. 2010. Sociolinguistics of the Luvian Language. Leiden / Boston: Brill. Yakubovich, Ilya. 2013. Anatolian Names in -wiya and the Structure of Empire Luwian Onomastics. In: A. Mouton, I. Rutherford, I. Yakubovich (eds.). Luwian Identities — Culture, Language and Religion Between Anatolia and the Aegean: 87–123. Leiden / Boston: Brill. Yakubovich, Ilya. 2015. Phoenician and Luwian in Early Iron Age Cilicia. Anatolian Studies 65: 35–53.

ʍ˙˜˞ˌ˜˕ʸʻ ʋ˛ˀˬː˙. ʇ ˅˥˦˧˥˨˫ ˥˄ ˁˣˁ˪˥༤˘˙˨˜˥ˢ ˅༤˘̀ˣ˘˘ ˣˁ ˧ˁˣˣˋˆ˧ˋ˵ˋ˨˜˘˙ ̀˖˻˜ (1500– 800 ˆˆ. ˊ˥ ˣ.˽.): ˜˧˘˪˘˜ˁ ˨˥ ˨˪˥˧˥ˣ˻ ˨˥˴˘˥༤˘ˣˆ˅˘˨˪˘˜˘ ˘ ˁ˧ˋˁ༤˼ˣ˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜˥˖ˣˁˣ˘̀ ɳ ˨˪ˁ˪˼ˋ ˘˨˨༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪˨̀ ˅˥˦˧˥˨ ˥ ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˥ˢ ˁˣˁ˪˥༤˘˙˨˜˥ˢ ˅༤˘̀ˣ˘˘ ˣˁ ˧ˁˣˣ˘ˋ ˨˪ˁˊ˘˘ ˧ˁ˖˅˘˪˘̀ ˆ˧ˋ˵ˋ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ (˦˧˘ˢˋ˧ˣ˥ ˨ 1500 ˦˥ 800 ˆˆ. ˊ˥ ˣ.˽.). ʑˋ˧˅ˁ̀ ˵ˁ˨˪˼ ˦˥˨˅̀˹ˋˣˁ ˥˄˨˫ːˊˋˣ˘˿ ˥˄˹˘˲ ˢˋ˪˥ˊ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˅˥˦˧˥˨˥˅, ˨˅̀˖ˁˣˣ˻˲ ˨ ̀˖˻˜˥˅˻ˢ˘ ˜˥ˣ˪ˁ˜˪ˁˢ˘, ˪ˁ˜˘˲, ˜ˁ˜ ˢˋ˲ˁˣ˘˖ˢ˻ ̀˖˻˜˥˅˥ˆ˥ ˅˖ˁ˘ˢ˥ˊˋ˙˨˪˅˘̀ ˘ ˢˁ˨˸˪ˁ˄˻ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘˙. ɳ˥ ˅˪˥˧˥˙ ˵ˁ˨˪˘ ˜˧˘˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ ˥˄˨˫ːˊˁ˿˪˨̀ 11 ˨༤˫˵ˁˋ˅ ˦˥˪ˋˣ˴˘ˁ༤˼ˣ˻˲ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘˙ ˅ ˆ˧ˋ˵ˋ˨˜˘˙ ̀˖˻˜ ˘˖ ˁˣˁ˪˥༤˘˙˨˜˘˲ ˘˨˪˥˵ˣ˘˜˥˅. ʒˋ˖˫༤˼˪ˁ˪˻ ˁˣˁ༤˘˖ˁ ˦˥˜ˁ˖˻˅ˁ˿˪, ˵˪˥ ˁˣˁ˪˥༤˘˙˨˜˥ˋ ˅༤˘̀ˣ˘ˋ ˣˁ ˧ˁˣˣˋˆ˧ˋ˵ˋ˨˜˘˙ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˧ˣ˻˙ ˨˥˨˪ˁ˅ ˄˻༤˥ ˅ ༤˫˵˸ˋˢ ˨༤˫˵ˁˋ ˢ˘ˣ˘ˢˁ༤˼ˣ˻ˢ, ˵˪˥, ˅ ˨˅˥˿ ˥˵ˋ˧ˋˊ˼, ˱ˁ˜˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ ˘˨˜༤˿˵ˁˋ˪ ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˥˨˪˼ ˜ˁ˜˥ˆ˥-༤˘˄˥ ˅༤˘̀ˣ˘̀ ˅ ˥˄༤ˁ˨˪˘ ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˜˘, ˢ˥˧˱˥༤˥ˆ˘˘ ˘ ˱˧ˁ˖ˋ˥༤˥ˆ˘˘. ʂ˕˳˩ˀʻ˯ˀ ˜˕˙ʻʸ: ˆ˧ˋ˜˥-ˁˣˁ˪˥༤˘˙˨˜˘ˋ ˜˥ˣ˪ˁ˜˪˻, ˧ˁˣˣˋˆ˧ˋ˵ˋ˨˜˘˙ ̀˖˻˜, ˁˣˁ˪˥༤˘˙˨˜˘ˋ ̀˖˻˜˘, ˲ˋ˪˪˨˜˘˙ ̀˖˻˜, ༤˫˅˘˙˨˜˘˙ ̀˖˻˜, ༤˘ˊ˘˙˨˜˘˙ ̀˖˻˜, ༤˘˜˘˙˨˜˘˙ ̀˖˻˜, ˜ˁ˧˘˙˨˜˘˙ ̀˖˻˜.

118

ʍ˙˖ʸ˗ ʇ˙˕˟ʸ ʃˣ˨˪˘˪˫˪ ̀˖˻˜˥˖ˣˁˣ˘̀ ˘ˢ. ɯ˧ˣ. ʠ˘˜˥˄ˁ˅ˁ ʕ˄˘༤˘˨˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˆ˥˨˫ˊˁ˧˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˫ˣ˘˅ˋ˧˨˘˪ˋ˪ˁ ˘ˢ. ʃ˅. ɸːˁ˅ˁ˲˘˸˅˘༤˘

ʂ ˟˞˙˩˗ˀ˗ˌ˳ ˥˙˗˙ໞ˙ʼˌ˩ˀ˜ː˙ˍ ˜ˌ˜˞ˀ˖˯ ˴ˊ˯ːʸ ːʸʻːʸˊ˜ː˙-ʸໞʺʸ˗˜ːˌ˦ ˚ʸໞˌ˖˚˜ˀ˜˞˙ʻ 1 ʐˊˣ˥˙ ˘˖ ˨ˁˢ˻˲ ˁ˜˪˫ˁ༤˼ˣ˻˲ ˦˧˥˄༤ˋˢ ༤˘ˣˆ˅˘˨˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˥˅ˋˊˋˣ˘̀ ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˣˁ˫˵ˣ˥ˋ ˘˖˫˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ. ʎˋ˨ˢ˥˪˧̀ ˣˁ ˦˧˥˘˖˥˸ˋˊ˸˘ˋ ˅ ˦˥˨༤ˋˊˣˋˋ ˅˧ˋˢ̀ ˖ˁˢˋ˪ˣ˻ˋ ˫˨˦ˋ˲˘, ˣˋ˜˥˪˥˧˻ˋ ˅˥˦˧˥˨˻ ˥˦˘˨ˁˣ˘̀ ˱˥ˣ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢ˻ ˘ ˆ˧ˁˢˢˁ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˨˪˧˫˜˪˫˧˻ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ ˪˧ˋ˄˫˿˪ ˫ˆ༤˫˄༤ˋˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˘˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁˣ˘̀. ʑ˧ˋˊ༤ˁˆˁˋˢˁ̀ ˧ˁ˄˥˪ˁ ˖ˁˊˁˋ˪˨̀ ˴ˋ༤˼˿ ˦˥ ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˥˨˪˘ ˅˥˨˦˥༤ˣ˘˪˼ ˘ˢˋ˿˹˘ˋ˨̀ ˦˧˥˄ˋ༤˻ ˘ ˊˁ˪˼ ˁ༤˼˪ˋ˧ˣˁ˪˘˅ˣ˥ˋ ˥˦˘˨ˁˣ˘ˋ ˱˥ˣ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢ˻ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ, ˅ ˪˥ˢ ˵˘˨༤ˋ ˘˨˦˥༤˼˖˫̀ ˨˧ˁ˅ˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥-˘˨˪˥˧˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˙ ˢˋ˪˥ˊ. ʘ˪˥˵ˣˋˣ˘ˋ ˱˥ˣˋˢˣ˻˲ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘˙ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˁ༤˱ˁ˅˘˪ˁ ˢ˥ːˋ˪ ˥˜ˁ˖ˁ˪˼ ˄˥༤˼˸˫˿ ˦˥ˢ˥˹˼ ༤˘ˣˆ˅˘˨˪ˁˢ-˜˥ˢ˦ˁ˧ˁ˪˘˅˘˨˪ˁˢ, ˖ˁ˘ˣ˪ˋ˧ˋ˨˥˅ˁˣˣ˻ˢ˘ ˅˥˦˧˥˨ˁˢ˘ ˘˨˪˥˧˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˜˘ ˣˁ˲˨˜˥-ˊˁˆˋ˨˪ˁˣ˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅. ʂ˕˳˩ˀʻ˯ˀ ˜˕˙ʻʸ: ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˘˙ ̀˖˻˜, ˱˥ˣ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜ˁ̀ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢˁ, ˅˥˜ˁ༤˘˖ˢ, ˜˥ˣ˨˥ˣˁˣ˪˘˖ˢ, ˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˘˖ˁ˴˘̀.

1. ɰʻˀʿˀ˗ˌˀ. ɸˁ˪˥˙ ˣˁ˵ˁ༤ˁ ˣˁ˫˵ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˘˖˫˵ˋˣ˘̀ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ ˨˦˧ˁ˅ˋˊ༤˘˅˥ ˨˵˘˪ˁˋ˪˨̀ 1937 ˆ., ˜˥ˆˊˁ ʃ.ɍɳ.ɍɯ˄˫༤ˁˊ˖ˋ ˄˻༤ ˥˄ˣˁ˧˫ːˋˣ ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˘˙ ˁ༤˱ˁ˅˘˪ ˅ ˁ˧ˢ̀ˣ˨˜˥˙ ˧˫˜˥˦˘˨˘ XV ˅. (ˢˁ˪ˋˣˁˊˁ˧ˁˣ˨˜ˁ̀ ̘ɏɎ7117 ˧˫˜˥˦˘˨˼), ˨˥˨˪˥̀˹˘˙ ˘˖ 52 ˄˫˜˅, ˨ ˦˥ˊ˦˘˨̀ˢ˘ ˘˲ ˣˁ˖˅ˁˣ˘˙ ˦˥-ˁ˧ˢ̀ˣ˨˜˘ (ɯ˄˫༤ˁˊ˖ˋ 1938). ɯ.ɍɴ.ɍʣˁˣ˘ˊ˖ˋ, ˘˖˫˵˘˅˸˘˙ ˽˪˫ ˧˫˜˥˦˘˨˼, ˦˧˘˸ˋ༤ ˜ ˅˻˅˥ˊ˫, ˵˪˥ ˱˥ˣ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜ˁ̀ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢˁ, ˣˁ ˄ˁ˖ˋ ˜˥˪˥˧˥˙ ˄˻༤ ˨˥˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˘˙ ˁ༤˱ˁ˅˘˪, «˫˨˘༤˘˅ˁˋ˪ ˦˧ˁ˅ˊ˥˦˥ˊ˥˄ˣ˥˨˪˼ ˪˧ˁˊ˘˴˘˥ˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˥˪˥ːˊˋ˨˪˅༤ˋˣ˘̀ ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ ˨ ˫ˊ˘ˣ˨˜˘ˢ» (ʣˁˣ˘ˊ˖ˋ 1938: 37). ʑ˥˖ːˋ, ˅ 1956 ˆ˥ˊ˫ ˁˢˋ˧˘˜ˁˣ˨˜˘ˢ ˁ˧ˢˋˣ˥༤˥ˆ˥ˢ ɯ. ʇ˫˧ˊ̀ˣ˥ˢ ˅ ʓʣɯ ˄˻༤ ˣˁ˙ˊˋˣ ˅˪˥˧˥˙ ˨˦˘˨˥˜ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˁ༤˱ˁ˅˘˪ˁ (˅ ˁ˧ˢ̀ˣ˨˜˥˙ ˧˫˜˥˦˘˨˘ XVI ˅.) (ʇ˫˧ˊ̀ˣ 1956). ɳ 1948–52 ˆˆ. ˣˁ ˪ˋ˧˧˘˪˥˧˘˘ ɯ˖ˋ˧˄ˁ˙ˊːˁˣˁ ˅˥˖༤ˋ ˆ. ʍ˘ˣˆˋ˵ˁ˫˧ ˅ ˧ˋ˖˫༤˼˪ˁ˪ˋ ˁ˧˲ˋ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˧ˁ˨˜˥˦˥˜ ˄˻༤˘ ˥˄ˣˁ˧˫ːˋˣ˻ ˥˄˧ˁ˖˴˻ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥˙ ˽˦˘ˆ˧ˁ˱˘˜˘ (˥ˊˣˁ ༤ˁ˦˘ˊˁ˧ˣˁ̀ ˣˁˊ˦˘˨˼ ˘ ˸ˋ˨˪˼ ˆ˧ˁ˱˱˘˪˘ — ˅ ˥˄˹ˋ˙ ˨༤˥ːˣ˥˨˪˘ ˊ˥ 200 ˖ˣˁ˜˥˅). ɳ 1960–90-˲ ˆˆ. ˄˻༤ ˥˦˫˄༤˘˜˥˅ˁˣ ˴ˋ༤˻˙ ˧̀ˊ ˧ˁ˄˥˪, ˦˥˨˅̀˹ˋˣˣ˻˲, ˦˧ˋːˊˋ ˅˨ˋˆ˥, ˦˧˥˵˪ˋˣ˘˿ ˣˁˊ˦˘˨ˋ˙ ˘ ˥˦˧ˋˊˋ༤ˋˣ˘˿ ˱˥ˣ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢ˻ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ (˨ˢ. ɯ˄˧ˁˢ̀ˣ 1964; ɴ˫˜ˁ˨̀ˣ 1968, 1969, 1971; ʇ༤˘ˢ˥˅ 1967, 1970, 1972, 1976, 1984, 1990; ʍ˫˧ˁ˅˼ˋ˅ 1981 ˘ ˊ˧.). ɳ 1990 ˆ˥ˊˁ˲, ˅˥ ˅˧ˋˢ̀ ˽˜˨˦ˋˊ˘˴˘˙ ˘ˣ˨˪˘˪˫˪ˁ ˧˫˜˥˦˘˨ˋ˙ ɯʎ ɴ˧˫˖˘˘ ˦˥ˊ ˧˫˜˥˅˥ˊ˨˪˅˥ˢ ʁ. ɯ༤ˋ˜˨˘ˊ˖ˋ, ˣˁ ˪ˋ˧˧˘˪˥˧˘˘ ɹˆ˘˦˪ˁ, ˅ ˢ˥ˣˁ˨˪˻˧ˋ ʓ˅. ɹ˜ˁ˪ˋ˧˘ˣ˻ ˣˁ ʓ˘ˣˁ˙˨˜˥ˢ ˦-˥˅ˋ, ˄˻༤˘ ˣˁ˙ˊˋˣ˻ ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˥-ˆ˧˫˖˘ˣ˨˜˘ˋ ˦ˁ༤˘ˢ˦˨ˋ˨˪˻ (ˊ˅ˋ ˧˫˜˥˦˘˨˘ — N/Sin 13 ˘ N/Sin 55), ˨˥ˊˋ˧ːˁ˹˘ˋ ˄˥༤ˋˋ 200 ˨˪˧ˁˣ˘˴ ˧˫˜˥˦˘˨ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˪ˋ˜˨˪ˁ (˥˜˥༤˥ 60 ˪. ˖ˣˁ˜˥˅, 16 ˪. ˨༤˥˅). ɯ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˘˙ ˪ˋ˜˨˪ ˨˥ˊˋ˧ː˘˪ ༤ˋ˜˴˘˥ˣˁ˧˘˙ (˨˄˥˧ˣ˘˜ ༤˘˪˫˧ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˵˪ˋˣ˘˙) ˘ ɹ˅ˁˣˆˋ༤˘ˋ ˥˪ ʃ˥ˁˣˣˁ (Gippert et al. 2009). ɳ 2009 ˆ˥ˊ˫ ˄˻༤ˁ ˥˦˫˄༤˘˜˥˅ˁˣˁ ˧ˁ˄˥˪ˁ ʄ.ɍɴ˘˦˦ˋ˧˪ˁ, ɳ.ɍʣ˫༤˼˴ˋ, ʁ.ɍɯ༤ˋ˜˨˘ˊ˖ˋ, ɾ.-ʑ.ɍʍˁ˽ “The Caucasian Albanian Palimpsest of Mt. Sinai” («ʇˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˘ˋ ˦ˁ1 ʑ˧˥ˋ˜˪ ˥˨˫˹ˋ˨˪˅༤̀༤˨̀ ˦˧˘ ˱˘ˣˁˣ˨˥˅˥˙ ˦˥ˊˊˋ˧ː˜ˋ ʎˁ˴˘˥ˣˁ༤˼ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˣˁ˫˵ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˱˥ˣˊˁ ˘ˢ. ʣ˥˪ˁ ʒ˫˨˪ˁ˅ˋ༤˘ [ɴ˧ˁˣ˪ ̘ɏɎYS-2016-45, «ɴ˧ˁˢˢˁ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˙ ˁˣˁ༤˘˖ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ»].

Journal of Language Relationship • ɳ˥˦˧˥˨˻ ̀˖˻˜˥˅˥ˆ˥ ˧˥ˊ˨˪˅ˁ • 16/2 (2018) • Pp. 119–137 • © The authors, 2018

ʒ˥ˢˁˣ ʌ˥༤˫ˁ

༤˘ˢ˦˨ˋ˨˪˻ ˨ ˆ˥˧˻ ʓ˘ˣˁ˙»). ɳ ˽˪˥˙ ˢ˥ˣ˥ˆ˧ˁ˱˘˘ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ ˅˘˖˫ˁ༤˼ˣ˻˙ ˢˁ˪ˋ˧˘ˁ༤, ˥˦˘˨ˁˣ˘ˋ ˘ ˘˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁˣ˘ˋ ˥˄ˣˁ˧˫ːˋˣˣ˻˲ ˅ ˢ˥ˣˁ˨˪˻˧ˋ ʓ˅. ɹ˜ˁ˪ˋ˧˘ˣ˻ ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˥-ˆ˧˫˖˘ˣ˨˜˘˲ ˦ˁ༤˘ˢ˦˨ˋ˨˪˥˅. ʨ˪˥˪ ˪˧˫ˊ ˨˥ˊˋ˧ː˘˪ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˥˵ˋ˧˜ ˆ˧ˁˢˢˁ˪˘˜˘ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ (II ˨ˋ˜˴˘̀), ˅ ˜˥˪˥˧˥ˢ, ˦˥ˢ˘ˢ˥ ˦˧˥˵ˋˆ˥, ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ ˥˄˖˥˧ ˱˥ˣ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢ˻ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ (Gippert et al. 2009: II–1–20). ʎˋ˨ˢ˥˪˧̀ ˣˁ ˢˣ˥ˆ˥˵˘˨༤ˋˣˣ˻ˋ ˊ˥˨˪˥˘ˣ˨˪˅ˁ ˫˜ˁ˖ˁˣˣ˥˙ ˢ˥ˣ˥ˆ˧ˁ˱˘˘, ˣˋ˥˄˲˥ˊ˘ˢ˥ ˥˪ˢˋ˪˘˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˣˋ˜˥˪˥˧˻ˋ ˅˥˦˧˥˨˻ ˥˦˘˨ˁˣ˘̀ ˱˥ˣ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢ˻ ˘ ˆ˧ˁˢˢˁ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˨˪˧˫˜˪˫˧˻ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ, ˦˥ ˣˁ˸ˋˢ˫ ˢˣˋˣ˘˿, ˧ˁ˨˜˧˻˪˻ ˣˋ˅ˋ˧ˣ˥. ʎˁ˨˪˥̀˹ˁ̀ ˧ˁ˄˥˪ˁ ˖ˁˊˁˋ˪˨̀ ˴ˋ༤˼˿ ˦˥-˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˥˨˪˘ ˅˥˨˦˥༤ˣ˘˪˼ ˘ˢˋ˿˹˘ˋ˨̀ ˦˧˥˄ˋ༤˻ ˘ ˊˁ˪˼ ˁ༤˼˪ˋ˧ˣˁ˪˘˅ˣ˥ˋ ˥˦˘˨ˁˣ˘ˋ ˱˥ˣ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢ˻ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ. ɳˁːˣ˥˨˪˼ ˪˥˵ˣ˥˙ ˊˋ˸˘˱˧˥˅˜˘ ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˘˲ ˧˫˜˥˦˘˨ˋ˙ ˥˄˫˨༤˥˅༤ˋˣˁ ˪ˋˢ, ˵˪˥ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˘˙ Ș ˽˪˥ ˋˊ˘ˣ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˻˙ ˘˖ ˨ˋ˅ˋ˧˥˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅, ˥˄༤ˁˊˁ˿˹˘˙ ˊ˧ˋ˅ˣ˘ˢ ˥˧˘ˆ˘ˣˁ༤˼ˣ˻ˢ ˁ༤˱ˁ˅˘˪˥ˢ ˘ ˊˁ˪˘˧˫ˋˢ˻ˢ˘ I ˪˻˨̀˵ˋ༤ˋ˪˘ˋˢ ˣ. ˽. ˦˘˨˼ˢˋˣˣ˻ˢ˘ ˦ˁˢ̀˪ˣ˘˜ˁˢ˘. 2.1. ɰ˙ːʸໞˌˊ˖. ɳ ˨˦˘˨˜ˋ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˁ༤˱ˁ˅˘˪ˁ ˢˁ˪ˋˣˁˊˁ˧ˁˣ˨˜˥˙ ̘ɏɎ7117 ‘alt’, ̘ɏɎ2 ‘odet’, ̘ɏɎ5 ‘Řb’, ˧˫˜˥˦˘˨˘ ˊˋ˅̀˪˼ ˖ˣˁ˜˥˅ ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˻ ˜ˁ˜ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻ˋ (̘ɏɎ1 ‘en’, ̘ɏɎ13 ‘irb’, ̘ɏɎ16 ‘ina’, ̘ɏɎ25 ‘ar’, ̘ɏɎ35 ‘un’, ̘ɏɎ47 ‘ion’), ˅ ˁ༤˄ˁˣ̘ɏɎ7 ˨˜˘˲ ˦ˁ༤˘ˢ˦˨ˋ˨˪ˁ˲ ˅˨˪˧ˋ˵ˁ˿˪˨̀ ˸ˋ˨˪˼ ˖ˣˁ˜˥˅ ˊ༤̀ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˲ (a, e, i, o, E, A) ˘ ˋ˹ˋ ˊ˅ˋ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻ˋ ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˻ ˊ˘ˆ˧ˁ˱ˁˢ˘ (ow ˘ Aw). ɳ˨ˋ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣˣ˻ˋ ˅ ˦ˁ༤˘ˢ˦˨ˋ˨˪ˁ˲ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻ˋ ,e= ,i= ,o= , ˘ˢˋ˿˪ ˆ˧ˁ˱˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˋ ˁˣˁ༤˥ˆ˘ ˅ ˢˁ˪ˋˣˁˊˁ˧ˁˣ˨˜˥˙ ˧˫˜˥˦˘˨˘: a = E= ,A= ˘༤˘ . ɹ˹ˋ ˊ˥ ˥˄ˣˁ˧˫ːˋˣ˘̀ ˨˘ˣˁ˙˨˜˘˲ ˦ˁ༤˘ˢ˦˨ˋ˨˪˥˅ ˄˻༤˘ ˘˖˅ˋ˨˪ˣ˻ (˨ˢ. ɯ˄˧ˁˢ̀ˣ 1964; ɴ˫˜ˁ˨̀ˣ 1968, 1969; ʇ༤˘ˢ˥˅ 1967, 1970, 1972, 1976, 1984, 1990; ʍ˫˧ˁ˅˼ˋ˅ 1981 ˘ ˊ˧.) ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘̀ ˦̀˪˘ «˦˧˥˨˪˻˲» ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˲, ˽˪˥: a (a), e (e), i (i), o (o) ˘ ow (u). ʑ˥ˢ˘ˢ˥ ˽˪˥ˆ˥, ˥ˊˣ˥˖ˣˁ˵ˣ˥, ˵˪˥ ˆ˧ˁ˱ˋˢˁ E ˦ˋ˧ˋˊˁˋ˪ ˊ˘˱˪˥ˣˆ ej 2. ʃ˨˲˥ˊ̀ ˘˖ ˨˜ˁ˖ˁˣˣ˥ˆ˥, ˅ ˧˫˜˥˦˘˨˘ ̘ɏɎ7117 ˣˋ˥˄˲˥ˊ˘ˢ˥ ˘˨˦˧ˁ˅˘˪˼ ˣˁ˵ˁ༤˼ˣ˻ˋ ˄˫˜˅˻ ˣˁ˖˅ˁˣ˘˙ ˨༤ˋˊ˫˿˹˘˲ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˲ (˪. ˋ. ˘˲ ˱˥ˣˋˢej > e; e > ej; u > o. ˣ˻ˋ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘̀): ʇ˧˥ˢˋ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˲ ˨ ˫˨˪ˁˣ˥˅༤ˋˣˣ˻ˢ˘ ˱˥ˣˋˢˣ˻ˢ˘ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘̀ˢ˘ (a a, e e, i i, o o, E ej, ow u), ˅ ˢˁ˪ˋˣˁˊˁ˧ˁˣ˨˜˥˙ ˧˫˜˥˦˘˨˘ ˘ˢˋˋ˪˨̀ ˋ˹ˋ ˵ˋ˪˻˧ˋ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˲, ˽˪˥: «˅˪˥˧˥ˋ» ˘ «˪˧ˋ˪˼ˋ» i (̘ɏɎ16 ˘ ̘ɏɎ47), «˅˪˥˧˥ˋ» a (̘ɏɎ25) ˘ «˅˪˥˧˥ˋ» o (̘ɏɎ2). ɹ˹ˋ ɯ. ʣˁˣ˘ˊ˖ˋ (1938: 30– 32) ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤˥ː˘༤, ˵˪˥ «˅˪˥˧˥ˋ» o (b) ˅ ˊˋ˙˨˪˅˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥˨˪˘ ˦ˋ˧ˋˊˁˋ˪ ˱˥ˣˋˢ˫ b. ʨ˪˥ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤˥ːˋˣ˘ˋ ˄˻༤˥ ˦˥ˊˊˋ˧ːˁˣ˥ ˦˧ˁ˜˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ ˅˨ˋˢ˘ ˦˥˨༤ˋˊ˫˿˹˘ˢ˘ ˘˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁ˪ˋ༤̀ˢ˘ ˘ ˣˋ ˅˻˖˻˅ˁˋ˪ ˣ˘˜ˁ˜˘˲ ˨˥ˢˣˋˣ˘˙. ʕˁ˜ːˋ «˅˪˥˧˥ˋ» i (T) ˅ ˨˘ˣˁ˙˨˜˘˲ ˦ˁ༤˘ˢ˦˨ˋ˨˪ˁ˲ ˅˨˪˧ˋ˵ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˅ ˘ˣ˪ˋ˧˅˥˜ˁ༤˼ˣ˥˙ ˘ ˊ˧˫ˆ˘˲ ˲ˁ˧ˁ˜˪ˋ˧ˣ˻˲ ˊ༤̀ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˲ ˖˅˫˜˥˅ ˦˥˖˘˴˘̀˲. ʑ˥ ˢˣˋˣ˘˿ ʄ. ɴ˘˦˦ˋ˧˪ˁ ˘ ɳ.ɍʣ˫༤˼˴ˋ 3, ˱˥ˣˋˢˣ˥ˋ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ˽˪˥ˆ˥ ˖ˣˁ˜ˁ n˜ (Gippert et al. 2009: II–13). ʕˁ˜˘ˢ ˥˄˧ˁ˖˥ˢ, ˥˨˪ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˅˻̀˨ˣ˘˪˼ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘̀ ˊ˅˫˲ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˲, ˽˪˥ «˪˧ˋ˪˼ˋ» i ˘ «˅˪˥˧˥ˋ» a. ɸ˫ˢˁˋ˪˨̀, ˵˪˥ ˅˥˦˧˥˨ ˽˪˘˲ ˄˫˜˅ ˊ˥༤ːˋˣ ˄˻˪˼ ˨˅̀˖ˁˣ ˊ˧˫ˆ ˨ ˊ˧˫ˆ˥ˢ, ˪ˁ˜ ˜ˁ˜ ˆ˧ˁ˱˘˵ˋ˨˜ˁ̀ ‘ar’; ̘ɏɎ47 ‘ion’). ʑ˥ ˣˁ˸ˋˢ˫ ˢˣˋ˱˥˧ˢˁ ˽˪˘˲ ˖ˣˁ˜˥˅ ˦˧ˁ˜˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ ˘ˊˋˣ˪˘˵ˣˁ (̘ɏɎ25 ˣ˘˿, ˄˫˜˅ˁ A, ˜˥˪˥˧ˁ̀ ˅˨˪˧ˋ˵ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˅ ˦ˁ༤˘ˢ˦˨ˋ˨˪ˋ, ˊ˥༤ːˣˁ ˄˻˪˼ ˘ˊˋˣ˪˘˱˘˴˘˧˥˅ˁˣˁ ˨˥ ˖ˣˁ˜˥ˢ ̘ɏɎ47 (‘ion’). ɳ ˣˁ˖˅ˁˣ˘ˋ ˽˪˥˙ ˆ˧ˁ˱ˋˢ˻, ˦˥ ˅˨ˋ˙ ˅˘ˊ˘ˢ˥˨˪˘, ˦ˋ˧˅ˁ̀ ˄˫˜˅ˁ i ༤˘˸ˣ̀̀ ˘ ˥˸˘˄˥˵ˣ˥ ˊ˥˄ˁ˅༤ˋˣˁ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˦˘˨˵˘˜ˁˢ˘. 2

ʑ˥ˢ˘ˢ˥ ˽˪˥ˆ˥, ˖ˣˁ˜ E ˅ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣˣ˻˲ ˘˖ ˆ˧ˋ˵ˋ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˘༤˘ ˦˥˨˧ˋˊ˨˪˅˥ˢ ˆ˧ˋ˵ˋ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˲ ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅˫ˋ˪ ˄˫˜˅ˋ ΢, ˣˁ˦˧., ˁ༤˄. alElowya (aleluja) Ș ˆ˧. ΧΖΖΒΖΙΞϣΌ ‘ˁ༤༤˘༤˫˙̀’; amEn (amen) Ș ΧéΒΗ ‘ˁˢ˘ˣ˼’ ˘ ˪. ˊ. ɳ ˪ˁ˜˘˲ ˨༤˫˵ˁ̀˲ ˽˪ˁ ˄˫˜˅ˁ ˦ˋ˧ˋˊˁˋ˪ ˖˅˫˜ e. ʑ˥ ˢˣˋˣ˘˿ ʄ. ɴ˘˦˦ˋ˧˪ˁ ˘ ɳ. ʣ˫༤˼˴ˋ, ˖ˣˁ˜ E, ˦˥ˢ˘ˢ˥ ˊ˘˱˪˥ˣˆˁ ej, ˦ˋ˧ˋˊˁˋ˪ ˘ ˊ˥༤ˆ˘˙ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˙ ˖˅˫˜ ŗ, ˨ ˵ˋˢ ˣˋ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˥ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨˘˪˼˨̀. 3 ɯ˅˪˥˧ˁˢ˘ ˆ˧ˁˢˢˁ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˁˣˁ༤˘˖ˁ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ ˅ Gippert et al: 2009 ̀˅༤̀˿˪˨̀ ༤˘˸˼ ʄ. ɴ˘˦˦ˋ˧˪ ˘ ɳ. ʣ˫༤˼˴ˋ. ʑ˥˽˪˥ˢ˫ ˖ˊˋ˨˼ ˘ ˊˁ༤ˋˋ ˫˦˥ˢ˘ˣˁˋˢ ˪˥༤˼˜˥ ˘˲. 120

ʇ ˫˪˥˵ˣˋˣ˘˿ ˱˥ˣ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢ˻ ̀˖˻˜ˁ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˘˲ ˦ˁ༤˘ˢ˦˨ˋ˨˪˥˅

ɳ ˣˁ˫˵ˣ˥˙ ༤˘˪ˋ˧ˁ˪˫˧ˋ ˦˥ ˦˥˅˥ˊ˫ ˱˥ˣˋˢˣ˥ˆ˥ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘̀ ˖ˣˁ˜ˁ A ˄˻༤˘ ˅˻˨˜ˁ˖ˁˣ˻ ˧ˁ˖༤˘˵ˣ˻ˋ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤˥ːˋˣ˘̀: ʓ.ɍʎ.ɍʍ˫˧ˁ˅˼ˋ˅ (1981: 258–259) ˨˵˘˪ˁ༤, ˵˪˥ ˖ˣˁ˜ ̘ɏɎ47 ˦ˋ˧ˋˊˁˋ˪ ˖˅˫˜ ƕ, ˨ ˵ˋˢ ˣˋ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˥ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨˘˪˼˨̀. ɳ ˁ˧ˢ̀ˣ˨˜˥ˢ ˁ༤˱ˁ˅˘˪ˋ ˄˻༤ˁ ˄˫˜˅ˁ (ഛ), ˦ˋ˧ˋˊˁ˿˹ˁ̀ ˖˅˫˜ ƕ. ʕˁ˜˘ˢ ˥˄˧ˁ˖˥ˢ, ˣˋ ˄˻༤˥ ˣˋ˥˄˲˥ˊ˘ˢ˥˨˪˘ ˅ ˦ˋ˧ˋˊˁ˵ˋ ˽˪˥ˆ˥ ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˖˅˫˜ˁ ˄˫˜˅˥˙ ഞ. ʑ˥ˢ˘ˢ˥ ˽˪˥ˆ˥, ˢ˥ːˣ˥ ˥˪ˢˋ˪˘˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˅ ˥˄˥˘˲ ˨˦˘˨˜ˁ˲ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˁ༤˱ˁ˅˘˪ˁ ˅ ˣˁ˖˅ˁˣ˘̀˲ ˄˫˜˅ ˣˋ˪ ˖ˣˁ˜ˁ ഛ, ˵˪˥ ˜˥˨˅ˋˣˣ˥ ˨˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅˫ˋ˪ ˥˄ ˥˪˨˫˪˨˪˅˘˘ ˱˥ˣˋˢ˻ ƕ ˅ ˱˥ˣ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢˋ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ. ʁ.ɍɯ༤ˋ˜˨˘ˊ˖ˋ (2003: 151) ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤ˁˆˁ༤, ˵˪˥ ˽˪ˁ ˆ˧ˁ˱ˋˢˁ, ˜˥˪˥˧˫˿ ˥ˣ ˘ˊˋˣ˪˘˱˘˴˘˧˥˅ˁ༤ ˨˥ ˖ˣˁ˜˥ˢ ̘ɏɎ25 ˢˁ˪ˋˣˁˊˁ˧ˁˣ˨˜˥˙ ˧˫˜˥˦˘˨˘, ˦ˋ˧ˋˊˁˋ˪ ˊ˥༤ˆ˘˙ ˖˅˫˜ ŋ, ˁ ˊ˘ˆ˧ˁ˱ Aw, ˜˥˪˥˧˻˙ ˅ ˦ˁ༤˘ˢ˦˨ˋ˨˪ˁ˲ ˅˨˪˧ˋ˵ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˣˋ ˧ˋːˋ ˣˋ˜˥˪˥˧˻˲ ˦˧˥˨˪˻˲ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˲, Ș ˊ˘˱˪˥ˣˆ ŋw. ʑ˥ ˢˣˋˣ˘˿ ʄ. ɴ˘˦˦ˋ˧˪ˁ ˘ ɳ. ʣ˫༤˼˴ˋ, ˖ˣˁ˜ A, ˜˥˪˥˧˻˙ ˥ˣ˘ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˘ˊˋˣ˪˘˱˘˴˘˧˫˿˪ ˨˥ ˖ˣˁ˜˥ˢ ̘ɏɎ25, ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˁ༤ ˖˅˫˜ a°, ˁ ˊ˘ˆ˧ˁ˱ Aw — ˦ˁ༤ˁ˪ˁ༤˘˖˥˅ˁˣˣ˻˙ ü (Gippert et al. 2009: II–11–12). ɸ༤̀ ˣˁ˨ ˁ˧ˆ˫ˢˋˣ˪ˁ˴˘̀ ˽˪˘˲ ˢˣˋˣ˘˙ ˥˨˪ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˣˋ̀˨ˣ˥˙: ˅ ˦˥ˊˁ˅༤̀˿˹ˋˢ ˄˥༤˼˸˘ˣ˨˪˅ˋ ˨༤˫˵ˁˋ˅ ˖ˣˁ˜ˁˢ A ˘ Aw ˅ ˫ˊ˘ˣ˨˜˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˋ ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅˫˿˪ ˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˘˖˥˅ˁˣˣ˻ˋ o๎ ˘ u๎. ʃ˨˲˥ˊ̀ ˘˖ ˽˪˥ˆ˥, ˦˧ˁ˅˘༤˼ˣ˻ˢ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤˥ːˋˣ˘ˋ ɴ.ɯ. ʇ༤˘ˢ˥˅ˁ. ʐˣ ˨˵˘˪ˁˋ˪, ˵˪˥ ˱˥ˣˋˢˣ˻ˢ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋˢ ˆ˧ˁ˱ˋˢ˻ ̘ɏɎ47 ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ oຐ (ʇ༤˘ˢ˥˅ 1984: 13; 1990: 497). ʨ˪˥ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤˥ːˋˣ˘ˋ ˦˥ˊ˪˅ˋ˧ːˊˁˋ˪˨̀ ˘ ˫˵ˁ˨˪˘ˋˢ ˽˪˥ˆ˥ ˖ˣˁ˜ˁ ˅ ˊ˘ˆ˧ˁ˱ˋ, ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˁ˿˹ˋˢ ˅ˁ˧˘ˁˣ˪ ˱˥ˣˋˢ˻ u 4. ʌ˥ˆ˘˵ˣ˥ˋ ˵˪ˋˣ˘ˋ ˊ˘ˆ˧ˁ˱ˁ Aw ˜ˁ˜ ˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˘˖˥˅ˁˣˣ˥ˆ˥ u๎ ˦˧ˋˊ༤˥ːˋˣ˥ ˫ːˋ ˅ ʇ༤˘ˢ˥˅ 1984: 13 ˘ ˦˧˘ˣ̀˪˥ ˦˥˨༤ˋˊ˫˿˹˘ˢ˘ ˘˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁ˪ˋ༤̀ˢ˘ (ʌ˥༤˫ˁ 2008: 416, 2010: 58; Lolua 2009: 113; Kassian 2011–2012). ʇˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ɯ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˘˙

ʘˊ˘ˣ˨˜˘˙

tAxan (toหΠ[ห]an) 5 ‘˘ˣː˘˧˥˅˥ˋ ˊˋ˧ˋ˅˥’

toΠหan 6 ‘id’

»A (ࡖoห) ‘˜˧ˁ˙’

tࢯoΎห ‘id’

Awq (uหΎ ห ) ‘˸ˋ˨˪˼’

uΎห ‘id’

vAwž (vuหΎ ห ) ‘˨ˋˢ˼’

vuΎห ‘id’

mAwž (muหΎ ห ) ‘˅˥˨ˋˢ˼’

muΎห ‘id’

[]

[]

[]

ʎˋ˥˄˲˥ˊ˘ˢ˥ ˥˪ˢˋ˪˘˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˖ˣˁ˜˘ A ˘ Aw ˅ ˫ˊ˘ˣ˨˜˥ˢ ˢ˥ˆ˫˪ ˄˻˪˼ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˻ ˊ˧˫ˆ˘ˢ˘ ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅˘̀ˢ˘: A ˘ˣ˥ˆˊˁ ˦ˋ˧ˋˊˁˋ˪˨̀ ˣˋ˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˘˖˥˅ˁˣˣ˻ˢ ˖˅˫˜˥ˢ o, ˁ ˊ˘ˆ˧ˁ˱˫ Aw ˢ˥ːˋ˪ ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅˥˅ˁ˪˼ ˣˋ˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˘˖˥˅ˁˣˣ˻˙ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˙ u, ˘༤˘ ˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˘˖˥˅ˁˣˣ˻˙ ˖˅˫˜ i๎ (˅ ˣ˘ˊː˨˜˥ˢ ƕ๎), ˣˁ˦˧.: ʇˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˘˙

ʘˊ˘ˣ˨˜˘˙

³A (ࠩ[ห]oห) ‘ˊ˅ˁˊ˴ˁ˪˼’

qࢯo ‘id’

hAw§ (huห‫’ˋ˴ˊ˧ˋ˨‘ )ݧ‬

ukࢯ ‘id’

³Aw (ࠩ ห uห) ‘˨˪˧ˁ˲’

qࢯหi (˅ˁ˧˪.)//qࢯหƕ (ˣ˘ˊː.) ‘id’

[]

«ʑ˧˥˨˪˥˙» ˖˅˫˜ u ˅ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˢ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˦ˋ˧ˋˊˁˋ˪˨̀ ˦˥ ˦˧˘ˣ˴˘˦˫ o + w: ow. ʇ˅ˁˊ˧ˁ˪ˣ˻ˢ˘ ˨˜˥˄˜ˁˢ˘ ˨ ˊ˘ˁ˜˧˘˪˘˜˥˙, ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˁ˿˹ˋ˙ ˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˘˖ˁ˴˘˿ ([ห]), ˢˁ˧˜˘˧˥˅ˁˣ˻ ˪ˋ ˖˅˫˜˘, ˣˁ ˜˥˪˥˧˻ˋ, ˦˥ ˣˁ˸ˋˢ˫ ˢˣˋˣ˘˿, ˦˧˘˲˥ˊ˘˪˨̀ ˢˁ˜˨˘ˢ˫ˢ ˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˘˖ˁ˴˘˘. ʜˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˘˖ˁ˴˘˿ ˅ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˢ ˥˪ˢˋ˵ˁˋˢ ˘˨˲˥ˊ̀ ˘˖ ˆ˧ˁ˱˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˦˧˘ˣ˴˘˦ˁ, ˲˥˪̀ ˨˥ˢˣˋ˅ˁˋˢ˨̀ ˅ ˁˊˋ˜˅ˁ˪ˣ˥ˢ ˥˪˥˄˧ˁːˋˣ˘˘ ˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˘˖ˁ˴˘˘ ˅ ˦˘˨˼ˢˋˣˣ˻˲ ˦ˁˢ̀˪ˣ˘˜ˁ˲ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ. 6 ɳ ˫ˊ˘ˣ˨˜˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˋ ˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˘˖ˁ˴˘̀ ˧ˁ˨˦˧˥˨˪˧ˁˣ̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˣˁ ˅˨ˋ ˨༤˥˅˥. ʍ˻ ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˁˋˢ ༤˘˸˼ ˢˁ˜˨˘ˢ˫ˢ ˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˘˖ˁ˴˘˘, ˜˥˪˥˧˻˙ ˦˧˘˲˥ˊ˘˪˨̀ ˣˁ ˫˅˫༤̀˧ˣ˻ˋ ˘ ˸˘˦̀˹˘ˋ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻ˋ, ˁ ˋ˨༤˘ ˪ˁ˜˘˲ ˖˅˫˜˥˅ ˣˋ˪ ˅ ˨༤˥˅ˋ — ˪˥ ˣˁ ˦ˋ˧˅˻˙ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˙ ˥˨ˣ˥˅˻. ʐ˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ˢˁ˜˨˘ˢ˫ˢˁ ˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˘˖ˁ˴˘˘ ˦˥ˊ˧ˁ˖˫ˢˋ˅ˁˋ˪ ˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˘˖˥˅ˁˣˣ˥˨˪˼ ˅˨ˋˆ˥ ˨༤˥˅ˁ, ˣˁ˦˧., ˪˥˵ˣˁ̀ ˱˥ˣ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜ˁ̀ ˪˧ˁˣ˨˜˧˘˦˴˘̀ ˱˥˧ˢ˻ toΟ๎an ˄˫ˊˋ˪: t๎o๎Ο๎a๎n๎. 4 5

121

ʒ˥ˢˁˣ ʌ˥༤˫ˁ

ʑ˥ ˣˁ˸ˋˢ˫ ˢˣˋˣ˘˿, ˣˋ˪ ˁ˧ˆ˫ˢˋˣ˪˥˅, ˨˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅˫˿˹˘˲ ˅ ˦˥༤˼˖˫ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤˥ːˋˣ˘̀ ʄ. ɴ˘˦˦ˋ˧˪ˁ ˘ ɳ. ʣ˫༤˼˴ˋ. ʁˣˁ˜˫ A ˅ ˫ˊ˘ˣ˨˜˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˋ ˣˋ ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅˫ˋ˪ ˱˥ˣˋˢˁ a, ˁ ˥ˊˣ˥ ˘˖ ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˻˲ ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅˘˙ ˊ༤̀ Aw Ș i๎//ƕ๎, ˥˄˺̀˨ˣ̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˵ˁ˨˪˻ˢ ˵ˋ˧ˋˊ˥˅ˁˣ˘ˋˢ u ˘ ˪.ˣ. ˘˧˧ˁ˴˘˥ˣˁ༤˼ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˅ ˫ˊ˘ˣ˨˜˥ˢ, ˁ ˣˋ ˣˁ༤˘˵˘ˋˢ ˦ˁ༤ˁ˪ˁ༤˘˖˥˅ˁˣˣ˥ˆ˥ u ˅ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˋ. ʃ˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁ˪ˋ༤˘ (˪. ˋ. ʄ. ɴ˘˦˦ˋ˧˪ ˘ ɳ. ʣ˫༤˼˴ˋ), ˦˥ ˣˁ˸ˋˢ˫ ˢˣˋˣ˘˿, ˣˋ˅ˋ˧ˣ˥ ˘ˊˋˣ˪˘˱˘˴˘˧˥˅ˁ༤˘ ˆ˧ˁ˱ˋˢ˫ A ˨˥ ̘ɏɎ25 ˖ˣˁ˜˥ˢ ˢˁ˪ˋˣˁˊˁ˧ˁˣ˨˜˥˙ ˧˫˜˥˦˘˨˘, ˣˁ˖˅ˁˣ˘ˋ ˜˥˪˥˧˥ˆ˥ ‘ar’. ʃ˨˲˥ˊ̀ ˘˖ ˪˥ˆ˥, ˵˪˥ ˽˪˥ˢ˫ ˖ˣˁ˜˫ ˅ ˫ˊ˘ˣ˨˜˥ˢ, ˜ˁ˜ ˥˪ˢˋ˵ˋˣ˥ ˅˻˸ˋ, ˦˥˨˪˥̀ˣˣ˥ ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅˫ˋ˪ ˖˅˫˜ o, ˁ ˣˋ a, ˪˥ ˘˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁ˪ˋ༤˘, ˦˥-˅˘ˊ˘ˢ˥ˢ˫, ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤˥ː˘༤˘ «˨˧ˋˊˣˋˋ» ˢˋːˊ˫ o ˘ a ˱˥ˣˋˢˣ˥ˋ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ˽˪˥˙ ˄˫˜˅˻. ʎˋ˥˄˲˥ˊ˘ˢ˥ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˥˪ˢˋ˪˘˪˼, ˵˪˥ ༤ˁ˄˘ˁ༤˘˖˥˅ˁˣˣ˻ˋ ˘ ˦ˁ༤ˁ˪ˁ༤˘˖˥˅ˁˣˣ˻ˋ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻ˋ ˅ ˱˥ˣ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢˋ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ, ˜ˁ˜ ˨˵˘˪ˁ˿˪ ʄ.ɍɴ˘˦˦ˋ˧˪ ˘ ɳ.ɍʣ˫༤˼˴ˋ, ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˻ ˋˊ˘ˣ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˻ˢ˘ ˖˅˫˜ˁˢ˘. ɹ˨༤˘ ːˋ ˧ˁ˖ˊˋ༤˘˪˼ ˣˁ˸ˋ ˢˣˋˣ˘ˋ, ˪˥ ˢ˻ ˦˥༤˫˵ˁˋˢ ˨˪˧˥˙ˣ˫˿ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢ˫, ˅ ˜˥˪˥˧˥˙ ˘ˢˋ˿˪˨̀ ˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˘˖˥˅ˁˣˣ˻ˋ ˅ˁ˧˘ˁˣ˪˻ ˊ༤̀ ˅˨ˋ˲ ˦˧˥˨˪˻˲ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˲: ˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˘˖˥˅ˁˣˣ˻ˋ ˅ˁ˧˘ˁˣ˪˻ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˲ a, e ˘ i ˅˻˧ˁːˋˣ˻ ˆ˧ˁ˱˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˢ˘ ˜˥ˢ˦༤ˋ˜˨ˁˢ˘ ß + ˆ˧ˁ˱ˋˢˁ, ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˁ˿˹ˁ̀ ˦˧˥˨˪˥˙ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˙: ßa (aຐ), ße (eຐ), ßi (iຐ). ʐ˄ ˽˪˥ˢ ̀˨ˣ˥ ˨˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅˫˿˪ ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅˘̀ ˽˪˘˲ ˜˥ˢ˦༤ˋ˜˨˥˅ ˅ ˫ˊ˘ˣ˨˜˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˋ, ˨˧.: ʇˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˘˙

ʘˊ˘ˣ˨˜˘˙

vßan (vaหn) ‘˅˻’

vaหn ‘id’

§ßaban (‫ݧ‬aหban) ‘˦˫˨˪˻ˣ̀’

qࢯหavan ‘˦˥༤ˋ’

bßež (beหΎ ห ) ‘˨˥༤ˣ˴ˋ’

beΎห ‘id’

bßefi (beหfi) ‘˅ˁ˸’

eหfi ‘id’

ßimowx (iหmuΠ) ‘˫˸˘’

iหmuΠ ‘id’

[]

ɴ˧ˁ˱˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˋ ˜˥ˢ˦༤ˋ˜˨˻ ßA ˘ ßAw ˣˋ ˅˨˪˧ˋ˵ˁ˿˪˨̀, ˵˪˥ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˨˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅˫ˋ˪ ˅ ˦˥༤˼˖˫ ˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˘˖˥˅ˁˣˣ˥˨˪˘ ˖˅˫˜˥˅, ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˁˋˢ˻˲ ˄˫˜˅ˁˢ˘ A ˘ Aw. ɹ˨༤˘ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨˘˪˼˨̀ ˨ ˢˣˋˣ˘ˋˢ ʄ. ɴ˘˦˦ˋ˧˪ˁ ˘ ɳ. ʣ˫༤˼˴ˋ, ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˥ ˜˥˪˥˧˥ˢ˫ A ˘ Aw ˦ˋ˧ˋˊˁ˿˪ ˖˅˫˜˘ a° ˘ ü, ˁ ˆ˧ˁ˱ˋˢˁ ß Ș ˖˅˥ˣ˜˘˙ ˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˼ˣ˻˙ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˙, ˪˥ ˪˥ˆˊˁ ˣˋ˦˥ˣ̀˪ˣ˥, ˵ˋˢ ˥˄˫˨༤˥˅༤ˋˣ˥ ˽˪˥ ˦˥˖˘˴˘˥ˣˣ˥ˋ ˥ˆ˧ˁˣ˘˵ˋˣ˘ˋ, ˦˥˵ˋˢ˫ ˣˋ ˅˨˪˧ˋ˵ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˽˪˥˪ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˙ ˦ˋ˧ˋˊ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻ˢ˘ a° ˘ ü? ʑ˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˅ˁːˣ˻ˢ ˵ˋ˧ˋˊ˥˅ˁˣ˘ˋ ˖ˣˁ˜˥˅ A ˘ Aw ˨ ˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˘˖˥˅ˁˣˣ˻ˢ˘ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻ˢ˘, ˅˻˧ˁːˋˣˣ˻ˢ˘ ˊ˘ˆ˧ˁ˱ˁˢ˘, ˣˁ˦˧., ±ßa (ࠢ[ห]aห) ‘ˊ˅ˁ’ (˨˧. ˫ˊ. pࢯaห ‘id’) ~ ±Amown (ࠢoหmun < ࠢoห-om-un < ࠢaห-om-un) ‘˥˦̀˪˼’, ‘ˊ˧˫ˆ˥˙ ˧ˁ˖’ (ˊ˥˨༤. ‘˅˪˥˧˥˙ ˧ˁ˖’)..., ˽˪˥ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˦˥ˊ˪˅ˋ˧ːˊˁˋ˪, ˵˪˥ ˖ˣˁ˜˘ A ˘ Aw ˦ˋ˧ˋˊˁ˿˪ ˣˋ ༤ˁ˄˘ˁ༤˘˖˥˅ˁˣˣ˻ˋ ˘༤˘ ˦ˁ༤ˁ˪ˁ༤˘˖˥˅ˁˣˣ˻ˋ ˖˅˫˜˘, ˁ ˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˘˖˥˅ˁˣˣ˻ˋ. ˦˧˥˨˪˻ˋ ˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˘˖˥˅ˁˣˣ˻ˋ

aa (̘ɏɎ1) }a aຐ (̘ɏɎ14+1)

ee

ow u

(̘ɏɎ5)

ii (̘ɏɎ13)

oo (̘ɏɎ35)

(̘ɏɎ35+50)

}e eຐ (̘ɏɎ14+5)

}i iຐ (̘ɏɎ14+13)

A oຐ (̘ɏɎ47)

(̘ɏɎ47+50)

Aw uຐ

ʐʸʺ˕ˌ˨ʸ ̈ɍ1. ɴ˧ˁ˱ˋˢ˻ ˘ ˊ˘ˆ˧ˁ˱˻, ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˁ˿˹˘ˋ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻ˋ ˖˅˫˜˘

ʃ˖ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣˣ˻˲ ˅ ˪ˁ˄༤. ̘ɏɎ1 ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˲ ˖˅˫˜˥˅ ˱˥ˣˋˢˣ˻˙ ˨˪ˁ˪˫˨, ˦˥ ˣˁ˸ˋˢ˫ ˢˣˋˣ˘˿, ˘ˢˋ˿˪ ༤˘˸˼ ˦˧˥˨˪˻ˋ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻ˋ. ʠ˪˥ ˜ˁ˨ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˘˖˥˅ˁˣˣ˻˲ ˅ˁ˧˘ˁˣ˪˥˅ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˲, ˪˥ ˥ˣ˘ ˅˨˪˧ˋ˵ˁ˿˪˨̀, ˅ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˣ˥ˢ, ˅ ˁˣ༤ˁ˫˪ˋ, ˣˁ˦˧., ßimowx (iหmuΠ) ‘˫˸˘’, ˨˧. ˫ˊ. iหmuΠ ‘id’; Awx (uหq[ห]) ‘˸ˋ˨˪˼’, ˨˧. ˫ˊ. uqห ‘id’; AwX (uหΠ[ห]) ‘˴ˁ˧˼’; AXal (oหΠ[ห]al) ‘˦˪˘˵˜ˁ’; 122

ʇ ˫˪˥˵ˣˋˣ˘˿ ˱˥ˣ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢ˻ ̀˖˻˜ˁ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˘˲ ˦ˁ༤˘ˢ˦˨ˋ˨˪˥˅

(beหΎ[ห]) ‘˨˥༤ˣ˴ˋ’, ˨˧. ˫ˊ. beΎห ‘id’; bßefi (beหfi) ‘˅ˁ˸ (-ˁ/-ˋ)’, ˨˧. ˫ˊ. eหfi ‘id’; tAxan (toหΠ ห an) ‘˘ˣː˘˧˥˅˥ˋ ˊˋ˧ˋ˅˥’, ˨˧. ˫ˊ. toΠหan ‘id’; §ßavan (kaหvan) ‘˦˫˨˪˻ˣ̀’, ˨˧. ˫ˊ. qࢯหavan ‘˦˥༤ˋ’; hAyaxown (hoหjaΠun) ‘˅ˋ˧ˁ’, ‘˅ˋ˧ˣ˻˙’; ±ßa (ࠢaห) ‘ˊ˅ˁ’, ˨˧. ˫ˊ. pࢯaห ‘id’; ±Amown (ࠢoหmun) ‘˥˦̀˪˼’, ‘ˊ˧˫ˆ˥˙’; vAwž (vuหΎ[ห]) ‘˨ˋˢ˼’, ˨˧. ˫ˊ. vuΎห ‘id’; mAwž (muหΎ[ห]) ‘˅˥˨ˋˢ˼’, ˨˧. ˫ˊ. muΎห ‘id’; ³A (ࠩ[ห]oห) ‘ˊ˅ˁˊ˴ˁ˪˼’, ˨˧. ˫ˊ. qࢯo ‘id’; hAw§ (huหk) ‘˨ˋ˧ˊ˴ˋ’, ˨˧. ˫ˊ. uk ‘id’; ³Aw (ࠩ[ห]uห) ‘˨˪˧ˁ˲’, ˨˧. ˫ˊ. qࢯหi (˅ˁ˧˪.)//qࢯหƕ (ˣ˘ˊː.) ‘id’; »A (ࡖoห) ‘˨˪˥˧˥ˣˁ’, ˨˧. ˫ˊ. tࢯoΎห ‘id’; xAwAr (q[ห]uหoหr) ‘ˣˋ˜˥˪˥˧˻ˋ’, ‘ˊ˧˫ˆ˘ˋ’... ʕ˥, ˵˪˥ ˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˘˖˥˅ˁˣˣ˻ˋ ˅ˁ˧˘ˁˣ˪˻ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˲ ˅ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˢ ˅ ˊ˅˫˲˨༤˥ːˣ˻˲ ˘ ˢˣ˥ˆ˥˨༤˥ːˣ˻˲ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˲ ˅˨˪˧ˋ˵ˁ˿˪˨̀ ˆ༤ˁ˅ˣ˻ˢ ˥˄˧ˁ˖˥ˢ ˅ ˁˣ༤ˁ˫˪ˋ, ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅˫ˋ˪ ˊ˘˨˪˧˘˄˫˴˘˘ ˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˘˖ˁ˴˘˘ ˅ ˫ˊ˘ˣ˨˜˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˋ — ˢˁ˜˨˘ˢ˫ˢ ˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˘˖ˁ˴˘˘ ˅ ˫ˊ˘ˣ˨˜˥ˢ ˦˧˘˲˥ˊ˘˪˨̀ ˣˁ ˣˁ˵ˁ༤˼ˣ˻˙ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˙ ˥˨ˣ˥˅˻, ˁ ˋ˨༤˘ ˅ ˨༤˥˅ˋ ˋ˨˪˼ ˫˅˫༤̀˧ˣ˻˙ ˘༤˘ ˸˘˦̀˹˘˙ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˙, ˪˥ ˣˁ ˦ˋ˧˅˻˙ ˘˖ ˽˪˘˲ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˲. ʨ˪˥ ˊˁˋ˪ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˁˣ˘ˋ ˊ༤̀ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤˥ːˋˣ˘̀, ˵˪˥ ˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˘˖ˁ˴˘̀ ˅ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˢ ˣˋ ˨ˋˆˢˋˣ˪ˣ˥ˋ ˨˅˥˙˨˪˅˥ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˲ ˘༤˘ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˲ ˖˅˫˜˥˅, ˁ ˨˅˥˙˨˪˅˥ ˦˧˥˨˥ˊ˘˘, ˜ˁ˜ ˘ ˅ ˫ˊ˘ˣ˨˜˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˋ. ɳ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˋ ˣˋ ˄˻༤˥ ˊ˥༤ˆ˘˲, ˦ˁ༤ˁ˪ˁ༤˘˖˥˅ˁˣˣ˻˲ ˘ ˣˁ˖ˁ༤˘˖˥˅ˁˣˣ˻˲ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˲, ˜˥˪˥˧˻ˋ ˸˘˧˥˜˥ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˻ ˅ ˊ˧˫ˆ˘˲ ˣˁ˲˨˜˥-ˊˁˆˋ˨˪ˁˣ˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲. ɸ˥༤ˆ˘ˋ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻ˋ ˅ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˢ ˢ˥ˆ༤˘ ˄˻˪˼ ༤˘˸˼ ˦˥˖˘˴˘˥ˣˣ˥ ˥˄˫˨༤˥˅༤ˋˣˣ˻ˢ˘ ˘ ˅˨˪˧ˋ˵ˁ˪˼˨̀ ˣˁ ˨˪˻˜ˋ ˢ˥˧˱ˋˢ, ˣˁ˦˧., Πo-om ‘˦̀˪˼ ˧ˁ˖’, ˲˥˪̀ ˘ ˅ ˽˪˘˲ ˨༤˫˵ˁ̀˲ ˥ˊ˘ˣ ˘˖ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˲, ˜ˁ˜ ˦˧ˁ˅˘༤˥, ˧ˋˊ˫˴˘˧˥˅ˁ༤˨̀, ˣˁ˦˧., de ‘˥˪ˋ˴’ [˽˧ˆ.] (< de-e); ne ‘ˢˁ˪˼’ [˽˧ˆ.] (< ne-e); eli(j)a ‘ʃ༤˼ˋ’ [ˊˁ˪.] (< eli(j)a-a); išu ‘ˢ˫ː˵˘ˣˋ’ (< išu-u), Πišหu ‘ːˋˣ˹˘ˣˋ’ (< Πišหu-u), naišหu ‘˨༤˫ˆˋ’ (< naišห-u) ˘ ˊ˧. ʎˋ˨ˢ˥˪˧̀ ˣˁ ˪˥, ˵˪˥ ˅ ˨༤˫˵ˁˋ ˨ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˘ˢ ̀˖˻˜˥ˢ ˢ˻ ˣˋ ˘ˢˋˋˢ ˊˋ༤˥ ˨ ː˘˅˥˙ ˧ˋ˵˼˿, ˣˋ˜˥˪˥˧˻ˋ ˥˄˨˪˥̀˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅ˁ ˊˁ˿˪ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˁˣ˘ˋ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤˥ː˘˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻ˋ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ ˢ˥ːˣ˥ ˄˻༤˥ ˧ˁ˖ˢˋ˨˪˘˪˼ ˅ ˪.ˣ. ˪˧ˋ˫ˆ˥༤˼ˣ˘˜ˋ, ˁ ˣˋ ˅ ˦˧̀ˢ˥˫ˆ˥༤˼ˣ˘˜ˋ, ˜ˁ˜ ˅ ˄˥༤˼˸˘ˣ˨˪˅ˋ ˨˥˅˧ˋˢˋˣˣ˻˲ ༤ˋ˖ˆ˘ˣ˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅. ʎˁ ˽˪˥ ˫˜ˁ˖˻˅ˁˋ˪, ˦˧ˋːˊˋ ˅˨ˋˆ˥, ˥˪˨˫˪˨˪˅˘ˋ ˦ˁ༤ˁ˪ˁ༤˘˖˥˅ˁˣˣ˻˲ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˲ ˅ ˱˥ˣ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢˋ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ. bßež []

ʐʸʺ˕ˌ˨ʸ ̈ɍ2. ɴ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻ˋ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ ˧̀ˊ

˦ˋ˧ˋˊˣ˘˙

˨˧ˋˊˣ˘˙

˦˧˥˨˪˻ˋ

˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆ.

ɳˋ˧˲ˣ˘˙

i

ʓ˧ˋˊˣ˘˙

e

˦˥ˊ˺ˋˢ

˦˧˥˨˪˻ˋ

˖ˁˊˣ˘˙

˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆ.

˦˧˥˨˪˻ˋ

˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆ.

[iຐ]

u

[uຐ]

[eຐ]

o

[oຐ]

a

ʎ˘ːˣ˘˙

i [iຐ]

[aຐ]

u [uຐ]

e [eຐ]

o [oຐ]

a [aຐ]

ʍˌ˜. 1. ʒˁ˨˦˧ˋˊˋ༤ˋˣ˘ˋ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˲ ˖˅˫˜˥˅ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ

123

ʒ˥ˢˁˣ ʌ˥༤˫ˁ

2.2. ʂ˙˗˜˙˗ʸ˗˞ˌˊ˖. ɳ ˨˦˘˨˜ˋ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˁ༤˱ˁ˅˘˪ˁ ˧˫˜˥˦˘˨˘ ̘ɏɎ7117 ˘ˢˋˋ˪˨̀ 43 ˖ˣˁ˜ˁ, ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣˣ˻˲ ˜ˁ˜ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻ˋ. ʎˋ˨˜˥༤˼˜˥ ˜˥ˣ˨˥ˣˁˣ˪˥˅ ˦ˋ˧ˋˊˁ˿˪˨̀ ˊ˅˫ˢ̀ ˘༤˘ ˪˧ˋˢ̀ ˆ˧ˁ˱ˋˢˁˢ˘: ˅ ˢˁ˪ˋˣˁˊˁ˧ˁˣ˨˜˥˙ ˧˫˜˥˦˘˨˘ ˪˧˘ ˄˫˜˅˻ z (̘ɏɎ3 ‘zim’; ̘ɏɎ6 ‘zaਾl’; ̘ɏɎ20 ‘zoΰ’), ‫̘( ڪ‬ɏɎ10 ‘‫ې‬a’; ̘ɏɎ19 ‘‫ې‬aਾ’; ̘ɏɎ27 ‘‫ې‬i’) ˘ ޶ (̘ɏɎ21 ‘ߞar’; ̘ɏɎ30 ‘ߞaਾ’; ̘ɏɎ42 ‘ߞa࣢’). ɸ˅˫ˢ̀ ˖ˣˁ˜ˁˢ˘ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˻ ˨༤ˋˊ˫˿˹˘ˋ ˱˥ˣˋˢ˻: ž (̘ɏɎ8 ‘žil’; ̘ɏɎ12 ‘ža’); j (̘ɏɎ11 ‘jud’; ̘ɏɎ50 ‘jajd’); š (̘ɏɎ14 ‘ša’; ̘ɏɎ33 ‘šak’); l (̘ɏɎ15 ‘lan’; ̘ɏɎ22 ‘li࣢’); Ο (̘ɏɎ17 ‘ΰejn’; ̘ɏɎ37 ‘ΰam’); h (̘ɏɎ23 ‘hejt’; ̘ɏɎ24 ‘haj’); c (̘ɏɎ26 ‘coj’; ̘ɏɎ49 ‘cajn’); Ő (̘ɏɎ28 ‘őaj’; ̘ɏɎ39 ‘őa࣢’); ৄ (̘ɏɎ32 ‘৉aj’; ̘ɏɎ34 ‘৉ajn’); ࣚ (̘ɏɎ36 ‘࣢aj’; ̘ɏɎ45 ‘࣢iwr’); p (̘ɏɎ41 ‘pes’; ̘ɏɎ51 ‘piwr’); s (̘ɏɎ43 ‘sejk’; ̘ɏɎ46 ‘soj’). ɸˋ˨̀˪˼ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˲ ˦ˋ˧ˋˊˁˣ˻ ˥ˊˣ˥˙ ˆ˧ˁ˱ˋˢ˥˙: ̘ɏɎ4 ‘ga࣢’; ̘ɏɎ9 ‘tas’; ̘ɏ18 ‘dan’; ̘ɏɎ29 ‘maߞ’; ̘ɏɎ31 ‘nuc’; ̘ɏɎ38 ‘ƕaj’; ̘ɏɎ40 ‘ࢨen’; ̘ɏɎ44 ‘vejz’; ̘ɏ48 ‘ۖaw’; ̘ɏɎ52 ‘kiw’. ɳ ˨˘ˣˁ˙˨˜˘˲ ˦ˁ༤˘ˢ˦˨ˋ˨˪ˁ˲ ˅˨˪˧ˋ˵ˁ˿˪˨̀ 42 ˜˥ˣ˨˥ˣˁˣ˪ˁ. ʃ˖ ˣ˘˲ ˊ˅ˋ ˆ˧ˁ˱ˋˢ˻ ˅ ˨˦˘˨˜ˋ ˧˫˜˥˦˘˨˘ ̘ɏɎ7117 ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˻ ˜ˁ˜ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻ˋ, ˽˪˥: ̘ɏɎ2 b b (= ), ˣˁ˖˅ˁˣ˘ˋ ˜˥˪˥˧˥˙ ˅ ˢˁ˪ˋˣˁˊˁ˧ˁˣ˨˜˥˙ ˧˫˜˥˦˘˨˘ ˵˘˪ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˜ˁ˜ ‘odet’; ̘ɏɎ16 T (= ) ‘ina’ — ˽˪˥, ˄ˋ˖˥ ˅˨̀˜˥ˆ˥ ˨˥ˢˣˋˣ˘̀, ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˙ ˘ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤ˁˆˁˋˢ˥ˋ ˱˥ˣˋˢˣ˥ˋ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ˽˪˥˙ ˆ˧ˁ˱ˋˢ˻ n˜. ɳ˨ˋ ˜˥ˣ˨˥ˣˁˣ˪˻ ˦ˁ༤˘ˢ˦˨ˋ˨˪ˁ ˨ ˄˥༤˼˸ˋ˙ ˘༤˘ ˢˋˣ˼˸ˋ˙ ˅ˋ˧˥̀˪ˣ˥˨˪˼˿ ˘ˊˋˣ˪˘˱˘˴˘˧˫˿˪˨̀ ˨ ˆ˧ˁ˱˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˢ˘ ˱˥˧ˢˁˢ˘ ˧˫˜˥˦˘˨˘ ̘ɏɎ7117 (˨ˢ. ˪ˁ˄༤˘˴˫ ̘6). ʕ˧˘ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˲ ˢˁ˪ˋˣˁˊˁ˧ˁˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˨˦˘˨˜ˁ ˣˋ ˅˨˪˧ˋ˵ˁ˿˪˨̀ ˅ ˦ˁ༤˘ˢ˦˨ˋ˨˪ˁ˲, ˽˪˥: ̘ɏɎ28 ‘őaj’, ̘ɏɎ32 ‘৉aj’ ˘ ̘ɏɎ34 ‘৉ajn’. ɹ˨༤˘ ˨˫ˢˢ˘˧˥˅ˁ˪˼ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤˥ːˋˣ˘̀, ˅˻˨˜ˁ˖ˁˣˣ˻ˋ ˅ ˣˁ˫˵ˣ˥˙ ༤˘˪ˋ˧ˁ˪˫˧ˋ, ˪˥ ˨ ˦˥༤ˣ˥˙ ˫˅ˋ˧ˋˣˣ˥˨˪˼˿ ˢ˥ːˣ˥ ˦˧˘ˣ̀˪˼ ˱˥ˣˋˢˣ˻ˋ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘̀ 27 ˖ˣˁ˜˥˅ ˨˘ˣˁ˙˨˜˘˲ ˦ˁ༤˘ˢ˦˨ˋ˨˪˥˅, ˽˪˥ ˄˫˜˅˻, ˜˥˪˥˧˻ˋ ˦˧˘˨˫˪˨˪˅˫˿˪ ˅ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘̀˲ ˘ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˲, ˘ˢˋ˿˹˘˲ ˪˥˵ˣ˻ˋ ˫ˊ˘ˣ˨˜˘ˋ ˽˜˅˘˅ˁ༤ˋˣ˪˻: ̘ɏɎ2 b (b); ̘ɏɎ3 g (g); ̘ɏɎ4 d (d); ̘ɏɎ6 z (z); ̘ɏɎ8 Y (ž); ̘ɏɎ9 t (t); ̘ɏɎ11 y (j); ̘ɏɎ15 l (l); ̘ɏɎ21 § (޶); ̘ɏɎ23 h (h); ̘ɏɎ27 Ö (‫̘ ;)ڪ‬ɏɎ29 m (m); ̘ɏɎ30 ³ (࢟); ̘ɏɎ31 n (n); ̘ɏɎ33 š (š); ̘ɏ37 f (f); ̘ɏɎ39 – (Ő); ̘ɏɎ40 ± (࢖); ̘ɏɎ41 ž (΍); ̘ɏɎ42 r (r); ̘ɏɎ43 s (s); ̘ɏɎ44 v (v); ̘ɏɎ45 » (ࣚ); ̘ɏ49 c (c); ̘ɏɎ50 w (w); ̘ɏɎ51 p (p); ̘ɏɎ52 k (k). ʃ˨˲˥ˊ̀ ˘˖ ˽˪˥ˆ˥, ˱˥ˣˋˢˣ˻ˋ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘̀ ˢˁ˪ˋˣˁˊˁ˧ˁˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˨˦˘˨˜ˁ ˣ˫ːˊˁ˿˪˨̀ ˅ ˣˋ˨˜˥༤˼˜˘˲ ˘˨˦˧ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˘̀˲: ̘ɏɎ2 (o > b); ̘ɏɎ3 (z > g); ̘ɏɎ4 (g > d); ̘ɏɎ37 (Ο > f); ̘ɏɎ41 (p > ΍); ̘ɏɎ42 (޶ > r); ̘ɏɎ50 (j > w). ʇˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˘˙ ˁ༤˱ˁ˅˘˪ ˥˪༤˘˵ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˄˥༤˼˸˘ˢ ˜˥༤˘˵ˋ˨˪˅˥ˢ ˖ˣˁ˜˥˅ ˊ༤̀ ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘̀ ˨˘˄˘༤̀ˣ˪˥˅. ɳ ˨˦˘˨˜ˋ ˧˫˜˥˦˘˨˘ ̘ɏɎ7117 ˘ˢˋˋ˪˨̀ 19 ˨˘˄˘༤̀ˣ˪˥˅. ʃ˖ ˣ˘˲ ˸˘˦̀˹˘ˋ ˁ˱˱˧˘˜ˁ˪˻ ˘ ˨˅˘˨˪̀˹˘ˋ ˘ ˸˘˦̀˹˘ˋ ˨˦˘˧ˁˣ˪˻ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˻ ˊ˅˫ˢ̀ ˆ˧ˁ˱ˋˢˁˢ˘, ˖ˁ ˘˨˜༤˿˵ˋˣ˘ˋˢ ˖˅˫˜ˁ ‫ڪ‬, ˜˥˪˥˧˻˙ ˦ˋ˧ˋˊˁˋ˪˨̀ ˪˧ˋˢ̀ ˖ˣˁ˜ˁˢ˘. ʃ˖ ˨˅˘˨˪̀˹˘˲ ˁ˱˱˧˘˜ˁ˪ ༤˘˸˼ ˖˅˫˜ c ˦ˋ˧ˋˊˁˣ ˊ˅˫ˢ̀ ˆ˧ˁ˱ˋˢˁˢ˘, ˁ Ɣ ˘ ‫ ڰ‬Ș ˥ˊˣ˥˙. ʕ˧˘ ˖ˣˁ˜ˁ ˘˖ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣˣ˻˲ ˅ ˢˁ˪ˋˣˁˊˁ˧ˁˣ˨˜˥˙ ˧˫˜˥˦˘˨˘ ˨˘˄˘༤̀ˣ˪˥˅ ˅ ˨˘ˣˁ˙˨˜˘˲ ˦ˁ༤˘ˢ˦˨ˋ˨˪ˁ˲ ˣˋ ˅˨˪˧ˋ˵ˁ˿˪˨̀, ˽˪˥: ̘ɏɎ28 ‘őaj’, ̘ɏɎ32 ‘৉aj’ ˘ ̘ɏɎ34 ‘৉ajn’. ʕˁ˜˘ˢ ˥˄˧ˁ˖˥ˢ, ˅ ˦ˁ༤˘ˢ˦˨ˋ˨˪ˁ˲ ˣˋ ˥˨˪ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˖ˣˁ˜ˁ ˊ༤̀ ˖˅˥ˣ˜˥˙ ˸˘˦̀˹ˋ˙ ˁ˱˱˧˘˜ˁ˪˻ (ৄ), ˁ ˊ༤̀ Ő ˥˨˪ˁˋ˪˨̀ ༤˘˸˼ ˥ˊ˘ˣ ˖ˣˁ˜ (̘ɏɎ39 ‘őa࣢’). ʎˁ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˁˣ˘˘ ˦˧˥˵˘˪ˁˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˢˁ˪ˋ˧˘ˁ༤ˁ ˅ ˢˁ˪ˋˣˁˊˁ˧ˁˣ˨˜˥ˢ ˨˦˘˨˜ˋ ˣˋ˥˄˲˥ˊ˘ˢ˥ ˘˨˦˧ˁ˅˘˪˼ ˱˥ˣˋˢˣ˻ˋ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘̀ ˣˋ˜˥˪˥˧˻˲ ˨˘˄˘༤̀ˣ˪˥˅. ʐˊ˘ˣ ˘˖ ˣ˘˲ Ș ˽˪˥ ̘ɏɎ19 ” ‘‫ې‬aਾ’, ˜˥˪˥˧˻˙ ˣˁ ˨ˁˢ˥ˢ ˊˋ༤ˋ ˦ˋ˧ˋˊˁˋ˪ ˱˥ˣˋˢ˫ ‫ڰ‬. ʍ˥ːˣ˥ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤˥ː˘˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˁ˧ˢ̀ˣ˨˜˘ˋ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˦˘˨˵˘˜˘ ˧˫˜˥˦˘˨˘ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˦˫˪ˁ༤˘ ˄༤˘˖˜˘ˋ ˦˥ ˨˅˥˘ˢ ˣˁ˵ˋ˧˪ˁˣ˘̀ˢ ˆ˧ˁ˱ˋˢ˻ ೴ ˘ ೹. ʨ˪˥ ˢˣˋˣ˘ˋ ˅˻˨˜ˁ˖ˁˣ˥ ˋ˹ˋ ɯ.ɍɴ.ɍɯ˄˧ˁˢ̀ˣ˥ˢ (1964: 30) ˘ ˦˥ˊˊˋ˧ːˁˣ˥ ɴ.ɍɯ.ɍʇ༤˘ˢ˥˅˻ˢ (1984: 13; 1990: 497), ʓ.ɍʎ.ɍʍ˫˧ˁ˅˼ˋ˅˻ˢ (1981: 258), ʄ. ɴ˘˦˦ˋ˧˪˥ˢ ˘ ɳ. ʣ˫༤˼˴ˋ (Gippert et al. 2008: II–14). ʁ.ɍʎ.ɍɯ༤ˋ˜˨˘ˊ˖ˋ ˣˋ ˖ˣˁˋ˪ ˱˥ˣˋˢˣ˥ˆ˥ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘̀ ˊˁˣˣ˥˙ ˆ˧ˁ˱ˋˢ˻, ˣ˥, ˘˨˲˥ˊ̀ ˘˖ ˪˥ˆ˥, ˵˪˥ ˅ ˣˁ˖˅ˁˣ˘˘ ˽˪˥˙ ˄˫˜˅˻ ˅ ˢˁ˪ˋˣˁˊˁ˧ˁˣ˨˜˥˙ ˧˫˜˥˦˘˨˘ ˱˘ˆ˫˧˘˧˫ˋ˪ ˵˫ːˊˁ̀ ˱˥ˣ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢˋ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ ˁ˧ˢ̀ˣ˨˜ˁ̀ യ (ৼ), ˜˥˪˥˧ˁ̀, ˜ˁ˜ ˨˵˘˪ˁˋ˪ ˘˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁ˪ˋ༤˼, ˘ˢˋ༤ˁ ˱˫ˣ˜˴˘˿ ˣˋ˜˥ˋˆ˥ ˊ˘ˁ˜˧˘˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˖ˣˁ˜ˁ, ˫˜ˁ˖˻˅ˁ˿˹ˋˆ˥ ˣˁ ˄˥༤˼˸˫˿ ˆ˥˧˪ˁˣˣ˥˨˪˼ ˘༤˘ ˘ˣ˪ˋˣ˨˘˅ˣ˥˨˪˼ ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˖˅˫˜ˁ ˦˥ ˨˧ˁ˅ˣˋˣ˘˿ ˨ ˄༤˘˖˜˘ˢ ˁ˧ˢ̀ˣ124

ʇ ˫˪˥˵ˣˋˣ˘˿ ˱˥ˣ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢ˻ ̀˖˻˜ˁ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˘˲ ˦ˁ༤˘ˢ˦˨ˋ˨˪˥˅

˨˜˘ˢ 7, ˅˻˨˜ˁ˖˻˅ˁˋ˪ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤˥ːˋˣ˘ˋ ˥ ˄˥༤˼˸ˋ˙ ˘ˣ˪ˋˣ˨˘˅ˣ˥˨˪˘ ˊˁˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˖˅˫˜ˁ ˦˥ ˨˧ˁ˅ˣˋˣ˘˿ ˨ «˥˨ˣ˥˅ˣ˥˙», «˦˧˥˨˪˥˙» ˱˥ˣˋˢ˥˙ (ɯ༤ˋ˜˨˘ˊ˖ˋ 2003: 95). ʨ˪˥ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤˥ːˋˣ˘ˋ ˣ˫ːˊˁˋ˪˨̀ ˅ ˦˧˥˅ˋ˧˜ˋ: ” ˆ˧ˁ˱ˋˢˁ ˣˁ ˥˄˹ˋ༤ˋ˖ˆ˘ˣ˨˜˥ˢ ˘ ˥˄˹ˋˊˁˆˋ˨˪ˁˣ˨˜˥ˢ ˫˧˥˅ˣˋ ˢ˥ːˋ˪ ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅˥˅ˁ˪˼ ˜ˁ˜ ˣˋ˘ˣ˪ˋˣ˨˘˅ˣ˥˙ *‫ڰ‬, ˪ˁ˜ ˘ ˘ˣ˪ˋˣ˨˘˅ˣ˥˙ ˨˅˘˨˪̀˹ˋ˙ ˁ˱˱˧˘˜ˁ˪ˋ *‫ڰ‬:, ˨˧.: vi” vi(‫)ڄ‬: ˫ˊ. vicࢯ ‘ˊˋ˨̀˪˼’ ~ ༤ˋ˖ˆ. ‫ڄ‬u-d: ˪ˁ˄. ji‫ڄ‬u-b: ˁˆ. i‫ڄ‬u-d, ji‫ڄ‬u-r (˄˫˧˸.), ji‫ڄ‬u-d (˱˘˪.): ˧˫˪. ji‫˲ڄ‬-d: ˴ˁ˲. ji‫ڄ‬e-llä (ˆ˘༤ˢˋ˴.): ˁ˧˵. wi‫ڄ‬: ˜˧˻˖. ji‫˲ڄ‬-d: ˄˫ˊ. ji‫˲ڄ‬-d ~ ˊˁ˧ˆ. we‫ڄ‬-al: ˁ˅ˁ˧. an‫ڄ‬˘ ˊ˧. (ɲ˥˜ˁ˧ˋ˅ 1961: 70; Nikolayev, Starostin 1994: 245 (˥˄.-༤ˋ˖ˆ. *Ɔi‫ڄ‬ƕ-)). ”e (‫)ڄ‬e: ˫ˊ. a-ruΠ ‘˥ˆ˥ˣ˼’ (< *‫ڄ‬a-ruΠ — Pl. Tantum) ~ ༤ˋ˖ˆ. ‫ڄ‬aj, ‫ڄ‬u, j˲‫˲( ˲ڄ‬༤˫˪.): ˪ˁ˄. ‫ڄ‬a, ‫ڄ‬i: ˁˆ. ‫ڄ‬a, ‫ڄ‬i, ‫ڄ‬aj (˱˘˪.): ˧˫˪. ‫ڄ‬aj, ‫˲ڄ‬, ‫ڄ‬ä (˘˲˧ˋ˜.), ‫ڄ‬a (˲ˣ˥˅.): ˴ˁ˲. ‫ڄ‬a: ˁ˧˵. o‫ڄ‬: ˜˧˻˖. ‫ڄ‬ä, ‫˲ڄ‬r: ˄˫ˊ. ‫ڄ‬Փ ~ ˁ˅ˁ˧ ‫ڄ‬a: ༤ˁ˜. ‫ڄ‬u ˘ ˊ˧. (Trubetzkoy 1930: 83; ʍ˫˧˜ˋ༤˘ˣ˨˜˘˙ 1971: 193; ɴ˘ˆ˘ˣˋ˙˸˅˘༤˘ 1977: 100; ʕˁ༤˘˄˥˅ 1980: 296; Nikolayev, Starostin 1994: 354 (˥˄.-༤ˋ˖ˆ. *‫ڄ‬aj)). ˣ˥: ”i (‫)ڄ‬i ‘˘ˢ̀’ ~ ˫ˊ. cࢯi (< * cࢯir, ˨˧. ˱˥˧ˢ˫ ˢˣ. ˵˘˨༤ˁ cࢯi-r-ΠoΠ) ~ ༤ˋ˖ˆ. ࡖ։ar, t:։ar (˦˕˟˞.); ˪ˁ˄. ŏ:Úur, Ɣur (ʿ˳ʺˀː.); ˁˆ. t:ur; ˧˫˪. dur; ˴ˁ˲. do (ʼˌ˕˖ˀ˨.); ˁ˧˵. ‫ڄ‬or; ˜˧˻˖. tƕr; ˄˫ˊ. tur ~ ˁ˅ˁ˧. ‫ڄ‬:ar, ˁˣˊ. ‫ڄ‬:er, ˁ˲˅. ‫ڄ‬:eri ˘ ˊ˧. (Trubetzkoy 1930: 87; ʍ˫˧˜ˋ༤˘ˣ˨˜˘˙ 1971: 142; ɴ˘ˆ˘ˣˋ˙˸˅˘༤˘ 1977: 68, 106; ʕˁ༤˘˄˥˅ 1980: 264, 297; Nikolayev, Starostin 1994: 1098 (˥˄.-༤ˋ˖ˆ. *‫ڄ‬:։er)). ʑ˥ ˣˁ˸ˋˢ˫ ˢˣˋˣ˘˿, ˆ˧ˁ˱ˋˢˁ ” ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˁ༤ˁ ˱˥ˣˋˢ˫ ‫ڰ‬, ˁ ˘ˣ˪ˋˣ˨˘˅ˣ˫˿ ˱˥ˣˋˢ˫ ‫ڰ‬: ˦ˋ˧ˋˊˁ˅ˁ༤ˁ ̘ɏɎ48 È (˲˥˪̀ ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˻ ˘ ˊ˧˫ˆ˘ˋ ˪˧ˁ˜˪˥˅˜˘), ˣˁ˦˧.: mowÈowr mu(‫ڄ‬:)ur ‘˵˘˨˪˻˙’: ˫ˊ. acࢯar (< *ma‫ڄ‬ar), macࢯi ‘˄ˋ༤˻˙’ ~ ˪ˁ˄. marc:i (˜ˁˣˊ.), marƔi (ˊ˿˄ˋ˜.): ˁˆ. maหrt:e-f: ˧˫˪. mՓt-d˲ ‘˵˘˨˪˥’: ˴ˁ˲. mäหt:˲ห-n: ˁ˧˵. mar‫ ~ ڄ‬ˁ˅ˁ˧. ba-‫ڄ‬:-ad ˘ ˊ˧. (ɲ˥˜ˁ˧ˋ˅ 1961: 71; ʍ˫˧˜ˋ༤˘ˣ˨˜˘˙ 1971: 227; ɴ˘ˆ˘ˣˋ˙˸˅˘༤˘ 1977: 107 (˥˄.-ˊˁˆ.: *ba-‫ڄ‬:-ad); Nikolayev, Starostin 1994: 552 (˥˄.-༤ˋ˖ˆ. *maหr‫ڄ‬:ƕ- ‘˵˘˨˪˻˙’)). ʑ˥ ˣˁ˸ˋˢ˫ ˢˣˋˣ˘˿, ˦˧˥˴ˋ˨˨ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˲˥ˊˁ ˘ˣ˪ˋˣ˨˘˅ˣ˻˲ ˁ˄˧˫˦˪˘˅ˣ˻˲ ˁ˱˱˧˘˜ˁ˪ ˅ ˣˋ˘ˣ˪ˋˣ˨˘˅ˣ˻ˋ ˁ˄˧˫˦˪˘˅ˣ˻ˋ ˁ˱˱˧˘˜ˁ˪˻ ˅ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˢ ˣˋ ˄˻༤ ˖ˁ˅ˋ˧˸ˋˣ. ʑ˥ˢ˘ˢ˥ ˽˪˥ˆ˥, ˜ˁ˜ ˦˥˜ˁ˖˻˅ˁˋ˪ ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧ ‫ڄ‬e ‘˥ˆ˥ˣ˼’, ˣˋ ˄˻༤ ˖ˁ˅ˋ˧˸ˋˣ ˦˧˥˴ˋ˨˨ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˲˥ˊˁ ˣˋ˘ˣ˪ˋˣ˨˘˅ˣ˻˲ ˁ˄˧˫˦˪˘˅ˣ˻˲ ˁ˱˱˧˘˜ˁ˪ ˅ ˣ˥༤˼ ˖˅˫˜ˁ ˅ ˁˣ༤ˁ˫˪ˋ ˘ ˘ˣ༤ˁ˫˪ˋ, ˦˧˥˘˖˥˸ˋˊ˸˘˙ ˅ ˫ˊ˘ˣ˨˜˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˋ, ˨ˢ. (ʟˋ˧˴˅ˁˊ˖ˋ 1964: 362). ɳ ˧̀ˊ˫ ˨˘˄˘༤̀ˣ˪˥˅ ˣˋ˥˄˲˥ˊ˘ˢ˥ ˘˨˦˧ˁ˅˘˪˼ ˋ˹ˋ ˣˋ˨˜˥༤˼˜˥ ˱˥ˣˋˢˣ˻˲ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘˙. ̘ɏɎ26 Q ( ‘coj’); ˱˥ˣˋˢˣ˻ˢ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋˢ ˽˪˥˙ ˆ˧ˁ˱ˋˢ˻, ˦˥ ˣˁ˸ˋˢ˫ ˢˣˋˣ˘˿, ˊ˥༤ːˣ˥ ˄˻˪˼ Őຐ, ˪ˁ˜ ˜ˁ˜ ˆ˧ˁ˱ˋˢˋ Q ˅ ˫ˊ˘ˣ˨˜˥ˢ, ˜ˁ˜ ˦˥˜ˁ˖˻˅ˁˋ˪ ˋˊ˘ˣ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˻˙ ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧, ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅˫ˋ˪ ˦ˁ༤ˁ˪˥-ˁ༤˼˅ˋ˥༤̀˧ˣˁ̀ ˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˘˖˥˅ˁˣˣˁ̀ ˁ˱˱˧˘˜ˁ˪ˁ Őຐ Ș Qa (ŏห)a ‘༤˘˴˥’, ˨˧. ˫ˊ. ŏหo ‘id’... ̘ɏɎ46 º ( ‘soj’); ˦˥ ˣˁ˸ˋˢ˫ ˢˣˋˣ˘˿, ˽˪˥ ˦ˁ༤ˁ˪˥-ˁ༤˼˅ˋ˥༤̀˧ˣ˻˙ ˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˘˖˥˅ˁˣˣ˻˙ ˱˧˘˜ˁ˪˘˅ˣ˻˙ šຐ, ˣˁ˦˧., ºowm (šห)um ‘˲༤ˋ˄’, ˨˧. ˫ˊ. šหum ‘id’; eºa e(šห)a ‘˦˥˨༤ˋ’, ‘˖ˁ’, ˨˧. ˫ˊ. ošหa ‘id’... ʇˁ˜ ˄˻༤˥ ˥˪ˢˋ˵ˋˣ˥, ˅ ˦ˁ༤˘ˢ˦˨ˋ˨˪ˁ˲ ˣˋ ˦˥ˊ˪˅ˋ˧ːˊˁˋ˪˨̀ ˣˁ༤˘˵˘ˋ ˣ˘ ˥ˊˣ˥˙ ˘˖ ˘ˢˋ˿˹˘˲˨̀ ˅ ˢˁ˪ˋˣˁˊˁ˧ˁˣ˨˜˥˙ ˧˫˜˥˦˘˨˘ ˊ˅˫˲ ˄˫˜˅, ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣˣ˻˲ ˜ˁ˜ ৄ. ʎˋ˨ˢ˥˪˧̀ ˣˁ ˽˪˥, ˱˥ˣ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜ˁ̀ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢˁ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ ˣˋ ˥˨˪ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˄ˋ˖ ˽˪˥˙ ˱˥ˣˋˢ˻. ʐˊˣ˥˙ ˘˖ ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˁ˿˹˘˲ ˖˅˫˜ ৄ ˄˫˜˅ ˊ˥༤ːˣˁ ˄˻˪˼ ̘ɏɎ20 B ( ‘zoΰ’); ˦˥ ˣˁ˸ˋˢ˫ ˢˣˋˣ˘˿, ˖ˊˋ˨˼ ˢ˻ ˘ˢˋˋˢ ˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˘˖˥˅ˁˣˣ˻˙ ˅ˁ˧˘ˁˣ˪ ˽˪˥˙ ˱˥ˣˋˢ˻ (ৄຐ), ˥ ˵ˋˢ ˨˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅˫˿˪ ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅˘̀ ˽˪˥˙ ˱˥ˣˋˢ˻ ˅ ˫ˊ˘ˣ˨˜˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˋ, ˣˁ˦˧., Bäž (़ห)[u]Ύ ‘ˆ˥˨˦˥ˊ˘ˣ’, ‘ɴ˥˨˦˥ˊ˼’ (§ošinBäž ‫ݧ‬o(़)in(़ห)[u]Ύ ‘ˆ˥˨˦˥ˊ˘ˣ (˲˥˖̀˘ˣ) ˊ˥ˢˁ’), ˨˧. ˫ˊ. kࢯon़หuΠ ‘id’; ˨˧. ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˫ˊ. biΠa-़uΎ ‘ɲ˥ˆ’ ~ ˜ˁ˅˜.-ˁ༤˄. bäž (*b[iΠa-़หu]Ύ) ‘id’; Bowmo(w)x (़ห)umuΠ ‘ˢˋ༤˼ˣ˘˴ˁ’, ˨˧. ˫ˊ. žหomoΠ ‘id’... ɳ˪˥˧˥˙ ˖˅˫˜ ৄ, ˦˥ ˣˁ˸ˋˢ˫ ˢˣˋˣ˘˿, ˊ˥༤ːˋˣ ˄˻˪˼ ̘ɏɎ18 D ( ‘dan’); ˽˪˥˙ ˆ˧ˁ˱ˋˢˋ ˅ ˫ˊ˘ˣ˨˜˥ˢ ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅˫˿˪ ৄ ˘༤˘ ž (˅ ˣ˘ˊː˨˜˥ˢ), ˣˁ˦˧., §oš ‫ݧ‬o(़) ‘ˊ˥ˢ’, ˨˧. ˫ˊ. kࢯo़ (˅ˁ˧˪.) // 7 ʐ˄ ˽˪˥ˢ ˨˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅˫ˋ˪ ˨˧ˁ˅ˣˋˣ˘ˋ ˆ˧ˁ˱ˋˢ § “ߞar” (೵ഔള) ˘ ³ “ߞaਾ” (೵ഔയ). ʁˣˁ˜ § ˦ˋ˧ˋˊˁˋ˪ ˱˥ˣˋˢ˫ ޶, ˁ ³, ˅ ˣˁ˖˅ˁˣ˘˘ ˜˥˪˥˧˥ˆ˥ ˱˘ˆ˫˧˘˧˫ˋ˪ ৼ , — ࢟.

125

ʒ˥ˢˁˣ ʌ˥༤˫ˁ

kࢯož (ˣ˘ˊː.) ‘id’; šeDer (़)e(़)er ‘ˆ˫˄ˁ’, ˨˧. ˫ˊ. ़e़er ‘id’... ʑ˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀, ˵˪˥ ˖ˊˋ˨˼ ˢ˻ ˘ˢˋˋˢ ‘˦˧˥˨˪˫˿’ (ˣˋ˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˘˖˥˅ˁˣˣ˫˿) ˖˅˥ˣ˜˫˿ ˦ˁ༤ˁ˪˥-ˁ༤˼˅ˋ˥༤̀˧ˣ˫˿ ˁ˱˱˧˘˜ˁ˪˫ ৄ. ʑ˥ˢ˘ˢ˥ ˽˪˥ˆ˥, ˜˥˧˧ˋ˜˴˘˘ ˊ˥༤ːˣ˥ ˦˥ˊ˅ˋ˧ˆˣ˫˪˼˨̀ ˱˥ˣˋˢˣ˥ˋ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ̘ɏɎ36 ˆ˧ˁ˱ˋ‘࣢aj’); ˪˥˵ˣ˥ˋ ˖˅˫˵ˁˣ˘ˋ ˽˪˥˙ ˆ˧ˁ˱ˋˢ˻ ˥˦˧ˋˊˋ༤˘˪˼ ˨༤˥ːˣ˥, ˲˥˪̀ ˘ˢˋ˿˹˘˙˨̀ ˢ˻  ( ˧ˋˊ˜˘˙ ˢˁ˪ˋ˧˘ˁ༤ ˊˁˋ˪ ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˥˨˪˼ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤˥ː˘˪˼ ˘ˣ˪ˋˣ˨˘˅ˣ˻˙ ˸˘˦̀˹˘˙ ˁ˄˧˫˦˪˘˅ ‫ڪ‬:. ʐ˨ˣ˥˅ˁˣ˘ˋˢ ˊ༤̀ ˽˪˥ˆ˥ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤˥ːˋˣ˘̀ ˨༤˫ː˘˪ ˪˥, ˵˪˥ ˅ ˫ˊ˘ˣ˨˜˥ˢ ˽˪˥˙ ˆ˧ˁ˱ˋˢˋ ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅˫ˋ˪ ˖˅˫˜ ‫ڪ‬, ˁ ˘ˣ˪ˋˣ˨˘˅ˣ˥˨˪˼ ˽˪˥ˆ˥ ˖˅˫˜ˁ ˢ˻ ˦˥˨˪˫༤˘˧˫ˋˢ ˘˨˲˥ˊ̀ ˘˖ ˪˧ˋ˄˥˅ˁˣ˘˙ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢˣ˥˨˪˘ (˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤˥ː˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˋ ˨˫˹ˋ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘ˋ ˘ˣ˪ˋˣ˨˘˅ˣ˥˙ ˨˅˘˨˪̀˹ˋ˙ ˁ˄˧˫˦˪˘˅ˣ˥˙ ˁ˱˱˧˘˜ˁ˪˻) ˘ ˣˁ༤˘˵˘ˋˢ «˦˧˥˨˪˥˙» ‫˥˱ ˅ ڪ‬ˣ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢˋ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ, ˨˧., a³ai aࠩa(‫پ‬:)i ‘ˆ˥༤˻˙ (-ˁ̀//-˥ˋ)’ ~ ˫ˊ. aࠩa‫پ‬i ‘id’8; a±biyesown (‫پ‬:)aࠢ-bijesun ‘˖ˁ˨˥˅˻˅ˁ˪˼’ ~ ˫ˊ. ‫پ‬aࠢ-besun ‘˦˧̀˪ˁ˪˼’... ʕˁ˜˘ˢ ˥˄˧ˁ˖˥ˢ, ˨˘˨˪ˋˢˁ ˨˘˄˘༤̀ˣ˪˥˅ ˅ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˋ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˣˁˢ ˅ ˨༤ˋˊ˫˿˹ˋˢ ˅˘ˊˋ: ʐʸʺ˕ˌ˨ʸ ̈ɍ3. ʑ˧ˋˊ˦˥༤ˁˆˁˋˢˁ̀ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢˁ ˨˘˄˘༤̀ˣ˪˥˅ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ ˁ˱˱˧˘˜ˁ˪˻ ˨˅˘˨˪̀˹˘ˋ

˨˦˘˧ˁˣ˪˻

˦˧˥˨˪˻ˋ

̘ɏɎ38 Ô ƕ

̘ɏɎ49 c c

̘ɏɎ48 È ۖ

̘ɏɎ19 ” *ۖ:

̘ɏɎ6 z z

̘ɏɎ43 s s

˦˧˥˨˪˻ˋ

̘ɏɎ18 D ৉

̘ɏɎ39 – ő

̘ɏɎ27 Ö ‫ې‬

̘ɏɎ36  *‫ې‬:

̘ɏɎ8 Y ž

̘ɏɎ33 š š

˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆ.

̘ɏɎ20 B ৉ຐ

̘ɏɎ26 Q őຐ

̘ɏɎ10 V ‫ې‬ຐ

̘ɏɎ12 Ç žຐ

̘ɏɎ46 º šຐ

˸˘˦̀˹˘ˋ

ʇ ˽˪˘ˢ ˖ˣˁ˜ˁˢ ˣˋ˥˄˲˥ˊ˘ˢ˥ ˊ˥˄ˁ˅˘˪˼ ˆ˧ˁ˱ˋˢ˫ ß. ʨ˪ˁ ˄˫˜˅ˁ, ˜˥ˆˊˁ ˅˨˪˧ˋ˵ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˦˥˨༤ˋ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˘༤˘ ˅ ˣˁ˵ˁ༤ˋ ˨༤˥˅ˁ ˘ ˫˵ˁ˨˪˅˫ˋ˪ ˅ ˜˥ˢ˦༤ˋ˜˨ˁ˲ ˨ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻ˢ˘ a, e ˘ i (˘ˣ˥ˆˊˁ ˘ ˨ o ˘ u), ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˁˋ˪ ˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˘˖˥˅ˁˣˣ˥˨˪˼ ˅˻˸ˋ˦ˋ˧ˋ˵˘˨༤ˋˣˣ˻˲ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˲, ˁ ˅ ˣˋ˨˜˥༤˼˜˘˲ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˲ ˅ ˘ˣ˪ˋ˧˅˥˜ˁ༤˼ˣ˥˙ ˦˥˖˘˴˘˘ ˣˁ˄༤˿ˊˁˋ˪˨̀ ˘ˣ˥ˋ ˫˦˥˪˧ˋ˄༤ˋˣ˘ˋ ˽˪˥ˆ˥ ˖ˣˁ˜ˁ — ˅ ˽˪˘˲ ˧ˋˊ˜˘˲ ˨༤˫˵ˁ̀˲ ˥ˣ ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˁˋ˪ ˖˅˫˜ š (˘༤˘ š๎), ˣˁ˦˧., mowßa§ mu(š)a‫˧‘ ݧ‬ˁ˄˥˪ˣ˘˜’, ˨˧. ˆ˧˫˖. muša‫ݧ‬-i, ˁ˧ˢ. mša‫‘ ݧ‬id’ ˘ ˊ˧. ʕˁ˜˘ˢ ˥˄˧ˁ˖˥ˢ, ˢ˻ ˅ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˋ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤ˁˆˁˋˢ ˵ˋ˪˅ˋ˧˘˵ˣ˫˿ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢ˫ ˨˅˘˨˪̀˹˘˲ ˘ ˸˘˦̀˹˘˲ ˁ˱˱˧˘˜ˁ˪ ˘ ˦ˁ˧ˣ˫˿ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢ˫ ˨˅˘˨˪̀˹˘˲ ˘ ˸˘˦̀˹˘˲ ˨˦˘˧ˁˣ˪˥˅. ʑ˥ˢ˘ˢ˥ «˦˧˥˨˪˻˲» ˸˘˦̀˹˘˲ ˨˘˄˘༤̀ˣ˪˥˅, ˦˥ ˣˁ˸ˋˢ˫ ˢˣˋˣ˘˿, ˅ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˢ ˨˫˹ˋ˨˪˅˥˅ˁ༤ ˅˪˥˧˥˙ ˧̀ˊ ˸˘˦̀˹˘˲ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˲, ˜˥˪˥˧˻˙ ˨˥˨˪˥̀༤ ˘˖ ˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˘˖˥˅ˁˣˣ˻˲ ˅ˁ˧˘ˁˣ˪˥˅. ʃˣ˪ˋ˧ˋ˨ˣ˥, ˵˪˥ ˦˧ˋˊ༤ˁˆˁˋˢˁ̀ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢˁ ˄༤˘˖˜ˁ ˜ ˦˥˨˪˫༤˘˧˫ˋˢ˥˙ ɲ.ɍɲ.ɍʕˁ༤˘˄˥˅˻ˢ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢˋ ˨˘˄˘༤̀ˣ˪˥˅ ˊ༤̀ ˦˧ˁ༤ˋ˖ˆ˘ˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˨˥˨˪˥̀ˣ˘̀, ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤ˁˆˁ˅˸ˋ˙ ˣˁ༤˘˵˘ˋ ˵ˋ˪˅ˋ˧˘˵ˣ˥˙ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢ˻ ˨˅˘˨˪̀˹˘˲ ˘ ˸˘˦̀˹˘˲ ˁ˱˱˧˘˜ˁ˪ ˘ ˜˥˧˧ˋ༤̀˴˘˿ ˦˥ ˘ˣ˪ˋˣ˨˘˅ˣ˥˨˪˘ ˪˥༤˼˜˥ ༤˘˸˼ ˨˧ˋˊ˘ ˁ˄˧˫˦˪˘˅˥˅ (ʕˁ༤˘˄˥˅ 1980: 325). ɳ ˣˁ˫˵ˣ˥˙ ༤˘˪ˋ˧ˁ˪˫˧ˋ ˨˘˄˘༤̀ˣ˪ˁˢ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ ˄˻༤˘ ˊˁˣ˻ ˧ˁ˖༤˘˵ˣ˻ˋ ˜˅ˁ༤˘˱˘˜ˁ˴˘˘, ˪ˁ˜, ˣˁ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧, ʓ.ɍʎ.ɍʍ˫˧ˁ˅˼ˋ˅ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤ˁˆˁ༤ ˣˁ༤˘˵˘ˋ ˘ˣ˪ˋˣ˨˘˅ˣ˻˲ ˧̀ˊ˥˅ ˨˅˘˨˪̀˹˘˲ ˁ˱˱˧˘˜ˁ˪ ˘ ˨˅˘˨˪̀˹˘˲ ˘ ˸˘˦̀˹˘˲ ˨˦˘˧ˁˣ˪˥˅ (ʍ˫˧ˁ˅˼ˋ˅ 1981: 239). ʑ˥ ˢˣˋˣ˘˿ ɳ.ɍʌ.ɍɴ˫˜ˁ˨̀ˣˁ, ˊ༤̀ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˄˻༤ˁ ˲ˁ˧ˁ˜˪ˋ˧ˣ˥˙ ˵ˋ˪˅ˋ˧˘˵ˣˁ̀ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢˁ ˨˅˘˨˪̀˹˘˲ ˘ ˸˘˦̀˹˘˲ ˁ˱˱˧˘˜ˁ˪ (˖˅˥ˣ˜˘˙ Ș ˦˧˘ˊ˻˲ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻˙ — ˦˧ˋ˧˫˦˪˘˅ Ș ˁ˄˧˫˦˪˘˅), ˣˁ༤˘˵˘ˋ ༤˥˜ˁ༤˼ˣ˻˲ ˧̀ˊ˥˅ ˊˋˣ˪˥༤ˁ˄˘ˁ༤˘˖˥˅ˁˣˣ˻˲ ˸˘˦̀˹˘˲ ˁ˱˱˧˘˜ˁ˪ ˘ ˘ˣ˪ˋˣ˨˘˅ˣ˻˲ («˨˘༤˼ˣ˻˲») ˨˅˘˨˪̀˹˘˲ ˘ ˸˘˦̀˹˘˲ ˨˦˘˧ˁˣ˪˥˅ (ɴ˫˜ˁ˨̀ˣ 1969: 68). 8 ʨ˪˥ ˨༤˥˅˥ ˖ˁ˨˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˥ ɯ. ʣ˘˱ˣˋ˧˥ˢ (1863: 74). ɳ˘ˊ˘ˢ˥, ˽˪˫ ༤ˋ˜˨ˋˢ˫ ˅ ˫ˊ˘ˣ˨˜˥ˢ ˖ˁˢˋˣ˘༤ˁ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣˣˁ̀ ˘˖ ˁ˖ˋ˧˄ˁ˙ˊːˁˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ ˱˥˧ˢˁ ŏࢯupࢯlaqࢯ (˅ˁ˧˪.)//ŏࢯupࢯlaΎ (ˣ˘ˊː.). ɯ ˅ ˧˥ˊ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˻˲ ༤ˋ˖ˆ˘ˣ˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲ ˖ˣˁ˜˫  ˅ ˱˥˧ˢˋ aࠩa(‫پ‬:)i ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅˫ˋ˪ ˨˅˘˨˪̀˹˘˙ ˁ˄˧˫˦˪˘˅ ‫ڰ‬, ˨˧.: ༤ˋ˖ˆ. ࠩe‫ڰ‬il, ˪ˁ˄. ࠩa‫ڰ‬li, ˁˆ. ࠩa‫ڰ‬ul-f, ˧˫˪. haห‫ڰ‬ul, ˜˧˻˖., ˄˫ˊ. ࠩa‫ڰ‬u-n ‘ˆ˥༤˻˙ (-ˁ̀//-˥ˋ)’.

126

ʇ ˫˪˥˵ˣˋˣ˘˿ ˱˥ˣ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢ˻ ̀˖˻˜ˁ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˘˲ ˦ˁ༤˘ˢ˦˨ˋ˨˪˥˅

ʇˁ˜ ˨˵˘˪ˁ˿˪ ʄ. ɴ˘˦˦ˋ˧˪ ˘ ɳ. ʣ˫༤˼˴ˋ, ˅ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˢ ˄˻༤˘ ˦˥˨˪ˁ༤˼˅ˋ˥༤̀˧ˣ˻ˋ (˦ˁ༤ˁ˪˥-ˁ༤˼˅ˋ˥༤̀˧ˣ˻ˋ) ˘ ˁ༤˼˅ˋ˥-˦ˁ༤ˁ˪ˁ༤˼ˣ˻ˋ ˧̀ˊ˻ ˸˘˦̀˹˘˲ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˲ 9 ˘ ˧̀ˊ ˦ˁ༤ˁ˪ˁ༤˘˖˥˅ˁˣˣ˻˲ ˁ༤˼˅ˋ˥༤̀˧ˣ˻˲ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˲ (˨ˢ˻˵ˣ˻˲, ˁ˱˱˧˘˜ˁ˪ ˘ ˨˦˘˧ˁˣ˪˥˅) (Gippert et al. 2009: II–4-6, II–13–15, II–17). ʕˁ˜ ˜ˁ˜ ˦˧ˋˊ˻ˊ˫˹˘ˋ ˘˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁ˪ˋ༤˘ ˣˋ ˧ˁ˄˥˪ˁ༤˘ ˨˥ ˨˜˥༤˼˜˥-ˣ˘˄˫ˊ˼ ˥˄˺ˋˢˣ˻ˢ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˘ˢ ˢˁ˪ˋ˧˘ˁ༤˥ˢ ˘ ˘˲ ˅˥˖˖˧ˋˣ˘̀ ˨˥˲˧ˁˣ̀˿˪ ˖ˣˁ˵˘ˢ˥˨˪˼ ༤˘˸˼ ˅ ˜˥ˣ˪ˋ˜˨˪ˋ ˘˨˪˥˧˘˘ ˘˖˫˵ˋˣ˘̀ ˅˥˦˧˥˨ˁ, ˥˨˪ˁˣ˥˅˘ˢ˨̀ ˪˥༤˼˜˥ ˣˁ ˢˣˋˣ˘˘ ʄ. ɴ˘˦˦ˋ˧˪ˁ ˘ ɳ. ʣ˫༤˼˴ˋ. ʓ˘˨˪ˋˢˁ ˨˘˄˘༤̀ˣ˪˥˅, ˜˥˪˥˧˫˿ ˦˧ˋˊ༤ˁˆˁ˿˪ ˫˵ˋˣ˻ˋ, ˅˻˖˻˅ˁˋ˪ ˨ˋ˧˼ˋ˖ˣ˻ˋ ˅˥˦˧˥˨˻. ʎ˫ːˣ˥ ˥˪ˢˋ˪˘˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˣˁ˲˨˜˥-ˊˁˆˋ˨˪ˁˣ˨˜˘ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˁˢ ˣˋ ˨˅˥˙˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˻ ˁ༤˼˅ˋ˥-˦ˁ༤ˁ˪ˁ༤˼ˣ˻ˋ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻ˋ ˘ ˦˧˥˪˘˅˥˦˥˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˘ˋ ˦ˁ༤ˁ˪ˁ༤˘˖˥˅ˁˣˣ˻˲ ˘ ˣˋ˦ˁ༤ˁ˪ˁ༤˘˖˥˅ˁˣˣ˻˲ ˱˥ˣˋˢ. ɲ˥༤ˋˋ ˪˥ˆ˥, ˽˪˘ ̀˅༤ˋˣ˘̀ ˣˋ ˧ˋ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˘˧˫˿˪˨̀ ˣ˘ ˣˁ ˥ˊˣ˥ˢ ˫˧˥˅ˣˋ ˣˁ˲˨˜˥-ˊˁˆˋ˨˪ˁˣ˨˜˥˙ ˱˥ˣ˥༤˥ˆ˘˘. ʑ˧ˋˊ༤˥ːˋˣˣˁ̀ ːˋ ˣˁˢ˘ ˜˅ˁ༤˘˱˘˜ˁ˴˘̀ ˅˪˥˧˥ˆ˥ ˧̀ˊˁ ˸˘˦̀˹˘˲ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˲ ˜ˁ˜ ˧̀ˊˁ ˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˘˖˥˅ˁˣˣ˻˲, ˣˁ˦˧˥˪˘˅, ˦˥ˊ˪˅ˋ˧ːˊˁˋ˪˨̀ ˢˁ˪ˋ˧˘ˁ༤˥ˢ ˫ˊ˘ˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ, ˪. ˋ. ̀˖˻˜ˁ, ˜˥˪˥˧˻˙ ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˋˊ˘ˣ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˻ˢ ˘˖ ˨˥˲˧ˁˣ˘˅˸˘˲˨̀ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˘˲ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪˥˅, ˨˧.: ʇˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˘˙

ʘˊ˘ˣ˨˜˘˙

Çe (žຐe) ‘˜ˁˢˋˣ˼’

žຐe ‘id’

oºal (ošຐal) ‘˦˥˅ˋ˧˲ˣ˥˨˪˼’, ‘˖ˋˢ༤̀’

oőຐal ‘id’

Bowmowx (৉ຐumuΰ) ‘ˢˋ༤˼ˣ˘˴ˁ’

žຐomoΰ ‘id’

Qa (őຐa) ‘༤˘˴˥’

őຐo ‘id’

§a—i (ka‫ې‬ຐi) ‘˨༤ˋ˦˥˙’

kaőஉຐi ‘id’

ba— (ba‫ې‬ຐ) ‘˨˪˥’

baőຐ ‘id’

ɳ ˫ˊ˘ˣ˨˜˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˋ ˖ˁ˨˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣˁ ˅ˋ༤̀˧˘˖ˁ˴˘̀ ˸˘˦̀˹˘˲, ˅˻˖˅ˁˣˣˁ̀ ˦˧˥˴ˋ˨˨˥ˢ ˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˘˖ˁ˴˘˘. ɹ˨༤˘ ˅ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˲, ˅ ˜˥˪˥˧˻˲ ˣˋ˪ ˸˘˦̀˹˘˲ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˲, ˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˘˖ˁ˴˘̀ ˘ˢˋˋ˪ ˦ˁ༤ˁ˪ˁ༤˼ˣ˻˙ ˪ˋˢ˄˧, ˪˥ ˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˘˖˥˅ˁˣˣ˻ˋ ˸˘˦̀˹˘ˋ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻ˋ ˅ˋ༤̀˧˘˖˥˅ˁˣ˻ ˘ ˨ˢˋ˹ˁ˿˪ ˣˁ˖ˁˊ ˨˥˨ˋˊˣ˘ˋ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻ˋ ˦ˋ˧ˋˊˣˋˆ˥ ˧̀ˊˁ (ʇ˘˄˧˘˜, ʇ˥ˊ˖ˁ˨˥˅ 1990: 347). ʨ˪˥˪ ˦˧˥˴ˋ˨˨ ˊˁ༤ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˁˣ˘ˋ ˣˋ˜˥˪˥˧˻ˢ ˘˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁ˪ˋ༤̀ˢ ˊ༤̀ ˅˻ˊˋ༤ˋˣ˘̀ ˅ˋ༤̀˧˘˖˥˅ˁˣˣ˻˲ ˘༤˘ ˘ˣ˪ˋˣ˨˘˅ˣ˻˲ ˸˘˦̀˹˘˲ ˱˥ˣˋˢ ˅ ˫ˊ˘ˣ˨˜˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˋ, ˨ ˵ˋˢ ˣˋ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˥ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨˘˪˼˨̀. ʃ˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁ˪ˋ༤˘, ˧ˁ˨˨ˢˁ˪˧˘˅ˁ˿˹˘ˋ ˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˘˖ˁ˴˘˿ ˅ ˫ˊ˘ˣ˨˜˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˋ ˜ˁ˜ ˨ˋˆˢˋˣ˪ˣ˥ˋ ˨˅˥˙˨˪˅˥ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˲, ˅ ˨˅˥˘˲ ˖ˁ˦˘˨̀˲ ˅ˋ༤̀˧˘˖˥˅ˁˣˣ˻ˋ ˘༤˘ ˘ˣ˪ˋˣ˨˘˅ˣ˻ˋ ˸˘˦̀˹˘ˋ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻ˋ, ˖ˁ ˧ˋˊ˜˘ˢ ˘˨˜༤˿˵ˋˣ˘ˋˢ, ˦˥ˢˋ˹ˁ˿˪ ˦˥ ˨˥˨ˋˊ˨˪˅˫ ˨ ˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˘˖˥˅ˁˣˣ˻ˢ˘ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻ˢ˘ (resp. ˅ ˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˘˖˥˅ˁˣˣ˻˲ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˲). ʕˁ˜˘ˢ ˥˄˧ˁ˖˥ˢ, ˣˁ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˁˣ˘˘ ˱˥ˣ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢ˻ ˫ˊ˘ˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ, ˢ˻ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤ˁˆˁˋˢ, ˵˪˥ ˅˪˥˧˥˙ ˧̀ˊ ˸˘˦̀˹˘˲ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˲ ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˧̀ˊ˥ˢ ˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˘˖˥˅ˁˣˣ˻˲ ˖˅˫˜˥˅. ʎˋ˥˄˲˥ˊ˘ˢ˥ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˥˪ˢˋ˪˘˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˦˧˥˴ˋ˨˨ ˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˘˖ˁ˴˘˘ ˸˘˧˥˜˥ ˧ˁ˨˦˧˥˨˪˧ˁˣˋˣ ˅ ˧˥ˊ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˻˲ ༤ˋ˖ˆ˘ˣ˨˜˘˲ ˘ ˊ˧˫ˆ˘˲ ˣˁ˲˨˜˥-ˊˁˆˋ˨˪ˁˣ˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲. ʎˋ ˫ˊ˘˅˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ ˘ ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˥ˋ ˣˁ༤˘˵˘ˋ ˘ˣ˪ˋˣ˨˘˅ˣ˻˲ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˲ ˅ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˋ. ʃˣ˪ˋˣ˨˘˅ˣ˻ˋ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻ˋ ˱˥ˣˋˢ˻ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˻ ˦˧ˁ˜˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ ˅ ˜ˁːˊ˥ˢ ˊˁˆˋ˨˪ˁˣ˨˜˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˋ. 9

ʄ.ɍɴ˘˦˦ˋ˧˪ ˘ ɳ.ɍʣ˫༤˼˴ˋ ˅ ˱˥ˣ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢˋ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ ˅˻ˊˋ༤̀˿˪ ˨༤ˋˊ˫˿˹˘ˋ ˸˘˦̀˹˘ˋ ˖˅˫˜˘ — ˁ༤˼˅ˋ˥-˦ˁ༤ˁ˪ˁ༤˼ˣ˻ˋ (Alveolar-palatals): * ৉, – ő, Ö ‫ې‬, Y ž, š š ˘ ˦˥˨˪ˁ༤˼˅ˋ˥༤̀˧ˣ˻ˋ (Postalveolars): B ƕџ, Q ŏ, V ‫ۂ‬, Ç Ɠ, º Ž (˨ˢ. Gippert et al. 2009: II-14–15, II-17). ɳ ˪ˁ˄༤˘˴ˋ ˣˁ ˨˪˧. 4-6 ˘ ˅ ˊˋ˪ˁ༤˼ˣ˥ˢ ˥˄˖˥˧ˋ ˱˥ˣˋˢ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ (Gippert et al. 2009: II-13–15) ˊˁˣˁ ˪˧ˁˣ˨˜˧˘˦˴˘̀ ˊˁˣˣ˻˲ ˖˅˫˜˥˅ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˥ ˢˋːˊ˫ˣˁ˧˥ˊˣ˥ˆ˥ ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˁ༤˱ˁ˅˘˪ˁ (IPA): * ৉ = dƕ, – ő =tഉ།, Ö ‫ =ې‬tഉ๏, Y ž = ƕ, š š = ഉ; B ƕџ = dຈ, Q ŏ = t౭, V ‫ = ۂ‬t౭๏, Ç Ɠ = ຈ, º Ž = ౭. ʃ˨˲˥ˊ̀ ˘˖ ˽˪˥ˆ˥, ˦˥ ˅˨ˋ˙ ˅˘ˊ˘ˢ˥˨˪˘, ˦˥ˊ «ˁ༤˼˅ˋ˥-˦ˁ༤ˁ˪ˁ༤˼ˣ˻ˢ˘» ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻ˢ˘ ˣ˫ːˣ˥ ˦˥ˊ˧ˁ˖˫ˢˋ˅ˁ˪˼ ˦ˁ༤ˁ˪˥-ˁ༤˅ˋ˥༤̀˧ˣ˻ˋ (˦˥˨˪ˁ༤˼˅ˋ˥༤̀˧ˣ˻ˋ), ˁ ˦˥ˊ «˦˥˨˪ˁ༤˼˅ˋ˥༤̀˧ˣ˻ˢ˘» — ˁ༤˼˅ˋ˥-˦ˁ༤ˁ˪ˁ༤˼ˣ˻ˋ. 127

ʒ˥ˢˁˣ ʌ˥༤˫ˁ

ʑ˥˨༤ˋ ˥˄˸˘˧ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˥˄˖˥˧ˁ ˨˘˄˘༤̀ˣ˪˥˅ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˙ˊˋˢ ˜ ˅˥˦˧˥˨˫ ˥˨˪ˁ༤˼ˣ˻˲ ˜˥ˣ˨˥ˣˁˣ˪˥˅: ʇˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˘˙ ̀˖˻˜ ˲ˁ˧ˁ˜˪ˋ˧˘˖˫ˋ˪ ˪˧˥˘˵ˣˁ̀ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢˁ ˨ˢ˻˵ˣ˻˲. ʜ˥ˣˋˢˣ˻ˋ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘̀ ˅˨ˋ˲ ˨ˢ˻˵ˣ˥-˅˖˧˻˅ˣ˻˲ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˲ ˪˥˵ˣ˥ ˫˨˪ˁˣ˥˅༤ˋˣ˻, ˽˪˥: ̘ɏɎ2 b (b), ̘ɏɎ51 p (p), ̘ɏɎ40 ± (࢖); ̘ɏɎ4 d (d), ̘ɏɎ9 t (t), ̘ɏɎ45 » (ࣚ); ̘ɏɎ3 g (g), ̘ɏɎ52 k (k), ̘ɏɎ21 § (޶). ʃ˖ ˫˅˫༤̀˧ˣ˻˲ ˨ˢ˻˵ˣ˻˲, ˪˥˵ˣ˥ ˫˨˪ˁˣ˥˅༤ˋˣ˥ ˱˥ˣˋˢˣ˥ˋ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ˁ˄˧˫˦˪˘˅ˁ ̘ɏɎ30 ³ (࢟). ʎˋ˅˻̀˨ˣˋˣˣ˻ˢ ˥˨˪ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˅˥˦˧˥˨ ˦˧˘ˊ˻˲ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥˙ q. ʄ. ɴ˘˦˦ˋ˧˪ ˘ ɳ. ʣ˫༤˼˴ˋ ˣˋ ˅˘ˊ̀˪ ˥˪ˊˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˖ˣˁ˜ˁ ˊ༤̀ ˽˪˥˙ ˱˥ˣˋˢ˻ ˅ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˢ ˁ༤˱ˁ˅˘˪ˋ. ʑ˥ ˢˣˋˣ˘˿ ˘˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁ˪ˋ༤ˋ˙, ˥ˊˣ˘ˢ ˘˖ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘˙ ˆ˧ˁ˱ˋˢ˻ x (̘ɏɎ24 ‘haj’) ˄˻༤˥ q, ˣ˥ ˽˪˥˪ ˖ˣˁ˜ ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˁ༤ ˘ ˫˅˫༤̀˧ˣ˻˙ ˱˧˘˜ˁ˪˘˅ˣ˻˙ Ο (Gippert et al. 2009: II-11). ʑ˥ˢ˘ˢ˥ ˽˪˥ˆ˥, ˅ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˢ ˁ༤˱ˁ˅˘˪ˋ ˅˨˪˧ˋ˵ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˦˥˲˥ː˘˙ ˣˁ x ˖ˣˁ˜ X, ˜˥˪˥˧˻˙, ˦˥ ˢˣˋˣ˘˿ ʄ. ɴ˘˦˦ˋ˧˪ˁ ˘ ɳ. ʣ˫༤˼˴ˋ (Gippert et al. 2009: II–11), ˦ˋ˧ˋˊˁ˅ˁ༤ ˅ˋ༤̀˧ˣ˻˙ ˨˦˘˧ˁˣ˪ (x˜). ʓ ˦˥˨༤ˋˊˣ˘ˢ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤˥ːˋˣ˘ˋˢ ˢ˻ ˣˋ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻: ˅ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˋ, ˜ˁ˜ ˘ ˅ ˫ˊ˘ˣ˨˜˥ˢ, ˨˥˅˦ˁ༤˘ ˧ˋ˱༤ˋ˜˨˻ ˥˄˹ˋ༤ˋ˖ˆ˘ˣ˨˜˘˲ *Ο, *x˜, ˘˲ ˘ˣ˪ˋˣ˨˘˅ˣ˻˲ ˅ˁ˧˘ˁˣ˪˥˅ ˘ ˋ˹ˋ ˣˋ˨˜˥༤˼˜˘˲ ༤ˁ˪ˋ˧ˁ༤˼ˣ˻˲ ˱˥ˣˋˢ. ɳˁːˣ˥, ˵˪˥ ˱˥ˣˋˢˁ, ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˁˋˢˁ̀ ˖ˣˁ˜˥ˢ X, ˵ˁ˨˪˥ ˅˥˨˲˥ˊ˘˪ ˜ ˥˄˹ˋ༤ˋ˖ˆ˘ˣ˨˜˥˙ *Ο ˘༤˘ *Ο:, ˣˁ˦˧.: } a X i aหΠi : ˫ˊ. aΠหil ‘ˊˁ༤ˋ˜˘˙’ ~ ༤ˋ˖ˆ. jarΎal : ˪ˁ˄. jarΠla : ˁˆ. warΠa ‘ˊˁ༤ˋ˜˥’: ˧˫˪. Πƕrƕ-dƕ ‘id’: ˁ˧˵. aΠ ~ ༤ˁ˜. arΠ:-sa ‘ˊˁ༤ˋ˜˘˙’ ˘ ˊ˧. (ʝˁ˙ˊˁ˜˥˅ 1973: 106; Nikolayev, Starostin 1994: 269 (˥˄.-༤ˋ˖ˆ. *ԸarΠ:(բl)). X e l Πel ‘˄ˋ˧ˋˢˋˣˣˁ̀’: ˫ˊ. Πel // qel ‘ˣ˥˸ˁ’, ‘˅˼˿˜’ ~ ˧˫˪. Πäl : ˴ˁ˲. Πew : ˁ˧˵. Π:al : ˜˧˻˖. Πel, Πil : ˄˫ˊ. Πel ~ ˊˁ˧ˆ. Πala ˘ ˊ˧. (ʍ˫˧˜ˋ༤˘ˣ˨˜˘˙ 1971: 170; Nikolayev, Starostin 1994: 1069 (˥˄.-༤ˋ˖ˆ. *Π:äl)). X o d Πod : ˫ˊ. Πod ‘ˊˋ˧ˋ˅˥’ ~ ˪ˁ˄. Ύurd-in har (ˊ˿˄ˋ˜): ˧˫˪. Πƕd ~ ˊˁ˧ˆ. Πur; Π:ur (˴˫ˊˁ˲.) ‘༤˘˦ˁ’ ˘ ˊ˧. (Nikolayev, Starostin 1994: 1079 (˥˄.-༤ˋ˖ˆ. *Π:ort: ‘༤˘˦ˁ’)). biXesown biΠesun : ˟ʿ. biΠsun ‘˧˥ːˁ˪˼’ ~ ༤ˋ˖ˆ. Πaz, Πana : ˪ˁ˄. Πuz : ˁˆ. uΠas : ˧˫˪. huΠ։as : ˴ˁ˲. uΠas : ˜˧˻˖. Πuji़, ruΠri : ˄˫ˊ. Πosu ˘ ˊ˧. (ɴ˘ˆ˘ˣˋ˙˸˅˘༤˘ 1977: 127; Nikolayev, Starostin 1994: 576 (˥˄.-༤ˋ˖ˆ. *ԸiΠ։a)). ʎˁ˸ˋ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤˥ːˋˣ˘ˋ ˦˥ˊ˪˅ˋ˧ːˊˁˋ˪ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˪˥, ˵˪˥ ˖ˣˁ˜˥ˢ X ˦ˋ˧ˋˊˁˋ˪˨̀ ˖˅˫˜ Ο ˅ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣˣ˻˲ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˲, ˣˁ˦˧., Xoran Πoran ‘˜˫˹ˁ’ ~ ˁ˧ˢ. Πoran ‘id’; Xo}a§ Πoša‫‘ ݧ‬ːˁ˧ˁ’ ~ ˁ˧ˢ. Πoršak, ˆ˧˫˖. Πorša‫ݧ‬-i ‘id’; XeXer ΠeΠer ‘˦˘༤ˁ’ ~ ˆ˧˫˖. ΠerΠ-i ‘id’; Xar»a§ Πarࡖa‫˫˜‘ ݧ‬˨˥˜’ ~ ˁ˧ˢ. Πortakem ‘id’; daX»a§ daΠࡖa‫˜˵ˋ˹˥ˊ‘ ݧ‬ˁ’ ~ ˁ˧ˢ. taΠtak ‘id’; saXE saΠej ‘༤˘˴˥’, ‘˅˘ˊ’ ~ ˆ˧˫˖. saΠej ‘id’ (˨ˢ. Gippert et al. 2009: II–11). ɹ˨༤˘ ˅ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˢ ˫˅˫༤̀˧ˣˁ̀ ˱˥ˣˋˢˁ Ο ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˁ༤ˁ˨˼ ˖ˣˁ˜˥ˢ x, ˪˥ ˦˥˵ˋˢ˫ Ο ˅ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣˣ˻˲ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˲ ˦ˋ˧ˋˊˁˋ˪˨̀ ˣˋ ˽˪˥˙ ˆ˧ˁ˱ˋˢ˥˙, ˁ ˖ˣˁ˜˥ˢ X, ˜˥˪˥˧˻˙, ˦˥ ˢˣˋˣ˘˿ ʄ. ɴ˘˦˦ˋ˧˪ˁ ˘ ɳ. ʣ˫༤˼˴ˋ, ̀˅༤̀༤˨̀ ˣˋ ˫˅˫༤̀˧ˣ˥˙, ˁ ˅ˋ༤̀˧ˣ˥˙ ˱˧˘˜ˁ˪˘˅ˣ˥˙? ʁˣˁ˜ x ːˋ, ˜ˁ˜ ˦˧ˁ˅˘༤˥, ˅ ˫ˊ˘ˣ˨˜˥ˢ ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅˫ˋ˪ ˫˅˫༤̀˧ˣ˥ˢ˫ ˨ˢ˻˵ˣ˥ˢ˫ q, ˣˁ˦˧., xo qo ‘˦̀˪˼’ ~ ˫ˊ. qo ‘id’; xAwA~r quหoห~r ‘ˣˋ˜˥˪˥˧˻ˋ (༤˿ˊ˘)’, ‘˪ˋ’, ‘ˊ˧˫ˆ˘ˋ’ ~ ˫ˊ. qหi ‘(ˊ˧˫ˆˁ̀) ˦˥༤˥˅˘ˣˁ’; mAwxen muหqen ‘˦˧ˁ˖ˊˣ˘˜’ ~ ˫ˊ. muqห ‘˧ˁˊ˥˨˪ˣ˻˙’, ‘˨˵ˁ˨˪༤˘˅˻˙’; Awx uหq ‘˸ˋ˨˪˼’ ~ ˫ˊ. uqห ‘id’. ʎˋ˥˄˲˥ˊ˘ˢ˥ ˥˪ˢˋ˪˘˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˖ˣˁ˜˫ x ˅ ˫ˊ˘ˣ˨˜˥ˢ ˘ˣ˥ˆˊˁ ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅˫ˋ˪ Ο ˘ ΍; ˣˁ˦˧., ax”iba[y] // axsiba[y] a(q)‫ڄ‬iba[j]ɍ//ɏa(q)siba[j] ‘ʑˁ˨˲ˁ’ ~ ˫ˊ. aΠ‫ڄ‬ima//aΠsibaj < ˆ˧˫˖. aΎvsebaj; baxesown ba(q)esun ‘ˣˁ˲˥ˊ˘˪˼’ ~ ˫ˊ. baΎหaesun ‘˄˻˪˼ ˣˁ˙ˊˋˣˣ˻ˢ’... ʑ˥ ˅˨ˋ˙ ˅˘ˊ˘ˢ˥˨˪˘, ˣˋ˥˄˲˥ˊ˘ˢ˥ ˧ˁ˖ˊˋ༤˘˪˼ ˢˣˋˣ˘ˋ ɯ. ʓ. ʇˁ˨˼̀ˣˁ, ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˥ ˜˥˪˥˧˥ˢ˫, ˱˥ˣˋˢˁ q ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ ˧ˋˁ༤˘˖˥˅˻˅ˁ༤ˁ˨˼ ˜ˁ˜ ˁ˱˱˧˘˜ˁ˪ˁ qΟ (Kassian 2011–2012). ʕˁ˜ˁ̀ ˁ˱˱˧˘˜ˁ˪ˣˁ̀ ˧ˋˁ༤˘˖ˁ˴˘̀ q ˲ˁ˧ˁ˜˪ˋ˧ˣˁ ˊ༤̀ ̀˖˻˜˥˅ ɸˁˆˋ˨˪ˁˣˁ ˜ˁ˜ ˨ ˪˥˵˜˘ ˖˧ˋˣ˘̀ ˨˘ˣ˲˧˥ˣ˘˘, ˪ˁ˜ ˘ ˊ˘ˁ˲˧˥ˣ˘˘. ɯ˱˱˧˘˜ˁ˪ˣ˻ˢ ˦˧˥˘˖ˣ˥˸ˋˣ˘ˋˢ ˥˄˺̀˨ˣ̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˅˖ˁ˘ˢ˥˖ˁˢˋˣ̀ˋˢ˥˨˪˼ ˢˋːˊ˫ ̘ɏ24 q ˘ ̘ɏ17 Π ˅ ˣˋ˜˥˪˥˧˻˲ ˱˘˜˨ˁ˴˘̀˲ (˦ˁ˧ˁ༤༤ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˋ ˫˦˥˪˧ˋ˄༤ˋˣ˘ˋ ˆ˧ˁ˱ˋˢ x ˘ X ˅ ˁ˱˱˘˜˨ˁ˲ ˊˁ˪˘˅ˁ III ˘ ˢˣ˥ːˋ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˵˘˨༤ˁ, ˨ˢ. Gippert et al. 2009: II-10–11). ʓ˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥, ˢ˥ːˣ˥ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤˥ː˘˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˘ ̘ɏɎ30 ³ ˄˻༤ ˧ˋˁ༤˘˖˥˅ˁˣ ˜ˁ˜ ˁ˱˱˧˘˜ˁ˪ˁ ࢟Ο. 128

ʇ ˫˪˥˵ˣˋˣ˘˿ ˱˥ˣ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢ˻ ̀˖˻˜ˁ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˘˲ ˦ˁ༤˘ˢ˦˨ˋ˨˪˥˅

ʓ˦˘˧ˁˣ˪˻ ˅ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˋ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˻ ˦ˁ˧ˣ˥˙ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢ˥˙. ʜ˥ˣˋˢˣ˻ˋ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘̀ ˅˨ˋ˲ ˨˦˘˧ˁˣ˪˥˅ ˢ˥ːˣ˥ ˨˵˘˪ˁ˪˼ ˪˥˵ˣ˥ ˫˨˪ˁˣ˥˅༤ˋˣˣ˻ˢ˘: ̘ɏɎ44 v (v), ̘ɏɎ37 f (f); ̘ɏɎ6 z (z), ̘ɏɎ43 s (s); ̘ɏɎ8 Y (ž), ̘ɏɎ33 š (š); ̘ɏɎ12 Ç (ž๎), ̘ɏɎ46 º (š๎); ̘ɏɎ17 X (Ο), ̘ɏɎ41 ž (΍). ʌˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˼ˣ˻˙ ˧̀ˊ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ ༤˘˸˼ ˥ˊˣ˘ˢ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻ˢ: ̘ɏɎ23 h (h). ʓ˥ˣ˥˧ˣ˻ˋ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻ˋ: ̘ɏɎ29 m (m); ̘ɏɎ31 n (n); ̘ɏɎ15 l (l); ̘ɏɎ42 r (r); ̘ɏɎ50 w (w), ˲˥˪̀ ˦˥˨༤ˋˊˣ˘˙ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˙, ˅˘ˊ˘ˢ˥, ˣˋ ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˱˥ˣˋˢ˥˙ ˘, ˖ˁ ˧ˋˊ˜˘ˢ˘ ˘˨˜༤˿˵ˋˣ˘̀ˢ˘, ˅˨˪˧ˋ˵ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˅ ˊ˘ˆ˧ˁ˱ˁ˲, ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˁ˿˹˘˲ ˱˥ˣˋˢ˫ u ˘ ˋˋ ˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˘˖˥˅ˁˣˣ˫˿ ˧ˁ˖ˣ˥˅˘ˊˣ˥˨˪˼. ʐ˨˪ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˅˥˦˧˥˨ ˊ˅˫˲ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˲, ˽˪˥ ̘ɏɎ18 M ˘ ̘ɏɎ22 L. ʑ˥ ˢˣˋˣ˘˿ ʄ.ɍɴ˘˦˦ˋ˧˪ˁ ˘ ɳ.ɍʣ˫༤˼˴ˋ, ˖ˊˋ˨˼ ˢ˻ ˘ˢˋˋˢ ˦ˁ༤ˁ˪ˁ༤˘˖˥˅ˁˣˣ˻ˋ ˨˥ˣ˥˧˻ n˜ ˘ l˜. ʍ˻ ˣˋ ˢ˥ːˋˢ ˦˧˘˅ˋ˨˪˘ ˁ˧ˆ˫ˢˋˣ˪˥˅, ˦˧˥˪˘˅˥˧ˋ˵ˁ˹˘˲ ˊˁˣˣ˥ˢ˫ ˢˣˋˣ˘˿ ˦˥ ˦˥˅˥ˊ˫ ˦ˋ˧˅˥˙ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˥˙. ɳ˥˖ˣ˘˜ˁ˿˪ ˨˥ˢˣˋˣ˘̀ ˅ ˦˧ˁ˅˘༤˼ˣ˥˨˪˘ ˦˧ˋˊ༤˥ːˋˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘̀ ˅˪˥˧˥ˆ˥ ˖ˣˁ˜ˁ (̘ɏɎ22 L). ʨ˪˥˙ ˄˫˜˅ˋ ˣˁ ˥˄˹ˋ༤ˋ˖ˆ˘ˣ˨˜˥ˢ ˫˧˥˅ˣˋ, ˜ˁ˜ ˢ˥ːˣ˥ ˫˪˅ˋ˧ːˊˁ˪˼ ˣˁ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˁˣ˘˘ ˦˥˜ˁ˖ˁˣ˘˙ ˋˊ˘ˣ˘˵ˣ˻˲ ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧˥˅, ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅˫˿˪ ˱˥ˣˋˢ˻ *r (˅ ˫ˊ˘ˣ˨˜˥ˢ j) ˘ *l, ˘ˣ˥ˆˊˁ ˦˧˥˘˨˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘ˋ ˽˪˥ˆ˥ ˖ˣˁ˜ˁ ˣˋ̀˨ˣ˥, ˁ ˅ ˣˋ˨˜˥༤˼˜˘˲ ˨༤˫˵ˁ̀˲, ˋˢ˫ ˅ ˧˥ˊ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˻˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲ ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅˫˿˪ ˸˫ˢˣ˻ˋ ༤ˁ˪ˋ˧ˁ༤˼ˣ˻ˋ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻ˋ, ˨˧.: La³ l˜aࠩ : ˫ˊ. jaqࢯ ‘ˊ˥˧˥ˆˁ’ ~ ༤ˋ˖ˆ. req, reࠩห, ˣ˿˪˿ˆ. raหqห, ˢˣ. reࠩer, ˲༤˿˪. raࠩห : ˪ˁ˄. raq:ห, ˊ˿˄ˋ˜. raq:หa : ˁˆ., ˄˫˧˹., ˪˦˘ˆ. raq:ห, ˄˫˧˜. req: : ˧˫˪. raqห, rƕq:หƕ- : ˴ˁ˲. jaqห, jaq:หƕn : ˁ˧˵. deࠩห, ༤˥˜. deࠩ:หu < ˥˄.-༤ˋ˖ˆ. *räࠩ:ห. ɸ˧. ˊˁˆ.: ˊˁ˧ˆ. daหࠩ ‘˪˧˥˦˘ˣ˜ˁ’ ˘ ˊ˧. (Nikolayev, Starostin 1994: 604; Dumézil 1933: 20; ʍ˫˧˜ˋ༤˘ˣ˨˜˘˙ 1971: 142; ɴ˘ˆ˘ˣˋ˙˸˅˘༤˘ 1977: 109; ʕˁ༤˘˄˥˅ 1980: 264). iL(ow) il˜(u) ‘˨༤˥˅˥’, ‘ˆ˥༤˥˨’, ‘˧ˋ˵˼’ ~ ༤ˋ˖ˆ., ˪ˁ˄., ˁˆ. ‫پ‬al : ˧˫˪., ˜˧˻˖., ˄˫ˊ. ‫پ‬el : ˁ˧˵. ‫پ‬at. ˘: biLa bil˜a (˥˨ˣ˥˅ˁ ˣˁ˨˪. ˅˧.) : ˫ˊ. bije-sun ‘˫ˢ˘˧ˁ˪˼, ˫˄˘˅ˁ˪˼’ ~ ༤ˋ˖ˆ. reࠩiz, ࠩena, ˦˥˅. jiࠩ : ˪ˁ˄. ji-ø-‫ݧ‬uz : ˁ˧˵. ‫ݧ‬is, ‫ݧ‬ar : ˁˆ. ‫ݧ‬as, ˄˫˧˹. ‫ݧ‬is : ˧˫˪. w-iࠩes, ˢˣ. dƕ-ࠩƕrࠩas : ˴ˁ˲. qe‫ݧ‬es : ˜˧˻˖. ࠩä-ji़, ˊ˫˧. rƕࠩäri, ˦˥˅. säࠩ : ˄˫ˊ. sarࠩar, saࠩa़i < ˥˄.-༤ˋ˖ˆ. *’iࡖ‘e. ɸ˧. ˊˁˆ.: ˁ˲˅. iࡖ‘u-ruŨa ˘ ˊ˧. (Nikolayev, Starostin 1994: 662; ɲ˥˜ˁ˧ˋ˅ 1961: 63; ɴ˘ˆ˘ˣˋ˙˸˅˘༤˘ 1977: 103); l˜am ‘˦༤ˁ˹’ ~ ˁˣˊ. anl‘:i : ˁ˲˅. anl‘i : ˴ˋ˖. miࡖ‘i : ˪˘ˣˊ. anl‘i; hil˜ ‘༤˿˄˥˙’, ‘˜ˁ˜˥˙-˪˥’ ~ ˁ˧˵. heࡖ‘ana. ʎˋ ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˁ༤ ༤˘ ˖ˣˁ˜ L ˜ˁ˜˥˙-˪˥ ˘˖ ˸˫ˢˣ˻˲ ༤ˁ˪ˋ˧ˁ༤˼ˣ˻˲ ˖˅˫˜˥˅? 2.3. ʗʸ˛ˌ˗ʼʸໞˌˊʸ˨ˌ˴. ɲˋ˨˨˦˥˧ˣ˥, ˵˪˥ ˅ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˋ ˢ˻ ˘ˢˋˋˢ ˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˘˖˥˅ˁˣˣ˻ˋ ˖˅˫˜˘. ʎˁ༤˘˵˘ˋ ˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˘˖˥˅ˁˣˣ˻˲ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˲ ˅ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˋ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤ˁˆˁ༤ ˋ˹ˋ ɯ˜. ʣˁˣ˘ˊ˖ˋ (1938). ʨ˪˥ ˢˣˋˣ˘ˋ ˧ˁ˖ˊˋ༤̀༤˘ ˘ ˣˁ ˢˁ˪ˋ˧˘ˁ༤ˋ ˢ˘ˣˆˋ˵ˁ˫˧˨˜˘˲ ˣˁˊ˦˘˨ˋ˙ ˦˻˪ˁ༤˘˨˼ ˥˄˥˨ˣ˥˅ˁ˪˼ ɴ. ɯ. ʇ༤˘ˢ˥˅ (1984, 1990) ˘ ʓ. ʎ. ʍ˫˧ˁ˅˼ˋ˅ (1981). ʓ˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˥ ːˋ ˢˣˋˣ˘˿ ˁ˅˪˥˧˥˅ II ˨ˋ˜˴˘˘ «ʇˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˘˲ ˦ˁ༤˘ˢ˦˨ˋ˨˪˥˅...» (ʄ.ɍɴ˘˦˦ˋ˧˪ ˘ ɳ.ɍʣ˫༤˼˴ˋ) ˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˘˖ˁ˴˘̀ ˅ ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˋ ˥˄˫˨༤˥˅༤ˋˣˁ ˣˁ༤˘˵˘ˋˢ ˨˦ˋ˴˘˱˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˼ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˥ˆ˥, ˅˻˧ˁːˋˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˅ ˁ༤˱ˁ˅˘˪ˋ ˥˨˥˄˥˙ ˄˫˜˅˥˙ ß (Gippert et al. 2009: II–12). ʎˋ˥˄˲˥ˊ˘ˢ˥ ˥˪ˢˋ˪˘˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˋ˨༤˘ ˦˧˘ˣ̀˪˼ ˦˥˨༤ˋˊˣˋˋ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤˥ːˋˣ˘ˋ, ˪˥ ˢ˻ ˅ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˢ ˦˥༤˫˵ˁˋˢ ˜˥ˢ˦༤ˋ˜˨˻ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˲ ˨ ˫˵ˁ˨˪˘ˋˢ ˆ˧ˁ˱ˋˢ˻ } ˅ ˁ˄˨˥༤˿˪ˣ˥ˢ ˁˣ༤ˁ˫˪ˋ, ˣˁ˦˧., §ßaban (‫[ݧ‬Ի]aban) ‘˦˫˨˪˻ˣ̀’, ˨˧. ˫ˊ. qࢯหavan ‘˦˥༤ˋ’; bßež (b[Ի]eΎ) ‘˨˥༤ˣ˴ˋ’, ˨˧. ˫ˊ. beΎห ‘id’; ±ßa (ࠢ[Ի]a) ‘ˊ˅ˁ’, ˨˧. ˫ˊ. pࢯaห ‘id’; vßan (v[Ի]an) ‘˅˻’, ˨˧. ˫ˊ. vaหn ‘id’. ʨ˪˥ ˣˋ˨˅˥˙˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥ ˊ༤̀ ༤ˋ˖ˆ˘ˣ˨˜˘˲ ˘ ˊ˧˫ˆ˘˲ ˊˁˆˋ˨˪ˁˣ˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅ ˜ˁ˜ ˨ ˪˥˵˜˘ ˖˧ˋˣ˘̀ ˨˘ˣ˲˧˥ˣ˘˘, ˪ˁ˜ ˘ ˊ˘ˁ˲˧˥ˣ˘˘. ʑ˥ˢ˘ˢ˥ ˽˪˥ˆ˥, ˢ˥ːˣ˥ ˥˪ˢˋ˪˘˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˘ ˅ ˨ˁˢ˥ˢ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˋ ˣˋ ˅˨˪˧ˋ˵ˁ˿˪˨̀ ˜˥ˢ˦༤ˋ˜˨˻ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˲ ˅ ˁ˄˨˥༤˿˪ˣ˥ˢ ˁˣ༤ˁ˫˪ˋ. ʑ˧˘˅ˋˊˋˣˣ˻ˋ ˅˻˸ˋ ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧˻ ˦˥˜ˁ˖˻˅ˁ˿˪, ˵˪˥ ˅ ˁˣˁ༤˥ˆ˘˵ˣ˻˲ ༤ˋ˜˨ˋˢˁ˲ ˫ˊ˘ˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ ˜˥ˢ˦༤ˋ˜˨˫, ˨˥˨˪˥̀˹ˋˢ˫ ˘˖ ˆ˧ˁ˱ˋˢ˻ } + ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˙, ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅˫ˋ˪ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˙ ˖˅˫˜, ˣˁ ˜˥˪˥˧˻˙ ˦˧˘˲˥ˊ˘˪˨̀ ˢˁ˜˨˘ˢ˫ˢ ˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˘˖ˁ˴˘˘ ˅ ˨༤˥˅ˋ ˘༤˘ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˙, ˣˁ˲˥ˊ̀˹˘˙˨̀ ˦˥ ˨˥˨ˋˊ˨˪˅˫ ˨ ˢˁ˜˨˘ˢ˫ˢ˥ˢ ˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˘˖ˁ˴˘˘. ʨ˪˥ ˊˁˋ˪ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˁˣ˘ˋ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤˥ː˘˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˖ˣˁ˜ } 129

ʒ˥ˢˁˣ ʌ˥༤˫ˁ

˨˥ˣ˥˧ˣ˻ˋ

˨ˢ˻˵ˣ˻ˋ ˨ˢ˻˵ˣ˥˅˖˧˻˅ˣ˻ˋ

ˣˋ˦ˁ༤ˁ˪ˁ༤˘˖˥˅.

˦ˁ༤ˁ˪ˁ༤˘˖˥˅ˁˣ.

n˜

r

l

*l˜

d

t֣

t๏

dz

ts

ts๏

*ts๏๛

z

s

n

n֥

r

l

*l֥

৉

ő

‫ې‬

*‫ې‬:

ž

š

dƕ

tഉ

tഉ๏

*tഉ๏๛

ƕ

ഉ

ˣˋ˦ˁ༤ˁ˪ˁ༤˘˖˥˅ˁˣ. n

ˆ༤˫˲˘ˋ s

˖˅˥ˣ˜˘ˋ z

˘ˣ˪ˋˣ˨˘˅ˣ˻ˋ ˁ˄˧˫˦˪˘˅˻ *ۖ:

˦˧˘ˊ˻˲ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻ˋ

ۖ

˖˅˥ˣ˜˘ˋ

c

ˁ˄˧˫˦˪˘˅˻

ƕ

˦˧˘ˊ˻˲ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻ˋ

࣢

˖˅˥ˣ˜˘ˋ

t

b

p

ࢨ

m

b

p֣

p๏

m

ˊˋˣ˪˥༤ˁ˄˘ˁ༤˼ˣ˻ˋ ˦ˋ˧ˋˊˣˋ̀˖˻˵ˣ˻ˋ

˄˥˜˥˅˻ˋ

d

༤˥˜ˁ༤˼ˣ˻˙ ˧̀ˊ

ˁ༤˼˅ˋ˥༤̀˧ˣ˻ˋ

ˣˋˣˁ˖ˁ༤˼ˣ˻ˋ

˅˘˄˧ˁˣ˪˻

ˆ༤˫˲˘ˋ

ˣˁ˖ˁ༤˼ˣ˻ˋ ˦ˁ༤ˁ˪ˁ༤˘˖˥˅ˁˣˣ˻ˋ

ˆ༤˫˲˘ˋ

˄˘༤ˁ˄˘ˁ༤˼ˣ˻ˋ

˨˦˘˧ˁˣ˪˻

ˁ˱˱˧˘˜ˁ˪˻

ˁ˄˧˫˦˪˘˅˻

˨ˋ˧˘̀

˦ˁ༤ˁ˪˥-ˁ༤˼˅ˋ˥༤̀˧ˣ˻ˋ ˦ˁ༤ˁ˪˥-ˁ༤˼˅ˋ˥༤̀˧ˣ˻ˋ (˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˘˖˥˅ˁˣˣ˻ˋ)

v

f

v

f

৉ຐ

őຐ

‫ې‬ຐ

žຐ

šຐ

dƕຐ

tഉຐ

tഉ๏ຐ

ƕຐ

ഉຐ

ˁ˦˦˧˥˜˨˘ˢˁˣ˪˻

˸˫ˢˣ˻ˋ

˨˥ˣˁˣ˪˻

ʐʸʺ˕ˌ˨ʸ ̈ɍ4. ʓ˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻ˋ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ

j

ˊ˥˧˨ˁ༤˼ˣ˻ˋ

˦ˁ༤ˁ˪ˁ༤˼ˣ˻ˋ ˅ˋ༤̀˧ˣ˻ˋ ˫˅˫༤̀˧ˣ˻ˋ ༤ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˼ˣ˻ˋ

j g

k

ߞ

g

k֣

k๏ q

ࢱ

Ξ

ΰ

qΰ

q๏ΰ

֚

ΰ h h

ʑ˧˘ˢˋ˵ˁˣ˘ˋ: ˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˘˖˥˅ˁˣˣ˻ˋ ˦ˁ༤ˁ˪˥-ˁ༤˼˅ˋ˥༤̀˧ˣ˻ˋ, ˦˥ ˣˁ˸ˋˢ˫ ˢˣˋˣ˘˿, ˣˋ ̀˅༤̀˿˪˨̀ ˱˥ˣˋˢˁˢ˘.

˅ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˢ ༤˘˸˼ ˫˜ˁ˖˻˅ˁ༤ ˣˁ ˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˘˖ˁ˴˘˿, ˁ ˣˋ ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˁ༤ ˜˥ˣ˜˧ˋ˪ˣ˻˙ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˙. ʁˣˁ˜ ß ˦˥˖˘˴˘˥ˣˣ˥ ˥ˆ˧ˁˣ˘˵ˋˣ — ˥ˣ, ˜ˁ˜ ˦˧ˁ˅˘༤˥, ˅˨˪˧ˋ˵ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˦ˋ˧ˋˊ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻ˢ˘ a, e ˘ i, ˧ˋˊ˜˥ — ˦ˋ˧ˋˊ o ˘ u, ˁ ˦ˋ˧ˋˊ o๎ ˘ u๎ (˦˥ ˢˣˋˣ˘˿ ʄ. ɴ˘˦˦ˋ˧˪ˁ ˘ ɳ. ʣ˫༤˼˴ˋ, Ș a° ˘ ü) ˣˋ ˅˨˪˧ˋ˵ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˅˥˅˨ˋ, ˵˪˥ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˪˧˫ˊˣ˥ ˥˄˺̀˨ˣ˘˪˼, ˋ˨༤˘ ˨˵˘˪ˁ˪˼ ˽˪˥˪ ˖ˣˁ˜ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻ˢ. ʓ ˆ˧ˁ˱˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˪˥˵˜˘ ˖˧ˋˣ˘̀ ˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˘˖ˁ˴˘̀ ˅ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˢ ˁ༤˱ˁ˅˘˪ˋ ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˪˧ˋˢ̀ ˨˦˥˨˥˄ˁˢ˘, ˽˪˥: ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˲ ˖˅˫˜˥˅ «˦˧˥˨˪˻ˢ˘» ˆ˧ˁ˱˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˢ˘ ˨˘ˢ˅˥༤ˁˢ˘; ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˲ ˖˅˫˜˥˅ ˆ˧ˁ˱˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˢ˘ ˜˥ˢ˦༤ˋ˜˨ˁˢ˘ ß + ˆ˧ˁ˱ˋˢˁ, ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˁ˿˹ˁ̀ ˣˋ˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˘˖˥˅ˁˣˣ˻˙ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˙; ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ˸˘˦̀˹˘˲ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˲ «˦˧˥˨˪˻ˢ˘» ˆ˧ˁ˱˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˢ˘ ˨˘ˢ˅˥༤ˁˢ˘. ʜˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˘˖˥˅ˁˣˣ˻ˋ o๎ ˘ u๎ ˅ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˢ ˁ༤˱ˁ˅˘˪ˋ ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˻ «˦˧˥˨˪˻ˢ˘» ˨˘ˢ˅˥༤ˁˢ˘ A ˘ Aw. ɸ˘ˆ˧ˁ˱ Aw ˅ ˊˁˣˣ˥ˢ ˜˥ˣ˪ˋ˜˨˪ˋ ˨༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪ ˨˵˘˪ˁ˪˼ ˦˧˥˨˪˻ˢ ˨˘ˢ˅˥༤˥ˢ, ˪. ˜. ˣˋ˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˘˖˥˅ˁˣˣ˻˙ ˅ˁ˧˘ˁˣ˪ ˖˅˫˜ˁ u ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˅˻˧ˁːˋˣ ˊ˘ˆ˧ˁ˱˥ˢ (ow). ʨ˪˥˪ ˆ˧ˁ˱˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˙ ˜˥ˢ˦༤ˋ˜˨, ˅ ˨˅˥˿ ˥˵ˋ˧ˋˊ˼ ˅˥˨˲˥ˊ˘˪ ˜ ˆ˧ˋ˵ˋ˨˜˥ˢ˫ ˊ˘ˆ˧ˁ˱˫ ΘΝ, ˜˥˪˥˧˻˙ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˁ༤ ˖˅˫˜ u, ˨˧. ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˆ˧˫˖. u ˘ ˁ˧ˢ. ೾ೱ; 130

ʇ ˫˪˥˵ˣˋˣ˘˿ ˱˥ˣ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢ˻ ̀˖˻˜ˁ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˘˲ ˦ˁ༤˘ˢ˦˨ˋ˨˪˥˅

ʜˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˘˖˥˅ˁˣˣ˻ˋ ˅ˁ˧˘ˁˣ˪˻ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˲ a, e ˘ i ˅˻˧ˁːˋˣ˻ ˆ˧ˁ˱˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˢ˘ ˜˥ˢ˦༤ˋ˜˨ˁˢ˘: ßa (aຐ), ße (eຐ), ßi (iຐ); ʜˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˘˖˥˅ˁˣˣ˻ˋ ˅ˁ˧˘ˁˣ˪˻ ˸˘˦̀˹˘˲ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˲ ˅˻˧ˁːˋˣ˻ ˨༤ˋˊ˫˿˹˘ˢ˘ ˖ˣˁ˜ˁˢ˘: Ç (žບ), º (šບ), B (৉ບ), Q (őບ), — (‫ې‬ບ). ʕˁ˜˘ˢ ˥˄˧ˁ˖˥ˢ, ˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˘˖˥˅ˁˣˣ˻ˋ ˖˅˫˜˘ ˅ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˋ ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˁ˿˪˨̀ ˨༤ˋˊ˫˿˹˘ˢ˘ ˆ˧ˁ˱ˋˢˁˢ˘: ʐʸʺ˕ˌ˨ʸ ̈ɍ5. ɴ˧ˁ˱ˋˢ˻ ˘ ˊ˘ˆ˧ˁ˱˻, ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˁ˿˹˘ˋ ˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˘˖˥˅ˁˣˣ˻ˋ ˖˅˫˜˘ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻ˋ

}a aຐ

ße eຐ

ßi iຐ

A oຐ

Aw uຐ

˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻ˋ

Ç žຐ

º šຐ

B ৉ຐ

Q őຐ

— ‫ې‬ຐ

ʐ˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˲ ˘ ˨˘˄˘༤̀ˣ˪˥˅ ˊ˅˫ˢ̀ ˆ˧ˁ˱ˋˢˁˢ˘, ˦˥ ˣˁ˸ˋˢ˫ ˢˣˋˣ˘˿, ˥˄˺̀˨ˣ̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˪ˋˢ, ˵˪˥ ˦˧˥˴ˋ˨˨ ˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˘˖ˁ˴˘˘ ˅ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˋ ˨˥˖ˊˁ˪ˋ༤ˋˢ ˘༤˘ ˨˥˖ˊˁ˪ˋ༤̀ˢ˘ ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˁ༤˱ˁ˅˘˪ˁ ˅ ˥ˊˣ˥ˢ ˨༤˫˵ˁˋ ˄˻༤ ˅˥˨˦˧˘ˣ̀˪ ˜ˁ˜ ˦˧˘˖ˣˁ˜ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˥ˆ˥, ˁ ˅ ˊ˧˫ˆ˥ˢ — ˜ˁ˜ ˦˧˘˖ˣˁ˜ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˥ˆ˥ (˸˘˦̀˹ˋˆ˥ ˨˘˄˘༤̀ˣ˪ˁ). ʇˁ˜ ˄˻༤˥ ˥˪ˢˋ˵ˋˣ˥, ˅ ˫ˊ˘ˣ˨˜˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˋ ˅ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˲, ˅ ˜˥˪˥˧˻˲ ˣˋ˪ ˸˘˦̀˹˘˲ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˲, ˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˘˖ˁ˴˘̀ ˘ˢˋˋ˪ ˦ˁ༤ˁ˪ˁ༤˼ˣ˻˙ ˪ˋˢ˄˧, ˁ ˅ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˲ ˨ ˸˘˦̀˹˘ˢ˘ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻ˢ˘ Ș ˅ˋ༤̀˧ˣ˻˙ (ʇ˘˄˧˘˜, ʇ˥ˊ˖ˁ˨˥˅ 1990: 347). ɳ˘ˊ˘ˢ˥, ˪ˁ˜˥ˋ ːˋ ˦˥༤˥ːˋˣ˘ˋ ˄˻༤˥ ˅ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˋ. ʜˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˘˖ˁ˴˘̀ ˅ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˋ, ˜ˁ˜ ˘ ˅ ˫ˊ˘ˣ˨˜˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˋ, ˦˥ ˅˨ˋ˙ ˅˘ˊ˘ˢ˥˨˪˘, ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˨˅˥˙˨˪˅˥ˢ ˦˧˥˨˥ˊ˘˘, ˥ ˵ˋˢ ˨˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅˫˿˪ ˦ˁ˧ˁ༤༤ˋ༤˼ˣ˻ˋ ˱˥˧ˢ˻ ˣˁ˦˘˨ˁˣ˘̀ ˨ ˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˘˖˥˅ˁˣˣ˻ˢ˘ ˘ ˣˋ˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˘˖˥˅ˁˣˣ˻ˢ˘ ˆ˧ˁ˱˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˢ˘ ˅ˁ˧˘ˁˣ˪ˁˢ˘, ˣˁ˦˧., ˅ ˨˫˱˱˘˜˨ˁ˲ (ˢˣ. ˵˘˨༤ˁ, ˆˋˣ˘˪˘˅ˁ ˘ ˊ˧.), ˅˨˦˥ˢ˥ˆˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˢ ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤ˋ bu ‘˄˻˪˼’, ‘˘ˢˋ˪˼’ ˘ ˪. ˊ. ʐ˵ˋ˅˘ˊˣ˥, ˵˪˥ ˘ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣˣ˻ˋ ˨˫˱˱˘˜˨˻, ˘ ˅˨˦˥ˢ˥ˆˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻˙ ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤ ̀˅༤̀˿˪˨̀ ˨˘༤˼ˣ˥ ˆ˧ˁˢˢˁ˪˘˜ˁ༤˘˖˥˅ˁˣˣ˻ˢ˘ ˋˊ˘ˣ˘˴ˁˢ˘, ˊ༤̀ ˜˥˪˥˧˻˲ ˋ˨˪ˋ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥ ˥ː˘ˊˁ˪˼ ˢ˥˧˱˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˫˿ ˨˅̀˖ˁˣˣ˥˨˪˼; ˊ˧˫ˆ˘ˢ˘ ˨༤˥˅ˁˢ˘, ˽˪˥ ˜ˁ˜ ˧ˁ˖ ˪ˋ ˋˊ˘ˣ˘˴˻, ˥˪ ˜˥˪˥˧˻˲ ˢ˥ːˣ˥ ˥ː˘ˊˁ˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˘˲ ˱˥˧ˢ˫ ˄˫ˊ˫˪ ˥˦˧ˋˊˋ༤̀˪˼ ˊ˧˫ˆ˘ˋ ˋˊ˘ˣ˘˴˻ (˥˨ˣ˥˅˻). 3. ɼʸːໞ˳˩ˀ˗ˌˀ. ʎˁ ˊˁˣˣ˥ˢ ˽˪ˁ˦ˋ ˘˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁˣ˘̀ ˨ ˦˥༤ˣ˥˙ ˫˅ˋ˧ˋˣˣ˥˨˪˼˿ ˢ˥ːˣ˥ ˥˦˧ˋˊˋ༤˘˪˼ ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˋ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘̀ 31 ˄˫˜˅˻ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˁ༤˱ˁ˅˘˪ˁ 10, ˽˪˥: ̘ɏɎ1 a (a); ̘ɏɎ2 b (b); ̘ɏɎ3 g (g); ̘ɏɎ4 d (d); ̘ɏɎ5 e (e); ̘ɏɎ6 z (z); ̘ɏɎ8 Y (ž); ̘ɏɎ9 t (t); ̘ɏɎ11 y (j); ̘ɏɎ13 i (i); ̘ɏɎ15 l (l); ̘ɏɎ21 § (޶); ̘ɏɎ23 h (h); ̘ɏɎ27 Ö (‫̘ ;)ڪ‬ɏɎ29 m (m); ̘ɏɎ30 ³ (࢟); ̘ɏɎ31 n (n); ̘ɏɎ33 š (š); ̘ɏɎ35 o (o); ̘ɏɎ37 f (f); ̘ɏɎ39 – (Ő); ̘ɏɎ40 ± (࢖); ̘ɏɎ41 ž (΍); ̘ɏɎ42 r (r); ̘ɏɎ43 s (s); ̘ɏɎ44 v (v); ̘ɏɎ45 » (ࣚ); ̘ɏɎ49 c (c); ̘ɏɎ50 w (w); ̘ɏɎ51 p (p); ̘ɏɎ52 k (k). ʁ˅˫˜ u ˘ ˋˆ˥ ˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˘˖˥˅ˁˣˣ˻˙ ˅ˁ˧˘ˁˣ˪ (u๎) ˦ˋ˧ˋˊˁ˅ˁ༤˨̀ ˊ˘ˆ˧ˁ˱ˁˢ˘: ow (̘ɏɎ35 + ̘ɏɎ50); Aw (̘ɏɎ47 + ̘ɏɎ50). ʑ˥ ˣˁ˸ˋˢ˫ ˢˣˋˣ˘˿, ˫˨˪ˁˣ˥˅༤ˋˣˣ˻ˢ ˢ˥ːˣ˥ ˨˵˘˪ˁ˪˼ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˨༤ˋˊ˫˿˹˘ˋ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘̀: ̘ɏɎ17 X (Ο); ̘ɏɎ47 A (o๎). ɸ˥˨˪˥˅ˋ˧ˣ˥, ˵˪˥ ̘ɏɎ18 D ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˁ༤ ˖˅˫˜ ৄ, ˁ ̘ɏɎ38 Ô — Ɣ. ʑ˧ˋˊ˦˥༤˥ː˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥, ̘ɏɎ19 ” ˘ ̘ɏɎ48 È ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˁ༤˘ ˧ˁ˖ˣ˥˅˘ˊˣ˥˨˪˘ ˖˅˫˜ˁ ‫ڰ‬. ʇˁ˜ ˢ˻ ˦˥༤ˁˆˁˋˢ, ̘ɏɎ19 ˄˻༤ ˣˋ˘ˣ˪ˋˣ˨˘˅ˣ˻ˢ ˁ˄˧˫˦˪˘˅˥ˢ ‫ڰ‬, ˁ ̘ɏɎ48 — ˘ˣ˪ˋˣ˨˘˅ˣ˻ˢ ‫ڰ‬:. ʇ ˽˪˥ˢ˫ ˨˦˘˨˜˫ ˢ˥ːˣ˥ ˊ˥˄ˁ˅˘˪˼ ˧̀ˊ ˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˘˖˥˅ˁˣˣ˻˲ ˅ˁ˧˘ˁˣ˪˥˅ ˸˘˦̀˹˘˲ ˨˘˄˘༤̀ˣ˪˥˅: ̘ɏɎ10 V (‫̘ ;)๎ڪ‬ɏɎ12 Ç (ž๎); ̘ɏɎ20 B (৉ຐ); ̘ɏɎ26 Q (Ő๎); ̘ɏɎ46 º (š๎). 10 ʓˁˢ˘ ˁ˅˪˥˧˻ «ɯ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˘˲ ˦ˁ༤˘ˢ˦˨ˋ˨˪˥˅» ˥˦˧ˋˊˋ༤ˋˣˣ˻ˢ˘ ˨˵˘˪ˁ˿˪ ˱˥ˣˋˢˣ˻ˋ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘̀ 29 ˄˫˜˅ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˁ༤˱ˁ˅˘˪ˁ. ʃ˲ ˨˦˘˨˥˜ (̘ɏɎ1–7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 21, 23, 29–31, 33, 35, 37, 40–46, 50–52) ˨ˢ. ˅ Gippert et al. 2009: II-6–10. ʓ˧. ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˨ ˢˣˋˣ˘ˋˢ ʕ. ʍˁ˙˨ˁ˜ˁ (2010: 97): «ʃ˖ 52 ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˘˲ ˄˫˜˅ ˄ˋ˨˨˦˥˧ˣ˥ ˢ˥ˆ˫˪ ˄˻˪˼ ˘ˊˋˣ˪˘˱˘˴˘˧˥˅ˁˣ˻ ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˋ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘̀ 29 ˄˫˜˅ ... ɸ༤̀ ˥˨˪ˁ༤˼ˣ˻˲ 23 ˨˘ˢ˅˥༤˥˅ ˥˦˧ˋˊˋ༤ˋˣ˘ˋ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘˙ ˢˋˣˋˋ ˥˵ˋ˅˘ˊˣ˥, ˦˥˨˜˥༤˼˜˫ ˥ˣ˘ ˥˪˨˫˪˨˪˅˫˿˪ ˅ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘̀˲ ˘ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˲ ˨ ˫ˊ˘ˣ˨˜˘ˢ˘ ˽˜˅˘˅ˁ༤ˋˣ˪ˁˢ˘, ˣˋ ˘ˢˋ˿˪ ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅˘˙ ˅ ˁ˧ˢ̀ˣ˨˜˥ˢ ˘ ˆ˧˫˖˘ˣ˨˜˥ˢ ˁ༤˱ˁ˅˘˪ˁ˲, ˧ˋˊ˜˥ ˅˨˪˧ˋ˵ˁ˿˪˨̀ (˪˧˘ ˄˫˜˅˻ ˣˋ ˥˪ˢˋ˵ˋˣ˻ ˅ ˦ˁ༤˘ˢ˦˨ˋ˨˪ˁ˲ ˣ˘ ˧ˁ˖˫), ˁ ˜˧˥ˢˋ ˪˥ˆ˥, ˣˋ˜˥˪˥˧˻ˋ ˘˖ „˦˧˥˄༤ˋˢˁ˪˘˵ˣ˻˲“ ˄˫˜˅ ˨༤˘˸˜˥ˢ ˦˥˲˥ː˘ ˘ ˣˋ ˅˨ˋˆˊˁ ˧ˁ˖༤˘˵˘ˢ˻ ˅ ˧˫˜˥˦˘˨˘».

131

ʒ˥ˢˁˣ ʌ˥༤˫ˁ

ɸ˅ˁ ˖ˣˁ˜ˁ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˁ༤˱ˁ˅˘˪ˁ ˥˪༤˘˵ˁ༤˘˨˼ ˨˅˥ˋ˙ ˦˥༤˘˱˫ˣ˜˴˘˥ˣˁ༤˼ˣ˥˨˪˼˿: ̘ɏɎ7 E, ˜ˁ˜ ˄˻༤˥ ˥˪ˢˋ˵ˋˣ˥, ˦ˋ˧ˋˊˁ˅ˁ༤ˁ ˊ˘˱˪˥ˣˆ ej, ˣ˥ ˅ ˣˋ˜˥˪˥˧˻˲ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣˣ˻˲ ˘˖ ˆ˧ˋ˵ˋ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˘༤˘ ˦˥˨˧ˋˊ˨˪˅˥ˢ ˆ˧ˋ˵ˋ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˲ ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˋ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ˽˪˥˙ ˄˫˜˅˻, ˦˥ ˣˁ˸ˋˢ˫ ˢˣˋˣ˘˿, ˄˻༤˥ e. ̘ɏɎ14 ß, ˦˥ˢ˘ˢ˥ ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘̀ ˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˘˖ˁ˴˘˘, ˢ˥ˆ༤ˁ ˦ˋ˧ˋˊˁ˅ˁ˪˼ ˖˅˫˜ š (˘༤˘ š๎) ˅ ˘ˣ˪ˋ˧˅˥˜ˁ༤˼ˣ˥˙ ˦˥˖˘˴˘˘. ʑ˥ ˅˨ˋ˙ ˅˘ˊ˘ˢ˥˨˪˘, ̘ɏɎ24 x ˦˥ˢ˘ˢ˥ ˱˥ˣˋˢ˻ q ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˁ༤ ˫˅˫༤̀˧ˣ˻˙ ˖˅˫˜ Ο. ʑ˥ ˣˁ˸ˋˢ˫ ˢˣˋˣ˘˿, ˣ˫ːˊˁˋ˪˨̀ ˅ ˊ˥˦˥༤ˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻˲ ˊ˥˜ˁ˖ˁ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅ˁ˲ ˦˧ˋˊ༤˥ːˋˣˣˁ̀ ʄ.ɍɴ˘˦˦ˋ˧˪˥ˢ ˘ ɳ. ʣ˫༤˼˴ˋ ˱˥ˣˋˢˣˁ̀ ˜˅ˁ༤˘˱˘˜ˁ˴˘̀ ˨༤ˋˊ˫˿˹˘˲ ˄˫˜˅: ̘ɏɎ16 M ˘ ̘ɏɎ22 L (n˜ ˘ l˜ ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥). ʍ˻ ˣˋ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻ ˨˥ ˨༤ˋˊ˫˿˹˘ˢ˘ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘̀ˢ˘, ˦˧ˋˊ༤˥ːˋˣˣ˻ˢ˘ ʄ. ɴ˘˦ˋ˧˪˥ˢ ˘ ɳ.ɍʣ˫༤˼˴ˋ: ̘ɏɎ10 V (˦˥ ˢˣˋˣ˘˿ ʄ. ɴ˘˦˦ˋ˧˪ˁ ˘ ɳ. ʣ˫༤˼˴ˋ — ‫[ ˜ڪ‬t౭๏]; ˦˥ ˣˁ˸ˋˢ˫ ˢˣˋˣ˘˿ — ‫[ ๎ڪ‬tഉ๏ຐ]); ̘ɏɎ12 Ç (ʄ. ɴ˘˦˦ˋ˧˪, ɳ. ʣ˫༤˼˴ˋ — ž˜ [౮]; ˦˥ ˣˁ˸ˋˢ˫ ˢˣˋˣ˘˿ — ž๎ [ƕຐ]); ̘ɏɎ17 X (ʄ.ɍɴ˘˦˦ˋ˧˪, ɳ. ʣ˫༤˼˴ˋ — x˜ [x]; ˦˥ ˣˁ˸ˋˢ˫ ˢˣˋˣ˘˿ — Ο [ΰ]); ̘ɏɎ18 D (ʄ. ɴ˘˦˦ˋ˧˪, ɳ.ɍʣ˫༤˼˴ˋ — d˜ [d֥]; ˦˥ ˣˁ˸ˋˢ˫ ˢˣˋˣ˘˿ — ৄ [dƕ]); ̘ɏɎ20 B (ʄ. ɴ˘˦˦ˋ˧˪, ɳ. ʣ˫༤˼˴ˋ — ৄ˜ [d౮]; ˦˥ ˣˁ˸ˋˢ˫ ˢˣˋˣ˘˿ — ৄ๎ [dƕຐ]); A 11 (ʄ. ɴ˘˦˦ˋ˧˪, ɳ. ʣ˫༤˼˴ˋ — a° [ર]; ˦˥ ˣˁ˸ˋˢ˫ ˢˣˋˣ˘˿ — o๎ [oຐ]); ̘ɏɎ26 Q (ʄ. ɴ˘˦˦ˋ˧˪, ɳ. ʣ˫༤˼˴ˋ — ‫[ ˜ڪ‬t౭๏]; ˦˥ ˣˁ˸ˋˢ˫ ˢˣˋˣ˘˿ — ‫[ ๎ڪ‬tഉ๏]); ̘ɏɎ36  (ʄ. ɴ˘˦˦ˋ˧˪, ɳ. ʣ˫༤˼˴ˋ — ࣚ˜ [t๏֥]; ˦˥ ˣˁ˸ˋˢ˫ ˢˣˋˣ˘˿ — ‫ڪ‬: [tഉ๏:]); ̘ɏɎ46 º (ʄ. ɴ˘˦˦ˋ˧˪, ɳ.ɍʣ˫༤˼˴ˋ — š˜ [౭]; ˦˥ ˣˁ˸ˋˢ˫ ˢˣˋˣ˘˿ — š๎ [ഉຐ]); Aw (ʄ. ɴ˘˦˦ˋ˧˪, ɳ. ʣ˫༤˼˴ˋ — ü [y]; ˦˥ ˣˁ˸ˋˢ˫ ˢˣˋˣ˘˿ — u๎ [uຐ]); ̘ɏɎ48 È (ʄ. ɴ˘˦˦ˋ˧˪, ɳ. ʣ˫༤˼˴ˋ — ‫[ ˜ڰ‬ts๏֥]; ˦˥ ˣˁ˸ˋˢ˫ ˢˣˋˣ˘˿ — ‫ڰ‬: [ۖ:]). ʑ˥ˢ˘ˢ˥ ˽˪˥ˆ˥, ˣˋ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˻ˢ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨˘˪˼˨̀ ˨ ˢˣˋˣ˘ˋˢ ʄ.ɍɴ˘˦˦ˋ˧˪ˁ ˘ ɳ. ʣ˫༤˼˴ˋ ˥ ̘ɏɎ14 ˖ˣˁ˜ˋ ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˦˘˨˼ˢˁ (ß). ʑ˥ ˫˪˅ˋ˧ːˊˋˣ˘˿ ˘˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁ˪ˋ༤ˋ˙, ˽˪˥˪ ˖ˣˁ˜ ˦ˋ˧ˋˊˁ˅ˁ༤ ˖˅˥ˣ˜˘˙ ˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˼ˣ˻˙ ˨˦˘˧ˁˣ˪, ̀˅༤̀˅˸˘˙˨̀ ˦˧˘˵˘ˣ˥˙ ˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˘˖ˁ˴˘˘. ʑ˥ ˣˁ˸ˋˢ˫ ːˋ ˢˣˋˣ˘˿, ˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˘˖ˁ˴˘̀ ˅ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˋ ̀˅༤̀༤ˁ˨˼ ˣˋ ˨ˋˆˢˋˣ˪ˣ˻ˢ ˨˅˥˙˨˪˅˥ˢ, ˁ ˦˧˥˨˥ˊ˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˢ, ˜ˁ˜ ˅ ˫ˊ˘ˣ˨˜˥ˢ. ʓ˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥, ˖ˣˁ˜ ß ˣˋ ˘ˢˋ༤ ˨˪ˁ˪˫˨ ˱˥ˣˋˢ˻. ʐˣ ˨˥˖ˊˁ˅ˁ༤ ˆ˧ˁ˱˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˋ ˜˥ˢ˦༤ˋ˜˨˻ ˨ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻ˢ˘ (˜ˁ˜ ˦˧ˁ˅˘༤˥, ˨ a, e ˘ i; ˧ˋːˋ ˨ o ˘ u); ˦˥ˢ˘ˢ˥ ˽˪˥ˆ˥ ˖ˣˁ˜ˁ, ˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˘˖ˁ˴˘̀ ˅ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˢ ˁ༤˱ˁ˅˘˪ˋ ˦ˋ˧ˋˊˁ˅ˁ༤ˁ˨˼ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻ˢ˘ A (o๎) ˘ Aw (u๎) ˘, ˜ˁ˜ ˥˪ˢˋ˵ˋˣ˥ ˅˻˸ˋ, ˧̀ˊ˥ˢ ˸˘˦̀˹˘˲ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˲: Ç (ž๎); º (š๎); B (ৄ๎); Q (Ő๎); V (‫)๎ڪ‬. ʕˁ˜ːˋ ˢ˥ːˣ˥ ˥˪ˢˋ˪˘˪˼, ˵˪˥, ˦˥ ˢˣˋˣ˘˿ ʄ. ɴ˘˦˦ˋ˧˪ˁ ˘ ɳ. ʣ˫༤˼˴ˋ, ˖ˣˁ˜ E ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˁ༤ ˱˥ˣˋˢ˫ ŗ (˜˧˥ˢˋ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘̀ ej), ˨ ˵ˋˢ ˣˋ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˻ˢ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨˘˪˼˨̀. ʃ˨˲˥ˊ̀ ˘˖ ˅˻˸ˋ˨˜ˁ˖ˁˣˣ˥ˆ˥, ˨༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪, ˵˪˥ ˘˨˦˧ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˘˿ ˦˥ˊ༤ˋːˁ˪ ˨༤ˋˊ˫˿˹˘ˋ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘̀ (ˣˁ˖˅ˁˣ˘̀) ˄˫˜˅ ˢˁ˪ˋˣˁˊˁ˧ˁˣ˨˜˥˙ ˧˫˜˥˦˘˨˘ (˘˨˲˥ˊ̀ ˘˖ ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˥˨˪ˋ˙ ˁ˧ˢ̀ˣ˨˜˥˙ ˆ˧ˁ˱˘˜˘): ̘ɏɎ2 b (ഫ > ക); ̘ɏɎ3 g (ങ > ഖ); ̘ɏɎ4 d (ഖ > ഗ); ̘ɏɎ5 e (ച > ഘ); ̘ɏɎ7 E (ഘ > ച); ̘ɏɎ18 D (ഗ > മ); ̘ɏɎ19 ” (ദ > ഡ); ̘ɏɎ20 B (ങ > മ (৉ຐ)); ̘ɏɎ35 o (ഫവ > ഫ); ̘ɏɎ37 E (ഠ > ഹ); ̘ɏɎ41 ž (ശ > ഥ); ̘ɏɎ42 r (ഢ > ള); ̘ɏɎ46 º (ര > പ (šຐ)); ̘ɏɎ47 A (ഞ > ഫ (oຐ)); ̘ɏɎ50 w (ന > വ). ʑ˥ ˅˨ˋ˙ ˅˘ˊ˘ˢ˥˨˪˘, ˋ˹ˋ ˅ ˪˧ˋ˲ ˨༤˫˵ˁ̀˲ ˣˁ˖˅ˁˣ˘̀ ˧˫˜˥˦˘˨˘ ̘ɏɎ7117 ˦˥ˊ༤ˋːˁ˪ ˘˨˦˧ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˘˿: ̘ɏɎ16 M (ഞ > ഩ (n˜)); ̘ɏɎ24 x (ണ > ഠ); ̘ɏɎ36  (ല > ദ (‫ې‬:)). ʑ˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˥˙ ˆ˧ˁ˱˘˵ˋ˨˜ˁ̀ ˘ˊˋˣ˪˘˱˘˜ˁ˴˘̀ ˅˨ˋ˲ 48 ˆ˧ˁ˱ˋˢ ˦ˁ༤˘ˢ˦˨ˋ˨˪˥˅ ˨˥ ˖ˣˁ˜ˁˢ˘ ˢˁ˪ˋˣˁˊˁ˧ˁˣ˨˜˥˙ ˧˫˜˥˦˘˨˘. ʠˋ˪˻˧ˋ ˄˫˜˅˻ ˧˫˜˥˦˘˨˘ ̘ɏɎ7117 ˣˋ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˻ ˅ ˦ˁ༤˘ˢ˦˨ˋ˨˪ˁ˲, ˽˪˥: ̘ɏɎ25, ̘ɏɎ28, ̘ɏɎ32 ˘ ̘ɏɎ34. ʃ˖ ˣ˘˲ ˥ˊ˘ˣ ˖ˣˁ˜ (̘ɏɎ32), ˦˥ ˅˨ˋ˙ ˅˘ˊ˘ˢ˥˨˪˘, ˅˨˪˧ˋ˵ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˅ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥˙ ˽˦˘ˆ˧ˁ˱˘˜ˋ. ʕˁ˜˘ˢ ˥˄˧ˁ˖˥ˢ, ˱˥ˣ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜ˁ̀ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢˁ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˣˁˢ ˅ ˨༤ˋˊ˫˿˹ˋˢ ˅˘ˊˋ: ɰ˙ːʸໞˌˊ˖. ɴ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻ˋ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˻ ˦̀˪˼˿ «˦˧˥˨˪˻ˢ˘» ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻ˢ˘ (a, e, i, o, u) ˘ ˘˲ ˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˘˖˥˅ˁˣˣ˻ˢ˘ ˅ˁ˧˘ˁˣ˪ˁˢ˘ (a๎, e๎, i๎, o๎, u๎). ʓ˘˨˪ˋˢˁ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˲ ˅ ˫ˊ˘ˣ˨˜˥ˢ, ˦˥ ˨˧ˁ˅ˣˋ11 ʍ˻ ˣˋ ˦˥ˊˊˋ˧ː˘˅ˁˋˢ ˆ˧ˁ˱˘˵ˋ˨˜˫˿ ˘ˊˋˣ˪˘˱˘˜ˁ˴˘˿ ˽˪˥ˆ˥ ˖ˣˁ˜ˁ, ˦˧ˋˊ༤˥ːˋˣˣ˫˿ ʄ. ɴ˘˦˦ˋ˧˪˥ˢ ˘ ɳ.ɍʣ˫༤˼˴ˋ. ʑ˥ ˣˁ˸ˋˢ˫ ˢˣˋˣ˘˿, ˽˪˥ ̘ɏɎ47 ˢˁ˪ˋˣˁˊˁ˧ˁˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˨˦˘˨˜ˁ, ˁ ˣˋ ̘ɏɎ25, ˜ˁ˜ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤ˁˆˁ༤˘ ˘˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁ˪ˋ༤˘.

132

ʇ ˫˪˥˵ˣˋˣ˘˿ ˱˥ˣ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢ˻ ̀˖˻˜ˁ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˘˲ ˦ˁ༤˘ˢ˦˨ˋ˨˪˥˅

ˣ˘˿ ˨ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥˙, ˫˨༤˥ːˣ˘༤ˁ˨˼ — ˅˥˖ˣ˘˜༤˘ ˦ˁ༤ˁ˪ˁ༤˘˖˥˅ˁˣˣ˻ˋ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻ˋ ˘ ˪. ˣ. ˘˧˧ˁ˴˘˥ˣˁ༤˼ˣ˻˙ ˅ ˣ˘ˊː˨˜˥ˢ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪ˋ ˦˥༤˫˵˘༤ ˊ˘˨˪˘ˣ˜˪˘˅ˣ˫˿ ˱˫ˣ˜˴˘˿. ʂ˙˗˜˙˗ʸ˗˞ˌˊ˖. ɸ༤̀ ˱˥ˣ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢ˻ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ ˄˻༤ˁ ˲ˁ˧ˁ˜˪ˋ˧ˣˁ ˪˧˥˘˵ˣˁ̀ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢˁ ˅˖˧˻˅ˣ˻˲ (˖˅˥ˣ˜˘˙ɏ/ɏˁ˨˦˘˧˘˧˥˅ˁˣˣ˻˙ɏ/ɏˁ˄˧˫˦˪˘˅), ˵ˋ˪˅ˋ˧˘˵ˣˁ̀ (˜ˁ˜ ˢ˻ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤ˁˆˁˋˢ) ˨˘˨˪ˋˢˁ ˁ˱˱˧˘˜ˁ˪ (˖˅˥ˣ˜˘˙ɏ/ɏˁ˨˦˘˧˘˧˥˅ˁˣˣ˻˙ɏ/ɏˁ˄˧˫˦˪˘˅ɏ/ɏ˘ˣ˪ˋˣ˨˘˅ˣ˻˙ (˨˘༤˼ˣ˻˙, ˆˋˢ˘ˣ˘˧˥˅ˁˣˣ˻˙) ˁ˄˧˫˦˪˘˅) ˘ ˦ˁ˧ˣˁ̀ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢˁ ˨˦˘˧ˁˣ˪˥˅ (˖˅˥ˣ˜˘˙ɏ/ ˆ༤˫˲˥˙). ʓ˘˨˪ˋˢˁ ˊ˥˧˨ˁ༤˼ˣ˻˲ ˘ ༤ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˼ˣ˻˲ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˲ ˅ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˢ ˄˻༤ˁ ˄ˋˊˣ˥˙ ˦˥ ˨˧ˁ˅ˣˋˣ˘˿ ˨ ˧˥ˊ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˻ˢ˘ ༤ˋ˖ˆ˘ˣ˨˜˘ˢ˘ ˘ ˊ˧˫ˆ˘ˢ˘ ˣˁ˲˨˜˥-ˊˁˆˋ˨˪ˁˣ˨˜˘ˢ˘ ̀˖˻˜ˁˢ˘, ˵˪˥ ˨˄༤˘ːˁˋ˪ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˘˙ ˘ ˫ˊ˘ˣ˨˜˘˙. ʇ˥ˣ˨˥ˣˁˣ˪ˣˁ̀ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢˁ ˫ˊ˘ˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ ˫˦˧˥˨˪˘༤ˁ˨˼ — ˄˻༤˘ ˫˪ˋ˧̀ˣ˻ ˘ˣ˪ˋˣ˨˘˅ˣ˻ˋ ˁ˱˱˧˘˜ˁ˪˻ (˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤˥ː˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥) ˘ ˦ˁ༤ˁ˪ˁ༤˘˖˥˅ˁˣˣ˻ˋ ˨˥ˣ˥˧ˣ˻ˋ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻ˋ. ʎˋ˨ˢ˥˪˧̀ ˣˁ ˣˋ˜˥˪˥˧˻ˋ ˧ˁ˨˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘̀ ˱˥ˣ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˘ ˫ˊ˘ˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜˥˅, ˋ˨༤˘ ˦˧˘ˣ̀˪˼ ˅˥ ˅ˣ˘ˢˁˣ˘ˋ ˄˥༤ˋˋ ˵ˋˢ ˪˻˨̀˵ˋ༤ˋ˪ˣ˘˙ ˦˧˥ˢˋː˫˪˥˜ ˢˋːˊ˫ ˫ˊ˘ˣ˨˜˘ˢ ˘ ˦˘˨˼ˢˋˣˣ˻ˢ˘ ˦ˁˢ̀˪ˣ˘˜ˁˢ˘ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ, ˦˥˪ˋ˧˿ ˪˧ˁˊ˘˴˘˙ ˦˘˨˼ˢˋˣˣ˥˨˪˘ ˘ ˨˘༤˼ˣ˻˙ ˦˧˥˴ˋ˨˨ ˁ˨˨˘ˢ˘༤̀˴˘˘ ˫ˊ˘ˣ, ˪˥ ˅˻˸ˋ˦˧˘˅ˋˊˋˣˣ˻ˋ ˧ˁ˨˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘̀ ˦˥˜ˁː˫˪˨̀ ˣˋ˖ˣˁ˵˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻ˢ˘.

ʑˁ༤˘ˢ˦˨ˋ˨˪˻

ʜ˥ˣˋˢˣ˥ˋ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ

ɯ.ɍɴ. ɯ˄˧ˁˢ̀ˣ

ɴ.ɍɯ. ʇ༤˘ˢ˥˅

ʓ.ɍʎ. ʍ˫˧ˁ˅˼ˋ˅

ɳ.ɍʌ. ɴ˫˜ˁ˨̀ˣ

ʁ. ɯ༤ˋ˜˨˘ˊ˖ˋ

ʄ. ɴ˘˦˦ˋ˧˪, ɳ. ʣ˫༤˼˴ˋ

alt

a

a

a

a

a

aຐ

a

a

2

odet

b

b

b

b

oຐ

b

b

b

3

zim

g

g

g

g

b

g

g

g

4

ga࣢

d

d

d

d

g

Ξ

?

d

5

ejb

e

e

e

e

e//eຐ

e

e

e

6

zaਾl

z

z

z

z

z

z

z

z

7

en

E

ej/e

Ř

eຐ

eຐ//e

eຐ

Ř

ej

8

žil

Y

ž

Ɩ

Ɩ

ž:

ž

ž

ž

9

tas

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

t

10

‫ې‬a

V

‫ې‬ຐ

ž

ž

‫ې‬:

‫ې‬

?

‫˜ې‬

11

jud

y

j

i

j

j//j:

j

j

j

12

ža

Ç

žຐ

i

?

ž

ž:

ž?

ž˜

13

irb

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

14

ša

ß

[ຐ]/š

l

?

š:

š

š

Ջ

15

lan

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

16

ina

ý

n˜

x

?

iຐ//Ɩ

iຐ

?

n˜

17

ΰejn

q

ΰ

x

x

x

x

q//x¹

x˜

18

dan

š

৉

x

?

d

d

d

d˜

19

‫ې‬aਾ

”

*ۖ

ۖ

ۖ

ۖ

őஉ°

‫?ې‬

ۖ

20

zoΰ

®

৉ຐ

ۖ

?

z:

z:

z?

৉˜

21

ߞar

§

ߞ

ߞ

ߞ

ߞ

kஉ

ߞ

ߞ

ʒ˫˜˥˦˘˨˼ ̘ɏɎ7117

1

̘ɏɎ

ʎˁ˖˅ˁˣ˘ˋ

ʐʸʺ˕ˌ˨ʸ ̈ɍ6. ʓ˘˨˪ˋˢˁ ˱˥ˣˋˢˣ˻˲ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘˙ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˁ༤˱ˁ˅˘˪ˁ

133

ʑˁ༤˘ˢ˦˨ˋ˨˪˻

ʜ˥ˣˋˢˣ˥ˋ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ

ɯ.ɍɴ. ɯ˄˧ˁˢ̀ˣ

ɴ.ɍɯ. ʇ༤˘ˢ˥˅

ʓ.ɍʎ. ʍ˫˧ˁ˅˼ˋ˅

ɳ.ɍʌ. ɴ˫˜ˁ˨̀ˣ

ʁ. ɯ༤ˋ˜˨˘ˊ˖ˋ

ʄ. ɴ˘˦˦ˋ˧˪, ɳ. ʣ˫༤˼˴ˋ

li࣢

ª

*l˜

h

?

l‘

l˜

?

l˜

23

hej࣢

h

h

h

h

h

ບ

h

h

24

haj

x

q/ΰ

ƕ

?

h:

h

?

ΰ/q

25

ar

-

-

ä

ƕ

aຐ

a

Ō

a°

26

coj

Q

őຐ

ö

?

j://j

c

c?

ő˜

27

‫ې‬i

Ö

‫ې‬

‫ې‬

‫ې‬

‫ې‬

‫ې‬°

‫ې‬

‫ې‬

28

őaj

-

-

Ξ

?

ő:

ő

?

*c˜

29

maߞ

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

30

ߞaਾ

³

ࢱ

j

?

ߞɀ//ࢱɀ

ࢱ

ࢱ

ࢱ

31

nuc

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

32

৉aj

-

-

š

?

৉//৉:

৉

ő¹//৉

*ƕ˜

33

šak

š

š

š

š

š

š:

š²

š

34

৉ajn

-

-

š

?

৉://৉

৉°

?

*৉

35

un

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

36

࣢aj

½

*‫ې‬:

ő

?

࣢:

tஉ

?

t˜

37

ΰam

f

f

ő

ő

x://Ξ

q

Ξ

f

38

ƕaj

Ô

ƕ

ő

?

ƕ

ƕ

ƕ?

ƕ

39

őa࣢

–

ő

ő

?

ő

őஉ

ő

ő

40

ࢨen

±

ࢨ

ࢨ

ࢨ

ࢨ

pஉ

ࢨ

ࢨ

41

pes

ž

Ξ

৉

৉

ࢨ:

ࢨ

p?

Ξ

42

ߞa࣢

r

r

ਾ

r

ࢱɀ//ߞɀ

ߞ

r

r

43

sejߞ

s

s

s

s

s

s:

s

s

44

vejz

v

v

w

w

v

v

v

v

45

࣢iwr

»

࣢

࣢

࣢

࣢

࣢

࣢

࣢

46

soj

º

šຐ

࣢

?

s:

s

s?

š˜

47

ion

œ

oຐ

r

oຐ

iຐ//Ɩ

r

?

ü

48

ۖaw

È

*ۖ:

c

?

r

ۖ

?

ۖ˜

49

cajn

c

c

c

c

c

cஉ

c

c

50

jajd

w

(w)

w

w

w

w

w

(w)

51

piwr

p

p

p

f

p

p

p

p

52

kiw

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

ʒ˫˜˥˦˘˨˼ ̘ɏɎ7117

22

̘ɏɎ

ʎˁ˖˅ˁˣ˘ˋ

ʒ˥ˢˁˣ ʌ˥༤˫ˁ

35+50

Ș

Ș

ow

u

u

u

u

u

u

u

47+50

Ș

Ș

Aw

uຐ

Ș

uຐ

Ș

Ș

Ōw

ü

14+1

Ș

Ș

ßa

aຐ

Ș

Ș

Ș

Ș

Ș

Ջa

14+5

Ș

Ș

ße

eຐ

Ș

Ș

Ș

Ș

Ș

Ջe

14+13

Ș

Ș

ßi

iຐ

Ș

Ș

Ș

Ș

Ș

Ջi

ʑ˧˘ˢˋ˵ˁˣ˘ˋ: ˖˅ˋ˖ˊ˥˵˜˥˙ (*) ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˁˋˢ ˣˋ ˫˨˪ˁˣ˥˅༤ˋˣˣ˻ˋ, ˅ˋ˧˥̀˪ˣ˻ˋ ˱˥ˣˋˢˣ˻ˋ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘̀ ˆ˧ˁ˱ˋˢ. 134

ʇ ˫˪˥˵ˣˋˣ˘˿ ˱˥ˣ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢ˻ ̀˖˻˜ˁ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˘˲ ˦ˁ༤˘ˢ˦˨ˋ˨˪˥˅

ʇˌ˞ˀ˛ʸ˞˟˛ʸ ɯ˄˧ˁˢ̀ˣ, ɯ. ɴ. 1964. ɴˀˬˌ˥˛˙ʻːʸ ˗ʸʿ˚ˌ˜ˀˍ ːʸʻːʸˊ˜ːˌ˦ ʸʼʻʸ˗. ɹ˧ˋ˅ˁˣ: ʍ˘˪˜. ɯ˄˫༤ˁˊ˖ˋ, ʃ. ɳ. 1938. ʇ ˥˪˜˧˻˪˘˿ ˁ༤˱ˁ˅˘˪ˁ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˘˲ ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˴ˋ˅. ɾˊʻˀ˜˞ˌ˴ ɾ˗˜˞ˌ˞˟˞ʸ ˴ˊ˯ːʸ, ˌ˜˞˙˛ˌˌ ˌ ˖ʸ˞ˀ˛ˌʸ˕˰˗˙ˍ ː˟˕˰˞˟˛˯ ˌ˖. ʸːʸʿ. ʉ.ɋʦ. ʈʸ˛˛ʸ 4(1): 68–71. ɲ˥˜ˁ˧ˋ˅, ɹ. ɯ. 1961. ɰʻˀʿˀ˗ˌˀ ʻ ˜˛ʸʻ˗ˌ˞ˀ˕˰˗˙-ˌ˜˞˙˛ˌ˩ˀ˜ː˙ˀ ˌˊ˟˩ˀ˗ˌˀ ʿʸʼˀ˜˞ʸ˗˜ːˌ˦ ˴ˊ˯ː˙ʻ. ʍˁ˲ˁ˵˜ˁ༤ˁ: ɸɴʘ. ɴ˘ˆ˘ˣˋ˙˸˅˘༤˘, ɲ. ʇ. 1977. ʎ˛ʸʻ˗ˌ˞ˀ˕˰˗ʸ˴ ˥˙˗ˀ˞ˌːʸ ʿʸʼˀ˜˞ʸ˗˜ːˌ˦ ˴ˊ˯ː˙ʻ. ʕ˄˘༤˘˨˘: ʕɴʘ. ɴ˫˜ˁ˨̀ˣ, ɳ. ʌ. 1968. ʇ ˊˋ˸˘˱˧˥˅˜ˋ ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˘˲ ˣˁˊ˦˘˨ˋ˙ ɯ˖ˋ˧˄ˁ˙ˊːˁˣˁ. ʣ˞ˌ˖˙˕˙ʼˌ˴ 1966: 392–400. ɴ˫˜ˁ˨̀ˣ, ɳ. ʌ. 1969. ʐ˦˻˪ ˊˋ˸˘˱˧˥˅˜˘ ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˘˲ ˣˁˊ˦˘˨ˋ˙ ɯ˖ˋ˧˄ˁ˙ˊːˁˣˁ. ɾˊʻˀ˜˞ˌ˴ ɭːʸʿˀ˖ˌˌ ʉʸ˟ː ɭˊˀ˛ʺʸˍʿ˄ʸ˗˜ː˙ˍ ʎʎʍ 2: 52–74. ɴ˫˜ˁ˨̀ˣ, ɳ. ʌ. 1971. ʐ ˣ˥˅˥ˣˁ˙ˊˋˣˣ˥ˢ ˨˦˘˨˜ˋ ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˁ༤˱ˁ˅˘˪ˁ. ʎ˙ʻˀ˞˜ːʸ˴ ˞˳˛ː˙˕˙ʼˌ˴ 2: 130–135. ʇ˘˄˧˘˜, ɯ. ɹ., ʇ˥ˊ˖ˁ˨˥˅, ʓ. ɳ. 1990. ʎ˙˚˙˜˞ʸʻˌ˞ˀ˕˰˗˙ˀ ˌˊ˟˩ˀ˗ˌˀ ʿʸʼˀ˜˞ʸ˗˜ːˌ˦ ˴ˊ˯ː˙ʻ. ɾ˖˴. ʗ˙˗ˀ˞ˌːʸ, ʍ˥˨˜˅ˁ: ʍɴʘ. ʇ༤˘ˢ˥˅, ɴ. ɯ. 1967. ʇ ˨˥˨˪˥̀ˣ˘˿ ˊˋ˸˘˱˧˥˅˜˘ ˁˆ˅ˁˣ˨˜˥˙ (˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥˙) ˦˘˨˼ˢˋˣˣ˥˨˪˘. ɰ˙˚˛˙˜˯ ˴ˊ˯ː˙ˊ˗ʸ˗ˌ˴ 3: 68–80. ʇ༤˘ˢ˥˅, ɴ. ɯ. 1970. ʇ ˵˪ˋˣ˘˿ ˊ˅˫˲ ˦ˁˢ̀˪ˣ˘˜˥˅ ˁˆ˅ˁˣ˨˜˥˙ (˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥˙) ˽˦˘ˆ˧ˁ˱˘˜˘. ɰ˙˚˛˙˜˯ ˴ˊ˯ː˙ˊ˗ʸ˗ˌ˴ 3: 109–112. ʇ༤˘ˢ˥˅, ɴ. ɯ. 1972. ʁˁˢˋ˪˜˘ ˦˥ ˊˋ˸˘˱˧˥˅˜ˋ ˁˆ˅ˁˣ˨˜˥˙ (˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥˙) ˦˘˨˼ˢˋˣˣ˥˨˪˘. ɾˊʻˀ˜˞ˌ˴ ɭːʸʿˀ˖ˌˌ ʉʸ˟ː ʎCCʍ 1972(1): 50–54. ʇ༤˘ˢ˥˅, ɴ. ɯ. 1976. ɳ˥˦˧˥˨˻ ˊˋ˸˘˱˧˥˅˜˘ ˁˆ˅ˁˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ (˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥) ˦˘˨˼ˢˁ. ɳ: ʃ. ʍ. ɸ˼̀˜˥ˣ˥˅ (˧ˋˊ.). ʐʸˍ˗˯ ʿ˛ˀʻ˗ˌ˦ ˚ˌ˜˰˖ˀ˗. ʌ˛˙ʺ˕ˀ˖ʸ ʿˀˬˌ˥˛˙ʻːˌ: 444–446. ʍ˥˨˜˅ˁ: ʑ˧˥ˆ˧ˋ˨˨. ʇ༤˘ˢ˥˅, ɴ. ɯ. 1984. ɯˆ˅ˁˣ˨˜˥ˋ ˦˘˨˼ˢ˥, ˦˥˦˻˪˜ˁ ˋˆ˥ ˊˋ˸˘˱˧˥˅˜˘. ɳ: ʍ. ɳ. ʑˁˣ˥˅ (˧ˋˊ.). ʣ˗˨ˌː˕˙˚ˀʿˌ˩ˀ˜ːˌˍ ˜˕˙ʻʸ˛˰ ˳˗˙ʼ˙ ˥ˌ˕˙˕˙ʼʸ: 13–15. ʍ˥˨˜˅ˁ: ʑˋˊˁˆ˥ˆ˘˜ˁ. ʇ༤˘ˢ˥˅, ɴ. ɯ. 1990. ʐ ˨˥˨˪ˁ˅ˋ ˁˆ˅ˁˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ (˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥) ˁ༤˱ˁ˅˘˪ˁ. ɾˊʻˀ˜˞ˌ˴ ɭːʸʿˀ˖ˌˌ ʉʸ˟ː ʎʎʍ 1990(6): 494–503. ʌ˥༤˫ˁ, ʒ. ʕ. 2008. ʑ˧˥˄༤ˋˢ˻ ˨˥˅˧ˋˢˋˣˣ˥˙ ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˥༤˥ˆ˘˘. I. ʇˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˘˙ ˁ༤˱ˁ˅˘˪ (˜˧˘˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˙ ˥˄˖˥˧ ˘˨˪˥˵ˣ˘˜˥˅). II. ɳˣ˫˪˧ˋˣˣ̀̀ ˱˥˧ˢˁ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˁ༤˱ˁ˅˘˪ˁ. ɳ: ʍ.ɍɹ.ɍɯ༤ˋ˜˨ˋˋ˅, ʕ.ɍɯ.ɍʍˁ˙˨ˁ˜ (˧ˋˊ.). ʓʿˌ˗˜ːˌˍ ˜ʺ˙˛˗ˌː: ʼ˛ʸ˖˖ʸ˞ˌːʸ, ˕ˀː˜ˌːʸ, ˌ˜˞˙˛ˌ˴ ˴ˊ˯ːʸ: 380–431. ʍ˥˨˜˅ˁ: Academia. ʌ˥༤˫ˁ, ʒ. ʕ. 2010. ɰ˙˚˛˙˜˯ ˜˞˛˟ː˞˟˛˯ ːʸʻːʸˊ˜ː˙-ʸ˕ʺʸ˗˜ː˙ʼ˙ ˴ˊ˯ːʸ (ɭʻ˞˙˛ˀ˥. ʿˌ˜˜. ˗ʸ ˜˙ˌ˜ːʸ˗ˌˀ ʸːʸʿˀ˖ˌ˩ˀ˜ː˙ˍ ˜˞ˀ˚ˀ˗ˌ ʿ˙ː˞˙˛ʸ ˥ˌ˕˙˕˙ʼˌˌ). ʕ˄˘༤˘˨˘: ʕɴʘ. ʍˁ˙˨ˁ˜, ʕ. ɯ. 2010. ʇ ˦˫˄༤˘˜ˁ˴˘˘ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˘˲ ˦ˁ༤˘ˢ˦˨ˋ˨˪˥˅ ˘˖ ˨˘ˣˁ˙˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˢ˥ˣˁ˨˪˻˧̀. ɰ˙˚˛˙˜˯ ˴ˊ˯ː˙ˊ˗ʸ˗ˌ˴ 6: 88–107. ʍ˫˧˜ˋ༤˘ˣ˨˜˘˙, ɴ. ɲ. (˧ˋˊ.) 1971. ʎ˛ʸʻ˗ˌ˞ˀ˕˰˗˙-ˌ˜˞˙˛ˌ˩ˀ˜ːʸ˴ ˕ˀː˜ˌːʸ ʿʸʼˀ˜˞ʸ˗˜ːˌ˦ ˴ˊ˯ː˙ʻ. ʍ˥˨˜˅ˁ: ʎˁ˫˜ˁ. ʍ˫˧ˁ˅˼ˋ˅, ʓ. ʎ. 1981. ʕ˧˘ ˽˪˿ˊˁ ˦˥ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˥˙ (ˁ༤˫ˁˣ˨˜˥˙) ˦˘˨˼ˢˋˣˣ˥˨˪˘. ɵ˄ˀʼ˙ʿ˗ˌː ˌʺˀ˛ˌˍ˜ː˙ːʸʻːʸˊ˜ː˙ʼ˙ ˴ˊ˯ː˙ˊ˗ʸ˗ˌ˴ 8: 222–320. ʕˁ༤˘˄˥˅, ɲ. ɲ. 1980. ʎ˛ʸʻ˗ˌ˞ˀ˕˰˗ʸ˴ ˥˙˗ˀ˞ˌːʸ ˕ˀˊʼˌ˗˜ːˌ˦ ˴ˊ˯ː˙ʻ. ʍ˥˨˜˅ˁ: ʎˁ˫˜ˁ. ʝˁ˙ˊˁ˜˥˅, ʓ. ʍ. 1973. ʎ˛ʸʻ˗ˌ˞ˀ˕˰˗˙-˜˙˚˙˜˞ʸʻˌ˞ˀ˕˰˗˯ˍ ˜˕˙ʻʸ˛˰ ʿʸʼˀ˜˞ʸ˗˜ːˌ˦ ˴ˊ˯ː˙ʻ. ʍ˥˨˜˅ˁ: ʎˁ˫˜ˁ. ʣˁˣ˘ˊ˖ˋ, ɯ. ɴ. 1938. ʎ˥˅˥˥˪˜˧˻˪˻˙ ˁ༤˱ˁ˅˘˪ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˘˲ ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˴ˋ˅ ˘ ˋˆ˥ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ˊ༤̀ ˣˁ˫˜˘. ɾˊʻˀ˜˞ˌ˴ ɾ˗˜˞ˌ˞˟˞ʸ ˴ˊ˯ːʸ, ˌ˜˞˙˛ˌˌ ˌ ˖ʸ˞ˀ˛ˌʸ˕˰˗˙ˍ ː˟˕˰˞˟˛˯ ˌ˖. ʸːʸʿ. ʉ.ʦ. ʈʸ˛˛ʸ 4(1): 1–62.

References Abram’an, A. G. 1964. Deshifrovka nadpisej kavkazskikh agvan. Erevan: Mitk. Abuladze, I. V. 1938. K otkrytiju alfavita kavkazskikh albantcev. Izvestija Instituta jazyka, istorii i material’noj kul’tury im. akad. N.Ja. Marra 4(1): 68–71. Aleksidze, Z. 2003. K’avk’asiis albanetis ena, mtc’erloba da damtc’erloba. Tbilisi: Bibliur-teologiuri inst’it’ut’i. Bokarev, ɹ. ɯ. 1961. Vvedenie v sravnitel’no-istoricheskoe izuchenie dagestanskikh jazykov. Makhachkala: DGU. Dumézil, Georges. 1933. Introduction à la grammaire comparée des langues caucasiennes du Nord. Paris. Gigineishvili, B. K. 1977. Sravnitel’naja fonetika dagestanskikh jazykov. Tbilisi: TGU. Gippert, J., Schulze, W., Aleksidze, Z., Mahé, J.-P. (eds.). 2009. The Caucasian Albanian palimpsests of Mt. Sinai. 2 vols. Turnhout: Breepols. Gukas’an, V. L. 1968. K deshifrovke albanskikh nadpisej Azerbajdzhana. Etimologia 1966: 392–400. 135

ʒ˥ˢˁˣ ʌ˥༤˫ˁ

Gukas’an, V. L. 1969. Opyt deshifrovki albanskikh nadpisej Azerbajdzhana. Izvestija AN Azerbajdzanskoj SSR 2: 52–74. Gukas’an, V. L. 1971. O novonajdennom spiske albanskogo alfavita. Sovetskaja t’urkologia 2: 130–135. Kassian, Alexei. 2011–2012. Annotated Swadesh wordlists for the Lezgian group (North Caucasian family). In George Starostin (ed.), The global lexicostatistical database. Moscow & Santa Fe: Center for Comparative Studies at the Russian State University for the Humanities; Santa Fe Institute. http://starling.rinet.ru/new100 (accessed 7 May 2015). Kibrik, A. E., Kodzasov, S. V. 1990. Sopostovitel’noe izuchenie dagestanskikh jazykov. Im’a. Fonetika. Moskva: MGU. Klimov, G. A. 1967. K sostojaniju deshifrovki agvanskoj (kavkazsko-albanskoj) pis’mennosti. Voprosy jazykoznanija 3: 68–80. Klimov, G. A. 1970. K chteniju dvukh pam’atnikov agvanskoj (kavkazsko-albanskoj) epigrafiki. Voprosy jazykoznanija 3: 109–112. Klimov, G. A. 1972. Zametki po deshifrovke agvanskoj (kavkazsko-albanskoj) pis’mennosti. Izvestija Akademii Nauk SSSR. Seria literatury i jazyka 1: 50–54. Klimov, G. A. 1976. Voprosy deshifrovki agvanskogo (kavkazsko-albanskogo) pis’ma. In: I. M. Diakonoff (ed.). Tajny drevnikh pis’men. Problema deshifrovki: 444–446. Moskva: Progress. Klimov, G. A. 1984. Agvanskoe pis’mo, popytka ego deshifrovki. In: M. V. Panov (ed.). Enciklopedicheskij slovar’ junogo filologa: 13–15. Moskva: Pedagogika. Klimov, G. A. 1990. O sostave agvanskogo (kavkazsko-albanskogo) alfavita. Izvestija Akademii Nauk SSSR. Seria literatury i jazyka 6: 494–503. Kurdian, H. 1956. The newly discovered alphabet of Caucasian Albanians. Journal of the Royal Asiatic society of Great Britain and Ireland 1–2: 81–83. Khajdakov, S. M. 1973. Sravnitel’no-sopostavitel’nyj slovar’ dagestanskikh jazykov. ʍ˥˨˜˅ˁ: ʎˁ˫˜ˁ. Lolua, R. 2008. Problemy sovremennoj albanologii. I. Kavkazsko-albanskij alfavit (kriticheskij obzor istochnikov). II. Vnutrenn’aja forma kavkazsko-albanskogo alfavita. In: M. Alekseev, T. Maisak (eds.). Udinskij sbornik: grammatika, leksika, istoria jazyka: 380–431. Moskva: Academia. Lolua, R. 2009. Shenishvnebi k’avk’asiis albanuri enis gramat’ik’uli st’rukturis shesaxeb. iberiul-k’avk’asiuri enatmetcniereba 37: 112–131. Lolua, R. 2010. Voprosy struktury kavkazsko-albanskogo jazyka (Avtoref. diss. na soiskanie akademicheckoj stepeni doktora filologii). Tbilisi: TGU. Majsak, T. A. 2010. K publikatcii kavkazsko-albanskikh palimpsestov iz sinajskogo manastyr’a. Voprosy jazykoznanija 6: 88–107. Murkelinskij, G. B. (ed.) 1971. Sravnitel’no-istoricheskaja leksika dagestanskikh jazykov. Moskva: Nauka. Murav’ev, S. N. 1981. Tri et’uda po kavkazsko-albanskoj (aluanskoj) pis’mennosti. Ezhegodnik iberijsko-kavkazskogo jazykoznania 8: 222–320. Nikolayev, S. L., Starostin, S. A. 1994. A North Caucasian etymological dictionary. Moscow: Asterisk. Schiefner, A. 1863. Versuch über die Sprache der Uden. St. Petersburg. Shanidze, A. G. 1938. Novootkrytyj alfavit kavkazskikh albantcev i ego znachenie dl’a nauki. Izvestija Instituta jazyka, istorii i material’noj kul’tury im. akad. N.Ja. Marra 4(1): 1–62. Talibov, B. B. 1980. Sravnitel’naja fonetika lezginskikh jazykov. Moskva: Nauka. Trubetzkoy, N. S. 1930. Nordkaukasische Wortgleichungen. Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 37(2). Wien. Tsertsvadze, I. 1964. Mekhute lat’eraluri tankhmovnis shesat’q’visobisatvis udur enashi. Iberiul-k’avk’asiuri enatmetcniereba 14: 357–361.

Roman Lolua. Towards specifying the phonological system of the language of the Caucasian Albanian palimpsests 12 The scientific study of Caucasian Albanian is one of the most topical problems of linguistic Caucasology. Despite notable progress in recent years, some issues of description of the 12 The project was carried out by the financial support of Shota Rustaveli National Science Foundation [Grant Project ̘ɏɎYS-2016-45, “Grammatical Analysis of Caucasian Albanian”].

136

ʇ ˫˪˥˵ˣˋˣ˘˿ ˱˥ˣ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢ˻ ̀˖˻˜ˁ ˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˥-ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˘˲ ˦ˁ༤˘ˢ˦˨ˋ˨˪˥˅

phonological system and grammatical structure of Caucasian Albanian still require thorough research. The present paper aims to fill these gaps as thoroughly as possible and provide an alternative description of the phonological system of Caucasian Albanian, using, inter alia, elements of the comparative-historical method. More precise definition of phonemic values of the graphemes that constitute the Caucasian Albanian alphabet would be of great help to historical linguists interested in issues of historical phonology of Nakh-Dagestanian languages. Keywords: Caucasian Albanian, phonological system, vowel system, consonant system, pharyngealization.

137

Mikhail Zhivlov Russian State University for the Humanities; School for Advanced Studies in the Humanities, RANEPA (Moscow); [email protected]

Some morphological parallels between Hokan languages 1 In this paper I present a detailed analysis of a number of morphological comparisons between the branches of the hypothetical Hokan family. The following areas are considered: 1) subject person/number markers on verbs, as well as possessor person/number markers on nouns, 2) so-called ‘lexical prefixes’ denoting instrument and manner of action on verbs, 3) plural infixes, used with both nouns and verbs, and 4) verbal directional suffixes ‘hither’ and ‘thither’. It is shown that the respective morphological parallels can be better accounted for as resulting from genetic inheritance rather than from areal diffusion. Keywords: Hokan languages, Amerindian languages, historical morphology, genetic vs. areal relationship

0. The Hokan hypothesis, relating several small language families and isolates of California, was initially proposed by Dixon and Kroeber (1913) more than a hundred years ago. There is still no consensus regarding the validity of Hokan: some scholars accept the hypothesis (Kaufman 1989, 2015; Gursky 1995), while others view it with great skepticism (Campbell 1997: 290–296, Marlett 2007; cf. a more positive assessment in Golla 2011: 82–84, as well as a neutral overview in Jany 2016). My own position is that the genetic relationship between most languages usually subsumed under Hokan is highly likely, and that the existence of the Hokan family can be taken as a working hypothesis, subject to further proof or refutation. The goal of the present paper is to draw attention to several morphological parallels between Hokan languages. Some of these comparisons are new (e.g., third person possessive prefix on kinship terms in Seri and Salinan in section 1.2., lexical prefix ‘with the whole body’ in section 2.8., plural infixes in Oaxaca Chontal, Seri and Pomoan in sections 3.2., 3.4. and 3.5.), others have been proposed earlier. While many works by proponents of Hokan concentrate on lexical comparisons, comparative morphology drew much less attention. The main works in this area are Sapir 1925 (a pioneering study with many valuable insights, although based on the erroneous premise of the Hokan nature of the Subtiaba language which was later shown to belong to the Otomanguean family), Gursky 1966 (compares Hokan morphology with that of the so-called Gulf languages), Gursky 1995 (an extremely useful list of 138 morphological comparisons with supporting data, but without reconstructions) and Kaufman 2015 (a slightly revised version of an unpublished study written in 1989; contains a tentative model of ProtoHokan word-structure and a large list of reconstructed grammatical morphemes without supporting data). Nowadays, we have much more abundant and detailed descriptive data for many languages under discussion, so existing comparisons require re-evaluation in the light of these data. This paper will concentrate on several areas where good comparisons can be I am sincerely grateful to Albert Davletshin, Vasiliy Chernov, and two anonymous reviewers for numerous corrections and suggestions that helped me to improve this paper. None of them is responsible for any remaining errors. I express my sincere gratitude to Søren Wichmann who generously helped me to obtain several rare publications on the subject. This research has been carried out as part of the Evolution of Human Languages project, supported by the Santa Fe Institute. 1

Journal of Language Relationship • ɳ˥˦˧˥˨˻ ̀˖˻˜˥˅˥ˆ˥ ˧˥ˊ˨˪˅ˁ • 16/2 (2018) • Pp. 138–161 • © The authors, 2018

Some morphological parallels between Hokan languages

found: person and number markers, lexical prefixes, plural infixes, and directional suffixes. There are other areas requiring work: plural suffixes and prefixes, TAM markers, stative and passive markers, nominalizers, etc. These could not be covered here because of space and time limitations. One must not draw the conclusion that the list of morphological comparisons in the present paper is exhaustive. For the purposes of the present paper, the following languages and families will be regarded as Hokan: Karuk, Chimariko, Shastan, Achumawi-Atsugewi (Palaihnihan), Yana, Pomoan, Salinan, Yuman, Seri, and Oaxaca Chontal (Tequistlatecan). I suspend my judgment with regard to poorly attested languages/families like Esselen, Coahuilteco, Comecrudoan and Cotoname. Another poorly documented language, Cochimi, is generally considered as related to Yuman (Mixco 1978). Following Kaufman (1989), I do not accept a Hokan affiliation of Chumashan. I also do not include Washo and Tol (Jicaque), although these languages might be related to Hokan on a deeper level. Washo was regarded as Hokan by virtually all supporters of the Hokan hypothesis. However, it has so few reliable matches with the rest of Hokan in the basic lexicon that its membership in the Hokan family seems improbable. If Washo and/or Tol will ever be shown to be related to Hokan, it will only be through comparison with reliable ProtoHokan reconstructions, rather than with isolated morphemes in individual Hokan languages. While reconstructing tentative Proto-Hokan forms, I will use the system of sound correspondences proposed by Kaufman (1989: 84–93).

1. Person/number markers 1.1. In Seri, finite verbs show the following subject inflection prefixes 2 (Marlett 2016: 420): sg. Ո- (transitive),

1

Ոp- (intransitive)

2 3

pl.

m-

Ոama-

Ø-, i- (3 person subject + 3rd person direct object) rd

This paradigm is strikingly similar to the paradigm of subject inflection reconstructed for Proto-Yuman (Hinton & Langdon 1976: 120): *Ը- ‘first person’, *m- ‘second person’, *Ø- ‘third person’3. While m- as second person marker is widespread in the Americas (Zamponi 2017), the pronominal paradigm Ը-ɍ/ɍm-ɍ/ɍØ- is not. Remarkably, a similar paradigm is found in Chimariko, a Hokan language geographically distant from both Seri and Yuman. Chimariko verbal suffixes for singular agent are -Ը(i) ‘first person’, -m(V) ‘second person’ and -h/Ø ‘third person’ (Jany 2009: 100). There are six verbal stem classes depending on the initial segment of the stem: a-stems, e-stems, i-stems, o-stems, u-stems and consonantal stems (Jany 2009: 33). Consonantal stems, i.e. stems beginning with a consonant, take suffixed person markers, while stems beginning with a vowel take person prefixes, which interact in a complex way with the stem vowel (Jany 2009: 100). The following table shows Chimariko person prefixes for agent: 2 3

All data in this paper are in the Americanist transcription system. The comparison between Seri and Proto-Yuman forms was proposed by M. Langdon (Marlett 2007). 139

Mikhail Zhivlov

i-stem

e-stem

a-stem

o-stem

u-stem

1 sg.

Ոi-

ye-

ye-

yo-

yu-

2 sg.

mi-

me-

ma-

mo-

mu-

3 sg.

hi-

he-

ha-

ho-

hu-

1 pl.

ya-

ya-

ya-

ya-

ya-

2 pl.

q֣u-

q֣o-

q֣a-

q֣o-

q֣u-

3 pl.

hi-

he-

ha-

ho-

hu-

We can posit the underlying forms of agent prefixes *y- ‘1 sg.’, *m- ‘2 sg.’, *h- ‘3 sg./pl.’, *ya- ‘1 pl.’ and *qվu- ‘2 pl.’. Then the following morphophonological rules will yield the observed forms of the prefixes: *y + i- ՜ Ըi-, *y + a ՜ ye (before consonants) / ya (before vowels), *a + V ՜ a, *u + i/u ՜ u, *u + e/o ՜ o, *u + a ՜ a. Sapir, who first suggested this analysis of Chimariko forms, noted their similarity with the markers of person in another Hokan language, Salinan (Sapir 1920a). Salinan has the following verbal subject markers (Turner 1987: 129): sg.

pl.

1

-ek๎

-ak๎

2

m-

k-

3

-oՈ

Ø

According to Turner, “[w]hatever the first vowel of the verb stem, it is replaced by a in the first person plural and by o in the second person plural” (ibid.). So, Chimariko and Salinan have in common not only second person singular in m- and second person plural in velar/uvular 4, but also vowels that replace (or merge with) the stem vowel: first person plural aand second person plural u/o-. Let us have another look at Seri: the first person plural prefix Ըa- (opposed to the first person singular Ը-) in this language can be compared to the Chimariko ya- and Salinan a-. Both yin Chimariko (Sapir 1920a: 293) and Ը- in Seri seem to be taken from singular forms. If this hypothesis is correct, the Seri second person plural prefix ma- replaced the original form, which is preserved as qվu- in Chimariko and as ko- in Salinan, under the joint influence of second person singular m- and first person plural Ըa-. The same pattern of a for the first person and u for the second person can be found in Highland Oaxaca Chontal, where subject prefixes before consonant-initial verbal stems have the following shape (Langdon 1997: 26–28): non-past

past

1 sg.

ga-

ay-

2 sg.

do-, du-

o-/u-

3 sg.

di-

i-

1 pl.

aů-

aů-

2 pl.

doů-, uů-

oů-

3 pl.

di-, diů-

i-/iů-

Here, the pattern of a for the first person and u for the second person is extended to singular subjects as well. 4

140

Salinan does not have uvulars in its phonological system. It also has only three vowel phonemes: a, e and o.

Some morphological parallels between Hokan languages

1.2. Person marking in Hokan languages is also found on nouns, where it denotes person of the possessor. Seri has the following prefixes on nouns (Marlett 2016: 320–321): kinship terms

other possessed nouns

1

Ոi-

Ոi-

1 emphatic

-

Ոati-

2

ma-

mi-

3

a-

i-

absolute

Ոa- (before consonants) /

Ոa-

Ոape- (before vowels)

Cf. the situation in Proto-Yuman, where the following prefixes can be reconstructed (M. Langdon’s reconstruction in Marlett 2007): 1

*Ո-

2

*m-

3

*Ø-

absolutive

*Ո-

The Proto-Yuman forms have been faithfully preserved in Kiliwa, where possessive prefixes Ը- ‘1 person’, m- ‘2 person’ and Ø- ‘3 person’ are added either directly to the root, or to one of the prefixes n֋- ‘alienable’ or i- ‘predicative’ (Mixco 2013: 80–81). Cf. the following examples: (1) yuw ‘eye(s)’, Ը-yuw ‘my eye(s)’, m-yuw ‘your eye(s)’ (Mixco 1985: 223) (2) Ը-waԸ ‘house’ (Mixco 1985: 223), waԸ ‘house, dwelling’, Ը-i-waԸ ‘my house’, m-i-waԸ ‘your house’ (Mixco 1985: 180) (3) Ը-mat ‘earth, land, place’, Ը-n֋-mat ‘my land’ (Mixco 1985: 74), m-n֋-mat ‘your (sg) land’ (Mixco 2013: 81). Proto-Yuman also had an absolutive prefix *Ը-. Its Kiliwa reflex Ը- is glossed by Mixco as ‘[d]ummy nominal (dn) prefix; occurring on many nouns, optionally absent in compound forms’ (Mixco 1985: 223). Its presence in such unpossessed forms as Ը-waԸ ‘house’ and Ը-mat ‘earth, land, place’ and absence from possessed forms m-i-waԸ ‘your house’ and m-n֋-mat ‘your (sg) land’ shows that it functions as an absolutive in Kiliwa synchronically. The Proto-Yuman absolutive *Ը- was compared to the Seri absolutive Ըa- by M. Langdon (Marlett 2007). The Kiliwa prefix -i- in possessed non-kinship noun forms can be compared to the Seri vowel -i-, which distinguishes Seri possessive prefixes from subject prefixes: possessive

subject

1

Ոi-

Ո-

2

mi-

m-

3

i-

Ø-

Thus, we can reconstruct a prefix of possessed nouns #-i- and an absolutive prefix #Ըa- 5 at least for the common ancestor of Seri and Yuman languages. 5

Following Kaufman (1989), we use # instead of * before preliminary reconstructions. 141

Mikhail Zhivlov

Now we can turn to nominal possession in Salinan. In this language “pronominal possession is morphologically marked by placement of stress, affixation and the presence of the ࣢ nominal article, which also occurs as a nominalizing prefix with verbs, as the initial prefix.” (Turner 1987: 69–70). Turner gives the following chart of possessive markers: singular

plural

1

࣢-é-

࣢-á-࣢-e-

2

࣢-m-é࣢-o-m-

࣢-k-ó࣢-o-k-

3

࣢-e-a ਘ -o -o/C_ -ཋo/V(Ո)_ penultimate stress

all of the singular plus a plural marker

The most regular type of possessive paradigm can be illustrated by the word saná༂ ‘hide, skin’ (Turner 1987: 74): singular

plural

non-poss.

sanáཉ

sanaཉ-él

1

࣢-é-sanaཉ

࣢-á·-࣢-e-sanaཉ

2

࣢-m-é-sanaཉ

࣢-k-ó-sanaཉ

3

࣢-e-sanáཉ-o

࣢-e-sanaཉ-él-o

Here, the root is preceded by the vowel -e-, except in the second plural, where this vowel is replaced by -o-, cf. verbal paradigms above. This vowel, absent from the non-possessed form, can be identified with the possessed noun prefix #-i-, reconstructed above on the basis of Yuman and Seri data. The position of the marker in the word is the same: it is inserted between the person prefixes and the root (note that the prefix -á·- ‘1 pl.’ is separated from -e- by an additional instance of the nominal prefix -ࡖ-). The class of nouns without -e- vowel in possessed forms can be illustrated by the inalienably possessed noun ‘hand’ (Turner 1987: 83): singular

plural

1

mé·n

not attested

2

࣢-o-m-mé·n

-

3

mé·n-o

-

The following paradigm of the word for ‘house’ illustrates what Turner calls “change of initial vowel” (Turner 1987: 77): singular

142

plural

non-poss.

࣢-a·m

1

࣢-é-ma

2

࣢-m-é-·ma

࣢-k-ó-·ma

3

࣢-e-·m-ó

࣢-e-·má-l-o

࣢-á-࣢-e-·m

Some morphological parallels between Hokan languages

Here, the alternation of a in non-possessed forms and e in possessed forms is reminiscent of a similar situation in Seri. Moreover, we see here the same preservation of length as in Seri words such as Ըaa-f ‘nose’, whose possessed forms are 1 sg. Ըii-f, 2 sg. mii-f and 3 sg. ii-f (Marlett 2016: 341). Although Turner calls the alternation of a and e in the Salinan word for ‘house’ “change of initial vowel” (Turner 1987: 77), the non-possessed forms of words with this alternation in the examples adduced by Turner always have -a-: ࡖ-a·m ‘house’, ࡖ-á·kෛata ‘wood’ (2 sg. ࡖ-m-é-kෛata), ࡖ-a·šax ‘liver’ (2 sg. ࡖ-m-é-·šax) (Turner 1987: 76–77). This -a- might be a synchronic absolutive prefix, cognate to Seri Ըa- and Proto-Yuman *Ը-. The similarities with Seri do not end here. Kinship terms in Salinan do not have the -evowel in possessed forms. Instead, they have a 3 sg. possessive prefix Ըa-, as illustrated by the word for ‘elder sister’ (Turner 1987: 87): singular

plural

1

peՈ

not attested

2

࣢-o-m-péՈ

-

3

Ոa-pé-w๎o

-

Salinan Ըa- ‘third person singular possessive prefix on kinship terms’ can be compared to Seri a- ‘third person possessive prefix on kinship terms’. Both are opposed to third person possessive prefix i- (Seri) / e- (Salinan) on non-kinship nouns (recall that Salinan has no i vowel phoneme). Let us now pass on to nominal possession morphology in Oaxaca Chontal (Waterhouse & Parrott 1978; Turner & Turner 1971: 326–327). In this small family, noun stems can be classified into free and bound. Free noun stems carry a definite article directly prefixed to the root. Bound stems take the prefix -a- between the definite article and the root in non-possessed forms. In other words, this -a- functions essentially in the same way as absolutive markers in Seri, Yuman and Salinan. When added to vowel-initial bound stems, the absolutive -a- merges with the stem-initial vowel in the following way: a + e ՜ a, a + i ՜ ay, a + u ՜ o. Possessed forms of consonant-initial stems have possessive prefixes (ay- ‘1 sg.’, o- ‘2 sg.’, i- ‘3 sg.’, aŭ- ‘1 pl.’, oŭ- ‘2 pl.’, iŭ- ‘3 pl.’) attached directly to the stem, while vowel-initial stems either require a possessive combiner consonant -p- between possessive prefixes and the root, or resort to a separate set of possessive prefixes 6: ayn- ‘1 sg.’, om- ‘2 sg.’, Ø- ‘3 sg.’, al- ‘1 pl.’, ol- ‘2 pl.’, il- ‘3 pl.’. Here, as in the verbal prefixes discussed above, vowels a- in the first person and o- in the second person probably descend from Proto-Hokan #a- ‘1 pl.’ and #(qվ)u- ‘2 pl.’, but the vowel i in the third person forms most likely continues Proto-Hokan marker of possessed nouns #-i-. A trace of the opposition #Ըa- ‘absolutive’ vs. #-i- ‘possessed’ seems to be preserved in Pomoan too. In her grammar of Eastern Pomo, McLendon (1975: 167–168) describes two “compound-linking suffixes” -i- and -a-. The affix -i- “linking the two members of a compound indicates that the second element in the compound is possessed by, or a part of, the first. It links nouns, and forms possessive prefixes which occur with kinship terms from the third person pronouns /mí·p๎/ ‘he’, /mí·ཉѝ/ ‘she’, and /bé·k֣/ ‘they’” (McLendon 1975: 167): (4) mí·pidà·༂ѝ ‘his wife’ : dá·༂э ‘wife’ mí·ribàyle ‘her husband’ : báyle ‘husband’ bé·kibàyle ‘their husband’ 6

Preserved in Highland Chontal. 143

Mikhail Zhivlov

xà·boԸóyelidà·༂э ‘bullsnake’s wife (a woman cured with a bullsnake was called this)’ : xà·boԸóyel ‘bull snake’ ká·wkiYà ‘human bones’ : ká·wkվ ‘person(s)/people’, Yá ‘bone’ Márakimò ‘dance house hole’ : Márakվ ‘dance house’, mó ‘hole’ The affix -a- “linking the two members of a compound indicates that the second element in the compound is composed of, or by the first. It always links nouns.” (McLendon 1975: 168): (5) ló༂akà ‘summer brush house (made of cut green willows with the leaves left on)’ : ló༂ ‘cut green willows with leaves left on’, ká ‘house’ ŏվi·Níŏakà ‘woodrat house’ : ŏվi·Níŏվ ‘woodrat’ há·yaxà ‘wine’ : há·y ‘wild grapes’, xá ‘water’ Another trace of the Proto-Hokan opposition #Ըa- ‘absolutive’ vs. #-i- ‘possessed’ is preserved in the Proto-Pomo lexical pair *Ըahpվa ‘excrement’ / *Ըihpվa ‘intestines’ (R. Oswalt’s reconstruction, cited by H. Berman in Sapir 2001: 1053). The first word denotes an object that rarely figures as possessed, while the second word is typically possessed being a body-part. The same lexical pair is attested in Chimariko: ápxэa ‘excrement’ / ípxэa ‘intestines’ (Sapir 2001: 1053). Kaufman reconstructs #a-pxэa ‘shit’ and #i-pxэa ‘guts’ for Proto-Hokan (Kaufman 1989: 133). 1.3. To sum up, I propose the following reconstructions for Proto-Hokan. 1) Person/number prefixes on verbs (subject) and nouns (possessor). sg.

pl.

1

#Ո-

#a-

2

#m-

#q֣u-

3

#Ø- or #h-

In addition, kinship terms had a prefix #a- in the third person instead of #Ø- or #h-. 2) Nominal prefixes #-i- ‘possessed’ (placed before root, but after person/number prefixes; not used with kinship terms and perhaps other inalienably possessed nouns) and #Ըa- ‘absolutive’ (mutually exclusive with possessive prefixes). Details of derivation of daughter language systems from this reconstruction require further investigation.

2. Lexical prefixes The so-called ‘instrumental’ verbal prefixes are a characteristic trait of many Californian languages belonging to different families; they can refer not only to instruments, but also to the manner of action (DeLancey 2008, Mithun 2007). Following DeLancey (2008), I will call them ‘lexical prefixes’. Although the presence of lexical prefixes is an areal feature and as such cannot be used as an argument in favor of distant genetic relationship, such an argument can nevertheless be built on the etymological relationship of specific prefixes. Below, we will look at some cases where two or more Hokan branches show comparable lexical prefixes 7. 7 According to Sapir’s (1922: 217) analysis, Yana has no prefixes. Lexical prefixes of other Hokan languages correspond to Yana bound stems which must take a derivational suffix (Hinton 1988: 8-9).

144

Some morphological parallels between Hokan languages

2.1. #tu- ‘with the hand/fingers’ The prefix is attested in Chimariko, Atsugewi, Yana and Pomoan. A parallel is also found in the Washo verbal prefix du- ‘hands’ (Jacobsen 1964: 513). Washo also has a noun á·du ‘hand’ (Jacobsen 1964: 260). This is one of the best parallels between Washo and Hokan. 2.1.1. The Chimariko prefix tu- ‘with the hand’ (Dixon 1910: 318, 329) can be illustrated by the following examples (Dixon 1910: 330). (6) ni-tu-klucmu ‘knock over with hand’ ni-tu-kmu ‘roll log with hand’ ni-tu-xiaxe ‘rub with hand’ 2.1.2. The Atsugewi prefix tu- ‘the hand(s), arm(s)’ (Talmy 1972: 425) can be illustrated by the following example (Talmy 1972: 443). (7) s༂uspෛaqෛíw ‘I stuck my hand into the mud’ |s-๏-w-tu-sp๎aq๎-im-a| [|s-๏-w-...-a| ‘1, (3), factual’ (inflectional affix-set), |-sp๎aq๎| ‘to move into, through mud’ (root), |-im| ‘thither’ (directional suffix)] 2.1.3. The Proto-Pomo prefix *du- ‘finger, work, action’ is regularly reflected as du- in Southern Pomo, Kashaya and Northeastern Pomo, as du·- in Eastern Pomo, and as Ը- in Central Pomo and South Eastern Pomo (Oswalt 1976: 16; McLendon 1973: 96–97). The following examples are from Eastern Pomo, Southern Pomo, and Kashaya. (8) Eastern Pomo (McLendon 1975: 45) du·dákվ ‘cut finger accidentally, or split open with fingernail (as to split open nut shell to get meat)’ |du·-dá-k֣| [|-dá-| ‘force open, expose, generally by interrupting the enclosing surface’ (root), |-k֣| punctual aspect suffix] (9) Southern Pomo (Walker 2013: 245) duhna༂๞ ‘to feel (peaches) to see if ripe’ |du-hnat‫ג‬-Ø| [|-hnat‫ג‬-| ‘try, investigate’ (root), |-Ø| perfective suffix] (10) Kashaya (Buckley 2018) duԸ༂áw ‘feel with a finger’ |du-Ոཉa-w| [|-Ոཉa-| ‘seem, feel, detect with the senses’ (root), |-w| absolutive suffix] 2.1.4. The Northern Yana bound root dô- ‘do with the fingers’ (Sapir 1922: 219) belongs to the class of bound roots that cannot be directly followed by inflectional suffixes. For some reason, this morpheme is not found in Sapir & Swadesh (1960). The forms discussed above were compared by Sapir (1917: 27; Chimariko, Eastern Pomo), Kaufman (1989: 123; Proto-Hokan #tu-), Gursky (1995: 145; Atsugewi, Chimariko, Proto-Pomo, Washo). 2.2. #ma- ‘with the foot’. The prefix is attested in Atsugewi, Pomoan, and Yuman (Kiliwa). 145

Mikhail Zhivlov

2.2.1. The Atsugewi prefix ma- 'the foot (feet), leg(s)' (Talmy 1972: 425) can be illustrated by the following example (Talmy 1972: 444). (11) smෛa·spෛáqෛtվpu·ma ‘I stepped into a deep mud-hole’ |s-๏-w-ma-sp๎aq๎-tip-u·-im-a| [|s-๏-w-...-a| ‘1, (3), factual’ (inflectional affix-set), |-sp๎aq๎| ‘to move into, through mud’ (root), |-tip-u·| ‘into a pit’ (directional suffix), |-im| ‘thither’ (directional suffix)] 2.2.2. Proto-Pomo *ma- 'sole of foot, hoof, claw of bird; twist of wrist' is regularly reflected as Southern Pomo, Kashaya, Central Pomo and Northern Pomo ma-, as Eastern Pomo ma·-, and as South Eastern Pomo m- (Oswalt 1976: 16; McLendon 1973: 97). (12) Eastern Pomo (McLendon 1975: 49) ma·dákվ ‘cut feet on glass’ |ma·-dá-k֣| [|-dá-| ‘force open, expose, generally by interrupting the enclosing surface’ (root), |-k֣| punctual aspect suffix] (13) Southern Pomo (Walker 2013: 245) mahna༂๞du ‘to feel around with foot (testing path)’ |ma-hnat‫ג‬-ad-u| [|-hnat‫ג‬-| ‘try, investigate’ (root), |-ad-| ‘along’ (directional suffix), |-u| perfective suffix] (14) Kashaya (Buckley 2018) mahcվáw ‘push over with the bottom of the foot’ |ma-hc֣a-w| [|-hc֣a-| ‘fall over, push over: of stationary, vertical long object, usually inanimate’ (root), |-w| absolutive suffix] 2.2.3. The Kiliwa prefix m- ‘foot’ (Mixco 1971: 184; 1985: xvii) can be illustrated by the following example. (15) mŏhip 'slip, lose footing' (Mixco 1985: 13) |m-őhip| [|őhip| ‘slip, slide’ (root)] 2.2.4. The verbal prefix #ma- can be compared to the Chimariko independent verb ema- 'act with the foot' (Conathan 2002: 28). Forms discussed above were compared by Kaufman (1989: 123; Proto-Hokan #mi- ~ #ma-) and Gursky (1995: 145; Atsugewi, Proto-Pomo, Kiliwa). 2.3. #pa- ‘with the mouth / by speech’. The prefix is attested in Karuk and Pomoan. 2.3.1. The Karuk prefix pa- ‘by means of the mouth’ (Haas 1980: 70) can be illustrated by the following examples (Bright & Gehr n.d.). (16) pakátkat ‘to take a taste of (something)’ |pa-kat-kat| [|-kat| root, also found in ákat ‘to taste; to taste like’] (17) panáknak ‘(woodpecker) to peck’ |pa-nak-nak| [|-nak| root, also found in iknáknak ‘to knock, to tap’] 146

Some morphological parallels between Hokan languages

2.3.2. Proto-Pomo *ba- ‘mouth, snout, beak; sound, speak, hear’ is regularly reflected as Southern Pomo, Kashaya, Central Pomo, Northern Pomo and North Eastern Pomo ba-, Eastern Pomo ba·-, and as South Eastern Pomo b- (Oswalt 1976: 16; McLendon 1973: 96). (18) Kashaya (Buckley 2018) bahnáԸ ‘ask’ |ba-hnat-Ո| [|-hnat-| ‘try, investigate, test’ (root), |-Ո| absolutive suffix] (19) Kashaya (Buckley 2018) bacéw ‘grab with the mouth, beak (of bird)’ |ba-ce-w| [|-ce-| ‘grab, catch hold of and hold onto tightlyȄoften something movable in order to immobilize it’ (root), |-w| absolutive suffix] 2.3.3. The prefix #pa- is possibly related to the Yana bound root ba- ‘to call, invite, shout, carry message’ (Sapir & Swadesh 1960: 43), the Karuk verb ípa· 'to say (ancient)' (Bright & Gehr n.d.), and Highland Chontal verb di-ba-lay-Ըma ‘talk, converse, chat’ (Turner & Turner 1971: 61), where -lay- is apparently a suffix meaning ‘over and over’ (Turner & Turner 1971: 322). Forms discussed above were compared by Kaufman (1989: 123; Proto-Hokan #Pa-). 2.4. #pxэu- ‘by blowing’. The prefix is attested in Atsugewi and Pomoan. 2.4.1. Atsugewi prefix phu- ‘from the mouth-interior of a personȄworking egressivelyȄacting on the FIGURE [e.g., by spitting out]; from matter, propelled by the mouth working egressively sailing into the FIGURE [exs.: blown breath, spit, spat-out object]’ (Talmy 1972: 410, 421) can be illustrated by the following example (Talmy 1972: 455). (20) spෛhop·oqúw·ehè· ‘I blew the dust off my clothes’ |s-๏-w-phu-puq-uww-ihiy-a| [|s-๏-w-...-a| ‘1, (3), factual’ (inflectional affix-set), |-puq| ‘for dust to move off a surface (into a cloud)’ (root), |-uww| ‘off from over a surface’ (directional suffix), |-ihiy| ‘on one’s body’ (directional suffix)] 2.4.2. Proto-Pomo *pվu- ‘blow; burn transitive’ is regularly reflected as pվu- in Southern Pomo and Kashaya, as pվ- in Central Pomo, as fu- in Northeastern Pomo, as pվu·- in Eastern Pomo and as f- in South Eastern Pomo (Oswalt 1976: 16; McLendon 1973: 98). (21) Eastern Pomo (McLendon 1975: 52) pվu·šú·l ‘blow (continuously)’ 8 |p֣u·-šú-·l| [|-šú-| ‘force, or attempt to force through a small, narrowed, or obscured opening’ (root), |-·l| continuative manner suffix] (22) Southern Pomo (Walker 2013: 248) pվucෛ:aw ‘wind to break off one (or branch just fall off)’ |p֣u-c๎:a-w| [|-c๎:a-| ‘to break’ (root), |-w| perfective suffix] 8 This form is apparently cognate to Kiliwa p-sul ‘blow’ (Mixco 1985: 152). Kaufman (1989: 131) reconstructs #pվusu:(l) [s ~ š] ‘to blow’.

147

Mikhail Zhivlov

2.4.3. The prefix #pxэu- is related to the Yana bound root pu- 'to blow, suck, do with mouth' (Sapir & Swadesh 1960: 142), Shasta verb -e෩pxuԸ- 'blow' (Silver 1964: 171), Seri verb -apxэox ‘blow’ (Moser & Marlett 2010: 525), and a number of forms in other Hokan languages. Forms discussed above were compared by Kaufman (1989: 123; Proto-Hokan #pxэu-). 2.5. #ta- ‘with instrument’. The prefix is attested in Karuk and Yuman. 2.5.1. The Karuk prefix ta- ‘with tool or implement’ can be illustrated by the following examples (Haas 1980: 70; Bright & Gehr n.d.). (23) táyunkiv ‘to pull (something) out with an instrument’ |ta-yun-kiv| [|-yun-| root, |-kiv| ‘out through’ (directional suffix)] (24) tê·t ‘to mow’ |ta-vit| [|-vit| root, also found in ivit ‘to detach’, ikvit ‘to cut’] 2.5.2. A Proto-Yuman verbal prefix *t- ‘by means of instrument / general causative’ can be reconstructed on the basis of Yuma t- ‘to cause (general), to cause by means of an instrument’ (Halpern 1947: 22–23), Mesa Grande Diegueño t- ‘general causative’ (Langdon 1970: 86), Cocopa ŏ- ‘general causative’ (Crawford 1966: 115–116). (25) Yuma (Halpern 1947: 22) tasúl֋ ‘to gouge’ |t-asúlְ| [|asúlְ| ‘to be ripped’ (root)] 2.5.3. Forms discussed above were compared by Kaufman (1989: 123; Proto-Hokan #ta-) and Gursky (1995: 145; Karuk, Yuma). 2.6. #ca- ‘with the teeth’. The prefix is attested in Karuk and Yuman. 2.6.1. Karuk prefix Γa- (ŏa- in diminutives) ‘with the teeth’ can be illustrated by the following examples (Haas 1980: 70; Bright & Gehr n.d.). (26) Γáyunkiv ‘to pull out with one’s teeth’ |Σa-yun-kiv| [|-yun-| root, |-kiv| ‘out through’ (directional suffix)] (27) Γáruprin ‘gnaw through’ |Σa-ruprin| [|-ruprin| ‘through’ (directional suffix)] The last example is a ‘bipartite stem’, in which a lexical prefix is combined with a locativedirectional suffix to create a verbal stem (DeLancey 2008). 2.6.2. A Proto-Yuman verbal prefix *ŏ- ‘with teeth/mouth’ can be reconstructed on the basis of Kiliwa ŏ- ‘with teeth/mouth’ (Mixco 1985: 2), Yuma ŏ- ‘to cause with the teeth’ (Halpern 1947: 22), and Jamul Tiipay ŏ- (“Nine ch- stems denote actions performed with the mouth or by talking” [Miller 2001: 55]). 148

Some morphological parallels between Hokan languages

(28) Kiliwa (Mixco 1985: 2) ŏphu ‘bite a hole’ |ő-phu| [The root |-phu| also occurs in mphu ‘hole, cavity’, xphu ‘make a hole’ (Mixco 1985: 119)] 2.6.3. Forms discussed above were compared by Kaufman (1989: 123; Proto-Hokan #໲a=) and Gursky (1995: 145; Karuk, Yuma, Kiliwa). 2.7. #ha- ‘with a long object’. The prefix is attested in Chimariko, Pomoan, and Yuman. 2.7.1. The Chimariko prefix a- ‘with a long object’ (Dixon 1910: 318, 329) can be illustrated by the following examples (Dixon 1910: 329). (29) ni-a-axiaxe ‘rub with long thing (side of?)’ n-a-klucmu ‘knock over with bat’ 2.7.2. Proto-Pomo *ha- ‘long object thru air, leg, arm, wing’ is regularly reflected as Southern Pomo and Kashaya ha- (Oswalt 1976: 16). (30) Southern Pomo (Walker 2013: 252) hal:i༂๞ ‘to wave (branch) to chase flies’ |ha-l:it‫ג‬-Ø| [|-l:it‫ג‬-| ‘fan’ (root), |-Ø| perfective suffix] (31) Kashaya (Buckley 2018) hacෛálԸ ‘spread legs apart’ |ha-c๎al-Ո| [|-c๎al-| ‘separate but remain attached at one point or along one side; hinged’ (root), |-Ո| absolutive suffix] 2.7.3. A Proto-Yuman verbal prefix *a·- ‘long object’ can be reconstructed on the basis of Yuma a·- 'to cause a long object' (Halpern 1947: 23), Jamul Tiipay a·- (“Ten stems prefixed with aadenote actions performed on a long object or actions which cause an object to become long” [Miller 2001: 53–54]), and Mesa Grande Diegueño a·- (“The prefix {a·} generally indicates that the action denoted by the root is performed on or by means of one long object (or alternately a large, hard, or sharp object). People are included in the long object class” [Langdon 1970: 80]). (32) Mesa Grande Diegueño (Langdon 1970: 80) a·ma৘ ‘to cover over a long object, to bury someone’ |a·-maਾ | [The root |-maਾ| is also found in tu·ma৘ ‘to cover over a small object’ (Langdon 1970: 87)] 2.7.4. The prefix #ha- is related to the Yana bound root ha- ‘long object, affecting or by means of long object (refers to things like pole, tree, branch, hand, penis)’ (Sapir & Swadesh 1960: 88) and the Kiliwa verbal root -haԸ ‘set long object down’ (Mixco 1985: 32). Forms discussed above were compared by Gursky (1995: 145; Chimariko, Yuma). 149

Mikhail Zhivlov

2.8. #hi- ‘with the whole body’. The prefix is attested in Atsugewi and Pomoan. 2.8.1. The Atsugewi prefix hi- ‘the whole/specific part not treated by other prefix/unspecific part — of the body’ (Talmy 1972: 425) can be illustrated by the following example (Talmy 1972: 445). (33) s༃hekվ·ókվ ‘I bumped into his protruding belly’ |s-๏-w-hi-k֣਻k-a| [|s-๏-w-...-a| ‘1, (3), factual’ (inflectional affix-set), |-k֣਻k| ‘to move into contact with a big stomach’ (root)] 2.8.2. Proto-Pomo *hi- ‘with the body and not specifically an individual part’ is regularly reflected as Southern Pomo and Kashaya hi- (Oswalt 1976: 16). (34) Southern Pomo (Walker 2013: 253) Ըihna༂๞ ‘to weigh’ |hi-hnat‫ג‬-Ø| [|-hnat‫ג‬-| ‘try, investigate’ (root), |-Ø| perfective suffix] (35) Kashaya (Buckley 2018) hiԸkෛów ‘bump with the body, as when one slightly loses balance’ |hi-Ոk๎o-w| [|-Ոk๎o-| ‘strike, bump, knock, hit to a moderate degree’ (root), |-w| absolutive suffix]

3. Plural infixes In his review of J. A. Mason’s “The Language of the Salinan Indians”, Sapir (1920b: 306) remarked: “One of the most interesting and irregular features of Salinan is the formation of the plural of nouns and of the plural and iterative of verbs. No less than a dozen distinct types and a large number of irregular formations are discussed and illustrated by Mason, the great majority of them involving a suffixed or infixed -t-, -n-, or -l-.” Sapir compared Salinan infixed plurals with analogous plurals in Yana. Similar plurals occur also in Oaxaca Chontal, and possible traces of them can be found in Seri and Pomoan. For reasons of space, the discussion in the present paper will be limited to plural infixes only, although the same morphemes may function as suffixes and/or prefixes in Hokan languages. Following Sapir, we may start with Salinan infixed plurals. 3.1. The following examples of Antoniano Salinan nominal plurals from Turner (1987: 94–105) were recorded by J. P. Harrington. (36) mošéԸ ‘flame’ skóko·ye ‘crest’ šԸeneyéԸ ‘fish hook’ ࡖ-e-šxaԸa·yéԸ ‘shoe’ xátep ‘corpse’ kó·la໾eԸ ‘penis’ k-šé·kෛe·༂эeԸ ‘slope’ mé·n ‘my hand’ sónon ‘my leg’ 150

mošéԸ ‘flames’ skóko·ye ‘pl.’ šéneyéԸ ‘pl.’ ࡖ-e-šxaԸa·yéԸ ‘pl.’ xátep ‘pl.’ kó·laleԸ ‘pl.’ k-šé·kෛe·༂эeԸ ‘pl.’ mén ‘my two hands’ sónon ‘my two legs’

Some morphological parallels between Hokan languages

Additional examples can be found in Mason’s description of Salinan (1918). Although not so reliable phonetically as forms recorded by Harrington, Mason’s data are still useful. (37) epa·ฬl ‘tongue’ e·xiwaiො ‘heart’ ule·ฬtෞ ‘tooth’ a·xoฬL ‘tule’ tsොahe·ฬL ‘snow’

epaL ‘pl.’ (Mason 1918: 126) e·xiwai ‘pl.’ (Mason 1918: 126) le·ฬࡖ ‘teeth’ (Mason 1918: 128) axoL ‘pl.’ (Mason 1918: 128) tsොaxeL ‘pl.’ (Mason 1918: 133)

The -n- infixes occur only before a stem-final lateral, at least in the forms given in Mason (1918). Salinan verbs also show infixation in plural forms (Turner 1987: 152–153). (38) k-ló·l ‘it burned’ k-á·mp ‘he came out’ k-olpax ‘it grew’ k-éšem ‘he drinks’ k-ónox ‘he arrives’

k-lol ‘they burned’ k-á·mp ‘they came out’ k-ólpax ‘they grew’ k-éšem ‘they drink’ k-ónox ‘they arrive’

In three cases, “the x infix before the t of the stem results in -xl-” (Turner 1987: 153–154). (39) ke-yó·t-e hékෛ ‘I moved’ šó·t-oԸ ‘he drove it’ šó·t ‘drive it away!’

ke-yo-xl-e lákෛ ‘we moved’ šó-xl-oԸ ‘he drove them’ šo-xlaԸ ‘drive them away’

3.2. Lowland Oaxaca Chontal has several plural infixes (Waterhouse 1962: 95). The infixes -oŭand -uŭ֋- (palatalization is automatic after high vowels in Lowland Chontal) occur with both nouns and verbs; -ŭ- occurs only with nouns, -waŭ- occurs with one noun, and -n- occurs with two nouns whose last consonant is l֋. (40) in֋ámpáywá ‘cross-beam’ xuŏay- ‘lie’ akwéԸ ‘man’ Ըayguu- ‘come’ akánෛóԸ ‘woman’ kónෛíԸ ‘grandchild’ sewíԸ ‘magpie’ t֋u໻aԸ ‘field’ mil֋á ‘dog’ imul֋á ‘forked pole’

in֋ámpáywá-Ը ‘cross-beams’ xuŏay-páԸ ‘they lied’ akwéԸ ‘men’ Ըáygúu-páԸ ‘they came’ akánෛóԸ ‘women’ kónෛíԸ ‘grandchildren’ sewíԸ ‘magpies’ t֋ú໻áԸ ‘fields’ míl֋-éԸ ‘dogs’ imul֋-éԸ ‘forked poles’

Data from the Highland Oaxaca Chontal dictionary (Turner & Turner 1971) confirm that the infixal morphology goes back to Proto-Chontal. (41) al-ganay-Ը ‘group of small ranches’ du-na-way-Ըma ‘lie down’ al-buԸwa ‘well’ gal-gobéԸ ‘crow’ gal-ceceԸ ‘squirrel, chipmunk’ ŭ-eƖone ‘knee’ ŭ-imukෛoԸ ‘underbrush, thicket’ ŭ-aydaŭ ‘wall’ ŭ-afොiš ‘waist’

gal-ganáy ‘pl.’ du-na-way-Ըme ‘pl.’ laƖ-buԸwá-Ը ‘pl.’ laƖ-gobéԸ ‘pl.’ laƖ-ceceԸ ‘pl.’ l-eƖoné-Ը ‘pl.’ ŭ-imukෛoԸ ‘pl.’ ŭ-aydáŭො ‘pl.’ ŭ-afොíš ‘pl.’ 151

Mikhail Zhivlov

Salinan and Oaxaca Chontal share the following features: 1) plural infixes with a lateral, either -l- or -ŭ-, 2) -n- infixes that occur only before stem-final lateral, and 3) -y- infixes, rare in both language groups. The position of infixes in a stem varies not only between Salinan and Chontal, but also within each language. 3.3. Plural infixes in Yana have already been compared to Salinan infixes by Sapir (1920b: 306). The following examples are given after Sapir & Swadesh (1960); the capitals N, C and Y stand for Yana dialects — Northern, Central, and Yahi. (42) baaƔulԸi (C) ‘bottom oak’ daati (C) ‘child’ yaaxi (Y) ‘parent-in-law, child-in-law’ kෛuuwi (N) ‘shaman, doctor’ yeewi (C) ‘friend’ sam(si)- (C) ‘to sleep’

baƔulԸi-wi ‘pl.’ dati-wi ‘pl.’ yaxii-wi ‘pl.’ kෛuuwi ‘pl.’ yiiwi ‘pl.’ saam(si)- ‘pl.’

Jacobsen (1976: 214–215) has suggested that preconsonantal dԸ in Yana goes back to an earlier glottalized nasal. It is not clear whether we can compare it to -n- infixes of Oaxaca Chontal and Salinan, which occur only before a stem-final lateral. On the other hand, the -diinfix in saam(si)- can be compared to Salinan infixes with dental stop. 3.4. Seri 9 has multiple ways of forming plurals on verbs and nominals 10 (Marlett 1990: 532– 540). These include suffixation, infixation, and replacement. We will look at instances of infixation and replacement. In a few nouns, -x- is infixed before a final -k that itself may be deleted by a phonological rule (Marlett 1990: 536). (43) singular -apak -ask -atak

plural -apak ‘backside’ -ask ‘body louse’ -atak, -ata-ox ‘bone’

The same pattern is also found in verbs (Marlett 1990: 540; Marlett 2016: 446). (44)

1 -komka -iitk

2 -komaka -iitk

3 -kom-ox -iit-ox

4 -komak-am ‘noisy’ -iitik-am ‘drip’

This pattern can be compared to the Salinan examples like k-lol ‘they burned’. Another pattern is found in a large number of verbs, with an infix -to(o)- inserted after the stem-initial vowel (Marlett 1990: 540; Marlett 2016: 437). The Seri examples are taken from Moser & Marlett (2010). Seri verbs have separate stems for (1) singular subject, singular action, (2) singular subject, multiple action, (3) plural subject, singular action, and (4) plural subject, multiple action (Marlett 1990: 508). We list Seri verbs in four columns in that order, following the established practice (Marlett 1990). Note that in Marlett (2016: 442-448), “multiple action” is renamed as “imperfective aspect”. Still, Marlett (2016, 443) states that “[a]spect morphology also in effect indicates singular versus plural direct object and singular versus plural indirect object in many cases”. In other words, in such cases imperfective forms are used with plural objects. Seri frequently uses identical or similar means of marking subject plural and imperfective, so we can consider the Seri imperfective as a kind of plural. 9

10

152

Some morphological parallels between Hokan languages

(45)

1 -eefeŭ-im -iip

2 -eefeŭ-am -iip-tim

3 -afeŭ-am -ipa-x։

4 -ipa-ŭka

‘trip against’ ‘carry on head’

This type can be compared to dental infixes of Yana and Salinan. There are some additional minor types of plural infixation in Seri, but the most interesting pattern in the light of Hokan comparison is that of replacement of root consonants. Some nouns form their plurals by changing root-final x to ŭ (Marlett 1990: 534–535). (46) singular ášox xэékox

plural ášŭ xэék։ŭ

‘star’ ‘wolf’

The same pattern is found in verbs (Marlett 1990: 538–539; Marlett 2016: 446). (47)

1 -otexa -neešx -asx

2 -oteŭ-ka -neešiŭ-im -asaŭ-im

3 -oteŭ-kox -neešŭ-kox -asŭ-kox

4 -oteŭ-am -neešiŭ-kox -asŭ-kox

‘stagger’ ‘mash’ ‘spray’

Noteworthily, the initial t of certain suffixes changes to k after ŭ, if that ŭ replaces x in plural forms (Marlett 2016: 446–447). For example, forms like -asŭ-kox have a suffix with the underlying form -tox. This change does not happen after underlying ŭ, which does not alternate with x (Marlett 2016: 447). A search through the electronic version of the Seri dictionary (Moser & Marlett 2010) reveals that there are no Seri words with the cluster ŭx. If we suppose that ŭ in the plural forms of verbs was originally an infix, then the replacement x ՜ ŭ in the plural forms can be seen as a result of a regular cluster simplification ŭx > ŭ. Forms with the change t > k could result from the following development: *-asx-tox > *-asx-kox > -asŭ-kox. In another replacement pattern, root-final t and n change to ŭ in the plural subject forms of verb (Marlett 1990: 539; Marlett 2016: 436). In one caseȄthe verb ‘to go’Ȅa t replaced by ŭ is not root-final. (48)

1 -ooit -ataxэ -atni

2 -oiit-im -ataxэ-im -atin-im

3 -ooiŭ-a -aŭxэ -atŭ-oŭka

4 -oiiŭ-am -aŭaxэ-oŭka

‘dance’ ‘go’ ‘jab’

A search through the electronic version of the Seri dictionary (Moser & Marlett 2010) shows that the cluster ŭn is banned, while the cluster ŭt is found in two cases only: underived noun yaoŭt ‘muscle’ and t-toŭ-timȄan imperfective form of the verb k-koŭ ‘argue’. In other words, there is no obstacle for the explanation of the replacement n ՜ ŭ along the same lines as with x ՜ ŭ above: *-atn-oŭka > -atŭ-oŭka. The change *ŭn > ŭ can be viewed as regular. The same explanation can be applied to the change t > ŭ, if 1) the form t-toŭ-tim was created or analogically restored after the supposed change *ŭt > ŭ, and 2) ŭt was preserved word-finally, thus accounting for yaoŭt. The infixation hypothesis can also account for the exceptional case of the verb ‘go’: if the replacement t ՜ ŭ was originally caused by some kind of suffixation, it would not target the first consonant of the root. Under the infixation account, plural forms of this verb developed in the following way: *-atxэ > -aŭxэ, *-ataxэ-oŭka > -aŭaxэ-oŭka. If the hypothesis sketched above is correct, ŭ that replaces x, n, and t in Seri plural forms can be compared to the -l- infix of Salinan and -ŭ- infix of Oaxaca Chontal. 153

Mikhail Zhivlov

3.5 Proto-Pomo had an affix *-t-ɏ/ɏ*-ta- ‘plural act’ (Oswalt 1976: 22). In Southern Pomo, this morpheme is suffixed after a vowel-final verb root, but infixed if the verb root ends in a consonant (Walker 2013: 255–261). In Kashaya, the plural act affix can be infixed or suffixed depending on the final phoneme of the root (Buckley 1992: 336–340). The following example is from Southern Pomo (Walker 2013: 258). (49) singular act Ըahlokෛ-o ‘one (piece) falls off’

plural act Ըa:lhokෛ ‘(pieces) drop off’

The Pomoan plural act infix can be compared to dental infixes of Salinan, Yana and Seri. 3.6. The similarity of plural infixation systems discussed above seems too remarkable to be accounted for by a sheer coincidence. The geographical distance between Pomoan, Yana, Salinan, Seri, and Oaxaca Chontal makes areal explanation of the observed matches unlikely. Thus, the most probable scenario here is inheritance from a common parent language. However, if infixed plurals are inherited from Proto-Hokan, why are they absent from the other Hokan branches? The answer may lie in one of the features of the Northern California linguistic area (Haas 1976). Many languages of this area lack number marking in all or most nouns. Achumawi lacks number marking in the noun (de Angulo & Freeland 1930: 81). In Shasta, noun themes can optionally attach a collective suffix, but otherwise plural marking on nouns is absent (Silver 1966: 100–101). Chimariko lacks plural marking on nouns (Jany 2009: 71). Karuk plural suffix -sa is added only to adjectives and personal nouns, and even there its presence is optional (Bright 1957: 81). In Yurok, “[i]n the great majority of nouns the same form is used both as singular and plural” (Robins 1958: 23). In Klamath, only kinship nouns have a true plural expressed by a suffix. Others can only occur with a ‘distributive’ reduplication (Barker 1964: 183–184). With most Maidu noun stems no plural morpheme occurs (Shipley 1964: 28). Since Karuk plural suffix and Shasta collective suffix lack cognates in other Hokan branches, while Chimariko and Achumawi do not have noun plurals at all, we may suppose that at some stage all Hokan languages of the Northern California linguistic area, except Yana, lost inherited number category in nouns under areal influence.

4. Directional suffixes ‘hither’ and ‘thither’ 4.1. Proto-Yuman had a pair of directional verbal suffixes that can be reconstructed as *-k ‘hither’ and *-m ‘thither’. Their reflexes are attested in all branches of Yuman: Kiliwa, DeltaCalifornia, River, and Pai. These suffixes also acquired various secondary functions in daughter languages, e.g., marking switch reference. Below we will look at examples of the use of these suffixes in their primary function as directionals. For Kiliwa, Mixco (1971: 139) lists two directional suffixes: -k ‘hither’ and -m ‘thither’. (50a) s-Ը-hín-k ‘to run this way’ (50b) ŏan-m ‘to descend that way’ In the Delta-California branch, Jamul Tiipay has directional suffixes -k, indicating that “the action denoted by the stem is directed towards a point of reference”, and -m, indicating that “the action denoted by the stem is directed away from a point of reference (often the speaker)”. The suffixes appear only after vowel-final roots (Miller 2001: 69–70).

154

Some morphological parallels between Hokan languages

(51a) ŏepa-k ‘to emerge, come out’ (cf. ŏepa ‘to exit’) -u-k ‘to look (towards reference point)’ (51b) -a·-m ‘to go away’ (cf. -a· ‘to go’) ŏepa-m ‘to go out, escape’ -u-m ‘to look (away from reference point)’ In the River branch, Yuma (Quechan) has directional suffixes -k ‘towards here, towards self or speaker’ and -m ‘towards there, away from self or speaker’ (Halpern 1947: 28). (52a) apá-k ‘to arrive here’ (dist. pl.) t-é·-k ‘to bring something closer’ (52b) apá-m ‘to arrive there’ (dist. pl.) t-é·-m ‘to move something away’ In the Pai branch, Hualapai has directional suffixes -k ‘toward the speaker’ and -m ‘away from the speaker’ (Watahomigie et al. 1982: 276–282). (53a) e:-k-k ‘to give/receive (toward me)’ ha:-k-k ‘to look this way’ vo:-k-k ‘to come home’ (53b) e:-m-k ‘to send’ ha:-m-k ‘to look over that way’ vo:-m-k ‘to go home’ The Proto-Yuman directionals *-k and *-m have striking parallels in Chimariko, Achumawi, Atsugewi, Shasta and Karuk (Yana has a possible parallel only for *-k). 4.2. Howard Berman in his analysis of Sapir’s Chimariko fieldnotes lists the verbal suffixes -kແ ‘motion towards here’ and -m ‘motion towards there’ (Sapir 2001: 1050–1051). (54a) ná’aw੎tBบkແ ‘come out!’ n੎яwakແ ‘come!’ (54b) ná’aw੎tBบm ‘go out!’ h੎яwam ‘to go’ The reliability of Sapir’s data can additionally be confirmed by examples from the Chimariko text “Woman Wanders”, recorded by J. P. Harrington and analyzed by Jany (2009: 217). (55a) xawi

ŏվ-ušehe-k-tasun

Redwood.Indians 1SG.P-take.along-DIR-PST

si-nda say-ASP

“The bad Indians took me to this country”, the woman said’ (55b) noԸot ŏվ-ušehe-m-deԸw kෛoࡖi-hu-t 1SG 1SG.P-take-DIR-DER run.away-CONT-ASP ‘They took me off, I fled’ Although in the examples cited these suffixes surface as -k and -m, their actual underlying form in Chimariko may rather be -ku and -mu (Jany 2009: 40–41, 134). 4.3. For Achumawi, de Angulo & Freeland (1930: 94) record the derivational adverbial suffixes -ìg- ‘hither’ and -ìm- ‘thither’. The following examples can be cited (de Angulo & Freeland 1930: 104). 155

Mikhail Zhivlov

(56a) d-ím-âlù-g-ì ‘to look into, the speaker being inside’ d-ím-âdày-g-ì ‘to look out of, the speaker being outside’ (56b) d-ímâ·-lù-m-ì ‘to look into an enclosure (like a room, a pot, a cavern), the person relating the action being himself outside’ d-ím-âdày-m-ì ‘to look out of an enclosure, the speaker being inside’ The authors further illustrate the use of directionals as follows: I am inside a room, and I say to someone who is standing outside the door: t-ím-âlù-à-k look in here! I am outside the door of the room, and so is my companion, to whom I say: t-ím-âlù-à-m look in there! I am inside a room with another man, and I say to him: t-ím-âdày-à-m look outside! I stand outside the door, and I say to someone inside the room: t-ím-âdày-à-k look out this way! (ibid.).

4.4. Atsugewi has the directional suffixes -ik· ‘hither’ and -im ‘thither’, which can follow other directional suffixes (Talmy 1972: 40). The directional -ik· ‘hither’ can be illustrated by the following example (Talmy 1972: 441). (57) s༃ra༂wí·suk·a ‘I shingled the roof’ |s-๏-w-ra-ཉi-wi·su-ik·-a| [|s-๏-w-...-a| ‘1, (3), factual’ (inflectional affix-set), |ra-| ‘a planar object sticking obliquely intoɏ/ɏout ofɏ/ɏagainst a surface’ (lexical prefix), |-ཉi| ‘for a planar object to moveɏ/ɏbelocated’ (root), |-wi·su| ‘to all-over a surface’ (directional suffix), |-ik·| ‘hither’ (directional suffix)] For -im ‘thither’, see examples (7) and (11) above. 4.5. Shasta has the directional suffixes -ikෛ·a ~ -akෛ ‘hither’ and -i·ma ‘thither’ (Silver 1966: 174). They can be illustrated by the following examples. (58a) kෛwát·akෛ ‘He came hither’ (Silver 1966: 36) kෛwáska·yikෛ·aԸ ‘They came running hither’ (Silver 1966: 157) (58b) kwap·í·ma ‘I threw it thither’ (Silver 1966: 65) 4.6. Finally, Karuk has a directional suffix -mu (-vu after vowels) ‘thither, to, toward’ (Bright 1957: 99). (59) pá·Γ-mu ‘to throw to’ (< paΓ- ‘to throw’) ivyí·h-mu ‘(pl.) to arrive’ (< ivyih- ‘(pl.) to go’) iΓyúru-vu ‘to drag to’ (< iΓyuru- ‘to drag’) Its productive counterpart meaning ‘hither’ is -ra· (Bright 1957: 99–100). (60) pá·Γ-ra· ‘to throw hither’ However, the latter suffix is probably not very old: Bright notes that it can be identified with the verbal root na· ‘to come’ (ibid.). On the other hand, Karuk has another suffix with the same meaning: -uk ‘hither’. According to Bright (1957: 110), “[i]t occurs freely only after derivatives in -arѠ “to go in order to”; the resultant meaning is “to come in order to.” Besides these cases, -uk is added to a very few other stems; the meaning “hither” is apparent in some cases, but completely indiscernible in others”.

156

Some morphological parallels between Hokan languages

(61) imúsar-uk ‘to come to see’ (< imús-arѐ ‘to go to see, to visit’ < imus- ‘to look at’) ivyíh-uk ‘(pl.) to come’ (< ivyih- ‘(pl.) to go’) Ըíh-uk ‘to do a puberty dance’ (< Ըih ‘to dance’) The non-productivity of this suffix (except after -arѐ) and the presence of derivatives with obscured semantics (like Ըíh-uk) imply that -uk was driven out in its main function by the newly grammaticalized suffix -ra· ‘hither’. The original situation is perhaps preserved in the pair ivyíh-uk ‘(pl.) to come’ ~ ivyí·h-mu ‘(pl.) to arrive’. 4.7. The forms for ‘hither’ were compared by Sapir (1917: 20; Yana -ki- ‘hither’, Chimariko, Yuman), Dixon and Kroeber (1919: 107; Washo -k, Chimariko, Yana), de Angulo and Freeland (1930: 95; Achumawi, Atsugewi, Shasta), Jacobsen (1958: 201; Karuk, Yuma, Washo -ug ~ -wg ‘hither, in this direction’, Yana -ki- ‘hither’), Gursky (1966: 528; Yana, Chimariko, Palaihnihan, Yuman; 1995: 143; Achumawi, Atsugewi, Karuk, Yana, Shasta, Chimariko, Washo), Kaufman (1989: 119; Proto-Hokan #-uk֋), and Berman (in Sapir 2001: 1053; Chimariko, Yuma). The forms for ‘thither’ were compared by de Angulo and Freeland (1930: 95; Achumawi, Atsugewi, Shasta), Jacobsen (1958: 203; Karuk, Yuma, Washo -uweԸ ~ -weԸ ‘thither, in the other direction’, Yana -ma- ‘there, from there’), Kaufman (1989: 119; Proto-Hokan #-wV [w ~ m]), and Berman (in Sapir 2001: 1053; Chimariko, Yuma). Only de Angulo and Freeland (1930: 95) and Berman (in Sapir 2001: 1053) compare ‘hither’ and ‘thither’ morphemes as a set. Chimariko, Achumawi, Atsugewi, Shasta and Karuk, but not Yuman, belong to the Northern California linguistic area (Haas 1976). One of the characteristic traits of this linguistic area is the proliferation of locative/directional verbal suffixes that frequently express such specific notions as ‘into water’, ‘downstream’, ‘into the house’, ‘into one’s mouth’ etc. However, apart from the ‘hither/thither’ directionals discussed above, few, if any, of the locative/directional suffixes of Chimariko, Achumawi, Atsugewi, Shasta and Karuk have similar form and meaning. Commenting on the areal spread of locative/directional suffixes in the Northern California linguistic area, Mithun (2007: 157–158) remarks that, within Hokan, they appear in Pomoan, Shastan, Karuk, Palaihnihan and Yana, but are absent in Yuman, apart from the cislocative ‘hither’ and translocative ‘thither’. Possibly, Proto-Hokan was in this respect more like Yuman than like Northern Californian languages. It can be assumed that subsequent development of Chimariko, Achumawi, Atsugewi, Shasta, Karuk and Yana in constant contact with each other led to the parallel emergence of elaborate locative/directional affix systems, but the common core of these systemsȄthe directionals #-k ‘hither’ and #-m ‘thither’Ȅwas inherited from Proto-Hokan.

5. Conclusions There are several reasons why the comparisons analyzed in this paper are unlikely to result from areal diffusion. Cross-linguistically, bound person markers are among the least borrowed types of morphemes. It is even harder to imagine that a triple opposition of #a- ‘3rd person possessor on kinship terms’ vs. #i- ‘3rd person possessor on other nouns’ 11 vs. #Ըa- ‘absolutive’ in Salinan and Seri may result from borrowing, especially given the geographical distance and lack of contact between these languages. It is undeniable that areal diffusion played a role in the spread of lexical prefixes in Californian languages belonging to different families — various branches of Hokan and Penutian, 11

From Proto-Hokan #Ø- ‘3rd person’ + #-i- ‘possessive’. 157

Mikhail Zhivlov

as well as in the Numic branch of Uto-Aztecan. But the eight lexical prefixes reconstructed above are not found in Penutian or Uto-Aztecan. Besides, many of them have lexical sources in the independent verbs found in various Hokan languages. Plural infixes are tightly integrated into morphological structures of the languages that have them. Moreover, geographical distance between Yana, Salinan, Seri and Oaxaca Chontal makes the diffusion scenario rather improbable in this case. Finally, directionals #-k ‘hither’ and #-m ‘thither’ constitute a ‘mini-paradigm’, found in languages as widely separated as Chimariko and Kiliwa. Any scenario of diffusion must explain why this and other characteristic Hokan features did not penetrate languages belonging to non-Hokan families: Penutian, Uto-Aztecan, Yuki-Wappo, or Chumashan. The list of morphological comparisons discussed above is by no means exhaustive. Gursky (1995) lists 138 comparative sets for grammatical elements, and Kaufman (1989, 2015) offers more than 150 reconstructions of grammatical etyma 12. Kaufman (2015) also proposes a rather elaborate model of Proto-Hokan word-structure. While some of Gursky’s and Kaufman’s comparisons may be erroneous, many others are probably correct. Evaluation of these comparisons in the light of new descriptive data is one of the tasks necessary for the proper assessment of the Hokan hypothesis as a whole. Another necessary task is an attempt to verify sound correspondences and lexical reconstructions proposed by Kaufman (1989), as well as lexical comparisons proposed by Sapir, Gursky, and other researchers. Attempts to reconstruct Proto-Hokan must take into account areal influences, especially in the Northern California linguistic area. While it has been frequently pointed out that areal diffusion in Northern California makes it hard to distinguish between genetic relationship and borrowing (Jany 2016), some results of the present study suggest a more optimistic outlook. Thus, if the hypotheses offered in this paper are correct, some features of Proto-Hokan (plural infixes and a simple directional system opposing ‘hither’ and ‘thither’ forms) are better preserved by languages outside of the Northern California linguistic area.

References Angulo, Jaime de, L. S. Freeland. 1930. The Achumawi Language. International Journal of American Linguistics 6(2): 77–120. Barker, M. A. R. 1964. Klamath Grammar. Berkeley / Los Angeles: University of California Press. Bright, William. 1957. The Karok Language. Berkeley / Los Angeles: University of California Press. Bright, William, Susan Gehr. Karuk Dictionary. Retrieved 08.06.2018 from http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/~karuk/ karuk-dictionary.php. Buckley, Eugene. 1992. Theoretical Aspects of Kashaya Phonology and Morphology. PhD Thesis. University of California, Berkeley. Buckley, Eugene. 2018. Kashaya - English Dictionary. Retrieved 08.06.2018 from Webonary.org. SIL International https://kashaya.webonary.org. Campbell, Lyle. 1997. American Indian Languages: The Historical Linguistics of Native America. Oxford / New York: Oxford University Press. Conathan, Lisa. 2002. Split intransitivity and possession in Chimariko. In: L. Conathan, T. McFarland (eds.). Proceedings of the 50th Anniversary Conference, June 8–9, 2002, University of California at Berkeley: 18–31. Berkeley: Survey of California and Other Indian Languages. Crawford, James Mack Jr. 1966. The Cocopa Language. PhD Thesis. University of California, Berkeley.

12 Ironically, Campbell (1997: 296) states that “Kaufman's evidence is largely lexical”. Of course, Kaufman (1989) offers more lexical than grammatical reconstructions for Proto-Hokan, but one would search in vain for an uncontroversial language family where grammatical reconstructions outnumber lexical ones.

158

Some morphological parallels between Hokan languages

DeLancey, Scott. 2008. Bipartite Verbs in Languages of Western North America. In: O. A. Osipova, E. A. Kryukova, O. S. Potanina, A. Yu. Filchenko (eds.). Sravnitel'no-istoricheskoje i tipologicheskoje izuchenije jazykov i kul'tur: sbornik tezisov mezhdunarodnoj nauchnoj konferentsii XXV-e Dul'zonovskije chtenija (26–29 ijun'a 2008 g.). Tomsk: Veter. Dixon, Roland B. 1910. The Chimariko Indians and Language. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 5(5): 293–380. Dixon, Roland B., A. L. Kroeber. 1913. New Linguistic Families in California. American Anthropologist (New Series) 15: 647–655. Dixon, Roland B., A. L. Kroeber. 1919. Linguistic Families of California. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 16(3): 47–118. Golla, Victor. 2011. California Indian Languages. Berkeley / Los Angeles / London: University of California Press. Gursky, Karl-Heinz. 1966. Ein Vergleich der grammatikalischen Morpheme der Golf-Sprachen und der HokaSubtiaba-Sprachen. Orbis 15: 511–537. Gursky, Karl-Heinz. 1995. Some Grammatical Evidence for the Hokan Stock. In: M. Dürr, E. Renner, W. Oleschinski (eds.). Language and Culture in Native North America: Studies in Honor of Heinz-Jürgen Pinnow: 138–153. München / Newcastle: LINCOM. Haas, Mary R. 1976. The Northern California Linguistic Area. In: M. Langdon, S. Silver (eds.). Hokan Studies: Papers from the First Conference on Hokan Languages held in San Diego, California, April 23–25, 1970: 347–359. The Hague / Paris: Mouton. Haas, Mary R. 1980. Notes on Karok internal reconstruction. In: K. Klar, M. Langdon, S. Silver (eds.). American Indian and Indoeuropean Studies: Papers in Honor of Madison S. Beeler: 67–76. The Hague / Paris / New York: Mouton Publishers. Halpern, A. M. 1947. Yuma IV: Verb Themes. International Journal of American Linguistics 13(1): 18–30. Hinton, Leanne. 1988. Yana Morphology: a Thumbnail sketch. In: J. E. Redden (ed.). Papers from the 1987 HokanPenutian Languages Workshop and Friends of Uto-Aztecan Workshop, Held at University of Utah, Salt Lake City, June 18–21, 1987: 7–16. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University, Department of Linguistics. Hinton, Leanne, Margaret Langdon. 1976. Object-subject Pronominal Prefixes in La Huerta Diegueño. In: M. Langdon, S. Silver (eds.). Hokan Studies: Papers from the First Conference on Hokan Languages held in San Diego, California, April 23–25, 1970: 113–128. The Hague / Paris: Mouton. Jacobsen, William H., Jr. 1958. Washo and Karok: An Approach to Comparative Hokan. International Journal of American Linguistics 24(3): 195–212. Jacobsen, William H., Jr. 1964. A Grammar of the Washo Language. PhD Thesis. University of California, Berkeley. Jacobsen, William H., Jr. 1976. Observations on the Yana Stop Series in Relationship to Problems of Comparative Hokan Phonology. In: M. Langdon, S. Silver (eds.). Hokan Studies: Papers from the First Conference on Hokan Languages held in San Diego, California, April 23–25, 1970: 203–236. The Hague / Paris: Mouton. Jany, Carmen. 2009. Chimariko Grammar: Areal and Typological Perspective. Berkeley / Los Angeles / London: University of California Press. Jany, Carmen. 2016. Hokan Languages. In: Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Online at: http://linguistics.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.001.0001/acrefore-9780199384655-e-19. doi: 10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.19. Kaufman, Terrence. 1989. A Research Program for Reconstructing Proto-Hokan: First Gropings. In: S. DeLancey (ed.). Papers from the 1988 Hokan-Penutian Languages Workshop, Held at the University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, June 16–18, 1988: 50–168. Eugene, OR: Department of Linguistics, University of Oregon. Kaufman, Terrence. 2015. Some Hypotheses Regarding Proto-Hokan Grammar. Retrieved from https://www.albany.edu/ ims/pdlma/2015%20Publications/Kaufman-some%20hypotheses%20regarding%20protoHokan%20grammarrevd2015.pdf. Langdon, Margaret. 1970. A Grammar of Diegueño: The Mesa Grande Dialect. Berkeley / Los Angeles / London: University of California Press. Langdon, Margaret. 1997. Notes on Highland Chontal Internal Reconstruction. In: L. Hinton (ed.). The Hokan, Penutian & J.P. Harrington Conferences And The Mary R. Haas Memorial, June 28–29, 1996, University of California at Berkeley: 25–34. Survey of California and Other Indian Languages. Marlett, Stephen A. 1990. Person and Number Inflection in Seri. International Journal of American Linguistics 56(4): 503–541. 159

Mikhail Zhivlov

Marlett, Stephen A. 2007. Las relaciones entre las lenguas “hokanas” en México: ¿cuál es la evidencia? In: C. Buenrostro, S. Herrera Castro, Y. Lastra, J. J. Rendón, O. Schumann, L. Valiñas, M. A. Vargas Monroy (eds.). Clasificación de las lenguas indígenas de México. Memorias del III Coloquio Internacional de Lingüística Mauricio Swadesh: 165–192. México: Instituto de Investigaciones Antropológicas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México e Instituto Nacional de Lenguas Indígenas. Marlett, Stephen A. 2016. Cmiique Iitom: the Seri language. Retrieved from https://arts-sciences.und.edu/summerinstitute-of-linguistics/faculty/marlett-steve/serigrammar.pdf. Mason, J. Alden. 1918. The Language of the Salinan Indians. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 14(1): 1–154. McLendon, Sally. 1973. Proto Pomo. Berkeley / Los Angeles / London: University of California Press. McLendon, Sally. 1975. A Grammar of Eastern Pomo. Berkeley / Los Angeles / London: University of California Press. Miller, Amy. 2001. A Grammar of Jamul Tiipay. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Mithun, Marianne. 2007. Grammar, Contact and Time. Journal of Language Contact 1(1): 144–167. doi: 10.1163/000000007792548378. Mixco, Mauricio J. 1971. Kiliwa Grammar. PhD Thesis. University of California, Berkeley. Mixco, Mauricio J. 1978. Cochimi and Proto-Yuman: Lexical and Syntactic Evidence for a New Language Family in Lower California. Salt Lake City, Utah: University of Utah Press. Mixco, Mauricio J. 1985. Kiliwa Dictionary. Salt Lake City, Utah: University of Utah Press. Mixco, Mauricio J. 2013. Introduction to the Kiliwa Language. Amerindia 37(1): 53–86. Moser, Mary Beck, Stephen A. Marlett. 2010. Comcaac quih yaza quih hant ihiip hac: cmiique iitom - cocsar iitom - maricaana iitom = Diccionario seri - español - inglés: con índices español - seri, inglés - seri y con gramática (2a ed.). Hermosillo, Son.: Universidad de Sonora & Plaza y Valdés Editores. Oswalt, Robert L. 1976. Comparative Verb Morphology of Pomo. In: M. Langdon, S. Silver (eds.). Hokan Studies: Papers from the First Conference on Hokan Languages held in San Diego, California, April 23–25, 1970: 13–28. The Hague / Paris: Mouton. Robins, R. H. 1958. The Yurok Language: Grammar, Texts, Lexicon. Berkeley / Los Angeles: University of California Press. Sapir, Edward. 1917. The Position of Yana in the Hokan Stock. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, 13(1): 1–34. Sapir, Edward. 1920a. A Note on the First Person Plural in Chimariko. International Journal of American Linguistics 1(4): 291–294. Sapir, Edward. 1920b. [Review of:] Mason, J. Alden. — The Language of the Salinan Indians. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 1–154. Berkeley, 1918. International Journal of American Linguistics 1(4): 305–309. Sapir, Edward. 1922. The Fundamental Elements of Northern Yana. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 13(6): 215–234. Sapir, Edward. 1925. The Hokan Affinity of Subtiaba in Nicaragua (Conclusion). American Anthropologist (New Series) 27(4): 491–527. Sapir, Edward. 2001. Chimariko Linguistic Material. Edited by Howard Berman. In: V. Golla, S. O'Neill (eds.). The Collected Works of Edward Sapir XIV: Northwest California Linguistics: 1039–1076. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Sapir, Edward, Morris Swadesh. 1960. Yana Dictionary (ed. by Mary R. Haas). Berkeley / Los Angeles: University of California Press. Shipley, William F. 1964. Maidu Grammar. Berkeley / Los Angeles: University of California Press. Silver, Shirley. 1964. Shasta and Karok: A Binary Comparison. In: W. Bright (ed.). Studies in Californian Linguistics: 170–181. Berkeley / Los Angeles: University of California Press. Silver, Shirley. 1966. The Shasta Language. PhD Thesis. University of California, Berkeley. Talmy, Leonard. 1972. Semantic Structures in English and Atsugewi. PhD Thesis. University of California, Berkeley. Turner, Katherine. 1987. Aspects of Salinan Grammar. PhD Thesis. University of California, Berkeley. Turner, Paul, Shirley Turner. 1971. Dictionary: Chontal to Spanish-English, Spanish to Chontal. Tucson, Arizona: The University of Arizona Press. Walker, Neil Alexander. 2013. A Grammar of Southern Pomo, An Indigenous Language of California. PhD Thesis. University of California, Santa Barbara. 160

Some morphological parallels between Hokan languages

Watahomigie, Lucille J., Jorigine Bender, Akira Yamamoto. 1982. Hualapai Reference Grammar. Los Angeles: American Indian Studies Center, UCLA. Waterhouse, Viola Grace. 1962. The Grammatical Structure of Oaxaca Chontal. Bloomington: Indiana University Research Center in Anthropology, Folklore, and Linguistics. Waterhouse, Viola Grace, Muriel Parrott. 1978. Oaxaca Chontal Noun Inflection and Classification. In: J. E. Redden (ed.). Proceedings of the 1977 Hokan-Yuman Languages Workshop, Held at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, June 21–23, 1977: 54–66. Carbondale, Illinois: Department of Linguistics, Southern Illinois University. Zamponi, Raoul. 2017. First-person n and second-person m in Native America: a fresh look. Italian Journal of Linguistics 29(2): 189–230. doi: 10.26346/1120–2726–113

ʈ. ɭ. ɹˌʻ˕˙ʻ. ʐ ˣˋ˜˥˪˥˧˻˲ ˢ˥˧˱˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˦ˁ˧ˁ༤༤ˋ༤̀˲ ˢˋːˊ˫ ̀˖˻˜ˁˢ˘ ˲˥˜ˁ ɳ ˨˪ˁ˪˼ˋ ˊˋ˪ˁ༤˼ˣ˥ ˧ˁ˨˨ˢˁ˪˧˘˅ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˧̀ˊ ˢ˥˧˱˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˦ˁ˧ˁ༤༤ˋ༤ˋ˙ ˢˋːˊ˫ ˅ˋ˪˅̀ˢ˘ ˆ˘˦˥˪ˋ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˨ˋˢ˼˘ ˲˥˜ˁ (ʓˋ˅ˋ˧ˣˁ̀ ɯˢˋ˧˘˜ˁ). ɯˣˁ༤˘˖˘˧˫˿˪˨̀ ˨༤ˋˊ˫˿˹˘ˋ ˥˄༤ˁ˨˪˘ ˢ˥˧˱˥༤˥ˆ˘˘ ˲˥˜ˁˣ˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅: 1) ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤˼ˣ˻ˋ ˦˥˜ˁ˖ˁ˪ˋ༤˘ ༤˘˴ˁ/˵˘˨༤ˁ ˨˫˄˺ˋ˜˪ˁ, ˁ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˘ˢˋˣˣ˻ˋ ˦˥˜ˁ˖ˁ˪ˋ༤˘ ༤˘˴ˁ/˵˘˨༤ˁ ˦˥˨ˋ˨˨˥˧ˁ, 2) ˪ˁ˜ ˣˁ˖˻˅ˁˋˢ˻ˋ ༤ˋ˜˨˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˋ ˦˧ˋ˱˘˜˨˻, ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˁ˿˹˘ˋ ˘ˣ˨˪˧˫ˢˋˣ˪ ˘༤˘ ˥˄˧ˁ˖ ˊˋ˙˨˪˅˘̀, 3) ˘ˣ˱˘˜˨˻ — ˦˥˜ˁ˖ˁ˪ˋ༤˘ ˢˣ˥ːˋ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˵˘˨༤ˁ ˘ 4) ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤˼ˣ˻ˋ ˣˁ˦˧ˁ˅˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻ˋ ˨˫˱˱˘˜˨˻ ˨˥ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘̀ˢ˘ ‘˨˿ˊˁ’ ˘ ‘˪˫ˊˁ’. ɳ ˨˪ˁ˪˼ˋ ˦˥˜ˁ˖˻˅ˁˋ˪˨̀, ˵˪˥ ˧ˁ˨˨ˢˁ˪˧˘˅ˁˋˢ˻ˋ ˢ˥˧˱˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˋ ˦ˁ˧ˁ༤༤ˋ༤˘ ˫˄ˋˊ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣˋˋ ˥˄˺̀˨ˣ̀˿˪˨̀ ˜ˁ˜ ˫ˣˁ˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁˣˣ˻ˋ ˘˖ ˥˄˹ˋˆ˥ ˦˧ˁ̀˖˻˜ˁ, ˵ˋˢ ˜ˁ˜ ˅˥˖ˣ˘˜˸˘ˋ ˅ ˧ˋ˖˫༤˼˪ˁ˪ˋ ˜˥ˣ˪ˁ˜˪˥˅. ʂ˕˳˩ˀʻ˯ˀ ˜˕˙ʻʸ: ̀˖˻˜˘ ˲˥˜ˁ, ˁˢˋ˧˘ˣˊ˨˜˘ˋ ̀˖˻˜˘, ˘˨˪˥˧˘˵ˋ˨˜ˁ̀ ˢ˥˧˱˥༤˥ˆ˘̀, ̀˖˻˜˥˅˥ˋ ˧˥ˊ˨˪˅˥ ˘ ̀˖˻˜˥˅˻ˋ ˜˥ˣ˪ˁ˜˪˻.

161

Book Reviews / ʍˀ˨ˀ˗ˊˌˌ ʎ. ɭ. ɯ˟˛˕ʸː / Svetlana Burlak Václav Blažek, Michal Schwarz. Raní Indoevropané v Centrální Asii a Āínŕ: Kulturní vztahy v zrcadle jazyka Praha: Nakladatelství Lidové noviny, 2017. 305 s. ʍ˥ˣ˥ˆ˧ˁ˱˘̀ ɳˁ˴༤ˁ˅ˁ ɲ༤ˁːˋ˜ˁ ˘ ʍ˘˲ˁ༤ˁ ʣ˅ˁ˧˴ˁ ˦˥˨˅̀˹ˋˣˁ ˜˥ˣ˪ˁ˜˪ˁˢ ˧ˁˣˣ˘˲ ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˴ˋ˅ ˨ ˜˘˪ˁ˙˨˜˘ˢ ˘ ˊ˧˫ˆ˘ˢ˘ ̀˖˻˜ˁˢ˘ ʟˋˣ˪˧ˁ༤˼ˣ˥˙ ɯ˖˘˘. ɳ ˣˋ˙ ˧ˁ˨˨ˢˁ˪˧˘˅ˁ˿˪˨̀ ˅˖ˁ˘ˢˣ˻ˋ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘̀ ˢˋːˊ˫ ˪˥˲ˁ˧˨˜˘ˢ˘ ̀˖˻˜ˁˢ˘ ˘ ˊ˧˫ˆ˘ˢ˘ ̀˖˻˜ˁˢ˘ ˧ˋˆ˘˥ˣˁ — ˜ˁ˜ ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˨˜˘ˢ˘, ˪ˁ˜ ˘ ˣˋ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˨˜˘ˢ˘, ˦˧ˋːˊˋ ˅˨ˋˆ˥ ˜˘˪ˁ˙˨˜˘ˢ; ˪˥˲ˁ˧˨˜˘ˋ ˘ ˘˧ˁˣ˨˜˘ˋ ˣˁ˖˅ˁˣ˘̀ ˢˋ˪ˁ༤༤˥˅ ˘ ˘˲ ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘̀; ˣˁ˖˅ˁˣ˘̀ ˧ˋ˜, ˥˖ˌ˧ ˘ ˆ˥˧ ˅ ˄ˁ˨˨ˋ˙ˣˋ ɯ˧ˁ༤˼˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˢ˥˧̀, ˥˖ˋ˧ˁ ɲˁ༤˲ˁ˸ ˘ ˧ˋ˜˘ ʕˁ˧˘ˢ — ˣˋ ˪˥༤˼˜˥ ˨˥˅˧ˋˢˋˣˣ˻ˋ, ˣ˥ ˘ ˘˖˅ˋ˨˪ˣ˻ˋ ˦˥ ˁˣ˪˘˵ˣ˻ˢ ˘ ˊ˧ˋ˅ˣˋ˜˘˪ˁ˙˨˜˘ˢ ˦˘˨˼ˢˋˣˣ˻ˢ ˘˨˪˥˵ˣ˘˜ˁˢ (ˁ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˘˖ ʍ༤ˁˊ˸ˋ˙ ɯ˅ˋ˨˪˻). ʑ˧˘ˢˋ˧ˣ˥ ˪˧ˋ˪˼ ˧ˁ˄˥˪˻ ˦˥˨˅̀˹ˋˣˁ ˧ˁ˖˄˥˧˫ ˧ˁ˖༤˘˵ˣ˻˲ ˅ˋ˧˨˘˙ ˜༤ˁ˨˨˘˱˘˜ˁ˴˘˘ ˘˧ˁˣ˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅. ɳ ˜˥ˣ˴ˋ ˘ˢˋ˿˪˨̀ ˦˧˘༤˥ːˋˣ˘̀ — ˦ˋ˧˘˥ˊ˘˖ˁ˴˘̀ ˜˘˪ˁ˙˨˜˥˙ ˘˨˪˥˧˘˘ ˘ ˜˘˪ˁ˙˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ ˦˥ ˧ˁ˖ˣ˻ˢ ˁ˅˪˥˧ˁˢ, ˪ˋ˜˨˪˻ ʑ˪˥༤ˋˢˋ̀ ˥ ˧ˋ˜ˁ˲ ˅ ʓ˥ˆˊ˘ˁˣˋ ˘ ʓˋ˧˘˜ˋ (˦˥-ˆ˧ˋ˵ˋ˨˜˘ ˨ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˅˥ˊ˥ˢ), ˜༤ˁ˨˨˘˱˘˜ˁ˴˘̀ ˪˿˧˜˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅ ˦˥ ɯ.ɍɳ.ɍɸ˻˄˥ (2006) ˘ ʐ.ɍɯ.ɍʍ˫ˊ˧ˁ˜˫ (2009), ˨˘ˣ˥-˪˘˄ˋ˪˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅ (˦˥ ˅ˋ˧˨˘˘ ʓ.ɍɯ.ɍʓ˪ˁ˧˥˨˪˘ˣˁ, ˁ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˦˥ ˅ˋ˧˨˘˘ ɴ.ɍʓ.ɍʓ˪ˁ˧˥˨˪˘ˣˁ ˘ ɯ.ɍʓ.ɍʇˁ˨˼̀ˣˁ), ˁ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˦˧˘ˣ˘ˢˁˋˢˁ̀ ˁ˅˪˥˧ˁˢ˘ ˜༤ˁ˨˨˘˱˘˜ˁ˴˘̀ ˜˘˪ˁ˙˨˜˘˲ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪˥˅. ʑ˧ˋˊ˘˨༤˥˅˘ˋ ˜ ˜ˣ˘ˆˋ ˣˁ˦˘˨ˁ༤ ˜˧˫˦ˣˋ˙˸˘˙ ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˘˨˪ ɸːˋ˙ˢ˨ ʍ˽༤༤˥˧˘. ɯ˅˪˥˧˥˅ ˥˪༤˘˵ˁˋ˪ ˸˘˧˥˵ˁ˙˸ˁ̀ ˽˧˫ˊ˘˴˘̀ — ˅ ˜ˣ˘ˆˋ ˴˘˪˘˧˫˿˪˨̀ ˧ˁ˄˥˪˻, ˣˁ˦˘˨ˁˣˣ˻ˋ ˣˁ ˁˣˆ༤˘˙˨˜˥ˢ, ˣˋˢˋ˴˜˥ˢ, ˱˧ˁˣ˴˫˖˨˜˥ˢ, ˧˫˨˨˜˥ˢ, ˵ˋ˸˨˜˥ˢ, ˦˥༤˼˨˜˥ˢ, ༤˘˪˥˅˨˜˥ˢ ˘ ˅ˋˣˆˋ˧˨˜˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲, ˦˧˘˅˥ˊ˘˪˨̀ ˘ ˁˣˁ༤˘˖˘˧˫ˋ˪˨̀ ˢˁ˪ˋ˧˘ˁ༤ ˣˋ ˪˥༤˼˜˥ ˪˥˲ˁ˧˨˜˘˲ ˘ ˘˧ˁˣ˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅, ˣˁ˲˥ˊ̀˹˘˲˨̀ ˅ ˱˥˜˫˨ˋ ˅ˣ˘ˢˁˣ˘̀, ˣ˥ ˘ ˪˿˧˜˨˜˘˲, ˫˧ˁ༤˼˨˜˘˲, ˲˫˧˧˘˪˥˫˧ˁ˧˪˨˜˘˲, ˦˧˘˅༤ˋ˜ˁ˿˪˨̀ ˜ ˧ˁ˨˨ˢ˥˪˧ˋˣ˘˿ ˢˁ˪ˋ˧˘ˁ༤˻ ˪ˁ˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅, ˜ˁ˜ ˜ˁ˧˪˅ˋ༤˼˨˜˘ˋ, ˨ˋ˅ˋ˧˥-˜ˁ˅˜ˁ˖˨˜˘ˋ, ˪ˁ˙-˜ˁˊˁ˙˨˜˘ˋ, ˢ˥ˣ-˜˲ˢˋ˧˨˜˘ˋ, ˨ˋˢ˘˪˨˜˘ˋ, ˊ˧ˁ˅˘ˊ˘˙˨˜˘ˋ, ˽༤ˁˢ˨˜˘˙, ˸˫ˢˋ˧˨˜˘˙, ˄˫˧˫˸ˁ˨˜˘, ˁ˙ˣ˨˜˘˙. ɸ༤̀ ˜˘˪ˁ˙˨˜˘˲ ˨༤˥˅ ˦˧˘˅˥ˊ̀˪˨̀ ˧ˋ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˜˴˘˘ ɯ. ʣ˿˨˨༤ˋ˧ˁ, ʓ.ɍɯ.ɍʓ˪ˁ˧˥˨˪˘ˣˁ, ʨ.ɍɸː. ʑ˫༤༤˘˄༤˽ˣ˜ˁ, ˁ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ʘ. ɲˁ˜˨˪ˋ˧ˁ ˘ ʌ. ʓˁˆˁ˧ˁ, ˦˥ˊ˧˥˄ˣ˥ ˫˜ˁ˖˻˅ˁ˿˪˨̀ ˅˨ˋ ˨˪ˁˊ˘˘ ˧ˁ˖˅˘˪˘̀, ˥˪ ˣˁ˘˄˥༤ˋˋ ˊ˧ˋ˅ˣ˘˲ ˊ˥ ˨˥˅˧ˋˢˋˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˨˥˨˪˥̀ˣ˘̀, ˅ ˥˄˸˘˧ˣ˻˲ ˨ˣ˥˨˜ˁ˲ ˦˧˘˅˥ˊ̀˪˨̀ ˵˪ˋˣ˘̀ ˘ˋ˧˥ˆ༤˘˱˥˅,

˅˲˥ˊ̀˹˘˲ ˅ ˁˣˁ༤˘˖˘˧˫ˋˢ˻ˋ ༤ˋ˜˨ˋˢ˻, ˣˁ ˅˨ˋ˲ ˽˪ˁ˦ˁ˲ ˧ˁ˖˅˘˪˘̀ ˜˘˪ˁ˙˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ ˨ ˢ˥ˢˋˣ˪ˁ ˦ˋ˧˅˥˙ ˱˘˜˨ˁ˴˘˘ ˊˁˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˘ˋ˧˥ˆ༤˘˱ˁ. ɴ˧ˋ˵ˋ˨˜˘ˋ, ༤ˁ˪˘ˣ˨˜˘ˋ, ˁ˅ˋ˨˪˘˙˨˜˘ˋ ˘ ˪˥˲ˁ˧˨˜˘ˋ ˴˘˪ˁ˪˻ ˊˁ˿˪˨̀ ˣˋ ˪˥༤˼˜˥ ˅ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˅˥ˊˋ, ˣ˥ ˘ ˅ ˥˧˘ˆ˘ˣˁ༤ˋ. ʑˋ˧˅ˁ̀ ˆ༤ˁ˅ˁ ˜ˣ˘ˆ˘ ˦˥˨˅̀˹ˋˣˁ ˜˥ˣ˪ˁ˜˪ˁˢ ˪˥˲ˁ˧˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅ ˨ ˜˘˪ˁ˙˨˜˘ˢ. ʑ˥ ˢˣˋˣ˘˿ ˁ˅˪˥˧˥˅, 30 ༤ˋ˜˨ˋˢ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˻ ˘˖ ˪˥˲ˁ˧˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅ ˅ ˜˘˪ˁ˙˨˜˘˙, 40 — ˣˁ˥˄˥˧˥˪, ˘˖ ˜˘˪ˁ˙˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˅ ˪˥˲ˁ˧˨˜˘ˋ. ʑ˧˘ ˽˪˥ˢ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘̀ ˘˖ ˪˥˲ˁ˧˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˅ ˜˘˪ˁ˙˨˜˘˙ — ˧ˁˣˣ˘ˋ, ˥ˣ˘ ˥˪ˣ˥˨̀˪˨̀ ˜ ˽˦˥˲ˋ ʠː˥˫ (1200–600 ˊ˥ ˣ.˽.), ˪˥ˆˊˁ ˜ˁ˜ ˥˄˧ˁ˪ˣ˻ˋ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘̀ ˦˧˥ˣ˘˜༤˘ ˘˖ ˜˘˪ˁ˙˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˅ ˪˥˲ˁ˧˨˜˘ˋ ˦˥˖ːˋ, ˅ ˽˦˥˲˘ ʝˁˣ˼ ˘ ʕˁˣ. ʇ ˵˘˨༤˫ ˪˥˲ˁ˧˘˖ˢ˥˅ ˅ ˜˘˪ˁ˙˨˜˥ˢ, ˥˪ˣ˥˨̀˪˨̀, ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˥, ˣˁ˖˅ˁˣ˘̀ ˜˥༤ˋ˨ˁ ˘ ˣˋ˜˥˪˥˧ˁ̀ ˪ˋ˧ˢ˘ˣ˥༤˥ˆ˘̀, ˨˅̀˖ˁˣˣˁ̀ ˨ ˧˘˪˫ˁ༤˼ˣ˻ˢ˘ ˦˧ˁ˜˪˘˜ˁˢ˘, ˪˥ˆˊˁ ˜ˁ˜ ˘˖ ˜˘˪ˁ˙˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˅ ˪˥˲ˁ˧˨˜˘ˋ ̀˖˻˜˘ ˦˧˥ˣ˘˜༤˘ ˣˁ˖˅ˁˣ˘̀ ˢˋ˧, ˅˥ˋˣˣˁ̀ ˘ ˄˿˧˥˜˧ˁ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜ˁ̀ ˪ˋ˧ˢ˘ˣ˥༤˥ˆ˘̀. ʎˋ ˅˨ˋ ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘˘ ˅ ˧ˁ˅ˣ˥˙ ˢˋ˧ˋ ˫˄ˋˊ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻. ʕˁ˜, ˣˁ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧, ˨༤˥˅˥ «˖ˋˢ༤̀» (˜˘˪. ✌ kƉn ‘˖ˋˢ༤̀ (˜ˁ˜ ːˋˣ˨˜˥ˋ ˣˁ˵ˁ༤˥)’ < ˊ˧.-˜˘˪. *khwƕ฿n, ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˥ ˧ˋ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˜˴˘˘ ʓ.ɍɯ.ɍʓ˪ˁ˧˥˨˪˘ˣˁ) ˁ˅˪˥˧˻ ˨˵˘˪ˁ˿˪ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣˣ˻ˢ ˘˖ ˪˥˲ˁ˧˨˜˥ˆ˥, ˨˧. ɯ tkaગ, B keગ (˱˥˧ˢˁ *tkeગ, ˦˧˘˅ˋˊˌˣˣˁ̀ ˅ ˜ˣ˘ˆˋ ˄ˋ˖ ˖˅ˌ˖ˊ˥˵˜˘, ˧ˋˁ༤˼ˣ˥ ˅ ˪˥˲ˁ˧˨˜˥ˢ ɳ ˣˋ ˖ˁ˨˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣˁ). ʓ˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˥ ˪˥˵˜ˋ ˖˧ˋˣ˘̀ ˁ˅˪˥˧˥˅, ˽˪˥ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘ˋ, ˜ˁ˜ ˘ ˊ˧˫ˆ˘ˋ ˪˥˲ˁ˧˘˖ˢ˻, ˊ˥༤ːˣ˥ ˄˻༤˥ ˦˧˥ˣ˘˜ˣ˫˪˼ ˅ ˜˘˪ˁ˙˨˜˘˙ ̀˖˻˜ ˖ˁˊ˥༤ˆ˥ ˊ˥ ˧ˁ˨˦ˁˊˁ ˦˧ˁ˪˥˲ˁ˧˨˜˥ˆ˥ (˦ˋ˧˅ˁ̀ ˱˘˜˨ˁ˴˘̀ — «ʃ ˴˖˘ˣ», ˦ˋ˧˅ˁ̀ ˦˥༤˥˅˘ˣˁ ˅˪˥˧˥ˆ˥ ˪˻˨̀˵ˋ༤ˋ˪˘̀ ˊ˥ ˣ.˽.), ˜˥ˆˊˁ ˧ˋ˱༤ˋ˜˨ ˘.-ˋ. *˙ ˋ˹ˌ ˣˋ ˫˪˧ˁ˪˘༤ ˥ˆ˫˄༤ˋˣˣ˥˨˪˘, ˁ ˲ˁ˧ˁ˜˪ˋ˧ˣ˥ˋ ˊ༤̀ ˪˥˲ˁ˧˨˜˥ˆ˥ ɳ ˥˪˦ˁˊˋˣ˘ˋ ˣˁ˵ˁ༤˼ˣ˥ˆ˥ *t ˋ˹ˌ ˣˋ ˦˧˥˘˖˥˸༤˥, ˣ˥ ˦˧˘ ˽˪˥ˢ ˅ ˜˘˪ˁ˙˨˜˥ˢ ˣˋ˪ ˣ˘˜ˁ˜˘˲ ˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ ˽˪˥˙ ˱˥ˣˋˢ˻. ɳ˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˥, ˦˧˘ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘˘ ˦˧˥˘˖˥˸༤˥ ˫˦˧˥˹ˋˣ˘ˋ ˣˁ˵ˁ༤˼ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˜༤ˁ˨˪ˋ˧ˁ, ˣ˥ ˪˥ˆˊˁ ˽˪˥, ˣˁ ˢ˥˙ ˅˖ˆ༤̀ˊ, ˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁ༤˥ ˄˻ ˥ˆ˥˅˥˧˘˪˼. ɳ ˣˋ˜˥˪˥˧˻˲ ˨༤˫˵ˁ̀˲ ˊ˧ˋ˅ˣˋ˜˘˪ˁ˙˨˜˥ˋ ˨༤˥˅˥ ˦˥˲˥ːˋ ˣˁ ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˨˜˥ˋ, ˣ˥ ˦˧˘ ˽˪˥ˢ ˣˋ ˣˁ ˨˥˄˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥ ˪˥˲ˁ˧˨˜˥ˋ. ʕˁ˜, ˘˨˪˥˵ˣ˘˜ ˊ˧.-˜˘˪. *tro (˨˥˅˧. 㟒 zhƉ ‘˜˥ˢˋ༤˼’) ˄˥༤˼˸ˋ ˦˥˲˥ː ˣˋ ˣˁ ˪˥˲. ɯɳ or, ˁ ˣˁ ˧ˋ˱༤ˋ˜˨˻ ˨༤˥˅ˁ «ˊˋ˧ˋ˅˥» ˅ ˊ˧˫ˆ˘˲ ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥-

Journal of Language Relationship • ɳ˥˦˧˥˨˻ ̀˖˻˜˥˅˥ˆ˥ ˧˥ˊ˨˪˅ˁ • 16/2 (2018) • Pp. 162–167 • © The authors, 2018

Václav Blažek, Michal Schwarz. Raní Indoevropané v Centrální Asii a Āínŕ: Kulturní vztahy v zrcadle jazyka (2017)

˦ˋ˙˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲, ˆˊˋ ˘˨˜˥ˣˣ˻˙ ˨ˢ˻˵ˣ˻˙ (*d) ˣˋ ˅˻˦ˁ༤. ʕ˥˲. ɯɳ tsäk- ‘ˆ˥˧ˋ˪˼, ˖ˁˆ˥˧ˋ˪˼˨̀’ ˄˥༤˼˸ˋ ˦˥˲˥ːˋ ˣˁ ˥˄˧ˁ˪ˣ˥ˋ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘ˋ ˘˖ ˊ˧.-˜˘˪. *tek։ ˘༤˘ *tiâuk, ˦˥˨˜˥༤˼˜˫ ˪ˁ˜˥˙ ˜˥˧ˋˣ˼ (ˊˁːˋ ˨ ˣ˫ːˣ˻ˢ ˅˥˜ˁ༤˘˖ˢ˥ˢ) ˋ˨˪˼ ˅ ˨˘ˣ˥-˪˘˄ˋ˪˨˜˥ˢ, ˦˧˘ ˽˪˥ˢ ˪˥˲. ts ˅˻˅˥ˊ˘˪˨̀ ˘˖ *tj ˋˊ˅ˁ ༤˘ ˣˋ ༤˫˵˸ˋ, ˵ˋˢ ˘˖ *dh. ʕ˥˲. A yŊmutsi, B yŊmuttsi ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀, ˨˫ˊ̀ ˦˥ ˜˥ˣ˪ˋ˜˨˪ˁˢ, ˣˁ˖˅ˁˣ˘ˋˢ ˜ˁ˜˥˙-˪˥ ˅˥ˊ̀ˣ˥˙ ˦˪˘˴˻, ˪ˁ˜ ˵˪˥ ˅˻˅ˋˊˋˣ˘ˋ ˽˪˥ˆ˥ ˣˁ˖˅ˁˣ˘̀ ˘˖ ˜˘˪ˁ˙˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˨༤˥˅ˁ ˨˥ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋˢ «˦˥˦˫ˆˁ˙» ˣˋ ˜ˁːˋ˪˨̀ ˥˦˧ˁ˅ˊˁˣˣ˻ˢ; ˜ ˪˥ˢ˫ ːˋ ˘ ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˜ˁ ˅ ˊˁˣˣ˥ˢ ˨༤˫˵ˁˋ ˥˜ˁ˖˻˅ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˨˘༤˼ˣ˥ ˄༤˘ːˋ ˜ ˨˥ˆˊ˘˙˨˜˥˙, ˵ˋˢ ˜ ˜˘˪ˁ˙˨˜˥˙. ɳ˻˅ˋˊˋˣ˘ˋ ˨༤˥˅ˁ «ˊˋ˨̀˪˼ ˪˻˨̀˵» (A tmŊગ, B tumane, tmŊne) ˘˖ ˜˘˪ˁ˙˨˜˥ˆ˥ ༤˿˄˥˦˻˪ˣ˥, ˥ˊˣˁ˜˥ ˨˫˹ˋ˨˪˅˫˿˹ˁ̀ ˪˿˧˜˨˜ˁ̀ ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘̀ ˜ˁːˋ˪˨̀ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥˵˪˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥˙. ɳ ˨༤˥˅ˋ ɳ ࡆipŊ৞kiñc ‘ˁ˄ˁ˜’ ˵ˁ˨˪˼ -iñc, ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˥, ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤̀ˋ˪ ˨˥˄˥˙ ˨˥˄˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥ ˪˥˲ˁ˧˨˜˘˙ ˨˫˱˱˘˜˨, ˢˁ˧˜ˋ˧ ˊ˅˥˙˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˵˘˨༤ˁ ˦˧˘ ˥ˊˣ˥ˢ ˘˖ ˪˘˦˥˅ ˥˨ˣ˥˅, ˨˧. indriñc (Du ˥˪ indri ‘˥˧ˆˁˣ ˵˫˅˨˪˅; penis’), mälyuwiñcä (Du ˥˪ mlyuwe* ‘˄ˋˊ˧˥’). ʑ˥˨˜˥༤˼˜˫ ˁ˄ˁ˜ (˅ ˵ˁ˨˪ˣ˥˨˪˘, ˋˆ˥ ˜˘˪ˁ˙˨˜˘˙ ˅ˁ˧˘ˁˣ˪ ˨˫ˣ˼˦ˁˣ˼) ˘ˢˋˋ˪ ˧ˁ˖ˊˋ༤ˋˣ˘ˋ ˣˁ ˊ˅ˋ ˵ˁ˨˪˘, ˣˁ˖˻˅ˁ˪˼ ˋˆ˥ ˨ ˨˫˱˱˘˜˨˥ˢ ˊ˅.˵. ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˥˦˧ˁ˅ˊˁˣˣ˻ˢ (˨˧. ˧˫˨. ˢˣ.˵. ˜˩ˁ˞˯). ʐ˄˨˫ːˊˁ̀ ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘˿ ˜˘˪ˁ˙˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˣˁ˖˅ˁˣ˘̀ ༤˼˅ˁ (˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤˥ː˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ ˪˥˲ˁ˧˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˦˧˥˘˨˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘̀), ɲ༤ˁːˋ˜ ˘ ʣ˅ˁ˧˴ ˦˧˘˅༤ˋ˜ˁ˿˪ ˊ༤̀ ˦˥ˊ˜˧ˋ˦༤ˋˣ˘̀ ˪ˋ˖˘˨ˁ ˥ ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˥˨˪˘ ˪ˁ˜˥ˆ˥ ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˧ˁ˖˅˘˪˘̀ ˨˥˦˥˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˘ˋ ˜˘˪. 㖮⫸ *kuƕntsi๞ƕԸ (Pulleyblank 1962: 226) ‘ˣˋ˜˘˙ ˦˫˸ˣ˥˙ ˖˅ˋ˧˼, ˣˁ ˜˥˪˥˧˥ˆ˥ ˥˲˥˪̀˪˨̀ ˊ˘ˣ༤˘ˣ˻’ ˨ ˦˧ˁ˪˿˧˜˨˜˘ˢ *qïrsaq ~ *qarsaq, ˜˥˪˥˧˥ˋ, ˦˥ ˢˣˋˣ˘˿ ˁ˅˪˥˧˥˅, ˖ˣˁ˵˘˪ «˦ˋ˨ˋ˴» (polar fox). ʎ˥, ˜ˁ˜ ˫˜ˁ˖˻˅ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˫ ɯ.ɍɳ.ɍɸ˻˄˥ (2007: 98–100), ˊˁˣˣˁ̀ ˦˧ˁ˪˿˧˜˨˜ˁ̀ ༤ˋ˜˨ˋˢˁ ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˁ༤ˁ ˣˋ ˦ˋ˨˴ˁ, ˁ ˨˪ˋ˦ˣ˫˿ ༤˘˨˫ ˜˥˧˨ˁ˜ˁ, ˵ˋ˙ ˢˋ˲ ˣˋ ˘ˢˋˋ˪ ˦˧˥ˢ˻˨༤˥˅˥ˆ˥ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘̀, ˘ ˅ˋ˧˥̀˪ˣˋˋ, ˵˪˥ ˦˫˸ˣ˻ˢ ˖˅ˋ˧ˋˢ, ˣˁ ˜˥˪˥˧˥ˆ˥ ˥˲˥˪˘༤˘˨˼ ˊ˘ˣ༤˘ˣ˻, ˄˻༤ ˄˥˄˧, ʑʕ *kuntՓŸ [˪ˁˢ ːˋ]. ʠ˪˥ ːˋ ˊ˥ ˨ˁˢ˥˙ ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘˘ ˪˥˲ˁ˧˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˣˁ˖˅ˁˣ˘̀ ༤˼˅ˁ, ˪˥ ˦˥˦˻˪˜ˁ ˨˦˧ˁ˅˘˪˼˨̀ ˨ ˫ˣ˘˜ˁ༤˼ˣ˻ˢ˘ ˢˋː˪˥˲ˁ˧˨˜˘ˢ˘ ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅˘̀ˢ˘ ˜ˁ˜ ˅ ˥˄༤ˁ˨˪˘ ˜˥ˣ˨˥ˣˁˣ˪˘˖ˢˁ, ˪ˁ˜ ˘ ˅ ˥˄༤ˁ˨˪˘ ˅˥˜ˁ༤˘˖ˢˁ, ˅ ˣˋ˜˥˪˥˧˥ˢ ˨ˢ˻˨༤ˋ ˥˄˧ˋ˵ˋˣˁ ˣˁ ˣˋ˦˥༤ˣ˫˿ ˫˄ˋˊ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥˨˪˼: ˥˪˨˫˪˨˪˅˘ˋ ˊˁˣˣ˻˲ ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅˘˙ ˅ ˊ˧˫ˆ˘˲ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˲ ˊˋ༤ˁˋ˪ ˣˋ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˻ˢ ˣˁ˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘ˋ ˦˥ˊˊˋ˧ː˘˅ˁ˿˹˘˲ ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧˥˅. ʓ༤˥˅˥ «˪ˋ༤˥» (A pl. kapŻiññŊñ vs. B kektseñe) ‘˪ˋ༤˥’, ˦˧˘˅˥ˊ˘ˢ˥ˋ ˁ˅˪˥˧ˁˢ˘ ˅ ˜ˁ˵ˋ˨˪˅ˋ ˁˣˁ༤˥ˆ˘˘ ˊ༤̀ ˨˥˥˪ˣ˥˸ˋˣ˘̀ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˲, ˣˋ ˆ˥ˊ˘˪˨̀, ˦˥˨˜˥༤˼˜˫ ˖ˊˋ˨˼ ˘ˢˋˋ˪˨̀ ˣ˥˧ˢˁ༤˼ˣ˥ˋ ˨˥˥˪ˣ˥˸ˋˣ˘ˋ ɳ ˀ ~ ɯ ʸ, ˆˊˋ ɯ ʸ ˧ˁ˖˅˘˅ˁˋ˪ ˄ˋˆ༤˥˨˪˼ (˵ˋ˧ˋˊ˥˅ˁˣ˘ˋ ˨ ä ˦ˋ˧ˋˊ ʓʓ ~ Ø ˦ˋ˧ˋˊ ʓV), ˁ ä, ˅ ˨˅˥˿ ˥˵ˋ˧ˋˊ˼, ˦˧ˋ˅˧ˁ˹ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˅ i ˢˋːˊ˫ ˦ˁ༤ˁ˪ˁ༤˼ˣ˻ˢ˘ Ż ˘ ñ. ɸ༤̀ ˨༤˥˅ˁ A ŻiŻäk, ɳ ࡆecake ‘༤ˋ˅’ ˪ˁ˜ˁ̀ ˪˧ˁ˜˪˥˅˜ˁ ˣˋ ˆ˥ˊ˘˪˨̀, ˦˥˨˜˥༤˼˜˫ ɯ i ˖ˊˋ˨˼ ˣˁ˲˥ˊ˘˪˨̀

˅ ˦˥˖˘˴˘˘ ˦ˋ˧ˋˊ CV, ˆˊˋ ˘˨˜˥ˣˣ˥ˋ ä (˘༤˘ ˄ˋˆ༤˥ˋ a) ˊ˥༤ːˣ˥ ˄˻༤˥ ˄˻ ˅˻˦ˁ˨˪˼. ɳ ˴ˋ༤˥ˢ, ˫ˣ˘˜ˁ༤˼ˣ˻ˋ ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅˘̀ ˨˜˥˧ˋˋ ˥ː˘ˊˁ˿˪˨̀ ˊ༤̀ ˨ˋ˦ˁ˧ˁ˪ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘̀ (˘༤˘ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘̀ ˘˖ ˥ˊˣ˥ˆ˥ ˘˖ ˪˥˲ˁ˧˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅ ˅ ˊ˧˫ˆ˥˙ ˅ ˪ˁ˜˥˙ ˦ˋ˧˘˥ˊ, ˜˥ˆˊˁ ˖˅˫˜˘ ˥ˊˣ˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ ˢ˥ˆ༤˘ ˄˻˪˼ ˪ˁ˜˘ˢ ˥˄˧ˁ˖˥ˢ ˁˊˁ˦˪˘˧˥˅ˁˣ˻ ˅ ˊ˧˫ˆ˥ˢ). ʎ˥ ˋ˨༤˘, ˜ˁ˜ ˦˘˸˫˪ ɲ༤ˁːˋ˜ ˘ ʣ˅ˁ˧˴, ˪˥˲ˁ˧˻ ˦˧˘˅˥˖˘༤˘ ༤˼˅˥˅ ˜˘˪ˁ˙˴ˁˢ, ˁ ˣˋ ˣˁ˥˄˥˧˥˪, ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤ˁˆˁ˪˼ ˜˘˪ˁ˘˖ˢ ˅ ˪˥˲ˁ˧˨˜˥ˢ ˣˋ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˥. ʐ˨˪ˁˌ˪˨̀ ༤˘˸˼ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤ˁˆˁ˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˪˥˲ˁ˧˻, ˦ˋ˧ˋˊ ˪ˋˢ ˜ˁ˜ ˦ˋ˧ˋˊˁ˅ˁ˪˼ ˣˁ˖˅ˁˣ˘ˋ ༤˼˅ˁ ˜˘˪ˁ˙˴ˁˢ, ˨ˁˢ˘ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁ༤˘ ˋˆ˥ ˘˖ ˣˋ˜˥˪˥˧˥ˆ˥ ˊ˥ ˨˘˲ ˦˥˧ ˣˋ ˘ˊˋˣ˪˘˱˘˴˘˧˥˅ˁˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˘˨˪˥˵ˣ˘˜ˁ. ɳ ˴ˋ༤˥ˢ ˧̀ˊˋ ˨༤˫˵ˁˋ˅ ˊ༤̀ ˪˥˲ˁ˧˨˜˘˲ ˨༤˥˅ ˨˫˹ˋ˨˪˅˫ˋ˪ ˣˋ˨˜˥༤˼˜˥ ˊ˥˦˫˨˪˘ˢ˻˲ ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘˙, ˘ ˣˋ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˥ ˥ˊˣ˥˖ˣˁ˵ˣ˥ ˥˦˧ˋˊˋ༤˘˪˼, ˜ˁ˜ˁ̀ ˘˖ ˣ˘˲ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥˵˪˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣˋˋ. ʕˁ˜, ˣˁ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧, ˨༤˥˅˥ ˪˥˲. ɳ tsä৞kana ˘༤˘ tsä৞kanta (ˢˣ.˵.) ‘̀˵ˢˋˣ˼ ˆ˥༤˥˖ˌ˧ˣ˻˙’ ˢ˥ːˋ˪ ˄˻˪˼ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˥ ˘˖ ˜˘˪ˁ˙˨˜˥ˆ˥ 曺䧆 qŢngkŖ ‘ˆ˥˧ˣ˻˙ ̀˵ˢˋˣ˼’ (< ˊ˧.-˜˘˪. *tshêƖ ‘˖ˋ༤ˌˣ˻˙ɏ/ɏˆ˥༤˫˄˥˙’ + *khwa ‘˖ˋ˧ˣ˥’), ˁ ˢ˥ːˋ˪ ˄˻˪˼ ˦˧˥˘˖˅˥ˊˣ˥ ˥˪ ˪˥˲ˁ˧˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤ˁ ɯ tspä৞k-, ɳ tsä৞k- ‘˥˄ˊ˘˧ˁ˪˼ (˸˜˫˧˫)’. ʇ˧˥ˢˋ ˪˥ˆ˥, ˦˥˨˜˥༤˼˜˫ ˜˘˪ˁ˙˨˜ˁ̀ ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˜ˁ ˨˘༤˼ˣ˥ ˥˪༤˘˵ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˥˪ ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˜˘ ̀˖˻˜˥˅, ˧ˁ˨˦˧˥˨˪˧ˁˣˌˣˣ˻˲ ˣˁ ˧ˁ˨˨ˢˁ˪˧˘˅ˁˋˢ˥˙ ˪ˋ˧˧˘˪˥˧˘˘, ˖ˁ ˜ˁːˊ˥˙ ˜˘˪ˁ˙˨˜˥˙ ˪˧ˁˣ˨˜˧˘˦˴˘ˋ˙ ˢ˥ːˋ˪ ˨˪˥̀˪˼ ˁˊˁ˦˪ˁ˴˘̀ ˣˋ˨˜˥༤˼˜˘˲ ˧ˁ˖༤˘˵ˣ˻˲ ˅ˁ˧˘ˁˣ˪˥˅ ˦˧˥˘˖ˣ˥˸ˋˣ˘̀ — ˘ ˽˪˥ ˪˥ːˋ ˨˥˖ˊˁˌ˪ ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˥˨˪˘ ˊ༤̀ ˧ˁ˖༤˘˵ˣ˻˲ ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘˙. ɳ ˪ˁ˜˘˲ ˨༤˫˵ˁ̀˲ ɲ༤ˁːˋ˜ ˘ ʣ˅ˁ˧˴ ˧ˁ˨˨ˢˁ˪˧˘˅ˁ˿˪ ˁ༤˼˪ˋ˧ˣˁ˪˘˅ˣ˻ˋ ˅ˁ˧˘ˁˣ˪˻ ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘˙, ˦˧˘˅˥ˊ̀ ˢˣ˥ˆ˥˵˘˨༤ˋˣˣ˻ˋ ˁ˧ˆ˫ˢˋˣ˪˻ ˜ˁ˜ ˖ˁ, ˪ˁ˜ ˘ ˦˧˥˪˘˅, ˊˁ˅ˁ̀ ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˥˨˪˼ ˵˘˪ˁ˪ˋ༤˿ ˨˱˥˧ˢ˘˧˥˅ˁ˪˼ ˨˅˥˿ ˨˥˄˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˫˿ ˪˥˵˜˫ ˖˧ˋˣ˘̀ ˦˥ ˥˄˨˫ːˊˁˋˢ˻ˢ ˅˥˦˧˥˨ˁˢ. ɯ˅˪˥˧˻ ˪˹ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ ˥˄˥˨ˣ˥˅˻˅ˁ˿˪ ˣˁ˦˧ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˘ˋ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘˙ — ˁ˧ˆ˫ˢˋˣ˪ˁˢ˘ ˨༤˫ː˘˪ ˅˧ˋˢ̀, ˜˥ˆˊˁ ˪˥ ˘༤˘ ˘ˣ˥ˋ ˨༤˥˅˥ ˖ˁ˨˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˥ ˅ ˜˘˪ˁ˙˨˜˘˲ ˪ˋ˜˨˪ˁ˲, ˁ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˣˁ༤˘˵˘ˋ ˧˥ˊ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˻˲ ˨༤˥˅ ˅ ˊ˧˫ˆ˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲ ˨ˋˢ˼˘; ˪˥˲ˁ˧˘˖ˢ˻ (˅˨ˋ, ˜˧˥ˢˋ ˥ˊˣ˥ˆ˥) ˖ˁ˱˘˜˨˘˧˥˅ˁˣ˻ ˅ ˪ˋ˜˨˪ˁ˲, ˥˪ˣ˥˨̀˹˘˲˨̀ ˜˥ ˅˧ˋˢˋˣ˘ ˊ˘ˣˁ˨˪˘˘ ʠː˥˫. ʇ ˊˋ˨̀˪˘ ˪˥˲ˁ˧˘˖ˢˁˢ, ˥˄˨˫ːˊˁ˅˸˘ˢ˨̀ ˅ ˄˥༤ˋˋ ˧ˁˣˣ˘˲ ˧ˁ˄˥˪ˁ˲, ɲ༤ˁːˋ˜ ˘ ʣ˅ˁ˧˴ ˊ˥˄ˁ˅༤̀˿˪ 15 ˣ˥˅˻˲ ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘˙. ɳ ˜˘˪ˁ˙˨˜˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˋ ˥˄ˣˁ˧˫ː˘˅ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˦̀˪˼ ˪˥˲ˁ˧˘˖ˢ˥˅, ˨˅̀˖ˁˣˣ˻˲ ˨ ˜˥ˣ̀ˢ˘ ˘ ˜˥༤ˋ˨ˣ˘˴ˁˢ˘, ˖ˣˁ˵˘˪, ˣˁ˵ˁ༤˥ ˜˥ˣ˪ˁ˜˪˥˅ ˊ˥༤ːˣ˥ ˨˥˅˦ˁˊˁ˪˼ ˦˥ ˅˧ˋˢˋˣ˘ ˨ ˦˥̀˅༤ˋˣ˘ˋˢ ˜˥༤ˌ˨ˣ˻˲ ˦˥˅˥˖˥˜ ˅ ʇ˘˪ˁˋ (1200 ˊ˥ ˣ.˽.). ʇ˘˪ˁ˙˨˜˘ˋ ːˋ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘̀ ˅ ˪˥˲ˁ˧˨˜˘˙ ˥˪ˣ˥˨̀˪˨̀ (˖ˁ ˘˨˜༤˿˵ˋˣ˘ˋˢ ˨༤˥˅ˁ «˧˘˨») ˜ ˄˥༤ˋˋ ˦˥˖ˊˣˋˢ˫ ˅˧ˋˢˋˣ˘ — ˵ˁ˨˪˼ ˘˖ ˣ˘˲ ˦˧˥˘˨˲˥ˊ˘˪ ˘˖ ˨˧ˋˊˣˋ˜˘˪ˁ˙˨˜˥ˆ˥, ˊ˧˫ˆˁ̀ ˥˪ˣ˥˨˘˪˨̀ ˜ ˽˦˥˲ˋ ʝˁˣ˼. ɳ ˧̀ˊˋ ˨༤˫˵ˁˋ ˅˧ˋˢ̀ ˱˘˜˨ˁ˴˘˘ ˦˥˖˅˥༤̀ˋ˪ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥˵ˋ˨˪˼ ˥ˊˣ˫ ˪˥˲ˁ˧˨˜˫˿ ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘˿ ˊ˧˫ˆ˥˙: ˣˁ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧, 163

ʓ. ɯ. ɲ˫˧༤ˁ˜ / Svetlana Burlak

˪˥˲. ɳ traksiñ (acc. pl.) ‘˜˥༤˥˨˼̀’ ˢ˥ːˋ˪ ˘ˢˋ˪˼ ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˨˜˥ˋ ˦˧˥˘˨˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘ˋ (˨˧. ˊ˧.-ˆ˧ˋ˵. ΓΚΔΘ ‘˅˥༤˥˨’), ˁ ˢ˥ːˋ˪ ˄˻˪˼ ˦˥˖ˊˣ˘ˢ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘ˋˢ ˘˖ ˘˧ˁˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥. ʎ˥ ˪˥˪ ˱ˁ˜˪, ˵˪˥ ˽˪˥ ˨༤˥˅˥ ˄˻༤˥ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˥ ˅ ˊ˧ˋ˅ˣˋ˜˘˪ˁ˙˨˜˘˙ (䧁 *trƕk), ˨˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅˫ˋ˪ ˥ ˪˥ˢ, ˵˪˥ ˅ ˪˥˲ˁ˧˨˜˥ˢ ˥ˣ˥ ˜ ˪˥ˢ˫ ˢ˥ˢˋˣ˪˫ ˫ːˋ ˘ˢˋ༤˥˨˼, ˁ ˖ˣˁ˵˘˪, ˦˥˖ˊˣ˘ˢ ˘˧ˁˣ˘˖ˢ˥ˢ ˄˻˪˼ ˣˋ ˢ˥ːˋ˪. ʑ˧ˋˊ˦˥༤˥ː˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻ˋ ˨˄༤˘ːˋˣ˘̀ ˜˘˪ˁ˙˨˜˘˲ ˘ ˪˥˲ˁ˧˨˜˘˲ ˨༤˥˅, ˊ༤̀ ˅˻̀˨ˣˋˣ˘̀ ˪˥˵ˣ˥˙ ˘˨˪˥˧˘˘ ˜˥˪˥˧˻˲ ˣˋ ˲˅ˁ˪ˁˋ˪ ˊˁˣˣ˻˲, ˅˻ˊˋ༤ˋˣ˻ ˅ ˥˪ˊˋ༤˼ˣ˻˙ ˧ˁ˖ˊˋ༤. ɳ˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˥, ˄˫ˊ˫˹˘˙ ˵˘˪ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ ˽˪˥˙ ˢ˥ˣ˥ˆ˧ˁ˱˘˘, ˦˥༤˫˵˘˅ ˜ˁ˜˘ˋ-˪˥ ˣ˥˅˻ˋ ˊˁˣˣ˻ˋ, ˨ˢ˥ːˋ˪ ˦˧˘ˣ̀˪˼ ˪˥ ˘༤˘ ˘ˣ˥ˋ ˧ˋ˸ˋˣ˘ˋ — ˣ˥ ˅ ༤˿˄˥ˢ ˨༤˫˵ˁˋ ˦˥ˊ˧˥˄ˣ˻˙ ˧ˁ˖˄˥˧ ˽˪˘˲ ˨˄༤˘ːˋˣ˘˙, ˦˧˥˅ˋˊˌˣˣ˻˙ ɲ༤ˁːˋ˜˥ˢ ˘ ʣ˅ˁ˧˴ˋˢ, ˥˜ˁːˋ˪˨̀ ˊ༤̀ ˽˪˥ˆ˥ ˨ˋ˧˼ˌ˖ˣ˻ˢ ˦˥ˊ˨˦˥˧˼ˋˢ. ʐ˪ˊˋ༤˼ˣ˥ ˧ˁ˨˨ˢ˥˪˧ˋˣ˻ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘̀ ˅ ˪˥˲ˁ˧˨˜˘ˋ ̀˖˻˜˘ ˘˖ ˊ˧˫ˆ˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅, ˁ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˜˘˪ˁ˙˨˜˘ˋ ˨༤˥˅ˁ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤˥ː˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˦˧˥˘˨˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘̀, ˊ༤̀ ˜˥˪˥˧˻˲ ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅˘˙ ˅ ˪˥˲ˁ˧˨˜˥ˢ ˣˋ˪, ˣ˥ ˢ˥ˆ༤˘ ˄˻ ˄˻˪˼. ʓ˦ˋ˴˘ˁ༤˼ˣ˻˙ ˧ˁ˖ˊˋ༤ ˦˥˨˅̀˹ˌˣ ˨༤˥˅ˁˢ, ˜˥˪˥˧˻ˋ ˖ˁ˨˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˻ ˅ ˜˘˪ˁ˙˨˜˘˲ ˦ˁˢ̀˪ˣ˘˜ˁ˲ ˜ˁ˜ ˽༤ˋˢˋˣ˪˻ ˊ˧˫ˆ˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅, — ˘˲ ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘˘ ˦˥˖˅˥༤̀˿˪ ˊ˥˄ˁ˅˘˪˼ ˋ˹ˌ ˄˥༤˼˸ˋ ˊˋ˪ˁ༤ˋ˙ ˅ ˜ˁ˧˪˘ˣ˫ ̀˖˻˜˥˅˻˲ ˜˥ˣ˪ˁ˜˪˥˅ ˅ ʟˋˣ˪˧ˁ༤˼ˣ˥˙ ɯ˖˘˘. ɳ˥ ˅˪˥˧˥˙ ˆ༤ˁ˅ˋ ˧ˁ˨˨ˢˁ˪˧˘˅ˁ˿˪˨̀ ˣˁ˖˅ˁˣ˘̀ ˢˋ˪ˁ༤༤˥˅ ˅ ˪˥˲ˁ˧˨˜˘˲ ˘ ˘˧ˁˣ˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲: ˘˲ ˦˧˥˘˨˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘ˋ ˢ˥ːˋ˪ ˦˧˥༤˘˪˼ ˨˅ˋ˪ ˣˁ ˘˨˪˥˧˘˿ ˜˫༤˼˪˫˧ˣ˻˲ ˜˥ˣ˪ˁ˜˪˥˅ ˘ ˧ˁ˨˦˧˥˨˪˧ˁˣˋˣ˘̀ ˢˋ˪ˁ༤༤˫˧ˆ˘˘ ˅ ˧ˋˆ˘˥ˣˋ. ʕ˥˲ˁ˧˨˜˘˲ ˣˁ˖˅ˁˣ˘˙ ˢˋ˪ˁ༤༤˥˅ ˘˖˅ˋ˨˪ˣ˥ ˅˨ˋˆ˥ ˦̀˪˼, ˘˧ˁˣ˨˜˘˲ — ˄˥༤ˋˋ ˦̀˪˘ˊˋ˨̀˪˘. ʕ˥˲ˁ˧˨˜˘ˋ ˣˁ˖˅ˁˣ˘̀ ˢˋˊ˘ ˘ ˖˥༤˥˪ˁ, ˅ˋ˧˥̀˪ˣ˥, ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˦˧˥˘˨˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘̀, ˣˁ˖˅ˁˣ˘ˋ ˨ˋ˧ˋ˄˧ˁ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˥ ˘˖ ˨˥ˆˊ˘˙˨˜˥ˆ˥ (˘༤˘ ˜ˁ˜˥ˆ˥-˪˥ ˋˆ˥ ˦˧ˋˊ˸ˋ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˘˜ˁ), ˦˧˘ ˽˪˥ˢ ˘˨˜˥ˣˣ˥ˋ ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˨˜˥ˋ ˣˁ˖˅ˁˣ˘ˋ ˨ˋ˧ˋ˄˧ˁ ˄˻༤˥, ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˥ ˆ˘˦˥˪ˋ˖ˋ ɲ༤ˁːˋ˜ˁ ˘ ʣ˅ˁ˧˴ˁ, ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˥ ˘˖ ˪˥˲ˁ˧˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˅ ˜˘˪ˁ˙˨˜˘˙, ˁ ˅ ˨ˁˢ˥ˢ ˪˥˲ˁ˧˨˜˥ˢ ˨˪ˁ༤˥ ˖ˣˁ˵˘˪˼ «˄ˋ༤˻˙». ɸ༤̀ ˣˁ˖˅ˁˣ˘˙ ːˋ༤ˋ˖ˁ ˘ ˥༤˥˅ˁ/˨˅˘ˣ˴ˁ ˣˁ˘˄˥༤ˋˋ ˅ˋ˧˥̀˪ˣ˥, ˦˥ ˢˣˋˣ˘˿ ˁ˅˪˥˧˥˅, ˜˘˪ˁ˙˨˜˥ˋ ˦˧˥˘˨˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘ˋ. ʎ˥ ˋ˨༤˘ A añcu; B eñcuwo ‘ːˋ༤ˋ˖˥’ ༤ˋˆ˜˥ ˅˻˅˥ˊ˘˪˨̀ ˘˖ ˜˘˪. 㘿揬 àn zhù ‘˨ˋ˧˻˙ ˵˫ˆ˫ˣ’ (< Middle Chinese *Ըբюm tఁuňh < Han Chinese *Ըƕ฿mh tŻo; ˜˥ ˅˪˥˧˥˙ ˵ˁ˨˪˘ ˽˪˥ˆ˥ ˜˥ˢ˦˥˖˘˪ˁ ˅˥˨˲˥ˊ̀˪ ˪˿˧˜˨˜˘ˋ ˣˁ˖˅ˁˣ˘̀ ˵˫ˆ˫ˣˁ, ˅ ˪˥ˢ ˵˘˨༤ˋ ˘˨˪˥˵ˣ˘˜ ˧˫˨˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˨༤˥˅ˁ ˩˟ʼ˟˗), ˪˥ ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘̀ B lant* ‘˨˅˘ˣˋ˴ɏ/ ˥༤˥˅˥’ < ˜˘˪. 戃揬 qiŊn zhù (