Journal of Language Relationship 15/3-4 9781463239909

Citation preview

ɳɹʓʕʎʃʇ ʒɴɴʘ ʎˁ˫˵ˣ˻˙ ː˫˧ˣˁ༤

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

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

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

̘ 15, ˵ˁ˨˪˼ 3—4 (2017)

ʍ˥˨˜˅ˁ 2017

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

Journal of Language Relationship International Scientific Periodical

Nº 15, issue 3–4 (2017)

Moscow 2017

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

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

ɾ˫˧ˣˁ༤ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˁˣ ʇ. ɳ. ɲɯɲɯɹɳʦʍ

© ʒ˥˨˨˘˙˨˜˘˙ ˆ˥˨˫ˊˁ˧˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˻˙ ˆ˫ˢˁˣ˘˪ˁ˧ˣ˻˙ ˫ˣ˘˅ˋ˧˨˘˪ˋ˪, 2017

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

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

Founded by Kirill BABAEV

© Russian State University for the Humanities, 2017

ʘɸʇ 800(05) ɲɲʇ 80/84̀5

ɳ˥˦˧˥˨˻ ̀˖˻˜˥˅˥ˆ˥ ˧˥ˊ˨˪˅ˁ: ʍˋːˊ˫ˣˁ˧˥ˊˣ˻˙ ˣˁ˫˵ˣ˻˙ ː˫˧ˣˁ༤ / ʒ˥˨. ˆ˥˨. ˆ˫ˢˁˣ˘˪ˁ˧. ˫ˣ-˪; ʒ˥˨. ˁ˜ˁˊ. ˣˁ˫˜. ʃˣ-˪ ̀˖˻˜˥˖ˣˁˣ˘̀; ˦˥ˊ ˧ˋˊ. ɳ. ɯ. ɸ˻˄˥. Ɇ ʍ., 2017. Ɇ ̘ 3-4(15). Ɇ xii + 166 ˨. Ɇ (ɳˋ˨˪ˣ˘˜ ʒɴɴʘ. ʓˋ˧˘̀ «ʜ˘༤˥༤˥ˆ˘̀. ɳ˥˦˧˥˨˻ ̀˖˻˜˥˅˥ˆ˥ ˧˥ˊ˨˪˅ˁ»: ʎˁ˫˵ˣ˻˙ ː˫˧ˣˁ༤).

Journal of Language Relationship: International Scientific Periodical / Russian State University for the Humanities; Russian Academy of Sciences. Institute of Linguistics; Ed. by V. A. Dybo. Ɇ Moscow, 2017. Ɇ No. 3-4(15). Ɇ xii + 166 p. Ɇ (RSUH/RGGU Bulletin. Series: Philology. Journal of Language Relationship: Academic Journal).

ISSN 2073-6320

http://www.jolr.ru/ [email protected]

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

ʑ˥ˊ˦˘˨ˁˣ˥ ˅ ˦ˋ˵ˁ˪˼ 20.12.2017. ʜ˥˧ˢˁ˪ 60×90/8. ɲ˫ˢ. ˥˱˨ˋ˪ˣˁ̀. ʑˋ˵ˁ˪˼ ˥˱˨ˋ˪ˣˁ̀. ʕ˘˧ˁː 1050 ˽˜˖. ʁˁ˜ˁ˖ ̘ɏ38 ʃ˖ˊˁ˪ˋ༤˼˨˜˘˙ ˴ˋˣ˪˧ ʒ˥˨˨˘˙˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˆ˥˨˫ˊˁ˧˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˆ˫ˢˁˣ˘˪ˁ˧ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˫ˣ˘˅ˋ˧˨˘˪ˋ˪ˁ 125993, ʍ˥˨˜˅ˁ, ʍ˘˫˨˨˜ˁ̀ ˦༤., 6 www.rggu.ru www.knigirggu.ru

Table of Contents / ʎ˙ʿˀ˛˄ʸ˗ˌˀ

Table of Contents / ʓ˥ˊˋ˧ːˁˣ˘ˋ

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

Contributors / ʓ˅ˋˊˋˣ˘̀ ˥˄ ˁ˅˪˥˧ˁ˲

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

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

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

vii ix . x

Issue 3 / ʛʸ˜˞˰ 3 Articles / ʎ˞ʸ˞˰ˌ Andrei Nikulin. A phonological reconstruction of Proto-Cerrado (Jê family).

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

147

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

181

[ɭ. ɰ. ʉˌː˟˕ˌ˗. ʒˋ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˜˴˘̀ ˱˥ˣ˥༤˥ˆ˘˘ ˦˧ˁ̀˖˻˜ˁ ˣˁˆ˥˧ˣ˥˙ ˅ˋ˪˅˘ ˨ˋˢ˼˘ ːˋ]

ɭ. ɭ. ʐ˛˙˥ˌ˖˙ʻ. ɳˋˊ˘˙˨˜˘ˋ ˥˨ˣ˥˅˻ vŊ´ r-, udán- ˘ udaká- ‘˅˥ˊˁ’: ˘˲ ˦ˁ˧ˁˊ˘ˆˢˁ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˋ ˘ ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˋ ˥˪ˣ˥˸ˋˣ˘̀ .

[Artem A. Trofimov. Vedic stems vŊ´ r-, udán-, udaká- ‘water’ and their paradigmatic and etymological interrelations]

ʃ. ʓ. ʫ˜˫˄˥˅˘˵. ʎˁ ˜ˁ˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲ ˆ˥˅˥˧˘༤˘ ˅ ʕ˧˥ˋ? ɳ˖ˆ༤̀ˊ ˁˣˁ˪˥༤˘˨˪ˁ

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

193

[Ilya Yakubovich. The Language(s) of the Trojans: The Perspective of an Anatolian Scholar]

Reports / ʘ˛˙˗ˌːʸ ʓˋˊ˼ˢˁ̀ ˢˋːˊ˫ˣˁ˧˥ˊˣˁ̀ ˜˥ˣ˱ˋ˧ˋˣ˴˘̀ ˦˥ ˘˧ˁˣ˨˜˥ˢ˫ ̀˖˻˜˥˖ˣˁˣ˘˿, ʍ˥˨˜˅ˁ, ʃʓɯɯ ʍɴʘ, 28–30 ˁ˅ˆ˫˨˪ˁ 2017 ˆ. (ʋ. ɾ. ɯˀ˕˴ˀʻ) . . . . . . . . .

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

216

[Oleg Belyaev. Seventh International Conference on Iranian Linguistics. Institute of Asian and African Studies, Moscow State University, August 28–30, 2017]

ʠˋ˪˅ˋ˧˪ˁ̀ ˢˋːˊ˫ˣˁ˧˥ˊˣˁ̀ ༤ˋ˪ˣ̀̀ ˸˜˥༤ˁ ˦˥ ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˘˨˪˘˜ˋ ˅ ʑˁ˅˘˘, ʘˣ˘˅ˋ˧˨˘˪ˋ˪ ʑˁ˅˘˘, ʃ˪ˁ༤˘̀ (ʈ. ɭ. ʈ˙˕ˌ˗ʸ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

224

[Maria Molina. The Fourth Pavia International Summer School for Indo-European Linguistics. Univeristy of Pavia, Italy, September 4–9, 2017]

Issue 4 / ʛʸ˜˞˰ 4 Anton Kogan. Once more on the language of the documents from Niya (East Turkestan) and its genetic position . . .

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

228

[ɭ. ɾ. ʂ˙ʼʸ˗. ɹ˹ˋ ˧ˁ˖ ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˋ ˊ˥˜˫ˢˋˣ˪˥˅ ˘˖ ʎ˘̀ (ɳ˥˨˪˥˵ˣ˻˙ ʕ˫˧˜ˋ˨˪ˁˣ) ˘ ˋˆ˥ ˆˋˣˋ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˢ ˦˥༤˥ːˋˣ˘˘]

Maksim Kudrinsky. Heterograms in Hittite, Palaic, and Luwian context

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

238

[ʈ. ʂ˟ʿ˛ˌ˗˜ːˌˍ. ɴˋ˪ˋ˧˥ˆ˧ˁˢˢ˻ ˅ ˲ˋ˪˪˨˜˘˲, ˦ˁ༤ˁ˙˨˜˘˲ ˘ ༤˫˅˘˙˨˜˘˲ ˪ˋ˜˨˪ˁ˲]

Sergei Nikolaev. Toward the reconstruction of Proto-Algonquian-Wakashan. Part 3: Algonquian-Wakashan lexicostatistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [ʎ. ʇ. ʉˌː˙˕ʸˀʻ. ʇ ˧ˋ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˜˴˘˘ ˁ༤ˆ˥ˣ˜˘ˣ˥-˅ˁ˜ˁ˸˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˦˧ˁ̀˖˻˜ˁ. ʠ. 3: ɯ༤ˆ˥ˣ˜˘ˣ˥-˅ˁ˜ˁ˸˨˜ˁ̀ ༤ˋ˜˨˘˜˥˨˪ˁ˪˘˨˪˘˜ˁ]

. . . . . . . . . . .

250

Table of Contents / ʓ˥ˊˋ˧ːˁˣ˘ˋ

ɭ. ʎ. ʂ˛˯˕˙ʻʸ. ʌˋ˜˨˘˜˥˨˪ˁ˪˘˨˪˘˜ˁ ˣ˥˅˥˘ˣˊ˥ˁ˧˘˙˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅: ˅˖ˆ༤̀ˊ ˦˥༤ˋ˅˥ˆ˥ ༤˘ˣˆ˅˘˨˪ˁ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

279

[Anastasiya Krylova. Lexicostatistics and the New Indo-Aryan languages: a field linguist's perspective]

Book reviews / ʍˀ˨ˀ˗ˊˌˌ JAY H. JASANOFF. Prehistory of Balto-Slavic Accent, 2017 (Mikhail Oslon). .

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

299

Contributors Oleg I. Belyaev – candidate of sciences (Philology), researcher, Institute of Linguistics, Russian Academy of Sciences (Moscow), [email protected] Anton I. Kogan — candidate of sciences (Philology), researcher, Department of Asian and African languages, Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Moscow), [email protected] Anastasiya Krylova — junior researcher, Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Moscow), [email protected] Maksim Kudrinsky — postgraduate student at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Moscow), [email protected] Maria A. Molina — junior researcher, Institute of Linguistics, Russian Academy of Sciences (Moscow), [email protected]

Sergei Nikolaev — doctor of sciences (Philology), lead researcher, Department of Slavic linguistics, Institute of Slavic studies, Russian Academy of Sciences (Moscow/Novosibirsk), [email protected] Andrey Nikulin — researcher, University of Brasília, [email protected] Mikhail Oslon — candidate of sciences (Philology), researcher, Department of typology and comparative linguistics, Institute of Slavic Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences (Moscow), [email protected] Artem A. Trofimov – candidate of sciences (Philology), researcher, Laboratory of Oriental and comparative studies, School of advanced studies in the humanities of the Russian Presidential Academy (Moscow), [email protected] Ilya S. Yakubovich — doctor of sciences (Philology), PhilippsUniversität Marburg; Institute of World Cultures, Lomonosov Moscow State University, [email protected]

ʎʻˀʿˀ˗ˌ˴ ˙ʺ ʸʻ˞˙˛ʸ˦ ɯˀ˕˴ˀʻ, ʋ˕ˀʼ ɾʼ˙˛ˀʻˌ˩ — ˜ˁˣˊ˘ˊˁ˪ ˱˘༤˥༤. ˣˁ˫˜, ˨˪ˁ˧˸˘˙ ˣˁ˫˵ˣ˻˙ ˨˥˪˧˫ˊˣ˘˜ ʃˣ˨˪˘˪˫˪ˁ ̀˖˻˜˥˖ˣˁˣ˘̀ ʒɯʎ (ʍ˥˨˜˅ˁ), [email protected] ʂ˙ʼʸ˗, ɭ˗˞˙˗ ɾ˕˰ˌ˩ — ˜ˁˣˊ. ˱˘༤˥༤. ˣˁ˫˜, ˣˁ˫˵. ˨˥˪˧˫ˊˣ˘˜ ʐ˪ˊˋ༤ˁ ̀˖˻˜˥˅ ɯ˖˘˘ ˘ ɯ˱˧˘˜˘ ʃˣ˨˪˘˪˫˪ˁ ˅˥˨˪˥˜˥˅ˋˊˋˣ˘̀ ʒɯʎ (ʍ˥˨˜˅ˁ), [email protected] ʂ˛˯˕˙ʻʸ, ɭ˗ʸ˜˞ʸ˜ˌ˴ ʎˀ˛ʼˀˀʻ˗ʸ — ˢ༤ˁˊ˸˘˙ ˣˁ˫˵ˣ˻˙ ˨˥˪˧˫ˊˣ˘˜ ʃˣ˨˪˘˪˫˪ˁ ˅˥˨˪˥˜˥˅ˋˊˋˣ˘̀ ʒɯʎ (ʍ˥˨˜˅ˁ), [email protected] ʂ˟ʿ˛ˌ˗˜ːˌˍ, ʈʸː˜ˌ˖ ɾʻʸ˗˙ʻˌ˩ — ˁ˨˦˘˧ˁˣ˪ ʃˣ˨˪˘˪˫˪ˁ ˅˥˨˪˥˜˥˅ˋˊˋˣ˘̀ ʒɯʎ (ʍ˥˨˜˅ˁ), [email protected] ʈ˙˕ˌ˗ʸ, ʈʸ˛ˌ˴ ɭ˕ˀː˜ʸ˗ʿ˛˙ʻ˗ʸ — ˢ༤ˁˊ˸˘˙ ˣˁ˫˵ˣ˻˙ ˨˥˪˧˫ˊˣ˘˜ ʃˣ˨˪˘˪˫˪ˁ ̀˖˻˜˥˖ˣˁˣ˘̀ ʒɯʎ (ʍ˥˨˜˅ˁ), [email protected]

ʉˌː˙˕ʸˀʻ, ʎˀ˛ʼˀˍ ʇ˰ʻ˙ʻˌ˩ — ˊ˥˜˪˥˧ ˱˘༤˥༤. ˣˁ˫˜, ˅ˋˊ. ˣˁ˫˵. ˨˥˪˧˫ˊˣ˘˜ ʐ˪ˊˋ༤ˁ ˨༤ˁ˅̀ˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜˥˖ˣˁˣ˘̀ ʃˣ˨˪˘˪˫˪ˁ ˨༤ˁ˅̀ˣ˥˅ˋˊˋˣ˘̀ ʒɯʎ (ʍ˥˨˜˅ˁ), [email protected] ʉˌː˟˕ˌ˗, ɭ˗ʿ˛ˀˍ ɰ˕ʸʿˌ˖ˌ˛˙ʻˌ˩ — ˣˁ˫˵ˣ˻˙ ˨˥˪˧˫ˊˣ˘˜ ʘˣ˘˅ˋ˧˨˘˪ˋ˪ˁ ɲ˧ˁ˖˘༤˘ˁ, [email protected] ʋ˜˕˙˗, ʈˌ˦ʸˌ˕ ɰ˕ʸʿˌ˖ˌ˛˙ʻˌ˩ — ˜ˁˣˊ. ˱˘༤˥༤. ˣˁ˫˜, ˣˁ˫˵. ˨˥˪˧˫ˊˣ˘˜ ˥˪ˊˋ༤ˁ ˪˘˦˥༤˥ˆ˘˘ ˘ ˨˧ˁ˅ˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜˥˖ˣˁˣ˘̀ ʃˣ˨˪˘˪˫˪ˁ ˨༤ˁ˅̀ˣ˥˅ˋˊˋˣ˘̀ ʒɯʎ (ʍ˥˨˜˅ˁ), [email protected] ʐ˛˙˥ˌ˖˙ʻ, ɭ˛˞ˀ˖ ɭ˕ˀː˜ʸ˗ʿ˛˙ʻˌ˩ — ˜ˁˣˊ˘ˊˁ˪ ˱˘༤˥༤. ˣˁ˫˜, ˣˁ˫˵ˣ˻˙ ˨˥˪˧˫ˊˣ˘˜ ʌˁ˄˥˧ˁ˪˥˧˘˘ ˅˥˨˪˥˜˥˅ˋˊˋˣ˘̀ ˘ ˜˥ˢ˦ˁ˧ˁ˪˘˅˘˨˪˘˜˘ ʣ˜˥༤˻ ˁ˜˪˫ˁ༤˼ˣ˻˲ ˆ˫ˢˁˣ˘˪ˁ˧ˣ˻˲ ˘˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁˣ˘˙ ʒɯʎʝ˘ɴʓ, [email protected] ʦː˟ʺ˙ʻˌ˩, ɾ˕˰˴ ʎˀ˛ʼˀˀʻˌ˩ — ˊ˥˜˪˥˧ ˱˘༤˥༤. ˣˁ˫˜, ʍˁ˧˄˫˧ˆ˨˜˘˙ ˫ˣ˘˅ˋ˧˨˘˪ˋ˪ ˘ˢˋˣ˘ ʜ˘༤˘˦˦ˁ; ʃˣ˨˪˘˪˫˪ ˢ˘˧˥˅˥˙ ˜˫༤˼˪˫˧˻ ʍɴʘ (ʍ˥˨˜˅ˁ), [email protected]

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

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

Andrey Nikulin University of Brasília; [email protected]

A phonological reconstruction of Proto-Cerrado (Jê family)ɍ1 This is the second paper in a series on the historical phonology of Macro-Jê languages. In this work, I examine the sound correspondences between the languages of the Central Jê branch, Xavánte and Xerénte, in order to arrive at a reconstruction of Proto-Central Jê. I further compare it to my reconstruction of Proto-Northern Jê (Nikulin 2016b) and propose a phonological reconstruction of Proto-Cerrado, the most recent common ancestor of Proto-Central Jê and Proto-Northern Jê. The paper also includes a non-exhaustive list of Cerrado etymologies. Keywords: Jê languages, Macro-Jê languages, Xavánte, Xerénte, language reconstruction, comparative method

1. Introduction In an earlier work (Nikulin 2016b), I have proposed a phonological reconstruction of ProtoNorthern Jê, the proto-language of the branch that comprises Apinayé, Kayapó (MԌbêngôkre), Suyá (KŢsêdjê), Tapayúna, Timbira and Panará languages spoken in Central Brazil. In this paper I offer a reconstruction of Proto-Cerrado (PCerr)ɏ2, the immediate ancestor of ProtoNorthern Jê (PNJ) and the proto-language of its coordinate branch, Central Jê (PCJ). Before proceeding to the main body of this paper, some comments on my PNJ reconstruction (Nikulin 2016b) are necessary. These concern the internal phylogenetic structure of the Northern Jê branch and individual correspondences. 1.1. Internal structure of Northern Jê Recent lexicostatistical investigation has shown that the Northern branch of Jê languages has the internal structure shown in Figure 1. Figure 1. Northern Jê languages

Southern Kayapó

Panará Timbíra dialects

Proto-Northern Jê

Tapayúna Proto-Core Jê

Suyá Apinajé Kayapó

I am grateful to CAPES (Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior) for providing a scholarship to carry out the present study. For abbreviations, transcription conventions and lexical sources, the reader is referred to Nikulin 2016b. The following additional abbreviations are used here: DU = dual, GNR = generic possessor, INCL = inclusive, IPF = imperfective, NOM = nominative, SG = singular, PL = plural. 2 Cerrado languages have been also called Amazonian Jê (Ribeiro and Voort 2010: 549) and Northern Jê (Ramirez et al. 2015: 261) in earlier literature. 1

Journal of Language Relationship • ɳ˥˦˧˥˨˻ ̀˖˻˜˥˅˥ˆ˥ ˧˥ˊ˨˪˅ˁ • 15/3 (2017) • Pp. 147–180 • © The authors, 2017

Andrey Nikulin

Contrary to my earlier claims, Timbira is not likely to form a node with Apinayé and Kayapó (called AMT in Nikulin 2016b)ɏɏ3. Instead, it probably was the first language to split off from Proto-Core Jê. This must have occurred sometime between the III and VIII centuries CEɏɏ4 (70–82ɏ% matches on the 110-item Swadesh wordlist). The split between Apinayé–Kayapó and Suyá–Tapayúna should be dated sometime between the VII and X centuries CE (79–86ɏ% matches). It is also possible that Timbira, Apinayé–Kayapó and Suyá–Tapayúna diverged from each other simultaneously around 700 CE, in which case Core Jê would have a rake-like structure (cf. the working hypothesis in Nikulin 2015). The revision of the tree has been possible thanks to the inclusion of additional lexical data sources for modern languages not considered in Nikulin 2016b: Vasconcelos 2013, Bardagil-Mas 2016, Lapierre et al. 2016a (for Panará), Ham 1961, Albuquerque 2011, 2012 (for Apinayé), Camargo 2015 (for Tapayúna), DMK (for Suyá), Silva 2011, 2012 (for Pykobjê), Castro Alves 1999 (for Apãniekrá), Popjes and Popjes 1971 (for Ramkokamekrá). The split of Northern Jê into Core Jê and Panará probably occurred sometime between the III and the V centuries BC (55–60ɏ% matches on the 110-item Swadesh wordlist), much earlier than the split of Core Jê. This is in line with my earlier views on the internal structure of the Northern Jê branch (Nikulin 2015, 2016a, 2016b), but contrasts sharply with an alternative hypothesis, according to which Panará would form a node with Timbira, ‘Savannah Jê’ (Lapierre et al. 2016b, Lapierre 2017). The main argument in favor of the Savannah Jê hypothesis is that both Panará and Timbira share a non-trivial, typologically rare and seemingly unnatural sound change: the devoicing of PNJ prenasalized voiced stops (*Ʃb, *Ʃd, *Ʃ໵, *Ʃg). However, this sound change should be understood as part of a more general trend in Panará and Timbira historical phonologies: all PNJ voiced stops, including the oral stops *b, *໵, *g, became voiceless in both languages (Nikulin 2016b: 171–173); no mention of this fact is made by the proponents of the Savannah Jê hypothesis. Note that, although devoicing of prenasalized stops is indeed uncommon cross-linguistically, as correctly observed by Lapierre (2017), there is nothing uncommon about the situation in which a general stop devoicing process targets stops in all environments, including the position after a nasal segment (cf. Old High German fintan ‘to find’, bintan ‘to bind’, where t comes from an earlier *d via the High German consonant shift). More crucially, the devoicing of voiced stops in Timbira counterfed the sound changes *໴ > h, *k > kվ, unique to Timbira. This fact confirms that the voiced stop voicing in Panará and Timbira occurred independently.

1.2. Other additions Major additions to my PNJ reconstruction (Nikulin 2016b) include some amendments based both on new sources and on new observations. The existence of this clade has also been cautiously suggested by Carvalho (2016: 70). Annotated Swadesh wordlists, created within the GLD (Global Lexicostatistical Database) project, are scheduled to be available online at ). Note that the Proto-Northern Jê word *ƩdՓwՓแ ‘new’ is a probable loanword and is marked as such in the database; it was considered as a native item in the lexicostatistical calculations for Northern Jê languages. For divergence datings, I accept the flow glottochronological model advanced by Vasilyev and Saenko (2017) and the formula proposed by the authors: N(t) = e‫ͧ͢͝͡׺‬t(1 + 0.61t), where N(t) is the match percentage within the 110-item Swadesh wordlist and t is the time depth of the divergence event expressed in thousands of years. The value of the loss coefficient (0.61) was calibrated on Romance material. 3 4

148

A phonological reconstruction of Proto-Cerrado (Jê family)ɏ

1.2.1. Panará New data that became available to me after the publication of my PNJ reconstruction, especially a recent article on the development of PNJ *ೋ in Panará by Carvalho (2016), challenge a number of statements that can be found in Nikulin 2016b. 1.2.1.1. PNJ *Ɩೲ. Most importantly, the sound law PNJ *Ɩೋ > PNR y, based on a single cognate set PNJ *Ɩೋ՝ѐt՝ѐแ ‘toucan’ > PNR y՝ѐ-kwekwe, y՝ѐ-sƕ, is now known to be erroneous. The true Panará reflex of this PNJ root is iƩky՝ѐ pՄpՄtš (Andrés Salanova, p.c.). The same PNJ cluster must be reconstructed for another cognate set proposed by Carvalho (2016: 59): PNJ *Ɩೋ՝ѐ ‘to sprout’ > PNR ky՝ѐ, KAY Ɩೋõ (from which PNJ *໴=i=Ɩೋ՝ѐ-t՝ѐแ ‘sprout’ > API Ø=i=Ɩೋ՝ѐ-t՝ѐแ, TIM h=i=ೋ՝ѐ-t is derived), though the absence of prenasalization in Panará remains unclear. Note that PNJ *Ɩ > PNR Ʃk in all environments, including the position before nasalized vowels. 1.2.1.2. PNJ *ka- and *a-. Another fact that I failed to mention in Nikulin 2016b is that the outcomes of word-initial unstressed PNJ *ka- and *a- are exactly the same, suggesting a merger and a subsequent split development in the history of Panará, as shown in Figure 2. Figure 2. The development of PNJ word-initial *ka- and *a- in Panará

PNJ *a-

*a- (before voiceless consonants)

PNR

a-

*nઇѐ- (before prenasalized consonants)

PNR

nઇѐ- (phrase-initially) ೋઇѐ- (phrase-medially)

*aPNJ *ka-

PNR

The correspondences involved in this scheme are illustrated by examples (1–2), most of which are extracted from published sources (Nikulin 2016b: 171; Carvalho 2016: 58). (1) a. b. c. d. e. (2) a. b. c. d. e.

PNJ *ka- and *a- > PNR nઇѐ- / =ೋઇѐPNJ *ka=Ʃgೋ՝ ‘warm’ > PNR nઇѐ=ky՝ / =ೋઇѐ=ky՝; PNJ *kaƩbೋo ‘blood’ > PNR nઇѐpyu / =ೋઇѐpyu; PNJ *kaƖઇѐ ‘snake’ɏ5 > *kaƩgઇѐ > PNR nઇѐkઇѐ; PNJ *aƩgઇ ‘sedge seedɏ6’ > PNR nઇѐƩkઇ; PNJ *a=Ʃgೋo ‘peccary’ > PNR nઇѐƩkyo / =ೋઇѐƩkyo, etc. PNJ *ka- and *a- > PNR aPNJ *ka໵ઇtઇแ ‘cotton’ > PNR asઇtš ‘cord’; PNJ *ka໴uwň ~ *ka໴wa ‘mortar’ > PNR asuň ‘pestle’; PNJ *kapೋŠ ‘sad’ > PNR apೋŠ-pՄ; PNJ *kapೋઇѐtઇѐแ ‘turtle’ > PNR apyઇѐn; PNJ *akೋo ‘vine, fishing poison’ > PNR akyo, etc.

Note that Southern Kayapó wordlists capture a stage of Panará when the prothesis of nhad not yet occurred. For example, Barbosa (1918: 62, 81, 83) gives ‘warm’, ‘blood’, ‘snake’, ‘peccary’. This means that the prothesis of n- and its subsequent flapping are very recent and should be dated to the XX century. 1.2.1.3. Correspondence Proto-Core Jê *e ~ Panará પ. Carvalho (2016: 60) cites two cognate sets that cannot be easily accounted for with my PNJ reconstructions. These are reproduced below in (3). Glossed erroneously as ‘blood’ in Nikulin 2016b. This item is of significant cultural importance for the speakers of Cerrado languages. It denotes the seeds of a plant called tiririca or capim-navalha in Portuguese, which are used for making collars. 5 6

149

Andrey Nikulin

(3)

Proto-Core Jê *e ~ Panará ઇ a. Proto-Core Jê *pೋekŔ ‘tall’ ~ PNR pyઇ ‘big, tall’; b. Proto-Core Jê *kaƩbೋekŔ ‘red’ ~ PNR nઇѐƩpೋઇ / ೋઇѐƩpೋઇ.

If only these comparisons are correct, we are dealing here with a correspondence ProtoCore Jê *e ~ Panará ઇ (note that Proto-Core Jê *e is known to correspond to Panará e and ProtoCore Jê *ઇ regularly corresponds to Panará ઇ). It must go back either to PNJ *e or to PNJ *ઇ; either Proto-Core Jê or Panará must have undergone a conditioned vowel change. In order to determine the directionality of this change, external data might turn out to be useful. The word for ‘red’ happens to have likely cognates in Central Jê: PCJ *pೋՄ෨ ‘red’ > XAV pೋՄ෨(-di), XER pೋՄ(-di), Salinas Xavánte hoy=pyՄ, Xakriabá (Saint-Hilaire) oi=pೋՄ-de , Akroá šikuca=bೋƕ . PCJ *Մ is known to correspond to PNJ *ઇ (see subsection 3.2), so the vowel in Panará appears to be more archaic. However, the decision to reconstruct PNJ *ઇ for the correspondence in question is problematic: PNJ *ೋ is known to have yielded Panará y before non-front vowels (Nikulin 2016b: 170–171; Carvalho 2016: 66), which did not occur in PNR nઇѐƩpೋઇɍ/ɍೋઇѐƩpೋઇ. Reconstructing a front vowel for the same correspondence would not solve the issue: in this case PNR *pೋઇ would be expected instead of PNR pyઇ. The correspondence remains therefore unexplained and awaits further investigation. 1.2.2. Apinayé and Kayapó In my description of the distribution of Apinayé and Kayapó reflexes of PNJ *໴ (Nikulin 2016b: 172) I failed to observe that the reflex Ը is most consistently found in PNJ stems whose initial consonant is a non-alternating *໴. The most salient examples are provided in (4) below. (4) a. b. c. d.

PNJ *໴ > API, KAY Ը PNJ *໴i ‘bone’ > KAY Ըi (Apinayé innovated and now uses both yi and i); PNJ *໴o ‘leaf, a hair’ > API Ըo, KAY Ըo; PNJ *໴Փ ‘seed’ > API ԸՓ, KAY ԸՓ; PNJ *໴e໴Ŕ / *໴e໴ ‘to deceive’ > API Ըeyŏ / Ըet (but KAY et).

Note that these stems do not behave as usual class II stems in terms of Rodrigues (2012), since they suffer no modification when an internal argument expressed with a full NP immediately precedes themɏ7. Nevertheless, their initial consonant changes to a reflex of PNJ *y or *໵ when their internal argument is expressed with a person-marking prefix (e.g. API iੇ-mઇѐ a=ŏeyŏ ket-nՄѐ ‘don’t lie to me!’, KAY i=yo ‘my (single) hair’). This fact leads Salanova (2011: 79) to consider that these consonants are present in the underlying representation of the person-marking prefixes in these languages, arguing that in Apinayé they surface even before consonants. However, the latter observation is valid only for the first person prefix (iŏ-), but not for the second person prefix (a-). Be that as it may, the presence of these consonants in the inflected forms of the stems under consideration is likely an innovation caused by analogy with true class II stems. The stems that belong to class II are expected to exhibit the following initial consonants: PNJ Apinayé Kayapó after a full NP (uninflected): *y, *໵ ž, ŏ y, ़ after a person-marking prefix: *y, *໵ ž, ŏ y, ़ elsewhere (third person): *࠻ Ø Ø These predictions are valid both within frameworks that treat these segments as prefixes (Rodrigues 2012) and within frameworks that consider *y ~ *໵ and their reflexes as integral parts of roots. 7

150

A phonological reconstruction of Proto-Cerrado (Jê family)ɏ

1.2.3. Tapayúna Camargo (2015) offers the most complete description of Tapayúna, but this work has not been taken into consideration in my earlier research. It helps fill one of the gaps in the description of the historical phonology of Tapayúna found in Nikulin 2016b, as shown below in (5). (5)

PNJ *g > TAP k, SUY k a. PNJ *ga ‘2.NOM’ > TAP, SUY ka; b. PNJ *ga ‘to roast (finite)’ > TAP, SUY ka; c. PNJ *gu ‘1INCL.NOM’ > TAP ko, SUY ku.

There is one curious fact about the transcription system employed in Camargo 2015: the phonemes m and w recognized by the same author elsewhere (Camargo 2010) are systematically rendered as w, and the character m is not used in the transcriptions altogether. This is not stated explicitly anywhere in the cited work. It is not entirely clear whether the correct explanation of this fact involves transcription issues or an ongoing sound change, but it must bear some relation to the apparently irregular instances of PNJ *Ʃb > TAP w, as attested by Camargo (2010). Examples of the latter are taken from (Nikulin 2016: 175) and reproduced in (6) below. (6)

PNJ *Ʃb > TAP w: a. PNJ *(a=)kaƩbઇtઇแ ‘night’ > TAP a=gawƕೋƕแ; b. PNJ *ƩbՄ໵Ʃš ‘honey’ > TAP wՄy (but TAP ƩbՄy-tՓ ‘bee’).

Further fieldwork on Tapayúna should clarify the issue. Another claim in my earlier work that has been invalidated by new data referred to the impossibility of CCC-structured onsets in Tapayúna (Nikulin 2016b: 176). These are now known to be allowed, cf. Tapayúna Ʃgնwa-to ‘moriche palm leaf’ (although the former root is attested as Ʃgնuwň ‘moriche palm’ in isolation). 1.3. Structure of the paper The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 deals with Central Jê languages and the reconstruction of Proto-Central Jê. Onsets (subsection 2.1), syllable nuclei (subsection 2.2) and syllable-final and word-final phenomena (subsection 2.3) are tackled separately. In section 3, I compare my reconstructions of Proto-Central Jê and Proto-Northern Jê and arrive at a phonological reconstruction of Proto-Cerrado onsets (subsection 3.1), nuclei (subsection 3.2) and codas (subsection 3.3). A non-exhaustive list of Cerrado etymologies is provided in section 4. I conclude with section 5 where I discuss the findings presented in this paper and suggest topics for future research in Cerrado historical phonology.

2. Proto-Central Jê Central Jê (AkwԌ, AkuwԌɏ8) languages constitute a phylum of closely related languages formerly spoken over a vast area in Central Brazil, centered on the Tocantins watershed and reaching the headwaters of the Parnaíba and the São Francisco in the east (since 19th century, Xavánte has also been spoken as far west as the Araguaia River due to a recent expansion 8 The endonyms of Xavánte and Xerénte are, respectively, ԸaԸuwՄѐ and akwӼ. These forms are reconstructible to Proto-Central Jê (PCJ *akuwՄѐ according to the correspondences described in this section below).

151

Andrey Nikulin

event). Of these, only Xavánte and Xerénte are currently spoken. Akroá, Xakriabá and the Salinas dialect of Xavánte are now extinct and their attestation is limited to short wordlists collected by Auguste de Saint-Hilaire, Wilhelm Ludwig von Eschwege, Karl Friedrich Philipp von Martius, Johann Baptist von Spix (Martius 1867) and Paul Ehrenreich (Ehrenreich 1895). Akroá and Xakriabá wordlists have been tackled by Carvalho and Damulakis (2015), while some peculiarities of the Salinas dialect of Xavánte are discussed by Nikulin (2015: 27–29). Fragmentary nature of available data, combined with low internal diversity of the Central Jê group, makes the contribution of Akroá, Xakriabá and Salinas Xavánte data to the reconstruction of Proto-Central Jê minimal. For the most part of this subsection, only Xavánte and Xerénte data are considered below. Xavánte and Xerénte share much of their irregular morphophonology. Phenomena like alternations and prefix substitution at the left margin of the stems, as well as nominalization via suffixing are also found in Northern Jê (and are easily projected onto Proto-Cerrado). Another phenomenon typical of Central Jê languages is the existence of special utterance-final allomorphs: a number of stems undergo drastic changes when they are preceded by a pause. These will be considered at the end of this section (2.3). 2.1. Onset The correspondences between Xavánte and Xerénte onsets are rather straightforward and are exposed below in Table 1. Table 1. Proto-Central Jê onsets and their reflexes in Xavánte and Xerénte PCJ

XAV

XER

*p

p

p

*pഷ

pഷ

pഷ

*t

t

t

*c

c~s

ൊ~s

*k

Ո

k

*kഷ

Ոഷ

kഷ

*kw

Ոw

kw

*km

Ոm

km

*b

b

b

*bഷ

bഷ

bഷ

*d

d

d

*ƕ

ƕ ~ zɏ9

ോ ~ z, ോd ~ zd, d

*m

m

m

*mഷ

mഷ

mഷ

*n

n

n

*ભ

ભɏ10

n

9 Quintino (2000: 39, 46) analyzes both /z/ and /j/ as phonemes, stating that there is some variation between the two in oral contexts. However, this claim is not illustrated with any minimal or near-minimal pair. 10 According to Quintino (2000: 39–40, 2012: 125), before back nasal vowels the allophone [Ɨ] is found instead of [ભ]. This phenomenon is not attested by other researchers. In fact, Pickering (2010: 63) explicitly states that in his data [jѠ] is found both before back and front nasal vowels, noting that Quintino’s data come from speakers from

152

A phonological reconstruction of Proto-Cerrado (Jê family)ɏ

PCJ

XAV

XER

*w

w

w

*ഷ

ഷ

ഷ

*h

h

h

͛Ø

Ո

Ø

Note that voiced stops and nasals are in complementary distribution both in ProtoCentral Jê and in Xavánte: at least in the onset position, voiced stops occur in syllables with oral nuclei, whereas nasals occur only in syllables with nasal nuclei (McLeod 1974; Quintino 2000: 39–41, 2012: 124–125; Pickering 2010: 62, 73–77, 76–77)ɏ11. However, just like in Nikulin 2016b, I prefer to distinguish these allophones in my transcription. Note that the allophony in question was phonemicized in Xerénte due to syllabic reduction that eliminated some of the nuclei that had triggered the choice of the allophone in Proto-Central Jê (Mattos 1973). Although most correspondences presented in Table 1 are trivial, several comments are in order. 2.1.1. The reconstruction of PCJ *c and *Ɣ Xavánte, Akroá and Xakriabá reflexes of PCJ phonemes reconstructed here as *c and *Ɣ suggest that they should be reconstructed as stops or affricates rather than fricatives. The phonetic realization of the reflexes is discussed below. McLeod (1974) describes the Xavánte reflexes as fluctuating between [ő ~ c ~ š ~ s] and [৉ ~ ƕ ~ ž ~ z] respectively, Quintino (2000: 44–45, 2012: 45) attests [c ~ s] and [ƕ ~ z] in plain speech register, while in Pickering’s (2010: 63) data only fricatives ([s] and [z]) are found. According to Xavánte speaker Euzebio Prowari (apud Pickering 2010: 63), the affricates [c] and [ƕ] are a characteristic feature of the speech of the Xavántes from the Indigenous Areas Pimentel Barbosa and Areões. I transcribe the phonemes in question as c and Ɣ hereinafter, since affricates are more likely to represent the more archaic state than fricatives. In Salinas Xavánte, PCJ *c is reflected as s (sometimes š), while *Ɣ is usually reflected as Γ (sometimes s). In Xerénte, PCJ palatal stops normally yielded fricatives. These fricatives are attested as retroflex [ൊ, ോ] in earlier works (Mattos 1973; Krieger & Krieger 1994: XIII–XIV; Braggio 2004: 269), but in modern Xerénte they are mostly articulated as alveolar ([s, z]) according to more recent works (Sousa Filho 2007: 73; Souza 2008: 72–74; Grannier 2009: 252; Frazão 2013: 56; Cotrim 2016: 59). It is likely that we are dealing here with a very recent sound change. I shall transcribe Xerénte fricatives as retroflex in this paper. In some words Xerénte displays aberrant reflexes of PCJ *Ɣ (namely, XER ೟d or d), for which I am unable to offer an explanation. Note that these irregular reflexes often occur in variation with plain fricatives or with each other, e.g. kba೟di-kೋe ~ kbadi-kೋe ‘hammock’, dak՝ ~ ೟ak՝ ‘to climb’, dapaka ~ ೟apaka ‘to desire’, daೋõtõ ~ ೟aೋõtõ ‘to jump’, ೟awೋՄ ~ dawՄೋ ‘big’, ೟a ~ da ‘to stand’, etc. Sousa Filho (2007: 255–256) analyzes alternating d- and ೟- as allomorphs of the same morthe Indigenous Area Pimentel Barbosa, whereas his own data come from residents of the community of São Marcos. For sake of simplicity, I follow McLeod (1974) and transcribe ੇ. 11 Quintino (2012: 123–124) provides a minimal pair ([da-di] ‘GNR-belly’ vs. [na-di] ‘mother-IMP’), but concludes that in the latter case the vowel of the root is underlyingly nasalized. All other researchers invariably list the form nƕѐ ‘mother’. 153

Andrey Nikulin

pheme (the ‘relational prefix’ /z-/), suggesting that the occurrence of the forms with d- and ೟- is not grammatically conditioned, but does not provide any explanation for the causes of the variation in question. It is important to note that in a number of stems stem-initial PCJ *c alternated with *Ɣ (in oral contexts) or *ੇ (in nasal contexts). The *c-initial allomorph occurred only after the second person prefix *ay-, after the third person prefix *Š- and in third person forms without an overt prefix, as is still the case in Xerénte (Sousa Filho 2007: 247–255) and Xavánte (Estevam 2011: 138; Hall et al. 1987: 286–287). Some examples are provided in (7) below. (7) a. b. c. d. e. f.

PCJ *Ɣ and *c PCJ *-Ɣa ‘to stand’ > XAV -Ɣa, XER -೟a ~ -da; PCJ *-Ɣadawa ‘mouth’ > XAV -Ɣadawa, XER -೟dawa; PCJ *-ੇ՝ѐyt՝ ‘tongue’ > XAV -ੇ՝ѐyt՝ ~ -ੇ՝ѐtt՝, XER -nõyt՝; PCJ *ay-ca ‘you stand’ > XAV a-ca, XER ay-ೞa; PCJ *ay-cadawa ‘your mouth’ > XAV a-cadawa, XER ay-ೞdawa; PCJ *ay-c՝ѐyt՝ ‘your tongue’ > XAV a-c՝ѐyt՝, XER ay-ೞõyt՝.

While most authors agree that the phenomenon in question can be described as a steminternal alternation, Sousa Filho (2007) considers that Xerénte -೟-, -d-, -n- and -ೞ- are separate prefixes (‘relational prefixes’ in the author’s terms). In this work I adopt the former analysis. In Akroá and Xakriabá, PCJ *c seems to have been reflected as s (sometimes š in Xakriabá), while PCJ *Ɣ appears to have yielded ŏ (sometimes c in Akroá). In the latter case the data also allow for a voiced interpretation of the reflex(es) (Carvalho and Damulakis 2015: 40). 2.1.2. Debuccalization of PCJ *k in Xavánte It is well-known that *k has been historically debuccalized in Xavánte, changing to Ը (Rodrigues 1999: 178; Carvalho and Damulakis 2015: 24–26). It did not affect the Salinas dialect of Xavánte, as attested by Ehrenreich (1895), nor is it visible in the wordlists collected by Francis de Castelnau and Johann Emmanuel Pohl in the 19th century (Rodrigues 2004; Carvalho and Damulakis 2015: 25)ɏ12, suggesting that the development *k > Ը took place in the late 19th or early 20th century. 2.1.3. The depalatalization of PCJ *ੇ in Xerénte PCJ *ੇ (allophone of PCJ *Ɣ in nasal contexts) was unconditionally depalatalized to n in Xerénte, thus phonemicizing the allophony reconstructible for PCJ. Note that the same process occurred independently in other Macro-Jê languages, notably in Southern Jê and in Jabutí (Ribeiro & Voort 2010: 565–566). 2.2. Nucleus The correspondences between Xerénte and Xavánte vowels are straightforward, as presented in Table 2 below. Note that Rodrigues (2004: 117–118) hypothesizes that the variety attested by Castelnau and Pohl is not the direct ancestor of modern Xavánte. This assumption is needed to account for the loss of k in Karajá male speech (evidenced by data from 1844), which Rodrigues attributes to Xavánte influence. If Rodrigues’s hypothesis is correct, absolute dating for the sound change in question is not recoverable from historical sources. 12

154

A phonological reconstruction of Proto-Cerrado (Jê family)ɏ

Table 2. Proto-Central Jê vowels and their reflexes in Xavánte and Xerénte. PCJ

XAV

XER

*a

a

a

*Ɩ

Ɩ

Ɩ

*ը

ը

ը

*վ

վ

վ

*o

o

o

*u

u

u

*Ք

Ք

Ք

*e

e

e

*i

i

i

PCJ

XAV

XER

*ƖѠ

ƖѠ

ƖѠ

*վѠ

վѠ

õ

*ՔѠ

ՔѠ

Ԍ

*Ţ

Ţ, i

Ţ

Two PCJ vowels, *Փ and *o, were extremely rare, as are their reflexes in both languages. They are only found in a handful of words, like the postposition *Ɣo / *co ‘looking for, pursuing’, the TAM marker *to, the verb *kೋՓkೋՓ ‘to cry.PL’ or the noun *ƔՓ෨ƔՓkՓ // *ƔՓ෨ƔՓ ‘grasshopper’. In fact, the phonemic status of Փ and o is not recognized by Pickering (2010: 65, 163–165) for Xavánte, whereas some authors do not distinguish between Xerénte ƕ and Փ (Sousa Filho 2007: 74; Frazão 2013: 54). A non-trivial development occurred in Xavánte: PCJ *Š was denasalized to i after c (for example, PCJ *ੇŠcŠwi / *cŠcŠwi ‘on the surface of’ > XAV ੇŠciwi / ciciwi, XER nೞŠwi / ೞೞŠwi; PCJ *kmƕѐ=cŠcŠ ‘to fill’ > XAV Ըmƕѐ=cici, XER kmƕѐ=ೞŠೞŠ). For this reason, the sequence /cŠ/ does not occur synchronically in Xavánte (Pickering 2010: 75, 153). One very important, but poorly understood process that deeply affected Xerénte phonology and phonotactics consists in vowel elision (Mattos 1973; Ribeiro & Voort 2010: 554; Frazão 2013: 85). It massively eliminated PCJ vowels under uncertain conditions (the factors possibly included stress position, consonantal environment and position within the utterance), leading to the emergence of alternating forms like hƕ-ೋƕ / h-ೋƕ / hƕ-ೋ ‘to shout.NF’, kೋu-ku / kೋ-ku / kೋu-k ‘to din.NF’. The distribution of these allomorphs is underdescribed and is of particular importance for the understanding of Xerénte historical phonology. Whatever might have been the original conditions for vowel elision in Xerénte, the situation observed in this language is clearly innovative when compared to Xavánte. For this reason, I assume that Xavánte syllabification can be projected onto the PCJ level. Vowel length is contrastive in Xavánte; it has been described in autosegmental terms. Long vowels are mostly found under specific prosodic or syntactic conditions (in utterance-final allomorphs or before the particle hƕѐ), except when they arise via compensatory lengthening that accompanies the elision of b before labials and Ը (see subsection 2.3). Since nothing suggests that length contrast is innovative in Xavánte, I assume it was already present in PCJ and was lost in Xerénte. 2.3. Coda and utterance-final allomorphs Xavánte allows two underlying codas: a labial coda (surface realizations include [b], [m], [p], [Ø] and lengthening of the previous vowel) and a palatal coda (surface realizations include [y], [Ø] and lengthening of the following consonant). They are analyzed as /b/ and /z/ by Pickering (2010: 179–220) and treated as suprasegmental phenomena by Burgess (1971). 155

Andrey Nikulin

As a consequence of massive vowel elision, Xerénte phonotactic restrictions are very different from those of Xavánte and from those that can be reconstructed for Proto-Central Jê. However, both underlying Xavánte codas have their correspondences in Xerénte. These are summarized in Table 3 below. Table 3. Proto-Central Jê underlying codas, their surface realizations and their reflexes in Xavánte and Xerénte PCJ

XAV

XER

y (before p, b, m, w, r, h) */y/

*[y]

y ~ lengthening of the following C (before Ը)

y (utterance-medially)ɏ13

lengthening of the following C (before t, d, n, ੇ, c, Ɣ) *ΌØΎ

Ø (utterance-finally)

Ø (utterance-finally)

p (before t, c) *[m] */m/

m ~ b (before d, Ɣ, r) m (before n, ੇ, h)

m (utterance-medially, except before labials)

b ~ lengthening of the preceding V (before Ը) *[๛]

lengthening of the preceding V (before labials)

*ΌØΎ

Ø (utterance-finally)

Ø (before labials and utterance-finally)

As is evident from Table 3 above, the coda allophony observed in Xavánte can be partly projected onto the PCJ level because it has exact correspondences in Xerénte. Namely, both in Xavánte and Xerénte both codas fail to surface in utterance-final position, and the labial coda has no consonantal realization preceding another labial consonant. Although it is possible to consider that PCJ had two underlying codas, they must have had multiple surface realizations already in PCJ. The allophony in question is exemplified in (8) below. (8)

Allophonic realizations of PCJ */-m/ and */-y/ a. PCJ */tՄm/ ‘new’: *tՄ (utterance-finally) > XAV tՄ, XER tՄ; *tՄm (utterance-medially, not before labials) > XAV tՄm / tՄb / tՄp, XER tՄm *tՄ෨ (before labials) > XAV tՄ෨, XER tՄ. b. PCJ */tƕѐy/ ‘rain’: *tƕѐ (utterance-finally) > XAV tƕѐ, XER tƕѐ; *tƕѐy (utterance-medially) > XAV tƕѐy- / tƕѐC-, XER tƕѐy.

The existence of utterance-medial and utterance-final allomorphs is not specific to PCJ morphemes that end underlyingly in */m/ or */y/ or their modern Xavánte and Xerénte reflexes. This type of allomorphy is attested both in Xavánte, where it is well described (Hall et al. Note that in Xerénte ƕy, ƕѐy are in free variation with e, Ӽ (Krieger & Krieger 1994: X). Sometimes a nasalized coda (Զ) is found in Xerénte; although the issue needs further investigation, I hypothesize that this happens before reflexes of PCerr prenasalized codas: cf. hƕy-ೞu ~ he-ೞu ‘straw’ < PCerr *kઇy ‘bark, skin’ + *coy ‘leaf’ and hƕԶ-kೋՄ ‘to dry leather’ (cf. PCerr *Ʃgೋઇ ‘dry’), hƕԶ-pe ‘with a beautiful skin’ (cf. PCerr *ƩbՄ໴Մแ ‘good’), hƕԶ-kೋ՝ ‘to warm up by the fire’ (cf. PCerr *Ʃgೋ՝ ‘to heat’). Given the cursory nature of this hypothesis, I do not reconstruct this apparent contrast to Proto-Central Jê. 13

156

A phonological reconstruction of Proto-Cerrado (Jê family)ɏ

1987: 274–285; McLeod & Mitchell 2003: 54; Estevam 2011: 139–143), and in Xerénte, where it is mentioned in passim (Siqueira 2003: 42). This allomorphy is systematized in Table 5 below; for each allomorphy class, a PCJ reconstruction is proposed. Table 4. Allomorphy conditioned by the position within the utterance in PCJ, Xavánte and Xerénte PCJ medial

notes final

XAV

medial

XER

final

medial

final

Class A. The last syllable is elided in the utterance-final allomorph *-VkV

*-V

*-VbV

*-V

*-VcV

*-V

-VՈV

-V

-(V)k(V)

-V

only PCJ *wakƕbƕ // *wakƕ ‘price’

-VbV

-V

-bV

-V

only PCJ *pece // *pe ‘good’

-VcV

-V

-(V)ൊV

-V

Class B. The last syllable is elided in the utterance-final allomorph; the utterance-medial allomorph is affected by nasalizationɏ14 *-वmव

*-V

-वmव

-V

-(व)mव

-V

*-वnव

*-V

-वnव

-V

-(व)nव

-V

-wa

-ba

-wa

Class C. PCJ *-aba // *-waɍ15 *-aba

*-wa

-aba

Class D. The vowel of the penultimate syllable is lengthened in the utterance-final allomorph, and the consonant that immediately follows it becomes voiced (unless it is already voiced) *-VpV

*-V๛bV

oral nucleus

-VpV

-V๛bV

-(V)p(V)

-bV

*-VtV / *-वtव

*-V๛dVɏ/ *-व๛nव

oral / nasal nucleus

-VtV / -वtव

-V๛dVɏ/ -व๛nव

-(V)t(V) / -(व)t(व)

-dVɏ/ɏ-nव

*-VdV / *-वnव

*-V๛dVɏ/ *-व๛nव

oral / nasal nucleus

-VdVɏ/ɏ-वnव

-V๛dVɏ/ -व๛nव

*-VೋV

*-V๛ഷV

-VೋV

-V๛ೋV

*-Vb(ೋ)V / *-वm(ഷ)व

*-V๛b(ೋ)Vɏ/ *-व๛m(ೋ)व

-Vb(ೋ)V / -वm(ೋ)व

-V๛b(ೋ)V / -व๛m(ೋ)व

oral / nasal nucleus

no alternations

Class E. The final vowel is long in the utterance-medial allomorph but short in the utterance-final allomorph *-V๛

*-V

oral nucleus

-V๛

-V

no alternations

Notes. (1) The notation -VCV (-VpV, -VԸV, …) presupposes that the vowels that flank the consonant are identical. (2) व stands for nasal vowels. V stands for any vowel (oral or nasal), unless it is found to the left of a slash (like in *-VtVɍ/ɍ*-ࢩtࢩ), in which case it stands for an oral vowel. Note that the vowel in the utterance-final allomorphs of class B stems may be either oral (like in XAV t՝ѐm՝ѐɍɌ// t՝ ‘eye’) or nasal (like in XAV mŠmŠɌ//ɌmŠ ‘firewood’). In the former case the nasality of the vowel predictably affects the realization of a preceding voiced consonant in the utterance-medial allomorphs (like in XAV n՝ѐm՝ѐɌ//Ɍdu ‘belly’). Moreover, in all Central Jê languages the inventory of nasal vowels is smaller than that of oral vowels, and for this reason multiple vowels found in utterance-final allomorphs may correspond to one and the same vowel in utterancemedial allomorphs of class B stems. For example, Xavánte stems whose word-medial allomorphs contain -՝ѐ- may end in -՝ѐ, -՝ or -u in the utterance-final position, e.g. m՝ѐn՝ѐɌ//Ɍm՝ѐ (habitual aspect particle), t՝ѐm՝ѐɌ//Ɍt՝ ‘eye’, n՝ѐm՝ѐɌ//Ɍdu ‘belly’. 15 The alternation -abaɌ//Ɍ-wa may affect the realization of the preceding segment in Xavánte (and presumably also in PCJ). For example, in XAV mƕѐpೋebabaɌ//Ɍmƕѐpೋe෨wa ‘father-in-law, mother-in-law’ underlying /m/ is predictably realized as [b] before -aba, but as vowel length before the labial consonant -w (this is described in the subsection above). 14

157

Andrey Nikulin

A minimal number of exceptions to these generalizations is found. In the Xavánte reflex of PCJ *ੇŠp=teteɎ//Ɏ*ੇŠp=te෨de ‘to be strong’ (XAV ੇŠp=teteɏ/ɏap=teteɌ//ɌੇŠp=te෨teɏ/ɏap=te෨te ‘to get strong, to make an effort, to recover’), the medial consonant does not undergo voicing in the utterancefinal allomorph, as expected; however, the Xerénte reflex is regular (cf. XER nŠp=tete ~ nŠp=tte ~ nŠp=tetɌ//ɌnŠp=tde). In PCJ *patiɌ//Ɍ*pa෨di ‘southern tamandua’ (XAV patiɌ//Ɍpa෨di, XER padi, pat-ೋe), unlike in other class D stems, the vowels flanking the alternating consonant are not identical. The stem PCJ *kutƕɌ//Ɍ*kuhƕ෨dƕ ‘tapir’ (XAV ԸutƕɌ//ɌԸuhƕ෨dƕ, XER ktƕɌ//Ɍkdƕ) exhibits loss of a medial syllable in the utterance-medial allomorph (PCJ **kuhƕtƕ would be expected). Although I do not make an attempt at postulating a morphophonemic analysis for each class of the allomorphy, it is tempting to consider that the final vowels of the stems of classes A, B and D are absent from their underlying representation, since their quality is entirely predictable: they are always a copy of the vowel of the penultimate syllableɏ16. This fact allows for a rhyme treatment of the bisyllabic sequences participating in the alternations; for example, the underlying representation of PCJ *bak՝ѐt՝ѐ // *bak՝ѐ෨n՝ѐ ‘girl’ (XAV baԸ՝ѐt՝ѐ // baԸ՝ѐ෨n՝ѐ, XER bakೋtõɍ17 // baknõ) would include the rhyme */-՝ѐt/ and the coda*/-t/. In the remainder of this paper I will use segmental reconstruction for the alternating stems, despite being aware that it is possible to posit morphophonemic rules accounting for the allomorphy.

3. Proto-Cerrado Now that phonological reconstructions are available for Proto-Northern Jê and Proto-Central Jê, it is possible to assess the reconstruction of Proto-Cerrado. Onsets, syllable nuclei and codas will be tackled separately. 3.1. Onset An allophonic process targeting underlying nasal consonants is reconstructed by me for ProtoNorthern Jê. It triggers the surface realization of underlying nasal consonants */m/, */n/, */ੇ/ and */Ɩ/ as prenasalized voiced obstruents (*Ʃb, *Ʃd, *Ʃ໵, *Ʃg) in oral contexts (as defined by the nasality of the nucleus). It is important to note that an essentially identical process is attested in Macro-Jê languages beyond the Cerrado branch (see D’Angelis 1998 for Kaingáng, Pessoa 2012 for Krenák and Voort 2007: 138 for Arikapú)ɏ18 and thus must go back to ProtoMacro-Jê. The correspondences between Proto-Northern Jê and Proto-Central Jê onsets, as well as the proposed Proto-Cerrado reconstructions for these correspondences, are exposed below in Table 5. As is evident from the table, Proto-Northern Jê faithfully retains the contrasts that existed in Proto-Cerrado. The only innovation that I posit for the history of Proto-Northern Jê onsets is the fortition of PCerr *w (in all environments) and *y (in stressed syllables), as exemplified in (8) below. Note that this phenomenon is highly reminiscent of Proto-Northern Jê echo vowels (Nikulin 2016b: 168– 168, 182–183). 17 The variation kt ~ kೋt, kd ~ kೋd is widely attested in Xerénte (see Frazão 2013: 46). 18 An Optimality Theory account of the prenasalized consonants in Macro-Jê languages is offered by Damulakis (2010). Voort’s analysis of Arikapú phonology is challenged by Ribeiro (2008). 16

158

A phonological reconstruction of Proto-Cerrado (Jê family)ɏ

Table 5. Proto-Cerrado onsets and their reflexes in Proto-Northern Jê and Proto-Central Jê. PCerr before oral vowels

PNJ

before nasal vowels

*ƪb(ೋ)

*p(ೋ) *m(ೋ)

*Ʃb(ೋ)

*t *ƪd

*Ʃd

*໴ *Ʃ໵

before PCerr oral high vowels

before PCerr nasal vowels

*p(ೋ)

*b(ೋ)

*m(ೋ)

*t

*d

*n

*ƕ, *hɍ† N/A

*Ɣ

*Ʃg(ೋ)

*k(ೋ) *Ɩ(ೋ)

*g

*ੇ

*Ɣ, *cɏ§

*k(ೋ) *Ɩ(ೋ)

*g

before PCerr oral non-high vowels

*c *ੇ

*y, *໵‡

*k(ೋ) *Ʃg(ೋ)

*n *໴

*ੇ

*y

*m(ೋ) *t

*n

*Ʃ໵

before nasal vowels

before oral vowels

*p(ೋ)

PCJ

*k(ೋ), *h, *wɍ¶

N/A

*w

*b

*w

*ೋ

*ೋ

*ೋ

͛Ø

͛Ø

͛Ø

† *h before *i, *Ɣ elsewhere. ‡ *໵ in stressed syllables, *y in unstressed syllables. § *c before *i, *Ɣ elsewhere. ¶ PCerr *kઇ, *Ʃgઇ, *k(ೋ)Փ, *Ʃg(ೋ)Փ > PCJ *hƕ; PCerr *ka- > PCJ *wa෨- (in initial unstressed syllables).

(8) a. b. c. d.

Fortition in Proto-Northern Jê PCerr *wŠ / *wŠ-ೋ ‘to kill’ > PNJ *bŠ / *bŠ-ೋ, PCJ *wŠ / *wŠ-ೋŠ; PCerr *wa ‘I’ > PNJ *ba, PCJ *wa; PCerr *weke ‘partridge’ > PNJ *beke, PCJ *wiki; PCerr *kuyถ ‘bad smell, to stink’ > PNJ *ku໵ถ, PCJ *kuƔՄ, etc.

Note that Proto-Northern Jê has both *w and *y in stressed syllables, but only in words that lack an established Cerrado, Jê or Macro-Jê etymology, like PNJ *yถtถแ ~ *yઇtઇแ ‘sweet potato’, *wՄwՄ ‘butterfly’. These may be explained away as borrowings from an unknown source or attributed to a substrate North Amazonian language, whose existence is corroborated by certain lexical similarities between Proto-Northern Jê, Nadahup and Yanomami languages (Nikulin & Carvalho 2017: 38). Proto-Central Jê appears to be much less conservative than Proto-Northern Jê. The most important change that affected its onsets was the merger of voiceless and voiced occlusive consonants; it is described in more detail in subsection 3.1.1 below. Other conditioned sound changes are tackled in subsections 3.1.2–5. 3.1.1. Occlusive merger The merger of Proto-Cerrado voiceless and voiced occlusives rearranged the distribution of most of the onsets. PCerr *k and *Ʃg normally yield PCJ *k in all contexts, as shown in (9) below. 159

Andrey Nikulin

(9) a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j.

Occlusive merger in velars PCerr *kakň ‘to cough’ > PNJ *kakš, PCJ *kaka; PCerr *kೋa ‘offspring’ > PNJ *kೋa, PCJ *kೋa෨ // *kೋa; PCerr *kՄѐtՄѐแ ‘stone’ > PNJ *kՄѐnՄѐ,แ PCJ *kՄѐtՄѐ // *kՄѐ෨nՄѐ; PCerr *kೋઇѐy ‘head’ > PNJ *kೋઇѐ, PCJ *kೋƕѐy // *kೋƕѐ ‘head, fruit’; PCerr *kೋՄѐ ‘parakeet’ > PNJ *kೋՄѐ, PCJ *kೋՄѐ; PCerr *kೋՄѐ / *kೋՄѐ-ೋ ~ *kೋՄѐ-nՄѐแ ‘to eat’ > PNJ *kೋՄѐ / *kೋՄѐ-ೋ, PCJ *kೋՄѐ / *kೋՄѐ-nՄѐ; PCerr *ku໴ՓmՓแ ‘fire’ > PNJ *ku໴Փ, PCJ *kuੇƕѐmƕѐ // *kucƕ; PCerr *Ʃgoy ‘water’ > PNJ *Ʃgo(໴-), PCJ *kuy // *ku ‘still water’; PCerr *Ʃgೋઇ ‘dry’ > PNJ *Ʃgೋઇ, PCJ *kೋՄ; PCerr *ƩgೋՄ ‘egg’ > PNJ *ƩgೋՄ, PCJ *kೋe ‘egg’, etc.

As for PCerr labial and coronal obstruents, reflexes vary. Before nasal nuclei, both voiceless and voiced occlusives yielded nasal consonants (10). (10) a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h.

Occlusive merger in labials and coronals before PCerr nasal nuclei PCerr *pŠmŠแ ‘firewood’ > PNJ *pŠ ‘wood’, PCJ *mŠmŠ // *mŠ; PCerr *pೋ՝ѐ ‘wife’ > PNJ *pೋ՝ѐ, PCJ *mೋ՝ѐ; PCerr *pೋઇѐm ‘hungry’ > PNJ *pೋઇѐmઇѐแ ‘hungry, to want’, PCJ *mೋƕѐm // *mೋƕѐ; PCerr *mઇѐy ‘greater rhea’ > PNJ *mઇѐ, PCJ *mƕѐy // *mƕѐ; PCerr *mՄѐy ‘to throw.SG’ > PNJ *mՄѐɏ/ɏ*mՄѐ-ੇ, PCJ *mՄѐy // *mՄѐ; PCerr *tՄѐɍ/ɍ*tՄѐ-m ‘to go.SG’ > PNJ *tՄѐɍ/ɍ*tՄѐ-m, PCJ *nՄѐ-m // *nՄѐ ‘to go.DU’; PCerr *t՝ѐy ‘brother’ > PNJ *t՝ѐ, PCJ *n՝ѐy // *n՝ѐ ‘younger sibling of the same sex’; PCerr *n՝ѐɍ/ɍ*n՝ѐ-Pೋ՝ѐแ ‘to lie.SG’ > PNJ *n՝ѐɍ/ɍ*n՝ѐ-ೋ, PCJ *n՝ѐɍ/ɍ*n՝ѐ-mೋ՝ѐ, etc.

Before Proto-Cerrado high oral nuclei, voiced obstruent reflexes are found (11). (11) a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h.

Occlusive merger in labials and coronals before PCerr high nuclei PCerr *puೋƆ ‘field’ > PNJ *puೋƆ, PCJ *buೋu // *bu෨ೋu; PCerr *pՓy ‘achiote’ > PNJ *pՓ, PCJ *bƕy // *bƕ; PCerr *ƩbutƆ ‘neck’ > PNJ *ƩbutƆ, PCJ *butu // *bu෨du; PCerr *ƩbՓtՓแ ‘sun’ > PNJ *ƩbՓtՓแ, PCJ *bƕtƕ // *bƕ෨dƕ; PCerr *ƩbՓnՓแ ‘tail, penis’ > PNJ *ƩbՓ, PCJ *mƕѐnƕѐ // *bƕ; PCerr *tikš ‘belly’ > PNJ *tikš, PCJ *diki // *di; PCerr *tuɍ/ɍ*tu-ೋ ‘to carry’ > PNJ *tuɍ/ɍ*tu-ೋ, PCJ *du // *du-ೋi; PCerr *tumƆ ‘belly’ > PNJ *tu, PCJ *n՝ѐm՝ѐ // *du, etc.

Before other Proto-Cerrado oral nuclei, voiceless obstruents are the regular outcome (12). (12) a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. k. 160

Occlusive merger in labials and coronals before PCerr non-high nuclei PCerr *kupe ‘to touch, to move’ > PNJ *kupe, PCJ *kupi; PCerr *paೋň ‘foot’ > PNJ *paೋš, PCJ *paೋa // *pa෨ೋa; PCerr *Ʃba ‘liver’ > PNJ *Ʃba, PCJ *pa; PCerr *Ʃbೋ՝ ‘ashes’ > PNJ *Ʃbೋ՝, PCJ *pೋ՝ ‘powder, foam’; PCerr *kaƩbೋoy ‘blood’ > PNJ *kaƩbೋo, PCJ *wa෨pೋuy // *wa෨pೋu; PCerr *teೋŔ ‘fruit of a k. of palm’ > PNJ *teೋŔ, PCJ *tiೋi // *ti෨ೋi ‘bacuri coconut’; PCerr *te ‘tick’ > PNJ *te, PCJ *ti; PCerr *tઇbƩ ‘new’ > PNJ *tઇbƩš ‘raw’, PCJ *tՄm // *tՄ; PCerr *tՄpՄแ ‘fish’ > PNJ *tՄpՄแ, PCJ *tepe // *te෨be; PCerr *ੇ՝ѐyt՝ ‘tongue’ > PNJ *ੇ՝ѐt՝, PCJ *ੇ՝ѐyt՝; PCerr *Ʃd՝m՝แ ‘eye’ > PNJ *Ʃd՝(p-), PCJ *t՝ѐm՝ѐɍ/ɍ*t՝, etc.

A phonological reconstruction of Proto-Cerrado (Jê family)ɏ

Note that the process described in this subsection occurred prior to the raising of ProtoCerrado mid-high vowels in Central Jê (PCerr *e > PCJ *i, PCerr *o > PCJ *u) and prior to the lowering of PCerr *Փ > PCJ *ƕ. That way, the contrast between Proto-Cerrado syllables like *te and *ti survives in Proto-Central Jê as *ti and *di (cf. 11f and 12f–g). The situation with Proto-Cerrado palatal occlusives is slightly more complicated. Many Proto-Cerrado inflectable stems are subject to the alternation of their initial consonant: their uninflected form features a stem-initial *y- (*ੇ- before nasal vowels) and their third person form starts with a *໴-, cf. PCerr *ywa ‘tooth’ (third person *໴wa), PCerr *ੇ՝ѐyt՝ ‘tongue’ (third person *໴՝ѐyt՝). It is likely that alternating PCerr *໴- and *y- / *ੇ- remain distinct in Central Jê languages. For example, PCerr *ੇŠk՝p՝แ (third person *໴Šk՝p՝แ) ‘nail, claw’ yielded PCJ *ੇŠk՝p՝ // *ੇŠk՝෨b՝, which appears as *-cŠk՝p՝ // *-cŠk՝෨b՝ after the prefixes *ay- (second person) and *Š(third person). If PCJ allomorphs do reflect PCerr uninflected form and third person form respectively, the merger of palatal occlusives in PCJ has to be considered incomplete. However, the Central Jê reflexes of non-alternating PCerr *໴, as well as of its voiced counterpart *Ʃ໵, display a behavior similar to *p, *t, *Ʃb and *Ʃd. The relevant cognate sets are provided in (13) below. (13) a. b. c. d. e. f. g.

Merger of PCerr palatal occlusives PCerr *໴oy ‘leaf, a hair’ > PNJ *໴o, PCJ *cuy // *cu; PCerr *ya໴e ‘nest’ > PNJ *ya໴e, PCJ *Ɣaci; PCerr *kaƩ໵e ‘star’ > PNJ *kaƩ໵e, PCJ *wa෨ci; PCerr *Ʃ໵a / *Ʃ໵a-ೋ ‘to bite’ > PNJ *Ʃ໵a / *Ʃ໵a-ೋ, PCJ *ca / *ca-ೋi; PCerr *໴ՓmՓแ ‘seed’ > PNJ *໴Փ, PCJ *ੇƕѐmƕѐ // *Ɣƕ; PCerr *ku໴ՓmՓแ ‘fire’ > PNJ *ku໴Փ, PCJ *kuੇƕѐmƕѐ // *kuƔƕ; PCerr *໴Š ‘meat’ > PNJ *໴Š, PCJ *ੇŠ.

The following distribution is found in Proto-Central Jê: a voiceless reflex (PCJ *c) is found before PCerr non-high oral vowels (13a–d), a voiced reflex (PCJ *Ɣ) is found before PCerr high oral vowels (13e–f), and a nasal reflex (PCJ *ੇ) occurs preceding a nasal vowel (13g). A more profound investigation of Central Jê historical morphology should shed light on the details of the operation of the occlusive merger at the palatal point of articulation.

3.1.2. PCerr *ka- > PCJ *wa෨As has already been noted by Davis (1966: 14), PCerr *ka- yielded PCJ *wa෨- in unstressed (nonfinal) syllables (Davis erroneously states that the condition for this sound change is the wordinitial position, but in reality it fails to occur in monosyllabic words, like PCerr *kakň ‘to cough’ > PCJ *kaka). Some examples are provided in (14). (14) a. b. c. d. e. f.

PCerr *ka- > PCJ *wa෨PCerr *kaƩbೋoy ‘blood’ > PNJ *kaƩbೋo, PCJ *wa෨pೋuy // *wa෨pೋu; PCerr *kaƩ໵e ‘star’ > PNJ *kaƩ໵e, PCJ *wa෨ci; PCerr *ka=Ʃgೋ՝ ‘hot’ > PNJ *ka=Ʃgೋ՝, PCJ *wa෨=kೋ՝; PCerr *kat՝ѐk՝ѐแ ‘to explode, to pop, to shoot’ > PNJ *kat՝ѐk՝ѐแ ‘firearm, to explode, to pop’, PCJ *wan՝ѐk՝ѐ ‘to explode, to attack’; PCerr *kaƩga ‘lazy’ > PNJ *kaƩga, PCJ *wa෨ka; PCerr *kaೋ՝ѐ ‘shadow, spirit’ > PNJ *kaೋ՝ѐ, PCJ *wa෨ೋ՝ѐ, etc.

161

Andrey Nikulin

It is probable that PCerr *k was articulated as *[g] in unstressed syllables, at least before *a; this allophonic realization is attested synchronically in Apinayé and Tapayúna. Panará also seems to retain its traces (Nikulin 2016b: 171, 176). Carvalho (2016: 70) observed that “[t]hough one might claim that the outcomes of the Panará and Central Jê developments are only tenuously similar, the conditioning environment is identical for both and seems interestingly unusual”, suggesting tentatively that this might be an innovation shared by Panará and Central Jê. Given that other data support the inclusion of Panará into Northern Jê, ruling out the possibility of a node consisting of Central Jê and Panará, I am inclined to envision these facts as direct traces of a Proto-Cerrado allophony. 3.1.3. PCerr *໴i > PCJ *hi, PCerr *yi > PCJ *ci Certain developments of PCerr palatals before *i are evident in the cognate sets listed in (15) below. (15) a. b. c. d.

PCerr *໴i > PCJ *hi, PCerr *yi > PCJ *ci PCerr *໴i ‘bone’ > PNJ *໴i, PCJ *hi; PCerr *yiɍ/ɍ*yi-ೋ (3 person *໴iɍ/ɍ*໴i-ೋ) ‘to put, to lay’ > PNJ *໵iɍ/ɍ*໵i-ೋš (3 person *໴iɍ/ɍ*໴i-ೋš), PCJ *hiɍ/ɍ*hi-ೋi; PCerr *ੇŠyi ‘name’ > PNJ *ੇŠ໵i, PCJ *ੇŠci // *ੇŠ෨ci; PCerr *pՓyi ~ *pŠyi ‘one’ > PNJ *pՓ໵i, PCJ *mŠci.

However, details of this development are still poorly understood. For instance, it is unclear why the third person form of the verb ‘to put, to lay’ (15b) was generalized in Central Jê. 3.1.4. PCerr *k(ೋ)Փ, *Ʃg(ೋ)Փ, *kઇ, *Ʃgઇ > PCJ *hƕ Davis (1966: 14) already noted that Proto-Jê *k and *kೋ are reflected as Xavánte h before ƕ. However, it is now evident that the change *k(ೋ) > *h was fed by the occlusive merger: PCerr *k and *Ʃg behave identically in this respect. The data presented in (16) below exemplify the merger of *kೋՓ and *ƩgೋՓ, *kઇ and *Ʃgઇ. (16) a. b. c. d. e. f. g.

PCerr *kೋՓ, *ƩgೋՓ, *kઇ, *Ʃgઇ > PCJ *hƕ PCerr *kೋՓ ‘cold’ > PNJ *kೋՓ, PCJ *hƕ; PCerr *kukೋՓtՓแ ‘tapir’ > PNJ *kukೋՓtՓแ, PCJ *kutƕ // *kuhƕ෨dƕ; PCerr *kೋՓtՓแ ‘flint, firestone; metal’ > PNJ *kೋՓtՓแ, PCJ *hƕtƕ // *hƕ෨dƕ; PCerr *ƩgೋՓkՓแ ‘angry, upset’ > PNJ *ƩgೋՓkՓแ, PCJ *hƕkƕ; PCerr *kઇy ‘skin, bark, breast’ > PNJ *kઇ, PCJ *hƕy; PCerr *kઇ / *kઇ-ೋ ‘to shout’ > PNJ *kઇ / *kઇ-ೋ, PCJ *hƕ / *hƕ-ೋƕ; PCerr *Ʃgઇ ‘men’s house’ > PNJ *Ʃgઇ ‘men’s house, courtyard’, PCJ *hƕ ‘young men’s house’, etc.

The development of PCerr *kՓ and *ƩgՓ in Central Jê is less clear due to the scarcity of relevant data. One possible cognate set that suggests that PCerr *kՓ > PCJ *hƕ involves the correspondence of Proto-Southern Jê *yãd=kՓ ‘mouth’ to Xavánte Ɣay=hƕ ‘lip, mouth’ and probably Xerénte ೟ay=hƕ ‘buttocks’ (< PCJ *Ɣay=hƕ); no Northern Jê cognate is available. If these words are indeed cognate, they must go back to a Proto-Jê stem ending in *=kՓ. Note that PCerr *kೋઇ and *Ʃgೋઇ must have developed normally, cf. PCerr *Ʃgೋઇ ‘dry’ > PNJ *Ʃgೋઇ, PCJ *kೋՄ.

162

A phonological reconstruction of Proto-Cerrado (Jê family)ɏ

3.1.5. Interaction with medials It appears that Proto-Cerrado had a system of rising diphthongs, just like Proto-Northern Jê. In some cases Proto-Cerrado medials triggered special reflexes of Proto-Cerrado onsets in Proto-Central Jê, including PCerr *໴w, *kw > PCJ *w, PCerr *yw > PCJ *kw, PCerr *Cye > PCJ *Ɣa ~ *ca. However, the examples are very limited. They are listed in (17) below. (17) a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i.

Interaction of PCerr onsets and medials in PCJ PCerr *໴wak՝ѐ ‘coati’ > PNJ *໴wak՝ѐ, PCJ *wak՝ѐ; PCerr *ywa ‘tooth’ > PNJ *໵wa, PCJ *kwa; PCerr *kVywa ‘salt’ > PNJ *ka໵wa, PCJ *kƕkwa-ೋƕѐ; PCerr *kઇykwa ‘sky’ > PNJ *kVykwa, PCJ *hƕywaɍ19; PCerr *yadň=kwa ‘mouth’ > PNJ *yaೋ=kwa, PCJ *Ɣada=wa; PCerr *kyey ‘thigh’ > PNJ *kye, PCJ *Ɣay // *Ɣa (non-alternating Ɣ); PCerr *Ʃgyeɍ/ɍ*Ʃgye-໵Ʃ ‘to enter.PL’ > PNJ *Ʃgiyňɍ/ɍ*Ʃgye-໵Ʃ, PCJ *Ɣaɍ/ɍ*Ɣa-ci ‘to enter.DU’ (non-alternating Ɣ); PCerr *tyetŔ ‘to burn’ > PNJ *tyetŔ, PCJ *Ɣata // *Ɣa෨da; PCerr *kyeɍ/ɍ*kye-dƩ ‘to drag, to pull’ > PNJ *kyeɍ/ɍ*kye-dƩ, PCJ *caɍ/ɍ*ca-ೋi.

Davis (1966: 23) also identifies Xavánte wam // wa ‘fat’ (PCJ *wam // wa) as a cognate of PNJ *twถbƩš id. Since the correspondences of PNJ *wถ in Central Jê are otherwise unknown, this comparison is plausible, but still uncertain. 3.2. Nucleus The correspondences between Proto-Northern Jê and Proto-Central Jê nuclei, as well as the proposed Proto-Cerrado reconstructions for these correspondences, are exposed below in Table 6ɏɏ20. Table 6. Proto-Cerrado vowels and their reflexes in Proto-Northern Jê and Proto-Central Jê. PCerr

PNJ

PCJ

*a

*a, *ã†

*a

*૬

*૬

*๽

*๽

*ը

*ը, *ըѠ†

*Ɩ

*վ

*վ

*վ

*o

*o

*u

*u, *Ƈ

*Ք

*Ք

*e

*e

*i

*i

*Ք, *Ɩ‡

†

*u *e *i

PCerr

PNJ

PCJ

*૬Ѡ

*૬Ѡ

*ըѠ

*ըѠ

*վѠ

*վѠ

*վѠ

*ՔѠ

*ՔѠ

*ՔѠ

*Ţ

*Ţ

*Ţ

*ƖѠ

† *ã, *ƅ, *Փѐ occur before *m in coda. ‡ PCerr *kઇ, *Ʃgઇ > PCJ *hƕ. 19 Possibly something other than PCJ *w has to be reconstructed for the reflex of PCerr *kw: in the word for ‘sky’ a cluster in attested in Xakriabá (Eschwege’s notes) and Salinas Xavánte haiƖuň; however, this is not the case with the word for ‘mouth’: Xakriabá (Eschwege), (S. Hilaire), Salinas Xavánte =sedaua (Martius 1867: 142, Ehrenreich 1895: 151, 153). 20 Oliveira (2005: 61) cites a talk entitled ‘Vowel shift in Central Jê’ (Oliveira & Ribeiro 2005); unfortunately, I have had no access to its abstract.

163

Andrey Nikulin

As is evident from the table above, Proto-Northern Jê is very conservative in its vocalism. The nasalization of *a, *u and *Փ before syllable-final *m in Proto-Northern Jê is described in (Nikulin 2016b: 176–177). This is clearly a Proto-Northern Jê innovation: in Central Jê, oral vowels are found, as shown in (18) below. (18)

Proto-Northern Jê innovative nasalization a. PCerr *tubƩ ‘old, tall (?)’ > PNJ *tƅmuѐแ, PCJ *dum // *du ‘tall’, *dum-kೋata // *dum-kೋa෨da ‘elder sibling of the opposite sex’; b. PCerr *kubƩtՓbƩ ‘capybara’ > PNJ *kƅmtՓѐmՓѐแ, PCJ *kumdƕ.

Unlike Proto-Northern Jê, Proto-Central Jê innovated considerably. As a result of a vowel shift, discussed already by Ribeiro and Voort (2010: 554), PCerr *ถ and *ઇ yielded PCJ *Մ (19a–i)ɏ21, PCerr *Մ was raised to PCJ *e (19j–n), and PCJ *e and *o merged with *i and *u, respectively (19o–y) (see subsection 3.1.1 for the effect of this merger on the preceding consonants). (19)

Vowel shift in Proto-Central Jê a. PCerr *Ʃbถɍ/ɍ*Ʃbถ-໵Ʃ > PNJ *Ʃbถɍ/ɍ*Ʃbถ-໵Ʃ ‘to carry’, PCJ *kwa=pՄ ‘to carry.DU’; b. PCerr *kuೋถ ‘smooth’ > PNJ *kuೋถ, PCJ *kuೋՄ; c. PCerr *kuyถ ‘bad smell, to stink’ > PNJ *ku໵ถ, PCJ *kuƔՄ; d. PCerr *yถ ‘bitter’ > PNJ *໵ถ, PCJ *ƔՄ; e. PCerr *tઇbƩ ‘new’ > PNJ *tઇbƩš ‘raw’, PCJ *tՄm // *tՄ; f. PCerr *Ʃgೋઇ ‘dry’ > PNJ *Ʃgೋઇ, PCJ *kೋՄ; g. PCerr *=yઇ (instrumental suffix) > PNJ *=໵ઇ, PCJ *=ƔՄ; h. PCerr *aƩgઇ ‘sedge seed’ > PNJ *aƩgઇ, PCJ *akՄ; i. PCerr *pೋઇ ‘ember’ > PNJ *pೋઇ, PCJ *pೋՄ; j. PCerr *tՄpՄแ ‘fish’ > PNJ *tՄpՄแ, PCJ *tepe // *te෨be; k. PCerr *ƩgೋՄ ‘egg’ > PNJ *ƩgೋՄ, PCJ *kೋe; l. PCerr *tՄy ‘leg’ > PNJ *tՄ, PCJ *tey // *te; m. PCerr *kೋՄ ‘to plant’ > PNJ *kೋՄ, PCJ *kೋe; n. PCerr *kೋՄ ‘orifice, hole’ > PNJ *kೋՄ, PCJ *=kೋe; o. PCerr *teೋŔ ‘fruit of a k. of palm’ > PNJ *teೋŔ, PCJ *tiೋi // *ti෨ೋi ‘bacuri coconut’; p. PCerr *te ‘tick’ > PNJ *te, PCJ *ti; q. PCerr *ya໴e ‘nest’ > PNJ *ya໴e, PCJ *Ɣaci; r. PCerr *kaƩ໵e ‘star’ > PNJ *kaƩ໵e, PCJ *wa෨ci; s. PCerr *weke ‘partridge’ > PNJ *beke, PCJ *wiki; t. PCerr *kupe ‘to touch, to move’ > PNJ *kupe, PCJ *kupi; u. PCerr *komų ‘cudgel; horn; patch of trees’ > PNJ *ko, PCJ *k՝ѐm՝ѐ // *ku ‘cudgel; horn’; v. PCerr *Ʃgoy ‘water’ > PNJ *Ʃgo(໴-), PCJ *kuy // *ku ‘still water’; w. PCerr *໴oy ‘leaf, a hair’ > PNJ *໴o, PCJ *cuy // *cu; x. PCerr *kaƩbೋoy ‘blood’ > PNJ *kaƩbೋo, PCJ *wa෨pೋuy // *wa෨pೋu; y. PCerr *kopų ‘fly’ > PNJ *kopų, PCJ *kupu // *ku෨bu, etc.

In addition to the shift, two other developments affected the vocalism of Proto-Central Jê: PCerr *Փ was lowered to PCJ *ƕ (PCJ *Փ occurs in words without any external etymology), and PCerr *ઇѐ and *ƕѐ merged in PCJ *Փѐ. These changes are exemplified in (20) and (21), respectively. Oliveira and Ribeiro (2005 apud Oliveira 2005: 61) state that *ઇ and *ถ remained distinct in PCJ, yielding *Մ and *e, respectively. I was able to identify only one word with PNJ *ถ corresponding to PCJ *e: PNJ *tถ໴š ‘hard, strong’ ~ PCJ *tete // te෨de ‘hard, strong’. This should be attributed to an additional sound law: before a coronal stop in coda, PCJ *e is found instead of *Մ, also as a reflex of PCerr *ઇ (PCerr *wઇdઇแ ‘tree’ > PNJ *wઇೋઇแ, PCJ *wede // *we෨de). 21

164

A phonological reconstruction of Proto-Cerrado (Jê family)ɏ

(20) a. b. c. d. e. f.

Lowering of PCerr *Փ in Proto-Central Jê PCerr *kubƩtՓbƩ ‘capybara’ > PNJ *kƅmtՓѐmՓѐแ, PCJ *kumdƕ. PCerr *pՓy ‘achiote’ > PNJ *pՓ, PCJ *bƕy // *bƕ; PCerr *ku໴ՓmՓแ ‘fire’ > PNJ *ku໴Փ, PCJ *kuੇƕѐmƕѐ // *kuƔƕ; PCerr *am=Ʃ໵Փ ‘bee sp.’ > PNJ *am=Ʃ໵Փ, PCJ *am=Ɣƕ; PCerr *ƩbՓtՓแ ‘sun’ > PNJ *ƩbՓtՓแ, PCJ *bƕtƕ // *bƕ෨dƕ; PCerr *ƩbՓnՓแ ‘tail, penis’ > PNJ *ƩbՓ, PCJ *mƕѐnƕѐ // *bƕ, etc.

a. b. c. d. e. f.

Merger of PCerr *ઇѐ and *ƕѐ in Proto-Central Jê PCerr *kೋઇѐy ‘head’ > PNJ *kೋઇѐ, PCJ *kೋƕѐy // *kೋƕѐ ‘head, fruit’; PCerr *pೋઇѐm ‘hungry’ > PNJ *pೋઇѐmઇѐแ ‘hungry, to want’, PCJ *mೋƕѐm // *mೋƕѐ; PCerr *mઇѐy ‘greater rhea’ > PNJ *mઇѐ, PCJ *mƕѐy // *mƕѐ; PCerr *nઇѐ ‘mother’ > PNJ *nઇѐ, PCJ *nƕѐ; PCerr *ੇՓѐ / *ੇՓѐ-PೋՓѐแ ‘to sit.SG’ > PNJ *ੇՓѐ / *ੇՓѐ-ೋ, PCJ *ੇƕѐ-mೋƕѐ (finite: 2SG *ay=cƕѐ); PCerr *kwՓѐ / *kwՓѐ-ೋ ‘to chop’ > PNJ *kwՓѐ / *kwՓѐ-ೋ, PCJ *kwƕѐ / *kwƕѐ-ೋŠ, etc.

(21)

A context-specific development of PCerr *ઇ after velars has already been treated in subsection 3.1.4. 3.3. Coda Proto-Central Jê codas, as well as Proto-Central Jê alternating rhymes of the classes A, B and D (see 2.3 above), have regular correspondences in Proto-Northern Jê. Proto-Central Jê classes C and E are of unknown origin. The most secure correspondences are listed in Table 7 below. Table 7. Proto-Cerrado codas and their reflexes in Proto-Northern Jê and Proto-Central Jê. PCerr

PNJ

PCJ

PCerr

PNJ

PCJ

*-pVÙ

*-pVÙ

*-pV (D)

*-mVÙ

*-Ø

*-Ѡmव (B)

*-tVÙ

*-tVÙ

*-tV (D)

*-nVÙ

*-Ø

*-Ѡnव (B)

*-kVÙ

*-kVÙ

*-kV (A)

*-ƖVÙ

*-Ø

*-kV (A)

Ù *-ೋV

*-ೋVÙ

*-ೋV (D)

*-y

*-Ø

*-y

*-ೋ

*-ೋ

*-ೋš

*-bƩɏ/ɏ*-m

Ù *-bƩšɏ/ɏ*-mV

*-m

Note that some codas that are reconstructible to Proto-Northern Jê do not occur in words with secure Cerrado, Jê or Macro-Jê etymologies. These include PNJ *-wVÙ and *-yšɏ22. I suggest that such words entered Proto-Cerrado as loans from an unknown North Amazonian language: words like PNJ *kukoyš ‘monkey’ and PNJ *ƩdՓwՓแ ‘new’ɏ23 are suspiciously similar to Hup kukúy, Yanomama ku(u)ku-moxi ‘night monkey’ and Hup Ʃd’ƕw-ƕяy ‘new’, respectively (Nikulin & Carvalho 2017: 38). 3.3.1. Voiceless codas in Proto-Cerrado As is evident from the table above, Proto-Northern Jê voiceless stops in coda position correspond to PCJ voiceless stops in coda utterance-medially. PCJ *p and *t, on one side, and PCJ *k, 22 Possible exceptions include PNJ *bayš ‘snake sp.’ ~ PCJ *wa෨hi ‘venomous snake’, PNJ *Ʃ໵ઇyš ~ PCJ *cՄpcՄtՄ // cՄpcՄ෨dՄ ‘woodpecker’. Both comparisons are dubious. 23 Erroneously glossed as ‘field’ in (Nikulin 2016b: 180).

165

Andrey Nikulin

on the other, behave differently. PCJ stems in *-pV and *-tV belong to class D, as shown in (22) below, whereas PCJ stems in *-kV belong to class A, as exemplified in (23). (22) a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. k. l.

PCerr stems in *-pVÙ , *-tVÙ PCerr *kopų ‘fly’ > PNJ *kopų, PCJ *kupu // *ku෨bu; PCerr *tՄpՄแ ‘fish’ > PNJ *tՄpՄแ, PCJ *tՄpՄ // *tՄ෨bՄ; PCerr *ੇŠp=k՝p՝แ ‘nail, claw’ > PNJ *ੇŠp=k՝p՝แ, PCJ *ੇŠ=k՝p՝ // *ੇŠ=k՝෨b՝; PCerr *ƩbՓtՓแ ‘sun’ > PNJ *ƩbՓtՓแ, PCJ *bƕtƕ // *bƕ෨dƕ; PCerr *ƩbutƆ ‘neck’ > PNJ *ƩbutƆ, PCJ *butu // *bu෨du; PCerr *ੇ՝ѐ=kotų ‘chest’ > PNJ *ੇ՝ѐ=kotų, PCJ *ੇ՝ѐ=kutu // *ੇ՝ѐ=ku෨du; PCerr *tyetŔ ‘to burn’ > PNJ *tyetŔ, PCJ *Ɣata // *Ɣa෨da; PCerr *k՝t՝แ ‘cicada’ > PNJ *(k՝)k՝t՝แ, PCJ *k՝t՝ // *k՝෨d՝; PCerr *kukೋՓtՓแ ‘tapir’ > PNJ *kukೋՓtՓแ, PCJ *kutƕ // *kuhƕ෨dƕ; PCerr *kೋitš ‘grasshopper’ > PNJ *kೋitš, PCJ *kೋiti // *kೋi෨di; PCerr *kೋatň ‘base’ > PNJ *kೋatš ‘base, stem, lower part of the body’, PCJ *kೋata // *kೋa෨da ‘base, beginning; near; grandparent’; PCerr *ೋŠtiѐแ ‘to look’ > PNJ *ೋŠtiѐแ, PCJ *ೋŠtŠ // *ೋŠ෨nŠ, etc.

In one instance, the final consonant has apparently been irregularly nasalized in ProtoNorthern Jê: PCerr *kՄѐtՄѐแ ‘stone’ > PNJ *kՄѐnՄѐ,แ PCJ *kՄѐtՄѐ // *kՄѐ෨nՄѐ. (23) a. b. c. d. e. f.

Ù PCerr stems in *-kV PCerr *kokų ‘wind’ > PNJ *kokų, PCJ *ೋ՝෨=wa=kuku // *ೋ՝෨=wa=ku; PCerr *tikš ‘belly’ > PNJ *tikš, PCJ *diki // *di; PCerr *t՝t՝k՝แ ‘to throb’ > PNJ *t՝t՝k՝แ, PCJ *t՝t՝k՝ // *t՝t՝; PCerr *kakň ‘to cough’ > PNJ *kakš, PCJ *kaka; PCerr *ƩgೋՓkՓแ ‘angry, upset’ > PNJ *ƩgೋՓkՓแ, PCJ *hƕkƕ; PCerr *kat՝ѐk՝ѐแ ‘to explode, to pop, to shoot’ > PNJ *kat՝ѐk՝ѐแ ‘firearm, to explode, to pop’, PCJ *wan՝ѐk՝ѐ ‘to explode, to attack’, etc.

Utterance-final allomorphs of Central Jê counterparts of the cognate sets (23d–f) have not been attested, but these stems are expected to belong to class A. 3.3.2. Rhotic codas in Proto-Cerrado I reconstruct two types of Proto-Cerrado stems with a rhotic coda. Just like in Proto-Northern Jê (Nikulin 2016b: 182), rhotic coda followed by an echo vowel would have been characteristic of nouns. In Central Jê, it patterns with PCerr *-pVի and *-tVի (class D stems). On the other hand, non-finite forms of verbs would have featured a rhotic with a suppressed echo vowel. In this case, a final *-i is inserted in Central Jê (*-Š if the preceding syllable carries nasality). This is shown in (24) below. (24) a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. 166

Distinction between PCerr *-ೋVÙ and *-ೋ PCerr *paೋň ‘foot’ > PNJ *paೋš, PCJ *paೋa // *pa෨ೋa; PCerr *puೋƆ ‘field’ > PNJ *puೋƆ, PCJ *buೋu // *bu෨ೋu; PCerr *teೋŔ ‘fruit of a k. of palm’ > PNJ *teೋŔ, PCJ *tiೋi // *ti෨ೋi ‘bacuri coconut’; PCerr *ੇ՝ѐೋ՝ѐแ ‘cord, vine’ > PNJ *ੇ՝ѐೋ՝ѐแ, PCJ *wede=ੇ՝ѐೋ՝ѐ // *wede=ੇ՝ѐ෨ೋ՝ѐ; PCerr *wŠɍ/ɍ*wŠ-ೋ ‘to kill’ > PNJ *bŠɍ/ɍ*bŠ-ೋ, PCJ *wŠɍ/ɍ*wŠ-ೋŠ; PCerr *paɍ/ɍ*pa-ೋ ‘to finish’ > PNJ *paɍ/ɍ*pa-ೋ, PCJ *paɍ/ɍ*pa-ೋi ‘to finish, to erase’; PCerr *tuɍ/ɍ*tu-ೋ ‘to carry’ > PNJ *tuɍ/ɍ*tu-ೋ, PCJ *duɍ/ɍ*du-ೋi; PCerr *Ʃ໵aɍ/ɍ*Ʃ໵a-ೋ ‘to bite’ > PNJ *Ʃ໵aɍ/ɍ*Ʃ໵a-ೋ, PCJ *caɍ/ɍ*ca-ೋi, etc.

A phonological reconstruction of Proto-Cerrado (Jê family)ɏ

However, the allomorph *-ೋi cannot be attached to Central Jê reflexes of PCerr roots ending in certain vowels, like *ઇ and *Մѐ. Allomorphs with echo vowels may be found in such cases, cf. PCJ *hƕɍ/ɍ*hƕ-ೋƕ ‘to shout’ (< PCerr *kઇɍ/ɍ*kઇ-ೋ). 3.3.3. Nasal codas in Proto-Cerrado Central Jê stems that belong to class B correspond to vowel-final stems in Proto-Northern Jê. I reconstruct nasal codas followed by an echo vowel. The correspondence is exemplified in (25) below. (25) a. b. c. d. e. f. g.

Proto-Cerrado etyma yielding Central Jê class B stems PCerr *pŠmŠแ ‘firewood’ > PNJ *pŠ ‘wood’, PCJ *mŠmŠ // *mŠ; PCerr *komų ‘cudgel; horn; patch of trees’ > PNJ *ko, PCJ *k՝ѐm՝ѐ // *ku ‘cudgel; horn’; PCerr *ku໴ՓmՓแ ‘fire’ > PNJ *ku໴Փ, PCJ *kuੇƕѐmƕѐ // *kuƔƕ; PCerr *໴ՓmՓแ ‘seed’ > PNJ *໴Փ, PCJ *ੇƕѐmƕѐ // *Ɣƕ; PCerr *Ʃd՝m՝แ ‘eye’ > PNJ *Ʃd՝(p-), PCJ *t՝ѐm՝ѐ / *t՝; PCerr *ƩbՓnՓแ ‘tail, penis’ > PNJ *ƩbՓ, PCJ *mƕѐnƕѐ // *bƕ; PCerr *tumƆ ‘belly’ > PNJ *tu, PCJ *n՝ѐm՝ѐ // *du, etc.

The Proto-Northern Jê consonant-final allomorph *Ʃd՝p- (25e) is preserved only in Apinayé, where it occurs before any elements in postposition (Ham 1961: 27; Oliveira 2005: 375). The final consonant -p must be understood as a relic of the Proto-Cerrado coda. For Central Jê class A stems ending in *-kVի that correspond to zero in PNJ, I suggest reconstructing PCerr *-ƖVի . The denasalization of *Ɩ in PCJ is expected: no such phoneme can be reconstructed for PCJ, even in the onset position. The clearest examples are provided in (26). (26)

Proto-Cerrado *-ƖVի a. PCerr *p՝Ɩ՝แ ‘arrow, bamboo’ > PNJ *p՝-໴e ‘bamboo’, PCJ *p՝k՝ // *p՝ ‘big arrow’; b. PCerr *ƩboƖų ‘lake’ > PNJ *໴=i=Ʃbo, PCJ *puku // *pu.

At first sight, the reconstruction of a velar segment for this correspondence conflicts with external data: probable Maxakalí cognates of these words are pohox /puC/ ‘arrow’ and puxhep /pըC-hՔP/ ‘lake’, with palatal codas. However, PCerr *Ɩ may correspond to Maxakalí palatals even in the onset position (cf. PCerr *kaƖբѐ ‘snake’ and Maxakalí kãyã /kãભã/ ‘snake’), which renders the reconstructive hypothesis in question plausible. 3.3.4. Palatal coda in Proto-Cerrado Proto-Central Jê stems whose underlying representations end in */-y/ correspond to vowelfinal stems in Proto-Northern Jê. I reconstruct PCerr *-y for this correspondence. Some examples are provided in (27). (27) a. b. c. d. e. f. g.

Proto-Cerrado stems in *-y PCerr *t՝ѐy ‘brother’ > PNJ *t՝ѐ, PCJ *n՝ѐy // *n՝ѐ ‘younger sibling of the same sex’; PCerr *mઇѐy ‘greater rhea’ > PNJ *mઇѐ, PCJ *mƕѐy // *mƕѐ; PCerr *Ʃgoy ‘water’ > PNJ *Ʃgo(໴-), PCJ *kuy // *ku ‘still water’; PCerr *kೋઇѐy ‘head’ > PNJ *kೋઇѐ, PCJ *kೋƕѐy // *kೋƕѐ ‘head, fruit’; PCerr *pՓy ‘achiote’ > PNJ *pՓ, PCJ *bƕy // *bƕ; PCerr *kaƩbೋoy ‘blood’ > PNJ *kaƩbೋo, PCJ *wa෨pೋuy // *wa෨pೋu; PCerr *໴oy ‘leaf, a hair’ > PNJ *໴o, PCJ *cuy // *cu; 167

Andrey Nikulin

h. i. j. k. l.

PCerr *kઇy ‘skin, bark, breast’ > PNJ *kઇ, PCJ *hƕy; PCerr *kyey ‘thigh’ > PNJ *kye, PCJ *Ɣay // *Ɣa; PCerr *tՄy ‘leg’ > PNJ *tՄ, PCJ *tey // *te; PCerr *kೋ՝y ‘rotten’ > PNJ *kೋ՝, PCJ *kೋ՝y // *kೋ՝; PCerr *mՄѐy ‘to throw.SG’ > PNJ *mՄѐɏ/ɏ*mՄѐ-ੇ, PCJ *mՄѐy // *mՄѐ, etc.

In (27c), one Northern Jê language (Apinayé) retains two allomorphs: Ʃgo and Ʃgoyŏ- (before any elements in postposition, see Ham 1961: 27); I reconstruct PNJ *Ʃgo(໴-). The correspondence under examination also seems to be valid word-medially: PCerr *ੇ՝ѐyt՝ ‘tongue’ > PNJ *ੇ՝ѐt՝, PCJ *ੇ՝ѐyt՝. 3.3.5. Labial coda in Proto-Cerrado not followed by an echo vowel Stem-final */-m/ in Proto-Central Jê corresponds to -bƩšɍ/ɍ-mVÙ in Proto-Northern Jê (per nasality); I reconstruct PCerr *-bƩɍ/ɍ*-m for this correspondence. It is instantiated in the stems listed in (28). (28) a. b. c. d. e.

Proto-Cerrado stems in *-bƩɍ/ɍ*-m PCerr *pೋઇѐm ‘hungry’ > PNJ *pೋઇѐmઇѐแ, PCJ *mೋƕѐm // *mೋƕѐ; PCerr *tՄѐɍ/ɍ*tՄѐ-m ‘to go.SG’ > PNJ *tՄѐɍ/ɍ*tՄѐ-m, PCJ *nՄѐ-m // *nՄѐ ‘to go.DU’; PCerr *tubƩ ‘old, tall (?)’ > PNJ *tƅmuѐแ, PCJ *dub // du ‘tall’, *dub-kೋata // *dub-kೋa෨da ‘elder sibling’; PCerr *yobƩ ‘to grind’ > PNJ *໵obƩ ‘flour, powder’, PCJ *Ɣum // *Ɣu; PCerr *tઇbƩ ‘new’ > PNJ *tઇbƩš ‘raw’, PCJ *tՄm // *tՄ, etc.

The utterance-internal allomorph of PCJ *kumdƕ (< PCerr *kubƩtՓbƩ ‘capybara’, cf. PNJ *kƅmtՓѐmՓѐแ) is unattested, but the predicted form is *kumdƕm. 3.3.6. Complex codas in Proto-Cerrado In a number of stems, PNJ *-ೋVÙ or *-ೋ correspond to PCJ *-bೋVɍ/ɍ*-mೋV. I tentatively reconstruct PCerr *-PೋVի for these cases. Some examples are provided in (29) below.

(29) a. b. c. d. e.

PCerr *-PೋVแ and its reflexes PCerr *yઇɍ/ɍ*yઇ-Pೋઇแ ‘to enter.SG’ > PNJ *໵ઇɍ/ɍ*໵ઇ-ೋ, PCJ *ƔՄɍ/ɍ*ƔՄ-bೋՄ; PCerr *ੇՓѐɍ/ɍ*ੇՓѐ-PೋՓѐแ ‘to sit.SG’ > PNJ *ੇՓѐ / *ੇՓѐ-ೋ, PCJ *ੇƕѐ-mೋƕѐ (finite: 2SG *ay=cƕѐ); PCerr *n՝ѐɍ/ɍ*n՝ѐ-Pೋ՝ѐแ ‘to lie.SG’ > PNJ *n՝ѐɍ/ɍ*n՝ѐ-ೋ, PCJ *n՝ѐɍ/ɍ*n՝ѐ-mೋ՝ѐ; PCerr *yuPೋƆ ‘pus’ > PNJ *໵u ~ *໵uೋƆ, PCJ *Ɣubೋuy; PCerr *ka=t՝ɍ/ɍ*ka=t՝-Pೋ՝แ ‘to leave, to go out’ > PNJ *ka=t՝ɍ/ɍ*ka=t՝-ೋ ‘to leave, to go out, to be born’, PCJ *wa=t՝ɍ/ɍ*wa=t՝-bೋ՝, etc.

It is possible that PCJ *t՝bೋ՝ ‘to get down (Xavánte), to cross a body of water (Xerénte)’ and PCJ *cebೋe ‘to roast (Xavánte), to become soft, cooked (Xerénte)’ are related to PNJ *t՝ɍ/ɍ*t՝-ೋ ‘to fly, to dance’ and *gaɍ/ɍ*໵ઇ-ೋ ‘to roast’, but this is far from certain. I have no explanation for Central Jê non-finite forms in *-mೋŠ, like PCJ *cƕѐɍ/ɍ*cƕѐ-mೋŠ ‘to find’, *c՝ѐɍ/ɍ*c՝ѐ-mೋŠ ‘to give’, *cac՝ѐɍ/ ɍ*cac՝ѐ-mೋŠ ‘to hang’, *cŠɍ/ɍ*cŠ-mೋŠ ‘to seize, to shoot’, *n՝ѐɍ/ɍ*n՝ѐ-mೋŠ ‘to lay.DU’, *ੇƕѐɍ/ɍ*ੇƕѐ-mೋŠ ‘to weave’. These verbs must be accounted for by future research. Yet another possible instance of a complex coda in Proto-Cerrado is suggested by a handful of verbs that have two different forms in Proto-Central Jê: a form in *-kVի and a form in *-ೋVի (cf. PCJ *t՝=p՝-k՝ɍ/ɍ*t՝=p՝-ೋ՝ ‘to open one’s eyes, to wake up’; *pu-kuɍ/ɍ*pu-ೋu ‘to pierce’, *dƕkƕɎ// *dƕɏ/ɍ*dƕೋƕɎ//Ɍ*dƕ෨ೋƕ ‘to die’, *waptƕѐ-kƕѐɍ/ɍwaptƕѐ-ೋƕѐ ‘to fall, to be born.SG/DU’, etc.). The syntactic distri168

A phonological reconstruction of Proto-Cerrado (Jê family)ɏ

bution of these forms is not fully explored. I abstain from reconstructing Proto-Cerrado forms in *-kೋVի for the verbs that feature the phenomenon in question, but such a solution remains a possibility. 3.3.7. Other possible codas in Proto-Cerrado PCerr *d also seems to have occurred in coda position, but only two examples have been identified so far; these are listed in (30). (30)

Evidence for reconstructing PCerr *-dVแ a. PCerr *wઇdઇแ ‘tree’ > PNJ *bઇೋઇแ, PCJ *wede // *we෨de; b. PCerr *yad-kwa ‘mouth’ > PNJ *yaೋ-kwa, PCJ *Ɣada-wa.

I was unable to identify regular PCJ correspondences of the PNJ codas *-໴š, *-dƩ(š), *-໵Ʃ(š), *-nVի due to the scarcity of available examples. I provisionally project these PNJ codas to ProtoCerrado, but a better solution is likely to be possible. Some examples are provided in (31). (31) a. b. c. d. e. f.

Tentatively reconstructed Proto-Cerrado codas PCerr *ƩbՄ໴Մแ ‘good’ > PNJ *ƩbՄ໴š, PCJ *pece // *pe; PCerr *tถ໴ถแ ‘hard, strong’ > PNJ *tถ໴š, PCJ *tete // te෨de; PCerr *kyeɍ/ɍ*kye-dƩ > PNJ *kyeɍ/ɍ*kye-dƩ ‘to drag, to pull’, PCJ *caɍ/ɍ*ca-ೋi; PCerr *Ʃgyeɍ/ɍ*Ʃgye-໵Ʃ ‘to enter.PL’ > PNJ *Ʃgiyňɍ/ɍ*Ʃgye-໵Ʃ, PCJ *Ɣaɍ/ɍ*Ɣa-ci ‘to enter.DU’; PCerr *ੇՓѐnՓѐแ ‘guts, faeces’ > PNJ *ੇŠniѐแ, PCJ *ੇƕѐnƕѐ ‘faeces’; PCerr *yઇ໵Ʃઇแ ‘sweet’ > PNJ *໵ઇ໵Ʃš, PCJ *Ɣey // *Ɣe, etc.

Yet another problematic correspondence is found in PNJ *pೋ՝ѐt՝ѐแ ‘to run’ ~ PCJ *ay=ca=mೋõyɌ// *ay=ca=mೋõ ‘to run.DU’, if only this comparison is valid. 3.3.8. Notes on echo vowels The phenomenon of echo vowels, reconstructed by me for Proto-Northern Jê (Nikulin 2016b: 169, 182), undoubtedly existed in Proto-Cerrado. However, certain particularities of its realization reconstructible for Proto-Northern Jê might have not existed in Proto-Cerrado. For instance, the height dissimilation after the nucleus *a seems to be a PNJ innovation, since in PCJ a copy of the nucleus appears in the echo vowel position (cf. PCerr *paೋň ‘foot’ > PNJ *paೋš, PCJ *paೋa // *pa෨ೋa, PCerr *kೋatň ‘base’ > PNJ *kೋatš ‘base, stem, lower part of the body’, PCJ *kೋata // *kೋa෨da ‘base, beginning; near; grandparent’; PCerr *kakň ‘to cough’ > PNJ *kakš, PCJ *kaka, etc.). The presence of the echo-vowel *-š after palatal and post-nasalized codas in Proto-Northern Jê also appears to be innovative. That way, in my reconstruction Proto-Cerrado echo vowels were always identical to the nucleus. Note that the suppression of the echo vowels in the non-finite forms of the verbs can be securely reconstructed to Proto-Cerrado. In Proto-Central Jê, PCerr *-ೋ yielded *-ೋiɍ/ɍ*-ೋŠ (according to the nasality of the nucleus). In Proto-Northern Jê, the contrast between PCerr *-ೋVի and *-ೋ seems to have been retained, though it has been deteriorated in most modern Northern Jê languages (see Nikulin 2016b: 182 for traces of this contrast). 3.3.9. Unexpected nasalization in Proto-Central Jê A number of Central Jê stems exhibit an unexpected nasalization of the stem vowel. They are listed in (32) below. 169

Andrey Nikulin

(32) a. b. c. d. e.

Unexpected nasalization in Proto-Central Jê PCerr *ೋՄ ‘to leave’ > PNJ *ೋՄ, PCJ *ೋՄѐɍ/ɍ*ೋՄѐ-mՄѐ ‘to leave.SG’; PCerr *Ʃday ‘rain’ > PNJ *Ʃda, PCJ *tƕѐy // *tƕѐ; PCerr *tuɍ/ɍ*tu-ೋ ‘to urinate’ > PNJ *tuɍ/ɍ*tu-ೋ, PCJ *t՝ѐɍ/ɍ*t՝ѐ-ೋŠ; PCerr *paɍ/ɍ*pa-ೋ ‘to kill’ > PNJ *paɍ/ɍ*pa-ೋ, PCJ *pƕѐɍ/ɍ*pƕѐ-ೋŠ ‘to kill.DU’; PCerr *ƩgೋՄɍ/ɍ*ƩgೋՄ-ೋ ‘to sing, to dance’ > PNJ *ƩgೋՄɍ/ɍ*ƩgೋՄ-ೋ, PCJ *ay=kೋՄѐ / *ay=kೋՄѐ-nՄѐ ‘to dance.SG’.

Note that this nasalization cannot have preceded the occlusive merger (see subsection 3.1.1); otherwise, nasal occlusives would have been expected in 32b–d. Moreover, it cannot be easily explained away as a sporadic process postdating the occlusive merger: in this case PCJ **n՝ѐɍ/ɍ**n՝ѐ-ೋŠ ‘to urinate’ (< **duɍ/ɍ**du-ೋi) would be the expected form. Presently I have no explanation for this correspondence.

4. Cerrado etymologies This section contains the cognate sets upon which the observations made in this paper are based. PCerr *aƩgઇ ‘sedge seed’ > PNJ *aƩgઇ (API aƩgઇ, KAY aƖઇ, TIM akઇ, PNR nઇѐƩkઇ), PCJ *akՄ (XAV ԸaԸՄ, XER akՄ); PCerr *Ʃba ‘liver’ > PNJ *Ʃba (API Ʃba, KAY ma, SUY, TAP Ʃba, TIM paɏ/ɏ=mpa, PNR ŠƩpa), PCJ *pa (XAV, XER pa); PCerr *Ʃbaɏ/ɏ*Ʃba-ೋ ‘to hear, to listen’ > PNJ *Ʃbaɏ/ɏ*Ʃba-ೋ ‘to hear, to know, to listen’ (API Ʃbaɏ/ɏƩba-ೋ, KAY maɏ/ɏma-ೋš, TIM paɏ/ɏpa-ೋɏ/ɏ=mpaɏ/ɏ=mpa-ೋ, SUY Ʃbaɏ/ɏƩba-y, TAP Ʃbaɏ/ɏba-y, PNR iƩpa-ೋš), PCJ *wa=paɏ/ɏ*wa=pa-ೋi ‘to hear, to listen, to obey’ (XAV wa=paɏ/ɏwa=pa-ೋi, XER wa=paɏ/ɏwa=pa-ೋi ~ wa=pa-ೋ); PCerr *Ʃba ‘afraid’ > PNJ *=Ʃba (API Ʃba, KAY =ma, SUY =Ʃba, TAP Ʃba, TIM pa, PNR yƅ=paƖ), PCJ *pa-hi (XAV pa-hi, xER pa-hi), PCJ *pi=pa (XAV pi=pa, xER pi=pa); PCerr *ƩbՄ໴Մแ ‘good’ > PNJ *ƩbՄ໴š (API ƩbՄŏ, KAY mՄŏ, SUY ƩbՄೋš, TAP ƩbՄy-, TIM pՄy, PNR ŠƩpՄ), PCJ *pece // *pe (XAV pece // pe ‘well; to recover, to get better’, XER peೞe // pe ‘good, beautiful’); PCerr *Ʃbถɏ/ɏ*Ʃbถ-໵Ʃ ‘to carry’ > PNJ *Ʃbถɏ/ɏ*Ʃbถ-໵Ʃ ‘to carry’ (API Ʃbถɏ/ɏƩbถ-y໵Ʃ ~ Ʃbถ-ೋ, KAY mถɏ/ mถ-y໵Ʃ ‘to grab’, TIM pถɏ/ɏpถ-dƩ, SUY Ʃbถɏ/ɏƩbถ-dƩš ‘to grab’, (?) PNR ŠƩpՓ-ೋš), PCJ *kwa=pՄ ‘to carry.DU’ (XAV Ըwa=pՄ, XER kwa=pՄ); PCerr *ƩbՓtՓแ ‘sun’ > PNJ *ƩbՓtՓแ ‘sun’ (API ƩbՓt, KAY mՓt, SUY, TAP ƩbՓೋՓแ, TIM pՓt, PNR ŠƩpՓtš), *ƩbՓtೋwถ ‘moon’ (API ƩbՓt-vೋถ, KAY mՓtՓ-ೋwถ, SUY ƩbՓt-ೡwถ, TIM pՓt-wೋถ), PCJ *bƕtƕ // *bƕ෨dƕ ‘sun, day’ (XAV bƕtƕ // bƕ෨dƕ ‘sun, day, hour’, XER bdƕ ‘sun, day, god’); PCerr *ƩbՓnՓแ ‘tail, penis; man’ > PNJ *ƩbՓ (API ya=ƩbՓ ‘tail’, ƩbՓ ‘man’, KAY ya=mՓ ‘tail’, mՓ ‘man’, SUY ƩbՓ ‘tail, penis’, mՄѐ=ƩbՓ-ye ‘man’, TAP ƩbՓ, TIM ya=pՓ ‘tail’, mpՓ ‘man’, PNR yઇѐ=ƩpՓ ‘tail’, iƩpՓ ‘man’), PCJ *mƕѐnƕѐ // *bƕ ‘tail, penis’ (XAV mƕѐnƕѐ // bƕ, XER mnƕѐ // bƕ ‘tail’), *ay=bƕ ‘man’ (XAV Ըay=bƕ, XER am=bƕ); PCerr *ƩboƖų ‘lake’ > PNJ *໴=i=Ʃbo (API Ը=i=Ʃbo, KAY i=Ʃbo, TIM h=i=po, h=Š෨=po), PCJ *puku // *pu (XAV puԸu // pu ‘lake with a spring’, XER pku); PCerr *Ʃbೋ՝ ‘ashes’ > PNJ *Ʃbೋ՝ (API Ʃbೋ՝, KAY mೋ՝, TIM pೋ՝), PCJ *wede=pೋ՝ ‘coal’ (XAV wede=pೋ՝ ‘coal; coffee’, XER wde=pೋ՝ ‘coal; coffee; sawdust’), *kƕ=Ɣay=pೋ՝ ‘foam; beer’ (XAV Ըƕ=Ɣay=pೋ՝, XER kƕ=೟aŠ=pೋ՝ ~ kƕ=೟am=pೋ՝), *Ɣaday=pೋ՝ ‘saliva’ (XAV Ɣaday=pೋ՝, XER ೟daŠ=pೋ՝ ‘saliva’), (?) *pೋ՝ ‘to burn’ (XER pೋ՝); PCerr *ƩbutƆ ‘neck’ > PNJ *ƩbutƆ (API Ʃbut, KAY mut, SUY ƩbuೋƆ, TAP mƅೋuѐ,แ Ʃbu-ti ~ mƅ-ti, TIM put, PNR iƩputš ‘nape’), PCJ *butu // *bu෨du (XAV butu // bu෨du, XER bdu); 170

A phonological reconstruction of Proto-Cerrado (Jê family)ɏ

PCerr *=Ʃbuy ‘to see’ > PNJ *=puɏ/ɏ*=pu-໵Ʃ (API =Ʃbuɏ/ɏ=Ʃbu-y໵Ʃ, KAY mƅɏ/ɏmƅ-yੇ, SUY =Ʃbu, TAP mƅ, TIM =pu /=pu-dƩ, PNR puƖ ~ pƅɏ/ɏ=ƩpuƖ ~ =Ʃpƅ), PCJ *Ɣa=buy // *Ɣa=bu (XAV Ɣa=buy // *Ɣa=bu, XER ೟a=bu), *pi=buy // *pi=bu (XAV pi=buy // pi=bu ‘to know how to, to control, to care, to observe, to tame’), XER pi=bu ‘to observe, to visit’); PCerr *Ʃday ‘rain’ > PNJ *Ʃda (API Ʃda, KAY na, SUY, TAP Ʃda, TIM ta, PNR iƩta), PCJ *tƕѐy // *tƕѐ (XAV, XER tƕѐy // tƕѐ); PCerr *Ʃd՝m՝แ ‘eye’ > PNJ *Ʃd՝(p-) (API Ʃd՝(p-), KAY n՝, SUY, TAP Ʃd՝, TIM t՝ɏ/ɏ=nt՝, PNR ŠƩt՝), PCJ *t՝ѐm՝ѐɏ/ɏ*t՝ (XAV t՝ѐm՝ѐɏ/ɏt՝, XER tmõɏ/ɏt՝); PCerr *Ʃ໵aɏ/ɏ*Ʃ໵a-ೋ ‘to bite’ > PNJ *Ʃ໵aɏ/ɏ*Ʃ໵a-ೋ (API ़aɏ/ɏ़a-ೋ, KAY ੇãɏ/ɏੇã-yੇ, SUY, TAP Ʃta, TIM caɏ/ɏca-ೋɏ/ɏ=ncaɏ/ɏ=nca-ೋ, PNR iƩsaɏ/ɏiƩsa-ೋš), PCJ *caɏ/ɏ*ca-ೋi (XAV caɏ/ɏca-ೋi, XER ೞaɏ/ɏೞa-ೋi ~ ೞa-ೋ); PCerr *Ʃ໵Փ ‘bee’, *am=Ʃ໵Փ ‘bee sp.’ > PNJ (API Ʃ़Փ, TAP ƩbՄy=tՓ), *am=Ʃ໵Փ (API am=Ʃ़Փ, KAY am=yՓ, TIM am=cՓ), PCJ *am=Ɣƕ (XAV ab=Ɣƕ ‘bee sp. (Tetragona clavipes)’, XER am=೟ƕ ‘Brazilian wasp (Protonectarina sylveirae)’); PCerr *Ʃgઇ ‘men’s house’ > PNJ *Ʃgઇ ‘men’s house, courtyard’ (API Ʃgઇ(p-), KAY Ɩઇ, SUY, TAP Ʃgઇ, TIM kઇ), PCJ *hƕ ‘young men’s house’ (XAV hƕ); PCerr *Ʃgo ‘louse’ > PNJ *Ʃgo (API Ʃgo, TAP Ʃgo, TIM koɏ/ɏ=Ɩko, PNR kyઇѐ=ko), PCJ *ku (XAV Ըu); PCerr *Ʃgoy ‘water’ > PNJ *Ʃgo(໴-) (API Ʃgo(yŏ-), KAY Ɩo, SUY, TAP Ʃgo, TIM ko, PNR iƩko), PCJ *kuy // *ku ‘still water’ (XAV Ըuy // Ըu, XER kuy-); PCerr *Ʃg՝y ‘wet, to soak’ > PNJ *Ʃg՝ (API Ʃg՝, KAY Ɩ՝, SUY Ʃg՝, TAP Ʃg՝ ~ Ʃgo, TIM k՝, PNR k՝w), PCJ *k՝y // *k՝ (XER k՝y // k՝); PCerr *ƩgೋՄ ‘egg, testicle’ > PNJ *ƩgೋՄ (API ƩgೋՄ, KAY ƖೋՄ, SUY Ʃg್Մ, TAP ƩgնՄ, TIM kೋՄɏ/ɏ=ƖkೋՄ, PNR iƩkೋՄ), PCJ *kೋe ‘egg’ (XAV Ըೋe, XER kೋe); PCerr *ƩgೋՄɏ/ɏ*ƩgೋՄ-ೋ ‘to sing, to dance’ > PNJ *ƩgೋՄɏ/ɏ*ƩgೋՄ-ೋ (API ƩgೋՄɏ/ɏƩgೋՄ-ೋ, KAY ƖೋՄɏ/ɏƖೋՄ-ೋՄแ ‘to sing’, SUY ƩgՄ-ೡՄแ, TAP ƩgնՄɏ/ɏƩgՄ-ೋՄแ, TIM kೋՄ), PCJ *ay=kೋՄѐɏ/ɏ*ay=kೋՄѐ-nՄѐ ‘to dance.SG’ (XAV ay=ԸೋՄѐɏ/ɏay=ԸೋՄѐ-nՄѐ); PCerr *Ʃgೋઇ ‘dry’ > PNJ *Ʃgೋઇ (API Ʃgೋઇ, KAY Ɩೋઇ, SUY Ʃg್ઇ, TAP Ʃgնઇ, TIM kೋઇɏ/ɏ=Ɩkೋઇ), PCJ *kೋՄ (XAV ԸೋՄ, XER kೋՄ); PCerr *ƩgೋՓkՓแ ‘angry, upset’ > PNJ *ƩgೋՓkՓแ ‘angry’ (API ƩgೋՓkՓแ, KAY ƖೋՓk, SUY Ʃg್ՓkՓแ, TIM kೋՓkɏ/ɏ=ƖkೋՓk, PNR ŠƩkyՓ), PCJ *hƕkƕ (XAV hƕkƕ); PCerr *Ʃgೋ՝ ‘to heat’, *ka=Ʃgೋ՝ ‘hot, fever’ > PNJ *Ʃgೋ՝ (API Ʃgೋ՝ ‘to bake’, KAY am=Ɩೋ՝ ‘heat’, SUY Ʃg್՝, TIM kೋ՝), *ka=Ʃgೋ՝ ‘hot, fever’ (API ka=Ʃgೋ՝, KAY ka=Ɩೋ՝, SUY k(վ)a=Ʃg್՝ ‘warm; to burn’, TAP ka=Ʃgն՝, TIM ka=kೋ՝, PNR nઇѐ=ky՝), PCJ *kೋ՝ (XAV ೋ՝෨=Ըೋ՝ ‘the end of the dry season’, XER hƕԶ=kೋ՝ ~ heԶ=kೋ՝ ‘to warm up by the fire’), *wa෨=kೋ՝ ‘hot, fever’ (XAV wa෨=Ըೋ՝, XER wa=kೋ՝); PCerr *Ʃgyeɏ/ɏ*Ʃgye-໵Ʃ ‘to enter.PL’ > PNJ *Ʃgiyňɏ/ɏ*Ʃgye-໵Ʃ ‘to enter.PL, to put into a deep container.PL’ (API Ʃgyeɏ/ɏƩgye-y໵Ʃ, ya=Ʃgye, KAY Ɩiyƕแɏ/ɏƖye-y໵Ʃ, ya=Ɩye-y, SUY Ɩyeɏ/ɏƖye-ೡŔ, TIM a=kye-y), PCJ *Ɣaɏ/ɏ*Ɣa-ci ‘to enter.DU’ (non-alternating Ɣ) (XAV Ɣaɏ/ɏƔa-ci, XER ೟a-ೞi ~ ೟a-ೞ); PCerr *ka ‘white’ > PNJ *ya=ka (API, KAY, SUY, TAP ya=ka, TIM ya=kվa), PCJ *ka (XAV Ըa, XER ka); PCerr *kaƩbೋoy ‘blood’ > PNJ *kaƩbೋo ‘blood, menstruation’ (API kaƩbೋo, KAY kamೋo ~ kamೋõ, SUY kaƩbೡo, TAP kanೋ՝, TIM kapೋo, PNR nઇѐ=pyu), PCJ *wa෨pೋuy // *wa෨pೋu (XAV wa෨pೋuy // wa෨pೋu, XER wapೋu); PCerr *kaƩ໵e ‘star’ > PNJ *kaƩ໵e (API kaƩ़e, KAY kaੇe-ti-ೋՄ, SUY kaƩte-ŏi, TAP kaƩte-ŏi ~ kaƩde-ŏi, TIM kace-ೋՄi, PNR nઇѐsՓ-ti ~ nઇѐsu-ti), PCJ *wa෨ci (XAV wa෨ci, XER waೞi); PCerr *kaƩga ‘lazy’ > PNJ *kaƩga, *໵u=kaƩga ‘lazy, to give up, to refuse’ (API kaƩga, KAY kaƖa, ़u=kaƖa, SUY kaƩga, TAP tu=੊ѐƩga, TIM kaka ‘to leave alone’, PNR sw=aƩka), PCJ *wa෨ka (XAV wa෨Ըa, XER waka); PCerr *kakŊ ‘to cough’ > PNJ *kakţ (API kakŊ, TIM k֣ak), PCJ *kaka (XAV ՈaՈa, XER kka); PCerr *kaೋ՝ѐ ‘shadow, spirit’ > PNJ *kaೋ՝ѐ ‘shadow, spirit, image’ (API kaೋ՝ѐ, KAY, TAP kaೋõ ‘image’, TIM kaೋ՝ѐ), PCJ *wa෨ೋ՝ѐ (XAV hƕy=ba=wa෨ೋ՝ѐ ‘dead body’); 171

Andrey Nikulin

PCerr *ka=t՝ɏ/ɏ*ka=t՝-Pೋ՝แ ‘to leave, to go out’ > PNJ *ka=t՝ɏ/ɏ*ka=t՝-ೋ ‘to leave, to go out, to appear, to be born’ (API ka=t՝ɏ/ɏka=t՝-ೋ, KAY ka=t՝ɏ/ɏka=t՝-ೋ՝แ, SUY ka=tվ՝ɏ/ɏka=tվ՝-ೡ՝แ, TAP ka=ඃ՝ɏ/ɏka=ඃ՝-ೋ՝แ, TIM ka=t՝ɏ/ɏka=t՝-ೋ), PCJ *wa=t՝ɏ/ɏ*wa=t՝-bೋ՝ (XAV wa=t՝ɏ/ɏwa=t՝-bೋ՝, XER wa=t՝-bೋ՝ ~ wa=t՝-bೋ ~ wa=t-bೋ՝); PCerr *kat՝ѐk՝ѐแ ‘to explode, to pop, to shoot’ > PNJ *kat՝ѐk՝ѐแ ‘firearm, to explode, to pop’ (API kat՝ѐƩk՝ѐแ, KAY kat՝ѐƩk, SUY kat՝ѐƖ՝ѐแ, TIM kat՝ѐk, PNR at՝ѐ-sՓ ‘bullet’), PCJ *wan՝ѐk՝ѐ ‘to explode, to attack’ (XAV wan՝ѐԸ՝ѐ, XER wanõkõ); PCerr *kՄѐtՄѐแ ‘stone’ > PNJ *kՄѐnՄѐแ (API kՄѐnՄѐ,แ KAY kӼn, SUY kվՄѐnՄѐ,แ TAP kӼneѐแ, TIM kվՄѐn, PNR kŠՄѐy), PCJ *kՄѐtՄѐ // *kՄѐ෨nՄѐ (XAV ԸՄѐtՄѐ // ԸՄѐ෨nՄѐ, XER ktӼ // knӼ); PCerr *kઇɏ/ɏ*kઇ-ೋ ‘to shout’ > PNJ *kઇɏ/ɏ*kઇ-ೋ ‘to sing (of birds)’ (API kઇɏ/ɏkઇ-ೋ, KAY kઇɏ/ɏkઇ-ೋઇแ, TIM kվઇ), PCJ *hƕɏ/ɏ*hƕ-ೋƕ (XAV hƕɏ/ɏhƕ-ೋƕ, XER hƕɏ/ɏhƕ-ೋƕ ~ hƕ-ೋ ~ h-ೋƕ); PCerr *kઇy ‘skin, bark, breast’ > PNJ *kઇ (API, KAY kઇ, SUY kվઇ, TAP kઇ, TIM kվઇ, PNR kઇ ‘skin, bark’), PCJ *hƕy (XAV hƕ, XER hƕy ~ he // hƕ ‘body, skin, breast’), *hƕy-mƕѐnƕѐ // *hƕy-ba ‘being’ (XAV hƕymƕѐnƕѐ // hƕy-ba ‘to be, to behave; being, body’, XER hƕy-mba ~ he-mba ‘to exist; soul, body, image’); PCerr *kઇykwa ‘sky’ > PNJ *kVykwa (API katkwa, KAY kઇykwa, TAP kayk։a, TIM koykվwa), PCJ *hƕywa (XAV hƕywa, XER hƕywa ~ hewa); PCerr *kokų ‘wind’ > PNJ *kokų (API kokų, KAY kok, SUY kokų, TAP kogų, TIM kվok), PCJ *ೋ՝෨=wa=kuku // *ೋ՝෨=wa=ku (XAV ೋ՝෨=wa=ԸuԸu // ೋ՝෨=wa=Ըu, XER ೋ՝=wa=kku), *wa=kuku // *wa=ku ‘to blow (of wind) (XER wa=kku); PCerr *komų ‘cudgel; horn; patch of trees’ > PNJ *ko (API ko ‘cudgel; patch of trees’, KAY ko ‘cudgel; patch of trees’, SUY ko ‘cudgel’, TAP ko ‘cudgel’, TIM kվo), PCJ *k՝ѐm՝ѐ // *ku ‘horn’ (XAV Ը՝ѐm՝ѐ // Ըu, XER kmõ // ku); PCerr *kopų ‘fly’ > PNJ *kopų (API kop-ti, kop-ೋՄ, TAP kowų, TIM kվop), PCJ *kupu // *ku෨bu (XAV Ըupu // Ըu෨bu, XER kpu // kbu); PCerr *k՝t՝แ ‘cicada’ > PNJ *(k՝)k՝t՝แ (API k՝(Ը)k՝t-lՄ, TIM k՝(Ը)kվ՝t, (?) kվ՝ೋ), PCJ *k՝t՝ // *k՝෨d՝ (XAV Ը՝t՝ // Ը՝෨d՝, XER kd՝ ~ kೋd՝); PCerr *kೋa ‘offspring’ > PNJ *kೋa (API, KAY kೋa, SUY k(վ)ೋa, TAP kΠa, TIM kվೋa), PCJ *kೋa෨ // *kೋa (XAV Ըೋa෨ // Ըೋa, XER kೋa); PCerr *kೋatň ‘base’ > PNJ *kೋatš ‘base, stem, beginning; lower part of the body’ (API kೋatň ‘waist, leg, beginning, medial part of a long object’, kೋayŏ ‘wall, stem, stalk’, KAY kೋayŏ ‘trunk, stump, pelvis’, SUY kվ್aೋš ‘beginning’, TIM kվೋat, PNR kyatš ‘waist’), PCJ *kೋata // *kೋa෨da ‘base, beginning; near; grandparent’ (XAV Ըೋata // Ըೋa෨da, XER kೋata // kೋda ‘previous, old; near’); PCerr *kೋՄ ‘to plant’ > PNJ *kೋՄ (API, KAY kೋՄ, SUY kվ್Մ, TIM kվೋՄ ‘to dig, to plant’, PNR kೋՄ), PCJ *kೋe (XAV Ըೋe, XER kೋe); PCerr *kೋՄ ‘orifice, hole’ > PNJ *kೋՄ (API, KAY kೋՄ, TAP kΠՄ, TIM kվೋՄ, PNR kೋՄ), PCJ *am=kೋe ‘hole, pit, tomb’ (XAV ab=Ըೋe, XER ap=kೋe), *kೋe ‘vagina, anus’ (XAV Ըೋe, XER kೋe ‘vagina’); PCerr *kೋՄѐ ‘parakeet’ > PNJ *kೋՄѐ (API kೋՄѐ-ti, kೋՄѐ-ೋՄ, SUY kՄѐ, TAP kΠӼ, TIM kվೋՄѐ-ೋՄ), PCJ *kೋՄѐ (XAV ԸೋՄѐ-ೋe, XER kೋӼ); PCerr *kೋՄѐɏ/ɏ*kೋՄѐ-ೋ ~ *kೋՄѐ-nՄѐแ ‘to eat’ > PNJ *kೋՄѐɏ/ɏ*kೋՄѐ-ೋ (API kೋՄѐɏ/ɏkೋՄѐ-ೋ ‘to eat, to swallow’, KAY kೋӼɏ/ kೋӼ-n, SUY kվ್Մѐɏ/ɏkվ್Մѐ-nՄѐ,แ TAP kΠӼɏ/ɏkӼ-ೋeѐแ, TIM kվೋՄѐɏ/ɏkվೋՄѐ-ೋ, PNR kೋՄѐ), PCJ *kೋՄѐɏ/ɏ*kೋՄѐ-nՄѐ (XAV ԸೋՄѐɏ/ɏԸೋՄѐ-nՄѐ, XER kೋӼɏ/ɏkೋӼ-nӼ); PCerr *kೋઇѐ ‘dark, cloud’ > PNJ *kೋઇѐ (PNR ೋઇѐ=kyઇѐɏ/ɏya=kyઇѐ), *ka=kೋઇѐ ‘dark cloud’ (API kaԸ=kೋઇѐ, KAY ka=kೋઇѐ, TIM ka=kվೋઇѐ), PCJ *kೋƕѐ (XAV Ɣa=Ըೋƕѐ ‘darkness’, tƕѐ=Ɣa=Ըೋƕѐ ‘rain cloud’, Ըೋƕѐ=dƕԸƕɏ/ɏԸೋƕѐ=dƕ ‘black, dark’, XER kೋƕѐ ‘black (in compounds)’, aynƕѐ=ka=kೋƕѐ ‘rain cloud’); PCerr *kೋઇѐy ‘head’ > PNJ *kೋઇѐ (API, KAY, SUY kೋઇѐ, TAP kΠ੊ѐ, TIM kվೋઇѐ, PNR iyઇѐ), PCJ *kೋƕѐy // *kೋƕѐ ‘head, fruit’ (XAV Ըೋƕѐy // Ըೋƕѐ, XER kೋƕѐy // kೋƕѐ); PCerr *kೋitš ‘grasshopper’ > PNJ *kೋitš (API kೋitš, TAP k(Π)it-ŏi, ki-ೋՄ), PCJ *kೋiti // *kೋi෨di (XAV Ըೋiti // Ըೋi෨di, XER kೋti // kೋdi ‘grasshopper sp. (likely Tropidacris cristata));

172

A phonological reconstruction of Proto-Cerrado (Jê family)ɏ

PCerr *kೋՓ ‘cold’ > PNJ *kೋՓ (API, KAY kೋՓ, SUY kվ್Փ, TAP kΠՓ, TIM kվೋՓ, PNR kyՓ), PCJ *hƕ (XAV, XER hƕ); PCerr *kೋՓtՓแ ‘flint, firestone; metal’ > PNJ *kೋՓtՓแ (API kೋՓtՓแ ‘flint; to attack’, SUY k್ՓೋՓแ ‘metal’, k್Փt-ŏi ‘ax’, k್Փt-twa ‘fishhook’, k್Փt-ho ‘big knife’), PCJ *hƕtƕ // *hƕ෨dƕ (XAV hƕdƕ-ೋa ‘ax’, XER hdƕ); PCerr *kೋ՝y ‘rotten’ > PNJ *kೋ՝ (API, KAY kೋ՝, TIM kվೋ՝), PCJ *kೋ՝y // *kೋ՝ (XAV Ըೋ՝y // Ըೋ՝, XER kೋ՝y // kೋ՝); PCerr *kubƩtՓbƩ ‘capybara’ > PNJ *kƅmtՓѐmՓѐแ (KAY kunƅm, SUY kutƅmuѐ,แ TAP koඃƅnuѐแ ~ koඃƅwuѐแ, TIM kƅmtƅm, PNR intՓƖ), PCJ *kumdƕ (XAV Ըubdƕ, XER kumdƕ); PCerr *kukೋՓtՓแ ‘tapir’ > PNJ *kukೋՓtՓแ (API ku(Ը)kೋՓt, KAY kukೋՓt, SUY k(վ)uk(վ)್ՓೋՓแ, TAP kukΠՓೋՓแ, TIM kukվೋՓt, PNR (i)kyՓtš), PCJ *kutƕ // *kuhƕ෨dƕ (XAV Ըutƕ // Ըuhƕ෨dƕ, XER ktƕ // kdƕ); PCerr *kupe ‘to touch, to move’ > PNJ *kupe (API kupeɏ/ɏkupe-y໵Ʃ, TIM kupeɏ/ɏkupe-dƩ ‘to touch lightly; to reproach’), PCJ *kupi (XAV Ըupi, XER kupi ‘to touch’); PCerr *kupu ‘to wrap’ > PNJ *kupu (API, KAY, TIM kupu), PCJ *kubu ‘to cover’ (XAV Ըubu); PCerr *kuೋถ ‘smooth’ > PNJ *kuೋถ (TIM kuೋถ), PCJ *kuೋՄ (XAV ԸuೋՄ, XER kuೋՄ); PCerr *ku໴ՓmՓแ ‘fire’ > PNJ *ku໴Փ (API kuvՓ, KAY kuwՓ, SUY kwisՓ, TAP kutՓ, TIM kuhՓ, PNR isՓ), PCJ *kuੇƕѐmƕѐ // *kuƔƕ (XAV Ըuੇƕѐmƕѐ // ԸuƔƕ, XER kunmƕѐ // ku೟ƕ); PCerr *kuyถ ‘bad smell, to stink’ > PNJ *ku໵ถ (API kuŏถ, SUY, TAP kutถ, TIM kucถ), PCJ *kuƔՄ (XAV ԸuƔՄ, XER ku೟Մ); PCerr *kVywa ‘salt’ > PNJ *ka໵wa (API kaŏwa, SUY kվatwa, TAP kat։a, TIM ka෨cwa), PCJ *kVkwa((?) XAV ԸŠԸwa-wa෨hƕ, XER kƕkwa-ೋƕѐ); PCerr *kwՓѐɏ/ɏ*kwՓѐ-ೋ ~ *kwՓѐ-ੇ ‘to hit, to strike’ > PNJ *kwՓѐɏ/ɏ*kwՓѐ-ੇ ~ *kwՓѐ-ೋ (API kwՓѐೋՓѐแ, at=kwՓѐೋՓѐแ ~ at=kwՓѐɏ/ɏpi=kwՓѐ-yੇ ‘to break long objects’, SUY ku=kwՓѐ, TIM kwŠɏ/ɏkwŠ-n, PNR kwՓѐ), PCJ *kwƕѐɏ/ɏ*kwƕѐ-ೋŠ ‘to chop’ (XER kwƕѐɏ/ɏkwƕѐ-ೋŠ ~ kwƕѐ-ೋ); PCerr *kyeɏ/ɏ*kye-dƩ ‘to drag, to pull’ > PNJ *kyeɏ/ɏ*kye-dƩ (API kžeɏ/ɏkže-dƩ, KAY kyeɏ/ɏkye-dƩ, TIM kվyeɏ/ɏkվye-dƩ, (?) PNR kೋઇ-ೋš), PCJ *caɏ/ɏ*ca-ೋi (XAV caɏ/ɏca-ೋi); PCerr *kyey ‘thigh’ > PNJ *kye (API kže, KAY kye, TAP ŏe, TIM kվye), PCJ *Ɣay // *Ɣa (nonalternating *Ɣ) (XAV Ɣay // Ɣa, XER ೟da); PCerr *mՄѐy ‘to throw.SG’ > PNJ *mՄѐɏ/ɏ*mՄѐ-ੇ (API mՄѐɏ/ɏmՄѐ-yੇ, KAY mӼɏ/ɏmӼ-yੇ, SUY mՄѐɏ/ɏmՄѐ-niѐแ, TAP mӼɏ/ɏmӼ-y ‘to give, to throw’, TIM mՄѐɏ/ɏmՄѐ-n), PCJ *mՄѐy // *mՄѐ (XAV mՄѐy // mՄѐ, XER mӼ); PCerr *mઇѐy ‘greater rhea’ > PNJ *mઇѐ (API mઇѐ-ti, TAP m੊ѐ-ŏi, TIM mƕѐ), PCJ *mƕѐy // *mƕѐ (XAV mƕѐy // mƕѐ, XER mƕѐ); PCerr *m՝ѐɏ/ɏ*m՝ѐ-ೋ ‘to go/come’ > PNJ *m՝ѐɏ/ɏ*m՝ѐ-ೋ (API m՝ѐɏ/ɏm՝ѐ-ೋ ‘to go/come.PL’, KAY mõɏ/ɏmõ-ೋõแ ‘to go/come.PL’, SUY m՝ѐɏ/ɏm՝ѐ-ೡ՝ѐแ ‘to go/come.PL’, TAP mõɏ/ɏmõ-ೋõแ ‘to go/come.PL’, TIM m՝ѐɏ/ɏm՝ѐ-ೋ, PNR m՝ѐ(w)ɏ/ɏm՝ѐ-ೋŠแ), PCJ *m՝ѐɏ/ɏ*m՝ѐ-ೋŠ ‘to go/come.SG’ (XAV m՝ѐɏ/ɏm՝ѐ-ೋŠ, XER mõ-ೋŠ); PCerr *nઇѐ ‘mother’ > PNJ *nઇѐ (API nઇѐ, KAY nã, SUY nઇѐ, PNR nઇѐ-pyઇ), PCJ *nƕѐ (XAV nƕѐ); PCerr *n՝ѐɏ/ɏ*n՝ѐ-Pೋ՝ѐแ ‘to lie.SG’ > PNJ *n՝ѐɏ/ɏ*n՝ѐ-ೋ (API n՝ѐɏ/ɏn՝ѐ-ೋ, KAY nõɏ/ɏnõ-ೋõแ, SUY n՝ѐɏ/ɏn՝ѐ-ೡ՝ѐแ, TAP nõ, TIM n՝ѐɏ/ɏn՝ѐ-n, PNR n՝ѐ), PCJ *n՝ѐɏ/ɏ*n՝ѐ-mೋ՝ѐ (XAV n՝ѐɏ/ɏn՝ѐ-mೋ՝ѐ, XER nõ-mೋõ ~ n-mೋõ ~ nõ-mೋ); PCerr *Ɩ՝ѐɏ/ɏ*ੇ՝ѐ-ೋ ‘to give’ > PNJ *Ɩ՝ѐɏ/ɏ*ੇ՝ѐ-ೋ (API Ɩ՝ѐɏ/ɏੇ՝ѐ-ೋ ~ ੇ՝ѐ-t, KAY Ɩբѐɏ/ɏੇõ-ೋõแ, SUY Ɩ՝ѐɏ/ɏੇ՝ѐ-ೡ՝ѐแ, TAP Ɩõ, TIM Ɩ՝ѐɏ/ɏy՝ѐ-ೋ, PNR s=՝ѐɏ/ɏy՝ѐ-ೋš), PCJ *c՝ѐɏ/ɏ*c՝ѐ-mೋŠ (XAV c՝ѐɏ/ɏc՝ѐ-mೋŠ ‘to give, to send’, XER ೞõɏ/ɏೞõ-mೋŠ ~ ೞõ-mೋ); PCerr *Ɩ՝ѐೋ՝ѐɏแ /ɏ*ੇ՝ѐt ‘to sleep’ > PNJ *Ɩ՝ѐೋ՝ѐɏแ /ɏ*ੇ՝ѐt (API Ɩ՝ѐೋ՝ѐแɏ/ɏੇ՝ѐt, KAY Ɩõೋõแɏ/ɏੇõt, SUY Ɩ՝ѐೋ՝ѐแɏ/ɏੇ՝ѐn՝ѐแ, TAP ੇõnoѐɏแ / ੇõೋoѐ,แ PNR s՝ѐtš), PCJ *ੇ՝ѐt՝ѐ // *ੇ՝ѐ෨n՝ѐ (finite: 2SG *ay=c՝ѐ) (XAV ੇ՝ѐt՝ѐ // ੇ՝ѐ෨n՝ѐ (finite: 2SG a=c՝ѐ), XER nõtõ ~ nõt); PCerr *ੇŠp=k՝p՝แ ‘nail, claw’ > PNJ *ੇŠp=k՝p՝แ (API ੇi(Ը)=k՝p՝แ, KAY ੇŠ=k՝p, TAP k՝w՝แ, ੇՓѐ=k՝w՝แ, ੇŠ=k՝w՝แ ‘claw’, TIM y՝ѐ=k՝p), PCJ *ੇŠ=k՝p՝ // *ੇŠ=k՝෨b՝ (XAV ੇŠ=p՝, XER nŠ=kೋb՝); PCerr *ੇŠp=kೋa ‘hand’ > PNJ *ੇŠp=kೋa (API ੇi(Ը)=kೋa, KAY ੇi=kೋa, SUY ੇՓѐ=k್a, ੇŠ=k್a, TAP ੇ੊ѐ=kΠa, TIM y՝ѐ=kվೋa, PNR yŠ=kya), PCJ *ੇŠp=kೋa (XAV ੇŠp=kೋata // ੇŠp=kೋa෨da (contamination with PCJ *kೋata // *kೋa෨da ‘stem, beginning’), XER nŠp=kೋa); PCerr *ੇŠyi ‘name’ > PNJ *ੇŠ໵i (API ੇiŏi, KAY ੇi़i, SUY ੇ=iƩti, TAP Ʃti ~ ƩtŠ=Ʃdi, TIM yici, PNR i(Ʃ)si), PCJ *ੇŠci // *ੇŠ෨ci (XAV ੇŠci // *ੇŠ෨ci, XER nŠೞi-೟Մ); 173

Andrey Nikulin

PCerr *ੇՓѐɏ/ɏ*ੇՓѐ-PೋՓѐแ ‘to sit.SG’ > PNJ *ੇՓѐɏ/ɏ*ੇՓѐ-ೋ (API ੇՓѐɏ/ɏੇՓѐ-ೋ, KAY ੇՓѐɏ/ɏੇՓѐ-ೋՓѐแ, SUY ੇՓѐɏ/ɏੇՓѐ-ೡՓѐแ, TAP ੇՓѐ, TIM yՓѐɏ/ɏyՓѐ-ೋ, PNR ੇŠ), PCJ *ੇƕѐ-mೋƕѐ (finite: 2SG *ay=cƕѐ) (XAV ੇƕѐ-mೋƕѐ (finite: 2SG a=cƕѐ), XER nƕѐ-mೋƕѐ ~ n-mೋƕѐ); PCerr *ੇՓѐnՓѐแ ‘guts, faeces’ > PNJ *ੇŠniѐแ (API ੇŠniѐแ, KAY ੇŠn, SUY ੇŠniѐแ, TAP ੇŠೋiѐแ, TIM yŠn, PNR yŠ), PCJ *ੇƕѐnƕѐ (XAV ੇƕѐnƕѐ, XER nnƕѐ); PCerr *ੇ՝ѐ=kotų ‘chest’ > PNJ *ੇ՝ѐ=kotų (API ੇ՝ѐ=kotų, KAY ੇõkot, TAP ੇõ=koƩd՝, TIM ੇ՝ѐ=kվot), PCJ *ੇ՝ѐ=kutu // *ੇ՝ѐ=ku෨du (xAV ੇ՝ѐ=Ըutu // ੇ՝ѐ=Ըudu, xER nõ=knõ); PCerr *ੇ՝ѐೋ՝ѐแ ‘cord, vine’ > PNJ *ੇ՝ѐೋ՝ѐแ (API ੇ՝ѐೋ՝ѐแ ‘vine, fiber’, pઇೋ=ੇ՝ѐೋ՝ѐแ ‘rope, vine’, TIM y՝ѐೋ), PCJ *ੇ՝ѐೋ՝ѐ // *ੇ՝ѐ෨ೋ՝ѐ ‘vein, sinew’ (xAV ੇ՝ѐೋ՝ѐ // ੇ՝ѐ෨ೋ՝ѐ, xER wa=nೋõ), *wede=ੇ՝ѐೋ՝ѐ // *wede=ੇ՝ѐ෨ೋ՝ѐ ‘cord, rope, vine’ (xAV wede=ੇ՝ѐೋ՝ѐ // wede=ੇ՝ѐ෨ೋ՝ѐ, xER wde=nೋõ); PCerr *ੇ՝ѐyt՝ ‘tongue’ > PNJ *ੇ՝ѐt՝ (API ੇ՝ѐԸt՝, KAY ੇõt՝, TAP ੇõඃ՝, TIM y՝ѐԸt՝, PNR s՝ѐt՝), PCJ *ੇ՝ѐyt՝ (xAV ੇ՝ѐyt՝ ~ ੇ՝ѐtt՝, xER nõyt՝); PCerr *pa ‘arm, branch’ > PNJ *pa (API, KAY pa, SUY hwa, TTAP h։a, TIM, PNR pa), PCJ *pa-kೋata // *pa-kೋa෨da (xER pa-kೋta // pa-kೋda), *wede=pa ‘root’ (XAV wede=pa, XER wde=pa), (?) *payn՝ѐ ‘arm’ (xAV pan՝ѐ, xER paynõ); PCerr *paɏ/ɏ*pa-ೋ ‘to finish’ > PNJ *paɏ/ɏ*pa-ೋ ‘to finish, cessative/completive marker’ (API paɏ/ pa-ೋ, KAY pa, SUY hwa, TAP h։a, TIM pa-ೋ), PCJ *paɏ/ɏ*pa-ೋi ‘to finish, to erase’ (XAV paɏ/ɏpa-ೋi, xER paɏ/ pa-ೋi ~ pa-ೋ); PCerr *paɏ/ɏ*pa-ೋ ‘to kill.PL’ > PNJ *paɏ/ɏ*pa-ೋ (KAY pa-ೋš, SUY hwaɏ/ɏhwa-yš, TAP h։a, PNR pa-ೋš), PCJ *pƕѐɏ/ɏ*pƕѐ-ೋŠ ‘to kill.DU’ (XAV pƕѐɏ/ɏpƕѐ-ೋŠ, xER pƕѐɏ/ɏpƕѐ-ೋŠ ~ pƕѐ-ೋ); PCerr *paೋň ‘foot’ > PNJ *paೋš (API paೋň ‘foot; jirau, wall’, KAY paೋš, SUY hway ‘foot; jirau’, TAP h։ay ‘foot; bed’, TIM paೋ, PNR pa෨), PCJ *paೋa // *pa෨ೋa (XAV paೋa // pa෨ೋa, XER pೋa ‘foot, footprint’); PCerr *peɏ/ɏ*pe-ೋ ~ *pe-k ‘to fart’ > PNJ *peɏ/ɏ*pe-k (API peɏ/ɏpe-k, SUY hwe, TIM pe-k), PCJ *piɏ/ɏ*pi-ೋi (XAV piɏ/ɏpi-ೋi); PCerr *pŠmŠแ ‘firewood’ > PNJ *pŠ ‘wood’ (API, KAY pŠ, SUY hwŠ ‘tree’, TAP h։Š ‘tree’, TIM pŠ), PCJ *mŠmŠ // *mŠ (XAV mŠmŠ // mŠ, XER mmŠ); PCerr *pՓy ‘achiote’ > PNJ *pՓ (API, KAY pՓ, TAP h։Փ, TIM pՓ), PCJ *bƕy // *bƕ (XAV bƕy // bƕ, XER bƕ); PCerr *pՓyi ~ *pŠyi ‘one’ > PNJ *pՓ໵i (API pՓŏi ~ piŏi, KAY pՓ़i, SUY, TAP wՓti, TIM pՓci-t, PNR iƩpՓtš), PCJ *mŠci (XAV mŠci, XER ೞ=mŠೞi), *pici (XER piೞi, piೞ-tu // piೞ-du) ‘only’; PCerr *p՝ ‘flat, wide’ > PNJ *p՝ (API, KAY p՝, SUY h՝, TIM p՝), PCJ *p՝ (XER p՝); PCerr *p՝Ɩ՝แ ‘arrow, bamboo’ > PNJ *p՝-໴e ‘bamboo’ (API p՝-Ըe, TIM p՝Ը-he), PCJ *p՝k՝ // *p՝ ‘big arrow’ (XAV p՝k՝ // p՝); PCerr *pೋ՝ѐ ‘wife’ > PNJ *pೋ՝ѐ (API pೋ՝ѐ, KAY pೋõ, SUY hೡ՝ѐ, TAP hೋõ, TIM pೋ՝ѐ ‘wife (dead)’), PCJ *mೋ՝ѐ (XAV mೋ՝ѐ, XER mೋõ ‘spouse, to marry’); PCerr *pೋઇ ‘ember’ > PNJ *pೋઇ (API pೋઇ, KAY pೋઇ ‘ashes’, SUY hೡઇ ‘ashes’, TIM pೋઇ, pೋઇy-pೋઇy ‘coal’), PCJ *pೋՄ (XER pೋՄ-hika ‘glowing embers’, pೋՄ-nŠ೟uೋi ‘spark’, pೋՄ-೟apd՝ ‘ember’); PCerr *pೋઇѐm ‘hungry’ > PNJ *pೋઇѐmઇѐแ ‘hungry, to want’ (API pೋઇѐmઇѐแ, KAY pೋઇѐm, SUY hೡઇѐmઇѐแ ‘to want’, TAP hೋ੊ѐm੊ѐแ ‘hungry’, TIM pೋઇѐm, PNR pೋઇѐnš), PCJ *mೋƕѐm // *mೋƕѐ (XAV mೋƕѐm // mೋƕѐ ‘hungry, food’, XER mೋƕѐm // mೋƕѐ); PCerr *puೋƆ ‘field’ > PNJ *puೋƆ (API, KAY puೋƆ, SUY huೡƆ, TAP huೋƆ, TIM puೋ, PNR pu෨), PCJ *buೋu // *bu෨ೋu (XAV buೋu // bu෨ೋu, XER bೋu); PCerr *ೋՄ ‘to leave’ > PNJ *ೋՄɏ/ɏ*ೋՄ-ೋ (API ೋՄɏ/ɏೋՄ-ೋ ~ ೋՄ), PCJ *ೋՄѐɏ/ɏ*ೋՄѐ-mՄѐ ‘to leave.SG’ (XAV ೋՄѐɏ/ɏ*ೋՄѐ-mՄѐ, XER ೋӼɏ/ɏೋӼ-mӼ ~ ೋӼ-m ~ ೋ-mӼ); PCerr *ೋŠtiѐแ ‘to look’ > PNJ *ೋŠtiѐแ (API ೋŠtiѐแ, TIM ೋŠt), PCJ *ೋŠtŠ // *ೋŠ෨nŠ (XAV ೋŠtŠ // ೋŠ෨nŠ ‘to look for’, XER ೋŠtŠ ~ ೋtŠ); PCerr *taɏ/ɏ*ta-dƩ ‘to tear’ > PNJ *taɏ/ɏ*ta-dƩ (API ta ‘to pick, to harvest’, KAY ta ‘to cut’, SUY k್੊ѐ=ta ‘to cut’, TAP kΠ੊ѐ=ඃa ‘to cut with one cut’, TIM taɏ/ɏta-dƩ ‘to cut, to remove’), PCJ *ay=ta // *ta-ೋi (XAV a=taɏ/ɏta-ೋi ‘to get torn’, XER ta-ೋi ~ ta-ೋ ‘to pluck, to pick, to tear’); 174

A phonological reconstruction of Proto-Cerrado (Jê family)ɏ

PCerr *te ‘tick’ > PNJ *te (API te-ti, KAY te, TAP ඃe, TIM te෨-ೋՄ, te෨-ti), PCJ *ti෨ // *ti (XAV ti෨-Ըa, XER ti); PCerr *teೋŔ ‘fruit of a k. of palm’ > PNJ *teೋŔ (API te-ೋՄ, TIM teೋ-ೋՄ, teೋ-ti ‘assai fruit’), PCJ *tiೋi // *ti෨ೋi ‘bacuri coconut’ (XAV tiೋi // *ti෨ೋi); PCerr *tՄpՄแ ‘fish’ > PNJ *tՄpՄแ (API, KAY tՄp, SUY t(վ)ՄwՄแ, TAP ඃՄwՄแ, TIM tՄp, PNR tՄpš), PCJ *tepe // *te෨be (XAV tepe // te෨be, XER tpe // tbe); PCerr *tՄy ‘leg’ > PNJ *tՄ (API, KAY tՄ, SUY tվՄ, TAP ඃՄ, TIM, PNR tՄ), PCJ *tey // *te (XAV tey // te, XER te); PCerr *tՄѐɏ/ɏ*tՄѐ-m ‘to go/come.SG’ > PNJ *tՄѐɏ/ɏ*tՄѐ-m (API tՄѐɏ/ɏtՄѐ-m, KAY tӼɏ/ɏtӼ-m, SUY t(վ)Մѐɏ/ɏt(վ)Մѐ-mՄѐ,แ TAP ඃӼɏ/ɏඃӼ-meѐ,แ TIM tՄѐɏ/ɏtՄѐ-m, PNR tՄѐɏ/ɏtՄѐ-ೋš), PCJ *nՄѐ-m // *nՄѐ ‘to go.DU’ (XAV nՄѐ-m // nՄѐ, XER nӼ-m ~ nӼmã // nӼ); PCerr *tઇbƩ ‘new, raw’ > PNJ *tઇbƩš ‘raw’ (API tઇbƩ // tઇmઇแ, SUY tվઇmՓแ, TIM tઇbƩ), PCJ *tՄm // *tՄ (XAV tՄm // tՄ); PCerr *tถ໴ถแ ‘hard, strong’ > PNJ *tถ໴š (API tถyŏɏ/ɏtถyt, KAY tถyŏ, SUY tถೋถแ, TIM tถy, PNR tถtš), PCJ *tete // te෨de (XER tete ~ tte ~ tet), PCJ *ੇŠp=teteɏ/ɏ*ap=tete // *ੇŠp=te෨deɏ/ɏ*ap=te෨de ‘to be strong’ (XAV ੇŠp=teteɏ/ɏap=tete // ੇŠp=te෨teɏ/ɏap=te෨te ‘to get strong, to make an effort, to recover’, XER nŠp=tete ~ nŠp=tet ~ nŠp=tte // nŠp=tde); PCerr *tikš ‘belly’ > PNJ *tikš (KAY tik, SUY t(վ)ikš, TIM tik ‘pregnant’), PCJ *diki // *di (XAV diԸi // di, XER dki // di ‘belly; to fill the stomach’); PCerr *tՓɏ/ɏ*tՓkՓแɏ/ɏ*tՓ-ೋ ‘to die’ > PNJ *tՓɏ/ɏ*tՓ-k (API, KAY tՓɏ/ɏtՓ-k, SUY tՓɏ/ɏtՓ-kՓแ, TAP ඃՓɏ/ɏඃՓ-gՓแ, TIM tՓɏ/ɏtՓ-k, PNR tՓ), PCJ *dƕԸƕ // dƕɏ/ɏdƕ-ೋƕ (XAV dƕԸƕ // dƕɏ/ɏdƕ-ೋƕ, XER dkƕ // dƕɏ/ɏdƕ-ೋƕ); PCerr *tՓkՓแ ‘black’ > PNJ *tՓkՓแ (API tՓkՓแ, KAY tՓk, SUY tՓkՓแ, TAP ඃՓgՓแ, TIM tՓk, PNR kƕ=tՓ෨), PCJ *dƕkƕ // *dƕ (XAV Ըೋƕѐ=dƕ, XER dkƕ ‘dark’, (?) wa=k(ೋ)=tՓ // wa=k(ೋ)=dՓ); PCerr *t՝t՝k՝แ ‘to throb’ > PNJ *t՝t՝k՝แ (TIM t՝t՝k ‘heartbeat, heart’), PCJ *t՝t՝k՝ // *t՝t՝ (XAV t՝t՝, XER t՝t՝k՝ ~ t՝tk՝); PCerr *t՝ѐy ‘brother’ > PNJ *t՝ѐ (API, SUY t՝ѐ, TIM t՝ѐ ‘brother (alive)’, PNR t՝ѐ), PCJ *n՝ѐy // *n՝ѐ ‘younger sibling of the same sex’ (XAV n՝ѐy // n՝ѐ, XER nõ-ೋe); PCerr *tuɏ/ɏ*tu-ೋ ‘to carry’ > PNJ *tuɏ/ɏ*tu-ೋ (API tu, KAY tuɏ/ɏtu-ೋƆ, TIM tuɏ/ɏtu-ೋ, PNR tu-ೋš ‘to carry in a basket.SG’), PCJ *du // *du-ೋi ‘to carry.SG’ (XAV du // du-ೋi, XER duɏ/ɏdu-ೋi ~ du-ೋ); PCerr *tuɏ/ɏ*tu-ೋ ‘to urinate’ > PNJ *tuɏ/ɏ*tu-ೋ (API tuɏ/ɏtu-ೋ, SUY tu), PCJ *t՝ѐɏ/ɏ*t՝ѐ-ೋŠ (XAV t՝ѐɏ/ɏt՝ѐ-ೋŠ, XER t՝ѐ-ೋŠ); PCerr *tubƩ ‘old, tall (?)’ > PNJ *tƅmuѐแ ‘old’ (API tƅmuѐ,แ KAY tƅm, SUY tƅmuѐ,แ TAP ඃƅmuѐ,แ TIM tƅm, PNR =tƅ), PCJ *dum // *du ‘tall’ (XER dum), *dum-kೋata // *dum-kೋa෨da ‘elder sibling of the opposite sex’ (dub-Ըೋata // dub-Ըೋa෨da, XER dum-kೋda); PCerr *tumƆ ‘belly’ > PNJ *tu (API tu ‘belly, intestine’, KAY tu, TAP ඃu, TIM, PNR tu, i=tu ‘tuber’), PCJ *n՝ѐm՝ѐ // *du (XAV n՝ѐm՝ѐ // du, XER nmõ ‘fat (adj.)’); PCerr *tyetŔ ‘to burn’ > PNJ *tyetŔ (API ŏetŔ, KAY ŏetɏ/ɏŏeೋŔ, SUY seೋŔ, TAP ŏeೋŔ ~ teೋŔ, TIM cet, PNR titš), PCJ *Ɣata // *Ɣa෨da (XAV Ɣata // Ɣa෨da, XER ೟ata); PCerr *໴i ‘bone’ > PNJ *໴i (API i ~ ži, KAY Ըi, SUY si, TAP ti, TIM hi, PNR si), PCJ *hi (XAV, XER hi); PCerr *໴Š ‘meat’ > PNJ *໴Š ~ *ੇŠ (API, KAY, SUY, TAP ੇŠ, TIM yŠ ~ hŠ, PNR yŠ), PCJ *ੇŠ (nonalternating *ੇ) (XAV ੇŠ, XER nŠ); PCerr *໴ՓmՓแ ‘seed’ > PNJ *໴Փ (API, KAY ԸՓ ~ Փ, SUY sՓ, TAP tՓ, TIM hՓ, PNR sՓ), PCJ *ੇƕѐmƕѐ // *Ɣƕ (XAV ੇƕѐmƕѐ // Ɣƕ, XER ೟ƕ); PCerr *໴oy ‘leaf’ > PNJ *໴o (API Ըo ~ o, KAY Ըo, SUY hwŠ=so, TAP to ~ h։Š=to, TIM ho ‘leaf, a hair’, PNR pƕೋi=sৰo), PCJ *cuy // *cu (XAV we=cuy-ೋƕѐ, =cuy // =cu, XER ೞu ‘a hair’); PCerr *໴wak՝ѐ ‘coati’ > PNJ *໴wak՝ѐ (API wak՝ѐ, SUY swak՝ѐ, TAP toakõ, TIM wakվ՝ѐ), PCJ *wak՝ѐ (XAV waԸ՝ѐ, XER wakõ); 175

Andrey Nikulin

PCerr *weke ‘partridge’ > PNJ *beke (TIM pekվe), PCJ *wiki (XAV wiԸi, XER wiki ~ wŠki); PCerr *wઇdઇแ ‘tree’ > PNJ *bઇೋઇแ (API pઇೋઇแ ~ paೋň ‘tree, horn, plant, trunk, canoe, car’, KAY bઇೋš ‘tree, horn’, TIM pઇೋ ‘tree, horn’, PNR pઇೋi ‘tree’, kyઇѐ=si=pઇೋš ‘horn’), PCJ *wede // *we෨de (XAV wede // *we෨de, XER wde); PCerr *wŠɏ/ɏ*wŠ-ೋ ‘to kill.SG, to extinguish’ > PNJ *bŠɏ/ɏ*bŠ-ೋ (API pŠɏ/ɏpŠ-ೋ, KAY bŠɏ/ɏbŠ-n, SUY pŠɏ/ɏpŠ-ೡiѐแ, TAP mŠɏ/ɏmŠ-ೋŠ, TIM pŠɏ/ɏpŠ-ೋ ‘to kill (with an arrow), to extinguish’), PNR pŠɏ/ɏpŠ-ೋš), PCJ *wŠɏ/ɏ*wŠ-ೋŠ (XAV wŠɏ/ɏwŠ-ೋŠ, XER wŠɏ/ɏwŠ-ೋŠ ~ w-ೋŠ); PCerr *ya ‘to stand.SG’ > PNJ *໵aɏ/ɏ*໵ઇ-bƩ ~ *໵ã-m (API ŏaɏ/ɏŏઇ-bƩ ~ ŏa-ೋ, KAY ़aɏ/ɏ़ã-m, SUY taɏ/ɏtã-mãแ, TAP ta, TIM caɏ/ɏca-bƩ ~ cઇ-bƩ ~ ca-ೋ, PNR sઇѐ ~ sa෨Ɩ), PCJ *Ɣa (XAV Ɣa, XER da); PCerr *yad-kwa ‘mouth’ > PNJ *yaೋ-kwa (API ya-kva, KAY, SUY yay-kwa, TAP yay-k։a, TIM yaೋ-k։a, PNR sa-koa), PCJ *Ɣada-wa (XAV Ɣadawa, XER ೟dawa ‘mouth, door’); PCerr *ya໴e ‘nest’ > PNJ *ya໴e (API, KAY yae, TIM ya෨he, PNR sase), PCJ *Ɣaci (XAV Ɣaci, XER ೞaೞi ‘to make a nest’); PCerr *yઇ ‘pain, to hurt’ > PNJ *໵ઇ (API ŏઇ, SUY, TAP tઇ, TIM cઇ, PNR sઇɏ/ɏsઇ-ೋš), PCJ *ƔՄ (XAV ƔՄ, XER ೟Մ); PCerr *yઇ ‘urine’ > PNJ *໵ઇ ‘urine, bladder’ (API ŏઇ, TIM cઇ), PCJ *ƔՄ (XAV ƔՄ, ƔՄ-kೋe ‘bladder’, XER ೟Մ ‘bladder’); PCerr *=yઇ (instrumental suffix) > PNJ *=໵ઇ (API =ŏઇ, KAY =़ઇ, SUY, TAP =tઇ, TIM =cઇ), PCJ *=ƔՄ (XAV =ƔՄ, XER =೟Մ); PCerr *yઇɏ/ɏ*yઇ-Pೋઇแ ‘to enter.SG’ > PNJ *໵ઇɏ/ɏ*໵ઇ-ೋ (API a=ŏઇɏ/ɏŏઇ-ೋ, KAY wa=़ઇɏ/ɏwa=़ઇ-ೋઇแ, SUY a=tઇɏ/ɏtઇ=tઇ, TIM cઇɏ/ɏcઇ-ೋ, PNR sઇ), PCJ *ƔՄɏ/ɏ*ƔՄ-bೋՄ (XAV ƔՄɏ/ɏƔՄ-bೋՄ, XER ೟Մ-bೋՄ ~ ೟-bೋՄ ~ dՄ-bೋՄ); PCerr *yถ ‘bitter’ > PNJ *໵ถ (API ŏถ, KAY ़ถ, TAP tถ, TIM cถ), PCJ *ƔՄ (XAV ƔՄ, XER ೟Մ); PCerr *yiɏ/ɏ*yi-ೋ ‘to put, to lay’ > PNJ *໵iɏ/ɏ*໵i-ೋš (API ŏiɏ/ɏŏi-ೋš, KAY ़iɏ/ɏ़i-ೋš, SUY tiɏ/ɏti-ೋš, TIM ciɏ/ɏci-ೋ), PCJ *hiɏ/ɏ*hi-ೋi ‘to put.SG’ (XAV hiɏ/ɏhi-ೋi ‘to put, to leave.SG’, XER hiɏ/ɏhi-ೋi ‘to put, to cook, to determine.SG’); PCerr *yobƩ ‘to grind’ > PNJ *໵obƩ ‘flour, powder’ (API ŏob // ŏomų, KAY ़obƩ, (?) TAP to=tom-ŏi, TIM cobƩ), PCJ *cum // *cu (XAV ೞu, XER ೞum ~ ೞumã // ೞu); PCerr *yuPೋƆ ‘pus’ > PNJ *໵u ~ *໵uೋƆ (API ŏu ~ ŏuೋƆ, KAY ़uೋƆ, TAP tuೋƆ, TIM cuೋ), PCJ *Ɣubೋuy (XAV Ɣubೋuy // Ɣubೋu, XER ೟bೋuy // ೟bೋu); PCerr *ywa ‘tooth’ > PNJ *໵wa (API ŏwa, KAY ़wa, SUY twa, TAP t։a, TIM cwa, PNR swa ~ soa), PCJ *kwa (XAV Ըwa, XER kwa). A non-exhaustive list of grammatical morphemes includes: PCerr *wa ‘I (nominative)’ > PNJ *ba (API wa, KAY ba, SUY waɏ/ɏpa, TAP wa, TIM waɏ/ɏpa), PCJ *wa (XAV wa-hƕѐ, XER wa, wa-hƕѐ); PCerr *i໵Ʃ- ‘I (oblique)’ > PNJ *i໵Ʃ- (API i-ɏ/ɏiŏ-ɏ/ɏiੇ-, KAY, SUY, TAP i-, TIM iy-), PCJ *Š෨- (XAV ԸŠ෨-, XER Š-); PCerr *ga ‘thou (nominative)’ > PNJ *ga (API ka, KAY ga, SUY, TAP, TIM, PNR ka), PCJ *ka (XAV Ըa-hƕѐ, XER ka, to=ka); PCerr *ay- ‘thou (oblique, class I)’ > PNJ *a- (API, KAY, SUY, TAP, TIM a-, PNR a- ~ ha-), PCJ *ay (XAV Ըay-, XER ay-); PCerr *mઇѐ ‘dative postposition’ > PNJ *mઇѐ (API, KAY, SUY, TAP, TIM, PNR mઇѐ), PCJ *mƕѐ (XAV, XER mƕѐ); PCerr *ੇŠm ‘genitive postposition’ > PNJ *ੇŠm (PNR yŠ), PCJ *ੇŠm (XAV ੇŠm, XER nŠm); PCerr *tՄ ‘ergative postposition’ > PNJ *=tՄ (API, KAY, SUY =tՄ, TAP =ೋՄ, TIM =tՄ), PCJ *te (XAV =te, XER =te).

176

A phonological reconstruction of Proto-Cerrado (Jê family)ɏ

The following comparisons are somewhat problematic: PCerr *ƩbՄੇՄแ ‘honey’ > PNJ *ƩbՄ໵Ʃš (API ƩbՄy໵Ʃ, KAY mՄy໵Ʃ, SUY ƩbՄnš, TAP ƩbՄy, TIM pՄdƩ, PNR nã=pՄyƖ), PCJ *pŠnŠɏ/ɏpŠ (XAV pŠnŠɏ/ɏpŠ)ɏ24; PCerr *pೋ՝ѐt՝ѐแ ~ *pೋ՝ѐy > PNJ *pೋ՝ѐt՝ѐแ ‘to run’ (API pೋ՝ѐƩt՝ѐแ, KAY pೋ՝ѐƩt, SUY hೡ՝ѐn՝ѐแ), PCJ *ay=ca=mೋ՝ѐy // *ay=ca=mೋ՝ѐ ‘to run.DU’ (XAV a=ca=mೋ՝ѐy // a=ca=mೋ՝ѐ); PCerr *yઇ໵Ʃઇแ ~ *yՄy ‘sweet, tasty’ > PNJ *໵ઇ໵Ʃš (API ŏઇy໵Ʃ, KAY ़ઇy໵Ʃ, TIM cઇdƩ), PCJ *Ɣey // *Ɣe (XAV Ɣey // Ɣe, (?) XER ೟eԶ).

5. Conclusion In this paper I have undertaken the first attempt at a systematic reconstruction of ProtoCerrado phonology and lexicon. However, a number of issues remain to be tackled. These include: — evolution of Central Jê verbal morphology and morphosyntax with a special attention to finiteness, verbal number and alignment; — identification of the remaining correspondences between Proto-Northern Jê and ProtoCentral Jê, particularly involving diphthongs and codas; — emergence of unexpected nasality in certain Central Jê roots; — the origin of Central Jê stems belonging to the classes A and C. Yet another issue that remains beyond the scope of this paper are contacts between Central Jê languages and Northern Jê languages. In addition to evident Central Jê borrowings in individual Northern Jê languages (Xavánte Ըutƕ // Ըuhƕ෨dƕ ‘tapir’ > Tapayúna uhƕ-ŏi ~ uhઇ-ŏi, Central Jê *bƕtƕ // *bƕ෨dƕ or Xavánte bƕtƕ // bƕ෨dƕ ‘sun’ > Panará wƕtƕ-tiɍ25), a number of roots reconstructible to Proto-Northern Jê and to Proto-Central Jê display completely irregular sound correspondences, suggestive of their loan origin in one of the branches (or in both), cf. ‘southern tamandua’ (PNJ *pઇtઇแ, PCJ *pati // *pa෨di)ɏ26, ‘paca’ (PNJ *Ʃgೋa, PCJ *kೋawa), ‘tobacco’ (PNJ *kaೋe໵Ʃš ~ *kaೋi໵Ʃš, PCJ *waೋŠ), ‘Babassu palm’ (PNJ *ೋ՝ѐೋ՝ѐแ, PCJ *n՝ѐೋ՝ѐy). It is also necessary to mention the curious case of the “Menren”ɏ27 wordlist provided by Loukotka (1963: 51–54), which represents a Timbira variety close to Pykobjê (as suggested by its vocalism) and contains a considerable number of word of obvious Central Jê origin (Nikulin 2015: 26–27). According to the principles of bottom-up reconstruction, a reconstruction of Proto-Jê is necessary in order to warrant a coherent use of Jê data in Macro-Jê comparative studies. I intend to proceed to this stage in a future paper.

References Albuquerque, Francisco Edviges. 2011. Gramática pedagógica da língua Apinajé. Goiânia, GO: Editora da PUC Goiás. Albuquerque, Francisco Edviges (org.). 2012. Dicionário Escolar Apinayé. PanhŠ KapӼr – KupӼ kapӼr. Apinayé – Português. Belo Horizonte, MG: Editora da Faculdade de Letras – UFMG. If Xavánte pŠnŠ // pŠ is a result of leveling of PCJ *pŠnŠ // *pi, it may be compared to Xerénte pi (as in t՝=pi ‘eye rheum’), Proto-Southern Jê *Ʃbe ‘liquid’, Rikbáktsa pi-hik, Karajá bՄ, Proto-Jabutí *Ʃbi ‘water’. In this case, ProtoCerrado *ƩbenŔ should be reconstructed, and the etymology of PNJ *ƩbՄ໵Ʃš has to be viewed as unknown. 25 This etymology has been suggested by Carvalho (2016: 71–72). A native synonym, iƩpՓtš, also exists in Panará; this item is a true cognate of PCJ *bƕtƕ // *bƕ෨dƕ. 26 As Ribeiro and Voort (2010: 557) point out, vaguely similar words exist in Karajá, Jabutí, Tupí and Karíb languages, which suggests that this item might by a Wanderwort. 27 A mistranscription of mӼ=hӼ ‘Indians’, lit. ‘our meat’. 24

177

Andrey Nikulin

Barbosa, Alexandre de Sousa. 1918. Cayapó e panará. Manuscript. Available online at . Bardagil-Mas, Bernat. 2016. Negation mechanisms in Panará (Jê). Amazónicas VI. Coloquio Internacional AMAZÓNICAS (“La estructura de las lenguas amazónicas”) (abstract book), pp. 70–71. Leticia/Tabatinga: Universidad Nacional de Colombia; Universidade do Estado do Amazonas; Instituto Caro y Cuervo. Braggio, Silvia Lucia Bigonjal. 2004. Revisitando a fonética/fonologia da língua Xerente AkwԌ: uma visão comparativa dos dados de Martius (1866), a Maybury-Lewis (1965) com os de Braggio (2004). Signótica 17(2): 251–274. Burgess, Eunice. 1971. Duas análises das sílabas do xavánte. In: Sarah C. Gudschinsky (ed.). Estudos sôbre línguas e culturas indígenas, pp. 96–102. Brasília: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Camargo, Nayara da Silva. 2010. Língua Tapayúna: aspectos sociolingüísticos e uma análise fonológica preliminar. MA thesis. Campinas: Universidade Estadual de Campinas. Camargo, Nayara da Silva. 2015. Tapayuna (Jê): aspectos morfossintáticos, históricos e sociolinguísticos. PhD. Campinas: Universidade Estadual de Campinas. Carvalho, Fernando O. de. 2016. On the Development of the Proto-Northern Jê Rhotic in Panará Historical Phonology. Anthropological Linguistics 58(1): 52–78. Carvalho, Fernando O. de, Gean Nunes Damulakis. 2015. The structure of Akroá and Xakriabá and their relation to Xavante and Xerente: A contribution to the historical linguistics of the Jê languages. Línguas Indígenas Americanas 15(1): 17–46. Castro Alves, Flávia de. 1999. Aspectos fonológicos do Apãniekrá (Jê). MA thesis. São Paulo: Universidade de São Paulo. Cotrim, Rodrigo Guimarães Prudente Marquez. 2016. Uma descrição da morfologia e de aspectos morfossintáticos da língua AkwӼ-Xerente (Jê Central). PhD. Brasília: Universidade de Brasília. D’Angelis, Wilmar da Rocha. 1998. Traços de modo e modos de traçar geometrias: línguas Macro-Jê & teoria fonológica. PhD. Campinas: Universidade Estadual de Campinas. Damulakis, Gean Nunes. 2010. Fonologias de línguas Macro-Jê: uma análise comparativa via teoria da otimalidade. PhD. Rio de Janeiro: Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro. Davis, Irvine. 1966. Comparative Jê phonology. Estudos Lingüísticos: Revista Brasileira de Lingüística Teórica e Aplicada 1(2): 20–24. DMK = Dicionário Multimídia KŢsêdjê. Online resource. Available online at . Ehrenreich, Paul. 1895. Materialien zur Sprachenkunde Brasiliens: III. Die Sprache der Akuä oder Chavantes und Cherentes (Goyaz). Zeitschrift für Ethnologie 27: 149–162. Estevam, Adriana Machado. 2011. Morphosyntaxe du xavante. Langue jê du Mato Grosso (Brésil). PhD. Paris: Université Paris Diderot (Paris 7). Frazão, Kêt Simas. 2013. A sílaba no AkwӼ-Xerente (Jê). MA thesis. Brasília: Universidade de Brasília. Hall, Joan, Ruth Alice McLeod, Valerie Mitchell. 1987 [2004]. Pequeno dicionário Xavante-Português, PortuguêsXavante. Damreme pibuzé hã a’uwӼ mreme, warazu mreme na te te ŠsaprŠ mono zém na duré warazu mreme, a’uwӼ mreme na te te ŠsaprŠ mono zém na. Cuiabá: Sociedade Internacional de Lingüística. Ham, Patricia. 1961. Apinayé Grammar. Arquivo Linguístico, n. 108. Brasília: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Krieger, Wanda Braidotti, Guenther Carlos Krieger (orgs.). 1994. Dicionário escolar: Xerente–Português; Português– Xerente. Rio de Janeiro: Junta das Missões Nacionais da Convenção Batista Brasileira. Lapierre, Myriam, Bernat Bardagil-Mas, Andrés Pablo Salanova. 2016a. The nasal consonants of Panará. A talk given at the 21st Workshop on the Structure and Constituency of Languages of the Americas. Montréal: Université du Québec à Montréal. Lapierre, Myriam, Andrés Salanova, Bernat Bardagil-Mas. 2016b. A reconstruction of Proto-Northern Jê phonemics. Amazónicas VI. Coloquio Internacional AMAZÓNICAS (“La estructura de las lenguas amazónicas”) (abstract book), pp. 110–111. Leticia/Tabatinga: Universidad Nacional de Colombia; Universidade do Estado do Amazonas; Instituto Caro y Cuervo. Lapierre, Myriam. 2017. Post-oralized and devoiced nasals in Panará. A talk given at the Symposium on Amazonian Languages II (April 8, 2017). Berkeley: University of California. Loukotka, Āestmír. 1963. Documents et vocabulaires inédits de langues et de dialectes sud-américains. Journal de la Société des Américanistes 52: 7–60. 178

A phonological reconstruction of Proto-Cerrado (Jê family)ɏ

Martius, Carl Friedrich von. 1867. Beiträge zur Ethnographie und Sprachenkunde Amerikas zumal Brasiliens. I. Zur Ethnographie. II. Glossaria linguarum Brasiliensium. Leipzig: Friedrich Fleischer. Mattos, Rinaldo de. 1973. Fonêmica Xerente. Série Lingüística 1: 79–100. McLeod, Ruth. 1974. Fonemas xavánte. Série Lingüística 3: 131–152. McLeod, Ruth, Valerie Mitchell. 1977 [2003]. Aspectos da língua xavante. Cuiabá: Sociedade Internacional de Lingüística. Nikulin, Andrey. 2015. Verifikaciya gipotezy o zhe-tupi-karibskom rodstve [On the genetic unity of Jê-Tupí-Karib]. MA thesis. Moscow: Moskovskiy gosudarstvennyy universitet imeni M. V. Lomonosova. Nikulin, Andrey. 2016a. Proto-Jê revisited: phonology, morphophonology and language contact. Amazónicas VI. Coloquio Internacional AMAZÓNICAS (“La estructura de las lenguas amazónicas”) (abstract book), pp. 108–109. Leticia/Tabatinga: Universidad Nacional de Colombia; Universidade do Estado do Amazonas; Instituto Caro y Cuervo. Nikulin, Andrey. 2016b. Historical phonology of Proto-Northern Jê. Journal of Language Relationship 14(3): 165–185. Nikulin, Andrey, Fernando O. de Carvalho. 2017. Prehistoria de las lenguas y familias lingüísticas del Gran Chaco, de la meseta brasileña y cercanías: Propuesta de base de datos léxicos y resultados preliminares. IV Encuentro de lenguas indígenas americanas (abstract book), pp. 37–38. Santa Rosa: Universidad Nacional de La Pampa. Oliveira, Christiane Cunha de. 2005. The language of the Apinajé people of Central Brazil. PhD. Eugene: University of Oregon. Oliveira, Christiane Cunha de, Eduardo Rivail Ribeiro. 2005. Vowel shift in Central Jê. A talk given at the XVII International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Madison: University of Wisconsin. Pessoa, Katia Nepomuceno. 2012. Análise fonética e fonológica da língua Krenak e abordagem preliminar de contos Botocudo. PhD. Campinas: Universidade Estadual de Campinas. Pickering, William Alfred. 2010. A fonologia xavante: uma revisitação. PhD. Campinas: Universidade Estadual de Campinas. Popjes, Jack, Josephine Popjes. 1971 [2009]. Phonemic Statement of Canela. Anápolis, GO: Associação Internacional de Linguística, SIL – Brasil. Quintino, Wellington Pedrosa. 2000. Aspectos da fonologia xavante. MA thesis. Campinas: Universidade Estadual de Campinas. Quintino, Wellington Pedrosa. 2012. Aspectos da fonologia xavante e questões relacionadas: rinoglotofilia e nasalidade. PhD. Rio de Janeiro: Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro. Ramirez, Henri, Valdir Vegini, Maria Cristina Victorino de França. 2015. Koropó, puri, kamakã e outras línguas do Leste brasileiro: revisão e proposta de nova classificação. Línguas Indígenas Americanas 15(2): 223–277. Ribeiro, Eduardo Rivail, Hein van der Voort. 2010. Nimuendajú was right: The inclusion of the Jabutí language family in the Macro-Jê stock. International Journal of American Linguistics 76: 517–570. Ribeiro, Rosa Maria de Lima. Dicionário Arikapu-Português: registro de uma língua indígena amazônica. MA thesis. Guajará-Mirim: Universidade Federal de Rondônia, Campus de Guajará-Mirim. Rodrigues, Aryon Dall’Igna. 1999. Macro-Jê. In: Dixon, R. M. W., Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds.). The Amazonian Languages, pp. 165–206. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rodrigues, Aryon Dall’Igna. 2004. Sobre a possível diferença fonética entre a fala masculina e feminina em Karajá. Línguas Indígenas Americanas 4: 115–122. Rodrigues, Aryon Dall’Igna. 2012. Flexão relacional no tronco linguístico Macro-Jê. Revista Brasileira de Linguística Antropológica 4(2): 267–277. Silva, Talita Rodrigues da. 2011. Descrição e análise morfossintática do nome e do verbo em Pykobjê-Gavião (Timbira). MA thesis. São Paulo: Universidade de São Paulo. Silva, Talita Rodrigues da. 2012. Análise sobre a tipologia da ordem dos constituintes do dialeto indígena PykobjêGavião (Timbira). Estudos Linguísticos 41(1): 231–245. Salanova, Andrés Pablo. A flexão de terceira pessoa nas línguas Jê. Línguas Indígenas Americanas 11: 75–114. Siqueira, Kênia Mara de Freitas. Aspectos do substantivo na língua Xerente. MA thesis. Goiânia: Universidade Federal de Goiás. Sousa Filho, Sinval Martins. 2007. Aspectos Morfossintáticos da Língua AkwӼ-Xerente (Jê). PhD. Goiânia: Universidade Federal de Goiás. Souza, Shelton Lima de. 2008. Descrição fonético-fonológica da língua akwen-xerente. 2008. MA thesis. Brasília: Universidade de Brasília. 179

Andrey Nikulin

Vasconcelos, Eduardo Alves. 2013. Investigando a hipótese Cayapó do Sul-Panará. PhD. Campinas: Universidade Estadual de Campinas. Vasilyev, Mikhail, Mikhail Saenko. K voprosu o tochnosti glottoxronologii: datirovanie jazykovoj divergencii po dannym romanskix jazykov. [How accurate can glottochronology be? Dating language divergence on the basis of Romance data.] Journal of Language Relationship 15(2): 114–135. Voort, Hein van der. 2007. Proto-Jabutí: um primeiro passo na reconstrução da língua ancestral dos Arikapú e Djeoromitxí. Boletim do Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi. Ciências Humanas 2(2): 133–168.

ɭ. ɰ. ʉˌː˟˕ˌ˗. ʒˋ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˜˴˘̀ ˱˥ˣ˥༤˥ˆ˘˘ ˦˧ˁ̀˖˻˜ˁ ˣˁˆ˥˧ˣ˥˙ ˅ˋ˪˅˘ ˨ˋˢ˼˘ ːˋ ʓ˪ˁ˪˼̀ ˦˧˥ˊ˥༤ːˁˋ˪ ˨ˋ˧˘˿ ˦˫˄༤˘˜ˁ˴˘˙ ˦˥ ˘˨˪˥˧˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˱˥ˣ˥༤˥ˆ˘˘ ̀˖˻˜˥˅ ˿ːˣ˥ˁˢˋ˧˘˜ˁˣ˨˜˥˙ ˢˁ˜˧˥˨ˋˢ˼˘ ˢˁ˜˧˥-ːˋ. ɯ˅˪˥˧ ˫˨˪ˁˣˁ˅༤˘˅ˁˋ˪ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢ˫ ˧ˋˆ˫༤̀˧ˣ˻˲ ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅˘˙ ˢˋːˊ˫ ̀˖˻˜ˁˢ˘ ˴ˋˣ˪˧ˁ༤˼ˣ˥˙ ˆ˧˫˦˦˻ ˨ˋˢ˼˘ ːˋ (˸ˁ˅ˁˣ˪ˋ ˘ ˸ˋ˧ˋˣ˪ˋ) ˘ ˦˧ˋˊ༤ˁˆˁˋ˪ ˣˁ ˘˲ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˋ ˧ˋ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˜˴˘˿ ˦˧ˁ̀˖˻˜ˁ ˽˪˥˙ ˆ˧˫˦˦˻. ʁˁ˪ˋˢ ˽˪ˁ ˧ˋ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˜˴˘̀ ˨˥˦˥˨˪ˁ˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˨ ˧ˋ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˜˴˘ˋ˙ ˦˧ˁ̀˖˻˜ˁ ˨ˋ˅ˋ˧ˣ˥˙ ˆ˧˫˦˦˻ ˨ˋˢ˼˘ ːˋ (Nikulin 2016b), ˘ ˦˧ˋˊ༤ˁˆˁˋ˪˨̀ ˧ˋ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˜˴˘̀ ˥˄˹ˋˆ˥ ˦˧ˁ̀˖˻˜ˁ ˊ༤̀ ˽˪˘˲ ˊ˅˫˲ ˆ˧˫˦˦, ˦˧ˁˣˁˆ˥˧ˣ˥ˆ˥ ːˋ. ɳ ˨˪ˁ˪˼ˋ ˦˧˘˅˥ˊ˘˪˨̀ ˣˋ ˦˧ˋ˪ˋˣˊ˫˿˹˘˙ ˣˁ ˦˥༤ˣ˥˪˫ ˨˦˘˨˥˜ ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘˙ ˊ༤̀ ˣˁˆ˥˧ˣ˥˙ ˅ˋ˪˅˘ ˨ˋˢ˼˘ ːˋ. ʂ˕˳˩ˀʻ˯ˀ ˜˕˙ʻʸ: ̀˖˻˜˘ ːˋ, ̀˖˻˜˘ ˢˁ˜˧˥-ːˋ, ̀˖˻˜ ˸ˁ˅ˁˣ˪ˋ, ̀˖˻˜ ˸ˋ˧ˋˣ˪ˋ, ̀˖˻˜˥˅ˁ̀ ˧ˋ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˜˴˘̀, ˨˧ˁ˅ˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥-˘˨˪˥˧˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˙ ˢˋ˪˥ˊ.

180

ɭ. ɭ. ʐ˛˙˥ˌ˖˙ʻ ʣ˜˥༤ˁ ˁ˜˪˫ˁ༤˼ˣ˻˲ ˆ˫ˢˁˣ˘˪ˁ˧ˣ˻˲ ˘˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁˣ˘˙ ʒɯʎʝ˘ɴʓ; [email protected]

ɰˀʿˌˍ˜ːˌˀ ˙˜˗˙ʻ˯ v¬´ r-, udán- ˌ udaká- ‘ʻ˙ʿʸ’: ˌ˦ ˚ʸ˛ʸʿˌʼ˖ʸ˞ˌ˩ˀ˜ːˌˀ ˌ ˱˞ˌ˖˙ໞ˙ʼˌ˩ˀ˜ːˌˀ ˙˞˗˙ˬˀ˗ˌ˴1 ɳ ˊˁˣˣ˥˙ ˨˪ˁ˪˼ˋ ˧ˁ˨˨ˢˁ˪˧˘˅ˁ˿˪˨̀ ˪˧˘ ˅ˋˊ˘˙˨˜˘ˋ ˥˨ˣ˥˅˻ vŊ´ r-, udán- ˘ udaká-, ˘ˢˋ˿˹˘ˋ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ‘˅˥ˊˁ’, ˅ ˜˥ˣ˪ˋ˜˨˪ˋ ˆ˘˦˥˪ˋ˖˻ ˥ ˪˥ˢ, ˵˪˥ ˅ ˅ˋˊ˘˙˨˜˥ˢ ˄˻༤ˁ ˨˫˦˦༤ˋ˪˘˅ˣˁ̀ ˦ˁ˧ˁˊ˘ˆˢˁ vŊ´ r-ɏ/ɏudán-, ˘ ˦˧ˁ˱˥˧ˢˁ ˦ˋ˧˅˥˙, *u๞e/oh1r, ˘ ˅˪˥˧˥˙, *ud-en-, ˧˥ˊ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˻. ʓ˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˥ ˽˪˥ˢ˫ ˢˣˋˣ˘˿, ˅˻˨˜ˁ˖ˁˣˣ˥ˢ˫ ʍ. ˊˋ ɳˁˣ˥ˢ ˘ ɯ. ʌ˫˄˥˴˜˘ˢ, ˅ ˦˧ˁ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˨˜˥ˢ ˊˋ˙˨˪˅˥˅ˁ༤ ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˙ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˲˥ˊ *d > *h1, ˦˥˽˪˥ˢ˫ vŊ´ r- ˦˧˥˘˨˲˥ˊ˘˪ ˘˖ ˣ˥ˢ˘ˣˁ˪˘˅ˁˁ˜˜˫˖ˁ˪˘˅ˁ *u๞od-r, ˁ udán- — ˘˖ ˜˥˨˅ˋˣˣ˥˙ ˥˨ˣ˥˅˥˙ *ud-en- ˦˧ˁ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˆˋ˪ˋ˧˥˜༤˘˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˘ˢˋˣ˘ ‘˅˥ˊˁ’. ʃ˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁˣ˘ˋ ˦˥˜ˁ˖˻˅ˁˋ˪, ˵˪˥ ˅ ˅ˋˊ˘˙˨˜˥ˢ vŊ´ r-˘ udánˊˋ˙˨˪˅˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ ˢ˥ˆ༤˘ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤̀˪˼ ˨˥˄˥˙ ˨˫˦˦༤ˋ˪˘˅ˣ˫˿ ˦ˁ˧ˁˊ˘ˆˢ˫, ˣ˥ ˦˧˘ ˽˪˥ˢ ˣˁ ˆ༤˫˄˘ˣˣ˥ˢ ˫˧˥˅ˣˋ ˦˧ˁ˱˥˧ˢ˻ *u๞e/oh1r ˘ *ud-en- ˣˋ ̀˅༤̀˿˪˨̀ ˜˥ˆˣˁ˪ˁˢ˘: ˦˧ˁ̀˖˻˜˥˅˻ˢ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋˢ ˥˪ˊˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˦˧ˁ̀˖˻˜˥˅˥ˆ˥ ˘ˢˋˣ˘ *u๞e/oh1r ˄˻༤˥ ‘˅༤ˁˆˁ, ˨˻˧˥˨˪˼’, ˘ˢˋˣˣ˥ ˘˖ ˽˪˥ˆ˥ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘̀ ˢ˥ˆ༤˘ ˦˧˥˘˖˥˙˪˘ ˅˨ˋ ˖ˁ˨˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣˣ˻ˋ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘̀ ˋˆ˥ ˜˥ˣ˪˘ˣ˫ˁˣ˪˥˅, ˅ ˪˥ˢ ˵˘˨༤ˋ ˁ˅ˋ˨˪. vŊra- ‘ˊ˥ːˊ˼’; ༤ˁ˪. ƉrŢnor, ƉrŢnŊri ‘˦˥ˆ˧˫ːˁ˪˼˨̀ ˅ ˅˥ˊ˫, ˣ˻˧̀˪˼’, ƉrŢna ‘ˢ˥˵ˁ’; ˊ˧.-˘˧༤. fír ‘ˢ˥༤˥˵ˣ˻˙; ˢ˥༤˥˜˥ (ˆ༤˥˨˨ˁ)’, ˊ˧.-˅ˁ༤༤. gwir-awt ‘˜˧ˋ˦˜˘˙ ˣˁ˦˘˪˥˜’; ˊ˧.-˘˨༤. úr ‘ˢˋ༤˜˘˙ ˊ˥ːˊ˼, ˢ˥˧˥˨˼’, ˊ˧.-ˁˣˆ༤. úrig- ‘˧˥˨˘˨˪˻˙’ (˅ ˨˥˨˪ˁ˅ˋ ˜˥ˢ˦˥˖˘˪˥˅); ˊ˧.-˦˧˫˨. wurs ‘˦˧˫ˊ’ ˘ ˪. ˊ. ʑ˧˘ˢˋ˵ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥˙ ˦ˁ˧ˁ༤༤ˋ༤˼˿ ˦˥ˊ˥˄ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˨ˋˢˁˣ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˧ˁ˖˅˘˪˘̀ ˨༤˫ː˘˪ ˦˧ˁ˨༤ˁ˅. *moŏaɏɏ/ɏ *moŏ˰ ‘˅༤ˁˆˁ, ˨˻˧˥˨˪˼’, ˧ˋ˱༤ˋ˜˨˻ ˜˥˪˥˧˥ˆ˥ ˅ ˨༤ˁ˅̀ˣ˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲ ˘ˢˋ˿˪ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘̀ ‘˅༤ˁˆˁ, ˨˻˧˥˨˪˼’, ‘ˊ˥ːˊ˼’, ‘ˊ˥ːˊ༤˘˅ˁ̀ ˦˥ˆ˥ˊˁ’, ‘˄˥༤˥˪˥’, ‘ˢ˥˵ˁ’ ˘ ˪. ˊ. ɳ ˨˪ˁ˪˼ˋ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˦˥˜ˁ˖˻˅ˁˋ˪˨̀, ˵˪˥ ˣˋ˥˄˻˵ˣ˻˙ ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˙ ˥˄༤˘˜ ˘.-ˋ. *u๞e/oh1r- ˣˋ ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˁˣ˘ˋˢ ˥˄̀˖ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ ˵༤ˋˣ˘˪˼ ˊˁˣˣ˫˿ ˥˨ˣ˥˅˫ ˣˁ ˜˥˧ˋˣ˼ *u๞eh1- ˘ ˨˫˱˱˘˜˨ *-r, ˜ˁ˜ ˘, ˣˁ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧, *i๞eh1r- ‘ˆ˥ˊ’. ɳ ˖ˁ˜༤˿˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ˁˣˁ༤˘˖˘˧˫˿˪˨̀ ˣˋ˜˥˪˥˧˻ˋ ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧˻ ˣˁ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˲˥ˊ *d > *h1; ˊˋ༤ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˅˻˅˥ˊ, ˵˪˥ ˥ˣ˘ ˣˋ ˥˄༤ˁˊˁ˿˪ ˊ˥˨˪ˁ˪˥˵ˣ˥˙ ˨˪ˋ˦ˋˣ˼˿ ˫˄ˋˊ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥˨˪˘, ˁ ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˋ ˫˨༤˥˅˘̀ ˊˁˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˲˥ˊˁ ˣˋ̀˨ˣ˻. ɳ ˨˅ˋ˪ˋ ˦˥༤˫˵ˋˣˣ˻˲ ˊˁˣˣ˻˲ ˨˥˥˪ˣ˥˸ˋˣ˘ˋ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ vŊ´ r-, udán- ˘ udaká- ˅˘ˊ˘˪˨̀ ˨༤ˋˊ˫˿˹˘ˢ: ˖ˁ˜˥ˣ˥ˢˋ˧ˣ˻˙ ˆˋ˪ˋ˧˥˜༤˘˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˙ ˣ˥ˢ˘ˣˁ˪˘˅-ˁ˜˜˫˖ˁ˪˘˅ #vŊแdar ˣˋ ˨˥˲˧ˁˣ˘༤˨̀ ˘ ˄˻༤ ˖ˁˢˋ˹ˋˣ ˦˥˲˥ː˘ˢ ˦˥ ˱˥˧ˢˋ ˣ˥ˢ˘ˣˁ˪˘˅˥ˢ-ˁ˜˜˫˖ˁ˪˘˅˥ˢ vŊ´ r- /váar/ ‘˅༤ˁˆˁ, ˨˻˧˥˨˪˼; ˊ˥ːˊ˼’, ˦˥˨༤ˋ ˵ˋˆ˥ ˦˥˨༤ˋˊˣ˘˙ ˨˪ˁ༤ ˖ˣˁ˵˘˪˼ ‘˅˥ˊˁ’, ˲˥˪̀ ˘ ˨˥˲˧ˁˣ̀༤ ˅ ˧̀ˊˋ ˨༤˫˵ˁˋ˅ ˪ˁ˜˘ˋ ˨˅˥˘ ˨˪ˁ˧˻ˋ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘̀, ˜ˁ˜ ‘˅༤ˁˆˁ’ ˘༤˘ ‘ˊ˥ːˊ˼’. ʑ˥˖ˊˣˋˋ ˘ vŊ´ r-, ˘ udán- ˄˻༤˘ ˅˻˪ˋ˨ˣˋˣ˻ ˘ˢˋˣˋˢ udaká- ‘˅˥ˊˁ’, ˜˥˪˥˧˥ˋ ˧˥ˊ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥ udán- ˘ ˣˁ˵˘ˣˁˋ˪ ˨༤˫ː˘˪˼ ˄ˁ˖˥˅˻ˢ ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋˢ ˅˥ˊ˻ ˫ːˋ ˅ ɯ˪˲ˁ˧˅ˁ˅ˋˊˋ. ʂ˕˳˩ˀʻ˯ˀ ˜˕˙ʻʸ: ˦˧ˁ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˨˜˘˙ ̀˖˻˜, ˅ˋˊ˘˙˨˜˘˙ ̀˖˻˜, ˨˫˦˦༤ˋ˪˘˅ˣ˻ˋ ˦ˁ˧ˁˊ˘ˆˢ˻, ˨ˋˢˁˣ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˋ ˨ˊ˅˘ˆ˘, ˨ˋˢˁˣ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜ˁ̀ ˧ˋ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˜˴˘̀.

ɳ ˨˪ˁ˪˼ˋ, ˦˥˨˅̀˹ˋˣˣ˥˙ ˦ˁ˧ˁˊ˘ˆˢˋ ˅ˋˊ˘˙˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘̀ ˅˥ˊ˻, ɯ. ʌ˫˄˥˴˜˘˙ ˧ˁ˨˨ˢˁ˪˧˘˅ˁˋ˪ ˨˥˥˪ˣ˥˸ˋˣ˘ˋ ˪˧ˋ˲ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ ˨ ˽˪˘ˢ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋˢ, ˖ˁ˨˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣˣ˻˲ ˅ ˅ˋˊ˘˙˨˜˥ˢ: vŊ´ r-, udán- ˘ udaká- (Lubotsky 2013) 2. 1

ʍˣˋ ˲˥˪ˋ༤˥˨˼ ˄˻ ˦˥˄༤ˁˆ˥ˊˁ˧˘˪˼ ʍ. ɯ. ɾ˘˅༤˥˅ˁ ˖ˁ ˜˧˘˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˋ ˥˄˨˫ːˊˋˣ˘ˋ ˅˥˦˧˥˨˥˅, ˖ˁ˪˧ˁˆ˘˅ˁˋˢ˻˲ ˅ ˨˪ˁ˪˼ˋ, ˁ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ʍ. ʎ. ʓˁˋˣ˜˥ ˘ ˁˣ˥ˣ˘ˢˣ˥ˆ˥ ˧ˋ˴ˋˣ˖ˋˣ˪ˁ ˖ˁ ˦˧˥˵˪ˋˣ˘ˋ ˵ˋ˧ˣ˥˅˥˙ ˧ˋˊˁ˜˴˘˘ ˧ˁ˄˥˪˻ ˘ ˫˜ˁ˖ˁˣ˘ˋ ˣˁ ˧̀ˊ ˨˥ˊˋ˧ːˁ˅˸˘˲˨̀ ˅ ˣˋ˙ ˫˦˫˹ˋˣ˘˙ ˘ ˣˋˊ˥˵ˋ˪˥˅. 2 ʐ˨˪ˁ༤˼ˣ˻ˋ ˅ˋˊ˘˙˨˜˘ˋ ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘̀ ˅˥ˊ˻, ˅˧˥ˊˋ ap-ɏ/ɏŊ´ p- ‘˅˥ˊˁɏ/ɏ˅˥ˊ˻; ˦˥˪˥˜’ (˵ˁ˨˪˥ ˅ ˧ˁ˖ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˧˥ˊˁ ˧˘˪˫ˁ༤˼ˣ˻˲ ˜˥ˣ˪ˋ˜˨˪ˁ˲) (Rivelex I: 258–261), ˣˋ ˧ˁ˨˨ˢˁ˪˧˘˅ˁ˿˪˨̀ ɯ. ʌ˫˄˥˴˜˘ˢ ˘ ˣˋ ˄˫ˊ˫˪ ˧ˁ˨˨ˢ˥˪˧ˋˣ˻ ˢˣ˥˙, ˦˥˪˥ˢ˫ ˵˪˥ ˥ˣ˘ ˣˋ ˦˧ˋ˪ˋˣˊ˫˿˪ ˣˁ ˄ˁ˖˥˅˥ˋ ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ˅˥ˊ˻ ˅ ˅ˋˊ˘˙˨˜˥ˢ ˘ ˣˋ ˨˅̀˖ˁˣ˻ ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ ˨ ˧ˁ˨˨ˢˁ˪˧˘˅ˁˋˢ˻ˢ˘ ˅ ˨˪ˁ˪˼ˋ ༤ˋ˜˨ˋˢˁˢ˘. Journal of Language Relationship • ɳ˥˦˧˥˨˻ ̀˖˻˜˥˅˥ˆ˥ ˧˥ˊ˨˪˅ˁ • 15/3 (2017) • Pp. 181–192 • © The authors, 2017

ɯ. ɯ. ʕ˧˥˱˘ˢ˥˅

ʓˣˁ˵ˁ༤ˁ ˥ˣ ˥˪˅ˋ˧ˆˁˋ˪ ˘ˊˋ˿ ʫ. ɳˁ˜ˋ˧ˣˁˆˋ༤̀, ˦˥ˊˊˋ˧ːˁˣˣ˫˿ ˨˥˨˪ˁ˅˘˪ˋ༤̀ˢ˘ ˅ˋˊ˘˙˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˧̀ Rivelex, ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˥ ˜˥˪˥˧˥˙ ˨˪ˁ˧˻˙ ˆˋ˪ˋ˧˥˜༤˘˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˙ ˘ˢˋˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻˙-˅˘ˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻˙ ˦ˁˊˋː ˥˨ˣ˥˅˻ udán- ˖ˁˢˋ˹ˁ༤˨̀ ˥˨ˣ˥˅˥˙ udaká- ˨ ˨˫˱˱˘˜˨˥ˢ -ka, ˘ˢˋ˅˸˘ˢ ˅ ˪˥ˢ ˵˘˨༤ˋ ˊ˘ˢ˘ˣ˫˪˘˅ˣ˥ˋ ˘ ˨˥˄˘˧ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˋ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘̀ (Wackernagel 1975: 316; Rivelex II: 314), ˣˁ ˪˥ˢ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˁˣ˘˘, ˵˪˥ udaká-, ˦˥ ˋˆ˥ ˢˣˋˣ˘˿, ˥˄༤ˁˊˁˋ˪ ˣˋ˨˜˥༤˼˜˥ ˘ˣ˥˙ ˨ˋˢˁˣ˪˘˜˥˙, ˁ ˘ˢˋˣˣ˥ ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˁˋ˪ ‘˅˥ˊ˫ (ˊ༤̀ ˦˘˪˼̀)’ (Lubotsky 2013: 159). ɸˁ༤ˋˋ ɯ. ʌ˫˄˥˴˜˘˙ ˣˁ˲˥ˊ˘˪ ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧˻ ˫˦˥˪˧ˋ˄༤ˋˣ˘̀ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ vŊ´ r- ˘ udán- ˅ ˨˲˥ˊˣ˻˲ ˜˥ˣ˪ˋ˜˨˪ˁ˲ ˱˥˧ˢ˫༤˼ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˲ˁ˧ˁ˜˪ˋ˧ˁ, ˦˧˘ ˽˪˥ˢ ˣˁ˄༤˿ˊˁˋ˪˨̀ ˘˲ ˊ˥˦˥༤ˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˋ ˧ˁ˨˦˧ˋˊˋ༤ˋˣ˘ˋ ˅ ̀˖˻˜ˋ ɳˋˊ, ˁ ˘ˢˋˣˣ˥: vŊ´ r- ˫˦˥˪˧ˋ˄༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˪˥༤˼˜˥ ˅ ˘ˢˋˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˢ ˘ ˅˘ˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˢ ˦ˁˊˋːˁ˲, ˁ udán- — ˅ ˜˥˨˅ˋˣˣ˻˲ 3 (Lubotsky 2013: 160–161): RV 10.12.3d duhé yád énŤ divyáૼ g֣r‫׎‬táૼ vŌ´ ‫ݍ‬ ‘…ʠ˪˥˄˻ ˦ˋ˨˪˧ˁ̀ (˜˥˧˥˅ˁ) ˊ˥˘༤ˁ˨˼ ˣˋ˄ˋ˨ˣ˻ˢ ː˘˧˥ˢ, ˅˥ˊ˥˙’ 4. RV 10.99.4cd apŌ´ do yátra yújyŌso 'rat֣Ō´ droੇyàŽvŌsa Ťџrate g֣r‫׎‬táૼ vŌ´ ‫ݍ‬ ‘…ʇ˥ˆˊˁ ˨˥˿˖ˣ˘˜˘ ˋˆ˥ ˄ˋ˖ ˣ˥ˆ, ˄ˋ˖ ˜˥༤ˋ˨ˣ˘˴˻, ʓ ˵ˁˣˁˢ˘-˜˥ˣ̀ˢ˘ ༤˼˿˪ ː˘˧ ˘ ˅˥ˊ˫’. ĬS 3.12.4c (= PS 3.20.4, 7.6.6) uk࣒ántu Ɗdná marúto ghr‫׎‬téna ‘Let the Maruts sprinkle (it) with water, with ghee’. ʘ˵˘˪˻˅ˁ̀ ˖ˁ˨˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣˣ˻ˋ ˨༤˫˵ˁ˘ ˊ˅˫˨༤˥ːˣ˥ˆ˥ ˨˜ˁˣˊ˘˧˥˅ˁˣ˘̀ /váar/ ˅ ʒ˘ˆ˅ˋˊˋ, ɯ.ɍʌ˫˄˥˴˜˘˙ ˧ˋ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˘˧˫ˋ˪ ˊˁˣˣ˥ˋ ˨༤˥˅˥ ˜ˁ˜ *vaHar < ˘.-˘˧. *vaH-r๗ < ˘.-ˋ. *u๞e/oh1-r. ʃ˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ ˦˧ˋˊ༤ˁˆˁˋ˪ ˨˵˘˪ˁ˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˅ ˅ˋˊ˘˙˨˜˥ˢ ˨˫˹ˋ˨˪˅˥˅ˁ༤ˁ ˨˫˦˦༤ˋ˪˘˅ˣˁ̀ ˦ˁ˧ˁˊ˘ˆˢˁ vŊ´ r- (˘ˢ.-˅˘ˣ. ˦.)ɏ/ɏud-án- (˜˥˨˅ˋˣˣ˻ˋ ˦ˁˊˋː˘) ‘˅˥ˊˁ’, ˜˥˪˥˧ˁ̀ ˅˥˨˲˥ˊ˘˪ ˜ ˦˧ˁ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˨˜˥˙ ˦ˁ˧ˁˊ˘ˆˢˋ *u๞oh1-r ˘༤˘ *u๞eh1-r (˘ˢ.-˅˘ˣ. ˦.), *ud-en- (˜˥˨˅ˋˣˣ˻ˋ ˦ˁˊˋː˘) ‘˅˥ˊˁ’. ʑ˥ ˨˅˥ˋˢ˫ ˦˧˥˘˨˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘˿ ˽˪ˁ ˦ˁ˧ˁˊ˘ˆˢˁ, ˦˥ ˢˣˋˣ˘˿ ɯ. ʌ˫˄˥˴˜˥ˆ˥, ˣˁ ˨ˁˢ˥ˢ ˊˋ༤ˋ ˣˋ ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˨˫˦˦༤ˋ˪˘˅ˣ˥˙: ˅ ˣ˥ˢ˘ˣˁ˪˘˅ˋ-ˁ˜˜˫˖ˁ˪˘˅ˋ *u๞oh1-r- ˦ˋ˧˅˻˙ ༤ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤ ˦˧˥ˊ˥༤ːˁˋ˪ ˘.-ˋ. *d, ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥, ˋˋ ˦ˋ˧˅˥ˣˁ˵ˁ༤˼ˣ˻˙ ˅˘ˊ ˄˻༤ ˨༤ˋˊ˫˿˹˘ˢ: */u๞od-r/ (˘ˢ.-˅˘ˣ. ˦.), */ud-en-/ (˜˥˨˅ˋˣˣ˻ˋ ˦ˁˊˋː˘). ɯ. ʌ˫˄˥˴˜˘˙ ˦˥ˊ˜˧ˋ˦༤̀ˋ˪ ˨˅˥ˋ ˢˣˋˣ˘ˋ ˫˜ˁ˖ˁˣ˘ˋˢ ˣˁ ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˙ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˲˥ˊ ˘.-ˋ. *d > *h1 ˅ ˪ˁ˜˘˲ ˱˥˧ˢˁ˲, ˜ˁ˜ ˆ˧ˋ˵. ϖΥΜέΩΧ ‘100’, ˁ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˫˜ˁ˖˻˅ˁˋ˪ ˣˁ ˧̀ˊ ˜˥˧ˣˋ˙ ˦˧ˁ̀˖˻˜ˁ, ˅ ˜˥˪˥˧˻˲ ˢ˥ːˣ˥ ˫˨ˢ˥˪˧ˋ˪˼ ˜˥༤ˋ˄ˁˣ˘ˋ *d ~ *h1; ˦ˋ˧ˋ˲˥ˊ *d > *h1 ˅ ˘ˢˋˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˢ-˅˘ˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˢ ˦ˁˊˋːˋ ˨༤˥˅ˁ ‘˅˥ˊˁ’ ˦˧˘ ˽˪˥ˢ ˦˧˥˘˨˲˥ˊ˘˪ ˅ ˜˥ˣˋ˵ˣ˥ˢ ˜༤ˁ˨˪ˋ˧ˋ *-dr, ˜˥˪˥˧˻˙ ˅ ˦˧ˁ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˨˜˥ˢ ˣˋ ˘ˢˋˋ˪ ˁˣˁ༤˥ˆ˥˅ (Lubotsky 2013: 162–163). ʒˁˣˋˋ ˦˥ˊ˥˄ˣ˫˿ ːˋ ˦˧ˁ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˨˜˫˿ ˧ˋ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˜˴˘˿ ˣˁ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˋ ༤ˁ˪˘ˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˢˁ˪ˋ˧˘ˁ༤ˁ ˦˧ˋˊ༤˥ː˘༤ ʍ. ˊˋ Baˣ: ˅ ˨˅˥ˋˢ ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˢ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˧ˋ ༤ˁ˪˘ˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ ˥ˣ ˦˧˘˲˥ˊ˘˪ ˜ ˅˻˅˥ˊ˫ ˥ ˦ˋ˧˅˥ˣˁ˵ˁ༤˼ˣ˥˙ ˨ˋˢˁˣ˪˘˜ˋ ‘˅˥ˊˁ’ ˊ༤̀ ˨༤˥˅ˁ ƉrŢna ‘ˢ˥˵ˁ’ ˣˁ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˁˣ˘˘ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘̀ ˋˆ˥ ˊˋ˧˘˅ˁ˪˥˅ ƉrŢnor ‘˦˥ˆ˧˫ːˁ˪˼˨̀ ˅ ˅˥ˊ˫, ˣ˻˧̀˪˼’, ƉrŢnŊtor ‘ˣ˻˧̀༤˼˹˘˜, ˅˥ˊ˥༤ˁ˖’ ˘ ˖ˁˢˋ˵ˁˋ˪, ˵˪˥ ˘ˢˋˋ˪ ˨ˢ˻˨༤ ˆ˥˅˥˧˘˪˼ ˥ ˦˧˥˘˖˅˥ˊˣ˥˨˪˘ ˘.-ˋ. *u๞e/oh1r ˥˪ ˘.-ˋ. *u๞od-r, ˜˧ˁ˪˜˥ ˫˜ˁ˖˻˅ˁ̀ ˣˁ ˣˋ˜˥˪˥˧˻ˋ ˘˖ ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧˥˅ ˣˁ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˲˥ˊ *d > *h1, ˫˦˥ˢ˘ˣˁˋˢ˻ˋ ˘ ɯ. ʌ˫˄˥˴˜˘ˢ (de Vaan 2008: 644). ɳ ˨˅˥ˋ˙ ˨˪ˁ˪˼ˋ ̀ ˧ˁ˨˨ˢ˥˪˧˿ ˅˨ˋ ˪˧˘ ˅ˋˊ˘˙˨˜˘ˋ ༤ˋ˜˨ˋˢ˻ ˨˥ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋˢ ‘˅˥ˊˁ’ ˘ ˁ˧ˆ˫ˢˋˣ˪˻ ɯ. ʌ˫˄˥˴˜˥ˆ˥, ˜ˁ˨ˁ˿˹˘ˋ˨̀ ˘˲ ˘ ˘˲ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤ˁˆˁˋˢ˥ˆ˥ ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˦˧˥˘˨˲˥3

ʐ˨ˣ˥˅ˁ ˨˧ˋˊˣˋˆ˥ ˧˥ˊˁ udán- ˫˦˥˪˧ˋ˄༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˅ ʒ˘ˆ˅ˋˊˋ 21 ˧ˁ˖ ˣˋ˦˧ˋˢˋˣˣ˥ ˅ ˜˥˨˅ˋˣˣ˻˲ ˦ˁˊˋːˁ˲ ˜ˁ˜ ˋˊ˘ˣ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥ˆ˥, ˪ˁ˜ ˘ ˢˣ˥ːˋ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˵˘˨༤ˁ; ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˁ ˨˧ˋˊˣˋˆ˥ ˧˥ˊˁ vŊ´ r- ˅˨ˋ 11 ˧ˁ˖ ˅˨˪˧ˋ˵ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˪˥༤˼˜˥ ˅ ˘ˢˋˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˢ ˘ ˅˘ˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˢ ˦ˁˊˋːˁ˲. 4 ʁˊˋ˨˼ ˘ ˊˁ༤ˋˋ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˅˥ˊ˻ ˢˋ˨˪ ˘˖ ʒ˘ˆ˅ˋˊ˻ ˊˁˣ˻ ˦˥ (ɹ༤˘˖ˁ˧ˋˣ˜˥˅ˁ 1988-1999), ˖ˁ ˘˨˜༤˿˵ˋˣ˘ˋˢ ˣˋ˜˥˪˥˧˻˲ ˢˋ˨˪, ˪˧ˁ˜˪˥˅˜ˁ ˜˥˪˥˧˻˲ ˫ ʕ. ʫ. ɹ༤˘˖ˁ˧ˋˣ˜˥˅˥˙ ˣˋ˥˦˧ˋˊˋ༤ˋˣˣˁ; ˅ ˪ˁ˜˥ˢ ˨༤˫˵ˁˋ ˦˧˘˅˥ˊ˘˪˨̀ ˁˣˆ༤˘˙˨˜˘˙ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˅˥ˊ ˦˥ (Brereton & Jamison 2014). 182

ɳˋˊ˘˙˨˜˘ˋ ˥˨ˣ˥˅˻ v¬´ r-, udán- ˘ udaká- ‘˅˥ˊˁ’: ˘˲ ˦ˁ˧ˁˊ˘ˆˢˁ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˋ ˘ ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˋ ˥˪ˣ˥˸ˋˣ˘̀

ːˊˋˣ˘̀, ˘ ˦˥˨˪ˁ˧ˁ˿˨˼ ˫˨˪ˁˣ˥˅˘˪˼, ˊˋ˙˨˪˅˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ ༤˘ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤ˁˆˁˋˢˁ̀ ˅ˋˊ˘˙˨˜ˁ̀ ˨˫˦˦༤ˋ˪˘˅ˣˁ̀ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˁ ˊ༤̀ ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘̀ ˅˥ˊ˻ ˅˥˖ˣ˘˜༤ˁ ˅ ˧ˋ˖˫༤˼˪ˁ˪ˋ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˲˥ˊˁ *d > *h1 ˅ ˦˧ˁ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˨˜˥˙ ˦˧ˁ˱˥˧ˢˋ *u๞od-r. ɯ˧ˆ˫ˢˋˣ˪˘˧˫̀ ˨˅˥ˋ ˣˋ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨˘ˋ ˨ ˪˥˵˜˥˙ ˖˧ˋˣ˘̀ ʫ. ɳˁ˜ˋ˧ˣˁˆˋ༤̀ ˥˪ˣ˥˨˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ ˪˥ˆ˥, ˵˪˥ ˅ ˅ˋˊ˘˙˨˜˥ˢ ˧˥༤˼ ˘ˢˋˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˆ˥-˅˘ˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˦ˁˊˋːˋ˙ ˘ˢˋˣ˘ udán- ˘ˆ˧ˁ༤ˁ ˱˥˧ˢˁ udakám, ɯ. ʌ˫˄˥˴˜˘˙ ˊˋ༤ˁˋ˪ ˨༤ˋˊ˫˿˹ˋˋ ˫˪˅ˋ˧ːˊˋˣ˘ˋ ˥ ˨ˋˢˁˣ˪˘˜ˋ ˽˪˘˲ ˥˨ˣ˥˅: ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˥ ˋˆ˥ ˪˥˵˜ˋ ˖˧ˋˣ˘̀, ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˁ udán- ˖ˣˁ˵˘˪ «˦˧˥˨˪˥ ‘˅˥ˊˁ’» 5, ˁ «udaká- ˅ ˊ˧ˋ˅ˣˋ˙˸˘˲ ˪ˋ˜˨˪ˁ˲ ˘ˢˋˋ˪ ˊ˧˫ˆ˥˙ ˥˪˪ˋˣ˥˜ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘̀, ˁ ˘ˢˋˣˣ˥ ‘˅˥ˊˁ (ˊ༤̀ ˦˘˪˼̀)’» 6 (Lubotsky 2013: 159). ʎˁ ˢ˥˙ ˅˖ˆ༤̀ˊ, ˦˥ˊ˥˄ˣ˥ˋ ˨ˋˢˁˣ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˋ ˧ˁ˖ˆ˧ˁˣ˘˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ‘˦˧˥˨˪˥ ˅˥ˊˁ’Ɏ/Ɏ‘˅˥ˊˁ (ˊ༤̀ ˦˘˪˼̀)’ ˅ ˊˁˣˣ˥ˢ ˨༤˫˵ˁˋ ˅˻ˆ༤̀ˊ˘˪ ˘˨˜˫˨˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˻ˢ. ɳ˥-˦ˋ˧˅˻˲, ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ‘˅˥ˊˁ ˊ༤̀ ˦˘˪˼̀’ ˵ˁ˹ˋ ˅˨ˋˆ˥ ˅˲˥ˊ˘˪ ˅ ˄ˁ˖˥˅˥ˋ ˥˦˧ˋˊˋ༤ˋˣ˘ˋ ‘˦˧˥˖˧ˁ˵ˣˁ̀, ˄ˋ˨˴˅ˋ˪ˣˁ̀ ː˘ˊ˜˥˨˪˼, ˥˄˧ˁ˖˫˿˹ˁ̀ ˧˫˵˼˘, ˧ˋ˜˘, ˥˖ˌ˧ˁ, ˢ˥˧̀ ˘ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤̀˿˹ˁ̀ ˨˥˄˥˙ ˲˘ˢ˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˋ ˨˥ˋˊ˘ˣˋˣ˘ˋ ˅˥ˊ˥˧˥ˊˁ ˨ ˜˘˨༤˥˧˥ˊ˥ˢ’ (ɲʕʓ: 139) ˦˥ ˪˥˙ ˦˧˘˵˘ˣˋ, ˵˪˥ ˘ˢˋˣˣ˥ ˘˨˦˥༤˼˖˥˅ˁˣ˘ˋ ˅˥ˊ˻ ˊ༤̀ ˦˘˪˼̀ ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˣˁ˘˄˥༤ˋˋ ˋ˨˪ˋ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˻ˢ ˦˧˘ˢˋˣˋˣ˘ˋˢ. ʑ˥ ˜˧ˁ˙ˣˋ˙ ˢˋ˧ˋ, ˅ ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲ ˢˣˋ ˣˋ˘˖˅ˋ˨˪ˣ˥ ˦˥ˊ˥˄ˣ˥ˋ ˨ˋˢˁˣ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˋ ˧ˁ˖ˆ˧ˁˣ˘˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ˘ ɯ. ʌ˫˄˥˴˜˘˙ ˣˋ ˦˧˘˅˥ˊ˘˪ ˪˘˦˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˦ˁ˧ˁ༤༤ˋ༤ˋ˙, ˋˆ˥ ˊ˥˜ˁ˖˻˅ˁ˿˹˘˲. ɳ˥-˅˪˥˧˻˲, ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˁ udaká- ˖ˁ˨˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣˁ ˣˋ ˪˥༤˼˜˥ ˅ ˫˖˜˥ˢ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘˘ ‘˦˘˪˼ˋ˅ˁ̀ ˅˥ˊˁ’, ˨˧.: RV 10.166.5d-f ad֣aspadŌ´ n ma úd vadata maੇ۠Ƌ´ kŌ ivodakŌ´ n maੇ۠Ƌ´ kŌ udakŌ´ d iva ‘ʃ˖-˦˥ˊ ˣ˥ˆ ˢ˥˘˲ ˥˄˧ˁ˹ˁ˙˪ˋ˨˼ (˜˥ ˢˣˋ) ˨ˣ˘˖˫ ˅˅ˋ˧˲, ʇˁ˜ ༤̀ˆ˫˸˜˘ ˘˖ ˅˥ˊ˻, ʇˁ˜ ˘˖ ˅˥ˊ˻ ༤̀ˆ˫˸˜˘!’ ʐ˨ˣ˥˅ˁ vŊ´ r- ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˽˜˨˦༤˘˴˘˪ˣ˥ ˫˦˥˪˧ˋ˄༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˅ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘˘ ‘˅˥ˊˁ ˊ༤̀ ˦˘˪˼̀’, ˵˪˥ ˊ˥˦˥༤ˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ ˊ˥˜ˁ˖˻˅ˁˋ˪ ˣˋˣ˫ːˣ˥˨˪˼ ˅˅˥ˊ˘ˢ˥ˆ˥ ˦˧˥˪˘˅˥˦˥˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˘̀: RV 1. 116. 22a-b Žarásya cid ŌrcatkásyŌvatŌ´ d Ō´ nŤcŌ´ d uccŌ´ cakrat֣u‫ ݹ‬pŌ´ tave vŌ´ ‫ݹ‬ ‘ɯ ˊ༤̀ ʣˁ˧˻, ˨˻ˣˁ ʒ˘˵ˁ˪˜˘, ˘˖ ˜˥༤˥ˊ˴ˁ ɳ˻ ˊ˥˨˪ˁ༤˘ ˅˥ˊ˫ ˊ༤̀ ˦˘˪˼̀ ˨ˣ˘˖˫ — ˅˅ˋ˧˲’. ɳ ˢˋˣˋˋ ˦˥˜ˁ˖ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˢ, ˣ˥ ˅˨ˋ ːˋ ˣˁ˦˧̀ˢ˫˿ ˨˅̀˖ˁˣˣ˥ˢ ˨ ˦˘˪˼ˋˢ ˜˥ˣ˪ˋ˜˨˪ˋ ˖ˁ˨˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣˁ ˘ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˁ udán-: RV 10.102.4a udnó hradám apibaj járhr‫࣒׎‬Ōੇa‫ݹ‬ ‘ɳ˥˖˄˫ːˊˋˣˣ˻˙, ˥ˣ ˅˻˦˘༤ ˢ˥˧ˋ ˅˥ˊ˻’. ʁˁ˜༤˿˵ˁ̀ ˦˧ˋˊ˅ˁ˧˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˋ ˧ˁ˨˨ˢ˥˪˧ˋˣ˘ˋ ˨ˋˢˁˣ˪˘˜˘ ˪˧ˋ˲ ˅ˋˊ˘˙˨˜˘˲ ༤ˋ˜˨ˋˢ, ˣˋ˥˄˲˥ˊ˘ˢ˥ ˧ˋ˖˿ˢ˘˧˥˅ˁ˪˼: ˅˨ˋ ˥ˣ˘ ˘ˢˋ˿˪ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˣ˥ˋ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ‘˅˥ˊˁ’ ˘ ˢ˥ˆ˫˪ ˫˦˥˪˧ˋ˄༤̀˪˼˨̀ ˅ ˨˲˥ˊˣ˻˲ ˜˥ˣ˪ˋ˜˨˪ˁ˲, ˣˋ˨ˢ˥˪˧̀ ˣˁ ˣˁ༤˘˵˘ˋ ˪ˋ˲ ˘༤˘ ˘ˣ˻˲ ˜˥ˣˣ˥˪ˁ˴˘˙, ˜˥˪˥˧˻ˋ ˄˫ˊ˫˪ ˧ˁ˨˨ˢ˥˪˧ˋˣ˻ ˊˁ༤ˋˋ. ʕˁ˜˘ˢ ˥˄˧ˁ˖˥ˢ, ˣˁ ˢ˥˙ ˅˖ˆ༤̀ˊ, ˘ˢˋˋ˪ ˨ˢ˻˨༤ ˆ˥˅˥˧˘˪˼ ˥ ˪˥ˢ, ˵˪˥ ˥˨ˣ˥˅˻ vŊ´ r- ˘ udán-, ˨ ˥ˊˣ˥˙ ˨˪˥˧˥ˣ˻, ˘, ˨ ˊ˧˫ˆ˥˙ ˨˪˥˧˥ˣ˻, ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˁ udaká- ˧ˁ˨˦˧ˋˊˋ༤ˋˣ˻ ˅ ɳˋˊˁ˲ ˣˋ ˦˥ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘˿, ˁ ˲˧˥ˣ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˘. ʌˋ˜˨ˋˢ˻ vŊ´ r- ˘ udán- ˫ːˋ ˅ ɯ˪˲ˁ˧˅ˁ˅ˋˊˋ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤̀˿˪ 5 6

«just ‘water’». «udaká- in the oldest texts has a different shade of meaning, namely ‘water (for drinking)’». 183

ɯ. ɯ. ʕ˧˥˱˘ˢ˥˅

˨˥˄˥˙ ˁ˧˲ˁ˘˖ˢ˻ 7; ˣˁ˦˧˥˪˘˅, udaká-, ˅˦ˋ˧˅˻ˋ ˅˨˪˧ˋ˵ˁ˿˹ˁ̀˨̀ ˅ I ˘ X ˢˁˣˊˁ༤ˁ˲ ʒ˘ˆ˅ˋˊ˻, ˨˜˥˧ˋˋ ˦˧˘˲˥ˊ˘˪ ˣˁ ˨ˢˋˣ˫ ˥˄˥˘ˢ ˽˪˘ˢ ˨༤˥˅ˁˢ, ˵ˋˢ ˨༤˫ː˘˪ ˘˖ˣˁ˵ˁ༤˼ˣ˥ ˪˥༤˼˜˥ ˖ˁˢˋˣ˥˙ ˨˪ˁ˧˥ˆ˥ ˣ˥ˢ˘ˣˁ˪˘˅ˁ-ˁ˜˜˫˖ˁ˪˘˅ˁ *u๞od-r๗8. ʕ˥˪ ːˋ ˱ˁ˜˪, ˵˪˥ ˦ˋ˧˅˻ˋ ˫˦˥˪˧ˋ˄༤ˋˣ˘̀ udaká- ˅ ʒ˘ˆ˅ˋˊˋ ˘˖˅ˋ˨˪ˣ˻ ˅ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˣ˥ˢ ˅ ˘ˢˋˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˢ ˘༤˘ ˅˘ˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˢ ˦ˁˊˋːˁ˲, ˢ˥ːˋ˪ ˄˻˪˼ ˊˁːˋ ˨༤˫˵ˁ˙ˣ˥˨˪˼˿, ˦˥˪˥ˢ˫ ˵˪˥ ˨ˁˢ˘˲ ˜˥ˣ˪ˋ˜˨˪˥˅ ˅˨ˋˆ˥ ˸ˋ˨˪˼, ˦˧˘ ˽˪˥ˢ ˖ˁ˨˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ ˁ˄༤ˁ˪˘˅ udakŊ´ t (RV 10.166.5d) 9. ʜ˥˧ˢ˫༤˼ˣ˥ˋ ˫˦˥˪˧ˋ˄༤ˋˣ˘ˋ ˊˁˣˣ˻˲ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ ˅ ˨˲˥ː˘˲ ˜˥ˣ˪ˋ˜˨˪ˁ˲ ˨ ˊ˥˦˥༤ˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻ˢ ˧ˁ˨˦˧ˋˊˋ༤ˋˣ˘ˋˢ ˊˋ˙˨˪˅˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ ˢ˥ːˋ˪ ˆ˥˅˥˧˘˪˼ ˅ ˦˥༤˼˖˫ ˪˥ˆ˥, ˵˪˥ ˽˪˥ ˨˫˦˦༤ˋ˪˘˅ˣˁ̀ ˦ˁ˧ˁˊ˘ˆˢˁ. ɳ˦˧˥˵ˋˢ, ˣˋ ˨˪˥˘˪ ˫˦˫˨˜ˁ˪˼ ˘˖ ˅˘ˊ˫, ˵˪˥ ˥˨ˣ˥˅˻ vŊ´ r- ˘ udán- ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤̀˿˪ ˨˥˄˥˙ ˁ˧˲ˁ˘˖ˢ˻ ɳˋˊ, ˘ ˘˲ ˫˦˥˪˧ˋ˄༤ˋˣ˘ˋ ˅ ˄˥༤ˋˋ ˦˥˖ˊˣˋ˙ ˅ˋˊ˘˙˨˜˥˙ ༤˘˪ˋ˧ˁ˪˫˧ˋ, ˣˁ ˊˁˣˣ˻˲ ˜˥˪˥˧˥˙ ˅˥ ˢˣ˥ˆ˥ˢ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˁˣ˻ ˣˁ˄༤˿ˊˋˣ˘̀ ɯ. ʌ˫˄˥˴˜˥ˆ˥, ˢ˥ːˋ˪ ˄˻˪˼ ˘˨˜˫˨˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˻ˢ. ʎ˥ ˊˁːˋ ˋ˨༤˘ ˢ˻ ˦˧˘ˣ˘ˢˁˋˢ ˣˁ༤˘˵˘ˋ ˨˫˦˦༤ˋ˪˘˅˘˖ˢˁ ˧ˁ˨˨ˢˁ˪˧˘˅ˁˋˢ˻˲ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ ˅ ˅ˋˊ˘˙˨˜˥ˢ, ˥˄̀˖ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ ༤˘ ˥ˣ˘ ˦˧˘ ˽˪˥ˢ ˧˥ˊ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˻ ˣˁ ˆ༤˫˄˘ˣˣ˥ˢ ˫˧˥˅ˣˋ? ʫ ˦˥༤ˁˆˁ˿, ˵˪˥ ˋ˨˪˼ ˧̀ˊ ˦˧˘˵˘ˣ ˥˪˅ˋ˧ˆˁ˪˼ ˽˪˥ ˜ˁː˫˹ˋˋ˨̀ ˽˜˥ˣ˥ˢˣ˻ˢ ˧ˋ˸ˋˣ˘ˋ, ˜ˁ˜ ˨ˋˢˁˣ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˲, ˪ˁ˜ ˘ ˱˥˧ˢˁ༤˼ˣ˻˲. ɸ༤̀ ˣˁ˵ˁ༤ˁ ˣˋ˥˄˲˥ˊ˘ˢ˥ ˦˥ˊ˧˥˄ˣˋˋ ˧ˁ˨˨ˢ˥˪˧ˋ˪˼ ˨ˋˢˁˣ˪˘˜˫ udán- ˘ vŊ´ r- ˣˁ ˦˧ˋˊˢˋ˪ ˊ˥˦˥༤ˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻˲ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘˙, ˜˥˪˥˧˻ˋ ˢ˥ˆ༤˘ ˄˻ ˫˜ˁ˖˻˅ˁ˪˼ ˣˁ ˦ˋ˧˅˥ˣˁ˵ˁ༤˼ˣ˥ˋ ˧ˁ˨˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘ˋ ˅ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘˘ ˘˲ ˦˧ˁ˱˥˧ˢ. ʎˋ༤˼˖̀ ˣˋ ˥˪ˢˋ˪˘˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˫ ˥˨ˣ˥˅˻ udán- ˅ ˧̀ˊˋ ˜˥ˣ˪ˋ˜˨˪˥˅ ˘ˢˋ˿˪˨̀ ˥˪˪ˋˣ˜˘ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘̀ ‘˅˥ˊˣˁ̀ ˦˥˅ˋ˧˲ˣ˥˨˪˼’, ‘˅˥༤ˣˁ’, ‘˦˥˪˥˜ ˅˥ˊ˻’, ˦˧˘˵ˋˢ ˘˲ ˢ˥ːˣ˥ ˫˨ˢˁ˪˧˘˅ˁ˪˼ ˅ ˪˥ˢ ˵˘˨༤ˋ ˘ ˅ ˊ˅˫˲ ˴˘˪˘˧˫ˋˢ˻˲ ɯ. ʌ˫˄˥˴˜˘ˢ ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧ˁ˲, ˜˥˪˥˧˻ˋ ˊ˥༤ːˣ˻ ˊ˥˜ˁ˖˻˅ˁ˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˊˁˣˣ˥ˋ ˨༤˥˅˥ ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˣˋ˙˪˧ˁ༤˼ˣ˻ˢ ˅ˋˊ˘˙˨˜˘ˢ ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋˢ ˅˥ˊ˻: RV 5.45.10c udnŌ´ ná nŌ´ vam anayanta dhŤ´rŌ‫ݹ‬ ʍ˫ˊ˧˻ˋ ˅ˋ༤˘ ˋˆ˥, ˨༤˥˅ˣ˥ ༤˥ˊ˜˫ ˦˥ ˅˥ˊˋ. RV 5.85.6cd ékaૼ yád udnŌ´ ná pr‫ੇ׎‬ánty énŤr ŌsiñcántŤr avánaya‫ ݹ‬samudrám ʠ˪˥ ˘˨˜˧̀˹˘ˋ˨̀ ˦˥˪˥˜˘, ˘˖༤˘˅ˁ̀˨˼, ʎˋ ˣˁ˦˥༤ˣ̀˿˪ ˅˥ˊ˥˙ ˥ˊˣ˥ˆ˥ ˥˜ˋˁˣˁ. ʓ˪˥˘˪ ˫˜ˁ˖ˁ˪˼ ˘ ˣˁ ˣˋ ˥ˊˣˁːˊ˻ ˅˨˪˧ˋ˵ˁ˿˹˫˿˨̀ ˅ ʒ˘ˆ˅ˋˊˋ ˜˥ˣ˪ˋ˜˨˪˫ˁ༤˼ˣ˫˿ ˄༤˘˖˥˨˪˼ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ udán- ˘ samudrá- ‘˥˜ˋˁˣ’ (RV 5.85.6, RV 8.100.9), ˁ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ, ˣˁ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧, síndhu- ‘˧ˋ˜ˁ, ˦˥˪˥˜’ (RV 8.32.25), ˆ˥˅˥˧̀˹˫˿ ˅ ˦˥༤˼˖˫ ˥˄˨˫ːˊˁˋˢ˥˙ ˨ˋˢˁˣ˪˘˜˘. ɸˁ༤ˋˋ, ˅ ˽˪˫ ːˋ ˨˪˥˧˥ˣ˫ ˧ˁ˖˅˘˅ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ༤ˁ˪. unda ‘˅˥༤ˣˁ’, ˁ ˪ˁ˜˘ˋ ˧˥ˊ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˻ˋ ˨༤˥˅ˁ, ˜ˁ˜ samudrá- ‘˥˜ˋˁˣ’, ˢ˥ˆ˫˪ ˫˜ˁ˖˻˅ˁ˪˼ ˣˁ ˨˲˥ˊˣ˫˿ ˨ˋˢˁˣ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˫˿ ˨˱ˋ˧˫. ʁˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ‘˅˥༤ˣˁ’ ˊ༤̀ ˥˨ˣ˥˅˻ udán- ˅˻ˊˋ༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˅ ˧̀ˊˋ ˁ˅˪˥˧˘˪ˋ˪ˣ˻˲ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˧ˋ˙ ˊ˧ˋ˅ˣˋ˘ˣˊ˘˙˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ: ˅ ɲ˥༤˼˸˥ˢ ʑˋ˪ˋ˧˄˫˧ˆ˨˜˥ˢ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˧ˋ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˁ udán- ˘ˢˋˋ˪ ˊˋ˱˘ˣ˘˴˘˿ ‘Wasserwoge, Wasser’ 10 (PWG-1: 911–912), ˅ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˧ˋ ɴ˧ˁ˨˨ˢˁˣˁ — ‘Woge, Wasser, Wasserschwall’ 11 (Grassmann 1873: 252), ˁ ˅ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˧ˋ ʍ˥ˣ˼ˋ˧-ɳ˘༤˼̀ˢ˨ˁ — ‘wave, water’ 12 (Monier7

ʃ˲ ˅˨˪˧ˋ˵ˁˋˢ˥˨˪˼ ˅ ˽˪˥ˢ ˦ˁˢ̀˪ˣ˘˜ˋ ˦ˁˊˁˋ˪, ˥˨˥˄ˋˣˣ˥ ˽˪˥ ˜ˁ˨ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˦ˋ˧˅˥˙ ˘˖ ˽˪˘˲ ˊ˅˫˲ ༤ˋ˜˨ˋˢ: udán˫˦˥˪˧ˋ˄༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˅ ʒ˘ˆ˅ˋˊˋ 21 ˧ˁ˖, ˁ ˅ ɯ˪˲ˁ˧˅ˁ˅ˋˊˋ — ˪˥༤˼˜˥ 3; vŊ´ r ˖ˁ˨˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˥ ˅ ɯ˪˲ˁ˧˅ˁ˅ˋˊˋ 5-6 ˧ˁ˖ ˦˧˥˪˘˅ 10-11 ˫˦˥˪˧ˋ˄༤ˋˣ˘˙ ʒ˘ˆ˅ˋˊ˻. ɸˁˣˣ˻ˋ ˥ ˅˨˪˧ˋ˵ˁˋˢ˥˨˪˘ ˦˧˘˅ˋˊˋˣ˻ ˦˥ (Grassmann 1873) ˊ༤̀ ʒ˘ˆ˅ˋˊ˻ ˘ ˦˥ (Whitney 1881) — ˊ༤̀ ɯ˪˲ˁ˧˅ˁ˅ˋˊ˻. 8 ʑ˥ˊ˥˄ˣ˻ˢ ˥˄˧ˁ˖˥ˢ ˅ ʒ˘ˆ˅ˋˊˋ ˨˥˲˧ˁˣ̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˪˅˥˧˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻˙ ˦ˁˊˋː ˢˣ˥ːˋ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˵˘˨༤ˁ str๗яbվ is ‘˖˅ˋ˖ˊˁˢ˘’, ˁ ˅ ɯ˪˲ˁ˧˅ˁ˅ˋˊˋ ˊ༤̀ ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘̀ ˖˅ˋ˖ˊ˻ ˘˨˦˥༤˼˖˫ˋ˪˨̀ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˁ tŊ´ rakŊ-. 9 ʇ˥˨˅ˋˣˣ˻ˋ ˦ˁˊˋː˘ ˫ ˥˨ˣ˥˅˻ udaká- ˅ ˄˥༤˼˸ˋˢ ˜˥༤˘˵ˋ˨˪˅ˋ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˻ ˫ːˋ ˅ ɯ˪˲ˁ˧˅ˁ˅ˋˊˋ. 10 ‘˅ˁ༤ ˅˥ˊ˻, ˅˥ˊˁ’. 11 ‘˅˥༤ˣˁ, ˅˥ˊˁ, ˦˥˪˥˜ ˅˥ˊ˻’. 184

ɳˋˊ˘˙˨˜˘ˋ ˥˨ˣ˥˅˻ v¬´ r-, udán- ˘ udaká- ‘˅˥ˊˁ’: ˘˲ ˦ˁ˧ˁˊ˘ˆˢˁ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˋ ˘ ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˋ ˥˪ˣ˥˸ˋˣ˘̀

Williams 1899: 183). ʃ ˪˥༤˼˜˥ ˅˥ ˅˪˥˧˥ˢ ˪˥ˢˋ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˧̀ Rivelex ˋˆ˥ ˁ˅˪˥˧˻ ˥˨˪ˁˣˁ˅༤˘˅ˁ˿˪˨̀ ˣˁ ˥ˊˣ˥ˢ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘˘ ‘Wasser’ ~ ‘water’ (Rivelex II: 316–317), ˵˪˥, ˣˁ ˣˁ˸ ˅˖ˆ༤̀ˊ, ˣˋ ˥˦˧ˁ˅ˊ˻˅ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˢˁ˪ˋ˧˘ˁ༤˥ˢ ˦˥ ˅˻˸ˋ˘˖༤˥ːˋˣˣ˻ˢ ˨˥˥˄˧ˁːˋˣ˘̀ˢ. ʎˋ ˪˥༤˼˜˥ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˁ udán- ˘ˢˋˋ˪ ˊ˥˦˥༤ˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻ˋ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘̀: ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˁ vŊ´ r-, ˜˥˪˥˧˫˿ ˅˥ ˅˨ˋ˲ ˜˥ˣ˪ˋ˜˨˪ˁ˲ ˢ˥ːˣ˥ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˅ˋ˨˪˘ ˜ˁ˜ ‘˅˥ˊˁ’, ˅ ˧̀ˊˋ ˨༤˫˵ˁˋ˅ ˊ˥˦˫˨˜ˁˋ˪ ˘ ˊ˧˫ˆ˘ˋ ˪˥༤˜˥˅ˁˣ˘̀. ʇ˥ˆˊˁ ˧ˋ˵˼ ˘ˊˋ˪ ˥˄ ˘ˣ˥˨˜ˁ˖ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˢ ˘ˢˋˣ˥˅ˁˣ˘˘ ˜˥˧˥˅˼ˋˆ˥ ˢ˥༤˥˜ˁ, ˄˥༤ˋˋ ˫ˢˋ˨˪ˋˣ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˅˥ˊ ‘ː˘ˊ˜˥˨˪˼’ ˘༤˘ ‘˅༤ˁˆˁ’, ˵˪˥ ˥˪˧ˁːˋˣ˥ ˅ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˅˥ˊˋ ɴ. ɴ˧ˁ˨˨ˢˁˣˣ˥ˢ ˽˪˥˙ ˥˨ˣ˥˅˻ ˜ˁ˜ ‘1) Wasser 2) Nass, Flüssigkeit, von der Milch’ 13 (Grassmann 1873: 1260), ˣˁ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧: RV 4.5.8 yád usríyŌੇŌm ápa vŌ´ r iva vrán pŌ´ ti priyáૼ rupó ágram padáૼ vé‫ݹ‬ ‘That they have uncovered it like the “water” of the ruddy (cows). He [=Agni] protects the dear tip of the mount, the track of the bird.’ ɳ ˣˋ˜˥˪˥˧˻˲ ˜˥ˣ˪ˋ˜˨˪ˁ˲ ˢ˥ːˣ˥ ˫˨ˢˁ˪˧˘˅ˁ˪˼ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ‘˨˪˥̀˵ˁ̀ ˅˥ˊˁ, ˦˧˫ˊ, ˄˥༤˥˪˥’, ˵˪˥ ˥˪ˢˋ˵ˋˣ˥ ˅ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˧ˋ (Monier-Williams 1899: 943). ɳ˦˧˥˵ˋˢ, ˦˧˘˅˥ˊ˘ˢ˻ˋ ˢˋ˨˪ˁ ˘˖ ʒ˘ˆ˅ˋˊ˻ ˣˋ ˦˥˜ˁ˖ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻: ˣˁ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧, ˅ ˦ˁ˨˨ˁːˋ RV 9.112.4d vŌ´ r ín maੇ۠Ƌ´ ka ic֣ati «༤̀ˆ˫˸˜ˁ ːˋ ˲˥˵ˋ˪ ˅˥ˊ˻» ˪ˁ˜ˁ̀ ˪˧ˁ˜˪˥˅˜ˁ, ˥˵ˋ˅˘ˊˣ˥, ˣˋ ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˥˄̀˖ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥˙. ʕˋˢ ˣˋ ˢˋˣˋˋ, ˅ ɯ˪˲ˁ˧˅ˁ˅ˋˊˋ ˋ˨˪˼ ˢˋ˨˪˥, ˅ ˜˥˪˥˧˥ˢ ˊ༤̀ ˥˨ˣ˥˅˻ vŊ´ r- ˲˥˧˥˸˥ ˦˥ˊ˲˥ˊ˘˪ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ˅˧˥ˊˋ ‘˦˧˫ˊ’ ˘༤˘ ‘˖ˁ˦˧˫ˊˁ’: AV 3.13.3 apakŌmáૼ syándamŌnŌ ávŤvarata vo hí kamɏ/ɏ índro va‫ ݹ‬Žáktib֣ir devŤs tásmŌd vŌ´ r nŌ´ ma vo hitám ‘ɳˁ˨, ˪ˋ˜˫˹˘˲ ˦˧˥˪˘˅ ˅˥༤˘, ʁˁ˦˧˫ˊ˘༤-˪ˁ˜˘ ʃˣˊ˧ˁ (ʓ˅˥˘ˢ˘) ˨˘༤ˁˢ˘, ˥ ˄˥ˆ˘ˣ˘. ʑ˥˽˪˥ˢ˫ ˘ˢ̀ ˅ˁˢ ˊˁˣ˥: ˅˥ˊˁ(-˖ˁ˦˧˫ˊˁ)’ 14. ʎˋ༤˼˖̀ ˣˋ ˥˪ˢˋ˪˘˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˅ ˊˁˣˣ˥ˢ ˨༤˫˵ˁˋ ˦˧˘˨˫˪˨˪˅˫ˋ˪ ˨༤˥˅ˋ˨ˣˁ̀ ˘ˆ˧ˁ ˘ ˣˁ˧˥ˊˣˁ̀ ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘̀: ávŢvarata ‘˖ˁ˦˧˫ˊ˘༤’, ˜˥˧ˋˣ˼ vr๗- ‘˦˥˜˧˻˅ˁ˪˼; ˖ˁ˜˧˻˅ˁ˪˼ ˘ ˪. ˊ.’ ~ vŊ´ r- ‘˅˥ˊˁ’. ʨ˪˥ ˣˋ˨˜˥༤˼˜˥ ˨ˣ˘ːˁˋ˪ ˴ˋˣˣ˥˨˪˼ ˦˧˘˅ˋˊˋˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˥˪˧˻˅˜ˁ, ˅ˋˊ˼ ˣˋ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˥ ˥˦˧ˋˊˋ༤˘˪˼, ˥˦˘˧ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˨˥˵˘ˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ ˆ˘ˢˣˁ ˣˁ ˧ˋˁ༤˼ˣ˥ ˨˫˹ˋ˨˪˅˫˿˹ˋˋ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ˥˨ˣ˥˅˻ vŊ´ r- ˘༤˘ ˣˋ˪. ʕˁ˜˘ˢ ˥˄˧ˁ˖˥ˢ, ˲˥˪̀ ˨ˋˢˁˣ˪˘˜ˁ ‘˨˪˥̀˵ˁ̀ ˅˥ˊˁ, ˦˧˫ˊ, ˄˥༤˥˪˥’ ˣˋ ˢ˥ːˋ˪ ˄˻˪˼ ˨˪˧˥ˆ˥ ˊ˥˜ˁ˖ˁˣˁ ˊ༤̀ vŊ´ r-, ˋˋ ˣˁ༤˘˵˘ˋ ˅ ˅ˋˊ˘˙˨˜˥ˢ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˅ˋ˧˥̀˪ˣ˻ˢ. ʎˁ˜˥ˣˋ˴, ˅ ˊ˅˫˲ ˢˋ˨˪ˁ˲ vŊ´ r- ˢ˥ːˋ˪ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˅˥ˊ˘˪˼˨̀ ˜ˁ˜ ‘ˊ˥ːˊ˼’: RV 2.4.6 a-b Ō´ yó vánŌ tŌtr‫࣒׎‬Ōੇó ná b֣Ō´ ti vŌ´ r ੇá pat֣Ō´ rát֣yeva svŌnŤt ʐˣ ˥˖ˁ˧̀ˋ˪ ˊˋ˧ˋ˅˼̀, ˦˥ˊ˥˄ˣ˥ ˪˥ˢ˫ ˜ˁ˜ ˢ˫˵˘ˢ˻˙ ːˁːˊ˥˙ (˜˘ˊˁˋ˪˨̀ ˜ ˅˥ˊˋ), ʐˣ ˸˫ˢ˘˪, ˜ˁ˜ ˅˥ˊˁ ˦˥ ˊ˥˧˥ˆˋ, ˜ˁ˜ (˜˥༤ˋ˨ˁ) ˜˥༤ˋ˨ˣ˘˴˻. RV 10.12.3d duhé yád énŤ divyáૼ g֣r‫׎‬táૼ vŌ´ ‫ݹ‬ ‘…ʠ˪˥˄˻ ˦ˋ˨˪˧ˁ̀ (˜˥˧˥˅ˁ) ˊ˥˘༤ˁ˨˼ ˣˋ˄ˋ˨ˣ˻ˢ ː˘˧˥ˢ, ˅˥ˊ˥˙’. ʎˋ˨˥ˢˣˋˣˣ˥, ˢˋ˪ˁ˱˥˧ˁ ‘ˣˋ˄ˋ˨ˣ˻˙ ː˘˧’ ༤˫˵˸ˋ ˦˥ˊ˲˥ˊ˘˪ ˜ ˊ˥ːˊ˿, ˵ˋˢ ˜ ˅˥ˊˋ. ʁˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ‘ˊ˥ːˊ˼’ ˊ༤̀ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ vŊ´ r- ˘ ˄˥༤ˋˋ ˦˥˖ˊˣˋ˙ vŊ´ ri- ˢ˥ːˋ˪ ˄˻˪˼ ˊ˥˦˥༤ˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ ˦˧˥˨༤ˋ12

‘˅˥༤ˣˁ, ˅˥ˊˁ’. ‘˅༤ˁˆˁ, ː˘ˊ˜˥˨˪˼, ˥ ˢ˥༤˥˜ˋ’. 14 ʑˋ˧ˋ˅˥ˊ ˊˁˋ˪˨̀ ˦˥ (ɹ༤˘˖ˁ˧ˋˣ˜˥˅ˁ 2005–2010). 13

185

ɯ. ɯ. ʕ˧˥˱˘ˢ˥˅

ːˋˣ˥ ˄༤ˁˆ˥ˊˁ˧̀ ˧̀ˊ˫ ˜˥ˢ˦˥˖˘˪˥˅ ˘ ˦˧˥˘˖˅˥ˊˣ˻˲, ˣˁ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧, vŊr-vŊha- ‘˪˫˵ˁ’, vŊri-garbվa‘˥˄༤ˁ˜˥’, vŊri-trŊ- ‘˖˥ˣ˪˘˜’ ˘ ˪. ˊ. (Monier-Williams 1899: 943). ʐ˨˥˄ˋˣˣ˥ ˅ˁːˣ˥ ˅ ˊˁˣˣ˥˙ ˨˅̀˖˘, ˵˪˥ ˅ ˘˧ˁˣ˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲ ˜˥ˆˣˁ˪ ˅ˋˊ˘˙˨˜˥ˆ˥ vŊ´ r- ˘ˢˋˋ˪ ˘ˢˋˣˣ˥ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ‘ˊ˥ːˊ˼’ — ˢ˥ːˣ˥ ˊ˫ˢˁ˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˽˪˥ ˘ ˋ˨˪˼ ˜ˁ˜ ˢ˘ˣ˘ˢ˫ˢ ˥ˊˣ˥ ˘˖ ˦˧ˁ˘ˣˊ˥˘˧ˁˣ˨˜˘˲ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘˙ ˧ˁ˨˨ˢˁ˪˧˘˅ˁˋˢ˥ˆ˥ ˨༤˥˅ˁ. ɳ ˪ˁ˜˥ˢ ˨༤˫˵ˁˋ ˊ༤̀ ˪˥ˆ˥, ˵˪˥˄˻ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤˥ːˋˣ˘ˋ ɯ. ʌ˫˄˥˴˜˥ˆ˥ ˥ ˅ˋˊ˘˙˨˜˥ˢ ˨˫˦˦༤ˋ˪˘˅˘˖ˢˋ ˘˖ˣˁ˵ˁ༤˼ˣ˥ ˧˥ˊ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˻˲ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ ˥˨˪ˁ˅ˁ༤˥˨˼ ˅ ˨˘༤ˋ, ˣˋ˥˄˲˥ˊ˘ˢ˥ ˨˵˘˪ˁ˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ‘ˊ˥ːˊ˼’ ༤˘˄˥ ˧ˁ˖˅˘༤˥˨˼ ˣˋ˖ˁ˅˘˨˘ˢ˥ ˅ ˊ˧ˋ˅ˣˋ˘ˣˊ˘˙˨˜˥ˢ ˘ ˅ ˘˧ˁˣ˨˜˘˲, ༤˘˄˥ ˅ ˊ˧ˋ˅ˣˋ˘ˣˊ˘˙˨˜˥ˢ ˦˧˘˲˥ˊ˘˪˨̀ ˆ˥˅˥˧˘˪˼ ˥ ˴˘˜༤˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˢ ˨ˋˢˁˣ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˢ ˧ˁ˖˅˘˪˘˘ ‘˅˥ˊˁ’ > ‘ˊ˥ːˊ˼’ > ‘˅˥ˊˁ’. ʐ˄ˁ ˨˴ˋˣˁ˧˘̀ ˦˧˥˄༤ˋˢˁ˪˘˵ˣ˻ ˘˖-˖ˁ ˪˥ˆ˥, ˵˪˥ ˫˨˪˫˦ˁ˿˪ ˅ ˨༤˥ːˣ˥˨˪˘ ˧ˋ˸ˋˣ˘˿, ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˥ ˜˥˪˥˧˥ˢ˫ ‘ˊ˥ːˊ˼’ — ˦˧ˁ̀˖˻˜˥˅˥ˋ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ˊ༤̀ ˘ˣˊ˥˘˧ˁˣ˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅. ʎ˥ ˧ˋ˸ˁ˿˹˘ˢ ˨˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅˥ˢ ˅ ˊˁˣˣ˥ˢ ˨༤˫˵ˁˋ ˢ˥ːˋ˪ ˨༤˫ː˘˪˼ ˪˥༤˼˜˥ ˧ˋ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˜˴˘̀ ˨ˋˢˁˣ˪˘˜˘ ˥˨ˣ˥˅˻ *u๞e/oh1r- ˣˁ ˦˧ˁ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˨˜˥ˢ ˫˧˥˅ˣˋ. ʓˣˁ˵ˁ༤ˁ ˣˋ˥˄˲˥ˊ˘ˢ˥ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˵˘˨༤˘˪˼ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˣ˻ˋ ˜˥ˆˣˁ˪˻, ˨˅˥ˊ˘ˢ˻ˋ ˜ *u๞e/oh1r-: ༤˫˅. u๞Ŋr(sa) ‘˅˥ˊˁ’; ˊ˧.-˘ˣˊ. vŊ´ r(i)- ‘˅˥ˊˁ’; ˁ˅ˋ˨˪. vŊra-, ˥˨ˋ˪. ˟ʸ˛˯˗ ‘ˊ˥ːˊ˼’ ˘ ˪. ˊ.; ༤ˁ˪. ƉrŢnor, ƉrŢnŊri ‘˦˥ˆ˧˫ːˁ˪˼˨̀ ˅ ˅˥ˊ˫, ˣ˻˧̀˪˼’, ƉrŢnŊtor ‘ˣ˻˧̀༤˼˹˘˜, ˅˥ˊ˥༤ˁ˖’, ƉrŢna ‘ˢ˥˵ˁ’; ˊ˧.-˘˧༤. fír ‘ˢ˥༤˥˵ˣ˻˙; ˢ˥༤˥˜˥ (ˆ༤˥˨˨ˁ)’, ˊ˧.-˅ˁ༤༤. gwir-awt ‘˜˧ˋ˦˜˘˙ ˣˁ˦˘˪˥˜’; ˊ˧.-˘˨༤. úr ‘ˢˋ༤˜˘˙ ˊ˥ːˊ˼, ˢ˥˧˥˨˼’, ˊ˧.-ˁˣˆ༤. úrig- ‘˧˥˨˘˨˪˻˙’ (˅ ˨˥˨˪ˁ˅ˋ ˜˥ˢ˦˥˖˘˪˥˅); ˊ˧.-˦˧˫˨. wurs ‘˦˧˫ˊ’ (Mallory-Adams 1997: 636; de Vaan 2008: 644). ʍ˥ːˣ˥ ˖ˁˢˋ˪˘˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ‘˅˥ˊˁ’ ˽˜˨˦༤˘˴˘˪ˣ˥ ˣˁ˄༤˿ˊˁˋ˪˨̀ ˪˥༤˼˜˥ ˅ ༤˫˅˘˙˨˜˥ˢ ˘ ˊ˧ˋ˅ˣˋ˘ˣˊ˘˙˨˜˥ˢ. ɳ ˣˋ˨˜˥༤˼˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲ ˖ˁ˨˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˥ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ‘ˊ˥ːˊ˼’ ˘ ‘˧˥˨ˁ’, ˅ ˜ˋ༤˼˪˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲ ˦˧˥˘˖˅˥ˊˣ˻ˋ ˽˪˥ˆ˥ ˜˥˧ˣ̀ ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˁ˿˪ ˣˁ˦˘˪˜˘, ˁ ˅ ˊ˧ˋ˅ˣˋ˦˧˫˨˨˜˥ˢ — ˅˥ˊˣ˻˙ ˧ˋ˖ˋ˧˅˫ˁ˧. ʐ˨˥˄ˋˣˣ˥ ˘ˣ˪ˋ˧ˋ˨ˣ˻ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘̀ ༤ˁ˪˘ˣ˨˜˘˲ ˨༤˥˅ ‘˦˥ˆ˧˫ːˁ˪˼˨̀ ˅ ˅˥ˊ˫, ˣ˻˧̀˪˼’ ˘ ‘ˢ˥˵ˁ’. ʇ ˵ˋˢ˫ ːˋ ˨˅˥ˊ˘˪˨̀ ˅ˋ˨˼ ˽˪˥˪ ˣˁ˄˥˧ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘˙? ʍ. ˊˋ ɳˁˣ, ˨༤ˋˊ˫̀ ˧ˁ˨˦˧˥˨˪˧ˁˣˋˣˣ˥ˢ˫ ˢˣˋˣ˘˿, ˫˪˅ˋ˧ːˊˁˋ˪, ˵˪˥ ˊ༤̀ ༤ˁ˪. ƉrŢna ‘ˢ˥˵ˁ’ ˣˁ˘˄˥༤ˋˋ ˅ˋ˧˥̀˪ˣˁ ˦ˋ˧˅˥ˣˁ˵ˁ༤˼ˣˁ̀ ˨ˋˢˁˣ˪˘˜ˁ ‘˅˥ˊˁ’ (de Vaan 2008: 644). ʃ˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ ˨˦˧ˁ˅ˋˊ༤˘˅˥, ˣˁ ˣˁ˸ ˅˖ˆ༤̀ˊ, ˥˪˅ˋ˧ˆˁˋ˪ ˅˻ˆ༤̀ˊ̀˹ˋˋ ˱ˁˣ˪ˁ˨˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˢ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤˥ːˋˣ˘ˋ ˥ ˪˥ˢ, ˵˪˥ ˨༤˥˅˥ ƉrŢnŊtor ‘ˣ˻˧̀༤˼˹˘˜’ ˦˥༤˫˵˘༤˥ ˨˅˥ˋ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ˦˥ ˪˥˙ ˦˧˘˵˘ˣˋ, ˵˪˥ ˣ˻˧̀༤˼˹˘˜˘ ˨˪˧ˁˊˁ˿˪ ˘˖˄˻˪˥˵ˣ˻ˢ ˢ˥˵ˋ˘˨˦˫˨˜ˁˣ˘ˋˢ, ˅˻ˊ˅˘ˣ˫˪˥ˋ ˅ ˧ˁ˄˥˪ˋ (Oleson 1976). ʎ˥ ˪ˁ˜ ༤˘ ˥˵ˋ˅˘ˊˣ˥ ˘ ˄ˋ˖ˁ༤˼˪ˋ˧ˣˁ˪˘˅ˣ˥ ˅˻˅ˋˊˋˣ˘ˋ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘̀ ༤ˁ˪˘ˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ u ƉrŢnor ‘˦˥ˆ˧˫ːˁ˪˼˨̀ ˅ ˅˥ˊ˫, ˣ˻˧̀˪˼’, ƉrŢnŊtor ‘ˣ˻˧̀༤˼˹˘˜, ˅˥ˊ˥༤ˁ˖’ ˘ˢˋˣˣ˥ ˘˖ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘̀ ‘˅˥ˊˁ’? ʃ ˵ˋˢ ˥˄˺̀˨ˣ̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˪˥˪ ˱ˁ˜˪, ˵˪˥ ˁ˄˨˥༤˿˪ˣ˥ˋ ˄˥༤˼˸˘ˣ˨˪˅˥ ˨༤˥˅, ˦˧˥˘˖˅˥ˊˣ˻˲ ˥˪ *u๞e/oh1r, ˘ˢˋ˿˪ ˨ˋˢˁˣ˪˘˜˫ ‘ˊ˥ːˊ˼’, ‘˧˥˨ˁ’, ‘˦˧˫ˊ’ ˘ ˪. ˊ.? ʎˋ˥˄˲˥ˊ˘ˢ˥ ˥˪ˢˋ˪˘˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˅ ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲ ˦˧ˁ˜˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ ˣˋ ˖ˁ˨˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˥ ˨ˋˢˁˣ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˲˥ˊ˥˅ ‘˅˥ˊˁ’ > ‘˦˥ˆ˧˫ːˁ˪˼˨̀ ˅ ˅˥ˊ˫’ ˘༤˘ ‘ˣ˻˧̀˪˼’ ˘ ‘˅˥ˊˁ’ > ‘ˢ˥˵ˁ’; ˽˪˥˪ ˱ˁ˜˪ ˥˪ˢˋ˵ˁˋ˪ ʍ. ʣˋ༤༤ˋ˧ ˅ ˨˅˥ˋ˙ ˨˪ˁ˪˼ˋ, ˦˥˨˅̀˹ˋˣˣ˥˙ ༤ˁ˪˘ˣ˨˜˘ˢ ˨༤˥˅ˁˢ ƉrŢna ˘ ƉrŢnŊri (Scheller 1961: 142). ɳ ˪˥ ːˋ ˅˧ˋˢ̀ ˨˅̀˖˼ ˢˋːˊ˫ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘̀ˢ˘ ‘ˊ˥ːˊ˼’Ɏ/Ɏ‘˄˥༤˥˪˥, ˦˧˫ˊ’ ˘ ‘ˣ˻˧̀˪˼’, ˨ ˥ˊˣ˥˙ ˨˪˥˧˥ˣ˻, ˘ ‘ˊ˥ːˊ˼’Ɏ/Ɏ‘˄˥༤˥˪˥, ˦˧˫ˊ’ ˘ ‘ˢ˥˵ˁ’ɏ/ɏ‘ˢ˥˵˘˪˼˨̀’, ˨ ˊ˧˫ˆ˥˙ ˨˪˥˧˥ˣ˻, ˦˧˥˨༤ˋː˘˅ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˣˁ ˢˁ˪ˋ˧˘ˁ༤ˋ ˧ˁ˖༤˘˵ˣ˻˲ ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅. ɳ ˘˪ˁ༤˼̀ˣ˨˜˥ˢ ༤˘˪ˋ˧ˁ˪˫˧ˣ˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˋ ˨༤˥˅˥ tuffo ˥˖ˣˁ˵ˁˋ˪ ‘ˣ˻˧˥˜’ (˨˧. tuffare ‘˦˥ˆ˧˫ːˁ˪˼, ˥˜˫ˣˁ˪˼’ ˘ tuffarsi ‘˦˥ˆ˧˫ːˁ˪˼˨̀ ˅ ˅˥ˊ˫, ˣ˻˧̀˪˼’), ˁ ˧ˋˆ˘˥ˣˁ༤˼ˣ˥ˋ ˅˻˧ˁːˋˣ˘ˋ tuffo d’acqua — ‘˜˥˧˥˪˜˘˙ ༤˘˅ˋˣ˼, ˨˘༤˼ˣ˻˙ ˜˧ˁ˪˜˥˅˧ˋˢˋˣˣ˻˙ ˊ˥ːˊ˼’ (ɲʃʒʓ: 941). ɳ ˨˥˅˧ˋˢˋˣˣ˥ˢ ༤˘˪ˋ˧ˁ˪˫˧ˣ˥ˢ ˣˋˢˋ˴˜˥ˢ ˥˪ ˦˧˘༤ˁˆˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˆ˥ nass ‘ˢ˥˜˧˻˙, ˨˻˧˥˙, ˅༤ˁːˣ˻˙; ˊ˥ːˊ༤˘˅˻˙, ˣˋˣˁ˨˪ˣ˻˙’ ˥˄˧ˁ˖˥˅ˁˣ˥ ˅˻˧ˁːˋˣ˘ˋ sich nass machen ‘˥˄ˢ˥˵˘˪˼˨̀’, ˁ ˨˫˹ˋ˨˪˅˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˋ Nass ‘˅༤ˁˆˁ’, ˵ˁ˨˪˥ ˫˦˥˪˧ˋ˄༤̀ˋˢ˥ˋ ˅ ˦˥˽˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˢ ˨ˢ˻˨༤ˋ, ˘ˢˋˋ˪ ˨༤ˋˊ˫˿˹˘ˋ ˦ˋ˧ˋˣ˥˨ˣ˻ˋ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘̀: ‘1. ˅˥ˊˁ (˅ ˜˥˪˥˧˥˙ ˦༤ˁ˅ˁ˿˪); 2. ˊ˥ːˊ˼; 3. ˣˁ˦˘˪˥˜ (˅˘ˣ˥, ˦˘˅˥) 4. ˅˥ˊˁ (ˊ༤̀ ˄˻˪˥˅˥ˆ˥ ˦˥˪˧ˋ˄༤ˋˣ˘̀)’ 15 (DOW: Nass). ʇ˧˥ˢˋ ˪˥ˆ˥, ˅ ˣ˘ːˣˋˣˋˢˋ˴˜˘˲ 15

186

1. Wasser (in dem man schwimmt); 2. Regen; 3. Getränk, z. B. Wein, Bier o. Ä.; 4. Wasser für den Verbrauch.

ɳˋˊ˘˙˨˜˘ˋ ˥˨ˣ˥˅˻ v¬´ r-, udán- ˘ udaká- ‘˅˥ˊˁ’: ˘˲ ˦ˁ˧ˁˊ˘ˆˢˁ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˋ ˘ ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˋ ˥˪ˣ˥˸ˋˣ˘̀

ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪ˁ˲ ˨༤˥˅˥ Nette, ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅˫˿˹ˋˋ ˅.-ˣˋˢ. Nässe ‘˅༤ˁːˣ˥˨˪˼, ˨˻˧˥˨˪˼’, ˖ˁ˨˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˥ ˅ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘˘ ‘ˢ˥˵ˁ’ (Tiling 1771: 429; Adelung 1808: 439). ʝ˥˧ˋ˖ˢ˘˙˨˜˘ˋ ༤ˋ˜˨ˋˢ˻ ŏl ‘ˢ˥˵ˁ’ ˘ ŏl(y)- ‘ˢ˥˵˘˪˼˨̀’ ˧˥ˊ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˻ ˱˥˧ˢˁˢ ˨˥˅˧ˋˢˋˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˪ˁˊː˘˜˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˘ ˦ˁˢ˘˧˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅ ˨˥ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘̀ˢ˘ ‘ˢ˥˜˧˻˙’, ‘˅̀˖˜˘˙’, ‘˨˻˧˥ˋ, ˪˥˦˜˥ˋ ˢˋ˨˪˥’ ‘ˆ˧̀˖˼’, ‘˪˥˦˼, ˄˥༤˥˪˥’, ‘༤˫ːˁ’ ˘ ˪. ˊ. (ʓ˪ˋ˄༤˘ˣ-ʇˁˢˋˣ˨˜˘˙ 1999: 119–120). ʘ ˜˥ˣ˪˘ˣ˫ˁˣ˪˥˅ ˦˧ˁ˨༤ˁ˅. *moŏaɏ/ɏ*moŏ˰ 16 ˘ˢˋ˿˪˨̀ ˦˧ˁ˜˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ ˅˨ˋ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘̀, ˖ˁ˨˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣˣ˻ˋ ˫ ˨༤˥˅, ˅˥˨˲˥ˊ̀˹˘˲ ˜ ˧ˁ˨˨ˢˁ˪˧˘˅ˁˋˢ˥˙ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˋ *u๞e/oh1r-: ˨˪.-˨༤ˁ˅. ˖˙˩ʸ ‘༤˘˅ˋˣ˼’, ˊ˧.-˧˫˨. ˖˙˩ʸ ‘ˊ˥ːˊ˼, ˊ˥ːˊ༤˘˅ˁ̀ ˦˥ˆ˥ˊˁ; ˢ˥˵ˁ’, ˊ˘ˁ༤. ˧˫˨. ‘˅༤ˁˆˁ, ˅˥ˊˁ; ˨˻˧˥˨˪˼’, ˨ˋ˧˄˥˲˥˧˅. moŏa ‘ˢ˥˜˧˥˪ˁ, ˨˻˧˥˨˪˼; ˨˻˧ˁ̀, ˊ˥ːˊ༤˘˅ˁ̀ ˦˥ˆ˥ˊˁ; ˨˻˧˥ˋ, ˅༤ˁːˣ˥ˋ ˢˋ˨˪˥’ (ʨʓʓʫ-19: 69–71). ʁˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘̀ ‘˄˥༤˥˪˥’ ˘, ˧ˋːˋ, ‘ˊ˥ːˊ༤˘˅ˁ̀ ˦˥ˆ˥ˊˁ’ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˲˥˧˥˸˥ ˦˧˥˨ˢˁ˪˧˘˅ˁ˿˪˨̀ ˅ ˢˣ˥ˆ˥˵˘˨༤ˋˣˣ˻˲ ˨˫˱˱˘˜˨ˁ༤˼ˣ˻˲ ˦˧˥˘˖˅˥ˊˣ˻˲ ˥˪ ˜˥˧ˣ̀ *mok-ɏ/ɏ*moŏ-, ˣˁ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧, *moŏadlo, *moŏagˮɏ/ɏ*moŏaga, *moŏakˮ, *moŏalˮɏ/ɏ*moŏal˰, *moŏarˮɏ/ɏ*moŏara, *moŏavinaɏ/ *moŏevina ˘ ˪. ˊ. (ʨʓʓʫ-19: 71–76). ɸˁ༤ˋˋ, ˅.-༤˫ː. mokry 17 ‘ˢ˥˜˧˻˙; ˦˥ˊ˅˻˦˘˅˸˘˙’ ˘ ˦˥༤˼˨˜. mokre wino ‘༤ˋˆ˜˥ˋ, ˨༤ˁ˄˥ˋ ˅˘ˣ˥’ ˪ˁ˜ ːˋ, ˜ˁ˜ ˘ ˥ˊˣ˥ ˘˖ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘˙ ˣˋˢ. Nass ‘ˣˁ˦˘˪˥˜ (˅˘ˣ˥, ˦˘˅˥)’, ˦˥˜ˁ˖˻˅ˁ˿˪, ˜ˁ˜˘ˢ ˥˄˧ˁ˖˥ˢ ˫ ˜ˋ༤˼˪˨˜˘˲ ˜˥ˆˣˁ˪˥˅ ˘.-ˋ. *u๞e/oh1r- ˢ˥ˆ༤ˁ ˦˥̀˅˘˪˼˨̀ ˨ˋˢˁˣ˪˘˜ˁ, ˨˅̀˖ˁˣˣˁ̀ ˨ ˣˁ˦˘˪˜ˁˢ˘. ɴ༤ˁˆ˥༤ *moŏiti ˘ˢˋˋ˪ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ‘˦˥ˆ˧˫ːˁ˪˼ ˅ ː˘ˊ˜˥˨˪˼’ (ʨʓʓʫ-19: 81–82), ˥˪ ˜˥˪˥˧˥ˆ˥ ༤ˋˆ˜˥ ˢ˥ːˋ˪ ˧ˁ˖˅˘˪˼˨̀ ˘ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ‘ˣ˻˧̀˪˼’. ʑ˧˘˅ˋˊˋˣˣ˻ˋ ˦ˁ˧ˁ༤༤ˋ༤˘ ˦˥˜ˁ˖˻˅ˁ˿˪, ˵˪˥ ʍ. ʣˋ༤༤ˋ˧ ˄˻༤ ˊˋ˙˨˪˅˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ ˅ ˴ˋ༤˥ˢ ˦˧ˁ˅, ˫˜ˁ˖˻˅ˁ̀, ˵˪˥ ༤ˁ˪˘ˣ˨˜˥ˋ ˨˫˹ˋ˨˪˅˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˋ ƉrŢna ˅˨༤ˋˊ˨˪˅˘ˋ ˣˁ༤˘˵˘̀ ˨˫˱˱˘˜˨ˁ -Ţna, ˜˥˪˥˧˻˙ ˘ˢˋ༤ ˨˥˄˘˧ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˋ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ, ˊ˥༤ːˣ˥ ˄˻༤˥ ˘ˢˋ˪˼ ˜ˁ˜˫˿-˪˥ ˨ˋˢˁˣ˪˘˜˫, ˥˪༤˘˵ˣ˫˿ ˥˪ ‘˅˥ˊˁ’, ˣˁ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧, ‘༤˫ːˁ’ (‘Pfütze’, ‘Lache’, ‘Tümpel’), ˜ˁ˜˥˙-༤˘˄˥ ˦˧˘˧˥ˊˣ˻˙ ˅˥ˊˣ˻˙ ˧ˋ˖ˋ˧˅˫ˁ˧; ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤ ƉrŢnŊri ˦˧˘ ˽˪˥ˢ ˢ˥ˆ ˦ˋ˧˅˥ˣˁ˵ˁ༤˼ˣ˥ ˥˖ˣˁ˵ˁ˪˼ ‘˦˥ˆ˧˫ːˁ˪˼˨̀ ˅ ˅˥ˊ˥ˋˢ’ (Scheller 1961: 142–144). ʑ˥˨˜˥༤˼˜˫ ˅ ˨༤ˁ˅̀ˣ˨˜˘˲ ˘ ˣˋˢˋ˴˜˥ˢ ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧ˁ˲ ˨˦ˋ˜˪˧ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘˙ ‘ˊ˥ːˊ˼’ɏ/ɏ‘˄˥༤˥˪˥’ɏ/ ‘ˢ˥˵ˁ’ɏ/ɏ‘˦˥ˆ˧˫ːˁ˪˼(˨̀) ˅ ˅˥ˊ˫’ ˥˵ˋ˅˘ˊˣ˻ˢ ˥˄˧ˁ˖˥ˢ ˧ˁ˖˅˘˅ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˣˁ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˋ ˘˨˲˥ˊˣ˥˙ ˨ˋˢˁˣ˪˘˜˘ ‘ˢ˥˜˧˻˙, ˨˻˧˥˙, ˅༤ˁːˣ˻˙’, ˢ˥ːˣ˥ ˫˪˅ˋ˧ːˊˁ˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˨ ˄˥༤˼˸˥˙ ˊ˥༤ˋ˙ ˅ˋ˧˥̀˪ˣ˥˨˪˘ ˦ˋ˧˅˥ˣˁ˵ˁ༤˼ˣ˥ˋ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ˘ˢˋˣ˘ *u๞e/oh1r — ‘˅༤ˁˆˁ, ˨˻˧˥˨˪˼’, ˁ ˣˋ ‘˅˥ˊˁ’. ʑ˧˥˘˖˅˥ˊˣ˻ˋ ˽˪˥ˆ˥ ˨˫˹ˋ˨˪˅˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˆ˥, ˜˥˪˥˧˻ˋ ˖ˁ˨˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˻ ˅ ˪˥ˢ ˵˘˨༤ˋ ˅ ༤ˁ˪˻ˣ˘ ˘ ˆˋ˧ˢˁˣ˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲, ˦˧˘ ˽˪˥ˢ ˘ˢˋ༤˘ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ‘ˊ˥ːˊ༤˘˅ˁ̀ ˦˥ˆ˥ˊˁ; ˊ˥ːˊ˼’ ˘ ‘˨˻˧ˁ̀, ˅༤ˁːˣˁ̀ ˢˋ˨˪ˣ˥˨˪˼’, ˦˥ˊ˥˄ˣ˥ ˪˥ˢ˫ ˜ˁ˜ ˴ˋ༤˻˙ ˧̀ˊ ˦˧ˁ˨༤ˁ˅̀ˣ˨˜˘˲ ˨˫˱˱˘˜˨ˁ༤˼ˣ˻˲ ˥˄˧ˁ˖˥˅ˁˣ˘˙ ˥˪ ˜˥˧ˣ̀ *mok-ɏ/ɏmoŏ- ˘ˢˋˋ˪ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ‘˄˥༤˥˪˥’ ˘༤˘ ‘ˊ˥ːˊ༤˘˅ˁ̀ ˦˥ˆ˥ˊˁ’. ʃˢˋˣˣ˥ ˦˧ˋˊ༤ˁˆˁˋˢˁ̀ ˨ˋˢˁˣ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜ˁ̀ ˧ˋ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˜˴˘̀ ˦˥˖˅˥༤̀ˋ˪ ˥˄˺̀˨ˣ˘˪˼ ˊ˥˨˪ˁ˪˥˵ˣ˥ ˸˘˧˥˜˘˙ ˧ˁ˖˄˧˥˨ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘˙ ˦˧˥˘˖˅˥ˊˣ˻˲ ˥˨ˣ˥˅˻ *u๞e/oh1r-. ʑ˧˘ˢˋ˵ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥, ˵˪˥ ˅ ˅ˋˊ. vŊ´ r- ˢ˥ːˣ˥ ˥˄ˣˁ˧˫ː˘˪˼ ˖ˣˁ˵˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˫˿ ˊ˥༤˿ ˽˪˥ˆ˥ ˧ˁ˖˄˧˥˨ˁ, ˋ˨༤˘ ˦˧˘ˣ˘ˢˁ˪˼ ˊ༤̀ ˧̀ˊˁ ˜˥ˣ˪ˋ˜˨˪˥˅ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˅˥ˊ ‘˅༤ˁˆˁ, ː˘ˊ˜˥˨˪˼’, ‘ˊ˥ːˊ˼’ ˘ ‘˨˪˥̀˵ˁ̀ ˅˥ˊˁ, ˄˥༤˥˪˥’. ʁˊˋ˨˼ ˣˋ˥˄˲˥ˊ˘ˢ˥ ˦˥ˊ˵ˋ˧˜ˣ˫˪˼, ˵˪˥, ˣˋ˨ˢ˥˪˧̀ ˣˁ ˄༤˘˖˥˨˪˼ ˨ˋˢˁˣ˪˘˜˘ ‘˅˥ˊˁ’ ~ ‘˅༤ˁˆˁ’, ˅ ˴ˋ༤˥ˢ ˖ˁ ˘˨˜༤˿˵ˋˣ˘ˋˢ ༤˫˅. u๞Ŋr(sa) ‘˅˥ˊˁ’, ˅ˋˊ. vŊ´ r- ‘˅˥ˊˁ’ ˘ ˦˧ˁˆˋ˧ˢ. *wŖta ‘ˢ˥˜˧˻˙, ˅༤ˁːˣ˻˙’ (Kroonen 2013: 583), ˦˧˥˘˖˅˥ˊˣ˻ˋ ˜˥˧ˣˋ˙ *u๞e/oh1r- ˘ *u๞ed-ɏ/ɏ*u๞od- ˦˧ˁ˜˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ ˣˋ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˨ˋ˜ˁ˿˪˨̀, ˵˪˥ ˆ˥˅˥˧˘˪ ˅ ˦˥༤˼˖˫ ˘˲ ˁ˅˪˥ˣ˥ˢˣ˥˨˪˘ ˅ ˦˧ˁ̀˖˻˜ˋ. ʕˁ˜ ˁ˧ˆ˫ˢˋˣ˪˥ˢ ˊ༤̀ ˨˄༤˘ːˋˣ˘̀ *u๞e/oh1r ˘ *u๞od-r๗ ‘˅˥ˊˁ’ ˅ ˜˥ˣˋ˵ˣ˥ˢ ˨˵ˋ˪ˋ ˥˨˪ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˪˥༤˼˜˥ ˱˥˧ˢˁ༤˼ˣˁ̀ ˄༤˘˖˥˨˪˼ 18. 16

ɳ˥˨˲˥ˊ˘˪ ˜ ˜˥˧ˣ˿ *mok-ɏ/ɏ*moŏ-, ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣˣ˥ˢ˫ ˦˧ˋːˊˋ ˅˨ˋˆ˥ ˅ *mokrˮ(j˰) ‘ˢ˥˜˧˻˙; ˨˻˧˥˙, ˅༤ˁːˣ˻˙; ˊ˥ːˊ༤˘˅˻˙’ (ʨʓʓʫ-19: 144–147). 17 ʁˊˋ˨˼ ˨˪˥˘˪ ˥˪ˢˋ˪˘˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˅˪˥˧˥ˋ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ༤˫ː˘˴˜˥ˆ˥ ˨༤˥˅ˁ ˦˥̀˅˘༤˥˨˼ ˦˥ˊ ˣˋˢˋ˴˜˘ˢ ˅༤˘̀ˣ˘ˋˢ. 18 ʁˊˋ˨˼ ˣˋ༤˼˖̀ ˣˋ ˖ˁˢˋ˪˘˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˱˥˧ˢˁ༤˼ˣˁ̀ ˘ ˨ˋˢˁˣ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜ˁ̀ ˄༤˘˖˥˨˪˼ ˋ˹ˋ ˣ˘ ˥ ˵ˋˢ ˣˋ ˆ˥˅˥˧̀˪: ˪ˁ˜, ˣˁ ˜˥˧ˋˣ˼ *u๞ed-ɏ/ɏ*u๞od- ˥˵ˋˣ˼ ˦˥˲˥ː ˜˥˧ˋˣ˼ *u๞eg։-ɏ/ɏ*u๞og։- ‘ˢ˥˜˧˻˙, ˅༤ˁːˣ˻˙’ ˨ ˪˥˵ˣ˥ ˪ˁ˜˘ˢ ːˋ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋˢ, ˜ˁ˜ ˫ *u๞e/oh1r-, ˧ˋ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˘˧˫ˋˢ˻˙ ˣˁ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˁˣ˘˘ ˆ˧ˋ˵. ЕΞΪІΫ ‘ˢ˥˜˧˻˙, ˅༤ˁːˣ˻˙’, ༤ˁ˪. Ɖuidus ‘ˢ˥˜˧˻˙, ˅༤ˁːˣ˻˙’ ˘ ˊ˧.-˘˨༤. vাkr ‘˅༤ˁˆˁ, ˨˻˧˥˨˪˼’ (Beekes 2010: 1525–1526), ˣ˥ ˖ˣˁ˵˘˪ ༤˘ ˽˪˥, ˵˪˥ ˣˁˊ˥ ˘˨˜ˁ˪˼ ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˥˨˪˼ ˨˧ˁ˅ˣ˘˅ˁ˪˼ ˘˲ ˣˁ˦˧̀ˢ˫˿? 187

ɯ. ɯ. ʕ˧˥˱˘ˢ˥˅

ʓ˫ˊ̀ ˦˥ ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧ˁˢ ˘ ˥˄˹˘ˢ ˨˥˥˄˧ˁːˋˣ˘̀ˢ, ˦˧ˁ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˨˜˥ˋ ˨˫˹ˋ˨˪˅˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˋ *u๞e/oh1r ˪ˋ˥˧ˋ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ ˢ˥ːˋ˪ ˅˥˨˲˥ˊ˘˪˼ ˜ ˦˧˘༤ˁˆˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˢ˫ ˨˥ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋˢ ‘ˢ˥˜˧˻˙; ˨˻˧˥˙, ˅༤ˁːˣ˻˙’ ˘༤˘ ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤˼ˣ˥ˢ˫ ˜˥˧ˣ˿ ‘˄˻˪˼ ˢ˥˜˧˻ˢ; ˄˻˪˼ ˨˻˧˻ˢ, ˅༤ˁːˣ˻ˢ’, ˣ˥ ˣ˘˜ˁ˜˘˲ ˦˥༤˥ː˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻˲ ˫˜ˁ˖ˁˣ˘˙ ˣˁ ˽˪˥˪ ˨˵ˋ˪ ˅ ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲ ˣˋ˪. ʕˋ˦ˋ˧˼, ˜˥ˆˊˁ ˧ˁ˨˨ˢ˥˪˧ˋˣˁ ˦˧˥˄༤ˋˢˁ ˨ˋˢˁˣ˪˘˜˘, ˢ˥ːˣ˥ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˲˥ˊ˘˪˼ ˜ ˁˣˁ༤˘˖˫ ˱˥˧ˢˁ༤˼ˣ˻˲ ˥˨˥˄ˋˣˣ˥˨˪ˋ˙ ˥˨ˣ˥˅˻ vŊ´ r- ˜ˁ˜ ˣˁ˘ˢˋˣˋˋ ˦˧˥˖˧ˁ˵ˣ˥˙ (˵༤ˋˣˋˣ˘ˋ ud-án- ˘ ud-aká˅˥˦˧˥˨˥˅ ˣˋ ˅˻˖˻˅ˁˋ˪). ɸ˅˫˨༤˥ːˣ˥ˋ ˨˜ˁˣˊ˘˧˥˅ˁˣ˘ˋ ˘ ˧ˋ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˜˴˘̀ ˘.-˘˧. *vaHar ˊˋ˙˨˪˅˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ ˦˧˘˅˥ˊ˘˪ ˜ ˧ˋ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˜˴˘˘ *u๞e/oh1r, ˣ˥ ˨˪˥˘˪ ˅˨ˋ ːˋ ˊ˥˦˥༤ˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ ˥˄˨˫ˊ˘˪˼ ˵༤ˋˣˋˣ˘ˋ *u๞e/oh1-r, ˅˅˥ˊ̀˹ˋˋ˨̀ ɯ. ʌ˫˄˥˴˜˘ˢ ˜ˁ˜ ˨ˁˢ˥ ˨˥˄˥˙ ˧ˁ˖˫ˢˋ˿˹ˋˋ˨̀. ɲˋ˖˫˨༤˥˅ˣ˥, ˥ˣ˥ ˅˻ˆ༤̀ˊ˘˪ ˪ˁ˜˥˅˻ˢ, ˅ˋˊ˼ ˜˥˧ˋˣ˼ ˨ ˦˥˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥˨˪˼˿ *HR ˣˋ˥˄˻˵ˋˣ ˊ༤̀ ˦˧ˁ̀˖˻˜ˁ. ʕˋˢ ˣˋ ˢˋˣˋˋ, ˅ ˦˧ˁ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˨˜˥ˢ ˢ˥ːˣ˥ ˦˧˘˅ˋ˨˪˘ ˅ ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧ ˘ˢˋˣˁ ˨ ˦˥˲˥ːˋ˙ ˨˪˧˫˜˪˫˧˥˙, ˅ ˜˥˪˥˧˻˲ ˥˪ˊˋ༤ˋˣ˘ˋ ˜˥ˣˋ˵ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˨˥ˣˁˣ˪ˁ ˥˪ ˜˥˧ˣ̀ ˦˥ˊ˥˄ˣ˥˙ ˨˪˧˫˜˪˫˧˻ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˁˣ˥ ˦˧ˁ˜˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ ˘˨˜༤˿˵˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ ˣˁ ˱˥˧ˢˁ༤˼ˣ˻˲ ˨˥˥˄˧ˁːˋˣ˘̀˲ ˘ ˜˥˧ˣˋ˅˻˲ ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘̀˲. ʎˁ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧, ˅ ˦˧ˁ̀˖˻˜˥˅˥ˢ ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ༤˫ˣ˻ ˘ ˢˋ˨̀˴ˁ, *meh1n-es-ɏ/ɏ*meh1n๗-s-, ˥˄˻˵ˣ˥ ˅˻ˊˋ༤̀˿˪ ˜˥˧ˋˣ˼ *meh1- ‘ˢˋ˧˘˪˼’, ˣ˥ ˽˪˥ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˣˋ˥˦˧ˁ˅ˊˁˣˣ˻ˢ, ˦˥˪˥ˢ˫ ˵˪˥ ˅ ˪ˁ˜˥ˢ ˨༤˫˵ˁˋ ˫ ˽˪˥˙ ˁ˧˲ˁ˘˵ˣ˥˙ ˥˨ˣ˥˅˻ ˥˜ˁːˋ˪˨̀ ˨˧ˁ˖˫ ˊ˅ˁ ˨˫˱˱˘˜˨ˁ ˦˥ˊ˧̀ˊ. ɲ˥༤ˋˋ ˪˥ˆ˥, ˘˨˲˥ˊˣ˻ˢ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋˢ ˦˧˘ˊˋ˪˨̀ ˨˵˘˪ˁ˪˼ ‘ˢˋ˨̀˴’ ˦˧˘ ˪˘˦˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ ˥˄˻˵ˣ˥ˢ ˥˄˧ˁ˪ˣ˥ˢ ˨ˋˢˁˣ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˢ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˲˥ˊˋ. ɹ˹ˋ ˥ˊ˘ˣ ˧ˋ༤ˋ˅ˁˣ˪ˣ˻˙ ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧ — ˘.-ˋ. *i๞eh1r- ‘ˆ˥ˊ’. ɸˁˣˣ˥ˋ ˘ˢ̀ ˵ˁ˹ˋ ˅˨ˋˆ˥ ˨˵˘˪ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˆˋ˪ˋ˧˥˜༤˘˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˢ ˣˁ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˁˣ˘˘ ˊˁˣˣ˻˲ ʍ༤ˁˊ˸ˋ˙ ɯ˅ˋ˨˪˻ (Martinez & de Vaan 2014: 52), ˣ˥ ɯ. ʓ. ʎ˘˜˥༤ˁˋ˅ ˫˄ˋˊ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ ˦˥˜ˁ˖˻˅ˁˋ˪, ˵˪˥ ˁ˅ˋ˨˪˘˙˨˜˘ˋ ˨˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅ˁ ˅ ˦˥༤˼˖˫ ˪ˁ˜˥ˆ˥ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤˥ːˋˣ˘̀ ˨˥ˢˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻, ˅ˋˊ˼ ˦˥ˊ˥˖˧˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ ˦˧˘˖ˣˁ˅ˁ˪˼ ˖ˁ ˥˵ˋˣ˼ ˦˥˖ˊˣ˘ˢ˘ ˘ ˪ˋ˜˨˪˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ ˣˋ̀˨ˣ˻ˢ˘ ˱˥˧ˢˁˢ˘ yŊไ, yŊ ˧ˋ˱༤ˋ˜˨ ˊ˧ˋ˅ˣˋˆ˥ ˧˥ˊ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˦ˁˊˋːˁ *i๞eh1-n๗-s (ʎ˘˜˥༤ˁˋ˅ 2010: 21-27). ɸˁ༤ˋˋ ˘˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ ˦˧ˋˊ༤ˁˆˁˋ˪ ˁˣˁ༤˘˖˘˧˥˅ˁ˪˼ ˥˨ˣ˥˅˫ *i๞eh1r- ˜ˁ˜ ˊˋ༤˥˜ˁ˪˘˅ˣ˻˙ ˊˋ˧˘˅ˁ˪ ˥˪ ˜˥˧ˣ̀ *h2ei๞- ‘˧ˁˣˣˋˋ ˅˧ˋˢ̀’ (ʎ˘˜˥༤ˁˋ˅ 2010: 49). ʓ˪˥˘˪ ˥˪ˢˋ˪˘˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˁ༤˼˪ˋ˧ˣˁ˪˘˅ˁ, ˦˧ˋˊ༤˥ːˋˣˣˁ̀ ɯ. ʓ. ʎ˘˜˥༤ˁˋ˅˻ˢ, ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˵˘˨˪˥˙ ˆ˘˦˥˪ˋ˖˥˙. ʓ˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥, ˣˁ༤˘˵˘ˋ ˅ ˦˧ˁ̀˖˻˜ˋ ˨ ˪˧˫ˊ˥ˢ ˁˣˁ༤˘˖˘˧˫ˋˢ˻˲ ˜˥˧ˣˋ˙ ˨ ˊˁˣˣ˥˙ ˨˪˧˫˜˪˫˧˥˙, ˣˁ˄༤˿ˊˁˋˢ˥˙ ˘ ˫ *u๞e/oh1r- — ˣˋ ˫ˣ˘˜ˁ༤˼ˣ˥ˋ ̀˅༤ˋˣ˘ˋ. ʑ˥˽˪˥ˢ˫ ˥˪˨˫˪˨˪˅˘ˋ ˲˥˧˥˸˥ ˘˖˅ˋ˨˪ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˜˥˧ˣ̀ *u๞eh1- ˨ ˥˦˧ˋˊˋ༤ˋˣˣ˻ˢ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋˢ, ˣˁ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧, ‘˅༤ˁːˣ˻˙’ ˘༤˘ ‘˄˻˪˼ ˅༤ˁːˣ˻ˢ’, ˣˋ ˆ˥˅˥˧˘˪ ˥ ˪˥ˢ, ˵˪˥ ˋˆ˥ ˣˋ ˢ˥ˆ༤˥ ˄˻˪˼ ˅ ˊ˧ˋ˅ˣ˥˨˪˘, ˁ ˦˥˖ːˋ ˥ˣ ˄˻༤ ˫˪ˋ˧̀ˣ ˘ ˨˥˲˧ˁˣ˘༤˨̀ ˪˥༤˼˜˥ ˅ ˦˧˥˘˖˅˥ˊˣ˥ˢ ˘ˢˋˣ˘. ʓ˫˱˱˘˜˨ ːˋ -r ˦˧˘ ˽˪˥ˢ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˢ˥ːˋ˪ ˪˧ˁ˜˪˥˅ˁ˪˼˨̀ ˣˋ ˪˥༤˼˜˥ ˜ˁ˜ ˆˋ˪ˋ˧˥˜༤˘˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˙, ˅ˋˊ˼ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ˨˫˱˱˘˜˨ˁ -n- ˅ ˨༤˥˅ˋ ‘༤˫ˣˁ’, ˋ˨༤˘ ˋˆ˥ ˅˨ˋ ːˋ ˅˻ˊˋ༤̀˪˼, ˪˥ːˋ ˣˋ ˦˥ˊˊˁˋ˪˨̀ ˥ˊˣ˥˖ˣˁ˵ˣ˥ˢ˫ ˫˨˪ˁˣ˥˅༤ˋˣ˘˿. ɹ˨༤˘ ːˋ ˅ ˦˧ˁ˱˥˧ˢˋ *u๞e/oh1r ˨˵˘˪ˁ˪˼ ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˻ˢ ˁˣˁ༤˘˖˘˧˥˅ˁ˪˼ *-r ˣˋ ˜ˁ˜ ˨˫˱˱˘˜˨, ˁ ˜ˁ˜ ˵ˁ˨˪˼ ˜˥˧ˣ̀, ˖ˁˢˋ˵ˁˣ˘ˋ ɯ. ʌ˫˄˥˴˜˥ˆ˥ ˥ ˨˥ˢˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥˨˪˘ ˣˁ༤˘˵˘̀ ˅ ˦˧ˁ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˨˜˥ˢ ˘ˢˋˣ ˨˧ˋˊˣˋˆ˥ ˧˥ˊˁ ˨ ˨˫˱˱˘˜˨˥ˢ *-r (Lubotsky 2013: 161) ˅˥˅˨ˋ ˪ˋ˧̀ˋ˪ ˅ˋ˨. ʎˁ˜˥ˣˋ˴, ˥˨˪ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˅˥˦˧˥˨ ˥ ˧ˋˁ༤˼ˣ˥˨˪˘ ˦˥˨˪˫༤˘˧˫ˋˢ˥ˆ˥ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˲˥ˊˁ *d > *h1 ˅ ˧ˋ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˘˧˫ˋˢ˥ˢ ˘ˢˋˣ˘ *u๞e/oh1r. ʑˋ˧ˋ˲˥ˊ *d- ˅ ˆ༤˥˪˪ˁ༤˼ˣ˫˿ ˨ˢ˻˵˜˫ (˅ ˪˥ˢ ˵˘˨༤ˋ ˪ˁ˜˫˿ ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˫˿ ˧ˋˁ༤˘˖ˁ˴˘˿ ˢ˥ˆ ˘ˢˋ˪˼ ˦ˋ˧˅˻˙ ༤ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤) ˣˋ˫ˊ˘˅˘˪ˋ༤ˋˣ; ˪ˋˢ ˣˋ ˢˋˣˋˋ, ˣˁ ˢ˥˙ ˅˖ˆ༤̀ˊ, ˘ˢˋ˿˹˘ˋ˨̀ ˊ˥˅˥ˊ˻ ˅ ˦˥༤˼˖˫ ˨˫˹ˋ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘̀ ˽˪˥ˆ˥ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˲˥ˊˁ ˣˋ ˪ˁ˜ ˨˘༤˼ˣ˻. ʑˋ˧ˋ˲˥ˊ *d > *h1 ˦ˋ˧ˋˊ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻ˢ˘ (ˁ ˘ˢˋˣˣ˥ *k% ˘ *u๞), ˦˥ ˢˣˋˣ˘˿ ɯ. ʌ˫˄˥˴˜˥ˆ˥, ˣˁ˄༤˿ˊˁˋ˪˨̀ ˅ ˨༤ˋˊ˫˿˹˘˲ ˱˥˧ˢˁ˲: ˆ˧ˋ˵. ϔΥΜέІΧ ‘˨˪˥’ < *h1%kmtom < dk%mtom, ÞΠΧέϛΥΩΧέΜ ‘50’ < *penk։e-h1%komt- < *-dk%omt-; ˊ˧.-˘ˣˊ. dŊŻvŊ´ ગs ‘˄༤ˁˆ˥˵ˋ˨˪˘˅˻˙, ˣˁ˄˥ːˣ˻˙’ < *de-dk%-u๞ós-, ˘˖ˣˁ˵ˁ༤˼ˣ˥ ˦ˋ˧˱ˋ˜˪ˣ˥ˋ ˦˧˘˵ˁ˨˪˘ˋ ˥˪ ˜˥˧ˣ̀ daŻ-; ˆ˧ˋ˵. ΠϺΥΩάΤ ‘20’ < *ϕȚЃΥΩάΤ < *h1u๞idk%mti < *du๞idk%mti; ˊ˧.-˘ˣˊ. ví < *Hu๞i < *du๞i (Lubotsky 2013: 162). 188

ɳˋˊ˘˙˨˜˘ˋ ˥˨ˣ˥˅˻ v¬´ r-, udán- ˘ udaká- ‘˅˥ˊˁ’: ˘˲ ˦ˁ˧ˁˊ˘ˆˢˁ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˋ ˘ ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˋ ˥˪ˣ˥˸ˋˣ˘̀

ʇˁ˜ ̀ ˫˜ˁ˖˻˅ˁ༤ ˧ˁˣˋˋ (ʕ˧˥˱˘ˢ˥˅ 2016: 1017), ˵˘˨༤˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻ˋ ˅ ˽˪˥ˢ ˨˦˘˨˜ˋ ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧˥˅ ˢ˥ˆ˫˪ ˄˻˪˼ ˥˄˺̀˨ˣˋˣ˻ ˜ˁ˜ ˱˥˧ˢ˻ ˨ ˣˋ˧ˋˆ˫༤̀˧ˣ˻ˢ ˧ˁ˖˅˘˪˘ˋˢ — ˘˲ ˱˥˧ˢ˻ ˵ˁ˨˪˥ ˦˥ˊ˅ˋ˧ːˋˣ˻ ˣˋ˧ˋˆ˫༤̀˧ˣ˻ˢ ˫˨ˋ˵ˋˣ˘̀ˢ ˘ ˅˘ˊ˥˘˖ˢˋˣˋˣ˘̀ˢ ˦˧˘ ˄˻˨˪˧˥ˢ ˨˵ˋ˪ˋ ˘༤˘ ˦˥ˊ ˅༤˘̀ˣ˘ˋˢ ˊ˧˫ˆ˘˲ ˵˘˨༤˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻˲. ʎˁ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧, ˧˫˨. ˞˛ˌ˗ʸʿ˨ʸ˞˰ ˅˥˨˲˥ˊ˘˪ ˜ ˊ˧.-˧˫˨. ˞˛ˌ ˗ʸ ʿˀ˜˴˞ˀ, ༤ˁ˪. mŢlle ‘˪˻˨̀˵ˁ’ ˧ˁ˖˅˘༤˥˨˼ ˘˖ *sm-ih2-g้hes-l-ih2- ‘˥ˊˣˁ ˪˻˨̀˵ˁ’ ˨ ˽˪ˁ˦ˁˢ˘ ˦˧ˁ˘˪. *smŢΠeslŢ > *mŢhŖli > *mŢhŢle > mŢlle. ʕˁ˜ ˘ ˅ ˵˘˨༤˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˢ ‘100’ ˢ˥ˆ༤˥ ˦˧˥˘˨˲˥ˊ˘˪˼ ˣˋ˧ˋˆ˫༤̀˧ˣ˥ˋ ˅˻˦ˁˊˋˣ˘ˋ ˦ˋ˧˅˥ˆ˥ ˨༤˥ˆˁ ˅ ˦˧ˁ˱˥˧ˢˋ *dek%m๗tóm ˘༤˘ *dék%m๗(t) dekm๗tóm 19; ˆ˧ˋ˵. ϔ ˢ˥ˆ༤˥ ˦˥̀˅˘˪˼˨̀ ˣˁ ˆ˧ˋ˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ːˋ ˦˥˵˅ˋ ˘˖ *ha- < *sm๗ ˨ ˖ˁˢˋˣ˥˙ *a ˣˁ *e, ˦˥ˊ˥˄ˣ˥˙ ˪˥˙, ˵˪˥ ˣˁ˄༤˿ˊˁˋ˪˨̀ ˅ ϖέΠΪΩΫ ‘ˊ˧˫ˆ˥˙ (˘˖ ˊ˅˫˲)’ ˘˖ μέΠΪΩΫ (Kümmel 2009: 302). ɳ ˨༤˫˵ˁˋ ˢ˥˧˱ˋˢ˻ -dk%omt- ˧ˋ˵˼ ˢ˥ːˋ˪ ˘ˊ˪˘ ˥ ˦˧˥˨˪˥ˢ ˖ˁˢˋ˨˪˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˢ ˫ˊ༤˘ˣˋˣ˘˘ ˦˧˘ ˅˻˦ˁˊˋˣ˘˘ *d, ˁ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪ˣˁ̀ ˱˥˧ˢˁ (ࢭ)ϴΥΜέΤ ˢ˥ːˋ˪ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤ˁˆˁ˪˼ ˦˧ˁ˱˥˧ˢ˫ *wŢkn๗ti ˄ˋ˖ ˦ˋ˧˅˥ˆ˥ ༤ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤ˁ (Kümmel 2009: 302). ɳ ˨༤˫˵ˁˋ ˨ dŊŻvŊ´ ગs ˫˦˧˥˹ˋˣ˘ˋ ˨˧ˋˊ˘ˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˨༤˥ːˣ˥ˆ˥ ˜༤ˁ˨˪ˋ˧ˁ ˘˖ ˪˧ˋ˲ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˲ ˢ˥ˆ༤˥ ˦˧˥˘˨˲˥ˊ˘˪˼ ˅ ˪˥ˢ ˵˘˨༤ˋ ˘ ˣˁ ˨˥˄˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥ ˘ˣˊ˥˘˧ˁˣ˨˜˥˙ ˘༤˘ ˊˁːˋ ˘ˣˊ˘˙˨˜˥˙ ˦˥˵˅ˋ. ʎˁ˜˥ˣˋ˴, ˊ༤̀ ˅˥˖˅ˋˊˋˣ˘̀ ˊ˧.-˘ˣˊ. ví ˜ *h1u๞i < *du๞i ˣˋ˪ ˨ˋ˧˼ˋ˖ˣ˻˲ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˁˣ˘˙: ˊˁːˋ ˨ˁˢ˥ ˣˁ༤˘˵˘ˋ ༤ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤ˁ ˅ ˦˧ˁ˱˥˧ˢˋ ˣˋ ˢ˥ːˋ˪ ˄˻˪˼ ˦˧̀ˢ˥ ˫˨˪ˁˣ˥˅༤ˋˣ˥, ˁ ˥˪ˣˋ˨ˋˣ˘ˋ ˜˥˧ˣ̀ vidh‘˨༤˫ː˘˪˼, ˦˥˜༤˥ˣ̀˪˼˨̀’ ˜ vi- ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˅˨ˋˆ˥ ༤˘˸˼ ˆ˘˦˥˪ˋ˖˥˙. ʨ˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘˘, ˦˧˘˅ˋˊˋˣˣ˻ˋ ˅ (Lubotsky 2013: 162–163) ˘ (Garnier 2014), ˦˧˘˅༤ˋ˜ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻, ˣ˥ ˣˋ ˢ˥ˆ˫˪ ˨༤˫ː˘˪˼ ˣˁˊˋːˣ˻ˢ ˁ˧ˆ˫ˢˋˣ˪˥ˢ ˅ ˦˥༤˼˖˫ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˲˥ˊˁ *d > *h1 ˲˥˪̀ ˄˻ ˦˥˪˥ˢ˫, ˵˪˥ ˽˪˥ ˜˥˧ˣˋ˅˻ˋ ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘˘, ˁ ˨ˋˢˁˣ˪˘˜ˁ ˣ˘ ˅ ˥ˊˣ˥ˢ ˨༤˫˵ˁˋ ˣˋ ˨˥˅˦ˁˊˁˋ˪ ˅ ˦˥༤ˣ˥˙ ˢˋ˧ˋ. ʎˁ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧, ˜˥˧ˣ˘ *med- ˘ *meh1- ˢ˥ˆ˫˪ ˄˻˪˼ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˅ˋˊˋˣ˻ ˜ˁ˜ ‘ˢˋ˧˘˪˼’, ˣ˥ ˫ ˦ˋ˧˅˥ˆ˥ ˅˥ ˅˨ˋ˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲ ˣˁ˄༤˿ˊˁ˿˪˨̀ ˿˧˘ˊ˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˋ ˜˥ˣˣ˥˪ˁ˴˘˘, ˁ ˫ ˅˪˥˧˥ˆ˥ ˣˋ˪. ʑ˥ˊ˥˄ˣ˻ˋ ˜˥˧ˣˋ˅˻ˋ ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘˘ ˦˧ˋˊ༤ˁˆˁ༤˘˨˼, ˣˁ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧, ɴ. ʝˋˣ˘ˆ˨˅ˁ༤˼ˊ˥ˢ ˊ༤̀ ˥˄˥˨ˣ˥˅ˁˣ˘̀ ˣˁ༤˘˵˘̀ s-mobile ˅ ˜˥˧ˣ̀˲, ˣˁ˵˘ˣˁ˿˹˘˲˨̀ ༤ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˼ˣ˻ˢ, ˅ ˪˧ˁˊ˘˴˘˥ˣˣ˥ˢ ˦˥ˣ˘ˢˁˣ˘˘ — ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻ˢ˘; ˘˖ ˊˋ˨̀˪˘ ˦ˋ˧˅˻˲ ˦˧ˋˊ༤ˁˆˁˋˢ˻˲ ˘ˢ ˨˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘˙ 20 ˣ˘ ˅ ˥ˊˣ˥ˢ ˨༤˫˵ˁˋ ˣˋ༤˼˖̀ ˆ˥˅˥˧˘˪˼ ˥ ˦˥༤ˣ˥ˢ ˪˥ːˊˋ˨˪˅ˋ, ˲˥˪̀ ˨˧ˁ˅ˣˋˣ˘̀ ˅˧˥ˊˋ ༤ˁ˪. senex ‘˨˪ˁ˧˻˙’ ~ ༤ˁ˪. anus ‘˨˪ˁ˧˫˲ˁ’ ༤˿˄˥˦˻˪ˣ˻ (Hoenigswald 1952). ʇˁ˜ ˫ːˋ ˄˻༤˥ ˨˜ˁ˖ˁˣ˥ ˅˻˸ˋ, ˦˧˘˪˥ˢ ˵˪˥ ˨ˁˢ˘ ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧˻, ˦˧˘˖˅ˁˣˣ˻ˋ ˊ˥˜ˁ˖ˁ˪˼ ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˙ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˲˥ˊ *d > *h1, ̀˅༤̀˿˪˨̀ ˨˥ˢˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻ˢ˘, ˜˥ˣˋ˵ˣ˻˙ ˜༤ˁ˨˪ˋ˧ *-dr ˘ˢˋˣˣ˥ ˅ ˪ˁ˜˥ˢ ˅˘ˊˋ ˄ˋ˖ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˲˥ˊˁ *r ˅ ˨༤˥ˆ˥˅˥˙ ˘ ˄ˋ˖ ˣˁ༤˘˵˘̀ ˦ˁ˧ˁ༤༤ˋ༤ˋ˙ ˅ ˦˧ˁ̀˖˻˜ˋ ˣˋ ˫˅ˋ༤˘˵˘˅ˁˋ˪ ˦˧ˁ˅ˊ˥˦˥ˊ˥˄˘̀ ˆ˘˦˥˪ˋ˖˻ ˥ ˧˥ˊ˨˪˅ˋ *u๞e/oh1r ˘ *u๞od-r๗. ʁˁ˨༤˫ː˘˅ˁˋ˪ ˅ˣ˘ˢˁˣ˘̀ ˘ ˪˥ ˥˄˨˪˥̀˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅˥, ˵˪˥ ˲ˋ˪˪. u๞atar ‘˅˥ˊˁ’ ˢ˥ːˋ˪ ˄˻˪˼ ˦˧̀ˢ˥ ˅˥˖˅ˋˊˋˣ˥ ˜ *u๞od-r๗21, ˁ ˅ ˊ˧ˋ˅ˣˋ˘ˣˊ˘˙˨˜˥ˢ ˋ˨˪˼ ˱˥˧ˢ˻ ˅˧˥ˊˋ sam-udrá ‘˥˜ˋˁˣ’. ɳ˦ˋ˵ˁ˪༤ˋˣ˘ˋ ːˋ ˽˜˨˜༤˿˖˘˅ˣ˥˙ ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˘ ˨ˋˢˁˣ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˄༤˘˖˥˨˪˘ *u๞e/oh1r ˘ *u๞od-r๗ ˅ ˖ˣˁ˵˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥˙ ˨˪ˋ˦ˋˣ˘ ˨ˢˁ˖˻˅ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˣˁ༤˘˵˘ˋˢ ˜˥˧ˣ̀ *u๞eg։-ɏ/ɏ*u๞og։- ‘ˢ˥˜˧˻˙, ˅༤ˁːˣ˻˙’, ˫ ˆ˧ˋ˵ˋ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˦˧˥˘˖˅˥ˊˣ˥ˆ˥ ˜˥˪˥˧˥ˆ˥ ˋ˨˪˼ ˊˁːˋ ˨˫˱˱˘˜˨ *-ro-, ˫˨˘༤˘˅ˁ˿˹˘˙ ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˋ ˨˲˥ˊ˨˪˅˥ ˅˨ˋ˲ ˪˧ˋ˲ ˥˨ˣ˥˅. ɳ˨ˋ ˅˻˸ˋ˦˧˘˅ˋˊˋˣˣ˻ˋ ˨˥˥˄˧ˁːˋˣ˘̀ ˊ˥˜ˁ˖˻˅ˁ˿˪, ˵˪˥ ˊ˧.-˘ˣˊ. vŊ´ r- ˘ udán- ˅˥˨˲˥ˊ̀˪ ˜ ˧ˁ˖ˣ˻ˢ ˜˥˧ˣ̀ˢ: *u๞e/oh1r- (˘༤˘ *u๞e/oh1-) ‘˅༤ˁˆˁ, ˨˻˧˥˨˪˼’ ˘ *u๞ed-ɏ/ɏ*u๞od- ‘˅˥ˊˁ’. ʁˁ˜˥ˣ˥ˢˋ˧ˣ˻˙ ˣ˥ˢ˘ˣˁ˪˘˅-ˁ˜˜˫˖ˁ˪˘˅ #vŊแdar ˣˋ ˨˥˲˧ˁˣ˘༤˨̀ 22 ˘, ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˥, ˄˻༤ ˖ˁˢˋ˹ˋˣ ˦˥˲˥ː˘ˢ ˦˥ 19

ʨ˪ˁ ˧ˋ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˜˴˘̀ ˦˧˘˅ˋˊˋˣˁ ˅ (Szemerényi 1960: 140). ʘ ˪ˁ˜˥˙ ˦˧ˁ˱˥˧ˢ˻ ˋ˨˪˼ ˥˦˧ˋˊˋ༤ˋˣˣ˥ˋ ˦˧ˋ˘ˢ˫˹ˋ˨˪˅˥ ˦ˋ˧ˋˊ *dk%m๗tom: ˨˪ˁˣ˥˅˘˪˨̀ ̀˨ˣ˥, ˦˥˵ˋˢ˫ ˣˋ ˦˧˥˘˨˲˥ˊ˘˪ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˲˥ˊ *dk%- > *tk%- ˨ ˊˁ༤˼ˣˋ˙˸˘ˢ ˧ˁ˖˅˘˪˘ˋˢ ˅ kࡆ- ˅ ˊ˧ˋ˅ˣˋ˘ˣˊ˘˙˨˜˥ˢ, Υέ- ˅ ˊ˧ˋ˅ˣˋˆ˧ˋ˵ˋ˨˜˥ˢ ˘ ˪. ˊ. 20 ʑ˥˨༤ˋˊˣ˘ˋ ˪˧˘, ˆ˥˪˨˜. uf ‘ˣˁˊ’ ~ ༤ˁ˪. sub ‘˦˥ˊ’, ˆ˧ˋ˵. ξΧΠή ‘˅ˊˁ༤˘; ˄ˋ˖’ ~ ˊ˧.-˘ˣˊ. sanutár ‘˅ ˨˪˥˧˥ˣˋ’, ˊ˧.-˘ˣˊ. ákࡆi- ‘ˆ༤ˁ˖’ ~ ˲ˋ˪˪. sakuu๞a ‘ˆ༤ˁ˖’, ˣˋ ˦˧˘ˣˁˊ༤ˋːˁ˪ ˁ˅˪˥˧˫ ˨˪ˁ˪˼˘, ˄˻༤˘ ˦˧ˋˊ༤˥ːˋˣ˻ ˧ˁˣˋˋ ˘ ˦˧˘˖ˣˁ˿˪˨̀ ˊ˥ ˨˘˲ ˦˥˧. 21 ɳ ˽˪˥˙ ˨˅̀˖˘ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤˥ːˋˣ˘ˋ ɯ. ʌ˫˄˥˴˜˥ˆ˥ ˥ ˪˥ˢ, ˵˪˥ ˲ˋ˪˪˨˜˘˙ ˣ˥ˢ˘ˣˁ˪˘˅ ˄˻༤ ˅˥˨˨˪ˁˣ˥˅༤ˋˣ ˦˥ ˁˣˁ༤˥ˆ˘˘ ˨ ˜˥˨˅ˋˣˣ˻ˢ˘ ˦ˁˊˋːˁˢ˘ (Lubotsky 2013: 162), ˅ ˥˵ˋ˧ˋˊˣ˥˙ ˧ˁ˖ ˫˨༤˥ːˣ̀ˋ˪ ˜ˁ˧˪˘ˣ˫. 22 ʎˁ˖˅ˁ˪˼ ˥˦˧ˋˊˋ༤ˋˣˣ˫˿ ˦˧˘˵˘ˣ˫ ˘˨˵ˋ˖ˣ˥˅ˋˣ˘̀ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤ˁˆˁˋˢ˥˙ ˱˥˧ˢ˻ #vŊแdar, ˜ ˨˥ːˁ༤ˋˣ˘˿, ˣˋ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˻ˢ. 189

ɯ. ɯ. ʕ˧˥˱˘ˢ˥˅

˱˥˧ˢˋ ˣ˥ˢ˘ˣˁ˪˘˅˥ˢ-ˁ˜˜˫˖ˁ˪˘˅˥ˢ vŊ´ r- /váar/ ‘ˊ˥ːˊ˼’, ˦˥˨༤ˋ ˵ˋˆ˥ ˦˥˨༤ˋˊˣ˘˙ ˨˪ˁ༤ ˖ˣˁ˵˘˪˼ ‘˅˥ˊˁ’, ˲˥˪̀ ˘ ˨˥˲˧ˁˣ̀༤ ˅ ˧̀ˊˋ ˨༤˫˵ˁˋ˅ ˪ˁ˜˘ˋ ˨˅˥˘ ˨˪ˁ˧˻ˋ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘̀, ˜ˁ˜ ‘˅༤ˁˆˁ’ ˘༤˘ ‘ˊ˥ːˊ˼’. ʑ˥˖ˊˣˋˋ ˥˄ˋ ˽˪˘ ˥˨ˣ˥˅˻ ˄˻༤˘ ˅˻˪ˋ˨ˣˋˣ˻ ˨˫˱˱˘˜˨ˁ༤˼ˣ˻ˢ ˥˄˧ˁ˖˥˅ˁˣ˘ˋˢ udaká‘˅˥ˊˁ’. ɳ ˦˥˨༤ˋ˅ˋˊ˘˙˨˜˥ˢ ˨ˁˣ˨˜˧˘˪ˋ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˅˨˪˧ˋ˵ˁˋ˪˨̀ vŊ´ ri- ‘˅˥ˊˁ’, ˦˧˘˵ˋˢ ˵ˁ˨˪˥ ˧ˋ˵˼ ˘ˊˋ˪ ˘ˢˋˣˣ˥ ˥ ˊ˥ːˊˋ˅˥˙ ˅˥ˊˋ, ˨˧. MBh I. 16, 24 vŌriੇŌ meghajenŌ ‘˅˥ˊ˥˙, ˧˥ːˊˋˣˣ˥˙ ˘˖ ˥˄༤ˁ˜ˁ’ ˘ ˪. ˦. (PWG-6: 940–941). ʑ˧˥˅ˋˊˋˣˣ˥ˋ ˘˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁˣ˘ˋ ˦˥˜ˁ˖˻˅ˁˋ˪, ˵˪˥ ˨ˁˢ˻˙ ˲˥˧˥˸˘˙ ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧, ˜˥˪˥˧˻ˢ ˧ˁ˨˦˥༤ˁˆˁ༤˘ ˨˪˥˧˥ˣˣ˘˜˘ ˆ˘˦˥˪ˋ˖˻ ˥ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˲˥ˊˋ *d > *h1 ˅ ˦˧ˁ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˨˜˥ˢ (˵ˋ˧ˋˊ˥˅ˁˣ˘ˋ ˅ ˥ˊˣ˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˋ ˅ ˦˧ˋˊˋ༤ˁ˲ ˦ˁ˧ˁˊ˘ˆˢ˻ ˦˧˘ ˦˥༤ˣ˥ˢ ˨ˋˢˁˣ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˢ ˨˥˅˦ˁˊˋˣ˘˘), ˥˜ˁ˖˻˅ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˣˋ˨˥˨˪˥̀˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻ˢ. ʇ˧˥ˢˋ ˪˥ˆ˥, ˫ˊˁ༤˥˨˼ ˫˨˪ˁˣ˥˅˘˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˁ *u๞e/oh1r- ˘ˢˋ༤ˁ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ‘˅༤ˁˆˁ, ˨˻˧˥˨˪˼’ ˘ ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˣ˻ˢ ˦˧ˋ˪ˋˣˊˋˣ˪˥ˢ ˣˁ ˽˪˥ ˦˧ˁ̀˖˻˜˥˅˥ˋ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ˅ ˨˘༤˫ ˪˥ˆ˥, ˵˪˥ ˅˨˪˧ˋ˵ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˅ ˁˣˁ˪˥༤˘˙˨˜˥˙ ˆ˧˫˦˦ˋ ̀˖˻˜˥˅ ˘ ˸˘˧˥˜˥ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˥ ˅ ˫˖˜˥˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˨˜˥ˢ. ʓˋˢˁˣ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˋ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˲˥ˊ˻ ‘˅༤ˁˆˁ’ > ‘˅˥ˊˁ’, ‘ˊ˥ːˊ˼’, ‘˦˧˫ˊ, ˄˥༤˥˪˥’, ‘ˢ˥˵ˁ’, ‘ˣˁ˦˘˪˥˜’, ˣˁ˄༤˿ˊˁˋˢ˻ˋ ˫ ˦˧˥˘˖˅˥ˊˣ˻˲ *u๞e/oh1r-, ˦˥ˊ˪˅ˋ˧ːˊˁ˿˪˨̀ ˦˥ˊ˥˄ˣ˻ˢ˘ ːˋ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˲˥ˊˁˢ˘, ˖ˁ˨˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣˣ˻ˢ˘ ˅ ˧ˁ˖༤˘˵ˣ˻˲ ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲.

ʇˌ˞ˀ˛ʸ˞˟˛ʸ ɲʃʒʓ = ʁ˥˧˼˜˥, ɴ. ʜ., ʍˁ˙˖ˋ༤˼, ɲ. ʎ., ʓ˜˅˥˧˴˥˅ˁ, ʎ. ɯ. 2002. ɯ˙˕˰ˬ˙ˍ ˌ˞ʸ˕˰˴˗˜ː˙-˛˟˜˜ːˌˍ ˜˕˙ʻʸ˛˰. ʍ˥˨˜˅ˁ: ʃ˖ˊˁ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅˥ «ʒ˫˨˨˜˘˙ ̀˖˻˜». ɲʕʓ = ʇ˫˖ˣˋ˴˥˅, ʓ. ɯ. 2000. ɯ˙˕˰ˬ˙ˍ ˞˙˕ː˙ʻ˯ˍ ˜˕˙ʻʸ˛˰ ˛˟˜˜ː˙ʼ˙ ˴ˊ˯ːʸ. ʓˁˣ˜˪-ʑˋ˪ˋ˧˄˫˧ˆ: ʎ˥˧˘ˣ˪. ɹ༤˘˖ˁ˧ˋˣ˜˥˅ˁ, ʕ. ʫ. (˦ˋ˧.) 2005–2010. ɭ˞˦ʸ˛ʻʸʻˀʿʸ. ɰ 3-˦ ˞˙˖ʸ˦. ʍ˥˨˜˅ˁ: «ɳ˥˨˪˥˵ˣˁ̀ ༤˘˪ˋ˧ˁ˪˫˧ˁ» ʒɯʎ. ɹ༤˘˖ˁ˧ˋˣ˜˥˅ˁ, ʕ. ʫ. (˦ˋ˧.) 1989–1999. ʍˌʼʻˀʿʸ. ɰ 3-˦ ˞˙˖ʸ˦. ʍ˥˨˜˅ˁ: ʎˁ˫˜ˁ. ʎ˘˜˥༤ˁˋ˅, ɯ. ʓ. 2010. ɾ˜˜˕ˀʿ˙ʻʸ˗ˌ˴ ˚˙ ˚˛ʸˌ˗ʿ˙ˀʻ˛˙˚ˀˍ˜ː˙ˍ ˌ˖ˀ˗˗˙ˍ ˖˙˛˥˙˕˙ʼˌˌ. ʓˁˣ˜˪-ʑˋ˪ˋ˧˄˫˧ˆ: ʎˁ˫˜ˁ. ʓ˪ˋ˄༤˘ˣ-ʇˁˢˋˣ˨˜˘˙, ʃ. ʍ. 1999. ʣ˞ˌ˖˙˕˙ʼˌ˩ˀ˜ːˌˍ ˜˕˙ʻʸ˛˰ ʻʸ˦ʸ˗˜ː˙ʼ˙ ˴ˊ˯ːʸ. ʓˁˣ˜˪-ʑˋ˪ˋ˧˄˫˧ˆ: «ʑˋ˪ˋ˧˄˫˧ˆ˨˜˥ˋ ɳ˥˨˪˥˜˥˅ˋˊˋˣ˘ˋ». ʕ˧˥˱˘ˢ˥˅, ɯ. ɯ. 2016. ɸˋ˙˨˪˅˥˅ˁ༤˥ ༤˘ ˅ ˦˧ˁ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˨˜˥ˢ ˦˧ˁ˅˘༤˥ *TKN‫* > ׎‬KN‫ ?׎‬ɾ˗ʿ˙ˀʻ˛˙˚ˀˍ˜ː˙ˀ ˴ˊ˯ː˙ˊ˗ʸ˗ˌˀ ˌ ː˕ʸ˜˜ˌ˩ˀ˜ːʸ˴ ˥ˌ˕˙˕˙ʼˌ˴-XX: 1011–1019. ʨʓʓʫ-19 = ʕ˧˫˄ˁ˵ˋ˅, ʐ. ʎ. (˧ˋˊ.) 1992. ʣ˞ˌ˖˙˕˙ʼˌ˩ˀ˜ːˌˍ ˜˕˙ʻʸ˛˰ ˜˕ʸʻ˴˗˜ːˌ˦ ˴ˊ˯ː˙ʻ. ʌ˛ʸ˜˕ʸʻ˴˗˜ːˌˍ ˕ˀː˜ˌ˩ˀ˜ːˌˍ ˥˙˗ʿ. ɰ˯˚˟˜ː 19: mŗs(ො)ar˰ — morzakˮ. ʍ˥˨˜˅ˁ: ʎˁ˫˜ˁ.

References Adelung, Johann Chr. 1808. Grammatisch-kritisches Wörterbuch der hochdeutschen Mundart. Bd 3. N–Scr. Wien: Pichler. Beekes, Robert S. P. 2010. Etymological dictionary of Greek. Leidenɏ/ɏBoston: Brill. BIRS = Zor’ko, G. F., Mayzel’, B. N., Skvorcova, N. A. 2002. Bol’shoj ital’jansko-russkij slovar’. Moskva: Russkij jazyk. Brereton Joel P., Stephanie W. Jamison (trans.) 2014. The Rigveda. The earliest religious poetry of India. Oxford / New York: Oxford University Press. BTS = Kuznecov, S. A. 2000. Bol’shoj tolkovyj slovar’ russkogo jazyka. St.-Petersburg: Norint. DOW = Deutsches Online Worterbuch DUDEN. Available: http://www.duden.de [Accessed 20. 05. 2017]. Elizarenkova, T. Ja. (transl.). 1989–1999. ขgveda. 3 vols. Moskva: Nauka. Elizarenkova, T. Ja. (transl.). 2005–2010. Atharva Veda. 3 vols. Moskva: Vostochnaja literatura. ESSJa-1 = Trubachev, O. N. (ed.). 1992. Etimologisheskij slovar’ slav’anskikh jazykov. Praslav’anskij leksicheskij fond. Vypusk 19: mŗs(ො)ar˰ — morzakˮ. Moskva: Nauka. Garnier, Romain. 2014. Nouvelles réflexions sur l’effet-Kortlandt. Glotta 90:140–160. Grassmann, Hermann. 1873. Wörterbuch zum Rig-veda. Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz. Hoenigswald, Henry. 1952. Laryngeals and s Movable. Language 28 (2): 182–185. Kroonen, Guus. 2013. Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Germanic. Leidenɏ/ɏBoston: Brill.

190

ɳˋˊ˘˙˨˜˘ˋ ˥˨ˣ˥˅˻ v¬´ r-, udán- ˘ udaká- ‘˅˥ˊˁ’: ˘˲ ˦ˁ˧ˁˊ˘ˆˢˁ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˋ ˘ ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˋ ˥˪ˣ˥˸ˋˣ˘̀

Kümmel, Martin. 2009. Typology and reconstruction. The consonants and vowels of Proto-Indo-European. In: B. N. Whitehead et al (ed.). The sound of Indo-European. Phonetics, phonemics, and morphophonemics: 291–328. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press. Lubotsky, Alexander. 2013. The Vedic paradigm for ‘water’. In: A. I. Cooper, J. Rau, M. Weiss (ed.): Multi Nominis Grammaticus. Studies in classical and Indo-European linguistics in honor of Alan J. Nussbaum on the occasion of his sixty-fifth birthday: 159–164. Ann Arbor / New York: Beech Stave Press. Mallory, James P., Douglas Q. Adams. 1997. Encyclopedia of Indo-European ˜ulture. Ed. by J. P. Mallory and D. Q. Adams. Londonɏ/ɏChicago: Fitzroy Dearnborn Publishers. Martinez, Javier, Michiel de Vaan. 2014. Introduction to Avestan. Leidenɏ/ɏBoston: Brill. Monier-Williams, Monier. 1899. A Sanskrit-English dictionary: etymologically and philologically arranged with special reference to cognate Indo-European languages. Oxford: The Clarendon Press. Nikolaev, A. S. 2010. Issledovanija po praindoevropejskoj i imennoj morfologii. St.-Petersburg: Nauka. Oleson, John P. 1976. A Possible Physiological Basis for the Term urinator, “diver”. The American Journal of Philology 97 (1): 22–29. PWG = Böhtlingk, Otto, Rudolf Roth. 1855-1875. Sanskrit Wörterbuch, herausgegeben von der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, bearbeitet von Otto Böhtlingk und Rudolph Roth. 7 Bde. St-Petersburg: Eggers. Rivelex = Krisch, Thomas et al. 2012. Rivelex: Rigveda-Lexikon. E̻Book̻Ausgabe. 2 Bde. Graz: Leykam. Scheller, Meinrad. 1961. Lateinisch ƉrŢna und ƉrŢnŊrŢ (ƋrŤnŌre) 'tauchen' // Museum Helveticum 18 (3): 140–149. Steblin-Kamenskij, I. M. 1999. Etimologisheskij slovar’ vakhanskogo jazyka. St.-Petersburg: Peterburgskoe vostokovedenie. Tiling, Eberhard. 1771. Versuch eines bremisch-niedersächsischen Wörterbuchs, worin nicht nur die in und um Bremen, sondern auch fast in ganz Niedersachsen gebräuchliche eigenthümliche Mundart nebst den schon veralteten Wörtern und Redensarten in bremischen Gesetzen, Urkunden, und Diplomen, gesammelt, zugleich auch nach einer behutsamen Sprachforschung, und aus Vergleichung alter und neuer verwandter Dialekte, erkläret sind. Theil 5. T–Z. Bremen: Förster. Trofimov, A. A. 2016. “Dejstvovalo li v praindoevropejskom pravilo *TKN‫* > ׎‬KN‫ ”?׎‬Indoevropejskoe jazykoznanie i klassicheskaja filologija-XX: 1011–1019. Vaan, Michiel. 2008. Etymological dictionary of Latin and the other Italic languages. Leidenɏ/ɏBoston: Brill. Wackernagel, Jackob. 1975. Altindische Grammatik. Bd. 3. Nominalflexion — Zahlwort — Pronomen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Whitney, William D. 1881. Index verborum to the published text of the Atharva-Veda. Journal of the American Oriental Society 12: 1–383.

Artem A. Trofimov. Vedic stems vŊ´ r-, udán-, udaká- ‘water’ and their paradigmatic and etymological interrelations In this paper, I examine three Vedic stems: vŊ´ r-, udán-, and udaká-, meaning ‘water’, in the light of the hypothesis that vŊ´ r- and udán- formed a suppletive paradigm in Vedic and reflect two related PIE forms, *u๞e/oh1r and *ud-en-. According to this view, formulated by M. de Vaan and A. Lubotsky, vŊ´ r- reflects the old PIE heteroclitical nom.-acc. form *u๞od-r and udánreflects the oblique stem *ud-en- ‘water’, because of the conditioned sound change *d > *h1 in PIE. My research shows that, while vŊ´ r- and udán- could indeed form a suppletive paradigm in Vedic, they are probably unrelated on the PIE level. The meaning of the independent noun *u๞e/oh1r was ‘wet, moist’, and all attested meanings of its derivatives could develop from this semantics, among them Avestan vŊra- ‘rain’; Latin ƉrŢnor, ƉrŢnŊri ‘to plunge under water, dive’, ƉrŢna ‘urine’; Old Irish fír ‘milky; milk (gloss)’, Old Welsh gwir-awt ‘strong drink’; Old Norse úr ‘drizzle’, Ols English úrig- ‘dewy’ (in compounds); Old Prussian wurs ‘pond’ etc. A remarkable parallel for such semantic development can be found in Slavic: reflexes of the Proto-Slavic noun *moŏaɏ/ɏ*moŏ˰ ‘wet, moist’ have the meanings ‘wet, moist’, ‘rain’, ‘rainy weather’, ‘marsh, swamp’, ‘urine’ etc. It is further established that the unusual phonetic appearance of *u๞e/oh1r- is insufficient reason to analyze it as containing the root *u๞eh1- and the

191

ɯ. ɯ. ʕ˧˥˱˘ˢ˥˅

suffix *-r; the same can be said of PIE *i๞eh1r- ‘year’. Finally, I analyze the assumed sound change *d > *h1, listing the most significant cases, and conclude that these examples are not fully convincing, while the phonetic conditioning of this sound change is obscure. According to these data, the correlation between the stems vŊ´ r-, udán- and udaká- can be described as follows: the regular heteroclitic nominative-accusative #vŊแdar was lost and supplemented by the similar nominative-accusative vŊ´ r- /váar/ ‘wet, moist; rain’. The latter received the meaning ‘water’ but retained its earlier meanings ‘wet, moist’ and ‘rain’ in several cases. Later both vŊ´ r- and udán- were replaced by the noun udaká- ‘water’, which was the cognate of udán- and became the basic word for ‘water’ as early as the Atharvaveda. Keywords: Proto-Indo-European, Vedic language, suppletive paradigms, sound change, semantic shifts, semantic reconstruction.

192

ɾ. ʎ. ʦː˟ʺ˙ʻˌ˩ ʃˣ˨˪˘˪˫˪ ˢ˘˧˥˅˥˙ ˜˫༤˼˪˫˧˻ ʍɴʘ, [email protected]

ʉʸ ːʸːˌ˦ ˴ˊ˯ːʸ˦ ʼ˙ʻ˙˛ˌໞˌ ʻ ʐ˛˙ˀ? ɰˊʼໞ˴ʿ ʸ˗ʸ˞˙ໞˌ˜˞ʸ ʑ˧ˋˊˢˋ˪˥ˢ ˣˁ˨˪˥̀˹ˋ˙ ˨˪ˁ˪˼˘ ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˧ˁ˖˄˥˧ ˘˨˪˥˧˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˘˨˪˥˵ˣ˘˜˥˅, ˦˥˖˅˥༤̀˿˹˘˲ ˨˫ˊ˘˪˼ ˥˄ ˽˪ˣ˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˢ ˨˥˨˪ˁ˅ˋ ˣˁ˨ˋ༤ˋˣ˘̀ ˨ˋ˅ˋ˧˥-˖ˁ˦ˁˊˣ˥˙ ɯˣˁ˪˥༤˘˘ ˅ XIV– XII ˅ˋ˜ˁ˲ ˊ˥ ˣ.˽. ɯ˜˪˫ˁ༤˼ˣ˥˨˪˼ ˊˁˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˘˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁˣ˘̀ ˥˄˫˨༤˥˅༤ˋˣˁ ˅˻˨˥˜˥˙ ˅ˋ˧˥̀˪ˣ˥˨˪˼˿ ˥˪˧ˁːˋˣ˘̀ ˜˥ˣ˱༤˘˜˪˥˅ ˅ ˊˁˣˣ˥ˢ ˧ˋˆ˘˥ˣˋ ˅ ˆ˥ˢˋ˧˥˅˨˜˥ˢ ˦˥˅ˋ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘˘ ˥ ˪˧˥̀ˣ˨˜˥˙ ˅˥˙ˣˋ. ʎˁ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˁˣ˘˘ ༤˘ˣˆ˅˘˨˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˁˣˁ༤˘˖ˁ ˱˥˧ˢ, ˊ˥˨˪˫˦ˣ˻˲ ˘˖ ˦ˋ˧˅˘˵ˣ˻˲ ˘˨˪˥˵ˣ˘˜˥˅ ˅˪˥˧˥ˆ˥ ˪˻˨. ˊ˥ ˣ.˽., ˦˧˘˲˥ˊ˘˪˨̀ ˨ˊˋ༤ˁ˪˼ ˦ˋ˨˨˘ˢ˘˨˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˙ ˅˻˅˥ˊ ˥ ˣˋ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˥˨˪˘ ˽˪ˣ˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˘ˊˋˣ˪˘˱˘˜ˁ˴˘˘ «˪˧˥̀ˣ˴ˋ˅». ʕˁ˜˘ˢ ˥˄˧ˁ˖˥ˢ, ˦˥˦˫༤̀˧ˣˁ̀ ˆ˘˦˥˪ˋ˖ˁ ˥ ˣ˥˨˘˪ˋ༤̀˲ ༤˫˅˘˙˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ, ˨˥˨˪ˁ˅༤̀˿˹˘˲ ˦˧ˁ˅̀˹˘˙ ˜༤ˁ˨˨ ˅ ʕ˧˥ˋ ˄˧˥ˣ˖˥˅˥ˆ˥ ˅ˋ˜ˁ, ˥˜ˁ˖˻˅ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˄ˋ˖˥˨ˣ˥˅ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥˙. ɳˢˋ˨˪ˋ ˨ ˪ˋˢ, ˨༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪ ˦˧˘˖ˣˁ˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˧̀ˊ «˪˧˥̀ˣ˨˜˘˲» ˘ˢˋˣ ˨˥˄˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˻˲, ˅˨˪˧ˋ˵ˁ˿˹˘˲˨̀ ˅ ʃ༤˘ˁˊˋ ˊˋ˙˨˪˅˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ ˦˥ˊˊˁ˿˪˨̀ ˪˥༤˜˥˅ˁˣ˘˿ ˣˁ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˁˣ˘˘ ༤˫˅˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅. ʐˊˣ˘ˢ ˘˖ ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˻˲ ˥˄˺̀˨ˣˋˣ˘˙ ˊˁˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˱ˁ˜˪ˁ ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˨ˋ༤ˋˣ˘ˋ ˆ˧˫˦˦ ༤˘˜˘˙˴ˋ˅ ˅ ʕ˧˥ˁˊ˫ ˜ˁ˜ ˵ˁ˨˪˼ ˦˧˥˴ˋ˨˨ˁ ˢ˘ˆ˧ˁ˴˘˙ «ˣˁ˧˥ˊ˥˅ ˢ˥˧̀». ʂ˕˳˩ˀʻ˯ˀ ˜˕˙ʻʸ: ʕ˧˥̀, ༤˫˅˘˙˨˜˘˙ ̀˖˻˜, ༤˘˜˘˙˨˜˘˙ ̀˖˻˜, ʃ༤˘ˁˊˁ, ɴ˥ˢˋ˧

1. ɰʻˀʿˀ˗ˌˀ ʐˊˣ˘ˢ ˘˖ ˧ˋ˖˫༤˼˪ˁ˪˥˅ ˊˋ˸˘˱˧˥˅˜˘ ˲ˋ˪˪˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ ˨˪ˁ༤˥ ˥˄˧ˋ˪ˋˣ˘ˋ ˘˨˪˥˧˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˘ˣ˱˥˧ˢˁ˴˘˘ ˥ ʕ˧˥ˋ ˄˧˥ˣ˖˥˅˥ˆ˥ ˅ˋ˜ˁ, ˜˥˪˥˧˫˿ ˵ˁ˹ˋ ˅˨ˋˆ˥ ˘ˊˋˣ˪˘˱˘˴˘˧˫˿˪ ˨ ˆ˥˧˥ˊ˘˹ˋˢ ɴ˘˨˨ˁ˧༤˻˜ ˣˁ ˨ˋ˅ˋ˧˥-˖ˁ˦ˁˊˋ ʍˁ༤˥˙ ɯ˖˘˘, ˨˪ˁ˅˸˘ˢ ˘˖˅ˋ˨˪ˣ˻ˢ ˄༤ˁˆ˥ˊˁ˧̀ ˧ˁ˨˜˥˦˜ˁˢ ɴˋˣ˧˘˲ˁ ʣ༤˘ˢˁˣˁ. ɲ˥༤˼˸˘ˣ˨˪˅˥ ˨˥˅˧ˋˢˋˣˣ˻˲ ˘˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁ˪ˋ༤ˋ˙ ˦˧˘ˣ˘ˢˁ˿˪ ˆ˘˦˥˪ˋ˖˫, ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˥ ˜˥˪˥˧˥˙ ˪˥˦˥ˣ˘ˢ Wilusaɏ/ɏUlusaɏ/ɏWilusiya, ˖ˁ˱˘˜˨˘˧˥˅ˁˣˣ˻˙ ˅ ˲ˋ˪˪˨˜˘˲ ˪ˋ˜˨˪ˁ˲, ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˁˋ˪ ˪˥˪ ːˋ ˆ˥˧˥ˊ (˘ ˥˜˧˫ːˁ˿˹˫˿ ˥˄༤ˁ˨˪˼), ˵˪˥ ˘ ˪˥˦˥ˣ˘ˢ ˜༤ˁ˨˨˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˦ˋ˧˘˥ˊˁ ͬΦΤΩΫ (ʃ༤˘˥ˣ – ˦ˁ˧ˁ༤༤ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˋ ˣˁ˖˅ˁˣ˘ˋ ʕ˧˥˘), ˁ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˪˥, ˵˪˥ ˊ˅ˁ ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘̀ ˅ ˜˥ˣˋ˵ˣ˥ˢ ˨˵ˋ˪ˋ ̀˅༤̀˿˪˨̀ ˜˥ˆˣˁ˪ˁˢ˘ɏ1. ɳ ˧ˁ˄˥˪ˋ Hajnal 2003: 28–32 ˧ˁ˨˨ˢˁ˪˧˘˅ˁˋ˪˨̀ ༤˘ˣˆ˅˘˨˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˙ ˁ˨˦ˋ˜˪ ˽˪˥ˆ˥ ˨˥˦˥˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˘̀, ˅ ˪˥ ˅˧ˋˢ̀ ˜ˁ˜ ˖ˁ ˁˣˁ༤˘˖˥ˢ ˆˋ˥ˆ˧ˁ˱˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˁ˧ˆ˫ˢˋˣ˪ˁ˴˘˘ ˨༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪ ˥˄˧ˁ˪˘˪˼˨̀ ˜ ˧ˁ˄˥˪ˋ Easton et al. 2002: 98–101. ʎ˫ːˣ˥ ˥˪ˢˋ˪˘˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˄˥༤˼˸˘ˣ˨˪˅˥ ˘˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁ˪ˋ༤ˋ˙ ˨ˋ˙˵ˁ˨ ˦˥ˊˊˋ˧ː˘˅ˁ˿˪ ˽˪˥ ˥˪˥ːˊˋ˨˪˅༤ˋˣ˘ˋ, ˁ ˣˋ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻ˋ ˨ ˣ˘ˢ ˣˋ ˦˧ˋˊ༤ˁˆˁ˿˪ ˥˄˹ˋ˙ ˁ༤˼˪ˋ˧ˣˁ˪˘˅˥˙ ˘ˊˋˣ˪˘˱˘˜ˁ˴˘˘ ˊ༤̀ ˪˥˦˥ˣ˘ˢˁ Wilusa (c˧. Steiner 2007 ˘ Gander 2010)ɏ2. ɲ˥༤˼˸˘ˣ˨˪˅˥ ˨˦ˋ˴˘ˁ༤˘˨˪˥˅ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˥ ˨ ˪ˋˢ, ˵˪˥ ˪˧˥̀ˣ˨˜˘˙ ˽˦˥˨, ˦˧˘˦˘˨˻˅ˁˋˢ˻˙ ɴ˥ˢˋ˧˫, ˨˥˲˧ˁˣ̀ˋ˪ ˥˦˧ˋˊˋ༤ˋˣˣ˻ˋ ˅˥˨˦˥ˢ˘ˣˁˣ˘̀ ˥ ˧ˋˁ༤˘̀˲ ˢ˘˜ˋˣ˨˜˥˙ ˴˘˅˘༤˘˖ˁ˴˘˘ ˘, ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥, ˋˋ ˨˥˅˧ˋˢˋˣˣ˘˜ˁ˲, ˪˧˥̀ˣ˴ˁ˲ ˄˧˥ˣʓ˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅ˁ ˥˄ ˽˪˥ˢ ˪˥˦˥ˣ˘ˢˋ ˨ˢ. ˫ (del Monte, Tischler 1978: 484). ɳˁ˧˘ˁˣ˪ Wilusiya ˥ˆ˧ˁˣ˘˵ˋˣ ˨˧ˋˊˣˋ˲ˋ˪˪˨˜˘ˢ˘ ˁˣˣˁ༤ˁˢ˘ ˘ ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˁ˧˲ˁ˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˢ ˥˄˧ˁ˖˥˅ˁˣ˘ˋˢ, ˨˧ˁ˅ˣ˘ˢ˻ˢ ˨ Arzawiya vs. ˄˥༤ˋˋ ˦˥˖ˊˣˋˋ Arzawa. 2 ʑ˧˘ˢˋ˧˥ˢ ˣˋˊˁ˅ˣˋ˙ ˧ˁ˄˥˪˻, ˦˧˥ˣ˘˖ˁˣˣ˥˙ ˨˜ˋ˦˨˘˨˥ˢ ˦˥ ˦˥˅˥ˊ˫ ˥˪˥ːˊˋ˨˪˅༤ˋˣ˘̀ ʃ༤˘˥ˣˁ ˘ ɳ˘༤˫˨˻, ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˢ˥ˣ˥ˆ˧ˁ˱˘̀ (Gander 2010). ɯ˅˪˥˧ ˦˧˘˲˥ˊ˘˪ ˜ ˅˻˅˥ˊ˫ ˥ ˪˥ˢ, ˵˪˥ ˖ˋˢ༤˘ ʍˁ˨ˁ, ʇˁ˧˜˘˨ˁ ˘ ɳ˘༤˫˨ˁ ˊ˥༤ːˣ˻ ˧ˁ˨˦˥༤ˁˆˁ˪˼˨̀ ˆˊˋ-˪˥ ˣˋ˦˥ˊˁ༤ˋ˜˫ ˥˪ ʌ˫˜˜˘-ʌ˘˜˘˘, ˨˵˘˪ˁ̀ ˘˲ ˪˥˵ˣ˥ˋ ˥˪˥ːˊˋ˨˪˅༤ˋˣ˘ˋ ˦˧˥˄༤ˋˢˁ˪˘˵ˣ˻ˢ (˨. 181). 1

Journal of Language Relationship • ɳ˥˦˧˥˨˻ ̀˖˻˜˥˅˥ˆ˥ ˧˥ˊ˨˪˅ˁ • 16ɏ/ɏ2 (2017) • Pp. 193–215 • © The authors, 2017

ʃ. ʓ. ʫ˜˫˄˥˅˘˵

˖˥˅˥ˆ˥ ˅ˋ˜ˁ, ˦˥˽˪˥ˢ˫ ˨˧ˁ˅ˣˋˣ˘ˋ ˲ˋ˪˪˨˜˘˲ ˘ ˆ˧ˋ˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˘˨˪˥˵ˣ˘˜˥˅, ˜ˁ˨ˁ˿˹˘˲˨̀ ʕ˧˥˘, ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˥˨ˢ˻˨༤ˋˣˣ˥˙ ˖ˁˊˁ˵ˋ˙ɏ3. ʓ˫˹ˋ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥ ˄˥༤ˋˋ ˦˧˥˄༤ˋˢˁ˪˘˵ˣ˥˙ ˖ˁˊˁ˵ˋ˙ ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˥˦˧ˋˊˋ༤ˋˣ˘ˋ «̀˖˻˜ˁ ˪˧˥̀ˣ˴ˋ˅» ˅ ˦˥˖ˊˣˋˢ ˄˧˥ˣ˖˥˅˥ˢ ˅ˋ˜ˋ. ɳ ˥˪ˋ˵ˋ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥˙ ˣˁ˫˜ˋ ˣˁ˘˄˥༤˼˸ˋˋ ˧ˁ˨˦˧˥˨˪˧ˁˣˋˣ˘ˋ ˦˥༤˫˵˘༤ˁ ˆ˘˦˥˪ˋ˖ˁ ˥ ˢ˘ˆ˧ˁ˴˘̀˲ ˦˧ˋˊ˜˥˅ ˪˧˥̀ˣ˴ˋ˅ XIV–XIII ˅ˋ˜˥˅ ˨ ɲˁ༤˜ˁˣ ˘ ˘˲ ˱˧ˁ˜˘˙˨˜˥ˢ ˦˧˥˘˨˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘˘ (ɴ˘ˣˊ˘ˣ, ʟ˻ˢ˄˫˧˨˜˘˙ 1996, ʟ˻ˢ˄˫˧˨˜˘˙ 2003). ʒ̀ˊ ˘˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁ˪ˋ༤ˋ˙ ˥˪˨˪ˁ˘˅ˁ˿˪ ˨˅̀˖˼ ˪˧˥̀ˣ˴ˋ˅ ˨ ༤˘ˊ˘˙˴ˁˢ˘, ˣˁ˨ˋ༤̀˅˸˘ˢ˘ ˨ˋ˅ˋ˧˥-˖ˁ˦ˁˊˣ˫˿ ɯˣˁ˪˥༤˘˿ ˅ ˨ˋ˧ˋˊ˘ˣˋ ˦ˋ˧˅˥ˆ˥ ˪˻˨̀˵ˋ༤ˋ˪˘̀ ˊ˥ ˣ.˽. (Neumann 1999, Kloekhorst 2012). ʕˋˢ ˣˋ ˢˋˣˋˋ, ˣˁ˘˄˥༤˼˸˘ˢ ˅༤˘̀ˣ˘ˋˢ ˦˥༤˼˖˫ˋ˪˨̀, ˦˥ːˁ༤˫˙, ˆ˘˦˥˪ˋ˖ˁ ˥ ˪˥ˢ, ˵˪˥ ༤˘ˊˋ˧˻ ˪˧˥̀ˣ˴ˋ˅ ˦˥˖ˊˣˋˆ˥ ˄˧˥ˣ˖˥˅˥ˆ˥ ˅ˋ˜ˁ ˆ˥˅˥˧˘༤˘ ˣˁ ༤˫˅˘˙˨˜˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˋ ˘ ˦˧˘ˣˁˊ༤ˋːˁ༤˘ ˜ ༤˫˅˘˙˨˜˥ˢ˫ ˜˫༤˼˪˫˧ˣ˥ˢ˫ ˢ˘˧˫. ʘ˥˪˜˘ˣ˨ ˘ ʜ. ʣ˪ˁ˧˜ˋ ˥˨˥˄ˋˣˣ˥ ˅˻ˊˋ༤̀˿˪˨̀ ˨˧ˋˊ˘ ˘˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁ˪ˋ༤ˋ˙, ˦˥˦˻˪ˁ˅˸˘˲˨̀ ˅ ˦˥˨༤ˋˊˣ˘ˋ ˊˋ˨̀˪˘༤ˋ˪˘̀ ˫˨˪ˁˣ˥˅˘˪˼ ̀˖˻˜˥˅˻ˋ ˘ ˜˫༤˼˪˫˧ˣ˻ˋ ˨˅̀˖˘ ˢˋːˊ˫ ༤˫˅˘˙˴ˁˢ˘ ˘ ˨ˋ˅ˋ˧˥-˖ˁ˦ˁˊˣ˥˙ ɯˣˁ˪˥༤˘ˋ˙ (Watkins 1986, Starke 1997). ʃ˲ ˦˥˦˻˪˜˘ ˦˥ˊˊˋ˧ːˁ༤˘ ˘ˣ˪ˋ˧ˋ˨ ˜ ༤˫˅˘˙˴ˁˢ ˨˥ ˨˪˥˧˥ˣ˻ ˱˘༤˥༤˥ˆ˥˅-˜༤ˁ˨˨˘˜˥˅, ˜˥˪˥˧˻˙ ˣˁ˵ˁ༤ ˄˻༤˥ ˖ˁ˪˫˲ˁ˪˼ ˦˥˨༤ˋ ˪˥ˆ˥, ˜ˁ˜ ˪ˋ˥˧˘̀ ʌˋ˥ˣˁ˧ˊˁ ʑˁ༤ˢˋ˧ˁ ˥ ༤˫˅˘˙˨˜˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˋ ˣˁˊ˦˘˨ˋ˙ ༤˘ˣˋ˙ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˦˘˨˼ˢˁ ɯ ˣˋ ˦˥༤˫˵˘༤ˁ ˦˥ˊˊˋ˧ː˜˘ɏ4. ʁˁ ˽˪˥ ʘ˥˪˜˘ˣ˨ ˘ ʣ˪ˁ˧˜ˋ, ˦˥ːˁ༤˫˙, ˖ˁ˨༤˫ː˘˅ˁ˿˪ ˄༤ˁˆ˥ˊˁ˧ˣ˥˨˪˘ ˨˥ ˨˪˥˧˥ˣ˻ ˊ˧˫ˆ˘˲ ˁˣˁ˪˥༤˘˨˪˥˅, ˅ˣˋ ˖ˁ˅˘˨˘ˢ˥˨˪˘ ˥˪ ˪˥ˆ˥, ˨༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪ ༤˘ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨˘˪˼˨̀ ˨ ˘˲ ˖ˁ˜༤˿˵ˋˣ˘̀ˢ˘. ɳ ˧̀ˊˋ ˣˋˊˁ˅ˣ˘˲ ˧ˁ˄˥˪ ˢ˥ːˣ˥ ˥˪ˢˋ˪˘˪˼ ˪˧ˋ˅˥ːˣ˫˿ ˪ˋˣˊˋˣ˴˘˿, ˖ˁ˜༤˿˵ˁ˿˹˫˿˨̀ ˅ ˦˧˘ˢˋˣˋˣ˘˘ ˁ˦˧˘˥˧ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˦˥ˊ˲˥ˊˁ ˜ ˊˁˣˣ˥˙ ˦˧˥˄༤ˋˢˋ ˨˥ ˨˪˥˧˥ˣ˻ ˘˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁ˪ˋ༤ˋ˙, ˖ˁ˵ˁ˨˪˫˿ ˣˋ ̀˅༤̀˿˹˘˲˨̀ ˨˦ˋ˴˘ˁ༤˘˨˪ˁˢ˘ ˅ ˥˄༤ˁ˨˪˘ ༤˫˅˘˙˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ. ʑ˥˜ˁ˖ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥˙ ˖ˊˋ˨˼ ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˫˨˪ˁˣ˥˅˜ˁ ˣˋˢˋ˴˜˥ˆ˥ ˘˨˪˥˧˘˜ˁ ʑˋ˪ˋ˧ˁ ʝˋˆˋˢˁˣˣˁ (Högemann 2003: 9), ˜˥˪˥˧˻˙ ˢ˘ˢ˥˲˥ˊ˥ˢ ˖ˁ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪: «ʕ˧˥̀, ˜ˁ˜ ˢ˻ ˢ˥ːˋˢ ˨ˋˆ˥ˊˣ̀ ˨˜ˁ˖ˁ˪˼, ˦˧˘ˣˁˊ༤ˋːˁ༤ˁ ˜ ˥˄༤ˁ˨˪˘ ˧ˁ˨˦˧˥˨˪˧ˁˣˋˣ˘̀ ༤˫˅˘˙˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ», ˦˥˨༤ˋ ˵ˋˆ˥ ˘˨˦˥༤˼˖˫ˋ˪ ˽˪˥ ˫˪˅ˋ˧ːˊˋˣ˘ˋ ˅ ˜ˁ˵ˋ˨˪˅ˋ ˄ˁ˖˘˨ˁ ˊ༤̀ ˊˁ༤˼ˣˋ˙˸˘˲ ˖ˁ˜༤˿˵ˋˣ˘˙ɏ5. ɸˁˣˣˁ̀ ˪ˋˣˊˋˣ˴˘̀ ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˧ˋ˖˫༤˼˪ˁ˪˥ˢ ˽˜˨˪˧ˁ˦˥༤̀˴˘˘ ˆ˘˦˥˪ˋ˖˻, ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤̀˿˹ˋ˙ ༤˫˅˘˙˴ˋ˅ ˅ ˜ˁ˵ˋ˨˪˅ˋ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˽˪ˣ˥˨ˁ ˣˁ ˪ˋ˧˧˘˪˥˧˘˘ ˖ˁ˦ˁˊˣ˥˙ ˵ˁ˨˪˘ ʍˁ༤˥˙ ɯ˖˘˘ ˅˥ ˅˪˥˧˥˙ ˦˥༤˥˅˘ˣˋ ˅˪˥˧˥ˆ˥ ˪˻˨̀˵ˋ༤ˋ˪˘̀ ˊ˥ ˣ.˽. ʫ ˦˥ˊ˧˥˄ˣ˥ ˥˨˪ˁˣ˥˅˘༤˨̀ ˣˁ ˧ˁ˖˄˥˧ˋ ˊ˥˅˥ˊ˥˅ ˨˪˥˧˥ˣˣ˘˜˥˅ ˊˁˣˣ˥˙ ˆ˘˦˥˪ˋ˖˻ ˅ ˧ˁ˄˥˪ˋ ʫ˜˫˄˥˅˘˵ 2015 ˘ ˦˥˨˪ˁ˧ˁ༤˨̀ ˦˥˜ˁ˖ˁ˪˼ ˋˋ ˄ˋ˖ˊ˥˜ˁ˖ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻˙ ˲ˁ˧ˁ˜˪ˋ˧. ɳ ˵ˁ˨˪ˣ˥˨˪˘, ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˣ˻ˢ ˱˘༤˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˢ ˁ˧ˆ˫ˢˋˣ˪˥ˢ ˅ ˦˥༤˼˖˫ ༤˥˜ˁ༤˘˖ˁ˴˘˘ ˨˪˧ˁˣ˻ ʌ˫˅˘̀ ˣˁ ˖ˁ˦ˁˊˋ ɯˣˁ˪˥༤˘˘ ˥˜ˁ˖ˁ༤˥˨˼ ˵ˋ˧ˋˊ˥˅ˁˣ˘ˋ ˪˥˦˥ˣ˘ˢ˥˅ ʌ˫˅˘̀ ˘ ɯ˧˴ˁ˅ˁ ˅ ˦˥˖ˊˣˋ˙ ˜˥˦˘˘ ˲ˋ˪˪˨˜˘˲ ˖ˁ˜˥ˣ˥˅, ˥˪ˣ˥˨̀˹ˋˋ˨̀ ˜˥ ˅˧ˋˢˋˣ˘, ˜˥ˆˊˁ ˪ˋ˧ˢ˘ˣ ʌ˫˅˘̀ ˫ːˋ ˅˻˸ˋ༤ ˘˖ ˫˦˥˪˧ˋ˄༤ˋˣ˘̀ ˅ ː˘˅˥˙ ˧ˋ˵˘. ɳ ˪˥ ːˋ ˅˧ˋˢ̀ ˣˋ˥˄˲˥ˊ˘ˢ˥ ˦˧˘˖ˣˁ˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˊ˘˨˜˫˨˨˘˘ ˅˥˜˧˫ˆ ˽˪ˣ˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˦˧˘ˣˁˊ༤ˋːˣ˥˨˪˘ ˪˧˥̀ˣ˴ˋ˅ ˦˥˜˥̀˪˨̀ ˣˁ ˋ˹ˋ ˢˋˣˋˋ ˫˨˪˥˙˵˘˅˥ˢ ˱˫ˣˊˁˢˋˣ˪ˋ, ˵ˋˢ ˊˋ˄ˁ˪˻ ˥˄ ˽˪ˣ˘˵ˋ3 ʑ˧˘ˢˋ˧˥ˢ ˧ˁ˄˥˪˻, ˨˪˧ˋˢ̀˹ˋ˙˨̀ ˢˁ˜˨˘ˢ˘˖˘˧˥˅ˁ˪˼ ˜˥༤˘˵ˋ˨˪˅˥ ˦ˁ˧ˁ༤༤ˋ༤ˋ˙ ˢˋːˊ˫ ˥˦˘˨ˁˣ˘ˋˢ ˁ˲ˋ˙˴ˋ˅ ˘ ˪˧˥̀ˣ˴ˋ˅ ˅ ˆ˥ˢˋ˧˥˅˨˜˥ˢ ˽˦˥˨ˋ, ˨ ˥ˊˣ˥˙ ˨˪˥˧˥ˣ˻, ˘ ˊˁˣˣ˻ˢ˘ ˁ˧˲ˋ˥༤˥ˆ˘˘ ˘ ˲ˋ˪˪˨˜˥˙ ˱˘༤˥༤˥ˆ˘˘, ˨ ˊ˧˫ˆ˥˙ ˨˪˥˧˥ˣ˻, ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ (Latacz 2004). ʍ˘ˣ˘ˢˁ༤˘˨˪˨˜˘˙ ˦˥ˊ˲˥ˊ ˦˧˥˨༤ˋː˘˅ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˅ ˢ˥ˣ˥ˆ˧ˁ˱˘˘ (Bachvarova 2016), ˆˊˋ ˊˋ༤ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˁ˜˴ˋˣ˪ ˣˁ ˢˣ˥ˆ˥˨༤˥˙ˣ˥ˢ ˲ˁ˧ˁ˜˪ˋ˧ˋ «ʃ༤˘ˁˊ˻» ˘ «ʐˊ˘˨˨ˋ˘» ˘ ˁˊˁ˦˪ˁ˴˘˘ ˊ˧ˋ˅ˣˋ˅˥˨˪˥˵ˣ˻˲ ˽˦˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˢ˥˪˘˅˥˅, ˣˋ ˘ˢˋ˿˹˘˲ ˦˧̀ˢ˥ˆ˥ ˥˪ˣ˥˸ˋˣ˘̀ ˜ ʕ˧˥ˋ. ʕˋˢ ˣˋ ˢˋˣˋˋ, ˅ ˊˁˣˣ˥˙ ˧ˁ˄˥˪ˋ ˦˧˘ˣ˘ˢˁ˿˪˨̀ ˜ˁ˜ ˢ˘ˣ˘ˢ˫ˢ ˊ˅ˋ ˊˋ˪ˁ༤˘, ˥˪˧ˁːˁ˿˹˘ˋ ˦ˁˢ̀˪˼ ˥ ˄˧˥ˣ˖˥˅˥ˢ ˅ˋ˜ˋ ˅ ˆ˥ˢˋ˧˥˅˨˜˥ˢ ˽˦˥˨ˋ: ˘ˢ̀ ˪˧˥̀ˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˦˧ˁ˅˘˪ˋ༤̀ ɯ༤ˋ˜˨ˁˣˊ˧ˁ ˘ ˣˁ༤˘˵˘ˋ ˜˫༤˼˪ˁ ɯ˦˥༤༤˥ˣˁ ˅ ʕ˧˥ˋ (Bachvarova 2016: 351). 4 ʓ˧. Palmer 1965: 321–356; 1980: 10–16. 5 ʇ ˄˥༤ˋˋ ˊˁ༤ˋ˜˥ ˘ˊ˫˹˘ˢ ˅˻˅˥ˊˁˢ ˦˧˘˲˥ˊ˘˪ ˅ ˨˅˥ˋ˙ ˣˋˊˁ˅ˣˋ˙ ˢ˥ˣ˥ˆ˧ˁ˱˘˘ ˸˅ˋ˙˴ˁ˧˨˜˘˙ ༤ˁˣˊ˸ˁ˱˪ˣ˻˙ ˁ˧˲ˋ˥༤˥ˆ ʨ˄ˋ˧˲ˁ˧ˊ ʟˁˣˆˆˋ˧. ʓ˵˘˪ˁ̀ ༤˫˅˘˙˴ˋ˅, ˣˁ˨ˋ༤̀˅˸˘˲ ˖ˁ˦ˁˊˣ˫˿ ɯˣˁ˪˥༤˘˿, ˵ˁ˨˪˼˿ ˜˥ˁ༤˘˴˘˘ «ˣˁ˧˥ˊ˥˅ ˢ˥˧̀», ˥ˣ ˖ˁ˜༤˿˵ˁˋ˪, ˵˪˥ ˢ˘ˆ˧ˁ˴˘˘ «ˣˁ˧˥ˊ˥˅ ˢ˥˧̀» ˅ ˣˁ˦˧ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˘˘ ʇ˘˦˧ˁ ˘ ʌˋ˅ˁˣ˪ˁ ˘ ˧ˁ˨˦ˁˊ ˘ˢ˦ˋ˧˘˘ ʝˁ˪˪˫˨˻ ˦˧˘˅ˋ༤˘ ˜ ˨˥˖ˊˁˣ˘˿ ˢ˥ˆ˫˹ˋ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ༤˫˅˘˙˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˆ˥˨˫ˊˁ˧˨˪˅ˁ ˅ ˣˁ˵ˁ༤ˋ XII ˅ˋ˜ˁ ˊ˥ ˣ.˽. ɳ ˽˪˘˲ ˫˨༤˥˅˘̀˲ ˦˧ˁ˅˘˪ˋ༤˘ ʍ˘˜ˋˣ ˨˥˵༤˘ ˣˋ˥˄˲˥ˊ˘ˢ˻ˢ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˧˘ˣ̀˪˼ ˁ˪ˁ˜˫ ˣˁ ʕ˧˥˿, ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˣ˥˙ ˴ˋˣ˪˧ ༤˫˅˘˙˨˜˥˙ ˴˘˅˘༤˘˖ˁ˴˘˘ ˣˁ ˽ˆˋ˙˨˜˥ˢ ˦˥˄ˋ˧ˋː˼ˋ, ˅ ˴ˋ༤̀˲ ˅˥˨˨˪ˁˣ˥˅༤ˋˣ˘̀ ˆˋ˥˦˥༤˘˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˄ˁ༤ˁˣ˨ˁ (Zangger 2016: 154–159).

194

ʎˁ ˜ˁ˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲ ˆ˥˅˥˧˘༤˘ ˅ ʕ˧˥ˋ? ɳ˖ˆ༤̀ˊ ˁˣˁ˪˥༤˘˨˪ˁ

˨˜˥ˢ ˨˥˨˪ˁ˅ˋ ˜ˣ̀ːˋ˨˪˅ˁ ɯ˧˴ˁ˅ˁ. ɳ ˦˥˨༤ˋˊˣˋˢ ˨༤˫˵ˁˋ ˢ˥ːˣ˥ ˦˥ ˜˧ˁ˙ˣˋ˙ ˢˋ˧ˋ ˥˦ˋ˧ˋ˪˼˨̀ ˣˁ ˣˋ˄˥༤˼˸˥˙ ˜˥˧˦˫˨ ˢˋ˨˪ˣ˻˲ ༤˘˵ˣ˻˲ ˘ˢˋˣ, ˁ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˣˁ ˧̀ˊ ˪ˋ˜˨˪˥˅, ˜˥˪˥˧˻ˋ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤˥ː˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ ˦˧˥˘˨˲˥ˊ̀˪ ˘˖ ˽˪˥ˆ˥ ˧ˋˆ˘˥ˣˁ. ɳ ˨༤˫˵ˁˋ ˨ ˨ˋ˅ˋ˧˥-˖ˁ˦ˁˊˣ˥˙ ɯˣˁ˪˥༤˘ˋ˙ ˣˁ˸˘ ˘˨˪˥˵ˣ˘˜˘ ˥ˆ˧ˁˣ˘˵ˋˣ˻ ˪˧ˋˢ̀ ༤˘˵ˣ˻ˢ˘ ˘ˢˋˣˁˢ˘, ˪˧ˋˢ̀ ˪ˋ˥ˣ˘ˢˁˢ˘ ˘ ˊ˅˫ˢ̀ ˪˥˦˥ˣ˘ˢˁˢ˘, ˖ˁ˱˘˜˨˘˧˥˅ˁˣˣ˻ˢ˘ ˅ ˜༤˘ˣ˥˦˘˨ˣ˻˲ ˘˨˪˥˵ˣ˘˜ˁ˲ ˄˧˥ˣ˖˥˅˥ˆ˥ ˅ˋ˜ˁ. ʍ˥ːˣ˥ ˥˄˧ˁ˪˘˪˼ ˅ˣ˘ˢˁˣ˘ˋ ˣˁ ˪˥, ˵˪˥ ˣ˘ ˥ˊ˘ˣ ˘˖ ˽˪˘˲ ˅˥˨˼ˢ˘ ˽༤ˋˢˋˣ˪˥˅ ˣˋ ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˅ ̀˅ˣ˥ˢ ˅˘ˊˋ ༤˫˅˘˙˨˜˘ˢ ˘༤˘ ˊˁːˋ ༤˫˅˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˢ, ˘ ˄˥༤˼˸˘ˣ˨˪˅˥ ˘˖ ˣ˘˲ ˣˋ ˦˥ˊˊˁ˿˪˨̀ ̀˖˻˜˥˅˥˙ ˘ˊˋˣ˪˘˱˘˜ˁ˴˘˘ɏ6. ʐ˨˪ˁ˅˸ˁ̀˨̀ ˵ˁ˨˪˼ ˘ˣ˱˥˧ˢˁ˴˘˘ ˊ˥˦˥༤ˣ̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˆ˧ˋ˵ˋ˨˜˘ˢ ˦˥˽˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˢ ˥˦˘˨ˁˣ˘ˋˢ ʕ˧˥̀ˣ˨˜˥˙ ˅˥˙ˣ˻, ˵˼̀ ˥˜˥ˣ˵ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣˁ̀ ˧ˋˊˁ˜˴˘̀, ˅ˋ˧˥̀˪ˣ˥, ˥˪ˣ˥˨˘˪˨̀ ˜ ˦ˋ˧˘˥ˊ˫, ˜˥˪˥˧˻˙ ˢ˥༤˥ːˋ ༤ˋːˁ˹˘˲ ˅ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˋ ˣˁ˧˧ˁ˪˘˅ˁ ˨˥˄˻˪˘˙ ˣˁ ˊ˥˄˧˻˲ ˦̀˪˼ ˅ˋ˜˥˅. ʎˁ˜˥ˣˋ˴, ˦˧˥ˊ˥༤ːˁ˿˹˘ˋ˨̀ ˧ˁ˨˜˥˦˜˘ ʕ˧˥˘ ˄˧˥ˣ˖˥˅˥ˆ˥ ˅ˋ˜ˁ ˊ˥ ˨˘˲ ˦˥˧ ˣˋ ˊˁ༤˘ ˣ˘ ˥ˊˣ˥˙ ˢ˥ˣ˫ˢˋˣ˪ˁ༤˼ˣ˥˙ ˣˁˊ˦˘˨˘, ˁ ˽˦˘ˆ˧ˁ˱˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˋ ˦ˁˢ̀˪ˣ˘˜˘ ˘˖ ʕ˧˥˘ ˥ˆ˧ˁˣ˘˵˘˅ˁ˿˪˨̀ ˥ˊˣ˥˙ ˘ˋ˧˥ˆ༤˘˱˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˦ˋ˵ˁ˪˼˿, ˦˧˘˵ˋˢ ˋˋ ˅༤ˁˊˋ༤ˋ˴ ˣˋ ˢ˥ːˋ˪ ˄˻˪˼ ˘ˊˋˣ˪˘˱˘˴˘˧˥˅ˁˣ ˨ ˜ˁ˜˥˙-༤˘˄˥ ˘˖˅ˋ˨˪ˣ˥˙ ˘˨˪˥˧˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˱˘ˆ˫˧˥˙. ʎˁ˨˪˥̀˹ˁ̀ ˨˪ˁ˪˼̀ ˨˥˨˪˥˘˪ ˘˖ ˊ˅˫˲ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˣ˻˲ ˧ˁ˖ˊˋ༤˥˅. ɳ ˦ˋ˧˅˥˙ ˵ˁ˨˪˘ ˄˫ˊˋ˪ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ ˜˧ˁ˪˜˘˙ ˥˄˖˥˧ ˘˨˪˥˧˘˘ ɳ˘༤˫˨˻ ˦˥ ˁˣˁ˪˥༤˘˙˨˜˘ˢ ˘˨˪˥˵ˣ˘˜ˁˢ ˄˧˥ˣ˖˥˅˥ˆ˥ ˅ˋ˜ˁ, ˁ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˧ˁ˖˥˄˧ˁˣ˻ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˣ˻ˋ ˁ˧ˆ˫ˢˋˣ˪˻, ˅˻ˊ˅˘ˆˁ˅˸˘ˋ˨̀ ˖ˁ ˘༤˘ ˦˧˥˪˘˅ ˦˧˘˨˫˪˨˪˅˘̀ ༤˫˅˘˙˴ˋ˅ ˅ ˨ˋ˅ˋ˧˥-˖ˁ˦ˁˊˣ˥˙ ˵ˁ˨˪˘ ʍˁ༤˥˙ ɯ˖˘˘ ˣˁ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˁˣ˘˘ ˁˣˁ༤˘˖ˁ ˊˁˣˣ˻˲ ˘˨˪˥˵ˣ˘˜˥˅. ɳ˻˅˥ˊ˻ ˊˁˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˧ˁ˖ˊˋ༤ˁ ̀˅༤̀˿˪˨̀ ˦˥ ˦˧ˋ˘ˢ˫˹ˋ˨˪˅˫ ˣˋˆˁ˪˘˅ˣ˻ˢ˘, ˨༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪ ˦˧˘˖ˣˁ˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˘˨˪˥˵ˣ˘˜˘ ˅˪˥˧˥ˆ˥ ˪˻˨̀˵ˋ༤ˋ˪˘̀ ˊ˥ ˣ.˽. ˣˋ ˢ˥ˆ˫˪ ˨༤˫ː˘˪˼ ˥˪˦˧ˁ˅ˣ˥˙ ˪˥˵˜˥˙ ˊ༤̀ ˥˨ˢ˻˨༤ˋˣˣ˥˙ ˊ˘˨˜˫˨˨˘˘ ˥˄ ˽˪ˣ˥༤˘ˣˆ˅˘˨˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˨˘˪˫ˁ˴˘˘ ˅ ɳ˘༤˫˨ˋ. ʁˁˊˁ˵ˋ˙ ˅˪˥˧˥˙ ˵ˁ˨˪˘ ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˅˥˨˨˪ˁˣ˥˅༤ˋˣ˘ˋ ˄ˁ༤ˁˣ˨ˁ ˦˥˨༤ˋ ˦ˋ˨˨˘ˢ˘˨˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˖ˁ˜༤˿˵ˋˣ˘˙ ˦˧ˋˊ˻ˊ˫˹ˋˆ˥ ˧ˁ˖ˊˋ༤ˁ. ʝ˥˪̀ «ʃ༤˘ˁˊˁ» ˘ ˣˋ ˦˥ˊ˪˅ˋ˧ːˊˁˋ˪ ˣˁ༤˘˵˘ˋ ༤˫˅˘˙˴ˋ˅ ˅ ʕ˧˥ˋ, ˥ˣˁ ˅˨ˋ ːˋ ˦˧ˋˊ˥˨˪ˁ˅༤̀ˋ˪ ˥ˆ˧ˁˣ˘˵ˋˣˣ˻ˋ ˨˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅ˁ ˅ ˦˥༤˼˖˫ ˦˧˘˨˫˪˨˪˅˘̀ ˥˪ˊˋ༤˼ˣ˻˲ ˆ˧˫˦˦ ༤˫˅˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˣˁ˨ˋ༤ˋˣ˘̀ ˅ ʕ˧˥ˁˊˋ ˅ ˧ˁˣˣˋˢ ːˋ༤ˋ˖ˣ˥ˢ ˅ˋ˜ˋ.

2. ɰˌໞ˟˜ʸ ˌ ໞ˟ʻˌˍ˜ːˌˍ ˴ˊ˯ː ɳ ˨ˁˢ˥ˢ ˧ˁˣˣˋˢ ˫˦˥ˢ˘ˣˁˣ˘˘ ɳ˘༤˫˨˻ ˅ ˲ˋ˪˪˨˜˘˲ ˘˨˪˥˧˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˘˨˪˥˵ˣ˘˜ˁ˲ ˥ˣˁ ˨˅̀˖˻˅ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˨ Taruisa — ˪˥˦˥ˣ˘ˢ˥ˢ, ˜˥˪˥˧˻˙ ˵ˁ˨˪˥ ˨˧ˁ˅ˣ˘˅ˁ˿˪ ˨ ˜༤ˁ˨˨˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ʕ˧˥ˋ˙ (˨˧. del Monte, Tischler 1978: 408). ɳ ˁˣˣˁ༤ˁ˲ ʕ˫ˊ˲ˁ༤˘˘ I (CTH 142) ˫˦˥ˢ˘ˣˁ˿˪˨̀ KURɎURUWILUŠIYA ˘ KURɎURUTARWIŠA ˜ˁ˜ ˊ˅ˁ ˖ˁ˜༤˿˵˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻˲ ˪˥˦˥ˣ˘ˢˁ ˅ ˨˦˘˨˜ˋ ˖ˁ˦ˁˊˣ˥ˁˣˁ˪˥༤˘˙˨˜˘˲ ˜ˣ̀ːˋ˨˪˅, ˨˥˨˪ˁ˅༤̀˅˸˘˲ ˪ˁ˜ ˣˁ˖˻˅ˁˋˢ˫˿ ˜˥ˁ༤˘˴˘˿ ɯ˨˨˫˅˻, ˧ˁ˖ˆ˧˥ˢ༤ˋˣˣ˫˿ ˴ˁ˧ˋˢ ʝˁ˪˪˫˨˻ (Carruba 1977: 158). ʐ˪˨˿ˊˁ ˨༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪, ˵˪˥ ˅ ˣˁ˵ˁ༤ˋ XIV ˅. ˊ˥ ˣ.˽. ˽˪˘ ˊ˅ˋ ˪ˋ˧˧˘˪˥˧˘˘ ˧ˁ˨˦˥༤ˁˆˁ༤˘˨˼ ˦˥ ˨˥˨ˋˊ˨˪˅˫, ˣ˥ ˣˋ ̀˅༤̀༤˘˨˼ ˘ˊˋˣ˪˘˵ˣ˻ˢ˘. ɸˁˣˣ˥ˋ ˱˫ˣ˜˴˘˥ˣˁ༤˼ˣ˥ˋ ˧ˁ˖༤˘˵˘ˋ ˣˋ ˘ˢˋˋ˪ ˁˣˁ༤˥ˆˁ ˅ «ʃ༤˘ˁˊˋ», ˆˊˋ ͬΦΤΩΫ ˘ TΪΩϲ΢ ˥˄˻˵ˣ˥ ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˁ˿˪ ˆ˥˧˥ˊ ˘ ˦˧˘༤ˋˆˁ˿˹˫˿ ˪ˋ˧˧˘˪˥˧˘˿ ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥ (Güterbock 1986: 40). ɳ ˧ˁ˄˥˪ˋ Hajnal 2003: 43 ˊˋ༤ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˦˧ˁ˅ˊ˥˦˥ˊ˥˄ˣ˻˙ ˅˻˅˥ˊ ˥ ˪˥ˢ, ˵˪˥ ˅ ˆ˥ˢˋ˧˥˅˨˜˥ˢ ˽˦˥˨ˋ ˨˥˲˧ˁˣˋˣ˻ ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘̀ 6 ʕˋ˧ˢ˘ˣ «༤˫˅˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˋ ̀˖˻˜˘» ˘˨˦˥༤˼˖˫ˋ˪˨̀ ˊ༤̀ ˪ˁ˜˨˥ˣ˥ˢ˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˋˊ˘ˣ˘˴˻, ˅˜༤˿˵ˁ˿˹ˋ˙ ˅ ˨ˋ˄̀ ˨˥˄˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥ ༤˫˅˘˙˨˜˘˙ ̀˖˻˜ ˘ ˧̀ˊ ˋˆ˥ ˄༤˘ːˁ˙˸˘˲ ˧˥ˊ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˘˜˥˅ ˨˧ˋˊ˘ ˁˣˁ˪˥༤˘˙˨˜˥˙ ̀˖˻˜˥˅˥˙ ˆ˧˫˦˦˻. ʇ ˣ˘ˢ ˥˪ˣ˥˨̀˪˨̀, ˅ ˵ˁ˨˪ˣ˥˨˪˘, ˁˣˁ˪˥༤˘˙˨˜˘ˋ ̀˖˻˜˘ ʌ˘˜˘˘ (༤˘˜˘˙˨˜˘˙ ɯ ˘ ༤˘˜˘˙˨˜˘˙ ɲ ɏ/ɏ ˢ˘༤˘˙˨˜˘˙), ˁ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ, ˦˥-˅˘ˊ˘ˢ˥ˢ˫, ˣˋˊˁ˅ˣ˥ ˊˋ˸˘˱˧˥˅ˁˣˣ˻˙ ˜ˁ˧˘˙˨˜˘˙ ̀˖˻˜ (Melchert 2003b: 175–177). ɳ ˪˥ ːˋ ˅˧ˋˢ̀, ˨༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪ ˦˥ˊ˵ˋ˧˜ˣ˫˪˼, ˵˪˥ ̀˖˻˜˘ ʌ˘˜˘˘ ˣ˘˜˥˘ˢ ˥˄˧ˁ˖˥ˢ ˣˋ ̀˅༤̀˿˪˨̀ ˦˧̀ˢ˻ˢ˘ ˦˥˪˥ˢ˜ˁˢ˘ ༤˫˅˘˙˨˜˥ˆ˥. ɳ ˵ˁ˨˪ˣ˥˨˪˘, ˣˁ༤˘˵˘ˋ ˥˜˥ˣ˵ˁˣ˘̀ ˊˁ˪. ˢˣ. -e ˘ ˜˥ˣ˪˧ˁ˨˪˘˅ˣ˥˙ ˵ˁ˨˪˘˴˻ =me ˅ ༤˘˜˘˙˨˜˥ˢ ɲ ˦˧˥˪˘˅˥˧ˋ˵˘˪ ˪ˋ˖˘˨˫ ʣ˪ˁ˧˜ˋ (Starke 1997: 476, ˨ˣ˥˨˜ˁ 108), ˥ ˪˥ˢ, ˵˪˥ ˽˪˥˪ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪, ˅ ˥˪༤˘˵˘ˋ ˥˪ ༤˘˜˘˙˨˜˥ˆ˥ ɯ, ˣˁ˦˧̀ˢ˫˿ ˦˧˥˘˨˲˥ˊ˘˪ ˘˖ ༤˫˅˘˙˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ.

195

ʃ. ʓ. ʫ˜˫˄˥˅˘˵

ˊ˅˫˲ ˨˥˨ˋˊˣ˘˲ ˪˥˦˥ˣ˘ˢ˥˅, ˣ˥ ˨˅ˋˊˋˣ˻ ˅˥ˋˊ˘ˣ˥ ˘˲ ˧ˋ˱ˋ˧ˋˣ˪˻ (˨˧. Miller 2014: 13). ɸ˧˫ˆˁ̀ ˅ˋ˧˥̀˪ˣˁ̀ (ˣ˥ ˣˋ ˊ˥˨˪˥˅ˋ˧ˣˁ̀) ˱˘˜˨ˁ˴˘̀ ˪˥˦˥ˣ˘ˢˁ Taruisa ˅˨˪˧ˋ˵ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˅ ༤˫˅˘˙˨˜˥˙ ˘ˋ˧˥ˆ༤˘˱˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˣˁˊ˦˘˨˘ ANKARA 2 ˣˁ ˖˥༤˥˪˥˙ ˵ˁ˸ˋ (Hawkins 1997, 2005a). ʨ˪˥˪ ˁ˧˪ˋ˱ˁ˜˪, ˘ˢˋ˿˹˘˙ ˣˋ̀˨ˣ˥ˋ ˦˧˥˘˨˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘ˋ ˘ ˊˁ˪˘˧˥˅˜˫, ˨˥ˊˋ˧ː˘˪ ˫˦˥ˢ˘ˣˁˣ˘ˋ ˦˥˲˥ˊˁ ˣˋ˜˥ˋˆ˥ ʕ˫ˊ˲ˁ༤˘˘ ˦˧˥˪˘˅ ˨˪˧ˁˣ˻ Taraɍ/ɍi-waɍ/ɍi-zaɍ/ɍiɏ7. ʎˁ˦˧˥˪˘˅, ˪˥˦˥ˣ˘ˢ Wilusa ˦˥̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˅ ˄˥༤˼˸ˋˢ ˵˘˨༤ˋ ˊ˥˜˫ˢˋˣ˪˥˅, ˘˖ ˜˥˪˥˧˻˲ ༤˫˵˸ˋ ˅˨ˋ˲ ˨˥˲˧ˁˣˋˣ ˘ ˊˁ˪˘˧˥˅ˁˣ ˅ˁ˨˨ˁ༤˼ˣ˻˙ ˊ˥ˆ˥˅˥˧, ˖ˁ˜༤˿˵ˋˣˣ˻˙ ˢˋːˊ˫ ʍ˫˅ˁ˪˪ˁ༤༤˘ II, ˴ˁ˧ˋˢ ʝˁ˪˪˫˨˻, ˘ ɯ༤ˁ˜˨ˁˣˊ˫, ˜ˣ̀˖ˋˢ ɳ˘༤˫˨˻ (CTH 76, ˣˋˊˁ˅ˣ˥ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˅ˋˊˋˣ ˅ ˧ˁ˄˥˪ˋ Beckman 1999: 87–93). ɳ ˘˨˪˥˧˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˦˧ˋˁˢ˄˫༤ˋ ˜ ˽˪˥ˢ˫ ˪ˋ˜˨˪˫ ˨˥ˊˋ˧ː˘˪˨̀ ˫˪˅ˋ˧ːˊˋˣ˘ˋ ˥ ̀˜˥˄˻ ˦˥ˊ˵˘ˣˋˣˣ˥ˢ ˦˥༤˥ːˋˣ˘˘ ɳ˘༤˫˨˻ ˦˥ ˥˪ˣ˥˸ˋˣ˘˿ ˜ ʝˁ˪˪˫˨ˋ ˅ ˊ˧ˋ˅ˣˋ˲ˋ˪˪˨˜˘˙ ˦ˋ˧˘˥ˊ. ɸ˥˨˪˥˅ˋ˧ˣ˥˨˪˼ ˽˪˥˙ ˘ˣ˱˥˧ˢˁ˴˘˘ ˅ˋ˨˼ˢˁ ˨˥ˢˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣˁ, ˦˥˪˥ˢ˫ ˵˪˥ ˅ ˪˥˙ ːˋ ˦˧ˋˁˢ˄˫༤ˋ (ˋ˨༤˘ ˥ˣˁ ˅ˋ˧ˣ˥ ˧ˋ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˘˧˥˅ˁˣˁ) ˖ˁ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀, ˵˪˥ ɳ˘༤˫˨ˁ ˅ ˦˧˥˸༤˥ˢ ˅˨ˋˆˊˁ ˄˻༤ˁ ˅ ˢ˘˧ˣ˻˲ ˥˪ˣ˥˸ˋˣ˘̀˲ ˨ ʝˁ˪˪˫˨˥˙, ˵˪˥ ̀˅ˣ˥ ˥˦˧˥˅ˋ˧ˆˁˋ˪˨̀ ˊ˥˜˫ˢˋˣ˪˥ˢ CTH 142 (˨ˢ. ˅˻˸ˋ). ʓ ˊ˧˫ˆ˥˙ ˨˪˥˧˥ˣ˻, ˘ˢ̀ ˴ˁ˧̀ ʇ˫˜˜˫ˣˣ˘, ˵˼˘ ˊ˧˫ːˋ˨˜˘ˋ ˥˪ˣ˥˸ˋˣ˘̀ ˨ ʓ˫˦˦˘༤˫༤˘˫ˢ˥˙ I ˫˦˥ˢ˘ˣˁ˿˪˨̀ ˅ ˪ˋ˜˨˪ˋ ˊ˥ˆ˥˅˥˧ˁ ˊ༤̀ ˦˥ˊ˪˅ˋ˧ːˊˋˣ˘̀ ˊ༤˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˢ˘˧ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˨˥˨˫˹ˋ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘̀ ˢˋːˊ˫ ʝˁ˪˪˫˨˥˙ ˘ ɳ˘༤˫˨˥˙, ˅ˋ˧˥̀˪ˣ˥, ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˁ˫˪ˋˣ˪˘˵ˣ˥˙ ˊˋ˪ˁ༤˼˿. ʇ ˨˥ːˁ༤ˋˣ˘˿, ˦˥˨༤ˋˊ˫˿˹ˁ̀ ˵ˁ˨˪˼ ˦˧ˋˁˢ˄˫༤˻, ˜˥˪˥˧ˁ̀ ˢ˥ˆ༤ˁ ˨˥ˊˋ˧ːˁ˪˼ ˦˥˅ˋ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘ˋ ˥ (˅˪˥˧˘˵ˣ˥ˢ) ˦˥˜˥˧ˋˣ˘˘ ɳ˘༤˫˨˻ ʝˁ˪˪˫˨˥˙, ˦˥˵˪˘ ˦˥༤ˣ˥˨˪˼˿ ˫˪˧ˁ˵ˋˣˁ. ʑ˥ ˅˨ˋ˙ ˅ˋ˧˥̀˪ˣ˥˨˪˘, ˦˧˘ˣ̀˪˘ˋ ˜ˣ̀˖˼̀ˢ˘ ɳ˘༤˫˨˻ ˅ˁ˨˨ˁ༤˼ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˨˪ˁ˪˫˨ˁ ˨˪ˁ༤˥ ˧ˋ˖˫༤˼˪ˁ˪˥ˢ ˖ˁ˦ˁˊˣ˻˲ ˜ˁˢ˦ˁˣ˘˙ ʍ˫˧˨˘༤˘ II (˅˪˥˧ˁ̀ ˦˥༤˥˅˘ˣˁ XIV ˅. ˊ˥ ˣ.˽.). ʒˁˣˣ˘˙ ˦ˋ˧˘˥ˊ ˦˧ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˘̀ ʍ˫˅ˁ˪˪ˁ༤༤˘ II ˥˪ˢˋ˵ˋˣ ˲ˋ˪˪˨˜˘ˢ ˦˥˲˥ˊ˥ˢ ˅ ˨ˋ˅ˋ˧˥˖ˁ˦ˁˊˣ˫˿ ɯˣˁ˪˥༤˘˿. ʐ˵ˋ˅˘ˊˣ˥, ˥ˣ ˄˻༤ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˧˘ˣ̀˪ ˦˥ ˦˧˥˨˼˄ˋ ɯ༤ˁ˜˨ˁˣˊ˫, ˵˪˥˄˻ ˦˥ˢ˥˵˼ ˪˥ˢ˫ ˅ ˄˥˧˼˄ˋ ˨ ˋˆ˥ ˦˧˥˪˘˅ˣ˘˜ˁˢ˘. ɳ ˊ˥˦˥༤ˣˋˣ˘ˋ ˜ ˘ˢˋ˿˹ˋˢ˫˨̀ ˅ ˊ˥ˆ˥˅˥˧ˋ ɯ༤ˁ˜˨ˁˣˊ˫ ˱˧ˁˆˢˋˣ˪ˁ˧ˣ˥ˢ˫ ˥˦˘˨ˁˣ˘˿ ˦˥˲˥ˊˁ, ˥ ˣˋˢ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˘˖˅ˋ˨˪ˣ˥ ˘˖ ˦˘˨˼ˢˁ, ˦˥˨༤ˁˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˜ˣ̀˖ˋˢ ˨˪˧ˁˣ˻ ˧ˋ˜˘ ʓˋ˲ˁ ʍˁˣˁ˄ˁ-ʕˁ˧˲˫ˣ˪ˁ ˅ ʝˁ˪˪˫˨˫ (CTH 191). ʍˁˣˁ˄ˁ-ʕˁ˧˲˫ˣ˪ˁ ˘ˣ˱˥˧ˢ˘˧˫ˋ˪ ˨˅˥ˋˆ˥ ˁˊ˧ˋ˨ˁ˪ˁ, ˵˪˥ ˲ˋ˪˪˨˜ˁ̀ ˁ˧ˢ˘̀ ˦˧˥˸༤ˁ ˵ˋ˧ˋ˖ ˋˆ˥ ˪ˋ˧˧˘˪˥˧˘˿ ˦˥ ˣˁ˦˧ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˘˿ ˜ ɳ˘༤˫˨ˋ, ˁ ˖ˁ˪ˋˢ ˫˦˥ˢ˘ˣˁˋ˪ ˥ ˨˅˥ˋ˙ ˄˥༤ˋ˖ˣ˘, ˜˥˪˥˧ˁ̀, ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤˥ː˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥, ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˦˧˘˵˘ˣ˥˙ ˋˆ˥ ˣˋ˫˵ˁ˨˪˘̀ ˅ ˽˪˥ˢ ˦˥˲˥ˊˋ (Houwink ten Cate 1985: 38). ɸˁˣˣ˻˙ ˪ˋ˜˨˪ ˦˧ˋˊ˥˨˪ˁ˅༤̀ˋ˪ ˜༤˿˵ˋ˅˻ˋ ˁ˧ˆ˫ˢˋˣ˪˻ ˅ ˦˥༤˼˖˫ ˘ˊˋˣ˪˘˱˘˜ˁ˴˘˘ ɳ˘༤˫˨˻ ˨ ʕ˧˥ˋ˙ ˜ˁ˜ ˪ˋ˧˧˘˪˥˧˘˘, ༤ˋːˁ˹ˋ˙ ˖ˁ ˨˪˧ˁˣ˥˙ ˧ˋ˜˘ ʓˋ˲ˁ, ˣ˥ ˥ˣ, ˜ ˨˥ːˁ༤ˋˣ˘˿, ˄ˋ˨˦˥༤ˋ˖ˋˣ ˅ ˦༤ˁˣˋ ˥˦˧ˋˊˋ༤ˋˣ˘̀ ˦˧˥˪˘˅ˣ˘˜ˁ ʝˁ˪˪˫˨˻. ʐˊˣˁ˜˥ ˥˪˧˻˅˥˜ ˘˖ «ʑ˘˨˼ˢˁ ˥ ʕˁ˅ˁˆˁ༤ˁ˅ˋ» (CTH 181) ˢ˥ːˋ˪ ˣˁ˅ˋ˨˪˘ ˣˁ ˥˦˧ˋˊˋ༤ˋˣˣ˻ˋ ˢ˻˨༤˘ ˦˥ ˊˁˣˣ˥ˢ˫ ˦˥˅˥ˊ˫. ʑ˻˪ˁ̀˨˼ ˫˄ˋˊ˘˪˼ ˴ˁ˧̀ ɯ˲˲˘̀˅˻ ˦˧ˋ˜˧ˁ˪˘˪˼ ˦˥ˊˊˋ˧ː˜˫ ˦˥˅˨˪ˁˣ˴ˁ ʑ˘̀ˢˁ˧ˁˊ˫, ˴ˁ˧˼ ʝˁ˪˪˫˨˻ ˦˧˘˖˻˅ˁˋ˪ ˋˆ˥ ˦˥ˊ˫ˢˁ˪˼ ˥ ˨༤ˋˊ˫˿˹ˋˢ: «ʟˁ˧˼ ˨˪˧ˁˣ˻ ʝˁ˪˪˫˨˻ ˘ ̀ ˅˧ˁːˊ˥˅ˁ༤˘ ˘˖-˖ˁ ˆ˥˧˥ˊˁ ɳ˘༤˫˨ˁ, ˣ˥ ˥ˣ ˫˄ˋˊ˘༤ [ˢˋˣ̀ ˥˪ˣ˥˨˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ ˽˪˥˙ ˦˧˥˄༤ˋˢ˻], ˦˥˽˪˥ˢ˫ ˢ˻ ˦˥ˢ˘˧˘༤˘˨˼, ˘ ˅˧ˁːˊˁ ˣˁˢ ˖ˁ˜ˁ˖ˁˣˁ» (Cohen 2002: 126–127). 7 ɴ˘˦˥˪ˋ˖ˁ ʝ˥˜˘ˣ˨ˁ, ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˥ ˜˥˪˥˧˥˙ ˣˁˊ˦˘˨˼ ANKARA 2 ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˊ˧ˋ˅ˣˋ˙˸˘ˢ ༤˫˅˘˙˨˜˘ˢ ˘ˋ˧˥ˆ༤˘˱˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˢ ˪ˋ˜˨˪˥ˢ, ˥˪ˣ˥˨̀˹˘ˢ˨̀ ˜ ˣˁ˵ˁ༤˫ XIV ˅. ˊ˥ ˣ. ˽., ˣˋ ˣˁ˸༤ˁ ˦˥ˊˊˋ˧ː˜˘ ˘˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁ˪ˋ༤ˋ˙. ɳ ˧ˁ˄˥˪ˋ Yakubovich 2008: 14–16 ̀ ˥˪˨˪ˁ˘˅ˁ˿ ˘ˊˋ˿, ˵˪˥ ˊˁ˪˘˧˥˅˜ˁ ˣˁˊ˦˘˨˘ ANKARA 2 ˊ˥༤ːˣˁ ˥˪༤˘˵ˁ˪˼˨̀ ˥˪ ˅˧ˋˢˋˣ˘ ˨˥˖ˊˁˣ˘̀ ˵ˁ˸˘. ʨ˪˥ ˦˥˖˅˥༤̀ˋ˪ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨˥˅ˁ˪˼ ˥˧˱˥ˆ˧ˁ˱˘˿ ˪ˋ˜˨˪ˁ ANKARA 2, ˲ˁ˧ˁ˜˪ˋ˧ˣ˫˿ ˊ༤̀ XIII ˅. ˘༤˘ ˄˥༤ˋˋ ˦˥˖ˊˣˋˆ˥ ˦ˋ˧˘˥ˊˁ, ˨ ̀˅ˣ˻ˢ ˫˦˥ˢ˘ˣˁˣ˘ˋˢ ˅ ˽˪˥ˢ ˪ˋ˜˨˪ˋ ˦˥˲˥ˊˁ ʕ˫ˊ˲ˁ༤˘˘ I ˣˁ ʕ(ˁ)˧˫˘˨˫ ˅ ˣˁ˵ˁ༤ˋ XIV ˅. ˊ˥ ˣ.˽. ʓ˪˥˘˪, ˥ˊˣˁ˜˥, ˥˪ˢˋ˪˘˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˥˪˥ːˊˋ˨˪˅༤ˋˣ˘ˋ ˘ˋ˧˥ˆ༤˘˱˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˆ˥ *Tarwiza ˘ ˜༤˘ˣ˥˦˘˨ˣ˥ˆ˥ Taruisa ˣˋ ˢ˥ːˋ˪ ˧ˁ˨˨ˢˁ˪˧˘˅ˁ˪˼˨̀ ˜ˁ˜ ˦˥༤ˣ˥˨˪˼˿ ˊ˥˨˪˥˅ˋ˧ˣ˥ˋ. ɲ˥༤˼˸˘ˣ˨˪˅˥ ˣˋˊˁ˅ˣ˘˲ ˘˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁ˪ˋ༤ˋ˙ ˪ˋ˜˨˪ˁ ANKARA 2 ˨˜༤˥ˣ̀˿˪˨̀ ˜ ˋˋ ˊˁ˪˘˧˥˅˜ˋ ʝII ˅. ˘༤˘ ˋ˹ˋ ˄˥༤ˋˋ ˦˥˖ˊˣ˘ˢ ˦ˋ˧˘˥ˊ˥ˢ ˘ ˥˪ˊˋ༤̀˿˪ ˫˦˥ˢ˘ˣˁˋˢ˥ˆ˥ ˅ ˣˋˢ ʕ˫ˊ˲ˁ༤˘˿ ˥˪ ʕ˫ˊ˲ˁ༤˘˘ I (Simon 2009, Freu 2010–2011, ʐ˧ˋ˸˜˥ 2012, Giusfredi 2013). ʐ˨˥˄ˣ̀˜˥ˢ ˨˪˥˘˪ ˪˧ˁ˜˪˥˅˜ˁ ɸˋ˧ˣ˱˥˧ˊˁ, ˜˥˪˥˧˻˙, ˜ˁ˜ ˘ ̀, ˧ˁ˖ˊˋ༤̀ˋ˪ ˅˧ˋˢ̀ ˨˥˖ˊˁˣ˘̀ ˵ˁ˸˘ ˘ ˣˁˣˋ˨ˋˣ˘̀ ˣˁ ˣˋˋ ˣˁˊ˦˘˨˘, ˊ˥˦˫˨˜ˁ̀ ˪ˋˢ ˨ˁˢ˻ˢ ˘˨˪˥˧˘˵ˋ˨˜˫˿ ˥˪˨˻༤˜˫ ˅ ˣˁˊ˦˘˨˘ ˜ ˽˜˨˦ˋˊ˘˴˘˘ ʕ˫ˊ˲ˁ༤˘˘ I ˦˧˥˪˘˅ ʕˁ˧˅˘˨˻, ˦˫˨˪˼ ˘ ˦˥ˣ˘ˢˁˋˢ˥˙ ˜ˁ˜ ˦˥༤˫༤ˋˆˋˣˊˁ˧ˣ˥ˋ ˨˥˄˻˪˘ˋ (Durnford 2010).

196

ʎˁ ˜ˁ˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲ ˆ˥˅˥˧˘༤˘ ˅ ʕ˧˥ˋ? ɳ˖ˆ༤̀ˊ ˁˣˁ˪˥༤˘˨˪ˁ

ɲ˥༤˼˸˘ˣ˨˪˅˥ ˘˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁ˪ˋ༤ˋ˙ ˨ˋ˙˵ˁ˨ ˦˧˘ˊˋ˧ː˘˅ˁ˿˪˨̀ ˢˣˋˣ˘̀ ˥ ˪˥ˢ, ˵˪˥ ˁ˅˪˥˧˥ˢ «ʑ˘˨˼ˢˁ ˥ ʕˁ˅ˁˆˁ༤ˁ˅ˋ» ˄˻༤ ʝˁ˪˪˫˨˘༤˘ III, ˦˧ˁ˅˘˅˸˘˙ ˅ ˨ˋ˧ˋˊ˘ˣˋ XIII ˅ˋ˜ˁ ˊ˥ ˣ.˽. (Bryce 2005: 290, ˪ˁˢ ːˋ ˨˨˻༤˜˘). ʕˁ˜˘ˢ ˥˄˧ˁ˖˥ˢ, ˨༤˥ːˣ˥ ˦˧˘ˣ̀˪˼, ˵˪˥ «˦˧˥˄༤ˋˢˁ ˆ˥˧˥ˊˁ ɳ˘༤˫˨˻» ˥˪ˣ˥˨˘˪˨̀ ˜ ˪˥ˢ˫ ːˋ ˜˥ˣ˱༤˘˜˪˫, ˵˪˥ ˘ ˫˦˥ˢ̀ˣ˫˪˻˙ ˅ ˊ˥ˆ˥˅˥˧ˋ ɯ༤ˁ˜˨ˁˣˊ˫. ʐˊˣˁ˜˥ ˧ˁ˨˨ˢ˥˪˧ˋˣˣ˻˙ ˱˧ˁˆˢˋˣ˪ ˣˋˊ˅˫˨ˢ˻˨༤ˋˣˣ˥ ˨˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅˫ˋ˪ ˥ ˪˥ˢ, ˵˪˥ ˦˧ˁ˅˘˪ˋ༤˘ ɯ˲˲˘̀˅˻ ˦˧˘ˣ˘ˢˁ༤˘ ˫˵ˁ˨˪˘ˋ ˅ ˊˋ༤ˁ˲ ɳ˘༤˫˨˻ ˘, ˅˦˥༤ˣˋ ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˥, ˅ ˣˋ˜˥˪˥˧˻˲ ˨༤˫˵ˁ̀˲ ˅ˢˋ˸˘˅ˁ༤˘˨˼ ˅ ˽˪˘ ˊˋ༤ˁ. ʓ˫ˊ̀ ˦˥ ˪˥ˢ˫, ˵˪˥ ˘˖˅ˋ˨˪ˣ˥ ˥˄ ˘˨˪˥˧˘˘ ˊ˧˫ˆ˘˲ ˖ˁ˦ˁˊˣ˥ˁˣˁ˪˥༤˘˙˨˜˘˲ ˆ˥˨˫ˊˁ˧˨˪˅, ˪ˁ˜˥ˋ ˅ˢˋ˸ˁ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅˥ ˢ˥ˆ༤˥ ˦˧˘ˣ˘ˢˁ˪˼ ˱˥˧ˢ˫ ˦˥ˊˊˋ˧ː˜˘ ˦˧ˋ˪ˋˣˊˋˣ˪˥˅ ˣˁ ˪˧˥ˣ ɳ˘༤˫˨˻ ˘ ˊˋ༤ˋˆ˘˪˘ˢ˘˖ˁ˴˘˘ ˦˧ˁ˅̀˹ˋˆ˥ ˜ˣ̀˖̀. ʐˊ˘ˣ ˘˖ ˦˥ˊ˥˄ˣ˻˲ ˽˦˘˖˥ˊ˥˅, ˅ˋ˧˥̀˪ˣ˥, ˘ˢˋ༤ ˢˋ˨˪˥ ˅ ˴ˁ˧˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘ˋ ʍ˫˅ˁ˪˪ˁ༤༤˘ II ˘ ˦˥˪˧ˋ˄˥˅ˁ༤ ˦˥˲˥ˊˁ ˲ˋ˪˪˨˜˥˙ ˁ˧ˢ˘˘, ˪˥ˆˊˁ ˜ˁ˜ ˊ˧˫ˆ˥˙ ˨༤˫˵˘༤˨̀ ˋ˹ˋ ˧ˁˣ˼˸ˋ ˅ ˴ˁ˧˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘ˋ ʝˁ˪˪˫˨˘༤˘ III ˘ ˄˻༤ ˧ˋ˸ˋˣ ˊ˘˦༤˥ˢˁ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˢ˘ ˨˧ˋˊ˨˪˅ˁˢ˘ɏ8. ɹ˹ˋ ˥ˊ˘ˣ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˅˥˧˥˪, ˘ˢˋ˅˸˘˙ ˢˋ˨˪˥ ˅ ɳ˘༤˫˨ˋ, ˫˦˥ˢ̀ˣ˫˪ ˅ «ʑ˘˨˼ˢˋ ˥ ʍ˘༤ˁ˅ˁ˪ˋ» (CTH 182). ʟˁ˧˼ ʝˁ˪˪˫˨˻, ˥˪˥ːˊˋ˨˪˅༤̀ˋˢ˻˙ ˨ˋ˙˵ˁ˨ ˨ ʕ˫ˊ˲ˁ༤˘ˋ˙ IV, ˫˄ˋːˊˁˋ˪ ˨˅˥ˋˆ˥ ˅ˁ˨˨ˁ༤ˁ (ˣˋ ˘ˊˋˣ˪˘˱˘˴˘˧˥˅ˁˣ) ˦ˋ˧ˋˊˁ˪˼ ˋˢ˫ ˜ˣ̀˖̀ ɳˁ༤ˢ˫, ˖ˁˣ˘ˢˁ˅˸ˋˆ˥ ˧ˁˣˣˋˋ ˦˧ˋ˨˪˥༤ ɳ˘༤˫˨˻, ˜˥˪˥˧˥ˆ˥ ˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁ༤˥ ˅˥˨˨˪ˁˣ˥˅˘˪˼ ˅ ˦˧ˁ˅ˁ˲ ˣˁ ˽˪˥˪ ˦˧ˋ˨˪˥༤ (Beckman 1999: 145; ˨˧. Hawkins 1998: 19). ʍ˥ːˣ˥ ˫˨˥ˢˣ˘˪˼˨̀, ˵˪˥ ˦˥༤˘˪˘˵ˋ˨˜ˁ̀ ˄˥˧˼˄ˁ ˅ ˫ˊˁ༤ˋˣˣ˥˙ ɳ˘༤˫˨ˋ ˦˧˘˅ˋ༤ˁ ˄˻ ˜ ˦˧̀ˢ˥ˢ˫ ˅ˢˋ˸ˁ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅˫ ˲ˋ˪˪˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˦˧ˁ˅˘˪ˋ༤̀, ˋ˨༤˘ ˣˋ ˦˧˘ˣ̀˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˦˧˥˪˘˅ˣ˘˜˘ ɳˁ༤ˢ˫ ˥˦˘˧ˁ༤˘˨˼ ˣˁ ˘ˣ˫˿ ˧ˋˆ˘˥ˣˁ༤˼ˣ˫˿ ˅༤ˁ˨˪˼ ˘/˘༤˘ ˦˥༤˫˵ˁ༤˘ ˦˥ˊˊˋ˧ː˜˫ ˨ ˋˋ ˨˪˥˧˥ˣ˻. ʎˋ˥˄˲˥ˊ˘ˢ˥ ˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁ˪˼ ˪˥˵˜ˋ ˖˧ˋˣ˘̀ ɲ˧ˁ˙˨ˁ (Bryce 2005: 361), ˜˥˪˥˧˻˙ ˧ˁ˨˨ˢˁ˪˧˘˅ˁˋ˪ ˽˪˥˪ ˽˦˘˖˥ˊ ˜ˁ˜ ˋ˹ˋ ˥ˊ˘ˣ ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˻˙ ˨༤˫˵ˁ˙ ˅ˢˋ˸ˁ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅ˁ ɯ˲˲˘̀˅˻ ˅ ˖ˁ˦ˁˊˣ˥ˁˣˁ˪˥༤˘˙˨˜˘ˋ ˊˋ༤ˁ. ɳˋ˜ «˅ˋ༤˘˜˥˙ ˘ˆ˧˻», ˘ˢˋ˅˸ˋ˙ ˢˋ˨˪˥ ˢˋːˊ˫ ʝˁ˪˪˫˨˥˙ ˘ ɯ˲˲˘̀˅˥˙ ˅ ˖ˁ˦ˁˊˣ˥˙ ˵ˁ˨˪˘ ʍˁ༤˥˙ ɯ˖˘˘, ˆˊˋ ˴ˋˣ˪˧ˁ༤˼ˣ˥ˋ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ˘ˢˋ༤ˁ ɳ˘༤˫˨ˁ, ˅ˋ˧˥̀˪ˣ˥, ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤̀ˋ˪ ˦˥ ˜˧ˁ˙ˣˋ˙ ˢˋ˧ˋ ˵ˁ˨˪˘˵ˣ˻˙ ˘˨˪˥˧˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˙ ˱˥ˣ ˊ༤̀ ˽˦˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˪˧ˁˊ˘˴˘˘, ˦˥༤˫˵˘˅˸ˋ˙ ˜˫༤˼ˢ˘ˣˁ˴˘˥ˣˣ˥ˋ ˅˻˧ˁːˋˣ˘ˋ ˅ ˆ˥ˢˋ˧˥˅˨˜˥ˢ ˽˦˥˨ˋ ˘ ˜˘˜༤˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˦˥˽ˢˁ˲. ɳ ˦˥˨༤ˋˊˣ˘˙ ˧ˁ˖ ɳ˘༤˫˨ˁ ˫˦˥ˢ˘ˣˁˋ˪˨̀, ˦˥-˅˘ˊ˘ˢ˥ˢ˫, ˅ ˦༤˥˲˥ ˨˥˲˧ˁˣ˘˅˸ˋˢ˨̀ ˦˘˨˼ˢˋ ˜ ˜ˣ̀˖˿ ʑˁ˧˲˫˘˪˪ˋ (CTH 186.4). ʑ˥˸˘˄ ˦˘˨˼ˢˁ ˨˥˅ˢˋ˨˪˘ˢ ˨ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤˥ːˋˣ˘ˋˢ ˥ ˪˥ˢ, ˵˪˥ ˢ˻ ˘ˢˋˋˢ ˊˋ༤˥ ˨ ˦˥˖ˊˣ˘ˢ ˣ˥˅˥˲ˋ˪˪˨˜˘ˢ ˪ˋ˜˨˪˥ˢ. ʕ˥˵ˣˁ̀ ˊˁ˪˘˧˥˅˜ˁ ˽˪˥ˆ˥ ˊ˥˜˫ˢˋˣ˪ˁ ˣˋ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣˁ, ˣ˥ ˥ˣ˥ ˅˻˖˻˅ˁˋ˪ ˥˄˧ˁ˖ ˥˨༤ˁ˄༤ˋˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˆ˥˨˫ˊˁ˧˨˪˅ˁ ʝˁ˪˪˫˨ˁ, ˜˥˪˥˧˥ˋ ˊ˥༤ːˣ˥ ༤˼˨˪˘˪˼ ˨˅˥˘ˢ ˄˻˅˸˘ˢ ˅ˁ˨˨ˁ༤ˁˢ ˨ ˦˥ˢ˥˹˼˿ ˦˧˘˅ˋ˪˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˻˲ ˱˥˧ˢ˫༤, ˥˪˧ˁːˁ˿˹˘˲ ˧ˁ˅ˣ˻˙ ˨˥˴˘ˁ༤˼ˣ˻˙ ˨˪ˁ˪˫˨ ˁˊ˧ˋ˨ˁˣ˪ˁ ˘ ˁˊ˧ˋ˨ˁ˪ˁ. ʠ˪˥ ˜ˁ˨ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˨˥ˊˋ˧ːˁˣ˘̀, ˪˥ ˢ˥ːˣ˥ ༤˘˸˼ ˫˪˅ˋ˧ːˊˁ˪˼, ˵˪˥ ɳ˘༤˫˨ˁ ˫˦˥ˢ˘ˣˁˋ˪˨̀ ˅ ˨˅̀˖˘ ˨ ˣˁ˨˘༤˼˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˻ˢ˘ ˊˋ˙˨˪˅˘̀ˢ˘. ʘ˵˘˪˻˅ˁ̀ ˨˥˨˪˥̀ˣ˘ˋ ˦˥༤˘˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˊˋ˖˘ˣ˪ˋˆ˧ˁ˴˘˘ ˘ ˁˣˁ˧˲˘˘, ˜˥˪˥˧˻ˢ ˲ˁ˧ˁ˜˪ˋ˧˘˖˥˅ˁ༤˨̀ ˅ˋ˨˼ ɲ༤˘ːˣ˘˙ ɳ˥˨˪˥˜ ˅ ˜˥ˣ˴ˋ ˄˧˥ˣ˖˥˅˥ˆ˥ ˅ˋ˜ˁ, ˽˪˥, ˜˥ˣˋ˵ˣ˥, ˣˋ ˅˻˖˻˅ˁˋ˪ ˫ˊ˘˅༤ˋˣ˘̀. ɸ˥ˆ˥˅˥˧ ɯ༤ˁ˜˨ˁˣˊ˫ ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˋˊ˘ˣ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˻ˢ ˲ˋ˪˪˨˜˘ˢ ˪ˋ˜˨˪˥ˢ, ˜˥˪˥˧˻˙ ˨˥ˊˋ˧ː˘˪ ˘ˣ˱˥˧ˢˁ˴˘˿ ˥ ˧ˋ༤˘ˆ˘˘ ɳ˘༤˫˨˻. ʓ˦˘˨˥˜ ˄˥ːˋ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˻˲ ˨˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤ˋ˙ ˘˖ ˽˪˥ˆ˥ ˊ˥ˆ˥˅˥˧ˁ, ˜˥˪˥˧˻ˋ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤̀˿˪ ˪˧˥̀ˣ˴ˋ˅ (KUB 21.1 iv 27–28), ˥˪˜˧˻˅ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˅˘༤˫˨˨˜˘ˢ ˁ˧ˢˋ˙˨˜˘ˢ ˄˥ˆ˥ˢ ˆ˧˥ˢˁ (ŠA URUWILUŠA dU KARAŠ), ˘ˢˋ˿˹˘ˢ ˁˣˁ༤˥ˆ ˅ ˆ˥˨˫ˊˁ˧˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥ˢ ˜˫༤˼˪ˋ ˘ˢ˦ˋ˧˘˘ ʝˁ˪˪˫˨˻ɏ9. ʃˢ̀ ˅˪˥˧˥ˆ˥ ˄˥ˆˁ ˫˪ˋ˧̀ˣ˥ ˅ ༤ˁ˜˫ˣˋ, ˁ ˘ˢ̀ ˪˧ˋ˪˼ˋˆ˥ ˄˥ˆˁ ˨˥˲˧ˁˣˋˣ˥ ˜ˁ˜ ɴ˘˦˥˪ˋ˖ˁ ɲ˧ˁ˙˨ˁ (Bryce 2005: 225) ˥ ˪˥ˢ, ˵˪˥ ʍ˫˅ˁ˪˪ˁ༤༤˘ II ˥˪˦˧ˁ˅˘༤ ˁ˧ˢ˘˿ ˣˁ ɳ˘༤˫˨˫ ˅ ˥˪˅ˋ˪ ˣˁ ˣˁ˦ˁˊˋˣ˘ˋ ʑ˘̀ˢˁ˧ˁˊ˫, ˥˦˘˧ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˣˁ ˅ˋ˨˼ˢˁ ˨˦ˋ˴˘˱˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˋ ˦˥ˣ˘ˢˁˣ˘ˋ ˪ˋ˜˨˪ˁ CTH 191 (˨˧. Houwink ten Cate 1985: 50–51). ʑ˥ ˢ˥ˋˢ˫ ˢˣˋˣ˘˿, ˣˋ˥˵ˋ˅˘ˊˣ˥ ˘ ˊˁːˋ ˢˁ༤˥˅ˋ˧˥̀˪ˣ˥, ˵˪˥ ˣˁ˵ˁ༤˼ˣˁ̀ ˵ˁ˨˪˼ ˦˘˨˼ˢˁ, ˫˦˥ˢ˘ˣˁ˿˹ˁ̀ ˦˥˲˥ˊ ʝˁ˪˪˫˨˻ ˣˁ ɳ˘༤˫˨˫, ˁ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˋˆ˥ ˦˥˨༤ˋˊ˫˿˹ˁ̀ ˵ˁ˨˪˼, ˦˥˨˅̀˹ˋˣˣˁ̀ ˽˜˨˦ˋˊ˘˴˘˘ ʑ˘̀ˢˁ˧ˁˊ˫ ˦˧˥˪˘˅ ʌˁ˴˦˻, ˊ˥༤ːˣ˻ ˧ˁ˨˨ˢˁ˪˧˘˅ˁ˪˼˨̀ ˜ˁ˜ ˥ˊˣ˥ ༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ ˨˅̀˖ˁˣˣ˥ˋ ˦˥˅ˋ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘ˋ. ʓ˧. ˁˣˁ༤˥ˆ˘˵ˣ˻ˋ ˖ˁˢˋ˵ˁˣ˘̀ ˫ ɲ˧ˁ˙˨ˁ (Bryce 2006: 184–185). 9 ʕˋ˜˨˪˫ˁ༤˼ˣ˻ˋ ˨˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅ˁ ˥ dU KARAŠ ˨ˢ. ˅ van Gessel 1998, II: 782–783. ʝˋ˪˪˨˜˘ˋ ˪ˋ˜˨˪˻, ˅ ˜˥˪˥˧˻˲ ˅˨˪˧ˋ˵ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˽˪˥ ˄˥ːˋ˨˪˅˥, ˅˜༤˿˵ˁ˿˪ ˅ ˨ˋ˄̀ ˊ˥ˆ˥˅˥˧ ˨ ʝ˫˜˜ˁˣ˫ ˘ ˁˣˣˁ༤˻ ʍ˫˧˨˘༤˘ II. 8

197

ʃ. ʓ. ʫ˜˫˄˥˅˘˵

…] ༒x༓-ap-pa-li-u-na-aš (ˆˊˋ ˖ˣˁ˜ x ˖ˁ˜ˁˣ˵˘˅ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˊ˅˥˙ˣ˻ˢ ˅ˋ˧˪˘˜ˁ༤˼ˣ˻ˢ ˸˪˧˘˲˥ˢ, ˵˪˥ ˦˥˖˅˥༤̀ˋ˪ ˧ˋ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˘˧˥˅ˁ˪˼ ˋˆ˥ ˜ˁ˜ ). ʁˁ ˽˪˘ˢ ˨༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪ ˨˪ˋ˧ˋ˥˪˘˦ˣ˥ˋ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˵˘˨༤ˋˣ˘ˋ ˢ˫ː˨˜˘˲ ˄˥ːˋ˨˪˅, ːˋˣ˨˜˘˲ ˄˥ːˋ˨˪˅, ˆ˥˧, ˧ˋ˜ ˘ ˧˥ˊˣ˘˜˥˅ (ˊ˅ˁ ˦˥˨༤ˋˊˣ˘˲ ˽༤ˋˢˋˣ˪ˁ ˧ˋ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˘˧˫˿˪˨̀). ʓ˦˘˨˥˜ ˖ˁ˜ˁˣ˵˘˅ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˫˦˥ˢ˘ˣˁˣ˘ˋˢ dKASKAL KUR ŠA URUWILUŠA. ʑ˥˨༤ˋ ˪˥ˆ˥ ˜ˁ˜ ˁ˧˲ˋ˥༤˥ˆ˘ ʕ˧˥˘ ˥˪˜˧˻༤˘ ˦ˋ˹ˋ˧˫, ˅ˋˊ˫˹˫˿ ˜ ˣˁ˲˥ˊ̀˹ˋˢ˫˨̀ ˦˥ˊ ˆ˥˧˥ˊ˥ˢ ˧ˋ˖ˋ˧˅˫ˁ˧˫ ˨ ˅˥ˊ˥˙, ˢˣ˥ˆ˘ˋ ˘˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁ˪ˋ༤˘ ˦˧˘ˣ̀༤˘ ˘ˊˋˣ˪˘˱˘˜ˁ˴˘˿ dKASKAL KUR ˨ «˦˥ˊ˖ˋˢˣ˻ˢ ˦˥˪˥˜˥ˢ»; ˽˪˥ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤˥ːˋˣ˘ˋ ˅˦ˋ˧˅˻ˋ ˅˻˨˜ˁ˖ˁˣ˥ ˅ ˧ˁ˄˥˪ˋ Gordon 1969; ˨˧. Erbil, Mouton 2012: 59 ˘ ˨ˣ˥˨˜ˁ 22. ʇˁ˜ ˫ːˋ ˄˻༤˥ ˫˦˥ˢ̀ˣ˫˪˥ ˅˻˸ˋ, ˣ˘ ˥ˊˣ˥ ˘˖ ˘ˢˋˣ ˨˥˄˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˻˲, ˨˅̀˖ˁˣˣ˻˲ ˨ ɳ˘༤˫˨˥˙ ˅ ˲ˋ˪˪˨˜˘˲ ˪ˋ˜˨˪ˁ˲, ˣˋ ˘ˢˋˋ˪ ˅ˣ̀˪ˣ˥˙ ༤˫˅˘˙˨˜˥˙ ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘˘. ɳ ˦˧˥˪˘˅˥˦˥༤˥ːˣ˥˨˪˼ ˽˪˥ˢ˫, ˊ˅ˁ ˘˖ ˣ˘˲ ˥˄༤ˁˊˁ˿˪ ˅ˋ˧˥̀˪ˣ˻ˢ˘ ˆ˧ˋ˵ˋ˨˜˘ˢ˘ ˜˥ˆˣˁ˪ˁˢ˘. ʎˁ˵˘ˣˁ̀ ˨ 1920-˲ ˆˆ. ˘ˢ̀ Alaksandu, ˜ˣ̀˖̀ ɳ˘༤˫˨˻, ˨˥˦˥˨˪ˁ˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˨ ˆ˧ˋ˵. ̴ΦϑΨΜΧΟΪΩΫ (ɯ༤ˋ˜˨ˁˣˊ˧, ˄˫˜˅. ‘˖ˁ˹˘˪ˣ˘˜ ༤˿ˊˋ˙’)ɏ10. ʓ˅̀˖˼ ˢˋːˊ˫ ˪ˋ˥ˣ˘ˢ˥ˢ Appaliunas ˘ ˆ˧ˋ˵. ̴ÞЅΦΦβΧ < ̴ÞϑΦΦβΧ (ɯ˦˥༤༤˥ˣ) ˦˥ˊ˧˥˄ˣ˥ ˧ˁ˨˨ˢ˥˪˧ˋˣˁ ˅ ˧ˁ˄˥˪ˋ Beekes 2003a. ɯ˅˪˥˧ ˦˧˘˲˥ˊ˘˪ ˜ ˅˻˅˥ˊ˫, ˵˪˥ ˅ ˽˪˥ˢ ˨༤˫˵ˁˋ ˢ˻ ˘ˢˋˋˢ ˊˋ༤˥ ˨ ˥˄˧ˁ˪ˣ˥˙ ˨˘˪˫ˁ˴˘ˋ˙, ˁ ˘ˢˋˣˣ˥ ˨ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘ˋˢ ˘˨˜˥ˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˁˣˁ˪˥༤˘˙˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˪ˋ˥ˣ˘ˢˁ ˅ ˆ˧ˋ˵ˋ˨˜˘˙ ̀˖˻˜. ɳ ˴ˋ༤˥ˢ ˽˪˥ ˨˥˦˥˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˘ˋ ˨༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪ ˨˵˘˪ˁ˪˼ ˢˋˣˋˋ ˣˁˊˋːˣ˻ˢ, ˵ˋˢ ˦˧ˋˊ˻ˊ˫˹ˋˋ, ˦˥˨˜˥༤˼˜˫ ˣˋ༤˼˖̀ ˄˻˪˼ ˫˅ˋ˧ˋˣˣ˻ˢ ˅ ˪˥ˢ, ˵˪˥ ˊˁˣˣ˻˙ ˪ˋ˥ˣ˘ˢ ˨˥˲˧ˁˣˋˣ ˅ ˜༤˘ˣ˥˦˘˨˘ ˦˥༤ˣ˥˨˪˼˿. ɹ˨༤˘ ːˋ ˅˨ˋ-˪ˁ˜˘ ˦˧˘ˣ˘ˢˁ˪˼ ˋˆ˥, ˪˥ ˣˋ ˥˵ˋˣ˼ ˦˥ˣ̀˪ˣ˥, ˦˥˵ˋˢ˫ ˧ˁˣˣˋˆ˧ˋ˵ˋ˨˜ˁ̀ ˱˥˧ˢˁ *apelyon-, ˧ˋ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˘˧˥˅ˁˣˣˁ̀ ɲˋ˜ˋ˨˥ˢ ˣˁ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˋ ˊ˥˧˘˙˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̴ÞϑΦΦβΧ, ˜˘˦˧˘˥˪˨˜˥ˆ˥ to-i-a-pe-i-lo-ni (ICS 215, b 4) ˘ ˢ˘˜ˋˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ [a]-pe-ro2-ne (KN E 842.3), ˣˋ ˢ˥ˆ༤ˁ ˦˧˘˅ˋ˨˪˘ ˜ ˪˧˥̀ˣ˨˜˥ˢ˫ Appaliuna- ˨ ˪ˋˢ˘ ːˋ ˅˥˜ˁ༤˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˢ˘ ˖ˁˢˋ˹ˋˣ˘̀ˢ˘, ˜˥˪˥˧˻ˋ ˅˘ˊˣ˻ ˅ ˨༤˫˵ˁˋ Alaksanduɏ11. ʎˋ˥˄˲˥ˊ˘ˢ˥ ˘ˢˋ˪˼ ˅ ˅˘ˊ˫, ˵˪˥ ɯ˦˥༤༤˥ˣ ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˥˄˹ˋˆ˧ˋ˵ˋ˨˜˘ˢ ˄˥ːˋ˨˪˅˥ˢ, ˅ ˪˥ ˅˧ˋˢ̀ ˜ˁ˜ …] ༒x༓-ap-pa-li-u-na-aš ˥ˆ˧ˁˣ˘˵ˋˣ ˋˊ˘ˣ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˻ˢ ˁˣˁ˪˥༤˘˙˨˜˘ˢ ˧ˋˆ˘˥ˣ˥ˢ. ʕˁ˜ːˋ ༤ˋˆ˵ˋ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅˘˪˼ ˨ˋ˄ˋ, ˵˪˥ ˁ˪ˋˢˁ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜ˁ̀ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˁ *apelyon- ˄˻༤ˁ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣˁ ˨ ˅˪˥˧˘˵ˣ˥˙ ˪ˋˢˁ˪˘˖ˁ˴˘ˋ˙, ˵ˋˢ ˦˧˘ˣ̀˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˦˧ˋːˣˋˋ ˪ˋˢˁ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˋ ˘ˢ̀ ˄˻༤˥ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˥ ˅ ˆ˧ˋ˵ˋ˨˜˘˙ ˅ ˜ˁ˵ˋ˨˪˅ˋ ˜˥ˣ˨˥ˣˁˣ˪ˣ˥˙ ˥˨ˣ˥˅˻ (˨˧. Miller 2014: 14)ɏ12. ʨ˪˘ ˖ˁˢˋ˵ˁˣ˘̀, ˜˥ˣˋ˵ˣ˥, ˣˋ ˊ˥˜ˁ˖˻˅ˁ˿˪, ˵˪˥ ˪˧˥̀ˣ˴˻ ˄˻༤˘ ˽˪ˣ˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˢ˘ ˆ˧ˋ˜ˁˢ˘. ʌ˘˵ˣ˻ˋ ˘ˢˋˣˁ ˢ˥ˆ༤˘ ˄˻˪˼ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˻ ˦˥ ˢˣ˥ˆ˘ˢ ˦˧˘˵˘ˣˁˢ, ˅˜༤˿˵ˁ̀ ˦˧ˋ˨˪˘ː, ˘ ɯ༤ˁ˜˨ˁˣˊ˫ ˢ˥ˆ ˄˻˪˼ ˧˥ːˊˋˣ ˅ ˨ˢˋ˸ˁˣˣ˥ˢ ˄˧ˁ˜ˋ, ˜ˁ˜ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤ˁˆˁˋ˪˨̀ ˅ ˢ˥ˣ˥ˆ˧ˁ˱˘˘ Latacz 2004: 118. ʁˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘ˋ ˦˧ˋ˨˪˘ːˣ˻˲ ˘ˣ˥˨˪˧ˁˣˣ˻˲ ˄˥ːˋ˨˪˅ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˅˦˥༤ˣˋ ˪˧˘˅˘ˁ༤˼ˣ˥˙ ˆ˘˦˥˪ˋ˖˥˙, ˨˧., ˣˁ˦˧., ˜˫༤˼˪ ɯ˦˥༤༤˥ˣˁ ˫ ˧˘ˢ༤̀ˣ. ʍ˥˙ ˪ˋ˖˘˨ ˣˋ ˅˻˲˥ˊ˘˪ ˖ˁ ˦˧ˋˊˋ༤˻ ˫˪˅ˋ˧ːˊˋˣ˘̀, ˵˪˥ ˋ˨༤˘ ˜˪˥-˪˥ ˲˥˵ˋ˪ ˘˨˦˥༤˼˖˥˅ˁ˪˼ ˨˜˫ˊˣ˻ˋ ˨˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅ˁ ˘˖ ˥˄༤ˁ˨˪˘ ˥ˣ˥ˢˁ˨˪˘˜˘, ˊ˥˨˪˫˦ˣ˻ˋ ˄༤ˁˆ˥ˊˁ˧̀ ˜༤˘ˣ˥˦˘˨ˣ˻ˢ ˘˨˪˥˵ˣ˘˜ˁˢ, ˊ༤̀ ˥˄˨˫ːˊˋˣ˘̀ «̀˖˻˜ˁ ˪˧˥̀ˣ˴ˋ˅», ˪˥ ༤˫˅˘˙˨˜˘˙ ̀˖˻˜ ˣˋ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˣˁ˘˄˥༤ˋˋ ˅ˋ˧˥̀˪ˣ˻ˢ ˜ˁˣˊ˘ˊˁ˪˥ˢ. ʓ ˫˵ˋ˪˥ˢ ˽˪˥ˆ˥ ˖ˁ˜༤˿˵ˋˣ˘̀ ˢ˥ːˣ˥ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˙˪˘ ˜ ˁˣˁ༤˘˖˫ ˁ˧ˆ˫ˢˋˣ˪˥˅ ˅ ˦˥༤˼˖˫ ˨˅̀˖˘ ˢˋːˊ˫ ༤˫˅˘˙˴ˁˢ˘ ˘ ˪˧˥̀ˣ˴ˁˢ˘, ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣˣ˻˲ ˅ ˧ˁ˄˥˪ˁ˲ Watkins 1986 ˘ Starke 1997. 10 ʐ˄ ˘˨˪˥˧˘˘ ˊˋ˄ˁ˪˥˅ ˅˥˜˧˫ˆ ˽˪˥˙ ˘ˊˋˣ˪˘˱˘˜ˁ˴˘˘, ˜˥˪˥˧˻ˋ ˦˧ˋ˜˧ˁ˪˘༤˘˨˼ ˦˥˨༤ˋ ˥˪˜˧˻˪˘̀ ˘ˢˋˣ˘ ɯ༤ˋ˜˨ˁˣˊ˧ ˅ ˢ˘˜ˋˣ˨˜˘˲ ˘˨˪˥˵ˣ˘˜ˁ˲, ˨ˢ. Szemerényi 1998: 276–285. 11 ʘ˥˪˜˘ˣ˨ (Watkins 1995: 149) ˨˦˧ˁ˅ˋˊ༤˘˅˥ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤ˁˆˁˋ˪, ˵˪˥ ɯ˦˦ˁ༤˘˫ˣˁ˨ ˢ˥ˆ ˄˻˪˼ ༤˘˵ˣ˻ˢ ˄˥ˆ˥ˢ ɯ༤ˁ˜˨ˁˣˊ˫. ʑ˥༤ˣ˥ˋ ˥˄˨˫ːˊˋˣ˘ˋ ˧ˁ˄˥˪˻ Beekes 2003a ˅˻˲˥ˊ˘˪ ˖ˁ ˧ˁˢ˜˘ ˊˁˣˣ˥˙ ˧ˁ˄˥˪˻. ʐˊˣˁ˜˥ ˲˥˪ˋ༤˥˨˼ ˄˻ ˥˪ˢˋ˪˘˪˼, ˵˪˥ ̀ ˣˋ ˅˻˨˪˫˦ˁ˿ ˦˧˥˪˘˅ ˨˫˄˨˪˧ˁ˪ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˦˧˥˘˨˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘̀ ˆ˧ˋ˵ˋ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˘ˢˋˣ˘ ɯ˦˥༤༤˥ˣˁ. ʫ ༤˘˸˼ ˦˥༤ˁˆˁ˿, ˵˪˥ ˅ ˥˪˨˫˪˨˪˅˘ˋ ˣˋ˖ˁ˅˘˨˘ˢ˻˲ ˨˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅ ˨༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪ ˦˧˥˪˘˅˘˪˼˨̀ ˨˥˄༤ˁ˖ˣ˫ ˥˪˥ːˊˋ˨˪˅˘˪˼ ˊ˥ˆ˧ˋ˵ˋ˨˜˘˙ ˨˫˄˨˪˧ˁ˪ˣ˻˙ ̀˖˻˜ ˘ ̀˖˻˜ ɳ˘༤˫˨˻. 12 ɳˋ˧˥̀˪ˣ˥ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ, ˵˪˥ ˘ˢ̀ Kukunni ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˁˊˁ˦˪ˁ˴˘ˋ˙ ˆ˧ˋ˵. ΥВΥΧΩΫ ‘༤ˋ˄ˋˊ˼’ (Güterbock 1986: 34–35). ʃ ˅˦˧ˁ˅ˊ˫, ˣˋ˜˘˙ ʇ˫˜ˣ˥˨ ˘˖˅ˋ˨˪ˋˣ ˆ˧ˋ˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˪˧ˁˊ˘˴˘˘ ˜ˁ˜ ˨˥˿˖ˣ˘˜ ˪˧˥̀ˣ˴ˋ˅, ˫˄˘˪˻˙ ɯ˲˘༤༤˥ˢ (Watkins 1986: 49). ʐˊˣˁ˜˥ ˣˋ ˢˋˣˋˋ ˦˧ˁ˅ˊ˥˦˥ˊ˥˄ˣˁ ˆ˘˦˥˪ˋ˖ˁ, ˵˪˥ ˊˁˣˣ˥ˋ ˘ˢ̀ ˘ˢˋˋ˪ ˁˣˁ˪˥༤˘˙˨˜˥ˋ ˦˧˥˘˨˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘ˋ, ˁ ˋˆ˥ ˁ˨˨˥˴˘ˁ˴˘̀ ˨ ˆ˧ˋ˵ˋ˨˜˘ˢ ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋˢ ˊ༤̀ ˨༤˥˅ˁ ‘༤ˋ˄ˋˊ˼’ ˥˄˺̀˨ˣ̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˣˁ˧˥ˊˣ˥˙ ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘ˋ˙.

198

ʎˁ ˜ˁ˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲ ˆ˥˅˥˧˘༤˘ ˅ ʕ˧˥ˋ? ɳ˖ˆ༤̀ˊ ˁˣˁ˪˥༤˘˨˪ˁ

ʓ˪ˁ˪˼̀ Watkins 1986 ˣˁ˦˘˨ˁˣˁ ˣˁ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˋ ˊ˥˜༤ˁˊˁ, ˦˥ˊˆ˥˪˥˅༤ˋˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˅ ˥˪˅ˋ˪ ˣˁ ˦˧˥˨˼˄˫ ˧ˁ˨˨ˢ˥˪˧ˋ˪˼ ˦˧˥˄༤ˋˢ˫ «̀˖˻˜ˁ ˘༤˘ ̀˖˻˜˥˅ ˪˧˥̀ˣ˴ˋ˅» ˨ ˦˥˖˘˴˘˙ ༤˘ˣˆ˅˘˨˪ˁ-˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˘˨˪ˁ (Watkins 1986: 45). ʜ˥˧ˢ˫༤˘˧˥˅˜ˁ ˅˥˦˧˥˨ˁ ˅ ˊˁˣˣ˥ˢ ˨༤˫˵ˁˋ ˦˧ˋˊ˥˦˧ˋˊˋ༤˘༤ˁ ˨˥ˊˋ˧ːˁˣ˘ˋ ˥˪˅ˋ˪ˁ. ʘ˥˪˜˘ˣ˨ ˊ˥༤ːˋˣ ˄˻༤ ˘˨˦˥༤˼˖˥˅ˁ˪˼ ˥˪˧˻˅˥˵ˣ˻ˋ ˨˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅ˁ, ˜˥˪˥˧˻ˋ, ˜ˁ˜ ˋˢ˫ ˄˻༤˥ ˖ˁ˧ˁˣˋˋ ˘˖˅ˋ˨˪ˣ˥, ˣˋ ˨˦˥˨˥˄˨˪˅˫˿˪ ˥˜˥ˣ˵ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˢ˫ ˧ˋ˸ˋˣ˘˿ ˪˧˥̀ˣ˨˜˥˙ ˦˧˥˄༤ˋˢ˻ ˘, ˜ ˋˆ˥ ˵ˋ˨˪˘, ˥ˣ ˅˻̀˅˘༤ ˘˲ ˣˋ˫˄ˋˊ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻˙ ˲ˁ˧ˁ˜˪ˋ˧. ʕˁ˜˘ˢ ˥˄˧ˁ˖˥ˢ, ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣˣ˻ˋ ˣ˘ːˋ ˖ˁˢˋ˵ˁˣ˘̀ ˣˁ˦˧ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˻ ˣˋ ˨˪˥༤˼˜˥ ˦˧˥˪˘˅ ˅˻˅˥ˊ˥˅ ʘ˥˪˜˘ˣ˨ˁ, ˨˜˥༤˼˜˥ ˦˧˥˪˘˅ ˅˖ˆ༤̀ˊ˥˅ ˣˋ˜˥˪˥˧˻˲ ˋˆ˥ ˦˥˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁ˪ˋ༤ˋ˙, ˜˥˪˥˧˻ˋ ˅˘ˊ̀˪ ˅ ˣ˘˲ ˊ˥˜ˁ˖ˁˣˣ˫˿ ˆ˘˦˥˪ˋ˖˫. ʕ˥˵˜˥˙ ˥˪˨˵ˋ˪ˁ ˊ༤̀ ˧ˁ˖ˢ˻˸༤ˋˣ˘˙ ʘ˥˪˜˘ˣ˨ˁ ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˁˣˁ༤˘˖ ˣˋ˨˜˥༤˼˜˘˲ ˪˧˥̀ˣ˨˜˘˲ ༤˘˵ˣ˻˲ ˘ˢˋˣ, ˅˨˪˧ˋ˵ˁ˿˹˘˲˨̀ ˅ «ʃ༤˘ˁˊˋ». ʘːˋ ʌˁ˧˥˸ (Laroche 1972: 126, ˨ˣ˥˨˜ˁ 32) ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤ˁˆˁ༤, ˵˪˥ ˘ˢ̀ ˪˧˥̀ˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˴ˁ˧̀ ̪ΪϲΜ÷ΩΫ (ʑ˧˘ˁˢ) ˢ˥ːˋ˪ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤̀˪˼ ˨˥˄˥˙ ˘ˣ˥˨˪˧ˁˣˣ˫˿ ˦ˋ˧ˋˊˁ˵˫ ༤˫˅˘˙˨˜˥ˆ˥ p(a)riya-muwas, ˄˫˜˅. ‘˨ˁˢ˻˙ ˨˘༤˼ˣ˻˙’ (˥ ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˊˋ˪ˁ༤̀˲ ˨ˢ. Starke 1997: 458a). ʇ ˨˥ːˁ༤ˋˣ˘˿, ˽˪˥ ˨˥˦˥˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˘ˋ ˥˨˪ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˘˖˥༤˘˧˥˅ˁˣˣ˻ˢ ˘ ˜˥ˣ˪˧ˁ˨˪˘˧˫ˋ˪ ˨ ˣˋ˨˜˥༤˼˜˘ˢ˘ ˘ˢˋˣˁˢ˘ ˖ˣˁ˪ˣ˻˲ ˪˧˥̀ˣ˴ˋ˅, ˘ˢˋ˿˹˘˲ ˦˧˥˖˧ˁ˵ˣ˻ˋ ˆ˧ˋ˵ˋ˨˜˘ˋ ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘˘. ʃˢˋˣˣ˥ ˦˥ ˽˪˥˙ ˦˧˘˵˘ˣˋ ʌˁ˧˥˸ ˨˧ˁ˖˫ ˥˪˜ˁ˖ˁ༤˨̀ ˥˪ ˨˅˥ˋˆ˥ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤˥ːˋˣ˘̀ ˣˁ ˢˋ˪˥ˊ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˁˣ˘̀˲. ʐˊˣˁ˜˥ ʘ˥˪˜˘ˣ˨ ˖ˁ̀˅˘༤, ˵˪˥ ˥ˣ ˥˄ˣˁ˧˫ː˘༤ ˜˥˨˅ˋˣˣ˥ˋ ˦˥ˊ˪˅ˋ˧ːˊˋˣ˘ˋ ˦˧ˋˊ༤˥ːˋˣˣ˥˙ ʌˁ˧˥˸ˋˢ ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘˘ ˘ˢˋˣ˘ ʑ˧˘ˁˢˁ ˅ «ˁˣˁ˪˥༤˘˙˨˜˥ˢ» ˘ˢˋˣ˘ ˋˆ˥ ˨˻ˣˁ ʑˁ˧˘˨ˁ, ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˘˖˅ˋ˨˪ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˜ˁ˜ ɯ༤ˋ˜˨ˁˣˊ˧. ʐˣ ˘˨˪˥༤˜˥˅ˁ༤ ˘ˢ̀ ̪ηΪΤΫ (ʑˁ˧˘˨) ˜ˁ˜ ˆ˘˦˥˜˥˧˘˨˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˋ ˥˄˧ˁ˖˥˅ˁˣ˘ˋ, ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅˫˿˹ˋˋ ˘ˢˋˣ˘ ˲ˋ˪˪˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˦˘˨˴ˁ Pari-LÚ (Laroche 1966: §ɏ942). ʝ˥˪̀ ˣˋˆ˧ˋ˵ˋ˨˜˘˙ ˲ˁ˧ˁ˜˪ˋ˧ ˘ˢˋˣ˘ ʑˁ˧˘˨ ˊ˥˅˥༤˼ˣ˥ ˅ˋ˧˥̀˪ˋˣ, ˋˆ˥ ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘̀, ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣˣˁ̀ ʘ˥˪˜˘ˣ˨˥ˢ, ˅˻ˆ༤̀ˊ˘˪ ˣˋˊ˥˨˪ˁ˪˥˵ˣ˥ ˫˄ˋˊ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥˙. ɸ˥˨˪ˁ˪˥˵ˣ˥ ˥˄˧ˁ˪˘˪˼ ˅ˣ˘ˢˁˣ˘ˋ ˣˁ ˪˥, ˵˪˥ ˣˋ ˊˁˋ˪˨̀ ˣ˘˜ˁ˜˥ˆ˥ ˥˄˺̀˨ˣˋˣ˘̀ ˅˨˪ˁ˅ˣ˥˙ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˥˙ ˅ ̪ηΪΤΫ ˣˁ ˱˥ˣˋ ˋˋ ˥˪˨˫˪˨˪˅˘̀ ˅ ̪ΪϲΜ÷ΩΫ. ɸ˧˫ˆ˥ˋ ˪˧˥̀ˣ˨˜˥ˋ ˘ˢ̀, ˧ˁ˨˨ˢ˥˪˧ˋˣˣ˥ˋ ʘ˥˪˜˘ˣ˨˥ˢ (Watkins 1986), — ˽˪˥ ̸άΤΩΫ ΀ΪέηΥΩή ή϶ЅΫ (N 771). ʘ˥˪˜˘ˣ˨ ˨˦˧ˁ˅ˋˊ༤˘˅˥ ˨˅̀˖˻˅ˁˋ˪ ̸άΤΩ- ˨ ˢ˘˜ˋˣ˨˜˘ˢ ˦˧˘༤ˁˆˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻ˢ a-si-wi-jo (ʇˁ˖ˁˣ˨˜ˋˣˋ, ʇˁ˖ˁˣ˨˜˘˙ 1986: 145), ˥˦˘˧ˁ̀˨˼ ˣˁ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤˥ːˋˣ˘ˋ ˥ ˪˥ˢ, ˵˪˥ ˥˄ˋ ༤ˋ˜˨ˋˢ˻ ˦˧˥˘˖˅ˋˊˋˣ˻ ˥˪ ˖ˁ˦ˁˊˣ˥ˁˣˁ˪˥༤˘˙˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˪˥˦˥ˣ˘ˢˁ, ˖ˁ˨˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˅ ˜༤˘ˣ˥˦˘˨ˣ˻˲ ˘˨˪˥˵ˣ˘˜ˁ˲ ˜ˁ˜ Assuwa. ʠ˪˥ ˜ˁ˨ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˥˪˵ˋ˨˪˅ˁ ΀ΪέηΥΩή, ˪˥ ˥ˣ ˦˧ˋˊ༤˥ː˘༤ ˨˥˦˥˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˘ˋ ˨ ˲ˋ˪˪. hartagga- ‘ˢˋˊ˅ˋˊ˼’ (Watkins 1986: 54). ɳˣˋ ˖ˁ˅˘˨˘ˢ˥˨˪˘ ˥˪ ˪˥ˆ˥, ˅ˋ˧ˋˣ ˽˪˥˪ ˁˣˁ༤˘˖ ˘༤˘ ˣˋ˪, ˢˣˋ ˣˋ ˜ˁːˋ˪˨̀, ˵˪˥ ˥ˣ ˦˧˥༤˘˅ˁˋ˪ ˨˅ˋ˪ ˣˁ ༤˫˅˘˙˨˜˥-˪˧˥̀ˣ˨˜˘ˋ ˨˅̀˖˘. ʨ˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘̀ ˪˥˦˥ˣ˘ˢˁ Assuwa ˥˨˪ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˣˋ̀˨ˣ˥˙ɏ13, ˪˥ˆˊˁ ˜ˁ˜ ΀ΪέηΥΩή ˣˋ ˢ˥ːˋ˪ ̀˅༤̀˪˼˨̀ ༤˫˅˘˙˨˜˘ˢ ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅˘ˋˢ ˲ˋ˪˪. hartagga- < ˘.-ˋ. *xr๗tk’o- ‘ˢˋˊ˅ˋˊ˼’, ˦˥˨˜˥༤˼˜˫ ˘ˣˊ˥˲ˋ˪˪˨˜˘ˋ ˦ˁ༤ˁ˪ˁ༤˘˖˥˅ˁˣˣ˻ˋ ˅ˋ༤̀˧ˣ˻ˋ ˅˖˧˻˅ˣ˻ˋ ˣˋ ˥˪˧ˁːˁ˿˪˨̀ ˜ˁ˜ ˅˖˧˻˅ˣ˻ˋ ˅ ༤˫˅˘˙˨˜˥ˢ. ɸ˧˫ˆ˥˙ ˁ˧ˆ˫ˢˋˣ˪ ˅ ˦˥༤˼˖˫ ˧˥ˊ˨˪˅ˁ ༤˫˅˘˙˴ˋ˅ ˘ ˪˧˥̀ˣ˴ˋ˅, ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣˣ˻˙ ʘ˥˪˜˘ˣ˨˥ˢ (Watkins 1986: 58), ˜ˁ˨ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˣˁ༤˘˵˘̀ ˅ ˊ˥ˆ˥˅˥˧ˋ ɯ༤ˁ˜˨ˁˣˊ˫ ˣˋ̀˅ˣ˥˙ ˨˨˻༤˜˘ ˣˁ ɳ˘༤˫˨˫ ˜ˁ˜ ˣˁ ˥ˊˣ˫ ˘˖ ˁ˧˴ˁ˅˨˜˘˲ ˖ˋˢˋ༤˼, ˨˧. Beckman 1999: 90 (A iii 31 ff.). ʐˊˣˁ˜˥ ˦˥˦˻˪˜˘ ˨ˊˋ༤ˁ˪˼ ˽˪ˣ˥༤˘ˣˆ˅˘˨˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˋ ˅˻˅˥ˊ˻ ˘˖ ˽˪˥ˆ˥ ˧ˋ˸ˋˣ˘̀ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤̀˿˪˨̀ ˣˁ˪̀ˣ˫˪˻ˢ˘, ˋ˨༤˘ ˦˧˘ˣ̀˪˼ ˁ˧ˆ˫ˢˋˣ˪˻ ˦˧˥˪˘˅ ˘ˊˋˣ˪˘˱˘˜ˁ˴˘˘ ʌ˫˅˘˘ ˘ ɯ˧˴ˁ˅˻, ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣˣ˻ˋ ˅ ˨˪ˁ˪˼ˋ ʫ˜˫˄˥˅˘˵ 2015ɏ14. ɳ ༤˿˄˥ˢ ˨༤˫˵ˁˋ ˦˧˥˹ˋ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤˥ː˘˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˴ˁ˧˘ ʝˁ˪˪˫˨˻ ˘ˊˋˣ˪˘˱˘˴˘˧˥˅ˁ༤˘ ɯ˧˴ˁ˅˫ ˨ ˥˦˧ˋˊˋ༤ˋˣˣ˻ˢ ˆˋ˥ˆ˧ˁ˱˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˢ ˧ˋˆ˘˥ˣ˥ˢ, ˁ ˣˋ ˨ ˽˪ˣ˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˆ˧˫˦˦˥˙. ʑ˥˨༤ˋˊˣˋˋ ˨˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅˥, ˜˥˪˥˧˥ˋ, ˦˥-˅˘ˊ˘ˢ˥ˢ˫, ˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥ ˖ˁ ˅˻˨˥˜˘˙ ˘ˣˊˋ˜˨ ˴˘˪˘˧˥˅ˁˣ˘̀ ˨˪ˁ˪˼˘ Watkins 1986, — ˽˪˥ ˥˄ˣˁ˧˫ːˋˣ˘ˋ ˪˥˦˥ˣ˘ˢˁ Wilusa ˅ ˨˪˧˥˜ˋ ˘˖ «ʑˋ˨ˋˣ ʃ˨˪ˁˣ˫˅˻» ah-ha-ta-ta a-la-ti a-ú-i-en-ta ú-i-lu-ša-ti ‘ʐˣ˘ ˅ˋ˧ˣ˫༤˘˨˼ ˘˖ ˊˁ༤ˋ˜˥˙? ɳ˘༤˫˨˻’ ʣ˪ˁ˧˜ˋ (Starke 1997: 475, ˨ˣ˥˨˜ˁ 93) ˨˅̀˖˻˅ˁˋ˪ ɯ˨˨˫˅˫ ˨ ༤˫˅. Ŋssu- ‘༤˥˸ˁˊ˼’. ʐˊˣˁ˜˥ ˊˁˣˣˁ̀ ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘̀ ˦˧˥˄༤ˋˢˁ˪˘˵ˣˁ ˨ ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˪˥˵˜˘ ˖˧ˋˣ˘̀, ˦˥˨˜˥༤˼˜˫ ༤˫˅˘˙˨˜˘ˢ ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋˢ ˊ༤̀ ˨༤˥˅ˁ ‘༤˥˸ˁˊ˼’, ˦˥-˅˘ˊ˘ˢ˥ˢ˫, ˄˻༤˥ azzu- (˨˧. Melchert 1987: 202). 14 ʓ˧. ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˦˧˘˖ˣˁˣ˘ˋ ˣˋˊ˥˜ˁ˖ˁˣˣ˥˨˪˘ ˊˁˣˣ˥˙ ˘ˊˋˣ˪˘˱˘˜ˁ˴˘˘ ˅ ˧ˁ˄˥˪ˋ Hawkins 2014: 5. 13

199

ʃ. ʓ. ʫ˜˫˄˥˅˘˵

(KBo 4.11 rev. 46)ɏ15. ʘ˥˪˜˘ˣ˨ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤˥ː˘༤, ˵˪˥ ˪˥˪ ːˋ ˪˥˦˥ˣ˘ˢ ˢ˥ːˋ˪ ˄˻˪˼ ˧ˋ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˘˧˥˅ˁˣ ˣˁ ˜˥ˣ˴ˋ ˱˧ˁˆˢˋˣ˪ˁ a-a-la-ti-່it້-ta a-ah-ha LÚ-is a-ú-i-ta […] ‘ʍ˫ː˵˘ˣˁ ˅ˋ˧ˣ˫༤˨̀ ˘˖ˊˁ༤ˋ˜ˁ…’ (KUB 35.103 rev. 11). ʓ ˪˥˵˜˘ ˖˧ˋˣ˘̀ ˨˥˅˧ˋˢˋˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˨˥˨˪˥̀ˣ˘̀ ˣˁ˫˜˘, ˦˥˨༤ˋˊˣˋˋ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤˥ːˋˣ˘ˋ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˢˋˣˋˋ ˦˧ˁ˅ˊ˥˦˥ˊ˥˄ˣ˻ˢ, ˦˥˨˜˥༤˼˜˫ KUB 35.103 ˊ˥˜ˁ˖ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˵ˁ˨˪˼˿ ˖ˁˆ˥˅˥˧ˁ ˊ༤̀ ˄ˋ˧ˋˢˋˣˣ˻˲, ˦˧˥˘˨˲˥ˊ̀˹ˋˆ˥ ˘˖ ʇ˘˴˴˫˅ˁˊˣ˻ ˣˁ ˿ˆ˥-˅˥˨˪˥˜ˋ ʍˁ༤˥˙ ɯ˖˘˘. ɳ ˦˧˥˪˘˅˥˦˥༤˥ːˣ˥˨˪˼ ˽˪˥ˢ˫, «ʑˋ˨ˣ˘ ʃ˨˪ˁˣ˫˅˻» ˥˪˧ˁːˁ˿˪ ˫˨˪ˣ˫˿ ˪˧ˁˊ˘˴˘˿ ˧ˋˆ˘˥ˣˁ, ˧ˁ˨˦˥༤ˁˆˁ˅˸ˋˆ˥˨̀ ˅ ˊ˥༤˘ˣˋ ˧ˋ˜˘ ʓˁ˲˘˧˘̀ɏ/ɏʓˁ˜ˁ˧˼̀, ˪˥ ˋ˨˪˼ ˥˪ˣ˥˨˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ ˄༤˘˖˜˥ ˜ ʕ˧˥ˋ (ˣ˥ ˅˨ˋ ːˋ ˣˋ ˣˁ˨˪˥༤˼˜˥ ˄༤˘˖˜˥, ˵˪˥˄˻ ˘˨˜༤˿˵˘˪˼ ˫˦˥ˢ˘ˣˁˣ˘ˋ «ˊˁ༤ˋ˜˥˙ ɳ˘༤˫˨˻»). ʕˁ˜˘ˢ ˥˄˧ˁ˖˥ˢ, ˆˋ˥ˆ˧ˁ˱˘˵ˋ˨˜ˁ̀ ˘ˊˋˣ˪˘˱˘˜ˁ˴˘̀, ˦˧ˋˊ༤˥ːˋˣˣˁ̀ ʘ˥˪˜˘ˣ˨˥ˢ, ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤ˁˆˁˋ˪ ˨˫˹ˋ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘ˋ ˜˥ˣ˪ˁ˜˪˥˅ ˢˋːˊ˫ ː˘˪ˋ༤̀ˢ˘ ɳ˘༤˫˨˻ ˘ ˆ˧˫˦˦ˁˢ˘ ༤˫˅˘˙˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˣˁ˨ˋ༤ˋˣ˘̀, ː˘˅˸ˋˆ˥ ˅ˊ˥༤˼ ˄ˋ˧ˋˆ˥˅ ˧ˋ˜˘ ʓˁ˜ˁ˧˼̀. ɳˢˋ˨˪ˋ ˨ ˪ˋˢ, ˨༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪ ˦˧˘˖ˣˁ˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣˣ˻ˋ ˅˻˸ˋ ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧˻ ˘ˢˋ˿˪ ˣˋ ˄˥༤˼˸ˋ ˧ˋ༤ˋ˅ˁˣ˪ˣ˥˨˪˘ ˊ༤̀ ˥˦˧ˋˊˋ༤ˋˣ˘̀ ˧˥ˊˣ˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ (˧˥ˊˣ˻˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅) ː˘˪ˋ༤ˋ˙ ɳ˘༤˫˨˻, ˵ˋˢ ˊ˧˫ˆ˘ˋ ˨˥˥˄˧ˁːˋˣ˘̀, ˅˻˨˜ˁ˖ˁˣˣ˻ˋ ˅ ˧ˁ˄˥˪ˋ Watkins 1986. ʫ˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ༤˘ ˖ˣˁ˵˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣˁ̀ (˦˥ ˨˫˪˘, ˆ༤ˁ˅ˣˁ̀) ˧˥༤˼ ʕ˧˥˘ ˅ ˆ˥ˢˋ˧˥˅˨˜˥ˢ ˽˦˥˨ˋ ˫˄ˋˊ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻ˢ ˁ˧ˆ˫ˢˋˣ˪˥ˢ ˅ ˦˥༤˼˖˫ ˆ˧ˋ˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˽˪ˣ˘˵ˣ˥˨˪˘ ˪˧˥̀ˣ˴ˋ˅? ʐ˪˅ˋ˪ ˊ˥༤ːˋˣ ˄˻˪˼ ˥˪˧˘˴ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻ˢ, ˣˋ˨ˢ˥˪˧̀ ˣˁ ˪˥, ˵˪˥ «ʃ༤˘ˁˊˁ» ˘˖˥˄˧ˁːˁˋ˪ ɴˋ˜˪˥˧ˁ ˘ ˣˋ˨˜˥༤˼˜˘˲ ˊ˧˫ˆ˘˲ ˪˧˥̀ˣ˨˜˘˲ ˦ˋ˧˨˥ˣˁːˋ˙ ˨ ˄˥༤˼˸˥˙ ˨˘ˢ˦ˁ˪˘ˋ˙, ˘ ˣˋ˨ˢ˥˪˧̀ ˣˁ ˧̀ˊ ˨˴ˋˣ, ˅ ˜˥˪˥˧˻˲ ˁ˲ˋ˙˴˻ ˥˄˹ˁ˿˪˨̀ ˨˥ ˨˅˥˘ˢ˘ ˪˧˥̀ˣ˨˜˘ˢ˘ ˦˧˥˪˘˅ˣ˘˜ˁˢ˘ ˄ˋ˖ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˅˥ˊ˵˘˜˥˅. ʃˢˋ˿˪˨̀ ˅˨ˋ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˁˣ˘̀ ˦˥ˊ˦˘˨ˁ˪˼˨̀ ˦˥ˊ ˥˨˪˥˧˥ːˣ˻ˢ ˖ˁ˜༤˿˵ˋˣ˘ˋˢ ʘ˥˪˜˘ˣ˨ˁ (Watkins 1986: 62): «ɹ˨༤˘ ༤˫˅˘˙˴˻ ˥˄༤ˁˊˁ༤˘ ˦ˋ˨ˣˋ˙ ˘༤˘ ˽˦˥˨˥ˢ ˥ ɳ˘༤˫˨ˋ, ˥˪˨˿ˊˁ ˣˋ ˨༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪, ˵˪˥ ˅ ɳ˘༤˫˨ˋ ˆ˥˅˥˧˘༤˘ ˣˁ ༤˫˅˘˙˨˜˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˋ». ɸ˧˫ˆ˥˙ ˸˘˧˥˜˥ ˴˘˪˘˧˫ˋˢ˥˙ ˨˪ˁ˪˼ˋ˙, ˅ ˜˥˪˥˧˥˙ ˧ˁ˨˨ˢˁ˪˧˘˅ˁ˿˪˨̀ ˁ˧ˆ˫ˢˋˣ˪˻ ˅ ˦˥༤˼˖˫ ༤˫˅˘˙˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˦˧˥˘˨˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘̀ ˪˧˥̀ˣ˴ˋ˅, ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˧ˁ˄˥˪ˁ ʣ˪ˁ˧˜ˋ (Starke 1997). ʓ˪˘ˢ˫༤˥ˢ ˊ༤̀ ˋˋ ˣˁ˦˘˨ˁˣ˘̀ ˨˪ˁ༤˥ ˥˄ˣˁ˧˫ːˋˣ˘ˋ ˅ ʕ˧˥ˋ ˅˥ ˅˧ˋˢ̀ ˨ˋ˖˥ˣˁ ˧ˁ˨˜˥˦˥˜ 1995 ˆ. ˄˧˥ˣ˖˥˅˥˙ ˦ˋ˵ˁ˪˘ ˨ ˁˣˁ˪˥༤˘˙˨˜˥˙ ˘ˋ˧˥ˆ༤˘˱˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˣˁˊ˦˘˨˼˿, ̀˖˻˜ ˜˥˪˥˧˥˙, ˅˦˧˥˵ˋˢ, ˣˋ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˥ ˘ˊˋˣ˪˘˱˘˴˘˧˥˅ˁ˪˼. ʑ˥˨˜˥༤˼˜˫ ˖ˁ ˅ˋ˨˼ ˦˧ˋˊ˸ˋ˨˪˅˫˿˹˘˙ ˅ˋ˜ ˧ˁ˨˜˥˦˥˜ ˅ ʕ˧˥ˋ ˣˋ ˫ˊˁ༤˥˨˼ ˥˄ˣˁ˧˫ː˘˪˼ ˊ˥ˆ˧ˋ˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˽˦˘ˆ˧ˁ˱˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˦ˁˢ̀˪ˣ˘˜˥˅, ˢ˥ːˣ˥ ˦˥ˣ̀˪˼ ˨ˋˣ˨ˁ˴˘˥ˣˣ˻˙ ˲ˁ˧ˁ˜˪ˋ˧ ˽˪˥˙ ˣˁ˲˥ˊ˜˘ ˊ༤̀ ˁ˧˲ˋ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˨˥˥˄˹ˋ˨˪˅ˁ. ɳ ˪˥ ːˋ ˅˧ˋˢ̀ ˅˦˥༤ˣˋ ˥˵ˋ˅˘ˊˣ˥, ˵˪˥ ˥˪˜˧˻˪˘ˋ ˘˖˥༤˘˧˥˅ˁˣˣ˥˙ ˣˁˊ˦˘˨˘, ˨ˊˋ༤ˁˣˣ˥˙ ˣˁ ༤ˋˆ˜˥ ˦ˋ˧ˋˣ˥˨˘ˢ˥ˢ ˥˄˺ˋ˜˪ˋ ˘ ˣˋ ˨˥ˊˋ˧ːˁ˹ˋ˙ ˘ˣ˱˥˧ˢˁ˴˘˘ ˥ ˋˋ ˢˋ˨˪ˋ ˘˖ˆ˥˪˥˅༤ˋˣ˘̀, ˢˁ༤˥ ˆ˥˅˥˧˘˪ ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˋ ˧ˋˆ˘˥ˣˁ, ˅ ˜˥˪˥˧˥ˢ ˥ˣˁ ˄˻༤ˁ ˥˄ˣˁ˧˫ːˋˣˁ. ʕˁ˜, ˵ˋ˪˻˧ˋ ˦ˋ˵ˁ˪˘ ˨ ˁˣˁ˪˥༤˘˙˨˜˘ˢ˘ ˘ˋ˧˥ˆ༤˘˱ˁˢ˘ ˄˻༤˘ ˣˁ˙ˊˋˣ˻ ˣˁ ˪ˋ˧˧˘˪˥˧˘˘ ʃ˖˧ˁ˘༤̀, ˣ˥ ʁ˘ˣˆˋ˧ (Singer 2006: 738–739) ˣˋ ˫˅˘ˊˋ༤ ˅ ˽˪˘˲ ˣˁ˲˥ˊ˜ˁ˲ ˊ˥˜ˁ˖ˁ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅ˁ ˨˫˹ˋ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘̀ ˫˨˪˥˙˵˘˅˻˲ ˆ˧˫˦˦ ༤˫˅˘˙˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˣˁ˨ˋ༤ˋˣ˘̀ ˅ ʝˁˣˁˁˣˋ. ʝˁˣˁˁˣ˨˜˘ˋ ˦ˋ˵ˁ˪˘ ˣ˘˜˥ˆˊˁ ˣˋ ˧ˁ˨˨ˢˁ˪˧˘˅ˁ༤˘˨˼ ˜ˁ˜ ˨ˋˣ˨ˁ˴˘˥ˣˣ˻ˋ ˥˪˜˧˻˪˘̀, ˦˥˨˜˥༤˼˜˫ ˆ˥˧ˁ˖ˊ˥ ˄˥༤˼˸ˋˋ ˵˘˨༤˥ ˦˘˨˼ˢˋˣˣ˻˲ ˦ˁˢ̀˪ˣ˘˜˥˅ ˣˁ ˨ˋˢ˘˪˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲ ˫ːˋ ˦˧˥༤˘༤˘ ˨˅ˋ˪ ˣˁ ˽˪ˣ˥༤˘ˣˆ˅˘˨˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˫˿ ˨˘˪˫ˁ˴˘˿ ˅ ʑˁ༤ˋ˨˪˘ˣˋ ˦ˋ˧˘˥ˊˁ ˄˧˥ˣ˖˥˅˥ˆ˥ ˅ˋ˜ˁ. ɳ ˨༤˫˵ˁˋ ʕ˧˥˘, ˆˊˋ ˦˥ˊ˥˄ˣ˻ˋ ˨˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅ˁ ˥˪˨˫˪˨˪˅˫˿˪, ˥˪˜˧˻˪˘ˋ 1995 ˆ. ˄˻༤˥ ˵˧ˋ˖ˢˋ˧ˣ˥ 15 ʕ˧ˁˣ˨༤˘˪ˋ˧ˁ˴˘˿ ˜˥ˣ˪ˋ˜˨˪ˁ ˨ˢ. ˅ ˢ˥ˣ˥ˆ˧ˁ˱˘˘ Starke 1985: 341. ʐ˪ˣ˥˨˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ ˘ˣ˪ˋ˧˦˧ˋ˪ˁ˴˘˘ ༤˫˅. ahha ˜ˁ˜ ˦˧˥˨˪˧ˁˣ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˣˁ˧ˋ˵˘̀ ˨ˢ. Yakubovich 2012, ˘ˣˁ˵ˋ Melchert 2013. ʣ˪ˁ˧˜ˋ (Starke 1990: 603) ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥˵˘˪ˁˋ˪ ˘ˣ˪ˋ˧˦˧ˋ˪˘˧˥˅ˁ˪˼ al(a/i)- ˅ ˊˁˣˣ˥ˢ ˱˧ˁˆˢˋˣ˪ˋ ˜ˁ˜ ‘ˢ˥˧ˋ’, ˵˪˥ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˢˁ༤˥˅ˋ˧˥̀˪ˣ˻ˢ, ˦˥˨˜˥༤˼˜˫ ˜˥ˣ˪ˋ˜˨˪ˣ˻˙ ˁˣˁ༤˘˖ ˆ˥˅˥˧˘˪ ˅ ˦˥༤˼˖˫ ˁˊ˺ˋ˜˪˘˅ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˫˦˥˪˧ˋ˄༤ˋˣ˘̀ al(i)- (˨˧. Watkins 1995: 144–145). ɯˣˁ༤˘˖ ʘ˥˪˜˘ˣ˨ˁ, ˘ˣ˪ˋ˧˦˧ˋ˪˘˧˫˿˹ˋˆ˥ al(a/i)- ˜ˁ˜ ‘˜˧˫˪˥˙, ˆ༤˫˄˥˜˘˙’, ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˣˋ ˅˦˥༤ˣˋ ˫˄ˋˊ˘˪ˋ༤ˋˣ, ˦˥˨˜˥༤˼˜˫ ˜˧˫ˆ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘˙ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ‘ˊˁ༤ˋ˜˘˙, ˵˫ː˥˙’ ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˅˦˥༤ˣˋ ˫ˢˋ˨˪ˣ˻ˢ ˊ༤̀ ˅˨ˋ˲ ˨༤˫˵ˁˋ˅ ˫˦˥˪˧ˋ˄༤ˋˣ˘̀ ˊˁˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˦˧˘༤ˁˆˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˅ ༤˫˅˘˙˨˜˥ˢ ˜˥˧˦˫˨ˋ. ʒˋ˸ˁ˿˹ˋˋ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ˊ༤̀ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥˵˪ˋˣ˘̀ ˘ˣ˪ˋ˧˦˧ˋ˪ˁ˴˘˘ ‘ˊˁ༤ˋ˜˘˙, ˵˫ː˥˙’ ˘ˆ˧ˁ˿˪ ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˋ ˨˥˥˄˧ˁːˋˣ˘̀. ʫ ˨˅̀˖˻˅ˁ˿ ༤˫˅. al(a/i)- ‘ˊˁ༤ˋ˜˘˙’ c ༤˘˜˘˙˨˜˘ˢ ˦˧ˋ˱˘˜˨˥ˢ ala-, ˅˻ˊˋ༤̀ˋˢ˻ˢ ˅ ༤ˋ˜˨ˋˢˁ˲ ala-ha- ‘˦˥ˆ˧ˋ˄ˁ˪˼, ˥˪˦˫˨˜ˁ˪˼ ˅ ˘ˣ˥˙ ˢ˘˧’ ˘ ala-da/ˀ-hali‘˦˥ˆ˧ˋ˄ˋˣ˘ˋ’, ˁ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ, ˅ ˜˥ˣˋ˵ˣ˥ˢ ˘˪˥ˆˋ, ˨ ˘.-ˋ. *alyo- ‘ˊ˧˫ˆ˥˙’. ʫ ˦༤ˁˣ˘˧˫˿ ˦˥ˊ˧˥˄ˣˋˋ ˥˨˪ˁˣ˥˅˘˪˼˨̀ ˣˁ ˊˁˣˣ˥˙ ˦˧˥˄༤ˋˢˋ ˅ ˨˥˅ˢˋ˨˪ˣ˥˙ ˨˪ˁ˪˼ˋ ˨ ʨ༤˘˖ˁ˄ˋ˪ ʒ˘˜ˋˣ, ˣˁ˲˥ˊ̀˹ˋ˙˨̀ ˅ ˊˁˣˣ˻˙ ˢ˥ˢˋˣ˪ ˅ ˦˧˥˴ˋ˨˨ˋ ˦˥ˊˆ˥˪˥˅˜˘.

200

ʎˁ ˜ˁ˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲ ˆ˥˅˥˧˘༤˘ ˅ ʕ˧˥ˋ? ɳ˖ˆ༤̀ˊ ˁˣˁ˪˥༤˘˨˪ˁ

˧ˁ˖ˊ˫˪˥ ˘ ˘ˣ˘˴˘˘˧˥˅ˁ༤˥ ˦˥˅˻˸ˋˣˣ˻˙ ˘ˣ˪ˋ˧ˋ˨ ˜ ˘˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁ˪ˋ༤˼˨˜˘ˢ ˅˥˦˧˥˨ˁˢ, ˊ༤̀ ˨˪˥༤˜ˣ˥˅ˋˣ˘̀ ˨ ˜˥˪˥˧˻ˢ˘ ˫˵ˋˣ˻ˋ ˄˻༤˘ ˦༤˥˲˥ ˦˥ˊˆ˥˪˥˅༤ˋˣ˻. ʑ˥ ˢ˥ˋˢ˫ ˢˣˋˣ˘˿, ˆ༤ˁ˅ˣ˥ˋ ˊ˥˨˪˥˘ˣ˨˪˅˥ ˨˪ˁ˪˼˘ ʣ˪ˁ˧˜ˋ ˖ˁ˜༤˿˵ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˅ ˧ˁ˨˨ˢ˥˪˧ˋˣ˘˘ ˦˥༤˘˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˘˨˪˥˧˘˘ ɯˣˁ˪˥༤˘˘ ˦ˋ˧˘˥ˊˁ ˄˧˥ˣ˖˥˅˥ˆ˥ ˅ˋ˜ˁ. ʑ˥༤˘˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˋ ˨˅̀˖˘ ˢˋːˊ˫ ɳ˘༤˫˨˥˙ ˘ ʝˋ˪˪˨˜˥˙ ˘ˢ˦ˋ˧˘ˋ˙, ˦˥ˊ˧˥˄ˣ˥ ˧ˁ˨˨ˢ˥˪˧ˋˣˣ˻ˋ ˅ ˧ˁ˄˥˪ˋ Starke 1997 ˘ ˅˜˧ˁ˪˴ˋ ˦˧˥ˁˣˁ༤˘˖˘˧˥˅ˁˣˣ˻ˋ ˅ ˣˁ˵ˁ༤ˋ ˽˪˥ˆ˥ ˧ˁ˖ˊˋ༤ˁ, ˊˁ˿˪ ˊ˥˨˪ˁ˪˥˵ˣ˥ˋ ˥˄˺̀˨ˣˋˣ˘ˋ ˦˥̀˅༤ˋˣ˘˿ ˘ˋ˧˥ˆ༤˘˱˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˦ˋ˵ˁ˪˘ ˅ ʕ˧˥ˋ. ʑ˥˦˻˪˜˘ ˁ˅˪˥˧ˁ ˊˋ༤ˁ˪˼ ˖ˁ˜༤˿˵ˋˣ˘̀ ˥ ̀˖˻˜˥˅˥˙ ˨˘˪˫ˁ˴˘˘ ˅ ɳ˘༤˫˨ˋ ˘ ˣˁ ˦˧˘༤ˋˆˁ˿˹ˋ˙ ˪ˋ˧˧˘˪˥˧˘˘ ˢˋˣˋˋ ˫˄ˋˊ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻. ʍˣ˥ˆ˘ˋ ˁ˧ˆ˫ˢˋˣ˪˻ ʣ˪ˁ˧˜ˋ ˦˥˅˪˥˧̀˿˪ ˁ˧ˆ˫ˢˋˣ˪˻ ʘ˥˪˜˘ˣ˨ˁ (Watkins 1986), ˘ ˣˋ˪ ˣˋ˥˄˲˥ˊ˘ˢ˥˨˪˘ ˥˄˧ˁ˹ˁ˪˼˨̀ ˜ ˣ˘ˢ ˋ˹ˋ ˧ˁ˖. ʐˊˣˁ˜˥ ˨༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪ ˧ˁ˨˨ˢ˥˪˧ˋ˪˼ ˖ˣˁ˵˘ˢ˥˨˪˼ ˵ˋ˧ˋˊ˥˅ˁˣ˘̀ ˢˋːˊ˫ ˱˥˧ˢˁˢ˘ Wilusa ˘ Wilusiya, ˜˥˪˥˧˻ˋ ˥˄ˣˁ˧˫ː˘˅ˁ˿˪ ˦ˁ˧ˁ༤༤ˋ༤˼ ˅ ˅˘ˊˋ ˁˣˁ༤˥ˆ˘˵ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˅ˁ˧˼˘˧˥˅ˁˣ˘̀ ˢˋːˊ˫ ˱˥˧ˢˁˢ˘ Arzawa ˘ Arzawiya. ɳˁ˧˘ˁˣ˪˻, ˨ˣˁ˄ːˋˣˣ˻ˋ ˨˫˱˱˘˜˨˥ˢ -iya-, ̀˅༤̀˿˪˨̀ ˅ ˥˄˥˘˲ ˨༤˫˵ˁ̀˲ ˄˥༤ˋˋ ˁ˧˲ˁ˘˵ˣ˻ˢ˘ ˘, ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˥ ʣ˪ˁ˧˜ˋ, ˊ˥༤ːˣ˻ ˧ˁ˨˨ˢˁ˪˧˘˅ˁ˪˼˨̀ ˜ˁ˜ ˦˥˨ˋ˨˨˘˅ˣ˻ˋ ˦˧˘༤ˁˆˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻ˋ «˅˘༤˫˨˨˜˘˙» ˘ «ˁ˧˴ˁ˅˨˜˘˙» ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥. ɳ ˦˧˥˪˘˅˥˦˥༤˥ːˣ˥˨˪˼ ˽˪˥ˢ˫, ˅ ༤˘ˊ˘˙˨˜˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˋ, ˣˁ ˜˥˪˥˧˥ˢ ˆ˥˅˥˧˘༤˘ ˅ ʁˁ˦ˁˊˣ˥˙ ɯˣˁ˪˥༤˘˘ ˅ ˣˁ˵ˁ༤ˋ I ˪˻˨. ˊ˥ ˣ. ˽., ˘˨˦˥༤˼˖˥˅ˁ༤˨̀ ˊ˧˫ˆ˥˙ ˦˥˨ˋ˨˨˘˅ˣ˻˙ ˨˫˱˱˘˜˨ -l(i)-. ʓ༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪ ˦˧˘˖ˣˁ˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˊˁˣˣ˻˙ ˁ˧ˆ˫ˢˋˣ˪ ʣ˪ˁ˧˜ˋ ˆ˥˅˥˧˘˪ ˅ ˦˥༤˼˖˫ ༤˫˅˘˙˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˦˥˨˧ˋˊˣ˘˵ˋ˨˪˅ˁ ˅ ˜˥ˣ˪ˁ˜˪ˁ˲ ʝˁ˪˪˫˨˻ ˨ ʁˁ˦ˁˊˣ˥˙ ɯˣˁ˪˥༤˘ˋ˙. ʍ˥ːˣ˥ ˖ˁ˜༤˿˵˘˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˣˁ ˄˥༤ˋˋ ˧ˁˣˣˋ˙ ˱ˁ˖ˋ ˽˪˘˲ ˜˥ˣ˪ˁ˜˪˥˅ ˲ˋ˪˪˻ ˘ˢˋ༤˘ ˦˥˅ˋ˧˲ˣ˥˨˪ˣ˻ˋ ˖ˣˁˣ˘̀ ˥˄ ɯ˧˴ˁ˅ˋ ˘ ɳ˘༤˫˨ˋ ˘, ˜ˁ˜ ˨༤ˋˊ˨˪˅˘ˋ, ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁ༤˘ ˘ˣ˥˨˪˧ˁˣˣ˻ˋ ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘̀ ˊ༤̀ ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅˫˿˹˘˲ ˨˪˧ˁˣ. ʑ˥˨༤ˋ ˪˥ˆ˥ ˜ˁ˜ ˜˥ˣ˪ˁ˜˪˻ ˨˪ˁ༤˘ ˄˥༤ˋˋ ˪ˋ˨ˣ˻ˢ˘, ˣ˥˨˘˪ˋ༤˘ ˲ˋ˪˪˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ ˫˨˅˥˘༤˘ ˅ˋ˧ˣ˻ˋ ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘̀ ˅ˁ˨˨ˁ༤˼ˣ˻˲ ˪ˋ˧˧˘˪˥˧˘˙. ʑ˥ˊ˥˄ˣ˻ˢ ˥˄˧ˁ˖˥ˢ ˪˧ˁˊ˘˴˘˥ˣˣˁ̀ ˧˥ˢˁˣ˘˖ˁ˴˘̀ ˜˘˪ˁ˙˨˜˥˙ ˨˪˥༤˘˴˻ Peking ˥˨ˣ˥˅˻˅ˁˋ˪˨̀, ˅ˋ˧˥̀˪ˣ˥, ˣˁ ˜ˁˣ˪˥ˣ˨˜˥ˢ ˦˧˥˘˖ˣ˥˸ˋˣ˘˘ ˽˪˥ˆ˥ ˪˥˦˥ˣ˘ˢˁ [pakkiƗ] ˘ ˥˪˧ˁːˁˋ˪ ˨༤˥˅˥˫˦˥˪˧ˋ˄༤ˋˣ˘ˋ ˜˘˪ˁ˙˨˜˥˙ ˦˥˵˪˥˅˥˙ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢ˻, ˫˦˧ˁ˅༤̀˅˸ˋ˙˨̀ ˅ XIX ˅ˋ˜ˋ ˄˧˘˪ˁˣ˴ˁˢ˘ ˘˖ ɴ˥ˣ˜˥ˣˆˁ. ʓ˥˅˧ˋˢˋˣˣˁ̀ ˧˥ˢˁˣ˘˖ˁ˴˘̀ Beijing ˥˦˘˧ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˣˁ ˢˁˣˊˁ˧˘ˣ˨˜˫˿ ˣ˥˧ˢ˫ [peitഉing] ˘ ˥˪˧ˁːˁˋ˪ ˥˨˅ˋˊ˥ˢ༤ˋˣˣ˥˨˪˼ ˁˣˆ༤˥ˆ˥˅˥˧̀˹˘˲ ˥˄ ˥˱˘˴˘ˁ༤˼ˣ˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˋ ʇʎʒ, ˣˁ ˜˥˪˥˧˥ˢ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˆ˥˅˥˧̀˪ ˘ ˅ ˜˘˪ˁ˙˨˜˥˙ ˨˪˥༤˘˴ˋ. ʒ˥༤˼ ༤˫˅˘˙˴ˋ˅ ˅ ˦ˋ˧ˋˊˁ˵ˋ ˲ˋ˪˪ˁˢ ˖ˁ˦ˁˊˣ˥ˁˣˁ˪˥༤˘˙˨˜˘˲ ˪˥˦˥ˣ˘ˢ˥˅ ˣˋ ˊ˥༤ːˣˁ ˣ˘˜˥ˆ˥ ˦˥˧ˁːˁ˪˼, ˋ˨༤˘ ˅˨˦˥ˢˣ˘˪˼, ˵˪˥ ༤˫˅˘˙˴˻ ˣˁ˨ˋ༤̀༤˘ ʎ˘ːˣ˿˿ ˨˪˧ˁˣ˫ ˘, ˪ˁ˜˘ˢ ˥˄˧ˁ˖˥ˢ, ˄˻༤˘ ˖ˁ˦ˁˊˣ˻ˢ˘ ˨˥˨ˋˊ̀ˢ˘ ˲ˋ˪˪˥˅ (ʫ˜˫˄˥˅˘˵ 2015: 140–141). ʫ ˣˋ ˢ˥ˆ˫ ˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁ˪˼ ˁ˦˧˘˥˧ˣ˥ˢ˫ ˫˪˅ˋ˧ːˊˋˣ˘˿ ʣ˪ˁ˧˜ˋ (Starke 1997: 459a), ˵˪˥ ༤˫˅˘˙˨˜˘˙ ˨˫˱˱˘˜˨ ˦˧˘༤ˁˆˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˆ˥ Wilus-iya ˊ˥༤ːˋˣ ˥˪˧ˁːˁ˪˼ ̀˖˻˜ ˪˧˥̀ˣ˨˜˘˲ ˦˥˨༤˥˅ ˅ ʝˁ˪˪˫˨˫. ɳ ˨ˁˢ˥ˢ ˊˋ༤ˋ, ˋˊ˘ˣ˨˪˅ˋˣˣˁ̀ ˱˘˜˨ˁ˴˘̀ ˽˪˥ˆ˥ ˅ˁ˧˘ˁˣ˪ˁ ˅ ˲ˋ˪˪˨˜˥ˢ ˜˥˧˦˫˨ˋ ˅˨˪˧ˋ˵ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˅ ˜˥ˣ˪ˋ˜˨˪ˋ ˅˥ˋˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˫˧ˋˆ˫༤˘˧˥˅ˁˣ˘̀ ˜˥ˣ˱༤˘˜˪ˁ, ˅ ˪˥ ˅˧ˋˢ̀ ˜ˁ˜ ˊ˘˦༤˥ˢˁ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˋ ˊ˥˜˫ˢˋˣ˪˻ ˦˥˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ ˨˥ˊˋ˧ːˁ˪ ˄˥༤ˋˋ ˣ˥˅˥ˋ ˣˁ˦˘˨ˁˣ˘ˋ Wilusa! ʘ˵˘˪˻˅ˁ̀ ˢˣ˥ːˋ˨˪˅˥ ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˻˲ ˨˴ˋˣˁ˧˘ˋ˅ ˪˥ˆ˥, ˜ˁ˜ ˲ˋ˪˪˻ ˢ˥ˆ༤˘ ˘˖ˣˁ˵ˁ༤˼ˣ˥ ˧ˁ˨˸˘˧̀˪˼ ˨˅˥˘ ˆˋ˥ˆ˧ˁ˱˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˋ ˦˥˖ˣˁˣ˘̀, ༤˫˵˸ˋ ˣˋ ˨˦ˋ˜˫༤˘˧˥˅ˁ˪˼ ˘˖༤˘˸ˣˋ ˣˁ ˊˁˣˣ˫˿ ˪ˋˢ˫. ʎ˥ ˥ˆ˧ˁˣ˘˵ˋˣˣ˻ˋ ˨˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅ˁ ˅ ˣˁ˸ˋˢ ˧ˁ˨˦˥˧̀ːˋˣ˘˘ ˆ˥˅˥˧̀˪ ˅ ˦˥༤˼˖˫ ˪˥ˆ˥, ˵˪˥ ˊ˘˦༤˥ˢˁ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˙ ˥˄ˢˋˣ ˢˋːˊ˫ ɳ˘༤˫˨˥˙ ˘ ʝˁ˪˪˫˨˥˙ ˨˦˥˨˥˄˨˪˅˥˅ˁ༤ ˨˜˥˧ˋˋ ˫˨˪˧ˁˣˋˣ˘˿ ༤˫˅˥˘ˊˣ˥˙ ˱˥˧ˢ˻, ˵ˋˢ ˋˋ ˧ˁ˨˦˧˥˨˪˧ˁˣˋˣ˘˿. ʕˁ˜˘ˢ ˥˄˧ˁ˖˥ˢ, ˱˥˧ˢˁ Wilusiya ˣˋ ˢ˥ːˋ˪ ˨˜ˁ˖ˁ˪˼ ˣ˘˵ˋˆ˥ ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˋ ˨ˋ˅ˋ˧˥-˖ˁ˦ˁˊˣ˥˙ ˵ˁ˨˪˘ ɯˣˁ˪˥༤˘˘. ʁˁ˜༤˿˵˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣˁ̀ ˵ˁ˨˪˼ ˧ˁ˄˥˪˻ Starke 1997 ˦˥˨˅̀˹ˋˣˁ ˧ˁ˖༤˘˵˘̀ˢ ˅ ˨˥˴˘ˁ༤˼ˣ˥˙ ˥˧ˆˁˣ˘˖ˁ˴˘˘ ˆ˧ˋ˜˥˅ ˘ ˪˧˥̀ˣ˴ˋ˅. ʣ˪ˁ˧˜ˋ ˦˥ˊ˵ˋ˧˜˘˅ˁˋ˪ «˨ˋˢˋ˙˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥˨˪˼» ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˘̀ ˪˧˥̀ˣ˨˜˥˙ ˁ˧˘˨˪˥˜˧ˁ˪˘˘ ˅ ʃ༤˘ˁˊˋ, ˆˊˋ ˥˵ˋˣ˼ ˄˥༤˼˸˥ˋ ˵˘˨༤˥ ˖ˁ˹˘˪ˣ˘˜˥˅ ˆ˥˧˥ˊˁ ˘˖˥˄˧ˁːˁ˿˪˨̀ ˜ˁ˜ ˜˧˥˅ˣ˻ˋ ˘ ˣˋ˜˧˥˅ˣ˻ˋ ˧˥ˊ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˘˜˘ ʑ˧˘ˁˢˁ. ɲ༤˘˖˜˥˙ ˦ˁ˧ˁ༤༤ˋ༤˼˿ ˜ ˽˪˥ˢ˫ ˦˥༤˥ːˋˣ˘˿ ˊˋ༤ ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˜˅ˁ˖˘-˨ˋˢˋ˙ˣˁ̀ ˨˪˧˫˜˪˫˧ˁ ˊ˅˥˧ˁ ʝˁ˪˪˫˨˻, ˆˊˋ ˢˣ˥ˆ˘ˋ ˥˱˘˴˘ˁ༤˼ˣ˻ˋ ༤˘˴ˁ ˣ˥˨˘༤˘ ˖˅ˁˣ˘ˋ DUMU.LUGAL ‘˨˻ˣ ˴ˁ˧̀’ (Bryce 2002: 27; ˨˧. Beal 2004: 149). ʓ˪˧˥ˆ˥ ˆ˥˅˥˧̀, ˣˋ˘˖˅ˋ˨˪ˣ˥, ˲ˁ˧ˁ˜˪ˋ˧˘˖˥˅ˁ༤˘˨˼ ༤˘ ˁˣˁ༤˥ˆ˘˵ˣ˥˙ ˨˪˧˫˜˪˫˧˥˙ ˊ˅˥˧˻ 201

ʃ. ʓ. ʫ˜˫˄˥˅˘˵

ʇ˘˴˴˫˅ˁˊˣ˻ ˘ ɯ˧˴ˁ˅˻. ʐˊˣˁ˜˥ ˅ˁːˣ˥, ˵˪˥, ˊˁːˋ ˋ˨༤˘ ˊˋ༤ˁ ˥˄˨˪˥̀༤˘ ˘ˢˋˣˣ˥ ˪ˁ˜, ˅˨ˋ ˧ˁ˅ˣ˥ ˣˋ˪ ˦˧˘˵˘ˣ ˫˪˅ˋ˧ːˊˁ˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˅ˋˊ˫˹ˁ̀ ˧˥༤˼ ˄˥༤˼˸˥˙ ˴ˁ˧˨˜˥˙ ˨ˋˢ˼˘ ˅ ˆ˥˨˫ˊˁ˧˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˻˲ ˊˋ༤ˁ˲ ˄˻༤ˁ ˨˅˥˙˨˪˅ˋˣˣˁ ˘ˢˋˣˣ˥ ༤˫˅˘˙˴ˁˢ ˜ˁ˜ ˽˪ˣ˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˆ˧˫˦˦ˋ ˅ˣ˫˪˧˘ ɯˣˁ˪˥༤˘˘. ʍ˥ːˣ˥ ༤ˋˆ˜˥ ˦˥ˊ˦˘˨ˁ˪˼˨̀ ˦˥ˊ ˫˪˅ˋ˧ːˊˋˣ˘ˋˢ ʣ˪ˁ˧˜ˋ, ˵˪˥ «ˆ˥ˢˋ˧˥˅˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˢ˘˧ˁ ˥˵ˋ˅˘ˊˣ˥ ˣˋ ˨˫˹ˋ˨˪˅˫ˋ˪, ˦˥ ˜˧ˁ˙ˣˋ˙ ˢˋ˧ˋ ˅ ʃ༤˘ˁˊˋ, — ˨˜˥˧ˋˋ, ɴ˥ˢˋ˧ ː˘༤ ˣˁ ˨˪˻˜ˋ ˊ˅˫˲ ˢ˘˧˥˅ — ˆ˧ˋ˵ˋ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˘ ˁˣˁ˪˥༤˘˙˨˜˥-˕˟ʻˌˍ˜ː˙ʼ˙» (Starke 1997: 466) — ˘˨˜༤˿˵ˁ̀ ˦˥˨༤ˋˊˣˋˋ ˨༤˥˅˥, ˜˥˪˥˧˥ˋ ˖ˊˋ˨˼ ˅˻ˊˋ༤ˋˣ˥ ˜˫˧˨˘˅˥ˢ. ɳ˻˅˥ˊ˻ ˘˖ ˊˁˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˧ˁ˖ˊˋ༤ˁ ̀˅༤̀˿˪˨̀ ˦˧ˋ˘ˢ˫˹ˋ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥ ˣˋˆˁ˪˘˅ˣ˻ˢ˘. ʓ༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪ ˦˧̀ˢ˥ ˖ˁ̀˅˘˪˼ ˥ ˪˥ˢ, ˵˪˥ ˦˧ˋˊ༤˥ːˋˣˣ˻ˋ ˅˥˖˧ˁːˋˣ˘̀ ˦˧˥˪˘˅ ˨˴ˋˣˁ˧˘ˋ˅, ˨˅̀˖˻˅ˁ˿˹˘˲ ː˘˪ˋ༤ˋ˙ ɳ˘༤˫˨˻ ˨ ༤˫˅˘˙˴ˁˢ˘, ˣˋ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤ˁˆˁ˿˪ ˣˁ༤˘˵˘̀ ༤˫˵˸ˋˆ˥ ˜ˁˣˊ˘ˊˁ˪ˁ ˣˁ «̀˖˻˜ ˪˧˥̀ˣ˴ˋ˅». ʇˁ˜ ˱˧ˁ˜˘˙˨˜ˁ̀ ˆ˘˦˥˪ˋ˖ˁ ɴ˘ˣˊ˘ˣˁ, ˪ˁ˜ ˘ ༤˘ˊ˘˙˨˜ˁ̀ɏ/ɏˢ˘˖˘˙˨˜ˁ̀ ˆ˘˦˥˪ˋ˖ˁ ʎ˥˙ˢˁˣˣˁ (˨ˢ. ˨˨˻༤˜˘ ˅˥ ɳ˅ˋˊˋˣ˘˘), ˥˦˘˧ˁ˿˪˨̀ ˦˧ˋ˘ˢ˫˹ˋ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥ ˣˁ ˁˣˁ༤˘˖ ˪˧˥̀ˣ˨˜˘˲ ༤˘˵ˣ˻˲ ˘ˢˋˣ ˘ ˪˥˦˥ˣ˘ˢ˥˅, ˖ˁ˨˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣˣ˻˲ ˅ ˆ˧ˋ˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˦ˋ˧ˋˊˁ˵ˋ. ʑ˥˨˜˥༤˼˜˫ ˘ ˱˧ˁ˜˘˙˴˻, ˘ ༤˘ˊ˘˙˴˻ɏ/ɏˢ˘˖˘˙˴˻, ˦˥-˅˘ˊ˘ˢ˥ˢ˫, ˦˧˥ː˘˅ˁ༤˘ ˅ ˨ˋ˅ˋ˧˥-˖ˁ˦ˁˊˣ˥˙ ˵ˁ˨˪˘ ʍˁ༤˥˙ ɯ˖˘˘ ˅ ˣˁ˵ˁ༤ˋ ːˋ༤ˋ˖ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˅ˋ˜ˁ, ˣˋ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˥ ˨˜ˁ˖ˁ˪˼, ˥˪˧ˁːˁˋ˪ ༤˘ ˦˥̀˅༤ˋˣ˘ˋ ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅˫˿˹˘˲ ˘ˢˋˣ ˨˥˄˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˻˲ ˅ ˆ˥ˢˋ˧˥˅˨˜˥ˢ ˽˦˥˨ˋ ˘ ˊ˧˫ˆ˘˲ ˆ˧ˋ˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˘˨˪˥˵ˣ˘˜ˁ˲ ˘˨˪˥˧˘˵ˋ˨˜˫˿ ˦ˁˢ̀˪˼ ˥ ˄˧˥ˣ˖˥˅˥ˢ ˅ˋ˜ˋ ˘༤˘ ːˋ ˥ˣ˥ ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˄˥༤ˋˋ ˦˥˖ˊˣ˘ˢ ˣˁ˨༤˥ˋˣ˘ˋˢɏ16. ʕ˥ ːˋ ˨ˁˢ˥ˋ, ˜˥ˣˋ˵ˣ˥, ˨˦˧ˁ˅ˋˊ༤˘˅˥ ˊ༤̀ ˄˥༤˼˸˘ˣ˨˪˅ˁ ˆ˧ˋ˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˪˧˥̀ˣ˨˜˘˲ ˘ˢˋˣ, ˪ˁ˜˘˲ ˜ˁ˜ ɴˋ˜˪˥˧, ɯˣˊ˧˥ˢˁ˲ˁ ˘༤˘ ɸˋ˘˱˥˄ɏ17. ʓ ˱˥˧ˢˁ༤˼ˣ˥˙ ˪˥˵˜˘ ˖˧ˋˣ˘̀, ༤˫˅˘˙˨˜ˁ̀ ˆ˘˦˥˪ˋ˖ˁ ˘ˢˋˋ˪ ˥ˊˣ˥ ˦˥˪ˋˣ˴˘ˁ༤˼ˣ˥ˋ ˦˧ˋ˘ˢ˫˹ˋ˨˪˅˥ ˦ˋ˧ˋˊ ˨˅˥˘ˢ˘ ˜˥ˣ˜˫˧ˋˣ˪ˁˢ˘. ɹ˨༤˘ ˄˻ ˫ˊˁ༤˥˨˼ ˣˁ ˨ˁˢ˥ˢ ˊˋ༤ˋ ˦˥˜ˁ˖ˁ˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˖ˣˁ˵˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣˁ̀ ˵ˁ˨˪˼ ˆ˥ˢˋ˧˥˅˨˜˘˲ ˘ˢˋˣ ˪˧˥̀ˣ˴ˋ˅ ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ༤˫˅˘˙˨˜˥˙, ˽˪˥˪ ˦༤ˁ˨˪ ˪˥˵ˣ˥ ˊ˥༤ːˋˣ ˄˻༤ ˄˻ ̀˅༤̀˪˼˨̀ ˁ˧˲ˁ˘˵ˣ˻ˢ, ˦˥˨˜˥༤˼˜˫ ˣ˘ ˥ˊ˘ˣ ˆ˧ˋ˵ˋ˨˜˘˙ ˧ˁ˦˨˥ˊ ˣˁ˵ˁ༤ˁ I ˪˻˨. ˊ˥ ˣ. ˽. ˣˋ ˘ˢˋ༤ ˦˧˘˵˘ˣ ˅˨˪ˁ˅༤̀˪˼ ˪ˁ˜˘ˋ ˘ˢˋˣˁ ˅ ˪ˋ˜˨˪ ˽˦˥˨ˁ. ʇ ˨˥ːˁ༤ˋˣ˘˿, ˋˊ˘ˣ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˻ˢ ˘ˢˋˣˋˢ ˘˖ ˽˪˥˙ ˆ˧˫˦˦˻, ˊ༤̀ ˜˥˪˥˧˥ˆ˥ ˦˧ˋˊ༤˥ːˋˣˁ ˦˧ˁ˅ˊ˥˦˥ˊ˥˄ˣˁ̀ ༤˫˅˘˙˨˜ˁ̀ ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘̀, ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˘ˢ̀ ʑ˧˘ˁˢˁ, ˥ˊˣˁ˜˥ ˊˁːˋ ˽˪ˁ ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘̀ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤ˁˆˁˋ˪ ˆ˘˦˥˜˥˧˘˨˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˋ ˨˥˜˧ˁ˹ˋˣ˘ˋɏ18. ɳ ˦˧˘ˣ˴˘˦ˋ, ˢ˥ːˣ˥ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨˘˪˼˨̀ ˨ ɲ˧ˁ˙˨˥ˢ (Bryce 2006: 120) ˥˪ˣ˥˨˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ ˪˥ˆ˥, ˵˪˥ ˣˋ ˄˻༤˥ ˦˧˘˅ˋˊˋˣ˥ ˣ˘ ˥ˊˣ˥ˆ˥ ˦˥˖˘˪˘˅ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˨˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅ˁ, ˜˥˪˥˧˥ˋ ˦˧˥˪˘˅˥˧ˋ˵˘༤˥ ˄˻ ˘ˊˋˋ ༤˫˅˘˙˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˦˧˘˨˫˪˨˪˅˘̀ ˅ ɳ˘༤˫˨ˋ ˦ˋ˧˘˥ˊˁ ˄˧˥ˣ˖˥˅˥ˆ˥ ˅ˋ˜ˁ. ʎ˥ ˘ ˽ˢ˦˘˧˘˵ˋ˨˜ˁ̀ ˦˥ˊˊˋ˧ː˜ˁ ˊ༤̀ ˪ˁ˜˥˙ ˆ˘˦˥˪ˋ˖˻ ˥˪˨˫˪˨˪˅˫ˋ˪. ʎˋ˥˄˲˥ˊ˘ˢ˥ ˫˨˅˥˘˪˼ ˫˧˥˜ ˘˖ ˽˪˥˙ ˊ˘˨˜˫˨16

ɳˢˋ˨˪ˋ ˨ ˪ˋˢ, ˨༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪ ˥˪ˢˋ˪˘˪˼ ˣˁ༤˘˵˘ˋ ˢˣ˥ˆ˥˵˘˨༤ˋˣˣ˻˲ ˽˦˥ˣ˘ˢ˥˅ ˱˧ˁ˜˘˙˨˜˘˲ ˆ˥˧˥ˊ˥˅ ˅ ˆˋˣˋˁ༤˥ˆ˘˘ ʨˣˋ̀ (ɴ˘ˣˊ˘ˣ, ʟ˻ˢ˄˫˧˨˜˘˙ 1996: 192). ʑ˥˨˜˥༤˼˜˫ ˅ ˊ˥˸ˋˊ˸ˋˢ ˊ˥ ˣˁ˨ ˪ˋ˜˨˪ˋ «ʃ༤˘ˁˊ˻» ʨˣˋ˙ ˣ˘˜ˁ˜ ˣˋ ˨˅̀˖ˁˣ ˨ ʜ˧ˁ˜˘ˋ˙, ˊˁˣˣ˻˙ ˣˁ˄˥˧ ˘ˢˋˣ, ˅ˋ˧˥̀˪ˣ˥, ˨༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪ ˘ˣ˪ˋ˧˦˧ˋ˪˘˧˥˅ˁ˪˼ ˜ˁ˜ ˁ˧˲ˁ˘˖ˢ. ʎˋ̀˨ˣ˥, ˥ˊˣˁ˜˥, ˅˥˨˲˥ˊ˘˪ ༤˘ ˥ˣ ˜ ˄˧˥ˣ˖˥˅˥ˢ˫ ˅ˋ˜˫ ˘༤˘ ːˋ ˥ˣ ˥˪˧ˁːˁˋ˪ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˨ˋ༤ˋˣ˘ˋ ˱˧ˁ˜˘˙˴ˋ˅ ˅ ʍˁ༤˫˿ ɯ˖˘˿ ˅ XII ˅. 17 ʑ˧˘˅ˋˊˋˣˣ˻ˋ ˅˻˸ˋ ˧ˁ˨˨˫ːˊˋˣ˘̀ ˥˦˘˧ˁ˿˪˨̀ ˣˁ ˦˧ˁ˅ˊ˥˦˥ˊ˥˄ˣ˥ˋ, ˣ˥ ˣˋˊ˥˜ˁ˖ˁˣˣ˥ˋ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤˥ːˋˣ˘ˋ ˥ ˪˥ˢ, ˵˪˥ ̀ˊ˧˥ ˦˥˅ˋ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘̀ «ʃ༤˘ˁˊ˻» ˥˪˧ˁːˁˋ˪ ˘˨˪˥˧˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˋ ˨˥˄˻˪˘̀ ˦˥˖ˊˣˋˆ˥ ˄˧˥ˣ˖˥˅˥ˆ˥ ˅ˋ˜ˁ (˨ˢ. ˥˄˨˫ːˊˋˣ˘ˋ ˫ Hajnal 2003: 54–59). ɹ˨༤˘ ˨˵˘˪ˁ˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˁ˅˪˥˧ VIII ˅. ˊ˥ ˣ. ˽. ˘˨˦˥༤˼˖˥˅ˁ༤ ˫˨˪ˁ˧ˋ˅˸˘ˋ ˆˋ˥ˆ˧ˁ˱˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˋ ˧ˋˁ༤˘˘ ˘ ˁ˧˲ˁ˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˋ ˦˥˽˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˋ ˱˥˧ˢ˫༤˻ ˊ༤̀ ˥˦˘˨ˁˣ˘̀ ˱˘˜˪˘˅ˣ˻˲ ˨˥˄˻˪˘˙, ˪˥ ˽˪˘ˢ, ˜˥ˣˋ˵ˣ˥, ˄˫ˊˋ˪ ˦˥˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣˁ ˦˥ˊ ˨˥ˢˣˋˣ˘ˋ ˨ˁˢˁ ˧ˋ༤ˋ˅ˁˣ˪ˣ˥˨˪˼ ˆ˥ˢˋ˧˥˅˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˽˦˥˨ˁ ˊ༤̀ ˽˪ˣ˥༤˘ˣˆ˅˘˨˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˧ˋ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˜˴˘˙. 18 ɹ˹ˋ ˥ˊˣˁ ˽˪ˣ˘˵ˋ˨˜ˁ̀ ˆ˧˫˦˦ˁ, ̀˅༤̀˿˹ˁ̀˨̀ ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˻ˢ ˜ˁˣˊ˘ˊˁ˪˥ˢ ˣˁ ˧˥༤˼ ˣˁ˨ˋ༤ˋˣ˘̀ ɳ˘༤˫˨˻ ˅ ˄˧˥ˣ˖˥˅˥ˢ ˅ˋ˜ˋ, — ˽˪˥ ˽˪˧˫˨˜˘. ɴˋ˧˥ˊ˥˪ (1.94) ˧ˁ˨˨˜ˁ˖˻˅ˁˋ˪ ˥ ˅˻˖˅ˁˣˣ˥ˢ ˆ˥༤˥ˊ˥ˢ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˨ˋ༤ˋˣ˘˘ ˽˪˧˫˨˜˥˅ ˘˖ ˨ˋ˅ˋ˧˥-˖ˁ˦ˁˊˣ˥˙ ɯˣˁ˪˥༤˘˘ ˅ ʃ˪ˁ༤˘˿. ʨ˪ˁ ˘˨˪˥˧˘̀ ˣˁ˲˥ˊ˘˪ ˦˥ˊ˪˅ˋ˧ːˊˋˣ˘ˋ ˅ ˨˲˥ˊ˨˪˅ˋ ˽˪˧˫˨˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ ˨ ̀˖˻˜˥ˢ ˣˁˊ˦˘˨˘, ˥˄ˣˁ˧˫ːˋˣˣ˥˙ ˣˁ ʌˋˢˣ˥˨ˋ ˅ 1884 ˆ. ɲˋ˜ˋ˨ (Beekes 2003b), ˦˻˪ˁ̀˨˼ ˊ˥˜ˁ˖ˁ˪˼ ˁˣˁ˪˥༤˘˙˨˜˥ˋ ˦˧˥˘˨˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘ˋ ˽˪˧˫˨˜˥˅, ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤ˁˆˁˋ˪, ˵˪˥ ˘˲ ˢ˘ˆ˧ˁ˴˘̀ ˢ˥ːˋ˪ ˄˻˪˼ ˨˅̀˖ˁˣˁ ˨ ˦˧˥˘˨˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘ˋˢ ༤ˋˆˋˣˊ˻ ˥ ˄ˋˆ˨˪˅ˋ ˆ˧˫˦˦˻ ˪˧˥̀ˣ˴ˋ˅ ˅ ʃ˪ˁ༤˘˿, ˘˖˅ˋ˨˪ˣ˥˙ ˘˖ «ʨˣˋ˘ˊ˻» ɳˋ˧ˆ˘༤˘̀. ʕˋˢ ˣˋ ˢˋˣˋˋ, ˁ˅˪˥˧ ˧ˁ˖˫ˢˣ˥ ˅˥˖ˊˋ˧ː˘˅ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˥˪ ˦˧̀ˢ˥ˆ˥ ˥˪˥ːˊˋ˨˪˅༤ˋˣ˘̀ ˪˧˥̀ˣ˴ˋ˅ ˘ ˽˪˧˫˨˜˥˅, ˦˥˨˜˥༤˼˜˫ ˪ˁ˜˥ˋ ˥˪˥ːˊˋ˨˪˅༤ˋˣ˘ˋ ˣˋ ˘ˢˋˋ˪ ˜ˁ˜˘˲-༤˘˄˥ ༤˘ˣˆ˅˘˨˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˁˣ˘˙. ɯ༤˼˪ˋ˧ˣˁ˪˘˅ˣ˫˿ ˘ˣ˪ˋ˧˦˧ˋ˪ˁ˴˘˿ ˆˋ˧˥ˊ˥˪˥˅˨˜˥˙ ༤ˋˆˋˣˊ˻ ˨ˢ. ˅ ˧ˁ˄˥˪ˋ Oettinger 2010. 202

ʎˁ ˜ˁ˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲ ˆ˥˅˥˧˘༤˘ ˅ ʕ˧˥ˋ? ɳ˖ˆ༤̀ˊ ˁˣˁ˪˥༤˘˨˪ˁ

˨˘˘, ˜˥˪˥˧˻˙ (˦˥ ˊ˧˫ˆ˥ˢ˫ ˦˥˅˥ˊ˫) ˁ˱˥˧˘˨˪˘˵ˣ˥ ˅˻˧ˁ˖˘༤ ɳ˘˪ˆˋˣ˸˪ˋ˙ˣ: ˥ ˵ˋˢ ˣˋ༤˼˖̀ ˆ˥˅˥˧˘˪˼, ˥ ˪˥ˢ ˨༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪ ˢ˥༤˵ˁ˪˼. ɸ༤̀ ˦˧˥˅ˋˊˋˣ˘̀ ˧ˋ˖˫༤˼˪ˁ˪˘˅ˣ˻˲ ˘˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁˣ˘˙ ˅ ˊˁˣˣ˥˙ ˥˄༤ˁ˨˪˘ ˪˧ˋ˄˫ˋ˪˨̀ ˊ˥˦˥༤ˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣˁ̀ ˽ˢ˦˘˧˘˵ˋ˨˜ˁ̀ ˘ˣ˱˥˧ˢˁ˴˘̀.

3. ʌ˛˙ʺໞˀ˖ʸ «˞˛˙˴˗˜ːˌ˦ ໞˌːˌˍ˨ˀʻ» ɴ༤ˁ˅ˣˁ̀ ˪ˋˢˁ ˽˪˥ˆ˥ ˧ˁ˖ˊˋ༤ˁ — ˽˪˥ ˘ˊˋˣ˪˘˵ˣ˥˨˪˼ ˆ˥ˢˋ˧˥˅˨˜˘˲ ༤˘˜˘˙˴ˋ˅, ˆ˧˫˦˦˻ ˨˥˿˖ˣ˘˜˥˅ ˪˧˥̀ˣ˴ˋ˅, ˫˦˥ˢ˘ˣˁˋˢ˥˙ ˅ «ʃ༤˘ˁˊˋ» ˵ˁ˹ˋ, ˵ˋˢ ˜ˁ˧˘˙˴˻, ˢˋ˥ˣ˘ˁˣ˴˻, ˢ˘˨˘˙˴˻, ˦ˋ˥ˣ˘ˁˣ˴˻, ˦ˁ˱༤ˁˆ˥ˣ˘˙˴˻ ˘ ˱˧ˁ˜˘˙˴˻ ˅ˢˋ˨˪ˋ ˅˖̀˪˻ˋ. ɲ˧ˁ˙˨ (Bryce 2006: 146) ˨˦˧ˁ˅ˋˊ༤˘˅˥ ˥˪ˢˋ˵ˁˋ˪, ˵˪˥ ˽˦˥˨ ˣˋ ˨˥ˊˋ˧ː˘˪ ˦˧ˁ˅ˊ˥˦˥ˊ˥˄ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˨˴ˋˣˁ˧˘̀, ˜˥˪˥˧˻˙ ˄˻ ˦˥˖˅˥༤˘༤ ˦ˋ˧ˋˢˋ˨˪˘˪˼ ˽˪˘˲ ˅˥˘ˣ˥˅ ˘˖ ˘˨˪˥˧˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ʌ˘˜˘˘, ˣˁ˲˥ˊ˘˅˸ˋ˙˨̀ ˅ˊˁ༤˘ ˥˪ ˪ˋˁ˪˧ˁ ˽˦˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˅˥ˋˣˣ˻˲ ˊˋ˙˨˪˅˘˙. ʇ ˽˪˥ˢ˫ ˨༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪ ˊ˥˄ˁ˅˘˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˽˦˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˋ ༤˘˜˘˙˴˻, ˦˥-˅˘ˊ˘ˢ˥ˢ˫, ˧ˁ˖ˊˋ༤̀˿˪˨̀ ˣˁ ˆ˧˫˦˦˻ ˅ ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅˘˘ ˨˥ ˨˪˧ˁˣ˥˙ ˨˅˥ˋˆ˥ ˦˧˥˘˨˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘̀. ɳ ˪˥ ˅˧ˋˢ̀ ˜ˁ˜ ˄˥༤˼˸ˁ̀ ˆ˧˫˦˦ˁ, ˅˥˖ˆ༤ˁ˅༤̀ˋˢˁ̀ ɴ༤ˁ˅˜˥ˢ ˘ ʓˁ˧˦ˋˊ˥ˣ˥ˢ, ˥˵ˋ˅˘ˊˣ˥, ˦˧˘˄˻༤ˁ ˘˖ ˿ːˣ˥ˁˣˁ˪˥༤˘˙˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˧ˋˆ˘˥ˣˁ, ˘˖˅ˋ˨˪ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˅ ˜༤ˁ˨˨˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˙ ˦ˋ˧˘˥ˊ ˜ˁ˜ ʌ˘˜˘̀ ˘ ˦˥ˊˊˁ˿˹ˋˆ˥˨̀ ˘ˊˋˣ˪˘˱˘˜ˁ˴˘˘ ˄༤ˁˆ˥ˊˁ˧̀ ˣˁ˖˅ˁˣ˘˿ ˧ˋ˜˘ ʇ˨ˁˣ˱ (ˣˁ˦˧., Z 172), ˊ˧˫ˆ˥˙ ༤˘˜˘˙˨˜˘˙ ˅˥˘ˣ, ʑˁˣˊˁ˧, ˥˦˘˨˻˅ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˜ˁ˜ ː˘˪ˋ༤˼ ʁˋ༤ˋ˘, ˆ˥˧˥ˊˁ ˣˁ ˨ˋ˅ˋ˧˥-˖ˁ˦ˁˊˋ ɯˣˁ˪˥༤˘˘ (B 824–827, ̞ 91, 103). ʎ˘ ˖ˣˁ˵˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣˁ̀ ˧˥༤˼ ༤˘˜˘˙˴ˋ˅ ˅ «ʃ༤˘ˁˊˋ», ˣ˘ ˘˲ ˆˋ˪ˋ˧˥ˆˋˣˣ˥ˋ ˦˧˥˘˨˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘ˋ ˣˋ ˘ˢˋ˿˪ ˥˵ˋ˅˘ˊˣ˥ˆ˥ ˨ˢ˻˨༤ˁ ˅ ˘˨˪˥˧˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˢ ˜˥ˣ˪ˋ˜˨˪ˋ ˜༤ˁ˨˨˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˦ˋ˧˘˥ˊˁ. ɸˁ༤˼ˣˋ˙˸ˁ̀ ˘ˣ˪ˋ˧˦˧ˋ˪ˁ˴˘̀ ˊˁˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˦ˁ˧ˁˊ˥˜˨ˁ ˖ˁ˅˘˨˘˪ ˥˪ ˢˋ˪˥ˊ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˦˥˨˻༤˥˜ ˘˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁ˪ˋ༤ˋ˙. ɸ༤̀ ˧ˁˊ˘˜ˁ༤˼ˣ˻˲ ˱˥༤˼˜༤˥˧˘˨˪˥˅ ˨ˁˢ ˅˥˦˧˥˨ ˥˄ ˘˨˪˥˧˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˢ ˖ˋ˧ˣˋ ༤ˋˆˋˣˊ˻ ˥ «˪˧˥̀ˣ˨˜˘˲ ༤˘˜˘˙˴ˁ˲» ˢ˥ːˋ˪ ˦˥˜ˁ˖ˁ˪˼˨̀ ˄ˋ˨˨ˢ˻˨༤ˋˣˣ˻ˢ. ɳ ˵ˁ˨˪ˣ˥˨˪˘, ˣˋˊˁ˅ˣ̀̀ ˢ˥ˣ˥ˆ˧ˁ˱˘̀, ˦˥˨˅̀˹ˋˣˣˁ̀ ˄༤˘ːˣˋ˅˥˨˪˥˵ˣ˥ˢ˫ ˅༤˘̀ˣ˘˿ ˣˁ ˨˪ˁˣ˥˅༤ˋˣ˘ˋ ˆ˥ˢˋ˧˥˅˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˽˦˥˨ˁ, ˥˄˨˫ːˊˁˋ˪ ˦˥̀˅༤ˋˣ˘ˋ ༤˘˜˘˙˴ˋ˅ ˅ «ʃ༤˘ˁˊˋ» ˅ ˜˥ˣ˪ˋ˜˨˪ˋ ˘˨˦˥༤ˣˋˣ˘̀ ˧ˁˣˣ˘˲ ˅ˁ˧˘ˁˣ˪˥˅ ˽˦˥˨ˁ ˅ ʍ˘༤ˋ˪ˋ ˘ ˊ˧˫ˆ˘˲ ˆ˥˧˥ˊˁ˲ ʃ˥ˣ˘˘, ˆˊˋ ˢˋ˨˪ˣˁ̀ ˁ˧˘˨˪˥˜˧ˁ˪˘̀ ˆ˥˧ˊ˘༤ˁ˨˼ ˨˅˥˘ˢ˘ ༤˘˜˘˙˨˜˘ˢ˘ ˜˥˧ˣ̀ˢ˘. ʓ˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˥ ˊˁˣˣ˥˙ ˘ˣ˪ˋ˧˦˧ˋ˪ˁ˴˘˘, ˢ˥˪˘˅ˁ˴˘ˋ˙ ˊ༤̀ ˦˥ˊ˥˄ˣ˥˙ ˨˿ːˋ˪ˣ˥˙ ˢ˥ˊ˘˱˘˜ˁ˴˘˘ ˄˻༤˥ ˨˪˧ˋˢ༤ˋˣ˘ˋ ˦˥༤˼˨˪˘˪˼ ˧˥ˊ˥˅˘˪˻ˢ ˖ˁ˜ˁ˖˵˘˜ˁˢ ˨˥˨˪̀˖ˁˣ˘˙ ˧ˁ˦˨˥ˊ˥˅ (Bachvarova 2016: 438–445). ʕˋˢ ːˋ, ˜˪˥ ˨˜༤˥ˣˋˣ ˘˨˜ˁ˪˼ ˘˨˪˥˧˘˵ˋ˨˜˫˿ ˦˧ˁ˅ˊ˫ ˖ˁ ˘ˣ˱˥˧ˢˁ˴˘ˋ˙ ˥ «˪˧˥̀ˣ˨˜˘˲ ༤˘˜˘˙˴ˁ˲», ˣˋ˥˄˲˥ˊ˘ˢ˥ ˦˧˘˖ˣˁ˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˥ˣˁ ˥˪˧ˁːˁˋ˪ ˄˥༤ˋˋ ˧ˁˣˣ˿˿ ˆˋ˥˦˥༤˘˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˫˿ ˨˘˪˫ˁ˴˘˿ (˨˧. ɴ˘ˣˊ˘ˣ, ʟ˻ˢ˄˫˧˨˜˘˙ 1996: 234–237). ʍˣ˥ˆ˘ˋ ˫˵ˋˣ˻ˋ, ˣˁ˵˘ˣˁ̀ ˨ ˆ˧ˋ˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˨˲˥༤˘ˁ˨˪˥˅, ˦˻˪ˁ༤˘˨˼ ˥˄˺̀˨ˣ˘˪˼ ˨ ˘˨˪˥˧˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˦˥˖˘˴˘˙ ˨˅ˋˊˋˣ˘̀ ˥ ༤˘˜˘˙˴ˁ˲ ˅ ʕ˧˥ˋ, ˣ˥ ˊˋ˸˘˱˧˥˅˜ˁ ˲ˋ˪˪˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ ˦˧˘ˊˁ༤ˁ ˽˪˘ˢ ˊˋ˄ˁ˪ˁˢ ˣ˥˅˥ˋ ˘˖ˢˋ˧ˋˣ˘ˋ. ʒ̀ˊ ˘˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁ˪ˋ༤ˋ˙, ˦˥ ˘˲ ˢˣˋˣ˘˿, ˥˄ˣˁ˧˫ː˘༤˘ ˅ ˲ˋ˪˪˨˜˘˲ ˘˨˪˥˵ˣ˘˜ˁ˲ ˦˥ˊ˪˅ˋ˧ːˊˋˣ˘ˋ ༤˘˜˘˙˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˦˧˘˨˫˪˨˪˅˘̀ ˅ ˨ˋ˅ˋ˧˥-˖ˁ˦ˁˊˣ˥˙ ɯˣˁ˪˥༤˘˘ ˄˧˥ˣ˖˥˅˥ˆ˥ ˅ˋ˜ˁ. ʕˁ˜, ˅ ˧ˁ˄˥˪ˋ Macqueen 1968: 175 ˄˻༤ˁ ˦˧ˋˊ༤˥ːˋˣˁ ˘ˊˋˣ˪˘˱˘˜ˁ˴˘̀ ˆ˥ˢˋ˧˥˅˨˜˘˲ ༤˘˜˘˙˴ˋ˅ ˨ ˣˁ˧˥ˊˁˢ˘ ༤˫˜˜ˁ ˘˖ ˜༤˘ˣ˥˦˘˨ˣ˻˲ ˘˨˪˥˵ˣ˘˜˥˅, ˜˥˪˥˧˻ˋ ˥ˣ ˦˥˦˻˪ˁ༤˨̀ ༤˥˜ˁ༤˘˖˥˅ˁ˪˼ ˣˋ˦˥ˊˁ༤ˋ˜˫ ˥˪ ʕ˧˥˘. ɴ˘ˣˊ˘ˣ ˘ ʟ˻ˢ˄˫˧˨˜˘˙ ˧ˁ˖˅˘༤˘ ˽˪˫ ˘ˊˋ˿, ˅˻˨˜ˁ˖ˁ˅ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤˥ːˋˣ˘ˋ, ˵˪˥ ˆ˥ˢˋ˧˥˅˨˜˘ˋ ༤˘˜˘˙˴˻ ˖ˁˣ˘ˢˁ༤˘ ˪ˋ˧˧˘˪˥˧˘˘ ˣˁ ˖ˁ˦ˁˊˋ ʍˁ༤˥˙ ɯ˖˘˘ ˅ ˦ˋ˧˘˥ˊ ˄˧˥ˣ˖˥˅˥ˆ˥ ˅ˋ˜ˁ, ˁ ˅˦˥˨༤ˋˊ˨˪˅˘˘ ˢ˘ˆ˧˘˧˥˅ˁ༤˘ ˅ ʌ˘˜˘˿, ˨˥˲˧ˁˣ˘˅, ˥ˊˣˁ˜˥, ˨˅˥˙ ̀˖˻˜, ˘˖˅ˋ˨˪ˣ˻˙ ˨ˋˆ˥ˊˣ̀ ˜ˁ˜ ༤˘˜˘˙˨˜˘˙ ɲ (ɴ˘ˣˊ˘ˣ, ʟ˻ˢ˄˫˧˨˜˘˙ 1996: 243–245). ɳ ˧ˁ˄˥˪ˋ Jenniges 1998 ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˦˥ˊ˪˅ˋ˧ːˊˁˋ˪˨̀, ˵˪˥ ˅ «ʃ༤˘ˁˊˋ» ˋ˨˪˼ ˫˦˥ˢ˘ˣˁˣ˘ˋ ˥˄ ˥˄˸˘˧ˣ˻˲ ˖ˋˢ༤̀˲ Lukka, ˣ˥ ˁ˅˪˥˧ ˦˧ˋˊ༤ˁˆˁˋ˪ ˘˨˜ˁ˪˼ ˘˲ ˅ ʇ˘༤˘˜˘˘, ʌ˘ˊ˘˘ ˘༤˘ ʌ˘˜ˁ˥ˣ˘˘. ʣ˘ˢ˥ˣ ˊ˥˦˫˨˜ˁˋ˪ ˨˫˹ˋ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘ˋ ˊ˅˫˲ ˧ˁ˖༤˘˵ˣ˻˲ ˖ˋˢˋ༤˼ ʌ˫˜˜ˁ, ˥ˊˣˁ ˘˖ ˜˥˪˥˧˻˲ ˧ˁ˨˦˥༤˥ːˋˣˁ ˅ ʪˆ˥-ʁˁ˦ˁˊˣ˥˙ ɯˣˁ˪˥༤˘˘, ˁ ˊ˧˫ˆˁ̀ — ˅ ˧ˁ˙˥ˣˋ ɳ˘༤˫˨˻ (Simon 2006: 321–322). ɲ˧ˁ˙˨, ˦˧˘ˣ˘ˢˁ̀ ˘˨˜˥ˣˣ˫˿ ˨˅̀˖˼ ˢˋːˊ˫ ʓˁ˧˦ˋˊ˥ˣ˥ˢ ˘ ʌ˫˜˜˥˙ɏ/ɏʌ˘˜˘ˋ˙, ˨˵˘˪ˁˋ˪, ˵˪˥ ༤˘˜˘˙˨˜˥ˋ ˦˧˥˘˨˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘ˋ ʑˁˣˊˁ˧ˁ ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˄˥༤ˋˋ ˦˥˖ˊˣˋ˙ ˘ˣ˪ˋ˧˦˥༤̀˴˘ˋ˙, ˥˪˧ˁːˁ203

ʃ. ʓ. ʫ˜˫˄˥˅˘˵

˿˹ˋ˙ ˢ˘ˆ˧ˁ˴˘˘ ˣˁ˵ˁ༤ˁ ːˋ༤ˋ˖ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˅ˋ˜ˁ (Bryce 2006: 137, 144–150). ɸ˘˨˜˫˨˨˘˥ˣˣ˻˙ ˲ˁ˧ˁ˜˪ˋ˧ ˦˧˥˘˨˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘̀ «ˆ˥ˢˋ˧˥˅˨˜˘˲ ༤˘˜˘˙˴ˋ˅» ˪˧ˋ˄˫ˋ˪ ˨˅ˋːˋˆ˥ ˅˖ˆ༤̀ˊˁ ˣˁ ˘˨˪˥˧˘˿ ˘ ˆˋ˥ˆ˧ˁ˱˘˿ ˖ˋˢˋ༤˼ ʌ˫˜˜ˁ. ʘ˦˥ˢ˘ˣˁˣ˘̀ ˨˪˧ˁˣ˻ ʌ˫˜˜ˁ ˅ ˲ˋ˪˪˨˜˘˲ ˪ˋ˜˨˪ˁ˲ ˨˫ˢˢ˘˧˥˅ˁˣ˻ ˅ ˜˥ˣ˜˥˧ˊˁˣ˨ˋ del Monte, Tischler 1978: 249–250, ˘ ˄˥༤˼˸˘ˣ˨˪˅˥ ˘˖ ˣ˘˲ ˦˥ˊ˅ˋ˧ˆˣ˫˪˻ ˊˋ˪ˁ༤˼ˣ˥ˢ˫ ˁˣˁ༤˘˖˫ ˅ ˢ˥ˣ˥ˆ˧ˁ˱˘˘ Gander 2010. ʓˁˢ˥ˋ ˧ˁˣˣˋˋ ˨˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅˥ ˥˄ ˽˪˥ˢ ˧ˋˆ˘˥ˣˋ ˨˅̀˖˻˅ˁ˿˪ ˨ ˁˣˣˁ༤ˁˢ˘ ʕ˫ˊ˲ˁ༤˘˘ I ˣˁ˵ˁ༤ˁ XIV ˅. ˊ˥ ˣ. ˽. (Bryce 2003: 74). ʑˋ˧˅˻˙ ˨˥˲˧ˁˣ˘˅˸˘˙˨̀ ˪˥˦˥ˣ˘ˢ ˅ ˨˦˘˨˜ˋ ˨˥˿˖ˁ ɯ˨˨˫˅˻, ˜˥˪˥˧˻˙ ˫ːˋ ˫˦˥ˢ˘ˣˁ༤˨̀ ˅ ˦˧ˋˊ˻ˊ˫˹ˋˢ ˧ˁ˖ˊˋ༤ˋ, ˽˪˥ …] uq-qa (KUB 23.11 ii 14; Carruba 1977: 158). ʑ˥˨˜˥༤˼˜˫ ˽˪˥˪ ˨˦˘˨˥˜ ˖ˁ˜ˁˣ˵˘˅ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˨˪˧ˁˣˁˢ˘ Wilusiya ˘ Taruisa, ˅˥˨˨˪ˁˣ˥˅༤ˋˣ˘ˋ [L]ukka ˄˻༤˥ ˄˻ ˫ˊ˘˅˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻ˢ ˦˥ˊ˪˅ˋ˧ːˊˋˣ˘ˋˢ ˧ˋˁ༤˼ˣ˥˨˪˘ «˪˧˥̀ˣ˨˜˥˙ ʌ˘˜˘˘», ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤ˁˆˁˋˢ˥˙ ˧˥ˊ˘ˣ˻ ʑˁˣˊˁ˧ˁ. ʑ˥ˊ˥˄ˣ˥ˋ ˅˥˨˨˪ˁˣ˥˅༤ˋˣ˘ˋ, ˥ˊˣˁ˜˥, ˣˋ ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˋˊ˘ˣ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥ ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˻ˢ ˘༤˘ ˊˁːˋ ˣˁ˘˄˥༤ˋˋ ˦˧ˁ˅ˊ˥˦˥ˊ˥˄ˣ˻ˢ. ɳ ˁˣˣˁ༤ˁ˲ ɯ˧ˣ˫˅ˁˣˊ˻ I, ˨˻ˣˁ ʕ˫ˊ˲ˁ༤˘˘ I, ˊ˅ˁːˊ˻ ˫˦˥ˢ˘ˣˁˋ˪˨̀ ˊ˧˫ˆˁ̀ ˣˋ˘˖˅ˋ˨˪ˣˁ̀ ˨˪˧ˁˣˁ ar-du-uq[… ˅ ˨˅̀˖˘ ˨ ˣˁ˦ˁˊˋˣ˘ˋˢ ˣˁ ɯ˧˴ˁ˅˫, ˜˥˪˥˧˥ˋ ˽˪˥˪ ˴ˁ˧˼ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˧˘ˣ̀༤ ˅ˢˋ˨˪ˋ ˨˥ ˨˅˥˘ˢ ˥˪˴˥ˢ (KUB 23.21 obv. 18, 21; Carruba 1977: 166, 168). ʓ ˱˥˧ˢˁ༤˼ˣ˥˙ ˪˥˵˜˘ ˖˧ˋˣ˘̀ ˢ˥ːˣ˥ ˧ˋ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˘˧˥˅ˁ˪˼ ˪˥˦˥ˣ˘ˢ Arduqqa ˣˁ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˋ ar-du-uq[ ˘ ]uq-qa (del Monte, Tischler 1978: 40, ˨ˢ. ˪ˁˢ ːˋ ˄˘˄༤˘˥ˆ˧ˁ˱˘˿), ˁ ˦˧˥˨˪˧ˁˣ˨˪˅ˋˣˣˁ̀ ˘ ˅˧ˋˢˋˣˣˁ̀ ˄༤˘˖˥˨˪˼ ˨˥˄˻˪˘˙, ˥˦˘˨ˁˣˣ˻˲ ˅ ˊ˅˫˲ ˥˪˧˻˅˜ˁ˲, ˨˦˥˨˥˄˨˪˅˫ˋ˪ ˪˥ˢ˫, ˵˪˥˄˻ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥˵ˋ˨˪˼ ˽˪˫ ˧ˋ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˜˴˘˿ ˅ˢˋ˨˪˥ [L]ukka ˅ KUB 23.11 (˨˧. Starke 1997: 456a, ˨ˣ˥˨˜ˁ 91). ʑˋ˧˅˥ˋ ˄ˋ˨˨˦˥˧ˣ˥ˋ ˫˦˥ˢ˘ˣˁˣ˘ˋ ʌ˫˜˜˘ ˅ ˲ˋ˪˪˨˜˘˲ ˘˨˪˥˵ˣ˘˜ˁ˲ ˘ˢˋˋ˪ ˢˋ˨˪˥ ˅ ˨˧ˋˊˣˋ˲ˋ˪˪˨˜˥˙ ˢ˥༤˘˪˅ˋ ˜ ˄˥ˆ˘ˣˋ ˨˥༤ˣ˴ˁ ˆ˥˧˥ˊˁ ɯ˧˘ˣˣ˻, ˦˥˖ˊˣˋˋ ˁˊˁ˦˪˘˧˥˅ˁˣˣ˥˙ ʍ˫˧˨˘༤˘ II (CTH 376.C = KUB 24.4)ɏ19. ɳ ˽˪˥ˢ ˘˨˪˥˵ˣ˘˜ˋ ʌ˫˜˜ˁ ˫˦˥ˢ˘ˣˁˋ˪˨̀ ˣˁ˧̀ˊ˫ ˨ ɯ˧ˁ˅ˁˣˣ˥˙, ʇˁ༤ˁ˨˦˥˙ ˘ ʑ˘ˊˁ˨˨˥˙ ˜ˁ˜ ˖ˋˢ༤̀, ˨˪ˁ˅˸ˁ̀ ˣˋ˖ˁ˅˘˨˘ˢ˥˙ ˘ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˨˪ˁ˅˸ˁ̀ ˦༤ˁ˪˘˪˼ ˊˁˣ˼ ʝˁ˪˪˫˨ˋ (Lebrun 1980: 162). ʨ˪˥ ˖ˁ̀˅༤ˋˣ˘ˋ ˣˋ ˨༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪ ˅˥˨˦˧˘ˣ˘ˢˁ˪˼ ˨༤˘˸˜˥ˢ ˄˫˜˅ˁ༤˼ˣ˥, ˦˥˨˜˥༤˼˜˫ ˦˧ˁ˅˘˪ˋ༤˘ ʝˁ˪˪˫˨˻ ˘ˢˋ༤˘ ˨˜༤˥ˣˣ˥˨˪˼ ˨˵˘˪ˁ˪˼ ˪ˋ˧˧˘˪˥˧˘˘ ˨˥˨ˋˊˋ˙ ˨˅˥˘ˢ˘ ˘˨˪˥˧˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˢ˘ ˅༤ˁˊˋˣ˘̀ˢ˘. ʕˋˢ ˣˋ ˢˋˣˋˋ, ˽˪˥ˆ˥ ˊ˥˨˪ˁ˪˥˵ˣ˥, ˵˪˥˄˻ ˦˥˜ˁ˖ˁ˪˼, ˵˪˥ ʌ˫˜˜ˁ ˣˋ ˄˻༤ˁ ˵ˁ˨˪˼˿ ˘ˢ˦ˋ˧˘˘ ʝˁ˪˪˫˨˻ ˅˥ ˅˧ˋˢ̀ ˨˥˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˘̀ CTH 376.C. ʑ˥˨˜˥༤˼˜˫ ˊ˧˫ˆ˘ˋ ˖ˋˢ༤˘ ˅ ˽˪˥ˢ ˥˪˧˻˅˜ˋ ˨ˆ˧˫˦˦˘˧˥˅ˁˣ˻ ˨ ʌ˫˜˜˥˙ ˣˁ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˋ ˨˅˥ˋˆ˥ ˢ̀˪ˋːˣ˥ˆ˥ ˲ˁ˧ˁ˜˪ˋ˧ˁ, ˁ ˣˋ ˅˖ˁ˘ˢˣ˥˙ ˆˋ˥ˆ˧ˁ˱˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˄༤˘˖˥˨˪˘, ˪ˋ˜˨˪ KUB 24.4 ˄ˋ˨˦˥༤ˋ˖ˋˣ ˊ༤̀ ˁˣˁ༤˘˖ˁ ˧ˁ˨˦˥༤˥ːˋˣ˘̀ ʌ˫˜˜˘. ɯ˜˜ˁˊ˨˜˥ˋ ˦˘˨˼ˢ˥ EA 38, ˥˪˦˧ˁ˅༤ˋˣˣ˥ˋ ˴ˁ˧ˋˢ ɯ༤ˁ˨˘˘ (ʇ˘˦˧ˁ) ˱ˁ˧ˁ˥ˣ˫ ʨ˲ˣˁ˪˥ˣ˫, ˨˥˅˧ˋˢˋˣˣ˘˜˫ ʓ˫˦˦˘༤˫༤˘˫ˢ˻ I (˨ˋ˧ˋˊ˘ˣˁ XIV ˅. ˊ˥ ˣ. ˽.), ˨˥ˊˋ˧ː˘˪ ˄˥༤˼˸ˋ ˘ˣ˪ˋ˧ˋ˨ˣ˥˙ ˆˋ˥ˆ˧ˁ˱˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˘ˣ˱˥˧ˢˁ˴˘˘. ʟˁ˧˼ ɯ༤ˁ˨˘˘ ːˁ༤˫ˋ˪˨̀ ˣˁ ˫˹ˋ˧˄, ˜˥˪˥˧˻˙ ˦˧˘ˣˋ˨༤˘ ˋˆ˥ ˆ˥˨˫ˊˁ˧˨˪˅˫ ˣˁ˄ˋˆ˘ «˨˪˧ˁˣ˻ ʌ˫˜˜ˁ». ʐ˵ˋ˅˘ˊˣ˥˙ ˴ˋ༤˼˿ ˽˪˥ˆ˥ ˦˘˨˼ˢˁ ˄˻༤ˁ ˦˥˦˻˪˜ˁ ˫ˢ˘˧˥˪˅˥˧˘˪˼ ˋˆ˘˦ˋ˪˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˱ˁ˧ˁ˥ˣˁ, ˜˥˪˥˧˻˙ ˢ˥ˆ ˥˄˅˘ˣ˘˪˼ ˨˅˥ˋˆ˥ ˜˥˧˧ˋ˨˦˥ˣˊˋˣ˪ˁ ˅ ˦˥ˊˊˋ˧ː˜ˋ ˘ ˨˥ˊˋ˙˨˪˅˘˘ ʌ˫˜˜ˋ ˅ ˋˋ ˣˁ˄ˋˆˁ˲ ˣˁ ɹˆ˘˦ˋ˪ (Bryce 2003: 75; Bryce 2005: 335). ʕˋ˧˧˘˪˥˧˘̀ ˜༤ˁ˨˨˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ʌ˘˜˘˘ ˄˻༤ˁ ˄˻ ˫ˊˁ˵ˣ˥˙ ˨˪ˁ˧˪˥˅˥˙ ˦༤˥˹ˁˊ˜˥˙ ˊ༤̀ ˆ˧ˁ˄˘˪ˋ༤˼˨˜˘˲ ˣˁ˄ˋˆ˥˅ ˦˧˥˪˘˅ ɹˆ˘˦˪ˁ ˘ ɯ༤ˁ˨˘˘, ˥˄˻˵ˣ˥ ˘ˊˋˣ˪˘˱˘˴˘˧˫ˋˢ˥˙ ˨ ʇ˘˦˧˥ˢ ˘༤˘ ˋˆ˥ ˵ˁ˨˪˼˿, ˅ ˪˥ ˅˧ˋˢ̀ ˜ˁ˜ ʓˋ˅ˋ˧˥-ɳ˥˨˪˥˵ˣˁ̀ ɯˣˁ˪˥༤˘̀ ˨༤˘˸˜˥ˢ ˫ˊˁ༤ˋˣˁ, ˵˪˥˄˻ ˅˨ˋ˧˼ˋ˖ ˧ˁ˨˨ˢˁ˪˧˘˅ˁ˪˼˨̀ ˅ ˆˋ˥ˆ˧ˁ˱˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˢ ˜˥ˣ˪ˋ˜˨˪ˋ ˦˘˨˼ˢˁ. ʃ˖ ˽˪˥ˆ˥ ˪ˋ˜˨˪ˁ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˢ˥ːˣ˥ ˅˻˅ˋ˨˪˘, ˵˪˥ ˖ˋˢ༤˘ ʌ˫˜˜ˁ ˥˄༤ˁˊˁ༤˘, ˦˥ ˜˧ˁ˙ˣˋ˙ ˢˋ˧ˋ de facto, ˦˥༤˘˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˣˋ˖ˁ˅˘˨˘ˢ˥˨˪˼˿, ˦˥˖˅˥༤̀˅˸ˋ˙ ˘ˢ ˨˥˅ˋ˧˸ˁ˪˼ ˆ˧ˁ˄˘˪ˋ༤˼˨˜˘ˋ ˣˁ˄ˋˆ˘. ʇˁːˊ˻˙ ˦˧ˁ˅˘˪ˋ༤˼ ˘ˢ˦ˋ˧˘˘ ʝˁ˪˪˫˨˻, ˣˁ˵˘ˣˁ̀ ˨ ʍ˫˧˨˘༤˘ II (˜˥ˣˋ˴ XIV ˅. ˊ˥ ˣ.˽.), ˲˥˪̀ ˄˻ ˧ˁ˖ ˫˦˥ˢ˘ˣˁ༤ ʌ˫˜˜˫ ˅ ˜˥ˣ˪ˋ˜˨˪ˋ ˦˥༤˘˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˣˋ˨˪ˁ˄˘༤˼ˣ˥˨˪˘ ˅ ˊˁˣˣ˥ˢ ˧ˋˆ˘˥ˣˋ. 19 ɲ˧ˁ˙˨ (Bryce 2003: 75), ˦˥-˅˘ˊ˘ˢ˥ˢ˫, ˣˋ ˦˧˘ˊˁˋ˪ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘̀ ˧ˁ˖༤˘˵˘˿ ˢˋːˊ˫ ˢ˥༤˘˪˅˥˙ ʍ˫˧˨˘༤˘ II ˄˥ˆ˘ˣˋ ˨˥༤ˣ˴ˁ ˆ˥˧˥ˊˁ ɯ˧˘ˣˣ˻ (ˣˁ˦˧., CTH 376.A) ˘ ˋˋ ˨˧ˋˊˣˋ˲ˋ˪˪˨˜˘ˢ ˦˧˥˪˥˪˘˦˥ˢ. ɯˊˋ˜˅ˁ˪ˣˁ̀ ˥˴ˋˣ˜ˁ ˅˖ˁ˘ˢ˥˥˪ˣ˥˸ˋˣ˘˙ ˢˋːˊ˫ ˊ˅˫ˢ̀ ˪ˋ˜˨˪ˁˢ˘ ˊˁˣˁ ˅ ˧ˁ˄˥˪ˋ Singer 2002: 44–45.

204

ʎˁ ˜ˁ˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲ ˆ˥˅˥˧˘༤˘ ˅ ʕ˧˥ˋ? ɳ˖ˆ༤̀ˊ ˁˣˁ˪˥༤˘˨˪ˁ

ʍ˫˧˨˘༤˘ II ˨˥˲˧ˁˣ˘༤ ˫˦˥ˢ˘ˣˁˣ˘ˋ ʌ˫˜˜˘ ˜ˁ˜ ˅˧ˁːˋ˨˜˥˙ ˪ˋ˧˧˘˪˥˧˘˘ ˅ ˨˅˥ˋ˙ ˁˊˁ˦˪ˁ˴˘˘ ˨˧ˋˊˣˋ˲ˋ˪˪˨˜˥˙ ˢ˥༤˘˪˅˻ ˜ ˄˥ˆ˘ˣˋ ˨˥༤ˣ˴ˁ ˆ˥˧˥ˊˁ ɯ˧˘ˣˣ˻ (Singer 2002: 52–53). ʍ˫˅ˁ˪ˁ༤༤˘ II ˥˄̀˖ˁ༤ ɯ༤ˁ˜˨ˁˣˊ˫, ˜ˣ̀˖̀ ɳ˘༤˫˨˻, ˥˜ˁ˖ˁ˪˼ ˋˢ˫ ༤˘˵ˣ˫˿ ˦˥ˊˊˋ˧ː˜˫, ˋ˨༤˘ ˥ˣ ˥˪˦˧ˁ˅˘˪˨̀ ˅ ˅˥ˋˣˣ˫˿ ˜ˁˢ˦ˁˣ˘˿ ˨ ˖ˋˢˋ༤˼ ʌ˫˜˜˘, ʇˁ˧˜˘˨˻, ʍˁ˨˻ ˘༤˘ ɳˁ˧˨˘̀༤༤˻ (Beckman 1999: 89–90). ʜ˥˧ˢˁ༤˼ˣ˥ ˆ˥˅˥˧̀, ˨ˁˢ˻˙ ༤ˋˆ˜˘˙ ˨˦˥˨˥˄ ˦˥ˣ̀˪˼ ˽˪˥˪ ˥˪˧˻˅˥˜ — ˽˪˥ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤˥ː˘˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˪ˋ˜˨˪ ˨˨˻༤ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˣˁ ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˻ˋ ˢˋ˨˪ˁ ˨˄˥˧ˁ ˅˥˙˨˜ˁ ʝˁ˪˪˫˨˻ ˘ ˨˥˿˖ˣ˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˨˘༤. ʕˋˢ ˣˋ ˢˋˣˋˋ, ˱ˁ˜˪, ˵˪˥ ˣ˘ ˥ˊˣˁ ˘˖ ˨˪˧ˁˣ ˅ ˽˪˥ˢ ˨˦˘˨˜ˋ ˣˋ ˘˖˅ˋ˨˪ˣˁ ˜ˁ˜ ˵ˁ˨˪˼ ˘ˢ˦ˋ˧˘˘ ʝˁ˪˪˫˨˻ ˘༤˘ ˋˋ ˅ˁ˨˨ˁ༤˼ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˆ˥˨˫ˊˁ˧˨˪˅ˁ, ˁ ˁ˧˴ˁ˅˨˜˘ˋ ˖ˋˢ༤˘, ˧ˁ˨˦˥༤˥ːˋˣˣ˻ˋ ˦˥˄༤˘˖˥˨˪˘ ˥˪ ɳ˘༤˫˨˻, ˣˋ ˅˜༤˿˵ˋˣ˻ ˅ ˽˪˥˪ ˨˦˘˨˥˜, ˊˋ༤ˁˋ˪ ˦˥ˊ˥˄ˣ˻˙ ˁˣˁ༤˘˖ ˨˥ˢˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻ˢ. ʫ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥˵˘˪ˁ˿ ˧ˁ˨˨ˢˁ˪˧˘˅ˁ˪˼ ʌ˫˜˜˫ ˘ ˊ˧˫ˆ˘ˋ ˖ˋˢ༤˘, ˫˦˥ˢ̀ˣ˫˪˻ˋ ˅ ˽˪˥ˢ ˜˥ˣ˪ˋ˜˨˪ˋ, ˜ˁ˜ ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˻ˋ ˦ˋ˧˅˻ˋ ˴ˋ༤˘ ˅˥ˋˣˣ˥˙ ˜ˁˢ˦ˁˣ˘˘ (˪˥ ˋ˨˪˼ «(ˣˁ˵˘ˣˁ̀) ˨ ˖ˋˢˋ༤˼ ʌ˫˜˜˘…»)ɏ20. Res gestae ʝˁ˪˪˫˨˘༤˘ III (CTH 82), ˜˥˪˥˧˻˙ ˣˋ˨˜˥༤˼˜˥ ˧ˁ˖ ˫˦˥ˢ˘ˣˁˋ˪ ʌ˫˜˜˫ ˅ ˜˥ˣ˪ˋ˜˨˪ˋ ˅˥ˋˣˣ˻˲ ˦˥˲˥ˊ˥˅, ˨༤˘˸˜˥ˢ ˱˧ˁˆˢˋˣ˪ˁ˧ˣ˻ ˊ༤̀ ˪˥ˆ˥, ˵˪˥˄˻ ˧ˋ˸˘˪˼, ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ༤˘ ˽˪˥˪ ˧ˋˆ˘˥ˣ ˁˆ˧ˋ˨˨˥˧˥ˢ ˘༤˘ ːˋ˧˪˅˥˙ (Gurney 1997: 138). ʐˊˣˁ˜˥ ˅ˁːˣ˥, ˵˪˥ ˅ ˽˪˥ˢ ˊ˥˜˫ˢˋˣ˪ˋ (˨ˋ˧ˋˊ˘ˣˁ XIII ˅. ˊ˥ ˣ. ˽.) ʌ˫˜˜ˁ ˦˥˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ ˘ˢˋˣ˫ˋ˪˨̀ KUR.KUR.MEŠ URULUQQA ‘˖ˋˢ༤˘ ʌ˫˜˜ˁ’, ˵˪˥ ˦˥ˊ˧ˁ˖˫ˢˋ˅ˁˋ˪ ˦˥༤˘˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˫˿ ˧ˁ˖ˊ˧˥˄༤ˋˣˣ˥˨˪˼ ˊˁˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˧ˋˆ˘˥ˣˁ. ʓ˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˥ «ʑ˘˨˼ˢ˫ ˥ ʕˁ˅ˁˆˁ༤ˁ˅ˋ» (CTH 181), ˣˁ˧˥ˊ˻ ༤˫˜˜ˁ ˥ˊˣ˥˅˧ˋˢˋˣˣ˥ ˥˪˦˧ˁ˅˘༤˘ ˦˥˨༤˥˅ ˜ ˴ˁ˧˿ ʝˁ˪˪˫˨˻ ˘ ʕˁ˅ˁˆˁ༤ˁ˅ˋ, ˴ˁ˧˿ ɯ˲˲˘̀˅˻, ˥˪˜˫ˊˁ ˨༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪, ˵˪˥ ˥ˣ˘ ˣˋ ˨˵˘˪ˁ༤˘ ˨ˋ˄̀ ˣˁ˲˥ˊ̀˹˘ˢ˘˨̀ ˅ ˦˥ˊ˵˘ˣˋˣˣ˥ˢ ˦˥༤˥ːˋˣ˘˘ ˦˥ ˥˪ˣ˥˸ˋˣ˘˿ ˜ ˜ˁ˜˥˙-༤˘˄˥ ˘˖ ˊ˅˫˲ ˧ˋˆ˘˥ˣˁ༤˼ˣ˻˲ ˊˋ˧ːˁ˅ɏ21. «ʎˁ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˘ˋ ʕ˫ˊ˲ˁ༤˘˘ IV» (CTH 255) ˧ˋ˜˥ˢˋˣˊ˫ˋ˪ ˥˱˘˴˘ˁ༤˼ˣ˻ˢ ༤˘˴ˁˢ ˥˲˧ˁˣ̀˪˼ ˆ˧ˁˣ˘˴˻ ˥˪ ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˻˲ ˅˪˥˧ːˋˣ˘˙ ˨˥ ˨˪˥˧˥ˣ˻ ˖ˋˢˋ༤˼ ɯ˴˴˘, ʇˁ˨˜ˁ ˘ ʌ˫˜˜ˁ (von Schuler 1967: 24). ʃˋ˧˥ˆ༤˘˱˘˵ˋ˨˜ˁ̀ ˣˁˊ˦˘˨˼ YALBURT, ˦˧˘ˣˁˊ༤ˋːˁ˹ˁ̀ ˪˥ˢ˫ ːˋ ˴ˁ˧˿, ˫˦˥ˢ˘ˣˁˋ˪ «˧ˁ˖˧˫˸ˋˣ˘ˋ» ˘ ˧ˁ˖ˆ˧ˁ˄༤ˋˣ˘ˋ ʌ˫˜˜˘. ʎˁˊ˦˘˨˼ SÜDBURG, ˪˧ˁˊ˘˴˘˥ˣˣ˥ ˦˧˘˦˘˨˻˅ˁˋˢˁ̀ ʓ˫˦˦˘༤˫༤˘˫ˢˋ II, ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˫˦˥ˢ˘ˣˁˋ˪ ˦˥˜˥˧ˋˣ˘ˋ ʌ˫˜˜˘, ˣˁ˲˥ˊ̀˹ˋ˙˨̀ ˅ ˥ˊˣ˥ˢ ˨˦˘˨˜ˋ ˨ ɳ˘̀ˣˁ˅ˁˣˊ˥˙, ʕˁˢ˘ˣ˥˙, ʍˁ˨˥˙ ˘ ʃ˜˜˫ˣ˥˙ (˨˧. Hawkins 1995: 22, §ɏ4)ɏ22. ʃ˖ ˪˥˙ ːˋ ˣˁˊ˦˘˨˘, ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˥, ˨༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪, ˵˪˥ ˣˁ˖˅ˁˣˣ˻ˋ ˖ˋˢ༤˘ ˄˻༤˘ ˣˋ˦˥˜˥˧ˣ˻ˢ˘ ˘ ˦˧˘ ˦˧ˋːˣ˘˲ ˴ˁ˧̀˲ (Melchert 2006: 292, ˨ˣ˥˨˜ˁ 5). ʑ˘˨˼ˢ˥ ɯˢˢ˫˧ˁ˦˘, ˦˥˨༤ˋˊˣˋˆ˥ ˜ˣ̀˖̀ ʘˆˁ˧˘˪ˁ, ˜ ˴ˁ˧˿ ɯ༤ˁ˨˘˘ ˨˥ˊˋ˧ː˘˪ ːˁ༤˥˄˫ ˣˁ ˫̀˖˅˘ˢ˥˨˪˼ ʘˆˁ˧˘˪ˁ ˅ ˫˨༤˥˅˘̀˲, ˜˥ˆˊˁ ˅˨̀ ˋˆ˥ ˁ˧ˢ˘̀ ˅ ˨˪˧ˁˣˋ ʝˁ˪˪˫˨˻, ˁ ˅˨ˋ ˋˆ˥ ˜˥˧ˁ˄༤˘ ˅ ʌ˫˜˜ˋ (Bryce 2005: 333). ʐ˵ˋ˅˘ˊˣ˥, ˴ˁ˧˼ ʝˁ˪˪˫˨˻ ˦˧˘˜ˁ˖ˁ༤ ˨˅˥ˋˢ˫ ˅ˁ˨˨ˁ༤˫ ɯˢˢ˫˧ˁ˦˘ ˥˪˦˧ˁ˅˘˪˼ ˅ ʌ˫˜˜˫ ˋˆ˥ ˅˥ˋˣˣ˥-ˢ˥˧˨˜˘ˋ ˨˘༤˻. ʒˋ˸ˁ˿˹˘˙ ˁ˧ˆ˫ˢˋˣ˪ ˅ ˦˥༤˼˖˫ ˘ˊˋˣ˪˘˱˘˜ˁ˴˘˘ ˖ˋˢˋ༤˼ ʌ˫˜˜ˁ ˲ˋ˪˪˨˜˘˲ ˘˨˪˥˵ˣ˘˜˥˅ ˨ ʌ˘˜˘ˋ˙ ˜༤ˁ˨˨˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˦ˋ˧˘˥ˊˁ ˦˧ˋˊ˥˨˪ˁ˅༤̀ˋ˪ ˣˁˊ˦˘˨˼ YALBURT. ʑ˥˽˪˪˥ (Poetto 1993: 75-82) ˥˄ˣˁ˧˫ː˘༤, ˵˪˥ ˪˥˦˥ˣ˘ˢ˻ (MONS) pa-taraɍ/ɍi, VITIS, pi-na-ali, á-wa-raɍ/ɍi-na-г ˘ TALAwaɍ/ɍi, ˥˪ˢˋ˵ˋˣˣ˻ˋ ˣˁ ˢˁ˧˸˧˫˪ˋ ʕ˫ˊ˲ˁ༤˘˘ IV ˅˥ ˅˪˥˧˥˙ ˦˥༤˥˅˘ˣˋ XIII ˅. ˊ˥ ˣ. ˽., ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅˫˿˪ ˪˥˦˥ˣ˘ˢˁˢ ̪ΜέΜΪ(΢)ϲΫ, ̩ϷΧЅΜΧΟΜ, ̪ϲΧΜΪΜ, ̸ΪΧΜ ˘ ̭ΦЬΫ ˆ˧ˋ˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˘˨˪˥˵ˣ˘˜˥˅. ʃ˖˅ˋ˨˪ˣ˥, ˵˪˥ ˵ˋ˪˻˧ˋ ˘˖ ˽˪˘˲ ˦̀˪˘ ˆ˧ˋ˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˪˥˦˥ˣ˘ˢ˥˅ ˥˪˨˻༤ˁ˿˪ ˜ ༤˫˅˘˙˨˜˘ˢ ˦˥˨ˋ༤ˋˣ˘̀ˢ ˘ ˥˄༤ˁˊˁ˿˪ ˖ˁ˨˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣˣ˻ˢ˘ ˁˣˁ༤˥ˆˁˢ˘ ˅ ༤˘˜˘˙˨˜˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˋ: Pttara, Pinale, Arñna ˘ Tlawa, ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥ (Schürr 2010: 14–15). ɴˁˣˊˋ˧, ˅˦˧˥˵ˋˢ, ˥˪˅ˋ˧ˆˁˋ˪ ˘ˊˋˣ˪˘˱˘˜ˁ˴˘˿ ˪˥˦˥ˣ˘ˢˁ VITIS ˨ ˆ˧ˋ˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ʐ˙ˣ˥ˁˣˊ˥˙, ˨༤ˋˊ˫̀ ˅ˢˋ˨˪˥ ˽˪˥ˆ˥ ˖ˁ ʣ˿˧˧˥ˢ ˅ ˋˆ˥ ˥˨˪˥˧˥ːɳ˥˦˧ˋ˜˘ ɲ˧ˁ˙˨˫ (Bryce 2003: 76), ̀ ˣˋ ˅˘ː˫ ˦˧˘˵˘ˣ, ˦˥ ˜˥˪˥˧˻ˢ ˽˪˘ ˥˄˨˪˥̀˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅ˁ ˊ˥ˆ˥˅˥˧ˁ ˢ˥ˆ˫˪ ˧ˁ˨˨ˢˁ˪˧˘˅ˁ˪˼˨̀ ˜ˁ˜ ˁ˧ˆ˫ˢˋˣ˪ ˦˧˥˪˘˅ ˧ˁ˨˦˥༤˥ːˋˣ˘̀ ʌ˫˜˜˘ ˣˁ ˿ˆ˥-˖ˁ˦ˁˊˋ ʍˁ༤˥˙ ɯ˖˘˘. ɯ༤ˁ˜˨ˁˣˊ˫ ˄˻༤ ˥˄̀˖ˁˣ ̀˅˘˪˼˨̀ ༤˘˵ˣ˥ ˅ˢˋ˨˪ˋ ˨˥ ˨˅˥ˋ˙ ˁ˧ˢ˘ˋ˙ ˅ ˨༤˫˵ˁˋ ˅˥ˋˣˣ˥˙ ˨˲˅ˁ˪˜˘ ˨ «˖ˁ˦ˁˊˣ˻ˢ˘ ˅ˁ˧˅ˁ˧ˁˢ˘». ʎˁ˦˧˥˪˘˅, ˦˧˘ ˜˥ˣ˱༤˘˜˪ˋ ˨ ˜ˁ˜˥˙-༤˘˄˥ ˘˖ ˅˥˨˪˥˵ˣ˻˲ ˨˘༤ ˥˄̀˖ˁˣˣ˥˨˪˘ ɯ༤ˁ˜˨ˁˣˊ˫, ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˥ ˊ˥ˆ˥˅˥˧˫, ˄˻༤˘ ˥ˆ˧ˁˣ˘˵ˋˣ˻ ˥˪˦˧ˁ˅˜˥˙ ˽˜˨˦ˋˊ˘˴˘˥ˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˜˥˧˦˫˨ˁ, ˣ˥ ˋˆ˥ ༤˘˵ˣ˥ˋ ˫˵ˁ˨˪˘ˋ ˣˋ ˪˧ˋ˄˥˅ˁ༤˥˨˼ (˨˧. Beckman 1999: 90). 21 ʐ˪ˣ˥˨˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ ˅ˋ˧˥̀˪ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˴ˁ˧˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˨˪ˁ˪˫˨ˁ ʕˁ˅ˁˆˁ༤ˁ˅˻, ˨ˢ. Miller 2010. 22 ʓ˧. ˆ˘˦˥˪ˋ˖˫ ʐ˧ˋ˸˜˥ 2013, ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˥ ˜˥˪˥˧˥˙ ˣˁˊ˦˘˨˼ SÜDBURG ˦˧˘ˣˁˊ༤ˋː˘˪ ʓ˫˦˦˘༤˫༤˘˫ˢˋ I. 20

205

ʃ. ʓ. ʫ˜˫˄˥˅˘˵

ˣ˥ˢ ˥˪˥ːˊˋ˨˪˅༤ˋˣ˘˘ VITIS ˨ ༤˘˜˘˙˨˜˘ˢ WinbӼte, ˘˖˅ˋ˨˪ˣ˻ˢ ˦˥ ˱˧ˁˆˢˋˣ˪ˁ˧ˣ˥˙ ˣˁˊ˦˘˨˘ ˘˖ ʕ༤˥˨ˁ (Gander 2014: 394). ʐˊˣˁ˜˥ ˽˪˥˪ ˊ˘˨˜˫˨˨˘˥ˣˣ˻˙ ˅˥˦˧˥˨, ˧ˁ˖˫ˢˋˋ˪˨̀, ˣˋ ˅༤˘̀ˋ˪ ˣˁ ˥˄˹˘ˋ ˆˋ˥ˆ˧ˁ˱˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˋ ˅˻˅˥ˊ˻ ʑ˥˽˪˪˥, ˦˥˨˜˥༤˼˜˫ ˅˨ˋ ˥˄˺ˋ˜˪˻ ˘ˊˋˣ˪˘˱˘˜ˁ˴˘˘ ˥˨˪ˁ˿˪˨̀ ˅ ༤˘˜˘˙˨˜˥ˢ ˁ˧ˋˁ༤ˋ. ɳ˥˦˧ˋ˜˘ ˅˻˅˥ˊˁˢ ˧ˁ˄˥˪˻ Simon 2006, ˪ˋ˜˨˪˥˅˻ˋ ˘˨˪˥˵ˣ˘˜˘ ˄˧˥ˣ˖˥˅˥ˆ˥ ˅ˋ˜ˁ ˣˋ ˦˥ˊ˪˅ˋ˧ːˊˁ˿˪ ˨˫˹ˋ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘ˋ ˋ˹ˋ ˥ˊˣ˥˙ ˖ˋˢ༤˘ ʌ˫˜˜ˁ ˣˁ ˨ˋ˅ˋ˧˥-˖ˁ˦ˁˊˋ ɯˣˁ˪˥༤˘˘. ʇˁ˪ˁ༤˥ːˣ˻˙ ˪ˋ˜˨˪ KBo 16.83+ (CTH 242.8) ˊˋ˙˨˪˅˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ ˫˦˥ˢ˘ˣˁˋ˪ ˨ˋ˧ˋ˄˧̀ˣ˻ˋ ˘˖ˊˋ༤˘̀, ˊ˥˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣˣ˻ˋ ˣˁ˧˥ˊˁˢ˘ ༤˫˜˜ˁ ˨༤ˋˊ˥ˢ ˖ˁ ˊ˧˫ˆ˘ˢ˘ ˁ˧˪ˋ˱ˁ˜˪ˁˢ˘ ˘˖ ˨ˋ˅ˋ˧˥ˁˣˁ˪˥༤˘˙˨˜˘˲ ˆ˥˧˥ˊ˥˅, ˣ˥ ˣˋ˪ ˣ˘˜ˁ˜˘˲ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˁˣ˘˙ ˨˵˘˪ˁ˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˦˧ˋˊˢˋ˪˻ ˧˥˨˜˥˸˘ ˧ˁ˨˜༤ˁˊ˻˅ˁ༤˘˨˼ ˘༤˘ ˦˥ˊ˅ˋ˧ˆˁ༤˘˨˼ ˘ˣ˅ˋˣ˪ˁ˧˘˖ˁ˴˘˘ ˣˁ ˨˜༤ˁˊˁ˲ ʝˁ˪˪˫˨˻ ˦˥ ˆˋ˥ˆ˧ˁ˱˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˢ˫ ˦˧˘ˣ˴˘˦˫. ʘ˦˥ˢ˘ˣˁˣ˘ˋ ʌ˫˜˜˘ ˅ ˊ˥ˆ˥˅˥˧ˋ ɯ༤ˁ˜˨ˁˣˊ˫ ˣˋ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤ˁˆˁˋ˪, ˵˪˥ ˽˪ˁ ˪ˋ˧˧˘˪˥˧˘̀ ˥˪ˣ˥˨˘༤ˁ˨˼ ˜ ˜ˣ̀ːˋ˨˪˅˫ ɳ˘༤˫˨˻, ˣ˥ ˦˧˥˨˪˥ ˅˻ˊˋ༤̀ˋ˪ ˋˋ ˅ ˜ˁ˵ˋ˨˪˅ˋ ˦˥˪ˋˣ˴˘ˁ༤˼ˣ˥ ˄ˋ˨˦˥˜˥˙ˣ˥˙ ˪ˋ˧˧˘˪˥˧˘˘ ˅ ˖ˁ˦ˁˊˣ˥˙ ˵ˁ˨˪˘ ɯˣˁ˪˥༤˘˘. ʎˁ˜˥ˣˋ˴, ˢ˻ ˫ːˋ ˅˘ˊˋ༤˘, ˵˪˥ ˢˣ˘ˢ˥ˋ ˫˵ˁ˨˪˘ˋ ༤˿ˊˋ˙ ༤˫˜˜ˁ ˅ ˨˥˿˖ˋ ɯ˨˨˫˅˻ ˅˨ˋ˴ˋ༤˥ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˁˣ˥ ˣˁ ˣˋ˦˧ˁ˅ˊ˥˦˥ˊ˥˄ˣ˥ˢ ˅˥˨˨˪ˁˣ˥˅༤ˋˣ˘˘ ˪ˋ˜˨˪ˁ. ɳ ˥˪˨˫˪˨˪˅˘ˋ ˨˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅ ˅ ˦˥༤˼˖˫ ˦˧˥˪˘˅˥˦˥༤˥ːˣ˥ˆ˥, ˦˧˘ˣ˴˘˦ ˄˧˘˪˅˻ ʐ˜˜ˁˢˁ ˦˥ˊ˅˥ˊ˘˪ ˣˁ˨ ˜ ˪˥ˢ˫, ˵˪˥˄˻ ˦˧˘˖ˣˁ˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˆ˧ˁˣ˘˴˻ ˴ˋˣ˪˧ˁ༤˼ˣ˥˙ ˖˥ˣ˻ ʌ˫˜˜˘ ˣˋ ˨˥˨˪˥̀༤˘ ˘˖ ˣˋ˨˜˥༤˼˜˘˲ ˫ˊˁ༤ˋˣˣ˻˲ ˊ˧˫ˆ ˥˪ ˊ˧˫ˆˁ ˁ˧ˋˁ༤˥˅. ʕˁ˜˘ˢ ˥˄˧ˁ˖˥ˢ, ˜˥ˢ˄˘ˣˁ˴˘̀ ˱˘༤˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˘ ༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˁ˧ˆ˫ˢˋˣ˪˥˅ ˆ˥˅˥˧˘˪ ˅ ˦˥༤˼˖˫ ˪˥ˆ˥, ˵˪˥ ˦˥˨ˋ༤ˋˣ˘̀ ༤˫˜˜ˁ ˅ ˄˧˥ˣ˖˥˅˥ˢ ˅ˋ˜ˋ ˣˁ˲˥ˊ˘༤˘˨˼ ˅ ˜༤ˁ˨˨˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ʌ˘˜˘˘, ˁ ˣˋ ˆˊˋ-༤˘˄˥ ˋ˹ˋ ˅ ʍˁ༤˥˙ ɯ˖˘˘ ˘༤˘ ˖ˁ ˋˋ ˦˧ˋˊˋ༤ˁˢ˘. ɳ ˲ˋ˪˪˨˜˘˲ ˪ˋ˜˨˪ˁ˲ ˣˋ ˫˦˥ˢ˘ˣˁ˿˪˨̀ ˦˧ˁ˅˘˪ˋ༤˘ ʌ˫˜˜˘. ʝ˥˪̀ ˘ˢˋ˿˪˨̀ ˨˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅ˁ ˪˥˧ˆ˥˅༤˘ ˢˋːˊ˫ ʝˁ˪˪˫˨˥˙ ˘ ʌ˫˜˜˥˙, ˦˥˨˜˥༤˼˜˫ ˢˋ˨˪ˣ˻ˋ ˁ˧˪ˋ˱ˁ˜˪˻ ˫˦˥ˢ̀ˣ˫˪˻ ˅ ˲ˋ˪˪˨˜˘˲ ˜ˁ˪ˁ༤˥ːˣ˻˲ ˪ˋ˜˨˪ˁ˲ (del Monte, Tischler 1978: 250), ˢˋːˊ˫ ˊ˅˫ˢ̀ ˧ˋˆ˘˥ˣˁˢ˘ ˣˋ ˖ˁ˜༤˿˵ˁ༤˘˨˼ ˊ˥ˆ˥˅˥˧˻. ʐ˪˨˿ˊˁ ˨༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪, ˵˪˥ ˴ˁ˧˘ ʝˁ˪˪˫˨˻ ˣˋ ˧ˁ˨˨ˢˁ˪˧˘˅ˁ༤˘ ˨˪˧ˁˣ˫ ʌ˫˜˜ˁ ˅ ˜ˁ˵ˋ˨˪˅ˋ ˆ˥˨˫ˊˁ˧˨˪˅ˁ, ˵˪˥ ˫˜˧ˋ˦༤̀ˋ˪ ˅˦ˋ˵ˁ˪༤ˋˣ˘ˋ ˥ ˋˋ ˦˥༤˘˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˧ˁ˖ˊ˧˥˄༤ˋˣˣ˥˨˪˘ (˨˧. Bryce 2003: 40–41). ɹ˨༤˘ Lukka ˣˋ ˄˻༤˥ ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋˢ ˆ˥˨˫ˊˁ˧˨˪˅ˁ, ˪˥ ˥ˣ˥ ˢ˥ˆ༤˥ ༤˘˄˥ ̀˅༤̀˪˼˨̀ ˵˘˨˪˥ ˆˋ˥ˆ˧ˁ˱˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˢ ˪ˋ˧ˢ˘ˣ˥ˢ, ˪ˁ˜˘ˢ ˜ˁ˜ ɯ˧˴ˁ˅ˁ ˅ ˸˘˧˥˜˥ˢ ˨ˢ˻˨༤ˋ, ༤˘˄˥ ˘ˢˋ˪˼ ˽˪ˣ˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˋ ˜˥ˣˣ˥˪ˁ˴˘˘. ʜ˘˜˨ˁ˴˘˘ ˽˪˥ˆ˥ ˪ˋ˧ˢ˘ˣˁ ˅ ˜ˁ˵ˋ˨˪˅ˋ ˽˪ˣ˥ˣ˘ˢˁ ˅ ˋˆ˘˦ˋ˪˨˜˘˲ ˘˨˪˥˵ˣ˘˜ˁ˲ ˦˥ˊ˪˅ˋ˧ːˊˁ˿˪ ˅˪˥˧˫˿ ˆ˘˦˥˪ˋ˖˫. ʍ˻ ˫ːˋ ˅˘ˊˋ༤˘, ˵˪˥ ˦˘˨˼ˢ˥ ˘˖ ɯˢˁ˧ˣ˻ ˫˦˥ˢ˘ˣˁˋ˪ ˣˁ˄ˋˆ˘ ˣˁ˧˥ˊ˥˅ ༤˫˜˜ˁ ˣˁ ɯ༤ˁ˨˘˿, ˣ˥ ˪ˋ ːˋ ༤˫˜˜ˁ (ru2-ku2) ˦˥̀˅༤̀˿˪˨̀ ˦˥˵˪˘ ˣˁ 150 ༤ˋ˪ ˦˥˖ːˋ ˅ ˜ˁ˧ˣˁ˜˨˜˥˙ ˣˁˊ˦˘˨˘ ʍˋ˧ˣˋ˦˪ˁ˲ˁ (˜˥ˣˋ˴ XIII ˅ˋ˜ˁ ˊ˥ ˣ.˽.), ˆˊˋ ˥ˣ˘ ˘˖˥˄˧ˁːˁ˿˪˨̀ ˜ˁ˜ ˵༤ˋˣ˻ ˆ˧ˁ˄˘˪ˋ༤˼˨˜˥˙ ˜˥ˁ༤˘˴˘˘. ɸ˧˫ˆ˘ˢ˘ ˵༤ˋˣˁˢ˘ ˽˪˥˙ ˜˥ˁ༤˘˴˘˘ ˄˻༤˘ ˸ˋ˧ˊˋˣ (ša-r-d-n), ˸ˋ˜ˋ༤ˋ˸ (š-k-ru2-ša), ˽˜˅ˋ˸ (’a2-qa-wa-ša) ˘ ˪ˋ˧ˋ˸ (tu-ri-ša), ˘ˢˋˣˁ ˜˥˪˥˧˻˲ ༤ˋˆ˜˥ ˘ˊˋˣ˪˘˱˘˴˘˧˫˿˪˨̀ ˜ˁ˜ ˥˪ˣ˥˨̀˹˘ˋ˨̀ ˜ «ˣˁ˧˥ˊˁˢ ˢ˥˧̀» (˨˧. Bryce 2005: 336). ɹ˨༤˘ ˢ˥ːˣ˥ ˆ˥˅˥˧˘˪˼ ˥ ˣˁ˧˥ˊˁ˲ ༤˫˜˜ˁ, ˪˥ ༤˥ˆ˘˵ˣ˥ ˖ˁˊˁ˪˼˨̀ ˅˥˦˧˥˨˥ˢ ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˋ ˘༤˘ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲, ˣˁ ˜˥˪˥˧˻˲ ˆ˥˅˥˧˘༤˘ ˽˪˘ ˆ˧˫˦˦˻. ɲ˧ˁ˙˨ (Bryce 2003: 43–44) ˨˵˘˪ˁ༤, ˵˪˥ ˽˪˥ ˄˻༤ ༤˫˅˘˙˨˜˘˙ ̀˖˻˜, ˘ ˊˁːˋ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤˥ː˘༤, ˄˫ˊ˪˥ ˖ˋˢ༤˘ ʌ˫˜˜ˁ ˢ˥ˆ༤˘ ˢˋ˪˥ˣ˘ˢ˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ ˘˨˦˥༤˼˖˥˅ˁ˪˼˨̀ ˅ ˜ˁ˵ˋ˨˪˅ˋ ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘̀ ˅˨ˋ˲ ༤˫˅˥̀˖˻˵ˣ˻˲ ˧ˋˆ˘˥ˣ˥˅ ɯˣˁ˪˥༤˘˘. ʑ˥˨༤ˋˊˣˋˋ ˫˪˅ˋ˧ːˊˋˣ˘ˋ, ˥˵ˋ˅˘ˊˣ˥, ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˣˋ˅ˋ˧ˣ˻ˢ, ˦˥˨˜˥༤˼˜˫ ˧ˋˆ˘˥ˣ ʝˁ˪˪˫˨˻, ˜˥˪˥˧˻˙ ˅ XIII ˅. ˊ˥ ˣ. ˽. ˄˻༤ ˦˧ˋ˘ˢ˫˹ˋ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥ ༤˫˅˥̀˖˻˵ˣ˻ˢ, ̀˅ˣ˥ ˣˋ ˥˪ˣ˥˨˘༤˨̀ ˜ ˖ˋˢ༤̀ˢ ʌ˫˜˜ˁɏ23. ʠ˪˥ ːˋ ˜ˁ˨ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˦ˋ˧˅˥ˆ˥ ˫˪˅ˋ˧ːˊˋˣ˘̀, ˪˥ ˥ˣ˥ ˪˧ˋ˄˫ˋ˪ ˦˧˥̀˨ˣˋˣ˘̀ ˅ ˜˥ˣ˪ˋ˜˨˪ˋ ˦˧ˋˊ༤˥ːˋˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ʍˋ༤˵ˋ˧˪˥ˢ ˧ˁ˖ˆ˧ˁˣ˘˵ˋˣ˘̀ ˢˋːˊ˫ ༤˫˅˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˆ˧˫˦˦˥˙ ̀˖˻˜˥˅ ˘ ༤˫˅˘˙˨˜˘ˢ˘ ̀˖˻˜ˁˢ˘ ˅ ˫˖˜˥ˢ ˨ˢ˻˨༤ˋ. ʘ˵˘˪˻˅ˁ̀, ˵˪˥ ˅˨ˋ ˁ˅˪˥˲˪˥ˣˣ˻ˋ ̀˖˻˜˘, ˖ˁ˨˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣˣ˻ˋ ˅ ʌ˘˜˘˘ ˘ ˅˥˜˧˫ˆ ˣˋˋ, ̀˅༤̀˿˪˨̀ ༤˫˅˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˢ˘, ˫˪˅ˋ˧ːˊˋˣ˘ˋ, ˵˪˥ ˣˁ˧˥ˊ˻ ༤˫˜˜ˁ ˊ˥༤ːˣ˻ ˄˻༤˘ ˆ˥˅˥˧˘˪˼ ˣˁ ༤˫˅˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˢ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪ˋ, ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˅ˋ˨˼ˢˁ ˦˧ˁ˅ˊ˥˦˥ˊ˥˄ˣ˻ˢ. ʐ˨˪ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˦˥ˣ̀˪˼, 23 ʣ˘ˢ˥ˣ (Simon 2006: 320–321) ˦˧˘˅˥ˊ˘˪ ˧̀ˊ ˅˥˖˧ˁːˋˣ˘˙ ˦˧˥˪˘˅ ˘ˣ˪ˋ˧˦˧ˋ˪ˁ˴˘˘ ɲ˧ˁ˙˨ˁ, ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˥ ˜˥˪˥˧˥˙ ˧̀ˊ ˲ˋ˪˪˨˜˘˲ ˜˥ˣ˪ˋ˜˨˪˥˅ ˫˜ˁ˖˻˅ˁ˿˪ ˣˁ «༤˘˜˘˙˴ˋ˅ ˅ ˸˘˧˥˜˥ˢ ˨ˢ˻˨༤ˋ ˨༤˥˅ˁ».

206

ʎˁ ˜ˁ˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲ ˆ˥˅˥˧˘༤˘ ˅ ʕ˧˥ˋ? ɳ˖ˆ༤̀ˊ ˁˣˁ˪˥༤˘˨˪ˁ

˜ˁ˜˥˙ ˘˖ ˘˖˅ˋ˨˪ˣ˻˲ ˣˁˢ ༤˫˅˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪˥˅ (ˋ˨༤˘ ˅˥˥˄˹ˋ ˜ˁ˜˥˙-˪˥ ˘˖ ˣ˘˲), ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˅ˋ˧˥̀˪ˣ˻ˢ ˦˥˪˥ˢ˜˥ˢ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪ˁ ʌ˫˜˜˘. ʎˁ˘˄˥༤ˋˋ ˧ˁ˖˫ˢˣˁ̀ ˆ˘˦˥˪ˋ˖ˁ ˖ˁ˜༤˿˵ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˅ ˪˥ˢ, ˵˪˥ ˣˁ˧˥ˊ˻ ༤˫˜˜ˁ ˅ ˜˥ˣ˴ˋ ˄˧˥ˣ˖˥˅˥ˆ˥ ˅ˋ˜ˁ ˆ˥˅˥˧˘༤˘ ˣˁ ˣˋ˜˥ˋ˙ ˧ˁˣˣˋ˙ ˱˥˧ˢˋ ༤˘˜˘˙˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ. ʃˢˋˋ˪˨̀ ˊ˥˨˪ˁ˪˥˵ˣ˥ ˨˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅, ˵˪˥ ˥˄ˁ ༤˫˅˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪ˁ, ˖ˁ˨˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣˣ˻˲ ˅ ༤˘˜˘˙˨˜˘˲ ˣˁˊ˦˘˨̀˲ ˜༤ˁ˨˨˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˦ˋ˧˘˥ˊˁ, ༤˘˜˘˙˨˜˘˙ ɯ (˘༤˘ ˦˧˥˨˪˥ ༤˘˜˘˙˨˜˘˙) ˘ ༤˘˜˘˙˨˜˘˙ ɲ (˘༤˘ ˢ˘༤˘˙˨˜˘˙), ˨˥ˊˋ˧ːˁ˪ ˁ˧˲ˁ˘˖ˢ˻, ˜˥˪˥˧˻ˋ ˄˻༤˘ ˫˨˪˧ˁˣˋˣ˻ ˅ ༤˫˅˘˙˨˜˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˋ, ˘ ˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ ˣˋ ˢ˥ˆ˫˪ ˧ˁ˨˨ˢˁ˪˧˘˅ˁ˪˼˨̀ ˜ˁ˜ ˋˆ˥ ˦˧̀ˢ˻ˋ ˦˥˪˥ˢ˜˘ (˨˧. Melchert 2003b: 175). ʐˊˣˁ˜˥ ˥˪ˣ˥˸ˋˣ˘̀ ˢˋːˊ˫ ˽˪˘ˢ˘ ˊ˅˫ˢ̀ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪ˁˢ˘ ˪˧ˋ˄˫˿˪ ˊ˥˦˥༤ˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˁˣˁ༤˘˖ˁɏ24. ʃˢˋ˿˪˨̀ ˦˥ ˜˧ˁ˙ˣˋ˙ ˢˋ˧ˋ ˪˧˘ ˱˥ˣ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˋ ˘ˣˣ˥˅ˁ˴˘˘, ˦˧˥˘˖˥˸ˋˊ˸˘ˋ ˅ ༤˘˜˘˙˨˜˥ˢ, ˣ˥ ˣˋ ˅ ˢ˘༤˘˙˨˜˥ˢɏ25. ʨ˪˥ *s > h (˘˨˜༤˿˵ˁ̀ ˦˥˖˘˴˘˿ ˦ˋ˧ˋˊ ˥˦˧ˋˊˋ༤ˋˣˣ˻ˢ˘ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻ˢ˘), *w > Ø ˦ˋ˧ˋˊ ˣ˥˨˥˅˻ˢ˘, *kw > t ˦ˋ˧ˋˊ i. ʓ˧., ˣˁ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧, ˦˥˨ˋ˨˨˘˅ˣ˻˙ ˨˫˱˱˘˜˨ ༤˘˜. -eheɍ/ɍi- vs. ˢ˘༤. -eseɍ/ɍi-, ˨˫˱˱˘˜˨ ˦˧˘༤ˁˆˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻˲ ˨˥ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋˢ ˽˪ˣ˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˦˧˘ˣˁˊ༤ˋːˣ˥˨˪˘ ༤˘˜. -ñneɍ/ɍi- vs. ˢ˘༤. -wñneɍ/ɍi-, ˁ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ༤˘˜. ti vs. ˢ˘༤. ki ‘˜˪˥’ɏ26. ʍˣˋ ˣˋ˘˖˅ˋ˨˪ˣ˻ ˥˄˧ˁ˪ˣ˻ˋ ˪˘˦˻ ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅˘˙, ˜˥˪˥˧˻ˋ ˄˻ ˘༤༤˿˨˪˧˘˧˥˅ˁ༤˘ ˱˥ˣ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˋ ˘ˣˣ˥˅ˁ˴˘˘ ˢ˘༤˘˙˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ ˅ ˨˧ˁ˅ˣˋˣ˘˘ ˨ ˄༤˘˖˜˥˧˥ˊ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˻ˢ ˋˢ˫ ༤˘˜˘˙˨˜˘ˢ ̀˖˻˜˥ˢ. ɳ˥ ˅˨ˋ˲ ˪˧ˋ˲ ˦˧˘˅ˋˊˋˣˣ˻˲ ˅˻˸ˋ ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧ˁ˲ ˜ˁ˧˘˙˨˜˘˙ ˧ˁ˖ˊˋ༤̀ˋ˪ ˨ ˢ˘༤˘˙˨˜˘ˢ ˥˄˹˘ˋ ˁ˧˲ˁ˘˖ˢ˻, ˨˧. oton-os-n ‘ˁ˱˘ˣ˨˜˘˙ (˅˘ˣ. ˋˊ.)’, kbd-yn-Ż ‘˜ˁ˅ˣ˘˙˴ˋ˅ (˅˘ˣ. ˢˣ.)’, ˁ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ ˥˪ˣ˥˨˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˋ ˢˋ˨˪˥˘ˢˋˣ˘ˋ kˆi, ˱˫ˣ˜˴˘˥ˣ˘˧˫˿˹ˋˋ ˜ˁ˜ ˨˅̀˖˜ˁ ˅ ˘ˢˋˣˣ˻˲ ˆ˧˫˦˦ˁ˲ (Adiego 2007: 371, 377, 392). ʍ˥˧˱˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜ˁ̀ ˘ˣˣ˥˅ˁ˴˘̀, ˥˄˺ˋˊ˘ˣ̀˿˹ˁ̀ ˢ˘༤˘˙˨˜˘˙ ˨ ˜ˁ˧˘˙˨˜˘ˢ, ˅ ˦˧˥˪˘˅˥˦˥༤˥ːˣ˥˨˪˼ ༤˘˜˘˙˨˜˥ˢ˫, — ˽˪˥ ˧ˁ˨˸˘˧ˋˣˣ˻˙ ˨˥˿˖ ༤˘˜. ɲ sebe ~ ˜ˁ˧. sb, ˣ˥ ༤˘˜. se (Adiego 2007: 411). ʕˁ˜˘ˢ ˥˄˧ˁ˖˥ˢ, ˢ˥ːˣ˥ ˦˧˘ˣ̀˪˼ ˆ˘˦˥˪ˋ˖˫, ˵˪˥ ˢ˘༤˘˙˨˜˘˙ ˖ˁˣ˘ˢˁ༤ ˦˧˥ˢˋː˫˪˥˵ˣ˫˿ ˦˥˖˘˴˘˿ ˢˋːˊ˫ ༤˘˜˘˙˨˜˘ˢ ˘ ˜ˁ˧˘˙˨˜˘ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˁˢ˘ ˅ ˜˥ˣ˪˘ˣ˫˫ˢˋ ༤˫˅˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪˥˅ ˖ˁ˦ˁˊˣ˥˙ ɯˣˁ˪˥༤˘˘. ʘːˋ ˥ˊˣ˥ ˽˪˥ ˆ˥˅˥˧˘˪ ˦˧˥˪˘˅ ˆ˘˦˥˪ˋ˖˻ ʟ˻ˢ˄˫˧˨˜˥ˆ˥, ˦˥ˊˊˋ˧ːˁˣˣ˥˙ ɴ˘ˣˊ˘ˣ˻ˢ, ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˥ ˜˥˪˥˧˥˙ ˦˧ˋˊ˜˘ ˢ˘༤˘˙˴ˋ˅ ˦˧˘˸༤˘ ˅ ʌ˘˜˘˿ ˘˖ ˊˁ༤ˋ˜˥˙ ʕ˧˥ˁˊ˻ɏ27. ɳˢˋ˨˪ˋ ˨ ˪ˋˢ, ˊ˥˨˪˫˦ˣ˻ˋ ˨˥˴˘˥༤˘ˣˆ˅˘˨˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˋ ˨˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅ˁ ˊˋ˙˨˪˅˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ ˆ˥˅˥˧̀˪ ˅ ˦˥༤˼˖˫ ˘ˣ˪˧˫˖˘˅ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˨˪ˁ˪˫˨ˁ ˢ˘༤˘˙˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ ˅ ʌ˘˜˘˘. ʠ˘˨༤˥ ༤˫˅˘˙˨˜˘˲ ˢ˥ˣ˫ˢˋˣ˪ˁ༤˼ˣ˻˲ ˣˁˊ˦˘˨ˋ˙ ˦˧˘˄༤˘ːˁˋ˪˨̀ ˜ 200, ˘ ˥ˣ˘ ˧ˁ˨˦˧˥˨˪˧ˁˣˋˣ˻ ˦˥ ˅˨ˋ˙ ˪ˋ˧˧˘˪˥˧˘˘ ˜༤ˁ˨˨˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ʌ˘˜˘˘. ɳ ˦˧˥˪˘˅˥˦˥༤˥ːˣ˥˨˪˼ ˽˪˥ˢ˫, ˘˖˅ˋ˨˪ˣ˻ ˪˥༤˼˜˥ ˊ˅ˋ ˢ˘༤˘˙˨˜˘ˋ ˣˁˊ˦˘˨˘, ˥˄ˋ ˘˖ ˜˥˪˥˧˻˲ ̀˅༤̀˿˪˨̀ ˦˥˽˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˢ˘ ˪ˋ˜˨˪ˁˢ˘. ʐˊˣˁ ˘˖ ˣ˘˲ — ˽˪˥ ˦˥˽˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˙ ˪ˋ˜˨˪ ˣˁ ˨˪ˋ༤ˋ ˘˖ ʇ˨ˁˣ˱ˁ (TL 44), ˣˁ ˜˥˪˥˧˫˿ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˣˁˣˋ˨ˋˣ˻ ˊ༤˘ˣˣ˻˙ ˦˧˥˖ˁ˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˙ ˪ˋ˜˨˪ ˣˁ ༤˘˜˘˙˨˜˥ˢ ɯ ˘ ˣˋ˄˥༤˼˸ˁ̀ ˆ˧ˋ˵ˋ˨˜ˁ̀ ˽༤ˋˆ˘̀. ʒˁ˖˫ˢˣ˥ ˨˵˘˪ˁ˪˼, ˵˪˥ ༤˘˜˘˙˨˜ˁ̀ ɳ ˵ˁ˨˪ˣ˥˨˪˘, ˣˁ༤˘˵˘ˋ ˥˜˥ˣ˵ˁˣ˘̀ ˊˁ˪. ˢˣ. -e ˘ ˜˥ˣ˪˧ˁ˨˪˘˅ˣ˥˙ ˵ˁ˨˪˘˴˻ =me ˅ ༤˘˜˘˙˨˜˥ˢ ɲ ˦˧˥˪˘˅˥˧ˋ˵˘˪ ˪ˋ˖˘˨˫ ʣ˪ˁ˧˜ˋ (Starke 1997: 476, ˨ˣ˥˨˜ˁ 108), ˵˪˥ ˽˪˥˪ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪, ˅ ˥˪༤˘˵˘ˋ ˥˪ ༤˘˜˘˙˨˜˥ˆ˥ ɯ, ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˦˧̀ˢ˻ˢ ˦˥˪˥ˢ˜˥ˢ ༤˫˅˘˙˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ. 25 ʕˋ˧ˢ˘ˣ «ˢ˘༤˘˙˨˜˘˙» ˘˨˦˥༤˼˖˫ˋ˪˨̀ ˖ˊˋ˨˼ ˊ༤̀ ˪˥ˆ˥, ˵˪˥˄˻ ˘˖˄ˋːˁ˪˼ ˁ˦˧˘˥˧ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˧ˋ˸ˋˣ˘̀ ˦˧˥˄༤ˋˢ˻ ˥˪ˣ˥˸ˋˣ˘˙ ˢˋːˊ˫ ˽˪˘ˢ ̀˖˻˜˥ˢ ˘ ༤˘˜˘˙˨˜˘ˢ ɯ. ɳ ˪˥ ːˋ ˅˧ˋˢ̀ ˣˋ˥˄˲˥ˊ˘ˢ˥ ˥˪ˢˋ˪˘˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˪˧ˁˊ˘˴˘˥ˣˣ˥ˋ ˁ༤˼˪ˋ˧ˣˁ˪˘˅ˣ˥ˋ ˘ˢ̀ «ˢ˘༤˘˙˨˜˘˙» ˘˖˄˧ˁˣ˥ faute de mieux ˘ ˆ˘˦˥˪ˋ˖ˁ ˥ ༤˥˜ˁ༤˘˖ˁ˴˘˘ ˦˧ˁ˧˥ˊ˘ˣ˻ ˣ˥˨˘˪ˋ༤ˋ˙ ˽˪˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ ˅ ʍ˘༤˘ˁˊˋ, ˣˁ ˨ˋ˅ˋ˧˥-˅˥˨˪˥˜ˋ ʌ˘˜˘˘, ˣˋ ˣˁ˲˥ˊ˘˪ ˣ˘˜ˁ˜˘˲ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˁˣ˘˙. 26 ɳ ˨˅̀˖˘ ˨ ˦ˋ˧˅˻ˢ˘ ˊ˅˫ˢ̀ ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧ˁˢ˘ ˨˧. ༤˘˜. A Ӽnehe/i- vs. ༤˘˜. ɲ Ӽnese/i- ‘ˢˁ˪ˋ˧˘ˣ˨˜˘˙’ (Melchert 2004: 116) ˘ ༤˘˜. A xbidӼñe/i- vs. ༤˘˜. ɲ xbidewñne/i- ‘˜ˁ˅ˣ˘˙c˜˘˙’ (Melchert 2004: 135). ʑ˥ ˦˥˅˥ˊ˫ ˦˥˨༤ˋˊˣˋˆ˥ ˨˥˦˥˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˘̀ ˨ˢ. Adiego 2007: 243. 27 ɳ ˪˥ ːˋ ˅˧ˋˢ̀ ˨༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪ ˦˧˘˖ˣˁ˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˣˁ˸ˋ ˦˥ˣ˘ˢˁˣ˘ˋ ˆ˧ˁˢˢˁ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˨˪˧˫˜˪˫˧˻ ˢ˘༤˘˙˨˜˘˲ ˪ˋ˜˨˪˥˅ ˋ˹ˋ ˊˁ༤ˋ˜˥ ˥˪ ˨˥˅ˋ˧˸ˋˣ˨˪˅ˁ. ɳ ˣˁ˨˪˥̀˹ˋˋ ˅˧ˋˢ̀ ˘˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁ˪ˋ༤̀ˢ˘, ˅ˣ˥˨̀˹˘ˢ˘ ˣˁ˘˄˥༤˼˸˘˙ ˅˜༤ˁˊ ˅ ˦˧˥ˊ˥༤ːˁ˿˹˘˙˨̀ ˦˧˥˴ˋ˨˨ ˊˋ˸˘˱˧˥˅˜˘ ˢ˘༤˘˙˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ, ̀˅༤̀˿˪˨̀ ɸ. ʣ˿˧ ˘ ɳ. ɳ. ʣˋ˅˥˧˥˸˜˘ˣ. ʎˁ˘˄˥༤ˋˋ ˣˋˊˁ˅ˣ˘˙ ˘˖ ˘ˢˋ˿˹˘˲˨̀ ˆ˧ˁˢˢˁ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˥˵ˋ˧˜˥˅ ˢ˘༤˘˙˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ — ˽˪˥ ʣˋ˅˥˧˥˸˜˘ˣ 2013, ˁ ˨˪ˁ˪˼̀ ʣˋ˅˥˧˥˸˜˘ˣ 2012 ˢ˥ːˋ˪ ˨༤˫ː˘˪˼ ˘༤༤˿˨˪˧ˁ˴˘ˋ˙ ˢˋ˪˥ˊ˥༤˥ˆ˘˘, ˦˧˘ˢˋˣ̀ˋˢ˥˙ ˦˧˘ ˊˋ˸˘˱˧˥˅˜ˋ ˢ˘༤˘˙˨˜˘˲ ˦˥˽˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˪ˋ˜˨˪˥˅. 24

207

ʃ. ʓ. ʫ˜˫˄˥˅˘˵

˵ˁ˨˪˼ ˣˁˊ˦˘˨˘ ˥˪˧ˁːˁ༤ˁ ˧ˁ˖ˆ˥˅˥˧ˣ˻˙ ̀˖˻˜ ʇ˨ˁˣ˱ˁ, ˆ˧ˋ˵ˋ˨˜˘˙ ˄˻༤ ˘˖˄˧ˁˣ ˜ˁ˜ ˧ˋˆ˘˥ˣˁ༤˼ˣ˻˙ lingua franca, ˁ ˢ˘༤˘˙˨˜˘˙ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤̀༤ ˨˥˄˥˙ ˽˦˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˙ ˘ ˦˥˽˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˙ ̀˖˻˜, ˄˻˪˥˅ˁ˅˸˘˙ ˅ ʌ˘˜˘˘. ʕˁ˜˘ˢ ˥˄˧ˁ˖˥ˢ, ˣ˘˵ˋˆ˥ ˣˋ ˢˋ˸ˁˋ˪ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤˥ː˘˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪ ˣˁ˧˥ˊ˥˅ ༤˫˜˜ˁ ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˦˧ˋˊ˜˥ˢ ༤˘˜˘˙˨˜˥ˆ˥ (ɯ). ʎ˘ ˥ˊ˘ˣ ˘˖ ˊ˥˨˪˫˦ˣ˻˲ ˘˨˪˥˵ˣ˘˜˥˅ ˄˧˥ˣ˖˥˅˥ˆ˥ ˅ˋ˜ˁ ˣˋ ˦˧˥˪˘˅˥˧ˋ˵˘˪ ˨˪ˁ˪˫˨˫ ʌ˘˜˘˘ ˜ˁ˜ ༤˥˜ˁ༤˼ˣ˥˙ ˦˧ˁ˧˥ˊ˘ˣ˻ ˊˁˣˣ˥˙ ˽˪ˣ˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˆ˧˫˦˦˻, ˁ ༤˘ˣˆ˅˘˨˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ ˆ˥ˢ˥ˆˋˣˣ˻˙ ˲ˁ˧ˁ˜˪ˋ˧ ˜༤ˁ˨˨˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ʌ˘˜˘˘, ˜˥ˣ˪˧ˁ˨˪˘˧˫˿˹˘˙ ˨ ˦˥˵˪˘ ˦˥༤ˣ˻ˢ ˥˪˨˫˪˨˪˅˘ˋˢ ༤˘˜˘˙˨˜˘˲ ˦ˁˢ̀˪ˣ˘˜˥˅ ˖ˁ ˋˋ ˦˧ˋˊˋ༤ˁˢ˘, ˦˥ˊ˪˅ˋ˧ːˊˁˋ˪ ˊˁˣˣ˫˿ ˘ˊˋˣ˪˘˱˘˜ˁ˴˘˿. ʑ˥ˢ˘ˢ˥ ˆˋ˥ˆ˧ˁ˱˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˁ˧ˆ˫ˢˋˣ˪˥˅, ˨˫˹ˋ˨˪˅˫ˋ˪ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ༤˘ˣˆ˅˘˨˪˘˵ˋ˨˜ˁ̀ ༤˘ˣ˘̀ ˁ˧ˆ˫ˢˋˣ˪ˁ˴˘˘ ˅ ˦˥༤˼˖˫ ˧ˁ˨˸˘˧ˋˣ˘̀ ˁ˧ˋˁ༤ˁ ˦༤ˋˢˋˣ ʌ˫˜˜ˁ. ɹˋ ˥˪˦˧ˁ˅ˣ˥˙ ˪˥˵˜˥˙ ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˆ˘˦˥˪ˋ˖ˁ ˥ ˪˥ˢ, ˵˪˥ ˪˥˦˥ˣ˘ˢ˻ Luviya ˘ Lukka — ˜˥ˆˣˁ˪˻, ˨˅̀˖ˁˣˣ˻ˋ ˧ˋˆ˫༤̀˧ˣ˻ˢ ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˢ ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅˘ˋˢ ˢˋːˊ˫ «˅˥˨˪˥˵ˣ˻ˢ ༤˫˅˘˙˨˜˘ˢ» ˘ «˖ˁ˦ˁˊˣ˻ˢ ༤˫˅˘˙˨˜˘ˢ» (c˧. ɴ˘ˣˊ˘ˣ, ʟ˻ˢ˄˫˧˨˜˘˙ 1996: 231, ˨ˢ. ˪ˁˢ ːˋ ˄˘˄༤˘˥ˆ˧ˁ˱˘˿). ɳˋ˧˨˘˿ ˊˁˣˣ˥˙ ˆ˘˦˥˪ˋ˖˻ ˋ˹ˋ ˢ˥ːˣ˥ ˣˁ˙˪˘ ˅ ˣˋˊˁ˅ˣˋ˙ ˧ˁ˄˥˪ˋ Carruba 2011. C ˱˥˧ˢˁ༤˼ˣ˥˙ ˪˥˵˜˘ ˖˧ˋˣ˘̀, ˥ˊˣˁ˜˥, ˥ˣˁ ˣˋ ˅˻ˊˋ˧ː˘˅ˁˋ˪ ˜˧˘˪˘˜˘, ˦˥˨˜˥༤˼˜˫ ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅˘ˋ ˢˋːˊ˫ ༤˫˅˘˙˨˜˘ˢ -w- ˘ ༤˘˜˘˙˨˜˘ˢ -k- ˄˥༤˼˸ˋ ˣ˘ˆˊˋ ˣˋ ˖ˁ˨˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˥ (˨˧. Melchert 2003a: 14, ˨ˣ˥˨˜ˁ 6). ʎˁ ༤˘ˣˆ˅˘˨˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˁˣ˘̀˲ ˣˋ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˥ ˊˁːˋ ˦˥˜ˁ˖ˁ˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˪˥˦˥ˣ˘ˢ Lukka ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ༤˫˅˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˢ ˦˥ ˦˧˥˘˨˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘˿, ˘ ˆ˘˦˥˪ˋ˖ˁ, ˵˪˥ ˥ˣ ˄˻༤ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ ˫ ˊ˥˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˣˁ˨ˋ༤ˋˣ˘̀ ʌ˘˜˘˘, ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˅˦˥༤ˣˋ ˊ˥˦˫˨˪˘ˢˁɏ28. ʓ༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪ ༤˘, ˪ˁ˜˘ˢ ˥˄˧ˁ˖˥ˢ, ˨˵˘˪ˁ˪˼ ˦˧˘˨˫˪˨˪˅˘ˋ ༤˘˜˘˙˴ˋ˅ ˅˥˖༤ˋ ʕ˧˥˘, ˥˪ˢˋ˵ˋˣˣ˥ˋ ˅ «ʃ༤˘ˁˊˋ», ˅˨ˋˆ˥ ༤˘˸˼ ༤ˋˆˋˣˊ˥˙? ʍˣˋ ˣˋ ˜ˁːˋ˪˨̀, ˵˪˥ ˣˋ˥˄˲˥ˊ˘ˢ˥ ˊˋ༤ˁ˪˼ ˨˪˥༤˼ ˦ˋ˨˨˘ˢ˘˨˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˋ ˖ˁ˜༤˿˵ˋˣ˘ˋ. ʝ˥˪̀ ˪ˋ˥˧˘̀ ˢ˘ˆ˧ˁ˴˘˙ ˣˁ˧˥ˊ˥˅ ༤˫˜˜ˁ ˨ ˨ˋ˅ˋ˧ˁ ˣˁ ˿ˆ ˅ ˜˥ˣ˴ˋ ˄˧˥ˣ˖˥˅˥ˆ˥ ˅ˋ˜ˁ ˘ ˣˋ ˦˥༤˫˵ˁˋ˪ ˱˘༤˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˦˥ˊˊˋ˧ː˜˘, ˅˨ˋ ːˋ ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˥, ˵˪˥ ˣˋ˜˥˪˥˧˻ˋ ˦༤ˋˢˋˣˁ ༤˫˜˜ˁ ˣˁ˦˧ˁ˅˘༤˘˨˼ ˘˖ ʌ˘˜˘˘ ˅ ˨ˋ˅ˋ˧ˣ˥ˢ ˣˁ˦˧ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˘˘ ˦˥˨༤ˋ (˘༤˘ ˣˋ˖ˁˊ˥༤ˆ˥ ˊ˥) ˧ˁ˨˦ˁˊˁ ˘ˢ˦ˋ˧˘˘ ʝˁ˪˪˫˨˻. ʃ˖˅ˋ˨˪ˣ˥, ˵˪˥ ˦ˋ˧˘˥ˊ ˜˥ˣ˴ˁ XIII ˅. ˘ ˣˁ˵ˁ༤ˁ XII ˅. ˊ˥ ˣ.˽. ˥˪ˢˋ˵ˋˣ ˘ˣ˪ˋˣ˨˘˅ˣ˻ˢ˘ ˢ˘ˆ˧ˁ˴˘̀ˢ˘, ˜˥˪˥˧˻ˋ ˄˻༤˘ ˖ˁ˱˘˜˨˘˧˥˅ˁˣ˻ ˅ ˋˆ˘˦ˋ˪˨˜˘˲ ˘˨˪˥˧˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˪ˋ˜˨˪ˁ˲ ˜ˁ˜ ˣˁ˸ˋ˨˪˅˘ˋ ˣˁ˧˥ˊ˥˅ ˢ˥˧̀ (Bryce 2005: 334–340). ʍ˻ ˅˘ˊˋ༤˘, ˵˪˥ ˅ ˪ˋ ˄ˋ˨˦˥˜˥˙ˣ˻ˋ ˅˧ˋˢˋˣˁ ʍˋ˧ˣˋ˦˪ˁ˲ ˅ ̀˅ˣ˥ˢ ˅˘ˊˋ ˫˦˥ˢ˘ˣˁ༤ ༤˫˜˜ˁ ˅ ˜ˁ˵ˋ˨˪˅ˋ ˥ˊˣ˥˙ ˘˖ ˦༤ˋˢˋˣˣ˻˲ ˆ˧˫˦˦, ˅˥˅༤ˋ˵ˋˣˣ˻˲ ˅ ˆ˧ˁ˄˘˪ˋ༤˼˨˜˘ˋ ˣˁ˄ˋˆ˘. ɴ˥ˢˋ˧˥˅˨˜˘˙ ˽˦˥˨ ˦˧ˋˊ˥˨˪ˁ˅༤̀ˋ˪ ˜˥˨˅ˋˣˣ˻ˋ ˨˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅ˁ ˪˥ˆ˥, ˵˪˥, ˜˥ˆˊˁ ˣˋ˜˥˪˥˧˻ˋ ˦༤ˋˢˋˣˁ ༤˫˜˜ˁ ˨˥˅ˋ˧˸ˁ༤˘ ˣˁ˄ˋˆ˘ ˣˁ ɹˆ˘˦ˋ˪, ˊ˧˫ˆ˘ˋ ˥˨ˋ༤˘ ˅ ˧ˁ˙˥ˣˋ ʕ˧˥˘. ʨ˜˨˦ˁˣ˨˘̀ ˣˁ˧˥ˊ˥˅ ༤˫˜˜ˁ ˨ ˪ˋ˧˧˘˪˥˧˘˘ ˨˅˥ˋ˙ ˦˧ˁ˧˥ˊ˘ˣ˻ ˦˥ˢ˥ˆˁˋ˪ ˥˄˺̀˨ˣ˘˪˼ ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘˿ ˜༤ˁ˨˨˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ʌ˘˜ˁ˥ˣ˘˘ (̥ήΥΜΩΧϲΜ). ʨ˪ˁ ˪ˋ˧˧˘˪˥˧˘̀ ˧ˁ˨˦˥༤ˁˆˁ༤ˁ˨˼ ˅ ʟˋˣ˪˧ˁ༤˼ˣ˥˙ ɯˣˁ˪˥༤˘˘, ˦ˋ˧ˋ˨ˋ˜ˁ̀˨˼ ˨ ˿ːˣ˥˙ ˵ˁ˨˪˼˿ ʎ˘ːˣˋ˙ ˨˪˧ˁˣ˻ ˲ˋ˪˪˨˜˘˲ ˘˨˪˥˵ˣ˘˜˥˅, ˘ ˄˻༤ˁ ˥˪ˊˋ༤ˋˣˁ ʕˁ˅˧˨˜˘ˢ˘ ˆ˥˧ˁˢ˘ ˘ ˧ˁ˨˨˪˥̀ˣ˘ˋˢ ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧ˣ˥ 200 ˜˘༤˥ˢˋ˪˧˥˅ ˥˪ ˖ˋˢˋ༤˼ ʌ˫˜˜ˁ, ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅˫˿˹˘˲ ˜༤ˁ˨˨˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ʌ˘˜˘˘. ɳ XIII ˅. ˊ˥ ˣ. ˽. ˥ˣˁ ˧ˁ˨˦˥༤ˁˆˁ༤ˁ˨˼ ˅ˣ˫˪˧˘ ˘ˢ˦ˋ˧˘˘ ʝˁ˪˪˫˨˻, ˜ ˨ˋ˅ˋ˧˥-˖ˁ˦ˁˊ˫ ˥˪ ʕˁ˧˲˫ˣ˪ˁ˨˨˻. ʑ˥˨˜˥༤˼˜˫ ˣ˘ «ɸ˥ˆ˥˅˥˧ ʘ༤ˢ˘ʕˋ˸˫˄ˁ», ˣ˘ ɲ˧˥ˣ˖˥˅ˁ̀ ˪ˁ˄༤˘˵˜ˁ ˣˋ ˫˦˥ˢ˘ˣˁ˿˪ ʌ˫˜˜˫ ˅ ˜ˁ˵ˋ˨˪˅ˋ ˨ˋ˅ˋ˧ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˨˥˨ˋˊˁ ʕˁ˧˲˫ˣ˪ˁ˨˨˻, ˣˋ˪ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˁˣ˘˙ ˦˥༤ˁˆˁ˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˽˪ˁ ˪ˋ˧˧˘˪˥˧˘̀ ˅ ˧ˁ˨˨ˢˁ˪˧˘˅ˁˋˢ˻˙ ˦ˋ˧˘˥ˊ ˨˵˘˪ˁ༤ˁ˨˼ ˖ˋˢ༤ˋ˙ ʌ˫˜˜ˁ ˅ ˆˋ˥ˆ˧ˁ˱˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˢ ˨ˢ˻˨༤ˋɏ 29. ʕˋˢ ˣˋ ˢˋˣˋˋ, ˨ ˵˘˨˪˥ ༤˘ˣˆ˅˘˨˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ʎˋˊˁ˅ˣ̀̀ ˦˥˦˻˪˜ˁ ˅˻˅ˋ˨˪˘ ˪˥˦˥ˣ˘ˢ Lukka ˘˖ ˘.-ˋ. *leuk- ‘˨˘̀˪˼’ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣˁ ˅ ˧ˁ˄˥˪ˋ Simon 2006: 315–316. ʓ ˢ˥ˋ˙ ˪˥˵˜˘ ˖˧ˋˣ˘̀, ˽˪ˁ ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘̀ ˱˥˧ˢˁ༤˼ˣ˥ ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣˁ, ˣ˥ ˨ˋˢˁˣ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ ˣˋ˦˧ˁ˅ˊ˥˦˥ˊ˥˄ˣˁ. ɹ˨༤˘ ˥ˣˁ ˅ˋ˧ˣˁ, ˪˥ ˥ˣˁ ˦˥ˊ˪˅ˋ˧ːˊˁˋ˪ ˪ˋ˖˘˨ ˥ ˪˥ˢ, ˵˪˥ ˪˥˦˥ˣ˘ˢ˻ ʌ˫˅˘̀ ˘ ʌ˫˜˜ˁ ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ ˣˋ ˨˅̀˖ˁˣ˻ ˊ˧˫ˆ ˨ ˊ˧˫ˆ˥ˢ. 29 ʕ˧ˁˊ˘˴˘˥ˣˣˁ̀ ˆˋ˥ˆ˧ˁ˱˘˵ˋ˨˜ˁ̀ ˁ˨˨˥˴˘ˁ˴˘̀ ˢˋːˊ˫ ʌ˫˜˜˥˙ ˦ˋ˧˘˥ˊˁ ˄˧˥ˣ˖˥˅˥ˆ˥ ˅ˋ˜ˁ ˘ ˜༤ˁ˨˨˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ʌ˘˜ˁ˥ˣ˘ˋ˙ ˥˦˘˧ˁ༤ˁ˨˼ ˣˁ ˅ˋ˨˼ˢˁ ˦˧˥˘˖˅˥༤˼ˣ˫˿ ˧ˋ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˜˴˘˿ res gestae ʝˁ˪˪˫˨˘༤˘ III (˨ˢ. ˦˥ˊ˧˥˄ˣ˥˨˪˘ ˫ Bryce 1974: 397). ʝ˥˪̀ ˽˪˥, ˅ˋ˧˥̀˪ˣ˥, ˄˻༤˥ ˥ˊˣ˥˙ ˘˖ ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˻˲ ˆ˘˦˥˪ˋ˖ ˊ˥ ˦˫˄༤˘˜ˁ˴˘˘ ɲ˧˥ˣ˖˥˅˥˙ ˪ˁ˄༤˘˵˜˘ ˘ ˣˁˊ˦˘˨˘ YALBURT, ˨ˋ˙˵ˁ˨ ˪ˁ˜˥ˋ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤˥ːˋˣ˘ˋ ˋˊ˅ˁ ༤˘ ˖ˁ˨༤˫ː˘˅ˁˋ˪ ˅ˣ˘ˢˁˣ˘̀. 28

208

ʎˁ ˜ˁ˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲ ˆ˥˅˥˧˘༤˘ ˅ ʕ˧˥ˋ? ɳ˖ˆ༤̀ˊ ˁˣˁ˪˥༤˘˨˪ˁ

˪˥˵˜˘ ˖˧ˋˣ˘̀ ʌ˘˜ˁ˥ˣ˘̀ ˢ˥ːˋ˪ ˄˻˪˼ ˣˋ˦˥˨˧ˋˊ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥ ˅˻˅ˋˊˋˣˁ ˘˖ ༤˫˅˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˱˥˧ˢ˻ *lukka-wan(ni)- ‘˖ˁ˨ˋ༤ˋˣˣˁ̀ ༤˿ˊ˼ˢ˘ ʌ˫˜˜ˁ’ ˘༤˘ ‘˥˪ˣ˥˨̀˹ˁ̀˨̀ ˜ ʌ˫˜˜ˋ’ (Jenniges 1998: 41, ˨ˢ. ˪ˁˢ ːˋ ˄˘˄༤˘˥ˆ˧ˁ˱˘˿). ʫ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤ˁˆˁ˿, ˵˪˥ ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘̀ ʌ˘˜ˁ˥ˣ˘˘ ˢ˥ːˋ˪ ˥˪˧ˁːˁ˪˼ ˣˁ˸ˋ˨˪˅˘̀ ˣˁ˧˥ˊ˥˅ ༤˫˜˜ˁ. ʕ˥˪ ˱ˁ˜˪, ˵˪˥ ʕ˫ˊ˲ˁ༤˘̀ IV ˦˥˨˅̀˪˘༤ ˵ˁ˨˪˼ ˨˅˥˘˲ res gestae ˥˦˘˨ˁˣ˘˿ ˦˥˄ˋˊ ˣˁˊ ༤˫˜˜ˁ, ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤ˁˆˁˋ˪, ˵˪˥ ˥ˣ ˧ˁ˨˨ˢˁ˪˧˘˅ˁ༤ ˖ˋˢ༤˘ ʌ˫˜˜ˁ ˅ ˥ˊˣ˥ˢ ˧̀ˊ˫ ˨˥ ˨˅˥˘ˢ˘ ˨ˁˢ˻ˢ˘ ˆ˧˥˖ˣ˻ˢ˘ ˦˧˥˪˘˅ˣ˘˜ˁˢ˘. ʎˁˊ˦˘˨˼ SÜDBURG ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˅˜༤˿˵ˁˋ˪ ʌ˫˜˜˫ ˅ ˪˥˪ ːˋ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˵ˋˣ˼ ˅˧ˁːˊˋ˄ˣ˻˲ ˨˪˧ˁˣ, ˅ ˜˥˪˥˧˻˙ ˅˜༤˿˵ˋˣˁ ˘ ʃ˜˜˫ˣˁ — ˆ˥˧˥ˊ, ˘ˊˋˣ˪˘˱˘˴˘˧˫ˋˢ˻˙ ˨ ˽༤༤˘ˣ˘˨˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˢ ʃ˜˥ˣ˘ˋˢ, ˧ˁ˨˦˥༤ˁˆˁ˅˸˘ˢ˨̀ ˣˁ ˆ˧ˁˣ˘˴ˋ ʌ˘˜ˁ˥ˣ˘˘ ˘ ʃ˨ˁ˫˧˘˘, ˘ ˨ ˨˥˅˧ˋˢˋˣˣ˥˙ ʇ˥ˣ˼ˋ˙. ʐ˪˨˿ˊˁ ˨༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪, ˵˪˥ ˁ˅˪˥˧ ˣˁˊ˦˘˨˘ SÜDBURG ˊ˥༤ːˋˣ ˄˻༤ ˅˥ˋ˅ˁ˪˼ ˨ ˄˥༤˼˸˥˙ ˜˥ˁ༤˘˴˘ˋ˙: ˥˪ ʌ˘˜˘˘ ˊ˥ ˵ˁ˨˪ˋ˙ ʌ˘˜ˁ˥ˣ˘˘ (˨˧. Hawkins 1995: 54–55). ɳ˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˥, ˣˁ˧˥ˊ˻ ༤˫˜˜ˁ ˘ˆ˧ˁ༤˘ ˦ˋ˧˅˫˿ ˨˜˧˘˦˜˫ ˅ ˽˪˥˙ ˜˥ˁ༤˘˴˘˘ ˘ ˊ˥˄˘༤˘˨˼ ˦˥༤˘˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˅༤ˁˊ˻˵ˋ˨˪˅ˁ ˣˁˊ ʌ˘˜ˁ˥ˣ˘ˋ˙ ˦˥˨༤ˋ ˧ˁ˨˦ˁˊˁ ʝˋ˪˪˨˜˥˙ ˘ˢ˦ˋ˧˘˘. ʨ˪ˁ ˆ˘˦˥˪ˋ˖ˁ ˨˥˥˄˧ˁ˖˫ˋ˪˨̀ ˨ ˪ˋˢ ˱ˁ˜˪˥ˢ, ˵˪˥ ˅ ˊˁˣˣ˥ˢ ˧ˋˆ˘˥ˣˋ ˥˪˨˫˪˨˪˅˫˿˪ ˘ˋ˧˥ˆ༤˘˱˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˋ ˣˁˊ˦˘˨˘ ˦˥˨˪˘ˢ˦ˋ˧˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˦ˋ˧˘˥ˊˁ. ʇ˥ˣˋ˵ˣ˥, ˦˧˘˨˫˪˨˪˅˘ˋ ˣˁ˧˥ˊ˥˅ ༤˫˜˜ˁ ˅ ˧ˁ˙˥ˣˋ ʕ˧˥˘ ˣˋ ˊ˥༤ːˣ˥ ˄˻༤˥ ˄˻˪˼ ˨˪˥༤˼ ːˋ ˖ˁˢˋ˪ˣ˻ˢ, ˜ˁ˜ ˘˲ ˦˧˘˨˫˪˨˪˅˘ˋ ˅ ʌ˘˜ˁ˥ˣ˘˘, ˲˥˪̀, ˅ˋ˧˥̀˪ˣ˥, ˥ˣ˥ ˄˻༤˥ ˄˥༤ˋˋ ˦˧˥ˊ˥༤ː˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻ˢ, ˵ˋˢ ˘˲ ˦˧˘˨˫˪˨˪˅˘ˋ ˅ ɹˆ˘˦˪ˋ. ɴ˥ˢˋ˧˥˅˨˜˘˙ ˧ˁ˨˨˜ˁ˖ ˥ ༤˘˜˘˙˨˜˥ˢ ˅˥ˋˣˁ˵ˁ༤˼ˣ˘˜ˋ ʑˁˣˊˁ˧ˋ, ˥˄༤ˁˊˁ˅˸ˋˢ ˅༤ˁ˨˪˼˿ ˅ ˆ˥˧˥ˊˋ ʁˋ༤ˋ̀, ˢ˥ːˋ˪ ˊˁːˋ ˥˪˧ˁːˁ˪˼ ˨˫˹ˋ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘ˋ ˦˥˨˪˥̀ˣˣ˻˲ ˥˦˥˧ˣ˻˲ ˦˫ˣ˜˪˥˅ ˦༤ˋˢˋˣ ༤˫˜˜ˁ ˅ ʕ˧˥ˁˊˋ ˅ ʕˋˢˣ˻ˋ ˅ˋ˜ˁ. ʕˁ˜˘ˢ ˥˄˧ˁ˖˥ˢ, ༤˘˜˘˙˨˜ˁ̀ ˽˪ˣ˘˵ˣ˥˨˪˼ ˆ˥ˢˋ˧˥˅˨˜˘˲ ༤˘˜˘˙˴ˋ˅ ˘ˢˋˋ˪ ˄˥༤ˋˋ ˅ˋ˨˥ˢ˫˿ ˱˘༤˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˫˿ ˦˥ˊˊˋ˧ː˜˫, ˵ˋˢ ˢˣ˘ˢˁ̀ ༤˫˅˘˙˨˜ˁ̀ ˽˪ˣ˘˵ˣ˥˨˪˼ ˆ˥ˢˋ˧˥˅˨˜˘˲ ˪˧˥̀ˣ˴ˋ˅. ʕˁ˜, ˥˪˴ˁ ʑˁˣˊˁ˧ˁ ˖˥˅˫˪ ̥ήΥηβΧ ˅ «ʃ༤˘ˁˊˋ», ˘ ˋ˨˪˼ ˨˥˄༤ˁ˖ˣ ˘ˣ˪ˋ˧˦˧ˋ˪˘˧˥˅ˁ˪˼ ˽˪˥ ˘ˢ̀ ˜ˁ˜ ˜˥˨˅ˋˣˣ˥ˋ ˫˜ˁ˖ˁˣ˘ˋ ˣˁ ˽˪ˣ˘˵ˋ˨˜˫˿ ˦˧˘ˣˁˊ༤ˋːˣ˥˨˪˼ ʑˁˣˊˁ˧ˁ ˘༤˘ ˋˆ˥ ˆˋ˥ˆ˧ˁ˱˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˋ ˦˧˥˘˨˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘ˋ (˨˧. Jenniges 1998: 141). ʃˢ̀ ̪ηΧΟΜΪΩΫ ˣˋ˥ˊˣ˥˜˧ˁ˪ˣ˥ ˨˥˦˥˨˪ˁ˅༤̀༤˥˨˼ ˨ ༤˘˜˘˙˨˜˘ˢ ˦˧˘༤ˁˆˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻ˢ pñtreñni/e-, ˲˥˪̀ ˅˻˅˥ˊ˻ ˘˖ ˽˪˥ˆ˥ ˨˥˦˥˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˘̀ ˊ༤̀ ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘˘ ˘ˢˋˣ˘ ˣˋ ˅˦˥༤ˣˋ ̀˨ˣ˻ (˨˧. Neumann 2007: 278–279). ʃˢ̀ ̬ΜΪÞ΢ΟУΧ, ˄˫˜˅. ‘˘ˢˋ˿˹˘˙ ˅˻˨˥˜˥ˋ ˢˋ˨˪˥’ ˘༤˘ ‘ː˘˅˫˹˘˙ ˅˻˨˥˜˥’, ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˥, ˘˨˜˥ˣˣ˥ ˄˻༤˥ ˜ˁ˧˘˙˨˜˘ˢ, ˁ ˣˋ ༤˘˜˘˙˨˜˘ˢ, ˦˥˨˜˥༤˼˜˫ ˦˧ˋ˱˘˜˨ šar-, ˧ˁ˨˦˧˥˨˪˧ˁˣˋˣˣ˻˙ ˅ ˜ˁ˧˘˙˨˜˘˲ ༤˘˵ˣ˻˲ ˘ˢˋˣˁ˲, ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅˫ˋ˪ ༤˘˜˘˙˨˜˥ˢ˫ hri- ˘ ˢ˘༤˘˙˨˜˥ˢ˫ zri- < *sarri- (Adiego 2007: 261)ɏ30. ʨ˪˥, ˜˥ˣˋ˵ˣ˥, ˣˋ˨༤˥ːˣ˥ ˦˧˘ˢ˘˧˘˪˼ ˨ ˥˪˜˧˻˪˥ ˖ˁ̀˅༤ˋˣˣ˥˙ ༤˘˜˘˙˨˜˥˙ ˘ˊˋˣ˪˘˵ˣ˥˨˪˼˿ ˽˪˥ˆ˥ ˅˥ˋˣˁ˵ˁ༤˼ˣ˘˜ˁ, ˦˥˨˜˥༤˼˜˫ ˦˘˧ˁ˪˨˜˘ˋ ˨˥˿˖˻ ༤˫˜˜ˁ ˢ˥ˆ༤˘ ˅˜༤˿˵ˁ˪˼ ˣˋ ˪˥༤˼˜˥ ༤˘˜˘˙˴ˋ˅ ˜ˁ˜ ˪ˁ˜˥˅˻˲, ˣ˥ ˘ ˣˁ˘˄˥༤ˋˋ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˧˘˘ˢ˵˘˅˻˲ ˘˖ ˘˲ ˨˥˨ˋˊˋ˙ɏ31. ɳ˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˻˙ ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧ ༤˫˅˥˘ˊˣ˥ˆ˥ ˪˥˦˥ˣ˘ˢˁ ˅ ˨ˋ˅ˋ˧˥-˖ˁ˦ˁˊˣ˥˙ ˵ˁ˨˪˘ ʍˁ༤˥˙ ɯ˖˘˘ — ˽˪˥ ˘ˢ̀ *̞ΜΤΧΤΫ ˅ ˦˧˘ˢˋˣˋˣ˘˘ ˜ ˆ˧ˋ˵. ͊ΦΜϲΜ, ˆ˥˧˥ˊ˫ ˅ ˊˋ༤˼˪ˋ ˧ˋ˜˘ ʇˁ˙˜˥˨. ʎ˥˙ˢˁˣˣ (apud Gusmani 1986: 162) ˧ˋ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˘˧˥˅ˁ༤ ˽˪˥˪ ˪˥˦˥ˣ˘ˢ ˅ ˥˪˧˻˅˜ˋ, ˦˧˘ˣˁˊ༤ˋːˁ˹ˋˢ ʓ˪ˋ˱ˁˣ˫ ɳ˘˖ˁˣ˪˘˙˨˜˥ˢ˫: ͊ΦΜϲΜ ÞЅΦΤΫ έϰΫ ̴άϲΜΫ… Ϡ ̤ϲΟΜΤΧΤΫ ЧΧΩ÷ηΡΠέΩ («ʨ˥༤˘˙˨˜˘˙ ˆ˥˧˥ˊ ʨ༤ˁ̀ ˅ ɯ˖˘˘… ˜˥˪˥˧˻˙ ˣˁ˖˻˅ˁ༤˨̀ ʇ˘ˊˁ˘ˣ˘˨˥ˢ»). ʓ˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˥ ʎ˥˙ˢˁˣˣ˫, Ϡ ̤ϲΟΜΤΧΤΫ ЧΧΩ÷ηΡΠέΩ ˢ˥ːˋ˪ ˄˻˪˼ ˘˨˦˧ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˥ ˣˁ Ϡ ΥΜϵ ̞ΜΤΧΤΫ ЧΧΩ÷ηΡΠέΩ ‘˜˥˪˥˧˻˙ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˣˁ˖˻˅ˁ༤˨̀ ɸˁ˘ˣ˘˨˥ˢ’. ʐˣ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤˥ː˘༤, ˵˪˥ ˆ˧ˋ˵. ͊ΦΜϲΜ, ˄˫˜˅. ‘˥༤˘˅˜˥˅˥ˋ ˊˋ˧ˋ˅˥’, ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˜ˁ༤˼˜˥˙ ˨ ༤˫˅˘˙˨˜˥ˆ˥ daini(ya/i)- ‘ˢˁ˨༤̀ˣ˘˨˪˻˙’. ʇˁ˜ ˅ˋ˧ˣ˥ ˦˥˜ˁ˖ˁ༤ ʍˋ༤˵ˋ˧˪ (Melchert 2003a: 11, ˨ˣ˥˨˜ˁ 4), ༤˫˅. dain(i)- ‘(˧ˁ˨˪˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˋ) ˢˁ˨༤˥’ (˧˥ˊ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥ˋ ˲ˋ˪˪. sakan ‘ˢˁ˨༤˥, ɳ˪˥˧ˁ̀ ˵ˁ˨˪˼ ˘ˢˋˣ˘̀ ʓˁ˧˦ˋˊ˥ˣˁ ˪˧ˁˊ˘˴˘˥ˣˣ˥ ˨˅̀˖˻˅ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˨ ༤˘˜. ɯ pddӼn- ‘ˢˋ˨˪˥’. ɳ ˧ˁ˄˥˪ˋ Durnford 2008 ˊˋ༤ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤˥ːˋˣ˘ˋ, ˵˪˥ ˜˥ˢ˦˥˖˘˪, «˘ˢˋ˿˹˘˙ ˅˻˨˥˜˥ˋ ˦˥༤˥ːˋˣ˘ˋ», ˘˨˜˥ˣˣ˥ ˢ˥ˆ ̀˅༤̀˪˼˨̀ ˪˘˪˫༤˥ˢ ʓˁ˧˦ˋˊ˥ˣˁ, ˜˥˪˥˧˻˙ ˄˻༤ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˥˨ˢ˻˨༤ˋˣ ˅ ˜ˁ˵ˋ˨˪˅ˋ ༤˘˵ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˘ˢˋˣ˘ ˫ːˋ ˅ ˆ˧ˋ˵ˋ˨˜˥ˢ ˥˜˧˫ːˋˣ˘˘. 31 ɳ ˨˅̀˖˘ ˨ ˽˪˘ˢ ˣˋ˥˄˲˥ˊ˘ˢ˥ ˥˪ˢˋ˪˘˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˋ˨༤˘ ˦˧˘ˣ˘ˢˁ˪˼ ˦˧˘˨˫˪˨˪˅˘ˋ ༤˘˜˘˙˴ˋ˅ ˅ ʕ˧˥ˁˊˋ, ˪˥ ˢ˥ːˣ˥ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˦˥༤ˁˆˁ˪˼, ˵˪˥ ༤˫˅˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˋ ˘ˢ̀ ʑ˧˘ˁˢˁ ˦˧˘ˣˁˊ༤ˋː˘˪ ˜ ˪˥ˢ˫ ːˋ ˦༤ˁ˨˪˫. ʎˋ˨ˢ˥˪˧̀ ˣˁ ˪˥, ˵˪˥ ˽˪˥ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤˥ːˋˣ˘ˋ ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˅ˋ˨˼ˢˁ ˨˦ˋ˜˫༤̀˪˘˅ˣ˻ˢ, ˥ˣ˥ ˅˨ˋ ːˋ ˊ˥༤ːˣ˥ ˧ˁ˨˨ˢˁ˪˧˘˅ˁ˪˼˨̀ ˜ˁ˜ ˄˥༤ˋˋ ˫ˊˁ˵ˣ˥ˋ, ˵ˋˢ ˣˁ˨˪˥˙˵˘˅˻ˋ ˦˥˦˻˪˜˘ ˅˻˅ˋ˨˪˘ ˘ˢ̀ ༤ˋˆˋˣˊˁ˧ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˪˧˥̀ˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˴ˁ˧̀ ˣˁ˦˧̀ˢ˫˿ ˘˖ ༤˫˅˘˙˨˜˥ˆ˥. 30

209

ʃ. ʓ. ʫ˜˫˄˥˅˘˵

ː˘˧’) ˲ˁ˧ˁ˜˪ˋ˧˘˖˫ˋ˪˨̀ ˘˨˪˥˧˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˢ˘ ˘˖ˢˋˣˋˣ˘̀ˢ˘, ˣˋ˪˘˦˘˵ˣ˻ˢ˘ ˊ༤̀ ༤˘ˊ˘˙˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ, ˘ ˦˥˽˪˥ˢ˫ ˣˋ ˢ˥ːˋ˪ ̀˅༤̀˪˼˨̀ ༤˘ˊ˘˙˨˜˘ˢ ˜˥ˆˣˁ˪˥ˢ ༤˫˅˘˙˨˜˥˙ ༤ˋ˜˨ˋˢ˻. ɹ˨༤˘ ˥˦˘˧ˁ˪˼˨̀ ˣˁ ˣˁ˸ ˧ˁˣˣˋ˅˘˖ˁˣ˪˘˙˨˜˘˙ ˘˨˪˥˵ˣ˘˜ ˘ ˦˧˘ˣ̀˪˼ ˽ˢˋˣˊˁ˴˘˿ ʎ˥˙ˢˁˣˣˁ, ˦˧˘ˊˋ˪˨̀ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˦˧˘˖ˣˁ˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˆ˥˧˥ˊ ɸˁ˘ˣ˘˨, ˧ˁ˨˦˥༤˥ːˋˣˣ˻˙, ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˥, ˅ ˘˨˪˥˧˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˨˪˧ˁˣˋ ˧ˋ˜˘ ʓˋ˲ˁ, ˘ˢˋˋ˪ ༤˫˅˘˵ˋ˨˜˫˿ ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘˿. ʐˊˣˁ˜˥, ˅˥˦˧ˋ˜˘ ʍˋ༤˵ˋ˧˪˫, ˣˋ˪ ˣ˘˵ˋˆ˥ ˨˦ˋ˴˘˱˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ ༤˫˅˘˙˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˅ ˣˋ˧ˋˆ˫༤̀˧ˣ˥ˢ ˖˅˫˜˥˅˥ˢ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˲˥ˊˋ */s/ > /t/ ˘༤˘ ༤ˋˣ˘˴˘˘ ˖˅˥ˣ˜˘˲ ˅ˋ༤̀˧ˣ˻˲, ˖ˁ˱˘˜˨˘˧˥˅ˁˣˣ˻˲ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˘ ˅ ༤˘˜˘˙˨˜˥ˢ (˨˧. ༤˘˜. tawa ‘ˆ༤ˁ˖ˁ’ vs. ˲ˋ˪˪. sakuwa ‘id.’)ɏ32. ʓ༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥, ˣˋ˥˄˲˥ˊ˘ˢ˥ ˦˧˘ˣ̀˪˼ ˅˥ ˅ˣ˘ˢˁˣ˘ˋ ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˥˨˪˼ ˪˥ˆ˥, ˵˪˥ ˆ˥˧˥ˊ ɸˁ˘ˣ˘˨ ̀˅༤̀༤˨̀ ༤˫˜˜˨˜˥˙ɏ/ɏ˧ˁˣˣˋ༤˘˜˘˙˨˜˥˙ ˜˥༤˥ˣ˘ˋ˙, ˦˥˖ˊˣˋˋ ˁ˨˨˘ˢ˘༤˘˧˥˅ˁˣˣ˥˙ ˆ˧ˋ˜ˁˢ˘. ʍ˥ːˋ˪ ༤˘ ˽˪˥ ˄˻˪˼ ˋ˹ˋ ˥ˊˣ˘ˢ ˘˨˪˥˧˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˢ ˱ˁ˜˪˥ˢ, ˨˜˧˻˅ˁ˿˹˘ˢ˨̀ ˖ˁ ༤ˋˆˋˣˊ˥˙ ˥ «˪˧˥̀ˣ˨˜˘˲ ༤˘˜˘˙˴ˁ˲»ɏ33? ɳ ˪˥ ːˋ ˅˧ˋˢ̀ ˨༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪ ˦˥ˊ˵ˋ˧˜ˣ˫˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˥˖˅˥ˣ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ˣˁ˵ˁ༤˼ˣ˥ˆ˥ ɏ/ɏt-ɏ/ɏ ˣˋ ˲ˁ˧ˁ˜˪ˋ˧ˣ˥ ˊ༤̀ ̀˖˻˜ˁ ༤˘˜˘˙˨˜˘˲ ˁ༤˱ˁ˅˘˪ˣ˻˲ ˣˁˊ˦˘˨ˋ˙. ʎˋ༤˼˖̀ ˘˨˜༤˿˵˘˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˢ˻ ˘ˢˋˋˢ ˖ˊˋ˨˼ ˊˋ༤˥ ˨ ˦˥˖ˊˣ˘ˢ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪ˣ˻ˢ ˧ˁ˖˅˘˪˘ˋˢ. ʕ˧˫ˊˣ˥ ˦˥˙˪˘ ˊˁ༤˼˸ˋ, ˥˨˪ˁ˅ˁ̀˨˼ ˣˁ ˦˥˵˅ˋ ˱ˁ˜˪˥˅. ɳ˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˥, ˣ˘˜˥ˆˊˁ ˣˋ ˫ˊˁ˨˪˨̀ ˫˖ˣˁ˪˼, ˦˧˥ˣ˘˜༤˘ ༤˘ ˦༤ˋˢˋˣˁ ༤˫˜˜ˁ ˅ ʕ˧˥ˁˊ˫, ˜˥ˆˊˁ ɳ˘༤˫˨ˁ ˅˨ˋ ˋ˹ˋ ˄˻༤ˁ ༤˥̀༤˼ˣ˻ˢ ˅ˁ˨˨ˁ༤˥ˢ ʝˁ˪˪˫˨˻, ˘༤˘ ˅˥˨˦˥༤˼˖˥˅ˁ༤˘˨˼ ˅ˁ˜˫˫ˢ˥ˢ ˅༤ˁ˨˪˘, ˥˄˫˨༤˥˅༤ˋˣˣ˻ˢ ˧ˁ˨˦ˁˊ˥ˢ ˘ˢ˦ˋ˧˘˘. ʎˋ̀˨ˣ˥, ˄˻༤˘ ༤˘ ˥ˣ˘, ˜ˁ˜ ˘˲ ˘˖˥˄˧ˁːˁˋ˪ «ʃ༤˘ˁˊˁ», ˦˧ˋˊˁˣˣ˻ˢ˘ ˨˥˿˖ˣ˘˜ˁˢ˘ ˪˧˥̀ˣ˴ˋ˅, ˘༤˘ ːˋ ˥ˣ˘ ˅˻˨˪˫˦˘༤˘ ˥ˊˣ˘ˢ ˘˖ ˱ˁ˜˪˥˧˥˅, ˨˦˥˨˥˄˨˪˅˥˅ˁ˅˸˘˲ ˥˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˘˿ ʕ˧˥˘ ˅ ˜˥ˣ˴ˋ II ˪˻˨. ˊ˥ ˣ. ˽. ʎˋ༤˼˖̀ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˄˻˪˼ ˫˅ˋ˧ˋˣˣ˻ˢ, ˵˪˥ ʕ˧˥̀ ˨˫˹ˋ˨˪˅˥˅ˁ༤ˁ ˅ ˪ˋ ˅˧ˋˢˋˣˁ, ˜˥ˆˊˁ ༤˘˜˘˙˴˻ ˢ˥ˆ༤˘ ˥˨ˋ˨˪˼ ˅ ˽˪˥ˢ ˧ˋˆ˘˥ˣˋ: ˪ˋˢ˻ ˪˧˥̀ˣ˨˜˥˙ ˅˥˙ˣ˻ ˘ ˜˥ˣ˱༤˘˜˪ˁ ˨ ༤˘˜˘˙˴ˁˢ˘ ˢ˥ˆ༤˘ ˄˻˪˼ ˥˄˺ˋˊ˘ˣˋˣ˻ ˅ ˆ˥ˢˋ˧˥˅˨˜˥ˢ ˽˦˥˨ˋ ˦˥˖ˊˣˋˋ. ʎ˥ ˋ˨༤˘ ˅˥˥˄˹ˋ ˦˻˪ˁ˪˼˨̀ ˣˁ˙˪˘ ˘˨˪˥˧˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˋ ̀ˊ˧˥ ˅ ˆ˘˦˥˪ˋ˖ˋ ˥ «˪˧˥̀ˣ˨˜˘˲ ༤˘˜˘˙˴ˁ˲», ˢ˘ˆ˧ˁ˴˘˘ ༤˘˜˘˙˴ˋ˅ ˘˖ ˘˲ ˦˧ˁ˧˥ˊ˘ˣ˻ ˅ ʪːˣ˥˙ ɯˣˁ˪˥༤˘˘ ˜ ˥˜˧ˋ˨˪ˣ˥˨˪̀ˢ ʕ˧˥˘ ˊ˥༤ːˣ˻ ˧ˁ˨˨ˢˁ˪˧˘˅ˁ˪˼˨̀ ˪ˁ˜, ˜ˁ˜ ˥ˣ˘ ˥˦˘˨ˁˣ˻ ˅ «ʃ༤˘ˁˊˋ», ˘ ˘˲ ˣˋ ˨༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪ ˘ˣ˪ˋ˧˦˧ˋ˪˘˧˥˅ˁ˪˼ ˜ˁ˜ ˅˥˨˦˥ˢ˘ˣˁˣ˘̀ ˥ ༤˫˅˘˙˴ˁ˲ ˘༤˘ ˥ ˊ˧˫ˆ˥˙ ˽˪ˣ˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˆ˧˫˦˦ˋ, ˢ˘ˆ˧˘˧˥˅ˁ˅˸ˋ˙ ˨ ˨ˋ˅ˋ˧ˁ ˣˁ ˿ˆɏ34.

ɼʸːໞ˳˩ˀ˗ˌˀ ɳ ˊˁˣˣ˥˙ ˨˪ˁ˪˼ˋ ˧ˁ˨˨ˢˁ˪˧˘˅ˁ༤˘˨˼ ˊ˅ˁ ˪˘˦ˁ ˁ˧ˆ˫ˢˋˣ˪˥˅, ˜˥˪˥˧˻ˋ ˦˥˪ˋˣ˴˘ˁ༤˼ˣ˥ ˦˧˥༤˘˅ˁ˿˪ ˨˅ˋ˪ ˣˁ ̀˖˻˜˥˅˫˿ ˨˘˪˫ˁ˴˘˿ ˅ ʕ˧˥ˋ ˄˧˥ˣ˖˥˅˥ˆ˥ ˅ˋ˜ˁ. ɳ˥-˦ˋ˧˅˻˲, ˽˪˥ ˊˁˣˣ˻ˋ ˲ˋ˪˪˨˜˘˲ ˘˨˪˥˵ˣ˘˜˥˅ ˥ ɳ˘༤˫˨ˋ, ˨˥˅˦ˁˊˁ˿˹˘ˋ ˦˥ ˅˧ˋˢˋˣ˘ ˨ ˥˄˺ˋ˜˪˥ˢ ˘˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁˣ˘̀. ɳ˥ ˅˪˥˧˻˲, ˽˪˥ ˊˁˣˣ˻ˋ ˆ˥ˢˋ˧˥˅˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˽˦˥˨ˁ ˘ ˄˥༤ˋˋ ˦˥˖ˊˣ˘˲ ˆ˧ˋ˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˘˨˪˥˵ˣ˘˜˥˅, ˫ˊˁ༤ˋˣˣ˻ˋ ʓ˪˥˘˪ ˥˪ˢˋ˪˘˪˼ ˥˪˨˫˪˨˪˅˘ˋ ˁˣ༤ˁ˫˪ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˥ˆ༤˫˸ˋˣ˘̀ ˅ ˆ˧ˋ˵ˋ˨˜˥ˢ ˪˥˦˥ˣ˘ˢˋ *̞ΜΤΧΤΫ, ˲˥˪̀ ˊˁˣˣ˻˙ ˦˧˥˴ˋ˨˨ ˥ː˘ˊˁ༤˨̀ ˄˻ ˅ ༤˘˜˘˙˨˜˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˋ ˜༤ˁ˨˨˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˦ˋ˧˘˥ˊˁ. ɳˢˋ˨˪ˋ ˨ ˪ˋˢ, ˦˥˨˜˥༤˼˜˫ ˁˣ༤ˁ˫˪ˣ˥ˋ ˥ˆ༤˫˸ˋˣ˘ˋ ˅ ˁˣˁ˪˥༤˘˙˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲ ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˁ˧ˋˁ༤˼ˣ˥˙ ˥˨˥˄ˋˣˣ˥˨˪˼˿, ˧ˁ˨˦˧˥˨˪˧ˁˣ˘˅˸ˋ˙˨̀ ˵ˋ˧ˋ˖ ˦˧˥˴ˋ˨˨ ༤ˋ˜˨˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˊ˘˱˱˫˖˘˘ (˨˧. Melchert 1994: 20), ˋˆ˥ ˣˁ༤˘˵˘ˋ ˘༤˘ ˥˪˨˫˪˨˪˅˘ˋ ˣˋ ˢ˥ːˋ˪ ˄˻˪˼ ˘˨˦˥༤˼˖˥˅ˁˣ˥ ˅ ˜ˁ˵ˋ˨˪˅ˋ ˁ˧ˆ˫ˢˋˣ˪ˁ ˅ ˦˥༤˼˖˫ ˆˋˣˋ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˘ˊˋˣ˪˘˱˘˜ˁ˴˘˘ ˥˦˧ˋˊˋ༤ˋˣˣ˥˙ ༤ˋ˜˨ˋˢ˻. 33 ʒˋˆ˘˥ˣ ɸˁ˘ˣ˘˨, ˊ˥༤ːˣ˥ ˄˻˪˼, ˥˪ˣ˥˨˘༤˨̀ ˜ ˨˪˧ˁˣˋ ˧ˋ˜˘ ʓˋ˲ˁ ˅ ˜˥ˣ˴ˋ ˄˧˥ˣ˖˥˅˥ˆ˥ ˅ˋ˜ˁ. ʓ༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥, ˅ ˜ˁ˵ˋ˨˪˅ˋ ˁ༤˼˪ˋ˧ˣˁ˪˘˅˻ ˢ˥ːˣ˥ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤˥ː˘˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˋˆ˥ ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ˅˥˨˲˥ˊ˘˪ ˜ ˨༤˥˅˫ ‘˥༤˘˅˜˘’ ˅ ˢˋ˨˪ˣ˥ˢ ༤˫˅˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˢ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪ˋ. 34 ɸ˥˦˫˹ˋˣ˘ˋ ˢ˘ˆ˧ˁ˴˘˙ ˦༤ˋˢˋˣ ༤˫˜˜ˁ ˅ ˜˥ˣ˴ˋ II ˪˻˨. ˊ˥ ˣ. ˽. ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤ˁˆˁˋ˪, ˵˪˥ ˥˦˧ˋˊˋ༤ˋˣ˘ˋ ˖ˋˢˋ༤˼ ʌ˫˜˜ˁ ˜ˁ˜ «˧ˁ˨˦༤˻˅˵ˁ˪˥ˆ˥ ˆˋ˥ˆ˧ˁ˱˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘̀ ˊ༤̀ ʪˆ˥-ʁˁ˦ˁˊˣ˥˙ ɯˣˁ˪˥༤˘˘, ˘˨˦˥༤˼˖˥˅ˁ˅˸ˋˆ˥˨̀ ˅ ˥˪ˣ˥˸ˋˣ˘˘ ˆ˧˫˦˦˻ ˽˪ˣ˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ ˘ ˜˫༤˼˪˫˧ˣ˥ ˧˥ˊ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˻˲ ˨˥˥˄˹ˋ˨˪˅ ˘ ˜༤ˁˣ˥˅» (Singer 1983: 208) ˣ˫ːˊˁˋ˪˨̀ ˅ ˫˪˥˵ˣˋˣ˘˘. ʑ˧˘ˣ˘ˢˁ˅˸˘ˋ˨̀ ˣˋ˜˥ˆˊˁ ˧ˁ˨˦༤˻˅˵ˁ˪˻ˋ ˆˋ˥ˆ˧ˁ˱˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˋ ˆ˧ˁˣ˘˴˻ ˖ˋˢˋ༤˼ ʌ˫˜˜ˁ ˢ˥ˆ༤˘ ˄˻˪˼ ˥˪˧ˁːˋˣ˘ˋˢ ˆ˥˨˦˥ˊ˨˪˅˥˅ˁ˅˹ˋ˙ ˅ ˣˁ˫˵ˣ˥ˢ ˨˥˥˄˹ˋ˨˪˅ˋ ˣˋ̀˨ˣ˥˨˪˘ ˦˥ ˦˥˅˥ˊ˫ ˦˧˥˄༤ˋˢ˻ ˪˧˥̀ˣ˨˜˥˙ ʌ˘˜˘˘ ˘༤˘ ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘˘ ʌ˘˜ˁ˥ˣ˘˘. ɹ˨༤˘ ˦˧˘˖ˣˁ˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˽˪˘ ˪˥˦˥ˣ˘ˢ˻ ˢ˥ˆ˫˪ ˥˪˧ˁːˁ˪˼ ˅˪˥˧˘˵ˣ˫˿ ˽˜˨˦ˁˣ˨˘˿ ˦༤ˋˢˋˣ ༤˫˜˜ˁ, ˄ˁˣˁ༤˼ˣ˥ˋ ˥˪˥ːˊˋ˨˪˅༤ˋˣ˘ˋ ˢˋːˊ˫ ʌ˫˜˜˥˙ ˘˨˪˥˵ˣ˘˜˥˅ ˄˧˥ˣ˖˥˅˥ˆ˥ ˅ˋ˜ˁ ˘ ʌ˘˜˘ˋ˙ ˜༤ˁ˨˨˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˘˨˪˥˵ˣ˘˜˥˅ ˨˪ˁˣ˥˅˘˪˨̀ ˜˫ˊˁ ˢˋˣˋˋ ˦˧˥˄༤ˋˢˁ˪˘˵ˣ˻ˢ. 32

210

ʎˁ ˜ˁ˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲ ˆ˥˅˥˧˘༤˘ ˅ ʕ˧˥ˋ? ɳ˖ˆ༤̀ˊ ˁˣˁ˪˥༤˘˨˪ˁ

˦˥ ˅˧ˋˢˋˣ˘ ˥˪ ˥˄˺ˋ˜˪ˁ ˘˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁˣ˘̀ ˣˁ ˜ˁ˜ ˢ˘ˣ˘ˢ˫ˢ ˣˁ ˦˥༤ ˪˻˨̀˵ˋ༤ˋ˪˘̀. ʐ˵ˋ˅˘ˊˣ˥, ˵˪˥ ˋ˨༤˘ ˦˧˘˖ˣˁ˅ˁ˪˼ ˘ˊˋˣ˪˘˱˘˜ˁ˴˘˿ ʕ˧˥˘ ˘ ɳ˘༤˫˨˻, ˪˥ ˽ˢ˦˘˧˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˋ ˊˁˣˣ˻ˋ, ˅˥˨˲˥ˊ̀˹˘ˋ ˜ ˘˨˪˥˵ˣ˘˜ˁˢ ˦ˋ˧˅˥˙ ˆ˧˫˦˦˻, ˥˄༤ˁˊˁ˿˪ ˄˥༤˼˸ˋ˙ ˊ˥˜ˁ˖ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥˙ ˨˘༤˥˙, ˵ˋˢ ˽ˢ˦˘˧˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˋ ˊˁˣˣ˻ˋ, ˅˥˨˲˥ˊ̀˹˘ˋ ˜ ˘˨˪˥˵ˣ˘˜ˁˢ ˅˪˥˧˥˙ ˆ˧˫˦˦˻. ɯˣˁ༤˘˖ ˘˨˪˥˵ˣ˘˜˥˅ ˄˧˥ˣ˖˥˅˥ˆ˥ ˅ˋ˜ˁ ˣˋ ˦˥˖˅˥༤˘༤ ˅˻̀˅˘˪˼ ˣ˘ ˥ˊˣ˥ˆ˥ ˫˄ˋˊ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˁ˧ˆ˫ˢˋˣ˪ˁ ˅ ˦˥༤˼˖˫ ˸˘˧˥˜˥ ˧ˁ˨˦˧˥˨˪˧ˁˣˋˣˣ˥˙ ˆ˘˦˥˪ˋ˖˻, ˥˪˥ːˊˋ˨˪˅༤̀˿˹ˋ˙ ˣˁ˨ˋ༤ˋˣ˘ˋ ɳ˘༤˫˨˻, ˥˪˵ˁ˨˪˘ ˘༤˘ ˅ ˴ˋ༤˥ˢ, ˨ ˣ˥˨˘˪ˋ༤̀ˢ˘ ༤˫˅˘˙˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ. ʎ˘ ˥ˊˣ˥ ˘˖ ˘ˢˋˣ ˨˥˄˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˻˲, ˥˪ˣ˥˨̀˹˘˲˨̀ ˜ ɳ˘༤˫˨ˋ, ˣˋ ˘ˢˋˋ˪ ༤˫˅˘˙˨˜˥˙ ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘˘, ˁ ˧ˁ˨˜˥˦˜˘ ʕ˧˥ˁˊ˻ ˣˋ ˦˧˘ˣˋ˨༤˘ ˣ˘ ˥ˊˣ˥˙ ˢ˥ˣ˫ˢˋˣ˪ˁ༤˼ˣ˥˙ ˣˁˊ˦˘˨˘ ˣˁ ༤˫˅˘˙˨˜˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˋ. ʓ˫˹ˋ˨˪˅˫˿˪ ˥˦˧ˋˊˋ༤ˋˣˣ˻ˋ ˁ˧ˆ˫ˢˋˣ˪˻ ˅ ˦˥༤˼˖˫ ˜˥ˣ˪ˁ˜˪˥˅ ˢˋːˊ˫ ༤˫˅˘˙˴ˁˢ˘ ˘ ː˘˪ˋ༤̀ˢ˘ ɳ˘༤˫˨˻ɏ/ɏʕ˧˥˘, ˁ ˘ˢˋˣˣ˥ ˫˦˥ˢ˘ˣˁˣ˘ˋ ʕ˧˥˘ ˅ ༤˫˅˘˙˨˜˥˙ «˦ˋ˨ˣˋ ˘˖ ʃ˨˪ˁˣ˫˅˻» ˘ ˥˄ˣˁ˧˫ːˋˣ˘ˋ ˦ˋ˵ˁ˪˘ ˨ ˁˣˁ˪˥༤˘˙˨˜˘ˢ˘ ˘ˋ˧˥ˆ༤˘˱˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˢ˘ ˨˘ˢ˅˥༤ˁˢ˘ ˦˧˘ ˧ˁ˨˜˥˦˜ˁ˲ ʕ˧˥˘. ʎ˥ ˨˫˹ˋ˨˪˅˫˿˪ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˘ ˁ˧ˆ˫ˢˋˣ˪˻ ˅ ˦˥༤˼˖˫ ˜˥ˣ˪ˁ˜˪˥˅ ˢˋːˊ˫ ˣˁ˨ˋ༤ˋˣ˘ˋˢ ɳ˘༤˫˨˻ ˘ ˆ˧ˋ˜ˁˢ˘, ˁ ˘ˢˋˣˣ˥, ˘ˢˋˣˁ ɯ༤ˁ˜˨ˁˣˊ˫, ˦˧ˁ˅˘˪ˋ༤̀ ɳ˘༤˫˨˻, ˘ ɯ˦˦ˁ༤˘˫ˣ˻, ˄˥ˆˁ, ˦˥˵˘˪ˁˋˢ˥ˆ˥ ˅ ɳ˘༤˫˨ˋ. ɲ˥༤ˋˋ ˪˥ˆ˥, ˊ˥˨˪˫˦ˣ˻ˋ ˣˁˢ ˨˅ˋˊˋˣ˘̀ ˨˥˅ˢˋ˨˪˘ˢ˻ ˨ ˆ˘˦˥˪ˋ˖˥˙ ˥ ˊ˥˨˪ˁ˪˥˵ˣ˥ ˦˥˅ˋ˧˲ˣ˥˨˪ˣ˥ˢ ˲ˁ˧ˁ˜˪ˋ˧ˋ ˜˥ˣ˪ˁ˜˪˥˅ ˢˋːˊ˫ ༤˫˅˘˙˴ˁˢ˘ ˘ ˪˧˥̀ˣ˴ˁˢ˘, ˪˥ˆˊˁ ˜ˁ˜ ˊ˅ˁ ˆ˧ˋ˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˘ˢˋˣ˘ ˨˥˄˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˻˲ ˨˧ˋˊ˘ ˘˖˅ˋ˨˪ˣ˻˲ ˅˥˨˼ˢ˘ ༤ˋ˜˨˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˋˊ˘ˣ˘˴, ˨˅̀˖ˁˣˣ˻˲ ˨ ɳ˘༤˫˨˥˙, ˨˜˥˧ˋˋ ˆ˥˅˥˧̀˪ ˅ ˦˥༤˼˖˫ ̀˖˻˜˥˅˥ˆ˥ ˘ ˜˫༤˼˪˫˧ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˨˘ˢ˄˘˥˖ˁ ˢˋːˊ˫ ˪˧˥̀ˣ˴ˁˢ˘ ˘ ˢ˘˜ˋˣ˨˜˘ˢ˘ ˆ˧ˋ˜ˁˢ˘. ʑˋ˧ˋ˲˥ˊ̀ ˜ ˨˅ˋˊˋˣ˘̀ˢ ˘˖ ˆ˧ˋ˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˘˨˪˥˵ˣ˘˜˥˅, ˨༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪ ˦˧˘˖ˣˁ˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˖ˊˋ˨˼ ˘ˢˋˋ˪˨̀ ˧̀ˊ ˖ˁ˨༤˫ː˘˅ˁ˿˹˘˲ ˅ˣ˘ˢˁˣ˘̀ ˁ˧ˆ˫ˢˋˣ˪˥˅ ˅ ˦˥༤˼˖˫ ༤˫˅˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˽༤ˋˢˋˣ˪˥˅ ˅ ʕ˧˥ˋ ˘ ʕ˧˥ˁˊˋ. ʇ ˣ˘ˢ ˥˪ˣ˥˨˘˪˨̀, ˅ ˵ˁ˨˪ˣ˥˨˪˘, ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘̀ ˘ˢˋˣ˘ ˴ˁ˧̀ ʑ˧˘ˁˢˁ, ˪˥˦˥ˣ˘ˢˁ ɸˁ˘ˣ˘˨ ˣˁ ˆ˧ˁˣ˘˴ˋ ʕ˧˥ˁˊ˻, ˁ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˨˅ˋˊˋˣ˘̀ ˥ ༤˘˜˘˙˴ˁ˲ — ˨˥˿˖ˣ˘˜ˁ˲ ˪˧˥̀ˣ˴ˋ˅. ʓ༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪, ˥ˊˣˁ˜˥, ˨ˊˋ༤ˁ˪˼ ˊ˅ˋ ˅ˁːˣ˻ˋ ˥ˆ˥˅˥˧˜˘. ɳ˥-˦ˋ˧˅˻˲, ˨˪˥˧˥ˣˣ˘˜˘ ˁ༤˼˪ˋ˧ˣˁ˪˘˅ˣ˻˲ ˆ˘˦˥˪ˋ˖, ˨˵˘˪ˁ˅˸˘ˋɏ/ɏ˨˵˘˪ˁ˿˹˘ˋ ˪˧˥̀ˣ˴ˋ˅ ˄˧˥ˣ˖˥˅˥ˆ˥ ˅ˋ˜ˁ ˱˧ˁ˜˘˙˴ˁˢ˘ ˘༤˘ ˆ˧ˋ˜ˁˢ˘, ˦˧˘˅˥ˊ̀˪ ˨˅˥˘ ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘˘ ˘ˢˋˣ ˨˥˄˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˻˲, ˥˪ˣ˥˨̀˹˘˲˨̀ ˜ ˆ˥ˢˋ˧˥˅˨˜˥˙ ʕ˧˥ˋ, ˜˥˪˥˧˻ˋ ˦˧˘˖˅ˁˣ˻ ˦˥ˊ˜˧ˋ˦˘˪˼ ˘˲ ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˋ ˦˥˨˪˧˥ˋˣ˘̀. ʍˣˋ ˣˋ ˘˖˅ˋ˨˪ˣ˻ ˦˥˦˻˪˜˘ ˨˪ˁ˪˘˨˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˁˣˁ༤˘˖ˁ, ˦˧˘˖˅ˁˣˣ˻ˋ, ˣˁ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧, ˦˥ˊ˜˧ˋ˦˘˪˼ ˆ˘˦˥˪ˋ˖˫ ˥ ˦˧ˋ˥˄༤ˁˊˁˣ˘˘ ༤˫˅˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˢ˘˜˧˥˪˥˦˥ˣ˘ˢ˥˅ ˣˁˊ ˱˧ˁ˜˘˙˨˜˘ˢ˘ ˢ˘˜˧˥˪˥˦˥ˣ˘ˢˁˢ˘ ˅ ˆ˥ˢˋ˧˥˅˨˜˥˙ ʕ˧˥ˋ. ɳ˥ ˅˪˥˧˻˲, ˋ˨༤˘ ˦˧˘ˣ˘ˢˁ˪˼ ˅˨ˋ˧˼ˋ˖ ˨˥˥˄˹ˋˣ˘̀ ˥ «˪˧˥̀ˣ˨˜˘˲ ༤˘˜˘˙˴ˁ˲», ˨༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˦˧˘ˣ̀˪˼ ˅˨ˋ˧˼ˋ˖ ˘˲ ˥˪༤˘˵˘ˋ ˥˪ ˨˥˄˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥ ˪˧˥̀ˣ˴ˋ˅. ɴ˘˦˥˪ˋ˖ˁ ˥ ˪˥ˢ, ˵˪˥ ༤˘˜˘˙˴˻ ˊ˥ˢ˘ˣ˘˧˥˅ˁ༤˘ ˅ ˆ˥ˢˋ˧˥˅˨˜˥˙ ʕ˧˥ˋ, ˦˧̀ˢ˥ ˦˧˥˪˘˅˥˧ˋ˵˘˪ ˽˦˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˪˧ˁˊ˘˴˘˘. ʠ˪˥ ˜ˁ˨ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˘ˣ˪ˋ˧˦˧ˋ˪ˁ˴˘˘ ˪ˋ˧ˢ˘ˣˁ «༤˘˜˘˙˴˻» ˅ ˆ˥ˢˋ˧˥˅˨˜˥ˢ ˽˦˥˨ˋ, ˦˧˘˲˥ˊ˘˪˨̀ ˨ˊˋ༤ˁ˪˼ ˅˻˄˥˧ ˢˋːˊ˫ ˋˆ˥ ˘ˊˋˣ˪˘˱˘˜ˁ˴˘ˋ˙ ˨ ˣ˥˨˘˪ˋ༤̀ˢ˘ ༤˫˅˘˙˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˘ ˨˥˄˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥ ༤˘˜˘˙˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ. ɲ༤˘˖˜˥ˋ ˧˥ˊ˨˪˅˥ ˥˄˥˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅ ˣˋ ˦˥ˊ༤ˋː˘˪ ˨˥ˢˣˋˣ˘˿. ʐˊˣˁ˜˥ ˊ༤̀ ˪˥ˆ˥, ˵˪˥˄˻ ˦˧˘˖ˣˁ˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˆ˧ˋ˜˘ ˘ˢˋˣ˥˅ˁ༤˘ ༤˫˅˘˙˨˜˥ˋ ˣˁ˨ˋ༤ˋˣ˘ˋ ʕ˧˥˘ ༤˘˜˘˙˴ˁˢ˘, ˦˧˘˲˥ˊ˘˪˨̀ ˊ˥˦˫˨˪˘˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˥ˣ˘ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˥˪ˊˁ˅ˁ༤˘ ˨ˋ˄ˋ ˥˪˵ˋ˪ ˅ ˆˋˣˋ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˄༤˘˖˥˨˪˘ ˽˪˘˲ ˊ˅˫˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅˻˲ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢ, ˵˪˥ ˘ ˦˥˖˅˥༤˘༤˥ ˘ˢ ˦ˋ˧ˋˣˋ˨˪˘ ˣˁ˘ˢˋˣ˥˅ˁˣ˘ˋ ༤˫˜˜ˁɏ/ɏ༤˘˜˘˙˴ˋ˅ ˣˁ ༤˫˅˘˙˴ˋ˅ ˦˥˨༤ˋ ˪˥ˆ˥, ˜ˁ˜ ༤˫˅˘˙˨˜˘˙ ̀˖˻˜ ˅˻˸ˋ༤ ˘˖ ˫˦˥˪˧ˋ˄༤ˋˣ˘̀ ˅ ˖ˁ˦ˁˊˣ˥˙ ˵ˁ˨˪˘ ʍˁ༤˥˙ ɯ˖˘˘. ʕˁ˜ˁ̀ ˆ˘˦˥˪ˋ˖ˁ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤ˁˆˁˋ˪ ˨˪ˋ˦ˋˣ˼ ˅˻˨˥˜˫˿ ˨˪ˋ˦ˋˣ˼ ༤˘ˣˆ˅˘˨˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˥˨˅ˋˊ˥ˢ༤ˋˣˣ˥˨˪˘ ˥ ˨˧ˁ˅ˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥˙ ˆ˧ˁˢˢˁ˪˘˜ˋ ˁˣˁ˪˥༤˘˙˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅ ˨˥ ˨˪˥˧˥ˣ˻ ˆ˧ˋ˜˥˅, ˊ༤̀ ˊ˥˦˫˹ˋˣ˘̀ ˜˥˪˥˧˥˙, ˜ˁːˋ˪˨̀, ˣˋ˪ ˣ˘˜ˁ˜˘˲ ˣˋ˖ˁ˅˘˨˘ˢ˻˲ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˁˣ˘˙. ɯ༤˼˪ˋ˧ˣˁ˪˘˅˥˙ ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤˥ːˋˣ˘ˋ ˥ ˊ˥˘˨˪˥˧˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˢ˘ˆ˧ˁ˴˘̀˲ ˦༤ˋˢˋˣˣ˻˲ ˆ˧˫˦˦ ༤˫˜˜ˁ ˅ ʕ˧˥ˁˊ˫ ˅ «˪ˋˢˣ˻ˋ ˅ˋ˜ˁ», ༤ˋːˁ˹˘ˋ ˣˁ ˧˫˄ˋːˋ ˽˦˥˲˘ ˄˧˥ˣ˖˻ ˘ ːˋ༤ˋ˖ˁ (˜˥ˣˋ˴ 2-ˆ˥ ˪˻˨. ˊ˥ ˣ.˽.). ʘ˵˘˪˻˅ˁ̀ ˥˪˨˫˪˨˪˅˘ˋ ˨˅ˋˊˋˣ˘˙ ˥ ༤˫˅˘˙˴ˁ˲ ˅ ʕ˧˥ˁˊˋ ˅ ˘˨˪˥˵ˣ˘˜ˁ˲ ˄˧˥ˣ˖˥˅˥ˆ˥ ˅ˋ˜ˁ, ˁ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˣˁ༤˘˵˘ˋ ˨˅ˋˊˋˣ˘˙ ˥ ༤˘˜˘˙˴ˁ˲ ˅ ˨˥˨˪ˁ˅ˋ ˢ˥˄˘༤˼ˣ˻˲ ˆ˧˫˦˦ «ˣˁ˧˥ˊ˥˅ ˢ˥˧̀», ˦˥˨༤ˋˊˣˋ˙ ˆ˘˦˥˪ˋ˖ˋ, ˅ˋ˧˥̀˪ˣ˥, ˨༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪ ˥˪ˊˁ˪˼ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥˵˪ˋˣ˘ˋ. ɳ ˪˥ ːˋ ˅˧ˋˢ̀, ˨༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪ ˦˧˘˖ˣˁ˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˘˨˪˥˧˘˵ˣ˥˨˪˼ ˫˵ˁ˨˪˘̀ ༤˘˜˘˙˴ˋ˅ ˅ ˅˥ˋˣˣ˻˲ ˨˪˥༤˜ˣ˥˅ˋˣ˘̀˲ ˅ ˧ˁ˙˥ˣˋ ɳ˘༤˫˨˻ɏ/ɏʕ˧˥˘ ˣˁ ˧˫˄ˋːˋ ˄˧˥ˣ˖˥˅˥ˆ˥ ˘ ːˋ༤ˋ˖ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˅ˋ˜˥˅ ˣˋ ˢ˥ːˋ˪ ˨˵˘˪ˁ˪˼˨̀ 211

ʃ. ʓ. ʫ˜˫˄˥˅˘˵

˨˪˧˥ˆ˥ ˊ˥˜ˁ˖ˁˣˣ˥˙, ˘ ˱˥༤˼˜༤˥˧˘˨˪˘˵ˋ˨˜ˁ̀ ˘ˣ˪ˋ˧˦˧ˋ˪ˁ˴˘̀ ˊˁˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˨˿ːˋ˪ˁ ˅ ˊ˫˲ˋ Bachvarova 2016 ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˘ˢˋˋ˪ ˦˧ˁ˅˥ ˣˁ ˨˫˹ˋ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘ˋ. ɳ ˖ˁ˜༤˿˵ˋˣ˘ˋ, ˦˧˘˲˥ˊ˘˪˨̀ ˅ˋ˧ˣ˫˪˼˨̀ ˜ ˅˥˦˧˥˨˫ ˥˄ ˽˪ˣ˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˢ ˨˥˨˪ˁ˅ˋ ˣˁ˨ˋ༤ˋˣ˘̀ ɳ˘༤˫˨˻. ʇˁ˜ ˫˦˥ˢ˘ˣˁ༤˥˨˼ ˅˻˸ˋ, ˘˨˪˥˵ˣ˘˜˘ ˄˧˥ˣ˖˥˅˥ˆ˥ ˅ˋ˜ˁ ˣˋ ˊˁ˿˪ ˖ˊˋ˨˼ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˁˣ˘˙ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥˵ˋ˨˪˼ ༤˫˅˘˙˨˜˫˿, ༤˘ˊ˘˙˨˜˫˿ ˘༤˘ ˱˧ˁ˜˘˙˨˜˫˿ ˆ˘˦˥˪ˋ˖˫. ʍ˥ːˣ˥, ˥ˊˣˁ˜˥, ˨˱˥˧ˢ˫༤˘˧˥˅ˁ˪˼ ˪ˋ˖˘˨, ˜˥˪˥˧˻˙ ˥˄༤ˁˊˁˋ˪ ˦˧ˋ˘ˢ˫˹ˋ˨˪˅˥ˢ ˦ˋ˧ˋˊ ˅˨ˋˢ˘ ˅˻˸ˋ˘˖༤˥ːˋˣˣ˻ˢ˘: ˽˪ˣ˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˙ ˨˥˨˪ˁ˅ ʕ˧˥ˁˊ˻ ˅ ˄˧˥ˣ˖˥˅˥ˢ ˅ˋ˜ˋ ˣˋ ˦˥ˊˊˁˋ˪˨̀ ˘ˣ˪ˋ˧˦˧ˋ˪ˁ˴˘˘ ˅ ˨˘༤˫ ˣˋˊ˥˨˪ˁ˪˜ˁ ˊˁˣˣ˻˲ ˘ ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˥, ˵˪˥ ˄˥༤˼˸˘ˣ˨˪˅˥ ˣˁ˨ˋ༤ˋˣ˘̀ ɳ˘༤˫˨˻ ˣˋ ˥˪ˣ˥˨˘༤˥˨˼ ˣ˘ ˜ ˥ˊˣ˥˙ ˘˖ ˅˻˸ˋ˦ˋ˧ˋ˵˘˨༤ˋˣˣ˻˲ ˆ˧˫˦˦. ʇˁ˜ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀, ˅˨ˋ ˁ༤˼˪ˋ˧ˣˁ˪˘˅ˣ˻ˋ ˆ˘˦˥˪ˋ˖˻ ˢ˥ːˣ˥ ˥˄˺ˋˊ˘ˣ˘˪˼ ˦˥ ˦˧˘ˣ˴˘˦˫ ˥˪˜ˁ˖ˁ ˥˪ ˽ˢ˦˘˧˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˦༤ˁ˪˱˥˧ˢ˻ ˧ˁˊ˘ ˪˥ˆ˥, ˵˪˥˄˻ ˨ˣˁ˄ˊ˘˪˼ ˪˧˥̀ˣ˴ˋ˅ «˖ˣˁ˪ˣ˻ˢ˘ ˧˥ˊ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˘˜ˁˢ˘».

ʇˌ˞ˀ˛ʸ˞˟˛ʸ ɴ˘ˣˊ˘ˣ, ʌ. ɯ., ʟ˻ˢ˄˫˧˨˜˘˙, ɳ. ʌ. 1996. ɱ˙˖ˀ˛ ˌ ˌ˜˞˙˛ˌ˴ ʻ˙˜˞˙˩˗˙ʼ˙ ʎ˛ˀʿˌˊˀ˖˗˙˖˙˛˰˴. ʍ˥˨˜˅ˁ: ɳ˥˨˪˥˵ˣˁ̀ ༤˘˪ˋ˧ˁ˪˫˧ˁ. ʇˁ˖ˁˣ˨˜ˋˣˋ, ɳ. ʑ., ʇˁ˖ˁˣ˨˜˘˙, ʎ. ʎ. 1986. ʌ˛ˀʿ˖ˀ˞˗˙-˚˙˗˴˞ˌˍ˗˯ˍ ˜˕˙ʻʸ˛˰ ʼ˛ˀ˩ˀ˜ː˙ʼ˙ ˴ˊ˯ːʸ: ː˛ˌ˞˙-˖ˌːˀ˗˜ːˌˍ ˚ˀ˛ˌ˙ʿ. ʌˋˣ˘ˣˆ˧ˁˊ: ʎˁ˫˜ˁ. ʐ˧ˋ˸˜˥, ʒ. ʎ. 2012. “ʃˋ˧˥ˆ༤˘˱˘˵ˋ˨˜ˁ̀ ༤˫˅˘˙˨˜ˁ̀ ˣˁˊ˦˘˨˼ ˣˁ ˄˧˥ˣ˖˥˅˥˙ ˵ˁ˸ˋ ˘˖ ɯˣ˜ˁ˧˻: ʐ˦˻˪ ˽˦˘ˆ˧ˁ˱˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˘ ˘˨˪˥˧˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˧ˋ˘ˣ˪ˋ˧˦˧ˋ˪ˁ˴˘˘”. ɰˀ˜˞˗ˌː ʿ˛ˀʻ˗ˀˍ ˌ˜˞˙˛ˌˌ 2012(2): 3–28. ʐ˧ˋ˸˜˥, ʒ. ʎ. 2013. “ʃˋ˧˥ˆ༤˘˱˘˵ˋ˨˜ˁ̀ ˣˁˊ˦˘˨˼ ˴ˁ˧̀ ʓ˫˦˦˘༤˫༤˘˫ˢ˻ (SÜDBURG): ˁ˧˲ˁ˘˖ˁ˴˘̀ ˘༤˘ a˧˲ˁ˘˜ˁ?” ɰˀ˜˞˗ˌː ʿ˛ˀʻ˗ˀˍ ˌ˜˞˙˛ˌˌ 2013(2): 84–95. ʣˋ˅˥˧˥˸˜˘ˣ, ɳ. ɳ. 2012. “ʝ˘ˁ˖ˢ˻ ˘ ˨˲˥ˊˣ˻ˋ ˨˪˧˫˜˪˫˧˻ ˅ ˢ˘༤˘˙˨˜˘˲ ˪ˋ˜˨˪ˁ˲”. ɭ˛˖˴˗˜ːˌˍ ʼ˟˖ʸ˗ˌ˞ʸ˛˗˯ˍ ʻˀ˜˞˗ˌː 2012(4): 98–120. ʣˋ˅˥˧˥˸˜˘ˣ, ɳ. ɳ. 2013. “ʍ˘༤˘˙˨˜˘˙ ̀˖˻˜”. ʦˊ˯ːˌ ˖ˌ˛ʸ: ʍˀ˕ˌː˞˙ʻ˯ˀ ˌ˗ʿ˙ˀʻ˛˙˚ˀˍ˜ːˌˀ ˴ˊ˯ːˌ ʌˀ˛ˀʿ˗ˀˍ ˌ ʚˀ˗˞˛ʸ˕˰˗˙ˍ ɭˊˌˌ. ʑ˥ˊ ˧ˋˊ.: ʇ˥˧̀˜˥˅, ʪ.Ɏɲ., ˘ ˊ˧. ʍ˥˨˜˅ˁ: Academia, ˨˪˧. 154–166. ʟ˻ˢ˄˫˧˨˜˘˙, ɳ. ʌ. 2003. “ʨ˪ˣ˥- ˘ ༤˘ˣ˅˥ˆˋˣˋ˖ ʕ˧˥˘ ˜ˁ˜ ˦˧ˋ༤˥ˢ༤ˋˣ˘ˋ ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˨˜˥˙ ˦˧˥˄༤ˋˢ˻ ”. ɰ˙˚˛˙˜˯ ˴ˊ˯ː˙ˊ˗ʸ˗ˌ˴ 2003(3): 15–30. ʫ˜˫˄˥˅˘˵, ʃ. ʓ. 2015. “ʇ ༤˥˜ˁ༤˘˖ˁ˴˘˘ ʌ˫˅˘˘ – ˊ˧ˋ˅ˣˋ˙˸ˋˆ˥ ˁ˧ˋˁ༤ˁ ˥˄˘˪ˁˣ˘̀ ༤˫˅˘˙˴ˋ˅”. ɰˀ˜˞˗ˌː ʿ˛ˀʻ˗ˀˍ ˌ˜˞˙˛ˌˌ 2015(4): 137–163.

References Adiego Lajara, I.-J. 2007. The Carian Language. HdO 1ɏ/ɏ86. Leiden: Brill. Bachvarova, M. 2016. From Hittite to Homer: The Anatolian Background of Ancient Greek Epic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Beal, R. H. 2004. Review of Bryce 2002. Journal of the American Oriental Society 124ɏ/ɏ1: 148–152. Beckman, G. 1999. Hittite Diplomatic Texts. Second Edition. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press. Beekes, R. S. 2003a. “The Origin of Apollo”. Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 3: 1–21. Beekes, R. S. 2003b. The Origin of the Etruscans. Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen. Mededelingen van de Afdeling Letterkunde (Nieuwe Reeks) 66ɏ/ɏ1. Amsterdam: Akademie van Wetenschappen. Bryce, T. 1974. “The Lukka Problem — and a Possible Solution”. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 33ɏ/ɏ4: 395–404. Bryce, T. 2002. Life and Society in the Hittite World. Oxford University Press. Bryce, T. 2003. “History”. The Luwians. Ed. C. Melchert. HdO 1ɏ/ɏ68. Leiden: Brill. Pp. 27–127. Bryce, T. 2005. The Kingdom of the Hittites. New Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bryce, T. 2006. The Trojans and their Neighbours. London and New York: Routledge. Carruba, O. 1977. “Beiträge zur mittelhethitischen Geschichte I”. Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 18: 137–179. Carruba, O. 2011. “Die Gliederung des Anatolischen und der erste indoeuropäische Name der Anatolier”. Empires after the Empire: Anatolia, Syria, and Assyria after Suppiluliuma II. Ed. K. Strobel. Eothen 17. Florence: LoGisma. Pp. 309–329. 212

ʎˁ ˜ˁ˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲ ˆ˥˅˥˧˘༤˘ ˅ ʕ˧˥ˋ? ɳ˖ˆ༤̀ˊ ˁˣˁ˪˥༤˘˨˪ˁ

Cohen, Y. 2002. Taboos and Prohibitions in Hittite Society: a Study of the Hittite Expression natta Ŋra (‘not permitted’). THeth 24. Heidelberg: Winter. Cymburskij V. L. “Etno- i lingvogenez Troi kak prelomlenie indoevropejskoj problemy”. Voprosy Jazykoznanija 2003(3): 15–30. Durnford, S. P. B. 2008. “Is Sarpedon a Bronze Age Anatolian personal name or a job description?” Anatolian Studies 58: 103–113. Durnford, S. P. B. 2010. “How old was Ankara Silver Bowl when its inscriptions were added”. Anatolian Studies 60: 51–70. Easton, D. F, Hawkins, J. D., Sheratt A. G., Sheratt E. S. 2002. “Troy in recent perspective”. Anatolian Studies 52: 75–110. Erbil, Y., Mouton, A. 2012. “Water in Ancient Anatolian Religions: An Archaeological and Philological Inquiry of the Hittite Evidence”. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 71ɏ/ɏ1: 53–74. Freu, J. 2010ɏ/ɏ2011. “Le vase d’argent du Musée des civilizations anatoliennes d’Ankara et la fin de l’Empire Hittite”. Talanta XLII–XLIII: 185–192. Gander, M. 2010. Die geographischen Beziehungen der Lukka-Länder. THeth. 27. Heidelberg: Winter. Gander, M. 2014. “Tlos, Oinoanda and the Hittite Invasion of the Lukka Lands. Some Thoughts on the History of Northwestern Lycia in the Late Bronze and Iron Ages”. Klio 96ɏ/ɏ2: 369–415. van Gessel, B. H. L. 1998. Onomasticon of the Hittite Pantheon. HdO 1ɏ/ɏ33. Leiden: Brill. Gindin, L. A, Cymburskij, V. L. 1996. Gomer i istorija vostochnogo sredizemnomor’ja. Moskva: Vostochnaja literature. Giusfredi, F. 2013. “Further Considerations on the Ankara Silver Bowl”. Time and History in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the 56th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale at Barcelona. Ed. L. Feliu et al. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Pp. 665–678. Gordon, E. I. 1969. “The Meaning of the Ideogram dKASKAL.KUR = “Underground Water-course””. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 21: 70–88. Gurney, O. R. 1997. “The Annals of Hattusilis III”. Anatolian Studies 47: 127–139. Gusmani, R. 1986. Lydisches Wörterbuch: Ergänzungsband. Lieferung 3. Heidelberg: Winter. Güterbock, H. G. 1986. “Troy in Hittite Texts: Wilusa, Ahhiyawa, and Hittite History”. Troy and the Trojan War: a Symposium at Bryn Mawr College, October 1984. Ed. M. J. Mellink. Bryn Mawr, PA: Bryn Mawr College. Pp. 33–44. Hajnal, I. 2003. Troia aus sprachwissenschaftlicher Sicht. Die Struktur einer Argumentation. Innsbruck: Institut der Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck. Hawkins, J. D. 1995. The Hieroglyphic Inscription of the Sacred Pool Complex at Hattusa (SÜDBURG). StBoT, Beiheft 3. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Hawkins, J. D. 1997. “A Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscription on a Silver Bowl in the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations, Ankara”. Anadolu Medeniyetleri Müzesi. 1996 YÄllÄŚÄ: 7–22. Hawkins, J. D. 1998. “Tarkasnawa King of Mira, ‘Tarkondemos’, BoŜazköy sealings and Karabel”. Anatolian Studies, 48: 1–31. Hawkins, J. D. 2005. “A Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscription on a Silver Bowl (reprint of Hawkins 1997 with additions and corrections)”. Studia Troica 15: 193–204. Hawkins, J. D. 2014. “A New Look at the Luwian Language”. Kadmos 52ɏ/ɏ1: 1-8. Högemann, P. 2003. “Das ionische Griechentum und seine altanatolische Umwelt in Spiegel Homers”. Die Griechen und der Vordere Orient. Beiträge zum Kultur- und Regionskontakt zwischen Griechenland und dem Vorderen Orient im 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Ed. M. Witte and S. Alkier. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Pp. 1–24. Houwink ten Cate, Ph. 1985. “Sidelights on the Ahhiyawa question from Hittite Vassal and Royal Correspondence”. Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-egyptisch Genootschap (Ex Oriente Lux) 28: 28–79. Jenniges, W. 1998. “Les Lyciens dans l’Iliade : sur les traces de Pandaros”. Quaestiones Homericae: Acta Colloquii Namurcensis habiti diebus 7–9 mensis Septembris anni 1995. Ed. L. Isebaert & R. Lebrun. Louvain – Namur: Peetersɏ/ɏSocieté des études classiques. Pp. 119–147. Kazanskene, V. P., Kazanskij, N. N. 1986. Predmetno-pon’atijnyj slovar’ grecheskogo jazyka: krito-mikenskij period. Leningrad: Nauka. Kloekhorst, A. 2012. “The Language of Troy”. Troy: City, Homer and Turkey. Ed. J. Kelder et al. Amsterdam: W Books. Pp. 46-50. Laroche, E. 1972. “Linguistique asianique”. Minos 11: 112–135. 213

ʃ. ʓ. ʫ˜˫˄˥˅˘˵

Laroche, E. 1966. Les noms des hittites. Paris: C. Klinksieck. Latacz, J. 2004. Troy and Homer: Towards a Solution of an Old Mystery. Transl. K. Windle and R. Ireland. Oxford University Press. Lebrun, R. 1980. Hymnes et prières hittites. Louvain-la-Neuve: Centre d’histoire des religions. Macqueen, J. G. 1968. “Geography and History in Western Asia Minor in the Second Millennium B.C.E.”. Anatolian Studies, 18: 169–185. Melchert, H. C. 1987. “PIE velars in Luvian”. Studies in Memory of Warren Cowgill (1929–1985). Ed. C. Watkins. Berlin-New York: Walter de Gruyter. Pp. 182–204. Melchert, H. C. 1994. Anatolian Historical Phonology. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Melchert, H. C. 2003a. “Prehistory”. The Luwians. Ed. C. Melchert. HdO 1ɏ/ɏ68. Leiden: Brill. Pp. 8–26. Melchert, H. C. 2003b. “Language”. The Luwians. Ed. C. Melchert. HdO 1ɏ/ɏ68. Leiden: Brill. Pp. 170–210. Melchert, H. C. 2004. A Dictionary of the Lycian Language. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave Press. Melchert, H. C. 2006. “Indo-European Verbal Art in Luvian”. Langue poétique indo-européenne. Ed. G. Pinault and D. Petit. Leuven-Paris: Peeters. Pp. 291–298. Melchert, H. C. 2013. “Hittite and Hieroglyphic Luvian arha ‘away’: Common Inheritance or Borrowing?” Journal of Language Contact 6: 300–312. Miller, G. D. 2014. Ancient Greek Dialects and Early Authors: Introduction to the Dialect Mixture in Homer with Notes on Lyric and Herodotus. Berlin: de Gruyter. Miller, J. 2010. “Some disputed passages in the Tawagalawa Letter”. Ipamati kistamati para tumatimis: Luwian and Hittite studies presented to J. David Hawkins on the Occasion of his 70th birthday. Ed. I. Singer. Tel-Aviv: Institute of Archaeology. Pp. 159–169. del Monte, G. F., Tischler J. 1978. Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der hethitischen Texte. RGTC VI. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Neumann, G. 1999. “Wie haben die Troer im 13 Jahrhundert gesprochen?” Würzburger Jahrbücher für die Altertumswissenschaft, Neue Folge 23: 15–23. Neumann, G. 2007. Glossar des Lykischen. DBH 21. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Oettinger, N. 2010. “Seevölker und Etrusker”. Pax Hethitica: Studies on the Hittites and their Neighbours in Honour of Itamar Singer. Ed. Y. Cohen et al. StBoT 51. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Pp. 233–246. Oreshko, R. N. 2012. “Ieroglificheskaja luvijskaja nadpis’ na bronzovoj chashe iz Ankary: Opyt epigraficheskoj i istoricheskoj interpretacii”. Vestnik drevnej istorii 2012(2): 3–28. Oreshko, R. N. 2013. “Ieroglifichesjaja nadpis’ caria Suppiluliumy: arkhaizacija ili arkhaika?”. Vestnik drevnej istorii 2013(2): 84–95. Palmer, L. R. 1965. Mycenaeans and Minoans (second edition). New York: A. Knopf. Palmer, L. R. 1980. The Greek Language. London: Humanities Press. Poetto, M. 1993. L’iscrizione luvio-geroglifica di Yalburt. StMed 8. Pavia: Gianni Iuculano. von Schuler, E. 1967. Hethitische Dienstanweisungen für höhere Hof- und Staatsbeamte: ein Beitrag zum antiken Recht Kleinasiens. AfO, Beiheft 10. Osnabrück: Biblio-Verlag. Schürr 2010. “Zu Vorgeschichte Lykiens: Städtenamen in hethitischen Quellen”. Klio 92ɏ/ɏ1: 7–33. Shevoroshkin, V. V. 2012. “Khiazmy i skhodnye struktury v milijskikh tekstakh”. Armianskij gumanitarnyj vestnik 2012(4): 98–120. Shevoroshkin, V. V. 2013. “Milijskij jazyk”. In: Koriakov, Y. B. et al. (eds.). Jazyki mira: Reliktovye indoevropejskie jazyki Perednej i Central’noj Azii. Moscow: Akademija, pp. 154–166. Simon, Zs. 2006. Review of The Luwians (Ed. H. C. Melchert, Leiden: Brill, 2003). Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 46: 313–322. Simon, Zs. 2009. “Die ANKARA-Silberschale und das Ende des hethitische Reiches”. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 99ɏ/ɏ2: 247–269. Singer, I. 1983. “Western Anatolia in the Thirteenth Century B.C. according to the Hittite Sources”. Anatolian Studies, 33: 205–217. Singer, I. 2002. Hittite Prayers. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature. Singer, I. 2006. “The Hittites and the Bible Revisited”. “I Will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times”: Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday. Ed. A.M. Maier and P. de Miroschedji. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Pp. 723–756. Starke, F. 1985. Die keilschrift-luwischen Texte in Umschrift. StBoT 30. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Starke, F. 1990. Untersuchungen zur Stammbildung des keilschrift-luwischen Nomens. StBoT 31. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 214

ʎˁ ˜ˁ˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲ ˆ˥˅˥˧˘༤˘ ˅ ʕ˧˥ˋ? ɳ˖ˆ༤̀ˊ ˁˣˁ˪˥༤˘˨˪ˁ

Starke, F. 1997. “Troia im Kontext des historisch-politischen und sprachlichen Umfeldes Kleinasiens im 2. Jahrtausend”. Studia Troica 7: 447–487. Steiner, G. 2007. “The Case of Wiluša and Ahhiyawa”. Bibliotheca Orientalis 54ɏ/ɏ5–6: 590–612. Szemerényi, O. 1998. “Hounded out of Academe…: The sad fate of a genius”. Studi di Storia e di Filologia Anatolica dedicati a Giovanni Pugliese Carratelli. Ed. F. Imparati. Eothen 1. Firenze: ELITE. Pp. 257–289. Watkins, C. 1986. “The Language of the Trojans”. Troy and the Trojan War: a Symposium at Bryn Mawr College, October 1984. Ed. M. J. Mellink. Bryn Mawr, PA: Bryn Mawr College. Pp. 45–62. Watkins, C. 1995. How to Kill a Dragon: Aspects of Indo-European Poetics. Oxford University Press. Yakubovich, I. 2008. “Hittite-Luvian Bilingualism and the Origin of Anatolian Hieroglyphs”. Acta Linguistica Petropolitana 4ɏ/ɏ1: 9–36. Yakubovich, I. 2012. “The Reading of Luwian ARHA and Related Problems”. Altorientalische Forschungen 39ɏ/ɏ2 (2012): 321–339. Yakubovich, I. S. 2015. “K lokalizacii Luvii – drevnejshego areala obitanija luvijcev”. Vestnik drevnej istorii 2015(4): 137–163. Zangger, E. 2016. The Luwian Civilization: The Missing Link in the Aegean Bronze Age. Istanbul: Ege YayÈnlarÈ.

Ilya Yakubovich. The Language(s) of the Trojans: The Perspective of an Anatolian Scholar This paper is devoted to the scrutiny of historical sources that can shed light on the ethnic composition of northwest Anatolia in 14–12th centuries BC. The high probability of the conflicts in this region providing the background for the Homeric narrative about the Trojan war enhances the relevance of this topic for Ancient Mediterranean Studies. The linguistic analysis of the forms retrievable from the primary sources of the first millennium BC is conducive to a pessimistic conclusion that the ethnic identification of the “Trojans” is impossible. This undermines the popular hypothesis about the Luwian ethnicity of the Late Bronze Age “Trojan” elites. At the same time, one must acknowledge the possibility of interpreting several “Trojan” proper noun occurring in the Iliad as Luwic. One of the possible explanations of this phenomenon is the resettlement of (Proto-)Lycian population groups to the Troad as part of a broader process of the Sea People migrations. Keywords: Troy, Luwian, Lycian, Iliad, Homer

215

Reports / ʘ˛˙˗ˌːʸ ʋ. ɾ. ɯˀ˕˴ˀʻ ʍ˥˨˜˥˅˨˜˘˙ ˆ˥˨˫ˊˁ˧˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˻˙ ˫ˣ˘˅ˋ˧˨˘˪ˋ˪ ˘ˢˋˣ˘ ʍ. ɳ. ʌ˥ˢ˥ˣ˥˨˥˅ˁ (ʍ˥˨˜˅ˁ); [email protected]

ʎˀʿ˰˖ʸ˴ ˖ˀ˄ʿ˟˗ʸ˛˙ʿ˗ʸ˴ ː˙˗˥ˀ˛ˀ˗˨ˌ˴ ˚˙ ˌ˛ʸ˗˜ː˙˖˟ ˴ˊ˯ː˙ˊ˗ʸ˗ˌ˳ ʍ˥˨˜˅ˁ, ʃʓɯɯ ʍɴʘ, 28–30 ˁ˅ˆ˫˨˪ˁ 2017 ˆ. 28–30 ˁ˅ˆ˫˨˪ˁ 2017 ˆ. ˅ ʃˣ˨˪˘˪˫˪ˋ ˨˪˧ˁˣ ɯ˖˘˘ ˘ ɯ˱˧˘˜˘ ʍɴʘ ˘ˢˋˣ˘ ʍ. ɳ. ʌ˥ˢ˥ˣ˥˨˥˅ˁ ˦˧˥˸༤ˁ ʓˋˊ˼ˢˁ̀ ˢˋːˊ˫ˣˁ˧˥ˊˣˁ̀ ˜˥ˣ˱ˋ˧ˋˣ˴˘̀ ˦˥ ˘˧ˁˣ˨˜˥ˢ˫ ̀˖˻˜˥˖ˣˁˣ˘˿ (ICIL 7), ˥˧ˆˁˣ˘˖˥˅ˁˣˣˁ̀ ˫˵ˌˣ˻ˢ˘ ˨ ˱˘༤˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˱ˁ˜˫༤˼˪ˋ˪ˁ ʍɴʘ, ˘˖ ʃʓɯɯ ʍɴʘ ˘ ˘˖ ʃˣ˨˪˘˪˫˪ˁ ̀˖˻˜˥˖ˣˁˣ˘̀ ʒɯʎ. ICIL ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˣ˥˙ ˦༤˥˹ˁˊ˜˥˙ ˊ༤̀ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˘̀ ˁ˜˪˫ˁ༤˼ˣ˻˲ ˘˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁˣ˘˙ ˦˥ ˘˧ˁˣ˨˜˘ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˁˢ, ˜ˁ˜ ˅ ˨˘ˣ˲˧˥ˣˣ˥ˢ, ˪ˁ˜ ˘ ˅ ˊ˘ˁ˲˧˥ˣ˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˢ ˁ˨˦ˋ˜˪ˋ. ʇ˥ˣ˱ˋ˧ˋˣ˴˘̀ ˽˪˥˙ ˨ˋ˧˘˘ ˦˧˥˅˥ˊ˘༤ˁ˨˼ ˅ ʒ˥˨˨˘˘ ˅˦ˋ˧˅˻ˋ. ʑ˧˥ˆ˧ˁˢˢˁ ˢˋ˧˥˦˧˘̀˪˘̀ ˘ ˪ˋ˖˘˨˻ ˊ˥˜༤ˁˊ˥˅ ˊ˥˨˪˫˦ˣ˻ ˣˁ ˨ˁ˙˪ˋ ˜˥ˣ˱ˋ˧ˋˣ˴˘˘ 1. ʑ˥ˢ˘ˢ˥ ˫˨˪ˣ˻˲ ˊ˥˜༤ˁˊ˥˅, ˥˄˖˥˧ ˜˥˪˥˧˻˲ ˊˁˌ˪˨̀ ˅ ˣˁ˨˪˥̀˹ˋ˙ ˲˧˥ˣ˘˜ˋ, ˣˁ ˜˥ˣ˱ˋ˧ˋˣ˴˘˘ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˄˻༤˥ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˥ 20 ˨˪ˋˣˊ˥˅˻˲ ˊ˥˜༤ˁˊ˥˅. ʇ ˨˥ːˁ༤ˋˣ˘˿, ˥ˆ˧ˁˣ˘˵ˋˣˣ˻˙ ˥˄˺ˌˢ ˪ˋ˜˨˪ˁ ˣˋ ˦˥˖˅˥༤̀ˋ˪ ˣˁˢ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅˘˪˼ ˘˲ ˦˥ˊ˧˥˄ˣ˻˙ ˥˄˖˥˧. ʘ˪˧ˋˣˣ̀̀ ˨ˋ˜˴˘̀ ˦ˋ˧˅˥ˆ˥ ˊˣ̀ ˜˥ˣ˱ˋ˧ˋˣ˴˘˘ ˥˪˜˧˻༤ˁ˨˼ ˅˨˪˫˦˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻ˢ ˨༤˥˅˥ˢ ʐ. ʃ. ɲˋ༤̀ˋ˅ˁ, ˖ˁ ˜˥˪˥˧˻ˢ ˦˥˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁ༤˥ ˦˧˘˅ˋ˪˨˪˅˘ˋ ɳ. ɲ. ʃ˅ˁˣ˥˅ˁ, ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˥˧ˆˁˣ˘˖ˁ˪˥˧ˁ ˜˥ˣ˱ˋ˧ˋˣ˴˘˘ ˨˥ ˨˪˥˧˥ˣ˻ ʃʓɯɯ. ʁˁ ˽˪˘ˢ ˦˥˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁ༤ ˦༤ˋˣˁ˧ˣ˻˙ ˊ˥˜༤ˁˊ ɳ. ɲ. ʃ˅ˁˣ˥˅ˁ (ʃʓɯɯ ʍɴʘ), ˦˥˨˅̀˹ˌˣˣ˻˙ ˥˄˖˥˧˫ ˨˥˅˧ˋˢˋˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˨˥˨˪˥̀ˣ˘̀ ˘˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁˣ˘˙ ˦˥ ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˜ˋ ˘˧ˁˣ˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅, ˨ ˥˨˥˄˻ˢ ˅ˣ˘ˢˁˣ˘ˋˢ ˜ ˥˪ˋ˵ˋ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˻ˢ ˘ ˘˧ˁˣ˨˜˘ˢ ˧ˁ˄˥˪ˁˢ. ʕˁ˜˥˙ ˥˄˖˥˧ ˥˨˥˄ˋˣˣ˥ ˴ˋˣˋˣ ˅ ˪˥ˢ ˵˘˨༤ˋ ˘ ˦˥˪˥ˢ˫, ˵˪˥ ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˜ˁ ˣˁ ˦˥ˊ˥˄ˣ˻˲ ˜˥ˣ˱ˋ˧ˋˣ˴˘̀˲ ˵ˁ˨˪˥ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣˁ ˣˋˊ˥˨˪ˁ˪˥˵ˣ˥ ˘ ˣˁ˲˥ˊ˘˪˨̀ «˅ ˪ˋˣ˘» ˪ˁ˜˘˲ ˄˥༤ˋˋ ˦˥˦˫༤̀˧ˣ˻˲ ˥˄༤ˁ˨˪ˋ˙, ˜ˁ˜ ˨˘ˣ˪ˁ˜˨˘˨ ˘ ˆ˧ˁˢˢˁ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜ˁ̀ ˨ˋˢˁˣ˪˘˜ˁ. ʇ˧˥ˢˋ ˪˥ˆ˥, ˅ ˥˦˘˨ˁˣ˘˘ ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˜˘ ˘˧ˁˣ˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅ ˊ˥ ˨˘˲ ˦˥˧ ˣˋ ˦˧ˋ˥ˊ˥༤ˋˣ˻ ˧ˁ˨˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘̀ ˢˋːˊ˫ ˣˁ˴˘˥ˣˁ༤˼ˣ˻ˢ˘ ˣˁ˫˵ˣ˻ˢ˘ ˪˧ˁˊ˘˴˘̀ˢ˘. ʇ ˪ˁ˜˘ˢ ˧ˁ˨˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘̀ˢ ˥˪ˣ˥˨˘˪˨̀, ˣˁ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧, ˦˧˥˪˘˅˥˦˥˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˘ˋ ˜˧ˁ˪˜˘˲ ˘ ˊ˥༤ˆ˘˲ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˲ ˱˥ˣˋˢ ˅ ˖ˁ˦ˁˊˣ˥˙ ˪˧ˁˊ˘˴˘˘ ˥˦˘˨ˁˣ˘̀ ˦ˋ˧˨˘ˊ1

http://ossetic-studies.org/icil7/index.php?id=programme.

˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ, ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅˫˿˹ˋˋ ˦˧˥˪˘˅˥˦˥˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˘˿ «˫˨˪˥˙˵˘˅˻˲» ˘ «ˣˋ˫˨˪˥˙˵˘˅˻˲» ˱˥ˣˋˢ ˅ ˥˪ˋ˵ˋ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥˙ ˪˧ˁˊ˘˴˘˘. ɲ˥༤ˋˋ ˆ༤˫˄˥˜˥ˋ ˖ˣˁ˜˥ˢ˨˪˅˥ ˊ˧˫ˆ ˨ ˊ˧˫ˆ˥ˢ ˧ˁ˖༤˘˵ˣ˻˲ ˘˧ˁˣ˥˅ˋˊ˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˪˧ˁˊ˘˴˘˙, ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˥, ˦˥˖˅˥༤˘˪ ˦˧ˋ˥ˊ˥༤ˋ˪˼ ˦˥ˊ˥˄ˣ˻ˋ ˧ˁ˖༤˘˵˘̀ ˜ˁ˜ ˅ ˖ˣˁ˵˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥˙ ˨˪ˋ˦ˋˣ˘ ˪ˋ˧ˢ˘ˣ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˋ. ɸ˥˜༤ˁˊ ʍ. ʑˋ˧˥ (ʌˋ˙ˊˋˣ˨˜˘˙ ˫ˣ˘˅ˋ˧˨˘˪ˋ˪) «Eastern Iranian and Tocharian» ˄˻༤ ˦˥˨˅̀˹ˌˣ ˘˨˦˥༤˼˖˥˅ˁˣ˘˿ ˪˥˲ˁ˧˨˜˘˲ ˊˁˣˣ˻˲ ˊ༤̀ ˦˧˥̀˨ˣˋˣ˘̀ ˊ˘˨˪˧˘˄˫˴˘˘ ˘˧ˁˣ˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅ ˅ ˊ˥˦˘˨˼ˢˋˣˣ˻˙ ˦ˋ˧˘˥ˊ. ʑ˥ˢ˘ˢ˥ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘˙ ˘˖ ˪ˁ˜˘˲ ˣˁˊˌːˣ˥ ˖ˁ˨˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣˣ˻˲ ˘˧ˁˣ˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅ ˁ˧ˋˁ༤ˁ, ˜ˁ˜ ˲˥˪ˁˣ˥˨ˁ˜˨˜˘˙, ˨˥ˆˊ˘˙˨˜˘˙ ˘ ˄ˁ˜˪˧˘˙˨˜˘˙, ˅ ˪˥˲ˁ˧˨˜˥ˢ ˘ˢˋˋ˪˨̀ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˧̀ˊ ˥˵ˋ˅˘ˊˣ˥ ˄˥༤ˋˋ ˧ˁˣˣ˘˲, ˊ˧ˋ˅ˣˋ˘˧ˁˣ˨˜˘˲ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘˙, ˜˥˪˥˧˻ˋ ˣˁ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˁˣ˘˘ ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˜˘ ˖ˁ˪˧˫ˊˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ ˥˪ˣˋ˨˪˘ ˜ ˜ˁ˜˥ˢ˫-༤˘˄˥ ˘˖ ˘˖˅ˋ˨˪ˣ˻˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅. ʕ˧ˁˊ˘˴˘˥ˣˣ˥ ˽˪˥˪ ˆ˘˦˥˪ˋ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˙ ̀˖˻˜-ˊ˥ˣ˥˧ ˨˵˘˪ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˦˧ˋˊ˸ˋ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˘˜˥ˢ ˨ˁ˜˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅, ˥ˊˣˁ˜˥ ʍ. ʑˋ˧˥ ˅ ˨˅˥ˌˢ ˊ˥˜༤ˁˊˋ ˦˥˜ˁ˖˻˅ˁˋ˪, ˵˪˥ ˽˪ˁ ˆ˘˦˥˪ˋ˖ˁ ˨˪ˁ༤˜˘˅ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˨ ˧̀ˊ˥ˢ ˪˧˫ˊˣ˥˨˪ˋ˙ ˦˧˘ ˄˥༤ˋˋ ˊˋ˪ˁ༤˼ˣ˥ˢ ˧ˁ˨˨ˢ˥˪˧ˋˣ˘˘ ˘˨˪˥˧˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˜˘. ʨ˪˥ ˅༤ˋ˵ˌ˪ ˖ˁ ˨˥˄˥˙ ˪˥˪ ˅˻˅˥ˊ, ˵˪˥ ̀˖˻˜˥˅ˁ̀ ˨˘˪˫ˁ˴˘̀ ˅ ʕˁ˧˘ˢ˨˜˥ˢ ˄ˁ˨˨ˋ˙ˣˋ ˘ ˨˥˨ˋˊˣ˘˲ ˧ˋˆ˘˥ˣˁ˲ ˄˻༤ˁ ˆ˥˧ˁ˖ˊ˥ ˨༤˥ːˣˋˋ, ˵ˋˢ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤ˁˆˁ༤˥˨˼ ˧ˁˣˋˋ, ˘ ˊˁˣˣ˻ˋ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣˣ˥˙ ༤ˋ˜˨˘˜˘ ˅ ˪˥˲ˁ˧˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲ ˢ˥ˆ˫˪ ˘ˢˋ˪˼ ˧ˋ˸ˁ˿˹ˋˋ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ˊ༤̀ ˘˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁˣ˘˙ ˅ ˽˪˥˙ ˥˄༤ˁ˨˪˘. ɸ˥˜༤ˁˊ ʃ. ʓ. ʫ˜˫˄˥˅˘˵ˁ (ʒɴɴʘ) «West Iranian ezafe as a contact-induced feature» ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤̀ˋ˪ ˨˥˄˥˙ ˦˥˦˻˪˜˫ ˊˁ˪˼ ˁ˧ˋˁ༤˼ˣ˥ˋ ˥˄˺̀˨ˣˋˣ˘ˋ ˘˖˅ˋ˨˪ˣ˥˙ ˪˘˦˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˁˣ˥ˢˁ༤˘˘ ˖ˁ˦ˁˊˣ˥˘˧ˁˣ˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅: ˦˥˧̀ˊ˜˫ ˨༤˥˅ NGen (˨ ˅ˋ˧˸˘ˣˣ˻ˢ ˢˁ˧˜˘˧˥˅ˁˣ˘ˋˢ ˦˧˘ ˦˥ˢ˥˹˘ ˘˖ˁ˱ˋ˪ˁ) ˦˧˘ ˥˄˹ˋˢ ˨˪˧˥ˋ ̀˖˻˜ˁ SOV. ʑ˥ˢ˘ˢ˥ ˪˥ˆ˥, ˵˪˥ ˽˪ˁ ˨˘˪˫ˁ˴˘̀ ˣˁ˧˫˸ˁˋ˪ ˘˖˅ˋ˨˪ˣ˻ˋ ˫ˣ˘˅ˋ˧˨ˁ༤˘˘ ˦˥˧̀ˊ˜ˁ ˨༤˥˅ (˦˧˘˵ˌˢ ˘˨˜༤˿˵˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥˨˪˼ ˦ˋ˧˨˘ˊ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ ˄˻༤ˁ ˥˪ˢˋ˵ˋˣˁ ˫ːˋ ˅ ˜༤ˁ˨˨˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˧ˁ˄˥˪ˁ˲ ɸː. ɴ˧˘ˣ˄ˋ˧ˆˁ), ˥ˣˁ

Journal of Language Relationship • ɳ˥˦˧˥˨˻ ̀˖˻˜˥˅˥ˆ˥ ˧˥ˊ˨˪˅ˁ • 15/2 (2017) • Pp. 216–223 • © The authors, 2017

ʓˋˊ˼ˢˁ̀ ˢˋːˊ˫ˣˁ˧˥ˊˣˁ̀ ˜˥ˣ˱ˋ˧ˋˣ˴˘̀ ˦˥ ˘˧ˁˣ˨˜˥ˢ˫ ̀˖˻˜˥˖ˣˁˣ˘˿

˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˣˋ˪˘˦˘˵ˣˁ ˨ ˊ˘ˁ˲˧˥ˣ˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˪˥˵˜˘ ˖˧ˋˣ˘̀, ˪. ˜. ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤ˁˆˁˋ˪, ˅˥-˦ˋ˧˅˻˲, ˧ˁ˖˅˘˪˘ˋ ˅ˋ˧˸˘ˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˢˁ˧˜˘˧˥˅ˁˣ˘̀ ˅˖ˁˢˋˣ ˖ˁ˅˘˨˘ˢ˥˨˪ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˘˖ ˦˥˨˪˦˥˖˘˪˘˅ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˥˪ˣ˥˨˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˢˋ˨˪˥˘ˢˋˣ˘̀ (manŊ kŊra ‘ˢ˥̀ ˁ˧ˢ˘̀’ ਘ kŊra haya manŊ id., ˄˫˜˅. ‘ˁ˧ˢ˘̀, ˜˥˪˥˧ˁ̀ ˢ˥̀’); ˅˥-˅˪˥˧˻˲, ˨ˢˋˣ˫ ˦˥˧̀ˊ˜ˁ ˨༤˥˅ ˅ ˘ˢˋˣˣ˥˙ ˆ˧˫˦˦ˋ ˨ ˘˨˲˥ˊˣ˥ˆ˥ GenN ˣˁ NGen. ʃ. ʓ.ɍʫ˜˫˄˥˅˘˵ ˥˄˧ˁ˹ˁˋ˪ ˅ˣ˘ˢˁˣ˘ˋ ˣˁ ˪˥˪ ˱ˁ˜˪, ˵˪˥ ˨˧ˋˊ˘ ˊ˧ˋ˅ˣ˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅ ˖ˁ˦ˁˊˣ˥˘˧ˁˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˁ˧ˋˁ༤ˁ ˽༤ˁˢ˨˜˘˙ (̀˖˻˜-˘˖˥༤̀˪) ˥˄༤ˁˊˁˋ˪ ˧˥˅ˣ˥ ˪ˁ˜˥˙ ːˋ ˪˘˦˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˨˪˧ˁˣˣ˥˨˪˼˿: ˨˥˵ˋ˪ˁˣ˘ˋˢ NGen ˘ SOV. ɲ˥༤ˋˋ ˪˥ˆ˥, ˅ ˽༤ˁˢ˨˜˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˋ ˆˋˣ˘˪˘˅ˣ˻ˋ ˖ˁ˅˘˨˘ˢ˻ˋ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨˥˅˻˅ˁ༤˘˨˼ ˨ ˅ˋ˧˸˘ˣ˥˙ ˦˥ ˆ˧ˁˢˢˁ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˢ˫ ˜༤ˁ˨˨˫. ʕˁ˜˘ˢ ˥˄˧ˁ˖˥ˢ, ˖ˁ˦ˁˊˣ˥˘˧ˁˣ˨˜˫˿ ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˜˴˘˿ ˅˘ˊˁ kŊra haya manŊ ˢ˥ːˣ˥ ˨˵˘˪ˁ˪˼ ˜ˁ༤˼˜˥˙ ˨ ˽༤ˁˢ˨˜˥˙ ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˜˴˘˘, ˆˊˋ ˧ˋ༤̀˪˘˅˘˖ˁ˴˘̀ ˅˻˦˥༤ˣ̀ˋ˪ ˊ˅ˋ ˱˫ˣ˜˴˘˘: ˅˥-˦ˋ˧˅˻˲, ˨༤˫ː˘˪ ˅ˣ˫˪˧˘̀˖˻˜˥˅˻ˢ ˨˧ˋˊ˨˪˅˥ˢ ˅˻˧ˁ˖˘˪˼ ˦˥˨ˋ˨˨˥˧ ˅ ˦˥˨˪˦˥˖˘˴˘˘; ˅˥-˅˪˥˧˻˲, ˅˥˨˦˧˥˘˖˅˥ˊ˘˪ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨˥˅ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˫˿ ˢ˥ˊˋ༤˼ ˽༤ˁˢ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ, ˪. ˜. ˥˪ˣ˥˨˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻ˋ ˢˋ˨˪˥˘ˢˋˣ˘̀ (˅ ˥˪༤˘˵˘ˋ ˥˪ ˱˥˧ˢ ˧˥ˊ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˦ˁˊˋːˁ) ˅ ˊ˧ˋ˅ˣˋ˘˧ˁˣ˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨˥˅˻˅ˁ༤˘˨˼ ˨ ˅ˋ˧˸˘ˣ˥˙ ˦˥ ˧˥ˊ˫ ˘ ˵˘˨༤˫. ʃ. ʓ. ʫ˜˫˄˥˅˘˵ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤ˁˆˁˋ˪, ˵˪˥, ˅ˋ˧˥̀˪ˣˋˋ ˅˨ˋˆ˥, ˨˥˴˘˥༤˘ˣˆ˅˘˨˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˢ ˜˥ˣ˪ˋ˜˨˪˥ˢ ˊ༤̀ ˪ˁ˜˥ˆ˥ ˘˖ˢˋˣˋˣ˘̀ ˄˻༤˥ ˫˨˅˥ˋˣ˘ˋ ˦ˋ˧˨˘ˊ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˜ˁ˜ ˅˪˥˧˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ ˣ˥˨˘˪ˋ༤̀ˢ˘ ˽༤ˁˢ˨˜˥ˆ˥, ˪˥ ˋ˨˪˼ ˜༤ˁ˨˨˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˙ ˨༤˫˵ˁ˙ ˨˫˄˨˪˧ˁ˪ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˅༤˘̀ˣ˘̀. ɳ˦˥˨༤ˋˊ˨˪˅˘ˋ ˖ˁ˜˧ˋ˦༤ˋˣ˘ˋ ˘ˢˋˣˣ˥ ˽˪˥˙ ˢ˥ˊˋ༤˘ ˅ ˖ˁ˦ˁˊˣ˥˘˧ˁˣ˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲ ˢ˥ˆ༤˥ ˦˥ˊˊˋ˧ː˘˅ˁ˪˼˨̀ ˜ˁ˜ ˦˧˥ˊ˥༤ːˁ˿˹˘ˢ˨̀ ˽༤ˁˢ˨˜˥-˦ˋ˧˨˘ˊ˨˜˘ˢ ˄˘༤˘ˣˆ˅˘˖ˢ˥ˢ (˦˥ ˢˣˋˣ˘˿ ˢˣ˥ˆ˘˲ ˘˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁ˪ˋ༤ˋ˙, ˽༤ˁˢ˨˜˘˙ ̀˖˻˜ ˦˧˥ˊ˥༤ːˁ༤ ˨˫˹ˋ˨˪˅˥˅ˁ˪˼ ˅˦༤˥˪˼ ˊ˥ ˨ˁ˨ˁˣ˘ˊ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˦ˋ˧˘˥ˊˁ), ˪ˁ˜ ˘ ˦˥˨༤ˋˊ˫˿˹˘ˢ ˅༤˘̀ˣ˘ˋˢ ˁ˧ˁ˄˨˜˥ˆ˥, ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˊˋˢ˥ˣ˨˪˧˘˧˫˿˹ˋˆ˥ ˦˥˧̀ˊ˥˜ ˨༤˥˅ NGen. ɸ˥˜༤ˁˊ ʍ.ɍʇ˿ˢˢˋ༤̀ (ʄˋˣ˨˜˘˙ ˫ˣ˘˅ˋ˧˨˘˪ˋ˪) «The Iranian words for ‘witness’ and the morphophonology of roots in *°a(y)-» ˦˥˨˅̀˹ˌˣ ˆ˧˫˦˦ˋ ˨༤˥˅ ˨˥ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋˢ ‘˨˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤˼’ ˅ ˘˧ˁˣ˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲, ˅ ˜˥˪˥˧˻˲ ˣˁ˄༤˿ˊˁˋ˪˨̀ ˣˁ ˦ˋ˧˅˻˙ ˅˖ˆ༤̀ˊ ˣˋ˧ˋˆ˫༤̀˧ˣ˥ˋ ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅˘ˋ ˧ˋ˱༤ˋ˜˨˥˅ ˦˧ˁ˘˧ˁˣ˨˜˘˲ *-kŊya- ˘ *-kŊΓa-, ˨˧.: ˁ˅ˋ˨˪. vŢkaiia- (*wi-kŊya) ˘ ˨˥˅˧. ˦ˋ˧˨. guwŊh (*wikŊh ຎ wi-kŊΓa). ʑ˥ˊ˥˄ˣ˥ˋ ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅˘ˋ ˣˁ˄༤˿ˊˁˋ˪˨̀ ˘ ˅ ˣˋ˜˥˪˥˧˻˲ ˊ˧˫ˆ˘˲ ༤ˋ˜˨ˋˢˁ˲. ʓ˪ˁ˪˫˨ ˽˪˘˲ ˋˊ˘ˣ˘˴ ˜ˁ˜ ˜˥ˆˣˁ˪˥˅ ˣˋ ˦˥ˊ༤ˋː˘˪ ˨˥ˢˣˋˣ˘˿, ˪. ˜. ˣˁ༤˘˴˥ ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜ˁ̀ ˄༤˘˖˥˨˪˼ ˘ ˨˥˅˦ˁˊˋˣ˘ˋ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘˙. ʍ. ʇ˿ˢˢˋ༤˼ ˥˪ˢˋ˵ˁˋ˪, ˵˪˥ ˨˥˅˧ˋˢˋˣˣˁ̀ ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˨˜ˁ̀ ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘̀ ˽˪˥ˆ˥ ˜˥˧ˣ̀ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤ˁˆˁˋ˪ ˱˥˧ˢ˫ *kweh1i-, ˦˧ˁ˘ˣˊ˥˘˧. *kaHi-, ˨ ˅ˁ˧˘ˁ˪˘˅ˣ˻ˢ ˣˁ༤˘˵˘ˋˢ ˜˥ˣˋ˵ˣ˥ˆ˥ -i/-y. ʨ˪˥ ˦˥˖˅˥༤̀ˋ˪ ˨˵˘˪ˁ˪˼ ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅˘ˋ ˢˋːˊ˫ *-kŊy-a- ~ *-kŊ-Γa- ˧ˋˆ˫༤̀˧ˣ˻ˢ. ʑ˥˨༤ˋ˥˄ˋˊˋˣˣˁ̀ ˨ˋ˜˴˘̀ ˦ˋ˧˅˥ˆ˥ ˊˣ̀ ˜˥ˣ˱ˋ˧ˋˣ˴˘˘ ˥˪˜˧˻༤ˁ˨˼ ˊ˥˜༤ˁˊ˥ˢ ʌ. ʒ. ɸ˥ˊ˻˲˫ˊ˥ˋ˅˥˙ (ʃˣ-

˨˪˘˪˫˪ ̀˖˻˜˥˖ˣˁˣ˘̀ ʒɯʎ) «Noun phrase vs. compound: Morphosyntactic process in the Shughnani language», ˅ ˜˥˪˥˧˥ˢ ˥˄˨˫ːˊˁ˿˪˨̀ ˘ˢˋˣˣ˻ˋ ˜˥ˢ˦˥˖˘˪˻ ˅ ˸˫ˆˣˁˣ˨˜˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˋ. ʃ˖˅ˋ˨˪ˣ˥, ˵˪˥ ˅ ˣˌˢ ˸˘˧˥˜˥ ˧ˁ˨˦˧˥˨˪˧ˁˣˋˣ˻ ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˜˴˘˘ ˨ ˨˥˦˥༤˥ːˋˣ˘ˋˢ ˊ˅˫˲ ˘ˢˌˣ ˘༤˘ ˘ˢˋˣ˘ ˘ ˦˧˘༤ˁˆˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˄ˋ˖ ˱˥˧ˢˁ༤˼ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˢˁ˧˜˘˧˥˅ˁˣ˘̀ ˘˲ ˨˘ˣ˪ˁ˜˨˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˨˅̀˖˘. ʍˁ˪ˋ˧˘ˁ༤˥ˢ ˘˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁˣ˘̀ ˦˥˨༤˫ː˘༤˘ ˜ˁ˜ ˨˥˄˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˻ˋ ˖ˁ˦˘˨˘ ˁ˅˪˥˧ˁ, ˪ˁ˜ ˘ ˦˘˨˼ˢˋˣˣ˻ˋ ˪ˋ˜˨˪˻. ʐ˨˥˄˻˙ ˘ˣ˪ˋ˧ˋ˨ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤̀˿˪ ˆˁ˖ˋ˪ˣ˻ˋ ˪ˋ˜˨˪˻, ˆˊˋ ˨˥˨ˋˊ˨˪˅˫˿˪ ˸˫ˆˣˁˣ˨˜˘ˋ ˘ ˪ˁˊː˘˜˨˜˘ˋ ˪ˋ˧ˢ˘ˣ˻. ʎˁ ˪ˁ˜˘˲ ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧ˁ˲ ˲˥˧˥˸˥ ˅˘ˊˣ˥, ˵˪˥ ˅ ˸˫ˆˣˁˣ˨˜˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˋ ˜˥ˢ˦˥˖˘˪˻ ˅ˋ˨˼ˢˁ ˦˧˥ˊ˫˜˪˘˅ˣ˻ ˘ ˘˨˦˥༤˼˖˫˿˪˨̀ ˅˥ ˢˣ˥ˆ˘˲ ˨༤˫˵ˁ̀˲, ˆˊˋ ˅ ˪ˁˊː˘˜˨˜˥ˢ ˦˧˘ˢˋˣ̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˘˖ˁ˱ˋ˪ˣˁ̀ ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˜˴˘̀, ˨˧. ˪ˁˊː. doirazani-i zanon (˘ˆ˧ˁ.ˣˁ.ˊ˥˙˧ˋ-EZF ːˋˣ˹˘ˣ˻) ˘ ˸˫ˆˣ. kaxoy-dŊf (ːˋˣ˹˘ˣ˻-ˊ˥˙˧ˁ) ‘˘ˆ˧ˁ ːˋˣ˹˘ˣ ˣˁ ˊ˥˙˧ˋ’. ɳ ˊ˥˜༤ˁˊˋ ˊˁˌ˪˨̀ ˥˄˹ˁ̀ ˲ˁ˧ˁ˜˪ˋ˧˘˨˪˘˜ˁ ˸˫ˆˣˁˣ˨˜˘˲ ˜˥ˢ˦˥˖˘˪˥˅ ˘ ˥˦˘˨˻˅ˁ˿˪˨̀ ˘˲ ˨˘ˣ˪ˁ˜˨˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˋ ˨˅˥˙˨˪˅ˁ. ɳ ˊ˥˜༤ˁˊˋ ɸ.ɍɲˁ˧˧˘ (ɴ˥˧˥ˊ˨˜˥˙ ˫ˣ˘˅ˋ˧˨˘˪ˋ˪ ʎ˼˿-ʄ˥˧˜ˁ) «The emergence of pharyngeal sounds in Kurmanji Kurdish» ˥˄˨˫ːˊˁˋ˪˨̀ ˧ˁ˖˅˘˪˘ˋ ˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˼ˣ˻˲ ˱˥ˣˋˢ ˅ ˜˫˧ˊ˨˜˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˋ. ʃ˖˅ˋ˨˪ˣ˥, ˵˪˥ ˪ˁ˜˘ˋ ˱˥ˣˋˢ˻, ˜ˁ˜ /Ջ/ ˘ /š/, ˅˥˖ˣ˘˜༤˘ ˅ ˘˧ˁˣ˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲, ˅˜༤˿˵ˁ̀ ˜˫˧ˊ˨˜˘˙, ˦˥ˊ ˅༤˘̀ˣ˘ˋˢ ˁ˧ˁ˄˨˜˥ˆ˥. ʕˋˢ ˣˋ ˢˋˣˋˋ, ˅ ˨˥˅˧ˋˢˋˣˣ˻˲ ˜˫˧ˊ˨˜˘˲ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪ˁ˲ ˥ˣ˘ ˧ˁ˨˦˧˥˨˪˧ˁˣ˘༤˘˨˼ ˘ ˣˁ ˣˋ˜˥˪˥˧˻ˋ ˘˨˜˥ˣˣ˻ˋ ༤ˋ˜˨ˋˢ˻, ˨˧. ˜˫˧ˢˁˣˊː˘ [šæft] ਙ ˦˧ˁ˘˧. *hapta ˘ ˣ˥˧ˢˁ༤˼ˣ˻˙ ˧ˋ˱༤ˋ˜˨ ˦˧ˁ˘˧ˁˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ /h/ ˅ [hæv] ‘˪˥˪ ːˋ’ ਙ *ham. ɳ ˊ˥˜༤ˁˊˋ ˦˥˜ˁ˖ˁˣ˥, ˵˪˥ ˦˧˥˴ˋ˨˨ ˦˥̀˅༤ˋˣ˘̀ ˪ˁ˜˘˲ ˱˥ˣˋˢ ˅ ˘˧ˁˣ˨˜˥˙ ༤ˋ˜˨˘˜ˋ ˣˋ ˨༤˫˵ˁˋˣ ˘ ˨˅̀˖ˁˣ ˨ ˣˁ༤˘˵˘ˋˢ ˅ ˨༤˥ˆˋ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˲ ˘˖ ˥˦˧ˋˊˋ༤ˌˣˣ˥˙ ˆ˧˫˦˦˻: ˧˥˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˲, ˸˘˦̀˹˘˲ ˘ ˆ˫˄ˣ˻˲. ʇˁ˜ ˘ ˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˼ˣ˻ˋ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻ˋ, ˥ˣ˘ ˅˻˖˻˅ˁ˿˪ ˦˥ˣ˘ːˋˣ˘ˋ ˅˻˨˸˘˲ ˱˥˧ˢˁˣ˪ ˨˥˨ˋˊˣ˘˲ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˲. ʎˁ༤˘˵˘ˋ ˅ ˱˥ˣ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢˋ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣˣ˻˲ ˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˼ˣ˻˲ ˖˅˫˜˥˅ ˨˦˥˨˥˄˨˪˅˫ˋ˪ ˧ˋ˘ˣ˪ˋ˧˦˧ˋ˪ˁ˴˘˘ ˨༤˥ˆ˥˅, ˨˥ˊˋ˧ːˁ˹˘˲ ˪ˁ˜˘ˋ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻ˋ, ˜ˁ˜ ˱ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˘˖˥˅ˁˣˣ˻˲, ˵˪˥ ˘ ˅˻˖˻˅ˁˋ˪ ˦˧˥ˣ˘˜ˣ˥˅ˋˣ˘ˋ ˽˪˘˲ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˲ ˅ ˘˨˜˥ˣˣ˫˿ ༤ˋ˜˨˘˜˫. ɸ˥˜༤ˁˊ ʒ.ɍʕˋ˙ˢ˫˧˘ (ʘˣ˘˅ˋ˧˨˘˪ˋ˪ ˨˥˴˘ˁ༤˼ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˥˄ˋ˨˦ˋ˵ˋˣ˘̀ ˘ ˧ˋˁ˄˘༤˘˪˥༤˥ˆ˘˘, ʕˋˆˋ˧ˁˣ), ʜ.ɍʍ˥ˢˋˣ˘ (ʃ˨༤ˁˢ˨˜˘˙ ˫ˣ˘˅ˋ˧˨˘˪ˋ˪ ɯ˖ˁˊ, ʕˋˆˋ˧ˁˣ), ʣ. ʒˁˆ˘˄ˊ˫˨˪ ˘ ɴ. ʍ˥ˊˁ˧˧ˋ˨˨˘ (ʘˣ˘˅ˋ˧˨˘˪ˋ˪ ˘ˢˋˣ˘ ɯ༤༤ˁˢˋ ʕˁ˄ˁ˪ˁ˄ˁ˘, ʕˋˆˋ˧ˁˣ) «Foreign Accent Syndrome in a Persian-speaking woman» ˥˦˘˨˻˅ˁˋ˪ ˦ˋ˧˅˻˙ ˖ˁ˱˘˜˨˘˧˥˅ˁˣˣ˻˙ ˫ ˦ˋ˧˨˘ˊ˨˜˥ˆ˥˅˥˧̀˹ˋˆ˥ ˦ˁ˴˘ˋˣ˪ˁ ˨༤˫˵ˁ˙ ˧ˋˊ˜˥ˆ˥ ˪˘˦ˁ ˁ˱ˁ˖˘˘, ˘˖˅ˋ˨˪ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˜ˁ˜ ˨˘ˣˊ˧˥ˢ ˘ˣ˥˨˪˧ˁˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˁ˜˴ˋˣ˪ˁ (Foreign Accent Syndrome). ʨ˪˥˪ ˪ˋ˧ˢ˘ˣ ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˅ ˖ˣˁ˵˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥˙ ˨˪ˋ˦ˋˣ˘ ˫˨༤˥˅ˣ˻ˢ, ˪ˁ˜ ˜ˁ˜, ˅˥-˦ˋ˧˅˻˲, ˘ˢˋˋ˪˨̀ ˅ ˅˘ˊ˫ ˣˋ ˜ˁ˜˥ˋ-˪˥ ˨˦ˋ˴˘ˁ༤˼ˣ˥ˋ ˨˥˄˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥ ˌ˗˙217

Reports / ʝ˧˥ˣ˘˜ˁ

˜˞˛ʸ˗˗˙ˀ ˦˧˥˘˖ˣ˥˸ˋˣ˘ˋ, ˁ ˣˁ˧˫˸ˋˣ˘ˋ ˧˥ˊˣ˥˙ ˧ˋ˵˘, ˜˥˪˥˧˥ˋ ˅˥˨˦˧˘ˣ˘ˢˁˋ˪˨̀ ˊ˧˫ˆ˘ˢ˘ ˣ˥˨˘˪ˋ༤̀ˢ˘, ˜ˁ˜ ˘ˣ˥˨˪˧ˁˣˣ˻˙ ˁ˜˴ˋˣ˪; ˅˥-˅˪˥˧˻˲, ˊˁˣˣ˻˙ ˨˘ˣˊ˧˥ˢ ˖ˁ˪˧ˁˆ˘˅ˁˋ˪ ˅˨˿ ̀˖˻˜˥˅˫˿ ˨˦˥˨˥˄ˣ˥˨˪˼ ˆ˥˅˥˧̀˹ˋˆ˥ ˘ ˣˋ ˥ˆ˧ˁˣ˘˵ˋˣ ˨˥˄˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥ ˱˥ˣ˥༤˥ˆ˘ˋ˙ ˘༤˘ ˦˧˥˨˥ˊ˘ˋ˙. ʕˁ˜, ˁ˅˪˥˧˻ ˥˪ˢˋ˵ˁ˿˪, ˵˪˥ ˘˲ ˦ˁ˴˘ˋˣ˪ ˫˪˧ˁ˪˘༤ ˨˦˥˨˥˄ˣ˥˨˪˼ ˘˨˦˥༤˼˖˥˅ˁ˪˼ ˦˥˨ˋ˨˨˘˅ˣ˻ˋ ˽ˣ˜༤˘˪˘˜˘, ˅ˋ˖ˊˋ ˘˨˦˥༤˼˖˫̀ ˘˖ˁ˱ˋ˪ˣ˫˿ ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˜˴˘˿ ˨ ˦˥༤ˣ˻ˢ ˢˋ˨˪˥˘ˢˋˣ˘ˋˢ (xâne-ye man ˦˧˘ ˥˪˨˫˪˨˪˅˘˘ xâne-yam). ɳ ˴ˋ༤˥ˢ ˲ˁ˧ˁ˜˪ˋ˧˘˨˪˘˜˘ ˊˁˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˨˘ˣˊ˧˥ˢˁ ˅ ˦ˋ˧˨˘ˊ˨˜˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˋ ˨˥˦˥˨˪ˁ˅˘ˢ˻ ˨ ˪ˋˢ, ˵˪˥ ˘˖˅ˋ˨˪ˣ˥ ˊ༤̀ ˦˥ˊ˥˄ˣ˻˲ ˨༤˫˵ˁˋ˅ ˅ ˊ˧˫ˆ˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲. ɳ ˊ˥˜༤ˁˊˋ ʎ. ɳ. ʓˋ˧ˊ˥˄˥༤˼˨˜˥˙ (ʒɴɴʘ) «Correlative pronouns in Ossetic complement clauses» ˥˄˨˫ːˊˁˋ˪˨̀ ˦˧˥˄༤ˋˢˁ ˥˦˫˹ˋˣ˘̀ ˜˥˧˧ˋ༤̀˪ˁ ˅ ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˜˴˘̀˲ ˨ ˨ˋˣ˪ˋˣ˴˘ˁ༤˼ˣ˻ˢ˘ ˁ˜˪ˁˣ˪ˁˢ˘ ˅ ˥˨ˋ˪˘ˣ˨˜˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˋ. ʇˁ˜ ˘˖˅ˋ˨˪ˣ˥, ˄˥༤˼˸˘ˣ˨˪˅˥ ˖ˁ˅˘˨˘ˢ˻˲ ˜༤ˁ˫˖ ˅ ˥˨ˋ˪˘ˣ˨˜˥ˢ ˥˱˥˧ˢ༤̀˿˪˨̀ ˦˧˘ ˦˥ˢ˥˹˘ ˪ˁ˜ ˣˁ˖˻˅ˁˋˢ˥˙ ˜˥˧˧ˋ༤̀˪˘˅ˣ˥˙ (˘༤˘ — ˅ ˧˫˨˨˜˥˙ ˪˧ˁˊ˘˴˘˘ — ˢˋ˨˪˥˘ˢˋˣˣ˥-˨˥˥˪ˣ˥˨˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥˙) ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˜˴˘˘, ˅ ˜˥˪˥˧˥˙ ˖ˁ˅˘˨˘ˢˁ̀ ˜༤ˁ˫˖ˁ ˨˪˥˘˪ ˨༤ˋ˅ˁ ˥˪ ˆ༤ˁ˅ˣ˥˙ ˘ ˨˥ˊˋ˧ː˘˪ ˅˥˦˧˥˨˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˫˿ ˆ˧˫˦˦˫, ˆˊˋ ˆ༤ˁ˅ˣ˥˙ ˜༤ˁ˫˖ˋ ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅˫ˋ˪ ˘ˢˋˣˣˁ̀ ˆ˧˫˦˦ˁ ˘༤˘ ˣˁ˧ˋ˵˘ˋ, ˣˁ˖˻˅ˁˋˢ˻ˋ ː˙˛˛ˀ˕˴˞˙˖. ʎˁ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧, ˥˪ˣ˥˨˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣˁ̀ ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˜˴˘̀ ʦ ʻˌʿˀ˕ ʿˀʻ˙˩ː˟, ː˙˞˙˛˙ˍ ˞˯ ˚˙ʿʸ˛ˌ˕ ˨ʻˀ˞˯ ˦˥-˥˨ˋ˪˘ˣ˨˜˘ ˅˻ˆ༤̀ˊ˘˪, ˜ˁ˜ ɴˌʿˌ˗ʿ˄˯˞æ ˢ˩ ˣ˩˄ʶ-æˑ ʺʸ˕æʻʸ˛ ː˙ʿ˞ʸˍ, ˙˩ˇ ˥ˀʿ˞˙˗, ˄˫˜˅. ‘˴˅ˋ˪˻ ː˙˞˙˛˙ˍ ʿˀʻ˙˩ːˀ ˦˥ˊˁ˧˥˜ ˪˻.˨ˊˋ༤ˁ༤, ˀˁ ̀.˅˘ˊˋ༤’. ɯˣˁ༤˥ˆ˘˵ˣ˻ˢ ˥˄˧ˁ˖˥ˢ ˥˱˥˧ˢ༤̀˿˪˨̀ ˘ ˁˊ˅ˋ˧˄˘ˁ༤˼ˣ˻ˋ ˦˧˘ˊˁ˪˥˵ˣ˻ˋ (˄˫˜˅. ‘ʂ˙ʼʿʸ ˪˻ ˦˧˘˸ˌ༤, ˞˙ʼʿʸ ̀ ˪ˋ˄̀ ˫˅˘ˊˋ༤’). ʐˊˣ˘ˢ ˘˖ ˣˋˢˣ˥ˆ˘˲ ˘˨˜༤˿˵ˋˣ˘˙ ˘˖ ˽˪˥ˆ˥ ˦˧ˁ˅˘༤ˁ ̀˅༤̀˿˪˨̀ ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˜˴˘˘ ˨ ˨ˋˣ˪ˋˣ˴˘ˁ༤˼ˣ˻ˢ˘ ˁ˜˪ˁˣ˪ˁˢ˘: ˅ ˣ˘˲ ˜˥˧˧ˋ༤̀˪ ˥˦˴˘˥ˣˁ༤ˋˣ, ˋ˨༤˘ ˖ˁ˅˘˨˘ˢˁ̀ ˜༤ˁ˫˖ˁ ˣˁ˲˥ˊ˘˪˨̀ ˨˦˧ˁ˅ˁ ˥˪ ˆ༤ˁ˅ˣ˥˙: ʈæ˗ ˥æ˗ʿ˯, ˢæːæˇ æ˛ʺʸ˨æ˟ʸˍ(, ˙˩ˇ), ˄˫˜˅. ‘ʫ ˲˥˵˫, ˩˞˙ʺ˯ ˪˻.˦˧˘˸ˌ༤(, ˱˞˙)’. ɳ˥˖ˣ˘˜ˁˋ˪ ˅˥˦˧˥˨, ˜ˁ˜˘ˋ ˱ˁ˜˪˥˧˻ ˥˦˧ˋˊˋ༤̀˿˪ ˣˁ༤˘˵˘ˋ ˘༤˘ ˥˪˨˫˪˨˪˅˘ˋ ˜˥˧˧ˋ༤̀˪ˁ ˅ ˪ˁ˜˘˲ ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˜˴˘̀˲. ʎ. ɳ. ʓˋ˧ˊ˥˄˥༤˼˨˜ˁ̀ ˦˧ˋˊ༤ˁˆˁˋ˪ ˨˵˘˪ˁ˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˜˥˧˧ˋ༤̀˪ ˅ ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˜˴˘̀˲ ˨ ˨ˋˣ˪ˋˣ˴˘ˁ༤˼ˣ˻ˢ˘ ˁ˜˪ˁˣ˪ˁˢ˘ ˘˨˦˥༤˼˖˫ˋ˪˨̀ ˅ ˨༤˫˵ˁˋ, ˋ˨༤˘ ˖ˁ˅˘˨˘ˢˁ̀ ˜༤ˁ˫˖ˁ ˣˁ˲˥ˊ˘˪˨̀ ˅ ˦˧ˁˆˢˁ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˦˧ˋ˨˫˦˦˥˖˘˴˘˘. ɳ ˄˥༤˼˸˘ˣ˨˪˅ˋ ˨༤˫˵ˁˋ˅ ˋˆ˥ ˣˁ༤˘˵˘ˋ ˜˥˧˧ˋ༤˘˧˫ˋ˪ ˨ ˱ˁ˜˪˘˅ˣ˥˨˪˼˿, ˪. ˋ. ˱ˁ˜˪˘˅ˣ˻ˋ ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤˻ (˪ˁ˜˘ˋ, ˜ˁ˜ ‘˖ˣˁ˪˼’) ༤˘˄˥ ˅˥˅˨ˋ ˣˋ ˊ˥˦˫˨˜ˁ˿˪ ˥˦˫˹ˋˣ˘̀ ˜˥˧˧ˋ༤̀˪ˁ, ༤˘˄˥ ˊ˥˦˫˨˜ˁ˿˪ ˋˆ˥ ˪˥༤˼˜˥ ˅ ˥˨˥˄˻˲ ˜˥ˣ˪ˋ˜˨˪ˁ˲, ˆˊˋ ˦˧ˋ˨˫˦˦˥˖˘˴˘̀ ˫ ˪ˁ˜˘˲ ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤˥˅ ˨ˣ˘ˢˁˋ˪˨̀. ɹ˨༤˘ ˖ˁ˅˘˨˘ˢˁ̀ ˜༤ˁ˫˖ˁ ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˖ˁ˅ˋˊ˥ˢ˥ ༤˥ːˣ˥˙, ˘˨˦˥༤˼˖˥˅ˁˣ˘ˋ ˜˥˧˧ˋ༤̀˪ˁ ˣˋ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˥. ɸ༤̀ ˘˧˧ˋˁ༤˼ˣ˻˲ ˘ ˨˥˄˻˪˘˙ˣ˻˲ ˦˧˘ˊˁ˪˥˵ˣ˻˲ ˣˁ ˦ˋ˧˅˻˙ ˦༤ˁˣ ˅˻˲˥ˊ˘˪ ˪˥˦˘˜ˁ༤˼ˣ˥˨˪˼ ˘ ˨˪ˁ˪˫˨ ˘ˣ˱˥˧ˢˁ˴˘˘ ˜ˁ˜ ˊˁˣˣ˥ˆ˥. ʨ˪˘ ˅˻˅˥ˊ˻ ˘༤༤˿˨˪˧˘˧˫˿˪˨̀ ˣˁ ˢˁ˪ˋ˧˘ˁ༤ˋ ʐ˨ˋ˪˘ˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˣˁ˴˘˥ˣˁ༤˼ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˜˥˧˦˫˨ˁ, 218

ˁ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧˥˅, ˦˥༤˫˵ˋˣˣ˻˲ ˦˫˪ˌˢ ˥˦˧˥˨ˁ ˣ˥˨˘˪ˋ༤ˋ˙. ɳ ˦˥˨༤ˋˊˣˋˢ ˊ˥˜༤ˁˊˋ ˦ˋ˧˅˥ˆ˥ ˊˣ̀ ˜˥ˣ˱ˋ˧ˋˣ˴˘˘ ˣˁ ˪ˋˢ˫ «Persian comparative correlatives are not conditionals» ʍ. ʕˁ˲ˋ˧˲ˁˣ˘ (ʘˣ˘˅ˋ˧˨˘˪ˋ˪ ʕˁ˧˄˘ˁ˪ ʍ˥ˊˁ˧ˋ˨, ʕˋˆˋ˧ˁˣ) ˧ˁ˨˨ˢˁ˪˧˘˅ˁˋ˪ ˦ˋ˧˨˘ˊ˨˜˘ˋ ˪. ˣ. ˨˧ˁ˅ˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻ˋ ˜˥˧˧ˋ༤̀˪˘˅˻ (˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˜˴˘˘ ˅˘ˊˁ ʛˀ˖ ʺ˙˕˰ˬˀ ˩ˌ˞ʸ˳, ˞ˀ˖ ˖ˀ˗˰ˬˀ ˚˙˗ˌ˖ʸ˳) ˨ ˪˥˵˜˘ ˖˧ˋˣ˘̀ ˘˲ ˨˲˥ˊ˨˪˅ˁ ˘ ˧ˁ˖༤˘˵˘̀ ˨ ˫˨༤˥˅ˣ˻ˢ˘ ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˜˴˘̀ˢ˘. ʃ˖ ˪˘˦˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˘ ˪ˋ˥˧ˋ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ༤˘˪ˋ˧ˁ˪˫˧˻ ˲˥˧˥˸˥ ˘˖˅ˋ˨˪ˣ˥, ˵˪˥ ˅˥ ˢˣ˥ˆ˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲ ˢ˘˧ˁ ˫˨༤˥˅ˣ˻ˋ ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˜˴˘˘ ˘ ˜˥˧˧ˋ༤̀˪˘˅˻ ˥˄༤ˁˊˁ˿˪ ˧̀ˊ˥ˢ ˥˄˹˘˲ ˨˅˥˙˨˪˅. ʍ. ʕˁ˲ˋ˧˲ˁˣ˘ ˦˥˜ˁ˖˻˅ˁˋ˪, ˵˪˥ ˲˥˪̀ ˨˧ˁ˅ˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻ˋ ˜˥˧˧ˋ༤̀˪˘˅˻ ˅ ˦ˋ˧˨˘ˊ˨˜˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˋ ˘ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤ˁˆˁ˿˪ ˫ˣ˘˅ˋ˧˨ˁ༤˼ˣ˫˿ ˜˅ˁˣ˪˘˱˘˜ˁ˴˘˿, ˦˥ ˧̀ˊ˫ ˦˧˘˵˘ˣ ˘˲ ˣˋ༤˼˖̀ ˨˵˘˪ˁ˪˼ ˦˥ˊ˜༤ˁ˨˨˥ˢ ˫˨༤˥˅ˣ˻˲ ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˜˴˘˙. ɳ ˵ˁ˨˪ˣ˥˨˪˘, ˜˥˧˧ˋ༤̀˪˘˅˻ ˋˊ˘ˣ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˵˘˨༤ˁ ˣˋ ˅˨ˋˆˊˁ ˘ˣ˪ˋ˧˦˧ˋ˪˘˧˫˿˪˨̀ ˅ ˫ˣ˘˅ˋ˧˨ˁ༤˼ˣ˥ˢ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘˘; ˢˋːˊ˫ ˊ˅˫ˢ̀ ˪˘˦ˁˢ˘ ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˜˴˘˙ ˘ˢˋˋ˪˨̀ ˘ ˧̀ˊ ˱˥˧ˢˁ༤˼ˣ˻˲ ˥˪༤˘˵˘˙. ɯ˅˪˥˧ ˦˧ˋˊ༤ˁˆˁˋ˪ ˱˥˧ˢˁ༤˼ˣ˻˙ ˁˣˁ༤˘˖ ˦ˋ˧˨˘ˊ˨˜˘˲ ˜˥˧˧ˋ༤̀˪˘˅˥˅, ˦˥˖˅˥༤̀˿˹˘˙ ˥˦˘˨ˁ˪˼ ˘˲ ˨ˋˢˁˣ˪˘˜˫, ˣˋ ˅˻˅˥ˊ̀ ˋˌ ˘˖ ˨ˋˢˁˣ˪˘˜˘ ˫˨༤˥˅ˣ˥˙ ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˜˴˘˘. ʘ˪˧ˋˣˣ̀̀ ˨ˋ˜˴˘̀ ˅˪˥˧˥ˆ˥ ˊˣ̀ ˜˥ˣ˱ˋ˧ˋˣ˴˘˘ ˣˁ˵ˁ༤ˁ˨˼ ˨ ˊ˥˜༤ˁˊˁ ʍ. ʕˁ˲ˋ˧˲ˁˣ˘ (ʘˣ˘˅ˋ˧˨˘˪ˋ˪ ʕˁ˧˄˘ˁ˪ ʍ˥ˊˁ˧ˋ˨, ʕˋˆˋ˧ˁˣ) ˘ ʜ. ʕˁ˲ˋ˧˲ˁˣ˘ (ʍˋːˊ˫ˣˁ˧˥ˊˣ˻˙ ˫ˣ˘˅ˋ˧˨˘˪ˋ˪ ˘ˢˋˣ˘ ʃˢˁˢˁ ʝ˥ˢˋ˙ˣ˘, ʇˁ˖˅˘ˣ) ˣˁ ˪ˋˢ˫ «Free relatives: Evidence from Persian». ɳ ˣˌˢ ˥˪˵ˁ˨˪˘ ˦˧˥ˊ˥༤ːˁˋ˪˨̀ ˪ˋˢˁ ˦˧ˋˊ˻ˊ˫˹ˋˆ˥ ˅˻˨˪˫˦༤ˋˣ˘̀: ˄ˋ˖˅ˋ˧˸˘ˣˣ˻ˋ ˥˪ˣ˥˨˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻ˋ ˦˧ˋˊ༤˥ːˋˣ˘̀ (free relatives) ˦˥ ˧̀ˊ˫ ˦ˁ˧ˁˢˋ˪˧˥˅ ˨˲˥ː˘ ˨ ˜˥˧˧ˋ༤̀˪˘˅ˁˢ˘. ɳ ˥˪ˣ˥˸ˋˣ˘˘ ˨˘ˣ˪ˁ˜˨˘˨ˁ ˄ˋ˖˅ˋ˧˸˘ˣˣ˥˙ ˧ˋ༤̀˪˘˅˘˖ˁ˴˘˘ ˅ ༤˘˪ˋ˧ˁ˪˫˧ˋ ˘ˢˋˋ˪˨̀ ˣˋ˨˜˥༤˼˜˥ ˪˥˵ˋ˜ ˖˧ˋˣ˘̀, ˜˥˪˥˧˻ˋ ˢ˥ːˣ˥ ˨˅ˋ˨˪˘ ˜ ˊ˅˫ˢ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˣ˻ˢ ˣˁ˦˧ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˘̀ˢ. ʓ˪˥˧˥ˣˣ˘˜˘ ˦ˋ˧˅˥ˆ˥ ˣˁ˦˧ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˘̀ ˨˵˘˪ˁ˿˪, ˵˪˥ ˄ˋ˖˅ˋ˧˸˘ˣˣ˻ˋ ˥˪ˣ˥˨˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻ˋ ˣˋ ˘ˢˋ˿˪ ˦˧˘ˣ˴˘˦˘ˁ༤˼ˣ˻˲ ˨˪˧˫˜˪˫˧ˣ˻˲ ˥˪༤˘˵˘˙ ˥˪ ˜ˁˣ˥ˣ˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˧ˋ༤̀˪˘˅ˣ˻˲ ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˜˴˘˙, ˱ˁ˜˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤̀̀ ˨˥˄˥˙ ˘ˢˋˣˣ˻ˋ ˆ˧˫˦˦˻ ˨ ˣ˫༤ˋ˅˥˙ ˅ˋ˧˸˘ˣ˥˙ ˘ ˨ˋˣ˪ˋˣ˴˘ˁ༤˼ˣ˻ˢ ˖ˁ˅˘˨˘ˢ˻ˢ. ɸ˧˫ˆ˘ˋ ˁ˅˪˥˧˻, ˣˁ˦˧˥˪˘˅, ˨˵˘˪ˁ˿˪, ˵˪˥ ˄ˋ˖˅ˋ˧˸˘ˣˣ˻ˋ ˥˪ˣ˥˨˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻ˋ ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˜˴˘˘ ˫˨˪˧˥ˋˣ˻ ˦˧˘ˣ˴˘˦˘ˁ༤˼ˣ˥ ˘ˣˁ˵ˋ, ˘ ˘˲ ˨˅˥˙˨˪˅ˁ ˣˋ༤˼˖̀ ˥˄˺̀˨ˣ˘˪˼ ༤˘˸˼ ˦˥˨˪˫༤˘˧˥˅ˁˣ˘ˋˢ ˣ˫༤ˋ˅˥˙ ˅ˋ˧˸˘ˣ˻. ɯˣˁ༤˘˖ ˦ˋ˧˨˘ˊ˨˜˘˲ ˊˁˣˣ˻˲ ˦˧˘˅˥ˊ˘˪ ˁ˅˪˥˧˫ ˜ ˅˻˅˥ˊ˫, ˵˪˥ ˊ༤̀ ˽˪˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ ˁˊˋ˜˅ˁ˪ˣˋˋ ˅˪˥˧˥˙ ˁˣˁ༤˘˖. ɳ ˵ˁ˨˪ˣ˥˨˪˘, ˅ ˦ˋ˧˨˘ˊ˨˜˥ˢ ˣˁ˄༤˿ˊˁˋ˪˨̀ ˪. ˣ. «˽˱˱ˋ˜˪ ˨˥˅˦ˁˊˋˣ˘̀» (Matching Effect), ˪˧ˋ˄˫˿˹˘˙, ˵˪˥˄˻ ˅ˋ˧˸˘ˣˁ ˘ ˢ˘˸ˋˣ˼ ˧ˋ༤̀˪˘˅˘˖ˁ˴˘˘ ˨˥˅˦ˁˊˁ༤˘ ˦˥ ˜ˁ˪ˋˆ˥˧˘˘ ˘ ˨˘ˣ˪ˁ˜˨˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˧˥༤˘; ˅˦˧˥˵ˋˢ, ˽˪˥˪ ˽˱˱ˋ˜˪ ˨༤ˁ˄ˋˋ, ˵ˋˢ ˅ ˣˋ˜˥˪˥˧˻˲ ˊ˧˫ˆ˘˲ ˘˖˅ˋ˨˪ˣ˻˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲.

ʓˋˊ˼ˢˁ̀ ˢˋːˊ˫ˣˁ˧˥ˊˣˁ̀ ˜˥ˣ˱ˋ˧ˋˣ˴˘̀ ˦˥ ˘˧ˁˣ˨˜˥ˢ˫ ̀˖˻˜˥˖ˣˁˣ˘˿

ɳ ˊ˥˜༤ˁˊˋ ʪ. ɳ. ʍˁ˖˫˧˥˅˥˙ (ʃˣ˨˪˘˪˫˪ ̀˖˻˜˥˖ˣˁˣ˘̀ ʒɯʎ) «Structure and semantics of Ossetic preverbs» ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ ˁ˧ˋˁ༤˼ˣ˥-˪˘˦˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˙ ˘ ˘˨˪˥˧˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˙ ˥˄˖˥˧ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢ˻ ˦˧ˋ˅ˋ˧˄˥˅ ˅ ˥˨ˋ˪˘ˣ˨˜˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˋ. ʐ˨ˋ˪˘ˣ˨˜˘˙ ̀˖˻˜ ˫ˣ˘˜ˁ༤ˋˣ ˨˧ˋˊ˘ ˘˧ˁˣ˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅ ˅ ˪˥ˢ, ˵˪˥ ˥˄༤ˁˊˁˋ˪ ˧ˁ˖˅˘˪˥˙ ˘ ˦˥༤ˣ˥˨˪˼˿ ˆ˧ˁˢˢˁ˪˘˜ˁ༤˘˖˥˅ˁˣˣ˥˙ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢ˥˙ ˦˧ˋ˱˘˜˨ˁ༤˼ˣ˥˙ ˦ˋ˧˱ˋ˜˪˘˅ˁ˴˘˘, ˦˥ ˧̀ˊ˫ ˨˅˥˙˨˪˅ ˣˁ˦˥ˢ˘ˣˁ˿˹ˋ˙ ˨༤ˁ˅̀ˣ˨˜˘˙ ˅˘ˊ. ɳ˨༤ˋˊ ˖ˁ ˢˣ˥ˆ˘ˢ˘ ˊ˧˫ˆ˘ˢ˘ ˁ˅˪˥˧ˁˢ˘, ˅ ˵ˁ˨˪ˣ˥˨˪˘, ɳ. ʕ˥ˢˋ༤༤ˋ˧˘, ʪ. ɳ. ʍˁ˖˫˧˥˅ˁ ˥˄˧ˁ˹ˁˋ˪ ˅ˣ˘ˢˁˣ˘ˋ ˣˁ ˨˲˥ˊ˨˪˅˥ ˥˨ˋ˪˘ˣ˨˜˥˙ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢ˻ ˨ ˆ˧˫˖˘ˣ˨˜˥˙, ˲˥˪̀ ˘ ˅˥˖ˊˋ˧ː˘˅ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˥˪ ˨༤˘˸˜˥ˢ ˥ˊˣ˥˖ˣˁ˵ˣ˻˲ ˅˻˅˥ˊ˥˅ ˥ ˆ˧˫˖˘ˣ˨˜˥ˢ ˅༤˘̀ˣ˘˘ ˣˁ ˥˨ˋ˪˘ˣ˨˜˘˙; ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˻ ˘ ˁ༤˼˪ˋ˧ˣˁ˪˘˅ˣ˻ˋ ˨˴ˋˣˁ˧˘˘, ˣˁ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧, ˊ༤˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˋ ˅˖ˁ˘ˢ˥˅༤˘̀ˣ˘ˋ ˅ ˧ˋ˖˫༤˼˪ˁ˪ˋ ˧ˁ˨˦˧˥˨˪˧ˁˣˌˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˄˘༤˘ˣˆ˅˘˖ˢˁ. ɴ˘˦˥˪ˋ˖˫ ɳ. ʃ. ɯ˄ˁˋ˅ˁ ˥ ˦˧ˋ˱˘˜˨ˁ༤˼ˣ˥ˢ ˅˘ˊˋ ˜ˁ˜ «˨˜˘˱˥-˨༤ˁ˅̀ˣ˨˜˥˙ ˘˖˥ˆ༤˥˨˨ˋ», ˦˥-˅˘ˊ˘ˢ˥ˢ˫, ˨༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪ ˦˧˘˖ˣˁ˪˼ ˥˸˘˄˥˵ˣ˥˙: ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤˼ˣ˻˙ ˅˘ˊ ˜ˁ˜ ˅ ˨༤ˁ˅̀ˣ˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲, ˪ˁ˜ ˘ ˅ ˁ༤ˁˣ˨˜˥ˢ/˥˨ˋ˪˘ˣ˨˜˥ˢ ˆ˧ˁˢˢˁ˪˘˜ˁ༤˘˖˥˅ˁ༤˨̀ ˖ˁ˅ˋˊ˥ˢ˥ ˦˥˖ːˋ ༤˿˄˥ˆ˥ ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˥ˆ˥ ˦ˋ˧˘˥ˊˁ ˘ˣ˪ˋˣ˨˘˅ˣ˻˲ ˜˥ˣ˪ˁ˜˪˥˅ ˢˋːˊ˫ ˣ˥˨˘˪ˋ༤̀ˢ˘ ˽˪˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅. ʠ˪˥ ˜ˁ˨ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˦˧˥˨˪˧ˁˣ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˻˲ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘˙ ˥˨ˋ˪˘ˣ˨˜˘˲ ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤˼ˣ˻˲ ˦˧˘˨˪ˁ˅˥˜, ˪˥ ˖ˊˋ˨˼ ˨˘˪˫ˁ˴˘̀ ˥˄˨˪˥˘˪ ˣˋ˨˜˥༤˼˜˥ ˨༤˥ːˣˋˋ, ˪ˁ˜ ˜ˁ˜ ˦˥˲˥ː˘ˋ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢ˻, ˥˧˘ˋˣ˪˘˧˥˅ˁˣˣ˻ˋ ˣˁ ˆ˥˅˥˧̀˹ˋˆ˥ ˘༤˘ ˊˋ˙˜˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˙ ˴ˋˣ˪˧, ˖ˁ˨˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˻ ˨˧ˁ˖˫ ˅ ˣˋ˨˜˥༤˼˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲ ˧ˋˆ˘˥ˣˁ. ʑ˥-˅˘ˊ˘ˢ˥ˢ˫, ˘ ˖ˊˋ˨˼ ˣˁ˘˄˥༤˼˸ˋˋ ˨˲˥ˊ˨˪˅˥ ˨༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪ ˫˨ˢˁ˪˧˘˅ˁ˪˼ ˨ ˜ˁ˧˪˅ˋ༤˼˨˜˘ˢ˘ ̀˖˻˜ˁˢ˘. ʑ˧˘ ˽˪˥ˢ ˅ˁːˣ˥ ˥˪ˢˋ˪˘˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˅˨ˋ ˦˧ˋ˅ˋ˧˄˻ ˅ ˥˨ˋ˪˘ˣ˨˜˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˋ ˘ˢˋ˿˪ ˘˧ˁˣ˨˜˥ˋ ˦˧˥˘˨˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘ˋ, ˵˪˥ ˫˜ˁ˖˻˅ˁˋ˪ ˣˁ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘ˋ ˨ˋˢˁˣ˪˘˜˘ ˄ˋ˖ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘̀ ˱˥˧ˢ˻ — ˽˪˥ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˆ˥˅˥˧˘˪ ˥ ˊ˥༤ˆ˥˅˧ˋˢˋˣˣ˥ˢ ˄˘༤˘ˣˆ˅˘˖ˢˋ, ˁ ˣˋ ˅༤˘̀ˣ˘˘ ˣˋ˜˥ˋˆ˥ ˘ˣ˥̀˖˻˵ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˨˫˄˨˪˧ˁ˪ˁ. ɸ˥˜༤ˁˊ ʐ. ʃ. ɲˋ༤̀ˋ˅ˁ (ʍɴʘ ˘ˢˋˣ˘ ʍ. ɳ. ʌ˥ˢ˥ˣ˥˨˥˅ˁ) «The numerative in Ossetic» ˦˥˨˅̀˹ˌˣ ˪˘˦˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ ˧ˋˊ˜˥˙ ˆ˧ˁˢˢˁ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˜ˁ˪ˋˆ˥˧˘˘ ˥˨ˋ˪˘ˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ — ˣ˫ˢˋ˧ˁ˪˘˅˫. ʎ˫ˢˋ˧ˁ˪˘˅, ˘༤˘ ˨˵ˌ˪ˣˁ̀ ˱˥˧ˢˁ, ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤̀ˋ˪ ˨˥˄˥˙ ˥˨˥˄˫˿ ˱˥˧ˢ˫ ˘ˢˋˣ˘, ˜˥˪˥˧ˁ̀ ˘˨˦˥༤˼˖˫ˋ˪˨̀ ˦˧˘ ˣˁ༤˘˵˘˘ ˅ ˘ˢˋˣˣ˥˙ ˆ˧˫˦˦ˋ ˵˘˨༤˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˨˥ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋˢ ‘ˊ˅ˁ’ ˘ ˅˻˸ˋ. ɳ ˘˧˥ˣ˨˜˥ˢ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪ˋ ˥˨˥˄ˁ̀ ˣ˫ˢˋ˧ˁ˪˘˅ˣˁ̀ ˱˥˧ˢˁ ˫ ˘ˢˌˣ ˘ˢˋˋ˪˨̀ ˪˥༤˼˜˥ ˅ ˘ˢˋˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˢ ˦ˁˊˋːˋ, ˪˥ˆˊˁ ˜ˁ˜ ˅ ˊ˘ˆ˥˧˨˜˥ˢ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪ˋ ˨˫˹ˋ˨˪˅˫ˋ˪ ˴ˋ༤ˁ̀ ˣ˫ˢˋ˧ˁ˪˘˅ˣˁ̀ ˦ˁ˧ˁˊ˘ˆˢˁ ˨ ˥˨˥˄˻ˢ˘ ˥˜˥ˣ˵ˁˣ˘̀ˢ˘ ˊ༤̀ ˅˨ˋ˲ ˦ˁˊˋːˋ˙. ʓ˫˹ˋ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥ ˦˧˘ ˽˪˥ˢ, ˵˪˥ ˅ ˥˄˥˘˲ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪ˁ˲ ˣ˥ˢ˘ˣˁ˪˘˅ˣ˻˙ ˣ˫ˢˋ˧ˁ˪˘˅ˣ˻˙ ˦˥˜ˁ˖ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ ˦˥ ˱˥˧ˢˋ ˨˥˅˦ˁˊˁˋ˪ ˨ ˆˋˣ˘˪˘˅˥ˢ ˋˊ˘ˣ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˵˘˨༤ˁ. ɳ ˊ˥˜༤ˁˊˋ ˦˥˜ˁ˖ˁˣ˥, ˵˪˥ ˫˦˥˪˧ˋ˄༤ˋˣ˘ˋ ˣ˫ˢˋ˧ˁ˪˘˅ˁ ˅ ˥˨ˋ˪˘ˣ˨˜˥ˢ ˸˘˧ˋ, ˵ˋˢ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤ˁˆˁ༤˥˨˼ ˧ˁˣˋˋ: ˅˥-˦ˋ˧˅˻˲, ˥ˣ ˦˥̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˣˋ

˪˥༤˼˜˥ ˦˧˘ ˵˘˨༤˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻˲, ˣ˥ ˘ ˦˧˘ ˣˋ˜˥˪˥˧˻˲ ˜˅ˁˣ˪˘˱˘˜ˁ˪˥˧ˁ˲; ˅˥-˅˪˥˧˻˲, ˧̀ˊ ༤ˋ˜˨ˋˢ (˜ˁ˜ ˦˧ˁ˅˘༤˥, ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˨˥ˊˋ˧ːˁ˹˘ˋ ˅ ˨˅˥ˌˢ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘˘ ˜˅ˁˣ˪˘˱˘˜ˁ˴˘˥ˣˣ˻˙ ˜˥ˢ˦˥ˣˋˣ˪) ˫˦˥˪˧ˋ˄༤̀˿˪˨̀ ˨ ˣ˫ˢˋ˧ˁ˪˘˅ˣ˻ˢ˘ ˥˜˥ˣ˵ˁˣ˘̀ˢ˘ ˘ ˄ˋ˖ ˵˘˨༤˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻˲. ɳ ˊ˥˜༤ˁˊˋ ʐ. ʃ. ɲˋ༤̀ˋ˅ ˧ˁ˖˅˘˅ˁˋ˪ ˘ˊˋ˿ ʎ. ʓ˘ˢ˨ˁɳ˘༤˼̀ˢ˨ˁ ˥ ˦˧˥˘˨˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘˘ ˣ˫ˢˋ˧ˁ˪˘˅ˁ ˥˪ ˊ˧ˋ˅ˣˋˆ˥ ˥˜˥ˣ˵ˁˣ˘̀ ˊ˅˥˙˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˵˘˨༤ˁ. ʑ˥ˢ˘ˢ˥ ˊˁˣˣ˻˲ ˊ˧˫ˆ˘˲ ˨˧ˋˊˣˋ- ˘ ˣ˥˅˥˘˧ˁˣ˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅, ˘ˢˋ˿˹˘˲ ˁˣˁ༤˥ˆ˘˵ˣ˻ˋ ˜ˁ˪ˋˆ˥˧˘˘ ˪˥ˆ˥ ːˋ ˦˧˥˘˨˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘̀, ˽˪˥˪ ˪ˋ˖˘˨ ˦˥ˊ˪˅ˋ˧ːˊˁˋ˪˨̀ ˘ ˣˁ ˢˁ˪ˋ˧˘ˁ༤ˋ ˨ˁˢ˥ˆ˥ ˥˨ˋ˪˘ˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ. ʕˁ˜, ˦˥˜ˁ˖ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ ˣ˫ˢˋ˧ˁ˪˘˅ˁ ˦˧˘ ˨˥˵˘ˣˋˣ˘˘ ˅ˋˊˌ˪ ˨ˋ˄̀ ˪ˁ˜ ːˋ, ˜ˁ˜ ˦˥˜ˁ˖ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ ˵˘˨༤ˁ, ˪. ˋ., ˅ ˥˪༤˘˵˘ˋ ˥˪ ˦ˁˊˋːˣ˻˲ ˢ˥˧˱ˋˢ, ˣˋ ˦˥ˊˊˁˌ˪˨̀ ˆ˧˫˦˦˥˅˥˙ ˱༤ˋ˜˨˘˘. ʨ˪˥ ˊˋ༤ˁˋ˪ ˢˁ༤˥˅ˋ˧˥̀˪ˣ˻ˢ ˅˥˖˅ˋˊˋˣ˘ˋ ˣ˫ˢˋ˧ˁ˪˘˅ˁ ˜ ˧˥ˊ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˢ˫ ˦ˁˊˋː˫ (˜ˁ˜ ˽˪˥ ˊˋ༤ˁˋ˪, ˅ ˵ˁ˨˪ˣ˥˨˪˘, ʒ. ʇ˘ˢ). ʇ˧˥ˢˋ ˪˥ˆ˥, ˅ ˘˧˥ˣ˨˜˥ˢ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪ˋ ˣ˫ˢˋ˧ˁ˪˘˅ ˣˋ ˫˦˥˪˧ˋ˄༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˨ ˘ˢˋˣˁˢ˘ pluralia tantum: ˦˧˘ ˣˁ༤˘˵˘˘ ˵˘˨༤˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻˲ ˅ˣ˫˪˧˘ ˘ˢˋˣˣ˥˙ ˆ˧˫˦˦˻ ˽˪˘ ˘ˢˋˣˁ ˦˧˘˨˥ˋˊ˘ˣ̀˿˪ ˥˄˻˵ˣ˻ˋ ˥˜˥ˣ˵ˁˣ˘̀ ˢˣ˥ːˋ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˵˘˨༤ˁ. ʃˣˁ˵ˋ ˆ˥˅˥˧̀, ˣ˫ˢˋ˧ˁ˪˘˅ˣ˻˙ ˦˥˜ˁ˖ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ «˅˻˪ˋ˨ˣ̀ˋ˪˨̀» ˦˥˜ˁ˖ˁ˪ˋ༤ˋˢ ˢˣ˥ːˋ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˵˘˨༤ˁ. ʨ˪˘ ˱ˁ˜˪˻, ˦˥ ˢˣˋˣ˘˿ ˊ˥˜༤ˁˊ˵˘˜ˁ, ˆ˥˅˥˧̀˪ ˥ ˪˥ˢ, ˵˪˥ ˣ˫ˢˋ˧ˁ˪˘˅ ˅ ˥˨ˋ˪˘ˣ˨˜˥ˢ ˨༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪ ˨˵˘˪ˁ˪˼ ˥ˊˣ˥˙ ˘˖ ˆ˧ˁˢˢˋˢ ˜ˁ˪ˋˆ˥˧˘˘ ˵˘˨༤ˁ, ˜˥˪˥˧ˁ̀, ˪ˁ˜˘ˢ ˥˄˧ˁ˖˥ˢ, ˘ˢˋˋ˪ ˪˧˘ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘̀: ˋˊ˘ˣ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥ˋ, ˢˣ˥ːˋ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥ˋ ˘ ˣ˫ˢˋ˧ˁ˪˘˅ˣ˥ˋ («˨˵ˌ˪ˣ˥ˋ»). ɸ˥˜༤ˁˊ ɯ. ʑ. ɳ˻ˊ˧˘ˣˁ (ʃˣ˨˪˘˪˫˪ ༤˘ˣˆ˅˘˨˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˘˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁˣ˘˙ ʒɯʎ) «Peculiarities of optative in Ossetic» ˖ˁ˅ˋ˧˸ˁˋ˪ ˥˨ˋ˪˘ˣ˨˜˫˿ ˪ˋˢˁ˪˘˜˫ ˅ ˦˧˥ˆ˧ˁˢˢˋ ˜˥ˣ˱ˋ˧ˋˣ˴˘˘. ɯ˅˪˥˧ ˊ˥˜༤ˁˊˁ ˥˦˘˨˻˅ˁˋ˪ ˨ˋˢˁˣ˪˘˜˫ ˦ˁ˧ˁˊ˘ˆˢ˻ ˥˦˪ˁ˪˘˅ˁ ˅ ˥˨ˋ˪˘ˣ˨˜˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˋ. ʎˋ˨ˢ˥˪˧̀ ˣˁ ˪˥, ˵˪˥ ˽˪ˁ ˦ˁ˧ˁˊ˘ˆˢˁ, ˦˥˅˘ˊ˘ˢ˥ˢ˫, ˘˨˪˥˧˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ ˅˥˨˲˥ˊ˘˪ (˨ ˣˋ˜˥˪˥˧˻ˢ˘ ˊ˥˦˫˹ˋˣ˘̀ˢ˘) ˜ ˊ˧ˋ˅ˣˋ˘˧ˁˣ˨˜˥ˢ˫ ˥˦˪ˁ˪˘˅˫, ˋˌ ˜˧˫ˆ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘˙ ˨˫˹ˋ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥ ˸˘˧ˋ ˪˥ˆ˥, ˵˪˥ ˥˄˻˵ˣ˥ ˦˥ˣ˘ˢˁ˿˪ ˦˥ˊ ˥˦˪ˁ˪˘˅˥ˢ. ʘ˦˥˪˧ˋ˄༤ˋˣ˘̀ ˅ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘˘ ˨˥˄˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥ ːˋ༤ˁˣ˘̀ ˨˧ˁ˅ˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ ˢˁ˧ˆ˘ˣˁ༤˼ˣ˻; ˅ ˖ˁ˅˘˨˘ˢ˻˲ ˜༤ˁ˫˖ˁ˲ ˥˦˪ˁ˪˘˅ ˵ˁ˨˪˥ ˅˖ˁ˘ˢ˥˖ˁˢˋˣ˘ˢ ˨ ˜˥ˣ˺˿ˣ˜˪˘˅˥ˢ, ˘ˢˋ̀ ˊ˥˦˥༤ˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˫˿ ˜˥ˣˣ˥˪ˁ˴˘˿ ːˋ༤ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥˨˪˘ ˨˥˄˻˪˘̀ ˊ༤̀ ˆ˥˅˥˧̀˹ˋˆ˥. ʑ˧˘ ˽˪˥ˢ ˫ ˥˦˪ˁ˪˘˅ˁ ˋ˨˪˼ ˘ ˣˋ˖ˁ˅˘˨˘ˢ˻ˋ ˫˦˥˪˧ˋ˄༤ˋˣ˘̀, ˣˋ ˘ˢˋ˿˹˘ˋ, ˦˥-˅˘ˊ˘ˢ˥ˢ˫, ˣ˘˵ˋˆ˥ ˥˄˹ˋˆ˥ ˨ ˢ˥ˊˁ༤˼ˣ˥˙ ˨ˋˢˁˣ˪˘˜˥˙. ʕˁ˜, ˅ ˊ˘ˆ˥˧˨˜˥ˢ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪ˋ ˥ˣ ˊ˥˨˪ˁ˪˥˵ˣ˥ ˵ˁ˨˪˥ ˅˨˪˧ˋ˵ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˅ ˣˁ˧˧ˁ˪˘˅ˣ˻˲ ˜˥ˣ˪ˋ˜˨˪ˁ˲. ʓ˥˨˫˹ˋ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘ˋ ˢ˥ˊˁ༤˼ˣ˻˲ ˘ ˣˁ˧˧ˁ˪˘˅ˣ˻˲ ˱˫ˣ˜˴˘˙ ˊˋ༤ˁˋ˪ ˥˨ˋ˪˘ˣ˨˜˘˙ ˥˦˪ˁ˪˘˅ ˥˪ˊˁ༤ˌˣˣ˥ ˦˥˲˥ː˘ˢ ˣˁ «˨˪ˁ˧˻ˋ ˦˧ˋ˖ˋˣ˨˻» (˪ˋ˧ˢ˘ˣ ʍ. ʝˁ˨˦ˋ༤˼ˢˁ˪ˁ) ˅˥ ˢˣ˥ˆ˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲ ʇˁ˅˜ˁ˖ˁ ˘ ˨ˢˋːˣ˻˲ ˁ˧ˋˁ༤˥˅. ʐˊˣˁ˜˥, ˋ˨༤˘ ˥˨ˋ˪˘ˣ˨˜ˁ̀ ˱˥˧ˢˁ ˊˋ˙˨˪˅˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ ˅˥˨˲˥ˊ˘˪ ˜ ˥˦˪ˁ˪˘˅ˣ˥˙ ˦ˁ˧ˁˊ˘ˆˢˋ, ˅˥˖219

Reports / ʝ˧˥ˣ˘˜ˁ

ˣ˘˜ˁˋ˪ ˅˥˦˧˥˨ ˥ ˪˥ˢ, ˜ˁ˜ ˣˁ˧˧ˁ˪˘˅ˣ˥ˋ ˫˦˥˪˧ˋ˄༤ˋˣ˘ˋ ˢ˥ˆ༤˥ ˧ˁ˖˅˘˪˼˨̀ ˘˖ ˢ˥ˊˁ༤˼ˣ˥ˆ˥. ʓ༤ˋˊ˫˿˹˘ˋ ˪˧˘ ˊ˥˜༤ˁˊˁ ˘ˢˋ˿˪ ˅˥ ˢˣ˥ˆ˥ˢ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˨ˋ˜ˁ˿˹˫˿˨̀ ˪ˋˢˁ˪˘˜˫. ʐˣ˘ ˦˥˨˅̀˹ˋˣ˻ ˨˪˧˫˜˪˫˧ˋ ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤˼ˣ˥˙ ˦ˁ˧ˁˊ˘ˆˢ˻ ˅ ˖ˁ˦ˁˊˣ˥˘˧ˁˣ˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲. ɸ˥˜༤ˁˊ ʓ. ʇˋ̀ (ʐ˜˨˱˥˧ˊ˨˜˘˙ ˫ˣ˘˅ˋ˧˨˘˪ˋ˪; ʇ˥༤༤ˋː ˊˋ ʜ˧ˁˣ˨) ˦˥˨˅̀˹ˌˣ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˁˢ ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤ˁ ˅ ˪ˁ༤˻˸˨˜˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˋ. ɳ ༤˘˪ˋ˧ˁ˪˫˧ˋ ˵ˁ˨˪˥ ˫˪˅ˋ˧ːˊˁ༤˥˨˼, ˵˪˥ ˽˪˥ ˥ˊ˘ˣ ˘˖ ˣˋˢˣ˥ˆ˘˲ ˘˧ˁˣ˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅, ˆˊˋ ˦˥༤ˣ˥˨˪˼˿ ˫˪˧ˁ˵ˋˣ˥ ˦˧˥˪˘˅˥˦˥˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˘ˋ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ ˣˁ˨˪˥̀˹ˋˆ˥ ˘ ˦˧˥˸ˋˊ˸ˋˆ˥ ˅˧ˋˢˋˣ˘. ɯ˅˪˥˧ ˊ˥˜༤ˁˊˁ ˦˥˜ˁ˖˻˅ˁˋ˪, ˵˪˥ ˪ˁ˜˥˙ ˅˻˅˥ˊ ˨༤˘˸˜˥ˢ ˦˥˨˦ˋ˸ˋˣ. ɳ ˊˋ˙˨˪˅˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥˨˪˘, ˲˥˪̀ ˽˪˥ ˦˧˥˪˘˅˥˦˥˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˘ˋ ˊˋ˙˨˪˅˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ ˧ˋˊ˫˴˘˧˥˅ˁˣ˥ ˦˥ ˨˧ˁ˅ˣˋˣ˘˿ ˨ ˪ˋˢ, ˵˪˥ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˥ ˅ ˊ˧˫ˆ˘˲ ˘˧ˁˣ˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲, ˥ˣ˥ ˊˁ༤ˋ˜˥ ˥˪ ˦˥༤ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˘˨˵ˋ˖ˣ˥˅ˋˣ˘̀. ɲ˥༤˼˸˘ˣ˨˪˅˥ ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤˥˅ ˧ˁ˖༤˘˵ˁ˿˪ ˥˄ˋ ˥˨ˣ˥˅˻, ˘ ˊ˘˨˪˧˘˄˫˴˘̀ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ ˅ ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤˼ˣ˥˙ ˦ˁ˧ˁˊ˘ˆˢˋ ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˅ ˖ˣˁ˵˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥˙ ˨˪ˋ˦ˋˣ˘ ˦˧˥˘˖˅˥༤˼ˣ˥˙. ɯ˅˪˥˧ ˦˥˜ˁ˖˻˅ˁˋ˪, ˵˪˥ ˘ˆˣ˥˧˘˧˥˅ˁˣ˘ˋ ˊˁˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˦˧˥˪˘˅˥˦˥˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˘̀ ˦˧˘˅˥ˊ˘༤˥ ˜ ˧̀ˊ˫ ˥˸˘˄˥˜ ˅ ˦˧ˋˊ˻ˊ˫˹˘˲ ˥˦˘˨ˁˣ˘̀˲ ˪ˁ༤˻˸˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ. ɸ˥˜༤ˁˊ ɯ. ʇ˥˧ˣ (ʎˁ˴˘˥ˣˁ༤˼ˣ˻˙ ˴ˋˣ˪˧ ˣˁ˫˵ˣ˻˲ ˘˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁˣ˘˙, ʑˁ˧˘ː) ˘ ʍ. ʓ˫༤ˋ˙ˢˁˣ˥˅ˁ (ʑ˧ˁ˜˪˘˵ˋ˨˜ˁ̀ ˸˜˥༤ˁ ˅˻˨˸˘˲ ˘˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁˣ˘˙, ʑˁ˧˘ː) «Issues of microvariation: Crossdialectal differences in modal marking» ˦˥˨˅̀˹ˌˣ ˁˣˁ༤˘˖˫ ˦˥˅ˋˊˋˣ˘̀ ˦˧ˋ˱˘˜˨˥˅ ˅˘ˊˁ bE-, ˢˁ˧˜˘˧˫˿˹˘˲ ˢ˥ˊˁ༤˼ˣ˻ˋ ˱˥˧ˢ˻ ˅ ˪˧ˌ˲ ˘˧ˁˣ˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲: ˄ˋ༤˫ˊː˨˜˥ˢ, ˄ˁ˸˜ˁ˧ˊ˘ ˘ ˪ˁ˪˨˜˥ˢ. ʃ˖˅ˋ˨˪ˣ˥, ˵˪˥ ˘˨˦˥༤˼˖˥˅ˁˣ˘ˋ ˦˥ˊ˥˄ˣ˻˲ ˦˧ˋ˱˘˜˨˥˅ ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˘ˣˣ˥˅ˁ˴˘ˋ˙, ˣˁ˵ˁ˅˸ˋ˙˨̀ ˅ ˨˧ˋˊˣˋ˘˧ˁˣ˨˜˘˙ ˦ˋ˧˘˥ˊ ˘ ˥˜˥ˣ˵ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ ˖ˁ˜˧ˋ˦˘˅˸ˋ˙˨̀ ˫ːˋ ˅ ˣ˥˅˥˘˧ˁˣ˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲. ʑ˥̀˅༤ˋˣ˘ˋ ˢ˥ˊˁ༤˼ˣ˻˲ ˦˧ˋ˱˘˜˨˥˅ ˨˅̀˖ˁˣ˥ ˨ ˫˪˧ˁ˪˥˙ ˘˨˜˥ˣˣ˻˲ ˦˧˥˪˘˅˥˦˥˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˘˙ ˢ˥ˊˁ༤˼ˣ˻˲ ˱˥˧ˢ ˅ ˨˫˱˱˘˜˨ˁ༤˼ˣ˻˲ ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤˼ˣ˻˲ ˦ˁ˧ˁˊ˘ˆˢˁ˲. ɯ˅˪˥˧˻, ˥ˊˣˁ˜˥, ˦˥˜ˁ˖˻˅ˁ˿˪, ˵˪˥ ˦˧˘ ˅˨ˌˢ ˅ˣˋ˸ˣˋˢ ˨˲˥ˊ˨˪˅ˋ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢ ˥ˣ˘ ˊˋˢ˥ˣ˨˪˧˘˧˫˿˪ ˪˥ˣ˜˘ˋ ˧ˁ˖༤˘˵˘̀, ˜˥˪˥˧˻ˋ ˨˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅˫˿˪ ˥ ˨༤˥ːˣ˥ˢ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˦༤ˋ˪ˋˣ˘˘ ˅ˣ˫˪˧˘˨˪˧˫˜˪˫˧ˣ˻˲ ˘ ˁ˧ˋˁ༤˼ˣ˻˲ ˱ˁ˜˪˥˧˥˅ ˘˲ ˧ˁ˖˅˘˪˘̀. ʕˁ˜, ˅ ˄ˋ༤˫ˊː˨˜˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˋ ˦˧ˋ˱˘˜˨ bi-, ˦˥-˅˘ˊ˘ˢ˥ˢ˫, ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ ˘˖ ˦ˋ˧˨˘ˊ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ. ʓ˘˨˪ˋˢˁ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ ˥ˣ ˫˦˥˪˧ˋ˄༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˪˥༤˼˜˥ ˅ ˘ˢ˦ˋ˧ˁ˪˘˅ˋ, ˁ ˅ ˨˪ˁ˧˻˲ ˥˦˘˨ˁˣ˘̀˲ ˱˥˧ˢ˻ ˨ bi- ˘ ˅˥˅˨ˋ ˣˋ ˧ˁ˨˨ˢˁ˪˧˘˅ˁ˿˪˨̀ ˜ˁ˜ ˥˪ˊˋ༤˼ˣ˻ˋ ˦ˁ˧ˁˊ˘ˆˢ˻. ʓ˘˪˫ˁ˴˘̀ ˅ ˪ˁ˪˨˜˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˋ ˨༤˥ːˣˋˋ. ʑ˥-˅˘ˊ˘ˢ˥ˢ˫, ˨༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪ ˧ˁ˖༤˘˵ˁ˪˼ ˊ˅ˋ ˨༤˫˵ˁ˙ˣ˥ ˨˥˅˦ˁ˅˸˘ˋ ˢ˥˧˱ˋˢ˻: ˘ˢ˦ˋ˧˱ˋ˜˪˘˅ˣ˻˙ ˦˧ˋ˱˘˜˨ bä-ɏ/ɏba- ˘ ˜˥ˣ˺˿ˣ˜˪˘˅ˣ˻˙ ˦˧ˋ˱˘˜˨ bV-. ʨ˪˥ ˅˘ˊˣ˥ ˘˖ ˪˥ˆ˥, ˵˪˥ ˅ ˦˥˨༤ˋˊˣˋˢ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˙ ˁ˨˨˘ˢ˘༤˘˧˫ˋ˪˨̀ ˨ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻ˢ ˜˥˧ˣ̀, ˪˥ˆˊˁ ˜ˁ˜ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˙ ˅ ˦ˋ˧˅˥ˢ ˨˪ˁ˄˘༤ˋˣ. ʑ˥-˅˘ˊ˘ˢ˥ˢ˫, ˘ˢ˦ˋ˧˱ˋ˜˪˘˅ˣ˻˙ ˦˧ˋ˱˘˜˨ ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˘˨˜˥ˣˣ˻ˢ ˧ˁ˖˅˘˪˘ˋˢ ˘˖ ˣˁ˦˧ˁ˅˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˦˧ˋˊ༤˥ˆˁ bä, ˪˥ˆˊˁ ˜ˁ˜ 220

˦˧ˋ˱˘˜˨ ˜˥ˣ˺˿ˣ˜˪˘˅ˁ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ ˘˖ ˪ˁ༤˻˸˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˘ ˧˥ˊ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˻˲ ˨ˋ˅ˋ˧˥-˖ˁ˦ˁˊˣ˥˘˧ˁˣ˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅. ʃ˖ ˽˪˥˙ «ˢ˘˜˧˥˪˘˦˥༤˥ˆ˘˘» ˅˘ˊˣ˥, ˊ˥ ˜ˁ˜˥˙ ˨˪ˋ˦ˋˣ˘ ˜˥ˣ˪ˁ˜˪ˣ˻ˋ ˱ˁ˜˪˥˧˻ ˣˁ༤˥ː˘༤˘˨˼ ˣˁ ˅ˣ˫˪˧ˋˣˣ˿˿ ༤˥ˆ˘˜˫ ˧ˁ˖˅˘˪˘̀ ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤˼ˣ˻˲ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢ ˘˧ˁˣ˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅. ɸ˥˜༤ˁˊ ɴ. ɳˁ˱ˁˋ̀ˣ (ʓ˪˥˜ˆ˥༤˼ˢ˨˜˘˙ ˫ˣ˘˅ˋ˧˨˘˪ˋ˪) «Areal typological study on the progressive in northern Iran perspective» ˦˥˨˅̀˹ˌˣ ˪˘˦˥༤˥ˆ˘˘ ˦˥˜ˁ˖ˁ˪ˋ༤ˋ˙ ˦˧˥ˆ˧ˋ˨˨˘˅ˁ ˅ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲ ˨ˋ˅ˋ˧ˣ˥ˆ˥ ʃ˧ˁˣˁ. ɯ˅˪˥˧ ˅˻ˊˋ༤̀ˋ˪ ˊ˅ˋ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˣ˻ˋ ˆ˧˫˦˦˻ ̀˖˻˜˥˅ ˦˥ ˢ˥ˊˋ༤˘ ˱˥˧ˢ˘˧˥˅ˁˣ˘̀ ˦˧˥ˆ˧ˋ˨˨˘˅ˣ˻˲ ˱˥˧ˢ: ˆ˧˫˦˦ˁ DAR, ˅ ˜˥˪˥˧˥˙ ˘˨˦˥༤˼˖˫ˋ˪˨̀ ༤˥˜ˁ˪˘˅ˣ˻˙ ˽༤ˋˢˋˣ˪ ˅˘ˊˁ darɍ/ɍdƕrɍ/ɍda, ˘ ˆ˧˫˦˦ˁ KAR, ˆˊˋ ˘˨˦˥༤˼˖˫ˋ˪˨̀ ˽༤ˋˢˋˣ˪ karɍ/ɍkƕrɍ/ɍkƕrƕ, ˅˥˨˲˥ˊ̀˹˘˙ ˜ ˨˫˹ˋ˨˪˅˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˢ˫ kŊแr ‘˧ˁ˄˥˪ˁ, ˊˋ˙˨˪˅˘ˋ’. ʑ˥˜ˁ˖ˁˣ˥, ˵˪˥ ˫˦˥˪˧ˋ˄༤ˋˣ˘ˋ ˽˪˘˲ ˨˪˧ˁ˪ˋˆ˘˙ ˦˥ˊ˵˘ˣ̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˦˧ˋːˊˋ ˅˨ˋˆ˥ ˁ˧ˋˁ༤˼ˣ˥˙ ༤˥ˆ˘˜ˋ, ˦˧˘˵ˌˢ ˆ˧˫˦˦ˁ KAR ˥ˆ˧ˁˣ˘˵ˋˣˁ ˣˋ˄˥༤˼˸˥˙ ˖˥ˣ˥˙ ˢˋːˊ˫ ˦˧˥˅˘ˣ˴˘̀ˢ˘ ɴ˘༤̀ˣ, ɯ˧ˊˋ˄˘༤˼, ɳ˥˨˪˥˵ˣ˻˙ ɯ˖ˋ˧˄ˁ˙ˊːˁˣ ˘ ʁˋˣˊːˁˣ. ɴ˧˫˦˦ˁ DAR ˧ˁ˨˦˧˥˨˪˧ˁˣˋˣˁ ˸˘˧ˋ, ˣ˥ ˅ˋ˨˼ˢˁ ˧ˁ˖ˣ˥˥˄˧ˁ˖ˣˁ ˅ ˪˥ˢ, ˵˪˥ ˜ˁ˨ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˦˥˖˘˴˘˘ ˘ ˨˪ˁ˪˫˨ˁ ˦˧˥ˆ˧ˋ˨˨˘˅ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˦˥˜ˁ˖ˁ˪ˋ༤̀. ɹ˨༤˘ ˅ ˣˋ˜˥˪˥˧˻˲ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪ˁ˲ ˥ˣ ˣˁ˲˥ˊ˘˪˨̀ ˅ ˦˧ˋ˦˥˖˘˴˘˘ ˘ ˘ˢˋˋ˪ ˨˪ˁ˪˫˨ ˜༤˘˪˘˜˘, ˪˥ ˅ ˊ˧˫ˆ˘˲ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪ˁ˲ ˥ˣ ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˫ːˋ ˦˥༤ˣ˥˴ˋˣˣ˻ˢ ˨˫˱˱˘˜˨˥ˢ. ɳ ˴ˋ༤˥ˢ ˢ˥ːˣ˥ ˨˜ˁ˖ˁ˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˨ ˖ˁ˦ˁˊˁ ˣˁ ˅˥˨˪˥˜ ˧ˁ˨˨ˢˁ˪˧˘˅ˁˋˢ˥˙ ˖˥ˣ˻ ˊˋ˙˨˪˅˫ˋ˪ ˪ˋˣˊˋˣ˴˘̀ ˣˁ˧ˁ˨˪ˁˣ˘̀ ˨˪ˋ˦ˋˣ˘ ˆ˧ˁˢˢˁ˪˘˜ˁ༤˘˖ˁ˴˘˘ ˊˁˣˣ˥˙ ˜ˁ˪ˋˆ˥˧˘˘: ˋ˨༤˘ ˅ ˖ˁ˦ˁˊˣ˥˙ ˵ˁ˨˪˘ ˁ˧ˋˁ༤ˁ ˦˥˜ˁ˖ˁ˪ˋ༤˘ ˆ˧˫˦˦˻ DAR ̀˅༤̀˿˪˨̀ ˦˧˥˜༤˘˪˘˜ˁˢ˘ ˘ ˅˻˧ˁːˁ˿˪ ˦˧˥ˆ˧ˋ˨˨˘˅ˣ˥ˋ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ, ˪˥ ˣˁ ˅˥˨˪˥˜ˋ ˁ˧ˋˁ༤ˁ ˥ˣ˘ ̀˅༤̀˿˪˨̀ ˨˫˱˱˘˜˨ˁˢ˘ ˘ ˘ˢˋ˿˪ ˫ːˋ ˥˄˹ˋˋ ˘ˢ˦ˋ˧˱ˋ˜˪˘˅ˣ˥ˋ, ˁ ˣˋ ˨˥˄˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥ ˦˧˥ˆ˧ˋ˨˨˘˅ˣ˥ˋ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ. ʑ˥˨༤ˋ˥˄ˋˊˋˣˣˁ̀ ˨ˋ˜˴˘̀ ˅˪˥˧˥ˆ˥ ˊˣ̀ ˜˥ˣ˱ˋ˧ˋˣ˴˘˘, ˦˥ˢ˘ˢ˥ ˦˥˨˪ˋ˧ˣ˻˲ ˦˧ˋ˖ˋˣ˪ˁ˴˘˙, ˨˥˨˪˥̀༤ˁ ˘˖ ˊ˅˫˲ ˊ˥˜༤ˁˊ˥˅. ʑˋ˧˅˻ˢ ˄˻༤˥ ˅˻˨˪˫˦༤ˋˣ˘ˋ ʌ. ʁ˘ˁˢˁˊː˘ˊ˘ (ʍˋˢ˥˧˘ˁ༤˼ˣ˻˙ ˫ˣ˘˅ˋ˧˨˘˪ˋ˪ ʎ˼˿˱ˁ˫ˣˊ༤ˋˣˊˁ) ˣˁ ˪ˋˢ˫ «The aspectual system in Luri of Doroud», ˦˥˨˅̀˹ˌˣˣ˥ˋ ˁ˨˦ˋ˜˪˫ˁ༤˼ˣ˥˙ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢˋ ˊ˥˧˫ˊ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪ˁ ༤˫˧˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ. ʓ˘˨˪ˋˢˁ ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤˼ˣ˻˲ ˱˥˧ˢ, ˥˦˘˨ˁˣˣˁ̀ ˅ ˊ˥˜༤ˁˊˋ, ˦˧˘ˢˋ˵ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣˁ ˅ ˨༤ˋˊ˫˿˹˘˲ ˁ˨˦ˋ˜˪ˁ˲. ɳ˥-˦ˋ˧˅˻˲, ˧̀ˊ ˱˥˧ˢ ˥˵ˋ˅˘ˊˣ˥ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ ˘˖ ˦ˋ˧˨˘ˊ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ. ʕˁ˜, ˦˧˥ˆ˧ˋ˨˨˘˅ ˨˥ ˅˨˦˥ˢ˥ˆˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻ˢ ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤˥ˢ daštæn ‘˘ˢˋ˪˼’ ˜ˁ༤˼˜˘˧˫ˋ˪ ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅˫˿˹˫˿ ˦ˋ˧˨˘ˊ˨˜˫˿ ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˜˴˘˿: ˅ ˽˪˥˙ ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˜˴˘˘ ˘˨˦˥༤˼˖˫ˋ˪˨̀ ˱˥˧ˢˁ ˣˁ mi-, ˨ˁˢˁ ˦˥ ˨ˋ˄ˋ ˅ ༤˫˧˨˜˥ˢ ˢˁ༤˥˫˦˥˪˧ˋ˄˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣˁ̀. ɳ˥-˅˪˥˧˻˲, ˘ˣ˪ˋ˧ˋ˨ˣˁ ˨˪˧˫˜˪˫˧ˁ ˨༤˥˅˥˱˥˧ˢ˻ ˦ˋ˧˱ˋ˜˪ˁ. ʁˊˋ˨˼ ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤ ‘˄˻˪˼’ ˘ˢˋˋ˪ ˣˋ˘˖ˢˋˣ̀ˋˢ˫˿ ˱˥˧ˢ˫ -æ, ˦˧˘˵ˌˢ ˽˪˥˪ ˦˥˜ˁ˖ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ ˦˧˘˨˥ˋˊ˘ˣ̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˣˋ ˦ˋ˧ˋˊ ༤˘˵ˣ˥-˵˘˨༤˥˅˻ˢ ˁ˱˱˘˜˨˥ˢ (˵˪˥ ˄˻༤˥ ˄˻ ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ ˥ː˘ˊˁˋˢ˥), ˣ˥ ˦˥˨༤ˋ ˣ˘˲. ʨ˪˥ ˨˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅˫ˋ˪ ˥ ˊ˥˨˪ˁ˪˥˵ˣ˥ ˅˻˨˥˜˥˙

ʓˋˊ˼ˢˁ̀ ˢˋːˊ˫ˣˁ˧˥ˊˣˁ̀ ˜˥ˣ˱ˋ˧ˋˣ˴˘̀ ˦˥ ˘˧ˁˣ˨˜˥ˢ˫ ̀˖˻˜˥˖ˣˁˣ˘˿

˨˪ˋ˦ˋˣ˘ ˆ˧ˁˢˢˁ˪˘˜ˁ༤˘˖ˁ˴˘˘ ˦ˋ˧˱ˋ˜˪ˁ ˘ ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅˫˿˹ˋ˙ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˨˪˧˥˙˜ˋ ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤˼ˣ˥˙ ˨༤˥˅˥˱˥˧ˢ˻. ʑ˥˨༤ˋˊˣ˘ˢ ˊ˥˜༤ˁˊ˥ˢ ˅˥ ˅˪˥˧˥˙ ˊˋˣ˼ ˜˥ˣ˱ˋ˧ˋˣ˴˘˘ ˄˻༤ˁ ˦༤ˋˣˁ˧ˣˁ̀ ˦˧ˋ˖ˋˣ˪ˁ˴˘̀ ɸː. ʝˋ˙ˆˁ (ɲˁˢ˄ˋ˧ˆ˨˜˘˙ ˫ˣ˘˅ˋ˧˨˘˪ˋ˪) «Post-predicate arguments in Iranian languages». ʃ˖˅ˋ˨˪ˣ˥, ˵˪˥ ˢˣ˥ˆ˘ˋ ˘˧ˁˣ˨˜˘ˋ ̀˖˻˜˘, ˣˋ˨ˢ˥˪˧̀ ˣˁ ˅ ˴ˋ༤˥ˢ ༤ˋ˅˥ˋ ˅ˋ˪˅༤ˋˣ˘ˋ, ˨˥ˊˋ˧ːˁ˪ ˧̀ˊ ˥˪˜༤˥ˣˋˣ˘˙ ˥˪ ˽˪˥ˆ˥ ˦˧˥˪˥˪˘˦ˁ. ʕˋˢ ˣˋ ˢˋˣˋˋ, ˨˵˘˪ˁˋ˪˨̀, ˵˪˥ ˅˥ ˅˨̀˜˥ˢ ˨༤˫˵ˁˋ ˖ˁ˦ˁˊˣ˥˘˧ˁˣ˨˜˘ˋ ̀˖˻˜˘ ˘ˢˋ˿˪ ˊ˥˨˪ˁ˪˥˵ˣ˥ ːˌ˨˪˜˥ˋ ˥ˆ˧ˁˣ˘˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ˣˁ ˜˥ˣˋ˵ˣ˫˿ ˦˥˖˘˴˘˿ ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤ˁ. ʃ˖ ˽˪˥ˆ˥ ˦˧ˁ˅˘༤ˁ ˲˥˧˥˸˥ ˘˖˅ˋ˨˪ˣ˥ ˥ˊˣ˥ ˘˨˜༤˿˵ˋˣ˘ˋ: ˦˥˖˘˴˘̀ ˨ˋˣ˪ˋˣ˴˘ˁ༤˼ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˁ˜˪ˁˣ˪ˁ ˦˥˨༤ˋ ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤ˁ. ʐˊˣˁ˜˥ ˽˪˥ ˘˨˜༤˿˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ˪˘˦˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ ˥ː˘ˊˁˋˢ˥ ˘ ˣˋ˦༤˥˲˥ ˥˄˺̀˨ˣ̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˨˫˹ˋ˨˪˅˫˿˹˘ˢ˘ ˪ˋ˥˧ˋ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˢ˘ ˢ˥ˊˋ༤̀ˢ˘. ɳ ˊ˥˜༤ˁˊˋ ɸː. ʝˋ˙ˆˁ ˥˄˨˫ːˊˁˋ˪˨̀ ˊ˧˫ˆ˥ˋ ˘˨˜༤˿˵ˋˣ˘ˋ, ˆ˥˧ˁ˖ˊ˥ ˧ˋːˋ ˫˦˥ˢ˘ˣˁˋˢ˥ˋ ˅ ༤˘˪ˋ˧ˁ˪˫˧ˋ: ˨˘˨˪ˋˢˁ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˋ ˦˥˖˘˴˘˥ˣ˘˧˥˅ˁˣ˘ˋ ༤˥˜ˁ˪˘˅ˣ˻˲ ˘ ˴ˋ༤ˋ˅˻˲ ˘ˢˋˣˣ˻˲ ˁ˜˪ˁˣ˪˥˅ ˦˥˨༤ˋ ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤ˁ. ɯ˅˪˥˧ ˫˜ˁ˖˻˅ˁˋ˪, ˵˪˥ ˁˣˁ༤˘˖ ˪ˁ˜˘˲ ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧˥˅ ˜ˁ˜ ˣˋ˨˪ˁˣˊˁ˧˪ˣ˻˲, ˢˁ˧˜˘˧˥˅ˁˣˣ˻˲ ˨༤˫˵ˁˋ˅ «˨˜˧ˋˢ˄༤˘ˣˆˁ» ˣˋ˨˥˨˪˥̀˪ˋ༤ˋˣ ˊˁːˋ ˊ༤̀ ˦ˋ˧˨˘ˊ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ, ˵˪˥ ˄˻༤˥ ˦˥˜ˁ˖ˁˣ˥ ˋ˹ˌ ˅ ˧ˁ˄˥˪ˋ ʑ. ʜ˧˥ˢˢˋ˧ˁ 1981 ˆ˥ˊˁ, ˦˥˨˅̀˹ˌˣˣ˥˙ ˧ˁ˖ˆ˥˅˥˧ˣ˥ˢ˫ ˦ˋ˧˨˘ˊ˨˜˥ˢ˫. ʎˁ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˁˣ˘˘ ˨˥˄˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˻˲ ˊˁˣˣ˻˲ ɸː. ʝˋ˙ˆ ˦˥˜ˁ˖˻˅ˁˋ˪, ˵˪˥ ˅ ̀˖˻˜ˋ ˜˫˧ˢˁˣˊː˘ ˦˥˨˪ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤˼ˣˁ̀ ˦˥˖˘˴˘̀ ˥˄̀˖ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣˁ ˊ༤̀ ˪˧ˌ˲ ˪˘˦˥˅ ˁ˜˪ˁˣ˪˥˅: ˜˥ˣˋ˵ˣ˻˲ ˪˥˵ˋ˜, ˧ˋ˴˘˦˘ˋˣ˪˥˅ ˘ ˁˊ˧ˋ˨ˁ˪˥˅. ʨ˪˥ ˦˥˖˅˥༤̀ˋ˪ ˥˪ˣˋ˨˪˘ ˜˫˧ˢˁˣˊː˘ ˜ ˪˘˦˫ SOVX, ˲˥˧˥˸˥ ˥˦˘˨ˁˣˣ˥ˢ˫ ˣˁ ˢˁ˪ˋ˧˘ˁ༤ˋ ˧̀ˊˁ ˁ˱˧˘˜ˁˣ˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅. ʑ˥ˢ˘ˢ˥ ˦˥ˊ˧˥˄ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˥˄˖˥˧ˁ ˨˥˄˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˻˲ ˦˥༤ˋ˅˻˲ ˊˁˣˣ˻˲ ˘ ˘ˢˋ˿˹ˋ˙˨̀ ༤˘˪ˋ˧ˁ˪˫˧˻ ˦˥ ˊˁˣˣ˥ˢ˫ ˅˥˦˧˥˨˫, ɸː. ʝˋ˙ˆ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˦˧ˋˊ༤˥ː˘༤ ˊ˥˨˪ˁ˪˥˵ˣ˥ ˨ˢˋ༤˫˿ ˆ˘˦˥˪ˋ˖˫ ˥ ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˥ˢ ˅༤˘̀ˣ˘˘ ˣ˥˅˥ˁ˧ˁˢˋ˙˨˜˘˲ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪˥˅ ˣˁ ˦˥˧̀ˊ˥˜ ˨༤˥˅ ˅ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲ ˖ˁ˦ˁˊˣ˥˘˧ˁˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˁ˧ˋˁ༤ˁ. ʘ˪˧ˋˣˣ̀̀ ˨ˋ˜˴˘̀ ˦˥˨༤ˋˊˣˋˆ˥, ˪˧ˋ˪˼ˋˆ˥ ˊˣ̀ ˜˥ˣ˱ˋ˧ˋˣ˴˘˘ ˣˁ˵ˁ༤ˁ˨˼ ˨ ˊ˥˜༤ˁˊˁ ɯ. ʎ˘༤˼˨˨˥ˣˁ (ʘ˦˦˨ˁ༤˼˨˜˘˙ ˫ˣ˘˅ˋ˧˨˘˪ˋ˪) «Evidentiality and epistemic authority in spoken Tajik», ˦˥˨˅̀˹ˌˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˽˅˘ˊˋˣ˴˘ˁ༤˼ˣ˥˨˪˘ ˅ ˪ˁˊː˘˜˨˜˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˋ. ɳ ༤˘˪ˋ˧ˁ˪˫˧ˋ ˥˄˻˵ˣ˥ ˨˵˘˪ˁˋ˪˨̀, ˵˪˥ ˪ˁˊː˘˜˨˜˘˙ ˦ˋ˧˱ˋ˜˪ ˘˨˦˥༤˼˖˫ˋ˪˨̀ ˊ༤̀ ˖ˁˆ༤ˁ˖ˣ˻˲ ˨˥˄˻˪˘˙, ˪˥ˆˊˁ ˜ˁ˜ ˱˥˧ˢ˻ ˦˧˥˨˪˥ˆ˥ ˦ˋ˧˱ˋ˜˪˘˅ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˦˧˥˸ˋˊ˸ˋˆ˥ ˅˧ˋˢˋˣ˘ (ˁ˥˧˘˨˪ˁ) ˫˦˥˪˧ˋ˄༤̀˿˪˨̀ ˘˨˜༤˿˵˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ ˊ༤̀ ˖ˁ˨˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣˣ˻˲ ˨˥˄˻˪˘˙. ɳ ˊ˥˜༤ˁˊˋ ˣˁ ˢˁ˪ˋ˧˘ˁ༤ˋ ˥˦˧˥˨ˁ ˣ˥˨˘˪ˋ༤ˋ˙ ˪ˁˊː˘˜˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ ˦˥˜ˁ˖ˁˣ˥, ˵˪˥ ˧ˋˁ༤˼ˣˁ̀ ˨˘˪˫ˁ˴˘̀ ˣˋ˨˜˥༤˼˜˥ ˨༤˥ːˣˋˋ: ̀˅ˣ˥ ˖ˁˆ༤ˁ˖ˣ˻ˋ ˨˥˄˻˪˘̀ ˵ˁ˨˪˥ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˢˁ˧˜˘˧˫˿˪˨̀ ˱˥˧ˢˁˢ˘ ˦˧˥˨˪˥ˆ˥ ˦˧˥˸ˋˊ˸ˋˆ˥. ʑ˥-˅˘ˊ˘ˢ˥ˢ˫, ˱˥˧ˢ˻ ˦ˋ˧˱ˋ˜˪ˁ ˊˋ˙˨˪˅˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ ˘ˢˋ˿˪ ˽˅˘ˊˋˣ˴˘ˁ༤˼ˣ˫˿ ˨ˋˢˁˣ˪˘˜˫, ˪˥ˆˊˁ ˜ˁ˜ ˁ˥˧˘˨˪ ˣˋ ˨˅̀˖ˁˣ ˨˥ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋˢ ˖ˁ˨˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣˣ˥˨˪˘ ˜ˁ˜ ˪ˁ˜˥˅˻ˢ. ʓ˜˥˧ˋˋ ˨༤ˋ-

ˊ˫ˋ˪ ˨˵˘˪ˁ˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˋˆ˥ ˫˦˥˪˧ˋ˄༤ˋˣ˘ˋ ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˁˋ˪ ˅˻˨˥˜˫˿ ˨˪ˋ˦ˋˣ˼ ˫˅ˋ˧ˋˣˣ˥˨˪˘ ˆ˥˅˥˧̀˹ˋˆ˥ ˅ ˘˨˪˘ˣˣ˥˨˪˘ ˨˥˄˻˪˘̀. ʑ˥༤ˣ˥˨˪˼˿ ˦ˋ˧˱ˋ˜˪ˣ˻ˋ ˣˁ˧˧ˁ˪˘˅˻, ˪ˁ˜˘ˢ ˥˄˧ˁ˖˥ˢ, ˅ ˪ˁˊː˘˜˨˜˥ˢ ˅˨˪˧ˋ˵ˁ˿˪˨̀ ༤˘˸˼ ˘˖˧ˋˊ˜ˁ ˘ ˖ˁ˜˧ˋ˦༤ˋˣ˻ ˖ˁ ˪ˋ˜˨˪ˁˢ˘ ˨˦ˋ˴˘˱˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ːˁˣ˧˥˅, ˪ˁ˜˘ˢ˘ ˜ˁ˜ ˨˜ˁ˖˜˘ ˘༤˘ ˁˣˋ˜ˊ˥˪˻. ɸ˥˜༤ˁˊ ʨ. ɯˣ˥ˣ˄˘ (ʇˁ˧༤˪˥ˣ˨˜˘˙ ˫ˣ˘˅ˋ˧˨˘˪ˋ˪; ɲˁˢ˄ˋ˧ˆ˨˜˘˙ ˫ˣ˘˅ˋ˧˨˘˪ˋ˪) ˘ ʍ. ʕˁ˲ˋ˧˘-ɯ˧ˊˁ༤˘ (ʣˁ˲˧ˋ˜˥˧ˊ˨˜˘˙ ˫ˣ˘˅ˋ˧˨˘˪ˋ˪) «Linguistic diversity and language contact in Chahar Mahal va Bakhtiari Province, Iran» ˅ ˖ˣˁ˵˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥˙ ˨˪ˋ˦ˋˣ˘ ˢ˥ːˣ˥ ˨˵˘˪ˁ˪˼ ˦˧ˋ˖ˋˣ˪ˁ˴˘ˋ˙ ˢˁ˨˸˪ˁ˄ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˦˧˥ˋ˜˪ˁ «ʫ˖˻˜˥˅˥˙ ˁ˪༤ˁ˨ ʃ˧ˁˣˁ» 2, ˅˻˦˥༤ˣ̀ˋˢ˥ˆ˥ ˢˋːˊ˫ˣˁ˧˥ˊˣ˥˙ ˆ˧˫˦˦˥˙ ˘˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁ˪ˋ༤ˋ˙ ˦˥ˊ ˧˫˜˥˅˥ˊ˨˪˅˥ˢ ʨ. ɯˣ˥ˣ˄˘. ʍˋ˪˥ˊ˥༤˥ˆ˘̀ ˁ˪༤ˁ˨ˁ ˦˥˨˪˧˥ˋˣˁ ˣˁ ˨˄˥˧ˋ ˨˥˴˘˥༤˘ˣˆ˅˘˨˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˘ ̀˖˻˜˥˅˻˲ ˊˁˣˣ˻˲ ˊ༤̀ ˜ˁːˊ˥ˆ˥ ˨ˋ༤ˋˣ˘̀ ˅ ˦˧ˋˊˋ༤ˁ˲ ˆˋ˥ˆ˧ˁ˱˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˁ˧ˋˁ༤ˁ; ˊˁˣˣˁ̀ ˘ˣ˱˥˧ˢˁ˴˘̀ ˖ˁ˪ˋˢ ˨˥˵ˋ˪ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˨ ˊˋˢ˥ˆ˧ˁ˱˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˘ˣ˱˥˧ˢˁ˴˘ˋ˙ ˘˖ ˥˄˹ˋˊ˥˨˪˫˦ˣ˻˲ ˘˨˪˥˵ˣ˘˜˥˅. ʕˁ˜˥˙ ˨˦˥˨˥˄ ˨˥˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˘̀ ˁ˪༤ˁ˨ˁ ˦˥˖˅˥༤̀ˋ˪ ˦˥༤˫˵˘˪˼ ˢˁ˜˨˘ˢˁ༤˼ˣ˥ ˪˥˵ˣ˫˿ ˜ˁ˧˪˘ˣ˫ ̀˖˻˜˥˅˥˙ ˨˘˪˫ˁ˴˘˘ ˅ ˖ˁˊˁˣˣ˥ˢ ˁ˧ˋˁ༤ˋ. ɳ ˊ˥˜༤ˁˊˋ ˁ˅˪˥˧˻ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅˘༤˘ ˦˥ˊ˧˥˄ˣ˻˙ ˁˣˁ༤˘˖ ̀˖˻˜˥˅ ˥˨˪ˁˣˁ ʠˋ˲ˁ˧ˢˋ˲ˁ༤˼ ˘ ɲˁ˲˪˘ˁ˧˘̀. ʑ˥ˢ˘ˢ˥ ˥˄˹˘˲ ˨˥˴˘˥༤˘ˣˆ˅˘˨˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˅˻˅˥ˊ˥˅ (˪ˁ˜˘˲, ˜ˁ˜ ˦˥˅˨ˋˢˋ˨˪ˣ˥ˋ ˧ˁ˨˦˧˥˨˪˧ˁˣˋˣ˘ˋ ˦ˋ˧˨˘ˊ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˅ ˜ˁ˵ˋ˨˪˅ˋ ˧˥ˊˣ˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ), ˅ ˊ˥˜༤ˁˊˋ ˊˋ༤ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˘ ˧̀ˊ ˘ˣ˪ˋ˧ˋ˨ˣ˻˲ ˣˁ˄༤˿ˊˋˣ˘˙ ˥ ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˜ˋ ˘ ˆ˧ˁˢˢˁ˪˘˜ˋ. ʕˁ˜, ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜ˁ̀ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢˁ ˄ˁ˲˪˘̀˧˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ ˅ ˽˪˥˙ ˦˧˥˅˘ˣ˴˘˘ ˄༤˘ːˋ ˜ ˨˪ˁˣˊˁ˧˪ˣ˥˙ ˦ˋ˧˨˘ˊ˨˜˥˙ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢˋ ˘ ˜ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢˁˢ ˊ˧˫ˆ˘˲ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪˥˅ ʪˆ˥-ʁˁ˦ˁˊˣ˥ˆ˥ ʃ˧ˁˣˁ, ˵ˋˢ ˜ ˊ˧˫ˆ˘ˢ ˅ˁ˧˘ˁˣ˪ˁˢ ˄ˁ˲˪˘̀˧˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ. ʐ˄ˣˁ˧˫ːˋˣˁ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˣˋ˥˄˻˵ˣˁ̀ ˧ˋˊ˫˦༤˘˴˘˧˥˅ˁˣˣˁ̀ ˱˥˧ˢˁ ˦˧˥ˆ˧ˋ˨˨˘˅ˁ, ˖ˁ˨˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣˣˁ̀ ˪˥༤˼˜˥ ˅ ˣˋ˨˜˥༤˼˜˘˲ ˄ˁ˲˪˘̀˧˨˜˘˲ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪ˁ˲ ˘ ˨˥˨ˋˊ˨˪˅˫˿˹˘˲ ˨ ˣ˘ˢ˘ ˪˿˧˜˨˜˘˲ ˘ˊ˘˥ˢˁ˲. ɸ˥˜༤ˁˊ ʍ. ʇ˘ˣ˴༤ˋ˧ˁ (ɴˁˢ˄˫˧ˆ˨˜˘˙ ˫ˣ˘˅ˋ˧˨˘˪ˋ˪) «The Khuzistan dialect of Early Judaeo-Persian and modern dialects of the region» ˧ˁ˨˨ˢˁ˪˧˘˅ˁˋ˪ ˨˅̀˖˼ ˢˋːˊ˫ ̀˖˻˜˥ˢ ˧ˁˣˣ˘˲ ˋ˅˧ˋ˙˨˜˥-˦ˋ˧˨˘ˊ˨˜˘˲ ˪ˋ˜˨˪˥˅, ༤˥˜ˁ༤˘˖˥˅ˁˣˣ˻˲ ˅ ʝ˫˖˘˨˪ˁˣˋ, ˘ ˨˥˅˧ˋˢˋˣˣ˻˲ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪˥˅ ˊˁˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˧ˋˆ˘˥ˣˁ. ɹ˅˧ˋ˙˨˜˥-˦ˋ˧˨˘ˊ˨˜˘ˋ ˪ˋ˜˨˪˻ ˅ˁːˣ˻ ˊ༤̀ ˘˨˪˥˧˘˘ ˦ˋ˧˨˘ˊ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ, ˪ˁ˜ ˜ˁ˜ ˥˪˧ˁːˁ˿˪ ˧̀ˊ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˲˥ˊˣ˻˲ ˵ˋ˧˪ ˢˋːˊ˫ ˨˧ˋˊˣˋ˦ˋ˧˨˘ˊ˨˜˘ˢ ˘ ˣ˥˅˥˦ˋ˧˨˘ˊ˨˜˘ˢ ˦ˋ˧˘˥ˊˁˢ˘. ʕˁ˜, ˅ ˲˫˖˘˨˪ˁˣ˨˜˥ˢ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪ˋ ˋ˅˧ˋ˙˨˜˥-˦ˋ˧˨˘ˊ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˘ˢˋˋ˪˨̀ ˥˨˥˄ˁ̀ ˱˥˧ˢˁ ˦ˋ˧˱ˋ˜˪ˁ, ˘˨˦˥༤˼˖˫˿˹ˁ̀ ˅ˢˋ˨˪˥ ˣ˥˅˥ˆ˥ ˦˧˘˵ˁ˨˪˘̀ ˣˁ -a ˨˪ˁ˧˥ˋ ˦˧˘˵ˁ˨˪˘ˋ ˦˧˥˸ˋˊ˸ˋˆ˥ ˅˧ˋˢˋˣ˘, ˨˥˅˦ˁˊˁ˿˹ˋˋ ˨ ˥˨ˣ˥˅˥˙ ˦˧˥˸ˋˊ˸ˋˆ˥ ˅˧ˋˢˋˣ˘. ʍ. ʇ˘ˣ˴༤ˋ˧ ˦˥˜ˁ˖˻˅ˁˋ˪, ˵˪˥ ˣˋ˜˥˪˥˧˻ˋ ˣˋ˥˄˻˵ˣ˻ˋ ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˜˴˘˘ ˨˥˅˧ˋˢˋˣˣ˻˲ 2

http://iranatlas.net/index.html.

221

Reports / ʝ˧˥ˣ˘˜ˁ

ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪˥˅ ˽˪˥ˆ˥ ˧ˋˆ˘˥ˣˁ, ˅ ˵ˁ˨˪ˣ˥˨˪˘ ༤˫˧˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ (˱˥˧ˢ˻ ˅˘ˊˁ goft-om=a ˨ ˦˥˨˪˦˥˖˘˴˘ˋ˙ ˅˨˦˥ˢ˥ˆˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤ˁ, ˫˦˥ˢ̀ˣ˫˪˻ˋ ˧ˁˣˋˋ ˅ ˊ˥˜༤ˁˊˋ ʌ. ʁ˘ˁˢˁˊː˘ˊ˘), ˢ˥ˆ˫˪ ˥˄˺̀˨ˣ̀˪˼˨̀ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪ˣ˻ˢ˘ ˧ˁ˖༤˘˵˘̀ˢ˘, ˘ˢˋ˅˸˘ˢ˘ ˢˋ˨˪˥ ˋ˹ˌ ˅ ˧ˁˣˣ˘˙ ˣ˥˅˥˦ˋ˧˨˘ˊ˨˜˘˙ ˦ˋ˧˘˥ˊ ˘ ˥˪˧ˁːˌˣˣ˻ˢ˘ ˅ ˋ˅˧ˋ˙˨˜˥˦ˋ˧˨˘ˊ˨˜˘˲ ˪ˋ˜˨˪ˁ˲. ɸ˥˜༤ˁˊ ʍ. ʓ˫༤ˋ˙ˢˁˣ˥˅ˁ (ʑ˧ˁ˜˪˘˵ˋ˨˜ˁ̀ ˸˜˥༤ˁ ˅˻˨˸˘˲ ˘˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁˣ˘˙, ʑˁ˧˘ː) «The verb ‘to do’ in Upper Sirvan Tat: Towards the genesis of a new inflectional paradigm through suppletion» ˦˥˨˅̀˹ˌˣ ˦˧˥˴ˋ˨˨˫ ˱˥˧ˢ˘˧˥˅ˁˣ˘̀ ˦ˁ˧ˁˊ˘ˆˢ˻ ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤ˁ ‘ˊˋ༤ˁ˪˼’ ˅ ˥ˊˣ˥ˢ ˘˖ ˪ˁ˪˨˜˘˲ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪˥˅. ɯ˅˪˥˧ ˦˥˜ˁ˖˻˅ˁˋ˪, ˵˪˥ ˅ ˽˪˥ˢ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪ˋ ˦ˁ˧ˁˊ˘ˆˢˁ ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤ˁ soxtan ‘ˊˋ༤ˁ˪˼’ ˅ ˧̀ˊˋ ˜༤ˋ˪˥˜ (˥˪˧˘˴ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻˙ ˜˥ˣ˺˿ˣ˜˪˘˅, ˦˧˥˲˘˄˘˪˘˅, ˁ˦˥ˊ˥˨˘˨ ˫˨༤˥˅ˣ˻˲ ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˜˴˘˙) ˖ˁ˦˥༤ˣ̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˱˥˧ˢˁˢ˘ ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤ˁ nohran ‘˜༤ˁ˨˪˼’. ɳ ˨˅˥˿ ˥˵ˋ˧ˋˊ˼, ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˁ ˣˁ˨˪˥̀˹ˋˆ˥ ˅˧ˋˢˋˣ˘ ˦˥˨༤ˋˊˣˋˆ˥ ˘˨˦˥༤˼˖˫ˋ˪˨̀ ˪˥༤˼˜˥ ˅ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘˘ ‘ˊˋ༤ˁ˪˼’; ˅ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘˘ ‘˜༤ˁ˨˪˼’ ˘˨˦˥༤˼˖˫ˋ˪˨̀ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˁ ˣˁ˨˪˥̀˹ˋˆ˥ ˅˧ˋˢˋˣ˘ ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤ˁ hištän ‘˥˨˪ˁ˅༤̀˪˼, ˥˪˦˫˨˜ˁ˪˼’. ʑ˥˨༤ˋˊˣˋˋ ˨˄༤˘ːˋˣ˘ˋ ˦˧˥˘˖˥˸༤˥ ˦˥ˊ ˁ˖ˋ˧˄ˁ˙ˊːˁˣ˨˜˘ˢ ˅༤˘̀ˣ˘ˋˢ, ˲˥˪̀ ˥˄ˁ ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤ˁ ˅ ˪ˁ˪˨˜˥ˢ ˥˨˪ˁ˿˪˨̀ ˨ˁˢ˥˨˪˥̀˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻ˢ˘ ༤ˋ˜˨ˋˢˁˢ˘. ʃˣ˪ˋ˧ˋ˨ˣ˥, ˵˪˥ ˅ ˣˋ˜˥˪˥˧˻˲ ˨༤˫˵ˁ̀˲ ˊ˥˦˫˨˪˘ˢ˻ ˘ ˧ˋˆ˫༤̀˧ˣˁ̀, ˘ ˨˫˦˦༤ˋ˪˘˅ˣˁ̀ ˱˥˧ˢ˻, ˵˪˥ ˆ˥˅˥˧˘˪ ˥ ˪˥ˢ, ˵˪˥ ˦˧˥˴ˋ˨˨ ˱˥˧ˢ˘˧˥˅ˁˣ˘̀ ˨˫˦˦༤ˋ˪˘˅ˣ˥˙ ˦ˁ˧ˁˊ˘ˆˢ˻ ˅ ˧ˁ˨˨ˢˁ˪˧˘˅ˁˋˢ˥ˢ ˘ˊ˘˥ˢˋ ˊ˥ ˜˥ˣ˴ˁ ˣˋ ˖ˁ˅ˋ˧˸˘༤˨̀. ɳ ˊ˥˜༤ˁˊˋ ʣ. ɲˋ˧ˣˁ˧ˁ (ʌˋ˙ˊˋˣ˨˜˘˙ ˫ˣ˘˅ˋ˧˨˘˪ˋ˪) «Gavruni modal verbs and impersonal constructions» ˧ˁ˨˨ˢˁ˪˧˘˅ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˥˨˥˄ˁ̀ ˁ˧ˆ˫ˢˋˣ˪ˣˁ̀ ˨˪˧˫˜˪˫˧ˁ ˢ˥ˊˁ༤˼ˣ˻˲ ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤˥˅ ̀˖˻˜ˁ ˆˁ˅˧˫ˣ˘ (˖˥˧˥ˁ˨˪˧˘˙˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˊˁ˧˘). ʃ˨˪˥˧˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ ˧̀ˊ ˢ˥ˊˁ༤˼ˣ˻˲ ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤˥˅ ˅ ˽˪˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˋ ˅˥˨˲˥ˊ̀˪ ˜ ˘ˢˋˣˣ˻ˢ ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˜˴˘̀ˢ ˅˘ˊˁ ‘˫ ˪ˋ˄̀ ˋ˨˪˼ ːˋ༤ˁˣ˘ˋ’ ˨ ˣˋ˜ˁˣ˥ˣ˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˢ˘ ˦˥ˊ༤ˋːˁ˹˘ˢ˘. ʒˋˊ˫˜˴˘̀ ˦ˁˊˋːˣ˥˙ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢ˻ ˘ ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˱˥˧ˢ˻ ˦˧ˋˊ˘˜ˁ˪ˁ ˦˧˘˅ˋ༤ˁ ˜ ˪˥ˢ˫, ˵˪˥ ˨˫˄˺ˋ˜˪ ˅ ˪ˁ˜˘˲ ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˜˴˘̀˲ ˣˋ˥˪༤˘˵˘ˢ ˥˪ ˜ˁˣ˥ˣ˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˦˥ˊ༤ˋːˁ˹ˋˆ˥. ɹˊ˘ˣ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥ˋ ˥˪༤˘˵˘ˋ ˥˪ ˥˄˻˵ˣ˻˲ ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤˥˅ ˨˥˨˪˥˘˪ ˅ ˪˥ˢ, ˵˪˥ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨˥˅ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻ˢ ˦˥˜ˁ˖ˁ˪ˋ༤ˋˢ ˅˻˨˪˫˦ˁˋ˪ ˦˥˨ˋ˨˨˘˅ˣˁ̀ ˦˧˥˜༤˘˪˘˜ˁ, ˁ ˣˋ ༤˘˵ˣ˻˙ ˨˫˱˱˘˜˨, ˁ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˅ ˪˥ˢ, ˵˪˥ ˨ˁˢ ˦˧ˋˊ˘˜ˁ˪ ˨˪˥˘˪ ˅ ˣˋ˘˖ˢˋˣ̀ˋˢ˥˙ ˱˥˧ˢˋ ˄ˋ˖ ༤˘˵ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˥˜˥ˣ˵ˁˣ˘̀. ʑ˥˲˥ː˘˙ ˢˁ˪ˋ˧˘ˁ༤ ˧ˁ˨˨ˢˁ˪˧˘˅ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˅ ˊ˥˜༤ˁˊˋ ɹ. ʇ.ɍʍ˥༤˵ˁˣ˥˅˥˙ (ʃˣ˨˪˘˪˫˪ ̀˖˻˜˥˖ˣˁˣ˘̀ ʒɯʎ) «ɯ˧ˆ˫ˢˋˣ˪ˣˁ̀ ˨˪˧˫˜˪˫˧ˁ ˅ ˖˥˧˥ˁ˨˪˧˘˙˨˜˥ˢ ˊˁ˧˘», ˆˊˋ ˥˦˘˨˻˅ˁ˿˪˨̀ ˊ˧˫ˆ˘ˋ ˣˋ˥˄˻˵ˣ˻ˋ ˢ˥ˊˋ༤˘ ˁ˧ˆ˫ˢˋˣ˪ˣ˥˙ ˨˪˧˫˜˪˫˧˻ ˅ ˊˁˣˣ˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˋ. ʕˁ˜, ༤˘˵ˣ˥˵˘˨༤˥˅˥˙ ˨˫˱˱˘˜˨ ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤˥˅ ˨ ˅ˁ༤ˋˣ˪ˣ˥˨˪˼˿ ˣˁ ˧˥༤˼ ɯˊ˧ˋ˨ˁ˪ˁ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨˫ˋ˪˨̀ ˣˋ ˨ ˨˫˄˺ˋ˜˪˥ˢ, ˁ ˨ ˁˊ˧ˋ˨ˁ˪˥ˢ. ʑ˧˘ ˥˪˨˫˪˨˪˅˘˘ ɯˊ˧ˋ˨ˁ˪ˁ ˅ ˁ˧ˆ˫ˢˋˣ˪ˣ˥˙ ˨˪˧˫˜˪˫˧ˋ ˪ˋ ːˋ ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤˻ ˘˨˦˥༤˼˖˫˿˪ ˢ˥ˊˋ༤˼, ˥˦˘˨ˁˣˣ˫˿ ʣ.ɍɲˋ˧ˣˁ˧˥ˢ. ʕˁ˜˘ˢ ˥˄˧ˁ˖˥ˢ, ˜˧˫ˆ ˋˌ 222

˫˦˥˪˧ˋ˄༤ˋˣ˘˙, ˦˥-˅˘ˊ˘ˢ˥ˢ˫, ˅˻˲˥ˊ˘˪ ˖ˁ ˧ˁˢ˜˘ ˥˜ˁˢˋˣˋ˅˸˘˲ ˘ˢˋˣˣ˻˲ ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˜˴˘˙. ʎˋ˨˜˥༤˼˜˥ ˦˥-˘ˣ˥ˢ˫ ˦˥ˣ̀˪˘ˋ ˘ˢ˦ˋ˧˨˥ˣˁ༤˼ˣ˥˙ ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˜˴˘˘ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁˌ˪ ˅ ˊ˥˜༤ˁˊˋ ɯ.ɍʝˋ˧˜ˋˣ˧ˁ˪ (ɴ˘˨ˋˣ˨˜˘˙ ˫ˣ˘˅ˋ˧˨˘˪ˋ˪) «Impersonal constructions in language-biographical conversations and related text types in Kurmanji», ˅ ˜˥˪˥˧˥ˢ ˁˣˁ༤˘˖˘˧˫ˋ˪˨̀ ˫˦˥˪˧ˋ˄༤ˋˣ˘ˋ ˘ˢ˦ˋ˧˨˥ˣˁ༤˼ˣ˻˲ ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˜˴˘˙ ̀˖˻˜ˁ ˜˫˧ˢˁˣˊː˘ ˣˁ ˄ˁ˖ˋ ˜˥˧˦˫˨ˁ ˫˨˪ˣ˻˲ ˪ˋ˜˨˪˥˅. ʃˣ˅ˋˣ˪ˁ˧˼ ˪ˁ˜˘˲ ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˜˴˘˙ ˅ ˽˪˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˋ ˊ˥˨˪ˁ˪˥˵ˣ˥ ˸˘˧˥˜ ˘ ˅˜༤˿˵ˁˋ˪ ˅ ˨ˋ˄̀ ˜ˁ˜ ˥˨˥˄˻ˋ ˨˫˄˺ˋ˜˪ˣ˻ˋ ˨˫˹ˋ˨˪˅˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻ˋ (mirov ˘༤˘ însan ‘˵ˋ༤˥˅ˋ˜’), ˪ˁ˜ ˘ ˘ˢ˦ˋ˧˨˥ˣˁ༤˼ˣ˻˙ ˦ˁ˨˨˘˅, ˢˋ˨˪˥˘ˢˋˣ˘̀ 2 ༤. ˘ ˁ˄˨˪˧ˁ˜˪ˣ˻ˋ ˘ˢˋˣˁ ˅ ˨˫˄˺ˋ˜˪ˣ˥˙ ˦˥˖˘˴˘˘. ʑ˥˨༤ˋ˥˄ˋˊˋˣˣ˫˿ ˨ˋ˜˴˘˿ ˦˥˨༤ˋˊˣˋˆ˥ ˊˣ̀ ˜˥ˣ˱ˋ˧ˋˣ˴˘˘ ˥˪˜˧˻˅ˁˋ˪ ˊ˥˜༤ˁˊ ɸ. ʓˁ˪ˁˣ˥˅˥˙ (ʃˣ˨˪˘˪˫˪ ༤˘ˣˆ˅˘˨˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˘˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁˣ˘˙ ʒɯʎ) «The case marker -o in Northern Talyshi: morphology, semantics and origin». ɳ ˊ˥˜༤ˁˊˋ ˊˋ༤ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˦˥˦˻˪˜ˁ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˨ˢ˥˪˧ˋ˪˼ ˨˪˧˫˜˪˫˧˫ ˪ˁ༤˻˸˨˜˥˙ ˦ˁˊˋːˣ˥˙ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢ˻. ʎˁ˵˘ˣˁ̀ ˨ ˧ˁ˄˥˪ ɲ. ɳ.ɍʍ˘༤༤ˋ˧ˁ ˦˧˘ˣ̀˪˥ ˨˵˘˪ˁ˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˦˥ˢ˘ˢ˥ ˦˧̀ˢ˥ˆ˥ ˘ ˜˥˨˅ˋˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˦ˁˊˋːˋ˙ ˅ ˪ˁ༤˻˸˨˜˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˋ ˘ˢˋˋ˪˨̀ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˣˁ˦˧ˁ˅˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻˙ ˦ˁˊˋː -o, ˅˥˨˲˥ˊ̀˹˘˙ ˜ ˦˧ˁ˘˧ˁˣ˨˜˥ˢ˫ ˁ˄༤ˁ˪˘˅˫ ˣˁ *-Ŋt. ɳ ˊ˥˜༤ˁˊˋ ˦˥˜ˁ˖ˁˣ˥, ˵˪˥ ˪ˁ˜˥˙ ˅˖ˆ༤̀ˊ ˫˦˧˥˹ˁˋ˪ ˧ˋˁ༤˼ˣ˫˿ ˜ˁ˧˪˘ˣ˫. ʎˁ ˽˪˥ ˫˜ˁ˖˻˅ˁˋ˪, ˅˥-˦ˋ˧˅˻˲, ˣˋ˪˘˦˘˵ˣ˥ ˸˘˧˥˜˘˙ ˜˧˫ˆ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘˙ ˽˪˥ˆ˥ ˨˫˱˱˘˜˨ˁ: ˅ ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅˘˘ ˨ ˥˦˘˨ˁˣ˘ˋˢ ɲ. ɳ. ʍ˘༤༤ˋ˧ˁ, ˥ˣ ˢˁ˧˜˘˧˫ˋ˪ ˜ˁ˜ ˦˧˥˨˪˧ˁˣ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥ˋ ˥˪ˊˁ༤ˋˣ˘ˋ, ˪ˁ˜ ˘ ˄ˋˣˋ˱ˁ˜˪˘˅. ɳ˥-˅˪˥˧˻˲, ˦˥˜ˁ˖ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ -o ˦˧˘˨˥ˋˊ˘ˣ̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˦˥˨༤ˋ ˦˥˨ˋ˨˨˘˅ˣ˻˲ ˜༤˘˪˘˜, ˵˪˥ ˊˋ༤ˁˋ˪ ˨˥ˢˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻ˢ ˋˆ˥ ˦˧˥˘˨˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘ˋ ˥˪ ˦˧ˁ˘˧ˁˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˁ˱˱˘˜˨ˁ. ɳ-˪˧ˋ˪˼˘˲, ˅ ˁ˄༤ˁ˪˘˅ˣ˥ˢ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘˘ -oɍ/ɏ-u ˅˨ˋˆˊˁ ˖ˁˢˋˣ˘ˢ ˣˁ ˦˥˨༤ˋ༤˥ˆ -ku, ˦˧˘˵ˌˢ ˦ˋ˧˅˻˙ ˅ˁ˧˘ˁˣ˪ ˊ˥˦˫˨˪˘ˢ ˪˥༤˼˜˥ ˦˥˨༤ˋ ˨˫˹ˋ˨˪˅˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻˲, ˥˜ˁˣ˵˘˅ˁ˿˹˘˲˨̀ ˣˁ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻ˋ. ʨ˪˘ ˊˁˣˣ˻ˋ ˫˜ˁ˖˻˅ˁ˿˪ ˣˁ ˪˥, ˵˪˥ ˅ ˦˥˜ˁ˖ˁ˪ˋ༤ˋ -o ˨˥˅˦ˁ༤˘ ˧ˋ˱༤ˋ˜˨˻ ˊ˅˫˲ ˧ˁ˖༤˘˵ˣ˻˲ ˦˥˜ˁ˖ˁ˪ˋ༤ˋ˙: ˦˥˨༤ˋ༤˥ˆˁ -ro (˵˪˥ ˊˁ༤˥ ˣˋ˦˧˥˨˪˧ˁˣ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˻ˋ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘̀ ˦˥˨༤ˋ༤˥ˆˁ) ˘ ˦˥˨༤ˋ༤˥ˆˁ -ku ˦˥˨༤ˋ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˲ (˵˪˥ ˊˁ༤˥ ˁ˄༤ˁ˪˘˅ˣ˥ˋ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ). ʕˁ˜˥˙ ˁˣˁ༤˘˖ ˦˥˖˅˥༤̀ˋ˪ ˁˊˋ˜˅ˁ˪ˣˋˋ ˥˦˘˨ˁ˪˼ ˪ˁ༤˻˸˨˜˫˿ ˦ˁˊˋːˣ˫˿ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢ˫, ˁ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˦˥ˢˋ˨˪˘˪˼ ˋˌ ˅ ˄˥༤ˋˋ ˸˘˧˥˜˘˙ ˜˥ˣ˪ˋ˜˨˪ ˨ˋ˅ˋ˧˥˖ˁ˦ˁˊˣ˥˘˧ˁˣ˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅, ˢˣ˥ˆ˘ˋ ˘˖ ˜˥˪˥˧˻˲ ˧ˁ˖˅˘˅ˁ˿˪ ˣ˥˅˻ˋ ˦ˁˊˋːˣ˻ˋ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢ˻ ˘˖ ˦˥˨༤ˋ༤˥ˆ˥˅. ɸ˥˜༤ˁˊ ʌ. ʑˁ˫༤̀ (ɴˁˢ˄˫˧ˆ˨˜˘˙ ˫ˣ˘˅ˋ˧˨˘˪ˋ˪) «The case system of modern West Iranian languages in typological and historical persepective (with special reference to *rŊdŢ)» ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˦˥˨˅̀˹ˌˣ ˽˅˥༤˿˴˘˘ ˦ˁˊˋːˣ˻˲ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢ ˖ˁ˦ˁˊˣ˥˘˧ˁˣ˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅. ʎˁ ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧ˋ ˣˋ˨˜˥༤˼˜˘˲ ˦ˁˊˋːˣ˻˲ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘˙ ʌ. ʑˁ˫༤˼ ˦˥˜ˁ˖˻˅ˁˋ˪, ˜ˁ˜ ˣˁ ˄ˁ˖ˋ ˧ˋˊ˫˴˘˧˥˅ˁˣˣ˥˙ ˣ˥˅˥˘˧ˁˣ˨˜˥˙ ˊ˅˫˲˦ˁˊˋːˣ˥˙ ˦ˁ˧ˁˊ˘ˆˢ˻ ˘˖ ˦˥˨༤ˋ༤˥ːˣ˻˲

ʓˋˊ˼ˢˁ̀ ˢˋːˊ˫ˣˁ˧˥ˊˣˁ̀ ˜˥ˣ˱ˋ˧ˋˣ˴˘̀ ˦˥ ˘˧ˁˣ˨˜˥ˢ˫ ̀˖˻˜˥˖ˣˁˣ˘˿

˦˥˜ˁ˖ˁ˪ˋ༤ˋ˙ ˣˁ˵ˁ༤ˁ ˧ˁ˖˅˘˅ˁ˪˼˨̀ ˣ˥˅ˁ̀ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢˁ ˘ˢˋˣˣ˥˙ ˱༤ˋ˜˨˘˘. ʕ˧ˁˊ˘˴˘˥ˣˣ˥ ˪ˁ˜˘ˋ ˅˪˥˧˘˵ˣ˻ˋ ˦˥˜ˁ˖ˁ˪ˋ༤˘ ˵ˁ˨˪˥ ˪˧ˁ˜˪˫˿˪ ˜ˁ˜ ˦˥˨༤ˋ༤˥ˆ˘, ˣ˥ ˢˣ˥ˆ˘ˋ ˘˖ ˣ˘˲ ˢ˥ːˣ˥ ˨˵˘˪ˁ˪˼ ˅ ˊ˥˨˪ˁ˪˥˵ˣ˥˙ ˨˪ˋ˦ˋˣ˘ ˆ˧ˁˢˢˁ˪˘˜ˁ༤˘˖˥˅ˁˣˣ˻ˢ˘ ˊ༤̀ ˪˥ˆ˥, ˵˪˥˄˻ ˥˪ˣˋ˨˪˘ ˘˲ ˜ ˦˥༤ˣ˥˴ˋˣˣ˻ˢ ˦ˁˊˋːˁˢ. ʝ˥˪̀ ˵ˁ˹ˋ ˅˨ˋˆ˥ ˪ˁ˜˘ˋ «˦˥˨༤ˋ༤˥ˆ˘» ˨༤ˋˊ˫˿˪ ˖ˁ ˦˥˜ˁ˖ˁ˪ˋ༤ˋˢ ˜˥˨˅ˋˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˦ˁˊˋːˁ, ˅ ˣˋ˜˥˪˥˧˻˲ ˨༤˫˵ˁ̀˲ ˦˥˨༤ˋˊˣ˘˙ ˫ːˋ ˣˋ ˅˻˵༤ˋˣ̀ˋ˪˨̀. ʕˁ˜˥˙ ˅˖ˆ༤̀ˊ ˣˁ ˧ˁ˖˅˘˪˘ˋ ˘ˢˋˣˣ˥˙ ˦ˁ˧ˁˊ˘ˆˢ˻ ˅ ˘˧ˁˣ˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲ ˦˥˖˅˥༤̀ˋ˪ ˦˧˥˅ˋ˨˪˘ ˪˘˦˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˋ ˦ˁ˧ˁ༤༤ˋ༤˘ ˜ˁ˜ ˨ ˘ˣˊ˥ˁ˧˘˙˨˜˘ˢ˘ ̀˖˻˜ˁˢ˘, ˆˊˋ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˻ ˧ˁ˖༤˘˵ˣ˻ˋ ˨˪ˁˊ˘˘ ˆ˧ˁˢˢˁ˪˘˜ˁ༤˘˖ˁ˴˘˘ ˣ˥˅˻˲ ˦ˁˊˋːˋ˙ ˅˦༤˥˪˼ ˊ˥ ˁ˱˱˘˜˨ˁ༤˼ˣ˥˙, ˪ˁ˜ ˘ ˨ ˥˨ˋ˪˘ˣ˨˜˘ˢ ̀˖˻˜˥ˢ, ˦˥˅˘ˊ˘ˢ˥ˢ˫, ˦˧˥˸ˋˊ˸˘ˢ ˅ ˨˅˥ˋ˙ ˘˨˪˥˧˘˘ ˵ˋ˧ˋ˖ ˦˥˲˥ː˘˙ ˽˪ˁ˦. ɳ ˊ˥˜༤ˁˊˋ ʍ. ɸˁ˄˘˧-ʍ˥ˆˁˊˊˁˢˁ (ʘˣ˘˅ˋ˧˨˘˪ˋ˪ ˘ˢˋˣ˘ ɯ༤༤ˁˢˋ ʕˁ˄ˁ˪ˁ˄ˁ˘, ʕˋˆˋ˧ˁˣ) ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ ˥˄˖˥˧ ˊˁˣˣ˻˲ ˦˥ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢˁˢ ˢˁ˧˜˘˧˥˅ˁˣ˘̀ ̀ˊˋ˧ˣ˻˲ ˁ˜˪ˁˣ˪˥˅ ˅ ˘˧ˁˣ˨˜˘˲ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪ˁ˲. ʑ˧˘˅ˋˊˌˣˣ˻˙ ˢˁ˪ˋ˧˘ˁ༤ ˅ ˥˵ˋ˧ˋˊˣ˥˙ ˧ˁ˖ ˦˥ˊ˪˅ˋ˧ːˊˁˋ˪, ˵˪˥ ˧ˁ˖ˣ˥˥˄˧ˁ˖˘ˋ ˢ˥˧˱˥˨˘ˣ˪ˁ˜˨˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢ ˘˧ˁˣ˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅ ˆ˥˧ˁ˖ˊ˥ ˅˻˸ˋ, ˵ˋˢ ˜༤ˁ˨˨˘˵ˋ˨˜ˁ̀ «˧ˁ˨˹ˋ˦༤ˌˣˣˁ̀» ˢ˥ˊˋ༤˼, ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˁˣˣˁ̀ ˣˁ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˁ˲ ˣˁ˨˪˥̀˹ˋˆ˥ ˘ ˦˧˥˸ˋˊ˸ˋˆ˥ ˅˧ˋˢˋˣ˘. ʕˁ˜, ˅ ˣˋ˜˥˪˥˧˻˲ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪ˁ˲ ˖ˁ˨˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˻ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢ˻, ˅ ˜˥˪˥˧˻˲ ˨˫˱˱˘˜˨ˁ༤˼ˣ˥ˋ ˜˥ˊ˘˧˥˅ˁˣ˘ˋ ˦˥ˊ༤ˋːˁ˹ˋˆ˥ ˅ ˣˁ˨˪˥̀˹ˋˢ ˅˧ˋˢˋˣ˘ ˦˧˥˪˘˅˥˦˥˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˥ ˦˧˥˜༤˘˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˢ˫ ˜˥ˊ˘˧˥˅ˁˣ˘˿ ˦˥ˊ༤ˋːˁ˹ˋˆ˥ ˅ ˦˧˥˸ˋˊ˸ˋˢ ˅˧ˋˢˋˣ˘, ˄ˋ˖ ˜ˁ˜˘˲-༤˘˄˥ ˧ˁ˖༤˘˵˘˙ ˅ ˖ˁ˅˘˨˘ˢ˥˨˪˘ ˥˪ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˲˥ˊˣ˥˨˪˘ ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤ˁ. ʃˣ˪ˋ˧ˋ˨ˣ˥˙ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˢ˥ˊˋ༤˼, ˅ ˜˥˪˥˧˥˙ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨˥˅ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻ˋ ˨˫˱˱˘˜˨˻ ˣˁ˲˥ˊ̀˪˨̀ ˅ ˊ˥˦˥༤ˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥˙ ˊ˘˨˪˧˘˄˫˴˘˘ ˨ ˦˥༤ˣ˻-

ˢ˘ ˢˋ˨˪˥˘ˢˋˣ˘̀ˢ˘. ʕˁ˜ˁ̀ ˢ˥ˊˋ༤˼ ˣˁ˦˥ˢ˘ˣˁˋ˪ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢ˻ ˣˋ˜˥˪˥˧˻˲ ˜ˋ༤˼˪˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅, ˅ ˜˥˪˥˧˻˲ ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤˼ˣ˻ˋ ༤˘˵ˣ˻ˋ ˥˜˥ˣ˵ˁˣ˘̀ ˣˁ˲˥ˊ̀˪˨̀ ˅ ˊ˥˦˥༤ˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥˙ ˊ˘˨˪˧˘˄˫˴˘˘ ˨ ༤˘˵ˣ˻ˢ˘ ˢˋ˨˪˥˘ˢˋˣ˘̀ˢ˘. ʁˁ˅ˋ˧˸˘༤ ˜˥ˣ˱ˋ˧ˋˣ˴˘˿ ˦༤ˋˣˁ˧ˣ˻˙ ˊ˥˜༤ˁˊ ɸ. ʃ. ʨˊˋ༤˼ˢˁˣ «ʓˋˢˁˣ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜ˁ̀ ˪˘˦˥༤˥ˆ˘̀ ˅ ˘˨˪˥˧˘˘ ˘˧ˁˣ˨˜˥˙ ༤ˋ˜˨˘˜˘». ʇˁ˜ ˘˖˅ˋ˨˪ˣ˥, ˁˣˁ༤˘˖ ˨ˋˢˁˣ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˲˥ˊ˥˅ ˘ˆ˧ˁˋ˪ ˅ˋ˨˼ˢˁ ˅ˁːˣ˫˿ ˧˥༤˼ ˅ ˨˧ˁ˅ˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥-˘˨˪˥˧˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˧ˋ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˜˴˘˘: ˊ༤̀ ˦˧˘˖ˣˁˣ˘̀ ˊ˅˫˲ ˜˥˧ˣˋ˙ ˜˥ˆˣˁ˪ˁˢ˘ ˣˋ˥˄˲˥ˊ˘ˢ˥ ˣˋ ˪˥༤˼˜˥ ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˋ ˨˲˥ˊ˨˪˅˥, ˣ˥ ˘ ˨˥˅˦ˁˊˋˣ˘ˋ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘˙, ༤˘˄˥ ˦˧ˁ˅ˊ˥˦˥ˊ˥˄ˣˁ̀ ˆ˘˦˥˪ˋ˖ˁ ˥ ˪˥ˢ, ˜ˁ˜ ˥ˊˣ˥ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ˢ˥ˆ༤˥ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˙˪˘ ˅ ˊ˧˫ˆ˥ˋ, ༤˘˄˥ ːˋ ˥˄ˁ ˢ˥ˆ༤˘ ˧ˁ˖˅˘˪˼˨̀ ˘˖ ˥˄˹ˋˆ˥ ˘˨˪˥˵ˣ˘˜ˁ. ɳ ˨˅˥ˌˢ ˊ˥˜༤ˁˊˋ ɸ. ʃ.ɍʨˊˋ༤˼ˢˁˣ ˦˥˜ˁ˖˻˅ˁˋ˪, ˵˪˥ ˦˥ˊ˥˄ˣ˻ˋ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˲˥ˊ˻ ˣˋ ˅˨ˋˆˊˁ ˦˧̀ˢ˥༤˘ˣˋ˙ˣ˻, ˘ ˨ˋˢˁˣ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˙ ˁˣˁ༤˘˖ ˢ˥ːˋ˪ ˄˻˪˼ ˖ˁ˪˧˫ˊˣˌˣ ˘˖-˖ˁ ˅༤˘̀ˣ˘̀ ˊ˥˦˥༤ˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻˲ ˱ˁ˜˪˥˧˥˅. ʐˊˣ˘ˢ ˘˖ ˣˁ˘˄˥༤ˋˋ ˪˘˦˘˵ˣ˻˲ ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧˥˅ ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˪ˁ˄˫˘˖ˁ˴˘̀ ༤ˋ˜˨˘˜˘, ˦˧˘˵ˌˢ ˦˥ˊ˥˄ˣ˻ˋ ˦˧˥˴ˋ˨˨˻ ˵ˁ˨˪˥ ˘ˢˋ˿˪ ̀˧˜˥ ˅˻˧ˁːˋˣˣ˫˿ ˁ˧ˋˁ༤˼ˣ˫˿ ˊ˘˨˪˧˘˄˫˴˘˿. ɯˣˁ༤˥ˆ˘˵ˣ˻ˢ ˥˄˧ˁ˖˥ˢ ˣˋ˨˪ˁ˄˘༤˼ˣ˻ˢ˘ ˢ˥ˆ˫˪ ˄˻˪˼ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢ˻ ˵˘˨༤˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻˲, ˨˦˥˨˥˄ˣ˻ˋ ˦˥ˊ ˁ˧ˋˁ༤˼ˣ˻ˢ ˅༤˘̀ˣ˘ˋˢ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˨˪˧˥˘˪˼˨̀ ˣˁ ˘ˣ˫˿ ˢ˥ˊˋ༤˼ ˨˵ˌ˪ˁ: ˦˧˘˅˥ˊ̀˪˨̀ ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧˻ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˲˥ˊˁ ˨ ˊˋ˨̀˪˘˵ˣ˥˙ ˣˁ ˊ˅ˁˊ˴ˁ˪ˋ˧˘˵ˣ˫˿ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢ˫, ˁ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˘˖ˢˋˣˋˣ˘̀ ˱˥˧ˢ˻ ˵˘˨༤˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˆ˥ ‘ˊˋ˅̀˪˼’ ˦˥ˊ ˅༤˘̀ˣ˘ˋˢ ˨˫˄˨˪˧ˁ˪ˣ˻˲ ˅˥˨˼ˢˋ˧˘˵ˣ˻˲ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢ. ʕˁ˜˘ˢ ˥˄˧ˁ˖˥ˢ, ˫˵ˌ˪ ˨ˋˢˁˣ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˪˘˦˥༤˥ˆ˘˘ ˘ ˁ˧ˋˁ༤˼ˣ˻˲ ˱ˁ˜˪˥˧˥˅ ˅ ˧ˁ˖˅˘˪˘˘ ༤ˋ˜˨˘˜˘ ˦˥˖˅˥༤̀ˋ˪ ˨˫˹ˋ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥ ˫˪˥˵ˣ˘˪˼ ˨ˋˢˁˣ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˋ ˧ˋ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˜˴˘˘ ˅ ˨˧ˁ˅ˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥˘˨˪˥˧˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜˥˖ˣˁˣ˘˘.

223

ʈ. ɭ. ʈ˙˕ˌ˗ʸ ʃˣ˨˪˘˪˫˪ ̀˖˻˜˥˖ˣˁˣ˘̀ ʒɯʎ (ʍ˥˨˜˅ˁ); [email protected]

Pavia International Summer School for Indo-European Linguistics ʃ˪ˁ༤˘̀, ʑˁ˅˘̀, 4–9 ˨ˋˣ˪̀˄˧̀ 2017 ˆ˥ˊˁ ɳ ˨ˋˣ˪̀˄˧ˋ ˽˪˥ˆ˥ ˆ˥ˊˁ ˅ ʘˣ˘˅ˋ˧˨˘˪ˋ˪ˋ ʑˁ˅˘˘ (ʃ˪ˁ༤˘̀) ˦˧˥˸༤ˁ ˥˵ˋ˧ˋˊˣˁ̀, ˫ːˋ 4-̀, ʌˋ˪ˣ̀̀ ˸˜˥༤ˁ ˦˥ ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˘˨˪˘˜ˋ, ˥˧ˆˁˣ˘˖˥˅ˁˣˣˁ̀ ˦˧˥˱. ʓ˘༤˼˅˘ˋ˙ ʌ˫˧ˁˆ˘ (Silvia Luraghi, Universita degli Studi di Pavia, Dipartamento di Studi Umanistici, Sezione di Linguistica Teorica e Applicata). ʕ˧ˁˊ˘˴˘˥ˣˣ˥ ˸˜˥༤ˁ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤̀ˋ˪ ˨˥˄˥˙ ˣˋˊˋ༤˿ ༤ˋ˜˴˘˙ ˦˥ ˘˨˪˥˧˘˘ ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅ ˘ ˧ˋ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˜˴˘˘ ˦˧ˁ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ ˘ ˦˧˥˲˥ˊ˘˪ ˧ˁ˖ ˅ ˊ˅ˁ ˆ˥ˊˁ. ɳ 2011 ˆ˥ˊ˫ ˧ˁ˨˨ˢˁ˪˧˘˅ˁ༤˘˨˼ ˥˄˹˘ˋ ˦˧˥˄༤ˋˢ˻ ˨ˁˣ˨˜˧˘˪ˁ, ˜ˋ༤˼˪˥༤˥ˆ˘˘, ˄ˁ༤˪˘˨˪˘˜˘ ˘ ˪˥˲ˁ˧˘˨˪˘˜˘, ˁ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˨˪ˁ˪˘˨˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˋ ˢˋ˪˥ˊ˻ ˅ ˦˧˘༤˥ːˋˣ˘˘ ˜ ̀˖˻˜˥˖ˣˁˣ˘˿. ɳ 2013 ˆ˥ˊ˫ ˜˫˧˨ ˅˜༤˿˵ˁ༤ ˵ˋ˪˻˧ˋ ̀˖˻˜ˁ — ˁ༤˄ˁˣ˨˜˘˙, ˁ˧ˢ̀ˣ˨˜˘˙, ˁ˅ˋ˨˪˘˙˨˜˘˙, ˢ˘˜ˋˣ˨˜˘˙, — ˘ ˦˧˘ˢˋˣˋˣ˘ˋ ˱˘༤˥ˆˋˣˋ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˢˋ˪˥ˊ˥˅ ˜ ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˨˜˥˙ ˨ˋˢ˼ˋ. ɳ 2015 ˆ˥ˊ˫ ˨༤˫˸ˁ˪ˋ༤̀ˢ ˄˻༤ ˦˧ˋˊ༤˥ːˋˣ ˴˘˜༤ ˦˥ ˨˧ˁ˅ˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥˘˨˪˥˧˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˜ˋ ˘ ˢ˥˧˱˥༤˥ˆ˘˘ ˴ˋ༤˻˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅˻˲ ˨ˋˢˋ˙: ˘˪ˁ༤˘˙˨˜˘ˋ, ˆˋ˧ˢˁˣ˨˜˘ˋ, ˨༤ˁ˅̀ˣ˨˜˘ˋ ˘ ˁˣˁ˪˥༤˘˙˨˜˘ˋ ̀˖˻˜˘; ˁ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˜˫˧˨ ˦˥ ˅˅ˋˊˋˣ˘˿ ˅ ˢ˥༤ˋ˜˫༤̀˧ˣ˫˿ ˁˣ˪˧˥˦˥༤˥ˆ˘˿. ɳ 2017 ˆ˥ˊ˫ ˖ˁˣ̀˪˘̀ ˨˪˧˥˘༤˘˨˼ ˦˥ ˫˧˥˅ˣ̀ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˁ: ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˜ˁ, ˢ˥˧˱˥༤˥ˆ˘̀, ˨˘ˣ˪ˁ˜˨˘˨. ɳ ˜ˁ˵ˋ˨˪˅ˋ ˊ˥˦˥༤ˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˜˫˧˨ˁ ˅ ˦˧˥ˆ˧ˁˢˢ˫ ˅˜༤˿˵˘༤˘ ˜˫༤˼˪˫˧ˣ˥-ˁ˧˲ˋ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˙ ˜˥ˢ˦˥ˣˋˣ˪ — ˦˧˥˄༤ˋˢ˻ ˦˥˘˨˜ˁ ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˨˜˥˙ ˦˧ˁ˧˥ˊ˘ˣ˻. ʇ ˨˥ːˁ༤ˋˣ˘˿, ˦˥ ˨༤˥˅ˁˢ ˦˧˥˱. ʌ˫˧ˁˆ˘, 4-̀ ʑˁ˅˘˙˨˜ˁ̀ ༤ˋ˪ˣ̀̀ ˸˜˥༤ˁ ˨˪ˁˣˋ˪ ˦˥˨༤ˋˊˣˋ˙, ˦˧˥ˊ˥༤ːˋˣ˘ˋ ˦˧˥ˆ˧ˁˢˢ˻ ˣˋ ˅˲˥ˊ˘˪ ˅ ˦༤ˁˣ˻ ˥˧ˆˁˣ˘˖ˁ˪˥˧˥˅. ʕˁ˜ ˵˪˥ ˦˧˥˦˫˨˜ˁ˪˼ ˋˋ ˣˋ ˨˪˥˘༤˥ ˅ ˪˥ˢ ˵˘˨༤ˋ ˘ ˦˥˽˪˥ˢ˫, ˧ˁ˅ˣ˥ ˜ˁ˜ ˘ ˘˖-˖ˁ ˦˧ˋ˜˧ˁ˨ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˨˥˨˪ˁ˅ˁ ༤ˋ˜˪˥˧˥˅. ʜ˥ˣ˥༤˥ˆ˘˿ ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅ ˵˘˪ˁ༤ ʍ. ʇ˿ˢˢˋ༤˼ (Martin J. Kümmel), ˦˧˥˱ˋ˨˨˥˧ ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˘˨˪˘˜˘ ˘˖ ʘˣ˘˅ˋ˧˨˘˪ˋ˪ˁ ʜ˧˘ˊ˧˘˲ˁ ʣ˘༤༤ˋ˧ˁ ˅ ʄˋˣˋ. ɸ-˧ ʇ˿ˢˢˋ༤˼ ˘˖˅ˋ˨˪ˋˣ ˘˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁˣ˘̀ˢ˘ ˅ ˥˄༤ˁ˨˪˘ ˪˘˦˥༤˥ˆ˘˘ ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˘˖ˢˋˣˋˣ˘˙ ˅ ˊ˧ˋ˅ˣ˘˲ ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲, ˁ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˧ˁ˄˥˪ˁˢ˘ ˦˥ ˘ˣˊ˥˘˧ˁˣ˨˜˥˙ ˱˥ˣ˥༤˥ˆ˘˘ ˘ ˢ˥˧˱˥༤˥ˆ˘˘, ˁˣˁ˪˥༤˘˨˪˘˜ˋ ˘ ˆˋ˧ˢˁˣ˘˨˪˘˜ˋ. ɳ ˋˆ˥ ˥˄༤ˁ˨˪˼ ˘ˣ˪ˋ˧ˋ˨˥˅ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˅˲˥ˊ˘˪ ˘˨˪˥˧˘˵ˋ˨˜ˁ̀ ˱˥ˣ˥༤˥ˆ˘̀ ˨ˋˢ˘˪˨˜˘˲ ˘ ˫˧ˁ༤˼˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅ ˘, ˸˘˧ˋ, ˥˄˹˘ˋ ˅˥˦˧˥˨˻ ˅˖ˁ˘ˢ˥ˊˋ˙˨˪˅˘̀ ˱˥ˣ˥༤˥ˆ˘˘ ˘ ˢ˥˧˱˥˨˘ˣ-

˪ˁ˜˨˘˨ˁ ˅ ˦˧˥˴ˋ˨˨ˋ ̀˖˻˜˥˅˻˲ ˘˖ˢˋˣˋˣ˘˙. ʍ˥ˣ˥ˆ˧ˁ˱˘̀ Kümmel 2007 ˧ˁ˨˨ˢˁ˪˧˘˅ˁˋ˪ ˪˘˦˻ ˜˥ˣ˨˥ˣˁˣ˪ˣ˻˲ ˘˖ˢˋˣˋˣ˘˙ ˅ ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˨˜˘˲, ˫˧ˁ༤˼˨˜˘˲ ˘ ˨ˋˢ˘˪˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲, ˅ ˨˪ˁ˪˼ˋ Kümmel 2012 ˦˧ˋˊ༤ˁˆˁˋ˪˨̀ ˣ˥˅˻˙ ˦˥ˊ˲˥ˊ ˜ ˱˥ˣ˥༤˥ˆ˘˘ ˦˧ˁ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ ˘ ˥˄˨˫ːˊˁ˿˪˨̀ ˦˧˥˄༤ˋˢ˻ ˧ˋ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˜˴˘˘ ˅˥˜ˁ༤˘˖ˢˁ ˘ ˅˖˧˻˅ˣ˻˲ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˲. ʓ˪˫ˊˋˣ˪˻ ʑˁ˅˘˙˨˜˥˙ ༤ˋ˪ˣˋ˙ ˸˜˥༤˻ ˦˥༤˫˵˘༤˘ ˥ˆ˧˥ˢˣ˥ˋ ˫ˊ˥˅˥༤˼˨˪˅˘ˋ, ˣˁ˄༤˿ˊˁ̀ (˘ ˊˁːˋ ˣˋ ˦˻˪ˁ̀˨˼ ˦˥˅˪˥˧˘˪˼) ˦˧˥˘˖ˣ˥˸ˋˣ˘ˋ ˪˧ˁˊ˘˴˘˥ˣˣ˥ ˧ˋ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˘˧˫ˋˢ˻˲ ˊ༤̀ ˦˧ˁ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˅ˋ༤̀˧ˣ˻˲, ˫˅˫༤̀˧ˣ˻˲ ˘ ༤ˁ˧˘ˣˆˁ༤˼ˣ˻˲ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˲. ʑ˧˥˱. ʇ˿ˢˢˋ༤˼, ˘˨˦˥༤˼˖˫̀ ˨˥˄˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥ˋ ˆ˥˧༤˥, ˊˋˢ˥ˣ˨˪˧˘˧˥˅ˁ༤ ˽˪˘ ˖˅˫˜˘, ˨˧ˁ˅ˣ˘˅ˁ̀ ˘˲ ˨ ˦˧˥˘˖ˣ˥˸ˋˣ˘ˋˢ ˪ˋ˲ ˅ˋ༤̀˧ˣ˻˲ ˘ ˦˥˨˪˅ˋ༤̀˧ˣ˻˲ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˲, ˜˥˪˥˧˻ˋ ˥ˣ ˨ˁˢ ˧ˋ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˘˧˫ˋ˪ ˊ༤̀ ʑʃɹ ˘ ˜˥˪˥˧˻ˋ ˄˥༤ˋˋ ˋ˨˪ˋ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥ ˖˅˫˵ˁ˪ ˅ ˧ˁ˖ˆ˥˅˥˧ˣ˥˙ ˧ˋ˵˘. ʕˁ˜˘ˢ ˥˄˧ˁ˖˥ˢ ˥ˣ ˣˁˆ༤̀ˊˣ˥ ˦˧˥˘༤༤˿˨˪˧˘˧˥˅ˁ༤ ˪ˋ˖˘˨, ˵˪˥ ˦˧˘ ˧ˋ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˜˴˘˘ ˱˥ˣ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢ˻ ˦˧ˁ̀˖˻˜ˁ ˨༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪ ˫˵˘˪˻˅ˁ˪˼ ˪˘˦˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˫˿ ˵ˁ˨˪˥˪ˣ˥˨˪˼ ˪˥˙ ˘༤˘ ˘ˣ˥˙ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢ˻ ˜˥ˣ˨˥ˣˁˣ˪˘˖ˢˁ ˘ ˋ˨˪ˋ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˫˿ ˁ˧˪˘˜˫༤̀˴˘˿ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˲ ˅ ˖˅˫˵ˁ˹ˋ˙ ˧ˋ˵˘. ɳ ˨˅˥ˋˢ ˜˫˧˨ˋ ʇ˿ˢˢˋ༤˼ ˥˄˧˘˨˥˅ˁ༤ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢ˫ ˅˥˜ˁ༤˘˖ˢˁ ˘ ˜˥ˣ˨˥ˣˁˣ˪˘˖ˢˁ ʑʃɹ, ˥˦˘˨ˁ༤ ˥˨˥˄ˋˣˣ˥˨˪˘ ˧ˁ˨˦˧ˋˊˋ༤ˋˣ˘̀ ˣˋ˜˥˪˥˧˻˲ ˖˅˫˜˥˅ (˅ ˪˥ˢ ˵˘˨༤ˋ ˧ˋˊ˜˥˨˪˼ *a/Ō), ˊˁ༤ ˊˋ˪ˁ༤˼ˣ˻˙ ˥˄˖˥˧ ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅˘˙ ˅ ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲. ʐˣ ˥˄˺̀˨ˣ˘༤ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˣ˻ˋ ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˋ ˖ˁ˜˥ˣ˻, ˊˋ˙˨˪˅˥˅ˁ˅˸˘ˋ ˅ ˘˨˪˥˧˘˘ ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅, ˥˄˨˫ˊ˘༤ ˦˧˥˄༤ˋˢ˫ centum/satem ˘ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅˘༤ ˧ˋ˸ˋˣ˘ˋ ˊ༤̀ ˊ˥˧˨ˁ༤˼ˣ˻˲ ˨ˢ˻˵ˣ˻˲: ˦ˁ༤ˁ˪ˁ༤˼ˣ˻ˋ ˦˧˥˘˨˲˥ˊ̀˪ ˘˖ ˅ˋ༤̀˧ˣ˻˲, ˁ ˅ˋ༤̀˧ˣ˻ˋ ˖˅˫˜˘, ˅ ˪ˁ˜˥ˢ ˨༤˫˵ˁˋ, ˊ˥༤ːˣ˻ ˦˧˥˘˨˲˥ˊ˘˪˼ ˘˖ ˫˅˫༤̀˧ˣ˻˲ (˧ˋ˸ˋˣ˘ˋ, ˘˖༤˥ːˋˣˣ˥ˋ ˅ Kümmel 2007). ʑ˧˥˱. ʇ˿ˢˢˋ༤˼ ˦˥ˊ˵ˋ˧˜ˣ˫༤, ˵˪˥ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˣˁ̀ ˦˧˥˄༤ˋˢˁ ˽˪˥ˆ˥ ˧ˋ˸ˋˣ˘̀ ˖ˁ˜༤˿˵ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˅ ˪˥ˢ, ˵˪˥ ˫˅˫༤̀˧ˣ˻ˋ ˣˋ ˨˥˲˧ˁˣ˘༤˘˨˼ ˣ˘ ˅ ˥ˊˣ˥ˢ ˘˖ ˘˖˅ˋ˨˪ˣ˻˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅, ˘ ˽˪˥˪ ˱ˁ˜˪ ˖ˣˁ˵˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ ˥˨༤˥ːˣ̀ˋ˪ ˘˲ ˧ˋ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˜˴˘˿. ʌˋ˜˴˘˘ ˦˥ ˘ˢˋˣˣ˥˙ ˢ˥˧˱˥༤˥ˆ˘˘ ˵˘˪ˁ༤ ˋ˹ˋ ˥ˊ˘ˣ ˘˖˅ˋ˨˪ˣ˻˙ ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˘˨˪, ˦˧˥˱. ʕ˥ˢˁ˨ ʇ˧˘˸ (Thomas Krisch) ˘˖ ʁˁ༤˼˴˄˫˧ˆ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˫ˣ˘˅ˋ˧˨˘˪ˋ˪ˁ. ʃˣ˪ˋ˧ˋ˨˻ ˋˆ˥ ˧ˁ˨˦˧˥˨˪˧ˁˣ̀˿˪˨̀ ˣˁ ˧ˁ˖ˣ˻ˋ ˥˄༤ˁ˨-

Journal of Language Relationship • ɳ˥˦˧˥˨˻ ̀˖˻˜˥˅˥ˆ˥ ˧˥ˊ˨˪˅ˁ • 16/2 (2017) • Pp. 224–227 • © The authors, 2017

Pavia International Summer School for Indo-European Linguistics

˪˘ ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜˥˖ˣˁˣ˘̀, ˅˜༤˿˵ˁ̀ ༤ˋ˜˨˘˜˥༤˥ˆ˘˿ ˘ ˨˘ˣ˪ˁ˜˨˘˨, ˨ ˱˥˜˫˨˥ˢ ˣˁ ˆˋ˧ˢˁˣ˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲ ˘ ˨ˁˣ˨˜˧˘˪ˋ. ʕˁ˜, ˋˆ˥ ˦ˋ˧˫ ˦˧˘ˣˁˊ༤ˋː˘˪ ˨˪ˁ˪˼̀ ˥ «˨˘ˣ˪ˁ˜˨˘˨ˋ ˢ˥༤˵ˁˣ˘̀» (“On Syntax of Silence”, Krisch 2009), ˜ˁ˨ˁ˿˹ˁ̀˨̀ ˽༤༤˘˦˨˘˨ˁ ˅ ˦˧ˁ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˨˜˥ˢ. ʒˁˣˋˋ ˥ˣ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˅˻˨˪˫˦˘༤ ˧ˋˊˁ˜˪˥˧˥ˢ ˦ˋ˧˅˥ˆ˥ ˪˥ˢˁ “Rigveda-Lexikon” (Krisch 2006). ʎˁ ˖ˁˣ̀˪˘̀˲ ˅ ʑˁ˅˘˙˨˜˥˙ ˸˜˥༤ˋ ˥ˣ ˦˧˥˘˖˅ˋ༤ ˥˄˹˘˙ ˥˄˖˥˧ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˣ˻˲ ˪ˋˣˊˋˣ˴˘˙ ˧ˁ˖˅˘˪˘̀ ˘ˢˋˣˣ˥˙ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢ˻ ˦˧ˁ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˨˜˥ˆ˥, ˫ˊˋ༤˘˅ ˅ˣ˘ˢˁˣ˘ˋ ˦ˁˊˋːˣ˻ˢ ˥˜˥ˣ˵ˁˣ˘̀ˢ, ˁ˄༤ˁ˫˪˫ ˘ ˁ˜˴ˋˣ˪˥༤˥ˆ˘˘, ˨༤˥˅˥˥˄˧ˁ˖˥˅ˁˣ˘˿ ˘ ˣˋ˜˥˪˥˧˻ˢ ˅˥˦˧˥˨ˁˢ ˢ˥˧˱˥˨˘ˣ˪ˁ˜˨˘˨ˁ, ˜˥ˢ˦˥˖˘˪ˁˢ ˘ ˪ˢˋ˨˘˨˫ ˅ ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲. ʑ˧˥˱. ʌˋ˥ˣ˘ˊ ʇ˫༤˘˜˥˅ ˘˖ ɴˋˣ˪˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˫ˣ˘˅ˋ˧˨˘˪ˋ˪ˁ (ɲˋ༤˼ˆ˘̀) ˦˥˨༤ˋˊˣ˘ˋ ˆ˥ˊ˻ ˧ˁ˄˥˪ˁ༤ ˅ ˦˧˥ˋ˜˪ˋ EVALISA (The Evolution of Case, Alignment and Argument Structure in Indo-European, 2013–2018), ˆˊˋ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˣ˥ˋ ˅ˣ˘ˢˁˣ˘ˋ ˫ˊˋ༤̀༤˥˨˼ ˘˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁˣ˘˿ ˦ˁˊˋːˣ˥ˆ˥ ˢˁ˧˜˘˧˥˅ˁˣ˘̀ ˣˋ˜ˁˣ˥ˣ˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˨˫˄˺ˋ˜˪˥˅. ɳ ˣˁ˨˪˥̀˹ˋˋ ˅˧ˋˢ̀ ˥ˣ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˁ˱˱˘༤˘˧˥˅ˁˣ ˨ ʑˁ˅˘˙˨˜˘ˢ ˫ˣ˘˅ˋ˧˨˘˪ˋ˪˥ˢ ˦˥ ˦˧˥ˋ˜˪˫ Marie Skůodowska Curie “TRIA — Transitivity in IndoAryan. A diachronic syntactic data base of valencechanging categories”. ʐˣ ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˨˦ˋ˴˘ˁ༤˘˨˪˥ˢ ˦˥ ˵ˁ˨˪˘ ˦˧ˁ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤˼ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˨༤˥˅˥˘˖ˢˋˣˋˣ˘̀ ˘ ˣˋ˨˜˥༤˼˜˥ ༤ˋ˪ ˣˁ˖ˁˊ ˥˦˫˄༤˘˜˥˅ˁ༤ ˜ˣ˘ˆ˫ ˥ ˅ˋˊ˘˙˨˜˘˲ -ya-˦˧ˋ˖ˋˣ˪ˁ˲ ˘ ˨˪ˁ˪˼˿ ˥ ˦˧ˋ˅ˋ˧˄ˁ˲ (Kulikov 2012a, 2012b). ʎˁ ʌˋ˪ˣˋ˙ ˸˜˥༤ˋ ʌ. ʇ˫༤˘˜˥˅ ˦˧˥˵˘˪ˁ༤ ˜˫˧˨ ˦˥ ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤˼ˣ˥˙ ˢ˥˧˱˥༤˥ˆ˘˘ ˅ ʑʃɹ. ɳ ˵ˁ˨˪ˣ˥˨˪˘, ˥ˣ ˦˥ˊ˧˥˄ˣ˥ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅˘༤ ˥ˊˣ˫ ˘˖ ː˘˅˥˪˧ˋ˦ˋ˹˫˹˘˲ ˦˧˥˄༤ˋˢ ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤ˁ — ˧ˁ˖˅˘˪˘ˋ ˘ ˨ˋˢˁˣ˪˘˜ˁ ˦ˋ˧˱ˋ˜˪ˁ. ɳ ˨˅˥ˋ˙ ༤ˋ˜˴˘˘ ˦˥ ˽˪˥ˢ˫ ˅˥˦˧˥˨˫ ˥ˣ ˦˧˘ˊˋ˧ː˘˅ˁ༤˨̀ ˅˻ˊ˅˘ˣ˫˪˥˙ ɸː. ɸːˋ˖ˣ˥˅˻ˢ (Jasanoff 2003) ˆ˘˦˥˪ˋ˖˻ ˥ ˪˥ˢ, ˵˪˥ ˅ ˴ˋ༤˥ˢ ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤˼ˣˁ̀ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢˁ ˅ ʑʃɹ ˄˻༤ˁ ˄༤˘˖˜ˁ ˜ ˣˁ˄༤˿ˊˁˋˢ˥ˢ˫ ˅ ˁˣˁ˪˥༤˘˙˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲; ˵˪˥ ˲ˋ˪˪˨˜˥ˋ -hi-˨˦˧̀ːˋˣ˘ˋ ˨༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪ ˨˥˥˪ˣ˥˨˘˪˼ ˨ ༤ˋ˜˨˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˢ ˜༤ˁ˨˨˥ˢ ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤˼ˣ˻˲ ˜˥˧ˣˋ˙ ˅ ˦˧ˁ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˨˜˥ˢ, ˦˧˥˪˘˅˥˦˥˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣˣ˻ˢ ˪˥ˢ˫ ˜༤ˁ˨˨˫, ˨˫˹ˋ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘ˋ ˜˥˪˥˧˥ˆ˥ ˥˪˧ˁ˖˘༤˥˨˼ ˅ -mi˨˦˧̀ːˋˣ˘˘; ˘ ˵˪˥ ˅ «˫˖˜˘˲» ʃɹ-̀˖˻˜ˁ˲ ˊˁˣˣ˥ˋ ༤ˋ˜˨˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˋ ˧ˁ˖༤˘˵˘ˋ ˆ˧ˁˢˢˁ˪˘˜ˁ༤˘˖˥˅ˁ༤˥˨˼ ˅ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ˦ˋ˧˱ˋ˜˪ˁ. ɹ˹ˋ ˥ˊ˘ˣ ˫˧˥˅ˋˣ˼ ̀˖˻˜ˁ — ˨˘ˣ˪ˁ˜˨˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˙ — ˄˻༤ ˥˲˅ˁ˵ˋˣ ༤ˋ˜˴˘̀ˢ˘ ˦˧˥˱. ɸ. ʑˋ˪˘ (Daniel Petit) ˘˖ Ecole Normale Superieure ˅ ʑˁ˧˘ːˋ, ˜˥˪˥˧˻˙ ˦˧˥˵˘˪ˁ༤ ˜˫˧˨ «ʒˋ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˜˴˘̀ ˨˘ˣ˪ˁ˜˨˘˨ˁ ˦˧ˁ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ» (Reconstructing Proto-IndoEuropean Syntax). ʑˋ˪˘ ˦˧ˋ˦˥ˊˁˋ˪ ˆ˧ˁˢˢˁ˪˘˜˫ ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅ ˨ 1996 ˆ˥ˊˁ, ˨˦ˋ˴˘ˁ༤˘˖˘˧˫̀˨˼ ˅ ˄ˁ༤˪˘˨˪˘˜ˋ. ʐˣ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˘ˢˋˋ˪ ˧ˁ˄˥˪˻ ˦˥ ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˨˜˥˙ ˊˋ˧˘˅ˁ˴˘˘, ˅ ˪˥ˢ ˵˘˨༤ˋ ˅ ˜༤ˁ˨˨˘˵ˋ-

˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲ (Petit 2016), ˁ ˅ ʑˁ˧˘ːˋ ˵˘˪ˁˋ˪ ˜˫˧˨ ˘˨˪˥˧˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˨˘ˣ˪ˁ˜˨˘˨ˁ. ʎˁ ˦ˋ˧˅˥˙ ːˋ ༤ˋ˜˴˘˘ ˅ ʑˁ˅˘˘ ˦˧˥˱. ʑˋ˪˘ ˖ˁˊˁ༤ ˁ˫ˊ˘˪˥˧˘˘ ˅˥˦˧˥˨: «ɳ˥˖ˢ˥ːˣˁ ༤˘ ˅ ˦˧˘ˣ˴˘˦ˋ ˧ˋ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˜˴˘̀ ˨˘ˣ˪ˁ˜˨˘˨ˁ?» ˘ ˥˪˅ˋ˪˘༤ ˣˁ ˣˋˆ˥, ˨˜˥˧ˋˋ, ˥˪˧˘˴ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥. ʐˊˣˁ˜˥ ˥˪˧˘˴ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻˙ ˥˪˅ˋ˪ ˣˋ ˥˖ˣˁ˵ˁˋ˪, ˵˪˥ ˦˧˘ˣ˴˘˦˻ ˨˪˫˦ˋˣ˵ˁ˪˥˙ ˧ˋ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˜˴˘˘ ˘ ˨˧ˁ˅ˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥-˘˨˪˥˧˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜˥˖ˣˁˣ˘̀ ˅ ˴ˋ༤˥ˢ ˣˋ༤˼˖̀ ˦˧˘ˢˋˣ˘˪˼ ˜ ˨˘ˣ˪ˁ˜˨˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˢ˫ ˫˧˥˅ˣ˿ ̀˖˻˜ˁ; ˽˪˥, ˄ˋ˖˫˨༤˥˅ˣ˥, ˣˋ ˪ˁ˜, ˘ ɸ. ʑˋ˪˘ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅˘༤ ˨༤˫˸ˁ˪ˋ༤̀ˢ ˣˋ˨˜˥༤˼˜˥ ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧˥˅ ˨˧ˁ˅ˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥-˘˨˪˥˧˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˁˣˁ༤˘˖ˁ ˣˁ ˨˘ˣ˪ˁ˜˨˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˢ ˫˧˥˅ˣˋ (˥ˊ˘ˣ ˘˖ ˣ˘˲ — ˖ˁ˱˘˜˨˘˧˥˅ˁˣˣ˻ˋ ˅ ˘˨˪˥˧˘˘ ̀˖˻˜˥˅ ˅ˁ˧˘ˁˣ˪˻ ༤˘ˣˋ˙ˣ˥˙ ˦˥˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥˨˪˘ ˨˫˄˺ˋ˜˪ˁ, ˥˄˺ˋ˜˪ˁ ˘ ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤ˁ). ʐˊˣˁ˜˥ ̀˖˻˜ ˣˋ˦˧ˋ˧˻˅ˣ˥ ˢˋˣ̀ˋ˪˨̀, ˘ ˧ˁ˖ˣ˻ˋ ˨˘ˣ˪ˁ˜˨˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˋ ˢ˥ˊˋ༤˘ ˢ˥ˆ˫˪ ˧ˁ˄˥˪ˁ˪˼ ˥ˊˣ˥˅˧ˋˢˋˣˣ˥, ˜˥ˣ˜˫˧˘˧˫̀ ˢˋːˊ˫ ˨˥˄˥˙. ʕˁ˜˘ˢ ˥˄˧ˁ˖˥ˢ, ˢ˻ ˢ˥ːˋˢ ˦˥˜ˁ˖ˁ˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˪ˋ ˘༤˘ ˘ˣ˻ˋ ˢ˥ˊˋ༤˘ ˅ ˧ˁ˖ˣ˥ˋ ˅˧ˋˢ̀ ˊˋ˙˨˪˅˥˅ˁ༤˘ ˅ ˘˨˪˥˧˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˋ, ˘ ˵˪˥ ˢ˥ːˣ˥ ˖ˁ˱˘˜˨˘˧˥˅ˁ˪˼ ˦˧ˋˋˢ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥˨˪˼ ˢˋːˊ˫ ˣ˘ˢ˘. ʐˊˣˁ˜˥, ˖ˁˊˁ˅ˁ̀ ˅˥˦˧˥˨ «˜ˁ˜˥ˋ ˘ˢˋˣˣ˥ ˨˥˨˪˥̀ˣ˘ˋ ̀˖˻˜ˁ ˢ˻ ˧ˋ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˘˧˫ˋˢ, ˋ˨༤˘ ̀˖˻˜ ˅˨ˌ ˅˧ˋˢ̀ ˢˋˣ̀ˋ˪˨̀?», ʑˋ˪˘ ˥˨˪ˁ˅༤̀ˋ˪ ˋˆ˥ ˥˪˜˧˻˪˻ˢ. ʑˋ˪˘ ˦˧˥ˊˋˢ˥ˣ˨˪˧˘˧˥˅ˁ༤, ˵˪˥ ˨˧ˁ˅ˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥˘˨˪˥˧˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˙ ˢˋ˪˥ˊ ˅ ˦˧˘ˢˋˣˋˣ˘˘ ˜ ˨˘ˣ˪ˁ˜˨˘˨˫ ˊ˥༤ːˋˣ ˨˥˨˪˥̀˪˼ ˘˖ 6 ˽˪ˁ˦˥˅: ˅ˣ˫˪˧ˋˣˣˋˋ ˥˦˘˨ˁˣ˘ˋ ̀˖˻˜ˁ ɯ1; ˅ˣ˫˪˧ˋˣˣ̀̀ ˧ˋ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˜˴˘̀ ˅ˁ˧˘ˁˣ˪˥˅ ˧ˁ˖˅˘˪˘̀ ɯ1 ˘ A2; ˅ˣ˫˪˧ˋˣˣˋˋ ˨˥˦˥˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˘ˋ A1 ˘ A2, ˅ˣˋ˸ˣˋˋ ˨˥˦˥˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˘ˋ ̀˖˻˜ˁ B, ˦˧˥˘˨˲˥ˊ̀˹ˋˆ˥ ˘˖ ʓ, ˨ ɯ, ˦˧˥˘˨˲˥ˊ̀˹˘ˢ ˘˖ ʓ; ˅ˣˋ˸ˣ̀̀ ˧ˋ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˜˴˘̀ ̀˖˻˜ˁ ʓ; ˘, ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˥, ˅ˣˋ˸ˣˋˋ ˥˦˘˨ˁˣ˘ˋ ̀˖˻˜ˁ ʓ, ˣˁ˨˜˥༤˼˜˥ ˽˪˥ ˅˥˥˄˹ˋ ˊ˥˨˪˫˦ˣ˥. ʑˋ˧˅˻˙ ˽˪ˁ˦ ˥˦˘˧ˁˋ˪˨̀, ˅ ˵ˁ˨˪ˣ˥˨˪˘, ˣˁ ˥˦˘˨ˁˣ˘ˋ ˦˥˧̀ˊ˜˥˅ ˨༤˥˅ (˦˥˖˘˴˘̀ ˥˄˺ˋ˜˪ˁ), ˁˣˁ༤˘˖ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˅˥ˊ˥˅ ˨ ˥˦˧ˋˊˋ༤ˋˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ ˣˁ ˊ˧˫ˆ˘ˋ ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˨˜˘ˋ ̀˖˻˜˘, ˁˣˁ༤˘˖ ˦˥˽˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˦˥˧̀ˊ˜ˁ ˨༤˥˅, ˧ˋ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˜˴˘˿ ˧ˁ˖ˣ˻˲ ˅˘ˊ˥˅ ˪ˢˋ˨˘˨ˁ ˊ༤̀ ˦˧ˁ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˨˜˥ˆ˥, ˁˣˁ༤˘˖ ˦˥˧̀ˊ˜˥˅ ˨༤˥˅ ˊ༤̀ ˦˧ˋˊ༤˥ːˋˣ˘˙ ˨ ˽ˣ˜༤˘˪˘˜ˁˢ˘. ɳˣ˫˪˧ˋˣˣ̀̀ ˧ˋ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˜˴˘̀ ̀˖˻˜ˁ ˊ˥༤ːˣˁ, ˦˥ ˢˣˋˣ˘˿ ʑˋ˪˘, ˄ˁ˖˘˧˥˅ˁ˪˼˨̀ ˣˁ ˁˣˁ༤˘˖ˋ ˨˪ˋ˦ˋˣ˘ ˁ˧˲ˁ˘˵ˣ˥˨˪˘ ˪ˋ˲ ˘༤˘ ˘ˣ˻˲ ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˜˴˘˙, c ˦˧˘˅༤ˋ˵ˋˣ˘ˋˢ ˊˁˣˣ˻˲ ˱˧ˁ˖ˋ˥༤˥ˆ˘˖ˢ˥˅ ˘ ˄˥༤ˋˋ ˊ༤˘ˣˣ˻˲ ˖ˁ˨˪˻˅˸˘˲ ˨˥˵ˋ˪ˁˣ˘˙, ˣˁ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧ ˦˥˨༤˥˅˘˴. ʎˁ ˪˧ˋ˪˼ˋ˙ ˨˪˫˦ˋˣ˘ ˁˣˁ༤˘˖˘˧˫˿˪˨̀ ˄༤˘˖˜˘ˋ ˦˥ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘˿ ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˜˴˘˘ — ˨˧. be- ˘ have-˦˧ˋˊ༤˥ːˋˣ˘̀ ˨˥ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋˢ ˦˧˘ˣˁˊ༤ˋːˣ˥˨˪˘: ̭ΪΠϼΫ Οϑ ÷ΩΤ ΠϷάϵ ΣВΞΜέΪΠΫ ‘I have three daughters’ / Tibi sunt gemini ‘You have twins’ vs. Tantas diuitias habet ‘He has so many riches’, ˆˊˋ ˅˻˄˥˧ ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˜˴˘˘ ˢ˥ːˣ˥ ˨˥˥˪ˣˋ˨˪˘ ˨ ˨ˋˢˁˣ˪˘˜˥˙ ˥ˊ˫˸ˋ˅༤ˋˣˣ˥˨˪˘/ˣˋ˥ˊ˫˸ˋ˅༤ˋˣˣ˥˨˪˘. ʌˋ˜˴˘˘ ˥ ˦˧˥˄༤ˋˢˁ˲, ˨˅̀˖ˁˣˣ˻˲ ˨ ˦˥˘˨˜˥ˢ ˦˧ˁ˧˥ˊ˘ˣ˻ ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˴ˋ˅, ˦˧˥˵˘˪ˁ༤ ɸːˋ˙ˢ˨ ʍ˽༤225

Reports / ʝ˧˥ˣ˘˜ˁ

༤˥˧˘ (James P. Mallory), ˦˥˵ˋ˪ˣ˻˙ ˦˧˥˱ˋ˨˨˥˧ ʇ˥˧˥༤ˋ˅˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˫ˣ˘˅ˋ˧˨˘˪ˋ˪ˁ ˅ ɲˋ༤˱ˁ˨˪ˋ (Queen's University Belfast), ˁ˅˪˥˧ ˜ˣ˘ˆ˘ «ɳ ˦˥˘˨˜ˁ˲ ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˴ˋ˅» (Mallory 1989), ˁ˅˪˥˧ ˢˣ˥ˆ˥˵˘˨༤ˋˣˣ˻˲ ˨˪ˁ˪ˋ˙ ˥ ˦˧ˁ˧˥ˊ˘ˣˋ ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˴ˋ˅ (c˧ˋˊ˘ ˦˥˨༤ˋˊˣ˘˲ Mallory 2009, 2013), ˧ˋˊˁ˜˪˥˧ Journal of Indo-European Studies. ɹˆ˥ ˜˫˧˨ ˨˪˧˥˘༤˨̀ ˣˁ ˥˦˧˥˅ˋ˧ːˋˣ˘˘ ˪˥༤˼˜˥ ˵˪˥ ˊ˥˜ˁ˖ˁˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˣˁ ˧˘˪˥˧˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˘ ˣˋ˧˘˪˥˧˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˅˥˦˧˥˨ˁ˲ ˜ ˁ˫ˊ˘˪˥˧˘˘. ʑ˧˥˱. ʍ˽༤༤˥˧˘ ˦˧˘ˊˋ˧ː˘˅ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˨˪ˋ˦ˣ˥˙ ˆ˘˦˥˪ˋ˖˻ (˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˥ ˜˥˪˥˧˥˙ ˦˧ˁ˧˥ˊ˘ˣˁ ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˴ˋ˅ ˣˁ˲˥ˊ˘༤ˁ˨˼ ˅ ˨˪ˋ˦̀˲ ʑ˧˘˵ˋ˧ˣ˥ˢ˥˧˼̀), ˥ˊˣˁ˜˥ ˦˥ˊ˵ˋ˧˜˘˅ˁˋ˪, ˵˪˥ ˽˪˥˪ ˅˥˦˧˥˨ ˊ˥ ˨˘˲ ˦˥˧ ˥˪˜˧˻˪, ˘ ˨˪ˋ˦ˣˁ̀ ˆ˘˦˥˪ˋ˖ˁ, ˣˁ ˋˆ˥ ˅˖ˆ༤̀ˊ, ˦˧˥˨˪˥ ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˣˁ˘˄˥༤ˋˋ ˣˋ˦˧˥˪˘˅˥˧ˋ˵˘˅˥˙. ʜˁ˜˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ ˨˦ˋ˴˘ˁ༤˘˨˪˻ ˅ ˊˁˣˣ˥˙ ˥˄༤ˁ˨˪˘ ˖ˁˣ˘ˢˁ˿˪˨̀, ˦˥ ˋˆ˥ ˨༤˥˅ˁˢ, «˦˥˘˨˜˥ˢ ˧ˋ˸ˋˣ˘̀ ༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˖ˁˊˁ˵˘; ˜˪˥ ˦˧ˋˊ༤˥ː˘˪ ˨ˁˢ˥ˋ ༤˥ˆ˘˵ˣ˥ˋ ˧ˋ˸ˋˣ˘ˋ, ˪˥˪ ˘ ˦˧ˁ˅». ʓ ˦˧˘ˆ༤ˁ˸ˋˣˣ˻ˢ ˊ˥˜༤ˁˊ˥ˢ ˅˻˨˪˫˦˘༤ ˦˧˥˱. ʒ. ɴ˧ˋ˙ (Russell D. Gray), ˽˅˥༤˿˴˘˥ˣˣ˻˙ ˄˘˥༤˥ˆ ˘ ˦˨˘˲˥༤˥ˆ, ˨ 2014 ˆ˥ˊˁ — ˊ˘˧ˋ˜˪˥˧ ˣ˥˅˥ˆ˥ ʃˣ˨˪˘˪˫˪ˁ ʍˁ˜˨ˁ ʑ༤ˁˣ˜ˁ ˦˥ ˘˖˫˵ˋˣ˘˿ ˵ˋ༤˥˅ˋ˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˘˨˪˥˧˘˘ (Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, ɴˋ˧ˢˁˣ˘̀). ʒˁˣˋˋ ˆ˧˫˦˦ˁ ʒ. ɴ˧ˋ̀ ˘ ʇ˅. ɯ˪˜˘ˣ˨˥ˣˁ ˦˧˘ˊˋ˧ː˘˅ˁ༤ˁ˨˼ ˁˣˁ˪˥༤˘˙˨˜˥˙ ˆ˘˦˥˪ˋ˖˻ ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˨˜˥˙ ˦˧ˁ˧˥ˊ˘ˣ˻, ˅˻ˊ˅˘ˣ˫˪˥˙ ˁ˧˲ˋ˥༤˥ˆ˥ˢ ʇ. ʒˋˣ˱˧˿ ˅ 1987 ˆ˥ˊ˫, ˦˻˪ˁ̀˨˼ ˦˥ˊ˪˅ˋ˧ˊ˘˪˼ ˋˋ ˱˘༤˥ˆˋˣˋ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˢ ˁˣˁ༤˘˖˥ˢ ˄ˁ˖˘˨ˣ˥˙ ༤ˋ˜˨˘˜˘ ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅ (Bouckert et al. 2012). ʐˊˣˁ˜˥ ˊˁˣˣ˻ˋ, ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣˣ˻ˋ ˽˪˥˙ ˆ˧˫˦˦˥˙, ˣˋ ˫˄ˋˊ˘༤˘ ˣˁ˫˵ˣ˥ˋ ˨˥˥˄˹ˋ˨˪˅˥, ˅˻˖˅ˁ˅ ˢˣ˥ˆ˥˵˘˨༤ˋˣˣ˻ˋ ˜˧˘˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˋ ˥˪˜༤˘˜˘ (˨ˢ., ˣˁ˦˧., Anthony, Ringe 2015). ɳ ˦ˋ˧˅˫˿ ˥˵ˋ˧ˋˊ˼, ˖ˁˢˋ˵ˁˣ˘̀ ˜ˁ˨ˁ༤˘˨˼ ˜ˁ˵ˋ˨˪˅ˁ ˨˪˥˨༤˥˅ˣ˻˲ ˨˦˘˨˜˥˅, ˥˄˧ˁ˄˥˪ˁˣˣ˻˲ ˅ ˧ˁˢ˜ˁ˲ ˱˘༤˥ˆˋˣˋ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˁˣˁ༤˘˖ˁ, ˵˪˥ ˅˻˖˅ˁ༤˥, ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥, ˫ˆ༤˫˄༤ˋˣ˘ˋ ˥˴ˋˣ˜˘ ˅˧ˋˢˋˣ˘ ˧ˁ˨˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘̀ ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅ ˘ ˣˋ˧ˋˁ༤˘˨˪˘˵ˣ˫˿ ˜ˁ˧˪˘ˣ˫ ˢ˘ˆ˧ˁ˴˘˙, ˨˅̀˖ˁˣˣ˻˲ ˨ ˣ˥˨˘˪ˋ༤̀ˢ˘ ˽˪˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅. ɳ ˧ˁˢ˜ˁ˲ ˦˧˥ˋ˜˪ˁ CoBL (Cognacy of Basic Lexicon), ˖ˁ˦˫˹ˋˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˣˋ˨˜˥༤˼˜˥ ༤ˋ˪ ˣˁ˖ˁˊ ˅ ʃˣ˨˪˘˪˫˪ˋ ʍˁ˜˨ˁ ʑ༤ˁˣ˜ˁ ˦˥ˊ ˧˫˜˥˅˥ˊ˨˪˅˥ˢ ɴ˧ˋ̀, ˄˻༤˘ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˨ˢ˥˪˧ˋˣ˻ ˢˋ˪˥ˊ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˋ ˥˨ˣ˥˅˻ ˧ˁ˄˥˪˻ ˨˥ ˨˪˥˨༤˥˅ˣ˻ˢ˘ ˨˦˘˨˜ˁˢ˘. ʎˁ ˽˪˥˪ ˧ˁ˖ ˜ˁ˵ˋ˨˪˅˥ ˊˁˣˣ˻˲ ˦˥˨༤ˋ ˥˄˧ˁ˄˥˪˜˘ ˜˥ˢ˦˼˿˪ˋ˧ˣ˻ˢ˘ ˢˋ˪˥ˊˁˢ˘ ˊ˥༤ːˣ˥ ˄˻˪˼ ˦˧˘ˋˢ༤ˋˢ˻ˢ. ɳ ʑˁ˅˘˘, ˪ˁ˜˘ˢ ˥˄˧ˁ˖˥ˢ, ˦˧˥˱. ɴ˧ˋ˙ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅˘༤ ˨˥˄˧ˁ˅˸˘ˢ˨̀ ˣ˥˅˫˿ ˆ˘˦˥˪ˋ˖˫ ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˨˜˥˙ ˦˧ˁ˧˥ˊ˘ˣ˻, ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˁˣˣ˫˿ ˣˁ ˣ˥˅˻˲ ˊˁˣˣ˻˲, ˥˄˧ˁ˄˥˪ˁˣˣ˻˲, ˜ˁ˜ ˘ ˧ˁˣ˼˸ˋ (Heggarty 2014, Boukert et al. 2012, Gray, Atkinson 2011), ˨ ˦˥ˢ˥˹˼˿ ˱˘༤˥ˆˋˣˋ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˁˣˁ༤˘˖ˁ ˨ ˘˨˦˥༤˼˖˥˅ˁˣ˘ˋˢ ˢˋ˪˥ˊˁ MCMC (Markov chains Monte Carlo) ˘ ˁˣˁ༤˘˖ˁ ˅ˋ˧˥̀˪ˣ˥˨˪ˋ˙ ˨ ˦˧˘ˢˋˣˋˣ˘ˋˢ ˄ˁ˙226

ˋ˨˥˅˥˙ ˥˴ˋˣ˜˘. ʑ˥ ˋˆ˥ ˨༤˥˅ˁˢ, ˊˁˣˣ˻ˋ ˫˜ˁ˖˻˅ˁ˿˪ ˣˁ ˪˥, ˵˪˥ ˦˧ˁ˧˥ˊ˘ˣˁ ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˴ˋ˅ ˣˁ˲˥ˊ˘༤ˁ˨˼ ˆˊˋ-˪˥ ˣˁ ˪ˋ˧˧˘˪˥˧˘˘ ʇˁ˅˜ˁ˖ˁ. ʇˁ˜ ˫˪˅ˋ˧ːˊˁˋ˪ ɴ˧ˋ˙, ˜˧˥ˢˋ ˢˋ˪˥ˊ˥༤˥ˆ˘˘, ˖ˣˁ˵˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ ˘˖ˢˋˣ˘༤˨̀ ˘ ˨˥˨˪ˁ˅ ˆ˧˫˦˦˻, ˧ˁ˄˥˪ˁ˿˹ˋ˙ ˦˥ˊ ˋˆ˥ ˧˫˜˥˅˥ˊ˨˪˅˥ˢ ˅ ʃˣ˨˪˘˪˫˪ˋ ʍˁ˜˨ˁ ʑ༤ˁˣ˜ˁ, — ˪ˋ˦ˋ˧˼ ˄˥༤˼˸˥ˋ ˅ˣ˘ˢˁˣ˘ˋ ˫ˊˋ༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˥˄˧ˁ˄˥˪˜ˋ ˘ ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˢ˫ ˁˣˁ༤˘˖˫ ˫ˣˁ˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁˣˣ˥˙ ༤ˋ˜˨˘˜˘. ɳ ˦˧˥ˋ˜˪ ˨˦ˋ˴˘ˁ༤˼ˣ˥ ˦˧˘ˆ༤ˁ˸ˋˣ˻ ˘˖˅ˋ˨˪ˣ˻ˋ ˜˥ˢ˦ˁ˧ˁ˪˘˅˘˨˪˻ ˘˖ ˧ˁ˖ˣ˻˲ ˨˪˧ˁˣ ɹ˅˧˥˦˻ (˨˧ˋˊ˘ ˣ˘˲ ˦˧˥˱. ʇ˿ˢˢˋ༤˼, ˥˪˅ˋ˵ˁ˿˹˘˙ ˖ˁ ˘ˣˊ˥˘˧ˁˣ˨˜˫˿ ˵ˁ˨˪˼). ʇˁ˵ˋ˨˪˅˥ ˥˄˧ˁ˄˥˪˜˘ ༤ˋ˜˨˘˜˘, ˘˨˦˥༤˼˖˫ˋˢ˥˙ ˅ ˧ˁ˨˵ˋ˪ˁ˲, ˦˧ˋ˅˥˨˲˥ˊ˘˪ ˪ˋ ˨˦˘˨˜˘, ˜˥˪˥˧˻ˋ ˦˧˘ˢˋˣ̀༤˘˨˼ ˅ ˊ˥˜ˁ˖ˁ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅ˋ ˁˣˁ˪˥༤˘˙˨˜˥˙ ˦˧ˁ˧˥ˊ˘ˣ˻. ʎ˥˅˻ˋ ˊˁˣˣ˻ˋ ˦˥˜ˁ˖˻˅ˁ˿˪ ˄˥༤ˋˋ ˦˥˖ˊˣ˿˿ ˊˁ˪˫ ˧ˁ˨˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘̀ ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅ — ˥˜˥༤˥ 8 ˪˻˨̀˵, ˁ ˣˋ 9 ˪˻˨̀˵ ༤ˋ˪ ˣˁ˖ˁˊ, ˜ˁ˜ ˖ˣˁ˵˘༤˥˨˼ ˅ ˨˪ˁ˪˼ˋ 2013 ˆ˥ˊˁ. ʨ˪˥, ˅˦˧˥˵ˋˢ, ˅˨ˌ ˧ˁ˅ˣ˥ ˧ˁˣ˼˸ˋ, ˵ˋˢ ˪˧ˁˊ˘˴˘˥ˣˣ˥ ˦˧˘ˣ̀˪˥ ˨˵˘˪ˁ˪˼: ˣˁ˦˥ˢˣ˘ˢ, ˵˪˥ ˪˧ˁˊ˘˴˘˥ˣˣˁ̀ ˥˴ˋˣ˜ˁ ˅˧ˋˢˋˣ˘ ˽˪˥ˆ˥ ˧ˁ˨˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘̀, ˦˥ˊ˪˅ˋ˧ːˊˋˣˣˁ̀ ༤˘ˣˆ˅˘˨˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˢ˘ ˘ ˁ˧˲ˋ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˢ˘ ˊˁˣˣ˻ˢ˘, — ˥˜˥༤˥ 6–7 ˪˻˨̀˵ ༤ˋ˪ ˣˁ˖ˁˊ. ʑ˧˥˱. ʍ˽༤༤˥˧˘ ˘ ˦˧˥˱. ʇ˿ˢˢˋ༤˼ ˅ ˜˫༤˫ˁ˧ˁ˲ ʑˁ˅˘˙˨˜˥˙ ˸˜˥༤˻ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅˘༤˘ ˨˅˥˿ ˜˧˘˪˘˜˫ ˣ˥˅˥˙ ˆ˘˦˥˪ˋ˖˻. ʇ˿ˢˢˋ༤˼ — ˥ˊ˘ˣ ˘˖ ˫˵ˁ˨˪ˣ˘˜˥˅ ˆ˧˫˦˦˻ ɴ˧ˋ̀ ˅ ʃˣ˨˪˘˪˫˪ˋ ʍˁ˜˨ˁ ʑ༤ˁˣ˜ˁ, — ˥˪ˢˋ˪˘༤, ˵˪˥, ˦˥ ˋˆ˥ ˘ˣ˱˥˧ˢˁ˴˘˘, ˣˁ ˊˁˣˣ˻˙ ˢ˥ˢˋˣ˪ ˨˪ˋ˦ˋˣ˼ ˥˄˧ˁ˄˥˪˜˘ ༤ˋ˜˨˘˜˘, ˅ ˵ˁ˨˪ˣ˥˨˪˘, ˘ˣˊ˥˘˧ˁˣ˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅ ˣˋ ˦˥˖˅˥༤̀ˋ˪ ˊˋ༤ˁ˪˼ ˣˁ˨˪˥༤˼˜˥ ˊˁ༤ˋ˜˥ ˘ˊ˫˹˘ˋ ˅˻˅˥ˊ˻. ʐˣ ˅˻˧ˁ˖˘༤ ˣˁˊˋːˊ˫, ˵˪˥ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣˣ˻ˋ ɴ˧ˋˋˢ ˦˧ˋˊ˅ˁ˧˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻ˋ ˊˁˣˣ˻ˋ ˄˫ˊ˫˪ ˖ˣˁ˵˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ ˨˜˥˧˧ˋ˜˪˘˧˥˅ˁˣ˻ — ˧ˁ˄˥˪ˁ ˣˁˊ ˦˧˥ˋ˜˪˥ˢ ˊˁ༤ˋ˜ˁ ˥˪ ˖ˁ˅ˋ˧˸ˋˣ˘̀. ʍ˽༤༤˥˧˘ ˥˪ˢˋ˪˘༤, ˵˪˥ ˜ˁ༤˘˄˧˥˅˜ˁ ˅˧ˋˢˋˣ˘ ˧ˁ˨˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘̀ ̀˖˻˜˥˅ ˘ ˜༤˿˵ˋ˅˻˲ ˪˥˵ˋ˜ ˢ˘ˆ˧ˁ˴˘˙ ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˨˜˘˲ ˣˁ˧˥ˊ˥˅ ˅ ˅˘˖˫ˁ༤˘˖ˁ˴˘˘ ɴ˧ˋ̀ ̀˅ˣ˥ ˨˥ˊˋ˧ː˘˪ ˥˸˘˄˜˘: ˊ˧ˋ˅ˣˋˆ˧ˋ˵ˋ˨˜˘˙ ̀˖˻˜ ˘ ˘ˣˊ˥˘˧ˁˣ˨˜˘ˋ ̀˖˻˜˘ ˣˋ ˢ˥ˆ༤˘ ˧ˁ˖˥˙˪˘˨˼ 7000 ༤ˋ˪ ˣˁ˖ˁˊ, ˣˋ˪ ˁ˧˲ˋ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˦˥ˊ˪˅ˋ˧ːˊˋˣ˘̀ ˪˥ˢ˫, ˵˪˥ ˣˁ ˪ˋ˧˧˘˪˥˧˘˘ ʇˁ˅˜ˁ˖ˁ ˅ ˪ˋ ˅˧ˋˢˋˣˁ ˖ˁ˧˥ːˊˁ༤ˁ˨˼ ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˨˜ˁ̀ ˴˘˅˘༤˘˖ˁ˴˘̀; ˣˁ ʇˁ˅˜ˁ˖ˋ ˘ ˿ːˣˋˋ ˖ˁ˨˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˻ ˢˣ˥ˆ˘ˋ ˊ˧ˋ˅ˣ˘ˋ ˣˋ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˨˜˘ˋ ̀˖˻˜˘, ˘˖-˖ˁ ˵ˋˆ˥ ˦˧ˁ˜˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ ˣˋ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˥ ˧ˁ˨˨ˢˁ˪˧˘˅ˁ˪˼ ˽˪˫ ˪ˋ˧˧˘˪˥˧˘˿ ˅ ˜ˁ˵ˋ˨˪˅ˋ ˦˧ˁ˧˥ˊ˘ˣ˻ ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˴ˋ˅. ʌˋ˪ˣ̀̀ ˸˜˥༤ˁ ˦˥ ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˘˨˪˘˜ˋ ˅ ʑˁ˅˘˘ ˅ 2011–2017 ˆ˥ˊˁ˲ ˨˥˄˘˧ˁ༤ˁ ˥˵ˋˣ˼ ˘ˣ˪ˋ˧ˋ˨ˣ˻˲ ༤ˋ˜˪˥˧˥˅ ˘ ˨༤˫˸ˁ˪ˋ༤ˋ˙, ˦˧ˋˊ༤ˁˆˁ༤ˁ ˊ༤̀ ˥˄˨˫ːˊˋˣ˘̀ ˨ˁˢ˻ˋ ː˘˅˥˪˧ˋ˦ˋ˹˫˹˘ˋ ˅˥˦˧˥˨˻ ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˨˜˥˙ ༤˘ˣˆ˅˘˨˪˘˜˘, ˦˥˖˅˥༤̀༤ˁ ˢ˥༤˥ˊ˻ˢ ˘˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁ˪ˋ༤̀ˢ ˨˅˥˄˥ˊˣ˥ ˥˄˨˫ˊ˘˪˼ ˨˅˥˿ ˧ˁ˄˥˪˫ ˨˥ ˖ˣˁˢˋˣ˘˪˻ˢ˘ ˦˧˥˱ˋ˨˨˥˧ˁˢ˘. ʇ˧˥ˢˋ ˪˥ˆ˥, ˅ ˥˪༤˘˵˘ˋ ˥˪ ʌˋ˪ˣˋ˙ ˸˜˥༤˻ ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˘˨˪˘˜˘ ˅ ʌˋ˙ˊˋˣˋ, ˥˧ˆˁˣ˘˖ˁ˪˥-

Pavia International Summer School for Indo-European Linguistics

˧˻ ʑˁ˅˘˙˨˜˥˙ ˸˜˥༤˻ ˨˪˧ˋˢ˘༤˘˨˼ ˨ˊˋ༤ˁ˪˼ ˥˄˫˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ˊ˥˨˪˫˦ˣ˻ˢ ˊˁːˋ ˊ༤̀ ˣˋ˥˄ˋ˨˦ˋ˵ˋˣˣ˻˲ ˨˪˫ˊˋˣ˪˥˅. ʐ˨˪ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˪˥༤˼˜˥ ˣˁˊˋ̀˪˼˨̀, ˵˪˥ ˘ˣ˘˴˘ˁ˪˘˅˫ ˦˧˥˅ˋˊˋˣ˘̀ ˦˥ˊ˥˄ˣ˥˙ ˸˜˥༤˻ ˦˥ˊ˲˅ˁ˪˘˪ ˊ˧˫ˆ˥˙ ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˨˜˘˙ ˫ˣ˘˅ˋ˧˨˘˪ˋ˪ — ˦˥ ˨༤˥˅ˁˢ ʍˁ˧˪˘ˣˁ ʇ˿ˢˢˋ༤̀, ˣˋ˵˪˥ ˦˥ˊ˥˄ˣ˥ˋ ˅ ˨༤ˋˊ˫˿˹ˋˢ ˆ˥ˊ˫ ˨༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪ ˥ː˘ˊˁ˪˼ ˅ ʄˋˣˋ.

References Anthony, David, Don Ringe. 2015. The Indo-European Homeland from Linguistic and Archaeological Perspectives. Annual Review of Linguistics 1: 199–219. Bouckaert, Remco, Philippe Lemey, Michael Dunn, Simon J. Greenhill, Alexander V. Alekseyenko, Alexei J. Drummond, Russell Gray, Marc A. Suchard, Quentin D. Atkinson. 2012. Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family. Science 337(6097): 957–960. Gray, Russell D., Quentin D. Atkinson, Simon J. Greenhill. 2011. Language Evolution and Human History: What a Difference a Date Makes. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 366(1567): 1090–1100. Heggarty, Paul. 2014. Prehistory by Bayesian Phylogenetics? The State of the Art on Indo-European Origins. Antiquity 88(340): 566–577. Jasanoff, Jay H. 2003. Hittite and the Indo-European Verb. Oxford University Press. Krisch, Thomas. 2006. RIVELEX. Rigveda-Lexicon. Unter Mitarbeit von Christina Katsikadeli, Thomas Kaltenbacher. Band 1: Worter beginnend mit “a”. Graz: Leykam.

Krisch, Thomas. 2009. On the “Syntax of Silence” in ProtoIndo-European. In: Hinterhölzl, R. & S. Petrova (eds.). New approaches to word order variation and change in Germanic: 192–220. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Kulikov, Leonid. 2012a. The Vedic -ya-presents: Passives and intransitivity in Old Indo-Aryan. Leiden Studies in Indo-European 19. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Kulikov, Leonid. 2012b. Vedic preverbs as markers of valency-changing derivations. Studies in Language 36(4): 721–746. Kümmel, Martin Joachim. 2007. Konsonantenwandel: Bausteine zu einer Typologie des Lautwandels und ihre Konsequenzen. Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag. Kümmel, Martin Joachim. 2012. Typology and reconstruction: The consonants and vowels of Proto-Indo-European. In: B. N. Whitehead, T. Olander, B. A. Olsen & J. E. Rasmussen (eds.) The sound of Indo-European. Phonetics, Phonemics, and Morphophonemics. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press. Mallory, James P. 1989. In Search of the Indo-Europeans: Language, Archaeology and Myth. London: Thames & Hudson. Mallory, James P. 2009. The Anatolian homeland hypothesis and the Anatolian Neolithic. In: S. Jamison, H. C. Melchert & B. Vine (eds.). Proceedings of the 20th Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference: 133–162. Bremen: Hempen. Mallory, James P. 2013. Twenty-first century clouds over Indo-European homelands. Journal of Language Relationship 9: 145–154. Petit, Daniel. 2007. Archaïsme et innovation dans les langues indo-européennes. Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 15: 13–55. Petit, Daniel. 2016. Force et dominance accentuelle en morphologie dérivationnelle grecque. In: A. Blanc & D. Petit (eds.). Nouveaux acquis sur la formation des noms en grec ancien: 5–35. Louvain: Peeters.

227

Anton I. Kogan Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow; [email protected]

Once more on the language of the documents from Niya (East Turkestan) and its genetic position The language of the documents found in the Southeast of present day Xinjiang, mainly in the Niya oasis, is usually reckoned among the Middle Indo-Aryan languages. Some scholars, however, believe it to be a possible ancestor of certain Dardic dialects. In the present article an attempt is made to resolve this controversy, and to establish the exact position of the Niya Prakrit in the Indo-Iranian group. The author concludes that the language in question can by no means be classified as Dardic, though in the past its speakers may have been neighbors of the Dards. Keywords: Indo-Aryan languages, Dardic languages, language classification, historical phonology, Northwestern Prakrit, Niya Prakrit, East Turkestan, Kroraina kingdom

The language of the administrative documents discovered in East Turkestan, on the territory of the erstwhile kingdom of Kroraina, chiefly in the Niya oasis 1, is usually considered a Middle Indo-Aryan language 2. At the same time, some scholars hypothesize that it may be ancestral to certain Dardic dialects. In the past, when the Dardic group was mostly regarded as a subbranch (or several subbranches) of Indo-Aryan, these two viewpoints did not seem to be in conflict. Recent research has, however, shown that the Dardic languages cannot be classified as Indo-Aryan but should rather be regarded as a separate branch of the Indo-Iranian group (Kogan 2005). In the light of this fact, it must be recognized that the two above-cited hypotheses concerning the genetic affiliation of the Niya Prakrit are mutually exclusive, and the issue still remains unsolved. In the present article I shall make an attempt to establish, at least in a first approximation, the position of the Niya Prakrit in the genealogical classification of the Indo-Iranian languages. This task can hardly be carried out without a thorough analysis of arguments adduced in favor of each of the two competing theories. Soon after the discovery of the Niya documents their language was recognized by Stein as Middle Indo-Aryan (“Prakrit”) 3. Detailed research on the subject was initiated later by the British Indologist and Dravidologist Thomas Burrow. In a special paper dedicated to this problem (Burrow 1936), he managed to show that the Niya Prakrit shares a number of common phonological and morphological isoglosses with three Indo-Aryan forms of speech, namely, the language of the Kharo࣒࣢hi manuscript of the Buddhist poetic text Dhammapada 4, 1

The kingdom of Kroraina was known as Shanshan to the Chinese. Its territory covered the chain of oases located on the southeastern rim of the Taklamakan Desert (now in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of China). Niya was the westernmost oasis, bordering upon Khotan, another powerful kingdom of the area. Documents representing the official language of Kroraina were discovered in the early 20th century by the renowned British archaeologist, historian and traveler Sir Aurel Stein. All of them were written in the Kharo࣒࣢hi script and date back to the 3rd century AD. 2 For this reason, it is often called the Niya Prakrit. 3 See, e.g. Stein 1904. 4 This language is usually called the Gandhari Prakrit. The manuscript of Dhammapada was discovered near Khotan at the close of the 19th century by an expedition led by the French geographer Dutreuil de Rhins. Until recently this text had been the only available specimen of Gandhari, but since the 1990s multiple new manuscripts were found in Pakistan and Afghanistan. For their overview, see Salomon 2006. Journal of Language Relationship • ɳ˥˦˧˥˨˻ ̀˖˻˜˥˅˥ˆ˥ ˧˥ˊ˨˪˅ˁ • 15/4 (2017) • Pp. 228–237 • © The authors, 2017

Once more on the language of the documents from Niya (East Turkestan) and its genetic position

the language of king AŽoka’s edicts found at Mansehra and Shahbazgarhi (now in northwestern Pakistan), and the language of later Kharo࣒࣢hi inscriptions discovered in the northern part of the Indus valley as well as in the areas west of the Indus, including the present-day Afghanistan. The last of these languages shows the greatest resemblance to the Niya Prakrit, and is, possibly, most closely related to it. The reason for such a conclusion is the presence of a significant number of shared innovations, both in phonology (the development of certain old consonant clusters, e.g. ñj > ñ, ࡆࡖ > ࡖh, -ગs- > -ગts-, Żr > ࡆ, -tv- > -p-, Żv > Żp, -sm- > m, and the lenition of intervocalic single consonants 5) and morphology (the nominative singular in -e 6). The language of AŽoka’s inscriptions, too, possesses certain features, common with the Niya Prakrit 7, but some of them are shared retentions, and thus cannot be relevant for genealogical classification. Common phonological and morphological innovations also exist (e.g. r๗ > ri, ru; ࡆy > Ż; infinitive in -anaye; indeclinable participle in -ti) but are relatively few in number. Moreover, the Niya documents, being 600 years younger than AŽoka’s edicts, reflect in some cases a more archaic linguistic state in comparison with the latter 8. It means that the language of these documents can in no way be the descendant of the northwestern inscriptional AŽokan Prakrit. As for the Gandhari Prakrit, the situation there seems to be far from clear. In this language, there are many instances of irregularity in phonological development, the same Old Indian phoneme or phonemic sequence often displaying different reflexes in the same position 9. Burrow (1936) attributed this fact to the influence of the Indo-Aryan dialect in which Dhammapada was originally composed. Since this dialect remains unknown to us, Burrow’s conjecture can be neither proved nor disproved. One should also bear in mind that the Gandhari Prakrit, like some other Middle Indo-Aryan literary languages, can to a great extent be an artificial construct, obtained from Sanskrit by applying certain historical phonological rules, which, in practice, were not always strictly observed 10. On the basis of the above-mentioned phonological and morphological isoglosses, Burrow concluded that the area where the language of the Niya documents had originally been spoken was situated west of the Indus, presumably in the area of Peshawar. The spread of this language as official in East Turkestan must, in his opinion, have taken place in the 1st-3rd centuries AD under the Kushan Empire, of which the Kroraina kingdom was a remnant 11. This conclusion seems to be the most plausible one at the current state of our knowledge. However, it was Burrow who had created some confusion in the historical study of the Niya Prakrit. In the above-cited article he argued that “most of the phonetic peculiarities of this dialect reappear in the modern Dardic languages”, and “a few of the phonetic developments are particular to Torwali” (Burrow 1936: 434). The first of these two statements is simply wrong and misleading. Modern Dardic languages differ considerably from each other as re5

For further details and examples, see Burrow 1936. In the Niya Prakrit there are clear historical traces of this nominative ending, though in most cases it was replaced by the accusative marker -a (Burrow 1936). 7 For a complete list and analysis, see Burrow 1936. 8 Cf. the preservation of the clusters -rt-, -rth-, -rdh-, -rࡆ-, -lp-, -ly-, -ts- in Niya vs. their simplification in AŽokan. 9 For examples, see Burrow 1936. 10 It should be noted that in modern literature Gandhari and Niya are often considered as two varieties of the same Prakrit (see e.g. Hock, Bashir 2016). Historical phonological facts, however, clearly show that this view is wrong, and the frequent use of the umbrella term “Northwestern Prakrit” for both languages is hardly warranted. 11 On Kushan influence in East Turkestan see e.g. Millward 2013. It is believed by some scholars that the Kushans did not rule the region directly, and their overlordship lasted for only a few decades in the 1st-2nd centuries A.D. (Hitch 1988). Their impact on the local culture was, however, very great. 6

229

Anton I. Kogan

gards historical phonology, and the whole set of sound changes, listed by Burrow, is by no means peculiar to all of them. As for the “phonetic developments”, common for Niya and Torwali 12, the scholar specifies only three of them, namely: 1) sv > Żv (cf. Niya Żvasu, Torwali šƉ ‘sister’, OIA svasr๗- id.); 2) Żv > Żp (cf. Niya aŻpa, OIA aŻva- ‘horse’; Niya Żpeta, OIA Żveta- ‘white’; Torwali paiࡆ (< *ŻpaࡆƉ), OIA ŻvaŻrƉ- ‘mother-in-law’); 3) sm > m (cf. Niya amahu ‘our’, Torwali mŵ ‘we’, OIA asmabhyaગ pers. pron. 1 Pl Dat). It is worth noting that changes 2 and 3 on this list show exact or approximate parallels in many languages of the area. The development of OIA Żv to Żp (< PII *Żu๞) is typologically similar to the process that affected the same Proto-Indo-Iranian consonant cluster in Iranian, where it has changed to sp in most languages, including Avestan 13. The reflex of OIA intervocalic -sm-, identical to that in Niya, is not infrequently found in New Indo-Aryan (cf. Hindi ham, Gujarati, Romany ame, Bengali amra, Assamese ami, Oriya Ŋme, Nepali hŊmŢ ‘we’, Hindi hamŊrŊ, Gujarati amŊrƅ, Romany amaro, Nepali hŊmro ‘our’). Both these historical phonological phenomena, being geographically widespread, can hardly be diagnostic for genealogical classification. There is, however, a more important reason to consider the close affinity of Torwali to Niya improbable. The Torwali language belongs to the Kohistani subbranch of the East Dardic branch of the Dardic group. Glottochronological calculations, recently performed for this group 14, indicate that the split of Proto-Kohistani dates back to the 3rd century A.D., i.e. to the very period of time in which the extant texts from Kroraina were written. It means that the Niya Prakrit may theoretically belong to the Kohistani subbranch, if at all, only as its protolanguage. But there is strong evidence against such an assumption. None of the three abovementioned phonological changes can be postulated for the Proto-Kohistani state, since certain Kohistani languages show a totally different development for all the three old clusters just discussed. Cf., e.g., their reflexes in Indus Kohistani: *sv > s (sazƉ ‘nephew, sister’s sun’ < *svŊsr๗ka-); *Żv > š (šƉr ‘father-in-law’ < *ŻvaŻura-), *-sm- > *-s- > z (zŊѐ pers. pron. 1 Pl Obl < *asmad-). It should thus be recognized that no true historical phonological isogloss, which could give us a reason to classify the language of the Niya documents as Dardic, has been found so far. Nevertheless, the problem of genetic relations between the Niya Prakrit and the Dardic group is far from being solved. The most proper way to clarify this issue is, no doubt, to analyze the behavior of the language under study in those cases where Indo-Aryan and Dardic show divergent development. The extant material allows us to detect three such cases, i.e. the reflexes of the Proto-Indo-Iranian syllabic *r๗, voiced aspirates, and certain Proto-IndoEuropean consonant clusters with initial velars. Each of these phonological processes will be discussed at some length below.

*** The usual Niya reflex of the Proto-Indo-Iranian syllabic *r๗, and the usual correspondence to the same phoneme in Old Indo-Aryan, is ri: grihasta ‘householder’ (cf. OIA gr๗hastha-), ghrida ‘clarified butter, ghee’ (cf. OIA ghr๗ta-), driࡖha ‘seen’ (cf. OIA dr๗ࡆࡖa-), prithivi ‘earth’ (cf. OIA pr๗th(i)vŢ-), prichati ‘asks’ (cf. OIA pr๗cchati), krita ‘done’ (cf. OIA kr๗ta-). Isolated cases of the change *r๗ > ru have also been noted (cf. pruch- ‘to ask’). Not infrequently the old syllabic *r๗ is 12

Torwali is a Dardic language spoken in the upper reaches of the Swat valley in Northwestern Pakistan. Cf. also the change Ż > s in most Iranian languages. 14 See Kogan, Vasilyev 2013; Kogan 2016. 13

230

Once more on the language of the documents from Niya (East Turkestan) and its genetic position

written unchanged: r๗na ‘debt’ (cf. OIA r๗য়a-), kr๗ta ‘done’ (cf. OIA kr๗ta-), gr๗ha ‘house’ (cf. OIA gr๗ha-), mr๗da ‘dead’ (cf. OIA mr๗ta-), pr๗chati ‘asks’ (cf. OIA pr๗cchati) 15. Burrow (1937: 2) has reasonably assumed that the preservation of *r๗ in the latter series of examples is a purely orthographical phenomenon, and that the respective Kharo࣒࣢hi character, in reality, conveys the sequence ri or ru. This hypothesis is strongly supported by the fact that the same words may have two different spellings (cf. krita and kr๗ta; prichati and pr๗chati). In a number of cases the syllabic r๗ is vocalized: kiࡆaગnae ‘to plough’ (cf. OIA kr๗ࡆati ‘ploughs’), ki‫ڎ‬a ‘done’ (cf. OIA kr๗ta-), prahu‫ڎ‬a ‘gift’ (cf. OIA prŊbhr๗ta-). The retroflexization of dentals after the resonant seems to be a regular process in such examples, which is most likely connected with another one, namely the change of an intervocalic dental into retroflex accompanying the loss of r in the initial consonant cluster (cf. Niya pa‫ڎ‬i = OIA prati ‘towards, against’). It means that the vocalic reflex of the syllabic r๗ can in certain instances be the result of some specific development of an earlier ri- or ru-like reflex 16. E.g. prahu‫ڎ‬a ‘gift’ could have evolved from prŊbhr๗ta- through the intermediate stages *prŊbhruda and *prŊbhu‫ڎ‬a, the cluster bhr being simplified to bh due to dissimilation. No unquestionable instances of syllabic r๗ vocalized in word-initial position have been found in the Niya documents thus far. The only form where this sound change can be supposed to have taken place is anahetu ‘because of the debt’, but this example is very doubtful. As Burrow (1937: 74) has pointed out, the initial element ana- should not necessarily reflect the older r๗য়a- ‘debt’, but could be the extended form of the negative prefix an- 17. In the latter case the meaning should be ‘without cause’ (cf. hetu ‘cause’). Such an interpretation is by no means excluded by the context 18 and, at the same time, seems to be preferable from the viewpoint of historical phonology, because, as has already been noted, the continuant of r๗য়a- is attested in the Niya Prakrit as r๗na. In the light of all these facts, the phonemic sequence “r+vowel” should be considered as the most probable reflex of Proto-Indo-Iranian syllabic *r๗ in the language of the Niya documents. Such a development is very frequent in Indo-Aryan and, as stated above, characteristic of Northwestern inscriptional AŽokan Prakrit. In Old Indian the syllabic *r๗ had, in all probability, already been pronounced with postvocalization. This fact follows not only from the traditional pronunciation of the corresponding written character as ri or ru in the modern declamation of Sanskrit texts but also from interchangeability of r๗ and ri in certain lexemes (cf., e.g. kr๗mi- and krimi- ‘worm’). In New Indo-Aryan languages rŢ̉ is the usual reflex of OIA r๗ in the initial position: Sindhi richu, Punjabi ricch, Hindi rŢch, Gujarati rŢѐch, Marathi rŢs, Garhwali, Kumauni rŢkh, Romany rxŏ ‘bear’ < OIA r๗kࡆa-; Lahnda riয়য়, Punjabi, Hindi, Nepali rin, Oriya riয়a, Marathi, Garhwali rŢয়, Konkani rŢয়a ‘debt’ < OIA r๗য়a-; Lahnda rijh- ‘to be allured, to be amused’, Nepali, Oriya rijh- ‘to rejoice’, Hindi rŢjh- ‘to be enchanted’, Gujarati, Marathi rijh- ‘to be pleased’ < OIA r๗dhyati ‘prospers’ 19). In Dardic the development of Proto-Indo-Iranian *r๗ is different. Although there are several examples of ri- and ru-type reflexes (cf. Kalasha kriलয়a, Kashmiri kruhun ‘black’, OIA kr๗ࡆয়a- id.; Kashmiri prich-, prxch- ‘to ask’, OIA pr๗cchati ‘asks’; Phalura drhiࡆࡖu (< * driࡆࡖu) ‘seen’, 15

For more examples see Burrow 1937. Naturally, it cannot be ruled out that a number of Niya words with vocalization are borrowed from some other Indo-Aryan dialect, as per Burrow 1937: 2. 17 This secondary (“extended”) negative prefix ana- is attested in Prakrit. 18 The respective document reports that a woman, perhaps a female slave, was carried off anahetu, which can be understood both as ‘because of the debt (of the woman’s owner)’ and as ‘without (apparent) cause’. It is remarkable that Burrow himself ultimately preferred the translation “without just cause” (Burrow 1940: 143–144). 19 Cf. r๗dhati ‘increases, prospers, succeeds’. The form r๗dhyati is attested in Panini’s DhŌtupŌ࣢ha (Turner 1966: 117). 16

231

Anton I. Kogan

OIA dr๗ࡆࡖa- id.), they may well reflect a relatively recent phonological process, known as “Dardic metathesis”. This process consists of the transposition of r from non-initial consonant clusters to the position after the initial consonant, leading to the formation of a new cluster 20: Kalasha krum, Tirahi, Phalura kram, Shina krom, Bashkarik ΖŊm (Ζ < *kr) ‘work’, OIA karman- id.; Pashai drŊet, Kashmiri drŵt ‘sickle’, OIA dŊtra- id.; Kashmiri trŊm ‘copper’, OIA tŊmra- id. As for those lexemes where the “Dardic metathesis” has not taken place 21 and those positions where it was impossible (particularly, word-initially), we find clear traces of the change *r๗ > *ir, *ur: Pashai Ӽŏ, Shumashti, Gawar-Bati, Sawi, Shina Ţѐŏhэ , Kalasha iŏэ, Phalura Šŏэ, Bashkarik iŏэh, Torwali Ţࡆ, Indus Kohistani Ţŏh ‘bear’ < *irŏha-, cf. OIA r๗kࡆa-, Av. arƕša-, Persian Πirs id.; Tirahi wu৘ƕ, Kalasha hŠŷa, Gawar-Bati hi৘a, Phalura, Sawi hi৘o, Shina hi৘u ‘heart’ 22, cf. OIA hr๗daya-, Av. zƕrƕΏaya- id.; Bashkarik mur, Katarqalai mu৘, Phalura mu৘o ‘died’ < *mr๗ta- 23. It is quite reasonable to consider this development as an original Proto-Dardic phenomenon. It separates the Dardic languages from the Indo-Aryan family and makes them similar to the Iranian, Nuristani, and most non-Aryan Indo-European languages, where old syllabic r๗ also yields phonemic sequences with an initial vowel (Edelman 1986: 33–34; Kogan 2005: 22–25).

*** Proto-Indo-Iranian and Proto-Indo-European voiced aspirated stops are usually preserved in Indo-Aryan, but they lose aspiration and merge with their voiced unaspirated counterparts in Dardic, Iranian and Nuristani. The situation in the Niya Prakrit is in certain respects unclear, because the original picture was obscured to a great extent by extensive contact effects. The language under study, being official in the kingdom of Kroraina, was most probably not native to the great majority of its people. Their mother tongue, as Burrow has demonstrated, may well have been some local form of Tocharian 24, which did not distinguish between aspirated and unaspirated, or between voiced and voiceless consonants (Burrow 1935). The influence of this vernacular resulted not only in the adoption of loanwords but also in frequent scribal errors reflecting phonological interference. One of them was the confusion of aspirates and nonaspirates (cf., e.g. Żavata and Żavatha ‘oath’, ciગnita and chiગnida ‘cut’, gas௾a and ghas௾a ‘fodder’, grida and ghrida ‘clarified butter, ghee’, divas௾a and dhivas௾a ‘day’, dita and dhida ‘given’, baŘa and bhaŘa ‘share’, buma and bhuma ‘land’, biti and bhiti ‘second’ 25). It should be noted, however, that in the intervocalic position reflexes are much more regular than word-initally. In particular, the old voiced aspirates almost always change to h between vowels: lahaગti ‘(they) receive’ (cf. OIA labhante), parihaࡆa ‘claim’ (cf. OIA paribhŊࡆa-), prahu‫ڎ‬a ‘gift’ (cf. OIA prŊbhr๗ta-), gohomi ‘wheat’ (cf. OIA godhƉma-), ahuno ‘now’ (cf. OIA adhunŊ), 20

For more details see Morgenstierne 1947. Besides Dardic, this phenomenon is also attested in some IndoAryan languages, e.g. in Northwestern AŽokan and Gandhari Prakrits, and in the dialects of Lahnda and Hindko. Crucially, it is not characteristic of the Niya Prakrit. 21 One of the reasons why this sound change did not occur in a number of lexemes may be the fact that it could have yielded certain consonantal groups, such as hr or mr, which are quite uncommon in a number of Dardic languages. 22 Tirahi, Gawar-Bati, Phalura, Sawi, Shina ৘, Kalasha ŷ < *rd. 23 Bashkarik r < *৘ < *rt, Katarqalai, Phalura ৘ < *rt. 24 Since it is certainly not identical to any of the two known Tocharian languages (Tocharian A and Tocharian B), it is often called Tocharian C. 25 For more examples, see Burrow 1937: 9–10. The above-cited forms dhivas௾a (cf. OIA divasa- ‘day’), dhida (cf. OIA datta- ‘given’) and bhiti (cf. OIA dvitŢya- ‘second’) clearly show that the confusion of the two series in the Niya orthography could manifest itself not only in the irregular absence of historical aspiration, but also in graphic aspirates in lieu of etymological non-aspirates. 232

Once more on the language of the documents from Niya (East Turkestan) and its genetic position

lahu ‘light (adj.)’ (cf. OIA laghu-). On the contrary, the old voiced unaspirated stops never undergo this change. In most cases they are either preserved or develop into fricatives: agachati ‘comes’ (cf. OIA agacchati), nagara ‘town’ (cf. OIA nagara-), bhaŘa 26 ‘share’ (cf. OIA bhŊga-), pada ‘foot’ (cf. OIA pŊda-), udaŘa ‘water’ (cf. OIA udaka-), paribujiŻatu ‘you will understand’ (< *paribudhya-, cf. OIA paribodha- ‘reason’). Isolated cases of devoicing are also attested: utarŊ ‘belly’ (cf. OIA udara-). The evident distinction between the intervocalic reflexes of aspirates and non-aspirates does not allow us to include the Niya Prakrit into the Dardic branch, where the merger of the two series seems to have taken place already in the protolanguage 27. Of special interest in this respect is the behavior of the Proto-Indo-Iranian bifocal voiced aspirated affricate *jh (< PIE *gh, *gwh in the palatalizing position). It changes to h in both Old Indic and in the language of the Niya documents, whereas in Dardic it loses aspiration: Niya dahita ‘burnt’, OIA dahati ‘burns’, Torwali daž-, Indus Kohistani daz-, Katarqalai dazŊ- ‘to burn (tr.)’, Kashmiri daz-, Phalura, Sawi daj-, Shina daž- ‘to burn (intr.)’ < PII *dajh- < PIE *dhegwh-; Niya nihaગñitavo ‘should be killed, should be stricken? 28’, OIA hanti, nihanti ‘strikes, kills’, nihata- ‘slain’, Prakrit য়ihaয়aï ‘strikes, throws’, Hindi nihan- ‘to strike, kill’, Kashmiri bizan- ‘to thrust something down (e.g. a pole into a hole)’ 29 < PII *jhan- ‘to strike, kill’ < PIE *gwhen-.

*** The Proto-Indo-European consonant clusters *ks and *k's behave differently in different branches of Indo-Iranian. In Old Indian they have merged into kࡆ, whereas in Iranian the distinction between them is preserved, and their reflexes are *Πš and *š respectively. In ProtoDardic the situation is somewhat similar to the Iranian one: no merger of the two consonantal groups has taken place, the development being *ks > *ŏэh 30, *k's > *ŏh (Kogan 2005). The same historical phonological processes affected the PIE clusters *tk and *tk', in which the voiceless Brugmann spirant *þ was reconstructed in the past 31. The former cluster reflects in Iranian and Dardic exactly like *ks and the latter exactly like *k's. In the Niya Prakrit, on the other hand, there seems to be only one correspondence to OIA kࡆ irrespective of its origin: c฿hяetra ‘field’ (cf. OIA kࡆetra- ‘field, land, region’, kࡆayati ‘lives, resides’, Av. šŵi˷ra- ‘region, district’, šaŖitŢ ‘resides’ < PIE *tk'ei- (*k'þei) 32 ‘to settle’), -c฿hяira ‘milk’ (cf. OIA kࡆŢra-, Av. ΠšŢra- 33 id.), dac฿hяina ‘right’ (cf. OIA dakࡆiয়a-, Av. dašina- id. < PIE *dek's- 34), rac฿hяiࡆyati ‘(he) will guard’ (cf. OIA rakࡆati ‘guards, protects’, Khotanese pŊrsůsůa ‘antidote’ < *pati-raΠša- (Bailey 1979: 233-234) < PIE *alek-s-), Żic฿hяatu ‘learn! (Imp)’ (cf. OIA Żikࡆate, Żikࡆati ‘learns, studies’, Av. a-siΠšanůt ‘not learning’), vr๗c฿haя ‘tree’ (cf. OIA vr๗kࡆa-, Av. varƕša- < PIE *u๞֔lk's-o- 35). 26

Following Burrow, I employ the letter Ř to transcribe the voiced velar fricative. In several Dardic languages, e.g. in Torwali and Indus Kohistani, there are voiced aspirates of secondary origin. Their appearance is most probably a result of Indo-Aryan influence (Kogan 2008). 28 If < *ni-han-, and not < *ni-khan- (Burrow 1935: 671). 29 Kashmiri bizan- < PII *abhi-jhan- (Kogan 2005: 35). 30 Possibly at the earliest stage of Proto-Dardic the reflex was *kš or *kࡆ, but later this cluster changed to the voiceless retroflex aspirated affricate ŏэh, regular continuants of which are found in all the Dardic languages. 31 In Pokorny’s dictionary (Pokorny 1959) they appear as *kþ and *k'þ respectively. 32 Pokorny 1959: 626. 33 Although the PIE prototype of this word is still unclear, the cluster Πš in Iranian points to a plain velar *k in the proto-form. 34 Pokorny 1959: 191. 35 Mayrhofer 1996: 572. 27

233

Anton I. Kogan

The actual pronunciation of the Kharo࣒࣢hi letter that is traditionally transliterated as c฿h36 я remains a controversial issue. Sten Konow (1936: 610) was of the opinion that it conveyed the retroflex affricate ŏэh. If this hypothesis is true, it will mean that in many cases the Niya Prakrit is remarkably alike to Dardic as regards the behavior of the above-mentioned Proto-IndoEuropean clusters. The greatest similarity is to the languages of the East Dardic subbranch, where Proto-Dardic *ŏh (< PIE *k's, *tk') acquires postalveolar articulation in most positions. Being similar, these two phonological changes are, nevertheless, not identical. As I have demonstrated in my recent book (Kogan 2016), retroflexization of the original palatal *ŏh in East Dardic has failed to take place before the historical short vowel of the final syllable. The language of the Niya documents, however, does not show any deviation from the general pattern in this position (cf. vr๗c฿hяa ‘tree’ < PIE *u๞lk๗ 's-o- 37). Another hypothesis concerning the phonological nature of the Kharo࣒࣢hi c฿hя affirms that this character might have represented the unchanged cluster kࡆ (Burrow 1937: 18). If Burrow's interpretation holds water, then the Niya development of PIE *ks, *k's, *tk, *tk' should be considered as identical to the Old Indian one.

*** The facts analyzed above suggest the conclusion that no historical phonological features that are peculiar to Dardic as opposed to Indic can be found in attested Niya material. In those cases when the development in the two branches differs, the Niya Prakrit always follows Indo-Aryan, which means that there is no reason to classify this language as belonging to the Dardic group. Nevertheless, it shares a few apparent lexical isoglosses with Dardic, which deserve a special discussion. These are Niya patama ‘back’ (cf. Kashmiri pot ‘hinder, subsequent’, patx ‘after’, Shina phatu, Indus Kohistani patŵ, Torwali pat ‘behind’, Bashkarik, Pashai pat ‘after’, Gawar-Bati pata ‘behind’) and Niya jaગdu- ‘snake’ 38 (cf. Shina jon, Phalura jhandura, Indus Kohistani zan, Torwali jŊn, Gawar-Bati ziant, Shumashti zãt ‘snake’, OIA jantu- ‘offspring, creature; insect, worm’). The first of these two etyma is also present in Nuristani (cf. Ashkun patŖѐŢѐ ѐ, Waigali patai ‘after’) and probably in Iranian 39. As for the New Indo-Aryan languages, it is found only in a few of them, namely in certain Pahari dialects (cf. Bhalesi patte ‘behind’, Bhidlai pettiõ ‘hinder’) 40. Both Bhalesi and Bhidlai are in contact with Kashmiri, a language of the Dardic group. This implies a high probability of borrowing from Dardic into Indo-Aryan, and it can be assumed without additional complications that a similar process might have taken place in the Middle Indian period and affected some early form of the Niya Prakrit. The second of the above-mentioned isoglosses seems to be disputable. The actual meaning of the Niya word jaગdu- is not firmly established. Harold Walter Bailey (1948: 332) translated it as ‘snake’, pointing out that it corresponds to Khotanese Żaysdi with the same meaning in a text dealing with the 12-year animal cycle. On the other hand, Burrow (1937: 92) preferred to 36

This letter is similar to the letter for ch, differing from it only by the presence of a cross-bar above. This cross-bar usually functions in the Kharo࣒࣢hi script as the sign of gemination. 37 Secondary cerebralization in the Niya word is highly improbable because, as has already been shown, this process was always accompanied by vocalization of the syllabic r๗. 38 The word is attested in the genitive plural form jaગdunaગca. 39 Turner (1966: 436) compares all the above-cited Dardic and Nuristani words with Av. paiti ‘towards; against; back; with’ (< Proto-Iranian *pati). 40 The etymology of Kumauni patŢr ‘after, beyond’ remains unclear, and this word can thus hardly be considered a secure cognate of the Dardic forms listed above. 234

Once more on the language of the documents from Niya (East Turkestan) and its genetic position

translate jaગdunaગca as ‘worms’. If Bailey’s interpretation is the correct one, we can postulate a Niya-Dardic semantic parallel. It may, however, represent a result of either language contact or homoplasy, because the semantic change ‘worm’ > ‘snake’ 41 is typologically quite frequent (cf., e.g. in New Indo-Aryan: Dogri kŢ৘Ŋ, Kului kŢ‫ڎ‬Ŋ ‘snake’ < OIA kŢࡖa- ‘insect, worm’). The two isoglosses just analyzed show that although the Niya Prakrit does not belong to the Dardic group, its speakers during a certain period of time may have been neighbors of the Dards. This conjecture agrees well with Burrow’s conclusion that the region where the language under study was originally spoken included the Valley of Peshawar, which is located immediately to the south of the Dardic-speaking area.

*** Another important issue arising in connection with the language of the Niya documents is its relation to the modern languages of South Asia. Given that its phonology and morphology do not display any features that cannot be derived from Old Indian, it can hardly be doubted that the Niya Prakrit should be classified together with the Indo-Aryan branch. Its exact position within this branch is, however, far from being clear. Certain historical phonological isoglosses bring it closer to the languages of the North-West, i.e. to Sindhi, Lahnda, Punjabi and West Pahari dialects. Cf., e.g. the development of old consonant clusters with initial nasals: Niya ñj > ગñ (gaગñavara ‘treasurer’ < OIA gañjavara- 42), Sindhi ñj > ñ (piñaro ‘cage; ribs’ < OIA pañjara-, piñjara- ‘cage; skeleton’); Niya nd, ndh > ગn (bhiગnati ‘splits’ < OIA bhindati, baગnanae ‘to bind’ < OIA bandhati ‘binds’), Punjabi, Lahnda, West Pahari nd, ndh > nn, nnh (Punjabi cannan ‘sandalwood’ < OIA candana-, Lahnda, Punjabi, Chameali bannh- ‘to bind’ < OIA bandhati ‘binds’). The data, however, are too scanty to be conclusive. The scarceness of material is also a major obstacle to lexicostatistical analysis. The Swadesh list for Niya contains more than 40 lacunae, which renders any calculations inexpedient, because the resulting tree, in all likelihood, will not always properly reflect the real picture of genetic relations. The most conspicuous peculiarity of this incomplete list is the large proportion of archaisms unknown in later Indo-Aryan. They include such lexical items as utarŊ ‘belly’ (< OIA udara-), mahaગta ‘big’ (< OIA mahant-), krisэ฿aŘa ‘black’ (< OIA kr๗ࡆয়a-), Żune ‘dog’ (< OIA Żvan-/Żun-), asiya ‘mouth’ (< OIA Ŋsya-), paગtha ‘road’ (< OIA panthŊ-), siŘata ‘sand’ (< OIA sikatŊ-), udaŘa ‘water’ (< OIA udaka-), veyam ‘we’ (< OIA vayam), Żpeta, ŻpedaŘa ‘white’ (< OIA Żveta-). All these words were used in "Swadesh meanings" in Old Indic, but none of them is preserved, at least with the original semantics, in New Indo-Aryan languages 43. The only probable classifying lexical isogloss detected in the Swadesh list is Niya rataŘa ‘red’ (cf. Punjabi, Lahnda, Hindko rattŊ, Sindhi rato, Marwari rŊtau, Gujarati rŊtƅ, West Pahari (Kotgarhi) rattĬ ‘red’ < OIA rakta(ka)- ‘colored, dyed’). As should be evident from the examples cited, this isogloss brings the Niya Prakrit closer to the languages spoken in the west and northwest of the Indo-Gangetic Plain as well as in the adjoining Himalayan areas. Thus, both phonological and lexical facts suggest that the region from which the Niya Prakrit was brought to East Turkestan was situated somewhere in the Northwestern part of the Indian subcontinent, in the basin of the Indus River. The phonological and morphological isoglosses analyzed by Burrow, as well as possible loanwords from Dardic, point to areas im41

As noted above, the meaning ‘worm’ is attested in Old Indian. In Sanskrit this word represents an Iranian borrowing (Burrow 1934). 43 The only exception is the word for ‘water’, preserved in Sinhalese (diya < OIA udaka) but completely lost in continental Indo-Aryan. 42

235

Anton I. Kogan

mediately west of the Indus as the most likely original homeland of the Niya speakers. Nevertheless, given the natural limitations of our corpus, this last hypothesis should be considered as the likeliest option among several possible alternatives.

A b b r e v i a t i o n s f o r l a n g u a g e n a me s Av – Avestan;

OIA – Old Indo-Aryan;

PIE – Proto-Indo-European;

PII – Proto-Indo-Iranian

ʇˌ˞ˀ˛ʸ˞˟˛ʸ ʨˊˋ༤˼ˢˁˣ, ɸ. ʃ. 1986. ʓ˧ˁ˅ˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣˁ̀ ˆ˧ˁˢˢˁ˪˘˜ˁ ˅˥˨˪˥˵ˣ˥˘˧ˁˣ˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅. ʜ˥ˣ˥༤˥ˆ˘̀. ʍ˥˨˜˅ˁ: ʎˁ˫˜ˁ. ʇ˥ˆˁˣ, ɯ. ʃ. 2005. ɸˁ˧ˊ˨˜˘ˋ ̀˖˻˜˘. ɴˋˣˋ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜ˁ̀ ˲ˁ˧ˁ˜˪ˋ˧˘˨˪˘˜ˁ. ʍ˥˨˜˅ˁ: ɳ˥˨˪˥˵ˣˁ̀ ༤˘˪ˋ˧ˁ˪˫˧ˁ. ʇ˥ˆˁˣ, ɯ. ʃ. 2008. ʐ ˨˪ˁ˪˫˨ˋ ˘ ˦˧˥˘˨˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘˘ ˖˅˥ˣ˜˥˙ ˦˧˘ˊ˻˲ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥˙ ˨ˋ˧˘˘ ˅ ˧̀ˊˋ ˊˁ˧ˊ˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅. ɳ: ʌ. ʇ˫༤˘˜˥˅, ʍ. ʒ˫˨ˁˣ˥˅ (˧ˋˊ.). Orientalia et Classica. ʕ˧˫ˊ˻ ʃˣ˨˪˘˪˫˪ˁ ˅˥˨˪˥˵ˣ˻˲ ˜˫༤˼˪˫˧ ˘ ˁˣ˪˘˵ˣ˥˨˪˘. ɳ˻˦˫˨˜ XX. Indologica: 197–226. ʍ˥˨˜˅ˁ: ʒɴɴʘ. ʇ˥ˆˁˣ, ɯ. ʃ. 2016. ʑ˧˥˄༤ˋˢ˻ ˨˧ˁ˅ˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥-˘˨˪˥˧˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˘˖˫˵ˋˣ˘̀ ̀˖˻˜ˁ ˜ˁ˸ˢ˘˧˘. ʍ˥˨˜˅ˁ: ʜ˥ˣˊ ˧ˁ˖˅˘˪˘̀ ˱˫ˣˊˁˢˋˣ˪ˁ༤˼ˣ˻˲ ༤˘ˣˆ˅˘˨˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˘˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁˣ˘˙. ʇ˥ˆˁˣ, ɯ. ʃ., ʍ. ɹ. ɳˁ˨˘༤˼ˋ˅. 2013. ʇ ˅˥˦˧˥˨˫ ˥ ˅˥˨˪˥˵ˣ˥ˊˁ˧ˊ˨˜˥˙ ̀˖˻˜˥˅˥˙ ˥˄˹ˣ˥˨˪˘. ɳˋ˨˪ˣ˘˜ ʒɴɴʘ. ʓˋ˧˘̀: ɳ˥˦˧˥˨˻ ̀˖˻˜˥˅˥ˆ˥ ˧˥ˊ˨˪˅ˁ 10: 149–178. References Bailey, H. W. 1948. Irano-Indica. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 12 (2): 319–332. Bailey, H. W. 1979. Dictionary of Khotan Saka. Cambridge – London – New York – Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. Burrow, T. 1934. Iranian words in the Kharo࣒࣢hi documents from Chinese Turkestan. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 7 (3): 509–516. Burrow, T. 1935. Tokharian elements in the Kharo࣒࣢hi documents from Chinese Turkestan. The Journal of Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland 4: 667–675. Burrow, T. 1936. The dialectical position of the Niya Prakrit. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 8 (2/3): 419–435. Burrow, T. 1937. The language of the Kharo࣒࣢hi documents from Chinese Turkestan. London: Cambridge University Press. Burrow, T. 1940. A Translation of the Kharo࣒࣢hi Documents from Chinese Turkestan. London: The Royal Asiatic Society. Edelman, D. I. 1986. Sravnitel’naya grammatika vostochnoiranskikh yazykov. Fonologiya. Moskva: Nauka. Hitch, Douglas A. 1988. Kushan Tarim domination. Central Asiatic Journal, Vol.32, No. 3/4: 170–192. Hock, Hans Henrich, Elena Bashir (eds.). 2016. The languages and linguistics of South Asia: a comprehensive guide. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter GmbH. Konow, S. 1936. Note on the ancient North-Western Prakrit. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 8 (2/3): 603–612. Kogan, A. I. 2005. Dardskie yazyki. Geneticheskaya kharakteristika. Moskva: Vostochnaya literatura. Kogan, A. I. 2008. O statuse i proiskhozhdenii zvonkoy pridykhatel’noy serii v r’ade dardskikh yazykov. In: L. Kulikov, M. Rusanov (eds.). Orientalia et Classica. Papers of the Institute of Oriental and Classical Studies. Issue XX. Indologica. T. Ya. Elizarenkova Memorial Volume. Book 1. 197–226. Moscow: Russian State University for the Humanities. Kogan, A. I. 2016. Problemy sravnitel’no-istoricheskogo izucheniya yazyka kashmiri. Moskva: Fond “Razvitiya fundamental’nykh lingvisicheskikh issledovaniy”. Kogan, A. I., M. E. Vasilyev. 2013. K voprosu o vostochnodardskoy yazykovoy obshchnosti. Journal of Language Relationship 10: 149–178. 236

Once more on the language of the documents from Niya (East Turkestan) and its genetic position

Mayrhofer, M. 1996. Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen. II Band. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Carl Winter. Millward, James A. 2013. The silk road: a very short introduction. Oxford University Press. Morgenstierne, G. 1947. Metathesis of liquids in Dardic. Det Norske Videnskapsakademi i Oslo. Skrifter 2: 145–154. Pokorny, J. 1959. Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Bern–München: Francke Verlag, 1959. Salomon, R. 2006. Recent discoveries of early Buddhist manuscripts and their implications for the history of Buddhist texts and canons. In: P. Olivelle (ed.). Between the Empires, Society in India 300 BCE to 400 CE: 349– 382. New York: Oxford University Press. Stein, A. 1904. Sand-buried ruins of Khotan: personal narrative of a journey of archaeological and geographical exploration in Chinese Turkestan. London: Hurst and Blackett, Ltd. Turner, R. L. 1966. A comparative dictionary of the Indo-Aryan languages. London: Oxford University Press.

ɭ. ɾ. ʂ˙ʼʸ˗. ɹ˹ˋ ˧ˁ˖ ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˋ ˊ˥˜˫ˢˋˣ˪˥˅ ˘˖ ʎ˘̀ (ɳ˥˨˪˥˵ˣ˻˙ ʕ˫˧˜ˋ˨˪ˁˣ) ˘ ˋˆ˥ ˆˋˣˋ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˢ ˦˥༤˥ːˋˣ˘˘ ʫ˖˻˜ ˊ˥˜˫ˢˋˣ˪˥˅, ˥˄ˣˁ˧˫ːˋˣˣ˻˲ ˣˁ ˿ˆ˥-˅˥˨˪˥˜ˋ ˣ˻ˣˋ˸ˣˋˆ˥ ʓ˘ˣ˼˴˖̀ˣ-ʘ˙ˆ˫˧˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˁ˅˪˥ˣ˥ˢˣ˥ˆ˥ ˧ˁ˙˥ˣˁ ʇ˘˪ˁ̀, ˆ༤ˁ˅ˣ˻ˢ ˥˄˧ˁ˖˥ˢ, ˅ ˥ˁ˖˘˨ˋ ʎ˘̀, ˥˄˻˵ˣ˥ ˧ˁ˨˨ˢˁ˪˧˘˅ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˜ˁ˜ ˨˧ˋˊˣˋ˘ˣˊ˘˙˨˜˘˙. ɳ ˪˥ ːˋ ˅˧ˋˢ̀ ˧̀ˊ ˘˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁ˪ˋ༤ˋ˙ ˨˵˘˪ˁˋ˪ ˋˆ˥ ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˻ˢ ˦˧ˋˊ˜˥ˢ ˣˋ˜˥˪˥˧˻˲ ˊˁ˧ˊ˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅. ɳ ˣˁ˨˪˥̀˹ˋ˙ ˨˪ˁ˪˼ˋ ˊˋ༤ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˦˥˦˻˪˜ˁ ˧ˁ˖˧ˋ˸˘˪˼ ˽˪˥ ˦˧˥˪˘˅˥˧ˋ˵˘ˋ ˘ ˫˨˪ˁˣ˥˅˘˪˼ ˪˥˵ˣ˥ˋ ˦˥༤˥ːˋˣ˘ˋ ˦˧ˁ˜˧˘˪ˁ ˘˖ ʎ˘̀ ˅ˣ˫˪˧˘ ˘ˣˊ˥˘˧ˁˣ˨˜˥˙ ̀˖˻˜˥˅˥˙ ˥˄˹ˣ˥˨˪˘. ɯ˅˪˥˧ ˦˧˘˲˥ˊ˘˪ ˜ ˅˻˅˥ˊ˫, ˵˪˥ ˊˁˣˣ˻˙ ̀˖˻˜ ˣ˘˜˥˘ˢ ˥˄˧ˁ˖˥ˢ ˣˋ ˢ˥ːˋ˪ ˄˻˪˼ ˥˪ˣˋ˨ˋˣ ˜ ˊˁ˧ˊ˨˜˥˙ ˆ˧˫˦˦ˋ, ˲˥˪̀ ˅ ˦˧˥˸༤˥ˢ ˋˆ˥ ˣ˥˨˘˪ˋ༤˘ ˢ˥ˆ༤˘ ̀˅༤̀˪˼˨̀ ˨˥˨ˋˊ̀ˢ˘ ˊˁ˧ˊ˥˅. ʂ˕˳˩ˀʻ˯ˀ ˜˕˙ʻʸ: ˘ˣˊ˥ˁ˧˘˙˨˜˘ˋ ̀˖˻˜˘, ˊˁ˧ˊ˨˜˘ˋ ̀˖˻˜˘, ˜༤ˁ˨˨˘˱˘˜ˁ˴˘̀ ̀˖˻˜˥˅, ˘˨˪˥˧˘˵ˋ˨˜ˁ̀ ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˜ˁ, ˨ˋ˅ˋ˧˥-˖ˁ˦ˁˊˣ˻˙ ˦˧ˁ˜˧˘˪, ˦˧ˁ˜˧˘˪ ˘˖ ʎ˘̀, ɳ˥˨˪˥˵ˣ˻˙ ʕ˫˧˜ˋ˨˪ˁˣ, ˆ˥˨˫ˊˁ˧˨˪˅˥ ʇ˧˥˧ˁ˙ˣˁ.

237

Maksim Kudrinski Oriental Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences; [email protected]

Heterograms in Hittite, Palaic, and Luwian context The cuneiform, as the primary means of written communication in the kingdom of Hattusa, was used to record texts in Hittite and other languages functioning within its borders. The peculiarity of the Anatolian cuneiform was the written use of the Sumerian and Akkadian lexemes alongside phonetic spellings. Such written units usually, but not always, corresponded to the specific lexemes of the matrix language of the text, and we will refer to them as heterograms. This paper presents a comparison of cuneiform texts in Hittite, Palaic, and Luwian with the focus on the frequency and function of heterograms. Keywords: cuneiform writing, Hittite language, Luwian language, Palaic language, heterograms

1. Sociolinguistic setting The cuneiform first made its way into Anatolia early in the second millenium BC along with textiles, tin, and other exportable goods brought to the peninsula by the Assyrians who expanded there a large network of merchant colonies. In order to keep track of their trading operations and maintain contact with the homeland, Assyrian merchants could not dispense with using writing (Bryce 2005: 21). Archeological excavations performed at the sites of the ancient trade activity unveiled a substantial number of clay tablets inscribed with Old Assyrian cuneiform, which have preserved for us the oldest examples of Anatolian personal names and toponyms. Surprisingly enough, Anatolians themselves were reluctant to borrow and use for their own purposes the writing system to which they were exposed on the regular basis; this is why the start of literacy among the indigenous population dates back no earlier than to the reign of the Hittite king Hattusili I or some time shortly before it (Weeden 2011: 382). The Hittites adopted the Mesopotamian cuneiform script in its Old Babylonian form and, as is agreed among most of the scholars nowadays, at first only used it for writing Akkadian, the language of scribal culture and international communication. The earliest attempts of transmitting the Hittite language in writing, as is believed by some, could have been made even centuries later (van den Hout 2009: 95, but see also Archi 2010). Writing in Hittite did not cease until the collapse of the kingdom of Hattusa and the abandonment of its capital (modern Bogazköy), where the bulk of the Hittite corpus comprising thousands of cuneiform documents had been kept. Despite its prestigious status of the main chancellery language in the kingdom of Hattusa, Hittite was by no means the only language spoken within its borders. The territory of the Hittite heartland including Hattusa was previously occupied by the speakers of Hattic, a language isolate that remained in limited use as ritual language after most of the Hattic population was assimilated by the Indo-Europeans. Although there is evidence that small Hatticspeaking groups still existed even in the New-Hittite period, these were Indo-European languages pertaining to the Anatolian group that shaped the linguistic landscape of Late Bronze Age Anatolia; apart from best attested Hittite this group also included Palaic and Luwian. The former is currently believed to have been spoken in the north of Anatolia on the territory of the region of Pala mentioned in the Hittite laws. The significance of Pala as well as that of its language was evidently in decline throughout the course of the second millenium. It is assumed that the primary use of Palaic in Hattusa pertained to spiritual practices since all atJournal of Language Relationship • ɳ˥˦˧˥˨˻ ̀˖˻˜˥˅˥ˆ˥ ˧˥ˊ˨˪˅ˁ • 15/4 (2017) • Pp. 238–249 • © The authors, 2017

Heterograms in Hittite, Palaic, and Luwian context

tested text fragments in that language are found in Hittite ritual descriptions. The question whether Palaic remained a living language during the last centuries of Hittite kingdom is still open for discussion (Kassian, Shatskov 2013: 98). Palaic was written in the same form of cuneiform script as Hittite. Luwian, on the contrary, being spoken in the center and south of the peninsula at the dawn of Hittite kingdom was expanding its territory into the regions of Kizzuwatna (southwestern Anatolia) and north-western Syria. The growth of Luwian-speaking population in Hattusa during the second half of the second millennium BC led to the state of Hittite-Luwian bilingualism in the capital and, subsequently, to the predominance of Luwian in everyday communication while Hittite maintained its positions in bureaucratic milieu (Yakubovich 2013: 107). Luwian fragments mostly consisting of transcriptions of magic incantations are found in cuneiform transmission in Hattusa archives and they are much more numerous than Palaic fragments. During the last centuries of the Hattusa kingdom Luwian texts was also recorded in the indigenous Anatolian hieroglyphic script. The preserved Luwian hieroglyphic texts of this period consist of monumental inscriptions honoring the Hattusa rulers and their achievements. This paper is primarily devoted to the studying the adaptation of the Mesopotamian cuneiform script for writing in Hittite, Palaic, and Luwian, with the focus on the frequency and function of heterograms. After introducing the notion of heterogram (Section 2) I turn to their use in Hittite, Palaic, and Luwian texts (Section 3, 4, and 5 respectively). The discussion of the generalizations that follow from the preceding survey is provided in Section 6.

2. Notion of Heterogram The history of Mesopotamian cuneiform presents in itself an interesting case of interrelation between the spoken and written forms of language. The cuneiform script was most likely invented for writing Sumerian, the dominant cultural language of the southern part of Mesopotamia in the second part of the third millennium BC. In the course of subsequent several centuries, the script was slowly developing into a complex system involving the use of logograms (literally, ‘word-signs’) and phonetic graphemes, each standing for a certain syllable. The use of logograms in the Sumerian writing was twofold: on the one hand, they could be deployed as signs for lexemes of the spoken language, on the other hand, they could function as determinatives pointing to the semantic category of a lexeme they accompanied in the text. The pictographic character of cuneiform signs gradually wore off and their shapes became more abstract (Gelb 1963: 69). In the middle of the second millennium BC the cuneiform script was adapted for writing the Akkadian language, which gradually took over the status of lingua franca in the region from Sumerian. The speakers of Akkadian borrowed the bulk of Sumerian logograms along with the phonetic syllabary and employed them for writing corresponding Akkadian lexemes. There is limited evidence for the occasional pronunciation of logograms in Akkadian context with their Sumerian values (Weeden 2011: 5-7). This suggests that the script and the language for which it had originally been designed could not always be differentiated in the minds of the literate people at the time. Some logograms were borrowed into the Akkadian writing with their Sumerian phonetic complements. In addition, certain grammatical morphemes of Sumerian, e.g., the plural markers HI.A and MEŠ, could attach to logograms and stand for Akkadian functional categories. As a result, Akkadian texts abounded in Sumerian word-forms, which were frequently ex239

Maksim Kudrinski

tended by syllabically written Akkadian complements. Formally, it would not be completely correct to proceed with referring to Sumerian word-signs in the Akkadian context as logograms. Instead of postulating a simple bipartite relation between signifiant and signifié for word-signs and the corresponding Akkadian lexemes, as would be appropriate for the use of logograms in Sumerian texts, it this case one should also not forget the role of the Sumerian language as the probable mediator. Following the terminology of Igor Diakonoff (see e.g. Diakonoff 1967: 69), I will refer to cases such as Sumerian logograms in Akkadian context as heterograms. A heterogram can be defined “as a sign or combination of signs that reproduce in writing a segment of A as a part of a text composed in B where A and B are two distinct languages and one can reasonably assume that the segment in question did not exist in the spoken language B” (Kudrinski, Yakubovich 2016: 55). As a result of adapting the Akkadian cuneiform for writing Hittite, yet another system came into being, which made use not only of syllabograms and Sumerograms but also of Akkadian word-forms written syllabically, that is to say Akkadograms. For example, the Hittite noun išhaš ‘master’ could be written either syllabically or using the Sumerogram EN (Sum. ‘master’) or using the Akkadogram BELU (Akk. ‘master’). The Sumerograms are traditionally rendered with capitals in the Roman transliteration of Hittite texts, while Akkadograms are indicated with italic capitals. One also encounters mixed writings such as BELUHI.A-uš ‘master.PL-ACC.PL’, which is the Akkadographic rendering of the stem with Sumerographic plural marker and Hittite inflectional ending. Similarly to the case of Sumerograms employed in Akkadian writing, there is evidence pointing to the occasional pronunciation of Sumerian and Akkadian elements in Hittite writing in their source languages. As a result, the use of the Mesopotamian cuneiform deployed by the Hattusa scribes for writing Hittite presents even a more complicated picture from the semiotic viewpoint than the Akkadian cuneiform. Alongside Akkadian nouns and verbs, Akkadian prepositions also made their way into Hittite writing and were employed to mark the syntactic role of heterographically written nouns. Thus, the preposition ŠA signifies that the following heterographic noun is a genitive modifier or a free-standing genitive, ANA stands before a dative or allative argument, etc. Determinatives kept being employed in Hittite texts in order to indicate the semantic class of the adjacent nouns they. Thus, the determinative D (DINGIR) accompanied deity names, e.g., DIŠTAR ‘(goddess) Ištar’, while URU stood before city names as in URUHATTI ‘Hattusa’. Mark Weeden in his influential study of heterograms in Hittite texts came to the conclusion that the Akkadian language played a crucial role in Hittite scribal culture. According to Weeden, in the situation of dictating or writing a cuneiform text in Hittite, Hattusa scribes used a special form of professional jargon heavily impacted by Akkadian. Sumerian, on the other hand, was not as important as Akkadian and Sumerograms were either used as logograms to write Hittite lexemes or read in Akkadian (Weeden 2011: 359). Furthermore, Weeden argued that the Hattusa scribes were conscious of the fact that the primary function of their script had been writing in Akkadian and it influenced the way the Hittite texts were written (Weeden 2011: 382). It is interesting that cuneiform text fragments from Hattusa in Palaic and Luwian also contain some, albeit few, heterographic writings. Unlike Hittite texts, cuneiform renderings of Palaic and Luwian were not shaped by strict orthographic conventions and, therefore, the use of heterographic writings in Palaic and Luwian context depended more on the decision of a particular scribe. Its comparison with the situation in Hittite could yield insights on the role that the heterograms played in Hittite scribal culture and their specific functions. Ultimately, this can shed light on the differences in how Hittite, Palaic, and Luwian were presented in writing. 240

Heterograms in Hittite, Palaic, and Luwian context

3. Heterograms in Hittite context The heterograms in Hittite texts were traditionally thought to have been always pronounced in Hittite. Thus, for example, in the earliest account on the script and grammar of the freshly deciphered Hittite language, Hrozný (1917: vi) claimed that both Sumerograms and Akkadograms were normally read by the Hittites in their own tongue. Although later Friedrich (1940: 2) in his influential Hethitisches Elementarbuch did not exclude the possibility that Akadograms could be pronounced in Akkadian, the idea that the heterograms mainly served as labels for Hittite lexemes dominated the field for a long time. The scholars drew upon the fact that many of them carried Hittite phonetic complements, which clearly pointed out to the underlying Hittite forms. Nevertheless, certain inconsistencies in the phonetic complementation of Sumerian and Akkadian forms made their way to Hittitological literature (see, e.g., Hoffner and Melchert 2008: 22). Thus, the complemented heterographic writing A-BU=YA-an-na-aš-za in the example below is presumed to correspond to the Hittite form attaš=miš=naš=za (or simply attaš=naš=za if one presumes the Hittite enclitic possessives to be extinct by the New Hittite period) while the phonetic complements indicate otherwise: (1) A-BU=YA-a=n-na-aš=za

Mur-ši-li-iš

4 DUMU.HI.A

m

father=POSS.1SG=1PL.ACC=PTCL Mursili.NOM.SG 4 child.PL

Hal-pa-šu-lu-pí-in

m

NIR.GÁL-in

m

Ha-at-tu-ši-li-in

m

Halpasulupi.ACC.SG Muwatalli.ACC.SG Hattusili.ACC.SG f

DINGIR.MEŠ-IR-in=na DUMU[(.SAL-an)] ha-aš-ta

Massanauzzi.ACC.SG=&

daughter.ACC.SG

generate.PST.3SG

‘My father Mursili raised us, 4 children: Halpasilipi, Muwatalli, Hattusili, and Massanauzzi the daughter.’ (KUB 1.1 obv. i 9-11, see Otten 1981: 4) The complementation -an-na-aš-za on the Akkadographic form suggests that the scribe dictated it in Akkadian, not in Hittite. In a similar fashion, the phonetic complements on BE-LU-uš-ša-an in (2) preclude the pronunciation of this string as Hitt. išhaš=šan and suggests that the Akkadogram was pronounced in Akkadian. (2) BE-LU-u=š-ša-an BE-LÍ=YA

am-me-el A-NA É=YA

lord=PTCL

lord=POSS.1SG 1SG.GEN ALL

IGI.HI.A-wa

har-ak

house=POSS.1SG

eye.NOM.-ACC.PL hold.IMP.2SG

‘O lord, my lord, keep your eyes on my house.’ (HKM 52 25-26, see Hoffner 2009: 195) Occasional erroneous writings indicate that the Hattusa scribes could sometimes use the Sumerian readings of Sumerograms in dictation; such are, e.g., the forms BA.UŠ instead of BA.ÚŠ ‘he died’ or GIŠGÚ.ZA instead of GIŠGU.ZA ‘chair’. Weeden (2011) showed that the evidence for the ambiguous nature of Sumerograms and Akkadograms in Hittite texts was not limited to the examples of inconsistent phonetic complementation or scribal errors. In addition, the influence of Akkadian on the use of heterograms was apparent in those cases where the Akkadographically written verbs in Hittite context featured Akkadian argument structure or semantics nuances that make them distinct from the corresponding Hittite verbs (see Weeden 2011: 356). The Hittite language, in turn, also influenced the Akkadian writing, which could lead, among other things, to the inconsistent use of feminine gender (Hittite lacked the opposition of masculine and feminine genders featuring only common/neuter gender distinction) or to the occasional Hittite word order in heterographic phrases. 241

Maksim Kudrinski

The Sumerian and Akkadian languages mostly featured right-branching syntactic constructions, where the dependents (e.g., attributive adjectives or possessor nouns within a noun phrase) normally followed their heads. Thus, in the example below, the nominal modifier KUR URUHA-AT-TI ‘of the land of Hattusa’ is placed after its head noun LUGAL ‘king’: (4) LUGAL KUR king

land

HA-AT-TI

URU

Hattusa

‘The king of the land of Hattusa.’ Hittite, on the other hand, features, as a rule, the inverse left-branching word order. Thus, in (4) the modifiers kŊš and tantukešnaš precede its head noun DUMU-aš. (3) ka-a-aš

ta-an-tu-ke-eš-na-aš DUMU-aš

DEM.NOM.SG.C mortality.GEN.SG

child.NOM.SG

‘This mortal (lit. ‘this child of mortality’).’ (KUB 7.5 obv. i 8, see Hoffner 1987: 272) It was traditionally assumed that all the deviations from the Hittite left-branching pattern in heterographic writings should be regarded as reflecting the result of graphic inversions aimed at replicating the word order of Sumerian and Akkadian documents (see Hoffner and Melchert 2008: 273). Nevertheless, one can show that at least in some cases the word order in heterographic phrases reflected the word order in underlying spoken utterances. Hittite syntax featured a number of elements that always take the same syntactic position. Such are, e.g., sentential clitics, which always follow the first word-form in a clause, as in (5). The clitics in question are the quotative particle =war, unaccented pronominal forms =aš and =mu, and the locative particle =kan, which all follow the connective =nu functioning as the first element of the clause and support for the clitic chain. (5) nu=wa-r=a-aš=mu=kán

BA.ÚŠ

PTCL=QUOT=3SG.NOM=1SG.DAT=PTCL die.PST.3SG

‘And he (my husband) died on me.’ (KBo 5.6 rev. iv 5, see Güterbock 1956: 96) Some non-sentential clitics also adhere to certain syntactic positions. For example, as the intraclausal connective enclitic particle =(y)a (assimilating to the preceding consonant and doubling it) normally occupies the position after the first element in the coordinated syntactic constituent. Thus, in the following example =(y)a > =la is placed after the dependent genitive noun within a noun phrase: (6) nam-ma=za zi-ik

Tar-ga-aš-ša-na-al-li-iš tu-el

m

then=PTCL

2SG.NOM Targassanali.NOM.SG

tu-el=la

LÚ

ZI-[an

t]u-el

É=KA

2SG.GEN soul-ACC.SG 2SG.GEN house=POSS.2SG

AMA.A.AT=kán ma-ah-ha-an uš-ke-ši

2SG.GEN=& housemate=PTCL

when

regard.PRS.2SG

‘You, Targassanali, when you have regard for yourself, your house and your loved one(s)…’ (KBo 5.4 obv. 24-25) If the hypothesis that the underlying word order in heterographic writings does not differ from the typical Hittite word order, then the clitic placement in combinations with heterograms should not differ from the ordinary patterns of clitic placement. Nevertheless, in some cases the combinations of sentential and non-sentential clitics and heterographic writings trigger the unusual positions of clitics. Thus, sentential clitics can be hosted by the clause-initial head noun of a complex noun phrase: 242

Heterograms in Hittite, Palaic, and Luwian context

(7) ANŠE.KUR.RA=wa ŠA horse=QUOT

UŠ.BAR tu-u-ri-an h[ar-ta?]

LÚ

GEN weaver

harness.PRF.3SG

‘He had harnessed the horse of the weaver.’ (KUB 28.88 (=Bo 778) + Bo 6910 rev. 17, Werner 1967: 70) In the example above, the noun phrase ANŠE.KUR.RA ŠA LÚUŠ.BAR occupies the first position within a clause. If the underlying word order in this noun phrase followed the Hittite left-branching pattern, i.e., with the dependent element preceding its head, then the sentential clitics would have attached to the noun modifier, which would have been the first wordform in a clause, rather than to the head noun, which should have taken the position after its dependent. The position of the quotative clitic =wa shows that the head noun is indeed the first wordform within a clause: this leads one to conclude that the underlying word order in this case follows the Sumerian/Akkadian syntactic pattern rather than the Hittite one. Similar examples are found with non-sentential clitics. Thus, in the example below the particle =(y)a attaches to the head noun within the noun phrase, which means that this head noun should be the first element within the noun phrase and that its dependent noun follows the head: (8) ma-a-an=za A.ŠÀ.HI.A-n=a if=PTCL

k[(a-ru-ú-i-li-in)] šar-ra-an-zi

field.PL-ACC.SG=& old.ACC.SG

divide.PRS.3PL

‘And if they divide old land…’ (KBo 6.2 rev. iii 10-11 + dupl. KBo 6.3 rev. iii 12-13, see Hoffner 1997: 64) Such placement of =(y)a points to the underlying Sumerian/Akkadian word order and speaks against the hypothesis that right-branching syntax in writing in this case can be explained as the result of a graphic inversion. These facts lead one to conclude that the jargon of Hattusa scribes was heavily influenced by the Sumerian or Akkadian syntax. Neither should one exclude the possibility of occasional code-switching (see Kudrinski 2016 for other examples and detailed analysis). Normally it is assumed that the main function of heterograms in Hittite context was abbreviation. At least in the case of the Sumerograms it is true that most of them would take less space on a tablet than the corresponding Hittite lexemes (see Marquardt 2011: 116-117). It is not, however, clear if the same also applies to the Akkadograms, most of them, just as the Hittite forms, were written with multiple syllabograms. On the other hand, one can show that in some cases the heterograms did not merely represent the corresponding Hittite forms but were employed to convey some additional layer meaning, which otherwise would have been left unmarked in written transmission, or for the purpose of morphological disambiguation. Thus, the Akkadographic prepositions, which were normally used to mark the syntactic function of heterograms, could occasionally be employed to disambiguate the homonymic forms of Hittite inflected nouns. Thus, in the example below, the Akkadographic preposition ANA indicates that the Hittite noun halpƉti of unknown meaning is employed as the indirect object rather than subject (the nominative and dative form of this noun are homophonous). (9) A-NA [hal-]pu-u-ti ma-a-an(-)ha-an-d[a] ma-a-al-di DAT

?.DAT.SG

as

chant.PRS.3SG

‘As he chants before(?) halputi…’ (KBo 25.112 obv. ii 14’-15’, Neu 1980: 191) In the next example, the Akkadogram ANA helps to determine the case and number of the syllabographically written Hittite noun LÚ.MEŠašušŊlaš. The Hittite case ending -aš could denote 243

Maksim Kudrinski

nominativeɏ/ɏgenitive singular and every oblique case in plural. The Akkadogram ANA makes it possible for a reader to parse the word-form in the example above quickly and unequivocally. (10) ANA DAT

a-šu-ša-a-la-aš

LÚ.MEŠ

cult functionary.DAT.PL

‘For the ašušala-functionaries…’ (KBo 17.36 rev. iii 4’, see Neu 1980: 123) In a similar way, heterographic plural markers could sometimes be employed to disambiguate the syllabically written Hittite wordforms for number. One frequently encounters such writings with Hittite neuter nouns exhibiting homonymy in singular and plural nominative forms, e.g. waštulHI.A ‘sins’. In certain cases, the heterograms were employed for the disambiguation of semantic rather than morphological oppositions. Thus, the writing Éarzana- ‘inn, brothel’ in some cases apparently corresponded in speech to the free-standing genitive noun phrase arzanaš, which was derived via head noun ellipsis from the noun phrase arzanaš pŖr ‘inn, brothel’, lit. ‘house of porridge’ (Yakubovich 2006: 44-45). It means that in the writing Éarzana- the Sumerogram É ‘house’ was employed to specify the meaning of the noun arzana-, which otherwise would simply mean ‘porridge’. Unlike other determinatives, which normally classify the lexemes according to their meanings but do not resolve any ambiguity, the Sumerogram É in this case disambiguates the homophones and thus enhances the transparency of written communication.

4. Heterograms in Palaic context Heterograms are only used in a small number of Palaic text fragments. There were no orthographic conventions regulating the written transmission of Palaic, and therefore the use of heterograms in Palaic context essentially depended on the will of a particular scribe. The restricted inventory of heterograms used for writing Palaic clearly distinguishes the text fragments in that language from the cuneiform documents in Hittite. Both the number of different heterograms standing for spoken Palaic wordforms and that of different determinatives are reduced; only the determinatives LÚ, MUNUS, URU, and DINGIR are found. This fact should be of no surprise since the Hattusa scribes likely possessed very limited competence in Palaic, which would not allow them to understand the semantics of most lexemes that they encountered in the dictated Palaic texts. Furthermore, it is indicative that all the occurrences of determinatives are attested with either proper nouns (e.g. URULi-ih-zi-i-na, KBo 32.18 obv. i 14’) or lexemes that have direct correspondences in Hittite, which are written with the same determinatives (e.g. LÚmayanza ‘senior’, KBo 32.18 rev. iv 10’ or MUNUStawananna ‘(royal title)’, KBo 19.152 obv. i 17’ among other occurrences). Both Palaic and Luwian cuneiform texts lack verbs in heterographic transmission. In a stark contrast with Hittite texts, the Palaic lexemes are never recorded Akkadographically. The number of Sumerograms standing for Palaic forms is also small. Let us take a quick look at each of them. The Sumerogram A.A could be employed in Hittite context for writing the noun muwa‘power’, as well as in rebus writings of proper names with the same phonetic value, e.g. mMIZRA-A.A for Mizramuwa (KBo 4.12 obv. 6). In KUB 35.165, the only Palaic fragment where we encounter A.A, it also has the phonetic value [muwa], being employed in the form A.A-ntan standing for muwantan ‘powerful (acc.)’. It is, therefore possible to conclude that direct phonetic correspondence between the Hittite and Palaic morphemes provided motivation 244

Heterograms in Hittite, Palaic, and Luwian context

for the heterographic writing in this case. The scribe could have employed the Sumerogram simply for its phonetic value; it is important that such use of heterograms did not require much knowledge of Palaic. The use of the Sumerogram ÍD ‘river’ in Palaic context could also be due to an etymological match between Palaic and Hittite. In Hittite texts, ÍD was also in use with the meaning ‘river’, while the simplest Hittite word for ‘river’ was hapa-. There are, however, additional Sumerographic writings such as ÍD-ni (KUB 17.8 iv 23) and ÍD-anna (KUB 53.14 iii 14), where the phonetic complements are rather pointing to something like hapana-. There also exist complete phonetic spellings of the latter lexeme, namely hŊppana KUB 58.50 iii 2, and hapana Bo 6980 7 (Kloekhorst 2008: 295). This is reasonably close to the Palaic word hŊpna- ‘river’ (ÍD-an-aš KBo 19.153 rev.? iii 18’, ÍD-aš KBo 19.154 10’). Again, the use of the heterogram is mediated by the formal similarity between the Hittite and Palaic lexemes. The use of the Sumerogram GÍR for Palaic hašŢra- ‘dagger’ is more difficult to account for, since there is no known Hittite phonetic reading for this lexeme. Nothing precludes us, however, from advancing a hypothesis that, as in the other two cases, the Luwian and Hittite lexemes for ‘dagger’ were similar. In all the attested instances, the Sumerograms employed in Palaic context are supplied with Palaic phonetic complements. In the absence of Akkadian prepositions, which served as grammatical markers attached to heterographic forms in Hittite texts, scribes had no other option than to explicitly mark the endings of Sumerograms. The Palaic fragment in KBo 19.152 obv. i is duplicated by KBo 19.153 rev.? iii. The former tablet is a Middle Hittite composition while the latter one dates back to the New Hittite period and constitures the text where the most of the heterograms attested in Palaic context are found. This leads one to the conclusion that the use of heterograms in the New Hittite tablet likely reflects the intention of its scribe to spare time while copying the older manuscript. It is also possible that the scribes who wrote down Palaic did not consciously decide to use heterograms but employed them automatically when copying phonetic combinations for which were accustomed to use Sumerograms in Hittite context. A doubtless example of using a heterogram for abbreviation is Palaic KI.MIN ‘ditto’ (see, e.g., KUB 35.165 rev. 11’- 13’). This Sumerogram is functionally identical to the repetition symbols in modern stenographic records.

5. Heterograms in Luwian context Heterograms in Luwian context are much more frequent than in Palaic; most of the longer cuneiform Luwian passages contain at least some heterogams. The inventory of heterograms employed for writing Luwian is also considerably larger, for both determinatives and logograms, and comprises more than a hundred different items. The use of determinatives in cuneiform Luwian appears to be no less frequent than in Hittite written records; this is undoubtedly due to the fact that the Hattusa scribes must have had high proficiency in Luwian, some of them even being native speakers of this language, which enabled them to categorize Luwian lexemes according to their semantic values. Given the increased frequency of heterographic writings in cuneiform Luwian fragments compared to that in Palaic written records, it appears to be even more significant that the freestanding Akkadograms are fairly rare. Occurrences of Akkadian elements in Luwian context are mostly restricted to mixed writings (DINGIR-LIM-aš KUB 35.54 obv. ii, UD-MI.HI.A-ti KUB 35.45 obv. ii 9). Akkadian prepositions are never used except for the context below: 245

Maksim Kudrinski

(11) a=ta

a-[ap-p]a DINGIR.MEŠ-an-za ŠA

PTCL=3SG.NOM.N back

god.PL-DAT.PL

EN SÍSKUR pár-ra-an ni-[iš] lord ritual

before

GEN

a-ú-i-ti

PROHIB come.PRS.3SG

‘Let it not come again before the gods of the ritual patron’ (KUB 35.54 obv. ii 39’-41’, Starke 1985: 67) In this case the Akkadographic preposition ŠA was used in order to point to the syntactic relation within the noun phrase DINGIR.MEŠ-anza ŠA EN SÍSKUR ‘gods of the ritual patron’. This noun phrase is quite frequent in Luwian fragments, but the possessive relation between the head and dependent is otherwise marked with Luwian phonetic complements or using the Akkadian possessive constructions with the head noun in the status constructus form (see, e.g., KUB 35.54 obv. ii 13). The exceptional writing with the preposition ŠA in KUB 35.54 can be due to the end of the line after DINGIR.MEŠ-anza, which prompted the scribe to underscore the unity of the noun phrase. As a consequence of the nearly absent Akkadographic prepositions, most of the Sumerograms employed as logograms in Luwian context bear Luwian phonetic complements, which explicate the endings of the underlying Luwian forms and, thus, to their grammatical properties. Nevertheless, in some cases the phonetic complements could be dropped. This could happen, for example, when a heterogram was written next to a noun modifier endowed with a Luwian phonetic complement: (12) a=wa=ti

zi-in-za

ÍD.TUR.MEŠ=KU-NU a-ah-ha t[i-…]

PTCL=QUOT=3SG.DAT.RFL DEM.ACC.PL.C river.little.PL=POSS.2PL

away

‘And away from these little rivers…’ (KUB 35.89 17’, Starke 1985: 228) (13) a=ku-wa

a-pí-in-za

NAGAR ú-w[a-ta-an-du]

LÚ.MEŠ

PTCL=QUOT DEM.ACC.PL.C carpenter.PL

bring.IMP.3PL

‘And let them bring those carpenters…’ (KBo 29.25 rev. iii? 12’, Starke 1985: 226) Occasional refraining from double case marking within noun phrases was probably a conscientious strategy aimed at writing Luwian in an efficient way and saving time and space on a tablet. One can find similar examples in Old Hittite ritual texts, where phonetic complements could sometimes be omitted on the second coordinated noun within a sequence. These examples above date back to the Old Hittite period when the orthographic conventions for writing Hittite were only developing. It may be not accidental that a similar technique was used for writing Luwian, the language that had no orthographic norm in cuneiform transmission. (14)

D

UTU-i

D

IŠKUR=ya me-e-mi-iš-ki

Sun-god-DAT.SG Storm-god=& speak.IMP.2SG

‘Speak to Sun-god and Storm-god…’ (KBo 17.3 rev. iii 5, Neu 1980: 15) (15) ta

LUGAL-i

MUNUS.LUGAL=ya ta-ru-e-ni

PTCL king-DAT.SG queen=&

tell.PRS.1PL

‘And we tell the king and the queen…’ (KBo 34.121 5’, Neu 1980: 10) Phonetic complements on heterograms could also be omitted if the respective wordform was a part of a right-branching possessive construction. The use of such constructions in Luwian text fragments was limited to few combinations (EN SÍSKUR ‘ritual patron’, LUGAL KUR URUHATTI ‘king of Hattusa’, DU AN ‘Storm-god of heaven’). 246

Heterograms in Hittite, Palaic, and Luwian context

Occasionally heterographic writings could be used to disambiguate the semantics of the underlying Luwian lexemes. Thus, e.g., the possessive adjective lƉlahi(ya)- ‘of mountaindwellers’ in most cases is written with the determinative LÚ ‘man’. In one context, however, this adjective is accompanied by the determinative DINGIR ‘deity’. The determinative here plays a crucial role in conveying the meaning of utterances disambiguating the reference of possessive adjectives. This is similar to the way heterograms could sometimes be employed for semantic disambiguation in Hittite texts (see Section 3). (16)

D

Lu-u-la-hi-in-za-aš=tar hu-u-up-pa-ra-za ku-in-zi

of.Lulahi.ACC.PL=PTCL

belt.ACC.PL

hi-iš-hi-ya-an-ti

REL.NOM.PL bind.PRS.3PL

‘Those who tie the belts of Lulahi(-gods)…’ (KUB 9.31 obv. ii 24, see Starke 1985: 53) Another instance of semantic disambiguation in Luwian fragments concerns the use of Sumerian plural markers with heterographically written possessive adjectives. In some case forms of Luwian possessive adjectives, the number of possessor could not be expressed phonetically, in which case the Sumerian plural markers could be deployed for grammatical disambiguation (see, e.g. KUB 35.48 obv. ii 15 SISKUR.HI.A-ši-in EN-an ‘patron of the rituals’). In other cases, the disambiguation may be lexical (see, e.g. KUB 35.88 rev. iii 15 IGI.HI.A-za GIG-z[(a)] ‘eye disease’). In the last case, the Sumerian plural marker serves to stress the lexical meaning of the noun ‘eye(s)’, since IGI could also denote certain other lexemes in the Anatolian cuneiform, e.g., the Hittite adverb menahhanda ‘opposite’ (written IGI-anda). When IGI conveyed the meaning ‘eye’, however, it was always written with HI.A in Hittite and Luwian texts. As in Palaic, the Sumerogram KI.MIN ‘ditto’ is also found in Luwian passages, which indicates that abbreviation was an important function of heterographic writings in Luwian context.

6. Discussion Palaic and Luwian cuneiform text fragments feature major differences in the use of heterograms in comparison to Hittite texts. Thus, Sumerograms are employed less frequently in Luwian and even more rarely in Palaic contexts, while Akkadograms are rare in Luwian and completely absent in Palaic. The restricted use of heterograms in Luwian and Palaic texts could be due to the genre peculiarities of the respective fragments. These are mostly the transcriptions of magical incantations or ritual invocations, which remained untranslated in Hittite texts, because it was crucial for these utterances to preserve their original spoken form in order to exhibit power. The excessive use of heterograms was likely to introduce ambiguity and obscure the original form of the text, which was unacceptable when it concerned magic and ritual practices. It is the (near-)absence of Akkadograms in non-Hittite cuneiform texts that appears to provide us with the most indicative insight on the differences between heterograms of Sumerian and Akkadian origin. Sumerograms must have been perceived by the Hattusa scribes as belonging to the core inventory of the Mesopotamian cuneiform script and, unlike Akkadograms, being neutral with respect to the language of writing. As argued by Mark Weeden, the Hattusa scribes did not exhibit such proficiency in Sumerian as they did in Akkadian. Therefore, their overall awareness of the connection between Sumerian and Sumerograms must have been significantly lower in Hattusa than the awareness of the connection between Akkadian and Akkadograms, most of which were likely pronounced in Akkadian in the scribal jargon. Hittite was virtually never written without the use of Akkadograms, because the Hittite writing was the direct descendant of Akkadian scribal culture and developed as a result of the 247

Maksim Kudrinski

adaptation of Akkadian orthographic conventions to the need of recording Hittite utterances. It is likely that the process of dictating and especially reading Hittite texts usually involved some traits of Hittite-Akkadian code-switching. Palaic and Luwian, on the other hand, were not connected to the Akkadian scribal culture to the same degree, as they were not literary languages in the context of cuneiform literacy and did not develop stable orthographic conventions. This could be the reason why Palaic and Luwian text fragments, unlike Hittite texts, feature predominantly Sumerograms. Another reason for this could again be the intention to introduce as little ambiguity in the texts as possible. If the use of Akkadograms was in fact connected to the code-switching in scribal jargon, the Hattusa scribes could consciously dispense with this practice when writing magical incantations out of the fear that they would lose their power. The different frequency of heterograms in Palaic vs. Luwian fragments was likely due to the fact that Hattusa scribes possessed different competence in Palaic vs. Luwian. Palaic was obviously less known if at all understandable to the scribes, while Luwian must have been a native language for many of them. The use of heterogams in Palaic texts was essentially limited to the cases when the meaning of Palaic forms could be extrapolated from Hittite. Finally, the analysis of heterograms in Palaic and Luwian context gives us some insights regarding the general functions attached to heterographic writings in the scriptoria of Hattusa. Sumerograms in Palaic and Luwian text fragments appear to be used mostly for abbreviation purposes. Nevertheless, a limited number of examples show that they could also serve for grammatical or lexical disambiguation and thus make it easier for a potential reader to process cuneiform writing. More examples of the same kind can be found for heterograms in Hittite context.

7. Acknowledgement I would like to thank Ilya Yakubovich (Moscow State University / Philipps-Universität Marburg), from whose help and advice this study and this article benefited to a great extent. Any remaining mistakes are mine.

ʇˌ˞ˀ˛ʸ˞˟˛ʸ ɸ˼̀˜˥ˣ˥˅, ʃ. ʍ. 1967. ʦˊ˯ːˌ ʿ˛ˀʻ˗ˀˍ ˚ˀ˛ˀʿ˗ˀˍ ɭˊˌˌ. ʍ: ʎˁ˫˜ˁ. ʇˁ˨˼̀ˣ, ɯ. ʓ., ɯ. ɳ. ʣˁ˴˜˥˅. 2013. ʑˁ༤ˁ˙˨˜˘˙ ̀˖˻˜. ɳ: ʪ. ʇ˥˧̀˜˥˅, ɯ. ʇ˘˄˧˘˜ (˧ˋˊ.). ʦˊ˯ːˌ ˖ˌ˛ʸ: ˛ˀ˕ˌː˞˙ʻ˯ˀ ˌ˗ʿ˙ˀʻ˛˙˚ˀˍ˜ːˌˀ ˴ˊ˯ːˌ ʌˀ˛ˀʿ˗ˀˍ ˌ ʚˀ˗˞˛ʸ˕˰˗˙ˍ ɭˊˌˌ: 97–106. ʍ˥˨˜˅ˁ: ɯ˜ˁˊˋˢ˘̀. ʫ˜˫˄˥˅˘˵, ʃ. ʓ. 2013. ʌ˫˅˘˙˨˜˘˙ ̀˖˻˜. ɳ: ʪ. ʇ˥˧̀˜˥˅, ɯ. ʇ˘˄˧˘˜ (˧ˋˊ.). ʦˊ˯ːˌ ˖ˌ˛ʸ: ˛ˀ˕ˌː˞˙ʻ˯ˀ ˌ˗ʿ˙ˀʻ˛˙˚ˀˍ˜ːˌˀ ˴ˊ˯ːˌ ʌˀ˛ˀʿ˗ˀˍ ˌ ʚˀ˗˞˛ʸ˕˰˗˙ˍ ɭˊˌˌ: 106–130. ʍ˥˨˜˅ˁ: ɯ˜ˁˊˋˢ˘̀.

References Archi, A. 2010. When did the Hittites begin to write in Hittite? In: Y. Cohen, A. Gilan, J. L. Miller (eds.). Pax Hethitica: Studies on the Hittites and their Neighbors in Honour of Itamar Singer: 37–46. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Bryce, T. 2005. The Kingdom of the Hittites. New Edition. Oxford University Press. Diakonoff, I. M. 1967. Jazyki drevnej perednej Azii. Moscow: Nauka. Friedrich, J. 1940. Hethitisches Elementarbuch. Erster Teil. Kurzgefasste Grammatik. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Gelb, I. J. 1963. A Study of Writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 248

Heterograms in Hittite, Palaic, and Luwian context

Güterbock, H. G. 1956. The deeds of Suppiluliuma as told by his son, Mursili II (Continued). Journal of Cuneiform Studies 10(3): 75–98. Hoffner, H. A. 1987. Paskuwatti’s ritual against sexual impotence (CTH 406). Aula Orientalis 5: 271–287. Hoffner, H. A. 1997. The Laws of the Hittites. A Critical Edition. Leiden, New York, Köln: Brill. Hoffner, H. A. 2009. Letters from the Hittite kingdom. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Hoffner, H. A, Melchert H. C. 2008. A grammar of the Hittite language. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. Hrozný, B. 1917. Die Sprache der Hethiter: ihr Bau und ihre Zugehörigkeit zum indogermanischen Sprachstamm. Ein Entzifferungsversuch. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung. Kassian, A. S., Shatskov, A. V. 2013. Palajskij jazyk. In: J. Kor’akov, A. Kibrik (eds.). Jazyki mira: Reliktovye indojevropeyskie jazyki Perednej i Centralnoj Azii: 97–106. Moscow: Academia. Kloekhorst, A. 2008. Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon. Leiden, Boston: Brill. Kudrinski, M. 2016. Hittite heterographic writings and their interpretation. The evidence of sentential clitics. Indogermanische Forschungen 12: 159–175. Kudrinski, M., Yakubovich, I. S. 2016. Sumerograms and Akkadograms in Hittite: Ideograms, Logograms, Allograms or Heterograms? Altorientalische Forschungen 43(1-2): 53–66. Marquardt, H. 2011. Hethitische Logogramme. Funktion und Verwendung. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Neu, E. 1980. Althethitische Ritualtexte in Umschrift. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Otten, H. 1981. Die Apologie Hattusilis III. Das Bild der Überlieferung. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Starke, F. 1985. Die keilschrift-Luwischen Texte in Umschrift. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. van den Hout, T. P. J. 2009. Reflections on the origins and development of the Hittite tablet collections in Hattuša and their consequences for the rise of Hittite literacy. In: Franca Pecchioli Daddi, Giulia Torri & Carlo Corti (eds.). Central North-Anatolia in the Hittite Period. New Perspectives in Light of Recent Research. Acts of the international conference held at the University of Florence (7–9 February 2007): 71–96. Rome: Herder. Weeden, M. 2011. Hittite Logograms and Hittite Scholarship. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Werner, R. 1967. Hethitische Gerichtsprotokolle. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Yakubovich, I. S. 2006. The free-standing genitive and hypostasis in Hittite. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 65(1): 39–49. Yakubovich, I. S. 2013. Luvijskij jazyk. In: J. Kor’akov, A. Kibrik (eds.). Jazyki mira: Reliktovye indo-jevropeyskie jazyki Perednej i Centralnoj Azii: 106–130. Moscow: Academia.

ʈʸː˜ˌ˖ ʂ˟ʿ˛ˌ˗˜ːˌˍ. ɴˋ˪ˋ˧˥ˆ˧ˁˢˢ˻ ˅ ˲ˋ˪˪˨˜˘˲, ˦ˁ༤ˁ˙˨˜˘˲ ˘ ༤˫˅˘˙˨˜˘˲ ˪ˋ˜˨˪ˁ˲ ʇ༤˘ˣ˥˦˘˨˼ ˄˻༤ˁ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˣ˻ˢ ˨˧ˋˊ˨˪˅˥ˢ ˦˘˨˼ˢˋˣˣ˥˙ ˜˥ˢˢ˫ˣ˘˜ˁ˴˘˘ ˅ ˴ˁ˧˨˪˅ˋ ʝˁ˪˪˫˨˻ ˘ ˘˨˦˥༤˼˖˥˅ˁ༤ˁ˨˼ ˊ༤̀ ˖ˁ˦˘˨˘ ˪ˋ˜˨˪˥˅ ˣˁ ˲ˋ˪˪˨˜˥ˢ ˘ ˊ˧˫ˆ˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲, ˜˥˪˥˧˻ˋ ˱˫ˣ˜˴˘˥ˣ˘˧˥˅ˁ༤˘ ˅ ˋˆ˥ ˦˧ˋˊˋ༤ˁ˲. ʐ˨˥˄ˋˣˣ˥˨˪˼˿ ˊˁˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˦˘˨˼ˢˁ ̀˅༤̀༤˥˨˼ ˪˥, ˵˪˥, ˦˥ˢ˘ˢ˥ ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˣˁ˦˘˨ˁˣ˘˙, ˅ ˪ˋ˜˨˪ˋ ˘˨˦˥༤˼˖˥˅ˁ༤˘˨˼ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˸˫ˢˋ˧˨˜˘ˋ ˘ ˁ˜˜ˁˊ˨˜˘ˋ ༤ˋ˜˨ˋˢ˻, ˜˥˪˥˧˻ˋ ˥˄˻˵ˣ˥ (˲˥˪̀ ˘ ˣˋ ˅˨ˋˆˊˁ) ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˁ༤˘ ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅˫˿˹˘ˋ ˦˥ ˨ˢ˻˨༤˫ ༤ˋ˜˨ˋˢ˻ ̀˖˻˜ˁ ˪ˋ˜˨˪ˁ. ʕˁ˜˘ˋ ˋˊ˘ˣ˘˴˻ ˦˘˨˼ˢˁ ˢ˻ ˄˫ˊˋˢ ˣˁ˖˻˅ˁ˪˼ ˆˋ˪ˋ˧˥ˆ˧ˁˢˢˁˢ˘. ɸˁˣˣˁ̀ ˨˪ˁ˪˼̀ ˦˥˨˅̀˹ˋˣˁ ˨˧ˁ˅ˣˋˣ˘˿ ˜༤˘ˣ˥˦˘˨ˣ˻˲ ˪ˋ˜˨˪˥˅ ˣˁ ˲ˋ˪˪˨˜˥ˢ, ༤˫˅˘˙˨˜˥ˢ ˘ ˦ˁ༤ˁ˙˨˜˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲; ˆ༤ˁ˅ˣ˻ˢ ˥˄˧ˁ˖˥ˢ, ˣˁ˨ ˄˫ˊˋ˪ ˘ˣ˪ˋ˧ˋ˨˥˅ˁ˪˼ ˵ˁ˨˪˥˪ˁ ˫˦˥˪˧ˋ˄༤ˋˣ˘̀ ˘ ˱˫ˣ˜˴˘˘ ˆˋ˪ˋ˧˥ˆ˧ˁ˱˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˣˁ˦˘˨ˁˣ˘˙. ʂ˕˳˩ˀʻ˯ˀ ˜˕˙ʻʸ: ˜༤˘ˣ˥˦˘˨˼, ˲ˋ˪˪˨˜˘˙ ̀˖˻˜, ༤˫˅˘˙˨˜˘˙ ̀˖˻˜, ˦ˁ༤ˁ˙˨˜˘˙ ̀˖˻˜, ˆˋ˪ˋ˧˥ˆ˧ˁˢˢ˻

249

Sergei L. Nikolaev Institute of Slavic studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Moscow/Novosibirsk); [email protected]

Toward the reconstruction of Proto-Algonquian-Wakashan. Part 3: The Algonquian-Wakashan 110-item wordlist In the third part of my complex study of the historical relations between several language families of North America and the Nivkh language in the Far East, I present an annotated demonstration of the comparative data that was used in the lexicostatistical calculations to determine the branching and approximate glottochronological dating of Proto-AlgonquianWakashan and its offspring; because of volume considerations, this data could not be included in the previous two parts of the present work and has to be presented autonomously. Additionally, several new Proto-Algonquian-Wakashan and Proto-Nivkh-Algonquian roots have been set up in this part of study. Lexicostatistical calculations have been conducted for the following languages: the reconstructed Proto-North Wakashan (approximately dated to ca. 800 AD) and modern or historically attested variants of Nootka (Nuuchahnulth), Amur Nivkh, Sakhalin Nivkh, Western Abenaki, Miami-Peoria, Fort Severn Cree, Wiyot, and Yurok. Keywords: Algonquian-Wakashan languages, Nivkh-Algonquian languages, Algic languages, Wakashan languages, Chimakuan-Wakashan languages, Nivkh language, historical phonology, comparative dictionary, lexicostatistics.

The classification and preliminary glottochronological dating of Algonquian-Wakashan currently remain the same as presented in Nikolaev 2015a, Fig. 1 1. That scheme was generated based on the lexicostatistical analysis of 110-item basic word lists 2 for one reconstructed (Proto-Northern Wakashan, ca. 800 A.D.) and several modern Algonquian-Wakashan languages, performed with the aid of StarLing software 3. Etymologies for the overwhelming majority of the 110-item wordlist entries have been established based on the list of regular sound correspondences as suggested in Nikolaev 2015a, §ɏ3; whenever those correspondences are generally satisfied, we surmise that the respective items represent results of genetic divergence, rather than diffusion and borrowing occurring already after the disintegration of the original Proto-Algonquian-Wakashan. The third publication in this ongoing series is presented in the form of an annotated demonstration of the comparative data that was used in lexicostatistical calculations; since this presentation sometimes demands detailed comments on various aspects of historical phonology that take up too much space, it could not have been included in the previous two publications on the subject. Certain improvements to the ongoing work on PAW and PNA reconstruction have been produced during the preparation of the present work; consequently, a few differences from Nikolaev 2015b are to be encountered. These are consistently marked in the main body of the None of these glottochronological dates should be accepted as incontestable facts; undoubtedly, certain details will be liable to change as the material of all the other Algonquian-Wakashan subgroups (primarily Quileute and perhaps also Kutenai) is added to the comparison. Current datings should be understood as reflecting a highly approximate temporal scale for language divergence. 2 The standard 100-item Swadesh wordlist with 10 additional words for the purpose of more accurate classification and dating of the cognate languages. 3 StarLing for Windows v. 2.5.3 (computerized system for multilingual database processing; copyright 1985-2005 by Sergei Starostin; http://starling.rinet.ru). 1

Journal of Language Relationship • ɳ˥˦˧˥˨˻ ̀˖˻˜˥˅˥ˆ˥ ˧˥ˊ˨˪˅ˁ • 15/4 (2017) • Pp. 250–278 • © The authors, 2017

Toward the reconstruction of Proto-Algonquian-Wakashan. Part 3: The Algonquian-Wakashan 110-item wordlist

work with the abbreviation “cf.”, e. g.: PAW *m’a:whV È *ham’wV ‘to eat, bite’ (cf. Nikolaev 2015b, #234), reflecting the fact that in Nikolaev 2015b this root was reconstructed as *m’a:hV È *ham’V. The following new PAW and PNA rooots have been added: PAW *k’ƕ:xkV (~ k’, g) ‘all, every’; PAW *w’adVΠE ‘sky, cloud’; PAW *mi:- ‘food, fish; to eat’; PAW *q։o:KtV ‘full’; PAW *Ɩƕ:kV (~ g) ‘mountain’; PAW *c’ik’։V (~ ä) neck’; PAW *tokV È *ԸotkV (~ k’) ‘skin, hide’; PAW *ԸV- ‘demonstrative stem’; PAW *qV (~ ժ) ‘interrogative stem’; PAW *ԸAƖ ‘interrogative stem’; PAW *hVƔV È *ԸVhƔV ‘tail (of quadruped)’; PNA *tu(:)նwV (~ o) ‘to burn (tr.)’. Conversely, the roots PNA *x։a È *hax։V ‘name’(Nikolaev 2015b, #389), PAW *pE:šV È *ԸE:pšV ‘one’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #281) and PNA *tOyVԸwV ‘to burn (tr.)’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #345) have been eliminated as non-existent. In the main body of the wordlists, language forms and their meanings that are relevant for lexicostatistical calculations, are given in bold print. They include: (a) reconstructed forms for Proto-North Wakashan (glottochronologically dated to ca. 800 AD) 4; (b) Southern Wakashan — Nootka (Nuuchahnulth); (c) Nivkh — Amur and Sakhalin; (d) Algonquian — Western Abenaki, Miami-Peoria, Fort Severn Cree; (e) other Algic languages — Wiyot and Yurok. All data on languages from groups (b-e) have been taken from sources recorded over the 19th and 20th centuries. All the data are given in etymological order: etymologically different roots are listed under separate numbers in round brackets — (1), (2), etc. The symbol • is used to separate language families, whereas ਔ is used to mark different root variants within the same family. The equation symbol (=) indicates that the root allomorph is used exclusively with possessive prefixes; the hyphen (-) is used to separate any other morphemes (regardless of their degree of productivity in the given language). In protoforms the tilde symbol (~) denotes alternately possible variants of reconstruction, rather than an actual alternation in the protolanguage. If reconstruction of two (rarely three or more) protophonemes in the same position is possible, alternate variants are given in round brackets. Many PAW roots are represented by “inversed” allomorphs *CVCV and *ԸVCCV (more rarely, *hVCCV). Where present, reconstructed allomorphs of this type are divided by double tilde (Ì). Latest results of lexicostatistical calculations between all these languages, reflecting percentages of lexical cognacy, are adduced below in Table 1 (for the revised 110-item wordlist) and in Table 2 (for the revised 50-item wordlist). Table 1. Percentage of lexical cognacy between Algonquian-Wakashan languages (110-item wordlist)

North Wakashan Nootka Amur Nivkh Sakhalin Nivkh Western Abenaki Miami-Peoria Cree (Fort Severn) Wiyot

Nootka

Amur Nivkh

Sakhalin Nivkh

Western Abenaki

Miami

Cree

Wiyot

Yurok

33%

15%

16%

Ɍ9%

12%

11%

19%

17%

12%

13%

10%

12%

12%

Ɍ9%

15%

89%

19%

18%

12%

14%

23%

18%

17%

15%

16%

22%

56%

61%

27%

27%

67%

35%

30%

34%

25% 36%

4 Since Proto-North Wakashan is considerably younger than Proto-South Wakashan, composition of a 110-item proto-wordlist for this branch is justified and not very difficult. In the case of Nivkh, since there are only two recorded dialects of this language, their binary comparison will not lead to plausible reconstruction of a separate Proto-Nivkh wordlist. Procedures for reconstructing the Swadesh wordlist for Proto-Algonquian, Proto-Algic, and Proto-Wakashan involve too many difficulties; at present, only data from separate attested languages may be considered satisfactory.

251

Sergei L. Nikolaev

Table 2. Percentage of lexical cognacy between Algonquian-Wakashan languages (50-item wordlist) Nootka North Wakashan

37%

Nootka Amur Nivkh Sakhalin Nivkh Western Abenaki Miami-Peoria Cree (Fort Severn)

Amur Nivkh

Sakhalin Nivkh

Western Abenaki

Miami

Cree

Wiyot

Yurok

21%

19%

11%

14%

9%

20%

18%

10%

11%

10%

10%

9%

Ɍ9%

12%

90%

27%

23%

17%

12%

20%

25%

21%

19%

14%

19%

66%

67%

36%

36%

67%

46%

36%

47%

37%

Wiyot

55%

ETYMOLOGIZED 110-ITEM WORDLISTS FOR ALGONQUIAN-WAKASHAN LANGUAGES 1. ALL 5 (1) PAW *k’ƕ:xkV (~ k’, g) ‘all, every’ > PW *k’u:xk- > PWS *ŏ’u:ŏk- > Noo. ²’u:²k ‘all, everything’ • PA *kahk-el-aw- > FSCr. kahk-iÚ-aw ‘all, every’. (2) PNA *ŏek’E (~ *ŏ’, g, q’) ‘all, whole’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #83) > PN *chՓk- > NiA. sik(-m), NiS. sik(-m) ‘all’ • PAlg *ŏ-eՉ-ak- (~ kh, k’) > PA *ŏya:k- ‘all, completely’ > MiPe. ²e:k-i ‘all’. (3) PA *mes- ‘all, whole’ > WAb. mes-i ‘all’. (4) Wi. Ҍˬr-ˬw- ‘all’. (5) Yu. Ҍik-i ‘subsequent occurence, all’ (cf. Ըik-oԸŭ ‘always’). 2. ASHES (1) PNA *pVl-ƕƖV-k’։E ‘ashes’ (Nikolaev 2015b #300) • PNi *phlՓƖg (~ *p) > NiA., NiS. phliĎg, pliĎg ‘ashes’ • PAlg *p(el)enekw- (~ ph, kh) ‘ashes, dust, powder’ > PA *penkw- > WAb. sskkwetai-pekwi (lit. “fire dust”); MiP. pinkw-i; FSCr. pihk-ot-e:w ‘ashes’. See EARTH, SAND. (2) PAW *mE: ‘flame, fire’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #220) > PAlg *me-hs- ‘fire, firewood’ > Wi. bˬc-ˬw-itk ‘ashes’. See FIRE. (3) PWN *Gҭˬn- ‘ashes (of a fire)’ > Kw. G։n-iԸ, Oo. G։n๗-i, Hei. G։n๗-ái, Hai. G։n-ՄԸ. (4) PWS *՛’int- > Noo. ω’int-mis ‘ashes’ (also Dit. ՛’idt-ibs ‘ashes, dust’). (5) Yu. pont-et ‘ashes’ (cf. pƕnc-ƕc ‘dust’, pƕnc-ƕh ‘be gray (deer)’, ponc-ec ‘gray deer, white deerskin’). 3. BARK (OF TREE) 6 (1) PAW *Πe:rg։A ~ *ge:rΠ։A ‘bark (of tree)’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #397) > PWN *Λa:kҭ- ‘bark of tree’ > Kw., Oo., Hai. Πk’։-m, Hei. Πk’։-‫ލ‬. (2) PWS *c’aq- > Noo. c’aq-mis ‘bark of tree’ (also Dit. c’aq-abs ‘bark of tree; scab’). (3) PNi *oՉm ~ *oնm > NiA. oћm, o:m, NiS. oѹm ‘bark of tree’. (4) PAlg *=lakw-, *=lekw- ‘tree bark’ > Yu. =arkҭ-ec, w-erkҭ-ec; PA *wa=lak- > WAb. wa-lak-a; MiPe. a-lak-i:hk-w-i; FSCr. wa-Úak-e:sk ‘bark of tree’.

252

5

No data for PNW.

6

No data for Wiyot.

Toward the reconstruction of Proto-Algonquian-Wakashan. Part 3: The Algonquian-Wakashan 110-item wordlist

4. BELLY (1) PAW *ԸVta:gA ‘belly, abdomen’ (cf. Nikolaev 2015b, #40) > PW *ta:k- > PWN *tˬk‘belly’ > Kw. Oo. tk-’i, Hei. tk-’í ‘belly’, Hai. tk-’i ‘belly, abdomen’ • PWS *ta(:)ŏ- > Noo. ta:²-a ‘belly’ (also Dit. taŏ-’ ‘belly, stomach’, Mak. hi-tak-։itqi ‘belly’) • PAlg *Ըata:Չ-, *ԸetaՉ- ‘belly, stomach’ > Wi. taћ-Ϸd-aҌl ‘one’s belly’. (2) PNi *Ɩ(=)Փm > NiA., NiS. Ďim ‘belly’. (3) PAlg *=o:d-, *=ad-, =ed- ‘belly, body’ > Yu. =ey-ah ‘belly, stomach; PA *=o:t-ay- ‘belly’ > MiPe. m-u:t-ay-i ‘stomach, belly; pouch’ and PA *=at-ay-, *-aŏ-y-, *-eŏ-y- ‘belly; whole body’ > FSCr. mi=st-at-ay ‘(big) belly, stomach’. (4) PA *-ŭakeš-y- ‘guts, intestine’ > WAb. =lakes-i ‘belly’. 5. BIG (1) PNA *p’i:lV (~ e:) ‘big’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #305) > PNi *pil- ‘big’ > NiA. pil-a-, NiS. pil-d, pil-a ‘big; grown up’ • PAlg *pel- > Yu. pel-, pl-, popol- ‘big’. (2) PWN *-ka:s ‘big, mighty, holy’ > Oo. -kas, Hei. -kas, Hai. -kas id., Kw. -kas ‘really’. (3) PWS *Ըi:Π։ > Noo. Ҍi:Æ ‘big’ (also Mak. Ըi:Π։-, Dit. Ըi:Π). (4) PAlg *keՉt-, *keՉŏ- ‘big, much’ > PA *keԸt-, *keԸŏ- ‘big’ > FSCr. kih²-i- ‘big’. (5) PA *meԸŭ- ‘big’ > WAb. mss-i; MiPe. mehš-i- ‘big’. (6) Wi. dat- ‘to be big, large’. 6. BIRD (SMALL, SINGING) (1) PAW *c’ä:q’։A,*c’V:cq’։A ‘bird (small)’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #77) > PWN *c’ˬsqҭ- (~ c) ‘any small songbird’ > Kw. c’ƕsq։-ána, Hei. c’sq։-, csq։- • PAlg *cuck’- > Wi. cúck-iš, Yu. c’uc’-iš ‘bird (small, generic)’ (2) PAW *ƔՓ:pV ~ *Ɣi:pV ‘bird (small)’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #417) > PNi *˜ev-rq > NiA. cev-rq, NiS. tev-ìq ‘bird (small)’ • PAlg *c-eՉ-ep- (~ ch, ph) > PA *si:p-e:hs-y- ‘bird (generic)’ > WAb. ssip-ess ‘bird (generic)’. (3) PAW *po:lV È *Ըo:lpV ‘large bird’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #290) > PAlg *pel-e:Չw- > PA *pel-e:hš‘bird (small?)’ > FSCr. piÚ-e:š-i:š (with two diminutive suffixes) ‘bird (generic)’. (4) PW *ma:t- ‘to fly’ > Noo. ma:ma:t-i ; ma:t-iq ‘bird (small, generic)’. See FLY. (5) PA *pi:nŏ-iԸl- ‘to fly into’ > MiPe. pih²-it-a ‘small bird (sparrow size)’. 7. BITE 7 (1) PAW *m’a:whV È *ham’wV ‘to eat, bite’ (cf. Nikolaev 2015b, #234) > PW *m’a:- > Noo. m’a ‘to bite’ (cf. the same root in PWS *ma:-k։- ‘to close teeth’) • PA *ma:-kw- > FSCr. ma:-kw-am-e:-w TA, ma:-kw-aht-am TI ‘to bite’. See EAT. (2) PAW *q’anƔV ~ *ժanƔV (~ c, s) ‘to eat, bite’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #315) > PNi *haz- > NiA. jaz- (haz- ~ az-), NiS. jaz-d ‘to bite, to dig one’s teeth’. (3) PAlg *-(Ը)ap-, *-(Ը)ep- ‘by tooth, to bite, eat’ > Wi. -ˬp- ‘to bite’, see EAT. (4) PA *sak- ‘to hold fastу > WAb. sak-a- ‘to bite’. (5) MiPe. si:hs- ‘to bite, pinch’. (6) Yu. teykel-ew- ‘to bite’. 8. BLACK 8 (1) PWN *c’u:Ù- ‘black’ > Kw., Oo. c’uŭ-a, Hei. c’úŭ-a, Hai. c’ùŭ-l๗a. (2) PNi *piw- > NiA. piu-la-, NiS. piw-d, piw-la ‘black’. 7 8

No data for PWN. No data for Wiyot. 253

Sergei L. Nikolaev

(3) PA *-hkat-, *-htk- ‘charcoal; black’ in PA *ma=(h)tk-anšye:w- ‘charcoal; black’ > WAb. m-kk-as-aw-i ‘black’; *ma=hkat- ‘black’ > MiPe. ma-hk-at-e:-(w)- ‘black’, FSCr. ma-hkat-e:w-is-iw ‘to be black’; PA *(h)kat-k- ‘charcoal; black’ > FSCr. kahk-it-e:-w-a:-w ‘black’. (4) PAlg *wenliԸa:Չw- ‘coals, charcoal’ > Yu. lϷҌϷћ-, loҌoћ- ‘embers, coals; black’. (5) Noo. tupkuk ‘black’. 9. BLOOD (1) PAW *ԸarV (~ ä) ‘blood’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #2) > PWN *Ҍˬl-kҭ- ‘blood; to bleed’ > Kw., Oo., Hai. Ըl๗-k։-a, Hei. ԸŨ๗-k։-a • PNi *Ɩ=ar > NiA. Ď-ar ‘blood’. (2) PAW *c’ü:xA È *Ըü:c’xA ‘sap, blood’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #81) > PNi *choΠ ‘sap, tar, blood’ > NiS. choΛ ‘blood’ • PAlg *=ck-oԸw-, *=tk-oԸw- ‘blood’ > Wi. k-ˬҌw-ik, =ˬtk-ˬҌw-ik ‘blood’; PA *me=sk-w- > FSCr. mi=hk-o ‘blood. See RED. (3) PAW *p’akV (~ ä) ‘red; blood’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #302) > PAlg *pak-, *pek- ‘to be bloody, red’ > Yu. pek-oy(e)k ‘blood’; PA *pak-at-kan- > WAb. pak-ak-kan ‘blood’, PA *ni:-pek- > MiPe. ni:-hpik- ‘red; blood’. See RED. (4) PWS *Πis- > Noo. Æis-mis ‘blood’. 10. BONE (1) PAW *Πo:ck’E (~ ŏ, s, š) ‘bone’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #398) > PW *Πa:xq- > PWN *Λa:Λq‘bone’ > Kw. Πaq, Oo. Πa:q, Πa:Π, Hei. ΠáΠ, Hai. Πa:Π. (2) PAW *ŭVq’(։)E È *ԸVŭq’(։)E ‘bone, gristle’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #213) > PAlg =ŭk- > Wi. =ˬtk-ˬd-át, Yu. =ˬÙk-ˬҌ ‘bone’; PA *we=ŭk-an- ‘bone; pit’ > WAb. o=sskk-an, MiPe. =hk-an-i, FSCr. o-sk-an ‘bone’. (3) PWS *hamu:t > Noo. hamu:t ‘bone’ (also Dit. habu:t id.). (4) PNi *Ɩ(=)ƕŮՉՓf > NiA. Ď-iÚf, NiS. Ď-aÚћif ‘bone’. 11. BREAST (FEMALE) (1) PAW *nowV È *ԸonwV ‘to suck; breast’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #246) > PWS *Ըanma ‘breast; to suckle’ > Noo. Ҍinma ‘breast, milk, sucking milk’ (also Mak. Ըada:b(a) ‘breast, milk, sucking breast’, Dit. Ըama-š ‘breast, milk, breastfeed’) • PNi *mo-c (cf. *mo-mo- ‘to suck’) > NiA. mo-c ‘female breast’ • PAlg *new- ‘breast milk’, *new-on- ‘to suck (milk)’ > Yu. new-on ‘breast, nipple, tit, breast milk’; PA *no:-n-, *no:-n-šy-, *-[n]o:-n- ‘to suck’ > WAb. no-s-ow-õ-kan ‘female breast’, MiPe. nu:-n-a:-kan-i ‘female breast, udder’. (2) PAlg *-(e)s-en- ‘breast, nipple’ > Wi. =ˬыs-ˬd ‘breast, nipple’. (3) PWN *ča:m’- ‘breast; to suck at the breast’ > Kw., Oo. zam’-a, Hei. zám’-a, Hai. zàm’-a. (4) NiS. miÚk ‘female breast’ – if not from*ŮՓm-k with metathesis, see (2). (5) FSCr. ²i:²i:s ‘breast; baby bottle’. 12. BURN TR. 9 (1) PNA *tu(:)նwV (~ o) ‘to burn (tr.)’ (cf. Nikolaev 2015b, #345) 10 > PNi *thuv- > NiA. ìuv- (th-), NiS. ìuv-nt ‘to burn (tr.)’ • PAlg *tuw- ‘to burn (tr.)’ > Wi. tu(w)- ‘to burn’ (e. g., kita ta tuw-án-iԸl ‘perhaps it is burned out’, referring to a canoe). See FIRE, SMOKE. (2) Yu. tyeҌw- ‘to burn’ (e. g., tyeԸw=ol=ok’ ‘I burn (trash, brush, etc.)’). (3) PA *ša:kw- Ì *eškw- > MiPe. ša:kw- ‘to burn (tr.)’; FSCr. iskw-a:s-am TI ‘to burn sth.’. (4) WAb. ccek(a)-, cek(a)- ‘to burn (tr.)’. (5) Noo. m’u ‘to burn (tr.)’. 9

No data for PWN.

10

254

Yu. tyeԸw- ‘to burn’ has been excluded from this comparison.

Toward the reconstruction of Proto-Algonquian-Wakashan. Part 3: The Algonquian-Wakashan 110-item wordlist

13. CLAW, NAIL (1) PAW *t’Փ:k’։E ~ *k’։Փ:t’V ‘nail, claw; peg’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #354) > PNA *t’Փ:k’։-EŮ- ‘nail, claw’ > *PNi *tƕk-(a)Ů > NiA. tik-Ú, NiS. tak-(a)Ú ‘claw, fingernail’ • PAlg *-tk-an-(ŏ-eՉ-), *-ŏk-an-(ŏ-eՉ-) ‘claw, finger-, toenail, hoof’ > Wi. w=ˬtk=ˬn-, w=ˬtk-ˬn-ˬћ- ‘nail’, Yu. =ˬÙk-e-t-eћ ‘nail, fingernail, toenail, claw’; PA *=tk-an-š-y-, *=šk-an-š-y- > WAb. =kk-a-s ‘claw, nail, hoof’, MiPe. =i-k-a-š-i: ‘fingernail (of animal or human)’, FSCr. mi=sk-a-š-iy ‘finger-, toenail, claw, hoof’. (2) PWN *c’ˬm-c’ˬm- ‘fingernails’ (cf. *c’ƕm- ‘finger(s)) > Kw. c’७c’७-xc’aniԸ, Oo. c’७c’७-xsk’ana, Hei. c’m๗яc’m๗я-G७i. (3) PW *k’aŭ- > PWS *ŏ’aŭ-aŏ’a ‘finger-, toenail’ > Noo. ²’aÙ-²’a ‘finger-, toenails’ (also Mak. ŏ’aŭ-a:ŏ’(a), Dit. ŏ’aŭ-aŏ’). 14. CLOUD (1) PAW *w’adVΠE ‘sky, cloud’ (cf. Nikolaev 2015b: #11) > PA *watk-w-iw- ‘cloud’, *-[w]atk-w- ‘sky’ > FSCr. wask-o ‘cloud’ ਔ PAW *Ըä:lV-w’adVΠE ‘cloud, cloudy’ (Nikolaev 2015b: #11) > PWS *ŭi:-w’aΠ- ‘to get cloudy’ > Noo. Ùi-w’aÆ-mis ‘cloud’ (also Mak. ŭi:-waΠ‘to get cloudy’, Dit. ŭi:-waΠ(-k)-, Noo. ŭi-w’aş- ‘cloudy’) • PNi *l-ax > NiA., NiS. l-ax ‘cloud’ • PAlg *a:l-adek-w-, *a:l-edewk-, *al-edwk-w- ‘cloud; shadow’ > PA *al-etk-w- ‘cloud’ > WAb. ass-okk-w ‘cloud; the sky’, men-ass-okk-w ‘isolated cloud’; MiPe. a:Ù-k-w-atw-i ‘cloud’. (2) PAW *ԸVwO:nV (~ Ɩ) ‘cloud, fog’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #54) > PWN *Ҍˬn- ‘cloud’ > Kw. Ըn๗-w-i, Hei. Ըn๗-ú.-i, Hai. Ըn๗-u-Մю ‘cloud’. (3) PAlg. *lop-t-, *lop-ŏ-, *lep-t- (cf. Yu. lohp-iԸŭ ‘clouds gather, it is cloudy’) > Wi. lˬpt-aҌw-, lˬp²-aҌy-, Yu. lept-en-ok ‘cloud’. 15. COLD 11 (1) PAW *՛’Փ:rqE ‘cold’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #208) > PA *tahk-, *tehk- ‘cold, cool’ > WAb. ttekk-, MiPe. tahk- ‘cold’, FSCr. tahk-is-iw AI ‘to be cold, cool, to cool off’. (2) PWS *m’aŭ- ‘cold’ > Noo. m’aÙ-uk ‘cold’ (also Mak. baŭ-, Dit. baŭ-a:ŭ). (3) PNi *civ- (~ *t-) > NiA. tiv-la, NiS. tiv-d, tiv-la ‘cold’. (4) Yu. sa:w- ‘cold’ (e. g., sa:w-el-ek’ ‘I’m cold’, sa:w-onc-ek’ ‘I cool sth. off’, etc.) 16. COME (1) PW *Gi:- ‘to move; come’ > PWN *Gi:- ‘to come’ > Kw. Gi-la, Oo. Gi-na, Gi-ana, Hei. Gí-na ‘come!’, Hai. G-an’a-k։ ‘to come’. (2) PA *py-a:-/*py-e:- (*py- ‘hither’ + zero-root ‘to go’) > WAb. pa-iy-õ AI ‘he comes’; MiPe. pya:-; FSCr. pe:-²i-:t-oht-e:w AI ‘to come’. (3) PNi *phrƕ- > NiA. phrˬ-, prˬ-, NiS. phìˬ-d ‘to come, arrive, come near’. (4) Noo. hin- ‘to come’. (5) Wi. Ҍuw- ‘to come’. (6) Yu. nes (neskҭ-) ‘to come, arrive, return’. 17. DIE 12 (1) PAW *Ů’AbV (~ p’) ‘to die’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #255) > PA *nep- ‘to die; sleep’ > MiPe. nep-e- ‘to die, be dead’, FSCr. nip-iw ‘to die’. (2) PNA *mo:ryV (~ m’) (Nikolaev 2015b, #227) > PNi *mu-, *muj- > NiA. mu-, NiS. mu-d ‘to die, perish, disappear’ (cf. NiA. muj-Փ-, NiS. muj-vu-d ‘sick, to become sick’) • PAlg *ma:hy11 12

No data for PWN and Wiyot. No data for PWN. 255

Sergei L. Nikolaev

‘to die’, ‘to kill’ > Yu. moy-k- ‘to die’; PAlg caus. *mah[y]-t- > WAb. mac-c-in-a, mac-c-ihl-a ‘he dies’ (secondary medio-passive). (3) PWS qaΠ- ‘to die; dead’ > Noo. qaÆ- ‘to die’ (also Mak. qaΠ- ‘to die, become numb’, Dit. qaΠ-ši՛- ‘to die’, Noo. qasş-‘dead, broken down, beaten, kill’). (5) Wi. d-akҭ ‘is so, looks so, seems so, happens so, dies’ (tabooing). 18. DOG (1) PAW *q’änV ‘dog’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #316) > PWS *q’in-i՛(-ŏ) > Noo. ҍi-Ù-²-, ҍin-i:ω ‘dog’ (also Mak. q’i-՛ŏ-, q’id-i:՛ ‘dogwood’) • PNi *qan-Ɩ > NiA. qan (ѹ-, G-), NiS. qan-Ď ‘dog’. (2) PAW *w’a:yV ‘to bark (dog); dog’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #383) > PWN *w’a:-c- ‘dog’ > Kw. w’a-s-a, He. w’a-c- id., Hai. w’a-c- ‘dog or any other quadruped’ • PAlg *way- 13 > Wi. wáy-ic ‘dog’. (3) PNA *ԸaLVmV (~ ä, m’) ‘dog’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #1) > PA *aŭem-w- ‘dog’ > WAb. alem-oss, MiPe. alem-w-a, FSCr. atim ‘dog’. (4) Yu. c’iš-ah ‘dog’. 19. DRINK (1) PW *n’a:q- > PWN *na:q- ‘to drink’ > Kw., Oo., Hai. naq-a, Hei. náq-a ‘to drink, to swallow a liquid’; PWS *naq- > Noo. naq-aω ‘to drink’ (also Dit. daq-ši՛ id.). (2) PAlg, PA *men-, -[m]en- ‘to drink’ > Wi. w-ˬd-a²-iÙ ‘3 Sg. drinks sth.’ (cf. taԸ-mƕd-aŏ-iԸ ‘water’, Yu. men-ok։-olum-ek’ ‘I swallow, gulp down’); PA > MiPe. men- ‘to drink sth.’, FSCr. min-ihkw-e:-w ‘to drink’. (3) PNi *ta- > NiA. ra- (t-, d-), NiS. ra-(n)d ‘to drink’. (4) WAb. kõkatossmo AI ‘he drinks’. (5) Yu. Ҍahsp- ‘to drink’. 20. DRY (ADJ.) (1) PNA *Ci(:) (~ e[:]) ‘to dry’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #82) > PNi *che- ‘dry, to dry’ > NiA. che ‘dry’ • PAlg *ce(:)- (~ ch, ŏ, ŏh) > Yu. ce-Ҍl- ‘dry’. (2) PA *pa:nkw- ‘dry’ > WAb. pakkw-s- ‘dry’, FSCr. pa:hkw-a:-w II ‘to be dry, be dry land’. (3) PAlg *ba:Ըt-, *ba:Ըc-, *beԸc- ‘dry’ > Wi. bˬc- ‘dry’ (e. g., bƕc-ƕd ‘3 Sg is dry’, etc.); PA *pa:Ըt-, *pa:Ըs- > MiPe. pa:hs-i- ‘be dry (as by heat or the sun)’. (4) PWN *lˬmxҭ- ‘dry’ > Kw. l७x։-a ‘to be dry, to dry; thirsty’, Oo. l७x։-a ‘dry (enough to be ironed)’. (5) PW *Πams- ‘dry’ > Noo. Æapc ‘dry, free of wetness’. (6) PNi *qhaw- ‘dry, to dry’ > NiS. qhaw ‘dry’. 21. EAR (1) PAW *hA:t’V È *ԸAhdV ‘ear’ (cf. Nikolaev 2015b, #142) > PAlg =ehd-(l-), *=ah़-(r-) ‘ear’ Wi. =ˬtb-ˬ-l-úk, Yu. cp(eћ)-aҌ-r ‘ear’; PA *=ht-aw-ak- ‘ear’ (cf. suff. *-eht- ‘by ear’) > WAb. =tt-aw-ak-w, MiPe. =ht-aw-ak-i ‘ear’, FSCr. o=ht-aw-ak-ay ‘her/his ear’. (2) PAW *no: to hear’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #244) > PNi *no-s > NiA. no-s ‘ear’. (3) PAW *ԸƕmE-lV ‘ear’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #221) > PNi *m-la > NiS. m-la ‘ear’. (4) PW *p’asp’ay- ‘ear’ > PWN *p’ˬsp’ˬy- ‘ear’ > Kw. p’spy-’u, Oo. p’sp’i-Ըu, Hei. p’sp’i-Ըú, Hai. p’sp’i-u; PWS *p’ap’i-Ըi:- > Noo. p’ap’i:- ‘ear’ (also Mak. p’ip’i-Ըi:, Dit. p’ip’i-Ը(i:)). 13

256

Cf. PA *[w]ay-, =ay- ‘dog’.

Toward the reconstruction of Proto-Algonquian-Wakashan. Part 3: The Algonquian-Wakashan 110-item wordlist

22. EARTH (1) PAW *ŏ’Ak։V È *hAŏ’k։V ‘earth’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #92) > PW *c’aq։- > PWN *cˬqҭ-, *cˬq-, *čˬqҭ-, *c’ˬqҭ- ‘earth, soil’ > Kw. zq։-a ‘earth, soil, etc.’, Oo. cq’-७s ‘soil’, Hei. c’q’-‫ލ‬s ‘soil’, Hai. cq։-al’s ‘muddy road’ • PWS *c’ak’։- > Noo. c’ak’-umc ‘earth, dirt, dust’ • PAlg *he:ŏk-, *hatk-, *heŏk- ‘earth, land’ > Yu. Ùk-eÙ ‘land, ground, clay, dirt’ (cf. heŭk- ‘on land, in the mountains’); PA *atk- ‘earth, land’ > MiPe. ahk-ihk-iw-i ‘earth, soil, ground, land’; FSCr. ask-iy ‘land, earth, country’. (2) PAW *m’e: È *Ըe:m’V ‘earth, land’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #238) > PNi *mi-f > NiA., NiS. mi-f ‘earth, soil, place’. (3) PNA *pVl-ƕƖV-k’։E ‘ashes’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #300) > PAlg *p(el)enekw- (~ ph, kh) ‘ashes, dust, powder’ > PA *penkw- > WAb. pekw-i ‘earth, soil, sand, dust’. See ASHES. 23. EAT (1) PAW *m’awhV È *ham’wV (cf. PA *amw- ‘to eat’; cf. Nikolaev 2015b, #234) > PW *ham’w> PWN *hˬm’- ‘to eat’ > Kw. h७-sa, Oo. hƕm-xԸíd, Hei. h‫ލ‬๗-sa id.; PWS *haw’- > Noo. haw’-a ‘to eat’ (also Mak. haԸ-uk։ id.) • PA *mo:h- > WAb. moh-a TA ‘to eat’. See FISH. (2) PAW *mi:- ‘food, fish; to eat’ 14 > PAlg *mi:- > Wi. bi-w- ‘to eat; food, fish’; PA *mi:‘to eat, food’ > WAb. mi-c-c-i AI, mi-c-i TI, MiPe. mi-l-²-i- ‘to eat’, FSCr. mi:-²-iw AI+o ‘to eat (sth.)’. See FISH, MEAT. (3) PNA *ŮՓ: (~ Ů’) ‘to eat’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #253) > PA *Ůi- > NiA. iÚ- (Úi-), NiS. iÚ-d ‘to eat’. (4) PAlg *(Ը)ap-, *-(Ը)ep- ‘by tooth, to bite, eat’ > Yu. n-ep- ‘to eat’ (cf. k։oy-p-ey-ok’ ‘I eat slowly’, teԸnp-ey-ok’ [teԸnp- < *ten-Ըp-] ‘I eat too much’, etc.). See BITE, TOOTH. 24. EGG (1) PAW *qalV È *ԸaqlV ‘egg, fish egg’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #308) > PWN *qˬlΛ- ‘egg’ > Kw. ql๗Π-m’in, Oo. ql๗Π-७’i, Hei. qŨ๗Π-७’in๗, Hai. qlю๗-Π७. (2) PAW *Ɩ’ü:yV ‘egg’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #274) > PNi *Ɩoj-eq > NiA. Ďoj-(e)q, NiS. Ďoj-q ‘egg’. (3) PNA *Ըƕ:wV (~ w’) ‘egg, brood’ (Nikolaev 2015b #21) > PAlg and PA *w-a:w-, *-a:w‘egg; round’ > WAb. w-õw-an ‘egg’; MiPe. w-a:w-i ‘egg (of bird or turtle)’; FSCr. w-a:w ‘egg’. See ROUND. (4) Noo. n’u²’-ak ‘egg’ (also Mak. duŏ’-ak։, Dit. duŏ-ak id.). (5) Wi. wˬsˬd-ˬҌl Pl. ‘her/his eggs’. (6) Yu. Ҍwˬyѣ ‘egg (of bird)’. 25. EYE (1) PAW *ԸA:sV ‘face’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #4) > PWN *G-ˬs- ‘eye’ > Kw. Gy’aGas, Oo. GiGiqs, Hei. qqs, Hai. GGs; PWS *qas- > Noo. qas-i: ‘eye’ (also Mak. qaš-, Dit. arch. qas-iԸ). (2) PAW *Ů’e:(wV) ‘to see, look’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #256) > PNi *Ůa-Π > NiA., NiS. Úa-Λ 15 ‘eye’. See SEE. (3) PAlg *=li:n- ‘eye’ > Wi. =ˬlìd, Yu. =elin ‘eye’; PA *=šk-[l]i:n-šekw- ‘face, eye(s)’ > WAb. =ss-i-sekw ‘eye, face; mask’, MiPe. =hk-i:n-šikw-i, FSCr. mi-sk-i:-šik ‘eye’. 26. FAT (N.) (1) PNA *ƖOk։A (~ Ɩ’, q։, X) ‘fat, grease’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #265) > PNi *ƖoΠ > NiA., NiS. ĎoΛ ‘fat, lard’. 14 15

This new root has been separated from PAW *m’awhV È *ham’wV (Nikolaev 2015b, #234). Cf. similar suffixal derivative in PWS n’a-ŏ- ‘to look’ < PW *n’a-k-. 257

Sergei L. Nikolaev

(2) PAlg *w(-eՉ)-el- ‘fat’ > Wi. du=wˬl-ákhҭ-ˬҌl-ˬw ‘my (animal’s) fat’, Yu. wel ‘fat’; PA *wi:l-en-w- > MiPe. wi:l-in-w-i ‘fat’. (3) PAlg *pem-ey- ‘grease, oil’ 16 > PA *pem-y- > WAb. -pem-i ‘fat’; FSCr. pim-iy ‘grease, fat, oil’. (4) PWN *ω’a:-s ‘fat, grease, oil, blubber’ > Oo. ՛’a-Ըs ‘animal fat, etc.’, Hei. ՛’á-s(-) ‘oil, grease, fat’, Hai. ՛’a:-s ‘animal fat, etc.’. (5) Noo. ωaq-mis ‘fat, grease, oil’. 27. FEATHER (1) PAW *mՓΠE È *ԸՓmΠE ‘hair, feather’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #226) > PAlg *m(-eՉ-)ek-w- > PA *mi:k-w-an- > WAb. mik-w-en ‘feather, quill, pen’, FSCr. mi:k-w-an ‘feather’. (2) PAW *Ζü:q’V ~ *՛’ü:ժV (~ q’) ‘skin, fur’ (cf. Nikolaev 2015b, #203) > PAlg *lo:g-, *ro:g-, *reg- ‘skin, feather’ > Yu. reҌ-n-oh ‘feather’. (3) PWN *c’ˬlk- ‘feather(s)’ > Kw. c’l๗c’l๗k ‘feathers’, Oo. c’ac’l๗k-’a ‘to get feathers’, Hei. c’Ũ๗g-७ ‘long feather’, Hai. c’lю๗c’l๗k ‘feathers’. (4) PNi *tup-r > NiA. tup-r, NiS. tup-ì ‘feather(s), down’. (5) Noo. ҍiya:Ù ‘feather’. (6) MiPe. ahsawa:nkatia ‘(large) feather’. (7) Wi. wˬl-, -ˬwal- ‘feather’ (in wƕt-wƕl-at ‘(swallowing) feather’, Ըal-ƕwal-ƕp-tiԸ ‘what kind of feathers’). 28. FIRE 17 (1) PAW *ԸƕƖV(-k’։E) (Nikolaev 2015b, #19) > PW *Ըan- ‘fire’ > PWS *Ըan-a(:)k։ > Noo. Ҍin-kҭ ‘fire, burning’ (also Mak. Ըad-a:k։, Dit. Ըad-ak ‘fire’). (2) PAW *mE: ‘to flame, fire’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #220) > PAlg *me-hs- ‘fire, firewood’ 18 > Wi. bˬ-s; Yu. me-c ‘fire’. See ASHES. (3) PNA *tu(:)նwV (~ o) ‘to burn (tr.)’ (cf. Nikolaev 2015b, #345) > PNi *thuՉ-r > NiA. thuћ-r, thu:-r, NiS. thuћ-ì ‘fire’. See BURN, SMOKE. (3) PA *eškw-et- ‘fire’ (cf. PA *ša:kw- Ì *eškw- ‘to burn’) > WAb. sskkw-et-a, MiPe. kot-e:w-i, FSCr. išk-ot-e:w ‘fire’. See BURN. 29. FISH (1) PAW *़u: ‘fish, salmon’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #420) > PNi *cho > NiA. cho (s-), NiS. cho ‘fish’. (2) PAW *mi:- ‘food, fish; to eat’ > PW *m’i:- > PWN *mi:- ‘fish (esp. salmon)’ > Kw. mՄ, Hei. mi-z, Hei. mi-á, Hai. màmi-a • PAlg *mi:- ‘to eat, food’ > Wi. bi-w-iҌ ‘food, fish’. See EAT. (3) PAW *m’a:whV È *ham’wV ‘to eat’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #234) > PW *ham’w- ‘to eat’ > PWS *haw’- > Noo. haҌ-um ‘fish, food’ (cf. haԸ-uk ‘to eat’). See EAT. (4) PNA *lOŮmV (~ l’, n’, m’) ‘salmon, trout’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #194) > PAlg *nam-, *nem‘trout, sturgeon; fish’ > Yu. nep-eҌw-iš ‘fish (generic)’ 19; PAlg *nam- > WAb. nam-as ‘fish’. (5) PNA *ga:ƖV ‘salmon, trout’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #109) > PA *ken-, *kiko:n- > MiPe. ki:hkone:hs-a; FSCr. kin-oš-e:-w ‘fish (generic)’. Cf. Yu. pem-ek’ ‘I cook’. No data for PWN. 18 Cf. PA *me-hŭ- ‘firewood’. 19 Yu. -p- by analogy with *nep- ‘water’, *n-ep- ‘to eat’. 16

17

258

Toward the reconstruction of Proto-Algonquian-Wakashan. Part 3: The Algonquian-Wakashan 110-item wordlist

30. FLY (VB.) (1) PAW *n’o:lV ‘to fly’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #249) > PAlg *-[n]a:l- > Yu. -ol- ‘to fly’ (e. g., s-ol-ek’, wen-oԸom-ol-ek’ ‘I fly’, etc.); Wi. -al-, -ar- ‘to fly’ (e. g., tƕl-al-ál-iŭ ‘she is flying around (there)’, kaw-ƕr-ar-ƕяš-iŭ ‘they start flying around in a flock๏, etc.); PA *pem-iԸl- ‘to fly along’ > WAb. pem-iÙ-õ-k II ‘it flies’; FSCr. pim-iÚ-a:- ‘to fly’. (2) PW *ma:t- > PWN *ma:t- ‘to fly’ > Kw. mat-, Oo. mat-l๗a, Hei mát-l๗á; PWS *mat- > Noo. mat- ‘to fly’. (3) PNi *pՓj- > NiA. pij-, NiS. puj-d ‘to fly’. (4) MiPe. ampahwi- ‘to fly’. 31. FOOT (1) PAW *g։i:g։V foot’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #117) > PW *g։i:g։i: ‘foot, leg, flipper’ > PWN *gu:gҭi:- ‘foot, leg’ > Kw. gug։y-’u, Oo. g։ug։i, Hei. g։úg։í, Hai. gùg։i. (2) PAW *ŏi:t’V(-lV) ‘foot, leg, flipper’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #86) > PAlg *-cit(-ŭ-) ‘foot’ 20 > Wi. huw=eliÙ-aҌl ‘her/his foot’; PA *=sit- ‘foot’ > WAb. =sit ‘foot (body part)’; FSCr. mi-sit ‘foot, paw’. See TAIL. (3) PNA *ԸVŏ’kE (~ q, X) ‘foot, leg’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #39) > PNi *Ɩ=ƕcx > NiA. Ď-icx, NiS. Ď-acx ‘foot, leg’ • PAlg *-tk-a:t-, *-ŏk-a:ŏ- ‘foot, leg’ > Yu. =ˬck-ah ‘foot’; PA *=tk-a:t- 21 > MiPe. =hk-a:t-i ‘foot’ (4) PWS *՛iš՛- ‘foot, leg, flipper’> Noo. ωišω-iq-, ωišω-in ‘foot, flipper, paw’ (also Mak. ՛iԸišŏ-aq-, ՛iԸišŏ-id(-a) ‘foot, feet, leg, fish tail, whale fluke’). 32. FULL (1) PAW *Ɩü:šV ‘full’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #267) > PA *mo:š-k-en-, *-[m]aš-k-en- ‘full’ > MiPe. mo:h-k-in-e²-i:- AI ‘to be full’, FSCr. sa:k-ašk-in-e:p-e:w ‘to be full (of liquid)’. (2) PAW *q։o:KtV ‘full’ > PWN *qҭu:t’- ‘full’ > Kw. qut’-a, Oo. q։ut’-a, Hei. q։út’-a, Hai. qùt’-a • PAlg [*koht-], *kohc- > Yu. kohc- ‘full’ (in kohc=ew=eŭ ‘to be full’, etc.) (3) PNi *char- ‘full, to fill’ > NiA. char- ‘full’. (4) PNi *ta-ta- ‘whole, entire, to care’ > NiS. ta-ta-d ‘full’. (5) Noo. cuma: ‘full’. (6) WAb. pessan- ‘full’. (7) Wi. -esw- ‘to be full’. 33. GIVE (1) PAW *c’O:Չ։V È *ԸO:Չ։ƔV (~ ն։) ‘to give’ (cf. Nikolaev 2015b, #95) > PW *c’u:- ‘to give’ PWN *c’u:- ‘to give’ > Kw. c’՝, Oo. c’u-a, Hei. c’u-á • PA *Ըo(:)Ɣ- > Yu. ҌoҌ ‘to give’. (2) PNA *me: È *Ըe:mV (~ m’) ‘to give’ (cf. Nikolaev 2015b, #225) > PNi *kh-im-, *im-kh- > NiA im-ћ-, imˬ-, im- (kh-im-, x-im-), NiS. im-ћ-d ‘to give’ • PAlg *mi:- È *-a:m-, -am- > Wi. -ˬb-, -ab- ‘to give’ (e. g. Ը-ƕc-ƕb- ‘to give it to’, yƕc-ƕb-um ‘I give to smbd.’, etc.); PA *mi:-l(cf. Wi. bi-l- ‘to divide and distribute’) > WAb. mi-l- ‘to give (sth.)’; MiPe. mi:-l- ‘to give (to him)’; FSCr. mi:-Ú-e:-w TA ‘to give (sth. to so.)’. (3) PWS *-ay-i: ‘to give’ > Noo. hin-i: ‘to give’ (also Mak., Dit. hid-i:). 34. GOOD (1) PW *Ըi:k- ‘good, fine’ > PWN *Ҍi:k- ‘good, nice, well, fine, causing satisfaction’ > Kw., Oo., Hei, Hai. Ըik. 20 21

PA *-sit- and secondary *-՛i՛- in Wi. -eliŭ ‘foot’. Cf. suff. *-ešk-, *-ehk- ‘by foot or body’. 259

Sergei L. Nikolaev

(2) PW *՛u:ŭ- ‘good, even’> Noo. ωuÙ ‘good, pretty’ (also Mak. ՛uŭ-(u:) ‘clean, good’, Dit. ՛uŭ ‘good, pretty’). (3) PNi *nama- > NiA nama-, NiS. nama-d ‘good, perfect, industrious’. (4) PAlg *ko:c-, *keŏ- 22 > Wi. kuc ‘good, well’. (5) PA *wal-, *wel- 23 > WAb. wal-i, ol-i- ‘good’. (6) PA *melw- ‘good, fine, beautiful’ > FSCr. minw- ‘good’. (7) MiPe. nah(i)- ‘good’. (8) Yu. skew-, sku- ‘good, well’. 35. GREEN 24 (1) PAW *q։ä:lV ~ *ժ։ä:lV (~ ŭ) ‘blue, green’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #325) > PNi *qala- > NiA qala‘green, unripe’. (2) PAW *q’omV (~ q’։) green’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #319) > PNi *qoƖ(ժ)-r ‘green’ > NiS. qoĎњ-r vala-d ‘green’ (with PNi *val ‘colour’). (3) PAlg *wark-, *werk- ‘green, verdure’ 25 > PA *wašk-, *wešk- ‘green, raw’ > WAb. asskkasskk-w-i ‘green’; MiPe. ihk-ip-an- II ‘to be blue/green’; FSCr. oša:-wašk-os-iw AI, oša:wašk-w-a:w II ‘to be blue-green’. (4) PW *ti:Π։-, *tu:Π։- ‘evergreen; bile’ > PWN *ti:Λ- ‘green’ > Kw. tiΠ-a ‘hemlock leaves, leaves of evergreen’, Oo. tiΠ-s७ ‘green rock’, Hai. tìΠ-sdu ‘green, yellow’. (5) Noo. kist-aq ‘green, pale’. 36. HAIR (HEAD-) (1) PAW *hƕpV(-lV) ‘hair (body, facial)’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #145) > PW *hap- ‘hair (body, facial)’ > Noo. hap, hap-sy’up ‘hair’ (also Mak. hap- ‘hair, fur’, Dit. hap-a:b-Ըub ‘hair’) • PAlg =(eՉ-)ep-l- ‘hair’ > Wi. =ip-ŭ; Yu. Ըlep- (a metathesis) ‘hair’; PA *=i:Ըŭ- > MiPe. =i:l-ihs-i ‘hair’. (2) PAW *mՓΠE È *ԸՓmΠE ‘hair, feather’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #226) > PNi *Ɩ=ƕmx > NiA Ď-iĎg, NiS. Ď-amx ‘head hair, animal hair’. See FEATHER. (3) PNA *ԸO:ŏk’E ‘head, face’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #36) > PAlg *=a:tkw-, *=etkw- ‘head, hair’ > WAb. =tep-kkw-an ‘head hair’. (4) PW *-qi: ‘head’ > PWN *-qi: ‘head, top of head, hair of head’ > Oo. -(:)-qi(-a), Hei. -(:)-qi-(a), Hai. -(:)-qi-(a). (5) PA *=pi:w- ‘plume, down, short feather’ > FSCr. mi-pi:w-ay ‘hair’. 37. HAND (1) PAW *dՓ:mVժ։E (~ q’։) ‘arm, hand’ (cf. Nikolaev 2015b, #103) > PNi *tƕmk > NiA timk, NiS. tamk ‘hand, arm’. (2) PAW *n’OLK(։)V (~ Ů’) ‘arm, hand’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #250) > PA *=neŭk- ‘arm’ > MiPe. =nehk-i ‘hand; fingers’. (3) PAlg *=(e)Ըs- ‘hand’ > Wi. =éҌs; Yu. cew-es ‘hand’; PA =Ըŭ-en-ty- > WAb. =el-t, =el-c-i ‘hand’; FSCr. mi-²-ih-²-iy ‘hand, foreleg of animal’. (4) PWN *ha:y’a:-su: ‘hand’ > Kw. hay’asú, Hei. háy’ásu, Hai. hay’asu, haԸisu. (5) Noo. kҭikҭink-su ‘hand’. Also PA *keš-y- ‘good’. PA *wel- > Mic. wel-apit-ay ‘I have good theeth’, etc. 24 No data for Wiyot and Yurok. 25 Also Yu. Ըwesk-(k)a:p’ ‘crab grass, green’, Ըwesk-em ‘crab grass, cut and dried’. 22 23

260

Toward the reconstruction of Proto-Algonquian-Wakashan. Part 3: The Algonquian-Wakashan 110-item wordlist

38. HEAD (1) PAW *hü:xE ‘head, nape’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #155) > PWN *hi:x- ‘head’ > Oo. hix-t’i, Hei. híx-t’í, Hai. hìx-t’i id., Kw. hix.-t’i ‘fishhead’. (2) PAW *t’Փq։E ~ *tՓq։E ‘head’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #353) > PW *t’uΠ։-, *t’uq- ‘head, forehead’ > Noo. t’uÆ-c’iti (also Mak. t’uΠ-u:c’id(a), Dit. t’uΠ։- ‘head’). (3) PAW *ŏ’Փ:Ɩ’k’E È *ԸՓ:Ɩ’ŏ’k’E ‘(fish, animal) head’ (cf. Nikolaev 2015b, #94) > PNi *coƖժ-r > NiA coĎr (z-, č-); NiS. coĎ-r, coĎћ-ì, coĎq-r ‘head’ 26. (4) PNA *ԸO:ŏk’E ‘head, face’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #36) > PAlg *=o:ŏk- > Yu. m-oÙkҭ-oh ‘head’. (5) PAlg *=temp- ‘head, brain’ > Wi. w-ˬtb-ˬы(Ҍ)t ‘head’; PA *=temp- ‘head, brain’ > WAb. =tep ‘head; bowl of a pipe’; MiPe. =ntep-ik-an-i ‘head’. (6) PAlg *we=Ըt-ekw-a:n-, *-št-ekw-a:n- ‘(fish) head’ (cf. Yu. tƕ:-k-un ‘fish, salmon head’) > FSCr. mi-st-ikw-a:n ‘head’. 39. HEAR 27 (1) PAW *mƕԸV È *ԸƕmԸV ‘to hear’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #221) > PNi *mՓ- > NiA mi-, NiS. mi-d ‘to hear, listen’ • PAlg *-o(:)Ըm-, *-oԸm-, -eԸm- ‘to hear, understand’ > Wi. k-ˬn-iҌm-iÙ ‘to hear’; Yu. k-o(Ҍ)m- ‘to hear; understand, feel’; PA *ne-o:m-t-, *pe-em-t- > WAb. n-o-t-a- ‘to hear’; MiPe. n-o:n-t-am- TI ‘to hear, understand’; FSCr. p-e:h-t- ‘to hear’. See EAR. (2) PAW *no: ‘to hear’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #244) > PW *na:- > Noo. na-Ҍa(:) ‘to hear; feel, perceive’ (also Dit. da-Ըa: ‘to hear, understand’, Mak. da-Ըa: ‘to hear, perceive, sense’). See EAR. 40. HEART 28 (1) PAW *ԸepV ‘heart’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #13) > PNi *Ɩ=if > NiA., NiS. Ď-if ‘heart’. (2) PAlg *=tek։l-, *cek։r- ‘heart’ > Wi. w-ˬtw-ihl ‘her/his heart’; Yu. cekҭs ‘heart’ (cf. tek։s-aԸr ‘heart of salmon, uvula’); PA *=te:h- > MiPe. =te:h-i ‘heart’; FSCr. o=te:h-iy ‘her/his heart’. (3) Noo. Ùim’aqsti ‘heart; mind; brain; spinal cord; pithy core of any tree’. (4) WAb. =lawõkan ‘heart’. 41. HORN (1) PAW *wi:LV ‘horn’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #377) > PWN *wˬω- ‘antler, horn’ > Kw. wΖ-७, w՛-’aq, Oo. wΖ-७, Hei. wΖ-‫ލ‬๗, Hai. w՛-’aq • PA *wi:ŭ-, *wiwi:ŭ- ‘horn’ > MiPe. =wi:wi:la ‘horn, antler’. (2) PAlg *=a:n-, *=en- ‘head hair, horn(s)’ 29 > Wi. =ˬd-ad ‘horn’. (3) PNi *murk-i > NiA murk-i, NiS. muìk-i ‘horn’. (4) PA *e:šk-an- ‘horn’ > WAb. asskk-an ‘horn, antler’; FSCr. e:šk-an ‘antler’. (5) Noo. ma:Ù ‘horns’. (6) Yu. sҌec-oh ‘horn(s); wedge’. 42. I (1) PAW *ŮV ‘I; we (excl.)’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #254) > PW *nu:- ‘I, we’ > PWN *nu:-gҭa: ‘I’ > Kw., Oo. nu-g։a, Hei. nú-g։a, Hai. nù-g։a • PNi *Ůi > NiA., NiS. Úi ‘I’ • PAlg *neԸ- (pref.) ‘I, me, my’, *ne-Ըil-a ‘I’ > Wi. yi(-l) ‘I’ (cf. du- ‘1 Sg possessive prefix)’; Yu. ne-k(iҌ); PA *n-i:l-a > WAb. n-i-a ‘I, me, mine’, MiPe. n-i:l-a ‘I, me’, FSCr. n-i:Ú-a ‘I’. See WE. (2) PWS *si-y’a: ‘I’ > Noo. si-y’a ‘I’ (also Mak. si-ya:, Dit. si-y’a). In Nikolaev 2015b, #94 PAlg *-a:ŏk-w-, *-eŏk-, *-etk- (~ ŏh, kh) ‘head’ [PA *-etkw-, -ešky- (suff.) ‘head’, Yu. m-oŭk։- ‘head’] were erroneously grouped together with PAW *ŏ’Փ:Ɩ’k’E È *ԸՓ:Ɩ’ŏ’k’E ‘head’; I now think that they should instead be grouped with PNA *ԸO:ŏk’E ‘head, face’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #36). 27 No data for PWN. 28 No data for PWN. 29 Also PA *=a:n- ‘head hair๏. 26

261

Sergei L. Nikolaev

43. KILL (1) PAW *ΠVlV È *ԸVlΠV ‘to kill’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #400a) > PWN *ҌˬlΛ- ‘to kill, murder, beat up’ > Kw., Hai. Ըl๗Π-a, Hei. ԸŨ๗Π-a • PNi *kh-u- > NiA iћ- (kh-u-, x-u-), NiS. iwћ-d ‘to kill’. (2) PAW *Ů’AbV (~ p’) ‘to die’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #255) > PAlg *nep- ‘to die’, caus. *nep-l‘to kill’ > PA *neԸ-l- > WAb. nih-l-a TA ‘to kill (so.)’ ਔ *nep- ‘to die’ > caus. FSCr. nip-ah-e:w TA ‘to kill so.’. See Die. (3) PWS *qaΠ- ‘to die; dead’ > Noo. qaÆ- ‘to die; kill, cause to die’ (also Mak. qaΠ- ‘to die, become numb’, Dit. qaΠ-ši՛- ‘to die’, qaΠ-sasԸp ‘to kill, beat up’). (4) MiPe. ankih- ‘to kill (him)’. (5) Wi. diy-ˬb- ‘to kill’. (6) Yu. caus. sˬm-ˬt- ‘to beat, kill’. 44. KNEE (1) PAW *ΠVtV (Nikolaev 2015b, #401a) > PWN *-Λt-a:m’u: ‘knee’ > Kw., Hei., Hai. -(:)Πt-am’u • PA *=ket-ekw- ‘knee’ > WAb. =k-ket=ekw; MiPe. =h-kit-ikw-i-a ‘knee’; FSCr. o=kit-ik ‘her/his knee, knee joint’. (2) PAW *p’iqE ‘knee’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #304) > PWS *-p’iq-a > Noo. ҌaҌap-p’iq-a ‘knee’ (also Dit. -p’iq id.) • *pix- > NiA. pix (v-, b-), NiS. pix-t-i ‘knee’. (3 ) Wi. =ˬҌl-ˬw-ˬl ‘knee’. (4) Yu. Ҍˬ:k-ˬÙ ‘knee’. 45. KNOW 30 (1) PAW *k։e:mV ‘to know, understand’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #177) > PW *Πam- 31 > PWS *Πam-up- ‘to know’ > Noo. Æam-up ‘to know, recognize’ (also Noo Ky. şam-i:p id., Noo. caus. şim.- ‘to show’, Mak. Πab-up ‘to know, recognize (a person)’, Dit. Πab-up ‘to know, recognize’) • PNi *him-, *khim- > NiA jˬjm- (him-), jim- (khim-, xim-), NiS. jajm-(n)d ‘to know, understand’ • PAlg *ko(:)m- (~ kh) > Yu. kom- ‘to know, feel’ (e. g., kom-c-um-ek’ ‘I know’, etc.). (2) PAW *hOΠV-tA:k։V ‘to know how’ (cf. Nikolaev 2015b, #35) > PAlg *ka:tkw-, *ketk(w)- > Wi. kakҭ- ‘to know’; PA *ketk- ‘know, recognize’ > MiPe. kihk-eli:-, FSCr. kisk-e:Úim-e:w TA ‘to know’. (3) PA *wa:w-, *waw- ‘to know’ > WAb. waw- ‘to know, learn’ (e. g., waw-alt-a ‘to know (in general), be knowing’, waw-k-a ‘to know how to dance’, etc.). 46. LEAF (1) PAW *pVlaƖq’A ‘leaf, flower’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #299) > PNi *phlaƖk > NiA. phlaĎq ‘leaf’ • PAlg *P(el)aK-w- ‘leaf’ > PA*-pak-w- > WAb. wani-pakw, MiPe. mihši-pakwa (Mi.), ka:ki-pakwa (Pe., Wea.) ‘leaf’. (2) PAW *mi: (~ ä:, ü:) ‘leaf, berry’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #224) > PWN *mi:- ‘leaf, blossom’ > Kw. mamՄ-m’a ‘leaves, blossoms’, Hei. mím-íaΠ՛awa ‘leaves (of any plant)’. (3) PNA *ԸEƖi:pV (~ Ɩ’) ‘leaf, flower’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #16) > PA *ani:p-y- > FSCr. ani:p-i:y ‘leaf’. (4) PWS *՛’aq- ‘to grow; to sprout’ > Noo. ω’aq-apt ‘leaf; bush; branch; plant’. (5) PNi *com-r > NiS. com-ì ‘leaf, flower’. (6) Wi. Ҍˬwiћˬdˬk ‘plant, grass, weed, leaf’. (7) Yu. ka:p’- ‘leaf, leaves, greenery, brush, grass, the wild; to gather greenery’. 30 31

262

No data for PWN. ʓf. Quil. Πab- ‘to know how’.

Toward the reconstruction of Proto-Algonquian-Wakashan. Part 3: The Algonquian-Wakashan 110-item wordlist

47. LIE (ANIMATE OBJECTS) 32 (1) PAW *ŭi:hV Ì *Ըi:hŭV (~ e:) ‘to lie’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #210) > PAlg *-ehŭ- > Wi. ta-tíkҭ-Ù-il ‘I’m lying down’, caus. kawˬ-tu-šap-Ù-is ‘I’m laying them straight’, etc. (tik։- ‘down’; šap‘in the same way’); PA *-ehŭ-, *-ehš- ‘to lie, fall’ > WAb. pap-is-ew-õ²-em-o AI ‘he lies’; FSCr. pim-iš-in AI ‘to lie, recline’. (2) PWN *kҭˬl- ‘to lie somewhere, lie down (said of animate beings)’ > Kw. k։l-a, Oo. k։l๗-a, Hei. k։l๗-á id., Hai. k։l-zuՄюŭ ‘mattress’. (3) PNi *poŸ- > NiA. por- (b-), NiS. poz-d ‘to lie, lie down’. (4) Yu. Ҍoyѣkes-ek’ ‘I lie (down)’. 48. LIVER (1) PAW *q’։oƖwV ~ *q։oƖwV ‘liver, bowels’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #334) > PWN *q’ҭˬm(-s)‘liver’ > Oo. q’։७७s, Hei. q’։m๗яs. (2) PAW *tiՉ(։)V ‘liver, gall’ (cf. Nikolaev 2015b, #341) > PNi *thi-w-s > NiA. thiu-s, NiS. thiw-s ‘liver’. (3) PAW *r’a:q’։A È *Ըa:r’q’։A (~ ƕ:) ‘liver’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #338) > PAlg *=ŭkw-en-, *=ŭkw-an> Wi. =ˬыtw-ˬd, Yu. =ˬÙk-un ‘liver’; PA WAb. =skw-en, MiPe. =hk-on-i, FSCr. o-sk-on ‘liver’. (4) Noo. ω’im’a(:)q ‘liver’. 49. LONG (1) PAW *gՓl’V (~ ƕ) (cf. Nikolaev 2015b, #113) > PWN *gˬl’-t- ‘long’ 33 > Kw. gl๗-t-’a, Oo. gl๗-t, Hai., Hei. gŨ๗-t • PNi *kil- > NiA. kil-a-, NiS. kil-d ‘long’. (2) PAlg *ken-ew- ‘long’ > Yu. kn-ew- ‘long, tall’; PA *ken-w-, *kaka:n-w- ‘long’ > WAb. kwen-i id., MiPe. kin-w-a:- II, FSCr. kin-os-iw AI, kin-w-a:w II ‘to be long’. (3) Noo. y’a(:)q ‘long, high’. (3) Wi. dan-aÙ-aҌw ‘3Sg is long’ (cf. dan-at-ƕd ‘3Sg is large’). 50. LOUSE (HEAD-) 34 (1) PAW *hi:rxk’E ‘louse’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #149) > PW *G=i:xk- ‘louse’ > PWN *G-i:x‘louse’ > Kw., Hai. G-i-n, Oo. G-i:-n๗-, Hei. G-í-na (cf. *G-ix- ‘to have lice, lousy’); PWS *q-iŏ- > Noo. q-i²-in ‘louse’ (also Mak. q-iŏ-, q-iŏ-id(a), Dit. q-iŏ-id) • PAlg *ihkw- ‘louse’ > Wi. íkҭ ‘louse’, Yu. m-ohk-oh ‘head louse’; PA *ehkw- > WAb. akk-em-õ; MiPe. at-ehk-am-a ‘louse’, wa:p-ihkw-a ‘louse, lice’; FSCr. ihkw-a ‘louse’. (2) PNi *amrak > NiA. amrak ‘head louse’. 51. MAN 35 (1) PAW *Ըü:tOq’։E (Nikolaev 2015b, #38) > PNi *utk- > NiA. utk-u ‘man, husband’. (2) PAW *be:k։E ~ *pe:g։E ‘person’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #62) > PAlg *na:-pe:Չw-, *ne-pe:Չw- > Yu. peћ-ˬk ‘man, mal, all-grown-up person’ (cf. peՉ-i૬ ‘male’); PA *na:-pe:w- ‘man, male’ > FSCr. na:-pe:w ‘man’. See PERSON. (3) PW *kap- ‘man, husband’ > PWS *ŏap-k։-, *ŏakup- (metath.) > Noo. ²akup ‘male, husband, man’ (also Mak. ŏap-x։-, ŏakup, Dit. ŏap-Π։-, ŏak։up ‘male, husband’). No data for MiPe. or Noo. Cf. PWN *gƕl- in Kw. gl-ìԸstn๗d ‘to turn over lengthwise (said of salmon, small animal)’. 34 No data for NiS. 35 NiS. azmƕc ‘man’ is borrowed from TM *Ŋsimaŏ- ‘to have an affair with somebody else's wife’, *Ŋsimaŏu ‘womanizer’. 32 33

263

Sergei L. Nikolaev

(4) PA *elenyiw- > MiPe. aleni-a ‘man’. See PERSON. (5) PWN *wi:s- ‘man, male’ > Kw. wis-७ ‘male’, wís-a ‘small boy’, Hei. wís-७ ‘male’, Hai. wìs-७ ‘man, male’. (6) WAb. sanõpa ‘adult male, man, husband’. (7) Wi. kuҌw-il ‘man, Indian, person, human, creature, people’ (cf. kuԸw- ‘to live’). See PERSON. 52. MANY (1) PWN *q’i:- ‘much, many’ > Kw., Oo. q’i-n७, Hei. q’í-n‫ލ‬๗, Hai. q’ì-n७. (2) PWS *Ըay- > Noo. Ҍay-a ‘many’ (also Mak. Ըay-, Ըay-a- ‘many, much’, Dit. Ըay-, Ըay-i:q ‘a lot’). (3) PNi *les > NiA., NiS. les ‘many; enough’. (4) PA *meԸŭ- ‘big’ > WAb. mss-al-i ‘many, much’. (5) Wi. kˬc- ‘many, much, a lot’. (6) Yu. ten- ‘many, much, a lot’. (7) MiPe. wi:hsa ‘much, a lot, great amount’. (8) FSCr. mih²e:t, mis²e:t ‘many, a lot, a good number’. 53. MEAT (1) PAW *di:ն։V ~ *di:ժ։V (~ ä:) ‘meat, flesh’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #101) > PNi *tju-Ÿ > NiA. cu-s (č-), NiS. tu-ì ‘meat’. (2) PAW *mi:- ‘food, fish; to eat’ > PW *mi:- ‘fish, fish meat’ > Noo. bi:-c ‘meat’ (also Mak. bi:-c-i: ‘meat’, Dit. bi:-c ‘meat, flesh’). See EAT, FISH. (3) PNA *yՓwV (~ y’, ƕ, w’) ‘body, intestines; flesh’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #404) > PA *=i:-yaw‘meat; body’ > WAb. w-i-o-ss, MiPe. w-i:-yo:-hs-i ‘meat’, FSCr. w-i-ya:-s ‘meat, flesh’. (4) PWN *Ҍˬlč- ‘meat, flesh’ > Kw. Ըl๗z-i, Hai. Ըl๗z. (5) Yu. nˬpˬw ‘meat’. (6) Wi. ²e²a² ‘meat’. 54. MOON (1) PAW *l’u:Ɩ’ƔV (Nikolaev 2015b, #197) > PWN *n’u:Ҍs-i: ‘moon, month’ > Oo. n’uԸs-i, Hei. n’us-í • PNi *loƖ (< *loƖƔ-) > NiA., NiS. loĎ ‘moon’. (2) PNA *kiƖ़V (~ q, X) ‘sun, moon’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #161) > PAlg *k(-eՉ)-eŏh- > PA *ki:š‘sun, moon, month; day, sky’ > WAb. kis-oss ‘moon, sun, luminary’; MiPe. ki:Ùs-w-a ‘sun, moon; month’. See SUN. (3) Noo. hupaÙ ‘sun, moon, month’. See SUN. (4) Wi. dˬcˬw-ˬlayˬlˬkҭi ‘moon’ (dƕcƕw- ‘night’). See NIGHT. (5) Yu. won=ewsleћ ‘moon, sun’ (won- ‘up’). See SUN. (6) FSCr. tipisk(a:w)i-pi:sim ‘moon’ (litt. “night sun”). See SUN. 55. MOUNTAIN (1) PAW *Ɩƕ:kV (~ g) ‘mountain’ > PW *nuk- > PWN *nˬk- ‘mountain’ > Kw. ng-i; PWS *nuŏ- > Noo. nu²-i: ‘mountain’ (also Mak. diŏ-iԸi:, Dit. duŏ-iԸ id.) • PAlg *ma:kw- (~ kh) > Yu. mˬk-ҭ-ˬÙ ‘mountain, peak, hill’, mˬk-ҭ-ˬm-ˬkҭ ‘mountain’. (2) PNi *chir > NiA., NiS. chir ‘mountain’. (3) PA *wat-y- > WAb. wac-o ‘mountain, hill’, MiPe. a²-iw-i ‘hill, ridge, mountain’, FSCr. wa²-iy ‘hill, mountain’. (4) Wi. kҭˬs ‘hill’. 264

Toward the reconstruction of Proto-Algonquian-Wakashan. Part 3: The Algonquian-Wakashan 110-item wordlist

56. MOUTH 36 (1) PAW *m’a:whV È *ham’wV ‘to eat’ (cf. Nikolaev 2015b, #234) > PNi *ƕm-k, -x 37 > NiA. iĎ-g ‘mouth, beak’, NiS. am-x ‘mouth’. See EAT. (2) PWN *sˬms- ‘mouth’ > Kw., Hai. s७s, Oo. s७७s, Hei. s‫ލ‬๗s. (3) PAlg *=tl- ‘mouth’ > Wi. =ˬl-ùl, Yu. =ˬl-uÙ ‘mouth’; PA *=t-o:n- > WAb. =t-o-n ‘mouth’, MiPe. =t-u:-n-i ‘mouth, beak’, FSCr. o=t-o:-n ‘her/his mouth’. 57. NAME (1) PAW *ԸVklV ‘to name’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #42) > PW *-kŭ- ~ *-k՛- ‘name(d)’ > PWN *-(x)ω-a: ‘named, called’ > Kw. -(x)՛(-a), Oo. -՛(-a), Hei. -(x)՛(-a), Hai. -՛(-a); PWS *-qŭ- > Noo. =qÙ(-a) ‘call, name(d)’ (also Mak. -(k)ŭ-a(:) ‘having as name’, Ըuqu-qŭ(-a) ‘one’s name is ...’, Dit. -k։a-qŭ ‘call, name(d)’) • PNi *qha > NiA., NiS. qha ‘name’. (2) PAlg *w-, *=ew, *w(-eՉ-)-en- ‘to name’, *=w- ‘name’ 38 > Wi. w-ˬn- ‘to mention by name’, Yu. w-eћ-en-ek’ ‘I call, name’似Yu. =ew ‘name (n.)’; PA *wi:-n- ‘to name’ > WAb. wi-s-w-õkan, MiPe. =wi:-n-s-o:-n-i ‘name’. FSCr. wi:-n-e:w TA ‘to name so.’. 58. NECK 39 (1) PAW *q’։i:yV ‘neck’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #333) > PWN *q’ҭu:- ‘neck’ > Kw. q’uq’u-n’i, Oo. q’։uq’։-n๗’i, Hei. q’։uq’։-ún๗’i, Hai. q’ùq’։-n๗i • PA *=kwe:y-aw- > FSCr. mi-kway-aw ‘neck’. (2) PAW *c’ik’։V (~ ä) neck’ > PWS *c’ik’։-am(a)c > Noo. c’ik’-umc ‘neck’ (also Mak. c’ik’։-a:bas, Dit. c’ik’։-a:bx) • PAlg *=skw- ‘neck’ > Wi. (Ҍu)w-ˬыsw-itk-ˬd-ˬҌl ‘her neck’; PA *-ŭkw-e:-kan- > MiPe. =hkw-e:-kan-i ‘neck’. (3) PAW *k’։onsV ‘neck’ (cf. Nikolaev 2015b, #187) 40 > PNi *qhos > NiA. qhos (Λ-), NiS. qhos ‘neck’. (4) Yu. pah, paht-un ‘neck’. 59. NEW 41 (1) PAW *c’i:wV (~ ŏ’) ‘new’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #79) > PW *c’u:- ‘new, fresh’ > PWN *c’u:-, *c’ˬ- ‘new’ > Kw. cx-as ‘new (mat or blanket)’; Oo. c’u-ta, Hai. c’ù-ta ‘fresh (said of food)’; PWS *c’u-š- > Noo. c’u-š.-uk ‘new’ (also Mak. c’u-s-tk-, Dit. c’u-s-tuk id.) • PNi *chju-Ÿ- > NiA. chu-z-, NiS. chi-r-d ‘new’ • PAlg *ci:-, *ci- (~ ch, ŏ, ŏh) > Yu. ci-Ҍn, ca-Ҍan ‘new’. (2) PAlg *we:़g-, *we़g- ‘new, young’ 42 > PA *we:šk-, *wešk- > WAb. wsskk-i ‘new, young, raw, fresh’; MiPe. we:hk-i- ‘new, young’; FSCr. ošk-i ‘new’. 60. NIGHT (1) PAW *taΠA È *ԸatΠA (Nikolaev 2015b, #339) > PWS *ԸatΠ- ‘evening, night’ > Noo. ҌatÆ-i: ‘night’ (also Mak. ԸatΠi:-yuԸu:, Dit. ԸatΠ-iy id.) • PA *-etk- ‘evening, night’ > WAb. tep-okk-w ‘dark time of the night (later than evening)’; MiPe. tip-ehk-i ‘night’; FSCr. tip-isk-a:w II ‘to be night, be dark’ (*tep- ‘dark’). The Noo. data are lacking. A deverbative with the agentive suffix -k/-x, cf PNi *hil-k, -x ‘tongue’ from *hel-[h]el- ‘to lick’. 38 The PAW root PNA *x։a È *hax։V ‘name’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #389) does not really exist. 39 No data for WAb. 40 Some of the reflexes of the newly reconstructed PAW root *c’ik’։V (~ ä) ‘neck’ were previously mixed with reflexes of the PAW root *k’։onsV ‘neck’ (the second form*Ըonsk’։A is erroneous). 41 No data for Wiyot. 42 Also Yu. wƕԸ-ƕՉ-ƕy- ‘young’. 36 37

265

Sergei L. Nikolaev

(2) PAW *Ůä:g։E ~ *Ůä:g։TV night’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #251) > PAlg *neՉt-, neՉc- ‘night; dark’ 43 > Wi. dˬc-ˬw-; Yu. nahsc-ew-en ‘night’. (3) PWN *Ga:n-u:ω ‘night’ 44 > Kw., Oo. Gan-u՛, Hei. Gán-ú՛, Hai. Gàn-u՛. (4) PNi *wՓrk > NiA. urk, NiS. iìk ‘night’. 61. NOSE (1) PAW *we:q։E (~ɍq’։) ‘nose, cape’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #373) > PNi *wix > NiA. vix, NiS. ux ‘nose’. (2) PAW *q։esV È *heq։sV ‘mouth, nose, throat’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #326) > PA *=kweŭ- ‘nose’ > FSCr. o=kot ‘his/her nose, its beak’. (3) PWN *xҭˬm- ‘nose’ > Oo. x։m-aq, Hei. x։m-áq, Hai. xum-àq. (4) PWS *nic- > Noo. nic-’a ‘nose’ (also Dit. dic-’ id.). (5) PA *=ŏya:ŭ- ‘nose’ > WAb. =cõl ‘nose, nostril’. (6) PA *=ŭki:w-an- > MiPe. =hkiw-an-i ‘nose, bill (of a bird)’. (7) Wi. tˬth-ˬd ‘nose’. (8) Yu. =ˬp’-ˬҌn ‘nose’. 62. NOT 45 (1) PAW *k’ä: ‘negative stem’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #168) > PW *k(։)’i-, *-ik(։)’ ‘not’ > PWN *k’-i:-, *k’-u:- ‘no, not’ > Kw. k’-i ‘no’, k’-i-w- ‘no, not, none, nil, non-existent’; Oo. k’-i: ‘no’, k’-i-w- ‘not’; Hei. k’-i-á ‘no’, k’-u-w- ‘not’, Hai. k’-u ‘no’, k’-u-s ‘not the case, non-existent’; PWS *-k։ > Noo. hi-k, wi-k ‘not’ • PAlg *ka-, *ke- ‘no, not (negative stem)’ > Wi. kˬ-, ka- ‘no, not (negative preverb)’; Yu. ke-, ki-, ko- ‘no, not (negative stem)’. (2) PA *mo:- ‘negative stem’ > MiPe. mu:-h²i ‘no, not’; FSCr. mo-wa:² ‘no, not’, mo:-Úa ‘no, not (negative marker for independent verbs)’. (3) WAb. õta ‘no, not’. 63. ONE (1) PAW *Ů’ƕ ‘one’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #257) > PW *n’a-m > PWN *n’ˬ-m-, *m’ˬ-n- ‘one; alone’ > Kw. n’-m-, Oo., Hei., Hai. m’-n- • PNi *Ů(i)- > NiA., NiS. Ú(i)- ‘one’ • PAlg *ne-kwet-, *ne-kwec‘one’ 46 > Wi. ku(Ҍ)c, Yu. koht/c- ‘one’; PA *ne-kwetw- > WAb. ne-kwec-i; MiPe. n-kot-i ‘one’. (2) PWS *c’a- ‘one’ > Noo. c’a-w-a:(k) ‘one’ (also Mak. c’a-w-a:-, c’a-w-i:-, c’a-w-u:-, c’a-k-wa:Ըak։, Dit. c’a-w-a:Ըk id.). (3 ) PAlg *pe:r-, *pe:l- > PA *pe:š- 47, *pe:l- > FSCr. pe:y-ak ‘one’. 64. PERSON (1) PAW *be:k։E ~ *pe:g։E (Nikolaev 2015b, #62) > PNA *Ů’a:-be:k։E ~ *Ů’a:-pe:g։E ‘person’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #62) > PNi *Ůi-vՉ-Ɩ > NiA. ni-vx, NiS. ni-vћ-Ď ‘person; Nivkh’ • PAlg *na:-pe:Չw-, *ne-pe:Չw- > Yu. peћ-ˬk ‘man, mal, all-grown-up person’ 48. See MAN. (2) PW *-a:s- ‘person’ > PWN *-q-a:s, *-G-a:s ‘person’ > Kw. -Gas, Oo., Hei., Hai. -q-as ‘person; fellow; PWS *qu:Ը-as > Noo. qu:Ҍ-as ‘person, Indian, adult, man of worth’ (also Mak. quԸ-ac-, quԸ-as-, qu:Ը-as ‘husky person, man of worth’, Dit. qu:Ը-as ‘man, Indian’). (3) PA *elen-y-iw- > FSCr. iÚin-iw ‘person, Cree person, aboriginal person’. See MAN. Also PAlg *n-eՉ-eՉt- > PA *ni:Ըt- > Men. na-ni:Ըt-ak-en-a:k-w-at ‘night is falling’. Cf. Oo. Gan-iŭa, Hei. Gán-íŭa, Hai. Gan-Մюŭa ‘to have supper’. 45 No data for Nivkh. 46 A compound, cf. PA *kwet-ak- ‘other’ and PA *na-w-at- ‘first’. 47 The root PAW *pE:šV È *ԸE:pšV ‘one’ (Nikolaev 2015, #281) does not really exist. 48 Cf. peՉ-i૬ ‘male’. 43 44

266

Toward the reconstruction of Proto-Algonquian-Wakashan. Part 3: The Algonquian-Wakashan 110-item wordlist

(4) Wi. kuҌw-il ‘man, Indian, person, human, creature, people’ (cf. kuԸw- ‘to live’). See MAN. (5) WAb. pemõwsowinno ‘a living person, a person’. (6) MiPe. mihtohse:nia ‘human, person, Indian’. 65. RAIN (1) PWN *y’u:gҭ- ‘rain; to rain’ > Kw. y’úg։-a, Hai. y’ug։-à ‘rain’. (2) PWS *m’i՛- > Noo. m’iω- ‘rain’ (also Mak. bi՛-, Dit. bi՛-a:). (3) PNi *lՓx > NiA. lix ‘rain; weather’, NiS. lix ‘rain’. (4) PAlg *-phe:Ըw > Wi. phaҌw- ‘to rain’; Yu. ten-pew-eҌÙ ‘it is raining, rain, storm’. (5) PA *so:k- ‘to pour, soak’ > WAb. sok-el-õn II ‘it rains’. (6) PA *kem-iw-an- ‘to rain’ > FSCr. kim-iw-an II ‘to rain’. (7) PA *pe:t-, *pe:s- ‘slowly’ > MiPe. pi:t-il-a:n- II ‘it rains’. 66. RED (1) PAW *p’akV (~ ä) ‘red; blood’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #302) > PNi *paն- > NiA. paѹ-la-, NiS. paѹ-d ‘red’• PAlg *pak-, *pek- ‘to be bloody, red’ > Yu. pek-oy-, pˬk-ˬy- ‘red’. See BLOOD. (2) PAW *c’ü:xA È *Ըü:c’xA ‘sap, blood’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #81) PAlg *=ck-oԸw-, *=tk-oԸw‘blood’ > PA *me-sk-w- ‘red’ > WAb. me-kk-w-i; MiPe. me-hk-w- ‘red’; FSCr. mi-hk-w-a:w II ‘to be red’. See BLOOD. (3) PW *՛’iΠ- ‘rusty, red, buff colour’ > Noo. ω’iÆ ‘red’ (also Mak. ՛’iΠ-, Dit. ՛’iΠ-uk id.). (4) PWN *ω’a:q- ‘red’ > Kw., Oo. ՛’aq։-a, Hei. ՛’aq։-a, Hais. ՛’aq-. (5) Wi. saћ-aҌw ‘it is red’. 67. ROAD (1) PNA *ƖOlyV (~ Ɩ’) ‘path, road’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #266) > PAlg *mey-e:- > PA *my-e:- > MiPe. mi:-w-i ‘road, trail’; PA *mye:-hkanaw- > FSCr. me:-skanaw ‘road, path’. (2) PW *t’ax- ‘path, trail, way’> PWN *t’ˬx- ‘pathway, trail, way’ > Kw. t’x-la, Oo., Hei. t’x, Hai. t’x-l๗s; PWS *t’aš- > Noo. t’aš-i: ‘road, trail, doorway’ (also Mak. t’aš-(i:) ‘trail, road, doorway’, Dit. t’aš-i: ‘trail’). (3) PNi *ci-f > NiA. ti-f (z-, d-), NiS. ti-f ‘road, path, way, trail’. (4) Wi. waÙˬl ‘road, trail’. (5) Yu. la: ‘road, way’. (6) WAb. õwti ‘path, trail, road, street’. 68. ROOT (1) PAW *ŏ’VlVyՓp’V, *ŏ’VlVyՓp’(-ƕ:tKE) (cf. Nikolaev 2015b, #97) > PW *՛’u:p’-ak(։) ‘root’ > PWN *ω’u:p’-kҭ- ‘root’ >Kw. ՛’up’-k, Oo. ՛’uk’։p, Hei. ՛’úk’։p, Hai. ՛’up’-k; PWS *՛’up’-aŏ > Noo. ω’up’-a² root’ (also Mak. ՛’up’-aŏ id., Dit. ՛’u:Ըb-aŏ ‘roots for basket making’) • PNi *vizl-Փx (metathesis of *zilv-Փx) > NiA., NiS vizl-ix root’ • PAlg *=dlayep-, *=dlayep-i:t(a)k- (~ th, kh) ‘root’ > Wi. Ҍu-wϷ-láp-itk-ϷҌl, Ҍu-láp-itk-ϷҌl ‘roots’; Yu. ҌwϷ-ҌÙp- ‘root(s)’ (also Ըwo-Ըŭp-’eԸy ‘angelica root’, Ըwƕ-Ըŭp-itƕk ‘root, willow root’); PA *wa=t(y)ap- > FSCr. wa-tap-iy ‘root’ ਔ PA *we=tye:p-itk-, *we=tye:p-isk-,*we=tye:p-išk- ‘root’ > WAb. wa-capp-kk-w ‘plant root’; MiPe. a-²i:p-ihk-a ‘root (of a plant)’. 69. ROUND (1) PAW *kOlxV ~ *k’Olk’V ~ *k’։i:lk’V ‘round, roundish’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #162) > PWN *kˬlx- ‘round, circular’ > Kw. kl๗x-a ‘round, circular, wheel, round thing, etc.’, Oo. kl๗x-a ‘circular (an opening)’. 267

Sergei L. Nikolaev

(2) PNA *Ըƕ:wV (~ w’) ‘egg, brood’ (Nikolaev 2015b #21) > PA *w=a:w- ‘egg; round’ > MiPe. w-a:w-i- ‘round’; FSCr. w-a:w-iy- ‘to be round, circular, disk-like’. See EGG. (3) PNi *pulk- > NiA. pulk-u-, NiS. pulk-u-d ‘round’. (4) PA *pet-ek- ‘behind; around’ > WAb. pet-ek-w- ‘round’. (5) Noo. caxҭ ‘round’. (6) Wi. Ҍiw- ‘to be round’. (7) Yu. yˬhp-ˬh ‘to be round’ (cf. Yu. yohp- ‘in a circle’). 70. SAND (1) PAW *q’OmbV (Nikolaev 2015b, #320) > PW *q’up- ‘sand’ > PWN *q’ˬp- ‘sand’ > Kw. q’b-g։is ‘sandy beach’, q’b-ilis ‘broken shells’, Hai. q’p:q’b-is ‘sand’; PWS *q’up- > Noo. ҍup-x-imc, ҍup-x-aqҭ ‘sand’ (cf. Իup-x-aqak ‘sandy’) • PNi *qom-r > NiS. qom-ì ‘sand’. (2) PNA *pVl-ƕƖV-k’։E ‘ashes’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #300) > PA *penkw- ‘ashes, dust, powder’ > WAb. pekw-i ‘sand, dust, soil, earth’. See ASHES, EARTH. (3) PAlg *le:k-, *lek- ‘sand’ > Wi. lˬtkˬk ‘sand’ (perhaps < *lƕk-ƕtk ‘sandy place’, cf. Yu. ri:k-’ew ‘shore, sandbar’); PA *le:k-aw- > MiPe. ne:k-aw-i ‘sand’; FSCr. Úe:k-aw ‘sand, fine gravel’. (4) PNi *maΠ (~ ƕ) > NiA. maΛ ‘sand’. (5) Yu. ca-:l (caҌ-aÙk-, ca-:Ùk-) ‘sand, beach’. 71. SAY (1) PNA *di È *ԸidV ‘to say, tell’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #100) > PNi *it- > NiA. it-, NiS. it-t ‘to say, tell, speak’. (2) PW *wa:- ‘to say’ > Noo. wa:(-Ù)-, wa-wa: ‘to say, speak’ (also Mak. wa:(-ŭ)-, Dit. wa:‘to say’). (3) PAlg. *he-, *h- ‘to say’ > Wi. Ҍ-, Yu. h- ‘to say’; PA *Ø- > WAb. it-Ø-a TI ‘to say’, FSCr. it-Ø-e:w TA ‘to say to so.’, it-Ø-w-e:w AI ‘to say’, MiPe. i-Ø- ‘to say’. (4) PWN *n’i:k- ‘to say, tell’ > Kw., Oo., Hai. n’ik id., Hei. n’x:n’-ká ‘to say repeatedly’. 72. SEE (1) PAW *Ů’e:(wV) ‘to see, look’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #256) > PW *na:- ‘to see, look’ > Noo. n’a:-csa- ‘to see’ (also Mak., Dit. da-ŏ-, Noo. n’a-ŏ- ‘to look’) • PNi *n-di- > NiA. i(Ů)-dՓ- (Ů-ŸՓ-), NiS. i(n)-dՓ-d (n-ŸՓ-d) ‘to see; find’ 49 • PAlg *ne:(w)- ‘to see’ > Yu. ne-w- ‘to see’; PA *ne:- > MiPe. ne:- TA ‘to see’. See EYE. (2) PAlg *wel- ‘to see, choose’ 50 > Yu. wˬl- ‘to see’. (3) PWN *du:qҭ- ‘to see, look’ > Kw. duq։-la, Oo. duq։-l๗a, Hei. dúq։-l๗á, Hai. dùq։-l๗a. (4) PA *wa:p-, -[w]a:p- ‘white, light; eye, look; to look, see’ > WAb. pas-õp-i ‘to see, be able to see’; FSCr. wa:p- ‘to see’. See WHITE. 73. SEED 51 (1) PAW *ŭVq’(։)E È *ԸVŭq’(։)E ‘bone, gristle’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #213) > PA *we=ŭk-an- ‘bone; pit’ and PAW *mi: (~ ä:, ü:) ‘leaf, berry’ 224 > PAlg *m(-eՉ-)en- > PA *men-, *mi:n- ‘berry’ > PA *weŭkan-i-men- ‘seed, pit’ > WAb. sskkan-i-men ‘seed’; MiPe. ahkan-i-min-i ‘seed (of a fruit, in the middle)’; FSCr. ohka-ta:-min ‘seed, nut, pit’. See BONE. (2) PNi *xem > NiA., NiS. xem ‘seed, grain’. Cf. the suffixed forms PNi *Ů-u- ‘to look, watch’, *Ůa-Π ‘eye’; PA *na-t- ‘to seek, hunt’. PA *wel- ‘to choose’. 51 No data for PWN, Noo., Wi., or Yu. 49 50

268

Toward the reconstruction of Proto-Algonquian-Wakashan. Part 3: The Algonquian-Wakashan 110-item wordlist

74. SIT (1) PAW *t’i:q’։V ~ *ti:q’։V ‘to sit’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #350) > PNi *thiv- > NiA. iìp- (thiv-, ìiv-), NiS. iìp-t (thiv-) ‘to sit; sit down’. (2) PW *k’։a:-, *k։a:- > PWN *k’ҭa:- ‘to sit’ > Kw. k’։a-ŭa ‘sitting, to be seated, meeting’, Oo. k’։a:-la ‘sitting, a marriage ceremony’, Hei. k’։á-la ‘sitting, a marriage ceremony’, Hai. k’։à:-la ‘sitting’; PWS *k։a- > Noo. kҭa- ‘to sit’ (also Mak. k։a- id., Dit. k։a- ‘to sit down’). (3) PAlg *-apԸ- ‘to sit’, *-i:pԸ- ‘to put’ 52 > PA *-ap-, *-ep- > WAb. l-ap-i ‘to sit’; MiPe. ap-iAI ‘to be located, sit’; FSCr. ap-i- ‘to sit, stay in a place’. (4) Wi. tˬm- ‘to sit’. (5) Yu. rek’i:n ‘to sit’. 75. SKIN 53 (1) PAW *tokV È *ԸotkV (~ k’) ‘skin, hide’ > PW *tuk- (~ d-) > PWS *tuk։- > Noo. tukҭ-aq ‘skin, hide’ (also Mak. tuk։-aq id.) • PAlg *=tak-, =atk-, =ack- ‘skin’ > Wi. w-ˬыtk-ay ‘skin’; Yu. Ҍw-ˬs, Ҍw-ˬsk-un ‘skin’; PA *=tak- > WAb. ma-tak-en ‘hide, skin’. (2) PAW *Ζü:q’V ~ *՛’ü:ժV (~ q’) ‘skin, fur’ (cf. Nikolaev 2015b, #203) > PAlg *lo:g-, *l(-eՉ-)eg‘skin, feather’ 54 > PA *-lo:k- (~ ŭ) ‘hide, skin’ > MiPe. =lu:k-ay-i ‘skin’. See FEATHER. (3) PNA *ԸVՉrV ‘skin (of animals), scale’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #41) > PAlg *=aՉl-ak-, *=eՉl-ek-, *=aՉr-ak- ‘skin, shell’ 55; PA *-aԸl-ak-, *-eԸš-ak- ‘skin, scale’ > FSCr. m=iš-ak-ay ‘skin (animal, person, tree)’. (4) PW *՛’i:- ‘skin (of fish, animal, human)’> PWN *ω’i:-s- ‘skin (of fish, animal, human, fruit)’ > Kw. , Hei ՛’i-s, Oo. ՛’i:-s, ՛’is, Hai. ՛’i:-s. (5) PNi *hal (~ ƕ) 56 > NiA. hal ‘skin (of human); body’. 76. SLEEP (1) PAW *k’։o:ŭV Ì *Ըo:ŭk’։A (cf. Nikolaev 2015b, 188) > PWN *k’a:Ù- ‘to sleep’ > Kw. k’aŭ-a, Hei. k’áŭ-a, Hai. k’àŭ-a • PNi *qho- > NiA. qho-, NiS. qho-d ‘to sleep’ • PAlg *-i:ŭkw- ‘to sleep, dream’ > Wi. n-itw- ‘to sleep’ 57. (2) PAW *Ů’AbV (~ p’) ‘to die’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #255) > PA *nep- ‘to die; sleep’ > MiPe. nep-a:- AI ‘to sleep’; FSCr. nip-a:w AI ‘to sleep, be asleep’. (3) PWS *waԸiŏ- > Noo. weҌi² ‘to sleep’ (also Mak., Dit. weԸiŏ). (4) PA *kaw- ‘to prostrate’ > WAb. kaw-i AI ‘to sleep’. (5) Yu. ckey-ek’ ‘I sleep, I am asleep’. 77. SMALL (1) PW *Ըam- > PWN *Ҍˬm- ‘small’ > Kw. Ըm-ՄԸ, Oo. Ը७-i, , Hai. Ը७-Մ id., Hei. Ըám-áy’n๗Πi ‘youngest child in the family’; PWS *Ըap-a:s- > Noo. Ҍap-a:s- ‘small’ (also Mak. Ըap-a:s ‘nice, cute’, Dit. Ըap-a:s ‘nice’). (2) PNi *mƕc-ki- > NiA. mac-ki-, NiS. mic-ki-d ‘small’(cf. *mac-u- ‘to diminish’). (3) PA *pi:w- ‘small piece’ > WAb. piw-i ‘small, fine, thin’. See THIN. Also Yu. -ip-’- in skew-ip’-ak’ ‘I put in order’, etc. No data for NiS. 54 Also Yu. reԸ-n-oh ‘feather’, r-eՉ-oՈ ‘feather, feather for display (as in headband), morning feathers (in brush dance)’. 55 Also Yu. sl-ek-։ ‘clothes [a single set]’, etc. 56 PNi *h- < *qh-, cf. the Yukaghir borrowing *qhal- ‘bark, scales’. 57 Also Yu. -iŭ ‘sleep, dream’. 52 53

269

Sergei L. Nikolaev

(4) PA *apeHt-, *apeHš- > MiPe. apihš- ‘narrow, small’; FSCr. apih²-i ‘small, little, midget’. (5) Wi. bˬkÙ ‘small’. (6) Yu. ceyk- ‘small; narrow (flat things)’. 78. SMOKE 58 (1) PNA *tu(:)նwV (~ o) ‘to burn (tr.)’ (cf. Nikolaev 2015b, #345) > PNi *thu-f > NiA. thu-f (ì-), NiS. thu-f ‘smoke’. See BURN, FIRE. (2) PW *q։a:yx- ‘smoke, to smoke’ > PWN *kҭa:x- ‘to smoke (said of fire or chimney)’ > Kw. k։ax-a, Hai. k։ax-; PWS *q։iš > Noo. qҭiš ‘smoke’ (also Mak. q։iš- id., q։iš-ac’is ‘stove pipe’, Dit. q֮iš-a: ‘smoke’). (3) WAb. peketa ‘smoke’. (4) MiPe. a:hkoli ‘smoke’ (cf. PA *ŏi:p-a:hkw- ‘to cook). (5) Wi. biҌwˬd ‘smoke’. (6) Yu mera: ‘smoke’. 79. STAND (1) PAW *Ζa:- ‘to stand’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #199) > PW *Ζa:- > PWN *Ώa:- ‘to stand’ > Kw. Ζa-ŭa ‘standing, to be upright’, Ζa-Π։- ‘to stand (largely, but not entirely, limited to humans), upright’, Hei. Ζá-Π։-líŭ ‘to get up, get out of bed, to volunteer’, Hai. Ζà-Π։-l๗iŭ ‘to get up, get out of bed’; PWS *՛a- > Noo. ωa-ki:š ‘to stand’ (also Mak. ՛a- ‘pole-like object is erect’, *՛a-ki(:)š- ‘to stand (human)’, Dit. ՛a- ‘stick-like object stands up’, ՛a-kiš(š՛)- to stand’). (2) PNA *gƕ:p’V ‘to stand’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #111) > PNi *kƕp-r- > NiA. kip-r-, NiS. kap-r-d ‘to stand; stand up’ • PAlg *ga:p- (~ ph) ‘to stand’ > Yu. -o-Ҍop ‘to stand’; PA *-ka:p-, *kap- > WAb. kõp-o AI ‘he stands’. (3) PA *ni:p- ‘to stand’ > MiPe. ni:p-aw-, FSCr. ni:p-aw- ‘to stand’. (4) Wi. -aҌ-w-, -aҌ-y- ‘to stand’. 80. STAR 59 (1) PNA *Ըo:Ůk։E (~ q։, X։) (Nikolaev 2015b, #33) > PNi *uŮՉ-(Փ)r > NiA. uÚћ-r, NiS. uÚћ-ir ‘star’ • PA -a:nkw- ‘star’ > WAb. al-akkw-ss; MiPe. al-a:nkw-a; FSCr. wa²-ahk-oš ‘star’. (2) PW *t’a:w- > PWN *t’u:- ‘star’ > Kw. t’ut’u, Oo. t’ut’u-a, Hei. t’út’u-Ըa id.r’, Hai. t’ut’u-Ըa ‘North Star’; PWS *t’a:w- > Noo. t’at’u(:)-s ‘star’ (also Dit. t’a:t’aw-aԸsiԸ id., Mak. t’a:w-isa:bac ‘stars’). (3) Yu. ho:ћ-ec ‘star’. 81. STONE (1) PNA *pՓLV-lVk’(։)E (~ ƕ) ‘stone suitable for making tools’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #287) > PAlg *peleŭk- 60 > Wi. pÙˬыtk ‘rock, stone’. (2) PW *t’i:- ‘stone weight’ > PWN *t’i:-s- ‘stone’ 61 > Kw. t’i-s-७ ‘stone, rock, ore’, Oo. t’i-s-a ‘to weight with a stone’, Hei. t’í-s-७, Hai. t’ì-s-७ ‘stone, rock, ore’; PWS *t’i- > Noo. t’i ‘(big) stone’ (also Mak. t’i-di:ŏ ‘rock’ 62, Dit. t’i-diŏk։ ‘stone, rock’). (3) PNi *paΠ > NiA. paΛ (v-, b-), NiS. paΛ ‘stone’. No data for FSCr. No data for Wiyot. 60 Also Yu. peŭk-oŭ ‘pebbles, gravel’; PA *-a:-peŭkw-, *-peŭkw- ‘stone; metal’. 61 Cf. PWN *t’i:- ‘dead weight, ballast’. 62 Cf. Mak. t’i-ΠԹŏaši՛ ‘weight’. 58 59

270

Toward the reconstruction of Proto-Algonquian-Wakashan. Part 3: The Algonquian-Wakashan 110-item wordlist

(4) PA *aԸs-en- ‘stone, rock’ > WAb. ass-en ‘stone’; MiPe. ahs-en-i ‘rock, stone’; FSCr. as-in-iy ‘stone, rock’. (5) Yu. haҌa:ћ ‘rock’. 82. SUN 63 (1) PNA *kiƖ़V (~ q, X) ‘sun, moon’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #161) > PNi *kheƖ(Ɣ) > NiA. kheĎ (x-), NiS. kheĎ ‘sun’ • PAlg *k-eՉ-eŏh- ‘sun, moon’ > PA *ki:š- ‘sun, moon, month; day, sky’ > WAb. kis-oss ‘sun, moon, luminary’; MiPe. ki:Ù-s-w-a ‘sun, moon; month’. See MOON. (4) FSCr. pi:sim ‘sun; month’. See MOON. (2) Noo. hupaÙ ‘soon, moon, month’. See MOON. (3) Yu. won=ewsleћ ‘moon, sun’ (won- ‘up’). See MOON. 83. SWIM (1) PAW *mƕ:rV (Nikolaev 2015b, #222) > PWN *ma:Ù- ‘to swim’ > Oo. maŭ-l๗a, Hei. máŭ-, Hai. màŭ-l๗a • PNi *mrƕ- > NiA. mri-, NiS. mra-d ‘to swim (human, animal), bathe’ • PAlg *-[m]o:l- > Wi. -ul-; Yu. -ur- ‘to swim’. (2) PWS *sus- > Noo. sus ‘to swim’ (also Mak. sus-, Dit. sus-a:). (3) PA *-a:tak- ‘swim’ > FSCr. pim-a:tak-a:w AI ‘to swim; to wade’. (4) WAb. takkassmi AI ‘to swim’. (5) MiPe. -i:²ime: AI ‘to swim’. 84. TAIL (1) PAW *hVƔV È *ԸVhƔV ‘tail (of quadruped)’ > PWN *hˬs- (~ c) ‘tail (of animal) > Oo., Hei. hc-’Πdí id., Kw. hc-’ΠsdiԸ ‘tail of an animal or fish’ • PAlg *=ech-, *=eth- ‘tail of quadruped’ > Wi. w-ˬth- ‘tail’; PAl *=s-o:w-, =s-w- ‘tail (of quadruped)’ > MiPe. =n-su:-y-i ‘animal’s tail (not a bird’s tail)’; FSCr. o=sw-ay ‘tail’. (2) PAW *Ɩ’ƕ:gE (~ k’) ‘tail’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #270) > PNi *Ɩƕk-i > NiA. Ďˬk-i, NiS. Ďak-i ‘tail’. (3) PAW *ŏ’ƕk’E È *Ըƕŏ’k’E ‘tail of fish’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #93) > PA *we=šek-w-an- id. > WAb. o-sok-en-a ‘tail’. (4) PAW *ŏi:t’V(-lV) ‘foot, leg, flipper’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #86) > PWS *sit- > Noo. sit-’a ‘tail’. See Foot. (5) PAlg *=aŭ- ‘bird’s tail’ 64 > Yu. =ˬÙ-ˬy ‘tail’. 85. THAT 65 (1) PAW *yV- ‘demonstrative stem’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #412) > PWN *ya:- ‘that’ > Kw y-Π-(a) ‘that’, Hei. yá ‘that over there’, Hei. ya-Π-ŭ ‘thus’; PWS *ya:- > Noo. ya: ‘that, there’ (also Dit. ya: ‘that’, Mak. ya:ŭ, ya(:)-ŭ ‘there’). (2) PAW *ԸV- ‘demonstrative stem’ > PNi *a- > NiA. a-č, NiS. a-u-d, á-hu-d ‘that (distant, but visible)’. (3) PAW *gV ~ *g։V ‘demonstrative stem’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #108) > PAlg *kV- > Wi. k-u-; Yu. k-u- ‘that’. See THIS. (4) PA *an-, *-en- > WAb. n-a (anim.), n-i (inanim.); MiPe. i:n-a:n-a (anim.), i:n-i:n-i (inanim.); FSCr. an-a (anim.), an-i-ma (inanim.) ‘that’ 66. No data for PWN and Wiyot. PA *w=aŭ-an-y- ‘bird’s tail’. 65 No data for PWN. 66 This form also contains the PA morpheme *mV-, see THIS. 63 64

271

Sergei L. Nikolaev

86. THIS (1) PAW *gV ~ *g։V ‘demonstrative stem’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #108) > PWN *ga:- ‘this (near speaker)’ > Kw., Hai. ga, Oo. ga, ga:, Hei. gá • PAlg *kV- > Yu. k-’i- ‘this’. See THAT. (2) PAW *dV ‘demonstrative stem’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #107) > PNi *t-wi- > NiA. ti-č, NiS. tu-d ‘this’. (3) PAW *y’V ‘demonstrative stem’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #412) > PA *yV- > WAb. yo ‘this (inanim.)’. See THAT. (4) PAW *w’V ‘demonstrative stem’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #386) > PAlg *wV- > Wi. w-u- ‘this’; PA *wV- > WAb. w-a ‘this (anim.)’; FSCr. a-w-a (anim.) ‘this’. (5) PW *Π(։)V-, *-Π(։)- (cf. PNW *Π։a- ‘this [near you]’) > PWS *Ըa-Π > Noo. Ҍa-Æ ‘this’. (6) PA *an-, *-en- > MiPe. o:n-a:n-a (anim.), o:n-i:n-i (inanim.) ‘this’. See THAT. (7) PA *-mV > FSCr. o:-ma (inanim.) ‘this’. See THAT. 87. THOU (1) PAW *kV ‘you (sg.), thou’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #164) > PNi *chi > NiA., NiS. chi ‘you sg.’ • PAlg *keԸ- (pref.) ‘thou, thee, thy’, *ke-Ըil-a ‘thou’ > Wi. k-hìl; Yu. k-’el ‘you sg.’; PA *k-i:l-a > WAb. k-i-a; MiPe. k-i:l-a; FSCr. k-i:Ú-a ‘you sg.’. (2) PW *su:-, *-u:s- > PWN *su:-, suff. *-u:s ‘you sg.’ > Kw. suff. -(u)s ‘you’, sù-Ը७ ‘you indeed’, Oo. q-su-Ը७ id., Hei. suff. -su, -cu, -ús ‘you’, q-su-Ըá७ ‘you indeed’, Ha. yΠ։-su, suff. -su, -s ‘you’; PWS *su(:)-, *-us- > Noo. su-w’a ‘you sg.’ (also Mak. su-wa:, pref. sut-, suff. -su:, Dit. su-w’a (indep.), suff. -su-k։, -Ըas, -cu-Π ‘you sg.’). 88. TONGUE (1) PAW *hi:ŭV (~ e:) ‘tongue; to lick’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #148) > PNi *hil-k, -x > NiA. hil-x, NiS. hil-k ‘tongue’ (cf. *hel-[h]el- ‘to lick’) • PA *=e:ŭ-al- > WAb. =il-al-o ‘tongue’, FSCr. ot-e:Ú-aÚ-iy ‘her/his tongue’. (2) PNA*ԸՓ:pŭV ‘lip, tip of tongue’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #31) > PAlg *=i:pŭ- > Wi. =it, Yu. =ipÙ ‘tongue’; PA *=i:ŭ-an- > MiPe. =i:l-an-i ‘tongue’. (3) PW *k’ul-m- > PWN *k’ˬl-m- tongue’ 67 > Kw. , Oo., Hai. k’l๗-७, Hei. k’l๗-‫ލ‬๗; PWS *ŏ’u-p- > Noo. ²’u-p ‘tongue’. 89. TOOTH (1) PAW *ժi:gE ‘tooth, fang’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #123) > PW *gi:k- > PWN *gi:k- ‘tooth, teeth’ > Kw. gigi, Oo., Hei. gik, Hai. gig; PWS *kik- > Noo. ²i²i²-i ‘tooth’ (also Mak. ŏiŏ-, Dit. ŏiŏ-iԸ(i:)). (2) PAW *xEcV È *ԸExcV (~ s) ‘tooth’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #388) > PNi *Ɩ=ƕՉs > NiA. Ď-iћs, NiS. Ď-aћs, Ď-aћz-iì ‘tooth’. (3) PAlg *=(eՉ-)ep-et- 68 > Wi. =ˬыp-t ‘tooth’; PA *=i:p-et- > WAb. =ip-it, MiPe. =i:p-it-i, FSCr. w-i:p-it ‘tooth’. See BITE, EAT. (4) Yu. =arpeŭ ‘tooth, teeth’. 90. TREE 69 (1) PAW *Ɣig։E (~ k’։) ‘tree’ (cf. Nikolaev 2015b, #416) > PW *suk- > PWS *suŏ- > Noo. su²-’as ‘tree’ (also Mak. šuŏ-, šuŏ-’as, Dit. šuŏ-’as) • PNi *ciՉ-r, *cxa-r > NiA. tiћ-r (z-, d-), NiS. chxa-ì ‘tree’. (2) PAlg *-a:Ը-, -i:Ը- > Wi. =át-iҌ ‘wood, stick, tree’; Yu. tep-o: ‘tree’ (with suff. -oԸ ‘tree, stem’). PWN *k’ƕl- ‘to lick’, cf. PWN *k’ƕl-q- ‘to lick’. Cf. PAlg *-(Ը)ep- ‘by tooth, to bite, eat’. 69 No data for PWN. 67 68

272

Toward the reconstruction of Proto-Algonquian-Wakashan. Part 3: The Algonquian-Wakashan 110-item wordlist

(3) PA *=(e)Ըt-ekw- > FSCr. mi-st-ik ‘tree’. (4) PA *apanš- ‘tent-pole; squared timber, rafter’ > WAb. apas-i ‘tree, a woody plant large enough to contain firewood’. (5) PA *aht- ‘tree ?’ 70 > MiPe. aht-aw-a:n-i ‘tree, wood; stick’. 91. TWO (1) PAW *me: ‘two’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #219) > PW *ma:- 71 > PWN *ma:-ҌÙ ‘two’ > Kw., Oo., Hei. ma-Ըŭ-, Hai. ma-ŭ- ю • PNi *mi, *me > NiA., NiS. mi-, me- ‘two’. (2) PAW *n’Փ- ‘two’ (cf. Nikolaev 2015b, #408) > PAlg *ni-़-, *ni-d-, *n-eՉ-i-़- > Wi. di-t, Yu. ni-Ҍ- (also no-Ҍ-, nˬ-Ҍ-) ‘two’; PA *nyi:-š- > WAb. ni-s; MiPe. ni:-š-w-i; FSCr. ni:-š-o ‘two’. (3) PWS *Ըa՛a > Noo. Ҍaωa ‘two’ (also Mak. Ըa՛(a), Dit. Ոa՛a). 92. WALK (GO) 72 (1) PAW *wi (~ e) ‘to walk, go’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #375) > PNi *vi- > NiA. vi-, NiS. vi-d ‘to walk, go’; PA *we-hŭ- > WAb. -o-ss-a, -õ-ss-a, -a-ss-a, MiPe. -ohs-e: ‘to walk’. (2) PW *ya:- 73 ‘to move, step’ > Noo. ya:-c-uk ‘to walk, go, proceed’ (also Dit. ya-c‘to walk on, go (on), nudge with foot’;). (3) PWN *tu:- ‘to walk’ > Oo., Hai. tu-a, Hei. tu-á. (4) Wi. Ҍal- ‘to go, walk’. (5) Yu. heћ- ‘to go, walk, travel, dance’. 93. WARM (1) PAW *k։ä:x։V ‘warm, hot’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #176) > PWN *kҭu:xҭ- ‘warm, hot’ > Oo. k։ux։-a, Hei. k։úx։-a, Hai. kùx։-l๗a id., Kw. kux։-la ‘mild weather’. (2) PW *՛’u:p- ‘to heat up’ > PWN *՛’u:p- > Noo. ω’up-a: ‘warm, hot’ (also Mak. ՛’up-, ՛’ub-, Dit. ՛’up-). (3) PNi *tƕk- > NiA. tik-la-, NiS. tak-t ‘warm’. (4) PAlg *k(-eՉ-)eŭ- ‘hot’ > PA *keš-y-, *ki:š-y- ‘hot, warm’ > WAb. kes-ap-es-o AI ‘he is warm’, kis-op-att-a II ‘the water is already warm’, etc.; MiPe. kiš-a:p-ihk- ‘hot, warm’; FSCr. kis-is-ow- ‘to be warm’. (5) Wi. wˬs- ‘warm; to heat’. (6) Yu. hewom- ‘warm’. 94. WATER (1) PAW *w’e:pV ‘water, liquid’ 74 (cf. Nikolaev 2015b, #384 75) > PWN *w’a:p- ‘water’ > Kw., Hai. w’ap ‘water’, Kw., Oo. w’ap-a, Hei. w’áp-a, Hai. w’àp-l๗a ‘to dilute, to water down’. (2) PAW *hƕk’։E ~ *k’։ƕhE È *Ըƕhk’։E ‘to drink; water’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #144) > PW *k’։a-, *k’a- > PWS *ŏ’a- 76 > Noo. ²’a-Ҍak ‘water’ (also Mak. ŏa-Ըak։, Dit. ŏ’a-Ըak ‘water’). (3) PNi *chaΠ > NiA., NiS. chaΛ ‘water’. Cf. *aht-a:py- ‘bow’, “tree ?+string”. Cf. PWN *mƕ-t- ‘twin(s)’. 72 No data for FSCr. 73 Also PWN *ya:- > Kw. ya-la ‘keep on going’. 74 The same root in PAlg *-[w]a:p- (~ ph) > Yu. suff. -op- ‘water, liquid’; PA *-[w]a:p- ‘liquid, water’. 75 Pace Nikolaev 2015b, #384, Yu. paԸ-ah actually belongs to a different root — PAlg *nepiԸ- ‘water’; consequently, the root variant PAW *pe:w’V has to be eliminated. 76 Cf. Dit. ŏ’a-y’awa: ‘always get water’. 70 71

273

Sergei L. Nikolaev

(4) PAlg *nepiԸ- > Yu. paҌ-ah ‘water’; PA *nepy- > WAb. nepi ‘water, liquid, sap’; MiPe. nipi, FSCr. nipiy ‘water’. (5) Wi. ҌuҌl ‘water’. 95. WE (EXCLUSIVE) (1) PAW *ŮV- ‘I; we (excl.)’ (cf. Nikolaev 2015b, #254) > PW *nu:- ‘I, we’ > PWN *nu:-Ҍkҭ ‘we (excl.)’ > Kw. -nu-Ըx։, Oo. -nu-k։, Hei. -n-tk։, Hai. -nu-k։; PWS *nu:-, *ni:- > Noo. ni:-w’a ‘we’ (also Mak. du-wa:-du:, Dit. du-w’a) • PNi *ŮՓ-Ɩ > NiA. Úi-Ď, NiS. Úi-n ‘we (excl.)’ • PAlg *ne- ‘we (excl.) > Wi. Ҍi-nà-d, Yu. ne-k-ah ‘we’; PAlg *n-i:l- > WAb. ni-on-a, MiPe. n-i:l-u:n-a, FSCr. n-i:Ú-an-a:n ‘we (excl.)’. See I. 96. WHAT (1) PAW *qV (~ ժ) ‘interrogative stem’ > PW *qV- (~ ժ) > Noo. Ҍa-q-i- , Ҍa-q-aq ‘what’ • PAlg *ke:- > PA *ke:-kw- > WAb. ka-kw-i, ka-kw-ess-a MiPe. ke:-tw-i; FSCr. ke:-kw-a:n ‘what?’. (2) PAW *g։V ‘interrogative stem’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #118) > PAlg *kw- > Wi. kҭ-á-Ù-wa ‘what?’; PA *ke:-kw- > WAb. ka-kw-i, ka-kw-ess-a MiPe. ke:-tw-i; FSCr. ke:-kw-a:n ‘what?’. See WHO. (3) PNA *tV ‘interrogative stem’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #346) > PNi *thi-, *thu- > NiA. si-č, NiS. ìu-d ‘what?’ • PAlg *ti:- > Yu. ti(Ҍ)- ‘what?’. (4) PW *m’a:- ‘interrogative stem’ > PWN *m’a:- ‘what?’ > Kw. m’a, m’a-s, Oo. m’a, m’a:-s, Hei. m’á, m’á-s, Hai. m’a-s. 97. WHITE 77 (1) PW *՛’i:s- > ‘white, white hot’ > Noo. ω’ic ‘white’ (also Mak., Dit. ՛’is-). (2) PWN *m’u:qҭ- ‘white, discoloured, bland, stale’ > Oo. m’uq։-a, Hei. m’úq։-a, Hai. m’ùq։-a id., Kw. m’uΠ։-s७ ‘grey-haired’. (3) PNi *qhon-u- > NiA. qhon-u-, NiS. qhon-u-d ‘white’. (4) PA *wa:p- ‘white, light; eye, look; to look, see’ > WAb. wõp-i, MiPe. wa:p- ‘white’, FSCr. wa:p-a:w II ‘to be white’. See SEE. (5) Yu. munc- ‘white’. 98. WHO (1) PAW *g։V ‘interrogative stem’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #118) > PW *Ըa(n)-g(։)- > PWN *Ҍˬ(n)-gҭa: ‘who?’ > Kw. Ըn๗-g։a, Oo. Ըa-g։a, Hei. Ըá-g։a, Hai. Ըn๗-g։à ‘who ?’; PWS *Ըa-ŏ- > Noo. Ҍa-²-a(q) ‘who?’ (also Mak. Ըaŏ-aq, Dit. Ըaŏ-(aq)) • PAlg *kw- > Wi. kҭ-í-Ùwa, Yu. k-’i, k-u ‘who’. See WHAT. (2) PAW *ԸAƖ ‘interrogative stem’ > PWN *Ҍˬn-gҭa: ‘who?’ > Kw. Ըn๗-g։a, Hai. Ըn๗-g։à ‘who ?’ • PNi *aƖ > NiA. aĎ ‘who, where’. (3) PAW *na È *ԸanV ‘interrogative stem’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #241) > PNi *na- (~ ƕ) > NiS. na-r ‘who’ • PA *-e:n-, -an- > WAb. aw-an-i ‘someone; who?’, MiPe. aw-e:n-a, FSCr. aw-e:n-a ‘who’ (4) PAW *wV È ԸVwV (~ w’) ‘interrogative stem’ (cf. Nikolaev 2015b, #381) > PA *aw- > WAb. aw-an-i ‘someone; who?’, MiPe. aw-e:n-a, FSCr. aw-e:n-a ‘who’. 99. WOMAN (1) PAW *ŭäƖV-k’(։)V È *ԸäŭƖV-k’(։)V (Nikolaev 2015b, #209a) > PW *ŭuk- > PWS *ŭuŏ-sma 78 > Noo. Ùu:c-sma ‘female, woman’ (also Mak. ŭu:c-sm(a), Dit. ŭu:c-sma) • PNi *ŸaƖq > NiS. ìaĎњ ‘woman’ • PAlg *Ըaŭkw-, *Ըeŭkw- (~ kh) ‘woman, female’ > FSCr. iskw-e:w ‘woman’. 77

274

No data for Wiyot.

Toward the reconstruction of Proto-Algonquian-Wakashan. Part 3: The Algonquian-Wakashan 110-item wordlist

(2) PWN *Gˬn- ‘female, woman, wife, daughter, girl’ > Oo. Gn๗-७, Hei. Gn๗-m๗я, Hai. Gn๗-७ id., Kw. Gn-७ ‘wife’. (3) PNi *umg-u > NiA. umg-u ‘woman’. (4) WAb. pehanem ‘woman, wife’. (5) MiPe. mitemohsa ‘woman’. (6) Wi. kˬbu² ‘woman, women’. (7) Yu. wencokҭs ‘woman’ 79. 100. YELLOW 80 (1) PNi *evrq- > NiA. evrq-, NiS. evìq vala-d ‘yellow’. (2) PA *wes- ‘yellow, brown’ > WAb. wis-õw-ik-, FSCr. os-a:w- ‘yellow’. (3) MiPe. u:ns-a:w- ‘yellow’. (4) Noo. Æicp’iqak ‘yellow’ (litt. “like excrements”). (5) Yu. ta:nep, tiҌnp- ‘to be yellow’. 101. FAR (1) PWN *Λҭi:ss-, *qҭi:ss- ‘that direction, far, on the far side, far away (in time or space)’ > Kw. q։is-ala, Oo. Π։is-ala, Hei. Π։ís-álá, Hai. Πwìs-ala. (2) PWS *su:- 81 > Noo. -su(:) ‘far’. (3) PNi *thՓ- > NiA. thi-la-, NiS. thi-d ‘far’. (6) PAlg *wa:Չl-aw-, *weՉl-aw- ‘far away’ > Wi. Ù-áw-ik ‘it’s far away’; PA *wa:Ըl-aw- > FSCr. wa:Ú-aw ‘far, distant’. (7 ) PAlg *no:Ը-aw- > Yu. nu:Ҍ-w ‘far away’; PA *na:-w- > WAb. nõ-w-i ‘far, long’. (8) PA *pel-aw- ‘far’ > MiPe. pil-w-i ‘far away, far off’. 102. HEAVY (1) PWN *Gҭi:- ‘weighing heavy’ > Oo. G։i-uk։, Hei. G։i-úk։ id., Hai. G։i-ug։as ‘weight (of a person, etc.)’. (2) PNi *per- > NiA. per-la-, NiS. per-d ‘heavy’. (3) PA *kwes-ekw- > FSCr. kos-ikw- ‘to be heavy’. (4) Noo. kҭatyi:k ‘heavy’. (5) WAb. ttekkw-ikw- ‘heavy’. (6) MiPe. kah²-ok(w)- ‘heavy’. (7) Wi. lˬћ- ‘heavy’. (8) Yu. pkeҌy- “heavy’. 103. NEAR 82 (1) PAW *ma: ‘near’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #215) > PNi *ma- > NiA. ma-, NiS. ma-d ‘near’. (2) PW *n’a- ‘near’ > PWN *n’ˬ-xҭa:- ‘near, close’ > Kw., Oo. n’-x։a-la, Hei. n’-x։á-lá, Hai. n’-x։-à:-la; PWS *n’a- > Noo. na-t ‘near’. (3) PAlg *ŏek-, *t-eՉ-ek- ‘close, near’ > Yu. ck-ҭaҌ-ˬk’ ‘near’; PA *ŏi:k- > MiPe. ²i:k-a ‘near; almost’. (4) PA *peHš- ‘to touch; near’ > WAb. pass-ot-a ‘near’, FSCr. peš-o² ‘close by, near’. Cf. Quil. -siba ‘wife’. Cf. Yu. wentok։s ‘female (animal or bird)’. 80 No data for PWN and Wiyot. 81 Cf. Quil. sawa ‘to go far’. 82 No data for Wiyot. 78 79

275

Sergei L. Nikolaev

104. SALT(Y) (1) PW *dum- ‘salt water’ > PWN *dˬm- ‘saltwater, sea’ > Kw. d७-xs, Oo. d७-Ըxs, Hei. dm-xs, Hai. dm-ks; Noo tup-’aÙ ‘saltwater’ (also Mak., Dit. tup-’aŭ). (2) PNi *hap- > NiA. hap-la-, NiS. hap-t ‘salty’. (3) PA *ši:w- ‘strong taste (sour/salty)’ > WAb. siw-an, FSCr. ši:w-ah-am ‘salt’. (4) PA *wi:nk- ‘sweet, tasty’ > MiPe. wi:hk-ap-a:k-an-i ‘salt’. (5) Wi. phákˬl- ‘salty (water)’. (6) Yu. Ҍewp-oh ‘salt water, Pacific Ocean’. 105. SHORT 83 (1) PAW *ŏ’Vk։V (~ k’։) (Nikolaev 2015b, #96) > PWN *c’ˬkҭ- ‘short’ > Kw. c’k։-a, Oo., Hei., Hai. c’k։ • PAlg *tatkw-, *ŏaŏkw-, *tetkw- ‘short’ > Yu. tkҭ- ‘to be short’; PA *tatk-, *tahk-, *ŏahk- > WAb. takkw-; FSCr. ²ahkw- ‘short’. (2) PWS *n’i:c- > Noo. n’i:c ‘short’ (also Mak. di:c’-a(q)). (3) PNi *phΠ-aq- > NiA. p(h)Λ-aq-, NiS. phΛ-aq-t ‘short’. (4) MiPe. ehkw- ‘short’. 106. SNAKE (1) PAW *q’։iƖV ‘snake, snail’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #332) > PA *ken-e:p-ikw- 84 > MiPe. kin-e:pikw-a, FSCr. kin-ep-ik ‘snake’. (2) PWN *si:Ù- ‘snake’ > Kw., Oo. siŭ-७, Hei. síŭ-७. (3) PW *Πi:- ‘to crawl’ > Noo. Æi:-yi ‘snake’. (4) PNi *uml- > NiA. uml-ak, NiS. uml-aĎ(a) ‘snake’. (5) PA *aŭko:k- ‘snake’ > WAb. sskkok ‘snake, worm’. See WORM. (6) Wi. ҌaҌrˬ² ‘snake’. (7) Yu leҌy-es, ley-es ‘snake’. 107. THIN 85 (1) PNi *nok- > NiA., NiS. nok-la- ‘thin, narrow’. (2) PA *pi:w- ‘small piece’ > WAb. piw-i ‘small, fine, thin’. See SMALL. (3) PA *mya:l- ‘bad’ > MiPe. mya:l- ‘thin’. (4) PA *pap-ak-, *pep-ak- ‘thin, lean’ > FSCr. papak- ‘thin’. (5) Noo. Ҍanik-it ‘thin’ (cf. Ըanik-s ‘in length’). (6) Yu. mes- ‘thin, narrow, slim’. 108. WIND 86 (1) PAW *layVwV ‘wind; to blow (wind)’ (cf. Nikolaev 2015b, #192) > PW *yu:- ‘wind’ > PWN *yu:- ‘wind, draft’ > Kw. y՝-la, Oo. yu-ala, Hei. yu-ála, Hai. yu-ala; PWS *yu(:)- > Noo. yu-Ҍi ‘wind blowing’ (also Dit. yu- id., Mak. yuyu:-qsi:s ‘North Wind’) • PNi *la > NiA., NiS. la ‘wind’ • PAlg *lo(:)yew-, *ro(:)yew- ‘wind, to blow’ 87 > Yu. ro:-kҭ ‘wind’. (2) PA *aŭa:m-, *aŭam- ‘breath’ > WAb. alõm-ss-ekk ‘wind’, MiPe. ala:m-ihs-en- II ‘it is windy’. No data for Wiyot. PA *kenw-e:p-ikw- ‘snake’ has -w- by analogy with *kenw- ‘long’. 85 No data for PWN and Wiyot. 86 No data for FSCr. and Wiyot. 87 Also PA *lo:w- ‘to blow (wind)’. 83 84

276

Toward the reconstruction of Proto-Algonquian-Wakashan. Part 3: The Algonquian-Wakashan 110-item wordlist

109. WORM 88 (1) PAW *x։O:ƖV ~ *ƖO:x։V ‘bee’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #393a) > PA *(a:)mo:-hs- > MiPe. mu:-hs-i-a ‘insect, worm, bug’. (2) PAW *k’։ՓlVƖV (~ ƕ) ‘worm’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #185) > Yu. ҌyekҭÙ ‘maggot, worm’. (3) PNi *chxev-r > NiA. chxev-r, NiS. chxev-ì ‘worm’. (4) PA *aŭko:k- ‘snake’ > WAb. sskkok ‘snake, worm’. See SNAKE. (3) Noo. Ùitk-’umc ‘any worm, including the mussel worm (Nereis vexillosa)’ (cf. ŭitk ‘to jerk, pull fast’). 110. YEAR 89 (1) PAW *ԸäŮV ‘year, season’ (Nikolaev 2015b, #10) > PNi *aŮ > NiA., NiS. aÚ ‘year’. (2) PA *li:k- ‘to grow; give birth; loosen’ > WAb. lik-at-en ‘it is a year’. (3) Noo. -qҌi²Æ ‘year’. (4) Yu. lok (loks-) ‘to be a year’. (5) MiPe. kihkatwi ‘year’. Language abbreviations and sources Dit. – Ditidaht (Nitinaht), acc. to Fortescue 2007. FSCr. – Fort Severn Cree, acc. to MacKenzie 2005. Hai. – Haisla, acc. to Linkoln, Rath 1980 and Fortescue 2007.. Hei. – Heiltsuk, acc. to Linkoln, Rath 1980. Kw. – Kwak’wala (Kwakiutl), acc. to Linkoln, Rath 1980. Mak. – Makah, acc. to Fortescue 2007. Men. Ʌ Menominee, acc. to Hewson 1993 and Oleg Mudrak’s comparative Proto-Algonquian database (ms.). MiPe. Ʌ Miami-Peoria, acc. to Baldwin, Costa 2005. Mic. Ʌ Micmac (Mi’kmaq), acc. to Oleg Mudrak’s comparative Proto-Algonquian database (ms.). NiA. – Amur Nivkh, acc. to materials in Oleg Mudrak’s comparative Nivkh database nivget.dbf (ms.). NiS. – Sakhalin Nivkh, acc. to materials in O. Mudrak’s comparative Nivkh database nivget.dbf (ms.). Noo. – Nootka (Nuuchahnulth), acc. to Stonham 2005. Oo. – Oowekyala, acc. to Linkoln, Rath 1980. PA – Proto-Algonquian, acc. to Aubin 1975; Goddard 1974, 1979, 1982; Hewson 1993; Proulx 1984a, b, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1994 90. PAlg – Proto-Algic, acc. to Proulx 1984a, b, 1991, 1992, 1994 91. PAW – Proto-Algonquian-Wakashan, acc. to S. Nikolaev’s reconstruction. PNA – Proto-Nivkh-Algic, acc. to S. Nikolaev’s reconstruction. PNi – Proto-Nivkh, acc. to S. Nikolaev’s reconstruction and based on materials in Oleg Mudrak’s comparative Nivkh database nivget. dbf (ms.). PW – Proto-Wakashan, acc. to Fortescue 2007 92. PWN – Proto-Southern Wakashan, acc. to Fortescue 2007. PWS – Proto-Northern Wakashan, acc. to Fortescue 2007 and Linkoln, Rath 1980. No data for PWN, FSCr., or Wiyot. No data for PWN, FSCr., or Wiyot. 90 With the following elements of transliteration: *้Τ э *ŭ; *xk, *xp э *tk, *tp; *çk, *çp > *sk, *sp. 91 Several PAlg roots have also been added by myself in accordance with Paul Proulx’s rules of reconstruction. I interpret the PAlg phonemes that Proulx denotes as *T , *K , *L, *C , *Ā as voiced consonants (*d, *g, *կ, *Ɣ, *़). Proulx’s *S which only occurs in clusters is reinterpreted by myself as the voiced fricative *Չ; it is reflected as PA *Ը, Wi. Ø and Yu. s (< *r < *Չ). This PAlg phoneme corresponds to velars in other Algonquian-Wakashan languages. The “normal” PAlg velar glide *Չ does not occur in consonantal clusters. 92 I have added several PW roots according to M. Fortescue’s rules of reconstruction. The same applies to PWN and PWS. 88 89

277

Sergei L. Nikolaev

Quil. – Quileute, acc. to Powell, Woodruff 1976. WAb. Ʌ Western Abenaki, acc. to Day 1995. Wi. – Wiyot, acc. to Teeter, Nichols 1993 and Proulx 1984a, b, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1994. Yu. – Yurok, acc. to Robins 1958 and Proulx 1985. References Aubin, George F. 1975. A Proto-Algonquian dictionary. Ottawa: National Museums Of Canada. Baldwin, Daryl; David J. Costa. 2005. A Miami-Peoria dictionary. Miami: Myaamia Publications. Day, Gordon M. 1995. Western Abenaki dictionary. Vols. 1–2. Hull: Canadian Museum of Civilization. Fortescue, Michael. 2007. Comparative Wakashan dictionary. München: LINCOM Europa. Hewson, John. 1993. A computer-generated dictionary of Proto-Algonquian. Hull: Canadian Museum of Civilization. Lincoln, Neville J., John C. Rath. 1980. North Wakashan Comparative Root List. Canadian Museum of Civilization Mercury Series, Canadian Ethnology Service Paper no. 68. Ottawa: National Museums of Canada. MacKenzie, Marguerite. 2005. Wasaho Ininîmowin dictionary (Fort Severn Cree). Cree–English / English–Cree. A draft. Canada. Nikolaev, Sergei L. 2015a. Toward the reconstruction of Proto-Algonquian-Wakashan. Part 1: Proof of the Algonquian-Wakashan relationship. Journal of Language Relationship 13(1): 23–61. Nikolaev, Sergei L. 2015b. Toward the Reconstruction of Proto-Algonquian-Wakashan. Part 2: Algonquian-Wakashan Sound Correspondences // Journal of Language Relationship 13(4): 289–328. Powell, J.V., Fred Woodruff, Sr. 1976. Quileute dictionary. Northwest anthropological research notes: Memoir No. 3, Part 2. Moscow: University of Idaho. Proulx, Paul. 1984a. Proto-Algic II: Verbs. International Journal Of American Linguistics 50(1): 59–94. Proulx, Paul. 1984b. Proto-Algic I: Phonological sketch. International Journal Of American Linguistics 50(2): 165–207. Proulx, Paul. 1989. A sketch of Blackfoot historical phonology. International Journal Of American Linguistics 55(1): 43–82. Proulx, Paul. 1991. Proto-Algic III: Pronouns. Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics 16: 129–170. Proulx, Paul. 1992. Proto-Algic IV: Nouns. Kansas Working Wapers in Linguistics 17(2): 11–58. Proulx, Paul. 1994. Proto-Algic V: Doublets and their implications. Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics 19(2): 113–183. Robins, Robert H. 1958. The Yurok Language: Grammar, Texts, Lexicon. University of California Press. Stonham, John. 2005. A concise dictionary of the Nuuchahnulth language of Vancouver Island. Lewiston—Queenston— Lampeter: Edwin Mellen Press. Teeter, Karl V., John D. Nichols. 1993. Wiyot Handbook I. Glossary and concordance. Winnipeg: Algonquian and Iroquoian Linguistics. ʎ. ʇ. ʉˌː˙˕ʸˀʻ. ʇ ˧ˋ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˜˴˘˘ ˁ༤ˆ˥ˣ˜˘ˣ˥-˅ˁ˜ˁ˸˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˦˧ˁ̀˖˻˜ˁ. ʠ. 3: ɯ༤ˆ˥ˣ˜˘ˣ˥˅ˁ˜ˁ˸˨˜˘˙ 110-˨༤˥˅ˣ˻˙ ˨˦˘˨˥˜. ʕ˧ˋ˪˼̀ ˵ˁ˨˪˼ ˜˥ˢ˦༤ˋ˜˨ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˘˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁˣ˘̀, ˦˥˨˅̀˹ˋˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˥˄˥˨ˣ˥˅ˁˣ˘˿ ˁ༤ˆ˥ˣ˜˘ˣ˥˅ˁ˜ˁ˸˨˜˥˙ ˨ˋˢ˼˘ ̀˖˻˜˥˅, ˅ ˜˥˪˥˧˫˿, ˦˥ˢ˘ˢ˥ ˣˋ˨˜˥༤˼˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅˻˲ ˆ˧˫˦˦ ʓˋ˅ˋ˧ˣ˥˙ ɯˢˋ˧˘˜˘, ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˅˜༤˿˵ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˣ˘˅˲˨˜˘˙ ̀˖˻˜, ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤̀ˋ˪ ˨˥˄˥˙ ˁˣˣ˥˪˘˧˥˅ˁˣˣ˫˿ ˊˋˢ˥ˣ˨˪˧ˁ˴˘˿ ˨˧ˁ˅ˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥-˘˨˪˥˧˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˊˁˣˣ˻˲, ˘˨˦˥༤˼˖˥˅ˁˣˣ˻˲ ˦˧˘ ༤ˋ˜˨˘˜˥˨˪ˁ˪˘˨˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˦˥ˊ˨˵ˋ˪ˁ˲ ˢˋːˊ˫ ̀˖˻˜ˁˢ˘ ˽˪˥˙ ˆ˘˦˥˪ˋ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˨ˋˢ˼˘. ʑ˥˨˜˥༤˼˜˫ ༤ˋ˜˨˘˜˥˨˪ˁ˪˘˨˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˙ ˢˁ˪ˋ˧˘ˁ༤ ˣ˫ːˊˁˋ˪˨̀ ˅ ˦˥ˊ˧˥˄ˣ˥ˢ ˘˨˪˥˧˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˢ ˜˥ˢˢˋˣ˪ˁ˧˘˘, ˘˖ ˨˥˥˄˧ˁːˋˣ˘˙ ˥˄˺ˋˢˁ ˥ˣ ˣˋ ˢ˥ˆ ˄˻˪˼ ˅˜༤˿˵ˋˣ ˅ ˦˧ˋˊ˻ˊ˫˹˘ˋ ˊ˅ˋ ˵ˁ˨˪˘ ˘˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁˣ˘̀. ʑ˥ˢ˘ˢ˥ ˽˪˥ˆ˥, ˅ ˊˁˣˣ˥˙ ˵ˁ˨˪˘ ˘˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁˣ˘̀ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˦˧˘˅ˋˊˋˣ˻ ˧ˋ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˜˴˘˘ ˊ༤̀ ˧̀ˊˁ ˣ˥˅˻˲ ˦˧ˁˁ༤ˆ˥ˣ˜˘ˣ˥-˅ˁ˜ˁ˸˨˜˘˲ ˘ ˦˧ˁˣ˘˅˲˨˜˥-ˁ༤ˆ˥ˣ˜˘ˣ˨˜˘˲ ˜˥˧ˣˋ˙. ɳ ༤ˋ˜˨˘˜˥˨˪ˁ˪˘˨˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˦˥ˊ˨˵ˋ˪ˁ˲ ˖ˁˊˋ˙˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˻ ˨༤ˋˊ˫˿˹˘ˋ ̀˖˻˜˘: ˦˧ˁ˨ˋ˅ˋ˧ˣ˥˅ˁ˜ˁ˸˨˜˘˙ (˦˧˘ˢˋ˧ˣˁ̀ ˆ༤˥˪˪˥˲˧˥ˣ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜ˁ̀ ˊˁ˪ˁ ˧ˁ˨˦ˁˊˁ — ˥˜. 800 ˆ. ˣ. ˽.) ˘ ˖ˁ˦˘˨ˁˣˣ˻ˋ ˅ XIX–ʝʝ ˅˅. ̀˖˻˜˘ ˣ˫˪˜ˁ (ˣ˫˵ˁ˲ˣ˫༤˪), ˣ˘˅˲˨˜˘˙ (ˁˢ˫˧˨˜˘˙ ˘ ˨ˁ˲ˁ༤˘ˣ˨˜˘˙ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪˻), ˖ˁ˦ˁˊˣ˻˙ ˁ˄ˋˣˁ˜˘, ˢˁ˙ˁˢ˘-˦ˋ˥˧˘̀, ˜˧˘ ˘˖ ʜ˥˧˪ ʓˋ˅ˋ˧ˣˁ, ˅˘˙˥˪ ˘ ˿˧˥˜. ʇ༤˿˵ˋ˅˻ˋ ˨༤˥˅ˁ: ˁ༤ˆ˥ˣ˜˘ˣ˥-˅ˁ˜ˁ˸˨˘˜ˋ ̀˖˻˜˘, ˣ˘˅˲˨˜˥-ˁ༤ˆ˥ˣ˜˘ˣ˨˜˘ˋ ̀˖˻˜˘, ˁ༤ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˋ ̀˖˻˜˘, ˅ˁ˜ˁ˸˨˜˘ˋ ̀˖˻˜˘, ˵˘ˢˁ˜˫ˢ-˅ˁ˜ˁ˸˨˜˘ˋ ̀˖˻˜˘, ˣ˘˅˲˨˜˘˙ ̀˖˻˜, ˘˨˪˥˧˘˵ˋ˨˜ˁ̀ ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˜ˁ, ˨˧ˁ˅ˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻˙ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˧˼, ༤ˋ˜˨˘˜˥˨˪ˁ˪˘˨˪˘˜ˁ. 278

ɭ. ʎ. ʂ˛˯˕˙ʻʸ ʃˣ˨˪˘˪˫˪ ˅˥˨˪˥˜˥˅ˋˊˋˣ˘̀ ʒɯʎ, ʃˣ˨˪˘˪˫˪ ̀˖˻˜˥˖ˣˁˣ˘̀ ʒɯʎ; [email protected]

ʇˀː˜ˌː˙˜˞ʸ˞ˌ˜˞ˌːʸ ˗˙ʻ˙ˌ˗ʿ˙ʸ˛ˌˍ˜ːˌ˦ ˴ˊ˯ː˙ʻ: ʻˊʼໞ˴ʿ ˚˙ໞˀʻ˙ʼ˙ ໞˌ˗ʼʻˌ˜˞ʸ 1 ɸˁˣˣˁ̀ ˦˫˄༤˘˜ˁ˴˘̀ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤̀ˋ˪ ˨˥˄˥˙ ˣˋ˜˥˪˥˧˻ˋ ˨˥˥˄˧ˁːˋˣ˘̀ ˥ ˨˪ˁ˪˼ˋ ɯ.ɍʃ.ɍʇ˥ˆˁˣˁ «Genealogical classification of New Indo-Aryan languages and lexicostatistics» ˅ ̘ɏ14 «ɳ˥˦˧˥˨˥˅ ̀˖˻˜˥˅˥ˆ˥ ˧˥ˊ˨˪˅ˁ». ɯ˅˪˥˧ ˅˻˨˜ˁ˖˻˅ˁˋ˪ ˧̀ˊ ˦˧ˋˊ༤˥ːˋˣ˘˙ ˦˥ ˘˨˦˧ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˘˿ ˨˦˘˨˜˥˅ ʓ˅˥ˊˋ˸ˁ, ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣˣ˻˲ ɯ.ɍʃ.ɍʇ˥ˆˁˣ˥ˢ, ˣˁ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˁˣ˘˘ ˊˁˣˣ˻˲ ˘˨˪˥˧˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˜˘ ˘ ˨ˋˢˁˣ˪˘˜˘ ˘ˣˊ˥ˁ˧˘˙˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅ ˅ ˴ˋ༤˥ˢ, ˁ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˁˣˁ༤˘˖˘˧˫ˋ˪ ˨˦˘˨˜˘ ̀˖˻˜˥˅ ˲˘ˣˊ˘, ˄ˋˣˆˁ༤˘, ˥˧˘̀ ˘ ˜˫༤༤˫˘, ˨˥˦˥˨˪ˁ˅༤̀̀ ˘˲ ˨˥ ˨˅˥˘ˢ˘ ˦˥༤ˋ˅˻ˢ˘ ˊˁˣˣ˻ˢ˘ ˘ ˨˅ˋˊˋˣ˘̀ˢ˘ ˘˖ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˧ˋ˙ ˘ ˜˥˧˦˫˨˥˅. ʑ˥˨༤ˋ ˅ˣˋ˨ˋˣ˘̀ ˦˧ˋˊ༤˥ːˋˣˣ˻˲ ˘˨˦˧ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˘˙ ˁ˅˪˥˧ ˨˥˦˥˨˪ˁ˅༤̀ˋ˪ ˊˋ˧ˋ˅˼̀, ˦˥˨˪˧˥ˋˣˣ˻ˋ ˦˧˥ˆ˧ˁˢˢ˥˙ Starling ˣˁ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˁˣ˘˘ ˦ˋ˧˅˥ˣˁ˵ˁ༤˼ˣ˻˲ ˘ ˘˨˦˧ˁ˅༤ˋˣˣ˻˲ ˨˦˘˨˜˥˅. ʃ˖ˢˋˣˋˣ˘̀ ˣˋ ˥˵ˋˣ˼ ˖ˣˁ˵˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻, ˥ˊˣˁ˜˥ ˦˥˅˻˸ˁ˿˪ ˊ˥˨˪˥˅ˋ˧ˣ˥˨˪˼ ˧ˋ˖˫༤˼˪ˁ˪˥˅, ˁ ˜˧˥ˢˋ ˪˥ˆ˥, ˦˥˜ˁ˖˻˅ˁ˿˪, ˵˪˥ ˊˁ༤˼ˣˋ˙˸ˋˋ ˘˨˦˧ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˘ˋ ˨˦˘˨˜˥˅ ˢ˥ːˋ˪ ˨ˊˋ༤ˁ˪˼ ˊˋ˧ˋ˅˥ ˖ˣˁ˵˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ ˄˥༤ˋˋ ˪˥˵ˣ˻ˢ. ʂ˕˳˩ˀʻ˯ˀ ˜˕˙ʻʸ: ༤ˋ˜˨˘˜˥˨˪ˁ˪˘˨˪˘˜ˁ, ˘ˣˊ˥ˁ˧˘˙˨˜˘ˋ ̀˖˻˜˘, ˜༤ˁ˨˨˘˱˘˜ˁ˴˘̀ ̀˖˻˜˥˅, ˆ༤˥˪˪˥˲˧˥ˣ˥༤˥ˆ˘̀, ˦˥༤ˋ˅ˁ̀ ༤˘ˣˆ˅˘˨˪˘˜ˁ, ˜˥˧˦˫˨ˣˁ̀ ༤˘ˣˆ˅˘˨˪˘˜ˁ, ˘˨˪˥˧˘˵ˋ˨˜ˁ̀ ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˜ˁ

ɳ 2016 ˆ˥ˊ˫ ˅ ̘ɏ14 «ɳ˥˦˧˥˨˥˅ ̀˖˻˜˥˅˥ˆ˥ ˧˥ˊ˨˪˅ˁ» ˅˻˸༤ˁ ˨˪ˁ˪˼̀ ɯ.ɍʃ.ɍʇ˥ˆˁˣˁ «Genealogical classification of New Indo-Aryan languages and lexicostatistics». ɯ˅˪˥˧ ˨˪˧˥˘˪ ˆˋˣˋˁ༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˋ ˊ˧ˋ˅˥ ˘ˣˊ˥ˁ˧˘˙˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅ ˣˁ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˁˣ˘˘ ༤ˋ˜˨˘˜˥˨˪ˁ˪˘˨˪˘˜˘ ˦˥ ˨˪˥˨༤˥˅ˣ˻ˢ ˨˦˘˨˜ˁˢ ʓ˅˥ˊˋ˸ˁ. ʐ˨ˣ˥˅ˣ˻ˋ ˪ˋ˥˧ˋ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˋ ˦˥༤˥ːˋˣ˘̀ ˨˪ˁ˪˼˘ ˄˻༤˘ ˊˁ˅ˣ˥ ˢˣˋ ˖ˣˁ˜˥ˢ˻ ˘˖ ˊ˥˜༤ˁˊ˥˅ ˁ˅˪˥˧ˁ, ˥ˊˣˁ˜˥ ˖ˁˢˋ˵ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥˙ ˥˨˥˄ˋˣˣ˥˨˪˼˿ ˊˁˣˣ˥˙ ˦˫˄༤˘˜ˁ˴˘˘ ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˅ˋ˨˼ˢˁ ˥˄˸˘˧ˣ˥ˋ ˦˧˘༤˥ːˋˣ˘ˋ, ˨˥ˊˋ˧ːˁ˹ˋˋ ˨ˁˢ˘ ˨˪˥˨༤˥˅ˣ˻ˋ ˨˦˘˨˜˘ ˦˥ 35 ̀˖˻˜ˁˢ, ˅˜༤˿˵ˁ̀ ˦˧˥˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣˣ˻ˋ ˊ༤̀ ˜ˁːˊ˥ˆ˥ ˨༤˥˅ˁ ˘ˣˊˋ˜˨˻ ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˜˥ˆˣˁ˴˘˘. ʍˁ˨˸˪ˁ˄ ˦˥˨˪ˁˣ˥˅˜˘ ˖ˁˊˁ˵˘ ˅˦ˋ˵ˁ˪༤̀ˋ˪ — ˱ˁ˜˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ ˧ˋ˵˼ ˘ˊˋ˪ ˥ ˦˥˦˻˪˜ˋ ˥˜˘ˣ˫˪˼ ˘ˣˊ˥ˁ˧˘˙˨˜˘ˋ ̀˖˻˜˘ ˅˖ˆ༤̀ˊ˥ˢ ˨ ˅˻˨˥˪˻ ˦˪˘˵˼ˋˆ˥ ˦˥༤ˌ˪ˁ, ˘, ˜˥ˣˋ˵ˣ˥, ˦˧˘ ˧ˋˁ༤˘˖ˁ˴˘˘ ˪ˁ˜˥˙ ˆ༤˥˄ˁ༤˼ˣ˥˙ ˖ˁˊˁ˵˘ ˣˋ˘˖˄ˋːˣ˻ ˥˪ˊˋ༤˼ˣ˻ˋ ˣˋˊ˥˵ˌ˪˻ ˘ ˣˋ˪˥˵ˣ˥˨˪˘. ʃˢˋˣˣ˥ ˦˥˽˪˥ˢ˫ ̀ ˨˵˘˪ˁ˿ ˣˋ˥˄˲˥ˊ˘ˢ˻ˢ ˊ˥˦˥༤ˣ˘˪˼ ˢˁ˨˸˪ˁ˄ˣ˫˿ ˦ˁˣ˥˧ˁˢ˫ ɯ.ɍʃ.ɍʇ˥ˆˁˣˁ ˧ˋ˖˫༤˼˪ˁ˪ˁˢ˘, ˦˥༤˫˵ˋˣˣ˻ˢ˘ ˣˁ ˫˧˥˅ˣˋ ˦˥༤ˋ˅˥˙ ˧ˁ˄˥˪˻. ʝ˥˵˫ ˅˻˧ˁ˖˘˪˼ ˄༤ˁˆ˥ˊˁ˧ˣ˥˨˪˼ ɯ. ʃ. ʇ˥ˆˁˣ˫ ˖ˁ ˦˧ˋˊ˥˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˘ˋ ˢˣˋ ˱ˁ˙༤ˁ ˊ༤̀ ˦˧˥ˆ˧ˁˢˢ˻ Starling, ˅ ˜˥˪˥˧˥ˢ ˥ˣ ˨˥˨˪ˁ˅༤̀༤ ˨˅˥˘ ˨˦˘˨˜˘, ɹ. ɳ. ʇ˥˧˥˅˘ˣ˥˙ ˖ˁ ˦˥ˢ˥˹˼ ˅ ˦˥˨˪˧˥ˋˣ˘˘ ˊˋ˧ˋ˅˼ˋ˅ ˘ ˧ˁ˄˥˪ˋ ˨ ˦˧˥ˆ˧ˁˢˢ˥˙ Starling, ʪ.ɍɳ.ɍʍˁ˖˫˧˥˅˥˙, ɹ. ɯ. ʒˋˣ˜˥˅˨˜˥˙ ˘ ɯ. ɳ. ɸ˻˄˥ ˖ˁ ˴ˋˣˣ˻ˋ ˧ˋˊˁ˜˪˥˧˨˜˘ˋ ˖ˁˢˋ˵ˁˣ˘̀. ʁˁˊˁ˵ˁ, ˖ˁ ˜˥˪˥˧˫˿ ˅˖̀༤˨̀ ɯ. ʃ. ʇ˥ˆˁˣ, ˢˣˋ, ˜ˁ˜ ˦˥༤ˋ˅˥ˢ˫ ༤˘ˣˆ˅˘˨˪˫, ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˣˋ˥˲˅ˁ˪ˣ˥˙ ˅ ˧ˁˢ˜ˁ˲ ˥ˊˣ˥˙ ˨˪ˁ˪˼˘. ʑ˥˽˪˥ˢ˫ ˊˁˣˣˁ̀ ˨˪ˁ˪˼̀ ˖ˁˊ˫ˢˁˣˁ ˜ˁ˜ ˣˁ˵ˁ༤˥ ˨ˋ˧˘˘ ˨˪ˁ˪ˋ˙ ˥ ˨˪˥˨༤˥˅ˣ˻˲ ˨˦˘˨˜ˁ˲ ˘ˣˊ˥ˁ˧˘˙˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅. ʓ˧ˁ˖˫ ˥˪ˢˋ˵˫, ˵˪˥ ˢ˥˘ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˘̀ ˥ ˢˋ˪˥ˊ˘˜ˋ ˣˁ˫˵ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˘˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁˣ˘̀ ˣˋ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤ˁˆˁ˿˪ ˣ˘ ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˥˨˪˘ ˦˥༤˫˵˘˪˼ «˦˧ˁ˅˘༤˼ˣ˻˙» ˨˪˥˨༤˥˅ˣ˻˙ ˨˦˘˨˥˜, ˦˥༤˼˖˫̀˨˼ ˪˥༤˼˜˥ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˧ˌˢ, ˣ˘ ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˥˨˪˘ ˦˥༤˫˵˘˪˼ ˋˆ˥ ˥˪ ˜ˁ˜˥ˆ˥-˪˥ ˥ˊˣ˥ˆ˥, ˦˫˨˪˼ ˘ˊˋˁ༤˼ˣ˥ˆ˥, ˘ˣ˱˥˧ˢˁˣ˪ˁ. ʌ˿˄˥˙ ˨˦˘˨˥˜, ˦˥༤˫˵ˋˣˣ˻˙ ˘˖ ˋˊ˘ˣ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˘˨˪˥˵ˣ˘˜ˁ, ˪˧ˋ˄˫ˋ˪ ˊˁ༤˼ˣˋ˙˸ˋ˙ ˥˄̀˖ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥˙ ˥˄˧ˁ˄˥˪˜˘ ˘ ˦˧˥˅ˋ˧˜˘ — ˣˁ ˊ˧˫ˆ˘˲ ˣ˥˨˘˪ˋ༤̀˲, ˣˁ ˜˥˧˦˫˨ˋ ˪ˋ˜˨˪˥˅, ˣˁ ˊ˧˫ˆ˘˲ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˧̀˲ ˘ ˦˧. ʕˁ˜˘ˢ ˥˄˧ˁ˖˥ˢ, ˪˹ˁ1 ʒˁ˄˥˪ˁ ˅˻˦˥༤ˣˋˣˁ ˵ˁ˨˪˘˵ˣ˥ ˦˧˘ ˦˥ˊˊˋ˧ː˜ˋ ʒʜʜʃ, ˦˧˥ˋ˜˪ 16-34-01040 «ɴ˧ˁˢˢˁ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˋ ˥˦˘˨ˁˣ˘ˋ ˘ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˧˼ ˘ˣˊ˥ˁ˧˘˙˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ ˜˫༤༤˫˘», 2016–2018 ˆˆ.

Journal of Language Relationship • ɳ˥˦˧˥˨˻ ̀˖˻˜˥˅˥ˆ˥ ˧˥ˊ˨˪˅ˁ • 15/4 (2017) • Pp. 279–298 • © The authors, 2017

ɯ. ʓ. ʇ˧˻༤˥˅ˁ

˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻˙ ˁˣˁ༤˘˖ ˅˨ˋ˲ ˪˧˘ˊ˴ˁ˪˘ ˦̀˪˘ ˨˦˘˨˜˥˅ ɯ. ʃ. ʇ˥ˆˁˣˁ — ˖ˁˊˁ˵ˁ ˣˁ ˢˣ˥ˆ˥ ༤ˋ˪, ˅ ˊˁˣˣ˥˙ ːˋ ˨˪ˁ˪˼ˋ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˣ˥ˋ ˅ˣ˘ˢˁˣ˘ˋ ˄˫ˊˋ˪ ˣˁ˦˧ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˥ ˣˁ ˨༤ˋˊ˫˿˹˘ˋ ˨˦˘˨˜˘: 1) ˲˘ˣˊ˘ — ̀˖˻˜, ˘˖˫˵ˁ˅˸˘˙˨̀ ˢˣ˥˙ ˅ ˫ˣ˘˅ˋ˧˨˘˪ˋ˪ˋ ˅ ˪ˋ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ˸ˋ˨˪˘ ༤ˋ˪, ˁ ˣ˻ˣˋ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˣ˥˙ ̀˖˻˜-˦˥˨˧ˋˊˣ˘˜ ˊ༤̀ ˦˥༤ˋ˅˻˲ ˘˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁˣ˘˙ ˣˁ˸ˋ˙ ˆ˧˫˦˦˻ ˅ ʃˣˊ˘˘. ʝ˥˪̀ ˫ ˢˋˣ̀ ˣˋ˪ ˨˪˥˨༤˥˅ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˨˦˘˨˜ˁ, ˖ˁ˦˘˨ˁˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˣˋ˦˥˨˧ˋˊ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥ ˥˪ ˘ˣ˱˥˧ˢˁˣ˪ˁ, ̀ ˨˵˘˪ˁ˿ ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˻ˢ ˦˧˥˅ˋ˧˘˪˼ ˨˦˘˨˥˜ ɯ. ʃ. ʇ˥ˆˁˣˁ ˣˁ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˁˣ˘˘ ˨˪ˁ˪˘˨˪˘˜˘ ˜˥˧˦˫˨ˁ Hindi Web 2013 (hiTenTen13), ˨˥ˊˋ˧ːˁ˹ˋˆ˥ ˥˜˥༤˥ 351 ˢ༤ˣ ˨༤˥˅; 2) ˄ˋˣˆˁ༤˘ — ̀˖˻˜, ˨˪˥˨༤˥˅ˣ˻˙ ˨˦˘˨˥˜ ˜˥˪˥˧˥ˆ˥ ˨ ˫˵ˌ˪˥ˢ ˜˥ˣ˪ˋ˜˨˪˥˅ ˘ ˨˪˘ˢ˫༤˥˅ ˣˁ ˲˘ˣˊ˘ ˘ ˁˣˆ༤˘˙˨˜˥ˢ ˄˻༤ ˖ˁ˦˘˨ˁˣ ˢˣ˥˙ ˥˪ ˥ˊˣ˥ˆ˥ ˘ˣ˱˥˧ˢˁˣ˪ˁ ˅ 2016 ˆ˥ˊ˫. ʑ˧˘ ˦˧˥˅ˋ˧˜ˋ ˨˪˥˨༤˥˅ˣ˘˜ˁ ˄ˋˣˆˁ༤˘ ˄˻༤ ˘˨˦˥༤˼˖˥˅ˁˣ ˜˥˧˦˫˨ Bengali Web (BengaliWaC), ˨˥ˊˋ˧ːˁ˹˘˙ ˄˥༤ˋˋ 11 ˢ༤ˣ ˨༤˥˅. ʇ˧˥ˢˋ ˪˥ˆ˥, ˦˥ˣˁˊ˥˄˘༤ˁ˨˼ ˦˧˥˅ˋ˧˜ˁ ˦˥ ˧̀ˊ˫ ˪˥༤˜˥˅˥-ˊ˅˫̀˖˻˵ˣ˻˲ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˧ˋ˙ (http://www.english-bangla.com/, ʌ˥˨˜˫˪˥˅ 1974, Ghosh 2011); 3) ˥˧˘̀ — ̀˖˻˜, ˨˪˥˨༤˥˅ˣ˻˙ ˨˦˘˨˥˜ ˜˥˪˥˧˥ˆ˥ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˄˻༤ ˖ˁ˦˘˨ˁˣ ˢˣ˥˙ ˅ 2016 ˆ˥ˊ˫. ʒˁ˨˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘̀ ˅ ˨˦˘˨˜ˁ˲ ˦˧˥˅ˋ˧ˋˣ˻ ˨ ˦˥ˢ˥˹˼˿ ˪˥༤˜˥˅˥-ˊ˅˫̀˖˻˵ˣ˻˲ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˧ˋ˙ (Tripathy 2015, Biswal 2015), ˦˥ ˪˥༤˜˥˅˥-˵ˋ˪˻˧ˌ˲̀˖˻˵ˣ˥ˢ˫ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˧˿ (Praharaj 1931– 1940), ˁ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˦˥ ˜˥˧˦˫˨˫ Goldhahn 2012 ˘˖ 30 ˪˻˨̀˵ ˦˧ˋˊ༤˥ːˋˣ˘˙; ˥ˊˣˁ˜˥ ˧̀ˊ ˨༤˥˅ ˘˖ ˨˦˘˨˜ˁ ɯ. ʃ. ʇ˥ˆˁˣˁ ˅ ˜˥˧˦˫˨ˋ ˦˧˥˨˪˥ ˥˪˨˫˪˨˪˅˥˅ˁ༤, ˘ ˘˲ ˘˖˫˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ˦˥˪˧ˋ˄˥˅ˁ༤˥ ˊ˥˦˥༤ˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥˙ ˦˧˥˅ˋ˧˜˘. ʐ˪˨˫˪˨˪˅˘ˋ ˥˄˹ˋˊ˥˨˪˫˦ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˥˄˸˘˧ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˜˥˧˦˫˨ˁ ˥˧˘̀ ˜˥ˢ˦ˋˣ˨˘˧˫ˋ˪˨̀ ˪ˋˢ, ˵˪˥ ˽˪˥˪ ̀˖˻˜ ˥˄༤ˁˊˁˋ˪ ˫ˣ˘˜ˁ༤˼ˣ˥˙ ˦˘˨˼ˢˋˣˣ˥˨˪˼˿; ˽˪˥ ˊˁ༤˥ ˢˣˋ ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˥˨˪˼ ˊ˥˦˥༤ˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ ˘˨˦˥༤˼˖˥˅ˁ˪˼ ˨˪ˁ˪˘˨˪˘˜˫ Google 2; 4) ˜˫༤༤˫˘ — ˨˪˥˨༤˥˅ˣ˻ˋ ˨˦˘˨˜˘ ˨˥˄˧ˁˣ˻ ɹ. ʍ. ʣ˫˅ˁˣˣ˘˜˥˅˥˙ ˅ 2013 ˆ˥ˊ˫ ˅ ʇ˫༤˫ ˥˪ ˦̀˪˘ ˘ˣ˱˥˧ˢˁˣ˪˥˅. ɳ ˊˁ༤˼ˣˋ˙˸ˋˢ ˄˥༤˼˸ˁ̀ ˵ˁ˨˪˼ ༤ˋ˜˨˘˜˘ ˄˻༤ˁ ˦˧˥˅ˋ˧ˋˣˁ ˣˁˢ˘ ˅ ˲˥ˊˋ ˦˥༤ˋ˅˥˙ ˧ˁ˄˥˪˻ 2014, 2016 ˘ 2017 ˆˆ. ʑ˥ˢ˘ˢ˥ ˽˪˘˲ ˨˦˘˨˜˥˅, ˅ ˧ˁˢ˜ˁ˲ ˨˪ˁ˪˼˘ ˲˥˪ˋ༤˥˨˼ ˄˻ ˥˄˨˫ˊ˘˪˼ ˣˋ˜˥˪˥˧˻ˋ ˢ˥ˢˋˣ˪˻, ˥˄˹˘ˋ ˊ༤̀ ˘ˣˊ˥ˁ˧˘˙˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅ ˅ ˴ˋ༤˥ˢ — ˨˪ˋ˦ˋˣ˼ ˘˲ ˘˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁˣˣ˥˨˪˘, ˥˨˥˄ˋˣˣ˥˨˪˘ ˨ˋˢˁˣ˪˘˜˘ ˘ ˘˨˪˥˧˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˜˘.

ʋʺ˭ˌˀ ˜˚˙˛˗˯ˀ ˖˙˖ˀ˗˞˯ ʐ˨ˣ˥˅ˣ˥˙ ˅˥˦˧˥˨, ˦˥ ˜˥˪˥˧˥ˢ˫ ̀ ˣˋ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣˁ ˨ ˁ˅˪˥˧˥ˢ ˨˪ˁ˪˼˘, — ˽˪˥ ˨˪ˋ˦ˋˣ˼ ˘˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁˣˣ˥˨˪˘ ˘ˣˊ˥ˁ˧˘˙˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅ ˅ ˣˁ˨˪˥̀˹˘˙ ˢ˥ˢˋˣ˪. ɸˋ˙˨˪˅˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥, ˊ༤̀ «˄˥༤˼˸˘˲» ˨˪ˁ˪˫˨ˣ˻˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅ (˲˘ˣˊ˘, ˄ˋˣˆˁ༤˘, ˣˋ˦ˁ༤˘ ˘ ˪. ˦.) ˫ːˋ ˨˥˖ˊˁˣ˻ ˥˄˸˘˧ˣ˻ˋ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˧˘ ˘ 2

ʒˁ˖˫ˢˋˋ˪˨̀, ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˥˨˪˘ ˊ༤̀ ˘˨˦˥༤˼˖˥˅ˁˣ˘̀ ˘ˣ˪ˋ˧ˣˋ˪-˦˥˘˨˜˥˅˘˜˥˅ ˥˵ˋˣ˼ ˥ˆ˧ˁˣ˘˵ˋˣ˻, ˦˥ˊ˧˥˄ˣˋˋ ˥˄ ˽˪˥ˢ ˨ˢ., ˣˁ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧, ɲˋ༤˘˜˥˅ 2016. ʐˊˣˁ˜˥ ˦˧˘˅˥ˊ˘ˢ˻ˋ ˅ ˣˁ˨˪˥̀˹ˋ˙ ˨˪ˁ˪˼ˋ ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧˻ ˘˖ Google ˨˅̀˖ˁˣ˻ ˨ ˦˥˦˻˪˜ˁˢ˘ ˦˥༤˫˵˘˪˼ ˆ˥˧ˁ˖ˊ˥ ˄˥༤ˋˋ ˪˥˵ˣ˫˿ ˘ˣ˱˥˧ˢˁ˴˘˿, ˵ˋˢ ˥˪༤˘˵˘ˋ ˅ ˫˦˥˪˧ˋ˄˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥˨˪˘ ˊ˅˫˲ ˨˘ˣ˥ˣ˘ˢ˘˵ˣ˻˲ ˨༤˥˅ ˥ˊˣ˥ˆ˥ ˘ ˪˥ˆ˥ ːˋ ̀˖˻˜ˁ ˣˁ ˦˥˧̀ˊ˥˜ ˘༤˘ ˣˋ˨˜˥༤˼˜˥ ˦˥˧̀ˊ˜˥˅. ʑ˧˘˵˘ˣˁ, ˦˥ ˜˥˪˥˧˥˙ Google ˣˋ ˖ˁˆ˧˫ːˁˋ˪ ˅˨ˋ ˧ˋ˖˫༤˼˪ˁ˪˻ ˦˥˘˨˜ˁ, ˜ˁ˜ ˘ ˪˥˪ ˱ˁ˜˪, ˵˪˥ ˵˘˨༤˥ ˧ˋ˖˫༤˼˪ˁ˪˥˅ ˦˥˘˨˜ˁ ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ༤˘˸˼ ˦˧˘˄༤˘˖˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥˙ ˥˴ˋˣ˜˥˙, ˣˋ˥ˊˣ˥˜˧ˁ˪ˣ˥ ˥˄˨˫ːˊˁ༤ˁ˨˼ ˅ ˧ˁ˖༤˘˵ˣ˻˲ ˦˫˄༤˘˜ˁ˴˘̀˲ ˅ ˨ˋ˪˘. ʠ˪˥ ˜ˁ˨ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˽˜˨˦ˋ˧˘ˢˋˣ˪ˁ ˨ Yandex, ˦˥˜ˁ˖˻˅ˁ˿˹ˋˆ˥ ˁ˄˨˫˧ˊˣ˻ˋ ˧ˋ˖˫༤˼˪ˁ˪˻ ˊ༤̀ ˖ˁ˦˧˥˨˥˅ «ʻ ʓː˛ʸˌ˗˟», «˗ʸ ʓː˛ʸˌ˗˟» ˘ «ʓː˛ʸˌ˗˟», ˪˥ ˦˧˘ ˦˥˅˪˥˧ˋˣ˘˘ ˽˜˨˦ˋ˧˘ˢˋˣ˪ˁ ˅ Google ˧ˋ˖˫༤˼˪ˁ˪˻ ˥˜ˁ˖ˁ༤˘˨˼ ˣˋ˦˧˥˪˘˅˥˧ˋ˵˘˅˻ˢ˘. ʑˋ˧˅˥ˣˁ˵ˁ༤˼ˣˁ̀ ˦˧˥˅ˋ˧˜ˁ ˨˪˥˨༤˥˅ˣ˻˲ ˨˦˘˨˜˥˅ ˲˘ˣˊ˘, ˄ˋˣˆˁ༤˘ ˘ ˥˧˘̀ ˦˧˥˅˥ˊ˘༤ˁ˨˼ ˣˁˢ˘ ˣˁ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˁˣ˘˘ ˨˪ˁ˪˘˨˪˘˜˘ Google, ˣ˥ ˋˆ˥ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˦˧˥˅ˋ˧˜ˁ ˣˁ ˜˥˧˦˫˨ˁ˲ ˦˧ˁ˜˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ ˣˋ ˘˖ˢˋˣ˘༤ˁ ˧ˋ˖˫༤˼˪ˁ˪ (ˣˁ˘˄˥༤ˋˋ ˖ˣˁ˵˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻ˋ ˘˖ˢˋˣˋˣ˘̀ ˦˧ˋ˪ˋ˧˦ˋ༤ ˧ˋ˖˫༤˼˪ˁ˪ ˦˧˥˅ˋ˧˜˘ ˨˦˘˨˜ˁ ˥˧˘̀, ˵˪˥, ˅ˋ˧˥̀˪ˣ˥, ˥˄˺̀˨ˣ̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˣˋˊ˥˨˪ˁ˪˥˵ˣ˻ˢ ˥˄˺ˌˢ˥ˢ ˜˥˧˦˫˨ˁ). ʨ˪˥ ˨˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅˫ˋ˪ ˥ ˪˥ˢ, ˵˪˥ ˵˘˨༤ˁ ˨˪ˁ˪˘˨˪˘˜˘ Google ˅˨ˌ ːˋ ˣˋ ˦˥༤ˣ˥˨˪˼˿ ˨༤˫˵ˁ˙ˣ˻, ˁ ˥˪˧ˁːˁ˿˪ ˣˋ˜˥˪˥˧˫˿ ˧ˋˁ༤˼ˣ˥˨˪˼. ʑ˥˽˪˥ˢ˫, ˦˧˘˖ˣˁ˅ˁ̀ ˁ˧ˆ˫ˢˋˣ˪˻ ɳ. ʃ. ɲˋ༤˘˜˥˅ˁ ˥ ˣˋ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˥˨˪˘ ˘˨˦˥༤˼˖˥˅ˁ˪˼ ˦˥˘˨˜˥˅˘˜˘ ˅ ˜ˁ˵ˋ˨˪˅ˋ ˪˥ˣ˜˥ˆ˥ ˘ˣ˨˪˧˫ˢˋˣ˪ˁ˧˘̀, ˢ˻ ˅˨ˌ ːˋ ˨˵˘˪ˁˋˢ ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˻ˢ ˅ ˣˋ˜˥˪˥˧˻˲ ˦˧ˋˊˋ༤ˁ˲ ˥˦˘˧ˁ˪˼˨̀ ˣˁ ˣ˘˲ ˊ༤̀ ˦˥༤˫˵ˋˣ˘̀ ˊˁˣˣ˻˲ ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲, ˘ˢˋ˿˹˘˲ ˲ˁ˧ˁ˜˪ˋ˧ˣ˫˿ ˦˘˨˼ˢˋˣˣ˥˨˪˼, ˣ˥ ˣˋ ˘ˢˋ˿˹˘˲ ˦˥ˊˆ˥˪˥˅༤ˋˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ༤˘ˣˆ˅˘˨˪ˁˢ˘ ˜˥˧˦˫˨ˁ ˊ˥˨˪ˁ˪˥˵ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˥˄˺ˌˢˁ. 280

ʌˋ˜˨˘˜˥˨˪ˁ˪˘˨˪˘˜ˁ ˣ˥˅˥˘ˣˊ˥ˁ˧˘˙˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅: ˅˖ˆ༤̀ˊ ˦˥༤ˋ˅˥ˆ˥ ༤˘ˣˆ˅˘˨˪ˁ

ˆ˧ˁˢˢˁ˪˘˜˘, ˘˖˫˵ˋˣˁ ˘˨˪˥˧˘˵ˋ˨˜ˁ̀ ˱˥ˣ˥༤˥ˆ˘̀. ʐˊˣˁ˜˥ ˁ˅˪˥˧ ˧ˁ˨˦˧˥˨˪˧ˁˣ̀ˋ˪ ˽˪˥ ˦˥༤˥ːˋˣ˘ˋ ˣˁ ˅˨ˋ 35 ̀˖˻˜˥˅, ˜˥˪˥˧˻ˋ ˅˲˥ˊ̀˪ ˅ ˋˆ˥ ˄ˁ˖˫, ˵˪˥ ˅ ˜˥˧ˣˋ ˣˋ˅ˋ˧ˣ˥ (Kogan 2016: 233). ʑ˥ ˄˥༤˼˸˘ˣ˨˪˅˫ ˢˁ༤˻˲ ˘ˣˊ˥ˁ˧˘˙˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅ ˅ ༤˫˵˸ˋˢ ˨༤˫˵ˁˋ ˊ˥˨˪˫˦ˋˣ ˣˋ˄˥༤˼˸˥˙ ˥˵ˋ˧˜, ˘ ˁˊˋ˜˅ˁ˪ˣ˥˨˪˼ ˽˪˥ˆ˥ ˥˵ˋ˧˜ˁ ˵ˁ˨˪˥ ˨˥ˢˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣˁ. ʇ˧˥ˢˋ ˪˥ˆ˥, ˊˁːˋ ˜ˁ˵ˋ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥ˋ ˥˦˘˨ˁˣ˘ˋ, ˋ˨༤˘ ˅ ˖ˁˊˁ˵˫ ˁ˅˪˥˧ˁ ˣˋ ˅˲˥ˊ˘༤ ˨˄˥˧ ˨˪˥˨༤˥˅ˣ˘˜ˁ, ˢ˥ːˋ˪ ˣˋ˅˥༤˼ˣ˥ ˅˅ˋ˨˪˘ ˅ ˖ˁ˄༤˫ːˊˋˣ˘ˋ ˪ˋ˲ ˘˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁ˪ˋ༤ˋ˙, ˜˥˪˥˧˻ˋ ˦˥༤˼˖˫˿˪˨̀ ˘ˢ ˜ˁ˜ ˘˨˪˥˵ˣ˘˜˥ˢ. ʕˁ˜, ɲ. ʑ. ʍˁ˲ˁ˦ˁ˪˧ˁ ˅ ˦˧ˋˊ˘˨༤˥˅˘˘ ˜ ˥˵ˋ˧˜˫ ˜˫༤༤˫˘ ʍ. ʒ. ʒˁˣˆˁˣˁ˪˲˘ ˆ˥˅˥˧˘˪ ˥ ˪˥ˢ, ˵˪˥ ˘ˣ˱˥˧ˢˁ˴˘̀ ˦˥༤˫˵ˋˣˁ ˥˪ ˋˊ˘ˣ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˣ˥˨˘˪ˋ༤̀, ˵˼ˌ ˢˋ˨˪˥ ː˘˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅ˁ ˣˋ ˫˜ˁ˖ˁˣ˥ (Ranganatha 1980: 16). ʑ˧˘ ˨˥˦˥˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˘˘ ˨ ˦˥༤ˋ˅˻ˢ˘ ˊˁˣˣ˻ˢ˘ ˣˁ˸ˋ˙ ˘˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁ˪ˋ༤˼˨˜˥˙ ˆ˧˫˦˦˻ ˅ ˽˪˥ˢ ˥˵ˋ˧˜ˋ (˦˥ˢ˘ˢ˥ ˢˣ˥ːˋ˨˪˅ˁ ˥˸˘˄˥˜ ˘ ˫˦˧˥˹ˋˣ˘˙) ˥˵ˋ˅˘ˊˣ˥ ˨˘༤˼ˣ˥ˋ ˅༤˘̀ˣ˘ˋ ༤ˋ˜˨˘˜˘ ˘ ˆ˧ˁˢˢˁ˪˘˜˘ ˲˘ˣˊ˘. ʨ˪˥ ˢ˥ːˋ˪ ˥˄˺̀˨ˣ̀˪˼˨̀ ˥˨˥˄ˋˣˣ˥˨˪̀ˢ˘ ˣ˥˨˘˪ˋ༤̀ ˘༤˘ ːˋ ˨˦ˋ˴˘˱˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˣˁ˦˧ˁ˅༤ˋˣˣ˥˨˪˼˿ ˘˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁˣ˘̀, ˨˅̀˖ˁˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˨ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˦˘˨˼˿ ˣˁ˨ˋ༤ˋˣ˘̀, ˨ ̀˖˻˜˥˅˥˙ ˦˥༤˘˪˘˜˥˙ ʃˣˊ˘˘ ˅ ˴ˋ༤˥ˢ ˘ ˨ ˖ˁˊˁ˵ˋ˙ ˫˜˧ˋ˦༤ˋˣ˘̀ ˦˧ˋ˨˪˘ːˁ ˲˘ˣˊ˘ ˅ ˵ˁ˨˪ˣ˥˨˪˘ (˫˦˥ˢ̀ˣ˫˪˥ˋ ˦˧ˋˊ˘˨༤˥˅˘ˋ ˅ ˖ˣˁ˵˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥˙ ˨˪ˋ˦ˋˣ˘ ˦˥˨˅̀˹ˋˣ˥ ˅˥˖˧ˁ˨˪ˁ˿˹ˋˢ˫ ˅༤˘̀ˣ˘˿ ˲˘ˣˊ˘ ˜ˁ˜ ˱ˁ˜˪˥˧ˁ ˥˄˺ˋˊ˘ˣˋˣ˘̀ ˣˁ˴˘˘). ɴ˥˧ˁ˖ˊ˥ ˄˥༤ˋˋ ˦˥ˊ˧˥˄ˣˁ ˘ ˪˥˵ˣˁ ˆ˧ˁˢˢˁ˪˘˜ˁ ʍ. ʒ. ʕ˲ˁ˜˫˧ˁ, ˣ˥˨˘˪ˋ༤̀ ˜˫༤༤˫˘ ˘ ˅˻ˊˁ˿˹ˋˆ˥˨̀ ༤˘ˣˆ˅˘˨˪ˁ, ˣˁ˦˘˨ˁˣˣˁ̀ ˣˁ ˲˘ˣˊ˘ (Thakur 1975). ʎ˥, ˅˥˦ˋ˧˅˻˲, ˥ˣˁ ˆ˥˧ˁ˖ˊ˥ ˢˋˣˋˋ ˊ˥˨˪˫˦ˣˁ, ˅˥-˅˪˥˧˻˲, ˣˋ ˨˥ˊˋ˧ː˘˪ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˧̀, ˦˥˽˪˥ˢ˫ ˘˖˅༤ˋ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ˄ˁ˖˥˅˥˙ ༤ˋ˜˨˘˜˘ ˘˖ ˣˋˌ ˦˥˪˧ˋ˄˥˅ˁ༤˥ ˄˻ ˦˥༤ˣ˥˙ ˧˥˨˦˘˨˘ ˋˌ ˪ˋ˜˨˪ˁ. ʐˊˣˁ˜˥ ˘ ˅ ˽˪˥˙ ˜ˣ˘ˆˋ ˢ˥ːˣ˥ ˣˁ˙˪˘ ˢˣ˥ːˋ˨˪˅˥ ˣˋ˪˥˵ˣ˥˨˪ˋ˙. ʕˁ˜, ˅ ˘ˣˊ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˪˧ˁˊ˘˴˘˘ ˜ ˆ˥˅˥˧ˁˢ ˜˫༤༤˫˘ ˥˪ˣ˥˨̀˪ ˅ˣˋ˸ˣ˘˙ ˘ ˅ˣ˫˪˧ˋˣˣ˘˙ ˨˘˧ˁˊː˘, ˘ ˽˪ˁ ːˋ ˘ˣ˱˥˧ˢˁ˴˘̀ ˫˦˥ˢ˘ˣˁˋ˪˨̀ ˅ ˜ˣ˘ˆˋ ʕ˲ˁ˜˫˧ˁ (ʕ˲ˁ˜˫˧ 1975: 129). ʎˁ˸ˋ ˦˥˅ˋ˧˲ˣ˥˨˪ˣ˥ˋ ˦˥༤ˋ˅˥ˋ ˖ˣˁ˜˥ˢ˨˪˅˥ ˨ ˽˪˘ˢ˘ ˘ˊ˘˥ˢˁˢ˘ ˆ˥˅˥˧˘˪ ˥ ˊ˥˨˪ˁ˪˥˵ˣ˥ ˨˘༤˼ˣ˥ˢ ˘˲ ˥˪༤˘˵˘˘ ˥˪ ˜˫༤༤˫˘ ˦˥ ˨˫˹ˋ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˻ˢ ˨˪ˁ˧˻ˢ ˘˖˥ˆ༤˥˨˨ˁˢ. ʕˁ˜, ˣˁ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧, ˘ˣ˱˥˧ˢˁˣ˪˻ ˨˘˧ˁˊː˘ ˊˁ˅ˁ༤˘ ༤˘˵ˣ˥ˋ ˘ ˦˧˘˪̀ːˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˋ ˢˋ˨˪˥˘ˢˋˣ˘̀ ˦ˋ˧˅˥ˆ˥ ༤˘˴ˁ ˋˊ˘ˣ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˵˘˨༤ˁ ham-, mhar- (ˁ ˣˋ as-, asƕr-), ‘˦˥༤ˋ’ khech ˅ˢ. chet, ‘ˢ˫˲ˁ’ makh- ˅ˢ. mach-. 3 ɳ ˆ˧ˁˢˢˁ˪˘˜ˋ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˥˄ˣˁ˧˫ː˘˅ˁ˿˪˨̀ ˨˫˹ˋ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˻ˋ ˧ˁ˨˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘̀, ˪ˁ˜ ˵˪˥ ˣˋ ˨˥˅˨ˋˢ ̀˨ˣ˥, ˣˁ˨˜˥༤˼˜˥ ˦˧ˁ˅˥ˢˋ˧ˣ˥ ˨˵˘˪ˁ˪˼ ˘˲ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪ˁˢ˘ ˜˫༤༤˫˘. ʑ˥ ˅˨ˋ˙ ˅˘ˊ˘ˢ˥˨˪˘, ˦ˋ˧˅˥ˣˁ˵ˁ༤˼ˣˁ̀ ˪ˁ˜˨˥ˣ˥ˢ˘̀ ˊˁ˅ˁ༤ˁ˨˼ ˅ ˖ˣˁ˵˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥˙ ˨˪ˋ˦ˋˣ˘ ˦˥ ˁˊˢ˘ˣ˘˨˪˧ˁ˪˘˅ˣ˻ˢ ˆ˧ˁˣ˘˴ˁˢ, ˘ ˜ ˜˫༤༤˫˘ ˄˻༤˘ ˥˪ˣˋ˨ˋˣ˻ ˅˨ˋ ˆ˥˅˥˧˻ ˜ˣ̀ːˋ˨˪˅ˁ ʇ˫༤༤˫. ʕˁ ːˋ ˦˧˥˄༤ˋˢˁ ˨˅̀˖ˁˣˁ ˘ ˨ ˘ˊ˘˥ˢ˥ˢ ˲˘ˢˁ˵ˁ༤˘, ˨˪˥˨༤˥˅ˣ˻˙ ˨˦˘˨˥˜ ˜˥˪˥˧˥ˆ˥ ˅˲˥ˊ˘˪ ˅ ˄ˁ˖˫ ɯ.ɍʃ.ɍʇ˥ˆˁˣˁ. ʎˁ˖˅ˁˣ˘ˋ «˲˘ˢˁ˵ˁ༤˘» ˥˪ˣ˥˨˘˪˨̀ ˜ ˧ˁ˖༤˘˵ˣ˻ˢ ˘ˣˊ˥ˁ˧˘˙˨˜˘ˢ ˘ˊ˘˥ˢˁˢ, ˧ˁ˨˦˧˥˨˪˧ˁˣˌˣˣ˻ˢ ˅ ˸˪ˁ˪ˋ ʝ˘ˢˁ˵ˁ༤-ʑ˧ˁˊˋ˸. ʝ.ɍʝˋˣˊ˧˘˜˨ˋˣ, ˜ˣ˘ˆ˥˙ ˜˥˪˥˧˥ˆ˥ ɯ.ɍʃ.ɍʇ˥ˆˁˣ ˦˥༤˼˖˥˅ˁ༤˨̀ ˊ༤̀ ˨˥˖ˊˁˣ˘̀ ˨˦˘˨˜˥˅, ˲ˁ˧ˁ˜˪ˋ˧˘˖˫ˋ˪ ˲˘ˢˁ˵ˁ༤˘ ˨༤ˋˊ˫˿˹˘ˢ ˥˄˧ˁ˖˥ˢ: «Himachali embraces the following dialects counting from the south and the west: Sirmauri, Jaunsari, Bagha࣢i, Kyoੇ࣢hli, Ko࣢garhi, Koci, Maੇdea઀i and Ku઀ui» (Hendriksen 1986: 3). ʍ. ʒ. ʕ˲ˁ˜˫˧ ˅˜༤˿˵ˁˋ˪ ˅ ˽˪˥˪ ˨˦˘˨˥˜ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˵ˁˢ˄ˋˁ༤˘ ˘ ˄˲ˁˊ˧ˁ˅ˁ˲˘ (ʕ˲ˁ˜˫˧ 2012: 12–20). ɳ˨ˌ ˽˪˥ — ˊ˥˨˪ˁ˪˥˵ˣ˥ ˨˘༤˼ˣ˥ ˥˪༤˘˵ˁ˿˹˘ˋ˨̀ ˊ˧˫ˆ ˥˪ ˊ˧˫ˆˁ ˘ˊ˘˥ˢ˻. ɳ ˨˪ˁ˪˼ˋ ɯ.ɍʃ.ɍʇ˥ˆˁˣˁ ˅ ˜ˁ˵ˋ˨˪˅ˋ ˘˨˪˥˵ˣ˘˜ˁ ˨˪˥˨༤˥˅ˣ˘˜ˁ ˲˘ˢˁ˵ˁ༤˘ ˫˜ˁ˖˻˅ˁ˿˪˨̀ ˣ˥˨˘˪ˋ༤˘ ̀˖˻˜ˁ (Kogan 2016: 239), ˥ˊˣˁ˜˥ ˣˋ ˊˁˣ˥ ˨˥˴˘˥༤˘ˣˆ˅˘˨˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˨˅ˋˊˋˣ˘˙ ˥˄ ˽˪˘˲ ˣ˥˨˘˪ˋ༤̀˲ — ˢ˻ ˣˋ ˖ˣˁˋˢ, ˅ ˜ˁ˜˘˲ ˣˁ˨ˋ༤ˌˣˣ˻˲ ˦˫ˣ˜˪ˁ˲ ˥ˣ˘ ˧˥ˊ˘༤˘˨˼ ˘ ˅˻˧˥˨༤˘, ˣˁ˨˜˥༤˼˜˥ ˲˥˧˥˸˥ ˖ˣˁ˿˪ ̀˖˻˜, ˣˁ ˜ˁ˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲ ˦˧ˋ˘ˢ˫˹ˋ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥ ˥˄˹ˁ˿˪˨̀ ˅ ˦˥˨༤ˋˊˣ˘ˋ ˆ˥ˊ˻ ˘ ˪. ˦. ʕˁ˜˘ˢ ˥˄˧ˁ˖˥ˢ, ˢ˻ ˣˋ ˢ˥ːˋˢ ˄˻˪˼ ˫˅ˋ˧ˋˣ˻ ˊˁːˋ ˅ ˪˥ˢ, ˥ ˜ˁ˜˥ˢ ˘ˊ˘˥ˢˋ ˘༤˘ ˘ˊ˘˥ˢˁ˲ ˘ˊˌ˪ ˧ˋ˵˼. ʑ˥˨˜˥༤˼˜˫ ˥˦˘˨ˁˣ˘̀ ˢˁ༤˻˲ ˣ˥˅˥˘ˣˊ˘˙˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅ ˥˨˪ˁ˅༤̀˿˪ ːˋ༤ˁ˪˼ ༤˫˵˸ˋˆ˥, ˆ˥˅˥˧˘˪˼ ˥ ˪˥˵ˣ˥˨˪˘ ˘˲ ˘˨˪˥˧˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˜˘ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˣˋ ˦˧˘˲˥ˊ˘˪˨̀. ʎˁ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧, ˅ ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˢ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˧ˋ ʕˌ˧ˣˋ˧ˁ (Turner 1969–1985) ˨˥ˊˋ˧ː˘˪˨̀ 8 (˅˥˨ˋˢ˼!) ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧˥˅ ˘˖ ˜˫༤༤˫˘. ɴ༤ˁ˅ˣ˥ˋ, ˵˪˥ ˲˥˪ˋ༤˥˨˼ ˄˻ ˨˜ˁ˖ˁ˪˼ ˅ ˧ˁ˖ˊˋ༤ˋ «ʁˁˢˋ˵ˁˣ˘̀ ˥˄˹ˋˆ˥ ˲ˁ˧ˁ˜˪ˋ˧ˁ»:˦˧ˋːˊˋ ˵ˋˢ ˦˥ˊ˨˵˘˪˻˅ˁ˪˼ ༤ˋ˜˨˘˜˥˨˪ˁ˪˘˨˪˘˜˫, ˣˁˊ˥ ˦˥ˣ̀˪˼, ༤ˋ˜˨˘˜˥˨˪ˁ˪˘˨˪˘˜˫ ˩ˀʼ˙ 3

ʑ˥ˊ˧˥˄ˣˋˋ ˥ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘˘ ˽˪˘˲ ˥˪༤˘˵˘˙ ˨ˢ. Hendriksen 1986: 192. 281

ɯ. ʓ. ʇ˧˻༤˥˅ˁ

ˢ˻ ˦˥ˊ˨˵˘˪˻˅ˁˋˢ, ˥˴ˋˣ˘˪˼ ˊ˥˨˪˥˅ˋ˧ˣ˥˨˪˼ ˘˨˪˥˵ˣ˘˜ˁ. ɳ ˨༤˫˵ˁˋ ˢˁ༤˻˲ ˘ˣˊ˥ˁ˧˘˙˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅ ˽˪ˁ ˖ˁˊˁ˵ˁ ˪˧ˋ˄˫ˋ˪ ˦˧ˋːˊˋ ˅˨ˋˆ˥ ˦˥༤ˋ˅˻˲ ˘˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁˣ˘˙ ˘ ˖ˁ˦˥༤ˣˋˣ˘̀ ༤ˁ˜˫ˣ ˅ ˥˦˘˨ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥˙ ༤˘ˣˆ˅˘˨˪˘˜ˋ.

ɼʸ˖ˀ˩ʸ˗ˌ˴ ː ˜ˀ˖ʸ˗˞ˌːˀ ɳ ˊˁˣˣ˥ˢ ˧ˁ˖ˊˋ༤ˋ ˨˥˄˧ˁˣ˻ ˖ˁˢˋ˵ˁˣ˘̀, ˥˪ˣ˥˨̀˹˘ˋ˨̀ ˜ ˥˨˥˄ˋˣˣ˥˨˪̀ˢ ˨ˋˢˁˣ˪˘˜˘ ˘ˣˊ˥ˁ˧˘˙˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅. ʌˋ˜˨˘˜˥˨˪ˁ˪˘˨˪˘˜ˁ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤ˁˆˁˋ˪ ˨˥˦˥˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˘ˋ ˨༤˥˅ ˨ ˥ˊ˘ˣˁ˜˥˅˻ˢ˘ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘̀ˢ˘, ˥ˊˣˁ˜˥ ˣˁ ˦˧ˁ˜˪˘˜ˋ ˅ ˨˪˥˨༤˥˅ˣ˻ˋ ˨˦˘˨˜˘ ˖ˁ˵ˁ˨˪˫˿ ˦˥˦ˁˊˁ˿˪ ˨༤˥˅ˁ ˨ ˧ˁ˖ˣ˻ˢ˘ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘̀ˢ˘, ˨˥˦˥˨˪ˁ˅༤̀˪˼ ˜˥˪˥˧˻ˋ ˣˋ˦˧ˁ˅˥ˢˋ˧ˣ˥. ʎˁ ˣˋ˜˥˪˥˧˻ˋ ˘˖ ˪ˁ˜˘˲ «˥˦ˁ˨ˣ˻˲ ˢˋ˨˪», ˲ˁ˧ˁ˜˪ˋ˧ˣ˻˲ ˊ༤̀ ˘ˣˊ˥ˁ˧˘˙˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅, ˲˥˪ˋ༤˥˨˼ ˄˻ ˥˄˧ˁ˪˘˪˼ ˅ˣ˘ˢˁˣ˘ˋ. 1. Sab, sŊre ˘ ˘˲ ˦ˁ˧ˁ༤༤ˋ༤˘ ˅ ˊ˧˫ˆ˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲ ˅˥˖˅˥ˊ̀˪˨̀ ˜ ˥ˊˣ˥ˢ˫ ˜˥˧ˣ˿, ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘̀ ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣˁ ˥ˊˣ˘ˢ ˘ ˪ˋˢ ːˋ ̘ɏ1 (Kogan 2016: 239). ɳ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˧ˋ ʕˌ˧ˣˋ˧ˁ ˽˪˥ ˊ˅ˋ ˧ˁ˖ˣ˻ˋ ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘˘ sárva ˘ s؈ra, ˜˥˪˥˧˻ˋ ˥˪༤˘˵ˁ˿˪˨̀ ˘ ˣˁ ˦˧ˁ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˨˜˥ˢ ˫˧˥˅ˣˋ. ɳ ̀˖˻˜ˋ ˲˘ˣˊ˘ (˘ ˅˥ ˢˣ˥ˆ˘˲ ˊ˧˫ˆ˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲) ˅ ˊˋ˙˨˪˅˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥˨˪˘ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˻ ˘ ˸˘˧˥˜˥ ˫˦˥˪˧ˋ˄༤̀˿˪˨̀ ˥˄ˁ ˽˪˘ ˜˥˧ˣ̀, ˨ ˨˥˲˧ˁˣˋˣ˘ˋˢ ˨ˋˢˁˣ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˧ˁ˖༤˘˵˘̀ sab ‘omnis’ ˘ sŊrŊ ‘totus’. ʎ˥ ˅ ˜ˁːˊ˻˙ ˘˖ ˨˦˘˨˜˥˅ ɯ.ɍʃ.ɍʇ˥ˆˁˣˁ ˦˥˦ˁ༤ ༤˘˸˼ ˥ˊ˘ˣ ˘˖ ˜˥˧ˣˋ˙. ʑ˥˦˧ˁ˅˜ˁ: 4 ˊ˥˄ˁ˅༤̀ˋˢ ˅ ˨˪˥˨༤˥˅ˣ˻˙ ˨˦˘˨˥˜ ˲˘ˣˊ˘ ˨༤˥˅˥ sŊrŊ, ˦˧˘˨˅ˁ˘˅ˁˋˢ ̘ɏ581 ˋˢ˫ ˘ ˋˆ˥ ˦ˁ˧ˁ༤༤ˋ༤̀ˢ ˅ ˊ˧˫ˆ˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲ (PTH sŊre, HNK sŊre, GJR sŊrŊ, LHD sŊrŊ, KOT sar՝, HIM sŊre, PRY sare, BNJ sŊri). ɳ˥˥˄˹ˋ ˆ˥˅˥˧̀, ˦˧ˁ˅˘༤˼ˣ˥ ˄˻༤˥ ˄˻ ˦˧˘˨˅˥˘˪˼ ˥˪ˊˋ༤˼ˣ˻ˢ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘̀ˢ ‘omnis’ ˘ ‘totus’ ˧ˁ˖ˣ˻ˋ ˣ˥ˢˋ˧ˁ; ˦˥˨༤ˋˊˣˋˋ, ˥ˊˣˁ˜˥, ˱ˁ˜˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤ˁˆˁˋ˪ ˧ˁ˨˸˘˧ˋˣ˘ˋ 100-˨༤˥˅ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˨˦˘˨˜ˁ, ˵˪˥ ˅˻˲˥ˊ˘˪ ˖ˁ ˧ˁˢ˜˘ ˖ˁˊˁ˵ ˣˁ˨˪˥̀˹ˋ˙ ˨˪ˁ˪˼˘. 2. ɳ ˘ˣˊ˥ˁ˧˘˙˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲ ˥˄˻˵ˣ˥ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˥ ˊ˅ˁ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˲˥ˊˣ˻˲ ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤ˁ, ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅˫˿˹˘˲ ˁˣˆ༤˘˙˨˜˥ˢ˫ burn (ˣˁ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧, ː˟˕˕˟ˌ dza෨l೜a ˌ pվuki೜a). ʐˊ˘ˣ ˘˖ ˣ˘˲ ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˁˋ˪ ˊˋ˙˨˪˅˘ˋ, ˴ˋ༤˼˿ ˜˥˪˥˧˥ˆ˥ ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˅˻ˊˋ༤ˋˣ˘ˋ ˨˅ˋ˪ˁ ˘༤˘ ˪ˋ˦༤ˁ, ˊ˧˫ˆ˥˙ — ˫ˣ˘˵˪˥ːˋˣ˘ˋ ˥˄˺ˋ˜˪ˁ. ɳ ˣˋ˜˥˪˥˧˻˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲ ˅ ˨˦˘˨˜ˁ˲ ɯ.ɍʃ.ɍʇ˥ˆˁˣˁ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˻ ˥˄ˁ ˽˪˘ ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤ˁ, ˅ ˊ˧˫ˆ˘˲ — ˪˥༤˼˜˥ ˥ˊ˘ˣ (Kogan 2016: 241). ʇˁ˜ ˘ ˅ ˦˧ˋˊ˻ˊ˫˹ˋˢ ˨༤˫˵ˁˋ, ˘ˢˋ༤˥ ˄˻ ˨ˢ˻˨༤ ˫˵˘˪˻˅ˁ˪˼ ˥˄ˁ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘̀ ˦˥ˊ ˧ˁ˖ˣ˻ˢ˘ ˣ˥ˢˋ˧ˁˢ˘, ˣ˥ ˧ˁ˨˸˘˧ˋˣ˘ˋ ˨˦˘˨˜ˁ — ˥˪ˊˋ༤˼ˣˁ̀ ˖ˁˊˁ˵ˁ. 3. ʨ˪˘ˢ˥ˣ˻ ๑heart๏ ˘ ๑liver๏ ˅ ˘ˣˊ˥ˁ˧˘˙˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲ ˊ˥˅˥༤˼ˣ˥ ˣˋ˫˨˪˥˙˵˘˅˻. ɳ ʃˣˊ˘˘ ˧ˁ˨˦˧˥˨˪˧ˁˣˋˣ˥ ˅ˋˆˋ˪ˁ˧˘ˁˣ˨˪˅˥, ˦˥˽˪˥ˢ˫ ˣˁ˖˅ˁˣ˘̀ ˅ˣ˫˪˧ˋˣˣ˘˲ ˥˧ˆˁˣ˥˅ ˖ˣˁ˜˥ˢ˻ ˦˥˵˪˘ ˘˨˜༤˿˵˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ ˅˧ˁ˵ˁˢ ˘, ˜ˁ˜ ˦˧ˁ˅˘༤˥, ̀˅༤̀˿˪˨̀ ˨ˁˣ˨˜˧˘˪˨˜˘ˢ˘ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘̀ˢ˘. ʑ˧˘ ˦˥˦˻˪˜ˋ ˘˨˜༤˿˵˘˪˼ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘̀ ˅ˋ༤˘˜ˁ ˅ˋ˧˥̀˪ˣ˥˨˪˼ ˦˥༤˫˵˘˪˼ ˨༤˥˅˥, ˥˖ˣˁ˵ˁ˿˹ˋˋ ˨ˋ˧ˊ˴ˋ ˣˋ ˜ˁ˜ ˁˣˁ˪˥ˢ˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˙ ˥˧ˆˁˣ, ˁ ˜ˁ˜ ˅ˢˋ˨˪˘༤˘˹ˋ ː˘˖ˣ˘ ˘༤˘ ˵˫˅˨˪˅. 4. ‘All’ vs ‘full’. ɳ ˄˥༤˼˸˥ˢ ˜˥༤˘˵ˋ˨˪˅ˋ ̀˖˻˜˥˅ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ‘full’ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˥ ˊ˅˫ˢ̀ ˨༤˥˅ˁˢ˘ ˨ ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘̀ˢ˘ ̘ɏ31 ˘ ̘ɏ32 (Kogan 2016: 244). ʨ˪˥ ˨˅̀˖ˁˣ˥ ˨ ˣˁ༤˘˵˘ˋˢ ˊ˅˫˲ ˣˋ ˅˨ˋˆˊˁ ˲˥˧˥˸˥ ˧ˁ˖༤˘˵˘ˢ˻˲ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘˙ ‘ˣˁ˦˥༤ˣˋˣˣ˻˙ ˵ˋˢ-༤˘˄˥ (˥ ˨˥˨˫ˊˋ, ˜˥ˣ˪ˋ˙ˣˋ˧ˋ)’ ˘ ‘˴ˋ༤˻˙, ˖ˁ˅ˋ˧˸ˌˣˣ˻˙’, ˅˪˥˧˥ˋ ˘˖ ˜˥˪˥˧˻˲ ˨˄༤˘ːˁˋ˪˨̀ ˨˜˥˧ˋˋ ˨ all ‘totus’, ˘ ˣˋ ˊ˥༤ːˣ˥ ˦˧˘˨˫˪˨˪˅˥˅ˁ˪˼ ˅ ˨˦˘˨˜ˋ ˅ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘˘ ‘full’. ʑˋ˧˅˥ˋ ˨˅̀˖ˁˣ˥ ˨ ˜˥˧ˣˋˢ bhar-, ˅˪˥˧˥ˋ — ˨ ˜˥˧ˣˋˢ pƉr-. ʑ˥˦˧ˁ˅˜ˁ: ˊ༤̀ ˅˨ˋ˲ ˨˦˘˨˜˥˅, ˅ ˜˥˪˥˧˻˲ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˻ ˥˄ˁ ˜˥˧ˣ̀, ˫ˊˁ༤̀ˋˢ ˨༤˥˅˥, ˅˥˨˲˥ˊ̀˹ˋˋ ˜ ˊ˧.-˘ˣˊ. pƉra (PTH pƉrŊ, HNK pƉrŊ, GJR pƉro, DGR pƉrŊ, RAJ pƉr, GUJ pƉrƅ, ASS pur, AWD purhar, KUM purro, HND pƉrŊ, DKH pƉrŊ, PNJ pƉrŊ, LHD pƉrŊ, SND pƉro, MAR purŊ, BNG pura, KOT pur՝, HIM pƉrŊ, MND pƉra, GRH pƉru). 4

282

ʁˊˋ˨˼ ˘ ˊˁ༤ˋˋ ˦˥˦˧ˁ˅˜˘ ˥˪ˣ˥˨̀˪˨̀ ˜ ˨˪˥˨༤˥˅ˣ˻ˢ ˨˦˘˨˜ˁˢ, ˦˧˘˅˥ˊ˘ˢ˻ˢ ˅ ˨˪ˁ˪˼ˋ ɯ. ʃ. ʇ˥ˆˁˣˁ.

ʌˋ˜˨˘˜˥˨˪ˁ˪˘˨˪˘˜ˁ ˣ˥˅˥˘ˣˊ˥ˁ˧˘˙˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅: ˅˖ˆ༤̀ˊ ˦˥༤ˋ˅˥ˆ˥ ༤˘ˣˆ˅˘˨˪ˁ

5. ɳ ˘ˣˊ˥ˁ˧˘˙˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲, ˜ˁ˜ ˦˧ˁ˅˘༤˥, ˧ˁ˖༤˘˵ˁ˿˪˨̀ ˨༤˥˅ˁ ˊ༤̀ ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘̀ ˸ˋ˘ ˘ ˆ˥˧༤ˁ. ʑ˧˘ ˽˪˥ˢ ˣˋ˧ˋˊ˜˥ ˣˁ ˨༤˥˅˥ neck (˸ˋ̀) ˘ˣ˱˥˧ˢˁˣ˪ ˢ˥ːˋ˪ ˊˁ˪˼ ˨༤˥˅˥, ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˁ˿˹ˋˋ ˆ˥˧༤˥. ʕ˥, ˵˪˥ ˅ ˨˦˘˨˜ˋ ʓ˅˥ˊˋ˸ˁ ˨˥ˊˋ˧ː˘˪˨̀ ˪˥༤˼˜˥ ˨༤˥˅˥ neck, — ˨༤˫˵ˁ˙ˣ˥˨˪˼, ˣ˥ ˦˥˨˜˥༤˼˜˫ ˱˥˧ˢ˫༤ˁ ˦˥ˊ˨˵ˌ˪ˁ ˧ˁ˖˧ˁ˄ˁ˪˻˅ˁ༤ˁ˨˼ ˘ˢˋˣˣ˥ ˊ༤̀ ˽˪˥ˆ˥ ˨˦˘˨˜ˁ, ˨༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪ ˋˆ˥ ˦˧˘ˊˋ˧ː˘˅ˁ˪˼˨̀. ʍˋːˊ˫ ˪ˋˢ ˅ ˨˦˘˨˜ˋ ˲˘ˣˊ˘ ˊ༤̀ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘̀ ‘neck’ ˊˁˣ˥ galŊ ‘ˆ˥˧༤˥’, ˁ ˣˋ gardan ‘˸ˋ̀’, ˅ ˪˥ ˅˧ˋˢ̀ ˜ˁ˜ ˊ༤̀ ˄ˋˣˆˁ༤˘ ˨˘˪˫ˁ˴˘̀ ˥˄˧ˁ˪ˣˁ̀ (Kogan 2016: 249). ʐ ˄˥༤˼˸˘ˣ˨˪˅ˋ ̀˖˻˜˥˅, ˨˅ˋˊˋˣ˘̀ ˦˥ ˜˥˪˥˧˻ˢ ˣˋ ˪ˁ˜ ༤ˋˆ˜˥ ˦˧˥˅ˋ˧˘˪˼, ˢ˻ ˣˋ ˢ˥ːˋˢ ˨ ˫˅ˋ˧ˋˣˣ˥˨˪˼˿ ˨˜ˁ˖ˁ˪˼, ˜ˁ˜˥ˋ ˘˖ ˊ˅˫˲ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘˙ ˦˥˦ˁ༤˥ ˅ ˨˦˘˨˥˜. ɳ ˧ˁ˖ˊˋ༤ˋ «ʁˁˢˋ˵ˁˣ˘̀ ˜ ˨ˋˢˁˣ˪˘˜ˋ», ˪ˁ˜˘ˢ ˥˄˧ˁ˖˥ˢ, ˢ˻ ˅ˣ˥˨˘ˢ ˅ ˨˦˘˨˜˘ 29 ˘˖ˢˋˣˋˣ˘˙, ˅༤˘̀˿˹˘˲ ˣˁ ˦˥ˊ˨˵ˌ˪˻.

ɼʸ˖ˀ˩ʸ˗ˌ˴ ː ˱˞ˌ˖˙ໞ˙ʼˌ˴˖ ɸˁˣˣ˻˙ ˧ˁ˖ˊˋ༤ ˨˥ˊˋ˧ː˘˪ ˖ˁˢˋ˵ˁˣ˘̀, ˨˅̀˖ˁˣˣ˻ˋ ˨ ˣˁ˸˘ˢ˘ ˪ˋ˜˫˹˘ˢ˘ ˖ˣˁˣ˘̀ˢ˘ ˘ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˘̀ˢ˘ ˥˄ ˘˨˪˥˧˘˘ ˘ˣˊ˥ˁ˧˘˙˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅ ˅ ˴ˋ༤˥ˢ. 1. ‘Red’ lŊl ˅ ˲˘ˣˊ˘ ˘ ˋˆ˥ ˦ˁ˧ˁ༤༤ˋ༤˘ ˅ ˊ˧˫ˆ˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲ ˅ ˨˦˘˨˜ˁ˲ ˨˵˘˪ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˘˨˜˥ˣˣ˻ˢ ˨༤˥˅˥ˢ ˘ ˘ˢˋˋ˪ ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘˿ ̘ɏ63 (Kogan 2016: 250). ʑ˥ˊ˧˥˄ˣˋˋ ˥˄ ˽˪˥˙ ˆ˘˦˥˪ˋ˖ˋ ˦˧˥˘˨˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘̀ lŊl ˘˖ ˊ˧.-˘ˣˊ. *lohila ˨ˢ. (ʇ˥ˆˁˣ 2005: 156). ʐˊˣˁ˜˥ ˣ˘ *lohila, ˣ˘ ˋˆ˥ ˦˧˥˘˖˅˥ˊˣ˻ˋ ˣˋ ˖ˁ˱˘˜˨˘˧˥˅ˁˣ˻ ˅ ˊ˧ˋ˅ˣˋ˘ˣˊ˘˙˨˜˘˲ ˘ ˨˧ˋˊˣˋ˘ˣˊ˘˙˨˜˘˲ ˪ˋ˜˨˪ˁ˲. ɳ ˨˪ˁ˪˼ˋ ʕˌ˧ˣˋ˧ˁ (Turner 1969–1985: ̘ɏ 11168 *lŵhila) ˦ˋ˧ˋ˵˘˨༤̀˿˪˨̀ ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧˻ ˪˥༤˼˜˥ ˘˖ ˊˁ˧ˊ˨˜˘˲ ˘ ˣ˫˧˘˨˪ˁˣ˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅ ˘ ˥ˊˣˁ (˨ ˅˥˦˧˥˨˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻ˢ ˖ˣˁ˜˥ˢ) ˦ˁ˧ˁ༤༤ˋ༤˼ ˘˖ ˨˘ˣˆˁ༤˼˨˜˥ˆ˥. ʑ˧˘ ˽˪˥ˢ ˣ˘ ˅ ˥ˊˣ˥ˢ ˘˖ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˵˘˨༤ˋˣˣ˻˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅ ˜˥˧ˣˋ˅˥ˆ˥ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˥ˆ˥ Ŋ ˣˋ˪. ʓ༤˥˅˥ lŊl ˅ ˘ˣˊ˥ˁ˧˘˙˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲ ˦˥̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˪˥༤˼˜˥ ˅ ˨˧ˋˊˣˋ˅ˋ˜˥˅˻˲ ˣ˥˅˥˘ˣˊ˘˙˨˜˘˲ ˪ˋ˜˨˪ˁ˲ ˅ ˪ˋ˲ ːˋ ˣˋ˨˜˥༤˼˜˘˲ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘̀˲, ˅ ˜˥˪˥˧˻˲ ˥ˣ˥ ˫˦˥˪˧ˋ˄༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˅ ˨˥˅˧ˋˢˋˣˣ˥ˢ ˲˘ˣˊ˘: ๑˧˫˄˘ˣ๏, ๑˜˧ˁ˨ˣ˻˙๏ ˘ ๑༤˿˄˘ˢ˻˙, ˊ˘˪̀๏ (Callewaert 2009: 1836). ʓ༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪ ˥˪ˢˋ˪˘˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˅ ˨˧ˋˊˣˋ˅ˋ˜˥˅˻˲ ˣ˥˅˥˘ˣˊ˘˙˨˜˘˲ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪ˁ˲ ˫ːˋ ˧ˁ˨˦ˁ༤ˁ˨˼ ˊ˧ˋ˅ˣˋ˘ˣˊ˘˙˨˜ˁ̀ ˦ˁˊˋːˣˁ̀ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢˁ, ˣ˥ ˅ ˪˥ ːˋ ˅˧ˋˢ̀ ˋ˹ˌ ˣˋ ˄˻༤ˁ ˨˱˥˧ˢ˘˧˥˅ˁˣˁ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢˁ ˦˥˨༤ˋ༤˥ˆ˥˅, ˦˥˽˪˥ˢ˫ ˨˫˹ˋ˨˪˅˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˋ ˅ ˧˥༤˘ ˥˦˧ˋˊˋ༤ˋˣ˘̀ ˖ˁ˵ˁ˨˪˫˿ ˨˥ˋˊ˘ˣ̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˨ ˥˦˧ˋˊˋ༤̀ˋˢ˻ˢ ˨˫˹ˋ˨˪˅˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻ˢ ˦˫˪ˌˢ ˦˧˥˨˪˥ˆ˥ ˨˥˦˥༤˥ːˋˣ˘̀. ʓ˧., ˣˁ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧, ˧ˁˣˣ˘ˋ ˧˫˜˥˦˘˨˘ ʇˁ˄˘˧ˁ: rŊma rasŊina rasan،ɍ cŊࡆࡤ (1) ʒˁˢˁ ˁˢ˧˘˪ˁ ˅˜˫˨ ˦˧˥˄˥˅ˁ˪˼-1SgPrae ‘˦˧˥˄˫˿ ˅˜˫˨ ˁˢ˧˘˪˻ ʒˁˢ˻’ ita mana mãdira rahau nita coࡆaŠ (2) ˖ˊˋ˨˼ ˧ˁ˖˫ˢ ˲˧ˁˢ ː˘˪˼-Impv ˅˨ˋˆˊˁ ˲˥˧˥˸˘˙-Adv ‘˖ˊˋ˨˼ ˅ ˲˧ˁˢˋ ˧ˁ˖˫ˢˁ ː˘˅˘ ˅˨ˋˆˊˁ ˲˥˧˥˸˥’ ࡆaࡖa dala kãvala nivŊsiyŊ (3) ˸ˋ˨˪˼ ༤ˋ˦ˋ˨˪˥˜ ༤˥˪˥˨ ˥˄˘˪ˁ˿˹˘˙ ‘˥˄˘˪ˁ˿˹˘˙ ˅ ༤˥˪˥˨ˋ ˨ ˸ˋ˨˪˼˿ ༤ˋ˦ˋ˨˪˜ˁˢ˘’ asࡖa kavala dala bhŢtarŊ (4) ˅˥˨ˋˢ˼ ༤˥˪˥˨ ༤ˋ˦ˋ˨˪˥˜ ˦˧˥ˢˋː˫˪˥˜ ‘ˢˋːˊ˫ ˅˥˨ˋˢ˼˿ ༤˥˪˥˨˥˅˻ˢ˘ ༤ˋ˦ˋ˨˪˜ˁˢ˘’ kadalŢ kusama dala bhŢtarŊ (5) ༤˥˪˥˨ ˴˅ˋ˪˥˜ ༤ˋ˦ˋ˨˪˥˜ ˦˧˥ˢˋː˫˪˥˜ ‘ˢˋːˊ˫ ༤ˋ˦ˋ˨˪˜˥˅ ˴˅ˋ˪˜ˁ ༤˥˪˥˨ˁ’ 283

ɯ. ʓ. ʇ˧˻༤˥˅ˁ

ɳ ˽˪˥˙ ˨˘˪˫ˁ˴˘˘ ˖ˁ˪˧˫ˊˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ ˥˪༤˘˵˘˪˼ ˨˫˹ˋ˨˪˅˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˋ ๑˧˫˄˘ˣ๏ ˥˪ ˦˧˘༤ˁˆˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˆ˥ ๑˧˫˄˘ˣ˥˅˻˙, ˜˧ˁ˨ˣ˻˙๏, ˘ ˊˁːˋ ˨༤˥˅˥˨˥˵ˋ˪ˁˣ˘ˋ ˥˪ ˜˥ˢ˦˥˖˘˪ˁ ˪˘˦ˁ tatpurusha. ʑ˥ ˅˨ˋ˙ ˅˘ˊ˘ˢ˥˨˪˘, ˘ˢˋˣˣ˥ ˅ ˽˪˥˪ ˦ˋ˧˘˥ˊ ˦ˋ˧˨˘˖ˢ lŊl (˘˖ ˦ˋ˧˨. la’l ‘˧˫˄˘ˣ’) ˘ ˦˥༤˫˵˘༤ ˧ˁ˨˦˧˥˨˪˧ˁˣˋˣ˘ˋ ˅ ˘ˣˊ˥ˁ˧˘˙˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲. ʕˁ˜ ˜ˁ˜ ˆ˥˧˪ˁˣˣˁ̀ ˨ˢ˻˵˜ˁ ˣˋ ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˲ˁ˧ˁ˜˪ˋ˧ˣ˥˙ ˊ༤̀ ˣ˘˲ ˱˥ˣˋˢ˥˙, ˥ˣˁ ˄˻༤ˁ ˫˪˧ˁ˵ˋˣˁ. ʍ˥ːˣ˥ ˖ˁˢˋ˪˘˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˣ˻ˋ ˘˨˜˥ˣˣ˻ˋ ˴˅ˋ˪˥˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘̀ ˲˘ˣˊ˘, ˜ˁ˜ ˘ ˄˥༤˼˸˘ˣ˨˪˅˥ ˘˨˜˥ˣˣ˻˲ ˄ˁ˖˥˅˻˲ ˦˧˘༤ˁˆˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻˲, ̀˅༤̀˿˪˨̀ ˘˖ˢˋˣ̀ˋˢ˻ˢ˘ ˘ ˖ˁ˜ˁˣ˵˘˅ˁ˿˪˨̀ ˅ ˘˨˲˥ˊˣ˥˙ ˱˥˧ˢˋ ˣˁ Ŋ: ˨˧. kŊlŊ ‘˵ˌ˧ˣ˻˙’, pŢlŊ ‘ːˌ༤˪˻˙’, harŊ ‘˖ˋ༤ˌˣ˻˙’, nŢlŊ ‘˨˘ˣ˘˙’, ba৘Ŋ ‘˄˥༤˼˸˥˙’, choࡖŊ ‘ˢˁ༤ˋˣ˼˜˘˙’, ࡖhaয়‫ڎ‬Ŋ ‘˲˥༤˥ˊˣ˻˙’, sukhŊ ‘˨˫˲˥˙’, bharŊ ‘˦˥༤ˣ˻˙’, pƉrŊ ‘˦˥༤ˣ˻˙, ˴ˋ༤˻˙’, acchŊ ‘˲˥˧˥˸˘˙’, nayŊ ‘ˣ˥˅˻˙’, kha৘Ŋ ‘˨˪˥̀˹˘˙’, patlŊ ‘˪˥ˣ˜˘˙’, ˣ˥ ˨˧. safed ‘˄ˋ༤˻˙’ < ˦ˋ˧˨., garƕm ‘˪ˌ˦༤˻˙’ < ˦ˋ˧˨. 5 ʕˁ˜ːˋ ˨˫˹ˋ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˻ˢ ˁ˧ˆ˫ˢˋˣ˪˥ˢ ˅ ˦˥༤˼˖˫ ˦ˋ˧˨˘ˊ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˦˧˥˘˨˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘̀ lŊl ˘ ˋˆ˥ ˦ˁ˧ˁ༤༤ˋ༤ˋ˙ ˅ ˊ˧˫ˆ˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲ ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˪˥, ˵˪˥ ˣ˘ ˅ ˥ˊˣ˥ˢ ˘˖ ̀˖˻˜˥˅, ˅ ˜˥˪˥˧˻˲ ˦˧˥˸ˌ༤ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˲˥ˊ -l > -ਙ, ˣˋ ˖ˁ˱˘˜˨˘˧˥˅ˁˣˁ ˱˥˧ˢˁ ˨ -ਙ, ˥ˊˣˁ˜˥ ˅˨˪˧ˋ˵ˁ˿˪˨̀ ˱˥˧ˢ˻ ˨ -l: ˨˧. ˜˫༤༤˫˘ lŊl ‘˜˧ˁ˨ˣ˻˙’, ˣ˥ phŊਙ ‘˦༤˥ˊ’, goਙ ‘˜˧˫ˆ༤˻˙’; ˥˧˘̀ lŊla ‘˜˧ˁ˨ˣ˻˙’, ˣ˥ phŊਙa ‘˦༤˥ˊ’, goਙŊ ‘ˢ̀˵’ (gol/goਙ ‘˜˧˫ˆ༤˻˙’, ˄˫ˊ˫˵˘ ˁ˄˨˪˧ˁ˜˪ˣ˻ˢ ˆˋ˥ˢˋ˪˧˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˢ ˦˥ˣ̀˪˘ˋˢ, ˅˘ˊ˘ˢ˥, ˘ˢˋˋ˪ ˊ˫˄༤ˋ˪-˨ˁˣ˨˜˧˘˪˘˖ˢ). ɳˋ˧˥̀˪ˣ˥, ˦ˋ˧ˋ˲˥ˊ -l > -ਙ ˦˧˥˸ˌ༤ ˊ˥ ˧ˁ˨˦˧˥˨˪˧ˁˣˋˣ˘̀ ˦ˋ˧˨˘˖ˢˁ lŊl ˅ ˘ˣˊ˥ˁ˧˘˙˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲. ʜ˥˧ˢ˫ loyŊ ˅ ˊ˫ˢˁ˜˘, ˅ˋ˧˥̀˪ˣ˥, ˨༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪ ˨˵˘˪ˁ˪˼ ˘˨˜˥ˣˣ˥˙ ˘ ˨˅̀˖˻˅ˁ˪˼ ˨ ˊ˧.-˘ˣˊ. lohita (Turner 1969– 1985: ̘ɏ11165 l޳hita). ʑ˥˦˧ˁ˅˜ˁ: ˦˧˘˨˅ˁ˘˅ˁˋˢ lŊl ˘ ˋˆ˥ ˦ˁ˧ˁ༤༤ˋ༤̀ˢ (HND lŊl, DKH lŊl, PNJ lŊl, DGR lŊl, SND lŊlu, GUJ lŊl, BNG lal, HIM lŊl, KUL lŊl, MND lŊl, ORY lŊl, AWD lŊl, KUM lŊl, ROM lolo, BRJ lŊl, GRH lŊl, PRY lal, MAI lŊl, MEW lŊl, WGD lŊl, HNK lŊl, GJR lŊl, LHD lŊl, RAJ lŊl, ASS lal, KOT lŊl) ˥˪˧˘˴ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻ˋ ˣ˥ˢˋ˧ˁ. 2. ‘Nail’ GUJ nakh, MAR nakh, BNG nokh, ASS nokh, HIN nokh, ORY nakha, ˁ ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˥, ˘ ˧̀ˊ ˘˲ ˦ˁ˧ˁ༤༤ˋ༤ˋ˙ ˅ ˢˋˣˋˋ ˘˖˫˵ˋˣˣ˻˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲, ˜˥˪˥˧˻ˢ ˦˧˘˨˅˥ˋˣ ̘ɏ14 (Kogan 2016: 241), ˨༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪ ˦˧˘˖ˣˁ˪˼ ˨ˁˣ˨˜˧˘˪˘˖ˢˁˢ˘, ˁ ˣˋ ˦˥˪˥ˢ˜ˁˢ˘ ˊ˧-˘ˣˊ. nakhá. ʃˣ˪ˋ˧˅˥˜ˁ༤˼ˣ˥ˋ kh ˅ˢˋ˨˪ˋ ˨ ˧̀ˊ˥ˢ ˊ˧˫ˆ˘˲ ˅˖˧˻˅ˣ˻˲ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˲ ˅ ˨˧ˋˊˣˋ˘ˣˊ˘˙˨˜˘˙ ˦ˋ˧˘˥ˊ ˥˨༤ˁ˄༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˅ h, ˖ˁ˪ˋˢ ˅˥˅˨ˋ ˘˨˵ˋ˖ˁ̀ ˅ ˵ˁ˨˪˘ ̀˖˻˜˥˅, ˪ˁ˜˘˲ ˜ˁ˜ ˄ˋˣˆˁ༤˘ ˘ ˆ˫ˊːˁ˧ˁ˪˘ (Masica 1991: 180–181, 204). ʝ˥˪̀ ˪ˁ˜˥ˋ ˧ˁ˖˅˘˪˘ˋ ˅˖˧˻˅ˣ˻˲ ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˻˲ ˲ˁ˧ˁ˜˪ˋ˧ˣ˥ ˣˋ ˊ༤̀ ˅˨ˋ˲ ˨༤˥˅, ˊ༤̀ nakhá ˥ˣ˥ ˲˥˧˥˸˥ ˖ˁ˱˘˜˨˘˧˥˅ˁˣ˥ (˨ˢ., ˣˁ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧, ˋˆ˥ ˧ˋ˱༤ˋ˜˨˻ ˅ ˨˪˥˨༤˥˅ˣ˻˲ ˨˦˘˨˜ˁ˲ ˦ˋˣˊːˁ˄˘, ˊˁ˜˲˘ˣ˘, ˄˧ˁˊːˁ, ˁ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˲˘ˣˊ˘ ˱˥˧ˢ˫ nah ‘ˣ˥ˆ˥˪˼’). ʓ˥˲˧ˁˣˋˣ˘ˋ ˘ˣ˪ˋ˧˅˥˜ˁ༤˼ˣ˥ˆ˥ kh ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˥ ˅ ˜ˁ˵ˋ˨˪˅ˋ ˧ˋ˖˫༤˼˪ˁ˪ˁ ˆˋˢ˘ˣˁ˴˘˘, ˣ˥ ˅ ˽˪˥ˢ ˨༤˫˵ˁˋ ˣ˥˅˥˘ˣˊ˘˙˨˜˘˙ ˧ˋ˱༤ˋ˜˨ ˊ˥༤ːˋˣ ˨˥ˊˋ˧ːˁ˪˼ ༤˘˄˥ ˆˋˢ˘ˣˁ˪˫, ༤˘˄˥ ˋˌ ˨༤ˋˊ˻ ˅ ˅˘ˊˋ ˖ˁˢˋ˨˪˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˫ˊ༤˘ˣˋˣ˘̀ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˥ˆ˥ (Masica 1991: 181, 187): nakha > **nakkha > **nŊkha. ʓ˧. ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˧ˋ˱༤ˋ˜˨˻ múkha ‘༤˘˴˥, ˧˥˪’ (˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘̀ ̘ɏ 54). ʑ˥˦˧ˁ˅˜ˁ: ˊ༤̀ ˅˨ˋ˲ ˦ˁ˧ˁ༤༤ˋ༤ˋ˙ ˨ kh (GUJ nakh, MAR nakh, BNG n՝kh, ASS n՝kh, HIM n՝kh, ORY nakha, WGD n՝kh, BNJ nak) ˖ˁˢˋˣ˘ˢ ̘ɏ14 ˣˁ ̘ɏ-14. 3. ‘Mouth’ WGD mun‫ڎ‬o BNJ muয়‫ڎ‬o (Kogan 2016: 249) ˦˧˘˨˅˥ˋˣ ̘ɏ54 (ˊ˧-˘ˣˊ. múkha). ʐ ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˜ˋ ˅ˁˆˊ˘ ˘ ˄ˁˣˊːˁ˧˘ ˢ˻ ˖ˣˁˋˢ ˢˁ༤˥, ˥ˊˣˁ˜˥ ˄˥༤ˋˋ ˅ˋ˧˥̀˪ˣ˥˙ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˨˅̀˖˼ ˽˪˘˲ ˨༤˥˅ ˨ mƉrdhán ‘ˆ˥༤˥˅ˁ’ (Turner 1969–1985: ̘ɏ10247 mƉrdhán) 6. ʓ˧. ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˜˫ˢˁ˥ˣ˘ muয়‫ڎ‬o, ˦ˋˣˊːˁ˄˘ muয়‫˥ˆ‘ ڎ‬༤˥˅ˁ’. ʑ˥˦˧ˁ˅˜ˁ: ˦˧˘˨˅ˁ˘˅ˁˋˢ ˨༤˥˅ˁˢ ˅ˁˆˊ˘ ˘ ˄ˁˣˊːˁ˧˘ ̘ɏ554. 4. ‘Mouth’ BNG mukh, ASS mukh NEP mukh, KUM mukh (Kogan 2016: 249) ˨༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪ ˦˧˘˖ˣˁ˪˼ ˨ˁˣ˨˜˧˘˪˘˖ˢˁˢ˘ ˦˥ ˦˧˘˵˘ˣˋ, ˘˖༤˥ːˋˣˣ˥˙ ˅ ˦. 2 ˊ༤̀ nakh. ʑ˥˦˧ˁ˅˜ˁ: ˊ༤̀ ˅˨ˋ˲ ˦ˁ˧ˁ༤༤ˋ༤ˋ˙ ˨ kh ˖ˁˢˋˣ˘ˢ ̘ɏ54 ˣˁ ̘ɏ-54. ɳ˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˻ˢ˘ ˘˨˜༤˿˵ˋˣ˘̀ˢ˘ ̀˅༤̀˿˪˨̀ bhŊrŢ ‘˪̀ːˌ༤˻˙’ ˘ gol ‘˜˧˫ˆ༤˻˙’. ʐˊˣˁ˜˥ ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˙ ˥˄༤˘˜ ˥˄˥˘˲ ˽˪˘˲ ˨༤˥˅ ˦˥˖˅˥༤̀ˋ˪ ˪˧ˁ˜˪˥˅ˁ˪˼ ˘˲ ˜ˁ˜ ˨ˁˣ˨˜˧˘˪˨˜˘ˋ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘̀. ʁˁˢˋ˪˘ˢ, ˵˪˥ ˅˪˥˧˥ˋ ˘˖ ˣ˘˲ ˣˋ˥˪༤˘˵˘ˢ˥ ˥˪ ˨˫˹ˋ˨˪˅˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˆ˥ gol ‘˜˧˫ˆ’, ˥˪ ˜˥˪˥˧˥ˆ˥ ˘ ˦˧˥˘˖˅ˋˊˋˣ˥. ɳˋ˧˥̀˪ˣ˥, ˪ˁ˜˘ˢ ːˋ ˨˦˥˨˥˄˥ˢ ˦˧˥˘˖˅ˋˊˋˣ˥ lŊl ‘˜˧ˁ˨ˣ˻˙’ ˥˪ lŊl ‘˧˫˄˘ˣ’. 6 ʁˊˋ˨˼ ˘ ˊˁ༤ˋˋ ˥˪˨˻༤˜˘ ˜ Turner 1969–1985 ˊˁ˿˪˨̀ ˦˥ ˣ˥ˢˋ˧ˁˢ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˧ˣ˻˲ ˨˪ˁ˪ˋ˙ ˥ˣ༤ˁ˙ˣ-˅ˋ˧˨˘˘, ˁ ˣˋ ˨˪˧ˁˣ˘˴ ˜ˣ˘ˆ˘). 5

284

ʌˋ˜˨˘˜˥˨˪ˁ˪˘˨˪˘˜ˁ ˣ˥˅˥˘ˣˊ˥ˁ˧˘˙˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅: ˅˖ˆ༤̀ˊ ˦˥༤ˋ˅˥ˆ˥ ༤˘ˣˆ˅˘˨˪ˁ

5. ʎ˥˅˥˘ˣˊ˥ˁ˧˘˙˨˜˘ˋ ˨༤˥˅ˁ, ˅˥˨˲˥ˊ̀˹˘ˋ ˜ ˊ˧.-˘ˣˊ. b‫ܚ‬ja ‘seed’ (Turner 1969–1985: ̘ɏ9250 b‫ܚ‬ja) ˫˪˧ˁ˪˘༤˘ j ˅ ˘ˣ˪ˋ˧˅˥˜ˁ༤˼ˣ˥˙ ˦˥˖˘˴˘˘. ʓ༤˥˅ˁ ˘˖ ˨˦˘˨˜˥˅ ɯ.ɍʃ.ɍʇ˥ˆˁˣˁ, ˨˥˲˧ˁˣ˘˅˸˘ˋ j (Kogan 2016: 252), ˨༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪ ˦˧˘˖ˣˁ˪˼ ˨ˁˣ˨˜˧˘˪˘˖ˢˁˢ˘. ʑ˥˦˧ˁ˅˜ˁ: ˦˧˘˨˅ˁ˘˅ˁˋˢ ˨༤˥˅ˁˢ ˨ ˨˥˲˧ˁˣˋˣ˘ˋˢ j (HND bŢj, DKH bŢѐj, GJR bŢj, LHD bŢj, SND b’iju, RAJ bŢj, BNG bij, ASS biz, KOT bŢdz, HIM bŢj, KUL bejja, ORY bŢja, BRJ bŢj, GRH bŢj, MAI bŢj, KCH bijj, BNJ bijŊ) ˥˪˧˘˴ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻˙ ˣ˥ˢˋ˧. 6. ʎ˥˅˥˘ˣˊ˥ˁ˧˘˙˨˜˘ˋ ˨༤˥˅ˁ, ˅˥˨˲˥ˊ̀˹˘ˋ ˜ ˊ˧.-˘ˣˊ. sࡠrya/sࡠriya ˫˪˧ˁ˪˘༤˘ ˅ ˦ˋ˧˅˥ˢ ˨༤˫˵ˁˋ r, ˅˥ ˅˪˥˧˥ˢ y (Turner 1969–1985: ̘ɏ 13574 sࡠra, Masica 1991: 169). ʓ༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥, ˅˨ˋ ˨༤˥˅ˁ, ˨˥˲˧ˁˣ˘˅˸˘ˋ ˘ r ˘ y (˜ˁ˜ ˦˧ˁ˅˘༤˥, ˦ˋ˧ˋ˸ˋˊ˸ˋˋ ˅ j), ˨༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪ ˦˧˘˖ˣˁ˪˼ ˵ˁ˨˪˘˵ˣ˥ ˁˊˁ˦˪˘˧˥˅ˁˣˣ˻ˢ˘ ˨ˁˣ˨˜˧˘˪˘˖ˢˁˢ˘ (Kogan 2016: 253). ʑ˥˦˧ˁ˅˜ˁ: ˦˧˘˨˅ˁ˘˅ˁˋˢ HND sƉraj, DKH sƉrŢj, PNJ sƉraj, DGR sƉraj, RAJ sƉraj, GUJ sƉraj, HIM sƉraj, KUL surjƕ, MND sƉraj, AWD suruj, KUM sƉraj, BRJ sƉraj, MAI surƉj, KCH sƉraj, MEW sƉraj, ASS xuruz, GRH sƉraj, BNJ surjyŊ ˥˪˧˘˴ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻ˋ ˣ˥ˢˋ˧ˁ. ʃ˪˥ˆ˥ ˅ ˊˁˣˣ˥ˢ ˧ˁ˖ˊˋ༤ˋ ˅ˣ˥˨˘˪˨̀ 75 ˅༤˘̀˿˹˘˲ ˣˁ ˦˥ˊ˨˵ˌ˪˻ ˘˖ˢˋˣˋˣ˘˙ ˅ ˨˦˘˨˜˘.

ʌ˙˚˛ʸʻːˌ ː ˜˚ˌ˜ː˟ ˦ˌ˗ʿˌ ʝ˘ˣˊ˘ — ˥˱˘˴˘ˁ༤˼ˣ˻˙ ̀˖˻˜ ʒˋ˨˦˫˄༤˘˜˘ ʃˣˊ˘̀ ˅ ˴ˋ༤˥ˢ, ˁ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˢˣ˥ˆ˘˲ ˸˪ˁ˪˥˅, ˅˲˥ˊ̀˹˘˲ ˅ ˋˌ ˨˥˨˪ˁ˅. ʕˁ˜ ˣˁ˖˻˅ˁˋˢˁ̀ «˖˥ˣˁ ˲˘ˣˊ˘» ˅ ˊˋ˙˨˪˅˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥˨˪˘ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤̀ˋ˪ ˨˥˄˥˙ ˥ˆ˧˥ˢˣ˻˙ ˜˥ˣ˪˘ˣ˫˫ˢ ˧ˁ˖༤˘˵ˣ˻˲ ˘ˊ˘˥ˢ˥˅, ˜ˁːˊ˻˙ ˘˖ ˜˥˪˥˧˻˲ ˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁ༤˥ ˄˻ ˅ˣ˥˨˘˪˼ ˅ «˘ˊˋˁ༤˼ˣ˫˿ ༤ˋ˜˨˘˜˥˨˪ˁ˪˘˨˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˫˿ ˄ˁ˖˫» ˥˪ˊˋ༤˼ˣ˥. ʌ˘˸˼ ˣˋˢˣ˥ˆ˘ˋ ˘˖ ˣ˘˲ ˫ːˋ ˅ˣˋ˨ˋˣ˻ ˅ ˄ˁ˖˫ ɯ.ɍʃ.ɍʇ˥ˆˁˣˁ ˄༤ˁˆ˥ˊˁ˧̀ ˘˲ ˨˧ˁ˅ˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ ˅˻˨˥˜˥ˢ˫ ˨˪ˁ˪˫˨˫ ˘ ˲˥˧˥˸ˋ˙ ˘˖˫˵ˋˣˣ˥˨˪˘. ʑ˧˥˵˘ˋ ˘ˢˋ˿˪ ˨˪ˁ˪˫˨ ˢˋ˨˪ˣ˻˲ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪˥˅ ˲˘ˣˊ˘. ʐˊˣˁ˜˥ ˦ˋ˧˅˥ˣˁ˵ˁ༤˼ˣˁ̀ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪ˣˁ̀ ˄ˁ˖ˁ ˲˘ˣˊ˘ — ˽˪˥ ˥˜˥༤˥ˊˋ༤˘˙˨˜˘ˋ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪˻ ˲ˁ˧˘ˁˣ˘ ˘ ˜˲ˁ˧˘ ˄˥༤˘. ʑ˧˘ ˽˪˥ˢ ˜ˁ˜ ˅ ˊ˅˫̀˖˻˵ˣ˻ˋ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˧˘ (Platts 1884, ɲˁ˧˲˫ˊˁ˧˥˅ 1972), ˪ˁ˜ ˘ ˅ ˪˥༤˜˥˅˻ˋ ˘༤˘ ˨˘ˣ˥ˣ˘ˢ˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˋ (Kumar 1997, ˧̀ˊ ˘ˣ˪ˋ˧ˣˋ˪-˨༤˥˅ˁ˧ˋ˙) ˅˲˥ˊ˘˪ ༤ˋ˜˨˘˜ˁ ˨ˁˢ˻˲ ˧ˁ˖ˣ˻˲ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪˥˅, ˖ˁ˵ˁ˨˪˫˿ ˄ˋ˖ ˦˥̀˨ˣ̀˿˹˘˲ ˦˥ˢˋ˪. ʑ˥˵˪˘ ˜ˁːˊ˥ˋ ˨༤˥˅˥ ˨˪˥˨༤˥˅ˣ˘˜ˁ ˘ˢˋˋ˪ 5-10 ˨˘ˣ˥ˣ˘ˢ˥˅. ɳ ˨˘༤˫ ˣ˘˖˜˥˙ ˣ˥˧ˢ˘˧˥˅ˁˣˣ˥˨˪˘ ˲˘ˣˊ˘, ˪ˁ˜˘ˋ ˨༤˥˅ˁ ˢ˥ˆ˫˪ ༤ˋˆ˜˥ ˅˨˪˧ˋ˪˘˪˼˨̀ ˅ ˦ˋ˨ˣ̀˲ ˘ ˜˘ˣ˥˱˘༤˼ˢˁ˲, ˲˫ˊ˥ːˋ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥˙ ༤˘˪ˋ˧ˁ˪˫˧ˋ ˘ ˦˫˄༤˘˴˘˨˪˘˜ˋ. ɳ ˽˪˥˙ ˨˘˪˫ˁ˴˘˘ ˪ˁ˜˪˘˜ˁ ɯ.ɍʃ.ɍʇ˥ˆˁˣˁ ˘˖˄ˋˆˁ˪˼ ˅˜༤˿˵ˋˣ˘̀ ˅ ˨˦˘˨˥˜ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘˙ ˦˧˘ ˣˁ༤˘˵˘˘ ༤˿˄˥ˆ˥ ˨˘ˣ˥ˣ˘ˢˁ, ˣˋ ˦˧˥˪˘˅˥˧ˋ˵ˁ˹ˋˆ˥ ˘˨˪˥˧˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˜ˋ, ˢ˥ːˋ˪ ˦˧˘˅ˋ˨˪˘ ˜ ˅˜༤˿˵ˋˣ˘˿ ˅ ˨˪˥˨༤˥˅ˣ˻˙ ˨˦˘˨˥˜ ˨༤˥˅, ˦˧˘ˣˁˊ༤ˋːˁ˹˘˲ ˊ˧˫ˆ˘ˢ ˘ˊ˘˥ˢˁˢ, ˧ˁ˨˦˥༤˥ːˋˣˣ˻ˢ ˅ ˖˥ˣˋ ˲˘ˣˊ˘, ˘ ˫˦˥˪˧ˋ˄༤̀˿˹˘ˢ˨̀ ˪˥༤˼˜˥ ˣˁ ˥ˆ˧ˁˣ˘˵ˋˣˣ˥˙ ˪ˋ˧˧˘˪˥˧˘˘. ʓˁˢ˻ˢ ˦˧˥˨˪˻ˢ ˨˦˥˨˥˄˥ˢ ˥˪˨ˋ˵˼ ˪ˁ˜˘ˋ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪˘˖ˢ˻ ˄˫ˊˋ˪ ˦˧˘˄༤˘˖˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻˙ ˦˥ˊ˨˵ˌ˪ ˨˧ˁ˅ˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥˙ ˫˦˥˪˧ˋ˄˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥˨˪˘ ˨˘ˣ˥ˣ˘ˢ˥˅ ˅ ˜˥˧˦˫˨ˋ ˪ˋ˜˨˪˥˅. ʁˁ˦˧˥˨˻ ˅˅˥ˊ˘༤˘˨˼ ˦˘˨˼ˢ˥ˢ ˊˋ˅ˁˣˁˆˁ˧˘. ʐ˦˻˪ˣ˻ˢ ˦˫˪ˌˢ ˫˨˪ˁˣ˥˅༤ˋˣ˥, ˵˪˥ ˄˥༤ˋˋ ˵ˁ˨˪˥˪ˣ˻ ˣˁ˦˘˨ˁˣ˘̀ ˄ˋ˖ ˊ˘ˁ˜˧˘˪˘˜˘ «ˣ˫˜˪ˁ» ˘ ˨ ˖ˁˢˋˣ˥˙ ˊ˘ˁ˜˧˘˪˘˜˘ «˵ˁˣˊ˧ˁ˄˘ˣˊ˫» ˣˁ ˊ˘ˁ˜˧˘˪˘˜˫ «ˁˣ˫˨˅ˁ˧ˁ», ˦˥˽˪˥ˢ˫ ˅ ˽˪˘˲ ˦˫ˣ˜˪ˁ˲ ˢ˻ ˥˪˲˥ˊ˘ˢ ˥˪ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˧ˣ˥˙ ˥˧˱˥ˆ˧ˁ˱˘˘. ɳ ˨༤˫˵ˁˋ ˄˥༤˼˸˥ˆ˥ ˜˥༤˘˵ˋ˨˪˅ˁ ˨˘ˣ˥ˣ˘ˢ˥˅, ˜ˁ˜ ˦˧ˁ˅˘༤˥, ˢ˥ːˣ˥ ˅˻ˊˋ༤˘˪˼ ˥ˊ˘ˣ ˘༤˘ ˣˋ˨˜˥༤˼˜˥ ˣˁ˘˄˥༤ˋˋ ˫˦˥˪˧ˋ˄˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻˲, ˪˥ˆˊˁ ˜ˁ˜ ˫ ˥˨˪ˁ༤˼ˣ˻˲ ˵ˁ˨˪˥˪ˣ˥˨˪˼ ˣ˘ːˋ ˅ 10-20 ˘ ˄˥༤ˋˋ ˧ˁ˖. ʓ˧ˋˊ˘ ˽˪˘˲ ˣˁ˘˄˥༤ˋˋ ˫˦˥˪˧ˋ˄˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻˲ ˨༤˥˅ ˢ˥ːˣ˥ ˅˻˄˧ˁ˪˼ ˘˨˜˥ˣˣ˻ˋ, ˋ˨༤˘ ˥ˣ˘ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˻. ʕˁ˜˘ˢ ˥˄˧ˁ˖˥ˢ ˣˁˢ˘ ˄˻༤˘ ˦˧˥˅ˋ˧ˋˣ˻ ˣˋ˨˜˥༤˼˜˥ ˅˻˖˅ˁ˅˸˘˲ ˫ ˣˁ˨ ˨˥ˢˣˋˣ˘ˋ ˦˫ˣ˜˪˥˅ ˘˖ ˨˦˘˨˜ˁ ɯ.ɍʃ.ɍʇ˥ˆˁˣˁ. 1. ‘Blood’ lahƉ (Kogan 2016: 240) ˊˁˌ˪ 3105 ˅˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘˙ ˅ Hindi Web 2013. ʐ˨ˣ˥˅ˣ˥ˋ ˄˻˪˥˅˥ˋ ˨༤˥˅˥ — ˦ˋ˧˨˘˖ˢ khƉn (31537 ˅˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘˙), ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˣ˥ˋ ˢˋˊ˘˴˘ˣ˨˜˥ˋ — ˨ˁˣ˨˜˧˘˪˘˖ˢ rakt (16461 ˅˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘ˋ). ʃ˨˜˥ˣˣ˻˲ ˨༤˥˅ ˨˥˦˥˨˪ˁ˅˘ˢ˥˙ ˵ˁ˨˪˥˪ˣ˥˨˪˘ ˣˋ˪. ʑ˥˦˧ˁ˅˜ˁ: ˅˻˵ˌ˧˜˘˅ˁˋˢ lahƉ, ˊ˥˄ˁ˅༤̀ˋˢ ˊ˅ˁ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘̀. 285

ɯ. ʓ. ʇ˧˻༤˥˅ˁ

2. ‘Earth’, ˜ˁ˜ ˦˧ˁ˅˘༤˥, ˘ˢˋˋ˪ ˢˣ˥ˆ˥ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˅˥ˊ˥˅ ˘ ˨ˋˢˁˣ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˲ ˪˥ˣ˜˥˨˪ˋ˙. ʎˋ ˨˥˅˨ˋˢ ˦˥ˣ̀˪ˣ˥, ˦˥˵ˋˢ˫ ˘˖ ˨˦˘˨˜ˁ ˲˘ˣˊ˘ ˘˨˜༤˿˵ˋˣ˥ ˨༤˥˅˥ miࡖࡖŢ, ˦ˁ˧ˁ༤༤ˋ༤˘ ˜˥˪˥˧˥ˆ˥ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˻ ˅ ˊ˧˫ˆ˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲ (Kogan 2016: 243). Hindi Web 2013 ˊ༤̀ dhartŢ ˘ miࡖࡖŢ ˊˁˌ˪ ˨˥˦˥˨˪ˁ˅˘ˢ˥ˋ ˵˘˨༤˥ ˅˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘˙ (33698 ˘ 24256 ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥). ʑ˧˘ ˽˪˥ˢ ˨ˋˢˁˣ˪˘˜ˁ ˽˪˘˲ ˜˥˧ˣˋ˙ ˨˫˹ˋ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥ ˧ˁ˖༤˘˵ˁˋ˪˨̀ (ˣˋ ˪˥༤˼˜˥ ˅ ˲˘ˣˊ˘, ˣ˥ ˘ ˅ ˊ˧˫ˆ˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲) ɹ˨༤˘ ˥˄˧ˁ˪˘˪˼˨̀ ˜ ˪ˁ˜˥ˢ˫ ˘˨˪˥˵ˣ˘˜˫ ̀˖˻˜˥˅˥˙ ˘ˣ˱˥˧ˢˁ˴˘˘, ˜ˁ˜ ɳ˘˜˘˦ˋˊ˘̀ ˣˁ ̀˖˻˜ˋ ˲˘ˣˊ˘ 7, ˪˥ ˢ˻ ˅˘ˊ˘ˢ, ˵˪˥ ˖ˁ˦˧˥˨ dhartŢ ˦ˋ˧ˋˁˊ˧ˋ˨˫ˋ˪ ˣˁ˨ ˣˁ ˨˪ˁ˪˼˿ «˦༤ˁˣˋ˪ˁ ʁˋˢ༤̀», ˁ ˖ˁ˦˧˥˨ miࡖࡖŢ — ˣˁ ˨˪ˁ˪˼˿ «˦˥˵˅ˁ» (˥˄ˋ ˨˪ˁ˪˼˘ ˥˖ˁˆ༤ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˻ ˨ˁˣ˨˜˧˘˪˨˜˘ˢ˘ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘̀ˢ˘, ˖ˁ ˜˥˪˥˧˻ˢ˘ ˘ˊ˫˪ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˵˘˨༤ˋˣ˘̀ ˨˘ˣ˥ˣ˘ˢ˥˅). ɸˋ˙˨˪˅˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥, ˨ˋˢˁˣ˪˘˜ˁ ˽˪˘˲ ˨༤˥˅ ˣˋ˨˜˥༤˼˜˥ ˥˪༤˘˵ˁˋ˪˨̀, ˘ ˁˊˋ˜˅ˁ˪ˣ˥ˋ ˧ˋ˸ˋˣ˘ˋ ˽˪˥˙ ˦˧˥˄༤ˋˢ˻ ˪˧ˋ˄˫ˋ˪ ˧ˁ˨˸˘˧ˋˣ˘̀ ˨˦˘˨˜ˁ, ˵˪˥ ˣˋ ˅˲˥ˊ˘˪ ˅ ˣˁ˸˘ ˖ˁˊˁ˵˘ (˨ˢ. ˧ˁ˖ˊˋ༤ «ʁˁˢˋ˵ˁˣ˘̀ ˜ ˨ˋˢˁˣ˪˘˜ˋ»). ʑ˥˦˧ˁ˅˜ˁ: ˅˜༤˿˵ˁˋˢ miࡖࡖŢ ˅ ˨˦˘˨˥˜ ˲˘ˣˊ˘. 3. ‘Man’ ˅ ˨˦˘˨˜ˋ ˲˘ˣˊ˘ (Kogan 2016: 248) ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˥ ˨༤˥˅˥ˢ mard (8398 ˅˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘˙ ˅ Hindi Web 2013). ɲ˥༤ˋˋ ˦˥˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻ˢ ˄˻༤˥ ˄˻ ˅˜༤˿˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ˦˧ˋːˊˋ ˅˨ˋˆ˥ ˽˜˅˘˅ˁ༤ˋˣ˪ˁ ŊdmŢ (125042 ˅˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘̀). ʒˋ˖˫༤˼˪ˁ˪˥˅ ˦˥ˊ˨˵ˌ˪ˁ ˽˪˥ ˣˋ ˘˖ˢˋˣ˘˪, ˪ˁ˜ ˜ˁ˜ ˥˄ˁ ˽˪˘ ˨༤˥˅ˁ ̀˅༤̀˿˪˨̀ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘̀ˢ˘. ʑ˥˦˧ˁ˅˜ˁ: ˖ˁˢˋˣ̀ˋˢ mard ˣˁ ŊdmŢ. 4. ‘Meat’ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˥ ˪˥༤˼˜˥ ˨༤˥˅˥ˢ gošt (Kogan 2016: 248). ʐˊˣˁ˜˥ ˖ˁ˦˧˥˨ m،ɍs ˊˁˌ˪ 8614 ˅˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘˙ ˅ Hindi Web 2013, gošt — 1127. gošt — ˣˋ˨˥ˢˣˋˣˣ˥ˋ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘ˋ; m،ɍs ˢ˥ːˋ˪ ˄˻˪˼ ˜ˁ˜ ˨ˁˣ˨˜˧˘˪˨˜˘ˢ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘ˋˢ, ˪ˁ˜ ˘ ˘˨˜˥ˣˣ˻ˢ ˨༤˥˅˥ˢ. ɳ ˊ˧˫ˆ˘˲ ̀˖˻˜ˁ˲ ˋˆ˥ ˦ˁ˧ˁ༤༤ˋ༤˘ ˸˘˧˥˜˥ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˻ ˘ ˥˪ˢˋ˵ˋˣ˻ ˜ˁ˜ ˘˨˜˥ˣˣ˻ˋ (̘ɏ124). ʑ˥˦˧ˁ˅˜ˁ: ˖ˁˢˋˣ̀ˋˢ gošt ˣˁ m،ɍs ̘ɏ124 ˅ ˨˦˘˨˜ˋ ˲˘ˣˊ˘. 5. ‘Rain’ ˅ ˨˦˘˨˜ˋ ˲˘ˣˊ˘ — mӼh (Kogan 2016: 250). ʨ˪˥ ˨༤˥˅˥ ˢˁ༤˥˘˖˅ˋ˨˪ˣ˥ˋ, ˅ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˧̀˲ ˅˨˪˧ˋ˵ˁˋ˪˨̀, ˣ˥, ˅ˋ˧˥̀˪ˣ˥, ˦˥˦ˁ༤˥ ˪˫ˊˁ ˘˖ ˜ˁ˜˥ˆ˥-˪˥ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪ˁ (ˣˁ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧, ˧ˁˊːˁ˨˪ˁˣ˘). Hindi Web 2013 ˊˁˌ˪ ˊ༤̀ mӼh 73 ˅˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘̀, ˵˪˥ ˊ༤̀ ˨༤˥˅ˁ ˘˖ ˨˪˥˨༤˥˅ˣ˘˜ˁ ˲˘ˣˊ˘ ˫ˊ˘˅˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ ˢˁ༤˥. ʓˁˢ˻ˢ ˧ˁ˨˦˧˥˨˪˧ˁˣˌˣˣ˻ˢ ˨༤˥˅˥ˢ ˊ༤̀ ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘̀ ˊ˥ːˊ̀ ˢ˥ːˣ˥ ˨˵˘˪ˁ˪˼ ˦ˋ˧˨˘˖ˢ bŊriš (30702 ˅˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘̀); ˜˥ˣ˜˫˧ˋˣ˪˥˅ ˥ˣ, ˅ˋ˧˥̀˪ˣ˥, ˣˋ ˘ˢˋˋ˪. ʓ˪ˁ˪˼̀ ˅ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˧ˋ˪ˋ˖ˁ˫˧˫˨ˋ (Kumar 1997) ˥˖ˁˆ༤ˁ˅༤ˋˣˁ ˨ˁˣ˨˜˧˘˪˘˖ˢ˥ˢ varࡆŊ (14739 ˅˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘˙); ˨˧ˋˊ˘ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˵˘˨༤ˋˣˣ˻˲ ˅ ˨˪ˁ˪˼ˋ ˨˘ˣ˥ˣ˘ˢ˥˅ ˘˖ ˘˨˜˥ˣˣ˻˲ ˨༤˥˅ ˨ˁˢ˻ˢ˘ ˫˦˥˪˧ˋ˄˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻ˢ˘ ˨༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪ ˨˵˘˪ˁ˪˼ jal (63936 ˅˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘˙, ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˣ˥ˋ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ‘˅˥ˊˁ’), pŊnŢ (166879, ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˣ˥ˋ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ‘˅˥ˊˁ’) ˘ barsŊt (11389, ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˣ˥ˋ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ‘˨ˋ˖˥ˣ ˊ˥ːˊˋ˙’), ˥ˊˣˁ˜˥ ˅ ˽˪˥ˢ ˨༤˫˵ˁˋ ˥˪˨ˋ˵˼ ˊ˧˫ˆ˘ˋ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘̀ ˨༤˥˅ ˢ˻ ˣˋ ˢ˥ːˋˢ. ʑ˥˦˧ˁ˅˜ˁ: ˫˄˘˧ˁˋˢ mӼh, ˅˦˘˨˻˅ˁˋˢ bŊriš ˘ varࡆŊ ˨ ˥˪˧˘˴ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻ˢ˘ ˣ˥ˢˋ˧ˁˢ˘. 6. ‘White’ ˅ ˨˦˘˨˜ˋ ˲˘ˣˊ˘ ujlŊ, ciࡖࡖŊ (Kogan 2016: 256). ʁˁ˦˧˥˨ ˅ Hindi Web 2013 ˊˁˌ˪ ˣˁ ˣ˘˲ 495 ˘ 148 ˅˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘˙ ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥. ʇ˧˥ˢˋ ˪˥ˆ˥, ujlŊ ˘ˢˋˋ˪ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˣ˥ˋ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ‘̀˨ˣ˻˙, ˨˘̀˿˹˘˙, ˵˘˨˪˻˙’. ʎˁ˘˄˥༤ˋˋ ˫˦˥˪˧ˋ˄˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻ˢ ˘ ˨ˋˢˁˣ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ ˪˥˵ˣ˻ˢ ˘˖ ˨༤˥˅, ˥˖ˣˁ˵ˁ˿˹˘˲ ‘˄ˋ༤˻˙’, ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˦ˋ˧˨˘˖ˢ safed (15588 ˅˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘˙). ʓ˥˦˥˨˪ˁ˅˘ˢ˻˲ ˦˥ ˫˦˥˪˧ˋ˄˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥˨˪˘ ˨ safed ˨༤˥˅ ˣˋ˪. ʑ˥˦˧ˁ˅˜ˁ: ˫˄˘˧ˁˋˢ ujlŊ, ciࡖࡖŊ, ˅˦˘˨˻˅ˁˋˢ safed ˨ ˥˪˧˘˴ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻ˢ ˣ˥ˢˋ˧˥ˢ. 7. ‘Woman’ ˅ ˨˦˘˨˜ˋ ˲˘ˣˊ˘ aurat (Kogan 2016: 256) — 27553 ˅˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘̀. ʌ˥ˆ˘˵ˣ˥ ˄˻༤˥ ˄˻ ˊ˥˄ˁ˅˘˪˼ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˨ˁˣ˨˜˧˘˪˘˖ˢ˻ mahilŊ (106114 ˅˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘˙) ˘ strŢ (56179 ˅˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘˙). ʃ˖ ˣˁ˸ˋˆ˥ ˦˥༤ˋ˅˥ˆ˥ ˥˦˻˪ˁ ˨˜˥˧ˋˋ ˨༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪, ˵˪˥ aurat ˄˥༤ˋˋ ˵ˁ˨˪˥˪ˣ˥, ˵ˋˢ strŢ, ˅ ˫˨˪ˣ˥ˢ ˫˦˥˪˧ˋ˄༤ˋˣ˘˘, ˦˥˽˪˥ˢ˫ ˢ˥ːˣ˥ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤˥ː˘˪˼, ˵˪˥ strŢ ˣˋ˨˜˥༤˼˜˥ ˵ˁ˹ˋ ˅˨˪˧ˋ˵ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˅ Hindi Web 2013 ˖ˁ ˨˵ˌ˪ ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˥ˆ˥ ˦˧ˋ˥˄༤ˁˊˁˣ˘̀ ˅ ˜˥˧˦˫˨ˋ ˥˱˘˴˘ˁ༤˼ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˨˪˘༤̀. ʑ˥˦˧ˁ˅˜ˁ: ˊ˥˄ˁ˅༤̀ˋˢ mahilŊ, ˵˪˥ ˣˋ ˅༤˘̀ˋ˪ ˣˁ ˧ˋ˖˫༤˼˪ˁ˪˻ ˦˥ˊ˨˵ˌ˪˥˅, ˪ˁ˜ ˜ˁ˜ ˅˨ˋ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˵˘˨༤ˋˣˣ˻ˋ ˨༤˥˅ˁ ̀˅༤̀˿˪˨̀ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘̀ˢ˘. ʕˁ˜˘ˢ ˥˄˧ˁ˖˥ˢ, ˅ ˧ˁ˖ˊˋ༤ˋ «ʑ˥˦˧ˁ˅˜˘ ˜ ˨˦˘˨˜˫ ˲˘ˣˊ˘» ˢ˻ ˦˥˨˪˫༤˘˧˫ˋˢ 8 ˘˖ˢˋˣˋˣ˘˙, ˅༤˘̀˿˹˘˲ ˣˁ ˦˥ˊ˨˵ˌ˪˻. 7 ʒˁ˖˫ˢˋˋ˪˨̀, ˧ˋ˵˼ ˘ˊˌ˪ ˣˋ ˥˄ ˘˨˪˥˵ˣ˘˜ˋ ˣˁ˫˵ˣ˥˙ ˘ˣ˱˥˧ˢˁ˴˘˘, ˁ ˥ ɳ˘˜˘˦ˋˊ˘˘ ˣˁ ̀˖˻˜ˋ ˲˘ˣˊ˘ ˜ˁ˜ ˥ ˧ˋ˨˫˧˨ˋ, ˜˥˪˥˧˻˙ ˧ˋˊˁ˜˪˘˧˫ˋ˪˨̀ ˦˧ˋ˘ˢ˫˹ˋ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥ ˣ˥˨˘˪ˋ༤̀ˢ˘ ̀˖˻˜ˁ ˲˘ˣˊ˘.

286

ʌˋ˜˨˘˜˥˨˪ˁ˪˘˨˪˘˜ˁ ˣ˥˅˥˘ˣˊ˥ˁ˧˘˙˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅: ˅˖ˆ༤̀ˊ ˦˥༤ˋ˅˥ˆ˥ ༤˘ˣˆ˅˘˨˪ˁ

ʌ˙˚˛ʸʻːˌ ː ˜˚ˌ˜ː˟ ʺˀ˗ʼʸໞˌ ʓ˦˘˨˥˜ ˄ˋˣˆˁ༤˘ ˄˻༤ ˦˥༤˫˵ˋˣ ˢˣ˥˙ ˅ 2016 ˆ˥ˊ˫ ˥˪ ˥ˊˣ˥˙ ˘ˣ˱˥˧ˢˁˣ˪˜˘. ʑˁ˧ˁ༤༤ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ ˱˘˜˨˘˧˥˅ˁ༤˘˨˼ ˨༤˥˅ˁ ˧ˁ˖ˆ˥˅˥˧ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˄ˋˣˆˁ༤˘ ˘ «˸ˁˊ˲˫ ˄˲ˁ˸ˁ», ˨ˁˣ˨˜˧˘˪˘˖˘˧˥˅ˁˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ༤˘˪ˋ˧ˁ˪˫˧ˣ˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ, ˵˪˥ ˦˥˖˅˥༤˘༤˥ ˥˪˨ˋ̀˪˼ ˵ˁ˨˪˼ ˨˘ˣ˥ˣ˘ˢ˥˅. ʒˁ˨˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘̀ ˣˁ˸ˋˆ˥ ˨˦˘˨˜ˁ ˨˥ ˨˦˘˨˜˥ˢ ɯ.ɍʃ.ɍʇ˥ˆˁˣˁ ˦˥˪˧ˋ˄˥˅ˁ༤˘ ˄˥༤ˋˋ ˪˹ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˘˖˫˵ˋˣ˘̀ ˦˥ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˧̀ˢ, ˜˥˧˦˫˨˫ Bengali Web ˘ ˧̀ˊ˫ ˘˨˪˥˵ˣ˘˜˥˅ ˅ ˨ˋ˪˘ ʃˣ˪ˋ˧ˣˋ˪. ʑ˧ˋˊ༤ˁˆˁ˿˪˨̀ ˨༤ˋˊ˫˿˹˘ˋ ˦˥˦˧ˁ˅˜˘ ˜ ˨˦˘˨˜˫ ɯ.ɍʃ.ɍʇ˥ˆˁˣˁ. 1. ‘All’. ʑ˥ˢ˘ˢ˥ šob ‘omnis’ (Kogan 2016: 239) ˅ ˣˁ˸ˋˢ ˨˦˘˨˜ˋ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˻ ˊ˅ˁ ˨˘ˣ˥ˣ˘ˢˁ ˊ༤̀ ‘totus’ — šara ˘ puro. ʑˋ˧˅˻˙, ˦˥ ˨༤˥˅ˁˢ ˘ˣ˱˥˧ˢˁˣ˪˜˘, ˫˦˥˪˧ˋ˄༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˅ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˣ˥ˢ ˨ ˅˧ˋˢˋˣˣ˻ˢ˘ ˦ˋ˧˘˥ˊˁˢ˘. ʐ˄ˁ ˊ˥˨˪ˁ˪˥˵ˣ˥ ˲˥˧˥˸˥ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˻ ˅ Bengali Web (3317 ˘ 2680 ˅˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘˙ ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥). ʑ˥˦˧ˁ˅˜ˁ: ˅˜༤˿˵ˁˋˢ šara ̘ɏ581 ˘ puro ̘ɏ32 ˅ ˨˦˘˨˥˜. 2. ‘Cloud’ BNG barid ̘ɏ-2 (Kogan 2016: 241) ˦˧˘ ˦˥˘˨˜ˋ ˅ Bengali Web ˊˁ༤ 0 ˅˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘˙ 8. ɳ ˪˥ ːˋ ˅˧ˋˢ̀ megh, ˦˥༤˫˵ˋˣˣ˥ˋ ˥˪ ˘ˣ˱˥˧ˢˁˣ˪˜˘, ˊˁ༤˥ 372. ʑ˥˦˧ˁ˅˜ˁ: ˖ˁˢˋˣ̀ˋˢ barid ˣˁ megh (̘ɏ-1). ɳ ˦˥ˊ˨˵ˌ˪ˁ˲ ˽˪ˁ ˖ˁˢˋˣˁ ˧˥༤˘ ˣˋ ˘ˆ˧ˁˋ˪, ˪ˁ˜ ˜ˁ˜ megh — ˨ˁˣ˨˜˧˘˪˘˖ˢ (˨ˢ. ˦. 2, 4 ˧ˁ˖ˊˋ༤ˁ «ʁˁˢˋ˵ˁˣ˘̀ ˜ ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘̀ˢ»). 3. ‘Fire’ BNG agun ̘ɏ-4, ˅ ˨˦˘˨˜ˋ ɯ.ɍʃ.ɍʇ˥ˆˁˣˁ ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣˣ˥ˋ ˜ˁ˜ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘ˋ (Kogan 2016: 244), ˅˨༤ˋˊ ˖ˁ ʕˌ˧ˣˋ˧˥ˢ ˨˵˘˪ˁˋˢ ˘˨˜˥ˣˣ˻ˢ ˨༤˥˅˥ˢ (Turner 1969–1985: ̘ɏ14198 agní). ʓˁˣ˨˜˧˘˪˘˖ˢ˻ ˅ ˄ˋˣˆˁ༤˼˨˜˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˋ ˥˄˻˵ˣ˥ ˨˥˲˧ˁˣ̀˿˪ ˨ˁˣ˨˜˧˘˪˨˜˫˿ ˥˧˱˥ˆ˧ˁ˱˘˿, ˣ˥ ˦˧˥˘˖ˣ˥˨̀˪˨̀ ˦˥ ˄ˋˣˆˁ༤˼˨˜˘ˢ ˦˧ˁ˅˘༤ˁˢ. ʕˁ˜, ˅ ˜ˁ˵ˋ˨˪˅ˋ ˨༤˥˅ˁ «˸ˁˊ˲˫ ˄˲ˁ˸ˁ» ˣˁ˸ˁ ˘ˣ˱˥˧ˢˁˣ˪˜ˁ ˊˁ༤ˁ ՝gni. ʜ˥˧ˢˁ agun ˣˋ ˅˦˥༤ˣˋ ̀˨ˣˁ, ˣ˥ ˜ˁ˵ˋ˨˪˅˥ ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˆ˥˅˥˧˘˪ ˥ ˋˆ˥ ˫ˊ༤˘ˣˋˣ˘˘, ˵˪˥ ˣˋ ˦˥˖˅˥༤̀ˋ˪ ˨˵˘˪ˁ˪˼ ˨༤˥˅˥ ˨ˁˣ˨˜˧˘˪˘˖ˢ˥ˢ. ʑ˥˦˧ˁ˅˜ˁ: ˦˧˘˨˅ˁ˘˅ˁˋˢ agun ̘ɏ27. 4. ‘Full’ BNG bh՝ra ̘ɏ31 (Kogan 2016: 244) ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˧ˣ˥˙ ˱˥˧ˢ˥˙ ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤ˁ ‘ˣˁ˦˥༤ˣ̀˪˼’, ˖ˁˢˋˣ˘ˢ ˋˆ˥ ˣˁ ˦˥༤˫˵ˋˣˣ˥ˋ ˣˁˢ˘ ˦˧˘༤ˁˆˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˋ bh՝rti, ˵˪˥, ˅˦˧˥˵ˋˢ, ˣˋ ˊ˥༤ːˣ˥ ˥˪˧ˁ˖˘˪˼˨̀ ˣˁ ˦˥ˊ˨˵ˌ˪ˁ˲. 5. ‘Hair’ BNG keš ̘ɏ185 (Kogan 2016: 245) ˊˁˌ˪ 25 ˅˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘˙ ˅ Bengali Web. ʍ˥̀ ˘ˣ˱˥˧ˢˁˣ˪˜ˁ ˅ˢˋ˨˪˥ ˽˪˥ˆ˥ ˨༤˥˅ˁ ˅˻ˊˁ༤ˁ ˨˘ˣ˥ˣ˘ˢ chul (551 ˅˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘ˋ). ʑ˥˦˧ˁ˅˜ˁ: ˫ˊˁ༤̀ˋˢ keš, ˖ˁˢˋˣ̀ˋˢ ˣˁ chul ̘ɏ308 (Turner 1969–1985: ̘ɏ 4883 cࡠ‫ڎ‬a). 6. ‘Liver’ BNG j՝krit (Kogan 2016: 247) ˘ˣ˱˥˧ˢˁˣ˪˜˥˙ ˄˻༤˥ ˢˁ˧˜˘˧˥˅ˁˣ˥ ˜ˁ˜ «˸ˁˊ˲˫ ˄˲ˁ˸ˁ», ˄˻˪˥˅˥ˋ ˣˁ˘ˢˋˣ˥˅ˁˣ˘ˋ — ˁˣˆ༤˘˴˘˖ˢ libhar (˦˧ˋ˘ˢ˫˹ˋ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥ ˅ ˜˫༤˘ˣˁ˧˘˘). ɳ Bengali Web j՝krit ˘ libhar ˊˁ˿˪ 22 ˘ 40 ˅˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘˙, ˅ Google 53700 ˘ 556000 ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥. ʑ˥˦˧ˁ˅˜ˁ: ˊ˥˄ˁ˅༤̀ˋˢ libhar ˨ ˥˪˧˘˴ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻ˢ ˣ˥ˢˋ˧˥ˢ ˅ ˨˦˘˨˥˜. ʎˁ ˦˥ˊ˨˵ˌ˪˻ ˽˪˥ ˘˖ˢˋˣˋˣ˘ˋ ˣˋ ˅༤˘̀ˋ˪, ˥˄ˁ ˨༤˥˅ˁ ̀˅༤̀˿˪˨̀ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘̀ˢ˘. 7. ‘Many’ BNG b՝hu ̘ɏ51 (Kogan 2016: 248). ʎˁ˸ˁ ˘ˣ˱˥˧ˢˁˣ˪˜ˁ ˊˁ༤ˁ ˄˻˪˥˅˥ˋ ՝nek, «˸ˁˊ˲˫ ˄˲ˁ˸ˁ» — procur. b՝hu ˊˁˌ˪ 3560 ˅˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘˙ ˅ Bengali Web, ՝nek — 23201 ˅˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘ˋ. b՝hu ˦˧˘˨˫˪˨˪˅˫ˋ˪ ˅ ˄ˋˣˆˁ༤˼˨˜˥ˢ ̀˖˻˜ˋ ˅ ˪˥ˢ ˵˘˨༤ˋ ˜ˁ˜ ˦ˋ˧˅ˁ̀ ˵ˁ˨˪˼ ˨ˁˣ˨˜˧˘˪˨˜˘˲ ˜˥ˢ˦˥˖˘˪˥˅-˨ˁˣ˨˜˧˘˪˘˖ˢ˥˅, ˥ˊˣˁ˜˥ ˧ˁ˖༤˘˵˘˪˼ ˨ˁˣ˨˜˧˘˪˘˖ˢ ˘ ˘˨˜˥ˣˣ˥ˋ ˨༤˥˅˥ ˦˥ ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˢ˫ ˥˄༤˘˜˫ ˅ ˽˪˥ˢ ˨༤˫˵ˁˋ ˣˋ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˻ˢ, ˦˥˽˪˥ˢ˫ b՝hu ˜ˁ˜ ˨ˁˢ˥˨˪˥̀˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˋ ˨༤˥˅˥ ˨༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪ ˨˵˘˪ˁ˪˼ ˘˨˜˥ˣˣ˻ˢ. ʜ˥˧ˢˁ ՝nek, ˣˁ˦˧˥˪˘˅, — ˥˵ˋ˅˘ˊˣ˻˙ ˨ˁˣ˨˜˧˘˪˘˖ˢ. ɳ ˨˅̀˖˘ ˨ ˅˻˨˥˜˥˙ ˅˨˪˧ˋ˵ˁˋˢ˥˨˪˼˿ ˢ˻ ˅˨ˌ ːˋ ˅˜༤˿˵˘ˢ ˋˆ˥ ˅ ˨˦˘˨˥˜ ˨ ˦˧˘˨˅˥ˋˣ˘ˋˢ ̘ɏ-1, ˲˥˪̀ ˣˁ ˦˥ˊ˨˵ˌ˪˻ ˽˪˥ ˣˋ ˅༤˘̀ˋ˪. 8. ‘New’ BNG n՝b՝ ̘ɏ57 (Kogan 2016: 249) ˄˻༤˥ ˢˁ˧˜˘˧˥˅ˁˣ˥ ˘ˣ˱˥˧ˢˁˣ˪˜˥˙ ˜ˁ˜ «˸ˁˊ˲˫ ˄˲ˁ˸ˁ», ˘ ˽˪˥ ˣˋ ˨༤˫˵ˁ˙ˣ˥. ʜ˥ˣˋ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘˙ ˥˄༤˘˜ ˽˪˥ˆ˥ ˨༤˥˅ˁ ˣˋ ˊˁˌ˪ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˁˣ˘˙ ˨˵˘˪ˁ˪˼ ˋˆ˥ ˘˨˜˥ˣˣ˻ˢ. ʜ˥˧ˢˁ n՝b՝, ˣˋ˨˥ˢˣˋˣˣ˥, ˦˧˥˘˨˲˥ˊ˘˪ ˘˖ ˊ˧.-˘ˣˊ. náva, ˥ˊˣˁ˜˥ ˦˥8 ʝ˥˪̀ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˧˘ ˘ ˦˥ˊ˪˅ˋ˧ːˊˁ˿˪ ˨༤˥˅˥ barid ˅ ˽˪˥ˢ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘˘, ˦˧˘ ˦˥˘˨˜ˋ ˅ Google ˨˥˥˪ˣ˥˸ˋˣ˘ˋ ˢˋːˊ˫ barid ˘ megh ˨˥˨˪ˁ˅˘༤˥ 98 ˜ 2130000.

287

ɯ. ʓ. ʇ˧˻༤˥˅ˁ

˪˥ˢ˜˥ˢ ˊ˧.-˘ˣˊ. náva, ˫ˊ˥˅༤ˋ˪˅˥˧̀˿˹˘ˢ ˪˧ˋ˄˥˅ˁˣ˘̀ˢ ˘˨˪˥˧˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˜˘, ˅ ˊˋ˙˨˪˅˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥˨˪˘ ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˄ˋˣˆˁ༤˼˨˜˥ˋ n՝ ‘ˢ༤ˁˊ˸˘˙, ˵ˋ˪˅ˌ˧˪˻˙ (˥ ˧ˋ˄ˌˣ˜ˋ ˅ ˨ˋˢ˼ˋ)’ (Turner 1969–1985: ̘ɏ6983 náva, Ghosh 2011, ʌ˥˨˜˫˪˥˅ 1974). ʓ˧. ˁˣˁ༤˥ˆ˘˵ˣ˻˙ ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧: Turner 1969–1985: ̘ɏ10431 yáva ‘barley’ = ˄ˋˣˆˁ༤˼˨˜˥ˋ ja (˅ ˨˥˅˧ˋˢˋˣˣ˻˲ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˧̀˲ ༤˘˪ˋ˧ˁ˪˫˧ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˄ˋˣˆˁ༤˼˨˜˥ˆ˥ ̀˖˻˜ˁ ˽˪˥ ˨༤˥˅˥ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˥ ˅ ˱˥˧ˢˋ j՝i ‘˥˅ˌ˨’, ˨ˢ. Ghosh 2011, ʌ˥˨˜˫˪˥˅ 1974). ʃ˨˲˥ˊ̀ ˘˖ ˽˪˘˲ ˨˥˥˄˧ˁːˋˣ˘˙, ˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁ༤˥ ˄˻ ˦˧˘˦˘˨ˁ˪˼ n՝b՝ ˥˪˧˘˴ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻˙ ˣ˥ˢˋ˧; ˣ˥ ˅ ˨˘༤˫ ˋˆ˥ ˣ˘˖˜˥˙ ˵ˁ˨˪˥˪ˣ˥˨˪˘ (241 ˅˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘ˋ ˅ Bengali Web) ˢ˻ ˦˧ˋˊ༤ˁˆˁˋˢ ˦˧˥˨˪˥ ˣˋ ˅˜༤˿˵ˁ˪˼ ˋˆ˥ ˅ ˨˦˘˨˥˜. ɳ ˜ˁ˵ˋ˨˪˅ˋ ˧ˁ˖ˆ˥˅˥˧ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˨˘ˣ˥ˣ˘ˢˁ n՝b՝ ˣˁ˸ˁ ˘ˣ˱˥˧ˢˁˣ˪˜ˁ ˊˁ༤ˁ n՝tun (13913 ˅˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘˙ ˅ Bengali Web) — ˨༤˥˅˥, ˦˥ ˅˨ˋ˙ ˅˘ˊ˘ˢ˥˨˪˘, ˨˅̀˖ˁˣˣ˥ˋ ˨ ˊ˧.˘ˣˊ. nƉtana 9, ˦˧˥˸ˋˊ˸ˋˋ ˣˋ ˅˦˥༤ˣˋ ˦˥ˣ̀˪ˣ˻ˋ ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˋ ˘˖ˢˋˣˋˣ˘̀; ˅ˋ˧˥̀˪ˣ˥, ˋˆ˥ ˨༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪ ˨˵˘˪ˁ˪˼ ˵ˁ˨˪˘˵ˣ˥ ˁˊˁ˦˪˘˧˥˅ˁˣˣ˻ˢ ˨ˁˣ˨˜˧˘˪˘˖ˢ˥ˢ 10. ʑ˥˦˧ˁ˅˜ˁ: ˦˧˘˦˘˨˻˅ˁˋˢ n՝b՝ ̘ɏ-57, ˊ˥˄ˁ˅༤̀ˋˢ notun ˨ ̘ɏ-1. 9. ‘Rain’ BNG bad՝l ̘ɏ127 (Kogan 2016: 250). ɳ ˣˁ˸ˋˢ ˨˦˘˨˜ˋ ˅ ˜ˁ˵ˋ˨˪˅ˋ ˄˻˪˥˅˻˲ ˨༤˥˅ ˊˁˣ˻ bad՝l (101 ˅˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘ˋ ˅ Bengali Web) ˘ j՝l (893 ˅˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘̀). ʐ˨ˣ˥˅ˣ˥ˋ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ j՝l — ‘˅˥ˊˁ’, ˦˥˽˪˥ˢ˫ ˦˧˥˅ˋ˧˘˪˼ ˵ˁ˨˪˥˪˫ ˋˆ˥ ˫˦˥˪˧ˋ˄༤ˋˣ˘̀ ˅ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘˘ ‘ˊ˥ːˊ˼’ ˖ˁ˪˧˫ˊˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥, ˥ˊˣˁ˜˥ ˽˪˥ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ˦˧˘˨˫˪˨˪˅˫ˋ˪ ˅ ˄˥༤˼˸˘ˣ˨˪˅ˋ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˧ˋ˙. ɳ ˨˅̀˖˘ ˨ ˢˁ༤˥˙ ˵ˁ˨˪˥˪ˣ˥˨˪˼˿ bad՝l ˅ˋ˧˥̀˪ˣ˥, ˨༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪ ˊ˥˄ˁ˅˘˪˼ j՝l ˅ ˨˦˘˨˥˜ ˅ ˜ˁ˵ˋ˨˪˅ˋ ˅˪˥˧˥ˆ˥ ˨༤˥˅ˁ ˨ ̘ɏ319. 10. ɳˢˋ˨˪˥ ‘road’ BNG p՝th ̘ɏ-8 (Kogan 2016: 251) ˅ ˣˁ˸ˋˢ ˨˦˘˨˜ˋ ˖ˣˁ˵˘˪˨̀ ˦ˋ˧˨˘˖ˢ rasta. ɸ༤̀ p՝th ˥˄ˣˁ˧˫ːˋˣ˥ 8008 ˅˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘˙ ˅ Bengali Web, ˊ༤̀ rasta — 2390 ˅˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘˙. ʒˁ˖ˣ˘˴ˁ ˣˋ˖ˣˁ˵˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣˁ, ˘ ˢ˻ ˢ˥ːˋˢ ˊ˥˄ˁ˅˘˪˼ rasta ˅ ˜ˁ˵ˋ˨˪˅ˋ ˅˪˥˧˥ˆ˥ ˨༤˥˅ˁ ˨ ˥˪˧˘˴ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻ˢ ˣ˥ˢˋ˧˥ˢ, ˵˪˥, ˅˦˧˥˵ˋˢ, ˣˋ ˊ˥༤ːˣ˥ ˦˥˅༤˘̀˪˼ ˣˁ ˦˥ˊ˨˵ˌ˪˻. 11. ‘Root’ BNG šik՝৘ ̘ɏ313 (Kogan 2016: 251) ˊˁˌ˪ 12 ˅˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘˙ ˅ Bengali Web. ɳ ˣˁ˸ˋˢ ˨˦˘˨˜ˋ ˋˆ˥ ˢˋ˨˪˥ ˖ˁˣ˘ˢˁˋ˪ mul (6143 ˅˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘̀). ʑ˥˦˧ˁ˅˜ˁ: ˖ˁˢˋˣ̀ˋˢ šik՝৘ ˣˁ mul ̘ɏ259. 12. ‘Tail’ BNG langul ̘ɏ317 (Kogan 2016: 254) ˊˁˌ˪ 0 ˅˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘˙ ˅ Bengali Web, ˁ ˅ Google — ˥˜˥༤˥ 2000. ɳ ˣˁ˸ˋˢ ˨˦˘˨˜ˋ ˖ˣˁ˵˘˪˨̀ lej (141 ˅˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘ˋ ˅ Bengali Web, ˥˜˥༤˥ 536000 ˅ Google). ʍˁ༤ˁ̀ ˅˨˪˧ˋ˵ˁˋˢ˥˨˪˼ langul ˦˥˖˅˥༤̀ˋ˪ ˋˆ˥ ˘˨˜༤˿˵˘˪˼, ˥ˊˣˁ˜˥ ˅ ˥ˣ༤ˁ˙ˣ˨༤˥˅ˁ˧ˋ ˢ˻ ˣˁ˲˥ˊ˘ˢ ˱˥˧ˢ˫ lengu৘, ˜˥˪˥˧ˁ̀ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˦˧˘˅˥ˊ˘˪˨̀ ˅ Turner 1969–1985: ̘ɏ11009 lŊ৞gƉlá. ʨ˪ˁ ˱˥˧ˢˁ ˣˋ ˅˨˪˧ˋ˵ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˅ Bengali Web, ˣ˥ ˅ Google ˘ˢˋˋ˪ ˥˜˥༤˥ 50-80 ˪˻˨̀˵ ˅˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘˙. ʜ˥˧ˢˁ lej ˅˥˖˅˥ˊ˘˪˨̀ ˜ Turner 1969–1985: ̘ɏ10915 lañja. ʑ˥ ˅˨ˋ˙ ˅˘ˊ˘ˢ˥˨˪˘, lañja ˘ lŊ৞gƉlá ˨˅̀˖ˁˣ˻ ˣˁ ˦˧ˁ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˨˜˥ˢ ˫˧˥˅ˣˋ ˨ ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤˥ˢ le৞g ‘˜ˁ˵ˁ˪˼˨̀’, ˜˥˪˥˧˻˙ ˦˧˘˅ˋˊˌˣ ˅ ˨˪ˁ˪˼ˋ ʕˌ˧ˣˋ˧ˁ. ʑ˥˦˧ˁ˅˜ˁ: ˖ˁˢˋˣ̀ˋˢ langul ˣˁ lengu৘ ̘ɏ317, ˊ˥˄ˁ˅༤̀ˋˢ ˨˘ˣ˥ˣ˘ˢ lej ̘ɏ317. 13. ‘White’ BNG dh՝b՝l ̘ɏ267 (Kogan 2016: 256) ˅ ˣˁ˸ˋˢ ˨˦˘˨˜ˋ ˥˪˨˫˪˨˪˅˫ˋ˪. ʓ༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪ ˥˪ˢˋ˪˘˪˼, ˵˪˥ dh՝b՝l ˦˥ ˨˅˥ˋˢ˫ ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˢ˫ ˥˄༤˘˜˫ — ˨ˁˣ˨˜˧˘˪˘˖ˢ. ɸˋ˙˨˪˅˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻ˢ ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˢ ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅˘ˋˢ ˊ˧.-˘ˣˊ. dhavala ‘˄ˋ༤˻˙, ˵˘˨˪˻˙’ ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˄ˋˣˆˁ༤˼˨˜˥ˋ dh՝la ‘˄ˋ༤˥˙ ˢˁ˨˪˘, ˨˅ˋ˪༤˥˜˥ː˘˙’ (˨ˢ. Turner 1969–1985: ̘ɏ6767 dhavalá, ˁ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˦˫ˣ˜˪ 8 ˊˁˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˧ˁ˖ˊˋ༤ˁ ˥ ‘new’ BNG n՝b՝). ʘ˵˘˪˻˅ˁ̀ ˽˪˥, dh՝b՝l ˨˦˧ˁ˅ˋˊ༤˘˅˥ ˄˻༤˥ ˄˻ ˦˧˘˨˅˥˘˪˼ ˥˪˧˘˴ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻˙ ˣ˥ˢˋ˧. ʐˊˣˁ˜˥ ˪˥, ˵˪˥ ˅ Bengali Web ˽˪˥ ˨༤˥˅˥ ˅˨˪˧ˋ˵ˁˋ˪˨̀ 1 ˧ˁ˖, ˅ ˪˥ ˅˧ˋˢ̀ ˜ˁ˜ Żada ˘˖ ˣˁ˸ˋˆ˥ ˨˦˘˨˜ˁ (Żada ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˖ˁˆ˥༤˥˅˜˥ˢ ˨˪ˁ˪˼˘ ˅ ˄ˋˣˆˁ༤˼˨˜˥˙ ɳ˘˜˘˦ˋˊ˘˘ ˥ ˄ˋ༤˥ˢ ˴˅ˋ˪ˋ) ˅˨˪˧ˋ˵ˁˋ˪˨̀ 869 ˧ˁ˖, ˦˥˖˅˥༤̀ˋ˪ ˋˆ˥ ˅˥˅˨ˋ ˘˨˜༤˿˵˘˪˼, ˖ˁˢˋˣ˘˅ ˣˁ ˦ˋ˧˨˘˖ˢ Żada ˨ ˥˪˧˘˴ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻ˢ ˣ˥ˢˋ˧˥ˢ. 14. ๑Woman๏ BNG meye ̘ɏ321 (Kogan 2016: 256): ˊˋ˙˨˪˅˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥, ˊ˥˅˥༤˼ˣ˥ ˧ˁ˨˦˧˥˨˪˧ˁˣˌˣˣ˥ˋ ˨༤˥˅˥ (4302 ˅˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘̀ ˅ Bengali Web), ˣ˥ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˣ˥ˋ ˋˆ˥ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ – ‘girl’, ˵˪˥ ˦˥ˊ˪˅ˋ˧ːˊˁˋ˪, ˣˁ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧, ˨˪ˁ˪˼̀ ˅ ˄ˋˣˆˁ༤˼˨˜˥˙ ɳ˘˜˘˦ˋˊ˘˘. ʎˁ˸ˁ ˘ˣ˱˥˧ˢˁˣ˪˜ˁ ˅ ˜ˁ˵ˋ˨˪˅ˋ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˄˻˪˥˅˥ˆ˥ ˨༤˥˅ˁ ˊˁ༤ˁ m՝hila (2248 ˅˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘˙ ˅ Bengali Web), ˨˪ˁ˪˼̀ ˅ ˄ˋˣˆˁ༤˼9

ʓˢ. Turner 1931: http://dsalsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.1:1:5036.turner.1329326. ʁˁ˜˥ˣ˥ˢˋ˧ˣ˻˙ ˧ˋ˱༤ˋ˜˨ ˊ˧.-˘ˣˊ. nƉtana ˊ˥༤ːˋˣ ˄˻༤ ˄˻ ˅˻ˆ༤̀ˊˋ˪˼ ˜ˁ˜ **nƉan.

10

288

ʌˋ˜˨˘˜˥˨˪ˁ˪˘˨˪˘˜ˁ ˣ˥˅˥˘ˣˊ˥ˁ˧˘˙˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅: ˅˖ˆ༤̀ˊ ˦˥༤ˋ˅˥ˆ˥ ༤˘ˣˆ˅˘˨˪ˁ

˨˜˥˙ ɳ˘˜˘˦ˋˊ˘˘ ˥ ˵ˋ༤˥˅ˋ˜ˋ ːˋˣ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˦˥༤ˁ ˥˖ˁˆ༤ˁ˅༤ˋˣˁ ˨༤˥˅˥ˢ nari (8533 ˅˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘̀ ˅ Bengali Web), ˥ˊˣˁ˜˥ ˥˄ˁ ˽˪˘˲ ˨༤˥˅ˁ ˨༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪ ˨˵˘˪ˁ˪˼ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘̀ˢ˘. ʕˁ˜˘ˢ ˥˄˧ˁ˖˥ˢ, ˘˨˜˥ˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˨༤˥˅ˁ ˊ༤̀ ˦˥ˣ̀˪˘̀ ๑woman๏ ˅ ˄ˋˣˆˁ༤˘ ˣˋ˪. ʑ˥˦˧ˁ˅˜ˁ: ˖ˁˢˋˣ̀ˋˢ meye ˣˁ m՝hila ˘ nari ˨ ˥˪˧˘˴ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻ˢ˘ ˣ˥ˢˋ˧ˁˢ˘. 15. ‘Yellow’ BNG h՝l՝de (Kogan 2016: 257): ˦˧˘˨˫˪˨˪˅˫ˋ˪ ˅ ˣˁ˸ˋˢ ˨˦˘˨˜ˋ ˅ ˱˥˧ˢˋ h՝lud, ˽˪˥ ˨༤˥˅˥ ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˘ ˖ˁˆ˥༤˥˅˜˥ˢ ˨˪ˁ˪˼˘ ˥ ːˌ༤˪˥ˢ ˴˅ˋ˪ˋ ˅ ˄ˋˣˆˁ༤˼˨˜˥˙ ɳ˘˜˘˦ˋˊ˘˘. ʇ˥༤˘˵ˋ˨˪˅˥ ˅˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘˙ h՝l՝de ˅ Bengali Web — 12, ˅ Google — ˥˜˥༤˥ 167 ˪˻˨̀˵, h՝lud ˅ Bengali Web — 263, ˅ Google — ˥˜˥༤˥ 1 ˢ˘༤༤˘˥ˣˁ 830 ˪˻˨̀˵. ʐˊˣˁ˜˥ h՝lud ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˁˋ˪ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˜˫˧˜˫ˢ˫, ˧ˁ˨˦˧˥˨˪˧ˁˣˌˣˣ˫˿ ˘ˣˊ˘˙˨˜˫˿ ˦˧̀ˣ˥˨˪˼. ʑ˥˽˪˥ˢ˫ ˅˻̀˨ˣ˘˪˼ ˥˪ˣ˥˨˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˫˿ ˫˦˥˪˧ˋ˄˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥˨˪˼ ˽˪˘˲ ˊ˅˫˲ ˱˥˧ˢ ˖ˁ˪˧˫ˊˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥. ɳ˥˖ˢ˥ːˣˁ̀ ˦˥˦˧ˁ˅˜ˁ: ˖ˁˢˋˣ̀ˋˢ h՝l՝de ˣˁ h՝lud ˄ˋ˖ ˖ˁˢˋˣ˻ ˣ˥ˢˋ˧ˁ. ʃ˪˥ˆ˥ ˅ ˧ˁ˖ˊˋ༤ˋ «ʑ˥˦˧ˁ˅˜˘ ˜ ˨˦˘˨˜˫ ˄ˋˣˆˁ༤˘» ˣˁ˨˵˘˪˻˅ˁˋˢ 9 ˘˖ˢˋˣˋˣ˘˙, ˅༤˘̀˿˹˘˲ ˣˁ ˦˥ˊ˨˵ˌ˪˻.

ʌ˙˚˛ʸʻːˌ ː ˜˚ˌ˜ː˟ ˙˛ˌ˴ ʓ˪˥˨༤˥˅ˣ˻˙ ˨˦˘˨˥˜ ̀˖˻˜ˁ ˥˧˘̀ ˄˻༤ ˦˥༤˫˵ˋˣ ˢˣ˥˙ ˅ 2016 ˆ˥ˊ˫ ˥˪ ˥ˊˣ˥ˆ˥ ˘ˣ˱˥˧ˢˁˣ˪ˁ. ʇ ˨˥ːˁ༤ˋˣ˘˿, ˥˄˺ˌˢ ˜˥˧˦˫˨ˁ ˥˧˘̀ ˘˖ Leipzig Corpora Collection, ˜˥˪˥˧˻˙ ˢˣˋ ˫ˊˁ༤˥˨˼ ˣˁ˙˪˘, ˨˥˨˪ˁ˅༤̀ˋ˪ ˅˨ˋˆ˥ 30 ˪˻˨̀˵ ˦˧ˋˊ༤˥ːˋˣ˘˙, ˘ ˢˣ˥ˆ˘ˋ ˨༤˥˅ˁ ˘˖ ˨˦˘˨˜ˁ ɯ.ɍʃ.ɍʇ˥ˆˁˣˁ ˅ ˣˌˢ ˣˋ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˻, ˁ ˨༤˥˅ˁ ˘˖ ˢ˥ˋˆ˥ ˨˦˘˨˜ˁ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˻ ˨༤ˁ˄˥. ʎ˥ ˄༤ˁˆ˥ˊˁ˧̀ ˪˥ˢ˫, ˵˪˥ ̀˖˻˜ ˥˧˘̀ ˥˄༤ˁˊˁˋ˪ ˫ˣ˘˜ˁ༤˼ˣ˥˙ ˦˘˨˼ˢˋˣˣ˥˨˪˼˿, ˧ˋ˖˫༤˼˪ˁ˪˻ ˖ˁ˦˧˥˨˥˅ ˅ Google ˨ ˥˵ˋˣ˼ ˅˻˨˥˜˥˙ ˅ˋ˧˥̀˪ˣ˥˨˪˼˿ ˄˫ˊ˫˪ ˥˪ˣ˥˨˘˪˼˨̀ ˘ˢˋˣˣ˥ ˜ ̀˖˻˜˫ ˥˧˘̀ (˅ ˥˪༤˘˵˘ˋ ˥˪ ˲˘ˣˊ˘, ˅ ˜˥˪˥˧˥ˢ ˄ˁ˖˥˅ˁ̀ ༤ˋ˜˨˘˜ˁ ˢ˥ːˋ˪ ˆ˧ˁ˱˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ ˨˥˅˦ˁˊˁ˪˼ ˨ ༤ˋ˜˨˘˜˥˙ ˣˋ˦ˁ༤˘, ˢˁ˧ˁ˪˲˘ ˘༤˘ ˨ˁˣ˨˜˧˘˪ˁ, ˁ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˄ˋˣˆˁ༤˼˨˜˥ˆ˥, ˄ˁ˖˥˅ˁ̀ ༤ˋ˜˨˘˜ˁ ˜˥˪˥˧˥ˆ˥ ˢ˥ːˋ˪ ˆ˧ˁ˱˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ ˨˥˅˦ˁ˨˪˼ ˨ ˁ˨˨ˁˢ˨˜˥˙). ɳ ˨˘༤˫ ˽˪˘˲ ˥˄˨˪˥̀˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅ ˢ˻ ˦˧˘˅˥ˊ˘ˢ ˨˪ˁ˪˘˨˪˘˜˫ ˘ ˦˥ Leipzig Corpora Collection, ˘ ˦˥ Google ˊ༤̀ ˪ˋ˲ ˦˫ˣ˜˪˥˅ ˨˦˘˨˜˥˅, ˅ ˜˥˪˥˧˻˲ ˘ˢˋ˿˪˨̀ ˨˫˹ˋ˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˻ˋ ˧ˁ˨˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘̀. ɳ ˨˦˘˨˜ˋ ɯ.ɍʃ.ɍʇ˥ˆˁˣˁ ˨༤˥˅ˁ ˥˧˘̀ ˦˧˘˅˥ˊ̀˪˨̀ ˅ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢˋ ˪˧ˁˣ˨༤˘˪ˋ˧ˁ˴˘˘. ʫ ˊˁ˿ ˨༤˥˅ˁ ˅ ˪˧ˁˣ˨˜˧˘˦˴˘˘, ˪ˁ˜ ːˋ, ˜ˁ˜ ˽˪˥ ˨ˊˋ༤ˁˣ˥ ˅ ˋˆ˥ ˨˦˘˨˜ˋ ˄ˋˣˆˁ༤˘. ʕˁ˜˘ˢ ˥˄˧ˁ˖˥ˢ, ˪˥, ˵˪˥ ɯ.ɍʃ.ɍʇ˥ˆˁˣ ˦ˋ˧ˋˊˁˌ˪ ˜ˁ˜ a ˘ Ŋ, ̀ ˦ˋ˧ˋˊˁ˿ ˜ˁ˜ ՝ ˘ a ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅ˋˣˣ˥. 1. ‘Ashes’ ORY chŊra ̘ɏ140 (Kogan 2016: 239): ˨༤˥˅ˁ˧̀ˢ˘ ˣˋ ˦˥ˊ˪˅ˋ˧ːˊˁˋ˪˨̀, ˜ˁ˜ ˘ ˣˁ˸˘ˢ ˨˦˘˨˜˥ˢ (˅ ˥˪༤˘˵˘ˋ ˥˪ pŊuñša ̘ɏ567). ɳ ˜˥˧˦˫˨ˋ ˨༤˥˅˥ ˣˋ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˥. ɳ Google ˨༤˥˅˥ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˥ ˨༤ˁ˄˥ (˥˜˥༤˥ 900 ˨˨˻༤˥˜), ˅ˋ˧˥̀˪ˣ˥, ˅ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˣ˥ˢ, ˜ˁ˜ ˅ˁ˧˘ˁˣ˪ ˣˁ˦˘˨ˁˣ˘̀ chŊr ‘ˣ˘˵˪˥ːˣ˻˙’. ʑ˧˘˦˘˨˻˅ˁˣ˘ˋ ˋˢ˫ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘̀ ‘˦ˋ˦ˋ༤’, ˦˥-˅˘ˊ˘ˢ˥ˢ˫, ˨˅̀˖ˁˣ˥ ˨ ˜ˁ˜˘ˢ-˪˥ ˘˖ ˨˥˵ˋ˪ˁˣ˘˙, ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˁ˿˹˘˲ ˫ˣ˘˵˪˥ːˋˣ˘ˋ, ˅ ˪˥ˢ ˵˘˨༤ˋ ˨˥ːːˋˣ˘ˋ ˊ˥ ˨˥˨˪˥̀ˣ˘̀ ˦ˋ˦༤ˁ. ʑ˥˦˧ˁ˅˜ˁ: ˫˄˘˧ˁˋˢ chŊra ˘˖ ˨˦˘˨˜ˁ. 2. ‘Bark’ ORY bakkala ̘ɏ328 (Kogan 2016: 239): ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˥ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˧̀ˢ, ˨༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪ ˪˧ˁˣ˨༤˘˪ˋ˧˘˧˥˅ˁ˪˼ ˜ˁ˜ bakala. 3. ‘Breast’ ORY buku ̘ɏ297 (Kogan 2016: 241): ˦˥ ˨༤˥˅ˁˢ ˣˁ˸ˋˆ˥ ˘ˣ˱˥˧ˢˁˣ˪ˁ, ˥˪ˣ˥˨˘˪˨̀ ˜ ˜༤ˁ˨˨˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˢ˫ ˥˧˘̀, ˅ ˥˪༤˘˵˘ˋ ˥˪ chŊti ̘ɏ12, ˜˥˪˥˧˥ˋ ˦˥ˊ˪˅ˋ˧ːˊˁˋ˪˨̀ ˣˁ˸˘ˢ ˨˦˘˨˜˥ˢ. ɳ ˜˥˧˦˫˨ˋ buku ˣˋ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˥, ˪˥ˆˊˁ ˜ˁ˜ ˦˥༤˫˵ˋˣˣ˥ˋ ˣˁˢ˘ ˥˪ ˘ˣ˱˥˧ˢˁˣ˪ˁ chŊti ˘ˢˋˋ˪ 40 ˅˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘˙ ˅ ˜˥˧˦˫˨. ɳ Google buku ˅˨˪˧ˋ˵ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˥˜˥༤˥ 600 ˧ˁ˖, chŊti — ˥˜˥༤˥ 19 ˪˻˨̀˵ ˧ˁ˖. ʑ˥˦˧ˁ˅˜ˁ: ˫˄˘˧ˁˋˢ buku ˘˖ ˨˦˘˨˜ˁ. 4. ‘Cold’ ORY thanda ̘ɏ458 (Kogan 2016: 242): ˅ ˣˁ˸ ˨˦˘˨˥˜ ˣˋ ˦˥˦ˁ༤˥. ʃˣ˱˥˧ˢˁˣ˪ ˊˁ༤ ˨ˁˣ˨˜˧˘˪˘˖ˢ ಝŢt՝. ʑ˥ ˜˥༤˘˵ˋ˨˪˅˫ ˅˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘˙ ˅ ˜˥˧˦˫˨ ˥ˣ˘ ˅˦˥༤ˣˋ ˨˥˦˥˨˪ˁ˅˘ˢ˻ (39 ˘ 94), ˦˥˦˧ˁ˅˜˘ ˅ ˨˦˘˨˥˜ ɯ.ɍʃ.ɍʇ˥ˆˁˣˁ ˣˋ ˪˧ˋ˄˫˿˪˨̀. 5. ‘Come’ ORY ail- ̘ɏ181 (Kogan 2016: 242): ˦ˋ˧˱ˋ˜˪ˣˁ̀ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˁ, ˅ ˜˥˪˥˧˫˿ ˅˲˥ˊ˘˪ ˨˪ˁˣˊˁ˧˪ˣ˻˙ ˦ˋ˧˱ˋ˜˪ˣ˻˙ ˨˫˱˱˘˜˨ -il-. ɸ༤̀ ˅˻̀˨ˣˋˣ˘̀ ˅˥˦˧˥˨ˁ ˥ ˦˧˥˘˨˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘˘ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ 289

ɯ. ʓ. ʇ˧˻༤˥˅ˁ

ʸ฿s- ˘ a- ˪˧ˋ˄˫ˋ˪˨̀ ˥˪ˊˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˋ ˘˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁˣ˘ˋ, ˅˻˲˥ˊ̀˹ˋˋ ˖ˁ ˧ˁˢ˜˘ ˴ˋ༤ˋ˙ ˊˁˣˣ˥˙ ˨˪ˁ˪˼˘. ʑ˥༤ˣ˥˙ ˦ˁ˧ˁˊ˘ˆˢ˻ ˥˪ ˥˨ˣ˥˅˻ a- ˣˋ ˥˄˧ˁ˖˫ˋ˪˨̀. ɳ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˧ˋ ʑ˧ˁ˲ˁ˧ˁˊːˁ ༤˘˸˼ ˫˦˥ˢ˘ˣˁˋ˪˨̀ ˥ ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˥˨˪˘ ˫˦˥˪˧ˋ˄༤ˋˣ˘̀ ˱˥˧ˢ ˪˘˦ˁ Ŋila ˘༤˘ aila (˘ ˦˧˥˵˘˲) ˅ˢˋ˨˪˥ Ŋsila (˘ ˦˧˥˵˘˲) ˅ ˦˧˥˸ˋˊ˸ˋˢ ˅˧ˋˢˋˣ˘ (Praharaj 1931–1940: http://dsalsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgibin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.0:110.praharaj) 11. ʐˊˣˁ˜˥ ˥˵ˋ˅˘ˊˣ˥, ˵˪˥ ˦ˋ˧˱ˋ˜˪ˣ˻˙ ˨˫˱˱˘˜˨ ˨༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪ ˘˨˜༤˿˵˘˪˼. ʑ˥˦˧ˁ˅˜ˁ: ˖ˁˢˋˣ̀ˋˢ ail- ˣˁ a-. ʎˁ ˦˥ˊ˨˵ˌ˪ ˽˪ˁ ˖ˁˢˋˣˁ ˣˋ ˅༤˘̀ˋ˪. 6) ‘feather’ ORY pŊlak ̘ɏ306 (Kogan 2016: 244): ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˥ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˧˿ Biswal 2015: 870, ˖ˣˁ˵˘˪ ‘nourishing, rearing up’. ʘ˜ˁ˖ˁˣ˘ˋ ˣˁ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ‘˦ˋ˧˥’ ˣˁ˲˥ˊ˘ˢ ˅ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˧ˋ ʑ˧ˁ˲ˁ˧ˁˊːˁ, ˥ˊˣˁ˜˥ ˖ˊˋ˨˼ ˆ˥˅˥˧˘˪˨̀ ༤˘˸˼ ˥ ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪ˣ˥ˢ ˨༤˥˅ˋ, ˧ˁ˨˦˧˥˨˪˧ˁˣˌˣˣ˥ˢ ˅ ˨˥˥˄˹ˋ˨˪˅ˁ˲ ˥˧˘̀ ˅ ʍ˘ˊˣˁ˦˫˧ˋ ˅ ʁˁ˦ˁˊˣ˥˙ ɲˋˣˆˁ༤˘˘, ˅ ˥˜˧˫ːˋˣ˘˘ ˄ˋˣˆˁ༤˥̀˖˻˵ˣ˥ˆ˥ ˣˁ˨ˋ༤ˋˣ˘̀. ɳ ˪˥˙ ːˋ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˧ˣ˥˙ ˨˪ˁ˪˼ˋ ʑ˧ˁ˲ˁ˧ˁˊː ˪˥༤˜˫ˋ˪ ˽˪˫ ˱˥˧ˢ˫ ˵ˋ˧ˋ˖ ˨༤˥˅˥ p՝r՝ (Praharaj 1931–1940: http://dsalsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.28:5159.praharaj.3504923). ʐ˵ˋ˅˘ˊˣ˥, ˧ˋ˵˼ ˥ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘˘ ˄ˋˣˆˁ༤˼˨˜˥ˆ˥ pal՝k ‘˦ˋ˧˥’. ʓ༤˥˅˥ ˘˖ ˣˁ˸ˋˆ˥ ˨˦˘˨˜ˁ, ˦ˋ˧˨˘˖ˢ p՝r՝, ˦˥ˊ˪˅ˋ˧ːˊˁˋ˪˨̀ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˧̀ˢ˘ ˥˧˘̀ (Biswal 2015: 818, Tripathy 2015: 326). ʒˁ˨˦˧˥˨˪˧ˁˣˌˣˣ˥˨˪˼ ˋˆ˥ ˥˴ˋˣ˘˪˼ ˖ˁ˪˧˫ˊˣ˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥, ˪ˁ˜ ˜ˁ˜ ˥ˣ˥ ˘ˢˋˋ˪ (˅ˋ˧˥̀˪ˣ˥, ˄˥༤ˋˋ ˧ˁ˨˦˧˥˨˪˧ˁˣˌˣˣ˻˙) ˥ˢ˥ˣ˘ˢ — ˢˋ˨˪˥˘ˢˋˣ˘ˋ ‘ˊ˧˫ˆ˥˙’. ɳ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˧ˋ ʑ˧ˁ˲ˁ˧ˁˊːˁ ˥ˣ˥ ˦˧˘˨˫˪˨˪˅˫ˋ˪ ˪˥༤˼˜˥ ˅ ˪˥༤˜˥˅ˁˣ˘̀˲, ˣ˥ ˣˋ ˅ ˖ˁˆ˥༤˥˅˜ˋ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˧ˣ˥˙ ˨˪ˁ˪˼˘, ˘˖ ˵ˋˆ˥ ˢ˥ːˣ˥ ˦˧ˋˊ˦˥༤˥ː˘˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˽˪˥ ˨༤˥˅˥ ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˨ˁˢ˻ˢ ˥˄˹ˋ˘˖˅ˋ˨˪ˣ˻ˢ ˅ ˊˁˣˣ˥ˢ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘˘. ʑ˥˦˧ˁ˅˜ˁ: ˖ˁˢˋˣ̀ˋˢ pŊlak ˣˁ p՝r՝ (˅ ˪˧ˁˣ˨༤˘˪ˋ˧ˁ˴˘˘ ɯ.ɍʃ.ɍʇ˥ˆˁˣˁ — para) ̘ɏ-1. 7. ‘Foot’ ORY pŊ ̘ɏ30 (Kogan 2016: 244): ˦˥ˊ˪˅ˋ˧ːˊˁˋ˪˨̀ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˧ˌˢ ʑ˧ˁ˲ˁ˧ˁˊːˁ, ˣ˥ ˣˋ ˅˨˪˧ˋ˵ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˅ ˜˥˧˦˫˨ˋ, ˁ ˅ Google ˣˁ˲˥ˊ˘˪˨̀ ˪˥༤˼˜˥ 121 ˅˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘ˋ. pŊd՝ ˘˖ ˣˁ˸ˋˆ˥ ˨˦˘˨˜ˁ ˊˁˌ˪ 121 ˅˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘ˋ ˅ ˜˥˧˦˫˨ ˘ 35 ˪˻˨̀˵ — ˅ Google. pŊd՝ — ˨ˁˣ˨˜˧˘˪˨˜˥ˋ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘ˋ, ˣ˥ ˘˨˜˥ˣˣ˻ˋ ˨༤˥˅ˁ ˨˥˦˥˨˪ˁ˅˘ˢ˥˙ ˵ˁ˨˪˥˪ˣ˥˨˪˘ ˥˪˨˫˪˨˪˅˫˿˪. ʑ˥˦˧ˁ˅˜ˁ: ˖ˁˢˋˣ̀ˋˢ pŊ ˣˁ pŊd՝ ̘ɏ-1. 8. ‘Full’ ORY bhari ̘ɏ31 (Kogan 2016: 244): ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˥ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˧̀ˢ ˥˧˘̀ (Biswal 2015: 1204, Tripathy 2015: 372, 437), ˘ˢˋˋ˪ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ‘heavy’, ˣ˥ ˣˋ ‘full’. ʑ˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣˣ˥ˋ ˅ ˣˁ˸ˋˢ ˨˦˘˨˜ˋ pƉrŊ ˦˥ˊ˪˅ˋ˧ːˊˁˋ˪˨̀ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˧̀ˢ˘ ˘ ˅˨˪˧ˋ˵ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˅ ˜˥˧˦˫˨ˋ 18 ˧ˁ˖. ʑ˥˦˧ˁ˅˜ˁ: ˫˄˘˧ˁˋˢ bhari ˘˖ ˨˦˘˨˜ˁ. 9. ‘Hair’ ORY cuਙi ̘ɏ308 (Kogan 2016: 245): ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˥ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˧˿ (Biswal 2015: 448), ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˁˋ˪ ˘˨˜༤˿˵˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ ˅ˋ˧˸˘ˣ˫ ˆ˥˧˻. ʎˁ ˪˥˙ ːˋ ˨˪˧ˁˣ˘˴ˋ ˨ˢ ˨˪ˁ˪˼˿ ˥ cuਙ՝ ‘hair of the head’, ˘ˢˋ˿˹ˋˋ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘̀ ‘crest of cock’, ‘top of a temple’, ‘hump of a bull’. ɳ ˜˥˧˦˫˨ˋ cuਙ՝ ˅˨˪˧ˋ˵ˁˋ˪˨̀ 2 ˧ˁ˖ˁ. ɳ ˣˁ˸ˋˢ ˨˦˘˨˜ˋ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˻ ˊ˅ˁ ˨༤˥˅ˁ: bŊਙ ˘ cuࡖi, ˦˧˘ ˽˪˥ˢ ˅˪˥˧˥ˋ ˥˪ˢˋ˵ˋˣ˥ ˘ˣ˱˥˧ˢˁˣ˪˥ˢ ˜ˁ˜ ˨༤˥˅˥ ˦˧˘˄˧ˋːˣ˥ˆ˥ (˥˜˥༤˥˨˪˥༤˘˵ˣ˥ˆ˥) ˊ˘ˁ༤ˋ˜˪ˁ, ˁ ˦ˋ˧˅˥ˋ — ˜ˁ˜ ˨༤˥˅˥ ˖ˁ˦ˁˊˣ˥ˋ ˘༤˘ ˦༤ˋˢˋˣˣ˥ˋ. ʐˊˣˁ˜˥ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˧˼ (Biswal 2015: 445) ˦ˋ˧ˋ˅˥ˊ˘˪ cuࡖi ˜ˁ˜ ‘a tuft of hair’ (˦˫˵˥˜ ˅˥༤˥˨, ˦˧˘˵ˌ˨˜ˁ), ˁ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˧˼ (Tripathy 2015: 422) ˪˥༤˜˫ˋ˪ hair ˅ ˥˨ˣ˥˅ˣ˥ˢ ˵ˋ˧ˋ˖ ˨༤˥˅˥ bŊਙ, ˅˥˅˨ˋ ˣˋ ˫˦˥ˢ˘ˣˁ̀ cuࡖi. ɳ ˜˥˧˦˫˨ˋ cuࡖi ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˅˨˪˧ˋ˵ˁˋ˪˨̀ 2 ˧ˁ˖ˁ, ˦˥ ˨˧ˁ˅ˣˋˣ˘˿ ˨˥ 119 ˊ༤̀ bŊਙ. ʑ˥˦˧ˁ˅˜ˁ: ˖ˁˢˋˣ̀ˋˢ cuਙi ˣˁ bŊਙ ̘ɏ36. 10. ‘Heart’ ORY hrudaya ̘ɏ-5 (Kogan 2016: 246): ˨༤˥˅˥, ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˥ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˧̀ˢ ˘ ˨˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅˫ ˘ˣ˱˥˧ˢˁˣ˪ˁ ˨˅̀˖ˁˣˣ˥ˋ ˨˜˥˧ˋˋ ˨ ˊ˫˲˥˅ˣ˻ˢ ˦˥ˣ̀˪˘ˋˢ. ʓˋ˧ˊ˴ˋ ˅ ˁˣˁ˪˥ˢ˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˢ ˨ˢ˻˨༤ˋ — hrutpiয়‫ڎ‬՝. ʐ˄ˁ ˥ˣ˘ ̀˅༤̀˿˪˨̀ ˨ˁˣ˨˜˧˘˪˘˖ˢˁˢ˘. ʑ˥˦˧ˁ˅˜ˁ: ˖ˁˢˋˣ̀ˋˢ hrudaya ˣˁ hrutpiয়‫ڎ‬՝ ˄ˋ˖ ˖ˁˢˋˣ˻ ˣ˥ˢˋ˧ˁ. 11. ‘Meat’ ORY mŊӼsa ̘ɏ124 (Kogan 2016: 248): ˅ˋ˧˥̀˪ˣ˥, ˥˦ˋ˵ˁ˪˜ˁ. ʑ˥ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˧̀ˢ ˘ ˨˅˘ˊˋ˪ˋ༤˼˨˪˅˫ ˘ˣ˱˥˧ˢˁˣ˪ˁ — m،ɍs՝. ʑ˥˦˧ˁ˅˜ˁ: ˖ˁˢˋˣ̀ˋˢ mŊӼsa ˣˁ m،ɍs՝, ˣˁ ˦˥ˊ˨˵ˌ˪ ˖ˁˢˋˣˁ ˣˋ ˅༤˘̀ˋ˪. 12. ‘Moon’ ORY candramŊ ̘ɏ-8 (Kogan 2016: 248): ˢˁ༤˥˫˦˥˪˧ˋ˄˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻˙ ˨ˁˣ˨˜˧˘˪˘˖ˢ (2 ˅˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘̀ ˅ ˜˥˧˦˫˨ˋ). ɳ ˣˁ˸ˋˢ ˨˦˘˨˜ˋ ˖ˣˁ˵˘˪˨̀ j՝nh՝, ˜˥˪˥˧˥ˋ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˖ˁˆ˥11

290

ʁˊˋ˨˼ ˘ ˊˁ༤ˋˋ ˥˪˨˻༤˜˘ ˜ Praharaj 1931–1940 ˊˁ˿˪˨̀ ˆ˘˦ˋ˧˨˨˻༤˜ˁˢ˘ ˣˁ ˥ˣ༤ˁ˙ˣ-˅ˋ˧˨˘˿.

ʌˋ˜˨˘˜˥˨˪ˁ˪˘˨˪˘˜ˁ ˣ˥˅˥˘ˣˊ˥ˁ˧˘˙˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅: ˅˖ˆ༤̀ˊ ˦˥༤ˋ˅˥ˆ˥ ༤˘ˣˆ˅˘˨˪ˁ

༤˥˅˜˥ˢ ˨˪ˁ˪˼˘ ˥ ʌ˫ˣˋ ˅ ɳ˘˜˘˦ˋˊ˘˘ ˣˁ ˥˧˘̀ ˘ ˊˁˌ˪ 14 ˅˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘˙ ˅ ˜˥˧˦˫˨ˋ. ʨ˪˥ ˨༤˥˅˥ ˥˪˨˫˪˨˪˅˫ˋ˪ ˅ ˨˪ˁ˪˼ˋ (Turner 1969–1985: ̘ɏ5301 jy޳tsnŊ), ˣ˥ ˥˵ˋ˅˘ˊˣ˥, ˵˪˥ ˽˪˥ ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜ˁ̀ ˦ˁ˧ˁ༤༤ˋ༤˼ ˜ jy޳tsnŊ. ʑ˥˦˧ˁ˅˜ˁ: ˖ˁˢˋˣ̀ˋˢ candramŊ ˣˁ j՝nh՝ ̘ɏ340. 13. ‘Round’ ORY gola ̘ɏ66 (Kogan 2016: 251): ˅ˋ˧˥̀˪ˣ˥, ˥˦ˋ˵ˁ˪˜ˁ. ʑ˧˘༤ˁˆˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˋ ๑˜˧˫ˆ༤˻˙๏ ˅ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˧ˋ (Biswal 2015: 370) ˦˧˘˅˥ˊ˘˪˨̀ ˅ ˊ˅˫˲ ˅ˁ˧˘ˁˣ˪ˁ˲ ˣˁ˦˘˨ˁˣ˘˙: gol/goਙ, ˪˥ ˋ˨˪˼ ˨˫˹ˋ˨˪˅˫ˋ˪ ˘ ˅ ˱˥˧ˢˋ ˨ˁˣ˨˜˧˘˪˘˖ˢˁ, ˘ ˅ ˱˥˧ˢˋ ˘˨˜˥ˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˨༤˥˅ˁ. ʑ˥˦˧ˁ˅˜ˁ: ˖ˁˢˋˣ̀ˋˢ gola ˣˁ goਙ ˄ˋ˖ ˖ˁˢˋˣ˻ ˣ˥ˢˋ˧ˁ. 14. ‘Say’ ORY bol- ̘ɏ70 (Kogan 2016: 251): ˦˧˘ ˦˥˘˨˜ˋ ˅ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˧ˣ˥˙ ˱˥˧ˢˋ bolibŊ ˊˁˌ˪ 1 ˅˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘ˋ ˅ ˜˥˧˦˫˨ ˘ ˥˜˥༤˥ 300 ˅ Google, ˵˪˥ ˣˋ˨˥˦˥˨˪ˁ˅˘ˢ˥ ˨ 30 ˅˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘̀ˢ˘ ˅ ˜˥˧˦˫˨ ˘ 42 ˪˻˨̀˵ˁˢ˘ ˅ Google ˊ༤̀ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˅ ˣˁ˸ˋˢ ˨˦˘˨˜ˋ k՝h- ̘ɏ 69 ˅ ˪˥˙ ːˋ ˱˥˧ˢˋ. ʑ˥˦˧ˁ˅˜ˁ: ˫˄˘˧ˁˋˢ bol- ˘˖ ˨˦˘˨˜ˁ. 15. ‘Seed’ ORY bŢja ̘ɏ72 (Kogan 2016: 252): ˦˥ ˋˆ˥ ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˢ˫ ˥˄༤˘˜˫ ˨༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪ ˨˵˘˪ˁ˪˼ ˨ˁˣ˨˜˧˘˪˘˖ˢ˥ˢ (˨ˢ. Masica 1991: 180–181, ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˦˫ˣ˜˪ 5 ˘˖ ˧ˁ˖ˊˋ༤ˁ ˊˁˣˣ˥˙ ˨˪ˁ˪˼˘ «ʁˁˢˋ˵ˁˣ˘̀ ˜ ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘̀ˢ»). ɳ ˜˥˧˦˫˨ˋ ˽˪˥ ˨༤˥˅˥ ˊˁˌ˪ 7 ˅˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘˙. ɳ ˣˁ˸ˋˢ ˨˦˘˨˜ˋ ˖ˣˁ˵˘˪˨̀ m՝ñji (52 ˅˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘̀), ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘ˋ ˘˖ ˊ˧ˁ˅˘ˊ˘˙˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅ (Burrow 1984: #4639 Ga. (Oll.) mã฿jik). ʑ˥˦˧ˁ˅˜ˁ: ˦˥ˢ˘ˢ˥ ˖ˁˢˋˣ˻ ˣ˥ˢˋ˧ˁ bŢja ˣˁ ˥˪˧˘˴ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻˙, ˊ˥˄ˁ˅༤̀ˋˢ m՝ñji ˨ ˥˪˧˘˴ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻ˢ ˣ˥ˢˋ˧˥ˢ. 16. ‘Sun’ ORY surya ̘ɏ-11 (Kogan 2016: 253): ˅ˋ˧˥̀˪ˣ˥, ˧ˋ˖˫༤˼˪ˁ˪ ˥˸˘˄˥˵ˣ˥˙ ˪˧ˁˣ˨༤˘˪ˋ˧ˁ˴˘˘. ɳ ˊˋ˙˨˪˅˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥˨˪˘ ˅ˁ˧˘ˁˣ˪˻ ˦˧˥˘˖ˣ˥˸ˋˣ˘̀, ˦˧˘˅ˋˊˌˣˣ˻ˋ ˅ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˧ˋ ʑ˧ˁ˲ˁ˧ˁˊːˁ — sƉrj฿a, sƉruj, suraj, sƉrj฿ya. ɳ ˣˁ˸ˋˢ ˨˦˘˨˜ˋ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˖ˣˁ˵˘˪˨̀ surj՝. ʑ˥˦˧ˁ˅˜ˁ: ˖ˁˢˋˣ̀ˋˢ surya ˣˁ surj՝ ˄ˋ˖ ˖ˁˢˋˣ˻ ˣ˥ˢˋ˧ˁ — ˅˨ˌ ˽˪˥ ˨༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪ ˨˵˘˪ˁ˪˼ ˧ˁ˖༤˘˵ˣ˻ˢ ˥˄˧ˁ˖˥ˢ ˁˊˁ˦˪˘˧˥˅ˁˣˣ˻ˢ˘ ˨ˁˣ˨˜˧˘˪˘˖ˢˁˢ˘ (˨ˢ. ˦˫ˣ˜˪ 6 ˧ˁ˖ˊˋ༤ˁ «ʁˁˢˋ˵ˁˣ˘̀ ˜ ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘̀ˢ»). 17. ‘Tail’ ORY languਙa ̘ɏ317 (Kogan 2016: 254): ˘ ˅ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˧̀˲, ˘ ˅ ˜˥˧˦˫˨ˋ, ˘ ˅ Google ˣˁ˲˥ˊ˘˪˨̀ ˪˥༤˼˜˥ ˅ ˱˥˧ˢˋ lŊnguਙa (12 ˅˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘˙ ˅ ˜˥˧˦˫˨, ˥˜˥༤˥ 100 ˅˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘˙ ˅ Google). ɳ ˣˁ˸ˋˢ ˨˦˘˨˜ˋ ˖ˣˁ˵˘˪˨̀ lanj՝ (25 ˅˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘˙ ˅ ˜˥˧˦˫˨, ˥˜˥༤˥ 1000 ˅˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘˙ ˅ Google). ʑ˥˦˧ˁ˅˜ˁ: ˖ˁˢˋˣ̀ˋˢ languਙa ˣˁ lŊnguਙa, ˊ˥˄ˁ˅༤̀ˋˢ lanj՝ ̘ɏ317. 18. ‘Walk (go)’ ORY gal- ̘ɏ93 (Kogan 2016: 255): ˥˪˨˫˪˨˪˅˫ˋ˪ ˅ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˧̀˲ ˘, ˦˥˅˘ˊ˘ˢ˥ˢ˫, ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ˧ˋ˖˫༤˼˪ˁ˪˥ˢ ˥˸˘˄˥˵ˣ˥˙ ˪˧ˁˣ˨༤˘˪ˋ˧ˁ˴˘˘ ˨˦ˋ˴˘˱˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˧ˋˊ˜˥ˆ˥ ˣˁ˵ˋ˧˪ˁˣ˘̀ ˨༤˥ˆˁ cŊ ( ) ˅ ˦˘˨˼ˢˋˣˣ˥˨˪˘ ˥˧˘̀. ʐ˄˻˵ˣ˥ˋ ˋˆ˥ ˣˁ˦˘˨ˁˣ˘ˋ — ûĚ, ˣ˥ ˅ ˽˪˥ˢ ˧ˋˊ˜˥ˢ ˣˁ˵ˋ˧˪ˁˣ˘˘ ˥ˣ ˨˲˥ˊˋˣ ˨˥ ˨༤˥ˆ˥ˢ ga (ø). ɳ ˊˋ˙˨˪˅˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥˨˪˘ ˧ˋ˵˼ ˥ ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤ˋ cŊl-, ˖ˁ˱˘˜˨˘˧˥˅ˁˣˣ˥ˢ ˘ ˅ ˣˁ˸ˋˢ ˨˦˘˨˜ˋ. ʁˁˢˋ˪˘ˢ, ˵˪˥ ˽˪˥˪ ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤˼ˣ˻˙ ˜˥˧ˋˣ˼ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ, ˣˁ˦˧˘ˢˋ˧, ˘ ˅ ˲˘ˣˊ˘. ʎ˥ ˫˦˥˪˧ˋ˄༤ˋˣ˘ˋ ˜˥˧ˣˋ˙ ja- ˘ ˜al- ˅ ˲˘ˣˊ˘ (˜ˁ˜ ˘, ˨˫ˊ̀ ˦˥ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˧ˣ˻ˢ ˪˥༤˜˥˅ˁˣ˘̀ˢ, ji- ˘ cŊl- ˅ ˥˧˘̀) ˨˘༤˼ˣ˥ ˧ˁ˖༤˘˵ˁ˿˪˨̀. ɹ˨༤˘ ˦ˋ˧˅˻˙ ˨˜˥˧ˋˋ ˢ˥ːˣ˥ ˨˥˥˪ˣˋ˨˪˘ ˨ ˁˣˆ༤˘˙˨˜˘ˢ go (‘˘ˊ˪˘, ˫˲˥ˊ˘˪˼’), ˪˥ ˅˪˥˧˥˙ — ˨ ˁˣˆ༤˘˙˨˜˘ˢ walk (‘˲˥ˊ˘˪˼, ˦ˋ˧ˋˊ˅˘ˆˁ˪˼˨̀ ˦ˋ˸˜˥ˢ’). ʑ˥˽˪˥ˢ˫ ˨˥˦˥˨˪ˁ˅༤̀˪˼ ˘˲ ˢˋːˊ˫ ˨˥˄˥˙ ˄˻༤˥ ˄˻ ˣˋ˦˧ˁ˅˥ˢˋ˧ˣ˥. ʑ˥˨˜˥༤˼˜˫ ˨ˋˢˁˣ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˋ ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅˘̀ cŊl- ˥˪˨˫˪˨˪˅˫˿˪ ˅ ˨˦˘˨˜ˁ˲ ɯ.ɍʃ.ɍʇ˥ˆˁˣˁ, ˣˋ ˨˪˥˘˪ ˅˜༤˿˵ˁ˪˼ ˽˪˥˪ ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤ ˅ ˨˦˘˨˥˜ ˥˧˘̀, ˁ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ‘walk (go)’ ˨༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪ ˫˪˥˵ˣ˘˪˼. ʑ˥˦˧ˁ˅˜ˁ: ˫ˊˁ༤̀ˋˢ gal- ˘˖ ˨˦˘˨˜ˁ, ˢˋˣ̀ˋˢ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ‘walk’ ˣˁ ‘go’ ˊ༤̀ ˅˨ˋ˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅. ʕˁ˜˘ˢ ˥˄˧ˁ˖˥ˢ, ˅ ˧ˁ˖ˊˋ༤ˋ «ʑ˥˦˧ˁ˅˜˘ ˜ ˨˦˘˨˜˫ ˥˧˘̀» 9 ˘˖ˢˋˣˋˣ˘˙, ˅༤˘̀˿˹˘˲ ˣˁ ˦˥ˊ˨˵ˌ˪˻.

ʌ˙˚˛ʸʻːˌ ː ˜˚ˌ˜ː˟ ː˟ໞໞ˟ˌ ʓ˦˘˨˥˜ ̀˖˻˜ˁ ˜˫༤༤˫˘ ˨˥˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ ɯ.ɍʃ.ɍʇ˥ˆˁˣ˥ˢ ˨ ˦˥ˢ˥˹˼˿ ˆ˧ˁˢˢˁ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˆ˥ ˥˵ˋ˧˜ˁ ʍ. ʒ. ʒˁˣˆˁˣˁ˪˲˘, ˨˥ˊˋ˧ːˁ˹ˋˆ˥ ˣˁ˘˄˥༤ˋˋ ˦˥༤ˣ˻˙ ˨༤˥˅ˣ˘˜ ˜˫༤༤˫˘ ˣˁ ˢ˥ˢˋˣ˪ ˣˁ˦˘˨ˁˣ˘̀ ˨˪ˁ˪˼˘. ɴ˥˧ˁ˖ˊ˥ ˄˥༤ˋˋ ˦˥ˊ˧˥˄ˣˁ̀ ˘ ˊ˥˨˪˥˅ˋ˧ˣˁ̀ ˆ˧ˁˢˢˁ˪˘˜ˁ ʍ. ʒ. ʕ˲ˁ˜˫˧ˁ ˨˥ˊˋ˧ː˘˪ ˖ˣˁ˵˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˋ ˜˥༤˘˵ˋ˨˪˅˥ ༤ˋ˜˨˘˜˘, ˣ˥ ˽˪ˁ ༤ˋ˜˨˘˜ˁ ˣˋ ˥˄˺ˋˊ˘ˣˋˣˁ ˅ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˧˼, ˁ ˧ˁ˖˄˧˥˨ˁˣˁ ˦˥ 291

ɯ. ʓ. ʇ˧˻༤˥˅ˁ

˧ˁ˖ˣ˻ˢ ˧ˁ˖ˊˋ༤ˁˢ ˆ˧ˁˢˢˁ˪˘˜˘, ˵ˁ˨˪˥ ˄ˋ˖ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˅˥ˊˁ ˣˁ ˲˘ˣˊ˘. ɳ ˣˁ˨˪˥̀˹ˋˋ ˅˧ˋˢ̀ ˄˥༤ˋˋ ˦˥༤ˣ˻˙, ˦ˋ˧˘˥ˊ˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ ˥˄ˣ˥˅༤̀ˋˢ˻˙ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˧˼ ˜˫༤༤˫˘ ˢ˥ːˣ˥ ˣˁ˙˪˘ ˣˁ ˨ˁ˙˪ˋ www.paharilanguages.ru. ʐˣ ˅˜༤˿˵ˁˋ˪ ˊˁˣˣ˻ˋ ˘˖ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˧̀ ʒˁˣˆˁˣˁ˪˲˘ ˘ ˦˥˨˪˥̀ˣˣ˥ ˦˥˦˥༤ˣ̀ˋ˪˨̀ ༤ˋ˜˨˘˜˥˙ ˘˖ ˆ˧ˁˢˢˁ˪˘˜˘ ʕ˲ˁ˜˫˧ˁ ˘ ˣˁ˸˘ˢ˘ ˦˥༤ˋ˅˻ˢ˘ ˊˁˣˣ˻ˢ˘. ʓ˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˥ ˨༤˥ː˘˅˸ˋ˙˨̀ ˅ ˣˁ˸ˋ˙ ˣˁ˫˵ˣ˥-˘˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁ˪ˋ༤˼˨˜˥˙ ˆ˧˫˦˦ˋ ˪˧ˁˊ˘˴˘˘, ˪˧ˁˣ˨˜˧˘˦˴˘̀ ˨༤˥˅ ˜˫༤༤˫˘ ˊˁˌ˪˨̀ ˣˋ ˅ ˘ˣˊ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˪˧ˁˣ˨˜˧˘˦˴˘˘, ˁ ˅ ʍʜɯ. ʓ˪˥˨༤˥˅ˣ˻˙ ˨˦˘˨˥˜ ̀˖˻˜ˁ ˜˫༤༤˫˘ ˄˻༤ ˨˥˄˧ˁˣ ˅ 2013 ˆ˥ˊ˫ ɹ. ʇˣ̀˖ˋ˅˥˙ (ʣ˫˅ˁˣˣ˘˜˥˅˥˙) ˥˪ ˦̀˪˘ ˘ˣ˱˥˧ˢˁˣ˪˥˅ ˘˖ ˊˋ˧ˋ˅ˣ˘ ʎˁˆˆˁ˧; ˦˥˖ːˋ ˨ˋˢˁˣ˪˘˜ˁ ˢˣ˥ˆ˘˲ ˘˖ ˽˪˘˲ ˨༤˥˅ ˄˻༤ˁ ˫˪˥˵ˣˋˣˁ ˣˁˢ˘ ˅ ˲˥ˊˋ ˧ˁ˄˥˪ ˦˥ ˨˄˥˧˫ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˧̀ ˘ ˜˥˧˦˫˨ˁ ˫˨˪ˣ˻˲ ˪ˋ˜˨˪˥˅. ʒˁ˖˄ˋ˧ˌˢ ˪ˋ ˨༤˫˵ˁ˘, ˆˊˋ ˅˨˪˧ˋ˵ˁ˿˪˨̀ ˧ˁ˨˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘̀ ˨˥ ˨˦˘˨˜˥ˢ ɯ.ɍʃ.ɍʇ˥ˆˁˣˁ. 1. ‘Ashes’ ˅ ˨˦˘˨˜ˋ ɯ.ɍʃ. ʇ˥ˆˁˣˁ ˣˋ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˥. ɳ ˣˁ˸ˋˢ ˨˦˘˨˜ˋ ˖ˣˁ˵˘˪˨̀ bվ՝:s. ʑ˥˦˧ˁ˅˜ˁ: ˊ˥˄ˁ˅༤̀ˋˢ bվ՝:s ̘ɏ489. 2. ‘Bark’ KUL khol ̘ɏ552 (Kogan 2016: 239): ˅ ˣˁ˸ˋˢ ˨˦˘˨˜ˋ ˥˪˨˫˪˨˪˅˫ˋ˪. ʕ˧˥ˋ ˘˖ ˦̀˪˘ ˘ˣ˱˥˧ˢˁˣ˪˥˅ ˣˁ˖˅ˁ༤˘ ˨༤˥˅˥ lep˲ೝՀ. ɳ˥˖ˢ˥ːˣˁ̀ ˋˆ˥ ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘̀ ˨˅̀˖ˁˣˁ ˨ (Turner 1969– 1985: 11114 lŖpya ɒplaster๏). ʑ˥˦˧ˁ˅˜ˁ: ˖ˁˢˋˣ̀ˋˢ khol ˣˁ lep˲ೝՀ ̘ɏ490. 3. ‘Bite’ KUL kŊࡖ- ̘ɏ8 (Kogan 2016: 240): ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˥ ˅ ˣˁ˸˘˲ ˨˦˘˨˜ˁ˲ ˥˪ ˊ˅˫˲ ˘ˣ˱˥˧ˢˁˣ˪˥˅. ʕˁ˜ːˋ ˊ˅˥ˋ ˘ˣ˱˥˧ˢˁˣ˪˥˅ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅˘༤˘ ˜˥˧ˋˣ˼ kվŊ-, ˥ˊ˘ˣ — ඃok- ˘ ˥ˊ˘ˣ — tse೛Հ-. ɳˣ˥˨˘ˢ ˜˥˧ˋˣ˼ kվŊ- ̘ɏ490, ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ˜˥˪˥˧˥ˆ˥ ˄˻༤˥ ˦˥˖ːˋ ˦˥ˊ˪˅ˋ˧ːˊˋˣ˥ ˘ˣ˱˥˧ˢˁˣ˪ˁˢ˘ ˅ ˲˥ˊˋ ˊˁ༤˼ˣˋ˙˸ˋ˙ ˧ˁ˄˥˪˻. 4. ʑ˥ˢ˘ˢ˥ ‘black’ KUL kŊਙa ̘ɏ9 (Kogan 2016: 240), ˊ˅˥ˋ ˘ˣ˱˥˧ˢˁˣ˪˥˅ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˊˁ༤˘ ˦˧˘༤ˁˆˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ˋ tಝittՀ. ʑ˥˦˧ˁ˅˜ˁ: ˊ˥˄ˁ˅༤̀ˋˢ tಝittՀ ̘ɏ450. 5. ‘Dry’ ˅ ˨˦˘˨˜ˋ ˜˫༤༤˫˘ ɯ.ɍʃ.ɍʇ˥ˆˁˣˁ ˣˋ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˥. ɳ ˣˁ˸ˋˢ ˨˦˘˨˜ˋ ˖ˣˁ˵˘˪˨̀ ಝukkՀ. ʑ˥˦˧ˁ˅˜ˁ: ˊ˥˄ˁ˅༤̀ˋˢ ಝukkՀ ̘ɏ20. 6. ʇ˧˥ˢˋ ‘egg’ KUL aয়‫ڎ‬a ̘ɏ24 (Kogan 2016: 243), ˊ˅˥ˋ ˘˖ ˣˁ˸˘˲ ˘ˣ˱˥˧ˢˁˣ˪˥˅ ˊˁ༤˘ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˽˜˅˘˅ˁ༤ˋˣ˪ ೚Հnna — c༤˥˅˥ ˨ ˣˋ ˅˦˥༤ˣˋ ̀˨ˣ˥˙ ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘ˋ˙; ˅˘ˊ˘ˢ˥, ˨༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪ ˨˵˘˪ˁ˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˥ˣ˥ ˥˪ˣ˥˨˘˪˨̀ ˜ ˪˥ˢ˫ ːˋ ˜˥˧ˣ˿, ˣ˥ ˨ ˢˋ˪ˁ˪ˋ˖˥˙. ɳ ˽˪˥ˢ ˨༤˫˵ˁˋ ˋˆ˥ ˅ˣˋ˨ˋˣ˘ˋ ˅ ˨˦˘˨˥˜ ˣˋ ˦˥˅༤ˋ˵ˌ˪ ˖ˁ ˨˥˄˥˙ ˘˖ˢˋˣˋˣ˘˙ ˦˧˘ ˦˥ˊ˨˵ˌ˪ˁ˲, ˁ ˦˧˘ ˊˁ༤˼ˣˋ˙˸ˋ˙ ˧ˁ˄˥˪ˋ ˨˥ ˨˦˘˨˜ˁˢ˘, ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˥, ˄˫ˊˋ˪ ˣˁ˙ˊˋˣˁ ˄˥༤ˋˋ ˫ˊ˥˅༤ˋ˪˅˥˧˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣˁ̀ ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘̀. ʑ˥˦˧ˁ˅˜ˁ: ˅ˣ˥˨˘ˢ ೚Հnna ̘ɏ24. 7. ‘Eye’ KUL h՝kվi ̘ɏ25 (Kogan 2016: 243): ˅ ˣˁ˸ˋˢ ˨˦˘˨˜ˋ ˣˋ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˥. ɳˢˋ˨˪˥ ˣˋˆ˥ ˅˨ˋ ˘ˣ˱˥˧ˢˁˣ˪˻ ˅˻ˊˁ˅ˁ༤˘ ՝tಝվi. ʑ˥˦˧ˁ˅˜ˁ: ˖ˁˢˋˣ̀ˋˢ h՝kվi ˣˁ ՝tಝվi ˄ˋ˖ ˖ˁˢˋˣ˻ ˣ˥ˢˋ˧ˁ. 8. ‘Fat’ ˅ ˨˦˘˨˜ˋ ˜˫༤༤˫˘ ɯ.ɍʃ.ɍʇ˥ˆˁˣˁ ˥˪˨˫˪˨˪˅˫ˋ˪. ɳ ˣˁ˸ˋˢ ˨˦˘˨˜ˋ ˦ˋ˧˨˘˖ˢ ts˲rvi. ʑ˥˦˧ˁ˅˜ˁ: ˅ˣ˥˨˘ˢ ts˲rvi ˨ ˥˪˧˘˴ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻ˢ ˣ˥ˢˋ˧˥ˢ. 9. ‘Fish’ KUL machਙi ̘ɏ28 (Kogan 2016: 244): ˅ ˣˁ˸ˋˢ ˨˦˘˨˜ˋ ˣˋ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˥. ɳ˨ˋ ˘ˣ˱˥˧ˢˁˣ˪˻ ˊˁ༤˘ m՝tsi. ʨ˪˥ ːˋ ˨༤˥˅˥ ˣˁ˲˥ˊ˘ˢ ˘ ˫ ʍ.ɍʒ.ɍʕ˲ˁ˜˫˧ˁ. ʑ˥˦˧ˁ˅˜ˁ: ˖ˁˢˋˣ̀ˋˢ machਙi ˣˁ m՝tsi ˄ˋ˖ ˖ˁˢˋˣ˻ ˣ˥ˢˋ˧ˁ. 10. ‘Foot’ KUL pՄr (Kogan 2016: 244): ˅ ˣˁ˸ˋˢ ˨˦˘˨˜ˋ ˣˋ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˥. ʕ˧˘ ˘ˣ˱˥˧ˢˁˣ˪ˁ ˊˁ༤˘ ಚõ:ng (ʕˌ˧ˣˋ˧ 5082 já৞ghŊ) ˘ ˪˧˘ — ඃՀѐ:Ɩ (Turner 1969–1985: ̘ɏ5428 ࡖa৞ka). ʑ˥˦˧ˁ˅˜ˁ: ˖ˁˢˋˣ̀ˋˢ pՄr ˣˁ ಚõ:ng ̘ɏ130 ˘ ඃՀѐ:Ɩ ̘ɏ131. 11. ‘Good’ KUL bhala ̘ɏ184 ˘ khƕra ̘ɏ554 (Kogan 2016: 245): ˅ ˣˁ˸ˋˢ ˨˦˘˨˜ˋ ˣˋ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˻. ʠˋ˪˻˧ˋ ˘ˣ˱˥˧ˢˁˣ˪ˁ ˊˁ༤˘ ಝobվlՀ (˅ˋ˧˥̀˪ˣ˥, Turner 1969–1985: ̘ɏ12532 Żubha) ˘ ˊ˅ˁ — bՀѐ:kՀ (ˊ˥˦˫˨˪˘ˢ˻ ˣˋ˨˜˥༤˼˜˥ ˆ˘˦˥˪ˋ˖, Turner 1969–1985: 11345 varয়ya, 9145 bandhura ˘ 11191 va৞ka). ʐˊˣˁ˜˥ ˅ ˲˥ˊˋ ˦˥༤ˋ˅˥˙ ˧ˁ˄˥˪˻ ˦˥˨༤ˋˊ˫˿˹˘˲ ༤ˋ˪ ˨˪ˁ༤˥ ̀˨ˣ˥, ˵˪˥ bՀѐ:kՀ ˢ˥ːˣ˥ ˨˜˥˧ˋˋ ˦ˋ˧ˋ˅ˋ˨˪˘ ˜ˁ˜ ‘beautiful’. ʑ˥˦˧ˁ˅˜ˁ: ˖ˁˢˋˣ̀ˋˢ bhala ˘ khƕra ˣˁ ಝobվlՀ ̘ɏ588. 12. ‘Head’ KUL sir ̘ɏ38 (Kogan 2016: 245): ˅ ˣˁ˸˘˲ ˨˦˘˨˜ˁ˲ ˣˋ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˥. ʓ༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪ ˖ˁˢˋ˪˘˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˋ˨༤˘ ˄˻ ˪ˁ˜˥ˋ ˨༤˥˅˥ ˊˋ˙˨˪˅˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥ ˅˲˥ˊ˘༤˥ ˅ ˨˪˥˨༤˥˅ˣ˘˜ ˜˫༤༤˫˘, ˋˆ˥ ˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁ༤˥ ˄˻ ˨˵˘˪ˁ˪˼ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘ˋˢ ˘˖ ˲˘ˣˊ˘, ˪ˁ˜ ˜ˁ˜ ˦˧ˁ˅˘༤˼ˣ˻ˢ ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅˘ˋˢ ˊ˧.-˘ˣˊ. 292

ʌˋ˜˨˘˜˥˨˪ˁ˪˘˨˪˘˜ˁ ˣ˥˅˥˘ˣˊ˥ˁ˧˘˙˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅: ˅˖ˆ༤̀ˊ ˦˥༤ˋ˅˥ˆ˥ ༤˘ˣˆ˅˘˨˪ˁ

Ż- ˅ ˜˫༤༤˫˘ ̀˅༤̀ˋ˪˨̀ ಝ-. ʓ༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥, ˫ ˨༤˥˅ˁ sir (Turner 1969–1985: ̘ɏ12452 Żíras) ˊ˥༤ːˋˣ ˄˻༤ ˄˻ ˄˻˪˼ ˥˪˧˘˴ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻˙ ˣ˥ˢˋ˧. ʐˊˣˁ˜˥ ˵ˋ˪˅ˋ˧˥ ˘ˣ˱˥˧ˢˁˣ˪˥˅ ˊˁ༤˘ mun೚i. ʑ˥˦˧ˁ˅˜ˁ: ˖ˁˢˋˣ̀ˋˢ sir ˣˁ mun೚i ̘ɏ338. 13. ‘Heart’ KUL dil ̘ɏ-4 (Kogan 2016: 246) ˅ ˣˁ˸˘˲ ˨˦˘˨˜ˁ˲ ˣˋ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˥. ʕ˧˥ˋ ˘ˣ˱˥˧ˢˁˣ˪˥˅ ˊˁ༤˘ kokೝi (˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘̀ ˣˋ̀˨ˣˁ). ʑ˥˦˧ˁ˅˜ˁ: ˖ˁˢˋˣ̀ˋˢ dil ˣˁ kokೝi ̘ɏ666. 14. ‘Horn’ KUL sŢngh ̘ɏ40 (Kogan 2016: 246): ˅ ˣˁ˸˘˲ ˨˦˘˨˜ˁ˲ ˣˋ ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˥. ɹ˨༤˘ ˄˻ ˥ˣ˥ ˅˲˥ˊ˘༤˥ ˅ ˨˪˥˨༤˥˅ˣ˻˙ ˨˦˘˨˥˜ ˜˫༤༤˫˘, ˋˢ˫ ˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁ༤˥ ˄˻ ˦˧˘˨˅˥˘˪˼ ˥˪˧˘˴ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻˙ ˣ˥ˢˋ˧ (˨ˢ. ˦˫ˣ˜˪ 12 ‘head’ KUL sir). ʐˊˣˁ˜˥ ˅˨ˋ ˣˁ˸˘ ˘ˣ˱˥˧ˢˁˣ˪˻ ˊˁ༤˘ ಝi:ng. ʑ˥˦˧ˁ˅˜ˁ: ˖ˁˢˋˣ̀ˋˢ sŢngh ˣˁ ಝi:ng ˄ˋ˖ ˖ˁˢˋˣ˻ ˣ˥ˢˋ˧ˁ. 15. ‘Kill’ KUL mŊr- ̘ɏ42 (Kogan 2016: 246) ˊˁ༤ ˥ˊ˘ˣ ˘˖ ˣˁ˸˘˲ ˘ˣ˱˥˧ˢˁˣ˪˥˅. ʠˋ˪˻˧ˋ ˵ˋ༤˥˅ˋ˜ˁ ˊˁ༤˘ ˽˜˅˘˅ˁ༤ˋˣ˪ m˲kՀ:- (˦˥-˅˘ˊ˘ˢ˥ˢ˫, Turner 1969–1985: ̘ɏ10263 *mr๗kয়a ɒdamaged๏). ʑ˥˦˧ˁ˅˜ˁ: ˊ˥˄ˁ˅༤̀ˋˢ m˲kՀ: ̘ɏ444. 17. ‘Leaf’ KUL p՝ttrƕ ̘ɏ45 (Kogan 2016: 247): ˅ ˣˁ˸˘˲ ˨˦˘˨˜ˁ˲ ˥˪˨˫˪˨˪˅˫ˋ˪. ɳ˨ˋ ˘ˣ˱˥˧ˢˁˣ˪˻ ˅˻ˊˁ༤˘ ˱˥˧ˢ˫ p՝tಝՀ. ʑ˥˦˧ˁ˅˜ˁ: ˖ˁˢˋˣ̀ˋˢ p՝ttrƕ ˣˁ p՝tಝՀ ˄ˋ˖ ˖ˁˢˋˣ˻ ˣ˥ˢˋ˧ˁ. 18. ‘Meat’ KUL mŊs ̘ɏ124 (Kogan 2016: 248): ˊˁˣ˥ ˥ˊˣ˘ˢ ˘˖ ˘ˣ˱˥˧ˢˁˣ˪˥˅. ʠˋ˪˻˧ˋ ˘ˣ˱˥˧ˢˁˣ˪ˁ ˊˁ༤˘ ˱˥˧ˢ˫ ಝikվՀ. ʑ˥ ˅˨ˋ˙ ˅˘ˊ˘ˢ˥˨˪˘, ˽˪˥ ˦ˋ˧˨˘˖ˢ (˘˖ ˦ˋ˧˨. ಝekŊ๗r ‘˥˲˥˪ˁ, ˊ˘˵˼’), ˣ˥ ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ˋ ˘˖ˢˋˣˋˣ˘̀ ˣˋ ˨˥˅˨ˋˢ ˦˥ˣ̀˪ˣ˻. ʑ˥˽˪˥ˢ˫ ༤˫˵˸ˋ ˅ˣˋ˨˪˘ ˋˆ˥ ˅ ˨˦˘˨˥˜ ˣˁ ˨༤˫˵ˁ˙ ˊˁ༤˼ˣˋ˙˸ˋ˙ ˧ˁ˄˥˪˻ ˨ ˣ˘ˢ, ˋ˨༤˘ ˅˨ˌ ːˋ ˄˫ˊˋ˪ ˣˁ˙ˊˋˣˁ ˘˨˜˥ˣˣˁ̀ ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘̀. ʑ˥˦˧ˁ˅˜ˁ: ˊ˥˄ˁ˅༤̀ˋˢ ಝikվՀ ̘ɏ-1. 19. ‘Moon’ KUL joth ̘ɏ340 (Kogan 2016: 248): ˨༤˥˅˥, ˦˥༤˫˵ˋˣˣ˥ˋ ˥˪ ˊ˅˫˲ ˘ˣ˱˥˧ˢˁˣ˪˥˅. ʐˊˣˁ˜˥ ˥˪ ˊ˅˫˲ ˊ˧˫ˆ˘˲ ˦˥༤˫˵ˋˣ˥ ಟՀ:nd (Turner 1969–1985: ̘ɏ4661 candrá). ʇ˧˥ˢˋ ˪˥ˆ˥, ˨˥ˆ༤ˁ˨ˣ˥ ˥˦˘˨ˁˣ˘˿ ʍ. ʒ. ʕ˲ˁ˜˫˧ˁ ˘ ˣˁ˸˘ˢ ˦˥༤ˋ˅˻ˢ ˊˁˣˣ˻ˢ, ˅ ̀˖˻˜ˋ ˜˫༤༤˫˘ ˣˁ˄༤˿ˊˁˋ˪˨̀ ˦˧˥˪˘˅˥˦˥˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˘ˋ ˊ˅˫˲ ˧̀ˊ˥˅ ˁ˱˱˧˘˜ˁ˪, ˘ ˨༤˥˅˥ ˘˖ ˨˦˘˨˜ˁ ɯ.ɍʃ.ɍʇ˥ˆˁˣˁ ˪˥˵ˣˋˋ ˄˻༤˥ ˄˻ ˦ˋ˧ˋˊˁ˅ˁ˪˼ ˜ˁ˜ ಚotվ. ɸˁ༤˼ˣˋ˙˸ˋˋ ˘˖˫˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ˅˥˦˧˥˨ˁ ˥ ˦˧˥˘˨˲˥ːˊˋˣ˘˘ ˊ˅˫˲ ˧̀ˊ˥˅ ˁ˱˱˧˘˜ˁ˪ ˅ ˜˫༤༤˫˘, ˅˥˖ˢ˥ːˣ˥, ˦˧˘˅ˋˊˌ˪ ˜ ˪˥ˢ˫, ˵˪˥ ˨༤˥˅˥ ಟՀ:nd ˢ˻ ˨˥˵˪ˌˢ ˖ˁ˘ˢ˨˪˅˥˅ˁˣ˘ˋˢ ˘˖ ˲˘ˣˊ˘, ˣ˥ ˣˁ ˊˁˣˣ˻˙ ˢ˥ˢˋˣ˪ ˢ˻ ˣˋ ˢ˥ːˋˢ ˨ ˫˅ˋ˧ˋˣˣ˥˨˪˼˿ ˽˪˥ ˫˪˅ˋ˧ːˊˁ˪˼. ʑ˥˦˧ˁ˅˜ˁ: ˖ˁˢˋˣ̀ˋˢ joth ˣˁ ಚotվ, ˊ˥˄ˁ˅༤̀ˋˢ ಟՀ:nd ̘ɏ52. 20. ‘Mountain’ KUL pahŊ‫̘ ڎ‬ɏ53 (Kogan 2016: 248): ˅ ˣˁ˸ˋˢ ˨˦˘˨˜ˋ ˥˪˨˫˪˨˪˅˫ˋ˪. ʐ˪ ˪˧ˌ˲ ˘ˣ˱˥˧ˢˁˣ˪˥˅ ˄˻༤˥ ˦˥༤˫˵ˋˣ˥ ˨༤˥˅˥ dվo:g (Turner 1969–1985: ̘ɏ5603 *‫ڎ‬hŵkka). ʐˊˣˁ˜˥ ˅ ˜ˁ˵ˋ˨˪˅ˋ ˨˪˘ˢ˫༤ˁ ˅˻˨˪˫˦ˁ༤˥ ˣˋ mountain, ˁ hill. ʑ˥ ˣˁ˸˘ˢ ˊˁˣˣ˻ˢ, ˊ༤̀ ˦˥ˣ̀˪˘̀ ‘mountain’ ˵ˁ˹ˋ ˘˨˦˥༤˼˖˫ˋ˪˨̀ ˨༤˥˅˥ ಚot (Turner 1969–1985: ̘ɏ5362 jhŊࡖa ɒforest๏). ʑ˥˦˧ˁ˅˜ˁ: ˖ˁˢˋˣ̀ˋˢ pahŊ‫ ڎ‬ˣˁ ಚot ̘ɏ632. 21. ‘Neck’ KUL kyŊ‫ڎ‬i ̘ɏ228 (Kogan 2016: 249): ˣˋ ˦˥ˊ˪˅ˋ˧ːˊˁˋ˪˨̀ ˣˁ˸˘ˢ˘ ˨˦˘˨˜ˁˢ˘. ɳ˨ˋ ˘ˣ˱˥˧ˢˁˣ˪˻ ˊˁ༤˘ ˨༤˥˅˥ mutվu, ˽˪˘ˢ˥༤˥ˆ˘̀ ˜˥˪˥˧˥ˆ˥ ˣˋ̀˨ˣˁ. g՝฿ਙa ˣˋ˥ˊˣ˥˜˧ˁ˪ˣ˥ ˅˨˪˧ˋ˵ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˅ ˱˥˧ˢˋ g՝฿೛, ˖ˣˁ˵˘˪ ˅ ˪˥ˢ ˵˘˨༤ˋ ˘ ‘ˆ˥˧༤˥’ (˨ˢ. ˦˫ˣ˜˪ 4 ˘˖ ˧ˁ˖ˊˋ༤ˁ «ʁˁˢˋ˵ˁˣ˘̀ ˜ ˨ˋˢˁˣ˪˘˜ˋ»); ˣ˥ ˵˪˥˄˻ ˘˨˜༤˿˵˘˪˼ ˖ˣˁ˵ˋˣ˘ˋ ‘˸ˋ̀’, ˪˧ˋ˄˫ˋ˪˨̀ ˄˥༤ˋˋ ˦˥ˊ˧˥˄ˣ˥ˋ ˘˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁˣ˘ˋ ˨ˋˢˁˣ˪˘˜˘. ʑ˥˦˧ˁ˅˜ˁ: ˖ˁˢˋˣ̀ˋˢ kyŊ‫ڎ‬i ˣˁ mutվu ̘ɏ777. 22. ‘Sand’ KUL ret ̘ɏ67 (Kogan 2016: 251): ˊˋ˙˨˪˅˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˥, ˄˻༤˥ ˦˥ˊ˪˅ˋ˧ːˊˋˣ˥ ˣˋ˨˜˥༤˼˜˘ˢ˘ ˘ˣ˱˥˧ˢˁˣ˪ˁˢ˘. ʐˊˣˁ˜˥ ˫ ˊ˅˥˘˲ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˅˨˪˧ˋ˪˘༤˥˨˼ bՀllu. ʑ˥˦˧ˁ˅˜ˁ: ˅ˣ˥˨˘ˢ bՀllu ̘ɏ68. 23. ‘Small’ KUL choࡖࡖa ̘ɏ77 (Kogan 2016: 252): ˣˋ ˦˥ˊ˪˅ˋ˧ːˊˁˋ˪˨̀ ˣˁ˸˘ˢ˘ ˨˦˘˨˜ˁˢ˘. ɳ˨ˋ ˘ˣ˱˥˧ˢˁˣ˪˻ ˊˁ༤˘ otsվՀ (Turner 1969–1985: ̘ɏ2540 *ŵccha). ʑ˥˦˧ˁ˅˜ˁ: ˖ˁˢˋˣ̀ˋˢ choࡖࡖa ˣˁ otsվՀ ̘ɏ888. 24. ‘Tail’ KUL phunjiࡖ ̘ɏ84 (Kogan 2016: 254): ˣˋ ˦˥ˊ˪˅ˋ˧ːˊˁˋ˪˨̀ ˣˁ˸˘ˢ˘ ˨˦˘˨˜ˁˢ˘. ɳ˨ˋ ˘ˣ˱˥˧ˢˁˣ˪˻ ˊˁ༤˘ li:ੇg೚Հ ˘༤˘ li:ੇg೚i (Turner 1969–1985: ̘ɏ11009 lŊ৞gƉlá). ʑ˥˦˧ˁ˅˜ˁ: ˖ˁˢˋˣ̀ˋˢ phunjiࡖ ˣˁ li:ੇg೚Հ ̘ɏ317. ʃ˪˥ˆ˥ ˅ ˧ˁ˖ˊˋ༤ˋ «ʑ˥˦˧ˁ˅˜˘ ˜ ˨˦˘˨˜˫ ˜˫༤༤˫˘» 19 ˘˖ˢˋˣˋˣ˘˙, ˅༤˘̀˿˹˘˲ ˣˁ ˦˥ˊ˨˵ˌ˪˻. 293

ɯ. ʓ. ʇ˧˻༤˥˅ˁ

ɰ˯ʻ˙ʿ˯ ɸˁˣˣ˻ˋ, ˦˧ˋˊ˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣˣ˻ˋ ˅ ˨˪ˁ˪˼ˋ ɯ.ɍʃ.ɍʇ˥ˆˁˣˁ, ˄ˋ˖˫˨༤˥˅ˣ˥, ̀˅༤̀˿˪˨̀ ˅ˁːˣˋ˙˸ˋ˙ ˄ˁ˖˥˙ ˊ༤̀ ˦˥˨˪˧˥ˋˣ˘̀ ˣ˥˅˥˙ ˜༤ˁ˨˨˘˱˘˜ˁ˴˘˘ ˘ˣˊ˥ˁ˧˘˙˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅. ʎˋˊ˥˵ˋ˪˻, ˦ˋ˧ˋ˵˘˨༤ˋˣˣ˻ˋ ˣˁˢ˘, ༤˘˸˼ ˫˜ˁ˖˻˅ˁ˿˪, ˅ ˜ˁ˜˥ˢ ˣˁ˦˧ˁ˅༤ˋˣ˘˘ ˋˌ ˨༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪ ˦˧˥ˊ˥༤ːˁ˪˼. ʨ˪˥, ˦˧ˋːˊˋ ˅˨ˋˆ˥, ˫˪˥˵ˣˋˣ˘ˋ ˨ˋˢˁˣ˪˘˜˘ ˘ ˘˨˪˥˧˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˜˘ (ˆ༤ˁ˅ˣ˻ˢ ˥˄˧ˁ˖˥ˢ, ˨ ˴ˋ༤˼˿ ˅˻̀˅༤ˋˣ˘̀ ˨ˁˣ˨˜˧˘˪˘˖ˢ˥˅), ˵˪˥ ˁ˜˪˫ˁ༤˼ˣ˥ ˊ༤̀ ˅˨ˋ˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅. ɸ༤̀ ˄˥༤˼˸˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˣˋ˥˄˲˥ˊ˘ˢˁ ˦˧˥˅ˋ˧˜ˁ ༤ˋ˜˨˘˜˘ ˦˥ ˜˥˧˦˫˨ˁˢ ˘ ˨༤˥˅ˁ˧̀ˢ, ˁ ˊ༤̀ ˢˁ༤˻˲ — ˨˄˥˧ ˊ˥˨˪˥˅ˋ˧ˣ˻˲ ˦˥༤ˋ˅˻˲ ˊˁˣˣ˻˲. ɳ ˨༤ˋˊ˫˿˹ˋ˙ ˨˪ˁ˪˼ˋ ˢ˻ ˣˁˊˋˋˢ˨̀ ˨˥˦˥˨˪ˁ˅˘˪˼ ˨˦˘˨˜˘ ɯ.ɍʃ.ɍʇ˥ˆˁˣˁ ˨ ˦˥༤ˋ˅˻ˢ˘ ˨˦˘˨˜ˁˢ˘ ˜˫ˢˁ˥ˣ˘, ˢˁ˧˅ˁ˧˘ ˘ ˵˲ˁ˪˪˘˨ˆˁ˧˲˘, ˨˥˄˧ˁˣˣ˻ˢ˘ ɹ. ɯ. ʒˋˣ˜˥˅˨˜˥˙, ˁ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˦˧˥ˁˣˁ༤˘˖˘˧˥˅ˁ˪˼ ˨˦˘˨˥˜ ˣˋ˦ˁ༤˘. ʌˋˆ˜˥ ˖ˁˢˋ˪˘˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˜˥༤˘˵ˋ˨˪˅˥ ˅༤˘̀˿˹˘˲ ˣˁ ˦˥ˊ˨˵ˌ˪˻ ˘˖ˢˋˣˋˣ˘˙, ˦˥༤˫˵ˋˣˣ˻˲ ˢˋ˪˥ˊ˥ˢ ˁˣˁ༤˘˖ˁ ˦˥ ˜˥˧˦˫˨ˁˢ ˲˥˧˥˸˥ ˘˖˫˵ˋˣˣ˻˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅, ˣˋ ˥˵ˋˣ˼ ˅ˋ༤˘˜˥ — ˅ ˜ˁːˊ˥ˢ ˨˦˘˨˜ˋ ˥˜˥༤˥ ˅˥˨˼ˢ˘. ʐˊˣˁ˜˥ ˊ༤̀ ˢˁ༤˥˘˖˫˵ˋˣˣ˥ˆ˥ ˜˫༤༤˫˘ ˽˪ˁ ˴˘˱˧ˁ ˊ˥˨˪˘ˆ༤ˁ 19; ˘ ˣˁ˘˄˥༤ˋˋ ˢˁ˨˨˥˅˻ˢ˘ ˥˜ˁ˖ˁ༤˘˨˼ ˘˖ˢˋˣˋˣ˘̀, ˨˅̀˖ˁˣˣ˻ˋ ˨ ˥˄˹˘ˢ ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅˘ˋˢ ˄ˁ˖˘˨ˣ˥˙ ༤ˋ˜˨˘˜˘ ˪˥ˢ˫, ˵˪˥ ˢ˻ ˖ˣˁˋˢ ˥˄ ˘˨˪˥˧˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˜ˋ ˘ˣˊ˥ˁ˧˘˙˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅. ʐ˄˹ˋˋ ˵˘˨༤˥ ˖ˣˁ˵˘ˢ˻˲ ˊ༤̀ ˦˥ˊ˨˵ˌ˪ˁ ˘˖ˢˋˣˋˣ˘˙ — 149. ʑ˥˨ˢ˥˪˧˘ˢ, ˜ˁ˜˥˙ ˽˱˱ˋ˜˪ ˥ˣ˘ ˊˁ༤˘.

ʍˌ˜. 1. ɸˋ˧ˋ˅˥, ˦˥˨˪˧˥ˋˣˣ˥ˋ ˦˥ ˨˦˘˨˜ˁˢ ɯ.ɍʃ.ɍʇ˥ˆˁˣˁ ˅ Starling (˄˫˪˨˪˧ˋ˦ 200 ˧ˁ˖) 12.

12 WPH ˖ˊˋ˨˼ ˘ ˊˁ༤ˋˋ ˥˄˥˖ˣˁ˵ˁˋ˪ ˪˥ ːˋ, ˵˪˥ ˅ ˨˪ˁ˪˼ˋ ɯ.ɍʃ. ʇ˥ˆˁˣˁ — KOT, ˥˪༤˘˵˘ˋ ˨˅̀˖ˁˣ˥ ˨ ˄˥༤ˋˋ ˨˪ˁ˧˥˙ ˅ˋ˧˨˘ˋ˙ ˄ˁ˖˻.

294

ʌˋ˜˨˘˜˥˨˪ˁ˪˘˨˪˘˜ˁ ˣ˥˅˥˘ˣˊ˥ˁ˧˘˙˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅: ˅˖ˆ༤̀ˊ ˦˥༤ˋ˅˥ˆ˥ ༤˘ˣˆ˅˘˨˪ˁ

ʍˌ˜. 2. ɸˋ˧ˋ˅˥, ˦˥˨˪˧˥ˋˣˣ˥ˋ ˦˥ ˨˦˘˨˜ˁˢ ɯ.ʃ. ʇ˥ˆˁˣˁ ˦˧˘ ˨˅ˋˊˋˣ˘˘ ˫˖༤˥˅, ˧ˁ˖ˣ˘˴ˁ ˢˋːˊ˫ ˜˥˪˥˧˻ˢ˘ ˨˥˨˪ˁ˅༤̀ˋ˪ ˢˋˣˋˋ 200 ༤ˋ˪ (˦˧˘ ˣˁ˨˪˧˥˙˜ˁ˲ ˦˥ ˫ˢ˥༤˵ˁˣ˘˿ ˨˅˥ˊ̀˪˨̀ ˫˖༤˻, ˧ˁ˖ˣ˘˴ˁ ˢˋːˊ˫ ˜˥˪˥˧˻ˢ˘ ˨˥˨˪ˁ˅༤̀ˋ˪ ˢˋˣˋˋ 150 ༤ˋ˪).

ʍˌ˜. 3. ɸˋ˧ˋ˅˥, ˦˥˨˪˧˥ˋˣˣ˥ˋ ˦˥ ˘˨˦˧ˁ˅༤ˋˣˣ˻ˢ ˨˦˘˨˜ˁˢ (˄˫˪˨˪˧ˋ˦ 200 ˧ˁ˖).

295

ɯ. ʓ. ʇ˧˻༤˥˅ˁ

ʍˌ˜. 4. ɸˋ˧ˋ˅˥, ˦˥˨˪˧˥ˋˣˣ˥ˋ ˦˥ ˘˨˦˧ˁ˅༤ˋˣˣ˻ˢ ˨˦˘˨˜ˁˢ ˦˧˘ ˨˅ˋˊˋˣ˘˘ ˫˖༤˥˅, ˧ˁ˖ˣ˘˴ˁ ˢˋːˊ˫ ˜˥˪˥˧˻ˢ˘ ˨˥˨˪ˁ˅༤̀ˋ˪ ˢˋˣˋˋ 200 ༤ˋ˪.

ʍ˻ ˅˘ˊ˘ˢ, ˵˪˥ ˊˋ˧ˋ˅˥ ˨˪ˁ༤˥ ˄˥༤ˋˋ ˨˜༤˥ˣˣ˻ˢ ˜ ˄˘ˣˁ˧ˣ˥ˢ˫ ˅ˋ˪˅༤ˋˣ˘˿; ˫˅ˋ༤˘˵˘༤˥˨˼ ˧ˁ˨˨˪˥̀ˣ˘ˋ ˢˋːˊ˫ ˫˖༤ˁˢ˘, ˦˥˵˪˘ ˣˋ ˥˨˪ˁ༤˥˨˼ ˫˖༤˥˅ ˨ ˥˴ˋˣ˜˥˙ ˢˋˣˋˋ 1. ɳ ˴ˋ༤˥ˢ ˊˋ˧ˋ˅˥ ˨˪ˁ༤˥ ˄˥༤˼˸ˋ ˨˥˥˪˅ˋ˪˨˪˅˥˅ˁ˪˼ ˆˋ˥ˆ˧ˁ˱˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˢ˫ ˧ˁ˖ˊˋ༤ˋˣ˘˿. ʑˋ˧˅˻˙ ˧ˁ˨˦ˁˊ ˘ ˅ ˦ˋ˧˅˥ˣˁ˵ˁ༤˼ˣ˥ˢ, ˘ ˅ ˘˨˦˧ˁ˅༤ˋˣˣ˥ˢ ˊˋ˧ˋ˅ˋ ˊˋ༤˘˪ ̀˖˻˜˘ ˣˁ ˥˨˪˧˥˅ˣ˫˿ ˘ ˜˥ˣ˪˘ˣˋˣ˪ˁ༤˼ˣ˫˿ ˅ˋ˪˅˘. ɳ ˊˋ˧ˋ˅ˋ ɯ.ɍʃ.ɍʇ˥ˆˁˣˁ (ʒ˘˨. 1) ˅˪˥˧˥˙ ˫˧˥˅ˋˣ˼ — ˥˪ˊˋ༤ˋˣ˘ˋ ˿ːˣ˥˙ ˆ˧˫˦˦˻ ˢˁ˧ˁ˪˲˘ ˘ ˜˥ˣ˜ˁˣ˘, ˁ ˖ˁ˪ˋˢ ˨༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪ ˧ˁ˨˦ˁˊ ˣˁ ˪˧˘ ˅ˋ˪˅˘, ˘˖ ˜˥˪˥˧˻˲ ˥ˊˣˁ — ˅˥˨˪˥˵ˣˁ̀ ˆ˧˫˦˦ˁ (ˁ˨˨ˁˢ˨˜˘˙, ˄ˋˣˆˁ༤˼˨˜˘˙, ˥˧˘̀), ˁ ˊ˅ˋ ˊ˧˫ˆ˘˲ ˆˋ˥ˆ˧ˁ˱˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ ˊ˧˫ˆ ˥˪ ˊ˧˫ˆˁ ˣˋ˥˪ˊˋ༤˘ˢ˻. ʑ˧˘ ˨༤˘̀ˣ˘˘ ˄༤˘˖˜˥ ˧ˁ˨˦˥༤˥ːˋˣˣ˻˲ ˫˖༤˥˅ (ʒ˘˨. 2) ˽˪˥˪ ˦˥˨༤ˋˊˣ˘˙ ˫˖ˋ༤, ˥ˊˣˁ˜˥, ˨༤˘˅ˁˋ˪˨̀ ˨ ˄˥༤ˋˋ ˦˥˖ˊˣ˘ˢ˘, ˥˄˧ˁ˖˫̀ ˣˋ˧ˁ˖ˊˋ༤˼ˣ˻˙ ˜˥ˣ˪˘ˣ˫˫ˢ ˘˖ ˴ˋˣ˪˧ˁ༤˼ˣ˻˲ ˘ ˅˥˨˪˥˵ˣ˻˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅. ɳ ˥˄ˣ˥˅༤ˌˣˣ˥ˢ ˊˋ˧ˋ˅ˋ (ʒ˘˨. 3) ˣˁ ˅˪˥˧˥ˢ ˫˧˥˅ˣˋ ˧ˁ˖ˊˋ༤̀˿˪˨̀ ˿ːˣˁ̀, ˅˥˨˪˥˵ˣˁ̀ ˘ ˴ˋˣ˪˧ˁ༤˼ˣˁ̀ ˆ˧˫˦˦˻. ʒˁˣˣˋˋ ˥˪ˊˋ༤ˋˣ˘ˋ ˅ˁˆˊ˘ ˣˁ ˪˥ˢ ːˋ ˫˧˥˅ˣˋ, ˅˘ˊ˘ˢ˥, ˨˅̀˖ˁˣ˥ ˨ ˣˋˊ˥˨˪ˁ˪˥˵ˣ˥˙ ˘˖˫˵ˋˣˣ˥˨˪˼˿ ˽˪˥ˆ˥ ˘ˊ˘˥ˢˁ. ʎˁ ˨༤ˋˊ˫˿˹ˋˢ ˫˧˥˅ˣˋ ˥˪ˊˋ༤̀˿˪˨̀ ̀˖˻˜˘ ˊ˘ˁ˨˦˥˧ — ˴˻ˆˁˣ˨˜˘˙ ˘ ˊ˫ˢˁ˜˘, ˁ ˖ˁ˪ˋˢ ˫ːˋ ˨༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪ ˣˋˊ˘˱˱ˋ˧ˋˣ˴˘˧˥˅ˁˣˣˁ̀ ˆˋ˥ˆ˧ˁ˱˘˵ˋ˨˜˘ ˴ˋˣ˪˧ˁ༤˼ˣˁ̀ ˆ˧˫˦˦ˁ. ʐ˵ˋ˅˘ˊˣ˥ ˦˥༤˥ː˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻ˢ ˘˖ˢˋˣˋˣ˘ˋˢ ˅˻ˆ༤̀ˊ˘˪ ˧ˁ˨˦ˁˊ ˅˥˨˪˥˵ˣ˥˙ ˅ˋ˪˅˘ ˣˁ ˥˧˘̀ ˘ ˁ˨˨ˁˢ˨˜˥-˄ˋˣˆˁ༤˼˨˜˫˿. ʑ˧˘ ˨༤˘̀ˣ˘˘ ˄༤˘˖˜˥ ˧ˁ˨˦˥༤˥ːˋˣˣ˻˲ ˫˖༤˥˅ (ʒ˘˨. 4) ˨˥˲˧ˁˣ̀˿˪˨̀ ˣˋ ˪˥༤˼˜˥ ˅˥˨˪˥˵ˣˁ̀ ˘ ˿ːˣˁ̀ ˅ˋ˪˅˘, ˣ˥ ˘ ˅ˋ˪˅˼ «˴˻ˆˁˣ˨˜˘˙ˊ˫ˢˁ˜˘». ʓ༤ˋˊ˫ˋ˪ ˦˥ˣ˘ˢˁ˪˼, ˵˪˥ ˦˧ˋˊ༤˥ːˋˣˣ˥ˋ ˊˋ˧ˋ˅˥ ˣ˘ ˅ ˜˥ˋˢ ˨༤˫˵ˁˋ ˣˋ ˢ˥ːˋ˪ ˨˵˘˪ˁ˪˼˨̀ ˥˜˥ˣ˵ˁ˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻ˢ ˧ˋ˖˫༤˼˪ˁ˪˥ˢ, ˪ˁ˜ ˜ˁ˜ ˦˧˥˅ˋ˧˜ˁ ˨˦˘˨˜˥˅ ˊˁ༤ˋ˜ˁ ˥˪ ˖ˁ˅ˋ˧˸ˋˣ˘̀. ʨ˪˥ ༤˘˸˼ ˘༤༤˿˨˪˧ˁ˴˘̀ ˪ˋ˲ ˘˖ˢˋˣˋˣ˘˙, ˜˥˪˥˧˻ˋ ˢ˥ːˋ˪ ˦˥˅༤ˋ˵˼ ˖ˁ ˨˥˄˥˙ ˪ˁ˜ˁ̀ ˦˧˥˅ˋ˧˜ˁ. ʐ˵ˋˣ˼ ˅ˁːˣ˥, ˵˪˥ ɯ.ɍʃ.ɍʇ˥ˆˁˣ ˅˦ˋ˧˅˻ˋ ˦˧ˋˊ༤˥ː˘༤ ༤ˋ˜˨˘˜˥˨˪ˁ˪˘˨˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˫˿ ˥˨ˣ˥˅˫ ˊ༤̀ ˜༤ˁ˨˨˘˱˘˜ˁ˴˘˘ ˘ˣˊ˥ˁ˧˘˙˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅, ˅ˣˋ˨̀ ˨˅ˋː˫˿ ˨˪˧˫˿ ˅ ˘ˣˊ˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˫˿ ˪˧ˁˊ˘˴˘˿. ɳˋ˧˥̀˪ˣ˥, ˦˧˘ ˊˁ༤˼ˣˋ˙˸ˋˢ ˫˪˥˵ˣˋˣ˘˘ ˨˦˘˨˜˥˅, ˄˥༤ˋˋ ˪˥˵ˣ˻ˢ ˄˫ˊˋ˪ ˨˪ˁˣ˥˅˘˪˼˨̀ ˘ ˊˋ˧ˋ˅˥, ˘ ˥ˊˣˁːˊ˻, ˄༤ˁˆ˥ˊˁ˧̀ ༤ˋ˜˨˘˜˥˨˪ˁ˪˘˨˪˘˵ˋ˨˜˥ˢ˫ ˦˥ˊ˲˥ˊ˫, ˊ˥˦˥༤ˣˋˣˣ˥ˢ˫ ˦˥༤ˋ˅˻ˢ˘ ˘ ˜˥˧˦˫˨ˣ˻ˢ˘ ˘˨˨༤ˋˊ˥˅ˁˣ˘̀ˢ˘, ˁ ˪ˁ˜ːˋ ˫˪˥˵ˣˋˣ˘ˋˢ ˘˨˪˥˧˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˱˥ˣˋ˪˘˜˘, ˅ ˊˁ˅ˣˋˢ ˨˦˥˧ˋ ˥ ˆˋˣˋˁ༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˜༤ˁ˨˨˘˱˘˜ˁ˴˘˘ ˘ˣˊ˥ˁ˧˘˙˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅ ˄˫ˊˋ˪ ˣˁ˜˥ˣˋ˴ ˦˥˨˪ˁ˅༤ˋˣˁ ˪˥˵˜ˁ. 296

ʌˋ˜˨˘˜˥˨˪ˁ˪˘˨˪˘˜ˁ ˣ˥˅˥˘ˣˊ˥ˁ˧˘˙˨˜˘˲ ̀˖˻˜˥˅: ˅˖ˆ༤̀ˊ ˦˥༤ˋ˅˥ˆ˥ ༤˘ˣˆ˅˘˨˪ˁ

ʎ˙ː˛ʸ˭ˀ˗ˌ˴ ASS — ˁ˨˨ˁˢ˨˜˘˙; AWD — ˁ˅ˁˊ˲˘; BNG — ˄ˋˣˆˁ༤˘; BNJ — ˄ˁˣˊːˁ˧˘; BRJ — ˄˧ˁˊː; DGR — ˊ˥ˆ˧˘; DKH — ˊˁ˜˲˘ˣ˘; DUM — ˊ˫ˢˁ˜˘; GJR — ˆ˥ˊː˧˘; GRH — ˆˁ˧˲˅ˁ༤˘; GUJ — ˆ˫ˊːˁ˧ˁ˪˘; HIM — ˲˘ˢˁ˵ˁ༤˘; HND — ˲˘ˣˊ˘/˫˧ˊ˫; HNK — ˲˘ˣˊ˜˥; KCH - ˜˫˪˵˘; KNK — ˜˥ˣ˜ˁˣ˘; KUL — ˜˫༤༤˫˘; KUM — ˜˫ˢˁ˥ˣ˘; LHD — ༤ˁ˲ˣˊˁ (ˢ˫༤˼˪ˁˣ˘); MAI — ˢˁ˙˪˲˘༤˘; MAL — ˢˁ༤˼ˊ˘˅˨˜˘˙ (ˊ˲˘˅ˋ˲˘); MAR — ˢˁ˧ˁ˪˲˘; MEW — ˢˋ˅ˁ˪˘; MND — ˢˁˣˊˋˁ༤˘; NEP — ˣˋ˦ˁ༤˘; ORY — ˥˧˘̀; PNJ — ˦ˋˣˊːˁ˄˘; PTH — ˦˥˪˲˥˲ˁ˧˘; PRY — ˦ˁ˧˼̀; RAJ — ˧ˁˊːˁ˨˪ˁ˅˘ (ˢˁ˧˅ˁ˧˘); ROM — ˧˥ˢˁˣ˘; SND — ˨˘ˣˊ˲˘; SNG — ˨˘ˣˆˁ༤˼˨˜˘˙; WGD — ˅ˁˆˊ˘; WPH — ˜˥˪ˆˁ˧˲˘; ˊ˧.-˘ˣˊ. — ˊ˧ˋ˅ˣˋ˘ˣˊ˘˙˨˜˘˙

ʇˌ˞ˀ˛ʸ˞˟˛ʸ ɲˁ˧˲˫ˊˁ˧˥˅, ɯ. ʓ., ɳ. ʍ. ɲˋ˨˜˧˥˅ˣ˻˙, ɴ. ɯ. ʁ˥ˆ˧ˁ˱, ɳ. ʑ. ʌ˘˦ˋ˧˥˅˨˜˘˙ (˦˥ˊ ˧ˋˊˁ˜˴˘ˋ˙ ɳ. ʍ. ɲˋ˨˜˧˥˅ˣ˥ˆ˥). 1972. ʘˌ˗ʿˌ-˛˟˜˜ːˌˍ ˜˕˙ʻʸ˛˰ ʻ ʿʻ˟˦ ˞˙˖ʸ˦. ʍ˥˨˜˅ˁ: ʓ˥˅ˋ˪˨˜ˁ̀ ˽ˣ˴˘˜༤˥˦ˋˊ˘̀. ɲˋ༤˘˜˥˅, ɳ. ʃ. 2016. ʠ˪˥ ˘ ˜ˁ˜ ˢ˥ːˋ˪ ˦˥༤˫˵˘˪˼ ༤˘ˣˆ˅˘˨˪ ˘˖ ˥˴˘˱˧˥˅ˁˣˣ˻˲ ˪ˋ˜˨˪˥˅. ʎˌʺˌ˛˜ːˌˍ ʗˌ˕˙˕˙ʼˌ˩ˀ˜ːˌˍ ɹ˟˛˗ʸ˕ 3: 17–34. ʌ˥˨˜˫˪˥˅, ɳ. ʎ., ʒ. ɳ. ɳˁ༤˫ˋ˅ˁ, ɲ. ɴ. ʑ˥༤̀ˣ˨˜˘˙ (˦˥ˊ ˧ˋˊˁ˜˴˘ˋ˙ ɹ. ʍ. ɲ˻˜˥˅˥˙ ˘ ʎ. ɲ˲˥˫ˢ˘˜ˁ). 1974. ʎ˕˙ʻʸ˛˰ ʺˀ˗ʼʸ˕˰˜ː˙ʼ˙ ˴ˊ˯ːʸ ˜ ˛˟˜˜ːˌ˖ˌ ˱ːʻˌʻʸ˕ˀ˗˞ʸ˖ˌ. ʍ˥˨˜˅ˁ: ʓ˥˅ˋ˪˨˜ˁ̀ ˽ˣ˴˘˜༤˥˦ˋˊ˘̀. ʇ˥ˆˁˣ, ɯ. ʃ. 2005. ɴʸ˛ʿ˜ːˌˀ ˴ˊ˯ːˌ. ɱˀ˗ˀ˞ˌ˩ˀ˜ːʸ˴ ˦ʸ˛ʸː˞ˀ˛ˌ˜˞ˌːʸ. ʍ˥˨˜˅ˁ: ɳ˥˨˪˥˵ˣˁ̀ ༤˘˪ˋ˧ˁ˪˫˧ˁ.

References Barhudarov, A. S., V. M. Beskrovnyj, G. A. Zograf, V. P. Liperovskij. 1972. Hindi-russkij slovar' v dvuh tomah. Moscow: Sovetskaja enciklopedija. Biswal, Krupasindhu. 2015. Saraswata odia bhasakosha (odia-odia-ingraji). Cuttak: Satyanarayan Book Store. Belikov, Vladimir. 2016. Chto i kak mozhet poluchit' lingvist iz ocifrovannyh tekstov. Sibirskij Filologicheskij Zhurnal 3: 17–34. Burrow, Thomas, Murray Barnson Emeneau. 1984. A Dravidian etymological dictionary. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Available online at: http://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/burrow/ [accessed 07.02.2017]. Callewaert, Winand M. 2009. Dictionary of Bhakti. North-Indian Bhakti texts into Kha৘Ţ BolŢ HindŢ and English. 3 vols. New Delhi: D. K. Printworld (P) Ltd. English & Bengali Online Dictionary & Grammar. Available online at: http://www.english-bangla.com/ [accessed 07.02.2017]. Ghosh, Golokendu, Sibani Ray (revised by Dasgupta, Birendra Mohon). 2011. Samsad student’s Bengali-English dictionary. Kolkata: Sahitya samsad. Goldhahn, Dirk, Thomas Eckart, Uwe Quasthoff. 2012. Building large monolingual dictionaries at the Leipzig ˨orpora ˨ollection: From 100 to 200 languages. In: Proceedings of the 8th international language resources and evaluation (LREC'12). Available online at: http://wortschatz.uni-leipzig.de/en/download/. Hendriksen, Hans. 1986. Himachali studies. III. Grammar. København: Munksgaard. Hindi Web 2013 (hiTenTen13), Bengali Web (BengaliWaC). In: Sketch Engine. Available online at: https://the.sketchengine.co.uk/ [accessed 07.02.2017]. Kogan, Anton. 2005. Dardskie jazyki. Geneticheskaja xarakteristika. Moscow: Vostochnaja literatura. Kogan, Anton. 2016. Genealogical classification of New Indo-Aryan languages and lexicostatistics. In: Journal of Language Relationship 14(3-4): 227–258. Kumar, Arvind, Kusum Kumar. 1997. Samantar kosh (Hindi thesaurus). 2 vols. New Delhi: National Book Store. Loskutov, V. N., R. V. Valueva, B. G. Poljanskij. 1974. Slovar' bengal'skogo jazyka s russkimi ekvivalentami. Moscow: Sovetskaja enciklopedija. Masica, Colin P. 1991. The Indo-Aryan languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Platts, John Tompson. 1884. A dictionary of Urdu, classical Hindi, and English. London: W. H. Allen & Co. Praharaj, Gopal Chandra. 1931–1940. Purnnacandra odia bhashakosha. Cuttack: Utkal Sahitya Press. Available online at: http://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/praharaj/. 297

ɯ. ʓ. ʇ˧˻༤˥˅ˁ

Ranganatha, M. R. 1980. Survey of Mandeali and Kului in Himachal Pradesh. Census of India. 1971. Language monograph No. 7. New Delhi: Office of the Registrar General, India, Language Division. Starostin, Sergei (ed.). 1998–2005. The Tower of Babel. An etymological database project. Available online at: http://starling.rinet.ru/ [accessed 07.02.2017]. Thakur, Maulu Ram. 1975. Pahari bhasha kului ke vishesh sandarbh men. Delhi: Sanmarg Prakashan. Thakur, Maulu Ram. 2012. Himachali. New Delhi: Sahitya Academy. Tripathy, B. K., K. M. Patnaik. 2015. Oxford English-English-Odia dictionary. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Turner, Ralph Lilley. 1931. A comparative and etymological dictionary of the Nepali language. London: K. Paul, Trench, Trübner. Available online at: http://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/turner/ [accessed 07.02.2017]. Turner, Ralph Lilley. 1962–1985. A comparative dictionary of Indo-Aryan languages. London: Oxford University Press. Available online at: http://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/soas/ [accessed 07.02.2017].

Anastasiya Krylova. Lexicostatistics and the New Indo-Aryan languages: a field linguist's perspective In this paper, I present certain comments, objections, and addenda to Anton Kogan's article «Genealogical classification of New Indo-Aryan languages and lexicostatistics», published last year in the Journal of Language Relationship (14/4: 227–258). In particular, I introduce several tentative corrections to the Swadesh lists that were compiled by Kogan, based on the data of historical phonetics and semantics of the Indo-Aryan languages in general. I also analyze in detail the lists for four languages (Hindi, Odia, Bengali, and Kullui), comparing them with my own fieldwork data as well as data from other dictionaries and text corpora. Upon correcting the lists, I compare the resulting genealogical trees (generated by StarLing software) based on original and corrected lexicostatistical matrices. Although the differences are not highly significant, they nevertheless improve upon the validity of the results and demonstrate that further correction of the lists can increase the resulting tree's degree of accuracy. Keywords: lexicostatistics, Indo-Aryan languages, language classification, glottochronology, field linguistics, corpus linguistics, historical phonetics

298

Book Reviews / ʍˀ˨ˀ˗ˊˌˌ ʈ. ɰ. ʋ˜˕˙˗ / Mikhail Oslon Jay H. Jasanoff. Prehistory of Balto-Slavic Accent. Brill’s Studies in Indo-European Languages & Linguistics. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2017. X + 268 pp. Prof. Jasanoff’s new book constitutes a landmark in accentological thought. It contains the first analysis of Balto-Slavic accentual mobility, completely outside the realm of and in opposition to the “Moscow Accentological School,” that, unlike other comparable theories, pays special attention to the verb, not limiting itself to the noun. Given the unusual elaborateness and complexity of the theory offered in the work under review, it will probably be of use to reproduce here, briefly but thoroughly (with extensive citations), some of the ideas expressed in it. In order to avoid confusion, I will break this review into two parts, keeping the synopsis apart from my own comments, which are referred to in the text by numbers in square brackets. The question the book aims to answer is formulated as follows: “how did the synchronic system(s) we see in the attested B[alto-]Sl[avic] languages come about?” (p. XI). According to the author, “the historical problems that engage the attention of professional BSl. accentologists [...] mostly center on relatively late phenomena in the individual languages, or in Baltic or Slavic alone” and that is why “the historically aware non-specialist who wants to learn in detail how BaltoSlavic differs from the rest of the IE family, and how it got that way, has few places to turn.” This lamentable state of affairs is seen as a consequence of the fact that “the hopelessly inadequate Neogrammarian approach to BSl. accentuation was swept away over a half century ago by Stang,” whereas the “major discoveries of the Moscow Accentological School [...] have yet to be incorporated into an acceptable historical synthesis.” As to Kortlandt’s “detailed IE-based narrative,” it is based on assumptions “that most Indo-Europeanists find untenable,” while the “best recent book on the prehistory of BSl. accentuation,” by Olander, albeit “stimulating and immensely useful” is “not in the end convincing.” It is precisely this “gap” that the book sets out to fill (p. XI). More specifically, the main point at issue is, as expected, the origin of Balto-Slavic paradigmatic mobility. Before proceeding to the main exposition, Jasanoff sets up a theoretical framework to lean on in the further discussion. I will now outline some of these preliminary points.

Vedic and Greek with “their stable, columnarly accented paradigms” differ drastically from the BaltoSlavic languages with “a restlessly mobile accent unlike anything elsewhere in the IE family.” The “marked but not in principle unthinkable” idea of Baltic and Slavic accent being old (first expressed by Meillet) was “never attractive,” moreover, it “has lost such appeal as it may once have had.” In fact, by now, there are no “obstacles to an explanation of BSl. accentuation on the basis of the traditional Vedic and Greek-like system. Elaborating a theory along these lines will be the goal of the present work” (p.ɍ2). The informed reader will note that this approach matches the one taken by Kortlandt and Olander and is quite unlike that of the “Moscow Accentological School” (Dybo, Nikolaev et al. and now also e.g. Kapoviŏ). The latter approach is unhesitatingly dismissed as containing a “fundamental error” (the Tonological Hypothesis, see below) “that eventually undercut some of the group’s most impressive achievements” (p. 111, fn. 14). According to the author, the “modernday survival” of the theory tracing BSl. mobility back to PIE is in part explained by what is known as “Teeter’s Law” (“specialists in one or another branch of a language family tend to overrate the archaism of that branch’s most characteristic features”). Yet he dedicates a paragraph to the actual disproof of this theory: “it is scarcely possible, taking a larger view of the IE family, to accept the idea that the ubiquitous mobile iand u-stems of Balto-Slavic could all have independently lost their mobility in Vedic, Greek, and Hittite (!), while root nouns and a limited number of obviously archaic suffixed consonant stems agreed in remaining mobile in these languages. It is even more difficult to believe that thematic (o-) stems, or the Ŋ-stems [...] were mobile in the parent language,” since their accent curve in Balto-Slavic does not match that of the “real” (i.e. consonant) stems in PIE (p. 112). [1] The accentual system of PIE is presented as a fairly well understood entity, easily deducible from Vedic and Greek: among other things, “PIE had a mobile word accent,” “made no distinction between contrasting accent types” (so no phonological tones), distin-

Journal of Language Relationship • ɳ˥˦˧˥˨˻ ̀˖˻˜˥˅˥ˆ˥ ˧˥ˊ˨˪˅ˁ • 15/4 (2017) • Pp. 299–311 • © The authors, 2017

ʍ. ɳ. ʐ˨༤˥ˣ / Mikhail Oslon

guished long and short vowels and could have but one accent per word “the position of which was regulated by a combination of lexical and morphological factors.” Zero grade was formed by the loss of a “deaccented” vowel. As to mobility, athematic nominal stems displayed several accentual patterns intertwined with PIE ablaut (“acrostatic A”, “acrostatic B”, “proterokinetic”, “hysterokinetic”, “amphikinetic”, p. 5). This system “ceased to be fully operational by the end of the IE period” having given up most vowel alternations in the root (cf. a stressed zero-grade syllable in *septm๗я ‘7’, p. 5, fn. 13). Some athematic verbs were mobile, including the copula. An outline of the main attested accentual systems is given. For instance, in Vedic mobility is confined to “uncompounded root-nouns” (acc. p؈dam, gen. padá‫ܒ‬ ‘foot’) and “original acrostatic stems” (yákr๗t, gen. yakná‫ܒ‬ ‘liver’, p. 9), in Greek the situation is “much the same” (p. 14), Hittite has some mobility “occasionally observable in consonant stems” (p. 16), and Germanic may in fact display traces of Balto-Slavic-like mobility in all nominal stems, but this is purely putative (p. 20). In Greek and Vedic, thematic stems are always immobile, thus displaying no paradigmatic mobility, although “there is clear evidence of derivational mobility,” cf. Gk. tómos ‘a slice’ (an action noun) vs. tomós ‘sharp, cutting’ (possessive adjective or agent noun). As to the accentuation of suffixal derivatives in these languages, Jasanoff remarks that it is “not a realistic goal—and certainly not a necessary or desirable one in the present context—to look for a complete, suffix-bysuffix account of the accentuation of secondary (and tertiary) derivatives in the protolanguage” (p. 22). In Vedic, for instance, some suffixes appear to be “dominant” (always stressed) and some “recessive” (stressed like the derivational base), and others “observe no consistent rules at all” (p. 23). Summing up his take on PIE accent, Jasanoff terms his book’s theoretical orientation “generative Neogrammarianism,” according to which phonological (“Neogrammarian”) rules produce outcomes that are constantly adjusted due to speakers’ “re- and misanalysis of the relations among surface forms” (p. 29). Thus, analogy is a fully systematic factor in the phonological evolution of language. A separate chapter is dedicated to a synchronic description of the Balto-Slavic situation. In the discussion on the various phonological tones, their distribution in accentual paradigms (AP), de Saussure’s Law in Baltic, Dybo’s Law in Slavic, etc., it is noted that in Proto-Slavic (but not in Lithuanian) a form “could also have no underlyingly marked accent, in which case it received a surface falling accent on its first syllable 300

(*gৄlvy, *v৥dা, etc.)”; such forms “‘donate’ their accent to an adjacent enclitic or proclitic” (p. 45). The (absence of an) accent in such enclinomena (i.e. some forms in the mobile AP c) is marked in the book with the new symbol / ୀ /: *voୀ dা, *zÄ૓ mা,*goୀ lvা, and is referred to as “left-marginal accent,” as opposed to “lexical accent” in non-enclinomena (the rest of AP c forms and all of AP a and b, marked with a vertical accent mark: PSl. “Pre-Dybo’s Law” *žeৰ nা (p. 55). This will be a crucial distinction for the author’s theory (yet to be presented). Some attention is given to Latvian as well, where a phenomenon analogous to Slavic “leftmarginal accent” is observed only on acute syllables (whereas in Slavic acuteness in such cases is eliminated by Meillet’s Law). It surfaces as Latvian “broken tone” and is taken by Jasanoff to be the outcome of a late accent retraction from a non-initial syllable (p. 65). Old Prussian, although not playing “a major role in accentological discussions,” nevertheless displays some paradigmatic mobility in verbs (p. 67). An important point concerning Balto-Slavic phonology is that acuteness is a purely Balto-Slavic feature associated with “a stød-like interruption of normal voicing” (a view promoted by Kortlandt, p. 71). The entire Balto-Slavic accentual system is characterized as “a far cry from the late PIE system, where there was no acuteness feature, no mobility in Ŋ- and o-stems (and little or none in i- and u-stems), and no mobilitylinked distinction between separate lexical and leftmarginal accent types” (p. 73). The next important preliminary issue is the origin of the acute intonation in Balto-Slavic. For Jasanoff, acuteness appears on (1) “long vowels by post-IE tautosyllabic laryngeal lengthening”; (2) “inherent long vowels [...]: a) apophonic long vowels, as in Narten ablaut [...] and vr๗ddhi derivation [...], b) long vowels by word-final compensatory lengthening before a lost *-s or *-H (Szemerenyi’s Law) [...], c) long vowels by inner-IE contraction at morpheme boundaries (e.g., o-stem nom. pl. *-ŵs < *-o-es)”; (3) lengthening by Winter’s Law. On the other hand, “long vowels by post-IE contraction across a laryngeal hiatus” yield extra-long segments and hence circumflex (p. 74). Contrary to the mainstream tradition, Jasanoff marks acuteness with an underscore (e.g. BSl. acc.sg. *gaୀ lvŊn). The derivation of the acute from apophonic long vowels is in sharp contrast with the theory, ardently defended by Kortlandt, that acuteness is yielded solely by vowel + laryngeal combinations and Winter’s Law. It is further observed that acute (long, i.e. bimoraic) vs. circumflex (extra-long, i.e. trimoraic) in final syllables in BaltoSlavic is paralleled in Germanic, e.g. PIE Ŋ-stem nom.sg. *-eh2 > BSl. *-Ŋ (in Jasanoff’s notation) ~

JAY H. JASANOFF. Prehistory of Balto-Slavic Accent (2017)

Go. -a < *-ŵ, but PIE Ŋ-stem nom.pl. *-eh2es > BSl. *-،s ~ Go. -os < *-޷z (p. 77). Also important is Hirt’s Law, whose “effect was to draw a non-initial accent onto an immediately preceding syllable containing a monophthong (including a syllabic liquid or nasal) followed by a tautosyllabic laryngeal”: *...CVHC0Vৰ ...ɎɎэ Ɏ*...CVৰ HC0V ... (p. 106), with examples such as PIE *gɍu๞riH-u๞éh2 > BSl. *grŢৰvŊ > PSl. *grÄๅɍva ‘mane’ (cf. Ved. grŢvŊ´ ‘neck’) and PIE *dվuH-mó> BSl. *dƉৰma- > Lith. dƉ´ mai ‘smoke’, PSl. *dyๅmˮ (cf. Ved. dhƉmá-). In some cases, though, the effect of Hirt’s Law was leveled out, so *gu๞iHu๞ós > *gÄৰ Hu๞os ਘ giHu๞oৰ s ‘alive’. This happened because Hirt’s Law had regularly produced an impermissible combination of forms, e.g. nom.sg. *gÄৰ Hu๞os (with “lexical accent”) but acc.sg. gÄ૓Hu๞on (with “left-marginal” accent). It was this difference alone that caused *gÄৰ Hu๞os to revert back to *giHu๞oৰ s to make the paradigm fit the normal mobile pattern. In other cases this reversion did not take place. It was a matter of unpredictable lexical choice (p. 107). Next, two existing “theories of mobility” are reviewed and assessed. The first one belongs to de Saussure who assigned “a pivotal role to what we would now call hysterokinetic consonant stems” and, by “positing a retraction from medial syllable,” derived e.g. Lith. acc.sg. dùkterţ from a protoform *duktӼrin, thus explaining bilateral mobility, which would then be “analogically transferred to oxytone vocalic stems” (p.ɍ108). “This theory amounts to three investigable claims: (1) consonant-stem forms like Lith. dùkterţ arose by retraction from *dukteҼrin; and (2) mobile vowel stems correspond to historically oxytone stems which (3) joined the type of duktŕѐ, dùkterţ analogically. In the long century since Saussure wrote, (2) has effectively been settled in Saussure’s favor, while (1) and especially (3) remain live issues” (p. 109). De Saussure’s theory was further elaborated by Pedersen, who attempted to make it more regular, converting it to a “morphological sound law” feeding the massive analogy that brought about mobility in the other stem types. Then “Meillet and Stang de-emphasized both sound change and analogy [...] and saw mobility, at least in i-, u- and Ŋ-stems, as a retention from PIE” (p.ɍ110). Oxytonicity was the source of mobility for Illiő-Svityő, as well as for early Dybo and his colleagues (who then “developed a very particular doctrine on mobility, identifying the BSl. descriptive contrast between ‘dominant’ and ‘recessive’ morphemes with a hypothetical tonal contrast that they then projected back to PIE,” p. 111, fn. 14, a “fundamental error” in Jasanoff’s view, see above). Be that as it may, the link between oxytonicity and mobility is not an issue for Jasanoff: “[i]n the highly contentious discourse

surrounding the origin of mobility, the etymological identity of mobility and oxytonicity in nouns became a sort of ‘fundamental theorem’ of BSl. mobility. We will take it for granted in what follows” (p. 111, emphasis added). The other theory is Olander’s, whose book “marks a milestone in the discussion of the problem.” He “takes the creation of BSl. mobility to have been a process by which some forms in oxytone paradigms, but not others, lost their inherited accent and literally became accentless” and claims that “a high pitch (= accent) that stood on the last mora of a phonological word was deleted” (p. 113). To achieve this, Olander lays down some costly stipulations which still fail to save the theory from some “embarrassing failures of fit.” Besides, “Olander’s proposals have nothing convincing to say about the neglected ‘other’ theater of accentual activity in Balto-Slavic—the verb” (p. 115). Now the actual presentation of Jasanoff’s own theory of Balto-Slavic mobility begins. As he has pointed out earlier, the existing theories are weak in what concerns verbal paradigmatic mobility. It has been lost in finite forms in Lithuanian, except a trace in the nom.pl.masc. form of the present participle, cf. vedŋѐ ‘leading’, which not only preserves the accent of, but actually continues the lost 3 pl. *vedantÄৰ (p. 127, fn. 45). Another indirect trace of mobilty in Lithuanian is the retraction (in some verbs) “from the left-marginally accented 1 sg. onto a particle (ìš-, nèvedu, nèveda, etc.). “[T]he traditional lack of attention to verbs in the accentological literature” is understandable, since “[t]he data are less abundant and less transparent than in nouns,” moreover, “East Baltic has no mobile finite paradigm at all, and the Slavic facts were a hopeless jumble until the work of Stang” (p. 116). It is now apparent that “the locus of mobility in verbs in BSl. was precisely in stems like *vede/o- (< *u๞édɍh-e/o-), i.e., fullgrade simple thematic presents with stable accent on the root, the so-called PIE ‘*bhéreti-type’. The final accent in oxytone verbal forms like PSl. *vedet˰ৰ / ProtoBSl. *vedetÄৰ , unlike the final accent in mobile nominal forms like *galvŊৰ or *sƉnu഍s, could not have been original. The genesis of the overall phenomenon of mobility, therefore, was not simply a matter of retracting or deleting the accent in some ending-accented forms and leaving it intact in others; there must also have been some BSl. process that displaced the inherited root accent rightwards” (p. 116). This is the gist of Jasanoff’s theory. He elaborates it as follows: “[f]rom a purely mechanical point of view, a theory of mobility will have to contain two parts, a ‘retraction module’ and an ‘advancement module.’ In nouns, the chief function of the retraction module 301

ʍ. ɳ. ʐ˨༤˥ˣ / Mikhail Oslon

will be to replace, in some forms only, a lexical accent at or near the right edge of a word by a left-marginal accent (e.g., nom. pl. *golHu๞éh2es > *gaୀ lvŊs). In verbs, the retraction module will replace an inherited initial lexical accent—again, in some forms only—by a leftmarginal accent on a preceding particle (e.g., 1 sg. *ne u๞édɍhoh2 > *neୀ vedŵ)” (p. 117). Thus, two phonological (“Neogrammarian”) rules are formulated: 1. “Saussure-Pedersen’s Law” (“SPL”): “The PIE/preBSl. accent was retracted one syllable to the left from a word-internal short open syllable (#x1Ɏ…Ɏxn – x൸n+1Ɏ…Ɏ> #x1Ɏ…Ɏx൸n – xn+1Ɏ…). In the special case where the syllable that received the accent was wordinitial it received a contrastive left-marginal contour (#x1 – x൸2Ɏ…Ɏ> #xୀ1 – x2Ɏ…) ” (p. 122). 2. “Proto-VasiŬev-Dolobko’s Law” (“Proto-VDL”) “In phonological words of four or more syllables headed by a left-marginal accent, the final syllable acquired a lexical accent and the left-marginal accent was lost (#xୀ1 – x2 – x3Ɏ…Ɏxn# > #x1 – x2 – x3Ɏ…Ɏx൸n#)” (p.ɍ128). As to the chronology, “[b]oth the retraction and advancement modules had to apply very early, since full PIE

post-SPL

Proto-BSl.

*golHu๞aৰ H

>

*galva฿഍

>

galvà

||

>

*golvaৰ

*mn๗tís

>

*mn๗tÄৰ s

>

*mintÄৰ s

>

mintìs

||

→

*k১st˰

*suHnús

>

*suHnu഍s

>

*sƉnu഍s

>

sƉnùs

||

→

*sy้nˮ

post-SPL

*sy้nˮ are the segmentally identical historical accusatives—a substitution also found in the o-stems” (p.ɍ133). Let’s now turn to gen.sg.:

>

*goୀ lHu๞aHas

→

Proto-BSl. *galvŊৰs

>

galvõs

||

>

*golvy഍

*mn๗téis

>

*mn๗teҼ is

>

*minteҼis

>

mintiӼs

||

>

*kostÄৰ

*suHnéus

>

*suHneҼ us

>

*sƉneҼus

>

sƉnaƅs

||

>

*synu഍

*golHu๞éh2 es

Here the Ŋ-stem gen.sg. form poses a problem: “PIE *-éh2es would have been subject to SPL, yielding a leftmarginal accent in Balto-Slavic” (p. 133). In any case, “the normal Ŋ-stem forms, both in Lithuanian and PIE

302

Proto-Sl.

>

PIE

2

Lith.

*golHu๞éh2

Here neither the “SPL” nor the “Proro-VLD” rules aply, since there are no internal-word accents here. Everything works out fine, despite the apparently divergent Slavic forms, but “[t]he actual forms *k১st˰,

1

mobility was already in place at the time of Hirt’s Law, which was earlier than the loss of laryngeals and the rise of the acute : non-acute contrast” (p. 118). The scope of these rules is threefold: non-derived -o, -Ŋ, -i, and -u stems, derived nominal stems, and verbs (as well as, additionally, some pronouns). As follows from the formulations, both rules heavily depend on syllable-count. The first one applies only in forms with three or more syllables, and the second, with four or more. Where the above (“Neogrammarian”) sound laws fail to apply, analogical explanations (apparently, “generative”) are recurred to, based on parallel forms with more (or fewer) syllables. The operation of the rules is exemplified on a number of case forms of various stem types (Jasanoff gives -Ŋ, -i, and -u stems together, while -o stems, for which the example PIE *u๞ornoৰ s ‘crow’ is used, are treated separately later) where the input is the end-stressed forms (more precisely, forms stressed on the last syllable of the stem). He begins with nom.sg. forms (“>” means “became by sound change” and “→” means “became by non-phonological process”, p. 133):

post-SPL

Lith.

Proto-Sl.

Slavic, have final accent, presumably under the influence of the i-, u-, and consonant stems (cf. Lith. dukterѐs < *-rès)” [...]. The acc.sg. forms are tougher:

Proto-BSl.

Lith.

Proto-Sl.

*golHu๞Ŋ´ m1

>

*golHu๞Ŋ഍n

→

*gaୀ lvŊn

→

gálvŋ 2

||

>

*gৄlvা

*mn๗tím

>

*mn๗tÄৰ n

→

>

>

*k১st˰

>

*suHnu഍n

→

miñtţ sƉ´ nƊ

||

*suHnúm

*mÄୀ ntin *sƉ૓ nun

||

>

*sy้nˮ

“ < *-éh2m by Stang’s Law.” “With analogical non-acute -ŋ.”

(?)

>

JAY H. JASANOFF. Prehistory of Balto-Slavic Accent (2017)

“Here for the first time, none of the three forms is correctly generated by SPL, and the o-stem form (Lith. varѐnŋ, PSl. *vৄrnˮ < *vaୀ rnan) is “wrong” as well” (p.ɍ135). To remedy this problem a third rule is posited: Ù N(C) retraction”: *...C0VC0V Ùৰ N(C)# э 3. “Final *-V ૓ Ù ∗...C0VC0VN(C)# Ɇ “[t]he retraction of the accent from final *-VÙ N sequences was phonologically regular” (but notice the new “э” symbol). “The effect of final *-VÙ N(C) retraction would have been to take quasi-PIE *mn๗tím, *suHnúm, and *u๞ornóm to *mÄ૓ntin, *sƉ૓ nun, and *vaୀ rnan, respectively. A seemingly ad hoc rule of this type would ordinarily be a costly expedient, especially since the facts to be acPIE

post-SPL+anal.

counted for are deeply embedded morphologically and thus potentially explainable by analogy. In the present case, however, a phonological retraction from final *-VÙ N(C) is independently motivated by the leftmarginal accent of the acc. pl. [...] and the nom.-acc. sg. of neuter o-stems” (p. 136). So this third rule is applicable to some more cases. Let us skip the rest of the shorter case forms and proceed directly to the longer ones, e.g. dat.pl.; here the “Proto-VDL” comes into play, hence, along with the above examples, a longer (derived) stem is given (*golHu๞inós, as in Rus. golovnój ‘of the head’), and, instead of a u-stem, an o-stem (*u๞ornoৰ s ‘crow’) 3:

post-Proto-VDL/anal. *golHu๞aHmoৰ s

Proto-BSl. > *galvŊৰmas

Lith.

Proto-Sl.

> -óm(u)s

|| > *-aๅmˮ

>

*mintimaৰ s

→ -ìm(u)s

|| > *-˰mˮৰ

*golHu๞éh2mos

→

*goୀ lHu๞aHmos

→

*mn๗tímos

>

*mn๗ୀ timos

→ *mn๗timoৰ s

*u๞ornómos

>

*u๞oୀ rnomos

→

*u๞ornamoৰ s

>

*varnamaৰ s

→ -àm(u)s

|| > *-omˮৰ

*golHu๞inómos

→

*goୀ lHu๞inomos

>

*golHu๞inamoৰ s

>

*-amaৰ s

→ -àm(u)s

|| > *-omˮৰ

The analogies in this table are numerous (e.g. *golHu๞éh2mos should not undergo “SPL” since its stressed syllable is closed). In fact, none of the threesyllable forms obtain their stress phonologically (cf. PSl. *vornomˮৰ instead of the expected **vৄrnomˮ). So they must be analogical to the longer forms (such as Slav. *golv˰nomˮৰ). This is the only mechanism whereby one obtains the end-stressed longer case forms in nonderived nominals: all of them must have been influenced by longer derived formations (p. 150). [2] 3 We will now stop taking up Jasanoff’s derivation of nominal case forms, but one final remark is in order. One will have noticed that the table entry *golHu๞inómos → *goୀ lHu๞inomos is analogical, not phonological. This outcome is predicted by Jasanoff: it is an analogy to the non-derived items, so instead of *golHu๞Äৰ nomos predicted by “SPL” (shift one syllable left from a word-internal syllable) we get the “leftmarginal accent” like in e.g. u๞oୀ rnomos (a three-syllable form) (p. 152). This analogical form influences the non-derived items (as apparent from the table), so that the very form thanks to which another form has emerged is now itself analogically changed by it. [3] This brings us to Jasanoff’s treatment of nominal suffixal derivatives. Given the fact that non-derived nouns were in Proto-BSl. either stem-stressed or endstressed, their derivatives somehow inherited this accentual property (this accentual derivation mechanism was an analogical BSl. innovation, p. 177), hence all derivatives of end-stressed nouns must have been 3 Jasanoff gives these forms in two tables; we will skip his “post-SPL” column (in favor of his “post-SPL + analogy”) and “Proto-VDL” (in favor or “Proto-VDL/anal.”).

end-stressed. Derived nouns would mostly have contained at least four syllables in some of their case forms, so that, for example, from the nom.sg. forms *golHu๞inós (adjective), derived from *golHu๞éh2 ‘head’, and *suHnukós (diminutive), from *suHnús ‘son’, we would get the following longer forms, subject to “SPL”, e.g. gen.sg. *golHu๞Äৰ noHat < *-inóh2ed and *suHnu഍koHat < *-ukóh2ed. However, in reality we have PSl. *gৄlv˰nˮ, fem. *golv˰naৰ vs. *synˮkˮৰ, gen. *synˮkaৰ , evidently behaving differently accentually (AP c vs. AP b). Jasanoff explains this difference on the ground of an arbitrary choice by the speakers: “SPL” had produced an impermissible pattern of “internal mobility” that had to be resolved, so speakers “took a different tack” in *golHu๞Äৰ noHat as opposed to *suHnu഍koHat: the original *-inós was perceived as producing mobile derivatives (by borrowing the “left-marginal” accent from non-derived items), while *-ukós was arbitrarily decided upon by the speakers as an end-stressed suffix (by the way, Lith. pl.nom. sunùkai is again analogical in lieu of *sƉnukaৰ i). This is how some suffixes became “dominant” and some “recessive” (p. 123). [4] We now come to the verb, the centerpiece of Jasanoff’s theory. As with nouns, the accentuation of the PIE verb is given as known a priori. Thematic “*bhéretitype” verbs were always root-stressed. Such forms became mobile in Balto-Slavic, and here is how: first, mobility emerged only “in an initially-accented verbal form with a preverb or preverbal particle, e.g., 1 sg. *daୀ -vedŵ < *do-u๞eৰ dhoh2, 3 sg. *neୀ veƑeti < *ne u๞eৰ Řheti, 3 sg. impf. *paୀ -dege < *po-dɍheৰ gu๞het” (“conjunct forms”, p. 185) and then spread analogically to “absolute” forms ousting their regular immobile accent. The derivation is as follows (inferred from pp. 129, 185): 303

ʍ. ɳ. ʐ˨༤˥ˣ / Mikhail Oslon

PIE

PSl. “conjunct”

1.sg.

*(ne) u๞éd oH

>

*n৥ vedা

→

*v৥dা

*(ne) u๞édhesei

>

*ne vedešÄৰ

→

*vedešÄৰ

3.sg.

*(ne) u๞éd eti

>

*ne vedet˰഍

→

*vedet˰഍

1.pl.

*(ne) u๞édhemos

>

→

2.pl.

*(ne) u๞éd ete

>

*ne vedemˮৰ *ne vedeteҼ

→

*vedemˮৰ *vedeteҼ

3.pl.

*(ne) u๞édhonti

>

*ne vedাt˰഍

→

*vedাt˰഍

h

h

But some verbs with obstruent-final stems are immobile, e.g. *lœÜ zা, paๅdা (AP a); the long acuted vowel in their roots precludes “SPL”, so immobility is predicted correctly, and the non-acuted immobiles mogাৰ and j˰dাৰ are “not historically thematic” (p. 189). Presents of the “tudáti-type” were suffix-stressed in PIE, so the outcome of the combination of “SPL”, “Proto-VDL” and analogy does not yield the desired outcome (mobility). Thus, for example, 1 sg. supŵৰ, *gr๗Hŵৰ remain end-stressed, and 3 pl. *supoৰ nti, *gr๗Hoৰ nti do not undergo “SPL” because their stressed syllable is closed. To explain mobilty in this type Jasanoff proposes “thematic barytonization”: “Prior to the operation of SPL and Proto-VDL, Pre-BSl. *gr๗Hé/ó- was remade to *gr๗яHe/o-” (p. 191) and then underwent all the expected changes just like the “*bhéreti-type”. On the other hand, nasal presents, such as *bhundhéti, come out immobile in Balto-Slavic. This, too, is explained by “thematic barytonization”, so that *bhundhé/ó- → *bhúndhe/o-, the latter form not undergoing “SPL” since its stressed syllable is closed. Similar logic is applied to other types of verbs with obstruent-final roots. A potential challenge for the theory is constituted by verbs with vowel- and sonorant-final roots, which can be either mobile or immobile. To these belong (1) thematic (*bhéreti-type) presents (cf. mobile PSl. *b৥rা ‘take’ vs. immobile *ženাৰ ‘chase’), (2) tudátipresents (cf. mobile *p˰হnা ‘stretch’ vs. immobile *m˰nাৰ ‘trample’), (3) n(C)e/o-presents (cf. mobile vৃnা ‘twist’ vs. immobile *dƈnা ‘blow’), (4) i๞e/o-presents (cf. mobile *১rjা ‘plow’, *dুjা ‘give’ vs. immobile *ž˰rjাৰ ‘sacrifice’). However, Jasanoff says, the problem is only apparent, since most of these immobile verbs are not inherited from PIE, but are in fact recent Balto-Slavic creations. Some are secondarily thematized, e.g. *ženাৰ, which corresponds to Ved. hánti and Hitt. kuenzi. So, “[w]hat is clear is that the stronger the comparative evidence for the thematic inflection of a given stem in PIE, the likelier it is to be mobile in Slavic” (p. 189); in some cases, mobility vs. immobility is unpredictable, but this is “hardly surprising” (p. 194) because cases “where Slavic fails to show mobility are unoriginal or secondary,” although the analysis of some such cases “must remain a task for the future” (p. 197). Another challenge is Slavic verbs in *-i-, inf. -iti, which can be mobile or immobile. To boot, the immo304

“absolute”

2.sg.

h

bile ones have two kinds of AP b. Jasanoff’s sound laws and analogies predict immobility, e.g. *ne pro‫ݡ‬éi๞eti > *ne pròsit˰ (AP b1, p. 209), where the “conjunct” form was generalized (as in thematic verbs). As to AP b2, the explanation given by Dybo et al. (different -i- morphemes had different valencies, and hence tones) “is no explanation at all” (p. 211). Jasanoff’s explanation is that AP b2 analogically spread from denominatives formed from oxytone nouns, such as AP b *seloৰ . The accent *seleҼ i๞e/o- > PSl. *selitˮৰ ‘settles’ (AP b2) is apparently analogical, since in other cases a “barytonization” is expected (like in *geৰ nHei๞e/o- > ženiๅti, AP b1, p. 216). To Jasanoff, AP b2 is, in fact, the same as AP c, which, in turn, is the result of the analogical generalization of the “absolute form” (and not the “conjunct” one, as expected). Sometimes, though, the generalization of either the “absolute” or the “conjunct” form was incomplete, which explains poluotmetnost’ (cf. in some Old Štokavian dialects of BCS ložŠ, but pol১žŢ). Similar explanations are proffered for some other parts of the verbal system. [5] After this lengthy summary, which in fact only covers a small subset of the numerous ideas laid out in the book, I will now comment on some of them. First, a few general remarks on the genre of Prof. Jasanoff’s work. It does not aim to reconstruct any unknown linguistic entity. The proto-language in question (PIE) is perceived in this work as already reconstructed, hence known. The task set out for the study would be properly called “derivation”, viz. of the more complex attested Lithuanian and the “quasi-attested” Proto-Slavic accentual systems from the simpler one postulated for PIE. [1] Under this approach, Balto-Slavic accentuation, which is deemed a recent complication of the older system, must be fully deducible from it. This view is somewhat of an axiom for most Indo-Europeanists, but it seems to be based on the idea that Balto-Slavic mobility cannot be inherited because it is utterly different from “PIE mobility,” which is taken to be directly reflected in Vedic and Greek consonant noun stems. Jasanoff mentions “gross differences” and “endless disagreements of detail” between the two types of mobility, including: (1) “the exclusive ‘bilaterality’ of BSl. mobility,” (2) the fact that “[i]n PIE declension the nom. sg. and acc. sg. are strong cases [i.e.

JAY H. JASANOFF. Prehistory of Balto-Slavic Accent (2017)

and the gen. sg. and dat. sg. disagree everywhere except in o-stems (cf. galvõs, gálvai; sunaƅs, sࡠnui; OLith. dukterès, dùkteri)” (p. 112). Indeed, these differences become apparent if one compares the accentual curve of, say, Ved. pit؈ ‘father’ with that of Lith. galvà ‘head’:

root-stressed], opposed to the gen. sg., dat. sg., and instr. sg. (inter alia), which are weak [i.e. endingstressed],” whereas “in Balto-Slavic, the nom. sg. and acc. sg. of non-neuters never agree except secondarily (cf. Lith. galvà, gálvŋ; sunùs, sࡠnƊ; dukt౑, dùkterţ; etc.),

Lith.

Sg.

Pl.

Du.

nom.

galvà

=

pit؈

gen.(-abl.)

galvõs

=

pitú‫ܒ‬

dat.

gálvai

Ë

pitré

acc.

gálvŋ

Ë

pitáram

instr.

gálva

Ë

pitr؈

loc.

galvái[p]

?

pitári

nom.

gálvos

Ë

pitára‫ܒ‬

gen.

galvƊѐ

≈

pitr฿য় ๗ ؈m

dat.(-abl.)

galvóms

Ë

pitrя๗bhyas

acc.

gálvas

Ë

pitrяয় ๗

instr.

galvomìs

Ë

pitrя๗bhis

loc.

galvosù

Ë

pitrяࡆ๗ u

nom.-acc.

gálvi

Ë

pitárŊ

galvóm

Ë

pit(a)rós

gen.-loc. dat.-abl.-instr.

It is clear (1) that the Vedic curve is not “bilateral,” but as to (2), the “endless disagreements” are a little less obvious: for example, Ved. acc.sg. pitáram superficially seems different from Lith. gálvŋ, but the accentual status of the ending is clearly the same (it is unstressed). Moreover, the alleged contrast in nom.sg. is fictitious: in galvà the last syllable of the stem (*-eৰ h2) bears the stress, exactly as in pit؈ (*pHtŖৰr maybe < *pHteৰ r-s). A more conspicuous difference in endings’ accentual status is dat.sg. (stressed ending in Ved. pitré (O) Lith.

Pl.

Du.

pitrя๗bhyŊm

vs. unstressed in Lith. gálvai). Indeed, there is no denying that the curves do look different. But is this sufficient grounds to deem them completely unrelated? Note that the very comparison in question is flawed, since the confronted stems differ in number of syllables. If we compare one-syllable consonant stems, such as Ved. p؈d ‘foot’, Gk. ÞΩВΫ ‘id.’ to Lith. šuõ ‘dog’ (~ Gk. ΥВβΧ ‘id.’) and then again to Lith. galvà, we will see that their accentual curves are almost identical (at least in the forms with etymologically cognate endings): Lith.

Vedic

Greek

šuõ

=

galvà

=

p؈d

ÞΩВΫ

gen.(-abl.)

*šunès (šuñs)

=

galvõs

=

padás

ÞΩΟЅΫ

dat.

šùni

=

gálvai

Ë

padé

ÞΩΟϲ

acc.

šùnţ

=

gálvŋ

=

p؈dam

ÞЅΟΜ

instr.

šuniù < *šùn(i๞)޵

=

gálva

Ë

pad؈

loc.

šuny[jè]

=

galvái[p]

≈

padí

[*ÞΩΟϲ]

nom.

šùnes

=

gálvos

=

p؈das

ÞЅΟΠΫ

gen.

šunƊѐ

=

galvƊѐ

=

pad؈m

ÞΩΟЬΧ

dat.(-abl.)

šunìmus

=

galvóms

≈

padbhyás

ÞΩ(ά)άϲ

acc.

šunìs < *šùnîns

=

gálvas

=

[padás] púras

ÞЅΟΜΫ

instr.

šunimìs

=

galvomìs

padbhís

loc.

*šunisù

=

galvosù

≈ ≈

patsú

[*ÞΩ(ά)άϲ]

nom.-acc.

šunì < šùn‫ܜ‬

=

gálvi

≈

p؈dŊ, p؈dau

ÞЅΟΠ

padós

ÞΩΟΩϼΧ

padbhy؈m

ÞΩΟΩϼΧ

nom.

Sg.

Vedic

gen.-loc. dat.-abl.-instr.

šunìm

=

galvóm

≈

305

ʍ. ɳ. ʐ˨༤˥ˣ / Mikhail Oslon

There are only two clear discrepancies between the Lithuanian and Vedic paradigms: dat.sg. and instr.sg., but what is important is that in Lithuanian consonant stems and Ŋ-stems have exactly the same accentual curve. Given that, even in Jasanoff’s framework, BSl. consonant stems and their accentual curves are traced

back to PIE and are hence cognate with those in Vedic and Greek, it would be plain out illogical to deny the identity of the accentual curves of, say, Lith. galvà and Ved. p؈d. Now let us compare the endings in *golHu๞eh2 > galvà and a consonant stem, say, *pŵds ‘foot’:

PIE

Sg.

Pl.

Du.

nom.

*pŵd-s

=

*golHu๞eh2-Ø (?)

gen.

*ped-es/os

=

*golHu๞eh2-es

dat.

*ped-ei

=

*golHu๞eh2-ei

acc.

*pod-m๗

=

*golHu๞eh2-m

instr.

*ped-eh1

loc.

*ped-i

=

*golHu๞eh2-i

nom.

*pod-es

=

*golHu๞eh2-es

gen.

*ped-om (Jasanoff: *-oHom)

=

*golHu๞eh2-oHom

dat.

*ped-bվos (→ *-mos?)

=

*golHu๞eh2-mos

acc.

*pod-n๗s

=

*golHu๞eh2-n๗s (?)

instr.

*ped-bվi(s) (→ *-mŢs?)

=

*golHu๞eh2-mŢs

loc.

*ped-su

=

*golHu๞eh2-su

nom.-acc.

*ped-ih1

=

*golHu๞eh2-ih1

instr.

?

In the above table we just reproduced Jasanoff’s reconstruction from his PIE “preforms” for galvà and used the standard PIE reconstructions from Kapoviŏ 2017: 71 for consonant stems4. In *golHu๞eh2 the endings follow -eh2- of the stem and contract with it. As can be seen, the endings themselves (perhaps, save nom.sg.) are exactly the same. This must mean that the accentual curves of consonant stems (be it in Vedic, Greek, or BSl) and Ŋ-stems (in BSl) do not warrant two different explanations 5. What Jasanoff does (following Kortlandt and Olander) is devise an extremely complex and highly irregular set of rules to explain a trivial identity of two paradigms. That said, it should now be clearly seen that, given the segmental identity of the endings in question, the Some of Jasanoff๏s endings require commentary: (1) Ŋ-stem gen.sg.: “the theoretically expected PIE ending would have been *-éh2s, but both Greek (agathŖ˜ s) and Lithuanian point to a laryngeal hiatus, suggesting that *-éh2s was replaced by *-éh2es in the protolanguage” (p. 133); (2) Ŋ-stem instr.sg. -Ŋ (acute) is to him an irregular (?) apocope from -eh2mi: “Given the general parallelism of i-, u-, and Ŋ-stems and the fact that i- and u-stems have instr. sg.’s in *-imi and *-umi, it is hard to believe that Proto-BSl. *gaୀ lvŊn could be anything but an apocopated form of *ga૓lvŊmi < *goୀ lHu๞aHmi” (p. 156); (3) gen.pl.: he insists on *-oHom and not *-om for all stem types (p. 151). 5 For more details see ɸ˻˄˥ 2003: 146; ɸ˻˄˥ 2014: 36; Kapoviŏ 2016: 200. 4

306

PIE

?

? only real mismatch is found in the accentual behavior of dat.sg. *-ei. Therefore, “gross differences” and “endless disagreements of detail” in the accentuation of mobile consonantal vs. Ŋ-stems are definitely an overstatement. If they are the only foundation for Jasanoff’s refusal to consider them together, the foundation is a shaky one. De Saussure’s original idea was that mobility in vocalic and Ŋ-stems has emerged in analogy to mobile consonantal stems, such as Lith. dukt౑ ‘daughter’ 6. According to his theory, the stress pattern was copied from the mobile consonantal paradigm to the corresponding case forms in originally immobile paradigms of the other types. This scenario is, in and of itself, 6 But first, de Saussure needed to account for lateral mobility in these consonantal stems, cf. gen.sg. (OLith.) dukterès, acc.sg. dùkterţ. To do that, he posited a retraction from the medial syllable, since he thought that the original accent was *duktౌrin on the basis of Ved. duhitáram, Gk. δήΞΜέϑΪΜ. This retraction rule was later elaborated by Pedersen and is referred to as “Pedersen๏s Law.” The secondary lateral mobility of dukt౑ was supposed to have served as the source of analogy for other stem types. As Dybo points out, had de Saussure looked for a source of analogy in one-syllable consonantal stems, such as šuõ ‘dog๏, he would not have been led astray by the imperfect correspondences between the accent curves of Lith. dukt౑ and Ved. duhit؈ ɸ˻˄˥ 2003: 152 and the entire problem could have been solved right away.

JAY H. JASANOFF. Prehistory of Balto-Slavic Accent (2017)

somewhat credible, when only consonantal and Ŋ-stems are compared: the curves are the same. Of course, such a massive analogy would hardly be conceivable, but let’s assume it is and take this reasoning a step further. If it were a matter of just matching up the slots in two paradigms and copying the stress case

form by case form, the material shape of the endings would be of little importance. Thus, we would expect all target paradigms, e.g. those of o-stems and Ŋ-stems, to behave in the same manner, just copying the accentual curve from the source (consonantal stems). But this is obviously not so. Let us compare the two curves:

Lith. o-stems

Sg.

Pl.

Lith. a-stems

nom.

varѐnas

Ë

galvà

gen.

varѐno

Ë

galvõs

dat.

varѐnui

=

gálvai

acc.

varѐnŋ

=

gálvŋ

instr.

varnù < *varѐnŵˆ

=

gálva

loc.

varѐnie

Ë

galvái[p]

nom.

varnaŠ

Ë

gálvos

gen.

varnƊѐ

=

galvƊѐ

dat.

varnáms

=

galvóms

acc.

varnùs < *varѐnŵˆ s

=

gálvas

instr.

varnaŠs

≈

galvomìs

loc.

varn[uo]sù

=

galvosù

These curves are clearly not identical. However, they only differ in cases where the endings are different. Analogy cannot explain this. Jasanoff’s theory ignores the well-observable fact that the same endings tend to behave accentologically in the same way in different stem types: e.g. all acc.sg. forms are enclinomena, having the same ending *-७ (*-m); on the other hand, gen.sg. galvõs and varѐno have different endings (cf. gen.sg. *-ed vs. *-es in *u๞ornoh2-ed and *golHu๞eh2-es, etc.), hence in no way should their accentuation be expected to match (only loc.sg. may be somewhat problematic). Another important point deserves mention. In his treatment of the accentuation of Vedic consonantal stems, Jasanoff seems to ignore the existence of a paradigmatic distribution among them. Unlike Greek, Vedic has several immobile non-derived consonantal nouns, e.g. Żv؈, gen. Żúnas ‘dog’, *n؈, gen. náras ‘man’, gáu‫ܒ‬, dat. gáve ‘cow’ and some more ɸ˻˄˥ 2003: 138, Kapoviŏ 2015: 212. In Greek all cognate nouns are mobile, but in Lithuanian there is at least one immobile one: nom.pl. dùrys (AP 2), gen. dùrƊ ‘door’ ~ PSl. dv˰юr˰ (AP b), corresponding to Ved. dvŊr- (which may be mobile or immobile). Analogy could hardly adequately explain this. However, immobile Ved. Żv؈, in fact, corresponds to mobile Lith. šuõ ‘dog’, so one of them may be secondary 7. The fact remains, though,

that mobility is not an immanent property of consonant stems, and that definitely undermines the assumption of a one-to-one link between stress and stem type. [2] Jasanoff (like Olander, but unlike earlier Kortlandt) rejects the analogical scenario triggered by Pedersen’s Law (but not Pedersen’s Law itself). He wants to produce a theory whereby mobility is explained phonologically, at least in part, unaided by implausible wholesale paradigmatic analogies. The predictive power of Jasanoff’s theory can be evaluated by comparing the outcomes of his three phonological rules with the corresponding attested forms (for Lithuanian) or “quasi-attested” (for ProtoSlavic). We give all same-paradigm forms (as predicted by the laws; “+” means that the law applies) arranged in a single table; correct vs. incorrect outcomes are given in different columns. We only give Ŋ- and masculine o-stems 8: forms (such as nom.pl. šùnes). Even if mobility is secondary in this noun, it makes no difference for the curve, since we could have used e.g. dantìs ‘tooth’ (corresponding exactly to Ved. dan, gen. datás). 8

Refraining from taking up Jasanoff๏s derivations for the other

base types and genders, I will just note that some of his insights (not directly relevant to the main issue) are very enlightening,

We used šuõ in our tables above to show the mobile accentual curve, because it has more attested segmentally archaic case 7

e.g. the “chain shift” whereby PSl. AP b neuters became masculine, while AP b masculines acquired mobility (p. 165).

307

ʍ. ɳ. ʐ˨༤˥ˣ / Mikhail Oslon

PIE

SPL

nom.

*golHu๞éh2

gen.

*golHu๞éh2es

+

dat.

*golHu๞éh2ei *golHu๞Ŋ´ m

+

acc. instr.

? (see below)

loc.

*golHu๞éh2i

PVDL

Lithuanian

-VÙ N(C)

correct >

incorrect

galvà

> >

Proto-Slavic ||

**gálvos

||

**galvà

||

gálvai

>

correct

||

Ɇ ||

*golvaৰ **gৄlvy *gৄlvœ **golvাৰ Ʉ *golvœৰ

>

galvái[p]

>

gálvos

||

*gৄlvy

>

galvƊѐ

||

*golvˮ๚ৰ

>

galvóms

||

*golvaๅmˮ

nom.

*golHu๞éh2es

+

gen.

*golHu๞éh2oHom

+

dat.

(?) 9

acc.

*golHu๞éh2mos *golHu๞Ŋ´ s

>

**galvàs

||

instr.

*golHu๞éh2mŢs

(?)

>

**galvómis

||

*golvaๅmi

loc.

*golHu๞éh2su

(?)

>

**galvósu

||

*golvaๅ˦ˮ

nom.

*u๞ornós

>

**varnàs

||

gen.

*u๞ornóh2ed

dat.

*u๞orn޳i

acc.

*u๞ornóm

instr.

*u๞ornoh1

loc.

*u๞ornóï

nom.

*u๞ornéi

+

+

>

varѐno

> +

>

varѐnŋ

> +

|| **varnuŠ

**golvy഍

**vornˮৰ *vৄrna

|| ||

**vornu഍ *vৄrnˮ

||

Ʉ

>

varѐnie

||

*vৄrnœ

>

varnaŠ

||

**varnù

10

incorrect

**varnÄৰ

gen.

*u๞ornóHom

+

>

**varѐnƊ

||

**vৄrnˮ

dat.

*u๞ornómos

+

>

**varѐnams

||

**vৄrnomˮ

acc.

*u๞ornóns

instr.

*u๞orn޳is

loc.

*u๞ornóišu

+ +

>

varnùs

>

varnaŠs

>

**varѐn[uo]su

||

*vৄrny

||

*vorny഍

||

**vৄrnœxˮ

As we can see, the error rate is fairly high: about half the forms are predicted incorrectly. In fact, the predicted accentual curves do not even resemble the attested ones. But these sound laws are not designed to act flawlessly in all forms. Rather, they are meant to have deformed the once-columnar stress and triggered a large-scale restructuring of it. Where they do apply and produce the “wrong” form, it is corrected by a set of analogies. Conversely, in many instances where they do not apply, the forms are altered by “Systemzwang” (e.g. p. 157). 9 10 11 As an aside, one is tempted to ask: why does Jasanoff formulate two separate phonological rules (retrac-

tion: “SPL” and advancement: “Proto-VDL”) instead of just one? Why not just say something like: “a wordinternal short open syllable loses its stress in words with three syllables and is transferred to the last syllable otherwise”? It turns out that the number of syllables can change between the retraction and the advancement. This is how Lith. instr.sg. gálva is explained: the inherited form *golHu๞éh2-h1 was replaced by *golHu๞éh2-mi, underwent analogical (!) “SPL”, then (irregular?) apocope to *goୀ lHu๞aHm, and that’s why it “resisted analogical Proto-VDL and remained barytone” (p. 156). Needless to say, this sort of reasoning raises numerous questions of methodological nature. 12

9 Despite the correct outcome, Jasanoff treats this and some other developments as analogical (p. 152), to justify the massive workings of analogy in other parts of the system. 10 This outcome superficially matches the correct form (with de Saussure๏s Law), but the laws also predict **kelmù (instead of kélmu). 11 With de Saussure๏s Law (regularly from *varѐn޵s)

12 Jasanoff๏s two-layered sound law is in striking parallel to Olander๏s formulation: “...words originally accented on a final short or hiatal structure became unaccented. Assuming that short vowels had a high tone (accent) on the only mora, and hiatal structures had a high tone on the last mora, we may say that a high tone became low in the last mora of the phonological word” (Olander 2009: 3). This lengthy “rule” is reducible to

308

JAY H. JASANOFF. Prehistory of Balto-Slavic Accent (2017)

[3] Two kinds of analogies are at play in Jasanoff’s derivations: one may be termed “systematic” (affecting sizable groups of forms and treated as part of the reconstruction “modules”), and the other, “individual” (repairing the wrong outcomes on a case-by-case basis). The first one can be exemplified by the derivation of dat.pl. forms (see above for full derivations): *golHu๞aHmoৰ s, *mn๗timoৰ s, *u๞ornamoৰ s instead of the regular *goୀ lHu๞aHmos, etc. by analogy to a longer *golHu๞inamoৰ s (a derived stem). Without attempting to evaluate such cases statistically (they are much too numerous), suffice it to say that this method has no obvious advantages over de Saussure’s, Pedersen’s (and others’) massive analogies. Analogies of the second kind are even more abundant, e.g. gen.sg. *galvŊৰs > Lith. galvõs is said to have replaced the regular *goୀ lHu๞aHas by analogy to other stem types. Interestingly enough, this is not the case in gen.sg. *u๞oୀ rnoHat > varѐno, which therefore (!) “must be original” (p. 143). Obviously, most, if not all, such arbitrary explanations could apply virtually anywhere and are of little value. A logical consequence of this approach is the fact that no two segmentally identical endings can, in this theory, yield different regular reflexes, hence one of the two forms, e.g. gen.sg. galvõs and nom.pl. gálvos must inevitably be declared analogical. Such and similar “bifurcations” should be postulated with caution, but here they are part of the theoretical apparatus. It is also worth noting that, for many case forms, in order to obtain the right outcome by sound change, bold assumptions are made. For example, PIE loc.sg. *golHu๞éh2i is said to be disyllabic and escape retraction because “syllable-final sequences of the form *-VHi/uwere realized as *-VHi๞/u๞- in Balto-Slavic, thus blocking SPL” (p. 137), yet loc.sg. *u๞ornóï is considered trisyllabic (p. 143) in view of Gk. nom.pl. oŠkoi vs. adverb (loc.sg.) oíkoi ‘at home’ (p. 13). Without such ad hoc adjustments, the sound laws would produce much less than half of the desired outcome. [4] Jasanoff’s treatment of nominal derivation is based on two system-wide mutually independent nonphonological changes. First, the PIE system got completely rebuilt: all suffixes became recessive (in the BSl. sense), i.e. all derivatives of stem-stressed bases were now stem-stressed, and those of end-stressed bases were end-stressed (analogically?). Then the ena much simpler one: namely, that the last mora in a word-form just loses its stress (Jasanoff notices this too, p. 113), but Olander needs it in order to incorporate in it his ad hoc assumption on the accentuation of hiatal structures in PIE endings, without which his theory would fall apart.

tire set of suffixes got unpredictably split into recessive and dominant ones. Just how is a mistery to Jasanoff, but not quite: “It is unclear what made a given suffix ‘opt’ to be dominant or recessive. In Slavic, at least, there is a discernible tendency for nounforming suffixes (e.g., post-Dybo’s Law *-৷na, *-৷ca, *-˰nikˮৰ, *-˰stvoৰ , *-otaৰ ) to be dominant and for adjectival suffixes (e.g., *ɍ૓-˰skˮ : *-˰skaৰ , *ɍ૓-˰nˮ : *-˰naৰ , *ɍ૓-ŗnˮ : *-ŗnaৰ , *ɍ૓-ovˮ : *-ovaৰ ) to be recessive. But there are exceptions in both directions” (p. 176, fn. 121). In reality, there is no such discernible tendency. Here is the quantitative distribution of the main reconstructed PSl. suffixes: out of about 20 (both one-morpheme and twomorpheme) noun-forming suffixes 12 or so are dominant, and out of about 10 adjectival ones 5 are dominant (ɸ˻˄˥ 1981: 199). Some suffixes oscillate, so there may be a tilt in one or the other direction, but “exceptions” is clearly not what we are dealing with here. Hence, Jasanoff’s theory fails to account for the most conspicuous trait of BSl. accentuation, the dichotomy in the properties of derivational morphemes 13. To Jasanoff, “métatonie douce” (i.e. cases where circumflex appears “instead” of the expected acute) is again mostly a matter of analogy: it “spread as a derivational marker to related nominal and verbal categories where it had no phonological basis” (p. 83), e.g. stõtas ‘stature’ : stóti ‘to step up’. The chaos and overwhelming lack of motivation in derivatives brought about by this conception of metatony is probably, among other things, what prevents Jasanoff from attempting to delve into the system of BSl. (or PIE) morphological derivation (see e.g. ʎ˘˜˥༤ˁˋ˅ 1989 for material and explanations, as well as ɸ˻˄˥ 2014 for metatony in Vedic and Greek). [5] As we saw above, Jasanoff’s “Proto-VasiŬevDolobko’s Law” figures only once in the table for nouns, since it applies only when four or more syllables are present (the only such form is *golHu๞éh2oHom), though it is used extensively in verbal paradigms. Hence, nouns and verbs are treated by Jasanoff in two fundamentally different ways. It is easy to see why. In Jasanoff’s conception of PIE, nominal stems could be either root-stressed or end-stressed. An example of the former, *u๞޳rneh2 ‘crow’ > Lith. várna, PSl. *vŴrna requires no special treatment, since its stress remains intact. Only end-stressed stems come out mobile, so, logically, the needed phonological mechanism is mostly provided by retractions. But the very dichotomy of 13 A similar theory of BSl. derivation is proposed by Kortlandt, who explains dominancy by a complex set of very specific retractions and Hirt๏s Law (Kortlandt 2009: 118). For criticism, see ʐ˨༤˥ˣ, ʒ˘ˣ˜̀˅˘˵˿˨ 2011: 118.

309

ʍ. ɳ. ʐ˨༤˥ˣ / Mikhail Oslon

immobile (i.e. “barytone”) vs. mobile (i.e. “oxytone”) nouns is not a problem for Jasanoff, since it is present in Vedic and Greek and therefore must be assumed for PIE. In the verb, however, no such dichotomy is at hand in either Vedic or Greek. This makes Jasanoff’s task trickier: he needs to derive two accentual paradigms from one. To him, PIE verbal accent depended solely on segmental structure, cf. *u๞édheti vs. *supéti. Since mobility is the desired outcome, the stressed syllable must be medial, so, for “SPL” to work in the case of *u๞édheti, another syllable (a particle or prefix) needs to be added before the stressed one, which will also provide the context needed for “Proto-VDL”. So far so good, but not for *supéti, where Jasanoff has to arbitrarily move the stress to the first syllable (“thematic barytonization”). This yields mobility for most verbs of these types, but not for all. Some immobile cases are predicted correctly, e.g. paๅdা, inf. paๅsti ‘fall’ (AP a), where the stressed syllable is long (or closed by a laryngeal), but a host of others remain completely unaccounted for, to name a few: *pুsা, paๅsti ‘graze’, *prŗ้dা, prŗๅsti ‘spin’, *gry้zা, gryๅzti ‘gnaw’, etc. These verbs are declared to be analogical: “it is clear that morphology has, so to speak, trumped phonology” (p. 188). It gets even worse with sonorant-final stems, where mobility and immobilty are represented more or less equally. To explain away the divergent cases, he usually declares them “unoriginal” (and hence uninteresting to the Indo-Europeanist). But here Jasanoff acknowledges his theory’s weakness more explicitly: “A full account of the circumstances that determined whether a present of the form *CVR-e/o- would come out mobile or immobile in Slavic has yet to be written” (p. 189). Jasanoff’s treatment of Slavic verbs in *-i-, inf. -iti goes along the same lines. The distribution of AP b and AP c is not explained but said to be the outcome of some unpredictable split, even though accentual inheritance is an obvious and fundamental property of these verbs, which can in no way be due to analogies (see ʌˁ˸˘ˣ 2016 for material and issues). We should note, though, that Jasanoff’s explanation of poluotmetnost’ (p. 214) is quite ingenious. All in all, it is evident that Jasanoff’s theory does not really tackle the issue of paradigmatic accentual distribution in the Balto-Slavic verb (i.e. different accentual types within the same morphological type), which he considers secondary and unimportant. In conclusion, I would like to remark that, despite its imperfections, the theory laid out in the book under review is highly interesting in many respects. Building on an overtly “Indocentric” premise, shared 310

by some other eminent scholars, it goes much further than its recent predecessors. Kortlandt’s very intricate theories, recently collected in Kortlandt 2009, while offering astute solutions to some particular problems, mostly fail to show the big picture. Olander’s theory (Olander 2009) (termed “quite inadequate” by Kortlandt 2007: 233), generally approved of but not accepted by Jasanoff, is not free from internal inconsistencies (e.g. in that it rules out circumflex case endings and has to use analogy to derive them, see ʐ˨༤˥ˣ 2010: 145). Neither of these theories, as Jasanoff points out, has much to say about the verb. He himself attempts to solve the same basic problem (i.e. that of derivation and not of reconstruction), but, for him, the verb is no less important than the noun. In fact, Jasanoff’s approach to the noun is not too different from Olander’s and comparable to it in predictive power. However, Jasanoff meticulously and exhaustively explores the possibilities of accounting for the variegated Balto-Slavic verbal stress based on the postulated non-paradigmatic columnar stress assumed for the PIE verb, setting up a valuable thought experiment which yields, as should be apparent from the above assessment, an unmistakably negative result. It is simply unable to explain most of what goes on in the Balto-Slavic system. Now we can clearly see that Balto-Slavic stress cannot be traced back to the widely accepted simplistic accentual reconstruction of PIE. There are simply too many oppositions on the “receiving end,” so additional variables must be brought into the picture. A complex interplay of some sort of accentual properties of individual morphemes must have been in place to give birth to the attested systems (including Vedic and Greek). It is this realization that underlies the “Tonological Hypothesis,” so rashly rejected by Indocentric accentologists 14. This notwithstanding, Prof. Jasanoff’s work is admirable in that it covers an astonishingly vast range of issues, while faithfully adhering to a rigorous theoretical framework. Arguable as that framework may be, the book will definitely prove of immense use to 14 It may be that part of the problem lies in a somewhat supercilious attitude of many “Western” scholars towards accentological literature published in languages other than English, German or French, particularly in (and not just on) Balto-Slavic languages. Most of the copious accentological work published in Russian is completely ignored by Jasanoff (e.g. the comprehensive volume ɸ˻˄˥ 2000), not to mention the recent voluminous ground-breaking study Kapoviŏ 2016 written in “BCS”, which, by the way, contains a section (ibid.: 195) on BSl. mobility with much the same observations as presented in this review (but with more detail). Note, however, that the English-language article Dybo, Nikolayev, Starostin 1978 on the “Tonological Hypothesis” is not mentioned either.

JAY H. JASANOFF. Prehistory of Balto-Slavic Accent (2017)

its supporters and opponents alike. After all, it will probably help clarify just how much of the debate around the moot issues of Balto-Slavic and IndoEuropean accentology really boils down to the operation of “Teeter’s Law.” ʇˌ˞ˀ˛ʸ˞˟˛ʸ ɸ˻˄˥, ɳ. ɯ. 1981. ʎ˕ʸʻ˴˗˜ːʸ˴ ʸː˨ˀ˗˞˙˕˙ʼˌ˴: ˙˚˯˞ ˛ˀː˙˗˜˞˛˟ː˨ˌˌ ˜ˌ˜˞ˀ˖˯ ʸː˨ˀ˗˞˗˯˦ ˚ʸ˛ʸʿˌʼ˖ ʻ ˚˛ʸ˜˕ʸʻ˴˗˜ː˙˖. ʍ˥˨˜˅ˁ: ʎˁ˫˜ˁ. ɸ˻˄˥, ɳ. ɯ. 2000. ʈ˙˛˥˙˗˙˕˙ʼˌˊ˙ʻʸ˗˗˯ˀ ˚ʸ˛ʸʿˌʼ˖ʸ˞ˌ˩ˀ˜ːˌˀ ʸː˨ˀ˗˞˗˯ˀ ˜ˌ˜˞ˀ˖˯: ˞ˌ˚˙˕˙ʼˌ˴ ˌ ʼˀ˗ˀˊˌ˜. ʐ˙˖ I. ʍ˥˨˜˅ˁ: ʫ˖˻˜˘ ˧˫˨˨˜˥˙ ˜˫༤˼˪˫˧˻. ɸ˻˄˥, ɳ. ɯ. 2003. ɲˁ༤˪˥-˨༤ˁ˅̀ˣ˨˜ˁ̀ ˁ˜˴ˋˣ˪˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜ˁ̀ ˧ˋ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˜˴˘̀ ˘ ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˨˜ˁ̀ ˁ˜˴ˋˣ˪˥༤˥ˆ˘̀. ɳ: ʎ˕ʸʻ˴˗˜ː˙ˀ ˴ˊ˯ː˙ˊ˗ʸ˗ˌˀ. XIII ˖ˀ˄ʿ˟˗ʸ˛˙ʿ˗˯ˍ ˜ˮˀˊʿ ˜˕ʸʻˌ˜˞˙ʻ. ʇ˳ʺ˕˴˗ʸ, 2003 ʼ. ɴ˙ː˕ʸʿ˯ ˛˙˜˜ˌˍ˜ː˙ˍ ʿˀ˕ˀʼʸ˨ˌˌ: 131–161. ʍ˥˨˜˅ˁ: ʃˣˊ˧˘˜. ɸ˻˄˥, ɳ. ɯ. 2014. ɲˁ༤˪˥-˨༤ˁ˅̀ˣ˨˜ˁ̀ ˁ˜˴ˋˣ˪ˣˁ̀ ˨˘˨˪ˋˢˁ ˘ ˘˪˥ˆ˘ ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˨˜˥˙ ˁ˜˴ˋˣ˪˥༤˥ˆ˘˵ˋ˨˜˥˙ ˧ˋ˜˥ˣ˨˪˧˫˜˴˘˘. ɳ: IWoBA VIII: ˛ˀ˥ˀ˛ʸ˞ˌ VIII ʈˀ˶˟˗ʸ˛˙ʿ˗˙ʼ ˜ː˟˚ʸ ˙ ʺʸ˕˞˙˜˕˙ʻˀ˗˜ː˙˻ ʸː˨ˀ˗˞˙˕˙ʼˌ˻ˌ (ʉ˙ʻˌ ʎʸʿ 2012). ʎ˕ʸʻˌ˜˞ˌ˩ːˌ ˊʺ˙˛˗ˌː, ˗˙ʻʸ ˜ˀ˛ˌ˻ʸ, ː˽ˌʼʸ I: 17–94. ʎ˥˅˘ ʓˁˊ. ʌˁ˸˘ˣ, ʓ˅ˋ˪˥˖ˁ˧. 2016. ɯ˜˴ˋˣ˪˫ˁ˴˘̀ ˆ༤ˁˆ˥༤˥˅ ˣˁ -iti, ˦˧˥˘˖˅˥ˊˣ˻˲ ˥˪ ˨˫˹ˋ˨˪˅˘˪ˋ༤˼ˣ˻˲ ˦˧ˁ˨༤ˁ˅̀ˣ˨˜˥˙ ˁ. ˦. d: ˦˧˥˄ˣ˻˙ ˸ˁ˧. ɳ: ʐ˨༤˥ˣ, ʍ. ɳ. (˧ˋˊ.). ɯʸ˕˞˙-˜˕ʸʻ˴˗˜ːʸ˴ ʸː˨ˀ˗˞˙˕˙ʼˌ˴. IWoBA VII: ʈʸ˞ˀ˛ˌʸ˕˯ VII ˖ˀ˄ʿ˟˗ʸ˛˙ʿ˗˙ʼ˙ ˜ˀ˖ˌ˗ʸ˛ʸ: 68–91. ʍ˥˨˜˅ˁ: ʫ˖˻˜˘ ˨༤ˁ˅̀ˣ˨˜˥˙ ˜˫༤˼˪˫˧˻. ʎ˘˜˥༤ˁˋ˅, ʓ. ʎ. 1989. ɲˁ༤˪˥-˨༤ˁ˅̀ˣ˨˜ˁ̀ ˁ˜˴ˋˣ˪˫ˁ˴˘̀ ˘ ˋˋ ˘ˣˊ˥ˋ˅˧˥˦ˋ˙˨˜˘ˋ ˘˨˪˥˜˘. ɳ: ɲ˫༤ˁ˪˥˅ˁ, ʒ. ɳ., ɳ. ɯ. ɸ˻˄˥ (˧ˋˊ.). ɾ˜˞˙˛ˌ˩ˀ˜ːʸ˴ ʸː˨ˀ˗˞˙˕˙ʼˌ˴ ˌ ˜˛ʸʻ˗ˌ˞ˀ˕˰˗˙-ˌ˜˞˙˛ˌ˩ˀ˜ːˌˍ ˖ˀ˞˙ʿ: 46–109. ʍ˥˨˜˅ˁ: ʎˁ˫˜ˁ. ʐ˨༤˥ˣ, ʍ. ɳ. 2010. ʒˋ˴ˋˣ˖˘̀ ˣˁ: T. Olander. Balto-Slavic accentual mobility. Berlin—New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2009. ɰ˙˚˛˙˜˯ ˴ˊ˯ː˙ˊ˗ʸ˗ˌ˴ 2(2010): 141–146. ʐ˨༤˥ˣ, ʍ. ɳ., ɳ. ʒ˘ˣ˜̀˅˘˵˿˨. 2011. ʒˋ˴ˋˣ˖˘̀ ˣˁ: F. Kortlandt. Baltica & Balto-Slavica. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2009. ɰ˙˚˛˙˜˯ ˴ˊ˯ː˙ˊ˗ʸ˗ˌ˴ 5 (2011): 116–121.

References Dybo, V. A. 1981. Slav'anskaja akcentologija: opyt rekonstrukcii sistemy akcentnykh paradigm v praslav'anskom. Moscow: Nauka.

Dybo, V. A. 2000. Morfonologizovannyje paradigmaticheskije akcentnyje sistemy: tipologija i genezis. Tom I. Moscow: Jazyki russkoj kul'tury. Dybo, V. A. 2003. Balto-slav'anskaja akcentologicheskaja rekonstrukcija i indoevropejskaja akcentologija. In: Slav'anskoe jazykoznanie. XIII mezhdunarodnyj sjezd slavistov. Ljubljana, 2003. Doklady rossijskoj delegacii: 131–161. Moscow: Indrik. Dybo, V. A. 2014. Balto-slav’anskaja akcentnaja sistema i itogi indoevropejskoj akcentologicheskoj rekonstrukcii. In: IWoBA VIII: referati VIII MeŒunarodnog skupa o baltoslovensko˻ akcentologi˻i (Novi Sad 2012). Slavistiŏki zbornik, nova seri˻a, knjiga I: 17–94. Novi Sad. Dybo, V. A., S. L. Nikolayev, S. A. Starostin. 1978. A Tonological Hypothesis on the origin of paradigmatic accent systems. Estonian papers in phonetics 1978: 16–20. Kapoviŏ, Mate. 2016. Povijest hrvatske akcentuacije. Fonetika. Zagreb: Matica hrvatska. Kapoviŏ, Mate. 2017. Indo-European Morphology. In: Kapoviŏ, M. (ed.) The Indo-European Languages. Second Edition: 61– 110. London and New York: Routledge. Kortlandt, Frederik. 2007. Miscellaneous Remarks on BaltoSlavic Accentuation. In: Kapoviŏ M., R. Matasoviŏ (eds.). Tones and Theories: Proceedings of the International Workshop on BaltoSlavic Accentology: 229–235. Zagreb: Institut za hrvatski jezik i jezikoslovlje. Kortlandt, Frederik. 2009. Baltica & Balto-Slavica. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Lashin, Svetozar. 2016. Akcentuacija glagolov na -iti, proizvodnykh ot suschestvitel'nykh praslav’anskoj a. p. d: probnyj shar. In: Oslon, M. V. (ed.). Balto-slav'anskaja akcentologija. IWoBA VII: Materialy VII mezhdunarodnogo seminara: 68–91. Moscow: Jazyki slav’anskoj kul'tury. Nikolaev, S. N. 1989. Balto-slav'anskaja akcentuacija i ee indoevropejskie istoki. In: Bulatova, R. V., V. A. Dybo (eds.). Istoricheskaja akcentologija i sravnitel'no-istoricheskij metod: 46–109. Moscow: Nauka. Olander, Thomas. 2009. Balto-Slavic Accentual Mobility. Berlin – New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Oslon, M. V. 2010. Review of: T. Olander. Balto-Slavic accentual mobility. Berlin—New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2009. Voprosy jazykoznanija 2(2010): 141–146. Oslon, M. V., V. Rinkeviőius. 2011. Review of: F. Kortlandt. Baltica & Balto-Slavica. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2009. Voprosy jazykoznanija 5(2011): 116–121.

311