The precursors of Proto-Indo-European: the Indo-Anatolian and Indo-Uralic hypotheses 9789004409347, 9004409343

Table of contents :
1. Introduction: Reconstructing Proto-Indo-Anatolian and Proto-Indo-Uralic / Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk --
2. The Proto-Indo-European Suffix *-r Revisited / Stefan Heinrich Bauhaus --
3. Pronouns and Particles: Indo-Uralic Heritage and Convergence / Rasmus Gudmundsen Bjørn --
4. Indo-Anatolian Syntax? / Dag Haug and Andrei Sideltsev --
5. Daniel Europaeus and Indo-Uralic / Petri Kallio --
6. Bojan Čop's Indo-Uralic Hypothesis and Its Plausibility / Simona Klemenčič --
7. Indo-European o-grade Presents and the Anatolian ḫi-conjugation / Frederik Kortlandt --
8. The Proto-Indo-European mediae, Proto-Uralic Nasals from a Glottalic Perspective / Guus Kroonen --
9. Thoughts about Pre-Indo-European Stop Systems / Martin Joachim Kümmel --
10. The Anatolian "Ergative" / Milan Lopuhaä-Zwakenberg --
11. The Indo-European Suffix *-ens- and Its Indo-Uralic Origin / Alexander Lubotsky --
12. Headedness in Indo-Uralic / Rosemarie Lühr --
13. Indo-Uralic, Indo-Anatolian, Indo-Tocharian / Michaël Peyrot --
14. Proto-Indo-European *sm and *si 'One' / Michiel de Vaan --
15. Indo-Uralic and the Origin of Indo-European Ablaut / Mikhail Zhivlov --
Index.

Citation preview

The Precursors of Proto-Indo-European

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

Leiden Studies in Indo-European Editor Alexander Lubotsky

volume 21

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/lsie

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

The Precursors of Proto-Indo-European The Indo-Anatolian and Indo-Uralic Hypotheses

Edited by

Alwin Kloekhorst Tijmen Pronk

LEIDEN | BOSTON

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

The Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Kloekhorst, Alwin, editor. | Pronk, Tijmen, editor. Title: The precursors of Proto-Indo-European : the Indo-Anatolian and Indo-Uralic hypotheses / edited by Alwin Kloekhorst, Tijmen Pronk. Description: Boston : Brill, 2019. | Series: Leiden studies in Indo-European, 0926-5856 ; 21 | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2019031210 (print) | LCCN 2019031211 (ebook) | ISBN 9789004409347 (hardback) | ISBN 9789004409354 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Proto-Indo-European language–History. | Proto-Indo-European language–Grammar, Comparative. | Extinct languages. Classification: LCC P572 .P74 2019 (print) | LCC P572 (ebook) | DDC 417/.7–dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019031210 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019031211

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill‑typeface. ISSN 0926-5856 ISBN 978-90-04-40934-7 (hardback) ISBN 978-90-04-40935-4 (e-book) Copyright 2019 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi, Brill Sense, Hotei Publishing, mentis Verlag, Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh and Wilhelm Fink Verlag. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

Table of Contents Preface

vii

1

Introduction: Reconstructing Proto-Indo-Anatolian and Proto-Indo-Uralic 1 Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk

2

The Proto-Indo-European Suffix *-r Revisited Stefan Heinrich Bauhaus

3

Pronouns and Particles: Indo-Uralic Heritage and Convergence Rasmus Gudmundsen Bjørn

4

Indo-Anatolian Syntax? 50 Dag Haug and Andrei Sideltsev

5

Daniel Europaeus and Indo-Uralic Petri Kallio

6

Bojan Čop’s Indo-Uralic Hypothesis and Its Plausibility Simona Klemenčič

7

Indo-European o-grade Presents and the Anatolian ḫi-conjugation Frederik Kortlandt

8

The Proto-Indo-European mediae, Proto-Uralic Nasals from a Glottalic Perspective 111 Guus Kroonen

9

Thoughts about Pre-Indo-European Stop Systems Martin Joachim Kümmel

10

The Anatolian “Ergative” 131 Milan Lopuhaä-Zwakenberg

11

The Indo-European Suffix *-ens- and Its Indo-Uralic Origin Alexander Lubotsky

15

30

74

88

102

115

151

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

vi

table of contents

12

Headedness in Indo-Uralic Rosemarie Lühr

163

13

Indo-Uralic, Indo-Anatolian, Indo-Tocharian Michaël Peyrot

14

Proto-Indo-European *sm and *si ‘one’ Michiel de Vaan

15

Indo-Uralic and the Origin of Indo-European Ablaut Mikhail Zhivlov

186

203

219

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

Preface ‘The Precursors of Proto-Indo-European’ was the name of a workshop held at the Leiden University Centre for Linguistics from 9–11 July 2015,1 during which some thirty papers were presented by specialists from all over the world, dealing with the reconstructible prehistory of Proto-Indo-European, with a focus on the Indo-Anatolian and the Indo-Uralic hypotheses. The workshop turned out to be an inspiring event, where scholars from different backgrounds exchanged ideas and arguments, and where new data, analyses and visions were presented. In the course of the workshop, and particularly during the closing session, it became clear that all participants, speakers as well as members of the audience, felt the need for a dedicated volume dealing with the Indo-Anatolian and Indo-Uralic hypotheses. Hence the idea was born to compile the work that now lies before you. This book contains adapted versions of a selection of the papers presented at the Leiden workshop, but also several papers that were written especially for this volume. It aims to provide an up-to-date overview and discussion of the arguments for and against the Indo-Anatolian and the Indo-Uralic hypotheses and related issues. We expect it to serve as a reference tool and inspiration for new research into the prehistory of Proto-Indo-European. The editors 1 Organized by Alwin Kloekhorst in the context of his research project ‘Splitting the Mother Tongue: The Position of Anatolian in the Dispersal of the Indo-European Language Family’ (NWO project nr. 276-70-026).

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

chapter 1

Introduction: Reconstructing Proto-Indo-Anatolian and Proto-Indo-Uralic* Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk

Like any other natural language, the mother language of the Indo-European language family did not originate out of nothing. It must have developed, as a result of linguistic changes, from an earlier language, which in turn must have developed from an even earlier language, and so on. It is therefore legitimate to ask whether anything meaningful can be said about the nature of these precursors of Proto-Indo-European. The answer to this question naturally depends on whether relatives from outside the Indo-European language family can be identified and, if so, whether there are enough similarities with Proto-IndoEuropean to set up hypothetical etymologies that can be used to reconstruct a common proto-language.

1

The Nature of Proto-Indo-European

Before we try to answer the question whether any outer-Indo-European relatives can be identified, we first need to be explicit about what exactly is meant by the term Proto-Indo-European. In theory, the answer is straightforward: what we call Proto-Indo-European should correspond to the proto-language as it was spoken immediately before the first diversification took place that resulted in its eventual dissolution into the Indo-European daughter languages. However, in practice it is not always easy to determine what the proto-language looked like at this stage. In part, this is due to the history of the field of comparative Indo-European linguistics. Beginning with Sir William Jones’ observation that Sanskrit bears “a stronger affinity” to Greek and Latin “than could possibly have been produced by accident”, the field of Indo-European linguistics initially focused on the evidence from especially these three languages, resulting in the classical reconstruction of late 19th century Proto-Indo-European as can * Part of the research for this article was financed by the research project ‘Splitting the Mother Tongue: The Position of Anatolian in the Dispersal of the Indo-European Language Family’ (NWO project nr. 276-70-026).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004409354_002 Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

2

kloekhorst and pronk

be found in, e.g., Brugmann’s Grundriss. However, at the beginning of the 20th century, two new Indo-European branches were discovered, Tocharian and Anatolian, of which especially the latter had a huge impact on Indo-European studies. Hittite, the best known Anatolian language, famously provided conclusive evidence in favour of what is today known as the “laryngeal theory”. In lexemes where de Saussure had predicted the presence of a coefficient sonantique, Hittite turned out to have a consonantal phoneme ḫ. Anatolian thereby completely changed the reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-European phonemic system. This, in turn, had important consequences for the reconstruction of ProtoIndo-European morphology. Without the laryngeal theory, current views on, e.g., the nominal ablaut-accent types, would not have existed. It has, however, taken decades before all implications of the laryngeal theory were properly understood and it was fully incorporated into the reconstruction of Proto-IndoEuropean. Even today, its full impact is sometimes underestimated.1

2

The Indo-Anatolian Hypothesis

Hittite also changed the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European in another, fundamental way. Although in some respects Hittite seems to be a very archaic Indo-European language, e.g. by preserving verbal ablaut patterns better than any other ancient Indo-European language, in other respects it turned out to be radically different from the other languages. For instance, Hittite lacks a number of important linguistic categories that are present in Greek and Sanskrit, like the feminine gender, the aorist, and the perfect, all of which had always been regarded as core features of Proto-Indo-European. In order to account for these facts, already in the 1920s, only a few years after its decipherment, it was hypothesized that Hittite should not be viewed as another daughter language of Proto-Indo-European, but rather as its sister language (Forrer 1921). This would mean that Hittite and Proto-Indo-European both derive from an even earlier proto-language, which was coined ‘Indo-Hittite’ by Sturtevant (1933: 30). Since we nowadays know that these special characteristics of Hittite are found in the entire Anatolian branch, it is more appropriate to speak about the ‘Indo-Anatolian’ hypothesis, and we will therefore use this term in this book.

1 E.g. when scholars fail to recognize that the ultimate consequence of the laryngeal theory is that Proto-Indo-European did not possess a phoneme *a (Lubotsky 1989, Pronk 2019).

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

introduction

3

For a long time, the prevailing view was that the Indo-Anatolian hypothesis was too radical. It was assumed that the aberrant character of Anatolian was due to a massive loss of categories and other specific innovations within this branch. As a consequence, no need was felt to assign a special status to the Anatolian branch, or to alter the ‘classical’ reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European. Over the last few decades, this point of view has started to shift and nowadays the majority of scholars appear to accept the idea that the first split in the IndoEuropean language family was between Anatolian and the other branches, which at that point still formed a single language community that underwent common innovations not shared by Anatolian.2 Nevertheless, no consensus has yet been reached on the exact number or nature of these common nonAnatolian innovations, nor on the amount of time that passed between the ‘Proto-Indo-Anatolian’ stage and the ‘classical Proto-Indo-European’ stage, as one may refer to these stages now. In our view, the following examples are all good candidates for cases in which Anatolian has retained an original linguistic feature, whereas the other Indo-European languages have undergone a common innovation: Semantic Innovations: 1. Hitt. participle suffix -ant-, which forms both active and passive participles, vs. cl.PIE *-e/ont-, which is only active (Oettinger 2013/14: 156–157). 2. Hitt. ḫarra-i ‘to grind, crush’ vs. cl.PIE *h₂erh₃- ‘to plough’ (Kloekhorst 2008: 9). 3. Hitt. lāḫu- ‘to pour’ vs. cl.PIE *leuh₃- ‘to wash’ (Oettinger 2013/14: 169). 4. Hitt. mer- ‘to disappear’ vs. cl.PIE *mer- ‘to die’ (Kloekhorst 2008: 8). 5. Hitt. nekutt- ‘twilight’ vs. cl.PIE *negwht- / *nogwht- ‘night’ (Melchert fthc.). 6. Hitt. šāḫ- ‘to fill up, to stuff’ vs. cl.PIE *seh₂- ‘to be satiated’ (Kloekhorst 2008: 9). 7. Hitt. šai-i ‘to impress, to prick’ < *sh₁-oi- vs. cl.PIE *seh₁- ‘to sow’ (Oettinger 2013/14: 168). 8. Hitt. ēš-zi ‘to sit’ < *h₁es- next to eš-a(ri) ‘to sit down’ < *h₁e-h₁s- vs. cl.PIE *h₁e-h₁s-to ‘to sit’ next to innovated *sed- ‘to sit down’ (Norbruis fthc.a).

2 For recent discussions see Kloekhorst (2008: 7–11), Oettinger (2013/2014), Melchert (fthc.) and, more sceptically, Rieken (2009), Eichner (2015) and Adiego (2016).

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

4

kloekhorst and pronk

Morphological Innovations: 9. Anat. common/neuter vs. cl.PIE m./f./n.: innovation of the feminine gender (e.g. Melchert fthc.). 10. Anat. *ti(H), *tu- vs. cl.PIE *tuH, *tu- ‘you (sg.)’: spread of obl. stem *tu- to the nominative (Koekhorst 2008: 8–9). 11. Anat. *h₁eḱu- vs. cl.PIE *h₁eḱu-o- ‘horse’: thematization (Kloekhorst 2008: 10). 12. Anat. *iéug- (later replaced by *iéug-o-) vs. cl.PIE *iug-ó- ‘yoke’: thematization (Kloekhorst 2014: 5031962). 13. Hitt. ḫuu̯ ant- < *h₂uh₁-ent- vs. cl.PIE *h₂ueh₁nt-o- ‘wind’: thematization (Eichner 2015: 17–18). 14. Gen. *-om (number-indifferent) vs. cl.PIE gen.pl. *-om: formalization of number distinction (Kloekhorst 2017a). 15. Anat. has no verbal suffix *-e/o- vs. cl.PIE has *-e/o- as subjunctive and present marker: development of subjunctive *-e/o- to a present marker in cl.PIE (and loss of the subjunctive in Anatolian) (Kloekhorst 2017b). 16. OHitt. conjunctions šu and ta vs. cl.PIE demonstrative pronoun *so/to(Watkins 1963). 17. The element *sm / *si in pronouns (De Vaan, this volume, 203–218). 18. Hitt. allative case -a < *-o vs. cl.PIE petrified *-o in the prepositions *pr-o ‘before’, *up-o ‘down to’ and *h₂d-o ‘to’. Sound Changes: 19. Anat. *h₂ = *[qː] and *h₃ = *[qːw] vs. cl.PIE *h₂ = *[ħ] or *[ʕ] and *h₃ = *[ħw] or *[ʕw]: fricativization of uvular stops (Kloekhorst 2018b). 20. Hitt. nekutt- < *negw(h)t- vs. cl.PIE *nokwt- ‘night’ and Hitt. šakuttai- < *sogw(h)tH- vs. cl.PIE *sokwtH- ‘thigh’: voice assimilation (Eichner 2015: 15). 21. Hitt. amm- < *h₁mm- (< pre-PIA *h₁mn-) vs. cl.PIE *h₁m- ‘me’: degemination of *mm to *m (Kloekhorst 2008: 111234). Syntactic Innovations: 22. The marking of neuter agents (Lopuhaä-Zwakenberg, this volume, 131– 150); 23. The syntax of bare interrogatives (Haug and Sideltsev, this volume, 50– 73). There are several other arguments that are promising, though perhaps less forceful than the ones mentioned above or requiring additional investigation before it can be decided whether we are genuinely dealing with an innovation of the ‘classical’ Indo-European languages:

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

introduction

5

24. Hitt. unreduplicated ḫi-conjugation vs. cl.PIE reduplicated perfect: generalization of reduplication in the perfect (Kloekhorst 2018a) [but the presence of (traces of) unreduplicated perfects in ‘classical’ Indo-European, esp. in Germanic and Balto-Slavic, may indicate that the generalization of reduplication was either not absolute, or not shared by all branches]. 25. Hitt. 1pl. -u̯ en(i) vs. cl.PIE dual *-u̯ e(-): development of a clusivitiy system to a plural/dual system (Kloekhorst 2017b) [but it cannot be ruled out that Hittite developed the plural ending from an original dual ending]. 26. Hitt. lāḫu- ‘to pour’ < *leh₃u- vs. cl.PIE *leuh₃- ‘to wash’: laryngeal metathesis (Oettinger 2013/14: 169) [but the details of possible laryngeal metathesis in Anatolian are unclear]. 27. Anat. *[tː], *[ʔt], *[t] vs. cl.PIE *t, d, *dh (*t, *ʔd, *d): consonant shift (Kloekhorst 2016) [but cf. Kümmel, this volume, 115–130, for criticism of Kloekhorst’s scenario]. 28. Hitt. -(e)t < *-(e)t vs. cl.PIE *-(e)h₁ (instr. ending): development of PIH *-t > cl.PIE *-ʔd > *-ʔ (Kortlandt 2010: 41) [but the exact conditions for the proposed sound change remain unclear]. 29. Anat. *mK vs. cl.PIE *nK in *h₂emǵh- > *h₂enǵh- ‘to tie, to restrict’ and *temk- > *tenk- ‘to solidify, to coagulate’: assimilation (Eichner 2015: 1616) [but it cannot be ruled out that the assimilation took place independently in different branches; see Pronk 2010 for potential evidence for the *m of *h₂emǵh- in Greek]. 30. Anat. *-ms vs. cl.PIE *-ns (acc.pl. ending): assimiliation [but it cannot be ruled out that the assimilation took place independently in different branches]. 31. Hitt. e-eš-ši < *h₁essi vs. cl.PIE *h₁esi ‘you are’: degemination of *ss to *s (Kloekhorst 2016: 238–240) [but the ending *-si may have been restored in Hittite]. 32. Hitt. šiun < *diéum/*diḗum vs. cl.PIE *diḗm ‘god (acc.sg.)’: ‘Stang’s Law’ [but the Hitt. acc.sg. šiun may have been formed in analogy to the nom.sg. šiuš]. 33. Hitt. dā-i ‘to take’ vs. cl.PIE *deh₃- ‘to give’: semantic innovation (Norbruis fthc.b) [but the innovation may not be shared by all non-Anatolian IE branches]. 34. Hitt. causatives of the shape *CóC-e(i) (e.g. lāki ‘he knocks down < he makes lie down’ < *lógh-e(i)) vs. cl.PIE causatives of the shape *CoCeie/o- (e.g. *logh-éie/o- ‘to make lie down’): innovation of the *CoC-eie/ocausative (Kloekhorst 2018a: 10028) [but this depends on the status of the dūpiti-type in the Luwic languages].

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

6

kloekhorst and pronk

Although it is quite possible that not each and every one of the arguments listed above will eventually become generally accepted, it is to our mind very unlikely that items 1–23 will all be refuted and we therefore regard the IndoAnatolian hypothesis as proven. Moreover, some of the arguments listed here concern significant structural innovations, of which especially the rise of the feminine gender (including the creation of the morphology that goes with it) is something that cannot have happened overnight. Finally, it is important to stress that the Indo-Anatolian hypothesis could be disproven by showing that Anatolian shared its earliest innovations with some but not all other branches of Indo-European. Thus far, no such counterevidence has surfaced. An attempt to identify innovations that Anatolian shared with the western branches of Indo-European, either at an earlier stage or after initial divergence (Puhvel 1994, Melchert 2016), has produced no evidence that would contradict the Indo-Anatolian hypothesis. In his treatment of the Indo-Anatolian hypothesis, Oettinger (2013/2014) hypothesized that the time gap between Proto-Indo-Anatolian and ‘classical’ Proto-Indo-European may have been some 800 years. To our minds, this is a conservative estimate, and we think that the gap may well have been in the range of 1000–1200 years (depending, however, on the status of Tocharian, cf. the next section). With the recent revolution in the genetic research on ancient DNA, through which prehistoric migrations can be reconstructed in space and time and therefore can be linked to the spread of archaeological cultures and possibly of languages (cf. Haak et al. 2015, Allentoft et al. 2015, Damgaard et al. 2018, Kroonen et al. 2018), it is important to have a good idea about the time depth of a reconstructed language. This is crucial for formulating hypotheses about where that language may have been spoken, which in turn is important when searching for a possible genetic relationship with other language families. Another important consequence of regarding the Indo-Anatolian hypothesis as proven is that our view on the shape of the Indo-European proto-language has to change, sometimes drastically. We already mentioned the topic of gender: although for years it had been taken for granted that the Indo-European mother language had three genders, it seems now inevitable that Proto-IndoAnatolian in fact had only two: common and neuter gender. This two-way oposition is likely to reflect an original distinction between animate and inanimate gender. This is of course relevant knowledge when investigating possible genetic ties with other languages or language families. Another example concerns the phonetic nature of the laryngeals. The phoneme *h₂, which at the stage of ‘classical’ Proto-Indo-European may have been a pharyngeal fricative, at the level of Proto-Indo-Anatolian may rather have

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

7

introduction

been a uvular fricative (Weiss 2016) or a uvular stop (Kloekhorst 2018b). Again, this is relevant information when proposals for possible outer-Indo-European cognate sets need to be assessed. All this means that not only the time gap between Proto-Indo-Anatolian and ‘classical’ Proto-Indo-European may have been significant, but also that the linguistic shapes of these two stages in some aspects differ dramatically. In a way, we may therefore regard Proto-Indo-Anatolian as the first precursor of ‘classical’ Proto-Indo-European. It is for this reason that the first part of the subtitle of this book refers to the Indo-Anatolian hypothesis.

3

Indo-Tocharian and the Indo-Anatolian Hypothesis

‘Classical’ Proto-Indo-European, which above was taken as comprising all nonAnatolian Indo-European languages, can be further divided into several branches that split off in a certain sequence. It seems likely that the Tocharian branch was the second branch to split off after Anatolian, as argued by Peyrot (this volume, 186–202) and others before him. Peyrot proposes to use the term Proto-Indo-Tocharian for the stage just preceding this split (with ‘core’ IndoEuropean for the remaining languages). He rightly points out that arguments in favour of the Indo-Anatolian hypothesis should always be weighed against this Indo-Tocharian stage: if a certain hypothesized post-Anatolian innovation cannot be shown to have affected Tocharian, it cannot in principle be used as an argument for the Indo-Anatolian hypothesis, because the innovation could also have taken place in post-Tocharian ‘core’ Indo-European. In theory, this concept should be rigorously applied: for each linguistic innovation it should be determined when it can be dated in relation to all nodes in the family tree. In practice, however, the exact order of the splits in the IndoEuropean family tree is uncertain, especially after the split of Tocharian, and precise dating of innovations is often impossible. Therefore, it remains useful to operate with larger, less specific entities with relatively vague names like ‘classical’ Proto-Indo-European (all or most Indo-European languages except Anatolian) or ‘core’ Indo-European (all or most Indo-European languages except Anatolian and Tocharian). It is not fully clear to what extent Tocharian participated in all the postAnatolian innovations that were listed above: cf. Peyrot, this volume 188, who points out the fact that e.g. *mer- (innovation no. 4 in the list above) is unattested in Tocharian, as a result of which it cannot be determined whether the semantic development of ‘to disappear’ to ‘to die’ was a post-Anatolian or a post-Tocharian innovation. Similar reservations apply to other post-Anatolian

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

8

kloekhorst and pronk

innovations, e.g. in the word for ‘yoke’ (no. 12), the genitive plural ending *-om (no. 14), the element *sm / *si in pronouns (no. 17), voice assimilation (no. 20) etc. Therefore, the time gap between Proto-Indo-Anatolian and Proto-IndoTocharian may have been less than the 1000–1200 years proposed above. There are, however, still many cases for which it is clear that Tocharian did participate in the post-Anatolian innovations (e.g. ‘you (sg.)’ (no. 10), ‘horse’ (no. 11), ‘wind’ (no. 13)), and since these include some major ones (e.g. the development of the feminine gender (no. 9)), it remains attractive to assume that the AnatolianTocharian time gap is substantial, and we would assign some 800–1000 years to it. The relatively large number of shared Indo-Tocharian innovations contrasts with the number of plausible post-Tocharian, ‘core’ Indo-European innovations, which, according to our current knowledge, is “not overwhelming” (Peyrot, this volume, 186). It therefore seems unlikely that Proto-Indo-Tocharian and ‘core’ Proto-Indo-European were separated by more than a few centuries.

4

Internal Reconstruction

Another way of reconstructing one or more precursor stages of Proto-IndoEuropean, without taking into account language material from outside the Indo-European family, is internal reconstruction. Like any other language, also Proto-Indo-European (or Proto-Indo-Anatolian) contained in its grammar irregularities and other features that may be explained as the result of a relatively recent development. For instance, the word for ‘hundred’ can be reconstructed as *h₁ḱmtóm on the basis of e.g. Skt. śatám, Gr. ἑκατόν, Lat. centum, OE hund, Lith. šim̃ tas. Nevertheless, on the basis of the assumption that ‘hundred’ is derived from the numeral ‘ten’ (*déḱm, cf. Skt. dáśa, Gr. δέκα, Lat. decem, Goth. taihun, etc.), it is usually assumed that *h₁ḱmtóm goes back to an earlier *dḱmtóm (with *d > *h₁, cf. Garnier 2014). This latter form, which is the result of internal reconstruction, must thus be assigned to a precursor stage of Proto-Indo-European. In some cases, we can even distinguish several subsequent precursor stages. Take, for instance, the phenomenon of ablaut: already Brugmann assumed different layers in the prehistory of Proto-Indo-European to account for the PIE ablaut alternations (see also Kortlandt, this volume, 102– 110). Of course, on the basis of internal reconstruction alone it is impossible to reconstruct all details of these different precursors. Nevertheless, we view internal reconstruction as a vital way to penetrate as deeply into the prehistory of Proto-Indo-European as possible, which is a prerequisite before one can start with external comparison.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

introduction

5

9

External Comparison

When it comes to comparing the Indo-European language family to one or more non-Indo-European languages and/or language families, several suggestions have been made for identifying possible relatives. Some of these suggestions include large macro-families, like the ‘Nostratic’ family, which is usually thought to include Indo-European, Uralic, Kartvelian, Altaic, Japonic and Koreanic (the latter three possibly forming a single ‘Transeurasian’ family), but to which sometimes Afroasiatic, Dravidian, Chukotko-Kamchatkan, EskimoAleut, and other languages or language families are added as well (Pedersen 1903, Illich-Svitych 1971–1984, Starostin 1989, Dolgopolsky 2008, Bomhard 2008). Although we are not principally opposed to the concept of such macrofamilies, we think it is methodologically preferable to start with one-to-one comparisons in order to be able to reconstruct deeper in time step by step.

6

The Indo-Uralic Hypothesis

Already in the 19th century, the linguistic similarities between Indo-European and Uralic led to the hypothesis that the Indo-European language family may be related to Uralic (see Kallio, this volume, 74–87 about the earliest IndoUralicists). We believe that this is still a valid point of view. The similarities are found both in the morphology and in the lexicon. Kortlandt (2002) listed no fewer than 27 morphemes of Indo-European and Uralic that are phonetically so similar to each other that he regards them as “definitely Indo-Uralic”. This list includes pronominal morphemes (see also Bjørn, this volume, 30– 49), case markers (see also Bauhaus, this volume, 15–29), as well as verbal and nominal suffixes (see also Lubotsky, this volume, 151–162). The lexical similarities between Indo-European and Uralic are often attributed to borrowing from Indo-European into Uralic (cf. Koivulehto 1994, 2001, 2003), but there are reasons to believe that at least some lexical correspondences are due to inheritence from a common source. The oldest layer of shared lexicon consists of pronouns, nouns and verbs belonging to the part of the vocabulary that is least prone to being borrowed (Napol’skix 1997: 147–148, Helimski 2001, Kümmel, this volume, 115–130). This implies that the similarities are due to shared ancestry and not to borrowing. If Indo-European and Uralic are indeed related to each other, both should go back to a common ancestor, Proto-Indo-Uralic, which can then be regarded as a precursor of Proto-Indo-European (and of Proto-Indo-Anatolian). This is the reason why the second part of the subtitle of this book refers to the Indo-Uralic hypothesis. Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

10

kloekhorst and pronk

Although we regard the Indo-Uralic hypothesis as very likely to be correct, this does not mean it is easy to start reconstructing Proto-Indo-Uralic. There is at this moment no consensus on the relationship between the phoneme inventories of the two language families (see Klemenčič, this volume, 88–101, on Čop’s attempts to find correspondences, and Kümmel, this volume, 115–130 and Kroonen, this volume, 111–114, on possible correspondences in the consonant system), nor on the shared lexicon (Illich-Svitych 1971–1984, I: 6–37, Helimski 2001: 19619), on the morphological relationships (see Zhivlov, this volume, 219– 235 for a possible connection between nominal paradigms in Indo-European and Uralic), or on connections in other parts of grammar (see Lühr, this volume, 163–185 for a possible syntactic connection). This difficulty may be partly explained by the possibility that, after the dissolution of Indo-Uralic, IndoEuropean has undergone relatively strong substrate influence from North Caucasian (see Kortlandt 2018). Another question regarding Proto-Indo-Uralic that remains to be answered is where and when it was spoken. Post-Anatolian Proto-Indo-European vocabulary is thought to reflect a Chalcolithic stage of development, while ProtoUralic vocabulary represents a Mesolithic society (Janhunen 2009). This does not mean that Proto-Uralic must be dated much earlier than Proto-IndoEuropean. The difference is more plausibly connected with the geographic area in which the two proto-languages were spoken. There appears to be consensus among Indo-Europeanists that Proto-Indo-European was spoken in the Pontic-Caspian steppes in the middle of the fourth millennium BCE. ProtoIndo-Anatolian can perhaps be dated to the middle or late fifth millennium BCE in the same region (Anthony & Ringe 2015). The Proto-Uralic homeland was probably located near the Ural mountains, either in the west between the Volga river and the Central Ural mountains (Häkkinen 2009), or to their east, in the vicinity of the rivers Ob and Yenisei (Napol’skix 1997: 135, Janhunen 2009). Traditionally, the time-depth of Proto-Uralic is estimated to be around 4000BCE (Napol’skix 1997, Helimski 2001), but a more shallow date of approximately 3000BCE (Janhunen 2009) or 2000BCE (Kallio 2006, Häkkinen 2009) now seems to be more plausible. There is thus a gap of up to 2500 years between Proto-Indo-Anatolian and Proto-Uralic. If Indo-Anatolian was indeed influenced by a North Caucasian substrate, it stands to reason that its ancestor moved into the steppes north of the Caucasus from somewhere else. The Uralic connection suggests that this somewhere else must be sought more to the north and/or the east. As for the question when Proto-Indo-Uralic was spoken, only a very rough estimate is possible on the basis of the rather limited number of etymological correspondences between the basic lexicons of Indo-European and Uralic. The relatively low number of

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

introduction

11

figure 1.1 The precursors of Proto-Indo-European

probable cognates suggests that at least a couple of millennia must have passed between the dissolution of Proto-Indo-Uralic and its daughter languages ProtoIndo-Anatolian and Proto-Uralic (Napol’skix 1997: 143), even if we take into account the temporal gap of up to 2500 years between Proto-Indo-Anatolian and Proto-Uralic. Proto-Indo-Uralic would then have been spoken in or around the 7th millennium BCE. We can conclude that ‘core’ Proto-Indo-European, consisting of the Brugmannian branches of Indo-European, had a number of precursors. Its direct ancestor was Proto-Indo-Tocharian, to which it was very similar. A more distant, but still clearly recognizable ancestor was Proto-Indo-Anatolian, which seems to have been spoken at least a thousand years earlier. Finally, there was a distant Proto-Indo-Uralic ancestor, with which ‘core’ Proto-Indo-European shared only a limited number of words and a few dozen grammatical characteristics and which must have been spoken at least several millennia before Proto-Indo-Anatolian. The papers in this volume reflect the state of the art in the research into these ancestors of ‘core’ Proto-Indo-European.

References Adiego, I.-X. 2016. Anatolian languages and Proto-Indo-European. Veleia 33, 49–64. Allentoft, M.E. et al. 2015. Population genomics of Bronze Age Eurasia. Nature 522, 167– 172. Anthony, D.W.; D. Ringe 2015. The Indo-European Homeland from Linguistic and Archaeological Perspectives. Annual Review of Linguistics 2015/1, 199–219. Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

12

kloekhorst and pronk

Bomhard, A.R. 2008. Reconstructing Proto-Nostratic: Comparative Phonology, Morphology, and Vocabulary. Leiden–Boston: Brill. Damgaard, P. de B. et al. 2018. The first horse herders and the impact of Early Bronze Age steppe expansions into Asia. Science 360, eaar7711. Dolgopolsky, A. 20123. Nostratic Dictionary. Published online at http://www.dspace.cam .ac.uk/handle/1810/244080. Eichner, H. 2015. Das Anatolische in seinem Verhältnis zu anderen Gliedern der indoeuropäischen Sprachfamilie aus aktueller Sicht. In: T. Krisch; S. Niederreiter (eds.), Diachronie und Sprachvergleich. Beiträge aus der Arbeitsgruppe “historisch-vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft” bei der 40. Österreichischen Linguistiktagung 2013 in Salzburg. Innsbruck: IBS, 13–26. Forrer, E. 1921. Ausbeute aus den Boghazköi-Inschriften. Mitteilungen der deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 61, 20–39. Garnier, R. 2014. Nouvelles réflexions sur l’effet-Kortlandt. Glotta 90, 140–160. Haak, W. et al. 2015. Massive migration from the steppe was a source for Indo-European languages in Europe. Nature 522, 207–211. Häkkinen, J. 2009. Kantauralin ajoitus ja paikannus: perustelut puntarissa. Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 92, 9–56. Helimski, E. 2001. Early Indo-Uralic linguistic relationships. In: C. Carpelan; A. Parpola; P. Koskikallio (eds.), Early Contacts between Uralic and Indo-European: Linguistic and Archaeological Considerations. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society, 187–205. Illich-Svitych, V.M. 1971–1984. Opyt sravnenija nostratičeskix jazykov (semitoxamitskij, kartvel’skij, indoevropejskij, uralskij, dravidskij, altajskij). Moskva: Nauka. Janhunen, J. 2009. Proto-Uralic—what, where, and when? In: J. Ylikoski (ed.), The Quasquicentennial of the Finno-Ugrian Society. Helsinki: Société Finno-Ougrienne, 57–78. Kallio, P. 2006. Suomen kantakielten absoluuttista kronologiaa. Virittäjä 110, 2–25. Kloekhorst, A. 2008. Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon. Leiden– Boston: Brill. Kloekhorst, A. 2016. The Anatolian stop system and the Indo-Hittite hypothesis. Indogermanische Forschungen 121, 213–247. Kloekhorst, A. 2017a. The Hittite genitive ending -ā ̆n. In: B. Simmelkjær Sandgaard Hansen; A. Hyllested; A.R. Jørgensen; G. Kroonen; J.H. Larsson; B. Nielsen Whitehead; T. Olander; T. Mosbæk Søborg (eds.), Usque ad Radices: Indo-European Studies in Honour of Birgit Anette Olsen. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum, 385–400. Kloekhorst, A. 2017b. The Hittite verbal system and the Indo-Hittite hypothesis. Paper presented at The Split. Reconstructing Early Indo-European Language and Culture, University of Copenhagen, 13 September 2017. Kloekhorst, A. 2018a. The origin of the Hittite ḫi-conjugation. In: L. van Beek; M. de Vaan; A. Kloekhorst; G. Kroonen; M. Peyrot; T. Pronk (eds.), Farnah: Indo-Iranian

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

introduction

13

and Indo-European studies in honor of Sasha Lubotsky. Ann Arbor–New York: Beech Stave Press, 89–106. Kloekhorst, A. 2018b. Anatolian evidence suggests that the Indo-European laryngeals *h₂ and *h₃ were uvular stops. Indo-European Linguistics 6, 69–94. Koivulehto, J. 1994. Indogermanisch—Uralisch: Lehnbeziehungen oder (auch) Urverwandschaft? In: R. Sternemann (ed.), Bopp-Symposium 1992 der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. Heidelberg: Winter, 133–148. Koivulehto, J. 2001. The earliest contacts between Indo-European and Uralic speakers in the light of lexical loans. In: C. Carpelan; A. Parpola; P. Koskikallio (eds.), Early Contacts between Uralic and Indo-European: Linguistic and Archaeological Considerations. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society, 235–264. Koivulehto, J. 2003. Frühe Kontakte zwischen Uralisch und Indogermanisch im nordwestindogermanischen Raum. In: A. Bammesberger; T. Vennemann (eds.), Languages in Prehistoric Europe. Heidelberg: Winter, 279–316. Kortlandt, F. 2002. The Indo-Uralic verb. In: R. Blokland; C. Hasselblatt (eds.), FinnoUgrians and Indo-Europeans: Linguistic and Literary Contacts. Maastricht: Shaker, 217–227. Kortlandt, F. 2010. Studies in Germanic, Indo-European and Indo-Uralic. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Kortlandt, F. 2018. The expansion of the Indo-European languages. Journal of IndoEuropean Studies 46, 219–231. Kroonen, G.; G. Barjamovic; M. Peyrot 2018. Linguistic supplement to Damgaard et al. 2018: Early Indo-European languages, Anatolian, Tocharian and Indo-Iranian. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.1240524. Lubotsky, A. 1989. Against a Proto-Indo-European phoneme *a. In: T. Vennemann (ed.), The New Sound of Indo European. Essays in Phonological Reconstruction. Berlin–New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 53–66. Melchert, H.C. 2016. “Western Affinities” of Anatolian. In: B. Simmelkjær Sandgaard Hansen; B. Nielsen Whitehead; T. Olander; B.A. Olsen (eds.), Etymology and the European Lexicon. Proceedings of the 14th Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, 17–22 September 2012, Copenhagen. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 297–305. Melchert, H.C. fthc. The position of Anatolian. In: M. Weiss & A. Garrett (eds.), Handbook of Indo-European Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Napol’skix, V.V. 1997. Vvedenie v istoričeskuju uralistiku. Iževsk: RAN. Norbruis, S. fthc.a. The etymology of PIE *h1es- ‘to be’ (ms.). Norbruis, S. fthc.b. The etymology of IE *deh3- ‘to give’ (ms.). Oettinger, N. 2013–2014. Die Indo-Hittite-Hypothese aus heutiger Sicht. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 67/2, 149–176. Pedersen, H. 1903. Türkische Lautgesetze. Zeitschrift der deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 57, 535–561.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

14

kloekhorst and pronk

Pronk, T. 2010. On Greek αὐχμός ‘drought’ and αὐχήν ‘neck’. Glotta 86, 55–62. Pronk, T. 2019. Proto-Indo-European *a. To appear in Indo-European Linguistics 7. Puhvel, J. 1994. West-Indo-European affinities of Anatolian. In: G.E. Dunkel; G. Meyer; S. Scarlata; C. Seidl (eds.), Früh-, Mittel-, Spätindogermanisch: Akten der IX. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 5. bis 9. Oktober 1992 in Zürich. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 315–324. Rieken, E. 2009. Der Archaismus des Hethitischen; eine Bestandsaufnahme. Incontri Linguistici 32, 37–52. Starostin, S. 1989. Nostratic and Sino-Caucasian. In: V. Shevoroshkin (ed.), Explorations in Language Macrofamilies. Materials from the First International Interdisciplinary Symposium on Language and Prehistory, Ann Arbor, 8–12 November, 1988. Bochum: Dr. Norbert Brockmeyer, 42–67. Sturtevant, E.H. 1933. A Comparative Grammar of the Hittite Language. Philadelphia: Linguistic Society of America/University of Pennsylvania. Watkins, C. 1963. Preliminaries to a historical and comparative analysis of the syntax of the Old Irish verb. Celtica 6, 1–49. Weiss, M. 2016. The Proto-Indo-European laryngeals and the name of Cilicia in the Iron Age. In: A.M. Byrd; J. DeLisi; M. Wenthe (eds.), Tavet Tat Satyam: Studies in Honor of Jared S. Klein on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday. Ann Arbor–New York: Beech Stave Press, 331–340.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

chapter 2

The Proto-Indo-European Suffix *-r Revisited Stefan Heinrich Bauhaus

1

Introduction

Early in the history of Indo-European studies, a PIE element *-r was detected in several adverbs of nominal and pronominal origin, which was already soon identified as having a locatival meaning (among others Bartholomae 1889: 14– 25, Brugmann 1903: 456). Nevertheless, there has so far not been any extensive survey on its history and its position within the realm of IE particles. However, from time to time the idea of a locative suffix *-r is resumed, but then as additional supportive evidence for other theories. For instance, Nussbaum (1986: 237) mentions three different formations for the locative of the PIE word for ‘earth’, one being *dhǵh-(e)m-er ‘on earth’ (Av. zəmar-), which would stand next to the formations *dhǵh-ém (Skt. kṣám-i) and *dhǵh-m-én (Skt. jmán) ‘id.’. There are, however, many other locatives in *-r that do not have alternative, competing formations. The question is how this element *-r can be qualified. The literature gives basically two rivaling explanations for the formations at stake, to which I would like to add a third one: 1. an “endingless” locative of heteroclitic r/n-stems; 2. an adverbial ending; 3. a case ending. 1. One theory is to assume that *-r represents an “endingless” locative of r/nstems or some other derivation related to these (e.g. Benveniste 1935: 87–99; Hajnal 1992a: 211–213). Vanséveren (1999) provides a good overview of the history of this idea. She ultimately assumes that locatives in *-r are some kind of “formes casuelles non marquées” (Vanséveren 1999: 117–118). We do in fact find formations that come in doublets, such as Skt. áhar and áhan ‘in the daytime’, which could be interpreted in this way. However, not all formations in *-r have an attested heteroclitic r/n-stem next to them. We also find formations like Gr. νύκτωρ ‘at nighttime’, which cannot be explained so easily. Since we are dealing with a (feminine) root noun here, I think that the theory of an endingless locative of a hypothetical, unattested heteroclitic stem even obscures the understanding of that formation. This is also true for many other formations in *-r. In addition, we would then have to explain why this “endingless” locative appears in two shapes, namely ending both in *-en and in *-er. There is

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004409354_003 Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

16

bauhaus

the additional difficulty that the latter one contains a full grade: since the root was accented, we would rather expect zero-grade *-r̥ as is usually attested in heteroclitics. I think that this explanation is not suitable to explain most of the formations at stake. 2. Another theory is to assume the existence of an independent “Adverbialendung”. Dunkel (2014, I: 162–167) reconstructs *-r, *-er, which he characterizes as “lokativisch”. To his mind, “Adverbialendungen” can be attached to particles, pronominal stems, adverbial endings and nominal stems. The problem of this theory is, in my opinion, the opacity that comes with the term “Adverbialendung”. Although the existence of such a category may be justified on a merely synchronic level, in the case of formations in *-r that are clearly derived from nominal stems such an analysis would imply that they had already been lexicalized to adverbs before they received the suffix *-r as an adverbial ending. I do not consider this scenario particularly likely, and would like to claim a nominal origin instead. 3. I will attempt to show that the element *-r is better understood if we assume that it was originally confined to nominal and pronominal stems. Hence, we are dealing with a real case ending, not an “Adverbialendung”. Locatives of this kind can be detected indirectly in secondary thematizations either prior or posterior to their lexicalization as adverbs, which makes them either hypostases or deadverbial adjectives. Due to this lexicalization, which was accompanied by the loss of productivity of *-r, the ending could be reanalyzed as an adverbial ending in a later phase of PIE. This process gave also rise to another suffix, *-ter, and ultimately to the Greek and Indo-Iranian comparative suffix. In the following three sections I will discuss the relevant attestations. These can be found in three domains: pronouns (1), nouns (2) and other locatival adverbs (3). I will first treat the pronominal domain separately from the nominal domain, for two reasons. First, pronouns often display archaisms as opposed to nouns. Second, it is controversial whether the suffix *-r as found with some pronominal stems is identical to the *-r we find in nominal formations (e.g. Hajnal 1992a: 211). Afterwards, I am going to take into account another phenomenon, the PIE directive (4), before I present some additional implications that come along with the locative in *-r.

2

Pronominal Formations

The function of *-r in some pronominal interrogatives and demonstratives is beyond dispute. I agree with Dunkel (2014) that this element is identical

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

the proto-indo-european suffix *-r revisited

17

to the one we find in formations of other kinds. The examples usually referred to are the following: Indo-Iranian: Skt. kár-hi ‘when’, tár-hi ‘(back) then’; Germanic: Goth. ƕar ‘where’, þar ‘there’, hêr ‘here’; Italic: Lat. cūr < quōr ‘why’; Baltic: Lith. kur̃ ‘where’, Latv. tùr ‘there’; Armenian: ur ‘where’; Albanian: kur ‘when’. The temporal meaning of Skt. kár-hi ‘when’ as well as the causal meaning of Latin cūr ‘why’ can easily be attributed to a secondary semantic shift (cf. de Vaan 2008 on Lat. cūr). These meanings can be contrasted with Goth. ƕar, Lith. kur̃ and Arm. ur ‘where’. It is well established that a temporal meaning is more likely to arise from originally spatial semantics than vice versa (cf. Hopper & Traugott 2003: 84–87). Whereas Indo-Iranian and Gothic clearly point to a reconstruction *kwor and *tor, Baltic, Armenian and Albanian seem to reflect the vowel -u-.1 Even within Germanic we find some vocalic alternation. In OHG, for instance, we find wār ‘where’, dār ‘there’. One could argue that this variation in vocalism shows that the formations themselves are more recent, since it looks as if *-r has been attached to different stems. However, I think that this assumption is not necessary, as PIE pronouns generally seem to be inconsistent with regards to vowel quality and quantity. In particular for the interrogative stem we find the variants *kwo- (lat. quod ‘what’), *kwi- (lat. quis ‘who’) and *kwu- (lat. ubī ‘where’). Note that the reconstruction of *kwur and *tur for PIE is counterintuitive with regard to syllabification: we would rather expect syllabic r̥ preceded by consonantal u̯ . The vocalism of Lith. kur̃ ‘where’, Latv. tùr ‘there’, Arm. ur ‘where’ and Alb. kur ‘when’ could therefore be considered analogical, maybe furnished by other pronouns displaying the stem variant *kwu-. Likewise, the long vowels of Latin cūr < quōr and OHG wār/dār may be analogical. Therefore, I will follow the usual reconstruction of an early PIE set of pronominal formations in *-r, namely interrogative *kwor vs. demonstrative *tor. If we assume that the suffix *-r lost its productivity towards the end of PIE, it explains why we find so many different competing formations for interrogative ‘where’, like Greek ποῦ, Skt. kúha, OCS kъde and Lat. ubī. Since these are clear innovations, I consider *kwor to be original. The opaqueness of this case for-

1 For the vocalism of the Baltic examples, see Forssman (2003: 87–90).

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

18

bauhaus

mation may have facilitated the semantics to shift to either causal or temporal meaning as displayed in Latin and Albanian.

3

Nominal Formations

In the past, some adverbs of clear nominal origin were claimed to contain a locatival *-r. For that reason, I would like to survey the forms at stake, which have been treated separately by different scholars (Bartholomae 1889: 14–25, Nussbaum 1986, Hajnal 1992b, Dunkel 2014, I: 162–167). The majority of these appear in compounds or derived forms, that is, as hypostases of the locatives to be reconstructed or adjectives derived from such adverbs. The ones that I consider likely to be locatives in *-r, are the following:2 a) Av. zamarə-gūz /zəmar-gūz- ‘hidden in the earth’ < *dhǵh-(e)m-er (Nussbaum 1986: 236); b) Skt. uṣar-budh- ‘awake early’, vasar-hā ́ ‘striking early’, Gr. ἠέριος ‘at dawn’, ἦρι ‘early’ < *h₂us-ér(-i) (Dunkel 2014, I: 165); c) Gr. νύκτωρ ‘at night’, νύκτερος ‘nightly’, Lat. nocturnus ‘nightly’ (e.g. Beekes 2010 on Gr. νύξ); d) Lat. hībernus, Gr. χειμέριος, Arm. jmer̄n ‘winter’ < *ǵhei̭m-er(-i)3 (Dunkel 2014, I: 164–165). a) As was mentioned above, the locatival formation in *-r as attested in Av. zamarə-/zəmar- stands next to a locatival formation in *-en as attested in Skt. jmán. To my mind, this is not enough evidence to assume the presence of an original heteroclitic stem for ‘earth’, however. It is perhaps more likely that Skt. jmán contains a postpositional *-en as Dunkel (2014, I: 164) suggests, whereas our zəmarə- as well as Skt. kṣám-i reflect two competing locatives of the actual root. I assume that the formation in *-er is the older one as it can be linked to the abovementioned pronominal formations. The vocalism of Av. zamarə-, which seems to reflect *dhǵhem-er, must be secondary, since otherwise we would have double full grade. If we accept Av. zəmar- as the older form, it would show the weak stem and contain the same ablaut structure as the genitive *dhǵh-m-és. I would therefore rather reconstruct the locative case as *dhǵhm-ér, with zerograde in the root and accented e-grade in the ending.

2 Note that the reconstructions are not my own. I have just assembled a selection of the material to give an overview. 3 I present here only the most prominent examples given by Dunkel.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

the proto-indo-european suffix *-r revisited

19

b) Skt. uṣar-budh- ‘awake early’, Skt. vasar-han ‘striking early’,4 Gr. ἠέριος ‘at dawn’ and Gr. ἦρι ‘early’ have already been discussed together by other scholars, e.g. Nussbaum 1986: 236–247, Hajnal 1992b, Widmer 2004: 117–118. The vocalism of the underlying locative is difficult to reconstruct. Dunkel (2014, I: 165) considers the unexpected full grade in the root of vasar-hā ́ as secondary. However, we would have the same difficulty of double full-grade if we interpreted it as an endingless locative. The assumption that we are dealing with a case suffix could instead be a possible explanation, as other case formations, such as the genitive, are also reflected with different ablaut grades in the individual languages, even if they derive from the same paradigm. Gr. ἠέριος and ἦρι have been extensively surveyed by Hajnal (1992b) and these indeed seem to be identical with Skt. uṣar-. I have doubts, however, whether Gr. αὔριον ‘tomorrow’, which is usually derived from *h₂usri (for instance, Dunkel 2014, I: 165), should be included here as well. This is not so much for semantic as for derivational reasons. Whereas αὔριον < *h₂usri shows no full grade at all, ἠέριος and ἦρι point to a formation *h₂us-s-ér that has been extended by locatival *-i. This indicates that at a certain point this formation had been lexicalized and could not be analyzed as a locative anymore, otherwise no additional *-i would have been required. c) The problem of ablaut is also obvious for Gr. νύκτωρ ‘at night’, νύκτερος ‘nightly’ and Lat. nocturnus ‘nightly’. The former shows an unexpected lengthened grade, which is probably secondary, maybe analogous to masculine torstems. The original formation could have been *nokwt-or. The o-grade in the suffix could then be due to the accent on the root, if we assumed that it was originally an allophonic variant of accented e-grade. I consider Gr. νύκτερος as a hypostasis of a locative ‘at night’. An adjective with the meaning ‘being in the night’ can easily attain the meaning ‘nightly’. In contrast to νύκτωρ, this formation rather reflects *nokwt-er. Additionally, Latin shows a similar formation in nocturnus, which may point to original *nokwt-or, too. However, we also find Gr. νυκτερινός ‘nocturnal’. According to De Vaan (2008: s.v. nox), Lat. nocturnus reflects *noctū-rino-, whereas Dunkel (2014, I: 165) reconstructs a preform *nókṷter-i-no- to account for Gr. νυκτερινός and possibly also Latin nocturnus and OE nihterne ‘by night’. d) Just as nocturnus could be analyzed as a derivate of the underlying form of the Greek examples, Lat. hībernus ‘wintry’ stands next to Gr. χειμέριος ‘wintry’ and Arm. jmer̄n ‘winter’ for which Dunkel reconstructs *ǵhei̯m-er(i). The Greek

4 Dunkels translation is “sich früh erhebend”.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

20

bauhaus

formation would then be a hypostasis of a locative extended by *-i, which again implies that at that stage the underlying locative was not regarded as a locative anymore. The variation in ablaut in the quoted examples is a difficult topic. The Armenian example points to zero-grade. If *-r indeed is a case ending, there must be a regular pattern of ablaut. In view of the accent / ablaut patterns of the nouns, I think that we are originally dealing with locatives that had the same oblique stem as the genitive. Unless the root was acrostatic, the ending was accented and consequently had e-grade. This assumption is supported by the reconstruction *dhǵhm-ér, which is reflected in Av. zəmar-, but also by Skt. uṣar- and Arm. jmer̄n ‘winter’. The problem of double full grade in some formations (such as Skt. vasar-), which Nussbaum (1986: 190, 291–292) mentions, could then be attributed to analogy. Once the suffix *-r had lost its productivity as a locative case marker, it was reanalyzed as an adverbial ending. In that new function its common shape was *-er, with full grade. It could then be attached to full graded roots, as well. This suggests that Skt. vasar- is younger then uṣar-. Nevertheless, it is also possible that we are merely dealing with analogy due to paradigmatic leveling, possibly displayed in Lat. hībernus and Gr. χειμέριος in contrast to Arm. jmer̄n. It is not necessary to assume that Greek χειμέριος goes back to a locative ǵheim-er. The full-grade in the root could have been arisen analogically to χειμών ‘winter’. The scenario in an early stage of PIE, before the formations became lexicalized to adverbs, probably looked like this: a) loc. *dhǵhm-ér ‘in/on the earth’ vs. gen.*dhǵhm-és; b) loc. *h₂us-ér ‘at dawn’ vs. gen. *h₂us-és; c) loc. *ǵhim-ér ‘in winter’ vs. gen. *ǵhim-és; d) loc. *nókwt-or ‘at night’. Latin shows many more adjectives ending in -rnus. I consider it very likely that the whole suffix is a derivative of the ending in *-r. For instance, we find Lat. diurnus ‘daily’, vespernus ‘vespertine’, hesternus ‘of yesterday’, sempiternus ‘perpetual’, aeternus ‘eternal’. If we understand this suffix as a secondary derivation of the case ending *-r, we are perhaps dealing with some more locatives in *-r. Considering Dunkel’s etymology of Gr. νυκτερινός ‘nocturnal’, we can analyze Lat. -rnus as -(e)r-i-no-, originating in locatives in *-r extended by locatival *-i plus *-no-. For Lat. diurnus, Dunkel (2014, I: 164) reconstructs *di̭úr ‘during the day’. De Vaan (2008 on Lat. diū, diu) rather assumes that diurnus is analogical to noctūrnus. Whereas Lat. vespernus clearly derives from the noun vesper ‘evening’, which Dunkel (2014, I: 166) also explains as a locative built directly to a root, Lat. hesternus finds a striking and well know parallel in Germanic, for instance OHG gestaron ‘yesterday’. Both show a similar extension as

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

the proto-indo-european suffix *-r revisited

21

compared to Latin herī ‘yesterday’. Dunkel (2014, I: 180) subsumes them under his contrastive locatival suffix *-tér. As is clearly visible, also Lat. aeternus < aeviternus and sempiternus rather point to an original ending *-ter as well. I will return to this topic below, but at least for Latin one reconstructs *aeviter(i) (see Walde/Hoffmann 1938 on Lat. aetās) and perhaps also *sempiter(i) as the underlying forms. For diurnus I would rather reconstruct *diuér, again displaying the weak stem: a) loc. *diuér ‘during the day’ vs. gen. *diués.

4

Local Adverbs and Adpositions

Dunkel assumes that an “Adverbialendung” *-r/*-er is also reflected in other adverbs and adpositions, such as PIE *upér(i). He subsumes these under the domain of particles. I agree with him on this latter point, but I consider them to be nominal formations as well, at least on a diachronic level. Just as with the aforementioned primarily nominal formations, these locatives can have two major sources: a) plain adverbs/adpositions b) certain adjectives I regard the plain adverbs/adpositions as locatives of nouns denoting locality. One example for this is Gr. ὕπερ ‘over’ ~ Skt. upári ‘above’, which point to an original formation *h₁uper. Adjectives like Skt. úpara- ‘lower, later’ should be analyzed as hypostases to this formation. Their attributed comparative meaning must be secondary. Formations like Lat. īnfernus ‘inferior’, on the other hand, remind us of the nominal formations in -rnus treated above. Some of the relevant adverbs/adpositions are the following:5 *h₁uper: Goth. ufar ‘over’, Skt. upári ‘above’, Gr. ὕπερ ‘over’, OIr. for ‘over’; *h₂eper: Goth. afar ‘after’, OHG abar ‘but’, Skt. ápara- ‘later’; *ndher: Av. aδairi ‘below’, Goth. undar ‘under’, Lat. īnferus ‘inferior’, Skt. ádhara- ‘lower’.

5 The formations quoted are just a selection of commonly accepted reconstructions, however, not everyone would reconstruct anlauting laryngeals. Dunkel, for instance, reconstructs none for the first etymon. But for the sake of Goth. iup ‘up’ < *h₁eup-, which is extensively treated in Kroonen (2010), I think an anlauting laryngeal is indeed more likely than the reconstruction of a vocalic anlaut.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

22

bauhaus

To these formations I would like to add a new reconstruction: *ḱ(e)nter: Goth. hindar ‘behind’, Hitt. kattera- ‘lower, inferior’. A link between these two words is not commonly recognized. If we are allowed to connect the Germanic material, which has the semantic sphere of ‘behind’, to Hitt. kattera- ‘lower, inferior’, which according to most scholars is related to Gr. κατά ‘downwards’,6 the semantics of the root may be defined as ‘invisible side’ which could have included the ‘bottom’ as well as the ‘back’. The rise of PIE adpositions is a controversial topic. However, most would agree that they are of a secondary nature. Their absence in Indo-Iranian and Hittite reinforces the theory that they originally developed from adverbs, which are attested in the oldest languages (e.g. Beekes 1995: 218, Hewson & Bubeník 2006: 1–27). I share the opinion that the grammaticalization of adverbs to adpositions is posterior to the widely accepted grammaticalization of nouns in a certain case to adverbs. I think that in pre-PIE we are dealing with a situation pretty similar to modern Japanese. Here, nouns of locality can be used in adverbial phrases, and as such correspond to situations where we would encounter prepositional phrases, cf. tsukue no ue ni ‘on the table’, literally ‘on top of the table’ where ue works as a relational substantive, which can be translated with ‘top’. Next to its nominal and its pseudo-prepositional usage, it can also take the function of an adverb. This view is not new, as we have an oft-cited example like this in PIE, too. PIE *h₂enti, which is most often analyzed as the locative to a root noun *h₂ent- ‘front’, appears in its nominal function in Hittite. In Sanskrit, it has obviously already been grammaticalized to an adverb, whereas that adverb is used as an adposition in Greek and Latin. According to the theory of grammaticalization, as elaborated by Hopper & Traugott (2003), we witness a cline, i.e. a pathway of grammaticalization, which looks like this: noun + locatival case ending > local adverb > adposition7 Following this cline, we can now apply such a scenario to adverbs like *h₁uper as well. If we assume that the root underlying h₁uper was originally nominal and meant something like ‘surface, top’, just like Jap. ue preserves that nominal meaning, we can easily understand that h₁uper, which would then be the locative to the root noun h₁up- ‘top, surface’, originally meant ‘on top’ or ‘on the surface’: 6 Cf. Dunkel (2014, II: 419–422), who reconstructs *ḱat-, and Beekes (1995: 21), who reconstructs *ḱnt-. 7 A detailed discussion of the different stages of such a cline is offered by Hewson & Bubeník (2006: 365–370).

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

the proto-indo-european suffix *-r revisited

23

PIE *h₁up- ‘top’: loc.*h₁up-ér ‘on top’ > *h₁upér (adv.) ‘above’ > * h₁upér (adp.) ‘over X’. Summarizing, I reconstruct the following set of locatives for an early phase of PIE: PIE *h₁up- ‘surface’: loc. *h₁uper ‘on the surface, on top’; PIE *h₂ep- ‘back’: loc. *h₂eper ‘in the back’; PIE *ḱent- ‘back, underside’: loc. *ḱ(e)nter ‘in the back, at the underside’; PIE *ndh- ‘underside, bottom’: loc. *ndher ‘at the underside, bottom’. Besides these formations there is a considerable number of adverbs, adpositions and adjectives that point to a suffix *-ter rather than *-er. For instance, we have Lat. inter ‘within, between’ and Skt. antár ‘inside, in between’ which point to PIE *h₁en-ter. Dunkel (2014, I: 180–181) reconstructs a suffix *-tér as a separate “Adverbialendung” that is attached to other particles. In this case, I agree that we are dealing with an “Adverbialendung”. I think that this suffix came to rise at a time when the locatives to nouns had already been lexicalized into adverbs. The question is why there is this enlargement with -t- in the first place. We do find similar variants of other suffixes as well, cf. *-ti vs. *-i but also *-tos vs. (gen.-abl.) *-e/os. Dunkel (2014, I: 177) assumes that we are dealing with the Adverbialendung *-t + locatival *-er. But I assume that the solution is much simpler. The variant *-ter can just be understood as a false segmentation of stems ending in -t, for instance *ḱnt-er → *ḱn-ter. This *-ter was then generalized and could perhaps be attached to already lexicalized adverbs, like *h₁en-ter to *h₁en. This idea could also explain the aforementioned Latin adjectives like sempiternus and aeternus which point to adverbs in *-ter. They could be due to false segmentations as well, maybe also furnished by *nokwt-e/or → *nokw-ter, and again be paralleled to formations like internus. The assumption that *-ter is more recent than *-(e)r and came into being when the latter had lost its productivity explains why we have doublets like Engl. after < *h₂epter vs. Goth. afar ‘after’ < *h₂eper but also Du. zonder ‘without’ pis ‘who’ (cf. Latin quis, Welsh pwy) *ku=dhi > **cuf ⇒ puf ‘where’ (cf. Latin [c]ubi, Welsh cw[dd]) This scenario thus explains the labiality as a secondary function of original interrogative *ku- in front of a vowel, as opposed to original labiality in *kw lost in front of *-u (cf. Rasmussen 1999: 319). An interrogative particle *ku is also well-known in the Uralic languages, even in the exact same function as in IE, e.g. Udmurt ku, Estonian kus, Mari ku‘where’. It is, however, more difficult to distill the original function beyond the fact that the interrogative pronoun was fully developed by Proto-Uralic (cf. Joki 1973: 274 and table 3.2). In addition, there is another, syntactically different, use of an interrogative particle *kV [back] in the Balto-Fennic languages, cf. Saami -gŏ

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

pronouns and particles: indo-uralic heritage and convergence table 3.4

35

Reflexes of PIE *-kwe and its possible cognates in Uralic

PIE *-kwe Hittite Vedic Greek Gothic Latin Gaulish OCS

=kku -ca τε (-u)-h -que (eti)-c (ta)-kъ

‘and, if, or’ ‘and’ ‘id.’ ‘id.’ ‘id.’ ‘id.’ ‘thus’

-ki(n); -kaan -ge/-gâ -ak -ke *-kö ke -go/-gö

‘too’; ‘either’ ‘either, too; and’ ‘also, even’ ‘whole, all’ ‘if’ ‘if’) ‘yet, also’

Uralic Finnish Saami Mordvin Mari Permic (Mansi Kamass.

and Finnish -ko,4 as in on-ko5 kissa musta? ‘is the cat black?’ (cf. kissa on musta ‘the cat is black’), and the proposition to include it in the general interrogative stock does not seem far-fetched (SKES: 205). Closely related hereto, it appears, is the suffix PIE *-kwe. 1.3 The Enclitic Particle *-kwe This section discusses whether the following enclitic particles can reasonably be compared at the proto-levels. Form and function are given in table 3.4. The particle is securely established for PIE with attestations in most branches, but is in rapid decline and survives only in vestigial forms in the

4 Or -kö; this alternation is due to the widespread Uralic phenomenon of vowel harmony and only a single form is given here. 5 Note that the suffix always takes the second position of the sentence, cf. in PIE the enclitic slot described in Wackernagel’s Law.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

36

bjørn

modern languages. The usage as a simple conjunction is widespread, but likely innovated in PIE from a more complex modal function, which further strengthens its formal connection with the interrogative stem (cf. Szemerényi 1990: 210). The Uralic material (table 3.4) is scattered, but with significant geographic and dialectal distribution. Finnish has the most specialized assemblage with two emphatic particles (positive *-kin and negative *-kaan) and an interrogative (*-ko, cf. §1.2). The Mansi form is likely a borrowing from Permic (Toivonen 1956: 24) and should not be counted as Ugric evidence per se. The Kamassian reflex, e.g. īne-gö ‘one more horse’ (Künnap 1999: 29), on the other hand, hardly resembles the function of central Permic (and Mansi), but neatly echoes the Finno-Saami suffix, and is best explained as shared retention. Wagner (1967) provides an in-depth treatment of the functional similarities between some of these forms in both families, and concludes that their presence in Uralic is due to borrowings from various branchings of IE. There are two primary reasons why this conclusion should not stand unchallenged: (1) He presumes that PIE and Proto-Uralic ultimately are incompatible (1967: 76),6 and (2) he fails to discuss the Kamassian forms that provide crucial evidence for the particle in Samoyedic (though he seems to be aware of their existence, cf. 1967: 67). In summary, the existence of a Uralic proto-form is suggested by at least three distinct reflexes in non-contiguous dialects with a syntactically unique (i.e. enclitic) similar-sounding morpheme. 1.4 Concluding Remarks on the Interrogative Complex The entire complex of both Uralic and PIE might then be based on an archaic particle *ku. The pronominal forms arose through combination with the vocalic anaphoric pronoun (§3) with subsequent change of *-u to *-w-. Further neutralization of the glide occurred in satem IE and most of Uralic, while labialization was retained in IE centum and, strictly tentatively, in Selkup, cf. kut ‘who’ with qaj ‘what’, from *ku-C and *ku-V- (cf. Bjørn 2017: 87), perhaps with typological aid from neighboring Ket (e.g. Abondolo 1998: 10). The Uralic oscillation between the different vocalisms similarly suggests analogical treatment of a graded paradigm, either vertical (like PIE) or horizontal (this vs. that), possibly still visible in Finnish, and common provenance of the vowel gradations of both PIE and PU cannot be excluded. The widespread use of the enclitic particle suggest that the trait is shared at a proto-level unaccounted for by later borrowing. Widespread loss is attested in the known histories of IE languages and must be assumed for large swaths of the Uralic contin-

6 Cf. also criticism in Joki (1973: 275).

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

pronouns and particles: indo-uralic heritage and convergence

37

uum, too; the seemingly odd contradiction that inflectional IE should be better at retaining an agglutinative feature is probably off-set by the discrepancy in time of attestation. Note that similar agglutinative vestiges survive in the PIE possessive pronouns still suffixal in Anatolian and are alive in Uralic today (cf. Kloekhorst 2008a: 90ff. & Čop 1979: 18ff.). A case for contact phenomena in the enclitic particle, PIE *-kwe, could be made (cf. §1.3), although areal convergence seems a better hypothesis than wholesale borrowing; the multifaceted Finnish use of the particle is too nuanced to have been adopted completely from Proto-Germanic. Permic *-kö could strictly speaking have been influenced from a later strain of IE in the northern Caspian steppes, although a regular Uralic development is just as plausible. Kamassian -go is difficult to explain directly from contact with an IE language, although it belonged to the southernmost Samoyedic branch; a lastditch effort could thus have the suffix borrowed from a precursor of Tocharian in the Sayan region, but the evidence for such a transfer is non-existing. The complex as a whole, however, is securely reconstructable to both proto-stages without any obvious signs or impetus for borrowing.

2

Anaphoric *i-/e-

Often mentioned alongside the interrogative and deictic pronouns as evidence for Proto-Indo-Uralic (e.g. Rasmussen 2005: 527), the uniquely relative pronoun *io- is demonstrably a later innovation, likely diffused to the western Uralic languages after the breakup of both proto-languages. The almost amorphous anaphoric pronoun, on the other hand, is old and, with circumstantial evidence, comparable at the Indo-Uralic level. 2.1 Anaphoric Pronoun Correspondences between PIE *i- and PU *i- (table 3.5) are treated in the present section. The function in PIE may be considered an anaphoric 3rd person pronoun. Notwithstanding the suggested paradigmatic similarities with the interrogative pronoun, a perfect mirror image of the situation in the interrogative system is found in the locative forms constructed on the bare stem formant, cf. Latin ibi ‘there’ and Vedic i-há ‘here’ (recall [c]u-bi and ku-ha, respectively, in § 1.2). A notable difference between the paradigms of *kwis and *is is the lack of uvocalism in the latter. With otherwise parallel formations, the most economical solution is to accept the vowel as inherently endemic to the particle *ku in pre-PIE; if the interrogative formant was *kw-, rounding of the following vowel

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

38 table 3.5

bjørn Correspondences between PIE *iand PU *i-

PIE *iVedic Cyp. (Hes.) Gothic Latin

iyám (f.) ἲν is is

‘this’ ‘id.’ ‘he’ ‘he; who’

iśt’a e-sy it itt iidə eke, eko

‘such’ ‘this, each’ ‘this’ ‘here’ ‘that one’ ‘id.’

PU *i-? Mordvin Komi Khanty Hungarian Kamassian Nenets

with subsequent loss of the velar labiality is still possible, but requires significantly more complex developments, suggesting that there was no aboriginal u-graded interrogative pronoun **kwu-. The stem is also widespread in Uralic, although the pronominal function is deictic rather than anaphoric and somewhat marginalized. 2.2 Relative Pronoun The correspondences between PIE *i̯o- and Finnish joka (see table 3.6) in both form and function must be seen in the perspective of their respective developments. The relative pronoun in PIE is derived from the anaphoric pronoun *i/e- (cf. Szemerényi 1990: 210f.), and necessarily represents an extension where the iformant becomes a semi-vowel and gets a new e-o ablauting vowel. The relative pronoun is not original in Uralic either (e.g. Janhunen 1982: 39). According to both Paasonen (1906: 116f.) and Rédei (1988: 637), Mordvin ju-za ‘here and there’ represents a transitional form that connects the Finno-Permic relative with the Uralic general demonstrative *i (cf. also Paasonen l.c. and Collinder 1965: 119f. for the IE connection). In both families the specialized pronoun decreases polysemy in the original interrogative pronoun that also carried the relative function, cf. the double function of modern English who (cf. § 1.1). The

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

pronouns and particles: indo-uralic heritage and convergence table 3.6

39

Correspondences between PIE *i̯o- and Finn. joka and cognates

PIE *i ̯o- ‘who (rel.)’ Vedic Avestan Greek Phrygian Lithuanian OCS

yás yō ὄς ιος -is iže

‘who (rel.)’ ‘id.’ ‘id.’ ‘id.’ [def.adj.]7 ‘who (rel.)’

joka juokke8 juza južo

‘who’ ‘each’ ‘here and there’ ‘each’

Uralic Finnish Saami Mordvin Mari

development of the relative pronoun may thus be a convergence phenomenon that Fenno-Volgaic underwent in contact with some (P)IE stock (sometime and somewhere between stages [b] and [c] in the contact illustration, figure 3.1), similar to, but not necessarily at the same time as, the possible semantic convergence discussed above for the particle *-kwe (§1.3). Note that the Uralic forms are missing the nominative *-s formant that is ubiquitous in the IE stock; if the pronoun was borrowed, the Fenno-Volgaic recipient language must have lost or removed the ending.

3

Demonstrative *so/to-

The PIE 3rd person pronoun has suppletive distinction in the casus rectus of the animate gender (*so) as opposed to the inanimate (*tod), and by closer inspection a similar distinction can be reconstructed for the Uralic protolanguage. 7 The suffixed pronoun is the Balto-Slavic marker of adjectival definiteness, cf. Lithuanian gẽras ‘good’ with geràs-is ‘the good (one)’. 8 This form may be a loan from Finnish, cf. Sammallahti (1998: 250) who teeters between inherited and borrowed.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

40

bjørn

figure 3.1 Stylized visualization of established contacts events (b and c) and the period of contact (a) suggested to account for the shared pronominal stock, whether inherited or borrowed. The possible cloud of Caucasian influence on (pre-)PIE follows the Uhlenbeck-Kortlandt hypothesis (cf. Kortlandt 2010: 155 f.).

3.1 Animates in *so The formal and functional similarities between PIE *so and PU *so(n) (table 3.7) are obvious to the naked eye. In PIE the form is confined to the casus rectus of the animate gender while the oblique and inanimate parts of the paradigm are based on the *t-variant (cf. §3.2). The evidence of the Hittite form is disputed (cf. Kloekhorst 2008b: 772), but pre-PIE status is certainly implied by the lack of the regular nominative marker. The situation is markedly different in the Uralic languages where the s-form permeates the paradigm of the animate gender. Hajdú demonstrates that the lone Samoyedic form, Selkup tëp ‘he, she, it’, sufficiently establishes the *so pronoun as Proto-Uralic (1990: 1f., cf. also Abondolo 1998: 25; contra Déscy 1990: 57); widespread loss in the remaining Samoyedic languages is thus needed, but this is hardly inconceivable with the phonetic confluence of the inherited forms; note that Uralic *s regularly yields t in Samoyedic, suggesting that the Uralic sound was closer to an affricate *ts (cf. discussion in § 3.3). The paucity of material in Samoyedic is probably, like the case with the enclitic *-k(w)e, a consequence of late attestation and prehistoric conflation of paradigms.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

pronouns and particles: indo-uralic heritage and convergence table 3.7

41

PIE *so and PU *so(n)

PIE *so ‘he, she’9 Vedic Avestan Greek Gothic Latin Toch. A Old Irish Hittite

sá hā, hō ὁ sa sapsa səm -so šu-

‘he’ ‘id.’ ‘id.’ ‘id.’ ‘herself’ ‘he’ ‘this’ (clause ptcl.)

hän son son -žo, -žö *so ö, ön taw tou, lou tëp

‘he, she’ ‘id.’ ‘id.’ ‘his, her’ ‘each; he, she’ ‘he, she’ ‘id.’ ‘id.’ ‘he, she, it’

PU *so(n) Finnish Saami Mordvin Mari Permic Hungarian Mansi Khanti Selkup

3.2 Inanimates in *tThe corresponding inanimate pronoun, PIE *tod and PU *to/tu (table 3.8), is more resilient and has survived in most languages. Outside the animate casus rectus, the t-form is prolific in the PIE paradigm. Already by Proto-Uralic a clear alternation between front and back vowel distinguishes proximity to the speaker, e.g. Mari ti ‘this’ ~ tu ‘that’ (table 3.9).

9 In accordance with the Anatolian evidence that came to aid the suggestive hints already available from the classical languages, the feminine formation is treated as an innovation in Core IE (cf. Szemerényi 1990: 155f.).

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

42

bjørn

table 3.8

PIE *tod and PU *to/tu

PIE *tod10 Vedic Avestan Greek Gothic Latin Armenian Tocharian A OCS

tát tat̰ τό þat-a (is-)tud da täm to

‘this, that’ ‘this’ ‘this, that’ ‘that’ ‘this here’ ‘these’ ‘this’ ‘that’

tuo duot tona tu tu tova ton tŏmi *to

‘that’ ‘id.’ ‘id.’ ‘id.’ ‘each’ ‘away’ ‘that’ ‘id.’ ‘this’

PU *to/tu Finnish Saami Mordvin Mari Komi Hungarian Mansi Khanti Samoyedic

3.3 The Animacy Distinction The salient IE feature of the s- animate casus rectus is thus echoed in a Uralic opposition between the (animate) 3rd person pronoun and the (inanimate) demonstrative. Whatever the motivation behind the animate s and inanimate t alternation in this pronoun, it is not obvious in any of the stocks, suggesting a shared irregu-

10

The rather elusive *-d ending of inanimate pronouns in PIE (*kwid, *tod, *id) might be explained from the ablative, thus mirroring the more lucid accusative *-m formant in the nominal system. The form may be cognate with the Uralic partitive *-tV, continued in Finnish that notably distinguishes between objects in the accusative (“complete”, hän luki kirjan ‘he read a book’) and partitive (“partial”, hän luki kirjaa ‘he read a book [but did not finish]’). This hypothesis introduces a systemic alternative to internal explanations such, e.g. “emphatic reduplication” *to-to > *to-d (Szemerényi 1990: 205).

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

pronouns and particles: indo-uralic heritage and convergence table 3.9

43

Reflexes of PU *te/*ti

PU *te/*ti Finnish Saami Mordvin Mari Permic Mansi Khanti Samoyedic

tä-mä dāt tε, te ti *ta ti ta, te(-mi) *tä-

‘this (here)’ ‘id.’ ‘id.’ ‘id.’ ‘id.’ ‘id.’ ‘id.’ ‘this here’

larity (cf. figure 3.2).11 Although T as a deictic pronominal sound is widespread in the Eurasian language families (cf. Greenberg 2000: 94), so that the identity of the initial consonants alone is non-significant in terms of linguistic classification, the systemic opposition that the animate s/inanimate t represents is by no means trivial.

11

As a phonological corollary, and to account for the discrepancy between the larger number of Uralic affricates and the PIE lack hereof, Collinder proposes that since the un-lenited Uralic affricates are reflected by t in Samoyedic, it is not unconceivable that PIE went through a similar process of deaffrication (1965: 130), and a piece of the 2nd person puzzle (i.e. from tentative PIU *tsi, cf. §0.1) could potentially be found here, thus:

PIU? *t *ts *s

PU *t *ts *s

Uralic North Sam. (excl. Selkup) *t *s

PIE *t *s / *t *s

A similar explanation departing from the uneasy IE treatment of affricates was proposed by Heller for the *so/*tod distinction (1956: 7f.), but as a completely internal process. I argue that a potential phonetic split must have older bearings.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

44

bjørn

figure 3.2 Perspectives on proto-languages. (a) is hypothetical while (b) and (c) are uncontroversial (notwithstanding their respective places on the time axis). These points of convergence represent shared non-trivial phenomena, e.g. animate *so vs. inanimate *to. The (x)’s represent individually attested languages.

4

Conclusion

The beyond chance correspondences found in the interrogative complex (§ 1) and the animacy distinction (§3) provide the theoretical basis of any further inquiries into Indo-Uralic relations. The material presented in this article suggests that parts of a Proto Indo-Uralic pronominal system can be reconstructed. In addition to the personal pronouns, these include: – *tso (animate 3rd person pronoun) – *to (inanimate 3rd person pronoun) – *i (anaphoric pronoun) (with later development of a “full-grade” relative *io-) – *ku (interrogative particle) (before the split of PIU to combine with the anaphoric *i to produce *kwi) (before the split of PIU to develop the particle *-kwe) Other features of the Uralic pronouns that lack convincing counterparts in PIE must then be treated accordingly, cf. the demonstrative plural stem *n- (e.g. Fin. ne ‘they’) and the inanimate interrogative stem *m- (e.g. Fin. mikä ‘what’),

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

pronouns and particles: indo-uralic heritage and convergence

45

either as innovation in PU or loss in PIE. The systemic approach applied here illuminates the unlikelihood of having a complete pronominal system transplanted from one language to another. Although limited in number, the phonological matches found in the pronominal category should be expected to occur in other shared items. The following sound correspondences can be deduced:

PIE

PU

< PIU?

*kw *ku *s *s / *t *t

*k12 *ku *s *ts *t

*ku /_V *ku /_C *s *ts *t

While ablaut certainly is not a stable feature of the Uralic languages, deictic gradation is widespread in the pronouns and it cannot be ruled out that the variation in the interrogative and anaphoric complex originates in ablaut rather than from suppletion. The use of particles resonates well with the conjoining stage of an agglutinative language (PU) and an inflectional language (PIE) as either agglutinative or isolative, and it may, indeed, be in this unavoidable projection that Indo-Uralic unity becomes difficult to substantiate, i.e. in the relative scarcity of inflectional morphology to extricate. Two of the three pronominal complexes (interrogative § 1 and animacy § 3) betray such intricate correspondences at the proto-level that chance resemblance alone must be ruled out entirely. There are, however, two promising scenarios for convergence (the enclitic particle, § 1.3 and the relative pronoun, § 2.2), implying again that speakers of Uralic and Indo-European languages have remained in contact for millennia; but these cases remain marginal and do not have any bearings on the system as a whole. The major points of criticism seem automatic (e.g. “lautsymbolismus”, Rédei 1986: 19 and “chance”, Campbell 1998: 26), but ring hollow when compared to the multi-layered evidence of sound correspondences and vowel gradation presented above, and even Koivulehto, who is very efficient in demonstrating lexical loan relations, admits the stronger case presented by pronouns in the Indo-Uralic hypothesis

12

Possibly Selkup ku < *_C, but q < /_V.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

46

bjørn

(2001: 258). It is in many ways of lesser consequence to propose borrowing rather than common heritage, but: Nach seiner beredten aussage würde sogar das ganze gebäude der vergleichende (indogermanischen) sprachforschung zusammenstürzen, falls man die vorhandenen sprachlichen analogien nicht als beweis für den gemeinsamen ursprung der indoeuropäer und finno-ugrier gelten lässt. Paasonen 1907: 13

Ultimately ancient borrowings and shared heritage can be impossible to distinguish, but even the most ardent criticism would have to contend itself with the fact that the influence then eclipses the most basic linguistic material,13 practically stripping the recipient language of its skeleton.

References Abondolo, D. 1998. Introduction. In: D. Abondolo (ed.), The Uralic Languages. London– New York: Routledge, 1–42. Anthony, D.W. 2007. The Horse, the Wheel and Language. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Babaev, K. 2009. Once again on the comparison of pronouns in Proto-Languages. Journal of Language Relationship 1, 37–48. Bjørn, R.G. 2017. Foreign Elements in the Proto-Indo-European Vocabulary. MA thesis, University of Copenhagen. Available at www.loanwords.prehistoricmap.com. Bomhard, A.R. 2008. Reconstructing Proto-Nostratic. Leiden–Boston: Brill. Buck, C.D. 1910. Greek Dialects. Boston: Ginn and Company. Campbell, L. 1998. Nostratic: A personal assessment. In: J.C. Salmons; B.D. Joseph (eds.), Nostratic: Sifting the Evidence. Amsterdam–Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 107–152. Campbell, L.; W.J. Poser 2008. Language Comparison. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Carpelan, C.; A. Parpola 2001. Proto-Indo-European, Proto-Uralic and Proto-Aryan. In: C. Carpelan; A. Parpola; P. Koskikallio (eds.), Early Contacts between Uralic and IndoEuropean: Linguistic and Archaeological Considerations. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society, 55–150.

13

Yet the borrowing party then would have refrained from taking on, e.g., numerals, that would appear to be significantly more attractive items to borrow (cf. Bjørn 2017: 141).

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

pronouns and particles: indo-uralic heritage and convergence

47

Cavoto, F. 2003. Supplétion et récurrence de thèmes pronominaux nostratiques. Diachronica 20/2, 229–258. Cavoto, F. 2004. Nostratic, Eurasiatic and Indo-European derivation. In: J. Clackson; B.A. Olsen (eds.), Indo-European Word Formation: Proceedings of the Conference Held at the University of Copenhagen, October 20th–22nd 2000. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum, 11–23. Collinder, B. 1934. Indo-uralisches Sprachgut: die Urverwandtschaft zwischen der indoeuropäischen und der uralischen ( finnischugrisch-samojedischen) Sprachfamilie. Uppsala: A.–B. Lundequistska. Collinder, B. 1940. Jukagirisch und Uralisch. Uppsala: A.–B. Lundequistska. Collinder, B. 1955. Fenno-Ugric Vocabulary. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksells. Collinder, B. 1965. Hat das Uralische Verwandte? Ein sprachvergleichende Untersuchung. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis 1/4: 108–180. Čop, B. 1979. Indogermanisch-Anatolisch und Uralisch. In: E. Neu; W. Meid (eds.), Hethitisch und Indogermanisch. Vergleichende Studien zur historischen Grammatik und zur dialektgeographischen Stellung der indogermanischen Sprachgruppe Altkleinasiens. Innsbruck: IBS, 9–24. Déscy, G. 1990. The Uralic Protolanguage: A Comprehensive Reconstruction. Bloomington: Eurolinga. Dolgopolsky, A.B. 1984. On personal pronouns in the Nostratic languages. In: O. Gschwantler; K. Rédei; H. Reichert (eds.), Linguistica et philologica. Gedenkschrift für Björn Collinder. Wien: Wilhelm Braumüller, 65–112. Dunkel, G.E. 2014. Lexikon der indogermanischen Partikeln und Pronominalstämme. Heidelberg: Winter. Fortson, B.W., IV 2010. Indo-European Language and Culture. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Greenberg, J.H. 2000. Indo-European and Its Closest Relatives, Vol. 1: Grammar. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Hajdú, P. 1990. Einiges über Fürwörter. Linguistica Uralica 1, 1–12. Häkkinen, K. 2004. Nykysuomen etymologinen sanakirja. Helsinki: WSOY. Helimski, E. 2001. Early Indo-Uralic linguistic relationships. In: C. Carpelan; A. Parpola; P. Koskikallio (eds.), Early Contacts between Uralic and Indo-European: Linguistic and Archaeological Considerations. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society, 187–205. Heller, L. 1956. The I.E. so-/to- demonstrative suppletion or phonetic differentiation? Word 12/1, 7–8. Hyllested, A. 2014. Word Exchange at the Gates of Europe. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Copenhagen. Janhunen, J. 1977. Samoyedischer Wortschatz. Helsinki: Castrenianumin toimitteita. Janhunen, J. 1982. On the structure of Proto-Uralic. Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 44, 23–42.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

48

bjørn

Janhunen, J. 1998. Samoyedic. In: D. Abondolo (ed.), The Uralic Languages. London– New York: Routledge, 457–480. Janhunen, J. 2001. Indo-Uralic and Ural-Altaic. In: C. Carpelan; A. Parpola; P. Koskikallio (eds.), Early Contacts between Uralic and Indo-European: Linguistic and Archaeological Considerations. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society, 207–220. Joki, A.J. 1973. Uralier und Indogermanen: Die älteren Berührungen zwischen den uralischen und indogermanischen Sprachen. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society. Kloekhorst, A. 2008a. Some Indo-Uralic aspects of Hittite. Journal of Indo-European Studies 36, 88–95. Kloekhorst, A. 2008b. Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon. Leiden– Boston: Brill. Koivulehto, J. 2001. The earliest contacts between Indo-European and Uralic speakers in light of lexical loans. In: C. Carpelan; A. Parpola; P. Koskikallio (eds.), Early Contacts between Uralic and Indo-European: Linguistic and Archaeological Considerations. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society, 234–263. Kortlandt, F. 2010. Indo-Uralic and Altaic revisited. In: L. Johanson; M. Robbeets (eds.), Transeurasian Verbal Morphology in a Comparative Perspective. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 153–164. Kümmel, M.J. 2007. Konsonantenwandel. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Künnap, A. 1999. Kamass. München: Lincom. Olsen, B.A.; J.E. Rasmussen 1999. Indo-European -to-/-tu-/-ti-: A case of phonetic hierarchy. In H. Eichner; H.C. Luschützky; V. Sadovski (eds.), Compositiones Indogermanicae in Memoriam Jochem Schindler. Prague: Enigma, 421–435. Paasonen, H. 1906. Die finnischen Pronominalstämme jo- und e-. Finno-Ugrische Forschungen 6, 114–117. Paasonen, H. 1907. Zur Frage von der Urverwandtschaft der finnisch-ugrischen und indoeuropäischen Sprachen. Finno-Ugrische Forschungen 7, 13–31. Rasmussen, J.E. 1999. Indo-European ablaut -i- ~ -e-/-o-. In: J.E. Rasmussen Selected Papers on Indo-European Linguistics. With a Section on Comparative Eskimo Linguistics. Part 1. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum, 312–326. Rasmussen, J.E. 2005. Der Akkusativ auf *-m im Indogermanischen und Uralischen: Kontakt oder Erbe? In: G. Meiser; O. Hackstein (eds.), Sprachkontakt und Sprachwandel. Akten der XI. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft (13.–23. September 2000, Halle an der Saale). Wiesbaden: Reichert, 525–536. Rédei, K. 1986. Zu den indogermanisch-uralischen Sprachkontakten. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Rédei, K. 1988. Uralisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Renfrew, C. 2003. Archaeology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ringe, D. 1998. Probabilistic evidence for Indo-Uralic. In: J.C. Salmons; B.D. Joseph

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

pronouns and particles: indo-uralic heritage and convergence

49

(eds.), Nostratic: Sifting the Evidence. Amsterdam–Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 153–190. Sammallahti, P. 1998. The Saami Languages. Kárásjokka: Davvi Girji. Schumacher, S. 2011. Middle Welsh. In: E. Ternes (ed.), Brythonic Celtic. Bremen: Hempen, 85–236. Sihler, A.L. 1995. A New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin. Oxford: Oxford University Press. SKES = Toivonen et al. 1974–1981. Szemerényi, O.J. 1990. Introduction to Indo-European Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Thomason, S.G.; C.L. Everett 2001. Pronoun borrowing. Berkeley Linguistics Society 27, 301–316. Toivonen, Y.H. 1956. Über die syrjänischen Lehnwörter im Ostjakischen. Fenno-Ugrische Forschungen 32, 1–126 Toivonen, Y.H.; E. Itkonen; A.J. Joki; R. Peltola; S. Tanner; M. Cronstedt 1974–1981. Suomen kielen etymologinen sanakirja. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society. UEW = Rédei 1988. Wagner, H. 1967. Indo-germanisch -kwe im Finnisch-Ugrischen? Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 20, 67–92. Weiss, M. 2009. Outline of the Historical and Comparative Grammar of Latin. Ann Arbor–New York: Beech Stave Press.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

chapter 4

Indo-Anatolian Syntax? Dag Haug and Andrei Sideltsev*

1

Hittite vs. Other Indo-European Languages

A well-known feature of Hittite is the use of wh-words en lieu of indefinite pronouns in conditional clauses (1)1 and, considerably more seldom, after negation marker (2):2 (1) MH/MS (CTH 147) KUB 14.1+ rev. 45, cf. Beckman 1996: 146. nu=wa=mu mān idālu-n memia-n CONN=QUOT=me if evil-ACC.SG.C word-ACC.SG.C kui-š [mema-i] who-NOM.SG.C tell-3SG.PRS ‘If anybody tells me a bad word’. (2) MH/MS (CTH 199) ABoT 1.65 obv. 11, cf. Hoffner 2009: 243. ammug=a āššul UL kuit me.DAT.SG=but greeting.ACC.SG.N NEG which.ACC.SG.N ḫa[tr]ā-eš write-2SG.PST ‘To me you did not send any greetings’. Here we see wh-words/relative pronouns kuiš ‘who’ and kuit ‘what’ used instead of expected indefinite pronouns kuiš-ki ‘some/anyone’, kuit-ki ‘some/anything’. Such pronouns are termed bare interrogatives (Haspelmath 1993; Haug 2016) and this will be the term we will be using in the paper. The use is instantly reminiscent of that attested in all other Indo-European languages (3):

* We thank the audience at the Workshop for suggestions. Our particular gratitude goes to I. Yakubovich for providing quite a few valuable suggestions and stimulating criticism. The authors remain responsible for all possible errors of fact or interpretation. 1 Including those introduced by irrealis particle man or našma ‘or (if)’. 2 We will not treat here the distributive use of wh-words.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004409354_005 Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

51

indo-anatolian syntax?

(3) a. Greek (John 11.9) ἐάν τις περιπατῇ ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ‘If anyone walks in the daytime, …’. b. Avestan (Yasna 50.1) kat̰ mōi uruuā isē cahiiā auuaŋhō question my soul.nom command.3SG.PRS wh.gen help.gen ‘Does my soul command any help?’ c. Latin si quis ‘if anyone’ d. Gothic (John 7.4) ni manna in analaugnein ƕa taujii no man.nom in secret.dat wh.ACC do.3sg.prs ‘Nobody does anything in secret’. This use is attested in all the ancient languages of all the branches save Armenian and Tocharian and is reconstructed for narrow PIE as the use of wh-words en lieu of indefinite pronouns under specific licensing conditions, most commonly conditionals, questions and negations, to a much more restricted degree in modal contexts (Haug 2016). Mind that the reconstruction is that of the pattern—so it holds irrespectively of what wh-word is reconstructed. In most cases the wh-words are reflexes of the bare interrogative/relative root *kwi/o-, possibly expanded with one or more particles. When such a form is used as an indefinite, it will be termed a bare interrogative, irrespective of whether it is etymologically augmented or not, as long as the same form can also be used as an interrogative and/or as a relative. The correspondence between Hittite and narrow IE is held to be obvious and of common ancestry, see, e.g., Hoffner & Melchert (2008: 149), cf. descriptively from the inner Hittite perspective Huggard (2015: 34–35). However, it is not so straightforward. As is well known, Hittite attests the use in (1–2) in postOH period (CHD sub mān). The oldest attested Hittite texts (OH/OS originals) have only indefinite pronouns in conditional clauses (introduced by takku ‘if’) and after negation markers, as in: (4) OH/OS (CTH 291.I.a.A) KBo 6.2 obv. ii 33 (§ 44a), cf. Hoffner 1997: 52. takku LÚ-an paḫḫuen-i kuiški if man-ACC.SG.C fire-LOC.SG somebody.NOM.SG.C

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

52

haug and sideltsev

peššie-zzi throw-3SG.PRS ‘If anyone makes a man fall into a fire, …’. (5) OH/OS (CTH 1.A) KBo 3.22 obv. 7–8, cf. Neu 1974: 10–11. Ù DUMUMEŠ URU Neš[aš id]ālu natta kuedanikki and sons Nesa evil.ACC.SG.N NEG someone.DAT.SG takkiš-ta set.up-3SG.PST ‘And he plotted no evil to any of the citizens of Nesa’. Other attestations from the same text KBo 3.22 are lē kuiški (obv. 24, with damaged lē), [l]ē kuiški (obv. 34). Indefinite pronouns licenced by operators (conditional and negation) are termed in cross-linguistic literature negative polarity items (NPIs) (Haspelmath 1997). This is the term we will use in the paper. A count of the OH/OS corpus revealed 62× takku kuiški/kuitki vs 0× *takku kuiš/kuit. According to (CHD sub mān), the latter is sporadically attested only in later copies of OH texts and is very likely to reflect MH/NH usage. One of the earliest examples of bare interrogatives is: (6) MH/MS (CTH 262) IBoT 1.36 obv. ii 63, cf. Miller 2013: 112–113. mān3=aš?=ši peran=ma kuwapi KASKAL–i-š ḫatku-š if=it?=him ahead=but where road-NOM.SG.C narrow-NOM.SG.C ‘If the road ahead is at some point too narrow for him’. As for Old Hittite bare interrogatives, there is only one case in the NH copy of the OH edict of Telipinu, see (7), versus regular marked NPI s in the Old Hittite originals, for which see (5) above: (7) OH/NS (CTH 19.II.A) KBo 3.1+ obv. ii 44, cf. Hoffmann 1984: 32–33. parkunu-ši=ma=za UL kuit purify-2SG.PRS=but=REFL NEG which.ACC.SG.N ‘But you do not purify in any way’. Example (7) occurs in the same text with three regular NPI s licenced by the negation. One of them is in the next line of the text (obv. ii 45 lē kuinki), the other one is in obv. 35 lē kuiški, and one is fragmentary (obv. ii 14). So Hoffmann

3 The signs are damaged.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

53

indo-anatolian syntax?

(1984: 32) probably had good reason to assess (7) as a copyist’s mistake and read kuit as kuit⟨ki⟩. This immediately raises the important problem of purely scribal errors, not normally discussed in relation to bare interrogatives in Hittite, although cf. Hoffner (2009: 196). As is known, indefinite pronouns and wh-words in some forms differed only by one sign -ki/ka, e.g., NOM.SG.C relative kuiš vs indefinite kuiš-ki. So, when the sign was not written due to a scribal mistake, some forms of the indefinite pronoun were indistinguishable from those of the wh-word. However, there are also cases which can only be interpreted as unambiguous mistakes, and not as bare interrogatives. These are seen when the scribal mistake occurred in the forms which differed by more than one sign and thus the omission of -ki/ka did not result in homonymy, see (8) NH/NS (CTH 255.2.A) KUB 26.1+ rev. iv 20–21, cf. Miller 2013: 304–305. [(mānn=a=)]ddu=za DUTU–Š=I kuedanik⟨ki⟩ memiyan-i if=and=you=REFL Majesty=My som⟨e⟩.DAT.SG matter-DAT.SG [(parā ui)]ya-mi out send-1SG.PRS ‘[(And if)] I, My Majesty, [(se)]nd you [(out)] for som⟨e⟩ matter, …’. Here omission of the KI sign did not produce the bare interrogative as the bare interrogative is kuedani, not *kuedanik. Turning back to OH bare interrogatives, another case which has been claimed to be an OH bare interrogative occurs in a MS text: (9) OH/MS (CTH 374.2.A) KUB 36.75 obv. ii 13–14 1. ūk=za neku DINGIR=YA tuk kuit iy[(a-nu)]n I=REFL ever god=my you.DAT what do-1SG.PST 2. nu kuit waštā-ḫḫun CONN what-ACC.SGN sin-1SG.PST CHD (L-N: 432–433) analyzes the context as “(1) I haven’t done anything against you, my god, have I, (2) or sinned in some way, have I?”, followed by Hoffner (1995: 92) and Huggard (2015: 35). However, the context has been convincingly analyzed in an alternative way by Singer (2002: 35): “What have I ever done to you and how have I sinned?”. Bare interrogatives are never attested in NS copies and even later versions of OH Laws. The statistics is impressive enough not to be just a matter of coincidence.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

54 2

haug and sideltsev

Other Anatolian Languages

All the rest of Anatolian languages pattern with OH/OS usage, i.e. they attest NPIs and not bare interrogatives in conditional clauses and after negation, even though the data are severely limited. See generally for the system of Anatolian indefinite pronouns Sideltsev & Yakubovich (2016). Here we will review only the evidence directly relevant for bare interrogatives. According to the Luwian corpus of Yakubovich, Hieroglyphic Luwian attests only one case of indefinite in a conditional clause. This is an NPI, and not a bare interrogative: (10) KARATEPE 1 Hu. §LIX 331–333 REX-ta-ti-i-pa-wa/i kwa/i+ra/i kwa/i-sa-há ¦¦ hantawatta-tti=ba=wa kwari kwisha rule.as.king-3SG.PRS=but=PRTC if someone.NOM.SG.C ‘But if anyone rules as a king’.4 The usage of NPIs after ‘or’ is more frequent (5×): (11) MALPINAR §20, cf. Hawkins 2000: 342. ni-pa-wa/i-tà-’ POST+ra/i-i-sá kwa/i-sà-ha-’ niba=wa=ada appara-s kwisha or=PRTC=them lesser-NOM.SG.C someone.NOM.SG.C CAPUT-ti-sa ARHA MALLEUS x-s ahha wallai(noble)man-NOM.SG.C away smash ‘Or (if) any inferior man shall erase them, …’. Cuneiform Luwian attests more cases (Melchert 1993: 119), but all of them involve NPIs: (12) pre-NH/NS (CTH 760.II.1.A) KUB 35.43+ obv. ii 7, cf. Starke 1989: 144. mān=ata īššar-ati kuiḫa if=it hand-ABL something.NOM.SG.N ‘If it is something from the hand’.

4 Following Yakubovich 2015: 46. Cf. Hawkins 2000: 56: “If anyone from (among) kings”. The indefinite pronoun translates Phoenician mlk ‘a king’ (Hawkins 2000: 66).

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

55

indo-anatolian syntax?

Only NPIs are used after negations in both Cuneiform and Hieroglyphic Luwian (Melchert 2003: 204), as in KUB 35.79 rev. iv 13′ nawa kuiḫa. For Hieroglyphic Luwian see (13) KULULU 1 6 §14, cf. Hawkins 2000: 443. wa/i-tà ¦¦ ¦ni-i ¦kwa/i-ti-i-ha ¦pi-i[a]-a-i wa=ada ni kwadiha piya-i PRTC=it NEG someone.DAT.SG give-3SG.PRS ‘And let him not give it to anyone (else)’. This use actually dominates for Hieroglyphic Luwian. Out of 30 attestations of NPIs in Yakubovich’s corpus it is attested in half of the cases (14×). The same usage is attested for Lycian. Solely NPI s are licensed by negation (14) and conditionals, both with overt subordinator ‘if’ (15) and in paratactic conditionals (16–17): (14) N 320, 34–35 se=we=ne: χtta-di: tike: and=PRTC=NEG harm-3SG.PRS anyone ‘And no one shall do harm’. (15) TL 89, 2–3 a-di=me=j5=ẽ: tike: χttbã: do-3SG.PRS=CONN=him/her=if6 someone.NOM.SG harm.ACC.SG tisñke: any.ACC.SG ‘If anyone does any harm to him/her’ (16) TL 57, 7–9 1. [s]e=[ije] n[e hrppi tã]ti tike kbi: and=him NEG on put.3PL.PRS someone.ACC.SG other 2. hrppi=(i)je=me=i: ta-di: tike: on=thereupon=CONN=him put-3SG.PRS someone.ACC.SG 3. me=n=e: tubei-ti mãhãi huwedri: se CONN=him=they strike-3PL.PRS god.NOM.PL all.NOM.PL.C and

5 Or =me( j)=. 6 Following Garrett 1990: 241 fn. 1; Melchert 2004: 19. Cf. Kloekhorst 2013: 149.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

56

haug and sideltsev

itlehi: trm̃ mili: belonging.to.a.league.NOM.PL.C Lycian.NOM.PL.C ‘(1) And they will not put someone on top of him. (2) (If) one puts someone on top of him, (3) they will strike him, all the gods and the Lycian league’. (17) TL 83, 10–11 ñte=me=j7=epi: ta-di: ti[k]e [tik]e: in=CONN=him=upon put-3SG.PRS someone someone ‘(If) someone inters someone on top of him’. Part of the clauses can in principle be understood as generalizing, as (17) ‘whoever puts …’. However, others, illustrated here by (16), cannot, because in this case the resumptive pronoun would have the wrong reference. So, the traditional understanding of the clauses as paratactic conditionals, also attested in Hittite, seems to be descriptively right. Data from other Anatolian languages are even more ambiguous and fragmentary, see Sideltsev & Yakubovich (2016), and contribute no positive information to the issue. Thus the data that come from other Anatolian languages support the Old Hittite usage vs. the Middle/New Hittite one and set the Anatolian languages apart from other Indo-European languages.

3

Anatolian vs. Narrow IE Bare Interrogatives

In this light the Hittite post-OH/OS bare interrogatives in conditional clauses and after negation marker cannot be directly equated with the seemingly identical usage in narrow IE languages and have to be an independent innovation within historical Hittite. Narrow IE languages would then attest bare interrogatives alongside NPIs in certain contexts, see Haug (2016), whereas ProtoAnatolian reflected in OH/OS texts and other Anatolian languages attests only NPIs in these contexts. The difference might constitute syntactic evidence for the Indo-Anatolian hypothesis. Bare interrogatives would then have to be independent innovations in Middle Hittite and in narrow IE. Now, if, despite the evidence provided so far, one still traces the Hittite use of bare interrogatives to the Proto-Indo-European one, writing off the lack of

7 Or =me( j)=.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

indo-anatolian syntax?

57

OH/OS data as well as the data from other Anatolian languages as incidental, the development from Proto-Indo-European would be narrowing of the sphere of usage of bare interrogatives because the usage of bare interrogatives in narrow IE is considerably wider than that of Hittite. As shown by Haug (2016), narrow PIE had several other contexts, besides conditional and negative clauses, where bare interrogatives were licenced. The most common of them was questions, less common modal contexts. None of these attests any bare interrogatives in Hittite. Even the use of bare interrogatives under negation is severely restricted in Hittite to a handful of cases. Besides (2, 7) above, the only other attestations we are aware of are NH/NS KUB 21.38 obv. 48, ATT 35, 12 and MH/MS HKM 52 rev. 35. The only sphere where bare interrogatives are consistently licenced in post-OH time is conditionals, both prototypical conditional clauses with overt subordinators as (1) above, conditionals introduced by našma ‘or (if)’, see Huggard (2015: 34–35), and paratactic conditionals, for which see generally Hoffner & Melchert (2008: 423), such as: (18) MS/MH (CTH 261.II) KUB 26.17 obv. i 5′–6′, cf. Miller 2013: 130–131. 1. māḫḫan=[ma] LÚKÚR-aš ak-i when=but enemy-NOM.SG.C die-3SG.PRS 2. kūrur kui-š ḫar-zi hostility.ACC.SG.N which-NOM.SG.C have-3SG.PRS ‘(1) As soon as the enemy has been vanquished, [though] (2) (if ) some (enemy) retains hostility (then the occupation contingent that (is to be left behind) I will leave behind for the occupation)’. All the rest of licencing contexts for bare interrogatives in Hittite are closely connected with conditionals. This would contradict Haspelmath’s (1997) generalization that bare interrogatives become more general in use over time as indefinite pronouns. Thus even in this case it agrees better with the material to speak of independent innovations in historical Hittite and in narrow PIE. 3.1 Hittite Contexts Other Than Conditionals The fact that Middle Hittite and narrow IE bare interrogatives are independent innovations is all the more likely if one views the modest broadening of the licencing of bare interrogatives in Hittite. The direction of the spread is radically different from narrow PIE and closely tied in to the peculiarities of the Hittite syntax. The first of them is that in Hittite bare interrogatives are licenced by mān not only in the conditional meaning ‘if’, but also in the temporal one ‘when’:

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

58

haug and sideltsev

(19) MS/MH (CTH 261.II) KUB 26.17 obv. i 4′, cf. Miller 2013: 130–131. mān DUTU–Š=I=ma kuwapi apāšila laḫḫiyai-zzi when Majesty=My=but when himself go.on.campaign-3SG.PRS ‘When His Majesty himself, though, at any time goes on a campaign ([in the land] of the e[nemy] there too, preparedness must obtain …)’. (20) MH/NS (CTH 264.A) KUB 13.4 rev. iii 68, cf. Miller 2013: 260–261. mānn=a=za MUNUS-i kui-š GAM-an šeš-zi when=and=REFL woman who-NOM.SG.C down sleep-3SG.PRS ‘Also, when someone goes to sleep with a woman, …’. Examples (19–20) are obvious off-shots from the common conditional licencing contexts. They are introduced by the same subordinator which in Middle and New Hittite dominates in conditional clauses—mān, even though in (19– 20) it is used in a purely temporal meaning—‘when’. Thus (20) cooccurs in the same text with the following prototypical conditional use of mān licencing a bare interrogative: (21) MH/NS (CTH 264.A) KUB 13.4 rev. iii 74, cf. Miller 2013: 260–261. mān=ma=za ITTI MUNUS-TI kui-š šeš-zi when=but=REFL with woman who-NOM.SG.C sleep-3SG.PRS ‘If, however, someone sleeps with a woman, …’. Actually, it is very clear why the distribution is exactly as attested. As is well known, in Old Hittite texts conditional clauses were introduced by the subordinator takku ‘if’ whereas temporal clauses were introduced, among other subordinators, by mān ‘when’. The state of affairs in Middle and New Hittite was different: the conditional subordinator was mān ‘if’ whereas the main temporal subordinator was māḫḫan ‘when’. The transitional period occurred during late OH time: “Temporal clauses in Old Hittite (OH) are frequently marked by mān ‘when’, which in OH was only beginning to gain the secondary meaning ‘if’ that it acquired in NH” (Hoffner & Melchert 2008: 416). Now, at the time when mān was taking over the conditional function of takku ‘if’, it was used simultaneously, among other functions, for which see, e.g., (Hoffner & Melchert 2008: 416), both in temporal and conditional clauses. Thus it was highly likely to “borrow” the syntax characteristic of takku ‘if’, more commonly in its new conditional function, and, less commonly, in its temporal one. Actually, the extention seen in (19–20) is not very surprising from the narrow Indo-European point of view: both of the temporal clauses are generalizing, and generalizing temporal clause licence bare interrogatives, e.g., in Latin. The same generaliz-

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

59

indo-anatolian syntax?

ing semantics can be seen in (22a–c) which attest further analogical spread: there bare interrogatives are licenced in Hittite by a purely temporal subordinator māḫḫan: (22) a. NH/NS (CTH 255.2.A) KUB 26.1+ rev. iii 50–51, cf. Miller 2013: 302–303. [(š)]ummaš=ma kuit GIM-an išdamaš-ten you=but which-ACC.SG.N when hear-2PL.PST ‘But when you have heard something, …’. b. NH/NS (CTH 255.2.A) KBo 26.1+ rev. iii 16, cf. Miller 2013: 300–301. nu=za kuit GIM-an kiš-ari CONN=REFL which-ACC.SG.N when hear-3SG.PST ‘And should something happen …’.8 c. NH/NS (CTH 255.2.B) KBo 26.8 obv. ii 5′, cf. Miller 2013: 298–299. […]x=ma kuit GIM-an *u-š*ke-tteni x=but which-ACC.SG.N when see-IMPF-2PL.PRS ‘But when you observe something, …’. Actually, in these examples only the logographic writing GIM-an is attested and the phonetic complement is compatible with both māḫḫan and mān. It is also curious that in (22b) the context requires that the meaning of māḫḫan should not be the common ‘when’, but quite unexpected and, according to CHD (L-N: 100), otherwise unattested ‘if’! In this light (22a–c) may simply attest writing of mān with the Sumerogram GIM. Such confusion of mān and māḫḫan is attested in other meanings, see CHD L-N: 146. But it is also possible to think that (22a–c) may attest the analogy of māḫḫan after mān: māḫḫan does not have a conditional meaning, thus it licences bare interrogatives by analogy after mān which has both temporal and conditional meanings ‘when’ and ‘if’. The analogy is all the more expected, as the same text KUB 26.1+ employs in obv. i 17 mān ‘if’ licencing a bare interrogative kuwapi ‘ever’. The word order is more compatible with this hypothesis, although clause internal mān is also attested, see Sideltsev (2015). Independent support for (22a–c) involving genuine analogy after mān and not mān itself comes from the following example from the same period as (22a–c)—the time of Tudḫaliya IV—which attests phonetic writing of māḫḫan ‘when’ licencing a bare interrogative: 8 The case belongs here if one follows Miller (2013: 300–301). Cf. CHD L-N: 102: “with regard to (lit. like) what happens”. According to CHD, the clause rather contains complex subordinator kuit māḫḫan.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

60

haug and sideltsev

(23) NH/NS (CTH 106.A.1) Bo 86/299 obv. ii 53. maḫḫan=ma=za ABU=YA kuwapi DINGIRLIM-iš when=but=REFL father=my when god-NOM.SG.C kiš-at become-3SG.PST The context is translated as: “Als aber mein Vater dann starb” (Otten 1988: 18– 19) or “And when my father died” (Beckman 1996: 112). Otten (1988) assesses in his glossary kuwapi as an adverb “(irgend)wo, irgendwann”, thus the literary English translation should be ‘When my father died at some point’. Under this reading kuwapi is bare interrogative. Example (23) is very obviously not generalizing and unparalleled by narrow Indo-European languages. Thus the first spread of licencing contexts for bare interrogatives is inner-Hittite and unconnected with narrow PIE spread of licencing contexts for bare interrogatives. The second spread is also typically Hittite. It was observed in the previous section that bare interrogatives are often licensed after našma ‘or (if)’. Sporadically the licencing is extended to the contexts where našma means just ‘or’ or even to the contexts where another conjunction ‘or’, naššu, is used: (24) NH/NS (CTH 261.I.B) KUB 13.2+ obv. ii 28′–30′, cf. Miller 2013: 226–227. kēdani=wa=ššan URU–r-i naššu ŠA D10 this.LOC.SG=QUOT=LOC city-LOC.SG either of Storm.god kuit⟨(ki)⟩ Ékarimmi našma tamēdaš DINGIR–LÌ-aš kuitki some temple or other.GEN.SG god-GEN.SG some Ékarimmi temple ‘In this town there is either a temple of som⟨(e)⟩ Storm God or a temple of some other deity (it is now neglected, and it is dilapidated).’ Actually, the form kuit in (24) is assessed by the editor as an error for kuit⟨ki⟩, but due to the difficulty in distinguishing between errors and analogy it is impossible to prefer one of the two options. Another extention clearly traceable to the conditional use is that of relative clauses: (25) MH/MS (CTH 257.4.A) KUB 31.100 rev. 11′–13′, cf. CHD L-N: 388. 1. namma kui-ēš kui-ēš kueluwan-eš šer further what-NOM.PL.C what-NOM.PL.C k.-NOM.PL.C up

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

indo-anatolian syntax?

61

É.G[AL?] palace 2. kui-ēš namma kui-ēš kuwapi what-NOM.PL.C further what-NOM.PL.C where 3. n=uš ḫūmand-u[š] wanalli-šk-andu ištalki-šk-and[u] CONN=them all-ACC.PL.C w.-IMPF-3PL.IMP i.-IMPF-3PL.IMP ‘(1) Further, whatever k.’s are up in the pa[lace(?)] (2) (and) whatever other k.’s are (any)where, (3) all those let them w. and i.’ (26) MH/NS (CTH 264.A) KUB 13.4 rev. iii 21–23, cf. Miller 2013: 256–257. 1. URUḪat⟨tu⟩š-i=ma=kan kuedani kui-š Hattusa-LOC.SG=but=LOC who.DAT.SG which-NOM.SG.C šaklāi-š šer duty-NOM.SG.C up 2. mān LÚSANGA LÚGUDU₁₂ LÚ.MEŠḫaliyattallēš 3. kui[šš=a=aš] tarniškezzi ‘(1) He who is responsible for letting in someone who has some duty up in Ḫat⟨tu⟩sa, though—(2) be he a priest, an anointed one (or) the watchmen—(3) he must let only them in’. The use easily falls into the extention of the original conditional usage: generalizing relatives are very close to conditionals, see Garrett 1994: 44–45; Huggard 2015: 34. The connection between generalizing relatives and conditionals is so trivial that generalizing relative clauses licence bare interrogatives in Greek and Latin (Haug 2016). What does not seem to be attested in narrow PIE, however, is that bare interrogatives are also sporadically attested in determinate relative clauses, as in the following Hittite example: (27) NH/NS (CTH 81.A) KUB 1.1(+) rev. iv 19–20, cf. Otten 1981: 24–25; van den Hout 2003: 203. nu mUrḫi-D[(U-u)]pa-š BELU ḪI.A kui-ēš kuwapi arḫa CONN Urhitesub-NOM.SG.C lords who-ACC.PL.C where away [(u)]iya-t send-3SG.PST ‘To the generals whom Urḫitešub had dismissed to some place (Ištar appeared in a dream)’. Thus even in case of secondary spread independent innovations in historical Hittite and in narrow PIE are more likely than common heritage. Even the modest innovation of Hittite is different from the innovation of narrow PIE and is

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

62

haug and sideltsev

tied in with the peculiarity of Hittite syntax: in Hittite bare interrogatives are licenced by mān both in temporal and conditional functions ‘if’ and ‘when’ vs only conditional clauses in narrow PIE; they are licenced in both indeterminate and determinate Hittite relative clauses vs. only in generalizing relative clauses in Greek and Latin. Yet another indication that Hittite bare interrogatives are a purely inner Hittite innovation comes from word order issues. Hittite attests syntactic difference between wh-words and indefinite pronouns: the former do not attest constraint on the clause position (they can be clause first, second and preverbal) and on the position within DP whereas the latter are normally second, both within the clause if they are in the left periphery and within the QP, see Sideltsev (2015), cf. Huggard (2015). Bare interrogatives behave mostly like indefinite pronouns, i.e. they are syntactically different from wh-words. However, in a number of cases they retain the features typical of wh-words, i.e. they are clause first: (28) MH/NS (CTH 258.2) KUB 13.7 obv. 9, cf. Miller 2013: 140–141. mān=an=za kuwapi=ma appezzian LUGAL–u-š EGIR-an if=him=REFL when=but later king-NOM.SG.C back kappūē-zzi count-3SG.PRS ‘If, however, the king reassesses him (i.e., his case) at some point’. The system is in stark contrast to the Greek or Latin systems of bare interrogatives, see Sideltsev, Molina, Belov (2015), cf. Huggard (2015). 3.2 Bare Interrogatives outside of Conditionals? It was observed above that our corpus does not attest bare interrogatives outside of conditionals / relative clauses / negative contexts. The contexts that have been analyzed as such should rather be assessed otherwise: (29) NH/NS (CTH 293) KUB 13.35+ obv. ii 6–8, cf. Werner 1967: 6–7. 1. tamēdani=ma=wa kuedani ANŠE.GÌR.NUN.NA other.DAT.SG=but=QUOT which.DAT.SG mule šarnikzil-aš EGIR–pa pe-ḫḫi compensation-GEN.SG back give-1SG.PRS 2. nu=wa=šmaš SIG5–and-uš UL=pat pe-ḫḫi CONN=QUOT=them good-ACC.PL.C NEG=EMPH give-1SG.PRS ‘(1) The other (person) to whom I give mules of compensation, (2) I do not give the good ones to them under no circumstances’.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

indo-anatolian syntax?

63

Hoffner (2003: 58) following Werner (1967: 6–7) translates the two last clauses as ‘(1) To the other person I give mules of compensation, (2) but under no circumstances do I give the good ones to them’. In this understanding kuedani is used as an indefinite pronoun not licensed by anything. However, there is no compelling reason to assess the context in the way Hoffner does. It can be understand equally well as ‘(1) The other (person) to whom I give mules of compensation, (2) I do not give the good ones to them under no circumstances’. It has been suggested that bare interrogatives are licenced in Hittite in questions. But the two contexts that have been listed as evidence have also been analyzed in a different way and cannot serve as unambiguous evidence. Thus Miller (2013: 107) assesses the following subordinator as a bare interrogative: (30) MH/MS (CTH 262) IBoT 1.36 obv. i 57 nu=war=an kuwapi au-tti CONN=QUOT=him when see-2SG.PRS ‘Will you ever notice him?’. But Güterbock & van den Hout (1991: 11) assess it as a genuine subordinator: “How will you see him?”, followed, e.g., by Brosch (2014: 239). The other context which has been assessed as bare interrogative in a question, (9) above, cannot serve as unambiguous evidence as it can contain a negation marker, or it can easily be analyzed in a way not involving bare interrogatives. Other contexts which have been assessed as bare interrogatives not licensed by anything are even less probative. The absolute majority of them are in fragmentary contexts and the pronouns can be assessed as relative. Thus kuit in NH/NS (CTH 590) KUB 15.30 rev. iii 8′–9′ was analyzed as “something” by de Roos (2007: 198–199), but as relative “ce que” by Mouton (2007: 287). Similarly divergent analyses have been offered for kuwapi in NH/NS (CTH 584.5) KUB 48.126+ obv. i 44 (de Roos 2007: 126–127; Mouton 2007: 295). Only kuwapi in NH/NS (CTH 584.7) KUB 48.118 10 is unanimously analyzed (de Roos 2007: 123–124; Mouton 2007: 272), but it is almost fully restored [kuwa]pi. Kuwapi in KUB 48.126+ obv. i 31 which is translated as “at a certain moment” (de Roos 2007: 127; Mouton 2007: 295) occurs in a fragmentary context. So, the only Hittite context licencing bare interrogatives which produces the impression of being a real linguistic phenomenon and not an occasional error of the scribe/copyist is conditional clauses.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

64 4

haug and sideltsev

Bare Interrogatives in the Luwian Branch?

An important part of the argument above was that Anatolian languages other than Hittite do not attest any bare interrogatives. However, there are two forms which have been expressly identified with the Middle/New Hittite bare interrogatives. Now we will assess them in detail. 4.1 Lycian tihe The first deviating form is Lycian tihe, formally a genitive of the wh-word ti(Melchert 2004: 66). In the majority of contexts it is employed with indefinite tike and thus is interpreted as a bare interrogative licenced in a conditional clause (ibid): (31) TL 59 2–3 me=i( j)=a-di tike: ti-he CONN=him/her=do-3SG.PRS someone.NOM.SG who-GEN.SG zum̃ m[ẽ/ã] harm.ACC.SG ‘(If) anyone does harm of any kind to him/her’. The translation of tihe follows a suggestion of I. Yakubovich, pers.comm. The context and the structure are stereotypical and are virtually verbatim repeated in TL 91 2–3, TL 95 2, TL 135 2. At face value the Lycian example is identical to the following Hittite one and seems to finally provide a parallel from other Anatolian languages for the Middle/New Hittite bare interrogatives: (32) NH/NS (CTH 106.B.2) KBo 4.10+ rev. 18, cf. van den Hout 1995: 46–47; Beckman 1996: 107. mān URULUM kui-š našma AŠRU kuitki ANA if city which-NOM.SG.C or place some.NOM.SG.N to mUlmi–DU–up LUGAL KUR URU.DU–tašša piy-anna UL Ulmi-Tessup king land Tarhuntassa give-INF NEG ZI–anza soul.NOM.SG.C ‘If he does not wish to give some city or some locality to Ulmi-Tessup, …’. However, Lycian tihe attests several peculiarities. As is seen in (31), it never functions as synchronic genitive of wh-word ti-, it is rather used in the same contexts as tike, an accusative form of NPI tike ‘some(one)’. This follows from contexts which are similar to (31), e.g.:

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

65

indo-anatolian syntax?

(33) TL 56 3 se=ije ti e-di: tike: mẽtẽ: and=him/her who.NOM.SG do-3SG.PRS some.ACC.SG harm.ACC.SG ‘who does any harm to him/her, …’, similar to fragmentary TL 72. The parallelism of (31) and (33) makes it very likely that despite the difference in form (genitive ti-he—accusative ti-ke), both forms are identical semantically: tike zum̃ mẽ ‘any harm’ vs tihe zum̃ mẽ ‘harm of any kind’. A similar reanalysis of originally genitive forms is attested in ebehi, which, according to Melchert (2004: 11), was originally an accented possessive adjective of ebe- ‘of this’, but synchronically equivalent to simply ebe- ‘this’. Thus, as different from Hittite bare interrogatives, tihe is synchronically part of the paradigm of NPI tike, not relative ti- and thus synchronically it is not a bare interrogative: bare interrogative implies that the form which is synchronically a wh-word functions in a certain context as an indefinite. Lycian tihe is synchronically an NPI, not a bare interrogative. But can it be assessed as a bare interrogative diachronically, i.e. equated with Hittite kuiš in (32)? If we assess tihe at a previous stage of development as a bare interrogative, the absolute majority of contexts (besides the cited TL 59 2–3, TL 91 3, TL 95 2, these are TL 135 2; N 314b 2–3; possibly also with negation in fragmentary TL 45B 7–8), simultaneously display both indefinite tike and bare interrogative tihe. Only in one context, TL 44C 17, tihe does not co-occur with tike, but the context is fragmentary. This sets the Lycian form again apart from its presumable Hittite parallels. In Hittite, as clearly different from the Lycian pattern, if two pronouns are simultaneously attested in the same Hittite clause, they are either two indefinite pronouns in the same clause or two wh-words. In very rare cases like (32) above it does attest an indefinite pronoun and a relative one functioning as indefinite in the same context, but the use is never systematic. In this light the Lycian recurrent use of ‘relative’ tihe alongside indefinite tike within the same clause cannot be equated with Hittite (32), but is rather reminiscent of Hieroglyphic Luwian where kuisha coccurs with kuis as a compound free choice item kuisha kuis ‘whoever’, see ex. (15) in Sideltsev & Yakubovich (2016) repeated here as (34) which is attested alongside kuis kuis with the same function: (34) KULULU 1 §§7–9, cf. Hawkins 2000: 443. ¦wa/i-ti ¦za-ia ¦DOMUS-na-’ ¦kwa/i-sá wa=di zaya parna kwis PRTC=REFL this.ACC.PL.N house.ACC.PL.N which.NOM.SG.C

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

66

haug and sideltsev

¦ni-pa-wa/i ¦á-ma-ta-’ ¦tu-wa/i-ti-ia ¦wa/i-zi-ti-⟨i⟩ niba=wa amatta Tuwattiya wazzidi or=PRTC estate.component.ACC.PL T.DAT.SG wish.3PRS.SG ¦ni-pa-wa/i ¦la-hi?-zi-i ¦ni-pa-wa/i ¦wa/i-ia-ni-[si?-]i niba=wa lahinzi niba=wa wiyanissi or=PRTC estate.component.ACC.PL or=PRTC vine.GEN ¦tu-wa/i[+ra/i]-sà-za-’ ¦kwa/i-sà-ha-wa/i-sa tuwars-anza kwis-ha=wa=as vineyard.ACC.SG someone.NOM.SG.C=PRTC=he ¦kwa/i-sa-⟨⟨pa⟩⟩9 kwis who-NOM.SG.C ‘Whoever shall demand these houses from Tuwati, or the amatta-s, or the lahi-s, or the vineyard of vine(s), whosoever he (be), …’ The Luwian example (34) shows that the standard word order within the complex free choice pronoun is indefinite pronoun—relative pronoun. Only once the order is reversed—in KARKAMIS A6 §25 kwatti kwatti-ha REX-ti ‘to whatever king’, see Sideltsev & Yakubovich (2016). It is highly instructive that the word order indefinite pronoun—relative pronoun is also invariably the pattern found in Lycian, as exemplied by (31): in Lycian it is always the indefinite pronoun tike which comes first, followed by the would-be relative tihe. As (32) shows, the Hittite word order is conspicuously different. In (32), as in all other Hittite clauses simultaneously attesting a proper relative and a bare interrogative, the proper relative precedes a bare interrogative. This is quite expected in the contexts where the relative licences it, but even in cases when both pronouns are negative polarity items licenced by a conditional subordinator, it is commonly the first pronoun which is a bare interrogative and the second is an indefinite of the kuiški series, including the cases which are assessed as scribal errors, see (24). This makes all the more likely that Lycian is comparable to Luwian, not Hittite. Actually, there is one Lycian context which establishes the diachronical identity between the Luwian free choice pattern in (34) and Lycian. In this context tike and tihe do not just co-occur, they both modify the same noun: (35) N 314b 1–3. χupa ebe-hi ti( j)=j=a-di: tike zum̃ mẽ: ti-he tomb this-GEN.ADJ who=it=do-3SG.PRS some harm who-GEN.SG

9 The particle -ba ‘but’ must be a scribal mistake here as it does not fit the context.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

indo-anatolian syntax?

67

‘The tomb of this (place),10 whoever does any harm of any kind whatsoever to it, (he will strike him, the Father of these)’. C. Melchert (pers. comm.) suggests that the word order noun—tihe in (35) does not allow our understanding of (35) and forces to analyze tihe not as modifying the noun, but as genitive for dative (!) ‘to anyone’. Yet, none of these ad hoc assumptions is necessary. Attributes are attested in Lycian both in pre- and postposition to the head noun, see exx. (15, 31) above and Kloekhorst (2013). In the majority of contexts, as seen from (31), supported by TL 44C 17, TL 91 2–3, TL 95 2, TL 135 2, tihe is in front of the noun. If the same noun is modified by tike in the preposition, tihe follows the noun, as in (35). Moreover, another noun phrase in (35) shows that the word order noun—tihe is compatible with the attributive understanding of tihe: the noun—tihe word order is exactly paralleled by the word order of χupa ebe-hi ‘this tomb’ with the same fossilized genitive form of the deictic pronoun ebe. This completely removes any of Melchert’s arguments. For us, the fact that Lycian tihe modifies the noun in (35) alongside another indefinite pronoun tike is a clear indication that Lycian tike tihe is a free choice item. It is clearly different from the Hittite free choice system where only relatives were employed and it is suspiciously similar to the double marking of free choice by both relative and specialized indefinite pronoun in the other members of the Luwian branch, see (34) above and Sideltsev & Yakubovich (2016). Thus we believe that Lycian tike tihe in (35) continued the Luwian pattern of forming free choice items with the help of indefinite and relative pronouns, even though the exact members of the pattern are different in Lycian and Luwian: the Lycian indefinite pronoun tike is not an etymological match to the Luwian indefinite kuisha, for which see Sideltsev & Yakubovich (2016). It is curious that the other Lycian pronoun which continues the Luwian free choice pattern, Lycian tise tise, which is an exact etymological match to Luwian kuisha, see ibid., generalized the indefinite pronoun at the expense of the relative one. Thus it is tise tise which is an innovation upon the earlier Luwian pattern indefinite—relative marking free choice. The pattern is preserved intact in tike tihe. As is expected of an archaism, synchronically in Lycian the form tihe was fossilized and lost its connection with the paradigm of relative/interrogative ti-. After the older system of free choice pronouns broke down and tike tihe was being replaced by the newer system of tise tise, the original distribution was preserved even in the cases where tike and tihe did not form a

10

Following Melchert 2004: 11. Cf. Kloekhorst 2011.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

68

haug and sideltsev

constituent like (31). Thus tihe is not a synchronic or diachronic parallel to Middle/New Hittite bare interrogatives. 4.2 Luwian Bare Interrogatives in a Relative Clause? Another form that can be claimed to be a Luwian bare interrogative occurs in a relative clause (36) BABYLON 1§4 … §8, cf. Hawkins 2000: 392. 1. | á-ma-za-pa-wa/i-’ kwa/i-a-za amanza kwanza my.NOM.SG.N which.NOM.SG.N 2. kwa/i-a-za kwa/i-i-ta PES-i kwanza kwitta x-i which.NOM.SG.N where be.located-3SG.PRS ‘(1) All that (is) mine, […] (2) (that) which is11 (any)where, (before him, Halabean Tarhunzas, I gave (it) over)’. kwitta is analyzed as “wherever” by Hawkins (2000: 393), but at face value it provides an exact equivalent to the Hittite bare interrogatives in relative clauses, as is seen above in (25). However, if seen in the context of Luwian syntax, it is obvious that Luwian and Hittite are not identical. To understand the Luwian context we will have to look at the wider picture of Luwian indefinite pronouns. The main peculiarity of Luwian is that Luwian indefinite pronouns of the type kuisha ‘anybody’ are employed not only in conditional clauses and after negation markers (as negative polarity items), but also where Hittite never employs its negative polarity items—as a universal quantifier or as free choice items, both in and out of relative clauses. This is seen in confronting exx. (9, 10, 12) above where indefinite pronouns function as negative polarity items with (37), see also exx. (10–16) in Sideltsev & Yakubovich (2016) where they function as free choice items: (37) ASSUR letter f-g §43–44, cf. Hawkins 2000: 537. 1. a-wa/i-i ¦LITUUS+na-ti-sa kwa/i-ta-ha ¦10 (“*78*”)a-ru-ti-na a=wa mana-tis kwitta=ha 10 arudi-n CONN=PART see-2SG.PRS where=and ten basket-ACC.SG

11

Following the understanding of Yakubovich, web-corpora.net/LuwianCorpus/search. Cf. Hawkins 2000: 392.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

indo-anatolian syntax?

69

2. wa/i-mu-u ¦VIA-wa/i-ni-’ wa=mu harwanni PART=me send.2SG.IMP ‘(Further, they (are) eleven baskets, or (if) you do not find(?) them,) (1) wherever you see ten baskets, (2) send (them) to me’. The context warrants analysis of kwitta=ha as a free choice indefinite in a relative clause. It is significant that kwitta=ha is the only relative pronoun in the clause and it is not licenced by another relative pronoun. Relative pronouns in indeterminate relative clauses are virtually identical. It means that the difference between free choice indefinites and common relatives in indeterminate relative clauses is minimal in Luwian in semantic and syntactic terms. An important consequence is that Luwian, as different from Hittite, attests the system where both indefinite free choice and relative pronouns are employed in relative clauses, both as the only pronoun and when there is another pronoun. In the latter case they produce the impression of being licenced by the first relative pronoun, but from the Luwian perspective this is not so. Another important factor is that Luwian makes use of indefinite + relative (kwis-ha kwis) as free choice items, see (34) above. This could have also affected the choice of relative kwitta and not indefinite kwitta=ha in (36). In this context the use of the relative pronoun in (36) occurs under very different circumstances in Luwian than in Hittite and cannot be equated directly with bare interrogatives in relative clauses in Hittite which are illustrated by (25–27) above. I believe it is not incidental, either, that the only Luwian form eligible for the bare interrogative interpretation does not occur in a conditional or negative clause, predominantly licencing bare interrogatives in Hittite, but rather occurs in a relative clause, which licences bare interrogatives only sporadically in Middle and New Hittite. 4.3 Bare Interrogatives as Free Choice Items So the forms which can be claimed to be bare interrogatives in the Luwian branch should rather be assessed as free choice items. 4.4 Other Hieroglyphic Luwian Data Several other Hieroglyphic Luwian forms have been compared to the postOH/OS Hittite usage of bare interrogatives. The first is kwiya in the following context:

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

70

haug and sideltsev

(38) KARKAMIŠ A6 §8–4, cf. Hawkins 2000: 124. za-a-pa-wa/i (“MENSA.SOLIUM”)á-sa-na-’ ¦á-mi-i-’ za-n=ba=wa asa-n amiya this-ACC.SG.C=PRTC seat-ACC.SG.C my.DAT.SG (DOMINUS)na-ni ¦INFANS.NÍ ¦kwa/i-i-ia AEDIFICARE+MI-ha nanni nimuwi kwiya tama-ha master.DAT.SG son.DAT.SG when build.1SG.PST ‘And when I built this seat for Kamanis my lord’s child, …’. Hawkins (2000: 126) qualifies kwiya as obscure, but supposes that it may function inside a subordinate clause introduced by kuman ‘when’ as indefinite. However, this still does not produce any sence and thus we follow Yakubovich in his analysis of the form as ‘when’. Double kuman ‘when’ is attested in HLuwian in POTOROO 7b. Kwiya is attested as ‘when’ in the same text (KARKAMIŠ A6) in §8, 18. An analogous analysis is advanced by Yakubovich for other forms which have been claimed to represent bare interrogatives in Luwian. Hawkins (2000: 547) observes that in ASSUR letter e §7 kwiya cannot be a relative pronoun introducing a subordinate clause; he thinks it is “perhaps indefinite” and compares it with REL-i in ASSUR letter e §10. However, indefinite interpretation produces a very poor understanding of (39) ASSUR letter e §7. (We (are) to write no letter, (it is) you yourselves (who) are to write!) a-wa/i ¦á-pi ¦u-zi-na ¦kwa/i-i ¦ha-tu+ra/i-na a=wa appi unzi-n kwiya hattura-n CONN=PART back your-ACC.SG.C when writing.ACC.SG ¦AUDIRE+MI-ta-ra+a-nu tummanta-ranu listen-2PL.IMP ‘When you hear your letter back’ The analysis which follows the understanding of Yakubovich in his corpus is obviously preferable to unintelligeable “Hear your sort of letter back!” (Hawkins 2000: 535). Alternatively, we may understand the context following Waal (2016) who proposed to translate the clause as “May you therefore(?) observe your health/ hear your blessing”. It is important that the understanding does not contain an indefinite reading of kwiya either. The same holds for ASSUR letter e §10 which is even more obscure, cf. Hawkins 2000: 535 for an attempt at a translation. An alternative analysis by Melchert (1988: 39–40) also dispenses with an indefinite reading, interpreting kwiya as ‘nearly’, lit. ‘as it were/like’. Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

indo-anatolian syntax?

5

71

Conclusion

Thus post-OH/OS bare interrogatives in conditional clauses and after negation marker in Hittite cannot be directly equated with the seemingly identical usage in narrow IE languages and has to be an independent innovation within historical Hittite and narrow IE. Narrow IE languages licence bare interrogatives in conditional clauses, questions and after negation, but Proto-Anatolian, as preserved by Old Hittite and the languages of the Luwian branch, attests only indefinite pronouns—NPIs and free choice items—in these contexts.

References Adiego, I. 2015. Lycian nasalized preterites revisited. Indogermanische Forschungen 120/1, 1–30. Beckman, G. 1996. Hittite Diplomatic Texts. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Brosch, C. 2014. Untersuchungen zur hethitischen Raumgrammatik. Berlin–Boston: De Gruyter. De Roos, J. 2007. Hittite Votive Texts. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. Garrett, A. 1990. The Syntax of Anatolian Pronominal Clitics. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University. Garrett, A. 1992. Topics in Lycian syntax, Historische Sprachforschung 105, 200–212. Garrett, A. 1994. Relative clause syntax in Lycian and Hittite. Die Sprache 36, 29–69. Güterbock, H.G.; T. van den Hout 1991. The Hittite Instruction for the Royal Bodyguard. Chicago: Oriental Institute. Haspelmath, M. 1997. Indefinite Pronouns. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Haug, D. 2016. PIE *kwi-/kwo: Interrogative, indefinite or both? In: A.M. Byrd; J. DeLisi; M. Wenthe (eds.), Tavet Tat Saryam. Studies in Honor of Jared S. Klein on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday. Ann Arbor–New York: Beech Stave Press, 86–100. Hawkins, J.D. 2000. Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions. Berlin–New York: Walter de Gruyter. Hoffmann, I. 1984. Der Erlass Telipinus. Heidelberg: Winter. Hoffner, H.A., Jr. 1995. About questions. In: T. van den Hout; J. de Roos (eds.), Studio Historiae Ardens. Ancient Near Eastern Studies Presented to Philo H.J. Houwink ten Cate on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday. Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut, 87–104. Hoffner, H.A., Jr. 2003. The case against Ura-Tarhunta and his father Ukkura. In: W.W. Hallo; K.L. Younger Jr. (eds.), The Context of Scripture. Volume 3. Leiden– Boston: Brill, 57–60.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

72

haug and sideltsev

Hoffner, H.A., Jr.; H.C. Melchert 2008. A Grammar of the Hittite Language. Part 1: Reference Grammar. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Huggard, M. 2015. Wh-words in Hittite. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. Kloekhorst, A. 2011. The opening formula of Lycian funerary inscriptions: mẽti vs. mẽne. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 70, 13–23. Kloekhorst, A. 2013. Likijskij jazyk. In: Ju.B. Korjakov; A.A. Kibrik (eds.), Jazyki mira. Reliktovye indoevropejskie jazyki Perednej i Central’noj Azii. Moscow: Academia. 131– 154. Melchert, H.C. 1988. “Thorn” and “minus” in Hieroglyphic Luvian orthography. Anatolian Studies 38, 29–42. Melchert, H.C. 1989. New Luvo-Lycian isoglosses. Historische Sprachforschung 102/1, 23–45. Melchert, H.C. 1993. Cuneiform Luvian Lexicon. Chapel Hill. Melchert, H.C. 1994. Anatolian Historian Phonology. Amsterdam–Atlanta: Rodopi. Melchert, H.C. 2003. Language. In: H.C. Melchert (ed.), The Luwians. Leiden–Boston: Brill, 170–210. Melchert, H.C. 2004. A Dictionary of the Lycian Language. Ann Arbor–New York: Beech Stave Press. Melchert, H.C. 2012. Genitive case and possessive adjective in Anatolian. In: V. Orioles (ed.), Per Roberto Gusmani. Studi in ricordo. Linguistica storica e teorica. Vol. II, tomo 1. Udine: Forum, 273–286. Miller, J. 2013. Royal Hittite Instructions and Related Administrative Texts. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Mouton, A. 2007. Rêves hittites. Leiden–Boston: Brill. Neu, E. 1974. Der Anitta-Text. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Otten, H. 1981. Die Apologie Hattusilis III: das Bild der Überlieferung. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Rieken, E.; I. Yakubovich 2010. The new values of Luwian signs L 319 and L 172. In: I. Singer (ed.), Ipamati kistamati pari tumatimis. Luwian and Hittite Studies Presented to J. David Hawkins on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology, 199–219. Sideltsev, A. 2015. Syntax of Hittite mān ‘if/when’. Aula Orientalis 33/1, 127–140. Sideltsev, A. 2015. The riddles of Hittite indefinite pronouns. Altorientalische Forschungen 42/2, 199–275. Sideltsev, A.; M. Molina; A. Belov 2015. Syntax or phonology? Proclitics, enclitics, and stress in Hittite. Journal of Language Relationship 13/2, 139–168. Sideltsev, A.; I. Yakubovich 2016. The origin of Lycian indefinite pronouns and its phonological implications. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 70/1, 75–124. Singer, I. 2002. Hittite Prayers. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

indo-anatolian syntax?

73

Van den Hout, T. 1995. Der Ulmitešub-Vertrag. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Van den Hout, T. 2003. Apology of Hattusili III. In: W.W. Hallo; K.L. Younger Jr. (eds.), The Context of Scripture. Volume 1. Leiden–Boston: Brill, 199–204. Waal, W. 2016. Hi, how are you? Me, I am fine. A new interpretation of Luwian hatura-. Talk presented at the 3rd Workshop on ‘Luwic’ Dialects: Inheritance and Diffusion, Barcelona, 9 March 2016. Werner R. 1967. Hethitische Gerichtsprotokolle. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Yakubovich, I. 2012. The reading of Luwian ARHA and related problems. Altorientalische Forschungen 39/2, 321–339. Yakubovich, I. 2015. Phoenician and Luwian in early Iron Age Cilicia. Anatolian Studies 65, 35–53.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

chapter 5

Daniel Europaeus and Indo-Uralic Petri Kallio

1

Introduction

The Indo-Uralic hypothesis is usually credited to the great Danish linguist Vilhelm Thomsen, not least because of what his no less great compatriot and student Holger Pedersen had written in his historiographical masterpiece Linguistic Science in the Nineteenth Century (1931: 336–337): Vilhelm Thomsen, as early as 1869, indicated the possibility of a relationship with Finno-Ugrian, but he did not pursue the subject very far. Indeed, Thomsen’s original formulation (1869: 1–2) was so cautious that even today’s opponents of the Indo-Uralic hypothesis would have very little to disagree about. On the other hand, Pedersen did not explicitly argue that Thomsen would have been the first to mention the Indo-Uralic hypothesis. Meanwhile, the Swedish Uralicist Björn Collinder was somewhat more explicit in his seminal work Indo-uralisches Sprachgut (1934: 5): Der erste, welcher die frage nach der urverwandtschaft der finnischugrischen sprachfamilie mit der indoeuropäischen auf streng wissenschaftlicher grundlage erörtert hat, ist Vilhelm Thomsen. The fact that by Collinder’s account Thomsen was the first to formulate the Indo-Uralic hypothesis “on a strong scholarly basis” suggests that Collinder was well aware of even earlier pioneers whose scholarly basis was just not so strong, although he did not name any of them in this connection. The present paper therefore deals with one of these pre-Thomsen Indo-Uralicists who, incidentally, were not yet called Indo-Uralicists since the term Indo-Uralisch itself was not introduced until much later by another Swede, Hannes Sköld (1927).1 For the sake of brevity, however, the present article goes on speaking of the Indo-

1 Thus also Collinder (1934: 3): “Der terminus “indo-uralisch” stammt von Sköld” (cf. similarly Joki 1973: 165; Čop 1975: 2).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004409354_006 Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

daniel europaeus and indo-uralic

75

Uralic hypothesis rather than the idea of a genetic relationship between the Indo-European and Uralic language families.

2

Before Indo-Uralic

As is well-known, language comparison as a hobby is much older than comparative linguistics as a science. Thus, the Indo-European and Uralic languages were compared with each other long before the respective language families themselves were established. For instance, already the 18th century Finnish priest Nils Idman (1774) argued that Finnish and Greek are genetically related, but this fact does not make him an Indo-Uralicist, even though he was among the first to point out their similar personal pronouns which have since become the cornerstones of the Indo-Uralic hypothesis. In any case, we cannot speak of Indo-Uralic before we first have at least some preliminary version of both Indo-European and Uralic. Now the Indo-European language family goes back as far as the 17th century Dutch scholar Marcus Zuerius van Boxhorn (1647) whose so-called Scythian language family was already almost the same as the Indo-European language family was before the early 20th century decipherments of Tocharian and Hittite. The Uralic language family in turn started as Finno-Hungarian substantiated by the 18th century Hungarian pioneers János Sajnovics (1770) and Sámuel Gyarmathi (1799), but most other Uralic languages remained poorly documented until the expeditions of the 19th century Finnish field linguists Anders Johan Sjögren (1861) and Matthias Alexander Castrén (1849–1862) throughout the Russian North. In the end, it took until the early 20th century before the position of Samoyed among the other Uralic subgroups was conclusively clarified (see e.g. Setälä 1915). As the early 19th century scholarly community already knew Core IndoEuropean (i.e. Indo-European without Tocharian and Anatolian) and FinnoHungarian (a.k.a. Finno-Ugric), the idea of their relationship could already have occurred to someone, but this was not the case. Indeed, even the foremost pioneers in Indo-European linguistics compared Indo-European with almost anything other than Uralic. For instance, the Englishman Sir William Jones (1799) connected Indo-European with Austronesian and Tibetan, whereas the German Franz Bopp (1841, 1847) with Austronesian and Caucasian. Meanwhile, the Dane Rasmus Rask (1818, 1834) was among the few to compare IndoEuropean with Uralic, but even he preferred to explain their similarities in terms of language contact (cf. much more recently Rédei 1986; Koivulehto 1994). Instead, he came to be one of the forerunners of the Ural-Altaic hypothesis later attributed to Castrén mentioned above. Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

76

kallio

As Castrén was arguably both the leading Uralicist and the leading Altaicist during the mid-19th century, no one on the Uralic side dared to risk their reputation by embracing any other genetic affiliations. At the same time, the achievements of comparative Uralic linguistics remained more or less unknown on the Indo-European side. For example, the English philologist Thomas Hewitt Key (1846) was still comparing Indo-European with Finnish and Saami alone without even mentioning Hungarian. On the other hand, although the German lexicographer Lorenz Diefenbach (1851) was aware of a larger number of Uralic languages, he was simultaneously comparing Indo-European to Basque, Turkish, Semitic, Coptic, Malay, and even Polynesian, just to name a few. Thus, nothing suggests that he supported the Indo-Uralic hypothesis, namely that Indo-European and Uralic are not only related but also more closely to each other than to any other language or language family. Hereby we have reached the year 1853 when a Finnish undergraduate student called Daniel Europaeus self-published a pamphlet truly launching the Indo-Uralic hypothesis. Before moving on to this eccentric work, however, I must say something about its even more eccentric author virtually unknown outside his native Finland (see e.g. Forsman 1896; Salminen 1905; Timonen 2003 for his more detailed biographies).

3

Daniel Europaeus

David Emmanuel Daniel Europaeus was born on 1 December 1820 in Savitaipale, the Grand Duchy of Finland in the Russian Empire. His father Peter Adolf Europaeus was a vicar whose family was probably originally from Äyräpää, thus Latinized as Europaeus (Pulli 1984; Jurvanen 1988). Peter was one of the most distinguished clerics in Old Finland (i.e. the southeastern part of Finland that Sweden had already ceded to Russia in the peace treaties in 1721 and 1743), as best evidenced by the fact that in 1803 he was visited by Tsar Alexander I himself (Väänänen 2003). Yet in 1806 the widowed Peter caused quite a scandal by marrying Sofia Peijo, a milkmaid 30 years his junior. In spite of the fact that their lastborn Daniel was of course totally innocent, his most class-conscious contemporaries never really got over such a half-peasant background. Moreover, although all the rest of Finland had been ceded by Sweden to Russia in 1809, the intelligentsia of the new Grand Duchy of Finland long remained almost entirely Swedish speaking. Thus, Europaeus as a native Finnish speaker was quite an oddity at the University of Helsinki where he began his studies in 1844 but where he never graduated. Instead, he became a Jack-of-all-trades

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

daniel europaeus and indo-uralic

77

who was active in an amazingly wide range of different scholarly fields with an equally wide range of success and failure. Today he is no doubt best-known in Finland as one of the major contributors to the Finnish national epic Kalevala (1849) whose tragic Kullervo cycle of oral poems was largely collected during his 1847 fieldwork in Ingria. Retrospectively speaking, hardly any piece of Finnish literature has inspired artists around the world as much as the Kullervo tale (see e.g. Tolkien 2015). Still, this was only the tip of the iceberg. Among other things, young Europaeus was also the co-founder of the newspaper Suometar (even today continued as the online newspaper Uusi Suomi), the translator of the first Finnishlanguage geometry textbook (at the time when Finnish geometrical terminology was virtually nonexistent), the editor of two folk-poetry anthologies (1847, 1854), and, most of all, the main editor of the first extensive Swedish-Finnish dictionary (1852–1853) in which he introduced numerous neologisms still in use in standard Finnish (see e.g. Lehikoinen 1986). Any undergraduate student with such achievements should really have been celebrated as a Wunderkind, and for a while this was indeed the case. Soon, however, the Finnish scholarly establishment turned its back on him for personal rather than scholarly reasons, namely that for an undergraduate student he had allegedly become quite a Besserwisser. Finally, the last straw was his critical remark on the Kalevala, something that was considered treasonous at that time (see e.g. Kuusi & Timonen 1988). Even today there is an ongoing heated debate on whether Europaeus was a victim (Sulkunen 2004: 107–118) or a villain (Apo 2009: 9–17). In any event, before his 1853 Indo-Uralic hypothesis the two leading Uralicists of the era already privately called him “the dumb Europaeus” (Sjögren apud RonimusPoukka 2005: 235) and “an idiot equal to Gottlund”2 (Castrén apud Apo 2009: 2). By that time Europaeus merely had one publication remotely dealing with comparative Uralic linguistics, an anonymously published newspaper article (Suometar 1–8/1847), which still followed Castrén’s Ural-Altaic hypothesis. Indeed, since Castrén had become a national hero in Finland even before his premature death in 1852, any scholar questioning Ural-Altaic would have been ostracized even without already being an outcast like Europaeus who, outrageously enough, was also going to replace Ural-Altaic with Indo-Uralic (cf. also Salminen 1985).3 2 Carl Axel Gottlund was another 19th century Finnish outcast but more deservedly so. Even though he single-handedly caused the national awakening among the Scandinavian Forest Finns, he was hopelessly old-fashioned as a linguist even compared to his contemporaries, and his excessively polemical style was not very helpful either. 3 Yet later in life Europaeus always praised Castrén as his last true friend and supporter (see

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

78 4

kallio

Indo-Europaeus

When exactly Europaeus ended up with the Indo-Uralic hypothesis is hard to say, because he did not breathe a word of it in his pre-1853 personal letters to Castrén and others (or at least in those published in Niemi 1903; Salminen 1905; Timonen 1988), although in the same letters he openly advertised his ideas of Uralic substrate toponyms which he did not publish until many years later (Europaeus 1868–1870).4 In any case, the year 1853 saw his self-published pamphlet Komparativ framställning af de finsk-ungerska språkens räkneord, till bevis för Ungrarnes stamförvandtskap med Finnarne, och den indogermaniska folkstammens urförvandtskap med den finskungerska, whose title tells it all: he argued for the genetic relationships between Hungarian and Finnish5 as well as between Indo-European and Finno-Ugric but, bizarrely enough, based on their numerals. Indeed, even though in passing Europaeus also mentioned pronouns, kinship and body-part terms as well as grammatical morphemes, he instead regarded the numerals for ‘7’, ‘10’, ‘100’, and ‘1000’ as his strongest evidence for Indo-Uralic. As most of them have since been considered Indo-European loanwords in Uralic (cf. Honti 1993; Blažek 1999: 89–101), his etymological suggestions were not entirely wrong, but yet his evidence for Indo-Uralic was drastically insufficient, to say the least. Even so, he became the first to suggest that Indo-European and Finno-Ugric are more closely related to each other than to any other language or language family, something that met with fierce opposition and even scorn, albeit privately rather than publicly (Salminen 1905: 118).6

especially Europaeus 1871 defending the late Castrén against his critics). Hence, Europaeus was apparently completely clueless of the fact that the feeling was not mutual. 4 This study described as “a remarkable mixture of intelligent, pertinent insights and indiscriminate fantasy” (Korhonen 1986: 98) shows Europaeus both at his worst and at his best. While his exact idea of a Permic and/or Ugric substrate in Finland and adjacent areas was a failure based on reckless etymological guesswork, his general idea to systematically collect substrate toponyms in order to reconstruct prehistoric language areas was groundbreaking at that time. For this reason, he is now justifiably recognized as “one of the founders of Finnish onomastic studies” (ibid.). 5 Although Europaeus was fully aware of Gyarmathi’s work on Finno-Hungarian, he simply felt that he still had to offer further evidence, because most Hungarians remained reluctant to accept any genetic relationship with northern Eurasian Untermenschen, as some of them do even today (cf. Marácz 2012). 6 In general, Europaeus was no longer considered someone worth mentioning, but from now on his studies were almost completely ignored in the scholarly literature. Besides, the only exceptions did not really focus on constructive criticism but personal insults questioning his mental stability (cf. especially Ahlqvist 1871: 36).

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

daniel europaeus and indo-uralic

79

As a result, he spent years writing an extensive manuscript which he submitted to the University of Helsinki in 1861 in order to finally graduate. Regrettably, this magnum opus of Europaeus has not survived, but its central theses were as follows (after Salminen 1905: 127–128): 1. Finno-Ugric and Indo-European are much more closely related than thought. 2. Turko-Tatar is less closely related to Finno-Ugric than thought. 3. Samoyed is more closely related to Finno-Ugric than Turko-Tatar.7 4. Mongol-Tungus-Manchu is even less closely related to Finno-Ugric than Turko-Tatar. 5. All the language families above go back to a widespread proto-language. 6. This macrofamily also includes Egypto-Semitic, Papuan-Northeast-Asian, and some North American dialects judging from their numerals.8 7. Tamil and few other dialects have no analogy to the languages above, even though one must leave open the possibility if language is as old as the human race.9 Yet Europaeus still failed to graduate, because the committee blasted his etymologies as Wortklauberei, to which he replied by criticizing the committee as ossified and stuck in obsolete theories (Salminen 1905: 128–129). In fact, there was more than a shred of truth in his reply because he was indeed the first Finnish scholar to get acquainted with the works of the great German IndoEuropeanist August Schleicher and the concepts of Lautgesetz and Stammbaum. Thus, Europaeus was theoretically well ahead of his contemporary compatriots. It is therefore no wonder that although he was constantly an outcast in Finland, he had numerous foreign penfriends, such as the leading 19th century Hungarian Uralicists Pál Hunfalvy, József Budenz, and József Szinnyei. Yet even more importantly Europaeus first wrote about his Indo-Uralic hypothe7 None of the earliest Indo-Uralic hypotheses by Europaeus and others (e.g. Wedgwood 1856a, 1856b; Thomsen 1869; Anderson 1879; Köppen 1886; Sweet 1900) included Samoyed, which throughout the 19th century was connected with Altaic rather than Finno-Ugric. This being the case, the first Indo-Uralic hypotheses including Samoyed did not emerge until the beginning of the 20th century (e.g. Wiklund 1906; Paasonen 1907). 8 Here Europaeus may have been misquoted since in his later studies this macrofamily usually included Indo-European, Finno-Ugric, Samoyed, Turko-Tatar, Mongolic, Manchu-Tungus, Georgian-Abkhaz, East Caucasian, Monosyllabische Sprachen, Malayo-Polynesian, Melanesian-Papuan, Semito-Berberic, Old Egyptian, Basque, Hausa, Kole-Talaing, and Inner African (1863, 1869, 1877). Even though he was otherwise constantly reconsidering the subgroupings within his macrofamily, he never abandoned his favourite subgroup formed by IndoEuropean and Finno-Ugric. 9 In addition to Tamil-Brahui, Europaeus later classified Japanese, Northeast Asian, American, and Eskimo as isolated languages or language families (1863, 1869, 1877).

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

80

kallio

sis to Vilhelm Thomsen as early as 1862, after which these two kindred spirits remained in touch for almost two decades (Timonen 1988: 240–244). Europaeus never since extended or improved his 1853 study in Swedish, but next he self-published largely the same arguments in German as Vorläufiger Entwurf über den Urstamm der indoeuropäischen Sprachfamilie und seine vor-indoeuropäischen Abzweigungen, namentlich die finnisch-ungarische (1863). This time, however, his pamphlet also included the family tree of the languages in the world—or at least those known to him. This tree was among the first of its kind because Schleicher’s first Indo-European tree had just been published, whereas there were hardly any trees of the other language families involved (e.g. the first Uralic/Finno-Ugric tree other than his own was not published until Budenz 1878: 228). On the other hand, Europaeus had also ended up with perhaps the earliest ever Nostratic/Eurasiatic family tree, which was quite an achievement considering that his classifications were still mostly based on only a handful of numerals. The crucial problem with Europaeus was the fact that while his studies continually offered promising working hypotheses, he was too impatient to dig any deeper, but he rather moved on to the next topics ranging from phonetics (1857) to craniology (1873).10 Thus, his later works, such as Die finnisch-ungarischen Sprachen und die Urheimath des Menschengeschlechtes (1869), already took Indo-Uralic for granted and focused on even longer range comparisons in order to show that the human race originated in Africa rather than Asia. As the Out of Africa theory did not win the Out of Asia theory until the 20th century palaeoanthropology, Europaeus was once again harshly ridiculed, and it was about this time when he earned the nickname Indo-Europaeus africanus. Yet as late as 1871 he was still planning to finally finish his dissertation apparently titled Die finnisch-ungarische Sprachfamilie in ihrem verwandtschaftlichen Verhältnisse zu anderen Sprachen, but ultimately nothing materialized (Salminen 1905: 132–133). Since Europaeus never earned an academic degree, he never got a permanent position either. The fact that his numerous odd jobs included archaeological excavations in Olonets, Novgorod, and Tver Governorates caused him even more trouble in Finland where he was now also considered too Russophilic. In general, he typically found no academic publishers to print his studies, almost all of which he was forced to self-publish. As he was always broke, his self10

Of course, it would now be easy to laugh at Europaeus who in the typical 19th century fashion did not hesitate to link language families with cephalic indices (1873). Yet he was no more silly than all those today who think that molecular genetics could immediately provide ready solutions to linguistic problems.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

daniel europaeus and indo-uralic

81

publications were pamphlets rather than books. He was not lazy, as confirmed by the fact that when he finally had a chance to be published in the academic journal Suomi, he wrote an article of no less than 269 pages (1868–1870). Thus, his Indo-Uralic hypothesis was not necessarily as poorly-founded as his publications suggest. Be that as it may, he fatally overestimated the probative force of numerals in spite of similar recent numeral-based classifications (cf. Janhunen 2000: 60–61) which, however, do not offer much more in the 21st century than those based on the word for ‘God’ (cf. Scaliger 1610: 119–122). Europaeus spent much of his last years in Saint Petersburg where his reputation had always been greater than in Finland, as best evidenced by his 1879 silver medal from the Imperial Russian Geographical Society. At that time he was apparently no longer actively following the most recent developments in comparative linguistics because even in his personal letters he never triumphantly mentioned the flattering news that his contributions for Indo-Uralic were finally acknowledged by the Baltic German philologist Nikolai Anderson in his Studien zur Vergleichung der ugrofinnischen und indogermanischen Sprachen (1879: 60–62). In general, Europaeus had by then already ceased to publish anything other than concise newspaper columns. His health was gradually declining, and finally on 3/15 October 1884 (Julian/Gregorian calendar dates) this lone drifter, who never married and had no children, passed away in a Saint Petersburg hospital for the poor.

5

After Europaeus

Europaeus was not allowed to rest in peace for long, but his remains were soon dug up from his first grave in Saint Petersburg, and his second funeral service took place in Helsinki where his tomb still stands. As often happens, he had more friends now that he was dead than he ever had when he was alive. At first he was rehabilitated in folkloristics as the savior of the Kullervo poems, but even then he was patronizingly described as a natural talent whose promising career tragically stalled due to a mental illness (Niemi 1903: I). True, his behavior was often erratic and strange, not least because he suffered from epilepsy and stuttering. Still, the rumours about his insanity were mostly based on the fact that in his countless newspaper pieces he openly advocated progressive ideals that long used to be considered crazy, such as freedom of speech, pacifism, feminism, animal rights, minority rights, racial equality, etc. (see e.g. Halila 1988; Kuusi & Timonen 1988). What Europaeus himself valued the most was what everyone else valued the least, namely his comparative linguistic studies. Even though the rival Ural-

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

82

kallio

Altaic hypothesis had lost its appeal by the beginning of the 20th century (see e.g. Ramstedt 1947), the Indo-Uralic hypothesis was still almost a taboo in Finland, and when it was finally first discussed by the Uralicist Heikki Paasonen (1907), he did not mention his compatriot Europaeus at all. This was certainly not an accident, but Europaeus was deliberately ignored because of his infamy, and only the later 20th century Finnish Uralicists (e.g. Itkonen 1966: 161–163; Joki 1973: 25–27; Korhonen 1986: 96–98) were far enough from him in order to objectively evaluate his studies almost inaccessible today. Yet the damage was already done, since outside Finland his role as a founder of comparative IndoUralic linguistics has gone more or less unnoticed.11 Even in Finland Europaeus is only occasionally remembered as “one of the first supporters of the so-called Indo-Uralic hypothesis” (Korhonen 1986: 97), perhaps because he was also one of its last supporters. Indeed, the IndoEuropeanist Raimo Anttila (1972: 320–321) is among the very few contemporary Finns who have ever presented Indo-Uralic in a favourable light, whereas most Uralicists are either agnostic (e.g. Häkkinen 1996) or sceptical (e.g. Janhunen 1999). Under these circumstances, it is no wonder that Indo-Uralic is not the first thing that occurs to Finns when they think about Europaeus, but this fact has not prevented him from finally becoming a hero especially in his home municipality of Savitaipale where the visitors can find the Europaeus Memorial (since 1970), Europaeus Plaza (since 1985), the Europaeus Society (since 1989), the Europaeus Museum (since 1999), Europaeus School (since 2000), etc. Ultimately, Europaeus was a child of his time. His limitations and shortcomings as a scholar were obvious, but then again the same can also be said about almost any other pre-Neogrammarian comparative linguist. Besides, what he lacked as a scholar, he made up for as a visionary. Consider his three alltime favourite comparative linguists: first Bopp, then Schleicher, and finally Thomsen (Salminen 1905: 139). As Europaeus and Thomsen also remained penfriends throughout the 1860s and the 1870s,12 we can trace a straight line from 11

12

Over the past decades, there have been only a few exceptions, such as the Hungarian Uralicist Károly Rédei (1986: 7): “Bahnbrecher der Theorie der indouralischen Verwandtschaft war Europaeus (1853).” The year 1869 was particularly eventful and memorable since first on 23 March Thomsen defended his epoch-making doctoral dissertation (1869), and then as soon as 14–17 July Europaeus published its raving review (Finlands Allmänna Tidning 159–162/1869), even though the latter was at first refused for publication for over two months (Salminen 1905: 139–140). Still, Europaeus was in time to become the first Finnish scholar to review Thomsen’s masterpiece, and for an oddly long time he was also the only Finn to truly realize its value (Aalto 1987: 155–157). On the other hand, Thomsen despite his no-nonsense

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

daniel europaeus and indo-uralic

83

Europaeus to Thomsen’s student Pedersen and the Nostratic hypothesis, and even today the name Europaeus can still occasionally pop up in Nostratic circles (see e.g. Dolgopolsky 2012: 3199). Yet who he was and what he did has long been forgotten at least outside Finland, hence a good reason to bring his name up now at the eve of his bicentennial birthday.

References Aalto, P. 1987. Modern Language Studies in Finland 1828–1918. Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica. Ahlqvist, A. 1871. Wäittelyä. Kieletär 1, 25–36. Anderson, N. 1879. Studien zur Vergleichung der ugrofinnischen und indogermanischen Sprachen. Tartu: Heinrich Laakmann. Anttila, R. 1972. An Introduction to Historical and Comparative Linguistics. New York: Macmillan. Apo, S. 2009. Uusin Lönnrot-myytti ja kansanrunouden editiohistoria. Elore 16, 1–21. Blažek, V. 1999. Numerals: Comparative-etymological Analyses of Numeral Systems and their Implications. Brno: Masarykova universita. Bopp, F. 1841. Über die Verwandtschaft der malayisch-polynesischen Sprachen mit den indisch-europäischen. Berlin: Ferdinand Dümmler. Bopp, F. 1847. Die kaukasischen Glieder des indoeuropäischen Sprachstammes. Berlin: Ferdinand Dümmler. Boxhorn, M.Z. van 1647. Antwoord van Marcus Zuerius van Boxhorn, gegeven op de Vraaghen, hem voorgestelt over de Bediedinge van de afgodinne Nehalennia, onlancx uytghegeven. Leiden: Willem Christiaens van der Boxe. Budenz, J. 1878. Ueber die Verzweigung der ugrischen Sprachen. Beiträge zur Kunde der indogermanischen Sprachen 4, 192–258. Castrén, M.A. 1849–1862. Nordische Reisen und Forschungen. St. Petersburg: Imperatorskaja Sankt-Peterburgskaja Akademija Nauk. Collinder, B. 1934. Indo-uralisches Sprachgut: die Urverwandtschaft zwischen der indoeuropäischen und der uralischen ( finnischugrisch-samojedischen) Sprachfamilie. Uppsala: A.–B. Lundequistska. Čop, B. 1975. Die indogermanische Deklination im Lichte der indouralischen vergleichenden Grammatik. Ljubljana: SAZU. Diefenbach, L. 1851. Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der gotischen Sprache. Frankfurt am Main: J. Baer. approach to historical linguistics never ignored Europaeus the same way the others did (see e.g. Thomsen 1869: 8, 72, 143; 1890: 24, 38, 231).

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

84

kallio

Dolgopolsky, A. 20123. Nostratic Dictionary. Published online at http://www.dspace.cam .ac.uk/handle/1810/244080. Europaeus, D.E.D. 1847. Pieni runon-seppä eli Kokous paraimmista Inkerinmaan puolelta kerätyistä runo-lauluista ynnä Johdatuksia Runon tekoon. Helsinki: J. Simeliuksen perilliset. Europaeus, D.E.D. 1852–1853. Svenskt-finskt handlexikon. Helsinki: Finska Litteratursällskapet. Europaeus, D.E.D. 1853. Komparativ framställning af de finsk-ungerska språkens räkneord, till bevis för Ungrarnes stamförvandtskap med Finnarne, och den indogermaniska folkstammens urförvandtskap med den finsk-ungerska. Helsinki: J.C. Frenckell. Europaeus, D.E.D. 1854. Karjalan Kewätkäköinen: Runolaulukirja. Helsinki: J.C. Frenckell. Europaeus, D.E.D. 1857. Suomalaisten puustavein äännöskuvat ylös-ajatellunna. Helsinki: D.E.D. Europaeus. Europaeus, D.E.D. 1863. Vorläufiger Entwurf über den Urstamm der indoeuropäischen Sprachfamilie und seine vor-indoeuropäischen Abzweigungen, namentlich die finnisch-ungarische: Die Zahlwörter der finnisch-ungarische Sprachen. Helsinki: Friis. Europaeus, D.E.D. 1868–1870. Tietoja suomalais-ungarilaisten kansain muinaisista olopaikoista. Suomi 2/7, 1–190; 2/8, 27–105. Europaeus, D.E.D. 1869.13 Die finnisch-ungarischen Sprachen und die Urheimath des Menschengeschlechtes: Zur Beleuchtung der archäologischen Fragen in Betreff des ältesten vorhistorischen Daseins der Menschen. Helsinki: J. Simeliuksen perilliset. Europaeus, D.E.D. 1871. M.A. Castrén, försvarad för missförstånd från ett och för otillbörliga tillvitelser från annat håll. Helsinki: J. Simeliuksen perilliset. Europaeus, D.E.D. 1873. Ett fornfolk med långskallig afrikansk hufvudskålstyp i norden, bestämdt till språk och nationalitet, jemte Finsk-ungerska omdömen. Helsinki: J. Simeliuksen perilliset. Europaeus, D.E.D. 1877. Die Stammverwandtschaft der meisten Sprachen der alten und australischen Welt. St. Petersburg: Obščestvennaja Pol’za. Forsman, A.V. 1896. Taavetti Emanuel Taneli Europaeus. Jyväskylä: Gummerus. Gyarmathi, S. 1799. Affinitas linguae Hungaricae cum linguis Fennicae originis grammatice demonstrata. Göttingen: Dieterich. Häkkinen, K. 1996. Indouralilainen arvoitus ja sen mahdollinen ratkaisu. Sananjalka 38, 7–23.

13

The year of publication, not given on the pamphlet itself, was almost certainly 1869 when Europaeus donated one copy to the Finnish Literature Society (Slöör 1872: 220). Note also that in the text he referred to the Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 17 (1868).

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

daniel europaeus and indo-uralic

85

Halila, A. 1988. Näkymiä D.E.D. Europaeuksen aatemaailmaan. In: M. Kuusi; P. Laaksonen; S. Timonen (eds.), D.E.D. Europaeus: Suurmies vai kummajainen. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura, 11–22. Honti, L. 1993. Die Grundzahlwörter der uralischen Sprachen. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Idman, N. 1774. Försök at visa gemenskap emellan finska och grekiska språken, såsom tjenande till uplysning i finska folkets historia. Åbo: J.C. Frenckell. Itkonen, E. 1966. Suomalais-ugrilaisen kielen- ja historiantutkimuksen alalta. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Janhunen, J. 1999. Critical remarks on current Indo-Uralic comparisons. In: C. Hasselblatt; P. Jääsalmi-Krüger (eds.), Europa et Sibiria: Beiträge zu Sprache und Kultur der kleineren finnougrischen, samojedischen und paläosibirischen Völker. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 211–215. Janhunen, J. 2000. Reconstructing Pre-Proto-Uralic: Spanning the millennia of linguistic evolution. In: T. Seilenthal; T. Palo; A. Nurk (eds.), Congressus Nonus Internationalis Fenno-Ugristarum I: Orationes Plenariae & Orationes Publicae. Tartu: Eesti Fennougristide Komitee, 59–76. Joki, A.J. 1973. Uralier und Indogermanen: Die älteren Berührungen zwischen den uralischen und indogermanischen Sprachen. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society. Jones, W. 1799. Eighth anniversary discourse: On the borderers, mountaineers, and islanders of Asia. Asiatick Researches 3, 1–20. Jurvanen, P. 1988. Vanhan Suomen kasvatti: Europaeuksen suku- ja kotiseututaustaa. In: M. Kuusi; P. Laaksonen; S. Timonen (eds.), D.E.D. Europaeus: Suurmies vai kummajainen. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura, 139–151. Kalevala 1849. = E. Lönnrot (ed.), Kalevala: Toinen painos. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Key, T.H. 1846. The Lapp and Finn tongues not unconnected with the Indo-European family. Proceedings of the Philological Society 2, 180–187. Koivulehto, J. 1994. Indogermanisch—Uralisch: Lehnbeziehungen oder (auch) Urverwandschaft? In: R. Sternemann (ed.), Bopp-Symposium 1992 der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. Heidelberg: Winter, 133–148. Köppen, F.T. 1886. Materialy kъ voprosu o pervonačal’noj rodině i pervobytnomъ rodstvě indo-evropejskago i finno-ugorskago plemeni. Žurnal ministerstva narodnogo prosveščenija 246, 199–233; 248, 21–64, 227–250. Korhonen, M. 1986. Finno-Ugrian Language Studies in Finland 1828–1918. Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica. Kuusi, M.; S. Timonen 1988. Suurmies? Kummajainen? Uhrilammas? Keskustelua Europaeuksen elämästä ja työstä. In: M. Kuusi; P. Laaksonen; S. Timonen (eds.), D.E.D. Europaeus: Suurmies vai kummajainen. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura, 23–50.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

86

kallio

Lehikoinen, L. 1986. D.E.D. Europaeus kirjasuomen kehittäjänä ja kielentutkijana. Virittäjä 90/2, 178–202. Marácz, L. 2012. The “Ugric-Turkic War” and the origin of the Hungarian language. International Review of Turkish Studies 2/4, 8–23. Niemi, A.R. 1903. D.E.D. Europæuksen kirjeitä ja matkakertomuksia. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Paasonen, H. 1907. Zur Frage von der Urverwandtschaft der finnisch-ugrischen und indoeuropäischen Sprachen. Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 7, 13–31. Pedersen, H. 1931. Linguistic Science in the Nineteenth Century: Methods and Results. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Pulli, H. 1984. Europaeus-suvun varhaispolvista. Genos 55, 60–70. Ramstedt, G.J. 1947. The relation of the Altaic languages to other language groups. Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 53, 15–26. Rask, R. 1818. Undersögelse om det gamle Nordiske eller Islandske Sprogs Oprindelse. København: Gyldendal. Rask, R. 1834. Afhandling om den finniske Sprogklasse. In: Samlede tildels forhen utrykte Afhandlinger af R.K. Rask: Første Del. København: Poppske bogtrykkeri, 1–46. Rédei, K. 1986. Zu den indogermanisch-uralischen Sprachkontakten. Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Ronimus-Poukka, P. 2005. Anders Johan Sjögren: En finskhetens väckare? Historisk Tidskrift för Finland 90, 221–240. Sajnovics, J. 1770. Demonstratio, idioma Ungarorum et Lapponum idem esse. Trnava: Collegium Academicum Societatis Jesu. Salminen, J. 1985. Daniel Europaeus ja “Suomen suwun” juuret. In: A. Kemiläinen (ed.), Mongoleja vai germaaneja? Rotuteorioiden suomalaiset. Helsinki: Suomen Historiallinen Seura, 249–268. Salminen, V. 1905. D.E.D. Europaeus. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Scaliger, J.J. 1610. Opuscula varia antehac non edita. Paris: Drovart. Setälä, E.N. 1915. Zur Frage nach der Verwandtschaft der finnisch-ugrischen und samojedischen Sprachen. Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 30, 1–104. Sjögren, A.J. 1861. Gesammelte Schriften. St. Petersburg: Eggers. Sköld, H. 1927. Indo-Uralisch. Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 18, 215–231. Slöör, K. 1872. Välikokouksessa Jouluk. 22. p. 1869. Suomi 2/10, 220–223. Sulkunen, I. 2004. Suomalaisen kirjallisuuden seura 1831–1892. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Sweet, H. 1900. The History of Language. London: J.M. Dent. Thomsen, V. 1869. Den gotiske sprogklasses indflydelse på den finske: en sproghistorisk undersøgelse. København: Gyldendal. Thomsen, V. 1890. Berøringer mellem de finske og de baltiske (litauisk-lettiske) Sprog: en sproghistorisk undersøgelse. København: Dreyer.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

daniel europaeus and indo-uralic

87

Timonen, S. 1988. D.E.D. Europaeuksen kirjeitä vuosilta 1846–1882. In: M. Kuusi; P. Laaksonen; S. Timonen (eds.), D.E.D. Europaeus: Suurmies vai kummajainen. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura, 204–264. Timonen, S. 2003. Europaeus, David Emanuel Daniel (1820–1884). Suomen kansallisbiografia 2, 694–696. Tolkien, J.R.R. 2015. The Story of Kullervo. London: HarperCollins. Väänänen, K. 2003. Europaeus, Peter Adolf (1753–1825). Suomen kansallisbiografia 2, 696–698. Wedgwood, H. 1856a. On the connexion of the Finn and Lapp with the other European languages. Transactions of the Philological Society 1856, 1–18. Wedgwood, H. 1856b. Further observations on the connexion of the Finnish and IndoGermanic classes of languages. Transactions of the Philological Society 1856, 172–179. Wiklund, K.B. 1906. Finnisch-ugrisch und Indogermanisch. Le Monde Oriental 1, 43–65.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

chapter 6

Bojan Čop’s Indo-Uralic Hypothesis and Its Plausibility Simona Klemenčič

Bojan Čop (1923–1994) was a professor of comparative grammar of Indo-European languages at Ljubljana University. He is well known for his contribution to the study of the Anatolian and Tocharian languages. His numerous articles and books on the Indo-Uralic genetic linguistic relationship represent a substantial, albeit often overlooked, contribution to the subject of the precursors of the Proto-Indo-European language. In his work, Čop expressed his belief in the Nostratic—“Ureurasische” language family, basing it mainly on works of Vladislav Illich-Svitych, but he himself seldomly attempted to delve that deep into the linguistic past. He sometimes wrote about what he felt to be a more reliable genetic connection, the one between the Uralic and Altaic language families. There are proofs, he says, of these two language families being genetically connected. An example can be found in Fig. 6.1. In connection with his Indo-Uralic hypothesis, Čop believed Proto-IndoEuropean very likely to be genetically closely connected with both the Uralic and Altaic proto-languages, as is illustrated by the word for ‘hair’, cf. Fig. 6.2. He admits that a genetic relationship between Uralic and Altaic is “unsicher”, but nevertheless goes on to claim that he believes that once upon a time there must have existed a Proto-Eurasian language. The tree as given in Fig. 6.3 is Čop’s illustration of this claim from Die indouralische Sprachverwandtschaft und die indogermanische Laryngaltheorie. Many of us believe that once there must have existed a common ancestor to at least some of the proto-languages known to us today. Čop’s attempt at establishing one segment of this overwhelming hypothesis is and remains, to my knowledge, the most systematic, extensive and meticulously built approach to the Indo-Uralic question to this day. The Indouralica series was a huge enterprise. Here is what Čop was planning to publish (Indouralica I, Čop 1974a: 15–16): I: ural. m, n, l, r = idg. m, n, l, r; II: ural. j, w = idg. i̯, u̯ ; /…/ III: ural. Sibilanten = idg. s;

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004409354_007 Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

bojan čop’s indo-uralic hypothesis and its plausibility

89

IV: V: VI:

ural. anlautende Tenues = idg. anlautende Tenues (oder s + Tenues); ural. anlautende Tenues = idg. anlautende Mediae aspiratae; ural. Entsprechungen der indogermanischen an- und inlautenden Mediae d, g, g̕, gu̯ ; VII: ural. ŋ = idg. g, ng /…/; VIII: indogermanische Entsprechungen der uralischen starken Tenues pp, tt, kk; IX: indogermanische Entsprechungen der uralischen inlautenden schwachen Tenues p, t; X: indogermanische Entsprechungen der uralischen intervokalischen schwachen Klusile k und des Spiranten γ; XI: indogermanische Entsprechungen uralischer inlautender Lautgruppen vom Typus l, r, m, s, ś, ṣ̌, + k bzw. γ; XII: indogermanische Entsprechungen der uralischen inlautenden Lautgruppen vom Typus p bzw. k + Konsonant; XIII: indogermanische Entsprechungen der uralischen anlautenden Affrikatae ć, č̣; XIV: indogermanische Entsprechungen der uralischen inlautenden Affrikatae ć, č̣ /…/; XV: indogermanische Entsprechungen der uralischen Spiranten δ, δ’; XVI: indogermanische Entsprechungen der uralischen Lautgruppen vom Typus Nasal + Verschlusslaut; XVII: einfache Vokale auf beiden Seiten; XVIII: indogermanische Entsprechungen uralischer Verbindungen Vokal + j, w. As can be seen from the list, Bojan Čop was systematically comparing segments of the Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Uralic phonetics, thus building an image of the proposed Indo-Uralic phonetic system. Although Čop sadly passed away at the age of 71 before completing the series (Indouralica 3, 6, 11, 13 and 18 remain unpublished and no material that he might have had prepared for these articles can be found today), he nevertheless left a legacy of 14 articles and books of the Indouralica series that were published between the years 1970 and 1990 plus seven more books and articles on the Indo-Uralic theory, all published between 1970 and 1989. There are at least three reasons why Čop’s work is not as known and popular as one believes it should be: – these articles are difficult to access even today; – the topic is unpopular in linguistic circles; – combing through the articles is hard work. I set myself the task to collect and present his views on the matter. This is a state-of-the-art report, all doubts and frustrations included.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

90

klemenčič

figure 6.1 Taken from Indouralica I, Čop 1974a: 9

figure 6.2 Taken from Indouralica I, Čop 1974a: 11

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

bojan čop’s indo-uralic hypothesis and its plausibility

91

figure 6.3 Language familiy tree as given in Čop 1970c

Čop believed that after the collapse of the Indo-Uralic proto-language it was Uralic phonetics that remained more conservative, whereas Proto-IndoEuropean would have gone through a series of changes; Proto-Uralic phonetics therefore represents an earlier, and thus more authentic stage. His material has by now unavoidably become outdated to some extent. His source for ProtoIndo-European is Pokorny, for Uralic mainly Lehtisalo and Collinder—in his articles Čop apologized for having a rather limited access to Uralistic literature. It is his phonetic transcriptions used in the articles that I am following here— at this point focusing primarily on logical consistency of his work. I took over Uralic and Proto-Indo-European reconstructions as they were, without questioning them as long as it is undecided whether the hypothesis as a whole is to be accepted as plausible or not. I did not question the outdated Proto-IndoEuropean etymologies because even without delving into that question, there is enough to be said about the inner consistency of Čop’s system as it is represented in his works. There are hundreds of purported correspondences between Uralic and Proto-Indo-European in the Indouralica series. I have unavoidably employed some cherry-picking when I selected those etymologies that I found either particularly illustrative or problematic. It seems that Čop changed his mind concerning some of the details now and then in the process of publishing his work. This is understandable considering the extent and complexity of the material, but confusing for a linguist trying to outline his purported system. Nevertheless, all in all his system does present itself as a whole and consistent, although necessarily very complex one. As is evident from the titles of his articles, Čop was very well aware of the dead ends that a researcher finds himself in when trying to establish long-range genetic relationship in linguistics. Many of them are addressed in this volume. Čop’s approach dealt with criticism aimed at attempts at long-range comparisons. He would

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

92

klemenčič

a. b.

focus on phoneme clusters rather than single, isolated phonemes; compare suffixes, thereby going beyond the basic root etymologies that arguably fail to offer indisputable evidence, as is demonstrated in Ringe (1999). We will now look into his view of the prehistory of some of the Proto-Uralic and Proto-Indo-European phonemes.

1

Vowels

Čop (1970c: 51) outlined the following postulated correspondences between the Proto-Uralic and Proto-Indo-European vowels:

Proto-Uralic Proto-Indo-European ä, e, i, ü a, o, u õ, y

e a, e e

Where there is a diphthong in Proto-Uralic, there is a monophthong in ProtoIndo-European. As we can see, the Proto-Uralic system is more complex. Additionally there would have been long vowels in Uralic and no opposition in quantity in ProtoIndo-European. In accordance with his view that Proto-Uralic is the more archaic language of the two (Indouralica XVII, Čop 1990: 21), Proto-Indo-Uralic would have had nine short and five long vowels in the first syllable of bisyllabic roots: Short vowels: a, ä, e, e₂ (back vowel e), i, i₂, o, u, ü Long vowels: e:, e₂:, i:, o:, u: In the second syllable of bisyllabic roots, only e and a would have occurred in Indo-Uralic, whereas the possibilities in the first syllable are based on the comparatively rich vowel system postulated for the Uralic proto-language. When one sees reconstructed phonemic or morphological inventories multiply, Occam’s razor comes to mind, but there is no reason not to believe Čop’s Indo-Uralic vowel system was possible. There is a considerable gap between his postulated early Proto-Indo-European vowel system and what most of us tend to believe about it. Čop addresses Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

bojan čop’s indo-uralic hypothesis and its plausibility

93

this problem in Indouralica XVII (Čop 1990: 24) and says that “la simplicité suposée du côté indo-européen n’est qu’une illusion”. He maintains that the original Indo-Uralic long vowels, still preserved in Uralic, were shortened in ProtoIndo-European and subsequently a new system was established. We know from Proto-Slavic that this is typologically entirely possible. One wonders nevertheless: could not a good explanation of the laryngeal theory type be offered on the Uralic side to reduce its number of vowels to an originally less rich system? Čop answers this question by pointing out that the Uralic system’s antiquity can be confirmed by comparing it to the Altaic vowel system (Čop 1990: 25), but he does not elaborate on this. He says specifically that the Uralic system cannot be explained by secondary developments—neither by ablaut (apophony) nor by laryngeal-like sounds in the vicinity of vowels. He offers a two-part explanation for the simplification in Proto-Indo-European: 1) The Proto-Indo-European vowel system in its earliest phase underwent changes in vowel height: high (closed) vowels became mid vowels and mid vowels became low (open). 2) A Uralic root is always longer than the corresponding Proto-Indo-European root by one vowel, because this vowel was lost in Proto-IndoEuropean. The Uralic root will always be disyllabic whereas the ProtoIndo-European root will normally be monosyllabic.

Proto-Uralic bisyllabic aśe- ‘to be located, to dwell; place, spot’

> Proto-Indo-European monosyllabic es- ‘be’

His conclusion is that the Proto-Indo-European monosyllabic roots must have been disyllabic at some point in the past. But before the vowel in root-final position was lost, an umlaut (or instance of vowel harmony) took place (Indouralica XII, Čop 1987: 138–139): – if the Uralic root had a or ä in the second syllable, then the first vowel in the matching Proto-Indo-European root became a; – if the Uralic root had e in the second syllable, then the first vowel in the matching Proto-Indo-European root became e:

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

94

klemenčič

Uralic

*ki.ra- ‘curse’ *pitä- ‘hold, bind’ *aśe- ‘dwell; spot’ *käte ‘hand’

Proto-Indo-European Early stage

With umlaut

*kera- > *kara*peþa- > *paþa*ase- > *ese*ǵhaþe- > *ǵheþe-

*kar- ‘abuse, punish’ *pas-ti- ‘firm’ *es- ‘be’ *ǵhés-er/to- ‘hand’

These rules only apply in the first syllable. In the second syllable of their disyllabic roots, Indo-Uralic had only e and a (elsewhere Čop nevertheless reconstructs IU roots with second syllable vowels other than e and a). There are three questions to be asked here: – did Proto-Indo-European have a vowel *a? – how do we then explain Proto-Indo-European roots with an *o (e.g., *bholo-, Čop 1978: 151)? – how does this relate to the Proto-Indo-European laryngeals? As far as Proto-Indo-European *a is concerned, most Indo-Europeanists are quite happy to accept that it was rare. But if we were to accept Čop’s view, this would have to change—meaning that not as many late Proto-Indo-European *a-s were reflexes of the sequence *h₂e as we now believe. Some of them would be plain *a-s even before Proto-Indo-European became an autonomous unit. As for problems with occurrences of Hittite ḫ in the vicinity of these a-s that we believe to be reflexes of Proto-Indo-European *h₂, Čop maintains (in Indouralica XVII, Čop 1990: 26) that if there were laryngeals in the Proto-Indo-Uralic root in front of the vowel in question, then special rules apply to the ProtoIndo-European vowel development. However, he did not seem to believe that there was a laryngeal in these particular roots. Here is an example of a root with a Proto-Indo-European laryngeal according to Čop (how did he decide which Proto-Indo-Uralic roots had a laryngeal and which did not? I cannot answer this question at this point of my research nor can I answer whence the laryngeal would have come): Uralic *ala ‘under’ (Finnish ala ‘area, territory’, ala-, ali- ‘sub-, lower’, Saami vuolle ‘lower, under’ etc.) : Proto-Indo-European *Hal- ‘deep’, found in Hittite hallu(u̯ a)- ‘deep’, Latin alveus ‘hollow, cavity, deep vessel’ As for his postulated change of Proto-Indo-Uralic *e to Proto-Indo-European *a—in view of the evidence he was forced to change it (Indouralica V, Čop Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

bojan čop’s indo-uralic hypothesis and its plausibility

95

figure 6.4 Table from Čop 1975

1978: 147) by adding an observation that e remains unchanged “wenn der Ablaut im Indogermanischen stark entwickelt ist”. He further argued (Indouralica XII, Čop 1987: 139) that the final vowel was actually only lost in Proto-IndoEuropean when the first syllable was stressed. With Proto-Indo-European zerograde in the first syllable, stress would fall on the second syllable, that is, the second vowel, which would thus remain preserved. He sees an instance of this rule in the above mentioned verb ‘to be’: *és- in *és-m(i) ‘I am’ *é- in *s-énti ‘they are’ According to him, the 3rd person plural goes back to early Proto-Indo-European *esé-nt- > Proto-Indo-European *sé-nt- (as opposed to *s-més etc.). The ending is therefore a result of a secondary segmentation. This rule is further used to explain the Proto-Indo-European Genitive-Ablative ending *-es, *-os, where the vowels would be a match for the Uralic second vowel in bisyllabic roots. The following example is used to illustrate the postulated rule: Indo-Uralic *ońtt́ á́ -ta ‘from the front’ (cf. Fin. otsa-a part. ‘of forehead’) = Proto-Indo-European *Hantés/ós gen.-abl. ‘from, of forehead’—where the correct segmentation should have been *Hanté-s or *Hantó-s. Čop argues that the fact that Uralic has *-ta where Proto-Indo-European has his reconstructed *-s speaks further in favour of this rule. As compelling as this argumentation might seem with pieces of a puzzle seemingly falling into places, it is still an example of circular reasoning. Nevertheless, it does offer a possibility to explain in a convincing way how these Proto-Indo-European endings came into being. Čop goes into details in his book Die indogermanische Deklination im Lichte der indouralischen vergleichenden Grammatik. A table from this book is given in Fig. 6.4.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

96

klemenčič

Čop goes into great detail, but as we know, the fact that there are many details attached in support of a thesis does not necessarily prove that the conclusion of the argument is true.

2

Laryngeals

In Čop 1970c: 7, Čop wrote that he deliberately chose not to be more specific about “das indogermanische Genus der “Laryngale””. Where there is a reflex in Hittite we can assume that we are talking about the second laryngeal. Here is what he proposed and argued in favour of:

Uralic PIE Hittite k, ɣ ɣ

H H

ḫḫ ḫ

An example containing an Indo-European laryngeal would be the following: PU *näke- ‘see’: PIE *neH- ‘to be afraid, ashamed’, Hittite naḫḫ- ‘to be afraid’. This parallel answers some of our questions considering laryngeals.

3

Proto-Uralic j, w, m, n, r, l = Proto-Indo-European i ̯, u̯ ( y, w), m, n, r, l

The more complex situation of the Proto-Uralic is explained as more archaic, whereas the Proto-Indo-European would have undergone a simplification (cf. Indouralica I, Čop 1974a: 107–108).

PU

PIE

m-, -mn-, -nń-, -ńṇ-, -ṇ-

(s)m-, -m(s)n-, -n(s)n-, -n(s)n-, -n-

Nasals bilabial dental palatal retroflex

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

bojan čop’s indo-uralic hypothesis and its plausibility

97

(cont.)

PU

PIE

l-, -ll̃-, -l̃ḷ-, -ḷr-, -r-

(s)l-, -l(s)l-, -l(s)l-, -lr-, -r-

Liquidae dental palatal retroflex dental

3.1 Comparison of Roots One type of roots is represented with VC(= j/w)V on the Proto-Uralic side and with a diphthong VC(= i̯/ u̯ ) on the Proto-Indo-European side:

Uralic V

j /w

PIE V

V

i̯ /u̯

In Čop’s view, the second vowel is missing in PIE (Indouralica II, Čop 1972: 166). Examples: Finnic ujo—‘shy, modest, silly’: PIE *ai̯- in *ai̯gu̯ h- ‘to be ashamed’; Finno-Ugric *uwa ‘current’: PIE *au̯ - ‘to flow’ (note how a nominal form on one side is compared to a verb on the other). The more common type, according to Čop, begins with a consonant and has two sub-types: 3.1.1

Proto-Uralic C(m/n/r/l)VC( j/w)V

m/n/r/l/w

V

j /w

V

Examples: Ural. mVjV : PIE mVi̯-: Finno-Ugric *muja ‘try, taste’: PIE *mei̯-no- ‘opinion’; Ural. nVjV : PIE nVi̯-: Ugric *naxjax ‘fire, sun’: PIE *nei̯- ‘glow’;

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

98

klemenčič

Ural. lVjV : PIE lVi̯-: Uralic *leje ‘juice’: PIE *lēĭ -̯ ‘flow’; Ural. wVjV : PIE u̯ Vi̯-: Finno-Ugric *wajax- ‘sink’: Proto-Celtic * u̯ ai̯-lo‘low’. Moreover, according to Čop, in PIE, a root could be preceded by a mobile s-, which he explains as a prefix meaning ‘up, upwards’. In the other subtype the same consonants are found on the opposite positions as compared with the first type: 3.1.2

j /w

Proto-Uralic C(= j/w)VC(= m/n/r/l)V

V

m/n/r/l

V

Examples: Ural. wVnV : PIE u̯ Vn-: Finno-Ugric *wüńäx- ‘needle, thorn’: PIE *u̯ en‘hit, injure’; Ural. wVrV : PIE u̯ Vr-: Finno-Ugric *wara, warta ‘slave, man’: PIE *u̯ er‘man’; Ural. wVlV : PIE u̯ Vl-: Finno-Ugric *walax- ‘white, light’: PIE *u̯ el- ‘see’. The reliability of these etymologies is, however, questionable. There are many roots with nasals and liquidae and semi-vowels in many languages. If we would compare Uralic and, e.g., Old Chinese, we would expect to find a similar number of possible cognates with resonants. And how can we tell shared vocabulary apart from loanwords (compare Finno-Ugric *wara ‘slave’ and Proto-IndoEuropean *u̯ er- ‘man’—semantics would speak in favour of borrowing just as well)? 3.2 Comparison of Suffixes Uralic suffixes containing nasals, liquids and semi-vowels have the very simple structure -CV (Indouralica II, Čop 1972: 171). On the Proto-Indo-European side the final vowel would be missing, so that what is left are merely these consonants—j, w, m, n, r and l. These are very unspecific segments to work with. Nevertheless, some of Čop’s attached evidence is very convincing. Let us confine ourselves to some well known matching m-suffixes: the accusative case ending -m in nominal forms, the 1st person singular ending -m in verbs and -m- in formation of superlatives on both sides. But there are other premises

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

bojan čop’s indo-uralic hypothesis and its plausibility

99

building his argument that I do not find equally convincing. Čop talks about an -m-suffix used for building substantiva denominalia in both language families, extends his reasoning to -men stems by drawing parallels between the Proto-Indo-European -men and Proto-Uralic -ma, but this is not consistent with his own theory on vocalic development, so he says that this is “etymologisch teilweise noch dunkel”. A great number of suffixes containing an m is further discussed in connection with endings of nomina deverbalia, infinitive endings, other verbal endings, etc. Summarizing, it can be concluded that there are many suffixes containing an m on both sides. This means that one can simply pick and choose from those suffixes whichever one one needs to make a case. Piling up examples this weak does not make for a strong case; a critic can take the pile of cases apart one by one and dismiss all of them on the grounds that this is an example of linguistic acrobatics instead of solid argumentation. Besides, if both Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Uralic inherited core words and suffixes from the mother language, I believe that in this case we would be entitled to expect a larger-than-coincidental number of words with matching both roots and suffixes. But then, how much exactly is “larger-thancoincidental”?

Conclusion Čop’s views are hesitantly and quietly accepted by Slovene scholars. The academic Etymological Dictionary of the Slovene Language (volume III, Bezlaj 1977: 301) says, for example, that Slovene spužva ‘sponge’ is related to the Uralic word for mushroom: spȗžva (f.) “Spongia officinalis”, adj. spȗžvast, -a. Borrowed from Croat. spȕžva, which was, through Dalm. Rom. and Lat. spongia “idem” borrowed from Gr. σπογγιά next to σπόγγος “mushroom” […] < IE *sphong(h)o[…], which is related to Uralic *paŋka- “mushroom”, cf. Mordw. paŋgo-, Mari paŋgō- “idem”, Mansi paŋχ “poisonous mushroom” (Čop, Orbis XII, 16 […]). By focusing on phoneme clusters and comparing suffixes Čop built a nice, well thought out and extensive system, the building blocks of which fit together. His work needs to be studied more thoroughly, but my present conclusion is that the limited number of correspondences in the core vocabulary remains the main problem of Indo-Uralic comparative linguistics. The basic and seemingly convincing proposed Indo-Uralic roots and suffixes that Čop’s phonetic

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

100

klemenčič

system is built on have been assigned meanings that are rather vague and each of them can be applied to mean almost anything: ‘tip’, ‘self’, ‘split’, ‘bind’, ‘flow’, etc., whereas many of those that extend beyond this vague vocabulary do not really fit into the phonetic system. This is like fishing in a sea with an abundance of fish, where one can always count on catching one’s dinner. My fear is that if we took any other language family instead of Uralic and applied the same method, we could come up with a system just as elaborate and convincing and—I suspect—having roughly the same number of correspondences. Čop’s reconstruction is too random and his method allows for cherry picking too much. Therefore, I do not find it convincing. Some of the examples in favour of a genetic relationship between ProtoUralic and Proto-Indo-European are nevertheless too good to ignore. When we leave out those proposed correspondences that are unconvincing for the various reasons stated above, we are left with the usually cited and very convincing list of correspondences (see Helimski 2001). Čop’s approach, as methodical as it may be, seems to have been doomed from the start. It is very much like comparing Slovene and Danish. We need the Proto-Uralic and Proto-Indo-European system to fit into a bigger picture. Whether or not this can be done at all is a question that we have not been able to answer so far.

References Bezlaj, F. 1977–2007. Etimološki slovar slovenskega jezika I–V. Ljubljana: SAZU ZRC. Čop, B. 1970a. Indouralica VII. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 84, 151–174. Čop, B. 1970b. Indouralica XIV. Orbis 19/2, 282–323. Čop, B. 1970c. Die indouralische Sprachverwandtschaft und die indogermanische Laryngaltheorie: Indouralsko jezikovno sorodstvo in indoevropska laringalna teorija. Ljubljana: SAZU. Čop, B. 1972. Indouralica II. Ural-Altaische Jährbucher 44, 162–178. Čop, B. 1973a. Indouralica IV. Linguistica 13, 116–190. Čop, B. 1973b. Indouralica XVI. Orbis 22/1, 5–42. Čop, B. 1974a. Indouralica I. Ljubljana: SAZU. Čop, B. 1974b. Indouralica VIII. Acta linguistica Academiae Scientarum Hungaricae 24, 87–116. Čop, B. 1974c. Indouralica XV. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 88, 41–58. Čop, B. 1975. Die indogermanische Deklination im Lichte der indouralischen vergleichenden Grammatik. Ljubljana: SAZU. Čop, B. 1978. Indouralica V. Collectanea Indoeuropaea 1. Ljubljana: Univerza v Ljubljani, 145–196.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

bojan čop’s indo-uralic hypothesis and its plausibility

101

Čop, B. 1985. Indouralica X. Linguistica 25, 193–262. Čop, B. 1987. Indouralica XII. Linguistica 27, 135–161. Čop, B. 1989. Indouralica IX. Linguistica 29, 13–56. Čop, B. 1990. Indouralica XVII. Razprave SAZU, II. razred, razred za filološke in literarne vede 13, 21–46. Helimski, E. 2001. Early Indo-Uralic linguistic relationships. In: C. Carpelan; A. Parpola; P. Koskikallio (eds.), Early Contacts between Uralic and Indo-European: Linguistic and Archaeological Considerations. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society, 187–205. Matasović, R. 1998. Temeljni leksik i dubinska genetska srodnost. Folia onomastica Croatica 7, 191–206. Ringe, D. 1999. How hard is it to match CVC-roots? Transactions of the Philological Society 97/2, 213–244.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

chapter 7

Indo-European o-grade Presents and the Anatolian ḫi-conjugation Frederik Kortlandt

Elsewhere I have argued that Indo-European originated as a branch of IndoUralic which was strongly modified under the pervasive influence of a North Caucasian substratum, perhaps in the sixth millennium BC (cf. Mallory 1989: 192f., Kortlandt 2010: 387–428). I have proposed the following relative chronology for the Indo-European branch of Indo-Uralic on the basis of the internal evidence: A. Indo-European vowel reduction, giving rise to full grade *e under the stress and zero grade elsewhere; B. phonetic lowering of *u (= syllabic *w) to *o, giving rise to a full grade (= non-high) vowel in unstressed syllables; C. analogical introduction of a full grade vowel in unstressed syllables (e.g. in compounds), which automatically yielded new *o; D. introduction of *o in stressed syllables (e.g. by decompounding), resulting in a phonemic opposition between /e/ and /o/ under the stress; E. analogical introduction of full grade *e in unstressed syllables, generalizing the opposition between /e/ and /o/; F. rise of lengthened grade vowels *ē and *ō, yielding the conventional Proto-Indo-European vowel system. Under the assumption that the Indo-European laryngeals developed from a glottal stop *q₁, a uvular stop *q₂, and a labialized uvular stop *q₃, my reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-European perfect, stative (intransitive middle, e.g. Vedic śáye ‘lies’) and (transitive) middle endings is the following (2010: 392 f.):

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004409354_008 Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

indo-european o-grade presents

1sg. 2sg. 3sg. 1pl. 2pl. 3pl.

Perfect Stative

Middle

-q₂e -tq₂e -e -me -e -(ē)r

-mq₂ -stq₂o -to -medhq₂ -tdhq₂ue -ntro

-q₂ -tq₂o -o -medhq₂ -dhq₂ue -ro

103

For an earlier stage I have proposed the following reconstruction (2010: 400 f.):

1sg. 2sg. 3sg. 1pl. 2pl. 3pl.

Perfect

Stative

Middle

-q₂-e -tq₂-e -e -mq₂-e -q₂-e -er

-q₂ -tq₂ -o -medhq₂ -dhq₂-ue -r

-m-q₂ -s-tq₂ -t-o -me-dhq₂ -t-dhq₂-ue -nt-r

Moreover, I have argued that the Hittite ḫi-flexion comprises original perfects, new perfects created on the basis of derived presents, and transitive zero grade thematic formations such as Vedic tudáti ‘thrusts’. This merger obliterated the semantic distinction between the original intransitive perfects and transitive verbs in the Hittite ḫi-flexion and similarly between the 3rd sg. endings *-o and *-to in the stative and the middle. As a result, the original distribution can no longer be established on the basis of the Hittite evidence. At the earliest reconstructible stage we expect e-grade of the root in the stative but zero grade before the ending *-e in the perfect. If the apophonic alternation between e- and zero grade was still automatic at the stage when the new 1st and 2nd pl. endings *-medhq₂ and *-(t)dhq₂ue were introduced into the stative paradigm (stage A), the new forms must have had zero grade in the root. The original 3rd sg. stative ending *-o arose phonetically from lowering of Indo-Uralic *-u (stage B). The paradigmatic alternation between full and zero grade was then evidently introduced from the stative into the perfect at a stage when the alternation between stressed *e and unstressed *o was automatic (stage C). The stress was

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

104

kortlandt

eventually retracted in the singular forms of the perfect when stressed *o and unstressed *e had become possible (stages D and E), probably on the analogy of the athematic present and injunctive, which had root stress in the singular but not in the plural. The rise of lengthened grade in the 3rd pl. ending *-ēr < *-er was most recent (stage F). These developments can be summarized as follows:

Stative

Stage A1

Stage A2

Stages B–F

1sg. 2sg. 3sg. 1pl. 2pl. 3pl.

CeC-q₂ CeC-tq₂ CeC-u CeC-mq₂ CeC-(t)q₂ CeC-r

CeC-q₂ CeC-tq₂ CeC-u CC-medhq₂ CC-(t)dhq₂ue CeC-r

CeC-q₂ CeC-tq₂ CeC-o CC-medhq₂ CC-dhq₂ue CeC-r

Perfect

Stages A–B

Stages C–E

Stage F

1sg. 2sg. 3sg. 1pl. 2pl. 3pl.

CC-q₂e CC-tq₂e CC-e CC-mq₂e CC-(t)q₂e CC-er

CoC-q₂e CoC-tq₂e CoC-e CC-mq₂e CC-q₂e CC-er

CoC-q₂e CoC-tq₂e CoC-e CC-mq₂e CC-q₂e CC-ēr

It is clear that e-grade thematic presents such as *bhere cannot have arisen before stage E, when both the root and the ending could have a full grade vowel *e. Like the perfect, the original thematic conjugation had a zero grade root and could only obtain an o-grade root vowel after stage C (e.g. Latin molō ‘to mill’). In my view, the thematic present was originally an impersonal verb form with a dative subject (cf. Kortlandt 2010: 101–103). The ending was *-e in the singular and *-o < *-u [ǝw] in the plural, reflecting the Indo-Uralic demonstrative and reflexive pronouns, respectively (see Kortlandt 2010: 399–403 for the development of the endings). This differentiation may be compared with Dutch Het wordt geregeld ‘It is arranged’, which implies that someone arranges something, versus Er wordt gedanst ‘There is dancing’, which means that people are dancing. A partial addition of the perfect endings yielded a full paradigm at stage D (when both formations still had a dative subject) and the replacement of these by the athematic secondary endings gave rise to a transitive thematic injunctive

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

indo-european o-grade presents

105

with an ergative subject at stage E (for details I refer to my earlier treatment). The developments can be summarized as follows:

1sg. 2sg. 3sg. 1pl. 2pl. 3pl.

Present D

Present E

Injunctive E

-o-q₁ -e-q₁ -e -o-mq₁ -e-tq₁ -o

-o-q₁ -e-q₁i -e -o-mq₁om -e-tq₁e -o

-o-m -e-s -e-t -o-mo -e-te -o-nt

The replacement of *q₂ by *q₁ in the thematic present can be explained by the neutralization of the laryngeals before and after *o into a glottal stop *q₁ (cf. Kortlandt 2010: 365–368 and passim), which was subsequently generalized in the paradigm. Most scholars have accepted Stang’s derivation of o-grade presents such as Lith. kálti ‘to forge’, málti ‘to grind’, OCS bosti ‘to stab’, Latin fodiō ‘I dig’ from the reduplicated intensive exemplified in Vedic jaṅghanti ‘strikes’ (1942: 41 f., cf. Kortlandt 2010: 216). Jasanoff’s alternative proposal to posit an alternating paradigm with *o in the singular and *e in the plural (e.g. 1979, 2003) cannot be maintained because no such paradigm can be reconstructed (cf. Kloekhorst 2008: 142f., Peyrot 2013: 497, Kortlandt 2015). In his lucid treatment of the problem, Kümmel observes that the Indo-Iranian cognates of proposed o-grade presents are thematic, e.g. Vedic sphuráti ‘jerks’, tudáti ‘thrusts’, vijáte ‘trembles’ (2004: 150), and the same holds for Latin and Germanic. In my view, the Hittite ḫi-verbs represent a merger of the original perfect and the original thematic flexion with zero grade in the root, e.g. Vedic tudáti (Kortlandt 2010: 373–382, where “q-” has unfortunately been printed as “-q” throughout the chapter). If the root vowel of CeC-roots was introduced in this formation between stages C and E of my chronology, it automatically became *o, as happened in the singular forms of the perfect. Thus, we arrive at o-grade in Slavic bosti ‘to stab’, kopati ‘to dig’, kosnǫti sę ‘to touch’, kovati ‘to forge’ and the Germanic 6th class verbs versus zero grade in the Vedic 6th class presents adduced above. The new pattern could easily be extended to CeRC-roots. The athematic reduplicated intensive is evidently a derivative of this formation, e.g. Vedic jaṅghanti ‘strikes’, dediśam ‘point out’, Greek πορφύρω ‘boil’ (Vedic bhuráti ‘quivers’, járbhurīti ‘sprawls’), Latin susurrō ‘whisper’, Gothic inreiraida ‘quaked’ (cf. Kort-

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

106

kortlandt

landt 2010: 237), OLith. barti ‘scolds’ (with loss of reduplication). In Anatolian, the complementary distribution between o- and zero grade was brought into line with the paradigmatic alternation of the perfect. In Indo-Iranian, the reduplicated intensive similarly adopted the alternation of the root vowel from the 3rd class reduplicated presents but preserved the zero grade root vowel of the 6th class presents in the subjunctive (cf. Schaefer 1994: 35–43). When the ergative (with an ending *-s) and the absolutive (with a zero ending) merged into a new nominative case, the old syntactic system broke down and the original construction of the thematic present survived only in such instances as English me dreamed a strange dream and German mir träumt, which were eventually replaced by I dreamed and ich träume. The idea that the thematic vowel was coreferential with an additional object in the thematic injunctive is now supported by Eugen Hill’s analysis of the Indo-Iranian “aorist presents” (2007). This “instrumental” object (cf. Hill 2007: 293–300) was distinct from the regular direct object (goal of the action) in the accusative in *-m, which was a directive case (e.g. Latin ire Romam ‘to go to Rome’). The construction may be reflected in Russian lodku uneslo vetrom ‘the boat (acc.) was carried away by the wind (inst.)’, ego ubilo svin’ej ‘he (acc.) was killed by a pig (inst.)’, viz. when it fell on him from a balcony, where the verb is impersonal and the additional object is in the instrumental case. In this conception, the original meaning of the thematic present *tude was ‘it (e.g. lightning) strikes (me)’ or ‘it is a blow (to me)’, with the affected person in the dative, and the meaning of the derived thematic injunctive *tudet was ‘he strikes (me)’ or ‘he causes a blow (to me)’, with the agent in the ergative case. If my derivation of the ending *-e from the Indo-Uralic demonstrative pronoun is correct, the original structure of *tud-e was ‘it [is] a blow’, where *tud- is a verbal root noun. The original syntax was apparently preserved in Greek δοκεῖ μοι ‘it seems to me’. After the separation from Anatolian, the thematic present formation supplied new presents to athematic injunctives in the other Indo-European languages (cf. Peyrot 2013: 458 and Kortlandt 2015). When Tocharian had split off, the thematic and athematic injunctives yielded imperfects and aorists, respectively, in the remaining languages and the addition of secondary endings to present stems supplied new imperfects. The thematic present then became a subjunctive when there was a competing athematic present. In the Anatolian languages, the endings of the ḫi-conjugation are essentially the Proto-Indo-European perfect endings. The Hittite preterit endings 3rd sg. -š and 2nd pl. -šten were evidently taken from the s-injunctive, as they were in Tocharian (cf. Kortlandt 2014: 83). It is therefore probable that the PIE perfect became a past tense in Anatolian at a relatively early stage. It supplied a preterit to athematic injunctives in the same way as happened in Tocharian (cf.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

indo-european o-grade presents

107

Kortlandt 2015) and in Latin (e.g. dīxī ‘I said’, lēgī ‘I read’). On the other hand, the thematic derivations in *-ie/o- and *-ske/o- joined the mi-conjugation in Anatolian (cf. Kloekhorst 2008: 129–136). The endings of the ḫi-present were evidently created on the analogy of the mi-present on the basis of the original perfect. Among the ḫi-presents we expect to find underived thematic presents and derived presents from athematic formations. There are only three ḫi-verbs which semantically resemble original perfects: – nāḫ-, naḫḫ- < *noq₂ei, *nq₂enti ‘to fear, to be(come) afraid, to be respectful, to be careful’ (Old Irish nár ‘modest’); – šākk-, šakk- < *sokq₁ei, *skq₁enti ‘to know (about), to experience, to recognize, to remember’ (Latin secō ‘cut’, sciō ‘know’); – āppa-, āppi- ‘to be finished, to be done’, which is a derivative of āppa ‘behind’ < *q₂opo (Kloekhorst 2008: 193). In fact, all underived ḫi-verbs may be o-grade presents, which is also in accordance with their semantics. Following Kloekhorst (2008), we arrive at a list of 48 underived ḫi-verbs in Hittite: – āk-, akk- < *q(o)k- ‘to die, to be killed, to be eclipsed (of sun and moon)’. – ār-, ar- < *q₁(o)r- ‘to come (to), to arrive (at)’, Greek ἔρχομαι ‘to come, to go’, Vedic ṛcháti ‘to go’. – ārr-, arr- < *q₁(o)rq₁- ‘to wash’, Tocharian A yär- ‘to bathe’. – ārk-, ark- < *q₃(o)rgh- ‘to mount, to copulate’, Greek ὄρχις ‘testicle’. – ārk-, ark- < *q₁(o)rk- ‘to cut off, to divide’, Latin (h)ercīscō ‘to divide (an estate)’. – au-, u- < *q₂(o)u- ‘to see, to look’, Greek ἀίω ‘to perceive’. – ḫān-, ḫan- < *q₂(o)n- ‘to draw (liquids)’, Armenian hanem ‘to draw out’. – ḫarra-, ḫarr- < *q₂(o)rq₃- ‘to grind, to splinter up (wood), to crush (bread)’, Greek ἀρόω ‘to plough’. – ḫāš-, ḫašš- < *q₂(o)ms- ‘to give birth (to), to beget, to procreate’. – ḫāt-, ḫat- < *q₂(o)d- ‘to dry up, to become parched’, Greek ἄζω ‘to dry up’. – ḫatk- < *q₂(o)dhgh- ‘to shut, to close’, Greek ἄχθομαι ‘to be burdened, to be depressed’. – ḫuwapp-, ḫupp- < *q₂u(o)pq₁- ‘to be hostile towards, to do evil against, to hurl, to throw’, Vedic vápati ‘to strew, to scatter’. – ḫuwart-, ḫurt- < *q₂u(o)rt- ‘to curse’, Old Prussian wertemmai ‘we swear’. – iškalla-, iškall- < *sk(o)lq- ‘to slit, to split, to tear’, Greek σκάλλω ‘to hoe’. – iškār-, iškar- < *sk(o)r- ‘to sting, to stab, to pierce’, Greek κείρω ‘to cut (off)’. – išpānt-, išpant- < *sp(o)nd- ‘to libate, to pour, to sacrifice’, Greek σπένδω ‘to libate’. – išpār-, išpar- < *sp(o)r- ‘to spread (out), to strew’, Greek σπείρω ‘to spread (out)’.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

108

kortlandt

– išparra-, išparr- < *sp(o)rq- ‘to trample’, Vedic sphuráti ‘to kick’. – ištāp-, ištapp- < *st(o)p- ‘to plug up, to block, to enclose, to shut’, Dutch stoppen ‘to plug up’. – kānk-, kank- < *k(o)nk- ‘to hang, to weigh’, Gothic hahan ‘to hang’. – karāp-, kare/ip- < *ghr(o)bq₁- ‘to devour, to consume’, Vedic grabh- ‘to seize’. – lā-, l- < *l(o)q₁- ‘to loosen, to release, to untie, to relieve’, Gothic letan ‘to let’. – lāḫu-, laḫu- < *l(o)q₂u- ‘to pour, to cast (objects from metal), to (over)flow’. – lāk-, lak- < *l(o)gh- ‘to knock out (a tooth), to turn (one’s ears or eyes towards), to train (a vine)’, Gothic lagjan ‘to lay down’. – malla-, mall- < *m(o)lq₂- ‘to mill, to grind’, Latin molō ‘to mill’, Gothic malan ‘to mill’.1 – mālk-, malk- < *m(o)lK- ‘to spin’, Tocharian AB mälk- ‘to put together’. – māld-, mald- < *m(o)ldh- ‘to recite, to make a vow’, Old Saxon meldon ‘to tell’. – mārk-, mark- < *m(o)rg- ‘to divide, to separate, to distribute, to cut up’, Latin margō ‘border’, Gothic marka ‘border’. – mau-, mu- < *m(o)uq₁- ‘to fall’, Latin moveō ‘move’. – nāḫ-, naḫḫ- < *n(o)q₂- ‘to fear, to be(come) afraid, to be respectful, to be careful’, Old Irish nár ‘modest’. – nai-, ni- < *n(o)iq- ‘to turn, to send’, Vedic náyati ‘to lead’.2 – para-, par- ‘to appear, to emerge’, which is a derivative of parā ‘out, further’ < *pro (Kloekhorst 2008: 630). – pāšk-, pašk- < *P(o)sK- ‘to stick in, to fasten, to plant, to set up’. – padda-, padd- < *bh(o)dhq₂- ‘to dig (the ground)’, Latin fodiō. – šāḫ- < *soq₂- ‘to clog, to stuff, to fill in, to plug up’, Tocharian B soy- ‘to be satisfied’. – šākk-, šakk- < *s(o)kq₁- ‘to know (about), to experience, to recognize, to remember’, Latin secō ‘to cut’, sciō ‘to know’. – šārr-, šarr- < *s(o)rq₁- ‘to divide up, to distribute, to split, to separate’. – šarāp-, šare/ip- < *sr(o)bh- ‘to sip’, Latin sorbeō ‘to slurp’. – šarta-, šart- < *s(o)rdhq- ‘to wipe, to rub’, Middle High German serten ‘to violate’. – šuḫḫa-, šuḫḫ- < *suq₂- < *sq₂u- ‘to scatter’, Greek ὕω ‘to rain’. – dā-, d- < *d(o)q₃- ‘to take, to wed, to decide’, Vedic dádāti ‘to give’, Greek δίδωμι ‘to give’, derivatives uda-, ud- ‘to bring (here)’, peda-, ped- ‘to take (somewhere), to carry, to transport, to spend (time)’. – dākk-, dakk- < *d(o)kq₁- ‘to resemble’, Greek δοκεῖ ‘it seems’. 1 Dr Alwin Kloekhorst informs me that the stem malla- is the result of a younger development and that the original stem was mall- from Old Hittite *māll- < *molq₁-. 2 But see now Kloekhorst & Lubotsky (2014), who argue for a derived stem *neq₁-i-.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

indo-european o-grade presents

109

– wai-, wi- ‘to cry (out)’, which is onomatopoeic (Kloekhorst 2008: 939). – wāk-, wakk- < *u(o)q₂g- ‘to bite’, Greek ἄγνῡμι ‘to break’, Tocharian AB wāk‘to split, to burst’. – warš- < *u(o)rs- ‘to reap, to harvest, to wipe’, Old Latin vorrō ‘to wipe’. – wāš- < *uos- ‘to buy’, Latin vēnum dare ‘to sell’. – wašta-, wašt- < *uosTq- ‘to sin, to offend’. – zāḫ-, zaḫḫ- < *ti(o)q₂- ‘to hit, to beat’, Greek σῆμα ‘sign, mark’, σῶμα ‘corpse’. There are no e-grade thematic presents in the Anatolian branch of Indo-European because these had not yet developed when it split off from the other languages. Derived ḫi-verbs are based on nasal presents (e.g. tarna-, tarn- < *trkn(o)q- ‘to let go’; ḫamank-, ḫame/ink- < *q₂m(o)ngh- ‘to tie’), s-injunctives (e.g. ḫārš- < *q₂(o)rq₃-s- ‘to till (the soil)’, Greek ἀρόω; paḫš- < *p(o)q₂-s- ‘to protect’, Latin pāscō, pāvī), i-presents (e.g. arai-, ari- < *q₃r-(o)i- ‘to arise’, Latin orior; išḫai-, išḫi- < *sq₂-(o)i- ‘to bind’, Vedic syáti; išpai-, išpi- < *spq₁-(o)i- ‘to get full’, Vedic sphāyate), and reduplicated formations (cf. Kortlandt 2010: 378–380). The third group of ḫi-verbs are the factitives in -aḫḫ- < *-eq₂-, which do not show ablaut (cf. Kloekhorst 2008: 164). The model for this formation was provided by the transitive thematic injunctive with secondary endings and an ergative subject which originated at stage E (see above). If the original meaning of *tud-e was ‘it [is] a blow’, where *tud- is a verbal root noun, and the meaning of the thematic injunctive *tudet was ‘he causes a blow (to me)’, where the thematic vowel was coreferential with the “instrumental” object which was distinct from the regular direct object (goal of the action) in the accusative case, the verbal root could easily be replaced by an abstract noun denoting a property such as *neueq₂ ‘quality of being new’. In the other Indo-European languages, this type of verb was replaced by the regular denominal formation in *-eq₂-ie/o-, e.g. Latin novāre ‘to renew’.

References Jasanoff, J.H. 1979. The position of the ḫi-conjugation. In: E. Neu; W. Meid (eds.), Hethitisch und Indogermanisch. Vergleichende Studien zur historischen Grammatik und zur dialektgeographischen Stellung der indogermanischen Sprachgruppe Altkleinasiens. Innsbruck: IBS, 79–90. Jasanoff, J.H. 2003. Hittite and the Indo-European Verb. Oxford–New York: Oxford University Press. Hill, E. 2007. Die Aorist-Präsentien des Indoiranischen. Bremen: Hempen. Kloekhorst, A. 2008. Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon Leiden: Brill.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

110

kortlandt

Kloekhorst, A.; A.M. Lubotsky. 2014. Hittite nai-, nē-, Sanskrit nī-, and the PIE verbal root *(s)neh₁-. In: H.C. Melchert; E. Rieken; T. Steer (eds.), Munus amicitiae Norbert Oettinger a collegis et amicis dicatum. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave Press, 126–137. Kortlandt, F. 2010. Studies in Germanic, Indo-European and Indo-Uralic. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Kortlandt, F. 2014. The Tocharian personal endings. Tocharian and Indo-European Studies 15, 79–86. Kortlandt, F. 2015. Tocharian ē-grade verb forms. Tocharian and Indo-European Studies 16, 51–59. Kümmel, M.J. 2004. Zur o-Stufe im idg. Verbalsystem. Indo-European Word Formation. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum, 139–158. Mallory, J.P. 1989. In Search of the Indo-Europeans: Language, Archaeology and Myth. London: Thames & Hudson. Peyrot, M. 2013. The Tocharian Subjunctive. Leiden: Brill. Schaefer, C. 1994. Das Intensivum im Vedischen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Stang, C.S. 1942. Das slavische und baltische Verbum. Oslo: Jacob Dybwad.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

chapter 8

The Proto-Indo-European Mediae, Proto-Uralic Nasals from a Glottalic Perspective Guus Kroonen*

Elsewhere, I have pointed out the possibility that the Proto-Indo-European mediae, when envisioned as glottalized stops, can have developed from preglottalized nasals, i.e. *ɗ < *ˀn, *ɠ < *ˀŋ. This development is implied by the lexical distribution of the participal no-suffix, which originally only occurred in roots after *d, cf. Sanskrit bhinná- ‘split’, -chinna- ‘cut’, tunná- ‘struck’, Wakhi zü-bön ‘burst’, ra-sen ‘broke’, Welsh twnn ‘broken’ < PIE *bʰid-nó-, *skid-nó-, *tud-nó-. Since this suffix is in complementary distribution with the more generic tosuffix, it can be hypothesized that the former developed from the latter through 1) assimilation of *-ˀnto- > *-ˀnno- and 2) buccalization of *-ˀnno- > *-dno-, where *d represents a doubly articulated stop consisting of a buccal and a glottal closure (Kroonen 2018). It now appears that this reconstruction of pre-PIE preglottalized nasals can be brought in line with previous scholarship concerning the Indo-Uralic Hypothesis. In 1972, Bojan Čop presented a number of Indo-Uralic isoglosses in support of a regular sound correspondence between PIE *g (*ǵ, *gʷ) and PU *ŋ. Recently, Martin Kümmel independently arrived at a similar conclusion in a discussion of the most promising lexical matches between ProtoIndo-European *ie⁽ǵ⁾- ‘ice’ and Proto-Uralic *jäŋe ‘id.’ (also cf. Collinder 1965: 124–125). Offering a diachronic typological perspective on the origin of the correspondence, Kümmel suggested that “we might suspect a Proto-Uralic change from implosives to nasals (or vice-versa?)” (2012: 305, see also this volume, 115–130). The sound correspondences can be observed in a small number of potential cognate sets: PIU *VnˀŋV-: PIE *ngʷ-ni- ‘fire’ ≈ PU *äŋ- ‘burn’1 PIU *ˀnVkV-: PIE *deḱ- ‘perceive’ ≈ PU *näki ‘see’ * I thank Ante Aikio, Sasha Lubotsky, Alwin Kloekhorst, Tijmen Pronk and Frits Kortlandt for commenting on a draft version of this paper. 1 The Uralic proto-form is based on Hungarian ég and Komi i̮ń only, and represents just one possible reconstruction.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004409354_009 Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

112

kroonen

PIU *ˀɲVŋgV-: PIE *dnǵʰ- ‘tongue’ ≈ PU *ńï(ŋ)kćimi ‘palate, gills’2 PIU *jVˀŋV-: PIE *ie⁽ǵ⁾- ‘ice’ ≈ PU *jäŋi ‘ice’ PIU *pVˀnV-: PIE *ped- ‘step; fall’ ≈ PU *pane ‘put, place’3 Although the corpus of lexical similarities offered here is not by itself sufficiently large to substantiate the Indo-Uralic Hypothesis, typological parallels for linking the sound correspondences can be identified within a glottalic framework. A shift from PIU *ˀ⁽ń⁾, *ˀŋ to PIE *ɗ, *ɠ would be paralleled, for instance, by a similar shift that has been suggested for Wambule, a Kiranti language spoken in eastern Nepal, where implosive ɗ developed from *ˀn (Opgenort 2004). On the basis of this parallel, the Indo-Uralic sound correspondence can at least theoretically be accounted for by assuming that both the PIE mediae and the PU nasals derived from a series of PIU preglottalized nasals (*ˀ⁽ń⁾, *ˀŋ,) or even implosive nasals: While in Proto-IndoEuropean this series would have developed into glottalized stops, the preglottalization can simply have been lost in Proto-Uralic by a process of deplosivization.4 Within the Indo-European family, the reconstruction of preglottalized nasals is not actually ad hoc, as explained above, because it already accounts for another, seemingly unrelated problem, i.e. the lexical distribution of the no-participles. One may furthermore wonder whether the reconstruction of preglottalized nasals can offer an explanation for what has been a perennial question since the publication of Brugmann’s Grundriss, viz. that of the origin of the aberrant nasal of Skt. viṃśatí- ‘20’, ostensibly from PIE *h₁uinḱmti-. While the (ostensibly) non-nasal variants such as Avestan vīsaiti, Lat. vīgintī and OIr. fiche etc. can be explained from the traditional glottalic proto-form *dui-dḱmti- by dissimilation to *ʔuiʔḱmti- (Lubotsky 1994), the nasal of the Sanskrit form is yet to be accounted for. It must demonstrably be of Proto-IndoIranian age, at any rate, in view of the Ossetic form insæj (Hübschmann 1887: 104; Brugmann 1911, vol. 2: 31). By reverting to a deeper reconstructional state, it is possible to assume that in the stage prior to the buccalization of the preglottalized nasals, the Pre-PIE

2 This is a rather weak comparison in view of the evidence for *ŋ being restricted to Mari. It can theoretically be saved by reconstructing the Uralic word as an obscured compound *ńï(ŋ)kV ‘?’ + *ćïmi ‘scales, fish skin’ (Ante Aikio, p.c.), perhaps within dissimilation of the first nasal. 3 The PIE and PU semantics can only be unified be reconstructing a meaning “put down”. However, this step requires an additional, unverifiable assumption. 4 Such a development is documented for variaties of the Sui language in southern China (Wei and Edmondson 2008).

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

proto-indo-european mediae, proto-uralic nasals

113

form *ˀnui-ˀnḱmti- developed into *ˀnui-nḱmti- by dissimilation of the second glottal stop, and then into *ʔui-nḱmti- by dissimilation of the first nasal. The resulting *h₁uinḱmti- would have regularly developed into Skt. viṃśatí-. It is relevant from this perspective, that some Germanic forms, too, can be derived from the same nasalized form that appears to underlie Skt. viṃśatí-. Old Norse tottogu, tuttugu and tyttugu, whose -tt- presupposed Proto-Germanic *-nt-, can similarly be projected back into Proto-Indo-European as part of the sequence *-ndeḱ- (Schmidt 1970: 128). Indeed, the variant tyttugu together with Old Norwegian tuittugu (Hægstad 1915: 23) may simply continue PGm. *twintegunþ < *duin-deḱmt-, where *deḱmt- represents the usual Germanic replacement of PIE *-(h₁)ḱmti-. In conclusion, this variant, too, can be derived from PIE *h₁uin(h₁)ḱmti-, although an additional explanation is required for the restoration of the initial dental. Given the wider dialectal distribution of traces of a nasal, it is actually not inconceivable either that Lat. vīgintī similarly continues a nasalized form *h₁uinḱmti-. This view was explicitly rejected by Thurneysen, who views the nasal of Skt. viṃśatí- as a secondary, analogical intrusion from *saptãśati < *septmḱmti and *navãśati < *neunḱmti (1883: 312). Instead, Thurneysen argues that vīginti similarly acquired its voiced g analogically from the corresponding cardinals *septm-(h₁)ḱmt-tmH-o- and *neun-(h₁)ḱmt-tmH-o-, where g would have been regularly voiced between two nasals. The analogy becomes redundant, however, by assuming that the inherited form was *h₁uinḱmti-, and that in the resulting *vīngintī the first nasal was lost due to dissimilation. Summing up, in this brief investigation I hope to have shown how the possibility of deriving PIE *ɗ, *ɠ from earlier *ˀ⁽ń⁾, *ˀŋ also opens potential new inroads into the internal reconstruction of the Indo-European proto-language. Firstly, it offers an alternative way to integrate seemingly unrelated problems within Indo-European, namely that of the distribution of the no-participles and origin of the nasal element of the numeral ‘20’. Secondly, the reconstruction of such a series facilitates a more realistic phonetic interpretation of previously identified lexical similarities between Proto-Indo-European and ProtoUralic. However, an important remaining question is whether the lexical material displaying the correspondence of Proto-Uralic nasals and Proto-Indo-European mediae actually substantiates the Indo-Uralic Hypothesis or that it rather reflects borrowing from Pre-Proto-Indo-European into Proto-Uralic. Future studies will have to address this question, but regardless of the answer, we are left with a small corpus of words suggesting that the PIE mediae developed from a series of some sort of prestopped, presumably preglottalized nasals.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

114

kroonen

References Brugmann, K. 1911. Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen. Zweiter Band: Lehre von den Wortformen und Ihr Gebrauch. Strassburg: Trübner. Collinder, B. 1965. Hat das Uralische Verwandte? Eine sprachvergleichende Untersuchung. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis 1/4: 108–180. Čop, B. 1972. Indouralica II. Ural-Altaische Jährbucher 44, 162–178. Hægstad, M. 1915. Vestnorske maalføre fyre 1350. II. Sudvestlandsk, 2: Indre sudvestlandsk. Færøymaal. Islandsk. Fyrste bolken. (Videnskapsselskapets skrifter II. Hist.Filos. Klasse. 1915. No. 3.) Kristiania: Dybwad. Hübschmann, H. 1887. Etymologie und Lautlehre der ossetischen Sprache. Strassburg: Trübner. Kroonen G.J. 2018. Lachmann’s law, Thurneysen’s law, and a new explanation of the PIE no-participles. In: L. van Beek; M. de Vaan; A. Kloekhorst; G. Kroonen; M. Peyrot; T. Pronk (eds.), Farnah: Indo-Iranian and Indo-European studies in honor of Sasha Lubotsky. Ann Arbor–New York: Beech Stave Press, 143–151. Kümmel, M.J. 2012. Typology and reconstruction: The consonants and vowels of ProtoIndo-European. In: B. Nielsen Whitehead; T. Olander; B.A. Olsen; J.E. Rasmussen (eds.), The Sound of Indo-European. Phonetics, Phonemics, and Morphophonemics. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum, 291–329. Lubotsky, A.M. 1994. RV. ávidhat. In: G.E. Dunkel; G. Meyer; S. Scarlata; C. Seidl (eds.), Früh-, Mittel-, Spätindogermanisch: Akten der IX. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 5. bis 9. Oktober 1992 in Zürich. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 201–206. Opgenort, J.–R. 2004. The origin of implosive stops in Wambule Rai. Libju-Bhumju 25: 3–8. Schmidt, G. 1970. Zum Problem der germanischen Dekadenbildungen. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 84/1: 98–136. Thurneysen, R. 1883. Urspr. dn tn cn im lateinischen. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 26, 301–314. Wei, J.X.; J.A. Edmondson. 2008. Sui. In: A.V.N. Diller; J.A. Edmondson; Y. Luo (eds.), The Tai-Kadai languages. London–New York: Routledge, 585–596.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

chapter 9

Thoughts about Pre-Indo-European Stop Systems Martin Joachim Kümmel

1

Introduction

If we assume that the Anatolian branch of Indo-European (IE) split off first, as is frequently done, this implies that we can reconstruct two different stages of the common ancestor of all other IE languages: Proto-Indo-European (PIE) is the immediate ancestor of “Core IE”, the stage of the language before the first (post-Anatolian) split occurred. From the comparison of Proto-Anatolian (PA) and PIE we may then reconstruct the protolanguage of all IE languages, for which the term Proto-Indo-Hittite has been used, but I would prefer the term Proto-Indo-Anatolian (PIA). Since even the very fact that Anatolian split off first is not completely assured, the distance between these two protolanguages cannot have been too large. On the other hand, also PIA must have had its history, and there may be relatives of this language. One of the most promising candidates is the neighbouring language family to the north of IE, i.e. Uralic. From a comparison of PIA and Proto-Uralic (PU), we should then be able to reconstruct their common ancestor, Proto-Indo-Uralic (PIU). This must be a much more distant relationship, and it is far from undisputed. This means that the quality and quantity of potential positive evidence is expected to be lower, due to the rather large distance between the two protolanguages. Arguments for both relationships and tree topologies have mainly been based on grammatical and lexical evidence. However, if these different protolanguages are related, we should also be able to reconstruct their phonology and some features of their sound systems, and the sound changes that have to be assumed for these reconstructions may be used as evidence for their plausibility. In this perspective, one main difference between PIE, PA, PIA and PU appears to lie in their obstruent systems, especially in the number of stops: this number is high in PIE, lower in PA and much lower in PU.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004409354_010 Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

116 2

kümmel

Indo-Anatolian? Anatolian and PIE Stops

2.1 Two Scenarios For PIA vs. PIE, more than one scenario is possible. The different systems will be exemplified by dental-alveolar stops but these are meant to stand for the whole class, i.e. *t = *p, t, k, … A An Indo-Anatolian Scenario for the Stop Series In a recent paper, Alwin Kloekhorst (2016, cf. Kloekhorst 2008a, 2010, 2013) has reconstructed the PA stop system as a system with an opposition of voiceless fortis (long) *tt and lenis (short) *t. In his view, this system is preserved from a nearly identical PIA system with three types of stops, i.e. *tt | t | ˀt, the only difference being that the original preglottalized stops had lost their glottalization and merged with the lenis series. However, the PIE system from which all other branches of IE are descended, is reconstructed by him as showing an original voicing contrast between voiceless fortis *t and voiced lenis *d plus preglottalized voiced lenis *ˀd. Thus the main difference between these systems is the one between the non-glottalized fortis and lenis: In PA and PIA, they were distinguished by length, in PIE by voicing. This implies a PIE innovation, a shift from a length contrast to a voicing contrast, necessarily a chain shift tt > t > d = t > d followed or accompanied by tt > t, while PA preserved the old system. Let us call this model A. This reconstruction would clearly represent a good argument for PIA being distinct from PIE, since it requires a common innovation of all IE branches other than Anatolian. B An Alternative Scenario If we accept both Kloekhorst’s PA reconstruction as such, and a (pre-)PIE reconstruction with a “glottalic” or implosive media *ɗ (ˀd),1 we may also reconstruct a PIA system identical with that of PIE, i.e. *t | d | ɗ (cf. below). In this case, PIE had no change, and only PA changed the system by a shift from a voicing contrast to a length contrast, again a chain shift, but in the opposite direction: d > t > tt = t > tt, followed or accompanied by *d > t (cf. Kümmel 2007: 176). We may call this alternative model B, and in this case, the stop systems and their changes would not support the reconstruction of PIA as distinct from PIE, since there was only an Anatolian innovation, while the common ancestor of all other branches was conservative.

1 Cf. Haider 1983; Weiss 2009; Kümmel 2012ab, 2014; cf. Kortlandt 1985.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

thoughts about pre-indo-european stop systems

117

2.2 Evaluation of the Changes To evaluate these two models, we can compare the probability of the changes implied by them. In this respect, it is crucial to distinguish between conditioned and spontaneous changes. Some sound changes are quite frequent when conditioned by the environment but they are not at all frequent as a default change in all phonotactic positions. For comparing our two models, the probabilities of spontaneous changes are most relevant, since we are dealing with unconditioned systemic shifts. Let us now take a look at the probabilities of the single shifts implied by the models. For the fortis stops, model A assumes degemination/shortening of long fortis stops in PIE. Such a change tt > t is generally quite frequent (Kümmel 2007: 133–136) and therefore quite probable. Model B assumes the opposite, i.e. a lengthening of short voiceless stops in PA. Such a change t > tt is not infrequent as a conditioned change (e.g., in strong positions, cf. Kümmel 2007: 176–182), and it is attested as a spontaneous change in chain shifts (see below) but less frequently, so it can be judged less probable than *tt > t. As for the lenis stops, model B assumes devoicing of voiced stops in PA. This change d > t is rare as a conditioned change but not infrequent in spontaneous shifts, mostly in chain shifts (see below and cf. Kümmel 2007: 138–142); so its probability is not very high but also not very low. Model A assumes voicing of voiceless stops in PIE. Such a change t > d is very frequent as a conditioned lenition (in weak positions), but is extremely rare as a spontaneous change; in fact, there is no really assured case (cf. Kümmel 2007: 47–54).2 The probability of this change must thus be considered very low. This is not surprising considering the fact that voiced plosives are clearly less “natural” than voiceless ones. After looking at the individual probabilities of the changes, we may also try to evaluate the probabilities of the whole chain shift. Model A presupposes a shift tt > t > d for PIE. This type of change is well attested, but only as a conditioned shift (lenition in weak positions), e.g. in Western Romance, and similarly in some Uralic languages. Sometimes we rather find tt > t > (d >) ð (as in Lycian, cf. also the Finnic “Stufenwechsel”). However, an unconditioned shift of this type is not found anywhere, since initial *t is not expected to change (= yield *d), as it would have to in PIE. Model B assumes a chain shift d > t > tt, and while there is not much evidence for such a shift in conditioned environments, it occurs as a spontaneous shift, though not very frequently:

2 The Western Armenian sound shift is only superfically similar, since it lead to a voiceless lenis = /t/ > [d̥ ] vs. tʰ.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

118

kümmel

In OHG, Pre-OHG *d / θ had changed via *d / ð into OHG t | d, and these developed to Upper German tt | t (in all environments). The change is most clearly attested with dentals, cf. Alemannic (Wallis/Zürich; gemination happened before open syllable lengthening) fater, betōn > fattər, pættu/pættə vs. ledar, ladōn > lætær/lǣtər, latu/lātə; likewise in South Bavarian (Imst, cf. Schatz 1897; gemination after open syllable lengthening) fater, betōn > *fātər, *bɛ̄tən > fɔ̄ ttər, pœi̯ttə; ledar, ladōn > *lɛ̄dər, *lādən > lœi̯tər, lɔ̄ tə. It may also be argued that the somewhat different distribution of fortis pp, kk vs. lenis p, k also reflects a parallel change of (originally allophonic) pre-OHG *b, g ~ *β, ɣ > early OHG *p, k ~ *b, g. The same change is found in IE loanwords into Fennic and Saamic (in noninitial positions), where IE (Germanic or Slavic) t | d is generally reflected as tt | t, cf. Germanic *katila- → Finn. kattila ‘kettle’ vs. *sadula- → Finn. satula ‘saddle’; Germanic *salta- → Saamic *sālttē > Saami S(outh) saelhtie, N(orth) sálti, I(nari) sältti ‘salt’; Germanic *haitaz → Saamic *hājttēs > Saami N háittis ‘hot’ or earlier *xaita- → *kajtta- > Saamic *kōjttē > Saami S guejhtie (Aikio 2006: 27) vs. Germanic *sanda- → Finn. santa, Saamic *sāntē > Saami S saedtie ‘sand’; Germ. *kaupa- > *kawppa > Finn. kauppa, (→) Saamic *kāwppē > Saami N gávpi ‘shop’ vs. Germanic (or Baltic) *naba- → Finn. napa, Saamic *nāpē > Saami S naepie ‘navel’; Slavic *akuna (> CSl. *okъno) → Finn. akkuna ‘window’; *nīti (> CSl. *nitь) → Finn. niitti ‘thread’; *paltina (> CSl. *poltьno) → Finn. palttina ‘canvas’ vs. *iges- (> CSl. ižes-) → *ikes- > Finn. ies, ikeen ‘yoke’; *babu (> CSl. bobъ) → Finn. papu ‘bean’. This kind of chain shift and/or sound substitution appears to be quite typical for the development of all such length-based “fortis-lenis” systems in European languages. 2.3 Conclusion The probabilities of change according to both models are summarized in the following table:

A tt > t t > d tt > t > d conditioned ++ ++ + spontaneous + – –

B t > tt d > t d > t > tt + + ? + + +

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

thoughts about pre-indo-european stop systems

119

While the probabilities for conditioned changes would appear to favour model A, the probabilities for spontaneous changes (simple or connected) clearly favour model B since model A would presuppose an improbable change while model B does not. Therefore scenario B must be considered more probable, and since it assumes a PIE archaism and a PA innovation, we must conclude that it does not provide an argument for an Indo-Anatolian model. As additional evidence in favour of model A, Kloekhorst also adduced the case of original *h₁éssi ‘you are’ which was apparently degeminated in PIE *h₁ési > Vedic ási, Avestan ahī ̆ = Greek eĩ and thus is an independent instance of degemination in PIE. Hittite e-eš-ši ‘you are’ does not show this degemination and thus leaves the possibility that the degemination in *h₁éssi > *h₁ési was a PIE innovation. However, the Hittite form cannot prove this since it could easily represent a trivial analogical innovation, as in Greek Homeric essí beside *ehi, and Armenian es < *essi. We can also adduce the following additional arguments for model B: 1) A length opposition in initial stops is difficult to maintain (and was in fact lost in later Common Anatolian), so we might expect much more variation in PIA (cf. the variation of initial lenis and fortis stops known as “Notkers Anlautgesetz” in OHG) but evidence for such variation is lacking. Even in PA, initial stops must still have preserved a contrast, cf. Luwian j-, w- < *g-, *gʷ- vs. z-, kw- < *k-, *kʷ-. This would be easier to explain if the original opposition was one of voicing and not only of length. 2) The famous PIE/PIA root structure constraints for stops (viz. T…T, D…D vs. the absence of T…D, D…T) are much more plausible with a voicing distinction (cf. Miller 1977ab), since agreement of root-initial and root-final stops in voicing is much more probable than agreement in length. If the stop system thus does not show phonological innovations of PIE vs. PIA, we may ask if there are other common innovations of IE languages vs. PIA. However, potential cases are rather doubtful: The good preservation of laryngeals in Anatolian is possibly the first point coming to our mind, since this means that everywhere else they were weakened and lost to a much higher degree than in Anatolian. However, most of these changes must have been einzelsprachlich due to the differences in details that we can find between the subfamilies, and partial preservation is also found elsewhere (for Indo-Iranian see Kümmel 2016 and 2018). One may also assume that many IE languages reflect a common change from uvular fricatives to (auditively weaker) pharyngeals in the case of *h₂, *h₃ (cf. Kümmel 2007: 336; Weiss 2016: 331; 337 with ref.), but this is just a possibility for some of the branches, so it does not qualify as a clear IE vs. IH innovation. Another candidate might perhaps be the peculiar difference between PIE *h₃ and a PA coronal sound reflected as Hittite s and Luwian d found in Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

120

kümmel

some few words like PIE *h₃okʷ- ‘eye’ = Hitt. sākʷ-, Luwian dāw(ī)- but this is still much too unclear.3

3

Indo-Uralic? Implosives and Sonorants

On Indo-Uralic in general cf. Kortlandt 2002, 2004; Klingenschmitt 2005: 114– 116; Hyllested 2009ab; Kloekhorst 2008b; Kümmel fthc.; Kassian, Zhivlov & Starostin 2015. 3.1 Stops in PIA/PIE/CIE To assess the potential relationship to Uralic, it is important to start from the earliest probable system for PIA. As mentioned above, there is some reason to assume that the “classical” PIE contrast of “voiced aspirates” and voiced stops was an innovation, and that the earlier system had something like voiced explosives vs. implosives instead. To get from this earlier stage to the system presupposed by Indo-Iranian and Greek, we can assume a “Central PIE sound shift” that probably affected most languages, including Tocharian, but possibly not Celtic, Balto-Slavic, and Anatolian (cf. Kümmel 2012ab; 2015), cf. the following schema:

PIA d ɗ

CIE, IIr > d̤ ʱ > d

Greek > th > d

= chain shift ɗ > d > d̤ ʱ (> tʰ)

These changes can be compared with parallel chain shifts in Mon and Tai languages (cf. Diffloth 1984; Li 1977; Pittayawat 2009): Old Mon **ɓ, **ɗ (preserved in Modern > Nyah Kur b, d Mon) Old Mon **b, **d, **g > **b̤ ʱ, **d̤ ʱ, **g̈ ʱ > Nyah Kur pʰ, tʰ, kʰ; Modern Mon p, t, k Proto-Tai **ɓ,**ɗ (preserved in Wu-Ming) > Shan m, l; Po-ai m, n > b, d elsewhere 3 Cf. Ivanov 2001: 133; 2009: 3–5; Hart 2004; Olsen 1992; 2006; Kümmel 2008: 30–31; Kassian & Jakubovič 2013: 22; Kassian, Zhivlov & Starostin 2015: 315 f., 327, 329.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

thoughts about pre-indo-european stop systems

Proto-Tai **b, **d, **g

121

> “Cao Bang” b̤ ʱ, d̤ ʱ, g̈ ʱ (Weiss 2009) > Thai, Lao, Saek pʰ, tʰ, kʰ (vs. preserved inherited p, t, k) > p, t, k elsewhere

Both cases show the same kind of parallel/chain shift, namely d | ɗ > d̤ ʱ | d. Such a shift would plausibly explain the IE data, since it produced a rather unstable system which was nowhere preserved as such. 3.2 Comparison with Uralic One problem for the Indo-Uralic hypothesis is the strong divergence of the stop systems of the protolanguages: While PIA must have had three series *t | d | ɗ, as we have seen before, PU only had one series (and some geminates) of voiceless stops. The possible correspondence of one type to three increases the danger of finding accidental similarities and therefore weakens the possibilities to prove a genetic relation. However, the reconstruction of implosives in PIA increases the probability that one of the three series might have a different correspondence in Uralic. It is well known that implosives = “non-obstruent stops” can alternate with other non-obstruents, i.e., nasals or liquids (cf. Haider 1983: 86; Stewart 1989: 239f.; Clements & Osu 2002; Clements & Rialland 2005: 18). Therefore we may consider the possibility that PIA implosives correspond to PU sonorants. And indeed, PU also had a rather large inventory of phonological nasals made at all places, i.e. *m | n | ń | ŋ, while PIA only had two nasals *m and *n. So the question arises if these nasals could not be the equivalents of one of the PIA series, most probably of the implosives, i.e. PU *m, *n, *ŋ = (pre-)PIA *ɓ (> *m/w), *ɗ, *ɠ. This possibility was already mentioned in Kümmel 2012a: 305, based on the potential equations PIA *jeɠ- ‘ice’ = PU *jäŋə and PIA *ɗek‘to perceive’ = PU *näkə- ‘to see’, but it has never been explored any further. 3.3 Correspondences of PIA “Mediae” To investigate this possibility, I have gathered potential Uralic cognates4 of PIA / PIE words with “mediae”, i.e. former implosives. All of these potential equations must be considered quite tentative at our present state of knowledge. 4 Tentative Uralic reconstructions mainly follow Sammallahti 1988; Häkkinen 2009; Aikio 2012; 2015; Kallio 2012; Zhivlov 2014 (reconstructions based on Tálos 2015 are sometimes given in brackets and marked by T, cf. Tálos 1987; Abondolo 1996,1998). Words often considered loans from IE into Uralic are marked by (L).

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

122

kümmel

1) There is some, but not much potential evidence for PU *t, k = PIA *ɗ, ɠ : PIA *Ɗ = PU *T:

PIA

PU/PFU/PFP

*ɗeh₃- ‘to give/take’ (L) *toxə- ‘to bring, get, give, sell’ (T *taɣi̮-): PS *tuokə-, Hung. toj*ɠlH̥ -(e)w*käläw ‘sister-in-law’: PS *kālō-, Finn. käly *woɗ-/weɗ(L) *wetə ‘water’ (T *wǟti): Finn. vesi, Hung. víz *ge(n)ɗ- ‘to seize’ *kanta- ‘load, bring’: PS *kuontē-, Selk. quenda-

2) There is more possible evidence for PU sonorants = PIA *ɗ, ɠ/ɠ ʷ/ʛ, although many cases are of course questionable.

a) PIA *Ɗ = PU *L *seɗ- ‘to sit’

*sälə- ‘to sit down’: Komi se̮l-, Chanty jel-/tet-, Selk. ti*meɗ- ‘to measure, think’ *mälə ‘mind’: PS *mielə, Finn. mieli, Komi mil ̮ ?*kēr, kerɗ -, kr̥ɗ- ‘heart’ ?*ćüδä-mə ‘heart’ (T *śǟδmɜ): PS *čəðē, Finn. sydän, Hung. szív [PU *δ, *δʲ have been interpreted as laterals] b) PIA *Ɗ = PU *N5 *ɗek- ‘to accept, perceive’ *näkə- ‘to see’: Finn. nähdä, Hung. néz-, Chanty ni(ɣʷ)*ɗuk- ‘to draw, lead’ *ńükə- ‘to draw, tear’: Hung. nyű, Mansi ńüw-, Selk. nek*ɗn̥ g-wéh₂- ‘tongue’ *ńaŋk-ćə ‘tongue, gums’: PS *ňuokčəm-, Chanty ńaŋχšəm, Nen. ńińćīʔ ?*ɗig- ‘tick’ *ńiŋə ‘maggot’ (T *ńǟŋi): Saami N njivnja; Hung. nyű, Mansi ńiŋʷkʷ

5 The Uralic distinction of *n and *ń appears not to be reflected in PIA. Either it was secondary or two sounds had merged in pre-PIA.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

thoughts about pre-indo-european stop systems

123

(cont.)

b) PIA *Ɗ = PU *N ?*peɗ- ‘to step, fall; foot’ *jeɠ-i/o- ‘ice’ *juɠʷ- ‘to join’ ?*luɠ- ‘to loosen, break’ *piɠ- ‘to gnaw?’ *buɠ/g- ‘to bend’? ?*Heʛ- in PIIr. *(H)ágra‘beginning’? ?*seʛ- ‘to stick, grab’ ?*bleɠ- ‘to shine’ ?*seʛ- ‘to stick, fasten’ ?*neɠ (-o)- ‘sister’ (only Anatolian!)6 ?*beʛ- ‘to break’

̈ -): ̄ Finn. pane-, Mansi pon-, *panə- ‘to put’ (T *pïni̮ Ngan. huan*jäŋə ‘ice’: PS *jieŋə, Finn. jää, Hung. jég *je̮ŋ-sə ‘bow’ (T *juŋus/*juŋsu): PS *juoksə, Hung. íj, Selk. i̮nti̮ *luŋə- ‘to lift’: PS *loŋə-, Finn. luoda, Hung. lóg *piŋə ‘tooth’: Finn. pii, Hung. fog *poŋə ‘bosom’ (T *puŋu): PS *puoŋə, Finn. povi, Chanty puɣəl *e̮ŋa- ‘to open’ (T *ɨ̄ŋa-): Finn. avaa, Mansi ē̮ŋk-, Chanty aŋə*seŋə- ‘to comb’ (T*sǖni-): Mordva sem-/sej-; Komi sin̮ *pilŋə ‘cloud’ (T *pǟliŋ/*pǟlŋi): Finn. pilvi ?*saŋ-ća- ‘to stand’ (T *sańťa-): PS *čuoňčō-; Chanty *ɬańť?*niŋä ‘woman’ in Saami I niŋálâs, Chanty ni(ŋ), Hung. nő (?); cf. Čop 1979: 21 f. *päŋə ‘head’: Finn. pää; Hung. fő, Ngan. feai

3.4 Conclusion If his rather limited material shows us something real, it supports the idea that PIA implosives can correspond to Uralic sonorants and not only to stops. The evidence appears to be small for non-nasal sonorants and a bit better for nasals: the numbers are roughly equal for PU *t = PIA *ɗ and for PU *N = PIA *ɗ ; in the case of tectals the latter type seems to be a bit better attested. Of course, this then raises a question about the PIU state of affairs: what should we reconstruct here? Do PIA implosives = PU nasals (and laterals) and/or stops reflect PIU implosives or nasals—or something else? So again, do we have a PIA archaism and a PU change: PIU *ɓ, *ɗ, *ɠ > PU *p~m, *t~n, *k~ŋ? Or is a PU archaism and a PIA change more probable, i.e., PIU *m, *n, *ŋ > PIA *m~ɓ, *n~ɗ, *ɠ ?

6 A new IA etymology is given by Steer 2015: 43–60; if correct, the comparison made here would be impossible.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

124

kümmel

As far as we know now, a change from nasals to implosives or to any kind of non-nasal stops is not a common type of sound change cross-linguistically. In contrast, changes from implosives to sonorants, including nasals, are much better attested (as already mentioned above). It follows that PIU implosives would be more probable, if the equations given above reflect something real. Thus, the most probable PIU system of stop articulation types would either be identical to the one of PIA or contain only one series of explosives vs. one of implosives, if the distinction of voice in PIA arose by a secondary split (as it did, e.g., in Hungarian).

4

Summary

In these two studies, the prehistory of the PIE and the PIA system of stop articulation types has been investigated. In the first case, the most probable type of distinction between fortis and lenis stops in PIA was investigated, with the result that diachronic typology favours the reconstruction of a PIA system with distinctive voicing, as in PIE, vs. an original system based on a quantity distinction, as in PA. The most archaic PIA system (including implosive stops) was then compared to PU, with the result that the PIA implosives may correspond at least partly to Uralic sonorants, especially nasals. This correspondence is best explained as a PIA preservation of the original PIU sounds vs. a change of implosives to sonorants and/or explosives in PU. The reconstruction of the respective system types is given in the following table of correspondences: table 8.1

Table of correspondences of stop types

Core IE *t

*dʱ

*d

PIE

*t

*d

*ɗ

PA

*t:

*t

PIA

*t

*d

PU

*t

PIU

*t

*ɗ *n (*l) ~ *t

*d?

*ɗ

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

125

thoughts about pre-indo-european stop systems

Appendix: Similarities of Indo-Anatolian and Uralic 1

Strong Similarities in Pronouns and Grammatical Markers Pronouns

1st

2nd

3rd

PU *m- ~ -n- *t ~ -nt*sPIA *m-, *n- *t- [~ *w-] *s-

Interrogatives

Demonstratives

PU *ku, ko*miPIA *ku-, kwi/e– *mo

sg. *tä-, **to- *ći/-e- *i/epl. *nä-, *no*to*ki/e- *(h₁)i/e– *no-

Nominal Markers

PU PIA

PU PIA

Plural

Dual

*-t / *-i*-s / *-j-

*-k *-h₁

Accusative

Ablative-partitive

Lative

Locative

Genitive

*-m *-m

*-tA *-t(i),*-s, *-tos

*-k *-h

*-nA *-n/r

*-n [*-(ó)s] (*-n-?)

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

126

kümmel

Verbal Markers

1s

2s

1p

2p

3s

3p

PU *-m(ə) *-t(ə) *-mA- *-tA- *-Ø *-n PIA *-m(i) *-s(i) *-me *-te *-Ø / *-t(i) *-r / -nt(i)

Participles PU *-ntA- *-tA- *-məPIA *-nt- *-tó- *-mo-?

2

Past

Modal

*-i?

imp. *-ksubj. *-ho-?

Additional Lexical Material

PIA/PIE

PU/PFU

*wed- ‘to lead’

(L) *wetä- ‘to lead’ (T *wǟtä-): Finn. vetä-, Hung. vezet *medu- ‘mead, honey’ (L) *metə ‘honey’ (T *mǟti): Finn. mesi, Hung. méz/méze*h₁em- ‘to take’ *ɨm-ta- ‘to give’ (T *amta-): PS *wuomtē-, Finn. anta-, Hung. ad *Hjuh₂- ‘to eat’ (Nikolaev 2014) *juxə- ‘to drink’ (T *jaɣi̮-): PS *jukə-, Finn. juo-, Hung. iv*Hjud- ‘to move’ *juta- ‘to wander, travel’: PS *juttē-, Mordva juta-, Nen. jādā *deh₁- ‘to do, put’ (L) *tekə- ‘to do, make’ (T *tǟki-): PS *təkə-, F. teke-, Hung. tev*teq- ‘to weave’ *tekV- ‘to push’: Komi toj-, Hung. tűz-, Chanty tök*kerw-/kru- ‘horn’ (L) *ćorwa ‘horn’ (T *śārwa): PS *čoarwē, Finn. sarvi, Hung. szarv *ges- ‘hand’ *kätə ‘hand’: PS *kietə, Finn. käsi, Mari kit, Hung. kéz/keze- ?*qelh₁- ‘to impel’ *kaδʲa- ‘to let, leave’: PS *kuoðē-, Hung. hagy ?*qelh₁- ‘to bring, impel’ *kälä- ‘to wade’: PS *kālē-, Hung. kel-

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

thoughts about pre-indo-european stop systems

127

(cont.)

PIA/PIE

PU/PFU

*kʷek- ‘to look’ *kʷelh₁- ‘to turn’ *leNd- ‘low’

*kokə- ‘to see’: Finn. koke-, Selk. qo*kulkə- ‘to move’: PS *kolkə-, Hung. halad, Nen. χūlā*lamtə ‘low’ (T *lamta): Finn. lansi, Komi lud, Nen. lamtū

References Abondolo, D. 1996. Vowel Rotation in Uralic: Obug(r)ocentric Evidence. SSEES Occasional Papers, 31. London: University of London. Abondolo, D. 1998. Introduction. In: D. Abondolo (ed.), The Uralic Languages. London– New York: Routledge, 1–42. Aikio, A. (Luobbal Sámmol Sámmol Ánte) 2006. On Germanic-Saami contacts and Saami prehistory. Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 91, 9–55. Aikio, A. (Luobbal Sámmol Sámmol Ánte) 2012. On Finnic long vowels, Samoyed vowel sequences, and Proto-Uralic *x. In: T. Hyytiäinen; L. Jalava; J. Saarkivi; E. Sandman (eds.), Per Urales ad Orientem. Iter polyphonicum multilingue. Festskrift tillägnad Juha Janhunen på hans sextioårsdag den 12 februari 2012. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society, 227–250. Aikio, A. (Luobbal Sámmol Sámmol Ánte) 2015. The Finnic ‘secondary e-stems’ and Proto-Uralic vocalism. Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 95, 25–66. Clements, G.N.; Sylvester Osu 2002. Explosives, implosives, and nonexplosives: Some linguistic effects of air pressure differences in stops. In: C. Gussenhoven; N. Warner (eds.), Laboratory Phonology 7. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 299–350. Čop, B. 1979. Indogermanisch-Anatolisch und Uralisch. In: E. Neu; W. Meid (eds.), Hethitisch und Indogermanisch. Vergleichende Studien zur historischen Grammatik und zur dialektgeographischen Stellung der indogermanischen Sprachgruppe Altkleinasiens. Innsbruck: IBS, 9–24. Diffloth, G. 1984. The Dvaravati Old Mon language and Nyah Kur. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Printing House. Haider, H. 1983. Der Fehlschluß der Typologie. In: W. Meid (ed.), Philologie und Sprachwissenschaft: Akten der 10. Österreichischen Linguisten-Tagung Innsbruck, 23.–26. Oktober 1982. Innsbruck: IBS, 79–92. Häkkinen, J. 2009. Kantauralin ajoitus ja paikannus: perustelut puntarissa. Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 92, 9–56.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

128

kümmel

Hart, G.R. 2004. Some problems in Anatolian phonology and etymology. In: J.H.W. Penney (ed.), Indo-European Perspectives. Studies in Honour of Anna Morpurgo Davies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 341–354. Hyllested, A. 2009a. Internal reconstruction vs. external comparison: the case of the Indo-Uralic larnygeals. In: T. Olander; J.E. Rasmussen (eds.), Internal Reconstruction in Indo-European: Methods, Results and Problems. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum, 111–136. Hyllested, A. 2009b. PIE *-bh- in nouns and verbs: Distribution, function, origin. In: R. Lühr; S. Ziegler (eds.), Protolanguage and Prehistory. Akten der XII. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 11. bis 15. Oktober 2004 in Krakau. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 201–214. Ivanov, V.V. 2001. Southern Anatolian and Northern Anatolian as separate Indo-European dialects and Anatolian as a late linguistic zone. In: R. Drews (ed.), Greater Anatolian and the Indo-Hittite family. Washington: Institute for the Study of Man, 131–183. Ivanov, V.V. 2009. K issledovaniju otnošenij meždu jazykami. Journal of Language Relationship 1, 1–12. Kallio, P. 2012. The non-initial-syllable vowel reductions from Proto-Uralic to ProtoFinnic In: T. Hyytiäinen; L. Jalava; J. Saarkivi; E. Sandman (eds.), Per Urales ad Orientem: Iter polyphonicum multilingue. Festskrift tillägnad Juha Janhunen på hans sextioårsdag den 12 februari 2012. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society, 163–175. Kassian, A.S.; I.S. Jakubovič 2013. Anatolijskie jazyki. In: J.B. Korjakov; A.A. Kibrik (eds.), Jazyki mira: Reliktovye indoevropejskie jazyki perednej i central’noj Azii. Moscow: Academia, 15–26. Kassian, A.; M. Zhivlov; G. Starostin 2015. Proto-Indo-European-Uralic comparison from the probabilistic point of view. Journal of Indo-European Studies 43, 301–347. Klingenschmitt, G. 2005. Sprachverwandtschaft in Europa. In: G. Hauska (ed.), Gene, Sprachen und ihre Evolution. Wie verwandt sind die Menschen, wie verwandt sind ihre Sprachen? Regensburg: Universitätsverlag, 100–132. Kloekhorst, A. 2008a. Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon. Leiden– Boston: Brill. Kloekhorst, A. 2008b. Some Indo-Uralic aspects of Hittite. Journal of Indo-European Studies 36, 88–95. Kloekhorst, A. 2010. Initial stops in Hittite (with an excursus on the spelling of stops in Alalaḫ Akkadian). Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 100, 197–241. Kloekhorst, A. 2013. The signs TA and DA in Old Hittite: Evidence for a phonetic difference. Altorientalische Forschungen 40, 125–141. Kloekhorst, A. 2014. The Proto-Anatolian consonant system: An argument in favor of the Indo-Hittite hypothesis? Talk at The Sound of Indo-European 3: Phonetics, Phonemics, and Morphophonemics, Opava, Nov. 13, 2014.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

thoughts about pre-indo-european stop systems

129

Kloekhorst, A. 2016. The Anatolian stop system and the Indo-Hittite hypothesis. Indogermanische Forschungen 121, 213–247. Kortlandt, F. 1985. Proto-Indo-European glottalic stops: the comparative evidence. Folia Linguistica Historica 6/2, 183–201. Kortlandt, F. 2002. The Indo-Uralic verb. In: R. Blokland; C. Hasselblatt (eds.), FinnoUgrians and Indo-Europeans: Linguistic and Literary Contacts. Maastricht: Shaker, 217–227 [= 2010: 391–403]. Kortlandt, F. 2004. Indo-Uralic consonant gradation. In: I. Hyvärinen; P. Kallio; J. Korhonen (eds.), Etymologie, Entlehnungen und Entwicklungen. Festschrift für Jorma Koivulehto zum 70. Geburtstag. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique, 163–170 [= 2010: 409– 414]. Kortlandt, F. 2010. Studies in Germanic, Indo-European, and Indo-Uralic. Amsterdam– New York: Rodopi. Kümmel, M.J. 2007. Konsonantenwandel. Bausteine zu einer Typologie des Lautwandels und ihre Konsequenzen für die vergleichende Rekonstruktion. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Kümmel, M.J. 2008. Review of John H.W. Penney (ed.), Indo-European Perspectives. Studies in Honour of Anna Morpurgo Davies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Kratylos 53, 25–35. Kümmel, M.J. 2012a. Typology and reconstruction: The consonants and vowels of ProtoIndo-European. In: B. Nielsen Whitehead; T. Olander; B.A. Olsen; J.E. Rasmussen (eds.), The Sound of Indo-European. Phonetics, Phonemics, and Morphophonemics. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum, 291–329. Kümmel, M.J. 2012b. The distribution of IE roots ending in IE *ND. In: R. Sukač; O. Šefčík (eds.), The Sound of Indo-European 2. Papers on Indo-European Phonetics, Phonemics and Morphophonemics. München: LINCOM, 159–176. Kümmel, M.J. 2015. The role of typology in historical phonology. In: P. Honeybone; J.C. Salmons (eds.), The Handbook of Historical Phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 121–132. Kümmel, M.J. 2016. Is ancient old and modern new? Fallacies of attestation and reconstruction (with special focus on Indo-Iranian). In: D.M. Goldstein; S.W. Jamison; B. Vine (eds.), Proceedings of the 27th Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference. Bremen: Hempen, 79–96. Kümmel, M.J. 2018. The survival of laryngeals in Iranian. In: L. van Beek; A. Kloekhorst; G. Kroonen; M. Peyrot; T. Pronk; M. de Vaan (eds.), Farnah. Indo-Iranian and IndoEuropean Studies in Honor of Sasha Lubotsky. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave, 162–172. Kümmel, M.J. fthc. Verwandte des Indogermanischen? Zur Frage des “Eurasiatischen” und anderer Makrofamilien. In: H. Hettrich; S. Ziegler (eds.), Die Ausbreitung des Indogermanischen. Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Würzburg, 24. bis 26. September 2009. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Li, F.K. 1977. A Handbook of Comparative Tai. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

130

kümmel

Miller, D.G. 1977a. Some theoretical and typological implications of an Indo-European root structure constraint. Journal of Indo-European Studies 5, 31–130. Miller, D.G. 1977b. Bartholomae’s Law and an IE root constraint. In: P.J. Hopper (ed.), Studies in Descriptive and Historical Linguistics: Festschrift for W.P. Lehmann. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 365–392. Nikolaev, A.S. 2014. Greek εἱαμενή, Vedic yávasa-. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 68, 127–140. Olsen, B.A. 1992. Notulae Indogermanicae I. Copenhagen Working Papers in Linguistics 2, 13–18. Olsen, B.A. 2006. Hittite š from *h₃? In: G. Carling (ed.), GIŠ.ḪARgu-ul-za-at-ta-ra, Festschrift for Folke Josephson. Göteborg: Meijerbergs arkiv för svensk ordforskning, 237– 247. Pittayawat, P. 2009. The Phonology of Proto-Tai. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University. Rieken, E. 2008. Die Zeichen ⟨ta⟩, ⟨tá⟩ und ⟨tà⟩ in den hieroglyphen-luwischen Inschriften der Nachgroßreichszeit. In: A. Archi; R. Francia (eds.), VI Congresso Internazionale di Ittitologia, Roma, 5–9 settembre 2005, Parte II, 637–648. Sammallahti, P. 1988. Historical phonology of the Uralic languages with special reference to Samoyed, Ugric, and Permic. In: D. Sinor (ed.), The Uralic Languages. Description, History and Foreign Influences. Leiden–New York: Brill, 478–554. Schatz, J. 1897. Die Mundart von Imst. Laut- und Flexionslehre. Strassburg: Trübner. Steer, T. 2015. Amphikinese und Amphigenese. Morphologische und phonologische Untersuchungen zur Genese amphikinetischer Sekundärbildungen und zur internen Derivation im Indogermanischen. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Stewart, J.M. 1989. Kwa. In: J. Bendor-Samuel (ed.), The Niger-Congo Languages: a Classification and Description of Africa’s Largest Language Family. Lanham: University Press of America, 216–245. Tálos, E. 1987. On the vowels of Proto-Uralic. In: K. Rédei (ed.), Studien zur Phonologie und Morphologie der uralischen Sprachen: Akten der 3. Tagung für uralische Phonologie, Eisenstadt, 28. Juni–1. Juli 1984. Wien: Verband der wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaften Österreichs, 70–80. Tálos, E. 2015. Az ősuráli vokalizmus természetes rekonstrukciója. Manuscript. Weiss, M. 2009. The Cao Bang Theory. Available online at http://conf.ling.cornell.edu/ weiss/Cao_Bang_Theory.pptx (July 6, 2015). Weiss, M. 2016. The Proto-Indo-European laryngeals and the name of Cilicia in the Iron Age. In: A.M. Byrd; J. DeLisi; M. Wenthe (eds.), Tavet tat satyam. Studies in Honor of Jared S. Klein on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday. Ann Arbor–New York: Beech Stave Press, 331–339. Zhivlov, M. 2014. Studies in Uralic vocalism III. Journal of Language Relationship / Voprosy jazykovogo rodstva 12, 113–148.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

chapter 10

The Anatolian “Ergative”* Milan Lopuhaä-Zwakenberg

1

Introduction

One of the characteristic features of the Anatolian languages that sets them apart from the other Indo-European languages is the fact that neuter nouns that are the subject of transitive sentences (the Agent position) do not appear in their nominative/accusative form. Instead they receive a suffix, for example Hittite sg. -anza, pl. -anteš, that is traditionally called the ergative suffix. Such a terminology implicitly presupposes that Anatolian has an actual ergative case, as has been argued for by Garrett (1990). This is, however, not the only theory on the place of the suffix -anza/-anteš within the grammatical system of the Anatolian languages. Laroche (1962) and Benveniste (1962) segment the suffixes into -anza = /-ant-s/ and -anteš = /-ant-es/, so that they consist of a suffix -antand a common nominative ending -š/-eš. Thus, under this analysis, there exists a suffix -ant- that transforms a neuter word into a common gender one. Patri (2007), on the other hand, considers the ergative construction to be a special instance of the ablative case,1 which in Hittite has an allomorph -anza. Since there is no consensus whether the “ergative” actually is a separate case in the grammar of the Anatolian languages, in this article I will use the more neutral term agentive2 and reserve the term ergative for a proper morphological case. The discussion on the function of the Anatolian agentive is primarily a synchronic one. As such, the function of the agentive is to be decided in every Anatolian language separately. The discussion has mostly centered on Hittite, as this is the Anatolian language of which the most textual material has survived. Recently Goedegebuure (2013) has given a diachronic description of the

* This paper is based on a term paper for a course on Hieroglyphic Luwian taught at Leiden University in 2013 by Alwin Kloekhorst, to whom I am greatful for helpful commentary. This paper was written while the author was a Ph.D. student at Radboud University. 1 Garrett (1990) considers the ablative to be the origin of the ergative case in Anatolian, but in his analysis the ablative and ergative are two separate cases in synchronic Anatolian. 2 Not to be confused, of course, with agentive nouns such as those formed by the suffix -er in English, e.g. walk → walker.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004409354_011 Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

132

lopuhaä-zwakenberg

agentive in Hittite. She shows that the agentive was a syntactic suffix -ant- in Middle Hittite, whose nominative singular -anza and plural -anteš became fossilised in Neo-Hittite as endings of a new ergative case. The aim of this article is to expand upon Goedegebuure’s research by determining the synchronic role of the agentive construction in the grammar of the Anatolian languages in which it is attested, namely Hittite, Cuneiform Luwian, Hieroglyphic Luwian and Lycian.3 After this is established, I will determine the Proto-Anatolian origins of these ergative constructions. Finally, I will consider its implications for the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European and for the Indo-Anatolian hypothesis.

2

Proposals for Analyses of the Agentive

As was mentioned before, there have been several proposals for the analysis of the Anatolian agentive, all of which are neatly summarised by Melchert (2007). One can distinguish between the following four analyses, presented here for the Hittite agentive suffix -anza/-anteš: 1. The semantical or derivational analysis. Under this analysis, proposed by Benveniste (1962), the agentive suffix -anza/-anteš consists of a suffix -antand the nominative endings of the common gender. The suffix -ant- is a derivational suffix that creates an animate noun from an inanimate noun by means of personification. Hence, under this analysis, one cannot use the word lingāi ‘oath’ in the agent position, and one has to resort to using linkii̯anteš ‘oath gods’, which has a different but similar meaning. 2. The syntactical or inflectional analysis. This analysis, first proposed by Laroche (1962), also considers the agentive suffix -anza/-anteš to consist of an inflectional suffix -ant- and the nominative common gender endings. The difference between this analysis and the previous one is that under this analysis the suffix -ant- does not have any semantic value. Instead this analysis posits that neuter nouns, as a rule, cannot be syntactic agents. To express a situation in which a neuter noun is the actor of an action with a patient, the suffix -ant- must be used to change the morphological gender of the neuter noun into the common gender, without affecting the semantics of the noun. 3 Valério (2009) raises the possibility that Palaic fulāsinanza is a possible example of the agentive construction of a Hattic loan fulāsina ‘bread’, although he prefers an interpretation fulāsin-ant-s ‘having bread’. At any rate the context is too scarce to provide enough information about the role of the agentive in Palaic.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

133

the anatolian “ergative”

3.

The ergative analysis. This analysis has been argued for by Garrett (1990). Under this analysis the suffixes -anza and -anteš cannot be decomposed. Instead, these suffixes are endings of a distinct morphological case, the ergative, which only occurs in neuter nouns. 4. The ablative analysis. This analysis, proposed by Patri (2007), considers the agentive suffix -anza to be a special use of the ablative case. In Hittite, this case is indifferent to number. It occurs mostly as -az, but it has an allomorph -anza. According to this analysis, neuter nouns with the suffix -anteš are actually not agentives, but nominative plurals of derived nouns. Before I try to fit the Anatolian data on these four analyses it is useful to discuss how one can determine which of the analyses is correct for each Anatolian language; this will streamline the discussion in the later sections. First, as was shown by Melchert (2007: 163–164), the ablative analysis cannot hold in Hittite for a number of reasons. First, if the agentive construction is a special use of the ablative case, one would expect some attestations of the agentive construction with the more common ablative allomorph -az.4 Furthermore, the Hittite ablative is indifferent to number, whereas the agentive construction has a distinct plural. Finally, if the agentive construction featured an ablative case, one would expect accompanying adjectives and demonstratives to be in the ablative case as well. As Melchert shows this does not happen in Hittite; the agreement relations of the agentive construction will be discussed shortly. In the Luwic languages the same reasons hold. In fact, in these languages the ablative ending is different from the agentive suffix, as can be seen from the following table:

Agentive

Hieroglyphic Luwian Cuneiform Luwian Lycian

Singular

Plural

-antis -antiš ?

? -antinzi -ẽti

Ablative

-adi -adi -edi, -adi

4 As Melchert notes, although there are some neuter nouns in which the agentive appears as -az, this is due to “nasal reduction” and the suffix is underlyingly still /-ants/ rather than the ablative ending /-ats/.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

134

lopuhaä-zwakenberg

Thus in all Anatolian languages the agentive construction does not feature the ablative case. From this point onwards I will not include the ablative analysis in my discussion. If the suffix -ant- is a semantical derivation, one expects its usage to be determined semantically rather than syntactically. As such, one expects a derivation X-ant- derived from a noun X to have a different meaning. Since their distribution is determined semantically, one also expects the derived noun Xant- to appear in other cases than the nominative, and one also expects some instances of X in the agent position. Also, the usage of the suffix would not be determined by morphological gender, but by some semantic property. This property would most likely be inanimacy, as is argued for by Benveniste (1962). The correlation between the neuter gender and semantic inanimacy is not perfect, however, and we would expect a semantic derivation -ant- to appear on inanimate common gender words as well. It should be noted that there is a semantic suffix -ant- in Hittite with many different uses, such as a singulative use and an abundative use; these uses have been described by Josephson (2004). It is a priori possible that the agentive is one of the functions of this suffix; this is especially attractive since one of the functions of the suffix -ant- is to form agent nouns. It is very well possible that this suffix is the historical origin of the agentive construction in Anatolian (Oettinger, 2001). Before investigating this possibility, however, it is necessary to determine the synchronic function of the agentive construction. The remaining two hypotheses, that -anza reflects either an inflectional suffix -ant- or a proper ergative ending, are harder to distinguish. In both of these cases the use of the agentive construction would be determined by a grammatical rather than a semantic feature of the sentence, namely the morphological gender of the agent. Also, under both of these analyses we expect no difference in meaning between a noun X and the form X-ant- in the agentive construction. According to Melchert (2007) an inflectional suffix would be expected to appear in all morphological cases. However, this reasoning is not fully correct; if a neuter agent is the grammatical condition that defines the use of an inflectional suffix -ant-, we would not expect to see it anywhere but in the nominative singular and plural. The comparison Melchert makes with Latin dea ← deus is not fully applicable, since dea differs in meaning from deus. If the inflectional suffix -ant- is only used in the agent position, it only appears in the common gender nominative forms -anza and -anteš. As such, the difference between the syntactical analysis and the ergative analysis cannot be seen from the forms in -anza and -anteš themselves.5 5 Of course, one might argue that a language with a grammatical suffix which can only occur in

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

135

the anatolian “ergative”

The difference between these two analyses, as is mentioned by Melchert, is that under the ergative analysis the underlying noun X-ant- is of the common gender, whereas under the syntactical analysis the underlying noun X is a neuter noun. Since a resumptive pronoun corresponding to X bears the morphological gender of X, anaphoric reference can show us which analysis is correct: if a noun in the agentive construction is resumed by a neuter pronoun, this shows that the ergative analysis is correct, whereas if the resumptive pronoun is of the common gender, the syntactical analysis is correct. Furthermore, if X governs an adjective Y, we expect Y to appear in the common nominative if the suffix -anza is decomposable, and in the neuter ergative if it is indecomposable. Of course, a priori the adjectival common nominative ending might be identical to the neuter ergative ending, so formally an attestation of the form Y-aš X-anza does not allow us to distinguish between the two analyses. If, however, we find a construction of the form Y-anza X-anza, this is a clear argument in favour of the ergative analysis. The following table gives an overview of the characteristics that allow us to distinguish between analyses. In particular, we can see that if a difference in meaning between the base noun and the noun in the agentive position is found, then it is certain that the derivational analysis is correct in that example. The same holds if we find the agentive construction applied to a common gender base noun. On the other hand, if a word in the agentive construction has a modifying adjective with an ending that is not the common nominative ending, or if it is resumed by a neuter pronoun, the ergative analysis must be correct. In the next sections I will discuss the languages in which the agentive construction is attested one by one.

Difference in meaning Gender of base noun Adjectives Resumptive pronouns

Derivational analysis

Inflectional analysis

Ergative analysis

Yes Common/Neuter Common nominative Common

No Neuter Common nominative Common

No Neuter Neuter ergative Neuter

the nominative case is a very unstable scenario, and that the suffix would be reanalysed into a proper case soon. This, however, does not rule out the possibility that -ant- is an inflectional suffix as a synchronic description.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

136 3

lopuhaä-zwakenberg

The Agentive in Hittite

I start by summarising the results of Goedegebuure (2013) on the Hittite agentive construction. She distinguishes between Old, Middle and Neo-Hittite. Her theory is as follows. In Old Hittite the agentive construction is purely semantical, and can be seen as an instance of the singulative use of the suffix -ant-. By the time of Middle Hittite, however, the agentive construction had been grammaticalised and had lost its semantic value. In Middle Hittite, nouns in the agentive construction are resumed by both neuter and common gender pronouns; as such it could be ambiguously analysed as both an inflectional suffix and an ergative ending. The diachronical development is clear: after the suffix was grammaticalised, it could only appear in its nominative forms -anza and -anteš. The lack of inflection led to a reanalysis as case endings of the underlying neuter word rather than a suffix which changed the morphological gender. We find the same ambiguous analysis for the adjectives governed by nouns in the agentive construction. These either have a common gender nominative ending -š or a neuter gender ergative ending -anza, also confirming the fact that in Middle Hittite both the inflectional and the ergative analysis can be applied. Here, the ergative adjective ending -anza was introduced from the nominal inflection. Although the agentive construction in Middle Hittite is in development between a grammatical suffix and a morphological case, by the time of NeoHittite, we only find neuter resumptive pronouns and adjectives in -anza. This indicates that in Neo-Hittite the agentive construction can unambiguously be analysed as an ergative case. Thus in Hittite we can clearly see a development from a suffix with a semantic value to a grammatical suffix to the formation of a new case. Still, however, the singulative suffix -ant- continued to exist in Neo-Hittite as a semantic derivation. While Goedegebuure provides evidence for the stages of Middle and NeoHittite, she does not give any evidence for her claim that in Old Hittite the agentive was only semantical. To investigate this claim one would have to consider all Old Hittite attestations for the agentive. By my knowledge, there are only two of such attestations, which we will discuss below.6

6 A short discussion of the agentive construction in Old Hittite is found in Kammenhuber 1993, who remarked that the argumentation of Laroche (1962) for the syntactical analysis of the agentive does not take the Old Hittite evidence into account. She proposes that in Old Hittite the neuter noun italu ‘evil’ occurs in its nominative-accusative form as the subject of both transitive and intransitive sentences. She gives the following example from KBo 18.151, rev. 7–8:

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

137

the anatolian “ergative”

Example 1: KBo 25.107, 4–6 4. [a]p-pu-uz-zi kar-ta-x[…] 5. ták-ku=uš še-e-er […] 6. [ap]-pu-uz-zi-an-za […] ‘… the animal fat …; if thus the animal fat … them’ Although the text from Example 1 is too fragmentary to completely make out the meaning of the sentence, we can see that we are dealing with a derived form of the neuter word appuzzi ‘animal fat’. Although the verb of this sentence is lost, the fact that the accusative plural common enclitic pronoun =uš appears in this sentence shows that the sentence must be transitive. The question is now whether there is a difference in meaning between appuzzianza in this text and the neuter word appuzzi. The text VBoT 58 is a new script copy of this text. In this text we find the sentence (i 13–14) takku=aš t[innuzi] nu=ma=ašta andurza UZUap[p]uzzii̯anza ḫarzi ‘If he paralyzes (the grains), the fat will keep them within’ (Puhvel 1984: 103).7 In this sentence it is clear that there is no semantic difference between appuzzi and appuzzianza. The same is probably true in Example 1, since appuzzi in line 4 and appuzzianza in line 6 probably have the same referent. This means that the suffix -anza has a grammatical role in this sentence, and as such either the syntactical or the ergative analysis is correct in this instance. However, the context is too meagre to decide which of the two is applicable. Example 2: KUB 36.106 rev. 5–7 5. [ … tu]p-pí-aš ut-ta-a-ar šar-ri-et-[ta] 6. [ … l]i-in-ki-i ̯a-an-te-eš ap-pa-an-tu 7. [ … ] n=a-aš ḫar-ak-tu ‘The word of the tablet is broken. The oaths must seize … . He must perish.’ 7. [i-t]a-lu[(-u̯a) a-ra-i-iš ḫ]e-ẹn-ka-an ta-aš 8. [ … ]x[ … t]a-aš a-aš-šu ar-ḫa tu-uḫ-še-et ‘Evil arose; it took the plague; it took …; it has cut off the good’ However, as remarked by Weitenberg (1987: 227), since the actual ending of the word is not attested, this fragment is too indecisive to constitute evidence for the use of neuter nominative-accusative forms in the agent position in Old Hittite. 7 Alwin Kloekhorst (p.c.) informs me that this interpretation (by Puhvel) cannot be correct, since the clitic =ma cannot follow the sentence-initial particle nu-.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

138

lopuhaä-zwakenberg

In Example 2 we find the agentive of the neuter word lingai- ‘oath’. To find out what the semantics of linkiia̯ nteš is we have to consider the context. The preceding and following lines show that the sentence in line 6 is part of a curse formula. This makes one suspect that linkii̯anteš means ‘oath gods’ rather than ‘oaths’. It should be noted that we find NI-IŠ DINGIRMES ap-pa-an-t[u] ‘the oath gods must seize’ earlier in the same text. Thus the most probable explanation is that the word linkii̯anteš is semantically different from lingai-, so in this instance the evidence points toward the semantical analysis. Although the material is quite scarce, we see from Example 1 that it is probable that the agentive suffix -ant- had a grammatical function in Old Hittite already. This invalidates the suggestion of Goedegebuure (2013) that the suffix -ant- only had a semantical function. We cannot see whether the agentive consists of a syntactical suffix -ant- or of an unanalysable ending -anza from the Old Hittite evidence itself. However, since we see an ergative ending -anza develop from a syntactical suffix -ant- from Middle to Neo-Hittite, the Old Hittite agentive is best to be interpreted as a syntactic suffix -ant- as well.

4

The Agentive in Cuneiform Luwian

There are several attestations of the agentive in Cuneiform Luwian, but the number is small enough to treat every attestation in detail. In this section all Luwian forms are discussed that are marked as an ergative by Melchert (1993); all texts are from Melchert (2001a). Example 3: KUB 9.6+ ii 14–16 14. a-a-aš-ša=ti e-el-ḫa-a-du tap-pa-ša-an-ti-iš 15. ti-i ̯a-am-ma-an-ti-iš ta-a-i-in=ti-i̯=a-ta a-i-i̯a-ru 16. ma-al-li=ti-i̯=a-ta [a-]i-i̯a-ru ‘The sky and the earth must wash their mouths; they must become oil; they must become honey’ Example 3 contains the agentives of the nouns tappaš- ‘sky’ and tii̯amm(i)‘earth’. The latter is a common gender word, as its nominative singular tii̯ammiš and its accusative singular tii̯ammin have both been attested. This already shows that the suffix -ant- cannot have a grammatical function and must be semantical. This can also be seen from the content of the sentence: the two subjects have mouths and as such the words do not refer to the earth and the

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

139

the anatolian “ergative”

sky themselves but to their personifications or deifications. Thus in this sentence the semantical analysis is applicable. Example 4: KUB 35.54 ii 49–iii 5 ii 49. [š]a-a-an-du-u̯ =a-ta pár-na-an-ti-in-zi ii 50. [ḫ]u-u-um-ma-ti-iš ḫa-aš-ša-ni-it-ti-iš ii 51. ḫu-u̯a-aḫ-ḫur-ša-an-ti-in-zi ti-i̯a-am-mi-iš iii 1. ta?-ru-ša-an-ti-iš ad[-du-u̯ a-al-za ú-tar-ša] iii 2. ḫal-li-iš-ša pa-ra-at-ta-an[-za] iii 3. pu-u̯ a-ti-il-za [n]a-nu-un-tar-ri-š[a] iii 4. ir-ḫu-u-u̯ a-aš-ša pa-ri-it-tar-u-u̯ a-a-aš-š[a] iii 5. u-la-an-ta-al-li-i̯a-an ḫu-it-u̯ [a-li-i̯a-an] ‘The houses, the pediment, the hearth, the ḫuu̯ aḫḫurša-s, the earth, statues, the evil word, sickness, past (and) present impurity of irḫuu̯ a- (and) of animals, of the dead (and) of the living must release them.’ Example 4 contains a rather large summation in which we find the two agentives parnantinzi ‘houses’ and ḫuu̯ aḫḫuršantinzi ‘statues’. Although all elements of this summation are inanimate, the words that have the agentive construction are precisely those that are of the neuter gender. In other words, the determining factor for the use of the agentive construction is grammatical rather than semantical, which shows that in this sentence the agentive is either an inflectional suffix or an ergative case ending. Example 5: KUB 35.107+ ii 7–12 7. [ … ]x kur-ša-ú-na-an-ti-in-zi a-ri-in[-ta] 8. [ … ]x a-ap-pu-u̯ a-ni-in-zi a-a-ri-in-ta […] 9. [tap-paš-š]a te-ra-a-im-ma-an-za dIŠKUR-za d[…] 10. [a-ri-]in-ta […] 11. [du-ú-]u̯ a-az-za-an ti-i̯a-am-me-in DINGIRLUM RA-BU-Ú 12. [ti-]i̯a-am-ma-aš-ši-iš=ḫa dUTU-u̯ a-za a-ri-in[-ta] ‘The islands restrained […]; The āppuu̯ aninzi restrained […]; Tarḫunt and […] restrained the terāimman sky; the Great God and the Sun-god of the Earth restrained the dūu̯ azza earth.’

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

140

lopuhaä-zwakenberg

In line ii 7 of Example 5 we find an agentive construction based on kuršau̯ ar ‘island’, a neuter r/n-stem. Unfortunately, the context is unclear. The next line has a parallel construction, but āppuu̯ aninzi is a hapax. This presents us with two possibilities for the interpretation of these lines: either the agentive construction in kuršaunantinzi is grammatical, so that āppuu̯ aninzi is another landscape feature, or the agentive construction denotes a personification or deification, so that āppuu̯ aninzi is another group of deities. The next lines give us the answer: here we see deities as the subjects of the verb arinta. Therefore it is best to view kuršaunantinzi and āppuu̯ aninzi as deities as well, so that kuršaunantinzi ‘island deities’ would differ in meaning from kuršau̯ ar ‘island’, and as such the semantical analysis fits this sentence the best. Example 6: KUB 35.107+ iii 15–18 15. [a=u̯ a=t]i ÍD.ḪI.A-in-za ḫa-pí-in-ni-in-za KI.MIN a=u̯ a=t[i] 16. [SAG.D]U-aš-ša-an-za IGI.ḪI.A-u̯ a-aš-ša-an-za GIG-an-za na-a-u̯ a [KI.MIN] 17. [ … ] SAG.DU-aš-ši-iš IGI.ḪI.A-u̯ a-aš-ši-iš GIG-an-te-eš₁₇? 18. [ … ]x tar-pí-i-ta … ‘Ditto (= he made) for him the rivers and streams. [Ditto] for him not the illness of the heart and the eye. […] the illness of the head and the eye […] tarpī-ed.’ Line iii 17 of Example 6 contains the agentive GIG-anteš. Although we cannot determine the meaning of the sentence it occurs in, it is useful to compare it to lines iii 15 en iii 16 , where we see the same noun with the neuter singular nominative/accusative ending -anza, as well as with the same genitival adjectives. This makes it likely that the two instances of the word GIG have the same referent, which implies that the suffix -ant- is here grammatical rather than semantical. It is also important to point out that the two genitival adjectives SAG.DU-aššiš and IGI.ḪI.A-u̯ aššiš have the common nominative ending -iš rather than a hypothetical ergative ending -antiš. This makes it likely that GIG-anteš is a common gender nominative noun rather than a neuter gender ergative noun. We cannot formally rule out the latter, since it is possible that -iš is not only the common nominative plural ending, but also the neuter ergative plural ending. As such, the syntactical analysis fits this sentence, although the ergative analysis is possible as well.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

141

the anatolian “ergative”

Example 7: KUB 35.112, r.col. 3–7 3. [ … ]x UZUNÍG.GIG-an-ti-iš KI.MIN 4. [ … ] KI.MIN 5. [ … ]x-u̯ a-an-ti-iš KI.MIN 6. [ … ]x-ta-ti-ti-in-zi KI.MIN 7. [ … ]x-u̯ a-an-ti-iš 8. [ … ḫal-l]i-na-i ‘[…] the liver ditto. […] ditto. [… the x]-u̯ ant- ditto; [… the x-]tati-s ditto; [… the x]-u̯ ant- [… is s]ick.’ Unfortunately the context of the text of Example 7, which has been badly preserved, tells us almost nothing about the use of the agentive. The only other form of the word UZUNÍG.GIG- ‘liver’ that is attested is the ablativeinstrumental UZUNÍG.GIG-ti. Since the word underlying the sumerogram UZUNÍG.GIG is unknown, it is possible that -ant- is just a part of the stem, so we cannot be sure that UZUNÍG.GIG-antiš is indeed an agentive construction. Even if it were, the context does not tell us anything about its use: the only word preserved in the sentence is KI.MIN ‘ditto’, whose referent is unknown. As such this attestation does not help us in distinguishing between the different analyses of the agentive construction. Example 8: KUB 35.65 iii 14–16 14. [ 15. [ 16. [

… ]=pa=an a-ap-pa ḫa-ra-at-na-an-ti-iš … ]x-ti-iš ni-iš … ma-a]l-ḫa-aš-ša-as-si-in EN-an

‘The […] offense must not […] him, the lord of the ritual.’ The word ḫaratnantiš ‘offense’ of Example 8 is otherwise also attested as a neuter r/n-stem in the nom./acc.sg. ḫāratarša and the ablative/instrumental ḫaratnati. The word […]X-tiš is probably congruent to ḫaratnantiš, and it could give us information about the congruence relations of the agentive in Cuneiform Luwian. Unfortunately, only the very ambiguous part -tiš of the ending has been preserved. This sentence therefore does not help us in determining the nature of the agentive construction.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

142

lopuhaä-zwakenberg

Example 9: KUB 35.86 ii 5 5. [

…

-]zi ḫar-da-an-ti-in-zi

‘…’ Melchert glosses the word ḫardantinzi in Example 9 as an ergative because the ablative-instrumental ḫartati has been attested as well. Given the lack of context, however, we cannot determine whether this is an agentive construction, or simply another derivation by means of the suffix -ant- (Melchert suggests ‘having ḫ.’). From the examples it is clear that in Cuneiform Luwian the agentive suffix -ant- could be found both as a semantic derivation, denoting personification or deification, and as an inflectional suffix that has a purely grammatical function. In Example 6, the two nominal adjectives corresponding to the agentive ending in the common nominative ending -iš point to the fact that the agentive is a suffix rather than an ergative ending in Cuneiform Luwian. Although formally we cannot rule out the possibility that this is the neuter ergative ending, we would expect the neuter ergative adjectival ending to be -antiš, similar to the neuter ergative adjectival ending -anza of Neo-Hittite. Therefore it is best to suppose that in Cuneiform Luwian there is no separate ergative case and that both the semantical and the syntactical analyses occur.

5

The Agentive in Hieroglyphic Luwian

Since the agentive construction in Cuneiform Luwian has the forms sg. -antiš, pl. -antinzi, we expect the agentive to take the forms °a-ti-sa and °a-ti-zi in Hieroglyphic Luwian. Unfortunately this is also what the nominative endings for common gender nouns in -a(n)ti- would look like. In order to properly distinguish between these nouns and the agentive construction, I will only consider nouns ending in °a-ti-sa and °a-ti-zi of which case forms of the noun in -Ca- have been attested. However, in the material of Hawkins (2000) we find only two such attestations, both in a single sentence in Example 10. Example 10: BOYBEYPINARI 2 §21 iii.B (“CAELUM”)ti-pa-sa-ti-sa=pa=wa/i=tu-u (“TERRA”)taiii.C sà-REL+ra/i-ti-sa=ha || CAELUM-sa=ha TERRAiv.A REL+ra/i-sa=ha DEUS-ni-i-zi LIS-tà-ti || CUM-ni X-tu

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

the anatolian “ergative”

143

‘The sky, the earth, and the gods of the sky and the earth must … him with ligitation.’ In Example 10 the agentives (“CAELUM”)ti-pa-sa-ti-sa = tipasantis and (“TERRA”)ta-sà-REL+ra/i-ti-s = taskwirantis are derived from the neuter noun tipas ‘sky’ and the common gender noun taskwira/i- ‘earth’. Since in the latter case the agentive is made from a common gender noun, it has to be a semantical derivation rather than a grammatical suffix, since the use of a grammatical suffix would be triggered by the morphological neuter gender. This means that we should understand the subject of this sentence as ‘The sky god, the earth god, and the gods inhabiting the earth and the sky.’ We can conclude that -antis present in Hieroglyphic Luwian as a personifying/deifying suffix. However, since this is the only attestation of the agentive in Hieroglyphic Luwian, we should not regard the absence of evidence of a grammatical function of the suffix -ant- as evidence of its absence.

6

The Agentive in Lycian

The last language in which the agentive is attested is Lycian. There are two attestations in the material by Melchert (2001b). Since these attestations are in two sentences that are very similar in nature, it is best to treat them both at once. The sentences are given in Examples 11 and 12. Example 11: TL 135 2 … s=ene teseti : tubeiti : trm̃ mili ‘And the Lycian oaths will strike him.’ Example 12: TL 149 10 … s=ẽne : tesẽti : qãñti : trm̃ milijẽt#i […] ‘And the Lycian oaths will seize him.’ These two formulations are remarkably parallel (note that nasalisation may drop in front of n or t in Lycian). This makes it probable that the function of the agentive tesẽti is the same in both sentences. The word is derived from tese/i‘oath’. This word is of neuter gender, since a neuter accusative plural tasa is

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

144

lopuhaä-zwakenberg

attested in the sentence (TL 36 4–6) s=e=i( j)=e ñta tãtẽ tasa miñta meleime se( j)=aladahali ada ///- ‘He placed the council oaths inside for meleime and a fee of 3.5 ada’. In both of the examples given the noun tese/i- has a suffix -ẽti that forms the agentive construction in Lycian. As was the case in the other languages, there are three possible analyses to consider: 1. Semantical analysis. The suffix -ẽti consists of a semantical derivational suffix -ẽt- and the common gender plural ending -i. 2. Syntactical analysis. The suffix -ẽti consists of an inflectional suffix -ẽt- and the common gender plural ending -i. 3. Ergative analysis. The suffix -ẽti is the neuter plural ending of the ergative case. In both sentences the noun tesẽti governs the adjective trm̃ mili-. In Example 12 this adjective has the same suffix -ẽti as a case ending. Under both the semantical analysis and the syntactical analysis we would expect the form trm̃ mili as in Example 11. This shows that the adjective trm̃ milijẽti is in the ergative case rather than the nominative. The same must be true of tesẽti, so in Example 12 the ergative analysis is correct. This again implies that tesẽti is semantically identical to tese/i- ‘oath’, although one might suspect a personification in this context. Since the two sentences are so identical, we can assume that the meanings are also similar. Thus we may suppose that in Example 11 there is no semantical difference between tese/i- and tesẽti. This rules out the semantical analysis. Unlike in Example 12, however, the adjective is trm̃ mili rather than trm̃ milijẽti, which has a common gender nominative plural ending. Hence the word teseti is a common gender nominative as well, which means that the syntactical analysis is correct. We see that the agentive has two different analyses in Lycian. This could be a dialectal or diachronical difference, but the amount of data is too small to draw any conclusions about the distribution. At any rate, these two sentences show that a proper ergative case was present in Lycian for at least some speakers, and that this ergative case derived from an inflectional suffix -ẽt-, which may either still be present in the language as such, or traces of this origin can be seen in the allomorph -i of the adjectival ergative plural ending -ẽti.

7

The Agentive in Proto-Anatolian

Now that we have gathered all the synchronic information on the separate Anatolian languages the historical development can be discussed. The central question of this section is what the role of the agentive construction was in

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

the anatolian “ergative”

145

Proto-Anatolian. We will do this by considering the proposals for possible analyses of section 2 and see how well they hold up for Proto-Anatolian. As in the rest of this article we leave the ablative analysis aside. The only Anatolian languages in which the agentive construction is a reflex of an actual ergative case are Lycian and the later stages of Hittite. In Hittite this ergative case in -anza was created as a reinterpretation of the nominative case of a suffix -ant- (Goedegebuure, 2013). The Lycian ergative is attested only once, and we find a parallel construction with an inflectional suffix -et-i (= -ẽt-i). The Lycian agentive is therefore structurally the same as the Middle Hittite agentive, where the agentive can also be either an inflectional suffix or a morphological case. Thus we can posit the same development for Lycian as we can for Hittite: the agentive was originally an inflectional suffix that was reanalysed as a case ending within the history of the language. Thus in both languages the ergative is an innovation, and as such we cannot reconstruct an ergative case into Proto-Anatolian. Since in Proto-Anatolian the agentive is not an ergative case, we must conclude that every instance of the agentive in Anatolian has developed from a Proto-Anatolian suffix *-ont-. There are two grammatical roles of this suffix in the agentive construction present in the Anatolian languages: there is a semantic suffix which denotes personification, which is present in the earlier stages of Hittite, in Cuneiform Luwian and in Hieroglyphic Luwian, and a grammatical suffix that obligatorily transfers neuter nouns to the common gender in the agent position, which is present in Hittite, Cuneiform Luwian and Lycian. The semantic suffix can be seen as a specific instance of the Hittite suffix -ant- discussed in section 2. This suffix has cognates in other branches of Indo-European (Oettinger, 2001), so we may conclude that this suffix is old and that there existed a semantic suffix *-ont- in Proto-Anatolian that had personification as one of its functions. Furthermore, we can regard the syntactical suffix *-ont- as a degrammaticalisation of the semantic suffix *-ont-. Such a development can be sketched in Lycian as follows (but of course the same development must have taken place in all Anatolian languages). In a non-attested stage of Lycian, the sentence sẽne tesẽti tubeiti trm̃ mili must have meant ‘and the Lycian oaths [personified as deities] will strike him.’ However, since the suffix *-ont- did not have a single, well-defined semantic function in Anatolian (Josephson, 2004), the semantic component of the derivation tesi/tesẽti was lost and the sentence simply came to mean ‘and the Lycian oaths will strike him.’ As a result, the suffix now had a purely grammatical function, namely to be able to put neuter nouns in the agent position by means of changing their grammatical gender. The semantical suffix, in contrast, did not only change the morphological gender, but also the semantical animacy of the noun.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

146

lopuhaä-zwakenberg

By its nature this syntactic suffix could only occur in the nominative singular and plural. As it could not be fully inflected, the suffix and the nominative ending together were prone to reanalysis as a single morpheme. Since there was no longer a suffix to transfer the word to the common gender, this single morpheme was considered a case ending of the neuter word. Since this case was used precisely in the agent position, we can regard this as an ergative case. This ergative case ending then spread to the adjectival system, which allowed for sentences such as sẽne tesẽti qãñti trm̃ milijẽti ‘and the Lycian oaths will seize him.’ Since we find the syntactical suffix *-ont- in all Anatolian languages in which the agentive is attested, we should reconstruct this grammatical suffix into Proto-Anatolian, which means that a suffix *-ont- that could only be used syntactically must be of pre-Proto-Anatolian date. As mentioned before the actual ergative case was a separate Hittite and Lycian development that cannot be reconstructed into Proto-Anatolian. As such we see that ProtoAnatolian reflects the analysis of the agentive as a syntactic suffix as put forth by Laroche (1962) for Hittite, and that all the attested forms of the agentive in the separate Anatolian languages can be derived from this. In particular, this means that Proto-Anatolian, like all Anatolian languages except for Lycian and Neo-Hittite, did not allow neuter nouns in the agent position in sentences.

8

The Proto-Indo-European Alignment System

Having reconstructed the alignment system for Proto-Anatolian, I can now turn towards Proto-Indo-European. As is well known, all branches of Indo-European that retain the distinction between neuter and masculine/feminine, except for Anatolian, display a partially accusative alignment system in which masculine/feminine nouns have nominative and accusative forms, and in which neuter gender nouns have a neutral declension, i.e. the Subject, Agent and Patient forms are identical. On the other hand, in Proto-Anatolian, we have seen that neuter nouns could not occur in the agent position, and a common gender noun had to be formed by means of the syntactic suffix *-ont-. If the term Classical Indo-European (CIE) is used for the non-Anatolian IndoEuropean languages, then one arrives at the reconstructions of the noun declensions below (using o-stems as an example: the endings in C-stems are different, but the principle is the same).

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

147

the anatolian “ergative”

Proto-Classical Indo-European

Agent Subject Patiens

Proto-Anatolian

Masculine

Neuter

Common

Neuter

*-os *-os *-0m

*-0m *-0m *-0m

*-os *-os *-on

× *-on *-on

The question is now what we should reconstruct for Proto-Indo-European. This touches on the Indo-Anatolian hypothesis, which states that Anatolian was the first branch to split off from Proto-Indo-European.8 Thus, if Proto-CIE is the latest common ancestor of the CIE branches, then the Indo-Anatolian hypothesis states that PCIE is a later language than PIE; in other words, the non-Anatolian branches of Indo-European would share common innovations. Hence if we find that PCIE has undergone an innovation with regards to PIE, then this constitutes evidence for the Indo-Anatolian hypothesis. The only point at which PCIE and PA differ is the ending for the neuter agent. A priori there are two possible reconstructions for the neuter agent in PIE: 1. The PIE neuter agent ending was *-om as in PCIE, and Anatolian innovated in disallowing neuter nouns in the agent position; 2. As in Proto-Anatolian, PIE did not allow neuter nouns in the agent position; CIE innovated by introducing *-om for neuter agents. In order to accept the first reconstruction there has to be a reason why Anatolian removed neuter agents from its grammatical systems. This can be explained by the fact that most PIE inanimate nouns were neuters. In practice, most inanimate nouns could only appear in the agent position via the personifying suffix *-ont-, which existed in PIE already, for example in *gérh₂-ont- ‘the old one’ (Gr. γέρων, Skt. járanta-), which is derived from *gérh₂o- ‘old’ (Arm. cer) (Oettinger 2001: 302–303). Thus, it is conceivable that the original way to express neuter agents was lost, and the personifying suffix *-ont- was subsequently grammaticalised.

8 In the context of the Indo-Anatolian hypothesis the ancestor of all non-Anatolian IndoEuropean languages is occasionally called Proto-Indo-European, whereas the ancestor of PIE and Anatolian is called Proto-Indo-Anatolian. These terms correspond to my PCIE and PIE, respectively.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

148

lopuhaä-zwakenberg

The problem with this explanation is that one would expect the loss of agents to happen in semantically inanimate nouns, rather than in morphologically neuter nouns. Although there is a strong correlation between inanimacy and the neuter gender, this correlation is not perfect even in Proto-IndoEuropean. For example, *dʰéǵ-m- ‘earth’ (Gr. χθών, Skt. kṣám, Hitt. tēkan) was feminine in Proto-Indo-European, but refers to an inanimate object; on the other hand *peḱu ‘cattle’ (Skt. páśu, Goth. faihu, Lat. pecū) is neuter, but refers to something animate. Thus one would expect the agent of all inanimate nouns to be lost, and one would expect the agentive construction to be determined by animacy rather than by morphological gender. Example 4, however, shows that this is clearly not the case. On the other hand, if PIE did not allow for neuter agents, both the CIE and the Anatolian situation can be explained. The lack of neuter agents would constitute a gap in the system of the language. PCIE ‘fixed’ this gap by extending the neuter subject ending *-om to the agent, since the subject and agent endings were equal in the masculine/feminine noun declension as well. ProtoAnatolian, on the other hand, ‘fixed’ the gap by grammaticalising the personifying suffix *-ont-. This reconstruction is considerably less problematic than assuming a PIE neuter agent ending *-om, so the conclusion is that PIE did not allow for neuter agents. This was, of course, a very unstable situation, which was quickly resolved both in CIE and in Proto-Anatolian. The fact that it was resolved in different ways, however, shows that we have to reconstruct a gap in the system. We thus arrive at the reconstruction offered in the table below.

PIE

PCIE

PA

Masculine Neuter

Masculine Neuter

Common Neuter

*-os *-os *-om

*-os *-os *-on

Agent *-os Subject *-os Patiens *-om

× *-om *-om

*-om *-om *-om

× *-on *-on

One might wonder how PIE could express situations in which an object, referenced by a neuter noun, is the agent of an action. The suffix *-ont- was not yet grammaticalised in PIE, since the only evidence for its grammaticalisation is found in Anatolian. Thus PIE did not have either the CIE or the Anatolian strategy for expressing neuter agents. One can imagine that such a situation

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

the anatolian “ergative”

149

could be described by means of a mediopassive construction or by means of the semantic suffix *-ont- (which would slightly alter the meaning of the sentence). PIE would then be somewhat similar to the situation ascribed to Anatolian according to the semantical analysis of section 2. It is, however, hard to ascertain the precise construction used, since such a construction would have disappeared in both CIE and Anatolian. Since PIE did not have the neuter agent ending *-om, the CIE languages share a common innovation. Thus, the development of the CIE alignment system constitutes an argument in favour of the Indo-Anatolian hypothesis. However, one might argue that these developments could have occurred independently, as the absence of neuter agents constituted a gap in the PIE alignment system. Extending the neuter subject ending *-om to the agent function is a straightforward way to fix this gap. Thus, although this innovation points towards a period of common innovation of the CIE languages and hence towards an early separation of Anatolian from CIE, it by itself does not conclusively prove it.

References Benveniste, É. 1962. Les substantifs en -ant- du Hittite. Bulletin de la Societé de Linguistique de Paris 57, 44–51. Garrett, A. 1990. The origin of NP split ergativity. Language 66, 261–296. Goedegebuure, P. 2013. Split-ergativity in Hittite. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archäologie 102, 207–303. Hawkins, J.D. 2000. Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions Vol. 1: Inscriptions of the Iron Age. Berlin–New York: Walter de Gruyter. Josephson, F. 2004. Semantics and Typology of Hittite -ant-. In: J. Clackson; B.A. Olsen (eds.), Indo-European Word Formation: Proceedings of the Conference Held at the University of Copenhagen, October 20th–22nd 2000. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum, 91–118. Kammenhuber, A. 1993. Zum Modus Injunktiv und zum Drei-Genus-System im UrIndogermanischen (ca. 3000–2500 v. Chr). In: A. Kammenhuber Kleine Schriften zum Altanatolischen und Indogermanischen. Heidelberg: Winter, 698–729. Laroche, E. 1962. Un ‘ergatif’ en indo-européen d’Asie Mineure. Bulletin de la Societé de Linguistique de Paris 57, 23–43. Melchert, H.C. 1993. Cuneiform Luvian Lexicon. Available online at http://www .linguistics.ucla.edu/people/Melchert/LUVLEX.pdf (2018). Melchert, H.C. 2001a. Cuneiform Luvian Corpus. Available online at http://www .linguistics.ucla.edu/people/Melchert/CLUVIAN.pdf (2018).

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

150

lopuhaä-zwakenberg

Melchert, H.C. 2001b. Lycian Corpus. Available online at http://www.linguistics.ucla .edu/people/Melchert/lyciancorpus.pdf (2018). Melchert, H.C. 2007. The Problem of the Ergative Case in Hittite. In: M. Fruyt; M. Mazoyer; D. Pardee (eds.), Grammatical Case in the Languages of the Middle East and Europe. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 161–167. Oettinger, N. 2001. Neue Gedanken über das nt-Suffix. In: O. Carruba; W. Meid (eds), Anatolisch und Indogermanisch/Anatolico e Indoeuropeo: Akten des Kolloquiums der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft. Pavia, 22.–25. September 1998. Innsbruck: IBS, 301– 316. Patri, S. 2007. Les structures d’alignement dans les langues indo-européennes d’Anatolie. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Puhvel, J. 1984. Hittite Etymological Dictionary: Vol. 1: Words Beginning with A; Vol. 2: Words Beginning with E and I. Berlin–New York–Amsterdam: Mouton. Valério, M. 2009. Palaic fulāsinanza: One Anatolian suffix, two possible explanations. Journal of Indo-European Studies 37, 421–429. Weitenberg, J. 1987. Proto-Indo-European nominal classification and Old Hittite. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 48, 213–230.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

chapter 11

The Indo-European Suffix *-ens- and Its Indo-Uralic Origin Alexander Lubotsky

1

Introduction

A nominal suffix *-ens- does not belong to the standard equipment of the Indo-Europeanist. This suffix is not listed in the major handbooks and is but rarely reconstructed. The only exceptions I am aware of are the word for ‘moon’ *meh₁-ns- and the word for ‘goose’, which Kortlandt (1978, 1985, 2013) has reconstructed as *ǵhh₂-ens-. I believe, however, that this suffix is found in quite a few Indo-European nominal and verbal formations.1

2

Nouns

2.1

PIE *ǵhh₂-ens-

– Gr. χήν m. ‘goose’ (nom.pl. χῆνες, Dor., Boeot. χᾱ́ν); – Skt. haṃsá- m. ‘goose’ (RV+); – Lat. ānser m. ‘goose’ (< *hānser < *ǵhh₂ens-(e)ro-); – OIr. géis f. ‘swan’; – PGerm. *gans- f. ‘goose’: OHG gans, ON gás, OE gōs, etc.; – Lith. žąsìs f. ‘goose’ (gen.pl. žąsų̃ ), Latv. zùoss ‘id.’, OPr. sansy ‘id.’; – PSlav. *gǫsь f. ‘goose’: Ru. gus’; OCz. hus; Slk. hus; Pl. gęś; Sln. gọ̑ s. The word for ‘goose’ is likely to be a derivative of the PIE root *ǵheh₂- ‘to gape’ (Gr. χάος n. ‘chaos’ < *ǵhh₂-(e)u-, Gr. χάσκω ‘to gape, yawn, open the mouth wide’ < *ǵhh₂-n-, etc.; for the reconstruction of the root I refer to Lubotsky 2011: 107 f.). This etymology is very attractive both from the formal and semantic point of view, as the geese are ‘gaping’ birds. The evidence points to an athematic stem, and we would certainly expect an ablauting paradigm (Kortlandt 1985 and 2013 reconstructed nom.sg. *ǵheh₂ns, 1 I am grateful to Lucien van Beek, Frederik Kortlandt, Michaël Peyrot, Tijmen Pronk, Michiel de Vaan, and Mixail Živlov for comments on an earlier version of this paper.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004409354_012 Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

152

lubotsky

acc. *ǵhh₂ensm̥ , gen. *ǵhh₂n̥ sos), but the evidence for it is unfortunately rather slim,2 based only on the necessity to account for the alternation of the initial consonants in Balto-Slavic. Slavic g- may be due to depalatalization in the position before a laryngeal,3 but then it is not clear why Baltic does not attest this development. This riddle would be solved by reconstructing an alternating paradigm *ǵhh₂-ens- > BSl. *g- vs. *ǵheh₂-ns- > BSl. *ź-. An alternative solution would be to assume that the Slavic word is a loanword from Germanic, which is a controversial issue. Borrowing has been suggested, albeit hesitatingly, in some recent publications (Gąsiorowski 2012: 125, fn. 14, Matasović 2014: 23). On the other hand, Tijmen Pronk has argued (apud Kortlandt 2013: 14) that the Slavic word is unlikely to have been borrowed because it has the same stem formation as in Baltic and because of the parallel between PSlav. *gǫserъ m. ‘gander’ (Cz. houser; Pol. gąsior; Sln. gosę́r; Bulg. gắser) and Lat. ānser m. ‘goose’.4 2.2

PIE *gwhr-ens(o)- ‘heat’

– Skt. ghraṃsá- m. ‘blaze of the sun, summer heat’ (RV, AV, KauśS); – MW gwres m. ‘heat (of the sun, fire), passion, lust’ (< *gwhrenso-); OIr. grís ‘heat, fire, embers, hot ashes’ (< *gwhrēnso-). In an Atharvavedic formula, attested at AVŚ 7.18.2 = AVP 20.4.7,5 ná ghráṃs tatāpa ná himó jaghāna ‘not heat burned, not cold smote’ (Whitney), we encounter the root noun ghráṃs-, which is explained by Debrunner and Wackernagel as due to a kind of haplology from ghraṃsás (Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930: 80f.), but this is improbable: the root noun is likely to be old. OIr. grís also indirectly points to an athematic *gwhrēns with monosyllabic lengthening. Although it is universally accepted that *gwhrenso- is a derivative of the root *gwher- ‘to be hot’ (cf. Gr. θέρομαι ‘to become warm’, OCS grějati ‘to warm’, OCS gorěti ‘to burn’, MIr. guirid ‘to warm’, etc.), its formation is considered unclear. For instance, Mayrhofer writes in EWAia: 519: “Die Bildungsweise is nicht klar”, with reference to Schindler 1972: 17. 2 Lucien van Beek suggests to me (p.c.) that the reason for the ubiquitous stem *ǵhh₂ens- may be due to the fact that the word for ‘goose’ was very often used in the plural. 3 Depalatalization in the position before a vocalic nasal did not occur in Balto-Slavic (Kortlandt 2013). Depalatalization in Slavic in the position before a laryngeal may be attested in the word for ‘grey’, cf. Cz. šerý, Pol. szary < PSlav. *śěrъ < *xěrъ < *ḱHoiro- (Derksen 2008: 447), if this is not a loanword from Germanic, as suggested by Kroonen (2013: 201). 4 On the word for ‘gander’ see Gąsiorowski 2012: 125, however. It cannot be excluded that the Slavic word was also borrowed from Germanic (cf. MHG ganzer). 5 For the AVP text, see Kubisch 2012: 39.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

the indo-european suffix *-ens- and its indo-uralic origin

2.3

153

PIE *dh₁-ens- ‘dense’

– Hitt. daššu- ‘strong, powerful; heavy; well-fed; difficult; important’ < *dens-u(Kloekhorst 2008: 854); – Lat. dēnsus [o/ā] ‘dense, thick, closely packed’ < *dens-o- / *dn̥ s-o-; – Gr. δασύς ‘hairy, thick with leaves; aspirated’, Gr. δαυλός ‘thick, shaggy’ < *dn̥ su-(lo-). The Greek forms have recently been discussed by Lucien van Beek (2013: 250 f.), who comes to the conclusion that Gr. δασύς must have got its -s- from the forms with full grade in the root (*densu-).6 This presupposes an alternating paradigm *dens-u-, dn̥ s-eu- within Greek. As to the semantics, van Beek assumes that all meanings of Hittite, Latin and Greek adjectives can be explained from the original meaning ‘dense’. As demonstrated by Kloekhorst 2010, the cuneiform sign da is used in Old Hittite texts for spelling clusters of a dental stop plus a laryngeal. Kloekhorst did not treat Hitt. daššu- in his article because this word does not occur in Old Hittite, but since the Middle Hittite texts show the same distribution and since Hitt. daššu- is consistently spelled with da-, with very few exceptions,7 we are bound to reconstruct the root as *dHens-. It seems then attractive to derive this adjective from the root *deh₁- ‘to bind’ (Gr. δέω, Skt. -dyati) and to assume that its original meaning was ‘bound, bundled’ and from there ‘firm, dense, strong’. We may now consider the relationship of our adjective with the IE verb *dens-, which is glossed in LIV2 as ‘kundig werden, kunstfertig werden’. In the active, this verbal root means ‘to instruct, teach, make capable’, cf. Vedic daṃsáyas 2sg.inj.act. (RV), daṃsayantu 3pl.impv.act. (AVP), OAv. didąs 3sg.inj.act., Gr. διδάσκω, aor. δέδαε, whereas in the middle it means ‘to learn, be instructed’, cf. OAv. dīdaiŋ́ hē 1sg.pres.med., Gr. διδάσκομαι, aor. δαῆναι. These meanings may have easily developed from ‘to make or to become able, strong’, so that the verb is likely to be denominal in origin, derived from the adjective *dh₁ens- ‘firm, dense, strong’.8

6 A similar solution is given by Nikolaev (2010: 241). 7 Only the names of diseases taššii̯atar n. (nom.-acc.sg. ta-aš-ši-i̯a-tar), taššii̯au̯ ar n. (nom.acc.sg. ta-aš-ši-i̯a-u-u̯ a-ar) and taššii̯ama- c. (acc.sg. ta-aš-ši-i̯a-ma-an), which have often been etymologically connected with daššu- (see Kloekhorst 2008: s.v. daššu-), are spelled with ta-, but this etymology is most probably wrong. 8 Van Beek (2013: 250f.) considers the semantic development from ‘dense’ to ‘experienced’ and gives as a parallel Gr. πυκνός, πυκινός ‘hairy, dense’ and πυκιμήδης ‘shrewd’, lit. “with dense plans”, πυκινόφρων ‘id.’, lit. “with dense mind”. To this it can be added that in Indo-Iranian, the notion of ‘experienced, dexterous’ has further developed into ‘supernaturally dexterous’.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

154

lubotsky

The nominal character of the root *d(h₁)ens- further follows from the fact that the root is part of the Caland system, forming adjectives in *-mo- (Skt. dasmá- ‘wondrous, masterly’, OAv. dahma- ‘wondrous, miraculous’) and *-ro(Skt. dasrá- ‘accomplishing wonderful deeds’, Av. daŋra- ‘wise, capable’); the superlative in *-is-tHo- (Skt. dáṃsiṣṭha-, YAv. dąhišta-), an abstract in *-es- (Skt. dáṃsas- n. ‘miraculous ability’, YAv. (hizuuō) daŋhah- n. ‘miraculous power, dexterity (of the tongue)’, Gr. δήνεα n.pl. ‘counsels, plans’), and a compound form in *-i- (Gr. δαΐφρων ‘artful, experienced’). 2.4

PIE *trh₂-ns

– PIIr. *trHas: Skt. tirás prep. ‘through, across, beyond, apart from’ (RV+), YAv. tarō prep. ‘through, across, except’, OAv. tarə̄ -maiti- f. ‘overconfidence, pride’, OP t[r] /tara/ prep. ‘through’ (DZc 12); – PIt. *trāns: Lat. trāns prep. ‘across, through’, Umb. trahaf prep. ‘on the other side of’; – OIr. trá adv., conj. ‘then, therefore; but’, MW tra prep. ‘beyond, over, across’. Although it is universally recognized that these Indo-Iranian and Italo-Celtic prepositions are derived from the root *terh₂- ‘to go through, cross through’, they are usually interpreted in a different fashion: IIr. *trHas is assumed to reflect *trh₂-os (EWAia: 646), in parallel to PIE *prH-os (Skt. purás ‘in front, before’, YAv. parō ‘before’, Gr. πάρος ‘before, formerly’) whereas PIt. *trāns, together with OIr. trá and MW tra (for which see Zair 2012: 179), is usually interpreted as a nom.sg. m. of the PIE participle *trh₂-nt-s ‘crossing’ (cf. de Vaan 2008: 627 for a discussion and references). It would, of course, be preferable to find a unified explanation for these prepositions, the more so as the proposed etymological analysis of the ItaloCeltic forms seems rather strained to me. The development from a nom.sg. m. of a participle to a preposition would be fairly unusual, and, secondly, the formation (with its double zero grade) and the meaning (for which see below) is not what we would expect from an aorist (?) participle. On the other hand, the reconstruction *trh₂ns accounts for all the forms. The difference in vocalization is the same as in the word for ‘wind’, PIE *h₂ueh₁nto-, where PIIr. has vocalised the n before the loss of the laryngeal (PIIr. *HuaHata> Skt. vā ́ta-, OAv. vāta- /vaʔata-/), whereas the order of developments was the opposite in other languages (Lat. uentus m. ‘wind’; Goth. winds ‘wind’; Toch. A want ‘wind’; Toch. B yente ‘wind’). The same vocalization pattern is found with the word for ‘moon’, for which see below. The double zero grade of *trh₂ns is probably due to its use as a preposition. It is conceivable that OIr. tar prep. ‘over, across’ has preserved the form with the

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

the indo-european suffix *-ens- and its indo-uralic origin

155

expected full grade of the suffix, *trh₂-ens, although functionally, OIr. tar rather matches MW tra. The unextended IE verb *terh₂- is only preserved in Indo-Iranian (for the apparent Hittite forms see Kloekhorst 2008: 835ff.), and it is basically transitive there, meaning ‘to cross smth.’. Also the IE -u-present *terh₂-u- ‘to prevail, overcome’ is transitive. Since the Indo-Iranian and Italo-Celtic prepositions refer to the completed crossing, ‘beyond, across’, we can assume that the original meaning of *trh₂ns was ‘crossed over, gone through’. 2.5

PIE *meh₁-ns- ‘moon, month’

– Gr. (Att.) μήν m., gen.sg. μηνός ‘month, moon’, (Ion.) μείς, (Lesb.) gen.sg. μῆννος; – Lat. mēnsis m. ‘month’; – OIr. mí m.f. ‘month’, MW mis m. ‘id.’ < PCelt. *mī(n)s-; – PIIr. *maHas-: Skt. mā ́s- m. ‘moon, month’ (RV+), mā ́sa- m. ‘month’ (RV+), omās(i)ya- ‘… months old, … monthly’ (AV+) || PIr. *maHah-: OAv. nom.sg. mā ̊ /maHah/, YAv. gen.sg. mā ̊ŋhō m. ‘moon’, mā ̊ŋha- m. ‘moon, month’; omāhiia‘… monthly’, OP māh- ‘month’; Sogd. m’γ ‘moon, month’; Oss. mæj/mæjæ ‘moon, month’ (< *māhi̯ā); – PAlb. *mēn-: Alb. muaj / mu(e)j m. ‘month’; – Arm. amis, gen.sg. ams-o-y ‘month’ (the initial a- is due to the influence of am ‘year’); – OCS měsęcь m. ‘moon, month’; – Toch. A mañ ‘moon, month’; Toch. B meñe ‘moon, month’; – Lith. mėń uo (acc.sg. mėń esį) ‘moon, month’; Latv. mẽness ‘moon’, mẽnesis ‘month’; OPr. menig (EV) ‘moon’; – PGerm. *mēnan-: Goth. mena m. ‘moon’, ON máni m. ‘id.’, OE mōna m. ‘id.’, etc.; – PGerm. *mēnōþ-: Go. menoþs m. ‘month’, ON mánaðr m. ‘id.’, OE mōnað m. ‘id.’, etc. In the recent literature, the connection of *meh₁-ns- with the root *meh₁- ‘to measure’—under the assumption that its original meaning was ‘measure (of time)’—is not questioned, but the original inflection is debated. PIE *meh₁ns- is different from the other formations in -ns- in that the root has full grade and the suffix zero grade and that the full grade of the suffix in some languages seems to appear as -nes-, rather than *-ens-. Most languages point to *meh₁-ns- without any ablaut alternations. This is clearly the case for Greek, Latin, Celtic, Indo-Iranian (with early vocalization of n, cf. on *trh₂ns above), Albanian and Armenian. Slavic can also go back to

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

156

lubotsky

this stem where -n- was dissimilatorily lost because of an n in the suffix. Tocharian may have lost the final *-s in the nom. *meh₁ns >9 PToch. *men, which then joined the n-stems. In order to account for the Germanic and Baltic forms, we can reconstruct a PIE suppletive paradigm nom.sg. *meh₁nōt, acc.sg. *meh₁nes-m, gen.sg. *meh₁ns-es (cf. Beekes 1982),10 but even this highly irregular paradigm would require a lot of restructuring before we get the Germanic and Balto-Slavic facts right. Therefore, it seems worthwhile to investigate whether a single stem *meh₁ns- can account for the Germanic and Balto-Slavic forms, too. Traditionally (cf. already Brugmann 1911: 126, fn. 1, 128), the Germanic forms are explained out of a single t-stem paradigm—nom.sg. *mēnō, gen.sg. *mēnōdiz—with subsequent split into two paradigms and concomitant semantic specialization: on the basis of the nominative, an n-stem with the meaning ‘moon’ was created,11 whereas the oblique cases in -ōd- got a new nominative and the meaning ‘month’. Brugmann (op.cit.: 128) further draws attention to OE mónaþfyllen ‘time of full moon’ in order to show that the original t-stem had both meanings. This is an elegant and economical explanation, but there are still two questions to be answered: (1) what happened with the final -s of *meh₁ns-, and (2) what is the origin of the Germanic suffix *-ōd-? We can envisage the following scenario. At an early stage of Germanic, before the operation of Osthoff’s Law, nom.sg. *meh₁ns could have been reanalyzed as the stem *meh₁n- + the ending -s. The new stem *meh₁n- was enlarged with the suffix *-ot-, which is also found in PGerm. *leuh-ad-a- n. ‘light’ (cf. Hitt. lukkatt- c. ‘dawn, next morning’, also Hitt. šīu̯ att- c. ‘day’) and may have spread from there to the word for ‘moon, month’. The nominative was *-ōt with a long vowel12 that then spread through the whole paradigm. We may suggest a somewhat similar scenario for Balto-Slavic. The gen.sg. *meh₁ns-es was interpreted as the genitive of a hysterodynamic s-stem, in spite of the fact that there are hardly any traces of this inflection left in Balto-Slavic languages. It seems conceivable that the word for ‘dawn’, which was a prominent hysterodynamic s-stem in PIE (nom.sg. *h₂éus-ōs, acc.sg. *h₂eus-ós-m, gen.sg. *h₂us-s-és), has influenced the Baltic word for ‘moon, month’.

9 10 11 12

Either phonetically, or analogically (see about Germanic below). Cf. already Pokorny 1959: 731: “mēnōt, Gen. mēneses, woraus mēnes-, mēns-, mēs-, mēn-”. A similar case would be the PGerm. n-stem *nefan- ‘nephew’ on the basis of the nom.sg. *nefō < PIE *nepōt. Type *nepōt with secondary lengthening after the model of the stems in a resonant.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

the indo-european suffix *-ens- and its indo-uralic origin

3

157

Verbs

As we have seen above with PIE *dh₁-ens- ‘dense’, it can sometimes happen that a derivative in *-ens- becomes a verbal root. In the following we shall look at a few IE verbal roots in -ens- from this perspective: can they possibly have the same origin? 3.1

PIE *dhuens- ‘to scatter, sprinkle’

– PIIr. *dhuans-: Skt. dhvaṃs- ‘to pulverize, crumble’ (RV): Pres. I dhváṃsate (AVP+), Pres. X dhvasayaḥ (RV); a-aor. -dhvasán (RV VIII1), pf. -dadhvase (RV), dhvastá- (AVP+); ava-dhvaṃsá- m. ‘sprinkling’ (AV); dhvasáni- adj. ‘sprinkling (cloud)’ (RV); dhvasirá- ‘covered with dust’ (RV); dhvasrá- ‘obscured’ (RV+); dhvasmán- m. ‘polluting’ (RV) – ?ToB tänts- ‘to scatter, disperse, tear off’ < *dhuns- (Adams 2013: 307 f.); – PGerm. *dunsta- (OE dūst n. ‘powder, dust’, MDu. donst, dunst ‘fluff, pollen’, etc.) As duly recognized by Mayrhofer (EWAia: 800), *dhuens- must be related to the PIE root for ‘to shake’, *dheuH- (Skt. dhūnoti ‘to shake, move to and fro quickly’ (RV+), YAv. auui frā-δauuaite ‘to rub’, Gr. θῡ́ω ‘to dash, rush’, OIc. dýja ‘to tremble’, etc.). Mayrhofer (loc.cit.) analyzes *dhuens- as *dhu̯ -en-s-, presumably assuming two suffixes or enlargements, which does not help in elucidating its formation, however. In my view, we must seriously consider the possibility that the root contains the suffix *-ens-, i.e. *dhuH-ens-. In Sanskrit, the laryngeal would probably disappear quite early in this position or, at least, not be recoverable.13 In Germanic we cannot see the difference, and in Tocharian, the laryngeal would probably be lost in full grade *dhuHens- and then eliminated in zero-grade. The root *dhuens- does not look like an archaic verbal root, all finite forms being relatively productive,14 so that it can easily be of denominal origin. 13

14

Cf. Lubotsky 1997: 149ff. A possible trace of the laryngeal may be seen in the jagatī line RV 10.113.7c, if we scan 3sg. middle pf. dadhvase as /dadhuvase/: dhvāntáṃ támó ‘áva dadhuvase haté-. This scansion, however, creates a short 8th syllable, which is irregular. Most probably, we simply have an 11-syllable jagatī line here, cf. Oldenberg 1912: 335. Denominal verbs that are plain thematic, without a specific denominal suffix, are admittedly rare, but not unknown: for instance, Skt. dyótate ‘to shine’ (RV+) is clearly derived from a nominal t-stem (Hitt. šīu̯ att- c. ‘day’, Skt. dyút- f. ‘shine’, vi-dyút- f. ‘lightning’). Note that this verb even attests a root aorist: 2.3sg. ádyaut, ptc. dyutant- (in dyutád-yāman- ‘with shining driving’ (RV), dyutá(d)dyu- ‘with shining days’ (MS)), ptc.med. dyútāna-, dyutāná(RV+).

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

158

lubotsky

Semantically, this also makes sense: a derivative of the root *dheuH- ‘to shake, rub’ with the suffix *-ens- would mean ‘shaken, rubbed off = dust, powder’, and the denominal verb would mean ‘to dust, to powder’. 3.2

PIE *ḱens- ‘to declare’

– Skt. śaṃs- ‘to praise, recite, declare’ (forms in the RV are: Pres. I śáṃsāmi, iṣ-aorist áśaṃsīt, mediopass. aor.: śaṃsi, pass. śasyáte, caus. śaṃsaya, taptc.: śastá-, inf. anu-śáse, vi-śáse); śastí- f. ‘song of praise’; prá-śasti- f. ‘praise, fame; instruction, guidance’; uktha-śaṃsín- ‘praising’, śáṃstar- m. ‘reciter’; śáṃsya- ger. ‘to be recited’, śastí- f. ‘song of praise’, śásman- n. ‘praise’; śáṃsam. ‘praise, judgment’. – PIr. *sanh-: Av. saŋh- ‘to declare’: pres. YAv. saŋhāmi, OAv. sə̄ṇghaitī, aor.opt. OAv. sax́ iiāt̰, inf. sastē, sazdiiāi, ta-ptc. YAv. aiβi.sasta-; OAv. sąstra- n. ‘teaching’, sə̄ṇghana- n. ‘teaching, doctrine’, sə̄ṇghu- m. ‘preaching, doctrine’, Av. fra-sasti- f. ‘fame, reputation, prestige’; YAv. sasti- f. ‘praise’; OAv. sə̄ṇgha- m. ‘declaration, judgment’ || OP θanh- ‘to declare, announce, call’: pres. aθanha, pass. θa(n)hạyāmahạiy, inf. θa(n)stanaiy. – Lat. cēnseō ‘to estimate, think; decide’. The IE root *ḱens- ‘to declare’ can hardly be separated from two other, semantically very close, roots, viz. *ḱeH- and *ḱeHs-. The former root, which must be the underived basis of the latter, is attested in Old Persian θā- ‘to proclaim’ (3sg.pres. ϑātiy, 2sg.subj. ϑāhạy, 2sg. impv. ϑādiy) and Alb. thom ‘to say’. If Gr. ἀκήν ‘silently’ belongs here,15 the color of the laryngeal must be *h₁. The root *ḱeHs- is found in Skt. śās- ‘to teach, chasten, command, order’, Av. sāh- ‘to teach, instruct, command’; ToA kāṣ-iññ- ‘to scold, chasten’ (< *ḱHs-), Goth. hazjan ‘to praise’ (< *ḱHs-ie-), OHG harēn ‘to cry, call’ (< *ḱHs-eh₁-). Assuming the suffix *-ens- allows us to analyze *ḱens- as *ḱh₁-ens- and directly relate it to the other two roots. The noun *ḱh₁-ens- may have had the meaning ‘smth. said, pronounced → statement, pronouncement’, and the verb derived from it ‘to give a statement’, which is quite appropriate for the Latin and IndoIranian verbs. This noun *ḱh₁-ens- may live forth in PIIr. *ćansa-, attested in Skt. śáṃsa- m ‘praise, opinion, judgment’ (RV+); OAv. sə̄ṇgha- m. ‘pronouncement, judgment’, YAv. saŋha- m. ‘prescription’; and, possibly, Khot. saṃja- ‘document’ (if from *sanha-čī-, cf. Bailey 1979: 417). Of course, formations in -a- have always been productive in Indo-Iranian, so that it is difficult to prove that *ćansa- is very old, but the precise correspondences in semantics and formulaic diction

15

Gr. (Pi.) ἀκᾶ, ἀκᾷ ‘id.’ can be hyperdorisms, cf. García-Ramón 1993: 127.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

the indo-european suffix *-ens- and its indo-uralic origin

159

between Indo-Aryan and Iranian point to the archaic nature of this word. Suffice it to mention the compounds and formulas given by Mayrhofer (EWAia: s.v.): Skt. duḥ-śáṃsa- ‘wishing evil, malicious’ (RV+) ~ YAv. duš.saŋha- ‘slandering’; Skt. várdhān naḥ śáṃsam ‘he will strengthen our praise’ (RV 5.41.9) ~ OAv. vərəzdāiš sə̄ṇghāiš ‘with strong teachings’ (Y 46.19); Skt. uru-śáṃsa- ‘of far-reaching authority’ (RV) ~ OP *varu-θanha- (Hdt. ὀροσάγγαι ‘benefactors of the king’); Skt. nárā-śáṃsa- m. epithet of fire (“who receives men’s praise”), nárā … śáṃsam (in tmesis); narā ́ṃ ná śáṃsaḥ, śáṃso narā ́ṃ (RV+) ~ YAv. nairiiō.saŋha- m. N. of a god, of the divine messenger, N. of the fire as a god, also gen.sg. nairiiehe … saŋhahe, acc.sg. nairīm … saŋhəm. 3.3

PIIr. *srans-

– Skt. sraṃs- ‘to fall down, slip off’ (in the RV only a-aor. srasema and rootnouns ava-srás- f. ‘slipping down’, vi-srás- f. ‘decay, dissolving’; in the AV followed by pres. I middle 3sg.impv. sraṃsatām (AVP), caus. sraṃsayāmi, redupl. aor. asisrasat, ta-ptc. -srasta-, and nouns sanisrasá- ‘defective, crippled, weak’; asthisraṃsá- ‘causing the bones to fall asunder’); – ?PIr. *(h)rah-: OAv. 3pl.caus.act. rā ̊ŋhaiiən ‘to deflect’ (Y 32.12); YAv. raŋha‘suffering of epilepsy (?)’ (Yt 5.93); (haca) ϑraŋhibiia du. ‘corners of the mouth (?)’ (P 27 (28)). The Iranian cognates are unfortunately very uncertain. Mayrhofer (EWAia: s.v.) and Cheung (2007: s.v. *(h)rah) hesitatingly connect Av. rah- ‘to alienate, deflect’, but this root has no nasal and an initial laryngeal (see Beekes 1979). From the point of view of semantics, PIIr. *srans- clearly belongs together with Skt. sridh- ‘to fail, err’ (RV) < PIE *sleidh- (OE slīdan ‘to slide, slip’, Lith. slýsti ‘to slip, slide, glide’, etc.) and Skt. srīv- ‘to be aborted, miscarried’ (RV+). As I argued elsewhere (Lubotsky 2011: 119f.), these roots are enlargements of PIE *sel- ‘to jump’, and *srans- can also be seen as an enlargement of the same root with the suffix -ens-.

4

Conclusions

Let us now summarize our findings. The IE nominal suffix *-ens- is found in *ǵhh₂-ens- ‘goose’, *gwhr-ens- ‘heat’, *dh₁-ens- ‘dense, strong’, *trh₂-(e)ns ‘across’, *meh₁-ns- ‘moon, month’. Furthermore, the same suffix can be recognized in the verbal roots *dh₁-ens- ‘to teach, make capable’, *dhu(H)-ens- ‘to pulverize’, *ḱh₁-ens- ‘to recite, declare’, and IIr. *sr-ans- ‘to fall down, slip off’, all of which are then likely to be of denominal origin.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

160

lubotsky

What was the meaning of the suffix? As far as we can see, the suffix had an adjectival function, except for *gwhr-ens- ‘heat’, which may have then developed out of ‘hot (sun)’. In *ǵhh₂-ens- ‘goose’ (= ‘gaping’), the adjective is agentive, whereas it is patientive in *dh₁-ens- ‘dense, strong’ (= ‘bound’), *trh₂-(e)ns ‘across’ (= ‘crossed over’) and *meh₁-ns- ‘moon, month’ (= ‘measure, measured time’). For the denominal verbs it is, of course, much more difficult to decide what was the meaning of the basic noun, but, as we have seen above, *dhu(H)ens- ‘to pulverize’ is likely to be based on ‘powder’ = ‘rubbed off’, and *ḱh₁-ens- is based on ‘statement’ = ‘pronounced’. It seems then that the meaning depends on the transitivity of the verb: if the verb is transitive, the -ens-derivative is patientive; otherwise, it is agentive. This distribution is also found with the Hittite participles in -ant- and is usually assumed to be original for the IE *-nt-participles. These considerations make it probable that the two suffixes, *-ens- and *-ent-, once belonged to one and the same paradigm, with an alternation s/t that we also find in the suffix of the IE perfect participle *-uos-/-uot-. As was argued by Kortlandt (2002 = 2010: 397, who developed an earlier suggestion of Bojan Čop), Indo-Uralic *ti has become assibilated to *si. This would mean that the suffix *-ens started as *-ensi < *-ent-i and reflects the original locative of the Indo-Uralic participle. The IE suffix *-ens-/-ent- might be identified with the Uralic nominal suffix *nt (Collinder 1960: 269), cf. the Proto-Samoyed present participles in *-ntV (Mikola 1988: 259), the Saami absolute gerund, etc. This Uralic participle suffix may or may not be identical to the suffix *nt for deverbative verbs, which “usually implies a continuative mood of action or a non-perfective aspect” (Collinder 1960: 277).

References Adams, D.Q. 2013. A Dictionary of Tocharian B. Revised and Greatly Enlarged Edition. Amsterdam–Atlanta: Rodopi. Bailey, H.W. 1979. Dictionary of Khotan Saka. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Beekes, R.S.P. 1979. GAv. uzirǝidyāi and rārǝša-. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 38, 9–20. Beekes, R.S.P. 1982. GAv. mā ̊, the PIE word for ‘moon, month’, and the perfect participle. Journal of Indo-European Studies 10, 53–64. Brugmann, K. 1911. Vergleichende Laut-, Stammbildungs- und Flexionslehre der indogermanischen Sprachen. 2. Band, 2. Teil: Lehre von den Wortformen und ihrem Gebrauch. Strassburg: Trübner.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

the indo-european suffix *-ens- and its indo-uralic origin

161

Cheung, J. 2007. Etymological Dictionary of the Iranian Verb. Leiden–Boston: Brill. Debrunner, A.; J. Wackernagel 1930. Altindische Grammatik III. Deklination der Nomina, Zahlwörter und Pronomina. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Derksen, R.H. 2008. Etymological Dictionary of the Slavic Inherited Lexicon. Leiden– Boston: Brill. Collinder, B. 1960. Comparative Grammar of the Uralic Languages. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. Garcia-Ramon, J.L. 1993. Lat. cēnsēre, got. hazjan und das idg. Präsens *ḱéns-e-ti (und *ḱn̥ s-éi̯e-ti?) “verkündigt, schätzt”, Stativ *ḱn̥ s-eh₁- “verkündigt, geschätzt sein / werden”. In: G. Meiser (ed.), Indogermanica et Italica. Festschrift für Helmut Rix zum 65. Geburtstag. Innsbruck: IBS, 106–130. Gąsiorowski, P. 2010. The Germanic reflexes of PIE *-sr- in the context of Verner’s Law. In: B. Nielsen Whitehead; T. Olander; B.A. Olsen; J.E. Rasmussen (eds.), The Sound of Indo-European. Phonetics, Phonemics, and Morphophonemics. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum, 117–128. Kloekhorst, A. 2008. Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon. Leiden– Boston: Brill. Kloekhorst, A. 2010. Initial stops in Hittite (with an excursus on the spelling of stops in Alalaḫ Akkadian). Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 100, 197–241. Kortlandt, F. 1978. I.-E. palatovelars before resonants in Balto-Slavic. In: J. Fisiak (ed.), Recent Developments in Historical Phonology. The Hague: Mouton, 237–243. Kortlandt, F. 1985. Long vowels in Balto-Slavic, Baltistica 21/2, 112–124. Kortlandt, F. 2002. The Indo-Uralic verb. In: R. Blokland; C. Hasselblatt (eds.), FinnoUgrians and Indo-Europeans: Linguistic and Literary Contacts. Maastricht: Shaker, 217–227. Kortlandt, F. 2010. Studies in Germanic, Indo-European and Indo-Uralic. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Kortlandt, F. 2013. Palatovelars before syllabic resonants: another look. Baltistica 48/1, 13–17. Kroonen, G. 2013. Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Germanic. Leiden–Boston: Brill. Kubisch, P. 2012. Paippalāda-Saṃhitā, Kāṇḍa 20, Sūkta 1–30. Kritische Edition, Übersetzung, Kommentar. Ph.D. dissertation, Bonn University. Lubotsky, A. 1997. The Indo-Iranian reflexes of PIE *CRHUV. In: A. Lubotsky (ed.), Sound Law and Analogy. Papers in honor of Robert S.P. Beekes on the occasion of his 60th birthday. Amsterdam–Atlanta: Rodopi, 139–154. Lubotsky, A. 2011. The origin of Sanskrit roots of the type sīv- ‘to sew’, dīv- ‘to play dice’, with an appendix on Vedic i-perfects. S.W. Jamison; H.C. Melchert; B. Vine (eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference. Bremen: Hempen, 105–126. Matasović, R. 2014. Slavic Nominal Word-Formation. Proto-Indo-European Origins and Historical Development. Heidelberg: Winter. Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

162

lubotsky

Mayrhofer, M. 1986–1996. Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen (EWAia). Heidelberg: Winter. Mikola, T. 1988. Geschichte der samojedischen Sprachen. In: D. Sinor (ed.), The Uralic Languages. Description, History and Foreign Influences. Leiden–New York: Brill, 219– 263. Nikolaev, A. 2010. Issledovanija po praindoevropejskoj imennoj morfologii. St. Petersburg: Nauka. Oldenberg, H. 1912. Ṛgveda: Textkritische und exegetische Noten. Siebentes bis zehntes Buch. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung. Pokorny, J. 1959. Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Bern–München: Francke. Schindler, J. 1972. Das Wurzelnomen im Arischen und Griechischen. Ph.D. dissertation, Würzburg University. Zair, N. 2012. The Reflexes of the Proto-Indo-European Laryngeals in Celtic, Leiden– Boston: Brill.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

chapter 12

Headedness in Indo-Uralic Rosemarie Lühr

In substantiating the claim of a relationship between Indo-European and Uralic, a linguistic domain which has not been analyzed sufficiently is syntax. This is surprising as a special word order, namely SOV, is assumed both for Uralic and for Indo-European (Raun 1988: 569). Furthermore, SOV belongs not only to the linguistic universals but also to the assumed implicational type, in so far as with overwhelmingly greater-than-chance frequency, languages with normal SOV order are postpositional. Also a modifier-before-headword order and a genitive noun phrase before the possessor is connected to the SOV type, whereby the underlying concept of all these relations is headedness. It is the head directionality parameter we are dealing with here. In the following, phrases representing head directionality in the oldest Indo-European languages Hittite and Vedic are compared. For comparison purposes the earliest Uralic language documented in writing, Old Hungarian, is used, since this language shows traces of head finality in syntax. This article is organized as follows. Firstly, we give an overview of the different head phrases in Old Hungarian. Secondly, the comparison with corresponding structures in Hittite and Vedic follows. Thirdly, the function of the subject in Hittite and Vedic is examined. The reason for this is that in Hungarian a change from Proto-Hungarian SOV to a Topic Focus Verb X* order occurred, while SOV is maintained in Khanty and Mansi. Therefore our question is whether also in Hittite and Vedic there are traces of the so called discourse configurational type. The data for the Indo-European part comes mainly from our DFG-supported projects “Information Structure in Older Indo-European sentences” and “Information Structure in Complex Sentences—Synchronic and Diachronic”. For the Uralic part the relevant literature is used.

1

Old Hungarian Phrases with Adpositions, Noun Phrases with Adjectives and Genitives and Relative Structures

The basic word order of Proto-Hungarian is reconstructed on the basis of archaic constructions of early Old Hungarian documents, and on the basis of corresponding constructions of present-day Khanty and Mansi (Ostyak and

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004409354_013 Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

164

lühr

Vogul). These languages are thought to be most closely related to Hungarian within the Ugric languages (Honti 1979: 7–19; 1998a: 353–355; 1998b: 179– 181). Turning to Old Hungarian, one striking example for an older SOV order is the following (Kiss 2013; Marcantonio 1985): whereas Old Hungarian already had a general accusative case ending (the morpheme -t), the first surviving Hungarian codices, including books of the Bible (translated in 1416–1435, copied in 1450 and 1466), sporadically still contain a non-finite SOV construction whose object bears no accusative case. The caseless object can be definite: (1) Munich Codex, St Matthew 1,20 [ợ è gondoluan] yme vrnac angala ièlenec nèki he this-Ø thinking Io Lord’s angel appeared he-DAT ‘while he thought on these, Io, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him.’ Though Old Hungarian word order is, in general, flexible, the occurrence of a morphologically unmarked object is always accompanied by a head-final OV order. A similar construction is the one with a participle on suffix -uan/uen (Modern Hungarian -ván/vén): (2) St Matthew 4,20, Munich C. (1416/1466) És azok [legottan hálójok meghagyván] követék and they immediately net-3PL-Ø PRT-leaving follow-PAST-3PL őtet him ‘And, straightway leaving their net, they followed him.’ Further evidence for an old SOV type comes from the verb-auxiliary order in Old Hungarian. The auxiliary always immediately follows the verb: (3) Funeral Sermon and Prayer (1192–1195) es odu-tt-a vol-a neki paradisumut hazoa and give-PERF-3SG be-PAST he-DAT Paradise-ACC house-for ‘and had given him Paradise for a house.’ Also the other mentioned word orders being connected with SOV order match the criteria of such a language type. The nominal modifiers such as adjectival and genitival expressions precede the head noun (Lehmann 1973: 48); cf. for an adjective:

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

165

headedness in indo-uralic

(4) Munich C. 60rb (1416/1466) az vy bor vý to̗ mlo̗ cbè èrèźt-ènd-o̗ the new wine new leather.bottle-PL-ILL pour-MOD-PART ‘new wine is to be put into new bottles.’ For a possessor preceding the possessum: (5) Funeral Sermon and Prayer (1192–1195) ig fa gimilcetvl one tree fruit-3SG-from ‘from the fruit of one tree’ Also relative structures are preposed:1 (6) Kazinczy C. (1526–1541), p. 34 es ueǵed az [neko̗ d zo̗ rzo̗ ttem] Coronat and take-IMP-2SG the you-DAT obtain-PASTPART-1SG crown-ACC ‘and take the crown I obtained for you.’ However, in (7) the relative clause is postposed. It is a non-restrictive one referring to a personal name: (7) Funeral Sermon and Prayer (1192–1195) (Bácskai-Atkari 2013) Eſ uimagguc || ſzent peter urot. Kinec odut hotolm and pray-IMP1PL saint Peter lord-ACC who-DAT given power ovdonia. eſ ketnie bind-INF.3.SG. and unbind-INF.3.SG. ‘and let us pray to the lord Saint Peter, to whom the power was given to bind and to unbind’ Finally, the adpositional phrase is head-final in Hungarian. Hungarian has postpositions, not prepositions: (8) Funeral Sermon and Prayer (1192–1195) ív uimadsaguc-mia they prayer-3PL-because.of ‘because of their prayer’. 1 There are also prenominal non-finite relative clauses in present-day Khanty (Nikolaeva 1999: 79; Bácskai-Atkári & Dékány 2014: 44; Csepregi 2012).

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

166 2

lühr

Head Phrases in Indo-European Languages

2.1 Phrases with Adpositions 2.1.1 Hittite To continue with adpositions in the older Indo-European languages only a short remark about Hittite is necessary for there is much research on this topic (Brosch 2013; 2014a; 2014b; Melchert 2009: 613; Zeilfelder 2001: 224–230; Starke 1972). For the question whether Anatolian possessed both prepositions or postpositions, Brosch (2013: 399) discusses the Lycian and Luwian evidence. While Lycian has prepositions, in Luwian postpositions and prepositions are documented; for a preposition cf. (9) KUB 35.29 iii 29′ (CLuw./NS) a=duw[=an] annān patānza dūwandu CONN=3SG.D/L=3SG.ACC.C under foot: D/L.PL put: IMP.3PL.ACT ‘They shall put it under his feet.’ In Hittite there are different constructions. Dynamic place words with dative/ locative or allative appear always in front of this case form, anda parna ‘into the house’, and are considered as pure adverbs (Brosch 2013: 398). In static constructions place words are postposed: (10) a. É-ri andan and LUGAL-i peran ‘in front of the king’ (with dative/locative) b. LUGAL-u̯ aš peran ‘in front of the king’ (with genitive) c. peran(n)=mit ‘in front of me’ (with enclitic possessive pronoun) (Tjerkstra 2000: 6f.) and preposed: d. andan É-ri ‘in the house’ (with dative/locative) Brosch (2013: 398) considers andan here as a preposition. (11) KBo 6.2. iv 54 (OS) andan=(m)a É-ri kuit inside=CONN house: D/L.SG what(ever): NOM.SG.N harkzi get lost: PRS.ACT3SG ‘But what(ever) got lost inside the house.’

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

167

headedness in indo-uralic

But respecting the context andan bears a constrastive stress. It is a topicalized contrastive topic in the function of a local adverb. Thus, in Hittite there would be only postpositons. Nevertheless if the mentioned coexistence of prepositions and postpositions in Luwian represents an old status of Anatolian, in Lycian prepositions must have been generalized and in Hittite postpositions (Brosch 2013: 39, 154). In this case, Anatolian is an uncertain testimony for original postpositions needed for a possible head final type of Indo-European. 2.1.2 Vedic In Vedic prepositions besides postpositions can be found; for prepositions cf.:2 (12) RV 1,30,19 (Speyer 1896: 24) pári dyā ́m anyád around: PREP heaven(M): ACC.SG other: NOM.SG.N īyate revolve: PRS.IND.MED/PASS3SG ‘The other [chariot wheel] revolves around the sky.’ (13) RV 10,86,4 ś(u)vā ́ nú asya jambhiṣat dog(M): NOM.SG now he: GEN.M.SG bite: AOR.SUBJ.ACT3SG ápi kárṇe in: PREP ear(M): LOC.SG ‘Soon may the dog bite him in the ear.’ (14) RV 8,20,11, cf. Viti 2015: 61f. ví bhrājante rukmā ́so ádhi PFX glitter: PRS.IND.MED3PL jewel (M): NOM.PL on: PREP bāhúṣu arm(M): LOC.PL ‘Their jewels glitter upon their arms.’

2 However, according to Casaretto (2014: 59) in the R̥ gveda no prepositions are attested. Cf. further Casaretto (2011): in an adnominal construction ví is an attributive or appositive satellite.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

168

lühr

And for a postposition: (15) RV 10,51,6 agnéḥ pū ́ rve bhrā ́taraḥ Agni: GEN former: NOM.M.PL brother(M): NOM.PL ártham etám rathī ́ iva object(M): ACC.SG this: ACC.M.SG car driver (M): NOM.SG like ádhvānam ánu ā ́ path(M): ACC.SG along: POSTP back and forth: PFX avarīvuḥ move: INTENS.IPF.IND.ACT3PL ‘Agni’s elder brothers moved this object like a car driver along the path back and forth.’ Thus, while Vedic has prepositions and postpositions, Hittite has postpositions. 2.2 Noun Phrases with Adjectives The next topic is the position of attributive adjectives. According to language typology, preposed adjectives are to be expected if a language has OV ordering and, vice versa, postposed adjectives in the case of VO ordering. 2.2.1 Hittite In Hittite, attributive adjectives mostly appear in prenominal slots (Melchert 2003: 200; Laroche 1982: 134; Francia 2001: 91; Bauer 2015: 232–235). But quantifier adjectives are postposed: (16) Muwatalli (CTH 381, 1, 15) DINGIR.LÚMEŠ DINGIR.MUNUSMEŠ ḫu-u-ma-an-te-eš ḪUR.SAGMEŠ god: PL goddess: PL all: NOM.C.PL mountain: PL MEŠ URU.GIŠ ÍD ŠA KUR GIDRU-ti ḫu-u-ma-an-te-eš river: PL of land Hatti all: NOM.C.PL ‘all the gods (and) goddesses, all the mountains (and) rivers of the land of Ḫatti’. Also Hittite dapiant- ‘all, entire’ regularly follows its head noun. (17) KUB 5.1 iii 62 (Hoffner & Melchert 2008: 271) LÚMEŠ Ga-aš-gaḪIA-ma-an-kán da-pí-an-te-eš GAM UGU RA-an-zi ‘But all the Kaska men will strike it (the city) up from below.’

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

169

headedness in indo-uralic

Contrary to the communis opinio,3 I assume that these examples are instances of an older quantifier floating. As English and German show, quantifier floating is possible only with quantifiers that require a definite noun.4 (18) The Beatles and the Stones each made many hit records. In English quantifiers other than all, both, and each cannot be moved. But in Hittite, also the semantically related attributive participle šuwant- ‘filled’ is postposed: (19) Muwatalli (CTH 381 1,7–8) NINDA.Ì.E.DÉ.A DUGÚTUL šu-u-wa-an me-[m]a-al pound cake pot full: ACC.N.SG coarse meal(N): ACC.SG =ma DUGDÍLIM.GAL šu-u-wa-an but bowl full: ACC.N.SG ‘a pot full of pound cake, but a bowl full of coarse meal.’ A relict of the former prenominal position of ḫūmant- could be its preposition with body parts: (20) KUB 30.10 obv. 27′ (Hoffner & Melchert 2008: 272) ḫu-u-ma-an-te-et kar-di-it ‘with the whole heart’ If this structure was really the original one, postposition of ḫūmant- must have been generalized. However, preposition as in: (21) KUB 36.90 rev. 39 ḫu-u-ma-an-da-[az KU]R.KURMEŠ-za e-ḫu ‘come from every land’ is surely due to information structure. Here, ḫūmandaz is a contrastive topic and is pragmatically highlighted. Returning to postposed ḫūmandaz, I argue 3 Yoshida (1987: 33) ascribes the postposition of ḫūmant- to its “unbestimmte Bedeutung” and compares postposed kuelqa. According to Hoffner & Melchert (2008: 271) postposition of ḫūmant- and dapiant- may be due to their meaning or to their formal resemblance to participles in -ant-. 4 In English, only subject-related quantifiers can be separated from the subject and appear in more than one position in a sentence (Hoeksema 1996; Maling 1976).

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

170

lühr

that emphasis also plays a crucial role with quantifier floating. As this phenomenon is normally connected to stress it can be assumed that postposed ḫūmant- and dapiant- are highlighted, too.5 The following instances of postposed adjectives are different. (22) and (23) exhibit genitival relational adjectives: (22) Muwatalli (CTH 381 1,41) (cf. Bauer 2014: 246 f. referring to Semenza 2006: 561) dU pí-ḫa-aš-ša-aš-ši-iš Storm God belonging to lightning: NOM.C.SG ‘O Storm God of lightning’ (23) a. Muwatalli (CTH 381 3,4) dU ḫu-la-aš-ša-aš-ši-iš Storm God belonging to the town Ḫulašša: NOM.C.SG ‘O Storm God of Ḫulašša’ b. Telepinu (CTH 19 1,30) [ERÍNMEŠ] ḫur-lu-uš troops: PL Hurrian: ACC.PL ‘Hurrian troops’ Comparing other languages with regard to the position of relational adjectives (Bosque & Picallo 1996), it is worth noting that in languages which distinguish word order of attributive adjectives with respect to what could be described as their descriptive content, qualifying adjectives occur in prenominal and relational adjectives in postnominal position. Such a language is Polish for example (Wągiel 2014). As there is an essential distinction between the two adjectival classes, the semantic difference could also have had an impact on word order in Hittite; cf. (24) Muwatalli (CTH 381 3,46) i-da-lu-uš me-mi-aš evil: NOM.C.SG word(C): NOM.SG ‘the evil word’ As regards the position of adjectives, Hittite is broadly in line with the SOVtype. Apart from some postposed relational adjectives and predominantly 5 Further research is needed.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

headedness in indo-uralic

171

postnominal hūmant- and dapiant-, being instances of a former quantifier floating, in Hittite attributive adjectives precede their head noun. This is also valid for numerals without exception (Hoffner & Melchert 2008: 165). 2.2.2 Vedic Therefore, let us first prove the position of numerals in Vedic. In Vedic there are examples for preposed numerals as well as for postposed ones: (25) RV 4.42.8 (Royal Consecration 27) té āsan saptá r̥ ṣ́ ayaḥ the: NOM.M.PL be: IPF.IND.ACT3PL seven: adj.num R̥ ṣi(M): NOM.PL daurgahé badhyámāne Daurgaha(M): LOC.SG being captivated: LOC.M.SG ‘They were the seven R̥ ṣis, when the son of Durgaha was captive.’ (26) RV 10.86.14 (Indra and his monkey) ubhā ́ kukṣī ́ pr̥ ṇanti me both: ACC.M.DU cheeks(M): ACC.DU fill: PRS.IND.ACT3PL I: DAT.SG ‘They fill both my cheeks’ (27) RV 10.95.16 (Urvashi) yát vírūpā ácaram when in another shape: NOM.F.SG live: IPF.IND.ACT1SG mártyesu ávasam rā ́trīḥ mortal(M): LOC.PL spend: IPF.IND.ACT1SG night(F): ACC.PL śarádaḥ cátasraḥ autumn(F): ACC.PL four: ACC.F.PL ‘When I lived in another shape among the mortals, I spent the nights for four autumns.’ While in Hittite only quantifiers like ‘all’ and ‘every’ allow for quantifier floating, in Vedic also numerals show floating into the position behind their head noun. It is a remarkable typological feature for languages to vary in the extent of quantifier floating.6

6 For example, while in Japanese numeral quantifiers are licensed to be floating, Chinese numeral quantifiers are not (Kobuchi-Philipp 2003; Fitzpatrick 2006).

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

172

lühr

As quantifier floating with numerals is a living process in Vedic, quantifiers as ‘all’, ‘every’ should be floating quantifiers, too. And indeed, viśva- occurs before and behind its head noun: (28) RV 4.42.1 (Royal Consecration) máma dvitā ́ rāṣṭ(a)rám kṣatríyasya I: GEN.SG still rule(N): ACC.SG king(M): GEN.SG viśvā ́yoḥ víśve amr̥ t́ āḥ yáthā swaying all life: GEN.M.SG all NOM.M.PL immortal: NOM.M.PL as naḥ I: GEN.PL ‘All immortals still (follow) my rule, that of the king as mine who is invigorating all life.’ (29) RV 3.6.6 áthā ́ vaha devā ́n deva víśvān ‘Bring here all gods, o God.’ But as in Vedic also other adjectives than numerals and quantifiers are postposed, one has to examine whether this language belongs to those languages which allow for prenominal and postnominal attributive adjectives whereby the two word orders establish a conceptual difference. Such a language is English for instance; cf. Bolinger’s (1967) example: (30) a. The only navigable river is to the north. b. The only river navigable is to the north. In (30a) “regularly navigable” is meant, in (30b) “navigable at present”. Reading (30a) represents an individual-level predicate, reading (30b) a stage-level predicate, where individual-level corresponds to an intrinsic/permanent property and stage-level to a temporary property. For language typology it is of interest that in SVO-languages the modification to the left of the noun is thought to reflect nominal characteristics and modification to the right verbal characteristics, namely in an iconic manner (Vogel 1996: 207; Lühr 2002a; 2002b; 2005). Actually, in Vedic examples for prenominal modification with individuallevel meaning and those for postnominal modification with stage-level meaning are documented:

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

173

headedness in indo-uralic

(31) RV 4.42.6 (Royal Consecration) nákiḥ mā daívyam sáhaḥ never I: ACC.SG divine: NOM.N.SG power(N): NOM.SG varate ápratītam lock up: AOR.SUBJ.MED3SG irresistibel: ACC.M.SG ‘No divine power will lock up me, the irresistible.’ vs. (32) RV 3.33.12 (River flood) átāriṣuḥ bharatā ́ḥ get across: AOR.IND.ACT3PL Bharata(M): NOM.PL gavyávaḥ sám desiring cows: NOM.M.PL together ‘The Bharatas got across together desiring cows.’ However, there are also a lot of text passages where adjectives denoting an individual-level predicate are postposed: There are not only adjectives following a vocative as in (33) (33) RV 10.86.7 (Indra and his monkey) uvé amba sulābhike see: PRS.IND.MED1SG woman(F): VOC.SG easy to be won: VOC.F.SG yáthā iva aṅgá bhaviṣyáti how somehow PART be: FUT.IND.ACT3SG ‘I see how it will be somehow, woman, who is easy to be won.’ But also other syntactic connections: (34) RV 10.52.5 (Agni) ā ́ vaḥ yakṣi amr̥ tatvám here you: DAT.PL offer: AOR.INJ.MED1SG immortality (N): ACC.SG ́ suvīram rich in heroes: ACC.N.SG ‘Here I offer you immortality which is rich in heroes.’ Another adjective use is documented in (35). The quantifier éka- ‘one’ appears behind its head noun und is surely stressed.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

174

lühr

(35) RV 10.51.1 (Agni) víśvāḥ apaśyat bahudhā ́ te all: ACC.F.PL see: IPF.IND.ACT3SG frequently you: GEN.SG agne jā ́tavedaḥ tan(ú)vàḥ Agni(M): VOC.SG Jātavedas(M): VOC.SG manifestation (F): ACC.PL deváḥ ékaḥ deity(M): NOM.SG one: NOM.M.SG ‘One deity, o Agni Jātavedas, saw all your manifestations frequently.’ Therefore, it can be supposed that in the Vedic NP a postnominal slot for focalized adjectives exists independent whether the adjective is an individual-level or stage-level predicate. This means that postnominality is a focus strategy. By apposition-like structures the speaker wants to highlight an adjective the meaning of which is unexpected or in another way important in the context. Hence, Vedic and Hittite differ fundamentally in the positioning of adjectives. While Hittite has preposed adjectives apart from quantifiers and some relational adjectives, Vedic has both prenominal und postnominal ones, whereby the semantic class is not significant. 2.3 Noun Phrases with Genitives The next word order universal concerns the position of the genitive. When adjectives are placed behind the noun they modify, also genitives should appear in this position and the other way round when a language has preposed ones. 2.3.1 Hittite So far, Hittite is of the second type: as for the position of genitives, Hittite nearly fulfills the conditions of a SOV language. In the normal word order the genitive precedes its head noun (Hoffner & Melchert 2008: 254), except for the genitive of measure and for the genitive of material. (36) Muwatalli (CTH 381 1,6) 35 NINDA.GUR4.RA tar-na-aš 35 thick bread tarna-measure(C): GEN.SG ‘35 thick breads weighing each a tarnas’ A construction where a numeral refers to a measure word like in the following Greek example is not documented in Hittite.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

175

headedness in indo-uralic

(37) Od. 4.129 (Viti 2008: 219) δέκα δὲ χρυσοῖο τάλεντα ‘Ten talents of gold’ In Hittite, the denotation of what is counted immediately follows the numeral, which is why the genitive tarnaš moves to the position behind the head noun. Thus, it can be said that the word order is iconic, here. It follows Behaghel’s first law according to which elements that belong close together intellectually will also be placed close together: the number is connected to the expression for the counted entity. Also the genitive of material appears postposed: (38) a. Ritual (CTH 443 1,1–5) EME iš-na-aš tongue clay(C): GEN.SG ‘tongue (made) of clay’ b. StBoT 8 i 22′ (Yoshida 1987: 72) 2 DḪa-an-ta-a-an-ta-še-pu-uš … GI[(Š-aš)] ‘2 DḪantašepa-deities … of wood’ Cf. the following examples from Homeric Greek: (39) Il. 11.24 οἴμοι κυάνοιο ‘stripes of cyanos’ Od. 4.124 δέπας οἴνοιο ‘a cup of wine’ (Viti 2008: 219) To explicate postposition of the designation of the material here, the kind of reference has to be noted. For this purpose we compare possessive nominal phrases with a noun as possessor. The possessor precedes always the possessum. (40) Edict of Telipinu i 66 (KUB 11.5 obv. 8′) ad-da-aš e-eš-ḫar-še-et father(C): GEN.SG blood(N): NOM.SG=his ‘the blood of the father’ (41) KUB 8.41 ii 7′ DIŠKUR-na-aš ša-ša-an-ti-iš-ši Storm God(C): GEN.SG concubine(C): DAT./LOC=his ‘to the concubine of the Storm God’

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

176

lühr

Phrases like (40) and (41) are always definite nominal phrases. The possessum is either a sortal noun like house, or it refers to parts of entities like blood, head, eyes, or to persons. In any case the referent of the possessum is uniquely identifiable by the preposed genitive (Loebner 1985; Lühr 2002c). Hence, the substantival genitive to the left of the possessum establishes the reference of this word. On the contrary, the use of the genitive of material to the right of the head noun (Yoshida 1987: 32, 75) is a signal that a specific interpretation is disallowed (cf. Lühr 2004); cf.: (42) KBo 17.36+25.54 + (= StBoT 25 Nr. 54) iv 5′ [me-e-ma-]al še-ep-pí-da-aš groats š.-grain(N): GEN.SG ‘groats from š.-grain’. As word order does not have an influence on the reference of the whole nominal phrase the genitive of material can be postposed in Hittite. 2.3.2 Vedic Turning to Vedic, only stressed pronouns denoting primarily a possessor precede the head noun, while unstressed ones appear in the Wackernagel position: (43) RV 4.42.1 (Royal Consecration) máma … rāṣṭ(a)rám kṣatríyasya I: GEN.SG rule(N): ACC.SG king(M): GEN.SG ‘my rule, that of the king’. As regards the position of substantival genitives, a comparison of the number of records in Vedic shows that preposed ones are more often documented than postposed ones. The proportion is 3 to 2. As it could be supposed that preposition of the genitive is the normal word order, postposition must be explained. All categories of adnominal genitives, the possessive, subjective, objective, partitive genitive and the genitive of content can appear postnominally. But, admittedly, a ratio for postposition exists only for a part of the genitival data. Fixed word orders appear sometimes with kinship terms. The head noun precedes: (44) RV 2.028.03c putrā aditer RV 4.042.04c putró áditer RV 7.041.02a putrám áditer

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

177

headedness in indo-uralic

RV 7.060.05c putrā ́ áditer RV 8.018.05a putrā ́so áditer RV 10.072.08a putrā ́so áditer RV 10.185.03a putrā ́so áditeḥ RV 9.069.03a naptīŕ áditer Also in vocative constructions with an objective genitive the head noun appears first: (45) RV 3.30.19; 10.47.1 vasupate vásūnām ‘lord of wealth’ RV 10.112.10 vasupate sákhīnām ‘lord of treasures’ Often the word order is inversed by hyperbaton. In (46) the head noun is in front of the possessive genitive: (46) RV 10.52.5 (Agni 37) ā ́ bāh(u)vóḥ vájram índrasya in arm(M): LOC.DU Vajra(M): ACC.SG Indra(M): GEN.SG dheyām put: AOR.OPT.ACT1SG ‘I would like to put the Vajra in Indra’s arms.’ Another genitival structure is represented in (47): three genitives exhibit extraposition; this means that the heavy constituent appears to the right of its canonical position. (47) RV 1.165.15 (Marut 44) eṣá vaḥ stómaḥ marutaḥ this: NOM.M.SG you: DAT.PL praise(M): NOM.SG Marut(M): VOC.PL iyám gīḥ́ māndār(i)yásya this: NOM.F.SG hymn(F): NOM.SG Māndāriya: GEN.SG mān(i)yásya kāróḥ Māna(M): GEN.SG singer(M): GEN.SG ‘this is praise to you, O Maruts, this hymn of the singer Māndāriya, Māna’s son.’ Comparing the Hittite and Vedic data containing an adnominal genitive, striking differences were stated. While in Hittite postposition of the genitive is nearly an exception, Vedic allows for postposition of all kinds of genitives. Often information structure is the motor for extraposition of the genitive, espe-

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

178

lühr

cially the hyperbaton, as well as a heavy weight of the genitival noun phrase or vocative constructions with the head noun in the first position. As mentioned, there are also records where none of these explanations holds. More research is required. 2.4 Phrases of Relative Clauses Most Hittite relative clauses precede the main clause. There are two types, a restrictive and a free relative clause in the function of a determiner phrase (Lühr 2001; Hoffner & Melchert 2008: 424; Ott 2001). In later Hittite also postposed relative clauses appear; cf. the following much quoted sentence: the relative clause is a non-restricted one: (48) Ullikummi (CTH 345 I 1, 5–6) (Garrett 1994: 47) dKu-mar-bi-iš GA[LGA]-tar ZI-ni [kat]-ta-an da-aš-ke-ez-zi Kumarbi: NOM wisdom: ACC mind: LOC into take=PRS3SG UDK[AM-a]n ku-iš LÚ [ḪUL]-an šal-la-nu-uš-ke-ez-zi day: ACC who: NOM being: ACC evil: ACC cause to grow: PRS3SG ‘Kumarbi takes wisdom into his mind, who raises the day as an evil being.’ Clackson (2007: 175) understands the relative clause in (48) as an afterthought added to the main clause, but as there is reference to a personal name, hence to a semantic definite (Loebner 1985), the interpretation as appositive relative clause is more obvious; cf. the postposed corresponding structure in Vedic referring to a personal name as well: (49) RV 5.36.1 (Hettrich 1988: 689) sa ā ́ gamad índro he: NOM.M.SG PFX come: AOR.SUBJ.ACT3SG Indra(M): NOM.SG yó vásūnāṃ cíketad who: NOM.M.SG goods(N): GEN.PL know: PF.SUBJ.IND3ACT dā ́tuṃ dā ́mano rayīṇā ́m give: INF gift(M): GEN.PL treasure(M): GEN.PL ‘Indra may come to us, who knows rightly to give treasures to give riches.’ But concerning the ratio of restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses in Hittite on the whole it is true that in this language restrictive relative clauses are much more common than non-restrictive ones, while in Vedic non-restrictive relative clauses outweigh restrictive relative clauses. The ratio is approximately

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

179

headedness in indo-uralic

4 : 3, whereby in the case of non-restrictive relative clauses the order of matrix clause—relative clause outnumbers the reverse order more than twice (Avery 1881: lxiv–lxvi; Hettrich 1988: 680; Holland 1991: 33; Lehmann 1984: 228 f.; for Latin cf. Clackson 2007: 175; for Greek cf. Probert 2015). This shows that the distinction between background information and new information provided by a non-restrictive and a restrictive relative clause respectively has effects on the order of clauses.

3

The Function of the Subject in Hittite and Vedic Compared to Proto-Uralic

If Khanty and Mansi have preserved the basic SOV order of Proto-Uralic, then the change from SOV to Topic Focus Verb X* must have taken place in Hungarian separately (Kiss 2013).7 (50) Proto-Hungarian subject/topic object/focus right-dislocated elements ↓↓↓ SOV

→ → → →

Old Hungarian topic focus in situ arguments ↓↓↓ → topic focus V X*

Comparing the Hittite and Vedic data with this development, we examine the position of subject and topic (see tables 12.1 and 12.2). A distinction is made between a continuing, shifting, and contrastive topic. If the topic is a pronominal subject, it can be covertly enclosed in the verb. We only take main clauses (= MC) into consideration. The numbers clearly show that in Hittite the distribution of subjects in first and second position is almost even, and in Old Indic a subject phrase is the most common in initial position. When functioning as topic, the subject is usually a shifting topic. But a topic-subject, which is covert as a result of pro-drop, is mainly a continuing topic. However, both in Hittite and in Old Indic the records of subject-topicidentity are too rare to give a hint on a development towards a discourse configurational structure of the Hungarian type. Hittite and Old Indic are syntax configurational languages (Lühr 2015). 7 According to Polo (2005) rightward extraposition can be responsible for the change from SOV to SVO. An example is Latin.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

180

lühr

table 12.1 Subjects and topics in Hittite

Text Subjects in MC total Covert subjects in MC total Subject in 1. position of MC Subject in 2. position of MC Subject final in MC Subject second-to-final in MC Topics as Subject in MC thereof continuing topic thereof shifting topic thereof contrastive topic covert Topic-Subjects in MC thereof continuing topic thereof shifting topic thereof contrastive topic

Muwatalli Ritual Telepinu Hitt. total 116 89 4 4 0 3 11 4 6 1 21 13 7 1

200 150 7 7 2 4 10 3 6 1 58 44 12 0

53 27 6 8 0 5 9 5 4 0 18 15 3 0

369 266 17 19 2 12 30 12 16 2 97 72 22 1

table 12.2 Subjects and topics in Old Indic

Language

Vedic Sanskrit OI. total

Subjects in MC total 1177 covert subjects in MC total 451 Subject in 1. position of MC 279 Subject in 2. position of MC 114 Subject final in MC 51 Subject second-to-final in MC 133 Subjects as Topics in MC Topics as Subject in MC thereof continuing topic thereof shifting topic thereof contrastive topic covert Topic-Subjects in MC thereof continuing topic thereof shifting topic thereof contrastive topic

323 97 188 33 349 178 165 4

362 93 75 60 28 48

1539 544 354 174 79 181

99 29 59 10 73 34 39 0

422 126 247 43 422 212 204 4

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

181

headedness in indo-uralic

4

Conclusion

As the comparison of head structures in Hittite and Vedic shows, Hittite has postpositions, Vedic pre- and postpositions, the adjective appears in Hittite mostly in front of the head noun as well as the genitives. Exceptions are operators like hūmant- ‘all’, some relational adjectives and genitives of measure. By contrast, in Vedic the position of adjectives and genitives fluctuates, also the position of relative clauses does not agree with Hittite. Of these two languages Hittite has more common features with an underlying SOV type represented by Proto-Hungarian. Including verb placement Hittite actually comes even closer to the SOV type: In Hittite the finite verb appears mostly at the end of the clause:

Hittite

Verb-final Verb-first Verb-second Verb-middle 483

10

6

7

On the contrary, the relations are ambiguous in Old Indic, especially in Vedic:

R̥ gveda

Verb-final Verb-first Verb-second Verb-middle 169

Pancatrantra

64

71

118

Verb-final Verb-first Verb-second Verb-middle 70

8

13

9

Thus, Hittite is a verb-final language, Vedic probably not. The conclusion is: if there really existed a common Proto-Indo-Uralic language, concerning word order its Indo-European representative must have been of the Hittite type and not of the Vedic one, because this language clearly is a mixed type relating to head directionality. Actually, as the World Atlas of Language Structures (ONLINE) (http://wals .info/) shows, the SOV-type is the most common in the languages of the world.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

182

lühr

table 12.3 Distribution of the types of word order in WALS

Value

Representation

Subject-object-verb (SOV) Subject-verb-object (SVO) Verb-subject-object (VSO) Verb-object-subject (VOS) Object-verb-subject (OVS) Object-subject-verb (OSV) Lacking a dominant word order Total:

565 488 95 25 11 4 189 1377

It may be that convergent head directionality structures can be used as proof of a common proto-language for Uralic and Indo-European with Hittite as the main exponent of the Indo-European branch. However, more evidence is needed.

References Avery, J. 1881. On relative clauses in the Rigveda. Proceedings of the American Oriental Society 11, 64–66. Bácskai-Atkári, J. 2013. The diachronic system of the left periphery of subordinate clauses in Hungarian. In: B. Surányi (ed.), Proceedings of the Second Central European Conference in Linguistics for Postgraduate Students. Budapest: Pázmány Péter Catholic University, 3–23. Bácskai-Atkári, J.; É. Dékány 2014. From non-finite to finite subordination. The history of embedded clauses. In: K.É. Kiss (ed.), The Evolution of Functional Left Peripheries in Hungarian Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 147–299. Bauer, A.H. 2014. Morphosyntax of the Noun Phrase in Hieroglyphic Luwian. Leiden– Boston: Brill. Bolinger, D. 1967. Adjectives in English: Attribution and predication. Lingua 18, 1–34. Bosque, I.; Picallo, C. 1996. Postnominal adjectives in Spanish DP s. Journal of Linguistics 32, 57–78. Brosch, C. 2013. Untersuchungen zur hethitischen Raumgrammatik. Berlin–New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Brosch, C. 2014a. Eine Skizze der Räumlichkeit im Hethitischen. eTopoi. Journal for Ancient Studies 3, 23–41.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

headedness in indo-uralic

183

Brosch, C. 2014b. Räumlichkeit in Zentralanatolien. In: S. Kutscher; D. Werning (eds.), On Ancient Grammars of Space. Linguistic Research on the Expression of Spatial Relations and Motion in Ancient Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1–44. Casaretto, A. 2011. Syntax und Wortarten der Lokalpartikeln des R̥ gveda. XII: ví. Historische Sprachforschung 124, 134–177. Casaretto, A. 2014. Zum Verhältnis von Kasusfunktion und Lokalpartikel im R̥ gveda am Beispiel des Akkusativs. Historische Sprachforschung 125, 49–67. Clackson, J. 2007. Indo-European Linguistics. An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fitzpatrick, J.M. 2006. Syntactic and Semantic Routes to Floating Quantification. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Csepregi, M. 2012. Participiális jelzős szerkezetek két hanti nyelvjárásban. Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 108, 61–94. Francia, R. 2011. La posizione degli aggettivi qualificativi nella frase ittita. In: O. Carruba; W. Meid (eds.), Anatolisch und Indogermanisch. Innsbruck: IBS, 81–91. Garrett, A. 1994. Relative clause syntax in Lycian and Hittite. Die Sprache 36, 29– 96. Hoeksema, J. 1996. Floating quantifiers, partitives and distributivity. In: J. Hoeksema (ed.), Partitives: Studies on the Syntax and Semantics of Partitive and Related Constructions. Berlin–New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 57–106. Holland, G. 1991. Definiteness and relativization. In: J.P. Brereton; S.W. Jamison; M.M. Deshpande (eds.), Panels of the VIIth World Sanskrit Conference. Volume IV: Sense and Syntax in Vedic. Volume V: Pāṇini and the Veda. Leiden: Brill, 22–32. Hoffner, H.A., Jr.; H.C. Melchert 2008. A Grammar of the Hittite Language. Part 1: Reference Grammar. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Honti, L. 1979. Characteristic features of Ugric languages (observations on the question of Ugric unity). Acta Linguistica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 29, 1–26. Honti, L. 1998a. ObUgrian. In: D. Abondolo (ed.), The Uralic Languages. London–New York: Routledge, 327–357. Honti, L. 1998b. Die Ob-Ugrischen Sprachen. In: D. Sinor (ed.), The Uralic Languages. Description, History and Foreign Influences. Leiden–New York: Brill, 147–196. Kiss, K.É. 2013. From Proto-Hungarian SOV to Old Hungarian Top Foc V X*. Diachronica 30/2, 202–231. Kobuchi-Philip, M. 2003. Syntax and semantics of the Japanese floating numeral quantifier and its implications for the theory of floating quantifiers. Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 28, 57–70. Laroche, E. 1982. Epithètes et prédicats en hittite. In: J. Tischler (ed.), Serta Indogermanica. Festschrift für Günter Neumann zum 60. Geburtstag. Innsbruck: IBS, 133–136. Lehmann, W.P. 1973. A structural principle of language and its implications. Language 49/1, 47–66.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

184

lühr

Lehmann, C. 1984. Der Relativsatz: Typologie seiner Strukturen, Theorie seiner Funktionen, Kompendium seiner Grammatik. Tübingen: Narr. Loebner, S. 1985. Definites. Journal of Semantics 4, 279–326. Lühr, R. 2001. Relativsätze im Hethitischen. In: G. Wilhelm (ed.), Akten des IV. Internationalen Kongresses für Hethithologie, Würzburg 4.–8. Oktober 1999. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 333–346. Lühr, R. 2002a. Konzeptionierungen des Prädikativums in der Indogermania. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 21, 2–24. Lühr, R. 2002b. Badal- und Genitivkonstruktionen. Historische Sprachforschung 115, 23– 36. Lühr, R. 2002c. “Allgemeine Anaphora”. Zum Artikelgebrauch bei der Fügung “Substantiv und adnominaler Genitiv” im Heliand. In: M. Fritz; S. Zeilfelder (eds.), Novalis Indogermanica. Festschrift für Günter Neumann zum 80. Geburtstag. Graz: Leykam, 251–281. Lühr, R. 2004. Der Ausdruck der Possessivität innerhalb der Determinansphrase der ältesten indogermanischen Sprache. In: D. Groddek; S. Rößle (eds.), Šarnikzel: Hethitologische Studien zum Gedenken an Emil Orgetorix Forrer. Dresden: Verlag der TU Dresden, 415–446. Lühr, R. 2005. Individuen- und Stadienprädikation im Altindischen. In: I. Balles; R. Lühr (eds.), Indogermanische Nomina agentis. Leipzig: Institut für Linguistik der Universität Leipzig, 161–252. Lühr, R. 2015. Traces of discourse configurationality in older Indo-European languages? In: C. Viti (ed.), Perspectives on Historical Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 203– 232. Maling, J. 1976. Notes on quantifier postponing. Linguistic Inquiry 7, 708–718. Marcantonio, A. 1985. On the definite vs. indefinite conjugation in Hungarian: A typological and diachronic analysis. Acta Linguistica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 35, 267–298. Melchert, H.C. 2003. Language. In: H.C. Melchert (ed.), The Luwians. Leiden–Boston: Brill, 170–210. Melchert, H.C. 2009. Local adverbs in Hittite: Synchrony and diachrony. Language and Linguistics Compass 3/2, 607–620. Nikolaeva, I. 1999. Ostyak. München: Lincom Europa. Ott, D. 2011. A note on free relative clauses in the Theory of Phases. Linguistic Inquiry 42/1, 183–192. Polo, C. 2005. Latin word order in generative perspective: An explanatory proposal within the sentence domain. In: K.É. Kiss (ed.), Universal Grammar in the Reconstruction of Ancient Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 373–428. Probert, P. 2015. Early Greek Relative Clause. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Raun, A. 1988. Proto-Uralic comparative historical morphosyntax. In: D. Sinor (ed.),

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

headedness in indo-uralic

185

The Uralic Languages. Description, History and Foreign Influences. Leiden–New York: Brill, 555–571. Semenza, C. 20062. Impairments of proper and common names. In: K. Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 561–564. Speyer, J.S. 1896. Vedische und Sanskrit-Syntax. Strassburg: Trübner. Tjerkstra, F.A. 2000. Principles of the Relation between Local Adverb, Verb and Sentence Particle in Hittite. Groningen: Styx. Viti, C. 2008. Genitive word order in Ancient Greek: A functional analysis of word order freedom in the noun phrase. Glotta 84, 203–238. Viti, C. 2015. Variation und Wandel in der Syntax der alten indogermanischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr. Vogel, P.M. 1996. Wortarten und Wortartenwechsel. Zu Konversion und verwandten Erscheinungen im Deutschen und in anderen Sprachen. Berlin–New York: Walter de Gruyter. Wągiel, M. 2014. From kinds to objects. Prenominal and postnominal adjectives in Polish. In: I. Veselovská; M. Janebová (eds.), Complex Visibles Out There: Proceedings of the Olomouc Linguistic Colloquium 2014: Language Use and Linguistic Structure. Olomouc: Palacký University, 457–476. Yoshida, D. 1987. Die Syntax des althethitischen substantivischen Genitivs. Heidelberg: Winter. Zeilfelder, S. 2001. Archaismus und Ausgliederung. Studien zur sprachlichen Stellung des Hethitischen. Heidelberg: Winter.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

chapter 13

Indo-Uralic, Indo-Anatolian, Indo-Tocharian* Michaël Peyrot

In this paper, I intend to illustrate the relevance of the Tocharian branch of Indo-European for questions concerning the Indo-Anatolian hypothesis and the possible macro-relationship of Indo-European with Uralic. To this end, I discuss the relevance for the Indo-Anatolian hypothesis of the possibility that the Tocharian branch was the second to split off after Anatolian, which I call the “Indo-Tocharian” hypothesis; the case of the Anatolian and Tocharian verb for ‘drink’ and its possible Uralic cognate; and the Anatolian and Tocharian m-interrogative, which has a neat parallel in Uralic. As will become clear, the results of these discussions are of uneven value, and the main aim of this paper is principally of a methodological nature.

1

Indo-Uralic, Indo-Anatolian, Indo-Tocharian

For the important but still disputed question of Indo-Anatolian the relevance of the Tocharian branch is in my view not so much its informativeness on the original state of affairs in Proto-Indo-European, since it has undergone so many sound changes, and lost and replaced so much of the original lexicon. Rather, its relevance is due to its presumed position in the Indo-European family tree: it is often assumed to have been the second branch to split off after Anatolian, as in the tree reconstructed by Ringe, Warnow & Taylor (2002: 87; see figure 13.1, next page). Several authors have argued that Tocharian was the second branch to split off, e.g. Carling (2005: 48–49), Jasanoff (2003: 204), Kim (2007), Kortlandt (e.g. 2016: 81–82), Schindler (apud Jasanoff 2003: 46), Schmidt (1992) and Winter (1997). Yet, the evidence is not overwhelming, and, strikingly, many authors strongly differ in the arguments they adduce for this position of Tocharian in * This research was first supported by a Marie Curie Intra European Fellowship within the 7th European Community Framework Programme (project number 626656) and then by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO, project number 276-70-028). This article is an adaptation of a talk at The precursors of Proto-Indo-European: The Indo-Hittite and Indo-Uralic hypotheses. 9–11 July 2015, Leiden University. I am grateful to the editors Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk for valuable comments on an earlier version. © michaël peyrot, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004409354_014 This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 License. Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

indo-uralic, indo-anatolian, indo-tocharian

187

figure 13.1 Tree of the Indo-European family; after Ringe, Warnow & Taylor 2002: 87; simplified

the family tree. There are also critical voices in the literature, for instance by Malzahn (2016), who argues that the lexical arguments of e.g. Schmidt (1992) and Winter (1997) are not strong and should not be used. I agree with Malzahn that we need more and better evidence before we can consider the early splitoff of Tocharian proven, but that is no reason to discard the lexical evidence that we have. With Kloekhorst (2008; see below), I consider the potential of lexical evidence for subgrouping to be actually rather good. Although I admit that more work needs to be done, the hypothesis that Tocharian was the second to split off seems to me the most likely so far. The possibility that Tocharian was the second branch to split off is relevant for the Indo-Anatolian hypothesis. Since the Indo-Anatolian node in the tree is defined by common innovations of the non-Anatolian branches, it is only of value in contrast to the next node in the tree. Thus, if the next node down from Indo-Anatolian is the node that we may term “Indo-Tocharian” (see figure 13.2, next page), Indo-Anatolian can only be established in contrast to Indo-Tocharian; if Tocharian evidence for a given common innovation of the non-Anatolian languages is lacking, the position of Tocharian for this feature is not clear, and what seems to be an argument for Indo-Anatolian could as well be in fact an argument for Indo-Tocharian. Obviously, if Tocharian was not the second branch to split off, the same argument applies to the branch that was in

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

188

peyrot

figure 13.2 Tree of the Indo-European family with labels for the Indo-Anatolian, Indo-Tocharian and IndoItalo-Celtic nodes

fact the first to split off after Anatolian, for instance Italo-Celtic. In light of the Indo-Tocharian hypothesis, therefore, evidence for Indo-Anatolian requires a systematic check against Tocharian data. Below, I will systematically review Kloekhorst’s seven arguments for IndoAnatolian (2008: 8–10), because these are in my view well selected and clear evidence. The main purpose of this review is not to challenge Kloekhorst’s arguments, but to illustrate the methodological case I want to make. 1) Hitt. mer-zi / mar- ‘disappear’ < *merThe Hittite reflex of *mer- means ‘disappear’, while in the other Indo-European languages the meaning ‘die’ is found. While the shift of meaning of ‘disappear’ to ‘die’ is commonplace according to a well established metaphor, the opposite semantic change is difficult to imagine. In Tocharian, the verb for ‘die’ is wäl- in Tocharian A and srəwka- in Tocharian B; there is so far no reflex of *mer-.1 1 Tocharian has the apparently related *mers- ‘forget’ as A mräsā- ‘forget’, B mərsa- ‘id.’; this verb has not been influenced by the semantic shift of *mer- and is therefore irrelevant here.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

indo-uralic, indo-anatolian, indo-tocharian

189

2) Hitt. zīk / tu- ‘you’ < PAnat. *tiH / *tuIn the other Indo-European languages the vowel of the allomorphs*tiH / *tuwas levelled as *tuH / *tu-. Tocharian goes together with the other non-Anatolian languages: Tocharian A tu, B tuwe < *tuH-om. 3) Hitt. šāḫ-i ‘fill up, plug, stuff’ < *seh₂The Hittite reflex of *seh₂- means ‘fill up, stuff’, but those of the other IndoEuropean languages mean ‘satiate’. Again, a semantic change of ‘stuff’ to ‘satiate’ is more likely than the converse. Tocharian goes together with the other non-Anatolian languages: Tocharian A säy(n)- ‘satiate; be satiated, depressed’, B soy- ‘be sated’, səyn- ‘be satiated, depressed’. 4) HLuw. tuwatra/i- ‘daughter’ and Lyc. kbatra- ‘id.’ < *dhuégh₂tr, *dhugh₂térm According to Kloekhorst, the Anatolian words for ‘daughter’ point to an original paradigm *dhuégh₂tr, *dhugh₂térm. After Anatolian split off, this paradigm was simplified to become the *dhugh₂tḗr, *dhugh₂térm known from the nonAnatolian languages. The Tocharian words for ‘daughter’ are A ckācar and B nom.sg. tkācer, obl.sg. tkātär. The initial ck- of Tocharian A ckācar is not regular. In theory, it could replace *cukācar < *t’ẃəkacer < *dhuegh₂t-, with elimination of the *-u- after the non-nom.sg. cases with *tk- < *təkat- < *dhugh₂t- (this is what I suggested apud Kloekhorst 2011: 241). However, the evidence is weak, and ckācar more probably derives from earlier *tkācar through distant assimilation. In this latter, more probable case, Tocharian goes together with the other non-Anatolian languages. 5) ḫarra-i / ḫarr- ‘grind, crush’ < *h₂erh₃- and ḫārš-i ‘harrow, till the soil’ Kloekhorst argues that Hittite ḫarra-i ‘grind, crush’ preserves the older meaning, and that the meaning ‘plough’ of the same etymon in the non-Anatolian languages is a common, later development. The verb *h₂erh₃- is not attested as such in Tocharian. The regular expression for ‘plough’ seems to be TA pātā- ‘plough’, pate ‘ploughing’ < *bhodhh₂(Lat. fodiō, -ere ‘pierce, dig’, Hitt. padda-i, padd- ‘dig (the ground, a pit)’, OCS bodǫ ‘stab’, Lith. bedù ‘stick, dig’). However, Tocharian A āreñ surely means

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

190

peyrot

‘plough’. Apparently this is in origin the plural of an abstract noun āre ‘ploughing’ derived from a verb *ār- or *ārā-; this verb is obviously to be set up as *ārā< Proto-Tocharian *ara- < *h₂erh₃- (Peyrot 2018b: 262–263). The replacement of the original verb for ‘plough’ by the verb for ‘dig’ is a little peculiar. Perhaps the reason is the phonological merger of *ara- ‘plough’ with *ara- ‘cease’ (Tocharian B ara- ‘cease’, A arā- ‘id.’). 6) Hitt. mimma-i / mimm- ‘refuse, reject’ < *meh₁According to Kloekhorst, the prohibitive negation *meh₁ of the non-Anatolian languages derives from the imperative of the verb *meh₁- still preserved as such in Anatolian. Tocharian clearly goes together with the non-Anatolian languages: Toch. AB mā ‘not’. 7) The Anatolian words for ‘horse’ < *h₁eḱuKloekhorst reconstructs the Anatolian words for ‘horse’ as a u-stem, from *h₁eḱu-. The thematic noun *h₁eḱuo- found in the non-Anatolian languages is the result of a later development. Tocharian clearly goes together with the non-Anatolian languages: Tocharian A yuk ‘horse’, B yakwe ‘id.’ < *h₁eḱuo-. Of these seven arguments for Indo-Anatolian, six easily stand the test because Tocharian goes together with the other non-Anatolian branches. Only number 1), ‘disappear / die’, is not attested in Tocharian and should therefore strictly speaking not be used as an argument for Indo-Anatolian because the change of ‘disappear’ to ‘die’ could theoretically also have taken place in the core IndoEuropean languages after Tocharian split off. Nevertheless, I do not think that we should discard this argument for Indo-Anatolian completely. It is in fact a good argument. We should just keep in mind that the position of Tocharian for this item cannot so far be decided.

2

Indo-Tocharian and Indo-Uralic? The Case of the Verb ‘Drink’

One of the frequently cited Hittite-Tocharian matches is Hitt. eku-zi / aku‘drink’ ~ Toch.AB yok- ‘drink’ < *h₁egwh- (Pinault 2006: 93). Although Anatolian and Tocharian are indeed the only two branches in which this verb is found, and most other branches have reflexes of the more common *peh₃- ‘drink’, this

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

indo-uralic, indo-anatolian, indo-tocharian

191

etymon is difficult to use as an argument for the Indo-Tocharian hypothesis. Most importantly, even though Anatolian and Tocharian are the only branches in which *h₁egwh- is attested, reflexes of this root are also found in Lat. ēbrius ‘drunk’ and Gr. νήφω ‘be sober’. A lookalike of this Proto-Indo-European root is found in Uralic: compare among others Fi. juo- ‘drink’, Norw. Sa. jukkâ-, -ǥ- ‘drink’, and Hu. iv- ‘drink’. In the Uralisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch (Rédei 1988–1991: 103), this etymon is reconstructed as *juγe- ( juke-). The correspondence between PIE *h₁egwh- and the reconstruction *juγe- ( juke-) reminds of PIE *deh₃- ‘give’ ~ PU *toγe- ‘bring, get, give’ (Rédei 1988–1991: 529). Kortlandt (1989: 83) explained this correspondence assuming a Proto-Indo-Uralic preform *tagu-, which developed through u-umlaut to PU *toγe- on the one hand, and with *gu > *h₃ to PIE *deh₃- on the other. In the same vein, one might explain PU *juγe-, juke- from PIU *eku- with u-umlaut, and the initial j- perhaps as a result of breaking. PIE *h₁egwh- would derive from this reconstructed PIU *eku- through the change of *ku to *gwh. Today, the reconstructions of the Uralisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch are generally viewed as outdated. However, the more recent reconstructions of Sammallahti (1988: 543, 550), PFU *toxi- ‘bring’ and PFU *juxi- ‘drink’, respectively, have not changed this picture in any essential way. On the basis of these reconstructions, it would still be possible to argue that PFU *toxi- and PIE *deh₃- < PIU *tagu, and PFU *juxi- and PIE *h₁egwh- < PIE *eku- or *egu-.2 A more radical new reconstruction of the Uralic verb for ‘drink’ has been proposed by Aikio (2002: 38–40): *ji̮xi.3 Obviously, the relevance of this revision is that no labial vowel is reconstructed anymore, which weakens the comparison between the Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Uralic roots considerably. Revised reconstructions for Proto-Indo-Uralic are conceivable, for instance *igu with -u > -i in Uralic, but the number of unproven sound laws that has to be assumed increases, so that such reconstructions are hardly falsifiable.

2 Obviously, this derivation has to cope with the difficulty that PU *x would correspond to PIE *h₃ in ‘give’ but to *gwh in ‘drink’. However, a more serious problem, in my view, is discussed directly below. Kortlandt later offered a revised explanation for this etymon: “The rounded laryngeal *q₃ of Indo-European *deq₃- < *toqi- suggests that the non-initial vowel was rounded as a result of Indo-Uralic vowel harmony in this root.” (2002: 217–227). I interpret this to mean that PIU (= PU) *toxi- > *toxu- > *texu- > *deqw- > PIE *deh₃-. In my view, this revision only brings Proto-Indo-Uralic closer to Proto-Uralic. Whether this is the right route to take is questionable, and I find his earlier derivation more convincing. 3 In the following, the symbols “i̮” and “e̮” denote a high unrounded back vowel (alternatively sometimes “ï”, IPA “ɯ”) and a mid unrounded back vowel (alternatively sometimes “ë”, IPA “ɤ”), respectively.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

192

peyrot

Aikio’s new reconstruction is based on 1) the inclusion of Proto-Samoyedic *e̮- among the cognates, and 2) a different interpretation of the Permic and Hungarian vocalism (on which see below). The Proto-Samoyedic root *e̮- ‘drink’ is set up by Aikio on the basis of *e̮r- ‘drink’ and *e̮kəl- ‘drink avidly’.4 According to him, the longer root *e̮kəlmust be a derivative, and since the base is apparently *e̮-, the other root *e̮r- must be a derivative as well. Indeed, so-called “augmentative” derivatives in -r are quite well attested: they are frequently found in the individual languages and for Proto-Samoyedic Janhunen (1977) lists r-augmentatives for *əm- ‘eat’, *cinɜ-/ci̮nɜ- ‘smell’, *jatə- ‘go’, *jäcə- ‘forge’, *ko- ‘see’ (as well as *kont¹ə- ‘see’), *kot- ‘cough’, *kunə- ‘run away’, *mej- ‘make’ (*mir-), *nət- ‘scrape’, *ńensə- ‘glide’, *ńim- ‘suck’, *pe- ‘seek’, *pit- ‘tan’, *sänə- ‘play’, *talä- ‘steal’, *te̮mta‘trade’ (*te̮mtəjr-) and *witɜ- ‘drink (water)’. Although the suffix -kəl is much less frequent, it has parallels too. Janhunen reconstructs derivatives in -kəl for *u- ‘swim’, *ü- ‘drag’, *je ‘heel’ (*je-kəl- ‘step’), *nek-/ne̮k- ‘pull’, *ni̮c- ‘tear’,5 *pən- ‘plait’, *pət- ‘dive’, *so- ‘scoop’, *tək- ‘hide’. Aikio then notes that ProtoSamoyedic roots of the structure *(C)V usually continue PU *(C)Vxi and connects the Finno-Ugric etymon previously set up as *juxi by Sammallahti (1988: 543). The problem with this connection is that PSam. *e̮- suggests *i̮xi instead of PU *juxi. As a solution, Aikio proposes that the protoform was *ji̮xi with sporadic loss of *j- in Samoyedic and a sporadic change of *i̮ to *u in Finno-Ugric. The assumed loss of *j- in Samoyedic is in need of an exact conditioning, but Aikio adduces a parallel that is convincing in itself and this development seems acceptable. However, I have difficulties accepting his sporadic change *i̮ > *u in Finno-Ugric. The reason is that his *ji̮xi invites to reconsider the reconstruction of a number of other etyma, which in turn suggests that the change *i̮ > *u in Finno-Ugric was not sporadic. If Samoyedic needs *i̮xi or *ji̮xi and Finno-Ugric *juxi, it may at first glance seem simpler to keep the PU reconstruction *juxi and assume a change of *uxi to *i̮xi in Samoyedic. The reason why this is not possible is that there are good examples for the correspondence PSam. *-u : PFU *-uxi, *-uji, which reflect PU *-uxi, *-uji:

4 For Proto-Samoyedic a weak vowel is reconstructed that is noted with “ə̑” in Janhunen 1977, “ɵ” in Sammallahti 1988 and “ø” in Janhunen 1998; here it is noted with “ə”. 5 4 out of 8 are monosyllabic roots ending in a vowel. *ni̮c-kəl- ‘tear’ may have been formed after *ü-kəl- ‘drag’, cf. the variant *nüc- of *ni̮c-, probably through influence from *ü-. Perhaps the suffix arose in roots in -k, of which there are two, and then spread to mostly monosyllabic roots ending in a vowel.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

indo-uralic, indo-anatolian, indo-tocharian

193

– PSam. *tu- ‘row’, PFU *suxi- < PU *suxi– PSam. *u- ‘swim’, PFU *uji- < PU *uji- (Aikio 2002: 44, who reconstructs *j instead of Sammallahti’s *x) The following example of the correspondence PSam. *-u : PFU *-uwi < PU *-uwi is more problematic, according to Aikio (2012: 247), because the *j should not have disappeared in the Fi. cognate puo ‘anus’. – PSam. *puə- ‘behind’, PFU ?*puji < PU ?*puwi A similar corresponce is that between PSam. *-o and PFU *-uxi, *-uwi, *-uji. To explain this correspondence, PU *o is reconstructed with raising to *u in an open syllable before *i in Proto-Finno-Ugric (Sammallahti 1988: 486): – PSam. *ńo- ‘pursue’, PFU *ńuxi- < PU *ńoxi (Aikio 2014a: 53) – PSam. *so ‘mouth’, PFU *śuwi < PU *śowi- (Aikio 2002: 35, who reconstructs *w instead of Sammallahti’s *x because of South Sami tjovve) – PSam. *to ‘lake’, PFU *tuxi < PU *toxi A further etymon to be added here is probably PSam. *tə- ‘bring’ and PFU *tuxi- ‘bring’ (Sammallahti *toxi-). This root is not listed by Janhunen (1981) because the correspondence is not regular. According to the established basic sound correspondences (Janhunen 1981), there is no possible PU source form that could yield the PSam. root. I assume that the PU form was *tuxi-, which yielded *tu in Samoyedic. The *u of *tu was then weakened to *ə before *a in the second syllable in the derivative *təta-, as in PSam. *kəpta- ‘extinguish’ < PU *kupsa- (Sammallahti 1988: 484). Afterwards, the phonologically regular *ə of the derivative spread to the underived root. Since only *u, not *o, is weakened to *ə, PSam. *tə-, *təta- suggests *tuxi- for Proto-Uralic, not *toxi-. The correspondence between PSam. *-e̮ and PFU *-uxi, *-uwi, *-uji is also attested in more examples than just ‘drink’: – PSam. *e̮- ‘drink’, PFU *juxi < PU *ji̮xi – PSam. *le̮ ‘bone’,6 PFU *luwi < PU *li̮wi (Aikio 2002: 35, who reconstructs *w instead of Sammallahti’s *x because of Mordvin lovaža with o and v) – PSam. *je̮ ‘tree’,7 PFU *juxi < PU *ji̮xi8 6 The preservation of the initial *l in Samoyedic is irregular. The expected outcome is rather *je̮. Conceivably, the *l was reintroduced from compounds, in which it was regularly preserved; cf. *kuŋkəlä ‘shin bone’ from *kuŋkə ‘bend’ + *le̮ and *puəjlɜ from *puəj- ‘knee’ + *le̮ (Janhunen 1977). Obviously, if *le̮mpara ‘breast’ contains *le̮ as its first member, it must be a later formation. Another option is that loss or preservation of initial *l- depends on the following vowel. Aikio (2014c: 86) argues that *l- is regularly preserved before PU *i̮, and adduces three additional examples fitting this conditioning. 7 Janhunen (1977: 42) reconstructs this word as *je1 = *je̮, *je. 8 The reconstruction of PFU *juxi follows Sammallahti (1988: 537), who sets up PU *joxɨ instead.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

194

peyrot

Since these examples include all three “weak” consonants *x, *w, *j as well as the PSam. reflexes *-u, *-o and *-e̮, there seems no other option than to reconstruct different vowels for Proto-Uralic, i.e. *u, *o and *i̮, respectively, and to assume merger of all three into *u in Proto-Finno-Ugric. An alternative hypothetical development of, for instance, *uxi to *i̮xi > *e̮ in PSam. (which could be a case of assimilation) is contradicted by PSam. *tu- ‘row’, PFU *suxi- < PU *suxi-. Aikio’s interpretation of the correspondence between unrounded vowels in Samoyedic and rounded vowels in Finno-Ugric is that sporadic rounding took place in several words in Finno-Ugric, and at several stages. This is unlikely. In view of the correspondences above, the rounding in Finno-Ugric was more probably a regular development, which occurred at an early stage in FinnoUgric, not several times in the separate branches. In support of his idea that the rounding of the vowel of *ji̮xi ‘drink’ was a late development in this word in particular, he adduces Hu. iszik, iv- ‘drink’ and Hu. íj ‘bow’ < *ji̮ŋsi (Aikio 2002: 40). However, since both words have initial *j-, it seems best to return to the earlier explanation that the Hungarian vocalism in these words is due to a secondary development caused by the initial, and derive them from PFU *joxi and *joŋsi, respectively. I will not discuss the Permic evidence for survival of *i̮ into Finno-Ugric that Aikio adduces, because, according to him, it is uncertain. The word for ‘bow’ is one of another small group of etyma in which Samoyedic shows unrounded vowels for rounded vowels in Finno-Ugric: – PSam. *ji̮ntə ‘bow’, PFU *joŋsi < PU *ji̮ŋsi (Aikio 2002: 39)9 – PSam. *ki̮nsV- ‘star’, PFU *kunśa < PU *ki̮nśa – PSam. *ki̮j ‘moon, month’, PFU kuxi10 < PU *ki̮xji The last two words are further evidence against Aikio’s idea of a survival of old *i̮ in Hu. iv- and íj, since Hungarian shows reflexes of rounded vowels in both cases: Hu. húgy ‘star’ and hó, hava- ‘moon’. If indeed Samoyedic preserves the contrast between PU *o, *u and *i̮ so much better than Finno-Ugric, this further confirms that the primary split in the Uralic family was between Samoyedic on the one hand and Finno-Ugric on the other: the merger of these vowels is then a common innovation of the Finno-Ugric languages. Nevertheless, it must be noted that, apart from the position before *xi, *wi, *ji, the exact conditions of these vowel changes are not clear; that the total number of examples is modest by all standards; and that 9 10

In a later article, Aikio reconstructs PU *joŋsi (2014b: 11), perhaps for PFU *joŋsi. Aikio (2002: 39) notes that the reconstruction of *x in this word is uncertain. Other options are *kuwi and *kuŋi.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

indo-uralic, indo-anatolian, indo-tocharian

195

the Proto-Samoyedic words are so short that not all relevant conditions are necessarily clear at this point. Another problem is that with the small number of accepted Uralic etymologies for Samoyedic it is largely unclear which root structures were absent for structural reasons and which happen to be unattested by chance. For instance, all roots with *x are reconstructed with final *i, while with other root types final *a is found as well; it is theoretically possible that contrasts now seen as archaisms of Samoyedic are to be attributed to an earlier contrast between roots in *-xi and *-xa.11 With the revised reconstruction of the Uralic verb for ‘drink’ by Aikio, the comparison with PIE *h₁egwh- loses much of its initial appeal. If Aikio’s revision turns out to be mistaken, or if more evidence for phonological correspondences between Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Uralic is found, the connection may eventually be revived—the semantic side, at least, is good. But at this point the more detailed reconstruction within Uralic overrules the macro-comparison with Indo-European. For the subgrouping of Indo-European the verb *h₁egwh- is difficult to use since the etymon is not confined to Anatolian and Tocharian, as mentioned above, even though it is best attested there. Lat. ēbrius ‘drunk’ and Gr. νήφω ‘be sober’ (see also Weiss 1994) simply prove that the root survived into core IndoEuropean. The only possible way to use this root for subgrouping is to assume that the original meaning was ‘drink’, which acquired the meaning ‘get drunk’ after Anatolian and Tocharian had left the speech community.

3

The m-interrogative

Next to the widespread PIE interrogative stem *kwi-, *kwe-, *kwo-, there is another interrogative in *m- (Dunkel 2014: 518–523). Although the existence of this interrogative stem is recognised in the literature, it is not well known, and not mentioned in standard introductions such as Beekes (2011: 227–231), Fortson (2004: 130) and Meier-Brügger (2003: 227–229). This is certainly due to the fact that this stem is clearly attested only in Anatolian and Tocharian. In Anatolian the following forms are found: – Hitt. maši- ‘how many; however many’ – Hitt. mān ‘if, how, when, like’, possibly also the modal particle man – Hitt. mānḫanda ‘just as’ (Kloekhorst 2010) – Pal. maš ‘as much as’ 11

According to Janhunen (2007: 216–217), the lack of roots in *-xa may be due to a sound change of *-ki to *-xi: while roots in *-ka are well attested, roots in *-ki are extremely rare.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

196

peyrot

In addition, Hitt. =ma ‘and, but’ may be related, but the semantics are not compelling; several steps of development would have to be assumed, e.g. ‘how’ > ‘as’ > ‘as well as’ > ‘and’. All forms are apparently based on a stem *mo-, e.g. Hitt. maši- < *mo-s-i- and Hitt. mān < *mó-n (Kloekhorst 2008: 552, 564). The relationship of these Anatolian forms with a number of interrogatives, relatives and indefinites in Tocharian has been discussed by Hackstein (2004), Pinault (2010) and myself (Peyrot 2018a). Since the relevant formations are treated in some detail in Peyrot (2018a), I will here give only a brief presentation of the material. The basic elements found in the Tocharian interrogatives, relatives and indefinites are: – PToch. *kwə- < PIE *kwi– PToch. *mə- < PIE *mo– PToch. *ən- < PIE *mo– The PToch. demonstrative stem nom.sg.m. *se, obl.sg.m. *ce, nom.sg.f. *sa, etc. < PIE *so, *seh₂, *tod – The PToch. clitic markers *-nə, *-w, probably from PIE *nu, *u, and the emphatic particle *kə About PToch. *mə- < *mo- it should be noted that the reconstruction of the vowel *o is based on Anatolian. As far as the Tocharian evidence is concerned, *mu would also be possible, or, with loss of the expected palatalisation of *m, also *mi or *me. This needs to be stressed, since the *m-interrogative may have had different stem variants, e.g. *mi-, *me-, *mo-, parallel to *kwi-, *kwe-, *kwo-, as pointed out to me by Tijmen Pronk. The derivation of *mə- < *mo- requires a special reduction of the vowel, since the normal reflex of *o is PToch. *e. A parallel for this reduction is found in the demonstratives, where next to *se < *so and *te < *tod we also find *sə and *tə. In my analysis, PToch. *ən- is a further development of *mə-. Since *ən- is always followed by a demonstrative element, the *n can be explained from assimilation of original *m to a following *t- (or *c-), which then spread throughout the paradigm, that is, to forms with a demonstrative in *s-. Although the details remain to be settled, the rise of forms of the type *ən-te < *mte < *mə-te < *mo-tod through syncope of the *ə of *mə- is probably due to the accent or the syllable structure. PToch. *ən- is a unique initial, since no other word in the language begins with *ə-. In Toch.A, this situation is preserved, with the unique initial än- < *ən-, while in Toch.B we find it changed to in-. It is not clear at which stage the demonstrative elements have been added, but since all three interrogative, relative and indefinite elements are uninflected, it is very likely that the inflected demonstrative could compensate for the loss of the inflexion of the elements *kwə-, *mə- and *ən-. The demonstra-

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

indo-uralic, indo-anatolian, indo-tocharian

197

tives ending in *-e have reduced variants in *-ə: nom.sg.m. *sə for *se < *so and sg.n. *tə for *te < *tod (see also above). Most of the complex formations listed below were probably found in ProtoTocharian, but not in Proto-Indo-European. The PIE reconstructions are only meant to illustrate the derivation of the separate elements. With the formative *mə- we find: – Toch.B mäksu ‘which’ < *mə-kwə-sə-w < *mo-kwi-so-u – Toch.B mäkte ‘how’ < *mə-kwə-te ‘what’ < *mo-kwi-tod – Toch.A mänt ‘how’ and Toch.B mant ‘so’ < *mə-ən-tə ‘how’ < ‘what’ < *momo-tod – Toch.B mantsu ‘some’ (?) < *mə-ən-sə-w < *mo-mo-so-u In addition, Toch.B manta /mə́ nta/ ‘never’ may derive from ‘ever’ and reflect *mə-ən-ta < *mo-mo-teh₂m. With the formative *ən- we find: – Toch.B intsu ‘which’ < *ən-sə-w < *mo-so-u – Toch.A äntsaṃ ‘which’ < *ən-se-nə < *mo-so-nu – Toch.A äntā ‘where’ (with a reduced variant tā) < *ən-ta < *mo-teh₂m And further *ən is found in second position in Toch.A mänt and Toch.B mant, mantsu and manta (see above). With the formative *kwə- we find: – Toch.B kuse ‘who, what’ and Toch.A kus, id. < *kwə-se < *kwi-so – Toch.B ksa, indefinite pronoun, a reduced form of kuse < *kwə-se < *kwi-so And further with *kwə in second position we find Toch.B mäksu and mäkte (see above). As argued by Hackstein (2004: 280–283), in most of these formations the first element must have been originally interrogative, and if there was a second interrogative-relative element it was relative or “connective”. As I see it, the demonstrative element provided the necessary inflexion. Thus, the interrogative value of *mə- is preserved in Toch.B mäksu ‘which’, mäkte ‘how’ and Toch.A mänt ‘how’; for *ən- it is preserved in Toch.B intsu, Toch.A äntsaṃ ‘which’, and in Toch.A äntā, tā ‘where’; and for *kwə- it is preserved in Toch.B kuse, Toch.A kus ‘who, what’. In my view, Tocharian thus provides a solid piece of evidence for the reconstruction of the interrogative pronoun stem *mo-. Interestingly, the coexistence of PIE *kwi-, *kwe-, *kwo- and *mo- is parallel to the two interrogative pronouns found in Uralic; cf. Fi. kuka ‘who’, Hu. ki ‘who’ and Fi. mikä ‘what, which’, Hu. mi ‘what’.12 The comparison of the Proto-Indo-European and Proto12

Yet the vocalism is difficult to reconstruct. For instance, Rédei reconstructs PU *mɜ ‘what’ with “ɜ” as an “unbestimmbarer Vokal” (1988: 296).

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

198

peyrot

Uralic m-interrogatives has been made a.o. by Pedersen (1938: 71–72), Collinder (1965: 113, 127, 149) and Greenberg (2000: 229–231, № 62). Although the equation is missing from Kortlandt’s list of 27 Proto-Indo-Uralic grammatical elements (2002), it seems solid enough to be added. Nevertheless, the neat contrast observed between Hu. ki ‘who’ and mi ‘what’ is not found in Indo-European. In view of Hitt. maši- ‘how many’ and Pal. maš ‘as much as’, Hackstein (2004: 281–282) suggests that *mo- was a quantifying interrogative, ‘how many’. However, I find this unattractive for the more basic meanings attested in Tocharian. If any more precise meaning should be reconstructed for *mo-, it would rather be something like ‘which’, a more specific, restrictive interrogative; cf. Hackstein (2004: 281–282), “TB mäksu is best described as an adjectival interrogative for restricting reference, “which one of a given class or group.”” For the internal subgrouping of Indo-European, the Tocharian-Anatolian match in the m-interrogative is of limited value at most. First of all, in the words of Pedersen, “Es genügt hervorzuheben, dass Verlust des Alten (in diesem Falle des m-Pronomens), der allmählich in jedem Sprachzweige für sich eingetreten sein kann, nicht als eine gemeinsame Neuerung gewertet werden darf.” (1938: 72). This statement can be relativised a little, since it is obviously more economical to assume loss of an archaic feature once, as a common innovation of the languages that have not preserved it, than several times, for each branch independently. This is all the more true in the case of a grammatical element such as the m-interrogative. At the same time, it is clear that a common innovation that involves a loss is a much weaker argument for subgrouping than a common innovation consisting of an indisputably traceable “positive” change. In the case of the m-interrogative, the evaluation of its usefulness for subgrouping is further complicated by the existence of further possible traces in Celtic, where we find OIr. má ‘if’ and related forms.13 Although these apparently have no interrogative value, original interrogative value may be suggested by the Breton and Cornish local conjunction ma (Pedersen 1913: 230). If these conjunctions derive from the stem *mo-, the only possible common innovation that remains for the Indo-European languages including Celtic and excluding Anatolian and Tocharian is a development of the original interrogative to a relative or a local relative. Since shifts of this kind are commonplace, as 13

Dunkel lists many more cognates of the *mo-stem, including reflexes as indefinite in Vedic and Armenian, but these are in my view not convincing (Dunkel 2014: 518–523). The possible sources of indefinites are manifold (Haspelmath 1997) and not each and every -mcan be derived from the same interrogative *mo-.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

indo-uralic, indo-anatolian, indo-tocharian

199

shown by the Tocharian interrogatives and relatives listed above, but also by similar developments in other branches of Indo-European and in non-IndoEuropean languages, this would make the evidence of the m-interrogative for Indo-European internal subgrouping practically useless.

4

Conclusions

In this paper, I have treated a number of independent problems that illustrate some of the methodological points relevant to the questions of the phylogenetic structure of the Indo-European language family and its supposed genealogical relationship with the Uralic language family. I have argued that the Indo-Anatolian hypothesis requires the next node down to be meaningful. Assuming that the second branch to split off the IndoEuropean protolanguage was Tocharian, all evidence for the Indo-Anatolian node needs to be checked against this presumed “Indo-Tocharian” node in order to see whether also Tocharian goes together with the other non-Anatolian languages. Since the Anatolian-Tocharian isogloss for *h₁egwh- ‘drink’ is not exclusive, it can only be used as an argument for subgrouping if the meaning ‘get drunk’ found in the Greek and Latin reflexes is a common innovation of the other branches. The resemblance of the root *h₁egwh- to Proto-Finno-Ugric *joxi ‘drink’ turns out to be only superficial because of Aikio’s addition of the Samoyedic cognate *e̮-, which suggests a Proto-Uralic reconstruction *ji̮xi. Apart from the meaning, this revised reconstruction shows no obvious similarity with *h₁egwh-. The Proto-Indo-European interrogative stem in *m- next to the well known *kwi-, *kwe-, *kwo- has not received due attention in the literature, but can nevertheless safely be reconstructed, and especially Tocharian provides strong evidence for it, with for instance TB mäksu ‘which’, intsu ‘which’, TA äntsaṃ ‘which’, etc. The reconstruction of a closely parallel set of interrogative stems for Proto-Uralic is uncontroversial; cf. for instance Fi. kuka ‘who’ next to mikä ‘what, which’ and Hu. ki ‘who’ next to mi ‘what’. Especially taken together with other parallels in grammatical elements, the neat correspondence of two interrogative stems in Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Uralic is further evidence in favour of a genealogical relationship between the two families.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

200

peyrot

References Aikio, A. (Luobbal Sámmol Sámmol Ánte) 2002. New and Old Samoyed etymologies. Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 57, 9–57. Aikio, A. (Luobbal Sámmol Sámmol Ánte) 2012. On Finnic long vowels, Samoyed vowel sequences, and Proto-Uralic *x. In: T. Hyytiäinen (ed.), Per Urales ad Orientem. Iter polyphonicum multilingue. Festskrift tillägnad Juha Janhunen på hans sextioårsdag den 12 februari 2012. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society, 227–250. Aikio, A. (Luobbal Sámmol Sámmol Ánte) 2014a. The Uralic-Yukaghir lexical correspondences: genetic inheritance, language contact or chance resemblance? Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 62, 7–76. Aikio, A. (Luobbal Sámmol Sámmol Ánte) 2014b. Studies in Uralic etymology II: Finnic etymologies. Linguistica Uralica 50, 1–19. Aikio, A. (Luobbal Sámmol Sámmol Ánte) 2014c. Studies in Uralic etymology III: Mari etymologies. Linguistica Uralica 50, 81–93. Beekes, R.S.P. 2011. Comparative Indo-European Linguistics. An Introduction. Second edition. Revised and corrected by Michiel de Vaan. Amsterdam–Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Carling, G. 2005. Proto-Tocharian, Common Tocharian, and Tocharian. On the value of linguistic connections in a reconstructed language. In: K. Jones-Bley; M.E. Huld; A. Della Volpe; M. Robbins Dexter (eds.), Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference. Washington: Institute for the Study of Man, 47–70. Collinder, B. 1965. Hat das Uralische Verwandte? Eine sprachvergleichende Untersuchung. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis 1/4: 108–180. Dunkel, G.E. 2014. Lexikon der indogermanischen Partikeln und Pronominalstämme. Band 2: Lexikon. Heidelberg: Winter. Fortson, B.W., IV 2004. Indo-European Language and Culture. An Introduction. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Greenberg, J.H. 2000. Indo-European and its Closest Relatives: the Eurasiatic Language Family. Vol. 1: Grammar. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Hackstein, O. 2004. From discourse to syntax: The case of compound interrogatives in Indo-European and beyond. In: K. Jones-Bley; M.E. Huld; A. Della Volpe; M. Robbins Dexter (eds.), Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference. Washington: Institute for the Study of Man, 257–298. Haspelmath, M. 1997. Indefinite Pronouns. Oxford: Clarendon. Janhunen, J. 1977. Samojedischer Wortschatz. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society. Janhunen, J. 1981. Uralilaisen kantakielen sanastosta. Journal de la Société FinnoOugrienne 77, 219–274. Janhunen, J. 2007. The primary laryngeal in Uralic and beyond. In: J. Ylikoski; A. Aikio (eds.) Sámit, sánit, sátnehámit. Riepmočála Pekka Sammallahtii miessemánu 21. beaivve 2007. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society, 203–227. Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

indo-uralic, indo-anatolian, indo-tocharian

201

Jasanoff, J.H. 2003. Hittite and the Indo-European Verb. Oxford–New York: Oxford University Press. Kim, R.I. 2007. The Tocharian subjunctive in light of the h₂e-conjugation model. In: A.J. Nussbaum (ed.), Verba Docenti. Studies in Historical and Indo-European Linguistics Presented to Jay H. Jasanoff by Students, Colleagues, and Friends. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave, 185–200. Kloekhorst, A. 2008. Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon. Leiden– Boston: Brill. Kloekhorst, A. 2010. Hittite mān, maḫḫan, māḫḫan, māḫḫanda and mānḫanda. In: R. Kim; N. Oettinger; E. Rieken; M. Weiss (eds.), Ex Anatolia Lux: Anatolian and Indo-European Studies in Honor of H. Craig Melchert on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Ann Arbor–New York: Beech Stave Press, 217–226. Kloekhorst, A. 2011. The accentuation of the PIE word for ‘daughter’. In: T. Pronk; R. Derksen (eds.), Accent Matters. Papers on Balto-Slavic Accentology. Amsterdam– New York: Rodopi, 235–243. Kortlandt, F.H.H. 1989. Eight Indo-Uralic verbs? Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 50, 79–85. Kortlandt, F.H.H. 2002. The Indo-Uralic verb. In: R. Blokland; C. Hasselblatt (eds.), Finno-Ugrians and Indo-Europeans: Linguistic and Literary Contacts. Maastricht: Shaker, 217–227. Kortlandt, F.H.H. 2016. Baltic, Slavic, Germanic. Baltistica 51, 81–86. Malzahn, M. 2016. The second one to branch off? The Tocharian lexicon revisited. In: B. Simmelkjær Sandgaard Hansen; B. Nielsen Whitehead; T. Olander; B.A. Olsen (eds.), Etymology and the European Lexicon. Proceedings of the 14th Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, 17–22 September 2012, Copenhagen. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 281–292. Meier-Brügger, M. 2003. Indo-European Linguistics. In Cooperation with Matthias Fritz and Manfred Mayrhofer. Berlin–New York: Walter de Gruyter. Pedersen, H. 1913. Vergleichende Grammatik der keltischen Sprachen. Zweiter Band. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Pedersen, H. 1938. Hittitisch und die anderen indoeuropäischen Sprachen. København: Munksgaard. Peyrot, M. 2018a. Interrogative stems in Hittite and Tocharian. Indogermanische Forschungen 123, 65–90. Peyrot, M. 2018b. Tocharian agricultural terminology: Between inheritance and language contact. In: G. Kroonen; J.P. Mallory; B. Comrie (eds.), Talking Neolithic: Proceedings of the workshop on Indo-European origins held at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, December 2–3, 2013. Pinault, G.-J. 2006. Retour sur le numéral “un” en tokharien. Indogermanische Forschungen 111, 71–97.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

202

peyrot

Pinault, G.-J. 2010. Le pronom d’ipséité en tokharien. In: I. Choi-Jonin; M. Deval; O. Soutet (eds.), Typologie et comparatisme. Hommages offerts à Alain Lemaréchal. Leuven– Paris: Peeters, 351–365. Rédei, K. 1988–1991. Uralisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Ringe, D.; T. Warnow; A. Taylor 2002. Indo-European and computational cladistics. Transactions of the Philological Society 100, 59–129 Sammallahti, P. 1988. Historical phonology of the Uralic languages with special reference to Samoyed, Ugric, and Permic. In: D. Sinor (ed.), The Uralic Languages. Description, History and Foreign Influences. Leiden–New York: Brill, 478–554. Schmidt, K.T. 1992. Archaismen des Tocharischen und ihre Bedeutung für Fragen der Rekonstruktion und der Ausgliederung. In: R.S.P. Beekes; A. Lubotsky; J.J.S. Weitenberg (eds.), Rekonstruktion und relative Chronologie. Akten der VIII. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Leiden, 31. August–4. September 1987. Innsbruck: IBS, 101–114. Weiss, M. 1994. On the non-verbal origin of the Greek verb νήφειν ‘to be sober’. Historische Sprachforschung 107, 91–98. Winter, W. 1997. Lexical archaisms in the Tocharian languages. In: H.H. Hock (ed.), Historical, Indo-European, and Lexicographical Studies. A Festschrift for Ladislav Zgusta on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 183–193.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

chapter 14

Proto-Indo-European *sm and *si ‘one’ Michiel de Vaan

1. The Proto-Indo-European root noun *sem-, *sm- (Beekes & de Vaan 2011: 210) is reflected in the cardinal ‘one’ in a number of ancient Indo-European languages: Greek εἷς, accusative ἕνα < *sem-, Armenian mi < *miyo- *mén-os. Pre-PIE had an ergative case system, in which the agent of a transitive clause was marked differently from the agent of an intransitive clause, the latter sharing the marking of a patient (Vaillant 1936). This assumption explains, among other things, why the PIE nominative equals the accusative in the neuter gender: these were inanimate nouns, which did not normally occur as an agent. This theory entails that the PIE nominative continues the Pre-PIE endingless absolutive (the patient marker). The Pre-PIE genitive ending *-s was the ergative marker for animates, which became the animate nominative marker *-s in canonical PIE. The Pre-PIE instrumental ending *-t, which is preserved in Anatolian *-ti and became “ablative” *-d but also, by phonetic reduction, “instrumental” *-h₁ elsewhere, served as the ergative of inanimate nouns (Kortlandt 2010: 40). The accusative marker *-m probably goes back to an earlier allative affix of Indo-Uralic. The locative ending *-i may also go back to Indo-Uralic, but the genitive, dative and oblique plural cases were only created within the new PIE nominative-accusative system (Kortlandt 2010: 41). Before the rise of the o-stems, nouns could be root nouns or consonant stems. The canonical PIE o-stems arose from the reinterpretation of the genitive ending *-os (that is, the variant of the ending *-s which arose in mobile

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

210

de vaan

table 14.3 Early PIE pronouns according to Kortlandt 2010: 41

Animate Animate Inanimate Inanimate nominative accusative absolutive ergative deictic *so anaphoric *ʔe interrogative *kwe

*tom *im *kwim

*to *i *kwi

*tod *id *kwid

paradigms) as a sigmatic nominative when the nominative/accusative system was established. The o was reinterpreted as the stem affix, to which an accusative in *-om was first formed, followed by the independent addition of other case endings in Anatolian and in Late Proto-Indo-European (where pronominal endings were often used). The o-stems remained productive in most of the Indo-European daughter languages and have replaced many athematic formations. In the pronouns, too, it seems that only the nominative and accusative (of animates) and the absolutive and ergative (of inanimates) had developed, but no ablative = ergative (whence genitive) in *-s or any other oblique case desinence. 8. We can now continue our analysis of the pronominal system. The only category in which PIE e- and o-vocalism alternates with i-vocalism are the pronouns, of which we have seen the Anatolian evidence above. Kortlandt (2010: 41) thinks that the difference between e- and i-vocalism reflects an animacy difference in Early PIE. He reconstructs the basic forms as shown in table 14.3. If inserted into this table, Early PIE *si can be interpreted as an inanimate absolutive form. It may be cognate with the Late PIE reflexive pronoun *se, attested in the accusative *se (Gr. ἕ, Latin sē, Gothic sik), gen. *sei besides *seue, dat. *sebhio besides *soi (Beekes & de Vaan 2011: 234). Kortlandt (2010: 369–371) traces it back to the same demonstrative stem *s- from which *so derives. In *seue, the element *ue would have been added to *se to disambiguate “a person who is contrasted with another third person” (p. 371). To the pronouns of table 14.3, I therefore add an s-pronoun which I provisionally call identificational: 9. The animate accusative *sim can be reconstructed on the basis of its reflexes in Indo-Iranian and Celtic (Beekes 1983). Rigvedic anaphoric sīm ‘him/her/it/them’, indifferent to gender, has replaced earlier *sim with a short vowel. In its usage, it has almost become a particle (Jamison 2002, Kupfer 2002: 252–260). The long vowel may have been introduced on the model of nom.sg. sī

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

211

proto-indo-european *sm and *si ‘one’ table 14.4 Early PIE pronouns including deictic *se, si

Animate Animate Inanimate Inanimate nominative accusative absolutive ergative deictic identificational anaphoric interrogative

*so *se *ʔe *kwe

*tom *sim *im *kwim

*to *si *i *kwi

*tod *id *kwid

‘she’ for *ī. In that case, we can posit feminine nom. *iʕ, acc. *im which replaced earlier common gender nom. *ʔe, acc. *im. Sanskrit simá- ‘he himself’ (masculine only) may be due to thematization of *sim (Beekes 1983: 203). PIE anaphoric *sim is also reflected in Proto-Celtic deictic *sim, which provided neuter forms of the paradigm of *so. Among its reflexes, we find Old Irish sin ‘the aforementioned’ < *sim, OIr. inso ‘this’ < *sim *so ‘the one / such one’, OIr. in(d) ‘the’, Gaulish (s)indo- < *sindo- -n. But these are branch-specific developments, whereas *sim must already have existed in Late PIE. 10. As presented in tables 14.3 and 14.4, the vocalism of the so/to-pronoun deviates from the e/i-vocalism of the other stems. The o in so/to- could be compared with pronominal stems such as *kwo- ‘who, what’, *ḱo- ‘this’, *io- ‘which’, *ʔo‘this’, *bho- ‘that’, which have long been regarded as adjectival. Their o would stem from thematization of the stem consonant or from vowel replacement in adverbial forms such as *ḱi ‘here’, *bhi ‘at’ (Kortlandt 2010: 41). While thematization is conceivable for *kwo-, *ḱo-, *ʔo-, etc., it is less obvious that nom.sg. *so replaces earlier *se or *si, since *so belongs to a paradigm which otherwise has only t-forms. PIE *so may instead have arisen at an earlier stage, due the automatic vocalization as *o of an unstressed vowel in Late Pre-PIE. The rise of *so as an enclitic variant of *se would then be comparable to the rise of o-grade in nominal compounds (e.g., Gr. ἀ-πάτωρ ‘fatherless’ < PIE *-pʕtor-, Skt. bhádrajāni- ‘having a beautiful wife’ < *-gwon-ʕ-, maybe Latin extorris ‘exiled’ if from *-tors-; Wackernagel 1905: 100–101), for which it may be assumed that it reflects

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

212

de vaan

table 14.5 Late Pre-PIE pronouns, separation of *t- and *s-

Animate

Inanimate

Nominative Nominative Accusative (stressed) (clitic)

Absolutive Ergative

deictic identificational *sé anaphoric *ʔé interrogative *kwé

*to *so *ʔo *kwo

*tom *sim *im *kwim

*si *i *kwi

*tod – *id *kwid

the enclitic or unstressed use of the lexeme as a determiner. In fact, in view of the evidence for asigmatic *kwo in compound pronouns of the type *kwo-so (see below), we could go one step further: all pronominal monosyllables of the structure *Co might be due to clitic usage of the animate nominative. This view would allow us to postulate a systematic opposition between stressed *Cé and clitic *Co in the animate nominative versus only *Ci in the inanimate of deictic pronouns, as illustrated in the second, third and fourth row of table 14.5. Within Proto-Indo-European, the intraparadigmatic consonant alternation between s- and t- in the demonstrative *so, *to- is unique. As there is no sound law which explains PIE *so from earlier *to, we might follow Kortlandt (2010: 398, 416) in assuming the existence of two different Proto-Indo-Uralic pronouns, viz. *s- (compare Finnish hän ‘(s)he’) and *t- (Finn. tämä ‘this’, tuo ‘that’). In this view, PIE *se, *so, *si reflects the former stem and PIE *to (as reflected in Hitt. ta clause conjunctive particle < *to, takku ‘if’ < *to-kwe, Kloekhorst 2008: 925, 942), the latter. Table 14.4 can now be modified in such a way that the sand t-pronouns each have their own row, see table 14.5. In view of the deviant vocalism of the to-pronoun in table 14.5, it is legitimate to ask whether we can arrive at an even more symmetrical pronominal system by means of internal reconstruction—while being fully aware that perfectly symmetrical morphological systems are rare at any synchronic stage of language. The evidence for the accusative *tom is outer-Anatolian, and hence it is conceivable—not certain, because we are building on an argumentum ex silentio—that *tom was only created after *so and *to- had merged into a single deictic paradigm. For similar reasons, it is possible that inanimate *tod was created on the model of other pronouns in *-od. A more symmetrical version of the t- and s-pronouns in table 14.5 would contain the forms *tim and *ti:

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

213

proto-indo-european *sm and *si ‘one’ table 14.6 Early Pre-PIE pronouns, symmetrical vocalism for *t- and *s-

Animate Animate Animate nominative nominative accusative (stressed) (clitic) deictic identificational *sé

*to *so

*tim *sim

Inanimate absolutive

Inanimate ergative

*ti *si

– –

Kortlandt (2010: 397) has proposed an Early Pre-PIE sound law *ti > *si in order to explain, among other elements, the PIE 2sg. verbal ending *-si versus the 2sg. pronoun *t- (Indo-Uralic *ti ‘you’) and the nominal plural ending *-es beside *-i (Indo-Uralic *-t+i). If Early Pre-PIE had the forms *tim and *ti for the animate accusative and inanimate absolutive, they would have become *sim and *si by this sound law and merged with existing *sim and *si. That would have left *to an orphaned pronoun which could merge semantically with *so, creating the familiar so/to-pronoun of PIE which included the forms *tom and *tod. In the process, *to seems to have acquired inanimate reference. In this way, the less symmetrical system of table 14.4 would have come into being. Thus, in chronological order, I reconstruct the systems given in tables 14.6, 14.5 and 14.4. 11. Now I turn to the use of *sm and *si in the oblique forms of the demonstratives. Kortlandt (2010: 41) holds that, in Early PIE, “genitival and adjectival relationships were apparently expressed by simple juxtaposition and partial agreement.” A clear example is the genitive plural in PIE *-om, explained by Kortlandt 1978 and 2010: 40 from an originally predicative adjective. The recognition of mere juxtaposition as a means to express appurtenance provides a syntactic justification for the supposition—shared by many scholars—that the masculine and neuter genitive singular *tosio arose as a compound. For instance, Beekes 1992 concluded that *sio must have been the original form, which was then reshaped into *tosio. The recognition of *si as a separate pronominal element now allows us to refine this analysis. Kortlandt (2010: 42) concludes that the non-Anatolian languages “created a pronominal gen.sg. form by composition: *kwe-so, *ʔe-so, *to-si with addition of *-o from *-so.” Such concatenations of pronouns can be regarded as juxtapositions expressing a relationship of appurtenance or another type of pragmatic modification, e.g. *kwe ‘who?’, *kweso ‘who-this’ = ‘whose’. If -o in *tosio was indeed taken from *ʔeso, *kweso, this would point to a more recent age of *tosio.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

214

de vaan

table 14.7 Vowels of the PIE genitive and oblique deictics

e-grade

o-grade

PIE genitive *ʔe-so, *kwe-so *to-si (>> *tosio) PIE oblique *ʔe-sm-, *kwe-sm- *to-sm-, *to-si-h₂-

Kortlandt’s chronology is based on the absence from Anatolian of a genitive in *-osio. Hence, the rise of this ending would postdate Indo-Anatolian. Melchert 2012 argues that a number of Anatolian adjectival forms in -aššareflect an o-stem ending *-osio. This would mean that its source form *tosio must have existed in a prestage of Anatolian after all (but was lost without a trace in the Anatolian pronouns), or that the suffix -ašša- < *-osso- had a different origin. Clearly this issue will need to be further discussed among Anatolian specialists. The existence of Early PIE *tosio would affect the relative chronology but not the essence of what I propose here. The vocalic difference between the e-grade in *ʔe-so, *kwe-so and the o-grade in *to-si corresponds to the same vowel difference between *ʔe-sm-, *kwe-smand *to-sm-, *to-si-h₂- (Beekes 1988a, 1988b: 4). We may therefore assume that genitival *to-si (whence *tosio) is contained in the first two constituent elements of feminine *to-si-h₂-, see table 14.7. The vowel distinction between *ʔe- and *to- in these juxtaposed pronouns correlates with two different second members, *so versus *si. The animate reference of *ʔe and *so versus the inanimate usage of *tod suggests that *to may in origin have applied specifically to inanimates, or that it developed this restriction at some point in time. The inanimate reference of *si is also suggested by tables 14.3–14.6. A restriction of *tosi to inanimate or non-count nouns would explain its reanalysis as a feminine marker in Late PIE. As is well known, the canonical PIE feminine gender developed out of inanimacy markers, such as the collectives in *-h₂. Addition of the productive feminine marker yielded the feminine obliques *to-si-eʕ- etc. (Skt. tásyās, etc.). The reinterpretation of *to-si as feminine cannot have been earlier than the creation of *tosi-o, which acquired animate (masculine) reference. The explanation put forward here would imply that, in terms of relative chronology, the feminine si-forms first arose in the pronoun *to- and subsequently spread to other pronouns. 12. Chances are that *ʔe-sm- was a compound deictic form of the same type as *ʔe-so, *to-si. It contains the deictic element *sm which has developed the

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

proto-indo-european *sm and *si ‘one’

215

meanings ‘one’, ‘together’, ‘same’, ‘truly’ seen in section 1. A comparable use of a derivative of *sm- is found in the Old Irish emphatic suffix -som from *-som(H)o- (Schrijver 1997: 50). One is also reminded of the Hittite enclitic personal pronoun 2pl. dative and accusative ‘(to) you’ and 3pl. dative ‘to them’ -šmaš, as well as of the possessive pronoun 2pl. and 3pl. -šmi-, -šma-, -šme‘your (pl.); their’ (Hoffner & Melchert 2008: 135, 138–140). Their etymology is regarded as unclear (Kloekhorst 2008: 888, 889). The combined use for 2pl. and 3pl. might be interpreted as a general reference to plurals, in which case a derivation from *sm ‘together’ may be envisaged. Internal reconstruction suggests that the locative in *-sm-i was the starting point for the addition of sm-endings (thus also Gotō 2013: 68): the dative and ablative have added to *sm the Late PIE o-stem endings dat.sg. *-oʔei, abl.sg. *-oʔed (Kortlandt 2010: 40), whereas the locative displays the older consonantstem ending *-i.2 Locatives such as *ʔe-sm-i and *to-sm-i may have arisen in order to disambiguate the original locative forms *ʔei, *toi from the homonymous nominative plural forms. Such homonymy would have been particularly disturbing after the verbal system had switched to nominative-accusative marking. Before this change, the animate subject of intransitive verbs (that is, the verbs which became the PIE perfect and the thematic presents) was probably expressed by the locative in *-i, which could be reinterpreted as an indirect object in the dative (Kortlandt 2010: 102, 382). After the collapse of the ergative construction, this dative-subject construction is gradually replaced by nominative subjects.

References Beekes, R.S.P. 1983. On laryngeals and pronouns. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung 96, 200–232. Beekes, R.S.P. 1985. On the Origins of the Indo-European Nominal Inflection. Innsbruck: IBS.

2 Another argument for the locative as the starting point is the absence of sm-forms in the instrumental singular in Old Indo-Iranian. To Dunkel (2014 II: 196), these facts suggest exactly the opposite, viz. that the instrumental ending *-sm-eh₁ had already been replaced by *-na in Indo-Iranian. Yet Avestan inst.sg. tā and aēta are the only oblique singular forms which do not have hm-endings, nor have they introduced *-na as in the inst.sg. ana to a-/i-. Since there is no reason why an existing inst.sg. *tasmaH would have been replaced by *taH, when all other forms of the paradigm had *-sm-, it seems more likely that tā and aēta preserve an archaism.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

216

de vaan

Beekes, R.S.P. 1988a. The origin of the Indo-European pronominal inflection. In: M.A. Jazayery; W. Winter (eds.), Languages and Cultures. Studies in Honor of Edgar C. Polomé. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 73–87. Beekes, R.S.P. 1988b. The pronominal genitive singular in Germanic and PIE. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 110, 1–5. Beekes, R.S.P. 1992. The genitive in *-osio. Folia Linguistica Historica 11. 21–25. Beekes, R.S.P. 2010. Etymological Dictionary of Greek. With the assistance of Lucien van Beek. Leiden–Boston: Brill. Beekes, R.S.P. 2011. Comparative Indo-European Linguistics. An Introduction. Second edition. Revised and corrected by Michiel de Vaan. Amsterdam–Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Brugmann, K. 1904. Kurze vergleichende Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen. Strassburg: Trübner. Dunkel, G.E. 2014. Lexikon der indogermanischen Partikeln und Pronominalstämme. Band 1: Einleitung, Terminologie, Lautgesetze, Adverbialbildungen, Nominalsuffixe, Anhänge und Indices. Band 2: Lexikon. Heidelberg: Winter. Gippert, J. 2004. Ein Problem der indogermanischen Pronominalflexion. In: A. Hyllested; A. Jørgensen; J. Larsson; T. Olander (eds.), Per Aspera ad Asteriscos. Studia Indogermanica in honorem Jens Elmegård Rasmussen sexagenarii Idibus Martiis anno MMIV. Innsbruck: IBS, 155–165. Gotō, T. 2013. Old Indo-Aryan Morphology and its Indo-Iranian Background. In cooperation with J. Klein and V. Sadovski. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Hackstein, O. 2005. Archaismus oder historischer Sprachkontakt: Zur Frage westindogermanisch-tocharischer Konvergenzen. In: G. Meiser; O. Hackstein (eds.), Sprachkontakt und Sprachwandel. Akten der XI. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft (13.–23. September 2000, Halle an der Saale). Wiesbaden: Reichert, 169–184. Hoffner, H.A., Jr.; H.C. Melchert 2008. A Grammar of the Hittite Language. Part 1: Reference Grammar. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Jamison, S. 2002. Rigvedic sīm and īm. In: M.M. Deshpande, P.E. Hook (eds.), Indian Linguistic Studies. Festschrift in Honor of George Cardona. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, 290–312. Kloekhorst, A. 2008. Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon. Leiden– Boston: Brill. Kloekhorst, A. 2012. Pronominal morphology in the Anatolian language family. Altorientalische Forschungen 39, 254–264. Kloekhorst, A. 2013. Indo-European nominal ablaut patterns: The Anatolian evidence. In: G. Keydana, P. Widmer, T. Olander (eds.), Indo-European Accent and Ablaut. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum, 107–128. Kloekhorst, A. 2016. The Anatolian stop system and the Indo-Hittite hypothesis. Indogermanische Forschungen 121/1, 213–248. Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

proto-indo-european *sm and *si ‘one’

217

Kortlandt, F. 1978. On the history of the genitive plural in Slavic, Baltic, Germanic and Indo-European. Lingua 45, 281–300. Kortlandt, F. 2010. Studies in Germanic, Indo-European and Indo-Uralic. Amsterdam– New York: Rodopi. Kümmel, M.J. 2007. Konsonantenwandel. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Kupfer, K. 2002. Die Demonstrativpronomina im Rigveda. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Lane, G.S. 1961. On the formation of the Indo-European demonstrative. Language 37, 469–475. Martirosyan, H. 2010. Etymological Dictionary of the Armenian Inherited Lexicon. Leiden–Boston: Brill. Matasović, R. 2004. Gender in Indo-European. Heidelberg: Winter. Mayrhofer, M. 1986. Lautlehre (Segmentale Phonologie des Indogermanischen). In: M. Mayrhofer (ed.), Indogermanische Grammatik. Band I, 2. Halbband. Heidelberg: Winter, 75–216. Melchert, H.C. 2012. Genitive case and possessive adjective in Anatolian. In: V. Orioles (ed.), Per Roberto Gusmani. Studi in ricordo. Linguistica storica e teorica. Vol. II, tomo 1. Udine: Forum, 273–286. Melchert, H.C. fthc. The position of Anatolian. To appear in: M. Weiss; A. Garrett (eds.), Handbook of Indo-European Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mumm, P.-A. 2004. Altindisch sma. Teil 1: Rig- und Atharvaveda. International Journal of Diachronic Linguistics and Linguistic Reconstruction 1, 19–68. Nussbaum, A.J. 2010. PIE -Cmn- and Greek τρανής ‘clear’. In: R. Kim; N. Oettinger; E. Rieken; M. Weiss (eds.), Ex Anatolia Lux: Anatolian and Indo-European Studies in Honor of H. Craig Melchert on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Ann Arbor– New York: Beech Stave Press, 269–277. Oettinger, N. 2013/2014. Die Indo-Hittite-Hypothese aus heutiger Sicht. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 67, 149–176. Pinault, G.-J. 2006. Retour sur le numéral “un” en tokharien. Indogermanische Forschungen 111, 71–97. Rieken, E. 2009. Der Archaismus des Hethitischen—eine Bestandsaufnahme. Incontri Linguistici 32, 37–52. Schindler, J. 1975. Zum Ablaut der neutralen s-Stämme des Indogermanischen. In: H. Rix (ed.), Flexion und Wortbildung. Akten der V. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 259–267. Schmidt, J. 1895. Kritik der Sonantentheorie. Weimar: Böhlau. Schmidt, J. 1898. Das Zahlwort μία, ἴα. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung 36, 391–399. Schrijver, P. 1997. Studies in the History of Celtic Pronouns and Particles. Maynooth: Department of Old Irish, Saint Patrick’s College.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

218

de vaan

Sturtevant, E.H. 1933. A Comparative Grammar of the Hittite Language. Philadelphia: Linguistic Society of America/University of Pennsylvania. Vaillant, A. 1936. L’ergatif indo-européen. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 37, 93–108. Wackernagel, J. 1905. Altindische Grammatik II/1. Einleitung zur Wortlehre. Nominalkomposition. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

chapter 15

Indo-Uralic and the Origin of Indo-European Ablaut Mikhail Zhivlov*

1

Čop’s Ideas on the Origin of Indo-European Ablaut

In 1975 Bojan Čop published a book entitled “Die indogermanische Deklination im Lichte der indouralischen vergleichenden Grammatik” in which, inter alia, he presented some thoughts on the development of Proto-Indo-European ablaut. His ideas remained unnoticed, and I know of no reference to them in the Indo-Europeanist literature.1 Čop’s thoughts on the origin of ablaut can be summarized as follows (see Čop 1975: 89–93 and Čop 1990: 27–29). Proto-Indo-European monosyllabic roots correspond to Proto-Uralic and Proto-Indo-Uralic disyllabic roots. As a result of reduction of unstressed vowels, the second syllable vowel was lost unless the root was followed by a suffix consisting of consonant + vowel. Such suffixes caused the accent (that otherwise fell on the first syllable of the root) to shift one syllable forward, so that it fell on the second syllable of the root. When the original second syllable vowel was preserved, it was reinterpreted as belonging to the following suffix (originally, all suffixes began with consonants). Schematically this scenario can be represented as follows: PIU *CV́ CV > PIE *CV́ C, PIU *CV́ CV-C > PIE *CV́ C-C, PIU *CVCV́ -CV > PIE *CCV́ C. The Proto-Indo-European genitive-ablative singular ending *-e/os, according to Čop, corresponds to the Proto-Uralic ablative ending *-ta. The fact that the Indo-European ending has an allomorph *-s may seem to contradict Čop’s theory. Čop explains it in the following way: Proto-Uralic had two kinds of stems: *a/ä-stems and *e-stems (now usually reconstructed as *i-stems). The final vowel of *e-stems was deleted before certain suffixes, including the ablative ending *-ta. Thus, Proto-Uralic and Proto-Indo-Uralic *e-stem nouns correspond to Proto-Indo-European nouns with gen.-abl.sg. *-s, while original

* I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Simona Klemenčič, who kindly furnished me with offprints of rare and unpublished works by Bojan Čop. 1 Except a brief mention in a footnote in Rasmussen (1999: 251).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004409354_016 Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

220

zhivlov

*a-stem nouns correspond to Proto-Indo-European nouns with gen.-abl.sg. *-e/os: PIU *CVCá-ta > PIE *CC- és, PIU *CV́ C-ta > PIE *CV́ C-s. Taking Čop’s ideas as a point of departure, we will attempt to sketch an outline of a theory of the origin of Proto-Indo-European ablaut. Below, we will argue that the rise of different ablaut paradigms of the Proto-Indo-European noun can be explained if we accept the following assumptions: 1) Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Uralic are genetically related; 2) Proto-Indo-Uralic phonotactics and morphophonology were largely preserved in Proto-Uralic, but drastically changed in Proto-Indo-European; 3) Proto-Indo-European ablaut must be studied separately from the accent system that can be reconstructed for Proto-Indo-European on the basis of Old Indic, Greek, Balto-Slavic and Germanic data. Ablaut reflects an earlier, pre-Proto-Indo-European accent system, which, while superficially similar in a number of points to the Proto-Indo-European one, was based on entirely different principles. Before we return to Čop’s ideas, we must clarify this last point.

2

Indo-European Accent and Ablaut

There are two approaches to the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European accent and ablaut. According to the mainstream approach, also known as the paradigmatic model, Proto-Indo-European quantitative ablaut is directly connected with the Proto-Indo-European accent: zero grade results from vowel reduction in unstressed syllables. The two most influential versions of this approach are the Erlangen model (summarized in Meier-Brügger 2010: 336–353), and the Leiden model (summarized in Beekes 2011: 190–217 and Kloekhorst 2013). The reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European accent in the paradigmatic approach is based mainly on the evidence of archaic ablaut patterns. More often than not accentological data of the daughter languages are treated as secondary and irrelevant to the reconstruction simply because they do not fit the picture based on ablaut. One of the main problems of the paradigmatic approach is that the direct connection between accent and ablaut must be ascribed to some pre-Proto-Indo-European stage, because reconstructed ProtoIndo-European has numerous counterexamples to this generalization, cf. such ̥́ ̥́ forms as *u̯ lkʷos ‘wolf’, *h₂ŕ̥tk̑os ‘bear’, *u̯ lh₁neh₂ ‘wool’, *septḿ̥ ‘seven’, *u̯ óide ‘knows’ etc. But if there was no synchronic connection between accent and ablaut in Proto-Indo-European, how can we reconstruct the accent using the evidence of ablaut? Another problem is the absence of a theory that would

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

indo-uralic and the origin of indo-european ablaut

221

predict which accent-ablaut paradigms are possible and which are not. See the detailed critique of the paradigmatic approach in Kiparsky 2010. An alternative approach, termed “morphophonological” by V. Dybo (2006) and “compositional” by P. Kiparsky (2010), was developed mainly in BaltoSlavic studies, although it can also be applied to Old Indic and Greek. Its main premise is that the surface stress of any word in the languages that preserve original Indo-European accent can be derived from the underlying accentual properties of its constituent morphemes. All Proto-Balto-Slavic morphemes belong to one of the two classes: a “+ valency” class and a “- valency” class. The ictus falls on the first “+ valency” morpheme; if there are no such morphemes in the word, the ictus falls on the first syllable (Dybo 2000: 5–14). According to the hypothesis proposed by V. Dybo, morphophonological “valencies” reflect ProtoIndo-European tones: “+ valency” goes back to high tone, while “- valency” goes back to low tone (Dybo, Nikolayev & Starostin 1978). The tonal interpretation was supported by F. Kortlandt (2010), A. Lubotsky (1988) and T. Pronk (2013). The role of ablaut in the morphophonological/compositional approach remains unclear. According to P. Kiparsky (2010), zero grade appears before an immediately following underlyingly accented morpheme (= “+ valency” morpheme in Dybo’s terminology). While plausible as a synchronic statement when applied to Old Indic (or, more precisely, only to paradigms with ablaut alternations in this language), Kiparsky’s rule is not easily interpretable in a diachronic sense. Moreover, it explains only the hysterokinetic ablaut pattern, leaving the amphikinetic ablaut unaccounted for (Kiparsky has an alternative explanation for proterokinetic ablaut). The fact that there was no synchronic direct connection between accent and ablaut in Proto-Indo-European means that it is methodologically incorrect to use ablaut data in the reconstruction of accent and vice versa. The only way to avoid circular reasoning is to reconstruct accent and ablaut systems separately. Therefore, we are justified in proposing a theory that accounts for the origin of ablaut without reference to the Proto-Indo-European accent system. Of course, such a theory must explain the limited correlation between ablaut and accent, which is attested in Old Indic paradigms with mobile stress. Below, we will use the terms ‘acrostatic’, ‘hysterokinetic’, ‘proterokinetic’ and ‘amphikinetic’ as names for ablaut paradigms only, without any connection to accentology whatsoever. In order to emphasize this, we will not mark stress in Proto-Indo-European forms.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

222 3

zhivlov

Uralic Morpheme Structure and Noun Morphology

Proto-Uralic roots have a minimal shape *CV(C)CV, i.e. they are at least disyllabic (see Aikio 2014: 45 for arguments in favour of this constraint). The typical shape of suffixes and endings is *-CV(C) or (for endings) simply *-C (Janhunen 1982: 25–26). Two types of stems can be reconstructed for Proto-Uralic: *Astems, ending in a low vowel, realized as *a or *ä according to rules of vowel harmony,2 and *i-stems, ending in a high vowel *i. This high vowel “could alternate with zero before suffixes comprising a whole syllable, provided the restrictions on consonant distribution were not violated” (Janhunen 1982: 27). Both roots and suffixes can end in *-A or *-i. The suffixes ending in *-i lose this vowel under the same conditions as roots. Trisyllabic *i-stems lose the stem vowel not only before certain suffixes, but also word-finally (cf. Helimski 2000). This peculiarity is preserved in Finnic and Saami, i.e., in branches most faithfully preserving the Proto-Uralic syllabic structure. It cannot be due to a recent apocope of final *-i, because no such apocope can be postulated for Saami: Proto-Saami preserved the Uralic trisyllabic structures with final *-i, if this vowel belonged to an ending (Salminen 1996). Proto-Uralic had fixed accent on the first syllable. Although we cannot prove it, we can suppose that this feature was inherited from Proto-Indo-Uralic. The crucial element in our hypothesis is a set of comparisons between ProtoUralic and Proto-Indo-European noun endings. For Proto-Uralic, the following case endings can be reconstructed (table 15.1 below is based on Janhunen 1982: 30 with minor changes). Janhunen reconstructs the ablative ending as *-ti, because of its ProtoSamoyed reflex *-tə. We prefer the traditional reconstruction *-tA (based on West Uralic reflexes), since Proto-Uralic *a can yield Proto-Samoyed *ə in nonfirst syllables. The following Proto-Uralic endings can be etymologically equated with their Proto-Indo-European counterparts (Čop 1975: 74–75): PU nom.sg. *-Ø ~ PIE nom.-acc.sg. *-Ø (in neuter athematic nouns) PU acc.sg. *-m ~ PIE acc.sg. *-m PU dual *-ki(-) ~ PIE nom.-acc.du. *-h₁ PU abl. *-tA ~ PIE gen.-abl.sg. *-es / *-os / *-s PU nom.pl. *-t ~ PIE nom.pl. *-es 2 Possibly, we must reconstruct more than one type of stems with non-high vowels for ProtoUralic (Zhivlov 2014: 117–121; Aikio 2015: 37–38). This does not affect our hypothesis, since it is not vowel quality, but the presence or absence of vowel deletion that matters for our argument.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

indo-uralic and the origin of indo-european ablaut

223

table 15.1 Proto-Uralic case endings

Sg.

Du.

Pl.

nom.

-Ø

-ki(-)

-t

gen.

-n

-ki(-)

-j

acc.

-m

-ki(-)

-j

loc.

-nA

abl.

-tA

lat.

-ŋ

The last two equations presuppose the sound change of a word-final *-t to *-s at some stage between Proto-Indo-Uralic and Proto-Indo-European (after the reduction of the final vowel in abl. *-ta). An additional example of this change is the 2 sg. verbal ending: Proto-Uralic *-t ~ Proto-Indo-European *-s. The Proto-Uralic dual ending is attested only in Samoyed and the Ob-Ugric branches. In Samoyed it comes with an added *-ń of unclear origin, resulting in Proto-Samoyed *-kəń (Janhunen 1998: 470). Since Proto-Uralic and ProtoSamoyed do not tolerate word-final clusters, *-kəń may result not only from PU *-ki- + *-ń, but also from PU *-k + *-ń with an epenthetic vowel. The ObUgric languages cannot clarify the picture either. Khanty has added another nasal to the dual ending, resulting in Proto-Khanty *-γən, whereas the ProtoMansi dual ending *-γ is uninformative since the rules governing the fate of word-final vowels in this branch are not sufficiently well studied. Thus, the PU dual ending can be reconstructed either as *-ki or as *-k. Since the presence or absence of a final vowel is crucial for our argument, below we will not discuss dual forms. The Proto-Indo-European nom.sg. ending *-s has no counterpart in ProtoUralic. We cannot accept the widespread idea that this ending is originally the same as gen.-abl.sg. *-es/*-os/*-s, because the morphophonological properties of these two endings differ (nom.sg. has “- valency”, does not trigger zero grade of the preceding morpheme and is subject to Szemerényi’s law, whereas gen.abl.sg. has “+ valency”, triggers zero grade of the preceding morpheme and is not subject to Szemerényi’s law).

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

224

zhivlov

Now let us assume that Proto-Indo-Uralic had the morpheme structure rules described above for Proto-Uralic. Somewhat modifying Čop’s suggestions, we postulate the following rules leading from Proto-Indo-Uralic to Proto-IndoEuropean. A. The accent became fixed on the penultimate syllable. B. First syllable vowels were lengthened before second syllable *i. A similar, but more restricted, change has taken place in Finnic (Aikio 2012). For the sake of convenience, we will call the stage immediately after the application of the rule B “pre-Proto-Indo-European”. C. Unstressed vowels were reduced to zero. Judging by Proto-Indo-European nom.pl. *-es (< Proto-Indo-Uralic *-t), the reduction was blocked at least in the position before Proto-Indo-Uralic word-final *-t. In those cases where the stem vowel was not subject to reduction, it was reanalyzed as belonging to the following morpheme. Thus, Proto-Indo-European roots became monosyllabic. D. Short vowels yielded PIE *e, long vowels yielded PIE *o. Within IndoEuropean, there is evidence that PIE *o goes back to an earlier long vowel (Kümmel 2012: 307–317). E. Word-final *-t became *-s (see above). This rule applies not only to the original word-final *-t in nom.pl. ending, but also to *-t in the ProtoIndo-Uralic ablative ending *-ta, which became word-final as a result of unstressed vowel reduction. The rule was apparently blocked after pronominal stems of the shape CV-: another reflex of the PIU abl. *-ta in Proto-Indo-European is the abl. ending *-d of personal pronouns (e.g. PIE *me-d—abl. of 1st sg. pronoun), while the Proto-Uralic acc. ending of personal pronouns *-t (e.g. Finnish minu-t, Vakh Khanty män-t—acc. of 1st sg. pronoun) corresponds to the PIE nom.-acc. neuter ending *-d in pronominal declension (e.g. PIE *kʷi-d—nom.-acc.sg. of interrogative pronoun). The latter restriction was proposed (in a somewhat different wording) by P. Kallio in his presentation on the conference “The precursors of Proto-Indo-European: The Indo-Hittite and Indo-Uralic hypotheses”, held at Leiden University in 2015. F. Rise of a new accent system. The accent shifted to the first syllable with high tone (or simply to the first syllable, if there was no high tone in the word). Whether the tones that served as input to this rule were inherited from Proto-Indo-Uralic or developed later is irrelevant to our argument. Lubotsky’s discovery that the accentuation of primary nouns in Old Indic correlates with the voicedness/voicelessness of root consonants supports the latter view (Lubotsky 1988). The main differences between Čop’s ideas and our reformulation of them are the following. 1) According to Čop, the accent in Indo-Uralic fell on the first sylAlwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

indo-uralic and the origin of indo-european ablaut

225

lable of the stem, but if the stem was followed by a suffix containing a vowel, the accent shifted onto the stem-final vowel immediately preceding this suffix (Čop 1975: 92). We postulate instead a simpler rule of penultimate accent. 2) We do not identify the accent system that gave rise to Indo-European ablaut with the Proto-Indo-European accent system. 3) Our model also accounts for the o-grade.

4

Uralic Stem Types and Indo-European Ablaut Paradigms

Now we can examine the possible combinations of Proto-Indo-Uralic stems, suffixes and endings and their reflexes in Proto-Indo-European. We will first discuss root nouns, then nouns with monosyllabic suffixes of the shape *-CV and finally nouns with disyllabic suffixes of the shape *-CVCV. Unlike Čop, we will not discuss actual word comparisons between Uralic and Indo-European. The only direct comparison between Indo-European and Uralic morphemes in our model is the comparison of noun endings. There are two reasons for that. First, reliable Indo-Uralic etymologies are rather scarce. Second, and more important, most of the Indo-European ablaut paradigms are preserved only in a few stems in the ancient Indo-European languages. Therefore, words that belong to more widespread ablaut types (mobile type of root nouns and hysterokinetic type of suffixed nouns) can actually be secondarily transferred to these types from less productive paradigms. Root nouns can be divided into two types: *a-stem nouns3 and *i-stem nouns. Type 1 yields the Indo-European mobile ablaut paradigm of root nouns, attested in numerous words, e.g. the word for ‘man’: PIE nom.sg. *h₂nēr (< *h₂ner-s), acc.sg. *h₂ner-m, gen.-abl.sg. *h₂n̥ r-es > Greek nom.sg. ἀνήρ, acc.sg. ἀνέρα, gen.-abl.sg. ἀνδρός ‘man’. On the Uralic side, this type is represented by the Proto-Uralic word *kala ‘fish’ (Finnish nom.sg. kala, part.sg. kalaa < PU abl. *kala-ta). Type 2 yields the acrostatic paradigm of root nouns. Although not attested as such in the daughter languages, it is postulated for Proto-Indo-European on the evidence of the fossilized gen.sg. form of the word for ‘house’, preserved in the fixed phrase *dem-s poti-s ‘master of the house’ > Greek δεσπότης ‘master (of the house), lord’, Old Indic dámpati- and pátir dán ‘householder, lord

3 For simplicity’s sake, we will reconstruct the Proto-Indo-Uralic precursors of Proto-Uralic *Astems (where *A = *a or *ä) simply as *a-stems.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

226

zhivlov

table 15.2 Type 1: *a-stem root nouns

nom.sg. acc.sg. (gen.)-abl.sg. nom.pl.

PIU

Pre-PIE

PIE

*CVCa *CVCa-m *CVCa-ta *CVCa-t

*CV́ Ca *CV́ Ca-m *CVCá-ta *CV́ Ca-t

*CeC(-s) *CeC-m *CC-es *CeC-es

table 15.3 Type 2: *i-stem root nouns

nom.sg. acc.sg. (gen.)-abl.sg. nom.pl.

PIU

Pre-PIE

PIE

*CVCi *CVCi-m *CVC-ta *CVCi-t

*CV́ :Ci *CV́ :Ci-m *CV́ C-ta *CV́ :Ci-t

*CoC(-s) *CoC-m *CeC-s *CoC-es

of the house’, Avestan də̄ṇg paitiš ‘lord’ (Schindler 1972: 32). The nominative of the root noun ‘house’ is possibly preserved in the Armenian nom.sg. tun < *dōm. The crucial difference between Type 1 and Type 2 is that in the latter the final vowel of the Proto-Indo-Uralic root was subject to deletion before suffixes which contained a vowel. On the Uralic side, this type can be illustrated by the Proto-Uralic word *käli ‘tongue’ (Finnish nom.sg. kieli, part.sg. kiel-tä < PU abl. *käl-tä). The pre-Proto-Indo-European penultimate accent would fall in such nouns on the root in gen.-abl.sg. as well as in nom.sg. The difference between the two forms lay in the quality of the second syllable vowel in ProtoIndo-Uralic: *i in the nominative, but *a (as a part of the ending *-ta) in the ablative. This difference is reflected in the acrostatic ablaut: *o before original Indo-Uralic *i in the second syllable / *e before original Indo-Uralic *a of the second syllable. The form *dem-s is one of the main counterexamples to Szemerényi’s law. Another such counterexample is *-oms—the acc.pl. ending of thematic stems. Both these forms have *s from Proto-Indo-Uralic *t: gen.-abl. sg. *-s corresponds to Uralic abl. *-tA, while acc.pl. ending can be analyzed as acc.sg. *-m plus *-s taken from the nom.pl. ending, going back to PIU *-t. We can suppose that these forms escaped Szemerényi’s law because at the time of its action the reflex of

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

indo-uralic and the origin of indo-european ablaut

227

table 15.4 Type 3: *a-stem nouns with *-Ca suffixes

nom.sg. acc.sg. (gen.)-abl.sg. nom.pl.

PIU

Pre-PIE

PIE

*CVCa-Ca *CVCa-Ca-m *CVCa-Ca-ta *CVCa-Ca-t

*CVCá-Ca *CVCá-Ca-m *CVCa-Cá-ta *CVCá-Ca-t

*CC-eC(-s) *CC-eC-m *CC-C-es *CC-eC-es

table 15.5 Type 4: *a-stem nouns with *-Ci suffixes

nom.sg. acc.sg. (gen.)-abl.sg. nom.pl.

PIU

Pre-PIE

PIE

*CVCa-C *CVCa-Ci-m *CVCa-C-ta *CVCa-Ci-t

*CV́ Ca-C *CVCá-Ci-m *CVCá-C-ta *CVCá-Ci-t

*CeC-C **CC-eC-m *CC-eC-s **CC-eC-es

Proto-Indo-Uralic *t did not yet coincide with *s (it could have been a kind of affricate). Now we may turn to suffixed nouns. Since both roots and suffixes in Uralic (and by our hypothesis, in Indo-Uralic) can end in *-a or *-i, the following combinations are possible. Type 3. Root ending in *-a- plus suffix ending in *-a-: *CVCa- + *-Ca- > *CVCa-Ca-. On the Uralic side this type can be illustrated by the Proto-Uralic deverbal noun *elä-mä ‘life’, derived from PU *elä- ‘to live’ (Finnish nom.sg. elämä, part.sg. elämää < PU abl. *elä-mä-tä). Type 4. Root ending in *-a- plus suffix ending in *-i-: *CVCa- + *-Ci- > *CVCa-Ci- / *CVCa-C-. The result is an *i-stem that will lose its final vowel before certain affixes and word-finally (see above). The Uralic representative of this type is PU *śüδ´ä-m ‘heart’, derived from PU *śüδ´ä ‘id.’ (Finnish nom.sg. sydän, part.sg. sydäntä < PU abl. *śüδ´ä-m-tä, nom.pl. sydämet < PU *śüδ´ä-mit). Type 5. Root ending in *-i- plus suffix ending in *-a-: *CVCi- + *-Ca- > *CVCCa-. The root loses its *-i- before any affix that contains a vowel. The Uralic reflex of this type can be exemplified by PU *kal-ma ‘death’—an archaic derivative from PU *kali- ‘to die’ (Finnish nom.sg. kalma, part.sg. kalmaa < PU abl. *kalma-ta).

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

228

zhivlov

table 15.6 Type 5: *i-stem nouns with *-Ca suffixes

nom.sg. acc.sg. (gen.)-abl.sg. nom.pl.

PIU

Pre-PIE 1

Pre-PIE 2 PIE

*CVC-Ca *CVC-Ca-m *CVC-Ca-ta *CVC-Ca-t

*CV́ C-Ca *CV́ C-Ca-m *CVC-Cá-ta *CV́ C-Ca-t

*CeC-C *CeC-C-m *CC-C-es *CeC-C-es

*CeC-oC(-s) *CeC-oC-m *CC-C-es *CeC-oC-es

table 15.7 Type 6: *i-stem nouns with *-Ci suffixes

nom.sg. acc.sg. (gen.)-abl.sg. nom.pl.

PIU

Pre-PIE

PIE

*CVC-Ci *CVC-Ci-m *CVC-C-ta *CVC-Ci-t

*CV́ :C-Ci *CV́ :C-Ci-m *CV́ C-C-ta *CV́ :C-Ci-t

*CoC-C(-s) *CoC-C-m *CeC-C-s *CoC-C-es

Type 6. Root ending in *-i- plus suffix ending in *-i-: *CVCi- + *-Ci- > *CVCCi- / *CVC-C-. Here the root also loses its final vowel before a suffix, but the outcome is an *i-stem that in its turn is capable of losing its final vowel. The existence of this type is somewhat doubtful, mainly because it has no clear parallel in Uralic. On the other hand, it is easy to understand why this type could have been lost: Proto-Uralic normally did not tolerate clusters of more than two consonants. In some *i-stems this constraint led to simplification of resulting clusters (cf. Finnish lapsi ‘child’, part.sg. las-ta), but in most cases the vowel deletion was given up. Let us now look at possible development of types 3–6 in Indo-European. The outcome of type 3 is the hysterokinetic ablaut paradigm: nom.sg. *uksēn (< *uks-en-s), acc.sg. *uks-en-m, gen.-abl.sg. *uks-n-os, nom.pl. *uks-en-es > Old Indic nom.sg. ukṣā ́, acc.sg. ukṣáṇam, gen.-abl.sg. ukṣṇáḥ, nom.pl. ukṣáṇaḥ ‘bull’. Type 4 yields the proterokinetic paradigm. It appears to be originally restricted to neuter nouns, so acc.sg. and nom.pl. forms are not attested4 (expected, but unattested reflexes here and below are marked with a double asterisk). 4 However, a trace of the expected ablaut paradigm is apparently preserved in the Greek pair μέγα nom.-acc.sg.n. ‘great, big, large’ < *meg̑-h₂ vs. ἄγᾱν adv. ‘much, too much’ < *m̥ g̑-eh₂-m acc.sg.m./f.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

indo-uralic and the origin of indo-european ablaut

229

M. Kümmel has convincingly shown that in Proto-Indo-Iranic i- and u-stems the choice between ‘proterokinetic’ flexion (Old Indic nom.sg. sūnúḥ, gen.abl.sg. sūnóḥ) and flexion with consistent zero grade of -i- and -u- (Old Indic nom.-acc.sg. mádhu, gen.-abl.sg. mádhvaḥ) is governed by the weight of the first syllable (Kümmel 2014; see also Kiparsky 2010). The choice between zero grade and full grade of the suffix in the subtype with ‘proterokinetic’ flexion depends on the segmental shape of the ending: full grade of the suffix is found before endings beginning with a vowel, whereas zero grade is found before endings beginning with a consonant (Kiparsky 2010; Kümmel 2014). However, this rule does not account for the gen.-abl.sg. form, where we find full grade before *-s. Thus, although ablaut grades of the suffix were secondarily redistributed, the forms of the genitive and nominative singular, crucial for our reconstruction, preserve the original state of affairs. Therefore, the ‘proterokinetic’ flexion in i- and u-stems (as opposed to the proterokinetic ablaut paradigm in cases like *gʷen-h₂ / *gʷn-eh₂-s, see below) tells us nothing about original ablaut alternations in the root. The real evidence for proterokinetic ablaut comes only from nouns with simultaneous ablaut alternation in root and suffix. These can be illustrated by the word for ‘woman’: PIE nom.sg. *gʷēn (< *gʷen-h₂), gen.sg. *gʷn-eh₂-s > Old Irish nom.sg. ben,5 gen.sg. mná. Type 5 yields amphikinetic nouns. Our model predicts that the suffix must be in the zero-grade throughout the paradigm. In fact, the suffix has *o-grade in the strong cases. The suffixal ablaut was probably introduced under the influence of the hysterokinetic type. Apparently, this happened at a stage when the vowel *e in the unstressed position was restricted to certain environments; therefore the analogically introduced vowel automatically became *o (Kortlandt 2010b: 396). The amphikinetic type can be illustrated by the following examples: 1) PIE nom.sg. *dʰeg̑ ʰ-ōm (< *dʰeg̑ ʰ-om-s), acc.sg. *dʰeg̑ ʰ-om-m, gen.sg. *dʰg̑ ʰ-m-os > Hittite nom.-acc.sg. tēkan, gen.sg. taknāš ‘earth’ (the Hittite word became neuter, but preserved the ablaut); 2) PIE nom.sg. *pent-oH-s, acc.sg. *pent-oH-m, gen.sg. *pn̥ t-H-os, nom.pl. *pent-oH-es > Old Indic nom.sg. pánthāḥ, acc.sg. pánthām, gen.sg. patháḥ, nom.pl. pánthāḥ ‘way, path, course’; 3) PIE nom.sg. *eh₁t-mō (< *eh₁t-mon-s), acc.sg. *eh₁t-mon-m, gen.sg. *h₁t-mnos > Old Indic nom.sg. ātmā ́, acc.sg. ātmā ́nam, dat.sg. tmáne ‘breath, soul, self’. Due to the general tendency to eliminate ablaut alternations in the root, this type is rather poorly attested, but G. Kroonen has shown that it was fairly frequent in Proto-Germanic n-stems (Kroonen 2011: 133–334). 5 Nom.sg. ben < *gʷenā replaces earlier bé (neuter, later feminine) < *gʷēn. The latter is preserved as a poetic and legal term (Jasanoff 1989).

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

230

zhivlov

table 15.8 Type 7: *a-stem nouns with *-CVCa suffixes

nom.sg. acc.sg. (gen.)-abl.sg. nom.pl.

PIU

Pre-PIE

PIE

*CVCa-CVCa *CVCa-CVCa-m *CVCa-CVCa-ta *CVCa-CVCa-t

*CVCa-CV́ Ca *CVCa-CV́ Ca-m *CVCa-CVCá-ta *CVCa-CV́ Ca-t

*CC-CeC(-s) *CC-CeC-m *CC-CC-es *CC-CeC-es

table 15.9 Type 8: *i-stem nouns with *-CVCa suffixes

nom.sg. acc.sg. (gen.)-abl.sg. nom.pl.

PIU

Pre-PIE

PIE

*CVC-CVCa *CVC-CVCa-m *CVC-CVCa-ta *CVC-CVCa-t

*CVC-CV́ Ca *CVC-CV́ Ca-m *CVC-CVCá-ta *CVC-CV́ Ca-t

*CC-CeC(-s) *CC-CeC-m *CC-CC-es *CC-CeC-es

The predicted outcome of type 6 is the acrostatic type of suffixed nouns. Its reconstruction is rather doubtful, because it is not attested as such, but merely postulated on circumstantial evidence. The main piece of evidence is the Hittite expression nekuz mēḫur ‘in the evening’, literally ‘time of evening’, where nekuz is taken to be a fossilized gen.sg. of the word for ‘evening’: *nekʷt-s, related to Narrow Indo-European *nokʷ-t- ‘night’ (Schindler 1967). Since otherwise Hittite generalized the allomorph *-os of the gen.sg. ending, the form nekuz must be an archaism. Cf., however, an alternative interpretation in Kloekhorst 2014. Another piece of evidence—the Indo-Iranian and Germanic gen.-abl.sg. of the *r-stems in *-r̥-s—can have an alternative explanation (see below). Note that the ‘acrostatic’ accentuation is a widespread phenomenon in Indo-European, but it is irrelevant from our point of view: we look only at the evidence for acrostatic ablaut pattern. Up to this point we considered only combinations of roots with CV-type suffixes (> VC-type in Indo-European). However, Proto-Indo-European had many noun suffixes of the shape *-CeC-. In terms of our hypothesis, they must go back to pre-Proto-Indo-European disyllabic suffixes of the shape *-CVCV- (it is not clear whether such suffixes existed already in Proto-Indo-Uralic). The following combinations of root and suffix are possible: Types 7 and 8 yield the hysterokinetic paradigm. They require no further comment. Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

indo-uralic and the origin of indo-european ablaut table 15.10

nom.sg. acc.sg. (gen.)-abl.sg. nom.pl.

table 15.11

nom.sg. acc.sg. (gen.)-abl.sg. nom.pl.

231

Type 9: *a-stem nouns with *-CVCi suffixes

PIU

Pre-PIE

PIE

*CVCa-CVC *CVCa-CVCi-m *CVCa-CVC-ta *CVCa-CVCi-t

*CVCá-CVC *CVCa-CV́ :Ci-m *CVCa-CV́ C-ta *CVCa-CV́ :Ci-t

**CC-VCC **CC-CoC-m **CC-CeC-s **CC-CoC-es

Type 10: *i-stem nouns with *-CVCi suffixes

PIU

Pre-PIE

PIE

*CVC-CVC *CVC-CVCi-m *CVC-CVC-ta *CVC-CVCi-t

*CV́ C-CVC *CVC-CV́ :Ci-m *CVC-CV́ C-ta *CVC-CV́ :Ci-t

**CVC-CC **CC-CoC-m **CC-CeC-s **CC-CoC-es

The expected outcomes of types 9 and 10 are not attested. We can suppose that early in the prehistory of Indo-European, these types were given up and replaced by proterokinetic and amphikinetic types, created on the analogy of stems with VC-type suffixes. The model for such an analogy was provided by the hysterokinetic type, which was present in stems with both VC-type and CVCtype suffixes.

5

Conclusion

The hypothesis presented above does not account for the so-called acrostatic type II with *ē / *e ablaut in the root and zero grade in the suffix. This type, however, is not attested in any Indo-European language, and Kloekhorst convincingly argues against its reconstruction (Kloekhorst 2014). One more type remains unaccounted for: the so called ‘hysterodynamic’ type of the Leiden school: nom.sg. *CeC-C, acc.sg. *CC-eC-m, gen.sg. *CC-Ces (Beekes 1985: 154). Kloekhorst argues that this ablaut type is synchronically attested in the Hittite word for ‘hand’: nom.sg. keššar < *g̑ ʰesr, acc.sg. kiššeran < *g̑ ʰserom, gen.sg. kiš(ša)raš < *g̑ ʰesros or *g̑ ʰsros (Kloekhorst 2013: 111–115). This type looks like the predicted outcome of our type 4 in non-neuter nouns (in

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

232

zhivlov

neuter nouns type 4 yielded the proterokinetic paradigm): nom.sg. *CVC-C, acc.sg. *CC-eC-m, gen.-abl.sg. *CC-eC-s. The only difference is in the genitive: instead of **CC-eC-s, predicted by our model, we have *CC-C-es. This may be viewed as a result of remodeling the original paradigm under the influence of hysterokinetic nouns. Since this ablaut type is attested only in a single Hittite word, we do not know whether this remodeling took place already in ProtoIndo-European, or later in the separate history of Anatolian. Another possible trace of this ablaut pattern can be discerned in the kinship terms with the suffix *-ter-. Synchronically, they show hysterokinetic ablaut paradigm, but with some peculiarities: 1) the words *meh₂-ter- ‘mother’ and *bʰreh₂-ter- ‘brother’ have full grade of the root; 2) the root of the word for ‘daughter’ has zero-grade in Narrow Indo-European: *dʰugʰh₂-ter-, but full grade in Anatolian: *dʰu̯ egʰh₂-ter- (Kloekhorst 2008: 902–904); 3) in Old Indic and partly in Germanic these words have a genitive in *-tr̥-s. The latter is usually seen as originating in the word for ‘brother’ with its ‘acrostatic’ accent, but there is no positive evidence for that. We can suppose that originally these words had the following paradigm: nom.sg. *dʰu̯ egʰh₂-tr̥ (s), acc.sg. *dʰugʰh₂ter-m, gen.-abl.sg. *dʰugʰh₂-ter-s. Already in Proto-Indo-European, the ablaut of the suffix was remodeled on the analogy of the hysterokinetic type, but the shape of gen.-abl.sg. ending and the root ablaut (at least in the word for ‘daughter’) were preserved, yielding the following forms: nom.sg. *dʰu̯ egʰh₂-tēr, acc.sg. *dʰugʰh₂-ter-m, gen.-abl.sg. *dʰugʰh₂-tr̥-s. After the separation of the Anatolian branch, the root ablaut was leveled in favour of full or zero-grade. The final, and most important, question is where does the limited correlation between ablaut and synchronic accent (which can be easily seen in Old Indic words with mobile stress paradigms) come from? The endings that require a full ablaut grade of the preceding morpheme also do not attract stress: they have “- valency” in terms of the morphophonological approach. According to our hypothesis, such endings go back to Proto-Indo-Uralic endings without a vowel, e.g., acc.sg. *-m and nom.pl. *-t. If the tonological interpretation of the morphophonological approach is correct, the “+ valency” reflects the high tone. Endings that originally did not have any vowels also evidently did not have tone, so that their “- valency” reflects the absence of a high tone. This means that the limited correlation between synchronic accent and ablaut, attested in ancient Indo-European languages, is fully explained by our model. We must emphasize that the hypothesis presented here involves no circular reasoning. We start from Proto-Indo-Uralic forms, whose shape is in no way influenced by Indo-European data, because they are “back-projected” from Proto-Uralic to our hypothetical Proto-Indo-Uralic. Applying to these forms a set of simple phonological rules, we arrive at Indo-European ablaut paradigms.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

indo-uralic and the origin of indo-european ablaut

233

Each of the possible combinations of roots and monosyllabic suffixes (types 1– 6 above) yields an ablaut paradigm that is either actually attested or at least (in the case of acrostatic paradigms) postulated by Indo-Europeanists independently of any external evidence.

References Aikio, A. (Luobbal Sámmol Sámmol Ánte) 2012. On Finnic long vowels, Samoyed vowel sequences, and Proto-Uralic *x. In: T. Hyytiäinen; L. Jalava; J. Saarikivi and E. Sandman (eds.), Per Urales ad Orientem: Iter polyphonicum multilingue. Festskrift tillägnad Juha Janhunen på hans sextioårsdag den 12 februari 2012. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura, 227–250. Aikio, A. (Luobbal Sámmol Sámmol Ánte) 2014. The Uralic-Yukaghir lexical correspondences: genetic inheritance, language contact or chance resemblance? Finnischugrische Forschungen 62, 7–76. Aikio, A. (Luobbal Sámmol Sámmol Ánte) 2015. The Finnic ‘secondary e-stems’ and Proto-Uralic vocalism. Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Aikakauskirja / Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 95, 25–66. Beekes, R.S.P. 1985. The Origins of the Indo-European Nominal Inflection. Innsbruck: IBS. Beekes, R.S.P. 2011. Comparative Indo-European Linguistics. An Introduction. Second edition. Revised and corrected by Michiel de Vaan. Amsterdam–Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Čop, B. 1975. Die indogermanische Deklination im Lichte der indouralischen vergleichenden Grammatik. Ljubljana: SAZU. Čop, B. 1990. Indouralica XVII. Razprave SAZU, II. razred, razred za filološke in literarne vede 13, 21–46. Dybo, V.A. 2000. Morfonologizovannye paradigmatičeskie akcentnye sistemy: Tipologija i genezis. Tom 1. Moskva: Jazyki russkoj kul’tury. Dybo, V.A. 2006. Sravnitel’no-istoričeskaja akcentologija, novyj vzgljad: po povodu knigi V. Lefel’dta “Vvedenie v morfologičeskuju koncepciju slavjanskoj akcentologii”. Voprosy jazykoznanija 2006/2, 3–27. Dybo, V.; S. Nikolayev; S. Starostin 1978. A tonological hypothesis on the origin of paradigmatic accent systems. Estonian Papers in Phonetics 1978, 16–20. Helimski, E. 2000. Bisyllabic consonantal and trisyllabic vocalic stems in FinnoPermian and further. In: E.A. Xelimskij Komparativistika, uralistika: Lekcii i stat’i. Moskva: Jazyki russkoj kul’tury, 191–195. Janhunen, J. 1982. On the structure of Proto-Uralic. Finnisch-ugrische Forschungen 44, 23–42. Janhunen, J. 1998. Samoyedic. In: D. Abondolo (ed.), The Uralic Languages. London– New York: Routledge, 457–479. Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

234

zhivlov

Jasanoff, J.H. 1989. Old Irish bé ‘woman’. Ériu 40, 135–141. Kiparsky, P. 2010. Compositional vs. paradigmatic approaches to accent and ablaut. In: S.W. Jamison; H.C. Melchert; B. Vine (eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference. Bremen: Hempen, 137–181. Kloekhorst, A. 2008. Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon. Leiden– Boston: Brill. Kloekhorst, A. 2013. Indo-European nominal ablaut patterns: The Anatolian evidence. In: G. Keydana, P. Widmer; T. Olander (eds.), Indo-European Accent and Ablaut. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum, 107–128. Kloekhorst, A. 2014. The Proto-Indo-European acrostatic inflection reconsidered. In: N. Oettinger; T. Steer (eds.), Das Nomen im Indogermanischen. Morphologie, Substantiv versus Adjektiv, Kollektivum. Akten der Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 14. bis 16. September 2011 in Erlangen. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 140–163. Kortlandt, F. 2010a. Proto-Indo-European tones? In: F. Kortlandt Studies in Germanic, Indo-European and Indo-Uralic. Amsterdam–New York: Rodopi, 67–72. Kortlandt, F. 2010b. The Indo-Uralic verb. In: F. Kortlandt Studies in Germanic, IndoEuropean and Indo-Uralic. Amsterdam–New York: Rodopi, 391–403. Kroonen, G. 2011. The Proto-Germanic n-Stems. A Study in Diachronic Morphophonology. Amsterdam–New York: Rodopi. Kümmel, M.J. 2012. Typology and reconstruction: The consonants and vowels of ProtoIndo-European. In: B. Nielsen Whitehead; Th. Olander; B.A. Olsen and J.E. Rasmussen (eds.), The Sound of Indo-European: Phonetics, Phonemics, and Morphophonemics. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum, 291–329. Kümmel, M.J. 2014. Zum “proterokinetischen” Ablaut. In: N. Oettinger; T. Steer (eds.), Das Nomen im Indogermanischen. Morphologie, Substantiv versus Adjektiv, Kollektivum. Akten der Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 14. bis 16. September 2011 in Erlangen. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 164–179. Lubotsky, A.M. 1988. The System of Nominal Accentuation in Sanskrit and Proto-IndoEuropean. Leiden–New York–København–Köln: Brill. Meier-Brügger, M. 2010. Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft. 9., durchgesehene und ergänzte Auflage. Unter Mitarbeit von Matthias Fritz und Manfred Mayrhofer. Berlin– New York: Walter de Gruyter. Pronk, T. 2013. On Indo-European tones, accentuation and ablaut. In: G. Keydana; P. Widmer; T. Olander (eds.), Indo-European Accent and Ablaut. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum, 149–176. Rasmussen, J.E. 1999. The make-up of Indo-European morphology. In: J.E. Rasmussen Selected Papers on Indo-European Linguistics. With a Section on Comparative Eskimo Linguistics. Part 1. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum, 244–255. Salminen, T. 1996. Comments on László Honti’s paper “Zur Morphotaktik und Morphosyntax der uralischen/finnisch-ugrischen Grundsprache”. In: H. Leskinen;

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access

indo-uralic and the origin of indo-european ablaut

235

S. Maticsák; T. Seilenthal (eds.), Congressus Octavus Internationalis Fenno-Ugristarum VIII. Jyväskylä: Gummerus, 25–27. Schindler, J. 1967. Zu hethitisch nekuz. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 81, 290–303. Schindler, J. 1972. L’apophonie des noms-racines indo-européens. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 67, 31–38. Zhivlov, M. 2014. Studies in Uralic vocalism III. Journal of Language Relationship 12, 113–148.

Alwin Kloekhorst and Tijmen Pronk - 978-90-04-40935-4 Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2019 03:07:37PM via free access