Greek Dialects and the Transformation of an Indo-European Process [Reprint 2014 ed.] 9780674182691, 9780674182660

Citation preview

Loeb Classical Monographs

In Memory of James C. Loeb

GREEK DIALECTS and the Transformation of an Indo-European Process Gregory Nagy

HARVARD UNIVERSITY CAMBRIDGE,

PRESS

MASSACHUSETTS I97O

© Copyright 1970 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College All rights reserved The Loeb Classical Monographs are published with assistance from the Loeb Classical Library Foundation Distributed in Great Britain by Oxford University Press, London Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 69-12730 SBN: 674-36226-8 Printed in the United States of America

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to thank generally all my colleagues and friends at Harvard University for their encouragement, and especially Wendell Clausen, Chairman of the Classics Department. For their advice on specific problems, I am grateful to Henning Andersen, Bruce Boling, Donald Cooper, Ives Goddard, Jay JasanofF, Antanas Klimas, D. G. Miller, H. A. Roe, J . L. St. John, and Roy Wright. I owe special thanks to Warren Cowgill and F. W. Householder for their scrutiny of this work at various stages, and I am equally grateful to Jerzy Kurylowicz for his gracious advice. Of course this list does not necessarily imply assent by these men to any of the ideas here presented. I also thank Mrs. Katryna Jacobsen for her kindness in helping me with the manuscript. What I value most of all is the sustained interest and counsel of my teacher and friend Calvert Watkins. To him I dedicate these lucubrations, or at least whatever may be wholesome in them; and I hope that the reader will not find too much chaff to winnow. G. N.

CONTENTS Introduction

ι

I. Postconsonantal/prevocalic * -i- in I Ε Grammatical Categories

3

II. Reflexes of Nominal *-(i)jo-, *-(i)jä- in Lithuanian

49

I I I . T h e Development of 1 and t in Greek, and Their Distribution 101 I V . Marginalia to Benveniste's Origines Index

152 185

GENERAL A B B R E V I A T I O N S

>/
/-«—

founds or presupposes/ (is) founded or presupposed by

=> j -σι-} was prevented when -σ- preceded *-τ-. Otherwise, from a synchronic evaluation of the dialects where change from *-τι- to -σιdid occur, no intrinsic feature seems evident which could motivate this innovation in all its attested manifestations. 1 Cf. e.g. E . Risch, "Les differences dialectales dans le mycenien," Proceedings of the Cambridge Colloquium on Mycenaean Studies, ed. L . R . Palmer and J . Chadwick (Cambridge 1966) 1 5 0 - 1 5 7 . 2 Cf. " D i e Gliederung der griechischen Dialekte in neuer Sicht," Museum Helveticum 12 (1955) 6 1 - 7 6 . 3 The problem is conveniently outlined by Lejeune, Traite 5 3 - 5 5 , and by Schwyzer, GG I 270 f. For a useful critical survey of submitted solutions, cf. J . Holt, "Remarques sur 1'assibilation grecque," Melanges linguistiques offerts a Μ. Holger Pedersen (Aarsskrift for Aarhus Universitet 9.1 [Kobenhavn 1937]) 176-182.

I

INTRODUCTION

An inference to be drawn, then, is that the phonological conditions which had originally prompted {*-τι- > -at-} became significantly altered by e.g. the period of classical Attic. I hope to demonstrate that the attested ι in -σι- had been endowed with different phonological properties in preclassical times: to wit, that there was once an alternation {-ί-/-ι-}, conditioned by (i) accentual patterns and (2) prevocalic/preconsonantal position. An attempt to sketch the specific environment of this alternation {-|-/-i-} is submitted in chapter I I I ; but before reaching that stage of the argument, we have to account for this basic question: why is I E in the context -CjV- reflected by Greek sometimes as etymological sometines as -1-? This issue in turn raises a still broader one: how was the I E feature known as "Sievers' L a w " operative on inherited *-j- in Greek and in other I E dialects? I propose that a formulation of these conditions from the I E standpoint leads to a precise understanding of the Greek alternation {-'-/-t-}, which in turn has a direct bearing on the prehistoric innovation {*-n- > -σι-}. Once we discern how this innovation was motivated, the dialectal contrast {-τι- : -σι-} becomes a more significant criterion for distinguishing the very earliest dialectal divisions in the Greek language.

2

C H A P T E R

I

POSTGONSONANTAL/PREVOCALIC *-i- IN IE G R A M M A T I C A L CATEGORIES

§i.

At

tionally

an

early

period

consonantal,

variants—the

former

v o w e l , the latter

of

*j

IE

and

when

*i

had

predictably

elsewhere.1

w a s still been

occurring

func-

combinatory adjacent

to

a

T h e same distribution holds for

* u / * u , * r / * r , *1/*1, * m / * i p , * n / * n :

hence

(V)iV

Vi(C)

(C)iV

(V)uV

Vu(C)

( C ) u V vs. ( C ) u ( C )

vs. ( C ) i ( C )

(V)RV

VR(C)

( C ) R V vs. ( C ) R ( C ) .

B e t w e e n C a n d V , h o w e v e r , a split d e v e l o p e d , t h e r e s u l t i n g patterns

of

Law";2

applied

which

have

come

this:

after light syllable, * - i - after h e a v y syllable: hence

specifically

- V C j V - vs. - V C i V -

and

to

to

be

*j/*i,

-VCiC2iV-.3

known the

For

as

"Sievers'

formulation

is

representational

1 F. Edgerton, " T h e Indo-European Semivowels," Language 19 (1943) 8 3 - 1 2 3 : here conveniently summarized, from previous works, are the formulations commonly known as "Sievers' L a w " (more appropriately "Sievers' R u l e " — t h e designation which I will use throughout) and "Edgerton's Converse"; J . K u r y l o w i c z , " Z u r altpersischen Keilschrift," Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 17 (1964) 563-569 (for an earlier version, cf. Kurylowicz's Esquisses linguistiques [Wroclaw/Krakow i 9 6 0 ] 2 7 4 280). 2 Named after Ε. Sievers; cf. his " Z u r Accent und Lautlehre der germanischen Sprachen," Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur, ed. H . Paul, W. Braune, and E. Sievers, 5 (1878) 63-163, esp. 129 ff. 3 T h e Sanskrit metrical terms laghu- ("light") and guru- ( " h e a v y " ) provide precedent for such syllabic designations.

3

Ι.§1

convenience, this opposition can be symbolized in the simplified form o f - V C j V - vs. -VCiV-. So also - V C u V - vs. - V C u V - , - V C r V - vs. - V C r V - , -VCIV- vs. -VCIV-, - V C m V - vs. -VCipV-, - V C n V - vs. -VCnV-. Thus far, these distributions at such a posited stage of I E are strictly within the realm of combinatory variants, and to this extent, Sievers' formulation is justifiable. But there then arises at least one new crucial circumstance which disrupts the original pattern: to wit, *-iaV- > *-iV-, *-u3V- > *-uV-, - R a V - > - R V - . 4 (The combinations *-iVand *-uV- will henceforth be represented with their subphonemic off-glides: *-ijV- and *-uuV-; thus the relationship of *-ij- and *-uu- to *-j- and *-u- respectively can be described as additive in the order here given [plus i or u] or subtractive in the reverse [minus i or u].) In the I E period preceding the disappearance of in the slots just described, the existence of a morpheme-boundary (||) before e.g. *-(i)jV- did not prevent obligatory phonological transformations depending solely on the quantity of the preceding syllable: 1. -VC + (i)iV- => -VC I |iiV2. -VC + (i)iV-VC||iV-; likewise 1. -VC + (u)uV-

-VCjiuuV-

2. - V c + (ujuV- => -VCIIuVand 1. -VC + (R)RV- => -VCjiRRV2. -VC + (R)RV-VC||RV-. In essence, the synchronic rules ι and 2 are Sievers' Rule and Edgerton's Converse respectively. 4

Cf. Kuryfowicz,

Apophonie

171 n. 12, 341.

4

I. §2 §2. But once structures like - V C i a V - and - V C u a V - undergo a phonological shift to - V C i j V - and - V C u u V - , then a constraint like that symbolized by 2 can cease to be obligatory. T h a t is, - C i j V - and - C u u V - are now possible after both light and heavy syllables, and thus *-ij- and *-uubecome morphologically reappraised as redundant configurations after light syllables, in contrast with the previously obligatory and *-u-. While e.g. and *-ij[- may survive just so in inherited forms from the I E standpoint, there follows a drastic extension in productive categories constituting the mold for new formations. For example, let a morpheme-boundary occur just before *-(i)j- of an IE-inherited nominal formant *-||(i)jo-, henceforth represented simply by the nominative singular *-||(i)jos: so long as a given nominal with such a suffix is appreciated as a derived form, the morpheme-boundary of its formant *-(i)jos will continue to be perceived, and the suffixal ensemble itself will remain productive. T h u s when the process { • - i a V - > * - i j V - } entails a disruption of the phonological opposition { - V C j V - : - V C i j V - } , it thereupon happens, as posited, that *-ij- becomes a formally redundant variant of *-j[- after light syllables. Here the factor defined by K u r y lowicz as polarization 5 can become operative. In e.g. - V C ( i ) j o s , the redundant configuration *-ii- becomes generalized over the essential *-j[-, so as to polarize a productive, marked category from unmarked counterparts where productivity ceased or was felt as never having existed. In other words, there evolves (after *-i9V- > *-iiV-) a contrast of productive -VC|]ijos vs. unproductive - V C j o s ; likewise -VCj|uuos vs. - V C u o s . In postconsonantal/prevocalic

5 A x i o m I : " U n morpheme bipartite tend ä s'assimiler un morpheme isofonctionnel consistent uniquement en un des deux elements, c'est-ä-dire le morpheme compose remplace le morpheme simple." Cf. Kurylowicz, "Proces analogiques" 162.

5

I. §2

position, then, *{-i- : -j-} and *{-u- : -u-} cease to be combinatory variants, becoming autonomous entities instead. But what of the former combinatory variants *{-r- : -r-}, *{-}- : -1-}, *{-ip- : -m-}, *{-n- : -n-}? Here too, with the development {-RaV- > -RV-}, Edgerton's Converse ceases to be obligatory. As for the actual manifestation of - C R V - , it is reflected as e.g. Indie -CirV-/-CurV-, -CamV-, - C a n V - ; Avestan - C a R V - ; "South European" - C a R V - (Celtic, Italic, Greek, Armenian); " N o r t h European" - C u R V (Germanic) and -CiRV-/-CuRV- (Baltic and Slavic).« Granted, there was widespread morphological extension, in e.g. the " E u r o p e a n " languages, of *-aR(V-) and *-iR(V-)/ *-uR(V-) as the productive replacement of -R(V-) even after light syllables; 7 the detailed demonstration of this circumstance remains one of the most important accomplishments of Kurylowicz's Apophonie. But there is a signal difference between a morphologically productive *-aR(V-) or *-iR(V-)/*-uR(V-), polarized from a corresponding unproductive -R(V-), and the originally kindred opposition of likewise productive *-ij|(V-) or *-uu(V-) to residual •-i(V-) or *-u(V-) respectively. Although both types involve the opposition {syllabic : non-syllabic}, only the *-ii- and the *-uu- show homorganic components for the 6

Clear summary b y K u r y l o w i c z , Apophonie 3 9 4 f. E . g . Greek στ(γ-νάς " w a t e r p r o o f " vs. στεγ-ανός "covering, covered, waterp r o o f " ; λΐχ-vos "gluttonous" vs. λιχ-avös " l i c k i n g " (or "licking finger" = " f o r e f i n g e r " ) ; etc. Cf. S c h w y z e r , GG I 489. It is noteworthy that the more archaic forms have a more restricted semantic range than the newer forms; this distribution illustrates Kurylowicz's axiom I V : " Q u a n d ä la suite d'une transformation morphologique une forme subit la differenciation, la forme nouvelle correspond ä sa fonction primaire (de fondation), la forme ancienne est reservee pour la fonction secondaire (fondee)." C f . Kurylowicz, "Proces analogiques" 169. In this case the differentiation is lexical, not derivational or inflectional. 7

F o r similar evidence in verbs with -v-tiv 700 f.

6

and -av-tiv,

cf. Schwyzer, GG I

I. §2

syllabic member; on the other hand, once prevocalic -Rbecomes *-aR-, *-iR-, *-uR- and the like, these syllabic opposites of simplex prevocalic -R- are now characterized by constituents which are distinctly not homorganic; indeed, the latter circumstance tends to deactivate even Sievers' Rule, 8 since what used to be -R- after heavy syllable and is now * - a R - in e.g. Greek may no longer be perceived synchronically as syllabic combinatory variant of non-syllabic -R-, but rather, as the separate phonemes *-a- and -R-, capable of existing in positions where they are independent of each other. As for the constituents of *-ij-, however, the *-i- and the *-i- are by themselves mere combinatory variants in every slot other than postconsonantal/prevocalic; so also the constituents of *-uu-. Thus it is conceivable that Sievers' Rule could continue to be operative on postconsonantal/prevocalic *-j- and *-u- (hence => *-ij- and *-uu- after heavy syllable), but no longer on -R- in the same slot. Yet with such a limited application, so that *-r-, *-l-, *-m-, *-n- no longer afford a structural parallel, the chances for the survival of Sievers' Rule are that much more weakened. Then too, even if it finally happens that e.g. -VCijV- becomes -VCiV-, such a development would merely mean the leveling of an allophonic variation, whereas a morphological opposition could persist: -VC[|iiV- vs. -VCiV-, as also -VC||ijV- vs. - V C j V - . §3. Given an inherited morphological opposition between e.g. productive nominals in (-^/C)||ijos and unproductive counterparts in (-t?C)ios, there still remains the question of what could happen if the morpheme-boundary in the former were to be eroded. In other words, what if a particular word with a configuration -^Cijos were to lose its status as a synchronically derived form? The expected consequence is 8 Hence e.g. θέρηγ-νον "wicker body of the harvest-cart" (vs. the variant θ(ρήγ-ανθν); also τ(ρπ-νός, σπ(ρχ-νός, Ισχ-vos, etc.; cf. Schwyzer, GG I 489.

7

ΐ·§3 that *-iios in this instance could no longer be perceived as productive suffixal formant, so that the given form in -t/Cijos would become relegated from a productive (marked) nominal category into its unproductive (unmarked) counterpart. Accompanying this relegation is the loss of the formal mark of productivity, syllabic *-i- ( = *-ii-); that is, marked and syllabic *-i- (as in -t/Cijos) reverts to unmarked and nonsyllabic *-j- (as in -t^Cjos). Such formal enactment of a functional attrition, of course, can occur only when the productive marker is still homorganic with the unproductive marker, as in the case of *-i(V-) = *-ii(V-) vs. *-i(V-), or •-u(V-) = *-uu(V-) vs. *-u(V-). In the case of *-R(V-) vs. *-R(V-), however, once *-R(V-) becomes *-aR(V-) in e.g. Greek, reversion of this *-aR(V-) to *-R(V-) is no longer possible. Thus even though e.g. suffixal -ανος is no longer a productive formant in classical Greek, it cannot revert to -νος because the markers -an(V-) and -n(V-) are not homorganic variants. Hence the survival of both the newer type στ(γανός (reflecting the original morphological extension of prevocalic *-n- after light syllable) and the older arey^oj.9 In sum, the factor of morphological attrition from e.g. - V c linos to - t C j o s in a given IE language makes it an elusive task to determine whether a given word with an attested nominal suffix *-jo- had ever belonged to a productive category with suffix *-iio-. If the latter suffix is no longer productive anywhere in the specified language, then we may even expect the universal attestation o f - ^ C i o s to the exclusion of -^Ciios. Nevertheless, certain phonological developments could have arrested the morphological attrition of e.g. -^C||ijos to -VCjos. If at a certain period there arise such irrevocably divergent phonological developments as *-iio> X and *-io- > Y, then the very distribution of suffixal 9

Cf. n. 7 above.

8

I- §3

X a n d Y in g i v e n w o r d s o f the attested l a n g u a g e will determ i n e w h i c h o f these w o r d s h a d b e l o n g e d to p r o d u c t i v e or unproductive

nominal

categories

respectively

during

the

u n a t t e s t e d p e r i o d of the p h o n o l o g i c a l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s y i e l d ing X

a n d Y . E v e n if X , the reflex of *-iio-, is n o l o n g e r

s y n c h r o n i c a l l y p r o d u c t i v e in the attested l a n g u a g e , it still reveals t h a t a n y s u r v i v i n g w o r d w i t h suffixal X h a d i n d e e d b e l o n g e d to a p r o d u c t i v e n o m i n a l c a t e g o r y at the unattested p e r i o d of the p h o n o l o g i c a l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n *-iio- > §4. I n the Brittonic b r a n c h of C e l t i c

X.

(as distinct f r o m

the G o i d e l i c b r a n c h ) , there are c l e a r reflexes o f a pristine m o r p h o l o g i c a l opposition b e t w e e n p r o d u c t i v e n o m i n a l s w i t h the

- t e n 110- / - t e n iiä-

configuration

counterparts with

and

unproductive

; on the other h a n d , there

is n o trace o f Sievers' R u l e a n d E d g e r t o n ' s C o n v e r s e (i.e., preceding

heavy

syllables

do

not

generate

prevocalic

* - i j - as o p p o s e d to *-i-), as the e v i d e n c e assembled b e l o w w i l l show. T h u s a Brittonic l a n g u a g e like W e l s h p r o v i d e s a n ideal

example

presence

of m o r p h o l o g i c a l

o f || requires

retention

(whereby

extension

*-iio-/-ijä-)

the

absence

and of

of

(whereby

the

morphological

|| allows

*-io-/-iä-),

w i t h o u t other inherited factors i n v o l v e d . T h e c r u c i a l circumstance

which

preserves

-tC||iio-/-tC||iiädivergence former

in

and

vs.

the

phonological

the

latter.

prehistoric

-tCio-/-VCiäIn

is

development Welsh,

the

opposition

the

of

irrevocable

between

relevant

the

reflexes

are these: from from from from 10

*-io- vowel-infection 1 0 *-ia- vowel-infection *-iio- vowel-infection + suffix -ydd *-iiä- vowel-infection -f suffix -edd.

For a survey of vowel-infection in Brittonic, cf. H . Lewis and H . Pedersen,

A Concise Comparative

Celtic

Grammar2

(Göttingen 1961)

Jackson, Language and History in Early Britain

9

1 0 6 - 1 1 2 . Cf. also K .

(Edinburgh 1953) 5 7 9 - 6 1 8 .

I. §4 T h e phonological development of Welsh -ydd and -edd is to be explained thus: En brittonique, le traitement le plus general, ou pour mieux dire celui dont les exemples sont le plus nombreux consiste ä maintenir le i en hiatus avec une valeur vocalique, si bien que devant la voyelle suivante il developpe apres lui u n j [ = -i-\. Ce y a son tour se renforce au point de devenir un d, en sorte qu'apres la chute de l'ancienne voyelle finale, il subsiste simplement une finale i + d. Cette finale est en gallois -ydd ou -edd, suivant que la voyelle tombee etait un ο ou un ä. C'est-ä-dire que l'ancien suffixe -io- [= -no-] est represents par -ydd, et l'ancien suffixe -id- [ = -na-] par -edd.11 The

suffix -ydd

nouns, 1 2

is formant of (a)

adjectives,

(c) object-nouns, (d) abstract

nouns, 1 3

(b)

agent-

while the

suffix -edd, of (d') abstract nouns likewise; 1 4 hence the following examples from W e l s h : 1 5 (a) newydd "new" < *nou-iio-; cf. Old Breton nouuid, Breton nevez, Old Irish nuae. Morphological parallels: Sanskrit ndvyah, Gothic niujis, Oscan Nouios. (b) prydydd "poet" < *k w ft-iio-; for the base, cf. the residual Irish noun creth "art of poetry" < *k w ft-o-; cf. also Vedic kjrnöti "makes," Old Slavonic caro-dejb "magician," Lithuanian ker-eti "bewitch," etc. 16 1 1 J . V e n d r y e s , " S u r le traitement b r i t t o n i q u e de i e n h i a t u s , " Bulletin de la Sociiti de Linguistique de Paris 47 ( 1 9 5 1 ) 2. 1 2 F o r instances of a g e n t - n o u n s w i t h *-iio- in. Baltic, e t c . , cf. c h a p , ii § 9, esp. n. 4 7 . 1 3 V e n d r y e s , " L e traitement b r i t t o n i q u e " 3, proposes that a b s t r a c t nouns w i t h * - i j o - w e r e i n a n i m a t e ; h e n c e Brittonic n o m i n a t i v e / a c c u s a t i v e s i n g u l a r * - i j o n . T y p e (c) is p r o b a b l y a s e m a n t i c specialization o f t y p e (d), arising after the p e r i o d w h e n the latter b e c a m e u n p r o d u c t i v e . ( F o r a discussion o f the process w h e r e b y a b s t r a c t nouns b e c o m e concrete nouns, cf. c h a p , ii § 9, § 11.) I f so, there is n o n e e d to ascribe b o t h functions (c) a n d (d) to the o r i g i n a l suffix * - i j o - ; the latter o f the t w o w i l l suffice.

C f . the G r e e k type κακία (-»— κακός), discussed in c h a p , ii § 12. F o r a n a m p l e r list, f r o m w h i c h the present selection w a s m a d e , cf. V e n d r y e s , " L e t r a i t e m e n t b r i t t o n i q u e " 3 f. 1 6 O n the Baltic a n d S l a v i c attestations of *k w er-/k , v or-/k"[·-: " T h e associai o n w i t h m a g i c in this g r o u p o f derivatives, w h i c h recurs i n V e d i c kartram " s p e l l , c h a r m " ([Atharva- Veda~\), w o u l d m a k e it likely that the i m a g e u n d e r l y i n g 14 15

IO

ΐ·§4 17

(c) mynydd "mountain" < *mon-iio-; cf. Old Breton monid, Cornish meneth, Breton menez. (d) riydd18 "royal splendor" < *reg-iio-; cf. Old Irish rige "royalty" < *reg-iion. (d') riedd19 "royal splendor" < *rcg-iiä-. These forms, then, are reflexes of the type -^C||iio-/-^C||ijä-. But wherever a particular word with this pattern loses its status of derived form bearing a specific function in its suffix *-ijo-/-ijä-, the morpheme-boundary (||) is then eroded; as a consequence, the marked syllabic *-i-, the sign of productivity, reverts to unmarked non-syllabic *-j-; hence In the Brittonic languages, the phonological reflex of the latter pattern is different from that of the productive counterpart For example, Welsh, as already noted, has transmitted the configurations *-jo-/-iä- in the guise of vowel-infection alone, without accessory suffixal -yddj-edd. Hence such examples as the following: caill "testicle" < *kall-io- or *kall-iä-; cf. Gaulish epo-call-io-n "equi testiculus." ceirch "oats" < *kork-io- (to be noted is the unmistakably heavy syllable preceding *-io- here); cf. Breton kerc'k, Old Irish coirce. dyn " m a n " < Celtic *don-io-, cognate of Greek χθόνιος; cf. Old Irish duine. [ O l d Irish] cretk is one of magically transforming something into something, rather than the simple notion of craftsmanship in Greek ποίησις; ποι4ω."— C . Watkins, " I n d o - E u r o p e a n Metrics and A r c h a i c Irish V e r s e , " Celtica 6 ( 1 9 6 2 ) 2 1 4 f. 17 T h e original meaning of mynydd was probably " G e b i r g e " rather than " B e r g " (cf. n. 1 3 ) . T h e epigraphical M O N E D O R I G I (Corpus Inscriptioruim Insularum Celticarum 4 1 3 , fifth century) probably contains Late British *monido-; if so, the name would mean " M o u n t a i n K i n g " : Jackson, LHEB (n. 10) 3 5 5 . 18 Spelled rihyd in e.g. The Red Book of Hergest; other orthographic variants: rihit, rihyt. F o r a detailed list of attestations, cf. Vendryes, " L e traitement brittonique" 4. 19 Spelled riet in e.g. The Black Book of Carmarthen; other orthographic variants: ried, rihed, rhiedd. C f . Vendryes, " L e traitement brittonique" 4 .

11

ΐ·§4

eil "other, second" < *al-io-; cf. Old Irish aile, Latiη alius, etc. haid "swarm" < *sat-iä-; cf. Old Irish saithe. We have reason, then, to expect that in borrowings of Latin words with -ius, -ia (as also with original -eus, -ea), the morphological force of these alien suffixes is likewise not perceived. Thus even though e.g. the -eus of Latin cuneus " w e d g e " would already show *-io- at the time of borrowing, the absence of a synchronically-perceived morphemeboundary nonetheless excluded the Welsh development of a potential form with productive suffix *-||ij|o-; instead, what is cuneus in classical Latin ultimately yields Welsh cyn, without the suffixal -ydd. Likewise bestia " b e a s t " > ... > bwyst (without -edd), etc. 2 0 §5. Phonological developments in Goidelic, unlike Brittonic, have obliterated the original opposition of productive nominals with the pattern -t?C||ijo-/-^C||iiä- vs. unproductive counterparts with - V c i o - i - V c i z - . From all four of these patterns, *-io- *-ijo- *-iä- *-ijä-, the uniform Old Irish reflex is -e.21 Thus even such a synchronically unmotivated configuration as *al-io-/al-jä-, with no surviving morpheme-boundary between etymological root and suffix, yields Old Irish nominative singular masculine/feminine ail-e " o t h e r , " with the same -e as seen in any reflex of onceproductive *-ijo-/-iiä-. The phonological circumstances leading to such a leveling of the opposition between productive - t C l l U V - and unproductive -t^CiV- will be outlined presently; 2 2 it is more important, however, to note first of all that whereas Goidelic does not preserve reflexes of 20

C f . Vendryes, " L e traitement brittonique" 5 ; also Jackson, LHEB (n. 10) 3 6 3 , § 4 2 . 21 Cf. R . Thurneysen, A Grammar of Old Irish, rev. and enl. ed., trans. D . A . Binchy and O . Bergin (Dublin: Dublin Institute for A d v a n c e d Studies, 1946) 60 f. 22 Cf. § 5 . 9 infra.

12

I- §5 such an opposition in nominals, it does in verbals.

The

r e l e v a n t facts c a n be a n a l y z e d as follows: (1) T h e r e are t w o kinds o f f - v e r b s in O l d Irish: T h u r n e y sen's class Β I I (a " s t r o n g " c o n j u g a t i o n ) a n d class A

II

(a " w e a k " c o n j u g a t i o n ) , 2 3 otherwise k n o w n as «"-stems a n d ί-stems respectively. 2 4 Constituents of the former class are deverbative

(or

primary)

from

the

Celtic

standpoint,25

w h i l e those of the latter are either d e v e r b a t i v e or d e n o m i n a tive. I n O l d Irish the d e n o m i n a t i v e verbs o f class A I I are still synchronically p r o d u c t i v e

(in the d e p o n e n t diathesis,

w h e n reinforced b y the accessory suffix deverbatives o f both classes A

-ag^j-ig1·-),26

whereas

II a n d Β I I are residual.

W e can c o m p a r e the kindred distribution in L a t i n , w h e r e «-verbs are in either the 3rd or 4th c o n j u g a t i o n if d e v e r b a t i v e f r o m the Italic standpoint, b u t exclusively in the 4th if d e n o m i n a t i v e ; here a g a i n , d e v e r b a t i v e ί-verbs are residual, a n d only d e n o m i n a t i v e i-verbs retained p r o d u c t i v i t y . 2 7 (2) T h e crucial distinction b e t w e e n the present stems of these t w o types o f O l d Irish i-verbs is f o u n d in the endings of the active c o n j u n c t 3rd s i n g u l a r : 2 8 A II -i < *-It; e.g. (fo)-ddli "distributes" < *däl-it; Thurneysen's paradigmatic exemplar: -leici "leaves" Β II -0 < *-it; e.g. (fo) -daim "endures" < *dam-it; Thurneysen's paradigmatic exemplar: ·gaib "takes." C f . T h u r n e y s e n , Grammar § 523, § 549. C f . H . Pedersen, Vergleichende Grammatik der keltischen Sprachen I I ( G ö t t i n g e n 1 9 1 1 ) 839 f : s.v. " P r ä s e n s b i l d u n g " in the Sachindex, there is a n i n v a l u a b l e list classifying all the i-verbs f o u n d in the Verbalverzeichnis (450-658) into i-stems a n d i-stems, w h e r e v e r possible. 2 5 I n fact, strong verbs c a n n o t be d e n o m i n a t i v e in O l d Irish: cf. T h u r n e y s e n , Grammar 336. 26 E.g. be'o " l i v i n g " —• ·beoigedar " v i v i f i e s , " follus " c l e a r " —• -foilsigedar " c l a r i f i e s , " debuith " s t r i f e " —• ·debthigedar " f i g h t s , " ainm " n a m e " —>· ·ainmnigedar " n a m e s , " e t c . ; cf. T h u r n e y s e n , Grammar 337 f. 2 7 C f . § 6. 2 8 F r o m here o n , the reconstruction of desinences as w e l l as stems w i l l b e c o m e a f a c t o r a f f e c t i n g the a r g u m e n t s o f f e r e d . F o r a n a p p r a i s a l o f the p r o b l e m s i n v o l v e d in t r a c i n g b a c k the desinential system o f the C e l t i c v e r b , I h a v e h a d 23 24

13

ΐ·§5

I propose that *-it and *-it in these instances are at best transitional, and as such must be traced back further to *-ijet 2 9 and *-jet respectively. 30 The second reconstruction is especially controversial, but the basic argument supporting it can be postponed 31 until we weigh the implications. T h e most fundamental of these is that if not only -i is from *-i|et but also -0 from *-iet, then we see in the contrast between conjunct 3rd singular (present) -i and -0 of A I I and Β I I verbs respectively a reflex of the IE-inherited opposition between productive -^C||ijV- and unproductive - ^ C j V - . A n d the vehicle whereby this morphological opposition

the benefit of reading a preliminary copy of C. Watkins' forthcoming book, A History of Indo-European Verb Inflexion (Part I of Indo-European Grammar I I I : Morphology·, English-language version). In this invaluable work, we find convincing evidence to show that the earliest layer of inherited thematic-stem verbs in Celtic had no 3rd singular ^-desinence: hence e.g. Old Irish 3rd singular conjunct -beir is ultimately derived from I E *bhere; the type *bheret, by contrast, is an innovation which can be motivated in terms of Celtic. 29 There is also a residual stative-intransitive A I I type with inherited formant *-e- (rather than *-ije-/-ijo-); for a list of probable and possible Old Irish constituents, cf. J . Vendryes, "Restes en celtique du theme verbal en -e-," Melanges linguistiques offerts ά Μ. Holger Pedersen (Aarsskrift for Aarhus Universitet 9.1 [Kobenhavn 1937]) 287-292. For the reconstruction of *-ijet, cf. e.g. Thurneysen, Grammar 365. 30 Once granted that the Old Irish A I I 3rd singular conjunct -t (as in •Uici) is derived from a thematic stem, we may trace it from *-ijet rather than from a more archaic configuration *-ije; the etymological presence/absence of *-t would then account for the following contrast: 3rd singular conjunct *-ijet > *-it > -t: e.g. Uici 2nd singular imperative *-ije > *-ϊ > -a: e.g. Uic. Alternatively, we may posit that 3rd singular -i is a phonological reflex of *-ije, and that the 2nd singular imperative -0 is the result of morphological truncation. For more on the latter phenomenon, cf. the discussion of the Gothic 2nd singular imperative, § 7 infra. For further discussion of leicijleic, cf. n. 32. As for the Β I I 3rd singular conjunct -0 (as in ·gaib), an original *-je is probable: that is, the 3rd singular conjunct of several inherited Β I I verbs may well be derived from an older *-je rather than from *-jet. I will cite infra (§ 5.4) apparent instances of both; in the meantime, however, the form *-jet will be suitable as a cover-symbol, since its phonological reflex would not be different from that of *-je in the extant phase of Old Irish. 31 Cf. § 5.8; the task will be to show that *-it is not inherited from I E . Η

ϊ·§5

could have been preserved in Goidelic was, I propose, the divergent phonological treatment of *-ij- and *-j- before *-e-, vs. that of *-ij- and *-j[- before *-o- or *-ä-: * - i i e - > · ... > *-ie- >

... >

-i

vs. * - i i o - >

-032

*-io-

... > · -e

>

... >

-e

*-iiä- >

... >

-e

... >

-e.

*-iä-

>

(3) As in Brittonic, Sievers' Rule as applicable to *-i[-j-ihad apparently broken down also in Goidelic: Old Irish reveals sporadic instances of i-verbs with conjunct 3rd singular -0 even after heavy syllable. For example, a form like 'bdid "immerses, drowns" 3 3 seems to force the reconstruction *bäd-it from the traditional standpoint of Celtic phonology: 3 4 in any case, * bad-it is impossible; what at first seems an alternative to *bäd-it is the claim that · b d i d is a morphological innovation, and that the inherited form is rather •bdidi, also attested. 35 In terms of the Old Irish verbal system at its extant stages, however, it is unlikely that · b d i d could have mechanically displaced · b d i d i ; the residual and unproductive Β I I conjugation is hardly fit to impose its synchronically unpredictable patterns on any constituent of the regular A I I conjugation. Even if the given constituent 32 For further elaboration, cf. § 5.9 infra. If we interpret the distinction between 3rd singular conjunct leici and 2nd singular imperative leic as phonologically motivated (cf. n. 30), then a word-final *-t must be affixed to *-ije(and perhaps at least secondarily to *-je-); but if we interpret this distinction as morphologically motivated (cf. again n. 30), no such corollary is needed. The latter of the two interpretations, however, removes the necessity of positing the transitional *-it in the sequence {*-ijet > *-It > -i} (and therefore possibly also the *-it in {*-iet > *-it > -0}); for that reason, *-it and *-it will henceforth be designated with a preceding question-mark. But cf. n. 77. 33 Cf. Pedersen, Vergleichende Grammatik II (η. 24 above) 458 f> s - v · 34 As for the standpoint of I E phonology, the root is apparently *g"ädh- : cf. J . Pokorny, Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch (Bern 1959) s.v. 35 E.g. do'bädi "extinguishes, destroys": cf. Lewis/Pedersen, Celtic Grammar (n. 10) 340; Pedersen, Vergleichende Grammatik II (η. 24) 4 5 ^ does indeed suggest that ·bdid is an innovation, in view of the fact that bdid- is otherwise a "regelmässiger -ϊ-Stamm."

15

ΐ·§5 is a synchronically unmotivated form, as is the case with the deverbative A I I verb baid-, it still belongs to a productive p a r a d i g m — t h e weak conjugation (here A I I ) , w h i c h regularly shows j-preterite and /-future as its main distinctive features. 3 6 T h u s too in the instance of an t-verb like tib" l a u g h " (cf. ist singular ηί-thibiu), the very fact that spreterite and /-future forms are attested in its p a r a d i g m 3 7 is enough to warrant its classification as " i - s t e m " ( = A I I ) 3 8 rather than " ϊ - s t e m " — t h i s even though the conjunct 3rd singular (present) is attested as -tib besides ·tibi, 39 In sum, since we cannot justify the presence of -tib (vs. -tibi) or of •baid (vs. ·bdidi) from the standpoint of the synchronic O l d Irish verbal system, we m a y uphold the traditional reconstruction (from the phonological standpoint) of *-it (vs. *-it) for the ending of the conjunct 3rd singular of these forms. But if we dispense with the reconstruction *-it/-it in favour of *-jet/-ijet, under the already-announced assumption that the former are at best a transitional phase of the latter, we are then encouraged to discern here the apparent reflex of an IE-inherited opposition between unproductive - t f C i V - vs. productive -VC||ijV-. W i t h the breakdown of synchronic motivation in a form like *bäd||ijet, the morpheme-boundary is eroded and marked syllabic *-i- ( = *-ij-) thereupon reverts to unmarked non-syllabic *-j-, whence *bädjet. T h e fact that the syllable preceding *-ijet was h e a v y did not impede a regression to *-iet: hence the conclusion that Sievers' R.ule had already become inoperative in Goidelic. D u r i n g the period of morphological 36 37

Cf. Thurneysen, Grammar (n. 21) 336. The relevant material can be found in Pedersen, Vergleichende Grammatik II

648. 38 Ibid. Cf. likewise R . Thurneysen, Old Irish Reader trans. D. A . Binchy and Ο . Bergin (Dublin 1949) 106 s.v. tibid. 3 9 Cf. Pedersen, Vergleichende Grammatik II 648, also Thurneysen, Grammar

535·

16

I. §5 attrition in i-stem deverbative verbs, the proposed phonological developments resulting in {*-iet > -0} and {*-ijet > -i} (with the possible mid-stages *-it and *-it) freeze the ultimate distribution, so that those i-stem deverbative verbs w h i c h had still been synchronically motivated at the time of these phonological transformations could survive with 3rd singular conjunct -i (e.g. ·leici), m while those w h i c h were then already unmotivated reveal -0 in the same grammatical slot (e.g. ·gaib). (4) T h e earlier those verbs with stem *-ije-/-ijo- become synchronically unmotivated (whence *-je-/-io-), the likelier it is that O l d Irish will preserve t h e m — i f they are to be preserved at a l l — i n the strong conjugation rather than in the weak. T h e r e are even instances where the strong conjugation of Β I I (stems in *-ie-/-jo-) shifts to that of Β I (stems in *-e-/-o-). 4 1 By contrast, the most recent group of verbs losing synchronic motivation just before the irreversible phonological split resulting in {*-jet > -0} and {*-ijet > -1} could survive already endowed with the characteristics of a weak conjugation (ί-preterite, y~-future, etc.) except for this one crucial idiosyncrasy in terms of O l d Irish: 3rd singular conjunct -0 ( < ? * - i t ) < *-iet rather than the expected -i ( < ? * - i t ) < *-iiet. I propose that -bdid and •lib are such forms. A n d the structural circumstance that bdid- and lib- are otherwise representatives of a synchronically predictable and regular paradigm, the A II conjugation, can generate the new 3rd singular constituents -bdidi and •tibi by means of a simple leveling process; in other words, 4 0 T h e e x e m p l a r usually cited for A l l , leici, shows a base with h e a v y s y l l a b l e ; this factor, h o w e v e r , is no prerequisite: for instances of A II 3rd singular conj u n c t w i t h light s y l l a b l e in the base, cf. e.g. (di)-cathi " s p e n d s , " (do)-malhi " t h r e a t e n s , " etc. 4 1 C f . T h u r n e y s e n , Grammar § 549, § 593. F o r the oldest l a y e r o f O l d Irish Β I I verbs, w e m a y reconstruct the 3rd singular c o n j u n c t as *-ie r a t h e r than * - j e t : e.g. 'nig " w a s h e s " < * n i g i < * n i g " j e ; cf. nn. 28, 30 supra.

I. §5 the likely explanation is that the latter two are innovations from -bdid and 'lib rather than the reverse. (5) T h e verbal developments in R o m a n c e afford a striking parallel to the Irish trends just outlined, in that the residual L a t i n z-stems of the 3rd conjugation (cf. Irish Β II) become transformed into either (a) f-stems of the 4th conjugation (cf. Irish A II) or (b) simple thematic stems of the 3rd conjugation (cf. Irish Β I). For example, reflexes in R o m a n c e show that (a) rapere (of rapid, etc.) can be replaced by *rapire (cf. French ravir) while (b) faciunt (of faciö, etc.) can give w a y to facunt (cf. French font)] and the latter form is already attested in Latin. 4 2 T r e n d (b) involved simply the leveling out of an -i- from the ist singular and 3rd plural in the present tense, and it is confined to those verbs with conjugational idiosyncrasies w h i c h defied synchronic predictability: " C e doivent etre ceux dont l'infinitif, le parfait et le participe etaient d ' u n emploi tres courant et opposaient par la-meme une plus grande resistance ä l'analogie du present. Iis ont, du reste, garde une forme de parfait archai'que: cepi,feci, iect et ils ont donne des formes nominales courantes tirees d u participe: träiectus, e t c . " 4 3 By contrast, trend (a) is prompted by the paradigmatic regularity and productivity of the 4th conjugation: the points of formal identity between the residual z-stem 3rd conjugation and the productive z'-stem 4th level out the synchronic irregularities of the former and warrant the ultimate prevalence of the latter. T h e two trends, then, can be summed up thus: "le latin tendait ä eliminer la 3 e conjugaison en -id, en la transformant en 4 e conjugaison, ou bien, lorsque cela n'etait pas possible, en eliminant l'-ι-." 4 4 T o ascribe these

4 2 Cf. A . Graur, " L a quatrieme conjugaison latine," Bulletin de la Societe de Linguislique de Paris 40 (1939) 127-150, esp. 138-141. 4 3 Graur, " L a quatrieme conjugaison" 140. 44 Ibid., 141.

18

I. §5 processes to Latin generally instead of Romance specifically is quite proper, in a teleological sense: what is more, in the case of trend (a), it may even be justifiable to designate it an Italic phenomenon. 45 Nor need we look so far ahead in time for replacements such as that of e.g. rapere by a *rapire reconstructed in terms of Romance: in this instance, it is simply that trend (a) took so long in coming to fruition that the new form is too late to be extant in what we know as Latin. But in many other instances, the trend has left its effects attested not only in classical but even in preclassical Latin; for example, besides the irregular pattern fodiöj fodere which is still standard in the classical period, there are already sporadic instances of fodiö/fodire in archaic Latin (hence e.g. Catonian fodirivs. Ennian fodentes), but the latter regular pattern finally wins out only in the postclassical period of imperial Latin (cf. the writings of Columella, Ulpianus, Ammianus Marcellinus, etc.); in sum, the fodire of Romance (cf. French fouir) can be motivated in terms of extant stages in Latin linguistic history. Not all instances, however, of attested coexistence between -ere and -Ire on the same base imply that the latter is necessarily a replacement of the former. For example, let us consider the contrast in the classical period between standard simplex pariöjparere and its etymological compounds comperiöj comperire, reperiöjrepertre; here the ancestral form of the simplex had undergone morphological attrition, reflected in its survival as ί-stem rather than f-stem. 46 Yet in the corresponding two compounds, the antiquity of which is assured by their preservation of the semantic function originally 45

On the prevalence of i-stem over Γ-stem primary verbs in Oscan and Umbrian, cf. C. D. Buck, A Grammar of Oscan and Umbrian2 (Boston 1928) 164 ff,

36.. 46 a

E.g. 2nd singular *parj|ijesi becomes *pariesi > b *parisi > cparis; cf. note 48 infra.

19

I. §5 inherent

and

then

eroded

curer"

"enfanter"),47

in

the s i m p l e x

(where

there

is retention

of

"pro-

synchronic

m o t i v a t i o n u p to the p e r i o d o f a p h o n o l o g i c a l shift {*-iie*-ϊ-}. 4 8

>

A s a result, they are preserved as constituents o f the

4th c o n j u g a t i o n . T h u s comperiöjcomperire a n d reperiöjreperire r e v e a l n o t i n n o v a t i o n b u t retention, a n d w e must distinguish these instances o f the 4th c o n j u g a t i o n f r o m the classically s u b s t a n d a r d s i m p l e x pariöjparlre49—which innovation,

is really a n

u l t i m a t e l y d i s p l a c i n g the classically

standard

residual s i m p l e x pariö/parere. H e r e a g a i n , t h e n , is a L a t i n d e v e l o p m e n t strikingly similar to G o i d e l i c : p a r a l l e l Latin (as

instances

with

of simplex

pariö/parere

amiciöjamicireb b * k o m p a r i s i > ccomperis; cf. the corresponding a b c in note 46 supra. ( T h e c h r o n o l o g i c a l o r d e r for the raising -ar- > -er- is not specified here.) 4 9 F o r w h i c h cf. G r a u r , " L a q u a t r i e m e c o n j u g a i s o n " 139. 5 0 C f . E r n o u t / M e i l l e t , Dictionnaire etymologique s.v. 5 1 C f . T h u r n e y s e n , Grammar 336 a n d Pedersen, Vergleichende Grammatik II 6 1 7 , 840. 52 Dialectes 112. 48

a*komparjjijesi

20

I. §5 was later completely thematized as in e.g. Greek (hence *-je-/-j[o-). T h e most salient disadvantage to such a theory, even aside from I E structural considerations, is that it requires the positing of an athematic *-I- besides *-i- in Celtic, whence 3rd singular -i ( A l l ) vs. -0 (Β II) respectively; and it seems an impossible task to formulate both phonological and morphological motivations leading to the ultimate distribution of supposedly original *-!- and *-i-. But perhaps the most decisive argument against the theory of inherited semithematic conjugation in Celtic t-verbs is the evidence to be extracted from the O l d Irish treatment of I E iteratives with suffixal formant *-eie-/-ejo-, the type *loukejeti (as in Sanskrit rocäyati " i l l u m i n a t e s " ) . 5 3 In Celtic as also in such other I E dialects as G e r m a n i c and Indo-Iranian, there is an early shift in this verbal category from iterative to causative function. 5 4 T h e structural framework leading to such parallel development is the hierarchy of oppositions commonly inherited. A n iterative derived verb (A) is primarily in opposition to the active diathesis of its motivating verb (B) and only secondarily in opposition to the mediopassive diathesis ( C ) ; but once the iterative function of form (A) is lost, whether by atrophy or by displacement, this same form (A) becomes iso-functional with the originally motivating form (B), and as the marked member of the two, it shifts from secondary into primary opposition to the mediopassive form (C). Hence e.g. V e d i c mediopassive vdrdhate " g r o w s " (C) is primarily opposed to vardhdyati "makes g r o w " (A), only secondarily (and indirectly) to vdrdhati "makes g r o w " (B). As a general rule even, we may expect the forms synchronically motivating causatives to be mediopassive or at least intransitive, 5 5 as with *leuketoi —> 53 54 55

For an important survey, cf. Kurylowicz, Apophonie 86-94. Cf. Kurylowicz, Apophonie 86-94 a n d Watkins, Celtic Verb I 120 f. Cf. Kurylowicz, Apophonie 93. 21

ΐ·§5

*loukeieti = V e d i c rocate " s h i n e s " —*• rocayati

"illuminates."

H e n c e also in e.g. G o t h i c w e find such intransitive/causative pairs (G/A) as the f o l l o w i n g : brinnan vs.

brannjan

bi-laibjan

"burn"

(transitive),

" l e a v e , " sigqan

s i n k , " sitan

"burn"

(intransitive) "remain"

bi-leiban

"sink, d e s c e n d " vs. sagqjan

" s i t " vs. satjan

vs.

"make

" s e a t , " e t c . 5 6 Causatives of the

type *loukeieti and w i t h the same relationship (C/A) are likewise attested in O l d Irish; e . g . : 5 7 *splend- as in Latin splendere vs. *splond-eie- as in Old Irish sluind- "designate." 5 8 said- "sit" vs. sdid- "set, l a y " as if from I E *söd-eie- (cf. saditi in O l d Slavonic). said- " s i t " vs. suid- "set, l a y " as if from IE *sod-eie- (cf. satjan in Gothic). laig- " l i e " vs. luig- "set, l a y " as if from IE *logh-eie- (cf. lagjan in Gothic and lo&ti in Old Slavonic). A c t u a l l y , the intransitive f o r m w h i c h h a d originally motiv a t e d luiglaig-;

c o u l d h a v e been w i t h root *leg-, 5 9 not

with

likewise, a n intransitive sed- and not said- must h a v e

m o t i v a t e d suid-.

I n this case, the e-grade is still preserved

in the future seiss. O n c e r a d i c a l ^-grade is ousted f r o m the present intransitive, the inherited motivation {...e... + intransitive desinence —> ...o... + transitive desinence} must said-.60

shift In

apophonically;

hence

sum,

nature

the

very

e.g.

new

of the

said—ν

new

innovations in

C f . K u r y i o w i c z , Apophonie 92. F o r a detailed collection of e v i d e n c e o n the type * l o u k e j e t i , cf. M . - L . Sjoestedt, " L e s iteratifs-causatifs dans les langues c e l t i q u e s , " Melanges linguistiques offerts a M. J. Vendryes (Paris 1925) 323-340. 58 For the e t y m o l o g y (involving C e l t i c *spl- > *stl-), cf. H . Pedersen, Vergleichende Grammatik der keltischen Sprachen I ( G ö t t i n g e n 1909) 83 f a n d I I (n. 24) 340; also T h u r n e y s e n , Grammar 139. : 5 9 F o r a n o t h e r possibility besides *leg-, cf. the discussion odoing-, n. 63 infra. 6 0 F o r the relative lateness of said- as intransitive stem, cf. Sjoestedt, "Iteratifsc a u s a t i f s " 336. 56 57

22

ΐ·§5 apophonic pattern suggests that the productivity of causatives may have extended well into the dialectal phase of Celtic. (7) Besides the stage when intransitive and mediopassive verbs motivate causative derivatives in a given I E language, we can expect an earlier stage when verbs of any diathesis, active included, motivate iterative derivatives. Thus e.g. in Vedic, there are still attestations of the formal type *loukejeti with iterative meaning (cf. mdddyati "becomes intoxicated"), 6 1 although such instances are strictly residual and the productive function of the type *loukejeti is exclusively causative. In Old Irish too, there is lexical evidence for the existence of such an earlier iterative stage besides the later causative stage; e.g.: boing- " b r e a k " (from *bhong-e-) vs. buig- (from *bhog-eje-). brenn- "effervesce" (from *bhrend-e-) vs. bruinn- (from *bhrondeie-). dloing- "split" (from *dlongh-e-) vs. dluig- (from *dlogh-eie-). geir- "heat" (from *gwher-e-) vs. guir- (from *gwhor-eie-). Despite the immense lapse of time since iteratives had last constituted a productive category, there is still occasional preservation of distinctions in nuance of meaning between an iterative and its etymologically motivating verbal form: hence apparently the following juxtaposition of dluig-j dloing- "split" (intransitive) in the Book of Leinster (8 b 4 3 ) : go ro dluigset η go ro dloingset a sceith a m-bile go a m-brontib "si bien que leurs boucliers s'ouvrirent et se fendirent depuis leur bord jusqu'ä leur milieu." 6 2 It is even possible to deduce 61

Cf. T . Burrow, The Sanskrit Language (London 1955) 356 f. Sjoestedt, "Iteratifs-causatifs" 3 3 1 . As another example, cf. the semantic distinction between intensive ( = iterative) guir- "bruler" (cf. Welsh gori "couver") vs. the attenuative ( = non-iterative) fo-geir- "chauffer," as documented by Sjoestedt, "Iteratifs-causatifs" 3 3 2 : ma gorith loch . . .fo-geir anggelan in uile corp "si elle enflamme une petite place . . . la maladie echaufle ensuite tout le corps." 62

23

ΐ·§5 apparent trends of formal distribution in the period when iteratives were productive; from e.g. such pairs as boing-/ buig- "break," bronn-jbmi- "damage," dloing-jdluig- "split," etc., M . - L . Sjoestedt has concluded that in Celtic, nasalinfix verbs stand in the same sort of relation to the iterative type *loukejeti as e.g. -cumbere to -cubäre in Latin. 6 3 In still other instances, the surviving relationship between originally motivating verb and its iterative is suppletive: thus e.g. the iterative stem bruinn- has displaced brenn- from the primary function of present-marker, but brenn- nevertheless persisted as stem-formant in other tenses and moods. 64 The iterative stem bruinn- is to be analyzed as a strong verb not only on the basis of its paradigm-correlates outside the present tense: in the Milan Glosses (81 c 14) we read du-bruinn dinaib slebib forsnatalmana cobsaidi inchre fechtnach sin "then flows from the mountains over the flat lands this rich silt." 6 5 From this attestation of the 3rd singular conjunct follows the definitive conclusion that the iterative stem bruinn- "effervesce" belongs to the Β I I conjugation; all the more interesting, then, is that bruinn- survives also in the more recent function of causative, this time meaning "smelt" and belonging to the A I I conjugation. 66 (8) That *bhrond-eje- in the more recently productive function of causative should be preserved in a productive weak conjugation is indeed predictable; likewise, that in the earlier function of iterative such a stem becomes relegated to the unproductive strong conjugation. Of even deeper 63 "Iteratifs-causatifs" 3 3 1 . Formally parallel to the types buig- and boingare luig- and loing-; the verb loing- is attested in both transitive and intransitive usage (basically " l a y " vs. " l i e " ; cf. Pedersen, Vergleichende Grammatik I I 5 7 0 ) , and it is the latter diathesis which could ultimately generate a causative luig-. 64 C f . Thurneysen, Grammar 3 5 5 , 4 2 4 and Watkins, Celtic Verb I 1 2 0 . 65 Gloss for the L a t i n in quas felix limns infiuxerit. F o r the phonological factors involved in (·bruinn >) •bruinn, cf. Thurneysen, Grammar 3 2 , 3 5 5 . 66 C f . Thurneysen, Grammar 3 5 5 .

24

Ι

·§5

significance, however, is that the I E type *loukejeti has ultimately undergone a formal split into the A I I and Β II conjugations of O l d Irish, and that this split had

been

regulated by whether at a given prehistoric point, the reflex of the I E formant *-eie-/-eio- was still motivated or already unmotivated on a given base: whence accordingly the 3rd singular conjunct types -suidi "sets" 6 7 vs. ·briiinn "effervesces" respectively. F r o m such pairs, we note that as also with the I E formant *-(i)ie-/-(i)j[o-, the lightness or heaviness of the preceding syllable seems to exert no effect on the O l d Irish reflexes of *-eie-/-ejo-: only the morphological factor is operative. 6 8 But this circumstance is itself phonologically relevant, for it warrants the conclusion that *-eie-/-ejo- is reflected as *-ije-/-ijo- in Goidelic, 6 9 and that this configuration in turn is subject to becoming *-je-/-io- by morphological 6 7 E . g . a-t suidi " f i x e s " : St. Gall Glosses 66 a 20. F o r the a r c h a i c 3rd p l u r a l c a u s a t i v e sudiot " t h e y e s t a b l i s h , " w i t h d i s y l l a b i c -iot m e t r i c a l l y ascertained, cf. W a t k i n s , " M e t r i c s " (n. 16) 225 n. 1. 6 8 F o r other e x a m p l e s , cf. the 3rd s i n g u l a r c o n j u n c t f o r m -lugi " l a y s " (as in do-d-lugi) vs. -soid (as in con-soid); for the v o c a l i s m in soid- (vs. said-), cf. Sjoestedt, " I t e r a t i f s - c a u s a t i f s " 334, 336. C o n t r a r y to Pedersen's v i e w (Vergl. Gram. I I 605 f ) that con-soid- is to be s e p a r a t e d e t y m o l o g i c a l l y f r o m said- " s e t , " its v e r y m e a n i n g " b r i n g (someone) into c o m b a t " is a s e m a n t i c extension f r o m " s e t t o g e t h e r , " as a r g u e d a n d d o c u m e n t e d b y Sjoestedt, " I t e r a t i f s - c a u s a t i f s " 336. T h i s s e m a n t i c extension, h o w e v e r , must h a v e c o i n c i d e d w i t h loss of causative f u n c t i o n — h e n c e (1) the b r e a k d o w n in s y n c h r o n i c m o t i v a t i o n b y intransitive said-, (2) the resulting o p p o r t u n i t y for a v o c a l i c shift f r o m said- to soid- (in c o m position w i t h p r e v e r b con-, vs. u n c h a n g e d sdid- in c o m p o s i t i o n w i t h p r e v e r b in-), a n d (3) the 3rd singular c o n j u n c t -0 instead o f - i , r e v e a l i n g that con-söidh a d a l r e a d y b e e n ousted f r o m the p r o d u c t i v e c a t e g o r y o f i-stem verbs at a time w h e n the opposition b e t w e e n s y n c h r o n i c a l l y m o t i v a t e d *-j|iie-/-|[iio- vs. u n m o t i v a t e d *-je-/-jo- w a s still o p e r a t i v e . O n the s e c o n d o f the three factors listed here, it is n o t e w o r t h y to a d d that w h e r e v e r composition w i t h p r e v e r b con- is attested w i t h the m e a n i n g "set t o g e t h e r " r a t h e r t h a n " b r i n g into c o m b a t , " there the root-vocalism reveals -said-, not -soid-; the f o r m e r c o u l d be s y n c h r o n i c a l l y r e g e n e r a t e d at a r e l a t i v e l y late p e r i o d . 6 9 I n fact, {*-ej- > *-ij-} in p r e v o c a l i c position is p r o b a b l y a d e v e l o p m e n t c o m m o n to C e l t i c as a w h o l e : cf. T h u r n e y s e n , Grammar § 78.2, § 197, § 304, § 549, etc. C f . also J . P o k o r n y , " Z u m i n d o g e r m a n i s c h e n K a u s a t i v u m , " [ A . Kuhn's] Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 60 (1933) 2 5 3 : "[urkeltisches] -eye- n o c h v o r d e r S y n k o p e uririsch z u -1- g e w o r d e n ist."

25

ΐ·§5 attrition, 70 just like genuine *-iie-/-iio-. Hence e.g. the following reconstructions: •brmnn-0 ( < ? * - i t ) < •suid-i ( < ? * - i t )
-1} and { * - j e > -i}; y e t the factors i n v o l v e d in the f o r m a l evolution of aili a n d duini are better e x p l a i n e d as primarily m o r p h o l o g i c a l a n d only secondarily p h o n o l o g i c a l . I f w e observe the i n t r a - p a r a d i g m a tic hierarchy

in the declension of simple

thematic-stem

nominals f r o m the I E standpoint, the relationship b e t w e e n v o c a t i v e singular (*-e), genitive singular (*-ϊ), and n o m i n a tive singular (*-os) is as follows:

Likewise w i t h t h e m a t i c z-stem n o m i n a l s :

T h u s in Goidelic, the e x p e c t e d p h o n o l o g i c a l developments { * - j e ( > ?*-i) > -0} and { * - i i ( > ?*-!) > -0} are subject to m o r p h o l o g i c a l interference b y the f o r m a n t w h i c h determines * - j e and *-ji, n a m e l y n o m i n a t i v e singular *-jos. T h e precise 73

Cf. § 5.2 and § 5.3; also nn. 30 and 32.

74

T h e nominative singular is the functionally unmarked and fundamental

member of declension. Thus it is the nominative singular which predicates the other members of the paradigm; cf. the designation of nominal inflection as πτώσας

or πλάγιαι

(also Latin cäsüs obliqui); Grammatik

from the nominative, in Greek grammatical

tradition

to be consulted: E. Schwyzer/A. Debrunner,

Griechische

II ( M ü n c h e n 1950) 53 f. For a general discussion, cf. R . Jakobson,

"Beitrag zur allgemeinen Kasuslehre," Travaux 6 (1936) 240-288; reprinted

in Readings

du Cercle Linguistique

in Linguistics

F . W. Householder, R . Austerlitz (Chicago 1966) 5 i - 8 g .

27

de Prague

II, ed. Ε. P. H a m p ,

ΐ·§5 nature of this morphological interference is inextricably linked with the phonological development of *-j- and *-ijbefore back vowels ( = -Ο-) in Goidelic: *-iiO- > *-iO*-iO- > *-iO-. Where -O- =

there is this further development: *-iä- > *-eä-. 75

A t this point, then, we are ready to dispense with the formulation of Thurneysen, in that there is no need to assume that absolute-final vowels were retained after original *-jor *-ii-. Hence the Goidelic declensional development (singular) of IE-inherited nominals in *-C(i)ios can be outlined as follows: I Ν G D V

-C(i)ios -C(i)ii -C(i)iü -C(i)ie

2 -Cioh -Cii -CiQ -Cie

3 -Ceah

4

-Ci"ü

5 -C'e -C'i -C'u -C'i

Stage 4 represents w-epenthesis, while stage 5 (the attested period of O l d Irish) shows the loss of vowels in absolute word-final position. The paradigmatic pressure exerted by the nominative singular prevented the genitive and vocative singular from undergoing split phonological developments into what would ultimately become -C'i (from -Ciie and -Ciji) vs. -C'0 (from -Cje and -Cii). It remains to be asked, then, why e.g. the ist plural, originally *-jomo, or the 3rd plural, originally *-iont, did not exert similar paradigmatic pressure on the 3rd singular *-ie(t) as in *damje(t). The answer is found in the universal syntactic 7 5 T h i s rule is a n extension of the one f o r m u l a t e d b y T h u r n e y s e n , Grammar § 73. T h e theory o f {*-i- > *-i-j in p r e v o c a l i c position (followed by {*-i- > *-e-} before *-ä-) I derive f r o m lectures by C . W a t k i n s o n C e l t i c (spring 1966).

28

ΐ·§5

circumstance that the 3rd singular constitutes the fundamental member of the paradigm, both functionally and structurally; thus it tends to influence the forms of other persons, rather than the reverse. 76 We can therefore conclude that there is no morphological pressure sufficient to prevent the phonological shift * - j e t ( > ?*-it) > -0, as in *damjet(> ?*damit) > · d a i m ; likewise *-iiet(> ?*-it) > -i, as in *dälijet(> ?*dälit) > · d d l i . 1 Ί (ίο) In sum, the IE-inherited opposition between -C||ij[Vand -CjV- has survived in Goidelic verbs because of the phonological fact that V = e in the fundamental member of the present conjugation, the 3rd singular; by contrast, traces of the same opposition have been obliterated in Goidelic nominals betause of the likewise phonological fact that V = 0 or V = ä in the fundamental member of the declension, the nominative singular: *-iiet ( >

?*-it) >

-i

3rd singular conjunct

("weak")

*-iet

(>

?*-it) >

-0

3rd singular conjunct

("strong")

*-iios

>

*-ios

>

-e

*-ios

>

*-ios

>

-e

nominative singular masculine

*-iiä

>

*-iä

>

-e

*-iä

>

*-iä

>

-e

*-ii

>

-i

genitive singular masculine

*-ie

>

-i

vocative singular masculine.

nominative singular feminine

76

Cf. E. Benveniste, "Structure des relations de personne dans le verbe," Bulletin de la Societe de Linguistique de Paris 43 (1946) 1 - 1 2 ; cf. also the significant elaborations and applications of the theory by Watkins, Celtic Verb I 90 ff. 77 Cf. again § 5.2 supra. A further adjustment on this proposition might make it more satisfactory:

vocative

*-iie(t) *-ie(t) *-(i)ie

> > to

*-ie *-i *-ie

> > >

-i -0 -i.

In other words, the transitional stages from *-iie(t) to -i and from *-je(t) to -0 may not be parallel: we could posit that *-ije- did not become *-!-, but that *-je- became *-i-. Meanwhile, the vocative *-ie is a secondary morphological creation, and not a direct phonological inheritance from *-(i)ie.

29

I. §6

§6. F r o m the synchronic standpoint of attested classical L a t i n , the reflex of I E postconsonantal/prevocalic *-j- is -i-, as in trisyllabic alius, medius from * alios, *medhjos. 7 8 This circumstance m a y encourage the initial impression that this one phonological development would have wiped out all traces of any original opposition between -C||iiV- and - C i V - . But as in Goidelic, the change { - C j V - > - C i V - } has been obviated when e.g. V = e. A definition of the conditions will follow presently; more immediately important, however, is that even in instances where e.g. V — ο in an original configuration - C j V - , certain prehistoric phonological developments nonetheless result in the irrevocable formal differentiation of this residual - C j V - from -C||iiV-. Thus e.g. when C = d, g, s in Italic, - V C j o - survives as - V j i u - in L a t i n : peius /peiius/ < *pedios; cf. fiessimus maius /maiius/ < *magios; cf. magis eitis /eiius/ < *esios; cf. Sanskrit asyd, Middle Welsh eidd-aw ( < *esio). 79 Such survivals with the configuration - V i V - , in contrast to the numerous synchronic patterns with -Vd||iV-, -Vg||iV-, 78

Cf. Leumann, LG ι io. Cf. Leumann, LG 155 f, 289 f, 296; also LG 49, for a collection of arguments proving /-V'jiV-/ (hence not /-VjV-/): (1) the evidence of Romance: e.g. Italian peggiore from peiiörem (2) attested spellings like E I I V S , E l V S , E l I V S , E l I V S (3) teslimonia like that of Quintilianus ( 1 . 4 . 1 1 ) on Cicero's spelling aiio, etc. (4) Plautine cuiius, aiiebas, etc. in the Ambrosianus (5) formal statements in the Latin grammatical" tradition, as e.g. that of Priscianus (GLK I I 1 4 . 5 - 1 4 ) : 79

. . . antiqui solebant geminare eandem i litteram et maiius, peiius, eiius scribere, quod non aliter pronuntiari posset quam cum superiore syllaba prior i, cum sequente altera proferretur, ut pei-ius, ei-ius, mai-ius. nam quamuis sit consonans, in eadem syllaba geminata iungi non posset, ergo non aliter quam tellus, mannus proferri debuit. unde Pompeiii quoque genetiuum per tria i scribebant, quorum duo superiora loco consonantium accipiebant, ut si dicas Pompeiii. nam trfbus i iunctis qualis possit syllaba pronuntiari? quod Caesari doctissimo artjs grammaticae placitum a Victore quoque in Arte Grammatica de syllabis comprobatur.

30

I. §6

-Vr||iV-, 8 0

show

conclusively

that

non-syllabic

had

existed (in - C j V - ) at an ancestral phase of w h a t is ultimately Latin. O n l y after e.g. *pedjos has become *pejjos does e.g. *aljos become *alios. Even more conclusive is the evidence from such contrasts as between 3rd conjugation capiö/capis, pariöjparis, speciöj specis, fugiö/fugis sitiö/sitls,

and 4th conjugation ueniöjuenls,

rugiöjrugis.81

Such

distributions

clearly

feriöjfens, suggest

that * - j e C and *-iieC had already become * - i C and * - i C respectively b y the time that the phonological shift { - C j V > - C i V - } took place. Hence an original opposition between productive -C||UV- and unproductive - C i V - is preserved where

V = e etymologically—an

comparable with that in

ultimate

development

Goidelic. 8 2

8 0 E . g . acu-ped\\ius (-*— ped-, as in pes, pedis), stud\ium ( *-i-} h e r e w i t h p o s i t e d : f r o m the a p o p h o n i c h i e r a r c h y o f formants {*-es-tät*-os) as in tempestäs -

*aiio-

>

*-ägio- >

Aius -ägium

in

adägium.

speak, the once-synchronic relationship of amiciöjamicis with iaciöjiacis, V a r r o ' s Sprachgejühl proceeds forthwith to generate the hypothetical amiectum, which we see in the quoted gloss as if it were some incidental replacement of the genuine amictum; hence civcum-icio : circwn-iectus = am-iciö : am-iecius. 83 F o r a brief discussion of the metrical evidence, cf. F. Sommer, Handbuch der lateinischen Laut- und Formenlehre2 (Heidelberg 1 9 1 4 ) 1 5 5 , 545 f; cf. also n. 79 supra. As for the metrically-attested variant dis (e.g. Plautus, Menaechmi 820) vs. ais (e.g. Plautus, Rudens 1072), it is the former which shows innovation from the latter, in that ais could be synchronically generated to replace ais at any given stage of L a t i n , but the reverse possibility does not hold (cf. also n. 86 infra); for a parallel, cf. the discussion of e . g . f o d i s (fodire) vs.fodis(fodere) in § 5 . 5 : so also with ais vs. ais, it is the productive 4th conjugation which is destined to win out over the residual 3rd, the sanctions of classical L a t i n notwithstanding. 84 C f . V a r r o (as cited by Gellius 1 6 . 1 7 . 2 ) : Aius deus apellatus araque ei statuta est, quae est (in) infima noua uia, quod in eo loco diuinitus uox edita est. C f . also Emout/Meillet, Dictionnaire etymologique (n. 47) s.v. aid. 85 F o r a discussion of these types, including aid .-adägium, cf. Watkins, Celtic Verb I 1 9 - 2 1 .

32

I. §6 T h e contrast here b e t w e e n light a n d h e a v y syllable in the base

has

resulted

in

divergent

suffixal

development—a

circumstance w h i c h suggests that unlike O l d Irish, L a t i n has preserved traces of Sievers' R u l e : - V C i i V - vs. - V G j V - . It is the v e r b a l e v i d e n c e , h o w e v e r , w h i c h is decisive in s h o w i n g that Sievers' R u l e h a d not b r o k e n d o w n before the p h o n o l o g i c a l shift { - C j V - > - C i V - } ; the crucial synchronic factor is that there exist no i-stem verbs w i t h heavy-syllable base in the L a t i n 3rd c o n j u g a t i o n (hence no type *audis, only audis), a n d f r o m this w e c a n c o n c l u d e that Sievers' R u l e h a d p r e v e n t e d attrition f r o m - V C | | i j V - to - V C j V - . T h u s - V C i i V r e m a i n e d e v e n after the loss of m o r p h e m e - b o u n d a r y ; only

attrition

possible

was

from

-VC||ijV-

to

w h e n c e the a l r e a d y - m e n t i o n e d types capiöjcapis, speciöjspecis,

the

-VCjV-, pariöjparis,

fugiöjfugis.^

Besides such p r i m a r y d e v e r b a t i v e z-stem verbs as ueniöj uents, feriöjfens, indirectly)

rugiöjrugls,

which

reflect

(perhaps

an original - V C | | i j V - in contrast

to

only

-VCjV-,

there are also secondary d e n o m i n a t i v e z-stem verbs w h e r e the reflex of *-ije-/-ijo- still constitutes a p r o d u c t i v e f o r m a n t in

classical

Latin.

Significantly,

all

such

b e l o n g to the 4th c o n j u g a t i o n : e.g. erudiöjerudis, impediöjimpedis,

equiö/eqms,

etc.;87

also

denominatives stabiliöjstabilis,

denominative,

of

course, are e.g. the desideratives in -turlre, f o u n d e d on the supine:

nupturiöjnupturls,

parturiöjpar tuns,

etc. W e

canturiöjcanturis, h a v e already

micturiöjmictuns,

noted the

parallel

8 8 G r a u r , " L a q u a t r i e m e c o n j u g a i s o n " (n. 42), has refuted the theory that e . g . * k a p l s , *fakis h a d b e e n inherited, later p r o d u c i n g capis, facts b y i a m b i c s h o r t e n i n g ; p e r h a p s the most serious o b j e c t i o n to i n v o k i n g the latter p h e n o m e n o n is that w e are d e a l i n g here not w i t h a g e n e r a l l y Italic but rather a specifically L a t i n p h o n o l o g i c a l m e c h a n i s m . T h u s a n y notion that i a m b i c shortening is the key factor in g e n e r a t i n g e . g . f a d s fails to a c c o u n t for p a r a l l e l instances of *-i- in O s c a n a n d U m b r i a n : cf. e . g . O s c a n factud " f a c i t ö , " w h e r e the s y n c o p e w a r r a n t s the reconstruction * f a k i t ö d r a t h e r than * f a k i t ö d . 8 7 C f . R . T h u r n e y s e n , Über Herkunft und Bildung der lateinischen Verba auf -io ( L e i p z i g 1879) 3 - 1 7 .

33

I. §6 development in O l d Irish, where the denominative i-stem verbs, likewise still productive in the attested language, consistently belong to the conjugational class A II, not to Β II. 8 8 In sum, the opposition between - C i i V - and - C i V - had been motivated both phonologically (heavy vs. light syllable preceding -C-) and morphologically (presence vs. absence of morpheme-boundary following -C-) in a prehistoric phase of L a t i n ; in the classical phase, such opposition had become leveled into a uniform - C i V - ; towards the period of V u l g a r Latin and onwards into R o m a n c e , this uniform - C i V (as also - C e V - ) became - C j V - . 8 9 §7. In G e r m a n i c as in Celtic, the phonological shift of prevocalic *-ei- to *-ii- 9 0 makes the I E verbal type *loukeieti a category indispensable for any attempt to evaluate how the IE-inherited phonological opposition { - V C i j V - : - V C i V - } and the morphological opposition {-C||iiV- : - C i V - } may have survived, specifically in Gothic. Like O l d Irish, Gothic too shows a split in the ultimate development of the type *loukejeti; only here the split was motivated by phonological pressures alone: e.g. heavy base-syllable *gouseieti (cf. Sanskrit josdyati) > Gothic kauseip91 " e x a m i n e s " vs. light base-syllable *loghejeti (cf. O l d Slavonic loziti) > Gothic lagjip " l a y s . " N o w the last productive function of the type *loukejeti in G e r m a n i c had been as c a u s a t i v e — a function still preserved lexically by e.g. the just-mentioned lagjan " l a y " vs. the surviving ί-grade ligan " l i e . " 9 2 T h e attested patterns of the type 88 C f . § 5-1, § 5.5. 89 90

F o r the latter process, cf. e.g. S o m m e r , Handbuch (η. 83) 133, 156. C f . e.g. E . Prokosch, A Comparative Germanic Grammar ( P h i l a d e l p h i a 1939)

92· O f course, G o t h i c -ei- = /—I—/ hie et ubique. C f . § 5.6 for a discussion of the G o t h i c e t y m o l o g i c a l relationships brinnan " b u m " (intransitive) —• brannjan " b u r n " (transitive), bi-leiban " r e m a i n " — » · bi-laibjan " l e a v e , " sigqan " s i n k " —*• sagqjan " m a k e s i n k , " sitan " s i t " —> satjan " s e a t , " etc. 91

92

34

ι·§7 lagjan are therefore crucial: that the 3rd singular of such a verb should survive as lagjip rather than as *lageip implies morphological attrition from -C||iieti to -Cjeti before the phonological development from *-ije- to * - I - . 9 3 But the attested contrast {kauseifi : lagjip) is equally crucial: it in turn implies that at such a period of morphological attrition from -C||ijeti to -Cjeti, the phonological opposition {-VCiiV- : - V C j V - } was still operative and continued to be operative until original *-ije- finally became *-i-: hence the j-ipj after heavy syllable in kauseip. In this respect, then, the Gothic development resembles not Old Irish but Latin, where z-stem verbs with preceding heavy syllable in the base could survive only in the 4th conjugation to the exclusion of the 3rd, even if such verbs no longer belonged to a productive category. 94 Parallel to the attested situation in both Old Irish and Latin, denominative i-verbs apparently still constitute a productive category in Gothic: e.g. maurpr "murder" —• maurprjan "to murder" as in maurprjandam,95 In this category, then, we would expect to find instances of 3rd singular /-ψ/ rather than /-jif>/, reflecting original -C||ijeti as contrasted with -Cjeti. Hence such denominative 3rd singular forms as riqizeip "becomes dark" ·«— riqisjriqiz "darkness" and mikileid "extols" ·*— mikils " b i g . " There is no compelling internal evidence to justify the positing of a special extension, as it were, of Sievers' Rule, wherein Germanic (or at least Gothic) -CjV- becomes -CijV- after not only preceding heavy syllables but also preceding disyllables; this traditional explanation 96 merely accounts for attested forms, 93 Whether I E * - e - had already been raised to G e r m a n i c * - i - is of no immediate consequence here. 94 C f . § 6. 95 F o r a representative list, cf. E . Kieckers, Handbuch der vergleichenden gotischen Grammatik ( M ü n c h e n 1 9 2 8 ) 2 8 8 ff. 96 Cf. e.g. Prokosch, Germanic Grammar (η. go) 92.

35

I. §7 as in the present discussion it would apply to riqizeip and mikileid. From contrasts between 3rd singular -jip and -eip, we expect that the 2nd singular imperative of the latter should be -i, by shortening in absolute word-final position of an original *-! < I E *-ije or *-eje. Yet instead, Gothic shows not /—ί/ but /-I/ in this inflectional slot: hence e.g. sökei. A morphological factor has interfered here with the expected phonological development: what is inherited in -ei represents not so much the I E form *-ije or *-eie but rather, the relationship of the latter to the functionally and formally basic member of the paradigm, 3rd singular *-ijet(i) or *-ejet(i). 97 From the formal point of view, such a relationship between 2nd singular imperative *-ije/*-eie and 3rd singular indicative *-ijet(i)/*-ejet(i) was synchronically subtractive: the 2nd singular imperative is the 3rd singular indicative minus the accessory *-t(i) in the latter. Hence the Gothic inheritance of {*-iie-ti/*-eje-ti —> *-ije-0/*-eie-0} as {-ei-p —> -ei-o}. But there still remains the task of explaining the spread of imperative formant -ei from bases with heavy last syllable to bases with light last syllable, as in nasei, bugei, hugei, tawei. In such instances the -ei is generated in terms of the whole conjugation rather than a basic constituent of the conjugation; for such interparadigmatic transposition, two synchronic factors are especially relevant: (1) the stem (i.e., the segment after base and before desinence) of Gothic weak verbs reflecting I E *-eje-/-ejo-; singular ist 2nd 3rd plural ist 2nd 3rd

-ja-o vs. -ja-0 -ji-s -ei-s -ei-p -β-Ρ -ja-m -ja-m -ei-p -ß-p -ja-nd -ja-nd

cf.

-0-0 -Ö-S

-ö-p -ö-m -ö-p -ö-nd

97 For theoretical background, cf. n. 76. There are extensive applications of the theory in C. Watkins' forthcoming book, cited in n. 28.

36

ΐ·§7 (2) the already-discussed circumstance that verbs with stem -ja-j-ei- are still apparently productive as denominatives, whereas verbs with stem -ja-j-ji- are strictly residual. It follows, then, that the stem-interrelation {-ja—-ei-} is operative, but not {-ja—>- -ji-}; rather, -ji- is a synchronically unmotivated survival. Thus a verb with unproductive stem -ja-j-ji- could generate a new 2nd singular imperative -ei on the basis of partial identity with the productive stem -ja-j-ei-; in other words, -ja- (of the stem -ja-j-ji-) —ν -ei, parallel to -ja- (of the stem -ja-j-ei-) —*· -ei. Such extension of a productive paradigm at the expense of an unproductive one partially identical to it has already been posited with reference to Latin, where the z'-verbs of the unproductive 3rd conjugation tend to become leveled out on the model of the productive 4th conjugation. 98 There are also extrinsic factors which have a bearing on whether the inherited morphological opposition {-C||iiV- : -CjV-} is to survive in Gothic; an illustrative instance is the ultimate reflex of IE nominal stem *-(i)jo- in the neuter. The phonological development in the nominative/accusative singular was this: IE *-(i)jom > Germanic *-(ί)Ϊ4 > *-i, as in Gothic - t . " That is, is dropped in absolute wordfinal position. Thus *-i, with no vowel after it, is no longer capable of responding phonologically to whether the preceding syllable is heavy or light. In effect, then, the phonological opposition {-VCiiV- : - V C j V - } broke down in the nominative/accusative singular of neuter nominals reflecting the IE stem *-(i)jo-. Now the Germanic genitive singular of the latter stem would have been *-(i)iesa for both masculine and neuter. But since the neuter genitive singular was primarily motivated by the unmarked nominative/accusative singular, the cancellation of the phonological opposition 98 99

c f . § 5.5, § 6. Cf. Prokosch, Germanic Grammar (n. 90) 134 f.

37

ΐ·§7

{ - V C i j V - : - V C j V - } in the latter case after > *-i} could entail a similar development in the former case: hence the opposition {-VCijes : -VCies} in the neuter genitive singular can be neutralized in favor of -VCjes, 1 0 0 as a result of declensional leveling. Thus it is that in the Gothic genitive singular of neuter stems derived from IE *-(i)jo-, -jis is attested after heavy syllables as well as light: e.g. arbjis, kunpjis, gawairpjis, andbahtjis, waldufnjis, etc., besides regular gawairpeis, andbahteis, waldufneis, etc. 1 0 1 In the corresponding masculine reflex of IE stems in *-(i)jo-, the ultimate divergence of -jis I-eis after heavy syllable did not take place, presumably because at the time when the nominative/accusative singular in the neuter was already *-i, the nominative of the corresponding masculine was still *-(i)jas; 1 0 2 hence masculine -VCijas/-VCias vs. neuter then nominative *-iias, *-jas > *-is, *-jis; also genitive *-iies, *-ies > *-is, *-jis. Thus the ultimate development in Gothic is that the nominative singular masculine becomes formally identical with the genitive singular; e.g. Ν harjis G harjis "host, multitude" vs. Ν hairdeis G hairdeis "herdsman."103 100

Cf. a g a i n n . 93. F o r these f o r m s a n d o t h e r s , cf. Kieckers, Handbuch (η. 95) 110 f. 102 W h e t h e r the * - a - w a s a l r e a d y raised e.g. to *-e- is of n o i m m e d i a t e c o n sequence here. 103 p o r a n a p p a r e n t l y p r o d u c t i v e f o r m a n t -eis (reflecting I E *-"ijos) a f t e r a light syllable, cf. n o m i n a t i v e s i n g u l a r ragineis " c o u n s e l l o r . " I a g a i n r e f r a i n f r o m p r o p o s i n g t h a t t h e disyllabic base h e r e w a s a p h o n o l o g i c a l f a c t o r in d e t e r m i n i n g -eis i n s t e a d of -jis, j u s t as w i t h the verbs riqizeip a n d mikileid. It goes w i t h o u t s a y i n g t h a t t h e proposals I d o s u b m i t h e r e c o n s t i t u t e m e r e l y a n o u t l i n e of h o w Sievers' R u l e is reflected in G o t h i c . T h e r e has b e e n m u c h w r i t t e n o n t h e p r o b l e m , a n d I a m g r a t e f u l to H . A . R o e for a c q u a i n t i n g m e w i t h t h e full e x t e n t of the b i b l i o g r a p h y . O n e of t h e most interesting a m o n g r e c e n t w o r d s has b e e n a n a t t e m p t b y W . W i n t e r ( " J u n c t u r e in P r o t o - G e r m a n i c : S o m e D e l i b e r a t i o n s , " Language 31 [1955J 5 3 0 - 5 3 2 ) to e x p l a i n t h e G o t h i c t y p e ragineis in t e r m s of m o r a - s t r u c t u r e in t h e b a s e — a s y n c h r o n i c f a c t o r for w h i c h h e finds a typological p a r a l l e l in his n a t i v e L o w G e r m a n d i a l e c t , s p o k e n a t H a s e l a u ( t w e n t y miles n o r t h w e s t of H a m b u r g ) . W h i l e this t h e o r y is a t t r a c t i v e , I still m a i n t a i n t h a t a d i a c h r o n i c e x p l a n a t i o n , in t e r m s of I E h e r i t a g e , is p r e f e r a b l e . Also useful as 101

38

ΐ·§7

In sum, I E *-ije- and *-ie- become Gothic j-l-j and /-ji-/ respectively. Corresponding to the latter is West Germanic and Nordic /-i-/,104 comparable to the Latin /—ί—/ resulting from IE *-je-. 1 0 5 Thus e.g. in West Germanic, no gemination of the preceding consonant is caused by an etymological *-je- as opposed e.g. to *-jö-; hence O l d Saxon ist/2nd singular leggiu, legis vs. Gothic lagja, lagjis. §8. By now we have found arguments against the necessity of positing, as did Meillet, 1 0 6 an inherited conjugation in *-i-/-jo- for Celtic, Italic, and Germanic. 1 0 7 In each instance, I have proposed an original *-je-/-jo- instead. The same might now be attempted for Albanian, which Meillet had later added to the list of IE dialects showing a supposed *-i-/ -jo-. 1 0 8 While the latter formulation again might not be impossible on the basis of the Albanian internal evidence, neither is it the inevitable solution, as we can see from the discussion of the relevant verbal classes by La Piana. 1 0 9 Granted, the conjugational types in *-nj|ö and *-tjö do preserve an alternation that may phonologically be reconstructed as reflecting *-i-/-io-: { 1 } * - n i ö , {2} * - n i s , {3} * - n i t >

{ 1 } -n, {2} -«, {3}

{1} *-tiö,

{i}-s,

{2} *-tis,

{3} * - t i t >

{ 2 } -t,

background for the present discussion have been J .

-n

{3}

W. Marchand's

Converse of Sievers' L a w and the Germanic First-Class Weak V e r b s , "

"The

Language

32 (1956) 285-287, and a reply by W. P. Lehmann, Language 37 (1961) 7 1 - 7 3 , among other works. T h e conclusions reached here resemble those of M a r c h a n d , at least with respect to a general attitude on morphological factors. 104

Cf. Prokosch, Germanic Grammar (n. 90) 214.

105

Cf. § 6.

106

Dialectes

107

Cf. § 5, § 6, § 7 respectively.

108

Dialectes,

109-113. "Avant-propos de la reimpression" 14; further elaborated in

" L a flexion du suffixe *-ye/o- en albanais," Mimoires de Paris 109

19 (1916)

de la Socie'te de

Linguistique

119-121.

M . L a Piana, Studi linguislici

albanesi (Palermo 1949) 7 4 - 8 7 ; this work was

brought to m y attention by R . Wright.

39

I. §8 Also, the i-vocalism of {2} and {3} exerts an Umlaut on the vowel of the preceding syllable; hence: * . . . a . . . i C # > * . . . e . . . i C # > attested ...€...# as seen in e.g. {ijflas

vs. {2}flet, {3} fiet.

But even the phonological evidence for a stage showing stem *-i-/-jo- cannot be held decisive for proving that this is IE-inherited, since there is also in A l b a n i a n a conjugational class w h i c h must be reconstructed with stem *-i-/-o-, e.g. the A l b a n i a n cognate of Greek γιγνώσκαι:110 Siculo-Albanian

Tosk

Geg

{1} {2}

ngox ngex

njoh njeh

njof njef

{3}

nSex

nJeh

nM

< <
-e-} presupposes *-is, *-it for {2} and {3}, while evidence is seemingly lacking for *-j[ö instead of *-ö in {1}. Y e t surely the supposition of an IE-inherited conjugation in *-i-/-o- is precluded, so that we are forced to ask whether an A l b a n i a n conjugation in *-i-/-o- does not in reality show the phonological reflex of the I E thematic conjugation in *-e-/-o-. T h e n it could even be posited that e.g. prehistoric A l b a n i a n *-is/*-it has two phonologically converging I E sources: *-es/*-et and *-jes/*-jet. O r perhaps we should 110

Ibid. 75 n. 16. 40

I. §8 reconstruct *-(j)esi/*-(j)eti > *-isi/*-iti. T h e central point insisted upon here, however, is not the precise reconstruction but rather a theory that I E *-je- and *-e- had undergone a phonological merger in A l b a n i a n . W i t h this m u c h posited, it is possible to formulate one earlier phase in the chain of phonological developments leading to the 3rd singular of the important verbal type ban, as already attested in the writings of B u z u k u (date: 1555); formulated by L a P i a n a , 1 1 1 the successive stages involve *banit > *bandit > *bandit > ban. T o be added now is * b a n j e t > *banit, followed by L a Piana's proposed changes. As for the verbal type without Umlaut, as in { 1 } hap, {2} hap, {3} hap (instead of hap, *hep, *hep), it p r o b a b l y reflects not the IE-inherited thematic conjugation in *-e-/-o-, but rather, some derivative conj u g a t i o n (e.g. with stem *-äje-/-äjo-). §9. T h e Indo-Iranian evidence for the phonological opposition { - V C i j V - : - V C j V - } and the morphological opposition {-C||yV- : - C j V - } has already been outlined by K u r y l o w i c z , 1 1 2 whose conclusions I propose here to examine and to expand. (1) T h e productive category w h i c h we will choose as illustration is the Indo-Iranian nominal formant *-(i)ya-, inherited from I E *-(i)ie-/-(i)jo-. In both Avestan and V e d i c there is evidence for the archaic existence o f - V C i y a - besides - V C y a - , through metrically-preserved syllabification: hence e.g. Avestan isiya- vs. isya- "desirable," vairiya- vs. vairya" w o r t h y , c h o i c e , " e t c . 1 1 3 and V e d i c dpiya- vs. dpya- " w a t e r y , " "i

Studi 78. "Keilschrift" (η. ι) 563-569. 1 1 3 For a list, cf. Kurylowicz, " K e i l s c h r i f t " (η. ι) 567. For an early discussion of -iya- after light syllable, cf. H . Hübschmann, "Iranische Studien," [A. Kuhn's] Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 24 (1879) § 38 ("Excurs: i-y, U-Ü") 362-367. 112

41

ι·§9 mddiya- vs. mddya- "intoxicated," etc. 1 1 4 Sometimes the variation between -iya- and -ya- on the same base is even attested in the same line; e.g., Rig-Veda 7.1.11cprajävafifu duriyäsu dürya. T h a t a variant in -ya- juxtaposed with one in -iya- should occur here and elsewhere too 1 1 5 in verse-final position is in itself a sign of archaism, 1 1 6 and we may surmise an early morphological attrition 1 1 7 from e.g. diir\\iya- to dürya-. It is from such attrition that there arises the poetic option of either retaining syllabic -iy- in a given word, as sanctioned by inherited usage, or allowing non-syllabic -y-, on the precedent of apparently current usage. This option, however, is strictly circumscribed: several nominals with -iya- have no alternate with -ya- in the Rig-Veda (e.g. ksdmiya-, gdniya-, damiya-, etc.), 1 1 8 leading to the conclusion that morphological attrition had not yet commenced for such nominals at the period of Rig-Vedic composition—or at least not early enough to set precedent for usage of -ya-. W h a t is more, forms with -iya- after light syllable persist into the period of Middle Indie, as attested e.g. in the orthography of the Asokaedicts and of Pali; 1 1 9 for the latter, we can even formulate specific morphological constraints: postconsonantal/prevocalic -iy- survives in the declension of /-stems (e.g. genitive 1 1 4 F o r a list, cf. Ε . V . A r n o l d , Vedic Metre ( C a m b r i d g e 1905) § 136; cf. also A r n o l d , Historical Vedic Grammar ( N e w H a v e n 1 8 9 7 ; reprinted f r o m the Journal of the American Oriental Society 18 [1897]) § 94. O n the transcription -iya- vs. -ia-, cf. J . W a c k e r n a g e l , Altindische Grammatik I ( G ö t t i n g e n 1896) 200, 203. » 5 C f . A r n o l d , Vedic Metre § 136. 1 1 6 F o r a discussion of m e t r i c a l factors c o n t r i b u t i n g to the g e n e r a l t e n d e n c y o f preserving archaisms in verse-final position, cf. W a t k i n s , " M e t r i c s " (n. 16) passim. 1 1 7 F o r the c o n c e p t , cf. a g a i n § 3 supra. 1 1 8 Cf. Arnold, Vedic Metre § 136: likewise in A v e s t a n : cf. K u r y l o w i c z , " K e i l s c h r i f t " (η. ι ) 567. 1 1 9 Cf. W a c k e r n a g e l , Altindische Grammatik I (η. 114) 2 0 r . T h e o r t h o g r a p h i c representation -iya- is o f course a l r e a d y current in a r c h a i c texts, e v e n aside f r o m m e t r i c a l considerations.

42

ΐ·§9

singular -iy\\ä, nominative plural -iy\\o; cf. Vedic -iy\\äs, -iy\\as) and in nominals with formant -iya- (hencc -j|y>a-).120 Likewise in Iranian: for example, the O l d Persian material reveals that there are still extant nominals with formant -iya- after light syllable. Here the evidence for -iya- is not from metrics, nor directly from orthography, but rather from the phonologically divergent development of p, t, c before original -iya- and before -ya-, i.e. -piya-, -tiya-, -ciyavs. -fiya-, -Oiya-, -siya- respectively; 1 2 1 as for the uniform 1 2 0 Cf. W a c k e r n a g e l , Altindische Grammatik I 201 ; note too E d g e r t o n ' s a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t that w h a t he terms Sievers' L a w is " i n . . . later Indie . . . v i r t u a l l y restricted to c e r t a i n m o r p h o l o g i c a l c a t e g o r i e s " : " I E S e m i v o w e l s " (η. i ) go. C f . also L . R e n o u , Grammaire sanscrite2 (Paris 1961) § 196, last p a r a graph. 1 2 1 C f . K u r y l o w i c z , " K e i l s c h r i f t " (η. ι ) 567 f f : e.g. a d j e c t i v a l Harauvatiy\\a" A r a c h o s i a n " (--stem by a participial «/-stem as in {*snt-||ij0*sent-/sont-125} is no longer productive in extant Indie and Iranian, whence e.g. the excessive rareness of satiyd- in Vedic. 1 2 6 Then too, if a whole grammatical category with formant - j j i y V - had already become unproductive by the period of early Vedic, we may expect lexical survivals from such a category to be attested as a rule with the pattern -yV- rather than with -iyV- in the Rig-Veda. Thus for example deverbative verbs with formant -(i)ya- (i.e., the fourth, ifo-class), unlike the deverbative nominals with formant -(i)ya- (i.e., unlike gerundives), 127 show as regular pattern -ya- rather than -iya- after light syllable; this verbal trend in distribution (as opposed to the nominal trend) we can connect directly

kuii "he who defiles" (a well, in this case); also, in an Akkadian-Hittite vocabulary (Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköi I 42 3 1 ) , the Akkadian participle häbilu "gewalttätig" is glossed as dammelhilkizzi kuii, literally "welcher schädigt." 122 Cf. Kurylowicz, "Keilschrift" (η. ι) 567 ff. 123 Cf. Kurylowicz, "Keilschrift" (η. ι) 567; likewise Old Persian haiiya< *satya-, not *satiya-: cf. n. 1 2 1 . 124 Cf. H. Grassmann, Wörterbuch zum Rig-Veda (Leipzig 1873) s.v. 125 As in Latin ab-sent-is, Greek όντ-os. 126 Besides several scores of instances showing satyd-, Grassmann can find only one metrical attestation of satiyd- in the Rig-Veda: cf. Wörterbuch s.v. satyd-. 127 For a list of gerundives with regular formant -iya- after light syllable, cf. Arnold, Vedic Metre (n. 1 1 4 ) 84.

44

ΐ·§9

with the fact that the div-class is an unproductive category in attested Indie. 128 But there still remains the problem of explaining the trend found in the three productive verbal classes originating from the residual rfiV-class; i.e., the future with -sya-, the passive with -yd- (both productive inflectional categories), and lastly, the denominative with -ya(a productive derivational category). 129 Each of these verbal classes regularly reveals (after light syllable) the pattern -ya- rather than -iya- in Rig-Vedic meter, 130 and this circumstance presents a distinct aporia in view of the productive nominal class with formant -iya- frequently warranted by the same metrical evidence. I propose that the reason for this divergence is concealed in the morphemes accessory to the -ya- of these productive verbal classes: in the future, the postconsonantal formant -s-ya- becomes replaced by -is-ya-,izi while in the passive and denominative, there is obligatory accentuation of -ya-. In other words, the accessory morphemes (i) -i- and (2) marked stem-accentuation {-yd-) set off productive sya- and ja-verbs respectively from the unproductive counterparts with (1) no -i- and (2) unmarked base-accentuation (-ya-). From this standpoint, 128 Cf. W. D . Whitney, A Sanskrit Grammar3 (Leipzig 1896) § 761, who counts over 130 extant Λ'υ-class stems: this low figure, compared with e.g. the 150-odd extant constituents of the residual and archaic sixth, /«(/-class (i.e., the type tuddti), is in itself a telling sign of the diachronic span involved in positing a once-productive derivative category of deverbatives with formant -(i)ya-. For some rare instances of -iya- after light syllable, a vestige of long-lost productivity in this category, cf. Arnold, Vedic Metre 100. 129 Cf. chap, iii § 5. 130 Cf. Wackernagel, Altindische Grammatik I (η. 1 1 4 ) 202. What is more, passive -iya- (vs. -yd-) is not at all to be found in the Rig-Veda, while future -siya- is attested but once, by Whitney's count: Sanskrit Grammar § 771 g, § 932 b. 131 For the extension of complex -is- from je/-roots as replacement of simplex -s- and for the morphophonemic conditioning, cf. Kurylowicz, Apophonie 2 5 2 - 2 5 7 . In the Rig-Veda, there are only seven occurrences of future-formant -sya- not preceded by -i-: cf. F. Edgerton, "Sievers's L a w and I E WeakGrade Vocalism," Language 10 (1934) 254.

45

ΐ·§9

then, the -i- and the stem-accentuation are iso-functional with the prevocalic generation of syllabic complex -iy- in opposition to non-syllabic simplex -y-: all three are accessory morphemes and all three polarize productive categories from unproductive counterparts; hence -isya- vs. -sya-, -yd- vs. -ya-, -iya- vs. -ya-.iz2 In the case of the productive verbal categories discussed so far, the first two polarizing mechanisms have been generalized at the expense of the third. Nevertheless, such displacement of the opposition {-C||iyV- : -CyV-} is not a universal trend in Indie verbals as opposed to nominals: in e.g. the optative, only -iy- (vs. -y-) is the accessory morpheme, whence the numerous RigVedic attestations of -iyä- vs. -yd- as optative-formant even after light syllable. 133 (3) In the oldest extant phases of Indie and Iranian, there are also clear reflexes of the phonological opposition {-VCijV- : -VCjV-}. In the Rig-Veda, for example, even constituents of the residual ώρ-class of verbs occasionally show -iya- after long syllable: hence the imperfect of asya"throw" is attested metrically as dsiya- besides dsya-.134 The latter form, however, betrays the ultimate breakdown of Sievers' Rule (specifically, the opposition {-VCijV- : -VCjV-}) already in the Vedic period; in unproductive categories such as the i/i'y-class, the metrical preservation of -iya- after heavy syllable is merely an exceptional archaism rather than an operative mechanism: hence regular -ya- in such constituents of the ί/z'y-class as srdmya-, stvya-, medya-, etc. 1 3 5 But in grammatical categories where the morphological opposition {-C||iyV- : -CyV-} has survived, the chances 1 3 2 Here again, then, is an illustration of Kurylowicz's axiom I, already quoted in note 5 and already applied to the contrast {-C jijV- : - C j V - } in § 2. 133 F o r a ]; s t j c f Arnold, Vedic Metre (η. 114) 96. 1 3 4 Cf. Edgerton, "Sievers's L a w " (n. 1 3 1 ) 255. 1 3 5 Listed by Edgerton, "Sievers's L a w " 255.

46

I. §9 for the parallel survival of the phonological opposition { - V C i y V - : - V C y V - } in Vedic diction are appreciably enhanced. For example, in the productive category of nominals with formant -iya-, there are two factors which promote the prevalence of -iya- after heavy syllable in the Rig-Veda: (i) the actual preservation of Sievers' Rule by words embedded in archaic formulae, and (2) additionally, the prevention of a shift from -VC||iya- to - V C y a - in a given word (despite loss of morpheme-boundary and suspension of Sievers' Rule), because of the precedent set by its attestation elsewhere as -VCiya- in the tradition. These two factors combine to leave in the Rig- Veda nine instances of nominal -iya-j-iyä- for every one of -ya-j-yä- after heavy syllable. 1 3 6 Even in the case of the two most frequent nominals with -ya- after heavy syllable, namely daivya- "divine" and sürya- "sun," they are outnumbered by ddiviya- and süriya64 to 14 and 230 to 122 respectively. 137 Nonetheless, the anomalous ratio here implies that morphological attrition from the productive nominal category in -iya- took place especially early for süriya- (thanks to the early desuetude of its founding form siivar), in comparison with other instances of -ya- after heavy syllable. In other words, I propose that resistance to the usage of sürya- (vs. süriya-) in Vedic composition is relatively weaker because the loss of morphemeboundary here is relatively older. As for daivya-, it is inherited as a formulaic correlate of divyd- in Vedic composition (cf. e.g.' the mutual collocations with jdna-), and the lightsyllable base of the latter could have imposed an adherence to -y- (vs. -iy-) in the former. The central point, however, is that the phonological opposition { - V C i y V - : - V C y V - } had been suspended at an early period of Indie. Likewise in

ΐ3β A r n o l d ' s statistics: Vedic Metre 85. 137

E d g e r t o n ' s statistics: " I E S e m i v o w e l s " (n. 1) 121 n. 7 1 .

47

I. §9 Iranian, there are attestations of the pattern -VCyValready in Avestan: e.g. västrya- vs. västriya- "agricultural," zzvistya- vs. zsvistiya- "quickest, most impetuous," etc. 1 3 8 138 p o r a ii s t a n c j accompanying statistics, cf. Kurylowicz, "Keilschrift" (η. ι) 556 f. As for Old Persian martiya- " m a n , " it could have been synchronically motivated by *marta- "mortal" ( < *morto-): cf. Vedic martiya- •*— mdrta"mortal." In other words, Old Persian martiya- need not be considered a form directly inherited from Indo-Iranian, provided that *marta- = /marta-/ "mortal" was inherited. The latter form is not to be confused with the attested Old Persian marta- = /mrta-/ " d e a d " < *mfto-; cf. Vedic τη^Ιά-, Avestan rmrita-. Actually, both */marta-/ and /mjta-/ are reflected in New Persian: märd " m a n " vs. murd " d e a d " respectively; cf. Chr. Bartholomae, Altiranisches Wörterbuch (Strassburg 1904) s . w . rnanta- and msrata-. Also, Avestan masya"mortal" may be derived from *mrtya-, which raises the question whether Old Persian martiya- might be interpreted as /mrtya-/: cf. A. Debrunner, Die Nominalsuffixe (Vol. I I 2 of J . Wackernagel's Altindische Grammatik-, Göttingen 1954) 789. In sum, it would be inadequate to posit any preservation of Sievers' Rule from the evidence of the Old Persian contrast between martiya- and uvämarsiyu- ( = adjectival " b y a natural death": used of Kambyses; cf. Herodotos I I I 64-66); the reconstructed contrast between *martiya- and *-mrtyu- (cf. Vedic mftyil-, Avestan mmiSyu- "death") can be explained on morphological grounds: the former configuration had been synchronically motivated while the latter was already a residual inheritance. For a cogent discussion of uvämariiyuand its connection with e.g. the Latin phrase sua mort.·, cf. W. Schulze, " D e r Tod des Kambyses," Sitzungsberichte der königlich preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (1912) 685-703, reprinted in his Kleine Schriften (Göttingen 1933) 131-148.

48

C H A P T E R

II

R E F L E X E S OF N O M I N A L *-(i)io-, *-(i)iä- IN L I T H U A N I A N

Der

enge

besteht

Zusammenhang,

(dide—didliös

usw.),

der der

d e r i n d e r M o t i o n z w i s c h e n -iasj-ia seits

herrscht,

zwingen

zu

der

zwischen

stellt s i c h

io-

und

h e r a u s , dass d i e

auftritt, i m

zä-Stämme

As

andrerdiese

Einheit ableiten

lässt,

auf

unkontrahierte Tatsächlich

unter denen

-ias,

M a s k u l i n u m wie i m F e m i n i n u m die gleichen —F.

§1.

j-e

ob

zurückgeht.

Bedingungen,

i-Flexion

Parallelismus, nicht

d e r g e s t a l t , dass m a n , w i e f r ü h e r a l l g e m e i n , kontrahierte

und

einerseits, -is(-vs)

Fragestellung,

V e r t e i l u n g sich aus einer ursprünglichen und

id-

unverkennbare

in the

statement just

cited,

the

Sommer

specific

-ia sind.

(1914).1

examples

u p o n w h i c h t h e e x p o s i t i o n h e r e is t o r e l y w i l l b e t a k e n f r o m Lithuanian, Latvian

and

b u t t h e g e n e r a l c o n c l u s i o n is m e a n t t o h o l d f o r Old

Prussian

as w e l l . 2

Before any

attempt

to

1 F . S o m m e r , Die indogermanischen iä- und io-Stämme im Ballischen (Abhandl u n g e n der philologisch-historischen K l a s s e d e r k ö n i g l i c h sächsischen Gesells c h a f t der Wissenschaften 30.4 [ L e i p z i g 1 9 1 4 ] ) 368. 2 A m o n g the most i m p o r t a n t works w i t h discussions of this p r o b l e m a r e : J . K u r y l o w i c z , " L e s themes e n -e- d u b a l t i q u e , " Bulletin de la Societe de Linguistique de Paris 61 (1966) 1 3 - 2 0 ; H . Pedersen, La cinquieme declinaison latine ( D e t K o n g e l i g e D a n s k e V i d e n s k a b e r n e s Selskab. Historisk-Filologiske M e d d e l e l s e r 1 1 . 5 [ K o b e n h a v n 1 9 2 6 ] ) ; W . R . S c h m a l s t i e g , " B a l t i c ei a n d D e p a l a t a l i z a t i o n , " Lingua 9 (i960) 2 5 8 - 2 6 6 ; W . P. S c h m i d , Studien zum baltischen und indogermanischen Verbum ( W i e s b a d e n 1963); F . S o m m e r , Stämme, see n . i ; C h r . S. S t a n g , Vergleichende Grammatik der baltischen Sprachen ( O s l o / B e r g e n / T r o m s ö : U n i v e r s itetsforlaget, 1966).

T h e L i t h u a n i a n reference-works used t h r o u g h o u t this c h a p t e r a r e : E . F r a e n k e l , Litauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch I/I I ( H e i d e l b e r g : W i n t e r , 1962/ 1 9 6 5 ) ; A . Leskien, Litauisches Lesebuch ( H e i d e l b e r g 1 9 1 9 ) ; J . O t r f b s k i , Gratnatyka jtzyka litewskiego I ( W a r s z a w a 1958), I I ( 1 9 6 5 ) , I I I ( 1 9 5 6 ) ; A . S e n n , Handbuch der litauischen Sprache I : Grammatik ( H e i d e l b e r g 1966); P. S k a r d z i u s , Lietuviti kalbos zodziil daryba ( V i l n i u s 1 9 4 3 ) ; Z . Z i n k e v i c i u s , Lieluvin dialektologija : lyginamoji tarminfonetika ir morfologija ( V i l n i u s 1966).

49

II- § I

describe the Baltic phonological conditions which could have prompted the ultimate development of e.g. standard Lithuanian -is{-ys)j-e and -iasj-ia as reflexes of postconsonantal *-ijos/-ijä and *-ios/-iä respectively, we must first examine the relevant morphological factors. The initial premise is that in Baltic, opposition between productive - C |iiV- and unproductive - C i V - persisted regardless of whether the preceding syllable was heavy or light. 3 Accordingly, the IE-inherited nominal class in postconsonantal *-(i)io-, *-(i)iä- becomes Baltic *-ija-, *-ijä- (productive) vs. *-ja-, *-jä- (unproductive). Lithuanian in turn reflects this opposition in a transformed state, since e.g. *-iias/-iiä are contracted into -is(-ys)/-e, as distinct from uncontracted -ias/-ia. Here we see the ultimate products again given specifically in Lithuanian, though the actual phenomenon of what I presently call contraction is apparently Baltic. For example, the contrasting -iaj-e of Lithuanian is directly comparable not only with Latvian aj-e but also with the Old Prussian -il-e in the orthographic system of the Elbing Glossary,4 §2. Besides I E *-o-/-ä-, a formally more complex relationship of nominal formants is, to repeat, *-iio-/-iiä-, copiously attested in the various I E languages. From a selective survey of these attestations in chapter I, 5 I have posited that loss of productivity in the affixation of *-ijo- and *-ijä- to any 3

I.e., the phonological opposition { - Y C i j V - : - V C j V - } had collapsed. Cf. Schmid, Verbum I η f. 5 Conspicuously absent from the discussion has been the relavant Old Church Slavonic evidence, where e.g. we see a variation between -jb and -bJb as reflex of I E *-(i)ios. T h e precise grammatical nature of this variation is hard to define: cf. the examples and comments ofFered by A . Meillet, Etudes sur Vilymologie et le vocabulaire du vieux slave I I (Paris 1 9 0 5 ; re-edited by A . Y'aillant, 1 9 6 1 ) 3 7 5 ff. Part of the difficulty has been the lack of an authoritative collection of attestations, a situation now being remedied by D. Cooper's forthcoming "Possessive Adjectives in -jb, -hjb in Old Church S l a v o n i c " (the title is tentative) ; in this valuable work, Cooper has been able to formulate a clear morphophonemic rule for the distribution, using as illustration many forms previously uncited in other published discussions. 4

50

II. § 4

base results in the loss of vocalic *-i-, whence *-jo- and *-jä- respectively. What makes Baltic in general and Lithuanian in particular an important control of this theory is (1) the sharp formal distinction between reflexes of *-ijos/-ijä as -is(-ys)j-e and of *-jos/-iä as -iasj-ia (2) the productive motivation of -e by -is{-ys). §3. Phonological difficulties aside, deriving -e from *-ijä is at least intuitively feasible from such parallelisms as in {orl "plowing" and küle "threshing" vs. sejd "sowing"}, 6 and it has long been recognized that -e in such instances seems to be the postconsonantal variant of original postvocalic *-jä (as in sejd)y whence the direct or indirect etymology {-e from *-ijä}. 7 If indeed we may consider -Ce to be the reflex of *-Cijä, it follows that -Ca (spelled -Cia) is derivable from *-Cjä. §4. Proposing the etymology {-is(-ys) < *-ijos} involves fewer phonological difficulties than the conjectured {-e < *-iiä}, 8 but even here it is clearly the morphological distribution which carries conviction. For example, there is an interesting parallel to other I E languages in the attestation of Lithuanian -is(-ys) as productive compoundformant. The contingent facts are these: for simplex substantive with o-stem, there is a corresponding compound adjective with {-stem, as in Greek ήλος —*· fy-ηλις, Latin 6 T h e international pattern (4) of all three indicates deverbative foundation by drti " p l o w , " kulti " b e a t , thresh," and seti " s o w " respectively. F o r the pattern, cf. Kurylowicz, Accentuation 2 4 7 fF. T h e variants ore (2) " p l o w i n g " and kule {2) " t h r e s h i n g " are innovations from ori (4) and küll ( 4 ) : cf. Stang, Vergleichende Grammatik (η. 2) 1 4 7 . T h e fact that küll can also bear the concrete meaning " c l u b " ( c " b e a t e r " ) suggests the ouster of this form from the primary function of abstract-marker—a further indication of archaism relative to kule (abstract only); cf. § 9 and § 1 1 infra for a discussion of the trend {abstract concrete} and its implications. F o r a general discussion oi külljküle, cf. Fraenkel, LEW (n. 2) s.v. kdlti. 7 8

Cf. Sommer, Stämme (η. ι ) 1 1 ; also Schmalstieg, " B a l t i c ei" (η. 2) 2 6 3 . F o r a proposed solution covering both -is(-ys) and -e, cf. § 2Q-§ 3 2 infra.

51

II. § 4

clluos prö-clluis, Sanskrit ardhah —> präti-ardhih, etc. 9 This apparently IE-inherited relationship is also amply attested in e.g. Lithuanian, but in a transformed state on account of a wholesale ouster oft-stern adjectives by ζϊο-stems, 10 whence the function of «ο-stems as the productive compound variant of simplex o-stems, e.g. vaikas "child" —»• be-vaikis "childless," etc. Given that an athematic z-stem declension has been replaced by a thematized z'-stem declension in such categories as the compounds now in question, w h a t here becomes a crucial factor is that the latter are consistently reflected with the declension -is(-ys)j-ioj..., not -iasj-ioj...; in other words, the second of these two declensional types cannot function as productive compound-formant. In fact, Lithuanian -iasj -ioj... does not function as productive formant of any other nominal category either, except in instances where it has become frozen onto a positionally preceding suffix-marker so that the ensemble is productive but not its constituent elements, 1 1 as in the superlative suffix -idus-iasj-idus-iol·..; on the other h a n d , the formant -is(-ys)j-ioj... is productive even in positions where it is attached directly to the nominal base, as in the already-mentioned instance of such compound types as be-vaikis (vs. vaikas); likewise anträdien-is " T u e s d a y " (a neologism, from antras "second" -f diena " d a y " ) , duonkubil-is "kneading-trough" (from duona " b r e a d " + kübilas " v a t " ) , etc. 1 2 Not only t h a t ; -is{-ys)j-ioj... is also a productive formant attached directly to verbal bases as well, in compounds of the type veidrod-is " m i r r o r " (from veidas " f a c e " + rod-yti "show"), kaminbrauk-ys "chimney 9 F o r details about such compounds from the I E standpoint in general and from the Greek standpoint in particular, cf. Schwyzer, GG I 4 5 0 f. 10

Cf. § 14. F o r a typological discussion of productive compound morphemes made up of unproductive constituents, cf. Kurylowicz, Inflectional Categories 5 2 f. 12 F o r a descriptive survey, cf. Senn's "Nominalkomposition," Grammatik (η. 2 ) 3 4 0 - 3 5 1 . 11

52

Π. §5 sweep" (from käminas " c h i m n e y " + braük-ti "scour"), ziemkent-ys "male pig kept past wintertime" ( = "wintersurviver"; from iiemä " w i n t e r " + kes-ti "suffer through, e n d u r e " ) , bobved-ys "one who marries an old w o m a n " (from boba + ves-ti " m a r r y " ) , etc. I n sum, just as -Cia is the unproductive equivalent of -Ce, so also -Gas of -Cis(-Cys). §5. Once the phonological contraction {*/-iia-/ > */-!-/} took place, 1 3 a nominative singular originally in postconsonantal *-ijas ( < *-iios) could irrevocably become what is now -is(-ys) in Lithuanian, 1 4 while postconsonantal *-jas ( < *-jos) survives as -ias, i.e., simple thematic -as + palatalization of the preceding consonant. If a form consisting of base + productive suffix *-iias h a d already become unmotivated at the time of contraction, the morphemeb o u n d a r y before the *-ijas was ipso facto obliterated and the formant *-iias could lose the formal mark of its productivity, syllabic *-i-; whence *-jas > Lithuanian -ias. T h u s an adjective like släpc-ias ("clandestine") with its dialectal by-form släpt-as (same meaning) 1 5 indicates that the inherited iso-function of *-ija- a n d *-a- as adjectival formants had in this case already broken down functionally before the contraction {*/-iia-/ > */-!-/}; hence *slapt-|| ijas => *slaptjas > släpcias. However, in e.g. the specialized function of marking nomen agentis, the correlation {*-a- : *-ija-} has remained productive beyond this same stage of contraction, whence the survival of such lexical pairs as gaidys "rooster" {, spelled svety, the regular vocative singular of svecias in standard Lithuanian; the locative singular svetyje in the standard language (vs. e.g. residual mede, locative singular of medzias) is likewise imposed by the type gaidyje. Aside from such partial encroachment of a regular paradigm upon an irregular one, a further possible stage is complete leveling, whence the dialectal types svetys (vs. svecias) and elnis (vs. elnias) " s t a g . " At times it is the standard language which shows the completely leveled variant, while the residual declension still survives in dialects: e.g. jdutis vs. jducias " o x , " medis vs. medzias "tree, w o o d . " 1 9 A comparison of Latvian alnis " e l k " with Lithuanian elnisjelnias or of mezs " w o o d s " with medziasjmedis suggests the kindred progress of a declensional leveling mechanism in Latvian as well. No wonder, then, that reflexes of nominals with formant *-ia- (vs. *-ija-) 17

Cf. η. 160 infra. Cf. n. 146. 19 For the geographical range οΐjducias and medzias, cf. Zinkevicius, Lietiwiif dialeklologija (n. 2) § 294. For a list of such doublets as jdutis vs. jducias, cf. O t r f b ski, Gramatyka (n. 2) I I 64 f. 18

54

Π· §5

are

sporadic;

formally

the

very

unproductivity

of this

formant

predestines the sort of declension which can become

leveled out with the regular declension evolved by the productive formant *-iia-. N o r can we rule out a possibility which the attestation of e.g. dialectal jducias vs. standard jdutis implies—that the contraction

{*/-ija-/ > */-ϊ-/}

might

have

taken

place

not only after the period of C o m m o n Baltic, but also in an already dialectal stage of prehistoric Lithuanian. T h e same contraction

is clearly

attested

for L a t v i a n

as well, 2 0

a

circumstance w h i c h might lead some to trace this phenomenon all the w a y back to C o m m o n Baltic. Such an outlook is unnecessary, however, even aside from the termini post et ante quern w h i c h will be adduced to show the relative lateness of {*/-iia-/ > */-ϊ-/}; 21 if we keep in mind

that

Lithuanian, Latvian, and O l d Prussian are (from the standpoint of linguistic theory)

self-contained systems

closely

akin to one another, then c o m m o n innovation, occurring separately in each dialect

(or even sub-dialect),

cannot

merely be viewed as a vague sort of parallel coincidence. I n other words, we can invoke the axiom that kindred structures tend to generate kindred innovations independently. 2 2 In prehistoric Lithuanian, then, *jaut||iias could have occurred in some dialects, *iautias in others: whence */jautis/ vs.

*/jautias/ after contraction,

and

ultimately

jdutis vs. jducias. A n objection to this theory seems feasible: one could claim that jducias I jducio j... resulted from a leveling of jdutis I jducio/..., clined -asj-oj...,

on the model of thematic nominals de-

without etymological *-(i)j-. W h a t makes

this possibility unlikely is the already-established fact that 20

Cf. n. 1 6 1 ; also Stang, Vergleichende

21

C f . § 2g and § 30.

22

For an interesting typological discussion, cf. in general

"Italo-Celtic Revisited," IE Dialects

Grammatik

29-50.

55

(η. 2) 188-192. C.

Watkins,

Π. §6 the declensional type -is(-ys)j-ioj... is a synchronically productive formant, whereas -iasj-ioj... is not. Thus to argue that jducias is an innovation from jdutis implies the improbable metastasis of the base jaut- from a productive and regular declensional model into an irregular and no longer motivated paradigm. True, there is some leveling on the model of -asj-oj... even in the declensional type -is(-ys)j -ioj..., but this occurs within the structural framework of the latter system·, it is one thing to detect various levelings in the oblique cases of a productive declensional system and quite another to posit an isolated replacement of e.g. a productive nominative formant -is by an unproductive -ias (-as + palatalization of the base-final consonant), resulting in an unmotivated form jducias. §6. If a form consisting of base + productive suffix *-ij[ä had become unmotivated, the consequent loss of morpheme-boundary implied the simultaneous loss of the formal mark of productivity, syllabic *-i-: whence *-jä, > Lithuanian -ia. Meanwhile, *-ijä. becomes subject to a contraction parallel to {*/-ija-/ > *j-l-j}, namely {*/-iiä/ > */-e-/}; whence Lithuanian -e: even the absence of shortening in the latter (vs. *-j[ä > -ia) implies contraction. 23 Parallel to the iso-functional pair {*-a- : *-ija-} was the feminine {*-ä- : *-iiä-}; in e.g. the specialized function of marking nomen actionis, the latter correlation apparently remained productive beyond the period of contraction, whence the survival of such lexical pairs as dainä vs. daine "song" ( */-e-/) survive in latter-day Lithuanian with the residual declension -ia etc. (vs. the productive -e etc.). Thus according to the present theory, a substantive like kanciä "torment," a nomen actionis from the diachronic standpoint, must have been already unmotivated at the time of contraction. 27 Left to be explained, then, are doublets like dialectal prieminia vs. standard priemene "Vorhaus, -zimmer," or again standard negalia vs. dialectal negäle "infirmity." 2 8 Granted, just as in the case of -ias vs. -is(-Js), we cannot rule out, here either, the possibility that some instances of attested dialectal variation between -ia and -e might actually stem from a prehistoric geographical disparity in the non-perception or perception of the morpheme-boundary within given words (*-iä vs. *-||ijä) at the very time that contraction occurred, with its irrevocably divergent phonological results. But here again it is relevant to stress that only a small number of substantives survives with the declension -ia etc.; as also in the instance of -ias etc., this very fact of scarcity suggests that most words with this residual fa-declension have undergone metastasis into the e-declension. Thus the occurrence of -ia vs. -e on the same base in two different dialects may often mean only that the given word escaped declensional leveling in one 25

Cf. Otrfbski, Gramatyka (n. 2) I I 260. For a survey, cf. Stang, Vergleichende Grammatik (η. 2) 2θΐ-2θ6. 27 Cf. further in § 10. 28 For a list, cf. Otr^bski, Gramatyka (n. 2) I I 72; also Zinkevicius, Lietuvin dialektologija (n. 2) 223-226, esp. § 324. For reasons which will become obvious in § 27 infra, the testimony of Zemaitiai-dialects on words in -e (vs. standard -ia) is not used here. 26

57

π. §6 dialect (hence -ia) but not in the other (hence -e). The formal convergences which lead to the leveling from -ia etc. to -e etc. vary from dialect to dialect, according to the phonological idiosyncrasies of the various regions. 29 But since the standard language itself shows instances of -e vs. dialectal -ia on the same base, it in itself suffices here for an examination of formal channels whereby an inherited substantive in -ia can be reconstituted as one in -e. There is indeed formal convergence for -Cia vs. -Ce ( = [-C'ce] vs. [-C'ee]) in e.g. the dative singular, -Ciai vs. -Cei (= [-C'aei] for both); likewise in the singular accusative, instrumental, vocative and the plural genitive, accusative. The terminus post quern, of course, for any such leveling on the basis of declensional convergences is the stage when consonants became palatalized before front vowels. Granted that this sort of paradigmatic convergence and leveling may be cited to account generally for words with the dialectal variation -Cia vs. -Ce, such an explanation nevertheless must be modified specifically on account of -cia vs. -te and -d£ia vs. -de: here the only available source of convergence is the genitive plural (-ciy. and -dziu). While even this is enough to allow an entire paradigmatic rearrangement (from -Cia etc. to -Ce etc.), there might also be another factor operative in producing the first member in such standard/ dialectal pairs as kaltejkalcia "crime" and kandljkändzia " m o t h " ; as for kerti/kercid "corner," both actually coexist in the standard literary language. 30 Assuming that the variants in -ia here are synchronically unmotivated, being survivals of categories long unproductive, we must ask what 29

A m o n g the factors: ( i ) barytone (vs. oxytone) pattern, and whether or not this allows shortening of long vowels in word-final syllable; (2) the reflex of Baltic ä. T h e first of these two involved a serious structural disruption of the «'-declension, in e.g. the idiom of Palomene. F o r a discussion, cf. Zinkevicius, Lieluvitf dialektologija (n. 2) 2 2 3 - 2 2 6 , esp. § 3 2 6 . 30

C f . Otrfbski, Gramatyka (n. 2) I I 7 2 .

58

Η. §6 m o r p h o l o g i c a l force could possibly h a v e helped remotivate t h e m into the regular formations in -e. I t is therefore no coincidence, I propose, that for e a c h o f the variations just listed, there is attested a b y - f o r m w i t h a t h e m a t i c z'-stem: kaltis " c r i m e , " kandis " m o t h , " kertis " f l a w " ; nor does this p a t t e r n hold only for words w i t h

base-final t or d: e.g.

besides musejmusia " f l y , " there is also a musis.si

F r o m such

distribution it appears as if i-stems and ^-sterns w e r e still coexisting after the period of contraction (*/-ijä-/ > P u t another

way,

an original f o u n d a t i o n

*/-e-/).

{*-i—*-iiä-}

survived as { - i — > -e-}. A c c o r d i n g to this theory, the latter structural

mechanism

could

have

helped

generate

e.g.

a n e w nomen actionis *kerte " c u t t i n g " f r o m an older nomen actionis *kertis " c u t t i n g , " 3 2

before the semantic

develop-

m e n t of these t w o 3 3 into w h a t has c o m e to be the c o n t e x t u a l bifurcation

of

"corner"34

for

the

former

and

"flaw"35

for the latter. O f course the a c t u a l generation o f *kerte by *kertis w o u l d h a v e h a d to be t h r o u g h the i n t e r m e d i a c y of w h a t is n o w kercid, the genitive p l u r a l of w h i c h (kerciti) affords a c o n v e r g e n c e of all three (kerte, kercid,

kertis).36

3 1 C f . F r a e n k e l , LEW (n. 2) 474. F o r further e x a m p l e s o f coexisting i-stem a n d e'-stem in b o t h L i t h u a n i a n a n d L a t v i a n , cf. S k a r d z i u s , Daryba (n. 2) 54. 3 2 T h e f o u n d i n g v e r b is kifs-ti (3rd singular present keft-a). F r o m here o n , a n y f o u n d i n g v e r b o f d e v e r b a t i v e substantives w i l l r e g u l a r l y be cited in its infinitive f o r m — f o r c o n v e n i e n c e of identification o n l y ; a c t u a l foundations, h o w e v e r , are to be d e r i v e d from the present-tense stem (e.g. kert-α in this case). 3 3 F o r a discussion o f the trend {abstract => concrete}, cf. § g - § 11 infra. 3 4 S a i d of a n old m a i d w i t h w h i t l o w : in keftf inkifsti sii nagais negäl "sie k a n n m i t i h r e n N ä g e l n nicht in die E c k e h i n e i n s c h l a g e n " (from the collection of Α . J u S k e v i c ) ; this interesting c o l l o c a t i o n of kertl a n d kifsti (with its i m p l i c a t i o n of figura etymologica) is noted by F r a e n k e l , LEW (n. 2) 245. 3 5 S a i d , w i t h a p p r o b a t i o n , a b o u t a g i r l : mergä be jokiös kerties " e i n M ä d c h e n o h n e irgendeine S c h a r t e " ( a g a i n , f r o m the collection of Α . J u ä k e v i c ) ; like kertis, G e r m a n Scharte is likewise to b e linked w i t h the I E root *(s)ker- " c u t " : F r a e n k e l , LEW (n. 2) 245. 3 6 F o r a s u r v e y of declensional convergences b e t w e e n z-stem a n d e'-stem in the dialects, cf. Z i n k e v i c i u s , Lietuviif dialektologija (n. 2) 2 4 2 - 2 4 7 : especially v a l u a b l e is the listing o f local w o r d s w i t h ί-stem c o r r e s p o n d i n g to s t a n d a r d w o r d s w i t h e'-stem (e.g. bitis " b e e " vs. s t a n d a r d bite), e v e n in areas w h e r e ί-declension as a

59

Π. §7 §7. W e have by now observed that the clear formal distinction between Lithuanian -ias, -ia on one side and -is (-ys), -e on the other is matched by a correlative functional distinction: namely, the latter pair is the reflex of the I E productive formants *-ijo-/-iiä-, while the former reflects the unproductive counterparts *-io-/-jä-, with loss of syllabic *-i-. A m o n g the productive functions of -is(-ys) is that of compound-formant, as seen in the types be-vaikis, ziemkentys, etc., and the point presently to be m a d e can be adequately illustrated with this category. But first, a crucial circumstance affecting our analysis: such c o m p o u n d nominale in -ts(-ys) must be divided into two basic functional categories, involving (1) retention of adjectival usage and (2) specialization of substantival usage; hence be-vaikis and ziem-kentys respectively. W i t h this functional split taken into account, we note that the corresponding feminine of all such compounds in -is(-ys) is regularly -e, whence e.g. be-vaike and ziem-kente ; yet it now becomes apparent that not all of these substantives need have a corresponding feminine as in the instance of ziemkente "female pig kept past w i n t e r t i m e " (vs. the male ziemkentys): for example, the type veidrodis " m i r r o r " is exclusively masculine. In sum, substantives in -e like ziemkente represent the optional survival of a feminine correlate to the masculine in -is(-ys). Likewise a simplex substantive such as send " o l d w o m a n " constitutes the feminine of the now-substantive masculine senis " o l d m a n " (vs. senas " o l d " ) , and even instances like vilke " s h e - w o l f " m a y presuppose the former existence of a masculine *vilkis (s) is still synchronically productive in Lithuanian, and this relationship itself is an important reflex of the adjectival relationship {feminine *-ijä- •«— masculine *-ijo-}, an extension of the simplex {feminine *-ä- ·*— masculine *-o-}. §8. With the productive correlation between -is(-ys) and -e clearly recognized, it nevertheless does not follow that all Lithuanian substantives in -e had at least once been motivated by a corresponding masculine now in -is(-Js). An admirable starting-point for this argument is the evidence of Greek, with its attested archaisms in the relationship of *-ä- to *-o-. As a specific example, I cite the old deverbative adjective of άείδω "sing," namely αοιδός "tuneful, singing" => "singer, bard." The original adjectival usage is still found in e.g. the Helen of Euripides (1109: άοιδοτάταν ορνώα), whereas αοιδό? is already attested as substantival in the Epic (e.g. γ 270). The feminine substantival form άοιδη ( > Attic ωδή), however, means not "songstress" but "song" (e.g. Β 599). The actual word for "songstress" is άοιδό?, as in the Hesiodic ainos about the hawk and the nightingale, in lines 202-212 of the Erga. When the hawk (ΐρηξ, line 203: masculine substantive) seizes the nightingale (αηδών, ibidem·, feminine substantive) in his sharp talons, she cries pitifully while the hawk says (Erga 208): rrj δ' ek f j σ' αν εγώ m;p άγω και άοιδόν iovaav—"you will go wherever 38 I take you, songstress that you are." The participle eovaav is decisive here, and there are several other clear attestations of feminine αοιδό? elsewhere too in Greek literature. From such distributions as in άοιδός/άοιδή, then, we can conclude that *-ä- had been an abstract substantival marker even before it became the feminine adjectival correlate of masculine *-o-. More precisely, the formant *-o- had been an 38 The designation of ά-ηδών as αοιδοί is also of etymological interest; cf. Frisk, GEW s.v.

6l

π. §8 animate adjectival marker (without specifying masculine or feminine gender) at a time when *-ä- was already an abstract substantival marker. Later on, a new feminine correlate *-ä- does develop for what becomes specifically masculine adjectival *-o-, 39 but an original adjective like άοώό? which had early become substantive can by this time fail to develop a feminine correlate in *-ä- meaning "songstress," simply because of the already-existing abstract substantive άοιδη "song." 4 0 O f course, the archaic neutralization of masculine/ feminine distinction in the adjectival formant *-o- is still productive and obligatory in classical Greek compounds, such as masculine/feminine ä-σημος "sine nota" ; 4 1 what is more, even non-compound adjectives in -ος can optionally describe feminine nouns during the same period, especially adjectives in -ιος πάτριος, πάτριον^.^ A t a certain 3 9 T h e relatively late redistribution resulting in a d j e c t i v a l {masculine * - o - : f e m i n i n e *-ä-} w a s m o d e l e d o n the s u b s t a n t i v a l / p r o n o m i n a l gender-system, for w h i c h cf. c h a p , iv n. 63. 4 0 K u r y l o w i c z , Inflectional Categories 2 1 5 f. 4 1 I n fact, this m o r p h o l o g i c a l constraint has s u r v i v e d in such latter-day G r e e k dialects as that of C a l a b r i a , in s o u t h e r n I t a l y . T h e simplex a d j e c t i v a l formants at issue are -0 in the masculine (from -ος), -i in the feminine (from - η ) ; so m u c h for s i m p l e x a d j e c t i v e s : as for c o m p o u n d s , the West G r e e k e q u i v a lent o f άσημος ( n a m e l y άσαμος, as in DGE 526.42, f r o m O r c h o m e n o s ) , w h e n it qualifies the n o w α-stem feminine substantive d e r i v e d f r o m a n c i e n t α" ξ, b e c o m e s (mia ega) dsamo " a n u n m a r k e d s h e - g o a t " in l a t t e r - d a y C a l a b r i a n G r e e k r a t h e r t h a n dsami, as attested in e . g . l a t t e r - d a y C r e t a n . L i k e w i s e mia jineka dplito " a n u n w a s h e d w o m a n " (cf. classical άπλυτος), mia elea dkarpo " a b a r r e n o l i v e - t r e e , " etc. I n the n e i g h b o r i n g d i a l e c t o f A p u l i a (as also in most o t h e r G r e e k dialects, i n c l u d i n g s t a n d a r d D h i m o t i k i ) , this constraint o n the distribution of f e m i n i n e -i (from -77) in c o m p o u n d s has b r o k e n d o w n : e.g. A p u l i a n (mia jineka) dbliti, vs. C a l a b r i a n dplito. F o r these a n d o t h e r e x a m p l e s , cf. G . R o h l f s , Historische Grammatik der unteritalienischen Gräzität ( M ü n c h e n 1950) 107 f. 4 2 F o r d o c u m e n t a t i o n , cf. S c h w y z e r , GG I 458 η. 1 a n d W . K a s t n e r , Die griechischen Adjektive zweier Endungen auf -0Σ ( H e i d e l b e r g 1967). T h e m o t i v a t i o n of feminine -i'ä b y a masculine -ιος w a s h i n d e r e d b y the already-existing p r o d u c t i v i t y o f - i ä as abstract-suffix: K a s t n e r 61 f (cf. also n. 78 infra). A s i d e f r o m the specific analysis o f -ioj/-iä, K a s t n e r ' s g e n e r a l discussion of o-stem a d j e c tives + f e m i n i n e substantives in G r e e k is especially useful in p o i n t i n g o u t a n d d o c u m e n t i n g such preservative factors as the m e t r i c a l exigencies of the E p i c a n d the i n h e r i t a n c e of c e r t a i n adjective-substantive c o m b i n a t i o n s . I n the latter

62

"•§9 prehistoric stage, then, the

type

aoiSos did

not

motivate

άοιδη, but rather, both were motivated by the verb ά«'δω; and

the

former

deverbative

later to become nomen actionis.

was

agentis,

originally

adjectival,

while the latter was

nomen

Besides this distribution of * - o - and * - ä - , the same

sort of relationship is also attested in Greek for the formants *-iio- and *-ijä-, albeit in a state of near-total atrophy. A rare example is the

form πεν-ίά " p o v e r t y , "

at

one

time

seemingly motivated directly by the verb attested as πεν-ομαι "be

poor";43

then

* - i j o - as βρΰχίος,

too, such

πάγιος,

deverbatives

σφάγως,

with

formant

etc. show by their residual

attestations and adjectival usage that this particular grammatical

category

became

defunct in

it could develop a substantival

Greek

even

before

function. 4 4

§9nomen agentis nomen actionis

serg-eti "bewachen, guard

άοι&ός άοιδή

nomen agentis sdrgas "Wächter, custodian" nomen actionis sdrga "Bewachung, custody" 45

case, the effect a c h i e v e d b y the conscious a n d selective p e r p e t u a t i o n of o-stem a d j e c t i v e + f e m i n i n e substantive is of course the s o l e m n i t y of a r c h a i s m — w h e n c e the p r e p o n d e r a n c e of s u c h collocations in e . g . the sacral, legal, a n d administrative spheres; K a s t n e r ' s I n d e x Β (pp. 1 2 1 - 1 3 1 ) , a list of feminine substantives attested w i t h o-stem qualifiers, is i n v a l u a b l e for p e r s p e c t i v e : likewise the Anhang (Die wichtigsten Wortfelder·, p p . 131 f ) , w i t h its separate rubrics for religion (sacrifice, h e a r t h , festivals, o a t h , oracles, e t c . ) , g o v e r n m e n t a n d l a w , h e r e d i t y , e p i c h o r i c features, e t c . T h e r e are still instances of s i m p l e x a d j e c t i v e s in -0 (from -os) q u a l i f y i n g f e m i n i n e substantives in C a l a b r i a n G r e e k : e . g . mia ega sterifo " a b a r r e n sheg o a t " (cf. classical στίριφος " b a r r e n " ) , mia jineka etimo " a p r e g n a n t w o m a n " (cf. classical έτοιμος " r e a d y " ) , mia elea prdsino " a g r e e n o l i v e - t r e e " (cf. classical πράσινος " l e e k - c o l o r e d " ) , e t c . ; cf. R o h l f s , Historische Grammatik (η. 4 1 ) ιαη f. P. C h a n t r a i n e , La formation des noms en grec ancien (Paris 1933) 8 1 . F o r a survey o f this rare t y p e , cf. C h a n t r a i n e , Formation 35. 4 5 F o r a list i n c l u d i n g several such pairs, cf. A . Leskien, Die Bildung der Nomina im Litauischen ( A b h a n d l u n g e n der philologisch-historischen Classe 43

44

63

»•§9 Such parallelisms between Greek and Lithuanian show that Baltic too had inherited the same type of deverbative relationship as in Greek άοώός/άοώή. Likewise in Baltic, there h a d been besides *-o- an iso-functional deverbative nominal formant in *-ijo-, attested in such nomina agentis as gaidys "rooster" ( *kantiä > *kant'ä > *leid- —*• *laidj|iiä => *laidiä > *laid'ä >

kanciä -laidiia.

T h e former solution implies that simplex *-ä- was still a productive formant of deverbative abstract substantives at a stage which is so late that the verbal bases were already perceived as *kent'- and *leid'- rather than *kent- and *leid-; the accessory assumption, of course, is that *-Cjwas already -C'-, whence the actual opportunity for breakdown of the morpheme-boundary between verbal base and *-j-. O n the surface, this first alternative seems to be a more economical solution than the second, until we observe that besides the types kanciä and po-laidzia, there are also numerous instances of such types as pa-kanta " e n d u r a n c e " and 53 54

Surveyed by Otr^bski, Gramatyka (n. 2) II 70 f. "Themes en -e" (n. 2) 17.

66

II. § 1 0

laida "sunset"; 5 5 likewise dangä "covering, clothing, snowcover" deng-ti (dengia) "cover," lankä "valley, meadow in a valley" C'ae and V j + a => Vjae, as in svecias [sv'a;ic'aes] "guest" and vejas [v'eejaes] " w i n d " respectively. 132 Even in such an early Lithuanian text as Dauksa's Postille (published 1599), 131 For a list of these types and for indications of formal constraints, cf. Senn, Grammatik (η. 2) 334. This usage can readily be detected in churchrecords. For example, in the Trauregister of Piktupönen for the year 1833, we read about the wedding of a man "Szuggars mit der Ane Miellulate, des verst. Willus Miellulis von Kreiwoenen Tochter"; but in the same Register, there is occasional displacement of -äte (< -aite) by another suffix, -ike: e.g. for the year 1830, we read "Peteratikke, des verst. Ensys Peterat Tochter"; further, while "Gauptate, des Wirt Kristup Gauptys Tochter" is likewise attested for 1830, by 1844 there occurs "Maryke Gauptikke," side-by-side with old formations still showing -äte. Cf. Fenzlau, Die deutschen Formen (η. 130) 1 1 2 f. 132 For a description, cf. Senn, Grammatik (η. 2) 70; for a general discussion, cf. Leskien, Litauisches Lesebuch (η. 2) 146 and Otr?bski, Gramatyka (n. 2) I 219. It is also apt here to cite a substandard exemplar from the AukHaUiaigroup: for the dialect of the village Buivydziai, the standard type svecias is actually transcribed as sveces by R . Gauthiot, Le parier de Buividze: Essai de description d'un dialecte lituanien oriental (Paris 1903) 105. The value of the latter work in general has been discussed by E . P. Hamp, "Buividze Lithuanian Phonemes," International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 1/2 (1959) 195-202.

88

"•§23 there are instances of free variation in the spelling of and after /C'/ or /Vi/, as seen e.g. in the representations corresponding to the latter-day standard svecias and vejas: hence sweciei (nominative plural), sweczeis (instrumental plural); weias and weies (both nominative singular), weiei (nominative plural), weiamus and weiemus (both dative plural), etc. 1 3 3 Then too, in Klein's Compendium Lituanico-Germanicum (published 1654), we read: Zu mercken ist, wenn in der Littauschen Sprach nach dem j folget die Endung auff ein as, als Isganytojas, kraujas, naujas, so wird das a gar gelinde ausgesprochen fast wie ein e. Drumb etliche wol gar ein e schreiben dörffen: Isganytojes, kraujes, naujes.134 Conversely, Klein's Grammatica Lituanica (published 1653) reports that "pro e utuntur Wilnenses [i.e., the people of Vilnius] quandoqve a, u t . . . giaras pro geras b o n u s . " 1 3 5 The same sort of orthographic ambiguity in representing original */(C)e/ and */(C)j[a/ is common in Old Prussian texts, 1 3 6 and there appear traces of it in the early Latvian evidence. 1 3 7 §23. This general trend {*-&- > after *-j-} coincides with the circumstance that there is in Baltic a vacuum in the vocalic spectrum of the slot - C j V - , since -Cj[S- had become -CS-: hence e.g. the formal contrast between Lithuanian 133

Cf. again Otr^bski, Gramatyka I 2 1 9 . Apud Bezzenberger, Beiträge (η. 1 1 4 ) 5 5 η. ι. 135 Apud Bezzenberger, Beiträge 5 . 136 Cf. Endzelin, Lettische Grammatik (η. 11) 3 3 ! a ^ s o W . R . Schmalstieg, " T h e Alternation eja in Old Prussian: A Phonemic Interpretation," Annali delVIstituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli: Sezione Linguistica I (1959) 1 9 1 - 1 9 5 . 137 F o r archaic instances of /Ca/ spelled and /ja/ spelled , cf. Sommer, Stämme (η. ι) 42 and 67; in an East Latvian text of Viläni, the spelling after palatalized consonants can even represent e or e: cf. J . Endzelin, Lettisches Lesebuch (Heidelberg 1922) 1 4 1 . For a parallel orthographic ambiguity in archaic Lithuanian texts, cf. giaras for geras, as discussed supra in § 22 (cited in n · 135)· 134

89

II. § 2 4

nominative singular svecias ( < *svetj[as) and the dialectal vocative singular svete ( < *svetje). 138 The development { * - Q £ - > -GS-} I ascribe to a putative depalatalization of on-glides, whereby Baltic a product of both I E *-?and I E becomes plain *-g-.i39 §24. That a merger into preceded the development into *-£- might be illustrated with reference to another Baltic phenomenon. The first phase of the latter is a change of *-ev- to *-av- before -O- ( = any back vowel), as in the cognate of Greek reos, Latvian/Lithuanian nominative singular tavsjtävas vs. genitive singular tevis/teves.140 This type of change is also found in Slavic, where e.g. an I E root *reu- (as in Sanskrit ruvdti "shouts" or in Latin rümor) is reflected in the verbal configuration roVQjrevesij...rjuti (ist/2nd singular...infinitive), later leveled and split into rovgjrovesij... ruti and revglrevesij...rjuti.1A1 Thus {*-evO- > * - a v O - } is not only an archaic process in Baltic, but also the reflex of a shared feature in Baltic/Slavic. However, for neither group can we claim that during the period when this phonological rule was operative, there should have already been present an on-glide before *-£-, since there is no definite reflex of palatalization exerted on a consonant preceding the Baltic/ Slavic *-a-/-o- ( < *-e-). But the signal issue is that the process {*-e-v- > *-a/o-v-} later spread from prevocalic to preconsonantal position as well, still early enough to be counted as a shared feature of Baltic and Slavic: hence *-CeuCis reflected as *-C'auC- in the former and (*-C'ouC- > ) *-C'uC- in the latter, as with Lithuanian/Latvian 138 V s . standard svety. F o r nominative velnias, there is possible this series of vocatives: tit velne! tit velne! tit veiny! tit velniau! " y o u devil!" (cf. Senn, Grammatik [η. 2] 1 1 2 f ) . 139 C f . esp. § 2 8 . 140 These entries are standard, except for the last one, a Zemaiciai-Sorm from the K l a i p e d a - a r e a ; cf. Stang, Vergleichende Grammatik (η. 2) 3 2 f. 141 C f . Meillet/Vaillant, Le slave commun (n. 4 7 ) § 2 2 1 .

90

II· § 2 5

liaudisIlaudis and Old Slavonic l'udhje respectively. 142 The ultimate palatalization of the consonant preceding original *-eu- here suggests that at some period in Baltic/Slavic between (i) the original development of *-e-v- to *-a/o-vbefore back vowels and (2) the later extension of this development to preconsonantal position as well, there had evolved a palatal on-glide before in both Baltic and Slavic. When the later period of depalatalization arrived in e.g. Baltic, so that *-Cj£- > -CS-, the original combination *-Cj[eu- ( < *-Ceu-) had by that time already become *-Ciau-, whence the type liaudis (rather than *laudis). 1 4 3 §25. We find another argument for the anteriority of (in relation to *-£-) as continuation of both I E and in the special evidence of Latvian, where the reflex of an original Baltic *-k-/-g- before front vowel is the same as that of *-k-/-g- before *-i-, namely -c-\-dz-\ hence e.g. the Latvian vs. Lithuanian correspondences ticu, ticet vs. tikiu, tiketi and redzu, redzet vs. regiii, regeti.1^ From such correspondences it is possible to posit the prehistoric presence of an on-glide before front vowels, which was later deleted— but not before altering the articulation of a preceding velar into a palatal consonant in ancestral Latvian. With depalatalization (so that e.g. *-ti£- >*-t£-), the new palatals *-k'-/-g'had already become affricates (so that they could not revert into velars), whence -c-j-dz-. That only the original velars became radically altered after a cycle of palatalizationdepalatalization in Latvian can be compared with the

142 Cf. Stang, Vergleichende Grammatik (η. 2) 73 f; orthographic ambiguity rules out the testimony of Old Prussian. 143 Ibid. Stang lists Baltic instances where supposedly original *-Ceu- is reflected as -Cau- instead of the expected -C'au-. For some of these, positing an inherited o-grade may well be the solution: e.g. the contrast between standard Latvian faut and East Latvian saut may well be due to early leveling either by present-base *sjeu- ( < *seu-) or by perfect-base *sau-. 144 Cf. Stang, Vergleichende Grammatik 105.

91

II. §26

p h o n o l o g i c a l r e a r r a n g e m e n t in I n d o - I r a n i a n k n o w n as the second p a l a t a l i z a t i o n . 1 4 5 §26. I n e.g. East L a t v i a n , besides d i a c h r o n i c p a l a t a l i z a tion of consonants before

there is synchronic p a l a t a l i z a -

tion before front v o w e l s — a s also in L i t h u a n i a n . T h i s set of circumstances does not at first seem to square w i t h the proposition here u p h e l d , that Baltic *-Cj£- h a d b e c o m e -CS-. B u t the relationship sveciasjsvete in L i t h u a n i a n is decisive: to posit that the attested standard L i t h u a n i a n -C'£- (rather than *-C£-) is a continuation of Baltic

w o u l d only

lead to the erroneous notion that the type

svece,1AG

not svete,

is original. T h u s w e m a y assume that the p a l a t a l i z a t i o n of consonants before front vowels in e.g. standard L i t h u a n i a n is a relatively more recent i n n o v a t i o n , a n d that the a r c h a i c state of affairs is in this respect represented by e.g. standard Latvian

(vs.

East

Latvian),

where

such

palatalization

1 4 5 E t y m o l o g i c a l * k * g * g h before e t y m o l o g i c a l * ί *I * j are reflected as c j h a n d c j j in Indie a n d I r a n i a n respectively. I propose that these reflexes reveal the prehistoric g e n e r a t i o n o f a p a l a t a l on-glide * I before * ί a n d *!. L a t e r this * I is lost, but it leaves its m a r k in the conversion o f p r e c e d i n g velars into palatals, w h i c h in turn are reflected as affricates in e.g. V e d i c a n d A v e s t a n . Positing the d e v e l o p m e n t a n d subsequent obsolescence of an on-glide * I is a d m i t t e d l y not essential for m o t i v a t i n g the second p a l a t a l i z a t i o n of Indie a n d I r a n i a n : in fact, it is not even an e c o n o m i c a l e x p l a n a t i o n o f this one p h e n o m e n o n . B u t to suppose the prehistoric existence o f a p a l a t a l on-glide * I before *fi, *I (and, as a c o r o l l a r y , o f a l a b i a l on-glide * U before *δ, * u ) serves to e x p l a i n m o r e than j u s t the I n d i c / I r a n i a n second p a l a t a l i z a t i o n ; h e r e w i t h are a few of several possible correlations:

(1) the shifts > ä) a n d { * ö > ä} are caused b y the depalatalization/ d e l a b i a l i z a t i o n of on-glides in * I f / * U 6 (2) d e p a l a t a l i z a t i o n / d e l a b i a l i z a t i o n likewise results in the reflex of e t y m o l o g i c a l * j i / * y u as iju in e.g. I n d i e ; for a list of e x a m p l e s , cf. J . W a c k e r n a g e l , Altindische Grammatik I ( G ö t t i n g e n 1896) § 228 (3) the V e d i c sandhi-rules w h e r e b y -e + i- =>· -a i-, -0 + a- => -a u-, e t c . : these patterns m a y w e l l h a v e been the locus o f diffusion for o t h e r sandhi-ru\es i n v o l v i n g -e + V - , -0 + V - , -ai + V - , -au + V - : cf. W a c k e r n a g e l , op. cit. § 272a/?, § 2 7 4 ; for a g e n e r a l survey of c o m b i n a t i o n s i n v o l v i n g a n t e v o c a l i c -e -0 -ai -au, cf. W . S. A l l e n , Sandhi: The Theoretical, Phonetic, and Historical Bases of Word-Junction in Sanskrit ( ' s - G r a v e n h a g e 1962) 3 7 - 4 5 . 1 4 6 I n e.g. the d i a l e c t of B u i v y d z i a i , the singular n o m i n a t i v e / v o c a t i v e is vecesjsvece: cf. G a u t h i o t , Le parier de Buividze (η. 132) 36 f.

92

II. §28

before front vowels does not take place synchronically. 1 4 7 Granted

that {-C-β/ϊ- > -G'-fi/ϊ-} is o l d , " « it is still to

be maintained that even prehistoric.

> -C£-} is appreciably

Since

the former phenomenon

older, is also

paralleled in the contiguous Slavic areas, we might ascribe its manifestation in Lithuanian and East Latvian to the spread of an originally extrinsic areal feature. §27. F r o m here on, the primary factor to consider is not the cause of an original merger {*-Cj£-/-C£- > -C£-}, but rather, its consequences. Since a crucial distinction between the Baltic vowels *-ä- and *-£- must have been an opposition of the features back/front, we might expect that loss of the opposition *{-Cjä- : -Ci£-} because of *{-Cj£- > -CS-} could induce the fronting of *-ä- after

T h e latter phenomenon,

as already mentioned, 1 4 9 is operative in

Aukstaiciai-dialects.

But more crucial now is the relevant evidence of Lithuanian ^emaiciai-dialects: here

develop

into

the

original

combinations

-te-/-d$- rather

than

*-tjä-/-diä-

*-c'£-/-dz'£- or

*-c'£-/-dz'£-. 1 5 0 W e might conclude that * - C j ä - becomes *-CjS- in this major dialectal group early enough to cause the new *-Ci£- to become subject to the same posited depalatalization-rule which had produced *-C£- from primary but the reverse perspective is probably more accurate: the very change {*-Cj£- > *-CS-} w h i c h had triggered { * - C j ä - > *-CjS-} remained an operative process long enough to produce

*-C£- from secondary

*-CjS- ( < * - C j ä - )

in

£emaiciai-di&lects. §28. W i t h the fronting trend {*-jä- >

... >

it is possible to connect a generally more evident Baltic development, well-documented in O l d Prussian as well as F o r a description, cf. S t a n g , Vergleichende Grammatik (η. 2) i02. H e n c e e.g. the a r c h a i c spelling giaras for geras, as discussed in § 22; cf. also n. 137. 1 4 9 C f . § 22. 1 5 0 C f . S t a n g , Vergleichende Grammatik (η. 2) 88 f, 100 f. 147

148

93

II. §28

Lithuanian and L a t v i a n : i.e., the trend {*-£- > *-£- ... > *-ä-}. Stang has collected relevant instances, 1 5 1 thereby essentially outlining the phonologisationjdephonologisation152 of this trend in the synchronic systems of the Baltic dialects and sub-dialects. Granted, factors other than the one presently to be proposed were also probably operative: hence e.g. the monophthongization {*-ei- > *-e-} 1 5 3 m a y well be connected with instances showing the displacement of original *-e- to Nonetheless, a general explanation has been lacking, as seen from such problems as this: " I n allen baltischen Sprachen findet man die T e n d e n z , anlautendes e- durch α- zu ersetzen." 1 5 4 In this instance the aporia is how to define the motivation of such variants as Lithuanian asjes " I , " both derived from basic *ez- (cognate of L a t i n eg-δ). I propose that a key to the overall solution is that the trend {*e- > *a-} is linked ultimately to the original loss of palatal on-glide before *-g-.i55 Illustrative are the Lithuanian attestations of the root *iek w - (as in Latin iecur): besides jäknos (jeknos in the standard orthography), there are also two dialectal variants for this word " l i v e r " : eknos and äknos;15Q the corresponding Latvian word is likewise aknas.157 W e might conjecture an original variation in external sandhi, such as ( i ) * . . . # j e k - vs. (2) * . . . j # e k - . T h i s posited breakdown of original morpheme-boundary could be caused by the development of on-glide before all front vowels. T h e n , with the later phonological shift {*-ie- > 101 Vergleichende Grammatik 31 ff, 44 ff. F o r these terms, cf. Jakobson, Selected Writings I (Principes historique [1931 l) 202-220. 153 F o r w h i c h cf. Stang, Vergleichende Grammatik (η. 2) 46. 1 5 4 Stang, Vergleichende Grammatik 31. 152

de phonologie

1 5 5 Cf. the similar proposal by Schmalstieg, " T h e Alternation e/a" (n. 136) 194, w h o cites such Lithuanian/Old Prussian pairs as ezeras/assaran " l a k e , " asva and esvä " m a r e " / a s w i n a n " m a r e ' s m i l k , " etc.; cf. also Stang, Vergleichende Grammatik 31 f. For a list o f pairs such as aijes in O l d Lithuanian texts, cf. Bezzenberger, Beiträge (η. 114) 56. 156 157

C f . Otrebski, Gramatyka (n. 2) I 216, 218 f. Cf. Endzelin, Lettische Grammatik (η. 71) 311.

94

II. § 2 8

*-£-} coming into effect, variation ( i ) presupposes that if *-i- is to be kept, then *j[ek- becomes /jak-/; hence jäknos; if, on the other hand, *-e- is to be kept, then *jek- has to become /ek-/: hence eknos. As for variation (2), an original exertion of word-final *-j[ by a following word *ek- becomes abolished, but not before the collocation * . . . i # e k - is reinterpreted as * / . . . [ # a k - / or * / . . . 0 # e k - / , whence ultimately äknos, as well as eknos again. Variations of the type as\es can be explained in the same formula, sandhi-vunation (2) : the crucial link is the proposed Baltic merger of and into *-je- (followed by depalatalization into *-£-). Furthermore, as already suggested, it is the latter development, the merger into *-ίέ-, which could bring about the resegmentation of * . . . # i e k - as * . . . i # e k - , parallel to the type * . . . i # e z - yielding dsjes, 1 5 8 In sum, I suggest the following order of rules for the Baltic languages: (1)

*-e- a n d *-ie-

>

(2) *-ii- > *-e(3) (4)

> *-c- >

*-£-.15»

158 Similarly w i t h the Baltic reflex of the I E verbal f o r m a n t * - j e / j o - : from t h e s t a n d p o i n t of I E , w e m i g h t expect *-je- in the Baltic third p e r s o n ; b u t , with > *-£-} c o m i n g into efFect, the p o t e n t i a l d e v e l o p m e n t of 3rd *-e- vs. e.g. ist p l u r a l * - i a - m e ( < *-jo-me) would exert a disruptive effect u p o n t h e whole p a r a d i g m . If, however, *-i- were to be kept in the 3rd person, t h e n original *-ie- w o u l d h a v e to become *-ja- i n s t e a d : the latter, in relation to e.g. ist p l u r a l * - j a - m e , would serve to level a n d solidify r a t h e r t h a n disrupt t h e verbal p a r a d i g m . In other words, the 3rd e n d i n g in e.g. L i t h u a n i a n liecia n e e d not necessarily be traced back to IE *-io-: a n original *-ie- could be posited instead. Likewise with L i t h u a n i a n 3rd person dirba: instead of reconstructing I E *-o- from -a, we could treat t h e latter as a secondary d e v e l o p m e n t : 3rd person -a could h a v e spread f r o m bases with palatalized final consonant (-C'a, < *-Cja) to bases with non-palatalized final consonant (-Ca, replacing * - C e ) . F o r a similar a r g u m e n t , cf. W . R . Schmalstieg, " A Balto-Slavic Struc t u r a l P a r a l l e l i s m , " Word 20 (1964) 3 5 - 3 9 . 159 p o r processes 3 - 4 , I propose a n indirect typological parallel from dialectal R u s s i a n : -C'a- > -C'ee.g. p'atdk > fi'etak -Ce- > -Cae.g. zenix > ζαηΊχ.

Cf. J a k o b s o n , Principes de phonologic hislorique (n. 15a) 206.

95

"•§29 §29· W e c a n a d d to this chronological ranking the following

essential

corollary,

simultaneous

with

the

just-

mentioned processes 3 - 4 : *-iice- > *-ii£e- >

*-ϊ*-ä-.«o

These t w o developments can be described as contractions, in the sense that a disyllabic segment has in both cases become monosyllabic. I f indeed genuine contractions are involved here, w e should be able to show the original presence of syllabic * - i - in the reconstructed

T h e most decisive

test emerges from the evidence of L i t h u a n i a n , in the development of -c'-l-dz'-

from *-tj[-/-di- vs. -/'-/-d'- from

*-t-/-d-

before front v o w e l * - i - . H e n c e e.g. in such dialectal contrasts as verte, verciä and kdnde, kdndzia, the v e r y survival of tjd

in -tej-de

predicates

the reconstruction

*-tijä/-dijä

as

opposed to the * - t j ä / - d j ä resulting in -ciaj-dzia.

P u t another

way,

Contraction

*-Ciäe >

*-C'äe

while

*-Cijse >

*-Cie.

is also implied b y the exemption of e.g. standard L i t h u a n i a n nominative singular -e f r o m the process of shortening into * - e , despite its position in the w o r d . Likewise with n o m i n a tive singular -ys (=

-Is,
«8 Cf. n. 166. Lettische Grammatik (η. 71) 92. Ibid. 171 Cf. Sommer, Stämme (n. 1) 78, 214.

169

99

II· § 3 2

suggests that labials could generate vocalic *-i- from a simple off-glide with Β used as cover-symbol for p, b, v, m, we can represent the process as follows: *-BjV- > *-BiiV-. A relevant circumstance is that *-j- in the Baltic languages lost its phonemic status after labials later than after e.g. dentals, whence such Lithuanian spellings as kürpjü (genitive plural of kurpi "shoe") ; 1 7 2 the standard representation kiirpin indicates p\ whereas kürpjü reflects the j regularly spelled in intervocalic position, in which slot Baltic *-j- had always remained: e.g. Lithuanian kojq, genitive plural of koja "foot." We may posit, then, that during the period when *-Gijä- was distinct from *-Cjä-, such an opposition was suspended wherever C = B, so that original unproductive *-Bj[ä- and productive *-Bijä- could not remain distinct: both became *-Biiä-, whence -Be-j-Be- in Lithuanian/ Latvian. In Old Prussian too, the Elbing Glossary shows a contrast between -i ( < *-jä) and -e ( < *-ijä) after nonlabial consonants, while after labials only -e apparently occurs. 1 7 3 172

Cf. Sommer, Stämme 78 f and Stang, Vergleichende Grammatik 103; also Otrfbski, Gramatyka (n. 2) I 339 f. « 3 Cf. Schmid, Verbum (n. 2) 19.

IOO

CHAPTER

III

THE D E V E L O P M E N T OF ι AND * IN G R E E K , AND T H E I R DISTRIBUTION1

§ i . W o r k s cited in C h a p t e r I I I : W . S. Allen, " S o m e Problems of Palatalization in G r e e k , " Lingua 7 (1958) 113-133. A . Bartonek, " O u t l i n e of the Phonemic System in M y c e n a e a n G r e e k , " Sbornik Praci Filosoficke Fakulty Brnenske University, A 12 (1964) 195-209. " T h e Phonic Evaluation of the s- and z- Signs in M y c e n a e a n , " Sbornik Praci Filosoficke Fakulty Brnenske University, Ε 4 (1964) 89-102. — —• VJvoj konsonantickeho systemu ν feckych dialektech: Development of the Consonantal System in Ancient Greek Dialects (Opera Universitatis Purkynianae Brunensis, Facultas Philosophica 77 [Praha 1961]). R . Coleman, " T h e Dialect Geography of Ancient G r e e c e , " Transactions of the Philological Society (1963) 58-126. W . Cowgill, " A n c i e n t Greek Dialectology in the Light of M y c e n a e a n , " Ancient Indo-European Dialects, ed. H. Birnbaum and J. Puhvel (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1966) 77-95. W . Diver, " O n the Prehistory of Greek Consonantism," Word 14 (1958) 1-25. A . Heubeck, " Z u r dialektologischen Einordnung des Mykenischen," Glotta 39 (1960-1961) 159-172. 1 I n this section, L i n e a r Β forms will be cited from the Mycenaeae graecitatis lexicon ( R o m a 1963) o f A . M o r p u r g o ( - D a v i e s ) . I n reconstructions o f G r e e k w i t h r o m a n characters, * i a n d * u w i l l be r e n d e r e d as * j a n d * w , m a i n l y bec a u s e o f the g e n e r a l c o n v e n t i o n in transcribing the L i n e a r Β syllables

-ja-, -je-, -jo-, -wa-, -we-, -wi-, -wo-.

ΙΟΙ

III. §2 F.

W.

Householder,

"Early

Greek

Glotta

39

(1960-

1961) 179-190. P. Kretschmer, " D e r Wandel von τ vor 1 in σ," [A. Kuhn's] Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 30 (1890) 5 6 5 - 5 9 1 . C . Lambert, De dialecto aeolica quaestiones selectae ad grammaticam pertinentes (Dijon 1903). M.

Lejeune, " L e s sifflantes fortes du mycenien,"

Minos

6

(1958) 8 7 - 1 3 7 . W . Porzig, "Sprachgeographische Untersuchungen zu den altgriechischen Dialekten," Indogermanische Forschungen 61 (1954) 147-169. E. Risch, " D i e Gliederung der griechischen Dialekte in neuer Sicht," Museum Helveticum 12 (1955) 6 1 - 7 6 . M . Scheller, Die Oxytonierung der griechischen Substantiva auf -iä (Zürich 1951). Chr. S. Stang, "Quelques remarques sur le systeme consonantique du grec commun," Symbolae Osloenses 33 (1957) 27-36.

§2. O n the basis of the independently developed arguments of Diver 2 and Stang, 3 we may posit, for a remote stage of Greek, 4 the gemination of a single consonant originally preceded by a short vowel and followed by *-j-; i.e., - V C j V - > - V C C j V - ; e.g., *aljos > *aUjos ( > »afros > finally άλλος in e.g. Ionian, upon depalatalization). Once such a shift took place, it could automatically suspend Sievers' Rule ( - V C i j V - vs. - V C j V - ) , 5 since it entails the presence of *-j- instead of *-ij- after a heavy syllable (as produced by the newly-geminated simple consonant); the result is that the pattern - V C j V - instead of - V C i j V - is now possible, and that it too can undergo consonantal gemination: - V C j V - > - V C C j V - . " G r e e k C o n s o n a n t i s m " (§ 1) 8 ff. " S y s t e m e c o n s o n a n t i q u e " (§ 1) 28 ff. 4 T h i s d e v e l o p m e n t is c o m m o n to a prehistoric period of all G r e e k dialects, b u t it does not b e l o n g in the period o f C o m m o n G r e e k : cf. the stages a/b.-2 in the d i a c h r o n i c c h a r t o f § 6, posited for the genesis of the -a- in e.g. A t t i c / Ionic όσοί; o n this same c h a r t , g e m i n a t i o n is represented as b e g i n n i n g o n l y at stage c. 5 Q . v . in c h a p , i § 1. 3 3

102

III. §2

N e x t to be ascertained is the effect o f g e m i n a t i o n on the I E - i n h e r i t e d m o r p h o l o g i c a l opposition { - V C | | i j V - : - V C j V - } . 6 I n some m o r p h o l o g i c a l categories, it is evident t h a t p r o d u c tivity notwithstanding, original - ^ C | | i j V - becomes - V C | | j V ( > - t f C C j V - > - ^ C Ö V - ) . F o r e x a m p l e , the e t y m o l o g i c a l relationship

of

ΐλιξ/-ίλισσα7

and

of

ΐλιξ/4λίσσω

that at the time w h e n postconsonantal

suggests

*-j- w a s still an

a u t o n o m o u s p h o n o l o g i c a l e l e m e n t in G r e e k , it was a comp o n e n t in such p r o d u c t i v e categories as feminine nominals in *-jä/*-jäs (nominative/genitive singular) a n d d e n o m i n a tive verbs w i t h stem in *-je/jo-: h e n c e e.g. *feXiK-iä *Fe\tK-ιω

respectively.

Moreover,

on

the

basis

and

of

the

attested reflexes in classical G r e e k (here -«λισσά a n d ελίσσω), it seems that the ultimate d e v e l o p m e n t w a s this: - t C | | i j V b e c a m e - V C | | j V - because o f g e m i n a t i o n in the u n p r o d u c t i v e c o u n t e r p a r t - t f a j V - (thus - t ^ C j V - > - t C C j V - ) , a n d then - ^ C | | j V - c a m e to u n d e r g o g e m i n a t i o n likewise: -t^C||jV> -tOCjVin

e.g.

heavy

( > -t^CÖV-);

the

-«ίλισσά ( < *FeXiK-iä syllable

preceding

latter

pattern

*FeXix-s > eAi|),

* - j a , in

θήσσά

emerges or,

with

( < *0ητ-ιά- θής). I n other words, the m o r p h o l o g i c a l

opposi-

tion { - V C | | i j V - : - V C j V - } w a s obliterated because the nature o f the elements contrasted h a d b e e n a l t e r e d : w h e r e a s before g e m i n a t i o n the u n p r o d u c t i v e pattern - C j V - h a d been the raison d'etre for the p r o d u c t i v e - C i j V - (in that the syllabic/ vocalic nature o f the *-i- in the latter c o u l d set it o f f as distinct f r o m the former, w i t h

its

non-syllabic/consonantal

*-i-), n o w , after g e m i n a t i o n in the u n p r o d u c t i v e forms, the opposition {vocalic : consonantal} in *-i- (i.e., {*-ij- : *-j-}) c o u l d b e c o m e blurred because it ceases to be the sole distinguishing

6

7

factor;

thus

synchronically

Q.v. in chap, i § 2.

As in άμφΰλισσαι: e.g. Ν 174. io3

motivated

forms

III. §4

could come to be felt as no longer presupposing *-ij(V-) vs. * - j ( V - ) after a morpheme-boundary. §3. T h e

obliteration

in

Greek

of the

morphological

opposition {-t?C||ijV- : - ^ C j V - } by the phonological mechanism of gemination may be represented thus : 8

II

J-tfCjV-a >

-VCGjV-a >

(-tcilijV-b

-Vci!jv-b -tc||jV-b >

-tCCjV-a

-^CCjV-b >

-Vcciv-b.

§4. If, as posited here, the denominative verb-formant *-je/jo- was still productive by itself just before the period when postconsonantal *-j- ceased to be autonomous in Greek, then we still have to ask how it is that its reflex in attested classical Greek is phonologically divergent from that of the denominative adjective-formant originally in *-je/jo-. For example, from a base μαλιχ- (as in μΐίλίχος^, there are attested the historically derivative configurations μαλίσσω and μΐΐλίχιος, respectively the denominative verb and adjective in *-je/jo-. 9 T h e more basic question, 8

The downward direction of stages I - I I approximates the vector of time. Qualification: original Greek and could not undergo gemination; the respective results would therefore be - ^ C i C a J V - » and -b, corresponding to stages I and II. The raised *-j- is meant to represent loss of status as autonomous phoneme. The need for subscripts a and b after - V C f i 1 V- will be justified in § 6 infra. 9 For a list of such pairs, cf. A . Fick/A. Führer, "Die suffixlosen Nomina der griechischen Sprache: I I , " [A. Bezzenberger's] Beiträge zur Kunde der indogermanischen Sprachen I (1877) 129. Among the entries submitted are ατασθαλία/ άτασβΰλλω, βασκάνιον/βασκαίνω, κα&άριος/κα&αίρω, μαλ^ακία/μαλ&άσσω, ναυτιλία/ναυτίλλομαι, πλημυρία/πλημυρω, στωμυλία/στωμύλλω, etc. Another list is compiled by Fick in section I I I of the same article, pp. 3 1 2 f of Bezzenberger's Beiträge I : this time, more complex configurations are considered, such as διπλάδιοί/διπλάζω, σ νγ-κοιτά&ιος[σνγ-κοιτάζω, λιβάδιονΙ\ιβάζω,νοσφ18ιοίΙνοσφίζω, προικ ίδιος/προικίζω, ΐγ-χ€ΐρίδιος/ϊγ-χΐΐρίζω, άρμόδιος/άρμόζω, etc. Especially interesting is the pair κουρί&ιος/κουρίζω. From the context of passages where κονρί&ιος is attested, we can extract the sense of "(lawfully) wedded" or "nuptual"; to be added is κουρίδιονπαρ&ένιον, και τον eV παρ&ΐνίας άνδρα ( Ε 4 ' 4 ) · Λάκων€ς Si κονρίδιον καλονσι - C C j V - > - C O V - d . It is at a time when the latter type is already - C O V - b 2 4 that divergence between Ionian and Aiolian could have set in. In Ionian, there is depalatalization, so that -CC^V-b may survive as e.g. -CCV-b, while paradigmatically-conditioned -CjV- (as in πόλιος) becomes -CiV- (πάλιο?: e.g., Herodotos I 26). In Aiolian, on the other hand, there seems to be no depalatalization in -CClV- b }; 25 but here too, there is eventual innovation, since paradigmatically-conditioned -CjV- (as in πόλιος) becomes -CCiV- (hence Thessalian (πολλιος)). Since gemination had previously been prevented in this slot by accentual patterns within the paradigm, a form like πολλιο? suggests that this conditioning was finally removed in Thessalian. Thus in a paradigm where the accentual Cf. the d e t a i l e d discussion in § 5. I.e., after stage I I , as o u t l i n e d in § 3, w h e n {*-j- = a u t o n o m o u s p h o n o l o g i c a l entity. 25 W i t h B o i o t i a n p r o b a b l y e x c l u d e d : cf. § 6. 23

24

109

*-t-} is n o longer a n

III. § 4

pattern originally involved { V/-i"}> a s i n * "jos/*-ijöi, * ~ιbecomes generalized over *-ί-, with gemination accompanying the generalization; hence e.g. the Thessalian-type genitive singular [ α ρ ] \ γ υ ρ ρ ο ι 2 6 ( = Ionian αργυρίου), presumably accented άργύρροι. This Aiolian result of { V / V } from {"t-/-t-} has already been mentioned, but it now becomes apparent that there are other possibilities; for example, in an original accentual contrast of genitive singular -id? vs. genitive plural -ιάων. Once contraction set in, so that -άων becomes potential *-&v, recessive accentuation becomes a factor in the rearrangement of nominals with original -id, in that the Aiolian system rejects accentuation on the final ensemble 27 (thus *-äv => Aiolian säv, from the synchronic standpoint): since -ι,άων could give rise to -ιάων, unlike e.g. genitive singular -ids, the newly-contracted genitive plural of nouns in -id, now 'ιάν, could again produce the alternation {V/-i-}. Here too, then, * V could become generalized over -ί-, with gemination accompanying the generalization: hence in Thessalian, for one, the accusative singular tSSiar28 ( = Ionian ιδίαν), presumably accented "δδιακ.29 As for types such as Lesbian πίρροχος (Sappho 106 [Lobel/Page]), 30 probably an -i- in e.g. *π€ριόχω replaced the -ί- in e.g. *π€ρίοχος; then, just as άνθρώπω : άνθρωπος, SO also *περιόχα> : *π4ριοχος ( > *π€ρρόχα>: πέρροχος). Here, then, is an instance where *-i* is generalized over *-ί-, from an original alternation {-i"/-t-}. So much for the proposal that in the Aiolian dialectal group, there was no depalatalization in 26 Q . v . in Bechtel, GD I 3 5 ; the inscription involves the consultation of the oracle at Dodona by the people of Mondaia. Cf. also Scheller, Oxytonierung 109. 27 Cf. Kurylowicz, Accentuation 1 5 7 . 28 Bechtel, GD I 3 5 . 29 T o be contrasted with Schwyzer's version (GG I 2 7 4 ) : ίδδίαι\ 30 T h e first word of a line in dactylic hexameter.

I IO

III. § 4

/ C Ö / and / C j / ; hence the eventual gemination of the latter into /CC\)j, as in πολλιος, and even the generalization of -{- over -I-, as in ι88ίαν. Now the latter type of glide-prevalence ultimately happened in the general Ionian dialectal group also, and it can still be seen in latter-day Dhimotiki; e.g. accusative singular kardhydn, corresponding to classical καρδίαν. In fact, such generalization of -i- over -i- must have taken place at least as early as in the era of Alexandrian scholarship, since the structure -ια even found its way into the Homeric textual canon. 3 1 Briefly put, -ίά becomes -id in the Ionian group (here specifically the Attic form is given) at least before the Aristarchean era. Outside of occasionally-preserved Epic textual heritage, however, the acceptance of the accentual pattern -id is generally restricted in the grammatical tradition to substandard words, as convincingly shown throughout Scheller's Oxytonierung,32 It is possible, then, that instances of the accentuation -id in the surviving Homeric tradition reflect a mistaken attempt by Alexandrian textual critics to reconcile a recent linguistic phenomenon, the replacement of -i- by -i" in e.g. Ionian, with the metrically-preserved traces (like the above-mentioned πόλιος and Αίγυπτιη) of a time when {"ι-/-ί~) had not yet been replaced by {~ι-/-ί-}, at a much earlier stage of Ionian. More likely, however, is that the pronunciation -id became permissible in the rhapsodic tradition of recitation, b u t not in the canon of what was contemporaneously considered correct conversational pronunciation. Thus the attempted reconciliation of two chronologically disparate linguistic conditions might have been simply a relatively late poetic, not exegetic, convention, arising from such inherited scansions as in ΑΙγνπτνη, which may well have been pronounced in the rhapsodic trandition 31 3 2

C f . S c h e l l e r , Oxytonierung §

12 et passim.

I.

I I I

I»· §5 as ΑΙγνπτιη. What little there is left of direct Epic textual tradition regarding an accentual pattern -ιa 3 3 may actually reflect the scrupulous adherence of Alexandrian exegetes to the traditional rhapsodic pronunciation of their times. 34 But a more crucial question still remains: whether the replacement of e.g. -Id by -ιά in later Ionian is a purely phonological change. This does seem to hold for {-i- > -ι-}, 35 but not entirely for the actual accentual shift. Morphology too probably has a röle here, by way of internal paradigmatic pressures. In oblique cases such as genitive singular -ids (by redundant accentual description, -las), the shift {-i- > -i-} could result in -ids ( = -tas); perhaps only thereafter did the following type of proportion set in: -rjs : -ή = -ids : -ια. Granted, then, that in Ionian as in Aiolian, -i- could ultimately become generalized over -1-; but the point insisted upon is this important difference: that in the second dialectal group, this generalization entailed gemination, but not in the first. Hence the original contention, however tentative, that depalatalization did not take place in early Aiolian, unlike Ionian, and that in the attested evidence of the former, the secondary gemination (resulting in /CCjV/) as in Thessalian πολλιος is a direct extension from the kind of primary gemination (resulting in /COV/) which is a phenomenon common to all Greek dialects. 36 §5. In a comparison of forms like Μ Ε Ι Λ Ί Σ Σ Ω and Μ Α Λ Ί Χ L O S , the question still to be answered is why original *-j- entailed gemination of the preceding consonant in the former instance, whereas in the latter, its attested reflex is vocalic. 33

E . g . άρμονιήσιν in t 248, 3 6 1 ; cf. Scheller, Oxytonierung 130, 1 3 3 ff. For further discussion of rhapsodic pronunciation, cf. § 5 infra. 35 Q . v . in Scheller, "Konsonantisches 1 im nachklassischen Griechischen," Oxytonierung 1 1 7 - 1 2 3 , and " Z u r Konsonantisierung des t im Neugriechischen," pp. 1 2 3 - 1 2 5 . 36 A s a typological parallel of Thessalian πολις/πολλιος cf. Oscan aeteis (Latin alphabet) "partis" j[a]itliiim (native alphabet) " p a r t i u m " ; q.v. in C . D . Buck, A Grammar of Oscan and Umbrian2 (Boston 1928) § 1 6 2 . 34

I 12

"Ι· §5 The proposed solution is this: at the time when accentlimitation was already operative in Greek (so that X X X => X X X ) , non-enclitic finite forms of denominative verbs in *-je/jo-, as a productive category, were still accented on the thematic vowel of the inflectional suffix. 37 Thus the factor of accentuation could not enact an -i- coexisting with -ι-, and therefore the latter in turn could not ultimately be generalized as -i- in Ionian, for example. Now it has been argued by Kurylowicz 3 8 that upon the convergence of a morphological and a phonological factor, namely univerbation and accent-limitation respectively, non-enclitic finite forms of verbs with original suffixal accentuation, such as the type Xmelv, underwent recessive accentuation. T o accommodate the present theory on the type μ(ΐΧΙσσα), we therefore have to suppose that accent-limitation was already operative before univerbation; then by the time that univerbation too became operative (whence the recessive accent in e.g. μειλίσσω), original non-enclitic finite -VCi||-je/ jo- and -VCiC2||-je/j0- had already become -VCiCi 3 -e/0and -VCiC2 j -e/0-respectively. 39 In other words, with recessive accentuation in the type μαλίσσω finally resulting from univerbation, the continuing factor of accent-limitation could no longer entail the alternation { "ι-/-ί-}, since original was by then irrevocably entered into the combinations - C i t V - and -CiC 2 i-. 4 0 As for deverbative verbs in *-je/jo-, 41 productivity must have been lost generally before the onset of accent-limitation, unlike the denominative verbs in *-je/jo-. In unproductive 37 C f . the parallel evidence of the Indie denominative verb-formant -yd-: chap, i § 9.2 supra. F o r the recessive accentuation of the denominative nominals » n *-j e /j°-> cf. again n. 1 3 . 38 Accentuation 1 5 1 f. 39 I.e., stage I I had already been reached: cf. § 3 . 40 Q . v . in § 3 again. 41 With recessive accent; cf. the parallel evidence of the Indie deverbative verb-formant ~ya-\ chap, i § 9.2 supra.

113

I«· §5

-Vcav

forms, { - ^ c j v - a > - a } (stage I) preceded the same progression in productive forms, {-^C||jV-b > - V c C j v - t , } (stage II). 4 2 The example of the ancestral form producing classical στέλλω we may then describe as follows: once productivity ceases in the formant of a verb like *stel-ije/ijo-, there is a reversion to *stel-je/jo-. 43 With such an onset of unproductivity and its phonological results, the former morpheme-boundary in the present tense between base and suffix can no longer be perceived; thus *stel-je/jo- can become synchronically resegmented as *stelj-e/o-, a simple thematic-stem verb. Hence *stelj-ö > *stellj-ö > *stellj-ö (the pattern : stage II) 4 4 > e.g. Ionian στέλλω. A t a time when στέλλω was *steÜj-ö, a verb like άγγίλλω was a then-productive denominative in *-je/jo-, thus *angel-j5 (originally *angel-ijö); a corresponding nominal would have been *angel-jos/*angel-ijöi and *angel-ijä in the nominative/dative singular masculine and nominative singular feminine respectively. Because of the suffixal accentuation in non-enclitic forms of the verb, the following chain of phonological developments becomes possible: *angel-jö > *angelljö > *angelliö (the pattern -VCCiV-h: stage II); 4 5 next, with univerbation and subsequent recessive verbal accent, the development proceeds to e.g. Ionian άγγίλλω. But in the corresponding adjective, the alternation {-1-/-1-} (involving the mechanism of accent-limitation) prevented the development of stage I I : hence the Homeric noun άγγελίη (as in Γ 2θ6), not *άγγελλη. So much, then, for the disparate developments resulting in

μ(ΐλίχίος

and

μΐΐλίσσω. T h e axiom meant to be derived from this discussion is that stage II is reached by once-productive categories in *-l|jV-, unless prevented by accent-limitation. 43 44

Cf. § 3 and § 6. This is the process described in chap, i § 3 as attrition. Cf. § 3.

« Ibid.

114

"Ι· §5 Now besides denominative verbs in *-je/jo-, another such once-productive category in *-||jV- has been mentioned, namely the feminine nominal in *-jä/*-jäs. 46 Already compared 47 have been *welik-jö and *welik-jä, as reflected in «λιάσω and αμφιέλισσά respectively. On the basis of such still-productive participial formants as classical -ουσά, < *-ofitjä, and -(σ)άσά, < *-(s)antjä, we can infer that the ancestral constituent *-jä/*-jäs must itself have been a productive formant as long as *-j- was capable of segmentation (here symbolized with the hyphens). Granted, the two just-mentioned participial formants are productive in the classical period only as composite structures; still, the inherited foundations {-ουσά < ων} and {-(σ)6ίσά< ^σ^α?} are decisive: they must be traced back etymologically to {*-ont-ja *·— *-ont-s} and {*-(s)ani-jä •«— *-(s)ant-s}: that is to say, etymology shows that these synchronicallyattested foundations go back to a period when *-j- was still a functional unit. This in turn suggests that in common Greek, at a time before the stages I - I I , 4 8 there was a productive formant *-j]ijä/*-]|ijäs. Thus besides a *welik-ij5, there could once be a *welik-ijä. The attested formal reflexes ελίσσω and - « λ ι σ σ ά , then, indicate that the latter type had undergone, with a productive formant *-ijä-, the stages I - I I 4 9 and that there was no interference by accent-limitation; otherwise, the attested result would have been *(λίκιά/*4λικίάς. Hence the possible 46

Homeric ~τ(ίρα/-τ(ΐρής, compared with the Attic 'τρια/-τρίας, betrays an original quantitative apophonic alternation in the declension of nominals in *-jä/*-jäs: the four components just mentioned must have resulted from a paradigmatic split of an original *-t-er-j-92/*-t-r-}-e32-s; likewise, the types 'viaj-υ iäs and -tlaj-c tas reveal an original *-u-es-j-32/*-u-s-j-e32-s (cf. Schwyzer, GG I 474 f). 47 48 49

§ 2. §3Ibid.

115

Ι"· §5 conclusion that the original accentuation of such nominals was * - i j a - / - i j a - , 5 0 as indeed suggested e.g. by

Schwyzer,51

w h o compares Sanskrit starih, taksni, satt, prthvi with w h a t he proposes Greek

are accentual στ€Ϊρά,

innovations

τ€κτα ινά,

in the

οΰσά/ ίασσά,

corresponding

πλατ€Ϊά.

But

in

contrast to such Indie forms in -i\-y&h, there is also the type pätnijpätnyäh.

I

propose

that

the

corresponding

Greek

πότνιά/ποτνίάς

also had original root-accentuation through-

out its paradigm, a feature inherited by C o m m o n

Greek

as by Indie for w h a t must have been an unmotivated form in both. N o w this question remains: w h y a productive category

of

nominals

accentuation

in

in

e.g.

*-ja/*-jas, the

with

genitive

originally

singular,

suffixal

should

later

have undergone accentual recession in Greek. T h e answer can be postponed preservation

until we make this crucial point:

of syllabic -i- in a form like πότνιά

the

was not

due to "Sievers' L a w , " as is usually claimed, if indeed the phonological obliterated by

opposition

{ - V C i j V - : - V C j V - } had

gemination;52

become

rather, syllabic -i- is preserved

because of the alternation {-1-/-1-}, which in turn was made possible by the circumstance that ever since the period of Common

Greek,

πότνιά

had

been

root-accented,

subject to accent-limitation. T h u s stage - ^ C i C a l l j V - > - t C i C2JV-) πότνιά

by the alternation

was

II53

prevented

{-1-/-1-},

i.e.

hence

(in this case in

the

word

*potnjä/*potnijäs.

T h e n , during the period of depalatalization, * - j - could become

vocalized

(hence

classical

πότνιά,

—

A

reflex,

however, of earlier * p o t f i j a ( — ) has been preserved b y the Homeric meter, in e 2 1 5 , ν 391, υ 6 i , with even the spelling

5 0 As we will see later, this accentuation need be assumed only for *-ijä-, not for *-ijä-: cf. infra in this same section. si GG I 381. 52 Cf. § 2. 5 3 As described in § 3.

Il6

in. §5 introduced into the textual tradition, in order to accommodate the scansion -~. 54 But the same process of depalatalization which brought about the vocalization of *-j- in -CiC2j- (as in πότνιά) also triggered this change: - C i i V - (the final product of stage II) 5 5 > -C1C2-. An often-quoted example is the classical reflex of an original and no longer motivated form *wergj5: namely, > *werdjö > *wercUö > ίρΒω, vs. ρίζω < *wredz-iö < *wredzjö < *wregjö; 56 the neutralization of the opposition *gj*d in favor of *d could become irrevocably perpetuated only before the type of *-j- seen in *wergjö/*wregjö, not before the *-j- which belongs to the alternation {-ι-/-ί-}. Indeed, the absence of *-l- and the generalization of after *γ/*8 is the etymological essence of the classical Attic/ Ionic ζ itself.57 The unit spelled is a product of gemination, possible only when original *γι and *Si had not been preceded by another consonant; hence the divergent developments in ρίζω and ep8a>. The δ instead of etymological γ in the latter is the sign of an original pattern -C1C9 Whereas after depalatalization Ionian (*ddj > ) *dzJ becomes ζ, 58 it appears that *Cdi becomes CS. The important point, then, is that - ^ 0 1 0 2 ^ - , as seen in both stages I and II, 5 9 is the regular development from C2JV-, unless accentlimitation interferes. The classical Ionian reflex of such a pattern, furthermore, would be -VC! C2V-, not Thus the productive type in *-ja/*-jas, if preceded by ττότνα

54

Cf. also the spelling δτ/μον for δήμιον in Μ 2 1 3 , as discussed in § 4 .

Cf. § 3. C f . also § 6. As for Linear Β wo-ze (Pylos/Ea 3 0 9 , etc.), it probably represents *wordzlei; for the transcription with *-dzJ-, cf. § 9 - 1 propose that the etymological sequence is the following: e.g. *wordz'ö < ...*wfddjö < *wrgjö, 0-grade counterpart of ί-grade *wergjö. 57 T h e specific phonological manifestations will be discussed further in § 6, with reference to dialectal divergence. 58 C f . § 6. 59 Cf. § 3. 55

56

117

Ι"· §5 -C1C2-, is reflected in classical Ionian Greek as -CiCgi*/ - C i C 2 ^ . A list of such forms is given by Lambert, 60 some of the most certain examples being πρόλίμνά ( < *prolimn-jä), ίπφδά ( < *epi-bd-jä < *epi-pd-jä), ϊχιδνά ( < *ekhidn-jä) ; 6 1 so also with the participial types like λύουσά, i.e. < *luonsä < *luofisJa < *luofisjä < *luont-jä. 62 In contrast to πότνιά, SeWotva might have been suffixaccented in e.g. the genitive singular, as if it were a motivated formation, so that it could undergo stage II 6 3 because the alternation {-*-/-*-} (prompted by accent-limitation) was not there to interfere. From a proposed juxtaposition like {*p0!fijä/*potnijäs} vs. {*despotfija/despotfiJds}, then, we might surmise that *-o!nj-/*-otni- became -οτνι-, while *-oiftj- ( > *-onfij-) became e.g. Ionian -ow-. In the proposed nominative form *despoiftjä, the accentual interpretation has not yet been specifically discussed: nor yet, for that matter, in the nominative of other Greek forms in original *-jä/*-jäs with proposed suffixal accentuation in e.g. the genitive singular. The complication is this: the Greek nominative singular in *-ja is not a direct phonological development from IE. Kurylowicz has observed64 that in Indie and Greek, there had occurred a remodeling of the I E nominative/accusative singular in *-Ϊ32/*-Ϊ32Πΐ. In Indie, the direct phonological development would be *-i/*-iyam, but the second member is remodeled as -im on the basis of the nominative. In Greek, the direct phonological development would be *-i/*-ija(n); by homalized anticipation in external sandhi, * - ä n # ( V - ) is generalized over * - ä # ( C - ) , so that * - ä n # can precede both V- and C-; then *-ϊ becomes replaced by *-ijä on the formal precedent 60

Quaestiones (§ 1) 44 f. Cf. also Schwyzer, GG I 475. 62 For the proposed details of phonological development, cf. § 6. 63 Cf. § 3 . 64 Apophonie 195. 61

Il8

πι. §5 of the accusative, *-ijän. 6 5 Now the matter of accent can be considered, with an adjustment on Schwyzer's relevant formulation. 66 As far as we can reconstruct on the basis ο surviving apophonic distributions, the nominative/accusative/genitive singular of the I E nominal class under discussion may well have involved this pattern: * "ia/* "i3rp/*-i -ζ- suppose done pour ζ . . . la valeur zd.''101 Bartonek points

out, 1 0 2

O n the other hand, as

this metathesis of * d z to zd is not a

phenomenon c o m m o n to all dialects: in fact, there is even the strong possibility that some Ionian dialects underwent * d z > zz,

parallel with *ts > jj·. In Attic too, from the

fourth century B.C. onwards, ζ comes to be used for the transcription

of Iranian

approximated

z,

whereas

Iranian zd, as in

previously,

it

had

mazdara-/Μαζάρη?.103

The

new pronunciation may be due not to forward-assimilation, but to a dialectally-caused ouster of Attic -zd- ( < *-dz-) by the -zz- ( < *-dz-) of the now prevailing K o i n e , the constitution of w h i c h was not Attic exclusively but AtticIonic in a wider sense; 1 0 4 parallel would be the replacement in K o i n e of Attic ττ (-//-) by Ionic σσ (-ss-). §7. T h e Boiotian reflexes ττ and

δδ arising

from the

etymological configurations proposed in § 6 are shared by e.g. central Cretan, as seen αποδατταθθαι

in forms

(*ts), δικαδδ«»» ( * d j ) ,

etc. 1 0 5

like

μεττον (*tj),

Hence the follow-

ing comment by D i v e r : " T h e usual analysis is that Boeotian represents an original Aeolian

dialect that was

heavily

infiltrated from the west subsequent to the Doric invasion, and indeed it would appear that the ττ-δδ itself is a Doric

feature."106

the reflexes ττ/δδ to all

the

development

T h a t is, Diver would other

Dorian

features

add of

Boiotian. 1 0 7 101 Tratte 95 f ; cf. also the relatively late testimonium from Dionysios o f H a l i karnassos, De compositione uerborum 5 3 . 1 - 7 , o n the p r o n u n c i a t i o n o f ζ as [zd] b y the e d u c a t e d , a p p a r e n t l y e v e n in his time (first c e n t u r y B.C.). 102 Vyvoj 150 ff. 1 0 3 C f . L e j e u n e , Traite 310. 1 0 4 F o r a n interesting discussion of d i a l e c t a l pedigree in K o i n e , cf. e.g. S c h w y z e r , GG I 128 ff. 1 0 5 Q . v . in Bechtel, GD I I 694, 698. 1 0 6 " G r e e k C o n s o n a n t i s m " (§ 1) 22. 1 0 7 A s listed e.g. b y T h u m b / S c h e r e r , GD II 18, a n d B u c k , GD §217.

127

MI· §7 It should be pointed out, however, that the term "Dorian" will now be used not in the sense applicable to the attested official languages of communities understood to be Dorian in classical times; rather, I define it here simply as the ancestor-dialect which, upon being superimposed in preclassical times on the earlier dialects of certain communities, produced features in their attested official languages which cannot be explained as derived from the ancestor-dialects of attested Attic-Ionic, Arcado-Cypriote, and Aiolian. Furthermore, on a tentative basis, no overall terminus post quern will be set for the beginning of Dorian superimposition. More clarification is also needed in reference to the designation " A i o l i a n " : in the opinion of Porzig 1 0 8 and Risch, 1 0 9 original Aiolian is reflected more closely by the western variety (the most representative being the East-Thessalian dialect in the Pelasgiotis) than by its counterpart in the East (represented by Lesbian); thus in a contrast like Pelasgiotic -η- vs. Lesbian -σι-, according to this theory, the former is genuine Aiolian, the latter, an ionicism diffused from the contiguous areas—in contrast to the older theory according to which the latter is genuine Aiolian, the former, a doricism resulting from an outright superimposition of Dorian upon Aiolian. 1 1 0 Left for the time being as a moot question, this issue has been raised at this particular point only to illustrate the difficulty in determining what features in WestAiolian are actually Dorian, and not originally Aiolian. Risch too argues that Boiotian shows clear traces of Dorian influence, 1 1 1 and thus Diver's quoted suggestion 112 that Boiotian ττ/88 is a Dorian feature is not to be ruled out in terms of the Risch/Porzig theory, especially since ττ/88 is also attested in central Cretan, as already seen. Diver's 108 109 110 111 112

"Sprachgeographische Untersuchungen" (§ ι) 149-155. " G l i e d e r u n g " (§ 1) 70. Cf. e.g. Buck, GD 5; also § 210. " G l i e d e r u n g " (§ 1) 70. Cf. n. 106.

128

III· § 7

statement, however, still requires an important qualification: τ τ / δ δ is not the Dorian development, but a Dorian development from an earlier *tij/*d D + D, as in TT and δδ. But the extant dialects of many communities with Dorian ancestry show alternate possibilities; where *t + *s develops into σσ, so too *tt s into σσ, as in the official idiom of Argolis: * t + *s > *ttJ > *ddi >

* t t s > ss * t t s > ss * d d z > zd

e . g . ησσαντο, ισσατο, e t c . 1 1 7 e . g . οσσα, γλωσσά ι, e t c . 1 1 8 e . g . νοσφιζζσθαι, χρ€ΐ.ζον, e t c . 1 1 9

That *dd z > *dz > zd here is suggested by the spelling 8ικασζοιτο.120 A likely motivation for the metathesis into zd is the synchronic lack of a correlate *ts for *dz; the crucial impetus, however, may well be the Sprachbund-pressure of an areal feature, with locus of diffusion left undetermined in the present discussion. 121 An important factor to consider in any further investigation is that metathetized zd or assimilated dd are not the two inevitable alternatives that develop phonologically from *dd z . Another possibility is zz ( < *dd z ), parallel to ss ( < *tt s ). Still another is the simple retention of dz, without metathesis. Whether represents zz or dz in the official language of a particular area with Dorian pedigree is often difficult, if not impossible, to decide directly. Nevertheless, the use of (i.e., I) for an affricate ts in the Oscan is unstable because the underlying phonological hierarchy lacks symmetry: Greek preserves no voiced/unvoiced opposition like ks/gz or pslbz to match a tsjdz. For a discussion of the graphemic problem from the standpoint of a specific area, cf. J. Brause, Lautlehre der kretischen Dialekte (Halle an der Saale >9°9) ! 5 2 ff· O n the representation of unvoiced D + S by the Ionian Τ and the Pamphylian Ψ, cf. Bartonek, Vyvoj 149. 117 Q.v. in Bechtel, GD II 465 f. 118 Ibid. 119 Q.v. in Bechtel, GD II 466 f. 120 Ibid. 121 Cf. also n. 100.

130

in. §7 native alphabet, or the report by Velius Longus (GLK 7.51.1-20) on the testimonium of Verrius Flaccus that the first component of ζ is a d—these are the kinds of factors which at least point to an areal feature dz in e.g. Italiotic Greek, thus perhaps putting into perspective such facts as this: after the colonization of Taras (Tarentum) and Herakleia by Lakonia, ζ-spelling persists in the first two areas mentioned, while δδ-spelling prevails in the third. 1 2 2 We may derive very important additional perspective from some latter-day dialects of Greek: 1 2 3 for example, the pronunciation dz is still extant in the Greek enclaves of Terra d'Otranto (Salento) in South Apulia, as also of Bova and Condofuri in South Calabria—though at Ruchudi and Roccaforte ζ has prevailed; 1 2 4 furthermore, there are enough vestiges from Siceliotic Greek, in the form of borrowings, to indicate original dz there too: e.g. madza "Erdscholle" < μάζα.125 T h e pattern dz is also attested for e.g. the islands Kos and Syme; likewise for the remote community of "Ελνμπος ("noch heute nur auf Maultierpfaden zugänglich-") 1 2 6 on Karpathos, while zz (geminated, < dz) prevails on the rest of this island. In sum, ττ/δδ, belonging to the relative stage E, is a reflex of Common Dorian *tt s /*dd z , but it is by no means the sole reflex possible. A dialect apparently showing half of the same development in stage Ε is Elean, with σσ and δδ. Certain orthographic idiosyncrasies in archaic inscriptions from Olympia (sixth-fifth centuries B.C.) seem even to betray the earlier stage D, when ss and dd had still been *tt s and *dd z . In word-initial position, the latter would have been C f . Bartonek, Vyvoj 147. A s pointed out by G . Rohlfs, " D i e Aussprache des z (ζ) im Altgriechis c h e n , " Das Altertum 8 (1962) 3 - 8 . 122

123

124 125 126

Ibid. 6 f. Ibid. 7. Ibid. 6.

131

•^troQTjrtO.oa'P - - - - - *

α ο

Ρ α» α, *

α ο w 3 Ρ α-» α.)

*

*

*

3^ Λ