Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics [1 ed.] 3110540363, 9783110540369

Citation preview

Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics HSK 41.3

Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science Manuels de linguistique et des sciences de communication Mitbegründet von Gerold Ungeheuer Mitherausgegeben (1985−2001) von Hugo Steger

Herausgegeben von / Edited by / Edités par Herbert Ernst Wiegand

Band 41.3

De Gruyter Mouton

Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics Edited by Jared Klein Brian Joseph Matthias Fritz In cooperation with Mark Wenthe

De Gruyter Mouton

ISBN 978-3-11-054036-9 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-054243-1 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-054052-9 ISSN 1861-5090 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Klein, Jared S., editor. | Joseph, Brian D., editor. | Fritz, Matthias, editor. Title: Handbook of comparative and historical Indo-European linguistics : an international handbook / edited by Jared Klein, Brian Joseph, Matthias Fritz ; in cooperation with Mark Wenthe. Description: Berlin ; Boston : De Gruyter Mouton, 2017- | Series: Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft = Handbooks of linguistics and communication science, ISSN 1861-5090 ; Band 41.1- | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2017042351| ISBN 9783110186147 (volume 1 : hardcover) | ISBN 9783110261288 (volume 1 : pdf) | ISBN 9783110393248 (volume 1 : epub) | ISBN 9783110521610 (volume 2 : hardcover) | ISBN 9783110523874 (volume 2 : pdf) | ISBN 9783110521757 (volume 2 : epub) | ISBN 9783110540369 (volume 3 : hardcover) | ISBN 9783110542431 (volume 3 : pdf) | ISBN 9783110540529 (volume 3 : epub) Subjects: LCSH: Indo-European languages--Grammar, Comparative. | Indo-European languages-Grammar, Historical. | BISAC: LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / General. Classification: LCC P575 .H36 2017 | DDC 410--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017042351 Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Typesetting: Meta Systems Publishing & Printservices GmbH, Wustermark Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck Cover design: Martin Zech, Bremen www.degruyter.com

Contents

Volume 3 XIII. Slavic 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86.

The The The The The The The

documentation of Slavic phonology of Slavic . . morphology of Slavic . syntax of Slavic . . . . . lexicon of Slavic . . . . dialectology of Slavic . evolution of Slavic . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

1397 1414 1538 1557 1571 1585 1600

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

1622 1640 1651 1668 1681 1698 1712

documentation of Albanian phonology of Albanian . . . morphology of Albanian . . syntax of Albanian . . . . . lexicon of Albanian . . . . dialectology of Albanian . . evolution of Albanian . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

1716 1732 1749 1771 1788 1800 1812

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

1816 1832 1839 1850 1854 1857

XIV. Baltic 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93.

The The The The The The The

documentation of Baltic phonology of Baltic . . morphology of Baltic . . syntax of Baltic . . . . . lexicon of Baltic . . . . dialectology of Baltic . evolution of Baltic . . .

XV. Albanian 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100.

The The The The The The The

XVI. Languages of fragmentary attestation 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106.

Phrygian . Venetic . Messapic Thracian . Siculian . Lusitanian

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

vi

Contents 107. Macedonian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108. Illyrian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109. Pelasgian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1862 1867 1873

XVII. Indo-Iranian 110. 111. 112. 113.

The The The The

phonology of Proto-Indo-Iranian morphology of Indo-Iranian . . . syntax of Indo-Iranian . . . . . . lexicon of Indo-Iranian . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

1875 1888 1924 1942

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

1960 1974 1985 2000 2012

119. The shared features of Italic and Celtic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120. Graeco-Anatolian contacts in the Mycenaean period . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2030 2037

XVIII. Balto-Slavic 114. 115. 116. 117. 118.

Balto-Slavic . . . . . . . . . . . The phonology of Balto-Slavic Balto-Slavic morphology . . . The syntax of Balto-Slavic . . The lexicon of Balto-Slavic . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

XIX. Wider configurations and contacts

XX. Proto-Indo-European 121. 122. 123. 124.

The The The The

phonology of Proto-Indo-European . morphology of Proto-Indo-European syntax of Proto-Indo-European . . . lexicon of Proto-Indo-European . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

2056 2079 2195 2229

125. More remote relationships of Proto-Indo-European . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2280

General index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Languages and dialect index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2293 2387

XXI. Beyond Proto-Indo-European

Contents

vii

Volume 1 Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

v

General and methodological issues Comparison and relationship of languages . . . . . . . Language contact and Indo-European linguistics . . . . Methods in reconstruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The sources for Indo-European reconstruction . . . . . The writing systems of Indo-European . . . . . . . . . Indo-European dialectology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The culture of the speakers of Proto-Indo-European . The homeland of the speakers of Proto-Indo-European

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

1 7 15 20 26 62 75 85

. . . . . .

93 98 105 114 121 129

. . . .

138

. . . . . . . .

171 210

. . . .

220

. . . . . .

239 249 256 274 291 298

II. The application of the comparative method in selected language groups other than Indo-European 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

The The The The The The

comparative comparative comparative comparative comparative comparative

method method method method method method

in in in in in in

Semitic linguistics . . . Uralic linguistics . . . . Caucasian linguistics . . African linguistics . . . Austronesian linguistics Australian linguistics . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

III. Historical perspectives on Indo-European linguistics 15. Intuition, exploration, and assertion of the Indo-European language relationship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16. Indo-European linguistics in the 19 th and 20 th centuries: beginnings, establishment, remodeling, refinement, and extension(s) . . . . . . . . 17. Encyclopedic works on Indo-European linguistics . . . . . . . . . . . . 18. The impact of Hittite and Tocharian: Rethinking Indo-European in the 20 th century and beyond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

IV. Anatolian 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24.

The The The The The The

documentation of Anatolian . . . . . . . . phonology of Anatolian . . . . . . . . . . morphology of Anatolian . . . . . . . . . syntax of Anatolian: The simple sentence lexicon of Anatolian . . . . . . . . . . . . dialectology of Anatolian . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

viii

Contents

V. Indic 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31.

The The The The The The The

documentation of Indic . . . . . . . . phonology of Indic . . . . . . . . . . . morphology of Indic (old Indo-Aryan) syntax of Indic . . . . . . . . . . . . . lexicon of Indic . . . . . . . . . . . . . dialectology of Indic . . . . . . . . . . evolution of Indic . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

309 325 344 377 409 417 447

VI. Iranian 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38.

The The The The The The The

documentation of Iranian phonology of Iranian . . morphology of Iranian . syntax of Iranian . . . . lexicon of Iranian . . . . dialectology of Iranian . evolution of Iranian . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

471 481 503 549 566 599 608

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

625 638 654 682 695 710 717

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

733 743 751 804 828 835 858

VII. Greek 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45.

The The The The The The The

documentation of Greek phonology of Greek . . morphology of Greek . syntax of Greek . . . . . lexicon of Greek . . . . dialectology of Greek . evolution of Greek . . .

Volume 2 VIII. Italic 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52.

The The The The The The The

documentation of Italic phonology of Italic . . morphology of Italic . syntax of Italic . . . . lexicon of Italic . . . . dialectology of Italic . evolution of Italic . . .

. . . . . .

Contents

ix

IX. Germanic 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59.

The The The The The The The

documentation of Germanic phonology of Germanic . . morphology of Germanic . syntax of Germanic . . . . . lexicon of Germanic . . . . dialectology of Germanic . evolution of Germanic . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

875 888 913 954 974 986 1002

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

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

1028 1037 1080 1097 1115 1132 1146

X. Armenian 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66.

The The The The The The The

documentation of Armenian . . . phonology of Classical Armenian morphology of Armenian . . . . syntax of Classical Armenian . . lexicon of Armenian . . . . . . . dialectology of Armenian . . . . evolution of Armenian . . . . . .

XI. Celtic 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73.

The The The The The The The

documentation of Celtic phonology of Celtic . . morphology of Celtic . . syntax of Celtic . . . . . lexicon of Celtic . . . . dialectology of Celtic . evolution of Celtic . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

1168 1188 1203 1218 1250 1264 1274

documentation of Tocharian phonology of Tocharian . . morphology of Tocharian . syntax of Tocharian . . . . . lexicon of Tocharian . . . . dialectology of Tocharian .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

1298 1304 1335 1352 1365 1389

XII. Tocharian 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79.

The The The The The The

XIII. Slavic 80. The documentation of Slavic 1. Proto-Slavic 2. South Slavic 3. East Slavic

4. West Slavic 5. References

1. Proto-Slavic The early history of the Slavs is shrouded in obscurity. They do not appear in the historical record until the sixth century CE, and the earliest Slavic inscriptions and manuscripts that still exist today are no older than the tenth century. Archaeological findings from earlier periods are difficult to connect conclusively to the Slavic peoples, but starting in the fifth century we find evidence of a fairly uniform material culture in the Polesie region of Ukraine, which later spread into the same areas into which the Slavs were migrating, according to the testimony of Latin and Greek sources (Barford 2001: 40− 43). The greatest concentration of Slavic hydronyms is found in the same general region, north of the Carpathian mountains (Udolph 1979). The evidence of a common period of Balto-Slavic linguistic development and of early linguistic contacts with Germanic and Iranian, given what we know of the locations of these other Indo-European groups, also point to the middle Dnieper river basin (roughly the area from northwestern Ukraine to southeastern Belarus) as the most likely homeland for the Slavs (see Birnbaum 1973; Schenker 1995: 6−8). The Slavs were probably affected by the invasion of the Huns into Europe and the first phase of the Great Migrations in the fourth and fifth centuries CE, but they began to spread into territories bordering the Eastern Roman Empire only in the sixth century. The first mention of the Slavs is by Jordanes in his history of the Goths (De origine actibusque Getarum, ca. 550), where he describes a group of three related tribes, the Venethi, Antes, and Sclaveni, inhabiting a large area extending from the source of the Vistula river in the north to the Danube in the south, and reaching to the Dnieper river in the east (Schenker 1995: 9 quotes the relevant passage). Writing at about the same time, the Byzantine historian Procopius reports in various works on Slavic raids across the Danube in the first half of the sixth century, and also provides a description of Slavic customs and beliefs (see Schenker 1995: 15−16; Barford 2001: 50 ff.). The Slavs in the region north of the lower Danube became closely connected with the Avars, a group of Turkic nomads who arrived in this area around 560, and together they began to make more significant incursions into the Balkans. Unlike the Avars, however, the Slavs also began to settle south and west of the Danube in greater and greater numbers. During the sixth century other groups of Slavs were expanding to the north and west into the areas of present-day Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, and Germany, as attested by archaeological remains and mentions in written sources, such as Fredegar’s https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-001

1398

XIII. Slavic

Chronicle, which provides information about battles between the Slavs and Franks and describes the creation of a Slavic state led by a Frankish merchant named Samo in the first half of the seventh century. The duration of this political organization and its exact location are unclear. Barford (2001: 79) places it in the region of Vienna and questions whether it can be properly called a “state”. Other scholars have it encompassing parts of Lusatia, Bohemia, Moravia, or Carantania (Schenker 1995: 22). Archaeological evidence also shows the expansion of cultures associated with the Slavs to the east in Ukraine during this same period, but there are no written sources that could provide information about the Slavs in this region. Although there must have been some variation in the language spoken by the ProtoSlavs, we cannot reconstruct any dialectal differentiation for the pre-migration period. The displacement of Proto-Slavic peoples from their original homeland probably involved the mixing of different groups and the leveling of any pre-existing dialectal differences (Shevelov 1965: 2). Furthermore, the rapid expansion of Slavic speakers into such a large geographic area probably could not have been accomplished by normal population growth alone and must have involved the linguistic assimilation of other groups with whom they came in contact (Nichols 1993). It has been suggested that Slavic may have served as a lingua franca in the ethnically mixed region under the hegemony of the Avars, which may help account for its apparently high degree of homogeneity during a time of rapid geographic expansion (Pritsak 1983: 420; Lunt 1985). The assumption of the development of a more or less uniform Slavic lingua franca during this period of expansion may also help explain the relatively long period of common linguistic developments after the dispersal of the Slavs throughout Eastern Europe. Scholars generally agree that dialectal differences were probably not significant enough to impede communication up to about the year 1000, so that we may still speak of some sort of Slavic linguistic unity before this time. The last stage of parallel developments (the loss of the weak jer vowels) was completed by ca. 1200. As a result, even though Slavic is not attested until the tenth century, the language of the earliest manuscripts is very close to what we may reconstruct for Proto-Slavic. Slavic is traditionally divided into West Slavic, South Slavic, and East Slavic groups. This division should not be understood to mean that the languages of each group necessarily descend from a common intermediate ancestor, however. The complex historical changes from proto-Slavic to the individual modern Slavic languages cannot be seen as a strictly linear, Stammbaum-type process, but the classification into three groups generally corresponds with the majority of shared linguistic developments (see Birnbaum 1966).

2. South Slavic 2.1. Old Church Slavic The earliest Slavic manuscripts are written in a language called Old Church Slavic (or Old Church Slavonic) in English, abbreviated as OCS. The development of this literary language is attributed to the brothers Constantine (who later took the name Cyril) and

80. The documentation of Slavic

1399

Methodius, who were chosen by the Byzantine emperor Michael III to undertake a mission to the Slavs living in Moravia around 862. Although they were from a Greek family, the brothers were presumably bilingual in Greek and the eastern South Slavic dialect spoken in the area of their native town of Thessaloniki. Constantine/Cyril reportedly developed an alphabet for writing the language, and he and Methodius began translating biblical and liturgical texts necessary for their missionary work. Additional translations and some original texts were produced by the brothers and their disciples in Moravia, and later by the remaining disciples and their own students in centers of learning established in the Bulgarian Empire, after the expulsion of the Slavic missionaries from Moravia (see Schenker 1995 for more information on the Cyrillo-Methodian mission and its aftermath). Although OCS is identifiably South Slavic in its main features, we must keep in mind that it was a medium of literary production, which had to be adapted to convey complex ideas in an elevated style, and which was used over a broad territory. It cannot be identified with any single spoken dialect of this period. The grammar and lexicon were never formally codified, so there is a substantial amount of variation in the texts. In different Slavic-speaking areas where Church Slavic continued to be used as a literary medium, it was gradually adapted over time towards the local vernaculars, and texts may also contain a mixture of Church Slavic and the spoken language. As a result, it may be difficult to classify texts unambiguously as OCS, a local recension of Church Slavic, or as “Old Russian,” “Old Serbian,” etc. We reserve the name OCS for the language of a relatively small group of texts that are thought to have some direct connection to the original Cyrillo-Methodian mission or the subsequent work of their disciples in Bulgaria-Macedonia, and which preserve certain archaic features. These texts were composed and copied from the second half of the ninth century through the eleventh century, but the majority of the surviving manuscripts date to the eleventh century. In other languages OCS may be referred to simply as “Old Slavic” (e.g., French le vieux slave, Russian staroslavjanskij). The language has also been called “Old Bulgarian,” since most of the extant manuscripts are from the territory of the medieval Bulgarian Empire, but as noted above OCS manuscripts do not reflect a purely regional language variety, so this term is not accurate and is no longer widely used. Note that when speaking of the “Macedonian” or “Bulgarian” origin of various manuscripts, we are referring to the western or eastern areas of the Bulgarian Empire, since the states of Macedonia and Bulgaria in their modern forms did not exist at this time. The original writing system developed by Constantine/Cyril is known as the Glagolitic alphabet (Table 80.1). It does not appear to be modeled on a single pre-existing writing system; rather, it seems that Constantine/Cyril wanted to create a unique alphabet for Slavic. Some of the letters appear to be based on Greek, Hebrew, Samaritan, or Latin characters, while for others no source can be reliably determined. Glagolitic was used in Moravia during the time of the Cyrillo-Methodian mission and in the Balkans in the period that immediately followed. It was maintained in Macedonia up to the end of the 11 th c. and in Serbia until the 12 th c., but in Bulgaria was replaced very early by the Cyrillic alphabet (Vaillant 1964: 21). The only place where Glagolitic enjoyed a longer life was in Croatia, where scribes developed a new form of the alphabet, known as angular Glagolitic. Liturgical books in Glagolitic continued to be used in a few Catholic parishes on the Croatian coast and islands up into the twentieth century.

1400

XIII. Slavic

Tab. 80.1: The Glagolitic alphabet letter















translit.

a

b

v

g

d

e

ž

phoneme

/ɑ/

/b/

/v/

/g/

/d/

/ɛ/

/ʒ/

number

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

name

azъ

buky

vědě

glagoli

dobro

estъ

živěte

letter





,







translit.

ʒ

z

i (ı)

i

ǵ (d’)

k

l

/dz/

/z/

/i/

/i/

/ɟ/?

/k/

/l/

8

9

10

20

30

40

50

name

ʒělo

zemlja

i

iže

ǵervь/ d’ervь

kako

ljudie

letter

Ⰿ













translit.

m

n

o

p

r

s

t

phoneme

/m/

/n/

/ɔ/

/p/

/r/

/s/

/t/

number

60

70

80

90

100

200

300

name

myslite

našь

onъ

pokoi

rьci

slovo

tvrьdo

letter















translit.

u

f

x

o (ō)

št

c

č

phoneme

/u/

/f/

/x/

/ɔ/

/ʃt/

/ts/

/ʧ/

number

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

name

ukъ

frьtъ

xěrъ

otъ

šta

ci

črьvь

letter



, !

!

"

#

$

translit.

š

ъ (ŭ)

y

ь (ǐ)

ě

ju (ü)

ę (N)

phoneme

/ʃ/

/ʊ/

/ɨ/

/ɪ/

/æ/

/ju/ or /y/

/ɛ˜/

number

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

name

ša

erъ

ery

erь

jatь

ju

phoneme number

80. The documentation of Slavic

1401

Tab. 80.1: (continued) letter

%

&

'

(

)

*

translit.

ǫ

ę

jǫ (ǫ¨)

θ

i (υ, ü)

x

phoneme

/ɔ˜/

/ɛ˜/

/jɔ˜/ or /œ ˜/

/f/ or /t/?

/i/ or /u/?

/x/

number

−

−

−

−

−

−

fita

ižica

xlъmъ

name

Remarks on Table 80.1. The letter $ was used as the second part of digraphs to indicate nasality; when used by itself it had the value of a front nasal vowel. The usage in manuscripts varies: the Kiev Missal and Psalterium Sinaiticum use only & for the front nasal, while other Glagolitic manuscripts use $ after consonants and & in initial position or after a vowel. Scholars disagree about the phonemic values of the jotated vowel letters. Certain letters (, (, )) are used to transliterate Greek words; their pronunciation in Old Church Slavic is uncertain. The existence of variant letters to represent the sounds /i/ and /ɔ/ is probably also due to the influence of Greek. The letter * is rare, occurring only in the Paris and Munich abecedaria, in the Psalterium Sinaiticum, and the Codex Assemanianus. The difference in usage between this letter and the more common  is not entirely clear. Some manuscripts use a diacritic mark ҄ to indicate palatal or palatalized consonants.

The Cyrillic alphabet (Table 80.2) was created on the basis of Glagolitic by substituting corresponding Greek letters wherever possible. The simpler and more familiar forms of the letters no doubt played a role in the widespread adoption of this alphabet in place of the earlier Glagolitic. Tab. 80.2: The Cyrillic alphabet letter

+

-

.

/

0

1

2

translit.

a

b

v

g

d

e

ž

number

1

−

2

3

4

5

−

3, 4, 5

6, 7

8, н

9, : (

?

@

translit.

ʒ

z

i

i (ı)

k

l

m

number

6

7

8

10

20

30

40

letter

A

B, ѻ

C

D

E

F

G, H

translit.

n

o

p

r

s

t

u

number

50

70

80

100

200

300

400

letter

I

J

K

L

M

N, O

P

translit.

f

x

о (ō)

št

c

č

š

number

500

600

800

−

900

90

−

letter

1402

XIII. Slavic

Tab. 80.2: (continued) letter

Q

R, S, Q8

T

U

V

W

X

translit.

ъ (ŭ)

y

ь (ǐ)

ě

ju

ja

je

number

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

letter

Y, Z

[

\

]

^

_

translit.

ę

ǫ

ję

jǫ

θ

i (υ, ü)

number

−

−

−

−

−

−

Remarks on Table 80.2. The names of the letters are the same as for the corresponding characters in Glagolitic. The different forms for /i/ are also known as i osmeričьno (8) and i desęteričьno (10), according to their numerical values The Russian names jus bol’šoj and jus malyj are commonly used to refer to the back and front nasal vowels. The numerical values for Cyrillic are generally based on the order of the Greek alphabet, so that characters that do not have equivalents in Greek are usually not used to represent numbers. The Greek letters ѯ and ѱ are used to represent the numerals 60 and 700, and occasionally to spell the sequences [ks] and [ps], mainly in borrowed words. As in the Glagolitic alphabet, different letters are used to represent the front nasal vowel. Suprasliensis and Sava’s Book consistently use Z after consonants and Y elsewhere.

Most major OCS manuscripts have been published in several editions, not all of which are listed here. For a more complete bibliography and additional information on early Slavic writing, see Schenker (1995). The Kiev Missal (Hamm 1979; Nimčuk 1983; TITUS) is probably the oldest extant OCS manuscript, dating either to the late tenth/early eleventh century (Schenker 1995: 207) or perhaps even to the late ninth/early tenth century (Schaeken 1987: 201). It consists of seven folia written in the Glagolitic alphabet, containing parts of a missal according to the western rite. As it exhibits West Slavic features and is clearly a translation from Latin we may assume that it originated in Moravia or Bohemia. The Kiev Missal is notable also for its supralinear markings, which seem to indicate prosodic features (Kortlandt 1980; Schaeken 2008). In other OCS manuscripts such markings are purely ornamental imitations of Greek diacritic marks (Schenker 1995: 183). Also among the oldest manuscripts are two more or less complete fourfold Gospels written in the Glagolitic alphabet. Like all Glagolitic OCS monuments, apart from the Kiev Missal and possibly the Glagolita Clozianus, they are thought to be of Macedonian origin. Codex Zographensis (Jagić [1879] 1954; TITUS) consists of 271 folia in OCS and an additional 17 folia written in Macedonian Church Slavic, which are a later addition to replace a missing portion of the original gospel text. The codex also includes 16 folia containing a 13 th-century Cyrillic synaxarion (a calendar of saints’ days). The main portion of the codex is conventionally dated to the late tenth or early eleventh century and is phonologically closest to what we can posit as the Cyrillo-Methodian norm. Probably slightly later, but still dating to the first half of the eleventh century, is the Codex Marianus, with 173 folia (Jagić [1883] 1960; TITUS). The Codex Assemanianus (Vajs and Kurz 1929−1955; Ivanova-Mavrodinova and Džurova 1981; TITUS) is probably slightly later than either Zographensis or Marianus, perhaps from the second half of the eleventh century. It consists of 158 Glagolitic folia, containing an evangeliary (a collection of Gospel passages to be read in the liturgy) and

80. The documentation of Slavic

1403

a synaxarion. It is written in an inconsistent and somewhat innovative orthography (Lunt 2001: 8). The major Glagolitic manuscripts also include a psalter and a prayer book, both of which were found in the Monastery of St. Catherine on Mt. Sinai and date to the eleventh century. The major part of the Psalterium Sinaiticum, 177 folia containing psalms 1− 137, was found in 1850 (Sever’janov [1922] 1954; Altbauer 1971). It appears to be the work of several scribes and contains numerous mistakes and some phonologically newer features (Lunt 2001: 8). The extant folia of the Euchologium Sinaiticum (Frček [1933− 1939] 1974; Nahtigal 1941−1942) represent only part of what must have been a larger codex containing translations made at different times in the early period of OCS (Mathiesen 1991: 195). The main portion of the manuscript (109 folia) was found together with the Psalterium Sinaiticum and includes prayers for various occasions and parts of the liturgy. In 1975 a new trove of manuscripts was discovered in the monastery, which included an additional 32 folia of the Psalterium Sinaiticum and at least 28 folia belonging to the Euchologium Sinaiticum. Photographic reproductions of these folia have been published by Tarnaidis (1988). The Glagolita Clozianus (Dostál 1959) consists of 14 folia out of what was originally a large codex of homilies and includes a fragment of a sermon that has been attributed to Methodius. The language exhibits features that may indicate a Croatian or Serbian origin for this manuscript (Schenker 1995: 189; Lunt 2001: 9). The only other Glagolitic manuscripts that belong to the OCS canon are shorter fragments or palimpsests containing gospel or liturgical texts. The Cyrillic OCS manuscripts are almost all of Bulgarian origin and date to the 11 th century. The Codex Suprasliensis (Sever’janov [1904] 1956; Zaimov and Capaldo 1982− 1983; TITUS), with 285 folia, is the longest surviving OCS manuscript. It is a lectionary menaeum for the month of March, containing 24 saints’ lives and 24 homilies, most of which are attributed to St. John Chrysostom. The language of the text is less archaic than that of the surviving Glagolitic OCS manuscripts. We also have part of an evangeliary in Cyrillic, known as Sava’s Book (Ščepkin [1903] 1959; TITUS). The manuscript is so called because of the comment поп сава ѱалъ ‘The priest Sava wrote [this]’ written at the bottom of folio 49 by the same hand as the main text; folio 54 has another marginal comment containing the same name. The surviving 129 folia of this manuscript are bound together in a codex with some later Russian Church Slavic texts. The manuscript appears to be a copy made from an earlier Glagolitic text, and the language shows innovations that mark it as being younger than that of Suprasliensis. In addition to texts from the gospels found in other manuscripts, we also have some readings from the Acts and Epistles in the Enina Apostol (Mirčev and Kodov 1965). Unfortunately, only 39 poorly preserved folia of the original manuscript survive. The remaining Cyrillic manuscripts classified as OCS are shorter fragments.

2.2. Eastern South Slavic The OCS manuscripts of Bulgarian or Macedonian origin, with the caveat mentioned above, provide the main source of early evidence for Eastern South Slavic dialects. We also have a number of early inscriptions, mostly in Cyrillic, which some scholars treat as part of the OCS canon. However, since they differ in terms of composition, transmission, and purpose from this textual tradition, they are perhaps best considered separately.

1404

XIII. Slavic

The oldest ones actually predate most or all of the surviving OCS manuscripts. The earliest dated Cyrillic inscription is from the year 921 and was found in the Krepča monastery near Tărgovište, Bulgaria (Konstantinov 1977). This then marks the latest possible date for the introduction of the Cyrillic alphabet. The most famous dated Cyrillic inscription is the tombstone erected by the Bulgarian Tsar Samuel for his parents and brother in 992/993, which was found on Lake Prespa in northern Greece. All of these inscriptions are fragmentary, and their interpretation is sometimes uncertain (see Schaeken and Birnbaum 1999: 127 ff. for more information). Beginning in the 12 th century, we have numerous texts with enough innovative regional features that they are classified as Bulgarian or Macedonian recensions of Old Church Slavic, or simply as Middle Bulgarian. Like the canonical OCS manuscripts, they are almost exclusively translations of Biblical or other religious texts. There are a number of evangeliaries, apostols, and psalters, including Dobromir’s Gospel (Macedonian, early 12 th c.; Altbauer 1973; Velčeva 1975), Dobrejšo’s Gospel (Macedonian, 13 th c.; Conev 1906), the Slepče Apostol (Bulgarian/Macedonian, 12 th c.; Il’inskij 1911), the Ohrid Apostol (Macedonian, late 12 th c.; Kul’bakin 1907), and the Bologna Psalter (Macedonian, 13 th c.; Jagić 1907; Dujčev 1968). The oldest Slavic parimeinik (a collection of readings from the Old Testament) is Grigorovič’s Parimeinik (Bulgarian, 12 th or 13 th c.; Brandt 1894−1901). Also worthy of mention is Dragan’s Menaeum, also known as the Zograph Trephologion, which contains short saints’ lives and liturgical texts with musical notation (Bulgarian, late 13 th c.; Sobolevskij 1913). The famous treatise On the letters (Kuev 1967; Džambeluka-Kossova 1980), which describes the creation of the Slavic (Glagolitic) alphabet and defends it as superior to the Greek letters, was most likely written in Bulgaria in the late ninth or early tenth century. It is ascribed to the monk Xrabrъ, about whom nothing certain is known. The oldest extant version is found in a Bulgarian miscellany from 1348.

2.3. Western South Slavic The oldest connected Slavic texts written in the Latin script are the Freising Fragments (Pogačnik 1968; Bernik et al. 1993; TITUS; eZISS), which date to the late 10 th century. They consist of a confessional, homily, and a prayer according to the western rite. The phonetic features of these texts are difficult to interpret because of their ad hoc orthography, but the language exhibits Slovenian characteristics and has been classified variously as OCS, Slovenian Church Slavic, or Old Slovene. Like the Kiev Missal, this manuscript also contains accentual markings. The linguistic features of the Freising Fragments have been analyzed by Kortlandt in several publications (1975, 1996a, 1996b, 1998). There are a number of early Glagolitic inscriptions from the territory of Croatia, the most important of which is the Baška Tablet from the beginning of the 12 th century (Fučić 1982; Schenker 1995: 270−271). This monument was found in the church of St. Lucija on the island of Krk; it commemorates King Zvonimir’s donation of the land for the church and tells of its construction. The style of lettering represents a transition from the rounded Glagolitic of earlier OCS manuscripts to the angular Glagolitic that was used later in Croatia. The Vienna Fragments (Weingart 1938) are two folia from a 12 th-century Glagolitic missal, probably of Croatian origin. We also have two fragments of Glagolitic apostols,

80. The documentation of Slavic

1405

the Gršković Fragment (Jagić 1893) and the Mihanović Fragment (Jagić 1868). Both of these appear to date to the late 12 th/early 13 th century and are possibly from southern Bosnia and Hercegovina, according to Jagić (1893: 40). We also have some early nonreligious texts in Glagolitic, such as the Vinodol Law Code of 1288, which has come down to us in a 16 th-century copy (Bratulić 1988). Early Cyrillic manuscripts include the Vukan Gospel from around 1200 (Vrana 1967) and Miroslav’s Evangeliary from the late 12 th century (Rodić and Jovanović 1986), both in Serbian Church Slavic. We also have several texts attributed to St. Sava (1174?− 1236): three typicons, the Vita Simeonis, and a letter, most of which have come down to us in late copies (Ćorović 1928). The oldest surviving copy of the first Slavic hexameron, which was compiled and translated by the Bulgarian John the Exarch (active early 10 th century), is a Serbian one from 1263 (Aitzetmüller 1958−1975).

3. East Slavic The East Slavic linguistic area is relatively homogenous, and most scholars assume the existence of an intermediate Common East Slavic dialect as the ancestor of all the modern East Slavic languages. The language of the oldest texts from the period of Kievan Rus’ is often referred to loosely as Old Russian, but these documents are mostly Church Slavic with varying degrees of influence from the vernacular, and the local features that they exhibit are better characterized as Common East Slavic in most instances. Not until the 13 th century or later do we really begin to see clear textual evidence of the divergence of Russian from Ukrainian and Belarusian (see Pugh 2007: 11). The East Slavic region is the source of a wider variety of text types than we find in South or West Slavic in this same period. The earliest inscription that we know of consists of seven or eight Greek or Cyrillic letters on an amphora, known as the Gnezdovo Inscription (Schenker 1989), and dates to the early 10 th century. Numerous other inscriptions, both on monuments and smaller objects, date to the 11 th and 12 th centuries. East Slavic writing was almost exclusively in Cyrillic, but there are some Glagolitic graffiti from the 11 th and 12 th centuries in the Church of St. Sophia in Novgorod (Schenker 1995: 236−237). There are several 11 th-century manuscripts containing the core biblical texts used in services. Ostromir’s Gospel is an evangeliary from 1056−1057, copied for the governor of Novgorod (Vostokov [1843] 1964). This manuscript is very close to the idealized OCS norm, particularly in the use of the jer vowels, but also has some East Slavic features. Another aprakos gospel is the Archangel Evangeliary of 1092 (Georgievskij 1912). Both of these were apparently based on South Slavic originals. We have two partial exegetic psalters from the eleventh century, Evgenij’s Psalter (Kolesov 1972) and the Čudovo Psalter (Pogorelov 1910). Slightly later, from the turn of the 11 th/12 th century, is Byčkov’s Psalter (Altbauer and Lunt 1978). The Galician Gospel of 1144 (Le Juge 1897) is the oldest dated East Slavic fourfold Gospel. It contains dialect features of the southwestern East Slavic area where the manuscript was copied. The Novgorod Menaea from 1095−1097 (Jagić 1886) contain services for saints’ days for the months of September, October, and November, together with marginal notes by different scribes. These texts exhibit some Novgorod dialectal features. Stories from the lives of monks and hermits are found in the Sinai Paterikon, which exists in an East Slavic copy from the 11 th century (Golyšenko and Dubrovina 1967).

1406

XIII. Slavic

The Izbornik of 1073 (Dinekov 1991−1993) is a copy made for Prince Svjatoslav of Kiev of a miscellany translated from Greek for the Bulgarian Tsar Simeon, containing excerpts from patristic literature. A second miscellany produced for Prince Svjatoslav, the Izbornik of 1076 (Golyšenko et al. 1965), does not appear to be a translation or copy of an existing miscellany; it was probably compiled in Rus’ on the basis of existing Slavic translations of the original sources, with some changes and adaptations. The text shows numerous East Slavic features, particularly in the portion copied by the second scribe (Lunt 1968). The Uspenskij sbornik (Kotkov 1971) of the 12 th/13 th century contains the earliest versions of some saints’ lives and homilies that represent original Slavic compositions, rather than translations, including the Vita Methodii. The Russian Primary Chronicle (Adrianova-Peretc 1950; Tschižewskij 1969) was compiled from various sources by the monk Nestor of the Kiev Cave Monastery and gives a history of Kievan Rus’ from 852−1110. The introductory section tells of the division of the earth among the sons of Noah (based on a Byzantine chronicle) followed by an original account of the early history of the Slavic tribes. The earliest extant version of the Primary Chronicle is found in the Laurentian Codex of 1377; the other main source is the Hypatian Codex from around 1425. While the language of the Primary Chronicle is mostly Church Slavic with some Eastern Slavic features, the First Novgorod Chronicle (Nasonov 1950) from the 13 th and 14 th centuries is much closer to the vernacular. A unique and rich source of documentation for the history of East Slavic is found in the birchbark documents (berestjanye gramoty) that began to be discovered in the 1950s, primarily in Novgorod. These are short texts dealing with everyday business, legal, and personal matters, which were scratched on strips of birchbark with a stylus. More than 1,000 of these documents have now been found, with the earliest dating to the 11 th century (Zaliznjak 1995; gramoty.ru). These documents exhibit certain linguistic features that differ from the rest of East Slavic, and Zaliznjak argues that East Slavic originally consisted of two distinct dialect zones, rather than representing a unified linguistic area, as commonly assumed. Another important source that is largely free of Church Slavic influences is the Law Code of Rus’ (Grekov 1940−1963; TITUS), which is a compilation of East Slavic customary law. It was composed during the reign of Prince Jaroslav the Wise (r. 1019−1054), but the earliest surviving copy is included in the Novgorod Kormčaja of 1280. The Igor Tale (Grégoire, Jakobson, and Rostovcev 1948; TITUS) is an epic poem describing the campaign led by Prince Igor against the Cumans (Polovtsy) in 1185. The only manuscript was found in 1795, and was dated by scholars at that time to the 16 th century. It was destroyed in the fires that burned most of Moscow in 1812 when Napoleon’s troops entered the city, so we possess only imperfect copies made shortly after the manuscript was discovered. A number of scholars have argued that the Igor Tale represents an 18 th-century forgery, but the linguistic evidence indicates that it was probably composed in the late 12 th century.

4. West Slavic After the disbanding of the Moravian mission, Latin was the predominant language of culture in the West Slavic lands up until the 15 th century. Consequently, the western

80. The documentation of Slavic

1407

recension of Church Slavic and the vernaculars are relatively sparsely attested before this time. The use of Church Slavic survived in Bohemia into the 12 th century, but the majority of early texts that were presumably originally written either in Moravia or Bohemia survive only in later copies made in the Orthodox Slavic lands (see Mareš 1979). Apart from the Kiev Missal, the only other early manuscript from this area is the Prague Fragments, which are two 11 th-century Glagolitic folia written in Czech Church Slavic (Mareš 1979: 41−45). From the 11 th or 12 th century we also have a significant number of Old Czech/Church Slavic glosses in Latin manuscripts: the Vienna Glosses (Jagić 1903) and the St. Gregory Glosses (Patera 1878). Mareš (1979: 211−216) gives excerpts from both, transcribed directly from the original manuscripts. Another important source of information for West Slavic is onomastic data found in various Latin manuscripts (see Schenker 1995: 239). For Old Polish, the Bull of Gniezno from 1136 (Taszycki 1975: 3−36) is particularly significant, with over 400 place and personal names. The 14 th century saw the production of a significantly greater number of West Slavic texts. These include the earliest surviving West Slavic homilies (in Polish), the Holy Cross Sermons (Łoś and Semkowicz 1934; TITUS) and the Gniezno Sermons (VrtelWierczyński 1953), as well as the earliest psalters. The Florian Psalter gives the text of the psalms in parallel Latin, German, and Polish translations (Bernacki et al. [1939] 2002), while the Wittenberg Psalter is Latin with an interlinear Czech translation (Gebauer 1880). The first historical text written in Czech, the Dalimil Chronicle (Daňhelka et al. 1988; TITUS) dates to the early 14 th century. The Czech hymn Hospodine, pomiluj ny [Lord, have mercy on us] may have been composed in the 10 th century, although the earliest manuscripts are from the late 14 th century (Mareš 1979: 208−210). The Polish Bogurodzica (Worończak 1962; TITUS) may also be connected with the Cyrillo-Methodian tradition (Schenker 1995: 221), but it is first attested in a 15 th-century manuscript. Other West Slavic languages are attested considerably later. Czech was long used as a written language also by the Slovaks; the earliest existing Slovak monument is the Žilina Town Book from the late 15 th century (Ďurovič 1980: 212). Polabian died out in the first half of the 18 th century and is attested only fragmentarily, mostly in lists of words and phrases that were collected when the language was already moribund (see Polański 1993). All of the extant Polabian material has been published by Olesch (1959, 1962, 1967). The oldest Sorbian text is the Bautzen Burgher’s Oath, from 1532, which citizens of Bautzen used to swear their loyalty to Bohemia and their feudal lord (Polański 1980: 234). A translation of the New Testament into Sorbian by Miklawuš Jakubica was completed in 1548 (Schuster-Šewc 1967), and the first Sorbian books began to be printed in the 1570s.

5. References Adrianova-Peretc, Varvara P. 1950 Povest’ vremennyx let [The tale of bygone years]. Moscow: Akademija Nauk SSSR. Aitzetmüller, Rudolf 1958−1975 Das Hexaemeron des Exarchen Johannes. Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt.

1408

XIII. Slavic

Altbauer, Moshe 1971 Psalterium Sinaiticum. An 11 th century Glagolitic manuscript from St. Catherine’s Monastery, Mt. Sinai. Skopje: Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts. Altbauer, Moshe 1973 Dobromirovo evangelie. Kirilski spomenik od XII vek [Dobromir’s gospel. A Cyrillic monument of the 12 th century]. Skopje: Makedonska akademija na naukite i umetnostite. Altbauer, Moshe and Horace G. Lunt 1978 An early Slavonic Psalter from Rus’. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute. Barford, Paul M. 2001 The early Slavs. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Bernacki, Ludwik, Aleksander Birkenmajer, Ryszard Ganszyniec, Stefan Kubica, Władysław Podlacha, and Witold Taszycki 2002 [1939] Psałterz florjański. Łacińsko-polsko-niemiecki re˛kopis Bibljoteki narodowej w Warszawie [The Florian psalter. A Latin-Polish-German manuscript in the Warsaw National Library]. Łódź: Archidiecezjalne Wydawnictwo Łódzkie. [Lwów: Zakład narodowy imienia Ossolińskich]. Bernik, France, Darko Dolinar, Jože Faganel, Igor Grdina, Marko Kranjec, and Janez Zor 1993 Brižinski spomeniki. Znanstvenokritična izdaja [The Friesing fragments. A scholarly critical edition]. Ljubljana: Znanstvenoraziskovalni center SAZU. Birnbaum, Henrik 1966 The dialects of Common Slavic. In: Henrik Birnbaum and Jaan Puhvel (eds.), Ancient Indo-European dialects. Berkeley: University of California Press, 153−197. Birnbaum, Henrik 1973 The original homeland of the Slavs and the problem of early linguistic contacts. Journal of Indo-European studies 1: 407−421. Brandt, Roman F. 1894−1901 Grigorovičev parimejnik. V slichenii s drugimi parimejnikami. Čtenija v Imperatorskom obščestve istorii i drevnostej rossijskix pri Moskovskom universitete [Grigorovič’s parimeinik. In comparison with other parimeiniks. Lectures at the Imperial Society of History and Russian Antiquities at Moscow University]. Vol. 1−3. Moscow: Universitetskaja tipografija. Bratulić, Josip 1988 Vinodolski zakon, 1288. Faksimil, diplomatičko izdanje, kritički tekst, tumačenje, rječnik [The Vinodol law code, 1288. Facsimile, diplomatic edition, critical text, interpretation, dictionary]. Zagreb: Globus. Conev, Ben’o. 1906 Dobrejšovo četveroevangelie. Srednobălgarski pametnik ot XIII v. [Dobrejšo’s gospel. A Middle Bulgarian monument of the 13 th century]. Sofia: Dăržavna pečatnica. Ćorović, Vladimir 1928 Spisi Sv. Save [The writings of St. Sava]. (Zbornik za istoriju, jezik i književnost srpskog naroda 17). Belgrade: Srpska kraljevska akademija. Daňhelka, Jiří, Karel Hádek, Bohuslav Havránek, and Naděžda Kvítková (eds.) 1988 Staročeská kronika tak řečeného Dalimila [The Old Czech chronicle of Dalimil]. Prague: Academia. Dinekov, Petăr 1991−1993 Simeonov sbornik (po Svetoslavovija prepis ot 1073 g.) [Simeon’s miscellany (according to the copy made for Svjatoslav from the year 1073)]. Sofia: Bălgarska akademija na naukite. Dostál, Antonín 1959 Clozianus. Starosloveˇnský hlaholský sborník tridentský a innsbrucký [The Clozianus. An Old Church Slavic Glagolitic miscellany of Trent and Innsbruck]. Prague: Československá Akademie věd.

80. The documentation of Slavic

1409

Dujčev, Ivan 1968 Bolonski psaltir. Ba˘lgarski knižoven pametnik ot 13 vek [The Bologna psalter. A Bulgarian literary monument from the 13 th century]. Sofia: Ba˘lgarska akademija na naukite. Džambeluka-Kossova, Alda 1980 Černorizec Xrabăr. O pismenex [The Monk Hrabar. On the letters]. Sofia: Bălgarska akademija na naukite. Ďurovič, L’ubomír 1980 Slovak. In: Schenker and Stankiewicz (eds.), 211−228. eZISS (Elektronske znanstvenokritične izdaje slovenskega slovstva [Digital scholarly critical editions of Slovenian literature). http://nl.ijs.si/e-zrc/index-sl.html [Last accessed 27 June 2013]. Frček, Jan 1974 [1933−1939] Euchologium Sinaiticum. Texte slave avec sources grecques et traduction française. Paris: Firmin-Didot. Fučić, Branko 1982 Glagoljski natpisi [Glagolitic inscriptions]. Zagreb: Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti. Gebauer, Jan 1880 Žaltárˇ Wittenberský [The Wittenberg psalter]. Prague: Matice česká. Georgievskij, Grigorij P. 1912 Arxangel’skoe evangelie 1092 goda [The Archangel Evangeliary of the year 1092]. Moscow: Rumjancovskij muzej. Golyšenko, Vera S. and V. F. Dubrovina 1967 Sinajskij paterik [The Sinai patericon]. Moscow: Nauka. Golyšenko, Vera S., Elena A. Mišina, Aleksandr M. Moldovan, and M. S. Mušinskaja 1965 Izbornik 1076 goda [The miscellany of 1076]. Moscow: Nauka. Grégoire, Henri, Roman Jakobson, and Mixail I. Rostovcev 1948 La geste du Prince Igor’. Épopée russe du douzième siècle. New York: Rausen. Grekov, Boris D. 1940−1963 Pravda russkaja [The law code of Rus’]. Moscow: Akademija nauk SSSR. Hamm, Josip 1979 Das glagolitische Missale von Kiew. Vienna: Verlag der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Il’inskij, Grigorij A. 1911 Slepčenskij apostol XII v. [The Slepče apostol of the 12 th century]. Moscow: Tipografija G. Lissnera i D. Sobko. Ivanova-Mavrodinova, Vera and Aksinija Džurova 1981 Asemanievo evangelie [The Assemanianus evangeliary]. Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo. Jagić, Vatroslav 1868 Građa za glagolsku paleografiju [Materials for Glagolitic paleography]. Rad JAZU 2: 1−35. Jagić, Vatroslav 1886 Služebnyja minei za sentjabr’, oktjabr’ i nojabr’. V cerkovnoslavjanskom perevode po russkim rukopisjam 1095−1097 [Saints’ services for September, October, and November. In the Church Slavonic translation according to Russian manuscripts of 1095−1097]. Saint Petersburg: Imperatorskaja akademija nauk. Jagić, Vatroslav 1890 Glagolitica. Würdigung neuentdeckter Fragmente. Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, philosophisch-historische Klasse 38(2): 1−62. Jagić, Vatroslav 1893 Grškovićev odlomak glagolskog apostola [The Gršković fragment of a Glagolitic apostol]. Starine 26: 33−161.

1410

XIII. Slavic

Jagić, Vatroslav 1903 Kirchenslavisch-böhmische Glossen saec. XI−XII. Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, philosophisch-historische Klasse 50(2): 1−44. Jagić, Vatroslav 1907 Slovenskaja psaltyr’. Psalterium Bonionense [A Slavic psalter. The Bologna psalter]. Vienna: Gerold. Jagić, Vatroslav 1954 [1879] Quattuor evangeliorum codex glagoliticus olim Zographensis nunc Petropolitanus [A Glagolitic codex of the four gospels formerly called Zographensis, now Petropolitanus]. Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt. [Berlin: Weidmann]. Jagić, Vatroslav 1960 [1883] Mariinskoe četveroevangelie s primečanijami i priloženijami [The Marianus gospels with notes and appendices]. Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt. [St. Petersburg: Imperatorskaja akademija nauk]. Kolesov, Vladimir V. 1972 Evgenievskaja psaltyr’ [Evgenij’s psalter]. Acta Universitatis Szegediensis de Attila Jószef nominatae. Dissertationis Slavicae 8: 57−69. Konstantinov, Kazimir 1977 Dva starobălgarski nadpisa ot skalnija manastir pri s. Krepča, Tărgovištki okrăg [Two Old Bulgarian inscriptions from the cave monastery near Krepča, Tărgovište district]. Arxeologija 19: 19−28. Kortlandt, Frederik 1975 Jers and nasal vowels in the Freising Fragments. Slavistična revija 23: 405−412. Kortlandt, Frederik 1980 Zur Akzentuierung der Kiever Blätter. Zeitschrift für slavische Philologie 41: 1−4. Kortlandt, Frederik 1996a The accentual system of the Freising manuscripts. In: Janko Kos, Franc Jakopin, and Jože Faganel (eds.), Zbornik Brižinski spomeniki. Ljubljana: Znanstvenoraziskovalni center SAZU, 141−151. Kortlandt, Frederik 1996b On the accent marks in the First Freising Fragment. In: Adrian A. Barentsen, Ben M. Groen, Jos Schaeken, and Rob Sprenger (eds.), Studies in South Slavic and Balkan linguistics. (Studies in Slavic and general linguistics 23). Amsterdam: Rodopi, 167−171. Kortlandt, Frederik 1998 Rounded nasal vowels in the Freising Fragments. In: Adrian A. Barentsen, Ben M. Groen, Jos Schaeken, and Rob Sprenger (eds.), Dutch contributions to the 12 th International Congress of Slavists: Linguistics. (Studies in Slavic and general linguistics 24). Amsterdam: Rodopi, 309−315. Kotkov, Sergej I. 1971 Uspenskij sbornik XII−XIII vv. [The Uspenskij miscellany of the 12 th−13 th centuries]. Moscow: Nauka. Kuev, Kujo M. 1967 Černorizec Xrabăr [The Monk Hrabar]. Sofia: Bălgarska akademija na naukite. Kul’bakin, Stepan M. 1907 Oxridskaja rukopis’ Apostola konca XII veka [The manuscript of the Ohrid apostol from the end of the 12 th century]. Sofija: Dăržavna pečatnica. von Le Juge, Vasil 1897 Das galizische Tetroevangelium von J. 1144. Eine kritische-palaeographische Studie auf dem Gebiete des Altrussischen. Leipzig: Drugulin. Lunt, Horace G. 1968 On the Izbornik of 1076. In: Robert Magidoff, George Y. Shevelov, Jon S. G. Simmons, and Kiril Taranovski (eds.), Studies in Slavic linguistics and poetics in honor of Boris O. Unbegaun. New York: New York University Press, 69−77.

80. The documentation of Slavic

1411

Lunt, Horace G. 1985 Slavs, Common Slavic, and Old Church Slavonic. In: Johannes Reinhart (ed.), Litterae slavicae medii aevi: Francisco Venceslao Mareš sexagenario oblatae [Slavic literature of the middle ages: offered for the sixtieth birthday of František Václav Mareš]. Munich: Sagner, 185−204. Lunt, Horace G. 2001 Old Church Slavonic grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Łoś, Jan and Władysław Semkowicz 1934 Kazania t. zw. świętokrzyskie [The holy cross sermons]. Cracow: Polska Akademia Umiejętności. Mareš, František 1979 An anthology of Church Slavonic texts of western (Czech) origin. Munich: Fink. Mathiesen, Robert 1991 New Old Church Slavonic manuscripts on Mount Sinai. [Review of Tarnaidis 1988.] Harvard Ukrainian studies 15: 192−199. Mirčev, Kiril and Xristo Kodov 1965 Eninski apostol. Starobălgarski pametnik ot XI v. [The Enina apostol. An Old Bulgarian monument from the 11 th century]. Sofia: Bălgarska akademija na naukite. Nahtigal, Rajko 1941−1942 Euchologium sinaiticum. Starocerkvenoslovanski glagolski spomenik [The Euchologium Sinaiticum. An Old Church Slavic Glagolitic monument]. Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti. Nasonov, Arsenij N. 1950 Novgorodskaja pervaja letopis’ staršego i mladšego izvodov [The first Novgorod chronicle of the older and younger recensions]. Moscow: Akademija Nauk SSSR. Nichols, Johanna 1993 The linguistic geography of the Slavic expansion. In: Robert A. Maguire and Alan Timberlake (eds.), American contributions to the Eleventh International Congress of Slavists. Columbus, OH: Slavica, 377−391. Nimčuk, Vasyl V. 1983 Kyjivs’ki hlaholyčni lystky [The Kiev Glagolitic folia]. Kiev: Naukova dumka. Olesch, Reinhold 1959 Vocabularium venedicum von Christian Hennig von Jessen. Cologne: Böhlau. Olesch, Reinhold 1962 Juglers lüneburgisch-wendisches Wörterbuch. Cologne: Böhlau. Olesch, Reinhold 1967 Fontes lingvae dravaeno-polabicae minores [The minor sources of the Drevani-Polabian language]. Cologne: Böhlau. Patera, Adolf 1878 České a starobulharské glosy XII stoleti v latinském rukopise kapitulní knihovny v Praze [12 th-century Czech and Old Bulgarian glosses in a Latin manuscript of the Library of the Metropolitan Chapter in Prague]. Časopis Českého musea 52: 536−557. Pogačnik, Jože 1968 Freisinger Denkmäler. Literatur, Geschichte, Sprache, Stilart, Texte, Bibliographie. Munich: Trofenik. Pogorelov, Valerij A. 1910 Čudovskaja psaltyr’ XI v. Otryvok tolkovanija Feodorita Kirrskago na psaltyr’ v drevnebolgarskom perevode [The Čudovo psalter of the 11 th century. A fragment of Theodorit Cyrrhus’s commentary on the Psalms in an Old Bulgarian translation]. St. Petersburg. Polański, Kazimierz 1980 Sorbian (Lusatian). In: Schenker and Stankiewicz (eds.), 229−245.

1412

XIII. Slavic

Polański, Kazimierz 1993 Polabian. In: Bernard Comrie and Greville Corbett (eds.), The Slavonic languages. London: Routledge, 795−824. Pritsak, Omeljan 1983 The Slavs and the Avars. In: Gli Slavi occidentali e meridionali nell’alto Medioevo: 15−21 aprile 1982. Spoleto: Centro italiano di studi sull’alto Medioevo, 353−432. Pugh, Stefan M. 2007 A new historical grammar of the East Slavic languages. Vol. 1: Introduction and phonology. Munich: LINCOM Europa. Rodić, Nikola and Gordana Jovanović 1986 Miroslavljevo jevanđelje. Kritičko izdanje [Miroslav’s evangeliary. Critical edition]. Belgrade: Srpska akademija nauka i umetnosti. Schaeken, Jos 1987 Die Kiever Blätter. (Studies in Slavic and general linguistics 9). Amsterdam: Rodopi. Schaeken, Jos 2008 Nochmals zur Akzentuierung der Kiever Blätter. In: Alexander Lubotsky, Jos Schaeken, and Jeroen Wiedenhof (eds.), Evidence and counter-evidence. Essays in honor of Frederik Kortlandt. Vol. 1. (Studies in Slavic and general linguistics 32). Amsterdam: Rodopi, 489−498. Schaeken, Jos and Henrik Birnbaum 1999 Die altkirchenslavische Schriftkultur. Munich: Sagner. Schenker, Alexander M. 1989 The Gnezdovo inscription in its historical and linguistic setting. Russian linguistics 13: 207−220. Schenker, Alexander M. 1995 The dawn of Slavic. An introduction to Slavic philology. New Haven: Yale University Press. Schenker, Alexander M. and Edward Stankiewicz (eds.) 1980 The Slavic literary languages. New Haven: Yale Concilium on International and Area Studies. Schuster-Šewc, Heinz 1967 Das niedersorbische Testament des Miklawuš Jakubica 1548. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Sever’janov, Sergej N. 1956 [1904] Suprasl’skaja rukopis’ [The Codex Suprasliensis]. Graz: Akademische Druckund Verlagsanstalt. [St. Petersburg: Otdelenie russkogo jazyka i slovesnosti Imperatorskoj akademii nauk]. Sever’janov, Sergej N. 1954 [1922] Sinajskaja psaltyr’. Glagoličeskij pamjatnik XI veka [The Psalterium Sinaiticum. A Glagolitic monument of the 11 th century]. Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt. [St. Petersburg: Otdelenie russkogo jazyka i slovesnosti Rossijskoj akademii nauk]. Shevelov, George Y. 1965 A prehistory of Slavic. New York: Columbia University Press. Sobolevskij, Aleksej I. 1913 Zografskij trifologij [The Zograph trephologion]. St. Petersburg: Obščestvo ljubitelej drevnej pis’mennosti. Ščepkin, Vjačeslav N. 1959 [1903] Savvina kniga [Sava’s book]. Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt. [St. Petersburg: Otdelenie russkogo jazyka i slovesnosti Imperatorskoj akademii nauk]. Tarnaidis, Ioannis C. 1988 The Slavonic manuscripts discovered in 1975 at St. Catherine’s Monastery on Mount Sinai. Thessaloniki: St. Catherine’s Monastery, Mount Sinai, and The Hellenic Association for Slavic Studies.

80. The documentation of Slavic

1413

Taszycki, Witold 1975 Najdawniejsze zabytki języka polskiego [The earliest monuments of the Polish language]. 5th edn. Wrocław: Ossolineum. TITUS (Thesaurus Indogermanischer Text- und Sprachmaterialien). http://titus.uni-frankfurt.de/ indexe.htm [Last accessed 27 June 2013]. Tschižewskij, Dmitrij 1969 Die Nestor-Chronik. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz. Udolph, Jürgen 1979 Zum Stand der Diskussion um die Urheimat der Slaven. Beiträge zur Namenforschung 14: 1−25. Vaillant, André 1964 Manuel du vieux slave. Paris: Institut d’études slaves. Vajs, Josef and Josef Kurz 1929−1955 Evangeliarium Assemani, Codex Vaticanus 3. Prague: Československá Akademie věd. Velčeva, Borjana 1975 Dobromirovo evangelie. Bălgarski pametnik ot načaloto na XII vek [Dobromir's gospel. A Bulgarian monument from the beginning of the 12 th century]. Sofia: Bălgarska akademija na naukite. Vostokov, Aleksandr X. 1964 [1843] Ostromirovo evangelie 1056−57 goda [Ostromir's gospel of the year 1056−57]. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz. [St. Petersburg: Imperatorskaja akademija nauk]. Vrana, Josip 1967 Vukanovo evanđelje [The Vukan gospel]. Beograd: Naučno delo. Vrtel-Wierczyński, Stefan 1953 Kazania gnieźnieńskie [The Gniezno sermons]. Poznań: Poznańskie Towarzystwo Przyjaciól Nauk. Weingart, Miloš 1938 Hlaholské listy Videňské. K dějinám staroslověnskeho misálu [The Vienna Glagolitic folia. On the history of an old Slavic missal]. Časopis pro moderní filologii 24: 105− 129. Worończak, Jerzy 1962 Bogurodzica [Mother of God]. Wrocław: Ossolineum. Zaimov, Jordan and Mario Capaldo 1982−1983 Suprasălski ili Retkov sbornik [The Suprasliensis or Retkov miscellany]. Sofia: Bălgarska akademija na naukite. Zaliznjak, Andrej A. 1995 Drevnenovgorodskij dialekt [The Old Novgorod dialect]. Moscow: Škola “Jazyki russkoj kul’tury”.

Keith Langston, Athens, GA (USA)

1414

XIII. Slavic

81. The phonology of Slavic 1. 2. 3. 4.

Introduction From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Slavic Early Common Slavic (ECSl) changes Middle Common Slavic (MCSl) changes

5. 6. 7. 8.

Late Common Slavic (LCSl) changes Suprasegmental phonology Sectional references References

1. Introduction The Slavic (Sl) branch of Indo-European (IE) has three sub-branches − South (SSl), West (WSl), and East (ESl). SSl has eastern and western divisions. E-SSl comprises Bulgarian (Bg), Macedonian (Mc), and the Sl dialects of northern Greece; Old Church Slavonic (OCS, 10th−11th cc.) was E-SSl in its basis. W-SSl comprises Slovenian (Sln) and pluricentric Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian (BCS; separately Bo, Cr, Sb), also known as Serbo-Croatian. BCS has three markedly different dialects, each with an old written tradition: Štokavian (Što), the basis of standard Bo, Cr, and Sb; Kajkavian (Kaj) in Croatia, historically affiliated with ESln; and Čakavian (Čak) along the Adriatic coast and in the islands, in a continuum with WSln. WSl is divided into three zones: southern or Czecho-Slovak (CzSlk); southwestern or Sorbian (Sorb); and northern or Lechitic (Lech). CzSlk comprises the dialect continuum of Cz and Slk. Sorb, bridging CzSlk and Lech, survives in Lusatia (eastern Germany) − hence the alternative name Lusatian; Upper Sorbian (US) is spoken on the upper reaches of the Spree River, to the south of Lower (LS). Lech comprises Polish (Po); the Silesian ethnolect, which converges on Cz; the Pomeranian languages of the Baltic coast; and Polabian (Pb), spoken west of the Elbe in Hanoverian Wendland until the 18th c. Within Pomeranian, only Kashubian (Kb, also Cassubian) survives; spoken west of Gdańsk; it is sometimes presented as a dialect of Po − a tradition spurred by the political needs of interwar Poland. Slovincian (Slc), in a continuum with Kb, extended west to the Parsęta River; it died out in the early 20th c. Central Pomeranian dialects, spoken as far east as the Elbe, succumbed to germanization in the Middle Ages. The ESl languages are Rusyn, Ukrainian (Uk), Belarusian (BR), and Russian (Ru). Rusyn (Carpatho-Rusyn or Ruthenian) is spoken in eastern Slovakia and western Ukraine, and in enclaves in Romania, Serbia, and Croatia, where the dialects show heavy influence from SSl; in Uk scholarship, as in Soviet-era studies, it is usually presented as a WUk dialect.

1.1. Common Slavic and its speakers The reconstructed Sl protolanguage is called Common Slavic (CSl), or sometimes ProtoSlavic (PSl). The latter term will be reserved here for the starting-point for the CSl changes (see 2). There is a hoary tradition of presenting CSl as a single coherent, impermeable “language”. It is better approached as a permeable dialect continuum in which a https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-002

81. The phonology of Slavic

1415

set of shared changes took place. The time frame of the changes can be called the CSl period, but it should be kept in mind that its limits are relative and floating; the CSl changes did not come to a simultaneous end, and some overlapped with changes that belong to the histories of the individual languages. For brevity, the term Slavophone will be used to denote ‘speaker of CSl’. This carries no ethnic implications. In two centuries of debates about the ethnogenesis of the Urheimat of the Slavs, CSl has usually been envisioned as a distinct language from the beginning of the CSl changes; its speakers have usually been essentialized as “Proto-Slavs.” The discussions have been muddled by nationalism and essentialist notions of ethnic identity. Scholars have dated the emergence of CSl language, and thus the ethnogenesis of the Slavs, as early as ca. 1000 BCE and as late as ca. 400 CE. They have placed the Slavic Urheimat in regions from the Vistula below the Danube, and from the Bohemian Forest to southwestern Russia − often in their own homelands. Advocates of early emergence have projected “Proto-Slavs” into the Bronze-Age Lusatian culture (before ca. 500 BCE) and laid claim to opaque tribal names in Herodotus (ca. 440 BCE) and an obscure word in Aristophanes (422 BCE). Proponents of late emergence have assumed that there was no pre-migration CSl identity because none could be proven; they have even asserted that, in the 6th c., the Slavs were “a nascent ethnos with a newly consolidated language” (Lunt 2001: 182). It is not explained how the consolidation took place when the “nascent ethnos” was already diffused from the Baltic to the Danube and from the Elbe to the Don. The autonym *slau̯ɛ:n(isk)- ‘Slav(ic)’ is undoubtedly PSl. In the 6th−7th centuries, peoples calling themselves *slau̯ɛ:nɛ were settling in quite far-flung regions − Greece, the eastern Alps, the Carpathian Basin, the Elbe, northwestern Russia. As the various settlers could not have had direct contacts, their self-designation must have been coined before the Migration Period. The same is true of their shared exonym for ‘foreigner; Teuton’ (*nɛ:mika2 s); the fact that this was derived from the adjective *nɛ:m- ‘mute; jabbering’ shows that the various Slavophone groups distinguished themselves from others on linguistic grounds − the use of intelligible language. The autonym *slau̯(ɛn)continued to be used among the Sl peoples who experienced the most intense language contacts − the Slavs of Aegean Macedonia (with Greek), the Slovenians (with Italian and German), the Slovaks (with Hungarian), the Slovincians (with German), and the early medieval Slovenes of northwestern Russian (with Baltic Finnic [BFi]). There are clear historical references to Slavophones starting in 6th-c. Byzantine texts, when the Sclaveni (Σκλαβηνοί, from *slau̯ɛ:nɛ) began raiding, and later settling, in the imperial territories south of the Danube. Byzantine authors linked the Sclaveni with tribes called Veneti and Antae, who may also have been Slavophones. There were also Slavophone Veneti in central Europe, mentioned in 7th−8th-c. Frankish texts: OHG Winida ‘Slavs’; older German windisch ‘Slovenian’, Wenden ‘Sorbs’; cf. Finnish Venäjä ‘Russia’. In the Urheimat debates, the Veneti have been identified with the Venedi of the Vistula, mentioned by Roman authors in the 1st−4th centuries. Some scholars have gone further and have identified the Vistula region as the Slavic Urheimat. While Slavophones may have lived on the Vistula in the 1 st c., there is no certainty that the Venedi were ancestors of the later Veneti. Elsewhere in Iron Age Europe, a related ethnonym was used for clearly non-Slavophone peoples, including those who gave their name to Venice; cf. also Celtic *windo- ‘white’. There are no grounds for concluding that the Vistulan Venedi had lived there from time immemorial (see 1.1.1), or even that they were a

1416

XIII. Slavic

homogeneous ethnicity. Ethnonyms are often reassigned based on proximity or alliances rather than ethnolinguistic relatedness: Gmc gut- ‘Goth’ became gùdas ‘Belarusian’ in Lithuanian (Li); the Turkic ethnonym Bulgar came to denote the East Balkan Slavs by an elite transfer.

1.1.1. Localization of pre-migration CSl Judging from shared vocabulary relating to the natural world, pre-migration Slavophones lived primarily in inland, non-mountainous regions. They did not live close enough to a sea to develop maritime vocabulary; their word for ‘island’ presupposed currents rather than tides: *ab- ‘around’ + *srau̯a- ‘flow’. They had shared terms for the aspen, birch, hornbeam, linden, and maple, all native to the parkland (forested-steppe) zone of Eastern Europe, but not for the beech, bird-cherry, sorb, sycamore, or larch of central and southeastern Europe. Likewise, there was a shared word for the spotted grouse of parkland environments, but not for the partridge of the steppes. Their alpine vocabulary was meager. For example, they had no shared term for ‘chamois’; in the attested languages, the animal is denoted by older ‘roe deer’, by the compound ‘wild goat’, or by Gmc loanwords. For negative evidence, pre-migration Slavophones evidently had little or no contact with Celtic, Italic, or Greek (Gk); there are virtually no CSl loanwords from those languages, nor are there identifiably Sl names or words in Gk and Latin (La) sources prior to the 6th c. This rules out pre-migration settlements in the Balkans or the Romanized zones west of the Black Sea. For positive evidence, the pre-migration Slavophones had significant contacts with speakers of Iranian (Irn) languages, as shown, inter alia, by shared semantic innovations: PIE *nebhos ‘cloud’ → ‘heaven’; *bhag- ‘good lot’ → ‘god’. The Irn ethnonym Spali (Spalaei) may be the source of a CSl word for ‘giant’ − OCS, OESl spolъ, OESl ispolinъ, OPo stolin (with the individuative suffix -in-). The Sl ethnonym *xuru̯a:t- ‘Croat’ is of Irn origin, and *sirb- ‘Serb, Sorb’ may be as well. While the Irn dialects occupied a vast domain, the Sl-Irn contact zone can be narrowed to the “Scythia” of antiquity (7th c. BCE−2 nd c. CE), given the absence of CSl borrowings from Finno-Ugrian and the paucity of CSl loanwords from Turkic. The pre-migration Slavophones also had significant contacts with Germanic (Gmc). Among the numerous loanwords are *xu:z- ‘house’ and *kuning- ‘ruler’. Gmc speakers were the prototypical foreigners; CSl *ti̯ udi̯ - ‘foreign, alien’ is borrowed from the Gmc autonym (Go þiuda ‘nation’); cf. also *nɛ:mika2 s ‘jabberer; German’ (1.1). The zone of contact was probably the eastern part of the Northern European Plain and, from the 1 st c. CE, the plains east of the Carpathians. (In those regions, the Przeworsk [3 rd c. BCE− 5th c. CE] and Wielbark [1st−4th centuries] cultures are thought to have included Gmc speakers.) Slavophones also borrowed many words of specifically EGmc provenience, e.g. *kau̯p- ‘buy’ and *xandag- ‘skillful’. The probable zone of contact was north of the Pontic steppes, where the Cherniakhovo culture (2nd−5th centuries) developed after southward migrations by EGmc speakers, including the Goths (Go) documented in Roman and Byzantine sources. (Slavophones probably also had extensive contact with Baltic [Ba] speakers in the mixed-forested zone of northeastern Europe, but early Ba loan-

81. The phonology of Slavic

1417

words are difficult to identify because of the structural similarities between PSl and PBa [see 2].) The reconstructed vocabulary relating to the natural world and the evidence from early loanwords both suggest that the pre-migration Slavophones inhabited the parklands (forested steppe) in present-day central and northern Ukraine and southern Belarus, perhaps extending in the west to the outer foothills of the Carpathians (now Ukraine and Romania) and to the plains of eastern Poland. This localization triangulates with evidence from reconstructed river names. In the middle Dnieper region, south of the tributary Pripiat’, the old hydronyms are predominantly CSl in origin, e.g. Berezina (PSl *bɛrz- ‘birch’), Desna (PSl *dɛsn- ‘right’). To the north, in the forested belt, most of the major river names have etymologies that are transparent in Ba but not in Sl, e.g. Neman and Polota. To the northwest, in Poland, many of the hydronyms originated in other IE dialects, e.g. Wisła (Vistula), Narew, and San. In the south and east, in the steppes, the major rivers have etymologies that are transparent in Irn but not in Sl − e.g. Dniester, Dnieper, Donets, and Don, all formed from Irn *danu- ‘river’.

1.1.2. CSl during the Migration Period Slavophones spread to the outer foothills of the Carpathians in incremental waves of advance, probably along right tributaries of the Dnieper. By the late 5th c., the CSl linguistic domain ranged to the Danube in the south and to the Vistula, if not further, in the northwest. The expansion of the Slavophone zone was certainly due in large part to migrations; however, it may have also been promoted by acculturations, with CSl adopted as a lingua franca by peoples from other ethnolinguistic traditions. The migration of Slavophones seems to have proceeded hand in hand with the spread of the Korchak archaeological culture (first attested ca. mid-6th c. in present-day central Ukraine), which Heather (2011: 448−449) has interpreted as “a pared-down” material culture suitable for migration. In the 5th−6th centuries, Slavophones advanced westward into southeastern Europe along the Danube and its tributaries. The Sclaveni first appear in 6th-c. Byzantine sources, which record their raids south of the Danube beginning in the reign of Justin I (518− 526). In the 530s−550s, they were migrating along the Sava and Drava rivers into the Byzantine provinces of Pannonia and Dalmatia, as far as the Adriatic coast. By 600, they had moved northwest into the Eastern Alps, where they threatened the Lombards in northeastern Italy, and northward into the southern Pannonian Plain. It was in these regions that the W-SSl dialect zone crystallized. By the mid-6th c., Sclaveni migrating from the north overwhelmed the Byzantine frontier on the Danube and began settling in the central and eastern Balkans; as of 581, they were established in peninsular Greece as far south as the Peloponnesus. These were the regions where the E-SSl dialect zone crystallized, converging with W-SSl in the central Balkans. Only coastal regions and some inland garrisons remained under Byzantine control. Some of the Slavs became imperial federates. There was no exodus of the Gk- and Rom-speakers of the region; undoubtedly, there was extensive language contact, and probably language shifts from Gk or Rom to Sl and vice versa. To this day, there are still many speakers of E-SSl dialects in continental Greece (Aegean Macedonia). In

1418

XIII. Slavic

peninsular Greece, the Slavophones were gradually hellenized after the empire regained control of the region (ca. 800); unassimilated Slavophones (Milingoi and Ezeritai) still lived in the southern Peloponnesus in the 14th c. In 679, the Turkic-speaking Bulgars invaded the eastern Balkans. In the late 7th−early th 9 centuries, they established control over much of the region, including a large Slavophone population. By the mid-9th c., the Bulgars had become slavicized in language and culture, while the Slavophones in their domains had become identified as Bulgar(ian)s. The Sl movements into East Central Europe are not as well documented. According to Procopius (died ca. 560), when the Gmc Herulians migrated from the western Danube to Denmark (508−514), the territories that they crossed were all in the hands of the Sclaveni. If true, this indicates that Slavophones had settled in the basins of the Vltava (Moldau) and the Elbe during the 5th c., if not earlier. There they came into contact with residual Gmc groups, who over time acculturated to the new residents. Some Slavophone migrations into the Carpathian Basin had proceeded westward through passes; others came north from the Danube and the southern foothills of the Carpathians. (These migrations have been linked with the westward spread of Korchak-type cultures.) P-CzSlk crystallized in the inner foothills of the Western Carpathians; in the Pannonian Plain, it converged with P-W-SSl to form a continuum that endured until the early 10th-c. entry of the Magyars into the Puszta (LCSl1 *pust- ‘empty’). In the 560s, the Avars, nomads with roots in Central Asia, established themselves north of the Danube. Their ferocity made such an impression on the Slavophones of the region that their ethnonym *abr- came to mean ‘giant’: Sln ober, Slk obor, OCz ober, US hob(je)r, OPo obrzym. The Avar migration occasioned population shifts in the Carpathian Basin; some Slavophone groups migrated as federates, and others as refugees. Evidently, P-Sorb crystallized as a result of westward migrations; judging from lexical evidence, it originally had stronger affiliations with P-SSl and P-ESl than with P-WSl. Indeed, the ethnonyms ‘Sorb’ and ‘Serb’ have the same origin. Byzantine sources of the 8th−10th centuries mention “White Croats” in the northern reaches of the Carpathian Basin; Constantine VII (ca. 940) relates a tradition that the Croats and Serbs emigrated from “White Croatia” and the otherwise undocumented “White Serbia” to Dalmatia, where they were granted lands by Heraclius (reigned 610−641). This suggests an elite transfer rather than a mass migration: the incomers adapted to the P-SSl dialects already established in the region, whose speakers adopted the ethnonyms of the newcomers. Other Slavophones migrated in waves of advance across the Northern European Plain, probably in the wake of the Gmc westward migrations (4th−6th centuries). The Prezeworsk archaeological culture, thought to be predominantly Gmc in language, disappeared by the early 5th c.; thereafter, the Korchak-like Mogiła (early 6th c.) and Prague (later 6th c.) cultures began to spread to the west, while a somewhat distinct culture, termed Sukow-Dziedzice, emerged in the plains (later 6th c.); the latter may reflect interactions between new settlers and residual peoples. Some of the Slavophone migrants passed into the Carpathian Basin (see above); others moved along the outer foothills of the Carpathians and northward along river systems as far west as the Elbe (north of the confluence with the Havel). This was the region in which the P-Lech dialects crystallized. The presence of Slavic dialects between the Elbe and the Oder is well documented in medieval sources; while they eventually succumbed to the Ostsiedlung, they left numerous traces in the surnames and toponyms of eastern Germany, e.g. Lübeck (‘lovely’), Rostock (‘outward-flow’), Ribnitz (‘fishery’), Dresden (‘riverside forest’), and Leipzig (‘linden’).

81. The phonology of Slavic

1419

There was a convergent wave of P-Sorb settlement from the south, which reached the Elbe and Saale. There is no early documentation for the migrations of P-ESl speakers, but there is archaeological evidence that shows population movements eastward and northward from the Dnieper Basin in the 6th−8th centuries. It can be assumed that Slavophones moved gradually into Belarus and southwestern European Russia along the northern Dnieper and its tributaries. To the south, the Penkovka culture, similar to the Korchak, formed by the mid-6th c. and spread to the mid-Don basin in the 7th c. This has been connected with Slavophone migrations into eastern Ukraine and southwestern Russia. Successor cultures reached the mid-Volga in the 8th−9th centuries. There were undoubtedly Slavophones among the settlers; this is indicated by the fact that the northeastern OESl dialects, concentrated in the Oka River basin and adjacent parts of the northern Volga (the Rostov-Suzdal’ region), had more in common with Kievan OESl than with the Novgorodian (Novg) dialect to their northwest. The latter developed as Slavophones migrated along the northern Dnieper and the Lovat’ (ca. 7th−8th centuries). The territories that they settled were inhabited by Ba and BFi speakers, with whom they had intense language contact. By the 9th c., P-Novg crystallized on Lake Il’men’, the northern limit of the Lovat’, near the headwaters of the Volga. Later, there were additional waves of migration into northern Russia and down the Volga, which ultimately converged with the post-Penkovka settlements.

1.2. Early Slavic writing Slavophone writing began with Cyril and Methodius’ translations into OCS. Based on the E-SSl dialect spoken near Thessaloniki, OCS was first used in areas of CzSlk and Sln settlements (860s−885); fragments of OCS with Moravian (Cz) features, the Kiev Folia, have survived from the 10th c. By the 890s, OCS was established as the written language of the Bulgarian Kingdom (central and eastern Balkans); the main manuscripts date from the 10th−11th centuries. Later, the Cyrillo-Methodian tradition spread to other Eastern-rite lands, where it evolved into the regional varieties (“recensions”) of Church Slavonic (ChSl). Sb-ChSl inscriptions are known from the late 10th−11th c., and ESl-ChSl texts from the early 11th c. The Cyrillo-Methodian written language spread separately to Western-rite Croatia in the late 9th c.; the oldest attested Cr-ChSl texts date from the 10th−early 11th c. (During the Renaissance, a new tradition of vernacular writing developed in Croatia under Italian influence.) In Western-rite regions, vernacular literacy was slower to take root because of the use of La. Apart from the OSln Freising Fragments (later 10th-c.), vernacular Sl writing in the La alphabet is first attested in autonomous states − Bohemia (OCz, from the 13th c.) and Poland (OPo, from the 14th c.). For the stateless languages, enduring traditions of writing began with the Reformation, in the late 16th c. (Sln, Sorb, Kb, and Slc) or 17th c. (Slk). Pb never had a written tradition; its dying breaths were recorded by antiquarians in the 18th c.

1420

XIII. Slavic

1.3. Citation conventions 1.3.1. Correspondence sets When possible, the sets include data from SSl, ESl, CzSlk, and Lech, preferably from the languages of oldest attestation − OCS, OESl, OCz, and OPo. Cyrillic and Glagolitic are romanized according to the ISO 1995 standards for Cyrillic, except for the following. (a) Cyrillic «х» → h for Mc and Sb; x for Bg and ESl. (b) «W, є/ѥ, ю» → a, e, u after «C», but ja, je, ju initially and after «V». (c) «ѧ/ѩ» → OCS ę, OESl ja after «C», but OCS ję, OESl ja initially and after «V». (d) «ѭ» → OCS ǫ, OESl u after «C», but OCS jǫ, OESl ju initially and after «V». (e) «ѣ» = OCS, OESl ě, jě after «C»; OCS ja, OESl jě initially and after «V» (see also 5.2.1). (f) OCS and OESl palatalized sonorants → r j, n j, l j (not rj, nj, lj).

1.3.2. Reconstructed Sl forms Sl etymological dictionaries use an anachronistic transcription for vowels, based on OCS: i, ь, y, ъ, eˇ, e, a, o for *i:, *i, *u:, *u, *e:, *e, *a:, *a (see 5.1). They transcribe consonants at various stages of development; hence many of the reconstructed lemmas are chimerical, with vocalism and consonantism that never coexisted. To avoid this problem, the present work uses IPA transcription, with the caveat that the phonetic values are approximative. The Slavistic transcription conventions are mentioned when they differ from the IPA. The symbols c and y, which in IPA transcribe the voiceless palatal stop and close front rounded vowel, represent the voiceless dental affricate ts and close central vowel ɨ in the Slavistic tradition. To avoid confusion, c̟ is used for IPA c and ü for IPA y. Intonations are only reconstructed when suprasegmental phonology is discussed specifically (2.2, 4.9, and 6−6.4.4).

1.3.3. Glosses Words are not grammatically glossed if cited in their lemma forms − INF for verbs; NOM.SG for nouns; M.NOM.SG for adjectival pronouns; and M.NOM.SG.INDEF for adjectives in SSl and ESl, but DEF for WSl, where short-forms are rare. Non-lemma forms are glossed by the Leipzig rules; singular number is not glossed. The participles are abbreviated: PRAP = present active; PRPP = present passive; PAP = past active; PPP = past passive; and RES = resultative.

1.3.4. Slavic verbal classes Slavic verbal classes are labeled by the Leskien ([1871] 1962) system. Roman numerals refer to the PreSl themes: I = *e/o, II = *ne/no; III = *i̯ e/i̯ o (IIIa = Ø, IIIb = *a:); IV = *ei̯ (IVa = *i:, IVb = *e:, IVc = *a:); V = athematic. Lower-case letters refer to the

81. The phonology of Slavic

1421

infinitive classifiers: a = Ø (I and III) or *i: (IV); b = *a: (I, III) or *e: (IV); c = *a: (IV).

1.4. Symbols and Abbreviations > < → ⥬ 0 † ! ¶ ÷

«X» AP Ba BCS BFi Bg Bo BR CCˇak Cen ChSl Cr Cz DIM

EEk Gmc Go IE Ik In I-Irn Irn Jek Kaj

precedes follows actualized as borrowed as reanalyzed as dialect irregular outcome different ending normalized grapheme X accent paradigm Baltic Bo-Cr-Sb (see fllg.) Baltic Finnic Bulgarian Bosnian Belarusian Common ˇ akavian BCS C Central Church Slavonic Croatian Czech diminutive Early; East(ern) Ekavian BCS Germanic Gothic Indo-European Ikavian BCS Indic Indo-Iranian Iranian Jekavian BCS Kajkavian BCS

Kb LLa Lech Li LS Ltv MMc NNovg OOCS OHG OI OPr PPb Po QD Rom Ru SSb Sl Slc SLG Slk Sln Sorb Sˇto Uk US VG W-

Kashubian Late Latin Lechitic Lithuanian Lower Sorbian Latvian Middle Macedonian North(ern) Novgorodian Old Old Church Slavonic Old High German Old Indic Old Prussian ProtoPolabian Polish see 5.1 Romance Russian South(ern) Serbian Slavic Slovincian Slavic Lengthened Grade Slovak Slovene Sorbian Sˇtokavian BCS Ukrainian Upper Sorbian Vocalized Grade West(ern)

1422

XIII. Slavic

2. From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Slavic The term Proto-Slavic (PSl) refers to the starting-point for the CSl changes not shared by other IE dialects − the deepest linguistic system that can be established by comparative and internal reconstruction using exclusively Sl data. The individual items thus reconstructed may have various depths in real time. Using correspondences between Sl and other IE languages, an earlier layer of Pre-Slavic (PreSl) changes can be established. These were shared with neighboring PIE dialects, and especially with Baltic (Ba). Ba and Sl are linked by major phonological, morphological, prosodic (see 6), and lexical innovations; indeed, many scholars posit a common Balto-Slavic (BaSl) branch or clade. However, it is unclear that Ba and Sl had severed their ties to other PIE dialects during the period of their common developments; the changes that they share may have happened in a zone of convergence rather than a “branch” or “clade” that had conclusively diverged from the neighboring dialects.

2.1. Reflexes of the PIE vowels and glides The 2 x 2 x 1 vowel system of PIE evolved into a 2 x 2 system in PSl, with close *i(:), *u(:) and open *ɛ(:), *a(:). (For the LCSl1 values, see 5.1) There were also up to 36 falling diphthongs composed of vowels plus tautosyllabic glides and sonorants. Two features of this system differentiated PSl from the neighboring IE dialects. First, *o(:) and *a(:) had merged as open unrounded *a(:) (1). Second, (near-)open front *ɛ(:) remained distinct from *a(:) (2). PreSl (1)

(2)

w

PSl

LCSl1

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

*ok os

*akas

*ɔkɔ

oko

oko

oko

oko

‘eye’

*ak̑sis

*asis

*ɔsɪ

MBg osь

osь

os

oś

‘axle’

*tu̯o:ris

*tu̯a:ris

*tvarɪ

tvarь

tvarь

tvář

twarz

‘creature’

*ma:term̥

*ma:tɛrim

*matɛrɪ

materь

materь

mateř

macierz

‘mother (ACC)’

*bhereti

*bɛrɛti

*bɛrɛtɪ

beretъ

beretь

beře

bierze

‘take (PRS.3SG)’

*u̯erHeH2

*u̯ɛ:ra:

*væra

věra

věra

viera

wiara

‘faith’

In Ba, by contrast, PIE *o and *a merged as *a rather than *o, and *o: and *a: remained distinct; in Indo-Iranian (I-Irn), *o(:), *e(:), and *a(:) merged as *a(:). The PSl vowel system can thus be viewed as transitional between Ba and I-Irn. It has been argued influentially (Ivanov and Toporov 1958) that the PSl vowel system originated in the Ba model of four short and five long vowels (*a:, *e|*e:, *o|*o:, *i|*i:, *u|*u:). This is mere conjecture in the absence of evidence that the merger of *o and *a preceded that of *o: and *a:.

81. The phonology of Slavic

1423

The PIE glides *i̯ and *u̯ (or *y and *w) persisted in PSl both as consonants and as part of falling diphthongs. In CSl, they were lost after consonants (3.2, 3.6, 3.7) and in codas (4.1). Where they have persisted (3), they are transcribed j (3) and v (4) in the attested languages. PreSl

LCSl1

PSl

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

(3)

*i̯ a:ros

*i̯ a:ra2s

*jarъ

jarъ

jarъ

jako

jary

‘vernal; warm’

(4)

*u̯oi̯ de:te:i̯

*u̯ai̯ dɛ:tεi̯

*vædæti

věděti

věděti

věděti

wiedzieć

‘know’

2.1.1. Irregular outcomes In some twenty lexemes, PIE initial *e is reflected as PSl *a, sometimes with *ɛ doublets (1). A parallel variation occurs in Ba dialects. According to Andersen (1996), the back reflexes arose not by sound change but by contact with an unattested IE dialect, then spread by cross-migrations − hence their sporadic distribution. There are more *a outcomes in ESl because P-ESl dialects had more intensive contacts with the donor language. (In earlier studies, the change was treated as a LCSl1 change of *ɛ > *o in ESl only. This failed to account for the *a variants in SSl and WSl and for the *ɛ variants in ESl.) Other instances of *a for PreSl *e (2) are due to a posited change of *ɛ > *a/__u̯V[+back]. If this was a regular sound change, its regularity has been much obscured by leveling (3). The PreSl sequence *ei̯ e was reflected as PSl *ii̯ ɛ (4). PreSl *e:i̯ e developed as expected to PSl *ɛ:i̯ ɛ. PreSl (1)

*edske

PSl *ɛskɛ

OCS ješte

*askɛ (2)

*k̑leu̯os

*slau̯as

slovo

Bg

Sln

ešte

ešče

ješče

ošte

jošče

ošče

slovo

slovȏ

slovo

devet

deve˛̑t

OESl

OCz

OPo

ješče

jeszcze

Gloss ‘more, still’

†

oszcze

slovo

słowo

‘word’

dev atь

devět

dziewięć

‘nine’

revy

řeva

j

*deu̯entis

*dɛu̯ɛntis

devętь

(3)

*reu̯ants

*rɛu̯ants

revy

(4)

*trei̯ es

*trii̯ ɛs

trьjе

trijẹ̑

trьjе

třie

trzé

‘three (M)’

(5)

*dheHi̯ eti

*dɛ: i̯ ɛti

dějetъ

dẹ̑je

dějetь

děje

dzieje

‘do (PRS.3SG)’

‘bellow (PRAP)’

1424

XIII. Slavic

2.2. Reflexes of the PIE laryngeals In PreSl, the PIE laryngeals became *a between consonants in initial syllables (1). They were lost in other positions (2), but they left their traces on the neighboring syllabic segments. Vowels, syllabic sonorants, and diphthongs were lengthened before laryngeals (3) and developed a phonological property /+acute/ (˶̲), which eventually became a CSl tone (see 6.1, 6.3.1). In addition, the laryngeals “colored” (affected the quality of) adjacent vowels in PreSl, as in other IE dialects: PIE *e was centralized to *a (4) before or after *H2, and backed and rounded to *o before or after *H3 (5). In the first instance in each case the vowel was lengthened, appearing as PSl *a:; in the second instance both short reflexes merged as *a in PSl (see 2.1). PreSl

PSl

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

(1)

*spH2ros

*spara2s

Bg spor

sporъ

sporý

spory

‘plentiful’; Bg ‘plenty’

(2)

*dhugH2term̥

*duktɛrim

dъsˇterь

dъcˇerь

dceř

(córę)

‘daughter’

*H1esmi

*ɛsmi

(j)esmь

jesmь

jsem

jeśm

‘be (PRS.1SG)’

*H3nogheH2

*naga˝:

noga

noga

noha

noga

‘foot; leg’

*dhuH2mo-

*du˝:ma2s

dymъ

dymъ

dým

dym

‘smoke’

*pr̥ H3u̯os

*pı˝:ru̯a2s

prъvъ

pьrvъ

prv

pirzwy

‘first’

*bholHto-

*ba˝:ltad

blato

bolo̍to

bláto

bƚoto

‘swamp’

*steH2te:i̯

*sta˝:tɛ˝:i̯

stati

stati

státi

stać

‘stand’

*H2er-

*ar-

orǫsˇtь

orati

orati

orać

(3)

(4)

‘plow’; OCS PRAP

(5)

*deH3te:i̯

*da˝:tɛ˝:i̯

dati

dati

dati

dać

‘give’

*H3eu̯ikeH2

*au̯ika˝:

ovьca

ovьca

ovce

owca

‘sheep’

The PSl column in the table includes acuted trimoraic glide and sonorant diphthongs. It has been hypothesized that the vocalic nuclei in such diphthongs were shortened at an early stage, perhaps as a shared BaSl development. While there is certainly no way to distinguish internal V:R, V:I̯ from VR, VI̯ , apart from the acute, in final syllables V:R and VR had different outcomes (see 3.1.3−3.1.4). For present purposes, I will assume that trimoraic diphthongs shortened, but I will indicate long vowels in the final syllables that had distinct outcomes. (Orr [2000: 36] argues that trimoraic shortening was blocked in final syllables to maintain morphological distinctions. Feldstein [2003: 256−257] claims that the sonorants or glides were not moraic, i.e. parts of diphthongs, until after the vowels shortened. Jasanoff [2004a: 250] posits that non-laryngeal long vowels in final syllables became trimoraic.)

81. The phonology of Slavic

1425

2.3. Reflexes of the PIE sonorants In PIE, the sonorants *r, *l, *m, and *n were non-syllabic next to a vowel, and syllabic elsewhere. In PSl, the non-syllabic sonorants were preserved without change (1). By contrast, the PIE syllabic sonorants were replaced by vowel-sonorant sequences in PSl, as in PBa. The standard account of this development posits anaptyxis: close vowels were inserted, so that the sonorants ceased to be the syllable nuclei. The anaptyctic vowel could be *i (2−4) or *u (*5−7); the same root can be attested with either vowel (8). (On the LCSl reflexes, see 5.6) PreSl (1)

(2)

(5)

(6)

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

*ma:tɛrɛs

matere

matere

mateře

macierze

‘mother (GEN)’

*le:n(ei̯ u̯)os

*lɛ:n(ɛi̯ u̯)a2s

lěn(iv)ъ

lěnivъ

léný

leny

‘lazy’

*tr̥ pe:te::i̯

*tirpɛ:tεi̯

trъpeˇti

tьrpeˇ

trpeˇti

cirpieć

‘endure’

*k̑r̥ dika-

*si:rdikad

srъdьce

sьrdьce

srdce

si(e)rce

‘heart’

*kirna2s

črъnъ

čьrnъ

č(e)rný

czarny

‘black’

*u̯l̥ k os

*u̯ilka2s

vlъkъ

vъlkъ

vlk

wilk

‘wolf’

*ghl̥ tos

*gilta2s

OSb žlьtyi

žьltъi

žlutý

żołty

‘yellow’

*gwl̥ HneH2

*gilna:

Bg žu˘lna

Ru želna

žluna

żołna

‘woodpecker’

*dek̑m̥tos

*dɛsimta2s

desętъi

des jatъ

desáty

dziesiąty

‘tenth’

*n̥me:n

*inmɛ:n

imę

im ja

jmeˇ

jimię

‘name’

*r̥ ke:te:i̯

*urkɛ:tεi̯

Bg vru˘ča

vъrčati

vrčeti

warczeć

‘grumble; be noisy’

*bhr̥ g̑(h)o-

*burza2s

brъzo

bъrzo

brzo

barzo

‘swiftly; very’

*gwhr̥ nik-

*gurnik-

gъrnьčarь

gъrnьcь

hrnec

garniec

‘pot’; OCS ‘potter’

*ml̥ u̯eH2

*mulu̯a:

mlъva

mъlva

mluva

mołwa

‘noise; speech’

*stl̥ pos

*stulpa2s

stlъpъ

stъlpъ

stlup

słup

‘pillar’

*k r̥ nos

(4)

OCS

*ma:teres

w

(3)

PSl

w

j

j

(7)

*n̥

*un

vъ(n -)

vъ(n -)

v(nˇ-)

w(ń-)

‘in(to)’

(8)

*skr̥ bhei̯ neH2

*skirbɛi̯ n a:

OSb štrьbina

ščьrbina

ščrbina

szczyrbina

‘shard; damage’

*skr̥ bh-

*skurb-

skrъbь

skъrbь

skrbiti

skarb

‘grief’; OCz ‘amass’

As shown in the table, the *iR and *uR reflexes could appear in the same environments. Overall, roots with *iR are much more common than those with *uR. In Shevelov’s

1426

XIII. Slavic

(1965: 87−90) sample of 86 Sl roots, the only environment where *uR outnumbered *iR was after velars (19 out of 33 roots); after labials, *uR occurred in 10 out of 34 roots, and after dentals in only 3 out of 15. In Andersen’s (2003: 60) sample of 215 lexemes shared by Ba and Sl, *iR is the outcome in 73 %, and *uR in 17 %. Of the remaining 10 %, some show *iR reflexes in Sl but *uR in Ba or vice versa; others have outcomes of both kinds in Sl and/or in Ba.

2.3.1. Phonological explanations There have been many attempts to explain the twofold outcomes by regular sound change. It has been argued that the *uR outcomes were regular after velars or in lowtonality environments (K__, P__K). These claims fail to account for doublets from the same root or for exceptions like *u̯l̥ kwos, *ghl̥ tos (3). Alternatively, it has been posited that *uR was regular only after labiovelars (see 2.4.2), which remained distinct from velars until “Late BaSl.” This is dubious; the fact that labiovelars and velars merged in all satem dialects points to an earlier stage of PIE. Again, there are exceptions, e.g. *kwr̥nos (2), *gwl̥ HneH2 (3). Matasović (2004) argues that the BaSl syllable sonorants did not have a single uniform reflex; the outcomes differed according to manner of articulation and their position in the word. In initial syllables, the regular reflexes were *ir; *ul after velars and *il elsewhere; and *un and *um. In non-initial syllables, the only regular reflex was *iR. Matasović explains the numerous exceptions either as affective formations or as analogical extensions of *i based on ablaut patterns (ibid.: 351). However, as Kortlandt (2007) observes, some of the supposed extensions of *i occur in roots without known ablaut variation. Some scholars posit that *iR was the only regular reflex. They plausibly explain some of the *uR outcomes as phonaesthetic in origin, e.g., *r̥ke:te:i̯ (5), *ml̥ u̯eH2 (6), and several other evidently onomatopoetic words, where *u conveyed low-frequency noises. Other instances of *uR arose by analogy to the o-grade, e.g. gwhr̥nik- (5) under the influence of *gwor-, *gwo:r. Still others entered in borrowings, typically from Gmc. Some of the lexemes with *uR were undoubtedly borrowed: Gmc *fulka- ⥬ *pulka2 s ‘armed troop’ (with sound substitution), OESl pъlkъ, OPo pułk; Gmc *hulma- (with the Grimm’s Law reflex of PIE *k) ⥬ *xulma2 s ‘hill’, OESl xъlmъ, OPo Chełm. The fact that there are no instances of *uR after palatovelars, which cannot have been borrowed from Gmc, has also been cited as evidence, but the eligible roots are too few to permit any generalizations. PSl *suta- ‘hundred’ (OCS, OESl sъto, OCz, OPo sto) would be a counterexample if it directly reflects PIE *dk̑m̥to-; the loss of the nasal would also be irregular. For this reason, the word has sometimes been treated as a borrowing from Irn; cf. Avestan satǝm. It has also been proposed that it goes back to *dk̑uto-, reflecting the zero grade of a putative PIE *dek̑u- ‘ten’.

2.3.2. Language contact Andersen (1996: 107; idem 2003: 60−62) argues that the *uR outcomes arose by contact with IE dialects where it was the regular outcome; this explains why it did not occur

81. The phonology of Slavic

1427

after assibilated palatovelar reflexes, in grammatical morphemes, or in “productive ablaut alternations” (Anderson 2003: 60, following Stang 1966: 79). Once the borrowings were assimilated, *uR became available to replace *iR in expressiva and in onomatopoeia denoting low-pitched or indistinct sounds (Anderson 2003: 61−62). This explanation is more cogent than the attempts to define the *iR/*uR split by regular sound change. However, it may not explain all of the *uR outcomes − notably, the preposition *un ‘in(to)’. Moreover, the claim that *uR did not occur in grammatical morphemes is open to question: OCS sigmatic AOR.1SG -sъ, -xъ can be reconstructed as *s-um < *-s-m̥, the ending reflected in Gk -sa; there is no evidence that it was ever *s-im, pace Andersen (2013: 26−27). Also debatable is the notion that *um did not participate in productive ablaut. For PSl *gurn- (5) from PIE *gwhr̥- (10), all of the other grades are attested: *gr-, OESl grěti ‘to warm’); *ger-, OESl žeravъ ‘heated’; *ge:r-, OESl žarъ ‘heat’; *gor-, OESl gorěti ‘be burning’; and *go:r-, OESl razgarati s ja ‘be burning hotter [IPFV]’.

2.3.3. Perceptual ambiguity of syllabic sonorants A more flexible approach would be to emphasize perceptual innovations rather than sound change proper. Cross-linguistically, syllabic sonorant phonemes are often realized with ultrashort vowels in their opening or closing phases: /R̥/ → [R̥]~[ǝR̥]~[R̥ǝ]. Assuming that this kind of variation occurred in PreSl, the resulting ambiguity would have permitted innovative language learners to reanalyze the sonorant phase as the coda of a diphthong: [ǝR̥] 0 /VR/ → [ǝR]~[R̥]. The mechanism of the change would thus be phonemic reanalysis rather than actual anaptyxis (vowel-insertion). While the innovative learners could, in principle, have intuited that the vowel before the sonorant was a distinct phoneme /ǝ/, there was no supporting evidence for such a phoneme in other contexts. Thus they would be more likely to assign it to the adjacent vowels − to /i/, to /u/, or to both, on a lexeme-by-lexeme basis. Neither /i/ nor /u/ had occurred before sonorantconsonant sequences prior to the innovation, so there were no counterexamples to hinder the innovative learners from abducing that one or both had centralized allophones. This scenario explains how *iR and *uR outcomes could both develop in the same speech community, and even in the same idiolect. It also salvages the distributional patterns noted by previous scholars: whether the innovative speakers perceived [ǝ] as /i/ or /u/ could indeed be influenced by the adjacent consonants, but without the consistency of results expected in blind sound change. The innovative learners could also have been motivated by other factors suggested by previous scholars, including phonaesthetic associations; other ablaut grades of the same roots; semantic connections, e.g. sigmatic AOR.1SG *sm ̥ 0 *-sum under the influence of the back vowels in the root AOR.1SG *-om and PRS.1SG *-o:m; and substratum or adstratum input. Given that the innovative speakers had internalized /V[+high]R/ rather than /R̥/, they would be likely to implement [V[+high]R] more frequently than other possible realizations: /iR/ → [iR] (~ [ǝR]~[R̥]); /uR/ → [uR] (~ [ǝR]~[R̥]). (The phonetic symbols are purely relational here; the output of /iR/ could have been [ɪR], [ïR], etc., without altering the essential point.) The innovations would have mostly passed unnoticed by conservative speakers because of phonetic proximity; their own schwas probably varied, under the influence of the adjacent sounds, in the continua from near-back to near-front and from near-close to mid, if the realization of syllabic sonorants in living languages is any guide. Moreover, because their grammars lacked underlying /V[+high]R/, the conservative speak-

1428

XIII. Slavic

ers would tend not to perceive forms with [V[+high]R] as grammatical mistakes. New learners would have been more likely to acquire /V[+high]R/ instead of /R̥/ because of the increased frequency of [V[+high]R] input from the innovative speakers. Over time, the variations within the speech community would have been sorted out by normal processes of social accommodation. This need not have had homogeneous results; it could have led to the relatively random distribution of *iR and *uR reflexes that we actually see.

2.4. Reflexes of the PIE stops In PIE, stops came in voiceless, voiced, and voiced aspirate phonations and in labial, dental, palatovelar, velar, and labiovelar articulations. The PSl inventory was much smaller, with voiceless and voiced phonations and labial, dental, and velar articulations. Three changes transformed the PIE 3 x 5 system into the PSl 2 x 3: loss of aspiration (2.4.1); delabialization of labiovelars (2.4.2); and assibilation of the palatovelars (2.4.3). Some scholars posit a radically different reconstruction of the PIE stops, with ejective or glottalized stops for the voiced unaspirated series traditionally reconstructed. This “Glottalic Theory” is a lynchpin of some approaches to BaSl accentology (see 6.3.3). The present account assumes the traditional reconstruction as the one best in accord with the Comparative Method. If PIE had ejectives, it could only have been at a very early stage, given the uniformly voiced, pulmonic reflexes in Sl, Ba, Indo-Iranian, Albanian, Gk, Italic, and Celtic.

2.4.1. Loss of aspiration In PSl, as in Irn, PBa, and Albanian, the voiced aspirate stops lost their distinctive phonation feature and merged with the voiced series: Dh > D (1). The non-aspirated voiceless (2) and voiced stops (3) remained stable. PreSl (1)

(2)

(3)

PSl

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

*bhra:ter-

*bra:tra2s

brat(r)ъ

brat(r)ъ

bratr

brat

‘brother’:

*dhuH2mos

*du:ma2s

dymъ

dymъ

dým

dym

‘smoke’

*ghostis

*gastis

gostь

gostь

host

gość

‘guest; foreigner’

*prok̑-

*prasi:tεi̯

prositi

prositi

prositi

prosić

‘ask for’

*trei̯ (e)s

*trεi̯ s

tri

tri

tři

trzy

‘three’

*koseH2

*kasa:

MBg kosa

kosa

kosa

kosa

‘braid’

*bamb-

*bambina2s

MBg bǫbьnъ

bubьnъ

buben

bęben

‘drum’; OPo ‘belly’

*duu̯o:(u)

*dŭu̯a:

dъva

dъva

dva

dwa

‘two’

*i̯ ugo-

*i̯ ugad

igo

igo

jho

Po igo

‘yoke’

81. The phonology of Slavic

1429

2.4.2. Delabialization of the labiovelars Like neighboring Indo-Iranian and PBa, PSl was a satem dialect, in which the PIE labiovelars merged with the plain velars: Kw > K (1). PreSl (1)

PSl

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

w

*kater-

koter-

koter-

k(o)ter-

ktor-

‘which’

w

*g ou̯ino-

*gau̯ina-

OSb govьno

govьno

hovno

gowno

‘feces’

*gwhor-

*garɛ:tεi̯

gorěti

gorěti

hořeti

gorzeć

‘burn’

*k oter-

2.4.3. Assibilation of the palatovelars In the satem division of PIE, the reflexes of the palatovelars remained distinct from those of the velars. In PreSl, *k̑ > *s, and *g̑(h) > *z. Thus the reflex of *ḱ merged with the non-dorsal (non-RUKI) allophones of *s (1) (see 2.5). In PIE, *z had only existed as an allophone of *s before voiced obstruents; in PSl, it became a distinct and widespread phoneme due to the assibilation of *g̑(h) (2). PreSl (1)

(2)

PSl

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

*k̑eHu̯eros

*sɛ:u̯ɛra2s

seˇverъ

seˇverъ

seˇver

siewier

‘north’; OCz ‘spring’

*a:k̑rembhos

*a:sremba2s

OSb jastrěbъ

jastr jabъ

jastřáb

jastrząb

‘goshawk’

*k̑luHsa:te:i̯

*slu:xɛ:tεi̯

slysˇati

slysˇati

slysˇeˇti

sƚyszeć

‘hear’

*g̑ombhos

*zamba2s

zǫbъ

zub

zub

ząb

‘tooth’

*g̑neH3te:i̯

*zna:tεi̯

znati

znati

znati

znać

‘know’

*g̑hei̯ meH2

*zεi̯ ma:

zima

zima

zima

zima

‘winter’

Presumably, in the satem dialects, the palatovelars developed into affricates with dorsal frication; then they lost their closure to become hushers: *k̑ > *tʃ > ʃ. The husher stage is attested in OI and non-sigmatic EBa: *dk̑́m̥to- > OI śatám, Li sˇim̑tas ‘hundred’. Subsequently, in the more central zone, the hushers became sibilants: *k̑ > *tʃ > *ʃ > *s: Avestan satǝm, Ltv sìmts ‘hundred’, OPr tu:simtons ‘thousands (ACC.PL )’, OCS sъto (*dk̑uto-). (Lunt [2001: 193] posits a different process : *k̑ > *ts > *s, *g̑ > *dz >* z.) In Sl, at least 40 roots have plain velars for the PIE palatovelars instead of expected *s, *z (3). In some cases, the same roots show both sibilant and velar outcomes (4−5). This phenomenon, termed Gutturalwechsel, also occurs in Ba, often in the same roots as in Sl: OLtv sirna, OPr sirvis ‘deer’, but Li kárvė ‘cow’ (4); Ltv zelts ‘gold’, but Li gel˜tas ‘yellow’ (5). Li zˇąsìs ‘goose’ has the expected palatovelar development where Sl shows Gutturalwechsel (3).

1430

XIII. Slavic PreSl (3)

(4)

(5) (6)

PSl

SSl

*su̯ek̑ru:-

0

OESl

OCz

OPo

*su̯ɛkru:-

*g̑hans-

OCS svekry

svekry

svekrev

świekra

‘husband’s mother’

0

OSb gusь

gusь

hus

gąs-

‘goose’

*k̑r̥ neH2

*sirna:

MBg srъna

sьrna

srna

sarna

‘roe deer’

*k̑oru̯eH2

0

OSb krava

korova

kráva

krowa

‘cow’

*g̑hl̥ tos

0

OSb zˇlьtь

zˇьltъ

zˇlutý

żołty

‘yellow’

*g̑holtom

0

OCS zlato

zoloto

zlato

złoto

‘gold’

*gansis

*karu̯a: *gilta2s *zaltad

Gloss

Efforts to explain the velar outcomes by regular sound change have not been convincing. For example, it has been argued that palatovelars regularly depalatalized before *r, *l, *m, *n, and *u̯ in BaSl. Even allowing for analogy to other ablaut grades, this claim has too many counterexamples to be cogent; cf. *a:k̑rembho-, *pik̑ro-s, *k̑luHsa:te:i̯ , and *g̑neH3te:i̯ (2.4.3). Given the doublets, the most likely explanation is borrowing and/or substratum influence from centum or, as proposed by Andersen (2003), pre-satem speakers. It is phonetically plausible that *k̑, *g̑h would have been perceived as *k, *g by speakers of dialects in which the palatovelars had already been assibilated; cf. Anglophone perceptions of Cz t’ [c̟] as /k/ and d’ [ɟ] as /g/.

2.5. Reflexes of IE *s PIE *s had two regular reflexes in PSl. In most environments, it remained a sibilant (1). After *i, *u, *r, *k, (the “RUKI” environment), it developed back allophones (RUKI1) (2); these later became the voiceless velar fricative *x (RUKI2). (In CSl, the velar became *ʃ before front vowels; see 3.2) The triggers for RUKI included both syllabic and non-syllabic *i, *u, and *r; the velar subsumed the reflexes of *k, *kw (see 2.4.2), and, by devoicing (see 2.7.1), *g(h), and *gw(h). PreSl

RUKI1

PSl/ RUKI2

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

(1)

*sestreH2

*sestra:

*sεstra:

sestra

sestra

sestra

siostra

‘sister’

(2)

*u̯r̥ sus

*u̯irsus

*u̯irxus

vrъxъ

vьrxъ

vrch

wirzch

‘top’

*dhou̯sos

*dou̯sos

*dou̯xa2s

duxъ

duxъ

duch

duch

‘breath’

*lei̯ k sos

*lei̯ ksos

*lεi̯ kxa2s

lixъ

lixъ

lichý

lichy

‘poor; bad’

*stro:g-so-s

*stro:ksos

*stra:kxa2s

straxъ

straxъ

strach

strach

‘fear’

*moi̯ sos

*moi̯ sos

*mai̯ xa2s

měxъ

měxъ

měch

miech

‘sack’

w

RUKI also occurred in In, Irn, and Li, in the last two of which the reflex was *ʃ. It has been argued that the *s in OPr, Ltv, and some Li dialects also developed from an earlier

81. The phonology of Slavic

1431

*ʃ (Andersen 2003). As RUKI only occurred in satem dialects, it may have followed the delabialization of labiovelars (see 2.4.2). Pre-Li and PreSl have different relative chronologies for the change. In PreSl, as shown in (3), RUKI ceased operating before *k̑ became *s (see 2.4.3). In Pre-Li, by contrast, *k̑ merged with the reflex of RUKI *s in Pre-PBa: Li pie˜šti ‘draw’, †pìršys ‘chest (of a horse)’. This suggests that RUKI and satem assibilation overlapped in time in PreLi. Thus the RUKI change is one of the earliest changes − perhaps the earliest − to have divergent outcomes in Sl and Ba. Seeming exceptions to RUKI have several explanations. The target *s may have followed a labial or dental stop (3), which was lost in later cluster simplifications (3.1.3). Alternatively, the sibilant may reflect PIE *k̑ (4). Other exceptions are Post-RUKI loanwords, e.g. Vulgar Latin mēsa ⥬ OCS misa ‘platter’; or later affective formations, e.g. Ru plaksa ‘crybaby’. PreSl (3)

(4)

PSl

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

*H1rou̯dhsos

*rau̯(d)sa2s

MBg rusъ

rusъ

rusý

rusy

‘reddish blond’

*aps-

*a(p)s-

Bg osíka

osina

(v)os

osika

‘aspen’

*pei̯ k̑a:te:i̯

*pεi̯ s2a:tεi̯

pisati

pisati

pisati

pisać

‘write; paint’

*pr̥ k̑eis

*pirs2εi̯ s

prьsi

pьrsi

prsi

pirsi

‘breasts’

In its initial phase, RUKI was a complex of assimilations: *s developed retracted allophones (collectively *s2) after sounds produced deeper in the vocal tract. (Andersen [1969] treats this as “markedness assimilation” to sounds that were marked in their natural classes.) Some scholars posit that there was a single allophone *s2 [ʃ], as in Li and Irn, or retroflex [ʂ]. The palatal would be natural after *i(:), but less motivated after *u(:). The retroflex would be natural after *r, but it is unclear why the accommodation should only involve the shape of the tongue tip or blade, as in retroflexion, especially given that *k, *i(:), and *u(:) had dorsal articulations. To be sure, the rounding of *u(:) could produce much the same acoustic impression as retroflexion. Actually, there is no need to assume a single *s2; different allophones could have developed in assimilation to different triggers: /s/ → [s]~[s]~[ʂ]~[ʃ]~[sˠ] (or other retracted values). The key innovation would be the rephonologization of some or, in PreSl, all of the backed allophones as a new phoneme /s/. The latter (ultimately rephonologized as /x/) could likewise have had a range of realizations. Cf. Swedish sj [ɧ], whose articulation has been variously described as rounded, labiodental, velarized, velar, dorsovelar, or palato-alveolar-velar. In PSl, the *s2 reflex did not occur before consonants (5). Though clusters of *x plus sonorant were permitted in CSl, they only occurred over boundaries, where analogy could operate (6), or in loanwords and expressiva; there are no cases within (synchronic) morphemes (7). Some scholars posit that RUKI actually took place before consonants in PreSl, as in Li and Irn. Thus, in Andersen’s view (1968), BaSl *ʂ (*s2) merged with the reflex of *k̑ before consonants, then lost its retroflexion in the same environment in PreSl. While this claim cannot be falsified, neither can the alternative hypothesis that RUKI was blocked by a following consonant.

1432

XIII. Slavic PreSl (5)

(6)

(7)

PSl

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

*pr̥ stis

*pirstis

prъstь

pьrstь

prst

*re:kste

*rɛ:kstɛ

reˇste

reˇste

řěste

‘say (AOR.2PL )’

*re:ksm̥

*rɛ:kxum

reˇxъ

reˇxъ

řěch

‘say (AOR.1SG)’

*susnonte:i̯

0

sъxnǫti

sъxnuti

schnúti

schnąć

‘dry out’

*sou̯so-

*sau̯xa2s

suxъ

suxъ

suichý

suchy

‘dry’

*poi̯ snis

*pai̯ snis

pěsnь

pěsnь

piesnˇ

pieśń

‘song’

*tei̯ sknos

*tεi̯ skna2s

těsnъ

těsnъ

těs(k)ný

ciasny

‘tight; narrow’

*suxnantεi̯

pirst-

Gloss ‘dust’

2.5.1. Initial *x The only regular source for initial *x was *ks- > *kx > *x (1). Other examples may have arisen by the extension of sandhi variants, e.g. after the prefixes *per-, *prei̯ -, and *ou̯. This is said to be the origin of *x in *xod- ‘go (INDET )’ and the innovative zerograde *xid- (2). Initial *x also appeared in onomatopoeia (3) and in loanwords from Gmc or Irn (4). PreSl

ECSl

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

(1)

*ksou̯dos

*(k)xau̯da2s

xudъ

xudъ

chudý

chudy

‘bad’

(2)

*prei̯ sod i:te:i̯

*prεi̯ xadi:tεi̯

prixoditi

prixoditi

prˇichoditi

przychodzić

‘come’

*sod i:te:i̯

0

xoditi

xoditi

choditi

chodzić

‘go (INDET )’

*xidla2s

sˇьlъ

sˇьlъ

sˇedl

szedł

‘go (RES.M)’

*xleb-/-p-

Bg xlebam

xlepъtati

chleptati

Po chłeptać

‘slurp’

⥬*

xlěbъ

xlěbъ

chléb

chleb

‘bread’

(3) (4)

Gmc *hlaiƀ-

*xadi:tεi̯

xlai̯ ba2s

2.5.2. Extension of *x Once established as a phoneme, *x began to replace *s, *k, and *g in expressive lexemes (1). In some cases, the expected forms coexisted with the innovations. The affective value may have come from *x~*s doublets that had arisen in contacts with non-RUKI dialects or in interactions with conservative speakers in the same dialect.

81. The phonology of Slavic PreSl (1)

1433

PSl

*ko:p-

0

*smaur-

*smau̯r-

OCS

*xa:p-

0

OESl

xap-

*xmau̯ra:

OCz

OPo

Gloss

xap-

cháp-

chap-

‘grab’; OCS ‘bite’

smuryj

smúriti seˇ

Kb smura

‘grey’; ‘frown’; ‘cloud’

Ru xmura

Cz chmura

chmura

‘cloud’

†

In addition, *x was extended analogically in specific grammatical and derivational contexts. The ending *-su (nominal LOC.PL, pronominal GEN/LOC.PL ) was regularly reflected as *-xu after the themes *-i-, *-u-, and *-o-i̯ - (with intrusive *-i-) (2). Gradually, *-xu was extended to other inflectional classes (3). The phonologically expected *s was only preserved in personal pronouns − 1PL.GEN/LOC and 2PL.GEN/LOC (4). Relics of the consonant-stem LOC.PL in OCz toponyms, e.g. Doleass ‘in Doljane’ from *dali̯ ensu (modern Dolánky). Thus it is not true that “š replaced every desinential s (unless a consonant followed),” pace Lunt (2001: 191). PreSl

RUKI

ECSl

OCS

OESl

OCz

Gloss

*moi̯ stoi̯ su

*moi̯ stoi̯ xu

*mai̯ stai̯ xu

městeˇxъ

městeˇxъ

městiech

‘locales (LOC.PL )’

*toi̯ su

*toi̯ xu

*tai̯ xu

těxъ

těxъ

těch

‘those (GEN/LOC.PL )’

(3)

*gweneH2su

*gena:su

0

ženaxъ

ženaxъ

ženách

‘women (LOC.PL )’

(4)

*no:su

*no:su

*na:su

nasъ

nasъ

nás

‘us (GEN/LOC/PL )’

*u̯o:su

*u̯o:su

*u̯a:su

vasъ

vasъ

vás

‘you (GEN/LOC/PL )’

(2)

*gɛna:xu

By the regular sound change, PRS.2SG *-si had become *-si (*-xi) after the theme *-ei̯ - (5). In CSl, *-xi was extended to all thematic verbs and to athematic ‘have’ (6). The regular outcome survived only in the other four athematics − OCS jesi ‘be’, jasi ‘eat’, dasi ‘give’, and veˇsi ‘know’. In the sigmatic aorist, *-x- was phonetically conditioned in the 1SG, 1DU, 1PL, and 3PL of stems in *ī˘, ū˘, *r, *k, or *g (7). After phonetic RUKI ended, aorist *-x- and *-s- were reanalyzed as distinct allomorphs. By the earliest writings, -x- had displaced *-s- in all stems in vowels, and the innovative allomorph *-ox- was spreading to all consonant stems (8). PreSl

RUKI

ECSl

OCS

Gloss

(5)

*u̯ei̯ dei̯ si

*u̯ei̯ dei̯ xi

*u̯εi̯ dεi̯ xi(:)

vidiši

‘see (PRS.2SG)’

(6)

*H1nek̑esi

0

*nɛsɛxi(:)

nesesˇi

‘carry (PRS.2SG)’

*H1emeH2si

0

*ima:xi(:)

imaši

‘have (PRS.2SG)’

*nesesi *ima:si

1434

XIII. Slavic PreSl (7) (8)

RUKI

ECSl

OCS

Gloss

*bhuHsm̥

*bu:xum

*bu:xum

byxъ

‘be (PFV.AOR.1SG)’

*bhu̯eHsm̥

0

*bu̯ɛ:xum

beˇxъ

‘be (IPFV.AOR.1SG)’

*u̯edhosn̥t

0

*u̯edaxint

vedošę

‘lead (AOR.3PL )’

*bu̯e:sum *u̯edasint

2.6. Restructuring of ablaut Some of the roots in which syllabic sonorants were reinterpreted as /iR/ or /uR/ functioned as zero grades in ablaut alternations. Consequently, *i and *u joined the repertory of alternating vowels as what may be called the Vocalized Grade (VG). Initially, the VG alternated with the old zero grade in certain paradigms: (C)V[+high]R occurred before consonants, and (C)R before vowels (1−2). Thus some of the unsuffixed (Ia and IIIa) sonorant-stem verbs had the old zero-grade in both the present (tudáti-type, with theme vowels before the endings) and in the aorist and/or past participles (with consonantinitial suffixes). Such phonologically conditioned alternations were eliminated by the generalization of (C)V[+high]R, although (C)R could persist in derivationally related forms; cf. OCS granъ ‘verse’ (*gwr̥H2-). Pre-PSl (1)

(2)

PSl

*gwr̥ H2onti

*granti

*gwr̥ te:i̯

ECSl

OCS

Gloss

0

žьrǫtъ

‘sacrifice (PRS.3PL )’

*girtɛi̯

*girtɛi̯

zˇrьti

‘sacrifice’

*-knonti

*-knanti

0

nacˇьnǫtъ

‘begin (PRS.3PL )’

*-kn̥tos

*-kintas

*-kintas

nacˇętъ

‘begin (PPP)’

*giranti

*-kinanti

This leveling was an early instance of the tendency to replace the inherited zero-grade with the VG wherever it alternated in paradigms. The same tendency led to the rise of vocalized allomorphs that had not been phonologically conditioned − for example, in the aorist/infinitive stem (3). Eventually, the VG displaced the inherited zero-grade allomorphs in all sonorant-final stems, even in suffixed class IV verbs like ‘be ripe’ (4), where the sonorant had never been syllabic (cf. *g̑ r̥Hno- > PSl *zirna- > OESl zьrno ‘seed’). (CCV- roots where the zero-grade did not alternate within the paradigm were unaffected.) In addition, the VG spread by analogy to alternating zero-grade roots that did not end in sonorants, e.g. ‘call’ (PIE *g̑hu-) (5) and to “vowelless” verbal roots in general. For example, an inverted VG appeared in Schwebeablaut roots in which syllabic sonorants had alternated interparadigmatically with other grades, e.g. *-n̥g̑h- ‘stick’ (6) alongside o-grade causative *nog̑hi:te:i̯ ‘drive (a point) into’ (OCS vъnoziti).

81. The phonology of Slavic Pre-PSl (3)

1435 PSl

ECSl

OCS

Gloss

*bheronti

*bɛranti

*bɛranti

berǫtъ

‘take (PRS.3PL)’

*bhra:te:i̯

*bra:tɛi̯

0

bьrati

‘take’

(4)

*k̑omg̑rei̯ ti

*sumzrɛi̯ ti

0

sъzьritъ

‘be ripe (PRS.3SG)’

(5)

*g̑hau̯onti

*zau̯anti

*zau̯anti

zovǫtъ

‘call (PRS.3PL)’

*zu̯a:tɛi̯

0

zъvati

‘call’

*uzinzus?

0

vъznьzъ

‘stick into’ (PAP.M)

*g̑hu̯a:te:i̯ (6)

*ug̑hn̥g̑hus

*bira:tɛi̯ *suzirɛi̯ ti

*zuu̯a:tɛi̯ *uznizus

In CSl, the VG was reinterpreted as a type of full grade. Indeed, it displaced the inherited full grade in some paradigms; for example, OCS has present and aorist stem variants žeg-~žьg- (PSl *geg- ‘burn’, PIE *dhegwh-). Moreover, a new lengthened grade in *i:/*u: arose in iteratives derived from VG roots: VG *-mir-: SLG *-mi:r-, OCS umьr-: umira‘die (PFV: IPFV)’; VG *-zuu̯-: SLG *-zu:u̯-, OCS prizъv-: prizyva- ‘call (PFV: IPFV)’. This paralleled the relation between the inherited full grades (*e/*a) and lengthened grades (*e:/*a:). The Slavic Lengthened Grade was highly productive in CSl, where it was extended to consonant-stem roots that did not end in sonorants: PSl *prasupa:tεi̯ sɛ:m|*prasu:pa:tεi̯ sɛ:m > OESl prosъpati s ja|prosypati s ja ‘awaken (PFV|IPFV)’. It remains productive in the attested languages.

2.7. PreSl changes in consonant clusters 2.7.1. Voicing assimilation In PSl, voiced obstruents were regularly devoiced before voiceless ones and vice versa (1). This rule, inherited from PIE, persisted throughout the CSl period. PreSl (1)

PSl

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

*ma:k̑tis (*g̑)

*ma:stis

mastь

mastь

mast

maść

‘ointment’

*duzdi̯ εi̯ εti (*s)

*duzdi̯ εi̯ ti

dъžditъ

dъžditь

dščí

dżdży

‘cause to rain (PRS.3SG)’

2.7.2. Double dental rule In PreSl, as in Ba, Irn, Albanian, and Gk, PIE *tt, *dd became *st, *zd, almost certainly through a stage *tst, *dzd (1). In PSl, the results of the change were evident in stem allomorphy before derivational suffixes and endings with initial *-t-. One supposed exception is PSl *at-(ik)- ‘father’ (2), said to correspond to Hittite attaš, Gk átta, La, Go

1436

XIII. Slavic

atta. Actually, none of the cognates show expected outcomes for *tt. As a nursery word, *a(t)t- could potentially be (re)created with each first language acquisition. PreSl (1)

(2)

PSl

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

*kwit+ti-

*kistis

čьstь

čьstь

čest

cześć

‘honor’

*u̯edh+te:i̯

*u̯ɛstεi̯

věsti

věsti

věsti

-wieść

‘lead’

*i̯ eH2dh+dh-

*i̯ a:zda:

MBg jazda

jězdъ

jiezda

jazda

‘ride’

*a(t)t-

*atikas

otьcь

otьcь

otec

ociec

‘father’

2.7.3. Degemination of sibilants PreSl was one of several PIE dialects in which *ss became *s (1). This change recurred in the new *ss, *zz clusters (2) that developed by satem assibilation (2.4.3). In CSl, the resulting S~Ø alternations were preserved in the sigmatic aorist of s- and z-stems (3) and in prefixal sandhi (4). PreSl

PSl

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

(1)

*H1essi

*ɛsi(:)

jesi

jesi

jsi

jeś

‘be (PRS.2SG)’

(2)

*ak̑sis (*ag̑-)

*asis

osь

osь

os

Po oś

‘axle’

*sk̑eH2ini

*sai̯ nis

sěnь

sěnь

sien

sień

‘shade’; OCz ‘hall’

(3)

*H1ne:k̑sm̥

*-nɛ:sum

vъzněsъ

(4)

*bek̑se:d(*g̑h)

*bɛsɛ:da:

besěda

besěda

besěda

*eg̑hg̑ob-

*izab-

izobati

zobati

zobać

‘exalt (AOR.1SG)’ biesiada

‘chat’ ‘eat a bit’

2.7.4. Sibilant + *r clusters Inherited *sr became *str in PreSl (1), as in Gmc, Albanian, and most of Ba. In PreSl, the change also applied to *sr from *k̑r (see 2.4.3), and there was a parallel change *g̑hr > *zdr (2). It is phonetically natural for closure to develop between continuants and trills. Andersen (1972: 38) treats the change as a “diphthongization”: *r was implemented with “an obstruent-like initial portion,” later reidentified as *t. The alternations that arose from this change in prefixal and prepositional sandhi were leveled out in most CSl dialects, but they continued to operate in OCS and, to a lesser extent, OPo (3). In Izdrail’- ‘Israel’ (4), a ca. 9th−10th-c. borrowing from Gk into OCS, and from there to OESl, or from La into OCz and OPo, Iz- was contaminated with the prefix iz.

81. The phonology of Slavic

1437

PreSl

PSl

(1)

*srou̯(i̯ )-

*strau̯i̯ -

struja

struja

Strumenˇ

strumeń

‘stream’

(2)

*ak̑ro-

*astr-

ostrъ

ostrъ

ostrý

ostry

‘sharp’

*pou̯g̑ro-

*pau̯zdra-

BCS pȕzdro

Ru puzdro

púzdro

puzdro

‘pizzle; sheath’

*eg̑h+rank

iz-d-rǫky

z-d-ręki

‘from the hand’

Iz(d)rael

‘Israel’

(3)

OCS

Izdrail jь

(4)

OESl

Izdrail jь

OCz

Iz(d)rahel

OPo

Gloss

2.7.5. Glide-liquid clusters In PreSl, as in PreBa, initial *u̯ was lost before non-syllabic *r and *l (1). If this “Lidén’s Law” was a regular change, it must have followed the rise of the new ablaut grade (see 2.6), since *u̯r-, *u̯l- clusters that alternated as zero grades became *u̯ir-, *u̯il- (2). Internal *u̯r, *u̯l were not affected by the change (3). PreSl

PSl

(1)

*u̯rodhos

*rada2s

rodъ

rodъ

rod

ród

‘kin’

(2)

*u̯re:te:i̯

*u̯irɛ:tεi̯

vьr-

v(ь)rěti

vřieti

wrzeć

‘seethe’

*u̯la:-

*u̯ula:-

vъla(ja)ti

vъlajati

Cz vlát

*tau̯ros

*tau̯ra2s

turъ

turъ

tur

(3)

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

‘toss (of waves)’ tur

‘bull’

3. Early Common Slavic (ECSl) changes In the ECSl period, the system of vowel phonemes remained identical to that of PSl (2.1); in particular, it continued to allow glide and nasal diphthongs (see 4.1−4.2). The ECSl sound changes had uniform results, without dialect differentiation. Two drifts or conspiracies are said to have operated − the Law of Open Syllables and the Law of Syllabic Synharmony. These labels are unobjectionable as metalinguistic descriptions of the results. However, there is a long tradition of reifying them as causal factors (cf. notably Jakobson [1929] 1962). The first law, also known as the Tendency to Rising Sonority, subsumes the ECSl loss of coda obstruents (3.1.3) and final sonorants (3.1.4); the MCSl monophthongizations of glide and nasal diphthongs (4.1−4.2); and changes in vowel-liquid diphthongs (4.9, 5.5). Feldstein (2003: 250) distinguishes an early “tendency to the open syllable” from a later “tendency to rising sonority.” The first applied only to non-moraic segments, not diphthongs; by contrast, the later tendency induced changes in falling diphthongs.

1438

XIII. Slavic

The second law subsumes tonality assimilations in which consonants became palatal or coronal before front vowels and *i̯ (3.2, 3.6, 4.4) and in which back vowels were fronted after palatal consonants (3.3). As a result, syllable onsets and nuclei had the same basic tonality − either “soft” (palatal + front) or “hard” (non-palatal + back). However, there are important exceptions (3.4), as well as tonality assimilations that transgressed syllable boundaries (3.7.2, 4.5). The changes covered by the law are quotidian assimilations, so there is no particular need to see an invisible hand behind them.

3.1. Changes in syllable structure In PSl, syllable onsets could have up to four consonants (1), and syllable codas could have up to three consonants (2). In ECSl, the canonical sequence for onsets was fricatives > stops > liquids > glides. Medial clusters that violated the canonical sequence were syllabified with a break before the rightmost licensed onset (3). PSl

MCSl1

OCS j

OESl j

OCz

OPo

Gloss

(1)

*i|za|stri̯ ɛ|n-

*izastrɛn-

izoštr en-

izostr en-

zostřen-

zostrzon-

‘sharpen (PPP)’

(2)

*tai̯ sk|na2s

*tɛ:2snu

teˇsnъ

teˇsnъ

teˇs(k)ný

ciasny

‘tight, crowded’

(3)

*mir|tu̯a2s

*mirtu̯u

mrъtvъ

mьrtvъ

mrtvý

martwy

‘dead’

*dɛlb|tad

*dɛlta

Bg dleto

Uk doloto

dláto

dłoto/dłuto

‘chisel’

3.1.1. Syncope of stops in non-canonical clusters In ECSl, stops were elided before obstruents in onsets (1) and codas (2). In *kt, the velar was lost, but the *t had bifurcating reflexes; see 3.6.1. PSl (1)

(2)

MCSl1

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

*dsutad

*suta

sъto

sъto

sto

sto

‘hundred’

*kxau̯da2s

*xɔ:du

xudъ

xudъ

chudý

chudy

‘meager; bad’

*nɛptii̯ a2s

*nɛtii̯ i

OSb netii

netii

neć

‘nephew’

*nɛu̯ai̯ dgalsa2s

*nɛu̯ɛ:2galsu

nevěglasъ

nevěgolosъ

nevěhlas

*u:psakad

*u̯u:saka

vysoko

vysoko

vysoko

wysoko

‘high(ly)’

*(is)plɛkstɛi̯

*(i̯ is)plɛste:2

isplesti

isplesti

zplésti

pleść

‘weave’

‘ignoramus’

Clusters of *tl, *dl were permitted in ECSl (3); later, the stops were lost in some dialects, though they have left traces in all three branches of Sl (see 4.8). Before nasals,

81. The phonology of Slavic

1439

velar stops were preserved (4), but labial and dental stops were elided (5); apparent exceptions, like the OCz and OPo forms in (6), arose by post-CSl changes. In the clusters *stl and *skn, the stops were lost in all dialects, and sibilants were resyllabified as onsets (7). PSl (3)

*u̯ɛdla:

MCSl1 *u̯edla:

OCS vela

Sln védla

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

vela, vegl-

vedla

wiodƚa

‘lead (RES.F )’

†

(4)

*gna|i̯ a2s

*gnai̯ i

gnoi

gnọ̑j

gnoi

hnój

gnój

‘filth’

(5)

*supna2s

*sunu

sъnъ

sèn

sъnъ

sen

sen

‘sleep’

*abmarki:-

*amartʃi:-

omracˇiti

omrȃcˇiti

omorȏcˇiti

omračiti

*u:dmɛ:n

*u̯u:mɛ˜:

Bg vime

víme

j

vym a

‘darken’

vymě

wymię

‘udder’

v anuti

0

vadnuti

0

więdnąć

‘wither’

(6)

*(-)u̯indn-

*u̯ĩ:n:-

uvęnǫti

¶

(7)

*ma:stlad

*ma:sla

maslo

máslo

maslo

máslo

masło

‘oil’

*prɛ:skna2s

*prɛ:snu

prěsnъ

présen

prěsnъ

přiesný

przasny

‘unleavened’

véniti

j

While various processes could have caused the elision, the purely phonetic phase probably involved non-release of the stops, which is common cross-linguistically in clusters: /T/ → [T˺]/__{T, S, N} (where T = stop). The non-released stops would have had a range of articulations, including reduction of the hold phase to zero in allegro speech. Without the burst as a cue, they would have been open to reanalysis as non-segments: /T/ → [ T˺]0/Ø/ → [Ø]. The loss of coda stops took place after the period of shared BaSl developments − in particular, RUKI, in which the backed allophone of *s was conditioned after velar stops but blocked after labial and dental stops (see 2.5). Within CSl, there is no evidence to establish the relative chronology of the changes in noncanonical clusters. However, the fact that the simplifications had uniform results points to a time when the CSl dialects still formed a cohesive continuum. It seems likely that the loss of syllable-final obstruents preceded the MCSl monophthongization of diphthongs (4.1), where the mechanisms for opening syllables were different in kind and changed the articulation of the preceding vowels.

3.1.2. Syncope in nasal + nasal clusters Coda nasals were elided before onset nasals (1); the preceding vowel underwent no reconstructible change. Nasals before other consonants were not affected at this stage (see 4.2). Judging from PreSl *n̥men > *inmɛ:n, the change followed the reinterpretation of syllabic sonorants as diphthongs (see 2.3). The basis for the change may have been a lack of perceptible cues for the transition from the one nasal to the other. Cross-linguisti-

1440

XIII. Slavic

cally, nasals tend to be unreleased before other consonants; thus the continuous nasal resonance in the sequence could have promoted the perception that only a single segment was present. PSl (1)

*au̯smnii̯ ad *inmɛ:n

MCSl1 *ɔ:snii̯ ɛ *i̯ imɛ˜:

OCS

OESl

OSb usnije imę

OCz

usnije

usneˇ

j

jmeˇ

im a

OPo

Gloss ‘leather’

jimię

‘name’

3.1.3. Loss of final obstruents Obstruents were subject to elision in word-auslaut (1), just as they were in syllableauslaut (3.1.1). The weakening and loss of pre-pausal consonants is a typologically widespread change and can involve non-release or debuccalization. The only final obstruents in PSl were *t, *d, *s, *z (only in the 1SG pronoun), and the clusters *st, *ts. (The final *z and *b that occurred in certain prepositions are irrelevant for word-auslaut.) PSl (1)

MCSl1

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

*bundai̯ s|-ai̯ t

*bũ:di:

bǫdi

budi

budi/ bud’

bądź

‘be (IMP.2SG|3SG)’

*mari̯ ad

*mare

mor je

mor je

morˇe

morze

‘sea’

*u̯εi̯ dints

*u̯e:2dĩ:

vidę

vid ja

videˇ

widzę

‘see (PRAP.M)’

*a:z(a2m)

*(i̯ )a:z(u)

azъ

jazъ/ja

jáz/já

ja

‘I (NOM)’

In close juncture, final obstruents were subject to the same tendencies as medial ones (see 3.1.1), so there was no conditioning for weakening or elision if the following word began with a vowel, sonorant, or glide. Presumably, the phase in which final weakening or loss was sound change proper was followed by one with sandhi or stylistic variation between elided and unelided forms; cf. French liaison. Eventually, the elided forms were generalized, even when the final consonants were verified by other forms in the paradigm (2). Evidence for the sandhi variation is found in athematic verbs − in the PRS.3SG of ‘be’ (3); in the OCS AOR.2−3SG of ‘give’ and ‘eat’ (4) and unsuffixed sonorant-stems belonging to the mobile accentual type (5) (see 6.3.5). In the athematic aorist (4), *-s-tu (where *s reflected the root-final dental) was reanalyzed as a morpheme and extended to ‘be’: OCS by~bystъ. A further relic of sandhi may occur in the suffix *-asi̯ a-, used to form hypocoristic nouns from adjectival roots (6). This suffix has been analyzed as an early univerbation of adjectival *-a2 s (M.NOM.SG) with the demonstrative *i̯ a2 s (M.NOM.SG). In CSl, as in Ba, phrases of this kind developed into compound (“long”) definite adjectives; cf. Li mãzˇas ‘little’|mazˇàsis (DEF ). However, in the attested compound declension, the M.NOM.SG reflects the loss of final *-s (7). (The internal *-a2- in [6] has the expected reflex *a; on the final *u outcome in [7], see 3.8)

81. The phonology of Slavic MCSl1

PSl (2)

1441

*a:gnɛnt

*a:gnɛ˜:

OCS agnę

OESl j

jagn a

OCz jěhně

OPo jagnię

Gloss ‘lamb (NOM/ ACC)’

*a:gnɛnt-

*a:gnɛ˜:t-

agnęta

jagn jat-

jěhnět-

jagnięt-

(OBLIQUE)

!

je~jest

je/~jeść~jest

‘be (IPFV.PRS.3SG)

(3)

*ɛst(+i)

*i̯ ɛ~i̯ ɛsti

je~ jestъ

je~jestь

(4)

*da:st(+u)

*da:~da:stu

da~dastъ

da~dastъ

(5)

*imt(-u)

*i̯ ɛ˜: ~i̯ ɛ˜:tu

ję~ jętъ

(6)

*mεi̯ la2si̯ a2s

*me:2laʃi

OSb Milosˇь

(7)

*mεi̯ la2+i̯ a2

*mi:lui̯ i

milъi

‘give (AOR.3SG)’ ‘take (AOR.3SG)’

milъi

Milosˇ

Miƚosz

‘Dear (name)’

milý

miły

‘dear (M. DEF )’

3.1.4. Loss of final nasals Final nasals were lost after short vowels (1−3), but preserved after long vowels (4) (see further 4.2). It is unclear whether their quiescence after short vowels was a sound change sensu stricto, since the targets of elision only occurred in endings − the ACC of (i̯ )o-, u-, i-, and consonant-stem nouns (1); the GEN.PL of all nouns (2); and the AOR.1SG of both the sigmatic and the root types (3). (On the N.NOM/ACC.SG, see 3.8) MCSl1

PSl (1)

*grabam

!

*grabu

OCS grobъ j

OESl grobъ j

OCz

OPo

Gloss

hrob

grob

‘grave (ACC)’

*agnim

*agni

ogn ь

ogn ь

oheň

ogień

‘fire (ACC)’

(2)

*lɛ:tam

*lɛ:tu

lětъ

lětъ

let

lat

‘year (GEN.PL )’

(3)

*bu:xum

*bu:xu

byxъ

byxъ

bych

bych

‘be (PRFV.AOR.1SG)’

(4)

*sɛ:mɛ:n

*sɛ:mɛ˜:

seˇmę

seˇm ja

siemeˇ

siemię

‘seed’

*mɛ:m

*mɛ˜:

mę

m ja

mě

mię

‘me (ACC)’

*gɛna:m

*ʒɛnã:

zˇenǫ

zˇenu

zˇenu

żonę

‘woman (ACC)’

The same change is supposed to have affected four prepositions/prefixes: PSl *un ‘in(to)’, *sun1 ‘with’, *sun2 ‘from’, and *kun ‘toward’ (OCS vъ, sъ, sъ, and kъ). These are traced to PIE *n̥, *s(o)m, *k̑(o)m, and *k(o)m. The change from *-m > *-n in these items occurred in PreSl and is shared with Ba; the nasal comes out as n where preserved − before verbal roots with initial vowels in an archaic pattern of prefixation (5); and before the anaphoric pronoun *i̯ - (6), where the nasal was metanalyzed, and the resulting “n mobile” generalized after all prepositions (7).

1442

XIII. Slavic PreSl (5)

(6) (7)

ECSl

OCS

OESl j

OCz

OPo

Gloss

*s(o)m ei̯ -

*sunεi̯ tεi̯ sε:m

sъniti sę

sъniti s a

sníti/sjíti seˇ

zniść się

‘come together’

*k̑(o)m im-

*sunintεi̯

sъnęti

sъn jati

*k(o)m i̯ -

*kun i̯ ai̯ mus

snieti/sieti

(zjąć)

‘take off’

j

kъ n imъ

j

kъ n imъ

k nim

k nim

‘to them’

j

j

*na: i̯ omi

*na: i̯ ami

na n emь

na n emь

na ňem

na niem

‘in it/him’

*k̑(o)m se:d-

*sunsɛ:da2s

sǫseˇdъ

suseˇdъ

súseˇd

sąsiád

‘neighbor’

Actually, the loss of final nasals is irrelevant for these four prepositions/prefixes, as they would never have been final in a phonological word; there is no trace of their being postpositions in CSl (cf. La mecum). The most plausible solution lies in the generalization of sandhi variants. In ECSl, the final nasals would had three forms: *-n/__{T, K, V}; Ø/__(#)N (see 3.1.2); and presumably *-m/__P. The least circumscribed and thus basic variant was *-n. With the metanalysis of *-n in certain concatenations, the Ø variants became unpredictable and had a proportionately larger domain; they were revaluated as basic and generalized in new formations. The *-n- and *-m- variants were then eliminated by morphophonemic simplification, apart from lexicalized relics (PSl *unantr- > OCS vъnǫtrь, OESl (vъ)nutrь, Sln nȏter ‘inside’).

3.1.5. Loss of final liquids In PreSl, final *l and *r occurred only in the NOM of l- and r-stem nouns. In CSl, almost all of these nouns were remade as thematics (8). The sole relics were ‘mother’ and ‘daughter’ (9). Here the final *r was lost, and the preceding *e: raised to *i: (cf. 3.8). The elision may be PreSl; forms without *r are also found in Ba and Indo-Iranian, and CSl permitted coda *r and *l in internal syllables. (OCz matě is probably not an archaism but a new formation based on the i̯ ā-stem ending.) PreSl

ECSl

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

brat(r)ъ

brat(r)ъ

bratr

brat

‘brother’

(8)

*bhra:te:r

0

(9)

*ma:te:r

*ma:ti:

mati

mati

máti/mátě

mać

‘mother’

*dhugHte:r

*dukti:

dъsˇti

dъcˇi

dci

(córa)

‘daughter’

*bra:tra2s

3.2. First Regressive Palatalization of Velars (1VP) In ECSl, velars were fronted before front vowels (1) and *i̯ (2); their ultimate reflexes were alveopalatal: *k > *tʃ, *g > *ʒ, *x > *ʃ (Slavistic č, ž, and š). This change has

81. The phonology of Slavic

1443

traditionally been called the First Palatalization of Velars (1VP) or, more recently, the First Regressive Palatalization, as there is debate over its order relative to the Progressive Palatalization (4.6.2). Before the fronted velars, sibilants underwent assimilatory backing (3): *sk > *ʃtʃ, *zg > *ʒdʒ (Slavistic šč, žʒˇ). In LCSl, *ʃtʃ and *ʒdʒ were simplified to št and žd in some dialects. When the palatalization trigger was *i̯ (2), it was ultimately reanalyzed as an off-glide (see 3.7.1). 1VP1

PSl (1)

*kistis *palagi:tεi̯

(2)

(3)

j

*k isti(s) j

*palag i:tεi̯ j

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

čьstь

čьstь

čest

cześć

‘honor’

polozˇiti

polozˇiti

polozˇiti

położyć

‘put’

*gɛna:

*g ɛna:

žɛna

žɛna

žɛna

żona

‘woman; wife’

*xɛlma2s

*x jɛlma2(s)

šlěmъ

šelomъ

Cz †šlem

szłom

‘helmet’; Cz ‘bonnet’

*pla:ki̯ a2s

*pla:k ji̯ a2(s)

plačь

plačь

pláč

płacz

‘lament’

*slu:xi̯ a:m

j

*slu:x i̯ a:m

slyšǫ

slyšu

slyšu

słyszę

‘hear (PRS.1SG)’

*skεi̯ ta2s

*sk jεi̯ ta2(s)

štitъ

ščitъ

ščít

szczyt

‘shield’

droždьję

droždьje

droždie

drożdża

‘yeast’

*drazgi̯ ens

j

*drazg ɛ:n

Presumably, the 1VP began as assimilatory softening (1VP1), followed by coronalization (1VP2), and assibilation (1VP3): *k j > *c̟ > *tʃ, *g j > *ɟ > *(d)ʒ, *x j > *ç > *ʃ, *s jk j > *s jc̟ > *ʃtʃ, *zg j > *z jɟ > *ʒdʒ. Ultimately, the reflex of *g j lost its closure except in the cluster *zg j. According to Andersen (1969), *g and *gj were lax (slack-voiced) and could be implemented without closure. Eventually, the fricative realization was generalized except when blocked by a constraint against fricative-fricative clusters, which arose after the loss of syllable-final obstruents (3.1.3) and persisted until the jer-shift (5.8). The terminus a quo of the 1VP is uncertain, but its uniform results point to the preMigration-Period, when CSl dialects were still relatively compact. The change ended before the monophthongization of glide diphthongs, since it was not triggered by *ɛ:2 from *ai̯ (4.1). It was also not triggered by *i(:) in borrowings from Go (ca. 2nd−4th c.). The assibilation phase (1VP3) was completed before the Sl settlements in the southern Balkans (6th−8th centuries); Byzantine sources have ts for *k j and z for *g j: *kɛlinεi̯ kas ‘headman’ ⥬ τσέλνικος (cf. OSb čelьnikь); *gɛu̯pa:nas ‘clan head’ ⥬ ζουπάνος (cf. OCS županъ). The 1VP created numerous morphophonemic alternations between velars and palatals. These have generally been stable in the Sl languages, as exemplified in (4−6). PSl (4)

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

*bag-a2s

bogъ

bogъ

bóh

bóg

‘God’

*bag-ɛ

bože

bože

bože

boże

(VOC)

1444

XIII. Slavic PSl (5)

(6)

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

*rɛk-ɛti

recˇetъ

recˇetь

rˇcˇe

rzecze

‘say (PRS.3SG)’

*rɛk-anti

rekǫtъ

rekutь

ˇrkú

rzeką

(PRS.3PL )

*sau̯x-au̯

suxu

suxu

suchu

suchu

‘dry (N.DAT)

*sau̯x-i̯ a:

susˇa

susˇa

súsˇeˇ

susza

‘dry land’

3.3. Vowel fronting Back vowels developed advanced allophones after *i̯ and the alveopalatals (1−2): *a > *a̟ ([œ̞] or similar); *u(:) > *u̟(:) ([ʉ(:)] or similar). Over time, *a̟ was reinterpreted as /ɛ/. While *u̟(:) ultimately merged with *i(:), they were still rounded during the first phase of the Progressive Palatalization of Velars (see 4.6). This change called the First Umlaut, and the vowel fronting after the Progressive Palatalization the Second Umlaut. However, it is possible to treat these as two fronting episodes based on the same constraint, rather than separate changes. Unlike *a, *a: was not rephonologized as a front vowel. Presumably, both *a and *a: had fronted opening phases, assimilating to the domed tongue position of the preceding palatal. The long vowel would typically have had time to emerge from the transitional phase and still have a distinct phase with open tongue position; hence it would have been less susceptible to reinterpretation. By contrast, like short vowels in general (Labov 1994: 173), *a would often fail to emerge from the transitional phase in time to have a distinct main phase. MCSl1

OCS

OESl

*u̯ai̯ au̯ada:

*u̯ai̯ ɛu̯ada:

vojevoda

vojevoda

vévoda (*-ai̯ ɛ-)

wojewoda

‘warleader’

*i̯ aga

*i̯ ɛga

jego

jego

jego

jego

‘him (GEN)’

*i̯ ugad

*i̯ iga

igo

igo

jho (*i̯ i)

Po igo

‘yoke’

*si̯ u:i̯ a:

*ʃi:i̯ a:

šija

šьja

šíjeˇ

szyja

‘neck’

PSl (1)

(2)

OCz

OPo

Gloss

Vowel fronting preceded the monophthongization of glide-diphthongs (4.1). If it had followed, *i̯ ai̯ would have become *(i̯ )ɛ:2; its actual outcome was *i̯ εi̯ > *(i̯ )i:, as seen in *i̯ ai̯ xu > OCS ixъ ‘them (GEN/LOC.PL )’; cf. *tai̯ xu > těxъ ‘those’ (reflecting *ɛ:2). The change split the ā-stem (4) and o-stem declensions (5) into varieties with and without fronted endings, traditionally called ā-/jā- and o-/jo-stems (Lunt’s “twofold” declensions [2001: 54−59]). The differences between the fronted and non-fronted declensional variants became opaque after the monophthongization of diphthongs (4.1). Similar bifurcations occurred in derivational morphemes, e.g. (citing OCS) the PRPP suffix *-am(veˇdomъ|znajemъ, both ‘known’); the verbal determiner *-au̯a:- (radovati sę ‘rejoice’| vojevati ‘make war’); the nominalizing suffixes *-at- and *-ast- (sujeta ‘vanity’|tixota

81. The phonology of Slavic

1445

‘quiet’; radostь ‘joy’|dobl jestь ‘valor’); and the possessive suffix *-au̯- (gromovъ ‘thunder’s’| zmijevъ ‘snake’s’). PSl (4)

*gɛna *dau̯xi̯ a

MCSl1

Fronting

*dau̯ʃa̟

*gɛnai̯

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

*ʒɛna

ženo

ženo

ženo

żono

‘woman (VOC)’

*dɔ:ʃɛ

duše

duše

duše

dusze

‘soul (VOC)’

*ʒɛnɛ:2

ženě

ženě

ženě

żenie

‘woman (DAT/ LOC)’

*dau̯xi̯ ai̯ (5)

*dau̯xi̯ a̟i̯

*mai̯ stad *mari̯ ad

*mari̯ a̟

*dɔ:ʃi:

duši

duši

duši

duszy

‘soul (DAT/LOC)’

*mɛ:2sta

meˇsto

meˇsto

meˇsto

miasto

‘place (NOM/ACC)’

*marɛ

mor je

mor je

morˇe

morze

‘sea (NOM/ACC)’

3.4. Merger of *i: and *a: after palatals In ECSl, *ɛ: merged with *a: after *i̯ (1) and the alveopalatal reflexes of the 1VP (2). Concomitantly, the alveopalatals ceased to function as allophones of velars. Unlike *a (3.3), *a: had not been rephonologized as a front vowel after alveopalatals (3); however, it probably had fronting in its opening phases, which would have facilitated the merger perceptually. PSl

MCSl1

(1)

*stai̯ ɛ:tεi̯

*stai̯ a:te:2

stojati

stojati

státi (*-ai̯ a-)

stojać

‘be standing’

(2)

*kɛ:sa2s

*tʃa:su

cˇasъ

cˇasъ

cˇas

czas

‘time’

*pagɛ:ra2s

*paʒa:ru

OSb pozˇarь

pozˇarъ

požár

pożar

‘conflagration’

*slu:xɛ:la2s

*slu:ʃa:lu

slysˇalъ

slysˇalъ

slysˇal

sƚyszaƚ

‘hear (RES.M)’

*dau̯si̯ a:

*dɔ:ʃa:

duša

duša

duša

dusza

‘soul’

(3)

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

The primary impetus for the merger was phonemic reanalysis. As *ɛ: was (near-)open, it neighbored *a: in phonetic space. Thus, innovative learners could interpret it as an allophone of *a: after consonants with palatal (co)articulation; they would perceive its palatality as environmental rather than inherent. Cf. the perception of foreign fronted rounded vowels in Ru: typically, the rounding is preserved, while the frontness is ascribed to the preceding consonant: Bonhoeffer ⥬ [bɔnx jofɛr], Flossenbürg ⥬ [flɔsɛnb jurg].

1446

XIII. Slavic

3.5. Glide prothesis In ECSl, on-glides developed before word- and syllable-initial *u(:), *i(:), and *ɛ(:) (1−3). The on-glides were homorganic − rounded before *u(:), and palatal before *i(:) and *ɛ(:). PSl (1)

(2)

(3)

MSl1

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

*unεi̯ dɛti:

*u̯une:2dɛti

vъnidetъ

vъnidetь

vníde

wnidzie

‘enter (PRS.3SG)’

*u:psaka2s

*u̯u:saku

vysokъ

vysokъ

vysoký

wysoki

‘high’

*inzu:ka2s

*i̯ ĩ:zu:ku

językъ

jazykъ

jazyk

język

‘tongue’

j

*inmɛ:n

*imɛ˜:

imę

im a

jmeˇ

jimię

‘name’

*paɛ:dla2s

*paɛ:dlu

poělъ [ja]

poělъ [je]

÷pojiedl

pojadƚ

‘eat (RES.M)’

*ɛsti

*i̯ ɛsti

jestъ

jestь

jest

jest

‘be (PRS.3SG)’

*εi̯ tεi̯

*i̯ e:2ti:

iti

iti

jíti

jici

‘go’

*daεi̯ tεi̯

*dai̯ e:2ti:

doiti

doiti

dojíti

dojć

‘go as far as’

In previous works, prothesis has often been presented as a means of eliminating hiatus. Actually, that was a consequence, not a cause. The initial mechanism of the change was evidently diphthongization, followed by phonemic reanalysis. As the speech organs moved from their rest position or, in close juncture (hiatus), from articulating the preceding vowel, the anlaut vowels were realized with non-syllabic opening phases: /u(:)/ → [u̯u(:)]; /i(:)/ → [i̯ i(:)], /ɛ(:)/ → [i̯ ɛ(:)]. This is a typologically common form of “peak attenuation” (see Andersen 1972). The transitional phases may have been more salient in slow or emphatic speech. Subsequently, innovative learners could reanalyze the non-syllabic phases as distinct segments, phonemically identical to the inherited glides, and inherent to the given roots: [u̯u(:)] 0 /u̯u(:)/ → [u̯u(:)], [i̯ i(:)] 0 /i̯ i(:)/ → [i̯ i(:)], [i̯ ɛ(:)] 0 /i̯ ɛ(:)/ → [i̯ ɛ(:)]. Thus the traditional term prothesis is misleading: the glide was not added to the vowel but developed from the vowel. Finally, the glide could spread by the usual processes of social accommodation and adaptation within the speech community. The results of u̯-prothesis were uniform; this suggests that it happened before the migrations, when CSl was still relatively compact. It ended before monophthongization (4.1) and the rounding of *a (5.1), since it did not affect the rounded vowels that arose in those changes, and before the delabialization of *u(:) (5.1), which removed its conditioning. While the attested results of i̯ -prothesis are not uniform (see below), it is reflected in all three branches of Slavic, including peripheral zones; thus, like u̯-prothesis, it took place while CSl was still relatively compact. It followed the backing of *ɛ: to *a: after palatals (3.4), since anlaut *ɛ:, which was subject to prothesis, had a different outcome from the *ɛ: that followed inherited *i̯ (4). (Examples with ja for anlaut *ɛ: arose by

81. The phonology of Slavic

1447

later dialectal changes − the merger of *i̯ ɛ: and *i̯ a: in E-SSl, e.g. OCS jasti ‘eat’; and the retraction of *ɛ: before unpalatalized dentals in Lech, e.g. Po jadł |jedzą ‘eatPST.M.3SG|PL’.)

(4)

PSl

MCSl1

*stai̯ ɛ:tεi̯

*stai̯ a:te:

stojati

stojati

státi (*-ai̯ a-)

stojać

‘be standing’

*ɛ:stεi̯

*i̯ ɛ:ste:2

jasti

jěsti

jiěsti

jeść

‘eat’

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

The regularity of i̯ -prothesis has been obscured by later dialectal tendencies to eliminate *i̯ - of either origin before i. The reflexes of *inmɛ:n (2) and *(da)εi̯ tεi̯ (3) show that the elision occurred consistently in SSl and most of ESl. The OSln Freising Fragments (later 10th c.) have ge- or ie- for /i̯ ɛ/, e.g. gest, iest ‘be (PRS.3SG)’; but plain i- rather than **gi for initial i-, e.g. iti ‘go’. The OCS and OESl spellings are ambiguous, since Glagolitic and Cyrillic had no way to distinguish ji/jь from i; the spelling krai, with «и, ι» could convey /krajɪ/ ‘edge’ with the same ending as in otьcь ‘father’, or /kraji/ (NOM.PL ), with the same ending as in otьci. In OCS, the PAP of *imus- ‘take’ could be written as imъ(š-) or jemъ(š-); both of these presuppose /jɪmǝ(š)-/. Nonetheless, both OCS and OESl provide unequivocal evidence for i̯ -prothesis before *i. In verbal roots (5), initial *i- is reflected as i- in unprefixed forms and after prefixes ending in vowels, i.e. environments where prothesis would have been conditioned, but as ɪ (ь) after prefixes ending in consonants, where prothesis would have been blocked. The cognate forms in OPo (representing Lech in general) followed a similar pattern: root-initial *i was reflected as ji in word-anlaut; as j in medial anlaut (after prefixes ending in vowels); and as zero after consonants when it was in “weak-jer” position (see 5.8). In other WSl dialects, *i underwent the same development after *i̯ in word-anlaut as elsewhere; cf. OCz jmeˇ (1) and jme, pojme (5); US jmje ‘take (PRS.3SG)’, pojmje take (PRS.3SG)’. PSl (5)

MCSl1

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

*imɛti

*i̯ i(:)mɛ(ti)

imetъ

imetь

jme

jimie

‘take (PRS.3SG)’

*paimɛti

*pai̯ i(:)mɛ(ti)

poimetъ

poimetь

pojme

pojmie

‘take (PRS.3SG)’

*uzimɛti

*u̯uzimɛ(ti)

vъzьmetь

vъzьmetь

vezme

weźmie

‘take; grasp (PRS.3SG)’

3.5.1. Prothesis before open vowels Throughout Sl, *i̯ developed before initial *a: in lexical roots (6). On the southeastern periphery, in OCS and later Bg dialects (7), some of these roots are also attested without the glide. There was never prothesis before the conjunction *a: and its compounds (8). The adverbs *a:kad ‘as’ and *a:mas ‘to where’ show variation; the presence of the glide may have been due to contamination with the relative root *i̯ - (9).

1448

XIII. Slavic PSl (6)

(7)

OCS

*a:lau̯a2s

Bg

Mc

BCS

Sln

OCz

jalov

jalov

jȁlov

jálov

jalový

*a:rima-

jarьmъ

jarem

jarem

járam

jarem

Cz jařmo

*a:i̯ (ik)ad

aice

jajce/†ajce

jajce

jáje/jájce

jájce

vajce

*a:gada:

agoda

jagoda/†agudǝ

jagoda

jȁgoda

jágoda

jahoda

†

*a:gnent

agnę

agne/ jagnja

jagne

jȁgne

jágnje/ ágnje

jeˇhneˇ

*a:u̯εi̯ ti

avitъ/ javitъ

javi/†avi

javi

jȃvī

jȃvi

jeˇví

(8)

*a:lεi̯

ali

ali

ali

ȁli

àli

ali

(9)

*a:kad

ako/jako

ako

ako

ako

ako

ako/jako

(10)

*au̯ika:

ovьca

ovca

ovca

óvca

óvca

ovce

*akas

oko

oko

oko

ȍko

okȏ

oko

PSl (6)

*a:lau̯-

US jaƚowy

*a:rima-

(7)

OPo Po jaƚowy

Pb jolüwa˘

jarzmo

OESl

Gloss

jalovъ

‘barren, sterile’

jarьmъ

‘ox yoke’ ‘egg’

*a:i̯ (ik)ad

jejo/wejo

jaje/jajca

joji

jaice

*a:gada:

jahoda

jagoda

jod’a˘dåi

jagoda

‘berry’; Pb NOM.PL

jagn ja

‘lamb’

jawi

javitь

‘reveal’ (PRS.3SG)’

ali

ali

‘or; if; really?’

*a:gnent

jehnjo

jagnię

*a:u̯εi̯ ti

LS javi

jogną

(8)

*a:lεi̯

(9)

*a:ka

ako/jako

jako

Slc ãk/ja˙̑k

ako/jako

‘as’

*au̯ika:

wowca

owca

vüca˘

ovьca

‘ewe’

*akas

woko

oko

våt’ü

oko

‘eye’

(10)

Outside of E-SSl, the isolated lexemes with initial *a: may have non-phonological explanations. The Sln variant ágnje (7) was probably influenced by La agnus. Uk dialectal ajo ‘egg’ is an innovation of children’s speech; Novg aje- (ajesova ‘egg-shover’, with ‘egg’ in the sense ‘testicle’) may be a taboo deformation. (See below for an alternative explanation.) Because i̯ -prothesis occurred before *a: but not *a (10), some scholars have dated it to LCSl, after quantitative distinctions had given way to qualitative ones (*a > *ɔ, *a: > *a; see 5.1); concomitantly, they have interpreted the cases of non-prothesis in E-SSl as peripheral archaisms. This late dating seems implausible for a change attested, with the same restriction to lexical morphemes, in all Sl dialects, including E-SSl in most of the

81. The phonology of Slavic

1449

eligible roots. This distribution is comparable to that of ECSl changes, not LCSl. The OCS and Bg exceptions need not be archaisms, since there was a tendency in E-SSl to elide *i̯ in other environments. Given its restriction to lexical roots, i̯ -prothesis before *a: was probably not sound change proper. The palatal glide cannot have been a reinterpretation of the opening phase of *a:; the transition from rest position to the full articulation of *a: would not involve the doming of the tongue characteristic of *i̯ . A glottal consonant might be expected instead (and may have actually developed, though it cannot be reconstructed). On the other hand, the palatal glide could have arisen by provection rather than prothesis, from the final phase of front vowels in transition to *a: in close juncture; once reanalyzed as a distinct segment, it could have been generalized as a sandhi variant to other contexts. Presumably, there would have been a parallel tendency for *u̯ to develop in the transition from rounded vowels to *a:. This would account for certain roots in which CSl has an unexpected *u̯ before *a: and even *a, cf. Bg vatral ‘poker’, BCS vȁtra, Cz †vatra, Uk vatra ‘fire’, Slk vatra, Po †watra, ‘hearth’, if from PSl *a:tra: (cf. Avestan āter ‘fire’); OCS, OESl, von ja, OCz vóně, OPo wonia ‘smell’ (*ani̯ a:). Note also OCz, Slk vajce ‘egg’ (6). Concomitantly, the loss of inherited *u̯ in PIE *u̯ops- > OSb, OESl, OPo osa, OCz os ‘wasp’ could have been a hypercorrection. In this scenario, it would not be surprising to find forms without any glide at all; cf. Sln ágnje ‘lamb’, Novg aje- ‘egg’ (above). The tendency to extend *i̯ - more often than *u̯- may be linked with another change that involved *a: but not *a − its merger with *ɛ: after palatals (3.4). In PSl, initial *i̯ a: was limited to derivatives of the pronominal root *i̯ -. After the change of *i̯ ɛ: to *i̯ a: (3.4), the inventory grew to include other lexical roots (11). The existence of lexemes with semantically unmotivated (non-pronominal) *i̯ a: may have promoted the reanalysis of sandhi off-glides as /i̯ -/ and their extension as a phonotactic pattern. Similarly, in some LCSl dialects, there was sporadic i̯ -prothesis before anlaut *u:2 (PSl *au̯) (12) − not the u̯-prothesis that might be expected from the vowel’s articulation per se. This was probably a sandhi phenomenon, perhaps promoted by roots with *i̯ u:2 (from PSl *i̯ au̯). This process did not occur consistently anywhere in Sl, and it generally did not affect the preposition/prefix *u:2 (13). In ESl, there were hypercorrections in which inherited glides were lost before u (from *u:2 and *ǫ) (14). This has been treated as a sound change, and the exceptions as Church Slavonisms, but in fact there are many lexemes in which the glide has been preserved. PSl (11)

*i̯ ɛ:ra-

(12)

*au̯ga-

OCS

jugъ

*au̯gɛi̯ na:

Bg

BCS

OESl

OCz

jara

jȁr

jarъ

jaro

jug

jȕg

(j)ugъ

juh

juzˇina

ȕzˇina

uzˇina

ùzda

uzda zautra

*au̯zda:

uzda

uzda/ juzda

*za:au̯tr-

zautra

zautra/ zajutrě zàjutrak

zautrokъ

OPo jaro/jarz

Gloss ‘springtime’ ‘south’

juz˙yna

‘dinner’

uzda

uzda

‘bridle’

zajutra

¶

‘morrow’

zajutro

zajutrek

‘breakfast’

1450

XIII. Slavic PSl

OCS

Bg

BCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

(13)

*au̯

u

u

u

u

u

u

‘at’

(14)

*iau̯na-

junъ

jun

jùna:k

unъ/junъ

junoch

junoch

‘young (man)’

3.6. Dental palatalizations Before *i̯ , dentals developed backed allophones with palatal (co)articulation: /Ti̯ / → [T ji̯ ] or [Ti̯ ]. (The retraction diacritic T is used to cover postalveolar and dorsal articulations.) Then the sequences were monophonemicized, and *i̯ interpreted as an offglide, which was later eliminated in a deductive change: ECSl1 [T ji̯ ] or [Ti̯ ] 0 /T j/ or /T/ → ECSl2 [Tji̯ ~ T j] or [Ti̯ ~ T]. This complex of changes (“yodization,” Schenker 1995; “iotation,” Lunt 2001), may have occurred at various times for the different manners of articulation. PSl *si̯ and *zi̯ became *ʃ and *ʒ (1), thus merging with the reflexes of 1VP *x j and j *g (see 3.2). PSl *li̯ and *ni̯ became either palatal *ʎ, *ɲ or palatalized dental *l j, *n j (2); *ri̯ (3) became *r j or post-alveolar *r. The reflexes will be indicated with the retraction diacritic (R). The clusters *ti̯ and *di̯ (4) had diverse reflexes in LCSl (see 4.7). However, all the outcomes can be derived from a stage parallel to the sonorants, with either palatal coarticulation (*t j, *d j) or primary (alveo)palatal articulation (*c̟, *ɟ). The ECSl2 reflexes will be indicated with the retraction diacritic (T). PSl (1)

(2)

(3)

*na:si̯ a2s

ECSl1 i̯

*na:s i̯

ECSl2

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

*na:ʃi

nasˇь

nasˇь

násˇ

nasz

‘our’

*parazi̯ ɛn-

*paraz ɛn-

*paraʒɛn-

porazˇen-

porazˇen-

porazˇen-

porażen-

‘smite (PPP)’

*u̯ali̯ a:

*u̯ali̯ a:

*u̯ala:

vol ja

vol ja

vóleˇ

wola

‘will’

j

j

i̯

*mini̯ a:m

*min a:N

*mina:N

mьn ǫ

mьn u

mnˇu

mnię

‘think (PRS.1SG)’

*mari̯ ad

*mari̯ ɛ

*marɛ

mor je

mor je

morˇe

morze

‘sea’

The clusters *sti̯ , *zdi̯ merged with *sk j, *zg j from the 1VP (3.2). Evidently, the sibilants backed to assimilate to *t and *d; then they merged with the alveopalatals *ʃ and *ʒ; then the following stops *t and *d assimilated to hushers. (In some ESl and some SSl dialects, *t and *d became alveopalatals in all positions; see 4.7)

(4)

(5)

PSl

MCSl1

OCS

*su̯ai̯ ti̯ a:

*su̯ɛ:2ta:

sveˇsˇta

sveˇcˇa

sviece

świeca

‘candle’

*mɛdi̯ a:

*mɛda:

mezˇda

mezˇa

mezeˇ

miedza

‘boundary’

*pau̯sti̯ a:tɛi̯

*pu:ʃta:ti:

pusˇtati

pusˇcˇati

púsˇcˇeˇti/púsˇteˇti

puszczać

‘release’

dъždь

!

deżdż

‘rain’

*duzdi̯ us

*duʒdi

dъždь

OESl

OCz

déšč, Sk dázˇd’

OPo

Gloss

81. The phonology of Slavic

1451

The palatalization of dentals and loss of the triggering *i̯ had a major impact on morphology. In class III verbs (*i̯ e/*i̯ o themes), new root allomorphs appeared throughout the present-tense system; the stem formant *i̯ was no longer in evidence (6). In Class IV verbs, the theme had appeared in the e-grade *εi̯ or the lengthened grade *i: before consonantal suffixes, and in the zero-grade *i̯ before vocalic suffixes. After dental palatalization, the allomorphy shifted to the root; with the loss of the *i̯ and the development of nasal vowels (see 4.2), the old theme was no longer apparent throughout the paradigm. Where the predesinential vowel persisted, it was necessarily reinterpreted as part of the ending (7). MCSl1

PSl (6)

(7)

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

*pɛi̯ sa:nad

*pe:2sa:na

pisano

pisano

pisano

pisano

‘write (PPP.N.SG)’

*pɛi̯ si̯ ɛti

*pe:2ʃɛ(ti)

pisˇetŭ

pisˇeti˘

písˇe

pisze

‘write (PRS.3SG)’

*(pa)radɛi̯ ti

*rade:2(ti)

roditъ

roditъ

rodi

porodzi [dʑ]

‘give birth (PRS.3SG)’

*(pa)radi̯ ɛna2s

*radɛnu

roždenъ

roženъ

rozený

porodzon [dz]

‘give birth (PPP.M.SG)’

3.6.1. *kt clusters As noted in 3.1.3, in *kt clusters the velar was lost, while the dental had bifurcating reflexes. It persisted before non-front vowels (1), but became t (see 3.6) before front vowels (2). PSl (1)

(2)

MCSl1

OCS

OSb

OESl j

OCz

OPo

Gloss

*pɛnkta2s

*pɛ˜:tu

pętъ

pětъ

p atъ

pátý

piątý

‘fifth’

*pakta2s

*patu

potъ

potь

potъ

pot

pot

‘sweat’

*tɛktεi̯

*tɛte:2

tesˇti [ʃt]

teći [c]

tecˇi [tʃ]

téci [ts]

ciec [ts]

‘run’

*naktis

*nati

nosˇtь [ʃt]

nokь [c]

nocˇь [tʃ]

noc [ts]

noc [ts]

‘night’

*pektis

*pɛti

pesˇtь[ʃt]

pekь [c]

pecˇь [tʃ]

pec [ts]

piec [ts]

‘oven’

The development here was presumably not *kt > *[k]ti̯ , as the drift in CSl was to eliminate postconsonantal *i̯ (see 3.7). Rather, *t developed a non-anterior allophone [t] in assimilation to the surrounding non-anterior segments; this merged with the phonetically similar or identical monophonemicized reflex of *ti̯ . When the preceding velar was elided, the conditioning of *t became unpredictable. (For the LCSl development of *t, see 4.7.) There may have been a parallel change *n > *n between velars and *i. Here BCS and some Sln dialects have /ɲ/: *(−)gni:da: > Sln ugnjída ‘ulcer’, BCS gnjȉda ‘nits’. In

1452

XIII. Slavic

OCS ogn jь ‘fire’ (PSl *agnis), the nasal is often written with the palatalization diacritic (н̑ ); however, the word is also attested as a i̯ o-stem. Elsewhere in Sl, there is principled uncertainty, as the reflexes of *n cannot be distinguished from those of *n before front vowels.

3.7. Elimination of glides in clusters 3.7.1. Homorganic glides After conditioning the 1VP (3.2) and dental palatalization (3.6), *i̯ was reinterpreted as an off-glide of the new palatals and ceased to exist as an independent unit (1−2): /ʃi̯ / → [ʃi̯ ] 0 /ʃ/ → [ʃi̯ ~ʃi̯ ~ ʃ]. There was a parallel reanalysis of *u̯ after labial consonants; the given clusters occurred in zero-grade forms of ‘be’ (3) and over prefix boundaries (4): /bu̯/ → [bu̯] 0 /b/ → [bu̯~bu̯~b]. (Counterexamples in the attested languages are the result of post-CSl changes or leveling: OESl obiniti but Ru obvinit’ ‘accuse’, cf. vina ‘fault’.) The changes in homorganic glides are traditionally presented as elision. This is accurate as a metalinguistic description of the outcomes, but the essential innovations were monophonemicizations, or monophthongizations in Andersen’s sense (1972). The changes differed from previous developments in consonant clusters in two ways: they worked progressively, and they involved sequences that did not violate canonical syllable structure (see 3.1). PSl

1VP2

*mangi̯ a2s

*manɟ i̯ a2

*mɔ˜:ʒɪ

mǫzˇь

muzˇь

muž

mąż

‘man’

*dau̯xi̯ a:

*dau̯ ʃ i̯ a:

*dɔ:ʃa:

duša

duša

dušě

dusza

‘soul’

(2)

*pεi̯ si̯ ɛti

*pεi̯ ʃ i̯ ɛti

*pi:ʃɛti

pisˇetъ

pisˇetь

písˇe

pisze

‘write (PRS.3SG)’

(3)

*bu̯ɛ:st

*bu̯ɛ:

*bɛ:

beˇ

beˇ

beˇ

*abɛlc̟i:

obleˇsˇti

obolocˇi

obléci

(1)

(4)

*abu̯ɛlktεi̯

u̯

*ab ɛltεi̯

LCSl1

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

‘be (AOR.3SG)’ oblec

‘clothe’

3.7.2. Labial + glide clusters CSl *i̯ became *l after labials (1−2). This affected not only inherited *i̯ (1−2) but also the *i̯ on-glide that developed in the monophthongization of *ɛu̯ (see 4.1). It is unclear whether the change began before or after the monophthongization. The lateral has traditionally been called epenthetic l, as if it were inserted for ease of pronunciation. In fact, the *l was a transmutation of the *i̯ , not an addition to the cluster. The phonetic mechanism was target undershoot as the tongue blade retracted from the rest position characteristic for labials to the domed position characteristic for *i̯ . The resulting not-quite-palatal approximant was perceptually similar both to *i̯ and to *l from *li̯ sequences (see 3.6), and hence open to rephonologization as *l.

81. The phonology of Slavic PSl (1)

*pi̯ uu̯a:tεi̯

1453

MCSl1 *plu̟u̯a:te:2

OCS j

pl ьvati j

BCS pljùvati

OESl

OCz

OPo

j

plváti

plwać

‘spit’

j

pl ьvati

Gloss

(2)

*bɛu̯i̯ ɛti

*blɔ:i̯ ɛti

bl ujetъ

bljȕje

bl ujetь

bl’uje

bluje

‘vomit (PRS.3SG)’

(3)

*tirpi̯ a:m

*tirplã:

trъpl jǫ

¶

tьrpl ju

trpiu

cierzpię

‘suffer (PRS.1SG)’

(4)

*zɛmi̯ a:

*zɛmlã:

zeml ja/-ja

zèmlja

zeml ja

země

ziemia

‘earth’

(5)

*kɛ:pi̯ a:

*tʃa:pla:

Mc cˇapja

cˇȁplja

Uk cˇaplja

cˇeˇpeˇ

czapla

‘heron’

(6)

*grabi̯ -

*grabl-

grȏblje

grobl ja

hróbě/

grobia/

‘grave, mound’;

hrobl’a

grobla

BCS ‘cemetery’

tŕpi:m

The *i̯ > *l change is usually treated alongside dental palatalizations [3.6], as if it involved palatal (co)articulation; in fact, it was a progressive rather than a regressive change. There are parallels from the historical period in which i̯ became l in new Pi̯ clusters: PSl mai̯ x- > LCSl1 *mæʃina > BCS mjèšina ~ †mljèšina ‘sack’. There are also counter-parallels with ʎ being rephonologized as i̯ : Rom Mileta > LCSl1 *mɪlætǝ > BCS Mljȅt ~ †Mjȅt (name of an Adriatic island); cf. La planus > Italian piano ‘level’; La sclavus > Italian schiavo ‘Slav; slave’. The change of *i̯ > *l is attested in all Sl dialects within morphemes (1−2). Over morpheme boundaries (3−4), the lateral has been preserved consistently in ESl and WSSl. Elsewhere, there was a late tendency to reanalyze it as a glide, presumably by leveling with related forms. This reversal was ongoing in OCS (10th−11th centuries), as seen in the spelling variants Pl j~Pj~Pьj [Pj]. In WSl, *l was lost consistently in paradigmatic alternations (3) and often elsewhere (4). However, non-alternating *l has left many relics: OPo ‘heron’ (5), US cˇapla, LS capla, Kb czapla; OCz toponyms Počeˇplice, Pocˇeˇpli, Pocˇapli; the doublets in OCz and OPo ‘mound’ (6), Slk hrobl’a ‘dam’, US hrobla ‘ditch’. This variation shows that the WSl loss of the lateral was relatively late and probably independent of the parallel tendency in E-SSl. (Alternatively, the variation could have arisen not by a “loss” of *l but by the coexistence of conservative and innovative forms within the same speech communities.) The change led to morphophonemic alternations in verbs. In class IIIb, *l appeared throughout the PRS system: OCS priimati|prieml jetъ, prieml ji, prieml jǫsˇt- ‘receive (INF|PRS. 3SG, IMP.2SG, PRAP)’. In class IV, *l appeared in the 1SG, but not in other PRS forms: OESl l jubl ju|l jubisˇi ‘love (PRS.1SG|2SG)’. In class IVa, *l occurred in the stems of the imperfect, archaic PAP, PPP, and deverbal noun: BCS ljubljasˇe (IMPF.3SG); OESl vъzljubl jь(PFV.PAP); BCS ljubljen (PPP); Sln ljubljenje (noun).

3.8. Vowels in final closed syllables In certain grammatical forms, PSl *a(:) and *ɛ(:) in final syllables rose to, or were replaced by, *u(:) and *i(:). The same happened before final sonorants; cf. *ma:ti: and

1454

XIII. Slavic

*dukti: in 3.1.4. There is debate about whether the raised outcomes arose in sound changes limited to final syllables (Auslautgesetze) or in morphological substitutions. For PSl *-aN (1−2), the expected outcome was *-a (see 3.1.4); the actual reflex was *u, fronted to *i after palatals (see 3.4). In the (i̯ )o-stem M.ACC (1), the inherited ending would have merged with N.NOM/ACC.SG *-ad > *-a. If the ending *-u did not arise by sound change, it could have been imported from the u-stems (*-um); other u-stem endings were coopted during the CSl period. In the nonsigmatic (root) AOR.1SG, the expected reflex of *-am (cf. Gk -on) would have been *-a; the attested *u (izidъ ‘go out’) may have been reformed on the basis of the sigmatic AOR.1SG *-s-um (PreSl *-sm̥; cf. Gk -sa). The sigmatic aorist became the predominant type during the CSl period, and the two types otherwise interacted; for example, the root aorist ending was coopted to repair the erosion of the sigmatic 2/3SG in Leskien I, II, and V. PSl

MCSl1

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

(1)

*grabam

*grabu

grobъ

grobъ

hrob

grob

‘grave (ACC)’

(2)

*lɛ:tam

*lɛ:tu

lětъ

lětъ

lét

lat

‘year (GEN.PL )’

For PSl *-as, the expected outcome was *a, fronted to *ɛ after palatals. This occurs in lexemes where *-as was part of the stem (3). However, in the (i̯ )o-stem M.NOM.SG (4), *-a2 s (with the subscript signaling a divergent outcome) rose to, or was replaced by, *-u, fronted to *-i after palatals. If *-a2 s had developed as expected, it would have been syncretic with the N.NOM.SG *-a < *-ad (not to mention the M.ACC.SG, see above). Such syncretism may account for seemingly “neuter” hypocoristics used for male referents, e.g. OSb Radivoje, OESl Stoiko, OCz Tenko, OPo Zdięto. (Conversely, the syncretism may explain why most PreSl barytone neuters became masculines.) While attempts have been made to explain the *-a2 s reflex by sound change, it was more probably analogical to the u-stem NOM/ACC.SG *u (< *-us/*-um). For the hypocoristics, syncretism was promoted by the fact that the neuter was already used to denote baby humans and animals (cf. *agnɛnt ‘lamb’ [6]). The directional adverbial suffix *-mas yielded both *-ma and *mu (5). The latter may be analogical to ACC.SG *-u or DAT.PL *-mu(s); accusative and dative both had directional meanings. PSl (3)

MCSl1

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

*slau̯as

*slava

slovo

slovo

slovo

sƚowo

‘word’

*nebas

*nɛba

nebo

nebo

nebo

niebo

‘heaven; sky’

(4)

*baga2s

*bagu

bogъ

bogъ

bóh

bóg

‘god’

(5)

*ta:mas/-a2s

*ta:ma

tamo

tamo/tamъ

tamo/tam

tamo

‘thither’

*ka:mas/-a2s

*ka:ma

kamo

kamo

kamo/kam

kam

‘whither’

The sequence *-Vnt (nt-stem NOM/ACC.SG ) developed like internal *VN-C (6); the vowel and nasal monophthongized as Ṽ (see 4.2). By contrast, *-Vns (o-stem and āstem ACC.PL ) had different outcomes, depending on the preceding consonant. After nonpalatals, the vowel was lengthened without being nasalized (7): *-ins > *-i:, *-uns > *-u:, and *ans > *-u: (with raising). If this was a sound change, the lengthening was

81. The phonology of Slavic

1455

compensatory for the disappearing nasal; vowels otherwise did not undergo lengthening before final *s. (If the final *s had disappeared before the nasal, **VN > **Ṽ would be expected; see 3.1.4) When *ans followed a palatal, the loss of the nasal was delayed, for unclear reasons. The vowel was fronted to *ɛ, as expected (3.4). In WSl and ESl, *-ɛns > *ɛ:, parallel to the development of *-ins. In SSl, the vowel underwent both lengthening and nasalization, like internal tautosyllabic *ɛN (see 4.2): OCS ę [ɛ˜], OSb e [ɛ]. If the development was regular, the outcomes may be due to different relative chronologies: SSl *-ɛns > *-ɛ˜:ns > *-ɛ˜:, but WSl, ESl *-ɛ:ns > *-ɛ:s prior to nasalization. In (8), *ɛ˜: would have yielded OESl a, OPo ę [ɛ˜], while *ɛ: would have given OCS -ě [æ], OSb -ě [e]. (The WSl and ESl outcome is known as *ɛ:3, where *ɛ:1 = PSl *ɛ: [2.1] and *ɛ:2 = PSl *ai̯ [4.1]. However, it seems likely *ɛ:3 developed prior to *ɛ:2.) PSl

MCSl1

OCS

OSb

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

(6)

*a:gnɛnt

*(i̯ )a:gnɛ˜:

agnę

jagnje

jagn ja

jěhně

jagnię

‘lamb’

(7)

*gastins

*gasti:

gosti

gosti

gosti

hosti

¶

‘guest (ACC.PL )’

*su:nuns

*su:nu:

syny

syny

syny

syny

syny

‘son (ACC.PL )’

*radans

*radu:

rody

rody

rody

rody

rody

‘kin-group (ACC.PL )’

*zɛmi̯ ans

*zɛmlɛ˜:/-ɛ:

zeml ję

zemlje

zeml jeˇ

zemeˇ

zemie

‘land (ACC.PL )’

*mangi̯ ans

*mã:ʒɛ˜:/-ɛ:

mǫzˇę

muže

muzˇeˇ

muzˇeˇ

męże

‘man (ACC.PL )’

(8)

goście

The outcome of *-ants# (PRAP.M/N.NOM) also bifurcated, with the same dialect divide. After non-palatals, the vowel was lengthened, and the nasal was lost before the development of nasal monophthongs in MCSl1. It was raised to *-u: in SSl but remained low *a: in WSl and ESl (6). After palatals, the loss of the nasal was again delayed; all dialects show the expected fronting, then lengthening and nasalization (7). (There is no way to determine if the vowel was also raised, as MCSl1 *ɛ˜: and *ĩ: merged in LCSl.) PSl

MCSl1

(6)

*rɛkants

*rɛku:/-a:

reky

reky

reka

řka

rzeka

‘say (PRAP.M.INDEF )’

(7)

*ka:zi̯ ants

*ka:ʒɛ˜:

kazˇę

kaže

kazˇa

kazˇeˇ

każę

‘show (PRAP.M.INDEF )’

OCS

OSb

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

4. Middle Common Slavic (MCSl) changes If ECSl was the period in which the vowel system was essentially the same as in PSl, MCSl began with a drastic restructuring of the vowel system − the monophthongization

1456

XIII. Slavic

of diphthongs (4.1−4.2) or First Slavic Vowel Shift (Andersen 1998), which probably occurred ca. 4th−5th centuries (idem 2014: 59). Like the ECSl changes, the monophthongizations had the same results in all the CSl dialects, but they were the preludes to developments with dialectally differentiated outcomes (4.4−4.6). The latter are treated as MCSl changes here if their isoglosses divide a unified WSl from SSl and ESl − that is, if CzSlk patterns with Lech. This distribution can be interpretated as follows: P-WSl extended into the Northern European Plain, which attenuated its contact with the other dialects, but it was still internally cohesive because all of its dialects were on the same side of the Carpathians. The P-ESl zone had been attenuated by northward migrations; thus pre-Novgorodian (Novg) patterned as a periphery to the central zone represented by P-SSl and P-ESl.

4.1. Monophthongizations of glide diphthongs ECSl had falling diphthongs with coda *i̯ and *u̯ before consonants or the word boundary. These tautosyllabic diphthongs became long/tense monophthongs: (1) PSl *ai̯ > LCSl1 *æ (Slavistic ě2 ), merging with the reflex of inherited *ɛ: (1); PSl *εi̯ > LCSl1 *i (Slavistic i2 ), merging with the reflex of inherited *i: (2); and PSl *au̯, *ɛu̯ > LCSl1 *u (Slavistic u2 ) (3−4). Heterosyllabic sequences of the same vowels and glides did not undergo monophthongization; examples from the same roots are included in the table for comparison. PSl (1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

MCSl1

LCSl1

OCS

OESl

*kai̯ na:

j

*k ɛ:2na:

*tsæna

cěna

cěna

*kai̯ ɛti sɛ:m

*kai̯ ɛti sɛ˜:

*kai̯ ɛtɪ sɛ˜

kajetъ sę

*sɛi̯ tad

*se:2ta

*sitɔ

*sɛi̯ ɛti

*sɛ:i̯ ɛti

*da:rau̯i̯ ai̯ s *da:rau̯a:tεi̯

OCz

OPo

Gloss

cěna

!

cena

‘penalty; price’

kajetь s ja

kaje sě

kaje się

‘repent (PRS.3SG)’

Bg sito

sito

síto

sito

‘sifter’

*sæi̯ ɛtɪ

sějetъ

sějеtь

sěje

sieje

‘sow (PRS.3SG)’

*-ɔ:i̯ ɛ:2

*-ui̯ i

darui

darui

daruj

daruj

‘bestow (IMP.2SG)’

*-au̯a:te:

*-ɔvati

darovati

darovati

darovati

darować

‘bestow’

j

*rɛu̯i̯ ɛna2s

*rɔ:i̯ ɛnu

*rui̯ ɛnǝ

MBg r jujenъ

r ujenъ

řújen

‘September’

*rɛu̯ants

*rɛu̯-

*rɛu̯

revy

revy

řeva

‘bellow (PRAP.M)’

The split of tautosyllabic and heterosyllabic *au̯ created allomorphy in Leskien III verbs with stems in *-au̯- (3). The resulting morphophonemic alternation is still productive in the denominal suffix -ova-: Cz googlovat|googluje, Ru guglovat’|guglujet ‘Google (INF|PRS.3SG)’.

81. The phonology of Slavic

1457

The monophthongizations took place in several phases. First, the vowels assimilated to the tonality of the glides, if different: before *i̯ , *a became advanced *a̟, with the tongue slightly domed and closer to the palate; before u̯, *a, *ɛ became slightly rounded *a̹, *ɛ̹. Second, the vowels tensed in partial assimilation to the close, peripheral articulation of the glide: *a̟i̯ > *a̟ˑi̯ , *εi̯ > *εˑi̯ , *a̹u̯ > *a̹ˑu̯, and *ɛ̹u̯ > *ɛ̹ˑu̯ > *i̯ a̹ˑu̯. The breaking of the *ɛ̹ into a high-tonality opening and a low-tonality nucleus is a well-attested type of change. The front on-glide conditioned dental palatalization (3.6), which was not ordinarily an effect of *ɛ. Afterwards, it was reinterpreted as an off-glide of the preceding consonant, in accordance with the general CSl pattern (see 3.3, 3.6, 3.7.1). After labials, it became *l (3.7.2). The stage of monophthongizations proper is designated MCSl1. The tensed vowels became more moved along the peripheral track: *a̟ˑi̯ > *æˑi̯ encroached on *εˑi̯ , which rose to *eˑi̯ ; *a̹ˑu̯ > *ɔˑu̯. The glides were then revaluated as the closing phases of the long/tense vowels: [eˑi̯ ] 0 /*e:/ → [e:(i̯ )]; [*æˑi̯ ] 0 /ɛ:/ → [ɛ:(i̯ )], merging with inherited *ɛ: (a near-open vowel); and [a̹ˑu̯] 0 /ɔ:/ → [ɔ:(u̯)]. The dephonologized off-glides were later eliminated by deductive changes. The final stage, designated MCSl2, the mid- or close-mid monophthongs rose one cardinal position. Thus *e: merged with the reflex of inherited *i:. In rising, *ɔ: encroached on the space of inherited *u:1, which moved into the central vowel space (see 4.3); *ɔ: then occupied the vacated close back space as *u:2. As a result of the monophthongizations, the inherited ablaut relations ceased to be transparent in syllables that had been diphthongal. Thus the ablaut series *i|*εi̯ |*ai̯ became *i|*i:2 |* ɛ:2 (5), while *u|*ɛu̯|*au̯ became *u|*i̯ u:2 |*u:2 (6). Grade (5)

(6)

PSl

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

Zero

*ku̯itεti

cvьtetъ

cvьtetь

kv(e)te

‘bloom (PRS.3SG)’

Full e

*praku̯εi̯ tɛt

procvite

procvite

prokvite

‘bloom (AOR.3SG)’

Full o

*ku̯ai̯ ta2s

cveˇtъ

cveˇtъ

květ

Zero

*budɛ:tεi̯

bъdeˇti

bъdeˇti

bdieti

j

kwiat

‘be alert’

j

Full e

*bɛu̯d-anti

bl udǫtъ

bl udutь

Full o

*(au̯)bau̯di:tεi̯

ubuditi

(u)buditi

‘flower’

‘watch (PRS.3PL )’ (u)buditi

budzić

‘awaken’

4.1.1. Chronology As the reflex of *ai̯ did not condition the 1VP (3.2), it evidently was not yet a front vowel during that period. The reflex of *ɛu̯ was not yet a close vowel at the time of Vowel Fronting, since it had a different fate from inherited *i̯ u: (see 3.3). (On the relative chronology of monophthongization and the Progressive Palatalization, see 4.6) The monophthongizations sensu stricto had not begun during the main period of contacts with EGmc (ca. 2nd−4th cc.), since both borrowed and inherited *au̯ and *ai̯

1458

XIII. Slavic

underwent the same changes (5). However, the changes were at the MCSl1 stage by the time of early contacts with WGmc and Rom (from ca. 5th c.). Foreign *ɔ: or o: (6) was adapted as *ɔ:, the reflex of *au̯, prior to its rise to *u:2 in MCSl2. Gk toponyms of Sl origin, dating at earliest from the late 6th−early 7th centuries, were accessed during the MCSl1 stage, as the *au̯ reflex was rendered «ο, ω» rather than «ου»: PSl *strau̯mɛn‘stream’ ⥬ Στρώμην; PSl *sau̯x- ‘dry’ ⥬ Σωχός, Σοχᾶς. Similarly, early BFi borrowings (probably 7th−8th centuries) show a MCSl1 reflex of *au̯: PSl *gau̯minad ‘threshing floor’ ⥬ Votic kōmina, Vepsian gomin, Karelian kuomino, Eastern Finnish kuomina (from *ō). MCSl1

Source (5)

(6)

OCS

Go kausjan

⥬

Go kaisar

⥬

*kɛ:2sa:ri

ceˇsar ь

Go leihwan

⥬

*li:xu̯a:

La rōsālia

⥬

*rɔ:2sa:lii̯ -

*(is)kɔ:2si:ti:2

iskusiti

OESl

OPo

Gloss

zkusiti

kusić

‘test; taste’

ceˇsar ь

ciesař

cesarz

‘king, emperor’

lixva

lixva

lichva

lichwa

‘usury’

rusaliję

rusalija

j

kusiti

OCz

j

‘(pre-)Pentecost’

4.1.2. Alternative approaches The monophthongizations have been interpreted in strikingly different ways. In one approach (e.g. Jakobson 1963), the vowel and glide metathesized in obedience to the Law of Open Syllables; the vowel was lengthened and raised: *εi̯ > *i̯ e: > i:2, *ai̯ > *i̯ ɛ:2, *au̯ > *u̯ɔ: > *u:2. However, the *εu̯ outcome cannot be explained by metathesis (**u̯e:), so an intensity shift is posited instead (*i̯ u:2). This approach does not account for why dentals and labials underwent iotation changes before *i̯ u:2, but not before *i̯ e: and *i̯ ɛ:2; nor does it provide a coherent motivation for the lengthening and raising of the vowels. Another approach (Feldstein 2003) assumes that the diphthongs were not VV̯ but VV (“equal vocalic components”, ibid.: 249). When the components matched in tonality, the first assimilated totally to the second: *a͡u > *u͡u; *ä͡i > *i͡i (*ä = *ɛ in the present notation). When they differed in tonality, frontness spread from one to the other; then one assimilated totally to the other in sonority: *a͡i > *ä͡i > *ä͡ä; *ä͡u > *ä͡ü > *ü͡ü (*ü = *u̟ in the present notation). The notion of “total assimilation” conflicts with the evidence that there was an intermediate stage with mid-vowels (MCSl1, 4.1.1). The author does not explain why “total assimilation” proceeded right to left for *a͡i, but left to right elsewhere; nor does he account for how his *ü(:) avoided merger with the front(ed) rounded vowel *u̟: (3.3), which was still labialized at the time of the Progressive Velar Palatalization (see 4.3, 4.6). He treats the development of *i̯ before *u̟u̟ (*üü) not as an integral outcome of the monophthongization but as a separate (and ad-hoc) change that “provided additional redundancy” for frontness combined with rounding (ibid.: 261).

4.1.3. Unexpected outcomes Final *-ai̯ has the regular outcome *ɛ:2 in some endings, e.g. PSl *zei̯ mai̯ > OCS, OESl, OCz zimě, OPo zimie ‘winter (DAT/LOC)’. However, in four endings they are said to have

81. The phonology of Slavic

1459

yielded *-i:2. Of these, the DAT.SG enclitic personal pronouns − OCS mi (1SG), ti (2SG), si (REFL ) − can be excluded. Though compared with Gk μοι, σοι, they are more likely to be the regular outcomes of PSl *mɛi̯ , *tɛi̯ , *sɛi̯ ; the same ending occurred in the DAT.SG of i- and consonant-stem nouns (OCS pǫt-i ‘road’, dьn-i ‘day’), cf. OPr mennei, tebbei, sebbei, Li †manie, †tavie, †savie. The remaining endings almost certainly do go back to *-ai̯ , since they triggered the 2VP (4.4) rather than the 1VP (3.2): o-stem M.NOM.PL *u̯ilkai̯ > OCS vlъci, OESl vьlci, OCz vlci, OPo wilcy ‘wolves’; Leskien I−II IMP.2SG|3SG: *mag-ai̯ -s/-t > OCS modzi, OESl, OCz mozi ‘dare’. Moreover, forms of the imperative where the diphthong was non-final have the expected outcome *ɛ:2: OCS modzěte, OESl mozěte, OCz mozěte (IMP.2PL ). The problematic endings can be treated as analogical to inflection types with thematic *-i̯ - (i̯ o-stem nouns and Leskien III verbs). Alternatively, one could posit that *-ai̯ C# regularly became *-i:2, if the o-stem NOM.PL is reconstructed with a final *-s (cf. i-stem *-ii̯ ɛs, u-stem *-au̯ɛs, consonant-stem *-ɛs).

4.2. Monophthongization of vowel-nasal diphthongs In MCSl, tautosyllabic vowel-nasal diphthongs became unitary nasal vowels: *aN, *un > LCSl1 *ɔ˜ (1), and *ɛn, *in > LCSl1 *ɛ˜. These are the sounds represented by the OCS “jusy” ѫ (ǫ) and ѧ (ę), respectively. (For their outcomes in the individual Sl languages, see 5.2.2) PSl (1)

(2)

(3)

MCSl1

LCSl1

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

*anzuka2s

*ã:zu:ku

*ɔ˜zɨkǝ

ǫzъkъ

uzъkъ

úzký

wąski

‘narrow’

*ranka:m

*rã:kã:

*rɔ˜kɔ˜

rǫkǫ

ruku

ruku

rękę

‘hand (ACC)’

*galumbis

*galũ:bi

*golɔ˜bɪ

golǫbь

golubь

holub

gołąbek

‘dove’

pameˇt

pamięć

‘memory’

*pa:mintis

*pa:mĩ:ti

*pamɛ˜tɪ

pamętь

j

pam atь j

i

*zɛntis

*zɛ˜:ti

*zɛ˜tɪ

zętь

z atь

zeˇt [ e]

zięć [ɛ˜]

‘son-inlaw’

*za:i̯ inka2s

*za:ĩ:c̟u

*zaɛ˜tsɪ

zajęcь

zajacь

zajiec

Po zając

‘hare’

lahú

lęgą

‘lie down (PRS.3PL )’

*lɛnganti

*lɛ˜:gã:ti

*lɛ˜gɔ˜tɪ

lęgǫtъ

j

l agutь

The development of nasal vowels took place in three phases. First, the vowels underwent assimilatory nasalization: /VN/ → [ṼN]/__{C, #}. Second, the nasals were reinterpreted as the closing phases of the vowels: [ṼN] → /Ṽ:/ → [Ṽ(N)]. In other words, they were revaluated as transitions to the closure (complete or partial) of the following units. Concomitantly, their distinctive tonality (*m or *n) was ascribed to the following consonants. Thus syllable-final nasals ceased to exist as phonologically independent units. The new nasal vowels were redundantly long, preserving the mora count of the old diphthongs. The stage that resulted from these first two phases is designated MCSl1, corresponding to the monophthongization phase of vowel-glide diphthongs (see 4.1). In the next phase, MCSl2, *ã: and *ũ: merged as mid-back rounded *ɔ˜: (Slavistic ǫ), and *ĩ: and

1460

XIII. Slavic

*ɛ˜: as (open-)mid-front ɛ˜: (Slavistic ę). It is not problematic that the merger involved both lowering of the close vowels and raising of the (near-) open ones. Cross-linguistically, close nasal vowels tend to be perceived as more open, and open nasal vowels as more close, than their oral counterparts. Presumably, the mergers were also facilitated by the relative perceptual difficulty of distinguishing between nasal vowels, as compared with their oral counterparts (see Ohala 1975: 294). (The existence of a separate MCSl1 stage, with distinct *ĩ: and *ɛ˜: vowels, is indicated by the fact that the Progressive Velar Palatalization occurred after *in, but not after *ɛn; see 4.6) ˜̄ The monophthongization created morphophonemic alternations between VN and V in nasal-stem verbs (Leskien Ia and IIIa) (4−5) and in neuter n-stem nouns (6). In addition, it obscured the ablaut patterns in inceptive verbs with infixed *n in the present system (7−8). PSl (4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

MCSl1

MCSl2

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

*dumtεi̯

*dũ:te:2

*dɔ˜:ti

dǫti

duti

dúti

dąć

‘blow’

*dumɛti

*dumɛti

*dʊmɛti

dъmetъ

dъmetь

dme

dmie

(PRS.3SG)

*na:kintεi̯

*na:tʃĩ:te:2 *na:tʃɛ˜:ti:

nacˇęti

nacˇati

načieti

naczęć

‘begin (INF )’

*na:kinɛti

*na:tʃinɛti

nacznie

(PRS.3SG)

*plɛdmɛ:n

*plɛmɛ˜:

*na:tʃinɛti nacˇьnetъ nacˇьnetь načne j

*plɛmɛ˜:

plemę

plem a

plémě

plemę

‘tribe’

*plɛdmɛnɛs *plɛmɛnɛ

*plɛmɛnɛ

plemene

plemene

plémene

plemene

(GEN)

*bunda:m

*bũ:dã:

*bɔ˜:dɔ˜:

bǫdǫ

budu

budu

będę

‘be (PRS.1SG)’

*bu:xum

*bu:xu

*bɨ:xʊ

byxъ

byxъ

bych

bych

(AOR.1SG)

j

*lɛnga:m

*lɛ˜:gã:

*lɛ˜:gɔ˜:

lęgǫ

l agu

lahu

lęgą

‘lie (PRS.1SG)’

*lɛgtεi̯

*lɛte:2

*lɛc̟i:

lesˇti

lecˇi

léci

lec

‘lie’

4.2.1. For Feldstein (2003), this change, like the other CSl monophthongizations, involved gemination in a diphthong defined as “equal vocalic components” (Feldstein 2003: 249) − i.e. VN̥. The first portion assimilated to the nasality of the second, which then assimilated to the sonority of the first: VN̥ > ṼN > ṼṼ (Feldstein 2003: 262−263). However, the starting nucleus VN̥ is typologically improbable, whereas the assimilation/ monophthongization process described in 4.2 is well attested cross-linguistically.

4.3. Delabialization of *u(:)1 and *u (:)1 As mentioned in 4.1, as *ɔ: (from PSl *au̯, *ɛu̯) rose, it impinged on the phonetic space of inherited *u:1. As a result, *u:1 centralized and delabialized, not necessarily in that order (1): *u: > (*ɯ >) *ɨ: (Slavistic y). Short *u underwent a parallel centralization (2): *u > MCSl2 *ʊ or *ɵ (2); however, its reflex was still somewhat rounded in LCSl, at least in some peripheral dialects (see 5.1.1, 5.7). These developments evidently added

81. The phonology of Slavic

1461

to the push-chain: *u̟(:), which had arisen after palatals (see 3.3), moved into the front vowel space and eventually merged with *i(:) (3). This merger had not yet happened in the early phases of the Progressive Velar Palatalization (4.6), which was conditioned by *i(:) but not *u̟(:). PSl

MCSl2

LCSl1

OSb

OESl

OCz

OPo

(1)

*magu:la:

*magɨ:la:

*mogyla

mogyla

mogyla

Cz mohyla

mogiła

‘tumulus’

(2)

*supna2s

*sʊnʊ

*sʊnʊ

sъnъ

sъnъ

sen

sen

‘sleep’

(3)

*si̯ u:tεi̯

*ʃu̟(:)ti:2

*ʃiti

šiti

šiti

šíti

szyć

‘sew’

*si̯ uu̯a2s

*ʃu̟u̯ʊ

*ʃiu̯ʊ

sˇьvь

sˇьvъ

sˇev

szew

‘seam’

Gloss

Some of the Balkan Rom (post-Vulgar La) dialects with which migrating Slavophones had contact had front rounded vowels *u̟ and *o̟. These were adapted as MCSl *u̟: (4) or, after non-palatals, *i̯ u̟: (5), with the vowel diphthongized to accommodate CSl phonotactics (cf. 3.4). As shown in (5), *i̯ caused dental palatalization (see 3.6); then it was eliminated after palatals, in accordance with the usual CSl pattern (see 3.7). (Cf. Lombard lačüga. La lactūca could not have been the direct source of MCSl *lac̟u̟ :ka:, as *kt would be expected to yield *t; nor can the donor have been ERom: Romanian lăptucă.) MCSl2

Source (4) (5)

(6)

LCSl1

OSb

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

Rom *ʒu̟:d-

⥬

*ʒidʊ

židь

židъ

žid

żyd

‘Jew’

Rom *latu̟:k-

⥬

*loc̟ika

Cr loćika

Ru ločiga

locika

ƚocyga

‘lettuce’

Rom *cro̟:ʒ-

⥬

*kru̟:ʒi

*kriʒɪ

križь

križь

kříž

krzyż

‘Cross’

OHG mûta

⥬

*mu:1ta-

*mɨto

myto

myto

mýto

myto

‘toll’

*ʒu̟:du *lac̟u̟:ka:

The delabialization of *u(:) had not yet taken place during early Migration-Period (probably 6th−7th-c.) contacts with Gk and La. Slavophone settlers in Byzantine Dalmatia adapted the *u(:) of Rom toponyms as their own *u(:)1 (>*ɨ: > OCr i): Tragurium > MCSl1 *tragu:ri- > LCSl1 *trogɨrɪ > Trogir; Scardona > *skardu:na ⥬ MCSl1 *skardu:nu > LCSl1 *skardɨnʊ > Skradin. Likewise, Slavophones adapted OHG u: as their own MCSl1 *u:1 (> *ɨ:) rather than MCSl2 *u:2 (6). Conversely, Frankish sources of the 7th−8th centuries render CSl *u:1 as u rather than, say, i, oi, or ui: *u̯aldu:ka: ‘ruler’ ⥬ Walducus; *dabramu:slis ⥬ Dabramuzli. Similarly, some Gk loanwords and toponyms of CSl provenience, presumably dating from the early period of settlements (late 6th− 7th-centuries) show u (ου) for *u(:)1 instead of ü (υ) or i (ι, ει, η): *magu:la: (1) ⥬ μαγούλα ‘hill’ (also well represented in toponyms); *buz- ‘elderberry’ ⥬ Βούζι[ον] (toponym), cf. Bg bu˘z, BCS baz, Ru boz, Cz, Po bez.

1462

XIII. Slavic

4.4. Second Regressive Palatalization of Velars The Second Palatalization of Velars (2VP) was conditioned by the reflexes of PSl *ai̯ (see 4.1) − MCSl1 *ɛ:2 (1−2), and *i: from *ai̯ C# (3−4). It was also triggered by *i(:) in Migration-Period loanwords (5). It was the first CSl sound change to have dialectally diverse outcomes: *k > ts, *g > (d)z, but *x > ʃ in WSl, x j in Novg, and s elsewhere. These isoglosses suggest that the 2VP was happening as P-WSl speakers were migrating north of the Carpathians, and as P-ESl (P-Novg) speakers moved into northwestern Russia (see 1.1.2). PSl (1)

(2)

2VP1

OCS

OESl

Novg kěle

OCz

*kai̯ la2s

*k jɛ:2lu

cělъ

cělъ

*gai̯ lad

*g jɛ:2la

dzělo

zělo

zielo

*xai̯ ra2s

*x jɛ:2ru

MBg sěrъ

sěrъ

šěrý

*xai̯ ris

*x jɛ:2ri

*rankai̯

j

*rã:k ɛ:2

xěrь rǫcě

rucě

cělý

OPo caƚy

‘whole’ ‘strongly’

szary

šěř rucě

Gloss

‘grey’ ‘grey cloth’

ręce

‘hand (DAT/ LOC.SG)’

*nagai̯

*nag jɛ:2

nodzě

nozě

nozě

nodze

‘leg (NOM/ ACC.DU)’

(3) (4) (5)

*rikai̯ s *dau̯xai̯

*rik ji:2 j

*dɔ:x i:2 j

ˇrci/rci

rzec

‘say (IMP.2SG)’

dusi

duši

duszy

‘spirit (NOM.PL )’

rьci

rьci

dusi

reki

Go *kiriko:

⥬*k irku:

crьky

cьrky

crkev

cierkiew

‘church’

Rom *acitǝ

*akitu

ocьtъ

ocьtъ

ocet

ocet

‘vinegar’

Gmc Regin

⥬*rɛg jina

Řezno

‘Regen(sburg)’

The change proceeded in several phases. In 2VP1, velars developed fronted allophones, probably with palatal coarticulation: *k > *k j, *g > *g j, *x > *x j. This stage is attested in Novg, on the northeastern periphery. In 2VP2, the palatalized velars became palatals: *k j > *c̟, *g j > *ɟ, *x j > *ç. At this stage, P-WSl *ç merged with alveopalatal *ʃ from 1VP *x and from *si̯ (3.2, 3.6). In 2VP3, the palatals became dentals with palatal coarticulation: *c̟ > *t j, *ɟ > *d j, and, in P-ESl and P-SSl, *ç > *s j. The dental stops became affricates in all dialects: *t j > *ts j, *d j > *dz j (Slavistic c, dz or ʒ, and š). The voiced affricate was preserved as such in E-SSl, Slk, and Lech; otherwise it was lenited to *z j except when there was a preceding *z (see [11] below). For 2VP *x j, CenSlk has twofold reflexes − WSl ʃ in non-alternating environments, and quasi-SSl s stem-finally: šerý ‘grey’, but blcha|blse ‘flea (NOM|LOC)’; cf. OCz blcha|blšě ‘flea’ (PSl *bluxa:). The mixed outcome may be due to language contact; prior to the 10th c., CenSlk neighbored W-SSl, and it has SSl-like reflexes from certain

81. The phonology of Slavic

1463

other changes. It is also conceivable that the *s was analogical to the velar-to-dental mutations from *k and *g (2). The 2VP reflexes of *sk j (6−8) and the rare *zg j (9) show a more complicated dialect split. For SSl, WSl, and Novg, the outcomes were homorganic with the *x j reflexes. Thus, SSl had palatalized dental *s jts j and *z jdz j; with the loss of palatal coarticulation, these are reflected as st(s) (ts in some dialects) and zd. WSl had alveopalatal *ʃtʃ and *ʒdʒ; these became ʃc̟ [št’] and ʒɟ [žd’] in WCz. The alveopalatal outcomes in WSl presuppose that the sibilants first assimilated to the palatal (co)articulation of the stops: *sk j > *s jk j (or *sc̟) > *s jc̟; *zg j >*z jg j (or *zɟ) >*z jɟ. This may also have occurred in the other dialects; cf. the reflex ʃk that appears in a few lexemes in ESl (8), as well as in CzSlk (OCz sˇkieřiti~ščeřiti), if it is not affective in origin. However, only in WSl were the palatalized sibilants identified with the pre-existing alveopalatal fricatives, which conditioned the progressive assimilation of the stops. PSl

2VP1 j

SSl

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

(6)

*-isk-

*-isk i:i̯ i:

OCS -ьscii

-ьstii

-ščí

-szczy

‘folk (M.NOM.PL )’

(7)

*skai̯ g-

*sk jɛ:2g-

OSb (s)cěglь

scěglъ

Cz sˇtíhlý

szczegelny

‘alone’; Cz ‘slim’

*skai̯ p-

*sk jɛ:2p-

OSb (s)cěpit

skěpanije

ščiepati

szczepać

‘splinter(ing)’

(8)

*skai̯ r-

*sk jɛ:2r-

BCS cȅriti se

Uk sˇkiryty

sˇkieřiti

szczerzyć się

‘grimace’

(9)

*drɛnzgai̯

*drɛ˜:zg jɛ:2

OCS dręzdě

dr jazdě

*mai̯ zgai̯

*mɛ:2zg jɛ:2

‘forest (LOC)’ míeždie

Po miażdże

‘sap (DAT/LOC)’

†

In Novg, where the palatalization halted at the 2VP1 stage, the reflex is *sk j, as expected: proskipomъ ‘pierced through (PRPP.M.INDEF )’. Less expectedly, the same reflex is well attested in OESl texts of non-Novg origin: rusьskěi ‘Rus’ (F.LOC.SG.DEF )’; *skai̯ p- > skěpanije ‘splintering’, oskěpъ ‘spear’, (o)skěpišče ‘spear shaft’, poskěpaša ‘hack up (AOR.3PL )’; *skai̯ mεi̯ m- > skěmim- ‘press (PRPP)’, cf. (7). The same outcome is attested in the modern languages: Uk skipka ‘chip’, BR skepka ‘pinch’, SRu raskep ‘split’. However, in OESl texts, *sk j is more often reflected as sts or st, and *zg j is meagerly reflected as zd: rusьscěi~rusьstěi; dr jazdě (9). These OCS-like reflexes appear only in alternating (stem-final) position (6, 9); in root-initial position, st is unattested, and sts only crops up in the rare word scěglъ (7), an element of the ChSl register borrowed from OCS. This points to the conclusion that the alternation sk|st arose in imitation of OCS protographs; this was probably true for sts, though that could also develop by analogy to the alternation of non-cluster k|ts. There are also lexemes in which 2VP *sk j seems to be reflected as quasi-WSl ʃtʃ: Uk ščemyty, BR ščemic’, Ru ščemit’ ‘press’; Uk ščepyty, BR ščepac’, Ru ščepit’ ‘splinter’. However, these are probably e- or zero-grades with the regular 1VP reflex of *sk j; cf. Ru ščomy ‘pincers’ (*skim- or *skem-), OPo szczmić ‘press’ (*skim-); OESl ščьpь ‘wan-

1464

XIII. Slavic

ing crescent moon’, ščopy ‘splinters’, OCz ščpieti ‘produce a stinging odor’ (*skip-); Uk ščyryty ‘bare one’s teeth’ (*skεi̯ r-), contrast sˇkiryty (8), reflecting o-grade of the same root. These lexemes aside, the evidence points to *sk j as the pan-ESl − not just Novg − reflex of *sk j. In ESl, as in WSl, the preceding sibilant evidently arrested the coronalization process. In relative chronology, the terminus a quo for 2VP1 is generally considered to be the monophthongization of *ai̯ (4.1). In a late-6th-c. Byzantine text, Κελαγάστου (GEN), the name of an Antae emissary, probably renders pre-2VP2 *kɛ:2 lagast-; cf. OCS cěl‘healthy’ and gostь ‘guest’. For E-SSl, the phonological constraints introduced by the change were still active in the 860s, when the protographs of the OCS manuscripts were composed − hence the perceived need for a special Glagolitic letter «`» (misleadingly transliterated ћ) to render foreign «g» before a front vowel; the scribes sometimes replaced it with «g» (g̑eorgii ‘George’), or hypercorrected «g» to «ћ» (golъgota ~ ћolъћota|ћelъћota ‘Golgotha’). The 2VP created several stem alternations: in the ā-stem DAT/LOC (2) and NOM/ ACC.DU (2); in the o-stem LOC, M.NOM.PL (4), and LOC.PL, and N.NOM/ACC. DU; and in the IMP of velar-stem verbs (3). These alternations have been leveled out over time in some of the Sl languages.

4.5. Ku  clusters The 2VP (4.4) was, for the most part, blocked if there were consonants between the velar and the potential trigger (1). However, in some dialects, palatalization seems to have proceeded without hindrance in Ku̯ clusters. This took place in SSl and non-peripheral ESl dialects, but not in WSl or Novg; thus the isogloss essentially matches that of the 2VP. The change was conditioned not only by *ɛ:2 (2) but also by inherited *i (3) and *i:2 from *εi̯ (4) − front vowels that would have triggered the 1VP in immediately preceding velars. However, if the target velar was preceded by *s, the palatalization was blocked in all dialects (5). PSl (1) (2)

*gnai̯ zda-

OCS gneˇzdo

OESl

OCz

OPo

gneˇzdo

†

Novg/NRu j

hniezdo

gniazdo

‘nest’

j

kveˇt

kwiat

‘flower’

gn ezdo

Gloss

*ku̯ai̯ ta2s

cveˇtъ

cveˇtъ

†

*gu̯ai̯ gzda:

(d)zveˇzda

zveˇzda

gveˇzdъkeˇ

hveˇzda

gwiazda

‘star’

kv(e)te

kwicie

‘bloom (PRS.3SG)’

hvízd-

gwizd-

‘whistle’; Novg toponym

kv et

(3)

*ku̯itεti

cvьtetъ

cvьtetь

†

j

(4)

*gu̯εi̯ zd-

BCS zvȋzd

zvizd-

Pogvizdъ

(5)

*skvirna:

skvrъna

skvьrna

kv et-

skvrna

‘filth’

Prima facie, it is odd that the lip rounding and low tonality of *u̯ did not block the 2VP. Rather than assuming that *u̯ was somehow “transparent” for the 2VP when *n, *r, *l

81. The phonology of Slavic

1465

were not, it can be posited that *u̯ first underwent assimilatory fronting between velars and front vowels, at least in non-peripheral zones: *u̯ >*ɥ /K__V[+front]. Thus, in (2), PSl *ku̯ai̯ t- > *ku̯ɛ:2 t- > *kɥɛ:2 t- > *k jɥɛ:t- > *c̟ɥɛ:t- *tsɥɛ:t-. The posited labiopalatal glide − a more natural conduit for the 2VP than *u̯ − would not be isolated in place or manner of articulation; syllabic [u̟(:)] (IPA [y(:)]), reflecting PSl *i̯ u(:) (3.3) existed at the time of the Progressive Palatalization (4.6). (For other changes with progressiveregressive conditioning, see 3.6.1 and 4.6)

4.6. Progressive Palatalization The Progressive Velar Palatalization (PVP) or Palatalization of Baudouin de Courtenay was triggered by the reflexes of PSl syllabic *i(:)1 (1) and *in (2). The attested reflexes are the same as those of the 2VP: *k > c , *g > dz, and *x > WSl ʃ, SSl and ESl s(j). The affricate dz is attested in E-SSl, Slk, and Lech; elsewhere it lenited to z prior to the historical period. The PVP had two phases. In PVP1, the articulation changed from velar to fronted dorsal: *k > *k j > *c̟; *g > *g j > *ɟ; and *x > *x j > *ç. In PVP2, the reflexes coronalized and assibilated: *c̟ > *t j > *ts j; *ɟ > *d j > *dz j; *ç > *ʃ in WSl, *s j in SSl and ESl. The voiced affricate *dz j was preserved on the NW and SE peripheries (Lech and parts of E-SSl) but lenited elsewhere. It is sometimes posited that the PVP and 2VP were a single change (see 4.6.2); a less controversial position is that PVP2 and 2VP2 were a single change. The PVP was more precisely progressive-regressive: velars were regularly affected only before *a(:). By contrast, the 1VP reflexes (see 3.2) appear before PSl *ɛ(:), *i(:), and *i̯ (3), and no palatalization at all occurs before PSl *u(:) (4). The blocking effect of *u(:) is evident where the PSl velar was always followed by the same vowel, as in (4). When the PSl velar was stem-final, before alternating desinences, there was allomorphy between velars and PVP reflexes. This was leveled out − not always in favor of the PVP outcome; for *stiga: (1), cf. OSlk Prěsteg (toponym); Ru †stega; Ru zgi in ni zgi ni vidno ‘pitch-black’ (literally, ‘the path could not be seen’). PSl (1)

(2)

PVP1

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

*li:kad

*li:c̟a

lice

lice

líce

lice

‘face’

*atika:d

*atic̟a:

otьca

otьca

otceˇ

otca

‘father (GEN)

*stiga:

*stiɟa:

stь(d)za

stьza

stzeˇ

śćdza

‘path’

*u̯ixad

*u̯iça

vьse

vьse

vsˇe

wsze-

‘all (N)’

j

*mɛ:sinka:d

*mɛ:sĩ:c̟a:

meˇsęca

meˇs ac

meˇsieceˇ

miesięca

‘moon (GEN)’

⥬

*kuninga-

*kunĩ:ɟa:

kъnędza

kъn jaza

kneˇzě

księdza

‘prince (GEN)’

⥬

*pɛ:ning-

*pɛ:nĩ:ɟ-

pěnędzь

pen jazь

peniez

pieniędz-

‘penny’

1466

XIII. Slavic PSl

PVP1

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

(3)

*atikɛ

*atitʃɛ

otьcˇe

otьcˇe

otcˇe

otcze

‘father (VOC)

(4)

*ligukad

*liguka

lьgъko

lьgъko

lehko

lekko

‘light (ADV)’

*kuningu:ni̯ i:

*kunĩ:gu:ni:

OSb knegyni

kъn jagyn ji

kněhně

¶

‘princess’

ksieni

Two relative chronologies should be noted. First, the reflexes of *u̟(:), from PSl *u(:) after palatals (3.3), were distinct from inherited *i(:) at the time of PVP1 (5); presumably, they were still labialized (IPA [y(:)]) or not fully fronted (IPA [ʉ(:)]). As the PVP was blocked before rounded *u(:), it makes sense that it should have been impeded after a rounded vowel. Second, PVP1 took place before MCSl2. Unlike *ĩ (from PSl *in), *ɛ˜ (from PSl *εn) did not condition the change, so the two nasal vowels were still distinct (6) (see 4.2, 4.4). Likewise, the reflex of *εi̯ , which was not a trigger (7), was still distinct from inherited *i:1, which was. (Apparent exceptions, e.g. OCS pomidzati, have morphological explanations; see 4.6.1). Scholars who treat the PVP1 as an ECSl phenomenon (see 4.6.2) argue that the nasal in PSl *in had become *ɲ between *i(:) and velars; this *ɲ was transparent or a trigger for PVP1, unlike the dental nasal in *ɛn. This ad-hoc explanation fails to explain why other consonants (*l, *r *s, and *z) did not retract (e.g., *l > *ʎ) in the same environment and remained “opaque” for PVP1. In any case, it is hard to swallow the notion that *ɲ would be a better vector for PVP1 than *i̯ (7−8). PSl (5)

PVP

LCSl1

*i̯ ugad

*i̯ u̟ga

*i̯ ɪgo

*bli:zi̯ u:ka:

*bli:ʒu̟(:)ka:

*bliʒika

OCS igo

OESl igo

OCz jho

OPo Po igo

Gloss ‘yoke’ ‘neighbor’

j

(6)

*tɛng-astis/-a(:)

*tɛ˜:g-

*tɛ˜g-

tęgostь

t agostь

teˇhost

cięga

‘weight’

(7)

*tεi̯ xad

*te:2xa

*tixo

tixo

tixo

ticho

cicho

‘quiet

(8)

*rai̯ ka:

*rɛ:2ka:

*ræka

reˇka

reˇka

rˇeˇka

rzeka

‘river’

Borrowings to and from Sl indicate that PVP1 was operating in the 6th−7th centuries. Thus *pɛ:ning- (2) came from a source with WGmc umlaut (*panning- > *penning-; from the late 5th c.); the term is attested in WGmc from the mid-7th c. (There is no known cognate in EGmc; Go had skatts in the given meaning.) This terminus a quo corresponds to the period of Sl settlement in ECen Europe and hence more extensive contacts with WGmc. (For ‘shilling’, also borrowed from Gmc, Go could be the source: OCS skъlędzъ, OESl stьl jadzь, Cr †clez.) Likewise, P-Sln borrowed the La hydronym Longaticum before the completion of PVP1: *lãgatik- > Logatec. P-Sln settlements in the Eastern Alps date to the late 6th−7th centuries. P-ESSl toponyms in southern and central Greece have also been cited for absolute chronology: *au̯arik- ‘sycamore (DIM)’ ⥬ Ἀβαρῖκος; Γαρδίκι (attested in multiple locales) from *gardika2s ‘walled town’; etc. (Vasmer 1941: 301). These loanwords, probably accessed in the 6th−8th centuries, do not necessarily show the absence of PVP1, given

81. The phonology of Slavic

1467

the limitations of the Gk writing system and the possibility of leveling within Sl. The soft declension of Γαρδίκι may perhaps be due to non-Slavophone perceptions of CSl *k j or *c̟ as *ki. However, the loanwords may suggest that their Sl models had not completed PVP2 at the time of accession; cf. the cognate toponyms Ἀβαρινίτσα, Γαρδίτσα, which reflect PVP2. Vasmer (1941: 301−302) cautions that the Sl suffixes may have been contaminated with the Gk suffix -ikeia. It is debatable whether PVP2 tapered off on the northeastern periphery, as 2VP had (see 4.4−4.5). In Novg, *k after PVP triggers is mostly reflected as ts: otьcь ‘father (NOM)’, veˇvericeˇ ‘currency (NOM/ACC.PL )’ (*u̯ai̯ u̯eri:k-); exceptions may be analogical in origin. For *g in the PVP environment, Novg has k(ъ)n jaz- ‘prince’ but leg (÷lьg-) ‘be permitted’ (*lig-). The former could be a borrowing from Kievan; the latter could be due to stemleveling. For *x, there is a near-complete paradigm of *u̯ix- ‘all’ with stem-final x and hard type endings: voxo (÷vъxo), vъxoeˇ, etc., corresponding to Kievan OESl vьsь (M.NOM.SG), vьse (N.NOM/ACC.SG), vьseeˇ (F.GEN.SG). On this basis, Zaliznjak (2004: 45−46) concludes that P-Novg *x did not undergo the PVP. However, most of the relevant forms do not represent the PVP1 triggering environment, since they show the change of *u̯ix- > *u̯ux- (see Zaliznjak 2004: 54−55) − hence the spellings vъx- or vox- instead of vьx- or vex-. Zaliznjak suggests (2004) that the vowel backing did not occur when there was a front vowel in the following syllable, based on the form vьxemo (÷vьxeˇmъ DAT.PL; OESl vьseˇmъ). However, this may have been a contamination from ChSl or a mistake; the token dates from the time when “weak” ъ and ь were being lost. Cf. voxь (÷vъxe), with the early Novg hard-stem(!) M.NOM ending -e. Until the chronology of *u̯ix > *u̯ux- is clarified, the root ‘all’ cannot be considered secure evidence that P-Novg *x was unaffected by the PVP.

4.6.1. Leveling of stem alternants Several suffixes are attested both with and without PVP outcomes. While some of the variation may have arisen in the historical period, others are pan-Slavic. For example, in the suffix *-(in)i:k-, the generalization of the unpalatalized consonant to signal masculine and the palatalized one to signal feminine (or common gender) was undoubtedly prehistoric, as in the forms for ‘sinner’ in (1). PVP1

OCS

*-ini:ka:d

*-ini:k ja:

grěšьnika

*-ini:ka:

*-ini:k ja:

PSl (1)

(2)

*kli:ka:tɛi̯

j

*kli:k a:te:2

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

grěšьnika

hřiešníka

grzesznika

(M.GEN)

grěšьnica

grěšьnica

hřiešnicě

grzesznica

(F.NOM)

klicati

0

klícěti

klicati

‘shout’

0

klikati

(3)

*kli:knantɛi̯

*kli:knɔ˜:te:2

vъskliknǫti

kliknuti

*mirka:tɛi̯

*mirka:te:2

0

mьrkati

Bg †mrъka

0

mrъcati

mьrkati

‘shout (PFV)’ mrkati

‘grow dim’ Slc mjie̯řkac są

1468

XIII. Slavic

The expected outcomes have often been obscured by analogical extensions of stem allomorphs (PVP or non-PVP). For example, the alternations k|ts and g|dz were regular in some Leskien II−III aspectual pairs, as seen in (2). In some LCSl dialects, the alternations were extended to Leskien II−III pairs where the PVP had not been phonologically conditioned, e.g. when a consonant intervened between the trigger and the velar (3); cf. also OCS blьsnǫti | bliskati (regular)/bliscati (analogical) ‘shine’ (PFV|IPFV)’ (PSl *bli[:]sk-). Alternatively, the regularly palatalized imperfective stem could be leveled out on the model of the non-palatalized perfective, as seen in OESl klikati (2). One factor that promoted the leveling out of the PVP alternations was their semiotic vacuity in noun stems. The 1VP and 2VP alternations indexed specific endings; the basic allomorphs ended in velars. By contrast, the PVP alternations had no indexical value within paradigms: the distribution of *g and *dz was morphologically arbitary in *stidza:|*stigu:| *stidza:mu (NOM|GEN, NOM/ACC.PL|DAT.PL ), etc. as compared with unpalatalized *darga:| *dargu:|*darga:mu ‘road’. After *ɛi̯ became *i:2, the alternations were no longer predictable. If the basic stem ended in a PVP reflex, the direction of the alternations (high tonality → low tonality) was the reverse of the pattern seen in the 1VP and 2VP reflexes.

4.6.2. Chronological controversy The PVP is the most debated of the CSl changes. The main point of contention has been its chronology relative to the regressive palatalizations. There are four main schools of thought. In the earliest view (PVP 3 2VP), the PVP is a “special case” of the 2VP (see 4.4); the identity of reflexes points to a single event. In a second approach (PVP < 2VP), the PVP was the “Third Palatalization.” It began while the 2VP was in progress and continued for some some time after the 2VP ended. The rationale is that the PVP has more exceptions than the 2VP; this is taken to indicate that it happened when the CSl dialect continuum was less cohesive. However, this argument is not cogent; unlike the 2VP, the PVP only occurred where leveling could operate, and there are good reasons why the alternations it produced should be unstable (see above). In fact, there is no convincing evidence that the 2VP preceded the PVP. Whether the 2VP and the PVP should be treated as a single regressive-progressive change or as separate events is a moot point. In a third view (PVP1 > 2VP), PVP1 took place before the monophthongization that triggered the 2VP (4.1). The rationale for this claim is the fact that PSl *-ai̯ - was reflected as OCS -i- rather than -eˇ- in noun endings after PVP reflexes: otьci instead of *otьceˇ (LOC). This can be interpreted as a regular development, with vowel fronting conditioned by the PVP1 reflex: *atikai̯ > *atik ja̟i̯ > *atic̟εi̯ > otьci. However, another pattern has -eˇ- for PSl *-ai̯ - after the PVP reflexes (see below), and there are other facts that are hard to reconcile with the “PVP > 2VP” approach. The crucial -i- in noun endings has a simple morphological explanation: when the basic stem palatalized, the declension pattern appropriate for palatal stems was adopted wholesale, except for the marginal vocative (otьcˇe).

81. The phonology of Slavic

1469

A fourth view (PVP1 > 1VP) treats PVP1 as an ECSl phenomenon. Though initially proposed in a functionalist framework (Martinet 1955: 366−367), this approach became widespread under the influence of generative grammar, which ordered mutations from the PVP before those from the 1VP and 2VP. The argument goes that, as an intersyllabic change, PVP1 would have contradicted the later CSl trend toward syllabic synharmony (see 3.1); thus it must have occurred before the 1VP, like the other prominent progressive change, RUKI. The reflexes of PVP1 and the 1VP, it is argued, merged before front vowels; elsewhere, they remained stable until they merged with the 2VP reflexes. As PVP1 and vowel fronting (3.3) preceded monophthongization (4.1), the declension of nouns like otьcь|otьci|otьcˇe (NOM|LOC| VOC) is phonologically expected. Vocatives like otьc ˇ e and kъnęzˇe ‘prince’ are problematic for this approach; the original masculine i̯ o-stems − i.e., those whose stemfinal consonants were affected by the 1VP or dental palatalization − adopted the ustem VOC in CSl, e.g. OCS vracˇu ‘physician’ (*u̯arki̯ -). The PVP1 > 1VP viewpoint requires scrutiny because of its drastic ramifications for reconstruction. The crux is the relative chronology of monophthongization. There is consensus that the 1VP happened before *ai̯ >*ɛ:2, since the latter triggered the 2VP (4.4). Significantly, neither *ai̯ (*ɛ:2) nor *εi̯ (*e:2, MCSl2 *i:2) conditioned the PVP (1), even though palatal glides are typologically common triggers for velar palatalization. If *i̯ had the same tongue configuration as *i, its nonsyllabicity should not have blocked the PVP; the velar would have been the onset of a new syllable in any case. This suggests that PVP1 began after monophthongization, and hence after the 1VP. PSl (1)

PVP

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

*tεi̯ xad

*te:2xa

tixo

tixo

ticho

cicho

‘quiet’

*mεi̯ ga:tεi̯

*me:2ga:te:2

pomidzati

migati

míhati

migać się

‘wink’

*rai̯ ka:

*rɛ:2ka:

reˇka

reˇka

rˇeˇka

rzeka

‘river’

To circumvent this problem, the proponents of PVP > 1VP posit that the CSl diphthongs had non-close slopes − *ae̯ and *ie̯ instead of *ai̯ and *εi̯ . This solution is entirely ad hoc. While *i̯ can be reconstructed from other contexts, there is no such evidence for *e̯. As an opening diphthong, *ie̯ would be isolated in the CSl vowel system, and its glide would still have to become close at some point to yield the attested outcome *i:. Moreover, if *e̯ is supposed to be a mid or near-close vowel, its syllabic counterpart only arose as a consequence of monophthongization. Further evidence that monophthongization preceded the PVP comes from the different outcomes of the theme vowels in the pronominal-adjectival declension, PSl *-a- (2) and *-ai̯ - (3). In ECSl, a “soft” subdeclension emerged due to the fronting of *a to *ɛ and *ai̯ to *εi̯ after palatals, as seen in *na:si̯ - (3.3). Significantly, in the pronominal adjectives *si:k- and *u̯ix-, whose stems ended in PVP targets, thematic *a was fronted, but thematic *ai̯ was not. The resulting mixture of “hard” and “soft” endings was phonologically regular and morphologically conservative if *ai̯ monophthongized to *ɛ:2 before PVP1 began.

1470

XIII. Slavic PSl (2)

MCSl1

2VP

LCSl

*taga *na:si̯ aga

(3)

Fronting

*na:ʃɛga

OCS

Gloss

togo

‘this’ (M/N.GEN)

nasˇego

‘our’ (M/N.GEN)

*si:kaga

*si:k ja̟ga

*si:c̟ɛga

MBg sicego

‘such’ (M/N.GEN)

*u̯ixaga

*u̯ix ja̟ga

*u̯içɛga

vьsego

‘all’ (M/N.GEN)

*tɛ:2mi

teˇmь

*tai̯ mi

*tɛ:2mi

‘this’ (M/ N.INST )

*na:si̯ ai̯ mi

*na:ʃεi̯ mi

*na:ʃe:2mi

*na:ʃi:mi

nasˇimь

‘our’ (M/N.INST )

*si:kai̯ mi

*si:kɛ:2mi

*si:k jɛ:2mi

*si:c̟ɛ:2mi

siceˇmь

‘such’ (M/N.INST )

*u̯ixai̯ mi

*u̯ixɛ:2mi

*u̯ix jɛ:2mi

*u̯içɛ:2mi

vьseˇmь

‘all’ (M/N.INST )

If PVP1 had come first, *ai̯ would have been fronted to *εi̯ (LCSl *i:2); forms like siceˇmь and vьseˇmъ would then be highly irregular. To salvage the PVP > 1VP chronology, proponents have cast doubt on the antiquity of *si:k- and *u̯ix-, despite the fact that *u̯ix- has precise cognates in Ba (Lith vìsas, Latv viss, OPr wissa-). In addition, they argue that *si:k- and *u̯ix- adopted certain oblique “hard” endings after the PVP and fronting: *u̯içi:mi → *u̯içɛ:mi. Such a change would undo the otherwise regular “soft” declension pattern; it would have no motivation, unlike the wholesale adoption of softdeclension endings by nouns. There is no reason to assume that the pronouns would be more prone than nouns to undergo “peculiar innovations along with haphazard rearrangements of old materials,” as Lunt claims (1981: 86). All in all, the PVP > 1VP view requires too much special pleading to be credible.

4.6.3. Vowel Fronting after PVP Following the PVP reflexes, *a was fronted to *ɛ: PSl *li:cad > PVP1 *li:k ja > OCS, OESl, OPo lice, OCz líce (see 4.6). This is sometimes treated as a Second Vowel Fronting, but it probably was a new manifestation of a phonotactic constraint introduced after the “first” Vowel Fronting that followed the 1VP (see 3.3). In a related development, endings in *-ī˘(-) were substituted for pre-PVP *-u(:): *kuningu: 0 *kunĩ:g ji: > OESl kъn jazi ‘prince (INST.PL )’. This change must have been morphological rather than phonological in nature, given that the PVP was blocked by close back *u(:) (see 4.6).

81. The phonology of Slavic

1471

4.7. Reflexes of *t, *d As noted in 3.6, in the PSl clusters * ti̯ , * di̯ the stops developed retracted allophones *t, *d in assimilation to the palatal glides. Subsequently, the glides were reanalyzed as off-glides and, over time, eliminated (see 3.7). The PSl cluster *kt was also reflected as *t before front vowels (see 3.6.1). The precise articulation of *t, *d − e.g. [c̟, ɟ] or [t j, *d j] − was uncertain and may have differed by dialect. Their subsequent changes definitely occurred at different times in different dialects. The eventual reflexes fall into four zones − ESl, WSl, W-SSl, and E-SSl. By contrast, *sti̯ and *zdi̯ had uniform outcomes − *ʃtʃ and *ʒdʒ, merging with the 1VP reflexes of *sk, *zg (see 3.2). Evidently, the sibilants assimilated to *t, *d; they became hushers directly or were identified with the hushers produced by the 1VP and dental palatalization (see 3.6). Then retracted *t, *d developed fricative releases in assimilation to the hushers and were identified with the pre-existing *tʃ and *(d)ʒ. (Later, in ESSl, CzSlk, and some Ru dialects, the fricative-affricate clusters dissimilated to *ʃt, *ʒd.) MCSl1

PSl (1)

(2)

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

*pau̯sti̯ a:tɛi̯

*pɔʃtʃa:te:2

pusˇtati

pusˇcˇati

púsˇcˇeˇti

puszczać

‘release’

*bursti̭ a2s

*burʃtʃi

Sln br̀šč

boršč

Cz bršt’

barszcz

‘hogweed’

*duzdi̯ us

*duʒdʒi

dъzˇdь

dъzˇčь [ʒdʒ]

Slk dážd’

deżdż

‘rain’

Within ESl, the reflex of *zdi̯ in ‘rain’ (2) varies. The most frequent spelling žd, though OCS-like, may reflect a vernacular pronunciation ʒd, which is widely attested in Ru dialects. The outcome ʒdʒ is also widespread; in OESl texts of WUk origin, it is spelled «žč», with the letter for the voiceless affricate in the absence of one for the voiced. In OESl texts of northwestern, especially Novg, origin, the outcome was ʒg j («žg»). In P-ESl, *t and *d became alveopalatal affricates *tʃ (3) and *ʒ (4) in all environments. Thus they merged completely with the 1VP reflexes of *k, *g (see 3.2). This suggests that the development of fricative release was completed prior to the onset of the 2VP in P-ESl. PSl (3)

(4)

OESl

Uk

BR

Ru

ESl-ChSl

Gloss

*su̯ai̯ ti̯ a:

sveˇcˇa

svicˇa

svecˇa

svecˇa

svěšča

‘candle’

*naktis

nocˇь

nicˇ

nocˇ

nocˇ’

noščь

‘night’

*tɛu̯di̯ a2s

cˇuzˇь

cˇuzˇyj

cˇuzˇy

cˇuzˇoj

!

čuždyj

‘foreign’

*mɛdi̯ a:

meža

meža

mjaža

meža

mež(d)a

‘boundary’

OESl ecclesiastical (ChSl) texts tend to have ∫ t∫ «щ» for *t and either ʒ «ж» or ʒd «жд» for *d. While ʒ was vernacular, the other spellings arose under OCS influence. In 11thc. texts, the voiceless reflex could be spelled «шт», in direct imitation of OCS ∫ t. The reflex ∫ t∫ was derived from the *st reflex by analogy to OCS, where *t and *st both came out as ∫ t (see below).

1472

XIII. Slavic

In P-WSl, *t, *d were assibilated and became the dental affricates *ts (5), *dz (6). These outcomes merged with those of *k, *g in the 2VP (see 4.4) and PVP (see 4.6). Evidently, then, the assibilation phases of the three changes overlapped in P-WSl. The fact that CzSlk patterns with Lech rather than W-SSl may indicate that the change was completed before LCSl (see 4.1). (In Sorb, Cz, and Kb, the reflex of *d ultimately lost its closure.)

(5)

(6)

PSl

Slk

*su̯ai̯ ti̯ a:

svieca

*naktis

OCz

US

LS

OPo

Kb

Pb

Gloss

svieceˇ

swjeca

swjeca

świeca

swiéca

÷sveca˘

‘candle’

noc

noc

noc

noc

noc

noc

÷nc

‘night’

*tɛu̯di̯ a2s

cudzí

cuzí/cizí

cuzy

cuzy

cudzy

cëzy

÷cau̯ʒeˇ

‘foreign’

*mɛdi̯ a:

medza

mezě

mjeza

mjaza

miedza

miedza

÷midza

‘boundary’

In W-SSl and western E-SSl dialects (7−8), MCSl *c̟, *ɟ were conserved longer than elsewhere; their eventual resolutions belong to the post-CSl period. Unassibilated palatal stops («k[ь]» and «g[ь]») are found in the oldest Sb texts (12th−14th centuries). (The clusters št and žd, borrowed from OCS, [see below] were preferred in texts of the ecclesiastical [Sb-ChSl] register.) Unassibilated palatal stops are also preserved in some Što and Čak dialects, in much of Mc, including the standard, and in some WBg dialects. In other Mc and WBg dialects, the stops have advanced to dental t j and d j, but without assibilation. In Sln, Čak, and Kaj, *c̟ typically merged with t∫ from the 1VP («č»), while *ɟ lenited through *ɣ j to *i̯ («j»). In the OSln Freising Fragments (later 10th c.), which were written through the filter of OHG perceptions, the *c̟ reflex can be spelled as a stop («k») or as an affricate («z, c, c∫, t∫, ∫»). The *ɟ reflex is rendered «g» or «i», which can be interpreted as the intermediate stage *ɣ j or as the end result *i̯ . The outcomes t∫ («č») and i̯ («j, ћ») are also attested in medieval Cr ChSl, though the quasi-OCS št and žd are more frequent. In most modern Što dialects, including standard Bo, Cr, and Sb, the primary palatals assibilated. In the standard, and in many dialects, they are now palatal affricates tɕ and dʑ (also in some Kaj dialects). In other dialects, dental tʃ, dʒ are found. In much of E-SSl, *c̟, *ɟ became the clusters *ʃtʃ, *ʒdʒ, merging with the reflexes of *sti̯ , *zdi̯ . These reflexes are preserved in some WBg and SMc dialects. In EBg, including Cyrillic OCS and the modern standard, the clusters simplified to sˇt, zˇd. PSl (7)

(8)

Sln

Čak

OSb

BCS

Mc

OCS

Bg

Gloss

*su̯ai̯ ti̯ a:

svẹ́ cˇa

sviečȁ

svěkja

svéća

sveḱa

sveˇsˇta

(svjašt)

‘candle’

*naktis

nọ̑ cˇ

nuȏć

nokь

nȏć

noḱ

nosˇtь

nosˇt

‘night’

*tɛu̯di̯ a2s

tȗj

tȕj-

tug-

tȗđ

tuǵ

(sˇ)tuzˇdь

!

cˇuzˇd

‘foreign’

*mɛdi̯ a:

méja

megja

mèđa

meǵa

mežda

mežda

‘border’

81. The phonology of Slavic

1473

To account for the E-SSl clusters, some scholars have posited gemination followed by lenition (*t > *tt > *ʃt; *d > *dd > *ʒd), parallel to the PreSl degeminations of *tt > *st and *dd > *zd (see 2.7.2). According to Lunt (2001: 188), this occurred “to fit the constraint that the first of two obstruents must be a sibilant.” The problem is how such geminates could have arisen in the first place, given the constraint, which was already in operation in ECSl (see 3.1.2). Velcheva (1988: 74−75) proposes that the degeminations of {*tt, *dd} and {*tt, dd} (delayed-release consonants) were not just parallel but actually simultaneous. This claim is anachronistic; the first change was a PIE dialectal development, while the second was limited to a single sub-sub-branch of LCSl. (Velcheva 1988: 74 treats the geminates as delayed-release stops; this also seems problematic, since the husher precedes rather than follows the stop or affricate portion.)

4.8. *tl, *dl clusters The clusters *tl and *dl, which were permitted in ECSl syllable structure (see 3.1.1), were subject to changes in MCSl. Their reflexes fall into two main zones: the clusters were preserved in WSl, but lost in most of SSl and in non-peripheral ESl: *tl > *dl > l; *dl > l. (Apparent counterexamples with tl and dl arose due to metathesis [5.5] or the jer-shift [5.8]: OCS dlanь < *dalnis ‘palm’; Bg, Ru metla < *mɛtila: ‘broom’.) In transitional CenSlk and NWSln, the stops were preserved across boundaries (2) but underwent elision within morphemes (3); elsewhere in Sln, the clusters are only preserved across boundaries (1 & 2). PSl

Po

LS

US

(1)

*plɛtla:

plotƚa

platła

plotƚa

pletla

plietla

(2)

*u̯ɛdla:

wiodƚa

wjadƚa

wjedla

vedla

viedla

(3)

*(s)kri:dlad

skrzydƚo kśidƚo

krˇidƚo

krˇídlo

*madlεi̯ ti

modli się

modli sa

modlí sa

modlí seˇ

Mc

Bg

OCS

BCS (1)

(2)

OCz

OESl

Slk

CenSlk NWSln

Sln

plétla

plétla

viedla

védla

védla

krídlo

krielo

kridwo

krílọ

modlí sa

modli

Uk

BR

mo˛́li

Ru

Gloss

plȅo

plel

plel

plelъ

pliv

plëuˇ

plël

‘plait (RES.M)’

plȅla

plela

plela

plela

plela

pljala

plela

‘plait (RES.F)’

vȅo

vel

vel

viv

vëuˇ

vël

‘lead (RES.M)’

vȅla

vela

vela

vela

vjala

vela

‘lead (RES.F )’

(sъ)velъ velъ vela

1474

XIII. Slavic BCS (3)

Mc

Bg

OCS

OESl

Uk

BR

Ru

Gloss

krílo

krilo

krilo

krylo

krylo

krylo

krylo

krylo

‘wing’

mȍlī

moli

moli

molitъ

molitь

molit’

malic’

molit

‘entreat (PRS.3SG)’

In regions with Ba substrata, the dental stops became velars before *l: NEPo (Mazowian): moglitwa ‘prayer’; Old Pskovian (NW Ru): sočkle s ja ‘settle accounts (RES.PL )’ (*su-kitl-), veglě ‘lead (RES.PL )’ (*u̯ɛdl-).

4.9. Initial vowel-sonorant diphthongs Initial tautosyllabic *aR underwent metathesis, with lexicalized exceptions on the peripheries of Lech and E-SSl. (The handful of lexemes in which initial *εR has been reconstructed pose great problems and will not be discussed here.) The reflexes of the metathesis fall into two zones; the isogloss must have formed before the late 9th−early 10th c., when the WSl-W-SSl continuum was disrupted by the Magyar invasion of the Carpathian Basin. In the southern zone (SSl and CenSlk), *a was lengthened in all environments, so that the bimoraicity of the old diphthongs was preserved (1−2): *aRC > *Ra:C. In the northern zone (Sorb, CzSlk, non-peripheral Lech, and ESl), the vowel was only lengthened (1) if it bore an acute accent (see 6.3−6.3.4). Elsewhere, it remained short (2): *a˝RC > *Ra:C, *aRC > *RaC. In all dialects, *Ra:C was reflected as RaC, and *RaC as RoC, once quantitative differences yielded to qualitative ones (see 5.1). PSl (1)

(2)

OCS

Sln

CenSlk

OCz

OPo

OESl

Gloss

*a˝rdlad

ralo

rálo

rálo

rádlo

radƚo

ralo

‘plow’

*a˝lkama2s

lakomъ

lákom

lakomý

lakomý

ƚakom-

lakomъ

‘greedy’

*aru̯inad

ravьno

rávno

rávno

rovno

rowno

rovьno

‘evenly’

*arzau̯ma2s

razumъ

razȗm

razum

rozum

rozum

rozumъ

‘reason’

*alnεi̯

MBg lani

láni

laňi

loni/loní

ƚoni

loni

‘last year’

In OESl of the ecclesiastical register (ChSl), forms with ra- and la- for expected *roand *lo- often appear in imitation of OCS protographs; some have become part of the standard Ru lexicon: razum ‘reason’; raznyj|†roznyj ‘various, separate’. Initial metathesis had not yet run its course during the Slavophone migrations into the Balkans (ca. 6th−7th centuries). The name *ardagasta2 s (post-metathesis ‘Radogostъ’) is attested as Ἀρδάγαστας in an early 7th-c. Byzantine source. There are also many toponyms in Greece that were borrowed from CSl in an unmetathesized form. In the northwestern Balkans, Slavophones were already settling near Albona in Istria and near the Byzantine fortress of Arsa in present-day South Serbia by the late 6th or early 7th c. Likewise, metathesis had not happened in the western Balkans in the late 6th−early 7th centuries. Thus the name of the Istrian city of Albona, Rom *albuna was borrowed in time to undergo metathesis: MCSl2 *albu:n- > *albɨn > OCr Labin-. The same is true

81. The phonology of Slavic

1475

of the name of the Byzantine fortress Arsa in what is now southern Serbia: MCSl2 *arsʊ > OSb Rasь. As a terminus ad quem, the change was a fait accompli for the Slavophones near Thessalonica by the 820s−830s, when Methodius and Cyril acquired the dialect. The sequence *ar- was still possible in P-WSl when Slavophones settled near the Elbe, no later than the 6th c. They borrowed the name of the river from OHG or Rom; it was later subject to metathesis, like native words: OHG Albiz, La Albis ⥬ MCSl2 *a:lb(i̯ )a: > LCSl1 *lab(i̯ )a > OCz Labě, US Łobjo, OPo Łaba, Pb ÷Lobü. (The o in US and Pb is due to later developments.) The change was definitely finished in CzSlk by the 9th c., as shown by proper names in La sources: Rastiz (Rastica) for *arstislāṷ as in the Annals of Fulda (later 9c), cf. OCz Rostislav. The earliest WSl texts, the Kiev Folia (early 10th c.), show consistent metathesis. In the northeast, metathesis had not yet been completed in the early 9th c., when Slavophone settlers near Novgorod borrowed the BFi toponym *aaldokas ‘wavy’ ⥬ MCSl2 *aldaga: > LCSl1 *ladɔga > OESl Ladoga. The location became important with the founding of the Norse trading post of Aldeigja (Aldeigjuborg) in 753. Conversely, Vepsian borrowed the name of the Slavophone settlement *a˝rdagasti̭a- prior to metathesis: Arśkaht (Ru Radogošča). By ca. 900, the metathesis was over: Old Norse Helgi ⥬ P-ESl *ɔlˠɪgʊ (with svarabhakti) > LCSl1 *ɔlɪgʊ > OESl Olьgъ (ruler of Rus’ from 881−912).

4.9.1. Exceptional outcomes In OCS (10th−11th centuries, with protographs from the later 9th−10th centuries), the change is complete for all lexemes with initial *ar- and for virtually all with initial *al-.The exceptions are two roots that show variation between metathesized and unmetathesized forms: *a˝lk(a:)- ‘hunger’ (6 la- vs. 19 al-, 9 alъ-, 7 al’-); *aldii̯ - ‘boat’ (10 la-, 2 al’d-, 1 ald-). These forms were lexicalized from contacts with conservative speakers. They are also attested in MBg, along with al(ъ)nь ‘deer’ (PSl *alnis), and in some modern dialects (Bg †alne ‘young chamois’). Some of the OCS copyists found the syllable-final *l exotic − hence the epenthetic schwas in alъ-, al’-. Similar svarabhakti can be seen in the loanwords for ‘altar’, borrowed in missionary contacts of ca. the later 7th−early 9th centuries: OHG altâri ⥬ OCS olъtar j-|ol’tar j-|oltar j-; Gk ἀλτάριον ⥬ OCS al’tar j-|altar j-. The centrality of the altar to religious ritual would favor preservation or restoration of the conservative form. (The lexicalized alk-, as in ‘hungering after righteous’, spread from OCS to other ChSl recensions.)

5. Late Common Slavic (LCSl) changes As noted in 1.1, it is impossible to fix a precise upper time limit for the LCSl period. Some LCSl changes were completed in some dialects before they had begun in others. Moreover, some LCSl changes overlapped with changes that belong to the histories of the individual languages. What defines a change as “LCSl” is thus not the “real time” in which it was actualized but the fact that its impetus came from the structure of the LCSl linguistic system (see Andersen 1977, 1986). For this reason, it is a moot point

1476

XIII. Slavic

whether the LCSl changes were “shared” or “parallel” in the various dialects, which after the migrations (see 1.1.2) were spread out over a vast territory, albeit with contacts in some zones. It is evident that there were still connections of some kind, given the radiation of loanwords from west to east or south to north; however, the nature of the connections is not fully understood. In the present work, the LCSl period of changes begins and ends with two major restructurings of the vowel system − Qualitative Differentiation (5.1) and the Jer-Shift (5.8). These are also known as the Second and Third Slavic Vowel Shifts, respectively (Andersen 1998). The reflexes of LCSl changes typically have central vs. peripheral distributions, based on the historically known positions of the CSl dialects after the Migration Period (see Birnbaum 1966). The actual centers and peripheries differed from one change to another. For the most part, CzSlk patterned with the neighboring dialects of W-SSl in the Carpathian Basin rather than with Lech, with which it was bound in the MCSl changes.

5.1. Qualitative differentiation in the vowel system In Qualitative Differentiation (QD), or the Second Slavic Vowel Shift (Andersen 1998), the old distinctions in length gave way to differences in relative peripherality and tenseness. The resulting LCSl1 vowel system is attested in OCS (10th−11th centuries). The MCSl2 short vowels became lax and non-peripheral (1): *i > ɪ; *ʊ > ʊ or ǝ (see 5.1.1); *ɛ > ɛ; and *a > ɔ. These reflexes are transcribed ь, ъ, e, o in the Slavistic tradition. The MCSl2 long vowels became tense and peripheral (2): *i: > i; *ɨ: > ɨ; ɔ: > u (“u2”); *ɛ: > æ (see further 5.2.1); and *a: > a. These reflexes are transcribed i, y, u, eˇ, a in the Slavistic tradition. In the nasal subsystem (3), the outcomes were mid vowels *ɛ˜: > *ɛ˜ or *æ˜ ; and *ɔ˜: > ɔ˜ or õ (see 5.2.2). These reflexes are transcribed ę, ǫ in the Slavistic tradition. PSl (1)

(2)

(3)

MCSl1

MCSl2

LCSl1

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

*u̯isis

*u̯isi

*u̯isi

*u̯ɪsɪ

vьsь

vьsь

ves

wieś

‘village’

*supna2s

*sunu

*sʊnʊ

*sǝnǝ

sъnъ

sъnъ

sen

sen

‘dream’

*gεna

*ʒεna

*ʒεna

*ʒεnɔ

ženo

žono

ženo

żeno

‘woman (VOC)’

*u̯εi̯ dɛ:la2s

*u̯e:2dɛ:lu

*u̯i:2dɛ:lʊ

*u̯idælǝ

videˇlъ

videˇlъ

videˇl

widziaƚ

‘see (RES.M)’

*su:nus

*su:nu

*sɨ:nʊ

*sɨnǝ

synъ

synъ

syn

syn

‘son’

*rau̯da:

*rɔ:da:

*ru:2da:

*ruda

ruda

ruda

ruda

ruda

‘ore’

*lɛ:ta:

*lɛ:ta:

*lɛ:ta:

*læta

lěta

lěta

léta

lata

‘year (ACC.PL )’

*pɛnktis

*pɛ˜:ti

*pɛ˜:ti

*pɛ˜tɪ

pętь

p jatь

peˇt

pięć

‘five’

*bunda:m

*bũ:dã:

*bɔ˜:dɔ˜:

*bɔ˜dɔ˜

bǫdǫ

budu

budu

będą

‘be (FUT.1SG)’

81. The phonology of Slavic

1477

While QD is traditionally presented as a set of phonetic changes, it was principally a phonological reanalysis, in which the previously redundant feature [±tense] took precedence over /±length/. The MCSl2 vowels had multiple realizations in phonetic space, which clustered around central or prototypical values; for example, *i could be realized inter alia as [ɪ]. What QD altered was not the range of phonetic values but the underlying relations between the long and short phonemes. The post-QD reflexes of MCSl2 long vowels could still be long phonetically; when shortened in final position (see 5.3), they maintained their LCSl1 articulation rather than merging with their former short counterparts: [a:] > [a], not [o], etc. Likewise, new long vowels developed by accentual retractions (see 6.4.3), contractions (see 5.12), and other changes, but their articulation remained the same: *-ɛi̯ ɛ > *ɛ:, not *æ. QD evidently occurred in the 8th−early 9th centuries. In loanwords accessed prior to the 8th c., foreign a ⥬ MCSl2 *a > LCSl1 *ɔ (4); foreign o(:) ⥬ MCSl2 *ɔ: > LCSl1 *u2 (5); and foreign u: ⥬ MCSl2 *u:1 >LCSl1 *ɨ (6). In loanwords accessed after QD, the outcomes were LCSl1 *a, *ɔ, *u2, respectively (7). Compare the pre-QD borrowing sotona (4) with the post-QD form seen in OPo szatan, from Latin satanas, borrowed during the Christianization of Poland in the 10th c. MCSl2

LCSl1

Gk Σατανᾶς

*satana:

*sotona

La pappa(s)

*papʊ

La Aquileia

Source (4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

OCS/SSl

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

sotona

sotona

sotona

*popǝ

popъ

popъ

pop

*aglɛ:i̯ -

*oglɛ

Sln Oglej

Gk Σαλονί(κη)

*salɔ:ni

*solunɪ

Solunь

Solunь

Gk κυδώνιον

*kudɔ:na:

*kǝduna

OSb gdunja

gduńa

kdúle

gdula

‘quince’

WGmc *plo:g-

*plɔ:gʊ

*plugǝ

OSb plugь

plugъ

pluh

pług

‘turnplow’

Rom * salunǝ

*salu:nʊ

*salɨnǝ

Cr Sòlīn

‘Salona’

Rom *nunǝ

*nu:nʊ

*nɨnǝ

Cr Nȋn

‘(Ae)nona’

Gk ἀπόστολος, La apostolus

*apostolǝ

apostolъ

apostolъ

apostol

apostoł

‘apostle’

Gk Λουκάς, La Lucas

*lu2ka

Luka

Luka

Luka

Luka

‘Luke’

‘devil’ pop

‘priest’ ‘Aquileia’ ‘Salonica’

Several of these loanwords have clear termini a quo. Sclaveni began raiding northeastern Italy, where Aquileia (4) was the principal city, in the final years of the 6th c. They first besieged Thessalonica (5) in the 580s, though they presumably knew the second city of the Empire by reputation long before. They first attacked Salona (6), on the Adriatic, in 536, and seized the town of Nona (6) in the early 7th c. (The toponyms in [6] reflect the Dalmatian raising of La o to *u in stressed open syllables; cf. locum > Vegliote luk.)

1478

XIII. Slavic

The renditions of Sl names in 6th−7th-c. Byzantine texts also reflect the pre-QD stage; *a is rendered with «α» [a] rather than the «ο» or «ω» that would have been expected in LCSl1 (7). (Of course, the use of α need not imply that the Sl vowel was unrounded, just that it was too open or not rounded enough for a 7th-c. Greek to perceive it as [o].) The same reflex appears in early BFi borrowings (perhaps 7th c.): *akun- ‘window’ ⥬ Finnish, Votic akuna; *kasa:ri̯ - ‘chopper’ ⥬ Finnish, Karelian kassara, Vepsian karaŕ ‘billhook’. BFi undoubtedly had the means to distinguish open and mid-vowels at the time. There is good evidence for placing the terminus ad quem of QD in the early-to-mid9th c. Sl names inscribed in the Cividale Gospel (late 9th−early 10th centuries) appear in post-QD form: MCSl2 *katsilʊ ⥬ cozil (= Kocьlъ); MCSl2 *dabraʒi:zni ⥬ dobrosisne (= Dobrožiznь). The Glagolitic alphabet (ca. 860), based on the dialect spoken around Thessalonica, has separate letters, transliterated a and o, to render the reflexes of MCSl2 *a: and *a. For W-SSl and CzSlk, there is evidence from the rendition of Sl names in La and OHG texts. For ESl, the change was a fait accompli by the 940s, given how Constantine VII renders the names of Dnieper rapids (8) with o [ɔ] for LCSl1 *ɔ (< MCSl2 *a) and η [i] for LCSl1 *ɨ (< MCSl2 *u:1). MCSl2 (7)

(8)

LCSl1

Rendition

OCS

Gloss

*slau̯ɛ:ni:

Σκλαβηνοί

[sklaven-]

*slɔu̯æni

OESl slověni

‘Slav (NOM.PL )’

*dabrai̯ ɛ:zdʊ

Δαβραγέζας

[dabrai̯ ɛz-]

*dɔbrɔi̯ azdǝ

dobr-, jazd-

(name)

*pi:ragastʊ

Πειράγαστος

[piraɣast-]

*pirɔgɔstǝ

pir-, gost-

(name)

*astrau̯in-

Ὀστροβουνι-

[ɔstrɔvuni-]

*ɔstrɔu̯ɪn-

OESl ostrovьn-

‘island [ADJ]’

*nɛi̯ ɛ˜su:tʊ

Νεασητ

[nε(i̯ )asit]

ESl *nɛi̯ æsɨtʊ

OESl nejasytъ

‘pelican’

5.1.1. Delabialization of *w In LCSl1 (see 5.1), *i and *u (from PSl *i, *u, and *a2) were realized in most positions as near-close lax *ɪ and *ʊ/ǝ. In Slavistic terminology, *ɪ is called the front jer (ь), and *ʊ/ǝ the back jer (ъ); these terms are used for convenience in the subsequent discussion. The rounded articulation of *ʊ was preserved in peripheral zones − ESl; southwestern E-SSl (as seen in standard modern Mc); Sorbian; and some CenSlk dialects. PSl (1)

*duzdi̭ us

OCS dъzˇdь/ dozˇdь

*muxa2s *pisa2s

pьsъ/pesъ

Bg

Mc

BCS

Sln

CenSlk

Slk

OCz

da˘zˇd [ǝ]

dozˇd

dȁzˇd

dèzˇ [ǝ]

doždík

dažd’

désˇč

ma˘x

mov

mȃh

mȃh/mèh

moch

mach

mech

pes

pes

pȁs

pȅs [ǝ]

pes

pes

pos

81. The phonology of Slavic US (1)

LS

désˇć

de(j)sˇć

moch

mech

pos

pjas

1479 Pb

Po

➣dåzd

deszcz

dъzˇdь/ dozˇdь

mech pies

➣pjas

OESl

Uk

BR

Ru

Gloss

dosˇcˇ

dozˇdzˇ

dozˇd’

‘rain’

mъxъ/ moxъ

mox

mox

mox

‘moss’

pьsъ/ pesъ

pеs

pës [o]

pës [o]

‘dog’

5.2. Post-QD changes in vowel quality 5.2.1. Reflexes of LCSl1 *æ LCSl1 *æ (Slavistic eˇ “jat’”), from PSl *ɛ:1 and MCSl1 *ɛ:2, had a (near-)open front articulation. Numerous Gk toponyms and loanwords of Slavic provenience, probably borrowed during the late 6th−8th centuries, render *æ as (ι)α rather than ε. In the historical period, open reflexes were preserved in two peripheral zones − Lech and E-SSl (also areas in which nasal vowels persisted after CSl [5.2.2]). In Lech, *æ backed (by a diphthongization process) to a before hard dentals (1), but rose to e elsewhere (2). In ESSl, the reflex æ or a persists in scattered enclaves: EBg, Aegean Mc v’æra ~ v’ara ‘faith’. In most of EBg, *æ bifurcated in assimilation to the following consonant: it backed to a (1), with no raising of the dorsum toward the palate, before non-palatal consonants, but rose to ɛ (2), with raising of the dorsum, in auslaut and before consonants with palatal coarticulation (see 5.2). In auslaut, *æ became e, with raising of the dorsum (2). In WBg, *æ became e in all positions. PSl (1)

*u̯ɛ:ra:

OCS veˇra

*kai̯ pa2s

Mc

Bg

EBg

Po

Pb

Gloss

vera

vjara

v’æra

wiara

cep

cep

cap

cep

÷cepoi

‘flail’

‘faith’

*lɛ:tad

leˇto

leto

ljato

l’æto

lato

÷l’otü

‘summer’

*bɛ:la2s

beˇl-

bel

bjal

b’æl

biaƚy

÷b’oleˇ

‘white’

*lɛ:tai̯

lětě

lete

lete

w lecie

÷vå letaˇ

‘(in) summer’

*bɛ:li:tεi̯

beˇliti

beli

beli

b’æli

bielić

(3)

*ɛ:dinti

eˇdętъ/ja-

jadat

jadat

jadat

jedzą

(4)

*i̯ a:kad

jako/ě-

jako

jako

jako

jak(o)

(2)

‘whiten’; Bg, Mc 3SG ÷jedeˇ

‘eat (PRS.3PL )’; Pb 3SG ‘as, how’; Mc, Bg ‘very’

In Mc, the outcome is a after i̯ (j) (3) and e elsewhere (1, 2). The former reflects the Central Balkan merger of LCSl1 *æ with *a after *i̯ (3−4). OCS Glagolitic, associated

1480

XIII. Slavic

with the central Balkans (Ohrid), has a single grapheme «a», transliterated eˇ, for both *i̯ a and *æ after consonants. OCS Cyrillic, associated with the eastern Balkans (Preslav), has separate letters «ѣ» (ě) for æ and «W» (ja) for ja; however, ja is sometimes spelled «ѣ» due to copying from Glagolitic protographs: огнa |огнѣ (ogn ja ~ ogn jě) ‘fire (GEN)’. Elsewhere in Slavic (5), *æ rose to *e. It has been proposed that this was due to a push-chain: *æ rose to remain distinct from *æ ˜ , which was losing its nasalization (see 5.2.2). For most dialects in this zone, there actually was a merger − across the board in P-Ek, P-Sln, and P-LS; before soft consonants in P-Cz; and in final position in PUS. Thus the push-chain hypothesis explains nothing. In fact, tense vowels naturally tend to rise along the peripheral track: æ > e > i. The real issue, then, is the chronology of the raising of *æ relative to denasalization. In most of the dialects where there was denasalization (see 5.2.2), *æ ˜ went through the change before *æ began to rise or while it was still relatively open − hence the merger. In peripheral areas (NW Sln, Slk, and ESl), *æ˜ denasalized after *æ rose to mid-position, which preempted the merger. The rise of LCSl1 *æ halted at the *e stage in non-peripheral Sln and in dialect islands in WŠto, CenSlk, and Cen and NE Ru. Elsewhere, the intermediate reflex *e took three paths − diphthongization to iɛ(:), laxing to ɛ, or raising to i. The diphthongal outcome occurred in Jek («je» [short], long «ije»), Slk («ie»), Sorb («eˇ»), NUk, and some Cen and NE Ru dialects. The laxed open mid outcome arose in Ek, including Kaj and much of Što, Mc, WBg, BR, and most of Ru. The raised outcome merged with i(:) (from LCSl1 *i) in Ik and some NRu dialects, but remained distinct in WUk: i > ɪ, making room for e > i. In Cz, *e(:) had trifurcating outcomes: *e > OCz iɛ («eˇ») > Cz (i̯ )ɛ («e|ě|je»); *e: > OCz ɛ: («é») after l, but OCz ie («ie») > Cz i: («í») elsewhere.

(5)

PSl

Ek

Jek

Ik

Sln

Slk

OCz

Cz

*u̯ɛ:ra:

vȅra

vjȅra

vȉra

vẹ́ra

viera

viera

víra

*lɛ:tad

lȅto

ljȅto

lȉto

lẹ́to

leto

léto

*bɛ:la2s

bȅo

bijȇl

bȋo

bẹ̑ł

biely

*bɛ:li:tεi̯

béliti

bijéliti

bíliti

bẹ́liti

bielit’

LS

OESl

Uk

Ru

wjera věra

vira

vera

léto

leˇto

lěto

lito

leto

bielý

bílý

beˇƚy

běl

bilyj

belyj

bieliti

beˇlit

běliś

běliti

bilyty belit’

The open reflex is evidenced in early loanwords of P-ESl origin (ca. 7th−9th centuries) in BFi, which had the means to distinguish between open and mid front vowels: LCSl1 *mæra ‘measure’ ⥬ Finnish määrä, Karelian meärä, Olonetsian meärü, Ludic miär, Estonian määr; LCSl1 *xlævǝ ‘cowshed’ ⥬ E Finnish lääva, Karelian leävä, Vepsian l’äu. In NW Ru dialects, there are isolated lexemes with a for LCSl1 *æ, which have been interpreted as relics of the open pronunciation: jal ‘eat (RES)’ (PSl *ɛ:dla2 s); k’ap ‘flail’ (PSl *kai̯ pa2 s). By the historical period (beginning in the 11th c.), OESl had close mid e for LCSl1 *æ. In early Novg (11th−mid-12th centuries), writers often interchanged the letters «ѣ» (ě) [e] and «є» [ɛ], but this was due to orthographic latitude rather than a merger; e remained distinct from ɛ and eventually merged with i.

81. The phonology of Slavic

1481

5.2.2. Reflexes of LCSl1 nasal vowels By the end of the LCSl period, the distinction between oral and nasal vowels (see 4.2, 5.1) was only preserved in peripheral dialects − Lech, E-SSl, and NSln (now only in the Jaun Valley [Podjuna] dialect). In these dialects, *ɛ˜ had a (near-)open, front articulation (*æ˜), distinguished from LCSl1 *æ solely by the feature /+nasal/. Elsewhere in CSl, *ɛ˜ and *ɔ˜ denasalized, for the most part merging with existing oral vowels. At the time of their denasalization, they must have been unitary vowels /Ṽ/ → [Ṽ], since there are no lexicalized traces of decomposition /VN/ → [ṼN]. The table gives the reflexes in the various languages in a no-fine-print version. Among the factors that influenced the language-specific outcomes were vowel length and the quality of the preceding or following consonant. (The length in question developed after QD from contraction [5.12], the acute [6.1.1], neoacute retraction [6.4.3], or compensatory lengthening before weak jers [5.8].) LCSl1

OCS

(1) *dɛsɛ˜tɪ

desętь

[ɛ˜]

deset

(2) *dɛsɛ˜tɨi̯ i

desętyj

[ɛ˜]

(3) *mɛ˜so

męso

[ɛ˜]

Bg

(4) *i̯ astrɛ˜bǝ

Mc

BCS

Sln

OESl

[ɛ]

desеt

[ɛ] dȅset

[ɛ]

desẹ̑t

[e] des jatь

[a]

deseti

[ɛ]

desеtti

[ɛ] dèsētī

[ɛ]

dese˛́ti

[e] des jatъi

[a]

meso

[ɛ]

meso

[ɛ] mȇso

[ɛ]

mesọ̑

[e] m jaso

[a]

jastreb

[ɛ]

jastreb

[ɛ] jȁstrēb

[ɛ]

jȃstreb

[e] jastr jabъ [a]

(5) *rɔ˜ka

rǫka

[ɔ˜] ru˘ka

[ǝ] raka

[a] rúka

[u] róka

[o] ruka

[u]

(6) *dɔ˜bǝ

dǫbъ

[ɔ˜] du˘b

[ǝ] dab

[a] dȗb

[u] dọ̑b

[o] dub

[u]

(7) *mɔ˜ka

mǫka

[ɔ˜] mu˘ka

[ǝ]

[u] mọ́ka

[o] muka

[u]

Slk

OCz

US dźesać

múka LS

Po

Kb

Gloss

[a] źaseś

[e] dziesięć

[ɛ˜ɲ]

dzesãc [ã] ‘ten’

[ɔ˜n]

dzesąty

(1) desat’

[a]

desět

[e]

(2) desiaty

[ia]

desátý

[a:] dźesaty

[a] źasety

[ɛ]

(3) mäso

[æ/ɛ]

maso

[a]

mjaso

[a] měso

[e] mięso

(4) jastrab

[a]

jastřáb

[a:] jatřob’

[o] jatśeb

[e] jastrząb [ɔ˜m] jastřib

[i]

(5) ruka

[u]

ruka

[u]

ruka

[u] ruka

[u] ręka

[ɛ˜ŋ]

rãka

[ã] ‘hand’

(6) dub

[u]

dub

[u]

dub

[u] dub

[u] dąb

[ɔ˜b]

dãb

[ã] ‘oak’

(7) múka

[u:]

múka

[u:] muka

[u] muka

[u] mąka

[ɔ˜ŋ]

mąka

[õ] ‘flour’

dziesiąty

[ɛ˜w̑] mãso

[õ] ‘tenth’ [ã] ‘meat’ ‘goshawk’

Nasal vowels are robustly attested in the oldest E-SSl texts in OCS; indeed, the main diagnostic for identifying a manuscript as OCS, rather than ChSl, is that the reflexes of *ɛ˜ and *ɔ˜ are spelled as the “jus” letters «ѧ» (ę) and «ѫ, ѭ» (ǫ, jǫ) with a high degree of accuracy. MBg (12th−15th centuries) shows inchoate denasalization; the process has run its course in modern Bg and Mc. In peripheral southwestern Mc, there are isolated lexemes that show decomposition: zǝmp, zamp ‘tooth’ (OCS zǫbъ). (In Mc, besides the

1482

XIII. Slavic

standard reflex a, *ɔ˜ can be reflected as u [N, cf. BCS], o [SW], or ǝ [SE and Aegean, cf. Bg].) In prehistoric Lech, *æ ˜ backed to *ã before hard dentals (2−3), just as *æ backed to *a. In Kb and Slc, the remaining instances of *æ ˜ rose and eventually denasalized (4): *ɛ˜(:) > *ẽ(:) > *ĩ(:) > *i(:). Short *ã was preserved as ã (2, 6) («ã», earlier «ę»). Long *ã: was raised to õ («ą») (3, 5, 7). (In ‘ten’ [1], the nasal is probably analogical to the ordinal [3].) In OPo, ɛ˜ and ã merged in the 14th c. as low ã («ø, φ» in some texts). Long ã: rose and backed to ɔ˜ («ą») (3−5, 7); short ã eventually fronted to ɛ˜ («ę») (1−2, 6). As a rule of thumb, a former front nasal can be detected from softness reflexes in the preceding consonant (see 5.4). In many dialects, including the standard, ɛ˜ and ɔ˜ have decomposed (diphthongized), in a counterparallel to the MCSl monophthongization: the coda is a glide w ˜ before fricatives (2) and finally, and a homorganic nasal stop before stops and affricates. There has been denasalization before laterals. Elsewhere in Slavic, nasal vowels were denasalized early; they became unitary vowels rather than vowel + nasal diphthongs. In WSln and NWSln, the denasalization took place without changing the vowel height; thus *ɔ˜ and *ɛ˜ merged with LCSl1 *ɔ and *ɛ. In adjacent Sln, Čak, and some areas of Kaj, *ɔ˜ and *ɛ˜ became close-mid *o and *e; the front vowel merged with the reflex of LCSl1 *æ, which had risen on a peripheral track. (There are also Kaj dialects in which *ɛ˜ merged with *ɛ; here the reflexes are often near-open.) In a vast central territory (Što, CzSlk, Sorb, and ESl), contiguous until ca. 900, *ɔ˜ rose to merge with LCSl1 *u2. In the same zone, *ɛ˜ became tense near-open *æ ˜ , so that there was the possibility of a merger either with LCSl1 *æ (see 5.2.1) or with *a. In LS, *æ˜ underwent a merger with *æ. In US, *æ ˜ merged with *æ in final position and with *a elsewhere. (In [3], the o comes from an e > o change.) In Cz, *æ ˜ merged with *æ before soft consonants (1, 5), but with *a before hard. In Slk, *æ ˜ denasalized and moved into the space formerly occupied by LCSl1 *æ. The reflex of *æ ˜ is æ(:) in some dialects; in others, æ has merged with ɛ, and æ: with a:, or else æ: became a sequence ia or i̯ a:. In the standard, based on CenSlk, æ appears after labials (2), and ɛ elsewhere; the long reflex is ia (3, 5). In ESl, *æ ˜ merged with *a, while *æ rose along the peripheral track, perhaps in a push chain. (This reconstruction departs from the traditional Structuralist approach, which rejected the possibility of a LCSl merger of *æ and *a because it would entail inherent softness prior to the jer-shift. Instead, it was posited that *æ ˜ became the distinct vowel *ä [5.8].) There is evidence that denasalization was not completed until the 10th c. in the Carpathian Basin. Hungarian settlers in the Pannonian Plain (from 895) borrowed toponyms from Slk with intact nasalization: Molenta (LCSl1 *molɛ˜ta, a name); Dumbo (LCSl1 *dɔ˜bǝ ‘oak’). No later than 894, monks in Cividale (northeastern Italy), recorded the visit of the Moravian ruler Svátopluk I as Szuentiepulc (LCSl1 *su̯ɛ˜těpl̥ kǝ). In a donation charter of 892, the name of the Croatian ruler Mutimir (LCSl1 *mɔ˜timirǝ) is recorded as Muncimiro. However, the OSln Freising Fragments (later 10th c.) contain only three tokens with residual nasality (en, on, un); *ɛ˜ is otherwise reflected as e and *ɔ˜ as o or u. Early BFi borrowings from ESl reflect nasal vowels: Finnish sunta ‘direction’, Old Estonian sundja ‘judge’ from LCSl1 *sɔ˜d- ‘judge, court’. Mikkola (1938: 19) suggests that these date from 9th−c. contacts, when the ESl settlers were establishing political

81. The phonology of Slavic

1483

institutions. By the early 10th c., denasalization had evidently taken place in ESl; cf. Constantine VII’s Βερούτσι for LCSl1 *uɪrɔ˜tʃi ‘seething’ (the name of a Dnieper rapid). Norse Ingvarr, the name of an early-10th-c. prince of Kiev, was adapted as *igorɪ.

5.3. New length distinctions Although QD eliminated length on the phonemic level (see 5.1), it is posited that the peripheral, tense vowels *i, *ɨ, *u, *æ, and *a and the nasal vowels *ɛ˜ and *ɔ˜ remained phonetically long. Subsequently, in a stage indicated here by LCSl2, they were shortened in certain phonetic positions, which lay the ground for new oppositions with new long vowels that arose by contraction (5.12), compensatory lengthening (5.10), and neoacute retraction (6.10). The following table gives a no-fine-print summary of the long-vowel outcomes in the Sl languages that reflect the LCSl2 length distinction. LCSl1

BCS

Sln

OCz

Cz

Slk

Sorb

OPo

Po

Kb

SWUk

*a:

a: «a»

a: «a»

a: «á»

a: «á»

a: «á»

a

ɔ «å»

a

ɔ «ô»

a

*ɔ:

ɔ: «o»

ɔ: «o, ọ»

uo «ó»

u: «ů»

u̯o «ô»

uo «ó»

o «ó»

u «ó»

o «ó»

i

*ɛ:

ɛ: «e»

ɛ: «e, ẹ»

ɛ: «é»

e: «é»

i̯ ɛ «ie»

ie «ě»

e «é»

e

e «é»

i

*u:

u: «u»

u: «u»

u: «ú»

ou, u: «ú»

ú

u

u

u

u

u

*ɨ:

i: «i»

i: «i»

ɨ: «ý»

i: «ý»

i: «ý»

ɨ «y»

ɨ

ɨ

i

ɪ

*i:

i: «i»

i: «i»

i: «í»

i: «í»

i: «í»

i

i

i

i

ɪ

Final vowels were shortened in words of two or more syllables − a process completed before contraction (see 5.12). Thus, the endings in (1) reflect shortening, while those in (2) show length from contraction (except for Sln, which only preserves length in stressed syllables). In addition, long vowels were shortened under or after the ictus in words of three or more syllables (6.1.1). In (3), if the stressed vowel had been long in LCSl2, it should have yielded **a: in N/Što BCS («ā») and OCz («á»), and a near-open rather than open vowel in OPo and Slc; cf. also the short vowel in Čak BCS lopȁta. In (4), the OCz root has a long vowel in the disyllabic NOM.SG, but a short in the trisyllabic forms of the paradigm. In OPo and Slc, the length has been eliminated by stem-leveling. (The BCS and Sln outcomes in [4] have the regular reflex of the old acute accent; see 6.1.1) Polysyllabic shortening did not affect syllables immediately before the ictus (5). If the nasal vowel in the first syllable had been shortened, OCz would have **u-, OPo **ę-, and Slc **ɵ; cf. also Čak utrȍba. MCSl2 (1)

*dabra:

LCSl2 *dobra

N/Što dòbra

Sln dóbra

OCz dobra

OPo dobra

Slc dʉɵ̯bra˘

Gloss ‘good (GEN)’

1484

XIII. Slavic MCSl2

LCSl2

(2)

*dabra:i̯ a:

*dobra:

dòbrā

(3)

*laˈpa:ta:

*lɔˈpata

(4)

*ˈma:tɛrɛ *ˈma:ti:

(5)

*ɔ˜:ˈtraba:

N/Što

*matɛrɛ

Sln

OCz

OPo

Slc

Gloss

dóbra

dobrá

dobrå

dʉɵ̯brå

(F.NOM)’

lòpata

lopáta

lopata

łopata

lʉ̀ ɵ̯pata˘

‘shovel’

mȁterē

!

mateře

macierze

mãceřä

(GEN)

!

mãc

‘mother’

vo˙ų̯ trǜ ba˘

‘intestines’

mátere

*ma:ti

mȁti

máti

máti

!

*ɔ˜:ˈtrɔba

!

†

útroba

wątroba

ȕtroba

vo˛́troba

macierz

̯

5.4. Secondary softening In some LCSl dialects, prior to the loss of weak jers (see 5.8), labial and dental consonants developed secondary softening (palatal coarticulation) before front vowels: {P, T} > {Pj, Tj}/__ V[+front], where V[+front] = {*i, *ɪ, *e, *ɛ, *æ, * ɛ˜/æ ˜ }. This is a common type of anticipatory assimilation: the blade of the tongue adopted the domed configuration that characterized the following vowel. This secondary softening had different outcomes from the earlier dental palatalization before *i̯ (3.6, 4.7), since the affected consonants remained primarily dentals. (The earlier change of Pi̯ > Pl did not involve labial softening; see 3.7.2) The hard consonants may have been redundantly velarized; this is particularly likely in the development of *l (see 5.5−5.6). Secondary softening led to an opposition between hard (velarized) and soft (palatalized) consonants in CzSlk, Sorb, Lech, ESl, and ESSl. Subsequent changes in articulation, illustrated (with no fine print) in (1−3), belong to the histories of the individual languages. The archaic system is best preserved in Ru: LCSl1 *polʊdɪnʊ: *polʊdɪnɪ > *polʊd jɪnʊ: *polʊd jɪn jɪ > OESl polъd jьnъ: polъd jьnь > Ru poldën [d j]: polden’ [d j, n j] ‘midday (†GEN.PL: NOM.SG)’; LCSl1 *krou̯ʊ: krʊu̯ɪ > OESl krovъ: krъv jь > Ru krov: krov’ [v j] ‘shelter’: ‘blood’ LCSl (1)

j

*P /__{C, #} j

(2)

(3)

Slk P

Cz P

j

US P

j

LS P

j

P

Kb P

j

*P /…

P /Pi̯

P /Pi̯

P

*t j *d j

c̟ ɟ

c̟ ɟ

tʃ j dʒ j

ɕʑ

*s j *z j

sz

sz

sz

*n j *l j

ɲʎ

ɲl

*r j/C̥__

r

*r j/…

r

P

Po P

j

Uk P

j

BR P

j

P

j

Ru

Bg

P

j

P

P

j

P j/P

P, † Pi̯

P

ts dz

tɕ dʑ

tj dj

ts j dz j

tj dj

t j/t d j/d

sz

sz

ɕʑ

sj zj

sj zj

sj zj

s j/s z j/z

nj lj

nj lj

ɲ lj

ɲl

nj lj

nj lj

nj lj

n j/n l j/l

r̝ [-vcd]

ʃ

ʃ

r̝

ʃ

r

r

rj

r j/r

r̝

ʀ

ʀ

r̝

ʒ

r

r

rj

r j/r

In (3), the hardening of *r j was a central LCSl development; it occurred in BCS, Slk, Uk, and BR. On the northeastern periphery (Ru), *r j was preserved. On the northwestern

81. The phonology of Slavic

1485

periphery, *r j assibilated, probably to *r̝ , an alveolar trill with lamino-palatal frication, which was preserved in Cz, extreme SPo, Kb, and Slc; in Sorb and Po, the reflex underwent further developments. In SSl, softening is reflected in Bg, but not in Sln, BCS, and Mc. The Bg outcomes of LCSl1 *æ (see 5.2.1) depended on the hardness or softness of the following consonant. Ultimately, in most dialects, soft consonants were eliminated except before back vowels, where they had arisen in post-CSl changes (Scatton 1993: 197). The dialect geography of softening indicates that the assimilation and its subsequent phonemicization was a LCSl change, which happened well before the loss of weak jers (see 5.7). (It was also undoubtedly a LCSl change in the sense that it stemmed from the structure of the LCSl phonological system; see 5.) Nevertheless, it has traditionally been assumed that inherent softening developed as a consequence of, and thus subsequent to, the loss of weak jers. That sequence of events is categorically impossible: if softness had not already been inherent (phonemic), the soft allophones conditioned by weak *ɪ would have hardened automatically in the absence of their trigger. Nevertheless, it is highly probable that the reduction of *ɪ facilitated the covert rephonologization of [C j] 0 /C j/. For learners, softening was ambiguous: they could ascribe it to the following vowel or, in a covert innovation, assess it as a feature inherent to the consonant: /dɪnɪ/ → [d jɪn jɪ] 0 /d jɪn jɪ/ → [d jɪn jɪ]. The shorter *ɪ became, the more likely the innovative analysis became for any given learner. Thus the jer-shift did not open the door for learners to analyze softness as an inherent consonantal feature; it shut the door to their interpreting it as a subphonemic, vowel-driven feature. There was also systemic support for the reanalysis of [C j] 0 /C j/ in some LCSl dialects. Soft *s j already existed in ESl (as well as SSl) in the reflex of *x from the 2VP and PVP (see 4.4, 4.6). Likewise, soft *z j existed in dialects where the reflex of *g from the same changes had lost its closure. These outcomes were distinct from inherited *s and *z: P-ESl *kunæ˜ z ja|*kunæ˜ z ju ‘king (GEN|DAT )’, *u̯ɪs ja|*u̯ɪs jɔ˜ ‘all (F.NOM|F.ACC)’; cf. *voza|*vozu ‘cart (GEN|DAT )’, *kosa|*kosɔ˜ ‘braid (NOM|ACC)’. Here, instead of softness, the traditional Structuralist approach posits ad-hoc vowels *ü and *ä. It is unclear how the putative *ü could have remained distinct from MCSl2 *ü: (>LCSl1 *i:, see 4.3, 5.1), or the putative *ä from LCSl1 *æ (see 5.2.1), unless PVP2 (4.6) and the consequent vowel fronting were later than QD (5.1). In addition, *ü and *ä entail morphological complications (at least, for a Structuralist approach); for example, the endings in *kunæ˜ zä |*kunæ˜ zü would be allomorphs of those in voza|vozu. According to Lunt (1956: 310), the presence and usage of «W» and «ю» in the Cyrillic alphabet corroborate the existence of /ü/ and /ä/ in OESl. In fact, they stem from an orthographic tradition that began under the influence of Gk perceptions (see Collins 1992).

5.4.1. Fate of the soft sonorants The reflexes of *n, *l, *r from dental palatalization (3.6) merged entirely with new soft *n j, *l j, *r j in the dialects in which secondary softening developed (5.4). There was no corresponding merger in W-SSl (1−2), where *n and *l are reflected as primary palatals ɲ, ʎ, and *r as the sequence rj (before vowels only). In Mc, *n and *r are reflected as dentals, and *l as l j or ʎ, in contrast to the velarized lˠ from *l dental.

1486

XIII. Slavic LCSl1 (1)

(3)

Bg

Mc

BCS

Sln

Slk

Po

Uk

Gloss

*u̯ola

volja [l j]

volja [l j]

vȍlja [ʎ]

vólja [ʎ]

vol’a [ʎ]

wola [l]

volja [l j]

‘will’

*ognɪ

ogu˘n [n]

ogon [n]

òganj [ɲ]

ògenj [ɲ]

oheň [ɲ]

ogień [ɲ]

ohon’ [n j]

‘fire’

*mоrɛ

more [r]

more [r]

mȏre [r]

morjȇ [rj]

more [r]

morze [ʒ]

more [r]

‘sea’

5.5. Internal open vowel-liquid diphthongs Tautosyllabic *ar, *ɛr, *al, *ɛl (traditionally called TORT formulas) underwent changes whose effect was to remove the liquids from the syllable coda. The reflexes fall into three zones − southern, northwestern, and northeastern; there are two conservative peripheries. The change straddled QD (5.1) in SSl and CzSlk but postdated it elsewhere. The dialect geography is LCSl in that it has a post-Migration-Period center/periphery, and CzSlk patterns entirely with SSl rather than with Sorb and Lech (see 4.1). In the southern zone, SSl and CzSlk, the sequences underwent metathesis; the vowels were lengthened, so that the sequences remained bimoraic: PSl *ɛR > MCSl2 *Rɛ: > LCSl1 *Ræ; PSl *aR > MCSl2 *Ra: > LCSl1 *Ra. The lengthening took place before or at the same time as the metathesis, given that inherited (non-metathesized) *Rɛ-, *Rawere not affected: LCSl1 *rɛ, *rɔ, cf. OCS drevl jьn jь ‘ancient’, plešte ‘shoulder’, plodъ ‘fruit’, krovъ ‘covering’. PSl

OCS

Bg

Mc

Ek

(1)

*u̯arta:

vrata

vrata

vrata

vráta

(2)

*bεrg-

brěgъ

brjag

breg

(3)

*galu̯a:

glava

glava

(4)

*xɛlma2s *mɛlkad

mlěko

Jek

Sln

Slk

Cz

Gloss

vráta

vráta

vráta

vrata

‘gates’

brȇg

brijȇg

brȇg

breh

břeh

‘bluff’

glava

gláva

gláva

gláva

hlava

hlava

‘head’

šlem

šlem

šlȅm

šlijèm

šlẹ̀ m

†šlem

‘helmet’

mljako

mleko

mléko

mlijèko

mlékọ

mléko

‘milk’

mlieko

On the southern periphery, the lengthening stage began before the metathesis. This can be seen from isolated lexemes that reflect lengthening only: MBg baltina ‘bog’ (*balt-), zaltarinъ ‘goldsmith’ (*zalt-), maldicˇie ‘youth’ (*mald-); Bg †dalta ‘chisel’ (*dalbt-). In the same zone, the isolated lexemes with unmetathesized initial diphthongs (4.9) also reflect lengthening. In the northwest, in Sorb and non-peripheral Lech, the sequences underwent metathesis but not lengthening: PSl *ar > LCSl1 *rɔ (5); PSl *ɛr > *r jɛ (6), PSl *al > LCSl1 *lɔ (7), and PSl *ɛl > *l jɛ (8). In the same dialects, the reflexes of initial open-vowel-liquid diphthongs had undergone pre-QD lengthening under the acute accent (4.9) In the internal diphthongs, the loss of bimoraicity suggests that the change followed QD (5.1); that is, it occurred at a time when length was no longer distinctive in these dialects. The

81. The phonology of Slavic

1487

vowels were sometimes lengthened in later prosodic changes − compensatory lengthening (5.10), seen in the US, Kb, and Slc forms in (6), or neoacute lengthening (6.4.3) seen in the Kb and Slc forms for (8). PSl

US

LS

(5)

*barda:

broda

broda

(6)

*bεrg-

brjóh

(7)

*galu̯a:

hłowa

(8)

*xɛlma2s

(9)

Kb

Slc

Pb

Gloss

broda

broda

brʉ̀ ɵ̭ da˘

÷brödǝ

‘beard’

brjog

brzeg

brzég

brˇėg

÷brig

‘bluff’

głowa

głowa

głowa

glova

÷glåva˘

‘head’

szłom

szłom

mleko

mlékò

mloko

OPo

‘helmet’

*mɛlkad

mloko

*bardau̯ika:

brodawka brodajca

brodawka bardówka bo˙rˇdãi̯ ca

*karu̯a:

krowa

krowa

krowa

mlȯ́ ko

÷mlåka˘

krʉ̀ ɵ̭ vaˇ

karva

‘milk’

÷brödǝvai̯ - ‘wart’ ća ÷korwò

‘cow’

Throughout Lech, tautosyllabic *ɛr, *ar, and *al are consistently reflected with metathesis. However, in peripheral Lech *ar is often reflected as or ~ ar (9). Cf. also Pb ÷bordåi̯ ńǝ ‘hachet’, Kb korwińc, Slc kãrwińc ‘cow-patty’; OPo karw ‘bull’. Evidently, there has been dialect contact in both directions: Kb bardówka ~ brodówka ‘wart’; korwa|krowa ‘cow’. For Pb, *or was the norm; forms with *ro were accessed in contacts with Sorb or CenLech. In the northeastern zone, comprising ESl, there was neither lengthening nor metathesis; instead, a matching vowel was added after the sonorant: *ar > *ɔrɔ (10); *ɛr > *ɛr jɛ (11); *al > *ɔlˠɔ (12); and *ɛl > *ɛl(ˠ), with bifurcating reflexes: *ɛl(ˠ) > *ɛl(ˠ)ɔ after palatals (13), but *ɔl(ˠ)ɔ elsewhere (14). This change is traditionally called pleophony. PSl

OESl

Uk

BR

Ru

ESl-ChSl

Gloss

(10)

*u̯arta:

voro̍ta

voro̍ta

varo̍ty

voro̍ta

vrata

‘gate(s)’

(11)

*bɛrga2s

be̍regъ

be̍rih/-eh

be̍rah

be̍reg

breˇgъ/bregъ

‘shore’

(12)

*galu̯a:

golova̍

holova̍

halava̍

golova̍

glava

‘head’

(13)

*xɛlma2s

šelo̍mъ

šolo̍m

(šelo̍majka)

šelo̍m

sˇleˇmъ

‘helm’; BR ‘head’

(14)

*mɛlkad

moloko̍

moloko̍

malako̍

moloko̍

mleˇko

‘milk’

For the Uk lexeme in (11), the predicted outcome is bereh; berih reflects *ɛ:, usually ascribed to either neoacute lengthening (see 6.4.3) or compensatory lengthening before a weak jer (see 5.10). The OESl ChSl register seen in most OESl writings typically employed the SSl reflexes in imitation of OCS protographs. However, for *ɛr sequences, the compromise spelling re is more common than rě, even in texts that otherwise distinguish e and ě. There is abundant evidence that the changes in internal open-vowel-liquid diphthongs did not begin until the 7th c. or later. Many Slavic proper names are cited in unmetathesized form by Byzantine authors of the 7th−8th centuries: Βαλδίμερ (*u̯aldɛi̯ mɛ:ras),

1488

XIII. Slavic

Δαργαμηρός (*dargami:ras) − after metathesisis, Vladimirъ, and Dragomirъ. During the same period of early contacts, pre-metathesis forms made their way into other languages of southeastern Europe: *balta- ‘swamp’ ⥬ Albanian baltë ‘mud’, Romanian balta˘ ‘swamp’; *mέrgi̯ a: ‘net’ ⥬ Gk dial μέρζα. There are numerous toponyms of Slavic provenience in central and southern Greece that show no sign of metathesis: *gardika‘walled town’ ⥬ Γαρδίκι; *bɛrg- ‘bank’ ⥬ Βέργος; *sálminεi̯ ka- ‘bed of straw’ ⥬ Σαλμενῖκον. (There are also toponyms that reflect metathesis: *bɛ´̄ l- + *gard- ‘white town’ ⥬ Μπελιγράδια; *gardika- ⥬ Γραδίτσα. These are less frequent in the south, where the hellenization of Slavophone inhabitants began ca. 800.) In the late 6th−early 8th centuries, CSl borrowed loanwords with tautosyllabic *ar, *ɛr, *al, *ɛl from WGmc and La; these underwent the same changes as the native sequences (15). Sl names in 7th−mid-8th-c. Frankish sources likewise reflect the pre-metathesis stage: *u̯aldu:ka: ‘ruler’ ⥬ Walducus, *dɛru̯a:n- ⥬ Deruanus (620s−640s); *bɛrʒinik⥬ Bersnicha (834). It is often claimed that metathesis was still underway during the time of Charlemagne (771−814), on the assumption that his OHG name Karl- supplied LCSl1 *karl- ‘king’, attested in all Sl languages except Pb (16). Spellings that reflect metathesis appear in Frankish sources from the late 8th c. and become the norm by the mid-9th c.: LCSl1 *tɛrbɛli̯ - > P-Slk *trɛbɛʎ- ⥬ Trebel (784); LCSl1 *pɛrdǝslau̯ǝ > *prɛ:dǝslau̯ǝ ⥬ predezlaus (late 8th−early 9th c.).; LCSl1 *sɛbædarg- > P-Sln *sɛbedarg⥬ sebedrago (late 8th c.), Zebedrach (864). Metathesis is reflected consistently in the Kiev Folia (10th c.; protograph 860s−880s), in the Freising Fragments (later 10th c.), and in the canonical OCS manuscripts (10th−11th c. with later 9th-c. protographs). MCSl2

OSb

La marmor

*marmarʊ

mramorь

mramor

OHG karmala

*karmala:

kramola

kramol(a)

Rom *skarduna

*skardu:n-

Cr Skradin

Gmc *karl

*karli

kraljь

Source (15)

(16)

OCz

OPo

OESl

Gloss

(marmor)

moromorъ

‘marble’

koromola

‘unrest’ ‘Scardona’

král

król

korol jь

‘king’

In the northeast, pleophony probably occurred in the 8th−9th centuries. BFi accessed some loanwords from P-ESl prior to the change: *vɛrtɛnad ‘spindle’ ⥬ Votic värttänä, Karelian värt’t’inä, Estonian värten; *talkunad ⥬ Finnish, Karelian talkkuna, Vepsian taukun ‘oat flour’.

5.6. Tautosyllabic close vowel-liquid diphthongs LCSl1 *ɪ and *ǝ (“jers”) have different outcomes in tautosyllabic *ɪr, *ɪl, *ǝr, *ǝl sequences than in other environments (see 5.8). The reflexes fall into southern, northern, eastern, and northeastern zones. In the southern zone, comprising SSl and CzSlk, the sequences became syllabic sonorants (1−2); that is, the vowels were reinterpreted as opening phases rather than independent nuclei, in a counter-parallel to the PreSl development (see 2.3).

81. The phonology of Slavic

(1)

(2)

1489

PSl

OCS

Bg

Mc

BCS

Sln

Slk

OCz

Gloss

*u̯irb-

vrьbij-

vu˘rba

vrba

vŕba

vŕba

vŕba

vrba

‘willow’

*gurst-

grъst-

gru˘st

grst

grst

gŕst

hrst’

hrst

‘handful’

*dulga2s

dlъgъ

du˘lg

dolg

dȗg

dȏƚg

dlh

dluh

‘debt’

*u̯ilka2s

vlъkъ

vu˘lk

volk

vȗk

vȏlk

vlk

vlk

‘wolf’

In OCS, the outcomes are spelled «rъ, rь» and «lъ, lь», where the choice of the jer letter was orthographic rather than etymological. (OCS dictionaries add to the phonological illusion by using entry-forms with Rь for *Ri and Rъ for *Ru. In the tables here, the most frequent variant is given.) The placement of the jer letter after the liquid was a convention influenced by the phonological perceptions of Gk speakers. In original *rɪ, *lɪ, *rǝ, *lǝ (see 5.10), the reflexes of *ɪ and *ǝ acted like jers in other positions (see 5.8); they could be strengthened (krъvь > krovь) or condition the strengthing of a preceding jer (vъ krъvi > vo krъvi). This did not happen with the reflexes of *ɪr, *ɪl, *ǝr, *ǝl, because no jers were present. In later Bg, R̥ became ǝR when followed by a single consonant, and Rǝ elsewhere: vu˘rba ‘willow’~vru˘bnica ‘Willow [Palm] Sunday’. In monosyllables, the ǝ could develop on either side of the sonorant. The expected outcomes have often been obscured by leveling. Elsewhere in the southern zone, r̥ (1) has generally been stable; l̥ (2) has survived as such only in CzSlk and some WBg dialects. Slk distinguishes l̥ and l̥ :, with neoacute lengthening (see 6.4.3). OCz preserves l̥ only after labials; elsewhere, the sonorant has diphthongized: *l̥ > lu, *l̥ : > lu: (lú; modern lou). Similar reflexes occur in the northern zone (below). In Sln, BCS, Mc, and some WBg dialects, *l̥ was probably velarized [lˠ]; its opening phase was reanalyzed as a back rounded vowel: Sln ɔlˠ > ɔw («ol», tonemic-system «ɔƚ»); BCS *ɔlˠ > u. In the northern zone (Sorb and Lech), LCSl1 *ɪr, *ɪl, *ǝr, *ǝl also became syllabic sonorants. Subsequently, they again became diphthongs − either VR or RV; the order and the timbre of the vowel depended on the surrounding consonants, and in particular on whether the following consonant was a hard (plain) dental. To account for this environment, scholars who view consonant softening as a consequence of the jer-shift have to reconstruct four syllabic sonorants, with a distinction in second tonality: *ɪR > *R̥ j, *ǝR> *R̥ˠ; then *R̥ j > *R̥ˠ/__Tˠ. This is superfluous; palatal coarticulation developed prior to the jer-shift (see 5.2), and it can also be assumed before *ɪr and *ɪl became syllabic sonorants. Accordingly, northern-zone *r̥ split into new back vowel-hard sonorant sequences after hard consonants (3); and between consonants with palatal (co)articulation and hard dentals, *or (western), *ar (eastern), but higher-tonality *ɛr(j) elsewhere (4). For *l̥ , the outcomes are more complex but follow the same general pattern. After hard consonants and after consonants with palatal (co)articulation preceding hard dentals (5), *l̥ split into back vowel and hard sonorant portions (not necessarily in that order): US *olˠ; LS *lˠu (after dentals) and *olˠ (elsewhere); Slc and Kb *lˠu; Po olˠ or *ɛlˠ (after labials, with variation perhaps due to dialect contacts), *lˠu (after dentals), and *ɛlˠ (after velars). After consonants with palatal (co)articulation preceding other consonants, *l̥ had the following reflexes: Sorb *ɛl j (after labials before consonants other than hard dentals), *olˠ (elsewhere in US; after labials before hard dentals and after palatals in US), and

1490

XIII. Slavic

*lˠu (in LS after dentals); Slc and Kb *olˠ; and Po *ɛlˠ (after labials before hard dentals), *il (after labials before other consonants), *lˠu (after dentals), and *olˠ (after palatals) (6). Pb was an outlier, in that *r̥ , *l̥ became sequences of back vowel plus sonorant without regard to the neighboring consonants. PSl

LCSl

US

LS

Po

Kb

Slc

Pb

Gloss

(3)

*burze

*br̥ zɛ

bórze

bórze

bar(d)zo

barzo

bãrzɵ

÷borz

‘quickly’

(4)

*kirn-

*tʃr̥ nɨ:

cˇorny

carny

czarny

cˇôrny

cˇãrnï

÷corneˇ

‘black’

(5)

(6)

j

*kiru̯ɛn-

*tʃr̥ u̯ ɛnɨ:

cˇerwjeny

cerwjeny

czerwony

cˇerˇvjony

cˇe˘rˇvjùɵ̯nï

÷carvene˘

‘red’

*u̯irba:

*v jr̥ ba

wjerba

wjerba

wierzba

wierzba

vjìe̯řba˘

÷varba˘

‘willow’

*dulga2s

*dl̥ gǝ

doƚh

dƚug

dƚug

dƚug

dlʉ˙́g

÷dåu̯g

‘debt’

*kiln-

*tʃl̥ nǝ

cˇoƚm

coƚn

czóƚno

!

cˇoƚen

cˇɵ̀ .ʉ̭ n

÷cåu̯n

‘canoe’

*piln-

*p jl̥ nɨ:

połny

połny

pełny

pełny

pɵ̀ .ʉ̭ nï

÷påu̯neˇ

‘full’

*dilg-

*djl̥ gɨ:

doƚhi

dƚugi

dƚugi

dłëdzi

dlʉ˙́ђï

÷dåu̯d’eˇ

‘long’

*u̯ilka2s

*v jl̥ kǝ

wjelk

wjelk

wilk

wóƚk

vɵ̀ .ʉ̭ k

÷vauk

‘wolf’

In ESl, coda *l developed velarized articulation [lˠ]; cf. its modern Uk and BR reflex w. Then *ɪ backed to *ʊ before *lˠ (like *ɛ to *ɔ, see 5.5). The backing was blocked when the *ɪ followed palatals, where, since LCSl, phonotactics did not permit *ʊ in that environment. Later, the vowels in tautosyllabic *ɪr, *il, *ʊr, *ʊl sequences developed like ordinary strong jers (9−10); see 5.8. In peripheral Novg, there was a “Second Pleophony” (cf. 5.5): a copy of the vowel before the sonorant developed after it as well: *ɪr > ɪrɪ («ьrь»), *ur > ʊrʊ («ъrъ»), *ʊlˠ > ʊlʊ («ъlъ»), and *ilˠ > ɪlʊ («ьlъ»). The mechanism was probably the same as in the apparent metatheses in CzSlk, Lech, and ESSl: the sonorants were realized with schwa-like final phases, which could be rephonologized as independent units. PSl (9)

(10)

P-ESl

OESl bъrz-

Uk

BR

Ru

Novg

Gloss

borzo

borzo

borzo

bъrъzeˇ

‘quickly’

*burz-

*bʊrz-

*kɛtu̯irtεi̯ s

*tʃɛtu̯ jɪrt ji cˇetvьrti

cˇetverti

cˇvèrci

cˇetverti

cetvereti

‘quarter (NOM.PL )

*dulga2s

*dʊlˠgʊ

dъlgъ

dovh

dowh

dolg

dъlъgъ

‘debt’

*u̯ilka2s

*u̯ʊlˠkʊ

vьlkъ

vovk

vowk

volk

*u̯ilkika2s

*u̯ʊlˠtʃɪ

vovčok

vawčok

volčok

Vъlъcˇьk-

‘wolf cub’; Novg name

*giltai̯ ad

*ʒɪlˠtoi̯ ɛ

zˇovtoje

zˇowtaje

zˇëltoe

zˇьlъtoe

‘yellow (N.DEF)’

zˇьltoje

‘wolf’

81. The phonology of Slavic

1491

5.7. Tensing of *i and *ǝ before *i After qualitative differentiation (5.1), the “jer” vowels *ɪ and *ǝ were subject to tensing before *i̯ (1−3). As a result, they merged with the reflexes of PSl *i: and *u:1 in most dialects. LCSl1 Tense

Bg

Mc

BCS

Sln

Slk

OCz

*bii̯ ɛ

*bɪi̯ ɛ

*bii̯ ɛ

bie

bie

bȉje

bȋje

bije

*mui̯ ɛ

*mǝi̯ ɛ

*mɨi̯ ɛ

mie

mie

mȉje

mȋje

myje

PSl (1)

US

OPo

Gloss

bie

bije

bije

‘beat (PRS.3SG)’

myje

myjе

myje

‘wash (PRS.3SG)’

In the table, Bg and Mc ie is a disyllabic sequence. In OCz, ie was a diphthong, which arose from the contraction of *ii̯ ɛ (see 5.12). Non-tensed reflexes were preserved in three peripheral areas − Pb, western (Ohrid) OCS, and Ru (excluding Novg) (2). (If there had been tensing in Ru and Pb, the expected outcomes would be **-i-, **-y-, and diphthongal **ai̯ , **åi̯ , or **oi̯ , respectively.) PSl (2)

OCS

OESl

Uk

BR

Ru

Pb

Gloss

*bii̯ ɛ(ti)

bьetъ|-i-

bьetь|-i-

bij

bi

bej

÷bėj

‘beat (PRS.3SG)’

*krui̯ ɛ(ti)

kryjetь

krъjetь|-y-|-o-

kryjet’

kryjec’

kroet

÷kråje˘

‘cover (PRS.3SG)’

Judging from spelling variations, the tensing was still an active process in OCS (10th− 11th centuries) and Kievan OESl (11th−13th centuries). In OCS, there was graphic vacillation in the tensing position between «ь» and «и, ı» for *-ɪ- and between «ъ» and «ъı, ъи» for *ǝ, e.g. sandhi въ истинѫ~въı истинѫ ‘in truth (ACC)’, прѣдамь и~прѣдами и ‘hand over (PRS.1SG) him (ACC)’. In manuscripts originating in the Ohrid milieu, strongjer reflexes (see 5.8) could appear instead: прѣдаме и. Similar variation can be seen in OESl manuscripts. Tensing overlapped with other changes to *ɪ and *ǝ (see 5.8). In “strong-jer” position, the reflex is generally tense (close) rather than “strong” (mid or near-open). In “weakjer” or reduced position, leveling has obscured the development, but generally, the tense reflex occurs in roots (3), the weak in suffixes (4). (For W-SSl and WSl, the change of *ɪi̯ V to i̯ V has also been treated as a contraction, but it does not follow the usual course of contraction [5.12].) In eastern OESl, where there was no tensing, quasi-tense spellings of weak jers as и|ı and ъı are probably ChSl imitations of OCS protographs. LCSl1 (3)

(4)

OCS

BCS

OCz

LS

OPo

OESl

Uk

Gloss

*bii̯ ai̯ s

bii

bȉj

bí

bij

bij

bii|bьi

byj

‘beat (IMP.2SG)’

*ʃɪi̯ a

šija

šȉja

šijeˇ

šyja

szyja

šija

šyja

‘neck’

*brat(r)ɪi̯ a

bratьja|-ij-

brȁća

bratrˇie

bratśa

bracia

bratьja|-ij-

brattja

‘brethren’

1492

XIII. Slavic

5.8. The jer-shift LCSl1 *ɪ and *ǝ/*ʊ (“front jer” and “back jer”) underwent a complex of changes known as the jer-shift (Isačenko 1970) or the Third Slavic Vowel Shift (Andersen 1998a). The shift had such major consequences for phonology, syllable structure, and morphology that it is generally, and justifiably, taken as the great divide between LCSl and the history of the individual languages (with the provisos discussed in 5). Among the most important consequences were the abolition of the constraint against closed syllables and the rise of new, previously non-canonical clusters; in the history of the individual languages, this led to new voicing assimilation and final devoicing rules. In addition, in the dialects where consonants developed palatal (co)articulation before front vowels (5.2), the loss of *ɪ in the jer-shift removed the possibility of interpreting them as subphonemic (voweldriven). The jer-shift (JS) was not a single punctiliar change. In its first phase (JS1), there was a tendency, traditionally known as Havlík’s Law, for *ɪ and *ǝ/*ʊ to be reduced (1.0 → 0.5 moras) unless there was an *ɪ or *ǝ/*ʊ in the following syllable: *ɪ > *ɪ˘ and *ǝ > * ǝ˘ (breve = IPA “extra short duration”). There was a countervailing tendency to avoid sequences of two ultrashort vowels. By Havlík’s Law, jers were “weak” (subject to reduction) finally (1) and in syllables before non-jer vowels (2); they were “strong” (not subject to reduction) in syllables before weak jers (1, first syllable). In sequences of three jers, the final was weak, the penultimate strong, and the antepenultimate weak (3). (For the further development of strong jers, see 5.8.1) In the second phase (JS2), weak jers were subject to further reduction: {*ɪ˘, *ǝ˘} > Ø. This process has traditionally been called the fall of the weak jers, which has the misleading implication that the process was sudden. The principal mechanism was not a sound change proper but a phonemic reanalysis, which elapsed over multiple generations, with a great deal of social accommodation. At any given time, LCSl1 /ɪ/ and /ǝ/ (or peripheral /ʊ/) had a range of phonetic realizations, from short in lento speech through ultrashort [V] to Ø in allegro speech. Presented with these ambiguities, innovative learners could covertly reanalyze the weak jers as /Ø/. Presumably, for the sake of social continuity, they learned to produce jer-like paragogic vowels as lento or emphatic actualizations of consonants that were final or pre-consonantal in their grammars: /C/ → [Cǝ]; cf. American English emphatic sweet [sǝˈwijt], incredible [ɪnkǝˈrɛdɪbl̥ ]. Undoubtedly, the actualization was gradual and influenced by pragmatic factors such as rate of speech and style. Overall, innovative speakers would favor null realizations as the best match to their grammars. The null realizations would thus increase in frequency, influencing new learners to make the reanalysis as well. Therefore, the traditional label “fall” or “loss” of weak jers is inaccurate except as a metalinguistic description of the end result. The adjacent consonants also played a role in the implementation. In OESl, the loss of weak jers is first registered between voiceless consonants (LCSl1 *kʊn jazɪ > kъn jazь|kn jazь ‘prince’). Another factor was the position of the jer in the word. Final jers were eliminated earlier than non-final; this is very clearly evidenced in Novg, where null spellings of final jers crop up from ca. 1075, while the main implementation took place in the 1120s−1210s. The data in the table come from the earliest Sl manuscripts − the Kiev Folia (10th c.), written in OCS of Moravian (Mor) provenience; the canonical OCS codices of ESSl provenience (late 10th−11th c.); the earliest OESl writings (11th−early 12th c.); and

81. The phonology of Slavic

1493

the Freising Fragments, hand III, written in OSln (later 10th c.). They illustrate the spelling of weak jers in final (1) and medial position (2), as well as sequences of three jers (3). JS1

Mor

(1)

*dɪnɪ˘

dьnь

dьnь

dьnь

(2)

*dɪ˘nɛ

dьne

dьne

dьne

*dɪ˘ni

dьni

dьni

*dɪ˘nɪsɪ˘

dьnьsь

*dɪ˘nɪʃɪ˘n-

dьnьšьn- dьnьšьn- dinizn-

(3)

OESl1

OCS1−2

OSln1−2

OESl2

OSln2

denь

denь

den

dne|d’ne|dъne

d(’)ne

(LOC)

dьni

dni|d’ni|dъni

d(’)ni

(ACC.PL )

dьnьsь

dnesь|dъnesь

d(’)nesь

‘today’

dneš’n-

dnešneje

‘today’s’

dine

OCS2

Gloss ‘day’

At the JS1 stage, both weak and strong jers are written with jer letters, without omissions or conflations. This is attested in Mor and in OESl1. (The occasional omissions of jers in 11th-c. OESl manuscripts is thought to be a “bookish” imitation of OCS rather than a sound change in progress.) At the JS2 stage, strong jers can be replaced by other vowel letters (see 5.8.2); weak jers can be dropped, written with an apostrophe, or confused with the other jer (ъ for ь in the OCS2 examples). This is attested in OCS2, OESl2, and OSln2. While the canonical OCS manuscripts were all produced by JS2 scribes, the majority of their jer spellings reflect JS1; this is due to the scribes’ copying from JS1 protographs, receiving dictation in a JS1 pronunciation, or following JS1 orthographic rules. In the table, conservative spellings are cited under OCS1−2, and innovative under OCS2. In the OSln1−2 spellings, weak jers («i») are omitted after the stress, but preserved elsewhere; the strong jer («i, e») (1, 3) has not yet been conclusively identified with another vowel. (The scribe was probably a German copying from an older text.)

5.8.1. Rephonologization of the strong jers As weak jers grew shorter (JS2), strong jers were lengthened in proportion; ultimately, they were rephonologized as mid- or near-open vowels. This process has traditionally, though illogically, been called the vocalization of strong jers. The reflexes fall into a central zone and peripheries. In the central zone (W-SSl, WSlk and ESlk, Cz, Sorb, and most of Lech), strong *ɪ and *ǝ (from LCSl1 *ʊ [5.1.1]), merged as *ǝ or a similar mid-central vowel. (In WSl, *ɪ left its traces in the softness of the preceding consonant [see 5.4].) In early OSb and OCr, ǝ was spelled with the front jer letter «ь»; the back jer letter «ъ» went into abeyance. During the Middle Ages, ǝ was rephonologized as a in Što and most of Čak, and as ɛ («e») in Kaj and in the Čak dialects of a few Adriatic islands. In Sln, the merged reflex bifurcated, depending on length: *ǝ > ǝ («e»); *ǝ: > a: in the southwest, adjoining Čak, and close-mid e («ẹ » or «é») to the east, adjoining Kaj. In WSl, apart from Pb (see 5.8.2) and part of CenSlk, the merged reflex of *ɪ and *ǝ was identified with LCSl1 *ɛ. In Sorb, this could change to o in US and a in LS, depending on the adjacent consonants. In the table, Slk1 is SE CenSlk dialects, which have rounded reflexes of *u; Slk2 is CenSlk, with forms from the standard. (Cf. WSlk déždž, pes, den.)

1494

XIII. Slavic PSl (1)

(2)

BCS

Sln

Slk1

Slk2

OCz

US

LS

OPo

Gloss

*duzdi̯ us

dȁzˇd

dè zˇ [ǝ]

dožd-

dážd’

desˇč

désˇć

de(j)sˇć

deżdż

‘rain’

*suna2s

sȁn

sèn [ǝ]

son

!

sen

sen

són

soń

sen

‘sleep’

*pisa2s

pȁs

pȅs [ǝ]

pes

pes

pes

pos

pjas

pies

‘dog’

*dinis

dȃn

dȃn

deň

den

dźeń

źeń

dzień

‘day’

In the other peripheral zones (Bg, Mc, ESl, and CenSlk), strong *ɪ and *ǝ /*ʊ remained distinct, for the most part. Generally, strong *ɪ was reflected as ɛ («e»); in BR and Ru, it bifurcated into ɔ before hard consonants and e before soft. Strong *ʊ became ɔ («o») in ESl, in part of CenSlk, in western (Ohrid) OCS, and in many Mc dialects, including the standard (though a also occurs as an intrusion from BCS). In Bg, its outcome was delabialized ǝ («u˘»), merging with the reflex of LCSl1 *ɔ˜.

(1)

(2)

PSl

OCS

Preslav

Ohrid

Bg

Mc

OESl

Uk

BR

Ru

Gloss

*duzdi̯ us

dъzˇdь

dъzˇdь

dozˇdь

du˘zˇd [ǝ]

dozˇd

dъzˇdь

dosˇcˇ

dozˇdzˇ

dozˇd’

‘rain’

*suna2s

sъnъ

sъnъ

sonъ

su˘n [ǝ]

son

sъnъ

son

son

son

‘sleep’

*pisa2s

pьsъ

pesъ

pesъ

pes

pes

pьsъ

pеs

pës [o]

pës [o]

‘dog’

*dinis

dьnь

denь

denь

den

den

dьnь

den’

dzen’

den’

‘day’

5.8.2. Pb outcomes The reflexes of *ɪ and *ǝ did not follow Havlík’s Law in the northwesternmost Slavic language, which therefore was an outlier. Weak jers in initial syllables became strong if they were stressed or in the first pre-stress syllable: LCSl1 *kʊto > ÷kåtü ‘who’ cf. OCS kъto|kto; LCSl1 *pɪsi > ÷pasåi, cf. OCS pьsi|psi ‘dog (nom. pl.)’. Other weak jers were lost, as expected. Strong *ɪ and *ǝ merged as ɒ (å in normalized spelling) in some environments, but remained distinct in others − a for front, and close-mid e (ė in normalized spelling) for back: LCSl1 *dʊzɟɪ > ÷dåzd ‘rain’, cf. OCS dъzˇdь; LCSl1 *pɪsa2 s > ÷pjas ‘dog’; LCSl1 *dɪnɪ > dan ‘day’; LCSl1 *lokʊtɪ > ÷lüt’ėt ‘elbow’.

5.8.3. Irregular outcomes At the time of the jer-shift, conservative speakers presumably tolerated (or even produced) null implementations of weak jers as allegro forms. Conversely, innovative

81. The phonology of Slavic

1495

speakers in the same community must have retained awareness of the existence of vowels in weak-jer position and interpreted them as paragogic vowels − that is, as potential realizations of consonants not immediately followed by vowels in high-style or largo speech. This natural result of generational continuity would have provided many opportunities for irregular outcomes, e.g. insertion of non-etymological vowels in inherited clusters (1). The regular operation of Havlík's Law created extensive allomorphy (“vowel-zero alternations”). Thus, in the individual languages, the distribution of strong and weak jer reflexes has often been disrupted by stem-leveling to break up complex consonant clusters − though the bar for complexity is set quite high in Sl − or to eliminate multiple vowel-zero alternations in the same stem. Thus, e.g. in ‘stalk’ (2), the ESl and SSl languages have generalized the root allomorph that reflects the strong jer; cf. also modern Cz steblo. In ‘light’ (3), the masculine indefinite form, in accordance with Havlík’s Law, should have a null outcome for the rightmost jer; however, the strong-jer reflex has been extended from forms in which it was regular. PSl (1)

*anglis

(2)

*stibl-

(3)

*liguka2s

OCS

BCS

Sln

ǫglь

ȕgalj

(v)ǫ̑gǝƚ

stáblo lȁk

lьgъk-

OCz

LS

OPo

Uk

Ru

uhel

hugel

stáblọ

stblo

láhǝk

lehek

Gloss

węgiel

vuhil’

ugol’

‘coal’

spƚo

źdźbƚo

steblo

steblo

‘stalk’

(lekki)

(lekki)

(lehkyj)

lëgok

‘light (M)’

5.9. Tautosyllabic liquid-jer sequences By Havlík’s Law (5.8), LCSl1 tautosyllabic *rɪ, *lɪ, *rǝ, *lǝ (peripheral *rʊ, *lʊ) are predicted to yield RV in strong position (1), and R in weak (2). In fact, these outcomes only developed in WSl, excluding Slk, and in the more western dialects of ESl. In the WSl dialects, the new interconsonantal sonorants did not become syllabic; the words in (2) are monosyllabic. (By contrast, tautosyllabic *ɪr, *ɪl, *ǝr, *ǝl had become syllabic; see 5.6). In Sorb, interconsonantal *l ultimately developed into *ɨl (2), with a different vowel from the strong-jer reflex *e. In western ESl, both interconsonantal liquids developed a following epenthetic ɨ, again differing from the strong-jer reflexes (2). In some words, leveling has interfered with the outcomes, as in Uk krovi, sl’oza for expected *kryvi, *slyza.

(1)

(2)

PSl

LCSl1

OCz

*kruu̯im

*krǝu̯ɪ

krev

kréj

*slizam

*slɪzǝ

slz

*kruu̯ɛs

*krǝu̯ɛ

*sliza:

*slɪza

US

LS

Po

Uk

BR

Ru

kšej

krew

krov

krow

krov’

‘blood (ACC)’

(sylzow)

(łdzow)

łez

sl’oz

slëz

slëz

‘tear (GEN.PL )’

krve

krwje

kšwě

(krwi)

!

kryvi

krovi

‘blood (GEN)’

slza

sylza

łdza

łza

!

sljaza

sleza

‘tear’

krovi sl’oza

Gloss

Brought to you by | UCL - University College London Authenticated Download Date | 6/21/18 12:02 PM

1496

XIII. Slavic

The outcomes in Ru differ from those in other ESl languages in that the strong-jer reflexes developed even in weak position. According to Isačenko (1970), Ru actually developed interconsonantal liquids, but they were eliminated, after a period of “trial and error,” by a morphological rule that eliminated vowel-zero alternations adjacent to consonant clusters. In Slk and SSl, tautosyllabic *rɪ, *lɪ, *rǝ, *lǝ became syllabic sonorants, thus merging with tautosyllabic *ɪr, *ɪl, *ǝr, *ǝl (see 5.6). This happened regardless of whether *ɪ and *ǝ were strong (3) or weak (4) by Havlík’s Law. Exceptions can be found in western (Ohrid) OCS, where the normal strong-jer reflexes are sometimes found. (Some scholars have posited that W-OCS was a peripheral conservation of the same pattern seen in WSl and ESl; consequently, the syllabic reflexes in Slk and in other SSl dialects was a central LCSl innovation.)

(3)

(4)

PSl

E-OCS

W-OCS

Bg

Mc

BCS

Sln

*slizina:

slьz(ь)na

slez(ь)na

*kruu̯im

krъvь

*kruu̯a:u̯*sliza:

Slk

Gloss

slu˘zna

solzna

sȕzna

sółzna

slzná

‘tearful (F )’

krovь

kru˘v

krv

kȓ v

kȓ v

krv

‘blood (ACC)’

krъvavъ

krъvavъ

ku˘rvav

krav

kȑ vāv

krvȃv

krvavý

‘bloody’

slьza

slьza

su˘lza

solza

sȕza

sóƚza

slza

‘tear’

In OCS, the syllabic sonorants of either origin were spelled «rъ, rь» and «lъ, lь»; the jer-letter used was a matter of convention rather than phonology. In EBg dialects, syllabic sonorants were re-diphthongized, with their opening or closing phases reanalyzed as ǝ («u˘r, ru˘» and «u˘l, lu˘»). The tendency was for the opening phase to be reanalyzed before single consonants, and the closing phase before consonant clusters; however, this distribution has been greatly obscured by leveling. (In [3−4], only kru˘v shows an unpredicted outcome.) Syllabic sonorants have been preserved in many WBg dialects. In Mc and WSSl, r̥ has been stable; *l̥ eventually re-diphthongized to olˠ, which gave Mc ou̯ («ol»), BCS u, and Sln ou̯ («ol», tonemic-system «oƚ»).

5.10. Compensatory lengthening Jer-strengthening (5.8.1) was a form of compensatory lengthening (CL): as the weak jer decreased in duration, the strong jer increased. Other vowels also underwent CL before weak jers, at least in the central dialects of LCSl; the process has left no detectable trace in E-SSl, BR, or Ru. In the table, the first form in each set shows the reflex of a vowel lengthened in the CL environment; the second shows the reflex when the following vowel was not a jer. (For the reflexes of lengthened vowels, see 5.3)

81. The phonology of Slavic

(1)

(2)

LCSl1

LCSl2

*samʊ

ǝ

*sa:m

*samɔ

*samɔ

*lɛdʊ

(j)

*lɛda (3)

(4)

ǝ

*l ɛ:d (j)

*l ɛda

BCS

Sln

Slk

sȃm

sȃm

sám

sȁmo

samȏ

OCz

US

OPo

Kb

Uk

Gloss

sám

sam

såm

sóm

sam

‘alone’

samo

samo

samo

samo

samò

samo

(N) ‘ice’

lȇd

lẹ̑d

l’ad

!

led

lód

lód

lód

lid

lȅda

ledȗ

(ľadu)

(ledu)

loda

lodu

(lodu)

(l’odu) (GEN)

*bɔgʊ

*bo:g

bȏg

bọ̑g

†

bóh

bóh

bóh

bóg

bóg

bih

‘God’

*bɔga

*bɔga

bȍga

bogȃ

boha

boha

boha

boga

bòga

boha

(GEN)

lȗg

lo˛̑g

luh

lúh

łuh

łąg

łąg

luh

‘fen’

!

!

luha

luha

łuha

łęga

łãga

luha

(GEN)

*lɔ˜gʊ *lɔ˜ga

ǝ

1497

*lɔ˜g

ǝ

*lɔ˜ga

lȗga

lo˛̑ga

In Sorb, post-16c Po, and Uk, the results of CL can only be seen in the outcomes of LCSl1 *ɛ (2) and *ɔ (3). In Sorb, the reflexes are either close mid-vowels or diphthongs ie and uo («ě» and «ó»). Similar diphthongs developed in Uk and are preserved in northern dialects. In WUk (including the standard language), uo fronted to iü (OUk «ю»), then lost its labialization; thus it merged with the reflex of ie, and also with the outcome of LCSl1 *æ (*mæra: > OESl měra > Uk mira ‘measure’). (The reflex of LCSl1 *i became lax ɪ.) The regular distribution of CL reflexes has been disturbed by rampant analogy − hence the irregular outcomes (marked !). In various LCSl dialects, the implementation of new length depended on the accent type and the following consonant (see Timberlake 1983a). In WSl, another interfering factor was vowel abridgment, which occurred when the consonant between the target vowel and the weak jer was voiceless. This explains outcomes, especially common in peripheral Lech, where penultimate strong jers have null (quasi-weak jer) outcomes: LCSl1 *ɔu̯ɪsʊ > Kb óws ‘oats’, cf. Po owies; LCSl1 *nɔgʊtɪ > Kb nokc, cf. Po nogieć.

5.11. Lenition of *g In a central zone of the post-migration CSl, PSl *g was lenited to *ɣ (1). The zone affected stretched from southern WSl (US, CzSlk) to non-peripheral ESl (Rusyn, Uk, BR, SRu); there was a southward extension from Slk to westernmost SSl (NWSln, WSln, and parts of Čak). The lenition also extended into proximal NRu dialects, but its effects can only be seen between vowels: togo > toɣo (0 tovo) ‘that (M/N.GEN.SG)’, but gost’ ‘guest’. Eventually, *ɣ backed to ɦ or ʕ in US, Cz, Slk, NWSln, Rusyn, Uk, and SWBR. This was definitely a secondary development; the reflex in those dialects was evidently still *ɣ when new devoicing rules developed after the jer-shift: /ɦ/ and /ʕ/ devoice to /x/ rather than /h/ or /ħ/ (2). Likewise, /x/ voices to [ɣ] rather than [ɦ] or [ʕ].

1498

XIII. Slavic PSl (1)

US

OCz

Slk

WSln

OUk

BR

SRu j j

Gloss

*gra:b-

hrabać

hrabiti

hrabat’

ɣrabiti

hrabiti

hrabic’

ɣrab it

‘snatch’

*naga:

noha

noha

noha

nǫɣa

noha

naha

naɣa

‘leg’

*baga:

boha

boha

boha

boɣa

boha

boha

boɣa

‘God (GEN/ ACC)’

(2) (3)

*baga2s

bóh [x]

*mai̯ zga: mjezha

bóh miezha

bôh [x] miazga

bux

bоh †

mezga

boh [x]

box

(NOM)

mjazha

j

‘pulp’

m azɣa

Given its dialect geography, the lenition of *g was undoubtedly a LCSl change. For absolute chronology, it can be noted that the southward extension must have developed while WSl and W-SSl still formed a continuum, i.e. probably before the early 10th c. Nevertheless, some scholars treat it as post-CSl because of names spelled with «g» instead of «h» in La sources and the earliest La-alphabet Sl texts (prior to the 13th c.): early OCz bogu ‘God (DAT.SG)’. The rationale is that lenition could not be CSl if it happened after the jer-shift (5.8). This is a weak argument. First, «g» is a plausible way of rendering /ɣ/, especially when there is no contrast with /g/, and when «h» was used to render voiceless /x/, along with ch. (In Hebrew-alphabet Knaanic [Judeo-Czech] glosses from the same period, the *g reflex is spelled as velar gimel instead of he or heth.) Second, the argument is predicated on the false view that the end of LCSl was a punctiliar event. Granted that the jer-shift was the last “common” change, it took place over an extended period; its actualization ended in some dialects before beginning in others. The lenition of *g may have had a different chronology relative to the jer-shift in some dialects than others, but it was a development rooted in the laxness of CSl *g, reflected in the lenited reflexes of the velar palatalizations (3.2, 4.4−4.6.; see Andersen 1969, 1977). As shown by Andersen (1969), the lenition began at a time when the CSl constraint against fricative-fricative clusters was still in force (see 3.1) − that is, before the jer-shift (5.8). This explains why *zg remained zg rather than becoming *zh in ECz, Slk, Uk, and SW BR (3), the dialects most central for − and hence first affected by − the change. (BR zh is pronounced [zg].) As the change radiated outward, it affected dialects where the fricative-fricative constraint had been lifted by the jer-shift; thus the reflex is zɦ in WCz and US dialects (but cf. US mjezga, Cz †mízga), and zɣ in the SSl and more peripheral ESl dialects in the lenition zone.

5.12. Contraction Following QD (5.1), there was a tendency for Vi̯ V sequences, found only over boundaries, to contract to V:. This was one of the changes that created new distinctions in length/tenseness, along with neoacute retraction (6.4.3) and compensatory lengthening (5.10). Contraction occurred throughout Sl, from Pb to Novg; it was most intensive in CzSk and W-SSl, and least in ESl. Nowhere did it reach its ultimate extent; variation between contracted and uncontracted forms still occurred in the historical period, to varying degrees in different grammatical categories. Some of the uncontracted forms

81. The phonology of Slavic

1499

may have been resurrected by stem-leveling, but others were probably original lento forms that persisted as stylistic variants. In OCS (1−2), four stages of contraction can be observed: 1. pre-contraction; 2. glide loss; 3. assimilation of the second vowel to the first; and 4. monosyllabification (contraction proper). Not every sequence went through all the stages. For example, the assimilation phase could not happen in *-ǝi̯ i- or *ɨi̯ i, since ǝ and ɨ could not follow other vowels. LCSl1

PSl (1)

(2)

OCS1

OCS2

*-ɛ:+a:s+ɛt

*-æaʃɛ

-ěaše

*-a:+i̯ +a:

*-ai̯ a

-aja

-aa

*-au̯+i̯ +amau̯

*-ui̯ ɛmu

-ujemu

-uemu

*-a:m+i̯ +a:m

*-ɔ˜i̯ ɔ˜

-ǫjǫ

*-a2m+i̯ + ai̯ sa2m

*-ǝi̯ ixǝ

-ъixъ|-yixъ?

*i̯ + a2m+i̯ + ai̯ sa2m

*-ɪi̯ ixǝ

OCS3 -ěěše

OCS4

Gloss

-ěše

IMP.3SG

-a

F.NOM

-umu

M/N.DAT

-ǫǫ

-ǫ

F.INST

-ъixъ|-yixъ?

-yxъ

HARD

-uumu

GEN/.PL

-ьixъ|-iixъ?

-ьixъ|-iixъ?

-ixъ

SOFT GEN.PL

The forms in (2) are ambiguous, like other definite adjective endings formed on the bases *-ǝ- and soft *-ɪ-. As discussed in 3.5, OCS did not have the graphic means to differentiate *i and *i̯ i. While the spellings «ъıи», «ии» are clearly disyllabic, they could convey either /ɨi̯ i/, /ii̯ i/ (OCS1, with tense-jer reflexes) or /ɨi/, /ii/ (OCS2). Because /ɨ/ was spelled with digraphs («ъı» or «ъи», transliterated y), «ъı, ъи» can be read as disyllabic [ǝi̯ i] or monosyllabic [ɨ]. The sequence -ii- («ии») could have arisen by jertensing (5.7) as well as assimilation (OCS3). The reflexes of contraction were long. If the first vowel was LCSl1 *ǝ or *ɪ (2), it tensed prior to contraction (see 5.7). When the two vowels were identical, they simply monosyllabified (3). The sequence *ɔjɛ (4) contracted as *ɔ: in SSl, but *ɛ: in WSl (with no secondary softening of the preceding consonant). When the two vowels differed in height, the reflex of contraction matched the more peripheral vowel, regardless of its order in the sequence, according to the following hierachy: close-mid > (near-)open > open-mid (5). The sequence *ii̯ V2 (6), insofar as it contracted at all, became *i̯ V2 or, in WSl, V2 with preceding secondary softening. LCSl1

BCS

Sln

Slk

OCz

LS

OPo

Kb

*ai̯ a

dòbrā

dȏbra

dobrá

dobrá

dobra

dobra

dobrô

*õi̯ õ

dȍbrū

dȏbro

dobrú

dobrú

dobru

dobrą

dobrą

(F.ACC)

*ɛjɛ

tùđē

túje

cudzie

cuzé

cuze

cudze

cëzé

‘foreign (N.NOM/ACC)’

*ii̯ i

dȍbrī

dȏbri

dobrí

dobrˇí

dobri

dobrzy

dobrzi

(M.NOM.PL )

(4)

*ɔjɛ

dȍbrō

dȏbro

dobré

dobré

dobre

dobre

dobré

(N.NOM/ACC)

(5)

*ei̯ ɛ

sȅje

sẹ̑ je

seje

sěje

sejo

sieje

seje

‘sow (PRS.3SG)’

(3)

Gloss ‘good (F.NOM)’

1500

XIII. Slavic LCSl1

BCS

Sln

*ei̯ a

(6)

Slk

OCz

LS

OPo

Kb

Gloss

siat’

sieti

seś

siać

sôc

(INF )

*ai̯ ɛ

znȃsˇ

znȃsˇ

znáš

znásˇ

znaš

znasz

znôsz

‘know (PRS.2SG)’

*ɔi̯ a

pȃs

pȃs

pás

pás

pas

pas

pas

‘belt’

*-ɔi̯ a-

stȃti

státi

stát’

státi

stać

stac

‘stand’

*-ii̯ a

brȁća

brȃtja

bratia

bratřie

bratśa

braća

bracô

‘brethren’

*-ii̯ u

brȁću

brȃtjo

bratřú

bratśu

braćę

(ACC.SG)

Uncontracted forms are also attested: BCS sȅjati, Sln sejáti ‘sow’; BCS pȍjās, Sln ̣ † pojȃs ‘belt’; BCS †stójati, LS stojaś, OPo stojać, Kb stojec ‘stand’. These, plus the lacunae in the table, show the varying extent of implementation or morphological interference in the various dialects. The contraction *ai̯ ɛ > *-a:- in Leskien III verbs like *znati, *znai̯ ɛ- ‘know’ opened the door to a major morphological development − the exaptation of the athematic PRS.1SG *mi. The contracted stem in *-a:- was reanalyzed as a theme comparable to the long vowel in athematic *da- ‘give’, *jima- ‘have’; then the thematic PRS.1SG *-ɔ˜ was replaced by *-mi. The innovation spread to other classes, to differing extents, in SSl and WSl (see Janda 1996). (The endings are given in their LCSl1 form; the actual spread happened in historical times.)

6. Suprasegmental phonology BaSl accentology has been characterized as the “most complex problem of IE historical grammar” (Watkins 1965: 117). The present account for the most part presents the approach of the Moscow Accentological School (Dybo, Illič-Svityč, and Zaliznjak). For brevity, Ba outcomes are only discussed if shared with Sl. BaSl was a dialect continuum; there is no warrant for assuming that PreSl accentual developments always marched in lockstep with Pre-Ba. In the tables, API gives the accent paradigm (AP) reconstructed for PIE: 1 = barytone (fixed on the stem); 1s = fixed on a suffix; 2 = oxytone (fixed on the ending). APII gives the accent pattern reconstructed for CSl (see 6.7−8): a = fixed on the stem; A = fixed on a suffix; b = fixed on the post-root syllable; B = fixed on the post-suffix syllable; c = mobile stress. Forms given in [ ] are supplied from other dialects. The glosses for the meaning of the protoform are based on the majority of attested forms. For BCS, the data come from NSˇto (Neo-Sˇtokavian), the BCS standard, cited in its Ek variety; and from Čak (Čakavian) (Cˇak1 = Orbanići [Kalsbeek 1998]; Cˇak2 = Orlec [Houtzagers 1985]; Cˇak3 = other).

81. The phonology of Slavic

1501

6.1. Sl accentual correspondences CSl had mobile ictus with distinctive tones under stress. The place of the ictus can be reconstructed from correspondences among the four zones that have preserved accentual mobility: W-SSl, E-SSl (Bg, some EMc), ESl, and peripheral Lech (Cen/NKb, Slc, and Pb). The earliest texts (MBg, OSb, MRu) that indicate ictus by supralinear marks date to the 14th−15th centuries. Elsewhere in Slavic, the stress has been bound to a non-final syllable − initial in Sorb, Cz, W/CenSlk, far SPo, and SKb; penultimate in Po, SWCz, NECz, and ESlk, and separately in peripheral WMc; and antepenultimate in most of Mc. ˝ ), and the non-acute, traditionally known In LCSl, there were two tones − the acute (V ̑ as the circumflex when long (V) and the short falling when short (V̏). A new accent, the neoacute (V́), arose in LCSl2 (see 6.4.3). These tones can be reconstructed from the intonational distinctions preserved in BCS and Sln, with supplementary data from length or stress correlations in the non-tonemic languages.

6.1.1. Acute The acute accent appeared on syllables with long vowels or diphthongs that reflected laryngeal length (see 2.3), regardless of the stress. While it was originally non-prosodic (see 6.3.1, 6.3.3, 6.3.4), by LCSl it had become a low-high tone with a fall in the subsequent syllable. In the Slavic languages with accentual mobility, lexemes reconstructed with the CSl acute regularly have stress fixed on the root (1−3) or on a derivational suffix (5−6). CSl (1)

(2)

˝ |V# V

˝ |ɪ/ǝ# V

ˇ ak1 C

LCSl1 *ʒa˝bɨ

zˇȁbi

˝ ra *mæ

˝ R|CV CA

(4)

˝ R|Cɪ/ǝ# CA

(5)

˝ |V|V# V

(6)

˝ |V V|V

Sln

zˇȁbe

zˇábe

OCz

MRu

Gloss

zˇáby

ˈzˇaby

‘frog (NOM.PL )’

méra

miera

ˈměra

‘unit’

díma

0

ˈdymъ

‘smoke (GEN)’

mȅra

mȅra

*dı˝̠ ma

dȉma

¶

*dı˝̠ mʊ

di˜m

dȉm

dìm

dým

ˈdymъ

‘smoke’

¶

0

měr

měrъ

‘unit (GEN.PL )’

˝ rʊ *mæ (3)

NŠto

dȉmovā

mjȇrā

mér

dýma

SSl *bla˝to

blȁto

blȁto

bláto

bláto

boˈloto

‘swamp’

SSl *kra˝u̯a

krȁva

krȁva

kráva

kráva

koˈrova

‘cow’

krȃf

¶

kráv

krav

koˈrovъ

(GEN.PL )

SSl *kra˝u̯ami

krȁvami

¶

krȁvama

¶

krávama

kravami

koˈrovami

(INST.PL )

*ka˝mɛnɛ

¶

¶

¶

kamene

¶

‘stone (GEN)’

*boga˝ta

bogȁta

bohata

boˈgata

SSl *kra˝u̯ʊ

kȁmena

krȃvā

kȁmena

bògata

kámna

bogáta

ˈkameni

‘rich (F )’

1502

XIII. Slavic

The acute does not have a distinct reflex in Lech, LS, most of Slk, and E-SSl. In WSSl, lexemes reconstructed with root acutes have the same tone throughout the paradigm, though its length may differ in open (1, 3) and closed syllables (2, 4). Sln has a lowhigh accent: long V́, or short V̀ in closed syllables. BCS has a high-low accent V̏, or long V̑ in closed syllables (2). In Čak dĩm [2], the accent is a rising tone of post-CSl origin. In NŠto bògata (6), the place of the ictus reflects the definitional NŠto change: non-initial stresses shifted leftwards, and the receiving syllables developed low-high tones − long V́, short V̀ . In P-Cz and P-WSlk, root acutes were reflected as length in disyllabic forms (1, 3), but not in polysyllables (5−6); cf. OCz ¶ kámen ‘stone (NOM)’, žabami ‘frog (INST.PL )’. In forms that became monosyllabic by the jer-shift (5.8), acuted vowels were also shortened (2, 4); cf. OCz blat ‘swamp (GEN.PL )’. In the history of Czech, the resulting root allomorphy was usually leveled out in one direction or the other: OCz 0dým (2), but 0 mier alongside regular měr (2). In ESl, the acute has a distinct reflex only in internal open-vowel-sonorant diphthongs (see 5.5). The pleophonic outcome is stressed on the second syllable (COˈROC) when the root vowel had been acuted in CSl (3), but on the first (ˈCOROC) when it had been circumflexed (see 6.1.2). In the same environment, US has tense-vowel reflexes leˇ, rě, ló, ró: bƚóto, wróna.

6.1.2. Non-acute In LCSl, initial stressed syllables with non-acute accents had high-low tone if long (V̑), and high-low or level if short (V̏). On internal and final non-acuted syllables, only the ictus can be reconstructed. Lexemes reconstructed with non-acute belonged historically to mobile accent paradigms. CSl

LCSl1

Čak1

NŠto

Sln

MBg

MRu

Gloss

(1)

#ˈV|V

*sɨ̑na

(2)

#ˈV|V

*rȍda

rȍda

rȍda

rodȃ/rȏda

ˈroda

ˈro̍da

‘kin (GEN)’

*u̯ɛ̏tʃɛra

vȅcˇera

¶

večȇra

ˈvecˇera

ˈve̍cˇera

‘evening (GEN)’

sȋna

sȋna

sȋna

ˈsyna

ˈsyna

‘son (GEN)’

vȅcˇeri

(3)

#ˈV |ɪ/ǝ#

*rȍdu

ruȏt

rȏd

rȏd

ˈrodъ

ˈro̍dъ

‘kin’

(4)

ˈCARC-

SSl *brȃda

brȃdo

brȃdu

bradọ̑

ˈbradǫ

Ru ˈborodu

‘beard (ACC)’

In W-SSl, non-acute accents are reflected as high-low tones − long V̑, and short V̏ (1− 2). In Sln, the ictus has tended to shift rightwards from circumflexed syllables; though analogy has wreaked havoc on the distribution, generally the presence of a circumflex on a suffix or ending points to an original root circumflex. Similar rightward shifts occurred in Kaj in trisyllabic forms, and Bg in disyllabic. In BCS, short non-acute syllables were lengthened when closed by the jer-shift (3). In ESl, the only distinct reflex of

81. The phonology of Slavic

1503

the non-acute accents occurs in disyllabic roots from CSl open vowel-liquid diphthongs, where the stress falls on the first syllable (4) rather than the second (see 6.1.1). In WSl, the non-acute accents do not have distinct reflexes.

6.2. Prosodic features inherited from PIE PreSl and PreBa shared several major innovations in prosody, as compared with other IE dialects (see 6.3). Early scholarship on BaSl accentology tried to reconstruct common BaSl acute and circumflex tones and to trace them back to PIE; hence the use of the terms acute and circumflex, coopted from Gk. These efforts were unavailing, as the acute proved to be a purely BaSl innovation that was non-tonal in its origin (see 6.3.1, 6.3.3, 6.3.4). Moreover, the tones sensu stricto evidently developed independently in CSl and Ba; the LCSl circumflex has a different history from its Li namesake (see 6.4.2). However, even if the PreSl and PreBa tones cannot be traced back to PIE, there were several crucial prosodic features that can − ictus patterns (6.2.1), lengths (6.2.2), and accent valencies (6.2.3).

6.2.1. Ictus patterns PreSl inherited two lexically specified ictus patterns from PIE − barytone (API = 1), with stressed root or derivational suffix, and oxytone (API = 2), with stressed desinence. (There is no clear trace of the PIE mobile pattern.) In the PSl oxytones, the stress originally fell on the final syllable of the desinence (1); later there was retraction if there was a laryngeal in the first syllable (see 6.3.2) or if the final syllable consisted solely of a jer. Relics of end-stressed desinences are found in various Sl languages: PSl *-ɛi̯ ˈma > Čak1 drzˇimȍ ‘hold (PRS.1PL )’, Uk bizˇymoˈ ‘run (PRS.1PL )’, prynesemoˈ ‘bring (PRS.1PL )’; PSl *-ɛˈtɛ > MRu prineseˈte ‘bring (PRS.2PL )’. Similarly, PSl *-ɛˈmɛ, *-ɛˈtɛ > Slk nesieme ‘carry (PRS.1PL )’, nesiete ‘carry (PRS.2PL )’, where the penultimate ie reflects *ɛ lengthened by neoacute retraction (see 6.4.3). PSl (1)

LCSl2

Sln

*da:ruˈmi

*darǝˈmi

*lɛu̯diˈmi

*ludɪˈmi

ljudmí

*damaˈu̯am

*-oˈvǝ > *-ˈo:vǝ

domọ́ v

MBg

MRu

Slc

Gloss

darъˈmi

darъˈmi

darmḯ

‘gift’ (INST.PL )

ljudьˈmi

le˘ʒmḯ

‘people (INST.PL )’

dɵmȯ́ u̯

‘house (GEN.PL )’

domôvъ

6.2.2. Length PreSl inherited PIE length from several sources. One was the lengthened grade in ablaut, seen in the root in (1−2) and the suffix in (6). Another was contraction in PreSl V.V,

1504

XIII. Slavic

VHV, and Vi̯ V sequences, as in the endings in (1, 3, 4, 7). A third source was lengthening before tautosyllabic laryngeals (see 2.2, 6.3.1). In other cases, PIE lengths do not have reconstructible origins; these are often ascribed to laryngeals as well. However, some of the roots in question originated in babbling (5−6), so it is doubtful a priori that they began as closed syllables. Other roots with obscure length may have been borrowed from non-IE languages (7). In any event, PreSl syllables with obscure length developed like those with laryngeal length (see 6.3.1), in contrast to those with length from ablaut or contraction. PreSl

API

PSl

APII

Čak1

NSˇto

Sln

MRu

OCz

w

c

zˇȃra

zˇȃra

zˇȃra

ˈzˇara

Cz žár

*ga:si:ˈti c

gȃsi

gási

gasí

gaˈsitь hasí

‘extinguish (PRS.3SG)’

Gloss

(1)

*ˈg he:ra:d

1

*ˈgɛ:ra:d

‘heat (GEN)’

(2)

*gwo:ˈsi̯ eti

1s

0

(3)

*ˈu̯l̥ kwa:d

1

*ˈu̯ilka:d

c

ȗka

vȗka

vȏlka

ˈvolka vlka

‘wolf (GEN)’

(4)

*g̑hei̯ meˈH2i

2

*zεi̯ ˈma:i̯

c

zīmȉ

zími

zími

ziˈmeˇ

zimeˇ

‘winter (LOC)’

(5)

*ˈba:beH2

1

*ˈba˝:ba˝:

a

bȁba

bȁba

bába

ˈbaba

bába

‘granny’

(6)

*ma:ˈte:r

2

*ˈma˝:tɛ:r

a

mȁt

mȁti

máti

ˈmati

máti

‘mother’

(7)

*ˈma:ka:d

1

*ˈma˝:ka:d

a/b

mȁka

máka

ˈmaka

máka

‘poppy (GEN)’

6.2.3. Accent valency In the reconstruction of the Moscow Accentological School (influenced by Jakobson’s 1963 concept of enclinomena), every BaSl morpheme had an inherent valency − higher {+}, also known as dominant; or lower {−}, also known as recessive. The valencies are hypothesized to be morphologizations of PIE suprasegmental features. Roots and suffixes that occurred solely in barytone lexemes were dominant and thus inherently stressable; whether they were actually stressed in a given lexeme depended on the concatenation of morphemes. Roots and suffixes that were stressless in oxytone forms were recessive and thus inherently unstressed. Prefixes, theme vowels, and endings were also recessive; they were only stressed by default, in forms where there was no dominant root or suffix. If a lexeme contained at least one dominant morpheme, it was inherently stressed (orthotonic); if not, it was an enclinomenon with variable stress, depending on other elements in the phonological word.

81. The phonology of Slavic

1505

6.3. Development of the acute and related changes in PreSl 6.3.1. Acuting before tautosyllabic laryngeals In PreSl, as in PBa, syllables became /+acute/ if their nuclei directly preceded tautosyllabic laryngeals; when the laryngeals disappeared (2.2), they underwent compensatory ˝ :/__C. This first wave of acuting affected full-grade vowels (1) and lengthening: VH > V zero-grade *i, *u, and syllabic sonorants (2). Vowels with length of obscure origin in non-ablauting roots also became /+acute/ (3), unlike those with length from ablaut or contraction. As the feature /+acute/ arose by assimilation to a laryngeal consonant, it is posited that it was initially a feature of phonation or voice quality reflecting assimilation to radical articulation − e.g. laryngealized or glottalized/checked. Some scholars argue that it was a glottal stop, which persisted in defiance of the usual treatment of coda stops (see 3.1.3). PreSl (1)

(2)

(3)

API PSl

APII

Čak1

NSˇto

Sln

MRu

OCz

Gloss

*ˈbhageH2t- 1

*baˈ-ga˝:ta˝:

c/A

bogȁta

bògata

bogáta

boˈgata bohata

‘rich (F )’

*ˈseH1me:n

1

*ˈsɛ˝mɛ:n ̄

a

sȅmen

sȅme

séme

ˈseˇm ja

siemě

‘seed’

*ˈu̯l̥ HneH2

1

*ˈu̯˝ılna˝:

a

(v)ȕna

vȕna

vóƚna

ˈvolna

vlna

‘wool’

*ˈsuHra:d

1

*ˈsu˝:ra:d

a

sȉra

sȉra

síra

ˈsyra

sýra

‘cheese (GEN)’

*ˈbhra:tra:d

1

*ˈbra˝:t(r)a:d a

brȁta

brȁta

bráta

ˈbrata

bratra

‘brother (GEN)’

6.3.2. Retraction of the ictus to acuted syllables In PreSl, as in PBa, the ictus in oxytone lexemes retracted to preceding acuted syllables ˝ (H)ˈCnV > ˈV ˝ CnV. This change is known as Hirt’s Law. As originally formulat(1−2): V ed, the retraction was conditioned by “non-apophonic length” − in modern terms, compensatory length before laryngeals, as well as acutes of obscure origin, for which some scholars posit otherwise unreconstructible laryngeals (3). Pre-Hirt (1)

(2)

API

PSl

APII Čak1

NSˇto

Sln

MRu

OCz

Gloss

*bhu˝H2ˈtei̯

2

*ˈbu˝:tεi̯

1

bȉt

bȉti

bíti

ˈbyti

býti

‘be’

*de˝H2i̯ ˈu̯er-

2

*ˈda˝i̯ u̯eris

a

dȅver

dȅver

dẹ́ ver

ˈdeˇverь

deverˇ

‘brotherin-law’

*dl̥˝Hˈghe˝H2

2

*ˈdı˝lga˝:

a

dȕga

dȕga

dóƚga

ˈdolga

dlhá

‘long (F )’

*grı˝Hˈu̯e˝H2

2

*ˈgrı˝:u̯a˝:

a

grȉva

gríva

ˈgriva

hříva

‘mane’

*pH3ii̯ e˝H2ˈnos

2

*piˈi̯ a˝:nas

A

pìjan

pijȁn

pьˈjanъ Cz pján

pijãn

‘drunk (M)’

1506

XIII. Slavic Pre-Hirt

(3)

API

PSl

APII Čak1

NSˇto

Sln

A

pijȁna

pìjana

pijána

pьˈjana Cz pjána

(F )

MRu

OCz

Gloss

*pH3ii̯ e˝H2ˈne˝H2

2

*piˈi̯ a˝:na˝:

*ma˝:ˈterm̥

2

*ˈma˝:tɛrim a

mȁter

mȁtēr

máter

ˈmaterь

mátě

‘mother (ACC)’

*pu˝:ˈra:d

2

*ˈpu˝:ra:d

pȉra

pȉra

píra

ˈpyra

¶

‘spelt (GEN)’

a

pýru

According to Illicˇ-Svitycˇ (1963), the retraction did not happen if the originally stressed syllable had its own tautosyllabic laryngeal; however, this hypothesis, based on Ltv outcomes, lacks Sl evidence and runs afoul of examples like (2). While Hirt’s Law changed accent contours, it did not cause oxytone paradigms to become barytone (API = 1). Ultimately, some lexemes did develop constant root stress by stem-leveling (1−4). Others remained oxytone (API = 2), to become mobile in CSl (APII = c) (5). This implies that some of the disyllabic endings had final stress at the time of the change; otherwise, the given words would have become barytone across the board: **CVHCV̍CV > **CV̍HCVCV.

(4)

(5)

(6)

Čak1

Post-Hirt

PSl

*ˈdhu˝H2ma:d

*ˈdu˝:ma:d

dȉma

díma

ˈdyma

‘smoke (GEN)’

*dhu˝H2moˈmi

0

dȉmom

dímom

ˈdymom

(INST )

*grı˝Hˈu̯e˝H2su

0

grívah

Ru ˈgrivax

‘mane (LOC.PL )’

*de˝H3roˈu̯om

*da:raˈu̯am

¶

*su˝Hˈnuns

0

*ranˈke˝H2mus *ranˈke˝H2mi

*ˈdu˝:mami *ˈgrı˝:u̯a˝:xu

MBg

MRu

Gloss

darọ́ v

daˈrovъ

daˈrȏvъ

‘gift (GEN.PL )’

sȋni

¶

ˈsyny

ˈsyny

(ACC.PL )

*ranˈka˝:mus

rokãn

rokȁm

rǫˈkamъ

ruˈkamъ

‘hand (DAT.PL )’

*ranˈka˝:mi:

rokȁmi

rokȃmi

rǫˈkami

ruˈkami

(INST.PL )

*su:ˈnuns

dãri

Sln

sȋne

In (5), the use of the graphemes «ȏ» and «ω» in MRu, signifying o instead of ɔ, point to neoacute retraction from a stressed final jer (see 6.4.3); cf. Slc sïnóu̯ ‘son (GEN.PL )’, with the reflex of *o: from retraction. The penultimate stress in disyllabic endings of the (i̯ )ā-stem declension (6) is a regular product of Hirt’s Law, since the -eH2 theme attracted the ictus. In the approach of the Moscow Accentological School, themes with laryngeals acquired {+} valencies, i.e. became inherently stressable. However, there are many exceptions, u-stem nouns with CVHC roots like *deH3ru̍s (5), *suHnu̍s (5), *piH3ru̍s ‘feast’, *steH2 nu̍s ‘camp’. Here the absence of the root acute is difficult to explain by analogy, since Hirt’s Law should have affected most of the paradigm, including all of the singular.

81. The phonology of Slavic

1507

6.3.3. Acuting before voiced stops According to Winter’s Law, syllable nuclei immediately before PIE voiced non-aspirates ˝ :/__(R)D (1). This change occurred became long and acuted in PreBa and PSl: V > V after Hirt’s Law, since it did not condition any retraction of the ictus. PreSl (1)

API

PSl

APII

Čak1

NSˇto

Sln

Uk

OCz

Gloss

jiedla

‘eat (RES.F )’

*ˈH1edleH2

1

*ɛ˝dla˝:

a

jȅla

jȅla

jéla

ˈjila

*ˈml̥ g̑leH2

1

*ˈmı˝lzla˝:

a

mȕzla

mȕzla

móƚzla

ˈmolzla

*ˈma˝:zi̯ ɛxi a

mȃzˇesˇ

mȁzˇesˇ

mȃzˇesˇ

ˈmažeš

!

*ˈsɛ˝dla˝:

sȅla

sȅla

séla

ˈsela

!

*ˈmog̑i̯ esi *ˈsedleH2

1

a

‘milk (RES.F )’ mažeš ‘anoint (PRS.2SG)’ seˇdla

‘settle (RES. F )’

Sln mȃzˇesˇ shows the W-SSl “neocircumflex,” which replaced old acutes in thematic presents and certain other categories. Of the OCz forms, only jiedla is regular; mažeš has undergone shortening by analogy, but seˇdla for expected **siedla is a true exception to Winter’s Law. Winter’s Law is much honored in the breech. Many exceptions show lengthening without acuting (2), including cognates of forms cited above (3); the only evidence for the acute in these words comes from Ba. There are also counterexamples with short, non-acute vowels (4). PreSl (2)

w

API

PSl

APII

Čak1

NSˇto

Sln

bezˇitȅ

bèzˇite

bezˇíte

*bheˈg ei̯ te

1s

*bɛ:gεi̯ ˈtɛ

c

*ˈdodH3n̥ti

1

*da:dinˈti

c

*da:dunˈti

c

*ˈk̑r̥ dikaw

*noˈg eH2

1 2

*si:rdiˈkad c *na:ˈga˝:

Uk

OCz

bizˇyˈte beˇzˇíte

‘run (PRS.2PL )’

dadie

‘give (PRS.3PL )’

dāduõ

dádū

dadȏ

daˈdut’

sȑ ce

sȑ ce

sȓ ce

ˈserce

srdce

‘heart’

naˈha

¶

‘naked (F )’

c

nága

nága

nahá (3)

*ˈH1edn̥ti

1

* ɛ:dinˈti

c

* ɛ:dunˈti

c

*mog̑oi̯

*ma:ˈzai̯

c

*mog̑ei̯

*ma:ˈzɛi̯

c

Gloss

jiˈdjat’ jědie i

eduõn

jédū

‘eat (PRS.3PL )’

jedó

mȃzu

maza mazȋ

maˈzi

‘grease (LOC)’

1508

XIII. Slavic PreSl (4)

API

PSl

APII

*ˈstogou̯

1

*stagau̯

b/c/d

*u̯oˈdeH2

2

*u̯aˈda˝:

c

Čak1

vodȁ

NSˇto

Sln

Uk

OCz

stȏgu

stȏgu

stoˈhu

stohu

‘rick (LOC)’

vòda

vóda

voˈda

voda

‘water’

Gloss

To explain the irregularities, it has been argued that Winter’s Law was blocked when the triggering consonant was followed by a nasal (5), a voiced stop, or a liquid (Dybo); however, there are also examples with the expected outcomes in these environments, as seen in (1). For other recalcitrant roots, it has been argued, often on shaky grounds, that they actually had aspirated stops (6) or else were later loanwords (7). Some of the argumentation has been casuistic, as when the *d in *-pod- (6) is declared to have arisen after Winter’s Law because it contradicts Winter’s Law (Derksen 2008: 180), despite the fact that it also occurs in Gk δεσπóζω ‘I rule’ [*di̯ ], νέποδες ‘descendants’. Given the many exceptions and the difficulties in explaining them, it might be worthwhile to explore the possibility that Winter’s Law was not pan-BaSl but the result of substratum interference or dialect changes that spread by (cross-)migrations. PreSl

API

PSl

APII

Čak1

NSˇto

Sln

Uk

OCz

Gloss

jieme

‘eat (PRS.1PL )’

!

*ɛ:dˈmas

c

(j)īmȍ

jémo

jémo

jiˈmo

*ˈsebdmos 1

*ˈsɛbdm-

b

sie˜dmi

sȇdmī

sédmi

ˈs’omyj sedmý

‘seventh (M)’

(6)

*ghostˈpod-

1

*ˈgaspad-

c

gospodȉn

gȍspo:di

gospọ̑ da

ˈhospoda

hospodi

‘lord (GEN)’

(7)

*ˈbhaga:d

1

*baˈga:d

c

bȍga

bȍga

bogȃ

ˈboha

boha

‘God (GEN)’

*sediˈlom

2

*sɛdiˈlad

b

sȅdlo

sèdlo

sédlọ

sidˈlo

sedlo

‘saddle’

(5)

*ˈH1edmos

1

Winter’s Law is claimed to provide evidence for the Glottalic Theory (2.4). Putatively, the PIE egressives (the theory’s version of *b, *d, *g̑, *g, *gw) split into glottal and buccal portions, e.g. *t’ > *ʔd; the first part was identical to the *ʔ that the theory posits as the laryngeal reflex. In LCSl, the laryngealized quality in Vʔ was reinterpreted as the acute accent. In this approach, forms lengthened before devoiced stops are regular: *H1e̍ste ‘eat [PRS.2PL]’ from *H1ed-; *pe:tsios ‘on foot’ from *ped-. In Winter’s formulation, such lengthening would have been blocked by PIE cluster assimilations and voicing rules; the irregular long vowels can be explained by morphological factors. In general, the idea that there were glottalic stops in PIE flies in the face of the compelling evidence for voiced unaspirated stops in all branches of IE; thus it conflicts with the Comparative Method in general. If glottalic stops were still present to condition BaSl prosodic changes, it is necessary to assume that they changed to voiced stops independently in every branch of PIE (see Jasanoff 2004b: 172).

81. The phonology of Slavic

1509

6.3.4. Acuting before heterosyllabic laryngeals Another wave of acuting, sometimes called “Bezzenberger’s Law,” affected syllables with coda sonorants or glides followed by laryngeals (1): V > V:/+acute/ /__{R, J}HC. These sequences were originally disyllabic, so they did not attract the ictus by Hirt’s Law (see 6.3.2). It has been posited that the the vowels were also lengthened, since acuteness and length were coupled elsewhere; however, there must be principled uncertainty about this if non-final trimoraic diphthongs were shortened (see 2.2). PreSl (1)

API

PSl

APII

Čak1

NSˇto

Sln

Ru

OCz

Gloss

a

brȅza

brȅza

bréza

beˈreza

brˇieza

‘birch’

*ˈbherHg̑eH2

1

*ˈbɛ˝rza˝:

*ˈbherHme:n

1

*ˈbɛ˝rmɛ:n a

brȅme

brȅme

bréme

beˈremja brˇiemeˇ

‘burden’

*ˈH2erH3dhlo-

1

*ˈa˝:rdla-

a

¶

rȁlice

rȁlo

rálọ

ˈralo

rádlo

‘plow’

*ˈmelH2tei̯

1

*ˈmɛ˝ltεi̯

a

mlȅt

mlȅti

mlẹ́ ti

moˈlot’

mlieti

‘grind’

For Slavic, this phase of acuting is only well established for lexemes that were barytone (API = 1), where the target syllable was stressed at the time of the change. Lexemes known to have been oxytone (API = 2), where the target syllable was unstressed, belong to the CSl mobile pattern (APII = c); they have non-acuted roots (2) or stressed suffixes (3). In other cases, the PIE ictus pattern is unknown. The supposition that PreSl oxytones underwent Bezzenberger acuting rests solely, and therefore shakily, on Ba evidence. In (4), the most cited CVRH root, the sole evidence for acuting or, indeed, for a PIE laryngeal is the acute in Li galvà, gálvą (AP-3). (Some scholars posit that the root was not *gal- ‘bald’ but *gho:lu-; cf. Armenian glux ‘head’.) PreSl (2)

w

API

PSl

APII

ˇ ak1 C

NSˇto zˇȋvo

Sln

*g ei̯ H3ˈu̯om

2

*gεi̯ ˈu̯ad

c

zˇȋvo

zˇȋvo

*tou̯Hˈka:d

2

*tau̯ˈka:d

c

tȗka

*H2i̯ ou̯H1ˈnom

2

*i̯ au̯ˈnad

c

(3)

*H2i̯ ou̯H1ˈno-

2

*i̯ au̯nˈı˝:ka:

A

junȉca

jùnica

juníca

(4)

*galHˈu̯eH2

2

*galˈu̯a˝:

c

glāvȁ

gláva

gláva

*galHˈu̯eH2m

2

*galu̯ˈa˝:m

c

glȃvo

glȃvu

glavọ̑

junọ̑

OCz

Ru

Gloss

zˇivo

ˈzˇivo

‘alive (N)’

tuka

ˈtuka

‘fat (GEN)’

Cz juný

ˈjuno

‘young (N)’

juˈnica

‘heifer’

hlava

goloˈva

‘head’

hlavu

ˈgolovu (ACC)’

1510

XIII. Slavic

6.3.5. Root acutes in oxytones In PreSl, some lexemes affected by Hirt’s Law (6.3.2) became barytone (API = 1; APII = a); in forms with disyllabic desinences, the non-root stress was leveled out (1). Other lexemes that had been eligible for Hirt’s Law remained oxytone (API = 2). In CSl, they became accentually mobile (APII = c), but they preserved no trace of the acute in forms with root stress (2), unlike their cognates in Li (AP-3, mobile with acuted roots: stónas ‘status’). Likewise, PreSl oxytones whose roots were eligible for the other waves of acuting (6.3.3−6.3.4) also became mobilia with non-acuted roots (3−4), again in contrast to Li AP-3 (péntis ‘axe poll’). Acuting (1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

PSl

APII

*ı˝Hˈlus

*ˈı˝:lus

a

*ı˝Hluˈmi

*ˈı˝:lumi

a

*ste˝H2ˈnus

*sta:ˈnus

c

¶

Čak2

NSˇto

Sln

jȉlo

ìl (¶ ȉlo)

íƚ (¶ ílo)

jíl

il

‘silt’

ȉlom

ílom

jílem

ˈilom

(INST )

stȃn

stȃn

stan

stan

‘camp’

stánu

†

stanu

staˈnu

(LOC)

stȃn

Cz

Ru

Gloss

*ste˝H2ˈnou̯

*sta:ˈnau̯

c

*kso˝u̯ˈde˝H2

*xau̯ˈda˝:

c

húda

húda

(chudá)

xuˈda

‘bad (F )’

*kso˝u̯ˈdod

*xau̯ˈdad

c

hȗdo

hudọ̑

(chudé)

ˈxudo

( N)

*smo˝rˈda:d

*smarˈda:d c

smrȃda

smrȃda

smrȃda

smrada

ˈsmoroda

‘stink (GEN)’

*ˈg̑ho˝lH3tom

*zalˈtad

c

zlȃto

zlȃto

zlatọ̑

zlato

ˈzoloto

‘gold’

*ˈpe˝nHteH2

*pɛnˈta˝:

c

pētȁ

péta

péta

pata

pjaˈta

‘heel’

stanȕ

stȃnu

For (1), cf. the non-acuted root in Čak1 ilovȁcˇka, Čak2 ilovãcˇka ‘clayey soil’; Sln ilovácˇa ‘bog’, ilovàt ‘silty’; Ru †iˈlovyj,ˈilovyj ‘silty’. For (3), cf. the non-acuted root in Čak1 hudȁ, hȗdo. To explain the mismatch between the acute in Li AP-3 and the non-acute in CSl AP˝ underwent metatony to V̑ in CSl by analogy to other oxytones c, Meillet proposed that V (“Meillet’s Law”). Skeptical that an analogical change would been so consistent, Dybo (1979: 39) posits that root acutes in mobilia were eliminated by a general morphophonemic rule that assigned non-acute accents to all {−} morphemes: ROOT{−} → V/−acute/ (see 6.2.3, 6.4.1). Other scholars have explained the discrepancy by sound changes plus analogy. According to Kortlandt (1975: 10−11), the heterosyllabic laryngeals that triggered Bezzenberger acuting (6.3.4) were lost earlier in pretonic than in post-tonic syllables: VRHCV> (a) V:RˈCV-; (b) ˈVRHCV-. In barytone lexemes, the laryngeal was always posttonic (b), so there was consistent acuting. In oxytones, the loss of the pretonic laryngeal (a) created allomorphy; consequently, the post-tonic laryngeal was eliminated by stem-leveling before it could condition the acute. According to Jasanoff (2004a: 251−252), the glottalized (“acuted”) length that had developed before laryngeals lost its glottalization to become the CSl acute accent, but only under stress. Subsequently, in AP-c, the acutes in stressed root syllables were leveled out.

81. The phonology of Slavic

1511

While these explanations are feasible, they all take it for granted that unstressed syllables were subject to acuting by the operation of Winter’s Law and Bezzenberger’s Law. However, the only evidence for this comes from Ba, which is insufficient reason to assume it for PreSl. Indeed, if pretonic syllables are excluded, Bezzenberger acuting ˝ /'__{R, J}HC. is regular in PreSl, and there is no need to appeal to analogy: V > V Oxytones would not have been affected, as they would not yet have had any stemstressed forms (see 6.4.1).

6.4. CSl changes in suprasegmental phonology In CSl, /+acute/ ceased to be a distinctive voice quality or phonation (see 6.3.1) and became a suprasegmental feature − rising tone in bimoraic syllables. In the absence of a rising tone, initial stressed syllables are reconstructed with level or falling tones (“circumflex” or “short falling”). Elsewhere in the word, the tonal quality of stressed non-acute syllables is unknown. The development of the accent in CSl can be divided into three periods. In the first stage (CSl1, 6.4.1), the ictus became linked with the presence or absence of an acute accent. In the second (CSl2, 6.4.2), the inherited barytone paradigm (API = 1) split into stem-stressed and post-stem-stressed varieties (APII = a and b, respectively). In the third stage (6.4.3−6.4.4), the ictus was shifted from weak jers, with concomitant prosodic changes.

6.4.1. Development of marginal accents CSl1 saw the rise of the acute as a rising tone − that is, low on the first mora and high on the second in bimoraic syllables. In a given phonological word, the rising tone − or the leftmost one, if there were several − became the focus of the intonational contour. Over time, acutes in syllables to the right of the intonational focus became less prominent and were eliminated. Non-acuted initial or medial syllables, which occurred in some words of the barytone paradigm, probably had level intonation. In the oxytone paradigm, the ictus was, as expected, assigned to a rising tone if there was one in the desinence (1). In the absence of a rising tone, the word was phonologically unstressed. The ictus, which had been final in PreSl, was assigned by default to one of the marginal syllables in the phonological word − to the rightmost, if the desinence was disyllabic (2) (see also 6.2.1) or if there was an enclitic (3); and otherwise to the leftmost, which could be the first syllable of the lexeme (4) or a proclitic (5). The tone associated with marginal ictus was falling − that is, high on the first mora of a bimoraic sequence. The given pattern is known as AP-c. In the approach of the Moscow Accentological School, these changes are presented as a morphological rule, according to which the ictus was fixed on the leftmost {+} morpheme. In enclinomena, which had no {−} morphemes, the ictus was assigned by default to one of the marginal syllables, as described. (In the table, the CSl1 segmental units are given at the PSl stage, as the relative chronology of the ictus shifts is unknown.)

1512

XIII. Slavic CSl1 (1)

Sln

MBg

MRu

Slc

Gloss

*u̯aˈda˝:

vodȁ

vòda

vóda

voˈda

voˈda

vʉ̀ ɵda˘

‘water’

*u̯aˈda˝:s

vodȉ

vòde

vodẹ́

voˈdy

voˈdy

vʉ̀ ɵdä

(GEN)

¶

vòdama

vodȁh

voˈdaxъ

voˈdaxъ

vɵdãχ

(LOC.PL )

¶

vòdom

vodó

vodoˈju

vɵdȯ´ų̯

(INST )

vodǫˈzˇe

voduˈzˇe

(ACC +

*u̯aˈda˝:xu (2)

*u̯adai̯ a:N

(3)

*u̯ada:m ˈgɛ

(4)

*ˈu̯ada:m

¶

u

vod õn

vȍdo

*ˈu̯ada:ns (5)

NSˇto

Čak1

ˈna: u̯ada:m

nȁ vodo

*ˈ u̯u u̯ada:m

PC)

vȍdu

vodọ̑

ˈvodǫ

ˈvodu

vʉ̀ ɵdą

(ACC)

vȍde

vodẹ̑

ˈvody

ˈvody

vʉ̀ ɵdä

(NOM.PL )

nȁ vodu

¶

ˈna vodu

nã vɵdą

‘to’ + (ACC)

ȕ vodu

¶

vъ ˈvodu

vȇ vɵdą

‘in’ + (ACC)

na vodọ̑

v vodọ̑

ˈvь vodǫ

The CSl1 pattern is preserved in Čak, MBg and MRu. For LOC.PL (1), cf. Čak2 vodãh; for NOM.PL (2), cf. Čak2 võdi. MRu vъ vo̍du is not an exception, as there was no vowel in the preposition; the letter «ъ» was an orthographic convention. In NSˇto, the forms with stressed root ò in (1−2) reflect the leftward shift from non-initial syllables, which occurred in that dialect from the 14th c.; prior to that, the accent had been on the first syllable of the desinence. The NSˇto forms with stressed initial ȍ or stress on the preposition reflect an unshifted circumflex accent. In Sln, non-initial rising tones regularly retracted from open final syllables (vóda), while the initial falling tones moved right; stress shifts onto prepositions were eliminated. In Slc, the stress retracted from final open syllables, but remained on endings that had been disyllabic (vɵdãχ). The shift of the stress onto proclitics, functioning as the leftmost syllables, is sometimes known as Šaxmatov’s Law; the shift onto enclitics, functioning as the rightmost syllables, is called the Law of Vasil’ev-Dolobko. The alternations created by these changes are well attested in medieval SSl and ESl manuscripts: MRu ˈpocˇalъ ‘begin (RES.M)’, but pocˇalъˈsja REFL.ACC). The Vasil’ev-Dolobko pattern is preserved in Bg mobile-stress nouns with enclitic definite articles (glas ‘voice’~glaˈsu˘t [DEF]; ˈesen ‘autumn’~esenˈta [DEF]) and in lexicalized relics, e.g. adverbs with the particle *si (5). ECSl (4)

(5)

Čak2

NSˇto

Bg

Ru †

Gloss

*ˈɛsɛnim

jȅsēn

ˈesen

ˈosen’, ˈesen’

‘autumn (ACC)’

*ɛsɛnim ˈsi

jesènas

eseˈnes

†

‘last autumn’

oseˈnjas’, †eseˈnes’

*ˈnaktim

nȏć

nȏć

nosˇt

nocˇ’

‘night (ACC)’

*naktimˈsi

noćȅs

nòćas

ˈnosˇtes

†

‘last night’

noˈcˇes’

81. The phonology of Slavic

1513

6.4.2. Law of Dybo-Illič-Svityč In CSl2, the barytone pattern, consisting of lexemes with {+} roots or derivational suffixes, was split into two AP’s. If the stressed syllable was acuted, the ictus stayed put (1). The lexemes with this pattern formed CSl AP-a (usually corresponding to Li AP-1, with acute on the stem). However, if the stressed syllable was non-acuted, the ictus advanced to the following syllable (2); this created AP-b, with columnar post-stem stress − not to be confused with fixed final ictus, since the stress fell on the penultimate in disyllabic desinences.

(1)

(2)

APII

PSl

Dybo

*ˈra˝:na˝:

*ˈra˝:na˝:

*ˈra˝:na:ns

*ˈra˝:na:ns

*ˈra˝:na˝:mi:

NSˇto

Čak1

Sln

MBg

MRu

Gloss

a

rȁna

rȁna

rána

ˈrana

ˈrana

‘wound’

a

rȁni

rȁne

ráni

ˈrany

ˈrany

(ACC.PL )

*ˈra˝:na˝:mi:

a

rȁnami

¶

rȁnama

ránami

ˈranami

ˈranami

(INST.PL )’

*ˈgɛna˝:

*gɛˈna˝:

b

zˇenȁ

zˇèna

zˇéna

zˇeˈna

zˇeˈna

‘wife’

*ˈgɛna:ns

*gɛˈnans

b

zˇenȉ

zˇène

ženẹ́

zˇeˈny

žeˈny

(ACC.PL )

zˇenȁmi

¶

ženámi

zˇeˈnami žeˈnami (INST.PL )

*ˈgɛna˝:mi:

*gɛˈna˝:mi:

b

zˇènama

6.4.3. Neoacute retraction The neoacute accent in LCSl arose in tandem with leftward shifts of the ictus. Such retraction regularly occurred in AP-b when the stressed vowel was a weak jer (see 5.8) − a change called Stang’s Law (1−2): VˈCn{ɪ˘, ǝ˘} > ˈVCn. As a result, in AP-b the intonation alternated between forms with the neoacute in the final stem syllable and forms with stressed non-reduced vowels in the post-stem syllable (2). In addition, the neoacute developed when the ictus was retracted from long vowels that had arisen by contraction (3), or when the initial syllable was contracted (4) (see 5.12). Retractions also occurred, for reasons that are not clear, in specific morphological contexts − e.g. in AP-b feminine nouns with the suffix i̯ -a:- (5); and in the present of AP-b e- and i̯ e-theme verbs (Leskien I and III), apart from the 1SG, which retained post-root stress (6). MCSl2 (1)

(2)

ǝ

*galˈu̯ʊ

*gɔ́lu̯

*gɛˈnʊka:

*ʒɛ́nǝka

*kaˈni

*kɔ́nɪ

*kaˈna: (3)

LCSl2

*aˈstra:i̯ a:-

*kɔˈna̍ *óstrai̯ ɪa

Čak2

NSˇto

glãf

!

gláv

hláv

hláv

† zˇȇnka

zˇénka

zˇénka

zˇienka zˇȯ́ u̯nka˘ ˈzˇonka

kȍnj

kònj

kóň

kôň

†

kõnj

konjȁ ȍsˇtra

glávā

kònja ȍsˇtra:

Sln

OCz

Slk

Slc glȯ́ u̯v

kȯ́ u̯n

kónja

koně

koňa

kʉ̀ ø̭ńa˘

ọ́ stra

!

!

!

ostrá

ostrá

vʉ̀ ø̭strï

Ru† u

ˈgol of

kuon j j

kɔˈn a u

v ostrɨj

Gloss ‘head (GEN.PL )’ ‘woman (DIM)’ ‘horse’ (GEN) ‘sharp (M.DEF )’

1514

XIII. Slavic MCSl2

LCSl2

NSˇto

Čak2

Sln

OCz

Slk

(4)

*staˈi̯ a˝:ti:

*stɔˈi̯ -a˝:ti

stãt

stȃti

státi

státi

stát’

(5)

*starˈʒa:

*stɔ́rʒa

strázˇa

strȃzˇa

strázˇa

strázˇeˇ

strázˇa

(6)

*maˈʒɛʃi

*mɔ́ʒɛʃɪ

! mȍresˇ

mȍzˇesˇ mọ́ resˇ

mózˇesˇ

môzˇesˇ

*maˈʒɔ˜̄

*mɔˈgõ

!

mògu

mohu

!

mȍren

mọ́ rem

môzˇem

Ru†

Slc !

stʉ̀ ø̭je˘c

stojat

j

Gloss ‘stand’

stɔruo̍zˇa

‘guard’

mȯ́ u̯zˇe˘sˇ̍

muo̍zˇesˇ

‘can (PRS.2SG)’

mʉ̀ ø̭gą

mɔgu̍

(PRS.1SG)’

The reflexes of the neoacute fall into several zones. In Sln, the neoacute merged with the acute, a rising tone − long V́, or short V̀ in final closed syllables. Neoacuted midvowels have close-mid reflexes in old bimoraic syllables (ę́, ó ,̣ ǫ́). In Čak, Kaj, and some archaic Što dialects, the neoacute became a distinct long rising tone (V́ or Ṽ) on syllables that were bimoraic at the time of the retraction (1). In other dialects of Što, it merged with the circumflex as long falling V̑ on old bimoraic syllables (1). Throughout BCS, the neoacute on monomoraic syllables merged with the acute as short falling V̏ (2). The regular outcomes in BCS have been somewhat obscured by the tendency for short vowels to lengthen before sonorants: Čak kõnj (2), NŠto zˇȇnka (1). In WSl, the neoacute is reflected as a long vowel in syllables that were bimoraic at the time of the retraction. In Cz and Slk, long vowels are written as V́; the neoacuted midvowels yielded the diphthongs ie and uo (Cz í /i:/ and ů /u:/; Slk ie and ô /uo/). In Slc, where stressed vowels generally became bimoraic, the neoacute reflex became trimoraic (written Ṽ or V́V̯). In ESl, length reflexes have generally been lost. However, in some MRu and isolated modern Ru dialects, neoacuted (lengthened) *ó is reflected as a falling diphthong [uo] or as a close-mid vowel [o] (written as ȏ, ω in some MRu manuscripts).

6.4.4. Advancement of stress from reduced vowels Some AP-c lexemes had stressed jers in their initial syllables. When these jers were reduced (5.8), the ictus shifted to the right, with preservation of the falling accent (1). By contrast, in AP-b final accents were reflected as short acutes − BCS V̏, Sln V̀ (2). MCSl2 (1)

(2)

LCSl2 ɪ

*ˈdinɛ

*d nɛ̏

¶

*ˈsʊta

*sǝtɔ̑

stȏ

*dʊˈna

ǝ

*d nɔ̏

*sʊˈna:

ǝ

*s nȁ

NSˇto

Čak2

Sln

OCz

Slk

dnę̑

dne

¶

stȏ

stọ̑

sto

dnȍ

dnȍ

dnǫ̀

snȁ

snȁ

snà

dȃna

¶

dȃna

Slc

Ru

Gloss

dńã

¶

sto

stʉ̀ ɵ̭

sto

‘hundred’

dno

dno

dnʉ̀ ɵ̭

dno

‘bottom’

sna

sna

snã

sna

‘dream (GEN)’

dnˇa

dnja

‘day (GEN)’

81. The phonology of Slavic

1515

7. Sectional references 1. Languages: see also the chapter introductions in Comrie and Corbett (1993). Silesian: see Hannan 1996. Kb as a Po dialect: e.g. Topolińska 1974. Slc: Lorentz 1925; Topolińska 1974. Rusyn: see Birnbaum 1983, Kushko 2007, and Pugh 2007. Novg: Zaliznjak 2004. 1.1. CSl and PSl: Birnbaum 1975: 1−5; 1987b; Andersen 1986; 1996: 183−184. The term Proto-Slavonic is used for ‘CSl’ in the chapters in Comrie and Corbett 1993. Lower limit: ca. 1000 BCE: Van Wijk (1956: 7); ca. 300 CE: Lunt (2001: 182). Upper limit: Birnbaum 1975: 3; Andersen 1985: 78−80. Urheimat debate: for overviews, see Filin 1962: 83−151. Stanislav 1967: 110; Birnbaum 1975: 5−7; Schenker 1995: 1−8; Barford 2001: 15, 22; Heather 2011: 12−21, 388−392; Pronk-Tiethoff 2013: 59−64. See also the map in Barford 2001: 332. Lusatian culture: Dvornik 1956: 8−13; rebutted by Schenker 1995: 2. Herodotus and Aristophanes: Dvornik 1956: 13; Mareš 1965: 20. Term *slau̯ɛ:n(isk)-: Filin 1962: 55−57; Vasmer 1986 slavjanin. Exonym ‘German’: Vasmer 1986 nemec; ÈSSJa *němьcь. Byzantine sources: Filin 1962: 53−55; Schenker 1995: 9, 15−18. Veneti and Venedi: Filin 1962: 50−53; Schenker 1995: 3−5. Venäjä: Mikkola 1938: 13; Xaburgaev 1980: 61. Elite-transfer model: Heather 2011: 23. 1.1.1. Localization: see also 1.1.2 on the Urheimat debate. See the cautionary words in Barford 2001: 14−15. No maritime terms: Filin 1962: 117−118. Tree terms: Filin 1962: 143−147; Friedrich 1970; Gołąb 1992: 272−280 (map 306). ‘Hazel grouse’ and ‘partridge’: Andersen 1998b. Limited alpine vocabulary: Filin 1962: 119−121; Lenček 1982: 34. Chamois (Rupicapra): denoted by a term derived from ‘goat’ in Po; ‘wild’ + ‘goat’ in Bg, Mc, BCS, and Uk; by a German loanword in Sln, Slk, and Cz; and by the inherited Sl (including OESl) word for ‘roe deer (Capreolus capreolus)’ in BR and Ru. Language contacts: Filin 1962: 134−143; Shevelov 1965: 613−622; Kiparsky 1975: 54−61; Gołąb 1992: 310−414; Pronk-Tiethoff 2013. Gmc autonym > ‘foreign’: Vasmer čužoj. ‘Spali’ > ‘giant’: Dvornik 1956: 22−23; Filin 1962: 58. Ethnonyms ‘Serb’ and ‘Croat’: Dvornik 1956: 26−27; Xaburgaev 1980: 67, 68; Vasmer 1986 serb, xorvat; Barford 2001: 15; Heather 2011: 406. Borrowing of *xu:z- and ‘ruler’: ÈSSJa *chyzina, *chyzъ, *chyža, *chyžina; Vasmer xižina. Przework, Wielbark, and Cherniakhovo cultures: Barford 2001: 24−25, 38−42, 332. Hydronyms: Toporov and Trubačev [1962] 2009; Xaburgaev 1980: 55−57; Gołąb 1992: 236−267. 1.1.2. Migration Period: Wave of advance model: Heather 2011: 22. Adoption of CSl: Barford 2001: 49. Korchak Culture: J. Hermann in Hermann (ed.) 1985: 21−32; Barford 2001: 47−49, 53−56, 63, 65−66; Heather 2011: 448−449. Migrations: Menges 1953; Dvornik 1956: 3−45; Trubačev 1991; Gołąb 1992: 236−309; Schenker 1995: 1−60; Barford 2001: 45−88; Curta 2001; Heather 2010: 386−451. SE Europe: Vasmer 1941; Dvornik 1956: 34−36, 40−45; Vlasto 1970: 3−12, 185−186; Schenker 1995: 15−18; Heather 2011: 399−406, 423−424. Eastern Alps: Lenček 1982: 27−30; Schenker 1995: 22−25. Milingoi and Ezeritai: Vasmer 1941: 16−18; Heather 2011: 404, 423. Bulgars: Dvornik 1956: 70−72; Schenker 1995: 19−21; Heather 2011: 403−404. Central Europe: Dvornik 1956: 32−34; Schenker 1995: 21−22, 46−48; Andersen 1999: 56−59. Sclaveni and Herulians: Dvornik 1956: 34; Barford 2001: 53 (with caution). Slavophones in Eastern Ger-

1516

XIII. Slavic

many: Jeżowa 1961; Hermann (ed.) 1985: 7−65. Avars: Dvornik 1956: 36−40; Schenker 1995: 10−11; Heather 2011: 400−401. ‘Avar’ > ‘giant’: Schenker 1995: 11. Occidentalization of the Sorbs: Andersen 1999: 59. Serbs and Croats: Dvornik 1956: 27−28, 62− 63; Vlasto 1970: 185; Schenker 1995: 19; Barford 2001: 73−75; Heather 2011: 404− 406. P-Lech migrations: Barford 2001: 53−55, 63; Heather 2011: 410−414. Mogiła and Sukow-Dziedzice cultures: Barford 2001: 53−55, 65−66; Heather 2011: 412−413. PreESl migrations: Schenker 1995: 53−54; Barford 2001: 96−101. 1.2. Traditions of writing: see the chapters in Schenker and Stankiewicz (eds.) 1980. Cyril and Methodius: Vlasto 1970: 25−82; Schenker 1995: 25−43; Tachiaios 2001. Kiev Folia: Schaeken 1987; Freising Fragments: Kolarič 1968; Bernik 1993. Pb: Olesch 1967; Polański 1993. 1.3. Correspondence sets: the data have been culled from the following sources: OCS − SJS, SS; OESl − Srez; OCz − VW; OPo − SJP, SP16; BCS − Rječnik, HJP; Bg − Gerov, RBE; BR: TSBM; Cz − PřSJČ; Kb − Gołąbek, Ramułt; LS: Muka; MBg − Miklosich; Mc − DRMJa; Novg: Zaliznjak 2004; OSb − Daničić, Miklosich, Rječnik; Pb − Olesch; Po − SJP; Ru: Vasmer 1986; Slc: Lorentz; Slk − Slovníky; Sln − Pleteršnik, SSKJ; Hrinčenko, SUM; US: Kral. Uk. The main etymological dictionaries used to corroborate reconstructions were ÈSSJa, IEW, and Vasmer 1986. Also consulted: AHD (for PIE laryngeals), Derksen 2008, BER, Bezlaj, Boryś, Brückner, ESUM, Machek, SEJDP, and Skok. 2. PSl and PreSl: Andersen 1986; 1996: 183−184. BaSl branch or clade: Meillet [1922] 1967: 59−67; Vaillant 1950: 13−15; Szemerényi 1957; Ivanov and Toporov 1958; Bräuer 1961: 14−20; Shevelov 1965: 613−614; Birnbaum 1970; 1975: 18−21; Beekes 1995: 22−23; Schenker 1995: 70; Andersen 1996: 62−63, 187−188; Fortson 2004: 364. 2.1. PSl vowels and glides: Vaillant 1950: 106−122; Shevelov 1965: 22−26, 150−152, 164−166; Schenker 1993: 63−64, 66−67; 1995: 77−78, 81−82; Lunt 2001: 192. Baltic vocalism: Endzelīns 1971: 32−33, 51. PSl from Ba model: see also Xaburgaev 1980: 49−50. (1d) SJS, Srez mati; VW matě; SP16 macierz; (2a) SJS bьrati, Srez brati, VW bráti, SP16 brać. 2.1.1. Initial *e ~ *a: Andersen 1996. *ed-sk-e: ibid.: 117−118. Backing of *ɛ before *u̯: Shevelov 1965: 357−359. Sequence *ei̯ e: Shevelov 1965: 359−360; Lunt 2001: 202. 2.2. Laryngeal reflexes: Shevelov 1965: 28−31; Schenker 1995: 77−78; Lunt 2001: 190−191. Trimoraic shortening: Shevelov 1965: 24; Jasanoff 1983a, 1983b, 2004a, 2004b, 2011; Feldstein 2003: 251. See also Collinge 1985: 127−131 on “Osthoff’s Law.” Length in final syllables: Jasanoff 2004a: 249−251. Alternative approaches: Mareš 1965; Shevelov 1965: 24; Lunt 2001: 193; Orr 2000: 36−37. (2a−b) OPo: BZ córy, jeśm; (4) OCS: SJS, SS orati. 2.3. Syllabic sonorants: Vaillant 1950: 167−177; Shevelov 1964: 96−98; Stang 1966: 77−82; Lunt 2001: 191; Collins forthcoming. (1a) OCS: SJS, SS mati; OESl: Srez mati; OCz: VW matě; OPo SP16 macierz.

81. The phonology of Slavic

1517

2.3.1. *uR after velars: e.g. Kuryłowicz 1956: 235. *uR adjacent to low tonality: Shevelov 1965: 90. *uR after labiovelars: Vaillant 1950: 172; Kortlandt 1994, 2007, 2008; Beekes 1995: 136, n. 1. *iR after palatovelars: Kuryłowicz 1956: 235; Andersen 2003: 60. 2.3.2. Language contact: Andersen 2003: 59−62. Expressiva: Stang 1966: 79; Andersen 2003: 60. Sl ‘hundred’: see IEW *dek̑m̥; Vasmer 1986 sto; Shevelov 1965: 90−91. 2.3.3. Perceptual ambiguity: see Collins forthcoming. Phonetics of syllabic sonorants: Wiese 1996; Toft 2002; Fougeron and Ridouane 2008. 2.4. Glottalic approaches: see e.g. Kortlandt 1978, 1985, 2006; Derksen 2008. 2.4.1. Aspirates: Vaillant 1950: 24−26; Bräuer 1961: 164−166, 167−169; Shevelov 1964: 32−34; Schenker 1993: 65; 1995: 79−80; Lunt 2001: 190. (3c) ÈSSJa *jьgo. 2.4.2. Labiovelars: Vaillant 1950: 24−26; Bräuer 1961: 165, 168, 169; Shevelov 1965: 123−126; Schenker 1993: 65; 1995: 80; Lunt 2001: 190. 2.4.3. Palatovelars: Vaillant 1950: 34−35; Bernsˇtejn 1961: 151, 154; Bräuer 1961: 165, 167, 168; Shevelov 1965: 139−141; Endzelīns 1971: 50−51, 56; Schenker 1993: 65; 1995: 80; Lunt 2001: 193; Andersen 2003: 53. Gutteralwechsel: Andersen 1996: 106− 107; 2003: 54−58; 2009: 25. See also Vaillant 1950: 36−38; Bernsˇtejn 1961: 152−154; Bräuer 1961: 169−172; Shevelov 1965: 141−145; Beekes 1995: 112. Depalatalization before sonorants: e.g. Beekes 1995: 112. 2.5. RUKI: Andersen 1968, 2003: 58−59. See also Vaillant 1950: 28−32; Meillet 1951: 26−28; 80−81; Bernsˇtejn 1961: 160−165; Bräuer 1961: 178−181; Shevelov 1965: 127− 131; Schenker 1993: 65−66; 1995: 80−81; Lunt 2001: 191, 194. Articulation of *s2 : Palatal: Meillet 1951, Vaillant 1950, Bräuer 1961, Lunt 2001, Schenker 1993: 65. Retroflex: Andersen 1968; 2009: 24; Schenker 1995. Swedish sj: Ladefoged and Maddieson 1996: 171−172, 330. 2.5.1. Initial *x: Bräuer 1961: 183−184; Shevelov 1965: 134−136. 2.5.2. Affective extension: Vaillant 1950: 31; Shevelov 1965: 132−134; Priestly 1978. Analogical extension: Vaillant 1950: 30−31; Shevelov 1965: 131−132; Sławski 1974− 1979, 2: 31−32, 34, 71. Consonant-stem LOC.PL: We˛glarz 1933; Čornejová 2007. 2.6. New ablaut grades: Vaillant 1950: 299−300; Shevelov 1965: 96−98; Schenker 1993: 64−65; 1995: 79; Lunt 2001: 209. (1) žьrǫtъ: SJS žrьti; (2) nacˇьnǫtъ, nacˇętъ: SJS nacˇęti; (3a) berǫtъ: SJS bьrati; (4) sъzьritъ: SJS sъzrěti; (5) zovǫtъ: SJS zъvati; (6) vъznьzъ: SJS vъznisti. 2.7.1. Double-Dental Rule: Vaillant 1950: 101−102; Shevelov 1965: 182; Fortson 2004: 69.

1518

XIII. Slavic

2.7.2. Degemination: Vaillant 1950: 80−81, 98−99; Meillet 1951: 108; Bräuer 1961: 202−203; Shevelov 1965: 181−183; Fortson 2004: 69−70. (3) OPo: BZ jeś. 2.7.3. Sibilant + *r: Vaillant 1950: 76−77; Meillet 1951: 109−111; Bräuer 1961: 292; Shevelov 1965: 200−201; Endzelīns 1971: 73. (2b) Ru: Vasmer 1986 puzdro; (4) OPo: SSP (Izdraelski). *zark: BER zdrak; DRMJa zdrak. 2.7.4. Lidén’s Law: Lidén 1899; Vaillant 1950: 94−95; Bräuer 1961: 201; Shevelov 1965: 196−197; Endzelīns 1971: 67. 3. Early Common Slavic: Andersen’s (1986: 72) “Early Slavic I, the period of tautosyllabic vowel chains.” Schenker (1993) calls this period “Early Proto-Slavonic.” Law of Open Syllables: see Lunt 1956: 309; Birnbaum 1975: 139−141; 1987a: 105−108; Schenker 1993: 67−68; 1995: 82. Law of Syllabic Synharmony: Jakobson 1962; Lunt 1956: 309; Birnbaum 1975: 140, 141−142; 1987a: 106, 108−109; Schenker 1993: 67; 1995: 82. 3.1. Syllable structure: (1) OCS: SJS izostriti; OESl: Srez izostriti. 3.1.1. Syncope of stops: Vaillant 1950: 79−80, 81−85; Shevelov 1965: 187−196; Schenker 1993: 68; 1995: 91−92. (4d) OCS: SJS dati; OESl: Srez dati; OCz: VW dáti; OPo BZ dam. 3.1.2. Nasal + nasal clusters: Shevelov 1965: 323; Lunt 2001: 198. (1) OPo jimię: SSP. 3.1.3. Coda obstruents: Vaillant 1950: 200−202; Bernštejn 1961: 184−185; Shevelov 1965: 226−227; Schenker 1995: 82; Lunt 2001: 197. 1SG pronoun: Hamp 1983; Andersen 1996: 148−149. Sandhi: Aorist: Lunt 2001: 103; Andersen 2013: 26−27, 29. Suffix -oš-: Shevelov 1965: 228; Sƚawski 1974−1979, 1: 78. (1a) OCS: SJS byti. OESl: Srez byti. OCz: VW budi; OPo: BZ bądź. (1c) OCS: SJS viděti; OESl: Srez viděti; OCz: VW procútiti; OPo: Klemenszewicz, Lehr-Spławiński, and Urbańczyk (eds.) 1964: 381. (3) OCS: Lunt 2001: 137−138; OESl: Zaliznjak 2004: 715; OCz: VW býti; OPo: Klemenszewicz, Lehr-Spławiński, and Urbańczyk (eds.) 1964: 363. (4−5) Lunt 2001: 103, 138 (6) OSb: Daničić. 3.1.4.−3.1.5. Final sonorants: Shevelov 1965: 225; Lunt 2001: 200. Sandhi variants: Orr 1988: 57, 2000: 172−174. (2a−b) OPo: BZ; (3) OCS: SJS lěto; OESl: Srez lěto; OCz: VW léto; OPo: BZ. 3.2. 1VP: Vaillant 1950: 48−49; Meillet 1951: 72−74; Bernštejn 1961: 168−172; Bräuer 1961: 186−189; Shevelov 1965: 249−263; Schenker 1993: 68; 1995: 83−84; Lunt 2001: 194−195. Lenition of *g j: Andersen 1969, 1977. Byzantine sources: Vasmer 1941: 232, 276. (1d) Cz: Vasmer 1986 šelom. (4) OPo: BZ. 3.3. Fronting: Shevelov 1965: 264−270; Schenker 1993: 70; 1995: 86; Lunt 2001: 196. (4−5) OPo: Piesni.

81. The phonology of Slavic

1519

3.4. Backing of *ɛ: after palatals: Shevelov 1965: 257−263; Schenker 1995: 88; Lunt 2001: 196. Ru perceptions of front rounded vowels: Andersen 1972: 22−23. 3.5. Prothesis: Vaillant 1950: 140−144, 178−182, 184; Meillet 1951: 65−68; Bräuer 1961: 99−103; Shevelov 1965: 235−238. 240−242; Schenker 1995: 83; Lunt 2001: 203− 204. Peak attenuation: Andersen 1972: 28−32. 3.5.1. Prothesis before *a: Shevelov 1965: 240−244. Prothesis before *u2 : Shevelov 1965: 241−242; Zaliznjak 2004: 53−54. ‘Egg’: ÈSSJa *aje, *ajьce; Shevelov 1965: 243; Zaliznjak 2004: 54, 335. 3.6. Dental palatalization: Vaillant 1950: 62−67, 70−72, 292−293; Bernštejn 1961: 166−172; Shevelov 1965: 207−219; Schenker 1993: 69, 76; 1995: 84−85; Lunt 2001: 187−189. Hardening of *r: see also Bräuer 1961: 208−210. (1b) OPo: BZ. (6) OCS, OESl: SJS, Srez pisati; OCz: VW pisano, píše; OPo: BZ pisano, Piesni pisze. (7) OCS, OESl: SJS, Srez roditi; OCz rodi, rozený; OPo: EwZam porodzi, SP16 porodzony. 3.6.1. *kt outcomes: Vaillant 1950: 65−66; Shevelov 1965: 191, 212−213; Lunt 2001: 188. *Kn: Vaillant 1950: 92; Shevelov 1965: 209. (1−2) OSb: Daničić. (2b−c) OPo: BZ. 3.7.1. Homorganic glides: Vaillant 1950: 67, 86−88; Meillet 1951: 73, 115; Bräuer 1961: 196−198, 202; Shevelov 1995: 197−198, 210−211; Velcheva 1988: 69−70; Schenker 1995: 84; Lunt 2001: 195. (2) SJS, Srez napisati; VW napsati; BZ napisze. (3) SJS, Srez byti, VW běch. 3.7.2. Pi̯ : Vaillant 1950: 67−70; Bernštejn 1961: 170; Shevelov 1965: 218−222; Shenker 1993: 69; 1995: 84−85. Bg: RBE. BCS: Rječnik. (3c) see ÈSSJa *čapia; (3d) see ÈSSJa *grobja. 3.8. Auslautgesetze: Orr 2000. See also Jasanoff 1983a, 1983b. *-aN#: Phonological: Shevelov 1965: 332−333; Lunt 2001: 196. Morphological: Orr 1988, 2000. Barytone neuters > masculines: Dybo, Zamjatina, and Nikolaev 1990: 40; Kortlandt 1994; Derksen 2008: 20 (presented as a sound change). *-Vns: Phonological: e.g. Lunt 2001: 19. Morphological: Orr 2000: 153−157. Extension of u-stem endings: Schenker 1995: 125. *-Vnts: (4c) OPo: BZ. (5) OPo: BZ. 4. MCSl: Andersen’s (1986: 73) “Early Slavic I” ends with the monophthongizations (4.1−4.2), which are here classified as MCSl1; his “Early Slavic II” shows raising of the new monophthongs and delabialization of *u(:) − my MCSl2 (see 4.1−4.3). Lunt (2001: 182) posits a late emergence of “Early Common Slavic” (ca. 300 CE) and uses the term “Middle Common Slavic” for the period that is “virtually without dialects” − the “Early Common Slavic” of the present work. However, the “Middle Common Slavic” vocalism that he posits is post-Qualitative Differentiation (see 5.1), i.e. follows a period in which there have already been major changes with isoglosses (see especially 4.9). 4.1. Glide diphthongs: Meillet 1934/1951: 47−49; Vaillant 1950: 115, 117−118, 121− 122; Bräuer 1961: 70−75; Mareš 1965: 15−20; Shevelov 1965: 271−282, 285−287, 288−

1520

XIII. Slavic

292; Andersen 1972: 25; 1998a: 240; Schenker 1995: 86−88; Lunt 2001: 202; Feldstein 2003; Vermeer 2008: 548−553. (1b) OPo: BZ. (2b) OPo: BZ. (3) OPo: SPJ 17−18 siać. (5a) OCS: SJS cvisti; OESl: Srez cvisti; OCz: VW kvísti; (5b) VW prokvísti. (6) OCS: SJS bljusti; OESl: Srez bljusti. 4.1.1. Gk loanwords: Vasmer 1941: 239. BFi: Kiparsky 1975: 56; Mikkola 1938: 31, 56. 4.1.2. Metathesis: Jakobson 1962: 25−26; 1963: 158; Vaillant 1950: 115, 118, 121; Shevelov 1965: 285, 298. Critique: Schenker 1995: 86−88; Vermeer 2008: 551−552. 4.2. Nasal diphthongs: Bräuer 1961: 84−85; Shevelov 1965: 311−316, 326−333; Schenker 1995: 92−93, 99; Lunt 2001: 192−193, 201−202; Feldstein 2003. 4.3. Delabialization: Vaillant 1960: 49−55; Bernštejn 1961: 200−202, 204; Bräuer 1961: 189−191; Shevelov 1965: 294−301, 302−307; Schenker 1995: 89−90; Lunt 2001: 205− 206. Novgorodian: Zaliznjak 1986: 111−119; 1993: 195−197, 2004: 41−45. Balkan Rom front vowels: Bartoli 1906, 2: 337−338. ‘Lettuce’: ÈSSJa *loktika; Vasmer 1986 ločika. Frankish sources: Shevelov 1965: 379. Gk contacts: Vasmer 1941: 62, 91, 143, 151, 311. 4.4. 2VP: Vaillant 1960: 55−56; Bernštejn 1961: 202−204; Bräuer 1961: 191−192; Shevelov 1965: 301−302; Schenker 1995: 90; Lunt 2001: 205−206. Novgorodian: Zaliznjak 1986: 112−114; 1993: 197, 2004: 45. Novg/NRu: Zaliznjak 1986: 112−113. Kelagast-: Moravcsik 1958: 158. Glagolitic «ћ»: Collins 1992. 4.5. Ku̯ clusters: Birnbaum 1956. See also Vaillant 1950: 55−56; Bräuer 1961: 191− 192; Shevelov 1965: 301−302; Schenker 1995: 90. Novg/NRu: Zaliznjak 1986: 112− 114, 2004: 45. 4.6. PVP: Bräuer 1961: 193−196; Mareš 1965: 32−38; Shevelov 1965: 338−365; Velcheva 1980: 31−37; Schenker 1995: 89−92; Lunt 2001: 193−195; Vermeer 2003, 2008. Blocking action of close back vowels: Vermeer 2008: 526−528. Loanwords: Shevelov 1965: 349−350; Schenker 1995: 92. Gmc ‘penny’: Grierson and Blackburn 2007: 15. Greek toponyms: Vasmer 1941: 301−302; Shevelov 1965: 350−351; Schenker 1995: 92. Novgorodian: Zaliznjak 2004: 45−47; Vermeer 2008: 543−545. Vocalism of ‘all’: Vermeer 2008: 517, n. 27. 4.6.1. Leveling: Shevelov 1965: 340−343; Vermeer 2008: 513−518, 527−528, 546−547. 4.6.2. Controversy: Channon 1972; Birnbaum and Merrill 1983: 27−29; Schenker 1995: 90−92; Vermeer 2003, 2008. PVP 3 2VP: Baudouin de Courtenay 1894: 49−50; Vaillant 1950: 53−55. PVP < 2VP: Shevelov 1965: 353. PVP1 > 2VP: Pedersen 1905; Mareš 1965: 34−36. Criticism: Vermeer 2008. PVP > 1VP: Martinet 1955: 366−367; Channon 1972; Velcheva 1980: 32−33; Lunt 1987, 2001: 193−195. Criticism: Kortlandt 1984, 1989; Schenker 1995: 91−92; Vermeer 2008: 554−561. Generative grammar: Chomsky

81. The phonology of Slavic

1521

and Halle [1968] 1991: 420−426, 428−430. Pronouns: Vermeer 2008: 519−525. Vocatives: Vermeer 2008: 521, 528. 4.6.3. Vowel Fronting after PVP: Shevelov 1965: 347−349; Lunt 2001: 196; Vermeer 2008: 505. 4.7. Reflexes of *t, *d: Vaillant 1950: 65−67; Shevelov 1965: 212−215; Andersen 1969; 1977: 9−10; Schenker 1993: 76; 1995: 95−96; Lunt 2001: 187−189; Zaliznjak 2004: 47−49. Freising Fragments: Kolarič 1968: 32−33; Bernik et al. 1993: 145−146 (tige, toie, tomuge). 4.8.*tl, *dl: Andersen 2006. See also Vaillant 1950: 88−90; Shevelov 1965: 202, 370− 375; Schenker 1995: 92. Sln: Lenček 1981: 86−87. CenSlk: Stanislav 1967: 366−370; Krajčovič 1975: 38. Pskovian: Zaliznjak 2004: 49. 4.9. Initial diphthongs: Vaillant 1950: 158−160; Shevelov 1965: 391−399. See Feldstein 2003 for an attempt to subsume this under a “uniform” diphthongization rule. CenSlk: Stanislav 1967: 324−328; Krajčovič 1975: 37−38. Early loanwords: Shevelov 1965: 395−396; Bezlaj 1955−1961: 142; Vasmer 1985 oltar’. Gk borrowings: Vasmer 1941: 290. Rostislav: Stanislav 1967: 326, 330. Ladoga: Vasmer 1986 s.v. Vepsian: Vasmer 1941: 290. (2) OPo: PsFƚ. 4.9.1. *a˝lk(ā)- and *aldii̯ -: OCS: SJS. MBg: Miklosich. See also Vaillant 1950: 161. 5. Late Common Slavic: As periodized here, LCSl is Andersen’s (1986: 73−74), between the Second and the Third Vowels Shifts (QD, 5.1, and Jer-Shift, 5.8). Lunt (2001: 182) uses “Late Common Slavic” for the “dialect continuum that existed c800−c1100” and assigns QD to “Middle Common Slavic.” There is quite clear evidence that QD was going on in the 8th−early 9th centuries in much of the Slavophone domain. 5.1. QD: Andersen 1998a. See also Jakobson 1962: 33−36; Bräuer 1961: 86−94; Shevelov 1965: 376−386, 388−390, 422−431; Schenker 1993: 79; 1995: 99; Lunt 2001: 192− 193, 201−202. Absolute chronology: Andersen 2014: 59. Byzantine texts: Mikkola 1938: 21; Vasmer 1941: 11−19; Bräuer 1961: 87; Vlasto 1970: 24; Heather 2011: 424. Cividale Gospel: Stanislav 1968: 382. BFi borrowings: Mikkola 1938: 20−21, 25−26, 30−31; Kiparsky 1979: 77−87. Dnieper Rapids: Kiparsky 1979: 77; Schenker 1995: 58−59. 5.1.1. *ʊ: Shevelov 1965: 434; Flier 1998. Slk outcomes: Krajčovič 1975: 44−48; Greenberg 1988. 5.2.1. *æ: Vaillant 1950: 113−117; Samilov 1964; Shevelov 1965: 164−166; Schenker 1993: 79. OCS: Diels 1963: 25, 31−36, 42−43; Lunt 2001: 25. Bg: Scatton 1993: 244. Mc: Friedman 1993: 301. BCS: Browne 1993: 308−309. Kaj: Browne 1993: 382. Sln: Lenček 1981: 99, 103−104; Priestly 1993: 448−449. Slk reflexes: Krajčović 1975: 69− 72. OCz: Komárek 1962: 49−51. Merger avoidance: Feldstein 2003: 261. Novg: Zal-

1522

XIII. Slavic

iznjak 2004: 52−53. BFi borrowings: Mikkola 1938: 30, 83. NRu relics: Shevelov 1965: 173; Nikolaev 1990: 60; Zaliznjak 2004: 52. 5.2.2. Nasal vowels: Vaillant 1950: 144−154; Shevelov 1965: 164−171; Stankiewicz 1986: 25, Schenker 1993: 79−80. Mc: Friedman 1993: 301. Bg: Scatton 1993: 244. NWSln. Lech backings: Andersen 1978; Topolińska 1974: 33; Stone 1993: 764. Kb and Slc outcomes: Topolińska 1974: 33−34; Stone 1993: 764. Sln reflexes: Lenček 1981: 100− 101. Kaj reflexes: Browne 1993: 382. Slk reflexes: Krajčovič 1975: 44−47. Cz reflexes: Komárek 1962: 49−50. Putative ESl *ä: e.g. Jakobson 1962, Lunt 1956. Hungarian borrowings: Krajčovič 1975: 45. Cividale Gospel: Krajčovič 1975: 44−45. Muncimiro: Mužić 2007: 205. Freising Fragments: Kolarič 1968: 24−25. Contact evidence for ESl: Mikkola 1938: 19, 28−29, 30, 83; Kiparsky 1979: 77−78, 83. 5.3. New length distinctions: Shevelov 1965: 507−520; Krajčovič 1975: 58−61. Čakavian: Kalsbeek 1998. 5.4. Secondary softening: Shevelov 1965: 488−505, 588−590; Flier 1998. Cz: Komárek 1962: 51−54. Traditional approach: e.g. Jakobson 1962; Lunt 1956: 309, 311. 5.4.1. Soft sonorants: Komárek 1962: 52−53; Shevelov 1965: 208−209. 5.5. Internal open-vowel diphthongs: Vaillant 1950: 156−158; Shevelov 1965: 399−420; Schenker 1993: 74−76; Andersen 1998: 241−243; Lunt 2001: 189; Zaliznjak 2004: 39− 41. Peripheral SSl: Vaillant 1950: 161−162; Shevelov 1965: 406, 409; Stanislav 1967: 338. OPo: Klemenszewicz, Lehr-Spławiński, and Urbańczyk (eds.) 1964: 124−127. Pb: Polański 1993: 803. CenLech: Jeżowa 1961: 78−81. Compensatory lengthening: Stang 1957: 36; Timberlake 1983a−b. Uk long reflexes: for an alternative interpretation, see Andersen 1998: 242−243. Foreign adaptation: Bethmann 1876; Mikkola 1938: 25−27; Vasmer 1941: 287−290; Shevelov 1965: 415, 417; Stanislav 1967: 337−338. Kiev Folia: Schaeken 1987. Freising Fragments: Bernik 1993. ‘King’: ÈSSJa *korljь; Vaillant 1950: 165−166; Shevelov 1965: 415−416; Lunt 1966; Stanislav 1967: 338; Schenker 1995: 11. 5.6. Internal close vowel diphthongs: Shevelov 1965: 466−486; Schenker 1993: 74−75; Feldstein 2003. OCS: Diels 1963: 61−63; Lunt 2001: 28−39. Bg: Shevelov 1965: 477− 478. Po: Klemenszewicz, Lehr-Spławiński, and Urbańczyk (eds.) 1964: 118−122. Ru: Isačenko 1970: 100−102; Zaliznjak 2004: 49−52. 5.7. Tense jers: Shevelov 1965: 439−440; Schenker 1993: 81; Schenker 1995: 101. OCS: Diels 1963: 64−69; Lunt 2001: 34−35. OESl: Zaliznjak 1985: 116−118; Flier 1988. 5.8. Jer-Shift: Havlík 1889; Shevelov 1965: 432−464; Stanislav 1967: 383−384; Isačenko 1970: 73−77; Schenker 1993: 78; Andersen 1998a; Flier 1998. Paragogic vowels: Andersen 1972: 35−36. Kiev Folia: Schaeken 1987: 93−94. OCS: Diels 1963: 54−55, 96−97; Lunt 2001: 24−25, 36−40. OESl: Kiparsky 1979: 97−111; Shevelov 1979; Isačenko 1970. Novg: Zaliznjak 2004: 58−67. Omissions imitating OCS: Isačenko 1970:

81. The phonology of Slavic

1523

74; Gribble 1989; Zaliznjak 2004: 60. Freising Fragments: Kolarič 1968: 25−26. Czech: Komárek 1962: 47−49. 5.8.1. Strong jers: Shevelov 1965: 434; Stanislav 1967: 384−387; Isačenko 1970: 74− 77. CenSlk: Stanislav 1967: 381−387; Krajčović 1975: 50−55; Greenberg 1988. Sorb: Timberlake 1988. Vowel abridgment: Andersen (1970); Timberlake (1983b). 5.8.2. Pb: Polański 1982 (arguing that the strong reflexes in initial syllables were morphological in origin); 1993: 801−802; Timberlake 1988. 5.8.3. Vowel-zero alternations and stem-leveling: Isačenko 1970: 77−124. 5.9. Liquid-jer sequences: Shevelov 1965: 466−486; Lunt 2001: 28−39; Isačenko 1970: 111−112. 5.10. Compensatory lengthening: Timberlake 1983a, 1983b; Andersen 1970: 70−71. Reflexes: Shevelov 1965: 446−448. Vowel abridgment: Andersen 1970. 5.11. Lenition of *g: Andersen 1969, 1977. See also Vaillant 1950: 32−34; Lunt 2001: 188. Ru dialects: Flier 1983. Slovenian: Lenček 1981: 111−113. Post-CSl phenomenon: e.g. Shevelov 1965: 593−595; Komárek 1962: 67−70; Krajčovič 1975: 81−86; Kiparsky 1979: 131−133. Knaanic: Ulična 2006: 70; 2014: 146−147. 5.12. Contraction: Shevelov 1965: 524−528; Marvan 1979; Andersen 2014: 55−58. See also Vaillant 1950: 193−199; Bräuer 1961: 153−154; Shevelov 1965: 524−530; Stanislav 1967: Schenker 1993: 81; 1995: 101. OCS: Diels 1963: 191−198. Cz: Komárek 1962: 45−47. 6. Suprasegmental phonology: In the correspondences below, the non-Slavic data are cited from Pokorny 1959, Illič-Svityč 1963, Vasmer 1986, and Derksen 2008; the comparisons are based on the most widely accepted etymologies, but often there are no exact correspondences for the Sl formations. Moscow School: see especially Dybo 1981; Dybo, Zamjatina, and Nikolaev 1990; Zaliznjak 1985; and articles by the same authors listed in the References. Criticism: Vermeer 2001; Derksen 2004. Alternative approaches: see Kortlandt (1975, 1994), Stankiewicz (1993), Derksen (2008), Jasanoff (2004, 2008, 2011), and Olander (2009). 6.1. Sl accentual correspondences: Stang 1957: 20−21, 179; Bogatyrev 1995: 6−7, 9− 11. Acute not tied to ictus: Jasanoff 2011. Dated manuscripts: Illič-Svityč 1963: 91−92. Accent paradigms: Stang 1957: 56−154; Illyč-Svityč 1963: 4, n. 1, 157−161; Dybo 1979; Zaliznjak 1985: 125−127, 131−140; Dybo, Zamjatina, and Nikolaev 1990: 7−16, 34− 47; Bogatyrev 1995: 5, 7−9; Andersen 2009: 4−5; Pronk-Tiethoff 2013: 30−38. Neoacute: see 6.4.3. 6.2. Reconstruction attempts: for surveys, see Illič-Svityč 1963: 10−17, 93−96; Bogatyrev 1995: 12−17; Derksen 2004. BaSl innovations: see, e.g., Dybo, Zamjatina, and Niko-

1524

XIII. Slavic

laev 1990: 107; Derksen 2004: 81. Separate origins of the circumflex in Ba and Sl: Dybo 1979: 43. Inherited features: Stang 1957: 5, 173−179; Illič-Svityč 1963: 162−164; Bogatyrev 1995: 1−4. 6.2.1. Ictus patterns: Stang 1957: 21; Illič-Svityč 1963: 8−10, 89−161; Derksen 2004: 87−88. 6.2.2. Length: Kortlandt 1975: 20−24; Jasanoff 2004a: 247−248. Babbling: (3a) Li bóba (AP-1), Ltv bãba; (3b) Li móteris ‘woman’ (AP-1), Ltv mâte, OI mātár-, ‘mother’, Gk μητρός − μητέρος ‘mother (NOM − GEN). Borrowings from non-IE: (4) Gk μήκων ‘poppy’, OHG māho (*x instead of *ɣ); ÈSSJa makъ. 6.2.3. Accent valencies: Zaliznjak 1985: 118−127, 140−146; Dybo 1989: 7−10; Dybo, Zamjatina, and Nikolaev 1990: 85, 98−99, 107−108; Bogatyrev 1995: 2−4. Criticism: Vermeer 2001: 155−156; Derksen 2004: 86, 87. PIE suprasegmentals: Dybo 1989, 2003; Nikolaev 1989; Dybo, Zamjatina, and Nikolaev 1990: 107−108. Orthotonic words and enclinomena: Jakobson 1963. 6.3.1. Acuting before tautosyllabic laryngeals: Jasanoff 2004a, 2011. Acuting as glottalization: Stang 1966: 137. Acute as glottal stop: Kortlandt 1975: 16; Derksen 2008; for criticism, see Jasanoff 2004b: 172−173. Acute as checked length: Jasanoff 2004a: 251− 252; Jasanoff 2011. 6.3.2. Hirt’s Law: Hirt 1895: 95, 165−166; Shevelov 1965: 49−55; Illič-Svityč 1963: 78−82; Kortlandt 1975: 2−4, 22−23, 52−54; Dybo, Zamjatina, and Nikolaev 1990: 50; Derksen 2004: 83−85; Jasanoff 2011. MRu: Zaliznjak 1978, 1979. 6.3.3. Winter’s Law: Winter 1978; Collinge 1985: 225−227; Derksen 2004: 82−83; Jasanoff 2004a. Neocircumflex: Stang 1957: 23−35; Dybo, Zamjatina, and Nikolaev 1990: 16−31. 6.3.4. Bezzenberger’s Law: Bezzenberger 1891; Dybo, Zamjatina, and Nikolaev 1990: 7, 71; Jasanoff 2004a: 251. 6.3.5. Meillet’s Law: Meillet 1902; Kortlandt 1975: 10−12, 27−29, 54−55; Dybo 1979: 43; Collinge 1985: 117−118; Jasanoff 2004a: 254; Andersen 2009: 5. 6.4.1. CSl ictus placement: Dybo, Zamjatina, and Nikolaev 1990: 85; Dybo 2000: 94. MBg: Dybo 1971, 1975. MRu: Dybo 1971, 1975; Kolesov 1972. Šaxmatov’s Law: Šaxmatov 1915; Zaliznjak 1989; Andersen 2009: 5. Vasil’ev-Dolobko: Dolobko 1927; Vasil’ev 1929; Dybo 1971, 1975, 1977; Kortlandt 1975: 38−40; Collinge 1985: 29−30; Dybo, Zamjatina, and Nikolaev 1990: 54; Bogatyrev 1995: 3, 14−15; Andersen 2009: 5. 6.4.2. Law of Dybo-Illič-Svityč: Dybo 1962; Illič-Svityč 1963: 157−161; Collinge 1985: 31−33; Bogatyrev 1995: 4−5; Jasanoff 2004a: 254; Andersen 2009: 4−5. MBg: Dybo 1971, 1975. MRu: Dybo 1971, 1975; Kolesov 1972.

81. The phonology of Slavic

1525

6.4.3. Neoacute: Stang 1957: 20−23, 167−173; Jakobson 1963: 164−173; Collinge 1985: 179; Bogatyrev 1995: 10−11; Schenker 1995: 98. Ru dialects: Illič-Svityč 1963: 91; Schenker 1995: 98. MRu: Vasil’ev 1929; Illič-Svityč 1963: 91−92; Zaliznjak 1978, 1979. 6.4.4. Ictus advancement from weak jers: Shevelov 1965: 443−445.

8. References AHD = Calvert Watkins. (ed.) 2000 The American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European Roots. 2nd edn. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Andersen, Henning 1968 IE *s after i, u, r, k in Baltic and Slavic. Acta Linguistica Hafnensia 11: 171−190. Andersen, Henning 1969 Lenition in Common Slavic. Language 45: 553−574. Andersen, Henning 1970 Kashubian dobëtk ‘dobytek’ and its Kind. Die Welt der Slaven 15: 61−76. Andersen, Henning 1972 Diphthongization. Language 48: 11−50. Andersen, Henning 1977 On Some Central Innovations in the Common Slavic Period. In: Franc Jakopin (ed.), Slovansko jezikoslovje [Slavic linguistics]. Ljubljana: Univ. v Ljubljani, Filozofska fakulteta, 1−13. Andersen, Henning 1978 Perceptual and Conceptual Factors in Abductive Innovations. In: Fisiak (ed.), 1−22. Andersen, Henning 1985 Protoslavic and Common Slavic. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 31−32: 67−80. Andersen, Henning 1996 Reconstructing Prehistorical Dialects. Initial Vowels in Slavic and Baltic. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Andersen, Henning 1998a The Common Slavic Vowel Shifts. American Contributions to the International Congresses of Slavists 12: 239−248. Andersen, Henning 1998b A Glimpse of the Homeland of the Slavs. In: Angela della Volpe (ed.), Proceedings of the Seventh UCLA Indo-European Conference. Washington, D. C.: Institute for the Study of Man, 1−67. Andersen, Henning 1999 The Western South Slavic Contrast Sn. sah-ni-ti || SC sah-nu-ti. Slovenski jezik 2: 47− 62. Andersen, Henning 2003 Slavic and the Indo-European Migrations. In: Henning Andersen (ed.), Language Contacts in Prehistory. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 45−76. Andersen, Henning 2006 On the Late Common Slavic Dialect Correspondences Kl−Tl−l. International Journal of Slavic Language and Poetics 44/45: 37−48.

1526

XIII. Slavic

Andersen, Henning 2009 The Satem Languages of the Indo-European Northwest. In: Angela Marcantonio (ed.), The Indo-European Language Family: Questions about its Status. Washington, D.C.: Institute for the Study of Man, 1−31. Andersen, Henning 2013 On the Origin of the Slavic Aspects. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 21: 17−43. Andersen, Henning 2014 Early Vowel Contraction in Slavic. Scando-Slavica 60: 54−107. Barford, Paul M. 2001 The Early Slavs. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Bartoli, Matteo G. 1906 Das Dalmatische. 2 vols. Vienna: Hölder. Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan 1894 Einiges über Palatalisierung (Palatalisation) und Entpalatalisierung (Depalatalisation). Indogermanische Forschungen 4: 45−57. Beekes, Robert S. P. 1995 Comparative Indo-European Linguistics. An Introduction. Amsterdam: Benjamins. BER = Vladimir I. Georgiev, Ivan Galabov, Iordan Zaimov, and Stefan Ilcev (eds.) 1962− Bălgarski etimologičen rečnik [Bulgarian etymological dictionary]. 6 vols. to date. Sofia: BAN. Bernik, France, Jože Faganel, Kajetan Gantar, Igor Grdina, Franc Jakopin, Janko Kos, Marko Kranjec, Tine Logar, Klaus Detlef Olof, Božo Otorepec, Boris Paternu, and Marijan Smolik 1993 Brižinski spomeniki [The Freising literary monuments]. Ljubljana: Slovenske akademije znanosti in umetnosti. Bernsˇtejn, Samuil B. 1961 Očerk sravnitel’noj grammatiki slavjanskix jazykov [An outline of the comparative grammar of the Slavic languages]. Moscow: Akademija Nauk SSSR. Bethmann, Conrad L. 1876 Die Evangelienhandschrift zu Cividale. Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft für ältere Deutsche Geschichtskunde 2: 113−128. Bezlaj, France 1956−1961 Slovenska vodna imena [Slovenian river names]. 2 vols. Ljubljana: Slovenska Akademija znanosti i umetnosti. Bezlaj, France 1976−2007 Etimološki slovar slovenskega jezika [Etymological dictionary of the Slovenian language] 4 vols. Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga. Bezzenberger, Adalbert 1891 Zum baltischen Vocalismus. Beiträge zur Kunde der indogermanischen Sprachen 17: 213−227. Birnbaum, Henrik 1956 Zu urslav. Kv-. Scando-Slavica 2: 29−40. Birnbaum, Henrik 1966 The dialects of Common Slavic. In: Henrik Birnbaum and Jaan Puhvel (eds.), Ancient Indo-European dialects. Proceedings of the Conference on Indo-European Linguistics Held at the University of California, Los Angeles April 25−27, 1963. Berkeley: University of California Press, 153−197. Birnbaum, Henrik 1970 Four Approaches to Balto-Slavic. In: Velta Rūk̦ e-Dravin̦ a (ed.), Donum Balticum. To Professor Christian S. Stang on the occasion of his seventieth birthday 15 March 1970. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 69−76. Birnbaum, Henrik 1975 Common Slavic: Progress and problems in its reconstruction. Cambridge, MA: Slavica.

81. The phonology of Slavic

1527

Birnbaum, Henrik 1983 Language families, linguistic types, and the position of the Rusin microlanguage within Slavic. Die Welt der Slaven 28: 1−23. Birnbaum, Henrik 1987a Praslavjanskij jazyk: Dostiženija i problemy v ego rekonstrukcii [Proto-Slavic: Achievements and problems of its reconstruction]. Translated by Vladimir A. Dybo. Moscow: Progress. Birnbaum, Henrik 1987b Some Terminological and Substantive Issues in Slavic Historical Linguistics. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 35/36: 299−332. Birnbaum, Henrik and Peter T. Merrill 1983 Recent Advances in the Reconstruction of Common Slavic (1971−1982). Columbus, OH: Slavica. Bogatyrev, Konstantin K. 1995 Akcentuacija severolexitskix govorov s istoričeskoj točki zrenija. [The accentuation of Northern Lechitic dialects from a historical perspective]. Munich: Sagner. Boryś, Wiesław 2005 Słownik etymologiczny języka polskiego [Etymological dictionary of Polish]. Cracow: Wydawnictwo literackie. Bräuer, Herbert 1961 Slavische Sprachwissenschaft. Vol. 1. Berlin: De Gruyter. Browne, Wayles 1993 Serbo-Croat. In: Comrie and Corbett (eds.), 306−387. Browning, Timothy 1989 The Diachrony of Proto-Indo-European Syllabic Liquids in Slavic. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Wisconsin, Madison. Brückner, Aleksander 1993 [1927] Słownik etymologiczny języka polskiego [Etymological dictionary of Polish]. Reprint. Warsaw: Wiedza Powszechna. Bulatova, Rimma V. and Vladimir A. Dybo (eds.) 1989 Istoričeskaja akcentologija i sravnitel’no-istoričeskij metod [Historical accentology and the comparative-historical method]. Moscow: Nauka. BZ = Biblia królowej Zofii [The Queen Sofia Bible] 2015 www.ijp-pan.krakow.pl/publikacje-elektroniczne/korpus-tekstow-staropolskich [Last accessed 26 June 2017]. Channon, Robert 1972 On the Place of the Progressive Palatalization of Velars in the Relative Chronology of Slavic. The Hague: Mouton. Chomsky, Noam and Morris Halle 1991 [1968] The Sound Pattern of English. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Collinge, Neville E. 1985 The Laws of Indo-European. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Collins, Daniel E. 1982 Front rounded vowels and the phoneme /j/ in Proto-Church Slavonic. Die Welt der Slaven 37: 1−32. Collins, Daniel E. forthcoming The Proto-Slavic Reflexes of the PIE Syllabic Sonorants. Comrie, Bernard and Greville G. Corbett (eds.) 1993 The Slavonic Languages. London: Routledge. Cˇornejová, Michaela 2007 Studie k dokladů m cˇeských mı́stnı́ch jmen na -any v 11.−13. Stoletı́ [Studies in the documentation of Czech place names in -any in the 11th−13th centuries]. Linguistica

1528

XIII. Slavic

ONLINE. http://www.phil.muni.cz/linguistica/art/cornejova/cor-003.pdf [Last accessed 26 June 2017]. Curta, Florin 2001 The Making of the Slavs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Derksen, Rick 2004 Balto-Slavic Accentuation: An Update. Histoire Épistémologie Langage 26: 81−92. Derksen, Rick 2008 Etymological Dictionary of the Slavic Inherited Lexicon. Leiden: Brill. Daničić, Đura 1962 [1863−1864] Rječnik iz književnih starina srpskih [Dictionary of Serbian literary antiquities]. 2 vols. Reprint. Graz: Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt. Diels, Paul 1963 Altkirchenslavische Grammatik. Vol. 1. 2nd edn. Heidelberg: Winter. Dolobko, Milij G. 1927 Noč’-nočés’, ósen’-osenés’, zimá-zimús’, léto-létos’. Slavia 5: 678−717. DRMJa = Digitalen rečnik na makedonskiot ezik [Digital dictionary of the Macedonian language] 2015 http://www.makedonski.info [Last accessed 26 June 2017]. Dvornik, Francis 1956 The Slavs: Their Early History and Civilization. Boston: American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Dybo, Vladimir A. 1962 O rekonstrukcii udarenija v praslavjanskom glagole [On the reconstruction of ProtoSlavic word-accent]. Voprosy sovetskogo jazykoznanija 6: 3−27. Dybo, Vladimir A. 1971 Zakon Vasil’eva-Dolobko i akcentuacija form glagola v drevnerusskom i srednebolgarskom [Vasil’eva-Dolobko’s Law and the accentuation of verb forms in Old Russian and Middle Bulgarian]. Voprosy jazykoznanija 20: 93−114. Dybo, Vladimir A. 1975 Zakon Vasil’eva-Dolobko v drevnerusskom [Vasil’eva-Dolobko’s Law in Old Russian]. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 18: 7−81. Dybo, Vladimir A. 1977 Imennoe udarenie v srednebolgarskom i zakon Vasil’eva-Dolobko [Nominal accentuation in Middle Bulgarian and Vasil’eva-Dolobka’s Law]. In: Leonid A. Gindin and Galina P. Klepikova (eds.), Slavjanskoe i balkanskoe jazykoznanie [Slavic and Baltic linguistics]. Moscow: Nauka, 189−272. Dybo, Vladimir A. 1979 Rekonstrukcija sistemy akcentnyx paradigm v praslavjanskom [Reconstruction of the system of accentual paradigms in Proto-Slavic]. Zbornik za filologiju i lingvistiku 22: 37−71. Dybo, Vladimir A. 1980 Balto-slavjanskaja akcentnaja sistema s tipologičeskoj točki zrenija i problema rekonstrukcija indoevropejskogo akcenta [The Balto-Slavic accentual system from a typological perspective and the problem of the reconstruction of the Indo-European accent]. In: Tamara M. Sudnik (ed.), Balto-slavjanskie ètnojazykovye kontakty. [Balto-Slavic ethnolinguistic contacts]. Moscow: Nauka, 91−150. Dybo, Vladimir A. 1981 Slavjanskaia akcentologija: Opyt rekonstrukcii sistemy accentnyx paradigm v praslavjanskom [Slavic accentology. An attempt at a reconstruction of the system of accentual paradigms in Proto-Slavic]. (Akademija Nauk SSSR, Institut Slavjanovedenija i Balkanistiki). Moscow: Nauka.

81. The phonology of Slavic

1529

Dybo, Vladimir A. 1989 Tipologija i rekonstrukcija paradigmatičeskix akcentnyx system [Typology and the reconstruction of paradigmatic accent systems]. In: Bulatova and Dybo (eds.), 7−45. Dybo, Vladimir A. 2000 Morfonologizovannye paradigmatičeskie akcentnye sistemy. Tipologia i genezis [Morphophonologized paradigmatic accent systems. Typology and genesis]. Vol. 1. Moscow: Jazyki russkoj kul’tury. Dybo, Vladimir A. 2002 Balto-Slavic Accentology and Winter’s Law. Studia Linguarum 3: 295−515. Dybo, Vladimir A. 2003 Balto-slavjanskaja akcentologičeskaja rekonstrukcija i indoevropejskaja akcentologija [Balto-Slavic accentual reconstruction and Indo-European accentology]. In: Viktor M. Živov and Tat’jana Mixajovna Nikolaeva (eds.), Slavjanskoe jazykoznanie: XIII Meždunarodnyj Sъezd Slavistov, Ljubljana, 2003 g. Doklady rossijskoj delegacii [Slavic linguistics: 13th international session of slavists, Ljubljana, 2003. Reports of the Russian delegation]. Moscow: Indrik, 131−161. Dybo, Vladimir A., Galina I. Zamjatina, and Sergej L. Nikolaev 1990 Osnovy slavjanskoj akcentologii [Principles of Slavic accentology]. Moscow: Nauka. Dybo, Vladimir A., Galina I. Zamjatina, and Sergej L. Nikolaev 1993 Osnovy slavianskoj akcentologii: Slovar’ [Principles of Slavic accentology: dictionary]. Vol. 1, part 1. Moscow: Nauka. Endzelīns, Jānis 1971 Jānis Endzelīns’ Comparative Phonology and Morphology of the Baltic Languages. Trans. William R. Schmalstieg and Benjamin̦ š Jēgers. The Hague: Mouton. ÈSSJa = Trubačev, Oleg N. (ed.) 1974− Ètimologičeskij slovar’ slavjanskix jazykov [Etymological dictionary of the Slavic languages]. 36 vols. to date. Moscow: Nauka. ESUM = Mel’nyčuk, Oleksander S. (ed.) 1982−2006 Etymolohičnyj slovnyk ukraïns’koï movy [Etymological dictionary of the Ukrainian language]. 7 vols. Kiev: Naukova Dumka. EwZam = Ewangeliarz Zamoyskich [Zamoyski’s Gospel] 2015 www.ijp-pan.krakow.pl/publikacje-elektroniczne/korpus-tekstow-staropolskich [Last accessed 26 June 2017]. Fasmer, Max (= Max Vasmer) 1986 Ètimologičeskij slovar’ russkogo jazyka [Etymological dictionary of the Russian language]. Translated from German with comments by Oleg N. Trubacëv. 4 vols. Moscow: Progress. Feldstein, Ronald F. 2003 The Unified Monophthongization Rule of Common Slavic. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 11: 247−281. Filin, Fedot P. 1962 Obrazovanie jazyka vostočnyx slavjan [The formation of the language of the Eastern Slavs]. Moscow: Akademija Nauk SSSR. Fisiak, Jacek (ed.) 1978 Recent Developments in Historical Phonology. The Hague: Mouton. Flier, Michael S. 1982 The Origin of the Desinence -ovo in Russian. In: Markov and Worth (eds.), 85−104. Flier, Michael S. 1988 Morphophonemic consequences of the development of tense jers in East Slavic. American Contributions to the International Congresses of Slavists 10: 91−105.

1530

XIII. Slavic

Flier, Michael S. 1998 The Jer Shift and Consequent Mechanisms of Sharping (Palatalization) in East Slavic. American Contributions to the International Congresses of Slavists 12: 360−374. Fortson, Benjamin W. IV. 2004 Indo-European Language and Culture. Oxford: Blackwell. Fougeron, Cécile and Rachid Ridouane 2008 On the Phonetic Implementation of Syllabic Consonants and Vowel-Less Syllables in Tashlhiyt. Estudios de Fonética Experimental 18: 139−175. Friedrich, Paul 1970 Proto-Indo-European Trees. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Friedman, Victor A. 1993 Macedonian. In: Comrie and Corbett (eds.), 249−305. Garde, Paul 1976 Histoire de l’accentuation slave. 2 vols. (Collection de manuels de l’Institut d’Études Slaves 7). Paris: Institut d’Études Slaves. Gerov, Naĭden 1975−1978 [1895−1904] Rěčnik na bu˘lgarskyj jazyk [Dictionary of the Bulgarian language]. I−V. Reprint. Sofia: Bŭlgarski Pisatel. Gołąbek, Eugeniusz 2010−2012 Słownik polsko-kaszubski: Słowôrz pòlskò-kaszëbsci [A Polish-Kashubian dictionary]. http://www.skarbnicakaszubska.pl/slownik-polsko-kaszubski [Last accessed 26 June 2017]. Greenberg, Marc L. 1988 On the vocalization of jers in Slovak. Die Welt der Slaven 33: 43−62. Gribble, Charles E. 1989 Omission of the Jer Vowels in Early East Slavic Manuscripts. Russian Linguistics 13: 1−14. Grierson, Philip and Mark Blackburn 2007 Medieval European Coinage. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hamp, Eric P. 1983 Ja = Runic ek. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 27: 11−13. Hannan, Kevin. 1996 Borders of Language and Identity in Teschen Silesia. New York: Lang. Havlík, Antonín. 1889 K otázce jerové v staré češtině [On the jer-question in Old Czech]. Listy filologické 16: 45−51, 106−116, 342−353. Heather, Peter 2010 Empires and Barbarians. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hermann, Joachim (ed.) 1985 Die Slawen in Deutschland. 2nd edn. Berlin: Akademie. Hirt, Hermann 1895 Der indogermanische Akzent: Ein Handbuch. Strassburg: Trübner. HJP = Hrvatski jezični portal [Croatian language portal] 2015 http://hjp.znanje.hr/index.php?show=main [Last accessed 26 June 2017]. Houtzagers, H. Peter 1985 The Čakavian Dialect of Orlec on the Island of Cres. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Hrinčenko, Borys 1958−1959 [1907−1909] Slovar’ ukrajins’koji movy [A dictionary of the Ukrainian language]. Reprint. 4 vols. Kiev: Naukova Dumka. IEW = Pokorny, J. 1959 Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. 2 vols. Bern: Francke.

81. The phonology of Slavic

1531

Illič-Svityč, Vladislav M. 1963 Imennaja akcentuacija v baltijskom i slavjanskom [Nominal accentuation in Baltic and Slavic]. Moscow: Akademija Nauk SSSR. IPA = International Phonetics Association 2005 The International Phonetic Alphabet and the IPA Chart. https://www. internationalphoneticassociation.org/content/ipa-chart [Last accessed 26 June 2017]. Isačenko, Aleksandr. V. 1970 East Slavic Morphophonemics and the Treatment of the Jers in Russian. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 13: 73−124. ISO = International Standards Organization 1995 Transliteration of Cyrillic Characters into Latin Characters. https://www.iso.org/ standard/3589.html [Last accessed 26 June 2017]. Ivanov, Vjačeslav Vs. and Vladimir N. Toporov 1958 K postanovke voprosa drevnejšix otnošenijax baltijskix i slavjanskix jazykov [On the status of the question concerning the oldest relationships of the Baltic and Slavic languages]. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo A. N. SSSR. Jakobson, Roman 1962 [1929] Remarques sur l’évolution phonologique du russe comparée à celle des autres langues slaves. In: Roman Jakobson, Selected writings 1. The Hague: Mouton, 7−116. Jakobson, Roman 1952 On Slavic diphthongs ending in a liquid. Word 8: 306−310. Jakobson, Roman 1963 Opyt fonologičeskogo podxoda k istoričeskim voprosam slavjanskoj akcentologii: Pozdnij period slavjanskoj jazykovoj praistorii [An attempt at a phonological approach to the historical questions of Slavic accentology: The late period of Slavic linguistic prehistory]. American Contributions to the International Congresses of Slavists 5 1: 153−178. Janda, Laura A. 1996 Back from the Brink. Munich: LINCOM. Jasanoff, Jay 1983a A rule of final syllables in Slavic. Journal of Indo-European Studies 11: 139−149. Jasanoff, Jay 1983b A reply to Schmalsteig and Kortlandt. Journal of Indo-European Studies 11: 187−190. Jasanoff, Jay 2004a Acute vs. Circumflex. In: Adam Hyllested, Anders Richardt Jørgensen, Jenny Helena Larsson, and Thomas Olander (eds.), Per aspera ad asteriscos: Studia indogermanica in honorem Jens Elmegård Rasmussen sexagenarii idibus Martiis anno MMIV. (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft, Band 112). Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Kulturen der Universität, 247−255. Jasanoff, Jay 2004b Balto-Slavic Accentuation: Telling News from Noise. Baltistica 39: 171−177. Jasanoff, Jay 2008 The Accentual Type *vèdō, *vedetí and the Origin of Mobility in the Balto-Slavic Verb. Baltistica 43: 339−379. Jasanoff, Jay 2011 Balto-Slavic Mobility as an Indo-European Problem. In: Roman Sukač (ed.), From Present to Past and Back. Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 52−74. Kalsbeek, Janneke 1998 The Čakavian dialect of Orbanići near Žminj in Istria. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Kiparsky, Valentin 1975 Russische Historische Grammatik. Vol. 3. Heidelberg: Winter. Kiparsky, Valentin 1979 Russian Historical Grammar. Vol. 1. Translated by J. Ian Press. Ann Arbor, MI: Ardis.

1532

XIII. Slavic

Klemensiewicz, Zenon, Tadeusz Lehr-Spławiński, and Stanisław Urbańczyk (eds.) 1964 Gramatyka historyczna języka polskiego [Historical grammar of the Polish language]. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Nauk. Kolarič, Rudolf 1968 Sprachliche Analyse. In: Jože Pogačnik (ed.), Freisinger Denkmäler, Brižinski spomeniki, Monumenta Frisingensia. Munich: Trofenik, 18−120. Kolesov, Vladimir V. 1972 Istorija russkogo udarenija [A history of Russian accent]. Leningrad: Leningrad University Press. Komárek, Miroslav 1962 Historická mluvnice česka [Historical grammar of Czech]. Vol. 1. Hlaskosloví [Phonetics]. Prague: Státní pedagogické nakladatelství. Kortlandt, Frederik H. H. 1975 Slavic Accentuation. Lisse: de Ridder. Kortlandt, Frederik H. H. 1978 Proto-Indo-European Obstruents. Indogermanische Forschungen 83: 107−118. Kortlandt, Frederik H. H. 1984 The Progressive Palatalization of Slavic. Folia Linguistica Historica 5: 211−219. Kortlandt, Frederik H. H. 1985 Proto-Indo-European Glottalic Stops. Folia Linguistica Historica 6: 183−201. Kortlandt, Frederik H. H. 1989 On methods of dealing with facts and opinions in a treatment of the progressive palatalization of Slavic. Folia Linguistica Historica 9: 3−12. Kortlandt, Frederik H. H. 1994 From Proto-Indo-European to Slavic. Journal of Indo-European Studies 22: 91−112. Kortlandt, Frederik H. H. 2007 The Development of the Indo-European Syllabic Resonants in Balto-Slavic. Baltistica 42: 7−12. Kortlandt, Frederik H. H. 2008 Balto-Slavic Phonological Developments. Baltistica 43: 5−15. Krajčovič, Rudolf 1975 A Historical Phonology of the Slovak Language. Heidelberg: Winter. Kral, Jurij 1927 Serbsko-němski słownik hornjołužiskeje rěče [A Sorbian-German dictionary of the Upper Sorbian language]. Bautzen: Domowina. Kuryłowicz, Jerzy 1956 L’apophonie en indo-européen. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk. Kushko, Nadiya 2007 Literary Standards of the Rusyn Language: The Historical Context and Contemporary Situation. Slavic and East European Journal 51: 111−132. Labov, William 1994 Principles of Language Change: Internal Factors. Oxford: Blackwell. Ladefoged, Peter and Ian Maddieson 1996 The Sounds of the World’s Languages. Oxford: Blackwell. Lencek, Rado L. 1982 The Structure and History of the Slovene Language. Columbus, OH: Slavica. Leskien, August 1962 [1871] Handbuch der altbulgarischen (altkirchenslavischen) Sprache. 8th edn. Heidelberg: Winter. Lidén, Ewald 1899 Ein baltisch-slavisches Anlautgesetz. (Göteborgs Högskolas Årsskrift 5). Gothenburg: W. Zachrissons.

81. The phonology of Slavic

1533

Lorentz, Friedrich 1908−1912 Slovinzisches Wörterbuch [Slovincian dictionary]. 2 vols. St. Petersburg: Vtoroe Otdelenie Imperatorskoj Akademii Nauk. Lorentz, Friedrich 1925 Geschichte der pomoranischen (kaschubischen) Sprache. Berlin: De Gruyter. Lunt, Horace G. 1966 Old Church Slavonic “*kraljь”? In: Dietrich Gerhardt (ed.), Orbis scriptus. Munich: Fink, 483−489. Lunt, Horace G. 1981 The Progressive Palatalization of Common Slavic. Skopje: MANI. Lunt, Horace G. 1987 The Progressive Palatalization of Early Slavic. Folia Linguistica Historica 7: 251−290. Lunt, Horace G. 2001 Old Church Slavonic Grammar. 7th edn. Berlin: De Gruyter. Machek, Václav 1968 Etymologický slovník jazyka českého [Etymological dictionary of the Czech language]. Prague: Československé akademie věd. Maresˇ, František 1965 The Origin of the Slavic Phonological System and its Development up to the End of Slavic Language Unity. (Michigan Slavic Materials 6). Translated by J. F. Snopek and A. Vitek. Ann Arbor, MI: Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures, University of Michigan. Markov, Vladimir and Dean S. Worth (eds.) 1983 From Los Angeles to Kiev. Columbus, OH: Slavica. Martinet, André 1955 Économie des changements phonétiques. Berne: Franke. Marvan, Jiri 1979 Prehistoric Slavic Contraction. Translated by Wilson Gray. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press. Matasović, Ranko 2004 The Proto-Indo-European Syllabic Resonants in Balto-Slavic. Indogermanische Forschungen 109: 337−354. Meillet, Antoine 1902 O nekotoryx anomalijax udarenija v slavjanskix imenax. Russkii filologičeskii vestnik 48: 193−200. Meillet, Antoine 1934 Le slave commun. 2nd edn. revised by André Vaillant. Russian trans. by Peter S. Kuznecov 1951. Obščeslavjanskij jazyk. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo inostrannoj literatury. Meillet, Antoine 1967 [1922] The Indo-European Dialects. Translated by S. N. Rosenberg. University, AL: University of Alabama Press. Menges, Karl H. 1953 An Outline of the Early History and Migrations of the Slavs. New York: Department of Slavic Languages, Columbia University. Mikkola, Josef J. 1938 Die älteren Berührungen zwischen Ostseefinnisch und Russisch. Helsinki: Suomalaisugrilainen seura. Miklosich, Franz 1963 [1862−1865] Lexicon palaeoslovenico-graeco-latinum. Reprint. Aalen: Scientia. Moravcsik, Gyula 1958 Byzantinoturcica. Vol. 2. Berlin: Akademie.

1534

XIII. Slavic

Muka, Ernst 1926 Wörterbuch der nieder-wendischen Sprache und ihrer Dialekte. 3 vols. Prague: Czech Academy of Sciences. Mužić, Ivan 2007 Hrvatska povijest devetoga stoljeća [A History of 9th-century Croatia]. 2nd edn. Split: Muzej hrvatskih arheoloških spomenika. Nikolaev, Sergei L. 1989 Balto-slavjanskaja akcentuacionnaja sistema i ee indo-evropejskie istoki [The BaltoSlavic accentual system and its Indo-European sources]. In: Bulatova and Dybo (eds.), 46−109. Nikolaev, Sergei L. 1990 K istorii plemennogo dialekta krivičej [On the history of the tribal dialect of the Krivi’s]. Sovetskoe slavjanovedenie 4: 54−63. Ohala, John J. 1975 Phonetic Explanations for Nasal Sound Patterns. In: Charles A. Ferguson, Larry M. Hyman, and John J. Ohala (eds.), Nasalfest: Papers from a Symposium on Nasals and Nasalization. Stanford: Language Universals Project, 289−316. Olander, Thomas 2009 Balto-Slavic Accentual Mobility. Berlin: De Gruyter. Olesch, Reinhold 1967 Fontes linguae dravaenopolabicae minors [Minor sources of the Polabian language]. Cologne: Böhlau. Orr, Robert 1988 A Phantom Sound-Change. Canadian Slavonic Papers 30: 41−61. Orr, Robert 2000 Common Slavic Nominal Morphology. Bloomington, IN: Slavica. Piesni = Polskie zabytki wierszowane do końca XV wieku [Polish literary monuments in verse to the end of the 15th century] 2015 www.ijp-pan.krakow.pl/publikacje-elektroniczne/korpus-tekstow-staropolskich [Last accessed 26 June 2017]. Pleteršnik, Maks 2010 [1894] Pleteršnikov Slovensko-nemški slovar [Pletersnik’s Slovenian-German dictionary]. http://bos.zrc-sazu.si/pletersnik.html [Last accessed 26 June 2017]. Polański, Kazimierz 1982 Some Remarks on the Development of Jers in Polabian. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 25/26: 379−381. Polański, Kazimierz 1993 Polabian. In: Comrie and Corbett (eds.), 795−824. Priestly, Tom M. S. 1978 Affective Sound Change in Early Slavic. In: Zbigniew Folejewski, Edmund Heier, George Luckyj, and Gunter Schaarschmidt (eds.), Canadian Contributions to the VIII International Congress of Slavists. Ottawa: Canadian Association of Slavists, 143−166. Priestly, Tom M. S. 1993 Slovene. In: Comrie and Corbett (eds.), 388−451. Pronk-Tiethoff, Saskia 2013 The Germanic Loanwords in Proto-Slavic. Amsterdam: Rodopi. PřSl = Oldrich Hujer, Emil Smetánka, Miloš Weingart, Bohuslav Havránek, Vladimír Šmilauer, and Alois Získal (eds.) 1935−1957 Příruční slovník jazyka českého [A reference dictionary of the Czech Language]. 8 vols. Prague: Česká Akademie Věd a Uměni. Pugh, Stefan M. 2009 The Rusyn Language. Munich: LINCOM.

81. The phonology of Slavic

1535

Ramułt, Stefan 1893 Słownik języka pomorskiego cyzli kaszubskiego [A dictionary of the Pomeranian or Kashubian language]. Cracow: Akademii umiejętności. RBE = Rečnik na bu˘lgarskija ezik [A dictionary of the Bulgarian language] 2015 http://rechnik.chitanka.info [Last accessed 26 June 2017]. Rječnik = Đura Daničić et al. (eds.) 1880−1976 Rječnik hrvatskoga ili srpskoga jezika [A dictionary of the Croatian or Serbian language]. 23 vols. Zagreb: Jugoslavenska Akademija Znanosti i Umetnosti. Samilov, Michael 1964 The Phoneme Jat’ in Slavic. The Hague: Mouton. Šaxmatov, Aleksej A. 1915 Ocˇerk drevnejšego perioda istorii russkogo jazyka. [A sketch of the oldest period of the history of the Russian language]. Petrograd: Otd-nīe russkago i︠a︡zyka i slovesnosti Imp. Akademīi nauk. Scatton, Ernest A. 1993 Bulgarian. In: Comrie and Corbett (eds.), 188−248. Schaeken, Jos 1987 Die Kiever Blätter. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Schenker, Alexander M. 1995 The Dawn of Slavic. New Haven: Yale Concilium on International and Area Studies. Schenker, Alexander M. and Edward Stankiewicz (eds.) 1980 The Slavic Literary Languages. Columbus: Slavica. SEJDP = Lehr-Spławiński, Tadeusz and Kazimierz Polański 1962−1994 Słownik etymologiczny języka Drzewian połabskich [Etymological dictionary of the Polabian language]. 6 vols. Wrócław: Ossolineum. Shevelov, George Y. 1965 A Prehistory of Slavic: The Historical Phonology of Common Slavic. New York: Columbia University Press. Shevelov, George Y. 1979 A Historical Phonology of the Ukrainian language. Heidelberg; Winter. SJP = Słownik języka polskiego [A dictionary of the Polish language] 1997−2014 http://sjp.pwn.pl [Last accessed 26 June 2017]. SJS = Kurz, Josef (ed.) 1958−1997 Slovník jazyka staroslověnského [A dictionary of Old Czech]. 5 vols. Prague: Československá akademie vĕd. Slovanský ústav / Euroslavica. Skok, Petar 1971−1974 Etimologijski rječnik hrvatskoga ili srpskoga jezika [Etymological dictionary of the Croatian or Serbian language]. 4 vols. Zagreb: Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti. Sławski, Franciszek 1974−1979 Zarys słowotwórstwa prasłowiańskiego [Outline of Proto-Slavic word-formation]. In: Franciszek Sławski (ed.), Słownik prasłowiański [Proto-Slavic dictionary], Vol. 1: 43−141, Vol. 2: 13−60, Vol. 3: 11−19. Wrocław: Ossolineum Sławski, Franciszek (ed.) 1961−2001 Słownik prasłowiański [Proto-Slavic dictionary]. 8 vols. Wrocław: Ossolineum. Slovníky = Slovenské slovníky [Slovak dictionaries] 2009−2015 http://slovnik.juls.savba.sk [Last accessed 26 June 2017]. SP16 = Słownik polszczyzny XVI wieku [A dictionary of 16th-century Polish] 2010−2015 https://spxvi.edu.pl/indeks/ [Last accessed 26 June 2017]. SP17−18 = Elektroniczny słownik języka polskiego XVII i XVIII wieku [An electronic dictionary of 17th and 18th-century Polish] 2015 http://xvii-wiek.ijp-pan.krakow.pl/pan_klient/ [Last accessed 26 June 2017].

1536

XIII. Slavic

Srez = Sreznevskij, Izmail I. 1989 [1893−1912] Slovar’ drevnerusskogo jazyka [A dictionary of Old Russian]. Reprint. 6 vols. Moscow: Kniga. SS = Ralja M. Cejtlin, Radoslav Večerka, and Emilie Bláhová (eds.) 1994 Staroslavjanskij slovar’ [Old Church Slavonic dictionary]. Moscow: Russkij jazyk. SSKJ = Slovar slovenskega knjižnega jezika [Dictionary of the Slovenian literary language] 2000 http://bos.zrc-sazu.si/sskj.html [Last accessed 26 June 2017]. SSP = Słownik staropolski [Old Polish dictionary] 2002−2014 http://staropolska.pl/slownik/ [Last accessed 26 June 2017]. Stang, Christian S. 1957 Slavonic Accentuation. (Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo, Hist.-Fil. Klasse, No. 3). Oslo: Aschehoug W. Nygaard. Stang, Christian S. 1966 Vergleichende Grammatik der baltischen Sprachen. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Stanislav, Ján 1967 Dejiny slovenského jazyka [History of the Slovak language]. Vol. 1. 3rd edn. Bratislava: SAV. Stankiewicz, Edward 1986 The Historical Phonology of Common Slavic. In: Edward Stankiewicz, The Slavic Languages: Unity in Diversity. Berlin: De Gruyter, 21−34. [Originally 1973 in International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 16: 179−192.] Stankiewicz, Edward 1993 The Accentual Patterns of the Slavic Languages. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Stone, Gerald 1993 Cassubian. In: Comrie and Corbett (eds.), 759−794. SUM = Bilodid, Ivan K. (editor-in-chief) et al. (eds) 1970−1980 Slovnyk ukrajins’koji movy [Dictionary of the Ukrainian language]. 11 vols. Kiev: Naukova Dumka. Szemerényi, Oswald 1957 The Problem of Balto-Slav Unity − A Critical Survey. Kratylos 2: 97−123. Tachiaos, Anthony-Emil 2001 Cyril and Methodius. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press. Timberlake, Alan 1983a Compensatory Lengthening in Slavic, 1. In: Markov and Worth (eds.), 207−235. Timberlake, Alan 1983b Compensatory Lengthening in Slavic, 2. American Contributions to the International Congresses of Slavists 9, 1: 293−319. Timberlake, Alan 1988 The Fall of the Jers in West Slavic. Die Welt der Slaven 33: 225−247. Timberlake, Alan 1995 Mechanisms and Relative Chronology of Polabian Sound Changes. Wiener Slawistischer Almanach 35: 281−296. Toft, Zoe 2002 The Phonetics and Phonology of Some Syllabic Consonants in Southern British English. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 28: 111−144. Topolińska, Zuzanna 1974 A Historical Phonology of the Kashubian Dialects of Polish. The Hague: Mouton. Toporov, Vladimir N. and Oleg N. Trubačev 2009 [1962] Lingvističeskij analiz gidronimov verxnego Podneprov’ja [A linguistic analysis of hydronyms of the upper Dnieper area]. Reprinted 2009 in Oleg N. Trubačev, Trudy po ètimologii [Works on etymology], Vol. 4. Moscow: Akademija Nauk, 9−380.

81. The phonology of Slavic

1537

Trubačev, Oleg N. 1991 Ètnogenez i kul’tura drevnejšix slavjan: Lingvističeskie issledovanija [Ethnogenesis and culture of the oldest Slavs: linguistic investigations]. Moscow: Nauka. TSBM = Kandrat K. Atraxovič (ed.) 1977−1984 Tlumačal’ny sloŭnik belaruskaĭ movy [An explanatory dictionary of the Belarusian language]. 5 vols. Minsk: Belaruskaja Saveckaja Encyklapedyja. Uličná, Lenka 2006 Staročeské glosy ve spisech Or zarua a Arugat ha-bosem [Old Czech glosses in the Or zarua and Arugat ha-bosem]. Unpublished rigorosum thesis, The Charles University of Prague. Uličná, Lenka 2014 Starocˇeské glosy ve strˇedoveˇkých hebrejských rabínských spisech [Old Czech glosses in medieval rabbinic Hebrew writings]. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, The Charles University of Prague. Vaillant, André 1950 Grammaire comparée des langues slaves. Vol. 1. Paris: Lyon: IAC. Vasil’ev, Leonid L. 1929 O značenii kamory v nekotoryx drevnerusskix pamjatnikax XVI−XVII vekov [On the significance of the kamora in some Old Russian literary documents of the 16th−17th centuries]. Leningrad: Akademija Nauk. Vasmer, Max 1941 Die Slaven in Griechenland. Berlin: De Gruyter. Vermeer, Willem 2001 Critical Observations on the Modus Operandi of the Moscow Accentological School. In: Werner Lehfeldt (ed.), Einführung in die morphologische Konzeption der slavischen Akzentologi. 2., verbesserte und ergänzte Auflage. Mit einem Appendix von Willem Vermeer. (Vorträge und Abhandlungen zur Slavistik, Band 42). Munich: Sagner, 131− 161. Vermeer, Willem 2003 Comedy of Errors or Inexorable Advance? In: Jos Schaeken, H. Peter Houtzagers, and Janneke Kalsbeek (eds.), Dutch Contributions to the Thirteenth International Congress of Slavists. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 397−452. Vermeer, Willem 2008 Pedersen’s Chronology of the Progressive Palatalization. Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 34: 503−71. Vlasto, Alexis P. 1970 The Entry of the Slavs into Christendom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. VW = Vokabulář webový [Web vocabulary] 2006−2015 vokabular.ujc.cas.cz/default.aspx [Last accessed 26 June 2017]. Watkins, Calvert 1965 Evidence in Balto-Slavic. In: Werner Winter (ed.), Evidence for Laryngeals. 2nd edn. The Hague: Mouton, 116−122. We˛glarz, W 1933 Staroczeski loc. plur. na -as w nazwach miejscowych na -any [The Old Czech loc. plur. in -as in place-names in -any]. Slavia occidentalis 12: 34−41. Wiese, Richard 1996 The Phonology of German. Oxford: The Clarendon Press. van Wijk, Nicolas 1956 Les langues slaves: De l’unité à la pluralité. The Hague: Mouton. Winter, Werner 1978 The Distribution of Short and Long Vowels in Stems of the Type Lith. ésti: vèsti: mèsti and OCS jasti: vesti: mesti in Baltic and Slavic. In: Fisiak (ed.), 431−446.

1538

XIII. Slavic

Xaburgaev, Georgij A. 1980 Stanovlenie russkogo jazyka [The making of the Russian language]. Moscow: Vyssaja Skola. Zaliznjak, Andrej A. 1978 Novye dannye o russkix pamjatnikax XIV−XVII vekov s različeniem dvux fonem “tipa o” [New data concerning Russians literary documents of the 14th−17th centuries from the distinction of two phonemes “of the type o”]. Sovetskoe slavjanovedenie 3: 74−96. Zaliznjak, Andrej A. 1979 Akcentologičeskaja sistema drevnerusskoj rukopisi XIV veka “Merilo pravidnoe” [The accentological system of the 14th-century old Russian manuscript “Merilo pravidnoe”]. In: Evgenija I. Demina (ed.), Slavjanskoe i balkanskoe jazykoznanie [Slavic and Baltic linguistics]. Moscow: Nauka, 47−128. Zaliznjak, Andrej A. 1985 Ot praslavjanskoj akcentuacii k russkoj [From Proto-Slavic to Russian accentuation]. Moscow: Nauka. Zaliznjak, Andrej A. 1986 Novgorodskie berestjanye gramoty s lingvističeskoj točki zrenija [Novgorod birchbark documents from a linguistic perspective]. In: Valentin L. Janin and Andrej A. Zaliznjak, Novgorodskie gramoty na bereste [Novgorod birchbark documents]. Moscow: Nauka, 89−219. Zaliznjak, Andrej A. 1989 Perenos udarenija na proklitiki v starovelikorusskom [The transfer of accent onto proclitics in Old Great Russian]. In: Bulatova and Dybo (eds.), 116−134. Zaliznjak, Andrej A. 1993 K izučeniju jazyka berestjanyx gramot [Toward the study of the language of the birchbark documents]. In: Valentin L. Janin and Andrej A. Zaliznjak, Novgorodskie gramoty na bereste [Novgorod birchbark documents]. Moscow: Nauka, 191−343. Zaliznjak, Andrej A. 2004 Drevnenovgorodskij dialect [The Old Novgorod dialect]. 2nd edn. Moscow: Škola “Jazyki russkoj kul’tury”.

Daniel Collins, Columbus, OH (USA)

82. The morphology of Slavic 1. 2. 3. 4.

Introduction Nouns Adjectives Numerals

5. 6. 7. 8.

Non-personal pronouns Personal pronouns Verbs References

1. Introduction The Slavic system of nominal inflection is relatively conservative, with 7 cases and singular, dual, and plural numbers. However, in many instances the grammatical endings cannot be transparently derived from standard reconstructions of IE forms according to https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-003

82. The morphology of Slavic

1539

regular sound changes, and there is no consensus about the origin of certain Slavic forms. The adjective developed a new opposition between indefinite and definite forms, the latter created by the addition of the relative pronoun to the basic declined form. The verbal system of Slavic is considerably simpler than that reconstructed for IE. A number of grammatical categories were lost with little or no trace, while others were replaced with new formations. Another innovation characteristic of the Slavic verb is the development of aspect as a regular grammatical category. The earliest attested Slavic language, Old Church Slavic (OCS), exhibits a morphological system that is very close to what can be reconstructed for late Proto-Slavic. In some instances a single Proto-Slavic desinence cannot be reconstructed, so the tables below primarily present forms that are attested in OCS, occasionally abstracting away from specific phonological and orthographical features of this language. Unless otherwise noted, all attested forms in the following text are cited from OCS (or occasionally later recensions of Church Slavic), and PIE reconstructions are generally given as in Derksen (2008).

2. Nouns 2.1. Noun derivation Slavic does not exhibit any direct continuations of PIE root nouns; these have all been adapted into various suffixed types, although traces of the original non-suffixed inflection may be seen in forms such as kry ‘blood’ < *kruh2-, reinterpreted in Slavic as a suffixed y-stem (see below), or the dual forms oči ‘eyes’ < *h3ekw-, uši ‘ears’ < *h2eu̯s-, which are generally understood as representing suffixless formations (Birnbaum 1972: 146), although these nouns have otherwise been adapted to the s- and ultimately the ostem declension in Slavic; e.g. uxo ‘ear’, GEN.SG ušese/uxa. The expected phonological reflexes of some endings of the root nouns overlapped with those of the i-stems in Slavic, so many of the original root nouns were reinterpreted as belonging to this declension; e.g. myšь ‘mouse’ < *muHs-i-; cf. Lat. mūs. However, as already illustrated, these nouns could also be adapted to either consonantal stem declensions or the productive (j)o- and (j)a-stem types, with or without additional suffixes. A number of IE consonantal suffixes are reflected as distinct inflectional types in Slavic, although these nouns also tended to be assimilated into the productive vocalic declensions; e.g. korenь/korę ‘root’ (M) < *kor-en-, kamy ‘rock’ (M), GEN.SG kamene < *h2ek̑-men-, imę ‘name’ (N), GEN.SG imene < *h1n̥h3-men-, nebo ‘sky, heaven’, GEN.SG nebese < *nebh-es-. One should note in particular the productive use in Slavic of the *-nt suffix to derive words for young people/animals; e.g. agnę ‘lamb’, GEN.SG *agnęte; cf. Lat. agnus. Stems in -y/-ъv < *-uH also enjoyed a certain degree of productivity, as shown by the adaptation of loanwords and the creation of new compounds belonging to this type; e.g. smoky ‘fig’, GEN.SG smokъve < Goth. smakka or *smakkō˜, ne-plod-y ‘barren woman’ < ne ‘not’ + plod- ‘fruit’. Nouns formed with the productive agentive suffix -teljь, presumably a variant of the PIE agentive suffix *-ter (but cf. also Vaillant 1958: 222−223) followed the consonantal stem declension pattern in the plural and the jo-stem declension in the singular; e.g. dělateljь ‘doer’, NOM.PL dělatele. Only two of the original

1540

XIII. Slavic

kinship terms in -r clearly preserved their original declension in Slavic: mati ‘mother’, GEN.SG matere, dъšti ‘daughter’, GEN.SG dъštere. The nouns bratrъ ‘brother’, *děverь ‘husband’s brother’, sestra ‘sister’, and *nestera ‘niece’ have been adapted into the o-/ jo- and a-stem declensions, while jętry ‘husband’s brother’s wife’ has become an y-stem. The etymon *ph2ter- ‘father’ is unattested in Slavic, except for a possible derivative *stryjь, ChSl. stryi ‘paternal uncle’, if this reflects *ph2tr- > str- (against this hypothesis, see Kortlandt 1982: 26). Heteroclitic stems are not attested as such in Slavic, but traces can be found in the different shapes of cognate forms; e.g. voda ‘water’ < *u̯odōr, vědro ‘bucket’ (< *u̯ēdr-o), Russ. dial. zavon’ ‘inlet’ < *za-vodn-ь, from an original r/n-stem (Birnbaum 1972: 149). One of the most common productive suffixes in Slavic is the formant -k, which occurs in combination with other suffixes and in various guises due to phonological changes. These complex suffixes are used to derive diminutive, agentive, and other types of nouns (in all three genders) from nouns, verbs, and adjectives; e.g. ablъko, ORuss. jablъkъ, S./ Cr. jabuka ‘apple’ from PSl. *ablo/*ablъ (cf. Sln jablo/jabel); Russ. vdovec < *vьdovьcь ‘widower’, vdovica < *vьdovica ‘widow’, from *vьdova ‘widow’ (OCS vъdova); srьdьce ‘heart’ < *k̑r̥d-, etc. Deadjectival abstract nouns are productively derived with the suffix -ostь, which is attested in Hittite and in isolated forms in a number of other languages; e.g. dlъgostь ‘length’, Hitt. dalugašti- ‘length’. A competing formation in -ota (< PIE *-teh2) has parallels in other IE languages; e.g. dlъgota, Skt dīrghatā ‘length’; nagota ‘nudity’, Lith. nuogatà, Skt nagnatā (see Vaillant 1974: 372; Witczak 2002). Slavic exhibits compounds that were probably inherited from PIE (e.g. medvědь ‘bear’ < *medhu-h1ed-, cf. Skt madhvád- ‘honey-eater’), and compounding continued to be used as a productive word-formation process. The different types of compounds posited for PIE are attested to a greater or lesser degree: copulative (rarely; e.g. bratъsestra ‘brother and sister’, declined as a masculine dual form in OCS), dependent determinative (e.g. bratu-čędъ ‘brother.DAT.SG’ + ‘child’ = ‘nephew’), descriptive determinative (e.g. lixo-klętva ‘bad, evil’ + ‘oath’ = ‘perjury’), possessive (e.g. malo-moštь ‘little’ + ‘power, strength’ = ‘cripple; poor person’), and governing compounds (e.g. vodo-nosъ ‘water’ + ‘carry’ = ‘vessel for water’; see Pohl 1977 for a discussion of these and other examples). As can be seen here, most compounds have a linking element which reflects the thematic vowel. The most common type of verbal governing compound in PIE had the verb as the second element, but in Slavic compounds with an imperative verb form as the first element were productive; e.g. Rosti-slavъ ‘(make) grow’ + ‘glory’ (personal name), ORuss. and ChSl. Daž(d)ь-bogъ ‘give’ + ‘god’ (name of a pagan god), S./Cr. kaži-prst ‘show’ + ‘finger’ = ‘index finger’ (Vaillant 1974: 765−767). Reduplication is attested in a few forms; e.g. glagolъ ‘speech, word’ < PSl. *gol-gol-. For a recent survey of Slavic nominal word-formation, see Matasović (2014), which appeared after this chapter was written.

2.2. Noun inflection In many instances the morphological markers of the various grammatical categories in Slavic do not correspond with what one would expect from the PIE system reconstructed

82. The morphology of Slavic

1541

on the basis of other languages and the regular sound laws of Slavic. Many scholars have posited special phonological changes in final syllables (Auslautgesetze) to explain these forms, but some of these proposals lack a clear phonetic motivation and may be inconsistent with other forms or create problems of relative chronology. Other linguists rely more on analogical changes of varying degrees of plausibility to account for the anomalous endings. A third possibility is the reconstruction of different dialectal IE endings as a starting point for the forms in question. Orr (2000) and Halla-aho (2006) give comprehensive surveys of previous scholarship and arguments for and against these different approaches (for both nominal and verbal inflection, see also Olander 2015, which appeared after this chapter was written). Slavic also developed variant forms of endings due to the fronting of vowels after j (or palatal consonants derived from C+j sequences), resulting in a differentiation of the inherited paradigms into so-called “hard” and “soft” declensional types. These forms are separated by slash marks in Table 82.1. The a/ě alternation in the hard and soft patterns seen in some early OCS mss. is ignored, since it is not consistently represented in these texts and can be considered a phonetic or orthographic feature by the time of OCS. OCS regularly has i for original ь before or after j, so the endings given as -ьjǫ, -ьje, -ьju, -ьjь appear most often as -ijǫ, -ije, -iju, -ii. Note also that there is no separate letter in either the Glagolitic or early Cyrillic alphabet for j. Tab. 82.1: Noun endings o/jo-stem SG

a/ja-stem

i-stem M

u-stem

C-stem

M

N

F

NOM

ъ/ь

о/е

a, i

ь

ъ

y, ę, o, i

ACC

ъ/ь

о/е

ǫ

ь

ъ

ь, =

NOM

GEN

a

y/ę

i

u

e

LOC

ě/i

ě/i

i

u

e

DAT

u

ě/i

i

ovi

i

INS

omь/emь

ojǫ/ejǫ

ъmь

ьmь, ьjǫ

VOC

e/u

=

NOM

o/jo-stem PL NOM/VOC ACC

ьmь

ьjǫ

o/e

i

u

a/ja-stem

i-stem

u-stem

C-stem

ove

e, a, i

M

F

ьje

i

=

NOM

M

N

i

a

y/ę

y/ę

a

y/ę

i

y

i, a

GEN

ъ/ь

ъ/ь

*ьjь

ovъ

ъ

LOC

ěхъ/iхъ

axъ

ьxъ

ъxъ

ьxъ, еxъ

DAT

omъ/emъ

amъ

ьmъ

*ъmъ

ьmъ, еmъ

INS

y/i

ami

ьmi

ъmi

ьmi, y

1542

XIII. Slavic

Tab. 82.1: (continued) o/jo-stem DU

M

N

NAV

a

ě/i

a/ja-stem

i-stem

u-stem

C-stem

ě/i

i

y

i, ě

GEN/LOC

u

u

ьju

ovu

u

DAT/INS

oma/ema

ama

ьma

ъma

ьma

2.2.1. Endings that correspond regularly to reconstructed PIE forms Fewer than half of the endings given above can be transparently derived from standard reconstructions of IE protoforms by regular sound changes. Such processes include the Slavic loss of final consonants (e.g. NOM.SG i-stem -ь < *-is, u-stem -ъ < *-us, GEN.SG o-stem -a < ABL.SG *-ōd), including the loss of a final nasal after ĭ, ŭ (e.g. ACC.SG istem -ь < *-im, ACC.SG u-stem -ъ < *-um), and the monophthongization of diphthongs (e.g. LOC.SG o-stem -ě < *-oi̯ , *-or˙̯; jo-stem -i < *-(i̯ )ei̯ < *-(i̯ )oi̯ ; G sg. u-stem -u < *-ou̯s). These correspondences can be found in all standard handbooks and require no further discussion here. Note that the NOM.SG ending -i found with some soft-stem feminine nouns is from the original -ih2/-i̯ eh2 type; the rest of the inflection is identical to the ordinary (j)a-stems, apart from the VOC.SG, which was identical to the NOM.SG.

2.2.2. Endings that may reflect special sound changes in final position The vowels *a, *ā, *o, *ō merged in Slavic as *a˘̄ , with a subsequent change of short *a to *o in late PSl. The majority of scholars assume that PSl. *a was raised before a nasal consonant in final position, with subsequent loss of the nasal: *-aN# > *-uN# > -ъ. This development would account for the o-stem ACC.SG ending -ъ and the GEN.PL -ъ, -ov-ъ of the consonantal and u-stem declensions. It has been argued that Slavic, Umbrian, and Old Irish point to short *-om in part of IE for the o-stem GEN.PL, rather than the expected *-ōm (e.g. Kortlandt 1978). However, the o-stem GEN.PL in Slavic could also reflect a later shortening of the inherited ending, as is generally assumed for the GEN.PL ending of a-stems, *-oHom, *-eh2om > *-ōm > *-om, resulting in the attested form -ъ in both of these declensions. The jo- and ja-stems show the expected fronting to -ь. The neuter o-stem NOM.SG ending -o then poses a problem, since IE *-om would also be expected to yield -ъ here. Some linguists suggest that this may reflect an original endingless NOM.SG neuter form (see Halla-aho 2006: 117−118; Arumaa 1985: 131−132 for a discussion and references), but the -o is more often explained as a borrowing from the pronominal declension (*tod > to) and/or analogy to the s-stem neuters. In either case, it appears that barytone neuters kept the nasal ending and merged with masculine nouns in Slavic (e.g. darъ ‘gift’, Gk δῶρον; dvorъ ‘court, courtyard’, if this form constitutes an exact match for Skt. dvā´ram, which is first attested in late Vedic. See Hirt 1893: 348−349; Illič-Svityč 1963: 131; and Kortlandt 1975: 45).

82. The morphology of Slavic

1543

A parallel development of long *-āN# > *-ūN# > -y has been posited to explain the of the masculine n-stems in -y (kamy ‘stone’, plamy ‘flame’), although this is incompatible with the development commonly posited for the 1SG present tense *-ōm > *-āN > -ǫ. To avoid this problem, other scholars suggest that -y here reflects *-ons (Halla-aho 2006: 166−172), *-ōns (Matasović 2008: 124), or a circumflex *-ō˜ (Jasanoff 1983; cf. also the proposed derivation of smoky < *smakkō˜ cited above). Other masculine n-stems are attested with final -ę in the NOM.SG, probably reflecting the lengthened grade suffix *-ēn. In OCS the NOM.SG is already being replaced by the ACC.SG form in -en-ь; e.g. NOM.SG korę/korenь ‘root’, kamy/kamenь. The masculine o-stem ACC.PL ending may reflect *-ōns > *-āns > *-ūns > *-ūs > -y (Arumaa 1985: 141), although it is not necessary to reconstruct an original long vowel here. One could also posit *-ons > *-ans > *-uns > *-ūs > -y, with lengthening in compensation for the loss of the nasal consonant, parallel with the i- and u-stem ACC.PL endings: *-ins > *-īs > -i, *-uns > *-ūs > -y. Most scholars derive the a-stem ACC.PL ending in the same manner from an original *-āns or *-ans. The development of vowel + nasal sequences in grammatical endings is obviously a complex problem. There is a wide range of opinions about the relative chronology and outcomes, and any coherent analysis of the phonological developments will entail different assumptions about the original forms of some of the endings. The raising of original o to u could arguably be seen as phonetically more likely before the Slavic merger of o and a, and the reflexes of vowel + nasal sequences in other endings would also seem to require a distinction between the treatment of *ăN/āN and *ŏN/ōN; e.g. a-stem ACC.SG *-ām (> *-am) > -ǫ. Kortlandt (1979a) dates the raising of *oN# to the early BaltoSlavic period, but treats the raising before *-Ns# as a separate process that occurred after the merger of o and a. Matasović (2008: 123−126), on the other hand, dates the raising after the merger of o and a, with outcomes determined by length and the presence or absence of a following consonant: *-an > *-un > -ъ; *-ān > *-ūn > *-ą; *-āns > *-ūns > -y. The soft declension endings also raise questions. South Slavic (including OCS) has jo- and ja-stem ACC.PL -ę, which could be explained as the fronting of *-jūns > *-jīns, but inexplicably without the subsequent loss of the nasal element that occurred in original *-ūns, *-uns, and *-ins. North Slavic has -ě, which does indicate some type of denasalization, but the sequence of developments resulting in this ending is unclear. Although some of the nominal endings explained by the raising of vowels before a final nasal could possibly be attributed to analogy to the u-stem declension, the development of *-om > *-un > -ъ in isolated forms, such as *h1eg̑Hom > azъ ‘I’, root aorist 1SG -ъ < *-om, and possibly the prepositions kъ(n), sъ(n), vъ(n), suggests a regular phonological process. Less widely accepted in the literature is the hypothesis that o was also raised to u before s in final position, which has been proposed to account for the masculine o-stem NOM.SG, *-os# > *-us# > -ъ. This ending has often been explained instead as the result of analogy to the u-stem declension, where -ъ is the regularly expected outcome in both the NOM.SG and ACC.SG. Traces of an earlier masculine NOM.SG ending *-o may be seen in names such as OPol. Boglo, Cr. Ivo, etc. Vermeer (1991) assumes a regular development of *-os > *-o as part of his explanation of the old North Russian NOM.SG ending -e and the Common Slavic adoption of the u-stem VOC.SG ending -u by the jo-stems, for which it is otherwise difficult to provide a plausible motivation. Raising of *-ōi̯ s to *-u̯oi̯ s or *-ūi̯ s > -y would still seem to be the most plausible explanation for the o-stem NOM.SG

1544

XIII. Slavic

INS.PL

ending -y. However, Mareš (1969: 116) reconstructs INS.PL *-oi̯ ns, with the nasal reflecting a contamination of the nominal ending *-oi̯ s with the pronominal *-oi̯ mī(s). Hujer (1910: 160−164) sees this instead as a generalization of the regularly fronted ending of the jo-stems: *-ēi̯ s > -i, but using the corresponding back vowel -y after a hard consonant. Olander (2012) offers a convincing reappraisal of the idea that the masculine o-stem NOM.SG ending -ъ represents a phonologically regular outcome of *-os#. Drawing on several individual proposals that have been made by different scholars, he posits a general phonological rule *a˘̄ > *ə˘̄ /__ (R)s# (2012: 337), with *ə, *ǝ̄ > e, ě in the Old Novgorod dialect and ъ, y in the rest of Slavic. The corresponding development for soft stems would be *i̯ ə, *i̯ ǝ̄ > *jь, *jě (probably in all of Slavic; see Olander 2012: 333− 334). This rule allows us to account for a number of otherwise problematic endings; see Olander (2012) for details.

2.2.3. Analogical replacements and innovations If one assumes that the normal phonological outcome of *-eh2(e)s in Slavic is -a, then the most likely explanation for the a-stem NOM.PL ending -y/ę is that it was taken from the ACC.PL, by analogy to the syncretism of the NOM/ACC.PL for the u-stems and feminine i-stems. Some scholars derive the a-stem GEN.SG -y/ę from an earlier *-āns, with -n added to the inherited ending by analogy to feminine n-stems, but the fact that no feminine n-stems are attested in Slavic makes this proposal unconvincing. A borrowing of the NOM/ACC.PL ending to avoid the overlap with the NOM.SG, again by analogy to the syncretism of these cases in the i-stems, would perhaps be a more likely explanation. However, the idea that *-ās in these endings regularly became -y in Slavic, first proposed by Hirt (1893: 353−355), has been accepted by a number of scholars (see Olander 2012: 331−332), and these endings would be phonologically regular according to Olander’s rule cited above. The origin of the o-stem DAT.SG ending -u is unclear. Proposals to account for this include special phonological developments, *-ōi̯ > *-u̯ōi̯ > -u (Vaillant 1958: 31) or *-ōi̯ > *-ōu̯ > -u (Kortlandt 1983: 175; Matasović 2008: 181), or the extension of a hypothetical u-stem DAT.SG ending *-u to the o-stems (Halla-aho 2006: 208−209). The u-stem LOC.SG -u reflects an endingless LOC.SG form *-ōu̯, with lengthened grade of the affix (Vaillant 1958: 109; Arumaa 1985: 126). Slavic, like Baltic and Germanic, has -m- endings in DAT and INS forms (see Darden, this handbook, 2.2): DAT.PL endings -omъ, -аmъ, -ьmъ, -ъmъ < *-V-mus or possibly *-V-mos; INS.PL -ami, -ьmi, -ъmi < *-V-mīs; INS.SG -omь, -ьmь, -ъmь < *-V-mi, DAT/ INS.DU -oma, -ama, -ьma, -ъma < *-V-mā. The Slavic GEN.DU could theoretically reflect *-ou̯s > -u (-ьj-u, -ov-u in the i- and ustems), but Balto-Slavic more likely had a syncretic GEN/LOC.DU *-au, based on the very limited evidence from Baltic and comparison with other IE languages (Vaillant 1958: 38−39). It is not possible to reconstruct PIE oblique dual forms because of the limited evidence. A few endings (in addition to the neuter o-stem NOM.SG discussed above) have been adopted from the pronominal declension. The masculine o-stem NOM.PL ending -i reflects

82. The morphology of Slavic

1545

pronominal *-oi, apparently with generalization of the expected reflex after palatals in the jo-stems (but see Olander 2012: 332 for another explanation). The a-stem INS.SG -ojǫ is also taken from the pronominal declension (with a nasal vowel from the characteristic -m-), and the i-stem feminine INS.SG -ьjǫ is modeled on this. Slavic developed a new gender distinction within o-stem masculine nouns, marked by the replacement of the inherited ACC.SG ending by the GEN.SG -a in nouns denoting persons. This personal/non-personal distinction was already well established by the time of OCS, and was gradually expanded to include animals and extended to the plural and dual in some areas. The other Slavic languages all have the animate/inanimate gender distinction in nouns, with additional personal/non-personal distinctions in some instances.

3. Adjectives 3.1. Adjective derivation Adjectives in Slavic are almost exclusively (j)o-stems (M, N) and (j)a-stems (F). Traces of i-stem adjectives can be seen in a few indeclinable forms in OCS (e.g. isplьnь ‘full, fulfilled’). Original u-stem adjectives were regularly adapted to the o- and a-stem declensions by the addition of the suffix *-k; e.g. lьgъkъ ‘light, easy’, cf. Skt laghú-, Gk ἐλαχύς; tьnъkъ ‘thin’, cf. Skt tanú-, Lat. tenuis. The most productive suffixed types are relational adjectives in *-in- and *-isk- and possessive adjectives in *-j- and *-ov-. OCS has a large number of compound adjectives, not all of which are calques from Greek; e.g. maločismenьnъ ‘small in number’. Compound adjectives, particularly of the possessive type, are also common in the other Slavic languages, e.g. S./Cr. gologlav ‘bareheaded’.

3.2. Adjective inflection Adjective forms were originally declined like nouns, and this pattern is preserved in Slavic. The absence of any original sharp distinction between these two classes can still be seen in a number of stems that function as either noun or adjective; e.g. zъl-ъ, -o, -a ‘evil, bad, wicked’ and zъlo ‘evil, harm, wickedness’. Slavic and Baltic developed new definite adjective forms by adding the pronoun j- to the basic (indefinite) adjective form. In Slavic this developed very early into a distinct declension, with a fusion of the enclitic pronoun and the original grammatical ending into a single desinence in several of the more complex forms, by replacing the original adjective ending with -y-/-i-; compare masculine GEN.SG.DEF nov-a-jego ‘new’, where the two components are still transparent in OCS, with INS.SG.DEF nov-yimь. Already in OCS we also see a tendency to contract or further simplify these endings; e.g. novaago, novago, novymь.

1546

XIII. Slavic

3.3. Comparative and superlative For the origin of the comparative forms, see Darden, this handbook, 3.4. By the time of OCS, all but a small number of adjectives formed their comparative with the productive suffix -ěiš-, which is a Slavic innovation. The *-ē- used to extend the inherited comparative suffix is generally thought to be adverbial in origin (see Arumaa 1985: 98−99). We cannot reconstruct a synthetic superlative form for Proto-Slavic. OCS texts typically use just the comparative form, with the comparative or superlative reading determined by the context. However, there are a few instances of comparative forms with the prefix nai- < na ‘on’ + the particle i, and practically all of the modern Slavic languages form superlatives regularly in this manner (e.g. OCS naivęšte ‘the most’, S./Cr. najveći ‘biggest’, Cz. největší, Pol. największy). The exception is Russian, where the few prefixed forms in nai- are borrowings from OCS. The regular Russian superlative formation is samyj ‘the very, itself’ + the positive degree of the adjective (Vaillant 1958: 593−595).

4. Numerals 4.1. Cardinal numerals Slavic *(j)edin- ‘one’ can be most easily explained as representing an ablaut variant *ei̯ no- ‘one’ augmented by a prefix *ed- of uncertain origin; cf. (j)edъva ‘scarcely’. It is inflected according to the pronominal declension pattern. The unprefixed form of this numeral survives as the pronoun inъ ‘other’, but in its original meaning appears only as the initial member of a few compounds; e.g. inorogъ ‘unicorn’. The other IE root with the meaning ‘one’, *sem-, is the basis for the pronoun samъ ‘oneself’. Slavic dъva (M), dъvě (N, F) derive straightforwardly from IE *duu̯oh1, *duu̯oi̯ h1, originally with oblique pronominal dual forms: GEN/LOC dъvoju, DAT/INS dъvěma. IE *trei̯ es ‘three’ was originally inflected as a plural i-stem, and this pattern is preserved in OCS. Masculine *trьje, OCS trije may represent the normal phonological development of heterosyllabic *ei̯ , of which there are few examples, or analogy with the zero grade of other forms. Feminine tri is presumably the extension of ACC.PL *trins > tri to the nominative, as seen in other feminine i-stems, and neuter tri reflects original *tri-h2. The numeral ‘four’, originally a consonantal stem, shows a similar opposition of četyre (M) vs. četyri (N, F) in OCS. The Slavic forms point to an original *ū, which must be a substitution for the vowel alternations *kwetu̯ōr-/*kwetu̯or-/*kwetur- in different cases that are reconstructed on the basis of other languages. The numerals from ‘five’ to ‘nine’ are feminine i-declension nouns with the same stem as the corresponding ordinals, which replaced the indeclinable forms of these numerals reconstructed for PIE: OCS pętь, šestь, sedmь, osmь, devętь. The form for ‘eight’ has final -m by analogy to the form for ‘seven’. In sedmь the cluster -dm- would not be expected to survive in Proto-Slavic, and may represent a contamination of a possible cardinal form *setь < *septm̥ and ordinal *semъ; cf. ORuss. semь ‘seven’, semъ ‘seventh’ (Comrie 1992: 756−757). For ‘six’ and ‘nine’, see Darden, this handbook, 4.1.3− 4.1.4. Unlike ‘one’ through ‘four’, which were treated like modifiers, judging by the evidence of OCS, the numerals ‘five’ through ‘nine’ were quantifiers with a following noun in the GEN.PL.

82. The morphology of Slavic

1547

The numeral ‘ten’ was a consonantal stem in -t in Balto-Slavic, probably masculine (see Darden, this handbook, 4.1.2.). The original declensional pattern is seen most clearly in OCS in the forms for the teens, which are formed on the pattern X-on-ten.LOC.SG (e.g. dъva na desęte ‘12’), and in the tens, which are formed on the pattern X tens.GEN.PL (e.g. pętь desętъ ‘50’). Already in OCS, desętь was shifting to the feminine i-stem declension, like the numerals ‘five’ through ‘nine’. The numeral sъto ‘100’ is a neuter noun, as in PIE, but the initial vowel of the stem is not the expected reflex of the syllabic nasal in *k̑m̥tóm. It may represent the reflex of an allegro form *sutom from a variant *sumtom, beside expected *simtom (see Comrie 1992: 784). For ‘1000’, see Darden, this handbook, 4.1.1.

4.2 Ordinal numerals For the formation of the ordinal numerals ‘first’ through ‘tenth’ and ‘hundredth’, see Darden, this handbook, 4.2. The ordinal forms of complex numbers are rarely attested in OCS, and the modern Slavic languages have created new ordinal forms based on the corresponding cardinals. The earliest pattern for the teens was presumably with the ordinal form of the first component (e.g. pętoje na desęte ‘15 th’), and for the tens with the ordinal form of both components (e.g. Cr. ChSl. sedmoe desetoe ‘70 th’; Vaillant 1958: 658). For ‘11 th’ OCS has jedinyi na desęte, with a definite form of jedinъ ‘one’ instead of prъvyi ‘first’. OCS also has compound forms, either with the linking vowel o or with an invariable NOM.SG form of the first component, and typically with the addition of the adjectival suffix -ьn-; e.g. osmonadesęt- ‘18 th’, devętьnadesętьn- ‘19 th’, dъvadesętьn‘20 th’ (see Vaillant 1958: 657−659; Comrie 1992: 771−772).

4.3. Collective numerals and other forms The Slavic collective numerals for groups of two, three, or four reflect thematic IE formations with o-grade of the root in dъvoje, troje, and both e- and o-grade in četvero/ četvoro (in OCS proper only o-grade forms are attested, according to Comrie 1992: 809). The higher collective numerals in Slavic are formed in analogy to the latter; e.g. pętero/ pętoro, etc. Slavic also formed derivatives of collective numerals in -ica; e.g. OCS troica ‘group of three, the Trinity’. In addition to the numerals proper, we can also mention oba ‘both’, which has forms parallel to those of dъva ‘two’; the second component is identical to that of Gk ἄμφω, Lat ambō, etc. < *-bhō. The word for ‘half’ is the u-stem noun polъ, which is a Slavic innovation.

5. Non-personal pronouns 5.1. Demonstrative pronouns Slavic originally had a three-way system of deixis, which is preserved in OCS: proximal sь < *k̑i-, medial tъ < *to-, and distal onъ < *h2en-o-. The inherited distinction between

1548

XIII. Slavic

o- and i-inflection is preserved, but there are a number of innovations in individual forms. Tab. 82.2: Demonstrative pronouns SG

PL

DU

M

N

F

M

N

F

NOM

tъ

to

ta

ti

ta

ty

ACC

tъ

to

tǫ

ty

ta

ty

GEN

togo

toję

těxъ

LOC

tomь

to(j)i

těxъ

DAT

tomu

to(j)i

těmъ

INS

těmь

tojǫ

těmi

SG

M

N

F

ta

tě

tě

toju

těma

PL

DU

M

N

F

M

N

F

NOM

sь

se

si

si(j)i

si

siję

ACC

sь

se

sijǫ

siję

si

siję

GEN

sego

seję

sixъ

LOC

semь

se(j)i

sixъ

DAT

semu

se(j)i

simъ

INS

simь

sejǫ

simi

M

N

F

sija

si

si

seju

sima

In the NOM.SG of the medial demonstrative, Slavic does not exhibit the s- (M, F), t- (N) suppletion seen in other IE languages. The masculine NOM.SG form has the same ending as o-stem nouns. The masculine/neuter LOC.SG and DAT.SG forms have -m- instead of *-sm-, and the final -u of the DAT.SG presents the same problems as the ending of the ostem nouns. The masculine/neuter GEN.SG is a Slavic innovation, a remaking of an earlier GEN or ABL form reinforced with the particle -go (Vaillant 1958: 369; Arumaa 1985: 175). The masculine/neuter INS.SG is based on the plural stem *toi-. The oblique feminine singular forms are based on a stem toj-, which has also been interpreted as an extension of the plural stem to the singular (Arumaa 1985: 176−177), but it could also reflect a change of *-sj- > j, like *-sm- > -m- (Darden, this handbook, 5.4). Slavic has eliminated gender distinctions in the oblique plural forms. The GEN.PL těxъ could reflect either *toisōm or *toisom (see the discussion of the o-stem GEN.PL above), and the DAT.PL and INS.PL have the characteristic -m-, as in the noun. The proximal demonstrative generally exhibits the historically expected forms, apart from the innovations seen also in the o-stem pronominal declension. The neuter NOM.SG has se rather than historically expected *sь. The masculine NOM.PL reflects a remade *sьji in place of expected *sьje, and the ACC.PL is based on the NOM.PL. The feminine forms are secondary, following the same pattern as feminine nouns in -ī/-ii.

82. The morphology of Slavic

1549

5.2. The anaphoric and relative pronouns Because of the fronting of back vowels after j and the development of prothetic j before front vowels, in Slavic the forms of the anaphoric (3 rd person) pronoun *i- and the relative *i̯ o- fell together. The relative is distinguished from the anaphor in OCS by the addition of the particle že. The nominative forms of the anaphoric pronoun (SG *i, *je, *ja, PL *i, *ja, *ję, DU *ja, *i, *i) are replaced by the demonstratives tъ or onъ, with the historically expected forms attested only as a component of the relative pronoun (e.g. M.NOM.SG i-že ‘who, which’). The corresponding accusative forms (SG i, je, jǫ, PL ję, ja, ję, DU ja, i, i) were enclitic. After a preposition the anaphoric/relative pronoun has a prefixed n-; this represents the final n of the prepositions *vъn, *kъn, *sъn, which was reanalyzed as part of the pronoun and generalized to occur after all prepositions. Otherwise, the anaphoric/relative pronoun forms follow the same pattern as sь above.

5.3. Interrogative pronouns Slavic also distinguishes an o- and i-stem declension for the pronominal stem *kw-, the former used for animates and the latter for inanimates. The interrogative pronouns in Slavic have only singular forms, with no gender distinctions. The interrogative ‘who?’ has adopted the GEN form for the ACC, like animate masculine nouns. The NOM of ‘who?’ was reinforced by the addition of -to already in Proto-Slavic, while for the interrogative ‘what?’ this does not appear to have been a common Slavic development, since a number of languages have reflexes of the shorter form *čь; e.g. OPol. we-cz ‘in what?’, Cr. čakavian dialects ča ‘what?’. The oblique forms of ‘what?’ are the only pronominal forms in Slavic that retain the original GEN ending and the *-sm- of the DAT and LOC forms, although the latter have been reshaped by analogy to the GEN česo as well as other pronominal forms. Tab. 82.3: Interrogative pronouns ‘who’ NOM

kъ-to

‘what’ čь-to

ACC

kogo GEN

česo

LOC

komь

česomь

DAT

komu

česomu

INS

cěmь

čimь

6. Personal pronouns Forms attested in early Slavic texts are given in Table 82.4; clitic forms are listed after the comma. Those with cognates in other IE languages and for which a Balto-Slavic form can be reasonably reconstructed are discussed in Darden, this handbook, 6.

1550

XIII. Slavic

Tab. 82.4: Personal pronouns ‘I’

‘you.SG’

‘oneself’

NOM

(j)azъ (ja)

ty

−

ACC

mene, mę

tebe, tę

sebe, sę

GEN

mene

tebe

sebe

LOC

mьně/mъně

tebě/tobě

sebě/sobě

DAT

mьně/mъně, mi

tebě/tobě, ti

sebě/sobě, si

INS

mъnojǫ

tobojǫ

sobojǫ

‘we’

‘you.PL’

‘we two’

NOM

my

vy

vě

ACC

nasъ, ny

vasъ, vy

na/ny

GEN

nasъ

vasъ

LOC

nasъ

vasъ

DAT

namъ, ny

vamъ, vy

INS

nami

vami

‘you two’ va/vy

naju

vaju

nama, na

vama, va

1SG ja is attested in ORuss. and is the form used in most of the modern Slavic languages and dialects, so it is likely that this shorter form already existed as a variant in ProtoSlavic. The forms of the genitive for the various pronouns were adopted as stressed forms for the accusative, parallel to the development of the animate accusative forms in nouns, while the inherited (originally tonic) accusative forms became clitics. The inherited GEN.PL and LOC.PL forms were apparently reanalyzed as na-sъ, va-sъ and these stems were combined with the nominal endings for the DAT.PL and INS.PL. Since the latter forms look like a-stem nouns, this may explain the final -ě, -ojǫ in the DAT.SG and INS.SG forms (Vaillant 1958: 450). The oblique dual forms also follow the same patterns as nouns and demonstrative pronouns, using the stems na-, va- of the plural. The possessive pronouns 1SG *mojь, 2SG *tvojь, REFL *svojь reflect IE *mo-, *tu̯o-, *su̯o- with the addition of a suffix *-i̯ o. The plural possessives našь, vašь are more recent formations, built on the genitive forms with the addition of the *-jь (< *-i̯ o) suffix used to form possessive adjectives (Vaillant 1958: 465). There were no possessive forms for the dual 1 st/2 nd persons or for the 3 rd person pronoun; possession was indicated by using the genitive case.

7. Verbs 7.1. Verb derivation The inflectional system of the Slavic verb is based on the relationship between a present stem and an infinitive/aorist stem. Only four old athematic present tense formations are

82. The morphology of Slavic

1551

attested in OCS, and the corresponding INF/AOR stems are built in different ways. For the copula jesmь (1SG) < *h1es-, the INF/AOR stem is suppletive: by-ti (INF) < *bhuH-. The verb věmь ‘know’ < *u̯oi̯ d- has an INF/AOR in *-ē-, věd-ě-ti. Both damь ‘give’ and ěmь/jamь ‘eat’ use the bare root for the INF/AOR: da-ti < *deh3-, ěs-ti/jas-ti < PSl. *ēd-. There are only traces of reduplicated forms. Apart from a few verbs with expressive reduplication of the entire root, we have only (1SG) deždǫ (thematic, with the suffix -je), dě-ti ‘do, say, put’ < *dheh1-, and probably damь, 3PL dadętъ ‘give’ (see Arumaa 1985: 210−211). There are a number of thematic presents based on a bare root, which use either the root or root + *-ā- for the INF/AOR; e.g. nes-e-, nes-ti ‘carry’ < *h1nek̑- and ber-e-, bьra-ti ‘take’ < *bher-. Other primary verbs derived with unproductive suffixes and the few verbs with a nasal infix also have the bare stem for the INF/AOR; e.g. ži-ve-, ži-ti < *gwih3- and sęd-e-, sěs-ti < *sed-. Slavic has a productive type of present with the suffix -ne, which is used to form inchoatives, verbs which indicate the gradual acquisition of a certain quality (derived from adjectives), or semelfactives, and which can be related to several different nasal suffix formations in IE (see Birnbaum and Schaeken 1997: 87− 88). These verbs typically have infinitive stems with the suffix -nǫ, the origin of which is not entirely clear (see Arumaa 1985: 225−226), but lack the nasal suffix in the aorist; e.g. dvig-ne-, INF dvig-nǫ-ti, AOR.1SG dvig-ъ/dvig-oxъ ‘move’. Roots ending in a vowel have the -nǫ in the aorist as well; e.g. mi-ne-, mi-nǫ-ti, mi-nǫ-xъ ‘pass’. The most widespread present suffix is -je, which is used to form a number of different types of verbs, with different corresponding INF/AOR stems. The oldest group is based on (mainly) egrade roots, like the primary thematic present forms above, and also have either the root or root + *-ā- for the INF/AOR stem; e.g. zna-je-, zna-ti ‘know’ < *g̑neh3- and češ-e- < *kes-je, čеs-a-ti ‘scratch, comb’. The INF/AOR in -a- corresponding to a present in -jeis also characteristic of denominal verbs and various expressive forms; e.g. glagol-je-, glagol-a-ti ‘speak’ < glagolъ ‘speech, word’. There are also productive types in -a-je (deverbal imperfectives, usually iterative), -ě-je (denominal/deadjectival intransitives), and u-je (denominal/deadjectival), with corresponding INF/AOR stems in -a-, -ě-, and -ova, respectively; e.g. pad-a-je-, pad-a-ti ‘fall’ < pad- ‘fall’; um-ě-je-, um-ě-ti ‘know (how to do something)’ < umъ ‘mind’; věr-u-je-, věr-ov-a-ti ‘believe’ < věra ‘faith, belief’. The -a-je- and -u-je- types were also used to adapt many borrowings. In addition to the thematic present tense forms, Slavic has a present formation with 1SG -jǫ and a suffix -ī in the other forms, which is sometimes referred to as “halfthematic” in the literature. The corresponding INF/AOR stems are built either with the suffix -ī or -ě. For the origin of these types, see Darden, this handbook, 7.4.2 and 7.5.2. Derivational morphology is used to express aspectual relationships, as already mentioned for certain suffixes above. Slavic has a rich system of verbal prefixes, which in addition to modifying the lexical meaning also typically change an imperfective verbal stem to perfective. Corresponding imperfectives with the same meaning are then derived by suffixation; e.g. perfective otъ-vratiti ‘to turn away’, imperfective otъ-vraštati.

7.2. Verb inflection The verbal system of Slavic is considerably simpler than that reconstructed for PIE. There is no middle voice or synthetic perfect conjugation. Of the modal forms, only the

1552

XIII. Slavic

optative survives (as the imperative). The aorist became a simple past tense and the original imperfect was replaced by a new formation. Slavic developed new periphrastic forms for some categories, as well as a new system of grammatical aspect, in which every action is characterized as perfective or imperfective, using two derivationally related verbs.

7.2.1. Present tense The present tense endings follow the general pattern reconstructed for the primary endings in PIE, although a few forms do not correspond exactly to the traditional reconstructions of these endings. The latter can be more easily explained with the revised picture of the thematic declension developed by some linguists since the 1960s (see Beekes 1995: 252 for a summary of this newer reconstruction in tabular form), but not all scholars accept this view (e.g. Cowgill 1985, 2006). In most instances a single desinence has been generalized for both athematic and thematic verbs, the only difference being the presence or absence of the original thematic vowel. Where distinct forms do exist, the verbs with present tense stems in -ī behave like thematic verbs. For the first person singular, Slavic has athematic -mь < *-mi and thematic -ǫ, which most likely reflects *-oH plus a nasal consonant, either from the primary or secondary athematic 1SG (for a different view, see Kortlandt 1979b: 56−57). For the verb věděti ‘know’, there is also a unique 1SG form vědě, representing an original perfect *u̯oi̯ da + i. OCS has athematic 2SG -si, thematic -ši, which cannot come from *-si. Some scholars have explained these as reflexes of the mediopassive ending *-soi̯ (see Cowgill 2006: 553−554), but this seems unlikely. Based on the newer reconstruction of the thematic endings, the OCS endings could be interpreted as a contamination of athematic *-si with the thematic ending *-eh1i. In either case, the thematic ending must reflect a generalization of the “ruki” reflex -š (cf. Collins, this handbook, 2.5) after all stems ending in a vowel (including athematic imamь, imaši ‘have’). There is a single instance of athematic -sь < *-si in the Kiev Fragments (podasь ‘give’). Тhe Freising Fragments appear to have some instances of thematic -š(ь) and there is fairly early attestation of 2SG -šь in ORuss. Given that all of the modern Slavic languages also have thematic 2SG -š < -šь, it is reasonable to posit a variant form *-šĭ for Proto-Slavic. For the 3SG and 3PL, OCS has forms ending in -tъ for both athematic and thematic verbs (e.g. dastъ, dadętъ ‘give’; beretъ, berǫtъ ‘take’). ORuss. has -tь < *-ti for both types, while 3 rd person endings with no final consonant are also attested for thematic verbs in OCS and in many other Slavic languages (e.g. Marianus bǫde ‘be.FUT.3SG’, Suprasliensis xъšte ‘want.PRS.3SG’; Vaillant 1966: 227). In the traditional reconstruction, the ORuss. form would represent the inherited ending, with -tъ and -Ø as secondary developments within Slavic. If one accepts the newer reconstruction, the 3SG forms without a final consonant could reflect the original endingless thematic form, with the addition of pronominal -tъ in OCS and extension of athematic *-ti in ORuss. The nasal vowel in the 3PL points to original *-nti or *-nt in Slavic, with the various attested forms remade by analogy to the 3SG. Slavic has a variety of 1PL forms, which are the same for both athematic and thematic verbs. OCS normally has -mъ, with a newer ending -my that began to appear first in

82. The morphology of Slavic

1553

athematic verbs, then spread to other types. The other Slavic languages have -m < -mъ, as well as -my, -me, and -mo. The form -mъ can be interpreted as a reflex of *-mos, with the same special phonological development of *-os# posited for the o-stem NOM.SG by some scholars, but a development from the more recent reconstruction of a thematic 1PL *-mom would also be phonologically plausible. 1PL -me and -mo could also reflect *-mes/-mos or possibly the secondary ending without the final consonant, while -my is undoubtedly a Slavic innovation, by analogy to the 1PL pronoun my. Note that Slavic generalized the thematic vowel -e- for the 1PL (and 1DU) present tense in place of -o-; e.g. 1PL beremъ. The 2PL ending is -te < *-th1e. The dual forms are similar to those attested for other IE languages: OCS 1DU -vě , 2DU -ta, 3DU -te, -ta. The 1DU ending seems to have been modeled on the corresponding pronoun vě. Other old Slavic languages also have -va, which corresponds with Lith. -va and Skt -vas.

7.2.2. Aorist OCS has three types of aorist forms: a (thematic) root aorist, which is attested for only a small number of verbs, a sigmatic aorist, and a newer productive aorist based on the sigmatic type. There is no evidence for an augment vowel in any of these forms. The personal endings reflect the PIE secondary endings, with some mixing of the athematic and thematic types, as seen above for the present tense. The root aorist is the most archaic type and represents a continuation of either the IE thematic aorist or imperfect (Arumaa 1985: 297). The endings are mostly a straightforward continuation of the secondary thematic verbal endings; e.g., 1SG pad-ъ < *-om ‘fall’, 2/3SG pad-e < *-es, *-et, 2PL pad-ete < *-ete, 3PL pad-ǫ < *-ont. 1PL pad-omъ and 1DU pad-ově have the same ending as the present tense, but with the original ograde of the theme vowel. The other dual forms also have the same endings as the present tense. Stems ending in a vowel have athematic 2/3SG forms; e.g. 2/3SG da ‘give’. Verbs with alternating stress patterns appear fairly regularly with final -tъ in the 2/3SG, as in the 3SG present tense (e.g. 2/3SG umьrě-tъ ‘die’). Athematic verbs have -stъ, which can be explained as the regular change of the stem final -d > s before t or as a continuation of an athematic sigmatic aorist form (Vaillant 1966: 56). The original formation of the sigmatic aorist, with lengthened grade of the root + s + athematic endings, is still discernible in OCS, and there are direct correspondences with Indo-Iranian; e.g. Skt a-vākṣ-am, OCS věs-ъ ‘carry, transport’ < *(h1e-)u̯ēg̑ h-s-. The first person forms in Slavic are thematic, and we see the regular development of s > x/ š after r, u, k, i and before a vowel; e.g. rek- ‘say’, 1sg rěxъ, 1PL rěxomъ, 2PL rěste, 3PL rěšę < *rēk-s-n̥t. The 2/3SG is based on the root aorist, with no lengthening; e.g. rečе. Slavic created a new productive aorist formation on the basis of the “ruki” variants of the s-aorist, but without any ablaut in the stem; e.g. děla- ‘make, do’, děla-xъ, děla, děla-xomъ, děla-ste, děla-šę. Stems ending in a consonant insert a theme vowel: rekoxъ, reče, rek-oxomъ, rek-oste, rek-ošę. Some of the other Slavic languages have different endings for the 1PL, as in the present tense, and may exhibit an athematic formation; e.g. OCz. vedechme ‘we led’.

1554

XIII. Slavic

7.2.3. Imperfect Slavic replaced the PIE imperfect with a new formation, based on a suffix -ax- added to a stem in -ě or -a, with secondary thematic endings (see Darden, this handbook, 7.7 for a discussion of the origin of these forms); e.g. nes- ‘carry’, nesěaxъ, nesěaše, nesěaxomъ, nesěašete, nesěaxǫ. The verb ‘to be’ has aorist-like forms with a stem bě- (1SG běxъ, 3PL běšę) for the imperfect, as well as the pattern seen in other verbs (1SG běaxъ, 3PL běaxǫ).

7.2.4. Imperative The Slavic imperative continues the PIE optative in *-i̯ eh1/-ih1, although there are a number of unresolved questions about the development of certain forms. As an example of the thematic declension, we may cite 2SG beri ‘take’ < *bheroi̯ h1s, 3SG beri < bheroi̯ h1t, 1PL berěmъ < *bheroi̯ h1me (with -mъ as in other forms with original secondary endings), 2PL berěte < *bheroi̯ h1te. As in the NOM.PL of o-stem nouns and pronouns, we seem to have an irregular development of *-ōi̯ (< *-oi̯ h1) to -i in the 2/3SG, as indicated by the reflexes of the second palatalization of velars; e.g. rьci ‘say’ (but cf. also Olander 2012: 332). Verbs with a present in -je regularly have *-ōi̯ > *-ēi̯ > -i because of the palatal consonant, and the verbs with a present in -ī and the athematic verbs reflect the zero grade *-ih1. The athematic singular forms daždь ‘give’, jaždь ‘eat’, věždь ‘know’ must reflect a final sequence of *-djĭ, but athematic verbs in other IE languages had the full grade of the optative suffix in the singular, and the development of these forms remains unclear (see Vaillant 1966: 34; Arumaa 1985: 311). The only 3PL imperative form attested in OCS, bǫdǫ ‘be’, is unlikely to reflect the original optative ending *-oi̯ h1nt and may instead continue an injunctive *bhundont (Arumaa 1985: 311). Apart from the imperative, the original optative is the most likely origin for the conditional paradigm of ‘be’: bimь, bi, bi, bimъ, biste, bišę/bǫ (the latter again perhaps an original injunctive), rather than reflecting an original preterite as proposed by some scholars; but the ablaut of the singular and the 1SG ending cannot be original (Vaillant 1966: 34; Arumaa 1985: 318). Other 1SG forms attested in OCS (e.g. bǫděmь ‘may I be’, priměmь ‘may I receive’) are likewise newer formations.

7.2.5. Periphrastic forms Slavic developed a new periphrastic perfect and pluperfect, using the auxiliary verb ‘be’ plus the l-participle (see below); e.g. (j)esi vъzęlъ ‘(you) have taken’, běaxǫ prišьli ‘(they) had come’. A future perfect formed with the future of ‘be’ plus the l-participle is also attested rarely in OCS. The conditional mood is expressed by the conditional (later aorist) forms of ‘be’ plus the l-participle. No distinct future tense can be reconstructed for Proto-Slavic. OCS texts use present tense verb forms with future meaning, or form periphrastic futures with načęti/vъčęti ‘begin’ or, more commonly, iměti ‘have’. Constructions with xotěti ‘want’ also occur, but not with a purely future meaning according to Vaillant (1966: 107). Some modern Slavic languages regularly use the present

82. The morphology of Slavic

1555

tense forms of perfective verbs for the perfective future. Otherwise, the modern Slavic languages form the future with the auxiliaries ‘want’, ‘have’, or the future of ‘be’.

7.3. Nominal forms Slavic has a number of participial and other non-finite forms with cognates in other IE languages. The present active participle is formed with the suffix *-nt-, *-nt-i̯ - and has a mixture of athematic and thematic endings; e.g. NOM.SG M/N nesy ‘carrying’, F nesǫšti. The NOM.SG -y reflects a special phonological development of original *-onts, possibly different from final *-ons, judging by the occurrence of NOM.SG -a in North Slavic (e.g. ORuss., OCz. bera ‘taking’). A variety of different explanations have been proposed for these forms; see, for example, Kortlandt (1979a, 1983: 179−180); Holzer (1980); Orr (2000: 174−184); Halla-aho (2006: 172−173); and Olander (2012: 333). The je- and ipresents regularly have -ę from *-i̯ ents < *-i̯ onts and *-īnts. The past active participle continues the perfect active participle in *-u̯es-. Slavic has zero grade *-us-, *-us-i̯ - and the same declension as for the present active participle; e.g. nesъ, nesъši. The past passive participles reflect verbal adjectives with the suffixes *-to-, *-no-; e.g., prostrъtъ ‘stretched’, viděnъ ‘seen’, and neuter verbal substantives are formed from the same stems with the addition of -ьj-e. Slavic also has a present passive participle formed with the suffix *-mo-, as in Baltic (e.g. nesomъ ‘being carried’) and a participle in *-lo- used to form the perfect (e.g. neslъ). Apart from Slavic, forms in *-lo- became part of the verbal system only in Armenian and Tocharian, and purely adjectival forms also exist in Slavic; e.g. teplъ ‘warm’, obilъ ‘abundant’. The infinitive ending -ti reflects the LOC.SG of an abstract verbal noun in *-ti, and the supine -tъ reflects the ACC.SG of an abstract verbal noun in *-tu.

8. References Arumaa, Peeter 1985 Urslavische Grammatik. Einführung in das vergleichende Studium der slavischen Sprachen. III. Band. Formenlehre. Heidelberg: Winter. Beekes, Robert S. P. 1995 Comparative Indo-European linguistics. An introduction. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Birnbaum, Henrik 1972 Indo-European nominal formations submerged in Slavic. In: Dean Worth (ed.), The Slavic word: Proceedings of the International Slavistic Colloquium at UCLA, September 11−16, 1970. The Hague: Mouton, 142−163. Birnbaum, Henrik and Jos Schaeken 1997 Das altkirchenslavische Wort. Bildung-Bedeutung-Herleitung. Munich: Sagner. Comrie, Bernard 1992 Balto-Slavonic. In: Jadranka Gvozdanović (ed.), Indo-European numerals. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 717−833. Cowgill, Warren 1985 The personal endings of thematic verbs in Indo-European. In: Bernfried Schlerath (ed.), Grammatische Kategorien: Funktion und Geschichte. Akten der VII. Fachtagung der

1556

XIII. Slavic

Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Berlin, 20.−25. Februar 1983. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 109−118. Cowgill, Warren 2006 The personal endings of thematic verbs in Indo-European (longer version of Cowgill 1985). In: Jared S. Klein (ed.), The Collected writings of Warren Cowgill. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave, 535−567. Derksen, Rick 2008 Etymological dictionary of the Slavic inherited lexicon. Leiden: Brill. Diehls, Paul 1963 Altkirchenslavische Grammatik. Heidelberg: Winter. Halla-aho, Jussi 2006 Problems of Proto-Slavic historical nominal morphology. Helsinki: Dept. of Slavonic and Baltic Languages and Literatures, University of Helsinki. Hirt, Hermann 1893 Zu den slavischen Auslautsgesetzen. Indogermanische Forschungen 2: 337−364. Holzer, Georg 1980 Die urslavischen Auslautgesetze. Wiener slavistisches Jahrbuch 26: 7−27. Hujer, Oldřich 1910 Slovanská deklinace jmenná [Slavic nominal declension]. Prague: Náklad České akademie. Illič-Svityč, Vladislav M. 1963 Imennaja akcentuacija v baltijskom i slavjanskom [Nominal accentuation in Baltic and Slavic]. Moscow: Akademija Nauk SSSR. Jasanoff, Jay 1983 A rule of final syllables in Slavic. Journal of Indo-European Studies 11: 139−149. Kortlandt, Frederik 1975 Slavic accentuation. A study in relative chronology. Lisse: de Ridder. Kortlandt, Frederik 1978 On the history of the genitive plural in Slavic, Baltic, Germanic, and Indo-European. Lingua 45: 281−300. Kortlandt, Frederik 1979a On the history of the Slavic nasal vowels. Indogermanische Forschungen 84: 259−272. Kortlandt, Frederik 1979b Toward a reconstruction of the Balto-Slavic verbal system. Lingua 49: 51−70. Kortlandt, Frederik 1982 IE *pt in Slavic. Folia linguistica historica 3: 25−28. Kortlandt, Frederik 1983 On final syllables in Slavic. Journal of Indo-European Studies 11: 167−185. Mareš, František 1969 Diachronische Phonologie des Ur- und Frühslavischen. Munich: Sagner. Matasović, Ranko 2008 Poredbenopovijesna gramatika hrvatskoga jezika [A comparative historical grammar of the Croatian language]. Zagreb: Matica hrvatska. Matasović, Ranko 2014 Slavic nominal word-formation: Proto-Indo-European origins and historical development. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter. Olander, Thomas 2012 Proto-Indo-European *-os in Slavic. Russian linguistics 36: 319−341. Olander, Thomas 2015 Proto-Slavic inflectional morphology: A comparative handbook. Leiden-Boston: Brill Orr, Robert 2000 Common Slavic nominal morphology. A new synthesis. Bloomington, IN: Slavica.

83. The syntax of Slavic

1557

Pohl, Heinz Dieter 1977 Die nominalkomposition im Alt- und Gemeinslavischen. Ein Beitrag zur slavischen, indogermanischen und allgemeinen Wortbildung. Klagenfurt: Klagenfurter Sprachwissenschaftliche Gesellschaft. Vaillant, André 1958 Grammaire comparée des langues slaves. Tome II. Morphologie (Flexion nominale, Flexion pronominale). Lyon: IAC. Vaillant, André 1966 Grammaire comparée des langues slaves. Tome III. Le verbe. Paris: Klincksieck. Vaillant, André 1974 Grammaire comparée des langues slaves. Tome IV. La formation des noms. Paris: Klincksieck. Vermeer, Willem 1991 The mysterious North Russian nominative singular ending -e and the problem of the reflex of Proto-Indo-European *-os in Slavic. Die Welt der Slaven 36: 271−293. Witczak, Krzysztof 2002 Indo-European abstracta ending with -osti. The Ossetic evidence. Lingua Posnaniensis 44: 175−179.

Keith Langston, Athens, GA (USA)

83. The syntax of Slavic 1. Introduction 2. Word classes 3. Nominal morphosyntax and adpositional phrases 4. Verbal morphosyntax and periphrastic formations

5. Word order 6. Sentence syntax 7. References

1. Introduction This chapter will analyze the syntax of Slavic languages, taking into account their diachronic development from Proto-Slavic to the current stages. Proto-Slavic was not recorded; therefore all forms coming from this language are reconstructed. Since syntactic patterns are much more difficult to reconstruct than morphological forms, the empirical basis for the investigation pursued in this chapter will be Old Church Slavonic (OCS), which is the first literary and liturgical Slavic language. The manuscripts written in Old Church Slavonic come from the end of the 10 th century; they are translations of Greek ecclesiastical texts made by two monks from Salonika, Constantine (Cyril) and Methodius. The monks’ native dialect was presumably South-Eastern Macedonian, but since they had been delegated by the Byzantine Emperor Michael III to go to Moravia, the texts may have been influenced by local Moravian varieties as well. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-004

1558

XIII. Slavic

Slavic languages show remarkably lax word order patterns, which often reflect the ordering of information presented in a clause: constituents representing old information come first, whereas those carrying new information come last. However, the unmarked order is consistently Subject-Verb-Object. Traditionally, Slavic languages are divided into three subgroups: East, West, and South Slavic. West and South Slavic languages are pro-drop languages, which means that they allow subject omission, unless the subject is focused or topicalized. East Slavic languages are not pro-drop, and the subject cannot be normally omitted, unless it is a topic. In subject-less structures the clause-initial position is usually occupied by the verb (a participle in periphrastic tense constructions) or an adverbial. South Slavic languages have pronominal and auxiliary clitics, which are either adjacent to the verb (as in Bulgarian and Macedonian) or always occur in a uniform order after the first syntactic constituent in a sentence (as in Serbian, Croatian, Slovene, as well as in Czech and Slovak, which belong to the West Slavic group). Contemporary East Slavic languages do not have pronominal or auxiliary clitics. Given space limitations, the focus of this chapter is placed on those elements of Slavic syntax that are not commonly found in other Indo-European languages and therefore deserve special mention. Consequently, it examines at some length the properties of the Slavic periphrastic tense, which is formed with the auxiliary ‘be’ as the unique auxiliary in all contexts, as well as multiple wh-movement, which involves fronting all the wh-elements (that is, question words such as what and who in English) to clauseinitial position. Moreover, this chapter will also concentrate on those properties of syntax that are assumed to be typical of Proto-Indo-European, but which were lost in most languages that subsequently evolved with the notable exception of Slavic. Hence, it contains a detailed discussion of the development of second position cliticization, which according to Wackernagel (1892) was a basic syntactic pattern of Proto-Indo-European, and which is currently found in some South and West Slavic languages.

2. Word classes Word classes in Slavic include nouns, adjectives, verbs, adverbs, pronouns, adpositions, conjunctions, and interjections. Old Church Slavonic had a rich system of participles; they were all specified for voice (active or passive) and tense (present or past). This system has been preserved to various degrees in contemporary Slavic languages. All Slavic languages except Bulgarian and Macedonian lack articles.

3. Nominal morphosyntax and adpositional phrases Nominal categories in Slavic are specified for number, gender, and in some instances, also for definiteness. Most Slavic languages have seven morphological cases including vocative. The only exceptions are Bulgarian and Macedonian, which have lost case on nouns and currently only show some case distinctions on pronouns. The case system in Proto-Slavic was inherited from Late Proto-Indo-European with slight modifications: the forms covered by ablative syncretized with the genitive (Stieber 1971: 9; Schenker 2002: 85). There were three numbers (singular, dual, and plural) in Old Church Slavonic, on

83. The syntax of Slavic

1559

a par with other Indo-European languages, but the dual form fell out of regular use in all contemporary Slavic languages apart from Slovene and Upper and Lower Sorbian.

3.1. Articles Bulgarian and Macedonian, the only two Slavic languages that have lost morphological case are also the only ones that have the definite article. The article occurs as an enclitic after the first element in a noun phrase. Thus, if the noun is the only element in an NP, the article cliticizes on it; if there are more elements in the NP, the article follows the first one, such as the adjective in (1b). (1)

a. momce-to boy-the b. goljamo-to momce big-the boy (Bulgarian, Giusti 2002)

There were no articles in Old Church Slavonic per se, but the demonstratives j- and tъ were used as pronouns and formed part of the adjectival declension. These demonstratives declined for gender, number, and case, and tъ was the source of the article in Bulgarian and Macedonian. It is difficult to establish when the demonstrative tъ grammaticalized into the article, and the topic is a matter of some controversy. DimitrovaVulchanova and Vulchanov (2012) observe that the Codex Suprasliensis, an Old Church Slavonic manuscript from the 11 th century, contains a homophonous element which may function either as a demonstrative or an enclitic article. When used as an article, this element lacks the deictic function of the demonstrative and may cliticize on different categories within the nominal expression. Moreover, in relics from the 10 th−12 th century the article and the demonstrative occur in complementary distribution. The article may also appear in contexts in which it is absent in the Greek texts that were the source for the Slavic translation, so it seems it may have emerged as an independent category already at that stage. There are a number of syntactic differences between those Slavic languages with articles and those which lack the article. For example, only the latter permit Left-Branch Extraction, exemplified in (2). See Bošković (2005) for a discussion of more syntactic contrasts between the two types of languages. (2)

a. *Kakvai prodade Petko [ti kola]? what-kind-of sold Petko car ‘What kind of a car did Petko sell?’ a’. Kakva kolai prodade Petko ti? (Bulgarian) b. Kakvai si kupio [ti kola]? what-kind-of beAUX.2SG buyPART.M.SG car ‘What kind of a car did you buy?’ (Serbian, Bošković 2005: 2−3)

1560

XIII. Slavic

3.2. Pronominal forms Pronouns appeared in six morphological cases in Old Church Slavonic. The dative and the accusative also had clitic variants. The chart in (3) gives a paradigm for the 1st and 2 nd person forms with clitic forms to the right of their corresponding full forms. As was noted in the preceding section, for the 3 rd person, suppletive variants of the demonstrative j- and tъ were used (cf. Lunt 1974: 65; Schmalstieg 1983: 62−65). Contemporary South Slavic languages have full and clitic forms of the dative and the accusative pronouns, on a par with Old Church Slavonic (the clitic forms usually need to appear in a special syntactic configuration, either verb-adjacent or in the second position, the full forms have a freer distribution). Polish has weak pronouns instead of clitics, which may not appear clause-initially and avoid clause-final position. East Slavic languages have only full pronouns, whose distribution in the clause largely parallels the distribution of other nominals. (3)

Pronominal clitics in Old Church Slavonic (Huntley 2002: 144) 1SG

2SG

1DUAL

2DUAL

1PL

2PL

REFL

ACC

mene/mę

tebe/tę

na/ny

va/vy

nasъ/ny

vasъ/vy

sebe/sę

DAT

mьně/mi

tebě/ti

nama/-

vama/-

namъ/ny

vamъ/vy

sebě/si

3.3. Adjectives There were two declensions of adjectives and passive participles in Old Church Slavonic: the nominal declension (which produced the so-called “short forms”) and the pronominal declension (which had the so-called “long forms”). The pronominal declension contained the demonstrative pronoun j, which functioned like a postpositional definite article (Klemensiewicz, Lehr-Spławiński, and Urbańczyk 1965: 323−326; Stieber 1971: 76 ff.). The division between the two declension classes of adjectives is reflected in their syntax in contemporary West and East Slavic languages. Adjectives and participles of the “short” declension (such as zdrów in [4]) are restricted to predicative contexts, whereas “long” declension adjectives (such as zdrowy in [4]) occur in the attributive or the predicative position. (4)

a. Jestem zdrów/zdrowy. be1SG.PRES healthyM.SG ‘I am healthy’ b. Zdrowy/*zdrów chłopiec. boy healthyM.SG ‘A healthy boy’ (Polish)

83. The syntax of Slavic

1561

In South Slavic (e.g. in Serbian and Croatian) the two declensions may appear in either position. In general, adjectives in Slavic appear prenominally, but the occurrence of some forms in postnominal position may give rise to a classifying interpretation, in which the adjective specifies a category or a type that the modified noun belongs to (e.g. in Polish, Serbian, and Croatian, cf. Rutkowski 2006); in languages such as Russian, adjectives optionally occur postnominally in scientific terminology (cf. Trugman 2007).

4. Verbal morphosyntax and periphrastic formations. Verbal formations deserve a more detailed treatment, because they display properties not found in many other Indo-European languages. These properties include rich aspectual distinctions and a special set of periphrastic tenses, which consist of the verb ‘be’ as the exclusive auxiliary and the so-called l-participle, which always agrees with the subject in φ-features.

4.1. Aspectual oppositions Aspectual oppositions are morphologically marked on virtually all verbs in Slavic, as well as on nominalizations. Almost all verbs form aspectual pairs, in which each member describes the same kind of event, but one of them appears in the non-perfective aspect (such as czytać ‘to read’; kupować ‘to buy’ in Polish), whereas the other member occurs in perfective aspect (such as przeczytać ‘to have read’; kupić ‘to have bought’ in Polish). The origin of the aspectual oppositions is related to the presence of aspectual tenses and morphological changes in aspect marking in Proto-Indo-European. Old Church Slavonic inherited two aspectual tenses from Proto-Indo-European: aorist and imperfect. Inflected verbs in Proto-Indo-European had a three-element structure: the stem was formed by a root followed optionally by a suffix and obligatorily by an inflectional ending. The suffix assigned a stem to an inflectional paradigm and expressed aspectual information, often associated as well with action type (Aktionsart). The inflectional endings specified the inflectional categories, such as φ-features; and in the case of nominal forms of the verb, they specified such grammatical categories as supine or infinitive (Schenker 2002: 83). In the prehistoric stages of most Indo-European dialects a particular suffix type, involving a simple vowel alternation *e/o often preceded by *-i̯ -, termed “thematic”, tended to become productive; and in this type the vocalic suffix in certain persons, notably 1st sg. and 3 rd pl., blended with the inflectional endings. As a result, verbs acquired a two-element structure. The modification is exemplified in (5), showing the Proto-Slavic paradigm of the verb *nesti ‘to carry’, with modifications of the forms of the 1st person singular and the 3 rd person plural that have acquired a two-element structure.

1562

XIII. Slavic

(5)

The modification of the paradigm of *nesti ‘to carry’ in the present tense in ProtoSlavic SINGULAR

DUAL

PLURAL

1

nes-ō-mь > nes-ǫ

nes-e-vě

nes-e-mъ

2

nes-e-šь

nes-e-ta

nes-e-te

3

nes-e-tь

nes-e-te

nes-o-nti > nes-ǫtъ

(Proto-Slavic, Długosz-Kurczabowa and Dubisz 2001: 265) The fusion of the two verb-final morphemes in late-Proto-Indo-European had semantic consequences. Due to the weakening of the distinction between the aspect-marking thematic suffix and the inflectional endings, it was becoming increasingly difficult to mark aspectual oppositions. The change was taking place slowly, but the aspectual system of Late-Proto-Indo-European started to show gaps. In most Indo-European languages the inconsistencies were remedied through the development of new aspectual tenses, such as the Imparfait and Passé Simple in French. However, Proto-Slavic was in this respect the most conservative language in the Indo-European family, because it retained the original ways of marking aspect. Still, the aspectual system it had inherited from ProtoIndo-European was irregular, because sometimes there were no systematic aspectual pairs of verbs. Therefore, Proto-Slavic had to reconstruct and regularize the whole verbal system. At the same time, it further developed the aspectual tenses, the aorist and the imperfect, inherited from Proto-Indo-European. In this way aspect was doubly marked in Slavic: through the aspectual tenses and through the perfective/imperfective morphemes on aspectual pairs, as shown in (6), which presents four different tenses and independent perfective/imperfective distinctions. (6)

Tense and aspect distinctions in Old Church Slavonic as exemplified by (po)nesti ‘to carry’

TENSE/ASPECT

Imperfective

Perfective

3sg present

nesetъ

ponesetъ

3sg aorist

nese

ponese

3sg imperfect

nesěaše

ponesěaše

3sg perfect

neslъ jestъ

poneslъ jestъ

(OCS, cf. Schooneveld 1951: 97) The coexistence of the aspectual tenses and the perfective and imperfective aspectual forms was a weak point of the Slavic tense system. It led to the decline of the aorist and the imperfect in all Slavic languages except for Bulgarian and Macedonian. The present perfect tense, which is discussed in the next section, was adopted as the default past tense.

83. The syntax of Slavic

1563

4.2. Periphrastic formations Slavic languages have developed a compound tense which is formed with the verb ‘be’ as the exclusive auxiliary in all contexts, irrespective of the transitivity of the main verb. This is a very uncommon pattern outside Slavic. In Germanic and Romance languages, it is found only in the dialect of Terracina (Italo-Romance) and Shetlandic (a variety of Scots English, cf. Bentley and Eythórsson 2004). In other Germanic and Romance languages, the verb ‘be’ is selected as the auxiliary only in unaccusative and passive structures. The auxiliary ‘be’ is accompanied by the so-called “l-participle”, which is used as the main verb (cf. 7). In contrast to the Germanic and Romance languages, the participle in the compound tense is morphologically different from that in the passive construction. (7)

Ivan e čel knigata. Ivan bePRES.3SG readPART.M.SG book-the ‘Ivan has read/been reading the book.’ (Bulgarian)

The l-participle is not a past participle, because in some Slavic languages it is used to express future meanings, as shown in (8a) for Polish and in (8b) for Serbian. Example (8b) represents the so-called Future II construction, which existed also in Old Church Slavonic, and is used to denote future events that in turn precede some other future events. (8)

a. Jan będzie pisał list. Jan bePRF.1SG writePART.M.SG letterACC ‘Jan will be writing a letter.’ (Polish) b. Kad budemo govorili s Marijom… when bePRF.1PL speakPART.PL with Marija ‘When/if we speak with Marija …’ (Serbian)

In both Old and Modern Slavic, the auxiliary ‘be’ shows aspectual distinctions, which determine the temporal interpretation of the whole construction. For instance, when ‘be’ is used in the imperfective aspect in Old Church Slavonic (cf. běaxǫ in 9a), the complex tense is interpreted as the pluperfect. When the verb ‘be’ occurs in the perfective (cf. bǫdemъ in 9b), it gives rise to the future perfect interpretation. The l-participle usually appears in the perfective form in Old Church Slavonic, but imperfective forms are also frequently found. (9)

a. i mъnoзi že otъ ijudei běaxǫ prišьli kъ Martě i and many FOC from Jews beIMP.3PL comePART.PL to Martha and Marii. Mary ‘And many of the Jews had come to Martha and Mary.’ (OCS, J 11.19)

1564

XIII. Slavic b. … vъskǫjǫ sę i rodili bǫdemъ. why REFL even bearPART.PL bePRF.1PL ‘Why will we even have been born?’ (OCS, Schmalstieg 1983: 159)

Diachronically, the l-participle is a Slavic innovation. It derives from a class of IndoEuropean adjectives ending in *-lo, which signified someone’s likelihood to perform a certain action or referred to a characteristic feature of the person involved. The *-lo forms also served as nomina agentis (agent participles) and proper names in many IndoEuropean languages. Examples of such forms include discipulus ‘student’ or legulus ‘gatherer of fallen olives’ in Latin, tuphlós ‘blind’ in Ancient Greek (cf. Damborský 1967), and slaha/uls ‘brawler’ in Gothic. At some point some of the *-lo adjectives were reanalyzed as participles in compound tenses in three Indo-European subgroups: Armenian, Slavic, and Tocharian, and to a lesser extent in Umbrian (only in future perfect forms) and Indic (Middle Indo-Aryan in active perfective participles; cf. Hewson and Bubenik 1997: 74). It is remarkable that the forms found in Armenian and Tocharian are not only morphologically similar to the Slavic l-participle, but that they may occur in compound tenses with the copula ‘be’ as well. The l-participle in Slavic has adjectival morphology, and agrees with the subject of a clause in gender and number, but is virtually not found outside the compound tenses. In this respect, it differs from the corresponding categories in many other Indo-European languages, which can be used as adjectives outside the compound tense paradigm. As was noted in the previous subsection, due to the abundant aspect marking on verbal forms the aspectual system of Old Slavic and Old Church Slavonic was unstable and prone to modifications. The modifications are reflected in the decline of the aspectual tenses in all Slavic languages apart from Bulgarian and (in part) Macedonian and in the selection of the present perfect formed with the l-participle as the default past tense. The semantic modification was accompanied by the morphophonological weakening of the auxiliary ‘be’. As shown in chart (10) for Old Church Slavonic, initially only the 3 rd person variants had clitic counterparts, je and sǫ. (10) The paradigm of byti ‘to be’ in the present tense (OCS, cf. Schmalstieg 1983: 138) Singular

Dual

Plural

1

jesmь

jesvě

jesmъ

2

jesi

jesta

jeste

3

jestъ (je)

jeste

sǫtъ (sǫ)

In contemporary South Slavic languages (exemplified by Serbian in 11a), all the present perfect auxiliaries are clitics. In Czech and Macedonian, the 3 rd person auxiliary is null. In Polish, the auxiliary has been reduced to an affix, especially in the singular paradigm (cf. 11b). East Slavic languages had lost the perfect auxiliaries by the 16 th−17 th century.

83. The syntax of Slavic (11)

1565

a. Čitao sam knjigu. readPART.M.SG beAUX.PRES.1SG book (Serbian) b. Czytał-em książkę. readPART.M.SG+AUX.PRES.1SG book ‘I have read the book.’ (Polish)

Kashubian and Macedonian are two Slavic languages that in addition to the compound tense constructed with the auxiliary ‘be’ and the l-participle have fully grammaticalized a periphrastic tense formed with the auxiliary ‘have’ and a form of the passive participle used as the main verb. (12) a. Imame kupeno knigi. have1PL buyPASS.N books ‘We have bought books.’ (Macedonian, cf. Tomić 1996: 856) The morphological form of the passive participle does not depend on the feature specification of the subject of the clause and always appears in the singular neuter form (the masculine form is also an option in Kashubian). In this way the ‘have’-perfect differs from the ‘be’-perfect, in which the l-participle obligatorily agrees with the subject in φfeatures. In Kashubian unaccusative participles (such as jidzenô in 13a) agree with the subject and occur with the auxiliary ‘be’. The auxiliary ‘have’ selects transitive and unergative participles (cf. 13b), which do not agree with the subject or the object in φ-features. (13) a. Ta białka je precz jidzenô this womanF.SG beAUX.3.SG away goPTP.F.SG ‘This woman has gone away.’ (Kashubian, Stone 2002: 777) b. Të măš to wszétko zrob’iõné/zrob’iõny doPTP.N.SG/doPTP.M.SG you havePRES.2SG this all ‘You have made all of this.’ (Kashubian, Migdalski 2006: 130) The periphrastic tense formed with the auxiliary ‘have’ is a recent innovation, not found in Old Church Slavonic. It was first attested in written Macedonian in 1706, and is assumed to have emerged under the influence of neighbouring languages, such as Arumanian and Greek, or, in the case of Kashubian, under the influence of German. A number of Slavic languages, such as Polish (cf. 14), Czech, Bulgarian, Serbian, and Croatian, display structures that resemble the periphrastic tense formed with the auxiliary ‘have’. However, these languages never use ‘have’ as a true auxiliary, as the construction is not possible in all contexts and the passive participle agrees with the object (see Migdalski 2007 for a detailed discussion).

1566

XIII. Slavic

(14) Mam już upieczone ciasto havePRES.1SG already bakePASS.N.SG cakeACC.N.SG ‘My cake is already baked.’ (Polish, Migdalski 2006: 58)

5. Word Order As was noted in the introduction, word order in Slavic languages is relatively free and is often dictated by discourse requirements rather than by a need to mark grammatical relations. Clitics, which occur in the Wackernagel position after the clause-initial constituent in languages like Czech, Serbian, Croatian, and Slovene, are an exception to this freedom of word order (Bulgarian and Macedonian have clitics as well, but they are verb-adjacent and they do not need to appear in the second position). Moreover, the clitics cluster with each other and observe the rigid sequence presented in (15). The cluster opens with the particle li, which is often termed the “interrogative complementizer”. It occurs in questions and/or focus constructions. Li can be followed by a clitic expressing modality. The dative clitic precedes the accusative clitic, while the auxiliary clitics show an intriguing split concerning the positions of the 3 rd person singular form, which in most South Slavic languages appears as the last member in the cluster. (15) li > Modal > AUX (except 3 rd SG) > REFL > DAT > ACC > 3 rd SG AUX (Tomić 1996; Franks and King 2000: 45) Placement of the clitics in any other position than the second or splitting them from each other results in ungrammaticality. (16) a. Mi smo ga dali Marijinoj prijateljici. we beAUX.1PL itCL.ACC givePART.M.SG Marija’s friend ‘We gave it to Mary’s friend.’ b. *Mi smo Marijinoj prijateljici ga dali. c. *Mi Marijinoj prijateljici smo ga dali. (Serbian, Stjepanović 1998: 528) Importantly, even though clitics are phonologically deficient and their placement in this position was sometimes attributed to the requirement of a host that provides phonological support to them, their host must be a syntactic constituent, that is an element that is syntactically mobile. For example, since the first conjunct in coordinate structures is not syntactically mobile in Serbian and Croatian, clitics may not appear after it, in spite of the fact that it is a legitimate phonological host, as it is stressed. (17) a. Sestra i njen muž će mi ga pokloniti sister and her husband will meDAT itACC give ‘My sister and her husband will give it to me.’ b. *Sestra će mi ga i njen muž pokloniti (Serbian, Progovac 1996: 419)

83. The syntax of Slavic

1567

It is commonly assumed that the placement of clitics reflects the pattern of cliticization in early Indo-European languages described by Wackernagel (1892) and now generally known as Wackernagel’s Law. However, the generalized cliticization involving all types of clitics occurring in second position is a relatively recent development. Only three clitics uniformly appeared in second position in Old Church Slavonic: the question/focus particle li, the complementizer clitic bo ‘because’, and the focus particle že (note that these clitics form a natural class, as they all express Illocutionary Force of a clause, see Radanović-Kocić 1988 and Migdalski 2013). As shown in (18), they did not need to cluster with pronominal clitics. (18) Elisaveti že isplъni sę vrěmę roditi ei… Elizabeth.DAT FOC fulfillPAST REFL.ACC time give-birthINF herDAT ‘When it was time for Elizabeth to have her baby …’ (OCS, Pancheva et al. 2007) As a rule, pronominal clitics in Old Church Slavonic were postverbal. On the basis of the history of Serbian, we can conclude that the shift of the pronominal clitics to second position was a gradual process: around the 14 th century they appeared in second position when they were accompanied by the regular Wackernagel clitics li and že mentioned above; subsequently, they came to occupy second position in the absence of these particles, but it took several centuries before the rule was generalized to all contexts, as examples of sentences with non-clustering clitics occurring in different positions are still found in 19 th century Serbian texts (Radanović-Kocić 1988: 174). Bulgarian and Macedonian clitics are verb-adjacent (these two languages differ in the direction of cliticization, see Bošković 2001 for details), on a par with contemporary Romance languages. Thus, they largely preserve the pattern of pronominal cliticization in Old Church Slavonic, although Pancheva (2005) observes that at least some clitics targeted second position in Bulgarian between the 9 th and the 14 th−15 th centuries.

6. Sentence Syntax One of the recurring observations of this chapter is that Slavic syntax is often determined by information structure requirements; thus, sentence word-order frequently depends on a need to focus or topicalize a certain constituent, which is then moved to the left periphery of a clause. Let us consider some word order permutations and the interpretations that they trigger on the basis of Serbian and Croatian. The basic word order is SVO, so the sentence in (19b) represents the most neutral pattern and is the most natural answer to the question in (19a). (19) a. Šta se desilo? what REFL happenPART.N.SG ‘What happened?’ b. Mačka je uhvatila miša cat beAUX.3SG catchPART.F.SG mouse ‘A cat caught a mouse.’ (Serbian, Migdalski 2006:89)

1568

XIII. Slavic

The subject mačka can be dropped if it has been previously mentioned and its referent is presupposed. In such a scenario the most unmarked word order involves the clauseinitial placement of the l-participle. (20) Uhvatila je miša catchPART.F.SG beAUX.3SG mouse ‘[The cat] caught a mouse.’ (Serbian) OVS order is possible, but it always occurs in semantically marked contexts. According to Stjepanović (1999: 92, 97), it may arise when both the verb and the object are presupposed, while the subject receives the main sentence stress and constitutes new information focus. (21) a. Ko je udario Petra? who beAUX.3SG hitPART.M.SG PeterACC ‘Who hit Peter?’ b. Petra je udario MARKO. PeterACC beAUX.3SG hitPART.M.SG Marko ‘Marko hit Peter.’ (Serbian, Stjepanović 1999: 97) Like other elements placed at the beginning of a sentence, initial adverbs represent old information. Thus, the sentence in (22b) is a felicitous reply to the question What happened yesterday? (22) a. Šta se desilo juče? what REFL happenPART.N.SG yesterday ‘What happened yesterday?’ b. Juče JE PETAR KUPIO KNJIGU. yesterday beAUX.3SG Peter buyPART.M.SG book ‘Yesterday Peter bought a book.’ (Serbian, Migdalski 2006: 90) The event time of the predicate in (22b) is presupposed, so the temporal adverb juče ‘yesterday’ appears at the beginning of the clause. However, the string that follows it constitutes “new information” and correspondingly receives new information focus. Summarizing, it has been shown that constituents whose referents are presupposed are placed at the beginning of a clause, while new information foci are located in the right periphery. However, it is not correct to attribute all the properties of Slavic syntax to discourse considerations. This chapter will conclude with a presentation of a feature of Slavic sentence syntax which is completely independent of information structure requirements and which has attracted considerable attention since Rudin (1988). This feature involves the so-called multiple wh-movement. As exemplified in (23), Slavic, unlike many other Indo-European languages, permits fronting of all wh-words in questions.

83. The syntax of Slavic

1569

(23) a. Koj kogo vižda? (Bulgarian) b. Ko koga vidi? who whom see3SG ‘Who saw whom?’ (Serbian, Franks 2005) It has been observed that there are typological differences concerning this movement. For instance, whereas the ordering of the wh-elements with respect to each other is free in most Slavic languages, in Bulgarian and Macedonian they form a unit and move as a constituent. This typological division corresponds to a number of other properties of whmovement, such as the superiority effect (that is, the ordering restriction that specifies that the wh-element referring to the subject must precede the wh-element referring to the object in multiple wh-questions), the impossibility of splitting the wh-sequence with any lexical material, and the availability of island extraction, which largely hold for Bulgarian, but which are not observed in the other languages (see Bošković 1999 for details and challenges to these generalizations). Summarizing, this chapter has presented some properties of Slavic syntax and examined the way it has changed over time. For recent crosslinguistic overviews of the topic the reader is referred to Franks (1995, 2005), Franks and King (2000), Bošković (2001), Migdalski (2006), as well as to the volumes published in the Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics and Formal Description of Slavic Languages series.

7. References Bentley, Delia and Thórhallur Eythórsson 2004 Auxiliary Selection and the Semantics of Unaccusativity. Lingua 114: 447−471. Bošković, Željko 1999 On multiple feature checking: multiple Wh-fronting and multiple head-movement. In: Sam Epstein and Norbert Hornstein (eds.), Working Minimalism. Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 159−187. Bošković, Željko 2001 On the Nature of the Syntax-Phonology Interface. Cliticization and Related Phenomena. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Bošković, Željko 2005 Left Branch Extraction, Structure of NP, and Scrambling. Studia Linguistica 59: 1−45. Compton, Richard, Magdalena Golędzinowska, and Ulyana Savchenko (eds.) 2007 Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 15: The Toronto Meeting. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications. Comrie, Bernard and Greville G. Corbett (eds.) 2002 The Slavonic Languages. London: Routledge. Damborský, Jiri 1967 Participium l-ove ve slovanštine [The l-participle in Slavic]. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Dimitrova, Mila Vulchanova and Valentin Vulchanov 2012 An article evolving: The case of Old Bulgarian. In: Dianne Jonas, John Whitman, and Andrew Garrett (eds.), Grammatical Change: Origins, Nature, Outcomes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 160−178.

1570

XIII. Slavic

Długosz-Kurczabowa, Krystyna and Stanisław Dubisz 2001 Gramatyka historyczna języka polskiego [Historical grammar of the Polish language]. Warsaw: University of Warsaw Press. Franks, Steven 1995 Parameters of Slavic Morphosyntax. New York: Oxford University Press. Franks, Steven 2005 Slavic Languages. In: Guglielmo Cinque and Richard Kayne (eds.), Handbook of Comparative Syntax. New York: Oxford University Press, 373−419. Franks, Steven and Tracy Holloway King 2000 A Handbook of Slavic Clitics. New York: Oxford University Press. Giusti, Giuliana 2002 The Functional Structure of Noun Phrases: A Bare Phrase Structure Approach. In: Guglielmo Cinque (ed.), Functional Structure in DP and IP. New York: Oxford University Press, 54−90. Hewson, John and Vit Bubenik 1997 Tense and Aspect in Indo-European Languages: Theory, Typology, Diachrony. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Huntley, David 2002 Old Church Slavonic. In: Comrie and Corbett (eds.), 125−187. Klemensiewicz, Zenon, Tadeusz Lehr-Spławiński, and Stanisław Urbańczyk 1965 Gramatyka historyczna języka polskiego [Historical grammar of the Polish language]. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Lunt, Horace G. 1974 Old Church Slavonic Grammar. The Hague: Mouton. Migdalski, Krzysztof 2006 The Syntax of Compound Tenses in Slavic. Ph.D. dissertation, Tilburg University. Utrecht: LOT Publications. Migdalski, Krzysztof 2007 On the Grammaticalization of the ‘have’-perfect in Slavic. In: Compton, Golędzinowska and Savchenko (eds.), 228−244. Migdalski, Krzysztof 2013 Diachronic Source of Two Cliticization Patterns in Slavic. In: Christine M. Salvesen and Hans P. Helland (eds.). Challenging Clitics. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 135−158. Pancheva, Roumyana 2005 The Rise and Fall of Second-Position Clitics. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23: 103−167. Pancheva, Roumyana, Agnieszka Łazorczyk, Jelena Krivokapić, and Yulia Minkova 2007 Codex Marianus. In: U(niversity of) S(outhern) C(alifornia) Parsed Corpus of Old South Slavic. Progovac, Ljiljana 1996 Clitics in Serbian/Croatian: Comp as the Second Position. In: Aaron Halpern and Arnold Zwicky (eds.), Approaching Second: Second Position Clitics and Related Phenomena. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 411−428. Radanović-Kocić, Vesna 1988 The Grammar of Serbo-Croatian Clitics: A Synchronic and Diachronic Perspective. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana. Rudin, Catherine 1988 On Multiple Questions and Multiple Wh-Fronting. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6: 445−501. Rutkowski, Pawel 2007 The syntactic properties and diachronic development of postnominal adjectives in Polish. In: Compton, Golędzinowska, and Savchenko (eds.), 326−345.

84. The lexicon of Slavic

1571

Schenker, Alexander M. 2002 Proto-Slavonic. In: Comrie and Corbett (eds.), 60−124. Schmalstieg, William R. 1983 An Introduction to Old Church Slavic. Columbus: Slavica. van Schooneveld, Cornelius H. 1951 The Aspectual System of the Old Church Slavonic and Old Russian verbum finitum byti. Word 7: 93−103. Stieber, Zdzisław 1971 Zarys gramatyki porównawczej języków słowiańskich. Fleksja imienna [An outline of the comparative grammar of the Slavic languages. Nominal inflection]. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Stjepanović, Sandra 1998 On the Placement of Serbo-Croatian Clitics: Evidence from VP Ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 29: 527−537. Stjepanović, Sandra 1999 What do Second Position Cliticization, Scrambling, and Multiple wh-fronting have in Common? Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut. Stone, Gerald 2002 Cassubian. In: Comrie and Corbett (eds.), 759−794. Tomić, Olga 1996 The Balkan Slavic Clausal Clitics. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14: 811− 872. Trugman, Helen 2007 Rudiments of Romance N-to-D movement in Russian. In: Peter Kosta, Gerda Hassler, Lilia Schürcks, and Nadine Thielemann (eds.), Linguistic Investigations into Formal Description of Slavic Languages. Potsdam Linguistic Investigations, volume 1. Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 411−426. Wackernagel, Jakob 1892 Über ein Gesetz der indogermanischen Wortstellung. Indogermanische Forschungen 1: 333−436.

Krzysztof Migdalski, Wrocław (Poland)

84. The lexicon of Slavic 1. Inherited vocabulary 2. Loan-words 3. Specific vocabulary

4. Word formation 5. Abbreviations 6. References

Many Slavic words of widespread occurrence related to fundamental natural and human concepts have reliable PIE etymologies and may, therefore, be considered as PIE inheritance. Others are particular to Balto-Slavic or Proto-Slavic (PSl), representing local innovations or borrowings from the languages with which the Slavs came into contact. Slavic reconstructions are given below in their late Proto-Slavic (also called Common Slavic) form, mainly according to Trubačev (1974−2013). In the following discussion, https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-005

1572

XIII. Slavic

Russian, Ukrainian, and Belorussian adjectives are quoted in their long (attributive) forms.

1. Inherited vocabulary In relation to the common PIE lexical stock, Slavic appears both conservative and innovative (Meillet 1934). On the one hand, many important PIE stems and roots are well preserved in their form and meaning. On the other hand, a PSl term of PIE origin may present significant modifications (e.g. enlargements by suffixation, cf. the word for ‘sun’, 1.2) and semantic peculiarities (cf. PSl *moldŭ, 1.2). Moreover, while the lexicon of the modern Slavic languages is rightfully reputed to be remarkably homogeneous in denoting core concepts, Slavic languages and dialects use, in several instances, particular words of PIE origin which differ from the primary signifier of such concepts or are borrowed from non-IE languages. Sometimes a word in a Slavic language may be quite different from the word having the corresponding sense in another Slavic language, cf. R gorod and Cz město ‘city, town’; but these items are actually based on two common Slavic roots both existing in Russian and Czech, cf. R mesto ‘place, position’ and Cz hrad ‘castle, citadel’. The semantic relations are generally clear in such cases: the latter is PSl *gordъ, from PIE *ghordhos ‘hedge; enclosure’ showing the semantic development ‘enclosed place’ > ‘citadel’ and ‘town’ (cf. G Zaun ‘fence’ cognate with E town); the former is PSl *mēsto ‘place’ < *mēt-t-o from the PIE root *mei- ‘support, sustain’ (Černyx 1993: 1. 526) showing the semantic change ‘place’ > ‘town’ (cf. E place in sense of ‘village, settlement, town’).

1.1. Kinship terms Most Slavic kinship terms are clearly IE: PSl *dŭkt’i, gen. -ere (feminine) ‘daughter’; PIE *dhug(h2)tēr, gen. *dhug(h2)tros; cf. G Tochter, E daughter, etc. Slavic forms descended from this item include OCS dŭšti gen. dŭštere; OR doči, gen. dočere; R doč’, gen. dočeri; Ukr doč; Bulg dăšterja; Slovn hči, SCr kći; Cz dcera; Pol cora. PSl. *žena ‘woman, wife’; Balto-Slavic *genā < PIE *gwenh2, gen. gwneh2s ‘woman’. Cognates of this item are seen in Gr gunḗ ‘woman, wife’, E queen, etc. Cf. OCS žena ‘woman, wife’; R žena ‘wife’, ženščina ‘woman’ (derived by suffixation); Bulg žena ‘woman, wife’, Sorb žona; Pol żona ‘wife’, but ‘woman’ is niewiasta, also (archaic) ‘wife’ (see below *nevesta, 4) or kobieta, from a different root: perhaps from a phrase such as *kobita žena ‘ill-tempered, irritable, stubborn woman’, from *kobĭ ‘divination; fate; wickedness, evil; stubbornness’ (Trubačev 1974−2013: 10. 88−91). For ‘wife’, Ukrainian uses žinka (derived by suffixation) and družyna ‘spouse’ − female or male (сf. druh ‘friend’); Slovene, beside žena, uses soproga ‘spouse’, while Czech and Slovak use, beside žena, a derivative of manžel (see below): manželka + specific words for ‘spouse’: Cz chot’ ‘spouse, husband or wife’, OCS chotĭ ‘lover, beloved’, chotěti ‘wish’.

84. The lexicon of Slavic

1573

PSl. *mǫžĭ ‘man, husband’ from *man-g-i-os (Schenker 1993: 114), which seems to be closely related to PIE *mVnus ‘man’ (often derived from *men- ‘think’), with the addition of a suffixal element *g. But *man-g-i-os is perhaps from a different root signifying virility, which is also seen in Alb mëz ‘colt’, PIE Transponat *men-d-ios ‘horse’ (Mallory and Adams 1997: 274) and may be the basis of Gr amazṓn (if from *n̥-mn̥g(w)-iōn ‘man-less, without husbands’, Mallory and Adams 1997: 367). Cf. also Rom mînz ‘foal, colt’, L dial. mannus ‘small horse’ (borrowed from an unidentifiable source), perhaps Slovn mánih ‘gelding’ (Trubačev 1960: 56). Cf. Ukr muž ‘man’, Maced maž, SCr muž, Pol mąż, Cz and Slovk muž ‘man’, but ‘husband’ is usually manžel (< PSl *malŭžena ‘spouse, wife’, OCS mal[ŭ]žena dual ‘husband and wife’, R dial. malžonki ‘spouses’, probably partially calqued on OHG *mâlkona ‘spouse, wife’, cf. mahal ‘contract’, gimahala ‘bride, wife’, G Gemahlin ‘wife, spouse’, or from malŭ ‘little’, as a prefix of affection, or even from *mǫžĭžena ‘husband + wife’ with dissimilation (Vasmer 1987: 2. 562); but cf. also R molodožëny (plural) ‘couple just married’, from *moldŭ ‘young’ + *žena ‘wife’). Modern Russian uses muž mostly in the sense ‘husband’ (although the meaning ‘man’ is retained in high style), and mužčina ‘man’ was built later by suffixation. Some Slavic languages use other words for ‘husband’: Slovene has mož and soprog ‘spouse’ and Ukrainian čolovik (cf. R čelovek ‘man, human being’), Bulgarian uses suprug (and other Slavic languages use a similar word in the sense ‘spouse’, cf. R suprug). The Slavic word for ‘father’ goes back to PIE *at- ‘father’, an informal and probably affective word derived from the language of children (cf. L atta, Gr átta, Goth atta), which may have signified ‘foster-father’, the meaning found in Old Irish (Mallory and Adams 1997: 195). It may explain L atavus ‘great-great-great-grandfather’ if one supposes a compound atta ‘father’+ avus ‘grandfather’. Alternatively, at-avus would represent avus together with a prefix at- (*h2et-) ‘beyond, further’, almost certainly related to the at- of atque, which no doubt means literally ‘and further’ (cf. Mallory and Adams 1997: 156). Turkic languages have a similar term ata ‘father’. Moreover, PSl *otĭcĭ (< *ot-ĭk-os) was built with a suffix -ĭk- probably having a diminutive sense (‘little father, daddy’); or -ĭk- is rather an adjectivizing suffix (‘one of the father, paternal’, cf. French colloquial mon paternel ‘my father’). According to Trubačev (1974−2013: 39. 168− 173), PSl *otĭcĭ may be compared with the Gr ethnic name Attikos. Cf. R otec, Pol ojciec, Cz otec, Slovk otec, SCr otac, Slovn oče, Upper Sorb wótc ‘father (rare); ancestor’. The other PSl word for ‘father’ is *tata, from a PIE Transponat *t-at-, with sound repetition seen in other nursery terms. Cf. R (old and rural) tjatja, (dial. only) tata ‘daddy’; Ukr tato, tatko; Pol tata, tatko; Cz and Slovk táta; Bulg tato, tatko, tate; Maced tatko. Besides, ‘father, daddy’ can be denoted by a different lexical item, PSl *bata / *bat’a / *batja (perhaps from *brat[r]ŭ ‘brother’, which is semantically somewhat symmetrical to *strŭjĭ ‘paternal uncle’ = ‘father’s brother’): R (colloquial and affective) batja, bat’ko, dial. also ‘(eldest) brother, uncle, father-in-law, wife’s father’; Ukr bat’ko; Bulg bašta ‘father’. But Cz bát’a means ‘brother, relative, friend’, Bulg bate, SCr bata ‘(eldest) brother’, R. dial. bat ‘brother’. According to Trubačev (1974−2013: 1. 163−164), PSl *bata ‘father, daddy, uncle, elder man’ is a very archaic form similar to reduplicated formations such as *baba, *mama (cf. It babbo ‘daddy’ related to padre ‘father’, with voicing of p to b), and the association with *brat[r]ŭ ‘brother’ is only secondary. Cf. semantically Bengali stri ‘wife’ from PIE *swesōr ‘sister’.

1574

XIII. Slavic

In Upper Sorbian, the usual word for ‘father’ is nan, also a nursery term, cf. SCr nana ‘mother’; Slovk ňaňo, ňaňa ‘aunt’; R njanja ‘nurse’ (cf. Gr nénnos [variant nónnos beside nánnas (Hesych.)] ‘uncle’; L nonnus ‘father > monk’; It nonna ‘grandmother’; E nan ‘grandmother’, nanny ‘nurse who cares for a baby’, etc.). Apart from the Slavic divine name *Stribogŭ = Stri-bogŭ, taken to be ‘father-god’, PIE *ph2tēr, gen. *ph2tros ‘father’ (Mallory and Adams 1997: 195), seems to be represented only in PSl *strŭjĭ, *stryjĭ ‘paternal uncle’. Cf. OLith strūjus ‘old man, grandfather’, Lith strujus ‘father’s brother, mother’s sister’s husband’, L patruus ‘paternal uncle’. PIE *ph2trōus ‘male paternal relative; father’s brother’ (Mallory and Adams 1997: 609). Cf. OR stryj, R dial. stroj, Pol stryj, Cz strýc, Slovk strýc, SCr stric, Slovn stric ‘paternal uncle’. However, according to Gippert (2002), this form is derived from a different etymon having the original meaning ‘old man’ and not related to R staryj ‘old’ (see 3). Other kinship terms of wide occurrence are the following: PSl *bratrъ ‘brother’, PIE *bhreh2tēr; cf. OCS bratrŭ, R Ukr BelR Bulg Slovk Pol brat, Cz Upper Sorb bratr, Lower Sorb bratš, etc. PSl *mati, gen. *matere ‘mother’, PIE *meh2tēr. Cf. OCS mati, gen. matere; R mat’, gen. materi; Ukr mati, gen. materi; BelR maci, matka; Bulg majka; Slovn mati, gen. matere; Pol matka; Cz máti; etc. PSl *sestra ‘sister’, PIE *su̯esōr; cf. R Ukr Bulg sestra, BelR sjastra, OCS Cz Slovk Polab sestra, SCr sèstra, Slovn séstra, Pol siostra, Upper Sorb sotra, Lower Sorb sotša. PSl *synŭ ‘son’, PIE *suhxnus; cf. OCS synŭ, R Ukr BelR Cz Slovk Pol Sorb syn, Bulg Slovn sin, SCr sîn, etc. PSl *svekry ‘husband’s mother’, gen. *svekrŭve, PIE *su̯ek̑ruh2s. Cf. OCS svekry, gen. svekrŭve; R svekrov’, gen. svekrovi; Ukr svekruxa; BelR svjakrou; Bulg svekărva; Pol świekra; etc.

1.2. Terms denoting fundamental natural and human concepts ‘Sun’ is PSl *sŭlnĭcе (neut.), from *sulnĭko- / *sulniko-, a stem based on PIE *seh2u̯l̥ , gen. *sh2ṷ-en-s (Mallory and Adams 1997: 556) ‘sun’, extended by diminutive suffix -ĭk- / -ik- (hypocoristic sense: ‘little sun’), which is analogous to the origin of Fr soleil ‘sun’. As is well known, the latter is derived not from L sōl ‘sun’ but from a Vulgar Latin diminutive form of the latter: soliculus. Cf. OCS slŭnĭce, R solnce, Ukr sonce, Pol słońce, Cz slunce, Bulg slănce, SCr sûnce, Slovn sonce, Slovk slnce, Sorb słyńco, etc. Among its IE cognates, cf. Lith sáulė ‘sun’, Goth sauil (beside sunno) ‘id.’, etc. ‘Moon’ is PSl *luna (Trubačev 1974−2013: 16. 173), from *louksnā, PIE *louksneh2‘moon’ (cf. L lūna etc.), from the root *leuk- ‘light’, and PSl *mēsęcĭ (masc.) ‘moon; month’, from *mēs-n̥-ko- (with extension by a suffix *k), PIE *meh1-nōt- / *meh1-n(e)s‘moon’ (Mallory and Adams 1997: 385) (cf. L mēnsis ‘month’, E moon, month, etc.), from the root *meh1- ‘measure’. Attested Slavic forms for ‘moon’ include OCS R Bulg Slovn Cz (poet.) Slovk (poet.) luna ‘moon’, while forms meaning both ‘moon’ and ‘month’ include OCS měsęcĭ, R mesjac, Ukr misac, Bulg mesec, SCr mjesec, Cz měsíc, Slovk mesiac, Pol miesiąc, Sorb mjasec. But OCS luna ‘moon’ may be a Lat loan, whereas Slavic *louksnā could mean ‘any light (in the sky)’ (Černyx 1993: 1. 495), cf.

84. The lexicon of Slavic

1575

Pol łuna ‘glint, light’, Cz luna ‘light, glow’, R dial. ‘light (in the sky), glow’, Ukr luna ‘echo’ (< ‘light reflection’). The term for ‘house; household’ is PSl. *domŭ, PIE *dóm(h2)os (Mallory and Adams 1997: 281). External comparanda are L domus ‘house; family’ and Gr dómos ‘house, household, family’. Within Slavic cf. OCS domŭ, R dom ‘house, household’, Pol dom, Cz dům, Bulg dom ‘house; household, family’. But Bulg ‘house’ is usually kăšta, cf. OCS kǫšta, probably related to Bulg kătam, R kutat’ ‘to hide’, or to OCS kǫtŭ, Bulg kăt, R kut ‘angle, corner’; the latter is in turn related to Gr kanthós ‘(corner of the) eye’. Also SCr kuća, Slovn koča, but Slovn hiša ‘house’ (an old Germanic loan < *hūs, cf. R xižina ‘hut’). PSl *moldŭ ‘soft’ and ‘young’, from PIE *melh1- ‘soft’, with extension by a suffix *-d(h)-, is seen in OCS mladŭ ‘soft, new, fresh; young, babyish, childish, juvenile’, R molodoj ‘young’, Ukr molodyj, BelR malady, Bulg mlad, Cz mladý, etc.; cf. OPr maldai ‘young’, L mollis ‘soft’, E melt, G E mild, etc. The semantic shift to ‘young’ is peculiar to Balto-Slavic. The meaning ‘soft’ is still partly maintained in phrases such as OCS iz mladŭ nogtii ‘new, freshly made’ and ‘since earliest age, since childhood’, R ot / s molodyx nogtej ‘since soft nails’ > ‘since early youth’. Cf. R mladenec ‘baby’, OPr maldenikis ‘child’. Nevertheless, the older etymon in this value, PIE *h2i̯ eu- ‘young’ is well preserved: PSl *(j)unŭ ‘young’, OR unŭ / unyi, R junyj, Ukr junyj, BelR juny ‘young’; but in Southern Slavic this item appears mostly with derivative suffixes, cf. Slovn junec ‘young calf’; also in Western Slavic, Pol junak ‘young brave man’. Some additional terms of wide currency within Slavic are the following: PSl *dŭva ‘two’: OСS dŭva, R Ukr Bulg Cz Slovk dva, SCr Slovn dvâ, Pol Sorb dwa; PSl *jĭmę ‘name’: OCS imę, R imja, Ukr im’ja, BelR imja, Bulg ime, SCr imē, Slovn imê, Cz jméno, Slovk meno, Pol imię, Sorb mě, Polab jeima; PSl *voda ‘water’: OCS voda, R Ukr BR Bulg voda, SCr vòda, Slovn vóda, Cz Slovk voda, Pol Sorb woda; PSl *vētrŭ ‘wind’: OСS větrŭ, R veter, Ukr viter, Bulg vetăr, SCr vjetar, Slovn vêter, Cz vítr, Slovk vietor, Pol wiatr, Sorb wjetš; PSl *sēdēti ‘sit’: OCS sěděti, R sidet’, Ukr sydaty, BelR sidzec’, Bulg sedja, SCr dial. sjèditi, Slovn sedéti, Cz seděti, Slovk sediet’, Pol siedzieć, Sorb sejźeś; PSl *stojati ‘stay’: OCS stojati, R stojat’, Ukr stojaty, Bulg stajati, Slovn Cz státi, Slovk stát’, Pol stać, Sorb stojaś; PSl *šiti ‘sew’: R šit’, Ukr šyty, BelR šyc’, Bulg šija, SCr šiti, Slovn Cz Slovk šit’, Pol szyć, Sorb šyś, Polab. sait; PSl *živŭ ‘alive’: OCS živŭ, R živoj, Ukr žyvyj, Bulg Cz Slovk živ, SCr Slov. žîv, Pol żywy, Sorb žywy; PSl *novŭ ‘new’: OCS novŭ, R Ukr novyj, Bulg nov, SCr nôv, Slovn nòv, Cz nový, Pol Sorb nowy.

1.3. Lexical isoglosses with other IE subgroups A huge number of terms are common to Slavic and Baltic, some of which have no direct matches or only remote etymological links with the assumed cognates in other IE

1576

XIII. Slavic

languages. Cf. PSl *rǫka ‘hand’, OCS rǫka and Lith rankà ‘hand’, Latv rùoka, OPr rancko. This term is probably a deverbative from a Balto-Slavic verb similar to Lith riñkti ‘to gather, pick, collect’. R ruka, Bulg răka, Pol ręka, Cz ruka, etc. For more see Dini, this handbook.

1.3.1. Slavic-Germanic lexical isoglosses PSl *voldēti ‘to rule, possess’. Cf. OR voloděti ‘id.’, R vladet’ ‘to possess’, Lith valdýti ‘to rule, possess’, Goth waldan, OE wealdan ‘to rule’ > E wield, from a PIE root *u̯al‘rule, be strong’ (Mallory and Adams 1997: 490) related to L valēre ‘be healthy’, Toch A wäl, B walo ‘king’. Slavic (+ Balt) and German present the same extension in *-d(h)-. PSl *tysętja / *tysǫtja ‘thousand’. Cf. OCS tysęšta; R tysjača; Pol tysjąc, tysiąc; Cz tisíc; SCr tisuća; Slovn tisoč; etc.; Lith tū́kstantis, OIcel þúsund, OHG thūsund, Goth þusundi (þū-) < Gmc *thūs-hundī ← < PIE *tuh2s-k̑m̥to- ‘fat hundred, strong hundred’, cf. G Tausend, E thousand. This term is generally considered to be a Germanic loan in Balto-Slavic. The first part of the compound is from PIE *teuh2- ‘swell, grow fat’, cf. R tučnyj ‘fat, obese’. But Bulg and SCr employ usually xiljada (tisešta is archaic or dialectal). Tocharian has a similar term: A tmaṃ, B tumane ‘ten thousand’. PSl *čĭmeljĭ / *čĭmela ‘bumble-bee’. Cf. OHG humbal, MHG hummen, Swed humla, E hum etc.; R šmel’ ‘bumble-bee’, Lith kimstu ‘become hoarse’, Latv kamines ‘bee, bumble-bee’, OPr camus, Slovn čmelj, Pol czmiel ‘bumble-bee’ < PIE *kem/*kom ‘hum’ (possibly of onomatopoeic origin). Cognate with R komar ‘mosquito’(cf. *komonĭ below, 3). PSl *gre(s)ti < *grebti ‘dig’, PIE *ghrebh- ‘dig’. Cf. R pogrebat’ ‘bury’, grob ‘coffin’ (< ‘grave’); OHG, Goth graban, OE grafan (> E grave), G graben ‘dig’, Grab ‘grave’; Latv grebt, OCS pogresti ‘bury’, SCr grèpsti, Pol grzebać ‘dig, excavate’. Although R gresti, grebu ‘paddle, rake; row’ is sometimes said to be linked to a different, homophonous PIE root *ghrebh- ‘seize forcibly, grasp, take, enclose’ (Mallory and Adams 1997: 159), both can be related via a chain of semantic shifts such as ‘rake together’ > ‘plunder, seize’. Cf. OCS grabiti ‘snatch up’, R grabit’ ‘plunder’, MHG grabben ‘seize’, E (borrowed) grab.

1.3.2. Slavic-Italic lexical isoglosses PSl *gospodĭ / *gospodinŭ ‘master, lord’, from *gostĭpodĭ. Cf. R gospod’ ‘Lord’, gospodin ‘master’; Bulg gospod, gospodin; Cz hospodín; and L hospes, hospitis < PIE *ghostpot- (Trubačev 1974−2013: 7. 60−63). However, this term may be an Iranian loanword, cf. OIran *wispati ‘master of the clan’ < PIE *u̯ik̑potis ‘master of the clan’, cf. Avest vīspaitiš ‘master of the clan’, OInd viśpáti- ‘head of the household’, Lith viẽšpatis ‘master’, with a change of *wis- to *gus-, then to *gas- pronounced *γas-. Russian has a variant without initial [γ] : Ospodi ! ‘My Lord!’ (perhaps from *wispati > *spati > *aspati > *aspadi). A closely related term is R (g)ospodar’, Pol gospodarz ‘prince’, etc., perhaps from OIran *wispuθra- ‘son of the clan or of the king’s family, prince’ > MIran *guspuθra, later *gaspadar in Middle Western Scytho-Sacian (Cornillot 1994:

84. The lexicon of Slavic

1577

85). Otherwise, a Germanic (Scandinavian) influence is not excluded, according to Le Feuvre (2002−2003): ORus (Novgorodian dialect) ospodinŭ ‘master’ may be explained by OSwed husponde < husbonde ‘master of the house’, cf. E husband. PSl *pola voda ‘flood (of a river)’. Cf. R polovod’e or (inverted, rarely) vodopol’e ‘flood’ and L palūs, palūdis ‘marsh, swamp’; (Trubačev 1985: 216). PSl *polŭ ‘open (space)’ related to *polje ‘field’, PIE *pleth2- ‘broad and flat, wide, open, plane’. Cf. L palam ‘openly’, Gr pélagos ‘sea’. Many parallels can be observed between Slavic and Latin in the meanings of prepositions such as L ob, prō / PSl *ob, *pro and in derivational models involving corresponding prefixes L ob-, pro- / PSl *ob-, *pro-, cf. L ob-sidēre ‘sit near, haunt, frequent, besiege’/ob-sīdere ‘blockade, besiege’ (> E obsess, Fr obséder) and R o-saždat’/о-sadit’ ‘besiege’ from < PSl *ob-saditi ‘set about’, L prō-movēre ‘move forward, promote’, R pro-dvigat’ (from dvigat’ ‘move’) in the same sense. Cf. also the L prefix po- (in positus ‘placed, put’) and Slavic po- (cf. R po-stavit’ ‘put, set’ [more in Toporov 1974; Sakhno 2002]). Another matching pair is L com-edere, a “perfective” of edere ‘eat’ (> Sp comer ‘eat’, E comestible) and R sŭ-est’, perfective of est’ ‘eat’ (< PSl *jēdti), the prefixes L com- and R s(ŭ)- (< PSl *sŭn-) having the same basic sense (‘with’). See *obvlako below, 4.

1.3.3. Slavic-Indo-Iranian lexical isoglosses Among many examples two may be cited here: PSl *griva ‘mane (of animals)’. Cf. OInd, Avest grīvā ‘neck’, Latv grīva ‘river mouth’, PIE *gwrihxu̯-eh2 ‘neck’. PSl *črĭnŭ ‘black’. Cf. OCS črĭrnŭ, R čërnyj, OPr kirsnan ‘black’, OInd kṛṣṇá‘black’. PIE *kwr̥ snos ‘black’.

2. Loan-words 2.1. Iranian loans The earliest borrowings were from the North Iranian languages of the Scythian, Sarmatian, and Alanic tribes. It has also been suggested that the Slavs derived their Iranian vocabulary from the Avars whose ruling family is identified as Turkic but, it has been speculated, was primarily composed of Iranian-speakers (Mallory and Adams 1997: 525). Many of the Iranian loans are linked to religious and social concepts. PSl *bogŭ ‘god’. Cf. Avest baga- ‘god’ and bag- ‘apportion; lot, luck, fortune’, OCS bogŭ, R bog (Trubačev 1974−2013: 2. 161), PIE *bhag- ‘divide, distribute; receive, enjoy’, Gr phágein ‘eat’ < *‘enjoy, share’. An important derivative is PSl *bogatŭ ‘rich’ (< ‘well imparted’). The often assumed Slavic descendant from PIE *deiu̯os ‘god’ is *divŭ ‘demon’ (Mallory and Adams 1997: 230), but according to Trubačev (1974−2013: 5. 29, 35) the etymology of *divŭ / *divo ‘miracle’ (hence ‘demon’), related to PSl *divŭ(jĭ) / *dikŭ(jĭ) ‘wild’, is different, and is to be compared with OInd dhī- ‘observe,

1578

XIII. Slavic

contemplate’. Cf. R divo ‘miracle’, divnyj ‘astonishing, wonderful, splendid’, udivljat’sja ‘be surprised, to wonder’, etc. PSl *rajĭ ‘paradise’. Cf. Avest rāy- ‘wealth’. The Slavic borrowing here is analogous to the borrowing of Gr ‘paradise’ from OIran pairidaēza- ‘enclosure, garden’. PSl *svętŭ ‘holy, sacred’. Cf. Avest spənta ‘holy’ < PIE *k̑wen(to)- ‘holy’, originally *‘swollen (with force)’, from *k̑eu(h1)- ‘swell’ (Mallory and Adams 1997: 493); but a PIE origin without Iranian mediation is possible if one brings into the picture Goth hunsl ‘sacrifice’, Toch B känts ‘right, correct, firm’. Attested Slavic forms of this lexical item include OCS svętŭ, svętyi, R svjatoj, Bulg sveti, svet, Cz svatý, and Pol święty ‘holy’, etc. PSl *gospodĭ ‘master, lord’ (unless properly Slavic, see 1.3.2). However, some Iranian terms do not belong to the religious sphere: PSl *sobaka ‘dog’ < MIran sabāka-, cf. Avest spā ‘dog’, spaka- ‘of a dog, doggish’; only R, Ukr sobaka, BelR sabaka (probably an Eastern Slavic loan from Iranian, not known in other Slavic languages, except for Pol dial and Kashub sobaka). According to Trubačev (1960: 29), this term may be a loan from Turkic köbäk ‘dog’. But PSl *suka ‘bitch’ (less likely *sǫka) may go back to PIE *k̑(u)won- ‘dog’ (Mallory and Adams 1997: 168) without Iranian mediation. Note that Slavic developed a specific term for ‘dog’: PSl *pĭsŭ < *‘spotted’, probably related to *pĭstrŭ ‘variegated’, from *pĭsati ‘paint’ and (later) ‘write’ < PIE *peik̑- ‘paint, mark’ (Mallory and Adams 1997: 414), cf. L pingere ‘paint, color’, etc., R pës, Pol pies ‘dog’, etc.

2.2. Celtic loans A few words may have originated in Celtic: PSl *sluga ‘servant’. Cf. OIr slōg, slūag ‘army, host; crowd, company’ < PIE *slougos ‘servant, one performing service’ (Mallory and Adams 1997: 506). The Proto-Slavic form is manifested in R sluga ‘servant’, but Lith slaugà ‘service’ indicates that the borrowing most likely reaches back into the period of Proto-Balto-Slavic, with a semantic shift from a military context to one of service. Mallory and Adams (1997: 285) suggest that Balto-Slavic may have derived the term independently of Celtic, from PIE *sel- ‘move quickly’, cf. OE sellan ‘deliver, sell’ (> E sell), OCS sŭlŭ ‘messenger’, R posol ‘messenger, ambassador’ (for a semantic analogy cf. E. ambassador < Fr < L < Celtic *ambaktos, see jabeda below, 2.3), slat’ ‘send’; however, the morphological complexities required by this assumption make it a far less attractive scenario. PSl *jama / *ama ‘cave’. Cf. OIr huam ‘cavern, specus’ (Trubačev 1974−2013: 1. 70−71); but one may also compare this form to Gr ámē ‘shovel, spade’ (< PIE *sem‘gather’).

2.3. Germanic loans Slavic possesses numerous loans from Germanic, mostly related to everyday life, handcraft, power, etc.:

84. The lexicon of Slavic

1579

PSl *buky ‘writing’, gen. *bukŭve < Goth bōka ‘written document’, cf. R bukva ‘letter’. Gmc *bōks is related to *bōkō ‘beech’ (< PIE *bheh2g̑os ‘beech’, cf. R buzina, buz ‘elder, Sambucus’), cf. G. Buch, Buche, E book, beech. The PSl name of the beech tree, *bukŭ, is also Gmc, cf. R buk ‘beech’. But it has been suggested that Gmc *bōks may be linked to the family of PIE *bhag- ‘allot, deal, distribute’ (Pfeifer 2004: 179), see *bogŭ above in 2.2. PSl *bl’udo ‘dish’ < Goth biuþs, biud- ‘table’, cf. R bljudo ‘dish’. PSl *korl’ĭ ‘king’ < OHG Kar(a)l, name of Charlemagne, R korol’, etc. Surprisingly, this explains the Polish name for ‘rabbit’: królik (whence R krolik, Ukr krilyk), which is a recent folk-etymological calque (‘little king’) after G dial. Küningl and Königshase ‘king-hare’ < MHG küniklīn / künglīn, from L cunīculus ‘rabbit’, due to confusion between küniklīn and MHG künig, MLG Könink ‘king’. PSl *myto ‘tax’ < OHG mûte ‘tax’, OR myto ‘tax’. But G Miete < OHG mieta ‘loan, gift’ is different, related to Gmc *mizdō, Goth mizdō, cf. OCS mĭzda R mzda ‘recompense, reward’. PSl *kusiti ‘try’ < Goth kausjan, E choose, Fr choisir, akin to L gustus ‘taste’. Cf. Ukr kusyty ‘tempt’ Bulg. kusja ‘try (a food)’, Pol kusić ‘tempt’; in modern Slavic languages this form is usually prefixed: R iskušat’ ‘tempt’, iskusstvo ‘art’, vkus ‘taste’ (Trubačev 1974−2013: 13. 135). PSl *kŭnędzĭ < *kŭnęg’ĭ ‘prince’ < Goth kuningaz, cf. R knjaz’ ‘prince’, etc. PSl *pŭlkŭ ‘host’ < Gmc *fulkaz, OHG folk ‘host’, G Volk ‘people, nation’, R polk ‘troop, regiment’, akin to L plēbēs ‘the common people’, Gr plēthús ’throng, crowd, (common) people’, PIE root *pleh1- ‘fill’ (Mallory and Adams 1997: 417). PSl *t’ud’ĭ / *tjudjĭ ‘foreign’; cf. OCS tuždĭ, štuždĭ; OR čudĭ, čužĭ ‘foreign’; R čužoj, čuždyj < Goth þiuda ‘folk’, OHG diot ‘people, heathen’ (> G deutsch, E Dutch). PIE *teuteh2 ‘the people’ (Mallory and Adams 1997: 417). This term bears no relationship to OCS OR R čudo ‘miracle’. PSl *xǫdogŭ ‘wise, skillful’ < Goth handugs ‘handy, dexterous’ (E handy), cf. OCS xǫdožĭnikŭ ‘creator, maker’, xǫdožĭstvo ‘wiseness, sagacity; ruse, perfidy’, R xudožnik ‘artist, painter’. PSl *xlēbŭ ‘bread’ < Goth hlaifs, cf. G Laib, E loaf. Attested Slavic forms include OCS xlěbŭ, R xleb, Ukr xlib, Bulg xljab, etc. But a properly Slavic origin (akin to Germanic) is possible, if PIE *kloibo- ‘a mold of pottery used to bake bread’ > ‘bread baked in a pottery mold’, cf. Gr klíbanos / kríbanos ‘baker’s oven’ (Trubačev 1974− 2013: 8. 27−29). There are debatable cases: PSl *čędo / *čęda / *čędŭ ‘child’, cf. R čado, etc., may be an early Germanic loan (k > č, 1st palatalization), from OHG kind. But a Slavic origin may be admitted (Trubačev 1974−2013: 4. 102−104), from PSl *čęti ‘begin’ < PIE *ken- ‘beginning; end’, cf. R načalo < PSl *na-čęlo < *na-ken-lo, L recēns ‘recent, young’, etc. Germanic also served as an intermediary: some loans from Germanic are actually of Latin, occasionally Greek, origin. PSl *dŭska ‘board’ < OHG tisc (cf. G Tisch ‘table’, E dish) < L discus < Gr dískos, cf. R doska ‘board’. This may explain R stakan ‘(drinking) glass’, from *dŭstŭkanŭ ‘wooden holder (of drink)’. PSl *kupiti ‘buy’ < Goth kaupōn (the Germanic word was itself borrowed from L caupō, caupōnis ‘petty tradesman, huckster, innkeeper’). This word is not to be con-

1580

XIII. Slavic

founded with its PSl homonym *kupiti ‘gather’, from PSl *kupa ‘mound, heap’, cf. R sovokupnyj ‘gathered, summarized’ < PIE *koupo- ‘heap’, cf. OHG houf ‘heap’, E heap. PSl *kotĭlŭ ‘kettle’ < Goth *katils / *katilus, from L catillus ‘kettle’ (Trubačev 1974− 2013: 11. 217−218), R kotël ‘kettle’, etc. PSl *cĭrky / *cĭrĭky ‘church’ < Gmc *kiriko < Gr (do˜ma) kūriakón ‘(house) of the ̄ Lord’. OCS crĭky, R cerkov’ ‘church’, etc. A different but very unconvincing etymology (Gunnarsson 1937): from Romanian beserică, biserică < L basilica < Gr. basileús. According to Le Feuvre (2002−2003), in ORus (Novgorodian dialect) kĭrku, the initial (unpalatalized) k is due to OSwed kirkio / kirko. Some loans are limited to a particular Slavic subgroup. These include especially some North Germanic (Scandinavian) terms borrowed only by Eastern Slavic: OR jabednikŭ ‘official, administrator, judge’ < *ębeda < ON embætti ‘office’, cf. OHG ambahti ‘id.’, G Amt, from Celt *ambaktos ‘highly ranked servant’ (with a different suffix) < *h2entbhi ‘around’ + the participle of the verbal root *h2eg̑- ‘be active’ (Mallory and Adams 1997: 506). With semantic pejoration cf. R Ukr jabeda, jabednik ‘libeller, slanderer; sneak, telltale’ (for a similar debasement, cf. R fiskal ‘sneak’, from Pol fiscał ‘lawyer, procurator’ < L fiscālis ‘fiscal’, cf. Scots E Procurator Fiscal). Many Germanic loans are more recent, as Pol rynek ‘market’, Cz rynk ‘ring, town square’ (whence R rynok ‘market’), from MHG rinc ‘ring, circle, town square’, cf. G Ring, E ring. Inversely (and much earlier), PSl *tŭrgŭ ‘market’ (of unclear etymology), seen in R torg ‘market, bargaining’, Cz trh, etc., was borrowed by Scandinavian, cf. Swed Norw Icel torg, Dan torv ‘market’.

2.4. Loans from non-PIE languages Most of these are from Asian languages (Altaic, Chinese, etc.) PSl *kapĭ ‘appearance, figure, idol’, OCS kapĭ ‘id.’, kapište ‘pagan temple’ < ProtoBulgarian (Turkic) *käp, cf. Uigur kep ‘shape, form, figure, picture’. PSl *kŭniga ‘written document, book’ < OTurkic *küinig < Chinese küen ‘roll, volume’, the same source as for Hung könyv ‘book’. Cf. R kniga ‘book’, etc. Other etymologies have also been suggested for this term, e.g., from Akkadian kunukkum ‘(cylindrical) seal, stamp, document’. Some Slavic terms for ‘horse’ are of Altaic (Turkic, Mongol) origin: cf. OR *loša, R lošad’ (fem.), now the usual word for ‘horse’ (cf. kon’ : ‘charger, steed’, 3), Ukr loša ‘colt’, Pol łoszę ‘id.’, a loan from Turkic (a)laša ‘horse, gelding’. More recent is R Ukr merin (attested since 1500) ‘gelding’, borrowed from Mong mörin, morin (Trubačev 1960: 58) and therefore having no direct link with ON merr ‘mare’. But the Mongol term is probably related to PIE *markos ‘horse’ (Mallory and Adams 1997: 274) seen in Ir marc, Bret marc’h, ON marr ‘horse’, merr ‘mare’, OHG meriha ‘mare’, E mare, etc.; Chinese mǎ, Korean mal (opinion is divided on whether the PIE word is a borrowing from pre-Mongol, which would also be the source of the Chinese word and that in turn the source of the Korean, or the Mongol, Chinese, etc., words are ultimately borrowed from PIE). See other terms for ‘horse’ below, 3.

84. The lexicon of Slavic

1581

3. Specific vocabulary Many Slavic word can be related to PIE terms having a different meaning, although the link is semantically justifiable. PSl *dobrŭ ‘good, kind’ is related to PIE *dhabros ‘craftsman’, L faber, etc., from PIE *dhabh- ‘put together’ (Mallory and Adams 1997: 139). Cf. OCS dobrŭ ‘good, kind, well-famed, beautiful’, R dobryj ‘good, kind’, etc. The meaning in Slavic may be explained as coming from ‘fitting, becoming’, cf. G tapfer ‘bold, solid, brave’, OE gedæfte ‘mild, gentle’ > E daft, from the same PIE root, which also explains PSl *doba ‘time period, season’, cf. Ukr doba ‘time’, Cz ‘time, period, epoch’, Pol ‘period of 24 hours’. For the meaning ‘fitting’ cf. R udobnyj ‘fitting, convenient’, from the same root. Semantically, the latter PSl term is analogous to PSl *godŭ (see next item). PSl *godŭ ‘fitting / convenient / favorable time’, from PIE *ghedh- ‘join, fit together’ (whence E together) (Mallory and Adams 1997: 64). Cf. OCS godŭ ‘appointed time, period; year’, godina ‘hour’, R god ‘year’, pogoda ‘weather’ (< ‘fine, favourable weather’), from which is derived R godnyj ‘fitting’, Pol gody ‘feast’, godzina ‘hour’, Cz hod ‘time; feast’, hodina ‘hour’, Slovk god ‘fitting / favourable time / moment’, related to Lith guõdas ‘honour, respect’, OHG gi-gat ‘fitting’, G gättlich ‘fitting’, Gatte ‘spouse, husband’, gut ‘good’, E good, etc. PSl *starŭ ‘old’ (Slavic has no word derived from PIE *senos, unlike Lith sẽnas ‘old’), hypothetically from PIE *(s)terh1- ‘stiff’ ON starr ‘stiff’, OE starian ‘look at, stare’ > E stare or, more plausibly, from PIE *sth2ei- ‘become hard, fixed’ (an extension of *steh2- ‘stand’) (Černyx 1993: 2. 199; Vasmer 1987: 3. 747), cf. Lith. stóras ‘thick, wide, large’, L stīria ‘icicle’ ON stórr ‘big, strong, important’. Other Slavic words have more questionable Indo-European etymologies. The PSl term for ‘oak’ is *dǫbŭ / *dǫbrŭ, R dub, etc., of unclear etymology, hypothetically from *dheubh- (with inclusion of a nasal infix *n, cf. E dump ‘deep hole in a pond’) ‘deep, hole’ (Mallory and Adams 1997: 154). The sense would originally have been ‘tree growing in a valley, a low / deep place’ (Trubačev 1974−2013: 5. 95−97), cf. OCS dŭno, R dno ‘ground, floor’ < PIE *dubno as well as OCS dŭbrŭ ‘ravine, valley’ and R dubrava ‘oak wood’, R duplo ‘tree hole’, Pol dub, dziub ‘tree hole’. However, other etymologies have been suggested, including *dem-bh-os / *dom-bh-os ‘timber, building wood used to build houses’ or *dheubh- / *dhoubh- ‘dark’ (oak timber / wood becomes dark if it remains in water). If one supposes *dhan-bh-os (Černyx 1993: 1. 272), then a link would be possible between PSl *dǫbŭ and Gmc *danwō, cf. G Tanne ‘pine’ (if so derived). In any event, the Slavic word differs from such Germanic words as ON fura ‘pine’, OHG for(a)ha ‘pine’, E fir, which seem to derive from a dialectal PIE *pr̥ kweh2 cognate with *perkwus ‘oak’. The latter word was not preserved in Slavic, except for the divinity name *Perunŭ ‘thunder god’, from *perkwu-hxn- ‘the oaken one’ (cf. the mythological link between oak and thunder). PSl *konĭ, *komonĭ ‘horse’, R kon’, Ukr kin’ < *komni̯ o-, OR komonĭ < *komon‘hornless one’ (as opposed to cattle); cf. R komolyj ‘hornless’, from PIE *k̑em- / *kem‘hornless’; cf. OInd śáma- ‘id.’, Lith šmùlas ‘id.’, ON hind ‘hind’, OE hind ‘id.’ > E hind, OPr camstian ‘sheep’, camnet ‘horse, hornless’, Lith kumė̑lė ‘mare’, kumelỹs, Latv kumeļš ‘colt’, Gr kemás ’young deer’(Mallory and Adams, 273). Cf. SCr konj ‘horse; castrated horse’, Cz kůň, Pol koń ‘horse’. Trubačev (1960: 51) suggests for *konĭ a derivation from *kopni̯ o- ‘male animal’, from *kap-n- < PIE *kapro- ‘male’, cf. L caper;

1582

XIII. Slavic

but later (1974−2013: 10. 197) he claims that *komonĭ may have a different, onomatopoetic etymology: ‘the neighing one’, cf. ON humre ‘neigh’ < *kom- / *kim-, and PSl *čĭmelĭ ‘hum’ (see above, 1.3.1.). He proposes (1974−2013: 10. 197) that *konĭ is from *konikŭ / *konĭkŭ borrowed from Celt *konko / *kanko ‘horse’ (akin to G Hengst ‘stallion’, etc.). Note that PSl *kobyla ‘mare’, probably related to L (< Celt) caballus, perhaps originated in an Asian language, cf. Turkish käväl(at) ‘swift (horse)’, Persian kaval, or from “Pelasgian” *kabullēs < PIE *ghabheli- < *ghabh(o)lo- ‘fork’, ‘Gabelpferd’, cf. G Gabel ‘fork’ (Trubačev 1960: 52, 1974−2013: 10. 93). PSl *skotŭ ‘livestock’ is specific to Slavic, unlike such Baltic forms as Lith pekus, (PIE peḱu- ‘livestock’) borrowed from some western IE group (Mallory and Adams 1997: 23), and gyvulỹs ‘beast’ < PIE *gwih3-w- ‘live’. It is often considered to be a Germanic loan (Goth skatts ‘wealth, treasure’, G Schatz; ON skatts ‘tribute, treasure’ is a loan from West Germanic), see discussion in Trubačev (1960: 99−105). However, Martynov (apud Trubačev 1960: 101) has etymologized this word as PSl *sŭkotŭ ‘young animals, brood, offspring, progeny’ from *kotiti sę ‘procreate, give birth, drop’.

4. Word Formation Slavic is rich in various compounds and derivatives by prefixation and suffixation. PSl *nevēsta ‘bride’ < *neu̯-u̯edh-t-a, from PIE *neu̯- ‘new’ and *u̯edh- ‘lead’ (Mallory and Adams 1997: 369): ‘the one who has been newly led’, i. e. the newcomer in the husband’s family, R nevesta ‘bride’, etc. Cf. L dūcere uxōrem ‘lead a wife’, E wed, wedding (< *u̯edh-). Different, because of its *d, is PIE *u̯edmo- ‘bride-price’, whence PSl *vēdnom, OCS věno ‘bride-price’ (Mallory and Adams 1997: 82), although the PIE term has often been taken as derived from *u̯edh- ‘lead’, a root frequently used in connection with marriage. But a common PIE form *hxu̯ed- has been suggested by Szemerényi (apud Mallory and Adams 1997: 82). PSl *nevēsta has also been explained as *ne-vēst-a ‘the unknown’ to věstŭ ‘known’. PSl *medvēdĭ ‘bear’ is a bahuvrīhi ‘whose food is honey’ from *medv- ‘honey’ (cf. *medŭ ‘honey’, adj. *medvĭnŭ) and *ēdĭ ‘food’ (from the root *ēd- ‘eat’), hence ‘honeyeater’ (Černyx 1993: 1. 519). OCS medvědĭ, R medved’, Ukr medvid’, vedmid’ (with inversion of members), Cz medvěd, etc. This form, together with its Germanic counterpart G Bär, E bear, originally ‘brown one’, is a tabu substitution for PIE *h2r̥ tk̑os ‘bear’ in an area (Northern Europe) where bears have been hunted since antiquity. PSl *obvolko / *obvolka / *obvolkŭ ‘cloud’ (R oblako [< OCS], BelR voblak Bulg Maced oblak, SCr Slovn voblak) is from *obvelkt’i ‘envelop’ < *ob- ‘about, around’ + *velkt’i ‘pull, draw’ > ‘veil, cover’. The same combination of root and prefix had the meaning ‘garment, clothing’ (the Slavic k precludes any connection to G Wolke, which is rather related to PSl *volga > OCS vlaga ‘moisture’). The Slavic term is semantically analogous to ON Swed sky ‘cloud’ (borrowed as E sky), L ob-scūrus, both presumably from a root *skeu- ‘cover’. For the semantics, cf. also Fr nuage < L nūbes ‘cloud; veil, shroud, covering’ and for the prefix (on which see also 1.3.2 above) cf. L ob-nubilāre ‘cover with clouds’. Other Slavic languages form their word for ‘cloud’ from different etyma: Ukr xmara, Pol Cz Slovk chmura presuppose a *xmur- ‘gloomy’, while Cz Slovk mrak ‘cloud’ is from *morkŭ ‘darkness’, related to G Morgen ‘dawn’ < ‘dusk’.

84. The lexicon of Slavic

1583

An identical notion can be denoted in Slavic languages by derivatives involving a common prefix but different roots. Thus, *otŭ- ‘away’ appears in the following Slavic verbs meaning ‘to answer’ (cf. also E reply, respond, rejoin, all of Latinate origin): OCS otŭvěštati, R otvečat’, root *vět- ‘tell, say (solemnly)’; cf. PIE *u̯ōt- ‘seer, poet’; OCS otŭrěšti, root *rěk- ‘say’ < *‘lead, arrange, indicate’; cf. PIE *rek- ‘speak’; Bulg otgovorjam, Maced odgovori, SC Slovn odgovoriti, root *govor- ‘speak’; BelR adkazvac’, root *kaz- ‘say’ < ‘show, indicate’; Ukr vidpovidati, Pol odpowiedać, Cz odpověděti, from *pověd- ‘tell’, prefix *po- + *věd- ‘know’; cf. PIE *u̯eid- ‘see, know as a fact’.

5. Abbreviations Alb − Albanian, Avest − Avestan, BelR − Belorussian, Bret − Breton, Bulg − Bulgarian, Celt − Celtic. Cz − Czech, Dan − Danish, E − (New) English, Fr − French. G − German, Gmc − Germanic, Goth − Gothic, Gr − Greek, Hung − Hungarian, Ir − Irish, Iran − Iranian, It − Italian, Kashub − Kashubian, L − Latin, Latv − Latvian, Lith − Lithuanian, Maced − Macedonian, MHG − Middle High German, Mong − Mongol, Norw − Norwegian, OCS − Old Church Slavonic, OHG − Old High German, OIcel − Old Icelandic, OInd − Old Indic, ON − Old Norse, OPr − Old Prussian, PIE − Proto-Indo-European, Pol − Polish, Polab − Polabian, PSl − Proto-Slavic, R − Russian, Rom − Romanian, SCr − Serbian-Croatian, Slovk − Slovakian, Slovn − Slovene, Sorb − Sorbian, Sp − Spanish, Swed − Swedish, Toch − Tocharian, Ukr − Ukrainian. In general, O before any of the above designates ‘Old’ and M denotes ‘Middle’. Also, it should be noted that the rubric SCr is employed in its “traditional” value. The items in question are, at least diachronically, inherent to both Serbian and Croatian, as well as to Bosnian and Montenegrin (BCMS).

6. References Avanesov, Ruben Ivanovič (ed.) 1988−1991 Slovar’ drevne-russkogo jazyka XI−XIV vekov [Dictionary of the Old Russian language of the XI−XIV centuries]. Vol. 1−4. Моscow: Nauka. Birnbaum, Henrik 1975 Common Slavic: Progress and problems in its reconstruction. Cambridge, MA: Slavica. Cejtlin, Ralâ Mihajlovna, Radoslav Večerka, and Emilie Bláhová 1994 Staroslavjanskij slovar’ (po rukopisjam X−XI vekov) [Old Slavic dictionary (based on manuscripts of the X−XI centuries)]. Moscow: Russkij Jazyk. Černyx, Pavel Jakovlevic 1993 Istoriko-etymologičeskij slovar’ sovremennogo russkogo jazyka [Historical and etymological dictionary of the modern Russian language]. Vol. 1−2. Moscow: Russkij Jazyk. Cornillot, François 1994 L’aube scythique du monde slave. Slovo 14: 77−259. Derksen, Rick 2008 Etymological Dictionary of the Slavic inherited lexicon. Leiden: Brill. Web database Dictionary of the Slavic inherited lexicon: http://dictionaries.brillonline.com/slavic [Last accessed 28 June 2017].

1584

XIII. Slavic

Feuillet, Jack 1999 Grammaire historique du bulgare (ch. 12: Formation du lexique). Paris: Institut d’études slaves. Gamkrelidze, Tamaz V. and Vyacheslav V. Ivanov 1984 Indoevropejskij jazyk i Indoevropejcy. Vol. 1, 2. Tbilisi: Izdatel’stvo Tbilisskogo Universiteta. [Translated as Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans. A reconstruction and historical analysis of a proto-language and a proto-culture. 2 vols. 1995. Berlin: De Gruyter.] Gippert, Jost 2002 Neues zu ‘Slavisch st aus älterem pt’? In: Peter Anreiter, Peter Ernst, and Isolde Hausner (eds.), Namen, Sprachen und Kulturen. Vienna: Praesens, 239−256. Gunnarsson, Gunnar 1937 Das slavische Wort für Kirche. Uppsala: Almquist & Wiksell. Herman, Louis J. 1975 A Dictionary of Slavic word families. New York: Columbia University Press. Le Feuvre, Claire 2002−2003 Deux exemples d’interférences linguistiques dans les textes novgorodiens anciens: l’église et le maître. Revue des études slaves 74: 431−440. Le Feuvre, Claire 2009 Le vieux slave. Leuven: Peeters. Lehmann, Volkmar 1995 Die Rekonstruktion von Bedeutungsentwicklung und -motiviertheit mit funktionalen Operationen. Slavistische Linguistik 21: 255−289. Mallory, James P. and Douglas Q. Adams 1997 Encyclopaedia of Indo-European culture. London: Fitzroy Dearborn. Meillet, Antoine 1934 Le slave commun. Paris: Champion. Schenker, Alexander 1993 Proto-Slavonic. In: Bernard Comrie and Greville G. Corbett (eds.), The Slavonic languages. London: Routledge, 60−124. Patrick, George Z. 1989 Roots of the Russian language: An Elementary Guide to Wordbuilding. Lincolnwood (Chicago): Passport Books. Pfeifer, Wolfgang 2004 Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Deutschen. 7th edn. Munich: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag. Sakhno, Serguei 2001 Dictionnaire russe-français d’étymologie comparée: Correspondances lexicales historiques. Paris: L’Harmattan. Sakhno, Serguei 2002 Autour des prépositions russes O(B) et PRO: Problème des parallèles lexico-sémantiques slavo − latins. Slavica Occitania 15: 157−178. Toporov, Vladimir N. 1974 Neskol’ko drevnix latinsko-slavjanskix parallelej [Several ancient Latin-Slavic parallels]. In: Oleg N. Trubačev (ed.), Etimologija 1972. Moscow: Nauka, 3−19. Trubačev, Oleg N. 1960 Proisxoždenie nazvanij domašnix životnyx v slavjanskix jazykax [The origin of the names of domestic animals in the Slavic languages]. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR. Trubačev, Oleg N. (ed.) 1974−2013 Ètimologičeskij slovar’ slavjanskix jazykov. Praslavjanskij leksičeskij fond [Etymological dictionary of the slavic languages. The Proto-Slavic lexical stock]. Vol. 1− 39. since 2002 ed. by O. Trubačev and A. Žuravlev. Moscow: Nauka.

85. The dialectology of Slavic

1585

Trubačev, Oleg N. 1985 Linguistics and Ethnogenesis of the Slavs: The Ancient Slavs as Evidenced by Etymology and Onomastics. Journal of Indo-European Studies 13: 203−256. Vaillant André 1974 Grammaire comparée des langues slaves. Vol. 4: La formation des noms. Paris: Klincksieck. Vasmer, Max 1987 Etimologičeskij slovar’ russkogo jazyka [Etymological dictionary of the Russian language]. Vol. 1−4. Moscow: Progress.

Serguei Sakhno, Rueil-Malmaison (France)

85. The dialectology of Slavic 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Introduction Early Proto-Slavic Late Proto-Slavic The dialectal disintegration of Proto-Slavic South Slavic

6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

West Slavic East Slavic Morphology Lexical differences References

1. Introduction All Slavic languages have been derived from their common ancestor, Proto-Slavic. The majority of scholars consider Proto-Slavic to have developed from yet an earlier intermediate proto-language, Proto-Balto-Slavic. This larger entity belonged in turn to the satem group of Indo-European languages. Both Slavic and Baltic harbor some irregular traces of features found in centum dialects, e.g. OCS kamy, Russ. kamenĭ ‘stone’, Lith. akmuõ ‘id.’ : ašmuõ ‘blade’, cf. Gk. ákmōn ‘anvil’, ON hamarr ‘hammer, crag, precipice’ : Skt. áśman- ‘stone’; OCS slušati ‘hear’, Skt. (Vedic) śroṣantu ‘let them hear’ : Lith. klausýti ‘hear’, OIr. -cloathar (subj.) ‘would hear’, Toch. A klyoṣ- ‘heard (3sg.)’, OHG hlosên ‘hear’; OCS svekrŭ ‘father-in-law’, Gk. hékuros, Lat. socer, OHG swêhur : Lith. šẽšuras, Skt. çváçuras, Av. xvasura- ‘id.’, etc. Some irregular correspondences reflect probably dialectal differences within Proto-Balto-Slavic. These are usually neglected in comparative grammars but are presented in etymological dictionaries, e.g. OCS večerŭ ‘evening’ : Lith. vãkaras, Latv. vakars ‘id.’; OCS redŭkŭ ‘seldom’ : Lith. rẽtas ‘id.’; OCS devętĭ, Lith. devynì, Latv. deviņi ‘9’ : Pr. newīnts ‘9 th’, cf. Gk. ennéa, Lat. novem, Skt. náva, Goth. niun ‘9’; OCS domŭ ‘house’ : Lith. nãmas ‘id.’ but dimstis ‘yard, domain’, cf. Skt. dámas, Gk. dómos, Lat. domus ‘house’; OCS dlŭgŭ ‘long’ : Lith. ìlgas, Latv. il˜gs ‘id.’ but Dùlgas, Dulgẽlė (place-names in Lithuania of Yotvingian origin), cf. Hitt. daluga-, Gk. dolikhós, Skt. dīrghás, etc. In the development of Proto-Slavic, there were two stages: Early Proto-Slavic (Germ. Frühurslavisch) and Late Proto-Slavic (Germ. Späturslavisch). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-006

1586

XIII. Slavic

2. Early Proto-Slavic Since for every prehistoric language writings are absent, Proto-Slavic has been reconstructed via the comparative method. Early Proto-Slavic had split off from Proto-BaltoSlavic and initially differed little from the latter. Its main structure was in general the same as that of Proto-Baltic, as reflected best in Lithuanian and to some extent Old Prussian and Latvian. Lithuanian in many cases preserves structures and forms that Proto-Slavic once possessed. Syllables in Early Proto-Slavic possessed consonant clusters inherited from Proto-Indo-European and could be open or closed. There was a phonological opposition of long and short vowels inherited from Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Balto-Slavic. It had a simple tone system, often called pitch accent, as evidenced by paradigmatic stress mobility in East Slavic languages, e.g. nom. : acc. sg. ruká : rúku ‘hand’, golová : gólovu ‘head’, zimá : zímu ‘winter’. Such mobility can be explained only by the former existence of a tonic system of the sort seen also in the corresponding Lithuanian items rankà (< *rañkā´ < *rañ´kā ) : rañką, galvà : gálvą, žiemà : žiẽmą. Cases like Lith. rankà : rañką, Russ. ruká : rúku attest also the Law of Fortunatov/de Saussure. The Lithuanian accent paradigm with fixed high intonation on the first syllable (immobile) finds many correspondences in the East Slavonic languages in words with fixed stress on the first syllable, e.g. Lith. líepa : Russ. lípa ‘lime tree’, Lith. kriáušė : Russ. grúša ‘pear’, Lith. šiáurė : Russ. séver ‘north’, etc.

3. Late Proto-Slavic By this stage of its development, the whole system of Proto-Slavic had undergone extensive modifications. The main accelerant of structural changes was the tendency for increasing sonority within all syllables, which affected both inherited Indo-European vocabulary and loan words. One manifestation of this tendency was the law of open syllables, which caused fundamental changes in the structure of words: 1. All consonant clusters were changed or simplified, e.g. *ss, *zs (> *ss), *ts (> *ss), *ds (> *ts > *ss) > s: aor. *nēssŭ > OCS něsŭ ‘I carried’; *izsouxiti > OCS isušiti ‘dry out’; aor. *čĭtsŭ > *čīsŭ, OCS čisŭ ‘I read’; aor. *vĕdsŭ > *vĕtsŭ > *vēsŭ, OCS věsŭ ‘I led’; *ps > s: *opsa > OCS osa ‘wasp’ : Lith. (dial.) vapsà. 2. The combination of vowel + nasal changed into a nasalized vowel, e.g. *ronka > OCS rǫka ‘hand, arm’ : Lith. rankà, *imti > OCS (vŭz)ęti ‘take’ : Lith. im ˜ ti. 3. The combination of vowel + liquid became syllabic sonorants [r̥ ], [l̥ ], written , , respectively, e.g. *virs- > OCS vrĭxŭ ‘above, up’ : Lith. viršùs, *vilkos > OCS vlĭkŭ ‘wolf’ : Lith. vil˜kas or underwent liquid metathesis to RV; *korvā ‘cow’ > Blg. kráva, S.-Cr. krȁva, Cz. kráva, Slvk. krava, Pol. krowa (on Russ., Ukr. koróva, see 7) : Lith. kárvė; *bolto > OCS blato ‘swamp’ : Lith. báltas ‘white’. 4. Consonants at the end of closed syllables were dropped, e.g. *tos, *tod > OCS tŭ, to ‘that, this’, *stolos > OCS stolŭ ‘table’ : Lith. stãlas, *ognis > OCS ogn̑ĭ ‘fire’ : Lith. ugnìs; *sūnus > OCS synŭ ‘son’ : Lith. sūnùs, etc. In some cases, a change of syllabic boundaries took place or anaptyctic vowels could appear, e.g. Gk. psalmós > OCS pŭsalŭmŭ ‘Psalm’, Gk. Aíguptos > OCS egüpĭtŭ ‘Egypt’, Gk. Paũlos > OCS pavŭlŭ ‘Paul’, etc.

85. The dialectology of Slavic

1587

Fig. 85.1

The new phonemic arrangement of syllables could have the sequence (1) fricative + (2) occlusive(/affricate) + (3) sonorant (nasal, liquid) or v + (4) vowel. (In a reduced variant one or more members of the chain could be absent, e.g. 1 + 4, 2 + 4, 3 + 4, etc.) The previous phonological opposition of long and short vowels was modified into a new qualitative opposition (see Fig. 85.1). The disappearance of the phonological opposition of long and short vowels automatically caused the loss of the relevant pitch accent. The reduced vowels ĭ and ŭ (‘jers’)

1588

XIII. Slavic

could be in a strong or weak position. The strong position of jers was in stressed syllables (e.g. OCS sŭnŭ ‘dream’, tŭ ‘this, that’, dĭnĭ ‘day’, vĭsĭ ‘all’) and in syllables followed by other syllables with jers (e.g. šĭpŭtati ‘to whisper’, kŭ mŭně, Russ. ko mne ‘to me’). The weak position of jers was in unstressed endings and in unstressed syllables before normal vowels, e.g. OCS synŭ ‘son’, dĭnĭ ‘day’; dŭva ‘two’; sŭborŭ ‘council’, dĭni ‘days’. Later on in Slavic dialects, all jers in weak position disappeared and in strong position changed into normal vowels. The modification of the vowel system took place separately in early Slavic dialects that later gave rise to modern Slavic languages. The system of consonants was immensely modified after palatalizations of velars. There were three Slavic palatalizations − two regressive before the front vowels i and e and one progressive that took place after these vowels. After the first Slavic palatalization k’ > č’, g’ > ž’, x’ > š’, e.g. OCS živŭ ‘alive, lively’ : Lith. gývas, Skt. jīvás, Lat. vīvus; OCS četyre (m.), četyri (f.) ‘four’ : Lith. keturì, OIr. ceth(a)ir; OCS tixŭ ‘still’, tišina ‘stillness’. This process took place prior to the monophthongization of diphthongs. The appearance of new front monophthongs from former diphthongs gave rise to the second palatalization: k’ > c’, g’ > dz’ > z’, x’ > s’, e. g. OCS cěna ‘price, value’ : Lith. káina, Gk. poinḗ ‘price, penalty’, Av. kaēnā- ‘punishment’, Ir. cin ‘guilt, debt’; OCS vlĭkŭ ‘wolf’ (: Lith. vil˜kas), nom. pl. vlĭci (: Lith. vilkaĩ); OCS dzělo ‘very, much’ : Lith. gailùs ‘sharp, harsh, revengeful’, Goth. gailjan ‘make glad, happy’; OCS f. naga ‘nude’, dat. sg. nadzě : Lith. núogai ; OCS suxŭ ‘dry’ (: Lith. saũsas), dat., loc. sg. susě (: Lith. sausaĩ), suša (< *suxii̯ a) ‘land’. The third palatalization had the same results but took place only after the vowels ĭ, i, and ę. The appearance of open syllables exercised a profound influence upon the whole morphological system of Proto-Slavic, causing the deletion of all final consonants, reduction of vowels in endings, and the appearance there of the reduced jer vowels (ŭ and ĭ). As a result, the differences between many forms in distinct paradigms of nouns and verbs were lost, many endings coming to coincide with each other and thereby causing a mixture and simplification of paradigms. In the system of declension, e.g., nom. and acc. sg. of *o- and *u- stems as well as of *i̯ o- and *i- stems became identical, cf. nom. and acc. sg. (*o-stems) OCS vlĭkŭ ‘wolf’ (: Lith. vil˜kas [nom.], vil˜ką [acc.] < *-os, *-om) and (*u-stems) OCS synŭ ‘son’ (: Lith. sūnùs [nom.], sū́nų [acc.] < *-us, *-um); and nom. and acc. sg. (*i̯ o-stems) OCS nožĭ ‘knife’ (cf. Lith. kẽlias [nom.], kẽlią [acc.] < *-i̯ os, *-i̯ om, ‘road’) and (*i-stems) OCS noštĭ ‘night’ (: Lith. naktìs [nom.], nãktį [acc.] < *-is, *-im,), etc. In spite of the loss of IE verbal endings in Late Proto-Slavic, its complicated temporal system continued to exist.

4. The dialectal disintegration of Proto-Slavic The 7 th century marks the beginning of the gradual breakup of Proto-Slavic, leading to the appearance of huge dialectal zones. These at first presented a common dialectal continuity until it was broken by the movement of Hungarians into Pannonia in the 10 th century. As a result, West Slavs were separated from South Slavs rendering direct contact between them impossible. The break-up of the Slavic dialectal continuity produced three dialectal groups: East Slavic, West Slavic, and South Slavic, which were, however, connected by numerous common isoglosses, many of which are still preserved in modern

85. The dialectology of Slavic

1589

Slavic languages and their dialects. It is supposed that South Slavs came to the Balkans in two streams and that between them there was a large non-Slavic population of Vlachs. Although East and South Slavic have been separated by vast territories for many centuries, they share slightly more isoglosses in common than they do with West Slavic. We regard only the main dialectal features that are common to all groups of Slavic languages. For the appearance of the three Slavic dialect groups, the most important developments were the following modifications of the Common Slavic language system. The jer vowels ĭ and ŭ in strong position changed into different vowels. The nasal vowels ǫ and ę underwent variant developments, as did ě and y, jery, and the vowels ĭ and ŭ in weak position disappeared. In separate South and West Slavic dialects new oppositions of long and short vowels appeared, as did changes in the place of stress as well as the development of pitch accent. For the consonant system the most important changes were: modification of oppositions of hard and soft consonants; changes of rĭ [r̥ ], lĭ [l̥ ]; of clusters *kv-, *gv-; *tj, *kt’, *gt’, and *dj; *(T)orT, *(T)olT, and *(T)erT, *(T)elT (T = any obstruent); and labial consonant + [j].

5. South Slavic It is supposed that Slavs migrated to the South of Europe in two waves which took place at different times and via different routes. As a result, Slavs came to inhabit almost the entire Balkan region as well as some adjacent territories. Earlier these territories had been occupied by various tribes who spoke different languages. Their assimilation exercised a significant influence upon the ethnogenesis of the South Slavs and the formation of ancient dialects. These facts explain why the South Slavs had been split into two groups − Eastern and Western. The latter group gave rise to Slovenian, Serbian, and Croatian and the former to Bulgarian and Macedonian. Serbian and Croatian were further subdivided into three dialect groups: Štokavian, Čakavian, and Kajkavian based on the form of the interrogative pronoun ‘what?’, which is pronounced što in the first, ča in the second and kaj in the third group. In historical times the South Slavs were subjugated by different conquerors, and their states were split. Slovenian, Croatian, and parts of Serbian lands were for a long time incorporated into Austria, Hungary, and their common state Austro-Hungary, whereas Serbia, Bulgaria, and Macedonia became part of the Ottoman Empire. These historical events, with the attendant linguistic contacts which they produced, have influenced all South Slavic dialects. We first examine the features that were inherited from the time of the split of Proto-Slavic and are common to all South Slavic dialects.

5.1. Stress and vowels The development of the vowel systems in eastern and western areas of South Slavic was different. In Bulgarian and Macedonian the vowel system lacks an opposition of short and long vowels. In Eastern Bulgarian dialects (the basis of the literary language), there are six vowel phonemes (i, u, ŭ, e, o, a). Western Bulgarian and its neighbor Macedonian have a five-vowel system, lacking ŭ. (The Bulgarian vowel transcribed ŭ in this article

1590

XIII. Slavic

is the historical back jer ŭ; however, in modern synchronic treatments of Bulgarian it is usually transliterated as ă, better reflecting its pronunciation in the modern language.) In addition, eastern and western dialects differ principally in two aspects. First, in the former the accent is free and vowels are reduced in unstressed position. In the latter, the stress in words of three or more syllables is fixed on the third syllable from the end and in words of two syllables it is fixed on the first syllable, and unstressed syllables do not show vowel reduction. In Eastern Bulgarian dialects these restrictions on the position of the accent do not apply, and the place of stress is phonologically relevant: Bulg. vŭ̀ lna ‘wool’ : vŭlnà ‘wave’, pàrа ‘vapor’ : pаrà ‘coin’, ìmа ‘has’ : (аоr.) imà ‘had’. A new phonological opposition of long and short vowels has developed in western areas of South Slavic. Besides that, in Slovenian there is in addition an opposition of long close ó, é and open ȏ, ȇ that is also relevant for lexical and grammatical differentiation (Slvn. kùp ‘haystack, crowd’ : kúp ‘buy’; bràt ‘brother’ : brát ‘to read’; vèč ‘more’ : g. pl. véč [< véčа] ‘assembly, gathering’; péti ‘to sing’ : dat.-loc. sg. pȇti [< pȇtа ‘heel’]; téle ‘these’ : tȇle ‘calf’; 3. sg. vódi : 2. sg. imper. vȏdi [< voditi] ‘conduct’; vòd ‘wire’ : g. pl. vȏd [< vȏdа] ‘water’). The accent in Slovenian is free and mobile and can be dynamic or tonal. Most of the tonal dialects have the following intonations: (1) an irrelevant short (marked with the grave `): bòb ‘bean’, ràk ‘cancer’; (1a) short and rising ( `) and (1b) short and falling (marked with the double grave ˋˋ): brȁt ‘brother’, krȕh ‘round’, sȉr ‘cheese’. (2) long and falling (marked with the inverted breve ̑ or the circumflex ͡ ; close o and e have a dot below): dȃn ‘day’, dȗh ‘spirit, breath’, sȋn ‘son’ and (3) long and rising (marked with the acute ´): žéna ‘wife’, člóvek ‘man, human being’, zíma ‘winter’. The intonations are phonologically relevant: gràd ‘hail’ : grȃd ‘castle’ (: g. sg. gráda), pót ‘way, road’ : pȏt ‘sweat’; g. sg. goré : nom. pl. gorȇ (< góra) ‘hill’; 2. pl. ind. kosíte ‘you eat’ : 2. pl. imper. kosȋte, etc. The place of stress in many instances has been changed. In some circumstances it could be retracted onto the previous syllable (similar to Serbian and Croatian): Slvn. (tonic stress) róka / (dynamic stress) rȏka : Srb.Cr. rúka : Russ. ruká ‘hand, arm’; Slvn. gláva : Srb.-Cr. gláva : Russ. golová ‘head’; Slvn. žéna / žȇna : Srb.-Cr. žéna : Russ. žená ‘wife’. In other instances it was shifted onto the following syllable: Slvn. nebȏ / nebó : Srb.-Cr. nȅbo : Russ. nébo ‘sky’; Slvn. zlatȏ / zlató : Srb.-Cr. zlȃto : Russ. zóloto ‘gold’; Slvn. srcȇ / srcé : Srb.-Cr. sȑce : Russ. sérdce ‘heart’. In some forms of paradigms, the shift can be absent: g. sg. Slvn. žené − Russ. žеný : Srb.-Cr. žènē; loc. sg. Slvn. sŕcu − Srb.-Cr. sȑcu, Russ. sérdce. Short vowels in syllables with retracted stress could become long: Slvn. ókno / ȏkno : Srb.-Cr. òkno : Russ. оknó ‘window’; Slvn. vóda / vȏda : Srb.-Cr. vòda : Russ. vodá ‘water’, but Slvn. gràd : Srb.-Cr. grȁd : Russ. grad ‘hail’; Slvn. lùk : Srb.-Cr. lȕk : Russ. luk ‘onion’, etc. In Serbian and Croatian, pretonic vowels are usually short, and reduction of unstressed vowels is absent. The stressed syllabic r̥ also has an intonation. As in Slovenian, four intonations are marked: 1. 2. 3. 4.

short falling: Srb.-Cr. pȁs ‘dog’, lȉpa ‘lime tree’; short rising: žèna, ìgra ‘play’; long falling: dȃn ‘day’, mȇd ‘honey’; long rising: rúka, gláva.

The intonations are also phonologically relevant: Srb.-Cr. grȁd ‘hail’ : grȃd ‘castle’, pȁs ‘dog’ : pȃs ‘belt’, lȕk ‘onion’ : lȗk ‘bow’; Srb.-Cr. mláda : Russ. molodá ‘young’ [pred. adj.], Srb.-Cr. f. mlȃdā : Russ. molodája [attrib. adj.] f. Accent in Serbian and Croatian

85. The dialectology of Slavic

1591

is free and mobile, but there are some restrictions on its place and usage of intonations. As a rule, a final syllable is unstressed. Monosyllabic words have only one of two falling intonations: Srb.-Cr. grȁd ‘hail’, grȃd ‘castle’, lȕk ‘onion’, lȗk ‘bow’, pȁs ‘dog’, dȃn ‘day’. In disyllabic and polysyllabic words intonation of the first syllable can vary: Srb.Cr. zlȃto ‘gold’, vȏjna ‘war’, acc. sg. glȃvu ‘head’ : gláva ‘head’, rúka ‘hand’, ȉstina ‘truth’, 1. pl. pȋšemo ‘we write’, nòsiti ‘carry’, písati ‘write’. In words having more than two syllables, accented internal syllables can have only one of two rising intonations: dovèsti ‘carry’, nogári ‘easel’. The place of intonation has often been changed. In most cases it has been retracted onto the previous syllable: Srb.-Cr. rúka, Slvn. róka : Russ. ruká; Srb.-Cr. gláva, Slvn. gláva : Russ. golová; Srb.-Cr. žèna, Slvn. žéna : Russ. žená ‘woman’; Srb.-Cr. vòda, Slvn. vóda : Russ. vodá ‘water’. We must pay attention to the fact that the appearance of the new opposition of long and short vowels has developed independently not only in West Slavic and South Slavic, but also in various South Slavic dialects, cf. Slvn., Srb.-Cr. grȃd : Cz. hrad : Pol. gród, LSorb. hród, ‘castle’; Slovn., Srb.-Cr. mláda (mlȃd) : Cz. mladá ‘young’; Slvn. lȏk, Srb.-Cr. lȗk : Cz. luk ‘bow’; Slvn. ókno / ȏkno : Srb.-Cr. òknо ‘window’; Slvn. zlatȏ / zlató : Srb.-Cr. zlȃto ‘gold’; Slvn. nebȏ / nebó : Srb.-Cr. nȅbo ‘sky’. The jers in a strong position have often merged in South Slavic. In Slovenian ĭ and ŭ become ə/e [ə] and in some cases a (ĭ : Slvn. pɘ̀s / pès ‘dog’, vès ‘village’, but dȃn / dán ‘day’; ŭ: sɘ̀n (sàn) / sèn ‘dream’, lèž ‘lie’, but mȃh / máh ‘moss’). The latter development was usual for Serbian and Croatian (Srb.-Cr. pȁs ‘dog’, òvas ‘oat’; sȁn, lȃž). The vowel ĭ becomes e and in some cases ŭ (ă) in some western dialects of Bulgarian, e in Macedonian (Bulg. pŭs / pes, Macd. pes, den; Bulg. tŭ̀ men − Macd. temen ‘dark’. The vowel ŭ remains as such orthographically in Bulgarian and becomes o in Macedonian (Bulg. sŭn − Macd. son ‘sleep’, Bulg. mŭ̀ x − Macd. mov ‘moss’). In Slovenian the difference between e and ě has been lost and a new long ē has appeared from both vowels (e: rébro / rȇbro ‘rib’, mȇd ‘honey’; ē: réka ‘river’, lȇs ‘wood’). The same is true of Macedonian, where, however, only short e is possible (Macd. med, reka). In Bulgarian this process involved some peculiarities. ě becomes e, merging with the latter, when stressed before a soft consonant or in unstressed position (OBulg. běl- ‘white’ > Bulg. bèlene ‘whitening’, rekà ‘river’ beside med ‘honey’, vèčer ‘evening’, both with original e). However, stressed ě becomes ja if it was followed by a hard consonant (Bulg. bjal, djado ‘grandfather’). The development of e and ě was very complicated in Serbian and Croatian. In particular instances e could become long (Srb.-Cr. mȇd but g. sg. mȅda, Srb.-Cr. jéla ‘fir’ but ChSl. jela, cf. Latv. egle, Lith. ẽglė; Srb-Cr. jȇž ‘hedgehog’, g. sg. jéža, but ChSl. ježĭ, cf. Lith. ežỹs). The vowel ě underwent various changes which have become very important for the classification of Serbian and Croatian dialects, splitting them into three groups: Ekavian (ě > e), Ikavian (ě > i ), and Ijekavian (ě > ije / je): Srb.-Cr. delo, dilo, djelo ‘work’; telo, tilo and tijelo ‘body’. Literary Croatian is based on the Ijekavian norms, whereas literary Serbian allows Ekavian and Ijekavian ones. The nasalized ę has undergone denasalization to e in Slovenian, Serbian, and Croatian (Slvn. svȇt / svét ‘holy’, Srb.-Cr. svȇt; Slvn. desȇt / desét, Srb.-Cr. dȅset ‘ten’). The nasalized ǫ has undergone a parallel denasalization to o in Slovenian and to u in Serbian and Croatian (Slvn. mȏž / móž − Srb.-Cr. mȗž ‘husband’; Slvn. róka / rȏka − Srb.-Cr. rúka ‘hand, arm’). The development of the nasalized vowels in the Eastern dialects of South Slavic was complicated. In Macedonian ę becomes e and (in rare cases) а (Macd.

1592

XIII. Slavic

svet, deset, but jazik ‘tongue’). Nasalized ǫ becomes a and (as in Serbian and Croatian, but in rare cases) u (Macd. maž, raka, kuḱa ‘house’. In Middle Bulgarian ǫ and ę have merged to ǫ, which becomes ŭ (ă), falling together with the old ŭ. In some Bulgarian dialects ę becomes е, resulting in ŭ / e variation: Bulg. žŭ̀ tva and žètva ‘reaping’, ezìk, svet / svjat, dècet.

5.2. Consonants and clusters In general the Proto-Slavic system of consonants does not undergo much modification in South Slavic. All dialects have maintained the former opposition of voiceless and voiced consonants. Voiced consonants usually become voiceless before voiceless consonants and in final position; and vice versa, voiceless consonants become voiced before voiced consonants. Similar phenomena are seen in Serbian and Croatian dialects: Srb.Cr. bȇg / bijȇg ‘flight’ but bèkstvo / bjèkstvo ‘running’; Srb.-Cr. rédak / rijédak ‘seldom, fluid’ but rétkost / rijétkost ‘rarity’; Srb.-Cr. svȁt ‘marriage broker’ but svȁdba ‘marriage’. However, as is the case in Ukrainian, voiced consonants have not undergone devoicing in final position, and therefore stand in phonological opposition to corresponding voiceless consonants: Srb.-Cr. rȃd ‘work, labour’ : rȁt ‘war’, sȃd ‘planting, implantation’ / sȁd(а) ‘now’ : sȁt ‘clock, hours’. The opposition of hard and soft consonants is manifested strongly in Bulgarian, where it is reflected by 16 pairs before non-front vowels: b − b’‚ p − p’ ‚ v − v’‚ f − f’‚ d − d’‚ t − t’‚ z − z’, s − s’‚ c − c’, g − g’, k − k’‚ h − h’‚ m − m’‚ n − n’‚ l − l’, r − r’. In other South Slavic areas this opposition has been severely reduced or even lost. In Bulgarian, soft consonants in final position have been depalatalized: bojàzŭn ‘fear’, zvjar ‘animal, beast’, vòpŭl ‘cry’, pet ‘five’, kon ‘horse’. In other South Slavic areas in final position, one finds n’ (< *nj) and less frequently l’ (< *lj): Slvn. kònj, Srb.-Cr. kȍnj, Macd. konj ‘horse’; Srb.-Cr. vȍnj, ‘smell’; Slvn. prijátelj : Bulg. prijàtel, Srb.-Cr. prȉjatel ‘friend’; Srb.-Cr. gòmolj ‘bulb’. Before consonants and in final position, l becomes [u̯] in Slovenian and o in Serbian and Croatian: Slvn. délal [-u̯] sem ‘I made’, ozŕl [-u̯] sem se ‘I looked around’, vól[-u̯]k ‘wolf; Srb.-Cr. m. nòsio ‘carried’ but f. nòsila; m. spásio ‘saved’ but f. spásila; Bèograd ‘Belgrade’ but Srb. bȇli grȃd / Cr. bijȇli grȃd ‘white city or town’. The exclusive South Slavic isoglosses were changes of *(T)orT and *(T)olT (T = any obstruent) to (T)rаT/(T)laT, contrasting with the outcomes of these sequences in most other Slavic dialects (a notable exception is Czech, where the innovation is likely to be independent). In this regard, as generally in others, OCS shows South Slavic features: Slvn. grȃd / grád, Srb.-Cr. grȃd, OCS gradŭ ‘town’ : Cz. hrad : Pol. gród (< *grod) ‘town, castle’ : Russ. gorod ‘town’; Slvn. bráda, Srb.-Cr. bráda, Bulg. bradà, Macd. brada, OCS brada : Cz. brada : Pol. broda : Russ. borodá ‘beard’; Slvn. glȃs / glás, Srb.-Cr. glȃs, Bulg., Macd. glas, OCS glasŭ : Cz. hlas : Pol. głos : Russ. gólos ‘voice’. For raT-, laT- cf. Slvn. rabȏta / rabóta, Srb.-Cr. ràbota ‘work’ : German Arbeit ‘id.’; Slvn. rаtȃj / ratáj, Srb.-Cr. rȁtār ‘ploughman’, Bulg. ràtaj ‘field-hand’, Macd. orač : Lith. artójas ‘ploughman’; Slvn. ládjа, Srb.-Cr. lȃđa, Bulg. làdija, Macd. laǵa ‘boat’ : Lith. (dial.) aldijà ‘id.’. The Proto-Slavic clusters *(T)erT and *(T)elT changed in South Slavic to (T)reT, (T)lеT, respectively, here in part agreeing with their outcomes in West

85. The dialectology of Slavic

1593

Slavic but differing from those of East Slavic: Slvn. brȇg / brég, Srb. brȇg / Cr. brijȇg, Bulg. bregŭ̀ t, Macd. breg, OCS brěgŭ : Cz. břeh, Pol. brzeg, USorb. brjóh : Russ. béreg ‘shore’; Slvn. bréza, Srb.-Cr. brȅza, Bulg. brezà, Macd. breza : Cz. bříza, Pol. brzoza : Russ. berjoza ‘birch’ : Lith. béržas ‘id.’; Slvn. mléko, Srb. mléko / Cr. mlijèko, Macd. mleko, Bulg. mljàko (but mlèkomer ‘lactometer’), OCS mlěko : Cz. mléko, Pol. mleko : Russ. molokó ‘milk’ : Lith. mélžti ‘to milk’; Slvn. pljéva, Srb. plȅva / Cr. pljȅva, Macd. pleva, Bulg. pljàva (but plevrìt ‘pleurisy’), OCS plěva : Cz. pleva / plíva, Pol. plewa : Russ. polová ‘chaff’ : OPruss. pelwo ‘id.’. A commonly shared isogloss of South and East Slavic is the modification of the clusters *kv-, *gv- to cv-, zv- (Slvn. cvȇt / cvét, Srb-Cr. cvȉjet, Bulg. cvjat, Macd. cvet : Russ. cvet : Pol. kwiat ‘flower’; Slvn. zvézda, Srb.- Cr. zvijèzda, Bulg. zvezdà, Macd. dzvezda : Russ. zvezdá : Pol. gwiazda ‘star’) and *dl‚ *tl to l (Slvn. jélka, Srb.-Cr. jéla, Bulg. elà, Macd. ela : Russ. elĭ : Cz. jedle ‘fir’; Slvn. plèl, Srb.-Cr. f. plȅla, Bulg. plel, Macd. plel : Russ. plel ‘knitted’ : OCS pletǫ ‘I knit’). Palatalized labial consonants in non-initial syllables develop a following epenthetic l’, as in East Slavic, whereas in West Slavic this change was absent; (later l’ > j in Bulgarian and Macedonian): Slvn. zémlja / zȇmlja, Srb.-Cr. zèmlja, OCS zemlja, Bulg., Macd. zemja : Russ. zemljá : Cz. země, Pol. ziemia ‘earth, ground’; Slvn. káplja, Srb.-Cr. kȁplja, OCS kaplja : Russ. káplja : Cz. kápě, Pol. kapia ‘drop’; Slvn. grȃblje / gráblje, Srb.-Cr. grȁblje : Russ. grábli : Cz. hrábě, Pol. grabie ‘rake’. The Proto-Slavic syllabic *rĭ [r̥ ] has been maintained in Serbian, Croatian, and Macedonian, whereas in Slovenian and Bulgarian it has been changed into sequences consisting of either a preceding (Slvn.) or a following (Bulg.) vocal (Srb.-Cr. gȓd, Macd. grd : Slvn. gȓd / gŕd [gərd], Bulg. (dial) grŭ̀ d (gord is from Russian) : OCS grŭdŭ ‘proud’; Srb.-Cr. vȓh, Macd. vrv : Slvn. vȓh / vŕh [vərh], Bulg. vrŭ̀ x : OCS vrĭxŭ ‘summit’. The Proto-Slavic syllabic *lĭ [l̥ ] has been subject to prevocalization with o or u: Slvn. (l̥ > [ou̯]) vȏlk / vólk, Srb.-Cr. vȗk, Bulg. vŭlk, Macd. volk : OCS vlĭkŭ ‘wolf’; Slvn. pȏln / póln, Srb.-Cr. pȕn, Bulg. pŭ̀ len, Macd. poln : OCS plĭnŭ ‘full’). The clusters *tj, *kt’, *gt’ on the one hand and *dj on the other underwent different changes: in Slovenian they yielded č and j, in Serbian and Croatian ć and đ, in Bulgarian št and žd, and in Macedonian ḱ and ǵ, respectively (Slvn. svéča, Srb. svéća / Cr. svijèća, Bulg. svešt, Macd. sveḱa ‘candle’ : cf. Vedic śvetyá- ‘white’; Slvn. nȏč / nóč, Srb.-Cr. nȏć, Bulg. nošt, Macd. noḱ ‘night’, cf. Lith. naktìs; Slvn. mȇja / méja, Srb-Cr. mèđa, Bulg. meždà, Macd. meǵa ‘border’, cf. Lat. medius ‘middle’).

6. West Slavic The classification of the historical dialects of West Slavic is somewhat problematic. They are traditionally divided into three large groups: Lechitic, Sorbian (Upper and Lower), and Czech together with Slovak. Lechitic consists of Polish, Pomeranian (Kashubian and Slovincian) and Polabian. Slovincian and Polabian are extinct and not well known. The status of Kashubian is disputable. Lower Sorbian is a dying language, and Upper Sorbian is spoken only in a small area of Saxony near Bautzen.

1594

XIII. Slavic

6.1. Stress and vowels In West-Slavic the old mobile stress was lost and became fixed, but its fixation developed differently depending on dialect. In Czech, Slovak, and Sorbian, the stress was fixed on the first syllable, whereas in Polish it was fixed mainly on the penultimate syllable. Common to West Slavic was the appearance of a new opposition of short and long vowels, lost in Polish and Sorbian dialects (with some traces of former long vowels still observable). In Czech and Slovak the quantitative opposition of vowels is phonologically distinct (except in some E. Slovak dialects under the influence of Polish and Ukrainian dialects): Cz. žila ‘she lived’ − žíla ‘vein’, nesu ‘I carry’ − inf. nést, drahá ‘dear’ − dráha ‘road’; Slvk. sud ‘barrel’ − súd ‘trial‘, delo ‘cannon’ − dielo ‘affair, work’, dom ‘house‘ − dóm ‘Cathedral‘. In Czech and Polish ĭ and ŭ become e (but consonants before the old ĭ are soft in Polish): Cz. den, Pol. dzień ‘day’, Cz. pes, Pol. pies ‘dog’, but Cz., Pol. mech ‘moss’, Cz., Pol. sen ‘dream’. In Slovak ĭ becomes e, ’a, o (deň, l’ahký ‘light’, orol ‘eagle’ : OCS dĭnĭ, lĭgŭkŭ, orĭlŭ); ŭ becomes e, o, a (sen, zámok ‘castle’, mach). In Sorbian the jers have merged and changed into e, o, or were lost (USorb. dźeń, LSorb. źeń; USorb. worjoł, LSorb. jer’eł ‘eagle’; USorb. rožka − LSorb. rež ‘rye’ : ORuss. rŭžĭ; USorb. wótc − LSorb. wóśc ‘father’ : OCS otĭcĭ). In Polish e before consonants (t, d, s, z, n, r, v, ł) becomes ’о (> ’ó) and ě yields ’а: (siostra ‘sister’ miód ‘honey’, wiatr ‘wind’ : OCS sestra, medŭ, větrŭ, respectively); in other cases е and ě merge to (’)е (niebo ‘sky’, chleb ‘bread’ : OCS nebo, xlěbŭ, respectively). In Czech and Slovak е remains as such (Cz. nebe, Slvk. nebo ‘sky’; Cz. řebro, Slvk. rebro ‘rib’ : OCS rebro); In Czech ě becomes í in a new long syllable (dílo ‘case’, víra ‘faith’ : OCS dělo, věra, respectively), e/ě/é in a new short syllable (les ‘forest’, měřit ‘measure’, témě ‘bregma’ : OCS lěsŭ, měriti, ORuss. těmja, respectively); in Slovak ě becomes ie / ia in a new long syllable or е in a new short syllable (Slvk. viera ‘faith’, biely : Cz. bílý ‘white’ : OCS bělŭ, lěsŭ ‘forest’). In Sorbian dialects the changes of e and ě fluctuate between those seen in Polish and Czech. The former quantitative opposition of e : ē has been transformed into the qualitative opposition of е (open): ě (close) (USorb. lesny ‘nice’ : lěsny ‘forest’, jednica ‘unit’ : jědnica ‘throat’). Slavic ǫ and ę in Old Polish dialects merged to ą, and later in historically new short syllables (usually open) ą becomes ę, whereas in historically new long syllables (usually closed) ą remained without changes. This is reflected in alternations such as dąb ‘oak’ − pl. dęby : OCS dǫbije ‘trees’; ząb ‘tooth’ − pl. zęby : OCS zǫbŭ ‘id.’. In Czech and Slovak in a new short syllable and in Sorbian generally, ǫ becomes u (Cz., Slvk., USorb., LSorb. dub ‘oak’, ruka ‘hand, arm’); in a new long syllable ǫ becomes ou in Czech and ú in Slovak (Cz. mouka, Slvk. múka : OCS mǫka ‘flour’; Cz. louka, Slvk. lúka ‘meadow’ : OCS lǫgŭ ‘grove’ − Cf. Lith. lankà ‘water-meadow’. For the voicing alternation between the Lith. and OCS forms, cf. OCS redŭkŭ ‘seldom’ : Lith. rẽtas ‘id.’ [1. above]. In the current instance it is found even within Slavic itself.). The nasal ę becomes Czech e, í, á, and a depending upon the syllabic quantity and quality of the following consonants (devět ‘nine’ [ě here is a representation of e with a preceding palatalized v’ ]/ devíti / devátý ‘ninth’/devadesát ‘ninety’: OCS devętĭ ‘nine’); in Slovak ę becomes ä (Slvk. mäso ‘meat’, svätý ‘holy’ : OCS męso, svętŭ, respectively), in Sorbian (’)a, (’)е /ě (USorb. swjaty − LSorb. swěty ‘holy’, USorb. dźesać − LSorb. źaseś : OCS desętĭ ‘ten’). In the older stages of West Slavic dialects, o could become long in a new closed syllable and later be changed into ū (Czech , Slovak [uo]). This change shows some peculiarities depending on dialect. In Polish

85. The dialectology of Slavic

1595

and Sorbian the length of such a vowel was later lost, and as a rule it often alternates with o in an open syllable: Cz. stůl − (g. sg.) stolu ‘table’, Slvk. stôl − stolu, Pol. stół − stołu : USorb., LSorb. stoł − stola; Pol. dwór ‘yard’ − dworu, Cz. dvůr − dvora, USorb., LSorb. dwór − dwora, Slvk. dvor − dvora). A new feature in West Slavic dialects was the appearance of new diphthongs ou, au, and eu in Czech and ô [uo], ie, ia, and iu in Slovak. A peculiarity of West Slovak dialects that is present in the literary language is the law of three moras. In a sequence of two long syllables, the second syllable loses one mora and becomes short: Cz. krásný ‘beautiful’, chválíš ‘you praise’ : Slvk. krásny (but pekný ‘baked’), chváliš (but vidíš ‘you see’).

6.2. Consonants and clusters Opposition of soft and hard consonants is reflected best of all in Polish: p − p’, b − b’, f − f’, v −v’, k − k’, g − g’, m − m’‚ n − n’‚ l − l’ (final b’‚ p’‚ f’‚ v’ and m’ have become hard). In Sorbian it is reduced to p − p’, b − b’, c − c’‚ m − m’, n − n’, r − r’‚ ł [u̯] − ł’ [u̯’] and in Slovak to t − t’, d − d’, n − n’, l − l’. In Czech it is maintained before i (j) and ě, but has disappeared before e, é; furthermore, the opposition l − l’ has been lost. The Slavic sound g is a velar occlusive [g] in Polish and Lower Sorbian and fricative [γ] in Czech, Slovak, and Upper Sorbian. The lateral l is velarized to ł and realized as a bilabial glide [u̯] under specific conditions mainly in Polish and Sorbian (thereby paralleling developments in Belorussian and Ukrainian): Pol. głodny ‘hungry’, czytał ‘read’; USorb., LSorb. mydło ‘soap’, małki ‘little’, perf. mjetł ‘swept’. In many West Slavic dialects (a general exception is Slovak), r’ is realized as an affricate ř that can be either voiced or voiceless, depending on position. It is present as such in Czech and was simplified to [ž] / [š] in Polish and to [š] (in př, kř, tř) in Upper Sorbian and [ś] in Low Sorbian (Cz. řeka, Pol. rzeka : Slvk. rieka, USorb., LSorb. rěka ‘river’; Cz. tři, Pol. trzy, USorb. tři, LSorb. tśi : Slvk. tri ‘three’). The West Slavic dialects retain some Proto−Slavic features which were lost in other Slavic dialects. They maintain Proto-Slavic *kv-, *gv- (Pol. kwiat, Cz. květ, Slvk. kvеt, USorb., LSorb. kwět : Russ. cvet : Bulg. cvjat, etc. ‘flower’; Pol. gwiazda, Cz. hvězda, Slvk. hviezda, USorb. hwězda, LSorb. gwězda : Russ. zvezdá : Macd. dvezda. etc. ‘star’) and *dl‚ *tl (Pol. radło, Cz. rádlo, Slvk. radlo, USorb. radło, LSorb. radlica : Russ. rálo : Srb.-Cr. rȁlo, etc. ‘ploughshare’; Pol. plótł, Cz. pletl, Slvk. pletоl, USorb., LSorb. pletł : Russ. plel, etc. ‘knitted’). Czech and Slovak have maintained the Proto-Slavic syllabic *rĭ [r̥ ], *lĭ [l̥ ] (Cz., Slvk. trh ‘market’; vlna ‘wool, wave’). In Slovak dialects syllabic [r̥ ] and [l̥ ] can become long in particular positions (vlna ‘wave’ − [gen. pl.] vĺn, zrno ‘grain’ − [gen. pl.] zŕn); vrch ‘hill’ − vŕšit’ ‘pile up’. In Polish and Sorbian dialects they have changed into sequences of vowel + consonant (Pol. targ, USorb. torhośćo ‘market’; Pol. wełna, USorb. wołma, LSorb. wałma : ORuss. vŭlna ‘wool’). West Slavic is characterized by the absence of the change j > l’ following labials in non-initial syllables that took place in other Slavic dialects (Pol. ziemia, Cz. země, Slvk. zem, USorb., LSorb. zemja : Russ. zemljá : Srb.-Cr. zèmlja, etc. ‘earth, ground’; Pol. kapia, Cz. kápě : Russ. káplja : Srb.-Cr. kȁplja, etc. ‘drop’; Pol. grabie, Cz. hrábě, USorb. hrabje, LSorb. grabje : Russ. grábli : Srb.-Cr. grȁblje, etc. ‘rake’). The clusters *tj, *kt’,

1596

XIII. Slavic

*gt’ on the one hand and *dj on the other become c and dz in Polish and Slovak dialects, respectively, whereas in other West Slavic dialects dz was simplified to z (Pol. świeca, Cz. svíce, Slvk. svieca, USorb, LSorb. swěca ‘candle’; Pol. noc, Cz. noc, USorb, LSorb. nóc ‘night’; miedza, Cz. mez, Slvk. medza, USorb. mjeza, LSorb. mjaza ‘boundary’). The clusters *TorT and *TolT become TroT (TróT) and TłoT (TłóT) in Polish and Sorbian (Pol. broda, USorb., LSorb. broda ‘beard’; Pol. głos, USorb. hłos, LSorb. głos ‘voice’) but TrаT/TlaT in Czech and Slovak (Cz., Slvk. brada, hlas). The clusters *TerT and *TelT become TrzeT and TleT in Polish (brzeg ‘shore’, mleko ‘milk’, plewa ‘chaff’) but TrěT/TrjaT (TrjóT/TrjoT) and TloT/TluT in Sorbian (USorb. brjoh, LSorb. brjog; USorb., LSorb. mloko; OSorb pluwizna, LSorb. plowa) and TřeT/TréT/TříT and TleT/ TlieT in Czech and Slovak (Cz. břeh, Slvk. breh; Cz. mléko, Slvk. mlieko; Cz. pleva / plíva, Slvk. pleva). Initial *orT-‚ *olT- become raT/roT, laT/loT in West Slavic, depending on their presumed former intonations (Pol. rataj, Cz. rataj, USorb. ratar, LSorb. rataj ‘ploughman’, but Pol.‚ Cz., Slvk, USorb., LSorb. robota ‘work’; Pol. łakomy, Cz., Slvk. lakomý, USorb. łakomny ‘delicious’, but Pol. łodź, Cz. lod’, Slvk. lodka, USorb. łodź, LSorb. łоź ‘boat’) (cf. Collins, this handbook, 5.5). A common West Slavic and South Slavic feature is the initial jе that corresponds to o in East Slavic (Pol. jezioro, Cz. jezero, Slvk. jazero, USorb. jezor, LSorb. jazor : Russ. ózero ‘lake’; Pol. jeden, Cz., Slvk. jeden, USorb. jedyn, LSorb. jaden : Russ. odín ‘one’).

7. East Slavic The modern East Slavic dialects are outgrowths of a single Old Russian language, which existed until at least the 12 th century. The emergence of these dialects is the direct result of colonization of new territories by East Slavs, who subsequently became separated from each other. The discovery of birchbark manuscripts in and around Novgorod in recent years has led to the postulation of an Old Novgorod dialect with some surprising features (Birchbark writing was also used for a Finnic dialect of Old Novgorod. For example, the birchbark letter no. 292 is regarded to be the oldest known document in any Finnic language, dated from the beginning of the 13 th century.). These have often been taken to constitute archaisms but are more likely to reflect a Finnic substratum; however, the apparent absence of Old Church Slavic influence may well be an archaic feature. A characteristic phonological feature of Baltic-Finnic languages is an abundance of occlusives and a restriction in the number of fricatives (in Finnish and Estonian there are only two native fricatives − s and h). Forms seeming to show the absence of the second palatalization in birchbark writing of Novgorod can be regarded as rather involving a substitution of occlusives for affricates, a phenomenon which is very common in Estonian and Finnish speech. One can find such substitution even in the modern Pskov dialects. Another characteristic feature of the Old Novgorod dialect (and some other dialects) was the lack of a distinction of the sounds [č] and [c] (Russian tsokanĭe). Most scholars recognize this as reflecting a Finnic substratum. In some writings of Pskov and Novgorod of the 14 th−16 th centuries, we find clusters kl, gl (< *tl, *dl), e. g. čĭkli < [č’tli] ‘they read’, povegli < [povedli] ‘they led’; and these are thought to reflect an East-Baltic substratum. Old Russian has given rise to modern Russian, Belorussian, and Ukrainian.

85. The dialectology of Slavic

1597

Common to all East Slavic dialects is free and mobile stress that has been inherited from Proto-Slavic. The nasalized vowels ǫ and ę were changed into u and ja, respectively (ORuss. ruka ‘hand, arm’, pjatĭ ‘five’ : OCS rǫka, pętĭ). The reduced sounds ĭ and ŭ in a strong position become e and o, respectively (ORuss. denĭ ‘day’, sonŭ ‘dream’). A purely East Slavic phenomenon was the appearance of “polnoglasie” − the change of the sequences *er, *or, *el, *ol to ere, oro, ele, olo, respectively (ORuss. beremja ‘load’, voronŭ ‘crow’, želesti ‘pay for’, golova ‘head’). The clusters *kv-, *gv become cv, zv, respectively (ORuss. cvětŭ ‘flower’, zvězda ‘star’); *tj, *kt’, *gt’ > č and *dj > ž; *dl‚ *tl > l (Russ. elĭ ‘fir’, ORuss. plelŭ ‘knitted’). Labial consonants develop following epenthetic l’ before [j] (ORuss. bljudo ‘dish’, kaplja ‘drop’, zemlja ‘earth, ground’). Initial jе of West and South Slavic corresponds in East Slavic to o (ORuss. ozero ‘lake’, odinŭ ‘one’). Among the important phonological features of East Slavic dialects was “akanje”, a weakening of unstressed a and o to [ʌ] or [ə] which appears in Belorussian and South Russian dialects but is absent in Ukranian and North Russian dialects. In Belorussian dialects there is a variant with e becoming a after soft consonants in pretonic syllables: bjadá ‘harm’, njasú ‘I carry’, pjasnjár ‘singer’. It is absent in other unstressed syllables: vesnavý ‘spring (adj.)’ − vyasná ‘spring (noun)’, velikán ‘giant’ − vjalíki ‘great’, vósenĭ ‘autumn’. Slavic ě was in Old Russian dialects close and prolonged, whereas e was shorter and open. In Russian and Belorussian dialects the two have merged to e. In Ukrainian ě > i: ORuss. lěto > Ukr. lito (Russ. leto) ‘summer’, ORuss. na stolě > Ukr. na stoli (Russ. na stole) ‘on the table’. In Ukrainian o and e from late Common Slavic *o and *e become i in new closed syllables, especially when the following syllable originally contained a front jer: kin’ ‘horse’ − gen. sg. konja, nič ‘night’ − gen. sg. noči, pič ‘oven’ − gen. sg. peči, osin’ ‘autumn’ − gen. sg. oseni. In all syllables Ukrainian consonants have become hard before e (which must therefore have undergone lowering), whether of late Common Slavic origin, resulting from a strong jer, or pleophonic: temnij ‘dark’ (< *tĭmĭnĭjŭ), bereza ‘birch’ (< *berza). In Ukrainian, East-Slavic y (the vowel written in Russian) and i have merged to i , often transliterated as y, a vowel very close in place of articulation to e. All consonants before this i are hard, e.g. Ukr. biti = Russ. bytĭ ‘be’ and bitĭ ‘strike’, Ukr. milo = Russ. mylo ‘soap’ and milo ‘dear’. In Ukrainian dialects initial i and o could vanish: grati < igrati ‘play’, goród < ogoród ‘vegetable garden’, whereas i could materialize before sonants: iržati < rŭzati ‘neigh’, imla < mgla ‘mist’. In Russian dialects there was a change of e > o (written when stressed) after soft consonants and before hard consonants: Russ. berëza ‘birch’, nës ‘carried’, vesëlyj ‘merry’. In Ukrainian dialects this change has taken place after sibilants, where the resultant vowel is written : Russ. žëltyj ‘yellow’ − Ukr. žóvtij, Russ. čërnyj ‘black’ − Ukr. čórnij (both of these words with Russian despite the fact that ž is synchronically hard in Russian), Russ. šestój ‘the sixth’ − Ukr. šóstij, Russ. ščeká − Ukr. ščoká ‘cheek’ (š is synchronically hard in Russian, and the status of šč is unclear). East Slavic dialects show an opposition of soft and hard consonants. As is the case in Polish, soft final labials have become hard in Belorussian and Ukrainian: Russ. golubĭ ‘pigeon’ − Blr. golub, Ukr., holub; Russ. semĭ ‘seven’ − Blr. sem, Ukr. sim; Russ. sypĭ ‘spot’ − Blr. syp, Ukr. visip. Voiced consonants in final position and before voiceless consonants are devoiced except in Ukrainian dialects: dub [-b] ‘oak’, rid [-d] ‘kin’‚ ridkij [-dk-] ‘seldom’, etc. The letter g is pronounced as a voiced velar fricative in Belorussian

1598

XIII. Slavic

and South Russian, as a voiced glottal fricative (normally transliterated h) in Ukrainian, and as a voiced velar occlusive in North Russian dialects and standard Russian. The peculiar features of Belorussian dialects are: 1. the change of the soft [t’] and [d’] to affricates ts’ and dz’, respectively: tsjapér < tepérĭ ‘now’, batsĭka ‘father’, dzitsjá ‘child, kid’, dzíki ‘wild’; 2. the soft labial [r’] has merged with the hard one: Blr. rad − Russ. rjad ‘row’ and rad ‘charmed’. In Belorussian and Ukrainian prothetic v or g can appear before an initial vowel: Russ. už ‘grass snake’ − Blr., Ukr. vuž, Russ. us ‘moustache’ − Blr., Ukr. vus; Russ. ostryj ‘sharp’ − Blr. vostry, Ukr. ostrij, gostrij; Russ. etot ‘this’ − Blr. gety. A common feature of these dialectal zones was the change of l to ў [u̯] before a consonant or in final position in Belorussian and to v [u̯] in Ukrainian: Russ. dolg ‘duty’ − Blr. daўg, Ukr. dovg; Russ. dal ‘gave’ − Blr. daў, Ukr. dav. In both dialectal zones clusters of the consonants t, d, n, l, s, z, ts, č + [j] have changed into soft geminates: Russ. platĭe ‘clothes’ − Blr. platstse, Ukr. plattja; Russ. sudĭja ‘judge’ − Blr. suddzja, Ukr. suddja, etc. Numerous phonetic changes took place independently later in individual Slavic languages, leading to the appearance of new Slavic dialects. Their number varies from several in Russian, Ukrainian, and Slovak to about fifty in Slovenian. Modern Slavic languages have a complicated system of dialects that needs to be treated separately.

8. Morphology The morphological system of Slavic had seven cases (nominative, vocative, genitive, dative, accusative, instrumental, and locative), three genders (masculine, feminine, neuter), and old declensional stems and complicated past tenses (imperfect, aorist, present perfect, past perfect). After the disappearance of reduced vowels, many declensional stems merged and have given rise to three main declensional paradigms in the individual Slavic dialects. Many cases have lost their formal differences, producing grammatical homonymy. The seven-case system has been maintained in Ukrainian, Polish, Czech, Serbian, and Croatian. Bulgarian and Macedonian have become analytical languages and have lost the old case system except for some relics of the vocative. In other Slavic dialects the category of vocative has been lost and the number of cases has been reduced from seven to six. In Belorussian and Slovak the vocative exists only for individual words for god, kin, and close friends. In Russian and Slovenian, too, only a few forms of the vocative survive. The category of dual has been maintained only in Slovenian and Sorbian. In most Slavic areas the complicated I.E. system of past tenses has been simplified and the old present perfect tense has become the principal past tense. The old system of past tenses is best retained in Bulgarian, Macedonian, Serbian, Croatian, and Sorbian. The past perfect as a relic tense is present also in Slovak. Grammatical differences between individual Slavic dialects are generally very small but numerous. Nevertheless, they are often intelligible to speakers of other dialects.

85. The dialectology of Slavic

1599

9. Lexical differences Lexical differences among the Slavic dialects are also numerous but less intelligible. They have appeared during the individual developments of the dialects and can be explained by the influence of different neighboring languages and dialects. Despite the changes we have described, the differences between various Slavic languages are often less distinct than what one frequently finds between dialects of some other Indo-European languages, e.g. those of Lithuanian or German. For this reason communication is often possible between speakers of the different Slavic dialectal groups.

10. References Andersen, Henning 1998 Slavic. In: Anna Giacalone Ramat and Paolo Ramat (eds.), The Indo-European Languages. London: Routledge, 415−453. Arumaa, Peeter 1964−1985 Urslavische Grammatik. 3 vols. Heidelberg: Winter. Bidwell, Charles E. 1963 Slavic Historical Phonology in Tabular Form. The Hague: Mouton. Birnbaum, Henrik 1966 The Dialects of Common Slavic. In: Henrik Birnbaum and Jaan Puhvel (eds.), Ancient Indo-European Dialects. Proceedings of the Conference on Indo-European Linguistics Held at the University of California, Los Angeles April 25−27, 1963. Berkeley: Univerity of California Press, 153−197. Browne, Wales 1993 Serbo-Croat. In: Comrie and Corbett (eds.), 306−387. Comrie, Bernard and Greville G. Corbett (eds.) 1993 The Slavonic Languages. London: Routledge. Entwhistle, William. J. and Walter A. Morison 1964 Russian and the Slavonic Languages. 2nd edn. London: Faber and Faber. Friedman, Victor A. 1993 Macedonian In: Comrie and Corbett (eds.), 249−305. Mayo, Peter 1993 Belorussian. In: Comrie and Corbett (eds.), 887−946. Meillet, Antoine 1934 Le slave commun. 2nd edn. Revised by André Vaillant. Paris: Champion. Priestly, Tom M. S. 1993 Slovene. In: Comrie and Corbett (eds.), 388−451. Rothstein, Robert A. 1993 Polish. In: Comrie and Corbett (eds.), 686−758. Scatton, Ernest A. 1993 Bulgarian. In: Comrie and Corbett (eds.), 188−248. Schenker, Alexander M. 1995 The Dawn of Slavic Philology. An Introduction to Slavic Philology. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Shevelov, George Y. 1965 A Prehistory of Slavic: the Historical Phonology of Common Slavic. New York: Columbia University Press.

1600

XIII. Slavic

Shevelov, George Y. 1993 Ukrainian. In: Comrie and Corbett (eds.), 947−998. Short, David 1993a Czech. In: Comrie and Corbett (eds.), 455−532. Short, David 1993b Slovak. In: Comrie and Corbett (eds.), 533−592. Stone, Gerald 1993 Sorbian (Upper and Lower). In: Comrie and Corbett (eds.), 593−685. Timberlake, Alan 1993. Russian In: Bernard Comrie and Greville G. Corbett (eds.), The Slavonic Languages, 827−886. London: Routledge.. Vaillant, André 1950−1958 Grammaire comparée des langues slaves. Vols. I−II. Paris: IAC. Vaillant, André 1966−1977 Grammaire comparée des langues slaves. Vols. III−V. Paris: Klincksieck. Vasmer, Max 1953−1958 Russisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. 3 vols. Heidelberg: Winter.

Oleg Poljakov, Vilnius (Lithuania)

86. The evolution of Slavic 1. Introduction 2. Medieval Slavic sound changes 3. Morphology and morphosyntax

4. Balkan developments 5. Conclusion and prospects 6. References

1. Introduction Over the four to five millennia from the Indo-European disintegration to the beginnings of Slavic written history in the ninth century, the Slavic languages underwent notably few phonological and morphological changes relative to the other branches, so that medieval Slavic languages are distinctly more conservative than their contemporaries. The rate of changes has picked up since the Slavic dispersal in the mid-first millennium CE, but even so the modern non-Balkan Slavic languages are (with Baltic) morphologically the most conservative of the contemporary Indo-European languages. Especially conservative is noun and adjective declension. The inherited verb morphology is also fairly conservative in form, though innovative in functions and paradigmatic organization, and much IE verb morphology has been lost. As of the late centuries BCE Proto-Slavic was probably not a discrete language but a segment of the southwestern part of the sizable Proto-Balto-Slavic range that extended from the middle Dnieper to the Baltic Sea and west probably to at least the Vistula. The ancestral Slavic (i.e. southwestern ancestral Balto-Slavic) presence in this area had probably been continuous since the initial Indo-European expansion or shortly thereafter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-007

86. The evolution of Slavic

1601

Tab. 86.1: The consonant system of the late Proto-Slavic period Labial Stops

Palatal

t d

tˊ dˊ

Affricates

c dz ?

č dž ?

Fricatives

s z

š ž

n

nˊ

r l

rˊ lˊ

Nasals

p b

Dental/ alveolar

m

Other resonants Glides

v [w]

Velar k g

x

j

Proto-Slavic had never been in contact with any but Indo-European languages. The beginning of the Great Migrations brought major ethnolinguistic changes: intensification on the steppe and westward expansions of steppe kingdoms to the Danube plain; formation of the syncretic steppe/trading/farming Gothic state, partly on Slavic territory; extension of the Roman Empire to Dacia and the genocide and cultural destruction of the Dacians; incursions of the Huns, who spoke the first non-Indo-European language to be heard in central Europe for several millennia; the shift of the major intake for the southern European slave market to eastern Europe; formation of the Avar state, whose elite were probably speakers of Alanic (East Iranian) but soon shifted to Slavic. The formation and expansion of the Gothic and Avar states, the considerable depopulation of the Balkan peninsula in the Plague of Justinian (542 CE and later episodes), and the westward retreat of Germanic speakers provided the background for the remarkably rapid spread of late Proto-Slavic across much of eastern Europe. Whatever its exact mechanism (see e.g. Timberlake 2013), this spread shuffled and largely effaced previous dialect developments (Andersen 1996, 1999) and absorbed much of the former Balto-Slavic continuum, so that surviving Baltic is now phylogenetically discrete from Slavic. The last sound changes to affect all of Proto-Slavic were the palatalization of velars before front vowels, palatalizations resulting from resolutions of *Cj sequences, fronting of vowels after palatal consonants, and monophthongization of diphthongs (see Collins, this handbook). Proto-Slavic at this stage (the early centuries CE) had a consonant system with a four-way distinction in places of articulation (much like that of modern Czech or Hungarian), shown in Table 86.1. The above is presented in conventional Slavistic transcription (except that *tˊ, *dˊ have no single standard transcription). The voiced affricates *dz, *dž may or may not have existed (see Andersen 1969). Note that, here and below, tˊ, dˊ, nˊ, etc. (acute accent following consonant letter) render Proto-Slavic palatals; ć, ś, ń (acute accent over the consonant) are orthographic in some languages using the Latin alphabet; and t’, p’, n’, r’, etc. (consonant followed by apostrophe) transcribe phonemic (or sometimes only phonetic) palatalization, found chiefly in East Slavic languages.

1602

XIII. Slavic

Tab. 86.2: The vowel system of the late Proto-Slavic period (conventional Slavistic transcriptions with phonetic clarifications) i e [æ]

iː ę [ɛːn] ě [ɛː] or [æː]

u o [ᴐ]

uː / y ǫ [ᴐːn] aː

The language of the period from the early centuries CE to about the ninth century is usually called Common Slavic or Late Proto-Slavic. The present chapter deals with changes several of which had their root conditions in Common Slavic but which played out in the subsequent centuries. I will call this later period, from about the ninth century to about the thirteenth or fourteenth, the “Medieval Slavic” period. It is reflected in documents and inscriptions dated from about the eleventh to fourteenth or fifteenth centuries, and is reconstructed in some detail by the comparative method. The family tree of the Slavic languages is shown in Table 86.3. The earliest written Slavic language, Old Church Slavic (OCS), does not fit into any one branch but is a written tradition comprising early West and South Slavic documents. (Most of the documents reflect Old Bulgarian phonology, and this is the conventional normalization in reference works. But the spelling system shows a predominance of West Slavic and specifically Moravian pronunciation in some diagnostic respects: Shevelov [1957] 1971.) Russian, uniquely, has much admixture (lexical, morphological, syntactic) from Russian Church Slavic, the phonologically Bulgarian-influenced sacral language of Orthodox Slavs and the high language in a diglossic situation that persisted into late medieval times (Uspenskij 2002). Russian Church Slavic has been naturally transmitted only among some Old Believer communities, where as of the mid-20 th century it retained an extremely archaic pronunciation (Uspenskij 1968). In the above display, listing within branches is from east to west and from north to south. * = pairs of very closely related sister languages, with good mutual intelligibility. Rusyn is not usually classified as a separate language by linguists, but there is a distinct national consciousness especially among western Rusyns (see e.g. Magocsi 2004; Vaňko

Tab. 86.3: The Slavic languages East Slavic

(Northern) (Southern)

West Slavic

Lechitic

Sorbian Czechoslovak South Slavic

Eastern Western

Russian* Belarusian* Ukrainian/Rusyn (Ruthenian) Polish* Cashubian, † Slovincian* † Polabian Lower Sorbian* Upper Sorbian* Czech* Slovak* Bulgarian Macedonian Slovene Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian (BCS)

86. The evolution of Slavic

1603

2000). Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian are a single language in linguistic terms but with separate national identities and status. The branches are formed as much by subsequent accommodation to cultural and political norms as to divergence, and few early sound changes coincide neatly with the major branches.

2. Medieval Slavic sound changes Conventionally, the jer shift (discussed just below) marks the end of Common Slavic (though it eventually spread across the entire Slavic territory). The Magyars entered the Carpathian region in 896 and severed Slavic geolinguistic unity, marking the beginning of the end of Slavic linguistic unity. The Life of Constantine/Cyril indicates that in the mid-9 th century the Slavic dialects of today’s Greece and Moravia were mutually intelligible while that of northern Rus' was not intelligible in the south (Nichols 1993a). At this point the branches and individual languages (in their ancestral stages) began developing separately. Lechitic became relatively isolated early (Vermeer 2000: 21−22 with further references; Andersen 1969). The jer shift or fall of jers. Proto-Slavic short *i and *u had, by later Common Slavic times, become schwa-like vowels susceptible to positional weakening, compensatory lengthening, and vowel-zero alternations. In historical Slavistics, these vowels and the Cyrillic letters for them are known as jers (a term based on their spelling names). The mechanism is the following (Timberlake 1983a, 1983b, 1988, 1993): the universal tendency of high vowels to be phonetically shorter than non-high vowels began to be exaggerated in late Common Slavic, with each short high vowel ceding a small increment of its length to the preceding syllable. That tendency increased over time. The eventual outcome was that (with somewhat different conditions in different dialects) a preceding short vowel gained enough length to cross a perceptual boundary and be reanalyzed as long; the jer itself lost all of its audible duration and was reanalyzed as zero; a jer before this lost jer was lengthened enough to be reanalyzed as a mid vowel. As a result, to this day all Slavic languages have vowel-zero alternations in some of their most basic vocabulary and most frequent derivational affixes, and many have length and/or quality alternations of vowels in inflectional paradigms. Examples are provided in Table 86.4. In this table differences in genitive endings (-a, -e, -u) are morphological, not phonological. Plural or adverb is given when a genitive is not attested or does not exist. Words are written in standard transliteration (OCS, Russian, Belarusian, Bulgarian, Macedonian) or orthography (Croatian orthography represents BCS), except that Cyrillic ё, я are written ’o and ’a. Diacritics over vowels mark length in Czech (orthographic), tone and length in BCS and Slovene (non-orthographic), and quality elsewhere (orthographic). Subsequent changes in the vowel system, such as loss of length distinctions, raising of some long vowels, etc. have turned what were originally simple length alternations in pre-jer vowels into less transparent alternations. The Cashubian forms in Table 86.5 (Stone 1993: 768) illustrate vowel alternations caused by lengthening in the nominative singular (whose ending was a jer in Common Slavic). Length was subsequently lost, so the distinctions are now purely qualitative. These alternations are extensive in Cashubian, where vowels of all heights were lengthened before voiced consonants; Polish has them in fewer vowels and fewer con-

1604

XIII. Slavic

Tab. 86.4: Nominative and genitive cases of selected words illustrating jers, compensatory lengthening, and vowel-zero alternations ‘dog’

‘day’

‘sleep’

‘house’

LPS

pĭsŭ

pĭsa

dĭnĭ

dĭne

sŭnŭ

sŭna

domŭ

domū

OCS

pьsъ

pьsa

dьnь

dьne

sъnъ

sъna

domъ

domu

Russian

p’os

psa

d’en’

dn'a

son

sna

dom

doma

Belarusian

p’os

psa

dz’en’

dn’a

son

snu

dom

doma/-u

Ukrainian

pes

psa

den’

dn’a

son

snu

dim

domu

Polish

pies

psa

dzień

dnia

sen

sna

dóm

domu

Cashubian

p'es

psa

dzėń

dnia

sen

snu

dóm

domu

Polabian

p’ås

p’åsĕ

dan

dańo

L. Sorbian

pjas

psa

źeń

dńa

soń

sni

dom

doma

U. Sorbian

pos

psa

dźeń

dnja

són

sona

dom

doma/-u

Slovak

pes

psa

deň

dňa

sen

sna

dom

domu

Czech

pes

psa

den

dne

sen

sna

dům

domu

Slovene

pə̏ s

psȁ

dân

dnệ

sə̏ n

snȁ

dóm

dóma

BCS

pas

psa

dān

dne

san

sna

dōm

doma

Bulgarian

păs

den

adv. denem

săn

dom adv. doma

Macedonian

pes

den

pl. denovi/ dni

son

dom adv. doma

pl. pci/ pesovi

düm adv. dümo

texts, so they are found only in the last two words of this list: dóm : domu; ksiądz : księdza. In synchronic morphophonology, the vowel-zero alternations and the vowel quality/ quantity alternations before a lost jer, when the jer was word-final (as in Tables 86.4, 86.5), can be described as alterations of the basic or underlying form that occur before a zero ending. Word-internally, they can be described variously as conditioned by certain consonant sequences or as morphologically conditioned. Abstract underlying representations of modern languages have often represented the former jers as segments. Especially in the more northerly parts of the Slavic range, front vowels, including the front jer, phonetically palatalized a preceding consonant. In the most extreme outcome, when weak jers were lost the palatalization was isolated, unconditioned, and therefore became phonemic. This effect is the most far-reaching in Russian, where most of the consonants participate in phonemic oppositions of plain vs. palatalized; it is nonexistent or nearly nonexistent in South Slavic. In East Slavic the two jers remained distinct (and the front jer remained capable of palatalizing a consonant) until the weak jers were lost. At the same time the mid vowels *e and *o (with which the strong jers had merged) merged into a single vowel phoneme, their phonetic [e] vs. [o] quality entirely conditioned by the preceding and following consonants (Andersen 1978). Only some centuries

86. The evolution of Slavic

1605

Tab. 86.5: Cashubian vowel alternations Nom.

Gen.

brzôd

brzadu

‘fruit’

pón

pana

‘master’

chléb

chleba

‘bread’

syn

sëna

‘son’

lud

lëdu

‘people’

dóm

domu

‘house’

ksądz

ksędza

‘priest’

later, when length was lost and *ě merged with the [e] allophone of the mid vowel, did front vs. back mid vowels become phonemically distinct again. Developments were similar in Belarusian; in standard Ukrainian, *e shifted to /o/ in more limited contexts (with irregularities). In West Slavic languages, the strong jers have merged as /e/ (falling in with inherited *e). Prior to the merger, in all Lechitic languages to different degrees, mid vowels were backed before hard (i.e. non-palatalized) dentals: *e > o, *ě > a, * ę > ǫ. (Andersen 1978 shows that these and the East Slavic mergers of *e and *o were a single pan-Slavic phonetic innovation whose local phonemic realization depended on the progress of prosodic changes that were spreading from the Slavic center.) Prior to the merger, consonants were palatalized before front vowels. Polish has retained the palatalization, but most consonants have depalatalized in Czech, leaving palatalization only in *t, *d, *n and only before *ě and *i. In both Polish and Czech, some or all of palatalized *t *d *s *z *n are not (as in East Slavic) palatalized counterparts to plain dentals and alveolars but now make up a separate palatal place of articulation: Polish ć dź ś ź ń (spelling before vowel: cia dzia sia zia nia) are palatalized palatals contrasting with retroflex, non-palatalized palatals cz dż sz ż (no change in spelling before vowels) which reflect LPS *č (d)ž š ž; Czech t’ d’ ň (spelling before *ě reflex: tě dě ně) are palatal (all palatalized). Thus the Czech consonant system is similar to that of Table 86.1, but Polish is quite different. In South Slavic the two jers tended to merge before the weak ones were lost. This has been total in BCS, where all strong jers are /a/ and there are no oppositions in palatalization. BCS also has a palatal series, with stops spelled ć đ and sonorants nj, lj, but it originated not in palatalization before front vowels but from Proto-Slavic *tj, *dj, *nj, *lj sequences. In Bulgarian the two jers are reflected differently: the front jer as /e/ and the back jer as /ǝ/ (Cyrillic ъ, transliteration ă or ŭ). There is palatalization of consonants before the reflex of *ě under stress (the reflex is /a/; spelling я after palatalized consonant) but not before the reflex of the front jer. Havlík’s law. Compensatory lengthening entailed that, in a sequence of syllables each containing a jer, every other jer was weak and eventually lost: a final jer was weak, the one before it strong, the one before that weak, and so on. This meant that in medieval Slavic the stem shapes of such words varied greatly depending on whether the inflectional ending contained a jer or not (and most paradigms had at least one ending with a jer).

1606

XIII. Slavic

Tab. 86.6: Effects of the jer shift on three-jer sequences ‘shoemaker’ nom.

gen.

‘day’

‘today’ (day=this)

Common Slavic

šьv-ьc-ь

šьv-ьc-a

dьn-ь

dьn-ь=sь

Medieval Slavic

švec-Ø

ševc-a

den’

dnes’

Russian

švec

švec-aa

den’

dnes’ (RChSl)

Belarusian

šavec

šawc-ab

dzen’

Ukrainian

švec’

švec’-aa

den’

dnes

Polish

szewc

szewc-ab

dzień

dziś < dzińś

Cashubian

ševc

ševc-ab

dzėń

dzis < *dzins

dan

dans

Polabian L Sorbian

šejc

šejc-ab

źeń

źins

U Sorbian

šewc

šewc-ab

dźeń

dźens

Czech

švec

ševc-e

den

dnes

Slovak

švec

ševc-a

deň

dnes

Slovene

dan

dánəs

BCS

dân

dànas

Bulgarian

den

dnes

Macedonian

den

denes

Medieval forms are shown with the /e/ reflex of a strong front jer, as this is its most common spelling. ‘Shoemaker’ has a derivational suffix -ьc- and an inflectional ending. ‘Today’ has a clitic. RChSl = Russian Church Slavic. No entry = no attested cognate in this language. a = oblique stem has been generalized to nominative; b = nominative stem has been generalized to oblique.

Modern languages have generally leveled out such alternations in different ways, leaving vowel-zero alternations mostly near the right edges of stems or words (Table 86.6) (a detailed survey for Russian is Isačenko 1970). A jer adjacent to r or l is strong in East Slavic, often strong in Lechitic, and often weak in South Slavic and Czechoslovak − regardless of the following syllable, i.e. independent of compensatory lengthening. A weak jer adjacent to a sonorant yields a modern syllabic sonorant. These are now found in Czech, Slovak, and BCS. Status of *i and *y. Several Slavic languages have a high, back or at least nonfront, unrounded vowel spelled or transliterated ‘y’. CS *y descends from IE *ū. It was a high, nonfront, long vowel, likely an [ui]-like diphthong in CS (Mošinskij 1972). Now in East Slavic *i and *y are phonemically merged but phonetically distinct since [i] follows a palatalized consonant while [y] follows a non-palatalized consonant. In Ukrainian palatalization was lost before *i, so the two have also merged phonetically as [y]. A new /i/ arose from *ě and from *o, *e under compensatory lengthening (see ‘house’ in Table 86.4).

86. The evolution of Slavic

1607

In Lechitic *i and *y are phonemically merged but phonetically distinct due to palatalization, much as in East Slavic. In Czech and Slovak they are completely merged though distinguished in the orthography; Czech bil ‘(he) beat’ and byl ‘(he) was’ are entirely homophonous. (In colloquial Common Czech /y/ is usually pronounced /ej/, a sound change that began before the merger and shows that /y/ and /i/ were distinct at the time.) In South Slavic, *y and *i merged early, leaving no evidence of a distinction. West Slavic *ř. In West Slavic, *r' (before front vowel) and *rj merge to yield a very rare and perhaps unique sound. In Czech /ř / is a “post-alveolar [trill] with considerable friction” (Short 1993: 457), “typically made with the laminal surface of the tongue against the alveolar ridge” and often involving a sequence of trill followed by frication (Ladefoged and Maddieson 1996: 228). It is absent in Slovak. In Sorbian, where /r/ is uvular, /ř/ is uvular and palatalized. In Polish, *ř (spelled rz) has merged with /ž/ (spelled ż). Cashubian preserves /ř/ to some extent, but is shifting to the Polish pronunciation. Lenition of *g. In a contiguous set of central Slavic languages, CS *g underwent lenition, eventually turning into [h] or [ɦ] in most of the languages but with a narrow band along the edge of the inner isogloss where the pronunciation is [γ]. This dialect geography shows that the change proceeded [g > γ > h / ɦ]. Further evidence is the fact that, in languages with /h/ and word-final devoicing, final h is pronounced /x/. The [ɦ] reflex, in languages that have it, has a certain amount of murmur and is sometimes described as voiced. Languages exhibiting lenition of *g are Ukrainian, southern Russian, Belarusian, Slovak, Czech, Upper Sorbian, northwestern dialectal Slovene, and northwestern dialectal Croatian. Languages in the central part of this area preserve original [g] in -zg- clusters: Ukrainian, Belarusian, Slovak. Those closer to the periphery have [h] even in these clusters. Andersen (1969) shows that this can be explained by the chronology of lenition relative to the jer shift. Prior to the jer shift Common Slavic had a very simple syllable structure with few permissible consonant sequences, among them fricative + stop clusters. Where lenition began before the jer shift, *g in these clusters was not changed because the syllable canon required that the sequence be fricative + stop (where *g filled the stop slot). Where lenition began after the jer shift, many more clusters were possible and *g in *-zg- sequences was free to change into a fricative without violating the (new) syllable canon. Thus, e.g., Ukr. mizka, Slovak miazga vs. Upper Sorbian mjezha ‘sap, pulp’ (Andersen 1969: 559). On this evidence lenition began probably in western Ukraine to eastern Slovakia, not long before the jer shift and thus probably in about the ninth century; its isogloss spread outward slowly and was overtaken by the more rapidly spreading isogloss for the jer shift. Lenition halted along an eastwest line in southern Russia, along the southern border of Polish, and largely along the northern boundary of South Slavic with small extensions into northwestern Slovene and Croatian dialects. For lenition, see Andersen (1969). Prosody. Proto-Slavic inherited from Proto-Balto-Slavic a prosodic system involving a contrast of what is reconstructed as circumflex vs. acute accent on long vowels (probably circumflex = stress or tone peak on first mora, acute = on second mora) and mobile vs. fixed root or stem vs. fixed word-final (desinential) stress paradigms. In words with long vowels, circumflex was associated with mobile stress and acute with fixed stress. Words with short vowels exhibited all three kinds of stress paradigms. A tone opposition, basically of high (or high fall) vs. low (or low rise) on long vowels, is preserved in dialects of Slovene and dialects of BCS. Standard Slovene has lost tones entirely. Standard BCS (and its dialect base) has lost the original tone opposi-

1608

XIII. Slavic

Tab. 86.7: Differing degrees of *j loss in the Slavic languages CS Russian Belarusian Ukrainian Polish Cashubian Polabian L Sorbian U Sorbian Czech Slovak Slovene BCS Bulgarian Macedonian

*pojasъ ‘belt’ pojas pojas pojas pas pas pas pas pás pás pás pâs pojas pojas

*stojati ‘stand’ stojat' stajac' stojaty stać stojec stüje-nĕ VN staś stać stát stat' stati stajati stoja (Pres.) stoel (Past ppl.)

*zajęcь ‘hare’ zajac zajac zajec' zając zajc zojąc zajec zajac zajíc zajac zájec zêc zaek zajak

tion but created a new one as the result of a stress shift: all stresses shift forward one syllable toward the beginning of the word, and original initial stress remains initial; original (initial) stress is now falling tone (long or short) and moved stress has rising tone (long or short). Most languages without tones nonetheless preserve stress, quantity, and/or quality phenomena that reflect the former tones. The opposition of fixed to mobile stress, and the specific stress paradigms of many individual words, are preserved in most of South and East Slavic and in dialects of Cashubian. Fixed stress systems have developed in most of West Slavic and dialectally in Ukrainian, BCS, and Macedonian. Baerman (1999) shows that fixation of stress is not a contact phenomenon but an internal Slavic development and evolves as a result of constraints against final stress and regularization of stress patterns within word classes. For much of its history Proto-Slavic had an opposition of pure length in vowels, but by late Proto-Slavic to early medieval Slavic times quality distinctions had come to accompany quantity distinctions, and the subsequent history is one of loss of length − in individual words, in phonological or morphological contexts, or across the entire vowel system. Length was lost word-finally (i.e. in desinences) in all languages; in initial syllables of trisyllabic or longer words but not immediate pretonic syllables; and in acute syllables (BCS) or circumflex syllables (Czech, Slovak). The peripherally located languages no longer have length: Lechitic, Sorbian, East Slavic, Macedonian, Bulgarian. Those that have it (Czech, Slovak, Slovene, BCS) have gone farthest in the loss of intervocalic *j, which resulted in contraction of the two newly adjacent vowels into one long vowel. This provided new long vowels that kept phonemic length alive. Loss of intervocalic *j is a tendency that is stronger in some languages than others and in some words than others. Marvan (1979: 19) gives a table of frequencies for selected words. Table 86.7 shows a word highly susceptible to *j loss (‘belt’), one resistant to it (‘hare’), and one intermediate (‘stand’). VN = verbal noun. Loss of nasalization. CS had two nasal vowels, *ę and *ǫ, from sequences of vowel + nasal + consonant or word boundary. These survived in Old Church Slavic, but in modern Slavic languages they survive only in Cashubian and Polish (also in Polabian until its death). In Polish the main allophones are vowel plus nasalized rounded offglide

86. The evolution of Slavic

1609

0.1

Polish LSorbian

USorbian

Ukrainian Belarusian Czech

Russian

Slovak

Bulgarian Macedonian

Slovene

BCS

Fig. 86.1: Splitstree (Huson and Bryant 2006) neighbor net diagram of the Slavic languages after the application of 12 post-Proto-Slavic sound changes that spread easily between branches: Reflex of *x in the second velar palatalization *tl, *dl reflexes *tˊ reflex *ORT resolution *TORT resolution Reflexes of strong jers (e/o, e, a, etc.) *TuRT resolution *TRuT resolution Lenition of *g Retention/loss of tones Retention/loss of vowel length Retention/loss of free stress

[ᴐwn], [ɛwn] or sequence of oral vowel plus homorganic nasal plus stop. Nasalization survived for at least a century or two after the CS dispersal in East Slavic, as shown by Slavic loanwords into Finnic, first contacted in about the sixth century (Kiparsky 1979: 82−84). Positional vowel neutralizations. Several languages have some neutralization of unstressed vowels. In Bulgarian, unstressed high and mid vowels tend to merge. In Polabian there is a final two-syllable window for stress and a three-syllable non-reduction window: a stressed vowel and the first pretonic vowel are unreduced, and more distant pretonic and all post-tonic vowels are reduced to a minimal opposition of ĕ and ă.

1610

XIII. Slavic

In south and central Russian and in Belarusian, there is far-reaching neutralization and reduction of unstressed vowels. All vowels but /u/ neutralize entirely or considerably in unstressed syllables, the phonetic output being either [i/i] or [ǝ/ʌ] depending on such factors as the palatalization or non-palatalization of the preceding consonant and the height of the following vowel. In standard Russian the neutralized vowels preserve a phonemic distinction of /i/ vs. what might be phonemicized as either /e/ or /a/. In Belorusian and some of central Russian including the younger generations of Muscovites, a first pretonic [a] is not reduced and remains a clear /a/. In younger Moscow speech (and some nearby dialects: Čekmonas 1987), this first pretonic /a/ is undergoing a latter-day round of compensatory lengthening, appropriating an increment of length from an adjacent following higher vowel and/or preceding phonetic schwa. Figure 86.1 is a neighbor net diagram showing an unrooted tree of the Slavic languages as of the high middle ages, the end of the time when sound changes could still spread readily between branches and across most of the Slavic speech community. The webbing between languages and branches shows indeterminacy of subgrouping, due to inter-branch sharings. Despite the considerable indeterminacy, the modern Slavic family tree has clearly begun to take shape: West Slavic, separated by several unique reflexes, is coherent and at some distance from the rest, and East and South Slavic are both discernible though less discrete.

3. Morphology and morphosyntax In several areas of grammar, morpheme forms inherited from Indo-European were assembled into entirely new inflectional, derivational, and morphosyntactic paradigms. Two-stem verb inflectional system. Proto-Slavic lost the IE perfect stem and perfect tense, but inherited present and past stems. The present stem forms the nonpast tense, present and future participles, and the imperfect where that exists (OCS, modern South Slavic). The past stem forms the aorist, infinitive, and -l participle (a perfect participle in OCS, used to form a periphrastic perfect tense; now used with an auxiliary to form a past tense or even functioning alone as a finite past tense verb form). In CS and OCS the present and past stems often had different ablaut grades. Often one or both were suffixed, and certain pairings of present and past stem morphology became common. Table 86.8 shows the traditional classification of OCS verbs based on the two stems (Leskien [1871] 1962: 121−122). Tab. 86.8: Leskien’s verb classes for OCS (subtypes not shown) Class

Present

Past stem

Example (3sg present, infinitive)

I

-e- / -o-

none or-a-

nes-e-tъ

nes-ti

‘carry’

II

-n-e- / -n-o-

-nǫ-

dvig-ne-tъ

dvig-nǫ-ti

‘move’

III

-je-

none or-a-

zna-je-tъ

zna-ti

‘know’

IV

-i-

-i-

xval-i-tъ

xval-i-ti

‘praise’

V

athematic

athematic

das-tъ < *dad-t-

da-ti

‘give’

86. The evolution of Slavic

1611

There has been some regularization in all languages (especially Macedonian), but the two-stem principle is evident everywhere. Switch in valence derivation type from transitivizing to detransitivizing. Proto-Slavic used causative or factitive suffixes extensively to produce many regular pairs consisting of an intransitive and a (derived) transitive verb. In CS, probably late CS, the clitic accusative form of the reflexive pronoun came to be used as a detransitivizing device and rapidly became a regular part of CS derivational morphology. Hence OCS has a number of sets like the following (Gołąb 1968; Nichols 1993): (1)

vyknǫti učiti učiti sę

‘learn’ (PS *u:k-noN-; intransitive inchoative) ‘teach’ (*ouk-ei-; causative; transitive or ditransitive) ‘learn’ (reflexive; intransitive or oblique object)

In the daughter languages the relationships between original intransitives and original causatives (like vyknǫti: učiti) have become more etymological than derivational, and they have drifted apart semantically. Reflexivization is the productive means of deriving intransitives, so that now it is the transitives that are basic in transitive-intransitive pairs. This is the case in most continental European languages, and it came to affect Common Slavic as it entered the European cultural sphere. In Macedonian and Bulgarian many intransitive verbs can be used transitively as well (in Macedonian, if the object is definite) (Macedonian: go=zaspav him=sleep-1sg ‘I put him to sleep’, Friedman 2002: 34). This too has the effect of making transitives formally basic in such verbs (although it does not make intransitives derived). In the medieval and modern languages, reflexivization of verbs can be both syntactic (in passives and a special diathesis with dative subject) and lexical (derived intransitives). Reflexive passives coexist with participial passives. In Russian they are neatly complementary: participial passives are perfective and reflexive passives imperfective. (2)

Èto pis’mo bylo napisano dekanom. this letter was written.PF dean-INSTR ‘This letter was written by the dean.’

(3)

Takoe pis’mo obyčno pišetsja dekanom such letter usually write.IMPF-REFL dean-INSTR ‘This kind of letter is usually written by the dean.’

Dative-subject reflexives usually have a modal force: ‘is inclined to’, ‘feels like’, ‘can’. (4)

Russian Segodnja mne ne čitaetsja today me.DAT not read-3sg-REFL ‘Today I just don’t feel like / can’t get down to reading.’

(5)

Slovene (Marušič and Zˇaucer 2006: 1098) Včeraj se= mi= ni= šlo jutri domov yesterday REFL me.DAT NEG go-PAST-NEUT tomorrow home ‘Yesterday I didn’t feel like going home tomorrow.’

1612

XIII. Slavic

In Russian (and probably most Slavic languages), these constructions are monoclausal, but Marušič and Zˇaucer (2006) analyze the Slovene example as having a null modal predicate which včeraj applies to while jutri applies to ‘go’. Some lexical reflexives are plausibly semantic developments of literal reflexives, where the reflexive clitic was originally a literal direct object; but some are not. Table 86.9 shows three verb glosses that are almost always reflexive in modern Slavic languages. ‘Laugh’ is from an IE root *smei- with cognates including Engl. smile. The cognates (including the Lithuanian one) are basically intransitive, making it unlikely that PS ever had a transitive *sm(e)i- ‘laugh at, mock; make laugh’. No unprefixed nonreflexive is attested in any Slavic language. (Russian has transitive o-smeivat’ ‘mock, ridicule, laugh at’ and vy-smeivat’ ‘id.’, but these have applicative prefixes and the transitive valence is their derivational effect rather than an inherited property of the root.) Thus the most parsimonious reconstruction is an intransitive nonreflexive *sm(e)i‘laugh, smile’ to which existing middle morphology was extended (this is an emotion speech verb in the middle voice typology of Kemmer 1993), rather than detransitivization of a transitive. This implies that *sę was already well installed in the derivational morphology of the verb and associated with intransitivity by the time this clearly CS verb was formed. *bojati sę, 3sg pres.*bojitъ sę has the suffix paradigm of intransitive and generally non-agentive verbs such as OCS bъděti, 3sg pres. bъditъ ‘be awake’ (Birnbaum and Schaeken 1997: 91) and is therefore very unlikely to result from detransitivization of an earlier transitive. It must result from extension of middle morphology as *smejati sę did (it is an emotion verb in the typology of Kemmer 1993). The onomasiological slot ‘seem’ is diachronically less stable. It is filled by several different verbs, most of them reflexive and all of those arguably literal reflexives: *kazati sę, lit. ‘show oneself’, a literal reflexive. (OCS, East Slavic) *jьz-da(ja)ti sę ‘give oneself off (as), present oneself (as)’, a literal reflexive (West Slavic, Slovene, western East Slavic) *učiniti sę (South Slavic including OCS): ‘position oneself’, a literal reflexive as well as nonreflexive *jьz-ględěti ‘out + look’, i.e. ‘appear, look like’ (South Slavic). That is, the most common source of fillers for this onomasiological slot is a metaphor like ‘show/present oneself (as ...)’ using literal reflexivization. Of these only *jьz-da(ja)ti sę is attested in all three branches and can plausibly be reconstructed for CS (however, only nonreflexive izda[ja]ti ‘give out’ is attested in the OCS canon). Note that the reflexive element *sę is a clitic in South and West Slavic and an affix in East Slavic. The citation form of the Polabian verb for ‘fear’ (from Polański 1993: 803) does not have the reflexive clitic, but this does not mean that the verb was not reflexive. Other valence issues. CS and the modern languages have a number of valence patterns: intransitive (nominative subject), transitive (nominative subject, accusative direct object), ditransitive (nominative, accusative, dative indirect object), dative subject with one or two arguments (dative only; dative + nominative object), oblique object (nominative subject, one or another oblique case or preposition on the object). Canonical transitives and intransitives are lexically the most frequent. The set of patterns has been quite

86. The evolution of Slavic

1613

Tab. 86.9: Reflexive verbs ‘laugh’

‘fear’

‘seem’

CS

*smijati sę

*bojati sę

? *jьz-da(ja)ti sę ‘present oneself’, ? *kazati sę ‘appear’

OCS

smьjati sę

bojati sę

? kazati sę ? *izda(ja)ti sę

Russian

smejat’-sja

bojat’-sja

kazat’-sja

Belarusian

smejac-ca

bajac-ca

zdavac-ca

Ukrainian

smijaty-sja

bojaty-sja

zdavaty-sja

Polish

śmiać się

bać się

wydawać się, zdawać się

Cashubian

smiôc sę

bojec sę, miec strach ‘have fear’

zdôwac sę

Polabian

bet [să]

L Sorbian

smjaś se

bojaś se

zdaś se

U Sorbian

smjeć so

bojeć so

zdać so

Czech

smát se

strachovat se, bát se

zdát se

Slovak

smiat’ sa

bát’ sa

zdat' sa

Slovene

smejati se

bati se

zdeti se; meniti

BCS

smejati se

plašiti se, bojati se

učiniti se, izgledati

Bulgarian

smeja se

straxuvam se, boja se, opasjavam se

izgleždam; struva mi se

Macedonian

se smee

se plaši

izgleda, se čini

stable, and the valence types of individual verbs and semantic classes of verbs are also fairly stable. In the Balkan languages, prepositions have replaced cases entirely, and in the other languages (especially West Slavic) there has been some diachronic tendency to expand prepositions at the expense of bare cases on objects. Verb derivational pairings. CS preserved many inherited suffixal forms of verb stems but reassembled them into new derivational sets. Most salient and thoroughgoing was the pairing of plain verbs with iteratives, which in earliest medieval Slavic was turning into the systematic pairing of perfective and imperfective verbs that distinguishes modern Slavic languages. Iteratives were mostly suffixed with *-a-jand often had lengthened root vowels. Verb prefixes often added a sense of telicity that was grammaticalized as perfective. Other lexical and morphological forms were also recruited to provide perfective or imperfective partners, with the result that modern Slavic aspectual pairings are formally disparate but grammatically and functionally equivalent within languages. Examples of pairings from Russian (only aspectrelevant morphemes are segmented):

1614 (6)

XIII. Slavic Imperfective pisat’ pere-pis-yv-at’ po-kupat’ govorit’ pryg-at’

Perfective na-pisat’ pere-pisat’ kupit’ skazat’ pryg-nut’

‘write’ (prefixed perfective) ‘rewrite’ (suffixed imperfective) ‘buy’ (prefix and suffix) ‘say’ (suppletion) ‘jump’ (both forms suffixed)

The meaning of aspect depends on the Aktionsart of the verb (Maslov 1948): most commonly, a verb of activity or ongoing potentially telic action, when perfectivized, becomes telic; a perfective that is punctual (e.g. ‘sneeze’, ‘jump’) becomes pluractional when imperfective. In addition, an overarching distinction in the fundamental meaning of aspect divides the more eastern languages (East Slavic, Bulgarian, to some extent Polish and BCS) from the western ones (other West and South Slavic): in the east, perfective means temporal definiteness while in the west it means totality (Dickey 2000). Medieval Slavic began to develop, and most modern languages have developed, a set of about a dozen paired verbs of motion, where the members of the pair are determinate (motion in a particular direction or toward a goal) and indeterminate (iterative, undirected, or multidirectional motion). In early medieval Slavic the indeterminates were goalless manner verbs and/or iteratives. For the history, see Dickey (2010) and Greenberg (2010). Slovene examples (Herrity 2000: 226): (7)

Det. nêsti peljáti jáhati gnáti têči letéti bežáti lésti íti vléči brêsti vêsti

Indet. nosíti vozíti jézditi goníti tékati létati bégati lazíti hodíti vlačíti brodíti vodíti

Gloss ‘carry’ ‘lead, drive’ ‘ride’ ‘drive, chase’ ‘run’ ‘fly’ ‘run’ ‘climb’ ‘go (on foot)’ ‘drag’ ‘wade’ ‘lead’

Second-position clitic strings. Medieval Slavic varieties have a second-position clitic string whose elements follow a template with dative preceding accusative, reflexive sometimes specially positioned, and any clitic having scope over only one word immediately following that word (which was usually clause-initial) and preceding the rest of the string. Clitic strings are preserved in South and West Slavic, and are present in Old Russian (Zaliznjak 2008) but lost in modern East Slavic except for Rusyn. In Macedonian and Bulgarian the strings have migrated headward to become ad-verbal (mostly preverbal). Clitic strings are found in other European languages, chiefly Romance, but second-position clitic strings are unique in Europe to Slavic and Ossetic (Iranian, north central Caucasus), which also has the dative-accusative order. Clitics are italicized in (8−10).

86. The evolution of Slavic (8)

1615

Czech (Franks and King 2000: 110 citing Fried 1994: 173) On ti se mi ani neomluvil he 2s.DAT REFL 1sg.DAT not.even apologized ‘(I’m telling) you, he didn’t even apologize to me.’

Here the first clitic ti is an ethical dative, a pragmatic function captured in the gloss ‘(I’m telling) you’. (9)

Macedonian (Friedman 1993: 285) da ne kˊe sum si mu go dal SUB NEG EXP NONCONF.2 RFL.DAT 3s.DAT 3s.ACC give ‘(They didn’t say) that I won’t have given it to him (did they)?’

Here the gloss EXP stands for ‘Expectative’, and NONCONF stands for ‘Non-confirmative’. (10) OCS (Mt. 17:17, cited in Vaillant 1963−1964: 378) priveděte mi i bring-IMPV.2p me.DAT him.ACC ‘Bring him to me.’ Simplification of tense system. CS and medieval Slavic distinguished present, aorist, imperfect, and perfect tenses. Future meaning could be expressed with the present tense or modal auxiliaries. Most modern languages have added a future but otherwise simplified the tense system to a single past tense, letting aspect take over the work of the aorist/imperfect distinction and losing the perfect entirely. In East Slavic, Polish, Czech, Slovak, and Slovene, the past tense is formed from the old perfect. Cashubian has innovated a new perfect using ‘have’ plus past passive participle, doubtless under German influence. Sorbian preserves all three medieval tense forms, but aorist and imperfect are now in complementary distribution based on aspect. BCS preserves all three in the written language but for the most part replaces the aorist and imperfect with the old perfect; aorist and imperfect are in almost entirely complementary distribution by aspect. Polabian preserved all three. Bulgarian and Macedonian, in somewhat different ways, have recruited and expanded the old perfect morphology to make an evidentiality distinction, often called renarrated mood, opposing indicative to a form indicating that the speaker does not vouch for or has not witnessed the event. Dual. CS had a dual number separate from singular and plural. The case paradigm of the dual was more syncretized than those of the singular and plural. The dual is used regularly in OCS and medieval Slavic but gradually drops out of use, supplanted by the plural, in all but Slovene, Sorbian, the recently extinct Slovincian dialect of Cashubian, and Polabian. Traces of the dual remain in most languages: e.g., in Russian the usual masculine nominative plural is -y/-i, but in some words referring to natural pairs the ending is -á: beregá ‘riverbanks’, rukavá ‘sleeves’, glazá ‘eyes’. The old dual endings are frozen on the word for ‘two’ in all the languages. Gender and animacy. Slavic preserves the three IE genders. Genitive-accusative syncretism, replacing an inherited accusative ending with one identical to the genitive, spreads through masculine nominal declension and agreement paradigms following the

1616

XIII. Slavic

referential (animacy) hierarchy. In CS the genitive form replaced the accusative in tonic personal pronouns. In OCS masculine singular nouns referring to adult human males also took this ending. The category expands to include human and most higher animate masculine nouns in the modern languages (except Bulgarian and Macedonian, which have no noun cases). West Slavic languages distinguish human from non-human in plural masculines; East Slavic (which makes no formal gender distinctions in the plural) extends animacy to human and higher animate referents of all genders. Corbett (1991: 161−168) considers Slavic animacy a subgender since animate paradigms differ from inanimate ones in only one or two endings. Morphosyntax of numerals. The morphosyntax of phrases containing numerals is famously complex for modern Russian and several other languages (Mel’čuk 1985; Corbett 1993; Franks 1995: 93−129). In CS and OCS, ‘one’ was an adjective of the regular and open o/a-stem declension, agreeing in gender, number, and case with the quantified noun, which was singular and in the case required by its own syntax. ‘Two’ was a similarly regular adjective in the dual form and taking a noun in the dual. ‘Three’ and ‘four’ were adjectives of irregular or minor declensions, agreeing with a noun that was plural. ‘Five’ and above governed the genitive plural of the quantified noun, since they were morphologically i-stem nouns and nominalized forms of old ordinals. (Most of them end in *-t- cognate to the regular IE ordinal suffix: OCS pętь ‘five’, desętь ‘ten’.) In numeral expressions it is the last digit of the numeral (i.e. the last word in the numeral) that agrees and/or determines case and number. The loss of the dual number led to changes in this system. In East Slavic the old dual was mostly identified with the genitive singular and this case was extended from 2 to 3 and 4. In BCS the old dual survives as a special counting form, also used with 2−4. In West Slavic plural endings were extended from 3−4 to 2. In Macedonian and Bulgarian the system has been simplified: ‘one’ is an agreeing adjective; all others take the plural (except that for masculine nouns there is a choice between plural and a counting form that continues old dual morphology, used with some of the numerals).

4. Balkan developments Macedonian and Bulgarian are the two Slavic languages included in the Balkan Sprachbund (together with Albanian, Romanian, Greek, and Romani). Of the standardly recognized Balkan areal features − postposed definite article, variant preposed future tense marker derived from verb of volition, clitic doubling for objects, noun case mergers and losses, mid central vowel, lack of an infinitive (finite subordinate clauses where most European languages use infinitives) − the most distinctive relative to the typical Slavic grammar are the presence of a definite article (postposed or otherwise), lack of cases, and use of clitics in verb agreement. Those standardly recognized Balkan areal features are categorical, i.e. present in all the Sprachbund members and no other nearby languages, but on a less categorical approach what is striking in the Balkan profile as it affects Slavic is the development of analytic or at least non-affixal morphology and the development of a head-marking clause (no cases, verb agreement with three arguments, an ad-verbal and chiefly preposed clitic string instead of a second-position one) and the beginnings of head-marked possession (adnominal clitics with kin terms, e.g. Bulgarian,

86. The evolution of Slavic

1617

Macedonian brat=mi ‘my brother’). The literature on the Balkan area is vast (see e.g. Sandfeld 1930; Joseph 1983; Lindstedt 2000; Alexander 2000; Rivero and Ralli 2001; Vermeer 2005; Tomić 2006).

5. Conclusion and prospects Some of the grammatical properties that are most distinctive in Slavic − regular reflexivizing detransitivization, second-position clitic strings, new verb derivational connections including aspect pairings − arose late in the Common Slavic period and probably marked the entry of Common Slavic into the European cultural sphere. Polabian, the westernmost Slavic language, went extinct in the 18 th century, its speakers gradually shifting to German after the German Drang nach Osten. Cashubian has the sociolinguistic status, in Poland, of one more dialect of Polish. Cashubia is a major tourist destination in Poland, but though this brings much contact the language appears to be stable. Sorbian has been a linguistically conservative island surrounded by German, but is now rapidly losing ground to German (Comrie and Jaenecke 2006). Belarusian should probably be regarded as endangered, its speakers shifting to Russian (Zaprudski 2007). Ukrainian was threatened as of 1991, with most of the urban population and many others predominantly or exclusively Russian-speaking, but a combination of policy and national consensus have strengthened its position. Rusyn is losing ground in Slovakia but apparently not in Ukraine. Apart from Belarusian and perhaps Ukrainian, the national languages are all in strong sociolinguistic positions and not threatened. Recent overviews of synchronic grammar include Comrie and Corbett (1993) and Sussex and Cubberley (2006). The series Historical Phonology of the Slavic Languages (Universitätsverlag Winter Heidelberg) has produced a number of monographs on the histories of individual languages.

6. References Alexander, Ronelle 2000 Tracking Sprachbund boundaries: Word order in the Balkans. In: Gilbers, Nerbonne, and Schaeken (eds.), 9−27. Andersen, Henning 1969 Lenition in Common Slavic. Language 45: 554−574. Andersen, Henning 1978 Perceptual and conceptual factors in abductive innovations. In: Jacek Fisiak (ed.), Recent developments in historical phonology. The Hague: Mouton, 1−22. Andersen, Henning 1996 Reconstructing Prehistorical Dialects: Initial Vowels in Slavic and Baltic. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Andersen, Henning 1999 The western South Slavic contrast Sn. sah-ni-ti / SC sah-nu-ti. Slovenski jezik / Slovene Linguistic Studies 2: 47−62. Baerman, Matthew 1999 The Evolution of Fixed Stress in Slavic. Munich: Lincom Europa.

1618

XIII. Slavic

Birnbaum, Henrik and Jos Schaeken 1997 Das altkirchenslavische Wort: Bildung-Bedeutung-Herleitung. Munich: Sagner. Čekmonas, Valery 1987 Territorija zaroždenija i ètapy razvitija vostočnoslavjanskogo akan’ja v svete dannyx lingvogeografii [The area of origin and stages of development of East Slavic akanje in the light of the data from linguistic geography]. Russian Linguistics 11: 335−349. Comrie, Bernard and Greville G. Corbett 1993 The Slavonic Languages. London: Routledge. Comrie, Bernard and Paulina Jaenecke 2006 Idiosyncratic factors in language endangerment: The case of Upper Sorbian. Linguistic Discovery 4(1) (online journal without pagination published by Dartmouth College). Corbett, Greville G. 1993 The head of Russian numeral constructions. In: Greville G. Corbett, Norman M. Fraser, and Scott McGlashan (eds.), Heads in Grammatical Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 11−35. Corbett, Greville G. 1991 Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dickey, Stephen M. 2000 Parameters of Slavic Aspect: A cognitive approach. Stanford, CA: CSLI. Dickey, Stephen M. 2010 Common Slavic ‘indeterminate’ verbs of motion were really manner-of-motion verbs. In: Driagina-Hasko and Perelmutter (eds.), 67−109. Driagina-Hasko, Viktoria and Renee Perelmutter (eds.) 2010 New Approaches to Slavic Verbs of Motion. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Franks, Steven 1995 Parameters of Slavic Morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Franks, Steven and Tracy Holloway King 2000 A Handbook of Slavic Clitics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fried, Mirjam 1994 Second-position clitics in Czech: Syntactic or phonological? Lingua 94: 155−175. Friedman, Victor A. 1993 Macedonian. In: Comrie and Corbett (eds.), 249−305. Friedman, Victor A. 2002 Macedonian. Munich: Lincom Europa. Georgiev, Vladimir I. (ed.) 1971 Bŭlgarski etimologičen rečnik [Bulgarian etymological dictionary]. Sofia: Bŭlgarska akademia na naukite. Gilbers, Dicky G., John Nerbonne, and Jos Schaeken (eds.) 2000 Languages in Contact. (Studies in Slavic and general linguistics 28). Amsterdam: Rodopi. Gołab, Zbigniew 1968 The grammar of Slavic causatives. In: Henry Kučera (ed.), American Contributions to the Sixth International Congress of Slavists. The Hague: Mouton, 71−94. Greenberg, Marc L. 2010 PIE Inheritance and Word-Formational Innovation in Slavic Motion Verbs in -i-. In: Driagina-Hasko and Perelmutter (eds.), 111−121. Herrity, Peter 2000 Slovene: A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge. Huson, Daniel H. and David Bryant 2006 Application of phylogenetic networks in evolutionary studies. Molecular Biology and Evolution 34: 254−267.

86. The evolution of Slavic

1619

Isačenko, Alexander V. 1970 East Slavic morphophonemics and the treatment of the jers in Russian: A revision of Havlík’s law. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 13: 73−124. Joseph, Brian 1983 The Synchrony and Diachrony of the Balkan Infinitive. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kemmer, Suzanne 1993 The Middle Voice. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Kiparsky, Valentin 1979 Russian Historical Grammar, Volume 1: The development of the sound system. Ann Arbor: Ardis. Ladefoged, Peter and Ian Maddieson 1996 The sounds of the world’s languages. Oxford: Blackwell. Leskien, August 1962 [1871] Handbuch der altbulgarischen (altkirchenslavischen) Sprache. Heidelberg: Winter [Weimar: Böhlau]. Lindstedt, Jouko 2000 Linguistic Balkanization: Contact-induced change by mutual reinforcement. In: Gilbers, Nerbonne, and Schaeken (eds.), 231−246. Magocsi, Paul Robert (ed.) 2004 Rusin'skyj Jazyk [The Rusyn language]. Opole: Uniwersytet Opolski. Maguire, Robert and Alan Timberlake (eds.) 1993 American Contributions to the Eleventh International Congress of Slavists. Columbus, OH: Slavica. Marušič, Franc and Rok Žaucer 2006 On the intensional FEEL-LIKE construction in Slovenian: A case for a phonologically null verb. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 24: 1093−1159. Marvan, Jiri 1979 Prehistoric Slavic Contraction. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press. Maslov, Jurij S. 1948 Vid i leksičeskoe značenie glagola v sovremennom russkom literaturnom jazyke [Aspect and the lexical meaning of the verb in the modern Russian literary language]. Izvestija AN SSSR, Otdelenie literatury i jazyka 7: 303−316. Mel'čuk, Igor' 1985 Poverxnostnyj sintaksis russkix čislovyx vyraženij [The surface syntax of Russian numerical expressions]. Vienna: Gesellschaft zur Forderung Slawistischer Studien. Mošinskij, Leszek 1972 O vremeni monoftongizacii praslavjanskix diftongov [On the time of monophthongization of Proto-Slavic diphthongs]. Voprosy Jazykoznanija 1972: 53−67. Nichols, Johanna 1993a The linguistic geography of the Slavic expansion. In: Maguire and Timberlake (eds.), 377−391. Nichols, Johanna 1993b Transitive and causative in the Slavic lexicon: Evidence from Russian. In: Bernard Comrie and Maria Polinsky (eds.), Causatives and Transitivity. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 69− 86. Polański, Kazimierz and James Allen Sehnert 1967 Polabian-English Dictionary. (Slavistic Printings and Reprintings 61). The Hague: Mouton. Rivero, Maria Luisa, and Angela Ralli (eds.) 2001 Comparative Syntax of Balkan Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

1620

XIII. Slavic

Sadnik, Linda and Rudolf Aitzetmüller 1955 Handwörterbuch zu den altkirchenslavischen Texten. The Hague: Mouton. Sandfeld, Kristian 1930 Linguistique balkanique: Problèmes et résultats. Paris: Klincksieck. Shevelov, George Y. 1957 Trъt-type Groups and the Problem of Moravian Components in Old Church Slavonic. Slavonic and East European Review 35 (No. 85, June): 379−398. [Reprinted 1971 in Teasers and Appeasers. (Forum Slavicum 32). Munich: Fink, 94−112.] Short, David 1993 Czech. In: Comrie and Corbett (eds.), 455−532. Stone, Gerald 1993 Cassubian. In: Comrie and Corbett (eds.), 593−685. Sussex, Roland and Paul Cubberley 2006 The Slavic Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Timberlake, Alan 1983a Compensatory lengthening in Slavic, 1: Conditions and dialect geography. In: Vladimir Markov and Dean S. Worth (eds.), From LA to Kiev: Papers on the Occasion of the Ninth International Congress of Slavists, Kiev, September 1983. Columbus, OH: Slavica, 207−235. Timberlake, Alan 1983b Compensatory lengthening in Slavic, 2: Phonetic reconstruction. In: Michael S. Flier (ed.), American Contributions to the Ninth International Congress of Slavists, 1: Linguistics. Columbus, OH: Slavica, 293−319. Timberlake, Alan 1988 The fall of the jers in West Slavic (Kashubian and Upper Sorbian). Welt der Slaven 33: 225−247. Timberlake, Alan 1993 Isochrony in Late Common Slavic. In: Maguire and Timberlake (eds.), 425−439. Timberlake, Alan 2013 Culture and the spread of Slavic. In: Balthasar Bickel, Lenore A. Grenoble, David A. Peterson, and Alan Timberlake (eds.), Language Typology and Historical Contingency. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 331−356. Tomić, Olga M. 2006 Balkan Sprachbund morphosyntactic features. Dordrecht: Springer. Uspenskij, Boris A. 1968 Arxaičeskaja sistema cerkovnoslavjanskogo proiznošenija. (Iz istorii liturgičeskogo proiznošenija v Rossii) [The archaic system of Church Slavic pronunciation. (From the history of liturgical pronunciation in Russia)]. Moscow: Moscow University Press. Uspenskij, Boris A. 2002 Istorija russkogo literaturnogo jazyka (X−XVII vv.) [The History of Russian literary language (X‒XVII c.)]. Moscow: Aspekt. Vaillant, André 1964 Manuel du vieux slave. Paris: Institut d'études slaves. Vaňko, Juraj 2000 The Language of Slovakia’s Rusyns. New York: Carpatho-Rusyn Research Center. Vermeer, Willem 2000 On the status of the earliest Russian isogloss: Four untenable and three questionable reasons for separating the progressive and the second regressive palatalization of Common Slavic. Russian Linguistics 24(5): 5−29. Vermeer, Willem 2005 The rise of the Balkan linguistic type: Preliminary considerations for private consumption only. MS, University of Leiden.

86. The evolution of Slavic

1621

Zaliznjak, Andrej A. 2004 Drevnenovgorodskij dialekt [The Old Novgorod dialect]. Moscow: Škola “Jazyki russkoj kul’tury”. Zaliznjak, Andrej A. 2008 Drevnerusskie ènklitiki [Old Russian enclitics]. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskix kul’tur. Zaprudski, Siarhiej 2007 In the grip of replacive bilingualism: The Belarusian language in contact with Russian. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 183: 97−118.

Johanna Nichols, Berkeley, CA (USA)

XIV. Baltic 87. The documentation of Baltic 1. Introduction 2. Old Prussian 3. Lithuanian

4. Latvian 5. References

1. Introduction The Baltic languages have a relatively short written tradition that is intimately connected to the Christianization of the Baltic region. Besides the well attested Old Prussian, Lithuanian, and Latvian, there is evidence of a number of extinct Baltic languages or dialects. For Galindian, Selonian, and Semigallian, our linguistic knowledge is based exclusively on onomastic material and on certain features of modern dialects spoken in the regions of their historical extension. For Curonian and Yatvingian, however, there are some additional attestations. In the case of Curonian, it should be noted that Simon Grunau’s Preussische Chronik (1526) contains a version of the Lord’s Prayer which has been demonstrated by Schmid (1962) to be not Old Prussian as previously thought, but Old Latvian, with possible traces of Curonian. Concerning Yatvingian, the glossary Pagańske gwary z Narewu must be mentioned. The glossary was acquired in 1978 by V. Zinov, who made a personal copy of it in his notebook. The original version of the glossary was later destroyed, before it was ever made public, for which reason the authenticity of the glossary unfortunately cannot be verified. The glossary contains about 200 Polish words with correspondences in a presumed peripheral Baltic language or dialect. Some scholars consider it to be Yatvingian (Zinkevičius 1985a, 1985b; Chelimskij 1985; Orël 1986; Orël and Chelimskij 1987), but it has also been suggested that it might be Lithuanian with a strong Yiddish influence (Schmid 1986). In this chapter, we will present an overview of the texts written in Old Prussian, Lithuanian, and Latvian, starting from the earliest attestations up until the end of the 17 th century. The list of early Lithuanian and Latvian texts will not be exhaustive, but will include the most interesting documents from a linguistic point of view. Most of the texts have been edited and published several times, but due to limitations of space only a small selection of the available editions will be included here. We also wish to make the reader aware of the fact that most of the early Baltic texts have now been made available in online databases and corpora, such as the sites Senieji raštai provided by the Institute of the Lithuanian Language, SENIE (Latviešu valodas seno tekstu korpuss) created by the University of Latvia, and a database Prūsų kalbos paveldo duomenų bazė containing Old Prussian texts prepared by Vilnius University.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-008

87. The documentation of Baltic

1623

2. Old Prussian The Old Prussian corpus is not very voluminous, the major documents being the Elbing vocabulary, Simon Grunau’s vocabulary, and the 1st, 2 nd, and 3 rd Catechisms. The 3 rd Catechism is also referred to as the Enchiridion and this text is unique in that it includes accent marks. In addition to these documents there are also some fragments, cf. Mažiulis (1981: 62−64), Schaeken (2002−2003), Kessler and Mossman (2013a). The Old Prussian personal names have been analyzed by Trautmann (1925), and an annotated collection of the Old Prussian place names was published by Gerullis (1922a). The Old Prussian place names have recently been treated by Blažienė in two monographs (2000, 2005). Mažiulis has published annotated editions of the Old Prussian texts, along with facsimiles of the texts (1966, 1981). An edition with facsimiles has also been published by Palmaitis (2007). Older editions of the texts include Berneker (1896) and Trautmann (1910). These editions do not include facsimiles, but are merely transcriptions of the texts. Note that Trautmann uses his own page and line numbers when referring to a given line in the texts and that these numbers differ from the original pagination. A complete etymological dictionary of Old Prussian has been published by Mažiulis (1988 ff./2013), and parts of the Old Prussian vocabulary have also been treated by Toporov (1975 ff.).

2.1. Elbing Vocabulary The Elbing Vocabulary is part of the so-called Codex Neumannianus, which dates from around 1400. It has long been recognized that the extant copy of the vocabulary is most likely to be a copy of another copy or a misrepresentative copy of the original, due to many inconsistencies and obvious mistakes, cf. Trautmann (1910: XXII−XXV). Based on the fact that the Elbing Vocabulary must be a copy, Trautmann (1910: XXIV) makes the following assumption: “Wir haben demnach die Entstehungszeit um einige Generationen heraufzurücken und kommen etwa bis zum Anfang des 14. oder sogar 13. Jh. [We have therefore pushed back the time of origin by a few generations and arrive at about the beginning of the 14 th or even the 13 th c.]”. This conclusion is often quoted in the secondary literature; cf. Eckert et al. (1994: 47) and Forssman (1995: 8). There is, however, no absolute time that must pass between the making of one copy of a text and the next one, and the question of when the vocabulary was compiled therefore remains open. In fact, it is difficult to date the text more precisely than somewhere between 1230 (when the German orders arrived in Prussia) and 1400 (Codex Neumannianus). The vocabulary consists of 802 entries in German and their Old Prussian translations. The lexical items are arranged in semantic groupings, e.g. cosmology, body parts, plants, animals, etc. The material is not significantly influenced by German, and it is likely that it was provided by native Old Prussian speakers (or skilled Prussian-speaking Germans). It is possible that different informants were used during the compilation of the vocabulary, and some variation within the document may hence be explained as reflecting different dialectal traits within the Pomesanian dialect area. The place of the stress is not marked in the vocabulary, but it is sometimes possible to draw some conclusions concerning the accent when indirect evidence is included, cf. Endzelin (1944: 44 ff.),

1624

XIV. Baltic

Larsson (2005, 2010: 17−24). The Elbing Vocabulary is a handwritten document and the extant copy contains numerous copyist’s errors. The phonological significance of the orthography used in the Elbing Vocabulary has been questioned by many scholars, e.g. Burwell (1970), Schmalstieg (1976), but, as pointed out by Levin (1974: 2), the criticism is based on the premise that there is no phonemic reliability in the spelling system used. Levin points out that although the mistakes are plenty, they can generally be understood as textual errors and argues (1976: 11) that the Elbing Vocabulary in fact incorporates a good orthography − but that it was poorly copied.

2.2. Simon Grunau’s vocabulary Simon Grunau’s vocabulary comprises about 100 Old Prussian and German words, and it is a part of Grunau’s Preussische Chronik that was written between 1517 and 1526. Unfortunately, the original manuscript of Grunau’s vocabulary has not been preserved, but several copies of the original have been found, i.e. GrA, GrC, GrF, GrG, GrH. The GrG text differs from the rest since it is a German-Old Prussian vocabulary, whereas the others are copies of an Old Prussian-German vocabulary.

2.3. The Old Prussian Catechisms The three Catechisms from the mid-16 th century are from the Samlandian area of Prussia. The language of these documents differs quite a bit from the language of the Elbing Vocabulary. It is often assumed that the differences are due to the fact that the Catechisms are written in the Samlandian dialect, although it is difficult to distinguish dialect traits from phonological changes due to language development. The 1st Catechism was published in 1545 in Königsberg. The 2 nd Catechism was published later in the same year (also in Königsberg) and in the introduction to the 2 nd Catechism, it is stated that this is a corrected version (presumably of the 1st Catechism). The 3 rd Catechism (the Enchiridion) was published in 1561. It is a translation of Martin Luther’s Small Catechism, prepared by Abel Will (and his translator Paul Megott). A detailed survey of the differences between the three Catechisms is presented by Kortlandt (1998), who also argues that the language of the Enchiridion is a further development of the language of the earlier Catechisms. The Enchiridion is the only Old Prussian document where the accent is denoted explicitly. In this text, long stressed vowels are indicated by a macron. There seems to be no difference in notation between acute and circumflex accentuation on monophthongs, but in diphthongs the macron can be placed either on the first or the second element, marking the prominent part of the stressed diphthong. In such cases, it is therefore possible to distinguish between falling and rising accentuation, e.g. ēit ‘to go’ (Lith. eĩti), aīnan Asg. ‘one’ (Lith. víeną Asg.). It has furthermore been suggested that the double consonants in the Enchiridion may also denote stress, although opinions on the matter differ, e.g. Trautmann (1910: 185), Endzelin (1944: 27 ff.), Kortlandt (1974).

87. The documentation of Baltic

1625

3. Lithuanian The oldest known texts in Lithuanian are the handwritten prayers inscribed at the end of the book of Tractatus Sacerdotalis (1503), cf. Lebedys and Palionis (1963, 1972), Zinkevičius (2000). In 2006, 20 anonymous Lithuanian glosses (~1520−1530) were discovered in a rare incunabulum at the National Museum of Poland in Kraków, cf. Subačius, Leńczuk, and Wydra (2010). It has been argued that the prayers and the glosses share specific orthographic features, although they were written in different dialects, cf. Subačius, Leńczuk, and Wydra (2010: 36 ff.). The prayers show dialectal traits characteristic of the East Aukštaitian dialect with features of dzūkai (cf. Lebedys and Palionis 1972: 45−48), while the glosses have traits belonging to the West Aukštaitian dialect. The printed texts originate from three different areas, in which three variants of written Lithuanian emerged. In the printings issued in Prussian Lithuania, the western variant close to the modern West Aukštaitian dialect was used. Two variants of the written language were formed in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, one in the central area and another in the eastern area around Vilnius.

3.1. Documents from Prussian Lithuania The first book printed in the Lithuanian language was Catechismvsa Prasty Szadei published by Martynas Mažvydas (†1563) in Königsberg in 1547. The text is a translation of a Polish catechism by Jan Seklucjan from 1545, but the book also contains a short primer, a small hymnal and prefaces written in Latin and Lithuanian. The rhymed Lithuanian preface is considered to be the first original text written in the Lithuanian language. Although the author’s name is not written on the title page of the catechism, it is revealed in an acrostic, i.e. the first letters of lines 3−19 in the Lithuanian preface. A few years later, in 1549, Mažvydas also issued the hymn Giesme S. Ambraszeijaus bey S. Augustina and the Forma Chrikstima (1559). He also prepared two collections of hymns, Gesmes Chriksczoniskas, that were published only after his death by his cousin Baltramiejus Vilentas (1566 and 1570). The language of these texts reflects Mažvydas’ own native Žemaitian dialect, but it has been somewhat adapted to the West Aukštaitian dialect of Prussian Lithuania. The language of Mažvydas’ texts was first investigated in detail by Stang (1929), and has subsequently been further studied by several other scholars, for example, Grinaveckis (1963, 1975), Zinkevičius (1977, 1978a, 1978b, 1979, 1998: 103 ff.), and others. A useful recent edition of Mažvydas’ works containing facsimiles as well as texts of the Polish, Latin, and German originals is Michelini (2000). Other editions and dictionaries: Bezzenberger (1874), Gerullis (1922b, 1923), Ročka (1974), Subačius (1993), Dini (1994), Urbas (1998). A few more religious books in Lithuanian were prepared by Baltramiejus Vilentas (†1587). In 1575 he translated Martin Luther’s Small Catechism (Enchiridion), although only the 2 nd edition from 1579 has been preserved. He also translated pericopes (Euangelias bei Epistolas). Editions: Bechtel (1882), Ford (1965, 1969). Another important document from Prussian Lithuania is the anonymous book of sermons, the Wolfenbütteler Postille, for which the extant copy of the original manuscript dates from 1573. This is the oldest known collection of sermons in Lithuanian. For editions, cf. Karaciejus (1995), Gelumbeckaitė (2008).

1626

XIV. Baltic

One of the most significant writers of Lithuanian religious works from Prussian Lithuania was Jonas Bretkūnas (†1602). In 1589 he published a hymnal Giesmes Duchaunas together with another hymnal Kancionalas and the first separate prayer book in Lithuanian Kollectas, where he also added Mažvydas’ Paraphrasis (edition: Michelini 2001). Bretkūnas also prepared and issued an extensive two-volume book of sermons (1591), which was not merely a translation, but included original sermons written in the Lithuanian language (edition: Aleknavičienė 2005). Bretkūnas wrote in the West Aukštaitian dialect of Prussian Lithuania, but his language has many elements from other dialects, including Žemaitian (Zinkevičius 1996: 238). His most important work was the preparation of the translation of the entire Bible into Lithuanian: Biblia tatai esti Wissas Schwentas Raschtas (1579−1590). The surviving manuscript of his Bible translation has recently been published, cf. Range and Scholz (1991a, 1991b), Scholz (1996, 2002a), Scholz and Range (2002b), Kessler (2013b). The only part of Bretkūnas’ Bible which was printed at that time was edited by Jonas Rėza (†1629); in 1625 he published the psalms of David (Psalteras Dowido). Edition: Scholz (2002a). Simonas Vaišnoras (†1600), another writer from this area, was a protestant reformer who came to Prussian Lithuania from the Grand Duchy. His Zemczuga Theologischka (1600) was a translation of the tract Margarita Theologica (edition: Michelini 1997). Although Vaišnoras was Žemaitian, his written language is Aukštaitian, with only a few traces of the Žemaitian dialect, cf. Witte (1931), Zinkevičius (1988: 79 ff.). The first Lithuanian grammars also appeared in Prussian Lithuania; in 1653 Danielius Kleinas (†1666) published Grammatica Litvanica, written in Latin. The next year he issued a shorter grammar which was written in German: Compendium LitvanicoGermanicum (1654). Kleinas applied his linguistic principles to his publication Naujos giesmju knygos (1666), which was a collection of hymns and prayers, written by different authors, including Kleinas himself. Editions: Kruopas (1957), Michelini (2009). Another grammar, also written in Latin, was prepared by Kristupas Sapūnas (†1659): Compendium grammaticae Lithvanicae (edition: Eigminas and Stundžia 1997). It was issued in 1673 by Teofilis Šulcas (†1673). Two handwritten dictionaries were also compiled in this area during the 17 th century; the German-Lithuanian dictionary Lexicon Lithuanicum (edition: Drotvinas 1987) and the more extensive Clavis Germanico-Lithvana, which also contains a list of Lithuanian proverbs (edition: Drotvinas, Marcinkevičius, and Ivaškevičius 1995−1997). The now extinct conservative dialect spoken in the former Prussian Lithuania was later also described by Friedrich Kurschat (1870, 1876, 1883).

3.2. Documents from the central area of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania The linguistically most valuable documents from the central area of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania are the texts written by Mikalojus Daukša (†1613). He published a translation of the Polish version of Jacob Ledesma’s catechism (Kathechismas, 1595) and a book of sermons (Postilla Catholicka, 1599). These publications are unique among the Old Lithuanian texts in having complete and systematic accent marks, and although only the place of the stress is marked, the extent of the material often makes it possible to determine the original accentual paradigm of a word, cf. Skardžius (1935), Kudzinowski

87. The documentation of Baltic

1627

(1977), Larsson (2002). The language in Daukša’s translations is influenced by the fact that Daukša came from a Central Aukštaitian area, but lived and worked in the South Žemaitian dialectal area (Varniai) during the latter half of his life. His accentuation often reflects the archaic accentuation of the dialect of Prussian Lithuania, but accentual variation does occur within the documents, cf. Skardžius (1935: 182). Editions: Biržiška (1926), Sittig (1929), Jakštienė and Palionis (1995), Palionis (2000). Other Old Lithuanian texts from this area are Merkelis Petkevičius’ (†1608) Reformist catechism from 1598 (edition: Balčikonis 1939), and the Book of Sermons published by Jokūbas Morkūnas (†~1611) in 1600, as well as the Catholic hymnal book issued in 1646 by Saliamonas Mozerka Slavočinskis (†~1660) (edition: Lebedys 1958). One of the most significant and extensive publications of the Reformists’ literature was Kniga Nobaznistes issued in Kėdainiai in 1653. The book consists of 3 parts: the collection of hymns, sermons, and prayers together with the catechism (edition: Pociūtė 2004). Finally, the translation of the Bible by Samuelis Boguslavas Chilinskis (†1668) must be mentioned here. The printing of this Bible began in 1660 in London, but publication was stopped and only a few pages of the printed edition have survived along with the manuscript of the New Testament. Editions of the text (and a word index) have been published by Kudzinowski and Otrębski (1958), Kudzinowski (1964, 1984), Kavaliūnaitė (2008).

3.3. Documents from the eastern area of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania The first book published in the eastern variant was an anonymous catechism of 1605 which was translated from the Polish version of Jacob Ledesma’s catechism. The translation was likely influenced by Daukša’s translation of the same text; for example, the place of the stress is marked with the same symbols ˊ and ^ as used by Daukša, cf. Zinkevičius (1975: 6 ff.). Edition: Sittig (1929). The most important author from this area is Konstantinas Sirvydas (†1631), who set the norms of the eastern variant of the written language. His book of sermons published in 1629 (Vol. I) and 1644 (Vol. II) was the first substantial original text in Lithuanian, later translated into Polish. Sirvydas also prepared a trilingual Latin-Polish-Lithuanian dictionary (Dictionarium trium lingvarum). The title page is missing from the oldest surviving copy, but it is likely to have appeared around 1620, cf. Pakalka (1973), Balašaitis and Pakalka (1976). Later he prepared a new and more voluminous edition of the dictionary which was first published in 1631, but unfortunately no copies of this edition have survived. Three successive later editions appeared in 1642, 1677, and 1713. Editions: Specht (1929), Lyberis (1979), Pakalka (1997). Jonas Jaknavičius (†1668), another writer from this area, edited and prepared some editions of Sirvydas’ works. His most important work was the translation of pericopes into Lithuanian: Ewangelie Polskie y Litewskie. The oldest known edition is the one from 1647 and the book was re-issued many times, e.g. 1674, 1679 and 1690. Edition: Lučinskienė (2005).

1628

XIV. Baltic

4. Latvian The oldest surviving published book in the Latvian language dates back to the late 16 th century, although there are indications of a much earlier book (from 1525) with Latvian text which unfortunately has not been found, cf. e.g. Vanags (2008: 174). One can also mention several early inscriptions in Latvian, such as a few Latvian words and personal names inscribed into handwritten documents in German dated from the 15 th century onwards, cf. e.g. Arbusow (1921), Blese (1929). Moreover, a few variants of the Lord’s Prayer from this early period have survived, cf. Draviņš (1965: 19−43), Ozols (1965: 57−62). In the beginning of the 16 th century, Latvian started to be used for church services and the earliest writings were hence religious texts, mostly translations from German. The first books were written in the Latvian language spoken in Riga, and they were notably influenced by the German language, since the writers of these texts were mainly of German origin seeking to keep their translations close to the original texts, cf. Vanags (2008: 193−196). In this context, the Latvian theologian and pastor Johannes Eck (†1552?) must be mentioned; it is believed that he translated the Lutheran Church handbook into Latvian already in the 1520s or 1530s, and that it was, at that time, circulating in manuscript form, cf. Vanags (2000: 21 ff.). The handbook was published only in 1586−1587 in Königsberg and consists of three parts: Martin Luther’s small catechism Enchiridion. Der kleine Catechismus, the pericopes Evangelia vnd Episteln, and the hymnal Vndeudsche Psalmen vnd geistliche Lieder oder Gesenge. Editions: Bezzenberger (1875), Bezzenberger and Bielenstein (1886). Alongside the Lutheran works translated into Latvian during this early period, a number of Catholic works were also prepared as a result of the Counter-Reformation movement. In fact, the oldest surviving published book in Latvian is the translation of Petrus Canisius’ Catechismus Catholicorum issued in Vilnius in 1585. Judging from the language in the book, it seems that the translator did not know Latvian well; it has been suggested that the translation might have been prepared by the Catholic priest Ertmann Tolgsdorf (†1620), cf. Kučinskis (1983: 65−83). Edition: Günther (1929). Another Catholic writer was the Jesuit Georg Elger (†1672) from Valmiera/Wolmar. He compiled a hymnal, Geistliche Catholische Gesänge, which was printed in Braunsberg (now Branevo, Poland) in 1621. It is also probable that Elger prepared and published a Catholic catechism and pericopes around this time, cf. Kučinskis (1986: 149). Only the pericopes in manuscript form have been preserved: Evangelien und Episteln, dated 1640. In 1672, a few more books appeared: Catechismus sev Brevis Institutio doctrinae Christianae and Evangelia toto anno singulis Dominicis. A new edition of the hymnal Cantiones spirituales was published in 1673, one year after his death. For editions and a word index, cf. Günther (1929), Draviņš (1961), Draviņš and Ozola (1976). Moreover, Elger prepared a three-language dictionary, Dictionarium Polono-Latino-Lottavicum, which was issued in Vilnius in 1683. The dictionary was based on the LatinPolish section of the Lithuanian author Konstantinas Sirvydas’ Dictionarium trium lingvarum (editions from 1642, 1677), to which the Latvian vocabulary was added, cf. Zemzare (1961: 64), Judžentytė and Zubaitienė (2015, 2016). It has been suggested that in the hymnal of 1621, the Latvian tones were marked orthographically, albeit inconsistently (Karulis 1984, 1986a), but this idea has been criticized, cf. Grabis (1985).

87. The documentation of Baltic

1629

The most significant scholar from this early period was Georg Mancelius (†1654) who was born in Semgallen. He started a new period of written Latvian by creating a new systematic orthography and choosing Latvian spoken in Semgallen and Livland as the basis for the written language, cf. Vanags (2008: 188 ff.). Mancelius revised and improved the earlier Lutheran Church handbook and added new texts to it, i.e. the Book of Sirach from the Old Testament and Johannes Bugenhagen’s tale on the destruction of Jerusalem. The handbook Lettisch Vade mecum was printed in Riga in 1631 (re-issued in 1643−1644, 1671−1673, 1685, etc.). As a separate edition Mancelius also issued the Book of Proverbs: Die Sprüche Salomonis (1637). His most important work was, however, the 3-volume book of sermons Lang = gewünschte Lettische Postill (1654), since it was the first substantial original text written in the Latvian language. Mancelius also compiled the first German-Latvian dictionary: Lettus, Das ist Wortbuch (1638), which also included a thematically organized collection of sentences and expressions alongside their German translation (Phraseologia Lettica) and 10 parallel conversations. For editions and a word index, cf. Günther (1929), Mancelius (1954), Fennell (1988, 1989). During the second half of the 17 th century, a few more dictionaries and the first grammars of Latvian appeared. A student of Georg Mancelius, Christophor Fürecker (†~1685), a local-born German from Courland, wrote a manuscript of the Latvian grammar (Draviņš 1943: 58−59) and compiled a Latvian-German dictionary (Lettisches und Teutsches Wörterbuch), surviving in two copied manuscripts, which was later included in dictionaries compiled by other authors. For editions and a word index, cf. Fennell (1997, 1998, 2000). He also authored around 180 hymns printed in several hymnals published from 1671 onwards (Bērziņš 1928) and translated some fragments of the New Testament (1685). Another pastor from Courland, Johann Langius (†1690), prepared a manuscript of a Lettisch−Deutsches Lexicon (1685), which also included a handwritten Latvian grammar eine kurtze Lettische Grammatica (1685). Editions: Blese (1936), Fennell (1987, 1991). Other dictionaries from this period are an anonymous multilingual four-language dictionary Vocabularium Wie Etzliche gebräuchliche Sachen Auff Teutsch/ Lateinisch/ Polnisch Und Lettisch Auszusprechen Seynd, issued in Riga in 1688, and an anonymous manuscript Manuale Lettico−Germanicum. Edition: Fennell (2001). The first grammar of Latvian, Manuductio ad linguam lettonicam facilis et certa, was published by Johann Georg Rehehusen (†before 1650) in Riga in 1644 (edition: Fennell 1982a) but was heavily criticized for its simplicity and imprecision by the superintendent of Courland Paul Einhorn (edition: Fennell 1982b: 1−45). It seems this grammar never gained much popularity and could in fact have been forgotten or ignored, because the next Latvian grammar (1685, Jelgava/Mitau), published by the superintendent of Courland Heinrich Adolphi (†1686), was titled as the first Latvian grammar: Erster Versuch einer kurtz verfasseten Anleitung zur Lettischen Sprache (editions: Haarmann 1978; Fennell 1993). This grammar proved to be very influential and was the basis for most Latvian grammars up until the second half of the 18 th century, cf. Vanags (2008: 181). In the same year, another grammar was also published: Gantz kurtze Anleitung zur Lettischen Sprache by the pastor Georg Dressel (†1698) (edition: Fennell 1984). The source of these two grammars was the aforementioned Fürecker’s manuscript (Draviņš 1965: 83−114), which was also the basis for fragments of a grammar written in an album by Martin Büchner. Edition: Fennell (1982b: 81−233).

1630

XIV. Baltic

The entire Bible was translated into Latvian during the second half of the 17 th century. First attempts to translate some parts were in fact made as early as the 16 th century, when the first Latvian books were written and published. In 1664, the Livland sinod issued a resolution stating that ten pastors would translate the Book of Psalms as a model for a translation, although no one had actually submitted a proposal, cf. Vanags (2008: 179 ff.). A Livland pastor, Jānis Reiters (Johannes Reuter, †1695 or 1697), an ethnic Latvian, had however translated a few parts of the Bible on his own initiative: Eine Übersetzungs Probe, which was published in 1675. It is furthermore known that Reiters translated the Gospel of Matthew and that this translation was published in Riga in 1664, but unfortunately, this publication has not survived. He also published a collection of the Lord’s Prayer in a number of languages, including Latvian: Oratio Dominica XL Linguarum (1675). Perhaps due to his controversial personality and conflicts with the church leadership, he was never assigned to translate the whole Bible. Editions: Jēgers (1954, 1975), Karulis (1986b). In 1681, Sweden’s King Carl XI approved a resolution to support the translation of the entire Bible into Latvian, and Ernst Glück (†1705) was subsequently appointed for the task. He was not a native speaker of Latvian, but had come to Latvia from Germany. In 1681−1682, Glück translated the New Testament and worked on the Old Testament until 1690. It took nearly 10 years for the entire Bible to be issued (1685−1694). Edition: Bībele (1974). The translation of the Bible was approved by the commissioned reviewers from both Courland and Livonia (1682−1683) and it became the most influential work of the entire period, setting the norms for the standardization of the written language.

Acknowledgment The authors would like to express their thanks to Professor Pēteris Vanags for his kind advice and valuable comments on the manuscript.

5. References 5.1. Editions of Old Prussian texts Berneker, Erich Karl 1896 Die preussische Sprache. Texte, Grammatik, etymologisches Wörterbuch. Strassburg: Trübner. Kessler, Stephan and Stephen Mossman 2013a Ein Fund aus dem Jahre 1440: Ein bisher unbekannter Text in einer baltischen Sprache. Archivum Lithuanicum 15: 511−534. Mažiulis, Vytautas 1966 Prūsų kalbos paminklai [Literary documents of the Prussian language], Band 1. Vilnius: Mokslas. Mažiulis, Vytautas 1981 Prūsų kalbos paminklai [Literary documents of the Prussian language], Band 2. Vilnius: Mokslas.

87. The documentation of Baltic

1631

Palmaitis, Letas 2007 Old Prussian written monuments: Text and comments. Kaunas: Lithuanians’ World Center for Advancement of Culture, Science and Education. Schaeken, Jos 2002−2003 Observations on the Old Prussian Basel Epigram of Basilea. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 44−45: 331−342. Trautmann, Reinhold 1910 Die altpreußischen Sprachdenkmäler. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

5.2. Editions of Old Lithuanian texts Aleknavičienė, Ona 2005 Jono Bretkūno Postilė. Studija, faksimilė ir kompaktinė plokštelė [Jonas Bretkūnas’ Book of Sermons. Study, facsimile, and compact disc]. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla. Balčikonis, Juozas 1939 1598 metų Merkelio Petkevičiaus katekizmas [Merkelis Petkevičius’ Catechism of the year 1598]. Kaunas: Švietimo ministerijos Knygų leidimo komisija. Bechtel, Fritz 1882 Bartholomäus Willent’s litauische Übersetzung des Luther’schen Enchiridions und der Episteln und Evangelien, nebst den Varianten der von Lazarus Sengstock besorgten Ausgabe dieser Schriften. Göttingen: Robert Peppmüller. Bezzenberger, Adalbert 1874 Litauische und Lettische Drucke des 16. Jahrhunderts. Heft I. Der litauische Katechismus vom Jahre 1547. Göttingen: Robert Peppmüller. Biržiška, Mykolas 1926 Daukšos Postilė [Daukša’s Book of Sermons]. Kaunas: Lietuvos universiteto leidinys. Dini, Pietro Umberto 1994 L’inno di S. Ambrogio di Martynas Mažvydas. Studio filologico − linguistico del testo antico lituano (1549) e delle sue fonti latine e polacche. Rome: La Fenice Edizioni. Drotvinas, Vincentas 1987 Lexicon Lithuanicum. Rankraštinis XVII a. vokiečių-lietuvių kalbų žodynas [Lexicon Lithuanicum. A handwritten German-Lithuanian dictionary of the 17 th century]. Vilnius: Mokslas. Drotvinas, Vincentas, Juozas Marcinkevičius, and Adolfas Ivaškevičius 1995−1997 Clavis Germanico-Lithvana. Rankraštinis XVII amžiaus vokiečių-lietuvių kalbų žodynas [Clavis Germanico-Lithvana. A handwritten German-Lithuanian dictionary of the 17 th century], vols. 1−4. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Eigminas, Kazimieras and Bonifacas Stundžia 1997 Sapūno ir Šulco gramatika [The grammar of Sapūnas and Šulcas]. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Ford, Gordon B., Jr. 1965 The Lithuanian catechism of Baltramiejus Vilentas, 1579. Louisville, Kentucky: Pyramid Press. Ford, Gordon B., Jr. 1969 The old Lithuanian catechism of Baltramiejus Vilentas (1579). A phonological, morphological and syntactical investigation. The Hague: Mouton. Gelumbeckaitė, Jolanta 2008 Die litauische Wolfenbütteler Postille von 1573, vols. 1−2. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

1632

XIV. Baltic

Gerullis, Jurgis 1922b Mažvydas. Seniausieji lietuvių kalbos paminklai iki 1570 metams [Mažvydas. The oldest Lithuanian literary documents up to the year 1570]. Kaunas: Švietimo ministerijos leidinys. Gerullis, Georg 1923 Mosvid: die ältesten litauischen Sprachdenkmäler bis zum Jahre 1570/ Catechismusa prasty szadei, makslas skaitima raschta yr giesmes del kriksczianistes bei del berneliu iaunu nauiey sugulditas. Heidelberg: Winter. Jakštienė, Vida and Jonas Palionis 1995 Mikalojaus Daukšos 1595 m. Katekizmas [Mikalojus Daukša’s Catechism of the year 1595]. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Karaciejus, Juozas 1995 Wolfenbüttelio Postilė, 1573 [Wolfenbüttel Book of Sermons, 1573]. Vilnius: Žara. Kavaliūnaitė, Gina 2008 Samuelio Boguslavo Chylinskio Biblija. Senasis Testamentas, I tomas. Lietuviško vertimo ir olandiško originalo faksimilės [Samuelis Boguslavas Chylinskis’ Bible. The Old Testament, Vol. 1. Facsimiles of the Lithuanian translation and the Dutch Original]. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Kessler, Stephan 2013b Die Bibel, das ist die ganze Heilige Schrift Litauisch übersetzt von Johannes Bretke, Litauischer Pastor zu Königsberg 1590. Faksimile der Handschrift, Band 4 und 5. Unter Mitarbeit von Bettina Bergmann, Anastasija Kostiučenko, and Katja Racevičius. Paderborn: Schöningh. Kruopas, Jonas 1957 Pirmoji lietuvių kalbos gramatika, 1653 metai [The first grammar of Lithuanian, from the year 1653]. Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla. Kudzinowski, Czesław and Jan Otrębski 1958 Biblia Litewska Chylińskiego. Nowy Testament 2. Tekst [The Lithuanian Bible of Chylinskis. New Testament 2. Text]. Poznań: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich we Wrocławiu. Kudzinowski, Czesław 1964 Biblia Litewska Chylińskiego. Nowy Testament 3. Indeks [The Lithuanian Bible of Chylinskis. New Testament 3. Index]. Poznań: Państwowe wydawnictwo naukowe. Kudzinowski, Czesław 1977 Indeks-słownik do “Daukšos Postilė”, vol. 1−2. [Index-Dictionary to “Daukša’s Book of Sermons”, vols. 1−2]. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza. Kudzinowski, Czesław 1984 Biblia Litewska Chylińskiego. Nowy Testament 1. Fotokopie. [The Lithuanian Bible of Chylinskis. New Testament 1. Photocopy]. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza. Lebedys, Jurgis 1958 Giesmės tikėjimui katalickam priderančios, 1646 [Songs appropriate to the Catholic faith, 1646]. Vilnius: Valstybine˙ politine˙s ir moksline˙s literatūros leidykla. Lučinskienė, Milda 2005 Jono Jaknavičiaus 1647 metų “Ewangelie polskie y litewskie” [Jonas Jaknavičius’ “Polish and Lithuanian Gospel” of 1647]. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla. Lyberis, Antanas 1979 Pirmasis lietuvių kalbos žodynas [The first dictionary of Lithuanian]. Vilnius: Mokslas. Michelini, Guido 1997 Simono Vaišnoro 1600 metų Żemczuga Theologischka ir jos šaltiniai. [Simonas Vaišnoras’ Żemczuga Theologischka of 1600 and its sources]. Vilnius: Baltos lankos.

87. The documentation of Baltic

1633

Michelini, Guido 2000 Martyno Mažvydo raštai ir jų šaltiniai [The works of Martynas Mažvydas and their sources]. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Michelini, Guido 2001 Giesmes Duchaunas ir kitos 1589 metų liturginės knygos. Tekstai ir jų šaltiniai / Jonas Bretkūnas [Giesmes Duchaunas and other liturgical books of the year 1589. Texts and their sources / Jonas Bretkūnas] Vilnius: Baltos lankos. Michelini, Guido 2009 D. Kleino “Naujos giesmju knygos”. Tekstai ir jų šaltiniai / D. Kleins “Naujos giesmju knygos”. Die Texte und ihre Quellen. Vilnius: Versus Aureus. Pakalka, Kazys 1997 Senasis Konstantino Sirvydo Žodynas [The old dictionary of Konstantinas Sirvydas]. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Palionis, Jonas 2000 Mikalojaus Daukšos 1599 metų Postilė ir jos šaltiniai [Mikalojus Daukša’s Book of Sermons of 1599 and its sources]. Vilnius: Baltos lankos. Pociūtė, Dainora 2004 Knyga nobažnystės krikščioniškos, 1653. Faksimilinis leidinys [The Knyga Nobažnystės krikščioniškos of 1653. Facsimile edition]. Vilnius: Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas. Range, Jochen Dieter and Friedrich Scholz 1991a Psalter in die litauische Sprache übersetzt von Johannes Bretke, Pastor zu Labiau im Jahre Christi 1580. Faksimile der Handschrift, Band 6. Paderborn: Schöningh. Range, Jochen Dieter and Friedrich Scholz 1991b Das Neue Testament in die litauische Sprache übersetzt von Johannes Bretke, Pastor zu Labiau 1580. Faksimile der Handschrift, Band 7 und 8. Paderborn: Schöningh. Ročka, Marcelinas 1974 Pirmoji lietuviška knyga / Martynas Mažvydas [The first Lithuanian book / Martynas Mažvydas]. Vilnius: Vaga. Scholz, Friedrich 1996 Die Bibel, das ist die ganze Heilige Schrift, Litauisch übersetzt von Johannes Bretke, Litauischer Pastor zu Königsberg i. Pr. 1590. Faksimile der Handschrift, Band 1. Paderborn: Schöningh. Scholz, Friedrich 2002a Textkritische Edition der Übersetzung des Psalters in die litauische Sprache von Johannes Bretke, Pastor zu Labiau und Königsberg i. Pr., nach der Handschrift aus dem Jahre 1580 und der u¨berarbeiteten Fassung dieses Psalters von Johannes Rehsa, Pastor zu Königsberg i. Pr., nach dem Druck aus dem Jahre 1625. Unter Mitarbeit von Friedemann Kluge. Paderborn: Schöningh. Scholz, Friedrich and Jochen Dieter Range 2002b Die Bibel, das ist die ganze Heilige Schrift, Litauisch übersetzt von Johannes Bretke, Litauischer Pastor zu Königsberg 1590, Faksimile der Handschrift. Band 2 und 3. Paderborn: Schöningh. Sittig, Ernst 1929 Der polnische Katechismus des Ledesma und die litauischen Katechismen des Daugßa und des Anonymus vom Jahre 1605 nach den Krakauer Originalen und Wolters Neudruck interlinear herausgegeben. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Specht, Franz 1929 Šyrwids Punktay sakimų (Punkty kazań), Teil I: 1629; Teil II: 1644; litauisch und polnisch: mit kurzer grammatischer Einleitung. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

1634

XIV. Baltic

Subačius, Giedrius 1993 Katekizmas ir kiti raštai / Martynas Mažvydas [Catechism and other works / Martynas Mažvydas]. Vilnius: Baltos lankos. Urbas, Dominykas 1998 Martyno Mažvydo raštų žodynas [A dictionary of the works of Martynas Mažvydas]. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

5.3. Editions of Old Latvian texts Bezzenberger, Adalbert 1875 Litauische und Lettische Drucke des 16. Jahrhunderts II. Göttingen: Robert Peppmüller. Bezzenberger, Adalbert and August Bielenstein 1886 Undeutsche Psalmen und geistliche Lieder oder Gesenge: welche in den Kirchen des Fu¨rstenthums Churland und Semigallien in Liefflande gesungen werden. Mitau-Hamburg: Behre. Bībele 1974 = Bībele. Vecās un Jaunās Derības Svētie Raksti. Pirmās latviešu Bībeles jauns iespiedums [The Bible. The Holy Scripture of the Old and New Testament. The new edition of the first Latvian Bible]. Minneapolis: Latviesˇu Evaņģeliski-Luterisko Draudzˇu Apvienība. Blese, Ernsts 1936 Nīcas un Bārtas mācītāja Jāņa Langija 1685. gada latviski-vāciskā vārdnīca ar īsu latviešu gramatiku [A Latvian-German dictionary with a short grammar from the year 1685 by Johannes Langius, pastor of Nīca and Bārta]. Riga: Latvijas universitāte. Draviņš, Kārlis 1961 Evangelien und Episteln. Ins Lettische übersetzt von Georg Elger. Nebst einem Register seiner geistlichen Lieder aus der Zeit um 1640. Band 1. Texte. Lund: Slaviska institutionen vid Lunds universitet. Draviņš, Kārlis and Mirdza Ozola 1976 Evangelien und Episteln. Ins Lettische übersetzt von Georg Elger. Band 2. Wortregister. Lund: Slaviska institutionen vid Lunds universitet. Fennell, Trevor G. 1982a The First Latvian Grammar. J. G. Rehehusen’s “Manuductio ad linguam lettonicam …”. A facsimile text with annotated translation & commentary. Melbourne: Latvian Tertiary Committee. Fennell, Trevor G. 1982b Seventeenth century Latvian grammatical fragments. Melbourne: Latvian Tertiary Committee. Fennell, Trevor G. 1984 Georg Dreszell’s Gantz kurtze Anleitung zur Lettischen Sprache. Text. Translation. Commentary. Concordance. Melbourne: Latvian Tertiary Committee. Fennell, Trevor G. 1987 The Grammatical Appendix to Johannes Langius’ Latvian-German Lexicon. Melbourne: Latvian Tertiary Committee. Fennell, Trevor G. 1988 A Latvian-German Revision of G. Mancelius’ Lettus (1638). Melbourne: Latvian Tertiary committee. Fennell, Trevor G. 1989 A Latvian-German Revision of G. Mancelius’ Phraseologia Lettica (1638). Melbourne: Latvian Tertiary committee.

87. The documentation of Baltic

1635

Fennell, Trevor G. 1991 An Alphabetical Re-organization of Johannes Langius’ “Lettisch-deutsches Lexicon” (1685). Melbourne: Latvian Tertiary Committee. Fennell, Trevor G. 1993 Adolphi’s Latvian Grammar. Melbourne: Latvian Tertiary Committee. Fennell, Trevor G. 1997 Fürecker’s dictionary: the first manuscript. Riga: Latvijas Akadēmiskā bibliotēka. Fennell, Trevor G. 1998 Fürecker’s dictionary: the second manuscript. Riga: Latvijas Akadēmiskā bibliotēka. Fennell, Trevor G. 2000 Fürecker’s dictionary: a Concordance. I (A−M), II (N−Ž). Riga: Latvijas Akadēmiskā bibliotēka. Fennell, Trevor G. 2001 Manuale Lettico-Germanicum. I (A−O), II (P−Ž). Riga: Latvijas Akadēmiskā bibliotēka. Günther, August 1929 Altlettische Sprachdenkmäler in Faksimiledrucken, Band 1−2. Heidelberg: Winter. Haarmann, Harald 1978 Erster Versuch einer kurtz-verfasseten Anleitung zur lettischen Sprache. Hamburg: Buske. Jēgers, Benjamiņš 1954 Tēvreižu krājums. 1675. gada Rostokas izdevuma faksimiliespiedums [A collection of the Lord’s Prayers. A facsimile printing of Rostock’s edition from the year 1675]. Copenhagen: Imanta. Jēgers, Benjamiņš 1975 Jānis Reiters. Tulkojuma paraugs. 1675. gadā Rīgā iznākušo latviešu bībeles tekstu faksimiliespiedums [Jānis Reiters. A model for a translation. A facsimile printing of texts of the Latvian Bible printed in Rīga in 1675]. Stockholm: Daugava. Karulis, Konstantīns 1986b Jānis Reiters un viņa tulkojums [Jānis Reiters and his Translation]. Riga: Liesma. Mancelius, Georgius 1954 Sprediķu izlase [Selected sermons]. Copenhagen: Imanta.

5.4. Online text editions Old Prussian: http://www.prusistika.flf.vu.lt/paieska/paieska/ [Last accessed 13 February 2017]. Lithuanian: http://www.lki.lt/seniejirastai/home.php [Last accessed 13 February 2017]. Latvian: http://www.korpuss.lv/senie/ [Last accessed 13 February 2017].

5.5. General references Arbusow, Leonid 1921 Studien zur Geschichte der lettischen Bevölkerung Rigas im Mittelalter und 16. Jahrhundert. Latvijas augstskolas raksti I: 76−100. Balašaitis, Antanas and Kazys Pakalka 1976 Dar dėl K. Sirvydo defektinio žodyno leidimo datos [More on the date of the edition of the defective dictionary of K. Sirvydas]. Baltistica 12(2): 171−175. Bērziņš, Ludis 1928 Kristofors Fürekers un viņa nozīme latviešu literatūrā [Kristofor Fürecker and his significance to Latvian literature]. Filologu Biedrības Raksti 8: 145−224.

1636

XIV. Baltic

Blažienė, Grasilda 2000 Die baltischen Ortsnamen im Samland. Stuttgart: Steiner. Blažienė, Grasilda 2005 Baltische Ortsnamen in Ostpreußen. Stuttgart: Steiner. Blese, Ernests 1929 Latviešu personu vārdu un uzvārdu studijas I. Vecākie personu vārdi un uzvārdi (XIII− XVI g.s.) [Studies in Latvian personal names and surnames I. The oldest personal names and surnames (XIII−XVI centuries)]. Riga: A. Gulbis. Burwell, Michael L. 1970 The vocalic phonemes of the Old Prussian Elbing Vocabulary. In: Thomas F. Magner and William R. Schmalstieg (eds.), Baltic Linguistics. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 11−21. Chelimskij, Evgenij Arnoldovič 1985 Fenno−Ugrica в ятвяжском словарике? [Finno-Ugric elements in the Yatvingian lexicon?]. In: Zigmas Zinkevičius (ed.), Tarptautinė baltistų konferencija [International Conference of Baltists]. Vilnius: Vilniaus valstybinis universitetas, 234−235. Draviņš, Kārlis 1943 Fīrekeru grāmata Tartu Universitātes bibliotēkā [The grammar of Fürecker at the library of Tartu University]. Izglītības Mēnešraksts 3 (marts): 58−59. Draviņš, Kārlis 1965 Altlettische Schriften und Verfasser. I. Lund: Håkan Ohlssons boktryckeri. Eckert, Rainer, Elvira-Julia Bukevičiūtė, and Friedhelm Hinze 1994 Die baltischen Sprachen. Eine Einführung. Leipzig: Langenscheidt. Endzelin, Jan 1944 Altpreussische Grammatik. Riga: Latvju grāmata. Forssman, Bernhard 1995 Die baltischen Sprachen im Überblick. In: Gertrud Bense, Maria Kozianka, and Gottfried Meinhold (eds.), Deutsch-litauische Kulturbeziehungen. Kolloquium zu Ehren von August Schleicher. Jena: Universitätsverlag Druckhaus Mayer, 7−20. Gerullis, Georg 1922a Die altpreussischen Ortsnamen gesammelt und sprachlich behandelt. Berlin: De Gruyter. Grabis, Rūdolfs 1985 Vai tiešām viss ir tik drošs? [Is everything really so trustworthy?]. Latviešu valodas kultūras jautājumi 21: 72−77. Grinaveckis, Vladas 1963 Dėl Mažvydo katekizmo tarmės lokalizacijos [On the localization of the dialect of Mažvydas’ catechism]. Kalbotyra VI: 65−71. Grinaveckis, Vladas 1975 Kuria tarme parašyta pirmoji lietuviška knyga [In what dialect is the first Lithuanian book written?]. Mokslas ir gyvenimas 11: 35−36, 59. Judžentytė, Gintarė and Vilma Zubaitienė 2015 Konstantino Sirvydo “Dictionarum trium linguarum” (1642) ir Georgo Elderio “Dictionarium Polono-Latino-Lottaucium” (1683) jų santykis ir leksikografinų metodų skirtybės [Konstantinas Sirvydas’ “Dictionarum Polono-Latino-Lottaucium” (1683): Connections and Differences between Lexicographical Methods]. Baltu filoloģija XXIV (1): 82–141. Judžentytė, Gintarė and Vilma Zubaitienė 2016 Dar dėl Georgo Elderio “Dictionarium Polono-Latino-Lottaucium” (1683) registro šaltinio [On the Source of Georg Elger’s “Dictionarum Polono-Latino-Lottaucium” (1683) Register]. Baltu filoloģija XXV (1): 37–58. Karulis, Konstantīns 1984 Pirmo latviešu valodnieku pieminot. Georga Elgera 400. dzimšanas gadā [Commemorating the first Latvian linguist. On the occasion of the 400 th anniversary of Georg Elger’s birthday]. Latviešu valodas kultūras jautājumi 20: 48−52.

87. The documentation of Baltic

1637

Karulis, Konstantīns 1986a Vēl par G. Elgera valodu 1621. gada dziesmu grāmatā [More about the language of G. Elger’s hymnal book from the year 1621]. Latviešu valodas kultūras jautājumi 22: 20− 23. Kortlandt, Frederik 1974 Old Prussian accentuation. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 88: 299−306. Kortlandt, Frederik 1998 The development of the Prussian language in the 16 th Century. In: Alfred Bammesberger (ed.), Baltistik: Aufgaben und Methoden. Heidelberg: Winter, 55−76. Kučinskis, Staņislavs 1983 Sirmais kungs, Latvijas tēvs Ertmanis Tolgsdorfs 1550−1620 [The grey-haired man, the father of Latvia Erdmann Tolgsdorf 1550−1620]. In: Kazimirs Vilnis (ed.), Dzimtenes kalendārs 1984. gadam. Västerås: Trīs zvaigznes, 45−86. Kučinskis, Staņislavs 1986 Juris Elgers, latvis [Juris Elgers, the Latvian]. In: Kazimirs Vilnis (ed.), Dzimtenes kalendārs 1987. gadam. Västerås: Trīs zvaigznes, 130−156. Kurschat, Friedrich 1870 Wörterbuch der Littauischen Sprache, Erster Theil, Deutsch-littauisches Wörterbuch. Halle: Waisenhaus. Kurschat, Friedrich 1876 Grammatik der Littauischen Sprache. Halle: Waisenhaus. Kurschat, Friedrich 1883 Wörterbuch der Littauischen Sprache, Zweiter Theil, Littauisch-deutsches Wörterbuch. Halle: Waisenhaus. Larsson, Jenny Helena 2002 Nominal Compounds in Old Lithuanian Texts: the Original Distribution of the Composition Vowel. Linguistica Baltica 10: 105−122. Larsson, Jenny Helena 2005 The Orthographic Variants and − Traces of Accent in the Elbing Vocabulary. In: Günter Schweiger (ed.), Indogermanica. Festschrift Gert Klingenschmitt. Indische, iranische und indogermanische Studien dem verehrten Jubilar dargebracht zu seinem fünfundsechzigsten Geburtstag. Taimering: VWT, 359−376. Larsson, Jenny Helena 2010 Nominal compounds in Old Prussian. Stockholm: Memento. Lebedys, Jurgis and Jonas Palionis 1963 Seniausias lietuviškas rankraštinis tekstas [The oldest Lithuanian handwritten text]. Bibliotekininkystės ir bibliografijos klausimai 3: 109−135. Lebedys, Jurgis and Jonas Palionis 1972 Seniausias lietuviškas rankraštinis tekstas [The oldest Lithuanian handwritten text]. In: Jurgis Lebedys, Lituanistikos baruose 1. Studijos ir straipsniai. Vilnius: Vaga, 21−54. Levin, Jules F. 1974 The Slavic Element in the Old Prussian Elbing Vocabulary. Berkeley: University of California Press. Levin, Jules F. 1976 Toward a graphology of Old Prussian monuments: the Enchiridion. Baltistica 12(1): 9− 24. Mažiulis, Vytautas 1988 Prūsų kalbos etimologijos žodynas A−H [Etymological dictionary of the Prussian language, A−H]. Vilnius: Mokslas. Mažiulis, Vytautas 1993 Prūsų kalbos etimologijos žodynas I−K [Etymological dictionary of the Prussian language, I−K]. Vilnius: Mokslas.

1638

XIV. Baltic

Mažiulis, Vytautas 1996 Prūsų kalbos etimologijos žodynas L−P [Etymological dictionary of the Prussian language, L−P]. Vilnius: Mokslas. Mažiulis, Vytautas 1997 Prūsų kalbos etimologijos žodynas R−Z [Etymological dictionary of the Prussian language, R−Z]. Vilnius: Mokslas. Mažiulis, Vytautas 2013 Prūsų kalbos etimologijos žodynas [Etymological dictionary of the Prussian language], 2 nd edn. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos centras. Orël, Vladimir E. 1986 Marginalia to the Polish-‘Jatvingian’ Glossary. Indogermanische Forschungen 91: 269− 272. Orël, Vladimir E. and Evgenij Arnoldovič Chelimskij 1987 Наблюдения над балтийским языком польско-‘ятвяжского’ словарика [Observations on the Baltic language of the Polish-‘Yatvingian’ glossary]. Балто-славянские исследования 1985: 121−134. Ozols, Arturs 1965 Veclatviešu rakstu valoda [The language of the Old Latvian writings]. Riga: Liesma. Pakalka, Kazys 1973 Apie defektinį trikalbį K. Širvydo žodyną [On the defective trilingual dictionary of K. Sirvydo]. LTSR MA darbai, A serija 4 (45): 131−142. Schmalstieg, William R. 1976 Studies in Old Prussian. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press. Schmid, Wolfgang P. 1962 Zu Simon Grunaus Vaterunser. Indogermanische Forschungen 67: 261−273. Schmid, Wolfgang P. 1986 Die ‘Germanismen’ im sog. Polnisch-Jatvingischen Glossar. Indogermanische Forschungen 91: 273−286. Skardžius, Pranas 1935 Daukšos akcentologija [The accentology of Daukša]. Kaunas: Spindulio sp. Stang, Christian S. 1929 Die Sprache des litauischen Katechismus von Mažvydas. Oslo: Dybwad. Subačius, Giedrius, Mariusz Leńczuk, and Wiesław Wydra 2010 The Earliest Known Lithuanian Glosses (~1520–1530). Archivum Lithuanicum 12: 31− 70. Toporov, Vladimir N. 1975 Prusskij jazyk, A−D [The Prussian Language, A−D]. Moscow: Nauka. Toporov, Vladimir N. 1979 Prusskij jazyk, E−H [The Prussian Language, E−H]. Moscow: Nauka. Toporov, Vladimir N. 1980 Prusskij jazyk, I−K [The Prussian Language, I−K]. Moscow: Nauka. Toporov, Vladimir N. 1984 Prusskij jazyk, K−L [The Prussian Language, K−L]. Moscow: Nauka. Toporov, Vladimir N. 1990 Prusskij jazyk, L [The Prussian Language, L]. Moscow: Nauka. Trautmann, Reinhold 1925 Die altpreußischen Personennamen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Vanags, Pēteris 2000 Luterāņu rokasgrāmatas avoti. Vecākā perioda (16. gs.−17. gs. sākuma) latviešu teksti [Sources of the Lutheran Church handbook. Latvian texts of the oldest period (16 th c.− beginning of the 17 th c.)]. Stockholm: Memento.

87. The documentation of Baltic

1639

Vanags, Pēteris 2008 Latvian texts in the 16 th and 17 th centuries: beginnings and development. In: Kristiina Ross and Pēteris Vanags (eds.), Common Roots of the Latvian and Estonian Literary Languages. Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 173−197. Witte, Wilhelm 1931 Der Übersetzer Simon Waischnoras d. Ae. Inaugural Dissertation. Braunschweig. Zemzare, Daina 1961 Latviešu vārdnīcas (līdz 1900. gadam) [Latvian dictionaries (up to the year 1900)]. Riga: Latvijas PSR Zinātņu akadēmijas izdevniecība. Zinkevičius, Zigmas 1975 Iš lietuvių istorinės akcentologijos. 1605 m. katekizmo kirčiavimas. [Of the historical accentology of Lithuanian. The stress of the 1605 catechism].Vilnius: Vilniaus V. Kapsuko universiteto Leidybinis skyrius. Zinkevičius, Zigmas 1977 M. Mažvydo raštų kalba [The language of the works of M. Mažvydas]. Baltistica 13(2): 358−371. Zinkevičius, Zigmas 1978a M. Mažvydo raštų kalba [The language of the works of M. Mažvydas]. Baltistica 14(1): 38−44. Zinkevičius, Zigmas 1978b M. Mažvydo raštų kalba [The language of the works of M. Mažvydas]. Baltistica 14(2): 139−146. Zinkevičius, Zigmas 1979 M. Mažvydo raštų kalba [The language of the works of M. Mažvydas]. Baltistica 15(1): 16−22. Zinkevičius, Zigmas 1985a Lenkų-jotvingių žodynėlis? [A Polish-Yatvingian glossary?]. Baltistica 21(1): 61−82. Zinkevičius, Zigmas 1985b Lenkų-jotvingių žodynėlis? [A Polish-Yatvingian glossary?]. Baltistica 21(2): 184−194. Zinkevičius, Zigmas 1988 Lietuvių kalbos istorija. III. Senųjų raštų kalba [A history of the Lithuanian language. III. The language of the old writings]. Vilnius: Mokslas. Zinkevičius, Zigmas 1996 The History of the Lithuanian Language. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Zinkevičius, Zigmas 1998 Linguistic sources of Martynas Mažvydas’ writings, and manuscript texts before Mažvydas. In: Domas Kaunas and Regina Koženiauskienė (eds.), Martynas Mažvydas and old Lithuania. Vilnius: Pradai, 101−123. Zinkevičius, Zigmas 2000 Lietuvių poteriai. Kalbos mokslo studija [Lithuanian prayers. A linguistic study]. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

Jenny Helena Larsson, Stockholm (Sweden) Kristina Bukelskytė-Čepelė, Stockholm (Sweden)

1640

XIV. Baltic

88. The phonology of Baltic 1. Introduction 2. Vowels 3. Resonants and diphthongs

4. Accent 5. Consonants 6. References

1. Introduction 1.1. In order to describe the phonological system of the Baltic languages, it is worth proceeding, as in the case of reconstructed Proto-Indo-European (PIE), with three types of phonemes: vowels, resonants, and consonants, the reflexes of which present different phonetic behaviors. Unlike PIE, however, beside vowels and consonants, defined by their ability and inability, respectively, to form a syllable, resonants may be defined, in Baltic, mainly by the criterion of intonability, which they in some contexts share with vowels. As a result, the Proto-Baltic sound system must be reconstructed, according to the intrasyllabic arrangement of phonemes, as follows: the phonemes with the lowest sonority are consonants, then follow the resonants, and finally the phonemes with the highest sonority are vowels.

2. Vowels 2.1. Vowel quantity is phonemic and independent of stress in East Baltic, e.g. Lith. pùsti ‘to swell’ / pū˜sti ‘to blow’, Latv. sveru ‘I weigh’ / svēru ‘I weighed’, in both cases with initial stress. But, in West Baltic, at least in the Old Prussian Enchiridion (1561), it is possible that unstressed vowels were short (or shortened); this could explain why OPr. has saddinna ‘puts (vb.)’ with a geminate pointing to *sădìna, while Lith. has sodìna ‘seats’ with o from long *ā (< *sādìna). This does not imply, however, that in Old Prussian every stressed vowel was, in turn, long (or lengthened). 2.2. The Proto-Baltic vowel system might be reconstructed in two different ways. Traditionally (e.g. Stang 1966), one ascribes to Proto-Baltic an unbalanced triangular system with four short vowels (*i, *u, *e, *a) and five long vowels (*ī, *ū, *ē, *ō, *ā), this in accordance with Latvian (the only innovation there being the further change of *ō to uo) or Lithuanian (with *ō > uo and *ā > o in the standard language). The most striking feature of Proto-Baltic in comparison with Slavic and Germanic thus seems to have been the preservation of the inherited distinction between *ō and *ā (> Latv. uo / ā, Lith. uo / o), as opposed to the merger of PIE *ŏ and *ă to *ă (> Latv. a, Lith. a). Examples: − Lith. uo, Latv. uo < Proto-Baltic *ō < PIE *ō : Lith. dúoti, Latv. duôt (written dot in the standard language) ‘to give’ (< Proto-Baltic *dō- < PIE *deh3 -, Gr. δίδωμι ‘I give’). − Lith. o, Latv. ā < Proto-Baltic *ā < PIE *ā : Lith. stóti, Latv. stât ‘to stand up’ (< Proto-Baltic *stā- < PIE *steh2 -, Gr. ἵστημι ‘I set up’). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-009

88. The phonology of Baltic

1641

− Lith. a, Latv. a < Proto-Baltic *ă < PIE *ă : Lith. ašìs, Latv. ass ‘axle’ (< ProtoBaltic *aś- < PIE *ak̑s- < *h2 ek̑s-, Lat. axis). − Lith. a, Latv. a < Proto-Baltic *ă < PIE *ŏ : Lith. akìs, Latv. acs ‘eye’ (< Proto-Baltic *ak- < PIE *ok u̯- < *h3 ek u̯-, Lat. oculus). 2.3. Proto-Baltic *ă may also come from PIE *ə (i.e. *H in a vocalization context), but only in a word-initial syllable (e.g. Lith. stãtas ‘millstone’, Latv. stats ‘stake, post’ < PIE *sth2 -tom); elsewhere, it disappears either completely after a consonant (e.g. Lith. duktė˜ ‘daughter’ < *dug-tē < PIE *d hug̑h2 -tēr) or with compensatory lengthening and acute tone after a resonant (e.g. Lith. árklas, Latv. arˆkls ‘plough’ ← < *ārtlan < PIE *arHtlom < *h2 erh3 -tlom; note the later shortening of *ār to ar by Osthoff’s law). 2.4. The other vowels reflect more directly PIE prototypes: − Lith. i, Latv. i < PBaltic *ĭ < PIE *ĭ : Lith. lìkti ‘to leave’, Latv. likt ‘to put’ (< ProtoBaltic *lik- < PIE *lik u̯-, Lat. relictus ‘left’). − Lith. y, Latv. ī < PBaltic *ī < PIE *ī : Lith. gývas, Latv. dzîvs ‘alive’ (< Proto-Baltic *gīva- < PIE *g u̯ih3 -u̯o-, Lat. uīuus). − Lith. u, Latv. u < PBaltic *ŭ < PIE *ŭ : Lith. GSg. šuñs, Latv. NSg. suns ‘dog’ (< Proto-Baltic *śun- < PIE *k̑un-, Gr. GSg. κυνός). − Lith. ū, Latv. ū < PBaltic *ū < PIE *ū : Lith. bū´ti, Latv. bût ‘to be’ (< Proto-Baltic *bū- < PIE *b huH-, Gr. ἔφῡν ‘I was’). − Lith. e, Latv. e < PBaltic *ĕ < PIE *ĕ : Lith. medùs ‘honey’, Latv. medus (< ProtoBaltic *medu < PIE *med hu, Gr. μέθυ ‘wine’). − Lith. ė, Latv. ē < PBaltic *ē < PIE *ē : Lith. dė́ ti ‘to put’, Latv. dêt ‘to lay (eggs)’ (< Proto-Baltic *dē- < PIE *d heh1 -, Gr. τίθημι ‘I place’). 2.5. This traditional reconstruction, however, does not fit particularly well for West Baltic. In Old Prussian, judging both from the Elbing Vocabulary (EV) and the Catechisms (C), it seems that PIE *ā and *ō had fallen together as *ā. The Enchiridion presents for both inputs, e.g. brāti ‘brother’ (< *brātē) and dāt ‘to give’ (< *dō-t-). After a labial, this *ā gave *ū, e.g. mūti ‘mother’ (< *mātē) and pūton ‘to drink’ (< *pā-t- < PIE *pō-t-). In the EV, the same undifferentiated vowel *ā secondarily yielded *ō, written , e.g. in brote ‘brother’ (< *brātē), mothe ‘mother’ (< *mātē) or podalis ‘pot’ (< *pōd-elis). For PIE *ă and *ŏ, Old Prussian generally has (e.g. assis ‘axle’ < PIE *ak̑s- or ackis ‘eyes’ < PIE *ok u̯-), but in some instances this may appear as (e.g. enkopts ‘buried’ < *kap- < PIE *kop-). Further features of the Old Prussian vowel system are the following: 1. Proto-Baltic *ē was probably pronounced as an open vowel */e:/ in the EV and therefore written (e.g. semen ‘seed’ < *sēmen-) or (e.g. geasnis ‘woodcock’ < *gēsnis), while in the Catechisms it was probably a closed vowel */e:/, which gave */i:/, written , in the Enchiridion (e.g. turrītwey ‘to have’ < *turē-t-). 2. For Proto-Baltic *ī and *ū, the Enchiridion shows a tendency for diphthongization, hence *ī > *ei (e.g. geīwan ‘life’ beside gijwan < *gīva-) and *ū > *ou (e.g. soūns ‘son’ < *sūnu-). As in East Baltic, PIE *ĭ, *ŭ, and *ĕ remained basically unchanged in Old Prussian. 2.6. The difference between West and East Baltic, combined with indirect evidence from the Baltic loanwords in the Finnic languages, has led some scholars (e.g. Kazlauskas

1642

XIV. Baltic

1962; Mažiulis 1963) to propose a different reconstruction of the Proto-Baltic vowel system, assuming a distinction between *ō1 (< PIE *ō) and *ō2 (< PIE *ā) and in East Baltic a secondary correlation of *ō1 (< PIE *ō) with *ē1 (< PIE *ei, *ai), the result of which was, in both cases, a diphthong (*ō1 > East Baltic uo, *ē1 > East Baltic ie). Under this view, *ō2 would have become a rounded *ā̊, which merged with *ō1 in West Baltic, but split to *ā in Latvian and to *ō in Lithuanian. This hypothesis remains, however, controversial. 2.7. A few contextual modifications of the vowel system described above are to be mentioned. The most important is the treatment of vowels in word-final position. In Lithuanian, final vowels are generally preserved, except for original long acute vowels, which are shortened by Leskien’s law (Leskien 1881), hence e.g. NSg. of ā-stems *źiemā´ (< PIE *-eh2 ) > žiemà ‘winter’, 1st Sg. *neśúo (< PIE *-oH) > nešù ‘I carry’, but without shortening Gsg. *źiemā˜s (< PIE *-eh2 es) > žiemõs, NSg. *akmuõ (< PIE *-ōn) > akmuõ ‘stone’. In Latvian, vowels in word-final position have undergone a systematic change, which can be basically defined as a one-mora shortening: bimoric (i.e. long) vowels became short, unimoric (i.e. short) vowels disappeared (except u), e.g. NSg. * źiemā´ > zìema, GSg. * źiemā˜s > zìemas (in both cases with short a), Nsg. *dievas > dìevs ‘God’ (cf. Lith. diẽvas), NSg. *medus > medus ‘honey’ (cf. Lith. medùs). In Old Prussian, final long vowels seem to have been preserved (e.g. menso, mensā ‘flesh’ with -o, -ā < *-ā), while final short vowels tend to disappear (e.g. deiws ‘god’ < *deivas, but note deywis in the EV).

3. Resonants and diphthongs 3.1. From a structural point of view, one may ascribe to Proto-Baltic six resonants: two nasals (*m and *n), two liquids (*l and *r) and two semi-vowels (*i̯ and *u̯). The main feature of resonants in Baltic as opposed to consonants is their intonability; in this respect, tautosyllabic sequences like /an/ or /ar/ have to be treated as diphthongs, in the same way as /ai̯ / or /au̯/, inasmuch as they may carry a syllable toneme, e.g. Lith. lañkas ‘handle’ or var˜gas ‘poor’ like laĩkas ‘time’ or laũkas ‘field’. 3.2. When they act as consonants, resonants are generally stable in Baltic; the only change worth mentioning is that of PIE *u̯ to the fricative v. Examples in word-initial position may suffice to illustrate this point: − Proto-Baltic *m < PIE *m: Lith. m, Latv. m, OPr. m, e.g. Lith. medùs, Latv. medus, OPr. meddo ‘honey’ (< Proto-Baltic *medu < PIE *med hu, Gr. μέθυ ‘wine’). − Proto-Baltic *n < PIE *n: Lith. n, Latv. n, OPr. n, e.g. Lith. nósis ‘nose’, Latv. nãss ‘nostril’, OPr. nozy ‘nose’ (< Proto-Baltic *nās- < PIE *nās-, Lat. nārēs ‘nostrils’). − Proto-Baltic *l < PIE *l: Lith. l, Latv. l, OPr. l, e.g. Lith. lãbas, Latv. labs, OPr. labs ‘good’ (< Proto-Baltic *lab- < PIE *lab h-, Gr. λάφυρον ‘spoils’). − Proto-Baltic *r < PIE *r: Lith. r, Latv. r, OPr. r, e.g. Lith. romùs, Latv. rãms, OPr. rāms ‘quiet’ (< Proto-Baltic *rā˘m- < PIE *rom-, Goth. rimis ‘rest’). − Proto-Baltic *j < PIE *i̯ : Lith. j, Latv. j, OPr. j, e.g. Lith. jáunas, Latv. jaûns ‘young’, OPr. anthroponym Jawne (< Proto-Baltic *jāunas < PIE *[h2 ]i̯ eu̯-h3 n-o-, Lat. iuuenis).

88. The phonology of Baltic

1643

− Proto-Baltic *v < PIE *u̯ : Lith. v, Latv. v, OPr. w [v], e.g. Lith. vė́ tra, Latv. vẽtra, OPr. wetro ‘wind’ (< Proto-Baltic *vētrā < PIE *[h2 ]u̯eh1 -, Gr. ἄησι ‘blows’). One should note, however, that the Proto-Baltic resonant *j (< PIE *i̯ ) usually disappears in non-initial position before front vowels (*e or *i), e.g. in the Lith. comparatives like ger-èsnis ‘better’ (with -es- < PIE *-i̯ es-). This change did not occur in word-initial position, where the resonant was preserved, as shown e.g. by Lith. jėgà ‘strength’ (< PIE *[H]i̯ ēg u̯-ā, Gr. ἥβη ‘youthful strength’). Analogy may obscure the issue, and one actually finds e.g. OLith. ASg. enti ‘going’ (participle *[h1 ]i̯ -ónt-) with loss of initial *j- by analogy with instances where the verb was preceded by a preverb, such as iš-enti ‘going out’, or conversely the OPr. imperative form pergeis /per-jeis/ ‘may he come!’ (originally an optative *-[h1 ]i̯ -oi̯ [h1 ]-) with restoration of internal *-j- before *-e- due to analogy with the simple ieis ‘go!’ (optative *[h1 ]i̯ -oi̯ [h1 ]-). 3.3. Another change to be mentioned is the fact that PIE *-m in word-final position became *-n in Proto-Baltic (as e.g. in Greek), as shown by OPr. ASg. deiwan ‘God’ (< PIE *-om). 3.4. When they act as second elements of diphthongs, resonants may undergo significant changes in Baltic. One must distinguish between 1. liquid diphthongs (e.g. /al/, /ar/, or the like), 2. nasal diphthongs (e.g. /am/ or /an/) and 3. semi-vowel diphthongs (e.g. /ai̯ / or /au̯/). Liquid diphthongs are stable in Baltic (e.g. Lith. pìrmas, Latv. pìrmais, OPr. pirmois ‘first’ or Lith. vil˜kas, Latv. vìlks, OPr. wilks ‘wolf’). Nasal diphthongs remain unchanged in Old Prussian (e.g. penckts ‘fifth’, sansy ‘goose’, naktin ASg. ‘night’). In Lithuanian, they are usually preserved, unless they stand before a sibilant (s, z, š, ž) or in word-final position; in these cases, the nasal disappeared and produced nasalization of the preceding vowel, written with the cedilla (e.g. *an-S- > ą-S-). After the 18 th century, nasal vowels became long oral vowels, which they still are in the standard Lithuanian language. Examples: penkì ‘five’, but žąsìs ‘goose’ /ža:sis/ (< *žans-i-), nãktį ASg. ‘night’ /na:kti:/ (< *-in). In Latvian, nasal diphthongs usually became in all contexts long oral vowels or diphthongs: *am, *an > uo written in the standard language (e.g. rùoka / roka ‘hand’ < *rankā, cf. Lith. rankà), *em, *en > ie (e.g. pìeci ‘five’ < *penkíe, cf. Lith. penkì), *im, *in > ī (e.g. pît ‘to plait’ < *pinti, cf. Lith. pìnti), *um, *un > ū (e.g. jûgs ‘yoke’ < *jungas, cf. Lith. jùngas). 3.5. Semi-vowel diphthongs are well preserved in Old Prussian, e.g. snaygis ‘snow’ (< PIE *snoi̯ g u̯h-o-), deiws ‘God’ (< PIE *dei̯ u̯-o-), laucks ‘field’ (< PIE *lou̯k-o-), keuto ‘skin’ (< PIE *keu̯Ht-). In East Baltic, they underwent radical changes, which, as a result, considerably obscured ablaut contrasts. For the *-i̯ - series, one may suppose a confusion of *ei̯ and *ai̯ to a long vowel *ē1 , which at a later stage was diphthongized to ie in Lithuanian and Latvian: compare e.g. Lith. sniẽgas, Latv. snìegs ‘snow’ (< *snaigas) and Lith. diẽvas, Latv. dìevs ‘God’ (< *deivas) with OPr. snaygis and deiws. However, the issue is obscured by two facts. Sometimes, East Baltic unexpectedly preserves original *ei̯ , e.g. in Lith. deivė˜ ‘goddess’ (beside diẽvas); even within East Baltic, discrepancies are to be found, e.g. Lith. eĩti / Latv. iêt ‘to go’ (both from PIE *h1 ei̯ -). Based on such contrasts as eĩmu ‘I go’ / iêt ‘to go’ in some Latvian dialects, compared with Old Lith. eimì ‘I go’ / eĩti ‘to go’, Stang (1935) has convincingly argued that preservation of *ei̯ was regular in (originally) unstressed syllables.

1644

XIV. Baltic

3.6. The case of *ai̯ is different. One might assume that, in East Baltic, Proto-Baltic *ai̯ yielded *ē1 > ie in isolated forms, i.e. by a regular phonetic process (e.g. Lith. kiẽmas ‘courtyard’, Latv. cìems ‘village’ < *kaimas, cf. OPr. caymis), whereas its preservation (or restoration) as ai took place only in motivated forms, where an a-grade (< PIE *o) was required by an ablaut contrast (e.g. in causative-iterative verbs of the type Lith. maišýti, Latv. màisît ‘to stir, mix’ beside Lith. miẽšti). But there are many counterexamples that do not fit this view, e.g. isolated words with *ai such as Lith. maĩšas ‘bag’ (cf. Skt. meṣá- ‘ram’) or káimas ‘village’ (the relationship of which to kiẽmas ‘courtyard’ remains obscure), or motivated words with *ie such as Lith. sniẽgas, Latv. snìegs ‘snow’ (obviously derived from Lith. snìgti, Latv. snigt ‘to snow’). 3.7. For the *-u̯- series, West and East Baltic show divergent treatments. The opposition of Proto-Baltic *eu̯ (< PIE *eu̯) and *au̯ (< PIE *ou̯, *au̯) is usually preserved in Old Prussian, but East Baltic changed *eu̯ to *iau (hence Lith. kiáutas ‘shell’ compared with OPr. keuto ‘skin’), whereas *au remained unaltered (hence Lith. laũkas ‘field’ compared with OPr. laucks). The original vowel contrast (*eu̯, vs. *au̯) thus became in East Baltic a consonant contrast (palatalized *iau, vs. unpalatalized *au), which was, in most cases, eliminated: the variant iau is much more scantily preserved than au, generally only in semantically isolated words such as Lith. liaukà ‘gland’ (< PIE *leu̯k-) beside laũkas ‘with a white spot on the forehead’ (< PIE *leu̯k-o-, cf. Gr. λευκός ‘white’). 3.8. Vocalization of PIE resonants in Baltic usually produces a sequence /i + resonant/, e.g. Lith. mirtìs ‘death’ (< PIE *mr̥-ti-), vil˜kas ‘wolf’ (< PIE *u̯l̥ k u̯-o-), šim ˜ tas ‘hundred’ (< PIE *k̑m̥tom, note the preservation of *-m- before dental), mintìs ‘thought’ (< PIE *mn̥-ti-). But, in some words, it appears as /u + resonant/ (ur, ul, um, un). Some scholars have argued that u-vocalism is regular after velar (i.e. original labiovelar), e.g. Lith. gurklỹs ‘throat’ (< PIE *g u̯r̥h3 -tl-), but this is unlikely, cf. Lith. gìrtas ‘drunk’ (< PIE *g u̯r̥h3 -to-); compare also Lith. giñti and OPr. guntwei ‘to drive’, both from PIE *g u̯hn̥-. Interestingly, Stang (1966: 79−80) has drawn attention to the fact that u-vocalism is often to be encountered in expressive words denoting physical shortcomings (e.g. Lith. gurdùs ‘slow’, kum ˜ pas ‘bent’).

4. Accent 4.1. As an inherited feature, stress was free and mobile in Proto-Baltic. This is still well preserved in the Lithuanian standard language, where any syllable may carry the stress, e.g. lìkime ‘let us stay!’ (imperative 1st plural of lìkti ‘to stay’) / likìme ‘O fate!’ (vocative of likìmas ‘fate’) / likimè ‘in fate’ (locative of likìmas). Moreover, stress can move within a paradigm, e.g. NSg. galvà ‘head’, ASg. gálvą, GSg. galvõs, etc. The position of the stress depends on the accentual and tonal properties of syllables, which may be by nature accented or unaccented, acuted or not acuted. In nominal stems, for example, one has to distinguish four accentual patterns, which follow different accentual rules: − Accentual paradigm 1: stem accent + acuted stem (e.g. líepa, GSg. líepos, InstrSg. líepa ‘lime’) − Accentual paradigm 2: stem accent + non-acuted stem (e.g. rankà, GSg. rañkos, InstrSg. rankà ‘hand’)

88. The phonology of Baltic

1645

− Accentual paradigm 3: end accent + acuted stem (e.g. galvà, GSg. galvõs, InstrSg. gálva ‘head’) − Accentual paradigm 4: end accent + non-acuted stem (e.g. žiemà, GSg. žiemõs, InstrSg. žiemà ‘winter’) As can be seen from these examples, the stem syllable is accented in 1 and 2, but unaccented in 3 and 4 (the genitive being the decisive indicator), acuted in 1 and 3, but non-acuted in 2 and 4. The accentual patterns present the result of the combination of these two parameters − stem accent and stem intonation. 4.2. Stress freedom was probably also preserved in Old Prussian, as presupposed by alternations of the type gīwu ‘you are living’ (2 nd Sg. with stem accent) and giwīt ‘to live’ (infinitive with end accent); but this is a much debated issue. In Latvian, perhaps due to linguistic contact with Balto-Finnic languages, accentual mobility was lost: the stress usually falls on the word-initial syllable, except in some compound forms such as ikviens ‘everybody’ /ikˈviens/ or vislielākais ‘the greatest’ /visˈliela:kais/. However, the Latvian broken tone reflects an earlier stage with the same stress mobility as elsewhere in Baltic (e.g. Latv. pêda ‘sole’ < *pēˈdā, cf. Lith. pėdà). 4.3. Beside a pitch accent, the Baltic languages are characterized by the existence of tonal oppositions, which basically rest on underlying moraic structures: every long vowel (e.g. /ū/) or diphthong (e.g. /au/) may be defined as a bimoric sequence, in which each component may be emphasized, the first one (e.g. /ū/ = /Uu/, /au/ = /Au/), in which case one speaks of initial or falling intonation, or the second one (e.g. /ū/ = /uU/, /au/ = /aU/), in which case one speaks of final or rising intonation. For Proto-Baltic, one has to assume two intonations, acute (written < ˊ >) and circumflex (written < ~ >). Their realizations in the individual Baltic languages are as follows (figures indicate accentual paradigms): Tab. 88.1: Reflexes of Proto-Baltic acute and circumflex intonations Lithuanian acute intonation (1)

acute intonation (2)

circumflex intonation

initial or falling intonation

e.g. mótė ‘mother’ 1, káulas ‘bone’ 1 initial or falling intonation

e.g. plónas ‘thin’ 3, ráugas ‘leaven’ 3 gáuti ‘to get’ final or rising intonation

e.g. prõtas ‘mind’ 2, draũgas ‘friend’ 4 ausìs, ASg. aũsį ‘ear’ 4

Latvian

Old Prussian (Enchiridion 1561)

final or rising intonation

final or rising intonation

e.g. mãte ‘mother’, kaũls ‘bone’

(on 2 nd component) e.g. kaūlins ‘bones’ APl.

broken intonation

final or rising intonation

e.g. plâns ‘thin’, raûgs ‘leaven’ gaût ‘to get’

(on 2 nd component) e.g. pogaūt ‘to get’

initial or falling intonation

e.g. pràts ‘mind’, dràugs ‘friend’ àuss ‘ear’

initial or falling intonation

(on 1st component) e.g. āusins ‘ears’ APl.

1646

XIV. Baltic

4.4. As can be seen from the data given above, the Proto-Baltic acute and circumflex tonemes are realized almost conversely: what is a falling tone in Lithuanian is a rising tone in Latvian, and vice-versa; Old Prussian here agrees with Latvian. In addition, Latvian has a third intonation (written < ^ >), the so-called “broken tone”, a kind of glottalization (like the Danish stød), that arose from an acute tone in originally unstressed stem syllables (= Lith. accentual paradigm 3). It is generally assumed to be an innovation of Latvian, but some scholars (e.g. Kortlandt 1985) have argued that it could reflect the very nature of the Proto-Baltic acute intonation as an originally glottalized intonation. The origin of the tonal system of Proto-Baltic is in itself a much debated issue. The majority of scholars agree that acute intonation has to be connected with original PIE laryngeals in tautosyllabic position, at least in some contexts (e.g. Lith. draũgas ‘friend’ < PIE *d hrou̯g ho-, vs. Lith. gáuti ‘to get’ < PIE *gou̯H-ti-), but there is no broad consensus on the question of whether PIE morphological Dehnstufen are expected to present acute or circumflex intonation in Baltic: speaking for acute intonation is e.g. Lith. žvėrìs, ASg. žvė́ rį, Latv. zvȩˆrs ‘wild beast’ (< PIE *g̑ hu̯ēr-, compared with Lat. fĕrus), but a circumflex has been presupposed by some scholars, e.g. in Latv. dùore ‘hole in a tree for bees’ (< PIE *dōr-ii̯ ā ‘wooden’, if it is a vr̥ ddhi-formation to PIE *dŏr-u ‘wood’, cf. Gr. δόρυ). 4.5. In Lithuanian, stress and intonation are combined together insofar as only stressed syllables present tonemes; this was perhaps also the case in Old Prussian. Latvian has preserved an earlier stage, in which there was no interdependence between suprasegmental and prosodic features: every syllable, stressed or unstressed, is intrinsically provided with a toneme. Even in Lithuanian, there is some evidence that unstressed syllables originally possessed tonemes, especially Saussure’s Law (Saussure 1894), which may be defined as an attraction of the stress from a circumflex to a following acute syllable (e.g. *ˈsam ˜ dýti > *sam ˜ ˈdýti > Lith. samdýti ‘to hire, to employ’ with attraction, compared with *ˈlámdýti > Lith. lámdyti ‘to rumple, crumple’) and therefore implies intonability of unstressed syllables. 4.6. In some cases, individual forms of the same stem may display different intonations, e.g. Lith. šókti ‘to dance’ / šõkis ‘dance’. Such prosodic variation, generally connected with derivational processes, is called “metatony”. One may distinguish, since de Saussure (1896), a métatonie douce (acute → circumflex, e.g. Lith. verb šókti → derivative šõkis) and a métatonie rude (circumflex → acute, e.g. Lith. adjective sveĩkas ‘healthy’ → derivative svéikinti ‘to greet’); see Derksen (1996) for a full treatment.

5. Consonants 5.1. The consonant inventory of Proto-Baltic may be reconstructed as follows: − 6 stops: 2 labials (voiceless /p/ and voiced /b/), 2 dentals (voiceless /t/ and voiced /d/), 2 dorsals (voiceless /k/ and voiced /g/). − 5 spirants: 1 labial (voiced /v/), 2 dental sibilants (voiceless /s/ and voiced /z/), 2 palatal sibilants (voiceless /ś/ and voiced /ź/).

88. The phonology of Baltic

1647

5.2. The Proto-Baltic stop system underwent two major changes. Within the Indo-European family, the Baltic languages belong to the satǝm group, characterized by 1. the fusion of PIE velars (*k, *g, *g h) and labiovelars (*k u̯, *g u̯, *g u̯h) to velars stops (> *k, *g) and 2. the development of PIE palatals (*k̑, *g̑, *g̑ h) to spirants (> palatals *ś, *ź). In Latvian and Old Prussian (as in Slavic), the Proto-Baltic palatal sibilants *ś and *ź (< PIE *k̑, *g̑, *g̑ h) merged with original dental sibilants to s and z; in standard Lithuanian, they remained distinct as š and ž (but some Lithuanian dialects have s and z). Examples: − PIE velars: − Lith. k, Latv. k, OPr. k < Proto-Baltic *k < PIE *k: Lith. kraũjas ‘blood’, Latv. kreve ‘bloody scab’, OPr. crauyo ‘blood’ (< Proto-Baltic *kreu̯(H)- < PIE *kreu̯h2 -, Gr. κρέας ‘flesh’). − Lith. g, Latv. g, OPr. g < Proto-Baltic *g < PIE *g : Lith. ger˜bti ‘to honour’, Latv. gārbât ‘to care for’, OPr. girbin ‘number’ (< Proto-Baltic *gerb- ‘to count’ < PIE *gerb h- ‘to gash’, Gr. γράφω ‘I write’). − PIE labiovelars: − Lith. k, Latv. k, OPr. k < Proto-Baltic *k < PIE *k u̯ : Lith. kàs, Latv. kas, OPr. kas ‘who, which’ (< Proto-Baltic *kas < PIE *k u̯os, Skr. káḥ). − Lith. g, Latv. g, OPr. g < Proto-Baltic *g < PIE *g u̯ : Lith. gãlas, Latv. gals ‘end’, OPr. gallan ‘death’ (< Proto-Baltic *galas ‘end, top’ < PIE *g u̯olH-o- ‘tip, prick’, OHG quëlan ‘to hurt’). − PIE palatals: − Lith. š, Latv. s, OPr. s < Proto-Baltic *ś < PIE *k̑: Lith. širdìs, Latv. sirˆds, OPr. seyr ‘heart’ (< Proto-Baltic *śēr /*śīrd- [length guaranteed by the intonation of Lith. A Sg šìrdį] ← PIE *k̑ēr /*k̑r̥d-, Gr. κῆρ, καρδία). − Lith. ž, Latv. z, OPr. z (often written s) < Proto-Baltic *ź < PIE *g̑: Lith. žinóti, Latv. zinât ‘to know’, OPr. posinnat ‘to recognize’ (< Proto-Baltic *źin- < PIE *g̑n̥h3 -, Gr. ἔγνων ‘I perceived’). There is, however, a large set of examples that present a centum-like treatment, i.e. Baltic *k, *g from PIE palatal stops *k̑, *g̑, *g̑ h, e.g. Lith. klausýti, Latv. klàusît, OPr. klausiton ‘to listen’ (< PIE *k̑leu̯s-, OCS slyšati ‘to hear’). Variations between cognate forms are not infrequent, as shown by such doublets as Lith. akmuõ ‘stone’ / ašmuõ ‘cutting edge’ (both from PIE *h2 ek̑-mōn, Skr. áśmā ‘stone’) or Lith. kleĩvas / šleĩvas ‘bow-legged’ (both from PIE *k̑lei̯ - ‘to lean, bend oneself’). An explanation for this phenomenon, known in the scholarly literature as “Gutturalwechsel”, is still lacking. One might assume that such centum forms in Baltic belong to a different dialectal layer (anterior to the satemization?). Or, more convincingly, one might remember that Baltic lies precisely on the border between centum and satem languages; it is well known that border languages sometimes take part only to a small extent in linguistic innovations more consistently represented in central languages. 5.3. The second major change characteristic for Proto-Baltic (as well as for Proto-Slavic) is the merger of voiced (PIE *b, *d, *g̑, *g, and *g u̯) and voiced aspirated stops (PIE *b h, *d h, *g̑ h, *g h, and *g u̯h) to a single series of voiced stops (Proto-Baltic *b, *d, *ź, *g). Examples:

1648

XIV. Baltic

− PIE labials: − Lith. b, Latv. b, OPr. b < Proto-Baltic *b < PIE *b: Lith. dubùs ‘hollow’, Latv. dubt ‘to become hollow’ (< Proto-Baltic *dub- < PIE *d hub-, Goth. diups ‘deep’). − Lith. b, Latv. b, OPr. b < Proto-Baltic *b < PIE *b h: Lith. bū´ti, Latv. bût, OPr. būton ‘to be’ (< Proto-Baltic *bū- < PIE *b huH-, Skr. ábhūt ‘came into existence’). − PIE dentals: − Lith. d, Latv. d, OPr. d < Proto-Baltic *d < PIE *d: Lith. dẽšimt, Latv. desmit ‘ten’, OPr. dessimts ‘tenth’ (< Proto-Baltic *deśimt- < PIE *dek̑m̥-t-, Gr. δέκα). − Lith. d, Latv. d, OPr. d < Proto-Baltic *d < PIE *d h: Lith. dė́ ti ‘to put’, Latv. dêt ‘to lay (eggs)’ (< Proto-Baltic *dē- < PIE *d heh1 -, Gr. τίθημι ‘I place’). − PIE palatals: − Lith. ž, Latv. z, OPr. z (often written s) < Proto-Baltic *ź < PIE *g̑: Lith. žinóti, Latv. zinât ‘to know’, OPr. posinnat ‘to recognize’ (< Proto-Baltic *źin- < PIE *g̑n̥h3 -, Gr. ἔγνων ‘I perceived’). − Lith. ž, Latv. z, OPr. z (often written s) < Proto-Baltic *ź < PIE *g̑ h: Lith. žiemà, Latv. zìema, OPr. semo ‘winter’ (< Proto-Baltic *źeimā- < PIE *g̑ hei̯ m-, Gr. χεῖμα). − PIE velars: − Lith. g, Latv. g, OPr. g < Proto-Baltic *g < PIE *g: Lith. ger˜bti ‘to honour’, Latv. gārbât ‘to care for’, OPr. girbin ‘number’ (< Proto-Baltic *gerb- ‘to count’ < PIE *gerb h- ‘to gash’, Gr. γράφω ‘I write’). − Lith. g, Latv. g, OPr. g < Proto-Baltic *g < PIE *g h: Lith. miglà, Latv. migla ‘mist, fog’ (< Proto-Baltic *miglā < PIE *h3 mig hleh2 , Gr. ὀμίχλη). − PIE labiovelars: − Lith. g, Latv. g, OPr. g < Proto-Baltic *g < PIE *g u̯: Lith. gãlas, Latv. gals ‘end’, OPr. gallan ‘death’ (< Proto-Baltic *galas ‘end, top’ < PIE *g u̯olH-o- ‘tip, prick’, OHG quëlan ‘to hurt’). − Lith. g, Latv. g, OPr. g < Proto-Baltic *g < PIE *g u̯h: Lith. gãras, Latv. gars ‘steam, vapor’, OPr. gorme ‘heat’ (< Proto-Baltic *gar- < PIE *g u̯hor-, Skr. gharmá‘heat’). This merger is usually considered to have taken place in an early stage of Proto-BaltoSlavic. But it has been proposed by Winter (1978) that, in Baltic and Slavic, vowels were lengthened (with the acute tone) before a PIE voiced stop, but not before a PIE voiced aspirated stop, which implies their merger to be a recent process. Examples of Winter’s Law: − Lith. ė́ sti ‘to eat, to devour’, Latv. êst, OPr. īst ‘to eat’ (< Proto-Baltic *ēd-ti- < PIE *h1 ĕd-, Skr. ádmi ‘I eat’). − Lith. ū´dra, Latv. ûdrs, OPr. udro ‘otter’ (< Proto-Baltic *ūd-rā < PIE *ŭd-reh2 , Gr. ὕδρα ‘water serpent’). Admittedly, the evidence for Winter’s Law still remains controversial, since there is a large number of counter-examples (e.g. Lith. dubùs ‘hollow’, Latv. dubt ‘to become hollow’ < Proto-Baltic *dub- < PIE *d hub-, cf. Goth. diups ‘deep’). This is still a much debated issue; recent attempts at reformulating the law have been proposed by Shintani (1985) and Matasović (1995).

88. The phonology of Baltic

1649

5.4. Except for *s, spirants are, for the most part, recent developments in Baltic. We have to ascribe to Proto-Baltic a voiced labial spirant /v/, going back to the PIE resonant *u̯, but no voiceless counterpart */f/, which does not exist in early stages of any of the three major Baltic languages. In ancient borrowings, /f/ was systematically replaced by /p/, e.g. Lith. ar˜pas ‘winnowing-machine’ (< German Harfe), OPr. pastauton ‘to fast’ (< German fasten). Only recent loans have introduced a phoneme /f/ in the Baltic languages, e.g. Lith. fìlmas, Latv. fil˜ma ‘film’. 5.5. Proto-Baltic preserved the unique PIE dental spirant *s, which remained unchanged in most contexts, e.g. Lith. sėdė́ ti, Latv. sêdêt ‘to sit down’, OPr. sīdons ‘sitting’ (< PIE *sed-). A voiced counterpart exists only as an allophone, e.g. Lith. lìzdas ‘nest’ (< *nizdo- < PIE *ni-sd-o-). 5.6. The Baltic languages have developed a secondary series of palatal spirants, with at least 2 sibilants (š, ž) and in some languages 2 affricates (č, dž). In chronological order, one might first mention the so-called “ruki-rule”, according to which a PIE sibilant *s after r, u, k, or i, yielded in Proto-Baltic a palatal spirant *ś that merged with the outcome of PIE *k̑, the result of which therefore was /š/ in Lithuanian, /s/ in Latvian and Old Prussian. Examples are quite limited in number: − after r: Lith. viršùs, Latv. vìrsus ‘top’ (< PIE *u̯r̥s-) ; cf. OCS vrŭchŭ, Skr. varṣmán‘height’. − after u: Lith. jū´šė, OPr. iuse ‘fish soup’ (< PIE *i̯ ūs-) ; cf. Pol. jucha, Lat. iūs ‘soup’. − after i: Lith. maĩšas, Latv. màiss ‘bag’, OPr. moasis ‘bellows’ (< PIE *moi̯ so-); cf. Skr. meṣá- ‘ram’. (We do not have any reliable example after k). It should be noted that the “ruki-rule” is less regular in Baltic than it is in Slavic or Indo-Iranian. There is a large number of counter-examples, e.g. Lith. ausìs ‘ear’ (< PIE *h2 eu̯s-), vìsas ‘all’ (< PIE *u̯is-o-), some of which might be due to analogy, e.g. Lith. akysè ‘in the eyes’ (Loc.Pl.), instead of *akyše, with the same ending as rañkose ‘in the hands’. 5.7. In Lithuanian, the palatal sibilants (š, ž) thus have two sources (PIE palatal stops or − in the case of š − PIE *s in ruki-contexts). In addition, there exists a series of affricates that appears to be a recent innovation resulting from the palatalization of PIE dental stops before the resonant *i̯ : Proto-Baltic *tj (< PIE *ti̯ ) and Proto-Baltic *dj (< PIE *d [h]i̯ ) yielded respectively či /tš’/ and dži /dž’/ (i marking here merely the softness of the affricate), e.g. Lith. svẽčias ‘guest’ (< *svetja- ‘stranger’ < PIE *su̯eti̯ o-), Lith.dial. mẽdžias ‘forest’ (< *medja- ‘standing in the middle’ < PIE *med hi̯ o-). Hard affricates (č or dž) are rare and always secondary (e.g. Lith. giñčas ‘quarrel’ < *gint-šas). In Old Prussian, Proto-Baltic *tj and *dj remained unchanged (e.g. OPr. median ‘tree’ < *medja-). 5.8. In Latvian, palatalizations are a relatively complex issue. One has to distinguish two different processes. First, in an early stage of the language, Proto-Baltic velar stops *k and *g became affricates *c /ts/ and *dz /dz/ before front vowels (e or i), e.g. *kēlti ‘to raise’ (cf. Lith. kélti) > Latv. celˆt, *gērti ‘to drink’ (cf. Lith. gérti) > Latv. dzerˆt. As a result, a large number of consonant alternations appeared, e.g. Latv. sâku ‘I begin’ (1st

1650

XIV. Baltic

Sg.), but sâc ‘you begin’ (2 nd Sg. < *sâk-i). Secondly, we have to deal with various palatalizations of consonants before the original resonant *i̯ (> Baltic *j). They can be summarized by the following (simplified) alternation rules: Tab. 88.2: Latvian palatalization before *j Consonant

Consonant + *j

Examples

p, b

pļ /pl’/, bļ /bl’/ (word initially) pj, bj (otherwise)

pļaũt ‘to mow’ (< *pjauti, cf. Lith. pjáuti) bļaũrs ‘nasty’ (< *bjauras, cf. Lith. bjaurùs) upju, GPl. of upe ‘river’ (cf. Lith. ùpjų) gùlbju, GPl. of gùlbis ‘swan’ (cf. Lith. gul˜bjų)

t, d

š, ž

svešs ‘stranger’ (< *svetja-, cf. Lith. svẽčias) mežs ‘forest’ (< *medja-, cf. Lith.dial. mẽdžias)

k, g

c, dz

sàucu ‘I shout’ (< *sàukju, cf. Inf. sàukt) lùdzu ‘I beg’ (< *lùdju, cf. Inf. lùgt)

s, z

š, ž

plêšu ‘I tear’ (< *plês-ju, cf. Inf. plêst) laûžu ‘I break’ (< *laûz-ju, cf. Inf. laûzt)

n

ņ

zir˜ņu, GPl. of zir˜nis ‘pea’ (< *zir˜nju)

l

ļ

meļu, GPl. of melis ‘liar’ (< *melju)

5.9. A few combinatory changes are worth mentioning. First, a sequence of /dental+dental/ as a rule yields /s+dental/ in Baltic, e.g. Lith. ė́ sti ‘to eat, devour’, Latv. êst, OPr. īst ‘to eat’ (< Proto-Baltic *ēd-ti-). 5.10. Finally, according to a tendency variously attested in the Baltic languages, a velar stop *k sometimes appears before sibilants, e.g. Lith. tū´kstantis, Latv. tũkstuôtis ‘thousand’ (< *tūstant-), Lith. bókstas ‘tower’ (< Pol. baszta). This so-called “epenthetic *k” is by no means a phonetic rule, as many counter-examples exist, e.g. Lith. pir˜štas ‘finger’ (but Latv. pìrksts), Lith. áuksas ‘gold’ (but OPr. ausis); there are also some doublets, e.g. Lith. plúokštas / plúoštas ‘handful’, Latv. sviêksts / sviêsts ‘butter’. Whatever may be its origin, this tendency must be connected, at least partially, with the fact that a sequence *sk (or *šk) is not tolerated in Baltic before a consonant, where it yields *ks (or *kš), e.g. Lith. tróško ‘feels thirsty’, but Inf. trókšti.

6. References Derksen, Rick 1996 Metatony in Baltic. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Kazlauskas, Jonas 1962 K razvitiju obščebaltijskoj sistemy glasnyx [On the development of the Common Baltic vowel system]. Voprosy Jazykoznanija 4: 20−24. Kortlandt, Frederik 1985 Long vowels in Balto-slavic. Baltistica 21: 112−124.

89. The morphology of Baltic

1651

Leskien, August 1881 Die Quantitätsverhältnisse im Auslaut des Litauischen. Archiv für slavische Philologie 5: 188−190. Matasović, Ranko 1995 A Re-examination of Winter’s Law in Baltic and Slavic. Lingua Posnaniensis 37: 57−70. Mažiulis, Vytautas 1963 Zametki po prusskomu vokalismu [Notes on Prussian vocalism]. Voprosy teorii i istorii jazyka. Leningrad: Leningrad University Press, 191−197. de Saussure, Ferdinand 1894 À propos de l’accentuation lituanienne. Mémoires de la société de linguistique de Paris 8: 425−466 = 1970 [1922]: 490−512. de Saussure, Ferdinand 1896 Accentuation lituanienne. Indogermanische Forschungen VI. Anzeiger: 157−166 = 1970 [1922]: 526−538. de Saussure, Ferdinand 1970 [1922] Recueil des publications scientifiques. Geneva: Slatkine [Geneva: Société anonyme des éditions Sonor]. Shintani, Toshihiro 1985 On Winter’s Law in Balto-Slavic. Arbejdspapirer udsendt af Institut for Lingvistik, Københavns Universitet 5: 273−296. Stang, Christian S. 1935 Die Flexion des Verbs iet im Lettischen und das Problem vom Ursprung des Diphthongs ie. Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap 8: 257−262. Stang, Christian S. 1966 Vergleichende Grammatik der baltischen Sprachen. Oslo: University Press. Winter, Werner 1978 The distribution of short and long vowels in stems of the type Lith. ė́ sti : vèsti : mèsti and OCS jasti : vesti : mesti in Baltic and Slavic Languages. In: Jacek Fisiak (ed.), Recent Developments in Historical Phonology. The Hague: Mouton, 431−446.

Daniel Petit, Paris (France)

89. The morphology of Baltic 1. 2. 3. 4.

Noun formation Adjective formation Numerals Pronouns

5. 6. 7. 8.

Personal pronouns Verb formation Abbreviations References

1. Noun formation In the Baltic languages, there are relatively few compound words (Skardžius 1943: 393 ff.; Urbutis 1965: 252, 437 f.). Particularly old is Li. viešpatìs ‘lord’ (cf. OInd. viśpátiḥ ‘chief of a settlement or tribe’). The absolute majority of derived nouns and adjechttps://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-010

1652

XIV. Baltic

tives in Baltic are suffixal and ending derivatives. Various derivational affixes have been studied for a long time (cf. particularly Leskien 1891; Endzelīns 1943, 1948, 1951; Skardžius 1943; Otrębski 1965). Vincas Urbutis (1965, 1978) began to apply modern methods to the study of noun formation and, relying on these, exhaustively described the system of noun formation in contemporary Lithuanian, distinguishing thereby the various semantic derivational categories. A derivational category is a class of derivatives which have a common derivational meaning and special derivational affixes. Recent research shows that Baltic distinguishes three old categories of nouns derived from verbs [1.1−1.3] (Ambrazas 1993) and five old categories derived from nouns [1.4−1.8] (Ambrazas 2000a).

1.1. Nomina actionis Originally in the Baltic languages (just as in PIE; cf. Benveniste 1948), in this derivational category, derivatives with *-ti- and *-tu- predominated (cf. Li. būtìs and Sl. *bytĭ, OInd. bhūtís ‘existence, being’; Li. lietùs, Latv. liêtus ‘rain’). Forms of the infinitive and supine developed from these. Later in the Baltic languages, derivational endings became more widespread, particularly with *-o- (cf. Li. miẽgas, Latv. mìegs ‘sleep’) and *-ā (cf. Li. snaudà, Latv. snaũda ‘somnolence’). During the independent development of Lithuanian, derivatives with the suffix -imas/ -ymas (< *-ī˘-mo-), e.g. piešìmas ‘drawing’, and in Latvian derivatives with the suffix -šana (< -sjo-nā), e.g. bûšana ‘existence’, which came from another adjective suffix *-no-/-nā, were created. Close to the latter are derivatives in -s-na, which are productive in Old Prussian, e.g. billīsna ‘sayings’ (see further Bammesberger 1973: 87 ff.; Schmalstieg 1974: 64 ff.; Parenti 1998). Derivatives of similar origin in Lithuanian with -s-e-na are productive only in the Lower Lithuanian dialect (Urbutis 1965: 295), spoken in an area where at one time the Curonians lived; cf. Low. Li. eĩsena ‘going, walking’.

1.2. Nomina agentis In the Baltic languages, derivatives of adjectival character with the suffixes *-tā-jo-, *-ējo-, e.g. Li. artójas, Latv. arājs (< *artājs), OP artoys ‘plowman’; Li. siuvė́ jas, Latv. šuvējs ‘tailor’ play the most important role in this derivational category. Here they have completely ousted the names of actors with the old suffixes *-tel-/-ter-/-tor-, cf. Sl. *datel’ĭ and OInd. dā´tar-, dātár-, Gk. dṓtōr, dōtḗr beside Li. davė́ jas ‘giver, donor’ (Sɫawski 1976: 50).

1.3. Nomina instrumenti The basis of this derivational category consists of derivatives with *-tlo- which have cognates in many related languages; cf. Li. árklas, Latv. arˆkls, Gk. árotron, etc. ‘plough’. However, in the Baltic languages, they began to use suffixes derived from the nomen

89. The morphology of Baltic

1653

actionis suffix *-tu- very widely to form the names of tools or instruments. These include the suffixes *-tuv-/*-tov-/*-tev-; cf. Li. sėtùvas, sėtuvė˜ and Latv. sȩ̄tuvs, sȩ̄tuve, sȩ̄tuva, sȩ̄tuvis, sȩ̄tava, sȩ̄tave, sȩ̄teve ‘bast basket’; káištuvė/kaištùvė ‘scraper, shaving knife’, kaištùvas ‘scraper, knife for scraping hides or skin’, and OP coestue ‘brush’, etc.

1.4. Nomina qualitatis At one time, the nomina qualitatis were formed essentially with the same derivational suffixes as the nomina actionis (Ambrazas 1994). These categories were better distinguished in the Baltic languages when derivatives with the suffix *-ībā became more widespread; cf. Li. dial. lýgyba, Latv. līdzība ‘equality’.

1.5. Nomina collectiva In OP, there is a whole group of collective derivatives with the old derivational ending in *-ā; cf. slayo ‘sled’ (cf. Li. šlãjos ‘sled’) : slayan ‘sled runner’ (for more about these see Mažiulis 1981; Degtjarev 1994). In Lithuanian and Latvian, these are very rare; cf. Li. álksna/alksnà ‘alder grove’, Latv. álksna ‘swampy place’. Nevertheless, the derivational ending *-ā most likely serves as the basis for the collective plural ending -ai (cf. Li. dial. liepaĩ ‘lime grove’, siuvėjaĩ ‘tailor’s family’; see Stundžia 1981, 1992). The rather old affix *-ij-ā appears in Li. brolijà ‘brothers and sisters’ and Sl. bratrĭja ‘brothers’, Attic Gk. phratría vs. Homeric phrḗtrē ‘clan, tribe’, and there are also some newer suffixes (Ambrazas 1992a, 2004a: 50−51). The Balts also use collective nouns with the adjective suffix *-ī-no- (cf. Li. šeimýna, OP seimīns ‘domestic servants’ as well as Li. beržýnas and Sl. *berzina ‘birch grove’) (Sɫawski 1974: 121, 123), which is also encountered partially in the Italic languages and perhaps also in German and Albanian (Jokl 1963: 133−134; Butler 1971: 27−28) and Thracian (Duridanov 1969: 57).

1.6. Nomina feminina Particularly old are the nomina feminina with the derivational ending *-ā (which earlier had been characteristic of nomina collectiva); cf. OLi. ašva, OInd. áśvā, Av. aspā, Lat. equa ‘mare’. In the Baltic languages, these were ousted by derivatives with *-(j)ē; cf. Li. draugà ‘company, circle, society’ → draũgė (for more see Ambrazas 2000a: 71 ff., 79 ff.). Differently from Indo-Iranian (but similarly to the Italic and Celtic languages), in the Baltic languages, the corresponding nomina feminina with *-ī /-(i)jā- are rare (for more see Ambrazas 2000a: 74 ff., 2004a: 67 ff.).

1654

XIV. Baltic

1.7. Diminutives In the Baltic languages (as in other related languages; cf. Jurafsky 1996: 565 ff. and lit.), the suffix *-ko- played an important role in the creation of diminutives. Old Prussian nominal derivatives with the suffix *-iko- were productive (e.g., malnijkix ‘small child’). Diminutives are formed in Lithuanian with the suffix *-u-ko- (e.g. berniùkas ‘boy, lad’), in East High Lithuanian dialects also with *-ā-ko- (e.g. berniõkas ‘boy, lad’) and in some Latvian dialects with *-ē-ko- (e.g. sunȩ̄ks ‘small dog’). It is true that in the course of time Lithuanian diminutives with -elis- became common (e.g. vaikẽlis ‘small child’), and Latvian derivatives with -iņš (-iņa) and -ītis (-e) appeared. The latter two suffixes are connected with a special kind of complementary distribution; cf. brālītis ‘little brother’, saulīte ‘little sun’, but dēliņš ‘little son’ (for more see Rūķe-Draviņa 1959: 22 ff., 168 ff.)

1.8. Nomina attributiva Diminutives with *-ko- and nominalizing adjectives with *-(i)-jo-, *-no-, *-en-, *-ro-, *-uo-, *-isko-, and *-mo- furnish the basis for this derivational category (Ambrazas 2000a: 113 ff., 2000b). In the Baltic languages, the nomina attributiva compound suffix with *-in-īko-/*-in-eiko- is especially productive (cf. Li. laukinỹkas ‘farmer’, OP laukinikis ‘landholder’, Latv. laũcinieks ‘farmer’), perhaps in the distant past borrowed from Proto-Slavic (cf. Ambrazas 2000a: 118 ff., 2004a: 57).

1.9. Noun declension The inherited case system of Baltic is comparable to that of Slavic, retaining seven of the eight cases reconstructed for PIE − all but the ablative, which has merged with the genitive, as in Greek, except that the syncretic form is the inherited ablative rather than the genitive. This system is manifest in East Baltic, but the limited corpus of Old Prussian renders its case system uncertain. East Baltic languages have lost the neuter gender in nouns, although Lithuanian retains it in predicate adjectives in clauses without nominal subjects (cf. Holvoet, this handbook, 1.2) as well as in substantive use: gẽra ‘the good’. Generally, neuter nouns are transferred to masculine gender, most famously in the word for ‘100’, šim ˜ tas. Old Prussian does retain a few neuter forms, notably assaran ‘lake’ (< PIE *-om); cf. OCS jezero (which, however, has the old pronominal ending *-od). The dual is retained only in Lithuanian, and even there it is in retreat, having been lost in many dialects. Baltic descendants of the PIE *-(j)o- (= Baltic *-[j]a-) and *-(j)ā-stem declensions are still productive, whereas the Baltic descendants of the PIE *-i-, *-u-, and especially the consonant stem declensions are not. Nouns of these unproductive categories are gradually shifting to the productive categories. In Lithuanian, old adjectives of the Baltic *-u-stem declension and old nouns of the Baltic *-ju-stem declension are passing into the *-ja-stem declension, whereas new words are appearing in the Baltic *-u-stem and *-ju-stem declensions. One encounters also perhaps a few remnants of the *-ī- and *-ū-stem declensions in specific forms of other stems.

89. The morphology of Baltic

1655

1.9.1. The PIE *-(j)o-stem = Baltic *-(j)a-stem: SgN Li. (tė́ v)-as, Latv. (tȩ˜̄ v)-s ‘father’, OP (Deiw)-as, (Deiw)-s, and (Deiw)-is ‘God’ (< *-os); G Li. (tė́ v)-o, Latv. (tȩ˜̄ v)-a < *-ād (Abl), OP (Deiw)-as < *-os (Gen: cf. Hitt. N G antuḫšaš ‘man’ and ON dagr ‘day’, G dags, probably with secondary differentiation of the same original form); D Li. (tė́ v)-ui, OP (wird)-ai ‘word’, (grīk)-u ‘sin’ < *-ōi (the last of these perhaps with a special development following velars), Latv. (tȩ˜̄ v)-am is of pronominal origin; A Li. (tė́ v)- ą, Latv. (tȩ˜̄ v)-u, OP (Deiw)-an < *-oN; I Li. (tė́ v)-u, Latv. (tȩ˜̄ v)-u < *-ṓ; L Li. (tė́ v)-e < *-en (postposition) (the original locative ending *-ei is seen in the adverb namiẽ ‘at home’), OP bītai ‘in the evening’ < *-oi (Latv. [tȩ˜̄ v]-ā is taken from the -ā-stems); V Li. (tė́ v)-e, Latv. (tȩ˜̄ v)-Ø , OP deiwe < *-e; PlN Li. (tė́ v)-ai, Latv. (tȩ˜̄ v)-i, OP (grīk)-ai < *-oi; G Li. (tė́ v)-ų, Latv. (tȩ˜̄ v)-u , OP (grec)-on < *-ōN [all Baltic nouns regardless of stem have the same GPl ending, so this ending will not be analyzed again]; D Li. (tė́ v)-am(u)s (< *-om[u]s [the long form is OLith.]), Latv. (tȩ˜̄ v)-iem(s) (< adjective or pronoun [the longer form is OLatv. and dial.]), OP (waika)-mmans ‘children’ (contamination with PlA -ans); A Li. (tė́ v)-us, Latv. (tȩ˜̄ v)-us; OP (deiw)-ans (< *-ō˘[n]s); I Li. (tė́ v)-ais, Latv. (tȩ˜̄ v)is [dial. and in adverbs; the modern language uses the PlD for this case](< *-ōis); L Li. (tė́ v)-uose (OLith. -uosu), Latv. (tȩ˜̄ v)-uôs (< *-ōs-u with subsequent replacement in Lithuanian of -u by -e from the SgL); Li. Du NAV (tė́ v)-u (< *-ṓ); GL (pusi)-aũ ‘in half’ (*-ou). Otherwise, Lithuanian uses (tė́ v)-am (< *-omV) for both DuD and I. The -ja-stem endings are the same as the above but may have the Sg N Li. (bról)-is, Latv. (brāl)-is, ASg Li. (bról)-į, Latv. (brāl)-i ‘brother’. In Lithuanian nouns of accent classes 3 and 4, the SgN is -ỹs, as in (dag)-ỹs ‘thistle’. In addition to the inherited cases noted above, Lithuanian and most likely OLatvian created three more cases (illative, allative, and adessive) through the addition of certain postpositions to the inherited PIE endings. Thus the Li. Il derives from the addition of the postposition *-nā to the original A ending: Sg *-an+nā > -añ (Rosinas 2005: 164), Pl *-ṍs + *-nā > -úosna; the OLi. Ad ending derives from the addition of the postposition *-pi < *-p(r)ē ̣ to the old L ending: Sg *-ie (< *-ē ̣ < *-oi [Rosinas 2005: 165]) + *-pi > -íep(i), Pl *-ṍsen + *-pi > -uosemp(i); and the OLi. Al derives from the addition of the same postposition to the G ending: Sg -óp(i), Pl -ump(i). Similar forms were created for other stems. But in the modern language it is only the illative which can be said to be a living case, functioning as a directive. 1.9.2. The IE *-(j)ā-stem declension = Baltic *-(j)ā-stem: SgN Li. (líep)-a, (definite Adj -ó-ji), Latv. (liẽp)-a ‘linden tree’, OP (mens)-ā ‘flesh’ (< *-ā´ ) (exceptionally SgN < *-ī́, e.g. Li. patn-ì ‘wife’); G Li. (líep)-os, Latv. (liẽp)-as (< *-ā˜s); D Li. (líep)-ai, Latv. (liẽp)-ai (from monosyllabic pronouns; OLatv. -i is original), OP (alkīnisqu)-ai ‘hungry’ (< *-ā˜i); A Li. (líep)-ą, Latv. (liẽp)-u, OP gennan ‘woman’ < *-ā˜n (analogical replacement of the original acute of the ASg by the circumflex in order to distinguish it from the ISg *-ā´n, see Rosinas [2005: 175]); I WLi. (líep)-a, ELi. (liẽp)-u; Latv. (liẽp)-u (< *-ā´n; cf. Li. def. adj. -ą́-ja); L Li. (líep)-oje, Latv. (liẽp)-ā (< *-āj + en [postposition]); V Li. (líep)-a, Latv. (liẽp)-Ø (< *-ă); PlN Li. (líep)-os, Latv. (liẽp)-as < *-ā˜s; G Li. (líep)-ų, Latv. (liẽp)-u; D Li. (líep)-oms, OLi. (líep)-omus, Latv. (liẽp)-ām, OLatv. -āms (< *-āmōs), OP (genn)-āmans ‘wives’ (< *-āmans); A Li. (líep)-as, Latv. (liẽp)-as, OP (genn)-ans ‘wives’ < *-ā´(N)s, but see Rosinas (2005: 177); I Li. (líep)-omis, Latv. dial. -āmis (< *-āmī́s); L Li. (líep)-ose (OLi. -asu), Latv. (liẽp)-âs (< *-āsu; for the replacement of -u by -e, cf. discussion of -[j]a-stems above), but see Rosinas (2005: 175−177);

1656

XIV. Baltic

Du NAV Li. (líep)-i (< *-íe [cf. def. adj. -íe-ji] < *-ai [PIE *-eh2 -ih1 ]); D Li. (líep)-om < *-āmō; I (líep)-om < *-āmī (Rosinas 2005: 175−178; Mažiulis 1970: 160−162; Schmalstieg 2004). 1.9.3. The Baltic *-ē-stem declension, which appears for the most part to result from the contraction of *-ijā-, is completely parallel to the Baltic *-ā-stem declension. Thus SgN Li. (gérv)-ė, Latv. (dzērv)-e, OP (gerw)-e ‘crane’, (semm)-ē ‘land’ (also [kurp]-i ‘shoe’), < *-ē; G Li. -ės, Latv. -es, OP -is < *-ēs; D Li. -ei, Latv. -i, OP -ey < *-ei < *-ēi; A Li. -ę, Latv. -i, OP -ien < *-en < *-ē˜n; I Li. -e, Latv. -i < *-én < *-ḗn; L Li. -ėje, Latv. -ē < *-ējén; V Li. -e < *-e; PlN Li. -ės, Latv. -es, OP -es < *-ē˜s; the G ending -ų is always preceded by a palatalized stem consonant; cf. G Li. (gérvi)-ų˜, Latv. (dzērvj)u; D Li. -ėms, (OLith. -ēmus) Latv. -ēms < *-ḗmōs; The APl originally = the NPl (Latv. -es) but under acute stress Li. APl kat-ès vs. NPl kãt-ės ‘cats’; I Li. -ėmis, Latv. dial. -emis < *-ēmīs (Rosinas 2005: 180); L Li. -ėse (OLi. -esu), Latv. -ês < *-ēsu; Du NAV Li. -i < *-íe < *-ei < *-ēi; D Li. -ė́ m < *-ēmō; I -ė˜m < *-ēmī, with an intonational difference in accent classes 3 and 4; but see Mažiulis (1970: 160−162). 1.9.4. The Baltic *-i-stem declension contains nouns, overwhelmingly feminine, inherited as such from CB or PIE, and words which have been transferred to this class from consonant stems: SgN Li. (av)-ìs, Latv. (av)-(i)s ‘sheep’, OP -is (< *-is); G Li. (av)-iẽs, Latv. (av)-(i)s (< *-eis); D Li. dial. -ie, Latv. -i(j), OP -ei < PIE *-ēi (FD Li. -iai < *-jāstem declension and MD -iui < *-ja-stem declension); A Li. (ãv)-į, Latv. (av)-i, OP -in (< *-in); I Li. (av)-imì (< *-imī́ ), Latv. (av)-i, L Li. (av)-yjè, Latv. (av)-ī with vowel *-ī by analogy with the LPl (see below) (Lith. dial. -ie and OLith. -eie [-ė-] are older and presuppose *-ēi + en); V Li. (av)-iẽ (< *-ei); PlN Li. (ãv)-ys, Latv. (av)-is. OP -is (< *-ijes < *-ejes [Kazlauskas 1968: 198; Schmalstieg 1973: 199−200]); G Li. (avi)-ų˜, Latv. (avj)-u with preceding palatalized stem consonant); D Li. (av)-ìms, OLi. -imus, Latv. (av)-ī˘ms (< *-īmṓs); APl Li. -is, Latv. -is < CEB *-īs, but OP -ins < *-ins. IPl Li. (av)-imìs, Latv. dial. -imis < CEB *-imī́s; LPl Li. (av)-ysè, but dial. -isu < *-isu is more original (Rosinas 2005: 189). The Li. NAVDu -ì suggests a reconstruction *-ī́. Possibly the DDu Li. -ìm < *-īmṓ and the IDu Li. -im ˜ < *-īmí, but see Mažiulis (1970: 160−162). 1.9.5. The Baltic *-u-stem declension is overwhelmingly masculine, although Old Prussian retains some old neuters, notably meddo ‘honey’, pecku ‘cattle’. In Latvian, a few feminine pluralia tantum exist, and it is only these which retain the original *-u-stem inflection. In all other instances, Latvian u-stems are inflected in the plural as *-o-stems: SgN Li. (tur˜g)-us, Latv. (tìrg)-us ‘market’, OP (dang)-us ‘heaven’ (< *-us); G Li. (tur˜g)aus, Latv. (tìrg)-us (< *-aus, PIE *-ous); D Li. -ui (< -u + -i from other stems [Mažiulis 1970: 272]), Latv. (tìrg)-um (with stem vowel -u- + pronominal DSg ending -m); A Li. (tur˜g)-ų, Latv. (tìrg)-u, OP -un (< *-un); I Li. (tur˜g)-umi (< *-umī́ ), Latv. (tìrg)-u (like A); L Li. (tur˜g)-uje, Latv. -ū (< *-ōjen or *-ujen [Rosinas 2005: 192]), Lith. dial. -uo recovers an older form in *-ōu; V Li. (tur˜g)-au, Latv. Mik-u ‘O Michael’ (< *-ou); PlN Li. (tur˜g)-ūs, Latv. (pęl)-us ‘chaff’ (< *-uwes or by analogy with other stems with identical NPl and APl [Rosinas 2005: 193] or by the addition of *-s to the NDu *-ū?) (Schmalstieg 1973: 199−200), but Lith. dial. -aus shows a more original form of the ending (< *-au̯es, earlier *-ou̯es ← *-eu̯es?); D Li. (tur˜g)-ums, OLi. -umus (< *-umṓs), Latv. D and I (pęl)-ūm are old dual forms, but the -ū- is peculiar (< *-ū-stem form or by analogy

89. The morphology of Baltic

1657

with other stems?); A Li. (turg)-ùs, Latv. -us (< *-ūs or *-uns); I Li. (tur˜g)-umis (< *-umī́s [Rosinas 2005: 194]); L OLi. (dang)-usu ‘in heaven’ < *-usu or may have been pronounced -ūsu (< *-ū-stems) (-ūse, -uose, and -use are all secondary, based on -i-stems, *-o-stems, and a contamination of -use and -usu, respectively); Du Li. NA (dang)-ù ‘two skies’ (< *-ū´); D Li. (dang)-ùm < *-umṓ; I Li. (dang)-um ˜ < *-umī́ (Rosinas 2005: 195). 1.9.6. The Baltic consonant stem declension is nowhere represented intact throughout an entire paradigm. The original SgN is seen in the n-stem Li. (akm)-uõ ‘stone’ (< *-ōn) and the r-stems Li. (ses)-uõ ‘sister’ (< *-ōr) and Li. (dukt)-ė˜ ‘daughter’ (< *-ēr) (but for a different view see Schmalstieg 1980: 59−60). The Lithuanian stem of these nouns for all cases other than the SgN is akmen-, dukter-, seser-. Latvian has for the most part reshaped the NSg according to the rest of the paradigm, thus, e.g. N (akmen)-s ‘stone’; G Li. (akmeñ)-s, OLi. (ákmen)-es, Latv. (akmen)-s (< *-es); D OLi. (ãkmen)-ie (< *-ei), (ãkmen)-iui (borrowed from *-ja-stems), Latv. (akmen)-im (borrowed from *-i-stems); A Li. (ãkmen)-į, Latv. (akmen)-i (< *-in < PIE vocalic *-m̥. The phonological merger of *-in < PIE vocalic *-m̥ with *-in < PIE *-im set the stage for large scale adoption of other -i-stem endings by the etymological consonant stems); I OLi. (akme)-mi (< *akmen-mi), suggesting that the ending -mi (< *-mī) was originally added directly to the nominal stem (Rosinas 2005: 197), but cf. contemporary Li. (akmen)-imì (-i-stem); L Li. (akmen)yjè, -ije, -iy, Latv. -ī < *-ījen (Rosinas 2005: 198); PlN Li. (ãkmen)-s, dial. (ãkmen)-es, (< *-es), Latv. (akmen)-is (i-stem), (akmeņ)-i (-ja-stem) (Endzelīns 1971: 164); G Li. (akmen)-ų˜, Latv. (akmeņ)-u (-ja-stem); D contemporary Li. (akmen)-ìms, OLi. -imus (-istem), Latv. (akmeņ)-iem (< pronoun or adjective declension); A Li. (ãkmen)-is, OLatv. -is < *-n̥s (which merged with the APl -i-stem ending); I OLi. (akme)-mis (< *akmenmis [Rosinas 2005: 199; Kazlauskas 1968: 248]), contemporary Li. (akmen)-imìs (-istem), Latv. (like D); L Li. (akmen)-ysè, -isu (-i- stem with the lengthened variant -īsu), Latv. (akmeņ)-uôs (-ja-stem). OLi. NDu du (žmûn)-e ‘two men’. Li. Sg N mė́ nuo ‘moon, month’ is the only -s-stem retaining an apparent etymological form, although the -i-stem mė́ nesis or the *-ja-stem mėnesỹs also occur. The stem mėnes- occurs in all other cases.

2. Adjective formation In the Baltic languages adjective formation has been investigated less than the formation of nouns. Still, it seems that here it makes sense to distinguish three old, but closely related derivational categories (for more see Ambrazas 2005a, 2007).

2.1. Adjectives of action or result In the Baltic languages, there are old verbal Adjs with the suffixes *-lo-, *-no-, *-ro-, *-uo-, *-u-, *-o-. Of these, the last two show an interesting relationship: in general, -ustem adjectives in the Baltic languages partially replace old oxytone *-o-stem adjectives (the type seen in Gk. phorós ‘carrying’ [cf. Hamp 1984, 1994]); and in Lithuanian -u-

1658

XIV. Baltic

stems adjectives ousted *-o-stems from use (Skardžius 1943: 33 ff.; Zinkevičius 1981: 20 ff.; Vanags 1989, 1990).

2.2. Attributive adjectives Adjectives inherited from late PIE with the suffix *-(i)jo- have almost disappeared in the Baltic languages, often becoming nouns, e.g. Li. vasãris ‘summer, spring’, Latv. galējs, galījs ‘ultimate extreme, last’ (for more see Skardžius 1998b: 433 ff.; Ambrazas 2005b: 131 ff.). The nominalization of this type of derivative (e.g. the aforementioned nomina agentis with *-tā-jo-, *-ē-jo-) created the conditions for the spread of the (i)jostems in the Baltic languages (cf. Ambrazas 1992b). On the other hand the derivational suffixes *-i-no-/-in-jo- (also *-īn-go-, which developed from -īno- on Baltic soil; see Skardžius 1998a: 100 ff.; Ambrazas 2003; Kaukienė 2004: 90 ff.), *-is-ko-, *-ā-to-, *-ō-to-, *-ē-to-, *-ī-to- are widely used to create nominal Adjs.

2.3. Diminutives Adjective diminutives with the suffix *-ā-ko- are very productive in Lithuanian. In Latvian, the comparative degree of adjectives has developed from them; cf. Li. mažókas ‘rather small’ and Latv. mazâks ‘smaller’. Lithuanian diminutives of archaic formation with -int-elis(-e) have developed from ancient nouns with *-nt- (for more see Ambrazas 2004b). 2.4. Originally the adjective declension did not differ from the noun declension. The *-o-stem (= Baltic *-a-stem) pairs with the IE *-ā-stem declension (= Baltic *-ā-stem) to furnish M and F adjectives, respectively; thus, Sg N M Li. gẽr-as ‘good’, F ger-à. Baltic *-ja-stem adjectives with the Sg N M -is pair with F *-ē, thus Sg N M Li. dìdelis ‘big’, F dìdel-ė. The Lithuanian and Latvian M adjective declension has adopted some endings of the demonstrative pronouns; thus Sg D Li. ger-ám, L ger-amè, PlN ger-ì D ger-íem(us), Du D ger-íem, I ger-iẽm (Endzelīns 1971: 167). Baltic *-u-stem adjectives with the NSg -us pair with *-ī-/-jā-stems to furnish M and F adjectives, respectively; thus Li. Sg N M plat-ùs, G plat-aũs, ‘wide’, etc., N F plat-ì, G plačiõs, etc. The definite adjective is formed in principle (with various phonetic adjustments) by the addition of the corresponding case and number form of the 3 rd person pronoun to the inflected adjective, thus Li. Sg N M mažàs-is ‘the small’ < -as + jìs ‘he’, G mãžo-jo < -o + jõ, etc. Latv. Sg N M mazaĩs < -a + -ìs, G mazã, etc.

3. Numerals The cardinal numerals are usually declined. Sg N M/F pairs Li. víenas / vienà, Latv. viens / viena, OP ains / aina ‘one’, etc. are all declined like -a-/-ā-stem adjectives. The Du M/F NA Li. dù / dvì ‘two’ share the same G dvejų˜, D dvíem, and I dviẽm, but the

89. The morphology of Baltic

1659

Li. L M is dviejuosè and the F is dviejosè. Latv. divi ‘two’ is uncharacterized as to gender and case and the only occurring Old Prussian form is dwai. The other numerals from ‘3’−‘10’ are: ‘3’ Li. trỹs, Latv. trîs (-i-stem); ‘4’ Li. keturì, Latv. četri (with č from the influence of Ru. četyre); ‘5’ Li. penkì, Latv. pièci; ‘6’ Li. šešì, Latv. seši; ‘7’ Li. septynì, Latv. septiņi; ‘8’ Li. aštuonì, Latv. astuôņi; ‘9’ Lith. devynì, Latv. deviņi; ‘10’ Li. dešimtìs, dẽšimt (indecl.), Latv. desmit, dial. desimt. The numerals ‘4’−‘9’ have corresponding F’s in -ios. ‘10’− ‘20’ are all built with the suffix -lika (cf. Goth. ainlif ‘11’, twalif ‘12’) to a base which represents, in the case of ‘13’−‘19’, an original Neut. Pl (as is -lika itself) in -ió- (keturiuólika ‘14’, etc.). Similarly neuter is trý- (trýlika ‘13’). But vienúolika ‘11’ and dvýlika ‘12’ must be analogical. All these forms are inflected as *-āstems, but with accusative in -a, reflecting the original neuter status of -lika. The collocation would originally have meant ‘X left over (after 10)’. In Latvian, the corresponding forms viênpadsmit, divpadsmit, trîspadsmit, etc. mean literally ‘X after 10’. The decads are formed either by prefixing the unit digit to the indeclinable -dešimt (dvìdešimt ‘20’, trìsdešimt ‘30’, etc.) or by syntagms consisting of two congruent words (trỹs dẽšimtys, kẽturios dẽšimtys ‘three, four tens’, etc.). Latvian utilizes a compound with desmit (četrdesmit ‘40’, pìecdesmit ‘50’, etc.). Li. šim ˜ tas, Latv. sìmts ‘hundred’ is an -a-stem noun, whereas Li. tū´kstantis ‘thousand’ and Latv. tũkstuotis ‘thousand’ are both -jastems (although the former was earlier declined like a F -i-stem). Old Prussian attests only the APl tūsimtons.

3.1. Ordinal numerals These are ordinary -a-/-ā- adjectives: Sg M N Li. pìrmas, OP pirmas ‘first’ (however, Latv. pìrmais is a definite adjective, and Old Prussian as well shows the definite declension outside the Sg M N, e.g. Sg A pirmannien); Li. añtras, Latv. ùotrs ‘second’ (most likely also OP antars; cf. ASg āntran); Li. trẽčias, Latv. treš(ai)s ‘third’; ketvir˜-t-as, ‘fourth’ (this and subsequent ordinals, with the original exception of ‘seventh’ [Li. arch. sẽkmas] and ‘eighth’ [Lith. arch. ãšmas], with t-suffix, including the teens in -liktas and the decads in -dešimtas, both with the same first member as the cardinal). Latvian uses the cardinal + -padsmitais for the teens and + -desmitais for the decads.

4. Pronouns 4.1. The pronominal system of Baltic includes demonstrative pronouns with both proximal and neutral reference as well as, archaically, a distal deictic demonstrative. As elsewhere in IE, pronominal inflection differs in part from that of nouns, especially in the Sg D L and in the dual. As noted in 2.4, these differences have been adopted as well in adjectival inflection. As a proximal deictic, Baltic utilizes a heteroclitic stem in *ši-/ *šja-, the first of these variants appearing in the Sg N A and the second elsewhere: Sg M N Li. šìs, Latv. šis, OP schis ‘this’ (generalization of the stem *šja- in the latter two languages); G Li. šiõ, Latv. šà; D Li. šiãm(ui), Latv. šam, šim, OP schism; A Li. šĩ˛, Latv. šùo, OP sch(i)an, schien; I Li. šiuõ, earlier šiúo, Latv. šùo (= A) or, with instrumental intonation, šuõ; L Li. ši(a)mè, Latv. šamī, šimī; PlN Li., Latv. šiẽ, OP schai, G Li. šių˜,

1660

XIV. Baltic

Latv. šùo (both nominal forms), OP schiēison; D Li. šíems, older šíemus, Latv. šiẽm(s), A Li. šiuõs, Latv. šuõs, OP schans, schins; I Lith. šiaĩs, Latv. dial. šiẽs with vocalism of the D; L Li. šiuosè, Latv. šuõs. The Lithuanian dual of pronouns is rather fuller than that of nouns, adding a G and L to the usual NA, D, I via both internal inflection as well as suffixation of the relevant forms of the numeral ‘2’: NA šiẽdu, šiuõdu, G šių˜dviejų˜, D šíemdviem, I šiẽmdviem (or, with generalization of the stem form of the NA, šiẽdviem in both D and I), L šiuõdviese. To these were paired a F in *-ī/-jā-, e.g. Li. šì, G šiõs. In addition, Baltic shows the form Li. tàs/tà, Latv. tas/tã, OP stas/sta (but more frequently F stai)/Neut. sta (< *-at, PIE *-od, and contrast asseran ‘lake’ < PIE *-om, the old nominal neuter ending), SgG M stesse(i) in the neutral deictic value ‘that’; and in many Lithuanian dialects, a third degree of (distal) deixis is distinguished by the form anàs/anà ‘yon’. Moreover, Old Prussian shows an enclitic anaphoric pronoun *di-, *djawhich finds its closest match in Iranian. 4.2. The Lithuanian interrogative, relative pronoun N kàs ‘who, what’ is declined: G kõ (with possessive meaning kienõ ‘whose’), D kám, A ką˜, I kuõ, L kamè, Latv. N kàs, G kà, D kam, A kùo, I kùo. The Latvian L does not exist, but the Adverb kur ‘where’ or the L kurā of kurš ‘which, who’ may be used in this value. Old Prussian has Sg N kas, D kasmu, PlN quai = /kai/, A kans. Li. Sg N M kurìs, F kurì ‘which, who’ < kur ‘where’ + jìs ‘he’, jì ‘she’ is declined like the corresponding pronouns. The Latvian cognate NSg kuŗš ‘which, who’ is declined like a regular soft stem adjective.

5. Personal pronouns The stem of the nominative in the 1st and 2 nd Sg. and 1st Pl differs from that of the other cases, thus: 1st Sg

1st Pl

N Li. aš, Latv. es, OP as ‘I’

Li., Latv. mẽs, OP mes

G Li. manę˜s, Latv. manis, mani

Li. mū´sų, Latv. mūsu, OP noūson

2 nd Sg

2 nd Pl

N Li., Latv. tu, OP tu (also toū)

Li., Latv. jũs, OP ioūs

G Li. tavę˜s, Latv. tevis (dial. tavi), etc.

Li. jū´sų, Latv. jūsu, OP iouson, etc.

Other cases include 1st Sg D Li. mán, Latv. man, OP mennei; A Li. manè, Latv. mani, OP mien; I Li. manimì, Latv. manim, OP mā˘im; L Li. manyjè, Latv. manĩ; 1st pl. D Li. mùms, Latv. mums, OP noūma(n)s; A Li. mùs, Latv. mũs, OP mans; I Li., Latv. = D; L Li. (with various analogies operative) mūsuosè, mūsyjè, mumysè, Latv. mūsuôs. 2 nd Sg. D Li. táu, Latv. tev, OP tebbei; A Li. tavè, Latv. tevi, OP tien; I Li. tavimì, Latv. tevim; L Li. tavyjè, Latv. tevĩ; 2 nd pl. D. Li. jùms, OLi. jùmus, Latv. jums, OP ioūmans; A Li. jùs, Latv. jũs, OP wans; I Li. jumìs, Latv. = D; L (with various analogies operative) jūsuosè, jūsyjè, jumysè, Latv. jūsuôs. In addition, Baltic possesses dual forms 1st pers. NA Lith. mùdu (m), mùdvi (f.), etc. 2 nd pers. NA jùdu (m), jùdvi (f.), etc. A more

89. The morphology of Baltic

1661

original form of the 1st dual is preserved in the dialectal form vèdu (cf. Gothic wit). The unusual (for personal pronouns) gender distinction is a product of the addition of the relevant gender forms of the numeral ‘two’ to the pronominal bases. In the first person plural and dual, the u-vocalism of the corresponding second person forms has manifestly exercised a great influence. The reflexive pronoun Sg G Li. savę˜s, Latv. sevis are declined like the corresponding 2 nd Sg pronouns Li tavę˜s, Latv tevis, respectively. The Li. G forms màno ‘my’, tàvo ‘your (sg)’, (reflexive) sàvo ‘one’s own’ are used as possessive pronouns and in agentive function. The Li. 3 rd person pronoun Sg M N jìs ‘he’ is declined much like the corresponding *-ja-stem Adj: G jõ, D jám(ui), A jį, etc., F N jì, G jõs, etc. Latvian has the 3 rd person pronoun Sg M N viņš ‘he’ (F viņa ‘she’) declined as a *-ja-/*-jā- stem adjective. The OP 3 rd person pronoun is Sg M N tāns, G tennessei, D tennesmu, A tennan, etc.

6. Verb formation In the Baltic languages, the formation of verbs, which is intertwined with inflectional and syntactic characteristics, has not yet been systematically investigated. From the synchronic point of view, there are only the first attempts to classify the Lithuanian verbs into certain semantic groups or derivational categories (cf. Jakaitienė 1994; J. Pakerys 2005). Still, historical investigations lead one to suspect that a large number of these may be of nominal origin; cf. Li -inti, -auti, -uoti, -yti, -oti (Fraenkel 1938; Stang 1942; Endzelīns 1951: 803 ff.; Schmid 1963; Otkupščikov 1967: 78 ff.; Georgiev 1960, 1982; Karaliūnas 1980; Zinkevičius 1981: 91 f. and literature).

6.1. Verb inflection The apparent etymologically 3 rd person singular form of the Baltic verb functions with Sg, Pl, and Du subjects. Baltic retained, however, the PIE difference between athematic and thematic verbal endings. The etymological present tense archaic athematic endings of OLi. bū´ti ‘to be’ are: (3 person) es-ti, Sg 1 es-mi, 2 esi < *es-si, Pl 1 es-me, 2 es-te (Zinkevičius 1981: 99). The Latv. 1 Sg ęs-mu ‘I am’ (like Li. dial. esmù and probably OP asmu, etc.) shows a contamination of the etymological ending *-mi with the thematic 1 Sg ending -u (Endzelīns 1951: 704). OP shows the 3 person ast, æst, est, asti-ts, hest, asth, asch (this last surely a misprint), 1 Sg asmai, asmau, asmu, 2 essei, assai, asse, æsse, Pl 1 asmai, 2 astai, estei, asti (Trautmann 1910: 304; Smoczyński 2005: 17−28). In the contemporary Baltic languages, the Pres tense verb is completely thematic, e.g., 1 Sg Li. es-ù, etc., Latv. es-u ‘I am’, etc. The athematic endings differ from the thematic endings only in the 1 singular and the 3 rd person. The thematic 1 Sg ending Li., Latv. -uo retained in the reflexive -uo-s(i)-, < PIE *-ō is ordinarily shortened to -u. The Li. 2 Sg ending -i (in Latvian reconstructed as *-i) may derive from thematic *-ei > *-ie > -i or athematic *-i, in which case the diphthong observed in the reflexive -ie-s(i) is analogical to the diphthong in the 1 Sg, i.e., -u : -uo-s(i) :: -i : -ies(i), (Schmalstieg 2000:

1662

XIV. Baltic

47). The 1 Pl ending Li. -me, Latv -m < *-me, the 2 Pl ending Li. -te, Latv. -t < *-te, the Li., 1 Du ending -va < *-va, and the Li. 2 Du ending -ta < *-ta. The long vowels or diphthongs encountered in the various reflexive forms, e.g., Li. 1 Pl -mės, Latv. -mies, etc. are all probably analogical (Schmalstieg 2000: 49). The thematic 3 person ending Li. -a (< PIE *-o) shows only the thematic vowel, with no trace of the *-t(i) familiar from other IE languages. In the thematic paradigm the -a has been generalized to all persons (except 1, 2 Sg); cf., e.g. Sg 1 Li. ved-ù, Latv. vęd-u ‘I lead’, 2 Li. ved-ì, Latv. vęd, 3 person Li. vẽd-a, Latv vęd; Pl 1 Li. vẽd-ame, Latv. vęd-am, 2 Li. vẽd-ate, Latv. vęd-at; Li. Du 1 vẽd-ava, 2 vẽd-ata (Schmalstieg 2000: 45−46, 137). (It is a general principle of the indicative forms of the Lithuanian verb, outside of the future, that the Pl and Du can be formed by the addition of 1st Pl -me, 2 nd Pl -te, 1st Du -va, 2 nd Du -ta to the 3 rd person.) A sample “half-thematic” conjugation (i.e. with 1 Sg -u, other present forms without evidence of the etymological thematic vowel) is Li. žin-óti, Latv. zin-ât ‘to know’: Sg 1 Li. žin-aũ, Latv. zin-u < *-āu, 2 Li žin-aĩ, Latv zin-i < *-āi, 3 person Li. žìn-o, Latv. zin-a < *-ā, etc. A sample “half-thematic” verb with *-i-stem present and *-ē-stem infinitive is Li. gul-ė́ ti, Latv. dial. gul-êt ‘to lie’: Sg 1 Li. gul-iù, Latv. guļu < *-ju, 2 Li. gul-ì, Latv. gul-i < *-ie < *-ei(?), 3 person Li. gùl-i, Latv. gul < *-i, etc. (Endzelīns 1951: 792). The type may also be represented in OP turrettwey ‘to have’ = Li. turė́ ti, see Schmalstieg (1974: 201−202), Smoczyński (2005: 372−381). The Baltic preterit is formed with either the suffix *-ā- or *-ē- plus the personal endings. An example of the *-ā-preterit: Li. jùsti, Latv. just ‘to feel’: Sg 1 Li. jut-aũ, Latv. jut-u < *-āu, 2 Li. jut-aĩ, Latv. jut-i < *-āi, 3 person Li. jùt-o, Latv. jut-a < *-ā, etc. An example of the *-ē-preterit: Li. nèšti, Latv. dial. nest ‘to carry’: Sg 1 Li. neš-iaũ, Latv. neš-u < *-ēu, 2 Li. neš-eĩ, Latv. nes-i < *-ēi, 3 person Li. nẽš-ė, Latv. nes-e < *-ē (Endzelīns 1971: 234; Schmalstieg 2000: 288). The future tense is formed by adding -s- to the infinitive stem which in turn becomes a stem for the future conjugation, thus Li. tàpti, Latv. tapt ‘to become’: Sg 1 Li. tàp-siu, Latv. tapš-u < *-sju, 2 Li. tàp-si, Latv. tap-si < *-si, 3 person Li. tàp-s, Latv. tap-s < *-s, Pl 1 Li. tàp-sime, Latv. tapsim < *-sime, etc. (Endzelīns 1971: 231). Athematic forms such as Li. dial. Pl 1 eis-me ‘we shall go’, 2 eis-te are probably more original than standard eĩs-i-me, eĩs-i-te. There are various explanations for the connecting vowel -i-, see Kazlauskas (1968: 366−367) and Schmalstieg (2000: 262−276). Lithuanian has a frequentative past tense formed with the suffix -dav-, e.g. Sg 1 tàp-dav-au, 2 -dav-ai, 3 -dav-o ‘I/you/(s)he used to become’, etc. In Latvian, a special debitive mood is formed by prefixing the element jā- to the 3 rd person verb form, e.g., jā-mãca ‘must teach’. The Old Prussian morpheme -ai- < PIE optative *-oi- expresses the imperative; cf., e.g., 2 Pl id-ai-ti ‘eat!’. The old optative in -ai may also be attested in such Lithuanian dialect imperatives as rãš-ai ‘write’; see Zinkevičius (1966: 370−371); Schmalstieg (2000: 240−241). Similarly for the Li. 3 person optative (“permissive”) te-dirb-iẽ (< *-oi-) ‘may he/she work’, the same PIE optative morpheme may be posited. The Li. dialect imperative 2 Sg duõ ‘give!’ may reflect an old root imperative (Zinkevičius 1981: 131). The usual contemporary Lithuanian imperative is formed by adding the morpheme -k- to the infinitive stem, e.g. 2 Sg dúo-k(i), 2 Pl dúo-k-ite ‘give!’, 1 Pl dúo-k-ime ‘let us give’ (or perhaps to the old etymological root imperative, here with acute intonation according to the infinitive stem, see Zinkevičius 1981: 130). The Latvian imperative is usually identical with the 2 nd person of the indicative. With the exception of the 1 Sg, the Lithuanian conditional (“subjunctive”) was apparently originally formed by the addition of personal endings (etymologically from the 3 preterit bit[i]) to the etymological supine -tų ( *pùo̯ga, Est. poeg); vajag ‘is necessary’ (Liv. vajag, vajāg, Est. vaja); Latv. maksa ‘payment’ (Liv., Est. maks). Most of the loanwords, however, went in the opposite direction, from Baltic into Balto-Finnic. For further examples and discussion cf. Thomsen (1890); Kalima (1936); Nieminen (1957, 1959); Steinitz (1965); Suhonen (1988); Larsson (2001); and Kallio (2008). Liukkonen (1999) introduces a large number of possible loans from Baltic to Balto-Finnic, not all equally evident; cf. the negative review by Rédei (2000). The fact that many of the loanwords from Baltic have been affected by inner-BaltoFinnic sound changes shows that the words were borrowed at a fairly early point in the history of Balto-Finnic. For example, PBalt. *ti developed into BFen. si (Fin. silta < *tilta, cf. Lith. tìltas ‘bridge’), PBalt. *ln > BFen. ll (Fin. villa, Est. vill, cf. Lith. vìlna ‘wool’), and PBalt. *ś, *ź developed into BFen. h (Fin. halla, Est. hall, cf. Lith. šalnà ‘frost’). The oft-quoted development of PBalt. *ei̯ to PBFen. *ai̯ deserves special comment. The treatment of this problem has been unnecessarily complicated by the assumption that East Baltic ie cannot reflect PBalt. *ai̯ . Therefore, it must first and foremost be clarified that PBalt. *ai̯ can, indeed, yield East Baltic ie (e.g. Lith. dieverìs ‘brother-inlaw’ and ORu. deˇverĭ, Gk. δᾱήρ, Lat. laevir, Arm. taygr; cf. Mathiassen (1995) for a full discussion). Hence, an example like Fin. paimen ‘shepherd’ (Lith. piemuo˜ ‘id.’) is

91. The lexicon of Baltic

1687

not an instance of PBalt. *ei̯ being represented by PBFen. *ai̯ , but has simply preserved the Baltic diphthong *ai̯ (cf. Gr. ποιμήν). Another key example is Fin. taivas ‘heaven, sky’ which is generally said to be a borrowing from Balt. *dei̯ u̯as (Lith. die˜vas, Latv. dìevs, OPr. EV deiwis ‘god’); cf. the comprehensive survey by Suhonen (1988: 608): “taivas (< balt. *deivas)”. However, this example is better explained otherwise: Fin. taivas must reflect an early loan from Indo-Iranian, i.e. IIr. *dai̯ u̯as; cf. also Katz (2003: 81) for further discussion. In effect, the material in support of PBalt. *ei̯ being represented by PBFen. *ai̯ is extremely meager. (The fact that Fin. ei sometimes corresponds to ai in certain South Estonian dialects and Livonian is an inner-Balto-Finnic problem that must be treated separately; cf. Laanest [1982: 325] for discussion.)

3. Specifically Baltic vocabulary Presented below is a sample of specifically Baltic vocabulary; cf. Stang (1966a: 7−9); Lanszweert (1984: V−VI); Zinkevičius (1984: 229 f.); and Sabaliauskas (1990: 142−193) for further examples. Note, however, that the list of words presented by Sabaliauskas also includes lexical items that occur exclusively in East Baltic. The words listed below are attested in both East and West Baltic. Sometimes connections to PIE roots can be made, for example the Baltic word for ‘shoulder’ is probably connected to the root *peth2 - ‘fly, spread out (the wings)’, but in most cases the etymological connections are unclear. In a few cases, only the semantic development is specific to Baltic, for example the Baltic word for ‘forest’ continues PIE *méd hi̯ os ‘middle’. The Baltic languages furthermore share a range of unique lexical correspondences with Germanic and Slavic; cf. Trautmann (1923); Stang (1972) for examples and discussion. Terms for persons: Lith. mergà ‘girl, maiden’, Latv. dial. mȩ̄rga ‘girl of marriageable age’, OPr. EV mergo ‘maiden’; Lith. vaĩkas ‘child’, OPr. Cat. waix ‘farm servant’. Body parts: Lith. pety˜s ‘shoulder’, OPr. EV pettis ‘shoulder-blade, shovel’, pette ‘shoulder’. Flora and fauna: Lith. ą́žuolas, Latv. uôzuols, OPr. EV ansonis ‘oak’; Lith. bríedis, Latv. briêdis, OPr. EV braydis ‘elk’; Lith. žìrgas ‘horse, steed’, Latv. zirˆgs ‘horse’, OPr. EV sirgis ‘stallion’; Lith. slíekas, Latv. sliêks 2, sliêka, OPr. EV slayx ‘rainworm’; Lith. geny˜s, Latv. dzenis, OPr. EV genix ‘woodpecker’; Lith. lydekà, lydy˜s, Latv. lîdaka, -eka, OPr. EV liede ‘pike’; Lith. pémpė, OPr. EV peempe ‘peewit, lapwing’; Lith. vãnagas, Latv. vanags ‘hawk’, OPr. EV sperglawanag ‘sparrowhawk’, gertoanax ‘hawk’, lit. ‘henhawk’. Miscellaneous nouns: Lith. lángas, Latv. luôgs, OPr. EV lanxto ‘window’; Lith. me˜dis, dial. me˜džias ‘tree, wood’, Latv. mežs ‘forest’, OPr. EV median ‘forest’; Lith. rýkštė, Latv. rĩkšte, OPr. EV riste ‘rod’; Lith. plie˜nas, Latv. plie˜ns, OPr. EV playnis ‘steel’; Lith. vãris, dial. vãrias, Latv. varš, dial. vaŗš, OPr. EV wargien ‘copper’. Adjectives and adverbs: Lith. ˛ísas, Latv. îss, OPr. Cat. īnsan Asg. ‘short’; Lith. lãbas, Latv. labs, OPr. Cat. labs ‘good’; Lith. tolùs, Latv. tâls ‘far, distant, remote’, OPr. Cat. tālis, tāls comp. adv. ‘further’; Lith. dãžnas, Latv. dažs ‘common’, OPr. Cat. kudesnammi, kodesnimma ‘so often’. Verbs: Lith. globóti ‘to take care of, to protect’, glóbti ‘to embrace’, Latv. glabât ‘to keep’, glâbt ‘to save, to protect’, OPr. Cat. poglabū 3sg. past ‘caressed’; Lith. tráukti ‘pull, drag’, OPr. Cat. pertraūki 3sg. past ‘closed up’. Personal names: There are several compound names that are common to Prussian and Lithuanian;

1688

XIV. Baltic

cf. Trautmann (1925: 131−157); Stang (1966: 4): OPr. Algard − Lith. Algirdas; OPr. Arbute − Lith. Arbutas; OPr. Butigede − Lith. Butgeidas; OPr. Butrimas − Lith. Butrimas; OPr. Masebuth − Lith. Mažbutas; OPr. Wissebute − Lith. Visbutas; OPr. Barkint − Lith. Barkintas; OPr. Wissebar − Lith. Visbaras; OPr. Daukant − Lith. Daukantas, OPr. Eygayle − Lith. Eigaila; OPr. Eymant − Lith. Eimantas; OPr. Eytwyde − Lith. Eitvidas; OPr. Clawsigail − Lith. Klausigaila.

4. Word formation Among the most important works concerning Baltic noun formation, the following may be mentioned: Leskien (1884, 1891); Skardžius (1943); Otrębski (1965); Bammesberger (1973); Ambrazas (1993, 2000). The Baltic verb has been studied by Stang (1942); Schmid (1963); Schmalstieg (2000); and Smoczyński (2005). Below, some of the most archaic stems preserved in Baltic will be discussed, and a selection of specifically Baltic suffixes will be presented. In addition, the Baltic system of nominal composition will be briefly described.

4.1. Athematic stems The inherited vocabulary, as presented in 1. above, has to a large extent preserved the inherited stem class. For example, many of the inherited athematic verbs have preserved their inflection, e.g. OPr. 1sg. asmai, 2sg. assei, essei, 3sg. ast, OLith. 1sg. esmi, 2sg. essi, 3sg./pl. esti, Latv. 1sg. ęsmu, 2sg. esi (*h1 es- ‘be’) and OPr. 2sg. ēisei, 3sg. ēit, OLith. 1sg. eimi, 2sg. eisi, 3sg./pl. eiti, OLatv. 1sg. eῖmi, iêmu, Latv. 3sg. iêt (*h1 ei̯ ‘go’). The athematic stem formation became moderately productive in East Baltic, and hence verbs like álkti ‘to starve’, bárti ‘to scold’, snìgti ‘to snow’, čiáudėti ‘to sneeze’, giedóti ‘to sing’, mė́ gti ‘to like’ have athematic forms in Old Lithuanian, although there are no indications that these verbs continue inherited athematic verbs; cf. Specht (1935: 82 ff.); Stang (1966a: 310 f.). The continuants of root nouns in Baltic are generally based on the PIE accusative stem, both with respect to ablaut grade and stem marker. The small group of root nouns that can be reconstructed with certainty have, in most cases, partially preserved the consonantal inflection, e.g. Lith. naktìs (Gpl. naktų˜), Latv. nakts (Gpl. naktu), OPr. Cat. naktin Asg. ‘night’ (*nok wt-); Lith. žąsìs (Gpl. žąsų˜), Latv. zùoss (Gpl. dial zùosu), OPr. EV sansy ‘goose’ (*g̑ hans-); Lith. žvėrìs (Gpl. dial. žvėrų˜), Latv. zvȩˆrs (Gpl. zvȩˆru), OPr. Cat. swīrins Apl. ‘beast’ (*g̑ hu̯ēr-); Lith. žuvìs (Gpl. žuvų˜), Latv. zivs (Gpl. dial. zivu), dial. zuvs (Gpl. zuvu), OPr. EV suckis ‘fish’ (*d hg̑ huH-). The consonantal inflection must have enjoyed some degree of productivity at an early stage, as witnessed by, for example, the OLith. ti-stem išmintis ‘reason, intelligence’ with consonantal endings Gsg. išmintes and Gpl. išmintų beside ti-stem endings Gsg. išminties and Gpl. išminčių; cf. Kazlauskas (1957: 5 ff.). Therefore, the mere fact that a noun has consonantal endings in Baltic is not enough to warrant the reconstruction of a root noun in Proto-Indo-European. Among original s-stems with preserved consonantal endings, we find Lith. ausìs (Gpl. ausų˜), Latv. àuss (Gpl. ausu), OPr. EV ausins, Cat. āusins Apl. ‘ear’; Lith. debesìs (Gpl. de-

91. The lexicon of Baltic

1689

besų˜) ‘cloud’, Latv. debess (Gpl. debesu) ‘sky’. A few r-stems and ter-stems have preserved their consonantal character, e.g. Lith. sesuõ, Gsg. seser(e)s ‘sister’; Lith. duktė˜ (Gsg. dukter[e]s) ‘daughter’; Lith. mótė (Gsg. móter[e]s) ‘woman, mother’; OLith. jentė (Gsg. jenters), Latv. ietere (dial. ie˜taļa) ‘sister-in-law’ (PBalt. *i̯ ēnter- < PIE *[H]i̯ énh2 ter-). The consonantal character of the n-stem inflection is also maintained, e.g. Lith. augmuõ, -meñs ‘plant, swelling’; Lith. akmuõ, -meñs ‘stone’, Latv. akmens (OLatv. Nsg. akmuons); Lith. ašmuõ, -meñs, Latv. asmens ‘edge, blade’; Lith. piemuõ, -meñs ‘shepherd’; OPr. Cat. emmens (Asg. emnen) ‘name’; OPr. Cat. kērmens (Gsg. kermenes) ‘body’; OPr. EV semen ‘seed’ (< *seh1 -mn̥; cf. also OLith. sėmuo˜, -meñs ‘id.’). Consonant-stem inflection has generally not become productive, but n- and men-stems seem to have enjoyed a certain degree of productivity in Baltic, as they did in Slavic, e.g. Lith. ruduõ, -eñs, Latv. rudens ‘autumn’; Lith. tešmuõ, -meñs, Latv. tesmens ‘udder’; Lith. rėmuõ / rė́ muo, -mens Latv. re˜mens ‘heartburn’; Lith. kirmuõ, -meñs ‘worm’; Latv. zibens ‘lightning’. A few original heteroclitic stems have been preserved in variously remodelled forms, e.g. Lith. vanduõ, -eñs, Latv. ûdens, OPr. EV wundan n., Cat. unds m. ‘water’ (*u̯odr̥/n-). The extra nasal of the Baltic stem may be due to a metathesis in the weak cases, e.g. Gsg. *ud-n-és > *un-d-és (cf. Smoczyński 1997: 198), or, as suggested by Stang (1966: 160), to influence from a verb with nasal infix (cf. Ved. unátti). Another example is Latv. asins ‘blood’ (PIE *h1 ésh2 r̥/n-). The initial a- of the Baltic reflex may be explained by the well-attested phonetic interchange between initial e- and a-; cf. Stang (1966a: 31 f.); Andersen (1996). The word for ‘liver’ is another example. Here the Baltic languages display a range of dialectal forms; cf. Lith. dial. (j)e˜knos, (j)ãknos, Latv. aknas, dial. jęknas, OPr. EV iagno. However, a Proto-Baltic *i̯ ekna- may suffice to explain all of the dialectal variants; when the initial *i̯ was lost (Arumaa 1964: 109), it gave rise to the dialectal forms with initial ek-, and the variant ak- is the result of the aforementioned interchange of initial e- and a-. Finally, the variant *i̯ ak- reflects a contamination of *i̯ ek- and *ak-. For a different view, cf. Petit (2004: 100 ff.), who reconstructs two different ablaut grades for Proto-Baltic. PIE *u̯esr̥/n- (cf. OCS vesna ‘spring’, Gr. ἔαρ, Lat. vēr ‘id’, etc.), surfaces as a thematic stem in Baltic: Lith. vãsara, Latv. vasara ‘summer’. The unexpected vocalism of the root is probably to be explained by a kind of vocalic assimilation, as suggested by Skardžius (1938); cf. however Eckert (1969) and Petit (2004: 116), who consider reconstructing an original o-grade. The original l/n-stem *sah2 u̯l̥ /n- is preserved in the PBalt. ii̯ ā-stem *sāulē (Lith. sáulė, Latv. sau˜le, OPr. EV saule ‘sun’). Note that OCS slŭnĭce etc. < *suln- indicates that this noun still retained its ablaut and heteroclisis in Proto-Balto-Slavic.

4.2. Thematic stems and derivatives Thematic stems are common in Baltic, both in nouns and verbs. Some inherited thematic verbs are Lith. degù, Latv. dęgu ‘I burn’ (PIE *d heg wh-e/o-); Lith. vedù, Latv. vędu ‘I lead’ (PIE *u̯éd h-e/o-); Lith. vežù ‘I drive’ (*u̯eg̑ h-e/o-); Lith. sekù, Latv. sęku ‘I follow’ (PIE *sek w-e/o-). PIE thematic deverbal action nouns (and agent nouns) usually had ograde in the root, which, in its various modern reflexes, is still the most frequent rootstructure, e.g. Lith. dãgas ‘harvest, (summer) heat’, OPr. EV dagis ‘summer’ (Lith. dègti ‘to burn’); Lith. tãkas, Latv. taks ‘path’ (Lith. tekė́ ti ‘to flow, to run’); cf. Leskien (1891:

1690

XIV. Baltic

159–233). Deverbal nouns are also commonly formed with the suffix *-ii̯ o-/*-ii̯ ā- (OPr. -is / -e, Lith. -is, -ys / -ė, Latv. -is / -e), as in Lith. šókti ‘to jump’ → šõkis 2 (= accent paradigm [AP] 2; for details on Lithuanian accent paradigms, see Petit, The phonology of Baltic, this handbook, 4.1) ‘a jump’, Lith. mèsti ‘to throw’ → mė˜tis 2 ‘a throw’, Lith. gérti ‘to drink’ → gė˜ris 2 ‘drink’, Latv. dzerˆt ‘to drink’ → Latv. dial. dzìres ‘feast’ etc. Some examples from the Old Prussian Elbing Vocabulary are OPr. loase ‘coverlet, blanket’ (Lith. lõžė 2 ‘place where corn or grain lies, lying grain’, Lith. iš-lèžti ‘to lodge’); OPr. soalis ‘grass’ (Lith. žolė˜ 4 ‘id.’, žélti ‘to become green’); OPr. toaris ‘mow, hayloft’ (Latv. tvāre, Lith. tvorà 4 ‘fence’, Lith. tvérti ‘to fence in’); OPr. boadis ‘a thrust’ (OPr. Cat. em-baddusisi ‘stuck in’, Lith. bèsti ‘stick [into], sting’). In Lithuanian, all derivatives belong to AP 2 (sometimes with secondary spread of mobility, i.e. AP 2 → 4), and the Latvian derivatives show the corresponding long falling tone. Whether the Old Prussian examples also reflect falling tone is a matter of debate; cf. Larsson (2005). When derived from a verb with underlying acute intonation the derivative has métatonie douce, and when the base verb has a short vowel in the root, the root-vowel of the derivative is lengthened to a long circumflex vowel. According to Stang (1966b) and Derksen (1996: 36 f., 44 ff., 59 ff.), these originally end-stressed disyllabic deverbatives have métatonie douce due to a rule by which a sequence *-ìi̯ - in medial stressed position lost its ictus to the preceding syllable, causing this syllable to change an original acute tone into a circumflex. As I have argued elsewhere, this rule should be extended to include lengthening of original short vowels in the same position; cf. Larsson (2004a), Villanueva Svensson (2011: 12). For a different explanation of the lengthening, cf. Kuryłowicz (1956: 293 f., 1968: 319). The suffix *-ii̯ o- is also used to derive nouns from adjectives, e.g. Lith. júodas ‘black’ → juõdis 2 ‘blackness’, júodis 1 ‘a black horse, a black animal’; Lith. bė́ ras, Latv. bȩ˜rs ‘bay, reddish brown’ → Lith. bė˜ris 2 ‘bayness, darkness’, bė́ ris 1, Latv. bẽris ‘bay horse’; Lith. sū´ras ‘salt’ → sū˜ris 2 ‘saltiness’, sū´ris 1 ‘cheese’; Lith. seklùs ‘shallow’ → sė˜klis 2 ‘shallowness’, sẽklis 2 ‘a shallow place’; Lith. žìlas ‘grey’ → žỹlis 2 ‘greyness’, žìlis 2 ‘grey-haired man’. Here we find a remarkable difference in both accentuation and ablaut. The accentual opposition between abstract and concrete deadjectival formations of the type Lith. gỹvis ‘liveliness’, as opposed to Lith. gývis ‘living things’ (both derived from the basic adjective Lith. gývas ‘alive’), reflects an original accentual opposition between root-stressed concrete nouns (e.g. Lith. gývis < *gī́vii̯ as) and the suffix-stressed abstract nouns (e.g. Lith. gỹvis < *gīvìi̯ an); cf. Stang (1966a: 146); Kuryłowicz (1958: 287, 295). In the latter case, the suffix lost the ictus to the preceding syllable in accordance with the rule described above. The same accentual opposition may also account for the difference in ablaut in derivatives from adjectives with short vowel in the root. In such derivatives we find that the short vowel is kept unchanged in the originally rootstressed concrete nouns, e.g. Lith. žìlis (< *źìlii̯ as) ‘grey-haired man’, whereas we find lengthening of the root vowel in the originally suffix-stressed abstract nouns, e.g. Lith. žỹlis 2 (< *źilìi̯ as) ‘greyness’; cf. Larsson (2004a: 311 ff.). The Baltic derivational system is unusually rich in ablaut variation, often accompanied by a difference in accentuation. In many cases, the unexpected ablaut can be explained by phonological developments, as argued above. Another example of a phonological development that has generated new lengthened-grade ablaut in Baltic is Winter’s law (Winter 1978). With the acceptance of Winter’s law, the amount of inexplicable “secondary” ablaut variation in Baltic is significantly reduced.

91. The lexicon of Baltic

1691

4.3. Derivational suffixes specific to the Baltic languages Some derivational suffixes are specific to the Baltic languages, and the following collection may with a high degree of certainty be projected back to a Common Baltic stage; cf. Stang (1966a: 3 f.). In both East and West Baltic, we find action noun suffixes containing the consonants -s- and -n-, *-s(i̯ )en-, *-s(i̯ )an-; cf. the productive Latvian action noun suffix -šana e.g. Latv. iêšana ‘walking’, lasîšana ‘reading’, skrìešana ‘running’ and the much less common Lithuanian suffix -sena, e.g. ė˜sena ‘eating; food’, jósena ‘riding’, kratýsena ‘shaking’. In Old Prussian, we have -senna / -sennis and more rarely -sanna and -sna; cf. Parenti (1998) for the suggestion of an original distribution related to accentuation, and Benveniste (1935: 101) for the further connection to the PIE suffix *-ser-/-sen-. Another noun suffix clearly of Common Baltic age is the noun-forming suffix *-ūna-, e.g. Lith. malū˜nas, OPr. EV malunis ‘mill’; Lith. gėrū˜nas ‘drinker, drunkard’, Latv. dial. mirūnis ‘corpse’, OPr. Cat. waldūns ‘heir’; cf. also the less transparent Lith. perkū´nas, Latv. dial. pȩ̄rkūns, OPr. EV percunis ‘thunder, Perkunas’. An adjectival suffix that can be traced back to Common Baltic is -inga- which primarily forms adjectives denoting ‘having a great quantity or degree of something’, e.g. Lith. laimìngas, Latv. laĩmîgs ‘happy’; Lith. píeningas ‘rich in milk’, Latv. pie˜nîgs ‘giving much milk’; Lith. gė́ dingas ‘modest, shameful’, OPr. Cat. nigīdings ‘shameless’, OPr. labbīngs ‘good’. Derivatives from verbs denote the inclination or ability to perform an action, e.g. Lith. baringas ‘inclined to quarrel’; Latv. tìepîgs ‘stubborn, OPr. Cat. aulāikings ‘abstinent’. In addition, the Baltic languages have a rich and productive tradition of forming diminutives. Some Common Baltic diminutive suffixes are *-ē˘lii̯ a-, e.g. Lith. tėve˜lis ‘dear father, daddy’, dukterė˜lė ‘dear little daughter’ (in Lithuanian, the variant with long vowel occurs in words where the nominative has four syllables or more), Latv. vĩrelis ‘insignificant man’, OPr. EV patowelis ‘step-father’, *-ulii̯ a-, e.g. Lith. mažiùlis ‘little fellow’, tėtùlis ‘daddy’, Latv. jȩ˜rulis ‘lambkin’, OPr. PN Mattulle, *-uź-, e.g. Lith. mergùžė ‘dear little girl’, OPr. Gr. merguss ‘maid’, *-ut-, e.g. Lith. mažùtis ‘tiny’, vilkùtis ‘small wolf, wolf-cub’, vaikùtas ‘kid, boy’, OPr. EV nagutis ‘nail’, PN Marute ‘Mary’, OPr. PN Geruthe, Waykutte, Masutte, *-ai̯ t-, e.g. Lith. langáitis ‘small window’, vilkáitis ‘small wolf, wolf-cub’, mergáitė ‘girl’, PN Valáitis, OPr. Place names Norrayte, Wangaiten.

4.4. Nominal compounds Nominal compounds are found in both East and West Baltic, and although many of them seem to be recent formations or calques, the underlying system clearly continues the inherited PIE system; cf. Larsson (2002) for discussion. Previous studies concerning Baltic nominal compounds include Aleksandrow (1888); Amato (1992, 1996); and Larsson (2010). For a recent treatment of the Old Latvian nominla compounds, cf. BukelskytėČepelė (2017). Examples of possessive compounds are abundant in East Baltic, e.g. Lith. didžianõsis/-ė ‘having a large nose’; Lith. juoda-bar˜zdis/-ė ‘having a black beard’; Lith. juodarañkis/-ė ‘having black hands’; Lith. tri-dañtis/-ė ‘three-toothed’; Latv. bal˜t-galvis/-e ‘blond’; Latv. mȩl˜n-ace ‘dark-eyed (girl)’; Latv. trij-zaris ‘three-pronged fork’, although

1692

XIV. Baltic

they are rare in the small Old Prussian corpus. These compounds are originally adjectives, sometimes with a substantivized meaning, and the compositional suffix *-ii̯ o-/*-ii̯ ā- (Lith. -is, -ys/-ė, Latv. -is/-e, OPr. -is/-e) is added to the second member (SM). Determinative compounds are common in both East and West Baltic, where we find dependent determinatives like Lith. šón-kaulis, Latv. sãn-kaũls ‘rib’, lit. ‘side bone’; OPr. EV daga-gaydis ‘summer wheat’; OPr. EV maluna-kelan ‘mill-wheel’; OPr. Cat. dijlapagaptin ‘tool’, lit. ‘work-spit’, where the first member is in a case relationship with the second member, and also attributive determinatives like Lith. júod-varnis ‘black raven’; Latv. gàiš-pęlęˆks ‘light-grey’; OPr. Cat. grēiwa-kaulin Asg. m. ‘rib’, lit. ‘curved bone’. There are also a few descriptive determinatives consisting of two nouns expressing a comparison, e.g. Lith. jáut-karvė ‘ox-cow, cow without a calf’. In most cases, the first member (FM) of determinative compounds consists of the bare stem, although juxtapositions where the FM is a case-form also occur. When the FM consists of the bare stem, the stem vowel is dropped as a rule in Latvian, whereas in Modern Lithuanian it is sometimes dropped, sometimes retained, producing doublets like bról-vaikis / broliã-vaikis nephew’ and šón-kauliai / dial. šonã-kauliai ‘rib’; cf. Otrębski (1965: 25). The original distribution of the stem vowel is still preserved in Old Lithuanian; cf. Larsson (2004b). The second member of determinative compounds may be enlarged with the compositional suffix *-ii̯ o-/*-ii̯ ā-, but variants without the suffix are common in older texts and in the dialects, e.g. Lith. dial. kir˜va-kotas ‘handle of an axe’ (next to Standard Lith. kir˜va-kotis); OLith. vor-tinklas ‘cobweb, spider’s web’ (next to Standard Lith. vór-tinklis); Latv. linsȩ˜kla ‘flaxseeds’ (next to Latv. lin-sēkles). A few of the Old Prussian determinatives have seemingly added the compositional suffix to the SM, e.g. grēiwa-kaulin Asg. m. ‘rib’ (caulan EV ‘bone’) and nage-pristis (recte: nage-pirstis) ‘toe’, lit. ‘foot-finger’ (pirsten N/Asg. n. EV ‘finger’), although most Old Prussian determinatives do not have this suffix. It is likely that the compositional suffix, which was originally restricted to adjectival compounds (i.e. possessives), was analogically extended to other types of compounds. This extension most probably dates back to the Common Baltic period. Governing compounds are also well-represented in both East and West Baltic. The verbal governing compounds often function as agent nouns, e.g. Lith. rank-pelnỹs, Latv. rùok-pelnis ‘manual worker’; Lith. avìn-vedis ‘shepherd’; Lith. akì-plėša ‘insolent person’, lit. ‘eye-tearer’; Lith. vasar-augis, OPr. EV dago-augis ‘shoot of a plant as it grows in one summer’; OPr. EV crauya-wirps ‘leech’; OPr. EV pele-maygis ‘kestrel’, lit. ‘mouse-grabber’; OPr. Gloss. kelle-wesze ‘wagon driver’. Some examples of prepositional governing compounds are Lith. añt-akiai, Latv. uz-ači ‘eyebrows’; Lith. pa-daubỹs ‘valley’, OPr. EV pa-daubis ‘id.’; OPr. EV po-corto ‘threshold’; OPr. EV no-lingo ‘rein’. In the governing compounds, the compositional suffix has also attained a certain productivity. Finally, there are a few copulative compounds, although this is not a particularly productive category, and the degree of univerbation varies, e.g. Lith. kója-galviai ‘dish of calves’ feet’, lit. ‘feet and head’; OLith. vyr-moterių Gpl. ‘married couple’; Latv. kùrlmȩ̄ms ‘deaf and dumb’. There is a basic opposition in the accentuation of nominal compounds in Lithuanian between determinative compounds (nouns) with accent on the FM, and possessive compounds (adjectives) with accent on the SM, e.g. vìšt-kiaušis ‘hen’s egg’ vs. višta-gal˜vis/-ė ‘hen-headed’; júod-strazdis ‘blackbird’ vs. juoda-rañkis/-ė ‘having black hands’; júodvarnis ‘black raven’ vs. juoda-bar˜zdis/-ė ‘having a black beard’. Additionally, the accent

91. The lexicon of Baltic

1693

paradigm of the individual members of the compound is a decisive factor in the accentuation; cf. Larsson (2002: 211 ff.). In Old Prussian, determinative compounds also have the accent on the FM; cf. grēiwa-kaulin ‘rib’, dijla-pagatin ‘instrument’. Although most Old Prussian compounds are calques from German, both East and West Baltic share some common traits and innovations in the compositional system: the compositional suffix *-ii̯ o-/*-ii̯ ā- has become productive in both branches, and the position of the accent seems to follow similar rules (cf. Larsson 2010: 99 f.).

5. References Ademollo Gagliano, Maria Teresa 1995 Arcaismi lessicali in lettone. In: Carlo Alberto Mastrelli, Alberto Nocentini, and Fiorenza Granucci (eds.), Studi linguistici per i 50 anni del circolo linguistico fiorentino e i secondi mille dibattiti 1970−1995. Florence: Olschki, 1−8. Aleksandrow, Alexander 1888 Litauische Studien I. Nominalzusammensetzungen. Dorpat: Hermann. Alminauskis, Kazimieras 1934 Die germanismen des Litauischen. Teil 1: Die deutschen Lehnwörter im Litauischen. Diss. Leipzig. Kaunas: Sv. Kazimiero D-jos Knygynas. Amato, Serafini Loredana 1992 Morfologia dei composti nominali del prussiano antico. Europa orientalis 11: 197−222. Amato, Serafini Loredana 1996 Contributo allo studio dei composti nominali nell’antico lettone. In: Rosanna Benacchio and Luigi Magarotto (eds.), Studi slavistici in onore di Natalino Radovich. Padova: Cooperative Libraria Editrice Universita di Padova, 285−305. Ambrazas, Saulius 1993 Daiktavardžių darybos raida. Lietuvių kalbos veiksmažodiniai vediniai [The evolution of noun formation. The deverbal derivatives of Lithuanian]. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Ambrazas, Saulius 2000 Daiktavardžių darybos raida II. Lietuvių kalbos vardažodiniai vediniai [The evolution of noun formation II. The deverbal derivatives of Lithuanian]. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Andersen, Henning 1996 Reconstructing Prehistorical Dialects. Initial vowels in Slavic and Baltic. (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 91). Berlin: De Gruyter. Arumaa, Peeter 1964 Urslavische Grammatik, Band I. Heidelberg: Winter. Bammesberger, Alfred 1973 Abstraktbildungen in den baltischen Sprachen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Benveniste, Émile 1935 Origines de la formation des noms en indo-européen. Paris: Maisonneuve. Brückner, Alexander 1877 Die slawischen Fremdwörter im Litauischen. Weimar: Böhlau. Būga, Kazimeras 1912 Lituanica. St. Petersburg: Tipografiâ Imperatorskoj Akademii Nauk. [Reprinted in: Zinkevičius 1958. Vol. I, 339−383].

1694

XIV. Baltic

Būga, Kazimeras 1922 Visųsenieji lietuvių santykiai su germanais. Kalba ir senovė. I dalis [The oldest relationships of Lithuanian with Germanic. Language and antiquity. Part I]. Kaunas: Švietimo Ministerijos leidinys. [Reprinted in: Zinkevičius 1958. Vol. II, 80−98]. Būga, Kazimeras 1923/1924 Die Metatonie im Lettischen und Litauischen. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung 51: 109−142; 52: 91−98, 250−302. Būga, Kazimeras 1924 Die litauisch-weissrussischen Beziehungen und ihr Alter. Zeitschrift für slavische Philologie 1: 26−55. Bukelskytė-Čepelė, Kristina 2017 Nominal Compounds in Old Latvian Texts in the 16 th and 17 th Centuries. (Stockholm studies in Baltic languages 11). Stockholm: Stockholm University Press. Čepienė, Nijolė 1992 Die deutschen Lehnwörter im Litauischen und ihre Erforschung. Zeitschrift für Slawistik 37: 452−457. Čepienė, Nijolė 1995 Lietuvių kalbos germanizmų fonetiniai variantai [Phonetic variants of Germanisms in Lithuanian]. Baltistica 30: 77−80. Čepienė, Nijolė 2006 Historische deutsch-litauische Kontakte in der Lexikographie. Annaberger Annalen über Litauen und Deutsch-Litauische Beziehungen 14: 178−188. Derksen, Rick 1996 Metatony in Baltic. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Eckert, Rainer 1969 Zu einigen Kontinuanten indoeuropäischer Heteroklita im Baltischen. Baltistica 5: 7−15. Endzelin, Janis 1923 Lettische Grammatik. Heidelberg: Winter. Giriūnienė, Stasė 1975 Rytų prūsijos XVI−XVIII a. lietuviškų raštų leksikos germanizmų fonetinė adaptacija [Phonetic adaptation of East Prussian Germanisms of the lexicon of Lithuanian texts of the 16 th−18 th centuries]. Kalbotyra 26: 83−94. Guild, David G. 1978 Russian loanwords in Latvian. The Slavonic and East European Review 56: 427−430. Jordan, Sabine 1995 Niederdeutsches im Lettischen − Untersuchungen zu den mittelniederdeutschen Lehnwörtern im Lettischen. Bielefeld: Verlag für Regionalgeschichte. Kalima, Jalo 1936 Itämerensuomalaisten kielten balttilaiset lainasanat [Baltic loanwords in the Balto-Finnic languages]. Helsinki: Suomalaisen kirjallisuuden seuran kirjapainon oy. Kallio, Petri 1995 Suomen kielen kivikautisista lainasanakerrostumista [Stone Age loanword strata in Finnish]. Virittäjä 99: 380−389. Kallio, Petri 2008 On the ‘Early Baltic’ Loanwords in Common Finnic. In: Alexander Lubotsky, Jos Schaeken, and Jeroen Wiedenhof (eds.), Evidence and Counter-Evidence: Essays in Honour of Frederik Kortlandt 1. Balto-Slavic and Indo-European Linguistics. (Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 32). Amsterdam: Rodopi, 265−277. Karaliūnas, Simas 1993 Reflexes of IE *h2 r̥tk̑o- “bear” in Baltic. Journal of Indo-European Studies 21: 367−372.

91. The lexicon of Baltic

1695

Kardelis, Vytautas 2003 Rytų aukštaičių šnektų slavizmų [On Slavisms in eastern Aukštaitic dialects]. Vilnius: University Press. Katz, Hartmut 2003 Studien zu den älteren indoiranischen Lehnwörtern in den uralischen Sprachen. Heidelberg: Winter. Kazlauskas, Jonas 1957 Lietuvių kalbos daiktavardžių priebalsinio linksniavimo tipo nykimas [The loss of consonant-stem inflection of nouns in Lithuanian]. In: Kai kurie lietuvių kalbos gramatikos klausimai. Vilna Universiteta. Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla, 5−20. Kiparsky, Valentin 1948 Chronologie des relations slavobaltiques et slavofinnoises. Revue des Études slaves 24: 29−47. Kuryłowicz, Jerzy 1956 L’apophonie en indo-européen. Wrocław: Polska Akademia Nauk. Kuryłowicz, Jerzy 1958 L’accentuation des langues indo-européennes. Wrocław: Polska Akademia Nauk. Kuryłowicz, Jerzy 1968 Indogermanische Grammatik. Band II: Akzent. Ablaut. Heidelberg: Winter. Laanest, Arvo 1982 Einführung in die ostseefinnischen Sprachen. Hamburg: Buske. Lanszweert, René 1984 Die Rekonstruktion des baltischen Grundwortschatzes. Frankfurt am Main: Lang. Larsson, Jenny Helena 2002 Nominal Compounds in the Baltic Languages. Transactions of the Philological Society 100: 203−231. Larsson, Jenny Helena 2004a Metatony and Length in Baltic. In: Adam Hyllested, Anders Richardt Jørgensen, Jenny Helena Larsson, and Thomas Olander (eds.), Per aspera ad asteriscos, festschrift in honour of Jens E. Rasmussen. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität, 305−322. Larsson, Jenny Helena 2004b Nominal Compounds in Old Lithuanian Texts: the Original Distribution of the Composition Vowel. Linguistica Baltica 10: 99−104. Larsson, Jenny Helena 2006 The Orthographic Variants and − Traces of Accent in the Elbing Vocabulary. In: Günter Schweiger (ed.), Indogermanica: Festschrift Gert Klingenschmitt. Indische, iranische und indogermanische Studien dem verehrten Jubilar dargebracht zu seinem fünfundsechszigsten Geburtstag. Taimering: VWT, 359−376. Larsson, Jenny Helena 2010 Old Prussian Nominal Compounds. Stockholm: Memento. Larsson, Lars-Gunnar 2001 Baltic influence on Finnic languages. In: Östen Dahl and Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds.), The Circum-Baltic Languages: Typology and Contacts. Volume 1: Past and Present. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 237−253. Leskien, August 1884 Der Ablaut der Wurzelsilben im Litauischen. Leipzig: Hirzel. Leskien, August 1891 Die Bildung der Nomina im Litauischen. Leipzig: Hirzel.

1696

XIV. Baltic

Levin, Jules F. 1974 The Slavic Element in the Old Prussian Elbing Vocabulary. Los Angeles: University of California Press. Liukkonen, Kari 1999 Baltisches im Finnischen. Helsinki. (Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 235). Helsinki: Finnisch-Ugrische Gesellschaft. LKŽ: Lietuvių kalbos žodynas [A Dictionary of the Lithuanian language] 1941−2002 Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos ir literatūros institutas (Lietuvos TSR Mokslų akademija). Mathiassen, Terje 1995 Nochmals zum ie-Komplex im Ostbaltischen. Linguistica Baltica 4: 41−53. Mažiulis, Vytautas 1988−1997 Prūsų kalbos etimologijos žodynas [Etymological dictionary of Old Prussian]. Vilnius: Mokslas. [2 nd edn. 2013. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos centras.] Mühlenbach, Karl and Jan Endzelin 1923−1932 Lettisch−deutsches Wörterbuch. Riga: Lettisches Bildungsministerium. Nieminen, Eino 1957 Über einige Eigenschaften der baltischen Sprache, die sich in den ältesten baltischen Lehnwörtern der ostseefinnischen Sprachen abspiegelt. Sitzungsberichte der finnischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 1956. Helsinki: Verlag der finnischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 185−206. Nieminen, Eino 1959 Beiträge zu den baltisch-ostseefinnischen Berührungen. In: Ēvalds Sokols (ed.), Rakstu krājums, akadēmiķim veltījums profesoram Dr. Jānim Endzelīnam vin¸a 85 dzīves un 65 darba gadu atcerei. Riga: Latvijas PSR Zinātnų Akadēmijas izdevniecība, 201−210. Otrębski, Jan 1965 Gramatyka języka litewskiego, II [A grammar of the Lithuanian language, II]. Warsaw: Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Otrębski, Jan 1966 Die ältesten germanischen Lehnwörter im Baltischen und Slavischen. Die Sprache 12: 50−64. Palionis, Jonas 1967 Lietuvių literaturinė kalba XVa−XVIIa [The Lithuanian literary language of the 15 th− 17 th centuries]. Vilnius: Mintis. Parenti, Alessandro 1998 Old Prussian Abstract Nouns in -sna, -senna, -sennis. In: Alfred Bammesberger (ed.), Baltistik: Augaben und Methoden. Heidelberg: Winter, 129−142. Petit, Daniel 2004 Apophonie et catégories grammaticales dans les langues baltiques. Leuven: Peeters. Rédei, Károly 2000 Review of Liukkonen 1999. Linguistica Uralica 3: 223−229. Sabaliauskas, Algirdas 1966 Lietuvių kalbos leksikos raida [The evolution of the Lithuanian lexicon]. Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 8: 5−141. Sabaliauskas, Algirdas 1990 Lietuvių kalbos leksika [The lexicon of Lithuanian]. Vilnius: Mosklas. Schmalstieg, William R. 2000 The Historical Morphology of the Baltic Verb. (Journal of Indo-European Studies, monograph 37). Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man. Schmid, Wolfgang P. 1963 Studien zum baltischen und indogermanischen Verbum. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

91. The lexicon of Baltic

1697

Sehwers, Johann 1936 Sprachlich-kulturhistorische Untersuchungen vornehmlich über den deutschen Einfluss im Lettischen. Leipzig: Harrassowitz. Senn, Alfred 1925 Germanische Lehnwortstudien. Heidelberg: Winter. Seržant, Ilja A. 2006 Die Vermittlungsrolle des Hochlettischen bei den altrussischen und litauischen Entlehnungen im Lettischen. Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 55: 89−106. Skardžius, Pranas 1931 Die slavischen Lehnwörter im Altlitauischen. Kaunas: Spindulio. Skardžius, Pranas 1938 Dėl balsių asimiliacijos [On vowel assimilation]. Archivum Philologicum 7: 40−44. Skardžius, Pranas 1943 Lietuvių kalbos žodžių daryba [Lithuanian word-formation]. Vilnius: Lietuvos mokslų akademija. Smoczyński, Wojciech 1997 Il ruolo della lingua lituana per la linguistica indoeuropea. Ponto-Baltica 7: 53−82. [Reprinted 2001. In: W. Smoczyński, Język litewski w perspektywie porównawczej. Cracow: University Press, 179−208.] Smoczyński, Wojciech 2000 Untersuchungen zum deutschen Lehngut im Altpreussischen. Cracow: Jagellonian University Press. Smoczyński, Wojciech 2005 Lexikon der Altpreussischen Verben. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität. Specht, Franz 1935 Zur Geschichte der Verbalklasse auf -ē. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 57: 276−296. Stang, Christian S. 1935 Die Westrussische Kanzlersprache des Grossfürstentums Litauen. Oslo: Dybwad. Stang, Christian S. 1942 Das slavische und baltische Verbum. Oslo: Dybwad. Stang, Christian S. 1966a Vergleichende Grammatik der baltischen Sprachen. Oslo: University Press. Stang, Christian S. 1966b “Métatonie douce” in Baltic. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 10: 111−119. Stang, Christian S. 1972 Lexikalische Sonderübereinstimmungen zwischen dem Slavischen, Baltischen und Germanischen. Oslo: University Press. Steinitz, Wolfgang 1965 Zur Periodisierung der alten Baltischen Lehnwörter im ostsee-finnischen. In: Adam Heinz, Mieczysław Karaś, Tadeusz Milewski, Jan Safarewicz, and Witold Taszycki (ed.), Symbolae Linguisticae in honorem Georgii. Kuryłowicz. Wrocław: Polska Akademia Nauk, 297−303. Suhonen, Seppo 1988 Die Baltischen Lehnwörter der Finnish-ugrischen Sprachen. In: Denis Sinor (ed.), The Uralic Languages. Description, History and Foreign Influences. Leiden: Brill, 596−615. Thomsen, Vilhelm 1890 Beröringer mellem de finske og de baltiske (litauisk-lettiske) Sprog. En sproghistorisk Undersøgelse [Contacts between the Finnic and the Baltic (Lithuanian-Latvian) language. A historical linguistic study]. Copenhagen: Lunos.

1698

XIV. Baltic

Trautmann, Reinhold 1923 Baltisch-Slavisches Wörterbuch. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Trautmann, Reinhold 1925 Die altpreußischen Personennamen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Urbutis, Vincas 1992 Senosios lietuvių kalbos slavizmai [Slavisms of the oldest Lithuanian language]. Baltistica 27: 4−14. Vaillant, André 1958 Grammaire comparée des langues slaves, II. Morphologie. Paris: IAC. Villanueva Svensson, Miguel 2011 Indo-European long vowels in Balto-Slavic. Baltistica 46: 5−38. Winter, Werner 1978 The Distribution of Short and Long Vowels in Stems of the Type ė́ sti : vèsti : mèsti and OCS jasti : vesti : mesti in Baltic and Slavic Languages. In: Jacek Fisiak (ed.), Recent Developments in Historical Phonology. The Hague: Mouton, 431−446. Young, Steven 2009 Tone in Latvian borrowings from Old Russian. In: Thomas Olander and Jenny Helena Larsson (eds.), Stressing the Past − Papers from the Second international Workshop on Balto-Slavic accentology, University of Copenhagen, 1−3 September 2006. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 177−192. Zemzare, Daina 1961 Latviešu vārdnīcas [Latvian dictionary]. Rīga: Latvijas PSR Zinātnų Akadēmijas izdevniecība. Zinkevičius, Zigmas 1984 Lietuvių kalbos kilmė I [The origin of the Lithuanian language I]. Vilnius Mokslas. Zinkevičius, Zigmas (ed.) 1958 K. Būga. Rinktiniai raštai I, II [The collected writings of K. Būga I, II]. Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla.

Jenny Helena Larsson, Copenhagen (Denmark)

92. The dialectology of Baltic 1. Proto-Baltic and its disintegration 2. Lithuanian 3. Latvian

4. Abbreviations 5. References

1. Proto-Baltic and its disintegration The PBalt. area stretched from the Vistula River in the West, to the Pripet, Sejm, and Desna Rivers in the South and South-East, to the upper Oka River in the East, to the upper Volga in the North-East, and to the Daugava River up to the border of presentday Latvia and Estonia in the North-West. PBalt. began splitting into dialects around the 6 th−5 th c. BCE. No later than in the 5 th−4 th c. BCE, two main dialectal groups of PBalt. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-013

92. The dialectology of Baltic

1699

emerged: Proto-West-Baltic (from the peripheral PBalt. dialects), and Proto-East-Baltic (from the central PBalt. dialects) (Mažiulis 1987: 82 ff.; Girdenis and Mažiulis 1994: 11). The area east of the PBalt. region was Slavified during the period from the 5 th to the 14 th c. CE, when Slavonic tribes separated it from the western PBalt. area, i.e. from the ethnic lands of the later Prussians, Lithuanians, and Latvians (Zinkevičius 1996: 24). Thus the so-called Dnieper Baltic became a substratum to various phonetic and syntactic properties of East Slavic (Dini 2014: 84 f.). The final PBalt. dialectal differentiation can be dated to around the 7 th c. CE, when the East-Baltic languages emerged (see Table 92.1). The essential difference between West- and East-Baltic is the reflex of the PBalt. diphthong *ei (also of *ai/*oi). It was retained in WBalt., e.g. OPr. deiw(a)s, deywis ‘God’ (< PBalt. *deiv-a- < PIE *dei̯ u̯-o-, cf. OPr. snaygis ‘snow’ < PBalt. *snaig-a< PIE *snoi̯ g u̯h-o-). One of the earliest EBalt. innovations was its monophthongization into *ē ̣ in a stressed position and its secondary diphthongization into ie in Lith. and Latv. at a later stage, e.g. Lith. diẽvas, Latv. dìevs ‘God’ (cf. Lith. sniẽgas, Latv. snìegs ‘snow’). In Lith., however, one finds ei in unstressed syllables (e.g. deivė˜ ‘goddess, spirit’). Within paradigms, the alternation ei/ie was later levelled, cf. Lith. NPl. dievaĩ < *deivaĩ. Yet discrepancies are found both between Lith. and Latv., e.g. Lith. eĩti : Latv. iêt ‘to go’ and within Lith., e.g. šveĩsti ‘to polish’ : švie˜sti ‘to shine’, teisùs ‘right’ : tiesùs ‘upright’ (cf. Petit, “Phonology of Baltic”, this handbook, 3.5−3.6).

1.1. West-Baltic No WBalt. language has survived to the present. Yotvingian, sometimes treated as a dialect of OPr. (Schmid 1976: 16R), became extinct at the end of the 16 th c. North Curonian was finally absorbed by Latvian and South Curonian by the Žemaitian dialect of Lithuanian around the 17 th c. OPr., which died out completely in the 18 th c., is the Tab. 92.1: Dialectal differentiation of the Baltic languages Dialectal differentiation of Proto-Baltic (ca. 6 th−5 th c. BCE) peripheral dialects th

Proto-West-Baltic (ca. 5 c. BCE) South-West-Baltic Old Prussian Yotvingian (alias Sudovian or Dainavian)

central dialects Proto-East-Baltic (homogeneous until ca. 3 rd c. CE, differentiation ca. 5 th−7 th c. CE)

North-West-Baltic Curonian (easternized WBalt.) Lithuanian Latgalian Semigalian Selonian East-Baltic languages (ca. 7 th−8 th c. CE) South-East-Baltic Lithuanian

North-East-Baltic Latvian

1700

XIV. Baltic

only WBalt. language documented through written sources. The five known OPr. documents possibly attest some dialectal differences. The three Catechisms (I, II 1545, III 1561) are written in Sambian and the Elbing Vocabulary (E ca. 1400) testifies to the Pomesanian dialect (Gerullis 1922: 266−274). Considering the lack of linguistic data for OPr., its dialectal variation is exceedingly problematic.

1.2. East-Baltic The EBalt. tribes were probably split due to a Balto-Finnic substratum in the north and east of the EBalt. area, i.e. in the north Curonian territory up to the Abava River, at the Riga shore, and in the Latgalian territory north of the Daugava River. The disintegration of PEBalt. into dialectal groups of (later) Lithuanian, Latgalian, Semigalian, and Selonian is likely to have begun after the 3 rd c. CE. The fusion of the Latgalians with the north Semigalians, Selonians, and easternized Curonians gave rise to Latvian. The southern EBalt. region, where Lithuanian emerged, was for a long time surrounded by other Baltic tribes and therefore remained almost free from non-Baltic influences. Around the 7 th− 8 th c. two EBalt. languages − Lithuanian (south EBalt.) and Latvian (north EBalt.), which are spoken up to the present time, finally diverged. The foremost phonetic isoglosses which caused the division of EBalt. are as follows: − PBalt. *ś, *ź are preserved in Lith. and became s, z in Latv. (as in OPr.), e.g. Lith. NSg. šuõ, GSg. šuñs ‘dog’, žẽmė ‘earth’, Latv. NSg. suns, zeme (cf. OPr. sunis, semmē). − PBalt. *k, *g before front vowels developed to /ts/ , /dz/ in Latv., e.g. Latv. cits ‘(an)other’, dzẽrve ‘crane’, cf. Lith. kìtas, gérvė. − PBalt. *tj, *dj developed to /tʃ’/ , /dʒ’/ in Lith. and became /ʃ/ , /ʒ/ in Latv., e.g. Lith. NSg. mẽdžias (dial.), NPl. mẽdžiai ‘forest, tree’, GPl. f. bìčių ‘bee’, GPl. m. bríedžių ‘moose’, Latv. NSg. mežs, GPl. bišu, briêžu ‘elk’ (< PBalt. *medjas, *bit-jōn, *breid-jōn). − PBalt. *sj is preserved in Lith. and developed to /ʃ/ in Latv. (as in OPr.), e.g. Lith. siū´ti ‘sew’, Latv. šũt ‘sew, tailor’ (< PBalt. *sjū-, cf. OPr. schuwikis ‘shoemaker’). − PBalt. *an, *en, *un, *in are usually preserved in word-internal position in Lith. (except before sibilants) and were changed into the diphthongs or long vowels uo , ie, ū, ī in all positions in Latv. (except the Cur. subdialects), e.g. Lith. NSg. rankà, ASg. rañką ‘hand, arm’, penkì ‘five’, Pres. 3 siuñčia ‘send’ (cf. Inf. sių˜sti), giñti ‘chase’, Latv. NSg. rùoka, pìeci, Inf. sùtīt, dzìt.

2. The Lithuanian language The dialectal split of the Lith. language area into western (later Žemaitian) and eastern (later Aukštaitian) dialects began around the 9 th−10 th c. The oldest phonetic isoglosses which set the Lith. dialects apart are as follows: − the long nasal vowels /a·/ , /æ·/ were narrowed to /u·/ , /i·/ and the nasal diphthongs /am/, /an/, /em/, /en/ to /um/, /un/, /im/, /in/ in the east.

92. The dialectology of Baltic

1701

Map 92.1: Lithuanian dialects (compiled by the working group on the Atlas of Baltic languages of the Latvian Language Institute at the University of Latvia).

− palatalization and affrication of dental stops /t/, /d/: the EBalt. clusters *-tja-, *-djadeveloped to te, de in the west and to /tʃ’a/ , /dʒ’a/ in the east. − /l/ was not palatalized before the mid and low front vowels /æ/, /ei/, /æ·/, /e·/, and /en/ in the east. The modern structural classification of Lith., which assumes two main dialects, Aukštaitian and Žemaitian, as well as various subdialects, based on the previous atomistic descriptive grouping of Antanas Baranauskas and Kazimieras Jaunius, was proposed by Aleksas Girdenis and Zigmas Zinkevičius (1966). The major criterion in setting Žem. apart from Aukš. is the pronunciation of the diphthongs /ie/ and /uo/ in stressed position. They are preserved in Aukš. but are treated differently in Žem. (see Table 92.4). The classification of the Lith. dialects according to their geographical distribution and of subdialects according to town names is as follows (see Map 92.1): 1. The Aukštaitian dialect (aukštaĩčiai, High Lithuanian): − West Aukštaitian (WA) subdialects (vakarų˜ aukštaĩčiai):

1702

XIV. Baltic

− Kaũnas region and Klaĩpėda region (kaunìškiai, southern subgroup), − Šiauliaĩ region (šiaulìškiai, northern subgroup); − South Aukštaitian (SA) subdialect (pietų˜ aukštaĩčiai), alias Dzūkian (dzū˜kai); − East Aukštaitian (EA) subdialects (rytų˜ aukštaĩčiai): − Panevėžỹs region (panevėžìškiai), − Šìrvintos region (širvintìškiai), − Anykščiaĩ region (anykštė́ nai), − Kùpiškis region (kupiškė́ nai), − Utenà region (utenìškiai), − Vìlnius region (vilnìškiai); 2. the Žemaitian dialect (žemaĩčiai, Low Lithuanian): − South Žemaitian (SŽ) subdialects (pietų˜ žemaĩčiai): − Raséiniai region (raseinìškiai), − Var˜niai region (varnìškiai); − North Žemaitian (NŽ) subdialects (šiáurės žemaĩčiai): − Telšiaĩ region (telšìškiai), − Kretingà region (kretingìškiai); − West Žemaitian (WŽ) subdialect (vakarų˜ žemaĩčiai).

2.1. The Aukštaitian dialect The main criterion for the subdivision into WA, SA, and EA is the pronunciation of /am/, /an/, /em/, /en/, and of /a·/, /æ·/ (see Table 92.2). Common features of Aukštaitian: − /l/ remains non-palatalized before the mid and low front vowels /æ/, /ei/, /æ·/, and /e·/ , except for the major part of the Kaunas region and the west of the Šiauliai region, e.g. NSg. la̾.das ‘ice’ (SL lẽdas). − initial /æ/ and circumflexed /eĩ/ are changed into /a/, /aĩ/ in SA, EA (/æ/ > /a/ only in the east), and partly in WA, e.g. EA, WA Inf. aĩt ‘go’ (SL eĩti), SA ažỹs ‘hedgehog’ (SL ežỹs). − the prothesis of initial before back vowels and /uo/, and of /j/ before front vowels is distinctive for WA and SA, e.g. NSg. vùpė ‘river’ (SL ùpė), Pret. 3 jė˜mė ‘take’ (SL ė˜mė). − the conditional stress retraction from a short final syllable to: a) a long vowel or the diphthongs /ie/, /uo/ in the penultima (in the south of the Šiauliai region and in the Širvintos region), e.g. NSg. žmo̾·na (SL žmonà), but APl. laukùs ‘field’ (= SL); b) any long penultima (in the middle south of the Šiauliai region and EA), e.g. APl. lau̾kus, but PresSg. 1 nešù ‘carry’ (= SL); c) any long or short penultima (in the middle north of the Šiauliai region and the north-east of the Panevėžys region), e.g. APl. vaı̾kus (WA) / vaı̾k ъs (EA) ‘child’ (SL vaikùs), PresSg. 1 nèšu (WA) / nèš ъ (EA). − the Aukš. universal stress retraction law which implies stress retraction from a short or circumflexed final syllable to any penultima (in the north of the Šiauliai region and the north-west of the Panevėžys region), e.g. NSg. šàka (WA) / šàk ъ (EA) ‘branch’ (SL šakà), gèrαi ‘well’ (SL geraĩ).

92. The dialectology of Baltic

1703

Tab. 92.2: Aukštaitian dialectal outcomes of nasal vowels and diphthongs Nasal diphthongs and nasal vowels /am/, /an/, /em/, /en/

WA

SA

EA

/am/, /an/, /em/, /en/

/um/, /un/, /im/, /in/

ram ˜ stis ‘buttress’, Pres. 3 kánda ‘bite’, pémpė ‘peewit’, šveñtė ‘feast’

rum ˜ stis, kúnda, pímpė, šviñtė majority of the Panevėžỹs region /ọm/, /ọn/, /ẹm/, /ẹn/ rọ´m ˜ ˈ.st ьsˈ, kọ´nd ъ, pẹ´mˈpe, šˈvẹñ.te

/a·/ , /æ·/

/a·/, /æ·/ ką́snis ‘bit’, Pres. 3 tę˜sia ‘distend’

/u·/, /i·/ kų´snis, tĩ˛sia north of the Panevėžỹs region /ọ·/, /ẹ·/ kọ̾·sˈnis, tˈẹ˜·sia

2.1.1. West Aukštaitian is closest to SL, which is based on the Kaunas region (alias suvalkiẽčiai) subdialect. Such innovations of the Šiauliai region subdialect as stress retraction, vowel reduction, and apocope of unstressed final vowels originated due to Curonian and Semigalian substratum influence. 2.1.2. South Aukštaitian (Dzūkian). Word-final narrowed nasal vowels of (j)ā-, ē- and o-stems (< PBalt. *-ā´n, *-ḗn) were shortened to /u/, /i/, e.g. ISg. rankù ‘hand, arm’ (SL rankà), ISg. katì ‘cat’ (SL katè), LSg. laukì ‘field’ (SL laukè). Peculiar to SA is the high frequency of the affricates /ts/ , /dz/ (the so-called dzūkãvimas) which occur under two conditions with one exception: − /ts(’)/, /dz(’)/ are used instead of /tʃ’/ , /dʒ’/ (< PBalt. *tj, *dj), e.g. NPl. jáuciai ‘ox’ (SL jáučiai), NPl. me̾dziai ‘tree’ (SL mẽdžiai), GPl. me̾dzių (SL mẽdžių). Perhaps due to paradigmatic analogy, there is no affrication in the GPl. and in the PretSg. 1 of the ē-stems, e.g. NSg. bìtė ‘bee’, GPl. bìt’ų (SL bìčių), Pret. 3 mãtė, PretSg. 1 mat’aũ ‘see’ (SL mačiaũ). − /t/, /d/ as well as /tv/, /dv/ are changed into the affricates /ts(v)/ , /dz(v)/ before the high front vowels /i/, /i·/ , and /ie/, e.g. Inf. aĩc(’) ‘go’ (SL eĩti), NSg. kecvir˜tas ‘fourth’ (SL ketvir˜tas), NSg. dziẽvas ‘God’ (SL diẽvas). No affrication occurs before /i/ or /i·/ < *ę < *en (see Table 92.2), e.g. ASg. ka̾t’i. ‘cat’ (SL kãtę), LSg. púod’i ‘pot’ (SL púode). − /ts(’)/, /dz(’)/ become assimilated into /tʃ(’)/, /dʒ(’)/ due to adjacent š, ž, e.g. NSg. pir˜ščinė ‘glove’ (SL pir˜štinė), Inf. vèšč’ ‘convey’ (SL vèžti).

1704

XIV. Baltic

Tab. 92.3: Outcomes of unstressed ė, ie, o, uo in East Aukštaitian East Aukštaitian Panevėžys region

/e·/

/ie/

/ı/ (south) tıve̾.lıs

/æ/ (/ı/) (south) pæne̾.lıs (pıne̾.lıs)

/ẹ/ (north) tẹve̾.l ьs, pẹne̾.l ьs

/o·/

/uo/

/υ/ (south) žmυge̾.lıs, pυde̾.lıs /ọ/ (north) žmọge̾.l ьs, pọde̾.l ьs /a/ (easternmost) žmage̾li.s, pade̾li.s

Širvintos region

/æ/ tæve̾.lis, pæne̾.lis

/a/ žmage̾.lis, pade̾.lis

Anykščiai region

/æ(.)/ tæ( .)vẹ̾.li.s, pæ(.)nẹ̾.li.s

/a(.)/ žma(.)gẹ̾.li.s, pa(.)dẹ̾.li.s

Kupiškis region

/ẹ./ tẹ.vẹ̾.li.s, pẹ.nẹ̾.li.s

/ɔ./ žmɔ.gẹ̾.li.s, pɔ.dẹ̾.li.s

Utena region

/æ./ tæ.ve̾.li.s, pæ.ne̾.li.s

/a./ žma.ge̾.li.s, pa.de̾.li.s

Vilnius region

/æ./ (north) tæ.ve̾.li.s, pæ.ne̾.li.s /ẹ./, /ie/ tẹ.ve̾.li.s / tieve̾.li.s, pẹ.ne̾.li.s, piene̾.li.s

/ie/ piene̾.li(.)s

/a./, /å./ (north) žma.ge̾.li.s, žmå.ge̾.li.s /ɔ./ (south) žmɔ.ge̾.li.s

/uo/ puode̾.li(.)s

2.1.3. East Aukštaitian differs most of all Aukš. dialects from SL (see Table 92.2). Three grades of vowel length − short, half-long (= V.) and long (= V·) − are distinctive for the Anykščiai, Kupiškis, and Utena regions. The reflexes of unstressed ė, ie, o, uo in EA can be shown by the examples of NSg. tėvẽlis ‘little father’, pienẽlis ‘little milk’, žmogẽlis ‘little human being’, and puodẽlis ‘little pot’ (see Table 92.3). Panevėžys region: the largest and most complicated subdialect of EA (also see Table 92.2). The reduction of short final syllables becomes more thorough from South to North. Due to a Semigalian substratum, short final vowels developed into murmured / ъ/ and / ь/ in the north, e.g. ASg. píevυs / píev ъs ‘meadow’ (SL píevas), APl. katìs / kàt ьs ‘cat’ (SL katès). The Kupiškis region subdialect perhaps originated due to a Selonian substratum. The vowels /æ/ and /e·/ are changed into /a/ (lengthened in stressed position) wordfinally and before non-palatalized consonants, e.g. PresSg. 1 našù ‘carry’ (SL nešù). The Utena and Vilnius region subdialects display no stress retraction; they have maintained long open /a·/ (< PBalt. *ā), e.g. NSg. žã·di.s / žɔ˜·di.s (Utena), žã·d(z)i.s / žɔ˜·d(z)i.s (Vilnius) ‘word’ (SL žõdis).

92. The dialectology of Baltic

1705

Tab. 92.4: Žemaitian reflexes of /ie/ and /uo/ Standard Lithuanian

WŽ

NŽ

SŽ

/ie/ píenas ‘milk’

/e·/ pê̤·ns

/ẹi/ pệins

/i· i̯ / pí· i̯ ns

/uo/ dúona ‘bread’

/o·/ dô·n (a)

/ọu/ dôuna

/u· u̯/ dú· u̯na

2.2. The Žemaitian dialect perhaps originated due to a Curonian substratum. According to the reflexes of the diphthongs /ie/ and /uo/, Žem. is divided into three subdialects (see Table 92.4). The WŽ subdialect of the Klaipėda region is almost extinct. Common features of Žemaitian: − stressed /o·/, /e·/ are changed into /uo/, /ie/, e.g. NSg. kûoj ẹ ‘leg, foot’ (SL kója), Inf. dîet (ẹ) ‘put’ (SL dė́ ti). − originally short unstressed vowels in final syllables are apocopated, e.g. NSg. vî·rs ‘man’ (SL výras). Final long unstressed vowels are shortened. − short /i/, /u/ (also /il/, /ir/, /ul/, /ur/) and /ui/ are broadened into /ẹ/, /ọ/, e.g. Inf. lẹ̾.kt ẹ ‘remain’ (SL lìkti), Pret. 3 bọ̾.v a ‘be’ (SL bùvo). − the final diphthongs /ai/, /ei/ are monophthongized to /a·/, /e·/, e.g. blò ̣gã·‘badly’ (SL blogaĩ), NPl. pã.ukštê· ‘bird’ (SL paũkščiai). − no affrication of /t/, /d/ before front vowels (te, de < PBalt. *tjă, *djă) in the east, e.g. NPl. já.utê·‘ox’ (SL jáučiai) (< *jaut-j-ai), NPl. mèdê·‘tree’ (SL mẽdžiai) (< *med-jai), but GSg. já.učẹ, me̾.džẹ (SL jáučio, mẽdžio). In NŽ and WŽ, no affrication occurs before back vowels either. − conditional stress retraction from a short final syllable to: (a) a long penultima (SŽ), e.g. NSg. plĩ·tà ‘brick’ (SL plytà), but NSg. šakà ‘branch’ (= SL); (b) any penultima (NŽ and SŽ partly), e.g. šàkà, but GSg. šakuõs (SL šakõs). − the Žem. universal stress retraction law: Stress retraction from a short or circumflexed final syllable to the first syllable, e.g. GSg. šàkũos (SL šakõs), NSg. pàvàžà ‘runner of a sledge’ (SL pavažà). − the character of the acute and circumflex tones differs from Aukš. The acute tone (falling in Aukš.) is broken (^) in Žem. The circumflex tone (even or rising in Aukš.) makes the first part of a vowel or diphthong more prominent in Žem. The Raseiniai region (SŽ) subdialect is transitional between Aukš. and Žem. Old nasal sequences /an/, /en/ (SL ą, ę) and nasal diphthongs /am/, /em/ are maintained, e.g. NSg. žansìs ‘goose’ (SL žąsìs). The diphthongs /ai/, /ei/ are maintained, except for the suffix -áit-, e.g. NSg. mergá·ti̱ ‘girl’ (SL mergáitė). Varniai region (SŽ): /am/, /an/, /em/, /en/ are narrowed to /ọm/, /ọn/, /ẹm/, /ẹn/, e.g. Pres. 3 kộ.nd ‘bite’ (SL kánda). Long vowels are changed into half-long in pretonic syllables in the Kretinga region (NŽ): e.g. Pres. 3 gi.vê.n ‘live’ (SL gyvẽna); and into short in pretonic syllables in the Telšiai region, e.g. Pres. 3 givê.n.

1706

XIV. Baltic

3. The Latvian language In the second half of the 16 th c., Latv. spread to its present-day territory. Possibly due to contact with Balto-Finnic languages (particularly Livonian), the mobile accent was lost and stress was retracted to the initial syllable in Latv. As a result, final syllables were reduced. Latv. today has a system of three tones: the drawn tone (~ stieptā intonācija), the falling tone (` krītošā intonācija), and the broken tone (^ lauztā intonācija). The classification of the Latv. dialects into 3 groups, based primarily on prosodic characteristics, vowel quantity and quality, as well as morphological innovations, was undertaken by August Bielenstein in the middle of the 19 th c. and is still used with small modifications (see Map 92.2). 1. The Central dialect (C, vidus dialekts): − the Central Livonian subdialects (CLiv., Vidzemes vidus izloksnes), − the Semigalian subdialects (Sem., zemgaliskās izloksnes), − the Curonian subdialects (Cur., kursiskās izloksnes): − deep Curonian, − non-deep Curonian; − the Semigalian-Curonian subdialects (SemCur., zemgaliski kursiskās izloksnes, alias kuršu valodas substrāts); 2. the Tamian or Livonian dialect (T, tāmnieku / lībiskais dialekts): − the Tamian subdialects of Courland (TCur., Kurzemes lībiskās izloksnes): − deep Tamian of Courland (dziļās Kurzemes izloksnes), − non-deep Tamian of Courland (nedziļās Kurzemes izloksnes); − the Tamian subdialects of Livonia (TLiv., Vidzemes lībiskās izloksnes): − deep Tamian of Livonia (dziļās Vidzemes izloksnes), − non-deep Tamian of Livonia (nedziļās Vidzemes izloksnes); 3. the High Latvian dialect (HL, augšzemnieku dialekts): − the Selonian subdialects of East Semigalia and South-East Livonia (Sel., sēliskās izloksnes): − deep or East Selonian (dziļās sēliskās izloksnes), − non-deep or West Selonian (nedziļās sēliskās izloksnes); − the Latgalian subdialects of Latgalia and North-East Livonia (Latg., latgaliskās izloksnes): − deep Latgalian or strong High Latvian (dziļās latgaliskās izloksnes), − non-deep Latgalian (nedziļās latgaliskās izloksnes). The C and T dialects are close to each other. Hence they are occasionally called Low Latvian (lejzemnieku izloksnes) as opposed to the HL dialect. An important factor in the development of the Latv. dialects was the territorial division of Latvia throughout its history. The incorporation of the Duchy of Livonia into the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1629−1772 caused the separation of Latgalian from other Latv. dialects and contributed to the development of HL. Corresponding to the former limits of parishes or estates, the three Latv. dialects are subdivided into more than 500 local dialects. 3.1. The Central dialect has maintained the original phonetic system of Latv. SLa. is based on this dialect. Closest to SLa. are the Sem. subdialects around Jelgava (Mitau)

Map 92.2: Latvian dialects (compiled by the working group on the Atlas of Baltic languages of the Latvian Language Institute at the University of Latvia)

92. The dialectology of Baltic 1707

1708

XIV. Baltic

and Dobele. Some parts of the CLiv. (around Valmiera and Cēsis) and of the Sem. (around Blīdene and Jaunpils) subdialects have retained all three original tones, e.g. ASg. vĩli ‘file’, ASg. vìli ‘seam’, PretSg. 2 vîli ‘deceive’; and /ir/ and /ur/ before consonants, e.g. Inf. cìrst ‘fell’, kùrls ‘deaf’. The main morphological innovations of CLiv. and Sem. are the following: − preterite ē-stems are replaced by ā-stems, e.g. PretPl. 1 nesām ‘carry’ (= SLa., cf. Lith. nẽšėme). − /i·/ is inserted in the future tense of monosyllabic infinitive stems in /s/, /z/, /t/, /d/, e.g. Inf. mest ‘throw’, FutSg. 1 metîšu (= SLa.). This is also a distinctive feature of CLiv. − the reflexive verbal marker -s(i)- in prefixed verbs occurs according to the type PVR, e.g. Inf. piecelties ‘get up’ (= SLa.). The Semigalian subdialects are distinguished by anaptyxis between the liquid diphthongs /V+r/ (sometimes also /V+l/) and a following consonant, the vowel remaining short, e.g. NSg. star aks ‘stork’ (SLa. stārks). In the Curonian subdialects, the falling tone (`) and the broken tone (^) have merged into a broken tone (^ 2), e.g. PresSg. 1 lūˆdzu 2 ‘beg’ (cf. CLiv. lū̀dzu). The main characteristics of Cur. are: − /V+n/ were maintained, perhaps due to a Curonian substratum, e.g. NSg. bezdelinga ‘swallow’ (SLa. bezdelīga). /V+r/ are lengthened, whereas /ir/, /ur/ can be diphthongized into /ie/, /uo/. − /u/ was maintained before /v/ and /b/, e.g. NSg. dubȩns ‘bottom’ (SLa. dibens, cf. Lith. dùgnas), NSg. zuve ‘fish’ (SLa. zivs, cf. Lith. žuvìs). − /v/ was lost after /l/, e.g. NSg. pagālis ‘pillow’ (SLa. pagalvis). − no insertion of /i·/ in the future tense of monosyllabic infinitive stems in /s/, /z/, /t/, /d/, e.g. Inf. vest ‘lead’, Fut. 3 ves (SLa. vedīs). − the reflexive verbal marker -s(i)- (-s[a]-) in prefixed verbs occurs according to the type PRV, e.g. PresSg. 2 nuosaraudi ‘weep’ (SLa. nuoraudies). Also the type PRVR can occur, e.g. Pres. 3 atsamuôstas ‘wake up’ (SLa. atmuostas). − substantival i-stems merged with ē-stems, e.g. NSg. ugune ‘fire’ (SLa. uguns). 3.2. The Tamian or Livonian dialect developed due to a Livonian substratum. The vocabulary includes a great number of Livonian loanwords. The falling tone (`) and the broken tone (^) have merged into a broken tone (^ 2), e.g. NSg. kuôks 2 ‘tree’ (C kùoks). T presents mainly quantitative vowel changes. Short final vowels are regularly apocopated, which is often explained as a substratum feature. Thus homonymy is wide-spread in verbal inflection, and the 3 rd person forms are generalized for the 1st and the 2 nd person. Substantival i-stems partially merged with ē-stems as well as ē-stems with ā-stems. Ustems merged with (j)o-stems and were thus mostly lost. Other characteristics of T are the following: − unstressed non-initial long vowels and diphthongs are shortened, and in TCur. completely lost, e.g. Inf. sacit (TLiv.) / sać·t (TCur.) ‘say’ (SLa. sacīt); /ie/ and /uo/ are monophthongized to /e/ and /a/ (or /o/), e.g. Inf. sāktes ‘start oneself’ (SLa. sākties). − short vowels are often lengthened before voiced stops of apocopated syllables, e.g. NPl. gād’ ‘year’ (SLa. gadi), lāb’ ‘well’ (SLa. labi).

92. The dialectology of Baltic

1709

− /ir/, /ur/ are lengthened or diphthongized into /ie/, /uo/ in TCur., e.g. NSg. zîrks 2 ‘horse’ (SLa. zirˆgs). − /au/ is changed into /åu/ or /ou/ and /av/ into /åv/ or /ov/, e.g. Inf. roût 2 ‘tear up’ (SLa. raut), NSg. sovādaks ‘different’ (SLa. savādāks). − /u/ is preserved before /v/, /b/ in TCur., e.g. NSg. dubans ‘bottom’ (SLa. dibens). − the reflexive verbal marker -s(i)- (-s[a]-, -z[a]-) in prefixed verbs occurs according to the two types PVR and PRVR in TCur., e.g. Inf. sazrū̀ntȩs/sarū̀ntȩs ‘converse’ (SLa. sarunāties). Only the type PVR is known in TLiv., e.g. Inf. uscelˆtes 2 ‘get up’ (SLa. uzcelties). − no insertion of /i·/ in the future tense of monosyllabic infinitive stems in /s/, /z/, /t/, /d/, e.g. Inf. sist ‘beat’, FutSg./Pl. 1 (= 2,3) siz (SLa. sitīšu, sitīsi, sitīs, sitīsim, sitīsit [sitīsiet]). − the feminine gender has extensively merged with the masculine (also in pronouns and adjectives), probably also due to a Livonian substratum, e.g. NSg. m. mas siẽviš (< mazs sieviņš) ‘little wife’ (SLa. f. maza sieviņa). − the old substantival DPl. endings -Vms are preserved in TCur., e.g. siẽvams ‘wife’ (SLa. sievām). 3.3. The High Latvian dialect. Written HL (the so-called Latgalian language) is based on the dialects of south Latgalia. HL reveals mainly qualitative sound changes, but it has preserved a more archaic morphological and syntactic system. The drawn tone (~) and the falling tone (`) have merged into a falling tone (` 2), e.g. vìejš 2 ‘wind’ (cf. SLa. ve˜jš). The Sel. subdialects have maintained the rising tone (ˊ) which elsewhere has merged with the broken tone (^), e.g. NSg. naúda ‘money’ (SLa. naûda), NSg. luógs ‘window’ (SLa. luôgs). The main characteristics of HL are the following: − /æ/ and /e·/ are changed into /a/ and /a·/, e.g. NSg. vātra ‘storm’ (SLa. vētra). − /e·/ has developed into /æ·/ or was diphthongized into /ie/, e.g. Pres. 3 vȩ̄rp ‘spin’ (SLa. vērpj). − /a/ is changed into /o/ when the following syllable contains a low vowel (the so-called velar vowel shift), and sometimes also in stressed position (/a/ remains unchanged in final syllables), e.g. NSg. vosara/vosora ‘summer’ (SLa. vasara), but NSg. galˆvinieks ‘warranter’. − /i·/ and /u·/ are diphthongized into /ei/ and /ou/ (resp. /eu/, /yu/, /iu/ in deep HL), e.g. Rèiga 2 (SLa. Rīga), NSg. còuka 2/cèuka/cyuka ‘pig’ (SLa. cūka). − all consonants are palatalized before front vowels, e.g. NSg. ćèiruļś 2 ‘lark’ (SLa. cīrulis). − preterite ē-stems are partly maintained, e.g. PretPl. 1 aûd’è¸m 2 ‘weave’ (SLa. audām). − the reflexive verbal particle -s(i)- (-s[a]-, -z[a]-) in prefixed verbs occurs according to the type PRV, e.g. Inf. abzarauduôt’ ‘fall into tears’ (SLa. apraudāties). Also the type PRVR and PVR are known, e.g. Inf. pazaśḿìtîś 2 ‘deride’ (SLa. pasmieties), nùopirktiês 2 ‘purchase’ (SLa. nuopirkties). − no insertion of /i·/ in the future tense of monosyllabic infinitive stems in /s/, /z/, /t/, /d/, e.g. Inf. iêst ‘eat’, FutSg. 1 iêššu (SLa. ēst, ēdīšu), Inf. nest ‘bring’, FutSg. 1 neššu (SLa. nesīšu). − the old LSg. forms in -ie (for i-stems) and -uo (for u-stems) are maintained, e.g. LSg. àusié 2 ‘ear’ (SLa. ausī), maduó ‘honey’ (SLa. medū).

1710

XIV. Baltic

The main characteristics of the deep (or eastern) HL subdialects are the following: − /ie/ and /uo/ are monophthongized to /i·/ and /u·/, e.g. pìci ‘five’ (SLa. pieci), NSg. lûgs 2 ‘window’ (SLa. luôgs). − /i/ is velarized to /ы/ , e.g. NSg. myza ‘bark’ (SLa. miza). − the endings -as and -es can appear changed into -ys /ыs/ and -is, e.g. GSg./N/APl. mùosys 2 ‘sister’ (SLa. māsas), mùot’iś 2 ‘mother’ (SLa. mātes). − the personal pronoun forms of the 3 rd person are different from other Latv. dialects: NSg. m. jis/jys ‘he’, NPl. jì 2 (SLa. viņš, viņi); NSg. f. jèi 2 ‘she’, NPl. jùos 2 (joâs, jòs 2) (SLa. viņa, viņas). Cf. Lith. jìs, jiẽ; jì, jõs.

4. Abbreviations Language and dialect names: PBalt. PEBalt. WBalt. EBalt. SL OPr. Lith. Latv. Aukš. WA SA EA Žem. SŽ

Proto-Baltic Proto-East-Baltic West-Baltic East-Baltic Standard Lithuanian Old Prussian Lithuanian Latvian Aukštaitian West Aukštaitian South Aukštaitian East Aukštaitian Žemaitian South Žemaitian

NŽ WŽ SLa. C CLiv. Sem. Cur. SemCur. T TCur. TLiv. HL Sel. Latg.

North Žemaitian West Žemaitian Standard Latvian Central Central Livonian Semigalian Curonian Semigalian-Curonian Tamian (Livonian) Tamian of Courland Tamian of Livonia High Latvian Selonian Latgalian

V

Verb

Grammatical terminology: P R

Preverb Reflexive

5. References Bacevičiūtė, Rima, Audra Ivanauskienė, Asta Leskauskaitė, and Edmundas Trumpa (eds.) 2004 Lietuvių kalbos tarmių chrestomatija [A chrestomathy of Lithuanian dialects]. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla. Balode, Laimute and Axel Holvoet 2001 The Latvian language and its dialects, The Lithuanian language and its dialects. In: Östen Dahl and Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds.), The Circum-Baltic Languages. Typology and Contact 1. Past and Present. (Studies in Language Companion Series [SLCS], 54). Amsterdam: Benjamins, 3–40, 41–79.

92. The dialectology of Baltic

1711

Būga, Kazimieras 1923 [1961] Upių vardų studijos ir aisčių bei slavėnų senovė [Studies of river names and the antiquity of the Balts and the Slavs]. Tauta ir žodis 1: 1–44. [Reprinted 1961 in K(azimieras) Būga, Rinktiniai raštai 3: 493−550. Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla.] Dini, Pietro U[mberto] 2014 Foundations of Baltic Languages. Translated by Milda B. Richardson, Robert E. Richardson. Vilnius: Vilnius University. Endzelin, Jan 1923 Lettische Grammatik. Heidelberg: Winter. Gāters, Alfrēds 1977 Die lettische Sprache und ihre Dialekte. The Hague: Mouton. Gerullis, Georg 1922 Die altpreußischen Ortsnamen. Berlin: De Gruyter. Gerullis, Georg 1930 Litauische Dialektstudien. Leipzig: Markert and Petters. Girdenis, Aleksas and Vytautas Mažiulis 1994 Baltų kalbų divergencinė chronologija [The divergent chronology of the Baltic languages]. Baltistica 27: 4−12. Girdenis, Aleksas and Zigmas Zinkevičius 1966 Dėl lietuvių kalbos tarmių klasifikacijos [On the classification of Lithuanian dialects]. Kalbotyra 14: 139–148. Mažiulis, Vytautas 1987 III. Vakarų, rytų ir Dnepro baltai [West, East, and Dnieper Balts]. 1. Baltų prokalbės irimas [The disintegration of the Baltic proto-language]. In: R. Volkaitė-Kulikauskienė, J. Jurginis, V. Mažiulis, and A. Vanagas (eds.), Lietuvių etnogenezė [The ethnogenesis of the Lithuanians]. Vilnius: Mokslas, 82−85. Petit, Daniel 2010 Untersuchungen zu den baltischen Sprachen. (Brill’s Studies in Indo-European Languages & Linguistics 4). Leiden: Brill. Rudzīte, Marta 1964 Latviešu dialektoloģija [Latvian dialectology]. Rīga: Latvijas Valsts izdevniecība. Schmid, Wolfgang P. 1976 Baltische Sprachen und Völker. In: Heinrich Beck, Dieter Geuenich, Herbert Jankuhn, Hans Kuhn, Kurt Ranke, Heiko Steuer, and Reinhard Wenskus (eds.), Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde. 2 nd edn. Vol 2. Berlin: De Gruyter, 14−20. Toporov, Vladimir N. and Oleg N. Trubachev 1962 Lingvisticheskij analiz gidronimov verkhnego podneprov’ja [Linguistic analysis of the hydronyms of the upper Dnieper area]. Moscow: Izdatelstvo Akademii Nauk SSSR. Vanagas, Aleksandras 1981 Lietuvių hidronimų etimologinis žodynas [Etymological dictionary of Lithuanian hydronyms]. Vilnius: Mokslas. Zinkevičius, Zigmas 1996 The History of the Lithuanian Language. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Zinkevičius, Zigmas 2006 Lietuvių tarmių kilmė [The origin of Lithuanian dialects]. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

Jolanta Gelumbeckaitė, Frankfurt am Main (Germany)

1712

XIV. Baltic

93. The evolution of Baltic 1. Proto-Baltic 2. Lithuanian 3. Latvian

4. Differences between Lithuanian and Latvian 5. Abbreviations 6. References

1. Proto-Baltic The study of hydronyms has shown that the Proto-Baltic area was about six times larger than the ethnic territory of the present-day Balts, i.e. Lithuanians and Latvians, who alone have maintained the continuity of PBalt. The Baltic languages are among the most recently attested written languages in Europe. The development of written Lithuanian and Latvian started only in the 16 th c. The sparse written tradition of Old Prussian ended in the second half of the 16 th c. Thus the reconstruction of the Baltic protolanguage is impeded by the late documentation of the Baltic languages (OPr., Lith., Latv.), the insufficiency of the West-Baltic (OPr.) linguistic data, and a rather large difference between West- and East-Baltic (Lith., Latv.). Yet, traditionally Proto-Baltic is defined as a northern dialect of PIE which underwent a specific peripheral satemization (Dini 2014: 120 f.; also Petit, “The Phonology of Baltic”, this handbook, 5.2). The foremost features which distinguish the Baltic languages from other IE language groups, are as follows (Stang 1966: 2−10; Dini 2014: 77 f.): − − − − − − − − − − −

free and mobile stress. merger of PIE *ă and *ŏ into PBalt. *ă. maintenance and extension of PIE ablaut. preservation of *-m- before dental stops, e.g.: Lith. šim ˜ tas, Latv. sìmts ‘hundred’. high frequency of substantival ē-stems (< *-[i]i̯ ā-), e.g. Lith. žẽmė (dial. žemė˜), Latv. zeme, OPr. same / semmē ‘earth’ (< PBalt. *źemē < *źemi̯ ā < PIE *dhg̑hem-). identical person endings in all verbal tenses and moods. absence of a numerical opposition in the 3 rd person forms of the verb. absence of any traces of the PIE perfect and aorist tenses. formation of the preterite tense with the suffixes *ē and *ā. a large variety of diminutive suffixes. specifically Baltic vocabulary (Stang 1966: 7 ff.; Zinkevičius 1984: 229−234; also Larsson, “The Lexicon of Baltic”, this handbook, 3).

The split of East-Baltic from the original PBaltic community was caused in large measure by contacts with Balto-Finnic and Slavic, which, particularly during the period from ca. the 7 th to the 10 th c., affected north East-Baltic (Latvian) much more than south EastBaltic (Lithuanian) and led to innovations in the former. On the other hand, the most important contacts of south East-Baltic in the early period were with Indo-European languages, notably East Slavic, which fostered the retention there of features of archaic Indo-European provenience. In phonetics, morphology, and syntax, Lithuanian remained considerably more conservative than Latvian. Lithuanian thus shows a closer proximity to common East-Baltic and even common Baltic and, at least in the morphological and phonological shape of its nouns (the classical example being Lith. diẽvas : Ved. devás https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-014

93. The evolution of Baltic

1713

vs. Lat. deus, OIr. día ‘god’, OE Tīw [name of deity]), may fairly be said to be the most conservative of the living IE languages.

2. Lithuanian The early Lithuanian language area bordered on the Curonians in the West, the Semigalians in the North-West, the Latgalians in the North, the Selonians in the North-East, and the Prussians as well as Yotvingians in the South-West. The eastern boundaries, where the Lithuanian tribes came into direct contact with East Slavic (Krivichians and Dregovichians), extended perhaps along the Minsk−Polock−Pskov line. With the formation of the Lithuanian state in the middle of the 13 th c. (the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, alias Lithuania Maior or Lithuania propria) the eastern and northern boundaries of Lithuanian were also extended. Prior to the 16 th c. the Curonians were Lithuanianized, and the Lithuanian language area expanded westwards to the Baltic sea. The Semigalians and the Selonians were Lithuanianized up to the present Latvian border in about the 15 th c. In the south and south-west, the Lithuanian language area grew into the lands of the Yotvingians and partly of the Prussians. The areas of former East Prussia which were Lithuanian-speaking up to World War II are known as Lithuania Minor or Prussian Lithuania. The written Lithuanian tradition and the process of standardization of Lithuanian started in the Duchy of Prussia in the 16 th c. under the influence of the Reformation with its promotion of vernaculars. There Lithuanian experienced several foreign stimuli, e.g. from Latin, (High) German, and Polish. The Grand Duchy of Lithuania existed from 1385 until 1569 in personal union (i.e. cemented by marriage ties) with the Kingdom of Poland, and the two became subsequently aligned in parliamentary union (the Polish− Lithuanian Commonwealth) until 1795 (the beginning of the occupation by the Russian Empire). The official language of state communication was the so-called ducal chancery style, which was Ruthenian compounded with Lithuanisms (in lexicon and phraseology) and with Polonisms (in technical terminology and abstract vocabulary). Thus Lithuanian was exposed to the strong influence of Ruthenian, Belorusian, Polish, and certainly Latin. The Lithuanian national revival movement secured the foundations of standard Lithuanian, purified of redundant Slavic loanwords, in the middle of the 19 th c. Lithuanian was codified on the basis of the southern subgroup (Kaunas region) of West Aukštaitian at the beginning of the 20 th c. In the period of Sovietization and the renewed Russification from 1944 to 1990, Lithuanian was again endangered. In 1990, the Commission on the Lithuanian Language (founded in 1961) became state approved. Since 1992, the status of Lithuanian as the state language of the Republic of Lithuania has been ensured constitutionally. Lithuanian is now spoken by approximately 3,000,000 people in Lithuania and 620,000 abroad.

3. Latvian The Latvian language arose as the fusion of the expanding Latgalians with the north Semigalians, Selonians, and easternized Curonians. The Latvian-speaking community also absorbed speakers of Livonian, a Balto-Finnic language spoken in western Vidzeme

1714

XIV. Baltic

and in north-western Kurzeme along the coast of the Gulf of Riga. Modern Standard Latvian is the result of this linguistic contact. By the second half of the 16 th c., Latvian had spread to its present-day territory, which consisted of four regions − Kurzeme (Courland proper, west of the former Duchy of Courland), Vidzeme (west Livonia, formerly Swedish Livonia), Latgale (Latgalia, east Livonia, formerly Polish Livonia, alias Inflanty Voivodeship), and Zemgale (Semigalia, east of the former Duchy of Courland). In the period from the 16 th to the 19 th c., a written Latvian based on the Central dialect was developed, mostly by German Lutherans. Starting with the 18 th c., Latgalian as well began to be written. The Latvian national revival (Latv. jaunlatvieši) movement purged written Latvian of superfluous Germanisms in the second half of the 19 th c. The High Latvian dialect (Latgalian) was historically influenced by Slavic (Polish, Belorusian, Russian). Through the occupation by the Russian Empire in the 18 th c., Latvian was exposed to Russification, which was repeated from 1940 to 1990. Since 1989, Latvian has been granted the status of the state language of the Republic of Latvia. Latvian is now spoken by approximately 1,300,000 people in Latvia and 350,000 abroad.

4. Differences between Lithuanian and Latvian As Lithuanian and Latvian evolved in their own separate ways, a number of changes occurred, leading to the following differences between standard Lithuanian and Latvian (for dialectal varieties, see Gelumbeckaitė, “The Dialectology of Baltic”, this handbook): − retention of the free and mobile stress in Lithuanian vs. the fixed initial stress in Latvian. − maintenance of final vowels in Lithuanian vs. the shortening and reduction of final syllables (except u) in Latvian. − palatalization of almost all consonants in Lithuanian before front vowels or j (innovation or influence of a Slavic adstratum) vs. a more restricted occurrence of this phenomenon in Latvian. − retention of neuter forms of adjectives, ordinal numerals, and partly of pronouns in Lithuanian vs. their loss in Latvian. − better retention of the inherited PIE declension classes in Lithuanian vs. simplification of nominal declension (loss of the heteroclita, change of u- and i-stems into o-stems) and the complete loss of distinctions among the adjectival declension classes in Latvian. − more widespread use of case forms (also of postpositional cases) in Lithuanian vs. the prevalence of prepositional phrases in Latvian. − the existence of three present stems (*a-, *ā-, *i-) and two preterite stems (*ā-, *ē-) in Lithuanian vs. simplification of verbal inflection in Latvian. − morphological innovations unique to Lithuanian are: 1. a special past frequentative tense with the suffix -dav-, 2. formation of an imperative with the suffix -k(i)- and of a permissive involving the prefix te-. − a morphological innovation unique to Latvian is a special verbal form expressing necessity with the particle jā- (the so-called debitive). − the preservation of an older syntactic system in Lithuanian.

93. The evolution of Baltic

1715

5. Abbreviations Balt. EBalt. IE Lat. Latv. Lith. OE

Baltic East-Baltic Indo-European Latin Latvian Lithuanian Old English

OIr. OPr. PBalt. PEBalt. PIE Ved. WBalt.

Old Irish Old Prussian Proto-Baltic Proto-East-Baltic Proto-Indo-European Vedic West-Baltic.

6. References Dini, Pietro U[mberto] 2014 Foundations of Baltic Languages. Translated by Milda B. Richardson and Robert E. Richardson. Vilnius: Vilnius University. Eckert, Rainer 2002 6. Baltische Sprachen. Altpreußisch. Lettisch. Litauisch. In: Milos Okuka (ed.), Lexikon der Sprachen des europäischen Ostens. (= Wieser Enzyklopädie des europäischen Ostens, 10). Klagenfurt: Wieser, 589−631. http://wwwg.uni-klu.ac.at/eeo/Altpreuszisch.pdf, http://wwwg.uni-klu.ac.at/eeo/Litauisch.pdf, http://wwwg.uni-klu.ac.at/eeo/Lettisch.pdf [Last accessed 2 February 2017]. Morkūnas, Kazys 2008 Lietuvių kalbos enciklopedija [Encyclopedia of the Lithuanian language]. 2 nd edn. revised by Vytautas Ambrazas. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų institutas. Palionis, Jonas 1995 Lietuvių rašomosios kalbos istorija [A history of the written Lithuanian language]. 2 nd edn. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Rūķe-Draviņa, Velta 1977 The Standardization Process in Latvian. 16 th Century to the Present. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. Stang, Chr[istian] S. 1966 Vergleichende Grammatik der Baltischen Sprachen. Oslo: University Press. Zinkevičius, Zigmas 1984 Lietuvių kalbos istorija [A history of Lithuanian] 1. Lietuvių kalbos kilmė [The origin of Lithuanian]. Vilnius: Mokslas.

Jolanta Gelumbeckaitė, Frankfurt am Main (Germany)

XV. Albanian 94. The documentation of Albanian 1. The earliest evidence of the Albanian language 2. Albanian writing traditions

3. The modern period 4. References

1. The earliest evidence of the Albanian language 1.1. Mere mentions of the existence of the language The first known mention of Albanian as a separate language is found in a legal document from a Raguza (Dubrovnik) archive dated 1285: Audivi unam vocem clamantem in monte in lingua Albanesca ‘I heard a voice in the mountain crying out in the Albanian language’ (Thallóczy, Jiricek, and Šufflay 1913: N527; Kastrati 2000: 39, 47; Elsie 1995a: 21). At the beginning of the 14 th century Albanian is mentioned in at least three texts as a distinct language spoken by a particular nation: 1) the 1308 testimony in Anonymi Descriptio Europae Orientalis (Górka 1916: 29; Elsie 1990; Demiraj 2013); 2) the notation in Symonis Semeonis ab Hybernia ad Terram Sanctam dated to 1322 (Esposito 1960: 36−37; Elsie 1991); 3) the Directorium ad passagium faciendum (1332) of Guillelmus Adam (or perhaps rather Raymond Etienne or Brocardus Monachus), where we read: licet Albanenses aliam omnino linguam a latina habeant et diversam, tamen litteram latinam habent in usu et in omnibus suis libris ‘Although Albanians have a language which is completely different from Latin, they nevertheless use Latin littera in all their books’ (Recueil 1906: 484). This passage can be interpreted in two different ways: as evidence of the existence at that time of “Albanian-language books written in Latin script” or simply “books written in Latin” (Elsie 1991b: 103). The latter reading is more plausible.

1.2. The earliest actual records of the Albanian language At least seven records of Albanian have reached us from the 15 th through the first half of the 16 th century (the text from the so-called Bellifortis manuscript, 1405, may hardly be interpreted as a genuine Albanian text; cf., however, Elsie 1986). Among these records are some short insertions (consisting of one to three words) in texts written in other languages (cf. Shuteriqi 1976: 33−42; Kastrati 2000: 39−56) Three texts of this period are of great linguistic and cultural interest. The first is the baptismal formula (Unte paghesont premenit Atit et birit et spertit senit ‘I baptize you in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost’) of 1462 included in the https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-015

94. The documentation of Albanian

1717

Latin pastoral letter of the Archbishop of Durrës, Pal Engjëlli (Paulus Angelus), a close associate of the Albanian folk hero Scanderbeg (Iorga 1915: 194−197; for a detailed analysis see Matzinger 2010). The second text is a small vocabulary (26 single words, 8 phrases, and 12 numerals) compiled by the German traveler Arnold von Harff in the spring of 1497 in Durrës during his journey to the Holy Land (von Groote 1860; Roques 1932b; Ashta 1996: 51−66). This Albanian language material, in the Geg dialect, was recorded by Harff in a very amateurish way, but it contains some interesting details for the history of the Albanian language. The third text, the Easter Gospel (Lambros 1906: 481−482; Borgia 1930; cf. also Ashta 1996: 71−109) is a rather poor translation (with many Greek borrowings) of five Gospel verses (Matth 27, 62−66) and the beginning of the Easter hymn. This text, written in the South Tosk dialect with Greek letters, has been preserved as a separate sheet in a Greek manuscript from the 14 th century. However, the Albanian text is dated by the majority of researchers to the end of the 15 th or beginning of the 16 th century. The first records of Albanian are reproduced and analyzed in Roques (1932a); Ressuli ([1941] 2007); Ismajli (2000); Hysa (2000); a full bibliography of Albanian writings before 1850 can be found in Shuteriqi (1976); cf. also Elsie (1995).

2. Albanian writing traditions 2.1. Beginning with the time of the Schism, the territory of Albania was divided into Catholic (North) and Orthodox (South) zones. The first known substantial written texts in Albanian appeared after the Ottoman conquest. As a consequence, the earliest Albanian writing and literature developed in the framework of variant traditions, religious in their base but strongly correlated with other important features − dialectal, geographical, and cultural (Çabej 1938−1939 [2002]).

2.2. The Catholic tradition of North Albania 2.2.1. The “Meshari” (Missal) of Gjon Buzuku (1555). This most important early Albanian text was written by a catholic priest, about whose life we know almost nothing. The book is written in the Northwest Geg dialect and contains “the combination of Breviary, Cathechism, Ritual, and Missal” (Matzinger 2012: 287, translation mine [A.R.]) as well as a short original text − an Afterword in which the author explicitly characterizes his book as the first one written in Albanian. Buzuk used the Latin script with some additional Cyrillic letters borrowed, it seems, from bosančica (the kind of Cyrillic script which was widely used in Bosnia and on the Dalmatian coast). The book is printed in Blackletter (a kind of Italian rotunda). The single known copy of the “Meshari” was discovered in the Bibliotheca Vaticana in 1743 by the Albanian priest Gjon Kazazi (Demiraj 2006: 119−128), was promptly forgotten, and became the object of scientific investigation only at the beginning of the 20 th century. Buzuk’s book is never mentioned in the works of other authors belonging to the

1718

XV. Albanian

old Albanian Catholic tradition (with the exception, perhaps, of Bogdani). The existing copy of Buzuk’s work is incomplete: only 94 of the original 110 two-page sheets have been preserved. The title-page is absent, so we do not know where the book was printed (Venice seems a likely guess; the year is known from the Afterword). Despite some alphabetic inconsistencies and lapsus calami, Buzuk’s book is a good quality translation with an elaborated syntax and a rich lexicon (according to Ashta 1996: 231 the text contains 2,127 different words). There are two full scholarly editions of Buzuk’s work (Ressuli [1958] 2013: photo facsimile and transcription; Çabej [1968] 2013: photo facsimile, transliteration, transcription, and detailed scientific description; Buzuk’s lexicon is provided in Ashta 1996; for a concordance of verb forms cf. Fiedler 2004). A searchable text of the “Meshari” is available now on the Internet at http://titus.uni-frankfurt.de/texte/etcs/alban/Buzuku/ Buzuk.htm (data entry by W. Hock, TITUS version by J. Gippert). A photocopy of the “Meshari” is accessible on the website of the National Library of Albania (http:// www.bksh.al/gsdl/cgi-bin/library.exe) and on the website of the Public Library “Marin Barleti”, Shkoder (http://www.bibliotekashkoder.com/digital/buzuku_meshari/).

2.2.2. The works of Pjetër Budi (1566–1622) Budi (at the end of his life a Catholic Bishop in North Albania) is the author of Dottrina Christiana (Rome [1618/1636/1664] 1868) and Rituale Romanum et Speculum Confessionis (Rome 1621), together more than one thousand printed pages. These books contain mainly translations of various Italian and Latin religious writings (Catechism of Robert Bellarmine, Specchio di Confessione by Emerio de Bonis, and others; see the thorough survey in Budi [1986] 2006) but also include original prose fragments (mostly commentaries on spiritual texts) and some 3,300 lines of spiritual poetry (partly translations from Italian amd Latin). Budi uses the Latin script (antiqua) with three Cyrillic letters (used already by Buzuk). His graphic conventions are like those of Buzuk but are more consistent. Budi wrote in a form of the Geg dialect which does not admit of any precise localization and used rather complicated “baroque” syntax. There are difficult-to-access mimeographed editions of Budi’s works with concordances (Svane 1985a, 1985b, 1986a, 1986b, 1986c, 1986d) as well as a scientific edition of Budi’s verses by Rexhep Ismajli (Budi 2006: photo facsimile and transcription); for the vocabulary of Budi’s works, cf. Ashta (1998). A photocopies of Budi’s books are accessible on the website of the National Library of Albania (http://www.bksh.al/gsdl/cgi-bin/ library.exe). The text of the Dottrina Christiana (1664 and 1868 editions) is available as a Google Book as well as on the website of the Public Library “Marin Barleti”, Shkoder (1664 edition: http://www.bibliotekashkoder.com/digital/dott christiana/); also available on this website is a photocopy of the Speculum Confessionis (http://www. bibliotekashkoder.com/digital/budi_specvlvm_confessionis/). 2.2.3. The Dictionarium latino-epiroticum (Rome 1635) by Frang Bardhi (Franciscus Blanchus, 1606−1643) is the first Albanian dictionary. It contains 2,492 words (Ashta 2000: 91) and besides the main Latin-Albanian alphabetical part has also lists of numer-

94. The documentation of Albanian

1719

als, kinship terms, names of Albanian cities, adverbs, prepositions, interjections, a very valuable list of 113 proverbs, and some examples of dialogue. The level of Bardhi’s philological competence was rather low; nevertheless, his dictionary constitutes a unique source for the Geg dialect of Albanian in the 17 th century. Bardhi’s alphabet and spelling conventions are similar though not identical to those of Budi. There are several scientific editions of Bardhi’s dictionary (Roques 1932b: photo facsimile and scientific introduction; Bardhi 1983 by E. Sedaj: photo facsimile and Albanian index; Blanchus 2006: photo facsimile; Demiraj 2008: photo facsimile, transliteration, transcription, detailed scientific commentary, and concordance; see also Ashta 2000: Albanian index to Bardhi’s dictionary with commentaries). A searchable text of the Dictionarium is now available on the Internet at http://titus.uni-frankfurt.de/texte/ etcs/alban/blanchus/blanc.htm (data entry by M. de Vaan, TITUS version by J. Gippert). The original edition is also available as a Google Book and on the website of the National Library of Albania (http://www.bksh.al/gsdl/cgi-bin/library.exe). 2.2.4. The theological treatise Cuneus Prophetarum (Padua 1685, Venice 1691, 1702) by Pjetër Bogdani (Pietro Bogdano, ca. 1630−1689, archbishop of Skopje) “is considered to be the masterpiece of early Albanian literature and is the first work in Albanian of full artistic and literary quality” (Elsie 2005: 30). The book, written in the Geg dialect (with clear East Geg features) and using the script traditional for Geg catholic writers, has an accompanying Italian translation and contains, besides the main prose text, some verses written by the author (both originals and translations) and by two other North Albanian writers (Luca Bogdani and Luca Suma). Bogdani’s work is characterized by a very rich lexicon and flexible and developed syntax. Modern editions of Bogdani’s text include Bogdani (1940−1943): transcription of the first part of Bogdani’s book by Mark Harapi; Bogdani (1977): photo facsimile with a short commentary by G. Valentini and M. Camaj; Bogdani (1989, 1997): photo facsimile and translation into modern Albanian by E. Sedaj; Bogdani (2005): photo facsimile and transcription with commentary by A. Omari. For Bogdani’s vocabulary cf. Ashta (2002). Cuneus Prophetarum is also available as a searchable document on the Internet at http:// titus.uni-frankfurt.de/texte/etcs/alban/bogdani/bogda.htm (data entry by M. de Vaan, TITUS version by J. Gippert). The 1685 edition is also available as a Google Book and on the website of the National Library of Albania (http://www.bksh.al/gsdl/cgi-bin/ library.exe). For a full concordance of verb forms used in Budi’s and Bogdani’s works as well as in the works by Matranga and Variboba (discussed in 2.5. below), see Schumacher and Matzinger (2013). On some minor texts of the North Albanian Catholic tradition see Elsie (1995); Shuteriqi (1976: 55−92).

2.2.5. The North Albanian catholic tradition in the 18th century An important text written at the beginning of this period is Kuvendi i Arbenit (‘Albanian Council’, Rome 1706, 1868; translation from Latin into Albanian by E. Radoja 1872; reedited in 2003; scientific edition in Demiraj 2012: photo facsimile,

1720

XV. Albanian

transcription, concordance, commentary, and an additional CD containing the Albanian texts of the 1706, 1868, and 1872 editions, together with the original Latin text; word list in Ashta 2009), a collection of materials from the Albanian church council held in North Albania in 1703, edited in Latin and Albanian versions (in separate volumes). The following texts are usually treated as belonging to the North Albanian Catholic tradition: 1) Osservazioni Grammaticali Nella Lingua Albanese (Roma 1716) by the Franciscan missionary Francesco Maria da Lecce. This text represents the first published Albanian grammar (da Lecce is also the author of the unpublished ItalianAlbanian dictionary dated 1702; scientific edition by G. Gurga: da Lecce 2009). 2) the so-called Manuscript from Grottaferatta (1710, possibly by Diego da Desios) containing a short Italian-Albanian dictionary, a short grammatical description, and some translations from a Catechism (grammar by Ismajli 1982 and dictionary by Landi 1988). 3) This period of the development of the Catholic tradition ends with the Breve compendio della Dottrina Christiana (Rome 1743) by Gjon Nikollë Kazazi (scholarly edition by Demiraj 2006: photo facsimile, transliteration, transcription, concordance). Kazazi’s book is also available as a searchable document on the internet at http://titus.uni-frankfurt.de/texte/etcs/alban/casasi/casas.htm (data entry by B. Demiraj, TITUS version by J. Gippert) and on the website of the National Library of Albania (http://www.bksh.al/gsdl/cgi-bin/library.exe). A renewed flourishing of the North Albanian Catholic tradition is observed in the second half of the 19 th century in the context of the Albanian National Awakening.

2.3. The Orthodox tradition of Central and South Albania Whereas the Vatican encouraged in a limited way the development and the study of the Albanian language, the Orthodox Church considered the use of Albanian to be a threat to its influence. This circumstance conditioned the weak and relatively late development of the Albanian Orthodox writing tradition. Except for the Easter Gospel (1.2), all Orthodox texts belong to the period after the second third of the 18 th century. There were two main urban centers of this tradition: Elbasan (situated in the southern part of the Geg area) and Voskopoja (Moschopolis), a large city with a mixed Aroumanian-Greek-Albanian population, which experienced a short period of culture flourishing in the middle of the 18 th century. This included in Voskopoja a printing facility (Peyfuss 1996) and the “New Academy”, a kind of middle school. The Albanian Orthodox writing tradition used both Greek script and various original alphabets invented by educated Albanians for their particular language needs (seven such alphabets, showing Greek and Slavic, especially Glagolitic, influences are known [see Shuteriqi 1950, 1976; Elsie 1995b]). The main texts of this tradition are: 1) the so-called Elbasan Gospel Manuscript (Anonimi i Elbasanit mid-18 th cent.), attributed without certainty to Gregory of Durrës (other possible authors are Papa Totasi and Theodoros Bogomilos) and written using two different original alphabets in the South Geg dialect with Tosk elements, contains 59 pages of Bible translations as well as an original religious text. A transliteration of this text is published in Zamputi 1951 (cf. also Elsie 1995b); 2) the so-called Codex of Berat (1764−ca. 1800), written in the Tosk dialect using Greek script with some specimens of an original alphabet,

94. The documentation of Albanian

1721

contains 154 pages of various, mostly religious, texts in Albanian and Greek, among them two glossaries and the Albanian poem Zonja Shën Mëri përpara kryqësë, the author of which is possibly Konstantin Berati (see Hetzer 1981a, 1982); 3) various texts, mostly of a religious character, written by Theodor Haxhifilipi or Dhaskal Todhri from Elbasan (ca. 1730−1805) in the South Geg dialect with some Tosk elements using an original alphabet widely current in the Elbasan district until the 1930’s, partly published in Nosi (1918) and Shuteriqi (1949, 1954, 1959). Two multilingual dictionaries originated within the framework of the Voskopoja cultural tradition. These are the dictionary of Theodor Kavalioti (ca. 1718−1789), which is part of his Prôtopeiria (1770, Venice) and contains 1,170 Greek-Aroumanian-Albanian lexical parallels (reprinted in Thunmann 1774: 181−238; Meyer 1895; new critical edition by Hetzer 1981b) and the dictionary of Daniel of Voskopoja (1754−1825), which is part of his Eisagôgikê didaskalia (1802, most likely Venice) and contains 1,170 tokens in Greek, Aroumanian, Bulgarian, and Albanian (modern editions by Kristophson 1974; Stylos 2011). On other texts belonging to the Orthodox tradition see Shuteriqi (1976); Elsie (1991c); Kastrati (2000); Lloshi (2008). The Old Albanian tradition of Orthodox writing ends with the New Testament translation of Vangjel Meksi (died ca. 1823), published in 1827 by Grigor Gjirokastriti (see Lloshi 2012). The works of the great South-Albanian linguist and writer Kostandin Kristoforidhi (1827−1895), author of an Albanian grammar and dictionary and Bible translator, belong to the period of the Albanian National awakening (see Fiedler 2006: 79−81, 110−113).

2.4. Islamization and the Muslim tradition of Old Albanian Writings The process of islamization of the Albanian population began just after the Ottoman conquest and reached its peak in the 17 th century, at which point more than half of the Albanian population became Muslim. The main zones of the spread of Islamic culture in Albanian territory were the cities of Central Albania, first of all, Elbasan. One of the consequences of this process was the development of an Albanian literature, above all poetry, written in Arabic script. This poetry (which is to be viewed in the larger context of the so-called aljamiado literature) is referred to in the Albanian tradition as “the poetry of the bejtexhinjt” (cf. Albanian beytexhi ‘the author of beyts’, the latter word a borrowing from Arab. bajt, Turk. beyit ‘distich’). The poetry of the bejtexinjt (strongly influenced by the Middle Eastern literary tradition and filled with oriental lexical borrowings) was first composed at the beginning of the 18 th century (the first known text being the “Coffee-Prayer” by Muçi Zade, 1725), flourished from the middle of the 18 th until the first half of the 19 th century, and survived until the middle of the 20 th century (mainly in Kosovo). The best representatives of this poetic tradition are Nezim Frakulla (or Nezim Berati, ca. 1680−1760), Sulejman Naibi (died 1771), Hasan Zyko Kamberi (ca. 1740−1800), Muhamed Kyçyku (1784−1844), and Zenel Bastari (first half of the 19 th cent.). Despite the relatively high literary level of these poets, the bejtexinjt poetry was to a great extent rejected (because of its pronounced oriental character) by the mainstream of Albanian literary criticism. A consequence of this is the almost complete absence of critical editions of this material (the only exception is a critical edition of

1722

XV. Albanian

the Divan by Nezim Berati: Nezim Berati 2009; see also Hamiti 2008). The texts of bejtexinjt are known mainly thanks to some philological articles and anthologies (see Myderrizi 1951, 1954, 1955; Hysa 1997−2000, 2000; Salihu 1987; cf. also Shuteriqi 1976).

2.5. The Italo-Albanian (Arbëresh) writing tradition The fourth major tradition of old Albanian writing developed in Albanian settlements in Southern Italy. The influx of Albanians into the territory of the Kingdom of Naples began in the first half of the 15 th century, continued on a substantial scale until well after Skanderbegs death (1468). After the capture of Morea by Ottomans in the first half of the 18 th century, the new influx of an Albanian-speaking population from the Peloponnese into Southern Italy took place. Albanians founded villages in Sicily, Calabria, Apulia, Molise, and Basilicata. Albanians − mostly Tosk-speaking former inhabitants of the southern part of Albania and Greece (Epirus and Morea) − were partly converted to Catholicism, but some retained the Orthodox rite and formed the Italo-Albanian Catholic church (one of the Eastern Catholic churches). They firmly preserved their cultural traditions and their language − an amalgam of various Tosk dialects. The first Italo-Albanian written text (and the second Albanian printed book), E mbsuame e krështere (Christian Doctrine) by Luca Matranga (Lekë Matrënga, an Arbëresh from Hora e Arbëresheve, Sicily), is a translation from Italian of a very widely used short catechism by Jacob Ledesma. The book was published in 1592 in Rome. Two published copies are known (one of them is lost and is now available only as a photocopy), and three remaining manuscript variants are extant. The book, written using Latin script (with mostly Italian spelling conventions), represents a good example of an older stage of the Tosk dialect. It contains 28 pages and 479 different words (Ashta 1998: 44). In the beginning of one of the manuscripts, there is an eight-line rhyme translated from Latin − the first Albanian written poem. There are four scholarly editions of Matranga’s Work (La Piana 1912; Sciambra 1964; Sulejmani 1979; Mandalà 2004; for Matranga’s lexicon see Ashta 1998; see also Matzinger 2006). A searchable text is available on the Internet at http://titus.uni-frankfurt.de/texte/etcs/alban/matranga/matra.htm (data entry by M. de Vaan, TITUS version by J. Gippert). A photocopy of Matranga’s book is accessible on the website of the National Library of Albania (http://www.bksh.al/gsdl/cgi-bin/ library.exe). Subsequent important Italo-albanian texts belong to the 18 th century. Among these, the so-called Codex of Chieuti, dated from 1736, should be mentioned. This manuscript (210 pages), compiled by the Italo-Albanian poet and priest from Sicily, Nicolò Figlia (1682?−1769), contains Arbëresh folk songs, poems of Italo-Albanian poets (Figlia himself, Nilo Catalano, and Nicolò Brancato), as well as a short Albanian catechism (see the scholarly edition by Matteo Mandalà 1995). The greatest work of old Italo-Albanian literature is the Ghiella e S. Mëriis Virghiër (1762, Rome) by the Calabrian priest Giulio Variboba (1724−1788), a religious poem (or collection of poems) describing the life of the Virgin Mary and Jesus Christ. Variboba’s rich and vivid language reflects the Albano-Calabrian dialect of this period. Two prefaces to the poem are good examples of Italo-Albanian prose (see the critical edition: Variboba 2005; see also Variboba 1984).

94. The documentation of Albanian

1723

The period from the 1830’s until the second decade of the 20 th century marks the zenith of the flourishing of Italo-Albanian written culture. The writers of this time (Girolamo De Rada, Gabriele Dara, Giuseppe Serembe, Francesco Santori, Giuseppe Schirò) raised Italo-Albanian literature to unprecedented heights. At the same time, scholars such as Demetrio Camarda and Vincenzo Dorsa made important contributions to the development of the nascent field of scientific Albanology (cf. Elsie 1995; Kastrati 2000: 543−622). In our time the Italo-Albanian written tradition has been reshaped as a regional literature with its writers using mostly modern standard Albanian. 2.6. Other parts of the large Albanian diaspora had no particular writing traditions. We know of only a few attempts on the part of patriotically oriented Albanians from the diaspora to educate their compatriots. Notable among these were the efforts of the Athenian Anastas Kullurioti (1822−1887), who published some educational school-books reflecting his own Greek-Albanian dialect (cf. Elsie 1995). The Cyrillic dictionaries by Gjorgji Pulevski (1875) and by the monk Arkádïi (manuscript, 1864) representing, respectively, the Albanian dialects of west Macedonia and of Eastern Thrace, should be considered attempts at language (dialect) description rather than the manifestations of any real written tradition (cf. Friedman 1994, 2003a, 2003b).

3. The modern period The period since the middle of the 19 th century is characterized by two important processes relevant to both the development of the Albanian language and the enrichment of its documentation. First, in this period Albanian becomes the subject of scientific linguistic study. Second, the ideological and cultural movement known in Albanian history as Rilindje kombëtare (National Renaissance) makes the development of a common standard Albanian language one of its main objectives. 3.1. Within this period the systematic work of gathering folklore texts, compiling Albanian dictionaries, and engaging in research on Albanian grammar and dialectology begins, thanks to the efforts of both foreign and Albanian scholars (on the history of Albanology cf. Jokl 1917; Hamp 1972; Gosturani 1999; Kastrati 2000; Fiedler 2006). 3.2. Two major goals which were to be achieved in the context of the creation of a standard Albanian language were the elaboration of a national alphabet and the choice of a dialect base (or bases). 3.2.1. The decisive step in the achievement of the first goal was made in 1908 after the success of the Young Turks’ revolution, when at the so-called Congress of Monastir the modern Albanian alphabet (created in the main on the basis of the North Albanian “Bashkimi”-alphabet) was adopted. In several years, this alphabet became the only Albanian alphabet in use; after the creation of the Albanian state (1912), it became the official alphabet of Albanian.

1724

XV. Albanian

3.2.2. The second task was more difficult. In the period from 1917 until the communist take-over in 1944, the official standard Albanian language was based on the South Geg (Elbasan) dialect. Besides this, many texts (literary, public, and scientific) were published in (more or less standardized dialect variants of) Tosk and North Geg. After the communist victory, a new standard language was created based on Tosk but with some Geg elements. After 1967−1968 (until the fall of communism), the publication of Geg texts ceased (cf. e.g. Lafe 2008). In 1968, Albanians of Yugoslavia (Kosovo, Macedonia, and Montenegro) adopted Standard Albanian (from 1941 until 1968 the majority of Yugoslavian Albanians utilized the Geg variant). On the problems of standard language development cf. Byron (1976, 1979); Beci (2000); Fiedler (2006: 104−140); and Ismajli (2003). 3.3. The annotated Albanian language corpus, an ongoing project being carried out by linguists from Saint Petersburg and Moscow, is now available on the Internet at http:// web-corpora.net/AlbanianCorpus/search/?interface language=en. Regarding Albanian texts available in digital form, the following resources should be mentioned: Archivio Letterario (directed by Francesco Altimari, University of Calabria), a collection of ItaloAlbanian literary texts on CD-roms; old Albanian texts in digital form (mainly in the framework of the Titus-Projects, cf. above: 2.2; 2.4); some Albanian texts represented as lexical hypertexts in the IntraText Digital Library (http://www.intratext.com/SQI/), as well as the text of Ismail Kadare’s novel Koncert në fund të dimrës in the European Corpus Initiative Multilingual / Corpus I CD-rom (ECI/MCI) (Kabashi 2007: 141).

4. References Ashta, Kolë 1996 Leksiku historik i gjuhës shqipe I: Tri dokumentet e para të gjuhës shqipe e leksiku përkatës (gjysma e dytë e shekullit XV). Gjon Buzuku e leksiku i plotë, nxjerrë nga vepra e tij “Meshari” (1555) [Albanian historical lexicon I. Three documents before the relevant lexicons of the Albanian language (second half of the XV century). John Buzuku, the full lexicon derived from his work “Missal” (1555)]. Shkodra: Shtëpia Botuese e Universitetit të Shkodrës “Luigj Gurakuqi”. Ashta, Kolë 1998 Leksiku historik i gjuhës shqipe II: Lekë Matrënga dhe leksiku, nxjerrë nga vepra e tij (1592); Pjetër Budi dhe leksiku, nxjerrë nga vepra e tij (1618−1621) [Albanian historical lexicon II: Lekë Matrënga and vocabulary derived from his work (1592); Peter Budi and vocabulary derived from his work (1618−1621)]. Tirana: Toena. Ashta, Kolë 2000 Leksiku historik i gjuhës shqipe III: Pjetër Mazrreku dhe leksiku, nxjerrë nga vepra e tij (1633); Frang Bardhi dhe leksiku, nxjerrë nga vepra e tij (1635) [Albanian historical lexicon III: Peter Mazrreku and vocabulary derived from his work (1633); Frang Bardhi and vocabulary derived from his work (1635)]. Shkodra: Shtypshkronja “Volaj”. Ashta, Kolë 2002 Leksiku historik i gjuhës shqipe IV: Pjetër Bogdani: Leksiku i plotë i shqipes, nxjerrë nga vepra “Cuneus Prophetarum”. [Albanian historical lexicon IV: Peter Bogdani: the full Albanian lexicon derived from the work “Cuneus Prophetarum”]. Shkodra: Camaj − Pipa.

94. The documentation of Albanian

1725

Ashta, Kolë 2009 Leksiku historik i gjuhës shqipe V: Kuvendi i Arbënit (1706), Da Lecce (1716) [Albanian historical lexicon V: Albanian Council (1706), Da Lecce (1716)]. Shkodra: Camaj-Pipa. Bardhi, Frang 1983 Fjalor Latinisht-Shqip 1635. Përgatiti Engjëll Sedaj [Latin-Albanian dictionary of 1635. Prepared by Engjëll Sedaj]. Prishtina: Rilindja. Beci, Bahri 2000 Probleme të politikës gjuhësore dhe të planifikimit gjuhësor në Shqipëri [Problems of language policy and language planning in Albania]. Pejë: Dukagjini. Blanchus, Franciscus 1635 Dictionarivm latino-epiroticvm, vna cum nonnulis vsitatioribus loquendi formilis. ... [A Latino-Albanian dictionary together with some more frequently used phrases]. Rome: Sac. Congr. de Propag. Fide. Blanchus, Franciscus 2006 Dictionarium Latino Epiroticum [A Latin-Albanian dictionary]. Tirana: Çabej. Bogdani Pjetër 1940−1943 Cuneus prophetarum, a se Çeta e profetëve. Pjesa 1. Qitë në alfabetin e soçem e kthiellue me vrojtime prej Át Mark Harapit S. J. [Cuneus Prophetarum, or The Band of Prophets. Part 1. Set in a clear modern alphabet with the observations of Fr. Mark Harapit S. J.]. Shkodra: Shtypshkronja “Zoja e paperlyeme”. Bogdani, Pjetër 1977 Cuneus Prophetarum a Pietro Bogdano. Patavii MDCLXXXV. Beiträge zur Kenntnis Südosteuropas und des Nahen Orients. Vol. 24. Munich: Trofenik. Bogdani, Pjetër 1989 Çeta e Profeteve I (Cuneus Prophetarum).Transliterimi në gjuhën e sotme, përkthimet dhe parathënia nga dr. E. Sedaj [The Band of Prophets I (Cuneus Prophetarum). Transliteration in today’s language, translation, and preface by Dr. E. Sedaj]. Prishtina: Rilindja. Bogdani, Pjetër 1997 Çeta e Profeteve II (Jeta e Jezu Krishtit). Transliterimi në gjuhën e sotme, hyrja, përkthimet dhe shënimet nga dr. E. Sedaj [The Band of Prophets II (The Life of Jesus Christ). Transliteration in today’s language, introduction, translation, and notes by Dr. E. Sedaj]. Prishtina: Rilindja. Bogdani, Pjetër 2005 Cuneus Prophetarum (Çeta e profetëve). Botim kritik me një studim hyrës, faksimile të origjinalit, transkriptim e shënime përgatitur nga Anila Omari [Cuneus Prophetarum (The Band of Prophets). Critical edition with an introductory study, facsimile of the original, transcript , and notes prepared by Anila Omari]. Tirana: Akademia e shkencave të Shqipërisë. Instituti i Gjuhësisë dhe i Letërsisë. Bogdano, Pietro 1685 Cunevs Prophetarum de Christo Salvatore Mvndi et eivs evangelica veritate, italice et epirotice contexta... [The Band of Prophets of Christ the Savior of the World and his true gospel in Italian and Albanian]. Padua: Typographia Seminarii. [2nd edn.: L’infabilite verità della Cattolica Fede. Venice: Girolamo Albrizzi, 1691; 3rd edn.: 1702.] Borgia, Nilo 1930 Pericope Evangelica in lingua albanese del secolo XIV da un manoscritto greco della Biblioteca Ambrosiana. Grottoferrata: Tip. Italo-Orientale S. Nilo. Budi, Pjetro 1621 Ritvale Romanvm et Specvlum Confessionis... [The Roman rite and a mirror for confession]. Rome: Bartolomeo Zanetti. Budi, Pjetro 1868 Dottrina Christiana... 4th edn. Rome: Stamperia della S. C. di Propaganda Fide. [3rd edn. 1664. 2nd edn. 1636. First published 1618. Rome: Bartolomeo Zanetti.]

1726

XV. Albanian

Budi, Pjetër 2006 Poezi (1618−1621). Parathënia, tejshkrimi, komentet: Rexhep Ismajli [Poetry (1618− 1621). Preface, transcription, commentary: Rexhep Ismajli]. 2nd edn. Prishtina: ASHAK. [First published 1986. Prishtina: Rilindje.] Byron, Janet 1976 Selection among alternates in language standardization. The case of Albanian. (Contributions to the sociology of language 12). The Hague: Mouton. Byron, Janet 1979 Language planning in Albania and in Albanian-speaking Yugoslavia. Word 30: 15−44. Çabej, Eqrem 1938−1939 Për gjenezën e literaturës shqipe [On the genesis of Albanian literature]. Hylli i Dritës 14(12): 647−661. [Reprinted 2002 in Eqrem Çabej, Shqiptaret midis Perëndimit dhe Lindjes. Tirana: Çabej, 9−62.] Çabej, Eqrem 2013 Meshari i Gjon Buzukut [The “Missal” of Gjon Buzuku]. Vol. I−II. 3rd edn. Tirana: Çabej. [2nd edn. 1987. Prishtina: Rilindja. First published 1968. Tirana: Universiteti Shtetëror i Tiranës. Instituti Historisë e i Gjuhësisë.] Daniel of Voskopoja 1802 Eisagôgikê didaskalia [Pedagogical introduction]. sine loco. Demiraj, Bardhyl 2006 Gjon P. Nikollë Kazazi dhe “Doktrina” e tij [Gjon P. Nikollë Kazazi and his “Doktrina”]. Prishtina: Akademia e Shkencave dhe e Arteve. Botime të veçanta LXIX. Seksioni i gjuhësisë dhe i letërsisë. Libri 30. Demiraj, Bardhyl 2008 Dictionarium Latino-Epiroticum (Romae 1635). Per R. D. Franciscum Blanchum [A Latin-Albanian dictionary (Rome 1635). By R. D. Franciscum Blanchum]. Shkodra: Françescane. Demiraj, Bardhyl 2012 Conciλi provintiaaλi o Cuvendi i Arbenit [The Provincial council or Kuvendi i Arbenit]. Shkodra: Françescane. Demiraj, Bardhyl 2013 Kumte domethënëse dhe kundërthënëse mbi albanët e dy Albanive në “Anonymi Descriptio Europae Orientalis” (1308) [Significant and controversial messages on Albania and Albanians in “Anonymi Descriptio Europae Orientalis” (1308)]. Hylli i Dritës 33: 204−215. Elsie, Robert 1986 The Bellifortis text and early Albanian. Zeitschrift für Balkanologie 22: 158−162. Elsie, Robert 1990 Albania in the ‘Anonymi Descriptio Europae Orientalis’ (1308 A.D.). Zeitschrift für Balkanologie 26: 24−28. Elsie, Robert 1991a Two Irish travellers in Albania in 1322. In: Klaus-Detlev Grothusen (ed.), Albanien und Vergangenheit und Gegenwart. Internationales Symposium der Südosteuropa-Gesellschaft in Zusammenarbeit mit der Albanischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Winterscheider Mühle bei Bonn, 12.−15. September 1989. (Südosteuropa Studien 48). Munich: Südosteuropa-Gesellschaft, 24−27. Elsie, Robert 1991b The earliest references to the existence of the Albanian language. Zeitschrift für Balkanologie 11/12: 101−105. Elsie, Robert 1991c Albanian literature in Greek script. The eighteenth and early nineteenth century Orthodox tradition in Albanian writing. Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 11: 20−34.

94. The documentation of Albanian

1727

Elsie, Robert 1995a History of Albanian Literature. 2 Vols. (East European Monographs 379). Boulder: Social Science Monographs. Distributed by Columbia University Press, New York. Elsie, Robert 1995b The Elbasan Gospel manuscript (Anonimi i Elbasanit), 1761 and the struggle for an original Albanian alphabet. Südost-Forschungen 54: 105−159. Esposito, Mario 1960 Itinerarium Symonis Semeonis ab Hybernia ad Terram Sanctam [The itinerary of Symon Semeon from Ireland to the Holy Land]. Scriptores Latini Hiberniae, Vol. 4. Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies. Fiedler, Wilfried 2004 Das Albanische Verbalsystem in der Sprache des Gjon Buzukuu (1555). Prishtina: Akademia e shkencave dhe e arteve e Kosovës. Fiedler, Wilfried 2006 Einführung in die Albanologie. Meissen. http://www.albanologie.uni-muenchen.de/ downloads/einfuehrung-in-die-alb-fiedler.pdf [Last accessed 4 December 2016]. Figlia, Nicolò 1995 Il Codice Chieutino. Edizione critica e concordanca a cura di Matteo Mandalà. Mezzoiuso: Comune di Mezzoiuso. Friedman, Victor A. 1994 Slavic-Albanian Contacts and Early Polyglot Lexicons: The Albanian Lexicon of the monk Arkádïi, a mid-nineteenth century manuscript from the Hilendar Monastery on Mount Athos. Slavia meridionalis: Studia linguistica, Slavica et balcanica 1: 139−156. Friedman, Victor A. 2003a The Albanian language in its Eastern Diaspora: A unique witness. In: Friedman (ed.), 59−155. Friedman, Victor A. 2003b On national conceptions in the trilingual dictionary of Gjorgji Pulevski. In: Friedman (ed.), 479−484. Friedman, Victor A. (ed.) 2003c Studies on Albanian and other Balkan Languages. Pejë: Dukagjini. Górka, Olgierd (ed.) 1916 Anonymi descriptio Europae orientalis. Imperium Constantinopolitanum, Albania, Serbia, Bulgaria, Ruthenia, Ungaria, Polonia, Bohemia. Anno MCCCVIII exarata [Anonymi descriptio Europae orientalis. The Byzantine Empire, Albania, Serbia, Bulgaria, Ruthenia, Hungary, Poland, Bohemia. Written in the year 1308] Cracow: Sumptibus Academiae Litterarum. Gosturani, Xheladin 1999 Historia e albanologjisë [The history of albanology]. Tirana: Albin. von Groote, Eberhard 1860 Die Pilgerfahrt des Ritters Arnold von Harff von Cöln... . Cologne: J. M. Heberle. Hamiti, Abdullah 2008 Nezim Frakulla dhe Divani i tij shqip [Nezim Frakulla and his Albanian Divan]. Shkup: Logos A. Hamp, Eric 1972 Albanian. Current trends in Linguistics. Vol. 2(1). The Hague: Mouton, 1627−1692. Hetzer, Armin 1981a Der sogenannte Kodex von Berat. Teil 1. Balkan-Archiv. Neue Folge. 6: 125−195. Hetzer, Arnim 1981b Das dreisprachige Wörterverzeichnis von Theodoros Anastasiu Kavalliotis aus Moschopolis, gedruckt 1770 in Venedig. Balkan-Archiv. Neue Folge. Beiheft 1.

1728

XV. Albanian

Hetzer, Armin 1982 Nachlese zu: Der sogenannte Kodex von Berat 1 (BA 6. 125−195). Balkan-Archiv. Neue Folge. 7: 57−75. Hysa, Mahmud 1997−2000 Alamiada shqiptare. Studime letrare [Albanian aljamiada. Literary studies]. Vol. I−II. Skopje: Logos A. Hysa, Mahmud 2000 Hyrje në letërsinë shqiptare [Introduction to Albanian literature]. Prishtina: Enti i teksteve dhe i mjeteve mësimore i Kosovës. Iorga, Nicolae 1915 Notes et extraits pour servir à l’histoire des Croisades au XVe siècle. 4e série (1453− 1476). Bucharest: Leroux. Ismajli, Rexhep 1982 Gramatika e parë e gjuhës shqipe. Botim kritik me studim e transkriptim [The first grammar of Albanian. Critical edition with a study and a transcription]. Prishtina: Rilindje. Ismajli, Rexhep 2000 Tekste të vjetra [Ancient texts]. Pejë: Dukagjini. Ismajli, Rexhep 2003 Standarde dhe identitete. Histori, procese dhe lëvizje standardizuese në fushë të gjuhës [Standards and identities. History, processes, and movements in the field of language standardization]. Peje: Dukagjini. Jokl, Norbert 1917 Albanisch. In: Wilhelm Streitberg (ed.), Geschichte der indogermanischen Sprachwissenschaft 3(2). Strassburg: Trübner. Kabashi, Besim 2007 Zeichen für Gjon Buzukuu. Die zusammenarbeit zwischen der albanischen Linguistik und der Computerlinguistik. In: Bardhyl Demiraj (ed.), Nach 450 Jahren. Buzukuus “Missale” und seine Rezeption in unserer Zeit. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 139−146. Kastrati, Jup 2000 Historia e albanologjisë (1497−1997) [The history of albanology (1497−1997)]. Vol. I. Tirana: Argeta-LMG, 1497−1853. Kavalioti, Theodor 1770 Prôtopeiria para tu sofologiôtatu kai aidesimôtatu didaskalu, hierokêrykos kai prôtopapa kyriu Theodôru Anastasiou Kaballiôtu tu Moschopolitu ksyntetheisa... [Rudimentary glossary ... compiled by Theodor Kavalioti of Voskopoja]. Venice: Antôniô tô Bortoli. Kazazi, Gjon Nikolla 1743 Breve Compendio della Dottrina Cristiana. Rome: Stamp. della S. Congr. de Propaganda Fide. Kristophson, Jü 1974 Das Lexikon Tetraglosson des Daniil Moschopolitis. Zeitschrift für Balkanologie. 10: 7− 128. (Kuvendi i Arbenit) 1706 Conciλi provintiaaλi o Cu(n)vendi i Arbenit [Provincial council or Kuvendi i Arbenit]. Rome: Typ. Sac. Congr. de Propaganda Fide. [2nd edn. 1868. Rome. 3rd edn. Translated by E. Radoja, 1872. Rome. 4th edn. 2003. Prishtina: Ed. Konferenca Ipeshkvore Shqiptare.] Lafe, Emil 2008 Gjuha standarte si përgjegjësi shjoqërore dhe intelektuale [The standard language as a social and intellectual responsibility]. Gjuha Jone 28: 1−4.

94. The documentation of Albanian

1729

Lambros, Spyridôn 1906 To Christos anestê albanisti [The Easter Gospel in Albanian]. Neos Hellênomnênôn 3: 481−482. Landi, Addolorata 1988 Il dizionario Italiano e Albanese per Alfabeto della Badia Greca di Grottaferrata. (Quaderni / Università degli studi di Salerno, Istituto di linguistica, Cattedra di glottologia. 2). Salerno: Università degli studi di Salerno. La Piana, Marco 1912 Il catechismo albanese di Luca Matranga da un manoscritto Vaticano. Roma e l’Oriente 4(19): 23−32. da Lecce, Francesco Maria 1716 Osservazioni grammaticali nella lingua Albanese. Rome: Stamp. della Sag. Conf. di Prop. Fede. da Lecce, Francesco Maria 2009 Dittionario italiano-albanese (1702). Botim kritik me hyrje dhe fjalësin shqip përgatitur nga Gëzim Gurga [Critical edition with an introduction and Albanian word-list prepared by Gëzim Gurga]. Shkodra: Françescane. Lloshi, Xhevat 2008 Rreth alfabetit të shqipës [On the Albanian alphabet]. Shkup: Logos A. Lloshi, Xhevat 2012 Përkthimi i V. Meksit dhe redaktimi i G. Gjirokastritit (1819−1827) [The translation of V. Meksi and the redaction of G. Gjirokastritit (1819−1827)]. Tirana: Onufri. Mandalà, Matteo 1995 Nicolò Figlia. Il Codice Chieutino. Edizione critica e concordanca. Mezzoiuso: Comune di Mezzoiuso. Mandalà, Matteo 2004 Luca Matranga. E mbsuame e krështëre [Luca Matranga. Christian Doctrine]. (Albanica 21). Caltanissetta: Sciascia. Matranga, Luca 1592 Embsvame e chræsteræ... [Christian Doctrine ...]. Rome: Presso Guglielmo Facciotto. Matzinger, Joachim 2006 Der altalbanische Text [E] Mbsuame e Krështerë (Dottrina Cristiana) des Lekë Matrenga von 1592, eine Einführung in die albanische Sprachwissenschaft. Dettelbach: Röll. Matzinger, Joachim 2010 Die albanische Sprache im Zeitalter Skanderbegs, Teil 2: Verschriftung des Albanischen mit Schwerpunkt auf Paulus Angelus und Gjon Buzuk. In: Bardhyl Demiraj (ed.), Wir sind die Deinen. Studien zur albanischen Sprache, Literatur und Kulturgeschichte, dem Gedenken an Martin Camaj (1925−1992) gewidmet. (Albanische Forschungen 29). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 421−486. Matzinger, Joachim 2012 Die Heiligenfeste, oder wie sich das Proprium de Sanctis und das Commune Sanctorum im Seelsorgehandbuch des Gjon Buzuku (1555) darstellen. In: Bardhyl Demiraj (ed.), Akten der 4. Deutsch-Albanischen kulturwissenschaftlichen Tagung “50 Jahre Albanologie an der Ludwig-Maximillians-Universität Munchen”. (Albanische Forschungen 32). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 270−293. Meyer, Gustav 1895 Albanesische Studien IV. Das griechisch-südrumänisch-albanesische Wörterverzeichniss des Kavalliotis. Sitzungsberichte der k. Akademie der wissenschaften in Wien. Phil.-hist. Klasse 132 (12). Myderrizi, Osman 1951 Erveheja dhe Muhamet Çami [Erveheja and Muhamet Çami]. Buletin i Institutit të Shkencavet 1: 72−82.

1730

XV. Albanian

Myderrizi, Osman 1954 Nezim Frakulla (1690 ?−1750). Buletin për shkencat shoqërore 4: 56−75. Myderrizi, Osman 1955 Hasan Zyko Kamberi. Buletin për shkencat shoqërore 1: 93−109. Nezim Berati 2009 Divani shqip. Edicioni tekstual kritik, hyrja, shënimet, fjalori dhe indeksi G. Abazi-Egro [The Albanian Divan. Critical edition of the text, introduction, notes, vocabulary, and the index of G. Abazi-Egro]. Tirana: Toena. Nosi, Lef 1918 Dhaskal Todhri. Kopështi letrar (Elbasan) 1: 13−14; 2: 13; 3: 8; 4: 11; 5: 2. Peyfuss, Max Demeter 1996 Die Druckerei von Moschopolis. 1731−1769. Buchdruck und Heiligenverehrung im Erzbistum Achrida. 2., verbesserte Auflage. Vienna: Böhlau. Pulevski, Gjorgji 1875 Rechnik od tri jezika [Dictionary of three languages]. Belgrade: U državnoj štamparnji. (Recueil) 1906 Recueil des Historiens des Croisades. Documents arméniens. Tome second. Documents latins et français relatifs à l’Arménie. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale. Ressuli, Namik 2007 Shkrimtarët shqiptarë. Pjesa I (1462−1878). Botim i Ministris s’Arsimit. [Albanian writers. Part I (1462−1878), Edition of the Ministry of s’Arsimit]. 2nd edn. Tirana: PAKTI. [First published 1941. Tirana: Shtypshkroja Gurakuqi.] Ressuli, Namik 2013 Il «Messale» di Giovanni Buzukuu. (Studi e testi 199). 2nd edn. London: Centre for Albanian Studies. [First published 1958. Città del Vaticano: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana.] Roques, Mario Louis 1932a Recherches sur les anciens textes albanais. Avec huit facsimilés. Paris: Geuthner. Roques, Mario Louis 1932b Le dictionnaire albanais de 1635, édité avec introduction et index complet. Paris: Geuthner. Salihu, Hajdar 1987 Poezia e bejtexhinjve [Bejtexhi poetry]. Prishtina: Rilindja. Schumacher, Stephen and Joachim Matzinger 2013 Die Verben des Altalbanischen Belegwörterbuch, Vorgeschichte und Etymologie. Unter Mitarbeit von Anna-Maria Adaktylos. (Albanische Forschungen 33). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Sciambra, Matteo 1964 La ‘Dottrina cristiana’ albanese di Luca Matranga. Riproduzione, trascizione e commento del Codice Barberini Latino 3454. (Studi i testi 240). Città del Vaticano: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. Shuteriqi, Dhimitër S. 1950 Anonimi i Elbasanit. Shkrimi shqip në Elbasan në shekujt XVIII−XIX dhe Dhaskal Todhri [Anonimi i Elbasanit. Albanian writing in Elbasan in the 18th−19 th centuries and Dhaskal Todhri]. Buletin i Institutit të Shkencavet 1: 33−54. Shuteriqi, Dhimitër S. 1954 Dhaskal Todhri. Buletin i Institutit të Shkencavet për Shkencat Shoqërore 4: 35−55. Shuteriqi, Dhimitër S. 1959 Shkrime të Dhaskal Todhri dhe të pasardhësve të tij elbasanas, shoqëruar me fjalorin e shkrimeve të Todhrit [The writings of Dhaskal Todhri’s and his Elbasan successors with a dictionary of Todhri’s writings]. Buletin për shkencat shoqërore 1: 165−198.

94. The documentation of Albanian

1731

Shuteriqi, Dhimitër S. 1976 Shkrimët shqipe në vitet 1332−1850 [Albanian writings in the years 1332−1850]. Tirana: Akademia e Shkencave të RPS të Shqipërisë − Instituti i Gjuhësisë dhe i Letërsisë. Stylos, Niko 2011 Fjalor katërgjuhësh i Daniil Voskopojarit [The quadrilingual dictionary of Daniel of Voskopoja]. Tirana: Universiteti Kristal. Sulejmani, Fadil 1979 E mbusuame e krështerë e Lekë Matrëngës [Lekë Matrëngë’s Christian Doctrine]. Prishtina: Rilindje. Svane, Gunnar 1985a Pjetër Budi, Dottrina Christiana (1618). With a transcription into modern orthography and a concordance. Text. (Sprog og Mennesker 9). Aarhus: Institut for Lingvistik. Svane, Gunnar 1985b Pjetër Budi, Dottrina Christiana (1618). Concordance 1−2. (Sprog og Mennesker 10). Aarhus: Institut for Lingvistik. Svane, Gunnar 1986a Pjetër Budi, Speculum Confessionis (1621). With a transcription into modern orthography and a concordance. Text. (Sprog og Mennesker 11). Aarhus: Institut for Lingvistik. Svane, Gunnar 1986b Pjetër Budi, Speculum Confessionis (1621). Concordance 1−3. (Sprog og Mennesker 12). Aarhus: Institut for Lingvistik. Svane, Gunnar 1986c Pjetër Budi, Rituale Romanum (1621). With a transcription into modern orthography and a concordance. Text. (Sprog og Mennesker 13). Aarhus: Institut for Lingvistik. Svane, Gunnar 1986d Pjetër Budi, Rituale Romanum (1621). Concordance 1−2. (Sprog og Mennesker 14). Aarhus: Institut for Lingvistik de Thallóczy, Ludovicus, Constantinus Jiricek, and Emilianus de Šufflay 1913 Acta et Diplomata res Albaniae mediae aetatis illustrantia. I. Vienna: Holzhausen. Thunmann, Johann 1774 Untersuchungen über die Geschichte der östlichen europäischen Völker. 1. Leipzig: Lebrecht Grusius. Variboba, Giulio 1762 Ghiella e S. Mëriis Virghiër… [The life of the Holy Virgin Mary]. Rome: P. Maistrit. Variboba, Giulio 1984 La vita di Maria. Prolegomeni, trascrizione, traduzione, glossario e note di Italo Costante Fortino. Cosenza: Brenner. Variboba, Giulio 2005 Vita della Beata Vergine Maria. Edizione critica e traduzione italiana a cura di Vincenco Belmonte. Soveria Mannelli: Rubbettino. Zamputi, Injac 1951 Disa shënime rreth alfabetit të dorëshkrimit të Anonimit elbasanas [Some notes on the alphabet of the manuscript of the Anonimi i Elbanasit]. Buletin i Institutit të Shkencavet 1: 55−57.

Alexander Rusakov, St. Petersburg (Russia)

1732

XV. Albanian

95. The phonology of Albanian 1. Preliminaries 2. Vowels 3. Resonants

4. Obstruents 5. Accent 6. References

1. Preliminaries The reconstruction of prehistoric stages of Albanian should ideally be based on the phonological system of Old Tosk, Old Geg, and a number of Modern Albanian (MoAlb.) dialects. This aim is difficult to realize for two reasons: the graphic systems of the Old Albanian (OAlb.) texts still present us with some unsolved problems; and the OAlb. texts do not contain all the relevant vocabulary. Like most scholars, I use Modern Standard Albanian as the base for the reconstruction, adding information from OAlb. wherever relevant. Modern Albanian shared the developments of the Tosk dialects unless stated otherwise. Internal comparison between the Tosk and Geg dialects allows us to reconstruct a Proto-Albanian stage (PAlb.; in German Uralbanisch; see Hock 2005; Klingenschmitt 1994: 221; Matzinger 2006: 23; B. Demiraj 1997: 41−67; Hamp 1992: 885−902). Additional external information on the development of the phonology is provided by different layers of loanwords, of which those from Slavic (from ca. 600 CE onward) and from Latin (ca. 167 BCE−400 CE) are the most important. Since the main phonological distinction between Tosk and Geg, viz. rhotacism of n, is found in only a few Slavic loanwords in Tosk (Ylli 1997: 317; Svane 1992: 292 f.), I assume that Proto-Albanian predated the influx of most of the Slavic loanwords. Following the authors cited above, I will call the hypothetical stage of Albanian before the start of the Latin influence “PreProto-Albanian” (PPAlb.) (German Voruralbanisch or Frühuralbanisch). Two other, less conclusive reference points are the borrowing of Ancient Greek loanwords (only a few of which are ascertained) which preceded the Latin period, and the comparison with Rumanian, the surviving Balkan Romance language which has adopted a number of loanwords from PPAlb. or a closely related Indo-European language. It would therefore in theory be possible to distinguish a Late PPAlb. stage (after the first Greek words entered, but before contact with Latin) and an Early PAlb. stage (after the Roman era but some time before the split into Tosk and Geg). In this chapter, however, I confine myself to the stages PIE, PPAlb., PAlb., and MoAlb. A number of surveys of the historical phonology of Albanian have appeared. In recent years, we find Huld (1984), Beekes (1995: 260−268), S. Demiraj (1996), B. Demiraj (1997: 41−67), Orel (2000: 1−151), Hock (2005), Matzinger (2006), Vermeer (2008), and Schumacher (2013). Most of these start on the PIE side of the reconstruction and deduce the different Albanian descendants of every PIE phoneme. In accordance with the format of this handbook, I reverse the direction here. The origin of the Albanian phonemes is presented in three steps: from MoAlb. back to PAlb., from PAlb. back to PPAlb., and from PPAlb. back to PIE. For each linguistic stage, the phonological system must be established. This question has been addressed explicitly by Ölberg (1972, for the vowels) and subsequently by https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-016

95. The phonology of Albanian

1733

Hock (2005), Matzinger (2006: 85−92) and Vermeer (2008, vowels). I trace back the main sources for each reconstructed phoneme for each of the three stages. In addition, it would be desirable to establish a complete relative chronology for the changes that occurred between PIE and Albanian; yet the present article does not leave room for such an endeavour. See Hock (2005) for a first attempt. In treating phonological change, I use the following symbols to indicate the development of sounds and words: Y < X means ‘Y has arisen from X by sound law’, X > Y means ‘X has become Y by sound law’, Y ← X and X → Y both mean ‘Y has been borrowed from X’ or ‘Y is found in borrowings from X’.

2. Vowels 2.1. From MoAlb. to PAlb. The following are the stressed and unstressed vowels of MoAlb. (Buchholz and Fiedler 1987: 28; Gjinari and Shkurtaj 2003: 178−185): i

y

u e

ə a

o

Origins: i

y e

a

< < < < <
u, PAlb. *e˜ > ë, PAlb. *ã > ë (Bonnet 1998: 117 f.). Tosk dialects except those in southern Labëria (the southernmost part of the Republic of Albania) lose the quantity distinction: long vowels merge with their short counterparts. pretonic and posttonic ë are lost in many forms, starting before the period of the OAlb. texts. In dialects, unstressed ë often becomes another vowel a, e, i, u, o, y, depending on the surrounding consonants and the vowel in the next syllable (Topalli 1995: 177− 187).

2.2. From PAlb. to PPAlb. 2.2.1. Stressed vowels The short vowels of PAlb.: i y u e o a

Nasalized vowels: ĩ e˜ ã

ũ

Diphthongs: ie ye

uo

Origins: (Here and elsewhere below, in the case of Latin third-declension loanwords showing imutation in MoAlb., the Latin source is given in the accusative singular; the precise process leading to i-mutation is a vexed question of Albanian historical linguistics.) PAlb. *i

< PPAlb. *i < PPAlb. *ī < PPAlb. *e, Lat. e with i-mutation (vit ‘year’, shtigje ‘paths’, piqni ‘you bake’; qind ‘100’ ← Lat. centum (with i-mutation based on the PAlb. plural, which must at some point have been -ī), grigj ‘flock’ ← Lat. gregem)

95. The phonology of Albanian

PAlb. *e

PAlb. *a

PAlb. *o

PAlb. *u

1735

< PPAlb. *e, Lat. ē/_sh (mish ‘meat’; kishë ‘church’ ← Lat. ecclēsia) [sometimes] ← Lat. i with i-mutation where applicable (këshill ‘advice’ ← cōnsilium, qift ‘red kite’ ← accipiter, fëmijë ‘child’ ← familia) ← Lat. ī (mik ‘friend’ ← Lat. amīcus, ishull ‘island’ ← īnsula, mijë ‘1000’ ← mīlia) < PPAlb. *e, Lat. e, ae/Cl_, Cr_ (kle ‘was’, dredh ‘to turn’; pre ‘booty’ < *predë ← Lat. praeda) < PPAlb. *e, Lat. e, ae in /je/ (mjeshtër ‘master’ < *maester ← Lat. magister, mjek ‘doctor’ ← Lat. medicus, vjetër ‘old’ ← Lat. veterem, pjeshkë ‘peach’ ← persicum) < PPAlb. *ē < PPAlb. *a, Lat. a, ā + i-mutation (net ‘nights’, pleq ‘old men’, eshtra ‘bones’, del ‘goes out’, troket ‘knocks’; shëndet ‘health’ ← Lat. sānitātem, qytet ‘town’ ← Lat. cīvitātem, qelq ‘glass’ ← Lat. calicem, gjelbër ‘green’ ← Lat. galbinus, qen ‘dog’ ← Lat. canem) < PPAlb. *a, Lat. a, ā/j_ (kërshterë ‘Christian’ ← Lat. christiānus, pëlqen ‘to please’ ← Lat. placeō via the inherited class of presents in *-iān-) < *ø < PPAlb. *ā + i-mutation (vegjël ‘small’ [pl.m.], sheh ‘sees’, present stems in -en) < *ø < PPAlb. *ō < *ø < Lat. ō (herë ‘time’ ← [h]ōra, pemë ‘fruit’ ← pōmum, tërmet ‘earthquake’ ← terrae mōtus) < PPAlb. *ai ← Lat. ē (qetë ‘silent’ ← quiētus, femër ‘female’ ← fēmina, vërer ‘venom’ ← venēnum) ← Lat. i (peshk ‘fish’ ← piscis, shërbes ‘service’ ← servitium, verdhë ‘yellow, green’ ← viridis, meshë ‘mass’ ← missa) < PPAlb. *a < PPAlb. *e/_$a(m) (de Vaan 2004: 78−83) < PPAlb. *au, Lat. au (than ‘to dry’; ar ‘gold’ ← Lat. aurum, gaz ‘joy’ ← Lat. gaudium) ← Lat. a, ā (aftë ‘suitable’ ← aptus, shtrat ‘bed’ ← strātum, larg ‘far’ ← lārgus, paq ‘peace’ ← pācem) ← Lat. e/q,sh_rr,l (shalë ‘saddle’ ← sella, sharrë ‘saw’ ← serra; qarr ‘oak’ ← cerrus) < PPAlb. *ā ← Lat. o (shok ‘friend’ ← socius, kofshë ‘hip’ ← coxa) ← Lat. ō (shëndoshë ‘healthy’ ← sānitōsus, kurorë ‘wreath’ ← corōna) < PPAlb. *u ← Lat. u (gusht ‘August’ ← augustus, kut ‘elbow’ ← cubitus, pulë ‘chicken’ ← pulla) ← Lat. vo- (umb ‘ploughshare’ ← vōmer) ← Lat. o/_N (murg ‘monk’ ← monachus, kundër ‘against’ ← contrā) ← Lat. ō (krushk ‘relative by marriage’ ← cōnsocer, urdhër ‘order’ ← ōrdō)

1736

XV. Albanian

PAlb. *y

< PPAlb. *ū (cf. Bonnet 1998: 96 f.) < PPAlb. *u, Lat. u with i-mutation (shtyp ‘to press’; kryq ‘cross’ ← Lat. crucem) ← Lat. ū (brymë ‘hoar-frost’ ← brūma, këshyrë ‘pass, gorge’ ← clausūra, pyll ‘forest’ ← palūs) PAlb. *ã < PPAlb. *a/_N (mëz, Geg mãz ‘foal’, zã ‘voice’) ← Lat. a/_N (Geg kãmbë ‘leg’ ← camba, kãngë ‘song’ ← canticum, dãm ‘damage’ ← damnum) ← Lat. e, ē/_N (occasionally: rërë, Geg rãnë ‘sand’ ← arēna, Geg argjãnd ‘silver’ ← argentum, qãndër ‘center’ ← centrum) PAlb. *e˜ < PPAlb. *e/_N (pesë, Geg pe˜s ‘five’, re˜ ‘cloud’) ← Lat. i, e, ē/_N (fre ‘rein’ ← frēnum) PAlb. *ĩ < PPAlb. *i/_N (Geg hĩ ‘ashes’, -ĩ, -ĩni nom.sg.m.) ← Lat. ī/_N (Geg lĩ ‘flax’ ← līnum, fqĩ ‘neighbor’ ← vicīnus) PAlb. *ũ < PPAlb. *u/_N (gju, Geg gjũ ‘knee’ < *glun-, ũ ‘I’ < *un-; mbush ‘to fill’?) PAlb. *ie < PPAlb. *e, Lat. e, ae/_*ɫ,r # (Geg piell ‘brings forth’, MoAlb. bie ‘to fall’; qiell ‘sky’ ← Lat. caelum) PAlb. *uo < PPAlb. *ō, Lat. o, ō/_*ɫ,n,r,j # (duar ‘hands’, muaj ‘month’; shuall ‘sole’ ← Lat. solum, ftua ‘quince’ ← Lat. cotōneus, drangua ‘dragon’ ← Lat. dracō) ← Lat. o/#_r,lj (vaj ‘oil’ ← oleum, varfër ‘poor’ ← orfanus) PAlb. *ye < PPAlb. *ō + i-mutation, Lat. jō/_*ɫ,n,r # (dyer ‘doors’, pëlqyer ‘pleased’ ptc. to pëlqen; arësye ‘reason’ ← Lat. rātiō) The main systemic changes between PPAlb. and PAlb: In the period between PPAlb. and PAlb., phonemic vowel length as it was inherited from PIE disappeared. Like in the Romance languages, vowel quality became the determining factor in the distribution of the vowels. The quantity collapse may have been caused by the fronting of rounded back vowels in the early Roman period (Ölberg 1972: 147 f.). The restructuring of the system was accompanied by different vowel mutations and the subsequent reduction or loss of unstressed vowels. Nasalized vowels arose but were preserved only in Geg, whereas Tosk denasalized them. The most important vowel changes between PPAlb. and PAlb. can be subsumed in the following relative chronology (see also Hock 2005: 264−267): 1. 2. 3. 4.

Long back vowels are fronted: *ō > *ȫ, *ū > *ȳ PPAlb., Lat. *ai > *ē PPAlb. *ā > *ɔ: Loss of distinctive vowel length leads to the following system (the PPAlb. antecedents are in parentheses):

(*ī >) /i/ (*i >) /ɪ/ (*ai, *ē >) /e/ (*e >) /ɛ/

/u/ > /y/ /ʊ/ /o/ > /ø/ /ɔ/ > /o/ /a/

(< (< (< (< (
jɛ *ɛ > ja/_*a(m) (a-mutation) i-mutation: *a > *e; *ɛ and *e > *i; *o > *ø, *u > *y

95. The phonology of Albanian

1737

b) *e, *ɛ > *ie before word-final *-ɫ, *-r *ø > *ye, *o > *uo before word-final *-ɫ, *-n, *-r *o > *uo/#_r,lj, *ø > *ye/_(w)V 6. *ø > *e 7. Unstressed word-internal vowels > */ə/, unstressed initial vowels > zero 8. Rise of phonemic nasalization

2.2.2. The unstressed vowels of PAlb i

y e

u ə a

o

Unstressed vowels were reduced in distinctiveness or were lost altogether in the last phase of the PAlb. period, after the operation of a-mutation and i-mutation. According to their position in the word, we can distinguish the following categories (Topalli 1995: 139−282; Matzinger 2006: 61−63): a. In absolute initial position, all vowels are reduced to zero (tetë ‘eight’, rërë ‘sand’ ← Lat. arēna, mik ‘friend’ ← Lat. amīcus, shtëpi ‘house’ ← Lat. (h)ospitium) except before -RC-, where a vowel is retained in Buzuku (Enduo ‘Anthony’; elter ‘altar’ ← Lat. altāre; ënbë- ‘on, around’). b. Internal pretonic vowels, including *au, are either lost at a stage preceding PAlb. (mbesë ‘grand-daughter, niece’ ← *nepṓtia, shtatë ‘seven’ < *septm ´̥ to-, ftua ‘quince’ ← *cotṓneus), or merge to */ə/ (e.g. gëzon ‘to enjoy’ to gaz ‘joy’, kërpin ‘to eat a snack’, vëllezër ‘brothers’, kërshterë ‘Christian’, këshill ‘advice’, vërtet ‘truth’, shëndet ‘health’ ← sanitā´tem, këndoj ‘to sing’, OAlb. lëfton ‘to fight’ to luftë ‘fight [n.]’). If a word contained two pretonic syllables, the first one usually retains its original vowel (mallëkon ‘to curse’ ← Lat. maledicāre, Buz. sherbëtuor ‘servant’), except o, which turns into u (ngushëllon ‘to console’ ← Lat. cōnsolāre, vullëndet ‘will’ ← Lat. voluntātem). These reductions have also affected the oldest layers of loanwords from Middle Greek, Italian, and Slavic. c. Internal posttonic vowels are either lost at an early stage (shelg ‘willow’ ← Lat. sálicem, emtë ‘aunt’ ← Lat. ámita, mëngë ‘sleeve’ ← Lat. mánica, shpirt ‘spirit’ ← Lat. spī´ritus), or merge in */ə/ (Buz. sonëte, MoAlb. sonte ‘tonight’ < *so nate, varfër ‘poor’ ← Lat. όrfanus, tjetër ‘other’ < *te-étero-, upeshkëp ‘priest’ ← Lat. episcopus, kundër ‘against’ ← Lat. contrā). d. Word-final vowels in MoAlb. which reflect pre-Slavic final sequences are -i, -u, -ë, -e, -a; the vowel -o occurs only in borrowings from Slavic, Italian, etc. The PAlb. word-final vowels which could occur in unstressed position before their reduction to *-ə or loss probably included *-a, *-i, and perhaps *-e, but the form of many nominal and verbal endings is too unclear to give a reliable overview of the system. The only certain information is provided by i-mutation and a-mutation, and by palatalization of word-final consonants in certain morphological categories (the m.pl., the aorist and imperfect). The data suggest that Latin nouns and adjectives were mostly adopted in their accusative form, and, similarly, inherited stock from PIE has sometimes been

1738

XV. Albanian preserved in the form of the acc.sg. or pl. But in some endings the nominative form apparently won out, as shown by the nom.pl. with palatalization and i-mutation.

A selected number of endings can be traced back to inflectional endings of Early PAlb., PIE, and Latin: zero < PIE -V#, -Vs, Lat. -us; PIE *-oi (or -ī ?) -ë < Lat. -a, PPAlb. *-a [sg.f.], PPAlb. *-a(:)m [sg.n., f.], *-ans [acc.pl.m.], *-a(:)(n)s [nom./acc.pl.f.]; ← Lat. -e(m), -um, Gr. -on (mollë ‘apple’ ← Gr. mãlon), Ital. -o (pjatë ‘plate’ ← Ital. piatto), Slav. -o (karrutë ‘fermenter’ ← Slav. *koryto ‘trough’, sanë ‘hay’ ← Slav. *sěno) -e < PPAlb. *-ja [sg.f.], [pl.n/f.], *-jas [gen.sg.f.]? -a < *-a-ja (cf. Kortlandt 1987: 225; Topalli 1995: 279) [nom.sg.f. def.] -i < *-ís / *éi (originally stressed; in the def. art. m.sg.) -u < -i after velars

2.3. From PPAlb. to PIE The short vowels of PPAlb.: i u e a

Origins: PPAlb. *i

Long vowels: i: ?e:

u:

Diphthongs: ai au

o: a:

< PIE *i (lig ‘bad, ill’, bind ‘convince’, mbi ‘on’, ndih ‘to help’) < PIE zero/r̥_ (dritë ‘light’, trim ‘strong’) PPAlb. *e < PIE *(h1 )e (mbledh ‘to gather’, pesë ‘five’, pjek ‘to cook’, jashtë ‘outside’, vit ‘year’, diell ‘sun’) PPAlb. *a < PIE *(H)o (natë ‘night’, asht[ë] ‘bone’, gjak ‘blood’, zë, G. zã ‘voice’) < PIE *h2 e (athët ‘bitter’) < PIE *RHV (parë ‘first’) < PIE *h2 -, *h3- /_R- (arë ‘field, emër ‘name’ < *h3n̥h3-mn̥) < PIE *H/C_C (thënë ‘said’, bëj, G. bãn ‘to do, make’ < *bh2 -n-, kap ‘to seize’) < PIE *H/CR_C (plak ‘old’ < *plHko-, OAlb. glatë ‘long’, bredh ‘fir’; cf. Schumacher 2007: 229) < PIE *m̥ (shtatë ‘seven’ < *septm ´̥ to-) < PIE *n̥ (mat ‘bank’ if from *mn̥to- ‘elevation’; e-sëll ‘sober’ < *a- < privative *n̥- plus *sillë ‘breakfast’) < PIE zero / C_C (madh ‘big’ < *m̥g̑-, though Schumacher 2013: 238 suspects paradigmatic leveling between *medʝ- < *meg̑- and *adʝ- < *m̥g̑-) PPAlb. *u < PIE *u (gjumë ‘sleep’, dru ‘wood’, shtyn ‘to thrust’) < PIE *u-/#_LT- (ujk ‘wolf’ < *ulkwo-, Schumacher 2013: 229) PPAlb. *ī < PIE *iH (tri [f.] ‘three’, pi ‘to drink’, ditë ‘day’) < ?PIE *ei, *h1 ei, *eh1 i (dimër ‘winter’, ikën ‘to go’ − but these could also have single *i) PPAlb.*ē < ?PIE *eu, *h1 eu, *eh1 u (nëndë, Geg nãndë ‘nine’, hedh ‘to throw’, len ‘to be born’; cf. Hock 2005: 265, fn. 11; Matzinger 2006: 57). Alterna-

95. The phonology of Albanian

PPAlb. *ā

PPAlb. *ō PPAlb. *ū PPAlb. *ai PPAlb. *au

1739

tively, the PIE eu-diphthongs yielded PPAlb. *au > PAlb. *a, whence the nasalized vowel in Geg nãndë, and with i-mutation of *a the verbs hedh and len (Schumacher 2013: 228). ← OGr. loanwords (shpellë ‘cave’ ← spēlaion) < PIE *ē, *eh1 (zot ‘Lord’, mot ‘weather’, mos ‘not’, plotë ‘full’; aor. -o-) < PIE *eh2 (motër ‘sister’, shton ‘to add’) < PIE *-as- and *-es-/_l,n,r (krua ‘spring, fountain’ < *k̑rh2 (e)s-n-, dorë ‘hand’ < *g̑ hesr-) ← OGr. *ā (mokër ‘millstone’ ← Doric *mākhānā) < PIE *ō, *oH, *eh3 (tetë ‘eight’, pelë ‘mare’, derë ‘door’, blerë ‘green’, ngjesh ‘to gird’) < PIE *uH (mi ‘mouse’, thi ‘pig’, ti ‘you’, gjysh ‘grandfather’) < PIE *-us-/_l,r (yll ‘star’) < PIE *oi (shteg ‘path, Geg ve˜në ‘wine’) < PIE *h2/3ei, *eh2/3i (edh ‘kid’, [h]ethe ‘fever’) < PIE *ou (desh ‘wanted’ [aor.], lashtë ‘old’?) < *h2/3eu, *eh2/3u (pron. atë ‘s/he’ [acc.], ajo ‘she [nom.]’ < PIE *h2 eu-, than ‘to dry’, qan ‘to weep’, ag ‘dawn’)

3. Resonants 3.1. From MoAlb. to PAlb. The resonants of MoAlb. m

n l r

ɲ ɫ r:

Origins: MoAlb. m < PAlb. *m < PAlb. *β/_VN$ (mëngjill/ vëngjill ‘vigil’ ← Lat. vigilia, mëshikë ‘bubble, blister, bladder’ ← Lat. vē(n)sīca ‘bladder’, cf. Orel 2000: 55) MoAlb. n < PAlb. *n (except intervocalic *n) < PAlb. *n: < PAlb. *nd MoAlb. ɲ < PAlb. *ɲ MoAlb. l < PAlb. *l MoAlb. ɫ < PAlb. *l: MoAlb. r < PAlb. *r Tosk r < PAlb. < *n/V_V (rërë ‘sand’, Geg rãnë ‘sand’ ← Lat. arēna, gjiri ‘the breast’, Tosk armik ‘enemy’ ← Lat. inimīcus; dated between 800−1000 CE, Janson 1986: 190−211) MoAlb. r: < PAlb. *r: < PAlb. *-rn- (zorrë ‘intestine’; ferr ‘hell’ ← Lat. infernum; post-Slavic, Janson 1986: 97 f.)

1740

XV. Albanian

3.2. From PAlb. to PPAlb. The resonants of PAlb. m

Origins: PAlb. *m PAlb. *n PAlb. *n:

PAlb. *ɲ

PAlb. *l

PAlb. *l:

PAlb. *ʎ

PAlb. *r

PAlb. *r:

n l r

n: l: r:

ɲ ʎ

< PPAlb. *m ← Lat. m < PPAlb. *n ← Lat. n < PPAlb. *-Tn- (lënë ‘let’) < PPAlb. *-Kn< PPAlb. *-sn- (thënë ‘said’ < PPAlb. *ʨasno- < *k̑h1 s-no-) < PPAlb. *-nd< PPAlb. *-nt- (3pl., acc.sg.) in posttonic syllable (?) or retention of the cluster (Janson 1986: 96, 154) < PPAlb. *nj (bëj ‘I make’, mëdhenj ‘big’ [m.pl.]) < PPAlb. and Lat. *gn-, *-gn- (njoh ‘know’ < *g̑n̥h3-sk̑-, Schumacher 2013: 231; shenjë ‘sign’ ← Lat. insignia and signum, Bonnet 1998: 188) ← Lat. ni, ne/_V (gështenjë ‘chestnut’ ← castanea, linjë ‘line’ ← līnea, kunj ‘peg’ ← cuneus) ← Lat. *-ng(u)-/_V[+front] (njilë ‘eel’ ← anguilla; Bonnet 1998: 188) < PPAlb. *ln (diel ‘Sunday’ < acc. *diel-në, Bonnet 1998: 205) < PPAlb. *l/T_ and /_T (plot ‘full’, kulm ‘top’, OAlb. ulk ‘wolf’, OAlb. klān ‘to cry’, OAlb. glunjë ‘knees’) ← Lat. ll ← Lat. l< PPAlb. *l, *sl/V_V[−front] (kollë ‘cough’, yll ‘star’ < *h2 us-l- ‘spark’) < PPAlb. and Lat. *lR, *Rl (shtjell ‘to throw’ < *stel-[n]e/o-, gjallë ‘alive’ < *sólu̯o-; përrallë ‘tale, story’ ← Lat. parabola) ← Lat. l/V_V < PPAlb. *-l-/V_V[+front] < PPAlb. and Lat. *lj (shtijë ‘spear’ ← Lat. hastīlia, Arvan. biʎë ‘daughter’, miʎë ‘1000’) < PPAlb. *-rj- (Bonnet 1998: 208 ff.; Matzinger 2006: 74) < PPAlb. and Lat. -r- (arë ‘field’ < *h2 erh3-o/h2 -) < PPAlb. and Lat. *rC, *Cr (ter ‘to dry’ < *torsei̯ e-, sorrë ‘crow’ < *ʧornë < *kers-[e]n-) < PPAlb. and Lat. *r- (rreth, rrath ‘wheel; circle’, rrjedh ‘to flow’) < PPAlb. *wr- (rrënjë, Geg rrã[n]jë ‘root’ < *urad-n-, rrunjë ‘lamb’ < *urH-n-?) ← Lat. -rr- (turrë ‘pile’ ← turris)

95. The phonology of Albanian

1741

3.3. From PPAlb. to PIE The resonants of PPAlb. m

n l r

Origins: PPAlb. *m < PIE *m < PIE *Tm (gjumë ‘sleep’ < PIE *súpnos/m, Geg amë ‘smell’ < PIE *h3 e/od-m-) < PIE *sm (mjekër ‘chin, beard’ < *smek̑-[u]r, thom ‘I say’ < *k̑eh1 s-mi) < PIE *Pn (lumë ‘happy’ < *lub h-n/m-) PPAlb. *n < PIE *n PPAlb. *l < PIE *l PPAlb. *r < PIE *r

4. Obstruents 4.1. From MoAlb. back to PAlb. The obstruents of MoAlb. (Buchholz and Fiedler 1987: 37; similarly for Buzuku, cf. Fiedler 2004: 59.) p b

f v

θ ð

Origins: MoAlb. p MoAlb. b

MoAlb. t MoAlb. d MoAlb. c

t d ʦ ʣ s z

c ɟ ʧ ʤ ʃ ʒ j

k g

h

< PAlb. *p < PAlb. *b < PAlb. zero/m_# (shkëmb ‘rock’ ← Lat. scamnum, Bonnet 1998: 195) PAlb. zero/m_V[−stress] in Tosk (Bonnet 1998: 193) < PAlb. *t < PAlb. *d < PAlb. *c OAlb. kl- (quhet ‘is called’ < kluhet ; kishë, qishë ‘church’, qartë ‘clear’ ← Lat. clārus, shqa, shkla ‘Slav’ ← Lat. Sclavus, shqep ‘lame, limping’ ← Lat. *excloppus)

1742 MoAlb. ɟ

XV. Albanian

< PAlb. *ɟ < OAlb. gl- (gjuhë ‘tongue, language’ < gluhë; gjëndër ‘gland’ ← Lat. glandula, etc.) MoAlb. k < PAlb. *k < q < OAlb. kl-/_Vsh (këshyrë ‘mountain trail’ ← clausūra, kishë ‘church’) MoAlb. g < PAlb. *g MoAlb. ʦ < OAlb. clusters d+s, d+th; loanwords MoAlb. ʣ < PAlb. z/ n_ (rënxon ‘to cause a hernia’, nxë, Geg nxã ‘to take’ < *n-zë) MoAlb. ʧ < OAlb. sh/_C (çmon ‘to estimate’ < *shmoj ← Lat. aestimāre) < PAlb. *d(ë) + sh(q)- (çan ‘to split, cleave’ besides shan, çjerr ‘to tear up’ besides shqerr ‘to tear’) < OAlb. q- (çimkë, qimkë ‘bug’, që, çë ‘that, which’) ← loanwords MoAlb. ʤ ← loanwords from Italian, Turkish MoAlb. f < PAlb. h (dial. njef < njeh ‘knows’) < PAlb. *θ (Geg ufull, Tosk uthull ‘vinegar’; fjeshtër / thjeshtër ‘stepson’ ← Lat. fīliaster) OAlb. f < PAlb. *θ-/ C_ (OAlb. rrëfyen ‘to tell’ < *rrë-θyen < *rrë-θø̄:n to thom; OAlb. ënfle ‘to sleep’ < *n-θle < *k̑loi̯ -eie-, Matzinger 2006: 71) MoAlb. v < PAlb. *β MoAlb. θ < PAlb. *θ MoAlb. ð < PAlb. *ð MoAlb. s < PAlb. *s PAlb. *-z# (mes ‘middle’ ← Lat. medius) ← Slav. ç (porosit ‘to request’, sul ‘small boat’, Svane 1992: 88) MoAlb. z < PAlb. *z MoAlb. ʃ < PAlb. *ʃ ← Slav. s (krashit ‘to prune’, leshë ‘wickerwork’, shuk ‘globe’; Svane 1992: 292) MoAlb. ʒ < PAlb. *ʃ (zhur, shur ‘sand’ ← Lat. saburra) < PAb. ʃ- in zh- ‘un, dis-’ /_C[+voiced] (zh-bën ‘to undo’, zh-duk ‘destroy’) MoAlb. j < PAlb. *j PAlb. *ʎ PAlb. *l/_k (bujk, bulk ‘peasant’, ujk ‘wolf’; fajkua ‘falcon’ ← Lat. falcō) PAlb. *l in the f. suffix *-ëlë (vdekje ‘death’ < vdekëlë, Topalli 1995: 250) PAlb. *ɲ often between vowels and in final position PAlb. *c, *ɟ, *ɲ/_ C (OGeg aor. 3pl. hojnë [< *hoq-në] ‘they took’, zojtë [< *zogj-të] ‘the birds’, aor. 3sg. bûjti [< *bunj-ti] ‘spend the night’; cf. Schumacher 2013: 275−76) MoAlb. h < PAlb. *h PAlb. #V- (hark ‘curve’, harmëshor ‘stud horse’, harron ‘to forget’, herë ‘time’, etc., Orel 2000: 107)

95. The phonology of Albanian

1743

4.2. From PAlb. back to PPAlb. The obstruents of PAlb. p b

f β

Origins: PAlb. *p

PAlb. *b

PAlb. *t

PAlb. *d

PAlb. *c

PAlb. *ɟ

PAlb. *k

θ ð

t d ʦ ʣ s z

c ɟ ʧ ʤ ʃ (ʒ) j

k g

h

< PPAlb. *p ← Lat. p (pak ‘little’ ← paucus, prind ‘parent’ ← parentem, turp ‘shame’ ← turpis) < PPAlb. *b < PPAlb. m-/_l (bluan ‘to grind’ < *mleh1 -, bletë ‘bee’ < *m[e]lit-?) ← Lat. b (bishë ‘wild animal’ ← bēstia, bukë ‘bread’ ← bucca, gjelbër ‘green’) ← Lat. w/l,r_ (korb ‘raven’ ← corvus, shërben ‘to serve’ ← servīre, shëlbon ‘to save’ ← salvāre) < Lat. p/m_ (shembull ‘example’ ← exemplum, mbret ‘king’ ← imperātor) < PPAlb. *t ← Lat. t (shëndet ‘health’, qetë ‘quiet’ ← quiētus, kultër ‘cushion’ ← culcitra) < PPAlb. *d < PPAlb., Lat. *t/n_ in a pretonic or stressed syllable (dhëndër ‘bridegroom’, ndjek ‘to follow’; Ndue ‘Anthony’, kundër ‘against’, ndëgjon ‘to hear’ ← Lat. intellegere; cf. Matzinger 2006: 74 f.) ← Lat. d (denjë ‘worth’ ← dignus, dëm, dam ‘damage’) < PPAlb. *k, Lat. c, qu/_i,e,ae,y (pleq ‘old men’, qeth ‘to cut’; qetë ‘quiet’, qind ‘hundred’, iriq ‘hedgehog’ ← Lat. ērīcius, faqe ‘face’, qiell ‘sky’, qelq ‘glass’, qen ‘dog’ ← Lat. canem) < PPAlb. *ʒ< PPAlb. *j before a stressed vowel (n-gjesh ‘to squeeze’) < PPAlb. *g, Lat. g(u)/_i,e,y (gjet- ‘found’ < PIE *g hed-; grigj ‘flock’, shëgjetë, shigjetë ‘arrow’ ← Lat. sagitta, gjind ‘people’ ← Lat. gentem, ngjyen ‘to dye’ ← Lat. unguere, ungjill ‘gospel’) ← Lat. i- (gjymtyrë ‘limb’ ← iūnctūra, [për]gjëron ‘to beseech’ ← iūrāre) ← Lat. -c(u)l- (ungj ‘uncle’ ← avunculus, sheqe ‘sickle’ ← sic[u]la < situla) < PPAlb. *k ← Lat. c, qu/_C,a,o,u (kërkon ‘to search’ ← *circāre, kreshmë ‘Lent’ ← quadrāgēsima, kuq ‘red’ ← cocceus; qëron ‘to clear away’ ← quaerere, katër ‘four’ ← quattuor, ndrikullë ‘godmother’ ← matricula, kë- in deictic pronouns ← Lat. eccum)

1744 PAlb. *g

PAlb. *f

PAlb. *β

PAlb. *θ PAlb. *ð

PAlb. *s

PAlb. *z

PAlb. *ʃ

PAlb. *h PAlb. *j

XV. Albanian < PPAlb. *g ← Lat. g(u)/_C,a,o,u (grigj ‘flock’, gusht ‘August’, dërgon ‘to send’ ← dirigere; lëngon ‘to pine away’ ← languēre, ngënjen ‘to deceive’ ← ingannāre) ← Lat. c/n_ (mëngë ‘sleeve’ ← man[i]ca, mëngon ‘to get up early’ ← manicāre, tingë ‘tench’ ← tinca, këngë ‘song’ ← cantica) < PPAlb. *f ← Lat. f (fëmijë ‘child’, tërfurk ‘hayfork’ ← triforca) ← Lat. p/_t (aftë ‘suitable’, prift ‘priest’ ← *praebiter) ← Lat. k/_s (kofshë ‘hip’, lafshë ‘crest’ ← laxa) ← Lat. k/_t, esp. initially and after back-vowels (ftua ‘quince’ ← cotōneus, luftë ‘battle’ ← lucta, troftë ‘trout’ ← tructa, dëfton, dial. difton ‘to show’ ← digitāre?, gjymtyrë ‘limb’ < *gjymftyrë) ← Lat. w/_C[−voice] (fqi ‘neighbor’ ← vīcīnus, fton ‘invite’ ← invītāre) ← Lat. w- (ves ‘vice’ ← vitium, verdhë ‘yellow’ ← viridis, vjetër ‘old’ ← veterem) < zero/_PPAlb. *ā-, /_Lat. ō-. Without i-mutation in vote ‘he went’; ve, NW-Geg vø, OAlb. *voë [cf. Fiedler 2004: 52] ‘egg’ ← Lat. ōva; vaj, Old Geg voj ‘oil’ ← oleum. With i-mutation in vesh ‘ear’; verbër ‘blind person’ ← Lat. orbus, vepër ‘deed’ ← Lat. opera [ō? cf. Sp. obra, not *uebra]; cf. Bonnet (1998: 77); Matzinger (2006: 76); Schumacher (2013: 254). < PPAlb. *ʨ < PPAlb. *dʝ < PPAlb. *d/r_, _# (pjerdh ‘to fart’, gardh ‘fence’ < *g hord[h]o-, h[j]edh ‘to throw’ < *skeD-) [after the loss of intervocalic Lat. d] < PPAlb. *d/V_V (dha ‘gave’, after the augment or preverbs; lodhet ‘to be tired’ < *leh1 d-) ← Lat. d/r_ (shurdhër ‘deaf’ ← surdus, verdhë ‘yellow’) < PPAlb. *ʧ ← Lat. tj (mars ‘March’ ← Martius, pus ‘well’ ← puteus, ves ‘vice’ ← vitium, pëson ‘to endure’ ← patior) < PPAlb. *ʤ ← Lat. z (pagëzon ‘to baptize’ ← baptizāre. Bonnet 1998: 353) ← Lat. dj (zanë ‘mountain fairy’ ← Diāna, gaz ‘joy’) < PPAlb. *ʃ ← Lat. s (shurdh ‘deaf’, këmishë ‘shirt’ ← camīsia, shkëmb ‘rock’, gusht ‘August’, fushë ‘plain’ ← fossa, peshë ‘weight’ ← pēnsum, ishull ‘island’) ← OGr. s (presh ‘leek’ ← Gr. prason) ← Slavic s in the oldest loanwords (grusht ‘fist’, shkrap ‘scorpion’) < PPAlb. *x < PPAlb. *j before an originally unstressed vowel (a-jo, kë-jo ‘she’ < PIE *i/ei̯ éh2 , ju ‘you’ [pl.] < *iu) < *ð < PPAlb. *d/V_V (ujë ‘water’; aor. -jt-) ← Lat. k/_t, originally perhaps conditioned by preceding or following front vowels and a (kujton ‘to think’ < *kokto- ← cogitāre, drejt

95. The phonology of Albanian

1745

‘straight’ ← directus, pajton ‘to reconcile’ ← pactāre, shenjtë ‘holy’ ← sanctus) < zero /_*e (ep/jep ‘gives’, jashtë ‘outside’, t-jetër ‘other’) PAlb. zero ← Lat. w/V_V (qytet ‘city’ ← cīvitātem, njerkë ‘stepmother’ ← noverca) ← Lat. b/V_V (buall ‘buffalo’ ← bubalus, djall ‘devil’ ← diabolus, lirë ‘free’ ← liber, kut ‘elbow’) ← Lat. b/_r (via *β) (farkë ‘smithy’ ← fabrica, OGeg fëruor ‘February’ ← februārius, kushëri ‘cousin’ ← cōnsobrīnus, harron ‘to forget’ ← aberrāre?) < *ð ← Lat. d/V_V (gjyq ‘trial’ ← iūdicium, bekon ‘to bless’ ← benedicāre, mjek ‘doctor’ ← medicus, fe ‘belief’ ← fidem). Exceptions such as adhëron ‘to adore’ ← adorāre (Bonnet 1998: 169) may have been borrowed from a later variety of Romance.

4.3. From PPAlb. back to PIE The obstruents of PPAlb. p b

t d

k g ʨ dʝ

f β

j

ʧ ʤ ʃ ʒ

x

Origins: PPAlb. *p < PIE *p (plotë ‘full’, pesë ‘five’, gjalpë ‘butter’, shtyp ‘to press’, [j]ep ‘gives’, pi ‘to drink’) < PIE *b(h)/_# (lyp ‘to ask for’ < *lub[h]-) PPAlb. *b < PIE *b(h) (bie ‘carries’, gjerb ‘to sip’, bardhë ‘white’, blertë ‘green’ < *b hloh1 -ro-?, dhemb ‘to hurt’ < *g̑emb h-). The fate of *b(h)/V_V is disputed: det, dial. dēt ‘sea’ is often explained as *deub-eto- ‘depth’, but this is basically a guess. Schumacher (2013: 233) also rejects the etymology. PPAlb. *t < PIE *t (motër ‘sister’, vit ‘year’, mot ‘time’, tre ‘three’) PPAlb. *d < PIE *d(h)/#_, n_ (dy ‘two’, darkë ‘evening meal’, derë ‘door’, djeg ‘to burn’, d[ë]- ‘apart, away’ < *dwi-; bind ‘to convince’ < *b hi-n-d h-). < PIE *g̑ h/#_ (dorë ‘hand’ < *g̑ hesr-, dimër ‘winter’, derr ‘pig’) < PIE *su̯/_V[+stress] (diell ‘sun’ < *su̯él-, dergjem ‘am ill’ < *su̯órg h-, dirsë ‘sweat’) PPAlb. *k < PIE *k̑/_R (quaj ‘to call’ [√k̑leu̯], mjekër ‘beard’) < PIE *k (kohë ‘time’, nduk ‘to pinch’ < *-duk-, kap ‘to grab’) < PIE *kw/_C,a,o,u,# (kush ‘who’, pjek ‘to bake’, ujk ‘wolf’, ndjek ‘to follow’, krimb ‘worm’, kam, ka ‘to have’) PPAlb. *g < PIE *g̑/_R (gju, OAlb. glu ‘knee’) < PIE *g̑ h/n_ (ankth ‘nightmare’) < PIE *g(h) (gardh ‘fence’, ag ‘dawn’, lig ‘weak, ill’, shteg ‘path’)

1746

PPAlb. *ʨ PPAlb. *dʝ

PPAlb. *ʧ

PPAlb. *ʤ

PPAlb. *f PPAlb. *β PPAlb. *ʃ

PPAlb. *ʒ PPAlb. *x PPAlb. *j PPAlb. zero

XV. Albanian < PIE *gw(h)/_C,a,o,u,# (ngroh ‘to warm’ < *n-gwhreh1 -, djeg ‘to burn’, gur ‘stone’) < PIE *k̑ (thom ‘I say’ < *k̑eh1 s-, thërí ‘nit’, athët ‘bitter’, thjerr[ë] ‘lentil’) < PIE *s (dissimilation before -Vs-: thi ‘pig’ < *suHs, thaj ‘to dry’ < *sou̯s-) < PIE *g̑ (dhëmb ‘tooth’, dhëndër ‘son-in-law’, edh ‘goat’, mbledh ‘to collect’, madh ‘big’; dhallë ‘buttermilk’?) < PIE *-g̑ h- (udhë ‘road’, erdh ‘s/he came’, vjedh ‘to steal’) < PIE *d hg̑ h- (dhe ‘earth’) < PIE *ti̯ (mas/t ‘to measure’, flas/flet ‘to speak’, etc.; sot ‘today’, sonte ‘tonight’, sivjet ‘this year’ < *tio-, abl. pl. kë-si, kë-so ‘these [m., f.]’ < -ti-; cf. Kortlandt 1987: 223) < PIE *k(w)/_ i̯ , i, ī, e, ē (sjell ‘to bring’ < *kwel-, sy ‘eye’, si ‘how’ < *kwih1 , pesë ‘five’, ndër-sej ‘to set on, incite’ Old Albanian farë) and the original consonant stem *nakt- ‘night’: acc. sg. *phar-an : nom. sg. *phar-ā = acc. sg. *nakt-an (< PIE *noku̯t-m̥) : nom. sg. X 0 *nakt-ā (> Old Albanian natë ‘night’).

1752

XV. Albanian

Every Albanian noun has two stems (a singular stem and a plural stem), to which the respective case endings are attached. The formation of the plural stem is complex (for Modern Standard Albanian, see Fiedler 2007). Basically, there are at least eight different ways of deriving the plural stem: (i) zero plural, i.e. both stems are identical (e.g. sg. farë ‘seed’ − pl. farë; sg. lule ‘flower’ − pl. lule [Bogdani]); (ii) vowel change (e.g. sg. anë ‘direction’ − pl. enë); (iii) vowel change plus deletion of a final vowel (e.g. sg. natë ‘night’ − pl. net); (iv) palatalization (e.g. sg. zog ‘bird’ − pl. zogj); (v) a combination of vowel change and palatalization (e.g. sg. plak ‘old man’ − pl. pleq); (vi) addition of a plural ending (e.g. sg. prift ‘priest’ − pl. priftënë); (vii) a combination of vowel change and the addition of a plural ending (e.g. sg. ashtë ‘bone’ − pl. eshtëna); (viii) a combination of vowel change, palatalization and the addition of a plural ending (e.g. sg. breg ‘river bank’ − pl. brigje [Bogdani]). In rare cases, plural formation is accompanied by rightward accent shift (e.g. gjárpënë ‘snake’ − pl. gjërpánjë). There are also plurals that do not match these patterns (e.g. sg. gruo ‘woman’ − pl. grā; sg. njerī´ ‘person’ − pl. njérëz, with leftward accent shift), and a few suppletive plurals, e.g. sg. vend ‘place’ − pl. vise. Patterns (i)−(v) reflect various PIE plural nominatives, e.g. farë < PIE *sporah2as; net < PIE *noku̯t-es. In masculines, umlaut and palatalization of the final consonant reflect PIE pronominal *-oi̯ > Proto-Albanian *-ai > *-i, as in pleq < Proto-Albanian *plak-ai. The endings occurring in patterns (v)−(viii) also reflect PIE plural nominatives, e.g. -ënë < PIE *-e/on-es, -e < PIE *-e/ou̯-es (for their prehistory see Matzinger 2006: 101−103, and Matzinger 2007).

Tab. 96.1: Paradigm of the indefinite masculine/neuter inflection. singular

plural

case

morpheme

m./n.

morpheme

m./n.

nom.

-:

shpīrt, gjak, ujë

-:

miq, kusarë

acc.

-:

shpīrt, gjak, ujë

-:

miq, shërbëtorë

gen.-dat.

-i, -u

shpīrti, gjaku, uji

-(v)e

miqe, kusarëve

abl.

-i, -u

shpīrti, gjaku, uji

-sh

miqsh, kusarësh

inst.

-:

shpīrt, gjak, ujë

-:

miq

Tab. 96.2: Paradigm of the definite masculine/neuter inflection, i.e. with postposed definite article. singular

plural

case

morpheme

m.

n.

morpheme

m./n.

nom.

m. -i/-u, n. -të

mali, gjaku

ujëtë

-të

miqtë

acc.

m. -në, n. -të

malnë, gjaknë

ujëtë

-të

miqtë, shërbëtorëtë

gen.-dat.

-it/-ut

malit, gjakut

ujit

-(v)et

miqet, shërbëtorëvet

abl.

-it/-ut

malit, gjakut

ujit

-shit

shërbëtorëshit

inst.

-t

malt, gjakt

ujët

-t

shërbëtorët

96. The morphology of Albanian

1753

Tab. 96.3: Paradigm of the indefinite feminine inflection. singular

plural

nom.

-:

farë

-:

farë

acc.

-:

farë

-:

farë

gen.-dat.

-e

fare

-ve

farëve

abl.

-e

fare

-sh

farësh

inst.

-:

farë

-:

farë

Example: farë (plural stem farë) ‘seed’. Note that when endings are attached to the singular stem a final -ë is dropped, hence e.g. gen.-dat. far-e to the nom. farë.

Tab. 96.4: Paradigm of the definite feminine inflection, i.e. with postposed definite article. singular

plural

nom.

-a

fara

-të

farëtë

acc.

-në

farënë

-të

farëtë

gen.-dat.

-së

farësë

-vet

farëvet

abl.

-et

faret

-shit

farëshit

inst.

-t

farët

-t

farët

Note that in the nom. sg. the def. article -a replaces a final -ë, similarly abl. sg. -et.

Tab. 96.5: Singular paradigm of the feminine qytet inflection. indefinite sg.

definite sg.

nom.

-:

qytet, gjind, gjeth

-ja

qytetja, gjindja, gjethja

acc.

-:

qytet, gjind

-në

qytetnë, gjindnë, gjethnë

gen.-dat.

-je

qytetje, gjindje

-së

qytetsë, gjindsë

abl.

-je

qytetje, gjindje

-jet

qytetjet, gjindjet

inst.

-:

qytet, gjind

-t

qytet < /qytet-t/, gjint, gjetht

Examples: qytet ‘town’, gjind ‘folk’ (< Lat. nom. sg. *gentis), gjeth ‘leaf, foliage’ (< PIE *gu̯osdis).

All examples in the tables are taken from Old Geg authors: shpīrt ‘spirit’, gjak ‘blood’, mal ‘mountain’, mik (plural stem miq) ‘friend’, kusār (plural stem kusarë) ‘thief’, shërbëtuor (plural stem shërbëtorë) ‘servant’. For the neuter, ujë ‘water’. Note that when endings are attached to the singular stem a final -ë is dropped, hence e.g. gen.-dat. uj-i to the nom. ujë. In the plural, the gen.-dat. ending is -ve only if the plural stem ends in a vowel. The same applies to the corresponding definite -(v)et. For the masculine/neuter inflection, see Tables 96.1, 96.2. For the predominant feminine inflection, see Tables 96.3, 96.4. There are also feminines with indefinite singular

1754

XV. Albanian

nominatives in -e and in -ī. Apart from that, there are also feminine nouns with a consonantal final, which go back to PIE and Proto-Albanian i-stems (e.g. Mat, the name of a central Albanian highland, attested in antiquity as Mathis < *mn̥-ti-, cf. Lat. mōns) as well as to loanwords from Latin (e.g. qytet ‘town’ < Lat. nom. sg. *cīvitātis, reshaped from classical cīvitās); see Klingenschmitt (2004: 225), for a list see Topalli (2011: 332− 334). The original i-stem inflection is reflected by the ending of the definite nom. sg. -ja < *°i +a and evidenced by umlaut e < *a (-tet < Proto-Albanian *-tatih; gjeth < *gadih < PIE *gu̯osdis). In Modern Standard Albanian, these nouns have become masculines, hence nom. sg. qyteti.

2.2. Adjectives and adverbs There are two classes of adjectives in Albanian: (i) the so-called articulated adjectives, which bear an inflected proclitic element that, like the definite article, goes back to PIE *so-/to- (and is often called an “adjective article”) but has nothing to do with definiteness and is a mere word-class marker, e.g. (i) mirë ‘good’; (ii) the non-articulated adjectives, which closely resemble nouns; many adjectives of this class are overtly derived, e.g. kurv-ār ‘adulterous’ from kurvë ‘whore’. On the adjective system of Modern Standard Albanian, see Newmark, Hubbard, and Prifti (1982: 179−209) and Buchholz and Fiedler (1987: 314−348). The inflection of adjectives differs from the inflection of nouns in various ways. With articulated adjectives, the proclitic element is fully marked for gender, case, and number, e.g. nom. sg. m. shërbëtori i mirë ‘the good servant’, nom. sg. f. pema e mirë ‘the good fruit’ [Budi], nom. sg. n. drithë të mirë ‘good grain’, acc. sg. f. venënë e mirë ‘the good wine’, acc. pl. f. ditë e mira ‘the good days’ (cf. Newmark, Hubbard, and Prifti 1982: 181). However, the adjectives themselves are not marked for case (except if they are attributive adjectives preceding the noun they qualify; see below); they can only be marked for number, as in ditë e mira (with plural marker /-a/ in mira), and some (such as [i] madh ‘big, great’) are also marked for gender, e.g. nom. sg. m. njerī i madh ‘a great man’, nom. sg. f. qytet e madhe ‘a big town’, nom. pl. m. njerëz të mëdhenj ‘great men’ [Budi], acc. pl. f. kafshë të mëdhā ‘great things’. Non-articulated adjectives are marked for gender, e.g. nom. sg. m. engjëlli shtrazëtār ‘the guardian angel’ [Bogdani] vs. nom. sg. f. fara kurvare ‘the adulterous generation’ (with feminine ending -e), and partly for number, e.g. nom. pl. m. engjītë shtrazëtarë ‘the guardian angels’ [Budi]. The aforementioned rules apply to predicative adjectives as well as to attributive adjectives following the noun they qualify. If, however, an attributive adjective precedes its referent, it is fully inflected (including the postposed article, if the noun phrase is definite), while the following noun is only marked for number but not otherwise inflected. Even in this context, articulated adjectives retain their prefix, which is fully inflected, e.g. nom. sg. f. indef. një e madhe ushtërī ‘a big army’, nom. sg. m. def. i madhi zot ‘the Great Lord’, nom. pl. m. def. të mëdhejntë priftënë ‘the chief priests’. Substantivized articulated adjectives are also inflected this way, e.g. inst. pl. m. def. përëmbī të mirët e përëmbī të këqīt ‘on the just and on the unjust’ (të mirë, pl. m. of i mirë ‘good’; të këqī, pl. m. of i keq ‘bad’). By contrast, non-articulated adjectives inflect exactly like nouns,

96. The morphology of Albanian

1755

e.g. nom. pl. def. shenjtitë patriarkë ‘the Holy Patriarchs’; in their substantivized form, they are indistinguishable from nouns, e.g. nom. pl. m. def. shenjtitë ‘the Saints’. Gradation of adjectives is expressed analytically using the particle mã ‘more’ (< Proto-Albanian *maihana-, cf. Proto-Germanic *maizan- ‘more’). In the comparative, mã is simply placed in front of the adjective, e.g. mã i madh ‘bigger, greater’. The reference term to which comparison is made is introduced by the particle se, e.g. a mundë jēsh ti mã i madh se përindi ynë Abraami ‘can you be greater than our father Abraham?’ The superlative is distinguished from the comparative by the fact that the adjective itself always bears the postposed definite article, e.g. E kȳ anshtë i pari e mã i madhi ordhënë ‘and this is the first and the greatest commandment’; Mjeshtrë i silli anshtë ordhëni i ligjsë mã i madhi? ‘Master, which is the greatest commandment of the Law?’ When forming adverbs, articulated adjectives simply drop the proclitic element, e.g. hinje sā mirë e desh ‘behold how well he loved him’. Gradation of adverbs is also expressed by mã, cf. a më do mã mirë se këta ‘do you love me more than these?’ There are no adverbial superlatives.

2.3. Pronouns Due to limitations of space, only a selection of pronouns can be given here. For a thorough presentation of the Modern Standard Albanian pronominal system, see Newmark, Hubbard, and Prifti (1982: 261−288) and Buchholz and Fiedler (1987: 274−314).

2.3.1. Personal pronouns The Old Albanian personal pronouns of the first and second persons continue the respective PIE pronouns. Here, reconstructions are given wherever the development is straightforward: Tab. 96.6: Personal pronouns of the first and second person. 1sg

2sg

1pl

2pl

nom.

u ← *eg̑(-)

ti < *tū

na < *nos

ju

acc.

muo < *mēm

tȳ < *tuu̯ēm

nē < *nōs

jū

dat.

= acc.

= acc.

neve

juve

abl.

meje

teje

nesh

jush

There is no genitive; possession is expressed by possessive pronouns (see 2.3.3). In the singular, the indirect object is expressed by the accusative, and in the plural by a case of its own, which is here labeled ‘dative’, because it can only be used for the indirect object but not for possession. The 1sg u continues Proto-Albanian *uȷ´(-) ← PIE *eg̑(-) with a vocalism reshaped after the 2sg (in other varieties of Albanian, an extended form u-në is used). The 2pl ju must go back to the same form as Old Avestan yūš, etc., but

1756

XV. Albanian

details are unclear. The forms of the abl. sg. and the dat. pl. have been created by analogy to the nominal inflection. A full diachronic discussion of the personal pronoun is found in Matzinger (1998); for the personal pronouns in Modern Standard Albanian, see Newmark, Hubbard, and Prifti (1982: 261−265) and Buchholz and Fiedler (1987: 274−281). Furthermore, there is a reflexive pronoun, which has one shape for all persons of sg. and pl.: dat. vetī, acc. vetëhenë, abl. vetëhej. All forms can be reduplicated: vetëvetī, vetëvetëhenë, vetëvetëhej. Ultimately, this pronoun is based on the same pronominal stem as the reflexive pronouns of Latin, Germanic, etc., but details are unclear (it is clear, though, that ve- continues PIE *su̯oi̯ -). For reference to the 3sg and 3pl, Albanian uses the demonstrative pronoun ai (see 2.3.4).

2.3.2. Object markers and the middle-voice marker There are also pronominal elements which go back to enclitic pronouns. Their forms are 1sg më (< *mē˘ and/or *moi̯ ), 2sg të (< *tu̯ē˘ and/or *tu̯oi̯ ), 1pl na (< *nos), and 2pl u (< *u̯os). Additionally, there are third-person forms, namely 3sg dat. i (< *[h1]esi̯ o and *[h1]esi̯ ah2s), 3sg acc. e (< Proto-Albanian *ii̯ an, cf. Latin eum, eam), 3pl dat. u (< *[h1]ei̯ soHom), 3pl acc. i (< *[h1]īms). As can be seen, these reflect various case forms of the PIE anaphoric pronoun *(h1)e-/(h1)ei̯ -, which is otherwise lost in Albanian (cf. Matzinger 2006: 108−109). Usually all these elements are described as clitic oblique pronouns. However, they are always accentually bound to the verb and cannot be placed elsewhere in the sentence. Moreover, the first- and second-person forms often co-occur with the direct-object and indirect-object pronouns mentioned in 2.3.1, and the thirdperson forms equally often co-occur with demonstratives and nouns functioning as direct and indirect objects, e.g. zot u tȳ të lus, ep-ja djalëtë e gjallë asaj ‘Lord, I beg you, give her the living child’. Here, të co-occurs with the direct object tȳ, and -ja (< i + e) cooccurs with the direct object djalëtë e gjallë ‘the living child’ and the indirect object asaj ‘to her’. This phenomenon is often referred to as ‘clitic doubling’, but it is preferable to describe these pronominal elements as verbal affixes, i.e. as agreement markers belonging to the verb. In other words, Albanian has a polypersonal verb which optionally marks direct and indirect objects. Accordingly, we will henceforth use the term ‘object markers’ for these items. Similarly, enclitic forms of the inherited reflexive pronoun have turned into the verbal affix u marking middle voice (u < *su̯ē˘ and/or *su̯oi̯ , see 3.3).

2.3.3. Possessive pronouns Old Albanian has fully inflected possessive pronouns for the first and second persons (the third-person possessives are genitives of the demonstrative pronoun ai, see 2.3.4). The singular possessive pronouns are univerbations of the preposed definite article and a possessive adjective: 1sg nom. sg. m. em, f. eme, n. tem (< *hʉh-/hā-/tad- + *mii̯ a-, cf. Lat. meus); 2sg nom. sg. m. yt, f. jote, n. tat (< *hʉh-/hā-/tad- + *tV-; the vocalism of the possessive adjective proper is difficult to reconstruct). By contrast, in the plural

96. The morphology of Albanian

1757

possessive pronouns the preposed definite article is univerbated with enclitic pronouns: 1pl nom. sg. m. ynë, f. jonë, n. tanë (< *hʉh-/hā-/tad- + *nah); 2pl nom. sg. m. ȳj, f. juoj, n. tāj ‘your’ (< *hʉh-/hā-/tad- + *i̯ uh). As can be guessed, the underlying 1pl enclitic *nah directly continues PIE *nos, while the shape of underlying 2pl enclitic *i̯ uh was heavily influenced by the nominative (Old Albanian ju, see 2.3.1). For an overview of the paradigms attested in Buzuku, see Demiraj (1986: 481−484), and some diachronic remarks are given in Matzinger (2006: 111). Possessive pronouns usually follow their referent, which appears with the definite article, e.g. bīri em i dashuni ‘my beloved son’, fēja jote ‘thy faith’. When connected with kinship terms (e.g. atë ‘father’, amë ‘mother’, etc.) and with zot ‘God, Lord’, the possessive pronouns usually precede the noun, which here bears no definite article, e.g. em atë ‘my father’. There is also a third-person possessive pronoun i, which is restricted to kinship terms; here, the kinship term must have the definite article, e.g. i ati ‘his/her/their father’, e ama ‘his/her/their mother’. This pronoun goes back to the singular genitives of the PIE anaphoric pronoun (*[h1]esi̯ o and *[h1]esi̯ ah2s) but is inflected like the proclitic element of articulated adjectives (see 2.2); it does not specify gender, number, and case of the possessor but those of the possessed. Finally, Old Albanian has a reflexive possessive pronoun (i) vet for the third person, e.g. e ëngriti Mojzeu dorënë e vet e rā gūrit me portekët të vet dȳ herrë ‘and Moses raised his hand and hit the stone twice with his staff’. This is clearly related to the Old Albanian reflexive pronoun (cf. 2.3.1). For possessive pronouns in Modern Standard Albanian, see Newmark, Hubbard, and Prifti (1982: 268−275) and Buchholz and Fiedler (1987: 284−292).

2.3.4. Demonstrative pronouns Old Albanian has two demonstratives, both fully inflected: proximal kȳ m., këjo f., këta n. ‘this’ and distal ai m., ajo f., ata n. ‘that, he/she’. They can appear on their own or with a referent; they usually precede their referent, which rarely bears the definite article (e.g. kȳ nierī or kȳ nieriu, both ‘this man’). The distal pronoun ai, etc. also serves as a third-person personal pronoun. Both demonstratives are compounds with PIE *so-/to- as their second member (which in its uncompounded form has furnished the definite article, cf. 2.1.): gen.-dat. sg. m. këtī, atī < PIE *-tosi̯ o; nom. pl. f. ato, këto < PIE *-tah2as, etc. The first member a- either reflects *so-u- as in Gk. οὗτος or is related to Avestan auua-; the first member kë- is strongly reminiscent of PIE proximal *k̑o-/k̑i- (cf. Hittite kāš ), but such a connection would presuppose an irregular development of PIE *k̑. A first attempt to trace the diachronic history of the demonstratives can be found in Matzinger (2006: 109−110). For Modern Standard Albanian, see Newmark, Hubbard, and Prifti (1982: 262−264) and Buchholz and Fiedler (1987: 292−297).

2.3.5. Interrogative pronouns kush ‘who?’ reflects a PIE nominal sentence *ku̯ós só ‘who (is) this?’ (cf. similarly Tocharian B ͡ kuse, Old Church Slavonic kъto). It inflects for case only, e.g. nom. Kush anshtë emë amë, e kush jane të mī vëllazënë? ‘who is my mother, and who are my

1758

XV. Albanian

brothers?’; its other case forms are gen.-dat. kuj < *ku̯osi̯ o and acc. kâ [Bogdani] < *ku̯om. Its counterpart is qish ‘what?’ (allegro variant ç), which continues a heavily reshaped *ku̯id (cf. Matzinger 2006: 112−113), while its gen.-dat. sej quite faithfully reflects PIE *ku̯esi̯ o (cf. Schumacher 2004: 763). Apart from these two there are adjectival interrogatives such as (i) silli ‘which (one)?’ and various adverbial ones such as ku ‘where?’ For the interrogative pronouns of Modern Standard Albanian, see Newmark, Hubbard, and Prifti (1982: 278−281) and Buchholz and Fiedler (1987: 300−302).

2.3.6. Indefinite pronouns kush can also serve as an indefinite pronoun ‘somebody’; in this value, its oblique cases bear an n-suffix (gen.-dat. kujnaj, acc. kana). The inanimate indefinite pronoun is gjã ‘something’ (< gjã f. ‘thing’), which is often preceded by the indefinite particle kun (possibly < ku ‘where’ + the -n- of kujnaj and kana). They often form compounds with the negation as-: askush ‘nobody’, asgjã ‘nothing’ (on as-, see Joseph, this handbook, 5.1). ‘Everyone’ is gjithëkush, ‘everything’ gjithëqish.

2.3.7. Relative particles and pronouns Albanian has two relative markers. In Buzuku, we only find the invariable particle qi, but from Budi onward the fully inflected pronoun (i) cilli occurs as a relative pronoun. Historically, (i) cilli is identical with Buzuku’s interrogative (i) silli (cf. 2.3.5) and can still be used as an interrogative in Budi’s variety of Old Albanian. The initial c- is derived from allegro accusative forms of (i) silli: të sillë > t’ sillë > cillë → të cillë (in Bogdani, the pronoun has retained its original shape [i] silli and is used both as a relative pronoun and as an interrogative). Headless relative clauses are introduced with kush ‘(he) who’ and qish ‘what’, and with kushdo ‘whoever’ and qishdo ‘whatever’.

2.4. Numerals The Albanian cardinals from ‘1’ to ‘10’ continue the respective PIE cardinals more or less faithfully; above ‘10’, the system was rebuilt; and qind m. ‘hundred’ as well as mijë f. ‘thousand’ are loanwords from Latin centum and mīlle respectively. The cardinal numerals from ‘1’ to ‘5’ have the following forms and prehistories: ‘1’ is një (< ProtoAlbanian *mi̯ a- m./n. and *mi̯ ā- f., rebuilt from *mii̯ ā- f. ← PIE *smih2 ; a similar development has to be assumed for Old Armenian mi); ‘2’ is dy m., dȳ f./n. (< PIE *duu̯o m., *duu̯ah2-ih1 f., *duu̯o-ih1 n.); ‘3’ is tre m., trī f./n. (< Proto-Albanian *trei̯ eh m., *trii̯ āh f., *trii̯ ā n.), ‘4’ is katërë (< PIE *ku̯etu̯ores vel sim.), ‘5’ is pêsë (< PIE *penku̯e). The corresponding ordinals are (i) parë ‘1st’ (< *por-u̯o- vel sim.); (i) dytë ‘2nd’; (i) tretë ‘3rd’; (i) katërtë ‘4th’; (i) pêstë ‘5th’. The cardinals from ‘6’ to ‘10’ are identical to the respective ordinals: gjashtë ‘6’, shtatë ‘7’, tetë ‘8’, nandë ‘9’ and dhjetë ‘10’ (for the ordinals, cf. [i] gjashtë ‘6th’, etc.);

96. The morphology of Albanian

1759

this identity is possibly due to the fact that ‘10’ was originally a feminine consonant stem Proto-Albanian *dećat- (< PIE *dek̑m̥t-, cf. Vedic daśát- ‘decad’), which was reshaped into an ā-stem *dećatā- according to the analogy sketched in 2.1; once that had happened, the cardinal formally merged with the feminine forms of the ordinal *dećata/ ā- (< PIE *dek̑m̥to/ah2-). Subsequently, the preceding cardinals down to ‘6’ were analogically based on their ordinals, which can be reconstructed as follows: (i) gjashtë ‘6th’ < PIE *sek̑s-to/ah2-; (i) shtatë ‘7th’ < PIE *septm̥-to/ah2-; (i) tetë ‘8th’ (< *Hok̑toH-to/ah2-), (i) nandë ‘9th’ (< *h1neu̯n̥-to/ah2-). Alternatively, the cardinals from ‘6’ to ‘10’ could go back to collective abstracts, e.g. gjashtë < *sek̑s-tah2- (cf. similar Old Church Slavonic šestъ). The teens are formed with the synchronically transparent prepositional phrase ‘numeral on ten’. This construction, whose origin is clearly to be sought in Slavic, is also found in Rumanian and constitutes one of the so-called Balkanisms (see Friedman 2006: 664− 665). Therefore, Old Albanian ‘eleven’, një ëmbë dhjetë (cf. ëmbë ‘on’) and the other teens copy Old Church Slavonic jedinъ na desęte etc. ‘20’ is njëzet and must ultimately be related to Lat. vīgintī etc., but details are very unclear. The further decads have the structure ‘numeral + ten’, cf. trī dhjetë ‘30’, etc., the hundreds are një qind ‘100’, dy qind ‘200’, etc., and the thousands are një mijë ‘1000’, dȳ mijë ‘2000’, etc. The ordinal numerals from ‘second’ onward are simply derived from the cardinal numerals by adding the suffix -të (< *-to-), as can be seen in ‘2nd’ to ‘5th’ above. Cardinals precede their referent, which from ‘2’ onward is in the plural. Ordinals also precede their referent. However, while noun phrases with ordinals behave exactly like other noun phrases with attributive adjectives preceding their referent, noun phrases with cardinals show a different behavior. The Albanian numerals are dealt with by Hamp (1992), Demiraj (1997), and Matzinger (2006: 113−117). A lengthy description is also contained in a hitherto unpublished manuscript by Klingenschmitt (unpubl.). For the numerals in Modern Standard Albanian, see Newmark, Hubbard, and Prifti (1982: 248−260) and Buchholz and Fiedler (1987: 349−360).

2.5. Prepositions Old Albanian prepositions mostly govern two cases, rarely only one case. Case differences do not seem to reflect semantic differences, but the whole matter has not been well investigated. With the ablative only: ën ‘from; to, towards’; prej ‘from; to, towards’. With the accusative or the ablative: pā ‘without’. With the accusative or the instrumental: ëmbë ‘in, on’; ëndë ‘in, at’; me ‘with’. With the nominative (see 2.1): tek ‘at/to the location of’, kaha ‘from’ [Matrënga]. On the etymologies of some prepositions, see Matzinger (2006: 105−107). For prepositions in Buzuku from a Balkanological point of view, see Genesin (1994−1995). The prepositions of Modern Standard Albanian are dealt with by Newmark, Hubbard, and Prifti (1982: 289−300) and by Buchholz and Fiedler (1987: 373−384).

1760

XV. Albanian

3. Verbal morphology The following is a condensation of Schumacher and Matzinger (2013: 25−197, 965− 1010), and readers are referred to this work for any details not dealt with here. For the verbal system of Buzuku, see also Fiedler (2004). For the verbal system of Tosk-based Modern Standard Albanian, see Newmark, Hubbard, and Prifti (1982: 21−119) and Buchholz and Fiedler (1987: 60−121).

3.1. Classes of verbs The classification of verbs in Albanian (whether Old Albanian or Modern Standard Albanian) is very difficult. Classifications by historical principles (e.g. primary vs. nonprimary verbs) are impossible, and most other classifications adopted so far (e.g. those based on present-stem inflection alone) are unhelpful. The classification adopted here uses as a guiding principle an abstraction we call the verb-base. Every Albanian verb (primary or non-primary) has a verb-base, which can be deduced from the synopsis of 3sg pres. ind. act., 2sg iptv. act., and 3sg aor. act. (in deponent verbs, the corresponding middle forms can be used). Verb-bases can be monosyllabic or polysyllabic, and, importantly, they end in either a consonant or a vowel. Only verb-bases with final vowel plus /n/ behave ambiguously, as they can be treated either as consonant-final or as vowelfinal verb-bases (in the latter case, the vowel is a nasal vowel). However, it is preferable to place verb-bases with vowel plus /n/ among the consonant-final verb-bases. Based on the phonological shape of the final segment of the verb-base and the morphological relationship between the verb-base and the present stem, three major verb classes (each with two sub-classes, here called types) can be defined: (i) Class di/djeg: In this class, there is no synchronically visible element intervening between the verb-base and the present-stem endings. Type di ‘knows’ (< PIE *dhiH-(i̯ )eti, root *dhei̯ H-, LIV² 141−142) represents verbs with vowel-final verb-bases (verb-base di-), while type djeg ‘causes to burn’ (< PIE *dheg u̯h-e-ti, root *dheg u̯h-, LIV² 133−134) represents consonant-final verbbases (verb-base djeg-). As can be seen, this class contains various primary verbs, but primary verbs are also found in other classes. (ii) Class kujton/ecën: In the present stem, the verb-base is enlarged by an n-suffix. Again, the verb-base can be vowel-final, as in type kujto-n ‘thinks’ (with -o being the final vowel of the verb-base), or consonant-final, as in type ec-ën ‘goes’ (here, the final consonant is -c, and the unstressed -ë- is part of the suffix). Note that the verbs with verb-base ending in -o- constitute the only fully productive verbal class of Albanian, the -o- going back to denominative verbs in *-ah2i̯ e/o- and factitive verbs in *-ah2- (however, this class also includes some primary verbs, such as shton ‘adds’, which ultimately goes back to a post-PIE *stah2-i̯ e/o-, root *steh2-, LIV² 590−592). (iii) Class vret/përket: In this class, the verb-base is enlarged with a tsuffix. In the vowel-final verb-bases (type vret), the t-suffix is attached immediately to the stressed final vowel of the verb-base, as in vret ‘kills’ (verb-base vra-); in the consonant-final verb-bases (type përket), a stressed vowel intervenes between the verb-base and the t-suffix, as a result of which the vowel of the verb-base is often weakened or syncopated, e.g. in përket ‘touches’ (verb-base prek-). This class is quite small and not productive. Apart from these three classes, there is a fourth residual class of some twenty verbs that are either suppletive or have some other feature not found elsewhere, which is why these verbs − most of them going back to primary verbs − are best called irregular.

96. The morphology of Albanian

1761

Finally, it must be kept in mind that each of the six types sketched above has various sub-types; for instance, type kujton shows the sub-types kujton (with monophthongal -oas the final vowel of the verb-base), shkruon ‘writes’ (with diphthongal -uo- in verbbase-final position), and lyen ‘anoints’ (with diphthongal -ye- in verb-base-final position), to mention just a few.

3.2. Person and number Albanian verbs have the usual three persons and two numbers (singular and plural) in each tense or mood category. In the active present indicative, the second and third persons are homonymous; in some verbs of the type djeg, the 1sg is also homonymous with the 2/3sg. Everywhere else, all six persons are distinct from each other.

3.3. Voice Albanian has two voices, active and middle, both continuing the respective PIE categories. Middle voice is expressed morphologically in several ways. (i) In the present-stem system (cf. 3.6) the middle is expressed synthetically by its own set of endings: The present-tense middle endings go back to the same set of endings as the Greek middle endings, including the change of the 1sg from *-h2ai̯ to *-mai̯ . On the other hand, the imperfect middle endings are clearly innovative, deriving analogically from the imperfect of the verb ‘be’ (see 3.6). (ii) In the 2sg imperative (3.7), the aorist (3.8), the optative (3.9), the admirative (3.10), non-finite forms (3.11), and periphrastic forms derived from the latter (3.12), the middle is expressed by the middle-voice marker u, which historically derives from enclitic forms of the inherited reflexive pronoun (u < *su̯ē˘ and/or *su̯oi̯ ) but is no longer attached to the pronominal system (cf. 2.3.2). (iii) In the perfect system, except for the admirative, the middle is expressed by the choice of the auxiliary (3.10). The functions of the two voices are reminiscent of early-attested IE languages. In fact, however, a major reshuffling has taken place, whereby numerous intransitive verba activa tantum first became verba media tantum (deponents) and then developed secondary factitive active forms.

3.4. Moods; remarks on aspect Apart from the indicative, Albanian has the following moods: (i) the imperative, which requires no further explanation; (ii) the subjunctive, which is found in the present-stem system and the perfect system. It has its nucleus in the PIE subjunctive of the present stem but has been fully integrated into the tense systems of the present-stem system and the perfect system, as a result of which most tenses have an indicative and a corresponding subjunctive. The scopes of the various subjunctives thus cover a wide range of meanings but the primary PIE scope of the subjunctive (expression of the expectation of the speaker) can still be retrieved; (iii) the optative, which has its own stem and

1762

XV. Albanian

expresses wishes and curses of the speaker. Note that the optative can refer only to events wished for in the present or the future but not to past events; (iv) the admirative (3.10). Apart from this, one must not forget that even the Old Geg future has modal forms (3.12). However, not all these formations are well-attested, and it remains unclear which of them can be thought of as fully grammaticalized. To sum up, it is very difficult to obtain a general view of the modal system in its totality. Note that in Albanian all moods (apart from the imperative) are more or less linked to the tense system. This is consistent with the fact that aspect contrasts are not an overall feature of the verbal system − it is only the indicatives of past tenses that are marked for aspect: there is an aspectual contrast (imperfective vs. perfective) between the imperfect and the aorist, and there may be a similar difference between the pluperfect and the aorist-pluperfect (cf. 3.10). However, there is no distinction between imperfectivity and perfectivity in imperatives, subjunctives, optatives, futures, or anywhere else.

3.5. The five synthetic stem forms of the Albanian verb Every Albanian verb paradigm has five synthetic stem forms: the present stem, the 2sg imperative, the aorist stem, the optative stem, and the participle, which is the only synthetic non-finite form of the verbal system. Three of these stem forms (the aorist and optative stems, and the 2sg imperative) have only one function, whereas the other two (the present stem and the participle) are the basis of elaborate sub-systems, namely the present-stem system and the perfect system. Morphologically, the inflection of the finite verbal forms has several characteristics. (i) Inflection is usually characterized by inflectional endings. In some places, endings have given way to zero morphemes, but these are rare enough to be regarded as morphemes in their own right. (ii) Inflection can be accompanied by morphophonological changes of the rightmost vowel of the verb-base, regardless of whether the verb-base is vowel-final or consonant-final. These changes comprise raising, monophthongization or diphthongization, and lengthening or shortening of that vowel. Additionally, in present stems of the type ecën, the vowel of the ën-suffix can be raised or syncopated, and in present stems of the types vret and përket, the vowel of the stem-final syllable -Vt can be raised. Most vowel changes are due to phonological processes in the history of Albanian, such as umlaut or palatalization. Only in aorist stems do we find verb-base-vowel changes that represent reflexes of PIE ablaut (cf. 3.8). (iii) Inflection can be accompanied by morphophonological changes of verb-base-final consonants. These changes comprise palatalization (g → gj, k → q, n → nj/j), and a change t → s, which historically also reflects palatalization. Finally, in present stems of the classes kujton/ecën and vret/përket, the final consonant of the present-stem suffix regularly undergoes the morphophonological changes n → nj/j and t → s, respectively, in certain forms.

3.6. The present-stem system The present stem continues PIE present-stem formations. The main change that can be observed is that n/nj-suffixes (< *-ni̯ e/o-) have spread, yielding the kujton/ecën verbal

96. The morphology of Albanian

1763

class. Almost all extant present stems reflect thematically inflected stems, the two major exceptions being anshtë ‘be’ (← *h1esti, root 1.*h1es-, LIV² 241−242) and thotë ‘say’ (← *k̑eHs-toi̯ , root *k̑eHs-, LIV² 318−319). The present stem has two tenses, present and imperfect. The present is a continuation of the PIE present stem with primary endings, while the imperfect is a continuation of the PIE present stem with secondary endings, i.e. the PIE injunctive. It also has two moods, indicative and subjunctive. The present subjunctive continues the PIE subjunctive of the present stem; however, it is only in the active 2sg and 3sg and the middle 2sg that the morphology of the subjunctive has not merged with the morphology of the indicative. Nevertheless, all subjunctive forms can be recognized by the fact that they are marked with preceding particles: positive subjunctive forms are marked with të, and negative forms are either marked with the modally marked negation particle mos or the particle combination të mos (very rarely mos të). The fact that the subjunctive is primarily marked by particles has also entailed the development of an imperfect subjunctive. The following table shows examples from all six classes: class di/djeg: di ‘know’ (< PIE *dhiH-(i̯ )e/o-, cf. Schumacher and Matzinger 2013: 969), hjek ‘pull’ (ultimately < PIE *selk-e/o-, cf. Schumacher and Matzinger 2013: 976−978); class kujton/ecën: kujton ‘think’, ecën ‘go’; class vret/përket: përket ‘touch’ (the type vret inflects exactly like përket: 1sg vras, etc.) (see Tab. 96.7). For a prehistory of these forms, see Schumacher and Matzinger (2013: 51−52). The middle-voice inflection has the following forms (for semantic reasons di ‘know’ has been replaced by ëmba ‘hold’ and ecën by ënveshën ‘provide with clothes’ < PIE *u̯os-éi̯ e/o-) (see Tab. 96.8). For the prehistory of the endings, cf. Schumacher and Matzinger (2013: 127−131); as mentioned above (3.3), this set of endings reflects the same set of endings as the Greek thematic present middle endings (e.g. -em < *-a-mai̯ ← *-a-h2ai̯ , cf. Gk. -ομαι). As can be seen, both hjek (type djeg) and përket (type përket) select the same presentstem allomorph as the one that appears in the active 2pl, and the same applies for type vret presents. In type di presents, an -h- intervenes between the final vowel of the verbbase and the endings (e.g. ëmba-h-etë). In type kujton presents, the -n- of the active

Tab. 96.7: Present active inflection. type

di

djeg

kujton

ecën

ending

përket

verb-base

di-

hjek-

kujto-

ec-

prek-

1sg

dī

hjek

kujtonj

ecnj

përkas

-:

2sg

di

hjek

kujton

ecën

përket

-:

3sg

di

hjek

kujton

ecën

përket

-:

1pl

dīmë

hjekmë

kujtojmë

ecnjëmë

përkasmë

-(ë)më

2pl

dini

hiqëni

kujtoni

ecëni

përkitëni

-(ë)ni

3pl

dīnë

hjekënë

kujtonjënë

ecnjënë

përkasënë

-(ë)në

2sg subj.

dīsh

hjeksh

kujtojnsh

ecnjësh

përkaç

-(ë)sh

3sg subj.

dijë

hjekë

kujtonjë

ecnjë

përkasë

-ë

1764

XV. Albanian

Tab. 96.8: Present middle inflection. type

di

djeg

kujton

ecën

ending

përket

verb-base

ëmba-

hjek-

kujto-

ënvesh-

prek-

1sg

ëmbahem

hiqem

kujtonem

ënvishem

përkitem

-em

2sg

ëmbahē

hiqē

kujtonē

ënvishē

përkitē

-ē

3sg

ëmbahetë

hiqetë

kujtonetë

ënvishetë

përkitetë

-etë

1pl

ëmbahemi

hiqemi

kujtonemi

ënvishemi

përkitemi

-emi

2pl

ëmbahī

hiqī

kujtonī

ënvishī

përkitī

-ī

3pl

ëmbahenë

hiqenë

kujtonenë

ënvishenë

përkitenë

-enë

2sg subj.

ëmbahēsh

hiqēsh

kujtonēsh

ënvishēsh

përkitēsh

-ēsh

voice is retained if the final vowel of the verb-base is monophthongal -o- (as in kujton); however, if the final vowel is diphthongal (as in shkruon ‘write’), the -n- is replaced by -h-, and the diphthong is monophthongized, which yields forms like shkru-h-etë. In type ecën presents, the n-suffix is deleted, which is why the middle counterpart of active ënveshën is ënvishetë. The active imperfect has the following morphology (see Tab. 96.9). Tab. 96.9: Imperfect active inflection type

di

djeg

kujton

ecën

përket

ending

verb-base

di-

hjek-

kujto-

ec-

prek-

1sg

dijë

hjekë

kujtonjë

ecnjë

përkasë

-ë

2sg

dinje

hiqnje

kujtonje

ecnje

përkisnje

-një

3sg

dī

hiq

kujton

ecën

përkit

-:, -j

1pl

dinjīm

hiqnjīm

kujtonjīm

ecnjīm

përkisnjīm

-njīm

2pl

dinjītë

hiqnjītë

kujtonjītë

ecnjītë

përkisnjītë

-njītë

3pl

dinjīnë

hiqnjīnë, hiqnë

kujtonjīnë, kujtojnë

ecnjīnë

përkisnjīnë, përkisnë

-njīnë, -në

This set of endings, particularly the 1sg -ë and the 3sg -:, ultimately reflects the PIE thematic secondary endings; therefore, the Albanian imperfect can be traced back to the PIE injunctive of the present stem (there are no traces whatsoever of an augment). For details see Schumacher and Matzinger (2013: 132−140). The element -njī- which is found in 1pl, 2pl, and 3pl in Buzuku (but is lacking in some archaic Tosk dialects) must have spread from the class kujton/ecën. Note also that the -m part of 1pl -njīm reflects PIE secondary *-me or *-mo, while present-tense -më reflects PIE primary *-mes or *-mos.

96. The morphology of Albanian

1765

The middle imperfect has the following morphology : Tab. 96.10: Imperfect middle inflection. type

di

djeg

ending

kujton

verb-base

ëmba-

hjek-

kujto-

1sg

ëmbaheshë

hiqeshë

kujtoneshë

-eshë

2sg

ëmbahishnje

hiqishnje

kujtonishnje

-ishnje

3sg

ëmbahe

hiqe

kujtone

-e

1pl

ëmbahishnjim

hiqishnjim

kujtonishnjim

-ishnjim

2pl

ëmbahishtë

hiqishtë

kujtonishtë

-ishtë

3pl

ëmbahishnë

hiqishnjinë, hiqishnë

kujtonishnë

-ishnjinë, -ishnë

The set of endings found here originates in the imperfect of ‘be’: the Late Proto-Albanian 1sg pres. ind. of ‘be’ was *i̯ em (ultimately < *h1es-mi), and the ending of the 1sg pres. ind. mid. was -em. Since both forms ended in -em and the verb ‘be’ could be reinterpreted as a medium tantum, the imperfect of ‘be’ furnished a template for the inflection of the imperfect middle. In this context, it is useful to cite the full present-stem paradigm of ‘be’. The table below shows the paradigms of both ‘be’ and ‘have’ (whose etymology is unclear), since the two, often used as auxiliaries, heavily influenced each other (for instance, the 1sg pres. ind. of ‘be’ has been changed from *i̯ em to jam under the influence of 1sg kam) (Tab. 96.11). Tab. 96.11: Inflection of ‘be’ and ‘have’ ‘be’

present

subjunctive

imperfect

‘have’

present

subjunctive

imperfect

1sg

jam

jēm

jeshë

1sg

kam

kēm

keshë

2sg

je

jēsh

ishnje

2sg

kē

kēsh

kishnje

3sg

anshtë, ë

jetë

ish

3sg

kā

ketë

kish

1pl

jemi

jemi

ishnjīm

1pl

kemi

kemi

kishnjīm

2pl

ini

ini

ishnjītë

2pl

kini

kini, keni

kishnjītë

3pl

janë

jenë

ishnjīnë, ishnë

3pl

kanë

kenë

kishnë

While most forms of the present indicative of ‘be’ have undergone various transformations, the 3sg pres. ind. anshtë quite faithfully continues PIE *h1esti; its only innovation is the preverb *an- < PIE *on- ‘in’, which is due to the influence of Koiné Greek, where the 3sg ἐστι and the 3pl εἰσι have been replaced by ἔνι, a third-person form of the compound of the verb ‘be’ with the preverb ἐν(ι)- ‘in’. The short form ë goes back to the bare preverb *an, a form that is even more similar to Koiné Greek ἔνι (see also Hamp 1980). For the imperfect, see Schumacher and Matzinger (2013: 145, note 16). In

1766

XV. Albanian

Old Geg, the expected 3sg *je has been altered to ish, but je is actually attested in archaic Tosk dialects in Greece (Sasse 1991: 151).

3.7. Imperatives Old Albanian has imperatives of the 2sg, the 1pl, and the 2pl. While the imperatives of the 1pl and 2pl (both active and middle) are homonymous with the corresponding indicative forms, the 2sg imperatives are derived directly from the verb-base. Active 2sg imperatives can consist of the bare verb-base (e.g. ban ‘do!’ from ban ‘do’, ëmba ‘hold!’ from ëmba ‘hold’); alternatively, they can bear an ending, namely -j if the verb-base ends in a vowel (e.g. mos druoj ‘fear not!’ from dro ‘fear’), but -ë if the verb-base ends in a consonant (e.g rrjedhë ‘run!’ from rrjedh ‘run’). Whether the endings -j or -ë appear or not is only partly predictable. Additionally, in all types of 2sg imperatives the verbbase can undergo the morphophonological changes described in 3.5 (ii) and (iii). Middle 2sg imperatives are derived from their active counterparts by adding the middle-voice marker u (cf. 3.3). This is postposed if the imperative is clause-initial but preposed if anything precedes it, e.g. kujto-u ‘remember!’ but mos u kujto ‘do not remember!’, both from kujton ‘think’ (verb-base kujto-). In Buzuku, there are also active imperative forms of the 3sg, e.g. ëndjekë ‘let him follow!’ from ëndjek ‘follow’. Genetically, these continue PIE present subjunctive forms; however, since the Albanian subjunctive is synchronically defined by preposed particles, such forms are best described as imperative forms.

3.8. The aorist As the term aorist suggests, this category is a perfective preterite (it has only an indicative; there are no other moods attached to it). It must be kept in mind, though, that the aorist is syncretic in nature with three different categories underlying it: (i) original aorist formations (root aorist, s-aorist, eh1-aorist); (ii) original perfect formations, some of them dating back to PIE, others post-PIE; (iii) a periphrastic construction involving the verbal adjective in *-to-. Synchronically, there are three different aorist formations in Old Albanian: the v-aorist, the t-aorist, and the suffixless aorist. The v-aorist is found with vowelfinal verb-bases only; in the 2sg and the active 1sg, a v-suffix is inserted between the verb-base and the endings, whereas in most other forms the verb-base-final vowel is lengthened or diphthongized. The t-aorist is found with both vowel-final and consonantfinal verb-bases and is characterized by a suffix that has the shape -ti- or -të- (< older *-tə-); frequently, -j- is inserted between the verb-base and the t-suffix. Finally, the suffixless aorist is found with consonant-final verb-bases only. In some verb-bases going back to PIE primary verbs, the rightmost vowel is changed, which reflects PIE ablaut (zero grade or lengthened grade), but usually the suffixless aorist can only be recognized by its aorist endings. The aorist has no synthetic middle, the middle being indicated by the prefixed middle marker u; in this case, the 1sg middle forms have a different ending -shë (taken from the imperfect middle), and the middle 3sg is frequently distinguished from its active

96. The morphology of Albanian

1767

Tab. 96.12: Aorist inflection. type

kujton

di

ending

djeg

aorist type

v-aorist

t-aorist

suffixless aorist

verb-base

kujto-

ëmba-

djeg-

ven-

1sg act.

kujtova

ëmbajta

dogja

vuna

-a

2sg

kujtove

ëmbajte

dogje

vune

-e

3sg act.

kujtou, -oi

ëmbajti

dogj

vũ

-i/-:

1pl

kujtuom

ëmbajtim

dogjm

vūm

-m

2pl

kujtuotë

ëmbajtëtë

dogjtë

vũtë

-të

3pl

kujtuonë

ëmbajtinë

dogjnë

vūnë

-në

1sg mid.

u kujtuoshë

u ëmbajtëshë

u dogjshë

u vũshë

u…-shë

3sg mid.

u kujtuo

u ëmbajti, -të

u dogj

u vũ

u…-:

counterpart by having a zero ending. The following table shows the inflection of all three aorist types (kujton ‘think’, verb-base kujto-; ëmba ‘hold’, verb-base ëmba-; vê ‘put’, verb-base ven-; djeg ‘cause to burn’, verb-base djeg-): These aorists have the following background: the v-aorists go back to s-Aorists, which had become “alpha-thematic” when the vowel *-a- spread from the 1sg *-san and the 3pl *-sand to the whole paradigm. When suffixed to vowel-final verb-bases, the *-s- became *-h- and then zero, as a result of which the two newly adjacent vowels either contracted to a long vowel (which could later be diphthongized) or developed a hiatus-filling -v-. The point of departure of these aorists must have been s-aorists of primary verbs with laryngeal-final roots; for instance, shtou ‘(s)he added’ from shton ‘add’ (cf. 3.1) goes back to Proto-Albanian *stā-s- ‘placed’, a formation parallel to but independent of Gk ἔστησε. From forms like these, the -s- was transferred to non-primary factitive and denominative verbs, whose verb-base ended in *-ā-. The t-aorists have their origin in a periphrastic construction involving the verbal adjective in *-to-. Originally, this construction must have belonged to the middle, but active forms with -t- arose when deponents developed secondary factitive active forms (cf. 3.3). The suffixless aorists, finally, have various origins: there is a group of some 40 verbs with a special vocalism in the aorist, like dogj ‘(s)he caused to burn’ (present stem djeg < *dheg u̯h-eti, root *dheg u̯h-, cf. 3.1) or vũ ‘(s)he put’ (present stem vê < *h1u̯en-eti, root *h1u̯en-, cf. Schumacher and Matzinger 2013: 1006−1007). These aorists belong to PIE primary verbs, and their vocalism (which cannot be traced back to phonological or morphophonological processes within Albanian) reflects Indo-European ablaut. On the one hand, there are aorist stems with lengthened grade of the root (here termed o-aorists), as in dogj (virtually **dhēg u̯h-), and this formation is best traced back to weak stems of PIE and post-PIE perfects (weak perfect stems of T1eT2- roots changed from T1eT1T2- to T1ēT2- already in PIE; see now Schumacher and Matzinger 2013: 161−172). On the other hand, there are aorist stems with zero grade of the root, as in vũ ← *h1u̯en-/h1u̯n̥-; these are best traced back to the weak stems of PIE root aorists. PIE root aorists are also frequent among verbs here classified as irregular (cf. 3.1). Some of these belong to etymologically unitary para-

1768

XV. Albanian

digms, e.g. la ‘(s)he left’ ← *leh1-/l̥ h1- (root *leh1-, LIV² 399; present stem lê < Proto-Albanian *lane/a- ← *l̥ h1-neu̯/nu-); others belong to suppletive paradigms, e.g. dha ‘(s)he gave’ ← *deh3-/dh3- (root *deh3-, LIV² 105−106; present stem ep < *h1op-éi̯ e/o-, LIV² 237). Finally, there are two thematized root aorists, both with an exact counterpart in Greek: kle ‘(s)he was’ < post-PIE *ku̯l-e/o-, cf. Gk. ἔπλετο, Old Armenian ełew (root *ku̯elh1-, LIV² 386−388; present stem anshtë ← *h1esti, cf. 3.6); and u ngre ‘rose (from the dead), arose’ [Budi, Matranga] < post-PIE *h1gr-e/o-, cf. Homeric Greek ἔγρετο (root *h1ger-, LIV² 245−246; present stem ëngrihetë < *h1gr̥-sk̑e/o-). However, the bulk of the suffixless aorists show no traces of ablaut and belong to non-primary verbs of various origins. Probably, the first non-primary verbs to develop such aorists were denominatives with a *-i̯ e/o-suffix. These developed an aorist in Proto-Albanian by behaving analogically to primary verbs with present-stem suffix *-i̯ e/o- and a root aorist, and eventually this way of deriving an aorist stem from a present stem must have spread to all sorts of non-primary verbs (except for those in -o- < *-ah2-i̯ e/o- and *-ah2-).

3.9. The optative The optative has a stem of its own, but it is easy to see that this stem is mostly linked to the aorist stem. For instance, v-aorists have an optative stem in -f-, (e.g. 2sg kujtofsh [Budi]); t-aorists have an optative stem in -të- (e.g. 2sg ëmbajtësh); and the optatives of suffixless aorists are mostly derived from the aorist stem (e.g. 1sg lasha), the only exception being the perfect-based o-aorists, where the optative has the same vocalism as the 1sg pres. act. (e.g. 3sg djektë). The optative has no synthetic middle, middle forms being indicated by the prefixed middle marker u. The optative has the following set of endings: 1sg -sha, 2sg -sh, 3sg -të, 1pl -shim, 2sg -shi, 3sg -shinë. Apart from the 3sg (which is an analogical form), these endings derive from the optative of the s-aorist (1sg *-sih1-m̥ etc.; see Schumacher and Matzinger 2013: 177−182). However, since in Albanian the PIE present-stem optative has been lost, the optative is no longer a category marked for aspect.

3.10. The participle and the perfect system The participle is the fourth synthetic stem form of the Albanian verb. It is a past participle but, since there is no present participle, the term “participle” is sufficient. Morphologically, the participle is mostly dependent on the aorist stem except in the case of an o-aorist. In Old Geg, the participle can be formed by means of several different allomorphic suffixes: -në and -unë (< PIE *-nó-), -të (< PIE *-tó-), and -m (< PIE *-mh1no-?). These suffixes have no clear-cut distribution; their occurrence seems to be governed by the individual dialects of the Old Geg authors, but occasionally each author uses more than one suffix with a given verb-base. For instance, pi ‘to drink’ (verb-base pi-) has the participles pīnë, pītë and pīm in Buzuku. The participle can be used as a deverbal resultative adjective (active with intransitive verbs, passive with transitive verbs), in which case it is used as an articulated adjective, e.g. (i) ënvrām ‘killed’ (ënvret ‘kill’). The substantivized neuter of this adjective serves as a verbal abstract, e.g. të ënvrām ‘act

96. The morphology of Albanian

1769

of killing’. However, much more often the participle serves as a basis for periphrastic constructions: the non-articulated, invariable form of the participle combines with the auxiliary verbs ‘have’ and ‘be’, thus forming a perfect. Transitive verbs form their active perfects with ‘have’ plus participle and their middles with ‘be’ plus participle, whereas perfects of verba activa tantum mostly vacillate between taking ‘be’ and ‘have’ as their auxiliaries. Deponents always form their perfects with ‘be’. The perfect system is an important component of the verbal system in that practically all tenses and moods (apart from the imperative) enumerated so far have counterparts in the perfect system. Thus, there is not only a present of the perfect and a pluperfect (indicative and subjunctive), but also an aorist-pluperfect and an optative; in rare cases, even a perfect and a pluperfect of the perfect can occur. In Budi, we also find perfects with a clipped form of the participle, e.g. kā ardh ‘has come’ beside kā ardhunë. This form of clipping is an innovation; it is not found with other Old Geg authors but is the rule in Modern Geg. Note that the participle is only affected by this in finite perfect-system forms and in the non-finite forms mentioned in 3.11. but not if it is used as a verbal adjective or abstract. A further derivative of the perfect system is the so-called admirative, which has developed from a univerbated reverse-order perfect. That is, in the admirative the auxiliary (which is always ‘have’) follows the participle, which in turn often loses its final syllable or parts thereof. Thus, the 2sg perf. act. of ruon ‘guard’ is kē ruojtunë, while the corresponding admirative form is ruojtëkē. The admirative is also differentiated from the rest of the perfect system by the fact that the middle is indicated by the prefixed middle marker u. The exact function and scope of the admirative in Old Albanian still needs to be defined.

3.11. Non-finite forms Several non-finite categories are produced by fully grammaticalized combinations of preposition + participle: the infinitive (me ‘with’ + participle), e.g. me kujtuom ‘to think’; the so-called gerundive (tue + participle), e.g. tue kujtuom ‘while thinking’; and the privative, a negative counterpart of the gerundive (pā ‘without’ + participle), e.g. pā kujtuom ‘without thinking’. The gerundive and the privative are converbs, comparable to the French gérondif (e.g. en pensant ‘while thinking’). Middle-voice forms use u, e.g. infinitive me u kujtuom ‘to remember’. Historically, the function of the participle in these constructions was that of a verbal abstract (cf. Lat. factum ‘a deed’). All three non-finite forms have perfect-tense counterparts with me/tue/pā + participle of the auxiliary + participle, e.g. tue pasunë salutuom ‘having greeted’ (saluton ‘greet’). Note that, apart from petrified phrases, Tosk lost the infinitive before it was committed to writing.

3.12. Periphrastic tenses derived from the non-finite forms in 3.11 Old Geg has a future, consisting of the present of the auxiliary ‘have’ plus infinitive. This is continued in Modern Geg. Additionally, Old Geg also has corresponding past tenses best described as conditional moods, and there is even a subjunctive of the future.

1770

XV. Albanian

3.13. Polypersonality in the verbal system As mentioned in 2.3.2, Albanian has a polypersonal verb which optionally encodes direct and indirect objects. The object markers used for this go back to enclitic pronouns but are best described as a part of the verbal morphology.

4. References Buchholz, Oda and Wilfried Fiedler 1987 Albanische Grammatik. Leipzig: VEB Enzyklopädie. Demiraj, Bardhyl 1997 Sistemi i numerimit të gjuhës shqipe [The Albanian system of numerals]. Tirana: Akademia e Shkencave. Demiraj, Shaban 1986 Gramatikë historike e gjuhës shqipe [Historical grammar of Albanian]. Tirana: “8 Nëntori”. Fiedler, Wilfried 2004 Das albanische Verbalsystem in der Sprache des Gjon Buzuku (1555). Prishtina: ASHAK. Fiedler, Wilfried 2007 Die Pluralbildung im Albanischen. Prishtina: ASHAK. Friedman, Victor A. 2006 Balkans as a linguistic area. In: Keith Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of language & linguistics. 2nd edn. Vol. 1. Oxford: Elsevier, 657−672. Fritz, Matthias 2011 Der Dual im Indogermanischen. Genealogischer und typologischer Vergleich einer grammatischen Kategorie im Wandel. Heidelberg: Winter. Genesin, Monica 1994−1995 Il sintagma preposizionale n̥ + ablativo nel “Mëshari” del più antico scrittore albanese: Gjon Buzuku. Con particolare riguardo alle espressioni locali nelle lingue balcaniche. Balkan Archiv. Neue Folge 19/20: 351−377. Hamp, Eric P. 1980 Albanian është. American Indian and Indoeuropean Studies. In: Kathryn Klar, Margaret Langdon, and Shirley Silver (eds.), Papers in Honor of Madison S. Beeler. The Hague: Mouton, 337−346. Hamp, Eric P. 1992 Albanian. In: Jadranka Gvozdanović (ed.), Indo-European numerals. Berlin: De Gruyter, 835−922. Klingenschmitt, Gert 1994 Das Albanische als Glied der indogermanischen Sprachfamilie. In: Jens E. Rasmussen and Benedicte Nielsen (eds.), In honorem Holger Pedersen. Kolloquium der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 26. bis 28. März in Kopenhagen. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 221−233. Klingenschmitt, Gert unpublished The Albanian numerals. 116 pp. LIV² 2001 Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben. Die Wurzeln und ihre Primärstammbildungen. Zweite, erweiterte und verbesserte Auflage bearbeitet von Martin Kümmel und Helmut Rix. Wiesbaden: Reichert.

97. The syntax of Albanian

1771

Matzinger, Joachim 1998 Albanisch unë ‘ich’ im System der albanischen Personalpronomina. Indogermanische Forschungen 103: 185−201. Matzinger, Joachim 2006 Der altalbanische Text [E] Mbsuame e Krështerë (Dottrina cristiana) des Lekë Matrënga von 1592. Eine Einführung in die albanische Sprachwissenschaft. Dettelbach: Röll. Matzinger, Joachim 2007 Altalbanisch /ujë/ „Wasser“ und die Kategorie der Massennomina bei Buzuku. In: Bardhyl Demiraj (ed.), Nach 450 Jahren. Buzukus »Missale« und seine Rezeption in unserer Zeit. 2. Deutsch-Albanische kulturwissenschaftliche Tagung in München vom 14. bis 15. Oktober 2005. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 169−190. Newmark, Leonard, Philip Hubbard, and Peter Prifti 1982 Standard Albanian. A reference grammar for students. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Sasse, Hans-Jürgen 1991 Arvanitika. Die albanischen Sprachreste in Griechenland, Teil 1. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Schumacher, Stefan 2004 Die keltischen Primärverben. Ein vergleichendes etymologisches und morphologisches Lexikon. Unter Mitarbeit von Britta Schulze-Thulin und Caroline aan de Wiel. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität. Schumacher, Stefan and Joachim Matzinger 2013 Die Verben des Altalbanischen. Belegwörterbuch, Vorgeschichte und Etymologie. Unter Mitarbeit von Anna-Maria Adaktylos. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Topalli, Kolec 2011 Gramatikë historike e gjuhës shqipe [Historical grammar of Albanian]. Tirana: Albanologjike.

Joachim Matzinger, Vienna (Austria) Stefan Schumacher, Potzneusiedl (Austria)

97. The syntax of Albanian 1. Introduction 2. Nominal morphosyntax and adpositional phrases 3. Verbal syntax

4. Word order 5. Sentential syntax 6. References

1. Introduction Albanian is the stepchild of Indo-European linguistics, being perhaps the least investigated and least understood of the separate major branches of Indo-European. Moreover, within Indo-European historical investigations, syntax is perhaps the least explored component of grammar, and less is known about the syntax of Proto-Indo-European (PIE) https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-018

1772

XV. Albanian

than about its phonology or morphology. Putting these two facts together means that obtaining a clear picture of Albanian historical syntax and the emergence of Albanian syntactic structures out of PIE is especially challenging. This task is complicated by another factor, one that, at the same time, offers some important opportunities for insights into the extent and mechanisms of contact-induced language change. This factor is Albanian’s involvement in the Balkan Sprachbund. That is, due to intense and sustained bi- and multi-lingual contact among speakers of various languages in the Balkans − most notably Aromanian, Bulgarian, Daco-Romanian, Greek, Macedonian, Romany, to a lesser extent Turkish, and of course Albanian (both major dialects, Geg and Tosk) − these languages have converged on common structures and common characteristics at all linguistic levels: phonology, morphology, lexicon, semantics, and syntax. Moreover, the syntactic parallels extend to nominal, verbal, and sentential syntax. Therefore, careful analysis is needed to differentiate those features of Albanian syntax inherited from PIE from those acquired by contact with neighboring languages; it is therefore always crucial to take the Balkan Sprachbund, and thus the possibility of contact-induced characteristics, into account whenever any discussion of Albanian is undertaken, especially when historical concerns are paramount. In many ways, Albanian syntax is unremarkable from an Indo-European perspective, since among the key areas to consider, such as nominal case usage, subject-verb agreement, noun-adjective agreement, behavior of weak pronouns (“clitics”), presence of preverbs, occurrence of prepositions, the use of middle voice verb forms for reflexives and passives, impersonal verb forms, and the like, many represent, for the most part, familiar syntactic properties found in other branches of the family. Moreover, some aspects of Albanian syntax look rather like those found in “standard average European” languages, for instance several of the periphrastic tenses, and in that way they do not seem particularly “exotic” or unusual even if not dating to PIE. Still, there are interesting and important characteristics to note about Albanian syntax, both synchronically and diachronically, with a mix of inherited elements from PIE usage and innovative constructions and uses involving both internally motivated and externally caused change. In what follows, various properties of Albanian nominal, verbal, and sentential syntax are surveyed, and what is interesting both from a general and from an Indo-European perspective is highlighted.

2. Nominal morphosyntax and adpositional phrases Within the sphere of the syntax and internal structure of the Albanian noun phrase, especially noteworthy are the various “little words” or “particles” that occur with nominal forms and within the noun phrase. They are mostly found with various modifying elements, whether other nouns in possessive structures, markers of definiteness and specificity, or adjectives.

2.1. Modifiers within nominal phrases To start with modifiers, they typically follow the noun, and with genitive case forms indicating a possessor of the head noun, there is an obligatory connective element linking

97. The syntax of Albanian

1773

them to the noun they follow. This linking element is referred to variously as a “connective particle”, “adjectival article”, “nyje particle” (from the Albanian for “knot”), among other labels. The nyje element has either the form i, e, të, or së, depending on the case, gender, number, and definiteness of the modified noun (though të versus së is based on the final sound of the noun form, with së occurring after the noun ending -s[ë]). Some examples are given in (1): (1)

a. libr-i i Çimit book-the/NOM NYJE Çimi/GEN ‘Çimi’s book / the book of Çimi’s’ b. mora libr-in e Çimit took/1SG book-the/ACC NYJE Çimi/GEN ‘I took Çimi’s book / the book of Çimi’s’ c. mora një libër të Çimit took/1SG a book/ACC NYJE Çimi/GEN ‘I took a book of Çimi’s’

With adjectives, the connective element may or may not occur, with its presence or absence being a matter of morphological and lexical idiosyncrasy, depending on the derivation of the adjective: most basic adjectives are “articulated” (i.e., require the nyje) and certain suffixes always yield articulated adjectives while others (especially but not exclusively, those of foreign origin) always yield unarticulated ones. Some examples of each type are given in (2) and (3) respectively: (2)

a. libr-i i madh book-the/NOM NYJE big ‘the big book’ b. mora libr-in e madh took/1SG book-the/ACC NYJE big ‘I took the big book’ c. mora librat të mëdhenj took/1SG books/ACC NYJE big/MASC.PL ‘I took the big books’

(3)

a. libr-i edukativ book-the/NOM educational ‘the educational book’ b. kam një mik djaloshar have/1SG a friend/ACC youthful ‘I have a youthful friend’.

The occurrence of the connective with basic adjectives and its general absence with forms of foreign origin suggest that this is an old trait within Albanian, but it is not one that predates Common Albanian.

1774

XV. Albanian

Diachronically, the nyje forms continue old demonstrative elements (the t/s alternation from a formal standpoint, though not a distributional one, reflecting in some way the t/s alternation found for instance in Sanskrit sa ‘this/MASC’ vs. tad ‘this/NTR’, though other demonstrative elements might be involved), so that the original syntagm may have involved multiple markings for deixis and definiteness, reinterpreted as a linking element.

2.2. Definiteness within the nominal phrase Definiteness is signaled by means of a postpositive marker, e.g. katund ‘village (NOM)’ / katund-i ‘the village (NOM)’, vajzë ‘girl (ACC)’ / vajzë-n ‘the girl (ACC)’. The definiteness marker, usually called an article, is actually postpositive (enclitic) within the noun phrase as a whole, attaching to the noun itself when the modifier has its usual position after the noun, e.g. vajzë-n të shkretë ‘the miserable girl (ACC)’, but attaching to the adjective when it precedes the noun, for emphasis or contrast, e.g. të shkretë-n vajzë ‘the miserable girl (ACC)’. The postpositive article, like the connective, has its origins in PIE demonstrative elements (the -n of the accusative singular, for instance, probably reflects the outcome of the PIE accusative *-m with a postposed demonstrative, that is *-m=tom > =n=tom > -nnV > -n[ë]). It is a feature shared with other Balkan languages, in particular Macedonian, Bulgarian, Aromanian, and Daco-Romanian, though each language uses its own native material. Although it is likely to have diffused into these languages through contact, in this case, the postpositive placement may be a substratum feature of an autochthonous Balkan language predating Albanian (so Hamp 1982: 79, based on an analysis of the place name Drobeta as “a Latin misunderstanding or misparsing in Moesia Inferior of *druṷā−tā, a definite noun phrase with postposed article”).

2.3. Nominal cases As the examples above with a variety of nominal cases show, thematic and grammatical relations are indicated by case-forms of nouns. Besides the nominative, accusative, genitive, and dative exemplified above, there is also an ablative case, e.g. zogj pulash ‘birds from-hens (i.e. chicks)’. The ablative is distinct from the dative only in the indefinite plural forms, and it is used somewhat infrequently now, being increasingly replaced in many of its functions by various prepositional phrases or by the dative case. In Old Albanian (e.g. in the 1555 Buzuku text) and dialectally in contemporary Albanian, there is also a form that is sometimes referred to as a locative case (so Newmark, Hubbard, and Prifti 1982), e.g. malt from mal ‘mountain’ with the preposition në ‘in, on’, thus në malt ‘in/on the-mountain’ (where accusative malin is found with në in other dialects and in the standard language now). This case is referred to as “instrumental” in Matzinger and Schumacher (this handbook, 2.1.).

97. The syntax of Albanian

1775

2.4. Prepositions In addition, Albanian has prepositions that govern nominals in different case forms and signal various adjunct and oblique grammatical relations within the clause. From an Indo-European standpoint, these are not all that remarkable, as all modern Indo-European languages have adpositions of some sort, even though older stages of some of them show adverbial elements (especially Vedic Sanskrit and Homeric Greek) that do not govern object nominals per se, suggesting that PIE may not have had any adpositions. If so, then the occurrence of prepositions in Albanian is an innovation away from PIE syntax but it is one that all the Indo-European languages took part in, a “drift”-like phenomenon. Two Albanian prepositions, nga ‘from, by’ and tek ‘at/to the location of’, show the trait − unusual both from an Indo-European perspective and more generally cross-linguistically − of governing nouns in the nominative case. In the case of tek, this trait is explainable via its etymology, since this preposition apparently compresses within it traces of PIE correlative syntax, being originally ‘there where NOMINATIVE is’ (so Mann 1932: 72; see also Hamp apud Joseph and Maynard 2000), with the t- of tek reflecting the PIE *to- demonstrative and the -k the relative stem *kw- (and with suppression of the copula, as is usual for PIE). The etymology of nga is more obscure, but one might expect a similar sort of explanation for its nominative “object”.

3. Verbal syntax Several features of the Albanian verb qualify as noteworthy from the point of view of historical syntax, including the internal syntax of how certain verbal constructs are composed. Thus mention is made here of the way in which PIE preverbs are realized in Albanian, the formation of various multi-word periphrastic tenses, and the uses of the non-active (mediopassive) voice. Note too that the discussion of weak object pronouns below in 4.2. treats an aspect of Albanian verbal syntax in that the co-occurrence of such pronouns with full objects can be taken as a means of expressing transitivity and thus registering a verb’s argument structure.

3.1. Preverbs Like all other Indo-European subgroups, Albanian shows the accretion onto a verbal root of prefixal elements generally referred to as “preverbs” that once (in PIE) were independent adverbial modifiers within the clause or verb phrase, as in dialectal des ‘die’ versus standard vdes ‘die’. In this regard, therefore, Albanian participated in the same “drift” as other Indo-European languages involving these original adverbials (see 2.4. on prepositions for another aspect of drift involving these elements). Many of these have traceable Indo-European pedigrees (e.g., regarding the form of v-, compare the Sanskrit preverb ava, and for the function of v-, compare Ancient Greek θνήσκω / ἀποθνήσκω ‘die).

1776

XV. Albanian

For the most part, just one preverb occurs on a verb at a time, so that in this way Albanian is unlike Indo-Iranian, Greek, Celtic, and Balto-Slavic. However, there are a few forms with multiple preverbs, at least from a diachronic perspective, since it is unclear that they could be so identified synchronically due to the degree of fusion between preverbs and verbal root. For instance, the stem hëngër-, which forms the suppletive past tense to the present ha- ‘eat’, derives from a sequence of multiple preverbs attached to a root: *Ho-en-gwrō-, where *Ho corresponds to the initial element in Greek ὀ-κέλλω ‘I run (a ship) aground’ and *en to Greek ἐν- as in ἐν-τρέπω ‘I turn in, and *gwrō- is the verbal root seen in Greek βι-βρώ-σκω ‘I eat’, Latin vorō ‘I devour’, etc. A similar phenomenon is seen with some preverbs and the PIE verbal past tense prefixal marker, the so-called “augment”, otherwise not overtly observable in Albanian. In particular, the verb marr ‘take’ is from a preverb *me plus the root and nasal-present formation seen in Greek ἄρνυμαι ‘I gain’, with the -rr- reflecting *-rn-; to explain the vocalism in the past stem, mor-, one can posit *me with the augment *e, and just the root (with no nasal outside of the present system), with a fused (contracted) *mē yielding Albanian mo-. The “interior” positioning of the augment parallels its placement with respect to preverbs in Greek and Sanskrit and thus may reflect an old feature, even if the univerbation took place at the level of the individual branches of Indo-European.

3.2. Periphrastic formations Two-word syntactic combinations that fill paradigmatic slots, so-called “periphrastic” formations, are a key feature of Albanian morphosyntax. The future tense, the perfect system forms, and the modal category known as the “admirative” − indicating (among other modalities) a speaker’s surprise at some unexpected aspect of an event or situation − all now involve, or historically did involve, periphrasis, as does the expression of progressive aspect. In addition, various nonfinite formations are multiword periphrases based on the Albanian participle.

3.2.1. Future tense There is a major dialectological split within Albanian between a periphrastic future based on ‘have’, found in Geg dialects, and one based on ‘want’, found in Tosk dialects (though the dialect distribution is somewhat more complicated). The Geg future uses an infinitive (marked by a prefixal element me) introduced by an inflected ‘have’ auxiliary, whereas the Tosk future uses a finite subjunctive, introduced by a fixed invariant form do, the third person singular form of ‘want’ (but with its volitional meaning depleted): (4)

a. (Tosk) do të shkoj / do të shkosh want/3SG SUBJ go/1SG go/2SG ‘I will go’ / ‘you will go’

97. The syntax of Albanian

1777

b. (Geg) kam me shkue / ke me shkue have/1SG INF go/PPL have/2SG ‘I will go’ / ‘you will go’ Both formations represent innovations away from the PIE monolectal (synthetic) future, and both must be considered in the context of the Balkan Sprachbund. The ‘want’-based future, especially with an invariant future marker involved, is found in Greek, Aromanian, Daco-Romanian, Macedonian, Bulgarian, and Romani, whereas a ‘have’-based future is found in Macedonian and Bulgarian (where the distribution is grammatically determined, with ‘have’ found mainly in negative forms, and ‘want’ elsewhere) as well as in Daco-Romanian (competing with the ‘want’ future, with some nuanced meaning differences) and some dialects of Aromanian (in negated forms, probably calqued on Macedonian). The exact source of the Albanian futures may well thus lie in contact with one (or more) of those languages, though Vulgar Latin, an important contact language for prehistoric Albanian in the Balkans, may have played a role (note the ‘have’ futures of modern Romance languages, for instance, and there are future-like uses of volō ‘I want’ in late Latin). Moreover, given the existence of parallels outside of Indo-European to both types of future formation, independent emergence of each within Albanian cannot be discounted. But the periphrastic composition of each type historically is clear.

3.2.2. Perfect system Replacing the synthetic perfect of PIE, Albanian developed a periphrastic perfect, with the verb ‘have’ as an auxiliary for active forms and ‘be’ as an auxiliary for non-active forms; in each case, the main verb is expressed as a participle. Examples are given in (5): (5)

a. kam larë / kemi larë have/1SG wash/PPL have/1PL ‘I have washed’ / ‘we have washed’ b. jam larë / jemi larë be/1SG wash/PPL be/1PL ‘I have been washed’ / ‘we have been washed’

A full set of forms is possible, covering all verbal categories of tense and mood; for instance, a pluperfect active and perfect subjunctive active are given in (6a), and an optative perfect non-active in (6b): (6)

a. kishim larë ‘we had washed’ të kemi larë ‘that we have washed’ b. qofsha larë be/OPT.1SG wash/PPL ‘may I have been washed’

1778

XV. Albanian

The innovation of an analytic periphrastic perfect is found in the later stages of several branches of Indo-European (compare English and German, for instance, and Romance), so in that sense, here again, Albanian is taking part in a development that may be associated with another characteristic Indo-European drift, in this case towards analytic structures. At the same time, periphrastic perfects with ‘have’ are found in most of the languages of the Balkan Sprachbund (in Macedonian, for instance, such a formation has developed and has come to occupy a different niche in the verbal system from that of the inherited Slavic ‘be’-based perfect), with the pluperfect being a key point of convergence among the languages (it was the point of entry for the whole ‘have’-based perfect of Modern Greek, for instance).

3.2.3. Admirative Although the use of the admirative is connected with pragmatics and discourse factors, its form clearly reflects an origin in a syntactic combination akin to a perfect formation, consisting of a truncated participle with a postposed inflected form of ‘have’ fused to the participle. There are admirative forms in all tenses and moods, active and non-active; (7) has a sampling (see 3.3. on the non-active formation in [7c]) with glosses that are inadequate as they are not in a suitable discourse context: (7)

a. paskam ‘I might have’ (cf. participle pasur ‘had’) qenke ‘are you really?’ (cf. participle qenë ‘been’) b. paskam larë ‘I might have washed’ (PERF.ADM) c. u lakam ‘I might wash myself, I might be washed’ (cf. participle larë)

Although built with native Albanian material, the admirative is clearly an innovation, constituting a category that could not have been a part of the PIE verbal system (inasmuch as it is absent from every ancient Indo-European language). It shows affinities with similar categories in Macedonian and Bulgarian that were built on their perfect formations; in the emergence of this category, all of these languages may have been influenced by Turkish, a language with an inherited category marking a speaker’s epistemic stance towards a narrated event.

3.2.4. Nonfinite formations Albanian inherited a participle, generally ending in -r in Tosk, reflecting a PIE *-nosuffix, that, like analogously formed participles in Sanskrit (and cf. Hittite *-ntparticiples), generally has a passive value when formed from transitives and an active value when formed from intransitives, e.g. shkruar ‘(having been) written’, shëtitur ‘(having) strolled’. From this participle, a variety of periphrastic nonfinite formations are made, all innovative, vis-à-vis PIE, in form and to a large extent in function; following the terminology of Newmark, Hubbard, and Prifti (1982: 64−65), these are given in (8):

97. The syntax of Albanian (8)

a. b. c. d.

1779

Privative: pa larë ‘without washing’ Gerundive: duke larë ‘while washing’ Infinitive: për të larë ‘(in order) to wash’ Absolutive: me të larë ‘upon washing’

Note too that Geg has an infinitive formed with me and a shortened form of the participle, e.g. me punue ‘to work’, as opposed to the widespread Tosk për të punuar. Still, there are traces of a Geg-like infinitive with me in some dialects of Tosk. The composition of these formations is fairly clear and suggests a relatively recent development; most of the relevant formative elements occur otherwise as prepositions with nominal objects (see 2.4.) − cf. pa ‘without’, për ‘for’, me ‘with’. It is likely moreover that the të of the Tosk infinitive is a nominalizing element (perhaps to be identified with the nyje particle) that combines with participles; cf. të dhënat ‘data’, from the participle of ‘give’ (see also 4.3.). In that regard, inasmuch as infinitives in other Indo-European languages typically are formed from deverbal nouns, and the *-no- suffix of the participle that figures in the Albanian infinitival formation also occurs in the Germanic infinitive (cf. Gothic bairan ‘to bear’, from *bheronom) and forms a deverbal derivative in Sanskrit (Ved. bháraṇam ‘[an act of] bearing’), the Albanian infinitive may be a replacement for a PIE infinitival prototype rather than a wholly innovated category and formation. Further, if the occasional me formations in some Tosk dialects are taken seriously as relics, and not as borrowings from Geg, that proto-Albanian infinitive may well have been of the Geg type.

3.2.5. Progressive aspect One further periphrasis with grammatical value is seen in the two ways in which the indication of progressive aspect in the present and past can be realized. The marker po can occur with present and imperfect tense forms, as in (9ab). (9)

a. Ç’ po bën tani? what PO do/2SG now ‘What are you doing now?’ b. Po të vështroja PO you/ACC watch/1SG.IMPF ‘I was watching you’ c. Jam duke të vështruar be/1SG PROG you/ACC watch/PPL ‘I am watching you’

The second type seen (9c), being built on a relatively new nonfinite formation, most likely itself represents a recent development, but the type with po is surely an old feature of Albanian, as it is found in both major dialects, even if innovative from the standpoint of PIE. Newmark, Hubbard, and Prifti (1982: 36) identify this verbal po with the “emphatic particle” po meaning ‘yes, indeed, exactly so!’, though perhaps in a different way;

1780

XV. Albanian

Hamp (apud Joseph 2011) has derived po from *pēst, a combination of an asseverative particle *pe (cf. Latin quip-pe why so?; of course’ [from *kwid-pe]) with a 3sg injunctive form of *H1es- ‘be’, so that po is etymologically ‘[it is] just [now] so’, and this “justnow” meaning is the basis for the emergence of a temporal progressive sense for po. Interestingly, this usage has no counterpart in any of the other Balkan languages.

3.3. Non-active voice Albanian has a categorial distinction between active and non-active voice, where the non-active corresponds to what is also called “middle” or “mediopassive”. There is a distinct set of endings added to a special stem in the present non-active system (taking in the present, imperfect, and future tenses and the subjunctive mood), and in other forms (taking in the past tense, the optative, admirative, and imperative moods, and nonfinite forms) the non-active is formed from the combination of active forms with a voice marker u, that is generally a prefix (but postposed in the imperative). Returning to the theme of 3.2.3., there is a periphrastic non-active in the perfect, consisting of ‘be’ plus the participle. Some examples of all of these formations are given in (10): (10) laj ‘I wash’ / lahem ‘I am washed, I wash myself’ lava ‘I washed’ / u lava ‘I was washed, I washed myself’ lafsha ‘may I wash’ / u lafsha ‘may I be washed, may I wash myself’ për të larë ‘(in order) to wash’ / për t’u larë ‘(in order) to be washed; to wash myself’ kam larë ‘I have washed’ / jam larë ‘I have been washed, I have washed myself’ As the glosses in (10) indicate, the uses of non-active forms include passive and reflexive meanings; in plurals, a reciprocal sense is possible too, e.g. lahemi ‘we wash each other’. Some verbs are deponent, occurring only in the non-active, even if their meaning is active, e.g. kollem ‘I cough’. In addition, there is an impersonal use of the third person non-active forms, most often negated, to indicate a generalized activity, even with intransitives, e.g. s’shkohet ‘there’s no going’ (cf. shkon ‘it goes’). These uses are familiar and widespread across Indo-European (cf. the Greek and Sanskrit middle voice), and thus they surely continue PIE uses of non-active. From the standpoint of form, it is noteworthy that Albanian is one of the two modern Indo-European languages, along with Greek, that has an inherited distinct monolectal (synthetic) verbal form for the non-active. For Albanian, though, the synthetic form is restricted to the present system and related forms; in the aorist (and other categories, especially the nonfinite forms) one encounters the analytic formation, as in (10), employing the particle u, which derives (in a somewhat complicated way) from the PIE reflexive element *swe.

4. Word order The order of elements in the Albanian clause is typically subject − verb − object, when full nominals are involved as subject and object. Still, case-marking and the use of weak

97. The syntax of Albanian

1781

object pronouns to register arguments on the verb (see 5.2.) allow for greater freedom of order for the major constituents of a clause, in some instances associated with pragmatic factors such as topicality. Moreover, it is quite common in discourse for full nominals to be replaced by pro-forms, in particular weak object pronouns for direct and indirect objects, and “zero” (the absence of an overt form altogether) for the subject. The freedom of constituent order in Albanian parallels what is found in other IndoEuropean languages with similar morphological cues for identifying arguments.

5. Sentential syntax In the area of clausal syntax, there are three main phenomena to consider: negation, weak object pronoun (“clitic”) behavior, and complementation.

5.1. Negation Albanian has a distinction between what may be called “modal” and “nonmodal” negation, roughly equivalent to nonindicative versus indicative negation. Thus, as in (11), the present, imperfect, aorist, perfect, and future tenses are negated with s’ or nuk, whereas imperative, subjunctive, and optative forms (as well as nonfinite formations), as in (12), are negated with mos: (11) a. b. c. d. e. f.

Unë nuk e njoh ‘I do not know him’ (PRES) S’ke para ‘You do not have money’ (PRES) Nuk do të vijë atje ‘He won’t come here’ (FUT) Nuk lexonte ‘He was not reading’ (IMPF) S’lexuam një libër ‘We did not read a book’ (AOR) S’e kanë parë ‘They haven’t seen him’ (PERF)

(12) a. b. c. d.

Përpiqet të mos qeshë ‘He tries not to laugh’ (SUBJ) Mos shko në Tiranë ‘Don’t go to Tirana’ (IMPV) Mos vdeksh kurrë ‘May you never die’ (OPT) Erdha ne Tiranë për të mos u mërzitur ‘I came to Tirana (in order) not to be bored’ (NONFINITE)

This differential usage of nuk/s’ and mos continues an old distinction, one that is inherited from Proto-Indo-European. Greek, Armenian, and Indo-Iranian show essentially this same distinction: Ancient Greek − οὐ versus μή (Modern Greek đen [from Ancient Greek οὐδέν, built with the οὐ negator] versus mi); Armenian − ocˇʿ versus mi; Sanskrit/ Avestan − na versus mā. μή/mi/mā negate modal forms and οὐ/ocˇʿ/na negate indicatives. They reflect a PIE distinction of indicative *ne versus modal *mē (Greek οὐ and Armenian ocˇʿ indirectly so, being from a truncation of *ne H2oyu kwid ‘not ever at-all’ [Cowgill 1960], to which Albanian as- ‘no-’ [as in ‘no one’ or ‘nothing’ or ‘nowhere’] may belong, just as s’ represents a trunction of *né kwid, with the same extension as in mos, from *mḗ kwid).

1782

XV. Albanian

At the same time, mos shows some innovative uses that in part go beyond negation, and, interestingly, are shared by Greek and in some instances other Balkan languages. One such use is in dubitative questions, as in (13): (13) mos e njihni atë? mos him know/2PL him/ACC ‘Do you perhaps know him?’ which is matched functionally by such questions with μή in Ancient Greek, and, as in (14), mi in Modern Greek, but is found in no other Indo-European languages: (14) Min iđes to peđi? mi saw/2SG the child ‘Did you perhaps see the child?’ Thus, this may well be an early Greek innovation that was borrowed (calqued) into Albanian, but still represents a new usage that entered Albanian post-PIE. Another such innovation with mos is an independent use as a one-word prohibitive utterance (15a), also found in Modern Greek (15b) and Romani (15c), but interestingly, not in Ancient Greek nor in any other Indo-European language: (15) a. Mos! ‘Don’t’ b. Mi! ‘Don’t!’ c. Ma be, Ismet! ‘Hey you, Ismet, don’t [ma]!’ Given the absence of this usage from Ancient Greek, it quite possibly reflects an Albanian innovation that spread into Modern Greek (and Romani). Both the question use and the independent prohibition use of mos may reflect extensions within Albanian of simple prohibitive *mḗ, inasmuch as the usage in (15) is clearly related to the expression of verbal prohibitions (possibly, therefore, through elision of a now-only-implicit verb), and the uses in (13)/(14) are associated with weak negation of a modal type. However, given the chronological and geographical distribution of clear parallels in Indo-European outside of Albanian, they seem to represent innovations affecting Albanian that took place on Balkan soil, whether emanating from Albanian itself or finding their way into Albanian from some other Balkan language.

5.2. Clitics Another important aspect of Albanian clausal syntax is the occurrence of weak (so-called “clitic”) forms of personal pronouns, e.g. accusative/dative më ‘me’ (versus “strong” mua), accusative/dative e ‘him, her’ (versus strong atë), or dative u ‘to them’ (versus strong atyre). The presence of such forms in the grammar of Albanian is surely a reflex of a PIE strong/weak distinction, given that similar alternations are found in Greek, Hittite, Indo-Iranian (especially Vedic and Avestan), Old Church Slavonic, and Old Irish, among other languages, and to some extent, the forms of the weak pronouns match up

97. The syntax of Albanian

1783

well (m- in first person singular, t- in second person singular, n- in first person plural, etc.). The positioning of the weak pronouns, however, is probably not old but shows affinity with the innovative positioning of parallel elements in Greek (innovative vis-à-vis Ancient and Medieval Greek, cf. Pappas 2003) and Macedonian (innovative vis-à-vis South Slavic, as a comparison with Old Church Slavonic and Bulgarian shows) and is thus probably tied in some way to contact among these languages. In Albanian, the weak pronouns precede all verb forms, though with imperatives they may show postpositive placement: (16) a. Unë nuk e njoh I/NOM NEG him know ‘I do not know him’ b. Më njihni mirë me/ACC know/2PL well ‘You know me well’ c. Mund të ju ndihmojmë can SUBJ you help/1PL ‘We can help you’ d. Pa e pare ikën without him see/PPL left/3PL ‘Without seeing him, they left’ e. C’ ju paska ngjarë what you have/ADM.3SG happen/PPL ‘What on earth happened to you?’ f. Na shkruaj! Shkruaj na! us/DAT write/IMPV ‘Write to us!’ Assuming some sort of “Wackernagel” placement of weak pronouns for PIE, that is, in second position within their governing unit (phrase or clause), as proposed by Wackernagel (1892), the Albanian placement shows two innovations: it is verb-centered (always adjacent to the verb), rather than positioned relative to some element in the clause or phrase, and it involves (nearly) constant pre-positioning (proclisis) of the weak form. The postpositive (enclitic) placement in the imperative could, however, reflect an inherited trait, since imperatives typically would be initial within their clause (as the lone verb with the subject suppressed), and thus an enclitic element would actually be in second position. One striking fact about the placement of weak pronouns is their positioning in the imperative plural, where the pronoun can be interior to the person/number marker, thus an apparent “endoclitic” (a word-internally positioned clitic): (17) Shkruamëni ‘Write to me!’ (vs. Më shkruani ‘idem’).

1784

XV. Albanian

Admittedly, this placement may say more about the nature of the 2PL ending -ni than about the pronoun, since -ni shows other signs of having a “freer” status than that of other person/number endings. In particular, it can occur as a “plural” marker with a number of interjections, adverbials, particles, and even greetings, forms that would not ordinarily be thought of as being compatible with a verbal plural ending; a few such cases are given in (18), from Newmark, Hubbard, and Prifti (1982: 324): (18) a. Mosni ‘Don’t (you all)!’ (cf. Mos! ‘Don’t’ [15a] ) b. Forcani ‘Heave ho (you all)!’ (cf. forca ‘heave ho!’ [from forca ‘powers’]) c. Mirëmëngjesni ‘Good morning (you all)!’ (cf. Mirëmëngjes ‘good morning’) These suggest that -ni may have once had greater freedom than an ending like -(j)më for first person plural, and if so, then diachronically shkrua-më-ni might reflect a later accretion of a once-independent “ending” onto an imperative form with a postpositive weak pronoun object. Interestingly, there is a parallel in Modern Greek to this seemingly unusual pronoun placement in imperatives; in Thessalian Greek (see Tzartzanos 1909), one finds intercalated -m- for a first person singular object between the root and the second plural imperative ending, with a few verbs, e.g. do-m-ti ‘(You all) give me!’ (literally: “give-me-PL!”). The shkrua-më-ni placement, therefore, may represent a contact-induced innovation in Albanian, though it is as likely that Greek borrowed this construction from Albanian (specifically, from Arvanitika, the Tosk Albanian dialect spoken in Greece for the past 600 years or so, with a heavy concentration of speakers in central Greece), and independent innovation cannot be ruled out. A further innovative aspect of Albanian syntax involving weak pronouns is that they can co-occur with full object forms, either strong forms of pronouns or full noun phrases, as in (19): (19) a. E pashë Gjonin ‘I saw John’ (literally: “him I-saw the-John”) b. Të pamë ty ‘We saw you’ (literally: “you we-saw you”) c. I dha Gjonit një libër ‘He gave John a book’ (literally: “to-him he-gave tothe-John a book”) This “clitic doubling” (also called “object reduplication”) has a largely pragmatic function, having to do with information flow, topicality, focus, and the like (see Friedman 2008). However, in certain contexts, it has a purely grammatical (i.e. syntactic) function, occurring obligatorily when co-indexing a dative case-marked indirect object, so that (19c) without the cross-indexing I doubling the object, is ungrammatical (*Dha Gjonit një libër). Clitic doubling occurs throughout the Balkan languages. In Greek, it is entirely pragmatically linked, whereas in Macedonian, a grammatical use parallel to that in Albanian is found, with obligatory doubling of full indirect objects. Given the distribution of this phenomenon and its relatively late appearance in Greek (i.e., it is not part of Ancient Greek syntax) and in other Indo-European languages (e.g. in Spanish, but not in Latin), clitic doubling seems to be a Balkan innovation that has entered Albanian. Most likely its emergence is to be tied to the need for communicative clarity, as expressed through

97. The syntax of Albanian

1785

redundancy and emphasis, in cross-language interactions among speakers of different languages with less-than-native command of the other language. One final use of a subset of the weak pronouns that is noteworthy is for marking the speaker’s emotional involvement in the action expressed in the clause. There is no doubling, since there is no formal object, and the only forms possible here are the first and second person singular and first person plural weak dative pronouns. The function is essentially that of the so-called “dative of interest” or “ethical dative”, and as such, given that there are parallels for this usage in non-Balkan Indo-European languages (e.g. Latin and Germanic), it most likely represents an archaism in Albanian grammar. Some of the more complicated combinatory possibilities that result, as with the 1SG + 2SG + 3PL in (20) (from Newmark, Hubbard, and Prifti 1982: 27), indicating here both speaker and hearer involvement and a doubled object, may well be an Albanian innovation. (20) ai fiku … më t’ i bënte this-fig/NOM me/DAT you/DAT them/ACC made ato kokrrat na … sa një ftua these bits/ACC behold as-big-as a quince ‘That fig tree produced (“for me for you them”) figs, wow … the size of a quince’.

5.3. Complementation One further striking feature of Albanian syntax that aligns it with Balkan Sprachbund languages and differentiates it from most other Indo-European languages is the preponderance of subordinate clauses with finite verbs − most typically subjunctives marked with të − inflected for person and number. This finite complementation means, from a structural standpoint, that all verbs in a sentence are fully “specified” as to person and number and in some instances, tense. This is a feature which links Albanian to the Balkan Sprachbund, as it is found, to varying degrees throughout the region, most thoroughly in Greek and Macedonian, and fairly intensely in Bulgarian, Aromanian, and DacoRomanian. Presumably, therefore, this phenomenon is not all that old in Albanian, and dates to the period of intense contact with other Balkan languages in the Middle Ages (especially the Ottoman period). Like clitic doubling (5.2.), the use of finite complements instead of infinitives may have been a function of a desire on the part of speakers for clarity of communication via redundancy in a multi-lingual contact situation. (See Joseph 1983 on this Balkan trait, and Chapter 4 on Albanian specifically.) The extensive use of finite complementation is actually more a feature of the Tosk dialect of Albanian (and thus of the standard language, which is generally based on Tosk) than of the Geg dialect. As noted in 3.2.4., Geg has an infinitive, consisting of the marker me with the participle, and it is used in complementation in contexts in which Tosk uses a finite complement. Some Tosk examples of finite complements, governed by verbs, adjectives, and nouns, are given in (21), and some Geg examples of infinitival subordination, governed by verbs, nouns, and a subordinating conjunction, are seen in (22).

1786

XV. Albanian

(21) a. dua të shkruaj want/1SG SUBJ write/1SG ‘I want to write’ (literally: “I want that I write”) b. do të vazhdojmë të ulemi atje FUT continue/1PL SUBJ sit/1PL here ‘We will continue to sit here’ (literally: “We will continue that we sit here”; note that the future is formed by placing the particle do before the present subjunctive) c. mund të shkoni në Tiranë can SUBJ go/2PL to Tirana ‘You (all) can go to Tirane’ (literally: “It-can that you go to Tirana”) d. është e vështirë të qeshin be/3SG difficult SUBJ laugh/3PL ‘It is difficult for them to laugh’ (literally: “It is difficult that they laugh”) e. propozimi të shkojmé në Shqipëri proposal-the SUBJ go/1PL to Albania ‘the proposal for us to go to Albania’ (literally: “the proposal that we go to Albania”) f. vijmë në shkollën që të mësojmë come/1PL to school in-order SUBJ learn/1PL ‘We come to school in order to learn’ (literally: “We come to school in order that we learn”) (22) a. dëshiroj me të pa desire/1SG INF you/ACC see/PPL ‘I desire to see you’ b. puna me e shue këtë politike task-the INF it wipe-out/PPL this-policy/ACC ‘the task of wiping out this policy’ c. shkoi përjashta me mësue filozofi went/3SG abroad INF study/PPL philosophy ‘He went abroad (in order) to study philosophy’ d. sado me u kujdesue … despite INF REFL worry/PPL ‘Despite (his) worrying,…’ Interpreting these facts historically is even further complicated by the fact that Tosk also has an infinitive, as seen above in 3.2.4., with the form për të + Participle. The infinitive in Tosk has rather limited uses, mainly occurring in the expression of purpose, though it can be used in complementation, as in (23). (23) a. ata folja shërben për të emërtuar një veprim these verbs serve/3PL INF designate/PPL an action ‘These verbs serve to designate an action’

97. The syntax of Albanian

1787

b. është e vështirë për të thënë be/3SG difficult INF say/PPL ‘It is difficult to say’ c. propozimi për të vënë në funksionin artilerinë proposal-the INF put/PPL in function artillery ‘the proposal to put artillery into place’ The për të + participle formation has the appearance of being a relatively recent creation. Importantly, a formation that is somewhat similar, but at the same time different in a significant way, is found in Old Albanian. In the Buzuku text, për të occurs with a true nominalized element, clearly so since it shows marking for definiteness and case, e.g. për të lutunit ‘for the prayer’ (with definite dative case marking on the participle lutunfrom lus ‘invoke’). Moreover, non-active voice marking as illustrated in 3.3., (10), seems not to occur with these early për të formations (and is not allowed in the ostensibly parallel Arvanitika formation). The passage from a nominal formation to a verbal one, capable of marking voice distinctions, is thus an innovation that took place within historically documented Albanian.

6. References Cowgill, Warren 1960 Greek ou and Armenian oč’. Language 36: 347−350. Friedman, Victor A. 2008 Balkan object reduplication in areal and dialectological perspective. In: Dalina Kallulli and Liliane Tasmowski (eds.), Clitic Doubling in the Balkan Languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 35−63. Hamp, Eric P. 1982 The Oldest Albanian Syntagma. Balkansko ezikoznanie 25: 77−79. Joseph, Brian D. 1983 The Synchrony and Diachrony of the Balkan Infinitive: A Study in Areal, General, and Historical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Joseph, Brian D. 1989 Η ερμηνεία μερικών βορείων τύπων της προστακτικής κατά τη σημερινή μορφολογική θεωρία [The Interpretation of Several Northern Forms of the Imperative According to Current Morphological Theory]. Ελληνική Διαλεκτολογία 1: 21−26. Joseph, Brian D. and Kelly Maynard 2000 Hamp Lectures on the Albanian Language, Ohio State University 11/29−12/4, 1999. Indo-European Studies Bulletin (University of California at Los Angeles) 9(1): 25−27. Mann, Stuart 1932 A Short Albanian Grammar with vocabularies, and selected passages for reading. London: David Nutt. Newmark, Leonard, Philip Hubbard, and Peter Prifti 1982 Standard Albanian. A reference grammar for students. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Pappas, Panayiotis 2003 Variation and Morphosyntactic Change in Greek: From Clitics to Affixes. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

1788

XV. Albanian

Tzartzanos, Achilleus 1909 Περὶ τοῦ συγχρόνου Θεσσαλικῆς διαλέκτου [On the modern Thessalian dialect]. Athens: P. A. Petrakou. Wackernagel, Jacob 1892 Über ein Gesetz der indogermanischen Wortstellung. Indogermanische Forschungen 1: 333−436.

Brian D. Joseph, Columbus, OH (USA)

98. The lexicon of Albanian 1. 2. 3. 4.

Introduction Inherited vocabulary Loan-words Specific vocabulary

5. Word-formation 6. Future perspectives and desiderata 7. References

1. Introduction 1.1. Fundamentals of Albanian lexicology Apart from some scarce evidence (proper names, single words, and single phrases), the literary documentation of Albanian begins with theological texts in the mid-16 th century CE. Mostly translations of Latin originals, these texts were written by representatives of the Catholic clergy. The first author known to us is Gjon Buzuku (“Missal” of 1555), a priest from the Geg dialect area. Literature in the Tosk dialect begins with the work of the Italo-Albanian priest Lekë Matrënga (Dottrina cristiana of 1592). After the Ottoman conquest of the Balkans − some one hundred years before the aforementioned first written Albanian records − Albania became an integral part of the Ottoman empire for 500 years. As a consequence of this long-lasting Ottoman rule Albanian literary production came to a standstill. The theological documents of the 16 th and 17 th centuries thus constitute the Old Albanian literature. It was only in the second half of the 19 th century that Albanian literature outside and − to a smaller extent − inside Albania began anew. This fact was caused by the so-called National Awakening (Rilindja [kombëtare]), the struggle of the Albanians against Ottoman domination leading to the independence of the emerging Albanian state in 1912. With respect to literature, this comprises the very fruitful period of the great Albanian classical writers culminating in the works of Father Gjergj Fishta (1871−1940). During the time of the Rilindja, the Albanian lexicon increased impressively because of the great number of neologisms and calques created by the Rilindja writers (see Buchholz and Fiedler 1979). Albania’s best known contemporary author is Ismajl Kadare (born 1936). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-019

98. The lexicon of Albanian

1789

1.2. Problems of Albanian lexicology and works on the Albanian lexicon Work on Albanian lexicological subjects is complicated by the total lack of any comprehensive codification of the Albanian lexicon so far. This fact makes it sometimes difficult if not impossible to find out e.g. the first attestation of a given word and to survey its history. Nevertheless, some minor dictionaries are at our disposal. The Old Albanian lexicon is collected in the works of Ashta (1998, 2000a, 2000b, 2002), which unfortunately do not fulfill serious philological criteria and are far from complete. The dictionary of Mann (1948) covers the Old and New Albanian lexicon, including some Rilindja authors, and gives very limited information on the sources of its entries. The lexicon of the modern (Tosk-based) standard language has been collected in the Academy Dictionary edited by Kostallari (1980). Composed during the Albanian Communist era, it does not cover the entire Albanian lexicon. Items not convenient to the Communist ideology − this includes dialectal forms − have intentionally been left out. A good many of the words omitted by Kostallari have meanwhile been included in the dictionary of Elezi (2006). Other sources of reference are the dictionaries of Buchholz, Fiedler, and Uhlisch (1981) and Newmark (1998), the latter of which covers non-standard forms. Furthermore Eqrem Çabej’s etymological dictionary (Çabej 1976−2006) is a highly valuable source. Finally, a useful collection of various articles on modern Albanian lexical matters is found in a three-volume edition by Kostallari (1972−1989). On Albanian lexicology in general, see Hetzer (1991) and Fiedler (2011). Where necessary, the Albanian examples cited in the following sections are differentiated with respect to their dialectal origin either as Geg (Northern dialects of Albania and Kosovo) or as Tosk (Southern dialects of Albania and Albanian dialects of the diaspora in Italy and Greece).

2. Inherited vocabulary 2.1. The Indo-European lexical stock of Albanian As a consequence of massive borrowing from other languages (see 3.), Albanian has lost a great part of the inherited Indo-European lexical stock. Nevertheless, many IndoEuropean items have been preserved: motërë ‘sister’(!) < IE */māter-/ (cf. Latin māter ‘mother’), dorë ‘hand’ < */g̑ hēr-/ (< IE */g̑ hesr-/, cf. Hittite keššar, Greek χείρ), (i) madh ‘big, great’ < IE */meg̑h2-/ (cf. Greek μέγας), ti ‘you’ (2 nd sg.) < IE */tū/ (cf. Latin tū), dy (m.) ‘two’ < IE */duu̯o/ (cf. Greek δύο), bie ‘bring, carry’ < IE */b her-/ (cf. Latin ferō), njeh ‘know’ < IE */g̑neh3-/ (cf. Latin nōscō), and many others. Remodelled to āstems, a good part of the Indo-European stock of feminine consonant stems has been preserved in Albanian (cf. e.g. Albanian natë ‘night’ < Proto-Albanian */nakt-ā/ compared with Latin nox, -ctis). One former IE root noun is of special interest. The IE lexeme */ped-/pod-/ ‘foot’ (cf. Latin pēs), replaced in its primary value by the Latin loan-word camba ‘ankle’ (cf. Italian gamba), whence Old Geg kâmbë, and Old Tosk [Variboba] këmb, has been fossilized in a special context: the adverb përposh (also poshtë) ‘below, down’, which is based on the locative plural *pēd-si (the Proto-Albanian ending */-si/ is an innovation comparable to Greek -σι). A similar formation can be found in Old Irish ís ‘below’ < *pḗd-su.

1790

XV. Albanian

The inherited Indo-European components of the Albanian lexicon are for the most part collected in the etymological dictionaries of Meyer (1891), Çabej (1976−2006), Huld (1984), Demiraj (1997), and Orel (1998).

2.2. The question of Illyrian components in Albanian Although it is widely believed that Albanian goes back to Illyrian or even Thracian, this view cannot be seriously upheld from the linguistic point of view (see Matzinger 2009). None of the ancient personal or local names ascribed to Illyrian are continued in Albanian without interruption (e.g. the place-name Shkodra is merely a loan from Latin Scodra). Consequently, Albanian cannot be regarded as an offspring of Illyrian or even Thracian but must be considered to be a modern continuation of some other undocumented Indo-European Balkan idiom. However, Albanian is closely related to Illyrian and also Messapic (a language spoken in Southern Italy in antiquity but originally of Balkan origin), which is why Albanian in some instances may shed some light on the explanation of Messapic as well as Illyrian words (see Matzinger 2005): (Messapic-)Oenotrian ῥινός ‘clouds’ ~ Old Geg rẽ, Old Tosk rē ‘cloud’, the Messapic gloss βρένδο- ‘stag’ and the place-name Brundisium (Italian Bríndisi) ~ Old Geg brĩ, or the name of the Illyrian tribe of the Taulantioi ~ Albanian dallëndyshe ‘swallow’ (see Eichner 2004: 10 f.).

2.3. Correspondences of the Albanian lexicon with Rumanian Albanian shares a considerable number of words in common with Rumanian (see Solta 1980: 3 f., 125 f. and Vătăşescu 1997). Some of them are remnants of an old inherited vocabulary (e.g. Albanian thark ‘pen for young livestock’ ~ Rumanian ţarc ‘id.’), while others comprise a younger category of Latin words attested in some cases only in Albanian and Rumanian (e.g. Albanian mëngon ‘get up very early’ ~ Rumanian mâneca ‘id.’ ← Latin *mānicāre ‘id.’). Both classes emerged from old and intensive contacts between the Proto-Albanians and the ancestors of the Rumanians. A widespread opinion regards the older category of the Albano-Rumanian common lexicon as the reflex of an ancient substratum of Thracian, Dacian, or unknown origin (a collection of these words is Brâncuş 1983). Aside from a few single words of perhaps non-Indo-European origin (Albanian modhullë ‘yellow vetchling [Lathyrus aphaca]’ ~ Rumanian mazăre ‘pea’), the largest part of this alleged substratum common to both Albanian and Rumanian consists simply of loan-words in Rumanian from Proto-Albanian, e.g. Rumanian ţarc ‘pen for young livestock’ from Proto-Albanian */tsárka-/ (Modern Albanian thark). The derivational base of this noun is continued in the Old Albanian verb thurën ‘interweave’ (< IE */k̑erH-/ ‘weave’, cf. Latin crātis ‘pen’; see details in Schumacher 2009: 43−45).

2.4. Albanian in comparison to other Indo-European languages With respect to quantity, there is a fundamental difference in the Albanian lexicon between the inherited components of Indo-European origin (2.1) and the loans from various

98. The lexicon of Albanian

1791

sources (3). While the inherited items are not very numerous at all (e.g. Demiraj 1997 lists about 572 items), the loan-words are extremely numerous. Within the Indo-European languages, a similar situation can be found in Armenian, whose Indo-European lexical stock is very limited, while the loan-words from mostly (Middle-)Iranian sources predominate. The loans in Albanian have been perfectly integrated so that no difference between inherited components and borrowed ones is discernible on a pure synchronic level. Only a diachronic approach is able to clarify the differential sources of these words (e.g. the inherited ter ‘bull’ < *tau̯ro- beside the borrowed qen ‘dog’ ← Latin canis ‘id.’; the e of both words is the result of Albanian umlaut).

3. Loan-words 3.1. Loan-word phenomena in Albanian It is a characteristic feature of the Albanian language to be open to loan-words from various sources. The oldest stratum is found in Ancient Greek loans, which result from contacts between Greeks and speakers of Proto-Albanian from about 600 BCE onward. Subsequent to the Roman occupation of the Balkans, Proto-Albanian was heavily influenced by Latin. Single words as well as a good many derivational suffixes were taken over. After the breakdown of the Western Empire, Albanian borrowed from Middle Greek as a consequence of Byzantine rule over Albania. Later on, from about 600 CE, Slavic farmers invaded the Balkans in large numbers, cultivating the plains, while the Albanians withdrew to the higher mountainous regions, retaining their traditional pastoral life. Separated but not isolated, Slavs and Albanians were in contact, and loan-words of Slavic origin entered Albanian. Conflicts between the Republic of Venice and the Byzantine empire in the Middle Ages led to a temporary Venetian supremacy over the Albanian coast causing the first Italian influences on Albanian. After the Ottomans had successfully occupied Albania, a multitude of Turkish loan-words penetrated Albanian during the almost 500 years of Turkish domination. After the independence of Albania in 1912, the Albanian language adopted many loan-words from German, French, and Italian, the most prestigious European languages of that time. Of these, Italian heavily enhanced its influence on Albanian after the Second World War because of television broadcasting. During the period of the Albanian Communist regime, Italian televison was Albania’s window to the world, and this window remains open still today. Beside Italian, current foreign influence on Albanian is mostly of English provenance. Additionally, the German language still holds a special position in Kosova/Kosovo (cf. e.g. Kosova-Albanian shrafciger ‘screw driver’ ← a dialectal counterpart of German Schraubenzieher ~ Albanian kaçavidë ‘screw driver’ ← Italian cacciavite ‘id.’, Kosova-Albanian hendi ‘cellular [phone]’ ← German Handy ~ Albanian celular ‘cellular [phone]’ ← American English cellular [phone]). The Kosova-Albanian variant is also subject to particular Serbian lexical influences, since Kosova/Kosovo was until recently an autonomous province of Serbia.

1792

XV. Albanian

3.2. Latin loan-words Latin loan-words are represented in Albanian in large numbers. They were taken over from all semantic fields and without any restrictions (cf. the semasiological arrangement in Haarmann 1972: 39 f.), The following examples may serve as a selection: qiell ‘heaven’ ← caelum ‘id.’, ar ‘gold’ ← aurum ‘id.’, qen ‘dog’ ← canis ‘id.’, faqe ‘face’ ← *facia for classical faciēs ‘id.’ (cf. Rumanian faţă), kujton ‘think, recall’ ← cōgitāre ‘id.’, shërben ‘serve’ ← servīre ‘id.’, pëlqen ‘like, please’ ← placēre ‘id.’. There are various investigations dealing with the Latin loan-words in Albanian, e.g. Çabej (1962), Stadtmüller (1966: 77 f.), Haarmann (1972), Landi (1989), and Bonnet (1998). Latin loans entered Albanian through the entire period of spoken Latin and thus reflect different chronological layers (cf. pemë ‘fruit [tree]’ ← pōmum, pōmus ‘id.’ revealing the same change of ō to e that can also be observed in inherited items like pelë ‘mare’ < */pōlnā-/, cf. Greek πῶλος ‘foal’; the ō of Latin loans of later periods is instead replaced by o or u, cf. (i) shëndoshë ‘healthy’ ← sanitōsus ‘id.’). As even the basic terms of the Christian sphere are of Latin origin (e.g. kungon ‘to give/receive communion’ ← communicāre ‘id.’, bekon ‘bless’ ← benedīcere ‘id.’, elter/lter ‘altar’ ← altāre ‘id.’; see Demiraj 1999), it is evident that the Albanians were christianized under Roman Catholic influence.

3.3. Greek loan-words The Greek loan-words are of various chonological origins. The oldest are of Ancient Greek (Doric) provenance, mostly designations of vegetables, spices, fruits, animals, and tools (cf. Old Geg drapënë, modern Albanian drapër ‘sickle’ ← δρέπανον ‘id.’, Old Geg lakënë, modern Albanian lakër ‘cabbage’ ← λάχανον ‘potherbs’, presh ‘leek’ ← πράσον ‘id.’). These loans resulted from the earliest contacts between Greeks − either colonists of the Adriatic coastal regions or more probably Greek merchants in the Balkan hinterland − and Proto-Albanians from the 8 th century BCE on. After the split of the Roman empire in 395 and the following Byzantine rule over Albania, Albanian took up Greek loans again and continued borrowing up to the Modern Greek period. For geographical reasons, the number of Greek loans in the Southern Tosk dialect area is greater than that in the Northern Geg region. On the Greek loans in Albanian, see e.g. Thumb (1909), Uhlisch (1964), Ölberg (1972), and Jokl (1984).

3.4. Slavic loan-words As a consequence of contacts between Albanians and farming Slavs, a number of South Slavic loan-words are found in Albanian. Some of them have been perfectly integrated, constituting now an integral part of the Albanian lexicon (cf. trup ‘body’ ~ Serbo-Croatian trûp ‘id.’, zakon ‘habit, custom’ ~ Serbo-Croatian zákon ‘law’, terms of housing and agriculture, e.g. oborr ‘courtyard’ ~ Serbo-Croatian òbor ‘pen’, modern Albanian plug ‘plough’ ~ Serbo-Croatian plȕg ‘id.’, or modern Albanian kastravec ‘cucumber’ ~ Serb-Croatian krȁstavac ‘id.’). However, the majority of Slavic loans in Albanian are

98. The lexicon of Albanian

1793

restricted to certain regions. This component of the Albanian vocabulary has been investigated by Miklosich (1870), Seliščev (1931), Stadtmüller (1966: 135 f.), Svane (1992), Ylli (2000), and Omari (2012).

3.5. Italian loan-words As the oldest Italian loan-words are of Venetian origin, they exhibit typical Venetian phonetic features (cf. e.g. modern Albanian lexon ‘read’ ← Venetian lezer ‘id.’, modern Albanian kajnacë ‘latch’ ← Venetian caenazzo ‘id.’, modern Albanian kornizë ‘frame’ ← Venetian cornise ‘id.’; contrast the Standard-Italian words leggere, catenaccio, and cornice, respectively). At the beginning of the 20 th century, Italy again played a prominent role in Albania, and from 1939 until 1943 Albania was even occupied by the Fascist Italian troops. In recent times, Italian television broadcasting − easy to receive throughout Albania − is the most prominent source of Italian influence on Albanian (cf. e.g. modern Albanian televizor ‘televison set’ ← Italian televizore ‘id.’, modern Albanian makinë ‘vehicle, car’ ← macchina, modern Albanian konsumator ‘consumer’ ← consumatore ‘id.’, and many others). The Italian loans are the subject of Helbig (1903), Vicario (1992−1993), Lafe (1998−1999, 2000), and Jorgaqi (2001).

3.6. Turkish loan-words Dominated by the Ottomans for almost 500 years, the Albanians borrowed several hundred Turkish words (e.g. akshan[d] ‘dawn, morning’ ← akşam ‘sunset, evening’, bajrak ‘flag, banner’ ← bayrak, haramī ‘thief’ ← haramî, and many others). After the independence of Albania in 1912, successful attempts were made to replace the Turkish elements by newly coined native words or loans from European sources (e.g. modern Albanian dritare ‘window’ derived from dritë ‘light’ instead of penxhere ‘window’ ← Turkish pencere ‘id.’). Nevertheless, loans of Turkish origin are still very common in Albanian, representing a typical feature of the spoken language. The most comprehensive and detailed collections of Turkish loans in Albanian are Boretzky (1975−1976) and the posthumous edition of Dizdari (2005).

3.7. Modern loan-words and calques During the 20 th century, Albanian borrowed and adopted many internationalisms, e.g. the category of the so called ‘-isms’ (in Albanian -izëm), or other words like modern Albanian taksi, telefon, kompjuter, etc. Apart from these loan-words, Albanian − particularly in the second half of the 19 th and the beginning of the 20 th century − created a great number of calques (e.g. modern Albanian dorëshkrim ‘manuscript’ < dorë ‘hand’ + shkrim ‘writing’, cf. Italian manoscritto ‘id.’, hekurudhë ‘railway’ < hekur ‘iron’ + udhë ‘way’, cf. Italian ferrovia ‘id.’, etc.). Though these calques are numerous, they are not so extensively and rigorously created as is the case in some other Indo-European

1794

XV. Albanian

and Non-Indo-European languages like Modern Icelandic or Finnish. On internationalisms and their integration into Albanian, see Maksuti (2009).

4. Specific vocabulary 4.1. The theological vocabulary of Old Albanian In translating Latin theological texts, the Old Albanian writers were forced to render specific theological expressions in Albanian. One way to cope with this task was to borrow expressions from Latin or Italian (cf. shpīrt ‘spirit, soul’ ← Latin spiritus, purgatuor ‘purgatory’ ← Italian purgatorio ‘id.’, etc.). However, a different way of creating theological terms was at hand. In Old Albanian, the neuter of verbal participles and adjectives could function as an abstract noun, cf. e.g. të shelbuom(-itë) (n.). ‘redemption, salvation’ from the participle (i) shelbuom (to the verb shelbon ‘save’). This process of syntactic transformation is a typical feature of the Old Albanian language. However, as the neuter gender was given up step by step in the history of Albanian, this type completely lost its productivity. Although it is still preserved as a relic in Albanian (see Newmark, Hubbard, and Prifti 1982: 133−134), the modern language prefers overtly derived nouns like shëlbesë ‘redemption, salvation’ (see Matzinger 2016).

4.2. The pastoral vocabulary of Albanian As Albanian society in ancient times was a pastoral one marked by stock-breeding (particularly of sheep and goats), transhumance was widely practiced. The Albanians therefore possess a very rich and elaborated vocabulary related to all subjects of stock-breeding (cf. dhallë ‘buttermilk’, shtrungë ‘narrow runway in a sheep/goat pen into which animals are guided for individual handling’). Some of these lexemes have exact counterparts in Rumanian (cf. zară ‘id.’, strungă ‘id.’; on the common Albano-Rumanian lexicon see 2.3.).

5. Word-formation 5.1. Principles of Albanian word-formation In general, Albanian follows the same lines of derivation found in all the other IndoEuropean languages (see Matzinger 2016). While some patterns are prevalent (suffixation), others are not used at all (suprasegmental features). Beside the inherited, synchronically opaque Indo-European lexical stock, synchronic Albanian nominal and verbal derivation is based on already existing lexemes. The concept of the root − common to some early attested Indo-European languages − has been completely lost in Albanian.

98. The lexicon of Albanian

1795

5.2. Prefixation While the process of prefixation is common in Modern Albanian with nouns and verbs (see Xhuvani and Çabej 1975 and Hysa 2004: 63 f.), it is used in the older language to a much lesser extent. The only productive prefixal derivation to be found e.g. in the pastoral handbook of Gjon Buzuku (“Missal” of 1555) is the nominal word negation built with the prefix pā- ‘un-, in-’ (Modern Albanian pa-), cf. (i) besuom ‘faithful’ → (i) pābesuom ‘incredulous’.

5.3. Suffixation Suffixation is the most productive pattern of deriving verbs or nouns (abstract nouns, agent nouns, feminine nouns, adjectives) in Albanian (see Xhuvani and Çabej 1962 and Hysa 2004: 107 f.). In verbal derivation, the most productive class is that of the verbs with 3rd/2 nd sg. -on, 1 st sg. -oj (cf. besë ‘pledge; belief’ → beson ‘believe’), which is the Albanian reflex of IE derivatives in */-ah2-i̯ e/o-/ (denominative verbs) as well as in */-ah2-/ (factitive verbs as in the type of Hittite newahh-; on the pre-history of Albanian -on see Klingenschmitt 1981: 102 f.; on Albanian verbal formation in general see Genesin 2005). Some common nominal derivational formants include, for deverbal abstracts, the suffix -im (cf. kujton ‘think, recall’ → kujtim ‘remembering’) and for denominal abstracts, the suffix -ī (cf. gjakës ‘murderer’ → gjakësī ‘murder’) borrowed from Latin -ia (← Greek -ία). A formant used to derive both deverbal and denominal agent nouns is the suffix -ës (cf. gjak ‘blood’ → gjakës ‘murderer’), and a strictly denominal agent suffix is -tuor (cf. punë ‘work’ → punëtuor ‘worker, husbandman’). The first of these is related to the Armenian noun of agent suffix -ičc, the latter is simply a loan from Latin -tor. The most prominent feminine motion suffix is -eshë ← Latin -issa (cf. mik ‘friend’ → mikeshë ‘female friend’). There are numerous suffixes serving for the derivation of adjectives, among which the suffix -shëm is the most productive (cf. dritë ‘light’ → [i] dritshim ‘bright, shiny’).

5.4. Composition In the period of the Old Albanian language, nominal composition is used to rather lesser extent (see Matzinger 2016: 283 f.). Nevertheless, all IE types of composition are attested, among them possessive compounds like (Buzuku) zêmërëdëlirë ‘pure’ < zêmërë ‘heart’ + (i) dëlirë ‘pure’, or verbal governing compounds like (Buzuku) bãmirë ‘beneficent’ < bân ‘do, make’ + (i) mirë ‘good’. With respect to the order of the constituents in compounds it is to be noted that Albanian places the modifier after its head (so-called reverse bahuvrīhis; see e.g. Uhlich 1997: 33 f. and Genesin and Matzinger 2005: 424 f.). However, from the time of the Rilindja on (see 1.1), the number of compounds increases due to foreign influence (cf. kryeqytet ‘capital’ < krye ‘head’ + qytet ‘city’, probably built after Turkish başşehir). In these nominal compounds, the modifier precedes its head. On the other hand, a peculiar subtype of genuine nominal composition is represented by items like vajgur ‘kerosene; petroleum’ < vaj ‘oil’ + gur ‘stone’ (cf. Ressuli 1985:

1796

XV. Albanian

176 f.). Being the result of a univerbation (vaj guri lit. ‘oil of stone’), the modifier is here placed after its head. In Modern Albanian, nominal composition is in any case a common way of deriving new lexical units. Finally, verbal composition is still moderately productive in Albanian.

5.5. Minor phenomena To a much slighter degree Albanian uses some other patterns of word formation. One of these is conversion, as can be seen in the Albanian verb shëndoshën ‘make healthy’ from the adjective (i) shëndoshë ‘healthy’ (on conversional phenomena in Albanian, see Ressuli 1985: 137 f.). Sometimes a metonymic use can be found, as is the case with the noun lajm ‘message’, used in Old Albanian also as an agent noun ‘messenger’. Finally, Albanian makes no use of suprasegmental phenomena in word formation (a contrastive accent is rarely employed, occurring only in nominal morphology to distinguish number).

6. Future perspectives and desiderata The most urgent need in the field of Albanian lexicology is to collect and codify the Albanian lexicon from its earliest attestations up to the modern and most recent vocabulary. Special attention must be payed to the numerous neologisms of the Rilindja-writers. Only a comprehensive tool occupying the same role that Grimm’s Wörterbuch once did in Germanic will facilitate future work on Albanian lexicology.

7. References Ashta, Kolë 1998 Leksiku historik i gjuhës shqipe II: Lekë Matrënga dhe leksiku, nxjerrë nga vepra e tij (1592); Pjetër Budi dhe leksiku, nxjerrë nga vepra e tij (1618−1621). [The historical lexicon of Albanian II: Lekë Matrënga and the vocabulary derived from his work (1592 ); Peter Budi and the vocabulary derived from his work (1618−1621)]. Tirana: Toena. Ashta, Kolë 2000a Leksiku historik i gjuhës shqipe I: Gjon Buzuku e leksiku i plotë, nxjerrë nga vepra e tij “Meshari” (1555) [The historical lexicon of Albanian I: John Buzuku and the full lexicon derived from his work “Missal” (1555)]. 2nd edn. Shkodra: Shtëpia Botuese e Universitetit të Shkodrës “Luigj Gurakuqi”. Ashta, Kolë 2000b Leksiku historik i gjuhës shqipe III: Pjetër Mazrreku dhe leksiku, nxjerrë nga vepra e tij (1633); Frang Bardhi dhe leksiku, nxjerrë nga vepra e tij (1635). [The historical lexicon of Albanian III: Peter Mazrreku and the vocabulary derived from his work (1633); Frang Bardhi and the vocabulary derived from his work (1635)]. Shkodra: Shtypshkronja “Volaj”. Ashta, Kolë 2002 Leksiku historik i gjuhës shqipe IV: Pjetër Bogdani: Leksiku i plotë i shqipes, nxjerrë nga vepra “Cuneus Prophetarum”. [The historical lexicon of Albanian IV: Peter Bogda-

98. The lexicon of Albanian

1797

ni: the full Albanian lexicon derived from the work “Cuneus Prophetarum”]. Shkodra: Camaj-Pipa. Ashta, Kolë 2009 Leksiku historik i gjuhës shqipe V: Kuvendi i Arbënit (1706), Da Lecce (1716) [The historical lexicon of Albanian V: Albanian Council (1706), Da Lecce (1716)]. Shkodra: Camaj-Pipa. Bonnet, Guillaume 1998 Les mots latins de l’albanais. Paris: L’Harmattan. Boretzky, Norbert 1975−1976 Der türkische Einfluß auf das Albanische. Teil 1: Phonologie und Morphologie der albanischen Turzismen. 1975; Teil 2: Wörterbuch der albanischen Turzismen. 1976. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Brâncuş, Grigore 1983 Vocabularul autohton al limbii române. [The Rumanian autochthonous vocabulary]. Bucharest: Editura Științ ifica˘ ș i Enciclopedica˘. Buchholz, Oda and Wilfried Fiedler 1979 Zur Herausbildung des modernen gesellschaftlichen Wortschatzes im Albanischen. Linguistische Studien des Zentralinstitut für Sprachwissenschaft der DDR. 58 (Zur Herausbildung des modernen gesellschaftlichen Wortschatzes in Südosteuropa). (Beiträge zur Balkanlinguistik IV), 102−178. Buchholz, Oda, Wilfried Fiedler, and Gerda Uhlisch 1981 Wörterbuch Albanisch−Deutsch. Leipzig: VEB Verlag Enzyklopädie. Çabej, Eqrem 1962 Zur Charakteristik der lateinischen Lehnwörter im Albanischen. Revue de Linguistique (Bucureşti) 7: 161−199. Çabej, Eqrem 1976−2006 Studime etimologjike në fushë të shqipes [Etymological studies in the field of Albanian], Vol. II (A−B) 1976, Vol. III (C−D) 1987, Vol. IV (Dh−J) 1996, Vol. VI (N− Rr) 2002, Vol. VII (S−Zh) 2006. Tirana: Akademia e Shkencave e Republikës së Shqipërisë, Instituti i Gjuhësisë dhe i Letërsisë. Demiraj, Bardhyl 1997 Albanische Etymologien. Untersuchungen zum albanischen Erbwortschatz. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Demiraj, Bardhyl 1999 Historisch-linguistischer Überblick der christlichen Terminologie in der albanischen Literatur des 16.−17. Jhs. (Anfänge und Fortdauer des albanischen Christentums). Zeitschrift für Balkanologie 35: 132−138. Dizdari, Tahir N. 2005 Fjalor i orientalizmave në gjuhën shqipe [A dictionary of orientalisms in Albanian]. Tirana: Instituti Shqiptar i Mendimit dhe i Qytetërimit Islam. Eichner, Heiner 2004 Illyrisch − die unbekannte Sprache. In: Lorenc Bejko (ed.), Die Illyrer. Archäologische Funde des 1. vorchristlichen Jahrtausends aus Albanien. Katalog der Ausstellung Asparn a.d. Zaya (= Katalog des Niederösterr. Landesmuseums N. F. 448). St. Pölten: Amt der Niederösterreichischen Landesregierung, Abteilung Kultur und Wissenschaft, 92−117. Elezi, Mehmet 2006 Fjalor i gjuhës shqipe [Dictionary of the Albanian language]. Tirana: Enti Botues “Gjergj Fishta”. Fiedler, Wilfried 2011 Zur historischen Lexikographie des Albanischen. Lexicographica 27: 183−194.

1798

XV. Albanian

Genesin, Monica 2005 Studio sulle formazioni di presente e aoristo del verbo albanese. Cosenza: Università degli Studi della Calabria, Centro Editoriale e Librario. Haarmann, Harald 1972 Der lateinische Lehnwortschatz im Albanischen. Hamburg: Buske. Helbig, Robert 1903 Die italienischen Elemente im Albanesischen. Leipzig: Barth. Hetzer, Armin 1991 Albanische Lexikographie. In: Franz J. Hausmann, Oskar Reichmann, Herbert E. Wiegand, and Ladislav Zgusta (eds.), Wörterbücher − Ein internationales Handbuch zur Lexikographie 3. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2361−3267. Huld, Martin E. 1984 Basic Albanian Etymologies. Columbus, OH: Slavica. Hysa, Enver 2004 Formimi i emrave me ndajshtesa në gjuhën shqipe [The formation of nouns with affixes in Albanian]. Tirana: Akademia e Shkencave e Republikës së Shqipërisë, Instituti i Gjuhësisë dhe i Letërsisë. Jokl, Norbert 1984 Sprachliche Beiträge zur Paläo-Ethnologie der Balkanhalbinsel (Zur Frage der ältesten griechisch-albanischen Beziehungen). Posthumous edition by Oskar Pfeiffer. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Jorgaqi, Kristina 2001 Ndikimi i italishtes në letërsinë e vjetër shqipe (XVI−XVII) [The influence of Italian on the Old Albanian literature (16 th and 17 th centuries)]. Tirana: Toena. Klingenschmitt, Gert 1981 Albanisch und Urindogermanisch. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 40: 93− 131. Kostallari, Androkli (ed.) 1972−1989 Studime mbi leksikun dhe mbi formimin e fjalëve në gjuhën shqipe [Studies on the vocabulary and word-formation of Albanian]. Vol. 1−2. 1972, Vol. 3. 1989. Tirana: Akademia e Shkencave e Republikës së Shqipërisë, Instituti i Gjuhësisë dhe i Letërsisë. Kostallari, Androkli (ed.) 1980 Fjalor i gjuhës së sotme shqipe [A dictionary of modern Albanian]. Tirana: Akademia e Shkencave e Republikës së Shqipërisë, Instituti i Gjuhësisë dhe i Letërsisë. Lafe, Genc 1998−1999 Der italienische Einfluss auf das Albanische. Erster Teil: Allgemeine Erörterungen. Ponto-Baltica 8−9: 47−172. Lafe, Genc 2000 Der italienische Einfluss auf das Albanische. Zweiter Teil: Wörterbuch der Italianismen im Albanischen. Ponto-Baltica 10: 31−120. Landi, Addolorata 1989 Gli elementi latini nella lingua albanese. Naples: Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane. Maksuti, Izer 2009 Internationalismen im Albanischen. Eine kontrastive Untersuchung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Alltagswortschatzes − Albanisch, Deutsch, Englisch, Französisch. Saarbrücken: Südwestdeutscher Verlag. Mann, Stuart E. 1948 An Historical Albanian−English Dictionary. London: Longmans, Green & Co. Matzinger, Joachim 2005 Messapisch und Albanisch. International Journal of Diachronic Linguistics and Linguistic Reconstruction 2: 29−54.

98. The lexicon of Albanian

1799

Matzinger, Joachim 2009 Die Albaner als Nachkommen der Illyrer aus der Sicht der historischen Sprachwissenschaft. In: Oliver Jens Schmitt (ed.), Albanische Geschichte. Stand und Perspektiven der Forschung. Munich: Oldenbourg, 13−36. Matzinger, Joachim 2016 Die sekundären nominalen Wortbildungsmuster im Altalbanischen bei Gjon Buzuku. Ein Beitrag zur altalbanischen Lexikographie. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Meyer, Gustav 1891 Etymologisches Wörterbuch der albanesischen Sprache. Strassburg Trübner. Von Miklosich, Franz 1870 Albanische Forschungen 1. Die slavischen Elemente im Albanischen. Vienna: Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften. Newmark, Leonard 1998 Albanian−English Dictionary. Oxford: University Press. Newmark, Leonard, Philip Hubbard, and Peter Prifti 1982 Standard Albanian. A reference grammar for students. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Ölberg, Hermann 1972 Griechisch-Albanische Sprachbeziehungen. In: Robert Muth (ed.), Serta Philologica Aenipontana 2. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität, 33−64. Omari, Anila 2012 Marrëdhëniet gjuhësore shqiptaro-serbe [Serbian-Albanian linguistic relations]. Tirana: Botimet albanologjike. Orel, Vladimir 1998 Albanian Etymological Dictionary. Leiden: Brill. Ressuli, Namik 1985 Grammatica albanese. Bologna: Pàtron. Schmitt, Oliver Jens (ed.) 2009 Albanische Geschichte. Stand und Perspektiven der Forschung. Munich: Oldenbourg. Schumacher, Stefan 2009 Lehnbeziehungen zwischen Protoalbanisch und balkanischem Latein bzw. Romanisch. In: Oliver Jens Schmitt (ed.), Albanische Geschichte. Stand und Perspektiven der Forschung. Munich: Oldenbourg, 37−60. Seliščev, Afanasij M. 1931 Slavjanskoe naselenie v Albanii [Slavic settlement in Albania]. Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo. Solta, Georg R. 1980 Einführung in die Balkanlinguistik mit besonderer Berücksichtigung des Substrats und des Balkanlateinischen. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Stadtmüller, Georg 1966 Forschungen zur albanischen Frühgeschichte (2nd rev. edn.). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Svane, Gunnar 1992 Slavische Lehnwörter im Albanischen. Aarhus: University Press. Thumb, Albert 1909 Altgriechische Elemente des Albanischen. Indogermanische Forschungen 26: 1−20. Uhlich, Jürgen 1997 Der Kompositionstyp „Armstrong“ in den indogermanischen Sprachen. Historische Sprachforschung 110: 21−46. Uhlisch, Gerda 1964 Neugriechische Lehnwörter im Albanischen. Typescript. Berlin. Vătăşescu, Cătălina 1997 Vocabularul de origine latină din limba albaneză în comparaţie cu româna [The vocabulary of Latin origin in Albanian in comparison with Rumanian]. Bucharest: Vavila Edinf.

1800

XV. Albanian

Vicario, Federico 1992−1993 L’influsso lessicale veneto in albanese. Balkan-Archiv N. F. 17/18: 187−232. Xhuvani, Aleksandër and Eqrem Çabej 1962 Prapashtesat e gjuhës shqipe [Suffixes in Albanian]. Tirana: Universiteti Shtetëror i Tiranës, Instituti i Historisë e Gjuhësisë. Xhuvani, Aleksandër and Eqrem Çabej 1975 Parashtesat e gjuhës shqipe. Çështje të gramatikës së shqipes së sotme [Prefixes in Albanian. Issues of modern Albanian grammar]. 2nd edn. by Mahir Domi. Tirana: Universiteti Shtetëror i Tiranës, Instituti i Historisë e Gjuhësisë, 5−55. Ylli, Xhelal 1997 Das slavische Lehngut im Albanischen. 1. Teil: Lehnwörter. Munich: Sagner.

Joachim Matzinger, Vienna (Austria)

99. The dialectology of Albanian 1. Introduction 2. Albanian language communities and dialects 3. Features distinguishing Geg and Tosk dialects

4. Peripheral dialectal differences 5. Conclusion 6. References

1. Introduction The Albanian language is spoken natively by approximately 6 million speakers in southeastern Europe, particularly in Albania and Kosovo where it is an official language, but also in Macedonia, Serbia, Montenegro, and Italy where it has the status of a minority language. Beyond this, it is spoken by many Albanians in Greece and is the native language of a few isolated communities in Turkey, Bulgaria, Croatia, and Ukraine; in addition, there are significant Albanian émigré communities in other parts of Europe and in North America. Although an accurate count is difficult to obtain, if these groups are taken into consideration, the number of native Albanian speakers could reach as high as 7.5 million. With its wide geographical and sociolinguistic distribution, the Albanian language also has important formal differences in its varieties. Given the late attestation of the language in writing (see Rusakov, this handbook), the dialects of Albanian provide the surest basis for diachronic studies of the language, whether from the perspective of IndoEuropean linguistics, Balkan linguistics, or the history of Albanian itself. Albanian is divided into two main dialects, Geg and Tosk, on the basis of a handful of isoglosses. The traditional geographical corollary to these isoglosses is the Shkumbin River in central Albania, with Geg encompassing dialects north of the river in Albania and Montenegro, Kosovo, and Serbia, as well as most of those in Macedonia, while https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-020

99. The dialectology of Albanian

1801

Tosk is found to its south in Albania, Greece, and the southwestern corner of Macedonia (Beci 2002: 18). Nearly all of the pre-twentieth century Albanian diaspora communities migrated from Tosk dialect areas; thus varieties of Tosk are spoken in diaspora communities in Italy, Greece, Bulgaria, and Ukraine. However, some diaspora communities have come from Geg-speaking areas. These include dialects in Arbanasi, Croatia (transplanted from Krajë, Montenegro), Peshteri, Serbia (originally from Malësia e Madhe, Albania), and some dialects in Turkey that originated from southern Serbia near Niš. Dialectologists have further classified Geg into Northern (Northwestern and Northeastern), Central, and Southern Geg and Tosk into Northern, Central, and Southern (Çam and Lab) Tosk (Gjinari and Shkurtaj 2003), and much of the fieldwork in Albanian dialectology has treated individual varieties and placed them within these divisions. In Albanian linguistic nomenclature, the term dialekt (dialect) refers to major division of Geg or Tosk, whereas varieties within these dialects are called nëndialekt (subdialects), and the varieties of a particular area within one of these subdialects is called e folmja (speech [variety]). In accordance with the usual English terminology, I refer to any of these levels of varieties with the term ‘dialect’ by labeling which dialect I am referring to, e.g. Tosk dialect, Northern Tosk dialect, Lushnjë dialect, etc. While not exhaustively describing these divisions and subdivisions of Albanian dialects, the following sections of this article give an overview of the current state of Albanian dialectology by discussing the most important features distinguishing Geg and Tosk as well as dialectal features from the peripheries, all from the perspective of Indo-European. More than most Indo-European languages with accepted standard norms, outside of the Republic of Albania the persistence of dialectal Albanian speech is common in all but the most formal register. Thus, understanding the dialectal differences of Albanian is important not only for an understanding of language history or geography; it is also essential for practical, everyday uses, particularly with speakers from outside of Albania.

2. Albanian language communities and dialects The spread of Albanian speakers across Albania, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, and Greece reflects the political division of state boundaries after the retreat of the Ottoman Empire from the Balkans in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries rather than the migration of Albanian speakers from Albania to neighboring countries. According to the most recent census data from these countries, the Albanian-speaking population is as follows: Albania−2,765,000 (INSTAT 2011), Kosovo−1,600,000 (REKOS 2011), Macedonia−509,000 (Popis 2002: 34), Serbia−60,000 (est.) (Pekušić 2011), Montenegro−30,491 (MONSTAT 2011: 46), Greece−480,824 (ELSTAT 2011). In some instances these figures are at best estimates, however; for example, in Macedonia a population census in 2011 was suspended because of concerns over how it was being conducted in Albanian areas (Lutovska 2013), and in Serbia the Albanians in large part boycotted both the 2002 and 2011 censuses. In the latter only 5,809 were recorded (Pekušić 2011), although an estimated figure from 2002 had put the Albanian population at 59,952 (Pekušić 2011; Barlovac 2011). Finally, the figure given for Greece refers only to the number of Albanian citizens in Greece and does not include some 50,000−150,000 speakers of Arvanitika (Lewis, Simons, and Fennig 2014) or naturalized Albanian immigrants.

1802

XV. Albanian

Although official recognition of minority languages and minority communities varies considerably among these countries (see, for example Wolff et al. 2008), the de facto presence of language contact has concretely influenced the development of languages in the region and is surely the main cause of language convergence in the Balkan Sprachbund, of which Albanian is a principal member. With the exception of the Albanian diaspora community in Italy (Arbëreshë) which has 100,000−260,000 speakers (Lewis, Simons, and Fennig 2014) (The Italian statistical office estimates 380,000 Albanianspeaking foreigners [ISTAT 2014]. As with the figures from Greece, this does not include Arbëresh or naturalized Albanian-speaking citizens.), Albanian diaspora communities elsewhere outside of the Western Balkans are much smaller: there is a small community in Arbanasi (Zadar), Croatia; Mandrica, Bulgaria, is a village of about 200 households, (Shuteriqi 1965, cited in Gjinari and Shkurtaj 2003: 390); and Zhovetnjevoje, Devnjenskoe, Gamkova, and Georgievka, all in Ukraine, have some 4400 Albanians (Gjinari and Shkurtaj 2003: 401). There are also Albanian communities in Turkey (cf. Maynard’s work [2009] on the Albanian variety in the province of Samsun). The dialectology of Albanian in Turkey, however, remains an area that needs to be further explored. According to one Turkish newspaper, Miliyet, a 2008 report prepared for the UN Security Council included a section on the demographics of Turkey which claimed that there were between 500,000 and 1,300,000 Albanians in Turkey (Miliyet 2008). Since these groups have long been separated from other Albanian-speaking communities, their greatest utility in Albanian dialectology is the comparative basis they give for understanding earlier periods of the diachronic development of Albanian, although like all language varieties, they are interesting in their own right and have also undergone further changes over the course of transmission through subsequent generations and contact with other languages.

3. Features distinguishing Geg and Tosk dialects Geg and Tosk dialects typically differ in a few morphosyntactic constructions, in particular the use of G(eg) nonfinite verb forms ~ T(osk) conjugated forms in infinitival, subjunctive, future, and conditional constructions (e.g. G me shkue ‘go-INF’ ~ T të shkoj ‘go-1SG’. However, although the morphosyntactic differences are very salient for users and often cited in order to typify the two dialects, the geographical spread and verbal semantics of these constructions is not nearly as clean as the phonological differences discussed below (see Friedman 2008). Moreover, as the morphosyntactic differences between Geg and Tosk have largely arisen through contact with other Balkan languages, these intriguing features may be explained better by external language contact than by language-internal differentiation and thus pertain more to treatments of the dialects from a viewpoint of language contact (see Joseph, this handbook; Friedman and Joseph, To appear; Friedman 2008; Beci 2002; Demiraj 1998). A similar conclusion may be warranted for lexical variation, as only a small proportion of lexemes with regional variation are distributed along the lines of the Geg/Tosk division, like T gjalpë ~ G tlymë ‘butter’ (ADA II. 329/554) (Albanian Dialect Atlas, Gjinari et al. 2007−2008). Of the ADA’s approximately 400 words, only ~ 3 % are divided along these lines. However, only a portion of the dialects’ vast lexical variation can be explained by language contact, as in Seliščev (1931), Svane (1992), and Curtis (2012).

99. The dialectology of Albanian

1803

On the phonological level, space limitations constrain us to discuss only the most significant isoglosses separating Geg and Tosk. These are four in number and include: (1) T VrV sequences ~ G VnV sequences, (2) T stressed schwa ~ G nasalized vowels, (3) word-initial sequences T va- ~ G vo-, and (4) T ua diphthongs ~ G ue or u. Diachronically speaking, the first two features both involve inherited sequences of adjacent vowels and nasals and may originate from a single change rather than two separate changes, while the third and fourth differences derive from distinct outcomes of the sequence *#(v)o-. All four of these features have isoglosses that approximate the Shkumbin River. Other features that have been claimed to distinguish Geg from Tosk, such as the correspondence G p- ~ T mb- as in T pas ~ G mbas ‘after’ and the loss of h phonetically in Geg or its change to f do not hug the same terrain (see Beci 2002: 21−45) and to a large part seem to be the result of more localized language changes, including, but not limited to contact-induced change (Curtis 2012: 226−228, 234−239).

3.1. T VrV ~ G VnV The correspondence of T r with G n is perhaps the most salient phonological isogloss dividing Geg and Tosk. It can be seen in examples such as T zëri ~ G zâni ‘voice-DEF’, and T i gjerë ~ G i gjânë ‘wide’. The isogloss for these variants runs quite close to the Shkumbin River, although there is a narrow transitional area where both variants are found south of the river (ADA I. 64/129). The original conditioning environment of the change that precipitated this variation was V_V, although now many of the words affected by the change no longer have vowels on both sides of the n/r because some unstressed vowels underwent deletion, as in T emër, emri ~ G emën, emni ‘name-DEF, INDEF’ < (PAlb *emen-i) < PIE e.g. *H1nmen- (Hamp 1965: 138). Based on the evidence of loanwords, the Tosk rhotacism definitely occurred after contact with Ancient Greek and Latin (e.g. T lakër ~ G lakën ‘cabbage’ < Gk. λάχανον ‘vegetable, greens’; T verë ~ G venë ‘wine’ < Lat. vīnum); while contact with Slavic and Italian in the second half of the first millennium CE gives very little solid evidence of the rhotacism (Çabej [1963] 2008: 115; Beci 2002: 49). The most commonly cited example of rhotacism from Slavic, tërsirë (Tosk), tërsinë (Geg) ‘rope’ < PSl *torčina (cf. Bg trŭsina) (Jokl 1916: 106−107) has rightly been questioned (Orel 2000). In any case, the vast majority of borrowings from Slavic show no sign of the rhotacism, as in branë ‘harrow’ from Srb brana (Curtis 2012: 102). As an innovation from the middle of the 1 st millennium CE limited to Tosk, this isogloss is not diachronically connected to similar developments in other IE branches. More specifically, although some have linked Tosk rhotacism to an analogous trend in Balkan Romance, neither the phonetic environment nor the geographic distribution convincingly support a language-contact explanation (Friedman and Joseph To appear).

3.2. T V[-NASAL] ~ G V[+NASAL] As seen in examples like T zëri ~ G zâni from 2.1, above, stressed schwa in Tosk corresponds with nasalized vowels in Geg. Additional instances with Tosk schwa include

1804

XV. Albanian

T bëj ~ G bâj ‘do-1SG.PRES’ and më ~ mâ ‘more’, among numerous others, and with other vowels, compare T dru ~ G drû ‘wood’, T gji ~ G gjû ‘bosom’. In these, an inherited VN sequence has yielded a simple oral vowel in Tosk, and a nasal vowel in Geg. In Common Albanian, nasality was transferred from the consonant to the vowel and, except when followed by another vowel (as in zëri/zâni above), the consonant disappeared (as in bëj/bâj, dru/drû, etc.). This change is the main source of the differences in the vowel systems of the two dialects, as Geg ended up with a series of nasal vowels (counterparts to all oral vowels besides o) but no stressed schwa, whereas Tosk gained a stressed schwa phoneme (albeit one which shows, as a matter of internal development, great variety in the dialects [ADA I. 38a−b2/64−66]) without preserving nasal vowels (Gjinari and Shkurtaj 2003: 176−183; Beci 2002: 46−49). As with Tosk rhotacism, evidence from lexical borrowings shows that this change arose after contact with Ancient Greek and Latin, while the evidence from Slavic and Italian borrowings shows a process that was still active at the time, and Turkish borrowings show no signs of the change (Topalli 1996: 48−53; Beci 2002: 46−47; Curtis 2012: 103−104). The dialectal spread of this correspondence is roughly the same as the previous one, although the isogloss of the schwa/nasal correspondence runs a little to the south of the rhotacism isogloss (Gjinari and Shkurtaj 2003: 167; ADA I. 2a−2d/8−12). The emergence of nasal vowels from vowel plus nasal sequences is very common cross-linguistically (see de Vaan, this handbook, for the fate of nasal vowels developed from PIE VN sequences); however, given the relative chronology emerging from the loanwords, this Albanian dialectal development is unrelated to parallel phenomena in other IE languages, except for a possible contact-induced denasalization of adjacent South Slavic dialects through direct contact (Hamp 1981: 781−782). Nevertheless, the broad geographic scope of the schwa in Balkan languages differs from the tendency for phonological convergences to be limited in geographic scope (Sawicka 1997; Curtis 2012; Friedman and Joseph To appear). A more likely explanation taking into account the wide spread of the schwa in the Balkans is the possibility of substrate influence (see Beci 2002: 49 and references therein). A final point worth bearing in mind, relative to the isogloss just discussed, is that both Geg and Tosk have unstressed schwas from Proto-Albanian. This is most easily illustrated in Latin loanwords, as in the second syllable of Buzuku (Geg) sherbëtuor ~ Tosk shërbëtor ‘servant’, based on Latin servitor. However, Geg has a greater tendency to delete unstressed vowels. Another phonemic vowel distinction in some Albanian dialects, that of length, has also been used to typify Geg and Tosk; however, the distribution of phonemic length distinctions can hardly be reduced to the Geg~Tosk paradigm because such distinctions are typical not only of Geg but also Southern Tosk as well (ADA I. a−e/1−7).

3.3. T va- ~ G voThe variation between initial sequences of va- in Tosk and vo- in Geg affects some seven lexemes, including T vaj ~ G voj ‘oil’ < Lat. oleum (Orel 1998: 492, etc.), T i varfër ~ G i vorfën/vorfûn ‘poor, desolate’ < Late Lat. (ultimately Gk.) orphanus, T varr ~ G vorr ‘grave’ < late Roman orna < Lat. urna ‘cinerary urn’ and T vatra ~ G votra

99. The dialectology of Albanian

1805

‘hearth’, (Demiraj 1996: 238−239; Beci 2002: 51). The first three words were borrowings beginning with o-; other words that show the va~vo variation, like T vatër ~ G votër ‘hearth’, are inherited from PIE with an initial *ā which turned into *ō in Alb, thus the va- ~ vo- correspondence is the result of dialectally differing outcomes of the diphthongization of Common Albanian o- (Topalli Forthcoming; Hamp 1976: 201−209; Beci 2002: 51). The geographic distribution of this variation is similar to the two features discussed already, with its isogloss falling between them in the east and a little south of them in the west (ADA I. 56/113), once again supporting the traditional dialect boundary. Based on loanwords, this dialectal difference appears to come from the time of contact with Latin and to precede contact with Slavic, thus likely being earlier than the correspondences discussed to this point. Parallels to this prothetic glide can also be found elsewhere in IE languages (e.g. Russian vosem’ ‘eight’, Italian uomo ‘man’, English one, etc.), but these are individual, phonetically natural changes.

3.4. T ua ~ G ue T ua regularly corresponds with G ue, ua, or u, depending on the region. The reflex ue is the most common in Geg dialects, particularly in the northwest (Beci 2002: 52−53). The other forms, ua and u, are found in southern Geg and northeastern Geg, respectively. For parsimony, only forms with ue are given in the examples, although this variety should still be kept in mind for all of the pertinent examples. The sequences are found in many words such as T buall ~ G buell ‘(water) buffalo’ and T grua ~ G grue ‘woman, wife,’ but its most common locus of occurrence is in the participle suffix T -uar ~ G -ue as in T shkuar ~ G shkue ‘gone’. Historically these correspondences originate in IE *o in a closed syllable ending in n, evolving to its current state by way of nasalized vowels, which were later denasalized and diphthongized, although there is disagreement about the path of development from the diphthongized form uo to the current forms (Jokl 1931: 277; Jokl 1932: 58; Demiraj 1996: 96−100, see discussion in Beci 2002: 52−53). There is likewise disagreement on when these developments happened and what possible relation they might have to the changes that brought about the correspondence of T va ~ G vo. As Latin borrowings underwent these changes, they must have happened after contact with Latin; Slavic loanwords do not show the change, although this may be due to the general absence of diphthongs in Slavic, particularly diphthongs beginning with u-. At the very latest, ue and ua forms were present in the first writings from each dialect (Demiraj 1996: 100; Beci 2002: 52). Although the Geg variants of ue, ua, and u have a complex geographical distribution (ADA I. 51a−c/100−102), the isogloss separating ua from other forms is slightly south of the Shkumbin River (Gjinari and Shkurtaj 2003: 167).

3.5. Diachronic implications of evidence from Geg and Tosk Although morphosyntactic and lexical features can be used to typify Geg and Tosk, only the phonological isoglosses discussed above show the precise division between the dia-

1806

XV. Albanian

lects at the approximate geographic corollary of the Shkumbin River. Each of the four phonological isoglosses developed independently of other Indo-European languages; on the basis of loanwords, each developed after contact with Ancient Greek and Latin and before contact with Turkish. Furthermore, the changes leading to these divisions had been completed before the emigration of Tosk speakers to Southern Italy and Greece in the 15 th century and the first attestations of the dialects in the 16 th and 17 th centuries.

4. Peripheral dialectal differences Of the many differences in peripheral dialects of Albanian, some are important only for Albanian-internal developments (like diphthongization of /ī/ and /ū/ in Eastern Central Geg), while others are most relevant for discussing language contact with other Balkan languages (like the loss of a phonemic distinction between /y/ and /i/ in parts of Southern Tosk). A few, however, have implications for a proper characterization of Albanian among the Indo-European dialects. These include the phonological distinctions among Albanian’s laterals, possible reflexes of PIE laryngeals, reflexes of IE velars, and the dialectal near-preservation of the syllable-count in many words relative to their PIE etyma. These features from peripheral Albanian dialects are just as important for the dialectology of Albanian as for the dialectology of Indo-European.

4.1. Laterals Although most dialects of Albanian have two lateral phonemes, both synchronic and diachronic evidence point to a historical reconstruction of three laterals, as originally proposed by Pedersen (1895) and further supported by Hamp (2002) (see also De Vaan, this handbook). The Arvanitika dialect of Salamina (an island east-southeast of Athens) has preserved a three-way distinction of laterals ([l], [ʎ], and [ɬ]) (Häbler 1965; Gjinari and Shkurtaj 2003: 373−374), but in all other dialects besides some Southern Tosk dialects, such as Çam, Arbëresh, and Arvanitika dialects, the palatal lateral *lj (from Latin l before high front vowels) has been changed to a palatal approximant j as in fëmijë ‘child’ (cf. Arb. fëmilë) < Lat familia, mijë (cf. Arb. mila) ‘thousand’ < Lat milia (Hamp 2002; Pedersen 1895; Ajeti 1998; Gjinari and Shkurtaj 2003: 204). Although most Albanian dialects distinguish between the two other laterals, orthographic < l > and < ll >, opinions differ on their phonetic realizations in particular dialects; the ADA and other sources record little variation in the pronunciation of < l > or < ll > in different Albanian dialects, although there are possible influences of contact with Slavic in the phonetics of laterals in Northern Geg. (Hamp 2002: 249, on the other hand, argues that West South Slavic’s rich system of lateral distinctions and alternations comes from its contact with Albanian, see also Curtis 2012: 246−247.) Although the role of language contact in the laterals of Albanian and Slavic is uncertain, the presence of a three-way lateral distinction at some point in Albanian’s history is cross-linguistically uncommon and a characteristic found elsewhere in Indo-European only in some dialects of Irish.

99. The dialectology of Albanian

1807

4.2. h ~ γ < IE H4 Albanian dialects exhibit considerable allophony in common Albanian /h/. This variation is typically treated either as contact influence or as a result of natural phonological developments within individual dialects of Albanian. However, there is one aspect of Albanian /h/ that Hamp (1965) has pointed out as particularly relevant for Indo-European linguistics: an initial /h/ in certain Albanian lexemes as evidence of a fourth IE laryngeal. Among the many examples he gives are (T) Alb. hap ‘to open’ ~ Hit. appan(a) ‘back, again’, Skt. ápa ‘away’, Gk. ἀπό, Lat. ab ‘from’ < PIE *Hép- and S Alb. γíń (Std. Alb. hyj) ‘to enter’ ~ Hitt. u-, we-, wa- ‘hither’, Skt. ava ‘off’, Slav. u- Lat. au- ‘away’ < PIE *H(V)wV- (1965: 125−126). In typical fashion, Hamp cites forms from Albanian dialects in southern Italy and Greece. These dialects show a variation of [h]~[γ]~[x], and seem to indicate that the consonant resulting from the laryngeal would have merged with the /h/ inherited from PIE *sk̑ in common Albanian. Although Hamp’s proposal for IE has not been accepted unanimously, mainly due to skepticism about the correspondences he proposes and the fact that the bulk of his evidence originates from Albanian, his work presents a consistent phonological basis for the proposal and thus should not be dismissed out of hand. Although this difference is not a core concern of Albanian dialectology, it is yet another point on which Albanian material has possible implications for the reconstruction of PIE.

4.3. kl > ki, [c] and Albanian reflexes of PIE gutturals Another claim about Albanian’s uniqueness within IE has been that Albanian shows distinct reflexes of each of the three proposed guttural series for PIE. Thus, to take only the voiceless stops as examples, the PIE palatals normally developed to dentals, as in thom ‘I say’ < PIE *k̑eHsmi, cf. OAv. sāstī ‘instructs’. However, the plain velars and labiovelars originally developed differently before a front vowel, only the latter undergoing palatalization, as in si ‘how’, cf. Lat. quī ‘id.’ < PIE *kwiH1 (instr.). At a later time, after the period of intense borrowing from Latin, plain velars underwent a less radical form of palatalization before front vowels, becoming palatal stops spelled, in the case of original voiceless *k, < q > (phonetically [c]), as in pleq ‘elderly’ < *plak-i (PIE *plH2-ko-) and qen ‘dog’ < *ken < Lat. canis (Jokl 1963: 129−156; Çabej 1976: 63−74; Orel 2000: 250−256; Fortson 2010: 449−450). In most Albanian dialects, velar phonemes have undergone a more recent palatalization in inherited *kl and *gl clusters. In Southern Tosk (including Arbëresh and Arvanitika) the laterals are generally preserved (Gjinari and Shkurtaj 2003: 205−206), while in the north the lateral is jotated, first yielding -ki- and -gi-, as found in Northwestern Geg, and then the jotation was lost in Northeastern Geg, leaving -k- and -g-. In the central dialects, however, these became palatal stops spelled < q > (see above) and < gj > (phonetically) [ɟ]. Thus Arv. klaj, NW Geg kianj, NE Geg kaj, qaj ‘cry’, cf. Gk. κλαίω. Many of the best examples of this change are likely borrowings, such as qumësht ‘milk’ < Romance *clomostrum < Lat colostrum (Orel 1998: 363; Meyer 1891: 229) (cf. Arv klumësh[t]). The Arvanitika form makes the reconstruction of Proto-Albanian *gl- secure. The jotation of the lateral most likely happened during the 16 th century, since it is not found in Arbëresh or Arvanitika

1808

XV. Albanian

or the earliest Albanian texts but it is attested in writings from the 17 th century (Topalli Forthcoming). The rest of the change may be part of an ongoing palatalization found in the central dialect areas of Albanian (Kolgjini 2004) a change strictly limited to Albanian, but adding yet further variety to the already rich history of Albanian’s development of IE inherited material, and simultaneously further obscuring the evidence of Albanian’s support for the three-way distinction of gutturals in IE.

4.4. Preservation of syllables from PIE One final feature from peripheral Albanian dialects of interest for IE is the near-preservation of the syllable count of words of Indo-European origin in certain Southern Tosk dialects. More specifically, Hamp (1973) records that dialects of Albanian in Southern Greece (Southern Arvanitika dialects) have undergone no apocope or syncope; thus, if we leave out of account the loss of initial unstressed syllables from PIE, these dialects preserve intact the remaining syllables of their PIE etyma (see also Friedman and Joseph To appear). For a language where apocope and syncope has been very common, to the point of obscuring what would otherwise be more transparent etymologies (see Hamp 1965: 124), at least one peripheral dialect is noteworthy for its preservation of all noninitial PIE syllables.

5. Conclusion By way of conclusion, the dialects of Albanian are important in the study of the history of the language’s developments, particularly the role of contact with other languages in the Balkans. In the context of Indo-European, the dialects of Albanian help clarify the position of Albanian within Indo-European, and to a small extent also help shine light on some intriguing features of Proto-Indo-European.

6. References Ajeti, Idriz 1998 Tipat e l-së në dialektet shqiptare të Brisk-Shestanit të Krajës [Types of l in Albanian dialects of the Brisk-Shestan of Kraja]. In: Idriz Ajeti, Vepra II. Botime të veçanta XXXI, Seksioni i Gjuhësisë dhe i letërsisë 15. Prishtinë: Akademia e Shkencave dhe e Artëve e Kosovës, 141−148. Barlovac, Bojana 2011 Ethnic Albanians and Bosniaks to Boycott Census over Language. 30 Sep. 2011. Available online at http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/ethnic-albanians-and-bosniaks-toboycott-census-over-language [Last accessed 1 November 2013]. Beci, Bahri 2002 Dialektet e shqipes dhe historia e formimit të tyre [Albanian dialects and the history of their formation]. Tirana: Dituria.

99. The dialectology of Albanian

1809

Çabej, Eqrem [1963] 2008 Hyrje në historinë e gjuhës shqipe [Introduction to the history of the Albanian language]. Tirana: Çabej. Çabej, Eqrem 1976 Mbi disa izoglosa të shqipes me sllavishten [On some Albanian isoglosses with Slavic]. Studime Filologjike 2: 63−74. Curtis, Matthew C. 2012 Slavic-Albanian Language Contact, Convergence, and Coexistence. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University. Demiraj, Shaban 1996 Fonologjia historike e gjuhës shqipe [Historical phonology of the Albanian language]. Tirana: Toena. Demiraj, Shaban 1998 Albanian. In: Anna Giacalone Ramat and Paolo Ramat (eds.), The Indo-European Languages. New York: Routledge, 480−501. ELSTAT (Hellenic Statistical Authority) 2013 Announcement of the demographic and social characteristics of the Resident Population of Greece according to the 2011 Population-Housing Census. Piraeus, Greece: Division of Population and Labour Market Statistics. Fortson, Benjamin W. IV. 2010 Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction, 2nd edn. (Blackwell Textbooks in Linguistics Vol. 19). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Friedman, Victor 2008 Macedonian Dialectology and Eurology: Areal and Typological Perspectives. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 61: 139−146. Friedman, Victor and Brian Joseph To appear The Balkan languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gjinari, Jorgji, Bahri Beci, Gjovalin Shkurtaj, and Xheladin Gosturani (eds.) 2007−2008 Atlasi dialektologjik i gjuhës shqipe [Albanian language dialect atlas], 2 Vols. Naples: Univ. degli Studi di Napoli l’Orientale. Gjinari, Jorgji and Gjovalin Shkurtaj 2003 Dialektologjia [Dialectology]. Tirana: Shtepia Botuese e Librit Universitar. Häbler, Claus 1965 Grammatik der albanischen Mundart von Salamis. Wiesbaden: Harassowitz. Hamp, Eric 1965 Evidence in Albanian. In: Werner Winter (ed.), Evidence for Laryngeals. The Hague: Mouton, 123−141. Hamp, Eric 1966 The Position of Albanian. In: Henrik Birnbaum and Jaan Puhvel (eds.), Ancient IndoEuropean Dialects. Berkeley: University of California Press, 97−121. Hamp, Eric 1973 Albanian words for ‘liver’. In: Braj B. Kachru, Robert B. Lees, Yakov Malkiel, Angelina Pietrangeli, and Sol Saporta (eds.), Issues in Linguistics: Papers in Honor of Henry and Renée Kahane. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 310−318. Hamp, Eric 1981 On the Distribution and Origin of (h)urda. Linguistique Balkanique 24(3): 47−50. Hamp, Eric 1992 Albanian. In: Jadranka Gvozdanović (ed.), Indo-European Numerals. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 835−921. Hamp, Eric 2002 On Serbo-Croatian’s historic laterals. In: Victor A. Friedman and Donald Dyer (eds.), Of all the Slavs my favorites: Studies in honor of Howard I. Aronson on the occasion of his 66 th birthday. Bloomington, IN: Indiana Slavic Studies, 243−250.

1810

XV. Albanian

Hamp, Eric 2007 Studime krahasuese për shqipen [Comparative studies in Albanian]. Prishtina: Akademia e Shkencave dhe e Arteve e Kosovës. INSTAT (Republic of Albania Institute of Statistics) 2011 Census 2011. Available online at http://www.instat.gov.al/en/census/census-2011/censusdata.aspx [Last accessed 1 January 2015]. ISTAT (Italian National Institute of Statistics) 2014 Linguistic Diversity among Foreign Citizens in Italy: Years 2011−2012. Available online at http://www.istat.it/en/archive/129304 [Last accessed 29 August 2014]. Jokl, Norbert 1916 Beiträge zur albanesischen Grammatik. Indogermanische Forschungen 36: 98−162. Jokl, Norbert 1931 Zur Geschichte des alb. Diphthongs -ua-, -ue-. Indogermanische Forschungen 49: 274− 300. Jokl, Norbert 1932 Zur Geschichte des alb. Diphthongs -ua-, -ue- (Fortsetzung zu Bd. 49, S. 274 ff.). Indogermanische Forschungen 50: 33−59. Jokl, Norbert 1935 Slaven und Albaner. Slavia 13: 281−325, 609−645. Jokl, Norbert 1963 Die Verwandtschaftsverhältnisse des Albanischen zu den übrigen indo-germanischen Sprachen. Die Sprache 9: 113−156. Karadaku, Linda 2011 Kosovo Census: 1.8 million people, 1.6 million voters. South East European Times, June 11, 2011. Available online at http://setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/features/ setimes/blogreview/2011/06/11/blog-03 [Last accessed 3 April 2012]. Kolgjini, Julie M. 2004 Palatalization in Albanian: An Acoustic Investigation of Stops and Affricates. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at Arlington. Lewis, M. Paul, Gary F. Simons, and Charles D. Fennig (eds.) 2014 Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Seventeenth edition. Dallas, Texas: SIL International. Available online at http://www.ethnologue.com/ [Last accessed 29 August 2014]. Lutovska, Klaudija 2013 Council of Europe urges Macedonia to conduct a census. South East European Times, 23 July 2013. Available online at http://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/ features/setimes/features/2013/07/23/feature-01 [Last accessed 1 November 2013]. Maddieson, Ian 2013 Lateral Consonants. In: Matthew S. Dryer and Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/8 [Last accessed 23 November 2013]. Maynard, Kelly 2009 The Aspect Marker pe in Samsun Albanian. Papers from the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society 45(1): 429. Meyer, Gustav 1891 Etymologisches Wörterbuch der albanesischen Sprache. Strassburg: Trübner. Miliyet 2008 Türkiye'deki Kürtlerin sayısı! [The number of Kurds in Turkey] 06 June 2008. Available online at http://www.milliyet.com.tr/default.aspx?aType=SonDakika&Kategori=yasam& ArticleID=873452&Date=07. 06. 2008 [Last accessed 27 August 2014].

99. The dialectology of Albanian

1811

MONSTAT (Montenegrin Statistical Office) 2011 Statistical Yearbook 2011. Available online at http://www.monstat.org/userfiles/file/ publikacije/godisnjak%202011/GODISNJAK%20 %202011-%20new.pdf [Last accessed 1 January 2015]. Orel, Vladimir 1998 Albanian Etymological Dictionary. Leiden: Brill. Orel, Vladimir 2000 Concise Historical Grammar of Albanian: Reconstruction of Proto-Albanian. Leiden: Brill. Pedersen, Holger 1895 Die Albanischen l-Laute. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 33: 535−551. Pedersen, Holger 1900 Die Gutturale im Albanischen. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 36: 277− 340. Pekušić, Biljana 2011 Serbian Bosniak and Albanian minorities to boycott census South East European Times, 8 Oct. 2011. Available online at http://setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/ features/setimes/features/2011/10/08/feature-02 [Last accessed 11 January 2013]. Popis na Naselenieto, Domaќinstvata i Stanovite vo Republika Makedonija 2002 [List of the population, households and dwellings in the Republic of Macedonia]. Skopje: Republic of Macedonia State Statistical Office. Available online at http:// www.stat.gov.mk/publikacii/knigaX.pdf [Last accessed 1 January 2015]. Rekos 2011 (Regjistrimi i popullsisë, ekonomive familjare dhe banesave në Kosovë 2011: Rezultatet paraprake [Census of Population, Households and Dwellings in Kosovo 2011: Preliminary results]). Prishtina: Enti Statistik i Kosovës. Available online at http://esk.rks-gov. net/rekos2011/ [Last accessed 3 April 2012]. Sawicka, Irena 1997 The Balkan Sprachbund in the light of phonetic features. (Studia humanitatis 2). Warsaw: Energia. Seliščev, Afanasii M. 1931 Slavianskoe naselenie v Albanii [Slavic settlement in Albania]. Sofiia: MNI. Shuteriqi, Dhimitër S. 1965 Fshati shqiptar i Bullgarisë, Mandrica, studim dhe tekste [Mandrica, the Albanian village of Bulgaria, study and texts]. Studime Filologjike 1: 103−141. Svane, Gunnar 1992 Slavische Lehnwörter im Albanischen. (Acta Jutlandica LXVIII Humanistische Reihe 67). Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. Topalli, Kolec 1996 Për historinë e hundorësisë së zanoreve në gjuhën shqipe [On the history of the nasality of vowels of Albanian]. Tirana: Shte¨pia Botuese “Enciklopedike”. Topalli, Kolec Forthcoming Phonetic History of Albanian. Wolff, Stefan, Pieter van Houten, Ana-Maria Anghelea, and Ivana Djuric 2008 Minority Rights in the Western Balkans. Report for the European Parliament. Brussels and Strasbourg: European Parliament.

Matthew C. Curtis, Brussels (Belgium)

1812

XV. Albanian

100. The evolution of Albanian One of the latest attested of all Indo-European languages, with just traces before the 16 th century and the first full text only in 1555 (see Rusakov, this handbook), Albanian is also one of the most evolved, having undergone continuous and far-reaching changes in all areas of its linguistic system, including even its name. The Albanians call themselves shqiptar (= [ʃciptár]), a derivative of shqip denoting their native language. But before the 15 th century they generally called themselves arbënesh / arbëresh (= [arbənéʃ / arbəréʃ], showing effects of the southern [Tosk] dialect sound change of n > r intervocalically), a derivative of Arbën / Arbër, which owes its origin to a Southern Illyrian tribal name that was early generalized to all the Illyrian tribes speaking the same idiom. This denomination was also adopted by foreigners: compare Italian Albania ~ albanese, Greek ’Αλβανός, ’Αρβανός, ’Αρβανίτης (showing the effects of two Greek sound changes, l > r before a consonant and b > v), Serbian Arban / Raban (with Slavic metathesis of VR to RV), Arbanas, Bulgarian albanec, Turkish arna(v)ut (via a metathesized form of the Greek term), etc. Albanian is now the official language of two nations (Albania and the Republic of Kosovo) and is spoken in five other countries (Greece, Italy, Macedonia, Montenegro, and Serbia), with enclaves in yet others (especially Bulgaria, Croatia, and Turkey) and a more recent diaspora population in the United States and Western Europe. The numerous changes characterizing the evolution of the Albanian language cover all the Albanian-speaking areas, including those of the Albanian settlements in Greece and Italy, which took place not later than the 15th−16 th centuries CE. The phonological system of Albanian has been almost entirely reorganized compared to that of reconstructed Proto-Indo-European. It suffices to mention that, with the exception of short (late) PIE */a/ and short IE */i/ and */u/, all the other IE reconstructed long and short vowels have undergone change in Albanian. Thus, as in Germanic, the IE long vowels */ā/ and */ō/ have evolved to /o/, whereas */a/ and */o/ have merged to /a/. Remarkably, PIE long */ē/ has become /o/ and long */ō/ shows up as /e/, a pair of developments seen nowhere else in Indo-European. Albanian has also developed a front rounded vowel /y/ common to all dialects as well as an unstressed /ə/ which, however, may be stressed in southern Albanian (Tosk). The northern dialects (Geg) retain nasalized vowels that developed in Proto-Albanian, and were systematically denasalized in Tosk dialects. Finally, it is to be noted that Albanian has replaced the free PIE accent by a fixed one, which generally falls upon the penultimate stem syllable in substantives and the final stem syllable in verbs. All such changes took place prior to the contacts between Albanian and Balkan Slavonic, i.e. before the 7 th century CE. Moreover, Albanian has lost not only the IE reconstructed long ~ short vowel opposition, but also the new long ~ short vowel opposition which appeared in the course of its own development. Similar remarks can be made for the consonantal system as well. Thus, the three-way IE reconstructed voiced ~ voiceless ~ voiced aspirated system of obstruents has been reduced, as in many IE dialects, to a double opposition: voiced ~ voiceless; and the outcomes of the three dorsal series suggest that Albanian, like Luwian, may have originally retained this three-way opposition intact and therefore is neither centum nor satem, despite the clear satem-like outcome of its palatal dorsals in most instances. The evidence for this is the palatalization of original PIE labiovelars, but not plain velars, before front vowels (as in si ‘how’ < *kwi-, compare Latin quia, and kohë ‘time’ < *kēsk̑ā, compare OCS časъ). Other satem groups like Indo-Iranian and Slavic also show palatalization of https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-021

100. The evolution of Albanian

1813

velars before front vowels, but in these instances both plain velars and labiovelars undergo this development together. Even in its satem-like treatment of PIE palatal dorsals, Albanian shows an original feature found elsewhere in Indo-European only in Old Persian: the development of voiceless palatal *k̑ to th [θ] and palatal *g̑( h) to dh [ð]~ d. Other peculiarities of Albanian are its possession, on an apparently ancient level, of a set of voiceless ~ voiced palatal plosives /c/ ~/ɟ/ ( ~ in the modern orthography), without exact parallels in other IE languages. On the other hand, its opposition of voiceless and voiced hissing and hushing affricates [ts] ~ [dz] ( ~ in the modern orthography), and [tʃ] ~ [dʒ] ( ~ in the modern orthography), is reminiscent of Armenian as well as many Slavic languages. The grammatical structure of Albanian has also undergone ancient profound changes compared to that of reconstructed PIE. It suffices to mention here that both its nominal and verbal inflections have been entirely reorganized. Like some other IE languages, Albanian has developed a double (indefinite ~ definite) substantive declension by opposing indefinite case forms to definite ones, the latter having been created by the postposition of a definite article, as in Rumanian, Bulgarian, Macedonian, Armenian, and Danish together with the other Scandinavian languages. Its case forms have been reduced by the ever-growing use of prepositions. Albanian has also created an inflected prepositive “article” used particularly to form a class of adjectives opposed to another class of article-less adjectives (compare i mirë ‘good’ ~ trim ‘brave’). Something similar has occurred in Rumanian as well, where, however, each adjective may be pre-articulated in certain syntactic contexts. In both of these languages, the adjectives usually follow their head nouns. A general reorganization has also characterized the Albanian verbal conjugation. Like most IE languages, Albanian has developed new tense and modal oppositions and has gradually moved away from the ancient aspectual oppositions. Its tense system distinguishes present ~ imperfect ~ aorist ~ analytical perfect, and analytical past perfect (the last two by means of the have ~ be auxiliaries). Moreover, Albanian, like the other Balkan languages, has created an analytical future by means of the prepositive particle do, which is in origin the third person singular form of the modal verb dua ‘will’, followed by the present subjunctive. A second analytical future of necessity is also used in Albanian, formed by the auxiliary have followed by the infinitive in the northern dialect (Geg) or by the subjunctive present in both Geg and Tosk. Albanian has also developed a modal form having no parallel in other Indo-European languages. This is the so-called admirative mood, expressing astonishment or any action not vouched for by the speaker. The admirative present has been formed through an inversion and univerbation of the components making up the analytic perfect (cf. admirative qenkam < qenë kam ‘one says that I am’ vs. perfect kam qenë ‘I have been’) and has parallels in Macedonian and Bulgarian, as well as Turkish, among Balkan languages. Like Indo-Iranian and Greek, Albanian possesses both an optative and a subjunctive; and like Latin, it has developed a formal subjunctive tense opposition of present ~ imperfect ~ perfect ~ past perfect (the same may be said of the admirative). All of its subjunctive tense forms are preceded by a particle (të ‘that’), as in the other Balkan languages. It is to be noted that Albanian, like the other Balkan languages, has developed the tendency to use subjunctive forms instead of the infinitive. In fact, Albanian has no infinitive formed by means of special suffixes, as in all the other IE languages with the exception of the Celtic branch. Formally its attested infinitive coincides with its past

1814

XV. Albanian

participle preceded by the prepositional particle me ‘with’. Such an infinitive has been securely attested only in the northern Geg dialect, this being the most striking grammatical difference between that dialect and the southern dialect Tosk. The other differences between these two dialects of Albanian are mostly of a phonetic character, the most remarkable of which is the rhotacism of (-n- > -r-) in Tosk noted above regarding Arbën(ë) > Arbër(ë). Denasalization of vowels in Tosk also differentiates the two dialects, again as noted above. The northern ~ southern dialectal separation within Albanian dates back to its pre-Slavonic stage of development. The convergence with other Balkan languages in such grammatical features as the future tense, the admirative, and a preference for the subjunctive in place of an infinitive surely involves contact of a particularly intense and sustained kind between Albanian speakers and speakers of the other languages in the Balkans. Such convergences extend into the nominal system, as the postpositive marking for definiteness mentioned above shows, and are seen as well in the merger of case-marking for genitive and dative functions, a trait also found in Greek and Romanian in their case marking, and in Bulgarian and Macedonian through prepositional usage (na for both functions). Of course, still more remarkable is the evolution of the Albanian lexicon with its numerous loanwords from various languages, specifically ancient Greek, Latin, Slavic, and Turkish (as well as recent loans from Italian and now English), dating to various known periods of contact with these other languages in the Balkans. Moreover, these loans can be shown to fit into an orderly chronology not just by extralinguistic information concerning periods of contact but by their interaction as well with known sound changes. Thus, mokërë ‘millstone’, from ancient Greek μᾱχανᾱ́ ‘instrument’, shows the effects of rhotacism, and mjek ‘doctor’, from Latin medicus, shows the effects of the loss of medial voiced stops, a change which inherited words also underwent (e.g. erë ‘smell’ < *ōd-ro-, cf. Latin odor); however, Slavic loanwords, coming after the arrival of the Slavs in the Balkans in the 6 th century, show the effects of neither change, and neither do Turkish loans, borrowed during the period of Ottoman rule. A further telling point lexically is the fact that in the reconstruction of the PIE word for ‘100’, every Indo-European dialect has input to offer except for Albanian and Armenian. In the latter case, the term hariwr is of unknown (but surely foreign) origin, whereas the Albanian term (një)qind (Tosk [nji]qind) (një/nji ‘one’) is manifestly a borrowing from Latin centum. Thus in its evolution over the many millennia since Proto-Indo-European, Albanian shows significant effects from language contact as well as numerous internally motivated changes, in both instances leading it away from the prototype of PIE.

References Bopp, Franz 1855 Über das Albanesische in seinen verwandtschaftlichen Beziehungen (gelesen in der Königl. Akad. der Wissenschaften am 18. Mai 1854). Abhandlungen der preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Kl. Berlin. Demiraj, Bardhyl 1997 Albanische Etymologien. Untersuchungen zum Albanischen Erbwortschatz. Amsterdam/ Atlanta: Rodopi.

100. The evolution of Albanian

1815

Demiraj, Bardhyl 2001 Das Meyersche Gesetz über den Schwund der intervokalischen Media im Albanischen. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 61: 57−93. Demiraj, Bardhyl 2012 Umsiedler oder Alteingesessene? Fragen zur Urheimat der Albaner im Frühmittelalter. Südost-Forschungen 71: 382−392. Demiraj, Shaban 1986 Gramatikë historike e gjuhës shqipe [Historical grammar of Albanian]. Tirana: SHBLU. Demiraj, Shaban 2006 The origin of the Albanians (linguistically investigated). Tirana: Academy of Sciences of Albania. Fiedler, Wilfried 2003 Albanisch. In: Thorsten Roelcke (ed.), Variationstypologie. Ein sprachtypologisches Handbuch der europäischen Sprachen in Geschichte und Gegenwart / Variation Typology. A Typological Handbook of European Languages Past and Present. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 749−797. Hamp, Eric P. 1966 The Position of Albanian. In: Henrik Birnbaum and Jaan Puhvel (eds.), Ancient IndoEuropean Dialekts. Proceedings of the Conference on IE linguistics held at the University of California Los Angeles, April 25−27, 1963. Los Angeles, 97−121. Hamp, Eric P. 1972 Albanian. In: Thomas A. Sebeok (ed.), Linguistics in Western Europe. (Current Trends in Linguistics, Vol. 9). The Hague/Paris: Mouton, 1626−1692. Hock, Wolfgang 2005 Zur Vorgeschichte des albanischen Lautsystems. In: Gerhard Meiser and Olav Hackstein (eds.), Sprachkontakt und Sprachwandel. Akten der XI. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft; 17.−23. September 2000, Halle an der Saale. Wiesbaden: L. Reichert, 261−274. Huld, Martin E. 1984 Basic Albanian Etymologies. Columbus OH: Slavica. Klingenschmitt, Gert 1981 Albanisch und Urindogermanisch. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 40: 93− 131. Klingenschmitt, Gert 1994 Das Albanische als Glied der indogermanischen Sprachfamilie. In: Rasmussen (ed.), 221−233. Ölberg, Herman 1987 Sprachlicher Kontakt und Lautchronologie. In: Dona slavica aenipontana. In honorem Herbert Schelesniker. München: R. Trofenik, 135−145. Orel, Vladimir 1994 Albanian and Indo-European. In: Rasmussen (ed.), 349−364. Rasmussen, Jens Elmegård (ed.) 1994 In honorem Holger Pedersen. Kolloquium der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 25. bis 28. Marz 1993 in Kopenhagen. Wiesbaden: L. Reichert. Schumacher, Stefan and Joachim Matzinger 2013 Die Verben des Altalbanischen. Belegwörterbuch. Vorgeschichte und Etymologie. Unter Mitarbeit von Anna-Maria Adaktylos. Wiesbaden: Harassowitz. Solta, Georg Renatus 1980 Einführung in die Balkanlinguistik mit besonderer Berücksichtigung des Substrats und des Balkanlateinischen. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft

Bardhyl Demiraj, Munich (Germany)

XVI. Languages of fragmentary attestation 101. Phrygian 1. 2. 3. 4.

Introduction Phonemic inventory Morphonology Historical development

5. Morphology 6. Syntax 7. References

1. Introduction Phrygian is an extinct Indo-European language of West and Central Anatolia, the written sources of which span the period between the 8 th century BCE and 3 rd century CE. 1.1. Greek sources refer to Phrygians either as Βρίγες (Herodian, Strabo, Stephanus Byzantinus), Βρύγες (Strabo), Βρῦγοι (Strabo), Βρίγαντες (Herodian) or as Φρύγες (Homer). According to Herodotus (VII 73), the Phrygians originally were neighbors of the Macedonians and were called Βρίγες as long as they dwelt in Europe. When they changed their home to Asia, they also changed their name. A similar account is also given by Strabo (VII 3, 2). 1.2. The time of the Phrygian migration to Anatolia is heavily debated, as is also the question of whether we can identify the Muški of Assyrian sources with the Phrygians. Homer has the young king Priam aiding the Phrygians against the Amazons (Il. III 189); in return, Phrygians come to Trojan aid (II 862 ff.). If true, these two facts would place the Phrygian migration before the collapse of the Bronze Age, i.e. the 12 th c. BCE; but the Homeric account can easily be anachronistic. At any rate, in the 8 th c. BCE, Phrygians established a powerful kingdom with the capital Gordion (Gk. Γόρδιον, now Yassıhüyük) at the river Sangarios (now Sakarya), where Alexander the Great famously severed the knot on his way to Egypt. Other ancient sites include the so-called Midas city (near Yazılıkaya in Eskişehir province), Daskyleion (near Bandırma), and Dorylaion (now Eskişehir). Thriving under the legendary king Midas, the Kingdom of Phrygia was sacked by the Cimmerians around 695 BCE and then frequently changed hands: it was first a part of Lydia (7 th−6 th c. BCE), then of the Persian Empire (6 th−4 th c. BCE) and of the Empire of Alexander (4 th c. BCE). Later, Phrygia was ruled by the Kingdom of Pergamum (2 nd c. BCE), until it was added to the Roman province of Asia during the late Republic. During the Roman period, Phrygia, lying to the east of Troas, bordered on its northern side with Galatia, on the south with Lycaonia, Pisidia, and Mygdonia and on the east, it touched upon Cappadocia. 1.3. Phrygian is most closely related to Greek. The two languages share a few unique innovations, such as the vocalization of the laryngeals (4.3), the pronoun auto- (5.2) and https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-022

101. Phrygian

1817

the 3sg. imperative middle ending (5.3). It is therefore very likely that both languages emerged from a single language, which was spoken in the Balkans at the end of the third millennium BCE. 1.4. Written in two distinct scripts − one native and the other Greek − Phrygian inscriptions can on the whole be divided into two corpora: the Old Phrygian (OPhr.) corpus written in the native script, and the New Phrygian (NPhr.) corpus written in the Greek script. Old Phrygian, as opposed to New Phrygian, is customarily romanized with the exception of the disputed signs ↑, Φ and Ψ. 1.5. The native script is an alphabet consisting of 21 characters: A

B

G

D

E

V

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

R

S

T

U

C

F

X

a

b

g

d

e

v

i

y

k

l

m

n

o

p

r

s

t

u

↑

Φ

Ψ

Similar to the archaic Greek alphabets, the native script is essentially distinguished by the arrow and the yod. The last two letters of the table above, which look like Greek phi and psi, are very rare. Φ occurs only once as a variant of the arrow, while Ψ (ten occurrences) most probably stands for /ks/. The yod does not appear in the oldest OPhr. inscriptions and was introduced somewhere during the 6 th c. BCE (Lejeune 1969), first in prevocalic and word-final positions (e.g., areyastin, kuryaneyon, yosesait; tedatoy, aey, materey, avtay, etc.), later also as a second element of i-diphthongs (ayni, ktevoys, etc.; Lubotsky 1993). Most inscriptions from the North-West of Phrygia (Vezirhan, Daskyleion, etc.) show some deviations from the usual OPhr. alphabet. The yod has a different shape, and there are two types of s, usually transcribed as s and ś (for an overview and discussion of these peculiarities, see Brixhe 2004: 26−32). Since these inscriptions normally lack the arrow sign, it seems reasonable to assume that ś and the arrow indicated the same sound. Words are often separated by a colon consisting of 2, 3, or more vertical dots and occasionally by spaces. About two thirds of the OPhr. inscriptions run from left to right (dextroverse) and one third from right to left (sinistroverse); a few are written boustrophedon. In NorthWest Phrygia, however, the proportion is exactly the opposite, two thirds of the inscriptions being sinistroverse. The OPhr. corpus currently comprises more than 400, unfortunately mostly very short and fragmentary, inscriptions and dates from the 8 th to the 4 th c. BCE; ca. one fifth of the inscriptions are on stone and the rest on pottery or other small objects. The inscriptions are found across a huge area, far outside Phrygia proper: as far east as Boğazköy and Tyana (Hittite Tuwanuwa), as far south as Bayındır (near Antalya) and as far west as Daskyleion. The largest number of inscriptions comes from Gordion (ca. 80 %). The standard edition of the OPhr. corpus is Brixhe and Lejeune (1984). The inscriptions are cited by the region where they are found and by a number. Each inscription is hence assigned a siglum: B − Bithynia; G − Gordion; P − Pteria; M − Midas City; T − Tyana; W − West Phrygia; HP (i.e. hors de Phrygie) − from outside of Phrygia; NW − North West Phrygia (Dorylaion); Dd (i.e. documents divers) − of unknown origin. The corpus continues to be updated by means of supplements (Brixhe 2002, 2004).

1818

XVI. Languages of fragmentary attestation

1.6. NPhr. inscriptions are written in the Greek alphabet, of which only 21 characters are used: . Greek aspiratae are notably absent, except for Greek names (e.g., Αδιθρερακ, dat.sg. Κλευμαχοι) and loanwords (e.g., dat.sg. θαλαμειδη ‘sepulchral chamber’). The letters ξ and ψ are very rare (found only in the name Ξευν- and υψοδαν ‘above’, respectively), while eta and omega are practically confined to final syllables. New Phrygian by default does not practice word separation. Dating from the 2 nd−3 rd c. CE, the NPhr. corpus currently comprises 113 inscriptions, all of them found in the highlands roughly between Eskişehir and Konya. They are numbered from 2 to 129: occasionally, a number is skipped since certain inscriptions are in the meantime considered Greek. A new edition of NPhr. inscriptions is a desideratum. The largest collection (up to No. 110) is presented in Haas (1966: 114−129); editions of Nos. 111−129 are scattered across various publications (Nos. 111−114 = Brixhe 1978a: 3−7; No. 115 = Brixhe and Waelkens 1981; No. 116 = Brixhe and Neumann 1985; No. 117 = Laminger-Pascher 1984: 35; No. 118 = Mitchell 1993: 186, fig. 33; Nos. 119− 125 = Brixhe and Drew-Bear 1997; Nos. 126–128 = Drew-Bear, Lubotsky, and Üyümez 2008; No. 129 = Brixhe and Drew-Bear 2010; cf. also an overview in Brixhe 1999). Typically opening with ιος νι σεμουν κνουμανει κακουν αδδακετ ‘whoever inflicts harm upon this grave’, NPhr. inscriptions usually consist of a curse following a Greek epitaph, but there are a few Phrygian epitaphs, too. 1.7. As expounded in the preceding sections, the chronological difference between the OPhr. and the NPhr. corpora is normally matched by the use of different alphabets: the native alphabet in the case of OPhr. inscriptions and the Greek alphabet in the case of NPhr. inscriptions. There is, however, one exception: the Dokimeion inscription from the 4 th century BCE, which most probably represents an epigram, is written in the Greek alphabet. This must no doubt be due to the increased influence of Greek during Alexandrian times. 1.8. Apart from the inscriptions, Phrygian words are known from Greek sources as well. Plato (Kratylos 410a) quotes πῦρ ‘fire’, ὕδωρ ‘water’ and κύνες ‘dogs’ as shared lexical items. The dictionary of Hesychius quotes some forty words and names with a remark like Φρύγες οr παρὰ Φρυξί, e.g. γλούρεα· χρύσεα. Φρύγες; ζέμελεν· βάρβαρον ἀνδράποδον. Φρύγες; Μαζεύς· ὁ Ζεὺς παρὰ Φρυξί, etc. These glosses are of questionable value, however. The remark “Φρύγες” does not guarantee Phrygian provenance of the gloss, because it could also refer to Anatolians, or even to foreigners in general. Of these glosses, βέκος ‘bread’ (also mentioned by Herodotus II 2) is arguably the most famous one.

2. Phonemic inventory 2.1. Vowels − OPhr. /a/, /e/, /o/, /i/, /u/ − NPhr. /a/, /e/, /o/, /i/, /u/

/ā/, /ō/, (/ī/, /ū/ ?); (/ē/, /ō/ ?)

101. Phrygian

1819

Although vowel length is not expressed in writing, Old Phrygian must have had long vowels, at least /ō/, as follows from the fact that OPhr. has two different reflexes in NPhr.: ο or ου, depending on its origin. OPhr. o that goes back to Proto-Indo-European (PIE) *o corresponds to NPhr. ο: OPhr. yos, ios, relative pronoun < PIE *ios ~ NPhr. ιος; OPhr. 3sg. med. ending -toi, -toy < PIE *-toi ~ NPhr. -τοι. On the other hand, OPhr. o that goes back to PIE *ō corresponds to NPhr. ου: OPhr. 3sg. med. imperative ending -do < *-sdhō (cf. Gk. -σθω) ~ NPhr. -δου; OPhr. dat.sg. ending -oi, -oy < PIE *-ōi (cf. Gk. -ῳ) ~ NPhr. -ου. Presumably, there was no OPhr. phoneme /ē/, since PIE *ē and *eh1 merged with *eh2 into OPhr. a, cf. OPhr. matar nom.sg. ‘mother’ < PIE *meh2tēr, NPhr. αναρ ‘man’ < *-ēr, OPhr. daΨet ‘to place, make’ < *deh1-k-, etc. There are no certain examples of OPhr. /ī/, /ū/, so that their existence remains hypothetical. During the NPhr. period, short and long vowels of OPhr. apparently merged and gave rise to a vowel system without a length opposition: /a/, /e/, /o/, /i/, /u/, at least in initial syllables (thus already Brixhe 1990: 98). The absence of long vowels is further indicated by the use of the hexameter in New Phrygian, where we only find dactylic rhythm and where the function of long vowels was taken by vowels which are long per positionem and by diphthongs (Lubotsky 1998). The status of NPhr. η and ω, which mostly occur in final syllables, is unclear, but they might have represented close long [ẹ̄] and [ọ̄]. NPhr. η most often appears in the final syllable: in the dat.sg. ending of the consonant stems, where it varies with -ε/-ι and -ει, cf. κνουμανη dat.sg. ‘grave’ ~ κνουμανε(ι), κνουμανι, Τιη dat.sg. ‘Zeus’ ~ Τι(ε), Ξευνη PN ~ Ξευνε; in the ending -αης, cf. δεκμουταης ~ δεκμουταις; in the ending -ης, cf. πατερης (No. 98) nom.pl. ‘parents’ (< *-eies), for NPhr. μανκης (No. 86) see 5.1; the function and meaning of δ[α]κερης (No. 116) and παρτης has not yet been clarified. A few times NPhr. η is found in prevocalic position: μαιμαρηαν, τιηιον, εκατηας. For a discussion of this grapheme, see Lubotsky (1998). In contemporary Greek, η had already merged with ι. NPhr. ω is confined, with very few exceptions, to the dat.pl. ending -ως, which goes back to PIE *-ōis (this ending is spelled with only three times). It typically occurs in the formula με ζεμελως κε δεως κε ‘among men and gods’. The Phr. short diphthongs are: /ey/ = , /ew/ = , /oy/ = , /ay/ = , and /aw/ = . The existence of the diphthong /ow/ is uncertain. In NPhr., it would at any rate be indistinguishable from ου = /u/. In OPhr., we find it once in the nom.sg. Vasous PN (P-03), next to Vasus (P-05) < *u̯asōus (?), and once in final position in otekonov (B-01). This enigmatic ending -ov is reminiscent of forms like tubetiv and derạliv (B-05) or apelev (B-07) and is likely to be due to a dialectal North-Western development. Besides short diphthongs, there must have been at least two long diphthongs in OPhr., that is, /ōy/, cf. OPhr. o-stem dat. sg. -oi, NPhr. -ου < PIE *-ōi (see above), and /āi/, cf. OPhr. ā-stem dat.sg. -ai, NPhr. -α (see further 4.1).

2.2. Consonants − /p/ = ; /t/ = ; /k/ = − /b/ = ; /d/ = ; /g/ =

1820 − − − − −

XVI. Languages of fragmentary attestation /z/ or /dz/ = /s/ = /m/ = ; /n/ = /l/ = ; /r/ = /w/= ; /y/ =

The phonological interpretation of the OPhr. arrow , which is probably identical with (see 1.5), and of NPhr. remains controversial. Since OPhr. only occurs before front vowels (i, e), it is likely that this letter represents a sound which arises through palatalization. In NPhr. inscriptions, appears in two words, ζεμελως dat.pl. ‘men’ (< PIE *dhǵ(h)emelo-, cf. Gk. χθαμαλός, Lat. humilis ‘low, humble’) and ζειρα(ι) of unknown meaning and function. If OPhr. śirạy = ↑irạy of the Vezirhan inscription is the same word as NPhr. ζειραι, we have to assume that NPhr. and the OPhr. arrow indicated the same sound, presumably a voiced affricate or /z/. For a possible voiceless geminate nn, see 4.2. In the Greek alphabet, /w/ is written either or simply in prevocalic position, cf. ουεναουιας, ουανακταν (No. 88), οαν οε αυται (No. 116), κοροαν (W-11).

3. Morphonology Morphemes, both suffixes and roots, show ablaut. In nominal inflection of the consonant stems, the suffix changes its vocalism, e.g. nom.sg. -tar ( -k k-: αδιθρερακ ξευνεοι (No. 31), ικ κναικαν (No. 116); -s g- > -k g-: ποκ γονιον (No. 116), presumably via -h k-, -h g-.

4. Historical development 4.1. Vowels The Indo-European vowels seem to be well preserved, except for the changes already mentioned in the preceding sections. Here are a few more examples of vocalic phonemes. − *i : OPhr. kin, NPhr. κιν ‘which’ < PIE *k wim; NPhr. γεγαριτμενος ‘devoted’ < PIE *g̑hrHit- (Gk. ἐν-κεχαρισμένος); − *e : OPhr. ke, NPhr. κε ‘and’ < PIE *k we; NPhr. αββερετ, μεβερετ < PIE *bher-; − *o : OPhr. -os, NPhr. -ος, nom.sg. m. of the o-stems < PIE *-os; − *u : NPhr. (ο)υψοδαν adv. ‘above; on the top’ < PIE *(H)upsodhn̥ (cf. Gk. ὑψόθε[ν] ‘[from] above’); NPhr. κνουμαν- n. ‘grave’ < PIE *knu- (cf. Gk. κνύω ‘I scratch’); − *a (*h2e): NPhr. αδ preverb ‘to, at, by’ < PIE *h2ed (cf. Lat. ad ‘id.’); − *ē : NPhr. ορουαν nom.sg. ‘father, guardian’ (gen.sg. ορουενος; acc.sg. ορουεναν) < PIE *soru̯ēn (cf. Gk. οὖρος ‘watcher, guardian’); − *eh1 : NPhr. (αδ)δακετ 3sg. ‘inflicts’ < PIE *dheh1-k- (cf. Gk. aor. ἔθηκα); − *eh2 : NPhr. βρατερε dat.sg. ‘brother’ < PIE *bhreh2-ter- (cf. Skt. bhrā́tar-, Lat. frāter); − *eh3 : NPhr. acc.sg. μουρου[ν] (No. 100), acc.pl. n. μμυρα (No. 25) ‘stupidity’, cf. Gk. μῶρος, μωρός ‘stupid’. As far as we can see, the diphthongs remain unchanged in Old Phrygian, but in New Phrygian the long diphthongs /āi/ and /ōi/ often lose their second element in final position, while word-final /ei/ gradually becomes monophthongized and is then written as . PIE *-ōis shows a special development to NPhr. -ως:

1822

XVI. Languages of fragmentary attestation

− *h2ei/*eh2 i : OPhr. ai, NPhr. αι ‘if’< PIE *h2ei (cf. Gk. Aeol., Dor. αἰ ‘if’); OPhr. ayni, NPhr. αινι ‘and/or’ < PIE *h2ei-ni; NPhr. κναικαν acc.sg. f. ‘wife’ < PIE *g wneh2 ikm̥ (cf. Gk. γυναῖκα); − *h2eu : OPhr. avtoi dat.sg.m., NPhr. αυτος ‘self’ < PIE *h2euto- (cf. Gk. αὐτός ‘self’); − *ei : NPhr. γεγρειμεναν acc.sg. f. ‘written’ < PIE *ghreiH- (cf. Gk. χρίω ‘I touch’); OPhr. dat.sg. ending of the consonant stems, e.g., materey ‘mother’, Tiei ‘Zeus’ (NW101), NPhr. Τιε, Τι, Τιη dat.sg. ‘Zeus’, κνουμανει, -ε, -ι, -η dat.sg. ‘grave’ < PIE *-ei (cf. Lat. -ei, -ī); − *eu : OPhr. bevdos acc.sg. n. ‘statue, image’ (B-01) < PIE *bheudhos; − *oi : OPhr. 3sg. med. ending -toi, -toy, NPhr. -τοι < PIE *-toi; NPhr. τετικμενοι nom.pl. m. ‘condemned’ < PIE *-oi; − “*āi” : OPhr. ā-stem dat.sg. -ai (Midai, Atai), dat.sg. f. pron. °esai-t (W-01b), NPhr. dat.sg. f. dem. pron. σα(ι), pron. αυται, dat.sg. f. μανκα(ι) ‘stele’ < PIE *-eh2ei, cf. Gk. -ᾱι, -ηι, Lat. -ae; − *ōi : OPhr. o-stem dat.sg. ending -oi, -oy, NPhr. -ου < PIE *-ōi (cf. Gk. -ῳ); NPhr. ostem dat.pl. ending -ως < PIE *-ōis.

4.2. Resonants Consonantal resonants have undergone few changes. Word-final /m/ and /n/ have merged into /-n/ in Phrygian, just as in Greek, cf. OPhr. o-stem acc. sg. ending -un, NPhr. -ουν, -ον < PIE *-om. Possibly,*u̯ was lost before a following*o in Phrygian, cf. OPhr. nom.sg. vas(o)us PN (P-03, P-05), gen.sg. vasos (P-02) < *u̯asu̯os (Brixhe 1990: 65). The apparent counterexamples, OPhr. tovo and devos, go back to *toho < *toso and *dehos < *dhh̥1sos, respectively, where -v- is a Hiatustilger. The development of the cluster *nt in Phrygian is unclear. First of all, it is remarkable that this cluster is very rare in Phrygian texts: among well-attested words we find only the possible borrowings OPhr. panta (B-05.4), παντης (W-11), NPhr. παντα (No. 35) ~ Gk. πᾶς, παντ- ‘all, every’ and NPhr. Πουντας (No. 48) ~ Gk. Πόντος ‘Pontic region’ (Lubotsky 1997: 123 with refs.). On the other hand, the ending of the 3pl. imperative, which presumably goes back to *-ntō (parallel to 3sg. impv. ειτου < *-tō), is spelled in NPhr. as -ττνου (αδειττνου No. 12) and -ννου (ιννου Nos. 35, 71). These spellings may point to a voiceless geminate nn, IPA [n̥n̥]. Also the OPhr. spellings tn, ntn, found in apaktneni (B-01.8), ẹventnoktoy (B-06), seem to point in this direction (cf. Lubotsky 1997: 121−122). However, Annelies Hämmig points out to us (p.c.) that αδειττνου in No. 12 must rather be read αδειννου, which would mean that *-nt- > -nn- in Phrygian. See further 3 on OPhr. -evanos < *-eu̯antos < *-eu̯n̥tos. The vocalic nasals have become aN, cf. OPhr. onoman acc.sg. n., NPhr. ονομαν‘name’ < PIE *h̥3nh̥3mn̥ (cf. Gk. ὄνομα ‘id.’); NPhr. κναικαν acc.sg. f. ‘wife’ < PIE *g wneh2 ikm̥. The reflexes of vocalic *r̥ and *l̥ are less certain. OPhr. por, NPhr. πουρ prep. ‘for’ < PIE *pr̥ (cf. Gk. πάρ, Goth. faur ‘id.’) seems to indicate that *r̥ has developed into *or, but this is the only example. For NPhr. γεγαριτμενος ‘devoted, at the mercy of ’ < PIE *g̑hr̥Hit- see the next section.

101. Phrygian

1823

4.3. Laryngeals Vocalization of the Indo-European laryngeals shows the same “triple representation” as in Greek and, being a common innovation of the two branches, it is an important indication of the dialectal position of Phrygian. Initial laryngeals develop a prothetic vowel, i.e. *h1C- > eC-, *h2C- < aC-, *h3C- > oC-: OPhr. eu- ‘well’ (?) < PIE *h̥1su- (cf. Gk. εὐ-, Skt. su- ‘id.’); NPhr. αναρ m. ‘husband’ < PIE *h̥2nēr (cf. Skt. nár-, Gk. ἀνήρ ‘id.’); OPhr. onoman acc.sg. n., NPhr. ονομαν- ‘name’ < PIE *h̥3nh̥3mn̥ (cf. Gk. ὄνομα, Skt. nā́man- ‘id.’). In a similar fashion, interconsonantal laryngeals are vocalized to e, a, o, respectively: NPhr. δεως instr.pl. m. ‘god’ < PIE *dhh̥1so- (cf. Gk. θεός ‘id.’); NPhr. δετουν m./n. ‘monument’ < PIE *dhh̥1to-; OPhr. -meno-, NPhr. -μενο- middle ptc. < PIE *-mh̥1no- (cf. Gk. -μενο-); NPhr. πατερης nom.pl. ‘parents’ < PIE *ph̥2ter- (cf. Gk. πατήρ ‘id.’); NPhr. τιτ-τετικμενα nom.pl. n. ‘condemned’ < PIE *-h̥2 (cf. Gk. -α, Lat. -a, Skt. -i); OPhr. onoman, NPhr. ονομαν- ‘name’ < PIE *h̥3nh̥3mn̥. Also in other positions, the development of the laryngeals in Greek and in Phrygian is identical, cf. NPhr. γεγαριτμενος ‘devoted, at the mercy of’ < PIE *g̑hr̥Hit- (cf. Gk. ἐν-κεχαρισμένος ‘id.’, χάρις, χάριτος ‘love’); NPhr. γλουρεος ‘golden (?)’ (for the meaning, cf. the above-mentioned gloss by Hesychius γλούρεα· χρύσεα, Φρύγες ‘golden items [Phrygian]’) < PIE *g̑hl̥ h3-ro- (cf. Gk. χλωρός ‘green’). 4.4. The single Phr. fricative /s/ is practically restricted to word-final position and to clusters with a stop, cf. OPhr. o-stem nom.sg. -os, NPhr. -ος < PIE *-os, NPhr. 3sg. saor. εσταες ‘established’, OPhr. 3sg. subj. daΨet /dakset/ ‘will do’. In other positions, word-initially and intervocalically, it was lost, cf. NPhr. ορουαν ‘warden’ < PIE *soru̯ēn; OPhr. egeseti, NPhr. εγεσιτ, εγεδου ‘hold, experience’ < PIE *seg̑h-; NPhr. dat.pl. δεως ‘god’ < PIE *dhh̥1so-. PIE *s was further lost in the clusters *su̯- and *-sdh-, cf. OPhr. ven- ‘self’, NPhr. nom.pl. n. ουα ‘own’ < PIE *su̯e/*su̯o- and impv. ending -do, -δου < PIE *-sdhō. The intervocalic /s/ in the s-subjunctives OPhr. egeseti, NPhr. εγεσιτ, mentioned above, has probably been generalized from postconsonantal positions, just like in Greek.

4.5. Stops It is clear that PIE tenues are reflected as Phrygian tenues, and mediae aspiratae as PIE mediae, cf. OPhr. 3sg. primary act. -ti, NPhr. -τι < PIE *-ti; NPhr. πατερης nom.pl. ‘parents’ < PIE *ph̥2ter-; NPhr. dat.pl. δεως ‘god’ < PIE *dhh̥1so-; NPhr. acc. sg. γεγρειμεναν ‘written’ < PIE *ghreiH-; NPhr. βρατερε dat.sg. ‘brother’ < PIE *bhreh2ter-, etc. The fate of PIE mediae is more controversial, but there is a growing body of evidence that they have become Phrygian tenues (cf. Lubotsky 2004 for more examples and a discussion of the counterevidence), cf. NPhr. acc.sg. Τιαν, gen. sg. Τιος, dat.sg. Τι(ε), OPhr. Tiei ‘Zeus’ < PIE *diēm, *diu̯os, *diu̯ei; NPhr. acc.sg. κ̣ναικαν ‘wife’ < PIE *g wneh2 ikm̥ (cf. Gk. γυναῖκα); OPhr. torv- (B-05) ‘wood’ < PIE *doru̯-/*dr̥u̯-; NPhr. (τιτ-)τετικμενος ‘condemned’ < PIE *deik̑-, cf. Gk. δια-δικάζω ‘I judge’, κατα-δικάζω ‘I condemn’. PIE labiovelars have lost their labial feature, cf. OPhr. ke, NPhr. κε ‘and’ < PIE *k we, NPhr. acc. sg. κ̣ναικαν ‘wife’ (116) < * g wneh2 ikm̥.

1824

XVI. Languages of fragmentary attestation

In view of the close relationship of Phrygian and Greek, it is likely that Phrygian is a centum language, too, cf. OPhr. egeseti, NPhr. εγεσιτ, εγεδου ‘hold, experience’ < PIE *seg̑h-; NPhr. (τιτ-)τετικμενος ‘condemned’ < PIE *deik̑-; NPhr. γεγαριτμενος ‘devoted, at the mercy of’ < PIE *g̑ hr̥Hit-; NPhr. γλουρεος ‘golden (?)’ < PIE *g̑hl̥ h3-ro-. This implies that ζεμελως dat.pl. ‘men’ (< PIE *dhg̑(h)emelo-) must be due to a special development of the initial cluster and that the Phrygian demonstrative pronoun s- (OPhr. acc.sg.n. si, acc.sg.m. sin; NPhr. gen.sg. f. σας, dat.sg. σα(ι), dat.sg.n. σεμουν, see 5.2) must reflect PIE *k̑i̯ - with palatalization (as indicated above, 4.4, PIE initial *s- shows a zero-reflex in Phrygian).

5. Morphology 5.1. Nouns Phrygian nouns are inflected for case, gender and number. There are at least 4 cases: nominative, accusative, genitive and dative; other cases, possibly unidentified, could have existed as well; cf., for instance, the puzzling NPhr. κναικο ‘wife’ (No. 116) or kạṿarmọyo (B-01) next to acc.sg. kavarmoỵun in the same inscription. There are three genders (masculine, feminine, neuter) and two numbers (singular and plural). Nominal stems can be divided into o-stems, ā-stems and consonant stems (C-stems). Poorly attested stems include i-, u- and “e”-stems (i.e. Anatolian names in -es, like Ates, Bateles, Iktes). We make no distinction between substantives and adjectives, since their inflection is identical. When we cite the actually attested forms and inscriptions, we use brackets as follows: [ ] = reconstructed portion of the text, < > = omitted portion of the text, ( ) = mistake of the engraver. Damaged letters are indicated by a subscript dot. singular o-stems OPhr. Nom. Gen. Dat. Acc.

-os ? -ovo -oi, -oy -un

C-stems

ā-stems NPhr.

OPhr.

-ος -ου -ου -ουν, -ον

-a f., -a(s) m. − -ai, -ay -an

NPhr.

OPhr.

NPhr.

-α f. -ας -αι, -α -αν

-s, -0̸ -os -ei, -ey -an, -0̸ [n.]

-ς, -0̸ -ος -ε(ι), -ι, -η -αν, -0̸ [n.]

-ας − − -αις, -αης

-a [n.] − − ? -ais

-ης − − ? -αης, -αις

plural Nom. Gen. Dat. Acc.

-oi − ? -oys ? -oys, -a [n.]

-α [n.] -ουν -ως α [n.]

− − − −

Nominative singular: − o-stems: akenanogavos title (M-01a), τιττετικμενος ‘condemned’ (passim) < PIE *-os;

101. Phrygian

1825

− ā-stems: Kubeleya ‘Cybele’ (B-01), OPhr. μανκα ‘stele’ (W-11) < PIE *-eh2; Midas (M-01d), the name of the second king of Phrygia, most probably of Anatolian origin; other Anatolian names appear both with and without -s in the nominative, cf. Baba (M-01b) next to Babas (G-06), Kaliya (B-05), but Kuliyas (G-127), etc.; PN in -es always have a sigmatic nominative: Ates (M-01a), Bateles (W-08), Eies (G-108), Iktes (G-02), etc.; − C-stems: the sigmatic nominative is attested with the i- and u-stems Ṭuvatis PN (G133), Alus PN (W-09), Vasous PN (P-03) next to Vasus (P-05) < *u̯asōus; with stems in stops: Manes PN (B-07), Βας ‘Bat (name of deity)’ (No. 99) < *-ts, Modrovanak ‘king of Modra’ (M-04) < *-kts and with OPhr. patronymics in -evan-: arkiaevais (M01a), kanutievais (P-03) < *-u̯ans < *-u̯n̥ts; the regular r- and n-stems have an asigmatic nominative: matar ‘mother’ (W-04), αναρ ‘man’ (No. 15) < *-ēr; iman ‘monument’, ορουαν ‘father, warden’ (No. 48) < *-ēn; kuryaneyon ‘commander’ (W-01c) is borrowed from Greek. Genitive singular: − o-stems: ?αργου ‘because of’ (No. 30); the ending is pronominal, cf. OPhr. tovo (G02c), NPhr. του (No. 87); Atevo PN (W-10) is probably gen.sg. of Ates, with an ending analogical to o-stems; − ā-stems: Ουεναουιας PN (No. 88) < PIE *-eh2es; the interpretation of μανκης ‘stele’ (No. 86), which is used in the function of a dative, is uncertain: genitive (pro dat.) or, rather, dat.pl.?; − C-stems: Τιος ‘Zeus’ < PIE *diu̯os (with loss of -u̯- before o); Vasos PN (P-02) < *u̯asu̯os (idem); kanutiievanoṣ title/patronymic (P-02), ορουενος ‘father, warden’ (No. 106); Aṛtimitos ‘Artemis’ (B-05), Manitos ‘Manes’ (B-07) < PIE *-os. Dative singular: − o-stems: adoikavoi PN (G-02a); κορου ‘ground for the grave’ (No. 92), a loanword from Gk. χῶρος; σορου ‘sarcophagus’ (Nos. 21, 124), probably borrowed from Gk. σορός < PIE *-ōi; − ā-stems: dumeyay adj.f. ‘of the religious community’ (G-01a); μανκα(ι) ‘stele’ < PIE *-eh2ei; cf. also midai ‘Midas’ (M-01a); − C-stems: Tiei (NW-101), Τι(ε), Τιη dat.sg. ‘Zeus’ < PIE *diu̯ei (with analogical loss of *-u̯- due to leveling with other cases); materey ‘mother’ (W-01b), inmeney (B-05) ‘monument’, βρατερε ‘brother’ (No. 31); μα̣τ̣[ε]ρε (thus to be read in No. 129, instead of μα̣γ̣ρε of the edition); κνουμανε(ι), -η, -ι ‘grave’, δουμ(ε) ‘religious community’ (No. 48); vanaktei ‘king’ (M-01a) < PIE *-ei. Accusative singular: − o-stems: akaragayun ‘part of the monument’ (Μ-02), δετον̣ (No. 116) and δετουν (No. 31) ‘monument’ < PIE *-om; − ā-stems: ạkinanogavaṇ title (M-04), κοροαν ‘girl’ (W-11), μανκαν ‘stele’ (No. 15) < PIE *-eh2m; − C-stems: areyastin epithet of Cybele (W-01a), ευκιν ‘vow’ (No. 30), possibly a loanword from Gk. εὐχή ‘id.’ < PIE *-im; Τιαν ‘Zeus’ < PIE *diēm; materan ‘mother’ (W-01a) < PIE *-er-m̥; imenan (B-05) ‘monument’, ορουεναν ‘warden’ (No. 128) < PIE *-en-m̥; Batan (T-02b), Βαταν (No. 33) ‘Bat’, duman ‘religious community’ (B01), ουανακταν ‘king’ (No. 88), κ̣ναικαν ‘wife’ (No. 116) < PIE *-m̥. The neuters

1826

XVI. Languages of fragmentary attestation keneman ‘niche (?)’ (M-01), κνουμαν ‘grave’ (No. 31); bevdos ‘image, statue’ (B01), βεκος ‘bread’, have a zero ending.

Nominative plural: − o-stems: τετικμενοι ‘condemned’ (No. 71) < PIE *-oi of pronominal origin; n.pl. τετικμενα (No. 12) < PIE *-h̥2; ā-stems: ουελας ‘relatives (?)’ (No. 120) < PIE *su̯el-eh2-es; − C-stems: πατερης ‘parents’ (No. 93), most probably reflecting PIE *-eies. Neuter kena ‘generation’ (No. 35), if correctly analyzed, < PIE *g̑enh1es-h̥2. Genitive plural: − o-stems: τετουκμενουν (No. 28) < PIE *-ōm, although the interpretation of the final part of this inscription (ιος νι σεμουν κνουμανε κακουν αδακετ ιος τιτετουκμενουν ειτου) is far from certain. Dative plural: − o-stems: δεως ‘god’ (No. 40) < PIE *-ōis. Accusative plural: − o-stems: kṭevoys ‘property (?)’ (B-01), pạtriyiọis ‘paternal (?)’ (B-04) < PIE *-ons; neuters kạka ‘harm’ (B-05), μμυρα ‘stupidity’ (No. 25) < PIE *-h̥2; − ā-stems: δεκμουταις ‘?’ (No. 9), δεκμουταης (No. 31); − C-stems: ḅṛạterạis ‘brother’ (B-04) < *-ans < PIE *-n̥s.

5.2. Pronouns The proximal demonstrative pronoun (‘this here’) has the stem *se-/si- in masculine and neuter, and *sa- in feminine. Since initial PIE *s- seems to disappear in Phrygian, the stem is likely to go back to PIE *k̑i̯ - (Goth. hi-, Lith. ši-, Gk. σήμερον ‘today’ < *κi̯ άμερον, etc.) + *e-/i- (Lat. is, ea, id). The Phrygian demonstrative pronoun is often followed by an emphatic particle appearing in the inscriptions as OPhr. t, NPhr. του, το, τι, τ. The attested forms are: − acc.sg. m. sin-t (B-05) < PIE *-im, n. si (M-01b, B-01) < PIE *-id; NPhr. σεμουν (No. 31) in the function of acc. must be due to generalization of the oblique stem. − dat.sg. m./n. σεμουν, with the variants σεμον, σεμυν, σεμιν < PIE *-smōi + n (reminiscent of Greek νῦ ἐφελκυστικόν); − gen.sg. f. (pro dat.) σας, dat.sg. f. σαι or σα, acc.sg. (pro dat.) f. σαν (No. 60). In OPhr. inscription W-01b, we encounter dat.sg. f. e-sai-t (materey) ‘to this very (mother)’, with yet another pronominal stem e- added (type French celui-ci). If NPhr. ειαν (No. 31) is to be read ε(σ)αν with Neumann (1986: 81), the same pronoun is also attested in NPhr. In enclitic position, we find NPhr. dat. sg. ιοι/οι and, possibly, OPhr. yọỵ (B-05). The distribution among the two NPhr. forms is determined by the phonological context. In clear cases, οι always appears after a vowel, whereas ιοι is found after consonants. This means that we have to start with *ioi, which presumably is an enclitic dative of the type Skt. me, te *toho > *to-o, with v as a Hiatustilger. The relative pronoun is *io- from PIE *(h1 )io-: nom.sg. m. yos (W-01), ios (P-04a), ιος (passim), acc.sg. f. ιαν (No. 31). It also once occurs reduplicated: yosyos (B-03). The pronoun *auto- ‘self’ (< PIE *h2euto-, cf. Gk. αὐτός) inflects like a thematic adjective: nom.sg. m. αυτος (No. 33), dat.sg. avtoi (T-03); dat.sg. f. avtay (W-01b). It can be reinforced by a reflexive pronoun /we-/ < PIE *su̯e (cf. also Gk. ἑαυτόν): acc.sg. m. ven-avtun (W-01b), dat.sg. f. οε-αυται (No. 116). The same possessive pronoun may be found in OPhr. acc.sg. n. ove-vin (W-01b) < PIE *su̯in, cf. also Phr. kin below; NPhr. ουα ‘his own’ nom.pl. n. < *su̯eh2. Finally, the interrogative pronoun in indefinite function is acc.sg. n. kin (B-01), κιν (No. 100: [αι]νι κακουν κιν ‘or whatever harm’) < PIE *k wim (cf. Skt. kím).

5.3. Verbs Phrygian verbs are marked for tense, voice, and mood. Identified categories include 3 tenses (present, perfect, aorist), 2 voices (active, middle), and 4 moods (indicative, imperative, optative, subjunctive). Since the stem formation and the function of the majority of verbal forms are still unknown, they are grouped below in accordance with their endings. − 3sg. -es: edaes (passim), εδαες (2 × No. 116) ‘put, placed’; eneparkes (G-125, M01d), ενεπαρκες (No. 31) ‘engraved’; εσταες ‘erected’ (No. 31); εκανες (No. 116) ‘dug (?)’; unclear are εγ̣δ̣αες (No. 18) and δδικες (No. 31). These forms are characterized by an augment e-, which immediately precedes the root, and appear in preterital contexts, except for εγ̣δ̣αες (No. 18), but the reading of this inscription is uncertain. The ablaut of the root is ambiguous in edaes and εσταες (full or lengthened grade), but the lengthened grade is probable in eneparkes () Latino-Venetic, after 150 BCE (Venetic written in a Republican Latin alphabet)

For all but the last stage of the language, Venetic was written in an alphabet that had been borrowed from Etruscans who settled in the southern Veneto at the beginning of the 6 th century BCE (Marinetti 2002: 43). The Venetic writing system had the following distinctive features: (i)

Dental stop consonants /t, d/ were spelled in regionally distinct ways; at Este /t/ = (an X-sign) and /d/ = (zeta); at Padova /t/ = and /d/ = ; and at Vicenza /t/ = (an X-sign) and /d/ = . (ii) Voiced stop consonants /b, d, g/ were represented by the letters , (at Este), and respectively. (iii) The fricative /f/ was spelled by means of the digraph vh. Near the end of the Recent Venetic period, following the loss of the glottal fricative /h/, the spelling of /f/

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-023

102. Venetic

1833

changed from vh to h at sites located in the northern Veneto. For example, this orthographic change is reflected in the spelling of /f/ in inscriptions from Làgole di Calalzo. The first sound in the name fo.u.va, for example, is spelled by heta. (iv) Venetic inscriptions were written scriptio continua. Words were not separated by punctuation. However, in all but a few inscriptions, Venetic scribes did employ a system of syllabic punctuation. Orthographic syllables that did not have the structure CV or CRV (where R = resonant) were typically, though not consistently, marked by means of periods or short lines typically positioned on both sides of the final letter(s) of the syllable. For example, the personal name Voltiomnos was written as follows (reversing its original right-to-left direction): vo.l.tio.m.no.s. Venetic scribes working at the sanctuary of the goddess Reitia at Este adopted this style of writing from itinerant Etruscan scribes/artisans who had worked at the Portonaccio sanctuary at Veii in southern Etruria. (v) The direction of writing was predominantly right-to-left, but left-to-right is also common. Several documents were written in boustrophedon style (as the ox plows).

2. Phonology The Venetic vowel system is set out in (2). The vowels are listed beginning at the high front position and then moving toward the high back position. It is generally assumed that there was a contrast in length at all five vowel positions, but the writing system does not reflect this. Identification of long vowels is conjectured on the basis of etymological comparison, e.g. Sanskrit dā́nam ‘gift’ vs. Venetic dono.n. ‘gift’ = /doːnon/. (2)

Venetic Vowel System letters: i e a o u sounds: /i, iː e, eː a, aː o, oː u, uː/

Venetic diphthongs are: /aj/ (a.i.), /aw/ (a.u.), /ej/ (e.i.), /oj/ (o.i.), /ew/ (e.u.), and /ow/ (o.u.). Long diphthongs may have existed in a few inflectional endings, e.g., dative singular: re.i.tia.i. /aːj/ ‘Reitia’; .e.ge.s.tiio.i. /oːj/ ‘(son) of Egests’. However, such a distinction, if it did exist, was not captured by the writing system. The Venetic sound system had six resonants: two nasals /m, n/ (m, n), two liquids /l, r/ (l, r), and two approximants /j, w/ (i, v). The bilabial nasal *m merged with *n in word-final position, e.g, *ek̑wom ‘horse’, acc. sg., > .e.kvo.n.. The replacement of wordfinal -n by -m in the word ‘gift’, dono.m., which is attested in inscriptions recovered at Làgole di Calalzo, is late and perhaps due to Latin influence. The inventory of obstruent phonemes consisted of seven stops, three fricatives, and a sound whose manner of articulation is unclear. Stop consonants were distinguished at the labial, dental, and velar points of articulation by the feature [voice] (see Rix 1997). There was also a voiceless velar stop with labial co-articulation /kw/ (kv). A voiced labiovelar stop is not attested; in word-initial position PIE *gw changed to /w/ (v), e.g., PIE *gwih3-wo- ‘living’ > vivo.i. dat. sg. It is possible that the voiced labiovelar survived in other environments, such as after nasals, as it did in Latin, but there is no evidence to support this idea. Old Venetic had three fricatives. The articulatory features are reason-

1834

XVI. Languages of fragmentary attestation

ably secure: labiodental /f/ (vh), dental /s/ (s), and glottal /h/ (h). The manner of articulation of the sound spelled by the letter san and transcribed by ś is not certain. The fact that ś represents the outcome of *-tj- in many cases where the etymological origin is clear suggests that the letter may have stood for a voiceless dental affricate. In Recent Venetic the glottal fricative /h/ was lost. There is also some evidence to suggest that the sound spelled as ś merged with /s/ at this time. With the exception of *gw the voiceless and voiced stop consonants passed unchanged from PIE to Venetic. The major phonological development concerned the PIE voiced aspirated stops. In word-initial position these consonants developed either to /f/ (vh) (< *bh, *dh) or to /h/ (h) (< *g̑h/*gh), as happened in other Italic languages, e.g. ṿḥratere.ị. /fraːterej/ ‘brother’, dat. sg., cf. Latin frāter, nom. sg., Umbrian fratrum ‘brothers (of a religious organization)’, gen. pl., etc. In medial position PIE *bh, *dh, and *g̑h/*gh developed to voiced stop sounds /b/, /d/, and /g/, which were spelled as -b-/-f-, -d-, and -g- respectively, e.g., lo.u.derobo.s. /lowderobos/ ‘children’, dat. pl., < *lowd herob hos. Nothing is known about the nature of the word-accent in Venetic.

3. Morphology Venetic nouns and adjectives belong to the major Indo-European stem classes: ā-stems (re.i.tia.n. ‘Reitia (theonym)’, acc. sg.); o-stems (dono.n. ‘gift’, acc. sg.); and C-stems (stop-stems va.n.t.s. ‘Vants’, nom. sg.; n-stems pupone.i. ‘Pupo’, dat. sg.; r-stems lemeto.r. ‘Lemetor’, nom. sg.). In prehistoric Venetic, stems ending in the suffix -io appear to have lost the thematic vowel -o in the nominative singular, e.g., ve.n.noni.s., patronymic, ‘son of Venno’ < *vennōn(i)yos. In Recent Venetic inscriptions from Este, the ivowel of the nominative ending -is was also lost so that personal names and patronymics can only be distinguished by context, e.g., iiuva.n.t.s., patronymic, ‘son of Iuvants’ < *yuvant(i)yos (Untermann 1980: 146−147). S-stems appear to have shifted to e-declension; compare the nominative singular form enogenes ‘Enogenes’ to the dative singular .e.nogene.i.. The locative singular of the word ‘day’, die.i., which bears a striking resemblance to Latin diēs ‘day’, may also belong to e-stem inflection. A few nouns inflect as i-stems, e.g. trumusijati.n. ‘Trumusijatis (theonym)’, acc. sg. The noun .a..i.su.n., ‘sacred object (?)’, acc. sg., is the only u-stem attested in inscriptions. Venetic nouns were assigned to one of three grammatical gender classes. ā-stems were feminine (re.i.tia.n.); o-stems were masculine (.e.kvo[.]n[.]) or neuter (dono.n.); i-stems and C-stems were masculine (ṿḥratere.ị.), feminine, or neuter (.a.uga.r.). Four cases are securely attested: nominative, accusative, dative, and ablative/instrumental. The locative singular is represented by the phrase decime.i. die.i. ‘on the 10 th day’, but this is the only clear example and the syntactic context in which it is found is incomplete. The ablative/instrumental is the result of the merger of PIE ablative and instrumental cases. In C-stem and e-stem inflection dative forms ending in -e.i. are found alongside those ending in -i. This variation in the form of the dative was the result of dative/locative syncretism (see Eska and Wallace 2002). Most scholars believe that Venetic had an o-stem genitive singular in -i, but the status of this ending is the subject of scholarly debate (see Agostiniani 1995−1996 and Eska and Wallace 2001).

102. Venetic

1835

Venetic nominal forms inflected for singular and plural. Two unpunctuated wordforms, horvionte and alkomno, most likely present active and middle participles respectively, are generally interpreted as having dual inflection. Unfortunately, the meanings of these words are unknown. Paradigms for Venetic noun classes are presented in (3). (Names and patronymics are not glossed in the notes that follow the paradigms.) (3)

Venetic nominal forms stem class nom. sg.

-ā

-o

fu.g.siia

vo.l.tio.m.no.s. 1

acc. sg.

re.i.tia.n.

dat. sg.

1

abl./inst. sg.

-io

re.i.tia.i.

dono.n.

-e

-C

.e.ge.s.t.s.

enogenes

va.n.t.s.

.e.ge.s.tio.i.

.e.nogene.i.

va.n.te.i.

2

vo.l.tiomno.i. 3

4

leno

vo.l.tio 5

gen. sg. (?)

lo.u.ki (?)

loc. sg.

decime.i.6

nom. pl.

[-]edio.s.8

acc. pl.

de.i.vo.s.10

dat./abl. pl.

lo.u.derobo.s.12

die.i.7 an.śores.9 te.r.monio.s.11

Note: 1. ‘Reitia [divinity]’; 2. ‘gift’; 3. ‘?’; 4. ‘voluntary’; 5. ‘grove, clearing’; 6. ‘tenth’; 7. ‘day’; 8. ‘?’; 9. ‘augurs (?)’; 10. ‘gods’; 11. ‘of the boundary’; 12. ‘children’

The ordinal decime.i. ‘tenth’ is the only number that is securely attested. Numbers functioning as personal names, e.g. kvito ‘Quintus’, are best treated as borrowings from Latin (Marinetti 1995). Personal pronouns are represented by the 1st person forms ego ‘I’, nom. sg., and mego ‘me’, acc. sg. The accusative mego is a rhyming form based on the nominative. The reflexive pronoun SELBOISELBOI ‘himself’, dat. sg., brings to mind forms attested in Germanic, cf. OHG selb selbo, Gothic silba. Demonstrative pronouns are represented by .e.i.k. ‘this’, neut. acc. sg., and .e.m. ‘this’, masc./fem. acc. sg. (Prosdocimi 1988: 308, 360; Marinetti 2003: 394). The verb forms in the corpus are 3 rd person, indicative mood. Four verbs, doto ‘gave’, dona.s.to/donasan ‘gave’, vha.g.s.to /faksto/ ‘dedicated’, and tole.r. (tola.r. 1x) ‘brought (?)’ are predicates in votive inscriptions. atisteit ‘stands/stood by (?)’ appears in a funerary inscription. From an Indo-European point of view, doto is a root aorist. The sigmatic aorist is represented by dona.s.to, donasan, and vha.g.s.to. atisteit could be a present tense form based on the root *steh2- ‘be standing’, but the form is not particularly transparent and none of the pre-forms suggested in the literature (*atistai̯ eti, *atistāei̯ eti, *atistaīt) seem likely in view of the ad hoc changes required to yield the Venetic. The verb tole.r. appears in votive inscriptions and thus in a context in which past tense verbs are the norm. tole.r. is usually treated as a perfect tense form *tetolh2e- of the root *telh2- with loss of the syllable of reduplication (de Bernardo Stempel 2000: 61; Untermann 2000: 743). kvido.r., which appears once in a votive inscription from Làgole di Calalzo, may also be a verb of dedication. It is in construction with dono.m. ‘gift’ and thus could have a

1836

XVI. Languages of fragmentary attestation

meaning similar to dona.s.to or tole.r.. Unfortunately, the etymological analyses offered thus far are not convincing. The person and number endings are represented by -t, -to, -an, and -r. -t is the Venetic reflex of the 3 rd singular primary active ending *-ti. The secondary endings are 3 rd singular -to, which is the PIE secondary middle voice ending, and 3 rd plural -an, which is the regular development of PIE secondary active *-n ̣t via a series of changes (*-n ̣d > *-and > *-ann > *-an). The 3 rd singular and 3 rd plural verbs dona.s.to and donasan appear to belong to the same paradigm. If so, it is not particularly clear how forms with middle and active endings came to be yoked together. For the verb tole.r., which governs an accusative object, the 3 rd singular ending -r has middle function. In Umbrian, the r-ending in verbs such as ferar ‘shall be carried’, if comparable to the Venetic, is passive.

4. Syntax As is to be expected of an ancient IE language, noun phrases inflected in the nominative case filled the syntactic role of subject. Phrases functioning as direct object or as goal of an action were in the accusative case. Indirect objects and benefactive phrases were dative. Noun phrases governed by prepositions were dative, e.g. eni eke.i. data.i. ‘for a prayer granted’, accusative, e.g. u. teu.ta[n.] ‘on behalf of the community’ or ablative/instrumental, e.g. .o.p iorobos ‘because of ?’. Phrases specifying a point in time were in the locative case, e.g. decime.i. die.i. ‘on the 10 th day’. Modifiers agreed with nouns in gender, number and case, e.g., te.r.monio.s. de.i.vo.s. ‘gods of the boundaries’, masc. acc. pl. Verbs agreed with subjects in person and number. In the inscription cited in (4) the personal names vo.l.tio.m.no.s., ḅḷadio, and ke[− −]e[−]un.s., which are linked asyndetically, triggered plural agreement on the verb donasa(.n.). (4)

mego vo.l.tio.m.no.s. ḅḷadio ke[− −]e[−]un.s. donasa(.n.) | heno[---]to.i. ‘Voltiomnos, Bladio, and Ke[− −]e[−]uns gave me to (the divinity) Heno---tos.’

Only two subordinate clause types are attested: a relative clause introduced by kude ‘where’ and a temporal clause introduced by kva.n. ‘when’. Nothing more can be said about these constructions because the syntactic contexts in which they are found are incomplete. Adjectives and numbers were placed before the nouns they modified, e.g., te.r.monio.s. de.i.vo.s. ‘gods of the boundaries’, but patronymic adjectives in onomastic phrases followed their personal names, e.g., va.n.t.s. .e.ge.s.t.s. ‘Vants, (son) of Egestos’. Votive inscriptions recovered from Este and Làgole di Calalzo are the primary source for Venetic syntax. The order of the major constituents in votive inscriptions from Este varied from OSV, as shown by inscription (4) above, to OVS and SVO, as shown by inscriptions (5) and (6). OVS is the most frequent order, but it would be unwise to make too much of this fact. Most of the languages of ancient Italy adopted this order for votive inscriptions of the titulus loquens-type. At Làgole di Calalzo, where scribes did not adopt the titulus loquens form of inscription, the order of constituents is predominantly SVO, as in inscription (7).

102. Venetic (5)

mego dona.s.to re.i.tiia.i. nerka lemeto.r.na ‘Nerka, (daughter) of Lemetor, gave me to (the divinity) Reitia.’

(6)

vhu.g.siia vo.l.tiio.n.mnin.(a) dona|.s.to r(e).i.tiia.i. mego ‘Fuksia, (daughter) of Voltiomnos, gave me to (the divinity) Reitia.’

(7)

fovo fouvoniko.s. doto dono.m. trumusijate.i. ‘Fovo, (son) of Fouvo, gave a gift to (the divinity) Trumusijatis.’

1837

5. Lexicon Fewer than 100 lexemes have been extracted from the corpus of inscriptions. Of these, some were inherited from PIE; others were loanwords from Latin. Words of IE patrimony are: -kve ‘and’, cf. Latin -que, Greek -τε, Sanskrit -ca; dono.n. ‘gift’, acc. sg., cf. Latin dōnom, nom.-acc. sg., Skt. dā´nam nom.-acc. sg.; ṿḥratere.ị. ‘brother’, dat. sg., cf. Latin frāter, nom. sg., Greek φράτηρ ‘member of a brotherhood’, nom. sg., Sanskrit bhrā´tā, nom. sg.; de.i.vo.s. ‘gods’, acc. pl., cf. Archaic Latin deivos, acc. pl., Sanskrit deváḥ, nom. sg.; ekvo[.]n[.] ‘horse’, acc. sg., cf. Latin equus, nom. sg., Sanskrit áśvaḥ, nom. sg.; teu.ta[m.] ‘community, people’, acc. sg.; cf. Oscan touto, ‘community’, nom. sg.; Old Irish túath ‘tribe, people’; Gothic þiuda ‘people’; etc. Loanwords from Latin include: MILES ‘soldier’, nom. sg., FILIA ‘daughter’, nom. sg., and LIBERTOS ‘freedman’, nom. sg.. Several words, all of uncertain meaning, have IE morphological structure but lack comparable forms in other IE languages, e.g., .a.k.lo.n. ‘memorial (?)’, acc. sg.; metlon ‘memorial offering (?)’, acc. sg. (possibly from *men-klom); magetlo.n. ‘offering (?)’, acc. sg.; .a.ugar. ‘?’, acc. sg.; ma.i.s.terato.r.fo.s. ‘the magisteratores (divinities) (?)’, dat. pl., etc. Patronymic formations were built from personal names by means of adjective suffixes with good PIE pedigrees, e.g. *-yo-, *-iko-, and *-no-. Personal names provide one source for compound formations. ho.s.θi-havo.s. ‘Hostihavos’, nom. sg., is thought to be a compound of the stems *ghosti- ‘guest, host’ and *g̑hewHo- ‘inviting’, although the a-vocalism of the final member is difficult to explain (Marinetti 2007: 441). The compound .ekvopetari[.]s., .e.kupetari.s., etc., which is found on a series of epitaphs from Padova, has generated considerable scholarly interest. The word refers to a type of funerary offering or ritual. The nominal stems .ekvo-/.e.ku- ‘horse’ and petari ‘riding (?)’ suggest that the funerary practice was associated with the burial customs of equestrian classes (see Marinetti 2005: 219−222).

6. Dialectology Linguistic evidence does not permit the division of Venetic into regional dialect areas. The position of Venetic within Indo-European continues to be debated (see de Bernardo Stempel 2000; Euler 1993; Lejeune 1974: 171−173; Meiser 1998: 26; Untermann 1980: 315−316; and Weiss 2009: 15−16; 471−472). Some consider Venetic a branch of Italic; others consider it unaffiliated within Indo-European. As is often the case with

1838

XVI. Languages of fragmentary attestation

languages of limited attestation, insufficient evidence makes a decision one way or the other difficult, if not impossible.

7. References de Bernardo Stempel, Patrizia 2000 Kernitalisch, Latein, Venetisch: ein Etappenmodel. In: Michaela Ofitsch und Christian Zinko (eds.), 125 Jahre Indogermanistik in Graz. Festband anläßlich des 125 jährigen Bestehens der Forschungsrichtung ‘Indogermanistik’ an der Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz. Graz: Leykam, 47−70. Eska, Joseph F. and Rex E. Wallace 2001 Remarks on the Thematic Genitive Singular in Ancient Italy and Related Matters. Incontri Linguistici 24: 77−97. Eska, Joseph F. and Rex E. Wallace 2002 Venetic Consonant-stem Dative Singulars in -i? Studi Etruschi 65−68: 261−273. Euler, Wolfram 1993 Oskisch-Umbrisch, Venetisch und Lateinisch. In: Helmut Rix (ed.), Oskisch−Umbrisch. Texte und Grammatik. Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft und der Societa Italiana di Glottologia vom 25. bis 28. September 1991 in Frieburg. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 96−105. Lejeune, Michel 1974 Manuel de la langue vénète. Heidelberg: Winter. Marinetti, Anna 1995 Su alcuni aspetti dei numerali nell’Italia antica. AION-L 17: 171−192. Marinetti, Anna 1998 Il venetico: bilancio e prospettive. In: Anna Marinetti, Maria Teresa Vigolo, and Alberto Zamboni (eds.), Varietà e continuità nella storia linguistica del Veneto. Atti del Convegno della Società italiana di glottologia (Padova-Venezia, 3−5 ottobre 1996). Rome: Il Calamo, 44−99. Marinetti, Anna 2002 Caratteri e diffusione dell’alfabeto venetico. In: AKEO. I tempi della scrittura. Veneti antichi: alfabeti e documenti, Catalogo della Mostra (Montebelluna, dicembre 2001− maggio 2002). Cornuda: Tipoteca Italiana Fondazione, 39−54. Marinetti, Anna 2003 Venetico: rassegna di nuove iscrizione (Este, Altino, Auronzo, S. Vito, Asolo). Studi Etruschi 69: 389−408. Marinetti, Anna 2005 Cavalli veneti. In: Ettore Cingano, Antonella Ghersetti, and Lucio Milano (eds.), Animali tra zoologia, mito e letteratura nella cultura classica e orientale. Atti del Convegno (Venezia, 22−23 maggio 2002). Padua: S.A.R.G.O.N., 211−231. Marinetti, Anna 2007 Sulla presenza di ‘frateres’ (?) nel santuario paleoveneto di Reitia (Este): rilettura dell’iscrizione. In: Giovannella Cresci Marrone and Antonio Pistellato (eds.), Studi in ricordo de Fulviomario Broilo. Atti del convengo (Venezia, 14−15 ottobre 2007). Padua: S.A.R.G.O.N., 437−450. Meiser, Gerhard 1998 Historische Laut- und Formenlehre der lateinischen Sprache. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

103. Messapic

1839

Prosdocimi, Aldo Luigi 1988 La lingua. In: Giulia Fogolari and Aldo Luigi Prosdocimi (eds.), I Veneti antichi. Lingua e cultura. Padua: Programma, 225−420. Prosdocimi, Aldo Luigi 2009 Veneto. REI nos. 1−35. Studi Etruschi 73: 421−450. Rix, Helmut 1997 Germanische Runen und venetische Phonetik. In: Thomas Birkmann, Heinz Klingenberg, Damaris Nübling, and Elke Ronneberger-Sibold (eds.), Vergleichende germanische Philologie und Skandinavistik. Festschrift für Otmar Werner. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 231− 247. Untermann, Jürgen 1980 Die venetische Sprache. Glotta 58: 281−317. Untermann, Jürgen 2000 Wörterbuch des Oskisch-Umbrischen. (Handbuch der italischen Dialekte 3). Heidelberg: Winter. Weiss, Michael 2009 Outline of the Historical and Comparative Grammar of Latin. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave.

Rex E. Wallace, Amherst, MA (USA)

103. Messapic 1. Name, geographic localization, time period 2. Alphabet 3. Documentation

4. 5. 6. 7.

Linguistic affinities Phonology Morphology References

1. Name, geographic localization, time period The name “Messapic” traditionally designates the pre-Roman language of the 2 nd Augustan region, Apulia et Calabria. But, according to the current state of our knowledge, this name (“Messapic language”) is better confined to the inscriptions of the actual Salento peninsula, i.e. south of a hypothetical line connecting Brindisi-Taranto: only in this region is the name of the Messapians (Messāpii, Mεσσάπιοι: the “genuine” Messapians; cf. de Simone 1984 on the Daunia) found in ancient sources (Krahe 1937: 20−27, 1955: 14−15; de Simone 1979; Lombardo 1991: 52−53; on the sources in general: Lombardo [ed.] 1992), and indigenous inscriptions (about 600 texts of differing lengths) are attested here since about the middle of the 6 th century BCE (cf. now MLM I−II; Marchesini 1999). A relatively homogeneous linguistic community, which we may designate by the traditional name “Iapygian” (Nenci 1978), can be considered to have existed in this region at that time. The recent discovery of a Greek incised inscription on a “Laconic” vessel (dated to the 1st half of the 6 th century BCE) from Tsakona near Sparta, which testifies to the cult of a “Messapic Zeus”, is especially remarkable (Lombardo 1991: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-024

1840

XVI. Languages of fragmentary attestation

106−109; de Simone 1991a). But the question remains whether this cult had been taken over from actual Messapia (in this case probably through the medium of the Laconic city of Tarentum); the other possibility is that this “Messapic Zeus” was indigenous to Laconia in the first place (Mεσσαπέαι is the name of a place in Laconia: Krahe 1937: 21, 1955: 14−15; see also Valmin 1939; Stanco 1987).

2. Alphabet The alphabet of the Messapic inscriptions has been derived from a “red” Greek model and altered expressly for the purpose of adaptation to the language. The precise source alphabet is likely to have been the Laconian-Tarentinian alphabet, with the letters H (consonantal, not [ē]) and F; the letter X/+ of the “red” alphabets ( = [ks]) is used to denote the sound [š] in Messapic, which stands in phonological opposition to [s]; the letter z normally has the phonetic value of a voiced counterpart to s (de Simone 1972: 185−186), but in some cases it might also denote a dental affricate, while the Greek letter Φ (=[p h]) was superfluous in Messapic and hence has not been borrowed. But the Greek letter Θ, which denotes a dental affricate and/or spirant in Messapic is regularly used (de Simone 1972, passim; de Simone 1983b; Lejeune 1991; for the phonetic value of Θ in Laconia and Tarentum, cf. especially de Simone 1972: 172). This sound is secondary in Messapic, where it arose partly from a palatalization of the original sound sequence *ty (de Simone 1972: 156−159); in more recent inscriptions, Θ is also used before ao- or o-, where it is most likely a replacement for the older letter  (see below). The main feature of the Messapic alphabet is probably the absence of the letter u, as only o is used (de Simone 1972: 133−138; MLM I: 6−18; see below). Furthermore, the Messapic alphabet has some “special characters”. These include, first of all, the letter ᛉ (with its variants 넀 and ), which occurs almost exclusively in Archaic inscriptions (6 th− 5 th century BCE; de Simone 1972: 177−180; MLM I: 6−10); it seems likely that ᛉ has been borrowed from a “red” Greek alphabet (with the original sound value [k h]) and has partly been functionally remodeled. The function of this sign in Messapic is not clear in all cases: but there are undoubtedly examples where ᛉ is used in combination with -iin intervocalic position, such as in Haivaias (MLM II: 159, 12 Bal; 1st half of the 6 th− 1st half of the 5 th century BCE); in later inscriptions, the same sound combination is denoted with the grapheme sequence -hi-, such as in Haivahias (MLM II: 159, 3 Car), which can only be the younger counterpart to Haiva넀 ias. In these examples, the sequence -VᛉiV- or -VhiV- must denote the phonetic realization of a -y- in intervocalic position (approximately -VyyV-). Probably only a simple graphic variant of -VhiV- is the sequence -Vh(h)V-, such as in Kabahas (MLM II, s. v.) and Andirah(h)o (dat.; MLM II, see below): -VyyV- > -VhhV- ? A second Messapic “special character” is , which is likely to represent a graphemic innovation (modification of ᛉ ?) (de Simone 1972: 172− 177; MLM I: 18). This letter occurs almost exclusively at the beginning of a word, a position in which it denotes a dental aspirate, affricate, or spirant which developed from *t. Cf., for instance, aotor- (MLM II: 341−342). In later inscriptions, - is often replaced by θ-: θ(a)otor-. It is important to note that  cannot represent the result of a palatalization of the group *ty, which is usually expressed by -(t)θ-; furthermore, a grapheme sequence *-es (< *-tyos) is not attested (de Simone 1972: 175−176). But the

103. Messapic

1841

Laconian-Tarentinian alphabet is not the only signary used in writing Messapic: in the archaic period, other Greek influences can be identified (Marchesini 1999); it is certainly no coincidence that the verb meaning ‘to write, incise’ in Messapic is of Greek origin (see below). So far there are almost no Messapic abecedaria (the only attested example, from Vaste, is in bad condition and can only partly be interpreted: MLM II: 115, 2 Bas). The epigraphic record of the two regions north of the line Brindisi-Taranto (i.e. Daunia and Peucetia) begins much later (not before the 4 th century BCE), and involves only a modest number of texts. Moreover, these texts are not written in the actual Messapic alphabet but rather in a local variant of the Hellenistic alphabet (the so-called “Apulian alphabet”) with the two letters o and u, as well as H with the phonetic value [ē] (de Simone 1988a).

3. Documentation Today, the Messapic inscriptions are easily accessible in Monumenta Linguae Messapicae (= MLM). This work offers not only an edition of all texts which were available at the time of its compilation, but also a complete list of the lemmata which can be identified in the Messapic inscriptions, i.e. a complete Index Verborum. This word list, which serves as a general orientation into Messapic, offers as well a linguistic commentary with bibliographical notes on the individual lemmata. An enclosed CD-Rom facilitates access to the sources and the individual words and will make it possible to continually supplement the book with new texts and lemmata. It also offers the opportunity to retroactively correct mistakes or inaccuracies. Hence, MLM is not just a “complete” book but a “dynamic” corpus, which can be continually extended and kept up to date. Another important innovation offered by MLM is an electronically generated chronological listing of Messapic inscriptions, which has been carried out using the program BASP Seriate (The Bonn Archaeological Software Package; cf. MLM I: 1 f.; for details and the theoretical background see Marchesini 2004): this enables scholars to systematically investigate the letter types (types) used in each unit (= inscription), i.e. the determination of the regular distributional affinities of the individual letter forms in the Messapic inscriptions. It can be observed that certain groupings of letter types always or predominantly occur together (are distributionally related), in contrast to others, so that the relevant groups of letters stand in complementary distribution to each other. By applying the program BASP Seriate it has become possible to identify certain phases in the development of the Messapic alphabet, which correspond in a principled way to the relative chronology of the individual texts (units). On the other hand, archaeologically datable inscriptions provide the basis for establishing an absolute chronology of the individual developmental stages of the Messapic alphabet so determined. The Messapic inscriptions are mostly short and have for the most part been found in burial sites; this is why the Messapic corpus mostly consists of personal names, which have been investigated by Jürgen Untermann in a masterly monograph (Untermann 1964; de Simone 1972: 192−201; Untermann 1995; Aletium: de Simone 1983a; de Simone 2013, passim). The main result of Untermann’s work has been its demonstration that the Messapic masculine family names at the time of the texts were names of gentes, while the female names were partly still patronyms. Some examples (Untermann 1995; note

1842

XVI. Languages of fragmentary attestation

especially: biles, -ihi ‘son’, biliva ‘daughter’): Staboos Šonetθihi Dazimaihi beileihi (‘of Stabuas Šonetius, son of Dazimas’); Dazoimihi Balehi Daštas bilihi (‘of Dazimas Bales, son of Dazet’); Dazes Blatθeias Plastas (‘Dazet Blatteius, of Plazet [son]’). A female name formula is Lahona Θeotoridda … Θeotoridda Θaotoras Keošorrihi biliva (MLM I, Cae 22): in this text Lahona Θeotoridda (as the donor of the dedication to Aprodita) carries a family name (Θeotoridda) derived from the father’s first name (Θaotor), but which differs from the nomen gentile of the father (Keošorres, -ihi) (Untermann 1964: 188; de Simone 1972: 199−200). Especially relevant for cultural history are the cases of “hieronymic” designations: under certain circumstances, the deceased could suppress the “true” and official name in their burial inscriptions and have themselves named as “priest/priestess” of Demeter or of Aphrodite (de Simone 1975, 1983c, 1988b, 1993a: mysteriosophic cults of Demeter-Aphrodite). The appellative used for this purpose in Messapian was tabaras (fem. tabarā) (see below), for instance in the formulas tabarā Damatras (‘priestess of Demeter’) or tabarā Aproditia (‘priestess of Aphrodite’); a male formula is tabaras Mahharaos, although here the exact function of the name Mahharaos (gen.) is disputed. This special Messapic way of “hieronymic” naming has cultural parallels in the Greek area, such as θεοδούλη δημήtria (Syracuse), but also in Italic: Sacracrix Cerria (‘priestess of Ceres’; cf. MLM II, s. v. tabarā; for Ceres: Untermann 2000: 386− 387; Widmer 2004: 32). It is remarkable that part of the Messapic nomina gentilia (such as Blas(s)ius, Tutorius, Tutoria, Τουτώριος, etc.) have direct continuations in Latin and Greek (cf. the Indices in Musca 1996, furthermore de Simone 1964: 27−28; Messapian names in Dyrrhachion and in Greece: de Simone 1993c: 38−39). In a few instances in Messapic, family cults (“teonimi famigliari”) are attested, as in the case of Totor Dazinnes (name of a deity + gentilic derivation), cf. cases in Latin such as Dea Hostia, Lares Hostilii, and in Etruscan Uni Ursmnei, Selvans Sanχuna, etc. (de Simone 1991c). But there are also a few longer texts (from Basta, Brindisi, Monopoli), which have not been found in burial sites and hence have a different content and which do not consist only of personal names. Only a small part (as few as 22 texts) of the very important complex of inscriptions from the Grotta della Poesia near Lecce could be published in MLM (de Simone 1998a). The grotto contains a so far undetermined number of Messapic inscriptions in addition to Latin inscriptions and at least one Greek text. Scholars of Messapic keep eagerly awaiting the publication of this very important epigraphic complex, which could significantly expand our knowledge of Messapic. In the Grotta della Poesia lies buried, so to speak, a thesaurus of the Messapic language. According to its current attestation, Messapic is a typical “fragmentary language” (a so-called “lingua di frammentaria attestazione/Trümmersprache”), the investigation and linguistic evaluation of which are subject to certain methodological limitations (for a basic presentation of the relevant complex of problems, cf. Vineis 1983). In particular, the “etymological method” has to be treated with special caution (for a paradigmatic negative Messapian example, see de Simone 1993b). But the status of “fragmentary languages” keeps evolving over time, and this must always be kept in mind.

4. Linguistic affinities At the present time, realistically speaking, it is not possible to situate Messapic within the framework of the Indo-European language family (cf. the approaches by Milewski

103. Messapic

1843

1965; Orioles 1991; Radulescu 1994; and Matzinger 2005; de Simone 2013, passim). The question of whether Messapic is a dialect of “Illyrian” (on “Illyrian” see de Simone 1972: 127−131, 1985: 45−46, and this handbook), much less the Illyrian language, is in my view an issue belonging to the history of scholarship and is no longer current. The fact that Messapic is a “fragmentary language” does not necessarily mean that it can yield no etymologies and that we do not know anything about its phonology. Of primary interest is the fact that Messapic shows many and numerous derivations of the predominantly western Indo-European appellative *teutā ‘people, community’ as the basis for several personal names (MLM II: Taotinahiaihi, Taotorres, Taoteθθes; de Simone 1991b: 302) as well as in the function of a divinity name (Taotor/Θautour/otori [dat.]: MLM II, 172−173, 325, 344). From this point of view Messapic appears to be a constituent of the western Indo-European languages. A securely etymologized appellative in Messapic is biles, fem. biliā (-io[v]a; MLM II, s. v.) ‘son, daughter’, which is likely to be cognate with Latin fīlius,-a (: *b hū-lyo-/yā; Untermann 2000: 271−272); another important appellative is the divinity name Venas a]). Corresponding to this sound change is also the development of the diphthong *ou ( ph/th/kh (see Brixhe and Panayotou 1997: 200 as well as 4 below). One should no longer place much faith in the notion that the languages of the region fall into two linguistic groups: proper Thracian and Daco-Moesian or Daco-Getian (Georgiev 1978; cf. Brixhe and Panayotou 1997: 195−196). And in the light of new findings, the hypothesis of a prehistoric Thraco-Phrygian unity, which had been proposed by Kretschmer in 1896, and which has been generally abandoned today, must be reconsidered (cf. 5).

4. Evidence for historical developments in Thracian These new findings come from Zone (on the continent, opposite Samothrace). They render obsolete a good part of the literature cited in the preceding lines. Documentation from this region, particularly that from Samothrace cited in 2, has been known for some time. But in 1988, 220 dedicatory vase inscriptions, for the most part mutilated and dating mostly to the 6 th century BCE, were discovered at Zone, around and in the sanctuary to Apollo. They are written in an archaic form of the Greek alphabet with two additional letters, one of which represents y and is found in the same value on Lemnos and in Phrygia. In Samothrace itself, in a sanctuary dedicated to Bendis, three similar dedications have been found (see Brixhe 2006a: 124, 138). From Zone and Maroneia we possess several inscribed stones (Thracian unilinguals or Greco-Thracian bilinguals dating to the 5 th−4 th century BCE). The newly discovered graffiti are currently our major tool for penetrating Thracian: their nature is known (dedicatory); their stereotypical character facilitates restorations; the sporadic employment of interpunction and the combinatory method in general assure their segmentation. Some examples taken from 4 inscriptions will suffice to illustrate their exceptional contribution to our knowledge: 1. Zone No. 5 Aβολο υνεσο (dative of the honored deity + epithet) Πιλαyε (nominative of the one doing the dedication) καιε (verb). 2. Zone No. 281 [---] Aπολοδορε καε. 3. Samothrace, sanctuary to Bendis, No. 1 [Βεν]δει υνεσο : Πορκ[---]. 4. Samothrace No. 3 Βενζι υνεσοy [---]. Aβολο (see Brixhe 2006a: 131−132), corresponding to Greek Ἀπóλλωνι, with its β for π, shows that in the pair Σατοκος/Σαδοκος (see 3) the first form is primary and that the variation τ/δ has nothing to do with a Lautverschiebung but rather reflects simply a conditioned voicing of voiceless stops (attested from Thessaly to Thrace). In the light of Πιλαyε (= Greek Φιλαῖος) it is clear that the language lacks an aspirate (*bh > b) and that it shows a banal assimilation of

104. Thracian

1853

the Greek aspirates to simple voiceless stops. One can see as well that it has lost final consonants. Βενζι for Βενδι teaches us (a) that the spirantization attested in the anthroponyms in -ζενις (Greek -γένης) given by Greek sources is old, but that it has not been generalized or that the memory of the original form is still present (cf. [Βεν]δει) and (b) that this phenomenon is highly unlikely to illustrate the satem character of this language. Rather, it may represent simply a palatalization (at least of *d/g) before a front vowel. One can also perceive various vowel changes: raising of mid-vowels (if υνεσο is a borrowing from Ionic *ὀνήσῳ = ὀνησίμῳ[?], Brixhe 2006a: 132−133); reduction of final unaccented o to ə (?), represented by epsilon (Πιλαyε, Aπολοδορε), a feature attested in Thessaly, at Thessalonike and at Thasos (Brixhe 2008); loss of the second element of diphthongs in -i, cf. the doublets καιε/ καε and υνεσο/ υνεσοy. If καιε/καε is indeed a verb form in the preterite, the absence of the augment is worth noting (Brixhe 2006a: 134−136, 2006b: 41).

5. Dialectology and classification The size, geographical fragmentation, and political division of the Thracian area lead one to expect a comparable linguistic fragmentation, at least on the dialectal level. The language observed in 4 is therefore not to be understood as representing a form of Thracian spoken over the entirety of the area where this language was used but rather that spoken in the region of Zone-Samothrace. In the 6 th century this language is surprisingly close to Greek. And, since the particularly close relationship of Greek and Phrygian has been long since proven, it is not toward a prehistoric Thraco-Phrygian unity (cf. 3) that these new documents point. Rather, in the period between Proto-Indo-European and the emergence of Greek, Thracian, and Phrygian, it is probably necessary to posit a linguistic conglomerate to which the populations which were later to develop into Greeks, Phrygians, and Thracians belonged. They must have arrived in the Balkans in the same migratory wave at a period when they were linguistically still relatively undifferentiated (Brixhe 2006a: 141−142, 2006b: 57). From this it appears that Thracian may well not have belonged to the satem group of Indo-European languages (4).

6. References Brixhe, Claude 2006a Zôné et Samothrace: lueurs sur la langue thrace et nouveau chapitre de la grammaire comparée? Comptes Rendus des Séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres: 121−146. Brixhe, Claude 2006b Préhistoire et début de l’histoire des dialectes grecs. Incontri Linguistici 29: 39−59. Brixhe, Claude 2008 Un phénomène aréal : la substitution de à en finale en Thrace, à Thasos et en Thessalie. In: Maria Theodoropoulou (ed.), ΤΗΕΡΜΗ ΚΑΙ ΦΩΣ. Licht und Wärme (in Memory of A.-F. Christidis). Thessaloniki: Centre for the Greek Language, 215−223.

1854

XVI. Languages of fragmentary attestation

Brixhe, Claude and Anna Panayotou 1997 Le thrace. In: Françoise Bader (ed.), Langues indo-européennes. Paris: CNRS, 181−205. Detschew, Dimiter 1957 Die thrakischen Sprachreste. Vienna: R. M. Rohrer. [2 nd edition 1976 by Živka Velkova. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences.] Georgiev, Vladimir 1978 L’anthroponymie thrace. L’état actuel des recherches. Pulpudeva: Semaines philippopolitaines de l’histoire et de la culture thrace 2, Sophia, 7−19. Mihailov, Georgi 1987 Les inscriptions dans le trésor de Rogozen. Linguistique Balkanique 30: 5−19. SEG = Chaniotis, A., T. Corsten, N. Papazarkadas, and R. A. Tybout (eds.) 1923 ff. Supplementum epigraphicum graecum. Leiden: Brill.

Claude Brixhe, Nancy (France)

105. Siculian 1. Introduction 2. Glosses 3. Inscriptions

4. Grammatical characteristics 5. References

1. Introduction Siculian (or Sicel) was the language spoken by the inhabitants of central and eastern Sicily, documented from the end of the 6 th century to the 4 th century BCE. According to historical sources (among others Hellanikos FGrH 4 F 79b 3; Philistos FGrH 556 F 46,4; Thuc. 6,2,4 f.; Diod. 5,2,1; 5,6,1−4), the Siculians (or Sicels) are believed to have entered the island either around the 13 th century or in the middle of the 11th century BCE (or in two waves) (de Simone 1999: 500, 2006: 690), leaving their ancient settlements in Italy (stretching from Cisalpine Gaul to Etruria and Picenum and on to southern Italy) and thus driving the prior inhabitants, Sicanians and Elymians, to the west of Sicily. The Siculian language is widely believed to be of Indo-European, Italic origin, perhaps even belonging more closely to the Latino-Faliscan, Sabellian, or Ausonian branches (cf. Pisani 1953: 5, 18; Zamboni 1978: 954, 956). It is attested in less than thirty inscriptions on stone, brick, ceramic, and metal. The scripts used are Greek as well as “Siculian”, a specific alphabet borrowed from West Greek, probably of the EuboicChalkidic type. The direction of writing is sinistroverse, dextroverse, boustrophedic (Centorbi), or spiral (Sciri Sottano). To this inscriptional corpus may be added around twenty-five glosses (judged the most reliable among the total of ca. 100 supposedly Siculian glosses) (Whatmough 1933: 449−474). Both types of documentation present great difficulties in interpretation. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-026

105. Siculian

1855

2. Glosses (1)

HESYCH: βατάνια· τὰ λοπάδια. ἡ δε λέξις Σικελική.

With regard to the glosses, the fundamental problem is evaluating their linguistic status. Are the supposedly Siculian words really Siculian? Is their similarity to Latin, Sabellian, or Italic in general due to a genetic relationship or are they simply borrowings into or out of Siculian? Do they perhaps go back to a Mediterranean stratum whose traces are found in other neighboring languages also? Thus Hesychius’ βατάνια might not be genetically related to Lat. patina ‘dish’ and thus not prove a close linguistic relationship between Latin and Siculian. Rather, both words more probably are borrowings from a non-Indo-European Mediterranean language (*bat-/*pat-) correspondences of which might also be found in Minoan (pa-ta-qe ‘drinking vessel’) and even in Iranian (*bātiaka- ‘drinking vessel’ > Modern Persian bād(i)yah; borrowed into Greek as βατιάκη) (Campanile 1969: 310 f., Beekes 2010: 206).

3. Inscriptions (2)

stele from Sciri Sottano (c. 600 BCE, around 55 letters): nendas ˌ puṛẹṇọṣ ˌ tebeg ˌ praarei ˌ en ˌ bo?renai ˌ vide ˌ pagostike ˌ aite?ṇ?ụbe. (cf. Morandi 1982: 168)

Of the fewer than thirty inscriptions in total, only six appear to be at least in part intelligible and to be Siculian (i.e., most certainly neither Greek nor belonging to some other Italic or pre-Italic language). They are: a block of sandstone from Mendolito (end of the 6 th century BCE, ca. 50 letters: 1iam ˌ akaram ˌ e?p??as ˌ kaag?es ˌ gẹpẹḍ 2te?to ˌ veregaies? ˌ eka ˌ doara[ịẹạḍ]; cf. Morandi 1982: 166, Agostiniani 1992: 146, Manganaro 1998: 254−257), a guttus from Centorbi (first half of the 5 th century BCE, ca. 100 letters: nunus ˌ teṇti ˌ mím ˌ arustainam ˌ íemitom ˌ esti ˌ durom ˌ nanepos ˌ durom ˌ íemitom ˌ esti ˌ velíom ˌ ned ˌ emponitantom ˌ eredes ˌ vịino ˌ brtome[; cf. Morandi 1982: 169), an amphora from Montagna di Marzo (end of the 6 th /beginning of the 5 th century BCE, 92 letters: 1 tamuraabesakedqoiaves ˌ eurumakes ˌ agepipokedḷutimbe 2levopomanatesemaidarnakeibuṛeitaṃomịaetiurela; cf. Manni Piraino 1978: 11−13, Prosdocimi 1978: 26, Agostiniani 1992: 152, Martzloff 2011), a kylix from Aidone (6 th century BCE, 4 letters: pibe; cf. Lejeune 1990: 28, Watkins 1995: 40), a cup from Castiglione (ca. 600 BCE, 6 letters: nendas; cf. Agostiniani 1992: 149), and the above example from Sciri Sottano. Here, the fundamental difficulty is that of understanding the content. This is caused mainly by the scriptio continua, making word boundaries merely guesswork. Regarding the stele from Sciri Sottano, this means that, supported by nendas on the cup of Castiglione, only the first six letters seem to be identifiable as a personal name (although even this assumption is contestable, cf. Agostiniani 1992: 141). All further words cannot be proven to really exist. Then there is the linguistic problem: e.g., although Aidone’s pibe almost certainly seems to invite someone to ‘drink’, its linguistic characteristics don’t allow for any closer identification with Latin, Sabellian, or even Italic. The morphological structure is clearly Indo-European *pi-ph3-e, but it could be even Proto-IndoIranian, cf. Ved. píba, or Proto-Celtic, cf. OIr. ib (Watkins 1995: 40).

1856

XVI. Languages of fragmentary attestation

4. Grammatical characteristics Due to the rather doubtful character of Siculian documentation, the presentation of its phonology must remain very basic: Corresponding to the vowel graphemes, one can assume five phonemes /a/, /e/, /i/, /o/, /u/, about the length of which nothing can be said, as well as the diphthong /ai/ (perhaps also /ei/, /oi/, /au/). In the group of nasals and liquids /m/, /n/, /r/, /l/ appear. Voice seems to have been distinctive, as seen from the respective plosive pairs /p/, /t/, /k/ and /b/, /d/, /g/. Perhaps /k w/ can be added here. The fricatives included /s/ and /v/ (and possibly /h/). Nothing is known about the Siculian system of accentuation. From the scarce data it may be gleaned that the Siculian nominal system had a nom. sg. in -s (neuter in -m) (Castiglione, Centorbi, Mendolito, Sciri Sottano) − or are (some of) the s-forms rather gen. sg.? −, an acc. sg. in -m (Centorbi, Mendolito), and apparently a dat. pl. in -pos (Centorbi), as well as a thematic gen. sg. in -oio (Licodia Eubea, c. 600 BCE, 13 letters: 1adiomis 2raroio, cf. Agostiniani 1992: 150). The only two sure verb forms seem to be 3 rd sg. ind. prs. act. of ‘to be’: esti (Centorbi), again in its character too Indo-European to be of help in establishing any further linguistic relationship, and the 2 nd sg. impv. prs. act. of ‘to drink’: pibe (Aidone). Hardly anything reliable and non-commonplace can be said about Siculian syntax and lexicon.

5. References Agostiniani, Luciano 1992 Les parlers indigènes de la Sicile prégrecque. LALIES. Actes des sessions de linguistique et de littérature 11: 125−157. Beekes, Robert S. P. 2010 Etymological Dictionary of Greek. Vol. 1. (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series 10). Leiden: Brill. Campanile, Enrico 1969 Note sulle glosse sicule e sui rapporti linguistici fra siculo e latino. In: Studia Classica et Orientalia Antonino Pagliaro Oblata. I. Rome: Herder, 293−322. Lejeune, Michel 1990 Notes de linguistique italique. XL. « Bois! » disait ce Sicule; « Je boirai » répond ce Falisque. Revue des Études Latines 68: 28−30. Manganaro, Giacomo 1998 Modi dell’alfabetizzazione in Sicilia (dall’Arcaismo all’Ellenismo). Mediterraneo Antico 1: 247−270. Manni Piraino, Maria Teresa 1978 Una nuova iscrizione anellenica da Montagna di Marzo. Kōkalos 24: 10−15. Martzloff, Vincent 2011 Variation linguistique et exégèse paléo-italique. L’idiome sicule de Montagna di Marzo. In: Gilles van Heems, (ed.), La variation linguistique dans les langues de l’Italie préromaine. Actes du IVe Séminaire sur les langues de l’Italie préromaine organisé à l’Université Lumière-Lyon 2 et la Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée, 12 mars 2009. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée, 93−129.

106. Lusitanian

1857

Morandi, Alessandro 1982 Epigrafia italica. Rome: Bretschneider. Pisani, Vittore 1953 Sulla lingua dei siculi. Bollettino del Centro di Studi Filologici e Linguistici Siciliani 1: 5−18. Prosdocimi, Aldo Luigi 1978 Una nuova iscrizione anellenica da Montagna di Marzo. Kōkalos 24: 16−40. De Simone, Carlo 1999 L’epigrafia sicana e sicula. Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa. Serie IV, Quaderni 2: 499−507. De Simone, Carlo 2006 Ancora su Siculo e Sicano. In: Chiara Michelini (ed.), Guerra e pace in Sicilia e nel Mediterraneo antico (VIII−III sec. a.C.). Arte, prassi e teoria della pace e della guerra. Vol. II. Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore, 689−692. Watkins, Calvert 1995 Greece in Italy outside Rome. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 97: 35−50. Whatmough, Joshua 1933 The Prae-Italic Dialects of Italy. Vol. II. Part III. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Zamboni, Alberto 1978 Il siculo. In: Aldo Luigi Prosdocimi (ed.), Lingue e dialetti dell’Italia antica. (Popoli e civiltà dell’Italia antica 6). Rome: Biblioteca di Storia Patria. 949−1012.

Markus Hartmann, Erfurt (Germany)

106. Lusitanian 1. 2. 3. 4.

Documentation Phonology Morphology Syntax

5. Lexicon 6. The position of Lusitanian within Indo-European

1. Documentation Lusitanian (Lus.), also Lusitano-Galician, is the modern exonym for a fragmentarily attested IE language in the West of the Iberian Peninsula, extending from the Atlantic Coast to the western borders of Castilia and from the Douro in the north to the Guadiana and the lower Tajo in the south. The name is derived from the ancient Lusitani in whose area the inscriptions were found. For the historical background see Pérez Vilatela (2000). Five short inscriptions (Arroyo de la Luz I and II − a single text, now lost; the fragmentary Arroyo de la Luz III; Lamas de Moledo; Cabeço das Frágoas; Ribeira da Venda near Arronches, Portalegre; altogether around 100 words) have been found so far (Untermann 1997: 747−758; Villar and Pedrero 2001; Carneiro et al. 2008). To these https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-027

1858

XVI. Languages of fragmentary attestation

can be added a number of “quasi-Lusitanian” texts (short Latin inscriptions containing isolated Lus. forms; Witczak 2005: 183−198), onomastic material (Vallejo Ruiz 2005) and divine names and epithets on Roman inscriptions (Prósper 2002: 89−354), placenames, words transmitted in external sources, and lexical material in Ibero-Romance languages that is suspected of having been borrowed from Lus. (Witczak 2005: 295− 390). All documents are written in the Roman script. The possible time-frame for the inscriptions extends from the 1st c. BCE to the 2 nd c. CE, but due to the lack of archaeological contexts the chronology remains conjectural; dating the texts on linguistic grounds is circular. The limited corpus creates several methodological problems: there probably never existed a written literary standard for Lus.; the inscriptions reflect independent attempts at putting the vernacular into writing on the basis of Latin school education. So far no consensus has been reached on the interpretation of the texts, and the situation is aggravated by their insecure readings. Due to Lus.’s lamentable state of preservation, anything said about its synchronic and historical grammar is necessarily conjectural only.

2. Phonology 2.1. Vowels The vocalism exhibits relatively conservative traits. Partly divergent treatments of long and short vowels suggest a length opposition (not indicated in writing) for Lus., or for an earlier stage of the language. The observable vowel changes are largely isolated phenomena and do not transform the inherited system as a whole: − e is raised to mid-high ı before tautosyllabic nasals, perhaps sporadically in other contexts as well. − i in hiatus (or i̯ ) before back vowels is frequently written e. − o may be syncopated in final syllables between i̯ and a consonant. − e (= ē) < *ei̯ at least in final syllables. Both i̯ - and u̯-diphthongs are frequent. The i̯ -diphthongs display great variation in spelling (e.g. ae, ai, aei). Beside one good example for ou < *eu̯, there are several words with written eu. Occasional further vowel variation is suspect of being morphologically conditioned (cf. 3.1).

2.2. Resonants r, l, m, n, and i̯ remain largely unchanged. The inherited distinction between m and n is retained in auslaut. u̯ is lost between o and i/e; in a few cases the rare grapheme f stands in initial position of words that are compared to etyma with u̯ outside Lus.

106. Lusitanian

1859

2.3. Consonants There is an opposition between plain and geminated stops and resonants. An original opposition between voiced and voiceless stops has been partly transformed, because word-internally the obstruents have undergone a sound-shift. Variant spellings with letters for voiceless and voiced stops side by side indicate that inherited voiceless stops had become phonetically voiced (“lenited”) between vowels and after resonants, but that this distributional allophony had not yet attained phonemic status. There is the potential for inverse spellings in such a situation. It is likely that the development was caused by a pull chain from a previous, analogous “lenition” (probably fricativization) of voiced stops, which is not indicated in spelling. It is unclear whether the PIE voiced and voiced aspirated obstruent series had merged or had stayed separate. The examples adduced by Witczak (2005: 255−257, 267−274) for a separate treatment of the two series (i.e. Lus. f, b, p < *b h, but b < *b; Lus. 0̸ < *h < *g h and *g̑ h, but g/0̸ < *g and *g̑; Lus. r < *d, but d < *d h) rest on doubtful etymologies. Lus. has undergone the same kentum-development as all Western IE languages (e.g. porcom < *pork̑om). The evidence for the fate of the labiovelars is ambiguous. It has been suggested that unlike in other kentum-languages PIE *k u̯ and *ku̯/k̑u̯ did not merge, but rather that *k u̯ became Lus. p and *ku̯/k̑u̯ remained as Lus. (Prósper 2002: 396−397; Witczak 2005: 274−276). s generally remains in Lus. but is occasionally lost in final position (Stifter 2010− 2011: 189−190).

2.4. Accent Nothing positive can be said about the accent in Lus. But it is noteworthy that the vowels seem to have undergone more reductions in final syllables than in other positions, which indicates that the accent was not word-final.

3. Morphology 3.1. Nouns Inherited IE inflectional categories are retained. All three genders seem to be attested. Only singulars and plurals are found. Attested cases are: nominative, accusative, dative, genitive, and possibly locative; the instrumental and ablative are uncertain. Of the inflectional classes, thematic (o-, i̯ o-stems) and athematic nouns (ā-, i̯ ā-, u-, consonant stems) are found; other classes (ī-stems) are uncertain. The endings are generally the expected ones. Noteworthy are: the thematic gen. sg. in -o, unless the forms are instrumentals; the thematic dat. sg., which vacillates between -oi, -ui, -u, -o; one inscription possibly has ā-stem dat. sg. -a instead of -ai elsewhere. If isaiccid and puppid are ablatives, the ending -d has spread outside thematic nouns (but cf. 3.4).

1860

XVI. Languages of fragmentary attestation

3.2. Adjectives The evidence consists mainly of theonymic epithets. Adjectives inflect like nouns. In several instances, o-stem adjectives agree with ā-stem nouns. A superlative in -tamo- < *-tm̥Ho- is found.

3.3. Numerals If autochthonous, the personal name Petraṇio- could be derived from ‘4’, those in Pi/ent- from ‘5’.

3.4. Pronouns Several candidates for demonstratives have been cited (e.g. ṭadom, etom), but none is undisputed. Isaiccid and puppid (if < *k u̯odk u̯id) could be correlatives, unless they are nouns in the ablative. Iom is either a relative pronoun (perhaps correlative with demonstrative etom) or has some other subordinating function.

3.5. Verbs By their endings, rueti and doenti are securely identifiable as 3sg. and 3pl. verbal forms, probably present indicative, although the root (*d heh1 or *doh3) and the stem formation of the latter is unclear. Verbal forms have also been suspected in praisom (1sg.?), praesondo (middle 3pl.?), singeieṭo (middle 3sg.), and loiminna/ḷoemina (middle participle?) but none of this can be proven.

4. Syntax 4.1. Word classes In addition to the word classes discussed in 3, one function word has been securely identified: conjunctive indi.

4.2. Word order The small corpus of Lus. yields only weak evidence for SVO. Other surface configurations are probably marked word orders in dedicatory contexts. Adjectives follow their head noun. There are two possible cases of postpositions (Carlae en, praeson=do), but both can also be analyzed in other ways.

106. Lusitanian

1861

4.3. Sentence syntax One inscription contains a sequence of nine elements coordinated by the conjunction indi. One example of a subordinating pronoun, iom, gives evidence of a hypotactic structure, but lacks any context.

5. Lexicon 5.1. Vocabulary Despite the limited corpus, the inscriptions are linked by several recurring words, a fact that helped establish Lusitanian as a linguistic entity. The number of semantically clear words is extremely small. Three words for sacrificial animals are securely identified (porcom, taurom, oilam). One inscription may contain a series of terms for social or family relations.

5.2. Word formation Like in neighbouring Celtiberian, adjectival formations in -k- (-iko-, -aiko-, -tiko-) enjoy great productivity, e.g. teucaecom ← teucom, lamaticom ‘belonging to L.’ ← placename *Lama. Derivatives in -i̯ o/ā- are also frequent (e.g. usseam < *ups-ii̯ ā- or *uts-ii̯ ā-?). There are compounds that consist of two nominal elements; others are made up of preverb + nominal element, but the exact formal and semantic types cannot be determined.

6. The position of Lusitanian within Indo-European The IE character of Lus. is immediately apparent from the inflectional endings. It clearly belongs to the Western IE linguistic area and represents a rather typical “old-IE” language, but its genetic relationship to other IE languages remains disputed. Divine names are shared with the Gallaeci, north of the Lusitani. A special relationship to Celtic has been suggested, but cannot be substantiated: similarities with Celtiberian in derivational morphology could reflect mutual influence (the potentially shared thematic gen. sg. in -o is remarkable, unless the Lus. forms are instrumentals); lexical correspondences with Celtic (Lus. Crougeai ~ OIr. crúach ‘hill’) rest on etymological speculation. More recently, similarities of Lus. with Italic have been stressed. Although the few sources exhibit some variation in phonology and morphology, the evidence is too meager for secure inferences about diachronic or dialectal divergences.

1862

XVI. Languages of fragmentary attestation

7. References: Carneiro, André, José d’Encarnação, Jorge de Oliveira, and Cláudia Teixeira 2008 Uma inscrição votiva em língua lusitana [A votive inscription in the Lusitanian language]. Palaeohispanica 8: 167−178. Pérez Vilatela, Luciano 2000 Lusitania. Historia y etnología. Madrid: Real Academia de la Historia. Prósper, Blanca Maria 2002 Lenguas y religiones prerromanas del occidente de la Península Ibérica, Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca. Stifter, David 2010–11 Schwund von auslautendem s als westeuropäische areale Erscheinung. Die Sprache 49/2: 187−193. Untermann, Jürgen and Dagmar Wodtko 1997 Monumenta Linguarum Hispanicarum. Band IV. Die tartessischen, keltiberischen und lusitanischen Inschriften. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Vallejo Ruiz, José María 2005 Antroponimia indígena de la Lusitania romana. Vitoria−Gasteiz: Servicio Editorial Universidad del Pais Vasco. Villar, Francisco and Rosa Pedrero 2001 Arroyo de la Luz III. Palaeohispanica 1: 235−274. Witczak, Krzysztof Tomasz 2005 Język i religia Luzytanów. Studium historyczno-porównawcze [Lusitanian language and religion. A historical-comparative study]. Lodz: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego.

David Stifter, Maynooth (Ireland)

107. Macedonian 1. Origin of the Macedonians and their language 2. Documentation

3. Linguistic features of Macedonian 4. Probable member of the Greek family 5. References

1. Origin of the Macedonians and their language The Macedonians correspond to a group of tribes who, according to legend, were united by the Temenides in the 7 th century BCE, and who started to occupy valleys and plains progressively after having descended from the Pindos mountains. For a long time, their core area was the Haliacmon basin, where their first capital Aigeai was located. During the reign of Alexander I (ca. 498−454 BCE), they reached the Strymon river; in the time of Philip II they could be found near the Nestos river. Their northern border never spread much further than the current border of Greece (Brixhe and Panayotou 1997: 207−208). An originally heterogeneous country, Macedonia partly remained this way owing to https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-028

107. Macedonian

1863

isolated groups of Phrygians and Thracians living there (Brixhe 2006b: 41). And, of course, in the west, north, and east, it constantly remained in contact with non-Greek peoples, such as Illyrians, Peonians, or Thracians. Questions about the origins of this people and implicitly their language had already been asked in antiquity. They were taken up again at the beginning of the 19 th century and, owing to their regional implications, they also gained a political dimension. Regarding the language of Macedonia, scholars have in modern times suggested several divergent theories: from a non-Greek language to several Greek dialects (see Brixhe and Panayotou 1997: 208−209; Hatzopoulos 2006: 35−36).

2. Documentation To appreciate this language, we can draw on an important series of glosses (mostly compiled by Hesychius) and perhaps on one verse (transmitted by Athenaeus) by Strattis (Brixhe and Panayotou 1997: 212; Hatzopoulos 2006: 46), an Athenian poet of the 4 th century. Both the economic situation in Macedonia (agricultural and pastoral activities, often nomadism) and the political regime were at first unfavorable for the issuing of epigraphic documents, public or private, and when a Macedonian epigraphy finally emerges (late 5 th−early 4 th century BCE), it uses Attic Greek, which is in the process of becoming the Greek Koine. Progressively vernacularized, it was for this reason later associated with Macedonians to the point where μακεδονίζειν, μακεδονικός, and Μακεδόνες referred not to the Macedonian dialect but to the Koine itself (Brixhe and Panayotou 1997: 210). These documents written in Koine are interesting for our inquiry owing to the dialectal traces and features which they preserve (Brixhe and Panayotou 1988: passim, 1997: 215−216) and owing to the countless anthroponyms and toponyms which they transmit. Although in the last few decades some dialectal texts have finally been found, only two of them are really pertinent: two defixiones, one from Pella (380−350 BCE; SEG 43: 434, cf. Brixhe 1997: 43−52, and Hatzopoulos 2006: 33, 36, 47−48) and the other from Arethousa (end of the 4 th /beginning of the 3 rd century, cf. BE 1998. 263).

3. Linguistic features of Macedonian The Koine of Macedonia presents a situation comparable to that seen in the areas where the Koine has replaced a Doric dialect: one finds in particular instead of expected in anthroponyms (Ἀντιγόνα, Φιλώτας, etc.) as well as the orthographic representation for inherited */u(:)/ (Κουναγίδας, epithet of Heracles) (Brixhe and Panayotou 1988), etc. The overwhelming majority of anthroponyms (Ἀλέξανδρος, Λαοδίκα, and Λᾶγος) and most of the toponyms (Αἰγεαί, Πέλλα, and Αἰανή), divine epithets, and names of months can be interpreted through Greek (Brixhe and Panayotou 1997: 214− 215, corrected and completed for the calendar by Hatzopoulos 2006: 45). Even though one must not overestimate them, the two above-mentioned dialectal defixiones permit one to go a bit further. In these texts, features appear which are common to Thessalian and North-West Greek: apocope, contraction of a: + o: to a: (πασᾶν, Arethousa) and an indication of the spirantization of aspirates (γενέσται for γενέσθαι, Pella, see 4). A fea-

1864

XVI. Languages of fragmentary attestation

ture shared with North-West Greek is the treatment of the group -sm- (cf. ὑμῶμ for ὑμῶν, Pella) and the particle -κα (ὁπόκα, Pella). Features shared with Thessalian include the raising of mid-vowels (cf. in Pella διελέξαιμι and ἀνορόξασα, inverse spellings for διελίξαιμι and ἀνορύξασα, respectively), an areal phenomenon which characterized a vast arc of a circle from Attica to Thrace; the voicing of unvoiced consonants under certain conditions (cf. δαπινά, probably for ταπεινά, Pella), and other areal features (see 4); finally, one finds patronymic adjectives in -ειος/-εία (two examples in the Koine inscriptions provided in Hatzopoulos 2006: 45−46). Without using these data, hence without real linguistic foundation, Hammond (cf. Hatzopoulos 2007: 168) suggested the coexistence of two dialects, one close to NorthWest Greek and the other close to Thessalian. Hatzopoulos (2006: 51) suggested that the Temenides spoke a north-western dialect, which as they progressed eastwards “degraded the old Aeolic dialect to the status of a dialectal substratum.” This implies the previous existence of an Aeolic dialect in the region. However, in the 7 th century, the Aeolic of Thessaly was only in an emergent state (Brixhe 2006c: 49−55). More likely, while themselves speaking what was effectively a form of Northwest Doric, the conquerors encountered Achaean Greeks mixed with groups speaking other languages as they descended from the Pindos mountains to the plains (Brixhe 2006c: 50, cf. the patronymic adjective). To put it differently, it is very likely that the components of the linguistic situation in Macedonia were about the same as in Thessaly (Brixhe 2006c: 52−55). We are unfortunately not fully able to completely identify or evaluate the traces of these components in the regional language, which undoubtedly was Greek, but a form of Greek with numerous variations.

4. Probable member of the Greek family I have until now left aside one feature which had already attracted the attention of ancient authors and which in modern times has weighed heavily in the debate over whether Macedonian was Greek or not: the employment of the sign for the voiced occlusive instead of the sign for the voiceless aspirated one, symbolized here by Β for Φ. It is found in certain glosses (cf. κεβαλήν, κεβλήν for κεφαλήν ‘head’), some divine epithets, two names of months, and one toponym (Βεροία for Φεροία according to Etym. Magnum) but is most frequently represented in numerous anthroponyms (Brixhe and Panayotou 1997: 218; Hatzopoulos 2006: 38 ff., 2007: 160 ff.). This feature was manifestly a marker of regional identity: in Macedonia, all personal names having as first position member the root *bher- start with Β, never with Φ (Βερ[ε]νίκα, Βερεννώ, etc.). Pointing in the same direction is the fact that the inverse, representation of Β by Φ, is totally absent (proof of the symbolic value attached to β). Negri and Rocca (2006: 209−213) suggested that the devoicing of PIE aspirates in Greek lost its intensity as it moved northwards. Hence, Macedonian would have retained *bh and subsequently lost the aspiration, perhaps under Illyrian influence. This hypothesis is very insufficiently founded, and it depends on a highly doubtful chronology. The defixio from Pella shows that in the lexicon the orthographic norm is φ (cf. καταγράφω or φίλων), and thus the Macedonian treatment is identical to that found in the rest of Greece. Far more worthy of consideration is the view adopted by Hatzopoulos (most

107. Macedonian

1865

recently 2006: 41−46), who supposes a Greek development *bh > ph > f > v. Actually, these changes could have proceeded in the following fashion: a) conditioned voicing of all voiceless obstruents (ph > bh), b) spirantization of aspirates (bh > v), c) spirantization of voiced stops (b > v). Once ph and b merged to [v], Β could be employed for Φ. Stage (a) is an areal phenomenon attested north of Thessaly, in Macedonia, and in Thrace (in the last of these from the 6 th century [Brixhe 2006a: 132]). As a consequence of b) and c) the aspirated and plain voiced series would have merged in Macedonian, and the former borrowed its graphic realization from the latter. Even though there is no direct evidence for spirantization of aspirates before the defixio of Pella (see above), the phenomenon is ancient in the neighboring Greek regions: there is written evidence from about 450 in Thessaly, and in Boeotia it occurs in the 6 th to 5 th century BCE. It can be equally found precociously in Pamphylia, in Crete, and in Laconia (Brixhe 2006c: 60− 61). For the spirantization of voiced occlusives (c), the most ancient evidence in the region is provided by the coins of Bisaltia: Τραιλίōν for Τραγιλίων (2 nd half of the 5 th century); and later, cf. βεφαίως for βεβαίως (middle of the 4 th century) and probably Ζειδυμαρχίς for Διδυμαρχίς (4 th to 3 rd century) (Brixhe and Panayotou 1988: 255). It seems that there is almost no early evidence for this in Thessaly, but cf. Βράμις for Ϝράμις in Boeotia in about 424 BCE. The change is attested as early as the 5 th century in Gortyn, and it is found in Pamphylia as of the beginning of the 4 th century. Hence, the chronology does not seem to contradict the hypothesis of Hatzopoulos. If, as he wants to put it (Hatzopoulos 2006: 39), Βρίγες/Βρύγες is the name given by the Macedonians to the Phrygians of Europe, the first example for the substitution of φ by β would have been provided by Herodotus (VII 73), at the latest towards the middle of the 5 th century: it would have to be admitted, owing to the two implied changes in the word (a and c), that Βρίγες represents the graphic adaptation of [vriyes]. As one might expect in a zone which was an ethnic conglomerate in constant contact with peoples speaking different languages living in the west, the north, and the east, the corpus of attested personal names also contains Thracian names such as Ἀμάδωκος and others, the origin of which we do not know (Ἀρραβαῖος and Ἀρριδαῖος, etc.). May the same also be said for a certain number of words from the lexicon (of pan-Macedonian use?) represented in the glosses? θάνος for θάνατος (Plutarch) or θανῶν· κακοποιῶν, κτείνων. Μακεδόνες (Hesychius) probably had the same radical as their Greek correspondents, but neither *θάνος nor *θανόω exist in Greek. Is it a coincidence that with the application of Thracian sound laws as revealed in the corpus of Zone-Samothrace (Brixhe 2006a: 134−135) ἀδή (οὐρανός. Μακεδόνες, Hesychius) is identical to the exact Thracian correspondent of Greek αἰθήρ? And Βρίγες/Βρύγες could be the name the Phrygians used for themselves or what they were called by the Thracians. Hence, it is possible that Macedonian shows a sporadic intrusion of terms or anthroponyms belonging originally to a language where the PIE aspirates lost their aspiration (*bh > b). Previously studies had considered an influence of Phrygian tribes that had not migrated to Asia (Brixhe and Panayotou 1997; Brixhe 1997). But perhaps we are rather dealing with Thracian, which we know is very close to Greek (Brixhe 2006a: 142, 2006b: 40). Considering names such as Βίλιστος (Φίλιστος), M. Hatzopoulos (1999: 236, 2006: 44) was astonished that the language evidenced here was so strangely close to Greek even in its derivations. But weren’t the Greeks themselves aware of the extreme proximity of the Greek and the Phrygian language (Brixhe 2006b: 40)? And the deciphering of the corpus of Zone-Samothrace reveals that Thracian was also as close to Greek as one

1866

XVI. Languages of fragmentary attestation

Romance language is to another (2006a: 142). In the hypothesis set forth here, not all words replacing φ by β have been borrowed from or transmitted through Thracian or Phrygian: some terms, mostly anthroponyms, became popular among the aristocracy and were adopted as a model to mark regional identity. This would also explain the evidence of graphic hybrids (partial “macedonization”) such as in Βιλιστίχη or Φυλομάγα (= -μάχη) or the mechanical formation of Βέτταλος (“The Thessalian”) for *Φέτταλος, the initial labiovelar (*g wh) of which could only evolve to /g/ in Thracian or Phrygian. A parallel to this is seen in the onomastic evidence of Pamphylia, another multicultural territory, where old Greek, indigenous, and hybrid names exist side by side (Ἐχιμούας, Ϝεχιμούας, Тρεσαμούwας). The existence in Macedonian of names having a Thracian or Phrygian form no more makes Macedonian a Thracian or Phrygian dialect than the presence of many French terms in English makes the latter a Romance language. β for φ: Greek or, at least partially, foreign origin? The debate remains open.

5. References This section includes uncited articles appearing after this chapter was written. BE: Bulletin épigraphique, Revue des études grecques, cited according to the year and notice number. Brixhe, Claude 1997 Un “nouveau” champ de la dialectologie grecque: le macédonien. In: Albio Cesare Cassio (ed.), Katà diálekton (Atti del III Colloquio Internazionale di Dialettologia Greca, Napoli − Fiaiano d’Ischia, 1996 [= AION XIX]). Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale, 41−71. Brixhe, Claude 2006a Zôné et Samothrace: lueurs sur la langue thrace et nouveau chapitre de la grammaire comparée? Comptes Rendus des Séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et BellesLettres: 121−146. Brixhe, Claude 2006b Préhistoire et début de l’histoire des dialectes grecs. Incontri Linguistici 29: 39−59. Brixhe, Claude 2006c Situation, spécificités et contraintes de la dialectologie grecque. À propos de quelques questions soulevées par la Grèce centrale. In: Claude Brixhe and Guy Vottéro (eds.), Peuplements et genèses dialectales dans la Grèce antique. Nancy: Association pour la diffusion de la recherche sur l’antiquité, 39−69. Brixhe, Claude In press Représentation de soi et comportement linguistique: le cas de la Macédoine. In: Paschalis Paschidis (ed.), Βορειοελλαδικά. Tales from the lands of the ethne. Essays in honor of Miltiades B. Hatzopoulos. Athens: KERA, Meletemata Series. Brixhe, Claude and Anna Panayotou 1988 L’atticisation de la Macédoine: l’une des sources de la koiné. Verbum 11: 245−260. Brixhe, Claude and Anna Panayotou 1997 Le macédonien. In: Françoise Bader (ed.), Langues indo-européennes. Paris: CNRS, 207−222. Crespo, Emilio 2012 Langues et dialectes dans la Macédoine antique. In: Giorgios K. Giannakis (ed.), Ancient Macedonia: Language, History, Culture. Thessaloniki: Centre for the Greek Language, 189−200.

108. Illyrian

1867

Hatzopoulos, Miltiades B. 1999 Le macédonien: nouvelles données et théories nouvelles. In: Ancient Macedonia VI (Papers read at the Sixth International Symposium held in Thessaloniki, 15−19 October 1996). Vol. 1. Thessaloniki: Institute for Balkan Studies, 225−239. Hatzopoulos, Miltiades B. 2006 La Macédoine. Géographie historique − Langues − Cultes et croyances − Institutions. Paris: de Boccard. Hatzopoulos, Miltiades B. 2007 La position dialectale du macédonien à la lumière des découvertes épigraphiques récentes. In: Barbara Stefan and Ivo Hajnal (eds.), Die altgriechischen Dialekte. Wesen und Werden (Akten des Kolloquiums Freie Universität Berlin, Sept. 2001). Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität, 157−176. Méndez Dosuna, Julián 2012 L’ancien macédonien en tant que dialecte grec: une étude critique des travaux récents. In: Giorgios K. Giannakis (ed.), Ancient Macedonia: Language, History, Culture. Thessaloniki: Centre for the Greek Language, 201−214. Negri, Mario and Giovanna Rocca 2006 Considerazioni sulla posizione linguistica del macedone rispetto al greco: il trattamento delle Medie Aspirate. In: Pierluigi Cuzzolin and Maria Napoli (eds.), Fonologia e tipologia lessicale nella storia della lingua greca (Atti del VI Incontro Internazionale di Linguistica Greca, Bergamo settentrionale. 2005). Milan: Franco Angeli, 201−215. SEG = Chaniotis, A., T. Corsten, N. Papazarkadas, and R. A. Tybout (eds.) 1923 ff. Supplementum epigraphicum graecum. Leiden: Brill.

Claude Brixhe, Nancy (France)

108. Illyrian 1. Krahe’s “Illyrian theory” 2. The collapse of the “Illyrian theory” 3. The notion of an “onomastic region”

4. The southeastern Dalmatian onomastic area 5. References

1. Krahe’s “Illyrian theory” According to the present state of our knowledge it seems impossible to give a plausible characterization of the “Illyrian” language as a linguistically definable entity. As a collective designation, “the Illyrian language” has often been used to denote the indigenous language(s) spoken in the Balkan peninsula in classical times, excluding Greek. According to Hammond and Wilkes (1996; cf. also Wilkes 1992; on literary sources relating to the Illyrians, see Krahe 1955: 3) the Illyrians were “a large group of related Indo-European tribes, who occupied in classical times the western side of the Balkan range from the head of the Adriatic Sea to the hinterland of the Gulf of Valona and extended northwards as far as the eastern Alps and the Danube and eastwards into some districts beyond the Balkan range.” https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-029

1868

XVI. Languages of fragmentary attestation

But there are no “Illyrian” inscriptions whatsoever. Hence, linguists today are unable to confirm the above-mentioned picture or to add any actual language(s) to it; the main traits of the Illyrian language have been extracted from etymologizing and genealogically defining personal names and place names. The most prominent of “illyricists” was the Tübingen-based comparative linguist H. Krahe, who, beginning as early as the 1920s (Krahe 1925, 1929), tried to define Illyrian in numerous articles as a unified onomastic complex, which de facto was widespread in the Balkan peninsula; according to Krahe, the Iapyges in Southern Italy should be counted as “Illyrians”, too (Krahe 1955; a traditional compilation of Illyrian linguistic remains is Mayer 1957, 1959; a compilation of the entire “Dalmatian” onomasticon is Alföldy 1969). Krahe’s construction (1955) did not withstand strict criticism, cf. the penetrating comments by Kronasser (1962, 1965), as well as the reviews by Pisani (1956) and Polomé (1961). But it must be emphasized that at the end of his life, Krahe himself acknowledged the very fragile character of his “Illyrian theory”, clearly admitting it honestly and frankly; he explicitly states (1964: V): “daß man damit [mit der Illyriertheorie] zumindest erheblich über das Ziel hinausgeschossen hatte, wurde allmählich immer deutlicher. [it gradually became ever clearer that thereby (with the Illyrian theory) the target had at the very least been significantly overshot.]” Krahe thus earns the lasting honor of having cleared the way for further research on this topic using other principles.

2. The collapse of the “Illyrian theory” The main reason for the collapse of Krahe’s Illyrian theory was most likely the gradual realization by scholars that a language that is not directly attested cannot be reconstructed solely on the basis of etymology. The younger generation of researchers consistently abstained from positing Illyrian etymologies and instead worked out and consistently applied the principle of “naming regions” (see below). The chief contributors to this notion have been Untermann (e.g. 1961, 2006), Katičić (1961, 1962, 1963, 1964a−c, 1965ab, 1966, 1968, 1976 passim), and de Simone (1993, cf. also 1996). The new method has an important predecessor in Rendić-Miočević (1948, 1955, 1956, 1960, 1961, 1964ab, 1971, 1972). Individual papers of value have also been contributed by Masson (1968, 1993). According to the purely theoretical principles of “onomastic geography”, three onomastic regions must be distinguished in the Balkan peninsula: the Liburnian region (Rendić-Miočević 1955; Katičić 1968), the central Dalmatian region (Katičić 1963), and the southeast Dalmatian region (Katičić 1962, with a map of distribution; de Simone 1993). The last of these reached as far northwards as the river Nάρων; its southern border was defined by the Greek-Thesprotian region. Hence, the southeastern Dalmatian onomastic region has its core in today’s Albania.

3. The notion of an “onomastic region” Let us now try to explain explicitly and substantiate the nature and the specific range of the term “onomastic region” (or “onomastic repertoire”). It can often be stated that certain onomastic sets (“onomastic taxa”: e.g. names in gent-; see below) show a clear

108. Illyrian

1869

“areal” distribution; hence they are “rooted” in a certain region, in contrast to other regions, where other onomastic taxa occur (“complementary distribution” of onomastic taxa). Hence, there are areas where the relevant names are predominantly or only attested; thus, these names are to be considered characteristic for these regions. If other onomastic taxa collectively show the same mostly matching areal distribution, we may then speak of a complex “onomastic area.” The onomastic taxa occurring in a certain onomastic area can be furthermore characterized by certain morphemes (e.g. -ανος/-anus; see below). To be sure, often the mutual areal relationships of single onomastic taxa in the framework of a complex onomastic area are not of an exclusive (“clean”) character; in these cases, the differentiation of a “core area” and a “dispersed area” in the distribution of the relevant onomastic groups has turned out to be useful (Katičić 1964b: 35). It must be emphasized that the identification of an onomastic area is a predominantly “aseptic” operation, which in itself, strictly speaking, does not allow a historical-comparative reconstruction on an etymological basis. The fact is that one cannot state a priori that a certain onomastic area necessarily corresponds to a historically attested language and that its onomasticon belongs even partially to the etymological pool of appellatives of this language and must therefore be systematically analyzed and interpreted on such a basis. It would be thinkable, for example, that two onomastic areas cover a single language (or the reverse). The question of whether an onomastic area actually matches the area of a historical language can only be decided on an ad hoc basis from case to case using specific arguments and in numerous cases will end up remaining sub iudice.

4. The southeastern Dalmatian onomastic area It is now clear that the “southeastern Dalmatian onomastic area” seems to offer the best concrete chance of containing names that belong to the indigenous language. Because in historic times the Illyrii proprie dicti can be localized in the area around Durrës (Dyrrhachion) (Pomponius Mela, II 56, Pliny, N.H. III 144: proprie dicti Illyrii et Taulantii et Pyraei; cf. Katičić 1964c, 1966; Papazoglu 1965; de Simone 1993: 36), it seems justified to consider the names found in this region to belong to “the actual Illyrians”. It cannot be doubted that there are well-founded Indo-European etymologies for some names of this onomastic area (see below); but it must be clearly stated that individual etymologies of names cannot form a basis for the comparative reconstruction of a historical language: an “Illyrian” language can neither be reconstructed in this way nor can it be genealogically fitted into an overall framework of Indo-European languages. I will present here a selection of names from the southeast Dalmatian onomastic area (de Simone 1993: 51−56): Αβα, Αβαιoς; Βρευκoς, Βρυγoς, Βρειγoς, Βρικεν(ν)α; Γενθιoς/Gentius, Gentilla, Γενθεας, Γενθεις (-ις) [fem.], Γενθιανoς/ Γενθιανη, Genthena [fem.]; Γραβος, Γραβων, Grabaei (gentilic name); Εορταιoς, Ἐορδάια, Ἐορδαικός; Επικαδoς/Epicadus; Λαιδων, Λαιδιας, Λαιδα/Λειδα [fem.], Σκερδι-λαΐδας/Scerdilaedus; Μαλλικα, Dimallum (place name) (Doçi 1995: 718; on the basics: Katičić 1972); Μονουνιoς; Πλαιoς, Πλαια [fem.], Plaianus; Πλευρατoς, Πλευρίας; Πρευρατoς, Πρευραδoς; Τατα/Tata, Ταταια, Τατω [fem.], Tattaia, Tato [masc.?], Tata [masc.]; Τευτιoς, Τεμi-τευτα, Τευταια (-εα), Teuticus, Τρι-τεύτα, Teuta(na), Τευτάμης, Τευταμίδης, Τευτί-απλoς, Teut-meitis; Τραυζoς, Τραυζινα; Τριτoς, Τριτω [fem.], Et-Tritus, Τριτύ-μαλλoς. Note the suffix -ανoς, -ανη: Γενθιανoς/ Γενθιανη, Plaianus, Teuta(na).

1870

XVI. Languages of fragmentary attestation

It can hardly be questioned that good Indo-European etymologies exist for at least three of the above-mentioned onomastic taxa, and these are in fact generally accepted: gent-, Teut-, and Trit-. The taxon gent- is likely to be connected with the appellative *g̑énh1-ti-s ‘lineage, descent’ (gen. *g̑n̥h1-téi-s; “proterodynamic inflection”; de Simone 1999) (Γενθιoς/Gentius ‘celui de la lignée’ [Benveniste]). Teut- is surely connected to the well-known Indo-European appellative *teutā ‘people, community’ (de Simone 1999: 71). Finally, Trit- is likely to be the ordinal number *tri-to-s and hence the zerograde to-formation of the cardinal number *tréyes (Vedic tráyas, Greek [Cretan] τρέες, Lesb. τρῆς, Att.-Ion. τρεῖς, Lat. trēs). Even though Greek shows a twofold outcome of this form (Att.-Ion. τρίτος : Aeol. τέρτος), this is merely the result of independent dialectal treatments of the same original word. The onomastic taxon of Trit- is clearly wellgrounded in the southeastern Dalmatian onomastic area. But it would be pointless to try to find a fitting etymology for the names Аβα, Аβαιος or Τραυζος, Τραυζινα, which belong to the same onomastic area. It should be clear that the picture drawn here of the southeastern Dalmatian onomastic area can be extended or even in part altered by new findings. It is only by such new information that we can ever hope to come to a better understanding of “the Illyrian language.”

5. References Alföldy, Géza 1969 Die Personennamen in der romischen Provinz Dalmatia. Beiträge zur Namenforschung, N.F., Beiheft 4. Heidelberg: Winter. Cabanes, Pierre (ed.) 1993 Grecs et Illyriens dans les inscriptions en langue grecque d’Épidamne-Dyrrhachion et d’Apollonia d’Illyrie. Actes de la Table ronde internationale (Clermont-Ferrand, 19−21 octobre 1989). Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations. Doçi, Rexhep 1995 Some Historical Toponyms of Illyrian-Albanian Origin. In: Ernst Eichler, Gerold Hilty, Heinrich Löffler, Hugo Steger, and Ladislav Zgusta (eds.), Namenforschung. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Onomastik. Vol. 1. Berlin: De Gruyter, 718−719. Hammond, Nicholas G. L. and John J. Wilkes 1996 Illyrii. In: Hornblower and Spawforth (eds.), 748. Hornblower, Simon and Antony Spawforth (eds.) 1996 The Oxford Classical Dictionary. 3 rd edition. Oxford: University Press. Katičić, Radoslav 1961 Veselia Felicitas. Beiträge zur Namenforschung 12: 271−279. Katičić, Radoslav 1962 Die Illyrischen Personennamen in ihrem südöstlichen Verbreitungsgebiet. Živa Antika 12/1: 95−120. Katičić, Radoslav 1963 Das mitteldalmatische Namengebiet. Živa Antika 12/2: 255−292. Katičić, Radoslav 1964a Namengebiete im römischen Dalmatien. Die Sprache 10: 23−33. Katičić, Radoslav 1964b Suvremena istraživanja o jeziku starosjedilaca ilirskih provincija [Die neuesten Forschungen über die einheimische Sprachgeschicht in den illyrischen Provinzen]. Godišnjak. Centar za Balkanološka Ispitivanja. Knjiga 1. Sarajevo, 9−58.

108. Illyrian

1871

Katičić, Radoslav 1964c Illyrii proprie dicti. Živa Antika 13−14: 87−98. Katičić, Radoslav 1965a Πεδίον μηλόβοτον. Živa Antika 15/1: 61−62. Katičić, Radoslav 1965b Zur Frage der keltischen und pannonischen Namengebiete im römischen Dalmatien. Godišnjak. Centar za Balkanološka Ispitivanja. Knjiga III. Sarajevo, 53−76. Katičić, Radoslav 1966 Nochmals Illyrii proprie dicti. Živa Antika 16: 241−244. Katičić, Radoslav 1968 Liburner, Pannonier und Illyrier. In: Manfred Mayrhofer, Fritz Lochner-Hüttenbach, and Hans Schmeja (eds.), Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft und Kulturkunde. Gedenkschrift für Wilhelm Brandenstein (1898−1967). Innsbruck: AMŒ, 363−368. Katičić, Radoslav 1972 L’anthroponymie illyrienne et l’ethnogenèse des Albanais. Studia Albania 26: 77−82. Katičić, Radoslav 1976 The Ancient languages of the Balkans. Volume 1. Trends in Linguistics. State-of-the-Art Report 4. The Hague: Mouton. Krahe, Hans 1925 Die alten balkanillyrischen geographischen Namen. Heidelberg: Winter. Krahe, Hans 1929 Lexikon altillyrischer Personennamen. Heidelberg: Winter. Krahe, Hans 1955 Die Sprache der Illyrier. Erster Teil. Die Quellen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Krahe, Hans (ed.) 1964 Die Sprache der Illyrier. Zweiter Teil. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Kronasser, Heinz 1962 Zum Stand der Illyristik. Linguistique balkanique 4: 5−23. Kronasser, Heinz 1965 Illyrier und “Illyricum”. Die Sprache 11: 155−183. Masson, Olivier 1968 Les rapports entre les Grecs et les Illyriens d’après l’onomastique d’Apollonie, d’Illyrie et de Dyrrhachion. In: Vladimir Georgiev, Nikolai Todorov, and Vasilka Tapkova-Zaimova (eds.), Actes du 1 er-Congrès international des Études balkaniques et Sud-Est européennes. VI. Sofia: Académie bulgare des sciences, 233−239. Masson, Olivier 1993 Encore les noms grecs et les noms illyriens à Apollonia et Dyrrhachion. In: Cabanes (ed.), 77−87. Mayer, Anton 1957 Die Sprache der alten Illyrier. Band I: Einleitung, Wörterbuch der illyrischen Sprachreste. Vienna: Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Mayer, Anton 1959 Die Sprache der alten Illyrier. Band II: Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Illyrischen. Grammatik der illyrischen Sprache. Vienna: Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Papazoglu, Fanoula 1965 Les origines et la destiné de l’état illyrien: Illyrii proprie dicti. Historia 14: 143−79. Pisani, Vittore 1956 Review of Krahe 1955. Gnomon 28: 442−451. Polomé, Edgar 1961 Review of Krahe 1955. Latomus 20: 139−145.

1872

XVI. Languages of fragmentary attestation

Rendić-Miočević, Duje 1948 Ilirska Onomastika na latinskim natpisima Dalmacije [Illyrian onomastics in Latin inscriptions of Dalmatia]. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Split. Rendić-Miočević, Duje 1955 Onomastičke studije sa teritorije liburna [Onomastic studies from the Liburnian region]. Zbornik Instituta za historijske Nauke u Zadru: 125−145. Rendić-Miočević, Duje 1956 Illyrica. Zum Problem der illyrischen onomastischen Formel in römischer Zeit. Archaeologia Jugoslavica 2: 39−51. Rendić-Miočević, Duje 1960 Ilirske onomastičke studije (I). Porodična i rodovsna imena u onomastici Balkankih Ilira [Études d’onomastique illyrienne (I). Noms de famille et de clan dans l’onomastique des Illyriens des Balkans]. Živa Antika 10: 163−171. Rendić-Miočević, Duje 1961 Onomastique illyrienne de la Dalmatia ancienne. In: Carlo Battisti and Carlo Alberto Mastrelli (eds.), Atti e Memorie del VII. Congresso Internazionale di Scienze Onomastiche. III. Florence: Istituto di glottologia dell’Università degli studi, 273−277. Rendić-Miočević, Duje 1964a Ilirske onomastičke studije (II) [Illyrian onomastic studies (II)]. Živa Antika 13−14: 101−110. Rendić-Miočević, Duje 1964b Problemi romanizacije Ilira s osobitim obzirom na kultove i onomastiku [Problèmes de la romanisation des Illyriens avec un regard sur les cultes et sur l’onomastique]. In: Alojz Benac (ed.), Simpozijum o teritorijalnom i hronološkom razgraničenju Ilira u praistorijsko doba. Sarajevo: Naučno društvo SR Bosne i Hercegovine, 139−156. Rendić-Miočević, Duje 1971 Ilirske onomastičke studije (III) [Illyrian onomastic studies (III)]. Živa Antika 21/1: 159− 174. Rendić-Miočević, Duje 1972 Ilirske onomastičke studije (IV) [Illyrian onomastic studies (IV)]. Živa Antika 21/2: 381−397. de Simone, Carlo 1993 L’elemento non greco nelle iscrizioni di Durazzo ed Apollonia. In: Cabanes (ed.), 35− 75. de Simone, Carlo 1996 Illyrian Language. In: Hornblower and Spawforth (eds.), 747. de Simone, Carlo 1999 Ancora sull’ “illirico” genti-. In: Pierre Cabanes (ed.), L’Illyrie méridionale et l’Épire dans l’antiquité III. Paris: de Boccard, 71−72. Untermann, Jürgen 1961 Die venetischen Personennamen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Untermann, Jürgen 2006 Ligurisches. In: Raffaella Bombi, Guido Cifoletti, Fabiana Fusco, Lucia Innocente, and Vincenzo Orioles (eds.), Studi linguistici in onore di R. Gusmani III. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso, 1759−1769. Wilkes, John J. 1992 The Illyrians. Oxford: Blackwell.

Carlo de Simone, Rome (Italy)

109. Pelasgian

1873

109. Pelasgian In 1941 Georgiev presented the idea that Greek possessed a substratum based on a form of Indo-European which he called Illyrian but which soon became known as Pelasgian. He assumed the following developments to have taken place in this language: 1. a consonant shift similar to that seen in Armenian: *p *t *k became ph th kh; *b *d *g became p t k; *bh *dh *gh became b d g. 2. labiovelars became delabialized: *k w *g w *g wh became kh k g. 3. palatals became sibilants or interdental spirants: *k̑ became s, *g̑ and *g̑h became z (δ). 4. syllabic resonants *r̥, *l̥ , *m̥, *n̥ became ur (ru), ul (lu), um (om), un (on) or ir il im in, respectively. 5. intervocalic s was preserved. 6. sequences of aspirates underwent dissimilation as in Greek; and this preceded the consonant shift. A good introduction to these developments may be found in Katičić (1976: 71−87). One of the most enthusiastic defenders of Georgiev’s theory was A. J. van Windekens (1952), and others who soon followed include (with representative references) Carnoy (1955), Haas (1951), and Merlingen (1967 with his Psi-Greek). Nevertheless, the forms thought to belong to the Pelasgian substratum do not always follow the phonological rules given above; and to explain this, local variation is assumed. But because the number of relevant words is small, such irregularities diminish considerably the probability of the theory. Although Katičić remained positive, scholars in general adopted a cautious wait-and-see attitude toward the theory. Meanwhile, many faults had already been recognized, as documented especially in Hester’s review (1965). Despite these, however, Hester (1965: 384) remained optimistic. In addition to purely phonological difficulties, defenders of Pelasgian often were not critical enough in their semantic or morphological analyses. Thus the word asáminthos ‘bathtub’ was taken to be from *ak̑men-to-, a derivative of the word for ‘stone’. Whatever the merits of this etymology from the point of view of material culture, it fails to recognize in this word the frequent pre-Greek suffix -(i)nth-. Consequently, its proper morphological analysis is likely to be asam-inthos, and it would therefore have nothing to do with the ‘stone’-word. In his Praegraeca (1961: 19) Heubeck had already rejected the consonantal sound shift and the satem character of Pelasgian, thereby removing the underpinnings of the theory. He further reduced the number of retained pre-Greek words of IE origin to six (Heubeck 1961: 58−70). Among these is ástu, which is a normal Greek development of an IE word (*wh2stu). In the case of púrgos there is an attested variant phúrkos, which shows that the word is non-IE (root *bh … k/k̑ ), hence not Pelasgian. In a very thorough discussion that includes the presumed Pelasgian material, Furnée (1972) demonstrated that the pre-Greek words in question do not distinguish between unvoiced, voiced, and aspirated consonants and show traces of pre-nasalization. Although the first of these phenomena is also seen in Tocharian, the second is nowhere a feature of Indo-European languages. The conclusion to be drawn is that the language from which these words were taken was not Indo-European, thereby eliminating the basis of the Pelasgian theory. The fact that Furnée’s book has been generally rejected by scholars has unfortunately obscured his contributions to the issue of pre-Greek words attested in Greek. I myself have just completed a new version of Frisk’s etymological dictionary (ed. note: now published as Beekes 2009), for which I collected all the PreGreek material (it is much larger than is usually recognized). I shall shortly publish a study of this material (ed. note: now published as Beekes 2014). One of the demerits of https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-030

1874

XVI. Languages of fragmentary attestation

Georgiev’s Pelasgian theory was that it drew attention away from the Pre-Greek material itself. In general the study of Pelasgian has not led to any progress in our understanding of this material. Consequently, the search for Pelasgian was an expensive and useless distraction. We must now conclude with García-Ramón (2004, 5: 1000): “The attempt to determine phonological rules for an Indo-European pre-Greek language (‘Pelasgian’) … is considered a complete failure today.”

References Beekes, Robert S. P. 2009 Etymological Dictionary of Greek. 2 vols. (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series 10). Leiden: Brill. Beekes, Robert S. P. 2014 Pre-Greek. Phonology, Morphology, Lexicon. Ed. By Stefan Norbruis. Leiden: Brill. Carnoy, Albert 1955 Etyma Pelasgica. L’antiquité classique 24: 5−22. Furnée, Edzard J. 1972 Die wichtigsten konsonantischen Erscheinungen des Vorgriechischen. The Hague: Mouton. García-Ramón, José Luis 2004 Greece, Languages. In: Hubert Cancik and Helmut Schneider (eds.), Brill’s New Pauly, vol. 5. Leiden: Brill, 999−1000. Georgiev, Vladimir 1941−1945 Vorgriechische Sprachwissenschaft. 2 vols. (Godišnik na Universiteta Sveti Kliment Ochridski 37, 41). Sofia: University Press. Haas, Otto 1951 Substrats et mélanges de langues en Grèce ancienne. Lingua Posnaniensis 3: 63−95. Hester, David A. 1965 ‘Pelasgian’ − a new Indo-European language? Lingua 13: 355−384. Heubeck, Alfred 1961 Praegraeca. Erlangen: Universitätsbund Erlangen. Katičić, Radoslav 1976 Ancient Languages of the Balkans. Volume 1. Trends in Linguistics. State-of-the-Art Report 4. The Hague: Mouton. Merlingen, Weriand 1967 Fair Play for “Pelasgian”. Lingua 18: 144−167. Van Windekens, Albert J. 1952 Le Pélasgique, essai sur la langue indo-européenne préhellénique. (Bibliothèque du Muséon 29). Louvain: Publications Universitaires et Institut Orientaliste.

Robert S. P. Beekes, Leiden (The Netherlands)

XVII. Indo-Iranian 110. The phonology of Proto-Indo-Iranian 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Phoneme inventory Vowels Resonants Stops Sibilants

6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Laryngeal Consonant clusters Accent Relative chronology References

1. Phoneme inventory The Proto-Indo-Iranian phonological system can be represented as follows: Vowels: a ā Consonants

Labial Dental

voiceless

voiced / glottalic

voiced [aspirates]

p

[b]

bh

t

d

h

d

ć

ȷ́

ȷ́

Palatal

č

ˇȷ

ˇȷ h

g

h

k

Laryngeal

H

s, [š]

nasals

glides

m

u̯

n

liquids

r, [l]

h

Palato-alveolar

Velar

sibilants

i̯

g

2. Vowels PIIr. had only two vowels: a and ā. Most probably, they were distinguished not so much by length, but rather by timbre, a being more closed ([ə] or [ʌ]) than ā ([ɐ(:)]), which is still the situation found in Sanskrit (Hoffmann 1976: 552−554; Cardona, this handbook). On a phonetic level, there also were [i] and [u], but these vowels were allophones of the phonemes /i̯ / and /u̯/, respectively, and their role in morphophonological alternations was very different.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-031

1876

XVII. Indo-Iranian

2.1. PIIr. *a 2.1.1. PIIr. *a first of all reflects PIE *e (including *h2 e and *h3 e) in all positions and *o in closed and word-final syllables: − PIIr. *daća ‘ten’ (Skt. dáśa, OAv. dasā) < PIE *dek̑m̥ (Gr. δέκα, Lat. decem); − PIIr. *marta- m. ‘mortal, man’ (Skt. márta-, OAv. marəta- [< *martá-], MP mard) < PIE *mor-to- (Gr. [Kallimachos] μορτοί pl. ‘id.’); − PIIr. *Haȷ́ra- (Skt. ájra- ‘field’) < PIE *h2 eg̑-ro- (Gr. ἀγρός, Lat. ager, Goth. akrs ‘field’); − PIIr. *HastH(i)- (Skt. ásthi- n. ‘bone’, YAv. ast- n. ‘bone, body’) < PIE *h3 estH(Hitt. /hastai-/, Gr. ὀστέον ‘bone’). 2.1.2. Further, PIIr. *a reflects PIE *n̥, *m̥ (i.e. *n, *m between two consonants CNC; a word boundary is counted as a consonant, so that #NC and CN# are included): − PIIr. *mati- (Skt. matí- f. ‘thought’) < PIE *mn̥-ti- (Lat. mēns, mentis f. ‘mind’, Lith. mintìs f. ‘thought, idea’); − PIIr. *a- (Skt. a-pútra-, YAv. a-puϑra- adj. ‘without a son’) < *n̥- (Gr. ἄ-ϑεος adj. ‘without a god’, Lat. in- ‘un-’, Goth. un- ‘id.’); − PIIr. *gata- ‘gone’ (Skt. gatá-, Av. gata-) < PIE *g wm̥to- (Gr. ἀνα-βατός, Lat. inventus); − PIIr. *sapta ‘seven’ (Skt. saptá, YAv. hapta) < PIE *septm̥ (Gr. ἑπτά, Lat. septem ‘seven’). There is one exception: *m remains consonantal in word-initial position before resonants (#mnV-, #mrV-, etc.), cf. PIIr. *mlaHta- ‘softened, tanned (leather)’ (Skt. mlātá-; YAv. mrāta-) < PIE *mleh2 -to- (OIr. mláith ‘soft, weak’; Gr. μαλακός ‘id.’), Skt. mnā- ‘to mention’ < PIE mneh2 - (Gr. μιμνῄσκω ‘I care for, make mention’). The development of PIE *n̥, *m̥ to PIIr. *a went through a nasalized schwa [ə˜] (denasalized after the loss of intervocalic laryngeals, 6.4). The nasalization of [ə˜] was realized as oral occlusion if *n̥, *m̥ were followed by a resonant or a laryngeal, i.e. PIE *n̥R, *m̥R > PIIr. anR, *amR (where R = a resonant or a laryngeal): − PIIr. 3sg. middle *mani̯ atai (Skt. mányate ‘thinks, considers’, OAv. mańiietē ‘understands’) < PIE *mn̥i̯ e- (Gr. μαίνομαι ‘I am furious’); − PIIr. *-tamHa- suff. of the superlative (Skt. -tama-, Av. -təma-) < PIE *-tm̥Ho- (Lat. in-timus ‘inner’).

2.2. PIIr. *ā 2.2.1. PIIr. *ā reflects PIE *ē, *ō: − PIIr. nom.sg. *maHtā f. ‘mother’ (Skt. mātā́, Av. mātā) < PIE *meh2 tēr (Gr. μήτηρ, Lat. māter); − PIIr. *u̯āks nom.sg. f. ‘speech, voice’ (Skt. vā́k; OAv. vāxš) < PIE *u̯ōk ws (Lat. vōx). 2.2.2. Furthermore, PIIr. *ā reflects PIE *o in an open syllable, except for absolute auslaut. This development (PIE *o > PIIr. *ā /__CV) was first proposed by Karl Brugmann in 1876 and is known as Brugmann’s Law.

110. The phonology of Proto-Indo-Iranian

1877

− PIIr. *ȷ́ānu- (Skt. jā́nu-, YAv. zānu°, MP d’nwg /dānūg/ ‘knee’) < PIE *g̑ónu- (Gr. γόνυ ‘knee’); − PIIr. *-tāram, acc.sg. of nomina agentis in -tar- (Skt. dā́tāram ‘giver’, OAv. dātārəm ‘creator’) < PIE *-tor-m̥ (Gr. δώτορα) vs. *-taram, acc.sg. of kinship terms (Skt. pitáram, YAv. pitarəm ‘father’) < PIE *-ter-m̥ (Gr. πατέρα); the final *-m in these PIIr. forms is analogical after the acc.sg. of the o-stems. − PIIr. 3sg.pf. *C1 a-C1 āC2 -a (type Skt. jagā́ma ‘came’, YAv. daδāra ‘held’) < PIE *C1 e-C1 oC2 -e (type Gr. μέμονε ‘has in mind’). Final *-o remains unchanged: − PIIr. *pra (Skt. prá ‘forward’; Av. frā is ambiguous) < PIE *pro (Gr. πρό), but possibly Skt. prā-tár adv. ‘early, in the morning’ < *pro-ter. − PIIr. *sa demonstr. pron. (Skt. sá) < PIE *so (Gr. ὁ). Hale (1999) has argued that the final *-o of particles could be lengthened if they formed an accentual unity with the following word, cf. Skt. ghā (< PIE *g ho) vs. Skt. ha (< PIE *g he), but since ghā is an enclitic particle, this solution seems improbable (ghā can also reflect *g hoH). Brugmann’s Law is one of the earliest Indo-Iranian developments. It evidently preceded the merger of short IE vowels *e and *o into IIr. *a. As demonstrated by Kuryɫowicz (1927), it was also anterior to the loss of antevocalic laryngeals. In other words, the laryngeal in the sequence *oCHV closed the preceding syllable and the vowel remained short. The presence of a laryngeal accounts for the short vowel in the root of PIIr. 1sg.pf. (type Skt. jagáma < *g we-g wom-h2 e, cf. Gr. μέμονα) vs. long vowel in 3sg.pf. (type Skt. 3sg. jagā́ma < *g we-g wom-e, OAv. nə̄nāsā < *ne-nok̑-e, cf. Gr. μέμονε), in the root of causatives like Skt. jaráyati ‘makes age’ (PIE *g̑orh2 -ei̯ e-), janáyati ‘begets’ (PIE *g̑onh1 -ei̯ e-), śamáyati ‘appeases’ (PIE *k̑omh2 -ei̯ e-) vs. Skt. vāsáyati ‘clothes’ (PIE *u̯os-ei̯ e-), Skt. śrāváyati ‘makes heard’, Av. srāuuaiieiti ‘announces’ (PIE *k̑lou̯-eie-), etc. and in the root of the 3sg. passive aorist Skt. (á)jani ‘has been/is born’ (PIE *g̑onh1 -i) vs. Skt. śrā́vi, OAv. srāuuī ‘is known, heard’ < (PIE *k̑lou̯-i), etc. Likewise, Brugmann’s Law was anterior to the loss of intervocalic laryngeals (see 6.4 and Lubotsky 1995: 220), as appears from the 3sg. pass. aor. Skt. (á)dāyi, (á)dhāyi, (á)jñāyi, ápāyi, ámāyi < *doh3 -i, *d hoh1 -i, etc. Brugmann’s Law further did not apply to PIE *h3 e (Lubotsky 1990), cf. PIIr. *Hau̯i(Skt. ávi- m.f. ‘sheep’) < PIE *h3 eu̯i- (Gr. ὄ[ϝ]ις, Lat. ovis ‘sheep’); PIIr. *Hanas- (Skt. ánas- n. ‘cart’) < PIE *h3 en-es- (Lat. onus n. ‘burden’); PIIr. *Hapas- (Skt. ápas- n. ‘work’, YAv. huu-apah- adj. ‘doing good work’) < PIE *h3 ep-es- (Lat. opus n. ‘work’), and thus was anterior to the merger of the three laryngeals. This chronology is comprehensible, since the merger of laryngeals was triggered by the merger of the vowels. There is only one development which seems to be anterior to Brugmann’s Law, i.e. vocalization of interconsonantal laryngeals in the final syllable (see also below, 6.3). From Skt. compounds like tvátpitāraḥ nom.pl. ‘having you as father’ < PIE *-ph2 tores (cf. Gr. -πάτορες), we know that the second members contained o-grade, cf. AiGr. II/1: 100 f. This fact may provide us with an explanation for the long vowel of Skt. bahuvrīhi compounds bhádra-jāni- ‘having a beautiful wife’, yúva-jāni- ‘having a young wife’, etc., which reflect PIE compounds in *-g wonh2 - > *-g woni- > *-gāni-, later analogically replaced by PIIr. *-ȷˇāni- after the simplex *ȷˇani- ‘wife’ (< *g wenh2 -, cf. OIr. ben f. ‘woman’; OCS žena f. ‘woman’).

1878

XVII. Indo-Iranian

3. Resonants The PIIr. phonemes /i̯ /, /u̯/, /r/ have vocalic and consonantal allophones, depending on their environment. In the position between two consonants (CRC) as well as in #RC and CR# they are vocalic [i], [u], [r̥]; otherwise they are as a rule consonantal [i̯ ], [u̯], [r]. The same holds true for the unclear phoneme /l/, for which see below, 3.3. Combinations of the resonants give various results in the daughter languages: PIIr. *aiuV > Skt. evV (devá-), Av. aēuuV (daēuua-); PIIr. *auiV > Skt. avyV (savyá-), Av. aoiiV (haoiia-); PIIr. *Cur# > Skt. Cur (dhánur), Av. Cuuarə (ϑanuuarə). The difference between the vocalization of /iu/ and /ui/ is also reflected in word-initial position: PIIr. *iua > Skt. iva, but PIIr. *uiaH- > Skt. vyā-, Av. viiā- ‘to envelop’. Also Sievers’ Law, which ˘ C) vs. [ii̯ ], [uu̯] is responsible for the distribution of [i̯ ], [u̯] after a light syllable (V after a heavy syllable (V:C or VCC), was subphonemic in Indo-Iranian and was only phonemicized in the separate languages after the loss of the laryngeal in the sequence CIHV. In the following treatment I will write *i̯ , *u̯, and *r in Indo-Iranian reconstructions where these are unambiguously consonantal and *i, *u, and *r (here eschewing a syllabification marker) in all other circumstances. 3.1. PIIr. *i and *u usually go back to PIE *i and *u, respectively. − PIIr. 3sg. *Haiti, ptc.pres. Hi̯ ant- ‘go’ (Skt. éti, yánt-; OAv. āitī = ā + aēitī, YAv. aiiaṇt- = *ā-iiaṇt-, OP 3sg. aitiy) < PIE 3sg. *h1 eiti, ptc. *h1 i̯ ent- ‘go’ (Gr. εἶσι, ἰόντες); − PIIr. 1sg. pres.act. *u̯aćmi, 1pl. *ućmasi ‘wish’ (Skt. váśmi, uśmási; OAv. vasəmī, usə̄mahī /vasmi, usmahi/) < PIE *u̯ek̑-mi, uk̑-mes (Hitt. 1sg.pres.act. ú-e-ek-mi ‘I wish, desire’). 3.2. PIIr. *i can also reflect a PIE vocalized laryngeal in the final syllable (-CH[C]#), for which see 6.3. 3.3. The situation with the IIr. liquids /r/ and /l/ is complicated. Iranian has only *r. A few words with l in modern Iranian languages like MoP āluftan ‘to rage, grow mad (with love)’ vs. Parth. pdrwb- ‘throw into confusion’ or MoP lištan, Wa. lixˇ-, Par. līs-/ lušt, Orm. las- ‘lick’ vs. Pahl. ls- /ris-/ (or /lis-/?) ‘lick’ constitute a notable exception, which has found no explanation. Sanskrit has both phonemes, albeit their distribution does not perfectly match that of the PIE phonemes. Nevertheless, Skt. /l/, which is relatively rare in the RV and becomes more prominent in later texts (e.g., RV áram, AV álam adv. ‘fittingly, accordingly, enough’ < PIE *h2 erom; RV reh-, AVP+ leh- ‘lick’ < PIE *lei̯ g̑ h-; RV+ palitá- ‘grey’ < PIE *pelit-; RV+ prav-/plav- ‘swim’ < PIE *pleu̯-; RV+ rep-/lep- ‘smear’ < PIE *lei̯ p-, etc.), for the most part corresponds to PIE *l. This suggests that PIIr. inherited this phoneme, but the distribution of /l/ and /r/ in Sanskrit remains an unsolved problem. 3.4. The PIIr. diphthongs *ai, *au, *āi, *āu must be considered combinations of *ā˘ + i,u, respectively.

110. The phonology of Proto-Indo-Iranian

1879

4. Stops PIIr. had three series of stops: voiceless T, (voiced) glottalic ’D, and voiced (aspirated) Dh. As was argued by Kortlandt 2003: 259 and 2007a: 150, aspiration of the “aspirates” may be an Indic innovation; if so, the third series was simply voiced. The glottalic articulation follows from specific reflexes in laryngeal clusters (see below 6.1 and 6.2), from the distribution of the -na-participles in Sanskrit (see Lubotsky 2007) and from glottalic pronunciation of these stops in Sindhi (see Kortlandt 1981). In the following, however, I shall stick to the traditional notation. In my opinion, PIIr. did not have a fourth series of voiceless aspirates Th. It is usually assumed that already in the PIIr. period, the combination of T + laryngeal yielded voiceless aspirates, which later developed into Skt. voiceless aspirates Th and Iranian voiceless spirants (*f, *ϑ, *x). There are several arguments against this idea. First, T becomes a spirant before any consonant in Iranian (see Cantera, this handbook), and it is more economical to assume that this also happened before a laryngeal (e.g., *tHa > *ϑHa > PIr. *ϑa just like *tra > *ϑra or *tua > *ϑu̯a). Second, Iranian sometimes shows paradigmatic alternation between *t and *ϑ (Av. nom.sg. pantā̊ < PIIr. *pantā˘Hs, gen.sg. paϑō < *patHas ‘way, path’; YAv. mitaiiatu /mitāiatu/ < *mitaHi̯ a- < PIE *mitn̥Hi̯ e- ‘dwell’ belonging to the root miϑ-), which suggests a relatively recent character of ϑ. Third, if we assume a PIIr. system T Th D Dh, it is incomprehensible why Th yielded spirants in Iranian, whereas Dh yielded stops. Bartholomae’s Law, which is most probably of IE date (see Mayrhofer 1986: 115 for an overview), was still operative in PIIr., so that PIIr. clusters Dh+T and Dh+s were voiced and aspirated (i.e. DhDh, Dhzh, or DD, Dz, if aspiration is an Indic innovation; in Sanskrit, -z- in these clusters was later replaced by -s-, which yielded voiceless clusters ps, ts, kṣ.). − PIIr. *Ha(H)ug hž ha,*Ha(H)ug hd ha 2,3sg.inj.med. ‘announce’ (OAv. pairiiaoɣžā, aogədā, in YAv. with a restored ending aoxta) < PIE *h1 e-h1 ug h- (Gr. εὖκτο 3sg.impf.med. ‘asked’, a reduplicated present to PIE *h1 u̯eg wh-, Lat. voveo ‘I vow’, cf. Lindeman 1972: 1967). In Iranian, the clusters were for the most part restored, except for a few non-transparent formations, like PIIr. *Haddhā (Skt. addhā́ adv. ‘certainly, truly’) > OAv., OP azdā adv. ‘known’, Sogd. (Chr.) ’zd’ ‘known, informed’. − PIIr. *d hi[d h]b hz ha-, desiderative to the root *d hab h- ‘deceive’ (Skt. dípsati, OAv. diβžaidiiāi inf.) < PIE *d hid hb h-se- (cf. Hitt. tepnu- ‘diminish, despise’). Also the clusters where Dh and T are separated by s or a laryngeal (DhsT, DhHT) undergo Bartholomae’s Law, cf. PIIr. *-g hžd h < PIE *-g hst- (Skt. ápi gdha 3sg.inj.med. ‘devours’ < PIE *g hs-to, sá-gdhi- f. ‘communal meal’ < PIE *sm̥-g hs-ti- with subsequent loss of s in this position); PIIr. *d hug hHd har- ‘daughter’ < *d hug hHtar- (see 6.2) < PIE *d hugh2 ter- (OAv. dugədar-). In Sanskrit, at a later stage, it was probably due to the intervening laryngeal that the cluster could be restored in the forms of the root dhā- (e.g. 3sg. mid. *d hed hh1 toi > PIIr. *d had hHd hai (OAv. dazdē) >> Skt. dhatté). It must be borne in mind that Bartholomae’s Law has always remained subphonemic in the sense that assimilation in voice (and aspiration, if any) in these clusters was automatic. 4.1. The PIIr. labials *p *b *b h (*b is extremely rare) continue PIE *p *b *b h and the PIIr. dentals *t *d *d h continue PIE *t *d *d h.

1880

XVII. Indo-Iranian

4.2. The PIIr. velars *k *g *g h continue various kinds of PIE velars, if they did not stand before /ē˘/ and /i/ (for palatalized velars see 4.3). First, they continue the PIE labiovelars *k w *g w *g wh: − PIIr. *kad (Skt. kád nom.acc.sg.n. interr. pron., YAv. kat̰ id.) < PIE *k wod (Lat. quod, OHG hwaz id.); − PIIr. *gati- (Skt. gáti- f. ‘going, motion’, YAv. aiβi.gaiti- f. ‘coming towards’) < PIE *g wm̥ti (Gr. βάσις f. ‘step, basis’, Goth. gaqumþs f. ‘gathering’); − PIIr. *g hnanti (Skt. ghnánti 3pl.pres. ‘they slay’) < PIE *g whnenti (Hitt. ku-na-an-zi 3pl. ‘they kill’). Second, they continue the late-PIE velars *k *g *g h, which primarily are the result of depalatalization of palatovelars in the position after *s (for which see below, 7) and of delabialization of labiovelars in the position after (and, possibly, also before) *u. − PIIr. *lauk- (Skt. ruc- ‘shine’, loká- m. ‘free space, light space, world’; YAv. ruc‘shine’) < PIE *leuk- (Gr. λευκός ‘light, white, bright’; Lat. lūx f. ‘light’); − PIIr. *b haug- / b hauǰ- (Skt. bhuj- ‘enjoy, consume’; OAv. būj- f. ‘atonement, expiation’) < PIE *b heug- (Lat. fungor ‘I enjoy, suffer, get rid of’); − PIIr. *d haug h- (Skt. dugh- ‘give milk’; NP dōxtan ‘to milk’; Sh. δůɣ ‘buttermilk’) < PIE *d heug h- (Gr. τυγχάνω ‘I reach a goal’, Goth. daug ‘is good for smth., fits’). Third, they continue the PIE palatovelars *k̑ *g̑ *g̑ h which were depalatalized in IndoIranian in the position before consonantal r (Weise’s Law; for which, cf. Kloekhorst 2011). Most likely, this depalatalization is a common trait of all satəm languages, cf. Meillet 1894: 297 f. − PIIr. *kruH-ra- (Skt. krūrá-, Av. xrūra- ‘bloody, cruel’) < PIE *k̑ruh2 -ro- (cf. Lat. cruor m. ‘raw, thick blood’, OPol. kry ‘blood’); − PIIr. *krau̯is- (Skt. kravíṣ- n. ‘raw, bloody meat’, YAv. xruuīšiiaṇt- adj. ‘bloodthirsty’) < PIE *k̑reuh2 -s- (Gr. κρέας n. ‘meat’); − PIIr. *gras- (Skt. gras- ‘devour, digest’; ?OAv. grə̄hmō, grə̄hmā PN) < PIE *g̑res(Gr. γράω, Cypr. γράσ-ϑι 2sg.impv.act. ‘eat!, gnaw!’).

4.3. PIIr. palatal stops PIIr. had two series of palatal stops: *ć ȷ́ ȷ́ h and *cˇ ˇȷ ˇȷ h. The former continue the PIE palatal stops *k̑ g̑ g̑ h, while the latter are the reflex of PIIr. palatalization of velars. The phonetic nature of these two series cannot be exactly determined, but it seems reasonably clear that *cˇ ˇȷ ˇȷ h were palatal stops, whereas *ć ȷ́ ȷ́ h must have been pronounced with the tongue in a position closer to the teeth, something like palato-alveolar [t’ d’ d’h] = [tś dź dźh]. When Indo-Iranian palatalization led to the rise of new palatal stops *č ǰ ǰ h, the old palatals had to move more to the front in order to remain distinct (see Lubotsky 2001: 45 f. for a discussion). Examples of the palato-alveolar stops: − PIIr. *daća ‘ten’ (Skt. dáśa, OAv. dasā, OP *daϑa o, Bactr. λασο) < PIE *dek̑m̥ ‘ten’ (Goth. taihun, Gr. δέκα, Lat. decem); − PIIr. *ȷ́uš- (Skt. juṣ- ‘like, be pleased’; YAv. zuš- ‘like’; OP dauštar- m. ‘friend’) < PIE *g̑us- (Gr. γεύομαι ‘I taste’; Lat. gustus m. ‘taste, enjoyment’; Goth. kiusan ‘test’);

110. The phonology of Proto-Indo-Iranian

1881

− PIIr. *ȷ́ hasta- m. ‘hand’ (Skt. hásta-; Av. zasta-; OP dasta-; Bactr. λιστο) < PIE *g̑ hes-to- (Lith. pa-žastìs ‘armpit’). Examples of the palatal stops: − PIIr. *čarman- n. ‘hide, skin’ (Skt. cárman-, YAv. carəman-, OP carman-, Khot. tcārman-) < PIE *(s)ker-men- (OHG scirm ‘screen’; OPr. kērmens ‘body’); − PIIr. *ǰani- f. ‘wife’ (Skt. jáni-; OAv. jə̄ni-; Parth. jn) < PIE *g wenh2 - (OIr. ben f. ‘woman’); − PIIr. *ǰ hanti 3sg.pres.act. ‘slays’ (Skt. hánti; YAv. jaiṇti; OP ja ntiy) < PIE *g whenti (Hitt. ku-[e-]en-zi).

5. Sibilants PIIr. had only one sibilant phoneme /s/, which was retracted to š after *r, u, K, i (the socalled RUKI-rule). The retracted pronunciation of *s was a phonetic feature, probably common to the satəm group, which was phonemicized in the separate branches. This is the reason why, for instance, RUKI was operative in Indo-Iranian also after *i < *H̥ or *r < *l, i.e. in the position after sounds which have only arisen as the result of specific Indo-Iranian sound changes, cf. PIE *k̑reuh2 -s-, *teuh2 -s- > Skt. kravíṣ- n. ‘raw meat’, OAv. təuuiš- n. ‘violence’; PIE *k̑h2 s- > Skt. (a-)śiṣat 3sg.them.aor., OAv. sīšōit̰ 3sg.opt.them.aor. ‘instruct, command’; PIE *k wels- > Skt. karṣ-, Av. karš- ‘draw furrows, plough’. Before voiced stops, PIIr. */s/ was realized as [z] or, in the RUKI context, as [zˇ], but both [z] and [zˇ] were allophones of the phoneme */s/. In PIIr., /š/ presumably was a marginal phoneme, found word-initially only in *šu̯aćš ‘six’ (Skt. sạ́ s-,̣ Av. xšuuaš), if the assimilation of the initial *s- in PIE *su̯ek̑s was a common feature of the satəm languages (cf. Lubotsky 2000), and possibly in the cluster *tš < PIE *k̑s (see 7 below).

6. Laryngeal PIIr. had one laryngeal phoneme /*H/, which is the result of the merger of the three Indo-European laryngeals. The phonetic nature of this phoneme is not absolutely assured, but, most probably, it was a glottal stop [ʔ]. The PIIr. laryngeal shows a variety of reflexes, which can be conveniently presented together (see Mayrhofer 2005 for a recent overview). 6.1. The laryngeal was dropped in the position before a cluster of a voiced unaspirated stop D plus any consonant (*H > Ø /_DC, cf. Lubotsky 1981), cf. − PIIr. *paȷ́ra- vs. *paHȷ́as- (Skt. pajrá- adj. ‘firm’ : Skt. pā́jas- n. ‘side, surface’, Oss. faz / fazæ ‘half, side; back, buttocks’) < PIE *peh2 g̑- (Gr. εὐ-πηγής ‘well-built’, etc.); − PIIr. *su̯ad- vs. *su̯aHd- (Skt. svádati ‘is sweet’; the short reflex is possibly due to the position before a consonant in the originally athematic verb *su̯ad-ti < *su̯eh2 dti; in Skt. saṃ-súde inf. ‘for pleasure’, the short reflex is either taken from the nom. *-suHd-s or is analogical after the present), OAv. hudəma- ‘sweetness’: Skt. svādate

1882

XVII. Indo-Iranian

‘is glad, tastes’, svādú- ‘sweet’, sūdáyati ‘makes acceptable’, havyasū́d- ‘sweetening the oblation’) < PIE *su̯eh2 d- (Gr. ἡδύς ‘sweet’, ἥδομαι ‘I am glad’, Toch.B swāre ‘sweet’); − PIIr. *i̯ aȷ́- ‘worship’ (Skt. yájyu- ‘devout, pious’; yajñá- m. ‘worship’; Av. yasna- m. ‘worship’) < *(H)i̯ eh2 g̑- ( Lat. iāiūnus ‘fasting’; Gr. ἁγνός ‘holy, pure’). This development is only phonetically comprehensible if *H in IIr. was indeed a glottal stop, which disappeared before glottalized stops, i.e. ʔʔDC > ʔDC. In a series of articles (1996, 1999), de Lamberterie applied this Law also to Greek and Latin, arguing that this must have been an IE development. The number of examples is very limited, however, and they are not all equally convincing. Moreover, the phonetic justification given above then loses its explanatory power. 6.2. In the position after a voiced unaspirated stop D, the laryngeal causes “aspiration” of the preceding stop. Here is the evidence: − PIIr. *Haȷ́ ham (Skt. ahám, Av. azəˉ˘m, OP adam ‘I’ < PIE *h1 eg̑H-om (OCS azъ, cf. Gr. ἐγώ, Lat. ego˘ˉ < *h1 eg̑-oH); − PIIr. nom.sg.n. *maȷ́ hi, gen.sg. *maȷ́ has (Skt. nom.sg. máhi, gen.sg. mahás ‘great’; OAv. gen.sg. mazəˉ, instr.pl. mazbīš ‘big, spacious’) < PIE *meg̑h2 , *meg̑h2 -os (Gr. μέγα n. ‘big’; Hitt. mēk n. ‘much’); − PIIr. *sad his- (Skt. sádhiṣ- n. ‘seat, abode’, YAv. hadiš- ‘name of god of the dwelling place’; OP hadiš- n. ‘residence, palace’) < PIE *sedh1 -s (cf. Lat. sēdēs f. ‘seat, dwelling-place’); − PIIr. *d huȷ́ hitar- / d hug hHd har- (Skt. duhitár- f., OAv. dugədar- f. ‘daughter’) < PIE *d hugh2 -ter- (Gr. ϑυγάτηρ ‘daughter’). In the case of PIIr. *maȷ́ hi, *sad his-; *d huȷ́ hitar-, the laryngeal shows a double reflex: it is responsible for the aspiration of the preceding stop, on the one hand, and it is vocalized to *i, on the other (for the vocalization see 6.3). This means that the laryngeal was not lost in the process of aspiration, but was later vocalized. This problem, which was never explained, receives a straightforward explanation if we assume that aspiration is essentially the same development as the one dealt with in the preceding section, viz. the loss of glottalization. Whereas in the case of PIIr. *paȷ́ra-, etc., a glottal stop was lost before a glottalized stop (ʔʔDC > ʔDC), here we find a glottalized stop losing its glottalic feature before a glottal stop (ʔDʔ > Dʔ) and thus merging with Dh. As pointed out above (4), aspiration of the so-called aspirated mediae Dh is likely to be an Indo-Aryan innovation.

6.3. Vocalization In the final syllable between two consonants (and in absolute auslaut -CH#), the laryngeal was vocalized to *i (in Sanskrit, the interconsonantal laryngeal was later vocalized on a large scale, also to i, so that the Iranian evidence is decisive here): − PIIr. *-i (ending n.pl. Skt. -i, Av. -i) < PIE *-h2 (Gr. -α, Lat. -a); − PIIr. *ȷˇani- (Skt. jáni- f. ‘wife’, OAv. jaini- f. ‘id.’) < PIE *g wenh2 - (OIr. ben ‘wife’); − PIIr. *-mad hi, sec. ending 1pl.med. (Skt. -mahi, OAv. -maidī) < PIE *-med hh2 (Gr. -μεϑα);

110. The phonology of Proto-Indo-Iranian

1883

− PIIr. *krau̯is- (Skt. kravíṣ- n. ‘raw meat’, cf. OAv. təuuiš- n. ‘violence’ of the same type) < PIE *k̑reu̯h2 -s- (Gr. κρέας n. ‘meat’). The same vocalization is also occasionally found in other positions, although the conditions are unclear. In a word-initial syllable, the vocalization took place in the following cases (for a discussion see also Beekes 1981a; Tichy 1985): − PIIr. *p(i)tar- (Skt. pitár- m. ‘father’, OAv. nom.sg. [p]tā, acc.sg. patarəˉm /ptaram/, dat.sg. piϑrē, fəδrōi, OP pitar- ‘id.’) < PIE *ph2 -ter-; − PIIr. *ćiša- them.aor. (Skt. aśiṣat 3sg., OAv. sīšōit̰ 3sg. opt. and sīšā 2sg. impv. ‘instruct, command’) < PIE *k̑h2 s- (zero-grade of *k̑eh2 s-, Skt. śās-, Av. sāh-). In a medial syllable, only the palatalized -h- of Skt. duhitár- ‘daughter’ (OAv. dugədar < PIE *d hugh2 -ter-) indicates that the laryngeal must have been vocalized to -i- already in PIIr., causing palatalization of *g h. Kortlandt (apud Beekes 1981a: 282) suggested that the laryngeal was vocalized in a group of four consecutive consonants (cf. gen. sg. PIE *d hugh2 -tr-es). Normally, however, Iranian shows no vocalization in this position; cf. Skt. támisrā- f. ‘dark night’, but YAv. tąϑra- pl. ‘darkness’ < PIE *temHs-ro-. Cf. also an important article by Werba (2006).

6.4. Intervocalic laryngeal (Beekes 1981b; Lubotsky 1995) In intervocalic position (i.e. aHa, aHi, aHu), the laryngeal was phonologically lost in PIIr., but if there was a transparent morpheme boundary, the laryngeal could be restored (since it was still extant in most other positions). As the meter of the Gāthās shows, this restored laryngeal is faithfully preserved in Avestan. In the R̥gveda, however, we find hiatus only in a part of the cases, which indicates that the poets used the hiatus as a metrical device, while this laryngeal was again lost in their regular speech. Here are a few examples: No hiatus in Skt. dhenú- f. ‘cow’ < *d heh1 i-nu-; devár- m. ‘husband’s younger brother’ < *deh2 i-ur-; stená- m. ‘thief’ < *steh2 i-no-; revánt- adj. ‘rich’ < *Hreh1 i-u̯ent-. Occasional hiatus in the RV vs. constant hiatus in the Gāthās: − PIIr. *-i̯ aH-am 1sg. athem. opt. (Skt. deyā́m, dheyā́m, aśyā́m, yāyām; OAv. diiąm, h́iiə̄m); − PIIr. *-aH-am acc.sg., *-aH-as nom.pl., etc. of root-nouns in -aH- and of laryngeal stems (Skt. opā́m, opā́s ‘protecting’; gnā́m, gnā́s f. ‘lady’; pánthām, pánthās m. ‘way’; OAv. mazda˛m, gen.sg. mazdā̊ m. ‘Mazda’); − PIIr. s-stems of the type *daH-as- n. ‘gift’ (Skt. dā́s- in dā́svant- and sudā́s-; OAv. dāh-); − PIIr. gen.pl. ending -aHam (Skt. -ām, OAv. -a˛m; cf. Kortlandt 1978, 2007b; Beekes 1982b: 58 f.); − PIIr. appurtenance suffix *-Han- after a thematic vowel, e.g. *sauma-Hān-am > Skt. somā́nam acc.sg. ‘presser of Soma’; *mantra-Hā > OAv. nom.sg. mąϑrā ‘poet, mantra specialist’ (cf. Hoffmann 1955 = 1976: 378−383); − PIIr. verbs in -aH- (Skt. 3pl. pres. pā́nti, 3sg. subj. pā́t, 3pl. impv. pres. pāntu, nom.pl. ptc. pā́ntas < *paH-anti, *paH-a-t, etc.; OAv. subj. išāt̰ , išā̊n ̣ti).

1884

XVII. Indo-Iranian

There are two words with the same reflex, viz. *maHas- m. ‘moon’ (Skt. mā́s-, OAv. mā̊) and *HuaHata- m. ‘wind’ (Skt. vā́ta-), where the second a goes back to a PIE nasal, *meh1 n̥s- and *h2 ueh1 -n̥t-o-, respectively. Although here, too, there is a morpheme boundary between the root in -aH and the suffix beginning with n̥-, a model for restoration of the laryngeal is lacking. Both formations were not productive in Indo-Iranian, and if *meh1 n̥s- > *maHas- would have yielded *mās- and *h2 ueh1 n̥to- > *HuaHatawould have yielded *Huāta- in Indo-Iranian already, the intervocalic laryngeal could hardly have been restored. We must therefore assume that the development of PIIr. *-aHn̥- was different from that of -aHa-: while in the latter sequence the laryngeal was lost, in the former it was retained. This means that at the time of the loss of intervocalic laryngeals, n̥ had not yet coincided with a.

6.5. Laryngeal metathesis In the sequences CHiC and CHuC, the laryngeal swapped places with the resonant. − PIIr. *piHta- ‘drunk’ (Skt. pītá-, MoP nabīd ‘wine, date-wine’ < PIr. *ni-pīta-) < PIE *ph3 i-to- (cf. Gr. ποτόν n. ‘drink, beverage’ < *ph3 -to- without i-extension); − PIIr. *suHr n. ‘sun’ (Skt. svàr, OAv. huuarəˉ, cf. also Skt. sū́rya- m. ‘deity of the sun’) < PIE *sh2 ul- (Gr. ἠέλιος < PGr. *hāu̯el < *seh2 -u̯el- m. ‘sun’); − PIIr. *b huHta- ‘become, grown’ (Skt. bhūtá-, YAv. būta-) < PIE *b hh2 u-to- (for the position of the laryngeal cf. Skt. bodhí 2sg.impv.aor. < *b heh2 u-d hi, Lubotsky 1995: 224−225). In a similar way, *C1 iHuC2 > *C1 i̯ uHC2 (C2 ≠i̯ ), cf. PIIr. *si̯ uHta- ‘sewn’ (Skt. syūtá-; Oss. x wyd / xud) < *siHuto- (Skt. sī́vyati, Goth. siujan, Lith. siū́ti ‘to sew’). It is probable that this root is connected with PIE *seh2 - ‘to bind’, pres. *sh2 -ei-, so that the original order of the consonants was *sh2 iu-. For more examples of this kind, see Lubotsky 2011. The metathesis *C1 iHuC2 > *C1 i̯ uHC2 did not occur in case of C2 =i̯ (cf. Skt. sī́vyati, dī́vyati) because u was consonantal before i̯ , see 3. The rule must have been operative for a long time, as it is also responsible for the desiderative Skt. jújyūṣati (Ś B), derived from jī́vati ‘to live’.

7. Consonant clusters The development of PIIr. clusters of stops is rather complicated in detail. Here I mention just a few of the most frequent clusters which have undergone some changes within PIIr. − PIIr. *-ćt- [*-tśt-] > *-śt- (≠ -št-) > Iranian -(x)št-, Skt. *-ṣt- > -ṣt-.̣ Kellens (1976: 60 ff.) has presented strong arguments in favor of the view that the reflex of PIIr. *ćt had not yet merged with št after RUKI in Proto-Iranian. While the reflex of the RUKI št is always št in Avestan, PIIr. *ćt also appears as xšt, e.g. paiti.fraxštar- ‘interrogator’ o yaxšti- ‘branch’ < PIIr. *i̯ aćti- (cf. Skt. yaṣṭí-), < PIIr. *prać-tar- (cf. Skt. prasṭar-), ̣ spaxšti- ‘vision’ < PIIr. spać-ti-, etc. Since we find the same reflex in Sogdian and Bactrian, we must assume East Iranian dialectal preservation of the difference between *ćt and the RUKI št.

110. The phonology of Proto-Indo-Iranian

1885

− PIIr. *-ćs- [*-tśs-] > *-t śś- > *-t śš- > *-tš- and then > Iranian *š, Skt. *-tṣ- > *-tṣ-̣ > -kṣ-, cf. PIIr. *daćš-i-na- ‘right, southern’ (Skt. dákṣiṇa-, YAv. dašina-) < PIE *dek̑si-no- (Lith. dẽšinas, OCS desnъ ‘right’); − PIIr. *-tć- [*-ttś-] > *-t śś- > *-t śš- > *-tš- (thus merging with the reflex of PIIr. *-ćs< PIE *-k̑s-), cf. PIIr. *tatćan- (Skt. tákṣan- m. ‘wood-cutter, carpenter’; Av. tašan- m. ‘creator (of cattle)’) < PIE *tetk̑on- (Gr. τέκτων m. ‘carpenter, artist’). − PIIr. *sč > *sć in word-initial position and after a vowel (Lubotsky 2001). This is essentially the same kind of development as, for instance, OCzech tiščen > Czech tištěn [tišt’en] ‘pressed’. Cf. PIIr. *sćid- < *sčid- ‘to split, break’ (Skt. chid-; YAv. siδ-; MP wsstn’ /wisistan/) < PIE *skid- (Gr. σχίζω ‘I split, cut’; Lat. scindō ‘I cut open’); PIIr. *ga-sća- < *ga-sča- pres.stem ‘go’ (Skt. gáchati, YAv. jasaiti 3sg.pres.) < PIE *g wm̥-ske- (Gr. βάσκε 2sg.impv.act. ‘go!’). In the position after a stop, the development *sč > *sć did not take place, cf. PIIr. *udsčā ‘high, up’ (Skt. uccā́, YAv. usca) < PIE *udsk (w)eh1 (Lat. ūsque ‘up to’); PIIr. *Hubzȷˇ ha- (Skt. ubjánt- ptc.pres. ‘keeping under, subduing’, YAv. ubjiiāite 3sg. pass. ‘is pressed down’) < PIE *h1 ub hske-, an sk-present to PIE *h1 ueb h- (Skt. vabh- ‘bind, fetter’; YAv. ubdaēna- adj. ‘of woven texture’; Gr. ὑφαίνω ‘I weave, undertake’; OHG weban ‘weave’).

8. Accent Our knowledge about PIIr. accentuation is almost exclusively based on Vedic Sanskrit, since the Iranian evidence is scant, being limited to some indirect indications in Avestan (cf. Beekes 1988: 55−69; de Vaan 2003: 577−602). For apparent traces of Indo-European accentuation in Pashto and other modern Iranian languages, see Lubotsky 1988: 16 ff. The Sanskrit i- and u-stems derived from roots with a final laryngeal (the set-roots) ̣ are predominantly oxytone, which suggests an Indo-Iranian accent shift from the root to the suffix (Lubotsky 1987), cf. kav-í-, gir-í-, dhruv-í-, ray-í-, san-í-; ā-tí-, ū-tí-, kṣā-tí-, gūr-tí-, jñā-tí-, dhī-tí-, rā-tí-, rī-tí-, vī-tí-, sā-tí-, sphā-tí-; jūr-ṇí-; ūr-mí-, jā-mí-, ne-mí-; dhā-sí-; ur-ú-, gur-ú-, tan-ú-, pur-ú-, pr̥th-ú-, van-ú-, śay-ú-; gā-tú-, jan-tú-; vā-yú-; ū-rú-, bhī-rú-, etc. Similarly, the i- and u-stems derived from roots with a medial laryngeal in the full grade, i.e. roots of the type (C)CeHC-, are mostly oxytone, cf. āp-í-, āś-ú-, tāy-ú-, pāy-ú-, bāh-ú-, svād-ú-, etc. The accent shift did not operate in two groups of roots with a medial laryngeal: those of the type *C(R)eHD- (for which see 6.1), e.g. íṣ-ti-̣ f. ‘worship, sacrifice’, yájyu‘devout, pious’, and those of the type *CHUC- (for which see 6.5), e.g. bhū́-mi- f. ‘earth’, bhū́-ri- ‘abundant’. This means that the accent shift was posterior to the loss of the laryngeal in the first group, on the one hand, and anterior to laryngeal metathesis in the second group, on the other.

9. Relative chronology We can establish the following relative chronology of the major phonological developments in Proto-Indo-Iranian:

1886

XVII. Indo-Iranian

Dialectal Indo-European (“satəm”): A. RUKI-rule (only phonetically, phonemicization took place in the separate languages) (5) B. Depalatalization of palatovelars in the position before *r (4.2) Proto-Indo-Iranian: 1. IIr. vocalization of the laryngeals (6.3) 2. Brugmann’s Law (2.2.2) [POST 1, ANTE 4,9] 3. Palatalization of the velars (4.3) 4. *e,o > PIIr. *a (2.1.1) [POST 2, ANTE 5] Note that palatalization as a phonemic process is simultaneous with the merger of e, o in PIIr. *a [i.e. 3=4]. In other words, we cannot know when the phonetic palatalization started, but it became phonemic at the moment when the conditioning factor, i.e. the difference between *e and *o/*a, disappeared. 5. Merger of the three laryngeals in PIIr. *ʔ (6) [POST 4, ANTE 6] 6. ʔʔDC > ʔDC; ʔDʔ > Dhʔ (6.1, 6.2) [POST 5, ANTE 7] 7. Laryngeal accent shift (8) [POST 6, ANTE 8] 8. Laryngeal metathesis (6.5) [POST 7] 9. Loss of intervocalic laryngeals (6.4) [POST 2, ANTE 10] 10. n̥ > a (2.1.2) [POST 9] The exact chronological position of developments 9 and 10 cannot be further specified. It seems attractive to assume that the loss of intervocalic laryngeals [9] was posterior to the merger of the three laryngeals [5].

10. References AiGr. II/1: see Wackernagel. Beekes, Robert S. P. 1981a The neuter plural and the vocalization of the laryngeals in Avestan. Indo-Iranian Journal 23: 275−287. Beekes, Robert S. P. 1981b Intervocalic laryngeal in Gatha-Avestan. In: Yoe¨l L. Arbeitman and Allan R. Bomhard (eds.), Bono homini donum: Essays in historical linguistics, in memory of J. Alexander Kerns. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 47−64. Beekes, Robert S. P. 1988 A Grammar of Gatha-Avestan. Leiden: Brill. Hale, Mark 1999 ha: so-called ‘metrical lengthening’ in the Rigveda. In: Heiner Eichner and Hans Christian Luschützky (eds.), Compositiones indogermanicae, In memoriam Jochem Schindler. Prague: Enigma, 143−151. Hoffmann, Karl 1955 Ein grundsprachliches Possessivsuffix. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 6: 25−40. Hoffmann, Karl 1976 Aufsätze zur Indoiranistik, Edited by J. Narten. Volume 2. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Kellens, Jean 1976 Un prétendu présent radical. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 34: 59−71. Kloekhorst, Alwin 2011 Weise’s Law: Depalatalization of palatovelars in Sanskrit. In: Thomas Krisch and Thomas Lindner (eds.), Indogermanistik und Linguistik im Dialog, Akten der XIII. Fachta-

110. The phonology of Proto-Indo-Iranian

1887

gung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 21. bis 27. September 2008 in Salzburg. Wiebaden: Reichert, 261−270. Kortlandt, Frederik 1978 On the history of the genitive plural in Slavic, Baltic, Germanic, and Indo-European, Lingua 45. 281−300. Kortlandt, Frederik 1981 Glottalic consonants in Sindhi and Proto-Indo-European. Indo-Iranian Journal 23: 15− 19. Kortlandt, Frederik 2003 An Indo-European substratum in Slavic? In: Alfred Bammesberger and Theo Vennemann (eds.), Languages in prehistoric Europe. Heidelberg: Winter, 253−260. Kortlandt, Frederik 2007a Italo-Celtic origins and prehistoric development of the Irish language. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Kortlandt, Frederik 2007b Gothic gen.pl. -e. Historische Sprachforschung 120: 237−240. de Lamberterie, Charles 1996 Latin pignus et la théorie glottalique. In: Hannah Rosén (ed.), Aspects of Latin. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität, 135−150. de Lamberterie, Charles 1999 L’adjectif grec ἑδανός ‘suave’. In: Jürgen Habisreitinger, Robert Plath, and Sabine Ziegler (eds.), Gering und doch von Herzen. 25 indogermanistische Beiträge Bernhard Forssman zum 65. Geburtstag. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 153−166. Lindeman, Fredrik Otto 1972 Zu dem sog. “protero-dynamischen” Medium im Indogermanischen. Norsk Tidskrift for Sprovigdenskap 26: 65−79. Lubotsky, Alexander 1981 Gr. pḗgnumi: Skt. pajrá- and loss of laryngeals before mediae in Indo-Iranian. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 40. 133−138. Lubotsky, Alexander 1988 The system of nominal accentuation in Sanskrit and Proto-Indo-European, Leiden. Brill. Lubotsky, Alexander 1990 La loi de Brugmann et *H3 e-. La reconstruction des laryngales. (Bibliothèque de la Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres de l’Université de Liège, fascicule CCLIII). LiègeParis: Les Belles Lettres, 129−136. Lubotsky, Alexander 1992 The Indo-Iranian laryngeal accent shift and its relative chronology. In: Robert Beekes, Alexander Lubotsky, and Jos Weitenberg (eds.), Rekonstruktion und relative Chronologie. Akten der VIII. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Leiden, 31. August−4. September 1987. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität, 261−269. Lubotsky, Alexander 1995 Reflexes of intervocalic laryngeals in Sanskrit. In: Wojciech Smoczyński (ed.), Kuryɫowicz Memorial Volume. Part One. Cracow: Universitas, 213−233. Lubotsky, Alexander 2000 Indo-Aryan ‘six’. In: Michaela Ofitsch and Christian Zinko (eds.), 125 Jahre Indogermanistik in Graz. Festband anlässlich des 125jährigen Bestehens der Forschungsrichtung “Indogermanistik” an der Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz. (Arbeiten aus der Abteilung “Vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft” Graz 15). Graz: Leykam, 255−261. Lubotsky, Alexander 2001 Reflexes of Proto-Indo-European *sk in Indo-Iranian. Incontri linguistici 24: 25−57.

1888

XVII. Indo-Iranian

Lubotsky, Alexander 2007 Sanskrit na-participles and the glottalic theory. In: Alan J. Nussbaum (ed.), Verba Docenti. Studies in historical and Indo-European linguistics presented to Jay H. Jasanoff by students, colleagues, and friends. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave Press, 231−235. Lubotsky, Alexander 2011 The origin of Sanskrit roots of the type sīv- ‘to sew’, dīv- ‘to play dice’, with an appendix on Vedic i-perfects. In: Stephanie W. Jamison, H. Craig Melchert, and Brent Vine (eds.), Proceedings of the 22 nd Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference. Bremen: Hempen, 105−126. Mayrhofer, Manfred 2005 Die Fortsetzung der indogermanischen Laryngale im Indo-Iranischen. (Sitzungsberichte der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Klasse 730). Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Mayrhofer, Manfred 1986 Indogermanische Grammatik. Vol 2. Lautlehre. Heidelberg: Winter. Meillet, Antoine 1894 De quelques difficultés de la théorie des gutturales indo-européennes. Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 8: 277−304. Tichy, Eva 1985 Avestisch pitar-/ptar-. Zur Vertretung interkonsonantischer Laryngale im Indoiranischen. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 45 [1985] (Festgabe für Karl Hoffmann, Teil II), 229−244. Wackernagel, Jakob 1905 Altindische Grammatik II,1. Einleitung zur Wortlehre. Nominalkomposition. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Werba, Chlodwig H. 2006 Sanskrit duhitár- und ihre (indo-)iranischen Verwandten: Zur ‘Vokalisierung’ der Laryngale im Ur(indo)arischen. In: Günter Schweiger (ed.), Indogermanica. Festschrift Gert Klingenschmitt. Taimering: VWT-Verlag, 699−732.

Alexander Lubotsky, Leiden (The Netherlands)

111. The morphology of Indo-Iranian 0. 1. 2. 3.

Preliminaries Nouns Adjectives Numerals

4. 5. 6. 7.

Gendered pronouns Personal pronouns Verbs References

0. Preliminaries Proto-Indo-Iranian (PII) morphology is easily reconstructible from the extant Old IndoIranian languages, since the morphology of these languages is very similar (cf. Gotō and Skjærvø [morphology], this handbook). In spite of (or perhaps because of) this https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-032

111. The morphology of Indo-Iranian

1889

circumstance, an explicit and exhaustive systematic reconstruction of PII morphology has yet to be undertaken. As regards phonology, I (now) assume that laryngeals were partly dropped in late PII, partly only later within the prehistory of the individual branches. They left the following traces: in PII they caused compensatory lengthening of preceding vowels; at least one of them aspirated preceding stops (at least in Indic); aspirating laryngeals are here given as PII *h, otherwise *H is written. Proto-Indo-Iranian may still have had clusters instead of aspirated tenues, and so these are written as *th etc. in this chapter. Prevocalically, laryngeals were possibly preserved until late PII so that we still find hiatus between vowels in Old Avestan and partly in Vedic; between non-syllabics they could be vocalized. In some cases, especially in final syllables and possibly in some initial syllables, the result of the vocalization fell together with *i and was preserved in Iranian. Elsewhere (including some instances in final syllables) vocalization is only found in Indo-Aryan but not in Iranian; in such cases it is here written *ь (although it is unclear whether the vocalization really was PII in these cases). The secondary vowel that arose between a consonant and a liquid followed by a laryngeal is reconstructed as *ə. The “secondary” palatals are written *ḱ, *ǵ, ǵ h, which better captures the fact that these were palatal sounds still alternating with velars than the traditional writing č, etc. (as used by Lubotsky in the preceding chapter). In describing the morphological structure of words, I will basically use the terminology of Tichy (2006b: 48 ff.). When discussing PII “athematic” paradigms, we will often have to refer to ablaut and accentuation. In many words, a “strong” stem and a “weak” stem, which may be associated with “strong” and “weak” cases, respectively, differed in ablaut and, partly, in accentuation. In ancient Indo-Iranian, ablaut was very well preserved (maybe better than anywhere else in IE), but it was practically confined to the rightmost element of the stem, i.e. the root in root stems, otherwise the suffix (Wackernagel and Debrunner 1930: 4 f.). Only in very few instances was ablaut preserved in an element further to the left (e.g., *āt-mā́n- ~ *t-mán-, *dā́r-u- ~ *dr-áu̯-, *pánt-ā- ~ *pat-hь-); normally ablaut in these elements had been abolished (e.g.*dȷ́ h-ā́m- : *dȷ́ h-ám-i vs. Hittite tēkan : tagān ‘earth’). We may distinguish the following types of alternations in the ablauting element (strong vs. weak cases): 1. 2. 3. 4.

(no alternation): a) Ø-grade, b) a-grade, c) ā-grade (proterodynamic) Ø-grade ~ a-grade (cf. Kümmel 2014a) (hysterodynamic) a-grade ~ Ø-grade (amphi-/holodynamic) ā˘-grade ~ a) a-grade; b) Ø-grade

This “ā˘-grade” is the reflex of PIE *o-grade; the quantitative variation depends on syllable structure: ā in an open syllable, but a in a closed syllable (Brugmann’s Law). Thus, it is not always clearly distinct from invariable a-grade (PIE *e-grade) or ā-grade (PIE *ē/ō-grade). 5. (acrodynamic) strong ā-grade ~ a) a-grade; b) Ø-grade With respect to accentuation, evidence from Iranian is very limited, and faute de mieux, we will mostly have to rely on Vedic alone. It seems that only three types were regularly and productively distinguished in PII: A. Fixed accent on the root (or reduplication).

1890

XVII. Indo-Iranian

B. Fixed accent on the suffix, shifting to the ending in some special cases. When an ending beginning with a vowel was attached to a suffix ending in a short high vowel, the accent shifted from this − originally non-syllabic − vowel to the ending, cf. *Hag-ni̯ -ā́ vs. *Hag-nái̯ -ai̯ , *Hag-ní-šu (Wackernagel and Debrunner 1930: 14); originally, this rule probably also applied in the gen. pl. (*Hagni̯ -áHam), and the resulting accentuation was preserved when this form was remade to *HagnīnáHam (likewise in u-stems, Wackernagel and Debrunner 1930: 20). Since this remaking was PII, the accent rule must also be PII. C. Oxytone mobile accent, normally alternating between the penultimate element in the strong forms and the last element in the weak forms. In weak nominal stems of this type, the place of the accent could also alternate between the ending and the penultimate element: before endings beginning with a consonant, the suffix was accented in monosyllabic stems in -i/u/r- and all polysyllabic stems; therefore, we find *mā-tr-ás, *hukš-n-ás, *diu̯-ás but *mā-tŕ̥-b hiš, *hukš-á-b hiš, *di̯ ú-b hiš instead of otherwise expected *mā-tr̥-b híš, *hukš-a-b híš, *di̯ u-b híš (cf. *pad-b híš, *dad-b híš). Two other mobile types were rather exceptional. A fourth type D with alternation between the root and the suffix only survived in a few u-stem neuters of type 2 with preserved root ablaut: *dā́r-u ~ *dr-áu̯-š ‘wood’ (phonologically, this might be classified as type A, since the accent always is on the first syllable). Otherwise this kind of mobility had been given up in PII, but we find some extraparadigmatic relics. We might also set up a type E where alternation between the first element and the ending was the rule; it was preserved unchanged in some of the few words of type 4b that also preserved root ablaut, e.g. *pánt-ā- ~ pat-h(ь)- ‘path’. But in words of type 1a, initial stress was preserved only when the suffix was non-syllabic; when it was syllabic, the accent was shifted to the suffix as in type C (at least in Vedic). Tab. 111.1: Ablaut types and accentuation in PII 1a

1b

1c

2

3

4a

4b

5a

5b

A

+

+

+

+

(+)

+

+

+

−

B

+

+

+

+

−

(+)

−

−

−

C

+

+

−

−

+

+

+

−

(+)

The possible combinations of the common ablaut and accentuation types are displayed in Table 111.1. The combinations 1aC, 1bC, 3A, 4aB and 5bC seem to be innovations: 1aC could develop from 3C or 4bC when ablaut was given up, or from 1aE by regularization. Last but not least, 1bC and some other cases of 1b developed from 3 by leveling of ablaut. This was regular in all roots of the type *(H)aC-, if C was not a semivowel; here paradigmatic ablaut survived only in the substantive verb *Hás-/*(H)s- ‘be’. 3A developed from 4bA, when ā˘ grade became unclear in the verbal system of presents and aorists (cf. 6.2). 4aB was transformed from 4bC by generalizing the ablaut and accent of the locative (cf. Tremblay 1996b: 32 on *tmán-). 5bC (mostly in verbs) may be postPII and was achieved by contamination of the strong stem of 5aA by the weak of 3C or 4bC.

111. The morphology of Indo-Iranian

1891

1. Nouns 1.1. Categories Nouns were inflected for three numbers: singular, dual, plural, and eight cases: vocative, nominative, accusative, instrumental, dative, ablative, genitive, and locative. These two categories were marked together by fusional endings. Nouns were assigned to one of the three genders: masculine, feminine, and neuter. The numbers were always distinctly represented, except in some cases where neuter plurals in long vowels had short vowel variants falling together with the singular, e.g. *u̯ásū ~ *u̯ásu ‘goods’. Vocative, nominative, and accusative were always uniformly represented in the dual and all numbers of the neuter. The ablative did not have a separate form except in the singular of “thematic” stems; otherwise it coincided with the genitive in the singular or the dative in the dual and plural. The vocative dual and plural (sometimes even singular) were always formed like the nominative, but could differ in accentuation. As in other IE languages, masculine and feminine gender largely correlated with natural sex, wherever this could be assignable. Words for living beings could be ambisexual, so that their gender assignment depended on reference (e.g., *gā́u̯š was feminine, if meaning ‘cow’; if males were included or not excluded, the word was masculine). But in contrast to some other old IE languages, derived feminines were the rule (e.g., *Háću̯ā ‘mare’, *u̯r̥ḱī́š ‘female wolf’, *dai̯ u̯ī́ ‘goddess’). Otherwise, the gender assignment could not be predicted from the meaning. Even if neuters were still mostly (but not necessarily) inanimate, there were many inanimate words of the other two genders. Thus, gender was mainly an agreement category.

1.2. Stem formation In ablauting stems, the normal distribution of stem variants was as follows: The strong stem was used in the vocative and nominative throughout, and in the accusative singular and dual of non-neuter stems, and sometimes in the nominative-accusative plural of neuters. In all other cases, the weak stem was used (incl. the nom.-acc. du. neuter). In the locative singular, Ø-grade is always replaced by a-grade or (regularly in i-stems) āgrade, and the ending was never accented. Thus it may resemble forms of the strong stem. Generally, this distribution seems to be identical to that seen in other ancient IE languages but for one case: The accusative plural of non-neuters (“weak” in PII) should be a “strong” case, if we consider the ending **-ms that never shows full-grade variants. Neither in Hittite nor in Greek nor in the evidence retrievable from other families is there any clear evidence for the accusative plural showing a different stem variant than the nominative (except for i- and u-stems, on which see below). Nevertheless, the PII situation has often been claimed to be PIE. However, as Hock (1974) has convincingly shown, the “weak” status of the accusative plural in PII could be an innovation. It was motivated by the fact that only in this branch did the endings of the nominative *-es and of the accusative**-m̥s fall together in *-as, if a consonant preceded them. Thus, the

1892

XVII. Indo-Iranian

important distinction of these primary grammatical cases was in danger of being lost, and it was re-established by introducing the stem and/or accent of the weak cases in the accusative. The accusative plural of i- and u-stems could provide a starting point, since here nearly all IE languages reflect a difference in ablaut between nominative and accusative plural. In these stem classes, another strong deviation from the normal distribution was preserved in PII: In the most common ablaut type 2, singular and plural show an inverse distribution of stem variants in the suffix: *-i- : *-ai̯ - in the singular (although the vocative agrees with the weak cases), but *-ai̯ - : *-i- in the plural (in the dual, forms with a full-grade suffix of the strong cases are exceptional). A slightly different deviation from the normal distribution is attested in the ablauting ī-stems: here only the oblique cases of the singular show the weak stem with suffix *-i̯ ā- in contrast to *-ī- in all other forms; it is not clear whether or not this distribution was already PIE. In any case, this special kind of variation was extended to ā-stems in PII only (see 1.4.8 below). Tab. 111.2: Nominal endings of PII Sg.

Du.

Pl.

Vocative

*-Ø

*-ā(u̯) ~ -(:)Ø

*-as ~ -S / -asas

Nominative

*-S ~ -Ø

*-ā(u̯) ~ -(:)Ø

*-as ~ -S / -asas

Accusative

*-am ~ -m

*-ā(u̯) ~ -(:)Ø

*-ás ~ -(:)nS

NAV neuter

*-Ø / -m

*-ī

*-Ø ~ -:/-i h

h

Instrumental

*-ā́ ~ -:

*-b i̯ ā́ (m) / -i̯ b i̯ ā(m)

*-b híš / -:i̯ š

Dative

*-ái̯

*-b hi̯ ā́ (m) / -i̯ b hi̯ ā(m)

*-b hi̯ ás / -i̯ b hi̯ as

Ablative

*-ás ~ -S / -ad

*-b hi̯ ā́ (m) / -i̯ b hi̯ ā(m)

*-b hi̯ ás / -i̯ b hi̯ as

Genitive

*-ás ~ -S

*-Hā́ s / -i̯ ās

*-áHam ~ -:náHam

Locative

*-Ø ~ -i

*-Háu̯ / -i̯ au̯

*-Sú / -i̯ šu

1.3. Endings and terminations The nominal endings of PII are given in Table 111.2, where -S indicates an underlying voiceless sibilant subject to variant sandhi realizations. Variation depending on stem class or ablaut (first variant more frequent or more basic, typically that of consonantal stems with mobile stress) is marked by ~. Variants following the / belong to thematic stems only. These special terminations of thematic stems were normally identical with (the shorter forms of) pronominal terminations, mostly by insertion of *-i/i̯ - before the normal ending (gen.-loc. du., abl.-dat. and loc. pl., see 4.1 for discussion of these special endings). In the instr. and loc. pl., these special variants seem to be late PIE; no IE language clearly presupposes “regular” forms like *-o-b hi(s) and *-o-su (or *-o-si): Old Irish -aib could continue *-obis as well as *-oi̯ bis (and in any case, it could have been influenced by the dative *-obos attested for Celtic by Gaulish). It is not clear whether the Anatolian dative-locative plural *-os (> Hitt. -as, Lycian -e) continues a thematic form *-o-s(u/i) since an older athematic ending *-os (cf. PIE *-b h-os) is equally possible.

111. The morphology of Indo-Iranian

1893

But in the instr.-dat.-abl. du. and abl.-dat. pl., other IE languages do not show this insertion, cf. Goth. -am, Lith. -am ˜ /-ám, -áms, OCS -oma, -omъ vs. pronominal Goth. -aim, Lith. -iẽm/-íem, -íems, OCS -ěma, -ěmъ. Thus it seems that in Indo-Iranian the influence of pronominal inflection had increased. Old Iranian is the only branch of IE that preserved a difference between the gen. du. and loc. du. (contaminated to *-au̯š in Indic). An initial laryngeal in the genitive is assured by the syllabic value of preceding suffixes both in the RV and in OAv. (cf. Hoffmann 1976: 561 n. 2; Beekes 1988: 113, 127); for the locative it can neither be confirmed nor disproved by an attested OAv. form (cf. Malzahn 2000: 219 n. 31). Innovations typical for PII include: 1. the dative-ablative endings *-b hi̯ ā(m), *-b hi̯ as instead of *-b hō and *-b hos of other languages; apparently, the *i of the instrumental plural has been introduced in these cases. 2. the disyllabic ending of the gen. pl. (on which see Kümmel 2013); in the gen. pl. of the *aH-stems this led to *-aHaHam which was subject to haplology and was therefore felt to be undercharacterized; the form was then remade to *-aHnaHam by analogy after stems in *-(m/u̯)an-: loc. pl. *-(m/u̯)asu : gen. Pl. *-(m/u̯)anaHam = *-aHsu : X. Then this new ending with its long vowel was analogically extended to the a-stems, so that a vowel-lengthening rule could be abduced by reanalysis, and this was taken over by the other vocalic stems (where relic n-less forms survived). 3. In the non-neuter nom.-acc. du., the thematic ending *-ā(u̯) seems to have been extended to consonantal stems − at least in Indic: however, the *-ā˘ of Iranian could theoretically go back to the old athematic ending *-h1e or *-eh1 (cf. Malzahn 2000: 205 ff.), so we cannot strictly prove that this innovation was PII. 4. The PII deictic vowel *-u in the loc. pl. *-S-u as against *-i in the loc. sg. is in agreement with Balto-Slavic in contrast to Greek and Albanian *-s-i; since*-i may have been taken from the singular, it is probably an innovation, so PII and Balto-Slavic preserve the original situation.

1.4. Stem classes and paradigms In order to show every stem variant, the following case forms are normally given in the overview which follows: sg. voc., nom., acc., gen., loc.; pl. nom., and instr. If their formation is not directly evident from the gen. sg., also instr. sg., acc., gen., loc. du., and loc. pl. may be given. The vocative is only given when different from the nominative (other than by its recessive accent). Ablaut and accentuation types are given according to the classification at the beginning of this chapter, e.g., 4aC = ablaut type 4a, accent type C.

1.4.1. Root nouns Archaic root nouns most often belonged to type 4a or 4b, mostly with mobile accent: *pā́d- ~ pad- m. ‘foot’ (4aC): sg. nom. *pā́t-s, acc. *pā́d-am ~ gen. *pad-ás, loc. *pád-i; pl. nom. *pā́d-as ~ instr. *pad-b híš; *di̯ ā́u̯- ~ *diu̯- m. ‘sky; day’ (4bC): sg. nom. *di̯ ā́u̯š, acc. *di̯ ā́-m ~ gen. *diu̯-ás, loc. *di̯ áu̯-i; pl. nom. *di̯ ā́u̯-as ~ acc. *di̯ ú-nš, instr. *di̯ úb hiš; likewise *dȷ́ hā́(m)- ~ ȷ́ hm- f. ‘earth’ (4bC): sg. nom. *dȷ́ hā́-s, acc. *dȷ́ hā́-m ~ gen.

1894

XVII. Indo-Iranian

*ȷ́ hm-ás, loc. *dȷ́ hám-i, du. nom. *dȷ́ hā́m-ā(u̯), etc. Fixed initial accent was certainly inherited sometimes: *gā́u̯- ~ *gáu̯- m. f. ‘cow, ox, bull, cattle’ (4aA): sg. nom. *gā́u̯š, acc. *gā́-m ~ gen. *gáu̯-š, loc. *gáu̯-i; pl. nom. *gā́u̯-as ~ acc. *gā́-s, instr. *gáu̯-b hiš. But in other cases, it must be a PII innovation: *ću̯ā́n- ~ ćún- m. ‘dog’ (4bA): sg. voc. *ć(ú)u̯án, nom. *ću̯ā́, acc. *ću̯ā́n-am ~ gen. *ćún-as, loc. *ću̯án-i; pl. nom. *ću̯ā́n-as ~ instr. *ću̯á-b hiš. Type 3 inflection is rarer; before a consonant cluster, it could be secondary from 4b, as in *dánt- ~ dat- m. ‘tooth’ (3C): sg. nom. *dánt-s, acc. *dánt-am ~ gen. *dat-ás, loc. *dánt-i; pl. nom. *dántas ~ instr. *dad-b híš, loc. *dat-sú. But some old cases also exist, e.g. *nár- ~ nar-/nŕ̥- m. ‘man (male)’ (3C): sg. nom. *nā́ ~ gen. *nar-ás (Vedic náras, etc. is probably secondary); pl. nom. *nár-as ~ instr.*nŕ̥-b hiš. Verbal root nouns partly belonged to this type, too (e.g. *-ǵ hán- ~ *-g hn- ‘beating, killing’ 3C), but normally had given up ablaut and gone over to type 1a or 1b: *u̯íć- f. ‘settlement, clan’ (1aC): sg. nom. *u̯íć-š, acc. *u̯íć-am ~ gen. *u̯ić-ás, etc.

1.4.2. s-stems The most productive subtype were neuters of type 1b like *Háp-as- n. ‘work’ (1bA): sg. nom.-acc. *Hápas, instr. *Hápas-ā, gen. *Hápas-as, loc. *Hápas-i; pl. nom.-acc. *Hápās, instr. *Hápaz-b hiš, loc. *Hápas-u. Much rarer were non-neuters of type 3 or 4: *b hih-ás- ~ b hī-š- ‘fear’ f. (3C): sg. nom. *b hihā́s, acc. b hihás-am ~ instr. b hīš-ā; *hušā́s- ~ huš-[š]-/huš-ás- f. ‘dawn’ (4bC): sg. voc. *húšas, nom. *hušā́s, acc. *hušā́s-am ~ gen. *huš-ás, loc. *hušás-i; pl. nom. *hušā́s-as ~ instr. *hušáz-b hiš, etc.

1.4.3. n-stems Non-neuter stems preferred type 4, as *rā́ȷ́-ān- ~ -n- m. ‘king’ (4bA): sg. voc. *rā́ȷ́an, nom. *rā́ȷ́ā, acc. *rā́ȷ́ān-am ~ gen. *rā́ȷ́n-as, loc. *rā́ȷ́an(-i); du. loc. *rā́ȷ́an-Hau̯ (*-anfrom *-n̥-); pl. nom. *rā́ȷ́ān-as ~ instr. *rā́ȷ́a-b hiš; likewise *háć-mān- ‘stone’ (4bA) and the possessive derivatives in *-(H)ān-, e.g. *i̯ ú-Hān- ~ *i̯ ú-Hn- >*i̯ úH-ān- ~ *i̯ ū́-n‘young’ (4bA): sg. acc. *i̯ úHān-am ~ gen. *i̯ ū́n-as. But for stems in *-mān- mobile accent was more usual: *prath(ь)-mā́n- ~ -mn- m. ‘width’ (4bC): sg. voc. *-man, nom. *prath(ь)-mā́, acc. *prath(ь)-mā́n-am ~ gen. *prath(ь)-mn-ás, loc. *prath(ь)-mán(i); pl. nom. *prath(ь)-mā́n-as, instr. *prath(ь)-má-b hiš. A special case of 4aC/B with preserved root ablaut is represented by *(H)aHt-mā́n- ~ *(H)Ht-mán- >*(H)āt-mā́n- ~ (H)t-mán- m. ‘breath’: sg. voc. *(H)ā́tman, nom. *(H)ātmā́ , acc. *(H)ātmā́n-am ~ gen. *(H)tmán-s/(H)tman-ás, loc. *(H)tmán(-i), etc. Much rarer was type 3, e.g. *hukš-án- ~ -n- m. ‘young bull’ (3C): sg. voc. *húkšan, nom. *hukšā́, acc. *hukšán-am ~ gen. *hukšn-ás etc., likewise *(H)ari̯ a-mán- m. ‘(god of) hospitality’ (3C). Neuters inflected after type 2 and were always barytone: *nā́-man- n. ‘name’ (2A): sg. nom.-acc. *nā́ma, gen. *nā́man-s, loc. *nā́man-i; pl. nom.-acc. *nā́mān, instr. *nā́ma-b hiš. Stems in *-ín- are well established in Indic but poorly attested in Iranian. Their suffix did not ablaut, e.g. *parn-ín- ‘having wings’ (1aB): sg. nom. *parnī́, acc. parnín-am, etc.

111. The morphology of Indo-Iranian

1895

1.4.4. r/n-stems This archaic class of heteroclitic nouns included only neuters: On the one hand, we find non-ablauting paradigms: *(H)ás-r/n- ‘blood’ (1aC): sg. nom.-acc. *(H)ásr̥(-k), gen. *(H)asn-ás; likewise *rā́ȷ́-r-/-n- n. ‘command’ (1aA). But especially with a more complex suffix, also type 2 inflection existed: *d hán-u̯r̥-/-u̯an- n. ‘bow’ (2A): sg. nom.-acc. *d hánu̯r̥, gen. *d hánu̯an-s, loc. *d hánu̯an(-i); pl. nom.-acc. *d hánu̯ān. Other stem types with a heteroclitic n-stem are attested in Indic, but not supported by Iranian.

1.4.5. r-stems These were normally non-neuters and were influenced by vocalic stems in some forms. A class of nouns for relatives belonged to type 3: *mā-tár- ~ -tr- f. ‘mother’ (3C): sg. voc. *mā́tar, nom. *mātā́, acc. *mātár-am ~ gen. *mātr-ás, loc. *mātár(-i); du. loc. *mātər-(H)áu̯; pl. *mātár-as ~ acc. *mātŕ̥-nš, instr. *mātŕ̥-b hiš; likewise *dahi-u̯ár- m. ‘husband’s brother’ (3C) etc. and *b hrā́-tar- m. ‘brother’ (3A). But type 4b inflection was more common, especially for the productive agent nouns in *-tār-: *ȷ́ háu̯-tār- ~ -tr- m. ‘*pourer > main priest’ (4bA): sg. voc. *ȷ́ háu̯tar, nom. *ȷ́ háu̯tā, acc. *ȷ́ háu̯tār-am ~ instr. *ȷ́ háu̯tr-ā, gen. *ȷ́ háu̯tr̥-š, loc. *ȷ́ háu̯tar(-i); du. loc. *ȷ́ háu̯tər-(H)au̯; pl. *ȷ́ háu̯tār-as ~ acc. *ȷ́ háu̯tr̥-nš, instr. *ȷ́ háu̯tr̥-b hiš; likewise, *su̯á-sār- f. ‘sister’ (4bA). Oxytone nomina agentis like *ȷ́anH(ь)tā́r- ‘progenitor’ (4bC) normally inflected alike, but relic forms point to a secondary transition from type 3C (cf. Tichy 1995: 57 f.). An isolated type without suffixal ablaut is represented by the Iranian word *(h)ā́tr̥- ~ (h)ātr- m. ‘fire’ (1aC; cf. Tremblay 2003: 20 ff.): sg. voc. *(h)ā́tr̥, nom. *(h)ā́tr̥-š, acc. *(h)ā́tr̥-m ~ gen. *(h)ātr-ás. It is often assumed that this word was secondarily “masculinized” from a neuter nom.-acc. **(h)ā́tr̥, but we have no evidence for such a neuter, and old masculines with zero-grade suffix need not have been confined to vocalic stems. Non-heteroclitic neuters in *-r- are non-existent in Indic and very rare in Avestan (aodr- ‘cold’ seems to be the only clear example).

1.4.6. i- and u-stems The “standard” inflection was type 2 for both classes alike: *(H)ag-ní- ~ -nái̯ - m. ‘fire’ (2B): sg. voc. *(H)ágnai̯ , nom. *(H)agní-š, acc. *(H)agní-m ~ instr. *(H)agnī́, gen. *(H)agnái̯ -š, loc. *(H)agnā́i̯ ; du. loc. *(H)agnii̯ -áu̯; pl. nom. *(H)agnái̯ as ~ acc. *(H)agní-nš, instr. *(H)agní-b hiš, gen. *(H)agnī-náHam, and likewise *sū-nú- ~ -náu̯- m. ‘son’ (2B): sg. voc. *sū́nau̯, nom. *sūnú-š, acc. *sūnú-m ~ instr. *sūnū́, gen. *sūnáu̯-š; du. loc. *sūnuu̯-áu̯; pl. nom. *sūnáu̯-as ~ acc. *sūnú-nš, instr. *sūnú-b hiš, gen. *sūnū-náHam. Fixed accent was equally possible: *Háǵ h-i- m. ‘snake, dragon’ (2A) or *ȷ́ánH(ь)-tu- m. ‘birth; living being’ (2A). Other types were rarer, but occurred in some frequent words. Type 1 is the most common among these: *(H)ar-í- ~ -i̯ - m. ‘foreigner’ (1bC): sg. nom. *(H)arí-š, acc. *(H)arí-m, instr. *(H)ari̯ -ā́, gen. *(H)ari̯ -ás, loc. *(H)arā́i̯ (?); pl. nom. = acc. *(H)ari̯ -ás, instr. *(H)arí-b hiš, gen. *(H)ari̯ -áHam; likewise *raH-í-/rā́-i̯ - ~ *rā-i̯ - ‘possession, wealth’ (1bE) and *pát-i- m. ‘husband’ (1bA, but in

1896

XVII. Indo-Iranian

the meaning ‘lord, master’ it had a regular 2A inflection), *háu̯-i- f. ‘sheep’. *pać-ú- ~ -u̯- m. ‘(head of) livestock’ (1bC): sg. nom. *paćú-š, acc. *paćú-m ~ instr. *paću̯-ā́, gen. *paću̯-ás; pl. nom. = acc. *paću̯-ás ~ instr. *paćú-b hiš, gen. *paću̯-áHam; likewise *náh-u-/nā́-u̯- ~ nā-u̯- ‘boat’ (1bE) and *krát-u- ‘mental force (?)’ (1bA). Even rarer is type 4 (in Indic, it survived only in the following word): *sákh-āi̯ - ~ -i̯ - m. ‘fellow, companion, friend’ (4bA): sg. voc. *sákhai̯ , nom. *sákhā, acc. *sákhāi̯ -am ~ instr. *sákhi̯ -ā (?), gen. *sákhi̯ -as, loc. *sákhāi̯ ; pl. nom. *sákhāi̯ -as ~ acc. *sákhi-nš, instr. *sákhi-b hiš, gen. *sákhi̯ -aHam. *dás-i̯ āu̯- ~ -i̯ u(u̯)- m. ‘foreign people/country’ (4bA, oxytone accent cannot be deduced from OAv. forms with dax́ii°, cf. de Vaan 2003: 571 f., 575 f.): sg. voc. *dási̯ au̯, nom. *dási̯ āu̯-š, acc. *dási̯ ā-m ~ instr. *dási̯ ū, gen. *dási̯ uu̯as; pl. nom. *dási̯ āu̯-as ~ acc. *dási̯ u-nš, instr. *dási̯ u-b hiš, gen. *dási̯ ū-naHam. OAv. hiθąm (to hiθāuš ‘companion’, cf. Geldner 1890: 532) and vaiiąm to vaiiu- (Remmer 2011: 15 f.) show that the PIE formation of the acc. sg. of stems in *-ā˘u̯- had survived not only in the root nouns *di̯ áu̯-, *gā́u̯- but also in other words (cf. Cantera 2007). A type 3C in *-ái̯ -/*-áu̯- has been discussed but is not assured for PII; it may have existed in Pre-PII. E.g., Tichy (2006b: 79) reconstructs *pk̑-éu̯- ‘head of livestock’, which was remodeled to PII *pać-ú- 1bC. A type 3C strong stem *kau̯H-ái̯ - < *kou̯H-éi̯ is often reconstructed for *kau̯Hí- ‘seer’ (cf. Hoffmann 1976: 488 f.), but Tremblay (1996a: 104 f. with n. 30) reconstructs *kau̯-ā́i̯ - < *kou̯h2-ói̯ - (4bC). Everything depends on whether YAv. acc. sg. kauuaēm presupposes *-ai̯ am in contrast to *-āi̯ am in OAv. huš.haxāim, which cannot be considered certain. Even if the distinction of āi : aē is far more consistent in the manuscripts than in the case of āu : ao (cf. de Vaan 2003: 377), shortening of original *āi̯ am to aēm is attested by YAv. aēm ‘egg’ (de Vaan 2003: 120). An original *kauuāim might additionally have been influenced by near-identical kauuaēm, nom.-acc. sg. n. of the adjective kauuaiia- occurring in the very same text (Yt. 19). i-stem neuters were very rare, but neuters in *-u- were well established. Beside the “standard” type 2 inflection, there was also an archaic subtype with preserved root ablaut: *dā́r-u-/ dr-áu̯- ‘wood’ (2D): sg. nom. *dā́ru, gen. *dráu̯-š (likewise *hā́i̯ u ‘life’, *ȷ́ā́nu ‘knee’, and *sā́nu ‘back’). Also type 1 inflection is found: *mád h-u- ‘honey, mead’ (1bA): sg. nom. *mád hu, gen. *mád hu̯-as, etc.

1.4.7. ı̄ - and ū -stems (mostly f.) These stems inflected like root nouns of type 1, the only difference being that their accent was never mobile, but fixed on the suffix (except in compounds): *u̯r̥k-ī́/íH- f. ‘female wolf’ (1B): sg. nom. *u̯r̥kī́-š, acc. *u̯r̥kíH-am, gen. *u̯r̥kíH-as, loc. *u̯r̥kī́; pl. nom. = acc. *u̯r̥kíH-as, instr. *u̯r̥kī́-b hiš, gen.*u̯r̥kī́-naHam; likewise*rathī́- m. ‘charioteer’ 1B. *tan-ū́/úH- f. ‘body’ (1B): sg. nom. *tanū́-š, acc. *tanúH-am, gen. *tanúH-as, loc. *tanū́; pl. nom. = acc. *tanúH-as, instr. *tanū́-b hiš, gen. *tanū́-naHam. In one special case, a different strong stem and inflection after type 3 is attested: *ȷ́iȷ́ hu̯áH- ~ ȷ́iȷ́ húH- m. ‘tongue’ (3B/C): sg. nom. *ȷ́iȷ́ hu̯ā́-s, acc. *ȷ́iȷ́ hu̯áH-am, gen. *ȷ́iȷ́ húH-as (preserved in Avestan but split into two paradigms jihvā́-, juhū́- in Vedic; for the original inflection of this word and its development see EWAia I: 591 f. with references).

111. The morphology of Indo-Iranian

1897

1.4.8. *ı̄-/i̯ ā -stems and *ā -/ai̯ ā -stems (always f.) Two classes of feminines differ from all others by special endings in the nominatives (sg. *-Ø, du. *-ī, pl. *-S), a peculiar distribution of strong and weak stems, and fixed accent. First, there were ī-stems very different from the preceding and showing inflection after type 2: *dai̯ u̯-ī́/íh- ~ -i̯ ā́- f. ‘goddess’ (2B): sg. voc. *dái̯ u̯-i, nom. *dai̯ u̯-ī́, acc. *dai̯ u̯ī́-m ~ gen. *dai̯ u̯i̯ ā́-s, loc. *dai̯ u̯i̯ ā́; du. nom. *dai̯ u̯ī́, loc. *dai̯ u̯ih-áu̯; pl. nom. = acc. *dai̯ u̯ī́-š, instr. *dai̯ u̯ī́-b hiš, gen.*dai̯ u̯ī́-naHam. Likewise *nā́r-ī- f. ‘woman’ (2A). Second, the old PIE *ah2-stems inflected in a similar way: *Haȷ́-ā́- ~ -ái̯ ā- ‘female goat’ (1B): sg. voc. *Háȷ́ai̯ , nom. *Haȷ́ā́, acc. *Haȷ́ā́-m ~ instr. *Haȷ́-ā́/Haȷ́-ái̯ ā, gen. *Haȷ́ái̯ ās, loc. *Haȷ́ái̯ ā; du. nom. *Haȷ́ái̯ (i̯ ), loc. *Haȷ́ái̯ -Hau̯; pl. nom. = acc. *Haȷ́ā́-s, instr. *Haȷ́ā́-b hiš, gen.*Haȷ́ā́-naHam. Likewise *(H)áć-u̯ā- ‘mare’ (1A). Originally these had a uniform suffix *-ā-/*-ah-, but a peculiar analogical remodeling after the ī/i̯ ā-stems had disturbed the original inflection of the singular (in the genitive and locative dual, *-ai̯ is rather taken from the nominative). The inflection of the PII ā-stems can be obtained in a very straightforward way from that of the ī/i̯ ā-stems by simply replacing long *-īby *-ā- and short or non-syllabic *-i/i̯ - by *-ai̯ - (which implies *-i̯ ā- → *-ai̯ ā-); for an account of the details see Lühr (1991: 175−182). In Indic and Old Persian, *-ai̯ ā- was analogically replaced by *-āi̯ ā-, wherever the pronominal termination had *-asi̯ ā-. In the instrumental this did not happen, because here *-ai̯ ā was directly supported by the pronominal termination.

1.4.9. a-stems (thematic stems, m. or n.) Last but not least there was the very productive class of “thematic” stems. They belonged to type 1 and had fixed accent: *dai̯ u̯á- m. ‘heavenly, god’ (1bB): sg. voc. *u̯ī́ra, nom. *dai̯ u̯á-s, acc. *dai̯ u̯á-m, gen. *dai̯ u̯á-si̯ a, loc. *dai̯ u̯á-i̯ ; du. nom. *dai̯ u̯ā́(u̯), loc. *dai̯ u̯á-i̯ -(H)au̯; pl. nom. *dai̯ u̯ā́s(as), acc. *dai̯ u̯ā́-ns, instr. *dai̯ u̯ā́i̯ š, gen. *dai̯ u̯ā́naHam, loc. *dai̯ u̯á-i̯ šu. Likewise *(H)áć-u̯a- m. ‘horse’ (1bA). In the neuter, the special forms if made from *i̯ ug-á- n. ‘yoke’ (1aB) would be sg. *i̯ ugá-m, du. *i̯ ugá-i̯ (i̯ ), pl. *i̯ ugā́; likewise *dā́-tra- n. ‘sickle’ < *dáH-tra- (1bA).

2. Adjectives 2.1. Categories In addition to the categories of nouns, adjectives could be inflected in three genders and in the three grades positive, comparative, and superlative. Otherwise, their inflection was identical to noun inflection; there were no special adjectival endings or terminations. Typically, masculine and neuter forms coincided in all cases but in the nominative, accusative, and vocative, while feminine forms were taken from a derived stem formed by means of the suffixes *-ī- (from thematic ordinals, secondary comparatives and superlatives in -[t]ara-, -[t]ama-), *-ī-/-i̯ ā- (from all athematic stems, including primary comparatives and superlatives, and some thematic adjectives) and *-ā- (from all other the-

1898

XVII. Indo-Iranian

matic stems). But at least in many compounds, the feminine was not derived, and its forms were identical with the masculine.

2.2. Inflection Since there is no difference in principle from noun inflection, only some types confined to adjectives shall be mentioned: nt-stems: Active participles belonged to type 1a or 3: *s-ánt- ~ -at- ‘being’ (3C): sg. nom. *sánt-s, acc. *sánt-am ~ gen. sat-ás → fem. sg. nom. *sat-ī́ ~ gen. sat-i̯ ā́-s. Possessive adjectives in *-u̯ant- were inflected in the same way. s-stems: Simple adjectives in -ás- belonged to 1b (thus they differed only in accentuation from neuter abstracts): *Hap-ás- ‘working, active’ (1bB). Another type is represented by perfect participles, e.g. *u̯id-u̯ā́s- ~ -úš- ‘knowing’ (4bB): sg. voc. *u̯ídu̯as, nom. m. *u̯idu̯ā́s, acc. m. *u̯idu̯ā́s-am, nom. acc. n. *u̯idu̯ás ~ gen. *u̯idúš-as, loc. *u̯idu̯ás-i → fem. sg. nom. *u̯idúš-ī ~ gen. u̯idúš-i̯ ā-s. A group of “pronominal” thematic adjectives could use pronominal endings, e.g. *(H)ani̯ á- ‘other’ or *u̯íću̯a- ‘all, every’. But since the Old Indo-Iranian languages disagree in details, the PII state is difficult to reconstruct (cf. de Vaan 2003: 9 f.).

2.3. Gradation There were two ways of forming the higher grades: 1. From the (full-grade) root by means of the suffixes *-i̯ ās-/-i̯ as- (4aA) and *-išthá(1bA/B) respectively, e.g. *háu̯ǵ-i̯ ās- ‘stronger’, *háu̯ǵ-ištha- ‘strongest’ to *hug-rá‘strong’, formed directly from the root *hau̯g-. These formations still look derivational rather than inflectional, and they could also be used as comparatives or superlatives to other derivatives of the root (e.g. verbal nouns and even finite verbs). They could only be used for primary adjectives and are certainly inherited (as derivational suffixes). In PII, the original ablaut of the comparative suffix was simplified: zero grade *-iš- was replaced by full grade *-i̯ as- (4b → 4a), but it remained in the derived superlative *-iš-tha-. Inflection of *u̯ás-i̯ ās- ~ -i̯ as- ‘better’ (4aA): sg. voc. *u̯ási̯ as, nom. m. *u̯ási̯ ās, acc. m. *u̯ási̯ ās-am, nom. acc. n. *u̯ási̯ as ~ gen. *u̯ási̯ as-as, loc. *u̯ási̯ as-i; pl. nom. *u̯ási̯ ās-as, instr. *u̯ási̯ az-b hiš, loc. *u̯ási̯ as-u. → fem. sg. nom. *u̯ási̯ as-ī ~ gen. *u̯ási̯ as-i̯ ā-s. 2. From the stem of the positive by means of the secondary suffixes *-tara- and *-tama(both 1A), e.g. *u̯idúš- ‘knowing’ → *u̯idúš-tara- ‘knowing better’. This type was the only one possible for all more complex adjectives (i.e. secondary derivatives, compounds, perfect participles). Normally, it was not used for primary adjectives that could form their grades directly from the root. The suffixes are inherited, too, but it is only in Greek that we find a similarly extended use of *-tero- and *-tm̥-to- > *-tato-. In the other IE languages, *-tero- and *-tm̥Ho- (and shorter *-ero-, *-m̥Ho-) are confined to derivations of pronouns and particles, a usage also well established in PII. Thus, the expansion into adjectival gradation seems to be a common innovation of Greek and Indo-Iranian.

111. The morphology of Indo-Iranian

1899

3. Numerals 3.1. Cardinals For obvious semantic reasons, cardinal numerals could not normally be inflected for number (the plural of ‘one’ was used only in the non-numeral meaning ‘some [individuals]’). Otherwise, ‘1−4’ were inflected like adjectives, all others were inflected like nouns (i.e., they do not show a gender distinction); ‘5−19’ could be uninflected. Of the PIE words for ‘1’, *sém- had disappeared as an independent lexical item in PII, as in many other branches, and from the different derivatives of *ai̯ -, the stem *Hai̯ u̯a- became the regular numeral (preservation of *Hai̯ na- as a demonstrative pronoun is disputed). In Indic, *Hai̯ u̯a- was replaced by *Hái̯ ka- as a numeral but survived in some adverbial forms. All these words inflected like ordinary adjectives in -a/ā- (but could take pronominal endings like some adjectives, cf. 2.1.0). *d(u)u̯á- ‘2’ inflected likewise as an ordinary thematic dual with a feminine *d(u)u̯ā́-. *trí- (2C) ‘3’ and *ḱatu̯ā́r- ~ ḱatur- (4bB) ‘4’ inflected like regular athematic plurals in -i- and -r-, respectively. However, the genitive of ‘3’ seems to have been *trai̯ -áHam (not *trīnáHam). Their feminine was formed with a peculiar suffix *-(a)Sr- (1aC): nom. = acc. *tišr-ás, *ḱátasr-as, instr. *tišŕ̥-b hiš, *ḱatasŕ̥-b hiš, gen. *tišr-áHam, *ḱatasráHam. The only comparanda of these feminines within IE are Celtic forms like *tisres, *kʷetesres > Old Irish nom. teoir ‘three’, cetheoir ‘four’ etc. (cf. Cowgill 1957; Kim 2008). The mobile accent (type E) of *ḱatasr- is peculiar. The numbers ‘five’ to ‘ten’ could remain uninflected and had no nominative endings. When inflected, all forms exhibited final/mobile accentuation. *šu̯áćš ‘6’ (cf. Lubotsky 2000) behaved like an ordinary consonant stem, and while *(H)aštā́(u̯) ‘8’ itself looks like a dual, its inflected forms were ordinary ā-stem plural forms. All the others ended in *-á/-a: *pánḱa ‘5’, *saptá ‘7’, *náu̯a ‘9’, *dáća ‘10’; they were inflected like neuter n-stems except in the gen. pl.: *daćá-b hiš, *daćā-náHam, etc. *u̯inćatī́ ‘20’ (for the nasal cf. Vedic viṁśatí- which is supported by Ossetic Digor insæj, while the nasal was regularly lost elsewhere in Iranian) seems to have been an old neuter dual form, but an inflected noun *u̯inćánt- could perhaps also be used (tistem inflection in Vedic is secondary). From ‘30’ on, the cardinals were always inflected as singular nouns that could form a dual and plural. The tens were feminine nouns with the suffixes **-dćánt-/-dćat- > *-nćá(n)t-/-(H)ćá(n)t- (3C; 30−50): *tri-nćánt-, *ḱatu̯r̥-(H)ćánt-, *panḱā-ćánt- and *-tí(2B; 60−90): *šu̯aš-tí-, *sapta-tí-, *(H)aćH(ь)-tí- (< **HaćtH-tí-), *nau̯a-tí-. The words for ‘100’ and ‘1000’ were neuters: *ćatá-m, *saȷ́ hásra-m.

3.2. Ordinals All ordinals were inflected like thematic adjectives of the a-class, for 1−4 the feminine was an ā-stem, from 5 on it was an ī-stem: For ‘1st’, a suppletive pronominal adjective was used; we find three variants: *pə́r(H)u̯a-/*pər(H)u̯ii̯ á-/*pr̥thamá- (cf. Pkt. puḍhamaand analogically modified Vedic prathamá-). For ‘2nd’, PIE likewise had a suppletive word, but in PII this was replaced by *du̯i-tíi̯ a-, formed by analogy to inherited *tr̥-tíi̯ a‘3rd’. A shorter form of the same suffix was preserved in *(k)tur-íi̯ a- ‘4th’. The next two

1900

XVII. Indo-Iranian

took a suffix *-thá- < *-t-h2ó- attached to the weak “root” of the cardinal: *pak-thá‘5th’ and *šuš-thá- ‘6th’ (cf. Hoffmann 1975: 190; Iranian *puxθa- ‘5th’ > av. puxδa-, khot. pūha- owes its vowel to the preceding and following numeral). For ‘7th’, the earliest Old Indo-Iranian texts present *saptá-tha- formed with the same suffix, but the variant *saptam(h)á- attested in all later texts could be inherited < *saptm̥há- < *septm̥h2ó-. Together with *daćm̥-há- > *daćam(h)á- ‘10th’, this allowed a reanalysis of *°amá- → *°a-má-, providing the basis for the abstraction of a new suffix *-má-, that was used for the numbers in between: *(H)ašta-m(h)á- ‘8th’ and *nau̯a-m(h)á- ‘9th’ (in later stages it was extended to other numbers). From 20 on, the superlative suffix *-tam(h)áwas used: ‘20th’ *u̯īnća(n)ts-tam(h)á-, ‘100th’ *ćata-tam(h)á-, etc. Since the use of *-tm̥h2ó- for the higher ordinals seems to recur in Latin, it has been reconstructed for PIE, too. But most other languages disagree, and we might assume a parallel introduction of the regular superlative suffix in both branches.

3.3. Other numerals Adjectives with possessive and distributive meaning were formed at least from ‘2’ and ‘3’ by a suffix *-á-: *du̯ai̯ á-, *trai̯ á-. For higher numbers, a PII suffix is difficult to reconstruct. A distributive adverb could be formed by adding *-ćás to the cardinal number: *nau̯a-ćás ‘nine each’. For the first four numbers special iterative adverbs existed: 2 *du̯íš ‘twice’, 3 *tríš ‘thrice’, 4 *ḱatrúš ‘four times’ were inherited, but 1 *sakŕ̥t ‘once’ is a specific innovation of PII: *sa- ‘one’ + *-kr̥t- ‘turn, time’. Otherwise, iterative adverbs were formed periphrastically with words for ‘time, turn’.

4. Gendered pronouns 4.1. Categories and terminations Pronouns were inflected like adjectives, though without gradation. The terminations differed from those of nouns in some cases, and stem extensions were inserted before the oblique endings more often than in nominal a-stems: *-sm- in the singular m./n., *-si̯ in the singular f., *-i̯ - in the plural m./n. and in the dual. Some of these extensions had also been taken over by thematic nouns and adjectives (cf. 1.3). For the b h-cases of the thematic dual, Indic and Iranian generalized different stem extensions: Indic shows *-ā-b hi̯ ā-m (identical with the form of the ā-stems), while Iranian shows *-ai̯ -b hi̯ ā (the YAv. forms dōiθrābiia, pāšnābiia given by Hoffmann and Forssman 1996: 120 have to be dismissed, since they can represent regular ā-stem formations). The Indic variant seems to show the influence of the masculine nom./acc., while the Iranian could show the influence of the neuter and/or the dative/ablative plural. It is difficult to reconstruct the PII or PIE state of affairs, since both forms could be innovations and the evidence of other IE languages is limited. Perhaps, masculines originally had *-āb hi̯ ā but neuters had *-ai̯ b hi̯ ā (cf. Wackernagel and Debrunner 1930: 98), both influenced by the nom.-acc. as in the plural, where most case forms can be interpreted as derived from the masculine nom. in *-ai̯ .

111. The morphology of Indo-Iranian

1901

4.2. Stem formation As is the case with many nouns, some pronouns distinguished between “strong” cases (i.e. nominative and accusative) and the rest. But there is an additional tendency to create a major difference between the nom. sg. alone (sometimes without the neuter) and all other forms. This tendency was inherited (at least in the case of *só vs. *tó-) but it was reinforced in PII: whenever new stems were created for strong cases, they were not transferred to the forms of the nom. sg. (nor, consequently, to those of the acc. sg. n., which were identical to the nominative).

4.3. Demonstratives Here the nom. sg. m. was formed without the ending *-s. For non-spatial deixis in discourse, pronouns with a peculiar alternation of s- and t- were used. The most basic pronoun of this kind was *sá-/tá-, f. *sā́-/tā́- ‘that’ (cf. Table 111.3), the inflection of which was matched by two other, more emphatic demonstratives: *si̯ á-/ti̯ á-, f. *si̯ ā́-/ti̯ ā́‘this, that’ and *ai̯ šá-/ai̯ tá-, f. *ai̯ šā́-/ai̯ tā́- ‘this, that’ (on the function of which see Kümmel 2014b). Tab. 111.3: PII inflection of demonstratives Sg. m.

Du.

n.

f.

m.

Pl. nf.

m.

n.

f.

Nom.

*sá

tá-d

sā́

tā́ (u̯)

tá-i̯ (H)

tá-i̯

tā́

tā́ -s

Acc.

*tá-m

tá-d

tā́ -m

tā́ (u̯)

tá-i̯ (H)

tá-ns

tā́

tā́ -s

h

h

Instr.

*tā́

tā́

tái̯ -ā

tā́ -b i̯ ā

tā́ -b i̯ ā

tā́ -i̯ š

tā́ -i̯ š

tā́ -b hiš

Dat.

*tá-sm-āi̯

tá-sm-āi̯

tá-si̯ āi̯

tā́ -b hi̯ ā

tā́ -b hi̯ ā

tá-i̯ -b hi̯ as

tá-i̯ -b hi̯ as

tā́ -b hi̯ as

Abl.

*tá-sm-ād

tá-sm-ād

tá-si̯ ā-s

tā́ -b hi̯ ā

tā́ -b hi̯ ā

tá-i̯ -b hi̯ as

tá-i̯ -b hi̯ as

tā́ -b hi̯ as

Gen.

*tá-si̯ a

tá-si̯ a

tá-si̯ ā-s

tá-i̯ -Hās

tá-i̯ -Hās

tá-i̯ -š-aHam

tá-i̯ -š-aHam

tā́ -s-aHam

Loc.

*tá-sm-i

tá-sm-i

tá-si̯ ā

tá-i̯ -Hau̯

tá-i̯ -Hau̯

tá-i̯ -šu

tá-i̯ -šu

tā́ -su

Nom.

*ai̯ -ám

id-ám

ih-ám

imā́ (u̯)

imá-i̯ (H)

imá-i̯

imā́

imā́ -s

Acc.

*imá-m

id-ám

imā́ -m

imā́ (u̯)

imá-i̯ (H)

imá-ns

imā́

imā́ -s

Instr.

*a-n-ā́

a-n-ā́

a-i̯ -ā́

ā-b hi̯ ā́

ā-b hi̯ ā́

ā́ -i̯ š

ā́ -i̯ š

ā-b híš

Dat.

*a-sm-ā́ i̯

a-sm-ā́ i̯

a-si̯ ā́ i̯

ā-b hi̯ ā́

ā-b hi̯ ā́

a-i̯ -b hi̯ ás

a-i̯ -b hi̯ ás

ā-b hi̯ ás

Abl.

*a-sm-ā́ d

a-sm-ā́ d

a-si̯ ā́ -s

ā-b hi̯ ā́

ā-b hi̯ ā́

a-i̯ -b hi̯ ás

a-i̯ -b hi̯ ás

ā-b hi̯ ás

Gen.

*a-si̯ á

a-si̯ á

a-si̯ ā́ -s

a-i̯ -Hā́ s

a-i̯ -Hā́ s

a-i̯ -š-áHam

a-i̯ -š-áHam

ā-s-áHam

Loc.

*a-sm-í

a-sm-í

a-si̯ ā́

a-i̯ -Háu̯

a-i̯ -Háu̯

a-i̯ -šú

a-i̯ -šú

ā-sú

1902

XVII. Indo-Iranian

Concrete spatial (and temporal) deixis was expressed by a two-term system. For proximal deixis the stem *(H)i-/(H)a-, f. *(H)ī-/(H)ā- ‘this (here)’ was used (cf. Table 111.3). Originally the stem of the strong cases was *(H)i-/(H)ai̯ -, f. *(H)ih- throughout, but in the singular, the forms were reinforced by the particle -ám in deictic usage. The extended form of the acc. sg. m. *(H)im-ám was reanalyzed as *(H)imá-m, implying immediately a new acc. sg. f. *(H)imā́-. This newly created stem*(H)imá-/(H)imā́- was then generalized to all strong cases other than the nom. sg. The old unextended forms of the accusative survived as anaphoric pronouns of the third person (cf. 5.2). The peculiar instr. sg. *(H)anā́ might originally have belonged to a different pronoun *(H)aná-, but other forms of such a stem are clearly secondary in Indo-Iranian (cf. Wackernagel and Debrunner 1930: 526 f.). Another stem *(H)ai̯ ná- cannot be reconstructed, since Vedic ená- and Persian īn are secondary formations (Klingenschmitt 1972: 94−103). For remote deixis a PII pronoun is difficult to reconstruct, since the branches disagree in all forms except the nom. sg. m. and f. *sá(h)-u. Indic has *ad-áu̯ in the nom.-acc. sg. n. and a stem *amú- elsewhere, but Iranian has a stem *au̯a- in all forms; since Vedic gen. du. avóṣ is best taken with Klein (1977: 166−171) as secondary for *ayóṣ, there is no evidence for *au̯á- in Indic. As Klein (1977: 163 ff.) has argued, originally a combination of *sá- and *a- might have been used that was reinforced by a particle of remoteness *u/*au̯. The further development of this system seems to have been independent in the individual branches. In Iranian, *au̯ was prefixed to forms of *a-, so that a stem *au̯a- resulted. In Indic, *-u was suffixed to the forms of *a-. In the nom.-acc. sg. *ad-u was then reshaped to *ad-áu̯ by analogy to *sáu (< *sá(h)u) reanalysed as *sa-áu̯. In the acc. sg. m., *am-u was recharacterized to *am-ú-m, and a new stem amú-, f. amū́- was abstracted from this (*amú-i̯ - was regularly changed to *amíi̯ - > amī́-, cf. EWAia I 99), similar to the PII creation of *(H)imá-. Thus, the distal pronouns give us no new information except for the fact that the stem *a- was not confined to proximal deixis. This is not surprising since this stem (and partly also *i-), is normally nondeictic and anaphoric in other languages. When these two stems became isofunctionally associated in PII, the addition of a remoteness particle could have been used as a way of maintaining a deictic distinction. The PII suppletive nucleus for the reshaping would have looked like this: Nom. sg. m. *sá-u, f. *sáh-u, n. *(au̯-)ád(-u), acc. sg. m. *(au̯-)ám(-u). In the nominative, Vedic added a- from the other cases. A further stem *(H)āna- is not attested in Indo-Iranian: Persian (h)ān is secondary (*hāu̯-na, Klingenschmitt 1972: 95−107).

4.4. Other pronouns All these took the regular ending *-s in the nom. sg. m. The relative pronoun was *(H)i̯ á-, f.*(H)i̯ ā́-, inflected like *sá-/tá- but for the nom. sg. m. The interrogative pronouns were also used as indefinite pronouns, especially when combined with indefinite particles like *-ḱa or *-ḱid. As Iranian shows, there were three stems: *ḱí- ‘who?, what?, someone, something’ (only nom. acc., of which only single forms survived in Indic), *ḱá- ‘someone, something(?)’ (never nom. acc., not attested in Indic), and *ká-, f. *kā́-

111. The morphology of Indo-Iranian

1903

‘which?, who?, what?’. Only the last had special feminine forms and could be used attributively. Since this difference corresponds to Early Latin quis, quid ‘who?, what?’ vs. quoi, quod ‘which?’, it was probably PIE. Less clear is the distribution of *ḱa-. Since its occurrence (only “weak” cases) is supplementary to *ḱi-, the most natural interpretation would be that it belonged to it, as *a- belonged to *i-. But since Avestan forms of ca- are never used in interrogative function, it seems to differ from ci- (it has even been assumed that *ḱa- was an unaccented variant of *ká-, Tichy 2006b: 51 f.). On closer inspection, this difference becomes rather thin. For ci-, the tendency to indefinite function is strong, too: it is obligatory in this function after the negative particle naē-, and in interrogative function ka- dominates strongly, ci- occurring mainly in formulaic sentences. That interrogative ci- survived better than ca- may simply be due to its occurrence in the more frequent grammatical cases. Thus *ḱá- may well have belonged to *ḱí-, and we can assume that already in PII *ká- had started to dominate in interrogative function even when used as a substantive, thus restricting *ḱí-/ḱa- mainly to indefinite function. For the formation of adverbs, a third stem *kú- existed.

4.5. Adverbs Pronominal adverbs could be formed by the following suffixes: static local *-tra (*tátra ‘there’, *kútra ‘where?’, *yátra ‘where’, *átra ‘[t]here’), *-d ha (*id há ‘here’, *ád ha ‘then’, *kúd ha ‘where?’), and ablatival *-tás (*itás ‘from here’, *tátas ‘from there’, *kútas ‘from where?’); temporal *-dā́ (*idā́ ‘now’, *tadā́ ‘then’, *kadā́ ‘when?’, *yadā́ ‘when’), *-di (*i̯ ádi ‘when’); modal *-thā (*táthā ‘like that’, *kathā́ ‘how?’,*itthā́ ‘like this’, *áthā ‘in this way’); quantifying *-ti ‘much/many’ (*ḱá-ti ‘how many?’, *íti ‘so [*much]’). A suffix *-H and *-(H)a are attested only in the interrogative: *kú-H > *kū́, *kúu̯a ‘where?’.

5. Personal pronouns 5.1. First and second person Specific personal pronouns did not exist except for the first and second person; in addition there was an enclitic dative of the third person. These pronouns were inflected for case only, number being expressed by the stem alone. Often the nominative was suppletive, and the other cases often were formed in a peculiar way. For the accusative and genitive-dative, there were special enclitic forms. For details see Table 111.4. In the nominative and accusative, forms enlarged by the particle *ám (note external sandhi in the 2 nd plural nominative) have largely ousted the shorter simple forms which are only (partly) preserved in Iranian (most of these are disputed, and only OAv. yūš is generally accepted). Acc. pl. *asmá+am, *ušmá+am are probably reflected by Vedic asmā́n, yuṣmā́n. In the dual and plural, the oblique stem is based on an old acc. consisting of the “zero-grade root” and a particle, *u̯á in the dual and *má in the plural.

1904

XVII. Indo-Iranian

Tab. 111.4: PII personal and possessive pronouns Sg. st

Du. nd

1

2

Nom.

*(H)áȷ́ h? *(H)aȷ́ h-ám

*túH? *tuH-ám

Acc.

− *ma-(H)ám

Instr.

*mā́ h

rd

st

3 −

Pl. nd

1

2

st

2nd

1

*u̯áH? *u̯aH-ám

*i̯ úH? *i̯ uH-ám

*u̯ái̯ ? *u̯ai̯ -ám

*i̯ ū́ š *i̯ ūž+ám

− − *tu̯a-(H)ám

*ā-u̯á *ā-u̯a-(H)ám

*i̯ u-u̯á* *i̯ u-u̯a-(H)ám

*as-má *as-ma-(H)ám

*uš-má *uš-ma-(H)ám

*tu̯ā́

*ā-u̯ā́

*i̯ u-u̯ā́

*as-mā́

*uš-mā́

− h

h

h

h

Dat.

*má-ȷ́ i̯ a

*tá-b i̯ a

−

*ā-u̯á-b i̯ a

*i̯ u-u̯á-b i̯ a

*as-má-b i̯ a

*uš-má-b hi̯ a

Abl.

*má-d

*tu̯á-d

−

*ā-u̯á-d

*i̯ u-u̯á-d

*as-má-d

*uš-má-d

Gen.

*mána

*táu̯a

−

*ā-u̯ā́ -ka-m?

*i̯ u-u̯ā́ -ka-m?

*as-mā́ -ka-m

*uš-mā́ -ka-m

Loc.

*má-(i̯ )i

*tu̯á-(i̯ )i

−

*ā-u̯á-i̯

*i̯ u-u̯á-i̯

*as-má-i̯

*usˇ-má-i̯

Encl. Acc.

*mā

*tu̯ā

−

*nā

*u̯ā

*nās

*u̯ās

Encl. DG.

*mai̯

*tai̯

*sai̯

*nā

*u̯ā

*nas

*u̯as

Possessive

*má-

*tu̯á-

*su̯á-

*au̯ā́ ka-?

*i̯ uu̯ā́ ka-?

*asmā́ ka-

*ušmā́ ka-

Possessive pronouns other than reflexive *su̯á- are lacking in Indic, Old Persian, and later Iranian, but in Avestan, analogous formations exist for all persons of the singular and may therefore be reconstructed for PII. They show pronominal inflection in Avestan and sometimes (in the case of *su̯á-) in Vedic. In the dual and plural, adjectives in *-kacould be used as possessive pronouns, and their acc. sg. n. was used as a genitive of the personal pronoun. Reflexive *s(u̯)á- is not attested as a personal pronoun in Indo-Iranian: The alleged Avestan attestations are either illusory or can be interpreted as secondary formations (cf. de Vaan 2005: 705 f.). The isolated enclitic third-person dative-genitive *sai̯ , attested in Iranian but totally absent from Indo-Aryan (Prakrit se is an independent innovation, see von Hinüber 1987: 163), looks like a form of the reflexive but has to be distinguished because of its non-reflexive usage (paralleled by Hittite -sse/-ssi, Greek hoi).

5.2. Third person Except for the enclitic dative-genitive *sai̯ , unaccented forms of the demonstrative *(H)i-/(H)a- (cf. 4.3) were used for anaphoric reference to the third person, but in the accusative there were shorter (more original) forms than the accented forms with proximal deixis: acc. sg. m. *im, n. *id, f. *īm; du. mnf. *ī ; pl. mf. *īnš, n. *ī. In a similar way, some forms of a stem *si- could be used, especially the acc. sg. *sim, f. *sīm. In Indic, the accusatives of *i- (sg. īm only preserved as a particle) were replaced by forms

111. The morphology of Indo-Iranian

1905

of a stem ena- < *ai̯ na- which may be old and go back to the distal demonstrative *nowith prefixed *(H)ai̯ -, as *(H)ai̯ -tá- from *tá- (cf. Klingenschmitt 1987: 175; Dunkel 2014: 370 fn. 41). It is not clear whether such a stem is also presupposed for Iranian by the Khotanese 3 pl. enclitic nä.

6. Verbs 6.1. Categories The three persons 1−3 and the numbers singular, dual, plural were distinguished in the usual way. The 3 pl. could also be used impersonally. The main voice distinction was between active and middle, but in the middle there was an additional distinction between a “passive” (or rather fientive/anticausative, often called “stative”) and a “non-passive” that could be made at least in the 3 sg. and 3 pl. of athematic non-perfect forms (for details, see 6.3). Otherwise, this distinction was expressed by derivation or periphrasis. Forms belonging to the “passive” subcategory could only be used if the subject was not an agent, but rather the undergoer of an action (independent of the presence of an agent, thus differing from a pure passive). On a purely temporal level, there were only two tenses: the preterit referred to the past, while the present could refer to all other times, including extra-temporal reference. The so-called future in *-si̯ a- had not yet become a real tense, but was an Aktionsart designating preparation or intention. Tense was only distinguished in the indicative mood: the present was marked by special (longer, so-called “primary”) endings, and the past was formed from the injunctive by means of a prefix *á- (the “augment”, cf. 6.2.2). There were five moods: indicative, injunctive, imperative, optative, and subjunctive. The first three were distinguished by different endings, but the last two had special (secondary) suffixes (see 6.2.2). The indicative and the injunctive stated the action as factual but differed in their illocutionary function: the indicative marked it as “reported” (and potentially new), while the injunctive just recalled a known fact (Hoffmann 1967a; Tichy 2006a: 190 ff.: “Erwähnung”; Mumm 1995 “verbal definiteness”). The imperative marked the will of the speaker that the action should take place, the optative marked it as possible (and by pragmatic implication, as desirable or prescribed), and the subjunctive marked the action as expected, (cf. Tichy 2006a: 193 ff., 198 ff., 2006b: 96−106). The injunctive had originally been an “extratemporal” tense category rather than a special mood, and this was still reflected in PII by its “basic” morphology (bare stem + most basic “secondary” endings). But in PII, the indicative present had acquired an extratemporal usage (stating general facts), and thus, the injunctive lost its “negative” temporal value and became confined to special illocutionary functions (Tichy 2006a: 192 f.). The categories of the dimension aspectuality/relative tense were distinguished by stem formation alone. Beside the prototypical distinction of imperfective (“present” stem) and perfective (“aorist” stem) aspect, there was the somewhat intermediate perfect: While originally a derived imperfective resultative, in PII it already had acquired the special status of an anterior relative tense − at least in its original present indicative that became an anterior present indicative. For the other categories of the perfect stem, this is not totally clear since they disappeared too early (for details cf. Kümmel 2000: 82−90).

1906

XVII. Indo-Iranian

The distinction between imperfective and perfective aspect is moribund outside the indicative mood of the past in Vedic and Avestan, but formal reflexes presuppose a former functional opposition which might have been present in PII (and perhaps still was in Old Avestan). Even in the indicative, the functional difference was transformed into a temporal one: in Vedic, the use of the imperfect was extended to narration in perfective contexts of the more remote past, while the aorist was confined to the recent past (Tichy 1997: 591 f.). This change can already have happened in PII, since we have no clear Iranian evidence to the contrary (real augmented past tense forms are rare in Avestan, and Old Persian has completely lost the aorist) − in fact, of the few attested augmented indicatives in Avestan, all the imperfects refer to the remote past (Kellens 1984: 244−249), and all the aorists refer to the recent past (Tichy 1997: 596 n. 14). However, Dahl (2010) has recently argued for a longer survival of the basic aspectual function of the aorist and imperfect into Vedic.

6.2. Stem formation Secondary stems (or affixes) are those that may not take further affixes and to which endings can directly be added; they generally are markers of tense-aspect and mood. Primary stems (or affixes) are those that may serve as a basis for secondary affixes (tense-mood affixes); they generally signal aspectuality/Aktionsart. Zero affixation was possible in both cases for the more basic categories (i.e. indicative, injunctive, and imperative; present and aorist stems). In ablauting stems (their subjunctives, being thematic, always aside), there is a general principle governing the choice of strong or weak stem variants: The active singular is stronger than the dual, plural and the whole middle, with the exception of the 2 sg. imperative in *-d hi. But there are some special cases, where the stronger stem is used in the domain of the weaker: a) In the 2 plural imperative. b) In the dual and plural of the root aorist injunctive and indicative, except in the 3 pl. c) Likewise in all optatives. d) In the whole indicative and injunctive of sigmatic aorists (the weaker stem is confined to the moods and the participle). Kortlandt (1987) assumes that the lengthened grade was originally confined to monosyllabic forms; in his view, Vedic injunctives like stóṣam represent the old state of affairs. But these forms are too isolated to constitute valid counterevidence against all attested Old Indo-Iranian forms of the indicative; they always stand beside well-attested subjunctives and might be influenced by them (cf. Narten 1964: 276 f.; Kümmel 2012). e) In Vedic this holds also for the injunctive and preterit plural of reduplicated presents and perfects, but the evidence is not sufficient to reconstruct this for Indo-Iranian, let alone PIE, because the Avestan data are very limited. On the one hand, 3 pl. present injunctive daidiiat̰ seems to show that reduplicated presents were not treated as in Vedic. On the other hand, OAv. cikōitər əš has been interpreted as a perfect injunctive (or “pluperfect”, Jasanoff 1997: 119 ff., 2003: 39 f.), but even its character as a finite verb form has been disputed (cf. Kümmel 2000: 635 f.). f) In “passive” aorists, only the 3 sg. exhibits a strong stem with ā˘-grade, otherwise the normal zero-grade of middle root aorists is used. In PII ā˘-grade (i.e. PIE o-grade) had a limited distribution in the verbal system: it is present only in reduplicated stems, especially perfects (in non-reduplicated *u̯ái̯ d-

111. The morphology of Indo-Iranian

1907

‘know’ it cannot be recognized any more), the 3 sg. of the “passive” aorist, and the causative in *-ái̯ a-. This means that all other possible PIE ablauting types with o-grade (cf. Jasanoff 2003: 64 ff.; Kümmel 2004: 147 ff.) must have been lost, which is easy to understand, since in any case they would have fallen together with other types in all or most forms (especially in the weak stem that often had zero-grade ablaut). When *o fell together with *e in all closed syllables, the differences became minimal, being confined to strong stems ending in one consonant when a vocalic suffix or ending was added (i.e. in the 1 sg. injunctive/preterit in -am). Therefore, we would not expect these ablaut patterns to have survived in cases where they were not functionally motivated. Most often such stems were replaced by other formations in PII, but sometimes they seem to have been thematized (e.g. *i̯ át-a-, *sphər-á-, *tud-á-, cf. Kümmel 2004: 150 ff.). Reduplication was well preserved as a means of stem formation (for a special discussion cf. Kulikov 2005: 431 ff.). Normally, the first consonant of the root was reduplicated, followed by either *i (in the present) or *a (in some present stems and elsewhere). Velars were replaced by the respective (secondary) palatals. When a root began with a laryngeal, this led to a lengthening of the reduplication vowel and other irregularities, e.g. *ha-hnánć- > *hānánć- ‘reach’; *Hǵa-Hgar- > *ǵāgár- ‘be awake’. The reduplication vowel was assimilated to the root vowel, if the weak stem contained syllabic *ī˘ or *ū˘. Thus, the original difference between *i and *a could not be upheld everywhere. This “simple” reduplication had been strongly grammaticalized in PII. Therefore iconicity was strengthened by “full” reduplication in the so-called “intensive” with its strong repetitive function: Here not only the first consonant of the root was copied, but also the first consonant of the root coda appeared after the reduplication vowel *a, e.g. *dai̯ ć- → *dái̯ -dai̯ ć- ~ *dái̯ -dić- ‘to show’. When the root ended in a plosive or affricate, the resulting cluster was simplified with lengthening of the reduplication vowel, e.g. *kać→ *ḱáć-kać- → *ḱā́-kać-. In PII, athematic stems could easily be thematized because of the formal identity of some terminations, esp. the 3 pl. active *-an(ti) < *-ent(i) = *-ont(i). This led to an increase of simple thematic stems, esp. in the aorist, but also to secondary thematic stem types, e.g. nasal-infixed *kr̥-n-t-á-. This younger tendency should not be confused with the older, pre-PII thematization claimed by Jasanoff (2003: 96 ff., 122 ff., 128 ff.) for a large number of cases, e.g. some presents in *-i̯ a- vs. athematic i-stems in Anatolian, or the thematic reduplicated type as a whole.

6.2.1. Primary stems The present stem was used for the following categories: present indicative, imperfect indicative (= present preterit), present injunctive, present subjunctive, present optative, present imperative. The traditionally defined secondary categories “future”, “desiderative” (rather a prospective according to Heenen 2006), “intensive”, “causative”, and “passive” were in fact special, productive present stems that did not have an aorist or perfect of their own (except the “passive” aorist). Even in the “normal” present, the variation in stem formation was great. In the following presentation, the classification according to Bartholomae (1894: 67−84) and Emmerick (1968: 178) is given in brackets:

1908

XVII. Indo-Iranian

1. Athematic, root with mobile accent (B1, E-Ia): 3C *CáRC- ~ CR̥C-: *(H)ás- ~ (H)s- ‘be’ (cf. Table 111.6), *(H)ái̯ - ~ (H)i-/i̯ - ‘go’, *ǵ hán- ~ g hn-/g ha(n)- ‘beat, kill’, *mráu̯H- ~ mrū- ‘speak’; middle *sū́- ‘give birth’; “passive” *d huǵ h- ‘yield (milk)’, *ćru- ‘be heard’. 1bC *Cā́- ~ Cā-: *pā́- ~ pā- ‘protect’, *u̯ā́- ~ u̯ā- ‘blow’ 2. Athematic, root with fixed accent (B4, E-Id; “Narten present”): 5aA *Cā́RC- ~ CáRC- (later → Cā́RC- ~ CR̥C-): *tā́tć- ~ tátć- ‘fashion’, *stā́u̯- ~ stáu̯- ‘praise’, *krā́mH- ~ *krámH- ‘step, walk’ (cf. Kümmel 1998: 193 f.); middle *Háuǵ- ‘speak (solemnly)’; “passive” *Hā́s- ‘sit’, *ćái̯ - ‘lie’ (cf. Table 111.7), *stáu̯‘be praised’, *u̯ás- ‘wear’. 1bA *ćā́s- ‘instruct’ (< *ćā́Hs- ~ *ćáHs-) 3. Thematic, root in a-grade (B2, E-Ib): 1bA *CáRC-a-: *b hár-a- ‘bring, bear’, *háȷ́-a- ‘drive’, *ḱár-a- ‘move around’, *nái̯ -a- ‘lead’ (cf. Table 111.9). 4. Thematic, root in ā-grade (B4, E-Id)?: 1cA *Cā́RC-a- (?): doubtful, since all cases might be based on post-PII thematicization (cf. Kümmel 1998: 193 f. on *krā́m-a-). 5. Thematic, root in Ø-grade (B3, E-Ic; “aorist present”): 1aB *CR̥C-á-: *u̯ić-á- ‘enter, settle’, *sphər-á- ‘kick’, *sr̥ȷ́-á- ‘let go’. 6. Athematic, reduplicated (B5, E-IIa): 3C/3A *Ci-CáRC- ~ Ci-CR̥C- (→ *Cí-°): *b hib hár- ~ *b hib hr̥-/*b hib hr- ‘bear’; *Hii̯ ár- ~ *Hii̯ ər-/Hīr- ‘rouse, move’; “passive” *HiHić- ‘be master’. 3A *Cá-CaC- ~ Cá-CC-: *d hád hā-/d hád haH- ~ d hád hH(ь)- ‘put’, *sásaḱ- ~ sásḱ‘follow’. The distinction between these two subtypes (LIV2: 16; Tichy 2006b: 113 f.) is controversial (cf. Jasanoff 2003: 66 f.; Kulikov 2005: 437 f.); in any case, the latter seems to have been confined to roots in °ā- or °aT- in PII. 7. Thematic, reduplicated, root in Ø-grade (B6, E-IIb): 1aA *Cí-CR̥C-a-: **sí-zd-a- > *sī́d-a- ‘sit down’, *stí-šth-a- ‘stand (up)’, *pí-b-a‘drink’. 8. Athematic, full reduplication (B7, E-IIc; “intensive”): 3A *CáR-CaRC- ~ CáR-CR̥C-: *ḱár-kar- ~ ḱár-kər- ‘celebrate, praise’, *dár-dar- ~ dár-dr̥- ‘burst’; *dái̯ -dai̯ ć- ~ *dái̯ -dić- ‘show’ *Cā́-CaT- ~ Cā́-CaT-: *ḱā́-kać- ‘appear’. 9. Thematic suffix *-i̯ á-, full reduplication, root in Ø-grade (B29; “intensive”) 1aB *CaR-CR̥C-i̯ á-: *nai̯ -niȷ́-i̯ á- ‘wash’. 10. Athematic, nasal infix (B8, E-IIIa): 3C *CR̥-ná-C-/CR̥-n-C-: *i̯ u-ná-ǵ- ~ i̯ u-n-ǵ- ‘yoke’, *u̯i-ná-d- ~ u̯i-n-d- ‘find’, *ri-ná-ḱ- ~ ri-n-ḱ- ‘leave’. 11. Thematic, nasal infix (B9, E-IIIa): 1aB *CR̥-n-C-á-: *kr̥-n-t-á- ‘cut’, *si-n-ḱ-á- ‘pour’. Thematicized from preceding, but in contrast to the other nasal presents, this was already PII. 12. Athematic, nasal infix → suffix (B11, E-IIIb): 3C **CR̥C-ná-H- ~ CR̥C-n-H- > *CR̥C-nā́- ~ CR̥C-n(ь)H-: *gr̥b h-nā́- ~ gr̥b h-n(ь)H‘seize’; *ȷ́ā-nā́- ~ ȷ́ā-n(ь)H- ‘recognize, know’ (originally from roots in final *H, but sometimes extended). Cf. type (26). 13. Athematic, nasal suffix *-nu- (B10, E-IIIc): 3C *CR̥C-náu̯- ~ CR̥C-nu-: *kr̥-náu̯- ~ kr̥-nu- ‘make’, *Hać-náu̯- ~ Hać-nu- ‘reach’, *ma-náu̯- ~ ma-nu- ‘remember, think of’.

111. The morphology of Indo-Iranian

1909

14. Thematic suffix *-sćá-, root in Ø-grade (B14, E-IVa): 1aB *CR̥(C)-sćá-: *ga-sćá- ‘come’, *Hi(š)-sćá- ‘seek’, *pr̥(ć)-sćá- ‘ask’. 15. Thematic suffix *-i̯ a-, root in a-grade (B26, E-Vb): 1bA *Cá(R)C-i̯ a-: *Hás-i̯ a- ‘throw, shoot’, *náć-i̯ a- ‘disappear’, *pád-i̯ a- ‘fall’, *gā́-i̯ a- ‘sing’, *mán-i̯ a- ‘think’. 16. Thematic suffix *-i̯ a-, root in Ø-grade (B27 f., E-Vc): 1aA *CŔ̥C-i̯ a-: *d hrúǵ h-i̯ a- ‘deceive’, *u̯ŕ̥ȷ́-i̯ a- ‘work’, *b húd h-i̯ a- ‘awake, notice’. 1aB *CR̥(C)-i̯ á- (passive): *kr̥-i̯ á- ‘be made’. 17. Thematic suffix *-ai̯ a-, root in Ø-grade (B24, E-Va): 1aB *CR̥C-ái̯ a-: *sćad-ái̯ a- ‘seem, appear’, *kš-ái̯ a- ‘rule’. 18. Thematic suffix *-ai̯ a-, root in ā˘-grade (B30, E-Ve; iterative/causative): 1bB/1cB CaRC-/Cā˘C-ái̯ a-: *d hār-ái̯ a- ‘hold’, *u̯ād h-ái̯ a- ‘lead’ → productive causative: *gām-ái̯ a- ‘let come’, *b haud h-ái̯ a- ‘wake’, *rauḱ-ái̯ a‘make shine’, *sćand-ái̯ a- ‘make appear’, *ćrāu̯-ái̯ a- ‘make hear’. 19. Thematic suffix *-u̯a-, root in Ø-grade (B20): 1aA *CŔ̥C-u̯a-: *ǵī́-u̯a- ‘live’, *tə́r-u̯a- ‘overcome’. 20. Thematic suffix *-Sa-, root in a-grade (B15; “voluntative”, cf. Tichy 2006a: 311 ff.): 1bA *CáRC-Sa-: *b hák-ša- ‘distribute’, *náć-ša- ‘reach’. 21. Thematic suffix *-Sa-, reduplication, root in Ø-grade (B16; “desiderative”): 1aA *Cí-CR̥C-/-CəR-Sa-: *ǵí-ǵī-ša- ‘wish to win’, *ćú-ćrū-ša- ‘wish to hear’. 1aA *Cí-CC-Sa- > CíC-Sa-: *tí-k-ša- ‘wish to run’. 22. Thematic suffix *-Si̯ á-, root in a-grade (B17; “preparative” > future, cf. Tichy 2006a: 307 f.): 1bB *Ca(R)C-/CaRH(ь)-Si̯ á-: *u̯ak-ši̯ á- ‘be about to say’, *kar-H(ь)ši̯ á- ‘be about to make’. 23. Thematic suffix *-āi̯ á-, root in Ø-grade (B23): 1aB *Cr̥C-āi̯ á-: *gr̥b h-āi̯ á- ‘seize’, *dam-āi̯ á- ‘tame’. This type seems to be derived from type (15) above: *-n̥H-i̯ á- > *-aHi̯ á- > *-āi̯ á- (cf. Schrijver 1999: 115 ff.). 24. Thematic suffix *-ani̯ á-, root in Ø-grade (B13): 1aB *Cr̥C-ani̯ á-: *(H)iš-ani̯ á- ‘impel’. This type has been explained as a by-form to the preceding, and both have been compared to Hittite -anni- (Jasanoff 2003: 122 ff.). The aorist stem was used for the following categories: aorist indicative (= preterit), aorist injunctive, aorist subjunctive, aorist optative, aorist imperative. The variation in stem formation was much more limited than in the present. In PII, the most notable development was the thematization of root aorists that could easily have begun with the 3 pl. in *-án reanalyzed as *-á-n, particularly if there were additional reasons not to preserve the root inflection (cf. Kümmel 1998: 201 ff.). 1. Athematic, root with mobile accent (B1): 3C CáRC- ~ CR̥C-: *ḱár- ~ kr̥-/kr- ‘make’ (cf. Table 111.8), *ǵám- ~ gm-/ga(m)‘come’, *d hā́-/d háH- ~ d hH- ‘put’, *dárć- ~ dr̥ć- ‘see’, *ćráu̯- ~ ćru- ‘hear’, *i̯ áu̯ǵ~ i̯ uǵ- ‘yoke’, *g hráb hH- ~ *g hr̥b hH- ‘seize’; middle *dr̥- ~ dár- ‘hold’, *mn-/ma(n)~mán- ‘get an idea, think of’, *u̯ər- ~ u̯ár- ‘choose’ 1aC *b hū́-/b húu̯- ~ b hū- ‘become’ 1bC *krámH- ~ kram(H)- ‘stride’; middle *Har- ~ Hár- ‘move’ (for accent cf. Vedic arāṇá-).

1910

XVII. Indo-Iranian

2. Athematic, root with fixed accent (B4, E-Id; “Narten aorist”)?: 5aA *Cā́RC- ~ CáRC-: *i̯ ā́m- ~ *i̯ ám- ‘extend, hold’? The reconstruction of this type for the aorist (cf. Peters 1980: 313 f.; Tremblay 2003: 152 f. n. 176, 2005: 637 ff.) is very controversial (cf. Harðarson 1993: 72 ff.). The stem mentioned here may be considered the best case for it within Indo-Iranian, since no single attested form (except for the accentuation of the Vedic imperative yandhí) clearly points to a “normal” root aorist; but even here, all these forms might be explained differently (Narten 1964: 204 ff.). The existence of such a type would facilitate the explanation of “acrostatic” root aorist optatives like *u̯anīt > Av. vainīt̰ (cf. Tremblay 1996c: 216 n. 10). 3. Athematic, root with mobile accent, “passive” (B1): 4bC CR̥C- with 3s CáRC/Cā́C- (ā˘-grade!): *ćrā́u̯- ~ ćru- ‘be heard’, *u̯ā́ḱ- ~ uḱ- ‘be said, be called’, *ȷ́án(H)- ~ ȷ́an-/ȷ́ā- ‘be born’. 4. Thematic, root in Ø-grade, rarely a-grade (B3): 1aB CR̥C-á-: *u̯id-á- ‘find’, *ćH(i)š-á- ‘instruct’, *kć-á- ‘look’, *kš-á- ‘rule’. 1bB CaC-á-: *sad-á- ‘sit down’, *san-á- ‘conquer’, *Har-á- ‘reach, go to’, *tatć-á‘fashion’ (Vedic root accent in these cases may be secondary). 5. Athematic suffix -S-, fixed accent (“sigmatic”): 5aA Cā́RC-S- ~ CáRC-S-: *nā́i̯ -š- ~ nái̯ -š- ‘lead’ (cf. Table 111.10), *prā́ć-š- ~ práć-š‘ask’, *u̯ā́n-s- ~ u̯án-s- ‘win’, *sā́u̯H(ь)-š- ~ sáu̯H(ь)-š- ‘impel’; middle *mán-s‘think’. In Vedic and Old Avestan, an active optative of this type does not occur; instead, root aorist optatives are used; it is therefore not clear whether such optatives had the S-suffix in PII or not (cf. the different positions of Hoffmann 1967b: 32 = 1976: 472 f.; Jasanoff 1991, 2003 vs. Harðarson 1993: 109−112). 6. Thematic, reduplicated, root in Ø-grade: 1aA Cá-CR̥C-a-: *u̯á-u̯ḱ-a- ‘say’, *ná-nć-a- ‘disappear’ (?). An athematic reduplicated aorist is attested only in Indic, and all cases can go back to older imperfects or pluperfects (cf. Kümmel 2000: 85 f.); thus, it seems to be an Indic innovation. The perfect stem was used for the following categories: perfect indicative, pluperfect indicative (= perfect preterit), perfect injunctive, perfect subjunctive, perfect optative, perfect imperative. Here there was only a single lexical exception from the one productive type: 1. Athematic, root with mobile accent: *u̯ái̯ d- ~ *u̯id- ‘know’ (functionally a present stem!) 2. Athematic, reduplicated, mobile accent: 4bC Ca-CáRC- (ā˘-grade in 3s!) ~ Ca-CR̥C-: *ḱakár-/ḱakā́r- ~ *ḱakr- ‘have/has made’, *dadárć- ~ dadr̥ć- ‘have/has seen’, *ǵigái̯ -/ǵigā́i̯ - ~ ǵiǵi- ‘have/has won’ (cf. Table 111.11), *ćućráu̯-/ćućrā́u̯- ~ *ćućru- ‘have/has heard’. In the regular perfect, Indic shows a systematic redistribution of the “binding” vowel -ithat originally arose from the vocalization of a laryngeal in certain roots (cf. Kümmel 2000: 24, 42 f., 50 f.). Since this vowel is generally missing in Iranian, we cannot say whether this redistribution was already PII.

111. The morphology of Indo-Iranian

1911

6.2.2. Secondary stems and affixes (tense-mood) Indicative, Injunctive, Imperative: no affix (distinguished only by different endings). Preterit (imperfect, aorist, pluperfect): Prefix (“augment”) *á-, attached to the injunctive. Optative: ablauting suffix *-i̯ ā́-/-ī- from ablauting stems with mobile accent, nonablauting *-ī- elsewhere after consonants, *-i̯ - after vowels (= from thematic stems). Subjunctive: thematic vowel suffix *-a-/-ā- (ablauting stems took the variant with full-grade root, though reduplicating stems partially took zero-grade). In Old Avestan, thematic stems show hiatus between the stem vowel and the subjunctive suffix (since the reconstruction of a laryngeal is not certain here, this hiatus is written with < ’ > in the tables).

6.2.3. Participles Present/aorist active: ablauting suffix *-ánt- ~ -at- (3C) from ablauting stems with mobile accent, elsewhere non-ablauting *-at- (1aA) after consonants, *-nt- (1aA) after vowels (= from thematic stems). Perfect active: ablauting suffix *-u̯ā́s-/*-u̯ás- ~ -úš- (4bB) Middle: thematic suffix *-āná- (1aB) from ablauting stems with mobile accent, elsewhere *-āna- (1aA) after consonants, *-mH(ь)na- (1aA) after vowels (= from thematic stems); both go back to Pre-PII *-mHna- < PIE *-mh1no- (cf. Klingenschmitt 1975: 159−163).

6.2.4. Other nominal forms of the verb PII had not yet developed a fully grammaticalized infinitive, but case forms (esp. datives) of various verbal abstracts could be used in similar functions (as quasi-infinitives according to García-Ramón 1997: 48), sometimes with formal peculiarities showing their extraparadigmatic status (e.g. Vedic śobháse instead of a regular dative *śóbhase). Two formations may be mentioned as exhibiting the greatest similarity to an infinitive, since they are derived from verbal stems and not directly from the root, and no other case forms of the same stem are found: 1. *-d hi̯ āi̯ (a PII innovation, cf. García-Ramón 1997: 58 f.). 2. *-Sáni (not attested in Iranian but comparable to Greek *-sen and therefore perhaps inherited, García-Ramón 1997: 62 ff.). The verbal root itself could be used as a verbal noun, as could many derivative formations. Of these, the two agentive noun suffixes *-tā́r- and *ˊ-tār- (on the distinction cf. Tichy 1995: 220 ff.) are remarkable for being rather closely connected to the verb. Verbal adjectives could be formed directly from the root. The most important was the resultative in *-tá- or (much rarer) *-ná- that later became the basis of the periphrastic past tenses. Adjectives of necessity and possibility were formed by the suffixes *-(t)i̯ a- and *-ii̯ a- (cf. Rubio Orecilla 1995).

1912

XVII. Indo-Iranian

6.3. Personal endings (see Table 111.5) As in other IE languages, beside the special imperative endings, two sets of endings were used: “primary” (PE) and “secondary” (SE). The first set was employed in the present indicative (including the future indicative as an old present), the other everywhere else. In the subjunctive, both sets were mixed, and in some forms both were possible. Perhaps these alternatives indicated some functional differences, but we cannot recognize these any more from the texts (cf. Tichy 2006a: 191 f.).

6.3.1. Active The active endings closely correspond to those of other IE languages. The 2 pl. PE *-thá might be explained as an analogical innovation that took its aspiration from the 2 du. (perhaps motivated by the desire to distinguish the present from the injunctive), but since the PIE form of this ending is disputed, it might be old. In the 3 pl., there was an ablaut difference: the stressed form in *-án(ti/u) was used in stems with mobile stress; otherwise, *-at(i/u) was used after consonants and *-n(ti/u) after vowels. In the 3 sg. active SE, the normal ending in Vedic and Avestan is *-t/d, but Old Persian has only -š and probably also *-h, and such an ending is also found in the Rigvedic root aorist optative (“precative”) in -yā́s (from which a suffix -yās- was created). This is normally explained as taken over from the 2 sg. by analogy to instances where both forms fell together. However, this type of analogy appears to be unmotivated and even counter to the general trend in Vedic where a distinction between 2 sg. and 3 sg. was frequently reintroduced, e.g. 3 sg. -īt for expected *-īṣ in s-aorists to roots ending in laryngeals or 2 sg. forms like ayās ‘you have sacrificed’ for ayāṭ; after the Rigveda, also “precative” 3 sg. -yās was replaced by -yāt. The perfect had special endings for its indicative and the 3 pl. non-present only, but elsewhere it took the ordinary endings of the active (for details, see Kümmel 2000: 42 ff.). Most of these endings are inherited. The 1 du. and pl. seem to agree with the respective non-perfect SE, but the frequent 1 pl. -mā́ in Vedic has been taken as old and reflecting a special perfect ending *-meH (see, e.g., Jasanoff 2003: 32) − but contrary to other claims, the distribution of long vowel variants points to a general phenomenon not confined to this form: the preponderance of lengthening in perfect forms of the 1 sg., 1+2 pl. (Arnold 1905: 112) could have a rhythmical basis, since the preceding syllable often was short in these forms in contrast to other verbal forms ending in °a (cf. Wackernagel 1896: 312), including the 2+3 sg. perfect, the 1 pl. optative, and most forms of the 1 pl. imperfect and aorist. A 2 pl.*-á is not directly supported anywhere else, but it can hardly be an innovation (Kümmel 2000: 56; Jasanoff 2003: 32). In the 3 pl., *-r̥ is clearly reflected by Avestan -ar < *-r̥, and, according to Kümmel (2000: 44−47), also by Vedic -ur. But the latter is widely held to presuppose *-r̥š (cf. Jasanoff 2003: 32 f.); if so, Vedic would have generalized *-r̥š. According to Jasanoff (2003: 33 with fn. 13) a former 3 pl. PII *-ar (as reflected in Avestan) was also the source of the “union vowel” *-a- in the 3 du. and 2 du. But *-a- could have been taken from any other perfect ending, esp. from the 2 pl. *-á. A “secondary” ending without *-š is attested only once by 3 pl. YAv. hiiār ə vs. normal -iiār əš, but this form cannot

111. The morphology of Indo-Iranian

1913

Tab. 111.5: PII verbal endings “Primary” (present) Active Sg. 1.

“Secondary” (non-present)

Imperative

*-mi / -:(mi)

*-(a)m

−

2.

*-Si

*-S

*-Ø ~ -d hí

3.

*-ti

*-d ~ *-S

*-tu

*-u̯ás(i)

*-u̯á

−

2.

*-thás

*-tám

*-tám

3.

*-tás

*-tā́ m

*-tā́ m

*-más(i)

*-má

−

2.

*-thá(na)

*-tá(na)

*-ta ~ -tá

3.

*-ánti ~ -ati/-nti

*-án ~ -ad/-n

*-ántu ~ -atu/-ntu

*-a

−

2.

*-tha

−

3.

*-a

*-S?

*-u̯á

−

2.

*-áthr̥

−

3.

*-átr̥

−

*-má

−

2.

*-á

−

3.

*-ŕ̥

*-ŕ̥(š)/-ā́ r?

*-ái̯ /-i̯

*-í ~ -á

−

2.

*-Sái̯

*-thā́ s ~ -Sá

*-Su̯á

3.

*-tái̯

*-tá

*-tā́ m

3. “passive”

*-ái̯

*-á(d) ~ -i

*-ā́ m

*-u̯ád hai̯

*-u̯ád hi

−

2.

*-ā́ thai̯ /-i̯ thai̯

*-ā́ thām/-i̯ thām

*-ā́ thām/-i̯ thām

3.

*-ā́ tai̯ /-i̯ tai̯

*-ā́ tām/-i̯ tām

*-ā́ tām/-i̯ tām

*-mád hai̯

*-mád hi

−

2.

*-d hu̯ái̯

*-d hu̯á(m)

*-d hu̯á(m)

3.

*-atái̯ /-ntai̯

*-atá/-nta

*-atā́ m/-ntām

3. “passive”

*-(ā)rái̯

*-(ā)rá(m)

*-(ā)rā́ m

Du. 1.

Pl. 1.

Perfect active Sg. 1.

Du. 1.

Pl. 1.

Middle Sg. 1.

Du. 1.

Pl. 1.

1914

XVII. Indo-Iranian

easily be explained away (de Vaan 2003: 563 f.). Thus, the evidence for a specific functional contrast between “primary” *-r̥ and “secondary” *-r̥š, as assumed by Jasanoff (2003: 33 f., 39 f.; cf. Kümmel 2000: 57) is not as clear-cut as we might wish. However, the probable existence of a 3 sg. “secondary” ending -S (see above) lends support to a 3 pl. *-r-S. According to Tremblay (2006: 265), a variant *-ār is attested by the Avestan optatives in -ii-ār ə, -ii-ār əš from *-ii̯ -ār(š) (cf. Kellens 1984: 188, 296) from PIE *-ih1-eh1r(s). The longer variant *-ār(š) in Iranian would then be parallel to middle *-āra(i̯ ) (cf. 6.3.2), and the ending could be compared with Hittite -ēr. But normally, -iiār ə(š) is analysed as *-i̯ ā-r(š) with secondary full-grade of the suffix (see, e.g., Harðarson 1993: 122 with fn. 102; Jasanoff 2003: 186 n. 26), just as in the by-form -iiąn < *-i̯ ān where an old ending variant is impossible and the intrusion of the full grade suffix into the 3 pl. is thus proven. Tremblay (2006: 265 with fn. 21) derives -iiąn from *-ii̯ ən < *-ii̯ -an (as in thematic -aiiən) and cites two forms in -iiə˘n to support this. But vasō.x́iiəˉn is not a finite verb (de Vaan 2003: 563), and alleged +baβriiən is a conjecture certainly inferior to + baβriiąn (for baβriiąm mss.). An athematic form in *-ii̯ an is actually attested for the perfect in YAv. +daiδīn (Hoffmann 1976: 606 f. n. 1), but this does not prove that -iiąn must equally go back to *-ii̯ ən. So it still presupposes an intrusion of the full-grade suffix into the 3 pl., and likewise, we might explain -iiā-r əš.

6.3.2. Middle The endings labelled “passive” were used only in non-transitive uses or in the perfect, esp. in the “passive” aorist and present forms (mostly or exclusively from root stems) sometimes called “statives” (cf. Kümmel 1996; Bruno 2005: 45 ff.; Kulikov 2006). Opinions about the interpretation of these variant endings are divided: Some consider them just archaic variants of the ordinary middle endings (perhaps secondarily exploited for “non-primary” functions according to Kuryłowicz’s 4 th law of analogy, cf. Watkins 1969: 88), others assume an original functional difference similar to that between the perfect and the “ordinary” active (see, e.g., Kümmel 1996: 9 ff.; Tremblay 2006: 260 ff.). In any case, it is clear that the whole set of 3 rd person endings varied, at least lexically. The same contrast may be reflected by the variation between Indic *-thās and Iranian *-Sa in the 2 sg. SE, but obviously here the distinction was no longer functionally alive in late PII. PII used the active primary marker *-i also in the middle, in agreement with Greek, Albanian, Armenian, and Germanic, while others (esp. Anatolian and Tocharian) have an independent middle primary marker *-r. The question of which of these served as the original PIE marker of this category is a matter of great dispute, but in any case the respective innovation would be dialectal IE. In PII, the dual and the 1 and 2 pl. PE’s were remodelled from the SE’s and took over *-ai̯ from the other PE’s; a similar innovation seems to have happened in Albanian (cf. Klingenschmitt 1994: 226). The secondary ending *-i of the 1 sg. middle and 3 sg. “passive” presents some problems. Both have been explained as continuing a PIE ending *-h2 (cf. Kortlandt 1981; García-Ramón 1985 or, resp., Schmidt 1997: 557 f.), but the evidence for such an ending in the middle is not really compelling, and the expected ending *-a (from *-h2e/*h2o or, resp.,*-o) is attested

111. The morphology of Indo-Iranian

1915

in II for other categories. In the 1 sg., *-i might have been created by analogy after 1 pl. *-mad hai̯ : *-mad hi = *-ai̯ : X → X = *-i (Harðarson 1993: 51), replacing older *-a that only remained for phonetic reasons after *ī/i̯ in the optative. In the 3 sg. “passive”, this analogy would not work, since *-i is used in the aorist only where an analogy with PE’s is not possible. But a transfer from the 1 sg. to the 3 sg. might be explained by analogy after the older system with a SE *-a for both persons which was preserved in the optative − in the present the transfer was blocked by the presence of the PE *-ai̯ in analogy to non-passive *-tai̯ : *-ta. In the 2 pl. and in the 3 pl. “passive” SE, the variants without an added nasal are not attested in Avestan and Early Vedic, but a 3 pl. in -ra occurs in Middle Vedic (Kümmel 1996: 6 f.), and Choresmian -ββa, -(ā)ra seem to presuppose *-du̯a, *-ra (Tremblay 2006: 278, 281). The 2 and 3 du. endings constitute a special system in which the *-th-/*-t- correspond to the active PE, and *-am/-ām correspond to the active SE. But the vowel preceding the dental is enigmatic: in the athematic endings *-ā- does not fit thematic *-i̯ - (while the opposite distribution *-i- / *-ā- might be explained by a laryngeal suffix). In the athematic 3 pl. non-passive, the variation differed from the active: while thematic stems had *-nta(−), athematic stems normally had *-ata(−). The accentuation of *-ata(−) is not altogether clear: while -áte is regular in later Vedic, in the RV -até is more frequent and looks like an archaism, so it has a better chance to represent the PII accentuation. This points to an older ending *-n̥t-ó(i̯ ) with accented *-ó as in all other forms containing that middle sign, and this could explain why we find the zero grade *-n̥t-. In contrast to Avestan, Vedic injunctives of athematic aorists and perfects show a different ending -ánta (Hoffmann 1976: 362 f.) which has been taken as an archaism attesting older *-ént-o for end-stressed paradigms; consequently, PII would have generalized *-at(−) from paradigms with initial stress except in the injunctive (Harðarson 1993: 50, 53). But such a generalization is difficult to motivate (esp. since nothing comparable happened in the active), and the distribution is not explained. Thus, we might envisage a Vedic innovation, and in fact, it is clear that -anta was the only 3pl middle subjunctive termination in Early Vedic and ousted all other variants (cf. Tichy 2006a: 193 f.). Therefore, inj. -anta might be rebuilt or influenced from active *-an. In Iranian only, the “passive” 3rd-person endings can have longer forms *-ārai̯ (cf. YAv. -ā ire, Khot. -āre, Chor. -’r ~ -’ry- /-āri/, Yaghn. -or) and *-āra(m) (cf. Chor. imperfect -’r /-āra/, Yaghn. -or [Tremblay 2006: 278], Khot. subj. -āru [Emmerick 1968: 203; 205 f.]). In fact, the shorter variants *-rai̯ , *-ra(m) are attested only in *ćai̯ rai̯ ‘they lie’ (YAv. sōire/+saēre, Kümmel 1996: 151 f.), perfect *āfrai̯ (Khot. byaure, Emmerick 1968: 200; Kümmel 2000: 9, 622) and the optatives in *-ī-ra(m)/ *°ai-ra(m) (YAv. vaozirəm, Khot. -īru, Chor. -yr /-īra/; cf. Emmerick 1968: 203, 209 f.). In Middle Iranian, *-ā- might represent the thematic vowel generalized in nearly all paradigms. Certainly it does so in the subjunctive. In the indicative, *-ā- would be regular from old *-o-ro(−), but as younger replacements of *-anta(−) we would rather expect *-ara(−). Such thematic forms with short a are attested in Early Middle Indo-Aryan -are, probably a younger replacement of -ire (Kümmel 1996: 5 n. 23). But in Avestan (as in Vedic), there seem to be no cases of “passive” endings used with thematic stems, and the three attested forms definitely belong to athematic stems (cf. Kümmel 1996: 144 f., 147 f., 149). The younger intrusion of *-ārai̯ into thematic paradigms could well have originated in cases where athematic middles became thematic, but the 3 pl. of such forms already looked

1916

XVII. Indo-Iranian

very much like it contained the thematic vowel; and thus, a new type sg. *-atai̯ ~ pl. -ārai̯ arose and could provide a basis for the generalization of *-ārai̯ (Tremblay 2006: 281 ff.). Therefore *-ārai̯ cannot contain the thematic vowel; it has been interpreted as containing a stative suffix *-eh1- (cf. Kümmel 1996: 6) otherwise not clearly attested in Indo-Iranian or − more likely − as a blending of older active *-ār (= Hitt. -ēr) and “middle” *-rai̯ , thus providing indirect Indo-Iranian evidence for PIE *-ēr (cf. Kümmel 2000: 58; Jasanoff 2003: 32 and cf. 6.3.1).

6.4. Paradigms of selected verb stems Tab. 111.6: PII inflection of *(H)ás- ‘be’, root present Active Sg. 1.

indicative *(H)ás-mi

imperfect

imperative

*(H)á(H)as-am

optative

subjunctive

*s-i̯ ā́ -m

*(H)ás-ā(ni)

h

2.

*(H)ás-i

*(H)á(H)as-Ø

*s-d í

*s-i̯ ā́ -s

*(H)ás-a-s(i)

3.

*(H)ás-ti

*(H)á(H)as-t

*(H)ás-tu

*s-i̯ ā́ -t

*(H)ás-a-t(i)

Du. 1.

*s-u̯ás(i)

*(H)ā́ s-u̯a

*s-i̯ ā́ -u̯a

*(H)ás-ā-u̯a

2.

*s-thás

*(H)ā́ s-tam

*s-tám

*s-i̯ ā́ -tam

*(H)ás-a-thas

3.

*s-tás

*(H)ā́ s-tām

*s-tā́ m

*s-i̯ ā́ -tām

*(H)ás-a-tas

*s-más(i)

*(H)ā́ s-ma

*s-i̯ ā́ -ma

*(H)ás-ā-ma

2.

*s-thá

*(H)ā́ s-ta

*s-tá

*s-i̯ ā́ -ta

*(H)ás-a-tha

3.

*s-ánti

*(H)ā́ s-an

*s-ántu

*s-iH-án

*(H)ás-a-n(ti)

Pl. 1.

Tab. 111.7: PII inflection of *ćái̯ - ‘lie’, root present Middle Sg. 1.

indicative

imperfect

injunctive

imperative

optative

subjunctive

*ćái̯ -ai̯

*á-ćai̯ -i

*ćái̯ -i

2.

*ćái̯ -šai̯

*á-ćai̯ -thās

*ćái̯ -thās

3.

*ćái̯ -ai̯

*á-ćai̯ -a

*ćái̯ -a

*ćái̯ -u̯ad hai̯

*á-ćai̯ -u̯ad hi

*ćái̯ -u̯ad hi

2.

*ćái̯ -āthai̯

*á-ćai̯ -āthām

*ćái̯ -āthām

3.

*ćái̯ -ātai̯

*á-ćai̯ -ātām

*ćái̯ -ātām

*ćái̯ -mad hai̯

*á-ćai̯ -mad hi

*ćái̯ -mad hi

2.

*ćái̯ -d hu̯ai̯

*á-ćai̯ -d hu̯a(m) *ćái̯ -d hu̯a(m)

*ćái̯ -d hu̯a(m)

*ćái̯ -ī-d hu̯a(m) *ćái̯ -a-d hu̯ai̯

3.

*ćái̯ -rai̯

*á-ćai̯ -ra(m)

*ćái̯ -rā(m)

*ćái̯ -ī-ra(m)

Du. 1.

Pl. 1.

*ćái̯ -ra(m)

*ćái̯ -ī-Ha

*ćái̯ -a-Hai̯

*ćái̯ -šu̯a

*ćái̯ -ī-thās

*ćái̯ -a-sai̯

*ćái̯ -ām

*ćái̯ -ī(i̯ )-a

*ćái̯ -a-tai̯

*ćái̯ -ī-u̯ad hi

*ćái̯ -ā-u̯ad hai̯

*ćái̯ -āthām

*ćái̯ -ī(i̯ )-āthām

*ćái̯ -a-i̯ thai̯

*ćái̯ -ātām

*ćái̯ -ī(i̯ )-ātām

*ćái̯ -a-i̯ tai̯

*ćái̯ -ī-mad hi

*ćái̯ -ā-mad hai̯

*ćái̯ -a-nta(i̯ )

111. The morphology of Indo-Iranian

1917

Tab. 111.8: PII inflection of *ḱár-/kr̥- ‘make’, root aorist Active

indicative

Sg. 1.

*á-ḱar-am

injunctive

imperative

*ḱár-am h

optative

subjunctive

*kr̥-i̯ ā́ -m

*ḱár-ā(ni)

2.

*á-ḱar-š

*ḱár-š

*kr̥-d í

*kr̥-i̯ ā́ -s

*ḱár-a-s(i)

3.

*á-ḱar-t

*ḱár-t

*ḱár-tu

*kr̥-i̯ ā́ -s

*ḱár-a-t(i)

*á-ḱar-u̯a

*ḱár-u̯a

*kr̥-i̯ ā́ -u̯a

*ḱár-ā-u̯a

2.

*á-ḱar-tam

*ḱár-tam

*ḱár-tam/*kr̥-tám

*kr̥-i̯ ā́ -tam

*ḱár-a-thas

3.

*á-ḱar-tām

*ḱár-tām

*ḱár-tām/*kr̥-tā́ m

*kr̥-i̯ ā́ -tām

*ḱár-a-tas

*á-ḱar-ma

*ḱár-ma

*kr̥-i̯ ā́ -ma

*ḱár-ā-ma

2.

*á-ḱar-ta

*ḱár-ta

*ḱár-ta/kr̥-tá

*kr̥-i̯ ā́ -ta

*ḱár-a-tha

3.

*á-kr-an

*kr-án

*kr-ántu

*kr-ii̯ -án

*ḱár-a-n(ti)

Du. 1.

Pl. 1.

Middle Sg. 1.

indicative

injunctive

*á-kr-i

*kr-í

2.

*á-kr̥-ša

*kr̥-šá

3.

*á-kr̥-ta

*kr̥-tá

Du. 1.

*á-kr̥-u̯ad hi

*kr̥-u̯ád hi

2.

*á-kr-āthām

*kr-ā́ thām

3.

*á-kr-ātām

*kr-ā́ tām

*á-kr̥-mad hi

*kr̥-mád hi

2.

*á-kr̥-d hu̯a(m)

*kr̥-d hu̯á(m)

3.

*á-kr-ata

*kr-atá (?)

Pl. 1.

“passive”

indicative

imperative

optative

subjunctive

*kr-ī-Há

*ḱár-a-Hai̯

*kr̥-šu̯á

*kr-ī-šá

*ḱár-a-sai̯

*kr̥tā́ m

*kr-ī-tá

*ḱár-a-tai̯

*kr-ī-u̯ád hi

*ḱár-ā-u̯ad hai̯

*kr-ā́ thām

*kr-ī(i̯ )-ā́ thām

*ḱár-a-i̯ thai̯

*kr-ā́ tām

*kr-ī(i̯ )-ā́ tām

*ḱár-a-i̯ tai̯

*kr-ī-mád hi

*ḱár-ā-mad hai̯

*kr̥-d hu̯á(m)

*kr-ī-d hu̯á(m)

*ḱár-a-d hu̯ai̯

*kr-atā́ m

*kr-ī-rá(m)

*ḱár-a-nta(i̯ )

injunctive

imperative

Sg. 3

*á-kār-i

*kā́ r-i

*kr-ā́ m?

Pl. 3

*á-kr̥-ra(m)

*kr̥-rá(m)

*kr̥-rā́ m

Tab. 111.9: PII inflection of *nái̯ -a- ‘lead’, thematic present Active

indicative

Sg. 1.

*nái̯ ā-mi

*á-nai̯ a-m

*nái̯ a-m

2.

*nái̯ a-si

*á-nai̯ a-s

*nái̯ a-s

3.

*nái̯ a-ti

*á-nai̯ a-t

*nái̯ a-t

Du. 1.

imperfect

injunctive

imperative

optative

subjunctive

*nái̯ a-(i̯ )i̯ -am

*nái̯ a-’ā(ni)

*nái̯ a-Ø

*nái̯ a-i̯ -š

*nái̯ a-’a-s(i)

*nái̯ a-tu

*nái̯ a-i̯ -t

*nái̯ a-’a-t(i)

*nái̯ a-i̯ -u̯a

*nái̯ a-’ā-u̯a

*nái̯ ā-u̯as(i) *á-nai̯ ā-u̯a

*nái̯ ā-u̯a

2.

*nái̯ a-thas

*á-nai̯ a-tam

*nái̯ a-tam

*nái̯ a-tam

*nái̯ a-i̯ -tam

*nái̯ a-’a-thas

3.

*nái̯ a-tas

*á-nai̯ a-tām

*nái̯ a-tām

*nái̯ a-tām

*nái̯ a-i̯ -tām

*nái̯ a-’a-tas

1918

XVII. Indo-Iranian

Tab. 111.9: (continued) Active

indicative

imperfect

injunctive

Pl. 1.

*nái̯ ā-mas(i) *á-nai̯ ā-ma

*nái̯ ā-ma

2.

*nái̯ a-tha

*á-nai̯ a-ta

*nái̯ a-ta

3.

*nái̯ a-nti

*á-nai̯ a-n

*nái̯ a-n

Middle

indicative

Sg. 1.

*nái̯ a-i̯

*á-nai̯ a-i̯

*nái̯ a-i̯

2.

*nái̯ a-sai̯

*á-nai̯ a-sa

*nái̯ a-sa

3.

*nái̯ a-tai̯

*á-nai̯ a-ta

Du. 1.

imperfect

optative

subjunctive

*nái̯ a-i̯ -ma

*nái̯ a-’ā-ma

*nái̯ a-ta

*nái̯ a-i̯ -ta

*nái̯ a-’a-tha

*nái̯ a-ntu

*nái̯ a-(i̯ )i̯ -at

*nái̯ a-’a-n(ti)

injunctive

*nái̯ a-ta h

*á-nai̯ ā-u̯ad i

*nái̯ ā-u̯ad i

2.

*nái̯ a-i̯ thai̯

*á-nai̯ a-i̯ thām

*nái̯ a-i̯ thām

3.

*nái̯ a-i̯ tai̯

*á-nai̯ a-i̯ tām

*nái̯ a-i̯ tām h

imperative

optative

subjunctive

*nái̯ a-(i̯ )i̯ -a

*nái̯ a-’a-Hai̯

*nái̯ a-su̯a

*nái̯ a-i̯ -ša

*nái̯ a-’a-sai̯

*nái̯ a-tām

*nái̯ a-i̯ -tá

h

*nái̯ āu̯ad hai̯

Pl. 1.

imperative

*nái̯ a-’a-tai̯ h

*nái̯ a-i̯ -u̯ad i

*nái̯ a-’āu̯ad hai̯

*nái̯ a-i̯ thām

*nái̯ a-i̯ -āthām

*nái̯ a-’a-i̯ thai̯

*nái̯ a-i̯ tām

*nái̯ a-i̯ -ātām

*nái̯ a-’a-i̯ tai̯

h

h

*nái̯ āmad hai̯

*á-nai̯ ā-mad i

*nái̯ ā-mad i

2.

*nái̯ a-d hu̯ai̯

*á-nai̯ a-d hu̯a(m) *nái̯ a-d hu̯a(m) *nái̯ a-d hu̯a(m) *nái̯ a-i̯ -d hu̯a(m) *nái̯ a-’a-d hu̯ai̯

3.

*nái̯ a-ntai̯

*á-nai̯ a-nta

*nái̯ a-nta

*nái̯ a-i̯ -mad i

*nái̯ a-ntām

*nái̯ a’ā-mad hai̯

*nái̯ a-i̯ -ra(m)

*nái̯ a-’a-nta(i̯ )

optative

subjunctive

Tab. 111.10: PII inflection of *nā́ i̯ -š- ‘lead’, sigmatic aorist Active Sg. 1.

indicative

injunctive

*á-nāi̯ -š-am

*nā́ i̯ -š-am

2.

*á-nāi̯ -š-Ø

*nā́ i̯ -š-Ø

3.

*á-nāi̯ -š-t

imperative

*nái̯ -(š)-ī-m

*nái̯ -š-ā(ni)

*nái̯ -(š)-ī-š

*nái̯ -š-a-s(i)

*nā́ i̯ -š-t

*nái̯ -(š)-ī-š

*nái̯ -š-a-t(i)

*á-nāi̯ -š-u̯a

*nā́ i̯ -š-u̯a

*nái̯ -(š)-ī-u̯a

*nái̯ -š-ā-u̯a

2.

*á-nāi̯ -š-tam

*nā́ i̯ -š-tam

*nái̯ -(š)-ī-tam

*nái̯ -š-a-thas

3.

*á-nāi̯ -š-tām

*nā́ i̯ -š-tām

*nái̯ -(š)-ī-tām

*nái̯ -š-a-tas

*á-nāi̯ -š-ma

*nā́ i̯ -š-ma

*nái̯ -(š)-ī-ma

*nái̯ -š-ā-ma

2.

*á-nāi̯ -š-ta

*nā́ i̯ -š-ta

*nái̯ -(š)-ī-ta

*nái̯ -š-a-tha

3.

*á-nāi̯ -š-at

*nā́ i̯ -š-at

*nái̯ -(š)-ii̯ -at

*nái̯ -š-a-n(ti)

optative

subjunctive

Du. 1.

Pl. 1.

Middle Sg. 1.

indicative

injunctive

*á-nai̯ -š-i

*nái̯ -š-i

2.

*á-nai̯ -š-ša

*nái̯ -š-ša

3.

*á-nai̯ -š-ta

*nái̯ -š-ta

*nái̯ -š-i

imperative

*nái̯ -š-[š]u̯a

*nái̯ -š-ī-Ha

*nái̯ -š-a-Hai̯

*nái̯ -š-ī-ša

*nái̯ -š-a-sai̯

*nái̯ -š-ī-ta

*nái̯ -š-a-tai̯

111. The morphology of Indo-Iranian

1919

Tab. 111.10: (continued) Middle

indicative

injunctive

imperative

optative

h

subjunctive

Du. 1.

*á-nai̯ -š-u̯ad i

*nái̯ -š-u̯ad i

*nái̯ -š-ī-u̯ad i

*nái̯ -š-ā-u̯ad hai̯

2.

*á-nai̯ -š-āthām

*nái̯ -š-āthām

*nái̯ -š-ī(i̯ )āthām

*nái̯ -š-a-i̯ thai̯

3.

*á-nai̯ -š-ātām

*nái̯ -š-ātām

*nái̯ -š-ī(i̯ )-ātām

*nái̯ -š-a-i̯ tai̯

*á-nai̯ -š-mad hi

*nái̯ -š-mad hi

*nái̯ -š-ī-mad hi

*nái̯ -š-āmad hai̯

2.

*á-nai̯ -š-d hu̯a(m)

*nái̯ -š-d hu̯a(m)

*nái̯ -š-īd hu̯a(m)

*nái̯ -š-a-d hu̯ai̯

3.

*á-nai̯ -š-ata

*nái̯ -š-ata

*nái̯ -š-ī-ra(m)

*nái̯ -š-a-nta(i̯ )

Pl. 1.

h

h

Tab. 111.11: PII inflection of *ǵigái̯ -/ǵiǵi- ‘win’, perfect Active

indicative

Sg. 1.

*ǵigái̯ -a

pluperfect

injunctive

*á-ǵigai̯ -am

imperative

*ǵigái̯ -am h

optative

subjunctive

*ǵiǵi-i̯ ā́ -m

*ǵigái̯ -ā(ni)

2.

*ǵigái̯ -tha

*á-ǵigai̯ -š

*ǵigái̯ -š

*ǵiǵi-d í

*ǵiǵi-i̯ ā́ -s

*ǵigái̯ -a-s(i)

3.

*ǵigā́ i̯ -a

*á-ǵigai̯ -t

*ǵigái̯ -t

*ǵigái̯ -tu

*ǵiǵi-i̯ ā́ -t

*ǵigái̯ -a-t(i)

Du. 1.

*ǵiǵi-u̯á

*á-ǵiǵi-u̯a

*ǵiǵi-u̯á

*ǵiǵi-i̯ ā́ -u̯a

*ǵigái̯ -ā-u̯a

2.

*ǵiǵi̯ -áthr̥

*á-ǵiǵi-tam

*ǵiǵi-tám

*ǵiǵi-tám

*ǵiǵi-i̯ ā́ -tam

*ǵigái̯ -a-thas

3.

*ǵiǵi̯ -átr̥

*á-ǵiǵi-tām

*ǵiǵi-tā́ m

*ǵiǵi-tā́ m

*ǵiǵi-i̯ ā́ -tām

*ǵigái̯ -a-tas

*ǵiǵi-má

*á-ǵiǵi-ma

*ǵiǵi-má

*ǵiǵi-i̯ ā́ -ma

*ǵigái̯ -ā-ma

2.

*ǵiǵi̯ -á

*á-ǵiǵi-ta

*ǵiǵi-tá

*ǵiǵi-tá

*ǵiǵi-i̯ ā́ -ta

*ǵigái̯ -a-tha

3.

*ǵiǵi̯ -ŕ̥

*á-ǵiǵi̯ -r̥

*ǵiǵi̯ -r̥ ́

*ǵiǵi̯ -ántu

*ǵiǵi̯ -ii̯ -ŕ̥š

*ǵigái̯ -a-n(ti)

Pl. 1.

Middle

indicative

Sg. 1.

*ǵiǵi̯ -ái̯

*á-ǵiǵi̯ -i

*ǵiǵi̯ -í

2.

*ǵiǵi-šái̯

*á-ǵiǵi-ša

*ǵiǵi-šá

3.

*ǵiǵi̯ -ái̯

*á-ǵiǵi̯ -a

*ǵiǵi̯ -á

*ǵiǵiu̯ád hai̯

*á-ǵiǵi-u̯ad hi

*ǵiǵi-u̯ád hi

2.

*ǵiǵi̯ -ā́ thai̯

*á-ǵiǵi̯ -āthām

*ǵiǵi̯ -ā́ thām

*ǵiǵi̯ -ā́ thām

*ǵiǵi̯ -ī(i̯ )-ā́ thām *ǵigái̯ -a-i̯ thai̯

3.

*ǵiǵi̯ -ā́ tai̯

*á-ǵiǵi̯ -ātām

*ǵiǵi̯ -ā́ tām

*ǵiǵi̯ -ā́ tām

*ǵiǵi̯ -ī(i̯ )-ā́ tām *ǵigái̯ -a-i̯ tai̯

h

h

Du. 1.

Pl. 1.

pluperfect

injunctive

imperative

optative

subjunctive

*ǵiǵi̯ -ī-Há

*ǵigái̯ -a-Hai̯

*ǵiǵi-šu̯á

*ǵiǵi̯ -ī-šá

*ǵigái̯ -a-sai̯

*ǵiǵi̯ -ā́ m

*ǵiǵi̯ -ī(i̯ )-á

*ǵigái̯ -a-tai̯

*ǵiǵi̯ -ī-u̯ád hi

*ǵigái̯ -āu̯ad hai̯

*ǵiǵi̯ -ī-mád hi

*ǵiǵimád hai̯

*á-ǵiǵi-mad i

*ǵiǵi-mád i

2.

*ǵiǵi-d hu̯ái̯

*á-ǵiǵi-d hu̯a(m) *ǵiǵi-d hu̯á(m) *ǵiǵi-d hu̯á(m) *ǵiǵi̯ -ī-d hu̯á(m) *ǵigái̯ -a-d hu̯ai̯

3.

*ǵiǵi-rái̯

*á-ǵiǵi-ra(m)

*ǵiǵi-rá(m)

*ǵiǵi-rā́ m

*ǵiǵi̯ -ī-rá(m)

*ǵigái̯ -āmad hai̯

*ǵigái̯ -a-nta(i̯ )

1920

XVII. Indo-Iranian

7. References Arnold, E. Vernon 1905 Vedic metre in its historical development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bartholomae, Christian 1894 I. Vorgeschichte der Iranischen Sprachen. In: Wilhelm Geiger and Ernst Kuhn (eds.), Grundriß der iranischen Philologie. 1. Band, 1. Abteilung. Straßburg: Trübner, 1−151. Beekes, Robert S. P. 1988 A Grammar of Gatha-Avestan. Leiden: Brill. Bruno, Carla 2005 Forme della sintassi media. Due studi sulla lingua del R̥gveda. Perugia: Guerra. Cantera, Alberto 2007 The accusative of the i- and u-stems with presuffixal full or large grade in Avestan. In: Maria Macuch, Mauro Maggi, and Werner Sundermann (eds.), Iranian languages and texts from Iran and Turan, Ronald E. Emmerick memorial volume. (Iranica 13). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 9−20. Crespo, Emilio and José Luis García Ramón (eds.) 1997 Berthold Delbrück y la sintaxis indoeuropea hoy. Actas del Coloquio de la indogermanische Gesellschaft Madrid, 21−24 septiembre de 1994. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Dahl, Eystein 2010 Time, Tense and Aspect in Early Vedic Grammar. Exploring inflectional semantics in the Rigveda. (Brill’s Studies in Indo-European Languages & Linguistics 5). Leiden: Brill. Debrunner, Albert 1954 Altindische Grammatik. Band II, 2: Die Nominalsuffixe. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Dunkel, George 2004 Particles and Personal Pronouns: Inclusive *me and Exclusive *u̯e. In: John H. W. Penney (ed.), Indo-European Perspectives. Studies in Honour of Anna Morpurgo Davies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 18−29. Dunkel, George 2014 Lexikon der indogermanischen Partikel und Pronominalstämme. Band 1: Einleitung, Terminologie, Lautgesetze, Adverbialendungen, Nominalsuffixe, Anhänge und Indices, Band 2: Lexikon. (Indogermanische Bibliothek, 2. Reihe: Wörterbücher). Heidelberg: Winter. Emmerick, Ronald E. 1968 Saka Grammatical Studies. London: Oxford University Press. EWAia: Mayrhofer, Manfred 1992−1996 Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen. 3 vols. Heidelberg: Winter. García-Ramón, José Luis 1985 Die Sekundärendung der 1.Sg. Medii im Indogermanischen. In: Bernfried Schlerath (ed.), Grammatische Kategorien. Funktion und Geschichte. Akten der VII. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft Berlin, 20.−25. Februar 1983. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 202−217. García-Ramón, José Luis 1997 Infinitive im Indogermanischen? Zur Typologie der Infinitivbildungen und zu ihrer Entwicklung in den älteren indogermanischen Sprachen. Incontri Linguistici 20: 45−69. Geldner, Karl F. 1890 Aus dem Avesta. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 30: 514−534. Harðarson, Jón Axel 1993 Studien zum urindogermanischen Wurzelaorist und dessen Vertretung im Indoiranischen und Griechischen. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität.

111. The morphology of Indo-Iranian

1921

Heenen, François 2006 Le désideratif en védique. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Hock, Hans Henrich 1974 On the Indo-Iranian Accusative Plural of Consonants Stems. Journal of the American Oriental Society 94: 73−95. Hoffmann, Karl 1967a Der Injunktiv im Veda. Heidelberg: Winter. Hoffmann, Karl 1967b Der vedische Prekativtyp yeṣam, jeṣma. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 20: 25−37 [= 1976: 465−474]. Hoffmann, Karl 1975 Aufsätze zur Indoiranistik, ed. Johanna Narten. Vol. 1. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Hoffmann, Karl 1976 Aufsätze zur Indoiranistik, ed. Johanna Narten. Vol. 2. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Hoffmann, Karl and Bernhard Forssman 1996 Avestische Laut- und Flexionslehre. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität. Jamison, Stephanie W. 1979 Voice Fluctuation in the Rig Veda: Medial -anta in Active Paradigms. Indo-Iranian Journal 21: 149−169. Jasanoff, Jay H. 1991 The Ablaut of the Root Aorist Optative in Proto-Indo-European. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 52: 101−122. Jasanoff, Jay H. 1997 Gathic Avestan cikōitərəš. In: Alexander Lubotsky (ed.), Sound law and analogy. Papers in honor of Robert S. P. Beekes on the occasion of his 60 th birthday. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 119−130. Jasanoff, Jay H. 2003 Hittite and the Indo-European verb. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Katz, Joshua T. 1998 Archaische keltische Personalpronomina aus indogermanischer Sicht. In: Wolfgang Meid (ed.), Sprache und Kultur der Indogermanen. Akten der X. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Innsbruck, 22.−28. September 1996. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität, 265−291. Kellens, Jean 1984 Le verbe avestique. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Kim, Ronald I. 2008 The Celtic feminine numerals ‘3’ and ‘4’ revisited. Keltische Forschungen 3: 143−167. Klein, Jared S. 1977 The Indo-Iranian prehistory of the Sanskrit asáu/amúm pronoun. Journal of Indo-European Studies 5: 161−176. Klingenschmitt, Gert 1972 Die mittelpersischen Pronomina ‘yn und h’n, neupersisch īn und ān. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 30: 93−110. Klingenschmitt, Gert 1975 Tocharisch und Urindogermanisch. In: Helmut Rix (ed.), Flexion und Wortbildung. Akten der V. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Regensburg, 9.−14. September 1973. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 148−163. Klingenschmitt, Gert 1987 Erbe und Neuerung beim germanischen Demonstrativpronomen. In: Rolf Bergmann, Heinrich Tiefenbach, and Lothar Voetz (eds.), Althochdeutsch, Band I, Grammatik. Glossen und Texte. Heidelberg: Winter, 169−189.

1922

XVII. Indo-Iranian

Klingenschmitt, Gert 1994 Das Albanische als Glied der indogermanischen Sprachfamilie. In: Jens E. Rasmussen (ed.), In honorem Holger Pedersen. Kolloquium der indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 25. bis 28. März 1993. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 221−233. Kortlandt, Frederik H. H. 1981 1 sg. middle *-H2. Indogermanische Forschungen 86: 123−136. Kortlandt, Frederik H. H. 1987 Archaic Ablaut Patterns in the Vedic Verb. In: George Cardona and Norman H. Zide (eds.), Festschrift for Henry Hoenigswald On the occasion of his Seventieth Birthday. Tübingen: Narr, 219−223. Kulikov, Leonid 2005 Reduplication in the Vedic verb. In: Bernhard Hurch (ed.), Studies on reduplication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 431−454. Kulikov, Leonid 2006 Passive and middle in Indo-European: Reconstructing the early Vedic passive paradigm. In: Werner Abraham and Larisa Leisiö (eds.), Passivization and Typology: Form and function. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 62−81. Kümmel, Martin [Joachim] 1996 Stativ und Passivaorist im Indoiranischen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Kümmel, Martin Joachim 1998 Wurzelpräsens neben Wurzelaorist im Indogermanischen. Historische Sprachforschung 111: 191−208. Kümmel, Martin Joachim 2000 Das Perfekt im Indoiranischen. Eine Untersuchung der Form und Funktion einer ererbten Kategorie des Verbums und ihrer Weiterentwicklung in den altindoiranischen Sprachen. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Kümmel, Martin Joachim 2004 Zur o-Stufe in der idg. Verbalstammbildung. In: James Clackson and Birgit A. Olsen (eds.), Indo-European Word Formation. Proceedings of the Conference held at the University of Copenhagen, October 20th−22 nd 2000. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum, 139−158. Kümmel, Martin Joachim 2012 Monosyllabic lengthening in Vedic aorists? International Journal of Diachronic Linguistics and Linguistic Reconstruction 9: 51−63. Kümmel, Martin Joachim 2013 Zur Endung des Genitivs Plural im Indoiranischen und Indogermanischen. Indogermanische Forschungen 118: 193−211. Kümmel, Martin Joachim 2014a Zum „proterokinetischen“ Ablaut. In: Norbert Oettinger and Thomas Steer (eds.), Das Nomen im Indogermanischen. Morphologie, Substantiv vs. Adjektiv, Kollektivum. Akten der Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Erlangen, 14.−16. September 2011. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 164−179. Kümmel, Martin [Joachim] 2014b Pāṇini 5,3,5 and the function of Sanskrit etád. In: Hans Henrich Hock (ed.), Proceedings of the 15 th World Sanskrit Conference, Session I: Veda. Delhi: DK Printworld, 39−56. LIV2: Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben. Die Wurzeln und ihre Primärstammbildungen. Zweite, erweiterte und verbesserte Auflage bearbeitet von Martin Kümmel und Helmut Rix. 2001. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Lubotsky, Alexander 2000 Indo-Aryan ‘six’. In: Michaela Ofitsch and Christian Zinko (eds.), 125 Jahre Indogermanistik in Graz. Festband anläßlich des 125jährigen Bestehens der Forschungsrich-

111. The morphology of Indo-Iranian

1923

tung “Indogermanistik” an der Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz. Graz: Leykam, 255− 261. Lühr, Rosemarie 1991 Analogische “formae difficiliores”. Historische Sprachforschung 104: 170−185. Malzahn, Melanie [1999] 2000 Die nominalen Flexionsendungen des idg. Duals. Historische Sprachforschung 112: 204−226. Mumm, Peter-Arnold 1995 Verbale Definitheit und der vedische Injunktiv. In: Heinrich Hettrich, Wolfgang Hock, Peter-Arnold Mumm, and Norbert Oettinger (eds.), Verba et structurae. Festschrift für Klaus Strunk zum 65. Geburtstag. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität, 169−193. Narten, Johanna 1964 Die sigmatischen Aoriste im Veda. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Peters, Martin 1980 Untersuchungen zur Vertretung der indogermanischen Laryngale im Griechischen. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Remmer, Ulla 2011 The Avestan paradigm of vaiiu- ‘air, wind’ in the context of irregular accusative singular forms of vowel stems with °ąm and °əm. Indo-Iranian Journal 54: 1−18. Rubio Orecilla and Francisco Javier 1995 El sufijo de derivación nominal *-ii̯ o-/*-i̯ o- en los gerundios y gerundivos del RGVeda y el Avesta: un estudio histórico-comparativo. Zaragoza: Institución “Fernando el Católico”. Schmidt, Klaus T. 1997 Ex oriente lux II: Untersuchungen zum Fortleben der indogermanischen Wurzel *k̑leu̯ ‘hören’ im Tocharischen. In: Crespo and García Ramón (eds.), 541−569. Schrijver, Peter 1999 Vedic gr̥bhṇā́ ti, gr̥bhāyáti and the semantics of *ye-derivatives. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 59: 115−162. Tichy, Eva 1995 Die Nomina agentis auf -tar- im Vedischen. Heidelberg: Winter. Tichy, Eva 1997 Vom indogermanischen Tempus/Aspekt-System zum vedischen Zeitstufensystem. In: Crespo and García Ramón (eds.), 589−609. Tichy, Eva 2006a Der Konjunktiv und seine Nachbarkategorien. Studien zum indogermanischen Verbum, ausgehend von der älteren vedischen Prosa. Bremen: Hempen. Tichy, Eva 2006b A Survey of Proto-Indo-European. Translated by James E. Cathey in collaboration with the author. Bremen: Hempen. Tremblay, Xavier 1996a Un nouveau type apophonique des noms athématiques suffixaux de l’Indo-européen. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique 91: 97−145. Tremblay, Xavier 1996b Zum suffixalen Ablaut o/e in der athematischen Deklination. Die Sprache 38: 31−70. Tremblay, Xavier 1996c Addenda et Corrigenda à Sprache XXXVIII, p. 99−131. Die Sprache 38: 213−217. Tremblay, Xavier 2003 La déclinaison des noms de parenté indo-européens en -ter-. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität.

1924

XVII. Indo-Iranian

Tremblay, Xavier 2005 Zum Narten-Aorist. Apophonica IV. In: Günter Schweiger (ed.), Indogermanica. Festschrift Gert Klingenschmitt. Indische, iranische und indogermanische Studien dem verehrten Jubilar dargebracht zu seinem fünfundsechzigsten Geburtstag. Taimering: VWT, 637−664. Tremblay, Xavier 2006 Ist die Aktivendung 3Pl -āra in einigen ostiranischen Sprachen inneriranische Entwicklung oder indogermanisches Erbe? (mit einem Exkurs über die athematischen Endungen des Chwaresmischen). Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 62 [2002]: 259−287. de Vaan, Michiel 2003 The Avestan Vowels. Amsterdam: Rodopi. de Vaan, Michiel 2005 Old Avestan xva- and Young Avestan hauua- ‘own’. In: Gerhard Meiser and Olav Hackstein (eds.), Sprachkontakt und Sprachwandel: Akten der XI. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Halle an der Saale, 17.−23. September 2000. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 699−708. Wackernagel, Jacob 1896 Altindische Grammatik. Band I: Lautlehre. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Wackernagel, Jacob and Albert Debrunner 1930 Altindische Grammatik. Band III: Nominalflexion − Zahlwort − Pronomen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Watkins, Calvert 1969 Geschichte der indogermanischen Verbalflexion. (Indogermanische Grammatik III/1). Heidelberg: Winter.

Martin Joachim Kümmel, Jena (Germany)

112. The syntax of Indo-Iranian 1. 2. 3. 4.

Introduction What is “configurational” syntax? The basic structure of the clause WH-movement

5. 6. 7. 8.

Wackernagel’s so-called Law “Normal” word order and S, O, V Conclusions References

1. Introduction It might seem that this chapter of the Handbook could be constructed by the reader him/ herself, by a process of simply comparing the valuable insights to be found in the chapter of “Indic Syntax” with those found in the “Iranian Syntax” contribution. However, there are considerations which make this chapter necessary, in my view. For example, the strong focus of the chapters treating Indic and Iranian syntax was on what I would call the morphosyntax of those languages − the “syntax” of accusative morphology, or of the causative marker, for example. This use of the term “syntax” has a long tradition in Indo-European studies, particularly for the classical languages (but also for archaic Indohttps://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-033

112. The syntax of Indo-Iranian

1925

Iranian ones), so I will refer to it henceforth as “traditional syntax”. Given the strength of this tradition, and its duration, there is a great deal which can be said with confidence regarding the “traditional syntax” of archaic Indo-Iranian languages, making a treatment of those issues excellent material for a Handbook. However, many a linguist trained in the contemporary linguistic landscape will not recognize the field of “syntax” as pursued by modern syntacticians in this traditional work. Fundamental questions of a modern syntactic nature (e.g., how does question formation take place? Does the language have wh-movement, or is it wh-in-situ?, etc.) are not asked in the traditional pursuit. For this reason, I will focus in this chapter on what I will call the “configurational syntax” (in a sense to be made clear below) of Indo-Iranian. Several caveats are in order at this juncture. First, handbook chapters are generally intended to reflect some kind of scholarly communis opinio on the matters under discussion and provide a guide to the wealth of scholarly literature in that domain. This chapter cannot do that, since there cannot be said to be any communis opinio in the scholarly community regarding the configurational syntax of Indo-Iranian − not because there is such a diversity of opinions that none can be accurately labeled communis, but because there is a dearth of expressed scholarly opinion on the issues at hand. This will be seen from the sparseness of the scholarly literature that may be cited. The most important works from a contemporary perspective include the following: for Vedic, Klein (1985) and Hale (ms.), for Old Persian, Klein (1988) and Hale (1988), for Old Avestan, West (2011), and for Iranian generally, Skjærvø (2009). See also the excellent bibliography, covering traditional and more contemporary approaches to Sanskrit syntax, in Hock (1991). There are, of course, reasons for this lack. First, the kinds of issues covered by the term “configurational syntax”, while they have some tradition in Indo-European studies, have not received the same degree of attention as the issues arising from what I have labeled “traditional syntax”. Some of the issues were not addressed at all in the pregenerative literature. Without the kind of careful, philologically-informed establishment of the facts regarding these issues for individual archaic Indo-Iranian daughter languages, no reconstruction of the Indo-Iranian situation was possible. The literature which does address “configurational” syntactic issues in, e.g., Vedic Sanskrit (the most extensively studied of the archaic Indo-Iranian languages) often does so with reference to parallels in Greek or Latin, or, in some cases, other Indo-European branches, rather than invoking explicit comparison within the Iranian branch, and thus fails to give a clear indication of the Indo-Iranian situation. On the Iranian side, West (2011) presents an analysis of Old Avestan syntax which addresses many “configurational” issues, but it is difficult to achieve analytical clarity when one absolutely limits all attention to the very small Old Avestan corpus. Obviously one would not want to randomly intermix observations from Young Avestan with those from Old Avestan, but an establishment of a set of identities and divergences between the languages could help clarify matters. Skjærvø (2009) presents a survey of the Old Iranian facts, which, due to the limitations of publication in a “handbook” volume, is broader than it is deep, covering a wide range of phenomena, but only rarely actually establishing the claims made on an empirical basis. This does not mean the claims are not valid, only that their validity must in each case be independently established by the interested scholar. It should be noted in this regard that the Indo-Iranian branch fares no worse than the other major branches of Indo-European: there is no detailed reconstruction of the

1926

XVII. Indo-Iranian

configurational syntax of Proto-Greek, Proto-Italic, Proto-Anatolian, etc. The effect of the almost total absence of reconstruction of the relevant properties for the branches of Indo-European means that we do not have good information − in sharp contrast to the situation regarding phonology and, to a large extent, morphology − about what the IndoEuropean properties were in the relevant respect. Thus, while establishing the nature of Indo-Iranian phonology or morphology could be described as locating the place of ProtoIIr. on a continuum along a line extending from the PIE situation to what we find in the individual archaic daughter languages, in the case of configurational syntax, the situation at the PIE end of that line is quite unclear at present. In short, this chapter concerns matters which are probably the least clear of any being treated in this handbook. One might wonder, indeed, whether it is appropriate to even attempt a characterization of the configurational syntax of Indo-Iranian given our general ignorance on the matter. There are, I think, two reasons why such an exercise is useful at this point. First, ignorance can, in some sense, be conceived of as a pointer towards potentially exciting domains for new research undertakings. There are dozens of major issues in the configurational syntax of Indo-Iranian about which I can write nothing: each represents a new frontier for research towards an understanding of the configurational syntax of PIE itself. Second, while there is much we do not know, there are, I think, some things about which a certain degree of confidence would be justified even at this early stage. Documenting these for Indo-Iranian may serve as an impetus for parallel work on the other branches, and then on the proto-language itself. One final proviso: because of the lack of established results regarding the configurational syntax of Indo-Iranian, it will be necessary to present more of the argumentation and evidence for the positions taken here than is generally necessary in a handbook − I cannot simply point the interested reader to the scholarly literature which establishes that such-and-such is the case. Given the space limitations imposed on the chapter, then, it follows that only a relatively small number of phenomena can receive serious treatment.

2. What is “configurational” syntax? I will use the label “traditional syntax” to refer to investigations into the syntactic conditions on the appearance of particular morphological categories. Such investigations attempt to answer questions such as: what triggers the appearance of a locative case, or causative marker, or plural agreement morphology in a given language? The importance of developing answers to such traditional concerns cannot be overstated: it has been the correspondences in the syntax of particular morphological markers across the daughter languages which have allowed us such deep insight into the morphology of the protolanguage. Such concerns interact with other significant issues for the study of archaic Indo-European languages: semantic considerations, for example, as well as the concerns of what I will call “configurational” syntax. But there are syntactic issues which do not fall within the scope of such questions. For example, there are Indo-Iranian languages which require that interrogative and relative pronouns occupy a position at (or very near) the start of their clause (i.e. languages which show so-called “wh-movement”) and there are Indo-Iranian languages which do

112. The syntax of Indo-Iranian

1927

not impose such a requirement on those elements (i.e. so-called “wh-in-situ” languages). There is no semantic difference between interrogatives in the two kinds of languages, nor is there any necessary morphological distinction between the “wh-words” in the two types. This is a purely syntactic contrast, and, as such, falls outside the scope of “traditional syntax” as defined above. There are other processes of “syntactic displacement” (or “movement”): topicalization, focusing, clitic-displacement, etc. Except for the wellknown work by Wackernagel (and his predecessors) on clitics in Indo-European, traditional syntax has not produced precise characterizations of these phenomena. It is important to be clear about the use of the term “movement” for these types of relations − the term is historical, rather than technically precise. “Movement” is the label for whatever process establishes a relationship between two “positions” in a syntactic representation. Thus, in the English question who did John see? the word who simultaneously satisfies the requirement that wh-elements occupy clause-initial position and the requirement that transitive see have a direct object. Since the expected position for direct objects is immediately postverbal, there is a connection between that position and the position in which who actually surfaces − quite far from the post-verbal position. I will call this connection “movement”, in keeping with long-standing generative tradition. Also included within the scope of “configurational syntax” are matters of so-called “word order”, such as the positioning of major constituents (subjects, objects, verbs) relative to one another, as well as the ordering of elements within smaller phrasal domains (adpositional phrases, noun or determiner phrases, etc.). While there is a long tradition which concerned itself with “word order” phenomena in archaic Indo-European languages, the goals (and thus methods) of such pursuits differ widely from modern approaches, as we will see below.

3. The basic structure of the clause It would be wrong to assert that earlier approaches to Indo-Iranian syntax did not consider, e.g., word order issues as a significant aspect of their research activity. Both in the Delbrück era (late 19th-early 20 th century) and again in the 1970’s word order was a central concern of much of Indo-Europeanist syntactic investigation, including, of course, the word order of archaic Indo-Iranian languages. It is of some interest to consider these earlier approaches from the modern perspective on Indo-European syntax, which holds fairly uniformly that, whereas work on the reconstruction of phonology and morphology has been quite successful, syntactic research lags significantly. Why, if IndoEuropeanists have regularly considered matters such as word order, do most contemporary scholars in this field feel there is little they can assert with confidence on the matter? In my view, there is a connection between the shortcomings of the work of the Delbrück era and that of “word order” studies in the 1970’s, and by identifying their common, and apparently non-productive, assumptions, we can learn something significant about how to approach the study of the syntax of Indo-Iranian, and how not to. Although this is a handbook article, given the little we can say with confidence about the configurational syntax of Indo-Iranian, it may be worthwhile to expend some energy on exploring why this might be the case. We will do that after our survey of some of the basic structural properties of the Indo-Iranian clause.

1928

XVII. Indo-Iranian

Let us examine first the distribution of some deictic elements which appear, generally, to have well-defined semantics. Ickler (1973) has shown that the topic-marking pronoun represented by IIr. *tá- “that (one) [weak deixis]” has a highly restricted distribution in Vedic Prose, and her results have been confirmed by Verpoorten (1977). That the strong preference she identified for either initial or “second” position for this element in Vedic also holds for Iranian can be seen from Bartholomae’s Altiranisches Wörterbuch (1904: column 1718), where substantival ta- is given two major subentries: sentence-initial placement (“an der Spitze”), and after the first word, not counting any relevant clitics (“hinter dem ersten Wort, auch durch ein Enklitikum davon getrennt”). It seems clear that this distribution was highly favored in Indo-Iranian itself. But why should this be the case? The syntax of human languages often reveals special principles for the placement of interrogative and relative elements (so-called wh-movement phenomena), or distributional restrictions on clitics (e.g. Wackernagel’s Law), but IIr. *tá- is neither a whelement nor a clitic. Hale (1991) presents an analysis for the widely-recognized discourse distinction between an element such as *tá- and its “stronger” sister form *aytá- (Skt. etá-, Av. aēta-, OPers. aita-). Note that the contrast in degree of force has been known for a long time, Delbrück labeling Indic etá- “ein stärkeres tá-” [a stronger tá-] (1888: 219), and for Iranian, Caland (1891: 11) says that Av. aēta- is a deictic similar to ta- but “mit mehr emphase” [with greater emphasis]. In the analysis of Hale (1991), the element *tá- is taken to be a “topicalized” pronominal, whereas *aytá- is analyzed as a “focused” pronominal. Statistically, in Vedic Prose (e.g.), tá- shows “initial position” placement more frequently than etá-, and, when both appear, etá- regularly follows tá-. The following passage from Vedic Prose is typical: (1)

asā́v ādityó ná vyàrocata yonder-NomSg sun-NomSg NEG shined out ‘Yonder sun was not shining out. tásmai devā́ḥ prā́yaścittim aichan him-DatSg gods-NomPl atonement-AccSg sought For him the gods sought an atonement. tásmā etā́ malhā́ ā́labhanta ... him-DatSg these-AccPlF dew-lapped-AccPlF they offered For him they offered these dew-lapped (beasts) ... tā́bhir evā́smin rúcam adadhur them-InstPlF indeed+this-LocSg brilliance-AccSg they placed By means of these (beasts) indeed they placed in him brilliance.’ (TS 2.1.2.4)

What we see in this example is that an entity (the sun) is introduced into the discourse using a strong deictic element (asáu). It becomes the “entity under discussion”, and is picked up in subsequent clauses by a “topic” demonstrative (tá-), in clause-initial position. I have underlined its first appearance, and the relevant subsequent references to it, in the text above. In the third clause, a new entity is introduced (which I track through the clauses above by bolding references to it), ‘these dew-lapped (beasts)’, using the focusing element etá-; subsequently, it is ‘the dew-lapped ones’ which are the topic, and

112. The syntax of Indo-Iranian

1929

they are thus referred to in the fourth clause with the “topic” demonstrative (tá-), again in initial position. Given the difference in semantics between the two elements (tá- and etá-), Hale (1991) proposes that the restriction on the distribution of these deictic elements is to be sought in their connection to the particular discourse functions of “topic” (for *tá-) and “focus” (for *aytá-). It follows, then, from the fact that when both appear in Vedic Prose (which we take, for the time being, to be representative) tá- precedes etá- (as in the third clause in the example above), that the start of the Indo-Iranian sentence may have included a structure such as: (2)

TOPIC FOCUS ...

neither element being obligatory, of course. Since *tá- normally represents the “topic”, it will normally occupy the TOPIC position, and since *aytá- normally represents more strongly focalized material, it will normally occupy the FOCUS position. Of course, focused material need not be pronominalized by *aytá- and when a full NP is focused, e.g., it may likewise occupy this FOCUS position. The same is certainly true for discourse topics and the TOPIC position. The restricted distribution of *tá- is thus attributed not to some special tá-placement “rule” of the syntax, but to a general phenomenon of “topic fronting”, which tá- is, given its semantics, particularly prone to undergo. Similar arguments hold for *aytá- and the FOCUS position. It is well known that there are a number of phenomena in addition to topicalization and focusing which implicate the beginning portion of the clause in archaic Indo-Iranian languages. As demonstrated for Iranian by Bartholomae (1882−1887), and by Wackernagel (1892) for Vedic Sanskrit, clitics tend to occur in “second position” in their clause. But where is “second position”, and how does it relate to the clause-initial FOCUS and TOPIC positions posited in (1)? In addition, Hale (1987) demonstrated that wh-movement was obligatory in Indo-Iranian for interrogative and relative markers. In modern grammatical analysis, such movement is thought to involve placing the elements in a position at or near the start of the clause which is called C (originally standing for COMPLEMENTIZER). But where is C relative to the FOCUS and TOPIC positions? How does C interact with clitic placement, to which it is often thought to be related? The following sections attempt to address, in a necessarily provisional manner, some of these questions, and thereby provide us with greater detail regarding the structure of the clause in Proto-Indo-Iranian.

4. WH-movement Hale (1987) demonstrated that the cross-linguistically common (though not invariant) phenomenon of wh-fronting, whereby interrogative and relative elements are moved into a high (generally left) position in the so-called C-domain, is active in both archaic Indic and archaic Iranian languages, and thus should be reconstructed for Proto-Indo-Iranian (and most likely for PIE itself). Since we have now claimed that in Indo-Iranian there was a TOPIC and a FOCUS position also at or near the clause-initial position, the natural question arises as to whether or not we can be precise about where, in Indo-Iranian, the

1930

XVII. Indo-Iranian

wh-movement landing site sat relative to these “discourse” positions. As a shorthand, we will simply call the landing site for wh-movement “C” in what follows. So, if we find a clause with focused material (presumably in FOCUS), a wh-element (presumably in C) and topic material (presumably in TOPIC), what is their position relative to one another in our most archaic Indo-Iranian texts? We have to recognize, of course, that finding all three elements in a single clause may be difficult (the sentence would have a lot “going on” in it pragmatically if all three positions were filled). It is sufficient, of course, to establish an ordering between these elements if there are cases of FOCUS and wh-movement, and cases of TOPIC and wh-movement (we presumably already know the ordering of FOCUS and TOPIC themselves, as sketched in 2. above), as long as these cases show relatively consistent ordering relations. The ordering between wh-elements (the relative *yá- and the interrogative *ká-) and topics marked with *tá- is clear in both Indic and Iranian: the wh-word precedes the TOPIC element. Illustrative examples include: (3)

+ + yas tə¯m nōit̰ / nā isǝmnō āiiāt̰ at̰ then REL-NomSg him-AccSg NEG / man-NomSg able-NomSg shall approach ‘then which man shall not approach him, though being able’ (Y 46.6: OAv)

(4)

kvà r̥tám pūrvyáṃ gatáṃ kás tád where pious work-NomSg earlier-NomSg gone-NomSg who-NomSg it-AccSg bibharti nū́tano bears current-NomSg ‘Where has my earlier pious work gone? Who bears it, as the current one?’ (RV 1.105.4cd: Vedic)

That *tá- shows up frequently in such structures is part of the reason why Ickler and Verpoorten identify two common positions for this element in Vedic Prose − initial and “second”. In wh-clauses (and in those to be discussed below, with EMPHASIS elements), the TOPIC position, and the *tá- which occupies it, will be somewhat removed from clause-initial position. It is rarer to find focused elements (e.g. marked by *aytá-) in interrogative and relative clauses, the wh-element itself doubtless bearing a certain degree of focus, but the large corpus of the Rigveda does provide the following: (5)

girā́ yá etā́ yunájad dhárī te song-InstrSg REL-NomSg these-AccDu would yoke bay steeds-AccDu your ‘who would yoke these two bays of yours by means of a (praise-)song’ (RV 7.36.4a: Vedic)

(6)

dvír yád eté trír bhávanti ū́māḥ twice when-WH these-NomPl thrice are helpers-NomPl ‘when these helpers become twice (as many) [or] thrice (as many)’ (RV 10.120.3b: Vedic)

These examples reveal another interesting property of Indo-Iranian wh-clauses: as Hale (1987) demonstrated in some detail, all of the archaic Indo-Iranian languages allow the

112. The syntax of Indo-Iranian

1931

fronting of a constituent to a position to the left of a fronted wh-element (i.e. to the left of C). Examples for each of the major daughters are: (7)

áśmānaṃ cid yé bibhidúr vácobhiḥ rock-AccSg Emph.Ptcl RelPro-NomPl split-IIIPl words-InstPl ‘who split even rock with (mere) words ...’ (RV 4.16.6c: Vedic)

(8)

devā́ vaí yéna híraṇyena sómam ákrīṇan gods-NomPl Ptcl. REL-InstrSg gold-InstrSg soma-AccSg bought-IIIPl tád abhīṣáhā púnar ā́dadata that-AccSg by force back they took ‘with which gold the gods bought the soma, that (gold) they took back by force’ (TS 6.1.10.3: Vedic Prose)

(9)

naēnaēstārō yaθənā vohunąm mahī non-scorners since+Ptcl good-GenPl we are ‘since we are non-scorners of the good’ (YH 35.2: OAv)

(10) martiya tya patiy martiyam θātiy ava mām man-NomSg REL-AccSg against man-AccSg says that-NomSg me-AccSg naiy varnavataiy NEG convince ‘what one man says against (another) man, that does not convince me’ (DNb 22: OP) The pragmatics associated with the material fronted around C is clearly “emphatic” in some sense − indeed, fronting for reasons of emphasis as a mechanism of syntactic displacement has been recognized by all previous scholarship on IIr. syntax, although, it must be said, no systematic attempt to distinguish between fronting to this initial position, fronting via wh-movement, fronting to the TOPIC-slot or fronting to the FOCUS position has ever been ventured in previous scholarly work. I will not attempt here to establish a standard label for this position, but will simply label it EMPHASIS, after its only clearly established function. (It is worth pointing out, however, that this is not in my view the position for what is usually called “left dislocation”, there being no resumptive element in the main clause. For “left dislocation” in Sanskrit, see Oertel’s discussion [1923, 1926] of nominativus pendens and related phenomena.) The data taken as a whole, then, would seem to favor a Proto-Indo-Iranian clause-initial surface sequence of the type: (11) EMPHASIS Cwh TOPIC FOCUS ... While one should not accept the characterization of the Indo-Iranian clause I have presented up to this point on the basis of the evidence cited − necessarily brief, given the space allotted this handbook chapter − the references cited do provide fairly good reasons to believe that the reconstruction is on the right track. However, wh-movement, focusing, and topicalization do not exhaust the processes which are responsible for placing el-

1932

XVII. Indo-Iranian

ements in particular positions early in the Indo-Iranian clause: if the object argument is a clitic, it may be placed by what has come to be called “Wackernagel’s Law”, to which we now turn.

5. Wackernagel’s so-called Law Wackernagel (1897) provides a wealth of evidence in support of the earlier observations of Delbrück and Bartholomae that enclitic elements show restricted distribution in archaic Indo-Iranian languages, extending their claim to other branches of the Indo-European language family, and, indeed, to the protolanguage itself. His statement of the generalization, which holds that clitics “tend to occur in second position” in their clause, is now known as “Wackernagel’s Law”. Given the importance of this syntactic generalization in discussions of Indo-European syntax, and the key role of the Indo-Iranian languages in providing evidence regarding the relevant set of phenomena, it will be worthy of some attention here. The first matter we might try to understand concerns the nature of WL-type phenomena: are they essentially phonological or syntactic, or are they some combination of the two? I will first examine a clitic with a good Indo-European pedigree, well reflected in the archaic Indo-Iranian languages, and thus confidently present in Proto-Indo-Iranian: *ca ‘and’ (< IE *kwe “id.”). We will focus initially, for non-controversial matters, on data from the archaic corpus offering the richest attestation: Mantra Vedic. It seems clear that we would have two options, if we wanted to say ‘and oblationconveying Agni’ (RV 2.41.19c) in Vedic: one involving the tonic conjunction utá, one the enclitic conjunction ca. (For extensive discussion of the syntax of ca and utá in the Rigveda, see Klein 1985, for cā in Old Persian see Klein 1988, and for a briefer survey of cā in Old Avestan, West 2011: § 287−294. Note that other archaic IE languages similarly offer a tonic and an enclitic conjunction: Greek καί beside τε, Latin et beside -que, etc., with similar “ordering” effects.) Since the syntactic function of these elements appears to be identical, we might expect them to have the same syntax, something like: (12) [

O Q R

utá ca

S T U

[ DP agním havyavā́hanam ] ]

As is well known, whereas utá may surface in the position it occupies in the syntactic representation above, ca will not: being enclitic, it is subject to a requirement that it have a “prosodic host” on its left. Since, within its phonological phrase (φ) − built from the syntactic structures above − it does not, it will undergo minimal rightward movement to find an appropriate host, a so-called “prosodic inversion” (Halpern 1992; for extensive discussion of the Vedic facts in this regard, see Hale 1996). The conjunctive utá need not undergo such movement: (I have suppressed external sandhi in these examples.) (13) [ ___ agním ca havyavā́hanam ] (14) [ utá agním havyavā́hanam ]

φ

φ

Under this conception of things, widely accepted at this point, the placement of ca is due to an operation of the phonology, not the syntax. The syntax places ca just where it

112. The syntax of Indo-Iranian

1933

places utá − it undergoes “prosodic inversion” to satisfy a prosodic requirement, not a syntactic one. Strong support for this way of understanding the behavior of clitics comes from the coordination of postpositions following bare nouns, such as víśa ā́ ‘into the settlements’ or vána ā́ ‘in the wood’. Such PPs display a close prosodic connection between the postposition and its complement (the preserved final s of phrases such as divás pári ‘from heaven’ arises, rather than visarga, because of the same close prosodic connection). As a result, when a clitic like ca conjoins such a PP, it treats the PP as a single “prosodic word”, flipping around the entire PP (rather than just around the first morphosyntactic word): (15) [ ca [ PP víśa ā́] → víśa ā́ ca (*víśaś ca-ā́) ‘to (the) settlements’ (RV 4.2.3d) (16) [ ca [ PP vána ā́] → vána ā́ ca (*váne ca-ā́) ‘in the wood’ (RV 9.89.1d) We see then that “prosodic inversion” normally triggers second position placement of the affected clitic (as in [13]), but may, under the right prosodic conditions, trigger a slightly postponed positioning (as in [15] and [16]). The important fact about ca is that we have reason, both from the behavior of the tonic conjunction utá and from our understanding of how coordination works crosslinguistically, to place ca in a certain position in the string syntactically. It is from that syntactically-justified position that “prosodic inversion” takes place. The “Wackernagel’s Law” distribution of ca thus has two components: 1) the syntactic positioning of the element (which, in the case of ca, has nothing to do with its clitichood) and 2) the phonological positioning, or “prosodic inversion” (which arises because ca is prosodically deficient and requires a host on its left). In trying to understand the syntax of the pronominal clitics (also regulated by WL), we need then to ask two questions: what governs their initial syntactic positioning, and under what conditions do they undergo “prosodic inversion”? As we did in the case of ca above, we can to a certain extent follow the cross-linguistic evidence here, which seems to favor placing pronominal clitics in a position immediately following what I have been calling C. Note that, assuming this holds for IIr. as well, we can then posit our final structuring for the IIr. clause-initial string: (17) EMPHASIS Cwh clpro TOPIC FOCUS ... The first prediction we might derive from this representation is that pronominal clitics will not normally surface to the left of a wh-element, since if C is filled, the clitic will be properly hosted within its domain (CP) on its left, and will not undergo inversion. Note that this entails that there will be a systematic exception to Wackernagel’s Law: if we get a constituent in the EMPHASIS slot, and a wh-element, the clitic will not appear second in its clause, as Wackernagel predicted. That this is the case in both archaic Indic and Iranian was demonstrated by Hale (1987). Typical examples include:

1934

XVII. Indo-Iranian

(18) idhmáṃ yás te jabhárac kindling-AccSg REL-NSg you-DatSgcl will bear-IIISg chaśramāṇáḥ exerting himself-NomSg ‘who, exerting himself, will bear the kindling to you ...’ (RV 4.12.2a: Vedic) (19) prá yé me bandhveṣé / gā́m vócanta PV REL-NomPl me-DatSgcl family inquiry-LocSg / cow-AccSg call-IIIPl sūráyaḥ lords-NomPl ‘who, as lords, proclaim the cow to me at the family inquiry ...’ (RV 5.52.16ab: Vedic) (20) utā maṛtiyā tyai=šaiy fratamā anušiyā āhatā and men-NomPl REL-NomPl=his foremost-NomPl supporters-NomPl were avaiy Hagmatāṇạiỵ ạṭạṛ didām frājaham those-AccPl Hagmatāna-LocSg inside fortress-AccSg I hanged ‘and the men who were his foremost supporters, those I hanged inside the forest at Hagmatana’ (DB 2.77: OP) Of course, if C is filled, but there is nothing in EMPHASIS, we also need no “prosodic inversion”, since C provides an appropriate host for the clitic. Interestingly, even though the placement principles in such examples are identical to those in the examples we have just seen, because the EMPHASIS slot is empty, the following examples appear to comply with Wackernagel’s Law (while the earlier examples appeared to be exceptions!). Examples abound in the texts: (21) hiiat̰ hōi vohū vaxšat̰ manaŋhā so that himcl good-InstrSg one might increase thinking-InstrSg ‘so that one might increase (it) for him through good thinking’ (Y 31.6: OAv) (Old Avestan hiiat̰ , being a complementizer, is in C.) (22) yó me pṛṇād ... REL-NomSg me-DatSgcl would grant in abundance-IIISg ‘Who would grant to me in abundance ...’ (RV 2.30.7c: Vedic) A second prediction also follows relatively straightforwardly. Imagine that we have an element in the FOCUS position (e.g. a form of *aytá-, which, as we have seen, typically occupies such a position), and nothing in EMPHASIS or TOPIC, and, finally, nothing in C (i.e. no wh-element). Here’s an example, followed by its presumed input structure: (23) eṣá me deváḥ savitā́ cachanda this-NomSg me-DatSgcl god-NomSg Savitar-NomSg resembled ‘This (one) seemed to me like the god Savitar.’ (RV 7.63.3c: Vedic)

112. The syntax of Indo-Iranian

1935

(24) [EMPHASIS __ [C ___ me [TOPIC __ [FOCUS eṣá [ deváḥ savitā́ cachanda We can see that the me had nothing to lean on to its left, having been placed after C by the syntax. It thus underwent “prosodic inversion” around the first element to its right − the eṣá in FOCUS. It follows that should we have a postposition with a bare N object in “initial” position in the clause (someplace lower than C), and a pronominal clitic in C, the “prosodic inversion” should respect the “close connection” between the postposition and its object, as ca did in the cases discussed earlier. This seems to be the case (RV 4.51.10cd): (25) syonā́d ā́ vaḥ pratibúdhyamānāḥ couch-AblSg PostP you-AccPlcl awakening in response-NomPl suvī́ryasya pátayaḥ syāma good hero-troop-GenSg lords-NomPl we would be ‘Awakening from our couch in response to you, we would be lords of a good hero-troop.’ While we can’t know for sure without further analysis just where the phrase syonā́d ā́ pratibúdhyamānāḥ sits in the structure (perhaps it is just in normal subject position, below FOCUS), it is below C; and vaḥ starts out to its left and “flips in” for hosting, but it does not intervene between syonā́d and ā́, which form a tight prosodic connection. In other cases, we can use the machinery we have constructed, which appears to hold for the most archaic IIr. languages (though it has been best studied in Vedic, which thus provides the bulk of our data), to diagnose the structural position of certain elements. Examine the following two examples: (26) amr̥tatváṃ rákṣamāṇāsa enaṃ devā́ agníṃ immortality-AccSg protecting-NomPl him-AccSgcl gods-NomPl Agni-AccSg dhārayan draviṇodā́m preserved giver of goods-AccSg ‘Protecting [their] immortality, the gods preserved him as Agni, giver of goods.’ (RV 1.96.6cd: Vedic) (27) víśveṣv enaṃ vr̥jáneṣu pāmi all-LocPl him-AccSgcl places-LocPl I protect ‘I protect him in all places.’ (RV 10.28.2c: Vedic) If we ignore the clitic enam for a moment, both clauses start out with a constituent: the former with the participial phrase amṛtatváṃ rákṣamāṇāsaḥ ‘protecting (their) immortality’, the latter with víśveṣu vṛjáneṣu ‘in all places’. How are we to explain the fact that enam appears to take a position after the entire constituent amṛtatváṃ rákṣamāṇāsaḥ but inside the constituent víśveṣu vṛjáneṣu? Imagine that the participial clause has been fronted into the EMPHASIS position, but the víśveṣu vṛjáneṣu occupies some position below C. The inputs to the “prosodic inversion” process would be: (28) [Emphasis amṛtatváṃ rákṣamāṇāsaḥ [C __ enam [ ...

1936

XVII. Indo-Iranian

and (29) [Emphasis __ [C __ enam [ víśveṣu vṛjáneṣu ... In the former example, it seems clear that elements in the EMPHASIS position are “close enough” to C to allow the clitics in that position to lean on them as their host. The enam in the former example is thus properly hosted, and need not undergo “prosodic inversion”. In the latter case, by contrast, the EMPHASIS position is empty, as is C (except for the clitic). There is nothing to the left of enam for it to lean on; it thus must undergo “prosodic inversion”, which places it after the first phonological word to its right, víśveṣu. (It cannot, of course, be excluded that víśveṣu has been fronted to EMPHASIS and is thus able to host enam from that position. What can be excluded, however, is that amṛtatváṃ rákṣamāṇāsaḥ is any lower than EMPHASIS [since otherwise, enam would “flip” into it]. We can also exclude the possibility that the phrase víśveṣu vṛjáneṣu is as high as EMPHASIS, since if it were, enam could not end up “inside” it.) If this type of approach to Wackernagel’s Law phenomena in Indo-Iranian, and IndoEuropean generally, is on the right track (for more comprehensive discussion, see Hale, forthcoming), we can draw a rather startling conclusion: there is no process which we could call “Wackernagel’s Law” which accounts for the data usually attributed to the action of that “law”. We have identified two mechanisms as relevant to the phenomenon: the syntactic placement of the affected element in some appropriate position and the “prosodic inversion” triggered if that element is, at the end of the syntactic derivation, not properly hosted on its left. The syntactic placement aspect of the phenomenon cannot be “Wackernagel’s Law”, since it affects utá every bit as much as ca and, indeed, is responsible for the positioning of all elements, enclitic or not, in the syntactic tree. On the other hand, the “prosodic inversion” cannot be “Wackernagel’s Law”, since many elements which have been standardly cited as examples of the “law” never underwent any such inversion: see examples (18)−(22), and (26) above, for examples. Thus “Wackernagel’s Law” appears to be the epiphenomenal by-product of the interaction of two distinct processes, one syntactic, one phonological, both processes applying outside the domain of cases traditionally treated by the “law”. These processes appear to be of IIr. date − indeed, they are probably of IE vintage. But “Wackernagel’s Law” was not; indeed, it probably never existed as a linguistic operation.

6. “Normal” word order and S, O, V Having surveyed some of the basic structural aspects of the IIr. clause, we may now return to the question of why most earlier approaches failed to generate a body of scholarship which have had a lasting impact on the field. Delbrück’s work on Indo-Iranian “word order” syntax (e.g. Delbrück 1878, 1888) was centered around the syntax of Vedic Prose texts. Modern work which follows in this tradition (e.g. Verpoorten 1977) shares this focus. The choice was a motivated one: Delbrück quite clearly believed that the syntax of the more archaic metrical texts (which had, because of their early date, the potential a priori for greater value in comparative work) was in the end not as useful as the syntax of later (prose) texts, the influence of the meter, and the greater range of

112. The syntax of Indo-Iranian

1937

rhetorical flourish found in such texts representing “distortions” of the basic facts he was seeking to uncover. In the word-order portion of his monumental Altindische Syntax (1888), Delbrück makes clear that his goal is the description of the normal (“traditional”) word order of “calm prose exposition”. (In his earlier work [1878], he had explored a few simple aspects of more marked word order [“occasionelle Stellung” (occasional positioning)] as well.) The conception of syntax he invokes is one in which there is some basic order − that of rhetorically neutral prose description − from which deviations arise via well-defined perturbations of that neutral order (usually simple fronting). In the same way, much “word order” syntax work on Indo-European (and thus early Indo-Iranian) languages in the 1970’s concerned which ordering of the “magic letters” S, O, and V (for subject, object, and verb, respectively) should be assumed as “basic” or “underlying” for PIE, where, once again, “basic” or “underlying” was taken to be an ordering from which more “marked” orders could be derived. In both cases, more “marked” orders were those which were statistically less common. It is also clear that, at least in the 19th-century research, this statistical infrequency was a function of the strong rhetorical or expressive needs of the particular genre. This approach does not seem inherently misguided, yet it has failed to yield a reliable result. Why? First, it turns out that the statistically most frequent order and the “basic” order (in the sense of “order from which all observed orders can be most readily derived”) do not target the same phenomenon. The most common word order of a modern German transitive clause, e.g., is SVO, but it turns out that this is a derived order (under most analyses, the S has been fronted and the V has moved from “final” to “second” position). Second, as the German example makes clear, surface linear order may be a less than fully insightful manner of characterizing the syntax of a language. In the SVO order of a modern German main clause, e.g., we have a derivation from underlying SOV order, but, crucially, that characterization of the ordering makes it appear that the subject is in the same syntactic position in underlying and surface syntax (“initial”, let’s say), but, again, under all modern analyses of German, this is not the case. Linear order description hides the fact that we went from [ S O V ] to [ S [ V [ __ S O __ V] ] ] (where the under-lines mark the original locus of the S and V elements). Finally, as it turns out, it is not the case that SOV sentences are “rhetorically neutral” in archaic Indo-Iranian (and Indo-European) languages. In a normal discourse-neutral context, the subject of the transitive clause will have already been mentioned in previous discourse (it is unusual to introduce new material into the discourse in this position), and will thus be pronominalized. However, the normal pronominal for an unemphatic subject in Indo-Iranian is null, i.e. has no phonological content. Again, in the case of a direct object known from previous discourse (statistically the norm, as well), we expect an unemphatic object pronoun. In Indo-Iranian, such unemphatic object pronouns were realized either as an enclitic or as a form of some “weak” pronominal, such as the topic-marker *tá-. Neither of these elements is freely positioned by the syntax. Thus the expected form of an unmarked transitive clause in Indo-Iranian is not SOV; it is either V=Ocl or (assuming a masculine singular object) *tám V. But the surface linear order will not reveal where the null subject (pro) is at all. Moreover, the enclitic object has been moved in the phonology (“prosodic inversion”) in such an example (and thus does not represent a “default” position for objects), and, as discussed in detail above, the placement of topicmarking tá- is also highly constrained. Transitive sentences which actually contain overt,

1938

XVII. Indo-Iranian

non-pronominal subject and object arguments are on the whole rare and do not represent “neutral” expressions at all. What these considerations reveal is that the most effective method for discovering the structure of the Indo-Iranian clause lies not in trying to find the most neutral expression one can and exploring, to the extent possible, the linear order of arguments in such structures, but rather in trying to understand the rich evidence provided by the archaic languages for the role that discourse phenomena such as “topic” and “focus”, as well as more narrowly syntactic (or even prosodic) considerations such as wh-element, clitic, etc., play in the determination of syntactic structure. From such a perspective, limiting ourselves to the case of transitive clauses, e.g. to those which have full NP arguments (rather than restricted-distribution pronominals) in a “default” (most frequent) order, simply robs us of all the evidence which might reveal the principles which determine order in all sentences of our texts − including these allegedly “neutral” ones. Note that the start of the IIr. clause that we have reconstructed in (17) says nothing about the traditional focus of syntactic discussions sketched above: S, O, and V. We can see this from an examination of relatively simple clause types. We will leave to one side the position of V (which we will treat as final for the time being), sentences involving clitic objects or wh-element arguments, and sentences involving more constituents than the three elements S, O, and V. The multiple “discourse”-related positions at the start of the clause provide us with a clear reason for the lack of insight the field has gleaned from scholarship which takes S, O, and V as its analytical primitives. A clause with SOV order may have its S in the EMPHASIS position, with its object in TOPIC position, FOCUS position, or in situ. Or it may have its S in the TOPIC position, with its object either in FOCUS position or in situ. Or it may have its S in situ and its O in situ as well. A table will clarify the possibilities (we include OSV order, to give a more complete picture of what word-order variation looks like under such assumptions): EMPHASIS SOV-1

S

SOV-2

S

SOV-3

S

TOPIC

FOCUS

O O

SOV-4

S

SOV-5

S

SOV-6

O

S

SOV-7 OSV-1

O

OSV-2

O

OSV-3

O

S S

OSV-4

O

OSV-5

O

OSV-6

S

O

in situ ...

V

...

V

O

V

...

V

O

V

O

V

SO

V

...

V

...

V

S

V

...

V

S

V

S

V

112. The syntax of Indo-Iranian

1939

In these simple clause types, the subject occupies the EMPHASIS position in SOV-1, SOV-2, and SOV-3, but the O in these three rows occupies a distinct position in each case. The subject occupies the TOPIC position in SOV-4 and SOV-5 orders, as well as in OSV-1 order, but in spite of this structural similarity, the first two are counted under traditional studies as “the same” (as well as, of course, being counted as the same as all other SOV orders), but the latter is treated as totally distinct. The object occupies the FOCUS position in SOV-2, SOV-4, and OSV-6 orders! Matters become massively more complex, as can easily be imagined, if we make space in our table for subject and object wh-elements (which would come between EMPHASIS and TOPIC, regardless of grammatical function) and clitic direct objects. In short, the problem with traditional “word order” studies of Indo-Iranian (and Indo-European) syntax is that they are looking at word order, instead of trying to see through the superficial linear order of a particular clause to the syntactic structure which underlies it. To return briefly to our earlier point, it is not only the case that counting “the wrong things” (S’s in EMPHASIS, TOPIC, or FOCUS as “the same” as long as they precede O, e.g.) creates problems. A probabilistic approach to IIr. sentence structure is in general misguided. Knowing that a given order (e.g. OSV) is statistically “rare” or “marked” does not tell us why the sentence we are looking at has that order: probabilistic claims are claims about sets of sentences. As such, they provide no explanation for any individual structure, rare or common. Since we must develop an analysis of the structure of the clause we are examining, once we understand why it has the order it has, what good does the statistical argument do us? One hundred percent of clauses with that particular type of meaning combinations have that structure! Put another way, observe that one could write an entire Neo-Rigveda or Neo-Avesta using only OSV clauses without changing the syntax of Vedic Sanskrit at all, because the syntax doesn’t tell you how often to express particular meanings, only how to express them, once you have decided you want to. Of course, the text would be pragmatically odd, but its sentences would be grammatical. Determining the syntax of the language involves knowing how licit sentences are constructed. It is only when we have made progress on this prior question that we can ask how licit structures are put to use to serve pragmatic and discourse functions − also structurally encoded, as we have seen above. An approach which seeks the explanations for “word order” not in general markedness or frequency domains but by trying to discover what structural properties are present in the strings, acknowledging that structural properties exist to express meanings, will definitely help with what I take to be the primary goals of research into the syntax of archaic IIr. languages: 1. the exploitation of syntax to assist with text interpretation (which will in turn increase the sophistication of our understanding of the syntax of the language in question) and 2. the leveraging of the syntactic facts of the daughter languages thus uncovered to understand the structure of the Proto-Indo-Iranian clause, and, ultimately that of PIE (and, of course, the diachronic development of these structures over time).

7. Conclusions It will be apparent to the reader that much remains opaque regarding the configurational syntax of Proto-Indo-Iranian. While clarifying some of these issues will certainly require

1940

XVII. Indo-Iranian

enhancing our knowledge of the antecedent PIE situation with respect to the phenomenon in question (to the extent that is possible without clear input to the process from an understanding of the Indo-Iranian data), it is largely dependent on simple, non-superficial analyses of syntactic phenomena in the most archaic daughter languages, particularly the Vedic Sanskrit of the mantras and the language of the extensive Young Avestan texts. I will use an important, but still quite opaque, issue as a representative problem for discussing some of the important difficulties which persist: the position of the finite verb. In the most archaic daughter languages of the family, the language of the Vedic mantras and that of both the Old Avestan Gāθās and the “Great” Yašts of Young Avestan, we find a great deal of variation: clause-final verbs, clause-initial verbs, and verbs in a variety of clause-internal positions all abound in the texts. I note this in spite of the assertions of West (2011: § 338, but see the weakening of the claim in § 341 and § 344) and Skjærvø (2009: 94) that the “basic” Old Iranian word order is SOV. (It must also be pointed out that all of the criticism leveled above against using superficial linear order as a primitive hold equally well of verb position: a “clause-initial” verb may be in any of a relatively large number of actual syntactic positions, as may a “clause-final” verb − this fact hardly need be mentioned with respect to the “variety of clause-internal positions”, of course.) In the generally less-archaic daughters represented by the Old Persian and Vedic Prose corpus, it is indeed correct to label verb-finality as the norm, the attested deviations from that order being highly constrained. Unfortunately, this characterization of things (exceedingly rough and uninsightful for the earliest daughters) leaves many possible explanations on the table. Are we observing − when looking at the difference between the diversity of verb placement in our most archaic daughters (Mantra Vedic and Avestan) and our less archaic ones (Old Persian and Vedic Prose) − the effects of diachronic change in the syntactic system? Or does the more expansive “expressive range” of the more archaic texts indicate that we should expect greater deviation from the “basic” SOV order even if the underlying syntactic system remained constant across this time span? Or are metrical considerations alone responsible? These questions would be difficult to answer even if we had a rich and insightful characterization of verb distribution in the most archaic branches − without such a foundation, they are not within range of serious scholarly discussion. The good thing about acknowledging our ignorance on these matters, as I noted above, is that we see just how much fascinating research there is to do − an exciting, as well as daunting, project. The reconstruction of the syntax of the Indo-European protolanguage simply cannot make meaningful progress without the development of a firm understanding of the Proto-Indo-Iranian situation. Having moved aside some of the hurdles of earlier approaches, we may finally be in a position to pursue the development of this understanding.

8. References Bartholomae, Christian 1882−1887 Arische Forschungen. 3 vols. Halle: Niemeyer. Bartholomae, Christian 1904 Altiranisches Wörterbuch. Strassburg: Trübner.

112. The syntax of Indo-Iranian

1941

Caland, Willem 1891 Zur Syntax der Pronomina im Avesta. Amsterdam: Müller. Delbrück, Berthold 1878 Die altindische Wortfolge aus dem Śatapathabrāhmaṇa dargestellt. (Syntaktische Forschungen 3). Halle: Waisenhaus. Delbrück, Berthold 1888 Altindische Syntax. (Syntaktische Forschungen 5). Halle: Waisenhaus. Delbrück, Berthold 1900 Vergleichende Syntax der Indogermanischen Sprachen. 3. Theil. Strassburg: Trübner. Deshpande, Madhav and Hans Hock 1991b A bibliography of writings on Sanskrit syntax. In: Hock (ed.), 219−244. Hale, Mark 1987 Studies in the Comparative Syntax of the Oldest Indo-Iranian Languages. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University. Hale, Mark 1988 Old Persian word order. Indo-Iranian Journal 31: 27−40. Hale, Mark 1991 Some observations on intersentential pronominalization in the language of the Taittirīya Saṃhitā. In: Joel P. Brereton and Stephanie W. Jamison (eds.), Sense and Syntax in Vedic. Leiden: Brill, 2−18. Hale, Mark 1996 Deriving Wackernagel’s Law: prosodic and syntactic factors determining clitic placement in the language of the Rigveda. In: Aaron Halpern and Arnold Zwicky (eds.), Approaching Second. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information, 165−197. Hale, Mark ms. Wackernagel’s Law: Phonology and Syntax in Vedic Sanskrit. Halpern, Aaron L. 1992 Topics in the Placement and Morphology of Clitics. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University. Hock, Hans (ed.) 1991 Studies in Sanskrit Syntax. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Ickler, Ingeborg 1973 Untersuchungen zur Wortstellung und Syntax der Chāndogyopaniṣad. (Göppinger Akademische Beiträge 75). Göppingen: Kümmerle. Klein, Jared S. 1985 Toward a Discourse Grammar of the Rigveda. Vol 1. Parts 1 and 2. Heidelberg: Winter. Klein, Jared S. 1988 Coordinate conjunction in Old Persian. Journal of the American Oriental Society 108: 387−417. Oertel, Hans 1923 Zum disjunkten Gebrauch des Nominativs in der Brāhmaṇaprosa. In: Antidōron: Festschrift Jakob Wackernagel. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 45−50. Oertel, Hans 1926 The Syntax of Cases in the Narrative and Descriptive Prose of the Brāhmaṇas. Heidelberg: Winter. Skjærvø, Prods Oktor 2009 Old Iranian languages. In: Gernot Windfuhr (ed.), The Iranian Languages. London: Routledge, 43−195. Verpoorten, Jean-Marie 1977 L’ordre des mots dans l’Aitareya-Brāhmaṇa. (Bibliothèque de la Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres de l’Université de Liège 216). Paris: Les Belles Lettres.

1942

XVII. Indo-Iranian

Wackernagel, Jakob 1892 Über ein Gesetz der indogermanischen Wortstellung. Indogermanische Forschungen 1: 333−436. West, Martin L. 2011 Old Avestan Syntax and Stylistics. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Mark Hale, Berkshire, VT (USA)

113. The lexicon of Indo-Iranian 1. Introduction 2. Inherited vocabulary 3. Loan-words

4. Specific vocabulary 5. Phraseology 6. References

1. Introduction The lexicon of the Proto-Indo-Iranian linguistic unity has been registered in a systematic manner only once, by Fick (1890: 155−342). But Fick himself (1890: VII) in the absence of a specialist collaborator was aware of the book’s weaknesses in Iranian matters (cf. the devastating criticism of Bartholomae 1894). Moreover, Fick took into account not only the words that are actually attested in both branches of Indo-Iranian in ancient times, but also material that occurs in only one of them (normally Old Indo-Aryan) but has a counterpart outside Indo-Iranian (as *ái̯ ma- ‘course, way’ [V. éma- ] = Gk. οἶμος; V. ū́dhar/n- ‘udder’ ~ Gk. οὖθαρ or even *ću̯anta- ‘beneficent’ [Av. spəṇta-] = OCS. svętъ ‘holy’); for every Indo-Aryan lexeme with an ascertained equivalent in the cognate languages (like the phrase-based V. iṣirá- ‘vital, powerful’ = Gk. ἱερός [cf. 5.] or the verbal root V. oṣ, oṣati ‘burn, scorch’ = Gk. εὕω, Lat. ūrō) must of course have passed through the stage of Proto-Indo-Iranian. Fick included also (anthrop)onomastic equations (e.g. *Gau̯tama- [V. Gótama-, YAv. Gaotəma-], *B hāsa- [OIA. Bhāsa- = YAv. Bā̊ŋha-]) for which I refer to Schmitt (1995a: 645b, 1995b: 678b). Because Fick (1890) is entirely obsolete and in nearly all respects outdated now, it could not be used as the basis of the present outline. To prove that some word was part of the Proto-Indo-Iranian lexicon is not an easy task even in the case of inherited IE words, since Iranian evidence often is lacking owing to the limited text corpora. The relevant material, however, can be surveyed now without difficulty in Mayrhofer (1992−1996; which should always be consulted), where the entire vocabulary of the Vedas is recorded together with the essential (Old) Iranian cognates, though a comparative Indo-Iranian (or even Iranian) dictionary was not intended by that author. In principle, it is nevertheless indispensable that every Indo-Iranian word be based on the evidence of both branches − Nuristani being left aside here as indecisive − and, if possible, on evidence in the Old Iranian languages. In order to illustrate the problems, it may be sufficient to quote two words of undoubted PIE origin which https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-034

113. The lexicon of Indo-Iranian

1943

are attested only in modern Iranian languages: PIE *deh2iu̯ér- ‘husband’s brother’ (V. devár-, cf. Gk. δᾱήρ, Lith. dieverìs) in Pašto lewar etc.; PIE *bhr̥Hg̑ó- ‘birch-tree’ (V. bhūrjá-, cf. OHG. birka, Lith. béržas) in Oss. bærz/bærzæ etc.

2. Inherited vocabulary 2.1. Verbs In the IE languages the verbal root, as is known, is the central means of denoting events and states. Thus the majority of PIE verbal roots have been preserved in Indo-Iranian, even if in phonetically altered form. Since in Indo-Iranian all word-formation starts from the root (as already the ancient Indian grammarians had recognized for their mothertongue), a list of the most important Proto-Indo-Iranian primary verbal roots (attested in both Old Indo-Aryan and [Old] Iranian) shall be given here. But secondary, as a rule denominative, stem-formations like PIIr. *u̯ái̯ na- (V. véna- = Av. vaēna- = OP. vaina-) ‘look at, track down’ or PIIr. *páti̯ a- (V. pátya- = Av. paiθiia-) ‘be master of ’ are passed over on principle. This list impressively shows the conservatism of Indo-Iranian and the close affinity of its two branches to one another. It follows the sequence of the Latin alphabet in a form modified as required and disregards the varying manner and means of stem-formation (ablaut, suffixes, etc.) even in the cases of specific formations: PIIr. *b hag/ǰ ‘assign’, *b haH ‘shine’, *b hai̯ H ‘be afraid’, *b(h)and h ‘bind, tie’, *b(h)anȷ́h ‘strengthen’ (V. baṃh = OAv. dəbąz), *b har ‘carry, bring’, *b (h)arȷ́ h ‘make strong/great’, *b (h)au̯d h ‘notice’, *bhau̯H ‘become’ (V. bhav i = Av. bauu, OP. bav), *bhraHȷ́ ‘shine, sparkle’, *bhrai̯ H ‘wound, hurt’; *ćaHs ‘command, advise’ (V. śās = Av. sāh), *ćai̯ H ‘lie’ (V. śay(i) = YAv. saii), *ćak/č ‘be able’, *ćans ‘pronounce, praise’ (V. śaṃs = OAv. səˉngh, YAv. saŋh, OP. θanh), *ćau̯H ‘swell, thrive’, *ćau̯k/č ‘glow’, *ćnathH ‘kick, knock down’, *ćrai̯ ‘lean’ (V. śray = YAv. sraii, OP. çay), *ćrau̯ ‘hear (words)’, *ćrau̯š ‘obey’, *ćšai̯ ‘dwell, live’ (V. kṣay = Av. šaii); *čaćš ‘look’ (V. cakṣ = YAv. caš), *čai̯ 1 ‘stack’, *čai̯ 2 ‘punish, avenge’, *čai̯ t ‘perceive’, *čar(H) ‘wander, move’, *či̯ au̯ ‘set in motion, move’ (V. cyav = Av. š́ (ii)auu = OP. šiyav); *daH 1 ‘give’, *daH 2 ‘bind, tie’, *dai̯ ć ‘show’, *dakš ‘be able’, *darć ‘see’, *dar(H) ‘pierce, split’, *dram ‘run’, *drau̯ ‘run’, *du̯ai̯ š ‘hate’ (V. dveṣ = OAv. d aibiš, YAv. t̰ baēš); *d (h)abh ‘deceive’, *d haH ‘put’, *d hai̯ H ‘look’, *d (h)ai̯ ȷ́ h ‘smear, mould’ (V. deh = YAv. daēz), *d har ‘hold’, *d (h)arȷ́ h ‘make firm’ (V. darh = Av. darəz), *d harš ‘dare’ (V. dharṣ = OP. darš), *d (h)rau̯g h/ǰ h ‘deceive’; *gaH ‘go’, *gam/ǰam ‘go’ (V. gam = Av. jam/gam), *garH ‘welcome, praise’, *gau̯ȷ́ h ‘hide’ (V. goh = YAv. gaoz, OP. gaud), *gž har ‘flow’ (V. kṣar = YAv. γžar); *g (h)rab hH ‘seize, gain’; *Had h ‘say’ (V. ā˘h = YAv. ā˘d), *HaHp ‘obtain’, *HaHs ‘sit’, *Hai̯ ‘go’, *Hai̯ ć ‘be master, command’ (V. eś = Av. aēs), *Hai̯ š 1 ‘seek, desire’, *Hai̯ š 2 ‘drive, move’ (V. eṣ = Av. aēš, OP. aiš), *Haȷ́ ‘drive’, *HanH ‘breathe’, *Har 1 ‘(start to) move’, *Har 2 ‘reach, arrive’, *Hard h ‘let thrive’, *Harg h/ǰ h ‘be worth’, *Has 1 ‘be’, *Has 2 ‘throw’, *Hau̯g h/ǰ h ‘pronounce’ (V. oh = Av. aog/j), *Hau̯H ‘help, support’, *Hi̯ aȷ́ ‘offer, worship’ (V. yaj = Av. yaz, OP. yad), *Hi̯ au̯d h ‘fight’, *Hǰar ‘wake’, *Hmai̯ ȷ́ h ‘urinate’ (V. meh =

1944

XVII. Indo-Iranian

YAv. maēz), *Hnać ‘obtain’, *Hnai̯ d ‘revile, rebuke’, *HraHd h ‘succeed’ (V. rādh = Av. rād), *Hram ‘rest’, *Hranǰ h ‘hasten, run’ (V. raṃh = YAv. raṇj), *Hrau̯d h ‘grow’, *Hu̯ab h ‘weave’, *Hu̯aH ‘blow’, *Hu̯akš ‘increase’, *Hu̯ard h ‘grow, increase’, *Hu̯arš ‘rain’, *Hu̯as 1 ‘shine’, *Hu̯as 2 ‘dwell’; *i̯ am ‘hold, keep’, *i̯ as ‘boil’, *i̯ at ‘stand’, *i̯ au̯ 1 ‘unite’, *i̯ au̯ 2 ‘separate, keep away’, *i̯ au̯g/ǰ ‘harness, join’; *ȷ́amb h ‘crush, smash’, *ȷ́anH ‘give birth, generate’, *ȷ́au̯š ‘taste, like, enjoy’, *ȷ́i̯ aH ‘rob, deprive’ (pres. V. jinā́- = YAv. zinā-, OP. dinā-), *ȷ́naH ‘perceive, know’; *ȷ́ haH ‘leave’ (V. hā = Av. zā), *ȷ́ harH ‘be angry’ (V. har i = Av. zar), *ȷ́ hau̯H/*ȷ́ hu̯aH ‘call’ (V. hav i/hvā = Av. zauu/zbā, OP. zbā), *ȷ́ hu̯ar ‘stagger, totter’; *ǰai̯ ‘win, conquer’; *ǰ han/ g han ‘smite, kill’ (V. han = Av. jan, OP. jan); *kać ‘appear, see’, *kaH ‘be pleased, desire’, *kanH 1 ‘enjoy’ (V. kan i = Av. kan), *kanH 2 ‘dig’ (V. khan = YAv. kan, OP. kan), *kar ‘make, do’, *karH 1 ‘praise’, *karH 2 ‘scatter’, *karš ‘plough’, *kart ‘cut’, *krau̯ć ‘cry, shout’ (V. kroś = Av. xraos), *krau̯d h ‘be angry’, *kšaH ‘rule’ (pres. V. kṣáya- = Av. xšaiia-, OP. xšaya-), *kšau̯b h ‘quake, sway’, *kšnau̯ ‘whet, sharpen’; *mad ‘enjoy, become exhilarated’, *maH ‘measure, allot’, *man 1 ‘think’, *man 2 ‘wait’, *mar ‘die’ (pres. V. mriya- = YAv. miriia-, OP. mariya-), *mard h ‘neglect’, *mark/č ‘injure, damage’, *maržd ‘have mercy’ (V. marḍ= Av. maržd), *mi̯ au̯H ‘push’ (V. mīv = YAv. mīuu), *mraH ‘soften’ (V. mlā = YAv. mrā), *mrau̯H ‘say’ (V. brav i = Av. mrauu), *mrau̯k/č ‘vanish, disappear’; *nać ‘vanish, die’ (V. naś = Av. nas, OP. naθ), *nad ‘roar, scream’, *nai̯ H ‘lead’, *nai̯ ǰ ‘wash’, *nam ‘bend, bow’; *pač ‘cook’, *pad ‘step, go’, *paH ‘protect’, *pai̯ ć ‘engrave, adorn’ (V. peś = YAv. paēs, OP. paiθ), *pai̯ H ‘swell’, *pai̯ š ‘crush’, *par ‘cross, take across’, *parH ‘fill’, *pat ‘fly, fall’, *prać ‘ask’, *prai̯ H ‘please’, *prau̯ ‘slide, swim’ (V. plav = YAv. frauu), *prau̯t h ‘snort’, *puH ‘rot, spoil’; *raH ‘give’, *rai̯ ȷ́ h ‘lick’ (V. reh = YAv. raēz), *rai̯ k/č ‘leave’, *rai̯ š ‘suffer, be hurt’, *rau̯d(H) ‘weep’ (V. rod(i) = Av. raod), *rau̯d h ‘hinder, hamper’, *rau̯k/č ‘shine’, *rau̯p ‘be in pain’; *sad ‘sit’, *saHd h ‘succeed’ (V. sādh = YAv. hād), *saH(i̯ ) ‘bind’ (V. sā, pres. syá- = Av. hā, hiia-), *sai̯ k/č- ‘pour out’, *sak/č ‘follow, accompany’, *sanH ‘gain, win’, *sap ‘care for’, *sarȷ́ ‘let go, release’, *sas ‘sleep’, *sau̯ ‘press (out)’, *sau̯H 1 ‘give birth, generate’, *sau̯H 2 ‘drive, move’, *sau̯š ‘dry’ (V. śoṣ < *soš = YAv. haoš), *sćaH ‘cut up’ (V. chā = OAv. sā), *sćand ‘seem, please’ (V. chand = YAv. saṇd, OP. θand), *skamb hH ‘fix, prop’, *smar ‘remember’, *snaH ‘bathe’, *snai̯ g h/ǰ h ‘stick, snow’, *spać ‘see’ (V. (s)paś = Av. spas), *spard h ‘compete, contend’, *sparȷ́ h ‘crave for, be eager’ (V. sparh = OAv. sparz), *sp (h)arH ‘jerk, kick’ (V. sphar i = YAv. spar), *staH ‘stand’, *star ‘knock down’, *starH ‘strew, spread’, *stau̯ ‘praise’, *su̯ai̯ d ‘sweat’ (V. sved = YAv. xvaēd), *su̯anH ‘sound’, *su̯ap ‘sleep’; *taćš ‘shape, fashion’ (V. taks ̣ = Av. taš), *tak ‘run, rush’, *tan ‘stretch’, *tap ‘heat, burn’, *tarH ‘get across, overcome’, *tau̯H ‘be strong/able’, *traH ‘save, rescue’, *tras ‘tremble, shake’; *u̯ać ‘be eager, want’, *u̯ai̯ ć ‘settle, be ready’, *u̯ai̯ d ‘find, know’, *u̯ai̯ g/ǰ ‘swing, shoot’, *u̯ai̯ H ‘follow up’, *u̯ai̯ p ‘tremble, be ecstatic’, *u̯aȷ́ h ‘draw, drive’, *u̯ak/č ‘speak’, *u̯amH ‘vomit’, *u̯an ‘overcome, win’, *u̯ank/č ‘waver, stagger’, *u̯ar ‘cover,

113. The lexicon of Indo-Iranian

1945

enclose’, *u̯arH ‘choose’, *u̯art ‘turn’, *u̯as ‘clothe’, *u̯at ‘be acquainted/familiar’, *u̯rag/ǰ ‘walk, proceed’, *u̯raHd h ‘be glad, be proud’ (V. vrādh = YAv. uruuād).

2.2. Nominals (nouns and adjectives) A large number of Proto-Indo-Iranian nouns are inherited from the proto-language, as is true also for the most archaic types of word-formation (esp. root-nouns, stems in consonants [in -s, -r, -n, etc.] together with ablaut). Several semantic groups may be differentiated and illustrated here succinctly: Man: *Hi̯ úu̯an- ‘young (man)’ (V. nom. sg. yúvā, gen. yū́n-as = YAv. nom. yauua, gen. pl. yūn-ąm); *Hnár- ‘man’; *Hu̯id háu̯ā- ‘widow’; *Hu̯r̥ ́ šan- ‘manly, male, man’; *ȷ́ánH-a- ‘man, creature, race’; *ȷ́anH-tú- ‘creature, man, tribe’; *ǰánH-/*gnā́ ‘wife’ (V. jáni- = OAv. jəˉni-, YAv. ja ini- and V. gnā́- = OAv. g ənā-, YAv. γənā-, both based on a single paradigm); *kau̯í- ‘wise man, seer’; *mánu(š)- ‘man, father of mankind’; *mári̯ a‘young man’; *márta- ‘mortal, man’ (V. márta- = OAv. maš ̣a-, mar əta-); *páti- ‘master, lord, husband’ with fem. *pátniH- ‘mistress, wife’; *sákH-āi̯ - ‘friend, companion’ (V. nom. sákhā, acc. sákhāy-am, dat. sákhy-e = OAv. °haxā, °haxāim, YAv. haxa, haš́ e); *u̯īrá- ‘man, hero’. Kinship terms: *bhrā́tar- ‘brother’; *d hugHtár- ‘daughter’ (V. duhitár- ~ OAv. dug ədar-, YAv. duγδar- with different developments within Indo-Aryan and Iranian); *mātár- ‘mother’; *nápāt- ‘grandson’ and *napt-íH- ‘granddaughter’; *pHtár- ‘father’; *putrá- ‘son’ (V. putrá- = Av. puθra-, OP. puça-; over time this term more and more displaced PIE *suHnú-, which is missing in New Indo-Aryan as well as in Middle and New Iranian languages); *suH-nú- ‘son’; *su̯áćura- ‘father-in-law’ (V. śváśura- < *sváśura- = YAv. xvasura-); *su̯ásar- ‘sister’. Parts of the body: *ákš(i)- ‘eye’ (V. akṣ-, ákṣi- = Av. aš-); *ást hi- ‘bone’; *ā́s- ‘mouth’; *b (h)āȷ́ hú- ‘(fore-)arm’ (V. bāhú- = YAv. bāzu-); *b hrúH- ‘eyebrow’; *ćráu̯ni- ‘hip, buttocks’; *ćr̥ ́ H-as- ‘head, top’ (V. śíras- = YAv. sarah-); *ćúpti- ‘shoulder’; *čárman- ‘skin’; *dánt- ‘tooth’; *dáu̯š- ‘arm’; *grīu̯ā́- ‘neck’; *i̯ ákar- ‘liver’ (V. yákr̥-/yakn- = YAv. yākar ə); *ȷ́ā́nu-/*ȷ́nu- ‘knee’; *ȷ́ hánu- ‘jaw’ (V. hánu- = YAv. zanu-); *ȷ́ hás-ta- ‘hand’ (V. hásta- = Av. zasta-, OP. dasta-); *kákša- ‘armpit’; *masg hán‘marrow (of bones)’ (V. majján- [< *-jjh-] ~ YAv. mazga-); *nā́s- ‘nose’; *pád- ‘foot’; *páru̯an- ‘knot, joint’; *pr̥štHá- ‘back’; *pstána- ‘female breast’ (V. stána- = YAv. fštāna-, °fšna-); *r̥Hmá- ‘arm’ (V. īrmá- = YAv. ar(ə)ma°); *sákt hi- ‘thigh’; *snā́u̯ar/n‘sinew’; *spl̥ȷ́ hán- (?) ‘spleen’ (with taboo changes V. plīhán- ~ YAv. spər əzan-); *udára‘belly’; *u̯álća- ‘hair’ (V. válśa- ‘shoot’ = YAv. var əsa-). Human sphere: *áćru- ‘tear’; *ánȷ́ has- ‘anxiety, distress’ (V. áṃhas- = YAv. ązah- = Lat. angor); *áu̯ǰas- ‘strength, vigor’ (V. ójas- = OAv. acc. sg. aogō, instr. aojaŋhā, YAv. aojah-, cf. Lat. augus-tus); *b hága- ‘welfare, happiness’ (originally ‘distribution’); *ćráu̯-as- ‘glory, fame, praise’ (V. śrávas- = Av. srauuah- = Gk. κλέος); *dai̯ u̯á- ‘heavenly, divine; god’ with fem. *dai̯ u̯-íH-, which originally is an independent formation based on *di̯ áu̯- ‘heaven’; *dám- ‘house’ with *dám-s *páti- ‘lord of the house’ (V. pátir dán and, with secondary univerbation, dámpati- = OAv. dəˉṇg pa iti- ~ Gk. δεσπότης); *dánsas- ‘marvelous skill’ (V. dáṃsas- = YAv. daŋhah- = Gk. δήνεα); *di̯ áu̯‘heaven, sky’; *g (h)r̥d há- ‘house’; *Hnā́man- ‘name’; *ćšití- ‘abode, settlement’ (V. kṣi-

1946

XVII. Indo-Iranian

tí- = YAv. °šiti- = Gk. κτίσις); *krátu- ‘mental ability, strength of will’; *mánas- ‘mind, intellect, thought’ (cf. esp. V. su-mánas- ‘well-minded’ = YAv. hu-manah- = Gk. εὐμενής); *maní- ‘necklace’ (V. maṇí- with secondary spontaneous -ṇ-); *matí- ‘thought, idea, opinion’; *misd há- ‘prize, reward’ (V. mīḍhá- = Av. mīžda- = Gk. μισθός); *naHu̯āȷ́á- ‘boatman’ (V. nāvājá- = YAv. nauuāza- ~ Lat. *nāvago- in nāvigāre); *námas‘adoration, reverence’; *padá- ‘step, footstep, trace’; *pitú- ‘food’; *raH-í- ‘property, possession, wealth’ (V. rayí-, acc. sg. rayím, gen. rāyás = Av. raii-, acc. YAv. raēm, gen. OAv. rāiiō); *sád-as- ‘seat, residence’ (V. sádas- = Gk. ἔδος, cf. YAv., OP. had-iš-); *sáȷ́ h-as- ‘power, force, superiority’ (V. sáhas- = Av. hazah- = Got. sigis); *sám-ā- ‘halfyear, summer’; *su̯ápna- ‘sleep(ing), dream(ing)’ (V. svápna- = Av. xvaf (ə)na-); *táćšan(?) ‘carpenter’ (V. tákṣan- = Av. tašan- = Gk. τέκτων); *tāyú- ‘thief ’; *tr̥šnā˘- ‘thirst’; *u̯ačas- ‘speech, word’ (V. vácas- = Av. vacah- = Gk. ἔπος); *u̯ā́č- ‘speech, voice’ (V. vā́c- = Av. vāc- = Lat. vōx); *u̯íć- ‘settlement, homestead, village, court’ (V. víś- = YAv. vīs-, OP. viθ-) with *u̯ić-páti- ‘chief of settlement’. Fauna: *áću̯a- ‘horse’ (V. áśva- = YAv. aspa-, OP. asa-); *aȷ́á- ‘he-goat’; *áǰ hi‘snake’ (V. áhi- = YAv. aži-); *ćasá- ‘hare’ (V. śaśá- < *śasá- = YAv. saŋha-); *ću̯án‘dog’; *gáu̯- ‘ox, cow’; *Hu̯ái̯ - ‘bird’; *kr̥ ́ mi- ‘worm’; *mai̯ šá- ‘ram’ and *mai̯ šíH‘ewe’; *mū́š- ‘mouse, rat’; *páću-/*paćú- ‘cattle’; *r̥ ́ kša- ‘bear’ (V. r̥ ́ kṣa- = YAv. arša-); *udrá- ‘otter’; *ukšán- ‘ox, bull’; *u̯r̥ ́ ka- ‘wolf ’ (V. vr̥ ́ ka- = YAv. vəhrka-). Natural phenomena: *ab hrá- ‘rain, cloud’; *áćman- ‘stone’ (V. áśman- = YAv., OP. asman- ‘heaven’, which meaning is problematic as to its age); *agní- ‘fire’ (in Iranian attested only in anthroponyms); *ái̯ as- ‘useful metal (copper, ore)’ (= Lat. aes); *áȷ́ra‘field, plain’; *áȷ́ har/n- ‘day’ (V. áhar/n- = Av. asn-, e.g. gen. pl. áhn-ām = asn-ąm); *áp- ‘water’ (V. nom. pl. ā́p-as, acc. ap-ás = YAv. nom. sg. āfš, OAv. acc. pl. apas°); *ćap há- ‘hoof ’ (V. śaphá- = YAv. safa-); *dā́ru-/*dru- ‘wood, timber’; *dȷ́ hám- (?) ‘earth’ (V. kṣám- [< PIE *d hg̑ hém-] ~ Av. zam- with simplified initial *g̑ h- as in Gk. χαμαί vs. χθών); *gr̥H-í- ‘mountain, hill’ (V. girí- = YAv. ga iri-); *Hstár- ‘star’; *Hu̯áHata- ‘wind(-god)’ (V. vā́ta- = Av. vāta-, both often trisyllabic); *i̯ áu̯a- ‘barley, corn’; kšáp- ‘night’; *mád hu- ‘sweet drink, honey’; *máHas- ‘moon, month’ (V. mā́s- = Av., OP. māh-; cf. esp. disyllabic OAv. nom. sg. mā̊ < *maHah); *náb has- ‘vapour, cloud’; *nákt- ‘night’; *parná- ‘feather, leaf, wing’; *prátH-as- ‘width’; *sćāyā́- ‘shadow’ (V. chāyā́- = YAv. °saiia- ~ Gk. σκιᾱ́ ); *sć (h)idrá- ‘pierced; hole’; *súHar/n- ‘sun’ (V. svàr, gen. sg. sū́r-as = Av. huuarəˉ˘, gen. YAv. hūrō, etc.); *támHsrā˘- ‘darkness’ (V. támisrā˘- = YAv. tąθra- = Lat. tenebrae); *ušás- ‘dawn’; *u̯ā́r- ‘water’; *u̯r̥ ́ Hnā- ‘wool’ (V. ū́rṇā = YAv. var ənā- = Lat. lāna). Various instruments: *čakrá- ‘wheel’; *du̯ā˘r- ‘door’ (V. dvā́r/dur- = YAv. duuar-, OP. duvar(a)- with secondary *d- < PIE *d h-); *íšu- ‘arrow’; *īšā́- ‘pole (of a carriage or plough)’ (V. īṣā́- ~ YAv. du. aēša); *i̯ ugá- ‘yoke’; *ǰi̯ ā́- ‘bow-string’. Adjectives: *ád hara- ‘inferior’; *ántama- ‘next, nearest’ (= Lat. intimus); *ántara‘interior’; *āćú- ‘fast, quick’ (= Gk. ὠκύς; cf. superl. V. ā́śiṣṭha- = YAv. āsišta- = Gk. ὤκιστος); *āmá- ‘raw’; *b (h)r̥ȷ́ hánt- ‘high’ (V. br̥hánt- = YAv. bərəzaṇt-); *ći̯ āu̯á- ‘dark (brown)’; *ćúHra- ‘strong, heroic’ (V. śū́ra- = YAv. sūra-, with superl. *ćáu̯Hišta- > V. śáviṣṭha- = Av. səuuišta-); *ću̯ai̯ tá- ‘white, bright’ (V. śvetá- = YAv. spaēta-); *čitrá‘conspicuous, bright’; *dáćsina- ‘right; [in Indo-Iranian also:] southern’ (V. dákṣiṇa- = YAv. dašina-); *dr̥Hg há- ‘long’ (V. dīrghá-, comp. drā́ghīyas- = OAv. darəga-, YAv. darəγa-, drājiiah-, OP. darga-); *gr̥Hú- ‘heavy’ (V. gurú- = YAv. gouru°); *g harmá‘hot, warm; heat’; *Hrag hú- ‘quick’ (V. raghú-, fem. raghvī́- = YAv. rəuuī- = Gk.

113. The lexicon of Indo-Iranian

1947

ἐλαχύς); *Hsat-i̯ á- ‘true, real’ (V. satyá- = Av. ha iθiia-, OP. hašiya-; < PIE *h1s-n̥t-i̯ ó-); *Hu̯ásu- ‘good’; *ȷ́ hári- ‘pale, yellow’ (V. hári-, hárita- = YAv. za iri-, za irita-); *ǰīu̯á‘living’; *krūrá- ‘bloody, raw [flesh]’; *mád hi̯ a- ‘middle’; *nagná- ‘naked’ (V. nagná~ YAv. maγna-); *náu̯a- ‘new’; *prii̯ á- ‘dear’ (< PIE *priH-ó-; with superl. *prái̯ H-išta> V. préṣṭha- = OAv. fraēšta-); *pr̥Hná- ‘full’ (V. pūrṇá- = Av. pərəna-; cf. esp. V. pūrṇá-mās(a)- ‘full moon’ = YAv. pərənō.mā̊ŋha-); *pr̥Hú-, fem. *pr̥Hu̯-íH- ‘much, many’ (V. purú-, pūrvī́- = Av. pouru-, pao irī-, OP. paru-; < PIE *pl̥h1-ú-, cfr. Gk. πολύς); *pr̥ ́ Hu̯a- ‘being in front; eastern’ (V. pū́rva- = YAv. pa(o)uruua-, pouruua-); pr̥tHú-, fem.*pr̥tHu̯-íH- ‘broad, wide’ (V. pr̥thú-, pr̥thvī́- = Av. pərəθu-, pərəθβī-); *r̥ȷ́rá- ‘shining; quick’; *sam-a- (atonic) ‘any’; *samH-á- ‘same, equal’; *sána- ‘old’; *sáru̯a‘whole, entire, every’; *sau̯i̯ á- ‘left; southern’ (V. savyá- = YAv. haoiia-); *tr̥šú- ‘dry’; *upamá- ‘uppermost’; *úpara- ‘superior’; *ūná- ‘wanting, lacking’ (~ Lat. vānus); *u̯íću̯a- ‘all, every’ (V. víśva- = Av. vīspa-, OP. visa-); *u̯r̥Hd hu̯á- (?) ‘upright’ (V. ūrdhvá- ~ YAv. ərəduua-, ərəδβa- ~ Gk. ὀρθός < *ϝορθϝός: cf. Mayrhofer 1996: 244 f.); *u̯r̥Hú- ‘wide, broad’ (V. urú- = Av. vouru°).

2.3. Pronouns Most of the stems of Indo-Iranian demonstrative, relative, and interrogative-indefinite pronouns are inherited: PIIr. *sá-/*tá- ‘this, that’ (the forms with s- being restricted to nom. sg. masc./fem.; cf. V. sá, sā́, tád = Av. hā/hō, hā, tat̰ < ~ Gk. ὁ, ἡ, τό); *ai̯ -/*i‘this one’ in nom. masc. V. ayám = OAv. aiiəˉm, Av. aēm, nom. fem. V. iyám = YAv. īm, OP. iyam, etc. (cf. Lat. is, ea, id) in suppletion with the stem *a- ‘this one’ (V. a- = Av. a-, OP. a-) in abl. masc. V. asmā́t = Av. ahmāt̰ < etc.; relative *Hi̯ á- ‘who, which’ (V. yá- = Av. ya-); *ká- ‘who? what?’ (V. ká- = Av. ka-, but OAv. gen. sg. cahiiā); *čí‘who?’ (Av. ci-, whereas V. kí- is influenced by ká-). Likewise, most of the personal pronouns have exact counterparts in some of the cognate languages, though the extension in *-ám is a typical feature of Indo-Iranian: *aȷ́ h-ám ‘I’ (V. ahám = Av. azəˉ˘m, OP. adam) with *má- ‘me’ (e.g. acc. V. mā́m = Av. mąm, OP. mām); *u̯ai̯ -ám ‘we’ (V. vayám = Av. vaēm, OP. vayam) with *asmá- < PIE *n̥smé in the oblique cases (e.g. abl. V. asmát = OAv. *ahmat̰ , gen. V. asmā́kam = YAv. ahmākəm, OP. amāxam) and enclitic *nas ‘us, our’; *tuu̯-ám ‘thou’ (V. tuvám = OAv. tuuəˉm, YAv. tūm, OP. tuvam) with *tu̯á- ‘thee’ (e.g. acc. V. tvā́m = Av. θβąm, OP. θuvām); enclitic *u̯as ‘you’ (V. vah̥ = OAv. vəˉ, YAv. vō). Several series of modal, local, and other adverbs belong to these stems, too (only those based on *tá- being mostly Indo-Aryan innovations), e.g. PIIr. *i-d há ‘here’ (V. ihá, but Pāli idha = OAv. idā, YAv. iδa, OP. idā), *i-dā́ ‘now’ (V. idā́ = YAv. iδa), *átra ‘here’ (V. átra = Av. aθrā˘), *á-t hā ‘so’ (V. áthā = Av. aθā˘), *á-d ha ‘then’ (V. ádha = OAv. adā, YAv. aδa, OP. ada°), *Hi̯ á-tra ‘where’ (V. yátra = Av. yaθrā˘), *Hi̯ á-di ‘when’ (V. yádi = YAv. ye[i]δi, OP. yadiy), *ka-t hā́ ‘how?’ (V. kathā́ = Av. kaθā˘), *ka-dā́ ‘when?’ (V. kadā́ = OAv. kadā, YAv. kaδa), *kú-d ha ‘where?’ (V. kúha = OAv. kudā), *kú-tra ‘where?’ (V. kútra = Av. kuθrā˘).

1948

XVII. Indo-Iranian

2.4. Numerals The lower cardinal numbers are inherited, albeit with some peculiarities. They may be illustrated by the following Proto-Indo-Iranian forms: ‘2’ *du̯á- (cf. esp. nom.-acc. du. ntr. V. duvé = OAv. duuaē, YAv. duiie) with compositional *du̯i- (and *du̯íš ‘twice’), ‘5’ *pánča, ‘7’ *saptá, ‘9’ *náu̯a, ‘10’ *dáća (cf. esp. V. dáśa-māsi ya- = YAv. dasa.māhiia‘ten-month [pregnancy]’), ‘12’ *du̯ā́-daća, ‘15’ *pánča-daća, ‘20’ *u̯īćatí- (YAv. vīsa iti, whereas V. viṃśatí- is secondary), ‘50’ *pančāćát-, ‘100’ *ćatám.

2.5. Indeclinables A short selection of inherited forms includes: *ča ‘and’; *čid indefinite and emphatic particle (V. cid = Av. cī˘t̰ , OP. -ciy); *Hsu° ‘good, well’ (< PIE *h1su- = Gk. εὐ-); *maćšū́ ‘quickly, soon’ (V. makṣū́ = Av. mošu, cf. Lat. mox); *mā́ prohibitive particle; *nū˘ ‘now’; *pr̥Hás ‘in front, before’ (V. purás = YAv. parō).

3. Loan-words 3.1. The lexical stock of Proto-Indo-Iranian contains a considerable number of words that are apparently not inherited from Proto-Indo-European, since they lack cognates outside Indo-Iranian as well as convincing IE etymologies. These words must reflect contacts between Proto-Indo-Iranians and other peoples speaking non-IE languages during the 3 rd and early 2 nd millennium BCE when the Proto-Indo-Iranians were still in Central Asia and had not yet lost contact with each other. The words so borrowed typically show phonological, morphological, or even semantic peculiarities or otherwise unusual word-structure. Since the Proto-Indo-Iranians, though forming a speech community in the broadest sense, perhaps spoke slightly different dialects, it seems likely that phonological or other differences in borrowed words reflect the migration of these words first to the later Indo-Aryans, who passed them on to the Iranians (Lubotsky 2001: 306). But the number of instances where borrowing can be proven with certainty or at any rate can be rendered plausible is not large; and as a rule we must leave open whether we are dealing with substratum or adstratum. A thorough study of the material in question based on Mayrhofer (1992−1996) is Lubotsky (2001), which deals with the various pecularities of the Indo-Iranian isolates in general. Cf. also Witzel (1999: 54−56), Windfuhr (2006: 378−379), and Pinault (2006; who enriched the discussion by adding Common Tocharian as a further language that has borrowed from some Central Asiatic substratum). 3.2. The main semantic categories seen in the borrowed portion of the Indo-Iranian lexicon show the stimuli which the Indo-Iranians received from their new homeland (the region of the so-called Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex culture) and its advanced urban civilization: 1. animals: *úštra- ‘camel’ (V. úṣṭra-, Av. uštra-, OP. uša-), *k hara- ‘donkey’ (V. khara-, YAv. xara- [Semitic?]), *mr̥gá- ‘game, wild animal’ (V. mr̥gá-, YAv. mərəγa-; but see

113. The lexicon of Indo-Iranian

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

1949

now García Trabazo 2016 for a proposed IE etymology), *kaći̯ ápa- ‘tortoise’ (V. kaśyápa-, YAv. kasiiapa-), *kapáu̯ta- ‘pigeon’ (V. kapóta-, OP. kapauta-ka- ‘blue’), *mátsi̯ a- ‘fish’ (V. mátsya-, YAv. masiia-); farming and cattle breeding: *kšīra- ‘milk’ (V. kṣīrá-, YAv. °xšīra- [?], NP. šīr), *paršá- ‘sheaf, bundle’ (V. parṣá-, YAv. parša-), *bī́ǰa- ‘seed, semen’ (V. bī́ja-, BSogd. byz’k); irrigation and water-management: *i̯ au̯i̯ ā́- ‘channel’ (V. yavyā́-, OP. yauviyā-), *k hā́‘well’ (V. khā́-, YAv. xā-); building activity: *išta-, *išti- ‘brick’ (V. íṣṭakā-, iṣṭikā-, YAv. ištiia-, OP. išti-), *mai̯ ū́k ha- ‘wooden peg’ (V. mayū́kha-, OP. mayūxa-), *ć/síkatā- ‘gravel’ (V. síkatā, OP. θikā-, Khot. siyatā-); clothing: *átka- ‘cloak’ (V. átka-, YAv. aδka-, at̰ .ka-), *ć/sūčī́- ‘needle’ (V. sūcī́-, YAv. sūkā-); body parts etc.: *k/gái̯ ća- ‘hair of the head’ (V. kéśa-, YAv. gaēsa-), *púsća- ‘tail’ (V. púccha-, YAv. pusa-), *ću̯ái̯ pa- ‘tail’ (V. śépa-, YAv. xšuuaēpā- ‘backside’), *u̯r̥tká- ‘kidney’ (V. vr̥kká-, YAv. vərəδka-); religious terms: *anćú- ‘Soma plant’ (V. aṃśú-, YAv. ąsu-), *mag há- ‘offering, sacrifice’ (V. maghá-, OAv. maga-), át haru̯an- ‘priest’ (V. átharvan-, YAv. āθrauuan- [cf. Pinault 2006: 171−175]),*r̥ ́ ši- ‘seer, bard’ (V. r̥ ́ ṣi-, OAv. ərəši-); perhaps even names of mythical beings and deities like *g (h)and haru̯/b (h)á- (V. gandharvá-, YAv. gaṇdərəβa-) or *ćaru̯á- (V. śarvá-, YAv. sauruua-, cf. Pinault 2006: 179−181).

3.3. The source language(s) of these foreign terms more often than not remain(s) unclear. Partly they may have come from Mesopotamia or the Fertile Crescent, but the earlier stages of some isolated languages in remote mountain regions like Burushaski are possible candidates, too: Thus the obviously foreign word V. godhū́ma-, YAv. gaṇtuma-, etc. ‘wheat’ with all its formal differences (owing to some remodeling) comes from Proto-Burushaski (cf. Bur. gur, guriŋ) according to Berger (1959: 39−43; who rejected a Near Eastern origin, because we find there only shorter forms of the word). There are also several other somewhat unclear cases of words that are very much alike in their form, but are not in accordance with phonetic laws: e.g. V. sarṣapa- ‘mustard (seed)’ vs. Khot. śśaśvāna-, Parth. šyfš-d’n /šifš-δān/ ‘grain of mustard’, etc.; V. siṃhá‘lion’ vs. Parth. šrg /šarγ/, Khwar. sarγ, etc.; or V. pr̥ ́ dāku- ‘snake’ vs. NP. palang ‘leopard’ (< *pard°). In any case, we are dealing here with foreign words; but we are unable to decide whether we should class them as substrate elements or migratory terms, because the formal differences they frequently show are typical for repeated borrowing. 3.4. Whereas (Proto-)Indo-Iranian has bequeathed a large number of loan-words to Finno-Ugric (many hundreds according to Katz 2003), the list of Finno-Ugric borrowings identified within Proto-Indo-Iranian is rather short (cf. Katz 2003: 348). Even the most likely candidates call forth some hesitation. These include some terms for ‘hemp, cannabis’: *b hangá- (V. bhaṅgá-; but YAv. baŋha- is not reliable) from Proto-Uralic *paŋká-; *k̑aná- (V. śaṇá-, MP. šan; but cf. V. khana-, Khot. kaṃha- with initial *k-) from ProtoFinno-Ugric *kənä (Katz 2003: 143, who left aside, however, other words belonging here, like Gk. κάνναβις); *ganǰā- (OIA. gañjā-, but without an Iranian equivalent) from Proto-Finno-Permian *kančá.

1950

XVII. Indo-Iranian

In addition, it may be mentioned explicitly that only the substrate influences on ProtoIndo-Iranian are dealt with here, so that the manifold substrata from which Old IndoAryan obviously has borrowed on Indian soil from the time of the Rigveda onward (cf. esp. Witzel 2000) are not included in this survey.

4. Specific vocabulary 4.1. Verbs A significant number of verbal roots, though common to the (ancient) Indo-Iranian languages and without morphological peculiarities, have no parallels in the cognate languages and thus are isolates lacking an Indo-European etymology (see Lubotsky 2001: 314 f.). They include *bhai̯ š ‘heal’ (in Vedic derived bhiṣaj- only), *b haru̯ ‘chew’, *ći̯ aH ‘coagulate, congeal’ (V. śyā), *g has ‘eat, consume’, *g hau̯š ‘sound’ (V. ghoṣ = Av. gaoš ‘hear [sounds]’), *Hu̯i̯ ad h ‘pierce, hurt’ (V. vyadh), *ȷ́ hai̯ ‘impel, incite’ (V. hay = Av. zaii), *kau̯č ‘bend, shrink’, *kramH ‘stride’, *nard ‘bellow, growl’, *srans ‘dissolve, fall’, *u̯ai̯ k/č ‘separate, sift’, *u̯andH ‘praise, greet’, *u̯ap ‘strew, scatter’, *u̯i̯ ak/č ‘encompass, enclose’, *u̯i̯ at h ‘sway, totter’, *u̯rai̯ H ‘press, crush’ (V. vlay i = Av. uruuaii), but also the unclear present stem *išud hi̯ a- ‘strive for’.

4.2. Nominals (nouns and adjectives) This group includes Indo-Iranian isolates that are not borrowed from some other language, but have a plausible Indo-European etymology. These instances generally involve formations based on a PIE root but differing from cognate words in other subgroups by a special suffix. A number of semantic groups may be differentiated here, too. We begin with Indo-Iranian theonyms and other religious terms, a category not treated in 2.2. Theonyms: V. Apā́ṃ nápāt- = YAv. Apąm napāt- ‘descendant (lit.: grandson) of the waters’; V. Arámati- = Av. Ārma iti- (four-syllable form) ‘right thought’; V. Aryamán- = Av. A iriiaman- ‘hospitable’; V. Ásura- = Av. Ahura- ‘lord’ (esp. in Ahura- Mazdā- = OP. Auramazdā- ‘Lord Wisdom’); V. Āptyá- (in Tritá- Āptyá-) ~ YAv. Āθβiia- (cf. Mayrhofer 1992: 168); V. Dāsá- a demon ~ YAv. Dahāka- a dragon; V. Índra- (cf. Near Eastern early IA. dIn-da-ra, dIn-tar) = YAv. Iṇdra- a daēvic being; V. Mitrá- = YAv. Miθra- ‘(god) Contract’; V. Nárā-śáṃsa- epithet of Agni, lit. ‘praise of men’ ~ YAv. Na iriiō.saŋha-; V. Nā́satya- name of the divine twins (cf. Near Eastern early IA. dNaša-at-ti-i̯ a-an-na) = YAv. Nā̊ŋha iθiia-; V. Vāyú- = YAv. Vaiiu- ‘wind’; V. Sóma- the Soma plant, its juice and its deification = YAv. haoma- (the plant only); V. Tváṣṭar‘Creator’ = Av. θβōr əštar-; V. Vivásvant- = YAv. Vīuuaŋ vháṇt-, the father of V. Yamá- = Av. Yima- the primordial twin. Religious or mythical terms: PIIr. ā́ȷ́ huti- ‘offering, oblation’ (V. ā́huti- = Av. āzu iti-); *āpríH- ‘invocation, blessing, curse’ (V. āprī́- = YAv. āfrī-; from *ā́ + *prai̯ H); *Hi̯ aȷ́atá- ‘worthy of worship, adorable’ (V. yajatá- = Av. yazata-); *Hi̯ aȷ́-ná- ‘worship, offering’ (V. yajñá- = Av. yasna-); *Hr̥tá- ‘true; truth(fulness), R̥ta’ (V. r̥tá- = OP. r̥ta° ~ Av. aša-) with ̣ and *Hr̥táH-u̯an- ‘blessed with R̥ta’ (V. r̥tā́van- = OP. r̥tāvan- ~ Av. ašauuaṇ

113. The lexicon of Indo-Iranian

1951

i fem. V. r̥tā́varī- ~ YAv. ašāuua riiā̊s°); *ȷ́ háu̯-tar- ‘offering priest, sacrificer’ (V. hótar- = ̣ h Av. zaotar-); *ȷ́ áu̯-trā- ‘libation, offering’ (V. hótrā- = YAv. zaoθrā-); *mag há-u̯an‘munificent; giver, sacrificer’; *mii̯ ázd ha- ‘sacrifice, offering of food’ (V. miyédha- = Av. miiazda-); *satstrá- ‘session (of a sacrifice)’. Cf. also V. uśíj- = OAv. usij- an offering priest, whose title cannot be etymologized. Man: *agrū́-, fem. ‘unmarried’ (lit. ‘not pregnant’; ~ PIIr. *gr̥Hú- ‘heavy’); *ari̯ a-/ *ā́ri̯ a- ‘Aryan’ (V. ā́ri ya- ~ YAv. a iriia-, OP. ariya- as name of the Aryans); *átHt hi‘guest’ (V. átithi- = Av. asti-); *b hiš-áȷ́- ‘healer, physician’ (V. bhiṣáj-, bheṣajá-, °jyà- = YAv. baēšaza-, °ziia-, cf. the denominative verb bišaz-iia-); *(H)i̯ amá- ‘twin’ (V. yamá- = OAv. yəˉma-; cf. the name of the primordial twin Yama); *(H)i̯ áu̯asa- ‘pasturage, fodder’ (V. yávasa- = YAv. yauuaŋha-); *íš- ‘refreshment’ (V. íṣ- = Av. īš-; cf. V. íḍ-, íḍā-/íḷā- and írā- ‘refreshment’ = Av. ˘īža-); *ȷ́anH-tra- ‘origin, birthplace’; *kaniH(a)n‘girl, maiden’ (whose original n-stem, which is still seen in V. gen. pl. kanī́n-ām, YAv. gen. sg. kainīn-ō etc., is remodelled to the ā-stem V. kanyāˋ- = YAv. kaniiā-); *man-áu̯tar- ‘inventor, thinking, considering’ (V. manótar- ~ OAv. fem. manaoθr-ī-); *mártii̯ a‘mortal, man’ (V. mártiya- = Av. maš ̣iia-, OP. martiya-); *pāi̯ ú- ‘guard, protector’; *stríH- ‘woman’; *u̯ad hū́- ‘bride, young wife’ (derived from PIE *[H]u̯ed h ‘lead [home in marriage]’); *u̯ai̯ ć-á- ‘inmate, resident, settler’ (V. veśá- = YAv. vaēsa-); *u̯anHtā‘(beloved) wife’ (OIA. vanitā- = YAv. vaṇtā-). Kinship terms: *bhrā́tr̥u̯ii̯ a- ‘brother’s son’ (V. bhrā́tr̥vya- = YAv. brātruiia-, brātū˘ iriia- (Indo-Iranian new formation in analogy to *pHtr̥u̯ii̯ a-); *Hnā́r-iH- ‘woman, wife’ (V. nā́rī- = Av. nā irī-; based on *Hnár- ‘man’); *ȷ́ā́mātar- ‘son-in-law’ (with secondary PIIr. *-tar-); *náptar- ‘grandson, descendant’ (transformation of inherited *nápāt- [cf. above 2.2.] after the kinship terms in -tar-); *pHtr̥u̯ii̯ a- ‘father’s brother’ (V. pitr̥vya- ~ YAv. tū iriia-). Parts of the body: *angúri- ‘finger, toe’ with *angušt há- ‘thumb, great toe’; *áni-Hka- ‘face’ (V. ánīka- = YAv. a inika-); *aratní- ‘elbow’; *áu̯št ha- ‘lip’; *dánć-tra- ‘tooth, fang’ (V. dáṃṣṭra- = YAv. °dąstra-); *ȷ́iȷ́ hu̯áH-/*ȷ́iȷ́ huH- ‘tongue’ (Indo-Iranian remodeling of PIE *dn̥g̑ hu̯eh2-, that developed in different ways to V. jihvā́-, juhū́ and Av. hizuuā-, hizū- respectively); *gr̥da- ‘penis’; *ȷ́ang hā˘- ‘shank’ (V. jaṅghā- ~ YAv. zaṇga‘ankle’); *ȷ́ hā˘rd-/*ȷ́ hr̥d-, *ȷ́ hr̥ ́ d-ai̯ a- ‘heart’ (V. hr̥ ́ d-, hr̥ ́ daya- = OAv. zər əd-, YAv. zər əδaiia); *kárna- ‘ear’ (V. kárṇa- = YAv. kar əna-; and cf. V. karṇá- ‘with long ears, with some defect in the ears’ = YAv. kar əna- ‘deaf ’); *mastr̥g han-’brain’ (V. mastr̥han- = YAv. mastər əγan-); *mr̥Hd hán- ‘(fore)head, skull, top’ (V. mūrdhán- ~ YAv. ka-mər əδa-); *muští- ‘(clenched) fist’; *párću- ‘rib’ (V. párśu- = YAv. par əsu-, pər əsu°); *tanū́- ‘body, person, self (in place of reflexive pronoun)’; *u̯r̥ ́ H-as- ‘chest, breast’ (V. úras- [with strange zero-grade] = YAv. varah-). Human sphere: *áćtrā- ‘whip’; *ái̯ nas- ‘crime, sin’; *apu̯ā́- ‘panic, fear of death’ (V. apvā́- = OP. afuvā-); *árd ha- ‘half, part’; *árt ha- ‘aim, purpose’; *ásta- ‘home, place of return’; *ásu- ‘life’; *au̯a-i̯ ā́- ‘apology, expiation’; *áu̯as- ‘furtherance, assistance’; *au̯asá- ‘refreshment, provision’; *au̯a-sā́-na- ‘resting place’; *b (h)arȷ́ h-íš- ‘straw [esp. at the sacrificial ground], cushion’ (V. barhíṣ- = YAv. bar əziš-); *bhāg-á- ‘part, portion’; *b hiH-ás- ‘fear’ (V. bhiyás- = YAv. instr. biiaŋha; from the root *b hai̯ H); *b húǰ- ‘enjoyment, profit’ (V. bhúj- = OAv. būj- ‘fine’); *ćánsa- ‘praise, saying, order’ (V. śáṃsa- = OAv. səˉṇgha-, YAv. saŋha-); *ćarad-/*ćard- ‘autumn, year’ (V. śarád- ~ YAv. sar əd-, OP. θar(a)d-); *ćárd ha- ‘strength, troop’ (V. śárdha- = YAv. sar əδa- ‘kind’); *ćáu̯H-as‘power, strength, profit’; *čakš-áni- ‘viewer, looking’; *čánH-as- ‘delight’ (V. cánas- =

1952

XVII. Indo-Iranian

Av. °cinah-, OP. °canah-); *či̯ āu̯-tn-á- ‘enterprise, action’ (V. cyautná- ~ YAv. š́ iiaoθ[a]na-); *dm-āna- ‘house, building’ (V. mā́na- = OAv. d əmāna-, YAv. nmāna-); *dráu̯H-nas- ‘movable property, share’ (V. dráviṇas- = Av. draonah-); *d hā́i̯ -as- ‘refreshment, care’; *gaH-tú- ‘going, way, course’ (lit. ‘step’); *gaH-t hā́- ‘song’; *gárb ha‘womb’; *gáu̯-Hi̯ (a)uH-ti- ‘pasture’ (V. gávyūti- ~ YAv. gaoiiao iti-); *gr̥ ́ H- ‘praise, verse’ (V. gír- = Av. gar-); *HámH-a- ‘attacking force, aggressiveness’ (V. áma- = OAv. əˉma-, YAv. ama-); *i̯ áćas- ‘renown, fame’ (V. yáśas- = Av. yasah-); *i̯ ātú- ‘sorcery, witchcraft’; *ȷ́áu̯H-as- ‘speed, rapidity’; *ȷ́ harmii̯ á- ‘solid house, palace’ (V. harmyá- = YAv. za irimiia°); *ǰarH-tár- ‘singer’; *kćúd h- (?) ‘hunger’ (V. kṣúdh- = YAv. šuδ-); *kr̥ ́ p‘appearance, figure’ (V. kr̥ ́ p- = Av. kəhrp-); *kšatrá- ‘dominion, sovereignty’ (V. kṣatrá- = Av. xšaθra-) and *kšátra- ‘realm, kingdom’ (OP. xšaça-; cf. Schmitt 1998: 643) with *kšatr-íi̯ a- ‘endowed with/belonging to sovereignty’; *maghá- ‘gift, reward’; *mái̯ (H)as- ‘refreshment, enjoyment’ (V. máyas- = YAv. maiiah-); *mai̯ ní- ‘revenge, punishment’ (V. mení- = OAv. maē ini-, OP. °maini-); *man-i̯ ú- ‘mind, spirit, ardour’; *mán-tra- ‘thought, saying’; *mán-tu- ‘advice; adviser’; *mas-d háH- ‘intelligence, wisdom’ (V. medhā́- = OAv. mazdā-, cf. the theonym Ahura- Mazdā- and the adjective *mas-d hH-rá- > V. médhira- = YAv. mązdra-); *māi̯ á- ‘supernatural, wonderful power’; *mitrá- ‘contract’; *mr̥t-i̯ ú- ‘death’ (a contamination of inherited PIIr. *mr̥tí- and *ǰi̯ áHtu- ‘life’); *múH-tra- ‘urine’ (V. mū́tra- = Av. mū˘θra-); *pāmán- a skin disease, ‘scabies’; *prá-ćasti- ‘praise, fame’; *pr̥ ́ Hand hi- ‘beneficence, munificence’ (V. púrandhi- = OAv. parəṇdi-, YAv. pār°); *pr̥ ́ t-, *pr̥ ́ tanā- ‘battle, contest’ (V. pr̥ ́ t-, pr̥ ́ tanā- = YAv. pər ət-, pəšanā-, OP. pr̥tanā-); *raH-tí- ‘gift, favour’; *rái̯ k-nas- ‘bequest, wealth’ (V. rékṇas- = OAv. raēx ənah-); *rákšas- ‘damage, harm’; *rána- ‘delight, fight, battle’ (V. ráṇa-); *sái̯ nā- ‘army’ (V. sénā- = YAv. haēnā-, OP. hainā-); *sam-árana- ‘meeting, battle’ (V. samáraṇa- = YAv. hamarəna-, OP. hamarana-); *stúH-nā- ‘post, pillar’ (V. sthū́ṇā- with secondary sth- and -ṇ-); *táu̯HsiH- ‘power, strength’ (V. táviṣī- = Av. təuuišī-); *ti̯ áǰ-as- ‘abandonment, desolation’ (V. tyájas- = OAv. iθiiejah-, YAv. iθiiajah-); *tu̯ákš-as- ‘energy, vigour’; *u̯ái̯ ć-man- ‘house, dwelling’; *u̯ái̯ das- ‘property, wealth’; *u̯ratá- ‘instruction, order, rule’ (V. vratá- = OAv. uruuata-); *u̯r̥ȷ́-ána- ‘community, village’, lit. ‘enclosure’ (V. vr̥jána- = OAv. vər əzəˉna-, YAv. var əzāna-, OP. vr̥dana-; with V. vr̥janyà- = OAv. vər əzəˉniia- ‘belonging to a community’); *u̯r̥trá- ‘obstacle, resistance, enemy; also personified as a demon’ (V. vr̥trá- = YAv. vər əθra-) and *u̯r̥tra-ǰ hán‘breaking resistance’). Fauna: *á-g hn-i̯ ā- ‘cow’ (lit. ‘not to be killed’); *aȷ́ híH- ‘cow (in milk)’ (V. ahī́- = Av. azī-, though with different inflection); *ći̯ ai̯ ná- ‘hawk, falcon’ (V. śyená- = YAv. saēna-); *d hai̯ nú- ‘(milch) cow, female animal’; *mákš- ‘fly’ (V. mákṣ- ~ YAv. maxšī-); *r̥ȷ́ipi̯ á- epithet of the eagle (V. r̥jipyá- = YAv. ər əzifiia- ‘eagle’; cf. *r̥ȷ́rá- [2.2.]); *u̯arāȷ́ há- ‘(wild) boar’ (V. varāhá- = YAv. varāza-). Natural phenomena: *ádri- ‘stone, rock’; *arnau̯á- ‘wave, flood, waving sea’; *b háHma- ‘light, splendour’; *b haH-nú- ‘brightness, light’; *b húH-mi- ‘earth’ (with secondary ī-stem forms); *dić-ti- measure of length, lit. ‘instruction’ (V. diṣṭi- = YAv. dišti-); *di̯ u-mná- ‘splendour, magnificence’; *du̯i-Hp-á- ‘island’ (V. dvīpá- ~ YAv. duuaēpəˉ ‘on the island’); *gái̯ a- ‘life, vitality; wealth, property’; *Hmai̯ g há- ‘cloud’ (V. meghá- = YAv. maēγa-); *Hráȷ́-as- ‘space’ (V. rájas- = YAv. razah-); *Hu̯aH-i̯ ú- ‘wind, air; god of wind’ (V. vāyú- = Av. vaiiu-); *i̯ aští- ‘stick, club, branch’ (V. yaṣṭí- = YAv. °yaxšti-); *ȷ́rái̯ -as- ‘expanse, space’ (V. jráyas- = YAv. zraiiah-, OP. drayah- ‘sea’); *ȷ́ hr̥ ́ Hani̯ a‘precious metal, gold’ (V. híraṇya- = YAv. zarańiia-, OP. daraniya-); *kap ha- ‘phlegm,

113. The lexicon of Indo-Iranian

1953

foam’; *kćái̯ tra- ‘landed property, land, soil’ (V. kṣétra- = Av. šōiθra-); *máȷ́ h-as- ‘greatness, power, wealth’ (V. máhas- = YAv. mazah-); *naHu̯-íi̯ a- ‘to be crossed only by boat, not fordable’ (V. nāvyà- = YAv. nāuuaiia-, OP. nāviya-, whereas the customary translation ‘navigable’ is incorrect); *pái̯ as- ‘milk’; *pánt-ā-s, gen. *pat h-ás ‘way, path’ (V. nom. sg. pánthās, acc. pánthām, gen. pathás, loc. pathí, etc. = YAv. nom. paṇt-ā̊, acc. paṇt-ąm, OAv. abl. paθ-ō, loc. pa iθ-ī, etc., a highly archaic paradigm which only in Indo-Iranian exhibits this *t/t h-alternation caused by a laryngeal); *párH-nas- ‘plenty, abundance’ (V. párīṇas- ~ YAv. par ənaŋvhan ̣t- ‘available in plenty’); *paršá- ‘sheaf, bundle’; *pau̯ástā˘- ‘cover, cloth’ (V. pavásta- ~ OP. pavastā-); *píHu̯as- ‘fat’ (V. pī́vas- = YAv. pīuuah-); *sái̯ -tu- ‘bond, fetter, dam, bridge’; *srak-tí- ‘edge’; *súrā- ‘intoxicating drink, spirituous liquor’; *támH-as- ‘darkness, gloom’; *tištrii̯ a- name of a fixed star, the Sirius (V. Tiṣyà- [by dissimilation] = YAv. Tištriia-; originally *tri-štr-ii̯ a- ‘threestar constellation’); *u̯ánā˘- ‘tree, wood’; *u̯ará- ‘enclosure, cave’ (V. valá- = YAv. vara-); *u̯árčas- ‘brilliance, splendour, figure’; *u̯árna- ‘covering, colour’; *u̯ítastimeasure of length, lit. ‘span’; *u̯r̥ćsá- ‘tree’ (V. vr̥kṣá- = YAv. var əša-). Cf. also the inherited hydronym PIIr. *Sáras-u̯at-iH-, lit. ‘rich in puddles or lakes’ (> V. Sárasvatī- = PIr. *Harahu̯atī-; cf. Schmitt 2001). Instruments: *ćámi̯ ā- ‘yoke-pin, plug, wedge’ (V. śámyā- ~ YAv. (yugō.)səmī-, simā-); *d hán-u̯ar/n- ‘bow’ (V. dhánvan- [and remodelled dhánus-]̣ ~ YAv. θanuuarə/°uuanwith secondary θ-); *d hā́rā- ‘blade, edge’; *gadā- ‘mace, club’; *kánH-tra- ‘spade’ (V. khanítra- ~ YAv. kąstra-); *kšádman- ‘(carving-)knife’; *k humb há- (?) ‘jar, pitcher’ (V. kumbhá- ~ YAv. xumba-); *matíi̯ a- ‘club (as an agricultural tool)’ (V. matyà- = YAv. °ma itiia-); *rát ha- ‘(war-)chariot’ (cf. also V. rathe-ṣṭhā́- ‘(warrior) standing on a chariot’ = YAv. raθaē-/raθōi-štā-); *r̥ští- ‘spear’; *u̯ád har- ‘(murder) weapon’; *u̯áȷ́ra- ‘thunderbolt, club, mace’ (including a number of similar, though not identical phraseologies). Adjectives: *á-di̯ u- ‘not damaging/hurting’ (V. ádyu- = OAv. a idiiu-); *ágra- ‘foremost; uppermost part’ (with *agrii̯ á- ‘foremost, first’); *ag há- ‘bad, dangerous’; *ái̯ ta‘coloured, iridescent’; *áka- ‘bad, evil’; *and há- ‘blind’; *ani̯ á- ‘other’; *aruná- ‘reddish-brown’ (V. aruṇá-); *arušá- ‘red(dish)’; *áru̯an-, *áru̯ant- ‘running, quick; racer’ (V. árvan-, árvant- = Av. auruuaṇt-, YAv. auruua-); *asrá- ‘painful, evil’ (V. asrá- = OAv. aṇgra-, YAv. aŋra-); *á-u̯it hura- ‘not staggering, unshakeable’ (V. ávithura- = YAv. a iβiθūra-, i.e. +auuiθura-); *b hadrá- ‘blessed, auspicious’; *b húH-ri- ‘much, many, abundant’; *ćriH-ra- ‘beautiful’ (OIA. śrīla- [but V. a-śrīrá- ‘unpleasant’] = Av. srīrawith *ćrái̯ H-i̯ as-, *ćrái̯ H-išta-); *ćuk-rá- ‘bright, clear, coloured’ (V. śukrá- = Av. suxra‘red’, OP. pr. n. Θuxra-); *ću̯itrá-, *ću̯iti-°- ‘white, whitish’ (V. śvitrá-, śviti° = YAv. spiti°); *das-má- ‘wonderful, miraculous’; *das-rá- ‘accomplishing wonderful deeds’ (V. dasrá- = Av. daŋra-, with superl. V. dáṃsiṣṭha- = YAv. dąhišta-); *d (h)ā́d hr̥ši- ‘courageous, bold’ (V. dā́dhr̥ṣi- = OP. pr. n. Dādr̥ši-); *dūrá- ‘far, long’; *d hruu̯á- ‘firm, fixed, certain’ (V. dhruvá- = YAv. druua-, OP. duruva-); *ga(m)b h(H)rá- ‘deep’ (V. ga(m)bhīrá~ YAv. jafra-); *(H)i̯ aȷ́ hú- ‘young, youthful’, fem. *(H)i̯ aȷ́ hu̯-íH- (V. yahú-, yahvī́- = OAv. yazu-, yezuuī-); *Hi̯ ā́u̯ant- ‘as great, as large’ (V. yā́vant- = YAv. yauuaṇt-); *ȷ́áu̯H-išta‘quickest’ (V. jáviṣṭha- ~ OAv. zəuuīštiia-); *ȷ́ hrás-i̯ as- ‘smaller’ (V. hrásīyas- ~ YAv. fem. zraheh-ī-); *ǰiH-rá- ‘lively, quick, active’; *kádru- ‘(reddish-)brown’; *kr̥ćá- ‘thin, slim, lean’ (V. kr̥śá- = YAv. kər əsa°); *kšu̯iprá- ‘flying, swift, quick’ (V. kṣiprá- ~ YAv. xšuuiβra-, for which phraseological equations [cf. 5 (1)] prove the identity of origin despite the formal differences); *k haru̯á- ‘mutilated, crippled’ (V. kharvá- ~ YAv. kauruua-); *maȷ́ (h)aH-ánt- ‘great, large, big’ (V. mahā́nt- = YAv. mazā̊ṇt-, an enlargement of inherit-

1954

XVII. Indo-Iranian

ed *maȷ́ (h)aH- after *b hr̥ȷ́ h-ánt- ‘high’); *mā́-u̯ant- ‘like me’; *mūrá- ‘stupid, foolish’; *nái̯ ma- ‘one, half ’; *nam-rá- ‘bowing, submissive, humble’; *názd-ii̯ as- ‘nearer’, *názd-išta- ‘nearest, next’ (V. nédīyas-, nédiṣṭha- = YAv. nazdiiah-, Av. nazdišta-, which are the comparative and superlative, respectively, to Av. as-na-, OP. aš-na- ‘near’ < PIE *n̥sd-no-); *parušá- ‘grey, dirty-coloured’; *pr̥Hu̯ii̯ á- ‘former’ (V. pūrvi yá- = OAv. pouruuiia-, YAv. pao iriia-, OP. paruviya-) with V. á-pūrvi ya- ‘unprecedented’ ~ OAv. apaouruuīm ‘as never before’; *pr̥ ́ šant- ‘spotted, speckled’ (V. pr̥ ́ ṣant- = YAv. paršat̰ .°); *ráu̯d hita- ‘red(dish)’ (V. róhita-, lóh° = YAv. rao iδita-); *rūkšá- ‘rough, dry, thin’; *r̥ȷ́ú- ‘straight, right’ (V. r̥jú- = Av. ər əzu-, with superl. *ráȷ́-išta-); *r̥šu̯á- ‘elevated, high’; *súš-ka- ‘dry’ (V. śúṣka- < *súṣka- = YAv. huška-, OP. uška-); *tap-nú- ‘burning’; *táruna- ‘young, tender’ (V. táruṇa-); *táu̯H-i̯ as- ‘stronger’ (V. táv(ī)yas- = OP. tauviyah-); *tu̯ā́-u̯ant- ‘like you’; *ub há- ‘both’ (the initial *u- being restricted to IndoIranian); *ug-rá- ‘powerful, strong’; *utstāná- ‘outstretched’ (V. uttāná- = Av. ustāna-); *u̯íp-ra- ‘trembling, (ecstatically) excited’ (V. vípra- = YAv. vifra-, ōifra-).

4.3. Pronouns Specific Indo-Iranian pronominal formations include the following stems: demonstrative PIIr. *imá- (V. imá- = Av. ima-, OP. ima-), that has been created by metanalysis of the inherited acc. sg. masc. *i-m-ám (cf. 2.3) as *imá-m; demonstrative *ai̯ šá-/*ai̯ tá- ‘this one here’ (V. eṣá-/etá- = YAv. aēša-/aēta-, OP. aita-), a fusion of the inherited stems *ai̯ - and *sá-/tá- (cf. 2.3); interrogative *katamá- ‘who/which of several?’ (V. katamá- = YAv. katāma-) in analogy to inherited *katará- ‘who/which of two?’ (V. katará- = YAv. katāra-; cf. Gk. πότερος). Among the personal pronouns the oblique case-stem PIIr. *i̯ ušmá- ‘you’ (2 nd p. pl.) in, e.g., abl. V. yuṣmát = Av. yūšmat̰ is a blending of inherited PIIr. *ušmá- < PIE *usmé (cf. Gk. Lesb. ὔμμε, Dor. ὑμέ) with the nominative stem *i̯ ū-.

4.4. Numerals Specific Indo-Iranian formations are to be found in the word ‘1000’ (PIIr. *saȷ́ hásra-) and particularly among the ordinal numbers: e.g. PIIr. *du̯itī˘i̯ a- ‘second’ (V. dvitī́ya- = OAv. d aibitiia-, YAv. bitiia-, OP. duvitī˘ya-, formed after the inherited *tr̥tī˘i̯ a- ‘third’), *(k)tur(ī)i̯ a- ‘fourth’ (V. turī́ya- = YAv. tū iriia-; cf. also ā-xtū irīm ‘four times’), *aštama‘eighth’ (new formation after *saptamá- ‘7th’, *daćamá- ‘10th’), *nau̯amá- ‘ninth’ (V. navamá- = YAv. naoma-, nāuma-, OP. navama-, replacing older *nau̯aná-).

4.5. Adverbs, conjunctions, etc. A large number of Indo-Iranian adverbs, particles, and other mots accessoires are new formations without parallels in the cognate languages. The following may be cited: PIIr. *adzd hā́ ‘in this (obvious) way’ (V. addhā́ = OAv., OP. azdā), *ai̯ u̯á ‘thus’, *áram ‘rightly, appropriately’, *au̯ár ‘down(ward)’, *āu̯íš ‘evidently’ (V. āvíṣ = Av. āuuiš),

113. The lexicon of Indo-Iranian

1955

*čái̯ d ‘if ’ (V. céd = YAv. cōit̰ ), *du̯i-tā́ ‘another time, as always’, *d hr̥šát ‘boldly’ (V. dhr̥ṣát = OAv. dar əšat̰ °, cf. OP. daršam with secondary -m as elsewhere), *ȷ́ hí ‘for, because’ (V. hí = Av. zī), *mit hás ‘in contrast’, *nái̯ d ‘not’ (V. néd < *ná-id = Av. nōit̰ , OP. naiy), *nā́nā ‘in various ways, here and there’, *nūnám ‘now’ (V. nūnám ~ Av. nūrə˘̄ m, OP. nūram with secondary -r-), *parás ‘beyond, off ’, *párā ‘away’, *pas-čā́ ‘behind, after’ (V. paścā́ = YAv. pasca, OP. pasā), *sáčā ‘together (with)’, *sádā ‘always’, *sad há ‘together with’ (V. sahá, sadha° = OAv., OP. hadā, YAv. haδa), *sa-kr̥ ́ t ‘once, at once’ (V. sakr̥ ́ t = YAv. hakərət̰ , cf. OP. hakaram°), *satrā́ ‘(al)together’, *smát ‘together, at the same time’ (V. smát = YAv. mat̰ ), *tr̥Hás ‘across, over’ (V. tirás = YAv. tarō), *u̯ā́i̯ ‘truly, indeed’ (V. vái = OAv. vōi). This is the proper place for also mentioning adjectives in *-anč- based primarily on preverbs and adverbs such as PIIr. *ápānč- ‘situated behind’ (V. ápāñc- = YAv. nom. sg. masc. apąš), *párānč- ‘averted’, *prā́nč- ‘directed forwards, facing’, *p(r)ati̯ anč‘facing’ (V. pratyáñc- ~ YAv. nom. sg. masc. pa iti.yąš, as always with the contrast of Ved. práti vs. Iran. *pati), *níi̯ anč- ‘directed downwards’ (V. nyàñc- = YAv. niiāṇc-), *satrā́nč- ‘(al)together, throughout’ (V. satrā́ñc- = YAv. haθrāṇc-), *u̯íšu̯anč- ‘directed toward different directions’ (V. víśvañc- = YAv. vīžuuan ̣c-); cf. also instr. sg. V. tiraś-cā́ ‘crosswise, widthwise’ = YAv. tarasca.

5. Phraseology The most striking feature among the linguistic similarities between the two branches of Indo-Iranian is the great number of corresponding idiomatic phrases and compounds that lived on particularly in the poetic tradition of both the Vedas and the Avesta. The most extensive systematic survey of this material is found in Schlerath (1968: 148−164), but it is also fully taken into account, where appropriate, by Mayrhofer (1992−1996; cf., moreover, inter alia Duchesne-Guillemin 1962: 33−36; Benveniste 1968). The main methodological problem is to rule out random parallels; how this is possible (by showing that one is dealing with a fixed formula with archaic traits, not commonplace expressions) is discussed in Schlerath (1996: 379 f.). We can here list only a selection of the closest non-trivial correspondences; parallels in content only and instances like V. áṃhas- tar i ‘get over distress’ ~ YAv. vī-tar-ązahor V. ádbhuta-kratu- ‘with undeceivable intelligence’ ~ YAv. aδaoiiō.xratu- must be left aside notwithstanding their etymological affinity. Any more detailed classification being arbitrary, only a rough assignment based on grammatical structure with many varieties in every category is followed: 1. noun + adjective (often fused into a compound): V. átithi- ‘guest’ + priyá- ‘dear’, + vásu- ‘good’ = YAv. asti- friia-, Vohuuasti-; V. áśva- ‘horse’ + árvant- ‘running’, + āśú- ‘swift’, + r̥jrá- ‘quick’, + kṣiprá- ‘swift’ (in kṣiprāśva-), + víṣita- ‘untied’ = YAv. auruuat̰ .aspa-, āsu- aspa- (and āsu.aspa-) [but cf. Gk. ὠκέες ἵπποι as proof of PIE origin], YAv. Ǝrəzrāspa-, Xšuuiβrāspa-, Av. Vīštāspa-, OP. Vištāspa-; V. ā́yu‘life’ + dīrghá- ‘long’ (and dīrghā́yu[ṣ]- ‘long-lived’) = OAv. āiiu- darəga- (and darəgāiiu-); V. íṣu- ‘arrow’ + kṣiprá- ‘swift’ (in kṣipréṣu-) ~ YAv. xšuuiβi.išu-; V. uṣás- ‘dawn’ + ucchántī- ‘shining out’, + vibhātī́- ‘becoming bright’ = YAv. ušahusaitī-, viuuaitī-; V. ójas- ‘vigour’ + dhruvá- ‘firm’ = YAv. aojah- druua-; V. kṣám-

1956

2.

3.

4.

5.

XVII. Indo-Iranian ‘earth’ + pr̥thivī́- ‘broad’ = YAv. zam- pərəθuuī-; V. cárman- ‘leather’ + mlātá- ‘made soft, tanned’ = YAv. carəman- mrāta-; V. nár- ‘man’ + tvā́vant- ‘like you’ = OAv. nar- θβāuuaṇt-; V. nā́man- ‘name’ + asuryà- ‘Asurian’ = OAv. nāman- āhūiriia-; V. mántra- ‘formula’ + satyá- ‘true’ = OAv. mąθra- haiθiia-; V. Mitrá- ‘(god) Mitra’ + revánt- ‘splendid’ = YAv. Miθra- raēuuaṇt-; V. vácas- ‘word’ + sūktá- ‘well-spoken’ = YAv. vacah- hūxta-; V. vīrá- ‘man’ + revánt- ‘splendid’ = YAv. vīra- raēuuaṇt-; V. Sóma- ‘(god) Soma’ + vr̥trahán- ‘victorious’, + sukrátu- ‘of good intelligence’ = YAv. Haoma- vərəθrajan-, huxratu-; possessive compounds formed from shared syntagms: V. ugrá-bāhu- ‘strong-armed’ = YAv. uγra.bāzu; V. uttāná-hasta- ‘with hands outstretched’ = OAv. ustāna-zasta- (both being combined in a remarkable way with námasā [RV 6.16.46d etc.] = nəmaŋhā ‘in reverence’ [Y. 28.1a]); V. urú-gavyūti‘having (or: providing) wide pastures’ = YAv. vouru.gaoiiaoiti-; V. citrá-rāti- ‘granting bright gifts’ ~ OAv. ciθra- + rāti-; OIA. dīrgha-bāhu- ‘long-armed’ = OAv. darəgō.bāzu-; V. pr̥thu-jráyas- ‘widely extended’ = YAv. pərəθu.zraiiah-; V. pr̥thúśroṇi- ‘with large buttocks’ = YAv. pərəθu.sraoni-; V. viśva-píś-, viśvá-peśas- ‘with all (kinds of) adornments’ = YAv. vīspō.pis-, vīspō.paēsah-; V. su-kṣatrá- ‘of good rule’ = OAv. hu-xšaθra-; V. híraṇya-cakra- ‘gold-wheeled’ = YAv. zaraniiō.caxra-; two nouns coordinated: *krátu- + *mánas- (V. krátvā mánasā ~ OAv. xratəˉuš manaŋhas-cā); *kšatrá- + *áu̯ǰas- (V. kṣatrám … ójaḥ ~ OAv. aogō … xšaθrəm-cā), + *ćáu̯as- (V. kṣatrā́ya śávase ~ YAv. xšaθrəm-ca sauuas-ca); *ȷ́ánHtar- + *pHtár- (V. pitā́ janitā́ ~ OAv. ząθā ptā; cf. Gk. γενέτωρ πατήρ); *táu̯HsiH- + *sáȷ́ has- (V. táviṣīm … sáhaḥ ~ OAv. təuuīšīm … hazō); *ti̯ áǰas- + *ánȷ́ has- (V. tyájasā … áṃhaḥ ~ YAv. ązaŋhat̰ … iθiiajaŋhat̰ ); *Hi̯ aȷ́ná- + *u̯áčas- (V. yajñám … vácaḥ ~ OAv. vacaŋhā … yasnā); *súrā- + *mád hu- (V. súrām mádhu ~ YAv. huraiiā̊ vā maδəˉuš); *ȷ́ hr̥ ́ d- + *mánas- (V. hr̥dā́ mánasā = OAv. zərədā-cā manaŋhā-cā); noun + dependent genitive: V. khā́- r̥tásya ‘the source of Truth’ = YAv. xā- aš ̣ahe (this being the only completely matching phrase containing r̥tá-/aša-); V. dātár- vásụ̄ nām ‘donor of goods’ = YAv. dātar- vohunąm (despite the formal agreement, no inherited formula according to Hoffmann 1976: 593−604); V. páti- kṣétrasya ‘lord of the soil’ = YAv. paiti- šōiθrahe; V. padá- ílāyās ‘footprint(s) of the Libation’ = OAv. ̣ pada- … īžaiiā̊; V. padá- paśváḥ ‘footprint(s) of the cattle’ = YAv. paδa- pasəˉuš; V. máda- sómasya ‘the intoxication/intoxicating drink of Soma’ = YAv. maδa- haomahe; V. viś-páti- viśā́m ‘lord of the clans’ = YAv. vīspaiti- vīsąm; V. hantár- druhó ‘destroyer of Falsehood’ = YAv. jaṇtar- drujō; as special cases cf. also compounds consisting of two cognate nouns like V. droghavā́c- ‘making lying speeches’ = YAv. draoγō.vāxš ° (in draoγō.vāxš.draojišta- ‘the most mendacious of liars’), V. bāhv-òjas- ‘strongarmed’ = YAv. bāzuš.aojah- as well as superlative expressions like V. ójiṣṭhaugrā́ṇām ‘the mightiest of the mighties’ = YAv. aojišta- uγranąm; V. devátama- devā́nām ‘the most divine of the gods’ = YAv. daēuuō.təma- daēuuanąm ‘the arch daēva of the daēvas’; polyptoton (cf. the famous example of that stylistic figure in RV 1.1.1a−5a agním, agníḥ, agnínā, ágne, agnír): V. sákhā sákhye ‘a friend to a friend’ = YAv. haxa haš́ e; also the reciprocal V. anyó anyám ‘the one the other’ etc. = OAv. aniiō ainīm = OP. aniya aniyam (cf. Schmitt 1998: 636−638); nominal-verbal phrases and compounds (arranged by the roots of the verbs): V. aj + pr̥ ́ tanā- ‘rush into battle’ (and pr̥tanā́j-) = YAv. az pəšanā̊; V. as ávase ‘be in support’ = OAv. ah auuaŋ́hē; V. āp kṣatrám ‘obtain rule’ = OAv. āp xšaθrəm; V. oh

113. The lexicon of Indo-Iranian

1957

vā́cam ‘pronounce a speech of praise’ = YAv. aog vācim; V. kar mitrám ‘make a contract’ = YAv. kar miθrəm; V. goh tanvàm ‘hide oneself ’ = YAv. gaoz tanūm; V. jambh hánū ‘smash the jaws’ = YAv. zamb zanuua; (V. joṣ in) devá-juṣṭa- ‘darling of the gods’ = OAv. daēuuō.zušta-; V. takš mántram ‘fashion a formula’ = OAv. taš mąθrəm; V. takṣ vácas- ‘fashion speech’ ~ YAv. vacas-tašti- ‘word-crafting [i.e. strophe]’; V. tar i vr̥trám ‘overcome resistance/obstacles’ (and vr̥tra-túr-) = YAv. tar vərəθrəm etc.; V. dā ásum ‘grant existence’ = OAv. dā ahūm; V. dā íṣam ‘grant vigour’ = OAv. dā īšəm; V. drogh mitrám ‘deceive a contract’ (and mitra-drúh-) = YAv. draog miθrəm (and miθrō.drug-); V. dhar kṣā́m ‘hold (up) the earth’ = OAv. dar ząm; V. dhā kṣatrám ‘grant rule’ = OAv. dā xšaθrəm; V. dhā gíras ‘offer praises’ = OAv. dā garō; V. dhā táviṣīm ‘put on might’ = OAv. dā təuuīšīm; V. dhā nā́man- ‘bestow a name’ = OAv. dā nāman-; V. dhā várcas- ‘bestow splendour’ (and varco-dhā́-) = OAv. dā varcah-; V. dhā sáhas- ‘put on power’ = OAv. dā hazō; V. ni-dhā padó ‘put down the feet’ = YAv. ni-dā pāδa; V. nay i baddhám ‘lead captive’ = YAv. nay bastəm = OP. basta anayatā ‘he was led in fetters’; V. prá-pat + váyah ̣ ‘the birds fly up’ = YAv. frā-pat vaiiō; V. par i kā́mam ‘grant a wish’ = OAv. par kāməm; V. bhar námas- ‘offer reverence’ = YAv. bar nəmō; V. bhar vā́cam ‘raise one’s voice’ = OAv. bar vācəm; V. bhar stómam ‘offer a praise’ = YAv. bar + staoma-; V. yaj r̥tám ‘worship Truth’ = OAv. yaz aš ̣əm; V. yaj devā́n ‘worship the gods’ (and deva-yáj-) = YAv. daēuua-iiaz-; V. yaj yajñám ‘worship’ (figura etymologica) = YAv. yaz yasnəm; V. vakṣ kṣatrám ‘let power grow’ = OAv. vaxš xšaθrəm; V. vac mántram ‘pronounce a formula’ = OAv. vac mąθrəm; V. vardh ójasā ‘increase in strength’ = OAv. vard aojaŋhā; V. vardh kṣatrám ‘increase power’ = OAv. vard xšaθrəm; V. vas vástrāṇi ‘put on clothes’ = YAv. vah vastrā̊; (V. vah in) vā́to vahati ‘the wind blows’ = YAv. vātō vazaiti (cf. Schlerath 1996); V. ved gáv- ‘find cows’ = OAv. vaēd gąm (and YAv. pr. n. Vīdat̰ .gu-); V. śaṃs vácaḥ ‘pronounce a word’ = OAv. səˉṇgh vacah-; V. sthā + ūrdhvá- ‘stand upright’ = YAv. stā ərəδβa-; (V. han gáv- in) go-hán- ‘killing cattle’ = YAv. gao-jan-; V. (han in) jahí vádhar ‘hit the weapon!’ = YAv. vadarə jaiδi; (V. han + vīrá- in) vīra-hán- ‘killing men’ = YAv. vīra-jan-; V. hav i ávase ‘invoke for assistance’ = YAv. zbā auuaŋ́he; V. hav i ukthébhiḥ ‘call with verses’ = OAv. zbā uxδāiš; V. hav i nā́man- ‘invoke the name (of someone)’ = YAv. zbā nāman-; cf. also the particular case of figurae etymologicae like V. súbhr̥tam bhar = YAv. hubərətąm bar = OP. ubr̥tam bar ‘treat well’ (as substitutes for the non-existent adverbs ‘well’ and ‘badly’); 6. two verbs coordinated: PIIr. *Hi̯ aȷ́ h + *prai̯ H ‘worship and appease (some deity)’ in RV 8.39.9d yákṣac ca pipráyac ca etc. ~ OAv. yazamaidē … friiąnmahī etc.; PIIr. *Hi̯ aȷ́ h + *stau̯ ‘worship and praise’ in RV 6.47.15a stavat … yajāte ~ OAv. yazəmnas-cā … stauuas; PIIr. *ćrau̯ + *maržd ‘hear and have mercy’ in RV 1.25.19ab śrudhī … mr̥ḷaya ~ Y. 33.11c sraotā mōi mərəždātā mōi; cf. the two coordinated adverbs V. ā́ ca párā ca ‘to and fro’ (with car ‘move’) = YAv. ā-ca para-ca; 7. other phrasal expressions: RV 8.28.4a yáthā váśanti devā́s táthéd asat ‘just as the gods may desire, so shall it be’ ~ Y. 29.4c aθā nəˉ aŋhat̰ yaθā huuō vasat̰ ‘so shall it be for us, as he may desire’; RV 3.18.3c yā́vad ī́śe ‘as much as I am able’ = Y. 43.9e etc. yauuat̰ isāi; Y. 44.1a−19a tat̰ θβā pərəsā ‘this I ask you’ ~ RV 1.164.34a.c pr̥cchā́mi tvā; RV 10.150.1d mr̥ḷīkā́ya na ā́ gahi ‘come to us for mercy!’ ~ Yt. 10.5d ā-ca nō jamiiāt̰ marždikāi ‘and may he come to us for mercy’; RV 3.33.8d námas te = Y. 58.7 nəmasə.tōi etc. ‘reverence to you!’.

1958

XVII. Indo-Iranian

6. References Bartholomae, Christian 1894 Zum arischen Theil in Fick’s vergleichendem Wörterbuch I, 4. Auflage. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 48: 504−531. Benveniste, Émile 1968 Phraséologie poétique de l’indo-iranien. In: Mélanges d’indianisme à la mémoire de Louis Renou. Paris: de Boccard, 73−79. Berger, Hermann 1959 Die Burušaski-Lehnwörter in der Zigeunersprache. Indo-Iranian Journal 3: 17−43. Duchesne-Guillemin, Jacques 1962 L’étude de l’iranien ancien au vingtième siècle. Kratylos 7: 1−44. Eichler, Ernst, Gerold Hilty, Heinrich Löffler, Hugo Steger, and Ladislav Zgusta (eds.) 1995 Namenforschung. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Onomastik. 1. Teilband. Berlin: De Gruyter Fick, August 1890 Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der Indogermanischen Sprachen. Vierte Auflage. Erster Theil. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. García Trabazo, José Virgilio 2016 Sobre indio antiguo mr̥gá- ‘animal salvaje’ y el texto hitita KUB 43.60+ (‘El gran camino del alma’). In: Andrew Miles Byrd, Jessica DeLisi, and Mark Wenthe (eds.), Tavet Tat Satyam. Studies in Honor of Jared S. Klein on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave, 65–75. Hoffmann, Karl 1976 Aufsätze zur Indoiranistik. II. Edited by Johanna Narten. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Katz, Hartmut 2003 Studien zu den älteren indoiranischen Lehnwörtern in den uralischen Sprachen. Heidelberg: Winter. Lubotsky, Alexander 2001 The Indo-Iranian Substratum. In: Christian Carpelan, Asko Parpola, and Petteri Koskikallio (eds.), Early Contacts between Uralic and Indo-European: Linguistic and Archaeological Considerations. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura, 301−317. Mayrhofer, Manfred 1992−1996 Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen. I−II. Heidelberg: Winter. Pinault, Georges-Jean 2006 Further links between the Indo-Iranian substratum and the BMAC language. In: Bertil Tikkanen and Heinrich Hettrich (eds.), Themes and Tasks in Old and Middle Indo-Aryan Linguistics. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 167−196. Schlerath, Bernfried 1968 Awesta-Wörterbuch. Vorarbeiten II: Konkordanz. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Schlerath, Bernfried 1996 Indo-iranisch *vātaz *vag̑hati ‘der Wind weht’ und idg. *u̯eg̑ h- ‘schweben’. Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik 20: 379−387. Schmitt, Rüdiger 1995a Alt- und mittelindoarische Namen. In: Eichler et al. (eds.), 645−657. Schmitt, Rüdiger 1995b Iranische Namen. In: Eichler et al. (eds.), 678–690. Schmitt, Rüdiger 1998 Tradition und Innovation. Zu indoiranischen Formeln und Fügungen im Altpersischen. In: Jay Jasanoff, H. Craig Melchert, and Lisi Oliver (eds.), Mír curad. Studies in honor of Calvert Watkins. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität, 635−644.

113. The lexicon of Indo-Iranian

1959

Schmitt, Rüdiger 2001 Der Name Arachosien. Ein Streifzug durch seine Überlieferung in Ost und West. In: Maria Gabriela Schmidt and Walter Bisang (eds.), Philologica et Linguistica. Historia, Pluralitas, Universitas. Festschrift für Helmut Humbach. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag, 68−92. Windfuhr, Gernot 2006 Iran. vii. Non-Iranian Languages of Iran. In: Ehsan Yarshater (ed.), Encyclopædia Iranica. Vol. XIII. New York: Encyclopaedia Iranica Foundation, col. 377−410. Witzel, Michael 1999 Substrate Languages in Old Indo-Aryan (R̥gvedic, Middle and Late Vedic). Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies 5(1): 1−67. Witzel, Michael 2000 Die sprachliche Situation Nordindiens in vedischer Zeit. In: Bernhard Forssman and Robert Plath (eds.), Indoarisch, Iranisch und die Indogermanistik. Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 2. bis 5. Oktober 1997 in Erlangen. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 543−579.

Rüdiger Schmitt, Laboe (Germany)

XVIII. Balto-Slavic 114. Balto-Slavic 1. 2. 3. 4.

History of the question Balto-Slavic common features Balto-Slavic divergences Internal Baltic and Slavic divergences

5. External connections 6. Balto-Slavic: a conclusion 7. References

1. History of the question The existence of shared innovations in Baltic and Slavic has led many scholars since the first part of the 19th century to suppose a “Balto-Slavic” common stage between IndoEuropean and both the Baltic and Slavic families. Leaving aside pre-scientific descriptions which all too often failed to distinguish Baltic from Slavic (see especially Dini 2010 for more details), a first step towards a “Balto-Slavic” common stage was made in 1837 by August Friedrich Pott (De Lithuano-Borussicae in Slavicis Letticisque Linguis principatu commentatio, Göttingen). Pott was soon followed by August Schleicher (1861: 7), who in his famous genealogical tree of the Indo-European languages drew a sub-branch Slawolitauisch (= Balto-Slavic) as a common ancestor of both Litauisch (= Baltic) and Slawisch (= Slavic). This view was also endorsed by the Neogrammarian school. In the first edition of his Grundriss (1886: 12), Karl Brugmann used the name baltisch-slavischer Zweig ‘Baltic-Slavic branch’. In his 1897 edition, in order to support the reconstruction of Balto-Slavic, he provided a list of innovations supposed to be common to Baltic and Slavic and to reflect divergences from the other Indo-European languages (1897: 20−21). This list includes the following features: 1. treatment of liquid and nasal syllabic sonants *r̥, *l̥ , *m̥, *n̥ > *ir, *il, *im, *in (in some cases *ur, *ul, *um, *un). 2. lack of geminate consonants. 3. formation of “definite adjectives” by means of an agglutinated pronoun *-(j)is, e.g. Lith. geràsis, OCS dobryjь ‘the good one’. 4. shift of active masculine participles to the *-i̯ o-inflection, e.g. Lith. vẽžančio ‘leading’(Gsg.), OCS vezǫštą ‘id.’(Gsg.). 5. influence of -i-stems on consonant stems, e. g. Lith. akmenimì ‘stone’(Isg.), OCS kamenьmъ ‘id.’(Isg.). 6. loss of suppletion between *so- and *to- by generalization of *to-, e.g. Lith. tàs, OCS tъ ‘that one’. 7. first person pronoun dative Lith. mán, OP mennei, OCS mьně. 8. merging of genitive and ablative in thematic inflections, e.g. Lith. diẽvo ‘of God’(Gsg.), OCS boga ‘id.’(Gsg.). At the end of the 19th century, “Balto-Slavic” was considered as firmly established as Indo-Iranian for example, and nobody questioned its validity seriously until Antoine https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-035

114. Balto-Slavic

1961

Meillet (1908: 40−48) in a seminal book on the Indo-European dialects raised objections against the existence of a “Balto-Slavic” stage. A few years earlier Meillet (1905: 201− 202) had already written that “it does not seem legitimate to speak of a period of BaltoSlavic unity” (il ne semble pas légitime de parler d’une unité balto-slave). Meillet’s objections were of a threefold nature. First, according to Meillet, the common innovations on which the reconstruction of Balto-Slavic is based are often too trivial to exclude the possibility of independent evolutions in Baltic and Slavic. Second, some of the innovations listed by Brugmann, or their prodromes, are found in other Indo-European languages so that their presence in both Baltic and Slavic does not necessarily imply the reconstruction of a common stage. Third, some of these features might be inherited from PIE or at least reflect tendencies already existing in PIE. Meillet’s heterodox views on Balto-Slavic gave rise to heated discussions. While some scholars still adhered to “BaltoSlavic” seen as a uniform proto-language (e.g. Porzeziński 1911), others tried to reconcile Meillet’s views with the existence of undeniable isoglosses shared by Baltic and Slavic. Endzelīns (1911) proposed that Baltic and Slavic originally belonged to different sub-dialects within the Indo-European family, but due to secondary geographical contacts developed a wide range of common features. On the contrary, Rozwadowski (1912) argued that Baltic and Slavic were from the outset closely related dialects, but went their own way through the course of their prehistory and thus developed profound divergences before coming into renewed contacts at a later stage. The debate on the existence of Balto-Slavic continued throughout the 20th century, dividing the scholarly community into strong supporters (Trautmann, Vaillant, Kuryłowicz) and staunch opponents (Senn, Salys, Klimas). The arguments of the supporters are summarized by Vaillant (1956) and Szemerényi (1957), those of the opponents by Senn (1966). In the fifties, two Russian linguists, Ivanov and Toporov (1958), proposed a model in which Slavic was seen as a peripheral Baltic dialect. In the second part of the 20th century, a certain fatigue seemed to emerge from the Balto-Slavic debate, probably due to the endless repetition of the same arguments. A new piece of evidence, however, was adduced in 1978, when Winter proposed his law of vowel lengthening before voiced stops (Winter’s law) for both Baltic and Slavic. Many supporters of the new law (e.g. Kortlandt, Derksen) are at the same time supporters of Balto-Slavic as the most convenient theoretical framework to account for what is obviously a common innovation shared by Baltic and Slavic. This is not to say, however, that the majority of scholars believes without reserve in the 19th century conception of Balto-Slavic as a uniform language. Most scholars would probably agree with a more dynamic dialectological model involving internal divergences and therefore requiring a more fine-grained description.

2. Balto-Slavic common features According to the well-known “Leskien principle” (Leskien 1876) any genealogical classification of languages must be based on shared innovations distinguishing a sub-branch from all the other sub-branches (see Hock 2000: 121−132). In the case of Balto-Slavic, there is a considerable array of common features obviously pleading in favor of a common prehistory. The probative value of these features depends on three principles already defined by Meillet (1908: 10). First, the shared feature must necessarily be traceable to

1962

XVIII. Balto-Slavic

the proto-language of each group (Baltic and Slavic) and cannot reflect a later innovation; this implies that every language of the sub-group must possess that feature, or at least be likely to have possessed it in its prehistory. Another requirement is that the shared feature must be salient enough to preclude trivial or parallel developments. To be sure, it is difficult to determine to what extent a given feature can be qualified as “salient enough”. Intuitively, one might think for example that the loss of forms or categories is less salient than the creation of forms or categories, since in the case of a loss the alternative is limited to two possibilities (retention or loss), which leaves much place for parallel developments, whereas in the case of a creation the alternative is open to many more possibilities and the choice is therefore more significant. The third preliminary requirement presented by Meillet is that shared features are probative only if there was at some stage a geographical proximity of the two languages; this implies that language affinity must be supported, if possible, by historical or archeological evidence. The features usually ascribed to Balto-Slavic cover all areas of linguistic reconstruction. Traditionally, the lion’s share has involved phonology, morphology, and lexicon, but common syntactic structures have also been reconstructed and even anthroponymy, phraseology, or mythology have sometimes been advocated.

2.1. Phonology Among the most striking isoglosses shared by Baltic and Slavic are phonological features. Some of these have to do with stress and syllable tones to such an extent that one may speak of Balto-Slavic accentology as a special field of research. In what follows, a selective list of shared phonological features is provided with illustrative examples from both Baltic and Slavic (see Endzelīns 1911: 3−128). 1. Hirt’s law (Hirt 1895: 94): retraction of the ictus from a final vowel if the vowel of the preceding syllable was followed by a tautosyllabic laryngeal, e.g. PIE *d huh2 mó- ‘smoke’ (cf. OInd. dhūmá-) > Balto-Slavic *dū´ma- > Lith. dū´mai, Latv. dũmi and SCr. dȉm (Gsg. dȉma). 2. Winter’s law (Winter 1978): vowel lengthening before original voiced stops, e. g. PIE *udreh2 ‘otter’ (cf. Gr. ὕδρα) > Lith. ū´dra, Latv. ûdrs (masc.), OP udro and Russ. výdra, SCr. vȉdra. 3. development of a tone system, with exact correspondences such as e.g. Lith. kárvė / SCr. krȁva ‘cow’, Lith. bóba / SCr. bȁba ‘old woman’ and Lith. saũsas / SCr. sȗh ‘dry’, Lith. kreĩvas / SCr. krȋv ‘crooked, curved’. 4. vocalization of *r̥, *l̥ , *m̥, and *n̥ to *ir, *il, *im, and *in (sometimes *ur, *ul, *um, and *un), e.g. PIE *u̯l̥ k u̯os ‘wolf’ (cf. OInd. vr̥ ́ ka-) > Lith. vil˜kas, Latv. vìlks, OP wilkis and OCS vlьkъ, Russ. volk, Pol. wilk, SCr. vȗk, vs. PIE *g u̯r̥H-tlo- ‘throat’ (cf. Gr. βάραθρον ‘gulf, pit’) > Lith. gurklỹs, Latv. gurklis, OP gurcle and Slav. *gъrlo > ORuss. grъlo, Russ. gorlo, Pol. gardło, SCr. gȑ lo. 5. evolution of PIE *eu̯ to *iau (> Baltic *iau, Slavic *iu), vs. PIE *ou̯ > *au (Baltic *au, Slavic *u), e.g. PIE *h1 leu̯d h- ‘people’ > Lith. liáudis, Latv. ¸làudis and OCS ljudije, SCr. ljȗdi, vs. PIE *b hou̯d h- ‘to awaken’ > Lith. báudinti, Latv. bàudît ‘to awaken’, OP etbaudints ‘awaken’ and OCS buditi, Russ. budit’, SCr. búditi ‘to awaken’. But Old Prussian does not seem to take part completely in this evolution: OP

114. Balto-Slavic

1963

keuto ‘skin’ (cf. Lith. kiáutas ‘shell’ < *keu̯-t-), vs. laucks ‘field’ (cf. Lith. laũkas, Latv. laũks < PIE *lou̯kos, cf. Lat. lūcus). Note also that Baltic loanwords in Finnish preserve *eu, e.g. Finn. reuna ‘edge’ (< Baltic *breunā, cf. Lith. briaunà ‘edge’).

2.2. Morphology Morphological isoglosses shared by Baltic and Slavic are numerous, and many of them are so specific that parallel developments are precluded. In what follows, a synthetic picture of morphological Balto-Slavic features is given, without any claim to be exhaustive; this list is based on Endzelīns (1911: 128−190). 1. formation of “definite adjectives” by means of an agglutinated pronoun *-(j)is, e.g. Lith. gẽras ‘good’ (Gsg. gẽro) → geràsis ‘the good one’ (Gsg. gẽrojo), Latv. labs ‘good’ (Gsg. laba) → labais ‘the good one’ (Gsg. labā), OP dengenennis ‘heavenly’ → dengnennissis, and OCS dobrъ ‘good’ (Gsg. dobra) → dobryi ‘the good one’ (Gsg. dobrajego), SCr. dȍbar ‘good’ (Gsg. dȍbra) → dȍbrȋ ‘the good one’ (Gsg. dȍbrȏga). 2. syncretism of the genitive and ablative cases and use of the original ablative as genitive in the thematic inflections, e.g. PIE Ablsg. *-ōd > Gsg. Lith. -o, Latv. -a (e.g. Lith. diẽvo, Latv. dìeva ‘of God’) and OCS -a , SCr. -a (e.g. OCS boga, SCr. bȍga ‘of God’). Old Prussian, however, has a different ending -as (e.g. deiwas ‘of God’), either from PIE *-oso or *-os (cf. Hitt. antuḫsas ‘man’ [nom., gen.] as well as ON nom. dagr ‘day’, gen. dags, which looks like secondary differentiation of a single original case ending). Note that East Baltic seems to suppose an ending *-ā (not *-ō), for which different explanations have been proposed. 3. influence of *-i-stems on consonant stems, based on the reanalysis of their Asg. *-m̥ > Balto-Slavic *-in as *-i-n, e.g. Lith. akmenimì ‘stone’ Isg., Latv. akmenim ‘stone’ Dsg., and OCS kamenьmъ ‘stone’ Isg. (< *-men-i-m-). In Lithuanian and OCS, the original consonant inflection is still partly preserved, e.g. Nsg. Lith. akmuõ, OCS kamy ‘stone’ (< *-mōn), Gsg. Lith. akmeñs, OCS kamene (< *-men-es). In Latvian and in most modern Slavic languages, the shift to *-i-stem inflection is more advanced, e.g. Nsg. Latv. akmens, Russ. kamen’, Pol. kamień (< *-men-i-s). 4. first person pronoun dative *men-ei (instead of *meg̑ hei, cf. Lat. mihī, OInd. máhyam), e.g. Lith. mán (< OLith. mani), Latv. man, OP mennei, and OCS mьně, Russ. mne, SCr. mèni. Note, however, the zero grade of OCS mьně, which looks similar only to Low Lith. mô ̣n (< *muni). 5. formation of an infinitive from an abstract *-ti-formation, e.g. Lith. bū´ti, Latv. bût, OP boūt and OCS byti, Russ. byt’, SCr. bı̏ ti ‘to be’. (The Tocharian infinitive AB -tsi is probably from *-d hi̯ ōi, not from *-ti-).

2.3. Syntax Syntactic isoglosses are more difficult to detect, not only because the Baltic literatures were from their beginning strongly influenced by some Slavic languages (Polish, Old

1964

XVIII. Balto-Slavic

Belorussian, Russian), but also because of the difficulty in reconstructing PIE syntax. Examples of shared isoglosses presumably going back to a Balto-Slavic stage: 1. genitive as the case of the direct object after negation, e.g. OLith. (Chyliński 1664) notneßa giara wayʃiaus and OCS ne tvoritъ ploda, Pol. nie wydaje dorodnych owoców ‘it bringeth not forth good fruit’ (Mt 7, 19). In Latvian, the construction is rare (it is preserved in some folk songs: BV 3725 tās vietin¸ās nezināju ‘I did not know that place’), and the accusative is most commonly used after negative verbs. The accusative construction is the only construction attested in Old Prussian. 2. double negation, e.g. Lith. jìs niẽko nežìno, Latv. vin¸š nekā nezin and Russ. on ničego ne znajet, Pol. on nic nie wiem, SCr. on ne zna ništa ‘he does not know anything’ (Dini 1997: 126). 3. predicative use of the instrumental after verbs of ‘being’, ‘becoming’, e.g. OLith. (Bretkūnas 1579−1590) Wieschapts ira Karaliumi ‘God is king’ and OCS sirotojǫ dětištь ne bǫdetъ ‘the child shall not be an orphan’, Russ. oni byli tvorcami ‘they were creators’, Pol. on jest dobrym nauczycielem ‘he is a good teacher’. In Latvian and Old Prussian, the instrumental case has disappeared, but relics are found in Latvian folksongs, e.g. kundzin¸ami kungu būt ‘the lord has to be lord’ (Gāters 1993: 181). The Balto-Slavic origin of the predicative instrumental has been rejected by Fraenkel (1926).

2.4. Lexicon Both from a quantitative and a qualitative point of view the lexical stock shared by Baltic and Slavic is usually seen as a strong argument pleading for the hypothesis of a Balto-Slavic proto-language. In many cases it is even possible to reconstruct the common prototype with a high degree of precision; a classical Balto-Slavic dictionary is Trautmann (1923), see also Endzelīns (1911: 192−200) and Dini (1997: 138−141). Examples of lexemes shared by Baltic and Slavic: 1. Balto-Slavic *eźeran ‘lake’ > Lith. ẽžeras, Latv. ezers, OP assaran and OCS jezero, Russ. ozero, SCr. jȅzero, Pol. jezioro. 2. Balto-Slavic *gālvā ‘head’ > Lith. galvà, Latv. gal˜va, OP galwo and OCS glava, Russ. golova, SCr. gláva, Pol. głowa. 3. Balto-Slavic *rankā ‘hand’ > Lith. rankà, Latv. rùoka, OP rancko and OCS rǫka, Russ. ruka, SCr. rúka, Pol. ręka. 4. Balto-Slavic *vārnā ‘crow’ > Lith. várna, Latv. vãrna, OP warne and OCS vrana, Russ. vorona, SCr. vrȁna, Pol. wrona. 5. Balto-Slavic *lenk-, *lonk-ī- ‘to bend’ > Lith. leñkti ‘to bend’, lankýti ‘to visit’, Latv. lìekt, lùocît ‘to bend’ and OCS lęšti ‘to bend’, lǫčiti ‘to separate’, Russ. razlučit’, SCr. lúčiti, Pol. łączyć ‘to separate’. Some of the shared items look non-Indo-European and may be old borrowings from unknown languages: 1. Balto-Slavic *gelē˘ź- ‘iron’ > Lith. geležìs, Latv. dzèlzs, OP gelso and OCS želězo, Russ. železo, SCr. žèljezo, Pol. żelazo (The etymological connection with Gr. χαλκός ‘bronze’ is dubious).

114. Balto-Slavic

1965

2. Balto-Slavic *lēipā ‘lime-tree’ > Lith. líepa, Latv. liẽpa, OP lipe and Russ. lipa, SCr. lı̏ pa, Pol. lipa. Many suffixes are found exclusively in Baltic and Slavic (see Dini 1997: 126): 1. Balto-Slavic *-ī˘-bā (abstract) > Lith. draugy˜bė, Latv. draudzĩba ‘friendship’, OP pagonbe ‘paganism’ and OCS družьba, Russ. družba ‘friendship’, SCr. drùžba ‘society’, Pol. drużba ‘best man’. 2. Balto-Slavic *-uk- (dimin.) > Lith. tėvùkas ‘little father’, Latv. večuks ‘old man’, OP wosux ‘he-goat’ and OCS synъkъ, Russ. synok, SCr. sı̏ nak, Pol. synek ‘little son’. 3. Balto-Slavic *-neik- / *-ni(n)k- (agent) > Lith. darbiniñkas ‘worker’, Latv. darˆbinieks, OP maldenikis ‘child’ and OCS mladenьcь, Russ. mladenec, SCr. mlȁdjenac, Pol. młodzieniec ‘infant, child, youth’. It is not rare that a lexical innovation shared by Baltic and Slavic has preserved its etymological motivation only in one branch and lost it in the other branch. Most frequently the archaism lies on the Baltic side, while Slavic appears more advanced: 1. Balto-Slavic *rankā ‘hand’ > Lith. rankà, Latv. rùoka, OP rancko and OCS rǫka, Russ. ruka, SCr. rúka, Pol. ręka. Cf. Baltic *renk-, *rink- ‘to grasp, to gather’ > Lith. riñkti ‘to gather’, OP senrīnka ‘he gathers’ (the ‘hand’ as the ‘grasping one’, the ‘gathering one’).

2.5. Anthroponymy Anthroponymical isoglosses between Baltic and Slavic have been supposed by some scholars. More specifically they consist of the use of similar elements to form proper names, albeit with different linguistic material: 1. Lith. But- / Sl. Domo- (< ‘house’); Lith. Vaiš- / Sl. Gost(i)- (< ‘guest’); Lith. Ei- / Sl. Chodi- (< ‘to go’); Lith. Taut- / Sl. Ljud- (< ‘people’), etc. (Stang 1966: 20). According to Stang (1966: 20), such isoglosses illustrate “an old, profound cultural link” (eine alte tiefgreifende kulturelle Verbindung). Some of them, however, could reflect more recent contacts of Baltic with Slavic languages or even could be interpreted, at least partly, as loan translations.

2.6. Phraseology Even phraseological correspondences between the Baltic and the Slavic languages have been sometimes supposed. Some of them have been identified in a series of seminal works by Rainer Eckert (e.g. 1991, 2007). For instance, a phraseologism ‘to put on / off one’s shoes’ > ‘to serve’ has been shown by Eckert (2007: 61−99) to be shared by Latvian (aut kājas) and ORussian (rozuti robičiča). The use of the adjective ‘white’ with an affective meaning (‘dear’) is also characteristic of Lithuanian (Lith. balta mamužėlė ‘dear mummy’), Latvian (OLatv. balta mahmulite ‘dear mummy’) and Slavic (Russ.

1966

XVIII. Balto-Slavic

belaja barynja ‘dear girl’). It is not always clear whether such correspondences go back to Balto-Slavic or result from more recent linguistic contacts.

2.7. Mythology The existence of common elements shared by the Baltic and the Slavic pagan traditions is a much debated issue and goes far beyond the purely linguistic aspect, involving the intricate problem of the transmission of cultural content as well, not to mention the reconstruction of PIE mythology, which is one of the trickiest fields of research. Most striking is the similarity of the name of the ‘Thunder God’ in Baltic and Slavic, Lith. Perkū´nas, Latv. Pērkuons, OP Percunis and Sl. *Perun (Russ. Perun); despite some phonetic differences, it could point to a common Balto-Slavic deity. Even common mythological narratives have been sometimes supposed; for a general discussion see Mikhailov (2000: 206−225).

3. Balto-Slavic divergences The evidence produced so far is usually seen as definitively conclusive. The reconstruction of a Balto-Slavic proto-language thus seems to be as secure as that of any other proto-language. Even if Meillet’s objections against Balto-Slavic may weaken some of the features used as pieces of evidence, there remains a considerable array of striking similarities shared by Baltic and Slavic, and no one could seriously deny their existence. Divergences nevertheless do exist between Baltic and Slavic, some of which seem to jeopardize the reconstruction of a common proto-stage. The question, of course, is what value can be ascribed to such features in comparison with the bulk of shared convergences; in this regard we must avoid one-sided answers and be open to more fine-grained models. In what follows, some of the most striking divergences opposing Baltic and Slavic will be presented. A list of these divergences is provided in a paper by Erhart (1958: 123−130); other facts have been added by Pohl (1992: 155−159). They will be first listed in the same way as in Erhart’s and Pohl’s papers, then their relevance will be discussed. 1.

2. 3.

4.

the first Slavic palatalization of velars (e.g. OCS žena ‘woman’ < PIE *g u̯enā) has a striking parallel in Indo-Iranian (e.g. OInd. jáni ‘wife’). According to Erhart it could represent a common tendency going back to the most remote prehistory. Baltic is not affected by this palatalization (e.g. OP genna ‘woman’). the PIE vowels *ō and *ā merged to *a in Slavic (e.g. OCS dati ‘to give’ < *dō-, stati ‘to stand’ < *stā-), but they are kept distinguished in Baltic, Latv. uo / ā, Lith. uo / o (e.g. Latv. duôt, vs. stât; Lith. dúoti, vs. stóti). the (indefinite) adjectival declension has in Baltic pronominal endings, as in Germanic (e.g. Dsg. Lith. gerám ‘good’ like tám ‘that one’ ≠ miẽstui ‘city’). In Slavic, it has the same endings as nominal inflections (e.g. Dsg. in OCS dobru ‘good’ like gradu ‘city’). the Lithuanian comparative formation in -esnis is old (cf. Goth. -izan), but nothing similar is found in Slavic (cf. OCS comparatives in -ějь).

114. Balto-Slavic

1967

5. there are differences in word formation: Slavic, for instance, has agent nouns in -telь, which do not exist in Baltic (Lith. has -ėjas or -tojas). 6. the numerals between 5 and 9 are formed in different ways: they are *-io-stems in Baltic (e.g. Lith. penkì ‘five’, šešì ‘six’, etc.), whereas Slavic has a suffix *-ti- (OCS pętь ‘five’, šestь ‘six’ as if from *penk u̯-ti-, *s[u̯]eks-ti-), which finds a striking parallel in Albanian (Alb. gjashtë ‘six’ < *s[u̯]eks-ti-, but pesë ‘five’ is not clear) and in Old Indic (OInd. paṅktí- ‘group of five’, ṣaṣṭí- ‘group of six’). 7. the formation of the numerals 11 to 19 in Baltic (e.g. Lith. vienúolika ‘eleven’ < lìkti ‘to be left’) is strikingly similar to that of 11 and 12 in Germanic (e.g. Goth. ainlif ‘eleven’ < -lifnan ‘to be left’); Slavic has a different formation (e.g. OCS jedinъ na desęte ‘eleven’ < ‘one over ten’). 8. many differences in verbal formations: presents with a suffix -sta- are found in Baltic (e.g. Lith. vir˜sta, Latv. vìrst, OP wīrst ‘becomes’ < *virt-sta-) but not in Slavic (the formation of OCS rastǫ ‘I grow’ is obscure); stative verbs have a short -i- in Baltic (e.g. Lith. sė́ dime ‘we sit’) but a long -ī- in Slavic (e.g. OCS sědimъ ‘we sit’). 9. the sigmatic aorist, still found in Slavic (e.g. OCS věsъ ‘I conducted’ < *u̯ēd h-som), has left no trace in Baltic. 10. the third person of thematic verbs has a short ending -a in Baltic (e.g. Lith. nẽša ‘carries’), going back to *-o, whereas Slavic has a long ending -etъ (e.g. OCS nesetъ) or a short ending -e (e.g. OCS nese), both with e-grade of the thematic vowel. 11. the first person singular of thematic verbs has preserved the old ending *-ō in Baltic (e.g. Lith. nešù ‘I carry’ < *-úo < *-ō), whereas Slavic has a nasalized ending *-ō-m (e.g. OCS nesǫ), similar to OInd. -āmi. 12. Slavic has participles in -l- (e.g. OCS neslъ in neslъ jestъ ‘has carried’), Baltic does not have these (unless in adjectival formations, e.g. Lith. ãklas ‘blind’ from àkti ‘to grow blind’). 13. the category of aspect is far less relevant in Baltic than it is in Slavic. 14. lexical divergences, e.g. Lith. výras, Latv. vĩrs, OP wijrs (< Baltic *u̯īro-), vs. OCS mǫžь, Russ. muž, SCr. mȗž ‘man, husband’ (< Slavic *mon-), see Fraenkel (1950: 108). Many Baltic and Slavic words display a different ablaut, e.g. Lith. dienà, Latv. dìena, OP deinan ASg. (< Baltic *dei̯ -n-), vs. OCS dьnь, Russ. den’, SCr. dȃn ‘day’ (< Slavic *di-n-) and/or show suffix heteroclisy, e.g. Lith. pavãsaris, Latv. pavasaris (< *u̯os-er-), vs. OCS vesna, Russ. vesna, SCr. vèsna ‘spring’ (< *u̯es-n-). Most of the divergences listed by Erhart and Pohl are obviously inconclusive, since they can be accounted for by assuming recent innovations on one side or on both sides. In some cases, Baltic seems to be more archaic than Slavic (e.g. in the distinction of *ā and *ō); in other cases, it is Slavic which appears more conservative (e.g. in the retention of the sigmatic aorist); finally there are cases in which both sub-groups are equally innovative and may reflect independent innovations (e.g. in the formation of agent nouns in -telь in Slavic, in *-[t]ājas in Baltic). None of these features seriously precludes the reconstruction of a Balto-Slavic stage. Erhart’s most crucial methodological flaw is his reconstruction of PIE. According to Erhart, features attested in languages other than Baltic and Slavic (e.g. the palatalization of velars in Slavic and Indo-Iranian) must necessarily go back to PIE and thus contradict the hypothesis of a specifically Balto-Slavic

1968

XVIII. Balto-Slavic

innovation, but Erhart does not seriously take into account the possibility of independent developments. With the Slavic palatalization of velars this is obviously the case. Among the Balto-Slavic divergences only one seems really problematic for the reconstruction of a common proto-stage and was already mentioned as such by Meillet (1908: 47−48), the difference of ablaut in reflexes of the same designation. In the name for ‘day’, for instance, Baltic has *dei̯ -n-, Slavic *di-n- (for more examples see Petit 2012: 186−187). In some cases it could be assumed that Balto-Slavic still had an ablauting paradigm, with both forms (e.g. strong stem *dei̯ -n-, vs. weak stem *di-n-), and that each sub-group later generalized one of the two variants. But the reconstruction of ablauting paradigms, even if very much in vogue, cannot explain every such divergence between Baltic and Slavic: the word for ‘arm, shoulder’, for instance, is *h2 r̥H-m- in Baltic (> OP irmo), *h2 erH-m- in Slavic (> OCS ramo), both of which might be suspected to be old (cf. OInd. īrmá-, vs. Lat. armus), but no ablauting paradigm can be reasonably posited for an originally thematic formation. In some cases, it could be argued that one form is old, the other innovative, i.e. analogical, but all too often no viable analogy can be established. Such divergences must, of course, not be overestimated. It would be unwise to use them as pieces of evidence against the reconstruction of a Balto-Slavic common protostage. What they tell us is only that Balto-Slavic cannot be seen as a uniform language, free from any internal variation; it must have been affected by dialectal divergences, some of which might even go back to previous linguistic stages. There is nothing surprising about that: the same holds true for any proto-language.

4. Internal Baltic and Slavic divergences Another difficulty is the existence of the constituents of the Balto-Slavic unity. A common Slavic proto-language is unanimously recognized and its existence seems to be beyond question; the main features of its grammatical structure and lexicon can be safely reconstructed (see Meillet 1924 and Derksen 2008 for reference books). On the other hand, a common Baltic proto-language is in many respects a problematic notion, and even in Slavic internal divergences can be found which make the reconstruction of a common prototype sometimes difficult. The question is whether internal divergences within Baltic or within Slavic are such as to cast a negative light on the existence of Balto-Slavic itself. In this section, we shall not be concerned with secondary divergences, but with more essential divergences presumably going back to the proto-languages themselves, i.e. Baltic and Slavic. We shall begin with those divergences in which one of the Baltic sub-branches agrees with Slavic, while the other sub-branch has its own profile. It has long been noticed that there is a special affinity between East Baltic (Lithuanian, Latvian) and Slavic and that West Baltic is more distant. Examples are given by Stang (1966: 10): 1. East Baltic and Slavic have a thematic genitive *-ā or *-ō (going back to a PIE ablative) > Gsg. Lith. -o, Latv. -a and OCS -a. Old Prussian has a different ending -as. 2. East Baltic and Slavic have a dative singular pronominal ending with *-m- > Dsg. Lith. tám, Latv. tam and OCS tomъ ‘that’ (demonstrative pronoun). Old Prussian has

114. Balto-Slavic

1969

an older ending with *-sm- (Dsg. of the demonstrative pronoun stesmu), going back to PIE (cf. OInd. tásmai, Umbr. esmei). 3. lexicon: ‘evening’ East Baltic *vakaras (Lith. vãkaras, Latv. vakàrs) and Slavic *večerъ (OCS večerъ, Russ. večer, SCr. vȅčēr), vs. West Baltic *bītas (OP bītas GSg.); ‘stone’ East Baltic *akmōn/-men- (Lith. akmuõ, Latv. akmens) and Slavic *kamy/-menь (OCS kamy, Russ. kamenь, SCr. kȁmen), vs. West Baltic *stabas (OP stabis). The opposite situation, where West Baltic goes with Slavic against East Baltic, is much rarer: 1. the dative of the second person and reflexive pronouns is *tebei, *sebei (< PIE *teb hei̯ , *seb hei̯ , Lat. tibī, sibī) in West Baltic (OP tebbei, sebbei) as in Slavic (OCS tebě, sebě). East Baltic has a different stem (Lith. táu, sáu, Latv. tev, sev < *teu̯ei̯ , *seu̯ei̯ ). 2. the possessive adjectives are built on *moi̯ o-, *tu̯oi̯ o-, *su̯oi̯ o- (cf. Lat. meus < *mei̯ o-) in West Baltic (OP mais, twais, swais) as in Slavic (OCS moi, tvoi, svoi); East Baltic has a different formation (Lith. mãnas, tãvas, sãvas, Latv. màns, tàvs, sàvs). 3. lexicon: ‘whole, healthy’ West Baltic *kailas (OP kails) and Slavic *cělъ (OCS cělъ, Russ. célyj, SCr. cı̏ jel), vs. East Baltic *sveikas (Lith. sveĩkas, Latv. svèiks). The West Baltic and Slavic word is paralleled in Germanic (Goth. hails ‘healthy’). Most of these facts might be explained by usual innovative processes assuming that one sub-branch followed a separate path from the other. The same holds true for most of the divergences involving only one sub-branch of Slavic going with Baltic, whereas the rest of Slavic is different. Special isoglosses have been supposed in the lexical field by some scholars between Baltic and North Slavic (cf. Nepokupnyj 1976) or between Baltic and South Slavic (cf. Boryś 1992), but it is not always clear whether these isoglosses reflect shared innovations rather than common retentions of inherited lexemes. Such partial divergences do not weaken the existence of Balto-Slavic as a common proto-language.

5. External connections Another problem is the existence of different linguistic connections with other languages. It has been long noticed that there are special affinities of Baltic and Slavic with Germanic, sometimes shared by the three sub-branches, sometimes limited to two of them. In this section we are concerned only with those isoglosses in which Baltic goes with Germanic, but not with Slavic, or vice versa. Examples of Balto-Germanic isoglosses excluding Slavic (cf. Porzig 21974: 145−147): 1. suffixation of the ordinal ‘first’: *pr̥H-mo- in Baltic (Lith. pìrmas, Latv. pìrmaĩs, OP pirmas) and in Germanic (Goth. fruma, OEng. forma), vs. *pr̥H-u̯o- in Slavic (OCS prьvъ, Russ. pérvyj, SCr. pȓ vī) as in Indo-Aryan (OInd. pū´rva-, Avest. pauruua-, OPers. paruva-) and Albanian (Alb. parë). 2. formation of the numerals 11 to 19 in Baltic (e.g. Lith. vienúolika ‘eleven’ < lìkti ‘to be left’) and of the numerals 11 and 12 in Germanic (e.g. Goth. ainlif ‘eleven’ < -lifnan ‘to be left’), vs. Slavic (e.g. OCS jedinъ na desęte ‘eleven’ < ‘one over ten’). Latvian has copied the Slavic formation (e.g. Latv. viênpadsmit like Russ. odinnadcatь).

1970

XVIII. Balto-Slavic

3. lexicon: *deru̯- > ‘pitch, tar’ in Baltic (Lith. dervà, Latv. dar˜va) and Germanic (OIc. tjora OEng. teoru, MLG tere, borrowing in Finn. terva), vs. ‘tree, wood’ in Slavic (OCS drěvo, Russ. dérevo, SCr. drı̏ jevo). For the semantic relationship see OInd. pitudāru- ‘Pinus Deodora’. Examples of Slavo-Germanic isoglosses (Porzig 21974: 143−145): 1. lexicon: ‘pine-tree’ in Slavic (ORuss. borъ, SCr. bȏr ‘pine-tree’, Pol. bór ‘forest’) and Germanic (OIc. bǫrr, OEngl. bearu ‘tree’), vs. Baltic (Lith. pušìs, OP peuse); ‘swan’ in Slavic (Russ. lebedь, SCr. lȁbȗd, Pol. łabędź) and Germanic (OIc. elptr, OEngl. aelbitu, ielfetu, OHG albiz, elbiz), vs. Baltic (Lith. gul˜bė, Latv. gùlbis, OP gulbis). In a broader context, special affinities have been found between Baltic and “Balkan Indo-European” (Albanian, Greek, Armenian, or even Illyrian and Thracian), and some scholars have even put forward the hypothesis of “Ponto-Baltic” linguistic convergences; Slavic does not always play a role in these convergences. 1. common suffixes: e. g. abstract nouns in *-i-mo- in Baltic (Lith. bėgìmas ‘running’ from bė́ gti ‘to run’) and Albanian (Alb. kujtím ‘memory’ from kujtój ‘to remember’); see also Dini (1997: 158). Slavic has only traces of this formation (e.g. OCS pisьmo ‘letter’ = Lith. piešìmas ‘drawing’). Further cognates might be found, however, e.g. Hitt. tetḫima- ‘thunder’ (from tetḫ- ‘to thunder’). 2. lexicon: Lith. jėgà ‘strength’ / Gr. ἥβη ‘youth’ ; Lith. pievà / Hom. Gr. ποιή ‘meadow’ (Schmid 1992: 213); Lith. ligà / Alb. ligë ‘illness, disease’; Lith. lentà / Alb. landë ‘board, plank’. 3. toponymy: Thracian Κύψελα, vs. Lith. Kupšẽliai, Latv. Kupsel¸i; Dacian Bersovia, Berzobis, vs. Lith. Béržuvis; Illyrian Arsia, vs. OP Arse (see Duridanov 1992: 15− 17). Most of these comparisons might, however, be mere coincidences. Strickly speaking, most of the facts listed above are of little value, since they can always be ascribed either to a special archaism or to a recent innovation of the diverging subbranch. In some cases, this divergence is only superficial, and reflexes of the absent feature might have left traces in peripheral forms. For example, even if the ordinal ‘first’ *pr̥h3 -u̯o- is limited to Slavic, as opposed to *pr̥h3 -mo- in Baltic and Germanic, a trace of the former can also be identified in Germanic (OEngl. forwost, forwest ‘first’). In other cases, we are probably dealing with independent developments, as in the formation for the numeral 11 in Baltic and Germanic, where the verbal basis is different.

6. Balto-Slavic: a conclusion All the evidence discussed in the previous sections does not fundamentally preclude the existence of a “Balto-Slavic” common stage. The only lesson that we can draw from it is simply that one must allow for the possibility of dialectal variations in proto-languages as we do in any historical language and that absolute linguistic uniformity is certainly as great a fiction as the idea of a common “Balto-Slavic” people occupying a narrow area bounded by intangible frontiers. Linguistic communities have to be seen more in

114. Balto-Slavic

1971

terms of geographical networks open to multiple interactions with their environment than as completely airtight units. Linguistic geography has shown already long ago that the spread of isoglosses may considerably vary in extent and that absolute coherence is not to be expected over the whole area affected by these isoglosses. In the case of Balto-Slavic, there is today a general consensus that Baltic and Slavic go back to the same proto-language; Meillet’s objections would now hardly find any supporters. This is not to say, however, that every Baltic feature must necessarily have, or have had, an exact correspondence in Slavic, or vice versa. Here we come to a crucial point whose disregard might create considerable distortions in the assessment of the facts. Given the possibility of internal divergences, Balto-Slavic must be seen as a working hypothesis, not as a heuristic straitjacket isolating Baltic and Slavic from their broader context and compelling us to adapt existing data to a common pattern. No scholar would today seriously reconstruct a proto-language as free of internal variation as Schleicher did for Indo-European, and no scholar, not even the staunchest supporters of a proto-language common to Baltic and Slavic, would dare to write a tale in BaltoSlavic.

7. References Barschel, Bernd, Maria Kozianka, and Karin Weber (eds.) 1992 Indogermanisch, Slawisch und Baltisch. Materialien des vom 21.−22. September 1989 in Jena in Zusammenarbeit mit der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft durchgeführten Kolloquiums. Munich: Sagner. Boryś, Wiesław 1992 Zu den südslavisch-baltischen lexikalischen Verknüpfungen. Linguistica Baltica 1: 193− 200. Bretkūnas, Jonas 1579−1590 Biblia tatai esti wissas Schwentas Raschtas Lietuwischkai pergulditas per Jana Bretkuna [The Bible, that is the entire Holy Scripture in Lithuanian translated by Jonas Bretkūnas]. Königsberg. [Reprinted 1996. Paderborn: Schöningh]. Brugmann, Karl 1886 Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen 1. Band I. Strassburg: Trübner. Brugmann, Karl 1897 Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen 2. Band I. Strassburg: Trübner. BV = Krištjānis Barons and Henrijs Vissendorfs 1894−1915 Latwju dainas. [Latvian folksongs]. 6 vols. Jelgawa: Drawin-Drawneeks. Chyliński, Samuel 1664 Biblia Litewska, Nowy Testament [The Lithuanian Bible: New Testament]. London. [Reprinted 1984. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza]. Derksen, Rick 2008 Etymological Dictionary of the Slavic Inherited Lexicon. Leiden: Brill. Dini, Pietro Umberto 1997 Le lingue baltiche. Florence: La Nuova Italia. Dini, Pietro Umberto 2010 ALILETOESCUR: Linguistica baltica delle origini. Livorno: Books & Company.

1972

XVIII. Balto-Slavic

Duridanov, Ivan 1992 Die Beziehungen des Baltischen zu den alten Balkansprachen. In: Barschel, Kozianka, and Weber (eds.), 13−20. Eckert, Rainer 1991 Studien zur historischen Phraseologie der slawischen Sprachen (unter Berücksichtigung des Baltischen). Munich: Sagner. Eckert, Rainer 2007 Studien zur Sprache der lettischen Volkslieder. Frankfurt am Main: Lang. Endzelīns, Jānis 1911 Slavjano-baltiïskie etjudy [Balto-Slavic studies]. Chark’ov: Zil’berberg. Erhart, Adolph 1958 Zum Problem der baltisch-slavischen Spracheinheit. Sbornik praci filosofické fakulty Brněnské University, Ročnik, VII, Rady jazykovědne (A), Č. 6: 123−130. Fraenkel, Ernst 1926 Der prädikative Instrumental im Slavischen und Baltischen und seine syntaktischen Grundlagen. Archiv für slavische Philologie 40: 77−117. Gāters, Alfrēds 1993 Lettische Syntax. Die Dainas. Frankfurt am Main: Lang. Hirt, Hermann 1895 Der indogermanische Akzent: Ein Handbuch. Strassburg: Trübner. Hock, Wolfgang 2000 Balto-Slavisch, Indo-Iranisch, Italo-Keltisch. Kriterien für die Annahme von Sprachgemeinschaften in der Indogermania. In: Range (ed.), 119−145. Hock, Wolfgang 2004 Baltoslavisch. I. Teil: Phonologie. Kratylos 49: 1−32. Hock, Wolfgang 2005 Baltoslavisch. II. Teil: Morphonologie, Stammbildung. Kratylos 50: 1−39. Hock, Wolfgang 2006 Baltoslavisch. III. Teil: Die baltoslavische Sprachgemeinschaft, Nachträge. Kratylos 51: 1−24. Ivanov, Vyacheslav V. and Vladimir N. Toporov 1958 K postanovke voprosa o drevnejšix otnošenijax baltijskix i slavjanskix jazykov [On the status of the question concerning the oldest relationships of the Baltic and Slavic languages]. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo A. N. SSSR. Karaliunas, Simas 1968 Kai kurie baltų ir slavų kalbų seniausiųjų santykių klausimai [Some issues concerning the oldest relationships of the Baltic and Slavic languages]. Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 10: 7−100. Leskien, August 1876 Die Declination im Slavisch-Litauischen und Germanischen. Leipzig: Hirzel. Meillet, Antoine 1905 Études sur l’étymologie et le vocabulaire du vieux slave. Paris: Champion. Meillet, Antoine 1908 Les dialectes indo-européens. Paris: Champion. Meillet, Antoine 1924 Le slave commun. Paris: Champion. Mikhailov, Nikolai 2000 Einige Anmerkungen zum Begriff “Baltisch-Slavische Mythologie”. In: Range (ed.), 206−225. Nepokupnyj, Anatolij G. 1976 Balto-severnoslavjanskie jazykovye svjazi [Baltic-North Slavic linguistic contacts]. Kiev: Naukova Dumka.

114. Balto-Slavic

1973

Petit, Daniel 2004 Les langues baltiques et la question balto-slave. Histoire Epistémologie Langage 26(2): 7−41. Petit, Daniel 2012 Balto-slavische Unterschiede im Bereich des nominalen Ablauts: apr. pintis ‘Weg’, panno ‘Feuer’ und ihre slavischen Entsprechungen. In: Velizar Sadovski and David Stifter (eds.). Iranistische und indogermanistische Beiträge in memoriam Jochem Schindler (1944−1994). Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 185−203. Pohl, Heinz Dieter 1992 Die baltoslavische Spracheinheit − areale Aspekte. In: Barschel, Kozianka, and Weber (eds.), 137−164. Porzeziński, Viktor 1911 Die baltisch-slavische Sprachgemeinschaft. Rocznik Slawistyczny 4: 1−26. Porzig, Walter 1974 Die Gliederung des indogermanischen Sprachgebiets 2. Heidelberg: Winter. Pott, August Friedrich 1837 De Lithuanico-borussicae in slavicis lettisque linguis cum vicinis nexu commentatio [A reflection concerning the connection of Lithuano-Prussian with its neighbors among the Slavic and Lettic languages]. Halle: Gebauer. Range, Jochen (ed.) 2000 Aspekte baltistischer Forschung. Essen: Die blaue Eule. Rozwadowski, Jan 1912 O pierwotnym stosunku wzajemnym języków bałtyckich i słowiańskich [On the original mutual relationship of the Baltic and Slavic languages]. Rocznik Slawistyczny 5: 1−36. Schleicher, August 1861 Compendium der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen. Weimar: Böhlau. Schmid, Wolfgang P. 1992 Die Stellung des Baltischen im Kreise der indogermanischen Sprachen. In: Barschel, Kozianka, and Weber (eds.), 201−222. Senn, Alfred 1966 Relationships of Baltic and Slavic. In: Henrik Birnbaum and Jaan Puhvel (eds.), Ancient Indo-European Dialects. Proceedings of the Conference on Indo-European Linguistics Held at the University of California, Los Angeles April 25−27, 1963. Berkeley: University of California Press, 139−151. Stang, Christian R. 1966 Vergleichende Grammatik der baltischen Sprachen. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Szemérényi, Oswald 1957 The problem of Balto-Slav unity. A critical survey. Kratylos 2: 97−123. Trautmann, Reinhold 1923 Baltisch-Slavisches Wörterbuch. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Vaillant, Andrė 1956 Communications. Séance du 5 mars 1954. Bulletin de la Société de linguistique de Paris 51: XXI−XXIII. Winter, Werner 1978 The distribution of short and long vowels in stems of the type Lith. ė´sti : vèsti : mèsti and OCS jasti : vesti : mesti in Baltic and Slavic Languages. In: Jacek Fisiak (ed.), Recent Developments in Historical Phonology. The Hague: Mouton, 431−446.

Daniel Petit, Paris (France)

1974

XVIII. Balto-Slavic

115. The phonology of Balto-Slavic 1. Introduction: the Balto-Slavic languages and Proto-Balto-Slavic 2. Consonants

3. Vowels and diphthongs 4. Prosodic phenomena and syllable structure 5. References

1. Introduction: the Balto-Slavic languages and Proto-Balto-Slavic This chapter assumes a Balto-Slavic subgroup of Indo-European, as detailed in Petit, Balto-Slavic, of this handbook. Nevertheless, the internal subgrouping of Balto-Slavic has itself not yet been fully clarified. Thus, there are some indications that the Baltic languages themselves do not constitute a separate subgroup of Balto-Slavic, in opposition to or excluding Slavic. Rather, it appears that the three branches West Baltic, East Baltic, and Slavic have developed from a dialect continuum which gradually became differentiated during the last centuries BCE and the first half of the 1st millennium CE. Most of the relevant dialectological factors have been provided in the previous chapter, to which a few additional isoglosses, one from each of the three possible bilateral relationships within the continuum, may be added: West and East Baltic share the generalization of the 3sg. verb forms to the dual and plural and of *-a- (< PIE *-o-) as the thematic vowel. Slavic and East Baltic share the replacement of the initial n- of ‘nine’ with the d- of ‘ten’ (OCS devętŭ, Lith. deviñtas vs. OP newīnts ‘ninth’), while Slavic and West Baltic share the 1pl. pronoun gen. OCS nasŭ, OP noūson vs. Lith. mū´sų, Latv. mũsu with mfrom the nominative. In our present state of knowledge, the best approximate Stammbaum for Balto-Slavic would look something like this: Proto-Balto-Slavic

West Baltic

East Baltic

Old Prussian

Lithuanian

Latvian

Slavic

The following presentation assumes a PIE phonological system that corresponds in all fundamentals to that of Mayrhofer (1986), to which the reader is referred.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-036

115. The phonology of Balto-Slavic

1975

2. Consonants Proto-Balto-Slavic had the following reconstructible system of obstruents: p b

t d s [z]

k g ś ź

š

The phoneme *s had an allophone [z] before voiced stops, as already in PIE: cf. PIE *mosgo- > PBS *masgas [-zg-] > Lith. mãzgas ‘knot, node’, OCS mozgŭ ‘brain’. PBS inherited the PIE rule of regressive voicing assimilation, as in PBS inf. *deg-téi > Lith. dègti [-kt-], PSl. *žet’i ‘burn’ (with assimilation of the root-initial to the root-final consonant and regular Slavic reduction and palatalization of [kt] before a front vowel; OCS žešti) to the root *deg- < PIE *d hegwh-. PIE voiceless dental clusters *t+t, *d+t [t st] yielded PBS *st, as also in Greek and Iranian: cf. PIE pres. 3sg. *h1 ḗd-ti [t st] > PBS *ḗsti > OLith. ė́ sti, PSl. *jěstĭ (OCS jastŭ) ‘eats’. The PIE stops traditionally labeled “voiced” and “voiced aspirated” merged as voiced stops in Balto-Slavic, as also in Anatolian, Iranian, and Celtic. Thus PIE *b and *b h merged as PBS *b in PIE *d hub-u- > PBS *dubu- > Lith. dubùs ‘deep’ and PIE *b huH> PBS inf. *bū´- > Lith. bū´ti, OCS byti ‘be’; PIE *d, *d h > PBS *d in PIE *deh3 - > PBS inf. *dṓ- > Lith. dúoti, OCS dati ‘give’ and PIE *d hugh2 tḗr > PBS *duktē (with regular loss of laryngeal in a medial syllable followed by regressive voicing assimilation) > Lith. duktė˜, PSl. *dŭt’i (OCS dŭšti) ‘daughter’; PIE *g̑, *g̑ h > PBS *ź in PIE *g̑r̥Hno> PBS *źírna- >→ Lith. žìrnis ‘pea’, PSl. *zĭrno (OCS zrŭno) ‘corn’ and PIE *g̑ hwḗr>→ PBS *źwḗri- > Lith. žvėrìs, OCS zvěrĭ ‘wild animal’; PIE *g, *g h > PBS *g in PIE *yugóm > PBS *jugan > PSl. *jĭgo (OCS igo) ‘yoke’ (Lith. jùngas with secondary -n-) and PIE *g hordos ‘enclosed area’ > PBS *gardas > Lith. gar˜das, PSl. *gordŭ (OCS gradŭ) ‘enclosure, fort; town’; and PIE *g w, *gwh > PBS *g in PIE *g wén-h2 ~ *g wnéh2 - ‘woman’ → *g weneh2 > PBS *genā́ > OP genna, OCS žena ‘wife’ and PIE gwhéne-ti ‘will strike’ > PBS *genet(i) >→ Lith. gẽna, OCS ženetŭ ‘drives’. This merger may have been preceded by a conditioned sound change, Winter’s Law (see 3). The PIE velar and labiovelar stops merged in PBS, as in Indo-Iranian. In addition to the examples immediately above for PIE *g w and *gwh, cf. PIE *k w > PBS *k in masc. nom. sg. *k wós ‘which (rel.)’ > PBS *kas > Lith. kàs, OCS kŭ(-to) ‘who’, falling together with PIE *k > PBS *k in *kruh2 -s- ‘blood(y gore)’ > PBS *krū´s > PSl. *kry ‘blood’ (OCS kry, Slovenian krî), adj. *krewh2 -yó- > Lith. kraũjas ‘blood’. The PIE palatal stops *k̑ and *g̑, *g̑ h developed into anterior sibilants, probably alveopalatal; they are represented here by *ś and *ź. Balto-Slavic also has several examples of velars continuing PIE palatals (“Gutturalwechsel”). Cases like Lith. akmuõ ‘stone’ beside Lith. ašmuõ ‘(sharp) edge’ < PIE *h2 ék̑-mōn (cf. OCS kamy, acc. kamenĭ ‘stone’) or Lith. klausýti ‘listen’ beside OCS slyšati ‘hear’ (to the PIE root *k̑lew-) suggest that pre-PBS exhibited some variation in this regard; perhaps the palatalization of PIE palatal stops began in the east of the (Late) IE-speaking area, in the dialects ancestral to IndoIranian, and spread to most but not all pre-PBS dialects. (For recent literature on this and other controversial issues in BS phonology, see Hock 2004, 2006: 11−12.)

1976

XVIII. Balto-Slavic

In addition, *s was retracted (probably to a palatoalveolar sibilant, here denoted *š) when preceded by *i, *u, *k, or *r. The operation of this sound change (the famous “ruki-rule”, also known from Indo-Iranian) is consistent in Slavic, where it accounts for alternations such as locative pl. o-stem *-ěxŭ, i-stem *-ĭxŭ, u-stem *-ŭxŭ vs. ā-stem *-asŭ (Old Czech -as; replaced elsewhere by *-axŭ) < *-oy-su, *-i-su, *-u-su, *-eh2 -su, or OCS s-aorist 1sg. rěxŭ ‘I said’, PSl. *u-merxŭ ‘I died’ (OCS umrěxŭ) < *rēk-s-, *mers- vs. OCS věsŭ ‘I led’, ęsŭ ‘I took’ < *wēd-s-, *ēm-s-. It is much less regular in Lithuanian, especially after *i and *u, but examples do exist, e.g. maĩšas ‘sack’, jū´šė ‘(fish) soup’ (OCS měxŭ ‘bag, animal skin’, Russ. juxa ‘soup’). The exact historical and dialectological interpretation of these facts, along with the treatment of sequences such as *sk̑, remains controversial. The subsequent development of PBS *s, the “ruki” product *š, and *ś, *ź (the reflexes of the PIE palatals) is given below. PIE *s *s / {ruki}__ *k̑ *g̑, *g̑ h

PBS *s *š *ś *ź

Lithuanian s š š ž

Latv., OP s s s z

Slavic s x s z

In other words, Lithuanian merges PBS *š and *ś, whereas Slavic merges *s and *ś, and in Latvian and Old Prussian all three voiceless sounds fall together as s. Lith. z in native vocabulary is thus confined to the position before a voiced stop, where it reflects the PIE voiced allophone of *s (e.g. mãzgas ‘knot’ or lìzdas ‘nest’ ← *nisdas < PIE *ni-sd-ó-); it has become a phoneme through numerous borrowings from Polish, German, and other languages. PIE word-final *-s survived, but word-final [-d] (underlyingly *-t or *-d) was lost in PBS, as in most other IE languages: cf. PIE neut. nom./acc. sg. *tod > PBS *to (OCS to), PIE 3sg. secondary ending *-d > PBS * -Ø (e.g. in OCS thematic aorist reč-e ‘s/he said’ < *-e-d), PIE o-stem ablative sg. *-e-ad > PBS *-ā (Lith. -o, OCS -a). PIE *-m merged with *-n in word-final position, as in Anatolian, Greek, and Celtic: cf. o-stem acc. sg. *-om > PBS *-an > OP -an in e.g. rikij-an ‘Lord’ (Lith. -ą, OCS -ŭ). Syllabic *i, *u and nonsyllabic *y, *w were probably already separate phonemes in PIE (Mayrhofer 1986: 160−161); the same may have been true for the liquids and nasals. The sonorants *m, *n, *r, *l, *w, and *j generally continue their PIE counterparts *m, *n, *r, *l, *w, and *y. Balto-Slavic languages are known for yodization and palatalization effects, but none of these can be securely dated back to the PBS stage. Lithuanian and especially Latvian and Slavic have undergone numerous developments of consonant + j sequences, which have resulted in new phonemes and paradigmatic alternations. After the breakup of Proto-Slavic, many Slavic languages also acquired contrastive palatalization in the consonant system. Among the modern languages, Polish and Russian show the most extensive range of contrasts; in others, such as Czech or Serbo-Croatian, palatalization plays a much smaller role.

115. The phonology of Balto-Slavic

1977

3. Vowels and diphthongs Proto-Balto-Slavic had the following reconstructible system of vowels and diphthongs. (On sequences of vowel + sonorant [i.e. *ir, *il, *im, *in, *ar, *al, etc.], which also behave as diphthongs, see 4.) i

u e

ī

ū ē

a

ō ā

ei ai

eu au

Post-PIE *o and *a merged in PBS as *a, e.g. PIE *h3 ék w- > *ok w- > PBS *ak- >→ Lith. akìs, OCS oko ‘eye’, PIE *pótis > PBS *patis > Lith. (viẽš-)pats ‘master’ like PIE *h2 ek̑s- > *ak̑s- >→ PBS *aśi- > Lith. ašìs, OCS osĭ ‘axle’, PIE *sal- → PBS *sali- > OCS solĭ ‘salt’. The Slavic raising and rounding to PSl. *o appears to be a late development of the mid- to late 1 st millennium CE: cf. Byzantine Gr. Σκλαβηνοί ‘Slavs’ ← prePSl. *slavěn- or the borrowing of Σαλον(ίκη) ‘Salonica’ as *salunŭ > OCS Solunŭ. While the former shows that pre-PSl. still had an *a, the latter strongly suggests that it lacked *o. The two non-high short vowels *a and *e remained distinct in PBS, but were confused and merged under certain (not always clear) conditions in the separate languages. Word-initial *a- and *e- exhibit complex geographic and diachronic variation in Slavic and Lithuanian (e.g. OLith. eš vs. modern standard àš ‘I’, general Slavic (j)e- vs. Russ. o- in e.g. odín ‘one’, olén’ ‘deer’), some of which may go back to the PBS period (Andersen 1996). Before *w, *e > *a in Slavic, as in PIE *néwo- > PBS *newa- > OCS novŭ ‘new’ or PIE non-neuter u-stem nom. pl. *-ew-es > OCS -ove, and in some cases in East Baltic, e.g. Lith. tãvas, Latv. tavs ‘your (sg.)’ < *tewas. East Baltic shows several instances of assimilation of *e to *a, e.g. Lith. vãkaras, Latv. vakars vs. OCS večerŭ ‘evening’. There is no evidence for regular syncope of short vowels in PBS, although variable syncope is attested in numerous Lithuanian forms, e.g. dial. dvéitas, tréitas < dvẽjetas, trẽjetas ‘group of two, three’, OLith. élnis ~ elenis ‘deer’ (modern élnias). As in all other non-Anatolian branches, sequences of vowel + laryngeal before consonants and word boundaries yielded long vowels. Word-initial laryngeals disappeared without reflex, e.g. in PIE *h3 b hrúHs >→ PBS *bruwi- > Lith. bruvìs, OCS brŭvĭ ‘eyebrow’. In phrase-final position, laryngeals appear to have been lost without compensatory lengthening already in PIE, which accounts for the contrast between eh2-stem nom. sg. PIE *-eh2 > PBS *-ā́ > Lith. -a ~ -o- (with shortening in final syllables by Leskien’s Law, see below), OCS -a and voc. sg. PIE *-eh2 > PBS *-a > Lith. -a, OCS -o (cf. Lith. rankà, OCS žena vs. Lith. rañka, OCS ženo). Intervocalic laryngeals were also lost, and the resulting sequence of vowels underwent contraction, except that *iHV, *uHV > *ijV, *uwV (Smoczyński 2003). On the prosodic effects of laryngeals in Balto-Slavic, see 4. Laryngeals between obstruents in an initial syllable yielded PBS *a, as elsewhere in IE apart from Anatolian, Indo-Iranian, and in part Greek, although examples are few: cf. Lith. stãtas ‘line of sheafs of grain in a field’, Latv. stats ‘stake, post’ < PBS *stata‘stood (up)’ < PIE *sth2 -tó- to *steh2 - ‘stand’. They were lost in non-initial syllables, e.g. PIE *d hugh2 tḗr → PBS *duktē > Lith. duktė˜, OCS dŭšti ‘daughter’ (see above) or PIE *h2 érh3 tro- → PBS *ártlo- > Lith. árklas, PSl. *órdlo (OCS ralo) ‘plow’ (with acute intonation on the preceding diphthong, see 4).

1978

XVIII. Balto-Slavic

Post-PIE *ō and *ā remained distinct in PBS and East Baltic, as shown by Lith. dúoti, Latv. dôt (duôt) ‘give’ < PBS *dṓtéi vs. Lith. móteris ‘lady’ (older mótė), Latv. māte ‘mother’ < PBS *mā́tē, Lith. stóti, Latv. stât ‘stand up’ < PBS *stā́téi. The fate of *ō and *ā in Old Prussian is more complicated: the two vowels apparently merged, but the product is usually written o in the Elbing Vocabulary of c. 1400 (e.g. brote ‘brother’) and a in the 16th-century Catechisms (e.g. brāti ‘id.’), except after nasals, where we find u (mūti ‘mother’). In Slavic, PBS *ō and *ā merge as *a [ā]: cf. OCS dati < PBS *ō, OCS mati, stati < PBS *ā. Winter (1978) proposed that PIE short vowels were lengthened in pre-PBS when immediately followed by voiced unaspirated stops, but not when followed by voiced aspirates. Cf. e.g. PIE *ud-r-eh2 > PBS *ū´drā́- > Lith. ū´dra, OCS vydra ‘otter’ and (post-)PIE *nog wo- > PBS *nṓgas > Lith. núogas, OCS nagŭ ‘naked’ vs. PIE *néb hos > PBS *nebas > OCS nebo ‘sky’, → Lith. debesìs ‘cloud’ and PIE *méd hu > PBS *medu > Lith. medùs, OCS medŭ ‘honey’ (but note PIE *wód-r̥ ~ *wéd-n→ pre-PBS *wad-n- → Lith. vanduõ, OCS voda ‘water’, without the predicted lengthening). Probably most specialists today believe in Winter’s Law, but there is widespread disagreement over the precise conditioning environments; see the references in Hock (2004: 4−6). The PIE syllabic sonorants *r̥, *l̥ , *m̥, *n̥ became *iR in most cases: cf. PIE *mér-ti- ~ *mr̥-téy- → *mr̥-ti- > PBS *mirti- > Lith. mirtìs, PSl. *sŭ-mĭrtĭ (OCS sŭmrŭtĭ) ‘death’, PIE *wĺ̥ k wos > PBS *wilkas > Lith. vil˜kas, PSl. *vĭlkŭ (OCS vlŭkŭ) ‘wolf’, PIE *k̑m̥tóm > PBS *śimtan → Lith. šim ˜ tas ‘hundred’ (OCS sŭto), PIE *ménti- ~ *mn̥-téy- ‘mind, thought’ → *mn̥-ti- > PBS *minti- > Lith. mintìs ‘mind’, OCS pa-mętĭ ‘memory’. In the case of *m̥ and *n̥, this development had widespread implications in the nominal system, as the development of PIE acc. sg. *-m̥, pl. *-n̥s to *-im, *-ins led to the transfer of root-nouns to i-stem inflection (e.g. PIE *nók wt- ~ *nék wt- → PBS *nakti- > Lith. naktìs, PSl. *not’ĭ [OCS noštĭ] ‘night’) and the generalization of suffixal *-i- in consonant-stem endings (e.g. pl. dat. *-imus, instr. *-i-mī́s, loc. *-i-su). A second, less frequent outcome *uR occurs largely in words of obscure etymology, without good cognates in other IE languages. Stang (1966: 77−82) points out that many examples of *uR have expressive and/or pejorative value, e.g. Lith. kum ˜ pas ‘crooked’, pur˜vas ‘dirt’. Along with the merger of PIE *o and *a, the diphthongs *oi and *ai merged as *ai, and similarly *ou and *au merged as *au. PBS thus inherited *ei, *eu and *ai, *au, and the distinction between front and back diphthongs is reflected in Old Prussian, e.g. deiwas, deiws ‘god’ vs. snaygis ‘snow’. In East Baltic, *eu became *jau, while both *ai and *ei were monophthongized under as yet unclear conditions to a tense higher-mid vowel, usually noted *ē1 (in contrast to *ē < PBS *ē). This *ē1 then developed into a falling diphthong ie in Lithuanian and Latvian; likewise, *ō became the falling back diphthong uo (cf. Petit, The phonology of Baltic, this handbook, 2.6, with references). Later changes restricted to Lithuanian include the raising of *ā to [oː] and denasalization of *in, *un, *en, *an to [i:], [u:], [ɛ:], [ɑ:] in word-final position and before sibilants; the latter change created two new long vowel phonemes, spelled ę and ą. Latvian has eliminated tautosyllabic nasal diphthongs (*iN, *eN > ie; *uN, *aN > o [uo]) and created a new contrast between e and ę, originally allophones of *e.

115. The phonology of Balto-Slavic

1979

Proto-East-Baltic vowel system i

u

ī

ū ē1

e

ō ē

a

ei ai

ā

eu au

Old Prussian preserves the four semivowel diphthongs, as just noted, but shows a tendency in the 16th century toward diphthongization of the PBS long high vowels: ī [i:] > ij [ĭj] > ei [ej] (e.g. *gī́wa- > gijwan, geīwan ‘living’), and ū [u:] > [ŭw] > ou [ow] (e.g. *sū´nus > soūns ‘son’). The Enchiridion also attests raising of ē to ī, e.g. inf. turrītwey ‘have’ < *tur-ē- (Lith. turė́ ti). These changes, like those affecting East Baltic, are consistent with a division of phonological space into peripheral and nonperipheral tracks, with mid long vowels rising and high long vowels turning into diphthongs and falling, much as in the history of English or German, or in modern eastern Latvian dialects (Levin 1975, 1976; Labov 1994: 131−132, 133−135). In pre-Proto-Slavic, *eu apparently also became *(j)au, followed by the monophthongization of *ei > *ī and of *au > *ū; inherited PBS *ū was unrounded and perhaps fronted to *ȳ ([ɯ:] or [ɨ:]). A later change merged *ai with the reflex of PBS *ē as PSl. *ě, almost certainly a tense low front vowel [æ:]. Sequences of tautosyllabic vowel + nasal yielded nasalized vowels, with *iN, *eN > *ę and *uN, *aN > *ǫ. The merger of PBS *ā and *ō as PSl. *a has been referred to above. The inherited short vowels were centralized, with *a raised and rounded to *o (see above), and *i and *u becoming hypershort vowels, the “jers”; many of the latter were lost after the PSl. period (see 4 ad fin.). Because the PSl. long and short vowels were thus distinct in quality, the former are traditionally written without length marks, so that *i, *ǫ, etc. stand for *ī, *ǭ, etc. Proto-Slavic vowel system i ĭ

y

u

ŭ e

ę

ǫ

o ě

a

Aside from the loss of final *-d and *-m > *-n, few distinctive Auslautgesetze may be projected back to the PBS stage. Word-final *-i apparently underwent early apocope in the ā-stem instr. sg. ending: pre-PBS *-eh2 -mi (cf. i-stem *-i-mi, u-stem *-u-mi) > PBS *-ā́n > Lith. -à, adj. -ą́- (e.g. baltà, definite baltą́-ja), OCS -oj-ǫ (originally pronominal). The same apocope later occurred in the Slavic 1sg. present ending: PIE *-o-h2 > PBS *-ṓ (Lith. -ù, -úo-) → *-ṓmi > *-ōm > OCS -ǫ. Other thematic present endings may also have been variably affected as early as the PBS stage, e.g. PIE 3sg. *-eti > PBS *-eti ~ *-et > pre-PSl. *-etĭ ~ *-et → PSl. *-etĭ ~ *-etŭ ~ *-e (OCS -etŭ, ORuss. -etĭ, OCz. -e), PBS *-eti ~ *-et → *-at > Lith. -a. Following the PBS stage, Lithuanian shortened word-final acute long vowels and diphthongs (Leskien’s Law), while Latvian and Slavic independently underwent a whole range of special developments in final syllables. Old Prussian generally preserves PBS final syllables, as far as the evidence reveals, except

1980

XVIII. Balto-Slavic

that final *-as was weakened to [-ĭs] and even [-s], e.g. in PBS *deiwas > deywis (1x, Elbing Vocabulary), deiws ‘god’, PBS *snaigas > snaygis ‘snow’; cf. also PBS *sū´nus > soūns ‘son’, seen above.

4. Prosodic phenomena and syllable structure The reconstruction of BS prosodic history is unquestionably the most complex and controversial area in all of BS historical linguistics. I present here only the essential facts on which there is general agreement, and point out some major points of continuing controversy. For further details, see Stang (1957, 1966: 120 ff.); Garde (1976); Dybo (1981); Dybo, Zamjatina, and Nikolaev (1990); and Lehfeldt (2001); as well as the articles of Kortlandt (e.g. 1977, 1978, 1985), Derksen (1991), and Jasanoff (2004, 2008), among many others. According to the traditional conception, PBS long vowels and diphthongs could carry one of two underlying intonations, “acute” (Fr. rude, Ger. Stoßton) and “circumflex” (Fr. douce, Ger. Schleifton). However, acuteness is better understood as a privative feature: the two types of syllable heads, acute and nonacute, were distinguished by the presence or absence respectively of certain phonetic properties characteristic of acute syllables. The main such property was probably glottalization, comparable to the Danish stød and apparently preserved in the broken tone of modern Latvian, which reflects the PBS acute in certain environments (see below). In addition, acute syllables may have had rising pitch and nonacute syllables rising-falling pitch (cf. the situation in ancient Greek, where an intonational contrast has arisen independently from PIE), but these tonal contours themselves were phonologically redundant. Balto-Slavic is unique among IE branches in treating not only vowel + glide combinations, but also sequences of vowel + liquid or nasal as diphthongs for prosodic purposes. Short vowels patterned phonologically with nonacute long vowels and diphthongs, likewise lacking the glottalization which marked acuteness. The two-way opposition of acute and nonacute (circumflex) is directly reflected in the Baltic languages. In the Old Prussian Third Catechism, many stressed diphthongs are printed with a macron over the first or second vowel; the latter correspond to PBS acute diphthongs, the former to circumflex, e.g. inf. boūt ‘be’ vs. inf. ēit ‘go’ (cf. Lith. bū´ti vs. eĩti). The same pattern must also have held for vowel + sonorant diphthongs, but only circumflex examples are attested, e.g. acc. sg. rānkan ‘hand’ (Lith. rañką), doubtless because macrons over m, n, r, l were beyond the range of Abel Will’s typesetter. Standard Lithuanian has famously “reversed” the phonetics of the two intonations, so that historically acute and circumflex syllables stress the first and second mora respectively. Some Žemaitian dialects of the coastal lowland maintain intonations on unstressed long vowels and diphthongs, but other dialects and the standard language have restricted the surface contrast to stressed syllables. In Latvian, where almost all words carry initial stress, PBS circumflex long vowels and diphthongs have become falling (V̀), e.g. in dràugs ‘friend’, rùoka ‘hand’ (cf. Lith. draũgas, acc. sg. rañką); the reflexes of old acutes have either “sustained” ˆ ), depending on the original accentual (V́) or “broken”, i.e. glottalized intonation (V paradigm of the form (see below). This system is preserved only in some central

115. The phonology of Balto-Slavic

1981

Latvian dialects; those of eastern and western Latvia have reduced the three-way opposition to a binary contrast. The acute-nonacute contrast is also securely reconstructible for Proto-Slavic, although none of the present-day Slavic languages continues it as such; intonations must be recovered from the accentual paradigm of the form in question, as well as vowel length and place of stress. Free (lexical) stress is preserved in East Slavic, most South Slavic dialects, and the now extinct Slovincian, spoken until the early 20th century just west of Danzig. Phonemic vowel length was lost relatively early in East Slavic and eastern South Slavic, but survives in western South Slavic, Czech, and Slovak; it was lost in early modern Polish, but has left important reflexes in the contemporary standard language and dialects. Contrastive surface intonations are attested across most of the western South Slavic area, but no dialect directly reflects the Proto-Slavic system described immediately below. Based on the modern languages, as well as medieval documents which mark stress (e.g. the Čudov New Testament of 1354), we may postulate three intonations for the period immediately following Proto-Slavic: acute, circumflex, and neoacute, which arose through retraction of stress from a jer to the preceding syllable. Standard examples are: acute PSl. *'lípa > Russ. lípa, SC lȉpa, Cz. lípa ‘linden’; circumflex PSl. *zî'ma > Russ. zimá, SC zíma, čakavian zīmȁ, Cz. zima ‘winter’; and neoacute (Old High German Karl →) PSl. *kor'l’ĭ > *kõrl’ > Russ. koról’, SC krâlj, čakavian králj, Cz. král, Pol. król ‘king’ (cf. gen. *kor'l’a > Russ. korol’á, SC králja, čakavian krāljȁ). Acute intonation in PBS usually reflects the prior existence of a tautosyllabic laryngeal in PIE: cf. PIE *b huh2 - ‘be’, *deh3 - ‘give’ > PBS inf. *'bū´téi, *'dṓtéi > Lith. bū´ti, dúoti, PSl. *'býti, *'dáti (SC bȉti, dȁti) or, in word-final position, the primary 1sg. ending PIE *-oh2 > PBS *-ṓ > Lith. -ù, refl. -úo-s(i). In sequences of the type *VRHC, the laryngeal was lost in PBS, but left its trace in the acute intonation of the preceding diphthong, so that *VRHC > PBS *V́RC contrasts with *VRC > PBS *VRC. Cf. PIE *g̑énh1 -to- ‘relative’ > PBS *'źéntas > Lith. žéntas, PSl. *'zé˛tŭ (SC zȅt) ‘son-in-law’, PIE *pl̥ h1 -nó- > PBS *'pílna- > Lith. pìlnas, PSl. *'pĭ́ lnŭ (SC pȕn) ‘full’ (both showing Hirt’s Law, whereby stress was shifted to a preceding acute syllable in pre-PBS) vs. PIE *g̑ héy-ōm ~ *g̑ hi-m- ́ → PBS *źei'mā́ > Lith. žiemà, PSl. *zî'ma (SC zíma) ‘winter’, PIE *wĺ̥ k wos > PBS *wilkas > Lith. vil˜kas, PSl. *vîlkŭ (SC vûk) ‘wolf’. On the other hand, sequences *VHV contracted to circumflex long vowels and diphthongs in PBS (in the following examples unmarked), as in PIE eh2-stem gen. sg. *-eh2 -es > PBS *-ās > Lith. -õs. The outcome of PIE lengthened grades (i.e. original long vowels not followed by a laryngeal) is debated; most scholars going back to de Saussure have assumed that they too became acute, but Kortlandt (1985) has proposed that they became circumflex. They do seem to have yielded circumflex long vowels in final position, judging from n-stem *-ō > PBS *-ō (Lith. akmuõ; OCS kamy ‘stone’) and r-stem *-ō, *-ē (with loss of *-r after the n-stems, as in Indo-Iranian) > PBS *-ō, *-ē (Lith. sesuõ ‘sister’, duktė˜, OCS dŭšti ‘daughter’; Jasanoff 1983). Proto-Slavic seems to have shortened all wordfinal long vowels, although scholars have posited intonationally conditioned rules to account for endings such as the infamous Serbo-Croatian gen. pl. -ā. These developments are summarized in the table below, along with the reflexes in Indo-Iranian, Greek, and Germanic (final syllables only; V: = bimoric, V:: = trimoric, the latter proposed by Jasanoff 2002).

1982 PIE *VH *V: *VHV *VR *VRH

XVIII. Balto-Slavic PBS *V́ : *V́ : *V: *VR *V́ R

Lith. V́ V́ Vˆ VˆR V́ R

PSl. *V́ *V́ *Vˆ *VˆR *V́ R

Indo-Iranian *V: *V: *VHV *VR *VRə

Greek V́ : V́ : Vˆ: VR VRe/a/o

Germanic *-V: *-V:: (?) *-V::

The BS languages, particularly East Baltic, contain numerous examples of derivatives with the opposite intonation to their corresponding base forms. This phenomenon, traditionally called metatony, was first described by de Saussure (1896): cf. with “métatonie douce” Lith. áukštas ‘high’ : aũkštis ‘height’, stóti ‘stand up’ : stõtas ‘shape, stature’; and with “métatonie rude” vil˜kas ‘wolf’ : vìlkė ‘she-wolf’, var˜nas ‘raven’ : várna ‘crow’ (likewise PSl. *vôrnŭ ‘black, raven’ : *vórna ‘crow’, cf. SC vrân, vrȁna). Such alternations appear to have arisen inter alia through retraction of stress from certain short vowels, principally prevocalic *i and word-final *-a(s), but they have become morphologized in complex ways (see Stang 1966: 144−169; Derksen 1996). Scholars of BS accentology distinguish accentual paradigms (APs) in Lithuanian and those Slavic languages which retain lexical stress, e.g. Russian and Serbo-Croatian. De Saussure (1894) brilliantly discovered that the four accentual classes of Lithuanian may be derived from two underlying APs, columnar and mobile; the stress was shifted rightwards in pre-Lithuanian from a nonacute syllable (i.e. a short vowel, or a circumflex long vowel or diphthong) to an immediately following acute. The same contrast of barytone vs. mobile may be assumed for pre-Latvian, and is reflected in the distribution of sustained and broken intonations on old acute initial syllables: cf. vĩrs ‘man’, liẽpa ‘linden’ (Lith. výras, líepa) vs. galˆva ‘head’, sirˆds ‘heart’ (Lith. galvà, širdìs, acc. gálvą, šìrdį). In contrast, Proto-Slavic had three APs, generally labeled a (columnar on the stem), b (postaccenting, i.e. columnar on the first syllable after the stem), and c (mobile) after the classification of Stang (1957). Dybo and Illič-Svityč showed that APs a and b are in complementary distribution depending on the prosodic properties of the presuffixal syllable, and proposed a forward stress shift from nonacute vowels (“Dybo’s Law”). However, the exact relation between the East Baltic and Slavic systems, and their evolution from PIE, are still far from clarified; see Illič-Svityč (1963) and the works cited above. The evidence of the OP Third Catechism is unsurprisingly sparse, and its interpretation encounters numerous difficulties, but there are indications that Old Prussian may have preserved archaic features lost in the other Baltic languages, e.g. a postaccenting type in the noun, equivalent to Slavic AP c, or alternating stress in the simple thematic presents (Stang 1966: 287 ff., 451−453). The synchronic analysis of the BS accentual system has attracted much attention over the last generation. According to one popular theory, syllable nuclei in PBS words (excepting the so-called enclinomena, see below) were underlyingly specified as accented or unaccented, in addition to acute or nonacute intonation for long vowels and diphthongs. The prosodic domain for stress computation consisted of a nominal or verbal form with any associated preposed and postposed modifiers, e.g. prepositions, the negator *ne, or enclitic particles like PSl. *že. Within each domain, the first underlyingly accented syllable received surface stress; if no syllable heads were accented − i.e. the domain as a whole was underlyingly unaccented, or an “enclinomenon” − stress was

115. The phonology of Balto-Slavic

1983

automatically assigned to the first syllable. This system survives today, with various restrictions and modifications, in Slavic languages such as Russian or Serbo-Croatian, as well as Lithuanian: thus e.g. Russian contrasts nom. sg. /gor á/ gorá ‘mountain’ (with underlyingly accented ending) with acc. sg. /gor u/ góru and the (fixed) prepositional phrase /na gor u/ ná goru, in which all morphemes are unaccented. For further discussion, see Halle and Idsardi (1995), Halle (1997) and the references cited there. The syllable structure of PBS appears to have been much the same as that of PIE, and is largely preserved in Old Prussian and (except for the denasalization of some nasal diphthongs) modern Lithuanian. Latvian has eliminated nasal diphthongs and lost most short vowels in final syllables, but is otherwise not radically different in its phonotactics from the more conservative Baltic languages. In contrast, pre-Proto-Slavic during the 1 st millennium CE evolved toward a system in which nearly all syllables were open; in addition to the loss of word-final consonants (see 2) and elimination of PBS vowel + glide and vowel + nasal diphthongs, word-internal consonant clusters were simplified, e.g. (post-)PIE *pok w-tos > PBS *paktas > OCS potŭ ‘sweat’, post-PIE *supnos > PBS *supnas > OCS sŭnŭ ‘sleep’. The subsequent loss of many jers drastically altered this situation, and gave rise to the complex consonant clusters typical of many modern Slavic languages: cf. Russ. mgla, Pol. mgła ‘fog’ < *mĭgla, Pol. Gdańsk < *Gŭdanĭskŭ, Cz. čtvrt ‘quarter’ < PSl. *čĭtvĭrtĭ, Pol. spadł, Cz. spadl ‘he fell (down)’ < *jĭzŭpadlŭ.

5. References Andersen, Henning 1996 Reconstructing Prehistoric Dialects. Initial Vowels in Slavic and Baltic. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Derksen, Rick 1991 An introduction to the history of Lithuanian accentuation. Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 16 (Studies in West Slavic and Baltic Linguistics): 45−84. Derksen, Rick 1996 Metatony in Baltic. (Leiden Studies in Indo-European 6). Amsterdam: Rodopi. Dybo, Vladimir A. 1981 Slavjanskaja akcentologija. Opyt rekonstrukcii sistemy akcentnyx paradigm v praslavjanskom [Slavic accentology. An attempt at a reconstruction of the system of accentual paradigms in Proto-Slavic]. (Akademija Nauk SSSR, Institut Slavjanovedenija i Balkanistiki). Moscow: Nauka. Dybo, Vladimir A, Galina I. Zamjatina, and Sergei L. Nikolaev 1990 Osnovy slavjanskoj akcentologii [Fundamentals of Slavic accentology]. Moscow: Nauka. Garde, Paul 1976 Histoire de l’accentuation slave. (Collection de manuels de l’Institut d’Études Slaves 7). Paris: Institut d’Études Slaves. Halle, Morris 1997 On stress and accent in Indo-European. Language 73: 275−313. Halle, Morris and William Idsardi 1995 General properties of stress and metrical structure. In: John Goldsmith (ed.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 403−443. Hock, Wolfgang 2004 Baltoslavisch. I. Teil: Phonologie. Kratylos 49: 1−32.

1984

XVIII. Balto-Slavic

Hock, Wolfgang 2006 Baltoslavisch. III. Teil: Die baltoslavische Sprachgemeinschaft, Nachträge. Kratylos 51: 1−24. Illič-Svityč, Vladislav M. 1963 Imennaja akcentuacija v baltijskom i slavjanskom. Moscow: Institut Slavjanovedenija, Akademija Nauk SSSR. (English edition: Nominal Accentuation in Baltic and Slavic. Translated by Richard L. Leed and Ronald F. Feldstein. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1979.) Jasanoff, Jay H. 1983 A rule of final syllables in Slavic. Journal of Indo-European Studies 11: 139−149. Jasanoff, Jay H. 2002 The nom. sg. of Germanic n-stems. In:. Alfred R. Wedel and Hans-Jörg Busch (eds.), Verba et Litterae: Explorations in Germanic Languages and German Literature (Festschrift for Albert L. Lloyd). Newark, DE: Linguatext, 31−46. Jasanoff, Jay H. 2004 Acute vs. circumflex: Some notes on PIE and post-PIE prosodic phonology. In: Adam Hyllested, Anders Richardt Jørgensen, Jenny Helena Larsson, and Thomas Olander (eds.), Per aspera ad asteriscos: Studia indogermanica in honorem Jens Elmegård Rasmussen sexagenarii idibus Martiis anno MMIV. (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft, Band 112). Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Kulturen der Universität Innsbruck, 247−255. Jasanoff, Jay H. 2008 The accentual type *vèdō, *vedetı̍ and the origin of mobility in the Balto-Slavic verb. Baltistica 43: 339−379. Kortlandt, Frederik 1977 Historical laws of Baltic accentuation. Baltistica 13: 319−330. Kortlandt, Frederik 1978 On the history of Slavic accentuation. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 92: 269−281. Kortlandt, Frederik 1985 Long vowels in Balto-Slavic. Baltistica 21: 112−124. Labov, William 1994 Principles of Linguistic Change. Volume I: Internal Factors. (Language in Society, Vol. 20). Oxford: Blackwell. Lehfeldt, Werner 2001 Einführung in die morphologische Konzeption der slavischen Akzentologie. 2., verbesserte und ergänzte Auflage. Mit einem Appendix von Willem Vermeer: Critical Observations on the modus operandi of the Moscow Accentological School. (Vorträge und Abhandlungen zur Slavistik, Band 42). Munich: Sagner. Levin, Jules F. 1975 Dynamic linguistics and Baltic historical phonology. General Linguistics 15: 144−158. Levin, Jules F. 1976 Toward a graphology of Old Prussian monuments: the Enchiridion. Baltistica 12: 9−24. Mayrhofer, Manfred 1986 Indogermanische Grammatik. Band I, 2. Halbband: Lautlehre (Segmentale Phonologie des Indogermanischen). Heidelberg: Winter. de Saussure, Ferdinand 1894 À propos de l’accentuation lituanienne. Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 8: 425−446. de Saussure, Ferdinand 1896 Accentuation lituanienne. Indogermanische Forschungen 6, Anzeiger: 157−166.

116. Balto-Slavic morphology

1985

Senn, Alfred 1966 The relationships of Baltic and Slavic. In: Henrik Birnbaum and Jaan Puhvel (eds.), Ancient Indo-European Dialects: Proceedings of the Conference on Indo-European Linguistics Held at the University of California, Los Angeles, April 25−27, 1963. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 139−151. Smoczyński, Wojciech 2003 Hiat laryngalny w językach bałto-słowiańskich [Laryngeal hiatus in the Balto-Slavic languages]. (Analecta Indoeuropaea Cracoviensia 4). Cracow: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego. Stang, Christian S. 1957 Slavonic Accentuation. (Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo, Hist.-Fil. Klasse No. 3). Oslo. [Republished 1965. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.] Stang, Christian S. 1966 Vergleichende Grammatik der baltischen Sprachen. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Szemerényi, Oswald 1957 The problem of Balto-Slav unity − a critical survey. Kratylos 2: 97−123. Winter, Werner 1978 The distribution of short and long vowels in stems of the type Lith. ė́ sti : vèsti : mèsti and OCS jasti : vesti : mesti in Baltic and Slavic languages. In: Jacek Fisiak (ed.), Recent Developments in Historical Phonology. (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 4). The Hague: Mouton, 431−446.

Ronald I. Kim, Sośnie (Poland)

116. Balto-Slavic morphology 1. 2. 3. 4.

Introduction Nouns Adjectives Numbers

5. 6. 7. 8.

Gendered pronouns Personal pronouns Verbs References

1. Introduction The reconstructed morphology of the Balto-Slavic nominal system is essentially that of late Indo-European. It looks like Sanskrit with an admixture of features shared with Germanic. The problem for Balto-Slavic has always been verbal morphology − both reconstructing the Balto-Slavic verbal system and deriving it from that of late Indo-European.

1.1. Overlapping morphological isoglosses The dialect divisions of Slavic are irrelevant to the discussion of Balto-Slavic morphology, but the division between East Baltic (Lithuanian and Latvian) and West Baltic (Old https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-037

1986

XVIII. Balto-Slavic

Prussian) is not. For some features, Slavic agrees with one branch but not the other. Most of the clear innovations are shared by Slavic and East Baltic against archaisms in Old Prussian.

2. Nouns 2.1. Grammatical categories Balto-Slavic had singular, plural, and dual number. Since the dual is well preserved, Balto-Slavic is useful for the reconstruction of the late Indo-European forms of this number. Balto-Slavic had masculine, feminine, and neuter gender. This system is preserved in Slavic and Old Prussian. Balto-Slavic had all the cases of Indo-Iranian except the ablative, of which formal traces remain. Both Baltic and Slavic have athematic stems, ostems, u-stems, i-stems, ā-stems, and a residue of ī-stems. Slavic has ū-stems, and Baltic shows historical descendants of such stems. Baltic has feminine ē-stems, which are not found in Slavic.

2.2. Features shared with Germanic Balto-Slavic and Germanic share the use of -m- forms of the dative and instrumental where other languages have -bh-. The Germanic “dative” represents semantically a merger of the dative, locative, instrumental, and ablative. In some instances, a Germanic dative is cognate with a Balto-Slavic instrumental. Whether the endings are innovations, preservations, or a mixture of both will not concern us here. They occur in both the noun and the pronoun, so it is useful to combine the discussions of these.

2.2.1. Instrumental singular Baltic has -mi in the instrumental singular of i-stems, u-stems, and athematic stems, and in nonpersonal pronouns. In Slavic, *-mi in the instrumental singular is limited to masculine and neuter gender. Stang (1966: 209) points out that the north-western Lithuanian dialects which differentiate between a shortened long acute ī and an original short i indicate an original *-mī. Zinkevičius (1966: 230) confirms this, but suggests that the vowel quality might be from the influence of the plural. Prokosch (1938: 269) reconstructs the ending of the masculine dative singular of the non-personal pronouns in Old English and Old Norse as *-mi. The dative of *to-, Old English þǣm, Old Norse þeim, is cognate with OCS instrumental singular těmĭ. The crucial evidence is the i-umlaut in Old English.

116. Balto-Slavic morphology

1987

2.2.2. Dative plural Lithuanian has -ms, Old Lithuanian and modern dialects, -mus. OP has -mas alongside obviously secondary -mans. Slavic has -mǔ, which could come from *-mos or *-mus. Germanic has *-ms, which should not come from *-mus, but might reflect an instrumental in *-mis (cf. Skt. -bhis) or (less likely) a dative in *-mos (cf. Latin -bus).

2.2.3. Instrumental plural Lithuanian has -mis, with dialectal evidence that this is a shortened *-mīs (Zinkevičius 1966: 231). Slavic has -mi, which could come from *-mīs, but not *-mis. Prokosch reconstructs the dative plural of Germanic pronouns as *-mis, reflecting an instrumental plural.

2.2.4. Dative/instrumental dual For this case, there are no dual forms in Germanic. The ending for all stems in Slavic is -ma. Lithuanian has -m. Vaillant (1958: 39) notes that the vowels found in Old Lithuanian are -i and (once) -a. He further argues that the dual pronominal possessives mùma ‘our’ and jùma ‘your’ are old forms of the dative, providing evidence that the original form was -ma. The only vowel that could give Slavic a and Lithuanian a in final position is acute ā < *eH2 .

2.3. Balto-Slavic innovations 2.3.1. The sole purely Balto-Slavic innovation is in the instrumental singular of the āstems. This is found in the nominal and pronominal system. The original ending should have been *-eH1 . That, added to the stem in -ā- < *-eH2 , eventually yielded acute long ā, identical to the nominative singular. Baltic and Slavic added a nasal at the end of the ending. One possible attestation in Old Prussian is rānkān ‘hand’ (Schmalstieg 1974: 59). In Slavic and in East Baltic, the original ending is clear in the definite adjective. Lith. ger-ą́-ja has an orthographic nasalized a which reflects the pronunciation in Old Lithuanian. The normal ā-stem instrumental singular in OCS is -ojǫ. It has the nasalized vowel, but the ending is from the pronominal system. The original -ǫ from *-āN can be found in the definite adjective ending mlad-ǫ-jǫ. 2.3.2. Both families show a tendency to replace athematic endings with those of i-stems, especially with consonant-initial endings. The motivation for this was the phonological change of syllabic nasals to i plus nasal in the accusative singular and plural (*-im, *-ins). Since the motivation exists in both families, there is no guarantee that the process was Balto-Slavic, particularly since both families have residues of consonant-initial endings added directly to consonant-final stems.

1988

XVIII. Balto-Slavic

2.3.3. A few other endings are specific to Balto-Slavic but not unique. The genitive singular of the athematic paradigm has the variant *-es rather than *-os (Old Lith. dukteres, akmenes, OCS dŭštere, kamene). For the nominative plural of the o-stems, BaltoSlavic has *-ai from the original pronominal ending *-oi. This gives Slavic -i, with special phonology for the end of the word. Lith. -i < -íe, found in the adjective, is probably the regular reflex.

2.4. Slavic-East Baltic innovations 2.4.1. In the neuter nominative singular of o-stems, Slavic and East Baltic have a zero ending (Slavic -o; Lith., Latv. -a), opposed to OP -an, the reflex of *-om. The East Baltic forms are only adjectives used as predicates of phrases and the pronouns kas ‘something, anything’, and vìsa/vìsas ‘all’ and could well represent a different process. For Slavic, the most likely explanation is that the pronominal neuter ending in *-od has been coopted for nominal use. 2.4.2. Genitive singular of o-stems: Old Prussian has -as, while East Baltic and Slavic have *-ā, the reflex of the old ablative (*-o-ad). The OP ending is shared with Hittite and most likely Germanic, judging from ON Sg N dagr ‘day’, G dags, which looks like Verner’s Law has been utilized to distinguish two originally identical endings. 2.5. For the rest of the inflectional endings, the Proto-Balto-Slavic forms are generally those reconstructed for classical Indo-European.

3. Adjectives 3.1. Adjectival inflection was originally no different from noun inflection. That pattern is preserved in old Slavic, and in the feminine inflection of East Baltic. The basic adjectival inflection preserved in both branches is that with *o-stem inflection for masculine and neuter, ā-stem inflection for feminine. Baltic has productive u-stem inflection for adjectives. The corresponding feminines are ī/jā -stems. In Baltic, the ī/jā -stem inflection simply replaces the u-inflection, rather than being added to a non-syllabic u, as in Indo-Iranian, e.g. Lith. saldùs, saldì, gen. saldžiõs ‘sweet’. Slavic extends u-stem adjectives with a suffix -k-o/ā, as in OCS sladŭkŭ, sladŭka ‘sweet’. Both Baltic and Slavic show evidence of having had i-stem adjectives. Old Lithuanian has traces of i-stem inflection (Stang 1966: 260−261) as in daugime [locative] ‘many’, didime and, in the comparative, didęsnime ‘bigger’. OP arwi [neuter nominative singular] ‘true’ is probably an i-stem. OCS has a few indeclinable adjectives ending in -ĭ (Vaillant 1958: 539): svobodĭ ‘free’, različĭ ‘various’. 3.2. The masculine/neuter of active participles had athematic inflection (Stang 1966: 262−267). Distinctive athematic forms are found in the masculine/neuter nominative singular, the accusative singular, and in Slavic, the nominative plural masculine. Elsewhere, in both Baltic and Slavic, one finds a stem extension in *-jo-. In dative absolutes,

116. Balto-Slavic morphology

1989

the old athematic dative/locative in *-i is found in East Baltic, and in Old Lithuanian the original athematic dual form in -e is still attested. Feminines have ī/jā-stem inflection in both Baltic and Slavic. Examples are: OCS present active participle, nominative singular masculine bery < *beronts, feminine berǫšti (with analogical -j- in the nominative), nominative plural masculine berǫšte (once again with -j-extension); past active participle masculine/neuter singular nesŭ < *nesus(s), feminine nesŭši < *nesusī. Lithuanian has masculine reñkąs < *renkants, feminine renkantì < *renkantī, gen. renkančiõs. The Old Prussian inflection has merged with i-inflection outside of the nominative singular. 3.3. Baltic and Slavic added the pronoun j- to adjectives to form definite noun phrases. This may be an areal feature, or it may have been inherited from Balto-Slavic. It is technically syntax. The j- pronoun was still a clitic with flexible position in Old Lithuanian (Zinkevičius 1996: 119).

3.4. Comparison The Indo-European comparative suffix *-j(e/o)s- is used in Slavic in unproductive comparatives. These forms had athematic inflection similar to that of the participles, with ī/jā-inflection in the feminine. OCS bol’e < *boljes ‘better’. The rest of the forms have zero-grade, which in Slavic is realized as*-jĭs-. The feminine nominative singular is bol’ĭši. The rest of the paradigm has a stem bol’ĭš- from *boljisj-(o/ā). The productive comparative suffix has an ě < *ē preceding the *-jes-/-jis-, as in starěiš- ‘older’. Old Prussian has a suffix spelled -is- (often losing the vowel) in adverbs tālis/ tāls ‘farther’, toūls ‘more’, mijls ‘lieber’ (Endzelīns 1971: 174). Endzelīns also cites the Latvian adverbs labis ‘better’ and vairs ‘more’ as possibly from the same source. The comparative suffix in Lithuanian is -esnis, which may reflect *-jes-n-.

4. Numerals 4.1. Cardinal Numbers For the most part, Baltic and Slavic start from the system of cardinal numbers in PIE, and innovations belong to the histories of the individual families. 4.1.1. Thousand: Gothic þūsundi and Slavic (OCS) tysǫšti, and tysęšti (probably reflecting o-grade and zero-grade ablaut) are feminine ī/jā-stems. OP accusative tūsimtons has probably been influenced by a presumed *simtan ‘100’. Lith. tū´kstantis, Latv. tũkstuôt(i)s go back to *tūkstant-. Endzelīns (1971: 183) cites an Old Latvian form without the k, which indicates that k was inserted before the st, a typical but not regular Baltic sound change. Zinkevičius (1996: 136) points out attested forms in Old Lithuanian with athematic endings (tūkstantes). This would indicate an East Baltic *tūstant-. The East Baltic forms are still deviant. Stang (1966: 282), citing Kalima, argues that an older East Baltic *tūšant- is indicated by early Finnic borrowings. Trubachëv (1973) has suggested that st is a variant reflex of PIE palato-velar k̑.

1990

XVIII. Balto-Slavic

The older etymology *tūs-k̑m̥tom has difficulties: 1. The expected reflexes of *sk̑ are not found. This could be eliminated with the assumption that the reflex of *k̑ was restored at the morpheme-boundary. Then Germanic *s-h > s, while in Baltic and Slavic the *s could disappear before the continuant from the palato-velar. 2. Baltic *m does not normally assimilate to a following *t (Lith. šim ˜ tas ‘100’, samda ‘hire’). 3. The o-grade ablaut in East Baltic and (optionally) in Slavic is in need of an explanation. Vaillant (1958: 647−648) accounts for the lack of m and the ablaut by assuming an old -ntparticiple from a stem *tū-st- ‘fatten’ (with the common -st- present suffix). Endzelīns assumes a secondary confusion with a participle. Any argument for an original participle must explain the failure of Slavic *s to change to x after the ū. If it is not a borrowing, the Slavic s should reflect a palato-velar. To get a confusion with a participle, the form should end in *nt, rather than *mt. The participial solution is attractive, at least as a reinterpretation. It allows for both an athematic -nt- stem and a derived feminine -ī/jāstem with zero grade ablaut. One way to get an *nt is to assume that the compound was originally indeclinable, and that *mt > nt in word-final position. There are no exceptions that could not be due to analogy. The second element of the compound could have been *-k̑omt, as in the Greek words for the decads. If the m assimilated, this could easily have been taken as a neuter participle. 4.1.2. Ten: The closest thing to a purely Balto-Slavic innovation in the number system is the use of the athematic *dek̑m̥t- for ten, replacing the indeclinable *dek̑m̥. The -tstem exists in Indo-Iranian as well, in the meaning ‘group of ten.’ 4.1.3. Six: Balto-Slavic, like Indo-Iranian, shows the reflex of the “ruki” rule in the initial continuant (Lith. šešì, OCS šestĭ, Sanskrit. ṣaṭ, Avestan xšvaš), which indicates a proto-form *kswek̑s. A variant form *w(e)k̑s is indicated by the Lithuanian derivative ušės ‘six-week confinement for childbirth’, which is related to a similar zero-grade form in the OP ordinal uschts/usts. The Lithuanian form may be borrowed from Old Prussian. 4.1.4. East Baltic and Slavic, as opposed to Old Prussian, apparently share a change of the initial consonant of ‘nine’ from n to d, e.g. OCS devętĭ, Lith. devynì. OP newīnts ‘ninth’.

4.2. Ordinal Numbers The Baltic and Slavic words for ‘first’ show different suffixes (OCS prŭvŭ, Lith. pìrmas: *pr̥H-wo-, *pr̥H-mo- ). For ‘second’, Proto-Baltic has *anteras (Lith. añtras/añtaras, Latv. ùotrs/uotars, OP antars; cognate with Sanskrit ántaraḥ Gothic anþar). Slavic (OCS) vŭtorŭ is presumably a distortion of the same form (Vaillant 1958: 654). The other ordinals were originally formed by adding the theme vowel -o- (-ā- for feminine) with zero grade in the preceding syllable (Szemerényi 1996: 227). There was a later spread of a suffix -tó-, and a secondary tendency to make the ablaut agree with the cardinal. Balto-Slavic shows both tendencies but never added the -to- suffix to a stem that ended in -t-. Three ordinals assume different forms in Old Prussian as opposed to Slavic and East Baltic. For ‘third’ Slavic *tretĭjĭ (OCS tretii), Lith trẽčias, and Latv. trešais share the

116. Balto-Slavic morphology

1991

initial sequence *tret- at least, and may share the entire stem *tretij-. They are opposed to OP tirtis, from *tr̥tijas. The latter form has a Sanskrit cognate tr̥tī́yaḥ. For ‘sixth’ OP has uschts/usts, as opposed to OCS šestǔ, Lith. šẽštas. For ‘ninth’ Slavic and East Baltic have replaced the initial *n by d: OP newīnts, OCS devętǔ, Lith. deviñtas. The Balto-Slavic stems for ‘fourth’ and ‘fifth’ are *ketvr̥t- (Lith. ketvir˜tas, Old East Slavic četvĭrtŭ) and *penkt- (Lith. peñktas, OCS pętŭ). For ‘seventh’, PIE *septmos yields Old Prussian sep(t)mas, Old Lith. sekmas, and OCS sedmŭ. The word for ‘eighth’ has m from ‘seventh’: Balto-Slavic *ak̑(t)mas, Old Lith. ašmas, OP asmas, OCS osmŭ. This could be a Balto-Slavic innovation, although Indo-Iranian also has *-m-: Sanskrit aṣṭamáḥ, Avestan astəma-. From dialectal IE *dek̑m̥tos we find OP dessīmts, Lith. dešim ˜ tas, OCS desętŭ; cf. Greek dékatos. For ‘hundredth’ Lithuanian normally uses šim ˜ tas (no different from the cardinal). But an alternative form šimtàsis is a formal match for Latv. sìmtais, Rus., Ukrainian sotyj, Belorussian soty, Czech sty (Slavic *sŭt-ŭ-jĭ) ‘hundredth’.

4.3. Collective numerals Both Baltic and Slavic have extensive sets of collective numerals, used for groups and with pluralia tantum. For numbers ‘two’ to ‘four’, Lithuanian and Slavic have similar stems, but they may differ in ablaut. Insofar as the Sanskrit forms are legitimate cognates, the lack of Brugmann’s Law indicates e-ablaut. We find Lith. dvejì, OCS dŭvojĭ ‘two’, Sanskrit dvayáḥ ‘twofold’; Lith. trejì, OCS trojĭ ‘three each’, Sanskrit trayáḥ ‘threefold’; Lith. ketverì, OCS četvorŭ ‘fourfold’, Sanskrit catvaram ‘quadrangular area’.

5. Gendered pronouns 5.1. Interesting archaisms The inflectional system of demonstrative, interrogative/indefinite, and relative pronouns in Indo-European was a single system with two variants − sometimes called o-stem and i-stem inflection. The notion of “stem”, however, is not as clear in pronouns as it is in nouns. Both types exist in Slavic. Example paradigms (for onŭ and sĭ) can be found in Diels (1963: 206−209). The Slavic stem variation is very close to the proto-system postulated by Szemerényi (1996: 205−207), except for the merger of gender in the oblique plural. A presumed original *o/e-ablaut has been reduced to a unified -o- in the o-stem pronouns, but the i-stem pronouns, which always seem to have been suppletive *i/e-stems (cf. Skt. imam but asmai), maintain this distinction, while the non-singular is characterized by an extension in *-o-i-. The i-stems have ablaut variants in *-i- and -ei-. Outside of the nominative and accusative cases, -e- and -ei- correspond to -o- and -oi- in distribution. In Indo-European, the anaphoric pronoun *is and the interrogative-indefinite *k wis were “i-stems.” In Slavic, the demonstrative sĭ < *k̑is ‘this’ has this inflection. The

1992

XVIII. Balto-Slavic

interrogative/indefinite has i-inflection in the neuter čĭ-to. There is no plural of čĭ-to, and the anaphor *is merged with the relative *jos, so the only complete example of the Slavic -i-/-e-/-ei- inflection is that of sĭ. Modern East Baltic has lost the -i-/-e-/-ei- paradigm outside of the nominative/accusative. The interrogative *k wi- was replaced everywhere by the competing form *k wo-, and *k̑i- was inflected as k̑jo-. The anaphor *is merged with *jos. Old Prussian has no descendant of is, has only kas, ka as interrogative, and has the reflex of *k̑j- in schis ‘this’. This, along with the archaic look of the Slavic paradigm, might lead us to view the Slavic paradigm as reflecting the oldest Balto-Slavic stage. However, Stang (1966: 233) points out that Daukša’s Postilla (from 1599) has iime seven times for the locative of jìs, versus 77 times for the regular iame. There is also a dialectal šimè for the locative of šìs. Old Latvian has dative šim in competition with šam. If we trust Old Prussian orthography, we find i in masculine dative singular schismu, feminine dative singular schissai, and genitive singular schisses. These are all forms which in Slavic have je-, se-, and for which Indo-Iranian has -a-. If there is no internal Baltic explanation for these forms, they complicate the reconstruction of the paradigm.

5.2. Balto-Slavic-Germanic innovations 5.2.1. For -m- endings, see (2.1)

5.3. Possible Balto-Slavic Innovations 5.3.1. The merger of the relative jo-/jā - and the -i-/-e-/-ei- anaphoric pronoun Although the Slavic forms are ambiguous, both Slavic and East Baltic can be said to have masculine nominative, accusative singular *jis, *jim; feminine nominative singular *jī, with the rest of the forms for the masculine and neuter from *jo-, the feminine from *jā. 5.3.2. The suppletion in the demonstrative *so, sā, tod has been eliminated and replaced with consistent to-. This pronoun is not directly attested in Old Prussian, but the third person singular verbal ending -ts is surely from tas (Stang 1966: 232). 5.3.3. A lexical innovation in Balto-Slavic pronouns is the word for ‘all’, which has pronominal inflection, as it does, for example, in Sanskrit: OCS vĭsĭ, Lith. vìsas, Latv. viss, OPr. wissa. 5.4. Slavic and East Baltic eliminated the s of the -sm- in the dative-locative of the masculine and neuter pronominal declension. Slavic also eliminated the s from the -sjin the corresponding feminine forms. East Baltic generalized the noun endings in the feminine, so it is impossible to tell if it once shared this change.

116. Balto-Slavic morphology

1993

6. Personal pronouns The history of the personal pronouns is difficult, and the proto-forms for Balto-Slavic are uncertain. The following forms have cognates outside of Balto-Slavic and are thus good candidates for Balto-Slavic forms:

6.1. Singular In the nominative, OCS first person jazŭ is phonologically regular from *eg̑-Hom, found in Sanskrit aham. Old Lith. eš, OP and Latv. es are phonologically regular from *eg̑ found in Gothic ik, if we assume that final devoicing preceded Winter’s law in BaltoSlavic. OCS second person ty, Lith. tù, Latv. tu, and OP tōu all come from PIE *tū. For the accusative, OCS mę, tę, and reflexive sę are cognate with OP mien, tien, sien. Sanskit mā´m and tvā´m are potentially cognate, indicating *mēN, tēN, sēN. OCS genitive mene, Lith. dialectal manè, Avestan mana are potentially cognate, if we ignore the leveling of /a/ in the Lithuanian stem. In the second person and reflexive, OCS shows secondary b in tebe, sebe, while Lith. tavè, savè, Latv. dialectal tev, standard tevis have the expected v found in Sanskrit táva, Avestan tauua. The Slavic b can be from the dative. The Balto-Slavic forms are probably *teve, seve. In the dative, the OCS clitics are mi, ti, si. Old Lith. mi, ti, Modern Lith. si, Latv. si are almost certainly cognate, indicating Balto-Slavic *mei, tei, sei. Sanskrit me, te, and Prakrit se are potential cognates, but the vowel in the Sanskrit diphthong is ambiguous. Greek has an o in moi, soi, hoi. For tonic datives, there is no good candidate for a first person Balto-Slavic form. For the second person and the reflexive, we find OCS (South Slavic) tebě sebě, Old East Slavic (North Slavic) tobě sobě, OP sebbei, Old Lith. tevi, tevie, savie, Latv. sev < *sevi, cf. Latin sibī, Oscan sífeí. The East Baltic v is clearly secondary. We can reconstruct the consonants as *tVbh-, *sVbh-, but the vowels are unclear.

6.2. Plural Szemerényi (1996: 217) makes the interesting suggestion that *mes is the original first plural nominative, and Greek ámmes < *ṇs-mes is a reduplicated *ms-mes. Whether Szemerényi is correct or not, the best candidates for Balto-Slavic nominatives are the Baltic forms mes (Lith. mẽs, Latv. mẽs, dialectal mes, OP mes), and jūs (Lith., Latv. jū˜s, OP ioūs). The Slavic my and vy must be secondary. Vy is from the accusative (cf. OP wans, which would correspond to Slavic vy) and my has been influenced by vy. In the oblique cases, Slavic shows the closest relationship to other Indo-European languages. Like Latin, it used the stems *nōs, *wōs. The genitive plurals *nōs-som, *wōs-som and the locatives *nōs-su, *wōs-su yielded nasŭ, vasŭ, which were parsed as na-sŭ, va-sŭ. The oblique paradigms were then built on the stems na-, va-. Old Prussian has an oblique stem nou- < *nū-, perhaps originally the same as Slavic, but influenced

1994

XVIII. Balto-Slavic

by the second plural (iou-, iū-). The Old Prussian second plural, and the East Baltic first and second plural paradigms were rebuilt, influenced by the nominative cases in processes that belong to the history of Baltic.

7. Verbs 7.1. The verbal system was reorganized, so that the aorist-present opposition became a past-present opposition. Stem-formants associated with the present/imperfect stem, such as the n-infix or the *-je/o- suffix, came to signify a present stem. The s-aorist, preserved in Slavic, came to signify a simple past. 7.2. Baltic morphology has been crucially used to argue for a new reconstruction of the thematic paradigm, beginning with Toporov (1961). Watkins (1969) continued with an integrated view of the thematic paradigm, the middle, and the Hittite ḫi-conjugation. This view has been accepted to the point that the reconstructed thematic paradigm in Beekes (1995: 232) is essentially identical to the Lithuanian thematic inflection in the singular, except for the fact that Lithuanian has generalized *-o- as the thematic vowel. Crucially, the third singular of the thematic inflection is reinterpreted as having a zero ending. The second singular in *-ei < *eHi is also accepted as original. The zero ending in the third person is attested in Slavic as well, but it had previously been interpreted as secondary. 7.3. Both Baltic and Slavic preserve athematic presents: Old East Slavic estĭ, Old Lith. esti ‘is’; Old East Slavic ěstĭ, Old Lith. ėsti (*ēd- from Winter’s Law) ‘eats’; Old East Slavic dastĭ, Old Lith. dúosti ‘gives’. Old Lith. dẽsti ‘puts’, probably reflects a BaltoSlavic form. Old Lithuanian and dialectal Lithuanian have many athematic presents which have no counterparts in other Indo-European languages (Stang 1966: 310). Some of these may come from old perfects.

7.4. Balto-Slavic-Germanic features 7.4.1. Indo-European had a class of n-infixed athematic verbs, which are best preserved in Sanskrit. Most commonly these verbs are associated with root aorists without the infix. In the active these verbs are transitive, generally factitive verbs indicating a change of state of the object. Most Indo-European languages have reflexes of the active verbs. In Germanic, Slavic, and Baltic, however, they are primarily intransitive change-of-state verbs. East Baltic has a large class of verbs with an n-infix in the present, but with thematic inflection. Slavic has a few forms with n-infixed presents, again with thematic inflection. Most of the Slavic forms have an -n- suffix with thematic inflection. The associated Slavic aorists are typically thematic with no infix. With a few unobvious exceptions, Germanic has only suffixed forms, and Gothic is the only language that preserves (surface-level) thematic inflection. The most archaic forms, with cognates in more than one language, have zero-grade vocalism. Several scholars have suggested that one could account for both the ablaut and the meaning by assuming that the Balto-Slavic

116. Balto-Slavic morphology

1995

and Germanic forms developed from the middle voice (Jasanoff 1973, 1978: 85 fn. 57; Darden 1996; Praust 1998: 79, 126). Watkins (1969: Chapter 8) provides a possible mechanism. He argues that the original ending of the third singular middle was -e, like that of the perfect. He further accepts the hypothesis that the third singular of the thematic inflection was -e with a zero ending. Using the identity in the third singular as the basis for analogy, he proposes a shift from athematic middle to thematic inflection. He uses this to derive thematic aorists, but the same arguments may apply to present stems. This process, applied to the athematic n-infixed class and to the associated root aorists attested in Sanskrit, could produce the thematic n-infixed presents of Baltic and the thematic zero-grade aorists of Slavic, which are the most likely Balto-Slavic forms. Gorbachev (2007) accepts the middle solution for Balto-Slavic, which has no surviving middle, but he points out that the similar meaning and ablaut in Germanic cannot be easily explained, since Germanic does have an overt reflex of the middle − the Gothic passive (third singular *-toi). His alternative solution is to start from what Jasanoff (2003) calls a “proto-middle”, with *-e as the third singular, and allow for a dialectal bifurcation between the proto-middle and the middle in the dialects underlying BaltoSlavic and Germanic. One could also propose that a third singular passive in *-toi separated from a middle in *-e in Proto-Germanic. 7.4.2. Balto-Slavic has a class of factitive-iteratives with infinitive/past-tense stems in *-ī-, e.g. (Rus./Lith.) prosit'/prašýti ‘ask’; gonit' ‘drive’/ganýti ‘take care of cattle’; brodit'/bradýti [dialectal] ‘wade’. The present tense forms differ. The Baltic forms have a present stem with *-ā- ([3rd. sing.] Lith. prãšo < *prošā-), while Slavic has a present in *-ī- ( Rus. prosit). Neither present-stem suffix can be derived from the other, nor can either be derived phonologically from the *-eje- found in other Indo-European languages. Most research has focused on the present in -ī- (see Schmalstieg 2000: 130−136 for a survey). However, if we believe that this is a Balto-Slavic class, and we take as original the present stem that could not be derived by paradigmatic analogy, we would normally pick the Baltic present. Germanic Class II weak verbs, with an *-ā- suffix, are normally denominal, but have a few deverbal formations (Guxman et al., Vol IV: 180). Several of them have Balto-Slavic cognates or parallel formations among the factitive iteratives. These include: Old Saxon frâgon (denominal), Lith. prašýti, Rus. prosit' ‘ask’; Old Saxon giwaldon, Lith. valdýti ‘rule’; Old High German lehhôn, Gothic bilaigōn, Lith. laižýti ‘lick’; Old Norse vaga, Old English wagian, Old High German wagōn, Rus. vozit' ‘transport’; Old High German sagōn ‘say’ (from de Vries 1977), Lith. sakýti ‘say’, Rus. sočit' ‘seek’; Old High German manōt ‘understands’, Lith. manýti ‘think of’, Latv. manît ‘take note of’. There is also Slavic kupiti ‘buy’, apparently borrowed from Gothic kaupōn ‘conduct business’. If the Baltic present formation is original, then it is the past/infinitive stem in -ī- that needs explanation.

7.5. Balto-Slavic innovations 7.5.1. Balto-Slavic formed past active participles with the suffix *-us-, which is used to form the perfect participle in Indo-Iranian and Greek (cf. also Gothic ber-us-j-os ‘par-

1996

XVIII. Balto-Slavic

ents’, originally ‘those having borne’, which is built to the weak stem of the preterite, i.e. the PIE perfect). Aside from the exclusive employment of the zero-grade of the original suffix *-wos-/-us-, the Balto-Slavic innovation consists of the emancipation of this form from the perfect and its implementation as a general past participle. 7.5.2. Balto-Slavic has a set of verbs with infinitive/past-tense stems with the suffix *-ēand present tense with the suffix *-ī- in Slavic, short -i- in Baltic. Examples are (Old East Slavic : Lith.) bŭděti / bŭditŭ : budė́ ti / bùdi ‘be awake’, sěděti : sėdė́ ti ‘sit’. They are primarily stative. The infinitive stem can easily be related to the statives formed with -ē- in Germanic and Latin (Old High German habēn, Latin sēdēre ‘sit’) and perhaps to the suffix forming the Greek aorist passive. The present tense of these verbs has been claimed to come from the Indo-European perfect (Kurylowicz 1964: 80−84; Jasanoff 1978: 101−112; Darden 1998). Jasanoff (2003: 158−159), however, now traces them to athematic middles. The clearest example in Slavic of an inherited perfect is vědě from *woida-i ‘I know’. It has the present-marking particle -i added, as does Latin vīdī. In Slavic, the rest of the paradigm is that of a regular athematic active. The infinitive věděti has a suffix -ě-. The forms of this verb in Old Prussian (Stang 1966: 313) show a mixture of athematic and -i- conjugation forms: second singular waisei, first plural waidimai, second plural waiditi. Endzelīns (1928) suggested that the /i/ in this case comes from the third plural *-int from -n̥t as is apparently the case in the Slavic 3 rd plural vědętǔ. We could assume that Balto-Slavic, like Greek and Germanic, generalized -nt- to replace the original ending with r. For Baltic, we simply assume that the short i spread throughout the paradigm. For Slavic, we have evidence from vědě that the particle i was added in the present. Starting from the third person singular and plural, we get singular *-e-i, plural *-inti. After Slavic ei > ī, we have -ī, -inti. Since long vowels were shortened before sonorant plus stop (Osthoff’s Law), -inti could be morphophonemically interpreted as -ī-nt-i, and the paradigm could be rebuilt based on a suffix-vowel -ī-. Many of the verbs in this class have prototypical perfect meaning − a state resulting from previous action. In modern Lith., many can be glossed with the modern Lithuanian perfect − ‘be’ plus the past active participle. Other than resultant state, the range of meanings includes verbs of perception (Old East Slavic viděti ‘see’, sŭmotrěti ‘look’, slyšati < *slūx-ē- ‘hear’, Lith. paveiždė́ ti ‘look’, girdė́ ti ‘hear’), emotional state (Old East Slavic bojati ‘fear’, Lith. mylė́ ti ‘love’), and verbs for the production of sounds and visual sensations (Old East Slavic zvĭněti ‘ring’, svĭtěti ‘shine’, Lith. spindė́ ti ‘shine’). This is the same range of meanings as we find in the Greek perfect. The ablaut of the roots in Balto-Slavic cognates is predominantly zero-grade. Between obstruents, as in sěděti, sėdė́ ti, we find *ē, but the length here could be due to Winter’s law, which lengthens vowels before simple voiced stops. In an analogous formation with a voiced aspirate, Slavic has no length: ležati (*legh-ē-) ‘lie’. If these are indeed old perfects, the dearth of o-grade of the root is surprising. In Old Lithuanian and in dialects, we find evidence that many of these verbs were inflected as athematic active verbs (Stang 1966: 310−318; Schmalstieg 2000: 88−103). Stang suggests that some of these verbs come from perfects, primarily because of their meaning. He also points out (1966: 315) that many of the athematically inflected forms cannot be phonologically old: stovmi ‘I stand’, sėdmi ‘I sit’, girdmi ‘I hear’, žydmi ‘I bloom’ all have consonants that would not be allowed before m. If -mi had replaced a

116. Balto-Slavic morphology

1997

vocalic ending, these configurations could make sense. It would also make sense to think that the original paradigm might have contained some forms that were identical to those of the athematic active. The perfect was athematic, and it had a vocalic ending in the first singular. Since the parent language had neither short nor long -i- as a theme vowel, it makes sense to think that the original paradigm was athematic. Given the lack of cognates elsewhere, it is unlikely to have been an athematic active paradigm. It could have been an athematic middle, perfect, or the middle of the perfect. Ultimately, it is the meaning that makes the perfect hypothesis attractive, and it is the ablaut that makes the middle origin attractive. 7.5.3. Slavic and East Baltic have a present passive participle in *-(o)m-os/-ā. The -mis added to the present tense stem when there is a vocalic suffix. Athematic verbs take *-om-. Examples are: OCS nesomŭ, xvalimŭ, vědomŭ; Lith. nẽšamas, gir˜dimas, sãkomas, ẽsamas; Latvian lìekams, darãms, dialectal gulims. Old Prussian has one attested form with -manas: poklausīmanas (Stang 1966: 445−446) (but see Ambrazas and Schmalstieg, this handbook, 6.1). The Old Prussian form has cognates in Sanskrit -māna-, Greek -menos (normally reconstructed as *-mh̥1 no-). Vaillant (1966: 114) suggests a sound change *mn > m for Balto-Slavic, where medial laryngeals were regularly lost, but there is no other evidence for this sound change. 7.6. One of the problems for the claim of Balto-Slavic unity is the fact that in some cases the same form that represents an s-aorist in Slavic can represent an s-future in East Baltic. Both had athematic inflection. Brugmann (1888: Vol. 4, 365−366) argues that the Baltic future comes from the injunctive of the s-aorist. The aorist was an aspect, not a tense. The aorist indicative could only be used with past reference. However, the aorist injunctive could be used with various modal meanings, some with future reference. Kuryłowicz (1964: 111), who firmly believed that a formal distinction was necessary to separate the modal from the indicative uses, proposed that lengthening applied to the aorist indicative, but not to the injunctive, creating the formal distinction that he wanted. Kuryłowicz’s hypothesis is supported by evidence from Indo-Iranian, and it may fit the facts of Balto-Slavic. However, in general, the older the s-aorist looks, the more likely the Slavic stem is to be distinct from the stem of the Baltic s-future. This is discussed in detail in Darden (1995). The overwhelming majority of the stems for which the Baltic s-future has potentially the same shape as the Slavic s-past belong to two classes. One huge class includes suffixed stems − denominals, iteratives, factitives − that in Indo-European had no aorists, much less s-aorists. There is, however, a small class of verbs that originally had root aorists, verbs like *dō- ‘give’, *dhē- ‘put’, *bhū- ‘be’. One member of this group, * bhū-, is the only stem that has a reflex of the s-future in Slavic: the Church Slavic future participle byšęštĭ/byšǫšti. This may be a reasonable account for the development of Baltic and Slavic, but it does not solve the whole problem for Balto-Slavic. If the s-future really started as an injunctive use of the s-aorist, we still need an explanation for the initial differentiation of the stems.

1998

XVIII. Balto-Slavic

7.7. The Baltic past and the Slavic imperfect The Baltic past tense system was totally reorganized. There are two past tense suffixes, *-ē- and *-ā- (Lith. -ė- and -o-). In the formation of the Slavic imperfect, the element -ax- < *-ās-, followed by thematic inflection, is added to a stem that ends in -a- < *ā or -ě- < *ē. One view of the Slavic imperfect is that it is formed with preterite iterative suffixes -ājā-, -ējā-, and thus has nothing necessarily to do with Baltic (Kuryłowicz 1959). Stang (1942: 81−85) argued that the *as- was once a separate word. In early texts that show no tendency to lose j between vowels, there was no j between the vowel of the stem and the -aš-. Vaillant (1966: 63−68) slightly improves the argument. Once the aše is treated in this way, there is an obvious temptation to relate the Slavic stems in *-ē- and *-ā- to the past-tense suffixes in Baltic. This is an attractive idea, but it is very difficult to prove. Nevertheless, Slavic does have a suffix -ě- that specifically derives an imperfective stem, and there is an -a- that differentiates the past-infinitive stem from the present stem in a substantial class of verbs. Lithuanian cognates for the Slavic verbs with the apparent suffix -a- in the pastinfinitive stem lack the suffix in the infinitive. The present tense of these stems is most often directly cognate with the Slavic present. Examples are Lith. [infinitive] piẽšti, [present] piẽšia (*peišjo) ‘draw’; OCS [infinitive] pĭsati, [aorist] pĭsax-, [present] pišetŭ (*peisjetu) ‘write’; Lith. giñti, gẽna, OCS gŭnati, gŭnax-, ženetŭ ‘drive’; Lith. denominal suffix -auti, -auja, OCS -ovati, -ovax-, -ujetŭ. With only two suffixes, we would expect fifty percent agreement with random distribution. We get considerably less than that − primarily because of the verbs discussed in the previous paragraph. Lithuanian regularly has *-ē- pasts associated with -C-japresents. Lithuanian is the only language with reliable information, and it seems to have undergone a reorganization to make the past suffixes predictable.

7.8. Common losses Similar losses are not good arguments for common development, but are certainly possible results of common development. Along with Germanic, Baltic and Slavic lost the subjunctive, but retained the form of the optative. Both Baltic and Slavic lost the middle voice. A similar function is expressed through reflexive verbs in both families, but that is typologically so common that it cannot be argued that this was a common development.

8. References Beekes, Robert S. P. 1995 Comparative Indo-European Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Brugmann, Karl 1888 Elements of the Comparative Grammar of the Indo-Germanic Languages. New York: Westerman. Darden, Bill J. 1995 The Slavic s-aorist and the Baltic s-future. Linguistica Baltica 4: 217−223.

116. Balto-Slavic morphology

1999

Darden, Bill J. 1996 The Evolution of the Balto-Slavic Verb. Linguistic Studies in the Non-Slavic Languages of the Commonwealth of Independent States and the Baltic Republics 8: 107−138. Diels, Paul 1963 Altkirchenslavische Grammatik. Heidelberg: Winter. Endzelīns, Jānis 1923 Lettische Grammatik. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Endzelīns, Jānis 1928 Sikūmi [Minutiae]. Filologu Biedrības Raksti 8: 107. [Reprinted in Endzelīns 1979: 461.] Endzelīns, Jānis 1948 Baltu valodu sklaņas un formas [Phonology and morphology of the Baltic languages]. Riga: Latvijas v lasts izdevnieciba Endzelīns, Jānis 1971 Comparative Phonology and Morphology of the Baltic Languages. Translated by William Schmalstieg and Benjamiņš Jēgers (slightly revised version of Endzelīns 1948). The Hague: Mouton. Endzelīns, Jānis 1979 Darbu izlase [Collected works]. Vol III, 1. Riga: Zinatne. Fasmer, Max (=Vasmer) 1964−1973 Ètimologičeskij slovar' russkogo jazyka [Etymological dictionary of the Russian language]. Translated from German with comments by Oleg N. Trubačëv. 4 vols. Moscow: Progress. [Translation of Max Vasmer. 1950. Russisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch. 3 Bde. Heidelberg: Winter.] Gorbachev, Yaroslav 2007 Indo-European Origins of the Nasal Inchoative Class in Germanic, Baltic, and Slavic. Unpublished Dissertation, Department of Linguistics, Harvard University. Guxman, Mirra M., Viktor M. Žirmunskij, Ènver A. Makaev, and Viktoria N. Jarceva 1962−1966 Sravnitel'naja grammatika germanskix jazykov [Comparative grammar of the Germanic languages]. 4 vols. Moscow: Akademia Nauk SSSR. Jasanoff, Jay 1973 The Germanic Third Weak Class. Language 49: 850−870. Jasanoff, Jay 1978 Stative and Middle in Indo-European. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität. Jasanoff, Jay 2003 Hittite and the Indo-European Verb. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kuryłowicz, Jerzy 1959 Réflexions sur l’imparfait et les aspects en v. slave. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 1: 1−8. Kuryłowicz, Jerzy 1964 The Inflectional Categories of Indo-European. Heidelberg: Winter. Praust, Karl 1998 Studien zu den indogermanischen Nasalpräsentien. Unpublished Diplomarbeit zur Erlangung des Magistergrades der Philosophie, Geisteswissenschaftliche Fakultät der Universität Wien. Prokosch, Eduard 1938 A Comparative Germanic Grammar. Baltimore: Linguistic Society of America. Schmalstieg, William 1959 The Slavic Stative Verb in ī. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 1: 177−183.

2000

XVIII. Balto-Slavic

Schmalstieg, William 1974 An Old Prussian Grammar. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press. Schmalstieg, William 2000 The Historical Morphology of the Baltic Verb. (Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph No. 37). Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man. Smyth, Herbert W. 1956 Greek Grammar. Revised by Gordon M. Messing. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Stang, Christian S. 1942 Das Slavische und Baltische Verbum. Oslo: Dybwad. Stang, Christian S. 1966 Vergleichende Grammatik der Baltischen Sprachen. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Szemerényi, Oswald J. L. 1996 Introduction to Indo-European Linguistics. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Toporov, Vladimir N. 1961 K voprosu ob evolucii slavjanskogo i baltijskogo glagola [On the question concerning the evolution of the Slavic and Baltic verb]. Voprosy slavjanskogo jazykoznanija 5: 35− 70. Trubačëv, Oleg N. 1973 Leksikografija i ètimologija. Slavjanskoe jazykoznanie [Lexicography and etymology. Slavic linguistics]. In: Samuil B. Bernshtejn, Viktor I. Borkovskij, Nikita I. Tolstoj, Oleg N. Trubachëv, and TatianaV. Popova (eds.), VII meždunarodnyj sŭjezd slavistov. Varshava [VIIth International Congress of Slavists. Warsaw]. Moscow: Nauka, 294−313. Vaillant, André 1958 Grammaire comparée des langues slaves. Vol. II. Lyon: IAC. Vaillant, André 1966 Grammaire comparée des langues slaves. Vol. III. Lyon: IAC. Vasmer (see Fasmer) de Vries, Jan 1977 Altnordisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Leiden: Brill. Watkins, Calvert 1969 Indogermanische Grammatik III: Formenlehre. Part One: Geschichte der Indogermanischen Verbalflexion. Heidelberg: Winter. Zinkevičius, Zigmas 1966 Lietuvių dialectologija [Lithuanian dialectology]. Vilnius: Mintis. Zinkevičius, Zigmas 1996 The History of the Lithuanian Language. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla.

Bill J. Darden, Estes Park, Co (USA)

117. The syntax of Balto-Slavic 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Introductory remarks Argument marking and case syntax Other aspects of case syntax Structure of the noun phrase The verb

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-038

6. 7. 8. 9.

Subordinate clauses Word order Source texts References

117. The syntax of Balto-Slavic

2001

1. Introductory remarks From the start of the discussion on Balto-Slavic unity, lists of common features testifying to close ties between the two branches have included syntactic and morphosyntactic features such as the predicative instrumental and the genitive of negation. Also from the start, opponents of the idea have pointed to areal links (e.g. to Finnic) as a factor contributing to parallel development in Baltic and Slavic. However strong the evidence of phonological and morphological convergences between Slavic and Baltic might be, we would probably prefer nowadays to see the syntactic convergences as a problem of areal rather than of historical-comparative linguistics. Areal isoglosses may also cut across the Balto-Slavic domain: Baltic shares a number of areal features with Finnic which oppose it to Slavic; and a number of characteristic Slavic features, such as the replacement of animate adnominal genitives with possessive adjectives, have no counterpart in Baltic. In what follows, I will briefly discuss a number of interesting convergences and divergences between the two branches, pointing out possible areal links, but without addressing the issue of Balto-Slavic “unity”, which should center around phonology, morphology, and the lexicon.

2. Argument marking and case syntax 2.1. Alignment With regard to argument marking, both Baltic and Slavic show consistent nominativeaccusative alignment, but with numerous constructions diverging from the canonical case marking pattern. This seems to be connected with the fact that both Baltic and Slavic have retained rich case systems, which leads to arguments in the zone of lower semantic transitivity being encoded by semantic cases rather than with the canonical nominative and accusative. Dative experiencers often come close to the status of quasi-subjects, as in OLith. gayli mi tos mines ChB Math 15.32 ‘I:DAT have compassion on the multitude:GEN’, OLatv. tad eeschehlojahs tam Kungam tha Kalpa ‘then the master:DAT took pity on his servant:GEN’ GlB Mt 18.27, OCS izbyvaetъ imъ chlěba ‘they:DAT have enough bread:GEN’, OPol. zzalilo szø gemu, isze czlowyeka vczynyl ‘it repented Him:DAT that He had made man’ BZ Gen. 6.6. In both Slavic and Baltic, such constructions can be found from the earliest texts and they have remained stable, with no notable tendency to transform them into canonical nominative-accusative patterns as in English, cf. Lith. man pagailo to vaiko, Latv. man kļuva žēl tā puiša ‘I:DAT felt sorry for the boy:GEN’ etc. A factor contributing to this situation is that both Baltic and Slavic have developed a wide range of non-verbal predicators − neuter adjectival forms, adverbs, nouns, and words of unclear categorial nature − combining with experiencer datives, less often accusatives, to form a characteristic clause-type in which one is tempted to interpret the dative (accusative) as an oblique subject. These are present from the earliest texts and have remained a constant feature in both branches, e.g. ORuss. žalь mi svojeja o[čь]ciny ‘I:DAT feel sorry for my patrimony:GEN’, OLith. reykia jumus tu wisu dayktu ‘you:DAT need all these things:GEN’ ChB Mt 6.32 (reikia is a word of unclear origin,

2002

XVIII. Balto-Slavic

subsequently transformed into an impersonal modal verb reikėti); modern Russ. mne bol’no ‘I:DAT feel pain’, Lith. man jo gaila ‘I:DAT feel sorry for him:GEN’.

2.2. Possessive constructions In both Baltic and Slavic, the oldest construction for predicative possession was ‘be’ with the dative. In most Slavic languages and in Lithuanian, it was superseded by ‘have’, but Latvian has retained the original construction whereas Russian has developed the local construction u menja est’ ‘(sth.) is with me’, perhaps under adstratal (Uralic?) influence. ‘Be’ with the dative is found in Old Church Slavic alongside iměti ‘have’, the distribution being apparently regulated by the Greek original as in ne bě ima čęda οὐκ ἦν αὐτοῖς τέκνον lit. ‘there was no child to them:DAT’ Lk 1.7, as against iže imě běsy otъ lětъ mъnogъ ἔχων δαιμόνια καὶ χρόνῳ ἱκανῷ ‘who had devils for a long time’ Lk. 8.27. Both Lithuanian and the modern Slavic languages have sporadically retained the original construction ‘be’ + dative in special uses, cf. Russ. emu dvadcat’ let, Lith. jam dvidešimt metų ‘he:DAT is twenty years old’ (lit. ‘has twenty years’). That the construction ‘be’ with the dative is the oldest Baltic and Slavic construction can be seen from the fact that it provided the source for a number of other constructions also of considerable age, notably the necessitive modal construction ‘be’ + DAT expanded with an infinitive of purpose, where we have the typologically very common shift from possession to necessity: OCS ašte mi jestь sъ tobojǫ umrěti ἐάν με δέῃ συναποθανεῖν σοι ‘if I must die with thee’, něstь bylo byti životu tomu ἔδει μὴ πραχθῆναι ζῷον ‘this life was not to be’. OLith. mumus ... buwa amßinai mirti ‘we would have had to die for ever’ BrP I 425.3, iem bus mirti ‘he will have to die’ BrB Ez. 17.16. In Slavic as well as in Lithuanian, these constructions have undergone a structural shift: whereas the original construction contained a syntactic position for the verb ‘be’, which could appear in different tense and mood forms, its position has been lost, and what is left is a predicative infinitive, without variation in tense and mood: cf. Russian byt’ bede ‘there’s bound to be trouble’, Lithuanian ne tau kalbėti ‘it’s not for you to speak’. The same construction, but with the meaning of possibility, has led to the rise of lexicalized predicative infinitives, especially from verbs of perception. The object (originally the subject of ‘be’) must originally have been in the nominative, but Slavic and Baltic texts have the accusative from the start, cf. OCS otъ sego … viděti estъ silǫ xristosovǫ ‘from this Christ’s power:ACC can be seen’ Supr. 73a, 15−16; OLith. skidągu teypag buwo regiet arba rahotynę ‘was there a shield or a spear seen?’ ChB Jud. 5.8. Lithuanian dialects, however, also have a nominative: jau dugnas matyt ‘the bottom:NOM can already be seen’ (Ambrazas 2006: 333), which can be viewed in the light of areal links with Finnic, where the object of an infinitive is in the nominative if there is no nominative subject.

3. Other aspects of case syntax 3.1. General remarks Baltic and Slavic case syntax presents a general similarity, as both branches have largely resisted tendencies toward reduction of the case system, but there are many divergences

117. The syntax of Balto-Slavic

2003

in detail. Of the IE cases, only the genitive and the ablative coalesced, leading to the rise of an ablatival genitive manifesting itself, e.g., in the case governance of verbs of fearing and avoiding, such as OCS bojati sę, Lith. bijoti ‘fear’ + GEN. The details differ: only Slavic has the genitive for the standard of comparison (Russian deševle gribov ‘cheaper than mushrooms, very cheap’); the Baltic genitive of agent is not an old ablative but was originally adnominal, cf. below. To what extent the coalescence of ablative and genitive contributed to the expansion of the partitive genitive and the genitive of negation is hard to establish. The instrumental shows a common feature: the spectacular expansion of the predicative use, on which below. The instrumental of agent (OCS roždenychъ ženami ἐν γεννητοῖς γυναικῶν ‘among those borne by women:INS’ Lk 7:28) is only Slavic. Baltic has, instead, introduced a genitive of agent originating as a possessive genitive, as in Latv. svešu ļaužu bildināmas ‘asked in marriage by strangers:GEN’ (Endzelin 1923: 416). The locative has survived in Baltic and Slavic, but in Slavic it has lost the character of a local case and is now always governed by (not necessarily local) prepositions. In Baltic, on the other hand, its local character has been retained, though it was strengthened by accretion of postpositions: original locative + *-en yields an inessive: *namie-j-en > name ‘in the house’, locative + -pi yields an adessive: Jonie-pi ‘at John’s, with John’. Analogous lative cases − inessive and allative − were created on the basis of the accusative and genitive respectively. Among these cases, the inessive is the only one extant in all Baltic dialects; it is still a purely local case that does not combine with prepositions. In Latvian, it also serves as a lative case (iet skolā ‘go to school’); the causes of this development are not clear. Generally speaking, the similarities between Baltic and Slavic case syntax rest on common retention of features of IE case syntax, with the notable exception of the predicative instrumental and the partitive genitive together with its offshoot, the genitive of negation.

3.2. The predicative instrumental The expansion of the predicative instrumental is easier to follow in the Slavic languages as their written tradition is older. Weakly represented in Old Church Slavic, its use increases in the separate Slavic languages to become highly frequent in East and West Slavic. In Lithuanian, the predicative instrumental is certainly indigenous, but it has considerably expanded its use under Slavic influence. Latvian has lost the instrumental as a separate case but has retained the tendency to use special marking (prepositional phrases with par) in cases of “time instability”, i.e., with reference to temporary states or changes in state; as Stassen (2001) observes, the use of special case forms for such marked types of predicate nominals seems to be an areal feature also seen in a number of Uralic languages. Two cases of the use of the predicative instrumental can be distinguished: (i) a semantically motivated use, often associated with temporal instability, but also with a divergence between the predicated state and the basic, true or permanent state of the subject (object); and (ii) a syntactically motivated use, in syntactic contexts where there is no readily accessible agreement controller, especially in infinitival constructions.

2004

XVIII. Balto-Slavic

In Old Church Slavic, the predicate instrumental was still virtually nonexistent − it originates in adverbial constructions meaning ‘in the shape of’, as in blǫdnyimъ jemu napade běsomъ ‘attacked him in the shape of a malicious devil’ Supr. 127a.5−6, whence it extends to secondary (depictive) predicates, as in roždьšjǫjǫ tę děvojǫ ‘who gave birth to thee as a virgin (being a virgin)’ Euch. Sin. 86,26. Thence it shifts, in younger times, to the function of primary predicate nominal, which is now its principal function. The initial phase of development seems to have been parallel in Baltic, cf. OLith. sedeio ... pas kielį ubagu melsdams BrB Mk 10.46 ‘sat by the side of the road begging (lit. as a poor man begging)’, Latvian kalpu gāja ‘I went (served) as a farmhand’; this was probably an indigenous development in Baltic. But contacts with Slavic have certainly contributed to the spread of the instrumental as a case for marking (primary) predicate nominals. In finite sentences, the frequency of instrumentals in older Lithuanian texts seems to reflect Polish influence and their authenticity is doubtful, cf. ó Kain buwo Hukiniku ChB Gen. 4.2 ‘but Cain was a tiller of ground:INS’. In non-finite contexts (with infinitives), the instrumental has become a default agreement case in the living language as well. Old Lithuanian has the dative only when the implicit subject of the infinitive is controlled by a dative in the main clause, e.g., prisake mums mielaschirdingiems buti ‘commanded us:DAT to be merciful:DAT’ BrP II 253,4 (which means that the dative was reinterpreted as agreeing with the main clause complement) while the instrumental is used elsewhere, as in liepe ios linksmais buti ‘bade them (ACC) be cheerful (INS)’ BrP II 8,15. In Latvian, where the instrumental has disappeared as a separate case, the function of the predicative instrumental has been taken over by the preposition par, but only in the “time instability” use, not in the function of default agreement form, where the dative has been retained.

3.3. The partitive genitive The partitive genitive is well attested in both branches, possibly reinforced by the coalescence of the genitive and the ablative, which is a frequent source for partitives. The genitive of negation, to be discussed below, is a subtype of the partitive genitive. There are striking similarities between the Balto-Slavic partitive genitive and the Balto-Finnic partitive, and Larsson (1983) even ascribes the rise of a partitive case in Finnic to Baltic influence. Several basic uses coincide: the Balto-Slavic partitive and the Balto-Finnic partitive are used to mark intransitive subjects and transitive objects for indefinite bounded quantity (OCS prijętъ chlěba ‘took bread’ Jn 21.13 Mar.; OLith. dotu tau giwoja wandenia ChB Jn 4.10 ‘would have given thee living water’) and negation (OCS nikъtože ne možaaše otъvěštati emu slovese Mt 22.46 Mar., OLith Jr negałejo jam niekas atsakit neÿ zodzia ChB ibid. ‘no man was able to answer him a word’); both language groups also use their partitive cases for superficial affectedness or incomplete action, and for short duration of the result of the action, cf. Finnish anna kirvestä ‘hand me an axe:PART (for a while)’, Lith. duok peilio, Polish daj noża ‘lend me a knife:GEN (for a while)’, Finnish avasi ikkunaa ‘slightly opened the window:PART’, Polish uchylił okna ‘(slightly) opened the window:GEN’ etc. There are also differences between Finnic and Balto-Slavic: in Finnic, the partitive marks incremental quantification of the object with imperfective telic verbs, while the partitive genitive is never used in this function in

117. The syntax of Balto-Slavic

2005

Baltic and Slavic; and in generic meaning the partitive genitive is impossible in Baltic and Slavic while Finnic has the partitive here, e.g., Finnish juo olutta (PART) ‘drinks beer / is drinking beer’ vs. Polish pije piwo (ACC) ‘id.’. This probably rests on differences in markedness: in Finnic, the accusative marks total affectedness and the partitive covers the remaining types of quantification, which are quite heterogeneous; in Baltic and Slavic, the partitive genitive marks vague quantification and is incompatible with generic meaning and incremental quantification; these functions are taken over by the accusative, which also marks quantized objects. Baltic and Slavic are further differentiated in that Slavic allows this vague quantification only with perfective verbs, probably a consequence of the grammaticalization of aspect in Slavic. Seržant (2014) speculates that, against a general IE background, both Baltic and Slavic have innovated in making the partitive genitive, originally a marker of nominal quantification, into a VP quantifier, denoting also quantification of the action.

3.4. The genitive of negation The genitive of negation, also figuring in Brugmann’s list of Balto-Slavic features, is a subtype of the partitive genitive, but has emancipated itself from it in both Baltic and Slavic. Originally the genitive of negation occurred only within the scope of the partitive genitive, e.g., it was restricted to unbounded noun phrases: OCS ne bě imъ města vъ obitěli οὐκ ἦν αὐτοῖς τόπος ἐν τῷ καταλύματι ‘there was no room for them in the inn’ is parallel to Gothic ni was im rumis in stada þamma Lk 2.7, but in both Baltic and Slavic, in accordance with Finnic, this genitive has spread to bounded and definite objects, as in OCS brъvъna eže estъ vъ ocě tvoemь ne čjueši ‘thou dost not see the beam in thine own eye’ Mt 7.5. Consistent use of the genitive for the objects of negated verbs is noted in two languages of the Circum-Baltic area: Polish and Lithuanian. Latvian and the rest of Slavic have inconsistent use of this genitive, the accusative being often used for highly individuated (bounded and definite) objects. In recent times, German influence seems to have contributed to the almost complete demise of the genitive of negation in Latvian and Czech. Latvian does, however, retain the genitive with the negated substantive verb: tēva nav mājās ‘father:GEN is not at home’.

4. Structure of the noun phrase 4.1. Definiteness marking A remarkable common innovation of Baltic and Slavic is the rise of definite adjectives, e.g. the adjectival marking of the definiteness of the noun phrase through the accretion of the anaphoric prounoun IE *ye/o- to the adjective. This accretion occurred independently in Baltic and Slavic, as witnessed not only by phonetic facts (Lith. geràs-is and Sl dobrъ-jь show the word-final sound changes characteristic of the separate branches internally before the suffixed pronoun) but also by Old Lithuanian constructions where the pronoun is added to case forms of nouns lacking agreement with it, mostly locatives as in sîłomis szirdiięiomis DP 62631 ‘with the powers of the heart’ (from loc. širdyje

2006

XVIII. Balto-Slavic

‘in the heart’), showing that the pronoun had retained its syntactic autonomy and could act as a determiner head making definite descriptions out of adjectivals and nominal case forms. Old Lithuanian also retains traces of the original status of the pronoun as a phrasal clitic: in forms like wisi sugiespausti PK 65 (i.e. su-jie-spausti, modern Lith. suspaustíe-ji) ‘all the oppressed ones’, the original clitic is inserted between the preverb and the verbal stem, testifying to the former autonomy of the preverb. In Slavic and Latvian, the accretion of the pronoun to the adjective is already completed at the stage of the oldest texts, and the degree of phonological integration is much greater, pointing to an earlier date of accretion. In Slavic, the definite forms tend to oust the indefinite ones (in East Slavic the indefinite forms have survived only in predicative position), and only South Slavic has residually retained a definiteness opposition. In Lithuanian, the definite forms are becoming increasingly restricted to set phrases, where they express generic definiteness (rudoji lapė ‘the red fox’). The most consistent use of definite adjectives can be observed in Latvian.

4.2. Syntax of quantifiers Both Baltic and Slavic have morphosyntactically complex quantifier phrases, with several syntactic patterns for different numerals. Numerals from 5 upward in Slavic and from 9 upward in Baltic are basically nouns, cf. OCS sedmь tǫ chlěbъ ‘the:ACC.SG.F seven:ACC.SG loaves:GEN.PL’, OLith atmayne ałgą mano deßimti kartu ChB Gen. 31.7 ‘changed my wages ten:ACC.SG times:GEN.PL’; but in the course of their history a split arises whereby the numeral governs a genitive only when the noun phrase has the value of a nominative or accusative but is unable to govern case (and usually agrees with the noun) elsewhere, cf. Russian desjat’ devoček ‘ten little girls:GEN’ but desjati devočkam ‘to ten girls:DAT’, Latvian desmit gadu ‘ten years:GEN’ but pēc desmit gadiem ‘after ten years:DAT’. This pattern developed separately in Baltic and Slavic but closely resembles the Finnic pattern.

5. The verb 5.1. The middle voice Baltic and East Slavic participate in a process of much wider scope consisting of the replacement of the middle voice with reflexive constructions. An undifferentiated category combining reflexive and middle meanings is retained, e.g., in Polish, cf. otworzyć się ‘open (intr.)’ and widzieć się ‘see oneself’. Within Balto-Slavic, there is an area comprising Lithuanian and Latvian and the East Slavic languages where the middle voice was differentiated from reflexive constructions through accretion of the reflexive pronoun to the verb. Lithuanian distinguishes a middle voice matyti-s ‘see each other, meet; be visible’ from a properly reflexive matyti save ‘see oneself’. In Lithuanian (and residually in Latvian), the reflexive enclitic has become an affix, but it can still appear in two different positions, viz. word-finally, as in renka-si ‘gather’, or inserted between a preverb and the verbal root, as in su-si-rinko ‘gathered’, which has led the Lithuanian

117. The syntax of Balto-Slavic

2007

reflexive marker to be described as a Wackernagel affix (Nevis and Joseph 1993). Old Prussian seems not to have shared in this process, cf. OP audāst sien 518−9 ‘geschieht [happens]’ alongside turri sien ... audāt 5722−23 ‘soll... geschehen [should happen]’, where sien is apparently an enclitic (as against Lith. nu-si-duoti ‘id.’). As this accretion of the reflexive clitic to the verb has also occurred in Scandinavian, one might speculate to what extent this might be an areally determined feature. Semantically the development of the reflexive has proceeded at an uneven pace: in Slavic, it has evolved into a mediopassive from the earliest texts onwards, e.g., prosite i dastъ sę vamъ … tlъcěte i otvrъzetъ sę vamъ ‘Ask and it will be given to you ... knock and it will be opened for you’ Mt 7.7. Mar. In Baltic, the development has been much slower: reflexives have retained their middle voice functions and have usually not achieved passive function.

5.2. Passives In Slavic, the reflexive passive (OCS dastъ sę vamъ ‘it will be given to you’) is complemented by a participial passive (zakonъ Mosěomь danъ bystъ ‘the Law was given by Moses’ Jn 1.17). Baltic has only the latter. In Old Lithuanian and Old Latvian, all examples of agent phrases with passives are calques from German or Polish, e. g. Zokonas nes dotas ira per Mayʒießiu ‘the Law was given by (lit. ‘through’, echoing Pol. przez) Moses’ ChB Jn 1.17. In the living languages, agent phrases arose from adnominal possessive genitives, and in Latvian they have remained exclusively adnominal, e.g. mātes doti lakatiņi ‘kerchiefs given by mother:GEN’ (as in Finnic, cf. Finn. dial. hiiren syötyä leipää ‘bread eaten by a mouse’, lit. ‘mouse:GEN eaten bread’), while in Lithuanian they have been extended to sentential passives.

5.3. Compound tenses Compound tenses expressing anteriority are based on the model ‘be’ + past active participle (a model also used by Finnic), though the participles used for this purpose are different: Slavic uses its participle in -l- for this purpose: OCS zgyblъ bě i obrěte sę ἀπολωλὼς [ἦν] καὶ εὑρέθη ‘had been lost and was found’. Baltic, on the other hand, uses the participle in *-wes-/-wos-/-us-, cf. OLith. kada tu mana Szmones busi isch Egypto ischwedens BrB Ex. 3.12 ‘when you will have brought forth my people from Egypt’, OLatv ka tas Kungs leelu Schehlastibu pee tahs darrijis bija ‘how the Lord has showed great mercy upon her’ GlB Lk 1.58. Similarly OP isrankīuns ast ‘has redeemed’ 4314.

5.4. Irrealis The irrealis (also called conditional, optative, etc.) seems to be, in both Baltic and Slavic, an offshoot from the system of relative tenses, viz. a pluperfect. In Slavic, we have the participle in -l- combined, in part of the dialects, with an aorist of the auxiliary byti,

2008

XVIII. Balto-Slavic

and, in part of the dialects underlying OCS, a special and unexplained form bimь: by / bi dělalŭ. For OLith., Stang (1957) has pointed out that the oldest texts preserve traces of an analogous irrealis consisting of the auxiliary ‘be’ and an active participle: jei-b negimęs ‘if he had not been born’, probably from a form like *gimęs bi, where bi was enclitic and could attach to the subordinator, yielding OLith. jei-b (and probably also High Latvian ka-b). This is exactly parallel to developments in Slavic, where we find irrealis subordinators like Polish gdy-by przyszedł ‘if he came/had come’ and Russ. čtoby prišel ‘in order that he should come’. In Baltic, the irrealis was subsequently renewed on the basis of the supine, yielding forms like eitum-bime ‘we would go’ instead of a putative *ėję bime, in a development outlined by Stang (1958). The form of the auxiliary in the Baltic irrealis is traditionally explained as an old optative, but Smoczyński (1999) calls this into doubt and argues it is an old preterite. If he is right, the Baltic irrealis was originally a pluperfect, an explanation also proposed for Slavic by Sičinava (2004).

6. Subordinate clauses 6.1. Clauses with the supine The supine combines with a genitive in Baltic and Slavic, cf. OCS pride ... vidětъ groba Mt 28.1 ‘she came ... to see the sepulchre:GEN’, OLith isch tę ateis suditu giwu ir numirusiu ‘thence he will come to judge the living:GEN and the dead:GEN’ VE 18.8. In Slavic, the construction has disappeared even in those languages where the supine has survived. In Baltic, on the other hand, this genitive has not gone out of use. Though in most Lithuanian and Latvian dialects the supine has fallen into disuse, the genitive has been carried over to the infinitive that has replaced it: the object of an infinitive with a verb of motion may optionally be in the genitive, as in ko ius ischeiote ... regeti? Er nendres nůg weya schwilůienczios? ZEE 6.5 ‘What:GEN did you go forth to see? A reed:GEN shaken by the wind?’. In Lithuanian (and formerly in Latvian), the genitive is also used to signify the purpose of motion in constructions without an infinitive, e.g. išėjo maisto (pirkti) ‘went out (to buy) food’, but whether this genitive was carried over from constructions with the supine or infinitive or whether it is an independent development is not clear.

6.2. Participial constructions Both Baltic and Slavic have the dative absolute. It is now defunct in Slavic, and Old Church Slavic has it mostly when the Greek original has an absolute genitive, as in pride za utra ešte sǫšti tъmě ἔρχεται πρωῒ σκοτίας ἔτι οὔσης ‘came early when it was yet dark’ Jn. 20.1 Zogr., utru že abie byvъšju πρωΐας δὲ ἤδη γενομένης ‘as soon as the morning had come’ Jn. 21.4 Mar. The Slavic dative absolute is often suspected to be an imitation of Greek, but the Baltic languages attest to its authenticity. It is present from the oldest texts without dependence on the originals, cf. OLith. bet uzejus saułey, nudegie ‘but the sun:DAT having risen:GERUND, it was scorched’ ChB Mk4.6; OLatv. kad nu wiņśch wiśśus śawus Wahrdus teem Ļaudim dsirdoht bija pabeidsis

117. The syntax of Balto-Slavic

2009

‘when he had ended all his sayings in the audience of the people’, lit. ‘the people:DAT hearing:GERUND’ GlB Lk 7.1 (with different orders of gerund and dative in each language). The construction has remained fully alive in modern Baltic: Lith. man girdint ‘in my hearing’, lit. ‘me:DAT hearing’, Latv. acīm redzot ‘visibly’, lit. ‘the eyes:DAT seeing’.

6.3. Infinitival clauses The Balto-Slavic dativus cum infinitivo, a counterpart to the Greek and Latin accusativus cum infinitivo, has been an object of controversy since Miklosich (1883: 619 ff.). This is mainly because most of its uses in OCS are obvious imitations of the Greek, cf. glagoljušte vъskrěšeniju ne byti ἀντιλέγοντες ἀνάστασιν μὴ εἶναι ‘(the Sadducees) who affirm there to be no resurrection:DAT’ Lk 20.27, neplodvi li ne věruješi roditi τὴν στεῖραν ἀπιστεῖς γεννῆσαι ‘do you disbelieve that a barren woman:DAT could give birth?’ etc. (Miklosich 1883: 916). Yet it was probably only the extension of the construction beyond its proper scope that was dependent on Greek originals. Throughout the history of the Baltic and Slavic languages, we find occasional instances of reanalysis where a dative originating as a matrix clause complement is reinterpreted as an infinitival clause subject, e.g. OPol. nye gest dobrze czlowyeku bicz samemu ‘it is not good for man to be alone’ BZ Gen. 2.18. (reflecting non est bonum hominem esse solum), where the dative originates as a matrix clause complement (‘not good for man’) but is reanalysed as subject of the embedded clause (‘for man to be alone’). Neither in Baltic nor in Slavic have infinitival constructions with overt datival subjects been grammaticalized to the same extent as in English (where infinitival clauses regularly have for-PP subjects), but this reanalysis occurs in a sporadic fashion, cf. Polish miano sobie za nic uczyć się języka ojczystego urodzonym Polakom ‘it was held to be a thing of no consequence for true-born Poles to learn their native tongue’ (18th c., Pisarkowa 1984: 32); modern Latvian Tagad jau tas ir modē − katram blēdim izlikties par revolucionāru ‘nowadays it’s fashionable for every scoundrel to pose as a revolutionary’. Though an overt dative subject appears rarely, the predicate nominal with an infinitive agrees with a dative subject in older stages of Baltic and Slavic. Latvian still has this dative agreement − it is not controlled by any matrix clause noun, cf. un wiņśch pawehleja teem kristiteem tapt ‘he ordered them:DAT to be christened:DAT’ GlB Act 10.48 but also kas aiskawe manni kristitam tapt? ‘who prevents me:ACC from being christened:DAT?’ GlB Act 8.36. The same pattern is found in older Slavic texts, cf. ORuss. ona že učaše syna svoego byti xristijanu ‘but she taught her son:ACC to be a Christian:DAT’ (Borkovskij 1978: 138). Slavic has since replaced the dative with the instrumental, which has developed into a default agreement case in constructions without an easily accessible agreement controller, cf. modern Russian naučil ego byt’ nezavisimym ‘taught him to be independent’; the same development has taken place, probably under Slavic influence, in Lithuanian, cf. 3.2.

2010

XVIII. Balto-Slavic

6.4. Infinitival purpose clauses Both Slavic and Baltic have datives marking the subject or the object of an infinitive of purpose: Old Czech kúpichu pole pútníkóm hřésti ‘they bought a field to bury travelers’; OCS jakože se polje sъtvoreno bě konjemъ tešti ‘as this field had been created for horses to run on’. This construction, which has a parallel in Sanskrit, seems to consist of a double dative of purpose, the infinitive being also historically the dative of a verbal noun. This analysis is proferred by Ambrazas (2006: 319−320) against the attraction view advocated by Brugmann and others. Now defunct in Slavic, this construction is still fully alive in Lithuanian, but only residually retained in Latvian.

7. Word order Both Baltic and Slavic have free word order. Where strong tendencies are observed, they diverge: possessive genitives are overwhelmingly postposed in Slavic but anteposed in Baltic, the latter in agreement with Balto-Finnic (the partitive genitive, like the Finnic adnominal partitive, is postposed). Prepositions predominate in Slavic but postpositions were frequent in the prehistory of Baltic, as witnessed by the rise of new case forms from accretion of postpositions (see above); in Latvian, new noun-based adpositions are still predominantly postpositional. Slavic preverbs never host clitics (or affixes originating as clitics), which points to earlier integration with verbal forms compared with Baltic.

8. Source texts BrB BrP BZ ChB DP Euch. Sin. GlB

Bretke’s OLith. Bible Bretke’s OLith. Postilla Queen Sophia’s OPol. Bible Chyliński’s OLith. Bible Daukša’s OLith. Postilla OCS Euchologion Sinaiticum Glück’s OLatv. Bible, New Testament

Mar PK Supr VE ZEE Zogr

OCS Codex Marianus Pietkiewicz’s OLith. Catechism OCS Codex Suprasliensis Wilent’s OLith. Enchiridion Lazarus Sengstock’s OLith. Gospels and Epistles OCS Codex Zographensis

9. References Ambrazas, Vytautas 2006 Lietuvių kalbos istorinė sintaksė [Historical syntax of the Lithuanian language]. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Borkovskij, Viktor I. (ed.) 1978 Istoričeskaja grammatika russkogo jazyka. Sintaksis. Prostoe predloženie [Historical grammar of the Russian language. Syntax. The simple sentence]. Moscow: Nauka.

117. The syntax of Balto-Slavic

2011

Endzelin, Jan 1923 Lettische Grammatik. Heidelberg: Winter. Holvoet, Axel 2004 On the marking of predicate nominals in Baltic. In: Philip Baldi and Pietro Umberto Dini (eds.), Studies in Baltic and Indo-European Linguistics in Honor of William R. Schmalstieg. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 75−90. Holvoet, Axel 2010 Reanalysis or endemic ambiguity? Infinitival clauses with overt datival subjects in Slavonic and Baltic. In: Jasmina Grković-Major and Milorad Radovanović (eds.), Theory of Diachronic Linguistics and the Study of Slavic Languages. Belgrade: Srpska Akademija Nauka i Umetnosti, 265−278. Larsson, Lars-Gunnar 1983 Studien zum Partitivgebrauch in den Ostseefinnischen Sprachen. (Studia Uralica et Altaica Upsaliensia 15). Uppsala: University of Uppsala Press. Miklosich, Franz 1883 Vergleichende Grammatik der slavischen Sprachen. Vierter Band: Syntax. Vienna: Braunmüller. Nevis, Joel and Brian Joseph 1993 Wackernagel affixes: Evidence from Balto-Slavic. Yearbook of Morphology 1992: 93− 111. Pisarkowa, Krystyna 1984 Historia składni języka polskiego [A history of Polish syntax]. Wrocław: Ossolineum. Seržant, Ilya A. 2014 The independent partitive genitive in Lithuanian. In: Axel Holvoet and Nicole Nau (eds.), Grammatical Relations and Their Non-Canonical Encoding in Baltic. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 257−299. Sičinava, Dmitrij V. 2004 K probleme proischoždenija slavjanskogo uslovnogo naklonenija [On the problem of the origin of the Slavic conditional mood]. In: Jurij A. Lander, Vladimir A. Plungjan, and Anna J. Urmančieva (eds.), Irrealis i irreal’nost’. Moscow: Gnosis, 292−312. Smoczyński, Wojciech 1999 Geneza starolitewskiego conditionalis na -biau, -bei-, -bi- [On the origin of the Old Lithuanian conditional in -biau, -bei-, -bi-]. Acta Baltico-Slavica 24: 13−18. Stang, Christian S. 1958 Die litauische Konjunktion jeib und der lit.-lett. Optativ. Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap 18: 348−356. Stassen, Leon 2001 Non-verbal predication in the Circum-Baltic languages. In: Östen Dahl and Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds.), Circum-Baltic Languages. Vol. 2: Grammar and Typology. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 569−590.

Axel Holvoet, Vilnius (Lithuania)

2012

XVIII. Balto-Slavic

118. The lexicon of Balto-Slavic 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Introductory remarks The Balto-Slavic-Germanic context Balto-Slavic lexical isoglosses Old and new Balto-Slavic dictionaries An areal approach

6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

A thematic approach Onomastics Phraseology Final remarks References

1. Introductory remarks On the basis of the many common features of the Baltic and Slavic languages, an intermediate linguistic stage (Zwischenursprache) has been posited between the beginning of the Indo-European dispersion and the 2nd millennium BCE. The linguistic relationship between Slavic and Baltic (the so-called Balto-Slavic question) is notoriously one of the most discussed in all of Indo-European comparative linguistics, and a matter which is of course closely related to the question of the Slavic-Baltic-Germanic linguistic relationships (cf. 2). During the prescientific period of linguistics (the so-called Palaeocomparativism), prior to the 19th century, the Baltic languages were only sporadically considered to be an autonomous linguistic family, and the most frequent question asked concerned the linguistic group to which they belonged. Thus, on the one hand, authors like Aenea Sylvius Piccolomini [1405−1464] and his followers considered them simply as Slavic (Dini 2010: 50−144, 2014a: 23−30), on the other hand, the so-called Philoglotts (Conradus Gessnerus [1516−1565], Angelo Rocca [1545−1620], Hieronymus Megiser [1554/5−1619]) and many others up to the time of Lorenzo Hervás y Panduro [1735−1809] assigned them to the Illyrian group of languages (Dini 1997, 2010: 571−618, 2014a: 31−44). With the advent of Indo-European comparative linguistics, the main question was whether there existed a Balto-Slavic proto-language and how to understand it (Lötzsch 1986, 1990; Petit 2004). During the last two centuries, as a consequence of the different interpretations and evaluation of the linguistic facts, some explanatory models have been proposed. The best known are those of Schleicher (1861), Meillet (1908), Rozwadowski (1912), Endzelīns (1952), Ivanov and Toporov (1961), and Schmid (1978). Details are available in the histories of the question (Safarewicz 1945; Szemerényi 1948; Toporov 1958ab, 1962; Bogoljubova and Jakubaitis 1959; Meriggi 1965; Karaliūnas 1968; Dini 2014b: 204−216), in the huge number of specific contributions on this subject (e.g. Endzelīns 1911; Brückner 1914; Otrębski 1949, 1954; Gornung 1959; Devoto 1962: 352−359; Shevelov 1964: 613−614; Birnbaum 1970, 1975: 223−228 and 315−338; Schmid 1976a; Martynov 1982; Trubačëv 1982; Birnbaum and Merrill 1983: 61−64; Inoue 1986; Schenker 1995: 70 f.; Hock 2004, 2005, 2006; Anikin 2014), and in specialized bibliographies (e.g. Szemerényi 1957; Hood 1967; Zav’jalova and Civ’jan 2014).

2. The Balto-Slavic-Germanic context Several common features of Baltic, Slavic, and Germanic had already been observed by the Neogrammarians (Jacob Grimm, August Leskien, Johann Caspar Zeuss, and August https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-039

118. The lexicon of Balto-Slavic

2013

Schleicher). In nominal morphology, the best known are the -m- ending for Dat. and Instr. pl. (Lith. vilk-áms [< OLith. -amus] ~ OSl. vlьk-omъ ~ Goth. wulf-am ‘to wolves’; for further development cf. Schmalstieg 2003) or the creation of a double flexion of adjectives and the formation of the numerals (‘1000’: OP tūsimtons, Lith. tūkstantis, Lat. tūkstotis ~ Goth. Þūsundi ~ OSl. tysęšta or tysǫšta; ‘11’ and ‘12’: Lith. vienúo-lika, dvýlika ~ Goth. ain-lif, twa-lif). After a relatively long period of unpopularity as a result of Hirt’s (1892) negative criticism and by the importance given to von Bradke’s centum vs. satem criterion, the idea of a close Baltic-Slavic-Germanic (and also only Baltic-Germanic) relationship has recently regained importance (Schmid 1986). On the weight of hydronymy for the Balto-Slavic-Germanic question cf. Udolph (2005a, 2005b). Some wellknown examples of Balto-Slavic-Germanic lexical correspondences are the following: − ‘beer’ − Blt.: OP [E 392 ‘Mete’] Alu, Lith. alùs ‘beer’, Latv. alus ≈ Sl.: OCS olъ, Russ. dial. olovina ‘mead’ ≈ Germ.: OIc. ol ‘beer’, Engl. ale (cf. LEW 8 f., LEV I: 68). − ‘friend’ − Blt.: Lith. draũgas ‘friend’, Latv. draugs ≈ Sl.: OCS drugъ, ORuss. družina ‘army’ ≈ Germ.: Goth. ga-draúhts ‘soldier’, OIc. drótt ‘army’ (cf. BSW 59, LEW 102, ÈSRJa I: 543, GED 94). − ‘rye’ − Blt.: OP [E 258 ‘Rocke’] rugis, Lith. rugys ‘rye’ ≈ Sl.: Russ. rožь ~ Germ.: OHG roggo (cf. BSW 246, LEW 745 f., ÈSRJa III: 493 f.). − ‘bread’ − Blt.: Lith. kliẽpas ‘loaf of bread’, Latv. klaips ≈ Sl.: OCS chlěbъ, Russ. chleb, Pol. chleb ≈ Germ.: Goth. hlaifs, OIc. hleifr (cf. LEW 271, ÈSRJa IV: 241 f.; Otkupščikov 1973; differently in GED 186). − ‘govern, rule’ − Blt.: Lith. valdýti, Latv. valdīt ≈ Sl.: OCS vladǫ / vlasti ≈ Germ.: Goth. waldan ‘rule a household’ (cf. BSW 340, LEW 1188 f., ÈSRJa I: 344). There are a number of studies, especially of the Balto-Slavic-Germanic lexicon. Stang (1972) compiled 68 Baltic-Slavic-Germanic lexical isoglosses. Nepokupnij (1989) limited the exclusive isoglosses to 25. Both Nepokupnij and Stang studied groups of words in specific semantic fields and hypothesized that they emerged at a time when the ancestors of Balts, Slavs, and Germanic peoples lived close to each other and the differences among their languages were of a dialectal nature. According to Mažiulis (1994), close ethnic contacts between Balts, Slavs, and Germanic peoples existed probably even in the 3 rd millennium BCE, when they divided into two groups: the first (allegedly, BaltoSlavs) moved to the northeast, and the second (Germanic peoples) to the northwest.

3. Balto-Slavic lexical isoglosses The affinity between Baltic and Slavic has always been most evident in the lexicon. The lexical relationships between Lithuanian and Slavic were noticed already during the epoch of linguistic Palaeocomparativism, and also at the beginning of Indo-European Comparative Linguistics. The lexical aspect has been the most frequently adopted criterion to determine the possibility of an intermediate Balto-Slavic proto-language (cf. Brückner 1914). Endzelīns (1911: 192−200) emphasized especially the importance of the lexicon. Interestingly enough, the similarities in the lexicon have been recognized even by scholars (e. g. Machek 1934 or Trubačëv 1966) who were not inclined to accept a Balto-

2014

XVIII. Balto-Slavic

Slavic subgroup. The lexicon is, however, notoriously unreliable in supporting kinship relations (cf. Toporov 1962: 15) although Mańczak (1990) thinks differently, and Poljakov (1995: 30) partially agrees with him. In considering Balto-Slavic lexical correspondences, the adequacy of the proposed comparisons is of prime importance. Those correspondences which can effectively be traced back to the Balto-Slavic lexicon are innovations from the prehistoric epoch, common to the two language groups. However, the number of lexical isoglosses increased significantly in the historical period, so for a preliminary diachronic definition at least three important features must be considered: (i) the action of the Baltic substratum on Slavic territory; (ii) the historical connection of the territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania with a large portion of Ukrainian, Russian, as well as Polish lands, which promoted extended contacts with pagan Lithuanian tribes; (iii) the reciprocal influence among neighboring peoples in border areas which produced typical border Baltisms distributed in a clearly defined area and exhibiting specific formal characteristics. In the present instance, however, only the common Baltic and Slavic innovations preceding the historical period must be considered. From this perspective, we can count over 1,000 words whose form and meaning is very close and no fewer than 200 common lemmas (cf. Sławski 1970; Sabaliauskas 1990).

3.1. Specimina The Balto-Slavic lexical stock, as established through a comparison of the vocabularies of both Baltic and Slavic languages, is often not exclusive. It has been determined that the words do not necessarily all belong to the same period. The Balto-Slavic lexical stock has been divided into some primary semantic fields (e.g. Sabaliauskas 1990: 112− 141). Here are several examples (cf. Dini 2014b: 216−220) with a brief commentary: 1. Body parts − ‘head’ − Blt.: Lith. galvà, Latv. galva, OP [E 68 ‘Houpt’] Galwo ≈ Sl.: OCS glava, Russ. golova, Pol. głowa, Bulg. glava. A connection with Arm. glux ‘head’ (< *gholu-kho-) has been proposed. The Balto-Slavic words are perhaps related to *gal- ‘naked’ (cf. BSW 77, LEW 131 f., ÈSRJa I: 424, LEV I: 284 f.). − ‘hand and arm’ − Blt.: Lith. rankà, Latv. roka, OP [Gr 21 ‘handt’] Rancko ≈ Sl.: OCS rǫka, Russ. ruka, Pol. ręka, Bulg. rъka; cf. Koleva-Zlateva (1994). Other explanations have been proposed (cf. BSW 237, LEW 697, ÈSRJa III: 515, LEV II: 128 f.). − ‘palm of the hand’ − Blt.: Lith. délnas, Latv. delna ≈ Sl.: OCS dlanь, Russ. ladónь (< dolonь), Bruss. dalònь, Ukr. dalónja, Pol. dłoń, Bulg. dlan. A connection within the Indo-European languages has been proposed (cf. BSW 51, LEW 87 f., ÈSRJa II: 448, LEV I: 208). − ‘finger’ − Blt.: Lith. pirštas, Latv. pirksts and pirsts, OP [E 115 ‘Vinger’] Pirsten ≈ Sl.: OCS prьstъ, Russ. perst, Ukr. perst; Pol. parst, Cz. and Slovak prst, Upper Sorb. porst; SCr. pȑst, Slov. pȓst, Bulg. prъst. There may be a formal connection with OInd. pṛṣṭhám ‘peak’, Avestan paršta- ‘back’ (cf. BSW 220, LEW 598, ÈSRJa III: 244, LEV II: 54; Machek 1934: 58−65).

118. The lexicon of Balto-Slavic

2015

2. Kinship terms − ‘uncle’ − Blt.: Lith. strùjus ‘uncle; old fellow’ ≈ Sl.: ORuss. strъi ‘uncle’, Russ. stroj, Pol. stryj, Bulg. striko. A connection with OIrish sruith ‘elder, venerable person’ has been proposed (cf. BSW 290, LEW 926, ÈSRJa III: 780). − ‘son-in-law’ − Blt.: Lith. žéntas, Latv. znots ≈ Sl.: OCS zętь ‘bridegroom’, Russ. zjatь ‘son-in-law’, Pol. zięć, Bulg. zet. The word is further related to Lat. nōtus ‘known’, Gr. γνωτός ‘relative’, and OInd. jñātíḥ (cf. BSW 370, LEW 1301, ÈSRJa II: 112, LEV II: 566). 3. Fauna − ‘crow’ − Blt.: Lith. várna, Latv. varna, OP [E 722 ‘Kro’] Warne ≈ Sl.: OCS vrana, Russ. voróna, Pol. wrona, Cz. vrána, Bulg. vranъ. A comparison with Toch. B wrauña ‘crow’ has been proposed (cf. BSW 343, LEW 1201, ÈSRJa I: 353, LEV II: 489). − ‘horn’ − Blt.: Lith. rãgas, Latv. rags, OP [E 705 ‘Horn’] Ragis ≈ Sl.: OCS rogъ, Russ. rog, Ukr. rig, Bruss. rog, Pol. rog, Cz. and Slovak roh; Upper Sorb. roh, Lower Sorb. rog; SCr. rôg, Slov. rôg, Bulg. rog (cf. BSW 235, LEW 684, ÈSRJa III: 489, LEV II: 99). 4. Flora − ‘berry’ − Blt.: Lith. úoga, Latv. oga ≈ Sl.: OCS agoda ‘fruit’, Russ. jagoda ‘berry’, Pol. jagoda. Connections with other languages, e.g. Goth. akran ‘fruit’, Welsh aeron ‘id.’ (cf. BSW 202, LEW 1165, ÈSRJa V: 545 f., LEV I: 634). − ‘lime’ − Blt.: Lith. líepa, Latv. liepa, OP [E 601 ‘Linde’] Lipe and place names Leypein, Leypiten ≈ Sl.: Russ. lipa; Pol. lipa, Bulg. lipa. There is a dubious parallel with Welsh llwyf ‘lime’ (cf. BSW 155, LEW 366, ÈSRJa II: 499, LEV I: 525 f.). 5. Natural objects and phenomena − ‘lake’ − Blt.: Lith. ežeras (dial. ažeras), Latv. ezers, OP [E 60 ‘See’] Aſſaran, (?Selonian) lake-name Zarasas ≈ Sl.: OCS jezero and jezerъ, Russ. ozero, Ukr. ozero, Bruss. vozera; Pol. jezioro, Cz. jezero, Slovak jazero, Upper Sorb. jezor, Lower Sorb. jazor; SCr. jȅzero, Slov. jêzer(o), Bulg. ezero. There are dubious parallels with Lat. Egeria, Illyrian Οσεριάτες, and with Gr. Ἀχέρων (cf. BSW 73, LEW 125, ÈSRJa III: 125, LEV II: 274; Hamp 1998; further discussion in Andersen 1996). − ‘ice’ − Blt.: Lith. lẽdas, Latv. ledus, OP [E 56 ‘Js’] Ladis ≈ Sl.: OCS ledъ, Russ. lëd, Pol. lód, Bulg. led. Connections with OIrish ladg ‘snow’, Gr. λίθος ‘stone’ have been proposed (cf. BSW 154, LEW 350, ÈSRJa II: 474, LEV I: 512). 6. Activities and conditions − ‘hunger’ − Blt.: Lith. álkti, Latv. alkt, OP [III 87,2 ‘Nuͤchtern’] Alkīns ≈ Sl.: OCS alkati, alъkati, and lakati ‘hunger; desire’, Russ. lakatь, Pol. łaknąć, Cz. lákati ‘attract, fascinate’. Connections with OHG ilgi ‘hunger’, OIrish elc ‘mischievous, bad’ have been proposed (cf. BSW 6 f., LEW 8, ÈSRJa II: 452, LEV I: 67).

2016

XVIII. Balto-Slavic − ‘plunge’ − Blt.: Lith. nérti and nìrti, Latv. nirt ≈ Sl.: OCS vъnrĕti, Russ. nyrját’, Bulg. nirna, SCr. ponirati ‘flow underground’ (cf. BSW 156 f., LEW 495, ÈSRJa III: 91 f., LEV I: 629). − ‘sleep’ − Blt.: Lith. miẽgas ‘sleep’ and miegóti ‘to sleep’ (< *‘to close the eyes’), Latv. miegs, OP [III 101,12 ‘Schlaff’] maiggun ≈ Sl.: Russ. mig ‘blink (of an eye); instant’ and migat’ ‘blink; wink’, Pol. mig, Bulg. mig (cf. BSW 174, LEW 447, ÈSRJa II: 618, LEV I: 589).

7. Instruments et alia − ‘hammer’ − Blt.: Lith. kū˜jis, Latv. kūja ‘stick’, OP [E 518 ‘Hamer’] Cugis ≈ Sl.: ORuss. kyjĭ; Russ. kij, Pol. kij, Bulg. kijak ‘weight’ (cf. BSW 123, LEW 232, ÈSRJa II: 231, LEV I: 435). − ‘butt’ − Blt.: Lith. péntis ‘butt (of an axe)’, Latv. pietis ‘heel’, OP [E 147 ‘Ver∫e’] Pentis ≈ Sl.: OCS pęta; Russ. pjatá, Pol. pięta, Bulg. peta (cf. BSW 214, LEW 571, ÈSRJa III: 424).

4. Old and new Balto-Slavic dictionaries The classical collection of the Balto-Slavic lexical correspondences is the dictionary of Trautmann (= BSW). This work reflects the neogrammarian approach to this topic and shows the imprint of the time when it was created, both from the point of view of the material collected and the theoretical principles behind it. It is clear that a deeper analysis of the material would dictate changes in the selection of many of the isoglosses included there. According to Sławski (1970), the 888 words contained in this dictionary are to be analyzed as follows: 30 % (265 words) belong to the old Indo-European lexical stratum; 37.5 % (334 words) are characteristic only of the Baltic and Slavic languages; 32.5 % (289 words) are Balto-Slavic innovations. Inoue (1986, 1989) investigated Trautmann’s dictionary statistically and divided the correspondences into two main types based on the notions of “divergence” and “convergence”; since, sharing the highest degree of commonality, the latter type is more likely to represent Balto-Slavic lexemes. Since Trautmann’s pioneering work (originally printed in 1923, reprinted in 1970), lexicographic investigation in the field of both Baltic and Slavic languages has made considerable progress. Monumental works like the Latviešu valodas vārdnīca (Dictionary of the Latvian language, 6 vols., 1923−1932) or the academic Lietuvių kalbos žodynas (Dictionary of the Lithuanian language, 20 vols., 1941−2002) have been finally completed. The lexicographic project of a Proto-Slavic dictionary (cf. Sławski 1974−; Trubačëv 1974−1999) has been equally important. Many etymological dictionaries of individual Baltic languages have been published (Lithuanian, cf. Fraenkel 1962−1965; Smoczyński 2007; Latvian, cf. Karulis 1992; Old Prussian, cf. Toporov 1975−1990; Mažiulis 1989− 1997) and Slavic (Russian, cf. Vasmer 1953−1958; Czech and Slovak, cf. Machek 1957; Slovene, cf. Bezlaj 1976−1995; Sorbian, cf. Schuster-Šewc 1978−1989; Croatian, cf. Skok 1971−1972). All these works have produced a huge harvest of new lexical entries and have led to new interpretations of known facts. Many contributions dealing with specific word

118. The lexicon of Balto-Slavic

2017

correspondences between Baltic and Slavic have been published in the last century; they cover many different aspects of the investigation in this field and deal both with dialectology and with onomastic (especially hydronymic) issues (cf. Udolph 1990 and 2005a, 2005b with further bibliography). The Baltisms of the Slavic languages have also been intensively investigated by Laučiūtė (1982). According to Laučiūtė (1985), one can classify the Baltisms of the Slavic languages as follows: (i) forms which were borrowed directly into Slavic from the Baltic languages; (ii) forms of Baltic origin which entered into Slavic as indirect borrowings through other languages (e.g. through Finnic into Northeastern Slavic); (iii) forms of non-Baltic origin which entered into Slavic through Baltic languages. Utilizing the lexicostatistical method, Zeps (1984) explained Slavic as a West Baltic dialect; therefore he questioned the label “Baltic” and proposed that what was traditionally called Baltic, Slavic, and Balto-Slavic should “evolve an alternative nomenclature”. Smoczyński (1986) showed how one could revise Trautmann’s dictionary and offered as well several theoretical principles overlooked by Trautmann: a) the entries should be limited only to common innovations; b) the reconstruction of Balto-Slavic should always rely on the comparison between the historic forms of the languages of the two groups; c) any lexeme suspected of being borrowed should be eliminated; d) the lexical correspondences of Balto-Slavic are not always absolute, with frequent oscillations in the root vocalism and in the suffixes; it would, therefore, be useful in certain cases to reconstruct two equivalent protoforms (which Trautmann systematically avoided). Applying these principles, Smoczyński corrected many of Trautmann’s doubtful correspondences. Although this work was conceived of as a sketch (on the same topic also, cf. Smoczyński 1989, 2003), its methodological value is important since priority has been given to internal reconstruction within the two different groups prior to making a comparison of them. In this context, Anikin’s (1998) work must be mentioned. The author has analyzed about one thousand(!) lemmata from *A to *G. His aim has been to collect systematically the currently established Balto-Slavic lexical correspondences. Therefore, he used material from dictionaries of both Baltic and Slavic languages, and of Proto-Slavic. He rightly laments that a Proto-Baltic dictionary does not yet exist (there have only been incomplete attempts, cf. Steinbergs 1996−1997; Lanszweert 1984). Anikin is a scholar who is truly capable of revising Trautmann’s classical book at a higher level and according to updated theories. He is working intensively in this field, as one can see from his recent dictionary of Balticisms in the Russian language (Anikin 2003, 2005).

5. An areal approach The analysis of lexical correspondences may unite various data chronologically, for example, the reflexes of Indo-European words and Balto-Slavic innovations. In reality, it is not easy to distinguish borrowings, parallel developments, and common innovations. In the last case, specific Northern, Southern, and kindred Balto-Slavic lexical isoglosses are particularly interesting, since a list of these is never complete and is always open to additional corrections as research in the area of dialectology develops. Details of the areal distribution differ from case to case and no strict criteria exist for adequately determining the greater or lesser degree of diffusion of specific forms within the Balto-

2018

XVIII. Balto-Slavic

Slavic area. This type of research, directed toward the identification of isoglosses connecting the Baltic languages with a particular group of Slavic languages, and vice versa, began in the 1960s and has continued to develop until the present. This research is a part of the more general problems of linguistic relationships in the so-called Ponto-Baltic region (i.e. the area between the Baltic and the Black seas, cf. Dini 2014b: 238−245). These proposals, examining the special relations of Baltic with North Slavic and with South Slavic languages independently are, admittedly, open to further development and refinement. The systematic study of Russian dialects on the one hand and of the dialects of South Slavic languages on the other should produce new material necessary for the elaboration of the linguistic aspect of the problem. Another direction in Balto-Slavic research is developing around the ideas of W. P. Schmid (1992, 1993), whose aim is to clarify the prehistoric spatio-temporal differences in specific dialectal areas.

5.1. Baltic and North Slavic Nepokupnij’s research (1964 and 1976) relative to a group of lexical isoglosses connecting Baltic and North Slavic (severnoslavjanskij) is very instructive. Nepokupnij has identified three types of lexical and semantic isoglosses: those common for the two areas as a whole and those which connect North Slavic (i.e., West and East Slavic languages) either with West Baltic or with East Baltic. He relies on the fact that Baltic as a whole has features common to all the Slavic languages in the inherited Indo-European lexicon, while common borrowings are limited to North Slavic alone. Special attention is devoted to certain specific lexical fields (fauna, flora, names of mountains, birds, fish, body parts), material which was collected according to dialect and often analyzed with new and original conclusions which clarify many details. Widely used were the Balto-Slavic lexical data of Polessia which enriched the Trautmann inventory. According to Nepokupnij, the most important evidence of contacts between Baltic and North Slavic are the extant onomastic data in the Jatvingian settlements in the Carpathian region and the traces of dialectal separation among the Eastern Balts found in the lower course of the Berezina. Nepokupnij concludes that the contribution of the Baltic languages to the North Slavic lexicon was larger than commonly thought. The southern border of distribution of toponyms from Baltic anthroponyms also should be relocated from Belorussia to Ukraine, the explanation of which is probably connected with the politico-administrative division of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The specific concordances between East Baltic and Slavic have been investigated by Reķēna (1975), between Baltic and East-Slavic, particularly with Russian, by Anikin (1995, 2003, 2005).

5.2. Baltic and South Slavic Bezlaj (1966−1968, 1974, 1977, 1981), Boryś (1992) and Nepokupnij (2000) have investigated the specific lexical isoglosses connecting the Baltic and South Slavic languages. Bezlaj has paid special attention to Slovenian data for comparing Slavic languages with

118. The lexicon of Balto-Slavic

2019

each other and with Baltic. Bezlaj cites an impressive series of examples which would serve for a more systematic study of the question than the present stage of irregular comparisons of isolated South Slavic dialectal forms with forms corresponding in structure and meaning to those of Baltic. Bezlaj looks at the complicated etymological relations between Slavic and Baltic, which he eloquently labels as Sprachmischung ‘language mixture’ (but without providing a more specific theoretical definition of this phenomenon). Boryś’s research in this area is concerned with the lexical relations between the Baltic vocabulary and the folk vocabulary of South Slavic languages, which contains occasional archaic forms. Thus, as a result of analyzing extensive South Slavic material, an exclusive comparison of adjectives is proposed, e.g. Slovenian végrast ‘oscillating, irregular’, the hydronym Vjagr, attested in Ukrainian (Polish Wiar), Lith. vingrùs ‘winding’, and Latv. viñgrs ‘elastic; agile, quick’; or a comparison of two such forms extending over limited territories, thus, e.g., SCr. dial. jȅža ‘flower bed’ and Slov. dial. jéža ‘boundary (between a field and road)’ can be compared, on the one hand, with Lith. ežià ‘boundary’ and, on the other, with Latv. eža ‘flower bed’, all of which in his opinion derive from a reconstructed Balto-Slavic agricultural term *eža. Baltic and South Slavic relationships have also been investigated by Duridanov (1969, 1970, 1971, 2006) who puts the accent primarily on the concordances with Bulgarian, e.g. Bulg. bъrna ‘mouth’ and Lith. burnà ‘id.’, Bulg. gragor ‘gravel (of a river)’ and Lith. gargždas ‘gravel’, Bulg. brъkam and bъrkam ‘shove (the hand)’, SCr. brknuti ‘grasp’ and Lith. brùkti ‘poke, shove’, Latv. brukt ‘wipe off’. Also the comparative study of folkloristic and mythological traditions (cf. Mikhailov 1996) permit the establishment of interesting parallels between Baltic and South Slavic.

6. A thematic approach A different way of studying Balto-Slavic lexical relations is based on their classification by thematic criteria correlated with their areal distribution. The importance of the thematic approach was already mentioned by Endzelīns (1911: 199) who emphasized among other points the large number of concordances in the names of body parts. Such an approach is presented in the works of Trubačëv (1966), Nepokupnij (1976), Otkupščikov (1971, 1986, 1989, 1993), Laučiūtė (1980, 1985) and Sędzik (1995, 2002). Here one is concerned with concrete semantic spheres (e.g. the terminology for handicrafts, agricultural tools, animal husbandry, and the like). The advantage here is the study of more or less complete lexical subsystems and not just casual and isolated examples related to various lexical strata. Moreover, the analysis of circumscribed lexical phenomena brings together facts which show the varied areal distribution of the items in the semantic sphere under study. Two case-studies will illustrate this approach. (i) Affecting the entire area of the Slavic languages and the entire area of the Baltic languages: All the Slavic languages preserve the reflex of Indo-European names for ‘domestic pig’. Cf. Russ. svinьja (< *su̯-īn-) and Russ. (regional) porosja ‘piglet’ (< *porsę); similar differing terms also occur in Baltic but are distinguished by area,

2020

XVIII. Balto-Slavic

cf. Lith. paršas, OP [E 686 ‘Ferkel’] Prastian (corrected to *parstian) compared with OP [E 682 ‘Swin’] Swintian, Latv. sivēns, suvēns ‘pig’. (ii) Affecting only a part of the area of the Slavic languages or only a part of the Baltic languages: Thus the Indo-European name for ‘tooth’ in all the Slavic languages derives from Slavic *zǫbъ which has correspondences in the other Indo-European languages and also in Latv. zobs ‘tooth’. The Lith. cognate žambas ‘sharp edge, corner’ also has other correspondences in the Indo-European languages. The forms Lith. dantìs ‘tooth’ and OP [E 92 ‘Czan’] Dantis, however, do not have correspondences in Latvian, but evidence of a probable cognate is encountered in Proto-Slavic *dęsn-, cf. ORuss. djasna ‘gum’, Russ. desná, Pol. dziąsło, Cz. dáseň, Scr. desna, Slov. dlésna (ÈSRJa I: 506).

7. Onomastics It is well known that the territory on which one can trace Baltic (especially hydronymic) elements was considerably larger than that inhabited by the Balts during historical times (for general information, cf. Dini 2014b: 46−61 with further bibliography). Therefore one could expect that a Balto-Slavic stage would have left important onomastic traces. On the contrary, the investigations in this sector have not confirmed this expectation. Neither has the study of the hydronyms of the individual Slavic and Baltic languages, nor the analysis of the most ancient pre-Slavic stratum in Poland (cf. Schmid 1976ab, 1978; Vanagas 1983; Udolph 1990). Onomastic evidence (hydronymy and toponymy) speaks against the existence of a Balto-Slavic subgroup.

8. Phraseology Some correspondences of textual fragments (phraseologisms) have also been identified in the (East) Baltic and Slavic languages (Eckert 1991, 1993). Some areas have proven particularly fruitful for phraseological research, such as: a) Dialectal and folkloric language (poetry), e.g. ‘berry and girl’. This phraseologism occurs in Eastern Slavic expressions: Ukr. Divka, jak jagidka ‘a girl like a berry’, Bruss. Njavestka, jak jagatka u lese ‘the bride like a forest berry’, cf. Russ. jagodka ‘berry’ a sobriquet for a girl; an analogous use is found in Lith. (kaip uoga ‘very beautiful’, literally ‘like a berry’, or in folk songs: aš mergelė kaip uogelė ‘I am a girl like a berry’). b) Technical language concerning the fabrication of beverages, e.g. ‘sweet drink and bitter drink’. This phraseologism occurs in formulaic expressions like OSl. *medъ olъ ‘mead beer’ ≈ olъ medъ (also *medovina olovina) and Lith. alùs medùs ‘beer honey’, alùs midùs ‘beer mead’; Latv. alus medus ‘beer honey’. c) Technical language of apiculture, e.g. ‘to place a beehive’. This phraseologism occurs with exact genetic correspondence of the lexical components in Latv. dēt dori and in Polish dziać drzewo.

118. The lexicon of Balto-Slavic

2021

9. Final remarks The evidence encountered in the Balto-Slavic lexical correspondences cannot of course offer any definitive answer to the Balto-Slavic question. Nevertheless, it is also clear that in certain cases the Baltic data may be satisfactorily explained without the help of the Slavic languages, but the contrary is not true. This conclusion seems to be valid both for common and proper nouns. Note the following examples: (i) Lith. rankà ‘hand ~ arm’ is derived from the verb riñkti ‘gather, collect’ (rankioti, intensive), cf. also Latv. roka ‘hand ~ arm’ and OPr. ſen-rīnka [III 45,16 ſamlet ‘collects’], whereas Russ. rukà and its Slavic cognates cannot be directly derived from any Slavic verbs (cf. Bernštejn 1961; Safarewicz 1976); (ii) the river-name Laukesà in Lithuania (Laucesa in Latvia) is certainly derived from Lith. laũkas ‘open air, field’ (cf. Vanagas 1981: 183), but the Slavic cognate Lučesa in Russia cannot be explained on the basis of Slavic data. In many cases, the Baltic data may be explained by means of internal reconstruction but such internal reconstruction is sometimes not possible for the Slavic languages. This situation suggests that the Slavic term can be derived from the Baltic but not vice-versa; i.e., the Baltic data may be directly derived from Indo-European, but the Slavic data require an intermediate stage. The investigation of the lexicon confirms the Balto-Slavic model of a (very probably “baltoid”) dialectal continuum advocated primarily by Toporov and Ivanov.

10. References Andersen, Henning 1996 Reconstructing Prehistorical Dialects. Initial Vowels in Slavic and Baltic. Berlin: De Gruyter. Anikin, Aleksandr E. 1995 Iz slavjansko-vostočnobaltijskich leksičeskich parallelej [Some Slavic-East Baltic lexical parallels]. Slavia 64: 289−296. Anikin, Aleksandr E. 1998 Ètimologija i balto-slavjanskoe leksičeskoe sravnenie v praslavjanskoj leksikografii. Materialy dlja balto-slavjanskogo slovarja. Vyp. 1. (*a- − *go-) [Etymology and BaltoSlavic lexical comparison in Proto-Slavic lexicography. Materials for a Balto-Slavic dictionary]. Novosibirsk: Sibirskij chronograf. Anikin, Aleksandr E. 2003 Iz baltijskogo vklada v russkich govorach [On the Baltic contribution to Russian dialects]. Novosibirsk: Sibirskij chronograf. Anikin, Aleksandr E. 2005 Opyt slovarja leksičeskich baltizmov v russkom jazyke [An attempt at a dictionary of lexical Baltisms in the Russian language]. Novosibirsk: Sibirskij chronograf. Anikin, Aleksandr E. 2014 O diskussii V. N. Toporova s O. N. Trubačevym po balto-slavjanskoj problematike [On the discussion between V. N. Toporov and O. N. Trubačev concerning the Balto-Slavic problem]. In: Civ’jan, Judžentis, and Zav’jalova (eds.), 60−71.

2022

XVIII. Balto-Slavic

Beck, Heinrich, Dieter Geuenich, Rosemarie Müller, and Heiko Steuer (eds.) 2005 Reallexicon der germanischen Altertumskunde, begrundet von Johannes Hoops. Zweite Auflage. Bd. 29. Berlin: De Gruyter. Bernštejn, Samuil B. 1961 Očerk sravnitel’noj grammatiki slavjanskich jazykov. Čast I [A sketch of the comparative grammar of the Slavic languages. Part I.]. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo A.N. SSSR. Bezlaj, France 1966−1968 Einige slovenische und baltische lexikalische Parallelen. Linguistica 8: 63−81. Bezlaj, France 1974 Spuren der baltoslawischen Wortmischung. Baltistica 10: 21−30. Bezlaj, France 1976−1995 Etimološki slovar slovenskega jezika [Etymological dictionary of the Slovenian language]. 3 vols. Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti. Bezlaj, France 1977 Slovensko-baltijskie leksičeskie paralleli [Slovenian-Baltic lexical parallels]. Baltistica 2: 15−19. Bezlaj, France 1981 Sloveno-Baltica. Jezik in Slovstvo 2: 51−53. Birnbaum, Henrik 1970 Four Approaches to Balto-Slavic. In: Rūķe-Draviņa (ed.), 69−76. Birnbaum, Henrik 1975 Common Slavic. Progress and Problems in its Reconstruction. Columbus, OH: Slavica [Reprint 1979]. Birnbaum, Henrik and Peter T. Merrill 1983 Recent Advances in the Reconstruction of Common Slavic (1971−1982). Columbus, OH: Slavica. Bogoljubova, Nina D. and Tamara A. Jakubaitis 1959 Istorija razrabotki voprosa o balto-slavjanskich jazykovych otnošenijach [The history of the study of Balto-Slavic linguistic relationships]. In: Sokols et al. (eds.), 331−375. Boryś, Wiesław 1992 Zu den südslavisch-baltischen lexikalischen Verknüpfungen. Linguistica Baltica 1: 193− 200. Brückner, Aleksandr 1914 Die lituslavische Spracheinheit. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 46: 217− 239. BSW: See Trautmann Civ’jan Tatjana, Marija Zav’jalova, and Artūas Judžntis (eds.) 2014 Baltai ir slavai: dvasinių kultūų sankirtos [Balts and Slavs: intersections of spiritual culture]. Vilnius: Versmė. Devoto, Giacomo 1962 Origini indeuropee. Florence: Sansoni. DI = Jānis Endzelīns 1994 Darbu izlase [Collected Works]. 3 vols. Riga: Zinātne. Dini, Pietro U. 1997 Der Werdegang der Auffassung über die baltischen Sprachdomäne bei Lorenzo Hervás y Panduro. Ein Beitrag zur Historiographie der baltischen Linguistik. Indogermanische Forschungen 102: 261−294. Dini, Pietro U. 2010 Aliletoescvr. Linguistica baltica delle origini. Teorie e contesti linguistici nel Cinquecento. Livorno: Books & Company.

118. The lexicon of Balto-Slavic

2023

Dini, Pietro U. 2014a Prelude to Baltic Linguistics: Earliest theories about Baltic languages (16th century). Amsterdam: Rodopi. Dini, Pietro U. 2014b Foundations of Baltic languages. Vilnius: Eugrimas. Duridanov, Ivan 1969 Thrakisch-dakische Studien. Erster Teil: die thrakisch- und dakisch-baltischen Sprachbeziehungen. Sofia: Verlag der Akademie der Wissenschaften. Duridanov, Ivan 1970 Baltico-bulgarica. In: Rūķe-Draviņa (ed.), 107−109. Duridanov, Ivan 1971 Südslaw. *brъkati, *brъknąti und seine baltischen Entsprechungen. Baltistica 7: 49−51. Duridanov, Ivan 2006 Baltisch-südslawische lexikalische Parallelen. In: Laimutis Bilkis, Alma Ragauskaitė, and Daiva Sinevičiūtė (eds.), Baltų onomastikos tyrimai [Baltic onomastic studies]. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 145−149. Eckert, Rainer 1989 Forschungsansätze zur Erhellung der baltisch-slawischen Sprachbeziehungen am Material der Lexik und Phraseologie. Zeitschrift für Slawistik 34: 560−569. Eckert, Rainer 1991 Studien zur historischen Phraseologie der slawischen Sprachen (unter Berücksichtigung des Baltischen). (Slavistische Beiträge 281). Munich: Sagner. Eckert, Rainer 1993 Slawisch-baltische Phrasementsprechungen in der Sprache der Folklore. In: Karl Gutschmidt, Helmut Keipert, and Hans Rothe (eds.), Slavistische Studien zum XI. internationalen Slavistenkongreß. Cologne: Böhlau, 85−98. Endzelīns, Jānis 1911 Slavjano-baltijskie ètjudy [Slavo-Baltic studies]. Char’kov: Zil’berberg [= DI II, 338− 345]. Endzelīns, Jānis 1952 Drevnejšie slavjano-baltijskie jazykovye svjazi [The oldest Slavo-Baltic linguistic contacts]. Latvijas Zinātņu Akadēmijas Vēstis [Communications of the Latvian Academy of Sciences] 3: 33−46 [= DI III 2, 429−445]. ÈSRJa: See Vasmer. Fraenkel, Ernst 1950 Die baltischen Sprachen. Heidelberg: Winter. Fraenkel, Ernst 1962−1965 Litauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. 2 vols. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht; Heidelberg: Winter. GED: See Lehmann. Gornung, Boris V. 1959 Iz istorii izučenija baltijsko-slavjanskich jazykovych otnošenij [On the history of the study of Balto-Slavic linguistic relationships]. In: Sokols et al. (eds.), 109−132. Hamp, Eric P. 1998 Greek Ἀχέρων, Balto-Slavic *eģherǫn. Linguistica Baltica 7: 75−76. Hirt, Hermann 1892 Die Stellung des Germanischen im Kreise der verwandten Sprachen. Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie 29: 289−305. Hock, Wolfgang 2004 Baltoslavisch. I. Teil: Phonologie. Kratylos 49: 1−32. Hock, Wolfgang 2005 Baltoslavisch. II. Teil: Morphonologie, Stammbildung, Flexion. Kratylos 50: 1−39.

2024

XVIII. Balto-Slavic

Hock, Wolfgang 2006 Baltoslavisch. III. Teil: Die baltoslavische Sprachgemeinschaft, Nachträge. Kratylos 51: 1−24. Hood, Gary A. 1967 A bibliography of works dealing with the relationship between Baltic and Slavic. Lituanus 13: 38−46. Inoue, Toshikazu 1986 Investigations on the lexical correspondences between Baltic and Slavic languages (in Japanese). Kobe: University Press. Inoue, Toshikazu 1989 Leksičeskie ‘divergencija’ i ‘konvergencija’ meždu baltijskimi i slavjanskimi jazykami: statističeskij analiz materialov slovarja R. Trautmana [Lexical ‘divergences’ and ‘convergences’ among the Baltic and Slavic languages: a statistical analysis of the materials of the dictionary of R. Trautmann]. Baltistica 25: 24−43. Ivanov, Vjačeslav V. and Vladimir N. Toporov 1961 K postanovke voprosa o drevnejšich otnošenijach baltijskich i slavjanskich jazykov [On the status of the question concerning the oldest relationships of the Baltic and Slavic languages]. In: Nikita. I. Tolstoj (ed.), Issledovanija po slavjanskomu jazykoznaniju [Investigations in Slavic linguistics]. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo A.N. SSSR, 273−305. Karaliūnas, Simas 1968 Kai kurie baltų ir slavų kalbų seniausiųjų santykių klausimai [Some questions concerning the oldest relations of the Baltic and Slavic languages]. Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai [Issues in Lithuanian linguistics] 10: 7−187. Karulis, Konstantīns 1992 Latviešu etimoloģijas vārdnīca [Latvian etymological dictionary]. 2 vols. Rīga: Avots. Koleva-Zlateva, Živka 1994 Za etimologijata na baltoslavjanskoto nazvanie za ‘răka’ [On the etymology of the BaltoSlavic word for ‘hand’]. In: Todor Balkanski (ed.), Onomastično i etnolingvistično prostranstvo na ezika v čest na prof. N. P. Kovačev [The Onomastic and ethnolinguistic area of language in honor of Prof. N. P. Kovačev]. Vol. 2. Veliko Tărnovo: Znak, 134−142. Lanszweert, René 1984 Die Rekonstruktion des baltischen Grundwortschatzes. Frankfurt: Lang. Laučiūtė, Juratė 1980 Balto-slavjanskie lingvističeskie kontakty v areal’nom osveščenii [Balto-Slavic linguistic contacts from an areal perspective]. In: Melitina A. Borodina (ed.), Vzaimodejstvie lingvističeskich arealov [The Interaction of linguistic areas]. Leningrad: Nauka, 161− 187. Laučiūtė, Juratė 1982 Slovar’ baltizmov v slavjanskich jazykach [A dictionary of Baltisms in the Slavic languages]. Leningrad: Nauka. Laučiūtė, Juratė 1985 O metodike issledovanija i interpretacii obščej balto-slavjanskoj leksiki [On the methodology of investigation and interpretation of the common Balto-Slavic vocabulary]. In: Aina Blinkena (ed.), Baltu valodas senāk un tagad [Baltic languages then and now]. Rīga: Zinātne, 25−31. Lehmann, Winfred P. 1986 A Gothic Etymological Dictionary. Leiden: Brill. LEV: See Karulis. LEW: See Fraenkel 1962−1965. Lötzsch, Ronald 1986 Franz Bopp über das Baltoslawische und dessen Stellung innerhalb der indoeuropäischen Sprachfamilie. Letopis B 33: 18−22.

118. The lexicon of Balto-Slavic

2025

Lötzsch, Ronald 1990 Die These von der baltoslawisch-germanischen Spracheinheit in der Geschichte der Slawistik, Baltistik und Indoeuropäistik. In: Hans-Josef Niederehe and Konrad Koerner (eds.), History and historiography of linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 737−746. LSC = Joachim Bekker, Eckhard Eggers, Jürgen Udolph, and Dieter Weber (eds.) 1994 Linguisticae Scientiae Collectanea. Ausgewählte Schriften von Wolfgang P. Schmid anläßlich seines 65. Geburtstages. Berlin: De Gruyter. Machek, Václav 1934 Recherches dans le domaine du lexique balto-slave. Brno: Vydává filosofická fakulta. Machek, Václav 1957 Etymologický slovník jazyka českého [Etymological dictionary of the Czech language]. Prague: Československé akademie vĕd. Mańczak, Witołd 1990 La communauté balto-slave a-t-elle existé? Baltistica 26: 29−38. Martynov, Viktor V. 1982 Baltijskij leksičeskij ingredient praslavjanskogo jazyka [The Baltic lexical component of the Proto-Slavic language]. Acta Baltico-Slavica 14: 175−187. Mažiulis, Vytautas 1994 On Balto-Slavic and Germanic ethnogenesis. In: Vytautas Mažiulis (ed.), International Conference “The Indo-Europeanization of Northern Europe: in memoriam M. Gimbutas”. Vilnius: The University of Vilnius, 20−22. Mažiulis, Vytautas 1989−1997 Prūsų kalbos etimologijos žodynas [Etymological dictionary of the Prussian language]. 4 vols. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Meillet, Antoine 1908 Les dialectes indo-européens. Paris: Champion. Meriggi, Bruno 1965 I rapporti fra le lingue baltiche e le slave e la costituzione di un tipo baltico e uno slavo. In: Le protolingue. Atti del IV convegno internazionale di linguisti, tenuto a Milano nei giorno 2−6 settembre 1963. Brescia: Paideia, 57−89. Mikhailov, Nikolai 1996 Baltico-Slovenica. Alcuni paralleli mitologici. Res Balticae 2: 151−178. Nepokupnij, Anatolij P. 1964 Areal’nye aspekty balto-slavjanskich jazykovych otnošenij [Areal aspects of Balto-Slavic linguistic relations]. Kiev: Naukova dumka. Nepokupnij, Anatolij P. 1976 Balto-severnoslavjanskie jazykovye svjazi [Baltic-North Slavic linguistic contacts]. Kiev: Naukova dumka. Nepokupnij, Anatolij P. (ed.) 1989 Obščaja leksika germanskich i balto- slavjanskich jazykov [The common lexicon of the Germanic and Balto-Slavic languages]. Kiev: Naukova dumka. Nepokupnij, Anatolij P. 2000 Serbsko-litovskaja izoglossa lìpār ‘lipnjak’ / Lìpār − Liẽporas i prusskij oronim Lepare [The Serbian-Lithuanian isogloss lìpār ‘lipnjak’ / Lìpār − Liẽporas and the Prussian oronym Lepare]. Baltistica 35: 91−101. Otkupščikov, Jurij V. 1971 Iz istorii balto-slavjanskich leksičeskich otnošenij [On the history of Balto-Slavic lexical relationships]. Baltistica 7: 119−128. Otkupščikov, Jurij V. 1973 O drevnem nazvanii chleba v baltijskom, slavjanskom i germanskom [On the old term for ‘bread’ in Baltic, Slavic, and Germanic]. LPSR Zinatņu Akadēmijas vēstis [Commu-

2026

XVIII. Balto-Slavic

nications of the Latvian Academy of Sciences] 2(307): 84−89 [= Otkupščikov 2001, 177−184]. Otkupščikov, Jurij V. 1986 O mnimych slavizmach v baltijskich jazykach [On supposed Slavisms in the Baltic languages]. Balto-slavjanskie issledovanija [Balto-Slavic Investigations] 1984: 89−102 [= Otkupščikov 2001, 184−199]. Otkupščikov, Jurij V. 1989 Balto-slavjanskaja remeslennaja leksika (nazvanija metallov, metallurgija, kuznečnoe delo) [The Balto-Slavic vocabulary dealing with handicrafts (terms for metals, metallurgy, smith-work)]. In: Aleksandr S. Gerd and Gleb S. Lebedev (eds.), Slavjane: Ètnogenez i etničeskaja istorija [Slavs: ethnogenesis and ethnic history]. Leningrad: Izdatelʹstvo Leningradskogo universiteta, 44−52 [= Otkupščikov 2001, 200−209]. Otkupščikov, Jurij V. 1993 Baltijskie i slavjanskie nazvanija ovcy i barana [Baltic and Slavic designations of the sheep and ram]. Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai [Issues in Lithuanian linguistics] 30: 63− 68 [= Otkupščikov 2001, 209−215]. Otkupščikov, Jurij V. 2001 Očerki po ètimologii [Essays on etymology]. St. Petersburg: Isdatel’stvo Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Otrębski, Jan 1949 Les mots d’origine commune dans les langues slaves et baltiques. Lingua Posnaniensis 1: 121−151. Otrębski, Jan 1954 Slavjano-baltijskoe jazykovoe edinstvo [The Slavo-Baltic linguistic unity]. Voprosy Jazykoznanija 5: 27−42; 6: 28−46. Petit, Daniel 2004 Les langues baltiques et la question balto-slave. Histoire Épistémologie Langage 26: 7− 41. Poljakov, Oleg 1995 Das Problem der balto-slavischen Sprachgemeinschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Lang. Reķēna, Antoņina 1975 Amatniecības leksika dažās Latgales dienvidu izloksnes un tās sakari ar atbilstošajiem nosaukumiem slāvu valodās [Craft vocabulary in some southern Latgalian dialects and its relationship to corresponding terms in the Slavic languages]. Rīgā: Zinātne. Rozwadowski, Jan 1912 O pierwotnym stosunku wzajemnym języków bałtyckich i słowiańskich [On the original mutual relationship of the Baltic and Slavic languages]. Rocznik Slawistyczny [Slavic Yearbook] 5: 1−36. Rūķe-Draviņa, Velta (ed.) 1970 Donum Balticum. To Professor Christian S. Stang on the occasion of his seventieth birthday 15 March 1970. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. Sabaliauskas, Algirdas 1990 Lietuvių kalbos leksika [A lexicon of the Lithuanian language]. Vilnius: Mokslas. Safarewicz, Jan 1945 Przyczynki do zagadnienia wspólnoty bałto-słowiańskiej [Contributions to the problem of the Balto-Slavic linguistic community]. Sprawozdania Polskiej Akademii Umięjetności [Communications of the Polish Academy of Sciences] 46: 199−205. Safarewicz, Jan 1961 Ze słownictwa bałto-słowiańskiego (innowacje czasownikowe) [On the lexicon of BaltoSlavic (innovations in the verbal system)]. Slavia Antiqua 8: 11−24.

118. The lexicon of Balto-Slavic

2027

Safarewicz, Jan 1976 Archaizm słowotwórczy w języku litewskim [A derivational archaism in Lithuanian]. Rocznik naukowo-dydaktyczny [Yearbook of research and teaching] 5: 55−64. Schenker, Alexander M. 1995 The Dawn of Slavic. New Haven: Yale University Press. Schleicher, August 1861 Compendium der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen. Weimar: Böhlau. Schmalstieg, William R. 2003 An isogloss uniting Baltic, Slavic, Germanic. In: Alfred Bammesberger and Theo Vennemann (eds.), Languages in prehistoric Europe. Heidelberg: Winter, 261−278. Schmid, Wolfgang P. 1976a Baltoslawische Spracheinheit. In: Heinrich Beck, Dieter Geuenich, Herbert Jankuhn, Hans Kuhn, Kurt Ranke, Heiko Steuer, and Reinhard Wenskus (eds.). 1968−2007. Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde, begrundet von Johannes Hoops. Zweite Auflage. Bde. 2, 20−22 [= LSC 211−215]. Schmid, Wolfgang P. 1976b Baltisch und Indogermanisch. Baltistica 12: 115−122. Schmid, Wolfgang P. 1978 Indogermanische Modelle und osteuropäische Frühgeschichte. Abhandlungen der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaft. Klasse 1, Akademie der Wissenschaft und der Literatur, Mainz, 3−24 [= LSC 226−247]. Schmid, Wolfgang P. 1986 Bemerkungen zum Werden des ‘Germanischen’. In: Karl Hauck, Karl Kroeschell, Stefan Sonderegger, Dagmar Hüpper, and Gabriele von Olberg (eds.), Sprache und Recht. Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte des Mittelalters. Festschrift für R. Schmitt-Wiegand zum 60. Geburtstag. Berlin: De Gruyter, 711−721 [= LSC 347−357]. Schmid, Wolfgang P. 1992 Die Stellung des Baltischen im Kreise der indogermanischen Sprachen. In: Bernd Barschel, Maria Kozianka, and Karin Weber (eds.), Indogermanisch, Slawisch und Baltisch. Materialien des vom 21.−22. September 1989 in Jena in Zusammenarbeit mit der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft durchgeführten Kolloquiums. (Slavistische Beiträge 285.) Munich: Sagner, 201−222. Schmid, Wolfgang P. 1993 Zwischen Baltikum und Balkan. Sprachwissenschaftliche Bemerkungen zu einer alten Grenzzone. Sitzungsberichte der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig 132, 5: 1−19. Schuster-Šewc, Heinz 1978−1989 Historisch-etymologisches Wörterbuch der ober- und niedersorbischen Sprache. 6 vols. Bautzen: Domowina. Sędzik, Władysław 1995 On Baltic and Slavic agricultural terminology. In: Wojciech Smoczyński (ed.), Analecta Indoevropaea cracoviensia Ioannis Safarewicz memoriae dicata. Cracow: Universitas, 365−370. Sędzik, Władysław 2002 Bałtosłowiańskie nazwy narzędzi [Balto-Slavic names for tools]. In: Jerzy Rusek, Wiesław Boryś, and Leszek Bednarczuk (eds.), Dzieje Słowian w świetle leksyki: pamięci Profesora Franciszka Sławskiego [The history of the Slavs from a lexical perspective: in memory of Professor Franciszek Sławski]. Cracow: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 187−190. Shevelov, George Y. 1964 A Prehistory of Slavic. The Historical Phonology of Common Slavic. Heidelberg, Winter.

2028

XVIII. Balto-Slavic

Skok, Petar 1971−1972 Etimologijski rječnik hrvatskoga ili srpskoga jezika [Etymological dictionary of the Croatian or Serbian language]. 2 vols. Zagreb: Jugoslavenska Akademija znanosti i umjetnosti. Sławski, Franciszek 1970 Lexikalische Neuerungen im Baltisch-Slavischen. In: Rūķe-Draviņa (ed.), 501−506. Sławski, Franciszek (ed.) 1974− Słownik prasłowiański [A dictionary of Proto-Slavic]. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk. Smoczyński, Wojciech 1986 Uwagi o słowniku bałtycko-słowiańskim [Remarks on the Balto-Slavic lexicon]. In: Jadwiga Majowa (ed.), Język i jego odmiany w aspekcie porównawczym [Language and its varieties in comparative perspective]. (Slavica 53). Wrocław: Ossolineum, 17−45 [= Smoczyński 2003: 62−84]. Smoczyński, Wojciech 1989 Studia bałto-słowiańskie. I. Wrocław: Ossolineum. Smoczyński, Wojciech 2003 Studia bałto-słowiańskie. II. Cracow: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego. Smoczyński Wojciech 2007 Słownik etymologiczny języka litewskiego, 2 vols., I (A-Ž), II (Index). Wilno: Uniwersytet Wileński Wydział filologiczny. Sokols, Ēvalds, K. Graudiņš, E. Šmite, S. Raģe, V. Dambe, D. Zemzare, and M. Saule-Sleine (eds.) 1959 Rakstu krājums veltījums Akadēmiķim Dr. Jānim Endzelīnam viņa 85 dzīves un 65 darba gadu atcerei [A collection of articles dedicated to the Academician Prof. Dr. Jānis Endzelīns on his 85th birthday and in honor of 65 years of scholarly work]. Rīga: Latvijas PSR Zinātņu Akadēmijas izdevniecība. Stang, Christian S. 1972 Lexikalische Sonderübereinstimmungen zwischen dem Slavischen, Baltischen und Germanischen. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Steinbergs, Aleksandra 1996−1997 The reconstruction of Proto-Baltic body parts. Linguistica Baltica 5−6: 21−31. Szemerényi, Oswald 1948 L’unité linguistique balto-slave. Études Slaves et Roumaines 1: 65−85, 159−173. Szemerényi, Oswald 1957 The Problem of Balto-Slavic Unity. A critical Survey. Kratylos 2: 97−123. Toporov, Vladimir N. 1958a Očerk istorii izučenija drevnejšich balto-slavjanskich jazykovych otnošenij [An outline of the history of scholarship on the oldest Balto-Slavic linguistic relations]. Učenye zapiski instituta slavjanovedenija [Scholarly Proceedings of the Institute of Slavistics] 17: 248−274; 18: 3−43. Toporov, Vladimir N. 1958b Novejšie raboty v oblasti izučenija balto-slavjanskich jazykovych otnošenij [The most recent works in the area of the investigation of Balto-Slavic linguistic relations]. Voprosy slavjanskogo jazykoznanija [Issues of Slavic Linguistics] 3: 134−161 Toporov, Vladimir N. 1962 Iz istorii izučenija drevnejšich balto-slavjanskich jazykovych otnošenij [On the history of scholarship on the oldest Balto-Slavic linguistic relations]. Učenye zapiski instituta slavjanovedenija [Scholarly proceedings of the Institute of Slavistics] 23: 3−43. Toporov, Vladimir N. 1975−1990 Prusskij jazyk (A−L) [The Prussian language (A−L)]. 5 vols. Moscow: Nauka. Trautmann, Reinhold 1923 Baltisch-Slavisches Wörterbuch. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht [2nd edn. 1970].

118. The lexicon of Balto-Slavic

2029

Trubačëv, Oleg N. 1966 Remeslennaja terminologija v slavjanskich jazykach (Ètimologija i opyt gruppovoj rekonstrukcii) [Handicraft terminology in the Slavic languages (etymology and an attempt at group reconstruction)]. Moscow: Nauka. Trubačëv, Oleg N. 1974−1999 Ètimologičeskij slovar’ slavjanskich jazykov [Etymological dictionary of the Slavic languages]. vols. 1−25. Moscow: Nauka. Trubačëv, Oleg N. 1980 Iz balto-slavjanskich ètimologij [Some Balto-Slavic etymologies]. Ètimologija 1978: 179−181. Trubačëv, Oleg N. 1982 Jazykoznanie i ètnogenez slavjan. Drevnie slavjane po dannym ètimologii i onomastiki [Linguistics and ethnogenesis of the Slavs. The ancient Slavs as evidenced by etymology and onomastics]. Voprosy jazykoznanija 4: 237−240; 5: 3−17. Udolph, Jürgen 1990 Die Stellung der Gewässernamen Polens innerhalb der alteuropäischen Hydronymie. Heidelberg: Winter. Udolph, Jürgen 2005a Slawisch-Baltisch-Germanische Übereinstimmungen in Toponymie und Hydronymie. In: Beck et al. (eds.), 64−67. Udolph, Jurgen 2005b Germanisch-Slawische Sprachbeziehungen. In: Beck et al. (eds.), 69−73. Vanagas, Aleksandras 1981 Lietuvių hidronimų etimologinis žodynas [Etymological dictionary of Lithuanian hydronyms]. Vilnius: Mokslas. Vanagas, Aleksandras 1983 Problema drevnejšich balto-slavjanskich jazykovych otnošenij v svete baltijskich gidronimičeskich leksem [The problem of the oldest Balto-Slavic linguistic relations in the light of Baltic hydronymic terms]. Vilnius: LTSR Mokslų akademija. Vasmer, Max 1950 Russisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch. 3 Bde. Heidelberg: Winter. [Translated with comments into Russian as Ètimologičeskij slovar’ russkogo jazyka by Oleg N. Trubačëv. 4 vols. Moscow: Progress (1986−1987)]. Zav’jalova, Marija V. and Tatjana V. Civ’jan 2014 Balto-Slavica v naučnom nasledi V. N. Toporova: perspectivy [Balto-Slavica in the scientific heritage of V. N. Toporov: perspectives]. In: Civ’jan, Zav’jalova, and Judžentis (eds.), 13−32. Zeps, Valdis 1984 Is Slavic a West Baltic Language? General Linguistics 24: 213−222.

Pietro U. Dini, Pisa (Italy)

XIX. Wider configurations and contacts 119. The shared features of Italic and Celtic 1. Introduction 2. Shared lexemes 3. Shared phonological features

4. Shared morphological features 5. Conclusion 6. References

1. Introduction In the historical period, speakers of Celtic and Italic languages were in close proximity. Lepontic inscriptions are attested in Northern Italy from the sixth century BCE, and Celts sacked Rome in the 4 th century BCE. The expansion of the Roman empire led to closer contact between Latin and Celtic languages. Some of the latter were eventually altogether replaced by Latin, while Celtic loanwords can be identified in Latin, especially in the semantic field of horses and chariots (e.g. Lat. uerēdus ‘breed of horse’, cf. W. gorwydd ‘horse’). In addition to this contact, there is a longstanding hypothesis that the Italic and Celtic languages shared a prehistoric linguistic unity (i.e. an “Italo-Celtic” subgroup in the Indo-European family tree. It will be assumed here that Latin-Faliscan and the Sabellic languages, consisting primarily of Oscan, Umbrian, and South Picene, descend from a shared proto-language called Proto-Italic). However, unlike some other Indo-European subgroups such as Indo-Iranian or Balto-Slavic, the existence of ItaloCeltic has never reached the status of established fact. Compare, for example, Ringe, Warnow, and Taylor (2002), who posit an Italo-Celtic subgroup (although they admit the evidence is slender), with the criticisms of Isaac (2004: 54 ff.), who calls the Italo-Celtic hypothesis obsolete. The only yardstick for the sub-grouping of languages is the existence of shared innovations which are unusual enough not to have been parallel developments, but must reflect an earlier linguistic unity. The basic list of innovations put forward as evidence for the proposed Italo-Celtic subgroup has changed remarkably little since the discussion of Watkins (1966; with earlier literature), although approaches have differed in the light of new evidence and new theoretical perspectives.

2. Shared lexemes Shared lexemes are the least reliable evidence for a proto-family, since the possibility of borrowing between languages is so high (especially when the languages were in close physical proximity in historical times). Collections of the (relatively few) lexemes unique to Italic and Celtic can be found in Meillet (1922: 37 f. and 1977: 34 ff.) and Weiss (2009: 466). The most significant are the prepositions discussed by Stüber (2012): *dē˘ with ablatival rather than directive function (Lat. dē, OIr. dí- ‘from’, Lat. in-de ‘thence’, OIr. dé ‘from him’) and *trāns (Lat. trāns ‘across’, MW. tra ‘beyond’). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-040

119. The shared features of Italic and Celtic

2031

3. Shared phonological features Phonological evidence for Italo-Celtic is slight (for examples see Meillet 1922 and 1977, Watkins 1966, and Schrijver 2006: 48 ff. − note that Schrijver’s proposed Italo-Celtic sound change *CRHi̯ V- > *CRīi̯ V- cannot be accepted: Zair 2009: 214). Most of the sound changes are too trivial to be considered evidence for shared development. The distant assimilation *p … kw- > *kw… kw- (*penkwe > Lat. quīnque, OIr. cóic ‘five’) is phonetically unsurprising, and may have taken place independently in Italic and Celtic: *perkwu- gave Lat. quercus ‘oak’, in which *-kwu- > *-ku- took place after the assimilation, while the presumably Celtic name of the Hercynian forest (preserved in Greek authors as Ἑρκύνια) suggests that *-kwu- gave *-ku- before the assimilation in Celtic (but see Weiss 2009: 465 f.). Another sound change which has sometimes been taken as evidence for Italo-Celtic (e.g. Kortlandt 1981) is the shortening of long vowels in some words in Italic and Celtic (Lat. uĭr, OIr. fer ‘man’ < *u̯ĭros, cf. Ved. vīrá-). But this occurs also in Germanic (Goth. wair ‘man’ < *u̯ĭros), and Italic and Celtic do not always agree in the forms which show shortening (Lat. uīuus ‘alive’ < *gwīu̯os, OIr. béu ‘alive’ < *gwĭu̯os). The conditioning environment for the change remains unclear (for one suggestion see Schrijver 1991: 225 ff., 334 ff., 512 ff.; but compare Zair 2012a: 132 ff., Matasović 2012), and it has been argued that it is analogical rather than phonological (Ringe 1988: 420). A more plausible isogloss is the development of *CR̥HC- to *CRāC- (Lat. plānus ‘flat’ < pl̥ h2no-, OIr. lán ‘full’ < *pl̥ h1-no-). But again the process does not seem to be exactly the same in Italic and Celtic (cf. the difference in vowel length between Lat. strātus ‘strewn’, OIr. srath ‘grass, valley’ < *str̥h3to-; Zair 2012a: 69 ff.). Even leaving this aside, *CR̥HC- to *CRāC- could be a parallel development rather than a shared innovation, because a similar result is found in Greek (στρωτός ‘spread’ < *str̥h3to-), although with colouring of the epenthetic vowel by the following laryngeal.

4. Shared morphological features The main evidence for Italo-Celtic consists of shared morphology. There are four major similarities between Italic and Celtic which might be considered to imply a relationship: the superlative in *-is-m̥mo-, the ī-genitive of o-stem nouns, the “ā-subjunctive”, and the medio-passive verbal endings in *-r. Despite the superficial similarities, a direct connection between the Latin future in -bō (originally a periphrastic construction formed with the aorist subjunctive of the root *bhuH- ‘be, become’) and the Irish f-future is very unlikely (despite Bammesberger 1979; for recent attempts to explain the f-future, see McCone 1991: 176 ff., Jasanoff 1994: 215 ff.). By far the most plausible of these is the first. Both Italic and Celtic inherited a superlative suffix *-(t)m̥mo-, restricted to pronominal and adverbial stems (Lat. ultimus, Osc. últiumam acc. sg. ‘farthest’ < *ol-tm̥mo-, W. eithaf ‘farthest’ < *eks-tm̥mo-). But the productive suffix in both families comes from *-is-m̥mo- (Lat. pigerrimus ‘laziest’ < *pigr̥samo- < *pigr-is-m̥mo-, OIr. sinem, OW. hinham ‘oldest’ < *sen-is-m̥mo-). The reason for the geminate *-s- in -issimus, the most common reflex of this suffix in Latin, is obscure (“expressive” gemination?). Cowgill (1970) compares the Old Irish double superlatives in -i/a/e/mem in the Milan Codex. The superlative suffix found in Germanic, Indo-Iranian, and Greek is *-is-to-: OE. swēt-

2032

XIX. Wider configurations and contacts

est, Gk. ἥδιστος, Ved. svā´diṣṭha- < *su̯eh2d-is-to-. This *-is-m̥mo- suffix is a clear-cut isogloss between Italic and Celtic, although in principle it could be a shared archaism, having been replaced by *-is-to- in the other three languages (the remaining Indo-European subgroups do not have morphological superlatives). For this reason Ringe, Warnow, and Taylor (2002: 105) do not include the superlative in their computation of IndoEuropean trees. What is more probable is that Proto-Indo-European did not have a morphological superlative category, and that some (proto-)languages created superlative endings (transparently based on the zero grade of the comparative suffix *-i̯ ō˘s-). The Italic and Celtic superlatives could then be parallel creations, since *-(t)m̥mo- was already available (it appears in all the languages which show morphological superlatives). But *-is-m̥mo- stands a good chance of being a shared innovation. The o-stem genitive in *-ī is rather more doubtful. It is found in Latin, Faliscan (e.g. Louci Teti), Gaulish, Lepontic, Irish, and the Brittonic languages (Gaul. Segomari, Lep. aśKoneTi, Ogam Irish MAQQI, OIr. maicc ‘of a son’, W. Dineirth (place name) ‘Bear’s Retreat’ < *dūnom artī). To posit *-ī for Proto-Celtic is plausible, but not certain, since Celtiberian shows a gen. sg. in -o, of debated origin, and early Lepontic also has a gen sg. in -oiso, perhaps from *-osi̯ o (on the Celtiberian and Lepontic genitive singulars, see Eska 1995). Similarly it cannot be definitively reconstructed for Proto-Italic, since the Sabellic languages have generalized the i-stem genitive singular in *-ei̯ s in the o-stems: Osc. sakarakleís, U. katles, SP. kaúieis. A problem with positing an Italo-Celtic innovation is that the ī-genitive may not be restricted to Italic and Celtic, but may be a Western European areal feature. It is probably found also in Venetic (e.g. .u.r.k.li), which may, however, be an Italic language. The poorly-understood Messapic, attested in ancient Italy, but neither Italic nor Celtic, has genitive singulars in -ihi (i.e. /-ī/?). However, in the o-stem gen. sg. -aihi the *-ī seems to be added to the thematic vowel rather than replacing it. It has also been suggested (e.g. Klingenschmitt 1994: 375 ff.) that the Italic and Celtic gen. sg. in *-ī should be compared with the Tocharian A and B gen. sg. in -i found only in nouns referring to family-members (Toch. A. pācri, B. pātri ‘of a father’), personal and demonstrative pronouns, and personal names borrowed from Sanskrit with nom. sg. in -e. A similar system may persist in Albanian, where o-stem words for family members preceded by possessive pronouns perhaps preserve traces of an original ī-genitive, e.g. Old Geg timett ‘of my father’ < *tosi̯ o mei̯ osi̯ ’ attī. If correct, the Tocharian forms would show that the preform of the i-genitive was *-ih1. However, the Tocharian i-genitive is found only in athematic forms, and should perhaps be better traced back to the athematic dat. sg. in *-ei̯ (Pinault 2008: 487 ff. with references). If the connection with Tocharian and Albanian is not maintained, a plausible source for the *-ī genitive is the so-called “vr̥kī´ḥ” suffix *-ih2, which is used to derive nouns with the meaning ‘belonging to, pertaining to’ from o-stems, e.g. Ved. rathī´- ‘charioteer’ ← rátha- ‘chariot’. The same suffix is probably the basis of the genitival adjective *-ii̯ o- < *-ih2-o- (Ved. pítriya- ‘paternal’). If this derivational origin of the ī-genitive is correct, it would explain why we still find traces of the inherited o-stem gen. sg. *-osi̯ o (cf. Ved. -asya) in early Latin and Faliscan inscriptions (Lat. Popliosio Valesiosio, Fal. Kaisiosio) and in Lepontic (χosioiso). With this picture in mind, it should be noted that the shared innovation between Italic and Celtic cannot be said to be the creation de nihilo of the ī-genitive, but rather the reinterpretation of forms in -ī as genitival alongside inherited *-osi̯ o (but the eventual

119. The shared features of Italic and Celtic

2033

complete integration of *-ī into the o-stem paradigm occurred only within the recorded history of Latin, Faliscan, and Lepontic). Although it is striking that this happened only in Celtic and Italic, the possibility of a parallel rather than shared development becomes more plausible: indeed, it is possible that it occurred only in Latin and Faliscan, and that the Sabellic languages never possessed a gen. sg. in *-ī; the same may perhaps be true of Irish, British, Gaulish, and Lepontic, leaving out Celtiberian. Yet more uncertain is the status of the so-called “ā-subjunctive”. A formant *-ā- is the usual subjunctive marker in the 2nd, 3 rd, and 4 th conjugations of the regular verb in Latin (2.sg. moneās, regās, audiās), and is found in Faliscan (douiad ‘may [s]he give’), Oscan (pútíans ‘may they be able’) and Umbrian (habia ‘[s]he should hold’). Other subjunctive formations in Latin and Oscan can be traced back to the Indo-European optative (OLat. siet < *h1s-i̯ eh1- ‘[s]he should be’, Lat. amet ‘[s]he should love’, Osc. deiuaid ‘let him/her swear’ < *-āē- < *-eh2-i̯ eh1-), so it is usually assumed that the suffix *-ā- is originally optative, replacing the thematic optative suffix *-o-i̯ h1- (e.g. Gk. φέροιμι). In the Celtic languages, an “ā-subjunctive” is attested primarily in Irish (e.g. OIr. ·bera ‘[s]he should carry < *bher-ā-). It is the usual subjunctive marker in weak verbs and in primary verbs is in complementary distribution with the s-subjunctive, which is largely restricted to stems ending in a dental or velar obstruent (e.g. geiss ‘[s]he should pray’ < *gwed-se/o-). There are possible cases of “ā-subjunctives” in Celtiberian (asekati, sistat), but the context and meaning of these forms is too uncertain for them to be strong evidence. Gaulish has one possible example of an “ā-subjunctive” in lubiías ‘you should love (?)’ (but see Schumacher 2004: 53 fn. 46). The Brittonic languages, however, have a different system. Relic forms in Welsh such as MW. gwnech ‘(s)he may do’ < *u̯reg-se/o point to the existence of an s-subjunctive identical to that of Irish, but the productive formation is the “h-subjunctive” in forms like MW. carho ‘(s)he should love’, dycko ‘(s)he should bring’ (where *-h- has caused devoicing of the preceding voiced stop, cf. present dwg), MB. maruhynt ‘they will die’. This is traceable to a sequence *-Vse/o-, which would also give the Irish “ā-subjunctive” if the first vowel were *-ā˘-, because intervocalic *-h- < *-s- would be lost and *-ā˘e/o- would contract to *-ā-. This possibility was observed by Rix (1977), who compared the Insular Celtic *-se/o- and -ā˘se/o- suffixes to the desiderative suffix *-h1se/o- seen in forms like Gk. τενέω ‘I will stretch’. This suffix is added only to roots ending in a liquid or nasal, *-se/o- being added after an obstruent. Alternatively, McCone (1991: 55 ff.) derives both Insular Celtic subjunctive suffixes from the subjunctive of s-aorists; the suffix *-ā˘se/o- is due to reanalysis of the sequence *CeRH-se/o- in laryngeal-final roots: thus *CeRH-se/o- > *CeRăse/o- → *CeR-ăse/o-. The expected result of both Rix’s and McCone’s theories would be a Celtic *-ăse/o- subjunctive; the only evidence for *-āse/o- is found in the Brittonic paradigm of the verb ‘to be’, where e.g. MW. bwyf ‘I should be’, points to *bu̯āse/o-. The lengthening of *-ăse/o- to *-āse/o- must be explained analogically. Although McCone’s explanation in particular has gained support, the case for a shared Italic and Celtic “ā-subjunctive” has been taken up by Jasanoff (1994), who argues that the Brittonic suffix *-ā˘se/o- is the result of a secondary addition of the s-aorist subjunctive suffix *-se/o- to original *-ā-. Jasanoff points out serious flaws in McCone’s treatment of the Brittonic evidence, but it is nonetheless still possible to derive the Brittonic forms from an original rather than secondary *-āse/o- (Schumacher 2004: 49 ff.; Zair 2012b). A major plank in Jasanoff’s argument is MW. el ‘(s)he should go’, which cannot

2034

XIX. Wider configurations and contacts

go back to *elā˘se/o-, but could come from *elā-. However, some old root aorist subjunctives are preserved in Celtic (McCone 1991: 115 ff.; Schumacher 2004: 48 f., 413 ff.). It is therefore possible that MW. el is also by origin the subjunctive of a root aorist, from *pelh2-e/o- (for the root see LIV 470 f.). Alternatively, Peter Schrijver (p.c.) suggests a way to derive el from *pel-ā˘se/o-. According to him, Celtic subjunctives took the secondary endings, final *-t was lost early in the dialects which became Gaulish, Irish, and Brittonic, and subsequently final *-e fell together with final *-i, which was then also lost (Schrijver 2007). If all this is correct, original *pelh2-se-t would give *elaset > *elase > *elas > MW. el with regular loss of final syllables. The existence of a shared Italo-Celtic “ā-subjunctive” cannot be discounted, but the apparent similarities may be merely an historical accident. Both Italic (Lat. amātur ‘[s]he is loved’, Osc. sakarater ‘[s]he is consecrated’, U. herter ‘[s]he should’) and Celtic (OIr. pass. léicthir ‘[s]he is left’, dep. ·labrathar ‘[s]he speaks’, OW. cephitor ‘it is obtained’, Celtib. ne-bintoṛ ‘let them not be struck [?]’, Gaul. nitixsintor ‘[?]’) have mediopassive verbal endings characterized by final -r. This is not a shared innovation, since Hittite (artari ‘[s]he stands) and Tocharian (klyauṣtär ‘[s]he is heard’) also have forms in -r. This suffix is found only in primary endings in Hittite and Tocharian, and was probably originally a primary marker equivalent to the *-i found in active primary endings, and generalized also to middle endings, by the other Indo-European languages, e.g. Arcadian Gk. -τοι , Ved. -te < *-to-i (for a summary of the Indo-European mediopassive endings see Weiss 2009: 387 ff.). Although the -r endings per se are not an innovation, there has been a tendency to look for shared ItaloCeltic aspects in their development. Cowgill (1970: 142) considers the spread of *-r as a voice marker into originally secondary endings to be a shared innovation. But in fact the only possibly shared secondary verbal category is the “ā-subjunctive”, so this is hardly a strong argument. Furthermore, if the Irish and British imperfect endings reflect the original secondary mediopassive endings (for which see Schrijver 1992), it seems likely that the distinction between primary and secondary mediopassive endings lasted as far as Proto-Celtic. The creation of 1pl. mediopassive *-mor in place of *-me(s)dhh2 (Ved. -mahe, Gk. -με[σ]θα) is a better possibility, if it in fact took place in both ProtoItalic and Proto-Celtic (it is only actually attested in Latin -mur and Irish abs. -m[m]ir, conj. -m[m]ar). But the spread of *-r throughout the paradigm is unsurprising (note a similar process in Toch. 1pl. -mtär), and the similar basis in 1pl. indicative *-mos → *-mor may be coincidental. Jasanoff (1997) has argued for an Italo-Celtic 3pl. primary mediopassive ending *-ntro, formed by blending the two 3pl primary mediopassive endings in *-ro(r) and *-ntor posited by Jasanoff for PIE. The Italic evidence for such a form comes primarily from the Sabellic languages. In Umbrian, beside the secondary passive endings in *-(n)tor found in the subjunctive (emantur ‘they should buy’) are also found primary endings in the present/future/future perfect (herter ‘it is appropriate’). In Oscan, the primary endings have been generalized (uincter ‘is convicted’, sakraitír ‘it should be consecrated’). In Old Irish, the 3 rd person deponent endings differ from the passive in, among other things, never undergoing syncope of the preceding vowel (gainithir ‘is born’, gainitir ‘they are born’; cf. léicthir ‘is left’, suidigtir ‘they are placed’). One way to explain the Irish facts is to reconstruct 3sg. and pl. endings *-(n)tro, which may also explain the Oscan and Umbrian endings, if these reflect *-(n)tro > *-(n)tr̥ > *-nter. However, the Sabellic evidence is more likely to reflect *-(n)tir, as suggested by the

119. The shared features of Italic and Celtic

2035

spelling variation in U. herter, herti, hertei (thus Meiser 1992, who proposes an independent development in Sabellic). The sequence of analogical changes required by Jasanoff to get from his proposed starting point to the attested Sabellic and Irish facts is in any case so complex as to require pre-existing faith in the existence of Italo-Celtic rather than to be evidence for it.

5. Conclusion This concludes the possible cases of Italo-Celtic isoglosses. Despite the continuing debate, the question of whether there was ever a single Italo-Celtic language family remains open. Although there are a number of apparent similarities, very few can be shown reliably to reflect shared innovations. Only the *-is-m̥mo- superlative seems nearly unassailable; in the next rank of plausibility are the striking reinterpretation of *-ī as an ostem-genitive, and perhaps the 1pl. passive ending *-mor. Whether this is enough to posit an Italo-Celtic subgroup is uncertain; if such a family did exist, it may best be seen as a “drowned” subgroup, the result of “a rather short period of common development followed by a long period of divergence” (Cowgill 1970: 114).

6. References Bammesberger, Alfred. 1979 On the origin of the Irish f-future. Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies 28: 395−398 Cowgill, Warren 1970 Italic and Celtic superlatives and the dialects of Indo-European. In: George Cardona, Henry M. Hoenigswald, and Alfred Senn (eds.), Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 113−153. Eska, Joseph F. 1995 Observations on the thematic genitive singular in Lepontic and Hispano-Celtic. In: Joseph F. Eska, R. Geraint Gruffydd, and Nicolas Jacobs (eds.), Hispano-Gallo-Brittonica: Essays in honour of Professor D. Ellis Evans on the occasion of his sixty-fifth birthday. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 32−46. Isaac, Graham 2004 The nature and origins of the Celtic languages: Atlantic seaways, Italo-Celtic and other paralinguistic misapprehensions. Studia Celtica 38: 49−58. Jasanoff, Jay H. 1994 The Brittonic subjunctive and future. In: Jens E. Rasmussen (ed.), In Honorem Holger Pedersen: Kolloquium der indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 25. bis 28. März 1993 in Kopenhagen. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 199−220. Jasanoff, Jay H. 1997 An Italo-Celtic isogloss: the 3pl. mediopassive in *-ntro. In: Douglas Q. Adams (ed.), Festschrift for Eric P. Hamp. Vol. 1. Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man, 146−161. Klingenschmitt, Gert 1994 Das Tocharische in indogermanisticher Sicht. In: Bernfried Schlerath (ed.), Tocharisch: Akten der Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft Berlin, September 1990. Rejkjavík: Málvísindastofnun Háskóla Íslands, 310−411.

2036

XIX. Wider configurations and contacts

Kortlandt, Frederik H. H. 1981 More evidence for Italo-Celtic. Ériu 32: 1−22. LIV = Helmut Rix and Martin Kümmel. 2001. Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben. 2nd edn. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Matasović, Ranko 2012 Dybo’s Law in Proto-celtic. Zeitschrift für Celtische Philologie 59: 129−41 McCone, Kim 1991 The Indo-European Origins of the Old Irish Nasal Presents, Subjunctives and Futures. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität. Meillet, Antoine 1922 Les dialectes indo-européens. 2nd edn. Paris: Champion. Meillet, Antoine 1977 Esquisse d’une histoire de la langue latine. Paris: Klincksieck. Meiser, Gerhard 1992 Die sabellischen Medialendungen der 3. Person. In: Robert Beekes, Alexander Lubotsky, and Jos Weitenberg (eds.), Rekonstruktion und Relative Chronologie. Akten der VIII. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft Leiden, 31. August−4. September 1987. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität, 291−305. Pinault, Georges-Jean 2008 Chrestomathie tokharienne: textes et grammaire. Leuven: Peeters. Ringe, Donald A., Jr. 1988 Laryngeal isoglosses in the Western Indo-European Languages. In: Alfred Bammesberger (ed.), Die Laryngaltheorie und die Rekonstruktion des indogermanischen Laut- und Formensystems. Heidelberg: Winter, 415−441. Ringe, Don, Tandy Warnow, and Ann Taylor 2002 Indo-European and computational cladistics. Transactions of the Philological Society 100: 59−129. Rix, Helmut 1977 Das keltische Verbalsystem auf dem Hintergrund des indo-iranisch-griechischen Rekonstruktionsmodells. In: Karl Horst Schmidt (ed.), Indogermanisch und Keltisch. Kolloquium der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft am 16. und 17. Februar 1976 in Bonn. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 132−158. Schrijver, Peter 1991 The Reflexes of the Proto-Indo-European Laryngeals in Latin. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Schrijver, Peter 1992 The chronology of the loss of post-posttonic vowels between identical consonants and the origin of the Celtic first person singular imperfect. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 53: 179−196. Schrijver, Peter 2006 Review of Gerhard Meiser. 2003. Veni Vidi Vici. Die Vorgeschichte des lateinischen Perfektsystems. Kratylos 51: 46−64. Schrijver, Peter 2007 Some common developments of Continental and Insular Celtic. In: Pierre-Yves Lambert and Georges-Jean Pinault (eds.), Gaulois et Celtique Continental. Geneva: Droz, 357− 371. Schumacher, Stefan 2004 Die keltischen Primärverben: ein vergleichendes, etymologisches und morphologisches Lexikon. Unter Mitarbeit von Britta Schulze-Thulin und Caroline aan de Wiel. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität. Stüber, Karin 2012 Zur Frage des Italo-Keltischen: Erkentnisse aus der Erforschung der Partikeln. In: Velizar Sadovski and David Stifter (eds), Iranistische und indogermanistische Beiträge in

120. Graeco-Anatolian contacts in the Mycenaean period

2037

memoriam Jochem Schindler (1944−1994). Vienna: Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 403−417. Watkins, Calvert 1966 Italo-Celtic revisited. In: Henrik Birnbaum and Jaan Puhvel (eds.), Ancient Indo-European Dialects: Proceedings of the Conference on Indo-European Linguistics held at the University of California, Los Angeles, April 25−27, 1963. Berkeley: University of California Press, 29−50. Weiss, Michael 2009 Outline of the Historical and Comparative Grammar of Latin. Ann Arbor: Beechstave. Zair, Nicholas 2009 OIr. biid < *bhuH-ye/o- and ‘hiatus’ verbs. In: Stephanie Jamison, Craig Melchert, and Brent Vine (eds.), Proceedings of the 20 th UCLA Indo-European Conference: Los Angeles 2008. Bremen: Hempen, 213−220. Zair, Nicholas 2012a The Reflexes of the Proto-Indo-European Laryngeals in Celtic. Leiden and Boston: Brill. Zair, Nicholas 2012b Reconstructing the Brittonic future/present subjunctive. Journal of Celtic Linguistics 14: 87−110.

Nicholas Zair, Cambridge (UK)

120. Graeco-Anatolian contacts in the Mycenaean period 1. Background 2. Methodological questions 3. Lexical and phraseological borrowing relations

4. Structural borrowings (phonology, morphology, syntax) 5. Assessment 6. References

1. Background Were the Mycenaean Greeks in contact with the Anatolian population of Asia Minor? The question is difficult to answer for the periods preceding the late Bronze Age. The hypothesis that Anatolians would have settled on the Greek mainland in the early Bronze Age is not sufficiently proved. It is based only on the so-called “Pre-Greek substrate”: specifically on Greek place names in /-sso-, -tto-/ (e.g. Παρνασσός in the Phocis, respectively Locris regions) and /-nt ho-/ (e.g. Ἀμάρυνθος on Euboea). These are said to correlate with Anatolian place names in -ssa and -anda (see the material in Duhoux 2007: 225 f., the research report in Renfrew 1998: 253 ff., and the summary in Finkelberg 2005: 42−64). As there are no other arguments, this hypothesis remains controversial (see the very constructive criticism in Chadwick 1969: 84 ff. as well as Morpurgo Davies 1986: 111 ff.). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-041

2038

XIX. Wider configurations and contacts

But the question raised above can clearly be answered with “yes” for the late Bronze Age from an archaeological, historical, philological, and onomastic point of view, taking the evidence together in a cumulative way (cf. the short summary of the entire argumentation in Schuol 2002: 345 ff.): a) From an archaeological perspective, Milet is a center of Mycenaean presence in Asia Minor in the construction phases V and VI − i.e. from LH IIA to LHIIC (about 1450 to 1100 BCE). With Milet as its center the zone of intense Mycenaean settlement extends as far as Bodrum/Halicarnassus. Further to the north of this zone − north of the peninsula of Mykale/Samsun Dağ − Mycenaean presence seems to be less intensive, as it is limited there to trade contacts and trading colonies (see the summary in Niemeier 1998: 25 ff., 2005a: 10 ff., 2007: 51 ff.). b) From a historical point of view, the place name Millau̯a(n)da, found in Hittite texts of the late Bronze Age, is no doubt identical with Greek Milet (for a detailed discussion see Niemeier 1998: 43 ff., 2005a: 16 ff., 2007: 60 ff.). In the written sources, Millau̯a(n)da/Milet is repeatedly mentioned as situated in an area of conflict between the Hittite (Ḫatti) and the region Aḫḫii̯ a(u̯a). By process of elimination, Aḫḫii̯ a(u̯a) cannot be an area in the South-West of Asia Minor because there is simply not enough space for it there. This leaves room for the assumption that Aḫḫii̯ a(u̯a) could be localized on the Greek mainland (but see also the critical remarks in Hajnal 2011). Thus, the question has come full circle: Millau̯a(n)da (= Milet), which was populated by Greek settlers, served as a bridgehead in Asia Minor of a mainland Greek empire with the name Aḫḫii̯ a(u̯a). c) The picture outlined under a) and b) is complemented by a philological and onomastic analysis of the Mycenaean texts respectively, which show clear references to late Bronze Age Asia Minor (see also Hajnal 2014a: 106 f.): − The toponym Aḫḫii̯ a(u̯a), mentioned above under b), is usually associated with the ethnic name Ἀχαιοί< */Ak haiu̯-oi/, which is the term by which the Homeric Greeks designate themselves in the Trojan war. This association implies that the equivalent place name */Ak haiu̯-iā/ of the late Bronze Age refers to a Mycenaean state on the Greek mainland. An isolated reference from Crete may confirm this: The tablet KN C 914 lists a hecatomb of sacrificial animals. In this context, an indication of a direction is given: a-ka-wi-ja-de /Ak haiu̯ia-de/. This could refer to the name of a feast in the sense of ‘for the Ak haiu̯ia’. If this were the case, we may assume that the feast (ntr. Pl.) Ak haiu̯ia was established by mainland Mycenaeans, who had immigrated to Crete. The name of the feast can be seen as a reminiscence of their mainland Greek origins (see Killen 1994: 78 and Weilhartner 2005: 75 f. and 99). − The Mycenaean tablets document a series of ethnic names from Asia Minor and the South- East Aegean: The Pylian A-series lists a group of female textile workers from Milet (mi-ra-ti-ja /Milātiai/) or, possibly, Halicarnassus (ze-pu2-ra3 /D zep hurai/). These women may be prisoners of war. Elsewhere, they are referred to as a-*64-ja / a-swi-ja /Asu̯iai/, an ethnic name for a heterogeneous group (see Parker 1999). The toponym */Asu̯iā/, which underlies /Asu̯iai/, in early Greek literature denotes a region in the northwest of central Asia Minor, in the linguistic form Ἀσίη. Myc. */Asu̯iā/ is unmistakably identical to the Hittite toponym Aššuu̯a, apart from the form of the suffix (for Aššuu̯a see Niemeier 2007: 73 ff., and from a

120. Graeco-Anatolian contacts in the Mycenaean period

2039

linguistic point of view Watkins 1998: 202 ff.). At the beginning of the Neo-Hittite empire, Aššuu̯a is a state bordering on Hittite territory in the northwest, which is broken up by the Hittite King Tudḫalii̯ a I (about 1420−1400 BCE). Also Aḫḫii̯ a(u̯a) is involved in the conflict over Aššuu̯a. − The Linear B tablets from Knossos show series of syllables which can be associated with names found in Asia Minor: There are names containing as pija-ma-so or pi-ja-mu-nu, which seem to correspond to the frequent Luwian names with a first verbal component */pi-i̯ o°/ ‘give’ (see Houwink ten Cate 1965: 175 ff.). Further personal names which relate to Asia Minor are i-mi-ri-jo (KN Db 1186) /Imrios/ (cf. Graeco-Lyc. Ιμβρας et al.), as well as ru-ki-jo (PY Jn 415.11, Gn 720.2) ru-ki-jo may be interpreted as /Luk-ios/ and can be related to the toponym Luqqa, a region mentioned in Hittite documents. According to Widmer (2007), the Mycenaean personal name ru-wa-ni-jo (KN X 7706+8108) /Luu̯anios/ is based on a toponym */Lū˘u̯ano-/, which appears as a word for ‘Luwia’ in Egyptian secondary sources. */Lū˘u̯-ano-/ in this case is an alternative formation to Hitt. lu-ú-(i)-i̯ a/Luu̯-ii̯ a-/. If Widmer is correct, ‘Luwia’ is indirectly attested in Mycenaean texts. Widmer’s interpretation of ru-wa-ni-jo is doubted, however, by Yakubovich (2010: 112). Further possible Mycenaean-Anatolian correspondences of names are mentioned in the summary in Milani (2001). The arguments given in a) to c) combine to complete a picture: Mycenaean Greeks are in contact with people of southwestern Asia Minor. From the point of view of cultural history, this fact is hardly surprising: Archaic Greek mythology and the Greek epics show similarities to Bronze Age sources from the Near East (summary in Burkert 2005: 292 f.). Although cultural parallels of this type date mostly from the first millennium BCE, in Mycenaean Pylos, the ethnic name /Asu̯iā/ is used as an eponym of a goddess po-ti-ni-ja a-si-wi-ja /potnia Asu̯iā/ (PY Fr 1206). Apparently the pantheon of Pylos was already familiar with a mother-goddess whose origins are in Asia Minor. This fact shows that there must have been intensive cultural exchange between mainland Greece and Asia Minor in the Bronze Age (cf. Morris 2001). This situation suggests that the Greek language group was in contact with the Anatolian language group, producing the language-contact phenomena to be discussed below. Greek and Luwian contacts are to be expected in the first place, as the main zone of contact (the south-western Aegean coastline) was Luwian speaking (cf. Starke 1997: 459). However, contacts between the Greek and Hittite language group are not to be excluded. In fact, Greek and Hittite contacts are documented by the existence of a diplomatic correspondence between Aḫḫii̯ a(u̯a) and Ḫatti attested in the Hittite language.

2. Methodological questions Language contact is manifested in borrowings of different intensity. The term “borrowing” is used in a broad sense in the following discussion, including language change that is caused by contact (a typology of language change triggered by language contact is presented in Aikhenvald and Dixon 2001b: 16 f.). Lexical borrowings are possible even if there is only limited contact between two speech communities. On the other hand, structural borrowings on a phonological, morphological, or syntactic level require intense

2040

XIX. Wider configurations and contacts

Tab. 120.1 (i) borrowing scenario

(ii) substratum/adstratum scenario

lexicon

numerous borrowings

no borrowings (at most isolated loanwords)

phonology

no interferences (at most isolated interferences with a high number of bilingual speakers)

numerous interferences

morphology

possibly morphological borrowings (via loanwords in the lexicon)

borrowings on the level of morphology generally scarce

syntax

no interferences

numerous interferences

contact or a bilingual situation. The following Table 120.1 outlines the types of borrowings which are likely to occur in varying situations of languages in contact (cf. Thomason and Kaufman 1988: 35 ff.). This is only a very simplified account of the multitude of possible relations and backgrounds of borrowings (an overview of the diversity of borrowing relations is found in Curnow 2001: 417 ff. and Thomason 2001: 59 ff.). But it is sufficient for the purpose of the present study. In the following, lexical interferences are separately treated in 3 as opposed to possible structural interferences (phonology, morphology, syntax), which are discussed in 4. Apart from the complex sociolinguistic situation, Greek-Anatolian language contacts in the Bronze Age raise a methodological question which requires extensive discussion: Which are the comparanda, or what are the linguistic documents to be compared? − There is sufficient documentation of Anatolian in the second millennium BCE, because of the cuneiform texts from the Hittite archives. There are also inscriptions in the Luwian hieroglyphic script which have an early date. For Greek, one can draw on the Mycenaean texts. However, these allow only limited insight into Bronze-Age Greek. For this reason, records from the Homeric epics (and, sporadically, also other archaic poetry from the first millennium BCE) are consistently introduced in the discussion about MycenaeanAnatolian language contacts. In this context, it is pointed out that the Homeric epics, and their linguistic formulae, in particular, have their origins in (pre-)Mycenaean times. It is assumed that in this way fossilized language relics from the late Bronze Age were passed on in Homeric poetic language into the first millennium BCE (see the summary in West 1988: 156 ff.). This opinion, however, can hardly be considered unquestionable in the light of new research on linguistic formulae in Homer. There are valid arguments that the roots of the Homeric Epic should not be dated before the Post-Mycenaean phase, that is at the turn of the second to the first millennium BCE (cf. Hajnal 2003: 61 ff.). Consequently, in the following discussion linguistic evidence from the Homeric epics − as well as from other archaic Greek sources − should be viewed with some reservations for the purpose of comparison. The same holds true for documents in the Greek dialects of Asia Minor dating from the first millennium BCE: Aeolic, East-Ionic, and Pamphylian. Onomastic evidence − for example the deity names Διϝια und Ͷαναψσσα − suggests that Pamphylian Greek either dates back as far as the second millennium BCE or that it has an old substratum

120. Graeco-Anatolian contacts in the Mycenaean period

2041

as its basis (see Brixhe 2002: 50 ff.). For Lesbian and East-Ionic, an early origin which has its roots in the late Bronze Age, or an older substratum, cannot be shown on the basis of the linguistic data. On the other hand, it cannot be excluded that the first Ionians or Aeolians reached their homelands in Asia Minor already in Post-Mycenaean times. If this was the case, language contact in the last stage of the Bronze Age is a possibility. For this reason, in analogy to the Greek language of the Homeric epics, evidence from Lesbian and East-Ionic is not excluded from the discussion. A final preliminary remark: The following discussion is limited to the influence of Anatolian languages on Bronze-Age Greek as there is no clear indication of Bronze Age Greek influence on Anatolian languages. To mention just three examples of alleged Greek influences: − The assumption that there are traces of Greek influence in the Hittite letter KUB XXVI 91 is convincingly rejected by Melchert (To appear). − kurutau̯ant is sometimes mentioned as a lexical borrowing from Greek in Hittite. It functions as an attribute of a priest or an idol. The basis of the word kuruta- resembles Greek κόρυς/Myc. (gen.sg.) ko-ru-to /korut h-os/ ‘helmet’. More precisely, though, kurutau̯ant- means ‘with a crown adorned by horns’ rather than ‘with a helmet’ (see Hoffner, 2000: 74). Thus it is not a valid element for comparison. − The Hittite theonym [ Da-]ap-pa-li-u-na-aš could be an onomastic borrowing if it corresponds to Greek (dial.) Ἀπέλλων < */Apeli̯ ōn/, and if */Apeli̯ ōn/ is of truly Greek origin (from Dor. ἀπέλλα ‘male society’). But this is not assured (see the discussion in Beekes 2003). Thus, the question of early Greek influences on Anatolian languages can be left open in this study.

3. Lexical and phraseological borrowing relations 3.1. Lexical borrowings Loanwords from Anatolian can no doubt be found in Greek − apart from onomastic borrowings which shall not be discussed here. There is, however, no recent compilation of probable loanwords: The listings in Gusmani (1969: 508 f.) and Szemerényi (1974) are in part outdated; at least a short, up-to-date summary is given by Yakubovich (2010: 146 f.). Furthermore, the lexical comparison proves to be very difficult in general. This is because not every parallel between the Greek and the Anatolian lexicon is based on a borrowing. Thus, “migrant” cultural words, as well as inherited words of common origin, are to be excluded from comparison. Among these migrant cultural words, there are terms for materials and metals such as ἐλέφᾱς ‘ivory’ (besides Hitt. laḫpa- also Phoen. ’lp, Egypt. 3bw), κύανος ‘dark blue glaze; enamel’ (besides Hitt. (NA4 )kuu̯annan‘copper ore; azurite’ also Sumer. kù-an ‘a valuable metal’), or ὄβρυζα ‘vessel for refining gold’ (besides Hitt. ḫuprušḫi- ‘vessel’, also Ugarit. ḫptr or ḫbrṯ). The remaining Greek lexemes can be identified as loanwords from the Anatolian languages if they fulfill at least three of the following four conditions:

2042

XIX. Wider configurations and contacts

a) Their phonological form precisely equals the phonological form of the Anatolian source language − or, if different, can be plausibly justified by the inaccurate reproduction of foreign phonemes in Greek. b) Their meaning corresponds to the meaning in the Anatolian source or can be deduced from it. c) No other source language can be identified to which they could be attributed. d) They show traces of the phonology or morphology of the Anatolian source language. These conditions can be illustrated by the following two examples: − Gr. μόλυβδος/myk. mo-ri-wo-do ‘lead’ completely meets the conditions: There is an underlying adjective */morku̯-io-/ ‘dark’, as in the Lydian theonym mariwda(ś)-k ‘the dark ones’. The phonological development */morku̯-io-/ > */maru̯ido-/ > */mariu̯do-/ with a transition from */°Vi̯ V°/ > /°VdV°/ proves μόλυβδος / mo-ri-wo-do to be a loanword from Lydian; the semantic development from ‘blue, dark (sc. Metal)’ to ‘lead’ is unproblematic (cf. Melchert 2008). − However, the common equation of Gr. θύρσος ‘staff entwined with vine or ivy’ with H-Luw. tuu̯arsa/i- ‘vine; vineyard’ must be rejected: Neither the difference in the initial sound nor the semantic difference can be justified by the conditions of transfer. Thus, it is better to assume a “migrating” cultural word at the basis of both lexemes. If one applies the above criteria consistently, there remain only a small number of Greek lexemes which can be considered as Anatolian borrowings apart from μόλυβδος: − δέπας/myk. di-pa ‘cup; pot; vessel’, possibly from H-Luw. (CAELUM)ti-pa-s° ‘sky’. Regarding the semantics of this word it should be added that the H-Luw. ideogram CAELUM depicts a bowl. Furthermore, the Hittite equivalent nēpis ‘sky’ occasionally also denotes a ‘cup’ (cf. Neu 1999 and Watkins 2007: 319 ff.). − κύμβαλον ‘cymbal’, possibly from Hitt. GIŠḫuḫupal ‘(a wooden percussion instrument)’ Gr. /°mb°/ can function here − as well as in κύμβαχος below − as a (pre-) Mycenaean realization of a foreign /°b°/ (see Hajnal 1993). − κύπελλον ‘cup’, possibly from the Hitt. term for cup DUGkukupalla-. Additionally, κύπελλον can be compared with C-Luw. ḫupalla/i- (and Hitt. (UZU)ḫupallaš-) ‘skull’. Anatol. */ḫ/ is realized as Gr. in the Greek of the first millennium. For the semantic development, cf. Lat. testa ‘potsherd, pot’ vs. Fr. tête ‘head’. − κύμβαχος ‘helmet’ perhaps from Hitt. kupaḫi- ‘headgear’ (from Hurrian ku-(-ú)-u̯a4ḫi). Regarding /°mb°/ see the remark on κύμβαλον. − τολύπη ‘ball of wool’, possibly from Hitt. taluppa- (or C-Luw. taluppa/i-) ‘lump’ (see Joseph 1982 and Melchert 2000). Hence, the results are very insubstantial. This picture would not change if one or the other problematical lexeme was added to the list above, or removed from it. The list consists mainly of Hittite cultural words − whereas opposed to the expectation mentioned in 1, there are almost no Luwian words.

3.2. Phraseological borrowings in a narrow and in a wide sense The relevant literature of the last two decades leads to the impression that the Homeric epic, in particular the Iliad, contains numerous phraseological borrowings from Anatoli-

120. Graeco-Anatolian contacts in the Mycenaean period

2043

an languages. These borrowings seem to be conditioned by the “Anatolian” theme of the Iliad − the fight for Troy − and could, as argued in 2, hint at a Bronze Age legacy. The following examples may illustrate the broad spectrum of phraseological borrowings: 1. Translated borrowings, e.g., in Hom., Il. A 290 f.: Agamemnon comments on Achilleus to Nestor as follows: εἰ δέ μιν αἰχμητὴν ἔθεσαν θεοὶ αἰὲν ἐόντες | τοὔνεκά οἱ προθέουσιν ὀνείδεα μυθήσασθαι; ‘Even if the eternal gods have made him a chariot fighter − do they support him uttering blame?’. The translation of the word προθέουσιν is problematic, because normally it does not mean ‘they support’ but rather ‘they hurry on ahead’. Puhvel (1988) points out a parallel to this otherwise unusual meaning in Greek with a reference to the Anatolian languages: In these, the equivalents of προθεῖν such as Hitt. parā/piran ḫuu̯āi- ‘hurry ahead’ are indeed found in the above meaning of ‘help, support’. Further examples of translated borrowings are: Hom. διέτμαγεν ‘they went’ (to διατμήγειν ‘cut through’) from Hitt. šarra- ‘cut; leave’ (Puhvel 1988: 592 f.); Hom. ἐν δέ μιν αὐτὸν εὗρε ‘he found him there’ from Hitt. anda ... u̯emii̯ a- ‘get together, meet’ (Puhvel 1993); Hom. κυάνεαι ὀφρύες ‘dark eyebrows’ analogous to C-Luw. kuu̯annani- ‘eyebrow’ (Högemann 2000b: 29). According to Watkins (1998: 206 ff.) also the twofold naming of the Trojans in the Iliad belongs to the broader context of translated borrowings. On the one hand, Homer uses the native name, on the other hand the corresponding Greek epiclesis: see Il. Ζ 402 f. τόν ῥ᾽ ῞Εκτωρ καλέεσκε Σκαμάνδριον, αὐτὰρ οἱ ἄλλοι | Ἀστυάνακτ᾽ · οἶος γὰρ ἐρύετο ῎Ιλιον ῞Εκτωρ. ‘Him (sc. his son) Hektor called Skamandrios, but others called him Astuanax; because Hector alone had saved Ilios’. 2. Adoption of foreign phrasemes; e.g., if fortune turns against a person, Homer speaks of fortune ‘lying down on the ground’: see Il. Θ 73 f. αἳ μὲν Ἀχαιῶν κῆρες ἐπὶ χθονὶ πουλυβοτείρῃ | ἑζέσθην, Τρώων δὲ πρὸς οὐρανὸν εὐρὺν ἄερθεν. Puhvel (1983: 221 ff.) compares this with Hittite phrases such as KBo VI 13 18 GIŠelzi-mit-u̯a taknā aršikkit ‘he lay my scales of fortune on the ground’ (actually ‘planted them in the ground’). A further example for the adoption of a foreign phraseme (see Oettinger 1989/ 90): Hom. γαῖα μέλαινα ‘black soil’ from Hitt. (Nom.) dankuiš daganzipaš, (Dat.) dankui daganzipi/taknī, etc. In fact, the expression ‘dark earth’ is attested in a HurrianHittite bilingual document: Hurr. timerrē ešeni dūri (KBo XXXII 13 I 10), corresponding to Hitt. kattanta tankuu̯ai táknī (ib. II 10). In this case, the Anatolians were not the creators of the phraseme but the transmitters. 3. Reflexes of a foreign ritual, economic, or socio-cultural practice, which normally is accompanied with phraseological parallels as in 2), e.g.: In Il. Γ 276 ff., Agamemnon calls upon Zeus and Helios as his divine witnesses before a ritual (Ζεῦ πάτερ ῎Ιδηθεν μεδέων κύδιστε μέγιστε, | Ἠέλιός θ’). Puhvel (1991: 9 ff.) sees in this an Anatolian practice, because in Hittite texts often the storm god and the sun god are called upon as witnesses when swearing an oath. Further examples for reflexes of a foreign ritual, economic, or socio-cultural practice: The contract between the Trojans and the Acheans, as described in Il. Γ 94 as well as 276−301, is modeled on Hittite oaths of allegiance, according to Starke (1998: 483). According to Watkins (1998: 204 ff., 2002: 167 ff.) the four terms κασίγνητοι, γαμβροί, λαοί, and ἐπίκουροι used in the Iliad to denote social stratification are based

2044

XIX. Wider configurations and contacts on an Anatolian pattern. Watkins (2000a, 2002: 169) also sees the model of the Greek αἰγίς (in Homer as well as in Pindar) in the Hittite cult object KUŠkuršaš ‘hunting pouch’. There are also stylistic parallels: see Hitt. našta anda ... kitta and Il. Ε 740 ἐν δ’ ῎Ερις..., in each case for ‘in it (sc. in the kuršaš or the αἰγίς) were ...’.

These three types of borrowing situations vary in their linguistic relevance for predicting the probability of direct language contact: − Translated borrowings (calques) normally indicate direct language contact. However, the assumption that a word is a translated borrowing is only justifiable if the word in the target language is not sufficiently motivated etymologically or morphologically. An example may illustrate these facts: Watkins (1995: 39) sees in Gr. ἔμπορος ‘merchant’ (perhaps also in the Myc. name [Gen.Sg.] e-po-ro-jo KN Ch 897) a translated borrowing from Hitt. unatallaš (agent noun to unna- ‘send so./sth. here’). Within Greek, however, ἔμπορος does not represent a verbal relational compound from πορεῖν ‘to deliver’ as Watkins suggests. It is rather a prepositional relational compound from ἐν πόρῳ ‘on a journey’. Thus, ἔμπορος is sufficiently motivated within Greek, and therefore the assumption of a translated borrowing does not seem to offer any advantage. − The significance of the adoption of foreign phrasemes and, to a higher degree, the significance of reflexes of foreign cults, as well as economic and socio-cultural practices is limited with regard to their relevance for sociolinguistic conclusions bearing on the situation of language contact. Foreign elements of this type may have been spread via literary subjects and genres in the globalized Aegean world of the Bronze Age (see 1 for cultural contacts). This is why they can hardly be associated with a specific instance of contact or a specific source language. In addition to these facts, a certain cultural continuity in the southwest of Asia Minor is to be reckoned with. Such continuity is undisputed for the southeast (Northern Syria) due to the existence of “Neo-Hittite” city states in this area. An analogous situation in the southwest is postulated by Starke (1997) and Högemann (2000a, 2000b.) According to them, also in the southwest of Asia Minor Luwian culture and social structure was preserved until the first century BCE. Thus, the Trojan society as described in the Iliad is assumed to be a direct reflex of a Bronze Age Anatolian social structure. This “continuity hypothesis” may be doubted in various respects. However, these limitations play only a marginal role for the present study. It is far more decisive that, as a rule, phrasemes which are assumed to have been borrowed, as well as reflexes of foreign cults and foreign economic and socio-cultural practices in the texts can hardly be assigned to a certain era. An example may illustrate this: The contract between Trojans and Achaeans, already mentioned above, includes the following curse directed against themselves (Il. G 298 ff): Ζεῦ κύδιστε μέγιστε καὶ ἀθάνατοι θεοὶ ἄλλοι| ὁππότεροι πρότεροι ὑπὲρ ὅρκια πημήνειαν| ὧδέ σφ’ ἐγκέφαλος χαμάδις ῥέοι … ὡς ὅδε οἶνος ‘Glorious Zeus and all you other immortal gods: may the brain (ἐγκέφαλος) of those who first break the oaths flow to the ground like this wine.’ Starke (1998: 483) interprets this to be a direct phraseological analogy to a Hittite instruction for low-rank palace servants: nuu̯a-kán apēl ZI-an DINGIR.MEŠ úu̯i5tanaš | iu̯ar arḫa lāḫḫuu̯atén (KUB XIII 3 III 1− 2) ‘(He who commits an impure act and gives the king foul water,), oh gods!, pour out his substance of life (ZI = ištanzana-) like water.’ However, there is no exact

120. Graeco-Anatolian contacts in the Mycenaean period

2045

analogy between the Homeric and the Hittite phrases, because Homer does not use the abstract ‘substance of life’ (Hitt. ZI = ištanzana-) but the concrete word ‘brain’ (ἐγκέφαλος). However, the Hittite metaphor of ‘pouring out the substance of life’ has exact Neo-Assyrian parallels (cf. Rollinger 2004). Haas (2007: 6), referring to this curse and similar incidences, cautiously suggests the existence of a “Fluch- und Eidtradition im Vorderen Orient, die sich punktuell noch im homerischen Zeitalter in Ionien erhalten (haben könnte)”. For these reasons, the Homeric curse can neither be traced back with certainty to an Anatolian source language, nor can the Bronze Age be postulated to be the only time possible when the phraseme could have been taken over. All this goes to show that possible phraseological borrowings in the Homeric epics are not conclusive as to the question of Greek-Anatolian language contacts: Apart from the doubts raised in 2 with regard to the use of the Homeric epics (and other literary sources of the Archaic period) as documents for Bronze-Age Greek, most of these borrowings cannot be placed in time nor traced back to a specific source. Even if one accepts, not being over-critical, one or the other parallel as a Bronze-Age borrowing: the number of parallels is very small compared to the mass of borrowings from the Middle and Near East which enter the Greek language during the oriental era in the first millennium BCE (and which are collected in West 1997: 220 ff.).

4. Structural borrowings (phonology, morphology, syntax) 4.1. Borrowings on the phonological level The Greek dialects of Asia Minor − the East-Ionic dialect as well as the Aeolic dialect of the Island of Lesbos − show “psilosis”: the reduction of initial, antevocalic /# hV°/ to /# V°/. Oettinger (2002) interprets this development as a result of contact with the surrounding languages of Asia Minor (see Högemann 2003: 8 and Yakubovich 2010: 148). He refers to the Anatolian phonemes which had developed from the old inherited laryngeals. These phonemes seem to be reduced in some Anatolian languages of the first millennium − especially in Lydian. According to Oettinger, this reduction started in the Bronze Age and also affected /# hV°/ in the surrounding Greek dialects. However, the interpretation of psilosis in the Greek dialects of Asia Minor as a phenomenon of contact is uncertain for two reasons: − First, the loss of reflexes of the inherited laryngeals in Anatolian affects original /# h3V°/ in both Lycian and Lydian. The reflex of original */# h2V°/ is affected in Lydian only. It is improbable that these languages went through a stage with an aspirate /# hV°/ which could have influenced the surrounding Greek dialects. Original */# h2V°/ results in velar reflexes, in Lycian in all positions, and in Lydian in word interior position (cf. Melchert 1994: 64 ff., in general, and for Lydian, in particular, Melchert 2004: 142 ff.). Thus, original */# h3V°/ remains as the only possible source, on the development of which nothing exact can be said because of a lack of evidence. − Second, Greek psilosis is not a phenomenon that is limited to the Greek dialects of Asia Minor at the end of the second millennium BCE. In fact, it seems to appear

2046

XIX. Wider configurations and contacts independently and well before the first intense Greek-Anatolian contacts in Mycenaean Greek of the Aegean region. An indication for this development is, among others, the infrequency of the sign /ha/ on the Linear B tablets of Knossos (cf. Risch 1983: 386 and 390 fn. 63). A further argument for the assumption that psilosis in the Mycenaean dialects of the Aegean has emerged without external influence can be found in the Greek dialect of Crete in the first millennium BCE. In Crete, those regions, in particular, are psilotic in which evidence for an “Aegean substrate” can be found (see Bile 1988: 101 f.).

Thus, psilosis in the Greek dialects of Asia Minor cannot be taken as a language-contact phenomenon. This does not mean, however, that Mycenaean-Anatolian language contact could not have lead to phonological changes. For example, the dialect of Pamphylia shows phonological developments in the first millennium that may have been triggered by the impact of a Bronze Age adstratum. These include rhotacism /°VdV°/ > /°VδV°/ > /°VrV°/, as in Επιτιμιραυ < * Επιτιμιδαυ or aphaeresis, as in Θαναδωρυς < Αθαναδωρυς (see Brixhe 1976: 83 f. on rhotacism and 43 on aphaeresis). Both phenomena are attested for the Luwian languages as early as the end of the second or the beginning of the first millennium BCE (see Melchert 1994: 237 on rhotacism and 276 on aphaeresis).

4.2. Borrowings on the morphological level Mycenaean Greek uses possessive adjectives ending in /-io-/ as patronymica: cf. Myc. a-re-ku-tu-ru-wo e-te-wo-ke-re-we-i-jo /Alektruōn Eteu̯okleu̯e hios/ (PY Ad 654.8 f.). This archaic usage continues in the Lesbian dialect, among others, a fact which is attributed to interference from the Anatolian languages by Watkins (2001: 58). The Luwian languages, however, display a widespread and diversified use of the inherited suffix *-io(cf. Melchert 1990). It is hardly plausible, due to three facts, that there is a direct relation between Anatolian adjectives and the archaic usage of the Lesbian patronymicon: − Greek io-adjectives that denominate belonging or possession of objects (cf. Thessal. Ανφιονεια α σταλα τουφρονε̄τος) are not attested in Lesbian (cf. Hodot 1990: 228), but are common usage in the Anatolian languages. This discrepancy could hardly be explained if Lesbian had been influenced by the Anatolian languages. − In the Luwian languages, the possessive adjective originally ending in */-io-/ appears in “i-mutated” form as */-ii̯ o/ī-/. Thus, its Proto-Luwian paradigm can be reconstructed as: nom.sg.comm. */-īs/ < */-ii̯ is/, acc.sg.comm. */-īn/ < */-ii̯ in/, nom./acc.sg.ntr. */-ii̯ on/ < */-ion/ etc. (cf. Melchert 1990). If there is an actual influence from the Anatolian languages on Greek, this morphological change should also become visible in Greek. This is actually the case − but only from the late Hellenistic period onward, when the boundaries of stems in -ιος and -ις are beginning to be blurred: cf. for example the personal name Ταρασις versus Ταρασιος (Pisidia, Lycia, etc.; see Brixhe 1987: 67). − From the Mycenaean period onwards, there are strong interferences between possessive adjectives ending in /-io-/ and material adjectives in /-ei̯ o-/ (summary in Hajnal 1994). As in Mycenaean (cf. Myc. wi-ri-ni-jo along with wi-ri-ne-jo /u̯rīn-io- ≈ u̯rīnei̯ o-/ ‘made from leather’) so also in Lesbian material adjectives in /-io-/ instead of

120. Graeco-Anatolian contacts in the Mycenaean period

2047

*/-e(i̯ )o-/ are attested: cf. Lesb. χρυσιος, χαλκιος (instead of *χρυσεος, *χαλκεος) and see Hodot (1990: 233 ff.) This suggests that the Lesbian usage of /-io-/ should in any case be viewed as an independent archaism, also in regard to patronymica. In addition, Watkins (1998: 203 f.) refers to Hom. Ἀσ(ϝ)ίῳ ἐν λειμῶνι Il. B 641, which, according to him, shows an Anatolian usage of -ιος (“the morphology and syntax of Ἄσϝιος is both Aeolic and Luwian”; ibid. 204). In fact, the Luwian languages show an analogous usage of adjectives in /-ii̯ o/ī-/ with place names (see Hajnal 2014b: 156 f.): Cf. Lyc. tuminehija kumezija χãkbija kumezi[j]a (TL 44b, 54 f.) ‘holy district of Tymnessos and holy district of Kandyba’. This usage, however, is common to Mycenaean as well: Cf. ke-re-si-jo we-ke /krēsio-u̯ergēs/ ‘of Cretan origin’ (PY Ta 641.1+), with adj. /Krēsios/, derived from the toponym Κρήτα. Therefore, also the use of /-ii̯ o-/ in Greek derivations of place names does not suggest any foreign influence. Another possible phenomenon of contact, this time in the domain of verbal morphology, is suggested by Puhvel (1991: 13 ff.) and Watkins (2001: 58): the East Ionic and epic iterative preterits in /-ske/o-/, e.g. Il. Ρ 225 ff. ἔνθα δέ οἱ δέπας ἔσκε τετυγμένον, οὐδέ τις ἄλλος | οὔτ’ ἀνδρῶν πίνεσκεν ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ αἴθοπα οἶνον, | οὔτέ τεῳ σπένδεσκε θεῶν, ὅτε μὴ Διὶ πατρί ‘Inside there was a uniquely crafted chalice for him (sc. Achilleus). No other man drank dark wine from it, nor did he make an offering from it to any of the gods other than father Zeus.’ Puhvel compares this to the Hittite šk-iteratives/distributives and assumes a “Sprachbund” phenomenon: “If indeed the East Ionic epic -σκε- conjugation is of Anatolian inspiration it may be less due to conscious copying than to a kind of ‘Sprachbund’ effect cutting across contiguous or overlapping linguistic boundaries …” (Puhvel 1991: 20). First of all, it should be pointed out that only the Hittite šk-iteratives/distributives may serve as elements for comparison. In Luwian, the underlying verbal suffix */-sk̑e/o-/ develops into palatal */-(s)t se/o-/: e.g. C-Luw. ḫalu̯atna-zza- ‘get angry’. Furthermore, Luwian shows a preference for the suffix */-se/o-/, in the same function (cf. C-Luw. pipišša- ‘give’). Therefore, we have to rule out any Luwian influence. If we concentrate on Hittite, there are in fact parallels between Hittite and East Ionic epic usage: As in Greek, the Hittite šk-iteratives/distributives appear frequently in a series and may occur in epic mythological narratives: cf. GÌR.MEŠ-aš-šaš GAM-an ḫinkiškitta NAG-na-šši-kan GAL.Ḫ I.A-uš ŠU-i-šši zikkizzi ‘at his feet he (sc. Kumarbi) bowed and put drinking vessels in his hand’ (KUB XXXIII 120 I 17). This may indicate an Anatolian interference on a literary level. However, the assumption of an Anatolian interference is not necessary, because there is a plausible explanation for the East Ionic epic σκ-iteratives within the Greek language itself. A typical feature of the preterites of the type ἔσκε, πίνεσκεν or σπένδεσκε (as in the example given above) is their lack of the augment. Recent hypotheses suggest that the Greek augment */(h1)e-/ originally was an actualizing particle with hic-et-nunc deixis (see Pagniello 2007: 116 ff. with references). If so, the missing augment in the iterative preterites is well motivated: A timeless past as expressed by iterative preterites cannot be combined with a particle that is limited to personal accounts with a topical aspect. Thus, the East Ionic epic σκ-iterative preterites represent an archaism, which is neither unusual for archaizing poetic language nor for a region at the fringe of the Greek linguistic community.

2048

XIX. Wider configurations and contacts

4.3. Borrowings on the syntactic level Watkins (1995: 150 f. and 1997: 618) points out a striking parallel in the area of particles: The Homeric particle -ταρ − which is mistaken as τ’ ἄρ in numerous editions (cf. Katz 2007) − corresponds in usage to the Cuneiform Luwian particle -tar. Cf. Greek-Anatolian parallels … − */k u̯is-tar/ as in Il. A 8 τίς τάρ σφῶε θεῶν ἔριδι ξυνέηκε μάχεσθαι; ‘Who of the gods has brought these two together in strife for fighting?’ or C-Luw. kuiš-tar malḫaššaššanza EN-i̯ a ādduu̯ala ānniti … (KUB IX 6 III 12) ‘Whoever acts evil against the lord of this ritual …’; − */#Verb + -tar/ as in Il., Λ 254 ῥίγησεν ταρ (τ’ ἄρ) ἔπειτα ἄναξ ἀνδρῶν Ἀγαμέμνῶν: or C-Luw. DTarḫunza mammanna-tar (KUB XXXV 43 II 36) ‘Tarḫunt, be weighed’. As Hom. -ταρ and C-Luw. -tar have no close parallels in the remaining Indo-European languages, Watkins (1995: 150 f. and 1997: 618). suggests an areal linguistic common element. However, the particle */-tar/ is elusive in both languages: C-Luw. -tar functionally corresponds to the Hittite sentence particle -šan and has a locative connotation (cf. the summary in Yakubovich 2010: 141−145). Hittite -šan, as well as C-Luw. -tar take the final position in the sentence-initial string of particles. Thus, they seem to be of adverbial origin. The Homeric particle -ταρ, however, regularly appears in second position. This position is typical of discourse particles in Homer (see Hajnal 2004). Thus, it seems obvious to take -ταρ as a discourse particle. In this case Hom. -ταρ can hardly be linked to C-Luw. -tar, which always takes the last position in the string of particles, as pointed out before. In addition, Katz (2007) points out that C-Luw. -tar always shows lenis writing − which may be an indication of an underlying form with an initial */# d°/ − or possibly */-d( h)r̥ /. In this case a connection with Hom. -ταρ is anyway out of the question. Thus, neither an etymological nor an areal linguistic connection can at present be postulated. On the level of case syntax, Högemann (2003: 8 f.) assumes Anatolian influence in the case of the Greek accusative of relation − the so-called “accusativus Graecus”. This accusative is found in Greek poetry and is used only to express inalienable possession, as is the case with body parts: e.g. (Ἀγαμέμνῶν) ὄμματα καὶ κεφαλὴν ἴκελος Διὶ τερπικεραύνῳ ‘regarding eyes and head like Zeus delighting in the thunderbolt’ Il. B 478 (cf. Jacquinod 2006). In fact, there are analogies to this in Hittite and in Luwian texts: Cf. Hitt. tákku LÚ .ULÙ LU-an EL-LAM KAxKAK-šẹt kuiški u̯āki KBo VI 3 Vs. I 33 ‘if someone bites the nose of a free man’; H-Luw. u̯a/i-tá VIR-ti-i-zi-i (‘PES’) pa-ti-zi | ARHA (‘MANUS+CULTER’) REL+ra/i-ḫa-' ‘I cut off the men’s feet’ (see Garrett and Kurke 1994: 77 ff.). It is worth noting that the context of usage remains unchanged since Homer − the Greek accusative of relation is not touched by poetic innovation and appears alien to the system (see Jacquinod 2006: 93 ff.); on the other hand, there is a striking parallel to the Tamyīz-construction in Semitic, in which a functionally comparable accusative signifies an inalienable possessum, which is specified by a predicative (cf. Wasserman 2003: 29 ff. with references). Both observations, in combination, suggest the tentative conclusion that the Greek accusative of relation − as well as its counterpart attested in Hittite − is a syntactic instrument that entered poetic language by adoption of certain literary themes from the Middle East (cf. Burkert 2005: 295 ff.).

120. Graeco-Anatolian contacts in the Mycenaean period

2049

5. Assessment There is no doubt that Mycenaean Greeks and Anatolians were in close contact toward the end of the Bronze Age. Linguistically, however, this contact can only be proven within limits: − Loan words, which are of Anatolian origin, on the one hand, and which, on the other hand, have been adopted as early as the second millennium, can be found in Greek only in a very limited number (see 3.1). Generally speaking, these are cultural terms which probably have made their way into Greek through trade connections. − Phraseological parallels between the Anatolian languages of the second millennium and Greek seem to be somewhat more common than loan words (see 3.2). However, those phrasemes are by their very nature only attested in the Homeric epic rather than in Mycenaean − in which context the methodological objections pointed out in 2 should be taken into account. An additional difficulty is provided by the fact that in Asia Minor the transition from the second millennium to the first millennium did not involve a cultural discontinuity (cf. the section on cultural continuity 3.2). The phraseme Hitt. parā/piran ḫuu̯āi- ‘hurry ahead’ in the sense of ‘help, support’, for example, survives in Hieroglyphic Luwian in the first millennium: Cf. e.g. H-Luw. KARKAMIS A11b, § 11: u̯a/i-ma-tà-´ PRAE-na PES2(-)REL2-i̯ a-ta ‘they (sc. the gods) ran before me’ in the sense of ‘they support me’. Thus, the analogous semantic development of ‘hurry ahead’ to ‘help’ in Hom. προθεῖν could also be explained through Anatolian influence in the first millennium BCE. − Most of the typological borrowings postulated in the specialist literature cannot be confirmed if analyzed more closely (cf. 4). The “accusativus graecus” used in the early poetic language is perhaps the only case of early interference. In this case, however, the interference is hardly to be attributed to living language contact but rather to poetic imitation of a literary model. The following conclusion can be drawn from these data: The linguistic interferences between Mycenaean Greek and the Anatolian languages of the late Bronze Age are scarce. They point to a moderate borrowing scenario, according to the typology given in 2. There is no evidence for the existence of a virtual “Sprachbund” − as suggested, e.g., by Watkins (2000b: 1143 ff.). These results are not unexpected if one looks at the historical sources: In the Tau̯agalau̯a-letter Ḫattušili III (1264−1240 BC) addresses the sovereign of Aḫḫii̯ au̯a as an equal high king. In the earlier and the later sources, however, no sign of an equal rank of the ruler of Aḫḫii̯ au̯a can be found. Thus, at least diplomatic contacts seem to be limited to a very short period of time. As pointed out in 1, the Mycenaean sphere of influence in Asia Minor is also relatively restricted geographically. Intense Mycenaean settlement is to be found in the archaeological records only for the region between the Peninsula of Halicarnassus in the south and Milet in the north as well as in the islands off this coastline, between Rhodes in the south and Kos − possibly also Samos − in the north (cf. Mountjoy 1998 and Niemeier 2005b). In this sense, an intense Mycenaean-Anatolian contact can only be assumed for a limited period of time and for a limited geographical region. This is not sufficient for having an impact on Mycenaean Greek on the Greek mainland as well as in the Aegaean islands. The presence of workers from Asia Minor

2050

XIX. Wider configurations and contacts

and/or prisoners of war (cf. 1c) in the Mycenaean empire is also not sufficient to leave traces in Mycenaean Greek. Another important factor to be taken into consideration is the fact that, for the present, the only contacts proved by the records are on a diplomatic, i.e. elitist, level (cf. Heinhold-Krahmer 2007 and in particular p. 203). It is to be doubted that both royal houses were able to speak each other’s languages. In particular, there is no actual evidence in support of the hypothesis of Bryce (1999) that Hittite scribes were engaged at the Mycenaean court. Correspondence orally transmitted by messengers makes more sense (see Melchert, To appear). Phenomena of intense language contact, however, − e.g. an adstratum/substratum scenario as in 2 − presuppose an active interpenetration of linguistic communities as well as a certain degree of bilingualism on all social levels of society. Our conclusions can be summarized in short (see also Hajnal 2014a: 113 f.): MycenaeanAnatolian language contacts can be assumed with certainty for the Late Bronze Age. Their range and their intensity, however, are not sufficient to have left substantial traces in Mycenaean or in the Anatolian languages.

References Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. and R. M. W. Dixon (eds.) 2001a Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance. Problems in Comparative Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2001b Introduction. In: Aikhenvald and Dixon (eds.), 1−26. Beekes, Robert S. P. 2003 The Origin of Apollo. Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 3: 1−21. Bile, Monique 1988 Le dialecte crétois ancien. Étude de la langue des inscriptions. Receuil des inscriptions postérieures aux IC. Paris: Geuthner. Blum, Hartmut 2001 Homers Troia und die Luwier. In: Hilmar Klinkott (ed.), Anatolien im Lichte kultureller Wechselwirkungen. Akkulturationsphänomene in Kleinasien und seinen Nachbarregionen während des 2. und 1. Jahrtausends v. Chr. Tübingen: Attempto, 41−51. Blum, Hartmut 2002 Anatolien, die Ilias und die sogenannte ‘Kontinuitätsthese’. Klio 84: 275−318. Brixhe, Claude 1976 Le dialecte grec de Pamphylie. Documents et grammaire. Paris: Maisonneuve. Brixhe, Claude 1987 Essai sur le grec anatolien au début de notre ère. Nancy: Presses Universitaires de Nancy. Brixhe, Claude 2002 Achéens et Phrygiens en Asie Mineure: approche comparative de quelques données lexicales. In: Matthias Fritz and Susanne Zeilfelder (eds.), Novalis Indogermanica. Festschrift für Günter Neumann zum 80. Geburtstag. Graz: Leykam, 49−73. Bryce, Trevor R. 1999 Anatolian Scribes in Mycenaean Greece. Historia 48: 257−264. Burkert, Walter 2005 Near Eastern connections. In: John M. Foley (ed.), A Companion to Ancient Epic. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 291−301.

120. Graeco-Anatolian contacts in the Mycenaean period

2051

Chadwick, John 1969 Greek and Pre-Greek. Transactions of the Philological Society [1970]: 80−98. Curnow, Timothy J. 2001 What language features can be ‘borrowed’?. In: Aikhenvald and Dixon (eds.), 412−436. Duhoux, Yves 2007 Pre-Greek languages: indirect evidence. In: A.-F. Christidis (ed.), A History of Ancient Greek. From the Beginnings to Late Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 223−228. Finkelberg, Margalit 2005 Greeks and Pre-Greeks. Aegean Prehistory and Greek Heroic Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Garrett, Andrew and Leslie Kurke 1994 Pudenda Asiae Minoris. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 96: 75−83. Gusmani, Roberto 1969 Isoglossi lessicali Greco-Ittite. In: Giancarlo Bolognesi and Ciro Santoro (eds.), Studi linguistici in onore di Vittore Pisani. Vol. 1. Brescia: Paideia, 503−514. Haas, Volkert 2007 Zwei Verfluchungen im hethitischen Schrifttum und in der Ilias. Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 7: 1−6. Hajnal, Ivo 1993 Neue Aspekte zur Rekonstruktion des frühgriechischen Phonemsystems. Indogermanische Forschungen 98: 108−129. Hajnal, Ivo 1994 Die frühgriechische Flexion der Stoffadjektive und deren ererbte Grundlagen. In: George E. Dunkel, Gisela Meyer, Salvatore Scarlata, and Christian Seidl (eds.), Früh-, Mittel-, Spätindogermanisch. Akten der IX. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 5. bis 9. Oktober 1992 in Zürich. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 77−109. Hajnal, Ivo 2003 Troia aus sprachwissenschaftlicher Sicht. Die Struktur einer Argumentation. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität. Hajnal, Ivo 2004 e-ke-qe oder e-ke? − Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit in den mykenischen Palastarchiven, In: Thomas Krisch, Thomas Lindner, and Ulrich Müller (eds.), Analecta Homini Universalis Dicata. Arbeiten zur Indogermanistik, Linguistik, Philologie, Politik, Musik und Dichtung. Festschrift für Oswald Panagl zum 65. Geburtstag. Vol. 1. (Stuttgarter Arbeiten zur Germanistik 421. 2 vols.). Stuttgart: Heinz, 233−251. Hajnal, Ivo 2011 Namen und Etymologien − als Beweisstücke nur bedingt tauglich? In: Christoph Ulf and Robert Rollinger (eds.), Lag Troia in Kilikien? Der aktuelle Streit um Homers Ilias. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 241−263. Hajnal, Ivo 2014a Die griechisch-anatolischen Sprachkontakte zur Bronzezeit − Sprachbund oder loser Sprachkontakt? In: José Luis García Ramón and Daniel Kölligan (eds.), Strategies of Translation: Language Contact and Poetic Language (Akten des Workshops, Köln, 17.− 18. Dezember 2010). Pisa/Roma: Fabrizio Serra editore (fascicoli monografici di «Linguarum Varietas», 3, 2014−4, 2015), 105−116. Hajnal, Ivo 2014b Beobachtungen zum Suffixsystem hethitischer und luwischer Toponyme. In: Gerhard Rampl, Katharina Zipser, and Manfred Kienpointner (eds.), Fontibus Veritas. Festschrift für Peter Anreiter zum 60. Geburtstag. Innsbruck: Innsbruck University Press, 147−162.

2052

XIX. Wider configurations and contacts

Heinhold-Krahmer, Susanne 2007 Zu diplomatischen Kontakten zwischen dem Hethiterreich und dem Land Aḫḫiyawa. In: Eva Alram-Stern and Georg Nightingale (eds.), Keimelion. Elitenbildung und elitärer Konsum von der mykenischen Palastzeit bis zur homerischen Epoche. Akten des internationalen Kongresses vom 3. bis 5. Februar 2005 in Salzburg. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 191−208. Hodot, René 1990 Le dialecte éolien d’Asie. La langue des inscriptions, VII e s. a. C.−IV e s. p. C. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations. Högemann, Peter 2000a Der Iliasdichter, Anatolien und der griechische Adel. Klio 82: 7−39. Högemann, Peter 2000b Zum Iliasdichter − ein anatolischer Standpunkt. Studia Troica 10: 183−198. Högemann, Peter 2003 Das ionische Griechentum und seine altanatolische Umwelt im Spiegel Homers. In: Markus Witte and Stefan Alkier (eds.), Die Griechen und der Vordere Orient. Beiträge zum Kultur- und Religionskontakt zwischen Griechenland und dem Vorderen Orient im 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 191). Freiburg/Schweiz: Universitätsverlag, 1−24. Hoffner, Harry A., Jr. 2000 Thoughts on a New Volume of a Hittite Dictionary. Review of Jaan Puhvel, Hittite Etymological Dictionary, Vol. 4: Words Beginning with K. Journal of the American Oriental Society 120: 68−75. Houwink ten Cate, Philo H. J. 1965 The Luwian Population Groups of Lycia and Cilicia Aspera During the Hellenistic Period. Leiden: Brill. Jacquinod, Bernard 2006 Le domaine de l’accusatif de relation. In: Emilio Crespo, Jesús de la Villa, and Antonio R. Revuelta, (eds.), Word Classes and Related Topics in Ancient Greek. Proceedings of the Conference on ‘Greek Syntax and Word Classes’ held in Madrid on 18−21, June 2003. Louvain-La-Neuve: Peeters, 59−68. Joseph, Brian D. 1982 The Source of Ancient Greek τολύπη. Glotta 60: 230−234. Katz, Joshua T. 2007 The epic adventures of an unknown particle. In: George H. Coulter, Matthew McCullagh, Benedicte Nielsen, Antonia Ruppel, and Olga Tribulato (eds.), Greek and Latin from an Indo-European Perspective. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society, Supplementary Volume 32. Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society, 65−79. Killen, John T. 1994 Thebes sealings, Knossos tablets, and Mycenaean state banquets. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 39: 67−84. Melchert, H. Craig 1990 Adjective Stems in *-iyo- in Anatolian. Historische Sprachforschung 103: 198−207. Melchert, H. Craig 1994 Anatolian Historical Phonology. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Melchert, H. Craig 2000 Once more Greek τολύπη. Orpheus-Journal of Indo-European and Thracian Studies 8 [1998, Memorial Volume of V. I. Georgiev]: 47−51. Melchert, H. Craig 2004 Second thoughts on PIE *y and *h2 in Lydian. In: Michel Mazoyer and Olivier Casabonne (eds.), Studia Anatolica et Varia. Mélanges offerts au Professeur René Lebrun. Vol. 2. Paris: L’Harmattan, 139−150.

120. Graeco-Anatolian contacts in the Mycenaean period

2053

Melchert, H. Craig 2008 Greek mólybdos as loanword from Lydian. In: Billie Jean Collins, Mary R. Bachvarova, and Ian C. Rutherford (eds.), Anatolian Interfaces: Hittites, Greeks and their Neighbours. Proceedings of an International Conference on Cross-Cultural Interaction, September 17−19, 2004, Emory University, Atlanta, GA. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 153− 157. Melchert, H. Craig To appear Mycenaean and Hittite diplomatic correspondence: Fact and fiction. In: Annette Teffeteller (ed.), Mycenaeans and Anatolians in the Late Bronze Age: The Ahhiyawa Question, Proceedings of the Workshop Held on January 4−5, 2006, at Concordia University. Milani, Celestina 2001 Onomastica micenea e onomastica anatolica. In: Onofrio Carruba und Wolfgang Meid (eds.), Anatolisch und Indogermanisch. Anatolico e Indoeuropeo. Akten des Kolloquiums der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Pavia, 22.−25. September 1998. (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 100). Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität, 273−290. Morpurgo Davies, Anna 1986 The linguistic evidence: Is there any? In: Gerald Cadogan (ed.), The End of the Early Bronze Age in the Aegean. Leiden: Brill, 93−123. Morris, Sarah P. 2001 Potnia Aswiya: Anatolian contributions to Greek religion. In: Robert Laffineur and Robin Hägg (eds.), Potnia. Deities and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age. Liège: Université de Liège (= Aegaeum 22), 423−434. Mountjoy, Penelope A. 1998 The East Aegean-West Anatolian Interface in the Late Bronze Age: Mycenaeans and the Kingdom of Ahhiyawa. Anatolian Studies 48: 33−67. Neu, Erich 1999 Altanatolien und das mykenische Pylos: Einige Überlegungen zum Nestorbecher der Ilias. Archív orientální 67: 619−627. Niemeier, Wolf-Dietrich 1998 The Mycenaeans in Western Anatolia and the Problem of the Origins of the Sea Peoples. In: Seymour Gitin, Amichai Mazar, and Ephraim Stern (eds.), Mediterranean Peoples in Transition: Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries B.C.E: In Honor of Professor Trude Dothan. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 17−65. Niemeier, Wolf-Dietrich 2005a Minoans, Mycenaeans, Hittites and Ionians in Western Asia Minor: New Excavations in Bronze Age Miletus-Millawanda. In: Alexandra Villing (ed.), The Greeks in the East. London: The British Museum, 1−36. Niemeier, Wolf-Dietrich 2005b The Minoans and Mycenaeans in Western Asia Minor: Settlement, Emporia, or Acculturation? In: Robert Laffineur and Emanuele Greco (eds.), Emporia: Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean. Proceedings of the 10 th International Aegean Conference, Athens, Italian School of Archaeology, 14−18 April 2004. Liège: Université de Liège (= Aegaeum 25), 199−203. Niemeier, Wolf-Dietrich 2007 Westkleinasien und Ägäis von den Anfängen bis zur Ionischen Wanderung: Topographie, Geschichte und Beziehungen nach dem archäologischen Befund und den hethitischen Quellen. In: Justus Cobet, Wolf-Dietrich Niemeier, and Volkmar von Graeve (eds.), Frühes Ionien. Eine Bestandsaufnahme. Panionion-Symposion Güzelçamlı, 26. September−1. Oktober 1999. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 37−96.

2054

XIX. Wider configurations and contacts

Oettinger, Norbert 1990 Die ‘dunkle Erde’ im Hethitischen und Griechischen. Welt des Orients 20/21 [1989/90]: 83−98. Oettinger, Norbert 2006 Die griechische Psilose als Kontaktphänomen. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 62 [2002]: 95−101. Pagniello, Frederick J. 2007 The past-iterative and the augment in Homer. Indogermanische Forschungen 112: 105− 123. Parker, Victor 1999 Die Aktivitäten der Mykenäer in der Ostägäis im Lichte der Linear B Tafeln. In: Sigrid Deger-Jalkotzy, Stefan Hiller, and Oswald Panagl (eds.) unter Mitarbeit von Georg Nightingale und Thomas Lindner, Floreant Studia Mycenaea II. Akten des X. Internationalen Mykenologischen Colloquiums in Salzburg vom 1.−5. Mai 1995. Vol. 2. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 495−502. Puhvel, Jaan 1983 Homeric questions and Hittite answers. The American Journal of Philology 104: 217− 227. Puhvel, Jaan. 1988 An Anatolian turn of phrase in the Iliad. The American Journal of Philology 109: 591− 593. Puhvel, Jaan 1991 Homer and Hittite. (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft, Vorträge und Kleinere Schriften 47). Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität. Puhvel, Jaan 1993 A Hittite calque in the Iliad. Historische Sprachforschung 106: 36−38. Renfrew, Colin 1998 Word of Minos: the Minoan contribution to Mycenaean Greek and the linguistic geography of the Bronze Age Aegean. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 8: 239−264. Risch, Ernst 1983 Probleme bei der Schreibung von Hiat und Kompositionsfuge im Mykenischen. In: Alfred Heubeck and Günter Neumann (eds.), Res Mycenaeae. Akten des VII. Internationalen Mykenologischen Colloquiums in Nürnberg vom 6.−10. April 1981. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 374−390. Rollinger, Robert 2004 Hethiter, Homer und Anatolien. Erwägungen zu Il. 3, 300 f. und KUB XIII Nr. 3, III 1 f. Historia 53: 1−21. Schuol, Monika 2002 Zur Überlieferung homerischer Epen vor dem Hintergrund altanatolischer Traditionen. In: Monika Schuol, Udo Hartmann, and Andreas Luther (eds.), Grenzüberschreitungen. Formen des Kontakts zwischen Orient und Okzident im Altertum. Stuttgart: Steiner, 331− 362. Starke, Frank 1997 Troia im Kontext des historisch-politischen und sprachlichen Umfeldes Kleinasiens im 2. Jahrtausend. Studia Troica 7: 447−487. Szemerényi, Oswald 1974 The origins of the Greek lexicon: ex Oriente lux. Journal of Hellenic Studies 94: 144− 157. Thomason, Sarah G. 2001 Language Contact. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press [reprinted 2007].

120. Graeco-Anatolian contacts in the Mycenaean period

2055

Thomason, Sarah G. and Terrence Kaufman 1988 Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press. Wasserman, Nathan 2003 Style and Form in Old-Babylonian Literary Texts. Leiden: Brill. Watkins, Calvert 1995 How to Kill a Dragon. Aspects of Indo-European Poetics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Watkins, Calvert 1997 Delbrück and the syntax of Hittite and Luvian: predictive power. In: Emilio Crespo and José Luis García Ramón (eds.), Berthold Delbrück y la sintaxis indoeuropea hoy. Actas del Coloquio de la Indogermanische Gesellschaft, Madrid, 21−24 de septiembre de 1994. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 611−630. Watkins, Calvert 1998 Homer and Hittite Revisited. In: Peter Knox and Clive Foss (eds.), Style and Tradition: Studies in honor of Wendell Clausen. Stuttgart: Teubner, 201−211. Watkins, Calvert 2000a A distant Anatolian echo in Pindar: the origin of the Aegis again. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 100: 1−14. Watkins, Calvert 2000b L’Anatolie et la Grèce: Résonances culturelles, linguistiques et poétiques. Comptes Rendus des Séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres: 1143−1158. Watkins, Calvert 2001 An Indo-European linguistic area and its characteristics: Ancient Anatolia. Areal diffusion as a challenge to the comparative method? In: Aikhenvald and Dixon (eds.), 44− 63. Watkins, Calvert 2002 Homer and Hittite revisited II. In: K. Aslihan Yener and Harry A. Hoffner, Jr. (eds.) with the assistance of Simrit Dhesi, Recent developments in Hittite Archaeology and History. Papers in Memory of Hans G. Güterbock. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 167− 176. Watkins, Calvert 2007 The Golden Bowl: Thoughts on the New Sappho and its Asianic Background. Classical Antiquity 26: 305−324. Weilhartner, Jorg 2005 Mykenische Opfergaben nach Aussage der Linear B-Texte. (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Klasse, Denkschriften 330, Veröffentlichungen der Mykenischen Kommission 22, Mykenische Studien 18). Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. West, Martin L. 1988 The Rise of the Greek Epic. The Journal of Hellenic Studies 108: 151−172. West, Martin L. 1997 The East Face of Helicon. West Asiatic Elements in Greek Poetry and Myth. Oxford: The Clarendon Press. Widmer, Paul 2007 Mykenisch ru-wa-ni-jo “Luwier”. Kadmos 45: 82−84. Yakubovich, Ilya S. 2010 Sociolinguistics of the Luvian Language. Leiden: Brill.

Ivo Hajnal, Innsbruck (Austria)

XX. Proto-Indo-European 121. The phonology of Proto-Indo-European 0. 1. 2. 3.

4. 5. 6. 7.

Introduction Vowels Resonants Obstruents

Prosody Conspiracies Explanation of symbols References

0. Introduction The following presents a concise but comprehensive synchronic and diachronic sketch of what I believe late PIE to have sounded like, both at the surface and below. I will make a clear notational distinction between the underlying (phonological) form, written between slanted lines (e.g., */h2 eg̑tos/ ‘driven’), and the reconstructed surface (phonetic) form written in italics (e.g., *h2 ak̑tos). The former will not always be provided, but, as illustrated in this example, the two representations need not be the same. Sound laws and certain important concepts will be referenced by Greek letters in parentheses, such as (α). There are a number of works which examine the phonology of PIE but very few that devote themselves exclusively to this topic. Students should begin with the more recent abridged treatments in introductory textbooks (such as Szemerényi 1996, Clackson 2007, Meier-Brügger 2010, Fortson 2010, and Beekes 2011), supplemented by more detailed discussions in Vennemann (1989), Nielsen Whitehead et al. (2012), Sukač (2012), Cooper (2015), and (Byrd 2015). For discussion of the laryngeal theory, see Winter (1965), Lindeman (1997), and Kessler (n. d.). The older literature is still quite useful, in particular Brugmann and Delbrück (1897), Meillet (1937), and Lehmann (1952). Collinge (1985) is a handy guide to the many sound laws of PIE and its daughter languages and is supplemented by Collinge (1995) and Collinge (1999). Undoubtedly the most comprehensive synopsis of IE phonology is Mayrhofer (1986). Let us begin with a look at the complete phonemic inventory of PIE, as it is typically reconstructed. Most Indo-Europeanists today continue to follow the traditional Neogrammarian reconstruction with minor alterations. Thus, for the consonants one usually assumes three distinct series of stops (voiceless, voiced, and voiced aspirated), three sets of dorsal consonants (palatal, velar, and labiovelar), six sonorants, and a single sibilant, with the most significant change being the addition of three distinct postvelar fricatives, known as “laryngeals” (*/h1 /, */h2 /, */h3 /). (α)

Proto-Indo-European consonants labial

dental

palatal

*k

*k

*g

*gw

voiceless stop

*p

*t

*k̑

voiced stop

*b

*d

*g̑

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-042

velar

labiovelar w

postvelar

121. The phonology of Proto-Indo-European

voiced aspirate

labial

dental

palatal

velar

h

h

h

h

*b

fricative nasal

2057

*d

*g̑

*g

labiovelar *g

*s *m

liquid

postvelar

wh

*h1 , *h2 , *h3

*n *r, *l

glide

*i̯

*u̯

For the vowels, one usually reconstructs the typologically common five-vowel inventory with a correlation of length (*ā˘, *ē˘, *ī˘, *ō˘, *ū˘). However, this set may be characterized more accurately as the surface vocalic inventory, as the phonological details are much more complicated. (β)

Proto-Indo-European vowels *i, *ī

*u, *ū *e, *ē

*ǝ *a, *ā

*o, *ō

In the pages that follow, these traditional views will be maintained as the most likely state of affairs for a late stage of PIE, though it is probable that the system looked quite different at an earlier point in time.

1. Vowels There were five distinct full vowels that surfaced in PIE, of which at least three made contrasts in length. The reduced vowel *ə, an allophone of zero, was utilized to repair illicit syllable structures and will be discussed in 3.3 and 5.3.

1.1. Short vowels The short mid vowels */e/ and */o/ are universally accepted; cf. *dék̑m̥ ‘10’ (Gk. δέκα, Lat. decem) and *pódm̥ ‘foot (acc.sg.)’ (Gk. πόδα, Arm. otn). The high vowels *i and *u were not phonemically vocalic, but rather syllabic allophones of the glides */i̯ / and */u̯/, respectively; cf. the zero-grade variants of */di̯ eu̯-/ ‘shine’: *diu̯és ‘sky (gen.sg.)’ vs. *di̯ ut- ‘shining’. While most present-day Indo-Europeanists reconstruct *a as a phoneme for late PIE, some (most famously the “Leiden School” [LS]; see Beekes 2011) do not, eschewing typical reconstructions such as */sals/ ‘salt’ (Ved. salilá- ‘salty’, Gk. ἅλς, Lat. sal-, etc.) in favor of laryngealistic reconstructions: *sh2 als (← /*sh2 els/). Thus, for the LS, *a was always a surface allophone of */e/, colored by an adjacent */h2/ (3.3). It is, however, very difficult to avoid the reconstruction of certain forms with *a vocalism. For example, Hitt. apa, Gk. ἀπό, and Lat. ab ‘away, off’ may only be traced back

2058

XX. Proto-Indo-European

to */apó/, not */h2 epó/, and it is quite difficult to derive Skt. nas-, OCS nosъ ‘nose’ from */nh2 es-/, as one would expect the syllabification*n̥h2 es- (4.2), though perhaps one may explain these latter forms through sound law (Beekes 1988: 43) or analogy. See Fritz (1996), however, for the derivation of ‘nose’ from the root *h2 anh1 -, with deletion of *h1 in the environment *R̥._V. Cf. rule (φ).

1.2. Long vowels The long mid vowels */ē/ and */ō/ are also uncontroversially reconstructed as phonemes. These vowels are often derived through the contraction of adjacent vowels to resolve hiatus; cf. *-ōs ‘anim. *o-stem nom. pl.’ < */-o-es/ and *-ēti ‘3 rd sg. them. subj.’ < */-e-eti/: (γ)

V1 + V2 → V:1

(Vowel Contraction)

Not all *ē and *ō were phonologically derived, for the long vocalism of forms such as *h3 rēg̑- ‘rule’ (Lat. rēx, OIr. rí, Skt. rā´j-) and *su̯ésōr ‘sister’ (Ved. svásā, Lat. soror, OIr. siur) must have been lexicalized or morphologized in late PIE. Long high ī and ū are well attested in the daughter languages, but most derive from a sequence of glide + laryngeal in PIE (3.3; *pih2 u̯erih2 > Skt. pī́varī ‘fat (fem.)’, *puh2 rós > Lat. pūrus ‘pure’). There are certain isolated forms which may have possessed */ī/ and */ū/: *u̯īs‘poison’ (Av. vīš, Lat. vīrus) beside *u̯is- (Ved. viṣá-, Av. viša-), PIE *mūs ‘mouse’ (OE mūs) beside *mus- (Lat. musculus ‘muscle’). Were one to reconstruct *u̯ihx s- and *muhx s, the short vowel variants could not be explained. (Such instances of long high vowels are likely due to monosyllabic lengthening; see [ω] below.) Likewise, while *nās- ‘nose’ (Lat. nārēs ‘nostrils’) may be mechanically derived from */neh2 s-/, it would be difficult to connect this form with the short-vowel variant *nas- cited above. Additional instances of *ā were also derived by (η): */-eh2m/ > *-ām (Skt. sénām ‘army’). These facts allow us to postulate a more precise phonemic inventory of vowels for late PIE: (δ)

PIE vowel phonemes *e, *ē

*o, *ō *a, *ā

1.3. Diphthongs In PIE, all diphthongs were “falling”, meaning that the vowel always preceded the glide. There were three */Vi̯ / diphthongs, seen in *k̑ei̯ - ‘lie’ (Gk. κεῖμαι ‘I lie’), *u̯ói̯ de ‘knows’ (Ved. véda), and *kai̯ kos (LS */kh2 ei̯ kos/) ‘blind’ (Lat. caecus, Goth. haihs ‘one-eyed’), and three */Vu̯/ diphthongs, cf. *sréu̯mn̥ ‘river’ (Gk. ῥεῦμα), *h2 k̑ou̯s- ‘hear’ (Gk. ἀκούω), and *sau̯so- (LS */sh2 eu̯so-/) ‘dry’ (Gk. αὖος, Lith. saũsas). Long diphthongs also appeared in certain morphological categories, some underlying (*/dēi̯ k̑-s-/ ‘showed [s-aorist]’), some derived (*-ōi̯ ‘o-stem dative sg.’ ← */-o-ei̯ /).

121. The phonology of Proto-Indo-European

2059

1.4. Ablaut Ablaut, also known as vowel gradation and apophony, was the grammatical alternation of vowels in timbre and length in PIE. The most basic series involved the interchange of *e, *o, and *Ø, called e- (or full-) grade, o-grade, and Ø-grade, respectively, with the former two grades complemented by lengthened-grades, *ē and *ō. All five grades may be reconstructed for the root *ped- ‘foot’: e-grade: *ped- (Lat. ped-)

ē-grade: *pēd- (OIr. ís ‘beneath’)

o-grade: *pod- (Gk. ποδ-)

ō-grade: *pōd- (Eng. foot)

Ø-grade: *bd- (Av. +fra-bd-ǝm ‘clatter of feet’ [Kellens 1974: 375])

Presumably, ablaut came into existence at an early stage of PIE through various phonological processes (cf. Kümmel 2012: 306 ff.), most of which were lost as productive rules in late PIE. However, we may still reconstruct a morphophonological rule of vowel syncope (see Byrd 2015: 38), which targeted most (but not all) underlying unaccented vowels: cf. */h1 és-tei̯ / → *h1 ésti ‘is’ (Ved. ásti) but */h1 es-énti̯ / → *h1 sénti ‘they are’ (Ved. sánti). (ε)

V → 0̸ / in certain morphological environments [−stress]

(Syncope)

2. Resonants There were six resonants in PIE: two glides */i̯ / and */u̯/, two liquids */r/ and */l/, and two nasals */m/ and */n/. */n/ likely assimilated in place before stops, a rule maintained by all of the ancient IE languages, thus Lat. quī[ŋ]que, Skt. páñca, Gk. πέντε (Aeol. πέμπε), and Goth. fi[ɱ]f, all from PIE *peŋk we ‘five’ (← */penk we/). Each resonant had (at least) two allophones, one that occurred in syllable margins, another in nuclei. All resonants were underlyingly non-syllabic; syllabic allophones were derived by (Μ). *u̯ *i̯ *r *l *m *n

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

*u *i *r̥ *l̥ *m̥ *n̥

*u̯os ‘you (pl.)’ (Lat. vōs ‘you’) ~ *us- (Aeol. Gk. ὔμμε ‘you [acc.]’) *h1 ei̯ - ‘go’ (Ved. émi ‘I go’) ~ *h1 i- (Ved. imáḥ ‘we go’) *b her- ‘carry’ (Eng. bear) ~ *b hr̥- (Eng. born) *g̑ hel- ‘yellow’ (Av. zairi- ‘yellow’) ~ *g̑ hl̥ - (Eng. gold) *sem- ‘one, same’ (Gk. ἕν ‘one [nt.]’) ~ *sm̥- (Gk. ἀ-δελφός ‘brother’) *ne ‘not’ (Hitt. na-tta, Lith. nè ‘not’) ~ *n̥- ‘un-’ (Lat. in-)

One notable peculiarity: it appears that (unlike all other resonants) PIE */r/ could not occur in absolute word-initial position. Thus, while *prō ‘forward’ (Hitt. p[a]rā, Av. fra-), *h3 reg̑- ‘reach, rule’ (Gk. ὀρέγνυμι), and *sreu̯- ‘flow’ (OIr. srúaim) were possible forms, **rō, **reg̑-, and **reu̯- were not. It is possible that this was due to a constraint on the prosodic word (4.3), as onset */r/ was permitted in word-medial position (*b he.re.ti ‘carries’, *h2 n̥.rés ‘man [gen.sg.]’).

2060

XX. Proto-Indo-European

There were a number of phonological processes which targeted resonants or sequences containing resonants. The first describes the deletion of a nasal within the sequence *-mn-, which occurs after long vowels, diphthongs, and sequences of short vowel plus consonant, each denoted by VX (Schmidt 1895). (ζ)

*/n/ → 0̸ / -VXm __ V́ */m/ → 0̸ / -V́ X __ nV-

(The Asno Law)

Thus, */h2 ék̑mnes/ → *h2 ák̑nes ‘anvil (gen.sg.)’ (Skt. áśnaḥ, Av. asnō) but */gwhe/ormnós/ → *gwhe/ormós ‘warmth’ (Lat. formus, Skt. gharmá-, and Gk. θερμός). Note that the sequence *-mn- was maintained after short vowels: Gk. πρύμνος ‘prominent’, Hitt. šaramna- ‘fore’. Nasal loss also occurred in *tosi̯ o ‘this (gen.sg.)’ (← */tosmi̯ o-/) and related forms, though it is unclear exactly how these two processes were connected, if at all. Certain word-final sequences ending in */-m/ defied the expected syllabification rules (ψ) and were simplified instead, with compensatory lengthening (CL) of the preceding vowel; */di̯ éu̯m/ → *di̯ ē´m (Skt. dyā´m, Gk. ζήν), */-ah2m/ > *ām (Skt. -ām), */dom-m/ → *dō´m ‘house (acc.sg.)’ (Arm. tun). (η)

*/u̯/, */h2 /, */m/ → 0̸ / V __ m #

(with CL)

(Stang’s Law)

Another rule, which was no longer productive in late PIE, deleted coda fricatives (*/s/ and */hx/) in the sequence *VRF]σ , with CL occurring only in word-final position (Byrd 2015: 105): */ph2 térs/ > p(ǝh2 )tē´r ‘father (nom.sg.)’ (Gk. πατήρ), */u̯erh1 -d hh1 -o-/ > *u̯erd hh1 -o- (Lat. verbum). (ι)

*/F/ → 0̸ / VR __ ]σ

(Szemerényi’s Law)

There also appears to have been a rule of word-final n-deletion, though only after *ō; cf. */k̑u̯ō´n/ → *k̑u̯ō´ ‘dog (nom.sg.)’ (Ved. ś[u]vā´, OIr. cú). Greek κύων has restored the *-n by analogy to other forms in the paradigm. (κ)

*/n/ → 0̸ / ō __ #

(Post */ō/ n-Deletion)

Lastly, there is at least one reconstructible example of the loss of */d/ after */r/ with CL of the preceding vowel, as seen in */k̑érd/ ‘heart’ → *k̑ē´r (Gk. κῆρ, Hitt. ker). It is unclear if this deletion was lexically restricted or should be considered to be symptomatic of a broader phonological process (such as Szemerényi’s Law [ι]). (λ)

*/d/ → 0̸ / r __ #

(Post Rhotic d-Deletion)

3. Obstruents There were a number of obstruents in PIE, most of which were stops. Unlike the resonants, obstruents were never syllabic (Cooper 2013).

121. The phonology of Proto-Indo-European

2061

3.1. Stops The PIE stops had the most complex phonemic distribution of all the consonants, contrasting five places of articulation. Two are universally reconstructed: labials (*ped‘foot’ > Lat. ped-, Gk. ποδ-, *bel- ‘strength’ > Ved. bála-, and *b her- ‘carry’ > Eng. bear) and dentals (*tréi̯ es ‘three’ > OIr. trí, *d(u)u̯oh1 ‘two’ > OCS dъva, and *d heh1 ‘put, make, do’ > Skt. dhā-). As for the three remaining series (referred to as tectals or dorsals), it was originally believed that all ancient IE languages merged at least two series into one. Some were satem languages, containing velar stops (*/K/) and coronal fricatives / affricates, the latter derived from palatal stops (*/K̑/). Others were centum languages, possessing */K/ and labiovelar stops (*/K w/). While at first glance it might seem reasonable to reconstruct only two series of dorsals for PIE, say */K̑/, */K w/, where */K w/ > */K/ (satem) and */K̑/ > */K/ (centum), this hypothesis is untenable, for there are a number of reconstructible forms with */K/ continued by all IE languages, such as *kreu̯h2 - ‘flesh, blood, gore’ > Ved. kravíṣ-, Lith. kraũjas (both satem), Lat. cruor, OIr. crú (both centum). We therefore must reconstruct three series of dorsals in PIE: */K̑/, */K/, */K w/. In the satem languages, */K/, */K w/ > */K/; in the centum languages, */K̑/, */K/ > */K/. From very early on, however, it was argued that the consonants traced back to */K̑/ in the satem languages should rather be derived from PIE */K/ by a conditioned split (Meillet 1894), with original */K/ maintained only after *s (*skei̯ d- ‘split’) and *u̯ (*i̯ eu̯g- ‘join’) and before *a (*kand- ‘shine’) and *r (*kreu̯h2 -). But if this were true, the conditioning sounds would have formed a strange natural class indeed. There are also instances of Gutturalwechsel in Balto-Slavic, a satem branch, which Meillet considered to be archaisms: *h2 ak̑mō(n) ‘stone’ > OCS kamy, Lith. akmuõ. But while no IE language continues the three dorsal series in its entirety, some do maintain the original three-way contrast, at least in part. For example, *k and *k w may have different outcomes in the satem languages Albanian (*kert- > qeth- ‘cut’ vs. *pénk we > pesë ‘five’) and Armenian (*ker- ‘shear’ > k‘erem ‘I cut’ vs. *k wetu̯óres > č‘ork‘ ‘four’), and Anatolian beautifully maintains a threefold distinction in Luv. ziyari, karš-, and kui-, from PIE *k̑ei̯ or ‘lies (down)’, *kers- ‘cut’, and *k wi- ‘who’, respectively (Melchert 1987). The PIE stops also contrasted two types of laryngeal features (LFs). By LF I do not mean the properties of the PIE laryngeals (3.3) but rather the distinctive features [±voice] (voicing) and [±spread glottis] (aspiration). The manipulation of both allowed for a three-way phonemic contrast for each place of articulation: voiceless unaspirated stops (*/T/), voiced unaspirated stops (*/D/), and voiced aspirated stops (*/d h/), the last of which may be more accurately described as “breathy-voiced” or “murmured”. While it is likely that in PIE voiceless aspirates (*T h) were allophones of (*/d h/) (5.1), a new series of phonemic */t h/ was added in Indo-Iranian (cf. Ved. prathimán- ‘width’), which by and large may be traced back to stop + *h2 (PIE *pleth2 món- > prathimán-). As with many of our reconstructions, the stop series envisaged for PIE are not continued by any attested IE language. But according to Jakobson (1958: 528), the classic reconstruction of the PIE stop series faces another, more troubling problem: the system reconstructed for PIE does not seem to be attested in any other language in the world. This claim led many scholars to look for alternative reconstructions of LF contrast, the most popular being the Glottalic Theory (GT), which was independently proposed by Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (1972) and Hopper (1973). According to the GT, voiceless

2062

XX. Proto-Indo-European

ejectives replace the voiced stops of the classic reconstruction, such that */tréi̯ es/ ‘3’, */du̯oh1/ ‘2’, */d heh1/ ‘put’ ought to be reconstructed as */t(h)réi̯ es/, */t’u̯oh1/, */d(h)eh1/, resulting in a system that is more common cross-linguistically. Thus, according to the GT, the classically reconstructed Proto-Indo-European stop system represented on the left below is replaced by the system on the right: *p (*b) *b h

*t *d *d h

*k̑ *g̑ *g̑h

*k *g *gh

*k w *gw *gwh

→

*p(h) (*p’) *b(h)

*t(h) *t’ *d(h)

*k̑(h) *k̑’ *g̑(h)

*k(h) *k’ *g(h)

*k w(h) *k’w *gw(h)

There are many advantages to the GT over the classical reconstruction. First, it provides a straightforward explanation for the enigmatic paucity of PIE */b/, for in languages containing ejectives, */p’/ is the rarest of them all, given its difficulty of articulation (Fallon 2002). Second, since sequences with multiple ejectives are avoided in many languages, the GT also explains why roots of the shape */DeD/ and */DD/ consonant clusters were strikingly absent (Clackson 2007: 46). Third, the GT is claimed to provide good phonetic motivation for a number of sound laws in PIE and its daughter languages (see Vennemann 1989); one such example is Lubotsky’s Law (cf. 3.3), posited for IndoIranian, where *hx → 0̸ / V __ DCV (*/peh2g̑-ro-/ [i.e. */peh2k̑’-ro-/] > *paʔg̑ro- > *pag̑ro- > Skt. pajrá-), with laryngeal deletion via dissimilation of the feature [constricted glottis] (Lubotsky 1981). For further discussion in favor of the GT, see Vennemann (1989) and Beekes (2011). While still maintaining a small group of ardent followers (particularly in Leiden), the GT has lost much of its support today. There are many reasons for this. To begin with, since Jakobson’s famous claim, scholars have documented languages with stop systems identical or nearly identical to the classical PIE system, such as Kelabit in northern Borneo (Blust 2006). Second, if ejectives had been phonemes in PIE, then it is quite surprising that no IE language has inherited them, as they tend to be quite stable diachronically. Third, there are certain loan words present in Armenian (arcat‘ ‘silver’ < Iran. *ardzata- ) and Germanic (*rīk- ‘king’ < Celt. *rīg- < *PIE h3 rēg̑-) that demand consonant shifts from voiced to voiceless, which are not possible in the GT framework. Lastly, perhaps the strongest argument against the GT comes from Armenian, where in certain dialects initial-syllable vowels are fronted after inherited voiced aspirates by Adjarian’s Law: Kar-evan ben ‘speech’ (< *b han-), Karabagh telar (< *d hal-) but Karevan tun ‘house’ (< *dom-), Karabagh kov ‘cow’ (< *g wou̯-). As Garrett (1998) convincingly shows, fronting makes no sense if these segments had been simple voiced stops inherited from PIE voiced aspirates, but does if they were breathy-voiced, triggered by the spread of the feature [+ATR]. (Weitenberg [this handbook] takes Adjarian’s Law to have been triggered by the lateral /l/ and voiced fricatives in addition to inherited voiced aspirates. If this is indeed the case, then Garrett’s analysis loses its explanatory power. However, it is true that the most widely cited examples of Adjarian’s Law all involve preceding voiced stops and *j, which according to Garrett had become a voiced */ɦ/ before the time of the fronting.) But demonstrating the GT to be false does not entail that the classical reconstruction of the PIE stops is true for all periods of the proto-language, especially for early PIE. For how does one explain the rarity of */b/, the absence of */D(e)D/ sequences, or, more generally, the existence of such a typologically odd system in the classical reconstruction? While the second of these questions remains unanswered, it has been surmised that

121. The phonology of Proto-Indo-European

2063

the phoneme */b/ (as was in part the case with voiceless aspirated stops) may have been restricted in occurrence to “expressive or affective words and in onomatopoetic forms” (Joseph 1985: 7). Moreover, I believe that Weiss (2009) has found a solution to the third, showing that in Cao Bang, a northern Tai language, original voiced stops (e.g. */d/) developed into breathy-voiced stops (*/dɦ/), while original voiced implosives (e.g.*/ɗ/) became voiced stops. It is thus possible that late PIE */t/, */d/, */dɦ/ derived from an earlier */t/, */ɗ/, */d/, a system which occurs in roughly 16 % of languages containing three series of obstruents (Kümmel 2012: 294).

3.2. Fricatives and affricates There was a single sibilant */s/ in PIE with an allophone *z, which surfaced before voiced obstruents; cf. */sed-/ > *sed- (Arm. hecanim, Lat. sedeō) but */-sd-/ > *ni-zdó- (OCS gnězdo, Lat. nīdus, Eng. nest). It is quite possible that */s/ was a prepalatal hushed spirant (Vijūnas 2010). The segment known as thorn (*/þ/) was actually not a fricative at all, but rather a complex consonant cluster of underlying dental stop plus dorsal stop (Schindler 1977a). The classic example is the word for ‘earth’: nom.sg. *d h(e)g̑ hōm (Hitt. tekan, Gk. χθών), oblique *d hǝg̑ hm- (Hitt. taknaš), with schwa secundum (Ξ), and oblique g̑ hm̥m- (Lat. humus, Gk. χαμαί), a Lindeman variant (Τ). Thorn clusters were reduced when preceding a syllabic nasal; for an additional example, cf. *k̑m̥tóm ‘100’, from */dk̑mtóm/, a derivative of *dék̑m̥ ‘10’. (μ)

*T → 0̸ / __ KN̥

(Thorn Cluster Reduction)

This reduction makes good phonological sense, as nasals are not as sonorous as vowels (4.2) and are therefore unable to license multiple obstruents in an onset. There was also a rule of *-s- epenthesis in onset thorn clusters: *[h2 ar]σ[tk̑os]σ → *h2 artsk̑os ‘bear’ (Ved. r̥ ́ kṣas, with analogical zero-grade) but *[h2r̥ t]σ[k̑os]σ → *h2 r̥tk̑os (Hitt. ḫartaggaš). (ν)

0̸ → *s / σ[ T __ K

(Thorn Cluster Epenthesis)

Epenthesis may have resulted in an affricate [t͡s] (*[h2 ar]σ[t͡skos]σ ), though I prefer to parse *h2 artskos as *[h2 art]σ[skos]σ , following (ψ), and satisfying the MST (χ). For another rule of s-epenthesis, see (Ι).

3.3. Laryngeals Perhaps the most wonderful discovery in all of Indo-European phonology was made by Saussure (1879), who at the age of nineteen hypothesized the existence of a new class of segments, called “laryngeals” (*hx ). This name, first used by Möller (1917), is actually a misnomer, for it is unlikely that the larynx was the primary articulator of all three members of this class.

2064

XX. Proto-Indo-European

After a contentious century of research, scholars now with few exceptions posit three laryngeals for PIE (*/h1 /, */h2 /, */h3/), each corresponding to a different vocalic reflex in Greek: θετός (< *d həh1 tó- ← */d hh1 -tó-/ ‘placed’), στατός (< *stəh2 tó- ← */sth2 -tó-/ ‘standing’), and δοτός (< *dəh3 tó- ← */dh3 -tó-/ ‘given’). Note that each vowel derives from a sequence of *ə (Ν) + *hx and was unlikely to have been an instance of true vocalization (i.e. *h̥x ), despite the frequent use of this term here and elsewhere. Although *hx was vocalized in a variety of environments in the prehistory of many IE languages, it appears that in PIE this was only the case in word-initial sequences of the shape *CHC(C), as seen in */d hh1 s-/ → *d hǝh1 s- ‘divine’ > Gk. θεός ‘god’, Lat. fānum ‘shrine’ (< *fasno-), Skt. dhíṣṇya- ‘pious’, and HLuv. tasan-za ‘votive stele’. In all other environments, daughter languages treat */hx/ in different ways − word-medially (*/h2 enh1mV-/ ‘soul, breath, wind’ > Gk. ἄνεμος, Lat. animus, but GAv. ąnman-), word-finally (*/még̑h2/ ‘great’ > Ved. máhi, Gk. μέγα, but Hitt. mēk), and in other word-initial sequences (*/h2 ster-/ ‘star’ > Gk. ἀστήρ, Arm. astɫ, but Lat. stēlla, Ved. str̥ ́ bhis). Similarly, the loss of coda */hx/ with compensatory lengthening was not a PIE process: */peh2 s-/ ‘protect’ → *pah2 s- > Hitt. paḫs-, but Lat. pās-tor ‘shepherd’. The aforementioned presence of Gk. ε, α, and ο, continuing a contrast which was present in PIE, illustrates a fundamental property of the laryngeals: */h2/ and */h3/ change the quality of an adjacent e-vowel. */h2/ + */e/ → *a (*/steh2 -/ ‘stand’→ *stah2 > Gk. [Dor.] ἔ-στᾱ-ν); */h3/ + */e/ → *o (*/deh3 -/ ‘give’ → *doh3 - > Lat. dōnum). / *h1/ had no such “coloring” effect: cf. /*h1 esti/ → *h1 ésti. Moreover, at least in Greek, all three laryngeals had a coloring effect on a preceding *ǝ: */d hh1 -tó-/ → *d həh1 tó- > Gk. θετός; */sth2 -tó-/ → *stəh2 tó- → stăh2 tó- > Gk. στατός; */dh3 -tó-/ → *dəh3 tó- → *dŏh3 tó- > Gk. δοτός. While these three structurally reduced vowels remain distinct from each other in Greek, merging with the structurally full vowels e, o, and a, respectively, they show a merged unitary outcome in all other branches: in Indo-Iranian,*ǝhx > i (Skt. hitá-, sthitá-, -di- [rare]); everywhere else, *ǝhx > a (cf. Lat. factus, status, datus). No other vowels were colored by an adjacent laryngeal: cf. *h2 óg̑mos (Gk. ὄγμος ‘furrow’) and *mē´h2 u̯r̥ (Hitt. meḫur ‘time’); lack of coloring of a long vowel in the latter example is referred to as Eichner’s Law (Eichner 1973). Though continued exclusively as vowels in many of the daughter languages, the laryngeals were phonemically consonants in PIE. We know this for two main reasons. First, laryngeals pattern like consonants in our reconstructions: they were more sonorous than stops but less sonorous than resonants (4.2), occupied the same position as */s/ within roots, and (at least) */h3/ participated in voicing assimilation (a process restricted to obstruents; see 5.1), most famously in */pi̯ -ph3 -e-ti̯ / → *pibh3 eti ‘drinks’ > Ved. píbati, OIr. ibid, Lat. bibit, Arm. əmpē. Second, and more importantly, two of the laryngeals are directly continued in Anatolian as dorsal (likely uvular) fricatives, written as < ḫ(ḫ) > (Melchert 1994: 55; Weiss 2016): Hitt. ḫant- ‘front’, Lyc. xn˜tawa- ‘rule’ (< IE *h2 ant-), Hitt. ḫappariye-, Lyc. epirije- ‘sell’ (< *h3 op-). According to Kloekhorst (2004), *h1 was also continued as a glottal stop in Hieroglyphic Luvian (á-ma/i- ‘my’ < *h1 me, á-sú- ‘horse’ < *h1 ek̑u-), though this view is not universally held. Let us now summarize the facts presented thus far. */h1/ was a non-coloring consonant and is perhaps continued by [ʔ] in Anatolian. */h2/ lowered */e/ and *ə and aspirated stops in Indo-Iranian (see 3.1). *h3 rounded and backed */e/ and *ə and was voiced. All three were typologically “marked”, resulting in their frequent deletion in both PIE (see below) and the daughter languages. Lastly, all three were more sonorous than stops, but

121. The phonology of Proto-Indo-European

2065

less sonorous than resonants and patterned like */s/ in roots, which suggests that they were most likely fricatives. The vowel coloration effects point to a post-velar place of articulation (uvular or pharyngeal), leading us to the most common reconstruction: */h1/ = /h/ or /ʔ/, */h2/ = /ħ/, a voiceless pharyngeal or uvular fricative, and */h3/ = /ʕ(w)/, a voiced pharyngeal or uvular fricative with possible rounding coarticulation. (Weiss 2016 sets forth a number of convincing arguments that the Anatolian reflexes of PIE *h2 and *h3 were not pharyngeals, but rather uvulars. As uvulars more easily develop into pharyngeals, it is likely that *h2/3 were originally uvular in PIE.) Many prefer to view */h1/ as /h/, a phoneme which is present in most languages with aspirated stops. There were a number of phonological processes that targeted laryngeals in PIE. (ξ)

*ChxUC → *CUhxC 2 3 32

(Laryngeal Metathesis)

*/ph3i̯ -tó-/ → *pih3 tó- ‘drunk’ > Ved. pītá-, OCS pitъ; cf. Gk. πῖθι ‘drink!’ (ο)

*/hx/ → 0̸ / C __ CC

(Lex Schmidt-Hackstein)

*/d hu̯gh2 trés/ → *d huktrés ‘daughter (gen.sg.)’ > NPers. duxtar-, Arm. dowstr (see Byrd 2015: 85 ff., with references). Rule discussed in (Ο) below. (π)

*/hx/ → 0̸ / σ[ __ i̯ -

(Pinault’s Law)

*/sok wh2 -i̯ o-/ → *sok wi̯ o- ‘friend’ > Lat. socius, cf. Skt. sakhyá- ‘friendship’ (with kh by analogy to the root allomorph seen in the paradigm of sákhā/sákhāyam), Gk. *ἄοσσος (base of ἀοσσέω ‘I help’) (Pinault 1982). This rule is not operative in word-initial position. According to Byrd (2015), PL only targeted *h2 and *h3. (ρ)

*/hx/ → 0̸ /

O $_Ro S Q T R oR_$ U

(The Saussure Effect)

*/solh2 -u̯o-/ → *solu̯o- ‘all’ > Skt. sárva-, Gk. ὅλος, Lat. sollus; */h3moi̯ g̑hó-/ → *moi̯ g̑ hó- > Gk. μοιχóς ‘adulterer’ (Cf. Gk. ὀμείχω, Lat. meiō, Ved. méhati ‘urinate’) (de Saussure 1905; Nussbaum 1997) (σ)

*/hx/ → 0̸ / V __ PRV

(The Weather Rule)

*/h2 u̯eh1 -tró-/ → *h2 u̯etró- > PGmc. *weðra- (Germ. Wetter, Eng. weather; Neri 2011). Given the structural similarities to Lubotsky’s Law (3.1), some scholars suspect both to have been the same rule. (τ)

*/hx/ → 0̸ / V __ RV́

(Dybo’s Law)

*/u̯i̯ h1 -ró-/ → *u̯iró- ‘hero, man’ > Lat. vir, OIr. fer, Goth. wair, but *u̯ih1 ró- > Ved. vīrá-, Lith. výras. (τ) appears to have been a rule of Western Indo-European, though the details are murky (Zair 2006, with references). (υ)

*/hx/ → 0̸ / __ # (?)

(Kuiper’s Law)

2066

XX. Proto-Indo-European

Laryngeals appear to have been lost when occurring at the end of some phonological domain (likely phonological phrase; see 4), most notably in the vocative of certain forms: */-eh2/ → *-a > Gk. νύμφ-α˘ ‘O nymph!’ (φ)

*/hx/ → 0̸ / CR __ V (?)

(The neognós Rule)

*/neu̯o-g̑nh1 -o-/ → *neu̯og̑no- ‘newborn’ (**neu̯og̑n̥h1 o-) > Gk. νεογνός; cf. Lat. prīvignus ‘stepson’. In certain compounds and reduplicated formations (e.g., *k we-k wl̥ h1ós), a laryngeal was lost in the zero-grade of */CVRH/ roots. The precise phonetic and phonological motivations for many of these rules − especially (σ)−(φ) − are an absolute mystery. But recent work has begun to shed some light upon why many of these processes may have occurred. For instance, in Byrd (2015), I argue that (ο) was driven by violations of syllable structure (see 4.2 and 5.3 below) and that (π) occurred due to the impossible articulation of a palatalized pharyngeal consonant (*ħy). (Though not explicitly stated in Byrd 2015, palatalized uvular fricatives are also dispreferred cross-linguistically, and so this analysis would stand should one choose to identify *h2/3 as uvular [cf. Weiss 2016].) Pronk (2011) and van Beek (2011) have argued against (ρ) as a PIE process, claiming it to have been a phonetically impossible rule, though both Weiss (2012) and Byrd (2013) have independently suggested that the interaction of the low and back features of */o/ and */hx/ triggered deletion. Steer (2012), basing himself on Fritz (1996), identifies (φ) as the simplification of a word-medial onset sequence *σ[RH-: *[ne]σ[u̯og̑]σ[nh1o-]σ → *[ne]σ[u̯og̑]σ[no-]σ . While ingenious, I find his analysis questionable, as there is no good reason for *RH to have ever been parsed as a tautosyllabic onset in the first place. While I myself can offer no solution, it is curious that deletion occurs immediately following a prosodic word (4.3) boundary.

4. Prosody Up until this point we have discussed only the individual segments (phonemes and allophones) of PIE. But these segments were never uttered in isolation: they appeared together with other segments to form syllables, which in turn produced words. Syllables and words are considered to be two constituents of the much larger prosodic hierarchy (see Figure 121.1; Selkirk 1986), where features such as tone, stress, and intonation are assigned. There are two other categories located above the PhP in the hierarchy, the intonational phrase and the utterance. Given the nature of reconstruction, I am skeptical of our ability to say anything interesting about these two categories; the remaining five, however, are well within our reach. I will not address the PhP or φ in the discussion below, for at the moment there is very little to say about these, and thus will only focus on μ, σ, and ω.

4.1. Morae A mora (abbreviated as μ) is a unit of syllabic weight (Hayes 1989). While all vowels ˘ = μ, V: = μμ), languages differ on which consonants may be are inherently moraic (V

121. The phonology of Proto-Indo-European PhP ω

2067

Phonological Phrase ω

Prosodic Word

φ

φ

Foot

σ

X

σ

Syllable

μ

μ

X

X X

Mora Segment

Fig. 121.1: Prosodic hierarchy

moraic and where (if at all). In PIE, all consonants were assigned a mora if they occurred in coda position. Thus: */oμi̯ noμ s/ → *[oμi̯ ]σ[noμ s]σ → *[oμi̯ μ ]σ[noμ sμ ]σ ‘one’. This property may be directly observed in the meter of many ancient IE languages: RV 1.1: Iliad B.1–2 : Aeneid 1.6 :

agním īḷe puróhitaṁ yajñásya devám r̥tvíjam ἄλλοι μέν ῥα θεοί τε καὶ ἀνέρες ἱπποκορυσταὶ εὗδον παννύχιοι, Δία δ᾽ οὐκ ἔχεν ἥδυμος ὕπνος inferretque deos Latio, genus unde Latinum

In the excerpts cited above, the of Ved. yajñásya, the of Gk. ὕπνος, and the of Lat. inferretque render their respective syllables heavy (consisting of 2μ), and thus each of these consonants carries a mora.

4.2. Syllables Syllables (abbreviated as σ) are the beats of language. All σs contain a sonority peak called the nucleus (usually a vowel), which may be surrounded by consonants in the σ margins; those occurring before the nucleus are called the onset, those following it the coda. It is very likely that in PIE the σs of all lexical (vs. grammatical) words required onsets: contrast *h1 es- ‘be’ with *en ‘in’. The syllable structure of PIE was quite complex. Word-initial onsets could consist of one, two, three, or perhaps even four consonants (*teg- ‘cover’, *stah2 - ‘stand’, *streu̯‘strew’, *g̑ hz(h)d hi̯ és ‘yesterday’). Curiously, */s/ always occurred in the first or second position (cf. *h2 ster- ‘star’) of triconsonantal onsets. Word-finally, syllables were open or closed by one, two, or three consonants (*k̑u̯ō´ ‘dog’, *b héred ‘carried’, *u̯ō´k ws ‘voice’, *nók wts ‘night’). All complex word-final codas ended in either a dental obstruent (*/s/, /t/, /d/) or */h2 / (cf. *még̑h2 ‘great’). Many of these complex margins were banned wordmedially; thus while *u̯ē´k̑st ‘carried by vehicle’ and *h2 ster- contained licit sequences at word’s edge, there is no evidence for a word of the shape **u̯ē´k̑sth2 ster- in PIE. In fact, a maximum of two consonants was allowed in word-medial σ margins (cf. */i̯ éu̯gtrom/ → *[i̯ éu̯k]σ[trom]σ ‘cord’ > Ved. yóktram). This discrepancy between wordedge and word-medial margins makes it likely that Cs in certain sequences at word’s

2068

XX. Proto-Indo-European

edge were extrasyllabic (see Byrd 2010, 2015 and Keydana 2012), such that they were not syllabified at the level of the σ, but were rather adjoined to a higher node of the prosodic hierarchy (the ω). Thus, we may claim that in both onsets and codas, a maximum of two Cs was permitted. But while onsets permitted violations of the Sonority Sequencing Principle (SSP; cf. *[su̯ek̑]σ[stos]σ ‘sixth’ > Goth. saihsta), which states that ‟between any member of a syllable and the syllable peak only sounds of higher sonority rank are permitted” (Clements 1990: 284 ff.), codas did not, a generalization captured by the MAXIMUM SYLLABLE TEMPLATE (MST), first proposed in Byrd (2010) and expanded upon in Byrd (2015). (χ)

CCVCC (MST) The maximum PIE syllable consists of two consonants in the onset and two consonants in the coda. The onset may violate the SSP; the coda may not.

We may broadly identify the sonority hierarchy in PIE as follows: V [ R [ F [ P. Thus, the medial coda of *[h2 arh3 ]σ[trom]σ ‘plow’ (OIr. arathar) was permitted, since *h3 was less sonorous than *r, but the same may not be said of the reverse sequence **-oh3r]σ . The MST motivated a number of phonological processes in PIE; see 5.3 below. In PIE, vowels always occupied the σ nucleus, but as we discussed in 2, resonants could as well, generated by a rule of sonorant syllabification where a non-syllabic resonant becomes syllabic; see (Μ) below. Thus, if a resonant was surrounded by obstruents or word boundaries, it syllabified: */tntós/ → *[tn̥][tós] ‘stretched’, */dék̑m/ → *[dé][k̑m̥] ‘ten’, */nputlós/ → *[n̥][put][lós] ‘sonless’. Facts were more complicated if multiple resonants stood next to each other. As Schindler (1977b) noted, in such sequences the rightmost resonant always syllabified (*/k̑u̯nb his/ → *[k̑u̯n̥][b his] ‘dogs [instr.pl.]’) if not immediately adjacent to a vowel (*/k̑u̯nés/ → *[k̑u][nés] ‘dog [gen.sg.]’). Although Schindler’s rule is the standard description of resonant syllabification today, he himself noted multiple exceptions: 1. roots of the shape *RR-, not **R̥R(*u̯i̯ eth2 - > Skt. vyáthate ‘rolls’), 2. */-Cmn-/ → *-CN- (ζ), not *-Cm̥n- (/h2 ek̑mnés/ → [h2 ak̑]σ[nés]σ ‘stone [gen.sg.]’), 3. isolated instances of */CR1R2V/ → *[CR1R̥2 ]σ[V(*[tri]σ[ōm]σ ‘three [gen.pl.]’, not **[tr̥ ]σ[i̯ ōm]σ ), 4. accusatives of the shape *-R̥m(s) (*/menti̯ m/ → *[mén]σ[tim]σ ‘mind [acc.sg.]’, not **[mén]σ[ti̯ m̥]σ ), and 5. the weak stems of the nasal-infix presents (*/i̯ u̯ngénti/ → *[i̯ un]σ[gén]σ[ti]σ , not **[i]σ[u̯n̥]σ[gén]σ[ti]σ ). Various fixes to each individual exception have been put forth in the past, but as I argue in Byrd (2015: 167−178), these exceptions all but disappear if we envision ablaut (ε) as a synchronic phonological process in PIE, which necessarily follows syllabification in the derivation. Let us consider the derivation of *[mén]σ[tim]σ , for which I assume */méntei̯ m/ to be the underlying form. The full-grade of the root surfaced in *[mén]σ[tim]σ , the full-grade of the suffix occurred in gen.sg. *[mn̥]σ[téi̯ s]σ , and the accusative marker *-m always appeared in the zero-grade, hence */-m/. In (ψ) below, syllabification first parsed segments into syllables and assigned all coda segments a mora (cf. 4.1). At this point ablaut (ε) deleted targeted vowels, which were nearly always unaccented. Lastly, the syllable *-[ti̯ μmμ ]σ was repaired by (Μ), as all syllables require a nucleus. *i is chosen as the nucleus of *-[ti̯ μmμ ]σ in order to maintain its assigned mora.

121. The phonology of Proto-Indo-European (ψ)

a. Syllabification: b. (ε): c. (Μ):

*/méμ nteμi̯ m/ → *[méμ nμ ]σ[teμi̯ μmμ ]σ *[méμ nμ ]σ[teμi̯ μmμ ]σ → *[méμ nμ ]σ[ti̯ μmμ ]σ *[méμ nμ ]σ[ti̯ μmμ ]σ → *[méμ nμ ]σ[tiμmμ ]σ

2069 (Syllabification Algorithm)

The implications of this analysis are far-reaching. If (ε) may be reconstructed as a synchronic rule of PIE and may be ordered before or after other (morpho-)phonological processes, perhaps there was further interaction between (ε) and other known rules.

4.3. Prosodic words All lexical words consist of (at least) one prosodic word (abbreviated as ω), which crosslinguistically acts as the domain of word-stress assignment, syllabification, and certain segmental rules. Not much is known yet about the ω in PIE; though since the ω is the domain of syllabification, we may utilize this knowledge as a metric to identify the boundaries of ωs in a non-circular fashion. Thus, it is likely that the privative prefix *n̥constituted its own ω, as it was syllabified independently of the stem to which it was affixed: cf. */[n]ω[udro-]ω/ → *n̥(n)udro- ‘waterless’ (Gk. ἄνυδρος, Skt. anudrá-), not **nudro-. It is possible that a minimal-word requirement targeted the ω in PIE, which demands that any stress-bearing (i.e. lexical) word contain at least two μs (McCarthy and Prince 1986). While there are indeed exceptions to this rule (cf. PIE *só ‘this’, not **sō´ ), Kapović (2006) argues that the short/long vowel alternations reconstructible for pairs such as *nu : *nū´ ‘now’ (Gk. νυ : Skt. nū´), *ne : *nē´ (OCS ne : Lat. nē) ‘not’, and *tu : tū´ ‘you (sg.)’ (Latv. tu : OE þū) may be explained in this way, with lengthening occurring in stressed variants. This rule may also account for certain instances of *ū and *ī of non-laryngeal origin; see 1.2. (ω)

V → V: / # (C0 ) __ #

(Monosyllabic Lengthening)

4.4. Accent It is generally agreed that PIE was a language with mobile pitch accent, continued to a greater or lesser extent by Vedic Sanskrit, Ancient Greek, Proto-Germanic, and BaltoSlavic. The utilization of pitch-accent entails two basic properties of a language’s accentual system (Hayes 2009: 292−293). First, pitch is phonemic, and therefore contrasts in pitch may result in minimal pairs: cf. the famous *tómh1 os ‘a cutting’ (Gk. τόμος ‘a cut, slice’) vs. *tomh1 ós ‘sharp’ (Gk. τομός). Second, only one σ per ω may be accented; thus *b héreti ‘carries’, but no **b héréti. In PIE, an accented σ was phonetically prominent and carried a high pitch, very similar to the accentual properties of modern Swedish. At least one phonological rule of accent shift has been reconstructed for PIE: (A)

/é C0 o/ → e C0 ó / # C0 __ C0 V (C0 ) #

(The *k wetu̯óres Rule)

As Rix (1985) discusses, this rule explains why expected PIE */k wétu̯ores/, */su̯ésores/, and */h2 áusosm̥/ surface as *k wetu̯óres ‘four (nom.pl.)’ (Ved. catvā´raḥ), *su̯esóres ‘sis-

2070

XX. Proto-Indo-European

ters (nom.pl.)’ (Ved. svasā´raḥ), and *h2 ausósm̥ ‘dawn (acc.sg.)’ (Ved. uṣā´sam), respectively. But were there other such rules of accentual shift? The answer to this question underlies perhaps the most exciting prospect of future work in PIE morphophonology: the alternation of accent within PIE paradigms (see 1.4), for which I refer the reader to Kiparsky (2010), with references.

5. Conspiracies Indo-Europeanists typically describe phonological change in terms of rules or laws: X > Y / Z. However, it is sometimes beneficial to conceive of certain processes as being driven by important phonological constraints, which define which segments and sequences may or may not occur in a language. Such constraints may create phonological conspiracies, where two or more rules “conspire” to ensure that a particular marked structure does not surface in the language (Kisseberth 1970).

5.1. Laryngeal feature neutralization In PIE, there was an assortment of phonological rules that neutralized underlying laryngeal features (LFs). Recall the various allomorphs of PIE ‘sit’ (3.2): *sed- (Gk. ἕζομαι), but *ni-zd-ó- (Eng. nest). *z, an allophone of */s/, arose only by voicing assimilation when */s/ preceded a voiced obstruent. The assimilation of aspiration (the feature [±spread glottis (sg)]) occurred as well: */u̯eg̑h-/ ‘carry by vehicle’ + */-s-/ → *u̯ek̑s(Skt. vakṣ-, Cyp. éwekse, Lat. vēxī). Both are cases of regressive (R → L) assimilation. (B)

[−sonorant] →

I α voice J J J J J β sg K

L M M M M M N

I J −sonorant L M /__ JJJJJJ α voice MMMMMM J M J M J M J J β sg MMN K

(LF Assimilation)

While the examples above show obstruents neutralized in codas, it appears that LF assimilation was not restricted to any particular position within the syllable. There are many instances where word-initial s-mobile + */d h/ surfaced as *sT h- (Siebs’ Law), such as Ved. sphuráti ‘jerks, kicks’, OE spurnan ‘spurn’ beside Ved. bhuráti ‘jerks, moves rapidly’, with progressive (L → R) assimilation. In Indo-Iranian, LF assimilation was continued as a productive process, but a minor change was added: the underlying LFs of roots were prioritized over affixes, resulting in progressive assimilation in certain cases. Thus, while PIE */b hu̯d h-tó-/ → *b hutstó- ‘awakened’, PIIr. */b hu̯d h-tá-/ → *b(h)ud(h)z(h)d há- (Skt. buddhá- ‘awakened’). (Γ)

[−sonorant] →

I α voice J J J J J β sg K

L M M M M M N

/

I −sonorant LMM J J J M J J J α voice MMMMMM J J J M J J β sg MMN K

__

(Bartholomae’s Law)

It is likely that Bartholomae’s Law operated on some level in early PIE (but to what extent is unclear), as we find doublets of certain suffixes, which could only have arisen

121. The phonology of Proto-Indo-European

2071

in this way: *-tro- (Gk. λέκτρον ‘bed’), *-tlo- (Lat. perīculum ‘danger’) beside *-d hro(Gk. βάθρον ‘base, step’) and *-d hlo- (Lat. stabulum ‘stable’). Stops were also neutralized to voiced unaspirated in word-final position after a sonorant (V or R): PIE */-t/ → *-d > Hitt. pa-i-ta-aš [páyd−as] ‘went he’, Old Lat. feced ‘(s)he made’. Though typologically unexpected, this type of neutralization also occurs synchronically in the Northeast Caucasian language Lezgian (Yu 2004). (Δ)

I −sonorant MML J J J J M J −continuantM M K N

→

I + voice J J J J J − sg K

L M M M M M N

/ [+sonorant] __ #

(Final Voicing)

5.2. *GEMINATE Some languages tolerate geminate sequences freely (Ital. ratto ‘rat’, fatto ‘made’ ← /fak/ ‘make’ + /to/), while others do not. English has a strict ban on monomorphemic geminates but allows heteromorphemic ones: contrast penny /pεni/ with penknife /pεnnaɪf/. PIE was the opposite of English; while monomorphemic sequences were tolerated in certain “expressive” words (Watkins 2012) such as *atta ‘daddy’ (Lat. atta, Goth. atta), *kakka ‘poo-poo’ (MIr. caccaim, Russ. kákata), and *anna ‘momma’ (Hitt. annaš), heteromorphemic geminates were strictly banned (Meillet 1938). This ban was the result of the high-ranking constraint *GEMINATE, which spurred a number of important phonological changes within the proto-language. Note that, curiously, compensatory lengthening (CL) occurs word-finally, but never word-medially in the processes below. This appears to be true of all certain instances of word-medial consonant deletion in PIE. (One exception to this statement may lie in the possible derivation of PIE *tē´k̑ti ‘fashions’ from an earlier, reduplicated */té-tk̑-ti̯ /.) (Ε)

*/VmmV/ → *VmV

(Medial */mm/ Simplification)

Examples are sparse: */ném-men/ → *némn̥ ‘gift’ (OIr. neim ‘poison’; Rasmussen 1999: 647) and perhaps */stómh1men/ → *stómn̥ (Hitt. ištaman, Gk. στόμα ‘mouth’), with geminate simplification after loss of */h1/ via the Saussure Effect (ρ) (C. Melchert, p.c.). (Ζ)

*/Vmm#/ → *V:m#

(Stang’s Law)

This is a subtype of Stang’s Law; most examples consist of roots or suffixes in *-m + acc.sg. *-m (*/dóm-m/ → *dō´m ‘house (acc.sg.)’ (Arm. tun); */d hég̑hom-m/ → *d hég̑ hōm ‘earth (acc.sg.)’ (Hitt. tēkan), but cf. /gwém-m/ → *g wē´m ‘I came’ (Lat. vēnī; Kim 2001). (Η)

*/VssV/ → *VsV

(Medial */ss/ Simplification)

Secure examples include */h1 és-si/ → *h1 esi ‘you are’ (Ved. ási, Lat. es) and */h2 u̯s-sés/ → *h2 usés ‘dawn (gen.sg.)’ (Ved. uṣás). (Θ)

*/Vss#/ → *V:s#

(Final */ss/ Simplification)

2072

XX. Proto-Indo-European

Here geminate simplification is universally accepted, but CL is not. The long vocalism of */h2 éu̯s-os-s/ → *h2 áu̯sōs ‘dawn (nom.sg.)’ is typically explained by analogy with forms such as *d hég̑ hōm (← */d hég̑h-om-s/ via [ι] above). However, should CL have occurred in this environment, it would provide a straightforward phonological explanation for many (but not all) of the enigmatic long high vowels discussed in 1.2, whereby */mu̯ss/ → *mūs ‘mouse (nom.sg)’ (Szemerényi 1970: 109). (Ι)

*/VTTV/ → *VTsTV

(The Double Dental Rule)

While the previous geminate sequences were reduced to singletons, a geminate dental sequence was fixed by *-s- epenthesis. Simplified in most of IE (*/u̯i̯ d-tó/ → *u̯itstó‘known’ > Germ. ge-wiss, Lat. vīsus, Gk. ἄ-ϊστος, Ved. vittá-), *-TsT- was maintained in Anatolian (*/h1ē´d-ti/ → h1 ē´tsti ‘eats’ > Hitt. ēzzazzi [ēt͡st͡si]). However, if a geminate dental sequence was followed by a sonorant + vowel, a dental was deleted with no CL. (Κ)

*/VTTRV/ → *VTRV

(The métron Rule)

The attested evidence presents a conflicting picture of which dental was lost. While *sed-tlo- → *sedlo- ‘seat’ (Goth. sitls, Lat. sella, Gaul. sedlon) shows *-t- loss, the Paradebeispiel *méd-tro- → *métro- ‘measure’ (Gk. μέτρον) exhibits *-d- loss, if not from *méh1 -tro- with loss by the Weather Rule (σ). In Sanskrit, there are two additional rules motivated by *GEMINATE: */ap-b hi̯ s/ → adbhís ‘water (instr.pl)’ and */vas-sya-/ → *vatsya- ‘will get dressed’. While it remains unclear if PIE treated such forms in the same way as Sanskrit, it is certain that the expected heteromorphemic surface geminates would not have been tolerated. Lastly, while not a geminate sequence per se, one may also compare the dissimilation of labiality found in */gwou̯k wólos/ → *g wou̯kólos (OIr. búachaill, Gk. βουκόλος), */(ne) h2ói̯ u̯ k wi̯ d/ (Cowgill 1960) → *(ne) h2 ói̯ u kid (Gk. οὐ[κί], Arm. oč‘ ‘not’), and */h2i̯ u̯-gwi̯ h3/ ‘life everlasting’ (Weiss 1995) → *h2 i̯ ugih3 - (Gk. ὑγιής ‘healthy’). (Λ)

*/k w/ → [−round] / u__

(The boukólos Rule)

5.3. The MAXIMuM SYLLABLE TEMPLATE (MST) If a violation of the MST (χ) occurred in PIE, then one or more consonants could not be syllabified. If such consonants could not be realized as extrasyllabic, the illicit sequence in question was repaired. A PIE speaker could do so in one of three ways. First, (s)he could vocalize a syllabifiable consonant, which was always a resonant: */tntós/ → *tn̥tós ‘stretched’ (Gk. τατός). This was the most common fix. (Μ) *R → *R̥

(Sonorant Syllabification)

If the strategy in (Μ) was unavailable, the speaker could epenthesize a schwa in one of two environments in word-initial position. The first effectively “vocalized” an unsyllabifiable laryngeal: */d hh1 sós/ → *d həh1 sós ‘divine’ (Gk. θεός, Luv. tasan-za). As argued in 3.3, all other cases of laryngeal vocalization should be conceived of as einzelsprachlich.

121. The phonology of Proto-Indo-European (Ν)

*0̸ → ə / # C0 __ hx C0

2073 (Schwa Primum)

Schwa was also inserted in the word-initial sequence stop + stop + resonant (where R ≠ *i̯ ; cf. *g̑ h(z)d hi̯ és ‘yesterday’); excellent examples include */k wtu̯or-/ → *k wətu̯or- ‘four’ (Lat. quattuor, Aeol. Gk. πίσυρες) and */d hg̑hmés/ → *d həg̑ hmés ‘earth (gen.sg.)’ (Hitt. taknaš). (Ξ)

*0̸ → ə / # P __ P R

(Schwa Secundum)

In all other instances, the speaker would delete the unsyllabifiable consonant in question. Thus, a laryngeal was lost and not vocalized in Lex Schmidt-Hackstein : */d hu̯gh2 trés/ → *[d hug]σh2[trés]σ → *d huktrés ‘daughter (gen.sg.)’. (Ο)

*hx → 0̸ / P ]σ __ [ CC

(Lex Schmidt-Hackstein, revised)

This is also why *-s- was not epenthesized in the sequence */-VTTRV-/ (Κ): should epenthesis have occurred a violation of the MST would have arisen: */médtrom/ → [mét]σ s[trom]σ . Deletion was the only possible solution: */médtrom/ → [mét]σ[rom]σ .

5.4. *SUPERHEAVY There is a cross-linguistic tendency for languages to avoid syllables with more than two morae. This syllable shape, called superheavy or overlong, is shortened in the prehistory of many IE languages in the (non-final) sequence *-V:R]σ: (Π)

* V: → V / __ R ]σ

(Osthoff’s Law)

This was not a rule of PIE, as shortening does not occur in Tocharian (*h2 u̯eh1 ntó‘wind’ > *u̯ēnto- > TA want, TB yente but *u̯ĕnto- > Lat. ventus, Goth. winds) and IndoIranian (*pērsn- ‘thigh’ > Ved. pā´rṣni- but Gk. πτερνή, Lat. perna); but note that superheavy syllables are systematically avoided in the Rig Veda (Hoenigswald 1989). As in Vedic, there appears to have been a strong tendency to avoid superheavy syllables in PIE. It is likely for this reason that we find certain (but not all) instances of Schwebeablaut (Anttila 1969), in which a resonant metathesizes from coda to onset: *[h2 au̯]σ[gV- ‘grow, become strong’ (Skt. ójīyas-, Lat. augeō, Goth. aukan) ~ *[h2 u̯ek]σ[s- (Ved. vakṣáyati, Gk. ἀ(ϝ)έξω, Eng. wax). (Ρ)

*CVRC]σ → CRVC]σ 23 32

(Schwebeablaut)

A process of high V epenthesis (followed by resyllabification) repaired certain sequences containing a derived superheavy syllable (Byrd 2010, following Hoenigswald and many others): */mert-i̯ o-/ → *[mert]σ[i̯ o]σ → *mertii̯ o- ‘mortal’ (Ved. mártiya-). X may stand for either V or C.

2074 (Σ)

XX. Proto-Indo-European *0̸ → *U1 / …V X C]σ[ __ U̯1 V… […V X C]σ[ U U̯1 V…] → [… V X]σ[C U]σ[ U̯1 V…]σ

(Sievers’ Law)

It has been long believed by many (following Schindler 1977b) that Sievers’ Law (SL) should be collapsed together with Lindeman’s Law (LL; see Lindeman 1965), with both being processes of syllabic resonant epenthesis in the onset of a word-final syllable. (Τ)

*0̸ → *R̥1 / #C __ R1 V (C0 )#

(Lindeman’s Law)

There are key differences, however, between the two rules, casting doubt on Schindler’s analysis. First, there are attested instances of SL targeting non-final sequences, such as Ved. poṣiyā´vant- ‘creating thrivance’ and kā´viyasya ‘having the quality of a seer (gen.sg.)’. Second, while it is unlikely that SL extended beyond glides in PIE, LL clearly targeted all resonants: */du̯óh1/ → *duu̯óh1 ‘two’ (Gk. δύω), */di̯ éu̯s/ → *dii̯ éu̯s ‘sky’ (Ved. diyáuḥ), */krō´n/ → *kr̥rō´ ‘piece of meat’ (Lat. carō), /d hg̑hmō´n/ → g̑ hm̥mō´ ‘earthling’ (Lat. homō), and */gwnéh2/ → *g wn̥náh2 (Gk. γυνή). While SL was utilized to repair superheavy syllables, the precise phonological motivation for LL is unclear, though I suspect that it arose to satisfy the aforementioned requirement for bimoraic prosodic words, and thus was an alternative to Monosyllabic Lengthening (ω).

Acknowledgement I would like to thank Jessica DeLisi, the editors, and especially Jesse Lundquist for their thoughtful comments and suggestions. All errors are my own.

6. Explanation of symbols C P T K kw

consonant stop dental stop (unless otherwise noted) dorsal stop (unless otherwise noted) labiovelar stop

F H or hx R N U V

fricative laryngeal resonant nasal high vowel vowel

7. References Anttila, Raimo 1969 Proto-Indo-European Schwebeablaut. Berkeley: University of California Press. van Beek, Lucien 2011 The ‟Saussure effect” in Greek: a revision of the evidence. Journal of Indo-European Studies 39: 129−175. Beekes, Robert S. P. 1988 PIE. RHC- in Greek and Other Languages. Indogermanische Forschungen 93: 22−45.

121. The phonology of Proto-Indo-European

2075

Beekes, Robert S. P. 2011 Comparative Indo-European Linguistics: An Introduction. 2nd edn. edited by Michiel de Vaan. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Blust, Robert A. 2006 The origin of the Kelabit voiced aspirates: a historical hypothesis revisited. Oceanic Linguistics 45: 311−338. Brugmann, Karl and Berthold Delbrück 1897 Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen, Vol. I/1. Einleitung und Lautlehre. Strassburg: Trübner. Byrd, Andrew Miles 2010 Reconstructing Indo-European Syllabification. Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA. Byrd, Andrew Miles 2013 A Crazy Rule in PIE? A Closer Look at the Saussure Effect. Talk given 19 January 2013 at the 10 th Annual Ohio State Linguistics Symposium, Columbus, Ohio. Byrd, Andrew Miles 2015 The Indo-European Syllable. Leiden: Brill. Clackson, James 2007 Indo-European Linguistics. An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Clements, George N. 1990 The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification. In: John Kingston and Mary E. Beckman (eds.), Papers in Laboratory Phonology 1: Between the grammar and the physics of speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 283−333. Collinge, Neville E. 1985 The Laws of Indo-European. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Collinge, Neville E. 1995 Further Laws of Indo-European. In: Werner Winter (ed.), On Languages and Language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 27−52. Collinge, Neville E. 1999 The Laws of Indo-European: The State of the Art (1998). Journal of Indo-European Studies 27: 355−377. Cooper, Adam I. 2013 The Typology of PIE Syllabic Sonorants. Indo-European Linguistics 1: 3−67. Cooper, Adam I. 2015 Reconciling Indo-European Syllabification. Leiden: Brill. Cowgill, Warren 1960 Greek ou and Armenian oč‘. Language 36: 347−350. Eichner, Heiner 1973 Die Etymologie von heth. meḫur. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 31: 53− 107. Fallon, Paul D. 2002 The Synchronic and Diachronic Phonology of Ejectives. New York: Routledge. Fortson, Benjamin W. IV. 2010 Indo-European Language and Culture: an Introduction. 2nd edn. Chichester, UK: WileyBlackwell. Fritz, Matthias 1996 Das urindogermanische Wort für ‘Nase’ und das grundsprachliche Lautgesetz *RHV > *RV. Historische Sprachforschung 109: 1−20. Gamkrelidze, Tamaz and Vyacheslav V. Ivanov 1973 Sprachtypologie und die Rekonstruktion der gemeinindogermanischen Verschlüsse. Phonetica 27: 150−156.

2076

XX. Proto-Indo-European

Garrett, Andrew 1998 Adjarian’s Law, the glottalic theory, and the position of Armenian. In: Benjamin K. Bergen, Madelaine C. Plauché, and Ashlee C. Bailey (eds.), Proceedings of the TwentyFourth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, February 14−16, 1998: Special Session on Indo-European Subgrouping and Internal Relations. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society, 12−23. Hayes, Bruce 1989 Compensatory Lengthening in Moraic Phonology. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 253−306. Hayes, Bruce 2009 Introductory Phonology. Oxford: Blackwell/Wiley. Hoenigswald, Henry M. 1989 Overlong Syllables in Ṛgvedic Cadences. Journal of the American Oriental Society 109: 559−563. Hopper, Paul J. 1973 Glottalized and murmured occlusives in Indo-European. Glossa 7: 141−166. Jakobson, Roman 1958 Typological studies and their contribution to historical comparative linguistics. In: Eva Sivertsen, Carl H. Borgstrøm, Arne Gallis, and Alf Sommerfelt (eds.), Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Linguists. Oslo: University Press, 17−25. Joseph, Brian D. 1985 Proto-Indo-European Consonantism: Methodological and Further Typoological Concerns. In: Jacek Fisiak (ed.), Papers from the 6 th International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 313–321. Kapović, Mate 2006 Reconstruction of Balto-Slavic Personal Pronouns, with emphasis on accentuation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Zagreb. Kellens, Jean 1974 Les Noms-Racines de l’Avesta. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Keydana, Götz 2012 Evidence for non-linear phonological structure in Indo-European: The case of fricative clusters. In: Nielsen Whitehead, Olander, Olsen, and Rasmussen (eds.), 223−242. Kessler, Brett n. d. On the phonological nature of the Proto-Indo-European laryngeals. http://spell. psychology.wustl.edu/PIE-laryngeals/ [Last accessed January 2016]. Kim, Ronald I. 2001 Tocharian B śem ≈ Latin vēnit? Szemerényi’s Law and *ē in PIE root aorists. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 61: 119−147. Kiparsky, Paul 2010 Compositional vs. Paradigmatic Approaches to Accent and Ablaut. In: Stephanie W. Jamison, H. Craig Melchert, and Brent Vine (eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference. Bremen: Hempen, 45−67. Kisseberth, Charles W. 1970 On the functional unity of phonological rules. Linguistic Inquiry 1: 291−306. Kloekhorst, Alwin 2004 The Preservation of *h1 in Hieroglyphic Luwian: Two Separate a-Signs. Historische Sprachforschung 117: 26−49. Kümmel, Martin 2012 Typology and Reconstruction. In: Nielsen Whitehead, Olander, Olsen, and Rasmussen (eds.), 291–330. Lehmann, Winfred P. 1952 Proto-Indo-European Phonology. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

121. The phonology of Proto-Indo-European

2077

Lindeman, Frederik Otto 1965 La loi de Sievers et le début du mot en indo-européen. Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap 20: 38−108. Lindeman, Frederik Otto 1997 Introduction to Laryngeal Theory. 3rd edn. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität. Lubotsky, Alexander 1981 Gr. pē´gnumi: Skt. pajrá- and the loss of laryngeals before mediae in Indo-Iranian. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 40: 133−138. Mayrhofer, Manfred 1986 Indogermanische Grammatik: I-2 Lautlehre. Heidelberg: Winter. McCarthy, John J. and Alan Prince 1986 Prosodic morphology. [Updated 1996. ms. Brandeis University and U. Mass., Amherst, 108 pp]. Meier-Brügger, Michael 2010 Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft. 9th edn. Berlin: De Gruyter. Meillet, Antoine 1894 De quelques difficultés de la théorie des gutturales indo-européennes. Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique 8: 277−304. Meillet, Antoine 1937 Introduction á l’étude comparative des langues indo-européennes. 8th edn. Paris: Hachette. Melchert, H. Craig 1987 Proto-Indo-European Velars in Luvian. In: Calvert Watkins (ed.), Studies in Memory of Warren Cowgill. Papers from the Fourth East Coast Indo-European Conference Cornell University, June 6−9, 1985. Berlin: De Gruyter, 182−204. Melchert, H. Craig 1994 Anatolian Historical Phonology. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Möller, Hermann 1917 Die semitisch-vorindogermanischen laryngalen Konsonanten. Copenhagen: Høst. Neri, Sergio 2011 Wetter: Etymologie und Lautgesetz. Ph.D. Dissertation, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena. Nielsen Whitehead, Benedicte, Thomas Olander, Birgit Anette Olsen, and Jens Elmegård Rasmussen (eds.) 2012 The Sound of Indo-European: Phonetics, Phonemics, and Morphophonemics. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum. Nussbaum, Alan J. 1997 The “Saussure Effect” in Latin and Italic. In: Alexander Lubotsky (ed.), Sound Law and Analogy: Papers in honor of Robert S. P. Beekes on the occasion of his 60 th birthday. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 181−203. Pinault, Georges-Jean 1982 A neglected phonetic law: The reduction of the Indo-European laryngeals in internal syllables before yod. In: Anders Ahlqvist (ed.), Papers from the 5 th International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 265−272. Pronk, Tijmen 2011 The “Saussure effect” in Indo-European Languages Other Than Greek. Journal of IndoEuropean Studies 39: 176−193. Rasmussen, Jens 1999 Miscellaneous problems in Indo-European Languages VII. Selected Papers on IndoEuropean Linguistics, Part 2. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum, 644−654.

2078

XX. Proto-Indo-European

Rix, Helmut 1985 Sūdor und sīdus. In: Hermann M. Ölberg, Gernot Schmidt, and Heinz Bothien (eds.), Sprachwissenschaftliche Forschungen: Festschrift für Johann Knobloch zum 65. Geburtstag am 5. Januar 1984 dargebracht von Freunden und Kollegen. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachenwissenschaft der Universität, 339−350. de Saussure, Ferdinand 1879 Mémoire sur le système primitif des voyelles dans les langues indo-européennes. Leipzig: Teubner. de Saussure, Ferdinand 1905 D’ὠμήλυσις à Τριπτόλεμος. Remarques étymologiques. In: Paul Moriaud, Edouard Naville, and Paul Oltramare (eds.), Mélanges Nicole. Geneva: Kündig et Fils, 503 ff. Steer, Thomas 2012 Die Lautentwicklung des schwachen Stamms indogerm. Kollektiva. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 66: 81−112. Schindler, Jochem 1977a A Thorny Problem. Die Sprache 23: 25−35. Schindler, Jochem 1977b Notizen zum Sieversschen Gesetz. Die Sprache 23: 56−65. Schmidt, Johannes 1895 Kritik der Sonantentheorie. Weimar: Böhlaus. Selkirk, Elizabeth O. 1986 On derived domains in sentence phonology. Phonology Yearbook 3: 371−405. Sukač, Roman (ed.) 2012 The Sound of Indo-European 2: Papers on Indo-European Phonetics, Phonemics and Morphophonemics. Munich: Lincom. Szemerényi, Oswald 1996 Introduction to Indo-European Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Vennemann, Theo (ed.) 1989 The New Sound of Indo-European. Essays in Phonological Reconstruction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Vijūnas, Aurelijus 2010 The Proto-Indo-European Sibilant */s/. Historische Sprachforschung 123: 40−55. Watkins, Calvert 2012 Aspects of the ‘Expressive Dimension’ in Indo-European: toward a Comparative Grammar of Speech Registers. Talk given 26 October 2012 at the 24 th Annual UCLA IndoEuropean Conference, Los Angeles, CA. Weiss, Michael 1995 Life everlasting: Latin iūgis ‘everflowing’, Greek ὑγιής ‘healthy’, Gothic ajukdūþs ‘eternity’, and Avestan yauuaējī- ‘living forever’. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 55: 131−156. Weiss, Michael 2009 The Cao Bang Theory. Talk given 13 June 2009 at the 28 th East Coast Indo-European Conference, Reykjavik, Iceland. Weiss, Michael 2012 Uvulars Ubiquitous in PIE. Talk given 30 November 2012 at Concordia University, Montreal, Canada. Weiss, Michael 2016 The Proto-Indo-European Laryngeals and the Name of Cilicia in the Iron Age. In: Andrew Miles Byrd, Jessica DeLisi, and Mark Wenthe (eds.), Tavet Tat Satyam: Studies in Honor of Jared S. Klein on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave, 331−340.

122. The morphology of Proto-Indo-European

2079

Winter, Werner (ed.) 1965 Evidence for Laryngeals. The Hague: Mouton. Yu, Alan C. L. 2004 Explaining Final Obstruent Voicing in Lezgian: Phonetics and History. Language 80: 73−97. Zair, Nicholas A. S. 2006 Dybo’s Law: Evidence from Old Irish. Oxford University Working Papers in Linguistics, Philology, and Phonetics 7: 215−226.

Andrew Miles Byrd, Lexington, KY (USA)

122. The morphology of Proto-Indo-European 1. Introduction 2. Nominal morphology 3. Morphophonology of PIE

4. PIE verbal morphology 5. Conclusions 6. References

1. Introduction This chapter aims to provide an updated overview of Proto-Indo-European (PIE) morphology, broadly establishing the typological properties of the reconstructible system, and offering some new perspectives on certain controversial aspects of this reconstruction. In this respect, we hope to make this chapter both relevant and accessible to several audiences: to students of IE languages looking to understand which categories are reconstructed for the proto-language and what their formal exponents looked like, so that they may see the daughter languages in the light of their diachronic developments; to specialists in IE linguistics, who may be interested in a “state-of-the-art” assessment of longstanding issues in PIE morphology and, to a lesser extent, the proposals we advance here; and to general linguists pursuing typological, historical, or theoretical questions who wish to see what kinds of morphological categories are reconstructed for the IE languages, on what basis they are reconstructed, and what types of analyses have been proposed. Considerations of length prohibit a comprehensive survey of PIE morphology, a subject which, even more than phonology and much more than syntax, has received tremendous attention in the long history of the field. In a treatment of this size, we simply cannot do justice to the wealth of reconstructed PIE morphology; consider that as of 2017 the projected coverage of morphology in the series “Indogermanische Grammatik” (gen. ed. Lindner; see www.winter-verlag.de) encompasses six volumes! Similarly, we cannot provide full discussion of the breadth of vigorous and informed controversy that envelops certain areas of PIE morphology; only salient features will be examined, with in-depth treatment reserved for areas of particularly great controversy. Readers looking for an introduction to the state of the field may consult Fortson (2010) and Clackson https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-043

2080

XX. Proto-Indo-European

(2007), and for a more extensive overview Meier-Brügger (2010), the last with rich bibliography. The most extensive handbook of PIE morphology to date remains Brugmann and Delbrück (1906), although it is necessarily antiquated (especially in lacking evidence from Anatolian and Tocharian) and is currently in the process of being replaced by the volumes of the aforementioned “Indogermanische Grammatik”; note finally that a massive collection of bibliography on IE morphology has been assembled by Heidermanns (2005).

1.1 Methodological preliminaries In this chapter, we aim to describe the morphology of the last stage of the proto-language that is the ancestor of all the IE languages (including the Tocharian and Anatolian branches of the family), and that is thus directly reconstructible by application of the Comparative Method (e.g., Meillet 1925; Weiss 2014). We reserve the label PIE for this directly reconstructible stage, thereby distinguishing it from the common ancestor of the nonAnatolian IE languages (including Tocharian), an entity referred to here as Proto-Nuclear-Indo-European (PNIE), whose inner articulation remains difficult to define (our PNIE is equivalent to what other scholars call “core PIE,” Germ. Restindogermanisch). We distinguish the label PIE from the still earlier stage of the language reached via internal reconstruction on PIE data, which we refer to as pre-PIE. We will repeatedly have occasion to consider the evidence for a given reconstruction on which almost all IE languages converge, with the persistent exception of the Anatolian branch and, in some cases, the Tocharian languages as well. Some major examples discussed below include, in the nominal system, the reconstruction of grammatical number and gender distinctions, and in the verbal system, the status of many fundamental PNIE verbal categories, including the *s- aorist, the optative, and (perhaps above all) the perfect. These divergences may indicate that Anatolian was the earliest branch to “hive off” (in Watkins’ [1998: 31] memorable phrase) from the ancestor of the other IE languages, whose period of common unity after the departure of Anatolian allows for the possibility of shared innovations that can thus be reconstructed for PNIE. This position amounts to a version of the “IndoHittite” hypothesis, first proposed by Sturtevant (1929, 1933) and later championed by Cowgill (1974, 1979). It is usually held that Tocharian was, in turn, first to depart from PNIE; this assumption will be broadly followed here, although the view is less universally held (see the discussions by Ringe and Jasanoff, both in this handbook).

1.2 Conventions We employ in this chapter the linguistic conventions and abbreviations standardly used in Indo-European scholarship, which can be found in any of the handbooks listed in 1 above; we note here only a few terms and symbols whose usage is not uniform across the field or which we use in a way that may depart from standard practice. The most significant difference relates to the use of slant brackets (/…/). In some IE languages − in particular, those which are attested in non-alphabetic scripts (e.g., Mycenean Greek, Hittite) − it is customary to cite linguistic forms in transliteration together with a “phono-

122. The morphology of Proto-Indo-European

2081

logical transcription” enclosed in slant brackets. We do not follow this practice here, instead reserving slant brackets for indicating underlying phonological representations (in the generative sense; cf. Byrd, this handbook); when forms cited in ordinary transliteration require further clarification (as often with these non-alphabetic orthographies), approximate IPA transcriptions enclosed in square brackets ([…]) are also provided. The symbols “→” and “←” indicate phonological mappings between underlying and surface forms; the distinction between these two levels of representation becomes important, especially, in the discussion of PIE morphophonology in 3 below. Synchronic wordformation processes are indicated by the symbols “0” and “*”; “>>” and “ Hitt. abl.-instr. -z; Hitt. -az, CLuw. -ati, HLuw. -adi/-ari, Lyc. -edi < *-o-ti with innerAnatolian thematization). Melchert and Oettinger (2009) argue that this ending was the marker of ablative singular and plural in PIE, and that this situation was inherited into Anatolian, while the syncretism of ablative and genitive singular was a PNIE development (see also Oettinger, this handbook); however, it is just as plausible that the PNIE situation is archaic and Anatolian innovative, with a new formal marker of the ablative(-instrumental) developing independently in Anatolian just as it likely did in Armenian (e.g., i get-oy ‘from a river’) and perhaps also in Tocharian (e.g., TA āsān-äṣ ‘from the throne’). The PNIE ablative singular of thematic nouns, in contrast, had a distinctive ending, which has traditionally been reconstructed as *-ōd (OLat. -ōd, Ved. -āt). Yet this reconstruction is problematized by the Lithuanian genitive singular -o, which requires ProtoBaltic *-ād (thus likely also OCS -a < PBS *-ād; see Olander 2015: 134−136). In order to reconcile these outcomes, it is generally assumed that the ending was disyllabic, with the pre-PIE agglutination of an element reconstructed as either *h2 ed or *ad that is also the source of various prepositions, adverbs, and local particles in the daughter languages (e.g., Lat. ad ‘to’; Goth. at ‘at’; see Dunkel 2014: II.8−18). Of these possibilities, the Hittite (singular/plural) instr. ending -(i)d is phonologically straightforward only from the latter: Melchert and Oettinger (2009: 55) derive this ending via resegmentation of PIE *-oh1 -ad − i.e. the thematic instrumental ending plus postpositional *ad − whence Pre-Hitt. *-ad (PIE *-o[h1 ]-h2 ed would have yielded x-aḫ[ḫ]ad); *-ad was then reanalyzed as Hitt. /-a-d/, a combination of thematic vowel + -d (alternatively, *-d may come directly from pronominal inflection; cf. 2.2.1). The development of PIE thematic ablative *-oh1 ad − perhaps indifferent to number as in Hittite − would thus follow a crosslinguistically well-established trajectory whereby new case endings emerge via accretion of adverbial elements (see generally Kulikov 2009; and on the Tocharian “secondary” cases, Kim 2013b and Pinault, this handbook). The PNIE athematic instrumental plural ending is typically reconstructed as *-b his, for which Indo-Iranian (Ved. -bhis, OAv. -bīš) provides both formal and functional support; this ending is also directly continued in Celtic (Gaul. -BI, OIr. dat. pl. -ib). Possible further reflexes of the ending include Arm. instr. pl. -bk‘/-ovk‘/-(a/i/o)wk‘ (beside instr. sg. -b/-v/-w; see Olsen, this handbook) and Myc. Gk. instr. -pi [-p hi(s)], although these may rather be traced back directly to the adverb-forming suffix *-b hi (Hom. Gk. -p hi, e.g., [w]ĩ-p hi ‘by force’), which is historically contained in the ending *-b his and which

2088

XX. Proto-Indo-European

must be reconstructed for PIE (Hitt. kuwa-pi ‘when; where’). Germanic *-mis (> Goth. dat. pl. -m, ON -m[r]) and (with unexpected long vowel) Balto-Slavic *-mīs (> Lith. instr. pl. -mì, OCS -mi; secondarily Lith. instr. sg. -mì, OCS -mĭ) are also generally derived from *-b his via the so-called “Northern IE” substitution of *b h by *m (itself likely an adverbial suffix, e.g., Lat. ill-im ‘from there’; HLuw. abl.-instr. pron. zin ‘from/ with this’). The absence of Anatolian evidence for any *b h-initial case endings strongly suggests that *-b his is a PNIE innovation, and Jasanoff (2008) has argued that the PIE instr. pl. was rather *-is. He identifies this suffix in a set of adverbs (e.g., Gk. móg-is ‘with toil; hardly’; Ved. āv-ís, YAv. āuu-iš ‘manifest’) and, more significantly, in the PNIE pronominal instr. pl. ending *-ōis (see below), and derives PNIE -b his by its addition to adverbial *-b hi. This scenario has a plausible parallel in the development of the PNIE dative-ablative plural ending *-b h(y)as (see below), but is complicated by the lack of external support from Anatolian for this *-is suffix itself. The PNIE thematic instrumental plural ending is straightforwardly reconstructible as *-ōis, e.g., Indo-Iranian (Ved. hást-ais, OAv. zast-āiš ‘with the hands’); Gk. dat. pl. t he-oĩs ‘for/by the gods’ (unless from loc.pl. *-oisu; see below); Italic (VOLat. dat./abl. pl. SOKI-OIS ‘for the friends’ (> Cl. Lat. soci-īs); Osc. Núvlan-úis ‘for the men of Nola’); PBS *-ōis (Lith. výr-ais ‘with men’; OCS grad-y ‘with cities’). This ending appears to contain a post-thematic i-element original to the pronominal declension (cf. 2.2.1) just like the PNIE thematic locative plural and (arguably) dative plural (on both, see below); to this base in *-oi- was added, according to Jasanoff (2008), a suffix *-is, which may have been the PIE athematic instrumental ending (see above). In Anatolian, the instrumental plural was syncretic with the ablative, both formally marked by a historical exponent of the ablative; it thus presents no evidence for or against the PIE status of *-ōis. The PIE dative plural ending is likely reconstructible as *-os, which is directly reflected in Anatolian (e.g., Hitt.-aš, CLuw. -aš, Lyc. -e), but whether this ending was original to thematic or athematic nouns is uncertain. It is also highly probable that the PNIE athematic dative-ablative ending generally reconstructed as *-b h(y)as is derived by addition of this *-os to the adverb-forming suffix *-b hi. The phonologically expected outcome of their fusion is -b hyas, which is continued in Indo-Iranian (e.g., Ved. viḍ-bhyás, OAv. vīži-biiō ‘to/for/from the clans’) and usually held to be the basic PNIE form of this syncretic ending. The functionally equivalent yod-less ending *-b hos is found in Italic (e.g., Lat. dat. pl. rēg-ibus ‘for the kings’ [with intervening i analogically spread from *i-stem paradigms]) and Celtic (Gaul. matrebo ‘for the [divine] mothers’). Corresponding thematic endings were formed by adding the athematic ending either to the thematic vowel (e.g., Ven. louderobos ‘for the children’) or − less likely at the PIE stage − to stem-final *-oi- under the influence of the pronouns (cf. 2.2.1 below), as in Indo-Iranian (Ved. ukth-ébhyas, OAv. uxð-ōibiiō ‘to/for chants’). PBS shows athematic *-mos and thematic *-omos with *m instead of *b h just as in the athematic instrumental plural (see above), e.g., (athematic) OLith. dat. pl. sunú-mus ‘to/for sons’, OCS kostĭmŭ ‘to/for bones’; (thematic) Lith. výr-ams ‘to/for men’, OCS grad-omŭ ‘to/for cities’. The same -(o)mos may occur in PGmc. *-(a)mz (Goth. -am, ON -mr), although it may instead reflect PGmc. instr. pl. -miz (see above). The PNIE ablative plural was, as noted above, syncretic with the dative plural in both thematic and athematic nouns. For the possibility that in PIE ablative case was marked by

122. The morphology of Proto-Indo-European

2089

number-indifferent endings − athematic *-ti and thematic *-oh1 ad − see the discussion of the ablative singular above. The PIE genitive plural ending in athematic nouns is much disputed, either *-om or *-oh1/3 om (as in thematic nouns; see below). The Anatolian languages (Hitt. -an, Lyc. -ẽ) are uninformative, as they could reflect either ending. Within PNIE, there is incontrovertible evidence for *-oh1/3 om in athematic nouns in Indo-Iranian (e.g., Ved. padā́m ‘of the feet’, frequently with disyllabic scansion of the ending), as well as in Greek and Baltic (e.g., Gk. pod-ō˜n ‘id.’; Lith. akmen-ų̄ ‘of stones’, both with circumflex accent). Nevertheless, on structural grounds the disyllabic ending -oh1/3 om is aberrant in athematic nominal inflection, and is thus reasonably assumed to originate historically in thematic paradigms; the question, then, is whether there was wholesale replacement of the “short” ending *-om (or possibly *-h1/3 om) by the “long” ending *-oh1/3 om already in P(N)IE, in which case there should be no definitive trace of *-om in the daughter languages, or if instead athematic *-oh1/3 om is an innovation in the shallow prehistory of those branches in which it is attested. The answer to this question depends largely on the interpretation of the Slavic evidence. Jasanoff (1983) has contended that PS *-ŭ (e.g., OCS dŭšter-ŭ ‘of daughters’) can be derived from *-oh1/3 om (via *-ōm); however, Olander (2015: 255−259) maintains the older view of Meillet (1922) that PS *-ŭ must continue “short” *-om. The matter remains unresolved at present. The PIE thematic genitive plural ending was *-oh1/3 om. Besides its possible Anatolian outcomes mentioned above (which likely rule out *h2 for the medial laryngeal by their lack of a consonantal reflex), it is productively continued in this nominal class in Greek (e.g., hípp-ōn ‘of horses’), Sabellic (SPic. raeli-om ‘of the Raelii [PN]’; Umb. pihakl-u ‘of the purification rites’), and Baltic (Lith. lang-ų̄ ‘of windows’; Latv. tȩ̄vu ‘of fathers’). In several languages, the inherited ending has been analogically remodeled, e.g., Latin de-ōrum ‘of the gods’ on the basis of the feminine genitive plural (Pre-Lat. *-āsōm) (see Weiss 2011: 208, 224; cf. 2.2.1 below) and PIIr. *-ānaam (Ved. yajñ-ā́nām, OAv. yasnanąm ‘of the sacrifices’) on the basis of *n-stems (cf. Kümmel, this handbook); yet PIE *-oh1/3 om survives in both Latin and Vedic in relic forms: Lat. de-um; Ved. devā́ñ (jánma) (RV VI.11.3b) ‘(race) of the gods’. The PNIE athematic locative plural is generally reconstructed as *-su, which is continued in Indo-Iranian (e.g., Ved. vik-ṣú ‘among the clans’; OAv. naf-šu ‘among the descendants’) and Balto-Slavic (dial. Lith. aki-sù ‘in [the] eyes’; OCS gostĭ-xŭ ‘among guests’). Greek dat. -si (e.g., nau-sí[n] ‘to/for/on the ships’) likely reflects the same ending with analogical *-i from the locative singular. Adding *-su to the pronominally influenced base *-oi- (cf. 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 below) yielded the thematic ending *-oisu, e.g., Ved. márt(i)y-eṣu, OAv. maš ̣ii-aēšu ‘among mortals’; OCS grad-ěxŭ ‘in cities’; and with the same analogical development, Gk. dat. t he-oĩsi ‘to/for/among the gods’. This ending -oisi may also be the source of the shorter Greek thematic dat. pl. ending -ois (via apocope), unless it instead reflects thematic instr. pl. *-ōis (see above). The only alleged trace of *-su in Anatolian is as an adverb in the Luwic languages (CLuw. 3-šu, HLuw. ta-ra/i-su ‘thrice’; perhaps also Milyan trisu); thus if the PA syncretic dat.-loc. ending *-os was originally a dative marker, it would be possible to reconstruct a distinct PIE locative plural ending *-su. The PIE athematic vocative singular was zero-marked (*-0̸), e.g., Hitt. dKumarbi ‘(O) Kumarbi’; Gk. páter, Ved. pitar, Lat. (iup)-piter ‘(O) (sky-)father’; Ved. sūno, Goth. sunau, Lith. sūnaũ, OCS synu ‘(O) son’ (< *-ew-0̸, with full-grade of the derivational

2090

XX. Proto-Indo-European

suffix in glide-final stems). The vocative of PIE thematic nouns was marked by *-e, e.g., Gk. lúk-e, Lat. lup-e, Lith. vil˜k-e ‘(O) wolf’; Ved. dev-a, OPr. deiw-e ‘(O) god’; OCS bož-e ‘id.’. The use of nominative singular for vocative singular − very likely by analogy to the plural (see below) − is also found to various degrees in many languages (especially in athematic nouns). The PIE vocative plural was identical to the nominative plural in both athematic and thematic nouns. This situation is continued into all of the daughter languages except Old Irish, where the distinctive vocative (e.g., [á] ḟir-u ‘[O] men’) reflects the inherited PIE nominative plural ending *-ōs, which has been replaced qua nominative by innovative *-ī from the pronouns (see above). Some scholars argue for the reconstruction of a ninth PIE case, the allative (or “directive”), which signified movement in a direction or toward a goal. The status of this case is disputed, as is its formal marker (possibilities include *-e/oh2 , *-h2 e, and *-o). Evidence for the reconstruction of the allative comes principally from Old Hittite, where it is a productive case ending, while in the PNIE languages there are certain adverbs that could be relic case forms, e.g., Gk. k hamaí ‘to the ground’. Most regard this evidence as insufficient to justify the reconstruction of an additional PIE case, which implies its synchronic status in Hittite reflects an innovation (for arguments in support of this scenario, see Melchert forthcoming c). Similar attempts have been made to reconstruct another case form attested exclusively in the Anatolian languages, the ergative. In Anatolian, when a neuter noun is the subject of a transitive verb, it receives ergative case. Singular and plural endings are securely reconstructible for PA in view of agreement between Hittite and the Luwic languages: (sg.) Hitt. -anza [-ant͡s], CLuw. -antiš, HLuw. -antis, Lyc. pre-nasalizing -ti; (pl.) Hitt. -anteš, Luw. -antinzi [-antint͡si]. However, at least since Garrett (1990) it has been generally agreed that these endings − and the Anatolian syntactic feature, split-ergativity, that they would imply − are post-PIE innovations (cf. Melchert 2011b), and according to most recent hypotheses, the ergative endings have grammaticalized from an animacyincreasing (or “individuating”) derivational suffix, perhaps PIE *-e/ont- (see Goedegebuure 2013 and Oettinger, this handbook). In addition to the case endings associated with singular and plural number, a limited reconstruction of dual markers is possible. For the athematic animate dual, a syncretic nominative-accusative(-vocative) ending *-h1 e is plausibly reconstructed on the basis of Greek (e.g., pód-e ‘two feet’) and Lithuanian (OLith. žmũn-e ‘two men’) evidence, although this reconstruction is somewhat complicated by the fact that glide-final stems appear to continue just *-h1 , e.g., Ved. kav-ī́ ‘two poets’, OCS gost-i ‘two guests’; Ved. sūnū́, OCS syn-y, Lith. sū́n-u ‘two sons’. More formally secure is an athematic neuter dual ending *-ih1 , for which there is at least one lexical match between these two branches (Gk. ósse = Lith. akì ‘two eyes’), as well as agreement within Indo-Iranian (e.g., Ved. vácasī, OAv. vacahi[-cā] ‘two words’). Thematic forms were produced by addition of the athematic endings to thematic vowel *-o-, thus likely neuter *-o-ih1 (e.g., Ved. yug-é ‘two yokes’; OCS měst-ě ‘two places’), and animate *-oh1 e which, according to Jasanoff’s (1988: 73−74) proposal, would have yielded accent-conditioned variants *ˊ-oh1 (e.g., Gk. hípp-ō, Ved. áśv-ā ‘two horses’) and *-óh1 u (e.g., Ved. dev-aú). On the possible Anatolian reflexes of these endings, see 2.1.2 below. Very little can be said with certainty about the reconstruction of the oblique case forms of the dual, yet two points are fairly clear. First, the oblique cases of the dual were

122. The morphology of Proto-Indo-European

2091

also almost certainly syncretic: in Vedic, instrumental, dative, and ablative functions are marked by -bhyām, while genitive and locative share the marker -os; but even within Indo-Iranian there are differences, since Avestan has distinct genitive (OAv. -ā̊) and locative (OAv. -ō) endings. Similarly, PBS probably had one case ending for dative and instrumental, and another for genitive and locative (see Olander 2015: 205−220 for discussion). It is also clear that the oblique dual endings were built out of adverbial elements just like the non-structural plural case markers (in some cases, the same elements, e.g., *-b hi), but the details of their reconstruction are even more uncertain. On the more general question of the status of the dual as a PIE category, see again 2.1.2 below.

2.1.2. Number A three-way nominal contrast for number (singular, dual, plural) is securely reconstructible for PNIE. This number system − a cross-linguistically common type (Corbett 2000: 20) − is synchronically operative in the oldest stages of Indic, Iranian, Greek, Baltic, Slavic, Tocharian, Celtic, and to a lesser extent in Germanic (mainly Gothic); the other PNIE languages have lost the dual as a living category, retaining traces in the numeral system (e.g., *dwoh1 > Lat. duo ‘2’) or elsewhere. The reconstruction of number in PIE is problematized, on the one hand, by the absence of the dual as a living number category in Anatolian, and on the other, by the vexed question of the neuter plural. Many scholars would trace the neuter plural back to an original singular “collective” − in part because of the formal affinity between its marker *-(e)h2 and the suffix *-eh2 that primarily marks feminine nouns in the NIE languages (cf. 2.1.3. below), and in part because of the singular verbal agreement patterns observed with neuter plural subjects in several ancient IE languages. We take up these issues in turn below. As discussed in 2.1.1, formal markers for the (nominative-accusative) dual are securely reconstructible for PNIE. Nouns marked with dual number refer to exactly two distinct real-world entities (and by implication, the plural to three or more such entities). In the IE branches in which the dual is preserved (Indo-Iranian, Greek, Celtic, Balto-Slavic, Gothic, Tocharian), it is most frequently used with naturally occurring pairs − one widespread example is Gk. ósse, Ved. akṣī́, YAv. aši, Lith. akì, OCS oči, TB eśane ‘two eyes’ − as well as with items at the highest end of the animacy hierarchy (see Corbett 2000: 55 ff.), thus especially when a noun’s referents are human, e.g., Gk. ant hrṓpō ‘two men’, OLith. žmũn-e ‘id.’. In addition, it appears that the IE dual had certain idiosyncratic uses − for instance, as an associative marker in the “elliptic dual”, e.g., Ved. Mitrā́ ‘Mitra and his companion Varuṇa’; Hom. Gk. Aíante ‘Ajax and his companion Teucer’ (Wackernagel 1877 [= 1953b: 538−545]). The dual was lost in many IE languages, in some cases within the historical period (e.g., post-classical Greek). This extensive loss may be easier to explain if it is assumed that in P(N)IE the use of the dual for two referents was optional − or more standardly “facultative” − as already observed in Homeric Greek, which regularly allows the plural in these contexts. However, since facultative use of the dual is found in many languages in which the category remains productive (Corbett 2000: 42−53), this need not in itself be viewed as an indication of the incipient loss of the grammatical category. Projecting the dual back from PNIE to PIE itself is complicated by the limited evidence for dual number in the Anatolian nominal system. The dual exists as a synchronic

2092

XX. Proto-Indo-European

grammatical category in none of the Anatolian languages. Possible support for PIE inheritance is restricted to lexicalized relics, forms denoting natural pairs that may have escaped the loss of the dual by reanalysis as set (or “collective”; see further below) plurals due to their (synchronic) formal identity with members of this productive category (Rieken 1994: 52−53). Potential traces of the dual in animate nouns include CLuw. tāwa ‘eyes’, iš(ša)ra ‘hands’, and pāta* (GÌR.MEŠ-ta) ‘feet’ (< *-oh1 [e]), while the neuter dual ending in *-ih1 may be continued in Hitt. GIŠēlzi ‘scales’, mēni- ‘face’, and a few other lexical items; see Melchert (forthcoming a) with references. It is generally thought that additional evidence for the dual in Anatolian comes from the verbal system − in particular, the PA 1st plural ending *-wen(i) − but see further discussion in 4.2.2 below. A separate, much-discussed question concerns the PIE status of number in neuter nouns: did plural number exist as a grammatical category in neuter nouns, or did neuter nouns instead form only a grammatically singular “collective”? Advocates of the latter position typically point to the formal affinity between the marker of the neuter plural *-(e)h2 and that of the PNIE feminine-forming suffixes *-ih2 /*-yeh2 -, *-ih2 , and in particular *-eh2 (see 2.1.3. below), whose derivatives have a (remarkably *s-less) nominative singular, e.g., PNIE *h2 wid héw-eh2 > Ved. vidhávā, Lat. vidua ‘widow’ (cf. LIV 2 : 294). This ending is phonologically identical to the ending which characterizes neuter plurals in the daughter languages (e.g., PIE *yug-éh2 > Ved. yugā́, Lat. iuga ‘yokes’). There is a consensus, then, that this formal agreement reflects a prehistoric connection between neuter plural and feminine, but the exact nature of this relationship is much disputed − in particular, whether the neuter played a role in the genesis of the feminine (see 2.1.3 below) − and has given rise to an enormous literature (for a range of recent opinions, see the papers collected in Neri and Schuhmann 2014). However, the question for the directly reconstructible stage of PIE amounts to a simpler one: Is there any compelling evidence that neuter nouns marked with *-(e)h2 were grammatically singular in the IE languages? That the PNIE descendants of neuter *-(e)h2 nouns are synchronically plural is undisputed: they regularly refer to multiple individuated entities, and except for the nominative-accusative case, have the same plural inflectional endings as animate nouns. The analysis of the Anatolian evidence is more often called into question − for instance, it has repeatedly been claimed (e.g., Harðarson 1987, 2015; Matasović 2004: 156) that neuter *-(e)h2 nouns show singular agreement with predicate adjectives and pronouns. However, this claim is false for Old Hittite, and the New Hittite examples cited in support are demonstrably innovations (van den Hout 2001). Moreover, even Anatolian pluralia tantum of this type in which an original singular value might be detected − e.g., Hitt. warpa ‘enclosure’, Lyc. arawazija ‘memorial’ − are grammatically plural, as shown by their resumption in discourse with unambiguously plural case forms (dative-locative plural Hitt. warpaš, Lyc. arawazije; see Melchert 2011: 396). The remaining alleged evidence for the erstwhile singular status of IE neuter plurals comes from verbal agreement patterns in Anatolian, Greek, and, on a more limited basis, Indo-Iranian: in contrast to animate plurals, neuter plural subjects in these languages take singular verbal agreement morphology. This phenomenon − now generally (although anachronistically) referred to as the “tà zō˜i-a trék h-ei rule” − was recognized for Greek already by the ancient grammarians; for its parallel operation in Hittite, see Hoffner and Melchert (2008: 240). The singular verb marking in this type is held to reflect a stage at which these neuter nouns were grammatically singular, and thus singular verb agreement was appropriate. Yet there is no need for recourse to such a prehistoric stage to

122. The morphology of Proto-Indo-European

2093

explain this agreement pattern, since it is typologically common that low animacy nouns morphologically marked as plural fail to trigger plural agreement on verbs (cf. Comrie 1989: 190−191); outside of IE itself, such patterns are observed in Georgian (SmithStark 1974) and Turkish (Bamyacı, Haussler, and Kabak 2014), as well as Muna (Austronesian) and Ngalakan (Australian) (see Corbett 2000: 71, 188−189 with references). Per Patri (2007: 62), Anatolian verbs may therefore “default” to singular in the absence of an (animate) plural controller; the same analysis could account for Greek and, in turn, be extended to PIE, in which case there is no need to assume that neuter *-eh2 nouns were singular in PIE, nor necessarily at any earlier period (see Melchert 2011a for arguments to this effect). Yet in contrast to the evidence for their singularity, there is strong support for the notion that *-(e)h2 marked “collectives”, or perhaps more precisely, “set plurals” (cf. Eichner 1985: 142; Melchert 2014c: 257−258; on the problematically “variegated” usage of the term “collective,” see Gil 1996: 66−70). It has long been known that there are a number of cases in the NIE languages of three-way splits in animate nouns, where a continuant of *-(e)h2 is attested beside ordinary singular and plural forms, e.g., Gk. kúklos ‘wheel’, kúkloi ‘wheels’, kúkla ‘wheel-set’; Gk. mērós ‘thigh’, mēroí ‘thighs’, mḗra ‘(sacrificial) thigh-pieces’ (on the accentual variation, see Probert 2006b: 158− 163); Lat. locus ‘place’, locī ‘places’, loca ‘literary passages’ (although the distinction between the latter two is debatable; cf. Weiss 2011: 196; Clackson 2007: 101−103). These examples − most clearly, Greek kúkla − are consistent with the idea that animate *-eh2 nouns denoted multiple distinct entities that were conceptualized as constituting a set. Eichner (1985: 148) identified similar Hittite examples, e.g., alpaš ‘cloud’, alpēš ‘clouds’, alpa ‘cloud-bank’. Supplementing the Hittite data collected by Eichner (e.g., Hitt. palšaš ‘path,’ palšeš ‘paths’, palša ‘path composed of ritual materials’) and adding Lycian and Luwian comparanda, Melchert (2000: 62−67) argues that the relatively robust Anatolian evidence is indicative of a productive grammatical process; thus in contrast to the NIE languages, where the marginality and generally specialized meaning of animate set plurals allows them to be plausibly analyzed as lexicalized relics (cf. Harðarson 1987; Tichy 1993), the Anatolian situation is best explained by assuming that PIE animate nouns could regularly form either a count plural (marked with *-es/-ōs) or a set plural (marked with *-[e]h2 ), whereas neuter nouns lacked the grammatical category of count plural. PIE would thereby distinguish at least two grammatical numbers, singular and plural, and according to most researchers, a third, the dual; in addition, the plural had two distinct sub-classes (Melchert 2000: 62, 67 n. 38), count plural and set plural (cf. Eichner’s [1985] Komprehensiv, though reconstructed as a fourth category), although only in animate nouns was the morphological distinction realized. This system is outlined in Table 122.2 with the nominative case endings reconstructible for each category: Tab. 122.2 Animate and neuter singular, dual, and plural endings SINGULAR

DUAL

PLURAL SET

COUNT

ANIMATE

*-s / *-os

*-h1 e

*-h2 / *-eh2

*-es / *-ōs

NEUTER

*-0̸ / *-om

*-ih1

*-h2 / *-eh2

–

2094

XX. Proto-Indo-European

This reconstruction gives rise to a number of questions. There are, for instance, neuter nouns reconstructible for PIE for which the notion of count plural was semantically appropriate (e.g., *pédom ‘place’; cf. 2.1.3 below) − how was this expressed by PIE speakers? Moreover, while it is clear that by PNIE the morphological contrast between set and count plural had been eliminated and that the resulting undifferentiated category was marked by an exponent of the original count plural for animate nouns and of the set plural for neuter nouns, the details of the diachronic pathway that led to this situation remain to be worked out. In addition, the hypothesized number system in Table 122.2 − with its morphological gap for neuter count plural − merits further consideration from a typological perspective. Still more uncertain are questions about the deeper prehistory of this system − in particular, about the development of the PIE set plural suffix *-eh2 , which must ultimately be traced back to a pre-PIE derivational suffix that also yields the PNIE feminine suffix of the same shape (see 2.1.3 below). For intriguing discussion of how the pre-PIE suffix **-(e)h2 may have separately grammaticalized as the marker of both set plural and of feminine gender, see Melchert (2000, 2014c), Luraghi (2009a, b, 2011), and Nussbaum (2014b). For more traditional opposing views, see the references in 2.1.3 below.

2.1.3. Gender Just as for number, a three-way grammatical gender split is securely reconstructible for PNIE: masculine, feminine, and neuter. Yet even before the discovery of Hittite and the other Anatolian languages, the gender system of PNIE displayed numerous features suggesting that this three-way gender division might have replaced an older bipartite system that distinguished only between animate and neuter (cf. Brugmann 1891). When it eventually became clear that Hittite attests just animate and neuter genders (see further below), it seemed all but confirmed that Anatolian reflects the older PIE situation, and that the diachronic development of the feminine gender was a crucial innovation of PNIE. Such a position is now the majority view; see Ledo-Lemos (2000: 41−94) and Matasović (2004: 36−41 with references). However, concerning the details of the feminine’s development, there is very little agreement − in particular, it is disputed how the formal affinities between the feminine suffixes *-ih2 /*-yeh2 -, *-ihx -, and *-eh2 - and the set plural suffix *-(e)h2 (cf. 2.1.2) should be reconciled. In this section, we outline the principal evidence for the PNIE innovation of the feminine, and discuss some recent hypotheses about its origin. The PNIE three-gender system − a cross-linguistically common type, occurring in approximately 23 % of the languages surveyed by Corbett (2013) that have grammatical gender (more common is two) − is observed intact in the oldest stages of most of its language branches: Albanian, Celtic, Greek, Indo-Iranian, Italic, Germanic, and Slavic. All nouns are specified for masculine, feminine, or neuter gender, and trigger gender agreement on attributive and predicative modifiers (adjectives, pronouns). In adjectival agreement, PIE gender exhibits inflectional character (cf. Luraghi 2014: 199): agreement is obligatorily realized on adjectives with inflectional endings − for masculine and neuter adjectives, by the addition of PIE animate and neuter nominal case endings respectively (cf. 2.1.1), and for feminine adjectives, by suffixes that generally combine a marker of

122. The morphology of Proto-Indo-European

2095

the feminine with PIE animate case endings, e.g., feminine accusative singular *-eh2 -m (Ved. -ām, dialectal Gk. -ān, Lat. -am, Goth. -a, OCS -ǫ, Lith. -ą). Grammatical gender assignment in PNIE was sensitive, on the one hand, to the animacy and individuation of a noun’s referent (cf. Ostrowski 1985: 316; Matasović 2004: 196−203), and on the other, to its sex (Luraghi 2009a). Prototypical neuter nouns referred to inanimate and weakly individuated entities, thus especially mass nouns, e.g.*h1 ésh2 -r̥ ‘blood’ (> Gk. éar, TB yasar); *mélit ‘honey’ (> Gk. méli, Goth. miliþ, Alb. mjaltē); that these nouns often have exact cognates in Anatolian (CLuw. āšḫar ‘blood’; Hitt. milit ‘honey’) suggests they belonged to the inherited core of PIE neuter nouns (cf. 2.4.3 below). Still, neuter nouns referring to countable entities are reconstructible for PNIE, e.g., *w(e)rd hom ‘word’ (> Lat. verbum, Goth. waurd); *h2 erh3 trom ‘plow’ (> Gk. árotron, OIr. arathar, OCS ralo); and in a number of cases, likely further back to PIE, e.g., *pédom ‘place’ (> Hitt. pēdan, Gk. pédon); *yugóm ‘yoke’ (> Gk. zugón, Ved. yugám, Lat. iugum, Hitt. yukan). In contrast, highly animate and individuated entities like human beings and large animals were generally assigned to either masculine or feminine gender depending on the sex (or “natural gender”) of the referent, e.g., masculine *ph2 tḗr ‘father’ (see 2.1.1 above); *wĺ̥ k wos ‘(he-)wolf’ (> Ved. vr̥ ́ kas, Goth. wulfs, Lat. lupus) vs. feminine *méh2 tēr ‘mother’ (> Ved. mātā́, OIr. máthair, TB mācer); *wl̥ k wíhx s ‘she-wolf’ (> Ved. vr̥kī́s, ON ylgr). Yet the non-neuter genders also take in less prototypically animate members − e.g., masculine *pód- ‘foot’ (acc.sg. in Gk. pód-a, Ved. pā́dam, Lat. pedem); feminine *nók wt- (acc.sg. in Gk. núkta, Lat. noctem, Goth. naht) − while excluding others that refer to living beings, but are weakly individuated: for instance, *pék̑u ‘livestock’ (> Ved. páśu, Goth. faihu, Lat. pecū) is neuter. Examples of this kind suggest that referential (or “natural”) animacy and grammatical animacy were partially independent, and that factors like individuation (and relatedly, topic-worthiness; see Comrie 1989: 189−195) played a role in gender assignment (cf. Luraghi 2011). Similarly, the fact that words for ‘child’ in the daughter languages are often neuter (e.g., Gk. téknon, OHG kind, OCS dětę) shows that referential animacy is not a sufficient condition for grammatical animacy. Although some feminine nominal formations in the PNIE languages are formally indistinguishable from masculines (e.g., *méh2 tēr ‘mother’ cited above), the majority contain a suffix *-ih2 /*-yeh2 -, *-ihx -, or *-eh2 - (referred to as Motion suffixes in German scholarship). Words containing these suffixes are overwhelmingly feminine in the NIE languages, and in many cases, appear to be derived from masculine nominals − in particular, from masculine *o-stem nouns, where the feminine suffix is traditionally analyzed as replacing the thematic vowel. Exact word equations support the reconstruction of this process for PNIE, e.g., *wĺ̥ k wos ‘(he-)wolf’ 0*wl̥ k wíhx s ‘she-wolf’ (cited above); *h1 ék̑wos ‘horse’ (Ved. áśvas, Lat. equus) 0 *h1 ék̑w-eh2 (Ved. áśvā, Lat. equa, OLith. ašvà). In view of its productivity, however, it is possible that some of these words were formed independently in the daughter languages, especially in a case such as *h1 ék̑weh2 , where an older strategy is likely reconstructible (see below). The basic strong and weak stem inflection of these suffixes is illustrated in Table 122.3 with their outcomes in Vedic Sanskrit; note that the long vowel of the accusative singular is due to Stang’s Law (see Byrd, this handbook):

2096

XX. Proto-Indo-European

Tab. 122.3 Stem-type inflection of *deiw-íh2 , *wl̥ k w-íhx , and *h1 ék̑w-eh2 ‘goddess’ PNIE

Vedic

F.NOM.SG.

*deiw-íh2

>

devī́

F.ACC.SG

*deiw-ī́m *diwyéh2 -e/os

> >>

devī́m devyā́s

F.GEN.SG

PNIE w

‘she-wolf’ Vedic

*wl̥ k íhx -s *wl̥ k w-ī́m *wl̥ k wíhx -e/os

‘mare’ PNIE

>

vr̥kī́s

*h1 ék̑w-eh2

> >

vr̥kī́m vr̥kíyas

*h1 ék̑wām *h1 ék̑weh2 -e/os

Vedic >

áśvā

> >>

áśvām áśvāyās

As is evident in Table 122.3, feminine nouns derived with these suffixes broadly resemble athematic non-neuter nouns, adding the same animate inflectional endings (e.g., acc.sg. *-m) to the suffixed stem (cf. 2.1.1). The only major point of departure is in the nominative singular of the *-ih2 /*-yeh2 - and *-eh2 - paradigms, which strikingly lacks the characteristic final *-s of other athematic non-neuter nouns. The accentual patterns shown by the *-ih2 /*-yeh2 - suffix is further discussed in 3.2 below. The suffixes *-ih2 /*-yeh2 - and especially *-eh2 - are also associated with the formation of PNIE feminine adjectives. The reconstruction of *-ih2 /*-yeh2 - in adjectival formation is supported by trigeneric (m./f./n.) cognate sets like (nom.sg.) Ved. pr̥thús, pr̥thvī́, pr̥thú; Gk. platús, plateĩa, platú ‘broad’ (< PIE *pl̥ th2 ús, *pl̥ th2 wíh2 , *pl̥ th2 ú); in this set, suffixing *-ih2 /*-yeh2 - to the masculine stem forms the feminine stem, to which are added athematic animate inflectional endings, as in the noun. Even more wellestablished are cognate sets in which the feminine adjectival stem appears to be derived, again as in the noun, by substitution of *-eh2 - for the thematic vowel of a masculine *o-stem, e.g., Ved. návas, návā, navam; Gk. né(w)os, né(w)ā, né(w)on; Lat. novus, nova, novum ‘new’ (< PNIE *néwos, *néweh2 , *néwom); this pattern is productively continued in most NIE branches that preserve the PNIE three-gender system intact, including Celtic, Greek, Indo-Iranian, Italic, and Slavic. Yet while adjectival inflection confirms that PNIE had a fully grammaticalized gender system distinguishing masculine, feminine, and neuter, it also gives one important clue that this three-way division does not reflect the oldest situation. Evidence for its nonantiquity comes from certain NIE branches that have, in addition to the three-way adjectival sets cited above, other adjective classes that exhibit only a two-way split, making no formal distinction between masculine and feminine, while neuter is differentiated from both (in strong case forms) by its characteristic inflectional endings. This situation is not infrequently observed in athematic noun classes across the NIE languages − for instance, in compound *s-stem adjectives in Vedic and Greek (m./f. nom. sg. Ved. sumánās, Gk. eu-menḗs; n. Ved. su-mánas, Gk. eu-menés ‘good-minded; kindly’) and in most adjectives of the 3 rd declension in Latin (e.g., m./f. immortālis; n. immortāle ‘immortal’) − but also, more strikingly, in Greek “two termination” thematic adjectives, where the endings canonically associated with masculines marks both masculine and feminine gender. Greek has a number of simplex two-termination adjectives, e.g., m./f. p horós, n. p horón ‘bearing’; m./f. pátrios, n. pátrion ‘hereditary’, and most o-stem compound adjectives are two-termination, e.g., m./f. á-dikos, n. á-dikon ‘unjust’; m./f. k hrusó-t hronos, n. k hrusó-t hronon ‘having a golden throne’. Some regularly two-termination adjectives are also attested with distinctive feminine forms (e.g., Att. Gk. patríā), but these forms are demonstrably innovative in Greek; this innovation further recom-

122. The morphology of Proto-Indo-European

2097

mends the possibility that the corresponding Latin and Sanskrit adjective classes, which regularly have distinct feminine forms, have independently undergone the same development in their shallow prehistory (see Wackernagel 1926−1928 [2009]: 460−463). Moreover, the pronominal systems of these languages likely show parallel developments: in Greek, the interrogative pronoun has one form for masculine and feminine (tís < PIE *k wís), another for neuter (tí < PIE *k wíd), while Latin and Sanskrit have developed distinct feminine forms: m./f./n. Lat. quis, quae, quid; Skt. kás, kā́, kím. A similar situation is also observed in thematic nouns. Although canonically associated with masculine gender in PNIE, thematic nouns nevertheless may be grammatically feminine in Greek and, to a lesser extent, Latin (on the latter, see Vine, this handbook). Numerous feminine thematic nouns are attested in Greek, e.g., (nom.sg.) hodós ‘road’; kópros ‘excrement’; p hēgós ‘oak’ (cf. Lat. fāgus ‘beech’, also feminine), as well as thematic nouns that are grammatically feminine when the sex of their referent is female, e.g., (hé) trop hós ‘nurse’; (hē) aoidós ‘female singer’. Just as in two-termination adjectives, there is a tendency in Greek to create new overtly marked feminine forms (in -ā/-ē < *-eh2 ) for these female entities; as a result, some dialects use innovative (hē) theā́ ‘goddess’ (e.g., Hom. Il.1.1) against the older situation observed in, e.g., thḗleia theós ‘female god’ (Il.8.7; for an analogous usage in Old Latin, cf. Ennius’ lupus fēmina ‘female wolf’ [Ann. 65, 66 Skutsch]). If the same tendency were occurring in the prehistory of the other NIE languages, it might explain how the congenitor of Gk. (hē) híppos ‘mare’ (< PNIE *h1 ék̑wos ‘id.’) was replaced by *-eh2 -characterized *h1 ék̑weh2 in these languages. In nouns, adjectives, and pronouns, then, there is an observed tendency in the NIE languages for feminine forms to be secondarily differentiated, often via further characterization of the masculine stem with one of the PNIE feminine suffixes. This pattern suggests that the largely sex-based division between masculine and feminine in PNIE was subordinate to a primary split between animate and neuter genders. When it was eventually established that the Anatolian languages have a two-gender system of this kind, opposing just animate (traditionally “common”) and neuter genders, two possible diachronic scenarios presented themselves: either PIE had a skewed system similar to PNIE and the relatively less entrenched feminine gender was lost as a grammatical category in Anatolian; or the two-gender animate-neuter opposition attested in Anatolian reflects the original PIE system, and the emergence of the feminine gender is an innovation of PNIE (possibly excluding Tocharian; see below). The issue has long been a source of significant debate, although over the last decade, a general consensus has emerged that the Anatolian situation is archaic (see Melchert forthcoming a; Jasanoff, this handbook). This conclusion stems from a reassessment of evidence previously held to indicate that the feminine gender was lost in the prehistory of Anatolian. Earlier scholarship had identified apparent traces in Anatolian of the formal markers associated with the PNIE feminine, which were taken as support for the category’s inheritance (similar to the relic forms held to show inheritance of dual number; cf. 2.1.2). However, some of these alleged traces were later shown to be spurious. A case in point is “i-mutation,” a phenomenon observed in Luwian, Lycian, and to a lesser degree Lydian and Carian, in which some noun and adjective classes have common gender nominative and accusative forms that, in contrast to other paradigmatic forms, show an -i- inserted between stem and inflectional endings (Starke 1990: 54−85). This feature was argued to be either a reflex

2098

XX. Proto-Indo-European

of *-ihx - (Starke 1990: 85−89) or of *-ih2 /*yeh2 - (Oettinger 1987; Melchert 1994b); however, it has now been demonstrated by Rieken (2005) that “i-mutation” likely has nothing to do with either of these suffixes, and instead reflects the analogical influence of ablauting *i-stem paradigms. Other traces of the PNIE feminine suffixes were correctly identified, but in functions that give little reason to identify them with an erstwhile feminine gender (cf. Hajnal 1994; Melchert 2014c). The suffix *-ihx - is likely contained in the Hittite adjective nakkī- ‘heavy; weighty’ (< PIE *h1 nok̑-íhx - ‘burdensome’ * *h1 nók̑-o- ‘burden’; cf. Widmer 2005), but nakkī- is an ordinary adjective with no special synchronic association with any particular gender or sex, and its derivation can in any case be explained by assuming that *-ihx - was used in its original function as an appurtenance suffix (e.g., Lohmann 1932: 67−70, 81−83; Balles 2004) rather than as a feminine marker. The suffix *-eh2 is much better attested in Anatolian, but clearly absent is the PNIE sex-based semantic correlation with female referents. This suffix is found, especially, in Lycian (Melchert 1992a; Hajnal 1994), where it forms concrete and abstract nouns of animate gender (e.g., χupa- ‘tomb’; arawa- ‘freedom’), and is also contained in the productive complex suffix -(a)za- (< PIE *-tyeh2 ) that marks animate nouns referring to professions (asaxlaza- ‘governor’, wasaza- ‘[kind of priest]’, zxxaza- ‘fighter’). Although some Lycian *-eh2 nouns do have female referents (e.g., Lyc. lada- ‘wife’, χñna‘grandmother’), still more refer to (primarily male) professions or else to naturally inanimate entities (i.e. concrete objects or abstract concepts). The other Anatolian languages present a similar picture. The same *-tyeh2 suffix may be attested in Luwian, e.g., CLuw. urazza- ‘great’; wašḫazza- ‘sacred’ (the latter potentially a direct cognate of Lyc. wasaza-; see Sasseville 2014/2015: 108−109, but for a different view, Yakubovich 2013: 159−161). A few animate concrete and abstract derivatives of *-eh2 are also attested in Hittite, e.g., ḫišša- ‘hitch-pole’, ḫāšša- ‘hearth’; wārra- ‘help’. Although the derivation of these Hittite nominals is partly obscured by various morphophonological developments, the *eh2 -origin of wārra- ‘help’ is assured by CLuw. warraḫit- ‘id.’ (a derived neuter abstract in -it- preserving the final *h2 of its base) and for the other two cited forms by (near) word equations within Anatolian or with PNIE feminine nouns: Hitt. ḫāšša- ‘hearth’ = Lyc. (abl-instr.) χaha-di ‘id.’; Lat. āra, Osc. aasa- ‘altar’ (< PIE *h2 ó/éh1/3 s-eh2 ); Hitt. ḫišša- ‘hitch-pole’ = Ved. īṣā́ ‘id.’ ( Ved. svásar-, Lat. soror-), and in feminine case-forms of certain numerals (see 2.3 below) − it appears to have developed in Anatolian into a somewhat productive suffix, which is attested in oppositional male-female pairs such as Hitt. išḫā- ‘lord’ : išḫa-ššara- ‘lady’ and (derived adjectives) CLuw. nāni(ya)‘brotherly : nāna-šr-i(ya)- ‘sisterly’. The other, still more important, point is that inheritance of morphemes used to derive nouns with female referents does not imply inheritance of the feminine gender as a grammatical category (cf. Hajnal 1994; Melchert 2014c). Grammatical gender is defined by syntactic agreement (e.g., Corbett 1991: 4−5), and there is no synchronic evidence for uniquely feminine agreement in the Anatolian

122. The morphology of Proto-Indo-European

2099

languages. Noticeably absent is adjectival agreement of the productive PNIE type *néw-os, *néw-eh2 , *néw-om (except possibly as a marginal innovation in Lycian; see Melchert 1994b: 236−237); rather, Anatolian *-eh2 -nouns as well as *sor-suffixed female nouns behave just like other animate stem classes with respect to adjectival and pronominal agreement patterns, which therefore provide no evidence that these nouns were grammatically feminine. Both the Anatolian and PNIE-internal facts are therefore best explained by the hypothesis that PIE had a two-gender animate-neuter opposition, and that the feminine gender was a PNIE innovation, or perhaps even later, during the period of NIE unity subsequent to the departure of Tocharian (in support of this hypothesis, see Kim 2009 and Hackstein 2011, and against, Fellner 2014; cf. Pinault, this handbook). Setting aside the issue of Tocharian, most recent scholarship has adopted the position that the threegender system was an innovation. Accordingly, more attention has been paid to the vexed question of the origin of the feminine gender (see the papers collected in Neri and Schuhmann 2014). In this respect, opinions fall principally into two camps: (i) the feminine developed (primarily) via the reanalysis of PIE neuter “collectives” (i.e. set plurals; see 2.1.2); or (ii) the feminine arose (primarily) from within the animate gender. The first view is driven, above all, by the formal affinity between the the PIE set plural suffix *-(e)h2 and the markers of the PNIE feminine, (arguably) all of which contain *-h2 . In particular, the phonological identity of the *s-less nominative singular of PNIE feminine *-(e)h2 -nouns and PIE neuter “collectives” (noted above) was taken already by Schmidt (1889) to indicate the historical relatedness of these formations, and subsequent scholars (e.g., Harðarson 1987, 2015; Tichy 1993; Matasović 2004; Litscher 2014) have argued that the former developed directly via reanalysis of the latter. Under this view, the core of the feminine gender was constituted by a subset of erstwhile *-h2 marked neuter “collectives” that became semantically specialized with reference to females, e.g., PNIE *h2 wid héw-eh2 ‘widow’ (cited above) from an original meaning **‘(set of) dead person’s relatives (Tichy 1993: 16); the suffix *-eh2 in these nouns was then reinterpreted as the formal marker of feminine gender. Yet while this hypothesis has the virtue of explaining the remarkable phonological shape of PNIE feminines, it suffers from a number of serious issues (see Luraghi 2009b, 2011; Melchert 2014c). First, only a few words with any claim to antiquity are plausible candidates for the semantic development from “collective” to feminine, and in each case, the original collective meaning for these nouns is entirely conjectural: the daughter languages provide no evidence that (e.g.) PNIE *h2 wid héw-eh2 meant anything other than ‘widow’. It is therefore questionable whether such a development occurred (repeatedly), and if so, whether the number of items affected was sufficiently robust to constitute the core of a new grammatical category. Even more problematic, however, is that these accounts generally assume that the reanalysis of these neuter “collectives” as feminine singulars was facilitated by the fact that they were grammatically singular, and so exhibited singular agreement patterns; however, as discussed in 2.1.1, these “collectives” were grammatically plural already in PIE. The alternative account assumes that the PNIE feminine arose primarily out of the animate gender. This hypothesis − strongly advocated already by Meillet (1931) − explains the close affinities between the PNIE masculine and feminine gender discussed above, especially their formal identity in some stem classes, via their common descent from PIE animate nouns; grammatically feminine nominals belonging to the undifferenti-

2100

XX. Proto-Indo-European

ated classes were archaisms in the grammar of PNIE, and predictably, were subject to re-characterization in the daughter languages, a pattern that, as noted above, is observed within the attested period of several NIE languages. Also explained under this hypothesis are the word equations between Anatolian animate singular and PNIE feminine singular nouns cited above (e.g., Lat. āra ‘altar’ = Hitt. ḫāšša- ‘hearth’), the latter of which developed from original animates when the suffix *-eh2 − together with *-ih2 /yeh2 - and *-ihx - − became associated with the feminine gender after the separation of the Anatolian branch. Luraghi (2009a, 2011) has adduced typological support for such a gender-based split at the high end of the animacy hierarchy, as well as for Meillet’s (1931: 19) proposal that a crucial step in the grammaticalization of the feminine gender was the extension of feminine marking (*-eh2 ) to the animate demonstrative pronominal stem *so/to- (i.e. the creation of *seh2 /*teh2 -; see 2.2.2). Exactly how the PNIE feminine suffixes came to be associated with the feminine gender is uncertain. Luraghi (2011) and Melchert (2014c) present detailed proposals, both of which posit a core of PIE *-(e)h2 -marked animate nouns with female referents as the starting point; however, numerous open questions remain − such as which nouns played a pivotal role, or what mechanisms gave rise to agreement (cf. Luraghi 2014) − that call for further research. Significantly, this latter account departs from the former by situating the historical connection between the PIE set plural suffix and the PNIE feminine markers in pre-PIE. Although all the markers involved likely originate from a unitary (probably derivational) suffix *-h2 , already by PIE this suffix had become an inflectional marker of neuter (set) plural, and given rise to the (animate) derivational suffixes that eventually developed into the major exponents of the PNIE feminine gender. On the chronology of these developments, see especially Melchert (2014c), and generally on the prehistory of *-h2 , Nussbaum (2014b).

2.2. PIE pronouns 2.2.1. PIE pronominal inflection “Pronominal inflection” refers to the distinct inflectional properties of the pronouns (personal and deictic/anaphoric), as well as determiners, wh-words (interrogative and relative), and (some) quantifiers as opposed to nouns and adjectives. A number of formal peculiarities motivate a special treatment of pronominal inflection: the neuter nom./acc. singular case ending *-d, e.g., deictic/anaphoric *tó-d (e.g., Lat. istud ‘that’, Hitt. apāt ‘that’); the affix *-sm- in masc. and neut.sg. forms, e.g., dat.sg. *tó-sm-ōi ‘to that one’ (> Ved. tásmai, Goth. þamma), and its feminine counterpart in *-sy-, e.g., dat.sg. *to-sy-eh2 -ei (> Ved. tásyai, cf. Goth. þizai); nom.pl.masc. in *-oi instead of nominal *-es, e.g., deictic/anaphoric *toi (> Ved. té, Goth. þai, or Hitt. anim. nom.pl. kē ‘these’); a segment *-s- appears in the gen.pl., e.g., gen.pl.f. *teh2 -s-ōm (> Ved. tā́sām, Hom. Gk. tā́ōn). These inflectional features are all peculiar to pronominal inflection, although later in the development of the IE languages the interaction of nominal and pronominal inflection led to a diffusion of forms (see, e.g., 2.1.1 above on nom.pl.). For some of these idiosyncrasies internal reconstructions have been proposed: the affix *-sm- might be the numeral ‘one’ *sem-, and on that basis (and with more daring) fem. *-sy- might have arisen via deletion of *m in pre-PIE **-sm-y- (Ringe 2006: 55).

122. The morphology of Proto-Indo-European

2101

2.2.2. Deictic/anaphoric pronouns A number of deictic/anaphoric stems can be reconstructed for PIE; we illustrate in Table 122.4 some points of pronominal inflection with the *so/to- pronoun (deictic/anaphoric; cf. Jamison 1992, Klein 1996) using masculine, feminine, and neuter, singular and plural forms (omitting the dual, whose reconstruction is highly uncertain). Note that we give the oblique cases with hesitation between *o- and *e-grades; Cowgill (2006a: 524−527) held that only *o-grade was found in the paradigm, but this is not certain. For further details see Weiss (2011: 335−354) and on the evidence from Indo-Iranian − a key source for this reconstruction − see Gotō (2013: 67−73). Tab. 122.4 Inflection of the *so/to- demonstrative SINGULAR

PLURAL

M.

F.

N.

M.

F.

N.

NOM.

*só

*séh2

*tód

*tói

*téh2 es

*téh2

ACC.

*tóm

*téh2 m

*tód

*tóms

*téh2 ms

*téh2

h

*tṓis

h

INSTR.

*tó/éh1

*té(h2 )ih2 eh1

*tó/éh1

*tṓis

*téh2 b i(s) h

DAT.

*tó/ésmōi

*tó/ésyeh2 ei

*tó/ésmōi

*tóib os

*téh2 b os

*tóib hos

ABL.

*tó/ésmōd

*tó/ésyeh2 es

*tó/ésmōd

*tóib hos

*téh2 b hos

*tóib hos

GEN.

*tó/ésyo

*tó/ésyeh2 es

*tó/ésyo

*tóisōm

*téh2 sōm

*tóisōm

LOC.

*tó/ésmi

*tó/ésyeh2 i

*tó/ésmi

*tóisu

*téh2 su

*tóisu

The absence of the *so/to- pronoun in Anatolian is a puzzle: the pronoun might have originated as an innovation of PNIE (n.b. the paradigm is found in Tocharian, e.g., TB se, sā, te; oblique ce, tā te, etc.). However, the persistent idea that the source of the PNIE *so/to- pronoun is to be localized in the clause initial conjunctions seen in Old Hittite (not elsewhere in Anatolian) šu, ta is untenable (see Jasanoff, this handbook; Melchert forthcoming a). Within the history of numerous daughter languages deictic/ anaphoric pronouns became articles (see esp. Wackernagel 1926−1928 [2009]: 555−588 on their development); for PIE we reconstruct a language with no article.

2.2.3. Relative pronoun A division in the formal exponence of the relative pronoun splits the IE world: there are languages that mark their relative clauses with reflexes of *hx yo- (Greek, Indo-Iranian, Phrygian, Celtiberian, etc.); and languages with reflexes of *k wi-/*k wo- (Italic, Anatolian, etc.). This division reflects a diachronic change in the latter set: *hx yo- was the formal exponent of the PIE relative pronoun, while *k wi-/*k wo- was an indefinite and interrogative pronoun that came to mark relative clauses in Italic, Anatolian, and elsewhere. The development of relative markers from interrogative pronouns − more typologically plausible than from indefinites − is especially well-attested in languages of Europe

2102

XX. Proto-Indo-European

(Probert 2014: 146−149). Probert (2015: 444−448) reconstructs the following prehistoric system underlying relative clauses in Ancient Greek: free and semi-free relative clauses; relative-correlative sentences; restrictive postnominal relative clauses; “paratactic” relative clauses. It is highly likely that this range of relative clauses was in place in PIE and was marked by the relative pronoun *hxyo-: the same system, albeit marked with innovative *k wi-/*k wo-, underlies Old Hittite (Probert 2006c) and Anatolian (Melchert 2016c), as well as other IE languages. For further discussion of relative clause morphosyntax, see the helpful summary by Clackson (2007: 173−176), as well as Hale (this handbook) on Indo-Iranian and Huggard (2015) on Hittite. The inflection of the relative pronoun was the same as that of the *so/to- pronoun (minus stem suppletion), as witnessed by the Ved. paradigm yás, yā́, yád, with pronominal inflection fully intact (e.g., masc. dat.sg. yá-sm-ai, loc. yá-sm-in, nom.pl. yé etc.), for which Gotō (2013: 74−75) presents a diachronic overview. A number of languages reflect the formal marker of the relative but in changed roles: for instance, Baltic and Slavic have a suffixed pronoun built on the stem *hx yo- used in marking definite adjective declension; Insular Celtic has forms of *hx yo-, continued as the relative endings of the simple verb (cf. Watkins 1994: 22−30 [= 1963: 24−32]) (of Celtic languages, only Celtiberian attests an inflected relative pronoun, io- < *hx yo-); and in Germanic (as well as Baltic and Slavic) are found complementizers and other subordinating conjunctions built to the relative stem, e.g., Goth. jabai ‘if’.

2.2.4. Interrogative-indefinite pronoun The stem *k wi-/*k wo/e- (just mentioned) had two uses in PIE: as an interrogative when accented (*k wís > Gk. tís ‘who?’) and as an indefinite when enclitic (Gk. tis ‘someone’, Lat. sī quis ‘if someone’). Robust evidence may be quoted for both an *o-stem, e.g., Goth. ƕ-a-s, fem. ƕ-o, neut. ƕ-a < *k wo-, and an *i-stem, e.g., Gk. t-í-s, t-í ‘who?, what?’, Lat. qu-i-s, Hitt. ku-i-š, ku-i-n, neut. ku-i-d < *k wi/e-. It is likely that the formal distinction overlays an older functional one: perhaps the *o-stem was originally adnominally used, the *i-stem as a full nominal, an idea rooted in the teaching of Warren Cowgill: see Sihler (1995: 395−400) and Ringe (2006: 56). Note that in a number of traditions the interrogative takes over the function of the relative pronoun (for reasons why, see just above on relatives); such a transfer occurred in Italic, Baltic, Slavic, Iranian, Hittite, and Tocharian. An indefinite use marked by a doubling of the pronoun is familiar from Lat. quisquis ‘whoever’, Hitt. kuiš kuiš (further uses may be found in Weiss 2011: 350−353).

2.2.5 Personal pronouns Personal pronouns have been well characterized as the “Devonian rocks” of PIE morphology (Watkins 2011: xxii), and they tend to be repositories for linguistic archaisms in the IE languages. The reconstruction of the personal pronouns poses many unique problems, which cannot be addressed within a treatment of this scope: pronominal topics are most fully dealt with by Katz (1998), which remains unpublished; overviews repre-

122. The morphology of Proto-Indo-European

2103

sentative of different schools of thought may be found in Sihler (1995: 369−382), MeierBrügger (2010: 361−364), Beekes and de Vaan (2011: 232−236), and Dunkel (2014). The personal pronouns show stem suppletion of nominative vs. oblique cases (cf. Eng. I vs. me) that recalls the *so/to- pronoun; furthermore, the singulars, duals, and plurals are formed from different elements (Eng. I vs. we). Case marking is realized idiosyncratically in the personal pronouns − for instance, the nom.sg. of the first person pronoun is reconstructed as *(h1 )eg̑oh2 (e.g., Gk. egṓ) with no recognizable marker of [nominative], and the gen.sg. *méne (> OCS mene) has no clear exponent of [genitive]. Pronouns were not distinctively marked for gender, a feature already noted by the ancient grammarians (see Wackernagel 1926−1928 [2009]: 405 with references); a notable exception is Tocharian A, which does distinguish between masculine and feminine in the 1sg., i.e. m.nom./obl. TA näṣ, f.nom./obl. ñuk (see the explanation of Jasanoff 1989). As is common cross-linguistically, PIE had tonic and clitic forms of the pronouns outside the nominative singular. A special development is the inner-Anatolian creation of subject enclitic pronouns for unaccusative verbs (i.e. intransitive verbs whose argument is not semantically agentive), as proposed by Garrett (1990, 1996) and recently maintained by Goedegebuure (2013). On the development of clitics in Vedic (and crosslinguistically), see Hale (2007: 255−288). PIE probably did not have third person personal pronouns, but rather employed demonstratives. A reflexive pronoun *swe- (and/or *se) is often reconstructed (cf. Lat. acc.sg. sē, etc.), and is seen as the basis for the reflexive adjective *swo- ‘one’s own’. Kiparsky (2011) argues that PIE had no reflexive pronoun, but *swe- was an adjective meaning ‘own’ (grammaticalized to a possessive reflexive in certain languages), *se- was a referentially independent demonstrative pronoun (weakened to an anaphoric pronoun and then in certain languages grammaticalized to a reflexive). The pronominal stems of the first and second person pronouns form the basis for inflecting the reflexives of these persons in Greek, Germanic, Latin, and Slavic (Petit 1999). We provide in table 122.5 a representative sample of first and second singular and plural forms to illustrate the suppletion and unique forms characteristic of this area of IE morphology (clitic forms are preceded by “=”): Tab. 122.5 Representative first and second person pronouns (Hom.) Gk.

Ved.

Hitt.

Goth.

1

SG.NOM

egṓ(n)

ahám

ūg

ik

1

SG.ACC

emé, =me

mā́m, =mā

ammuk, =mu

mik

2

SG.NOM

sú, tū́nē

t(u)vám

zik

þū

2

SG.ACC

sé, =se

tvā́m, =tvā

tuk

þuk

1

PL.NOM

hēmeĩs

vayám

wēš

weis

1

PL.ACC

hēméas

asmā́n, =nas

anzās, =nas

unsis

2

PL.NOM

hūmeĩs

yūyám

šumēš

jūs

2

PL.ACC

hūméas

yuṣmā́n, =vas

šumāš, =šmaš

izwis

2104

XX. Proto-Indo-European

2.3. Other PIE nominal categories 2.3.1. Numerals In PIE, the cardinal numbers ‘1’ to ‘4’ were declined, higher numbers ‘5’ to ‘10’ were indeclinable. The IE languages offer evidence for at least two candidates for ‘1’. One root is *(h1 )oi- seen in *(h1 )oi-no- (Lat. ūnus, Goth. ains, OCS inŭ ‘a certain one’, Gk. oínē ‘the ace on dice’), to which some languages add a different suffix − for instance, Ved. é-ka- and Very Old Indic ai-ka- in the Kikkuli-tracts reflect *(h1 )oi-ko-, while OAv. aē-uua-, OP ai-va- and Gk. oĩos ‘alone’ continue *(h1 )oi-wo-. Another root is *sem-, whose outcomes include Gk. heĩs, hen- ‘1’, fem. mía (*sm-ih2 ), TA sas, TB ṣe, Lat. adv. semel ‘once’, etc. Whatever nuances these different formations bore in PIE do not seem recoverable (but cf. Dunkel 2014: 2.588−589, 673). Recent research indicates that a stem *syo- ‘1’ should also be reconstructed, since it has been identified in Hittite (Goedegebuure 2006), Tocharian (Pinault 2006b), and now Indo-Iranian (Kümmel 2016). The number ‘2’ is unsurprisingly inflected in the dual: m. *d(u)woh1 e (> Gk. dúō, Ved. dváu/ā́, Lat. duo etc.), f. *d(u)weh2 -ih1, n. *dwo-ih1. This numeral had a form *dwi- used in compounds, e.g., Gk. dí-pod-, Ved. dvi-pad-, Lat. bi-ped- all ‘two-footed’. Cowgill (1985b) raises the possibility that there existed as well an uninflected form *duwó for at least PNIE. A stem *b ho- ‘both’ can also be reconstructed (cf. Goth. bai, etc.), and within a compound of *h2 ent- ‘face’ it occurs as TA masc. āmpi, TB antapi ‘both’, Gk. ámp hō ‘both’, Lat. ambō (Jasanoff 1976). The number ‘3’ clearly inflected as an *i-stem, cf. Hitt. teri-, Ved. tráy-aḥ, n. Ved. trī́, Gk. tría, etc. < anim. *tréy-es, n. *trí-h2 . The *i-stem basis is seen clearly too in the combining form *tri- (Gk. trí-pod- ‘tripod’, etc.). Interestingly, ‘3’ (and ‘4’) show an archaic feminine derivation in Indo-Iranian and Celtic, where a morpheme *-sr- appears instead of the common feminine-deriving *-h2 formants: Ved. ti-sr-áḥ (via dissimilation from *tri-sr-es) and OIr. téoir (cf. Wackernagel 1905: 349−351; Cowgill 1957). The suffix *-sr- likely derives from the lexeme *ser- ‘woman’, identifiable within Hittite (and elsewhere in Anatolian) as a suffix -(š)šara- for deriving feminines from nouns denoting human (or divine) males (Hoffner and Melchert 2008: 59), e.g., ḫaššuš ‘king’ > ḫaššuššaraš ‘queen’. On the Celtic evidence, see Kim (2008). ‘4’ shows a similarly archaic inflection, the masc. and neut. *k wetwores, *k wetworh2, respectively, but the feminine again suffixes *-sr-: Ved. cáta-sr-aḥ and OIr. cethéoir, both < *k wéte-sr-es. Subsequent numerals up to ‘10’ were indeclinable (though daughter languages often introduce plural inflection). The reconstructed items are *pénk we ‘5’, *swék̑s ‘6’, *septḿ̥ ‘7’, *ok̑tṓ(u) ‘8’,*(h1 )néwn̥ ‘9’, *dék̑m̥ ‘10’. The higher cardinals ‘11’ to ‘17’ were dvandva compounds based on the uninflected numeral plus ‘10’, so Ved. dvā́-daśa ‘two-ten, 12’. Diverse methods of forming certain cardinals were employed in the daughter languages, so e.g., Gk. hek-kaí-deka ‘six-andten, 16’, subtraction in Lat. un-dē-vīgintī ‘one-from-twenty, 19’ or multiplication in Welsh deu-naw ‘two-nine, 18’. PIE derived “decads” (‘20’, ‘30’, etc.) with the neuter plural of the numeral plus a decad-deriving suffix based on ‘10’, probably *-dk̑omth2 (cf. Gk. -konta). The cardinal number ‘100’ is a neuter derivative of ‘ten’, *dék̑m̥ ‘10’ 0 **dk̑m̥-tó-m > *k̑m̥tóm (with onset cluster reduction) ‘100’ (e.g., Lat. centum, Gk. he-katón with added he- from the

122. The morphology of Proto-Indo-European

2105

stem hen- ‘1’). A numeral ‘1000’ may be reconstructed as *(sm̥)-g̑ heslo-, which is reflected in Ion. Gk. k heílioi, Ved. sa-hásra-, Lat. mīlle. Ordinals were inflected adjectives. The adjectives expressing ‘first’ and ‘second’ are not based on the cardinals ‘1, 2’ − for instance, Lith. pìrmas, Goth. fruma, Eng. fore-most continue PIE *pr̥h2 -mo- ‘first’. The ordinals ‘third’ and above are based on the cardinals, e.g., *tri- ‘3’ provides the base for *tri-tiyo- ‘third’, Umb. terti- ‘third’, Av. θritiia-, Goth. þridja, Eng. third, etc. Other similar derivations are also found, e.g., Gk. trítos < *tri-to-. For further works on numerals, see the collection of papers in Gvozdanović (1992); handbook treatments include Ringe (2006: 52−55), Weiss (2011: 364−376), MeierBrügger (2010: 368−373) and Beekes and de Vaan (2011: 237−242). Rau (2009a: 9−64) is an extensive treatment of decads.

2.3.2. Adverbs In the oldest IE languages, inflected nouns and adjectives could be used adverbially (cf. Delbrück 1888: 184−188 on the accusative so used). Additionally, one could form adverbs with distinct adverbial morphology. Denominal adverbial suffixes include instrumentallocatival *-b hi, allatival *-e/oh2?, and ablatival *-m; the formal and functional differences between adverbs derived with these suffixes and “adverbial” inflected case forms were probably minimal, as suggested by the subsequent grammaticalization of each of these suffixes as a fully productive (pro)nominal case ending in one or more of the daughter languages (see 2.1.1 above). Two more local adverb-forming suffixes plausibly reconstructed for PIE are ablatival *-tos (e.g., Ved. hr̥t-tás ‘from the heart’, Lat. caeli-tus ‘from heaven’, Gk. en-tós ‘from within’) and locatival *-en (Ved. jmán ‘on the earth’). In some cases, inflected nominal case forms “petrify” in these adverbial functions, surviving synchronically in the individual languages as adverbs even after the loss of their nominal stem (e.g., Ved. mr̥ ́ ṣā ‘in vain’ < PIE instr.sg. *-eh1 ), of the case itself as a distinct inflectional category (Gk. oíkoi ‘at home’ < PIE loc.sg. *-oi), or even of both (OIr. ís ‘underneath’ < PIE loc.pl. *pēd-su ‘at the feet’). Erstwhile case endings can also be the source of productive adverbial morphology: for instance, it is likely that the Latin deadjectival adverbial suffix -ē (e.g., Cl. Lat. rēct-ē ‘correctly’ : rēctus ‘straight’; cf. Umb. rehte ‘id.’) continues the PIE instr.sg. suffix*-eh1 , although the instrumental case itself is no longer synchronically distinct in the Italic languages. Adverbs expressing degree or quantity in the daughter languages are often identical to − or else closely resemble − neuter nom./acc. adjectival forms, e.g., Lat. multum, Ved. máhi, Gk. méga, Hitt. mekki ‘much’; Lat. paulum, Hitt. tēpu ‘a little’; the usage is inherited. Temporal and spatial adverbs are frequently indistinguishable from nominal case forms, of which locative and ablative are especially frequent. It is likely, too, that PIE speakers could use full repetition of such case forms − āmreḍitas, in the terminology of the Sanskrit grammarians − to form quantificational adverbs that signal unlimited iteration of an event or action, e.g., Ved. divé-dive, Cyp. Gk. [āmati-āmati], Cl. Arm. awur awur, Hitt. šiwat šiwat* (UD-at UD-at) ‘on day after day; every day’. Iteration of this kind is reasonably well attested in Vedic (see Klein 2003), but fairly limited elsewhere, with few lexical matches across languages; yet in view of the (near) cross-linguistic universality of the type (e.g., Stolz, Stroh, and Urdze 2011), it is plausibly assumed for PIE.

2106

XX. Proto-Indo-European

The evidence of the daughter languages does not converge in the reconstruction of a suffix used to derive manner adverbs. PIE speakers probably used the instrumental singular of an abstract noun (e.g., Ved. sáhas-ā ‘with might; mightily’), or else possibly neuter accusative case-forms of adjectives (e.g Ved. drav-át; Lat. facile ‘easily’). The oldestattested languages tend to retain these strategies, but also innovate new denominal suffixes specific to manner adverbs. The development of Cl. Lat. -ē was noted above; similarly, Greek developed deadjectival -ōs, e.g., sop h-ō˜s ‘wisely (: sop hós ‘wise’), while Hittite speakers created the denominal suffix -ili, e.g., ḫaran-ili ‘eagle (ḫaran-)-like; swiftly’ or luwili ‘in the Luwian (URUluwiya-) language/way’. It appears to be characteristic of the ancient IE languages that such new adverbial morphology coexists with inherited adverbforming processes.

2.3.3. Adpositions Adpositions occur as pre- and post-positions in the oldest daughter languages and such usage is reconstructible for PIE. In some cases, the etymology is obvious. One particularly interesting example is *h2 enti ‘in front of’. It is clearly related to the noun seen in Hitt. ḫant- ‘forehead’ (whose adverb is ḫanta ‘in front’), but in PNIE forms, an adverb derived from the loc.sg. *h2 ent-i > Gk. antí ‘over against, facing’ (governing gen. case) and Lat. ante ‘before’ (a prep. governing acc., as well as an adv.), adv. Ved. ánti ‘before, facing’. This use of *h2 ent-i may represent a common innovation of PNIE.

2.3.4 Particles Finally, we note a motley collection of items loosely labeled “particles,” such as Gk. ge, Hitt. =kan, etc. The meanings of these items are hard to pin down in the ancient (and indeed modern) languages, their reconstructible semantics elusive. At least one interjection is securely reconstructible, an expression of pain and suffering: Lat. vae, Hitt. uwai, Eng. woe; its expressive meaning (and the issue of reconstructing registers) is discussed by Watkins (2013). For a comprehensive collection of forms with etymological interpretations, see now Dunkel (2014).

2.4. Nominal derivation: Overview IE nominal derivation is highly affixing. The majority of affixes are derivational suffixes added between the root/stem and inflectional endings, yielding a canonical shape that is schematized R(oot)-S(uffixes)-E(nding). There is no theoretical limit on how many derivational suffixes may be added, and it is not uncommon to find more than one in the formation of a given nominal. Traditionally, a distinction is made between so-called “primary” derivational suffixes, which are added directly to the root, and “secondary” suffixes, which are added to an already derived stem. The distinction is widely employed in IE studies, and we maintain it here. An example of a primary derivative is Ved. śráv-

122. The morphology of Proto-Indo-European

2107

as- ‘fame, report’, derived by adding the primary suffix -as- (< PIE *-o/es-) to the root śrav- ‘hear, listen’ (< PIE *k̑lew-). To this stem could be further added a secondary suffix like -yá- (< PIE *-yé/ó-), which forms denominative verbs, to produce Ved. śravasyá-ti ‘is seeking fame.’ The majority of derived nouns in PIE represent lexical nominalizations of verbal roots. In a cross-linguistic survey, Comrie and Thompson (2007) identify two major types of nominalizations: those of event nouns, forming nouns of action or state from active or stative verbal roots or adjectives respectively, and those nominalizing semantic arguments of the verb, such as agent, instrument, or location. We follow this syntacticsemantic distinction in our survey of nominal suffixes. Besides these nominalizations, PIE had a core stock of concrete referential nouns, which are analyzable to varying degrees. This situation is typologically common: languages commonly (always?) have a class of underived nouns at the core of the lexicon which refer to concrete, everyday entities, such as humans, body parts, flora, fauna, and celestial or man-made objects (cf. Dixon 2004: 3−4). Besides affixes, a few other types of derivation may be mentioned. There is (limited) evidence in the IE languages for nominal reduplication. One widespread example is *k we-k wl-o- ‘wheel’ (to PIE *k wel[hx ]- ‘turn’), which is seen in Gk. kúklos, Ved. cakrám, TA kukäl ‘chariot’. Much better is the evidence for nominal compounding, and we devote space below to a discussion of the main types of compounds (2.6). No infixes are found in nominal derivation (but there is one in the verbal system; see 4.3.1 below). In addition to affixal morphology, PIE had non-concatenative (or “transformational”) processes of derivation. In particular, new formations could be derived through changes only in morpheme-internal vowels (i.e. ablaut) or in accent. For instance, certain types of derivatives were associated with particular vowel grades: deverbal event/result nouns could be formed with an *o-grade root and a thematic vowel suffix − for instance, to the root *g̑enh1 - ‘to engender’ was formed a result noun *g̑ónh1 -o- ‘what is begotten, child’ (> Gk. gónos). Another non-concatenative process may be analyzed as conversion, where derivation operates with a shift in accent but no overt affixation. Vedic attests pairs like the neuter noun bráhman-, bráhmaṇas ‘sacred formulation’ beside m. brahmán-, brahmáṇas ‘one possessing the sacred formulation, sacred formulator’ or neuter noun yáśas- ‘glory’ beside adj. yaśás- ‘glorious’. Such pairs appear broadly comparable to English diatonic pairs like (noun) cónvert : (verb) convért (on conversion see the collection of papers in Bauer and Valera 2005). This process is known in the literature as “internal derivation” (viz. as opposed to being derived with an “external” affix); although it clearly existed as a derivational process in Vedic and Greek, its status in the protolanguage is controversial and competing assessments have been advanced, e.g., by Widmer (2004) and Rau (2009a), and in a similar vein Kim (2013a), differently Kiparsky (2010a). Some scholars reconstruct an additional word-formation process for PIE whereby new nouns and adjectives were derived directly from inflected nominal case forms (e.g., the proposal by Nikolaev 2009). The process is referred to in the literature as “decasuative” derivation (from Lat. cāsus ‘case’). For example, Ved. dámya- ‘domestic’ (in RV metrically dámiya-) would derive from a loc.sg. *dóm-i ‘located at/belonging to the home’. However, none of the ancient IE languages show compelling evidence for productive “decasuative” derivation; rather, commonly adduced examples are drawn from reconstructed stages of these languages, as is the case for Ved. dámya- (no direct reflex

2108

XX. Proto-Indo-European

of PIE *dóm-i is attested in the RV). More problematically, “decasuative” derivation in its strong formulation directly challenges the proposed typological universal that inflection does not feed derivation (Greenberg’s [1963] Universal 28). Some proposed examples of decasuative derivation are more likely derived directly from adverbs, for example the Ved. adjective purā-ṇá- ‘old’ from the adverb purā́ ‘formerly’ (itself historically the petrified instr.sg. of a root noun). Deadverbial derivation is found in the history of many IE daughter languages − for instance, Lat. intrāre, OE innian ‘enter’ from Lat. intrā, OE inne ‘within’ or Gk. heōt hi-nó- ‘early, in the morning’, an adjective from the adverb ēō˜t hi ‘at dawn’ (Probert 2006b: 273). As a synchronic process, deadverbial derivation is typologically paralleled in languages such as Khalka Mongolian (see Aikhenvald 2011: 240 for examples and further references). Unless comparable cross-linguistic parallels for synchronic “decasuative” derivation can be identified, it may be necessary to limit the “decasuative” hypothesis to forms that could plausibly have passed through an intermediate historical stage in which the inflected case-form had grammaticalized as an adverb (and whose derivation would thus be deadverbial). Further typological and diachronic research addressing this issue is required. To date no comprehensive treatment of PIE nominal derivation exists. Perhaps the fullest treatment of PIE is still Brugmann and Delbrück (1906); more up-to-date surveys with bibliography include Meier-Brügger (2010: 321−373, 416−436) and Lühr and Balles (2008); Lühr and Matzinger (2008). The reconstructed PIE noun is agglomerated into a (non-comprehensive) lexicon by Wodtko, Irslinger, and Schneider (2008). Of the older IE languages, see Wackernagel and Debrunner (1954) on Old Indic, Chantraine (1933) on Ancient Greek, Weiss (2011: 266−324) on Latin, Casaretto (2004) on Gothic, Bernardo Stempel (1999) on Old Irish, and Matasović (2014) on Slavic. Incorporating Hittite and Tocharian into the PIE picture remains an ongoing project. Rieken (1999) treats many aspects of Hittite noun formation (cf. Hoffner and Melchert 2008: 51−63), and on Luwian, see Melchert (2003: 194−200); a monograph on Tocharian nominal derivation remains a desideratum. The chapters of Lieber and Štekauer (2014) offer diverse theoretical perspectives on derivational morphology; and on nominal derivation note especially the chapter therein by Alexiadou.

2.4.1. Action/state nominalization One common way to form deverbal event/result nouns was via the thematic vowel added to an o-grade root, schematically *R(ó)-o- (action or result noun, of masc. gender). This type is known in the literature as tómos nouns after the eponymous Gk. tómos ‘a thing cut, a slice’ (to the verbal root in Gk. tem- ‘cut’ < PIE *temh1 -). It is securely reconstructible for PIE: in Tocharian, the type remains productive, e.g., TB traike ‘confusion’ (to AB root trik-, TB pres. triketär ‘is confused’), TB pautke ‘a share, tribute’ (to the Tocharian root putk- ‘divide’ < *put-sk̑é/ó-). Within Anatolian, examples include Hitt. ḫarga- ‘destruction’ (< *h3 órg-o-, to ḫarg- ‘perish’), ḫarpa- ‘heap, pile’ (< *h3 órb ho-, to ḫarp- ‘separate’). Beside these *o-grade forms, a number of archaic-looking neuter nouns with e-grade are found, e.g., *wérg̑-o-m neut. ‘work’ (> Gk. [w]érgon, ON verk, Av. varǝzǝm), and *péd-o-m neut. ‘ground, place’ (> Gk. pédon, Hitt. pēda- ‘place’, Umb. peřum, etc.).

122. The morphology of Proto-Indo-European

2109

tomós agent nouns (schematically *R[o]-ó-) are found beside (and may be derived from) the tómos action nouns. Out of context, it is often unclear whether they are nouns or adjectives: for instance, in Gk., where the type is strongly represented, p horós ‘bearer, bearing’ (to p hérō ‘I bear’) or trop hós ‘nurse, rearing’ (m. and f. in early Gk., to trép hō ‘I rear, nourish’) could be agent nouns or adjectives. Some further likely examples of the type are the BS cognates OCS drugŭ ‘companion’, Lith. draũgas, Latv. dràugs ‘friend’ (all from *d hrough-ó-, cf. verbal root in Goth. driug-an ‘to serve [militarily]’), and in Italic there is Lat. coquus ‘cook’ (*pok w-ó- with assimilation) and procus ‘suitor’ (< *prok̑-ó-). The Indo-Iranian data is complicated by the (non)-operation of Brugmann’s Law, by derivatives being attested with both active and passive meanings (e.g., OP asabāra- ‘horse-borne’), and by the lack of direct accentual data in ancient Iranian languages; compare examples like Av. aēša- ‘powerful’ to the root is- ‘rule’, probably from earlier *aik̑-á- (on the evidence, see Tucker 2013). A possibly related type has zerograde root (*R[0̸]-ó-), e.g., *yug-ó-m neut. ‘yoke’, Hitt. iukan, Ved. yugám, Gk. zugón, Lat. iugum, OCS igo (see Malzahn 2013 for further discussion of the type and its Tocharian reflexes). Derivationally related to tómos nouns are the tomḗ nouns, named after the Greek eponym tomḗ ‘thing cut off, stump’, schematically *R(o)-éh2 (feminine event/result nouns). The type is widely found and remained productive in certain branches. Examples include Gk. p horā́ ‘tribute, thing borne’, Lat. toga ‘covering; toga’ (to the root teg-), mola ‘ground-grain’ (to the root mol-), OCS pa-toka ‘flowing’ (tek- ‘run, flow’). Whether this formation existed in Anatolian is disputed: the strongest candidate is Hitt. ḫāssa‘hearth’ and Lyc. xaha-di- ‘altar’ beside Osc. aasa ‘altar’, Lat. āra ‘id.’ (< PIE *h2 ó/ éh1 seh2 ), but the form is not the feminine counterpart of any identifiable masculine noun or adjective. Two related subtypes are built with the suffix *-eh2: (i) zero-grade forms like Gk. p hug-ḗ ‘flight’ (p heúg-ō ‘I flee’), Lat. fuga ‘id.’, or Goth. wulw-a ‘robbery’ (wilwan ‘to rob’); (ii) lengthened-grade forms such as Gk. kṓmē ‘unwalled village’ (the origin of the lengthened grade in these formations is disputed; see Vine 1998b for one analysis). *-ti- formed deverbal action (or process) nouns of feminine gender, e.g., *men- + -tí→ *mn̥-tí- ‘thinking’ (> Ved. ma-tí- f. ‘thinking, thought’) or *b her- + -tí- → *b hr̥-tí‘bearing’ (> Ved. bhr̥-tí- f. ‘bearing; gift’). In Vedic, this formation regularly shows zerograde of the root (matched by Greek, e.g., dó-si-s ‘giving, delivery’ < *dh3 -tí-s) and, in the earliest Vedic texts, consistent suffixal accent. The suffix *-ti- has been internally reconstructed as inducing mobile accent and vowel reductions (e.g., Rix 1992: 146), but the evidence for this reconstruction has been questioned in recent years; see the discussion of the Vedic evidence with references in Lundquist (2015) (and 3 below). In some languages, reflexes of *-tí- were incorporated into the verbal paradigm − for instance, the Balto-Slavic infinitive reflects PIE *-tēi, the locative singular case (Olander 2015: 171−172). However, distinguishing between event nominalization and infinitive is often difficult (see 4.4.2). One noteworthy extension of this suffix was to -ti-ōn- in Latin, which gives a highly productive class of process nouns in all periods of Latin, e.g., nātiōn- ‘birth, origin’. A suffix *-i- formed nouns especially to thematic adjectives, e.g., Lat. ravus ‘hoarse’ > ravis ‘hoarseness’. Its productivity is currently a subject of research; cf. Vine (2013) and Grestenberger (2014b) for one approach. Likewise, the suffix *-ti- (just discussed) may

2110

XX. Proto-Indo-European

be a derivative of adjectival *-tó-; for which possibility, see Schindler (1980: 390), Nussbaum (1999: 399−400), and Jasanoff (2003b: 148n.36). *-men- formed deverbal neuter nouns, e.g., Ved. dhā́-man-, dhā́-man-e (dat.sg.) ‘establishment’ (< *d héh1 -m[e]n-), Lat. agmen, agminis ‘course, progression; battle-line’ (< *h2 ég̑-men-). The suffix’s inflectional allomorphs are conditioned by syllable structure: before endings beginning with consonants and word-finally the suffix is in the zerograde (e.g., Ved. instr.pl. dhā́-ma-bhis < PIE *d héh1 -mn̥-b his) and before vowels in the full-grade (e.g., Ved. dat.sg. dhā́-man-e < *d héh1 -men-ey); cf. de Saussure (1879: 187− 188, 205) and recently Kümmel (2014: 169−170). The prehistory of this suffix has been internally reconstructed as showing intraparadigmatic accent alternations (Schindler 1975b: 263−264, differently Nussbaum 1986: 280−281); however, within the IE languages (and by extension within PIE), this class regularly shows fixed root accent, just as in neuter *-es- stems (on which type see the following paragraph and 3.1. below). Most scholars also treat the widespread word for ‘name’ as a *-men-stem (Gk. ónoma, Lat. nōmen, TB ñem, Hitt. lāman- with dissimilation, etc.), although no verbal root can be unambiguously identified, and it is difficult to derive all reflexes from a single PIE paradigm. *-es-stem neuter event nouns represent a type with numerous cross-familial comparanda, e.g., Gk. génos-, géne-os ‘race, stock, kin’, Ved. jánas-, jánas-as*, Lat. genus-, gener-is (all from PIE *g̑énh1 -os-, g̑énh1 -es-e/os, deverbal to the root *g̑enh1 - ‘generate, become’). The suffix *-es- nominalizes especially “property-concept” roots (see 2.5 below), so (e.g.) in Vedic the root pr̥th- ‘be broad, expansive’ has a stative nominalization n. práth-as- ‘breadth, extension’ (beside the adjective pr̥th-ú/áu- ‘broad, expansive’). Two recent works have been devoted entirely to this suffix (and related phenomena), Meissner (2005) and Stüber (2002). Schindler (1975b) is a celebrated internal reconstruction of the pre-PIE forebear of the *s-stems (cf. 3.3 below). *t-stems are abstract nouns in the parent language. A very old example is *nók w-t-, a primary t-stem to the root *nek w/gw- ‘get dark’ (Hitt. nekuzzi), whose reflexes are seen in e.g., Lat. nox, noctis ‘night’, Hitt. gen.sg. nekuz (mēhur) ‘(time) of evening’ (< *nék w-t-s) (cf. 2.1.1 above). The (same?) t- may be seen in complex suffixes such as deadjectival *-tāt- (< *-teh2 -t-?), e.g., Lat. līber-tāt- ‘liberty’, Hom. Gk. andro-tḗt- ‘manhood’ (Pike 2011). Comparable is denominal *-tūt- (< *-tuhx -t-?), e.g., Lat. senec-tūt- ‘old age, elderliness’. Noteworthy is the t-suffix in determinative compounds with a root-noun second member, regular in Indo-Iranian following a resonant (e.g., Ved. -kr̥-t- ‘doer’), but seen only in trace quantities elsewhere, e.g., Lat. sacer-dō-t- ‘priest’ < (OLat.) sakro- ‘holy, sacred’ + the root noun *deh3 -t- ‘giver’ (or *d heh1 -t- ‘placer’. A recent work devoted to the t-stems of IE is Vijūnas (2009). *-tu- is another deverbal nominalizer, e.g., *men-tu- ‘advice; advisor’ to the PIE root *men- ‘think’ (> m. Ved. mán-tu-, OAv. maṇtu-). Vedic attests an infinitive built to this suffix in -tavaí (a dat.sg. historically) as well as the gerund -tvā́ (historically an instr.sg.) and the Cl. Skt. inf. -tum (acc.sg.); moreover, in a number of languages the acc.sg. has been specialized as a complement with verbs of motion (directive use of the accusative), traditionally a “supine.” Comparable are the Italic supine reflected in Lat. -(t)um (Weiss 2011: 444−445) and Balto-Slavic in Lith. -tų, OCS -tŭ.

122. The morphology of Proto-Indo-European

2111

2.4.2. Participant nominalization Besides the various event nominalizing suffixes outlined in 2.4.1, PIE possessed various means to derive “participant” nouns, traditionally “nomina agentis” but “participant” more accurately reflects their range of syntactic-semantic roles (Alexiadou 2014). Root nouns are formed by adding an inflectional ending directly to the root without the addition of an overt derivational suffix. The term “root noun” is thus a solely formal one. Root nouns derived from active verbal roots display agentive meaning, such as Gk. p hṓr ‘thief, one who carries off’ < PIE *b hór-s to the root *b her- ‘carry (off)’. This derivation was common when root nouns served as second members of determinative compounds, e.g., Ved. -(g)han- ‘smasher’ (e.g., vr̥tra-hán- ‘Vr̥tra-smasher’) to the root han- ‘smash’ (< PIE *gwhen-). Other root nouns are formally identical but are less clearly agentive, e.g., Gk. poús ‘foot’ < *pod- ‘foot’ (< **‘the goer’?); still others are not obviously agentive and may belong in the lexical field of underived “basic stock.” Some roots show instead object/result readings, such as *dom-/dem- ‘building, house’ to *dem‘build’ (Arm. nom.sg. tun < *dōm, gen.sg. in OAv. də̄ṇg < *dém-s). A few formal subtypes of root nouns may be mentioned here, following the reconstructions proposed by Schindler (1972b) (cf. 3.3). One type appears to have had *o-grade in the strong cases, *e-grade in the weak. Although no IE language synchronically preserves these intraparadigmatic alternations, the fact that a given lexeme shows up with *e-grade in one language and *o-grade in another suggests a once unified paradigm with alternating *o/e (*dom-/dem- above is a case in point). What conditions the ablaut grades of the root is not known, although a direct causal connection with accent can be excluded since root nouns are reconstructed with accented *ó and accented *é (as well as *ḗ; see further 3.3 below). Studies devoted to root nouns include Schindler’s (1972a) unpublished but influential dissertation on Indo-Iranian and Greek, Kellens (1974) on Avestan, and Griepentrog (1995) on Germanic. *-tér- and *-tor- agent nouns are found in a number of IE languages. Two varieties are reconstructed for PIE and may be distinguished on formal and functional grounds, as accented *-tér- (e.g., Gk. dotḗr, dotḗros ‘giver’), vs. unaccented *-tor- (e.g., Gk. dṓtōr, dṓtoros ‘id.’). Precisely what functional difference underlies this formal dichotomy has been much disputed. It has recently been proposed by Kiparsky (2016) − following the ancient Sanskrit grammarian Pāṇini − that the Indo-Iranian reflexes of *-tor- express present/habitual agency, while accented *-tér- expresses unrestricted agency. According to this proposal, present agency *-tor- would be more verb-like in inheriting transitivity from its verbal root (it assigns structural accusative case to objects) and in being modified by adverbs vs. unrestricted agency *-tér-, which behaves nominally and takes an NP complement in the genitive case. However, the semantic and morphological properties of this class in Vedic and PIE have not been settled (cf. the different account by Tichy [1995]). Derivatives of this suffix may be used as adjectives, as (e.g.) in the Latin phrase exercitus victor ‘victorious army’. The feminine of agent nouns was derived via the devī́suffix (*-ih2 -/*-yeh2 -), e.g., Ved. -trī, Gk. -teira < *-ter-ih2 , Lat. -trīx (with k-extension). A number of *-n-suffixes form animate participant nouns (denominal and deadjectival). One such suffix is *-on-, e.g., *gwreh2 w-on- ‘pressing stone, millstone’ > (e.g.) Ved. grā́v-an- m., Eng. quern, OIr. brau, broon (gen.sg.), Lith. gìrnos (pl.) (from the adj. *gwr̥h2 -u- ‘heavy’ > Ved. gurú-, Gk. barús, etc.). For the suffix *-en-, cf. Ved. vr̥ ́ ṣaṇ-am acc.sg. ‘bull’ < *-en-m̥ = Gk. acc.sg. (w)árs-en-a ‘male’ and Ved. ukṣā́, ukṣ-áṇ-

2112

XX. Proto-Indo-European

am acc.sg. ‘ox’ = OE nom.pl. œxen ‘oxen’ < *-en-es. Another -n-suffix, *-hxon-, formed denominal possessive adjectives. This suffix is known as the “Hoffmann suffix”, after its discoverer (see Hoffmann 1955 in 1976: 378−383). An example is *h2 óyu n. ‘lifeforce’ (Ved. ā́yu) 0 *h2 yu-hxon- ‘one full of life, youth’ (Ved. yúvan-), weak cases with zero-grade of the suffix *h2 yu-hx n-es (Ved. yū́nas). Another example is PIIr. *mantraHan- ‘possessing a religious formulation, a mantra’ (OAv. mąθrān-). A notable use of this suffix was to derive deadjectival and denominal adjectives from thematic and athematic base forms, exemplified by Lat. caput, capitis ‘head’ 0 capit-ōn- ‘having a big head, Capitō (PN)’ or Gk. gastḗr ‘paunch, belly’ 0 gástrōn ‘pot-bellied’. The suffixed adjectives often referred to individuals and so became popular in onomastic use (in Latin terms, cognōmina). At least some examples of an *n-stem suffix *-mon- appear to be animate derivatives to deverbal neuter nouns in *-men-, e.g., Gk. térma ‘boundary’ (< *-men-) beside térmōn, térmonos ‘boundary’ (for one explanation of these pairs, see Nussbaum 2014a). Other examples of *-mon- are less clear, such as the widespread *h2 ek̑-mon- ‘stone; sky’ > Ved. áś-mān-am acc.sg.m. ‘stone’, OP as-mān-am acc.sg.m. ‘sky’, Gk. ák-mōn ‘anvil, meteoric stone’, Lith. akmuõ, -eñs ‘stone’, etc. (on the semantic discrepancy see Mayrhofer 1986−2001: I.137−138). Instrument nouns, traditionally “nomina instrumenti,” were formed via the “tool suffix,” which built primary neuter nouns. Neuter gender was likely correlated with the inanimate nature of the objects. A number of forms are reconstructible: *-tro-m, *-d hrom, *-tlo-m, *-d hlo-m. In part, these suffixes may be reconciled under the assumption that they represent allomorphs conditioned by assimilation of laryngeal features (i.e. Bartholomae’s Law; see Byrd, this handbook, 5.1). This assimilation would not, however, account for *-r- vs. *-l-. One widespread example is *h2 erh3 -tro-m > Gk. áro-tro-n ‘plough’, OIr. arathar, Arm. (h)arawr, Lat. arā-tru-m (rebuilt to the verb arāre), Lith. ár-kla-s. Feminine derivatives to these suffixes are made with *-eh2 , i.e. *-tr-eh2, etc. (cf. exemplification in Weiss 2011: 281−284).

2.4.3. Concrete Nouns Besides the event and participant nominalizations treated above, the PIE lexicon included a core stock of referential nouns (cf. Kölligan, this handbook). These nouns are analyzable to varying degrees. For instance, *-r/n-stems form an archaic inflectional class in PIE whose declension is known as “heteroclitic,” meaning they decline with an *-r in the strong cases but are suppleted by a stem in *-n- in the weak cases. A number of neuter *-r/n-stems constitute the basic stratum of the lexicon: words for body parts, ‘water’, ‘fire’, etc. These archaic words appear to be built directly to roots often no longer recognizable as such. Examples include Hitt. wātar, witen-aš ‘water’ (to a weakly attested root *wed-), paḫḫur, paḫḫwen-aš ‘fire’, ēšḫar, išḫ(a)n-āš ‘blood’. Beyond deriving nouns that are neuter in gender, it is unclear what semantics the derivational suffix adds. Evidence for secondary *r/n-stems comes especially from Hittite, where there are a variety of suffixes of the shape *-Cer/n-: *-mer/n-, *-ter/n-, *-wer/n-. All such stems are neuter in gender; no adjectives belong to this class (Hoffner and Melchert 2008: 124−130). At least one *-l/n-stem heteroclite existed beside *-r/n-, namely the word for ‘sun’, as in OAv. nom.sg. huuarə̄, gen.sg. xvə̄ṇg (< *sh2 wen-s), etc.; the *l may be seen

122. The morphology of Proto-Indo-European

2113

more clearly in languages which have not merged PIE *r and l, e.g., Goth. sauil (neut.) beside the n-stem sunno (fem.) (on the complicated evidence for this word, see Wodtko, Irslinger, and Schneider 2008: 606−611). Kinship terms include *ph2 tḗr, ph2 tr-ó/és ‘father’ (Lat. pater, patr-is, Ved. pitā́, pitúr with remade gen.sg.), *b hréh2 tēr, b hréh2 tr-o/es ‘brother’ (Ved. bhrā́tā, bhrā́tur), *méh2 tēr, méh2 tr-o/es ‘mother’ (Gk. mḗtēr, mētrós, Ved. mātā́, mātúr, with secondary final accent after ‘father’), and *swésōr, swésr-o/es (Ved. svásā, svásre dat.sg.; Lat. soror, sorōris, TA ṣar, TB ṣer) and *d hugh2 tḗr, d hugh2 tr-ó/és (Ved. duhitā́, Gk. t hugátēr, t hugatrós, TA ckācar, TB tkācer, tkātre). The word for ‘daughter’ is the only kinship term with clear Anatolian cognates: Lyc. kbatra, CLuw. duttariyata/i-, HLuw. tuwatra/i-. Efforts to etymologize and morphologically segment kinship nouns have been attempted since the dawn of IE studies but have not met with notable success (compare the very different analyses in Tremblay 2003 and Pinault 2006a). One common analysis segments the word ‘father’ as an agent noun to the root *peh2 - ‘protect’, but no such analysis is available for *b hréh2 tēr ‘brother’ or méh2 tēr ‘mother’; another analysis would separate a kinship suffix *-h2 ter- (Sihler 1995: 289) but this leaves the awkward “stem” *p- for ‘father’. In our view, the kinship terms are best treated as underived formations in PIE. Notice that *ph2 tḗr, ph2 tr-ó/és ‘father’ and *b hréh2 tēr, b hréh2 tr-o/es ‘brother’ show identical vowel reduction in the pre-desinential syllable, although the surface accent can be securely reconstructed respectively on the stem-final syllable (*ph2 tḗr) vs. on the stem-initial syllable (*b hréh2 tēr). A number of terms for fauna follow familiar inflectional types and are again analyzable to different degrees. For instance, the word for ‘sheep’ *h2ówis (CLuw. ḫāwī-, Ved. ávi-, ávyaḥ, Lat. ovis, etc.) could contain a suffix *-i-, but the function of the suffix is not clear, nor is a root identifiable. Thematic inflection may be represented by *h2r̥tk̑-os ‘bear’ in Anatolian (Hitt. ḫart[a]gga-) and PNIE (Gk. árktos, OIr. art, etc.); formally the noun is thematic, though again it cannot be decomposed further into root and suffix. For some items, an analysis has been proposed: *gwów-s ‘cow’ is a widely attested root noun (e.g., Ved. gáuḥ, Gk. boũs, OIr. bó, TA obl.sg. ko) and may go back to a root *gweh3 - ‘feed’ (cf. Gk. bó-skō ‘I feed, tend’). This example and the other terms for fauna were presumably once segmentable. PIE lexical items that may be early borrowings from non-IE sources get adapted to PIE inflectional categories rather than showing anomalous non-IE morphology. For instance, *pelek̑u- ‘axe’ (> Gk. pélekus, Skt. paraśú-) has a non-canonical root shape and is all but certainly a borrowing, but it behaves like an ordinary PIE *u-stem noun.

2.5 Adjectives Adjectives prototypically attribute qualities (deverbal adjectives) and/or relations with an entity (denominal adjectives) to a referent. PIE adjectives differ from nouns in showing dependency (they agree with a head noun), in their morphology (they are gradable), and in their complements (adverbial modification), but the dividing line between noun and adjective is not always clearly drawn − for instance, it was observed in 2.4.2 that the agentive *-tor- suffix, seemingly anchored in nounhood, can nevertheless show clear adjectival usage. We offer here a brief, annotated inventory of salient adjectival suffixes,

2114

XX. Proto-Indo-European

first of qualitative then of relational adjectives. Just as for the PIE noun, no comprehensive treatment of the PIE adjective exists: Meier-Brügger (2010: 353−360) provides an up-to-date survey, Rau (2009a: 65−186) touches on many aspects of the PIE adjective. Balles’ (2006) claim that PIE was underspecified in nominal word-formation and knew no categorical distinction between noun and adjective has not won acceptance. An important subset of PIE adjectives are those whose roots denote “property-concepts” in the terminology of Dixon (2004), such as psychological states (‘be thirsty, drunk, happy’), physical properties (‘be heavy, thick, strong’), values (‘be good, bad’) and internally conditioned changes of state (‘bloom’). These property-concept roots formed qualitative adjectives in PIE and continue to do so in the daughter languages. Cross-linguistically this is the most basic adjectival class, i.e. if a language has only one class of adjectives, this will be it. Qualitative adjectives are prototypically gradable, and this is also the case in PIE; we treat gradation of adjectives below. Dixon’s (2004) classification of adjectives has been applied to PIE by Balles (2008) and Rau (2009a, 2013); the derivational relationships between qualitative adjectives and change of state morphology have been examined from a typological perspective by Koontz-Garboden (2006). As this class of adjectives occupies an important position in PIE and a central place in current studies of the PIE adjective under the rubric of “Caland suffixes” or “the Caland system,” we expand on the history of research in this domain before continuing with our survey of suffixes. Named after its discoverer Willem Caland (1859−1932), “Caland’s Rule” refers to the suffix substitution observed by Caland between derivatives like compounds with a first member ending in -i- such as YAv. xruu-i-dru- ‘with a bloody (xruu-i-) spear (dru-)’ and related adjectival forms lacking the -i- element, viz. YAv. xrū-ra-, xrū-ma- ‘bloody’. Caland demonstrated that the use of -i- in these compounds of xruu-i- vs. the adjectives without it represents a recurring pattern; another example is YAv. dǝrǝz-ra- ‘strong’ beside the exocentric compound dǝrǝz-i- + raθa- ‘whose chariot is strong’ (Caland 1892: 266−268, 1893: 592). Wackernagel (1897 [= 1953a: 769−775]) then showed that parallel formations exist in Greek, and so the rule of derivation by suffix “substitution” should be reconstructed for PIE. His prime example was a compound with a first member with -i-, Gk. arg-i- ‘shining’, beside an adjective lacking the -i- in argós ‘shining, glistening’ < *arg-ró-s (via dissimilation), matched in the Vedic compound (a personal name) r̥jí-śvan- ‘who has swift dogs’ and the adjective r̥j-rá- ‘shining, glistening’. Wackernagel referred to this pattern of suffix substitution as a “rule” (Germ. Regel), though it was − and often still is − called “Caland’s (or Caland’s and Wackernagel’s) Law” (Germ. Gesetz). Lively and informed debate continues in the field concerning the nature of “Caland” morphology, which now extends far beyond the analyses of Caland and Wackernagel, thanks largely to two important works produced in the 1970’s, Risch (1974) and Nussbaum (1976). The latter work is an unpublished but widely disseminated dissertation in which the author proposes to consider the relationships holding between the Caland suffixes as part of a greater system of root-based derivational morphology. He defines the “Caland system” as a set of parallel derivatives “... all equally primary and derived more or less simultaneously (in the most remote synchrony which we can actually recover) as an immediately possible set, one formation implying the others, whatever the starting point of this implication” (Nussbaum 1976: 5). He illustrates the parallel derivatives with the root *d heb h- ‘small’, which forms an adjectival derivative in *-ro- as reflected by Ved. dabh-rá- ‘small’ but also a derivative in *-ú seen in Hitt. tēp-u- ‘small’

122. The morphology of Proto-Indo-European

2115

(and in Ved. ádbhuta- ‘unharmed; uncanny’ < *n̥-d hb hu-to-). Rau (2009a) follows Nussbaum’s approach and has sought to augment the Caland system to encompass more verbal material (see esp. Rau 2013); a recent work with extensive bibliography is Dell’Oro (2015). Readable overviews on the history of research in this domain (with a number of different points of view) may be found in Meissner (1998) and Meissner (2005: 14−26). Although Nussbaum’s dissertation remains unpublished, one can read his treatments of Caland material in more recent papers, e.g., Nussbaum (1999). One widespread athematic suffix used to derive qualitative adjectives is *-u-/-ew-, universally considered central to “Caland” morphology (a detailed study of this suffix is de Lamberterie 1990). Typical examples of *u-stems include Ved. gur-ú-s, gur-áv‘heavy, weighty’ = Gk. bar-ú-s, bar-é(w)- ‘id.’ = Goth. kaur-u-s < *gwr̥h2 -éw-, and Ved. ur-ú-s, -áv- ‘wide, broad’ = Gk. eur-ú-s, -é(w)- ‘id.’ This suffix is well attested in Anatolian: Hitt. park-aw- ‘tall, high’, dašš-aw- ‘heavy; strong’. The Greek and Vedic evidence align in showing regular zero-grade of the root and accented suffix (see further 3.2. below). Feminines to these stems are formed with the “devī-́ suffix” (discussed above), at least incipiently in PNIE. An equation is (e.g.) Ved. ur-v-ī́ ‘wide’, Gk. eureĩa (< PGk. *eur-éw-ya, with full-grade of the suffix likely analogical after the adjective’s masculine forms); another example is Ved. pr̥thi-v-ī́ ‘broad (earth)’, Gk. Plataiaí toponym (< *pl̥ th2 -[e]w-yéh2 -, beside the regularized fem.adj. plateĩa). A number of old examples show the same form for the masculine and the feminine (so-called “epicene” adjectives), such as Old Lith. platus ‘broad’ and at least one example in Gothic, þaursus ‘withered’ (Luke 6.6), apparently relics predating the introduction of derived feminines (cf. de Lamberterie 1990: 886−888). The thematic suffix *-ro- is closely allied to *-u-/-ew-, since it also derives qualitative adjectives to property-concept roots, e.g., Gk. erut h-ró-s ‘red’, Lat. ruber, TB rätre (all < *h1 rud h-ró-s ‘red’). Both Greek and Vedic provide strong evidence for an inherently accented suffix */-ró-/ as proposed by Probert (2006b: ch. 6, 289−294). It is not uncommon to find one language reflecting *-ú-/-éw-, another language *-ró-, both built to the same root: beside Ved. svād-áv- ‘sweet’ and Gk. hēd-é(w)- ‘id.’ is found Pre-Toch. *swād-ro- as TA swār, TB swāre (in general *-ró- appears in place of *-éw- in Tocharian). Assigning priority to *-ró- or *-ú-/-éw- in such cases is not always feasible; whatever original distinction(s) might have existed between these two adjectival suffixes remains unclear. Rau (2009a: 161−178, 183) discusses the material at length and suggests (Rau 2009a: 173 with n.132) that “originally” (in pre-PIE) both suffixes were denominative to different classes of nouns and were then reinterpreted as deverbative. Two related *-ro- formations may be mentioned here. Nussbaum (1976: 105−110) argues that there was additionally a category of *-ró- nouns in the proto-language distinct from the adjectives, an example of which would be Gk. ksu-ró-n n. ‘razor’. Secondly, Vine (2002) has argued that some of the attested full-grade formations in fact reflect a suffix *-reh2 which derived collectives, of which Gk. mḗra ‘(heap of) thigh-pieces’ and Gk. ágrā ‘the hunt; quarry’ (< *h2 ég̑-r-eh2 ) would be examples. The status of (pre-)PIE *i-stem adjectives is less clear. -i-stem adjectives are well attested in the individual IE languages, especially Anatolian and Italic, and known elsewhere in the family (e.g., Indo-Iranian, Greek). Many of these adjectives are made to roots with primary verbal forms, hence are deverbative *i-stem adjectives. Examples include Ved. śúc-i- ‘gleaming’, Hitt. ḫark-i-š, gen.sg. ḫark-ay-aš ‘white, bright’. According to some scholars (e.g., Meissner 2005: 20−25), these adjectives may be connected

2116

XX. Proto-Indo-European

to first compound members in -i-, so Hitt. ḫarkiš ‘bright’ to Gk. arg-i- ‘bright, shining’ and Ved. r̥j-i- (see above on “Caland morphology”). Other scholars, however, categorically exclude deverbal *i-stem adjectives from PIE: Rau (2009a: 177n.143) finds that “there is no coherent deverbative i-stem adjectival type reconstructible for the protolanguage” (so too Grestenberger 2009: 8−10). A series of thematic, deverbal adjectives are best considered together: *-to-, * -lo-, *-no-, *-mo-. The function of these suffixes may be reconstructed as building resultative adjectives connected to their verbal bases; in the individual languages they may become participles (see Lowe 2015 on the status of adjective vs. participle). An example is *-to-: Ved. śru-tá- ‘heard, famed’ (to the root śrav- ‘hear’), Av. sru-ta-, Gk. klu-tó-s, Lat. in-clu-tu-s, OIr. ro-cloth (< *[pro]-klu-ta-s), all from *k̑lu-tó-s to the root *k̑lew-). In a number of traditions, *-tó- is integrated into the verbal system as the past participle, such as Lat. -tus/-sus (cf. Weiss 2011: 437−443). Usually (though not exclusively) an intransitive or passive reading is available. One also finds adjectives with modal-passive meaning, which express the possibility or necessity of undergoing a particular event (like Eng. adjectives in -able), e.g., Gk. tlē-tó-s (< *tl̥ h2 -tós) may be both active ‘enduring’ and potential ‘endurable’. The deverbal suffix *-to- is surprisingly absent from Anatolian; probably deverbal *-to- flourished after Anatolian’s departure from PIE. In its place, Anatolian uses a suffix -nt- which everywhere else in IE forms active participles: the significance of this distribution and the diachronic developments it entails are not fully understood. Within PIE, a denominal suffix *-to- is also found, known as the barbātus type, from Lat. barbātus ‘bearded’; the adjective is built to the noun barba ‘beard’ (there is no verb xbarbāre). This denominal type does occur in Anatolian. One noteworthy extension of *-to- is deverbal *-eto-, studied by Vine (1998a), who finds that it was used in negative compounds and had modal meaning, e.g., Gk. á-sp-eto-s ‘unspeakable’ from *n̥-sk w-eto-s. The other suffixes in the set also became participles in the daughter languages; for instance, in Slavic and Armenian *-lo- becomes a past participle. Denominal relational (or “referential”) adjectives express that a semantic relation holds between the base noun of the adjective and its head noun; such adjectives are not usually gradable because they denote relations between entities, not gradable properties (Booij 2012: 209−215; Fábregas 2014: 279−286). One subclass is qualitative possessive adjectives, which describe an entity as possessing the notion of the base noun, as in Ved. mádhu- ‘honey’ 0mádhu-mant- ‘having honey, honeyed’ or YAv. raii- ‘wealth’ 0 YAv. raē-uuaṇt- ‘wealthy’ (athematic suffix *-ment-, *-went-). Another subclass is adjectives of material, e.g., Att. Gk. k hrūsoũs ‘golden’ (< PGk. *k hrūs-éyos) from k hrūsós ‘gold’, Ved. hiraṇy-áya- ‘golden’ from híraṇyam ‘gold’ (inherited thematic suffix *-éye/o-). Another subclass is relational possessive (or “genitival”) adjectives, which express relations also marked by the genitive, e.g., Lat. patr-ius ‘paternal’ from pater, likewise Ved. pítr(i)ya- from pitár- (thematic suffix *-yo-/*-iyo-, also *-ihx -o-, cf. MeierBrügger [2010: 417−420]). A suffix *-i(hx )no- makes denominal genitival adjectives from thematic stems, for instance Lat. dīvīnus ‘divine’, Osc. deivinais. Within the history of many IE languages relational adjectives compete with genitive nouns, since relational adjectives themselves may express genitival meaning (illustration in Wackernagel 1926− 1928 [2009]: 485−493). The thematic vowel could derive denominal possessive adjectives and in this role is accented. An important reflection of the possessive use of the thematic vowel is a process known by the Sanskrit name vr̥ddhi “strengthening” (sc. of vowel grades). Descriptively,

122. The morphology of Proto-Indo-European

2117

an adjective is derived by “strengthening” the ablaut grade of the base and adding an accented thematic vowel. An example from within Ved. is the athematic neuter noun bráh-man- ‘sacred formulation’ 0 brāh-maṇ-á- ‘one relating to the sacred formulation, Brahmin’. Vr̥ddhi is certainly a derivational process in Old Indic and examples from Iranian (de Vaan 2003: 86−90) demonstrate Indo-Iranian inheritance, but fewer examples can be drawn from other IE languages. The best examples include reflexes of *deyw-ó‘skyling, sky-god’, derived from the weak-grade *diw- ‘sky’; cognates include Arch. Lat. deivōs (acc.pl.) ‘gods’, Ved. devá-, OAv. daēuua-, Lith. diẽvas (Mayrhofer 1986− 2001: s. v. devá-, I.742 f.). One possible inner-Balto-Slavic example is Lith. várna ‘crow’ beside Lith. var˜nas ‘raven’ (< PBS *wornós), though the example is disputed (pro: Pedersen [1933: 55] and e.g., Jasanoff [2011]; contra: Kortlandt apud Derksen 2014: s. v. varna). The status of vr̥ddhi as a PIE process has been disputed, especially by scholars from Leiden (cf. Beekes and de Vaan 2011: 181−182), primarily on the grounds that word equations across IE languages are too few for PIE reconstruction. Vr̥ddhi remains, however, accepted by most scholars today as a synchronic morphological process in PIE; see e.g., Fortson (2010: 130), Meier-Brügger (2010: 420), and for one analysis of vr̥ddhi’s historical antecedents, see Ringe (2006: 13−14). Gradable adjectives formed comparative and superlative stems by adding suffixes directly to the adjectival root. The comparative was made with an s-stem suffix *-yos-/ -is-, probably of elative or intensified meaning in PIE, i.e. “is exceptionally X” (Cowgill 1970: 114). This suffix is added to the root (not the stem), e.g., Ved. svād-ú/-áv- m./n. ‘sweet’ 0 svā́d-īyas- ‘sweeter’, matched by Gk. hēd-ú/-éw- and its comparative hēdíō acc.sg.m. < PGk. *swā́d-(i)yos-m̥ (the usual Cl. Gk. form, hēd-íon-a, shows innovative n-stem inflection). In Vedic, the accent surfaces on the root (usually in its full-grade) corresponding to leftmost accent in Greek. Both Vedic and Greek show variation between forms reflecting *-yos and *-iyos (and Vedic also -īyas- with a long vowel): the variation may be due to Sievers’ Law (see Byrd, this handbook), though the details have proven elusive (full discussion in Barber 2013: 145−186). Both Meier-Brügger (2010: 356) and Rau (2014) seek to explain the deeper prehistory of the primary comparative via a further segmentation of the suffix into a nominal *-i- + denominative *-os-. The most widespread superlative was formed with the suffix *-isto-, whose witnesses include Ved. svā́d-iṣṭha- ‘sweetest’ = Gk. hḗd-istos ‘id.’, Goth. reik-ists ‘mightiest’ (< PGmc. *-istaz). Its disyllabic shape strongly suggests that the suffix is composite, and it could be segmented as an agglutinative comparative *-is- + adjectival *-to- (the aspirated stop in Ved. -iṣṭha- suggests *-isth2 o-, but there is little other evidence to recommend this reconstruction). The PIE suffix *-(t)eros- was contrastive, e.g., *dek̑si-teros ‘right side (opposed to left)’ (> Gk. deksi-terós, Lat. dexter) and was used with adverbs and pronominal stems, e.g., Gk. póteros ‘which of two’ (< *k wo-teros). The suffix’s use as a comparative to adjective stems becomes productive only in certain IE dialects, e.g., Gk. díkaios ‘just’ 0 dikaió-tero- ‘more just’ (Dieu 2011: 680−684). Other formations of the secondary superlative are also found in the daughter branches, such as Gk. -tatos (< PGk. *-tm̥-to-) and Italic and Celtic *-is-m̥mo-, but are not reconstructible for the proto-language (Cowgill 1970: 115−119). The primary comparative and superlative are not found in Anatolian, Tocharian, Armenian, or Albanian. While the situation in the latter two branches may be easily attributed to loss, their absence in Anatolian and Tocharian is more striking, and raises the

2118

XX. Proto-Indo-European

possibility that the primary comparative and superlative were not only post-PIE innovations, but were created within NIE after the departure of Tocharian. Both Anatolian and Tocharian express comparison by employing the positive degree of the adjective plus the “yard-stick” (or “standard”) of the comparison inflected in an appropriate case-form (cf. Hoffner and Melchert 2008: 271−276 for Hittite; Carling, this handbook for Tocharian). This strategy for expressing comparison is common cross-linguistically (Stassen 2013). Given that gradation with affixes is rarer among the world’s languages (Cuzzolin and Lehmann 2004: 1215), the development of the primary comparative and superlative affixes would represent a significant innovation of PNIE. Finally, we note that numerous IE languages attest suppletion of comparative and superlative adjectives, familiar enough from English examples like good, better, best. Suppletion in the forms of gradation is widespread in the IE languages, but specific lexical matches appear to be lacking; see further the overview of Meier-Brügger (2010: 355−360) with references, to which may now be added the full-scale treatment by Dieu (2011).

2.6. Compounds PNIE is reconstructed as rich in compounds based in the first place on agreements in productive compound types (rarely lexical matches) principally between Ancient Greek and Indo-Iranian. The compounds in the earliest stages of these two branches usually consist of two lexemes, although recursion in compounds (structurally [A (B, C)]) was clearly possible and becomes well evinced in the notoriously enormous compounds of the Classical Sanskrit language. Compounding is much more restricted in other IE languages, such as Latin and Old Irish. More seriously complicating the picture of a protolanguage rich in compounds is Anatolian’s poverty in this regard (cf. Oettinger, this handbook, 2.2.2); and while Tocharian texts abound in nominal compounds (see Adams, this handbook 5.2), many are thought to represent loan translations from Sanskrit; and Pinault (this handbook) finds that nominal composition does not seem to have been common as a “genuine Tocharian feature.” The extent to which nominal composition was a productive process at the PIE level is accordingly hard to ascertain. The topic of compounding is a highly complex one and we can only survey here some prominent types likely to be reconstructible for the proto-language. The deeper origins of nominal compounding lie beyond our present focus; we seek to outline the major types of nominal composition found in the ancient IE languages and to reconstruct the morphology of compounds in the PIE period. Further treatments include Lindner (2011−2016), a discursive and (to date) unfinished treatment of the history of research on IE compounds which attempts to provide an encyclopedic point of reference; cf. Meier-Brügger (2010: 427− 430) and Tribulato (2015: 13−130) with special reference to Ancient Greek. A helpful survey of compounding from a number of different theoretical perspectives (though lacking much discussion of ancient IE languages) may be found in Lieber and Štekauer (2009). Before beginning our survey, we note a few limitations. Linguists working with ancient languages are always at the mercy of written evidence and this fact may hamper what is counted as a compound, since vital prosodic data has often been lost. In the best of circumstances, ancient writing systems can actually illuminate the morphological

122. The morphology of Proto-Indo-European

2119

segmentations made by native speakers (for one such case, see Morpurgo Davies 1987: 268−269), but this is the exception that proves the rule. The question of how to classify types of compounds is a topic of considerable debate in the linguistics literature. With regard to IE studies the problem of classification is exacerbated by the bewildering diversity of terminology in the literature. For present purposes, we adopt a classification based on syntactic and semantic criteria (following Scalise and Bisetto 2009) and take the basic compound types to be subordinated (where one member is subordinate to another) vs. coordinated compounds. These two macrotypes may be subdivided into the morphological/semantic types based on headedness: endocentric (containing a head) vs. exocentric (not containing a head). To facilitate use of secondary literature, we crossreference terminology as much as possible. Compounds in which one member is syntactically/semantically subordinated to another (“determinatives” of various stripes) are attested across the IE languages and may be reconstructed for PIE. Determinative compounds are mostly right-oriented endocentrics (i.e. the category-determining head is one constituent of the compound) with a nominal or adjectival head, cf. the classic Vedic example rāja-putrá- ‘king-son, son of a king’ or with an adjectival head Gk. t heo-eíkelos ‘god-like’. When the first member is a noun modifying the second member in the role of an oblique case, the type is often known by the Sanskrit name tatpuruṣa, for instance Ved. dyu-kṣá- ‘dwelling in heaven’, Gk. oinó-pedon ‘lit. wine-land’ (‘land for wine’), vineyard’. Determinative compounds where the first member attributes a property to the second member, i.e. modifies the head element adjectivally (or with a deverbal head adverbially), are often known by the Sanskrit name karmadhāraya (also “attributive” or “descriptive”), although many theoretical models do not include this as a special type. Examples include [AN] compounds like Ved. kr̥ṣṇa-śakuní- ‘black-bird, crow’, Gk. akró-polis ‘high-city, citadel’, Gaul. (Latinized) medio-lānum ‘middle-plain, Milan’, or [A/Adv.-N] as Ved. āśu-pátvan‘swift(ly)-flying’. On determinative compounds in Hittite, see Brosch (2010: 266−272). One important type of determinative compound is “synthetic” (“verbal-nexus” or “verbal governing,” Germ. “Verbale Rektionskomposita,” Skt. upapada). The head is a deverbal noun, either a root noun or an action noun. Root noun examples include Ved. havir-ád- ‘oblation-eating’, vr̥tra-hán- ‘Vr̥tra-smashing’, etc. (cf. Scarlata 1999); action noun examples include Ved. amitra-dámbhana- ‘foe-belittling’. Examples with a second member formed by *o-grade root and the thematic vowel include Gk. andro-p hónos ‘man-slaying’ or psūk ho-pompós ‘soul-conductor’; on the complicated evidence for *o-grade in Indo-Iranian, see Tucker (2013). Structurally comparable are Eng. truckdriver, church-goer or Germ. Macht-haber ‘power-holder, ruler’. “Synthetic” compounds derive their deverbal head in the process of compounding. For instance, the aforementioned havir-ád- ‘oblation-eating’ is based on a potential but not established lexeme (a root noun) ad- ‘eater’, or go-ghná- ‘cow-slaying’ on a potential lexeme ghn-á- ‘slayer’ which is not established (i.e. it does not exist as a simplex so far as extant records allow). Two main analyses have been proposed to understand these compounds synchronically: they could be understood as related to “noun-incorporation,” i.e. a detransitivizing, syntactic process where the patient argument of the verb is compounded (“incorporated”) with the verb. On this analysis the compounds would be of the structure [(NV) -er]N ([truck-drive]er ). However, such an analysis would predict unattested and grammatically questionable [NV] structure for finite verbs such as Eng. xtruck-drives or Ved. x havir-átti ‘oblation-eats’. An alternative and perhaps preferable analysis would treat the

2120

XX. Proto-Indo-European

compounds as [NN] adjunction where the deverbal noun inherits the transitive argument structure of the base verb, so [N + (deverbal)Ner ]. One problem with the latter option is that it would predict possible but not established words such as Eng. goer in churchgoer or a root noun in Ved. ad- ‘eater’. It appears that synthetic compounds show a simultaneous use of compounding and derivation, but the issue is not resolved in a wider theoretical context (cf. Olsen 2014: 41−43). See further the clear and influential accounts of Vedic by Wackernagel (1905: 174−232), of Ancient Greek by Risch (1974: 189), and note Uhlich (2002) for discussion and examples from compound-poor Old Irish/Celtic. “Bahuvrīhis” (in older literature “relativa”) are exocentric possessive compounds. Exocentricity is not an inherent property of the compound (thus not a prime for analysis) but may arise from use in context. As Whitney (1889: 501) well put the matter: “A compound having a noun as its final member very often wins secondarily the value of an adjective, being inflected in the three genders to agree with the noun which it qualifies, and used in all the constructions of an adjective.” Eng. knuckle-head could be understood as an endocentric compound (‘a head that is like a knuckle’), but it is used only as an exocentric ‘who has a knuckle-like head’. Examples of bahuvrīhis include Ved. [A-N] ugrá-bāhu- ‘strong-armed’, [N-N] bāhú-ojas- ‘whose strength is in his arms’ or [prefix-N] su-mánās ‘good-minded, kindly’, with a numeral first member Lat. bi-dēns ‘having two teeth’. In other bahuvrīhis, an adjectival suffix may be added to the nominal stem, e.g., Gk. agrió-p hōnos ‘rough-voiced’, whose second member -phōn-os is based on the noun phōnḗ ‘voice’. Because the second member “changes”, earlier scholars sometimes called them “mutata” compounds (e.g., Debrunner 1917: 54−56). Although there are examples of [AN] compounds, Schindler (1986) argued that PIE had a further morphological restriction and did not allow material or denominal adjectives as first members. Instead, the nominal stem was used: Gk. k hrūsó-thronos ‘gold-throned’, where the stem k hrūso- is used in place of the adjective of material Hom. Gk. k hrū́seos ‘golden’, would be an example of an inherited morphological restriction. Functionally, bahuvrīhis are adjectives, attributing a property to a referent outside the compound. The term “possessive” is a common one, but inadequate: many bahuvrīhis do not express possession, or express more fine-grained nuances (see the treatment by Schindler [1986]), such as ‘who has a B that has A’ (“double possessives”) or ‘who makes/provides XY’ (in the literature “factitive bahuvrīhis”; more generally, see Scalise, Fábregas, and Forza [2009] on types of exocentricity). In general, the semantics may be thought of as “R[elationship holds in] (B, A),” whose precise delineation of meaning would be guided by speakers’ interpretations (Booij 2012: 210−215). It is sometimes held that the IE languages show trends towards exocentricity and, projecting this trend back, PIE exocentrics would be considered older than endocentric compounds. The Greek evidence for this position has been challenged by Tribulato (2015: 80−81), who argues that both types are old: they have the same structure but may be used as determinative nouns or as exocentric adjectives. In “dvandva” compounds (or “copulative,” “co-ordinating,” or “co-compounds”), neither member is subordinate, and its constituents are linked by a conjoining “and” relationship. Dvandvas may refer to the aggregate of two coordinated elements, as in numerals like Gk. duṓ-deka ‘two-ten, twelve’ or [AA] compounds like Gk. glukú-pikros ‘bittersweet’ where two adjectival properties are attributed to one entity. Dvandvas may refer to a superordinate term: Ved. mātárā-pitárā- ‘lit. mother (du.)-father (du.); parents’ associates two terms without reference to either one and means ‘parents’ (not x‘two fathers

122. The morphology of Proto-Indo-European

2121

and two mothers’). Dvandvas where each member is marked with dual inflection (like Ved. mātárā-pitárā-) may have arisen from the associative/elliptic dual, i.e. where Ved. mitrā́ in the dual number was used for Mitra and his conventional associate Varuṇa (cf. 2.1.2 above), and this construction was then transferred to the dual dvandvas like Ved. mitráyor-váruṇayoḥ (gen.dual) ‘of Mitra and Varuṇa as a pair’ (not x‘of two Mitras and two Varuṇas’); see further Corbett (2000: 228−231) and Kiparsky (2010b). Dvandvas may also be endocentric (in which case splitting them from determinatives becomes tricky), e.g., Gk. iatró-mantis ‘physician-seer (of Apollo)’. On the endocentric type in Ancient Greek and IE, see Tribulato (2015: 63−67), and for further discussion of dvandva compounds and their cross-linguistic analysis, cf. Olsen (2001).

3. Morphophonology of PIE At the heart of PIE nominal morphophonology is the relationship between “ablaut” − i.e. morpheme-internal alternations in vowel quantity (*Vː : *V : *0̸) and quality (*o : *e) − and “accent,” a term traditionally used to refer to the single word-level accentual peak, whose primary phonetic correlate in PIE was probably high pitch as in Vedic Sanskrit and Ancient Greek (cf. Byrd, this handbook). The collective evidence of the oldest daughter languages shows a correlation between these variables − in particular, between *e : *0̸ vowel alternations and the presence or absence of accent; in none of these languages, however, can these qualitative or quantitative vowel alternations be explained by a purely phonological process conditioned by the position of the accent. The attempt to understand the opaque relationship between accent and ablaut in the IE languages, and in turn, what should be reconstructed for the proto-language has exercised scholars since the beginning of IE studies. In this section, we begin by situating the PIE accentual system in typological perspective and discussing the morphophonological principles by which word accent in PIE was determined. The core features of this accentual system are outlined in 3.1, while 3.2 turns to issues that arise in complex derivation, where more open questions remain. Finally, 3.3 takes up the still more difficult problem of the relationship of accent and ablaut. Readers should be aware that the analysis of PIE word accent laid out in 3.1−3.2 diverges from the traditional “paradigmatic” approaches to this problem that are presented in most standard handbooks of the field (Fortson 2010: 119−123; Weiss 2011: 257− 262; Meier-Brügger 2010: 336−353; i.a.). One important way in which our discussion differs is that it does not take ablaut patterns as evidence for word accent at the PIE stage as reached by the comparative method; rather, it assumes that accent and ablaut were independent variables already at this stage (cf. Watkins 1998: 62). We thus focus instead on the position of word accent and the principles by which it is determined in the ancient languages and as it can be reconstructed for their immediate ancestor. These issues are discussed more extensively in 3.3 below.

3.1. PIE lexical accent: The basic system The principal languages generally held to contribute to the reconstruction of PIE accent − Ancient Greek, Lithuanian, Russian, Proto-Germanic, Hittite, and above all, Vedic San-

2122

XX. Proto-Indo-European

skrit − all have prototypical lexical accent systems (on this term, see van der Hulst 2014, and in more detail, Revithiadou 1999 and Alderete 2001a). The definitive feature of word-prosodic systems of this kind, which have also been identified and studied in such diverse languages as Thompson Salish (Salishan; Revithiadou 1999: 250−277), Tokyo Japanese (Japonic; e.g., Poser 1984; Kubozono 2011), Chamorro (Austronesian; Chung 1983), and Cupeño (Uto-Aztecan; Alderete 2001c; Yates 2017), is that a word’s accent is not determined by its purely phonological properties (such as syllable weight or metrical structure), but is rather dependent on what morphemes it contains and how they are combined. In these systems, certain lexically specified morphemes may “attract” the accent, either to themselves or to an adjacent syllable, while others may be “neutral,” exerting no effect on the position of the accent. Three such typologically well-established accentual features are securely reconstructible for PIE: inherently accented morphemes, which prefer to host the word’s single surface accentual peak (per above, high tone in PIE); preaccenting morphemes, which prefer the accentual peak to fall on the immediately preceding syllable; and inherently unaccented morphemes, which neither attract nor repel the accentual peak. For the sake of consistency with previous scholarship, we employ the term “underlying accent” or “inherent accent” for this abstract lexical feature, and maintain the traditional use of unmarked accent to refer to the single surface accentual peak (more common in the theoretical literature is “accent” for the lexical feature and “stress” for its surface realization; cf. van der Hulst 2014: 4−6). An example of an inherently accented morpheme is the PIE adjectival suffix *-nó-, whose derivatives regularly bear suffixal accent in Vedic and Greek, e.g., Gk. hag-nó-s ‘holy’, Ved. yaj-ñá-s ‘sacrifice’ (< PIE *h1 yag̑-nó-s). The idea that the accentuation of this and other thematic adjectival classes (e.g., -ro-, -to-) should be attributed to some accentual property of the suffixes themselves was suggested already by Bopp (1854: 163−168); generative frameworks formalize this insight by treating this property as a lexical feature on the suffix marking it as accent-preferring (i.e. /-nó-, -ró-, -tó-/). Such PIE adjectives would therefore have been derived as in (1): (1)

PIE */h2 erg̑-ró-(o)s/ → *h2r̥g̑-ró-s ‘shining’ (shine-ADJ-M.NOM.SG) PIE */k̑lew-tó-(o)s/ → *klu-tó-s ‘heard (of); famous’ (shine-ADJ-M.NOM.SG)

The PIE forms in (1) develop into attested Ved. r̥j-rás, Gk. argós (via dissimilation of *r; cf. 2.5 above), and Ved. śrutás, Gk. klutós. Note that the derivations in (1) assume that quantitative ablaut (i.e. *e/0̸) is to some extent operative as a synchronic phonological process in PIE: the verbal roots have underlying full-grade (*/h2 erg̑/, */k̑lew/), but suffixal accent causes their /e/ vowel to be deleted on the surface (*h2r̥g̑-, *k̑lu-). The IE languages provide relatively robust evidence for a rule deleting /e/ in syllables immediately preceding the surface accent as in (1) (according to Kiparsky’s [2010a] proposal, preceding underlying accents). However, even this restricted formulation of the ablaut rule has exceptions in the very same morphological categories − some likely reconstructible (e.g., Gk. gnō-tós, Ved. jñā-tá- < PIE *g̑neh3 -tó- ‘known’; cf. Vine 2004: 360−366), others uncertain due to mismatches in the daughter languages (e.g., Dor. Gk. dā-rós vs. Ved. dū-rá- < PIE *dw[e]h2 -ró- ‘long’) − as well as elsewhere in the system (e.g., acc.sg. Ved. dhar-tā́r-am ‘supporter’ * /dhar/ ‘hold, support’). Further complicating the issue is evidence for *e/0̸ ablaut in non-pretonic environments (see, e.g., the discus-

122. The morphology of Proto-Indo-European

2123

sion of the 3pl. ending */-énti/ in 4.2.5). Additional research is required to determine under what phonological and morphological conditions quantitative − as well as qualitative − ablaut applied at the PIE stage (Kiparsky [2010a, forthcoming] provides one indepth synchronic treatment). Ablaut problems are discussed more fully in 3.3 below. As in (1), inherently accented morphemes generally receive the surface accent; however, since morphologically complex words may contain multiple inherently accented morphemes, or alternatively, no inherently accented morphemes, lexical accent systems have language-specific (morpho)phonological principles that determine which underlying accent will receive surface accent or else assign a “default” accent in the absence of underlying accents. Such principles are employed in analyses of lexical accent systems to model synchronic accentual variation within morphological categories and across lexemes. In the IE languages, an important locus of such variation is the class of root nouns, some of which are accented on their inflectional endings in their oblique case forms (e.g., Ved. pad-ā́ ‘with the foot’), while others show persistent root accent (cf. Ved. gáv-ā ‘with a cow’). While the surface accent of the former is straightforwardly analyzed as in (2a) as resulting from attraction to the inherently accented instrumental case ending (Ved. /-ā/́ < PIE /-éh1/), the latter can be treated as containing an inherently accented nominal root /gáv/ (an idea foreshadowed by de Saussure 1879: 199 and further developed by Kiparsky 2010a: 141−144); the virtual competition between the lexical accents of the root /gáv/ and the weak case inflectional suffixes is then decided by a phonological principle of “accent resolution.” Similar principles of accent resolution are standardly assumed to be operative in Tokyo Japanese and Cupeño, where they account for the contrast between (e.g.) Jap. yon-dára ‘if (he) calls’ vs. yón-dara ‘if (he) reads’ and between (e.g.) Cu. max-qáʔ ‘(he) gives’ and ʔáyu-qa ‘(he) wants’ (see Alderete 2001a: 49−51, 99). Analyses of accent resolution in all three languages are laid out in parallel in (2b): (2)

a. Ved. Jap. Cu.

/pad-ā/́ /yob-tára/ /max-qá/

→ → →

pad-ā́ yon-dára max-qáʔ

‘with the foot’ ‘if (he) calls’ ‘(he) gives’

(foot-INSTR.SG.) (call-COND.) (give-PRS.SG.)

b. Ved. Jap. Cu.

/gáv-ā/́ → /yóm-tára/ → /ʔáyu-qá/ →

gáv-ā yón-dara ʔáyu-qa

‘with the cow’ ‘if (he) reads’ ‘(he) wants’

(cow-INSTR.SG.) (read-COND.) (want-PRS.SG.)

However, not all surface accents correspond to underlyingly accented morphemes. For instance, it is evident from (2a) that roots like Ved. /pad/ ‘foot’ and Cu. /max/ ‘give’ have no underlying accent, since the inherent accent of the inflectional ending attracts the surface accent; nevertheless, these roots receive the surface accent in other paradigmatically related forms, e.g., Ved. nom.pl. pā́d-as* ‘feet’ (cf. attested acc.sg. Ved. pā́dam), Cu. máx-wənə ‘(they) give’. The accentuation of such forms is generally assumed to be the result of a phonological principle of “default” accentuation, a grammatical process that operates when a word contains no inherently accented morphemes, assigning an accent to a phonologically unmarked position in order to fulfill the typologically common requirement that all words bear an accent (the “obligatoriness” parameter; see, e.g., Hyman 2006). In Vedic (and Cupeño), default accent surfaces on the word’s leftmost syllable as in (3a) (cf. Kiparsky 2010a: 144; Yates 2017), while (3b) shows that this

2124

XX. Proto-Indo-European

default accentual pattern does not arise in words containing the same suffixes if there is already an accented morpheme present: (3)

a. Ved. Cu.

/pad-as/ /max-wənə/

→ →

pā́d-as* ‘feet’ máx-wənə ‘(they) give’

(foot-NOM.PL.) (give-CUST.PL.)

b. Ved. Cu.

/marút-as/ → /təwáʂ-wənə/ →

marút-as ‘Maruts’ təwáʂ-wənə ‘(they) lose’

(Marut-NOM.PL.) (lose-CUST.PL.)

One important Vedic accentual phenomenon that emerges from (2−3) is the synchronic distinction between “mobile” root nouns − i.e. those showing surface accent on the root in the strong cases, on inflectional suffixes in the weak − like pā˘d- ‘foot’, and those with “fixed” (i.e. consistent) root accent like gā˘v- ‘cow’ (on the strong/weak case distinction, cf. 2.1.1 above). Root nouns with mobile accent are the dominant type (e.g., nāv‘boat’, pur- ‘stronghold’, yudh- ‘fight’), while the minority fixed accent pattern is instantiated by a handful of other lexical items in addition to gā˘v-, including nar- ‘man’ (dat.sg. nár-e) and raṇ- ‘pleasure’ (dat.sg. ráṇ-e). By applying the same tools used to model similar accentual alternations in Tokyo Japanese and Cupeño, it is possible to arrive at an explanatory account of the different accentuation of these classes, which falls out directly from a minimal contrast in the underlying accentedness of the relevant roots (/gáv/ ‘cow’ vs. /pad/ ‘foot’) and affixes (instr.sg. /-ā/́ vs. nom.pl. /-as/). If Vedic here largely preserves the PIE situation (as is generally assumed), the PIE derivation of root nouns with mobile vs. fixed accent can be represented as in Table 122.6: Tab. 122.6 Root Nouns in PIE FIXED NOM.PL INSTR.SG

w

w

w

w

*/g ów-es/ → *g ów-es

MOBILE ‘cows’

*/g éw-éh1/ → *g éw-eh1 ‘with the cow’

*/pod-es/ → *pód-es

‘feet’

*/ped-éh1/ → *ped-éh1 ‘with the foot’

Under this analysis, accentedness and unaccentedness, respectively, are properties of the Vedic roots /gáv/ (< PIE */gwów/) and /pad/ (< PIE */pod/), not properties of their basic (i.e. root noun) inflectional paradigms. In contrast to the paradigmatic approaches discussed in 3.3, which reify the status of intraparadigmatic accentual (im)mobility, this analysis takes the respective fixed and mobile accentual patterns of these nouns to be emergent from the lexical properties of their roots. It thus predicts that the underlying accentual contrast between these roots will recur in derivation, resulting in differences in the surface accentuation of certain morphologically related forms. In this case, the prediction is borne out: when /gáv/ and /pad/ are further suffixed by Ved. -mant- or -vant- (< PIE *-ment-/*-went-) − two possessive adjectival suffixes with similar accentual behavior that probably descend from a single morpheme at some stage of the protolanguage (cf. Debrunner 1954: 781−782) − the resulting complex forms show a minimal contrast in surface accent: root-accented gómant- vs. suffix-accented padvánt-. Similarly, the peninitial accent of /marút/ is retained in its derivative marútvant-. One potential analysis of these derivatives is presented in (4) below (for an alternative, see Sandell 2015: 184−189):

122. The morphology of Proto-Indo-European (4)

/gáv-mánt-am/

2125

→ gómantam

‘possessing cattle’ (cow-ADJ.ACC.SG.) /pad-vánt-am/ → padvántam ‘possessing feet’ (foot-ADJ.ACC.SG.) /marút-vánt-am/ → marútvantam ‘accompanied by the M.’ (Marut-ADJ.ACC.SG.)

Ved. gáv-ā in (2b), as well as gómantam and marútvantam in (4), show a consistent pattern of accent resolution: when multiple inherently accented morphemes compete for the single surface accent in Vedic, accent falls on the inherently accented morpheme closest to the word’s left edge (also cf. dat.sg. Ved. pad-vát-e ← */pad-vánt-é/). Combining this generalization about accentual resolution with the pattern of leftmost “default” accentuation observed in (3a), Kiparsky and Halle (1977) proposed that Vedic accentuation is governed by the Basic Accentuation Principle (BAP), which can be stated as in (5) (cf. Kiparsky 2010a): (5)

Basic Accentuation Principle (BAP): If a word has more than one accented syllable, the leftmost of these receives word stress. If a word has no accented syllable, the leftmost syllable receives word stress.

Kiparsky and Halle (1977) present evidence from the accentual systems of Balto-Slavic and Ancient Greek in support of the BAP and, on the basis of their convergence, argue that it should be reconstructed for PNIE. This hypothesis is now corroborated by evidence from Anatolian, where Yates (2016) contends that the BAP is synchronically operative, accounting (e.g.) for the Hittite contrast in the mi-conjugation between primary verbs that are accentually mobile (i.e. show accent on the root in the singular and on inflectional endings in the plural) and those with fixed root accent. Mobile accent is the majority pattern in this category, instantiated by common verbal roots like šeš- ‘sleep’, while a few roots − such as wek- ‘demand’ − exhibit fixed root accent. Just as in the root nouns in Table 122.6 above, the accentual contrast between these verbs can be derived by assuming: (i) the singular verb endings are inherently unaccented (e.g., Hitt. 3sg.npst. /-zi/); (ii) the plural endings are inherently accented (3pl. /-ánzi/); (iii) the roots differ underlyingly in accentedness (/wék/ vs. /šeš/); and (iv) the operation of the BAP. This derivation is represented in Table 122.7: Tab. 122.7 Primary Verbs in Hittite FIXED

3SG.NPST.ACT. 3PL.NPST.ACT.

MOBILE

‘demands’

→ šēš-zi [séːst͡si] ‘sleeps’

/wék-ánzi/ → wek-anzi [wé(ː)kant͡si] ‘demand’

/šeš-ánzi/ → šaš-anzi [sasánt͡si] ‘sleep’

/wék-zi/

→ wēk-zi [wéːkt͡si]

/šeš-zi/

Vedic attests an identical contrast in primary verbs between mobile and fixed accentual types. Mobile accent is observed in most Vedic root presents, including Ved. 3sg.act

2126

XX. Proto-Indo-European

sás-ti / 3pl. sas-ánti ‘sleep(s)’, which is directly cognate with the Hittite forms of šešcited in Table 122.7. This perfect equation suggests that their PIE congenitors were derived in exactly the same way as in Hittite − in other words, that the corresponding PIE morphemes had the same accentual properties (*/ses/ ‘sleep’; 3sg.prs. */-ti/; 3pl. */-énti/) and underwent the same interaction with the BAP, i.e. (6) (for the accentuation of Ved. sas-ánti*, cf. imp. sas-ántu): (6)

PIE */ses − ti/ → *sés-ti ‘sleeps’ (3SG.PRES.ACT.) > Hitt. šēš-zi [séːst͡si], Ved. sás-ti PIE */ses − énti/ → *sə s-énti ‘they sleep’ (3PL.PRES.ACT.) > Hitt. šaš-anzi [sasánt͡si], Ved. sas-ánti*

The fixed accent type in Table 122.7 also has a parallel in Vedic, where it is similarly a minority pattern. An example is the Vedic root takṣ- ‘fashion’ with fixed accent, as in the 3pl. tákṣ-ati (the accent of the 3sg.act. tāṣ-ṭi is unattested, but would be tā́ṣ-ṭi*). The fixed root accent can be derived by assuming that the root itself is inherently accented (i.e. /tákṣ/), like Hitt. /wék/ ‘demand’. The existence of inherently accented (verbal) roots in Vedic and Hittite raises the question of whether they should also be reconstructed for PIE. In this respect, it is notable that Hitt. wēk-zi and Ved. 3pl. tákṣ-ati are verbal forms analyzed by LIV 2 as “Narten presents,” a type of PIE root present characterized by lengthened grade of the root in singular active forms and fixed root accent (see 4.3.1 below). If the special phonological behavior of this type is due to the fact that they are formed from “Narten roots” (Schindler 1994; Jasanoff 2012b; Villanueva Svensson 2012, i.a.), it may be the case that lexical accent was one property of these exceptional roots. An alternative possibility − consistent with Kümmel’s (1998) and Melchert’s (2014b) arguments that “Narten presents” were a derived category in PIE − is that all PIE verbal roots were inherently unaccented, and that fixed accent in “Narten presents” was due to the presence of an additional derivational morpheme (albeit one with no segmental content), much as in thematic presents (see below), *s-aorists, and other verbal categories with fixed accent. If so, the emergence of accented roots in the daughter languages might be attributed to the loss of Narten derivation as a productive morphological process, at which point the fixed accent associated with this category was reanalyzed as a lexical feature of the verbal root. Further research may shed light on these questions. In addition to accented and unaccented morphemes, PIE also had preaccenting morphemes, which place a lexical accent on the final syllable of the preceding morpheme. Strong candidates for PIE preaccenting morphemes include the neuter event noun-forming suffix *-o/es- (cf. 2.4.1 above) and, in the verbal system, the *-e/o- suffix that forms PIE simple thematic presents (cf. 4.3.1 below). Nouns and verbs derived with these suffixes show fixed root accent and (generally) full-grade of the root (see further discussion of *-o/es- in 3.3 below). Under the preaccenting analysis, the accent on the root in these items is the surface realization of a lexical accent sponsored by the immediately following suffixes, PIE */-ˊo/es-/ and */-ˊe/o-/. This analysis of several securely reconstructible nominal and verbal examples is given in (7a) and (7b), respectively:

122. The morphology of Proto-Indo-European (7)

a. PIE */wek w-ˊes-é/ós/ PIE */men-ˊes-é/ós/ b. PIE */h2 eg̑-ˊe-té(-)/ PIE */b her-ˊe-té(-)/

2127

→ *wék w-es-e/os ‘of speech’ (n.gen.sg.) > Ved. vác-as-as, Gk. (w)ép-e-os → *mén-es-e/os ‘of thought’ (n.gen.sg.) > Ved. mán-as-as, Gk. mén-e-os → *h2 ág̑-e-te(-) ‘you drive’ (2pl.prs.act.ind) >> Ved. áj-a-tha → *b hérete(-) ‘you bear’ (2pl.prs.act.ind) >> Ved. bhár-a-tha

In (7), the lexical pre-accent “wins” over the lexical accent of the athematic genitive ending */-é/ós/ and of the 2pl.act. ending */-té(-)/ due to the BAP, which assigns surface accent to the lexical accent that is closer to the left edge of the word. Certain other potential analyses of these forms are not tenable. For instance, surface accent on the root cannot emerge by default, since athematic gen.sg. */-é/ós/ and 2pl. */-té(-)/ must be inherently accented: gen.sg. */-é/ós/ − like instr.sg. /-éh1/ − attracts the surface accent in mobile root nouns (e.g., Ved. pad-ás ‘of the foot’ ← /pad-ás/), and similarly, 2pl. */-té(-)/ in mobile root presents (e.g., Ved. ha-thá ‘you smash’ ← /[g]han-thá/). Nor can surface root accent in (7) arise because the roots are themselves inherently accented, since the action/process-noun forming suffix *-ti/tey- regularly attracts the surface accent when suffixed to these roots, i.e. PIE *mn̥-tí- ‘thinking; thought’, *b hr̥-tí- ‘bearing’ (> early Ved. matí-, bhr̥tí-; see further discussion of this class in 3.2 below). However, just like the lexical accent of accented morphemes, the lexical accent sponsored by a pre-accenting morpheme does not always receive the surface accent. Vedic shows a clear synchronic contrast between examples like (7), where the lexical pre-accent “wins,” and those like (8b), where the principles of accentual resolution prefer a different accented morpheme. The same contrast is observed with preaccenting morphemes in (e.g.) Cupeño and Japanese; examples that parallel the Vedic data are laid out in (8a) and (8b), respectively (Japanese data from Kawahara 2015; Cupeño from Hill 2005): (8)

a. Ved. /śrav-ˊas-ás/ Jap. /yosida-ˊsi/ Cu. /pə-tama-ˊŋa/

→ śráv-as-as → yosidá-si → pə-tamá-ŋa

b. Ved. /prá-[śrav-ˊas]-ás/ → prá-śrav-as-as Jap. /nisímura-ˊsi/ Cu. /pə-sáʔi-ˊŋa/

→ nisímura-si → pə-sáʔi-ŋa

‘of fame’ ‘Mr. Yoshida’ ‘in his mouth’ ‘of him whose fame is advancing’ ‘Mr. Nishimura’ ‘in his belly’

As is evident from (8b), the accentuation of bahuvrīhi compounds (cf. 2.6 above) like Ved. práśravasas is consistent with the BAP. The inherent accent of the first member (1M) − in this case, the preverb Ved. /prá/ − is assigned surface accent because its lexical accent is closer to the word’s left edge than that of 2M /śrávas-/, whose initial accent is due to the preaccenting neuter event noun suffix /-ˊas-/. First member accent is the inherited rule in Greek’s exocentric compounds as well. In its cognate class of *s-stem adjectives, Greek has a number of relic formations that reflect first member accent, thus making it plausible to reconstruct PIE compounds like *pró-k̑lewes- (> Ved. prá-śravas-) with 1M

2128

XX. Proto-Indo-European

surface accent due to the BAP (cf. with details and references Lundquist 2016). Productively formed Greek s-stem compounds have suffixal accent (nom.sg.m./f. -ḗs), which reflects a historical change from denominal to deverbal derivation in this class of adjectives (cf. Meissner 2005: 161−215). More generally, an analysis along these lines can be extended to other types of bahuvrīhi compounds which, even more clearly than in other categories, require a principle of accent resolution to determine which of the accents that their members bear as free-standing words will receive the single surface accent of the compound. In Vedic − and in all likelihood, in PIE − the surface accent of these compounds is that of their 1M (cf. Wackernagel 1905: §113−115), provided that the 1M contains an inherently accented morpheme. This pattern is again predicted by the BAP; simplified derivations for Vedic bahuvrīhi compounds of several structural types are given in (9) below (stem-stem compounding is assumed here, but see Kiparsky [2010a: 170−176, forthcoming] for more detailed analysis with extension to other compound types): (9)

a. Noun + Noun: /bāhú + ójas/

→ bāhú + ojas-

/kaví + krátu/

→ kaví +kratu-

/sóma + kām ́ a/

→ sóma + kāma-

b. Adjective + Noun /ugrá + bāhú/ /dabhrá + cétas/

‘having strength in one’s arms’ (arm + strength) ‘having the will of a poet’ (poet + will) ‘desirous of soma’ (soma + desire)

→ ugrá + bāhu→ dabhrá + cetas-

/sahásra + dákṣiṇa/ → sahásra + dakṣiṇa-

c. Preverb + Noun /ádhi + rukmá/ → ádhi-rukma/abhí + krátu/

→ abhí-kratu-

‘mighty-armed’ (mighty + arm) ‘small-witted’ (small + perception) ‘having a priestly gift of a thousand (cows)’ (priestly.gift + thousand.ADJ)

‘having bright ornaments upon oneself’ (upon + ornament) ‘whose will is set against’ (against + will)

The Vedic evidence in (9) is again corroborated by “recessively” accented Greek bahuvrīhi compounds, e.g., klutó-toksos ‘famed for the bow’ (on Greek’s recessive accent, see Gunkel 2014). The equation of Greek and Vedic accentuation suggests that this analysis of compound accent can be extended at least to PNIE, and that bahuvrīhis with 1M accent like *h2 ugró-b heh2 g̑ hu- (> Ved. ugrá-bāhu-) can be reconstructed for this stage. The more complicated case of bahuvrīhis with 2M accent is discussed further in 3.2 below.

122. The morphology of Proto-Indo-European

2129

3.2. PIE lexical accent: Expanding the analysis It was shown in 3.1 that morphemes in PIE were lexically specified for one of three accentual features: accented, unaccented, or pre-accenting. In addition, PIE accentuation was governed by the BAP, which assigns the surface accent to the leftmost of several inherently accented morphemes, or in their absence, assigns a default initial accent. These three accentual features as well as the BAP have strong typological parallels in Japanese and other languages with lexical accent; however, it is all but certain that the PIE accentual system was of a more complex type than (e.g.) Cupeño, where the interaction between the same three accentual features and a BAP-like phonological principle is sufficient to account for (effectively) all of the accentual contrasts in the language (cf. Yates 2017). To account for the accentual patterns attested in the oldest IE daughter languages, it appears to be necessary to enrich the PIE system with additional properties, although exactly how it must be enriched is very much open for debate at present. In the remainder of this section, we lay out some of the data that complicate the analysis, and discuss a few recent proposals that may offer a way forward. One accentual phenomenon that does not easily submit to the tools developed in 3.1 is the “intermediate” behavior of several athematic suffixes, which appear to attract the surface accent in simplex forms, but yield the accent in further derivation. Two suffixes with this property − both traditionally analyzed as “proterokinetic” under paradigmatic approaches to IE accent and ablaut (cf. 3.3) − are the deverbal action/process nounforming suffix *-ti/tey- (cf. 2.4.1) and the qualitative adjective suffix *-u/ew- (2.5). For instance, in (earliest) Vedic *ti-stem nouns like jū-tí- ‘speed’ (to the root jū- ‘hasten’) or vr̥ṣṭí- ‘rain’ (to vr̥ṣ- ‘rain’) regularly show attraction of the surface accent to the derivational suffix (cf. Lundquist 2015), thus non-default accent in their strong caseforms (e.g., acc.sg. jū-tí-m, vr̥ṣ-ṭí-m); the suffix also retains the surface accent in weak case forms (e.g., dat.sg. jū-táy-e; instr.pl. vr̥ṣ-ṭí-bhis) in preference to the inherently accented inflectional endings to its right (dat.sg. /-é/; instr.pl. /-bhís/; cf. paḍ-bhís ‘with the feet’ to /pad/ in Table 122.6 and [4] above). At first glance, this accentual pattern recommends analyzing the suffix as inherently accented (i.e. “*/-tí/téy-/”), in parallel to the thematic adjective suffixes (/-nó-/, /-ró-/); fixed suffixal accent would then be correctly predicted, since the suffix would be the only accented morpheme in strong case forms and preferred by the BAP in weak case forms (i.e. “leftmost wins”). The problem with this analysis, however, is that it makes incorrect predictions about the accentuation of derivationally related forms. Issues arise in (e.g.) adjectives derived from Vedic ti-stems by addition of the suffix -mant- (/-mánt-/), which consistently attracts the accent away from these stems, thus (e.g.) jūtimánt- ‘swift’, vr̥ṣṭimánt- ‘rainy’. This pattern would be unexpected if the noun-forming suffix Ved. -ti/tay- were inherently accented; rather, like Ved. gó-mant- ‘possessing cattle’ in (4) above and similarly (e.g.) Ved. mánas-vant- ‘thoughtful’ (to the neuter as-stem in [7] mánas-), a stem containing an inherently accented morpheme should receive the surface accent in preference to an accented suffix to its right as a direct consequence of the BAP. This issue is not unique to *ti-stems nor is it specific to the suffix(es) *-ment-/ *-went-. The same kind of accentual behavior is also observed in *u-stem qualitative adjectives, which show fixed accent on the ablauting suffix *-u/ew- throughout their inflectional paradigm in both Vedic and Greek, e.g., Ved. svād-ú-, svād-áv- = Gk. hēd-ú-, hēd-é(w)- ‘sweet’ (< PIE *sweh2 d-ú-, *sweh2 d-éw-); Ved. pr̥thú-, pr̥th-áv- = Gk.

2130

XX. Proto-Indo-European

plat-ú-, plat-é(w)- ‘broad’ (< PIE *pl̥ th2 -ú-, *pl̥ th2 -éw-); Ved. āśú-, āś-áv- = Gk. ōkú-, ōk-é(w)- ‘swift’ (< PIE *h1 ōk̑-ú-/*h1 ōk̑-éw-). Once again, the derivational suffix is superficially amenable to treatment as an inherently accented morpheme (“*/-ú/éw-/”), but such an analysis is problematized by the accentual behavior of the suffix in further derivation − for instance, in combination with the “devī́ ” feminine suffix P(N)IE */-íh2 /yéh2 -/ (> Ved. /-ī/́ yā-́ /). The feminine suffix does not generally attract the surface accent when there is an inherently accented morpheme to its left, as shown (e.g.) by its interaction with the accented PNIE perfect participle suffix *-wos/us- (*/-wós/ús-/), whose Greek and Vedic masculine reflexes bear suffixal accent, e.g., nom.sg.m. Ved. vid-vā́ṁ-s, gen.sg. vid-úṣ-as; Gk. eid-(w)ṓ-s, eid-ót-os ‘knowing’ (< PIE *w[e]id-wṓs, *w[e]id-ús-). Significantly, the corresponding feminine forms exhibit persistent accent on the perfect participle suffix − e.g., nom.sg.f. Ved. vid-úṣ-ī, Gk. eid-uĩa (< PGk. *-ús-ya) − as expected under the BAP: PIE */-ús-íh2/ → *-ús-ih2 . However, when the same suffix is used in Vedic to form feminine *u-stem adjectives, it unexpectedly attracts the surface accent, thus nom.sg.f. Ved. svād-v-ī́ ‘sweet’, pr̥th-v-ī́ ‘broad’. This pattern is corroborated by archaisms in Greek − in particular, feminine plural forms in -eiaí, -aiaí with synchronically irregular oxytone accent; this class includes the Greek toponym Plataiaí (< PGk. *pl̥ th2 -[e]w-yéh2 -), whose accent matches its cognate Ved. pr̥th-v-ī́ ‘broad’ and therefore likely resisted the analogical leveling of suffixal accent that produced the synchronic feminine adjective Gk. plateĩa ‘broad’ with the regular accent of its morphological class (cf. de Lamberterie 1990: 644−645, 2002; contra: Sihler 1995: 349−350 et al.). The exceptional “intermediate” accentual behavior of *u-stem adjectives in combination with the feminine suffix recurs in other derivationally related forms. First, there are cases in which these *u-stems are further suffixed by adjectival *-ment- (*/-mént-/) and − as in the *ti-stems − this suffix attracts the surface accent, e.g., Ved. āśu-mánt- ‘speedy’. Moreover, Vedic bahuvrīhi compounds with 1M *u-stem adjectives generally have surface accent on the accented syllable of their 2M, e.g., svādu-kṣádman- ‘(lit.) having a sweet carving knife (kṣádman-); serving sweet food’; āśu-héṣas- ‘having swift missiles (héṣas-)’; pr̥thu-pā́jas- ‘whose surface (pā́jas-) is broad’. While such compounds show some accentual variation − e.g., both pr̥thu-budhná- and unexpected pr̥thú-budhna‘having a broad foundation (budhná-)’ are attested in the Rigveda − the dominant pattern in this class is 2M accent, which contrasts with the 1M accent pattern observed in the structurally comparable bahuvrīhi compounds in (9b) above. In each case, the *u-stem adjective is predicted by the BAP to receive the surface accent if it were an accented morpheme, but these predictions are not borne out; rather, the systematic failure of the *-u/ew- suffix − and similarly, *-ti/tey- − to attract surface accent in secondary derivatives suggests that these suffixes are in fact underlyingly unaccented (i.e. PIE */-u/ew-/, */-ti/tey-/), and that their secondary derivatives can be analyzed as in (10): → *g̑uhx -ti-mént-s > Ved. jū-ti-mā́n ‘swift’ (M.NOM.SG.) PNIE */pleth2 -(e)w-íh2 -0̸/ → *pl̥ th2 -u-íh2 > Ved. pr̥th-v-ī́ ‘broad’ (F.NOM.SG.) PIE */pleth2 -(e)w-peh2 g̑-ˊes-s/ → *pl̥ th2 -u-páh2 g̑-ēs > Ved. pr̥thu-pā́jās ‘having a broad surface’ (M.NOM.SG.)

(10) PIE

*/g̑euhx -t(e)y-mént-s/

122. The morphology of Proto-Indo-European

2131

An important implication of this analysis is that the fixed suffixal accent observed in primary *ti-stem nouns and *u-stem adjectives must arise as the result of some other grammatical process that does not apply in further derivation. The exact nature of this process is controversial and a topic of ongoing research. According to Kiparsky (2010a: 144), it is the “Oxytone Rule,” which places a lexical accent on the rightmost syllable of a polysyllabic word’s inflectional stem. Because it applies only to a fully formed inflectional stem, the Oxytone Rule assigns a lexical accent to *-ti/tey- and *-u/ew- when immediately followed by inflectional endings, but does not target these suffixes when there is intervening morphological material, since they do not stand at the right edge of the stem. The suffix accented via the Oxytone Rule then attracts surface accent (in preference to accented weak case endings) due to the BAP. An alternative hypothesis is advanced by Sandell (2015: 176−214), who argues that PIE affixes may be assigned lexical accent by virtue of being a word’s morphological head − in effect, the part of the word that determines certain of its fundamental morphosyntactic properties (e.g., whether it is a noun or adjective; cf. Zwicky 1985; Dresher and van der Hulst 1998). Thus a derivational suffix like *-ti/tey-, which selects a verbal root (e.g., *men- ‘think’) and forms an abstract noun (nom.sg. *mn̥-tí-s ‘thought’), is the word’s head and would consequently receive a lexical accent; however, in the (hypothetical) derived adjective *mn̥ti-mént-, the head of the word is the adjectival suffix *-ment-, so no lexical accent would be assigned to the *-ti/tey- suffix. This analysis would align PIE with a range of other languages in which morphological structure plays a direct role in determining word accent; included among these languages are two of PIE’s living descendants, Modern Greek and Russian (Revithiadou 1999), which are arguably conservative in this respect. However, adjudicating between this account and Kiparsky’s (2010a) Oxytone Rule requires further systemic analysis of Vedic word accent, and still more research in the other daughter languages is needed to establish the accentual properties of the “intermediate” suffixes at the PIE level. Another problem encountered by the basic analysis laid out in 3.1 is the accentual behavior of certain suffixes which appear to “override” the accentual features of the stem to which they attach. The existence of such morphemes with this property − termed dominance by Kiparsky and Halle (1977) − was established in Balto-Slavic linguistics already in the 1970s (see, in particular, Garde 1976, and for a conceptual overview with reference to Ancient Greek, Petit 2016: 11−14). Such morphemes are also found in nonIE languages with lexical accent systems like Tokyo Japanese (see Kawahara 2015 with references). Dominant morphemes flout the language’s phonological accent resolution pattern (in PIE, the BAP), imposing their accentual properties on the stem to which they attach; in the IE languages, this effect can be observed most clearly when a dominant accented morpheme is suffixed to a stem that itself contains an inherently accented morpheme. An example of a dominant morpheme in Vedic is the adjective-deriving suffix -in(/-ín-/; cf. Kiparsky 2010a: 170). When it combines with nouns that have fixed surface accent (due to their underlying accented stems), the resulting derived forms systematically exhibit fixed surface accent on the -in-suffix; this pattern is shown in (11) below, where the same accented (thematic) noun stems that retain their accent in combination with non-dominant accented suffixes like Ved. -vant- (/-vánt-/) or as the 1M in bahuvrīhi compounds always cede the surface accent to the dominant suffix -in-:

2132

XX. Proto-Indo-European

(11) Ved. áśva-

‘horse’

0 cf. rátha‘chariot’ 0 cf. dyumná- ‘brilliance’ 0 cf. putrá‘son’ 0 cf.

aśvínáśva-vantrathínrátha-vantdyumníndyumná-vantputrínputrá-kāma-

‘horseman; Aśvin’ ‘possessing horses’ ‘charioteer’ ‘possessing chariots’ ‘brilliant’ ‘possessing brilliance’ ‘having a son’ ‘desirous of sons’

Dominance effects can also be found in the verbal system. In Vedic, verbal adjectives may be formed by suffixing -ta- /-tá-/ (< PIE *-to-; cf. 2.5 above) directly to the verbal root. Whether the root is unaccented (the majority type, e.g., /[g]han-/ ‘smash; kill’) or accented (/tákṣ-/ ‘fashion’), the suffix -ta- consistently attracts surface accent (ha-tá‘smashed; killed’, taṣ-ṭá- ‘fashioned’). Dominant accented /-tá-/ thereby contrasts with the non-dominant accented present participle suffix /-(a)nt-/, which receives surface accent when added to unaccented roots (e.g., ghn-ánt- ‘smashing’) but not to accented roots (tákṣ-ant- ‘fashioning’). The nature of accentual dominance in the PIE lexical accent system is a topic of ongoing research. Kiparsky (2010a) treats dominance as an arbitrary lexical property of morphemes (i.e. [+/− dominant]), but observes that there is a strong tendency for (prototypical) derivational suffixes to be dominant. In Greek, in fact, it appears that all derivational suffixes are dominant (Steriade 1988; and cf. Probert 2006b: 146; Gunkel 2014); several examples of Greek’s inherently accented derivational suffixes are given in (12), where their accentual dominance can be observed: (12) /-ikó-/ hellád-os adelp h-ós /-ísko-/ aspíd-os kratḗr /-éu-/ hípp-os k halk-ós

‘Greece’ (gen.sg.) ‘brother’ ‘shield’ (gen.sg.) ‘mixing bowl’ ‘horse’ ‘copper’

0 0 0 0 0 0

hellad-ik-ós adelp h-ik-ós aspid-ísk-os kratēr-ísk-os hipp-eú-s k halk-eú-s

‘Greek’ ‘brotherly’ ‘small shield’ ‘small bowl’ ‘horseman’ ‘coppersmith’

Given that Vedic appears to have both dominant and non-dominant derivational suffixes, the Greek situation likely reflects an innovation with respect to PIE. Nevertheless, the strong correlation in both languages between an affix’s morphosyntactic properties and its (non-)dominant status suggests that accentual dominance effects are in some way a consequence of morphological structure − i.e. the accent of the (last) derivational suffix is privileged because it is the morphological head (as in the *ti-stems discussed above; see Sandell 2015: 182−192 for a proposal and formal implementation to this end). Yet how accentual dominance should be formally implemented in PIE (and cross-linguistically) is far from a settled question; see generally Revithiadou (1999) and Alderete (2001b), and for specific application to (pre-)PIE word accent, Frazier (2006), Keydana (2013b), and Kim (2002, 2013a). The cross-linguistically well-established analytic tools introduced in 3.1 − i.e. the distinction between inherently accented, unaccented, and preaccenting morphemes together with the BAP − make empirically testable predictions about PIE accentuation that correctly account for the distribution of surface accent in many securely reconstructible

122. The morphology of Proto-Indo-European

2133

PIE words and morphological categories. However, it is also clear that there are morphological conditions under which these predictions are systematically violated − i.e. when a word contains an accentually “intermediate” or dominant morpheme. One possibility would be to take the behavior of these morphemes as evidence that the analysis laid out in 3.1 − in particular, the BAP − is incorrect; yet in view of the far-reaching accentual generalizations that are correctly derived by the BAP, we have proposed instead that the theory should be refined. Specifically, we have suggested that the PIE accentual system had additional morphophonological properties relevant to the accentuation of words containing accentually “intermediate” and dominant morphemes. We have also discussed several promising hypotheses about what these properties might be and how they should be integrated into a general analysis of PIE word accent. Under this view, the PIE lexical accent system is of a complex type similar to that of Thompson Salish, Tokyo Japanese, and Chamorro (cf. 3.1 above): surface accent is in some cases determined by a purely phonological computation over the inherent accentual properties of morphemes (i.e. the BAP), but there is also an additional “layer” associated primarily with derivational suffixes in which a word’s morphological structure may influence the computation of the surface accent. Further research in this vein on the accentual systems of the ancient IE daughter languages − in particular, Vedic, Greek, Balto-Slavic, and the Anatolian languages − will continue to shed light on the synchronic principles governing the distribution of surface accent in PIE, on the reconstructible accentual properties of individual morphemes, and in turn, on what forms constitute real archaisms already at this stage of the proto-language − i.e. reconstructible words whose accent cannot be generated by productive morphophonological processes, and so must have been learned on an item-by-item basis. A still broader issue is the extent to which accent and ablaut are related at the PIE stage (and at the earlier pre-PIE stage), an issue we take up immediately below (3.3).

3.3 Reconstructing PIE ablaut The relationship between accent and ablaut in PIE has been a major topic of research since the beginning of IE studies. Accent and ablaut correspond only partially in the daughter languages and so too at the stage of PIE that is accessible by the comparative method. In PIE, every kind of vowel may surface with or without surface accent: *b hér-e-ti ‘carries’ and *mn̥-téy-es ‘thought’ (nom.pl.) surface with two full-grades each (the nom.pl. *-es- never has a reduced allomorph); *septm̥ ́ ‘7’ (> Ved. saptá, Gk. heptá) bears an accented zero-grade and an unaccented e-grade; *b hór-o-s ‘burden’, *pód-s ‘foot’ and *kéy-(t)or ‘lies’ have accented and unaccented *o-grades. These examples are easily multiplied. However, there are also strong indices to suggest a relatively tight connection between surface accent and full-grade, as seen in (e.g.) verbal paradigms like *h1 éy-ti ‘goes’, 3pl. *h1 y-énti or *h1 és-ti ‘is’, 3pl. *h1 s-énti. Accordingly, it is widely thought that these quantitive ablaut alternations (i.e. *e : *0̸) were once purely phonologically conditioned − in its strongest formulation, that an *e vowel would surface only if it bore the surface accent, and all other morphemes would thus appear in their zerograde forms (see Szemerényi 1996: 111−112, who traces this view back to the 1860s; cf. Weiss [2011: 47] for a recent, skeptical formulation). Viewed in generative terms,

2134

XX. Proto-Indo-European

these alternations would reflect an accent-conditioned syncope process deleting all unaccented */e/ vowels at the relevant stage of the proto-language. Similarly, a link has long been suspected between surface accent and *o-grade, i.e. qualitative ablaut (e.g., Hirt 1900: esp. 156, but see the doubts voiced earlier by de Saussure 1879: 134, 235, et passim). For this view, however, one finds even less consensus, since it has not yet been demonstrated just what that link would be (see Penney 1978 for an extensive treatment and the concise overview by Weiss [2011: 47]; Kümmel [2012: 307−320] gives one recent attempt to explain the origin of *o-grades). Quantitative ablaut especially has often been treated as a shortcut to accent − i.e. if a word contains an *e-grade morpheme, it should once have been accented, and a zero-grade morpheme should have been unaccented − but at the PIE level such a shortcut is clearly not tenable. A major program of research, developed principally in the 1960s and 1970s (but with older roots, esp. Pedersen 1926 and Kuiper 1942), has focused on reconstructing the formal patterns of athematic nominal formations at this pre-PIE stage when the relationship between accent and ablaut would have been more transparent. For instance, in a foundational paper Schindler (1975b: 261) proposed that neuter *-es-stem nouns of the type PIE nom./acc. *wék w-os, gen.sg. *wék w-es-os (> Ved. vácas, vácasas, etc.; cf. 3.1 above), looked substantially different at a pre-PIE (“vorindogermanisch”) stage. He argued that, although no attested language exhibits synchronic accent shifts or ablaut alternations of the root in this nominal class, it is nevertheless possible to reconstruct prePIE accentual mobility between root and derivational suffix. In support of this hypothesis, Schindler cites lexicalized compounds with 1M reflecting *mén-s- ‘thought’ (e.g., OAv. mazdā-) where the apparent zero-grade of the suffix would reflect the predicted nom./acc.sg.n. form (**men-s + d heh1 -; cf. PIE *mén-os > Ved. mán-as, Gk. mén-os). At this pre-PIE stage, all unaccented morphemes would surface in their zero-grade forms, since accent and full-grade would be directly dependent on one another (“… die Ablautstufen im Wort akzentabhängig waren”, p. 261). Provided that this assumption is correct for pre-PIE, the PIE paradigm *wék w-os, *wék w-es-os would continue pre-PIE **wék w-s, **uk w-és-s, whose accent was assigned morphologically and whose ablaut resulted predictably from the pre-PIE syncope rule. Under this approach, the hypothesized formal patterns are reified as a set of “paradigmatic” classes; all PIE athematic nominals of the structure R(oot) + S(uffix) + (E)nding would belong (historically) to one of these classes. Thus pre-PIE **wék w-s, **uk w-és-s would instantiate the “proterokinetic” class, structurally R(é)-S(0̸)-E(0̸) in the strong cases (e.g., **wék w-s, nom./acc.sg.n.) and R(0̸)-S(é)-E(0̸) in the weak (**uk w-és-s gen.sg.). In the most widely accepted model, developed in particular by Schindler (1972a, 1975a, b) and the “Erlangen School” (e.g., also Rix 1992: 122−124), four or five “kinetic” (/“dynamic”) and “static” classes are posited. The “Leiden School” reduces the model to three such classes (see Beekes 1985; Beekes and de Vaan 2011: 190−191 et passim; Kloekhorst 2013), while other scholars have posited additional accent and ablaut paradigms − for instance, Tichy (2004: 75−81) and Neri (2003: 37−39) allow a “mesokinetic” paradigmatic class. This body of research has clarified especially which forms could be relics already in PIE (such as the isolated *men-s- mentioned above) and offers a possible starting point for analyzing the subsequent development of many PIE athematic nominal formations. Overviews of the paradigmatic classes can be found in all recent IE handbooks: see Watkins (1998: 61−62, skeptical), Clackson (2007: 79−89),

122. The morphology of Proto-Indo-European

2135

Fortson (2010: 119−223), Weiss (2011: 257−262); Meier-Brügger (2010: 336−353) offers the fullest history of research. Despite its widespread acceptance, a rapidly growing body of scholarship has expressed dissatisfaction with the conceptual and empirical limits of this theory (cf. in general Kiparsky 2010a, forthcoming; Keydana 2013b; Kümmel 2014 with reference to Indo-Iranian; and Yates 2016 on Anatolian); we outline some of these criticisms here. One issue concerns the extent of the changes that separate reconstructible PIE forms from the pre-PIE paradigmatic classes. Early work within the paradigmatic framework recognized that this approach, which relies extensively on internal reconstruction, yields paradigms whose patterns of accentual mobility and ablaut grades display numerous mismatches with the patterns observed in the daughter languages, some of which are directly reconstructible for PIE by application of the comparative method (cf. Pedersen 1933: 21). To obtain PIE morphophonology, further diachronic assumptions are therefore required: the pre-PIE paradigmatic classes would be transformed by a series of analogical processes whose combined operations eliminated intraparadigmatic allomorphy by analogical leveling of accent, ablaut, or both (sometimes referred to with the descriptive label “columnarization”). The morphological upheavals here envisaged must have occurred in the internal history of the proto-language, i.e. prior to PIE as accessible by the comparative method, since no daughter language organizes its morphology into productive paradigmatic classes (cf. the methodological discussion by Hale 2010, as well as Stüber 2002: esp. 211−216, both with reference to *es-stems). Because the hypothesized changes are situated deep in prehistory, their plausibility is difficult to evaluate, either within individual classes or collectively, at the systemic level. Beyond these uncertainties, a problematic consequence of the focus on the internally reconstructed pre-proto-language is that much of the morphophonology of PIE and its daughter languages is left unexplained, since the theory was not designed to handle material at this chronological level. For instance, numerous bedrock formations of PIE have no clear position in the paradigmatic classes. The classes refer only to athematic nominal formations of the structure R(oot) + S(uffix) + E(nding), thus excluding thematic nouns and adjectives, athematic nominal formations with multiple derivational suffixes (i.e. of the structure R + S + S (+ S …) + E), and even root nouns. The fact that the paradigmatic approach does not address these PIE formations is not a criticism per se, since this is not strictly the goal of the theory; however, it does mean that this theory, with its pre-PIE focus, sheds little light on the distribution of the accent (discussed in 3.1−3.2 above) or its synchronic relationship to ablaut at the “shallow” chronological stage of PIE which we are reconstructing here and which was inherited directly into the daughter languages. A further criticism relates to the evidential basis for the paradigmatic reconstructions, which in a number of cases has been called into question. For instance, in a widely followed thesis, Kuiper (1942: 221) proposed that the different accentuation of Vedic matí- ‘thought’ beside máti- ‘id.’, coupled with indirect evidence elsewhere, showed a trace of erstwhile intraparadigmatic alternations in an accent and ablaut paradigm, i.e.**mén-ti-,**mn̥-téy- and therefore would be another proterokinetic paradigm (Rix 1992: 146; Schaffner 2001: 436−440). In this case, the zero-grade ablaut of the root in the weak cases would have been leveled throughout the paradigm in Vedic, but with a bifurcating accentual leveling: leveled accent of the strong cases would be preserved in some Vedic traditions (i.e. *má-ti- > máti-), while the leveled accent of the weak cases

2136

XX. Proto-Indo-European

would be preserved in others (i.e. leveled *mn̥-tí- > matí-). It has proven difficult to explain why the directions of leveling have taken the apparently arbitrary courses they have; in this case, however, the quest to do so is in fact a red herring, since the two accentual patterns stand in a clear chronological relationship: accented -tí-stems occur in the oldest textual layers, unaccented -ti- in the younger. Thus early Ved. matí- and later Ved. máti- do not provide evidence for independently leveled bits of a prehistoric paradigm, but instead reflect a Vedic-internal diachronic accentual change that can be otherwise explained (Lundquist 2015; see further below). More generally, Kümmel (2014) has shown that the accent and ablaut of “proterokinetic” nominals in Indo-Iranian is better explained without reference to paradigmatic class, thereby undercutting an important source of evidence for the paradigmatic approach. In assessing accentual change, it has become common practice to treat two attested accentual patterns associated with one suffix as reflecting independent analogical levelings of an alternating paradigm (as in the case of Ved. matí- vs. máti-). However, it has now become clear that (pre-)PIE intraparadigmatic accentual mobility is not a necessary condition for this situation to arise. This point has been conclusively demonstrated by Probert (2006a,b), who investigates the diachronic development in Greek of two morphological categories that are by general agreement reconstructed with fixed word-final surface accent, thematic adjectives (formed with the suffixes *-ro-, *-no-, *-to-, and *-lo-; cf. 2.5) and feminine event/result nouns (formed with *-eh2 ; cf. 2.4.1). While most attested reflexes of these categories show the historically expected pattern, some instead show “recessive” accentuation, thereby arguably exhibiting an accentual change. Probert attributes this change to a process termed “demorphologization” whereby morphologically complex words lose their compositionality due to semantic or formal opacity and come to be treated as monomorphemic (“demorphologized”). As a further consequence, words affected by this morphological change strongly tend to adopt the language’s default accentual pattern (whether or not this occurs depends on word frequency and other factors; cf. Sandell 2015: 192−214) − in Greek, recessive accentuation, which ultimately reflects the BAP in modified form (i.e. leftmost within the accentable domain). The differing surface accents of (e.g.) Gk. ek ht hrós ‘enemy’ and Gk. gū˜ros ‘circle’ thus do not reflect a fundamental difference in the historical formation of each item; rather, the connection between reconstructible *gū-rós ‘circle’ (substantivized from the adj. gū-rós ‘round’) and other *-ro- adjectives became opaque and, as a result, the word was eventually subject to default accentuation, whence *gūr-ós > gū˜ros (on this example see Probert 2006b: 232−233). Cases of this kind show definitively that two accentual patterns can emerge diachronically without an earlier synchronic intraparadigmatic accentual alternation. Furthermore, such cases provide evidence for a type of prosodically optimizing, non-proportional analogical change that can also be observed within the historical record of English (cf. Kiparsky 2015: 82−83). Within the ancient IE languages, the Greek evidence for this type of change finds further support in Vedic, where a similar analysis can account for the development of Vedic *-ti-stems (like Ved. matí- > máti-), as well in the Anatolian languages, where it can explain a variety of forms (such as PIE nasalinfix presents; cf. 4.3.1) that unexpectedly exhibit initial surface accent (i.e. leftmost, in accordance with the PIE default pattern; see Yates 2015). A broader implication of this finding is that the existence of more than one accentual pattern associated with a single suffix is not a sufficient condition to reconstruct an alternating accentual paradigm at any

122. The morphology of Proto-Indo-European

2137

historical stage. To the extent that individual paradigmatic reconstructions are founded on this premise (as in “proterokinetic” *-ti-stems), their (pre-)PIE status must be viewed as uncertain. Finally, taking a still wider perspective, Kiparsky (2010a, forthcoming) in particular has also challenged the typological naturalness of the paradigmatic classes. Although it is true that the typological pool of known morphophonological properties is not comprehensive (see however van der Hulst [1999] on the word prosodic systems of the languages of Europe, as well as the StressTyp2 database site [http://st2.ullet.net//]), no clear parallel for the pre-PIE system has yet been brought forward. Part of the uncertainty here is terminological: before comparing the pre-PIE system to that of another language family, the linguistic claim needs to be formulated more precisely − in what sense do paradigms “exist” in pre-PIE morphology? Are they prosodic templates associated with certain derivational categories, and if so, which ones? Or are they intended to be the surface result of a pre-PIE lexical accent system, perhaps not dissimilar to the one we have reconstructed above? Given the real gaps in knowledge currently facing researchers who reconstruct PIE morphophonology (as outlined above) − in particular, the fact that it is not yet fully clear what determines the surface accent of derivationally complex forms − the amount that can be said confidently about pre-PIE accent and its relation to ablaut is limited. Reconciling the results of research on pre-PIE paradigms with the morphophonology of PIE and its daughter languages will likely remain a major project for years to come.

4. PIE verbal morphology This section provides an overview of the reconstructed morphology of the PIE finite verb and associated non-finite verbal categories such as participles and infinitives. The structure and early history of the PIE verb continues to be one of the most hotly contested areas in IE studies today. While some consensus concerning the reconstruction of the PNIE verb was reached in the early 20 th century, the advent of Anatolian and Tocharian called into question many of the generally accepted features of this traditional reconstruction (see Jasanoff, this handbook). Consequently, much of our discussion focuses, first, on the reconstructible features of the PNIE verb, then we proceed to address the more controversial PIE verb, as well as the issues that problematize its reconstruction. While we attempt to flag serious points of contention and offer critical discussion of the major competing views, non-specialists in particular need to be aware that there is little unanimity in the field on these topics and that, due to limitations of space, not all views can be considered here. Further discussion can be found in recent general overviews of the IE verb, which include Clackson (2007: 90−113), Fortson (2010: 88−112), Weiss (2011: 377−398), and Meier-Brügger (2010: 295−321). The standard reference work in the field is Rix and Kümmel (2001) (=LIV 2 ), a comprehensive collection of reconstructed PIE verbal roots and their verbal formations in the individual languages. Jasanoff (2003a) reexamines the foundations of the IE verb, especially in light of the Anatolian (and to an extent Tocharian) evidence (see too Jasanoff forthcoming b). The collection of papers in Melchert (2012b) is representative of recent research on the IE verb.

2138

XX. Proto-Indo-European

4.1. Structure of the PIE verb As in the nominal domain, PIE verbal morphology was highly affixal. This property is observed in PIE verb inflection where five grammatical categories were distinguished: person, number, voice, tense and mood (we treat aspect [below] as a derivational category). Fusional inflectional suffixes encoded grammatical agreement with the subject (nominative-accusative syntactic alignment; see Keydana, this handbook) for person (1st, 2nd, 3rd) and number (singular, dual, plural), as well as voice (or “diathesis”), either active or middle; for example, *-m is an exponent of the features [1st person, singular, active], while *-o expresses [3 rd person, singular, middle]. Separate segmentable suffixes are reconstructible as markers of tense (non-past; past is unmarked) and mood (subjunctive; optative; imperative; indicative is unmarked). These inflectional categories are discussed individually in 4.2 below. Verbal inflectional suffixes were added to the verbal stem, which was specified with certain grammatical features. In PNIE, verbal roots canonically formed three morphologically distinct verbal stems, traditionally and here referred to as “present,” “aorist,” and “perfect” (see further 4.3 below); this tripartite distinction is maintained only in IndoIranian and Greek. It is widely thought that the three stems expressed primarily differences of grammatical aspect. A speaker could indicate his or her view of the eventuality of the verb as internally complex, which was the work of the present (or “imperfective”) stem; as a bounded, complete whole, using the aorist (or “perfective”) stem; or as a resulting state, using the perfect stem. The three grammatical aspects interact with lexical aspect. By “lexical aspect” (German Aktionsart) we mean the inherent semantics of a verb’s event structure, such as durativity or telicity, which are inherent as opposed to chosen by a speaker to express a viewpoint. In the case of PNIE, it is generally assumed that there was close agreement between grammatical and lexical aspect in the formation of tense-aspect stems: verbal roots with telic lexical aspect had an underived aorist stem (i.e. root aorist), whereas verbs with atelic lexical aspect had an underived present stem (i.e. root present). However, the agreement between lexical aspect and stem formation is in practice not nearly so neat; rather, there are numerous mismatches in both directions, relatively clear cases in which apparently telic roots form underived present stems, and apparently atelic roots form underived aorist stems. We will return to some of the specific mismatches below (4.3). Another real issue with the PIE verbal system stems from the well-known difficulties associated with analyzing the “perfect” as an aspectual category cross-linguistically (cf. Comrie 1976: 52), to which may be added the challenge of establishing the prototypical meaning of the PNIE perfect (see further 4.3.3 below). The question of grammatical aspect and stem formation has been and continues to be a major locus of research in Indo-European linguistics. The deeper prehistory of the PNIE verbal system is one of the most controversial topics in IE linguistics today. In particular, two important structural features of the verbal system reconstructible for PNIE are absent in the Anatolian languages: (i) a grammaticalized aspectual contrast between present and aorist stems; and (ii) the perfect as a grammatical category. It is therefore a priori uncertain whether these verbal features − as well as certain others, like the subjunctive and the optative (see 4.2.4 below) − should be reconstructed for PIE and their absence in Anatolian attributed to historical loss, or whether they should instead be viewed as post-PIE innovations. These issues are dis-

122. The morphology of Proto-Indo-European

2139

cussed in more detail below, but we lay out now the major assumptions that guide our presentation. We adopt the position, shared by the majority of scholars, that PIE had an imperfective/perfective aspectual contrast realized in the distinction between present and aorist stems. With respect to (ii), however, we follow Jasanoff (2003a) in the view that a PIE verbal system was broadly Anatolian-like, in that all verbs belonged to one of two formally distinct but − from a synchronic perspective − functionally undifferentiated conjugational classes, the *m-conjugation or the *h2 e-conjugation. Furthermore, we assume with Jasanoff (forthcoming b) that an important innovation of PNIE − i.e. after the departure of the Anatolian branch − was the grammaticalization of the perfect, which developed out of a set of PIE verbs with the formal characteristics of PNIE perfects, including reduplication and *h2 e-conjugation inflection (see further 4.2 and 4.3.3 below). Adopting these views has significant implications for the PIE verbal system − for instance, on how the inflectional endings of the PIE verb are reconstructed. This issue is addressed further in 4.2.5 and 4.2.6, where the evidence for the reconstruction of PIE *m-conjugation endings and *h2 e-conjugation are separately assessed.

4.2. PIE verbal inflection The PIE verb inflects for five grammatical categories, whose reconstructions are discussed individually below: tense (4.2.1), person and number (4.2.2), voice (4.2.3), and mood (4.2.4). The exponents of person, number, and tense were fusional inflectional suffixes (“personal endings”), which were added directly to a verbal aspectual stem. Two distinct sets of active voice inflectional endings are reconstructible for PIE, one that became associated with the PNIE “perfect” stem and another with the PNIE present and aorist stems; the latter are sometimes referred to together as “eventive” active endings (and the present and aorist stems together as the “eventive” system), a label that stems from the older view that verbs marked with these endings were semantically opposed to a fundamentally stative perfect (now generally viewed as resultative-stative; see further 4.3.3 below). These two sets of active endings have distinct cognates in the Anatolian languages, where all verbs belong to one of two synchronically arbitrary inflectional categories, usually referred to as the mi- and ḫi-conjugations (after their respective 1sg.act.prs. endings in Hittite, -mi and -ḫ[ḫ]i). Active forms of Anatolian mi-conjugation verbs have active personal endings clearly cognate with PNIE present/aorist active endings, and ḫiconjugation verbs with PNIE perfect (active) endings. In what follows, we refer to PIE verbal endings that underlie the former as the endings of the PIE *m-conjugation, and to the latter as the endings of the PIE *h2 e-conjugation; the evidence for their reconstruction is discussed in 4.2.5 and 4.2.6, respectively. In addition, PIE had a third set of verbal inflectional endings associated with the middle voice. The distinction between verbs that select *h2 e-conjugation endings in their active forms and those that select *m-conjugation endings is not realized in their corresponding middle voice forms, both of which are marked by the same set of middle endings; we assess the evidence for the formal reconstruction of these endings in 4.2.7 below.

2140

XX. Proto-Indo-European

4.2.1. Tense Tense is a grammatical category that relates the time of the event described to another point in time, typically to the moment of the utterance (“absolute tense”), but in some cases, to the time of some other discourse-relevant event (“relative tense”) (for the distinction, cf. Comrie 1976: 2). Tense cuts asymmetrically across the PNIE verbal aspectual categories. The imperfective stem shows a morphological contrast between non-past and past tense forms (present vs. imperfect), and according to a majority of researchers, so does the “perfect” stem (perfect vs. pluperfect), while the perfective stem has only forms that lack non-past tense marking (aorist); this system is represented in Table 122.8: Tab. 122.8 Tense-aspect system of PNIE ASPECTUAL STEMS

TENSE

IMPERFECTIVE

PERFECTIVE

“PERFECT”

NON-PAST

present

—

perfect

PAST

imperfect

aorist

pluperfect?

The imperfective and perfect stems differ in the way the tense contrast is encoded. Separate segmentable markers of tense are clearly reconstructible in the imperfective stem, where non-past tense (i.e. present) verbal forms are generally distinguished from past tense (i.e. imperfect) forms by the presence of an additional suffixal element − in the active voice, by the “hic et nunc particle” *-i, and in the middle voice, by *-r (Yoshida 1990; cf. Jasanoff, this handbook). These morphemes may be viewed as markers of non-past tense (i.e. [− past]). Inflectional endings characterized by these suffixal elements are traditionally referred to as “primary” endings, while the unmarked endings of the past tense are called “secondary” (these labels, which confusingly appear to reverse their morphological relationship, are due to their association with “sequences of tenses” in traditional grammars, “primary” and “secondary” respectively). Thus (e.g.) the PNIE 1sg.pres.act. was marked with the primary ending *-m-i (vs. the imperfect “secondary” ending *-m), and the 3sg.pres.mid. form was marked with the primary ending *-o-r/*-to-r (vs. imperfect *-o/-to); for the precise distribution of these tense markers and the evidence for their reconstruction, see the detailed discussion of the reconstructible verbal “personal endings” in 4.2.5 and 4.2.7 below. The aorist employs the same secondary endings as the imperfect, and is thus formally indistinguishable from the imperfect in certain stem classes (cf. 4.3). Whether PNIE had a tense contrast in the “perfect” stem has long been debated (cf. Wackernagel 1926−1928 [2009]: 238 with references to older literature). It is now the majority view that the pluperfect, a past tense of the perfect, should be reconstructed for this stage (see especially Jasanoff 2003a: 34−43). The synchronic systems of both Greek and Vedic include a separate pluperfect tense generally functioning as a past tense to the perfect, but its PNIE status is complicated by serious difficulties in reconstructing the formal markers of this category − in particular, reconciling what appear to be significant discrepancies between the Greek and Vedic inflectional endings. It is most likely, however, that the PNIE pluperfect was formed by addition of the secondary endings associated with the present/aorist system to the perfect stem, as in Vedic, e.g., 1sg. ávedam ‘I

122. The morphology of Proto-Indo-European

2141

knew’ (to the unreduplicated perfect véda ‘knows’; cf. 4.3.2 below); 3sg. á-bi-bhe-t ‘feared’ (to the presential perfect bi-bhāy-a ‘fears’). For a possible (albeit complicated) scenario by which the same endings underlie the markers of the Greek pluperfect, see Katz (2008) and Jasanoff and Katz (2017). The reconstruction of a future, i.e. as a morphologically distinct, inflectional category of the verb, is controversial. Futurity could be expressed by the present indicative stem with or without an adverb expressly indicating the future (on expressions of the future in ancient IE languages, see Wackernagel 1926−1928 [2009]: 246−265 and refs. in 247 n.14). Additionally, the subjunctive could refer to the future, with further modal meanings, in at least PNIE. A desiderative suffix *-h1 se/o- meaning ‘wanting to do X’ comes to mark the future in a number of daughter languages. This suffix appears to be composed of the thematic vowel combined with a desiderative morpheme (*-h1 s-e/o-) as reflected directly in Greek, indirectly elsewhere (for instance in the Celtic futures descended from desideratives; cf. Stüber, this handbook). Examples from Greek include tenéō, tenō˜ ‘I will stretch’ < *ten-h1 s-e/o- (cf. pres. teínō), or dérk-so-mai ‘I will see’ < *derk-(h1 )s-e/o-. What is very likely the same suffix with a slight formal innovation, viz. *-h1 s-ye/o-, underlies the futures in Indo-Iranian and Baltic; e.g., Ved. drak-ṣyá-ti ‘he will see’ < *derk-h1 s-ye-ti (on this morpheme cf. Jasanoff 2003a: 134−135; note that others − e.g., Willi 2011 − would derive this future instead from an *s-aorist subjunctive). An additional prefix *(h1 )e-, the “augment,” marks past tenses in Indo-Iranian, Greek, Phrygian, and, in a phonologically restricted way, Classical Armenian. Examples include Ved. á-han ‘he smashed’ < *e-gwhen-t (cf. 3sg.prs.act. *gwhén-ti ‘smashes’), Gk. é-p her-e ‘he was carrying’ < *e-b her-e-t (cf. 3.sg.pres.act. *b her-e-ti ‘he carries’). However, in the earliest Indo-Iranian and Greek texts past tense forms are not obligatorily marked with the augment, which looks instead like an emerging, additional marker of [past]. Since no certain traces of the augment have been found in other IE languages, augmented verbal forms are not reconstructible for PIE. The augment is most often derived from a temporal deictic particle *h1 e ‘then’ (cf. e.g., Meier-Brügger 2010: 315−316 with references), although other etymological attempts have been made: Watkins (1963) (= 1994: 3−51) derives the augment from a sentence connective seen in Anatolian (but cf. Melchert forthcoming a); as an alternative proposal, Willi (2007) proposes to derive it from a reduplicating syllable, originally marking perfective aspect and only secondarily past tense.

4.2.2. Person and number There is general consensus that the PIE verb was morphologically marked for three persons (1st, 2nd, 3rd) and three numbers (singular, dual, plural). Of these features, only the dual is somewhat uncertain. As in the nominal system (cf. 2.1.2 above), the Anatolian languages synchronically lack dual number. It is generally held that the 1du. marker (of the *m-conjugation) has ousted the 1pl. marker in the prehistory of Anatolian. The ProtoAnatolian 1pl. primary active ending may be uncontroversially reconstructed as *-weni (based on e.g., Hitt. -weni, Pal. -wini/-wani, CLuw. -unni < *-weni). Because of the resemblance of initial w in *-weni to the reconstructed dual *-we-, it is thought that 1pl. *-weni is ultimately cognate with the ending of (primary/secondary) 1du. in Indo-

2142

XX. Proto-Indo-European

Iranian (Ved. -vaḥ/-va) and Balto-Slavic (Lith. -va, OCS -vě). The n-element would be presumably the same as in the Gk. 1pl. -men (cf. Jasanoff 2003a: 3, and cf. n.39; 47n.98; more hesitantly, Kloekhorst 2008: 1000−1001). Against this reconstruction, we note that the diachronic change whereby a dual ousts the plural is not typologically trivial (see Corbett [2000: 38−50, 268−271] for possible examples and discussion), and that no Anatolian language shows any other trace of the dual in the verb or in pronouns (possible traces in the noun are discussed in 2.1.2 above). Although no alternative scenario has yet won acceptance, it may be the case that Proto-Anatolian *-weni does not reflect an erstwhile dual marker (blended from du. *-wes and pl. *-meni). One attractive (if speculative) suggestion would reconstruct the cross-linguistically common category “inclusive” for the marker *-we, which would then have become the Anatolian 1pl. *-weni and the PNIE 1du., thus constituting another significant rift between the PIE and PNIE verb; for this reconstruction, see Watkins (1969: 46−48) (cf. Sihler 1993).

4.2.3. Voice Two morphological voices are reconstructible for PIE, active and middle. This bivalent system is maintained unaltered in Anatolian and Tocharian; the opposition between active and middle is also continued in Indo-Iranian and in Greek, albeit with the later development of a separate (partially morphologically distinct) passive voice in these branches. This opposition is securely reconstructible only for the PNIE present/aorist system. Indo-Iranian and Greek both synchronically make middle forms to the perfect stem, but do so using the same morphology as the present/aorist system (rather than distinctive PNIE “perfect” morphology); this lack of differentiation suggests that the development of the perfect middle as a category was chronologically “late,” although potentially already a feature of PNIE itself (cf. Jasanoff 2003a: 44−45). Active and middle voices are characterized by distinctive inflectional endings. The active and middle endings reconstructible for PNIE generally bear little formal relationship to one another (e.g., 1sg.prs.act. *-mi vs. mid. *-h2 er); rather, the middle endings closely resemble the endings of the PNIE perfect (active), a feature which has been argued to reflect a prePIE connection between them (on which see 4.2.7 below). Already by the PIE stage, however, the middle had become both formally and functionally differentiated from the ancestor of the PNIE perfect. One core function of the PIE middle was to express subject affectedness, which is clearly observed in transitive verbal stems that alternate between active and middle forms. In such oppositional pairs, middle morphology marks verbs that are reflexive (e.g., mid. Gk. loúe-tai ‘washes him/ herself’ vs. act. loú-ei ‘washes’), reciprocal (Ved. yúdhy-ante, Hitt. zaḫḫiy-anta ‘they fight each other’ vs. Ved. yúdhy-anti, Hitt. zaḫḫiy-anzi ‘they fight [someone]’), and selfbenefactive (Ved. yája-te ‘sacrifices for his/her own benefit’ vs. yája-ti ‘sacrifices’). Middle morphology is also frequently used when the subject of a verb (transitive or intransitive) is non-agentive. It therefore surfaces on anticausatives in “causative alternation” verbs (see, e.g., Haspelmath 1993) − for instance, mid. Gk. p húe-tai, Ved. várdha-te ‘grows (intr.)’ vs. act. Gk. p hú-ei, Ved. várdh-ati ‘grows (tr.)’. Many non-agentive verbs, however, are media tantum, i.e. take only middle morphology. The class of PNIE media tantum − traditionally referred to in the IE literature as “deponents” (following Latin

122. The morphology of Proto-Indo-European

2143

grammarians) − includes many verbs belonging to semantic types that cross-linguistically tend to exhibit middle morphology in languages where such dedicated morphology exists (see Kemmer 1993: 41−94). These types include: verbs of cognition, e.g., PNIE *mn̥-yé-tor > OIr. -maine-thar ‘thinks’, >> Ved. mánya-te, ‘id.’, Gk. maíne-tai ‘rages’; non-translational motion verbs, e.g., PNIE *sék w-e-tor ‘accompanies; follows’ > Lat. sequi-tur, OIr. sechi-thir, >> Ved. sáca-te, OAv. hacai-tē, Gk. hépe-tai, PNIE *h3 ér-(t)o > Ved. (prá) ār-ta ‘set forth’, Gk. ō˜r-to ‘arose’ (and from the same root, Lat. ori-tur ‘rises’); and stative verbs, e.g., PIE wés-(t)or ‘wears’ > Hitt. wēš-ta, >> Ved. vás-te, OAv. vas-tē, Gk. heĩ-tai. The IE languages also attest a number of agentive media tantum verbs, e.g., Ved. dáya-te, Gk. daíe-tai ‘distributes’; TA/B pāṣ-tär, Hitt. paḫḫš-ari ‘protects’. Several verbs of this type − which notably exhibit a “mismatch” between semantics and morphology − are reconstructible for the proto-language; for an assessment of the evidence, see Grestenberger (2014a: 225−253, 2016). No separate passive can be reconstructed for PIE (or PNIE), its functions being expressed by middle morphology (for which reason it is often referred to as “mediopassive”). The passive use of the middle is attested in all of the oldest IE languages (cf. Hettrich 1990), including with expressed agent (in the instrumental case; see Jamison 1979a,b; Melchert 2016a), although the rarity of examples within these languages suggests that this usage was relatively uncommon. A separate passive voice with distinctive morphology arises in many of the daughter languages (with or without loss of the middle). For instance, in the imperfective stem Vedic has an opposition between middle and passive, adding to the root the (always accented) suffix -yá- (a specialization of PIE *-yé/ó-; cf. 4.3.1) plus middle morphology to mark passive voice, e.g., (3sg.prs.pass.) Ved. kṣī-yá-te ‘is destroyed’ (cf. mid. kṣī́-ya-te ‘perishes’ with root accent) (see Kulikov 2012). Meanwhile, in Greek a similar opposition developed in the perfective stem, with the emergence of a distinct aorist passive formed by suffixation of *-(t h)ē- plus secondary active endings to the verbal root, e.g., (3sg.aor.pass.) Gk. e-gráp h-ē ‘it was written’, e-lū́-t hē ‘it was released’ (cf. mid. e-gráp-sa-to ‘wrote for him/herself,’ e-lū́-sa-to ‘released him/herself’). It is standardly assumed that the passive usage was an inner-Greek innovation, with the original core of the category formed by non-passive intransitive (i.e. anticausative) aorists, e.g., e-mán-ē ‘went mad’, e-(w)ág-ē ‘broke’; on the historical origin of this category, see 4.3.1 below, and for discussion of the -ē-/-t hē- alternation in the suffix, see Jasanoff (2003b: 165−167 with references). An older position − advanced by Oettinger (1976), influentially upheld by Rix (1988), and presupposed in LIV 2 − maintains that PIE had a third voice beside active and middle, the “stative” (Germ. Stativ). According to this view, the “stative” is continued in IndoIranian verbal forms like 3sg.prs. Ved. śáy-e ‘lies’, pl. śé-re (= YAv. sōi-re/saē-re), and ipfc. á-śe-ran (< *kéy-o-i, -ro-i, -ro[n]), which semantically indicate a state, and are marked with endings that share features with the regular endings of the middle (3sg.prs. -te < *-to-i) and the perfect active (3s.pfc. -a < *-e; pl. -ur < *-r̥s) but differ synchronically from both. However, clear typological parallels for a trivalent voice system contrasting active, middle, and stative are lacking, and the actual evidence in support of reconstructing a third voice is slim. Only in the third person (sg./pl.) would distinctive “stative” endings be reconstructible; elsewhere in their paradigm, the relevant verbs use ordinary middle morphology (e.g., 2sg.prs. Ved. śé-ṣe ‘you lie’), and functionally equivalent forms are attested in later texts marked with synchronically regular middle endings (3sg.prs.mid.

2144

XX. Proto-Indo-European

Ved. śé-te [= YAv. saē-te], pl. śé-r-ate ‘lie[s]’). Moreover, in Anatolian, there is robust evidence for a 3sg.npst.mid. ending *-or (e.g., CLuw. ziy-ar ‘lies’; see further 4.2.7 below), from which the “stative” 3sg.prs. ending *-oi can be derived straightforwardly by regular Indo-Iranian replacement of the inherited *r-present tense marker of the middle with the *-i of the active (cf. 3sg.prs.mid. Ved. -te < PIIr. -tai *-si; thus paḫši ‘protect!’ would derive from a subjunctive *peh2 -s-(e-s)i. There is evidence from Indo-Iranian, Celtic, and Tocharian for reflexes of an imperative in *-s-e-si > *-si (see Jasanoff 2003a: 182−183 with references); however, it should be emphasized that Jasanoff’s (2012a) proposed Anatolian reflex of *-s(es)i would be the sole Anatolian outcome of the PIE subjunctive.

122. The morphology of Proto-Indo-European

2147

4.2.4.3. Optative The PIE optative expressed at least wishes and potentialities (traditionally “cupitive” and “potential”, respectively). In a more nuanced reading of the moods in Homeric Greek, Willmott (2007: 113−152, esp. 120−121) argues that the optative shows broadly “negative epistemic stance,” i.e. the optative indicates that the event is not in line with the speaker’s view of the world. The mark of the PIE optative was an ablauting suffix *-yeh1 /ih1 - added to athematic stems, non-ablauting *-ih1 - to thematic stems (*-o-ih1 -), plus the secondary endings. Thus to the root *h1 es- ‘be’ would be formed the 3sg.act.opt. *h1 s-yeh1 -t ‘he would be’, and to the thematic stem *b her-e/o- ‘carry’ would be formed 3sg.act.opt. *b her-o-ih1 -t ‘he would carry’. We note here that the thematic vowel and the optative suffix − *-o- + *-ih1 - − appear not to have contracted within PIE; evidence from the daughter languages suggests that the two morphemes remained disyllabic (for possible reasons why, see Jasanoff 2009). Table 122.11 provides illustrative optative forms for athematic and thematic present stems: Tab. 122.11 Athematic and thematic present optatives ATHEMATIC

THEMATIC

Ved.

Gk.

Lat.

PIE

Ved.

Gk.

PIE

syā́t

eíē

siēt

*h1 s-yéh1 -t

bháret

p héroi

*b hér-o-ih1 -t

syā́ma

eĩmen

sīmus

*h1 s-ih1 -me-

bhárema

p héroimen

*b hér-o-ih1 -me-

The optative is well-preserved in Greek and Indo-Iranian. In other branches, reflexes of the optative are clearly inherited but go by different names. For instance, the Italic subjunctive reflects in part the optative; we have used the verb siēt (Cl.Lat. sit), sīmus to illustrate the paradigm (fuller details in Vine, this handbook). In Balto-Slavic, the optative develops into the synchronic imperative (standard Lithuanian “permissive”); in Tocharian, the optative has become the optative of TA and TB, as well as the TB imperfect; etc. Once again, Anatolian presents a divergent picture: there is no evidence for the optative in Anatolian. This absence could be interpreted as either loss (the optative would be inherited into Proto-Anatolian, with subsequent evanescence) or non-inheritance (i.e. Anatolian branched off before the category had developed). We think the latter option is likelier, but the matter is still sub iudice.

4.2.5. Verbal endings of the PIE *m-conjugation It was noted in 4.2 that PIE had two sets of reconstructible active verbal endings, fusional exponents of person, number, and voice. One of these sets was the common source of the active verbal endings of the PNIE present/aorist system and of the Anatolian miconjugation. We refer to these endings as the PIE *m-conjugation endings. Verbal stems selecting the PIE *m-conjugation endings can be further subdivided into two conjugational classes, athematic and thematic, the latter characterized by a stemfinal ablauting thematic vowel (*o/e). As in the noun (cf. 2.1.1), the distinction between these classes was purely formal. With the notable exception of the 1sg.prs.act. ending

2148

XX. Proto-Indo-European

(and for some scholars also the 3sg.prs.act.; see below), thematic verbs have the same inflectional endings as the athematic classes, being formally distinguished from the latter only by the presence of the thematic vowel, which has *o-quality in 1sg./pl. and 3pl. paradigmatic forms and *e-quality elsewhere − thus (e.g.) 1sg.act.ipfc. athematic *-m vs. thematic *-o-m; 3sg. *-t vs. *-e-t; 3pl. *-(e)nt vs. *-o-nt. The exceptional 1(/3)sg.act. primary thematic endings are discussed below together with their corresponding athematic endings. The PIE athematic *m-conjugation inflectional endings that are securely reconstructible are given in Table 122.12. A following hyphen (-) indicates the possibility that the PIE ending had additional segmental material, the reconstruction of which is problematized by conflicting evidence in the daughter languages. The evidence for these individual reconstructions, as well as their problematic or controversial aspects, are discussed further immediately below. Tab. 122.12 PIE *m-conjugation active endings SINGULAR ry

1

PLURAL ry

2

1

ry

ry

2

1ST

*-mi

*-m

*-me-?

2ND

*-si

*-s

*-te-

3RD

*-ti

*-t

*-(e)nti

*-(e)nt

The reconstruction of the primary (athematic) singular active endings is wholly uncontroversial and supported by robust evidence across the daughter languages. The 1sg.act. ending *-mi is clearly attested in (e.g.) Gk. ei-mí, Ved. ás-mi, OAv. ah-mī, OCS jes-mǐ, Hitt. ēš-mi ‘I am’, and somewhat less transparently in VOLat. ES-OM (Lat. s-um), Goth. i-m, OIr. a-m (< PIE *h1 és-mi). The 2sg.act. ending *-si is continued in Ved. á-si, OAv. a-hī ‘you are’, as well as Gk. e-ĩ (< PGk. *e-hi), Goth. i-s (< PIE *h1 é-si with degemination of */s-s/; see Byrd, this handbook). For this lexical item, some languages attest only forms with root-final *s analogically restored (e.g., OLat. es-s, Hitt. eš-ši; pace Kloekhorst 2016: 238−241), or else such forms coexist with the directly inherited ones (e.g., Hom. Gk. es-si). The 3sg.act. ending *-ti is reflected in Gk. es-tí, Ved. ás-ti, OAv. as-tī, OLith. ẽs-ti, ORuss. jes-tĭ, CLuw. āš-ti ‘is’, and additionally, in Lat. es-t, Goth. is-t, OIr. is (< PIE *h1 és-ti). Thematic inflection differs substantially from athematic in the primary 1sg.act. ending, where the daughter languages reflect an ending *-ō instead of expected x*-o-mi, e.g., Gk. p hér-ō, Lat. fer-ō, Goth. bair-a, OCS ber-ǫ ‘I bear’ (< PNIE *b her-ō); this morphological irregularity was eliminated within some language branches, e.g., IndoIranian (cf. Ved. bhár-āmi, OP bar-āmiy, YAv. bar-āmi ‘id.’). It is the majority view that thematic 1sg. *-ō historically contains the same suffix *-h2 e that is found in the 1sg. endings of the PNIE perfect (active) and the middle voice (PNIE pfc.act. *-h2 e, 1sg.mid. *-h2 e-r; see further below). Since Pedersen (1938: 80−86), some scholars have suspected that the simple thematic conjugation, the PNIE perfect, and the middle voice are historically related; pursuing this hypothesis, Watkins (1969: 66−69, 105−123, et passim) proposed that *-ō descends from a unitary pre-PIE type underlying these three categories

122. The morphology of Proto-Indo-European

2149

(later developed by Jasanoff [1978, 1998, 2003a, et seq.] as the “proto-middle;” see further discussion in 4.2.7), whose verbal paradigm had a 1sg. ending in **-h2 e and 3sg. in **-e (like the *h2 e-conjugation; see 4.2.6 below). Some members of this category were eventually thematized − according to Watkins (1969), via reanalysis of 3sg. forms like **b her-e as zero-marked **b here-0̸, whence new 1sg. **b hér(–)e/o-h2 e. Generally these “pre-thematic” forms would then be re-characterized with ordinary PNIE *m-conjugation active endings (e.g., 2sg. *b hér-e-si), but 1sg. **-e/o-h2 e was exceptionally retained, developing into P(N)IE *-ō (probably via *-oh2 , with apocope due to the same phonological process as in the thematic neuter dual ending; see 2.1.1). Watkins (1969) further argued that t-less 3sg. forms like **b her(-)e are directly reconstructible for PIE. Most of Watkins’ comparative evidence for this reconstruction (from Tocharian, Celtic, and Balto-Slavic) can be explained more straightforwardly as reflexes of *-e-ti (see Jasanoff 2003a: 59−60). Somewhat more problematic is the evidence from Greek, where it is maintained by some (e.g., Rau 2009b: 186 n. 14) that thematic verbs like Gk. p hér-ei ‘carries’ directly continue **b her(-)e-i (with only the addition of the present tense marker *-i; cf. 4.2.1). However, this analysis would imply a surprising divergence between Greek and other NIE languages with closely related verbal morphology (esp. Indo-Iranian, e.g., 3sg. Ved. -a-ti); economy therefore recommends the alternative approach, first proposed by Kiparsky (1967) and revised by Cowgill (1985a, 2006b) and Willi (2012), which derives the Greek thematic 3sg. ending -ei from *-e-ti via metathesis at word boundary followed by the regular loss of word-final stops in Greek (i.e. *-eti# > *-ei-t# > -ei#). Thus only a single thematic 3sg. ending *-e-ti is securely reconstructible for PIE, although Watkins’ (1969) t-less reconstruction may have obtained at an earlier, pre-PIE stage (cf. Jasanoff 2003a: 148−149). Similarly straightforward is the reconstruction of the secondary singular active endings. The 1sg.act. ending-m is reflected in (aor.) Ved. á-sthā-m, Gk. é-stē-n ‘I stood’ (< PNIE *steh2 -m), as well as in the Latin (synchronic) imperfect ending -bā-m (see Vine, this handbook). Thematic verbs show the expected 1sg.act. ending *-om, e.g., Gk. é-p her-on, Ved. á-bhar-am, YAv. bar-əm, OP a-bar-am ‘I was bearing’ (< PNIE *bhér-om). The 2sg.act. ending *-s is directly continued in Ved. á-dhā-s, OAv. dā-s(-ca) ‘you placed’, Hitt. tē-s ‘you said’ (< *d heh1 -s), as well as the Germanic weak preterite ending (e.g., Goth. -de-s, OIc. -ðe-r), which should likely be traced back to the same PIE form (see Harðarson, this handbook). Further reflexes include (Dor.) Gk. é-bā-s ‘you went’, Ved. á-gā-s, (< *gweh2 -s), and the Latin imperfect ending -bā-s. The 3sg.act. ending *-t is evident in (aor.) Ved. á-dhā-t, (Boet.) Gk. (an)é-t hē ‘placed’, and (pst.) Hitt. tē-t ‘said’ (< aor. *d heh1 -t ‘placed’, with semantic innovation in Hittite). Somewhat more problematic is the reconstruction of the PIE 1pl.act. endings. Several of the attested primary and secondary endings in the daughter languages continue *-me(e.g., Ved. 1ry -mas[i] / 2ry -ma, OAv. -mahī /-mā [< PIIr. *-mas(i)/-ma]; Att.-Ion. Gk. -men, Dor. Gk. -mes), which is expected on structural grounds, but Italic and Slavic both reflect an o-grade *-mo- (Lat. -mus, OCS -mŭ), and at least Lith. -me appears to require a lengthened variant *-mē; it is uncertain whether these differences are due to independent innovations within these languages or reflect phonologically-conditioned allomorphy already at the P(N)IE stage (cf. Weiss 2011: 385−386). There is also variation within and across language branches with respect to the post-vocalic segment: Latin -mos, Dor. Gk. -mes, and PIIr. (1ry) *-mas(i) contain an element *s, while Att-Ion. -men has

2150

XX. Proto-Indo-European

*n in its place, thus matching Anatolian (e.g., Hitt. 1ry -w[/m]eni / 2ry -w[/m]en; on the fluctuation of the ending’s initial consonant and its possible dual origin, see further in 4.2.2). Furthermore, it is unclear whether the primary and secondary endings were differentiated: past and present tense verbal forms in Greek, Italic, and Balto-Slavic reflexes of the PNIE 1pl. are identical, but in Indo-Iranian the primary ending is distinguished by an additional post-vocalic *s (plus the “hic et nunc” particle *-i in all Avestan and some Vedic forms, which similarly characterizes non-past tense forms in Anatolian). Similar issues arise in the reconstruction of the PIE 2pl.act. endings, which had the basic shape *-te-, e.g., Gk. -te, Lat. -tis, OCS -te and Goth. -þ. It is unclear whether there was any distinction between primary and secondary forms; the four languages cited above employ the same ending for both, but in Indo-Iranian, the primary ending PIIr. *-t ha (> Ved. -tha, OAv. -θā) contrasts with secondary *-ta (> Ved. -ta, OAv. -tā) (see Kümmel, this handbook). As in the 1pl. ending, Latin shows a post-vocalic segment *-s, while Anatolian has *-n (Hitt. 1ry -teni / 2ry -ten), but neither has external comparative support from Greek or Indo-Iranian. Lith. *-te reflects a lengthened variant *-tē just as in the 1pl. ending. The PIE athematic primary 3pl. act. ending was *-enti, e.g., prs. Ved. s-ánti, Myc. Gk. e-e-si [eh-ensi], Hitt. aš-anzi , Osc. s-ent, Goth. sind, OIr. it [id] (< PIE *h1 s-énti ‘they are’). The corresponding secondary ending was *-ent (aor. PIE *gw[e]h2 -ent ‘they went’ > Ved. á-gan, Gk. é-ban; cf. perhaps Pal. -Vnta [-nt]). Zero-grade allomorphs of these endings 1ry *-n̥ti / 2ry *-n̥t are also attested in several NIE languages in athematic verbal formations that had fixed accent on a syllable preceding the ending: “Narten presents” (e.g., Ved. tákṣ-ati ‘they fashion’ < *té-tk̑-n̥ti); reduplicated presents (Ved. dád-ati ‘they give’ < *dé-dh3 -n̥ti; simple thematic presents (Ved. bhár-a-nti) (with automatic *-nti following a vowel) and s-aorists (Gk. é-deik-s-an ‘they showed’ < *deik̑s-n̥t; OCS (po-)grĕ-s-ę ‘they buried’ (1/2ry) Ved. -vas/-va, OCS -vě, Lith. -va (for Germanic traces, cf. Prokosch 1939: 212; Ringe 2006: 136); although dual number is absent as a grammatical category in the Anatolian languages, it is generally held that the Anatolian 1pl.act. endings (Hitt. -w[/m]eni, CLuw. -unni, Pal. -wini/wani) derive from *-we- and thereby support projecting this ending back to PIE (but cf. 4.2.2 above). There is also comparative NIE evidence for reconstructing the 2du.act. ending as *-to- (> 2ry Ved. -tam, Gk. -ton, OCS -ta). A secondary 3du. ending *-teh2 m is perhaps reconstructible as well in view of agreement between Gk. -tēn and Ved. -tām, but the P(N)IE situation is complicated by a mismatch in the corresponding primary ending between Gk. -ton and Ved. -tas.

4.2.6. Verbal endings of the PIE *h2 e-conjugation In addition to the m-conjugation endings (4.2.5), PIE had a second set of active verbal endings that developed, on the one hand, into the endings of the PNIE perfect active and, on the other, into the endings of the Anatolian ḫi-conjugation. PIE reconstructions

122. The morphology of Proto-Indo-European

2151

for these inflectional endings − referred to here as the *h2 e-conjugation endings − are given in Table 122.13; note, however, that these reconstructions − much more so than the *m-conjugation endings discussed in 4.2.5 above or the middle endings in 4.2.7 below − are quite uncertain. In particular, reconstructing the distinction between primary and secondary endings in the *h2 e-conjugation is highly problematic, in part because only Anatolian provides direct evidence for the original morphological opposition (the PNIE pluperfect uses *m-conjugation secondary endings; see 4.2.3 above), and in part due to open (and much disputed) questions surrounding the prehistory of the PNIE perfect − above all, whether the perfect endings stand in correspondence with (and so provide evidence for the reconstruction of) PIE primary endings (as recently argued by [e.g.] Jasanoff 2003a, Oettinger 2006) or with secondary endings (per Jasanoff forthcoming b). These issues are discussed below, together with the evidence for the formal reconstruction of the *h2 e-endings. Tab. 122.13 PIE *h2 e-conjugation endings SINGULAR

PLURAL

ry

ry 2

1ST

*-h2 ei?

*-h2 e

2ND

*-th2 ei

*-th2 e

*-te?

*-e?, *-s?

3RD

*-ei?

*-e?, *-s(t)?

*-(e)nti

*-(e)rs?

1

1

ry

2

ry

*-me-?

The PIE 1sg.act. primary and secondary endings of the *h2 e-conjugation were probably *-h2 ei and *-h2 e, respectively. Both are directly reflected in Anatolian, the former in Old Hitt. -ḫḫe (e.g., dā-ḫḫe ‘I take’; replaced by -ḫḫi in younger texts), and the latter in CLuw. -(ḫ)ḫa, Lyc. -xa (CLuw. a-ḫa, Lyc. a-xa ‘I made’; Hitt. -(ḫ)ḫun is remodeled on the basis of the corresponding mi-conjugation ending). The 1sg. ending of the PNIE perfect is *-h2 e, which yields Gk. -a, PIIr. *-a, and Goth. -0̸ (e.g., Gk. oĩd-a, Ved. véd-a, OAv. vaēd-ā, Goth. wait ‘I know’ < PIE *woid-h2 e). In Italic and Slavic, the perfect ending was recharacterized with the present tense marker *-i (i.e. *-h2 e-i), whence (e.g.) OCS věd-ě ‘I know’, Fal. PE:PARAI ‘I got’ (cf. Lat. -ī; see Weiss 2011: 392). The formal identity between the endings of the PNIE perfect and the secondary endings of the *h2 e-conjugation suggests that the former historically descend from the latter, and thereby offers some support for Jasanoff’s (forthcoming b) recent derivation of the perfect from a PIE reduplicated *h2 e-conjugation aorist (rather than a reduplicated present, as per Jasanoff 2003a: 168−169, Oettinger 2006, i.a.). There is some evidence to suggest that the presence of the present tense marker *-i in the primary ending *-h2 ei was a relatively recent innovation in PIE: the synchronically irregular m-conjugation 1sg.act. primary thematic ending *-ō should probably be traced back to *-e/o-h2 e (as discussed in 4.2.5), which would contain a 1sg.act. ending *-h2 e unmarked for tense. Yet given the robust evidence across the IE languages for a formal opposition in singular verbal endings between primary and secondary forms, it seems more likely that pre-PIE **-h2 e was recharacterized as *-h2 ei already in PIE, and thus that the development of *mconjugation thematic 1sg. *-ō also occurred prior to PIE (cf. 4.2.5 above). The PIE 2sg.act. primary and secondary endings were likely *-th2 ei and *-th2 e. The primary ending is indirectly reflected in Hitt. -(t)ti (phonologically expected -te* having

2152

XX. Proto-Indo-European

been analogically replaced already in the oldest texts). Just as in the first singular, the inherited secondary ending appears to be continued not only in 2sg.pst.act. Hitt. -tta (e.g., da-tta ‘you took’), but also in PNIE 2sg.pfc.act.*-th2 e, which yields the regular perfect ending in Indo-Iranian (PIIr. *-t ha), e.g., Ved. dadhā-tha, OAv. dadā-θā ‘you have placed’; Ved. vét-tha, OAv. vōis-tā ‘you know’. Cognate Gk. oĩs-t ha ‘id.’ exceptionally preserves the same ending, although elsewhere it has been replaced by -as (e.g., tét hēk-as ‘you have placed’), with the -s of the *m-conjugation active and a-vocalism by analogy to the 1sg. -a (see above). The second element of the Latin perfect ending -is-tī (e.g., fēc-istī ‘you made’) also continues *-th2 e-i, with the inner-Italic addition of the tense marker *-i. The reconstruction of the PIE 3sg.act. ending is a vexed question. The primary ending in PIE was likely *-ei, which is marginally continued in Old Hitt. -e (e.g., waršš-e ‘wipes’; replaced by -i in younger texts); it is unlikely that Gk. them. 3sg.act. -ei derives from *-ei despite its superficial resemblance (cf. 4.2.5 above). Jasanoff (2003a: 70−71, 2012c) argues that the primary/secondary distinction was instead realized in the *h2 econjugation by an opposition between *-e and *-et, with the latter recharacterized by *m-conjugation 3sg.act. *-t already in PIE; see however Kim (2005: 195) for the PIE primary ending as *-ei with regular tense marking. Still more problematic is the corresponding secondary ending, for which at least two forms are arguably reconstructible. One of these is structurally expected *-e, which is reflected in PNIE 3sg.pfc.act. *-e (> Ved. -a, OAv. -ā, Gk. -e, Goth. -0̸). The other is *-s(t), which is reflected in Hitt. -š (e.g., dā-š ‘took’) and in the ending associated with Tocharian Class III preterites, TB/ A -sa/-äs (e.g., prek-sa/prak-äs ‘asked’; see Melchert 2015). Both forms have strong claim to antiquity. Jasanoff’s (forthcoming b) derivation of the PNIE perfect from a reduplicated *h2 e-conjugation aorist requires that *-e marked the 3sg. in this category at the stage prior to its post-PIE grammaticalization as the perfect. However, the match between Hittite and Tocharian with respect to structurally unmotivated *-s(t) is prima facie evidence for a morphological archaism, and on these grounds Melchert (2015) argues that it is the original marker of the 3sg. *h2 e-conjugation aorists (cf. Watkins 1969: 54; Yoshida 1993: 33−34). The distribution of these endings in PIE remains at present unresolved. In PIE, the *h2 e-conjugation and the *m-conjugation appear to have had the same 1pl.act. ending *-me-, which marked both primary and secondary forms (cf. 4.2.5 above). The ending *-me is reflected in PNIE 1pl.pfc.act. *-me (> Gk. [w]íd-men, Ved. vid-má ‘we know’) and in both primary and secondary forms of ḫi-conjugation verbs in Anatolian, which have 1pl.act. forms that are inflectionally identical to mi-verbs (i.e. Hitt. 1ry -w[/m]eni / 2ry -w[/m]en). See, however, Jasanoff (2003a: 32) for the possibility that Ved. -mā (e.g., vid-mā́ ‘id.’) − synchronically, a lengthened allomorph of the ending − derives rather from a PIE form with final laryngeal (e.g., *-mehx ) that was once unique to the *h2 e-conjugation. Similarly, the PIE 2pl.act. primary ending of the *h2 e-conjugation was most likely *-te, just as in the *m- conjugation (cf. 4.2.5 above); it is continued in Anatolian, e.g., 2pl.prs.act. Hitt. da-tteni ‘you (pl.) take’. Reflexes of *-te are also attested in the PNIE perfect (Gk. [w]ís-te, Goth. wit-uþ ‘you [pl.] know’), but these have clearly been analogically introduced from the *m-conjugation, since Ved. -a (e.g., vid-á ‘id.’) preserves the inherited PNIE 2pl.pfc.act. ending *-e. More complicated is the corresponding secondary ending, for which two forms are potentially reconstructible for PIE: the *-e ending just

122. The morphology of Proto-Indo-European

2153

noted, and *-s, which according to Melchert (2015) is reflected (with additional morphological material) in both Anatolian (Hitt. -šten, e.g., dai-šten ‘you [pl.] placed’; cf. Kloekhorst 2008: 498) and Tocharian (2pl.pret.act. PT *-sV[s]; see Malzahn 2010 for TB/A outcomes, as well as references to alternative explanations). Agreement between Hittite and Tocharian would argue strongly that *-s is an archaic feature, a common retention of these branches. However, there are compelling reasons to believe that *-e is also archaic: analogical explanation is not viable, since it bears no affinity to any other PIE 2pl. ending, For this reason the ending is liable to diachronic renewal by the functionally transparent *-te of the m-conjugation. Moreover, a remarkable feature of both *-e and *-s is that each is identical to one of the two possible secondary endings reconstructible for the 3sg.act. of the *h2 e-conjugation (i.e. *-e, *-s; see above). Just as in the 3sg.act., the exact PIE distribution of *-e and *-s is at present unsettled, and still less clear is the broader significance of the structural symmetry between 3sg. and 2pl.act., which appears to be a unique feature of the *h2 e-conjugation. The PIE 3pl.act. primary ending of the *h2 e-conjugation was probably *-(e)nti, once again identical to the *m-conjugation; it is directly reflected in Anatolian, e.g., Hitt. 3pl.npst.act. akk-anzi ‘they die’. The 3pl.act. secondary ending has several reflexes in the daughter languages (cf. Jasanoff 2003a: 32−34): *-ēr, which yields 3pl.pst.act. Hitt. -ēr and pfc. Lat. -ēre (via *-ēr-i with inner-Italic addition of the primary tense marker; cf. 1/2sg.act. above); *-r̥s, which is continued in OAv. -ərəš (see further below) and pfc./opt. Ved. -ur; and *-r̥, which is continued in pfc. OAv. -arə̄ (YAv. -ērə) and pret. OIr. *-(a)tar (< *-ont-r̥, a composite of thematic 3pl. *-ont + *-r̥). For arguments that *-r̥ is a later analogical innovation, see Jasanoff (2003a: 33). The remaining two endings *-ēr and *-r̥s can be reconciled as ablaut variants of *-ers (whose status as a PIE surface form is, however, dubious; see discussion of thematic acc.pl. *-oms in 2.1.1 above): its expected zero-grade form is *-r̥s, while full-grade *-ers would develop straightforwardly into *-ēr via Szemerényi’s Law. According to Jasanoff (1997, 2003a: 39−43), PNIE originally had the full-grade allomorph *-ēr in the perfect and *-r̥s in the pluperfect, a distribution which − with the exception of the replacement of *-ēr by analogical *-r̥ − is maintained in Avestan (*-r̥ / *-r̥s > OAv. -arə̄ / -ərəš). There is insufficient evidence to reconstruct dual endings for the *h2 e-conjugation. Greek and Indo-Iranian both make perfect dual forms, but their endings cannot be derived from a single pre-form; rather, the endings in each language show clear effects of analogical re-shaping − for instance, 3pfc.du. Ved. -atuḥ and YAv. -atarə have evidently been influenced by the corresponding 3pl.pfc. endings (on which see above). Anatolian offers no help, since there is no unique trace of the dual in the ḫi-conjugation.

4.2.7. Verbal endings of the PIE middle In PIE, both verbs whose active forms inflected according to the *m-conjugation and those whose active forms inflected according to the *h2 e-conjugation had middle voice forms marked with the same set of endings. This situation is still observed within the Anatolian languages, where these two conjugational classes remain distinct, but verbs of both classes make use of the same middle endings, e.g., 3sg.prs.act. Hitt. ištamaš-zi ‘hears’, kānk-i ‘hangs (tr.)’ vs. mid. išdamaš-tari ‘is heard’, kank(a)-ttari ‘hangs (intr.)’.

2154

XX. Proto-Indo-European

Similarly, the PNIE perfect active is marked by endings that descend from the *h2 econjugation, but perfect middle forms generally employ the same endings as in the present/aorist system (e.g., 3s.pfc.mid. Gk. lélu-tai ‘has been released’; cf. prs. lúe-tai), whose active endings come from the *m-conjugation. Reconstructions for the PIE athematic middle inflectional endings are given in Table 122.14. We discuss the evidence that supports − or else problematizes − the reconstruction of each ending below. Tab. 122.14 PIE middle endings SINGULAR ry

1

PLURAL ry

2

1

ry

2ry

1ST

*-h2 er

*-h2 e?

*-med hh2

2ND

*-th2 er

*-th2 e

*-d h(h2 )we?

3RD

*-or, *-tor

*-o, *-to

*-ror?, *-ntor

*-ro, *-nto

The PIE primary 1sg.mid. ending was *-h2 er, which is most clearly reflected in Hitt. -ḫa(ri) (e.g., ar-ḫari ‘I stand’) and − with regular renewal of *-r by *-i as marker of present tense (as in the active endings) − in PIIr. *-ai (e.g., Ved. bruv-é, OAv. mruii-ē ‘I speak’). The synchronic “passive” endings Lat. -or and OIr. -or (e.g., Lat. ori-or ‘I rise’; OIr. -mol-or ‘I praise’) continue the corresponding thematic form *-o-h2 er. In Tocharian and Greek, the initial *m of the *m-conjugation active has been analogically introduced, thus TB/A -mar/-mār (for details, see Malzahn 2010: 36 with references) and Gk. -mai (with the same renewal of presential *-r by *-i as in Indo-Iranian); this kind of analogical remodeling − viz. assimilation of the characteristics of the corresponding *m- conjugation active endings − is typical of the development of the middle endings in the IE languages, as will become clear below. Hittite also attests an “iterated” (or “reduplicated”) allomorph of the ending -(ḫ)ḫaḫari (cf. ar-ḫaḫari), which points to a preform *-h2 eh2 er, but the antiquity of this form is uncertain (see discussion of the corresponding secondary ending below). The PIE primary 2sg.mid. ending *-th2 er is directly reflected in Hitt. -(t)ta(ri), TB/A -tar/tār, and (in media tantum verbs) OIr. -ther. The other IE languages continue an ending *-soi, with initial *s taken from the 2sg.act. *m-conjugation ending and renewal of *-r by *-i, e.g., Ved. -se, OAv. -hē / -šē, Myc./Arc.-Cypr. Gk. -soi (in other dialects, -sai with vocalism after 1sg. -mai), Goth. (pass.) -za. Two primary 3sg.mid. endings are securely reconstructible for PIE, *-or and *-tor (cf. 4.2.3 above). The archaic *-or allomorph is preserved in CLuw. ziy-ar(i) ‘lies’, Hitt. paḫš-a(ri) ‘protects’, OIr. ber-air ‘is carried’ and − with renewal of the tense marker in Indo-Iranian − Ved. śáy-e ‘lies’, OAv. sruii-ē ‘is heard’ (see further Jasanoff 2003a: 49− 51). The productive allomorph *-tor − with analogical *t from the *m-conjugation 3sg.act. ending − is also attested in the same languages (e.g., CLuw. puppušša-tari ‘is crushed’, Hitt. ki-tta[ri] ‘lies’ [cf. Pal. kī-tar ‘id.’], OIr. sechi-thir ‘follows’), in some cases, even in the same lexical items (late Ved. śé-te, YAv. saē-te ‘lies’); these last two forms, in particular, show the strong tendency for *-or to be morphologically renewed by *-tor, a pattern that likely began in PIE itself and led eventually to the complete elimination of *-or in other NIE languages, which have only *-tor: Lat. sequi-tur ‘fol-

122. The morphology of Proto-Indo-European

2155

lows, TB wike-tär ‘disappears’, Cypr. Gk. ke-i-to-i [kei-toi] ‘lies’ (cf. Att.-Ion. Gk. keĩ-tai ‘id.’ with vocalism after 1sg. -mai). The PIE secondary athematic 1sg.mid. ending was likely *-h2 e, which is directly reflected in Hitt. -(ḫ)ḫat(i), e.g., Hitt. ēš-ḫa-t(i) ‘I sat down’ (with further addition of a reflexive particle *-di, on which see Yakubovich 2010: 182−205); it may also be maintained, as an archaism, as the ending of optative forms in Indo-Iranian (PIIr. *-a, e.g., Ved. sac-ey-a ‘may I accompany’, OAv. vāur-aii-ā ‘may I cover’). Elsewhere, the IndoIranian languages show endings (Ved. -i, OAv. -ī < PIIr. *-i), which have been argued to derive from a shorter ending *-h2 (e.g., Kortlandt 1981; García Ramón 1985); however, it is more likely that PIIr. *-i should be explained analogically (see Kümmel, this handbook). The Tocharian preterite endings (TB -mai; TA -we/-e) probably also contain *-h2 e; see the discussions of Malzahn (2010: 44−45 with references) and Pinault (this handbook). Less certain is the PIE status of an “iterated” allomorph of the 1sg.mid. ending *-h2 eh2 e, which appears to be continued in both Hittite (e.g., ēš-ḫaḫat[i] ‘id.’) and Lycian (a-xagã ‘I became’; see Melchert 1992b). Potential evidence for its deeper reconstruction comes from Greek, where it has been suggested that the same form underlies (non-Attic-Ionic) Gk. -mān < *-m-h2 eh2 e-m with analogical remodeling after the 1sg.act. *m-conjugation ending (Weiss 2011: 388−389; but cf. the critique of Yoshida 2010, 2013). The PIE secondary 2sg.mid. ending *-th2 e, is continued − with different additional morphological material in each language − in Hitt. -(t)tat(i) (+ reflexive *-di; cf. 1sg. above), Ved. -thās, and TB/A -tai/-te, as well as OIr. -tha. Other IE languages have replaced *-th2 e with *-so, an analogical form with the initial *s of the m-conjugation 2sg. active ending and the vocalism of 3sg.mid. *-(t)o(r); *-so is reflected in Gk. -so, OLat. -re (on Cl. Lat. -ris, see Weiss 2011: 388−391), and in the Iranian languages (OAv. -šā, OP -šā; on the split within Indo-Iranian, see Kümmel, this handbook). Just as in the corresponding primary form, two allomorphs of the athematic 3sg.mid. secondary ending are reconstructible for PIE, *-o and *-to. Archaic *-o is maintained in Hitt. ēš-at(i) ‘sat down’ (with reflexive *-di; cf. 1sg/2sg. above), and famously, in Ved. á-śay-at ‘was lying down’ (with analogical final *t; Wackernagel 1907: 309−313 [= 1953a: 498−502]). Once again, the same languages also reflect productive *-to, including in forms of the same lexical items attested in chronologically younger texts: Hitt. ēš-tat; late Ved. (a)śe-ta (cf. YAv. sae-ta). In other NIE languages, older *-o has been wholly ousted by younger *-to: Gk. -to, Iranian (OAv. -tā, OP -tā), TB/A -te/-t. The PIE 1pl.mid. ending was *-med hh2 or *-mesd hh2 ; it is possible that one of these forms was once specialized as the primary ending and the other as secondary, but if so, the daughter languages provide no clear evidence for the original distribution. Support for reconstructing *-med hh2 comes from Gk. -met ha, as well as Tocharian and IndoIranian; in the latter two, a distinction has been introduced between primary (> Ved. -mahe, OAv. -maidē < PIIr. *-mad hai; TB/A -mtär) and secondary forms (Ved. -mahi, OAv. -maidī < PIIr. -mad hi; TB/A -mte/-mät; see Kümmel, this handbook and Malzahn 2010: 37, 46). However, Greek also attests a variant *-mest ha, which points to *-mesd hh2 ; an *s is also found in the same position in Hittite, which has − like IndoIranian − differentiated primary -wašta(ri) and secondary *-waštat(i) (using the same morphological material as in the singular; see above). As in the 1pl.act. (cf. 4.2.5), the initial *w of the Hittite form is usually attributed to the influence of the dual (see 4.2.2

2156

XX. Proto-Indo-European

above), either directly (i.e. < 1du.act. *-we/o[s]- + -d[h]h2 of the 1pl.mid.; cf. 4.2.5 above) or else by analogy with the 1pl.act. ending Hitt. -w(/m)en(i). The reconstruction of the PIE 2pl.mid. ending is problematic. The 2pl.mid. endings attested in the NIE languages (with the possible exception of Tocharian) can be derived straightforwardly from an ending *-d hwe, likely undifferentiated for primary/secondary as in Gk. -st he (with s generalized from coronal-final roots, where it is phonologically regular via the “Double Dental” rule; see Byrd, this handbook). As in the 1sg.mid, Indo-Iranian has introduced the primary/secondary distinction; furthermore, the attested endings appear to continue *-d huwe, a variant of the ending conditioned by Siever’s Law (on which see Barber 2013 and Byrd, this handbook): 1ry/2ry Ved. -dhve/-dhvam (with frequent disyllabic scansion); OAv. -duiiē/OAv. -dūm (YAv. -θβe/-θβəm). The same phonologically conditioned variant underlies Cl.Arm. -(a)ruk‘ (Jasanoff 1979: 44−45), synchronically the 2pl. mediopassive imperative ending. More difficult is the Tocharian, where there is a clear split between (1ry/2ry) TB -tär/-t and TA -cär/-c; there is no consensus about whether either ending is the phonologically expected outcome of *-d hwe, but most scholars agree that both are ultimately based on *-d hwe (see Malzahn 2010: 37−38 with references). The deeper PIE situation is problematized by the endings attested in the Anatolian languages: (1ry/2ry ) Hitt. -ttuma(ri)/-dumat (on m < *w, see 4.2.2 above), CLuw. -(d)duwar(i). The principal issue is that the initial geminate (or “fortis”) stop (Hitt. -tt-) cannot be the outcome of *d h. Melchert’s (1984: 26) alternative derivation of the ending from PIE *-d hh2 we explains the geminate stop, and in addition, accounts more neatly (i.e. without appeal to Siever’s Law) for the post-consonantal anaptyctic u vowel clearly observed in the Hittite form (cf. Melchert 1994a: 57−58, 77−78); however, whether *-d hh2 we can be reconciled phonologically with the NIE evidence remains to be systematically assessed. A different solution is proposed by Jasanoff (2003a), who suggests that Anatolian replaced ending-initial *d h with *t by analogy to the 2pl.act. (m-conjugation) ending *-te. For the PIE primary 3pl.mid. ending − like the corresponding singular − two allomorphs are reconstructible, likely *-ror and *-ntor. The older ending *-ror is not continued as such in any IE language, but is in all probability the source of PIIr. *-rai (> Ved. -re, YAv. -re), which would be derived by the across the board replacement of the inherited middle tense marker *r by active *i in that branch; PIIr. *-rai is selected by the same set of verbs that take the archaic 3sg.mid. ending *-ai ( Lat. vēxit). Thus the perfective/imperfective distinction is overlaid with a past/non-past distinction only in the imperfective stem. The perfect stood apart from the present and aorist on formal and functional grounds in ways we will discuss below; an example of a perfect is Ved. ca-kár-a ‘I have made, I made’ (1sg.pfc.act.ind.) < *k we-k wór-h2 e. Bybee and Dahl (1989) survey tense-aspect stems cross-linguistically, from which the tripartite system reconstructed for PNIE emerges as commonest in the languages of the world; see further Wackernagel (1926−1928 [2009]: 195−268) for an overview of tense-aspect in several ancient IE languages with copious examples and references. It is important to distinguish between various uses of the term “aspect”. We will use the term “grammatical aspect” for the grammatical means by which a speaker expresses views on the action of the verb (such as ongoing, imperfective or as a complete whole, perfective). Grammatical aspect is conveyed by the morphology of the verb. We will use the term “lexical aspect” for what is considered the inherent, unmodified lexical meaning of the verbal root; often this notion goes under “Aktionsart” in IE studies (the term is fairly elastic and may refer to other phenomena as well, cf. Napoli 2006: 45−51). In PNIE, the assignment of a verbal root to the present or aorist stem was related to the verb’s lexical aspect (cf. Hoffmann 1970; Strunk 1994). Basically, if the root was telic or “punctual” it would be assigned to the aorist stem, if atelic it would be assigned to the present stem. Thus lexically telic roots like *deh3 - ‘give’, *d heh1 - ‘put, place’, and *mer- ‘die’ all made root aorists as their basic formation (e.g., *deh3 -t ‘gave’ > Ved. [á]-dāt). Atelic roots like *b heh2 - ‘speak’, *h1 ed- ‘eat’, *h1 ey- ‘go’ all made root presents as their basic formation (e.g., *b heh2 -ti ‘speaks’ > Gk. p hēsí). A root with telic lexical aspect could derive a stem with atelic grammatical aspect (i.e. the “present” stem) via affixation − for instance, *deh3 - ‘give’ formed a reduplicating present *de-deh3 -ti

2158

XX. Proto-Indo-European

‘gives, is giving’. A number of different derivational affixes may derive present stems, including a thematic vowel added to the root (*b hér-e-ti ‘bears’ > Ved. bhár-a-ti) and a nasal-infix inserted into the root (*yeug- ‘yoke’ forms *yu-né-g-ti ‘yokes’ > Ved. yu-ná-k-ti). Vice-versa, a root with atelic lexical aspect could derive a stem with perfective grammatical aspect (i.e. the “aorist” stem) via affixation − most commonly, by suffixing *-s- to the root; for instance, *weg̑ h- ‘convey, move’ makes the aorist stem *wēg̑ h-s-t ‘conveyed, moved’ (>> Lat. vēxit). This neat picture is, however, disturbed by numerous mismatches between semantics and root formation. For instance, one notorious example is the root *gwhen- ‘kill, slay’, of prominent use in the Indo-European dragon-slaying myth (Watkins 1995). Given its meaning ‘slay, kill’ one might expect a root aorist, yet it forms a root present in PIE, *gwhén-ti (e.g., Ved. hán-ti). García Ramón (1998) proposes that the root originally meant ‘(repeatedly) strike’, thus bringing into better accord semantics and stem formation. Similarly, lexically atelic *peh3 - ‘drink’ forms a root aorist, not a root present as would be predicted; here too it is surmised that *peh3 - originally had a more telic meaning in line with its root aorist formation, i.e. *‘take a gulp’. In the end, a number of stubborn mismatches between lexical aspect and stem formation remain. Two further divisions of aspect must be mentioned. The first is “predicational aspect,” where grammatical aspect interacts with syntax. For instance, aspect may be changed in the presence or absence of additional arguments (e.g., imperfective John reads a lot vs. perfective John reads a book). This domain has proven fruitful for understanding the individual daughter languages (cf. e.g., Napoli 2006: 85−128 on Homeric Greek), and future research will likely cast light on its implementation in the PIE verb; it is, however, situated more in the syntax, so we will omit further discussion of it here. Secondly, the more developed notion of “state-of-affairs” (or “actionality”) is sometimes used in IndoEuropean studies to describe the types of situation a verb may express (following the seminal work by Vendler 1967). To illustrate using Ancient Greek, where the PIE situation is often thought best preserved, many studies depart from a first order distinction between verbs expressing states vs. dynamic situations (cf. Napoli [2006, 2015], and the overview by George 2014, both with references). States include (e.g.) eĩnai ‘be’, ék hein ‘have’, keĩsthai ‘lie’. Dynamic verbs may be either telic or atelic. If the verbal eventuality is durative (i.e. persists through time), the telic verb is called an “accomplishment” (e.g., manthánein ‘learn’, poieĩn ‘create, make’); if it occurs instantaneously, the telic verb is called an “achievement” (e.g., apokteínein ‘kill’). Atelic verbs are called “activities” if durative, as with e.g., verbs of motion (phérein ‘carry’). Here too further research may shed light on the structure of the PIE verb (cf. e.g., Dahl 2010 on Vedic; Weiss 2011: 377−398 gives an overview on PIE). Whether and to what extent the PNIE system also underlies Anatolian (and is thus of PIE age) is debated, since the Anatolian verbal system shows no obvious trace of grammatical aspect. In the Anatolian languages, all finite and non-finite verbal forms are based on a single stem. Many of these stems are formed by suffixes that derive imperfective stems in the PNIE languages − for instance, the suffix *-sk̑é/ó- makes stems in various NIE languages with the aspectual value [imperfective] (e.g., Ved. gáchati ‘goes’ Ved. stáuti, etc.). The lengthened-grade in these root presents reflects a derived present type. Some examples form imperfective stems to root aorists: Kümmel (1998) gives (e.g.) *dḗk̑-/dék̑‘expect, accept’ (Ved. root dāś-, 3sg. dāṣ-ṭi ‘serves religiously’ via a semantic development of Vedic) beside the root aorist *dék̑- (Gk. 3sg.mid. dék-to ‘received’). Other examples are arguably formed to root presents: Melchert (2014b) gives (e.g.) *h1ḗs-ti, *h1 és-n̥ti ‘sits’ (OHitt. ēš-zi ‘is sitting’) to the aforementioned root present *h1 és-ti ‘is’. The formation likely had an earlier aspectual nuance; Melchert suggests iterativedurative. molō-presents: Another kind of PIE root present had *o/e-ablaut in the root and − according to a still controversial proposal by Jasanoff (2003a: 64−90) − inflected with the perfect-like endings of the *h2 e-conjugation (on which see 4.2.6 above). The verbs constituting this class are typically those of vigorous activity, such as PIE 3sg. *b hód hh1 -ei ‘digs’ (e.g., OCS bodǫ ‘I stab’, Lith. bedù ‘I poke’ beside Hitt. paddai ‘digs’). Jasanoff names the class “molō-presents” after the Lat. outcome molō ‘I grind’, whose cognates give evidence for both *o-grade vocalism of the root (e.g., Goth. malan ‘to grind’, Lith. malù ‘I grind’, both with a < *o) and *e-grade (e.g., OIr. melid ‘grinds’, OCS meljǫ ‘I grind’). As in the noun, these diverse ablaut grades suggest bifurcated levelings of a once unitary paradigm *mólh2 -/*mélh2 -. Hittite arguably provides direct evidence for such a unitary paradigm in the ḫi-conjugation, a class that includes the cognate verb (3sg.) Hitt. mall-(a)i ‘grinds’; although the original weak stem root vocalism of this verb is obscured by sound change (3pl. mall-anzi), Hittite preserves *ó/éablaut in a recessive sub-class of ā/e-ablauting ḫi-verbs, e.g., k(a)rāp-/k(a)rep- ‘devour’ (< PIE *ghrób h-/*ghréb h- ‘seize’), š(a)rāp-/š(a)rep- ‘sip’ (< *srób h-/*sréb h- ‘id.’). Kloekhorst (2012, 2014) disputes this evidence, arguing that the ḫi-conjugation in Hittite reflects only *o/0̸ ablaut, but his alternative inner-Hittite derivation of the weak stem e-vocalism of this class cannot be maintained − for instance, the root e-vowel in the verbs cited above cannot be epenthetic, since there is no plausible phonological or morphological motivation for epenthesis in this environment (see Melchert 2013; cf. Yates 2015: 154−155, 166 n. 43). Reduplicated athematic presents: Partial copy reduplication is another major device for forming present stems to root aorists. Two types of reduplicated presents may be formally distinguished, an athematic and a thematic (treated below). The athematic type is well attested in Greek and Indo-Iranian, but with formal differences − in particular, in

122. The morphology of Proto-Indo-European

2161

the vocalism of the reduplicant − that problematize its reconstruction. In Greek, all reduplicated presents have fixed i-segmentism in the reduplicant, e.g., WGk. hí-stā-mi ‘I stand’ (beside root aorist stem WGk. stā-), tí-t hē-mi ‘I place’ (beside root aorist stem t hē-). In contrast, Indo-Iranian has reduplicated presents with i-, a- (< *e) and even uvocalism of the reduplicant, e.g., Ved. í-yar-ti ‘moves’ (beside root aorist stem ar-); Ved. dá-dhā-ti (= OAv. da-dāi-tī) ‘places’ (beside root aorist stem dhā-); Ved. ju-hó-ti ‘pours’. While the last type, which occurs only when the verbal root contains u, is generally regarded as an innovation, both *e- and *i-reduplicated forms are usually viewed as inherited − for instance, LIV 2 reconstructs two distinct athematic reduplicated presents for PIE, one with fixed *e- segmentism, another with *i. Yet while this “maximal” reconstruction is possible, it still does not straightforwardly account for the mismatch between Vedic and Greek in cognate lexical items (e.g., Gk. tí-t hē-mi, Ved. dá-dhā-mi < PIE *dV́ -d heh1 -mi ‘I place’), or for the fact that a few roots are attested in Indo-Iranian with both *e- and *i-reduplicated forms, e.g., Ved. 3sg. sí-ṣak-ti (= YAv. hišhaxti) vs. 3pl. sá-śc-ati (: sac- ‘accompany’), Ved. 3sg. jí-gāt-i vs. fossilized prs.act.ptcp. já-g-at‘(moving) world’ (: gā- ‘go’). Various other interpretations of this evidence have been advanced. Jasanoff (2003a: 128−132) contends that PIE had only *e-reduplicated presents in the *m-conjugation, arguing that *i-reduplicated athematic presents in Greek and Vedic are due to the analogical influence of PNIE thematic *i-reduplicated presents, which would ultimately derive from PIE *h2 e-conjugation *i-reduplicated forms (see below). Another possibility − proposed already by Hirt (1900: 190−193) and further developed in recent scholarship (Sandell 2011; Hill and Frotscher 2012) − is that all athematic presents descend from a single PIE paradigm in which the reduplicant had two allomorphs, one with *e-vocalism and one with *i-vocalism; this intraparadigmatic allomorphy would then have been leveled out separately in the individual languages. Dempsey (2015: 339−341) suggests that this hypothesis better explains the situation in Anatolian, where reduplicated *h2 e-conjugation verbs may have either fixed *e- or *isegmentism in the reduplicant (with no corresponding functional difference) − e.g., Hitt. we-wakk-i (: wek- ‘demand’) vs. Hitt. li-lḫuwa-i (: laḫ[ḫ]u- ‘pour’). However, there is not yet scholarly consensus on this issue. Nasal-infix presents: An ablauting nasal-infix *-ne/n- is one of the commonest means for making present stems to root aorists: in LIV 2 it is reconstructed for 248 roots (168 secure). An example is the root *yeug- ‘yoke’: the infix is inserted after the first syllable of the (zero-grade) root to derive a present 3sg. *yu-né-g-ti, 3pl. *yu-n-g-énti ‘yokes’ (> Ved. yu-ná-k-ti, yu-ñ-j-ánti), beside the root aorist *yeug-t (> OAv. yaogəṭ; cf. 1sg. Ved. yójam). The formation is well attested across a number of branches and is traditionally divided into three varieties based on the consonantal quality of the final segment of the root into which *-né/n- was inserted: (i) a final obstruent, e.g., aforementioned *yuné-g-ti; (ii) final laryngeal, *k wreyh2 - ‘buy’ > *k wri-né-h2 -ti ‘buys’ (Ved. krī-ṇā-ti, TB 3sg.mid. kärn-ās-tär); or (iii) glide *-w-, e.g., *k̑lew- ‘hear’ > *k̑l̥ -né-w-ti, *k̑l̥ -n-w-énti ‘hears’ (Ved. śr̥-ṇó-ti). The sequence *-n(e)w- was reinterpreted as a suffix already in PIE and added suffixally (not infixally) to roots, e.g., *str̥-néw-ti ‘strews’ (Ved. str̥-ṇóti). Although in the NIE languages it is mainly attested as a present stem formant beside root aorists (cf. Strunk 1967), there is some evidence to suggest that the infix may have earlier had a valency-increasing role. The infix is clearly transitivizing in pairs like (transitive) Hitt. ḫar-ni(n)-k- ‘kill’ (also ḫarg[a]nu- ‘id.’) beside (unaccusative) ḫark‘die’. In at least one case there is comparative evidence for a transitive/causative nasal-

2162

XX. Proto-Indo-European

infix verb derived from an adjective: Hitt. tep-nu-zi ‘belittles’ and Ved. dabh-nó-ti ‘deceives’ (cf. 2pl. OAv. dəbənaotā) directly reflect PIE *d heb h-né-u-ti ‘belittles’ (from *d heb h-ú- ‘little, small’). Moreover, the related nasal suffix PIE *-n(é)w- is highly productive in valency-increasing derivation in the Anatolian languages, e.g., Hitt. link‘swear’ : ling(a)nu- ‘make swear’; HLuw. ta- ‘stand’ : tanu(wa)- ‘make stand’ (cf. Luraghi 2012). Accordingly, Meiser (1993) has argued that the nasal infix was originally valency-increasing and only secondarily used as a means for deriving present stems. It is, however, noteworthy that higher transitivity aligns cross-linguistically with perfective, not imperfective, aspect (see Hopper and Thompson 1980); the nasal-infix should thus be expected to derive a PIE aorist, not present, stem (see too Clackson 2007: 151−155). *-eh1 -stative/fientives: Presents formed with *-eh1 -ye/o- make stative as well as change of state verbs across a wide swath of IE languages. Such presents are sometimes made to a verbal root (e.g., Lat. hab-ē-re ‘to have’, OCS bǔd-ě-ti ‘to be awake’, Lith. bud-ė́ -ti ‘to be awake’) and are sometimes deadjectival (e.g., Hitt. marš-e-zzi ‘be false’ to marš-a-, Lith. sen-ė́ -ti ‘to grow old’ to sẽn-as). The deadjectival forms have been derived from “Caland” adjectives since Watkins (1971). Greek has present forms reflecting the *-eh1 -stative (type tharséō ‘am bold’; cf. Tucker 1990), but additionally the intransitive (“passive”) aorist is formed with *-eh1 - (e.g., e-mán-ē ‘went mad’), which is hard to square with the evidence from the other languages. Harðarson (1998) posits that *-eh1 - formations were at home in the aorist (privileging the Greek evidence) and calls the type “fientive” (i.e. change of state) meaning ‘to become X’; presents to the fientive would be derived via further suffixation as *-h1 -ye/o-, named “essives,” which some languages reformed as *-eh1 -ye/o-. This account was taken over wholesale by the influential LIV2. The categories “essive” and “fientive” are both rejected by Jasanoff (2003b), in part on the phonological grounds that *-h1 -ye/o- would infringe “Pinault’s Law” (cf. Byrd, this handbook; note, though, that Byrd suggests restricting the law to *h2 , *h3 ). Jasanoff reconstructs instead a suffix *-eh1 -ye/o-, which he derives from the predicatively used instr.sg. of a root noun in *-eh1 , e.g., *h1rud h-éh1 ‘with redness’ > *h1rud h-éh1 -yé/ó- ‘be(come) with redness, blush’ (> Lat. rub-ē-re ‘to be red, ruddy’). On the basis of the reanalyzed stative stem the daughter languages created or extended other formations including: change of state verbs in *-eh1 -s- in Hittite; verbal abstracts (infinitives) in *-eh1 -ti- in Balto-Slavic; and intransitive aorists in bare *-eh1 - in Greek. The matter has not been settled: Yakubovich (2014) presents an overview of the problem; Bozzone (2016) builds on Jasanoff’s scenario, with further typological considerations. *-h2 -factitives (the “newaḫḫi”-type): When added to thematic adjectives, the factitive suffix *-h2 - derives transitive verbs. Examples include the class’s eponymous Hitt. newa-ḫḫ-i ‘make something new’ (< *newe-h2 -ei; cf. Hitt. nēwa- ‘new’). Other languages probably reflect the *-h2 -suffix only in its extended form *-h2 -ye/o-; for instance, the extra-Anatolian comparanda for newaḫḫi include Lat. nou-ā-re ‘make something new’ and the rare Gk. verb neáō ‘plough up (fallow land)’ (both from extended *newe-h2 -ye/o-). The derivation remains productive in Italic, e.g., Lat. sānus ‘healthy’ 0 sānāre ‘heal’, etc.; see further Watkins (1971: 61, 85−86) and Jasanoff (2003a: 139−141). “Simple” thematic presents: Roots with an affixed thematic vowel *-e/o- are a bedrock formation of PNIE; Rix and Kümmel (2001) lists 426 roots (224 secure) that make simple thematic presents. Examples include *b hér-e-ti ‘bears, carries’ (e.g., Ved. bhárati; cf. 4.2.5), *h2 ég̑-e-ti ‘leads, drives’ (Ved. ájati, Lat. agit, Arm. 1sg. acem, etc.). Simple thematic presents are often found beside other present types in the daughter languages

122. The morphology of Proto-Indo-European

2163

(e.g., athematic 3sg.prs. Lat. fer-t ‘bears, carries’ < *b hēr-ti). Jasanoff (1998) has argued that simple thematic presents in the IE languages come from at least two historically distinct sources, as indicated by their relationships to other present formations, and the kinds of aorists they co-occur with. The *b hér-e-ti type occurs beside other present formations (e.g.*b hēr-ti > Lat. fer-t) and makes a suppletive aorist (both *b hér-e-ti and *h2 ég̑e-ti make suppletive aorists). A second type, whose present is formally identical, is represented by (e.g.) *wég̑ h-e-ti ‘conveys’ (Ved. váhati, Lat. vehit, etc.), which does not have competing present formations, and makes its aorist stem with the s-aorist (*wēg̑ h-s-t >> Lat. vēxit). This evidence would indicate that the two thematic present types derive from historically distinct origins, a conclusion bolstered by their “fit” within the chronology of IE dialects. That is, the *wég̑ heti type does not occur in Anatolian; whether the *b héreti type does is disputed. Many researchers find an isolated example of the *b héreti type in HLuw. [tammari]* ‘builds’ (in transcription: AEDIFICARE + MI-ra/i + i), which could derive from PIE *dém(h2 )-e-ti with thematic cognates in Gk. dém-ō ‘build’ and Goth. ga-timan ‘fit’ (but cf. Lehrman [1998] for a dissenting view). The rarity − and possibly complete absence − of both present types in Anatolian is striking and suggests that both types could represent post-Anatolian innovations. Tocharian knows thematic presents of the *b héreti type (Toch. class II presents and subjunctives) but in reduced numbers; arguably the *wég̑ h-e-ti type does not occur in Tocharian, and therefore represents a PNIE innovation. Ringe (2000) leverages the dearth of such presents in Anatolian and Tocharian to suggest an early branching off of these languages, a view Malzahn (2010: 363−366) disputes. Fitting the simple thematic type of PNIE into the picture of the earlier PIE verb is an ongoing project. tudáti-presents: Zero-grade presents with accented thematic vowel − known as “tudáti”-presents after the canonical class VI present of Sanskrit grammar tudáti ‘strikes’ − are considerably less well-represented than simple thematic presents; in LIV 2 it is reconstructed for 52 roots (20 secure). Significantly, at least one example of this class is found in Anatolian: Hitt. šuwe-zzi ‘pushes away, shoves’ forms an equation with Ved. suv-á-ti ‘impels’ and OIr. soïd ‘turns’ < *suhx -é-ti ‘pushes’ (with Oettinger 1979: 279; pace Kloekhorst 2008: 797−798). It has often been thought that this present class, with its preference for markedly telic activities in Vedic, might have developed from aspectually shifted thematic aorists; the imperfect of the zero-grade present and the thematic aorist are formally identical (e.g., imperfect *suhx -é-t ‘pushed’ and aor. *wid-é-t ‘found’; on the aorist type see below). Because these presents are held to have their origins in aorists, the class sometimes goes by the unfortunate name “aorist presents.” The early diachronic development of the tudáti-presents is in need of further investigation (on the Vedic material see Hill 2007 and now Malzahn 2016). A number of tudátipresents are made to roots in final -i- in Old Indic (e.g., sy-á-ti ‘binds’ to root say-/si-, cf. Kulikov 2000); Jasanoff (2003a: 105−107) argues that these represent part of a wider class of presents with an *-i- suffix in the protolanguage. Thematic reduplicated presents: A thematic reduplicated type is also found beside the athematic type discussed above. An example is *g̑i-g̑n(h1 )-e-ti > Lat. gi-gn-i-t, Gk. gí-gn-e-tai (deponent mid. beside root aorist *g̑enh1 -to > Gk. e-géneto). In some cases, thematic reduplicated presents have athematic reduplicated cognates (see above) in other NIE languages, e.g., Lat. si-st-ō, Ved. tí-ṣṭha-ti vs. WGk. hí-stā-mi (cf. root aorist PIE *stéh2 -t ‘stood’). The etymological equation between thematic reduplicated present Gk. mí-mn-ō ‘I stand fast’ and *h2 e- conjugation i-reduplicated Hitt. mimma-i ‘refuses’

2164

XX. Proto-Indo-European

points to a diachronic connection between these categories, and it has been argued, specifically, that some (if not all) PNIE reduplicated thematic presents arise via “thematization” of PIE *h2 e-conjugation *i-reduplicated presents (see esp. Jasanoff 2003a: 128− 132; García Ramón 2010; cf. 4.2.5). *-yé/ó-presents: The suffix *-ye/o- is a thematic present formation only (i.e. there is no aorist *-ye/o-). A prominent type has accented suffix and zero-grade root, many examples of which are deponent, including the roots of birth and death: *mr̥-yé-tor ‘dies’ > Ved. mri-yá-te, Lat. mor-i-tur; *g̑n̥h1 -yé-tor ‘is born’ > OIr. gain-i-thir, cf. Ved. jā́-ya-te; and *mn̥-yé-tor ‘thinks’ >> Ved. mán-ya-te, Gk. maíne-tai ‘rages’. In Indo-Iranian, this suffix, accented and with middle inflection, becomes specialized as a present passive marker (e.g., 3sg. -yá-te; cf. 4.2); Kulikov (2012) is an extensive treatment of the Vedic evidence. *-ye/o- is also the normal denominative suffix forming verbs that mean ‘be, become, act like X’. Examples include Ved. vr̥ṣā-yá-te ‘acts like a bull (vr̥ṣan-)’, Gk. poimaínō ‘I am a herdsman (a poimḗn)’ < *poh2i-mn̥-yō (cf. Tucker 1988). A number of primary *-ye/o- presents give evidence for an accented full grade of the root, such as *(s)pék̑-ye-ti ‘sees, looks at’ (> Ved. páś-ya-ti); in LIV 2 this full-grade formation is considered a distinct type made to 50 roots (19 secure). *-sk̑é/ó-presents: The suffix *-sk̑é/ó- with the zero-grade of the root formed thematic presents in PNIE. Examples include *gwm̥-sk̑é/ó- ‘be walking’ (Ved. gáchati ‘goes’, 2sg.imp. Gk. báske ‘go!’, TA kumnäṣtär ‘comes’), and the widespread item *pr̥k̑-sk̑é‘ask’ (Ved. pr̥cháti, Lat. poscit, OIr. -airc). In PNIE, the suffix derives present stems especially to root aorists, with further innovations and extensions defining the daughter languages (see Zerdin 1999, 2002 on this issue with special reference to Greek). There are, however, sufficient indications to reconstruct its earlier aspectual functions. In Hittite, the suffix -ške- derives an aspectual stem whose function can be iterative, habitual, and pluractional (cf. Hoffner and Melchert 2008: 318−322). In Tocharian B, reflexes of the suffix *-sk̑e/o-, viz. -ṣṣə-/-ske-, form class IX presents (e.g., we-skau, we-ṣṣäṃ ‘say’), but the suffix is mostly used in the present (and subjunctive) to form the causative − e.g., to the root wik- ‘disappear’ is formed a causative present 3sg. wikäṣṣäṃ ‘drives away, removes’. Peyrot (2013: 515−524) has recently presented new arguments that the Tocharian A class VIII presents in -s-/-ṣ- (“s-transitives” in his terminology) − traditionally held to reflect presents in *-s-e/o- − derive via inner-Tocharian changes from the *-sk̑é/ó- suffix as well. This causative feature is usually understood as an inner Tocharian development (recently Adams 2014 with references). Li and Whaley (forthcoming) argue on cross-linguistic grounds that there is a grammaticalization cline of intensive > causative > reciprocal; Tocharian would perhaps fit into this schema. One intriguing detail is that the suffix makes iterative and durative stems not only in Anatolian but also an iterative preterite in -(e)skon in the Ionic dialect of Greek; Puhvel (1991: 13−20) and Watkins (2001: 58−59 [= Watkins 2008: 954−955]) plausibly attribute the spread (or rebirth) of the iterative functions of this suffix to diffusion from Anatolian to the Greek speakers of the Ionic coast. *-eye/o-causative-iteratives: A thematic formation in *R(o)-éye/o-, making transitive and causative verbs, is widespread across the languages; in LIV 2 it is reconstructed to 400 roots (237 secure). Examples include *men- ‘think’ > *mon-éye- ‘call to mind’ (> Lat. monēre ‘warn’) and *sed-‘sit’ > *sod-éye- ‘set something’ (> Goth. satjan ‘to set, plant’). Two etymological equations set the date of this formation back to PIE antiquity: Hitt. lukke-zzi ‘lights up, sets ablaze’ was taken by Watkins (1971: 69) to derive

122. The morphology of Proto-Indo-European

2165

from a causative *louk-éye/o- seen also in e.g., Ved. rocáyati ‘makes shine’, Lat. lūceō, -ēre ‘ignite, light’; and Hitt. waššezzi ‘clothes (someone)’ continues *wos-éye/o-, to be equated with Ved. vāsáyati, Goth. wasjiþ (PGmc. *waz-jan, also Eng. wear), Alb. vesh, as demonstrated by Eichner (1969). The formation knows a particularly rich development in its Old Indic avatar, the -áya-presents (extensively studied by Jamison 1983). In certain languages, there are also verbs formed with the suffix that have iterative meaning. Kölligan (2007) argues that in the case of Latin the distinction depends on the agentivity of the base verb: if the base is agentive, the derived verb is iterative-intensive; if the base verb is non-agentive, the derived verb is transitive-causative. It is possible that both meanings of iterativity and transitivity-increase were available in the proto-language (see also Kölligan 2004). In some languages, the reflexes of *R(o)-éye/o- have merged with denominal verbs made to *o-grade nominals; Greek is a case in point (discussed in detail by Tucker 1990: 123−184).

4.3.2. Perfective stem formation There were fewer types of aorists − we reconstruct four − but still diversity is found. As in the present system, the redundancy of four formal markers expressing one functional category suggests that early mergers define the prehistoric development of the aorist. Athematic root aorists: As is the case with the athematic root presents, the (secondary) endings are added directly to the root. Thus *d heh1 - ‘place’ formed a root aorist *d heh1 -t ‘placed, put down’, reflected in Ved. dhā́-t, Gk. é-t hē-k-e (whose older k-less form is preserved in Boeot. Gk. [an]-é-t hē). Root aorists typically form their present stems by further affixation; Gk. é-t hēke is the root aorist to the reduplicated present tít hēmi ‘I place, set something’. PNIE root aorists show up in Anatolian as stems that can form presents; thus beside the inherited root aorist *d heh1 -t ‘placed, put down’ (> Hitt. tēt ‘said’) are attested Hitt. tē-zzi ‘says’ and Lyc. ta-di ‘puts’, and beside the root aorist *k wer-t (> Ved. [á]kar ‘made’) is found Hitt. kuer-zi, kuranzi ‘cut(s)’ and CLuw. kuwarti, kur- ‘id.’. The Anatolian forms are usually explained as innovations, when old aorists were retrofitted with new primary endings, in this case *d héh1 -t-i ‘places’; Malzahn (2010: 267−268, et passim) calls this process of morphological renewal the “tēzzi-principle.” *s-aorists: Athematic *s-suffixed aorists (“sigmatic aorists”) are a widespread aorist type in PNIE. The *s-aorist and its offshoots make up the most productive aorist type in Greek, Indo-Iranian, and Slavic (although it is notably absent from Baltic); furthermore, relics are uncontroversially found in Latin, Celtic, and elsewhere. From the PNIE languages, a formation with lengthened grade root and secondary endings may be reconstructed; e.g., the root *weg̑ h- ‘convey, move’ forms an s-aorist *wḗg̑ h-s-t (Lat. vēxit ‘conveyed’, Ved. ávāṭ, etc.). Despite this agreement between the NIE languages, reconstructing the *s-aorist for PIE − including Tocharian and Anatolian − is beset with difficulties. Some connection of the Tocharian s-preterite (pret. class III) with the PNIE *s-aorist is universally accepted; the nature of that connection, however, remains elusive. Essentially the following three positions have been advanced: (i) the Tocharian s-preterite derives wholly from the s-aorist; (ii) it represents instead a conflation to some extent with the PIE perfect; or (iii) it reflects an ancestor of the PNIE aorist, namely a “presigmatic aorist” (see the review of literature in Malzahn 2010: 208−214). No proposal

2166

XX. Proto-Indo-European

has yet won universal accord; recent investigations of this problem may be found in the volume edited by Malzahn et al. (2015), especially the contributions therein by Kim, Melchert, and Oettinger (all against the pre-sigmatic aorist). Even more difficult to pin down is the prehistory of this form in Anatolian. There is widespread agreement that the Hittite preterite third singulars of the ḫi-conjugation like nai-š ‘turned’ and the *s-aorist (cf. to the same root Ved. á-nāi-ṣ-am ‘I led’) are historically related (from very different viewpoints see Oettinger 1979: 405 and Jasanoff 2003a: 174−214), but there is no agreement on what that relationship is. Jasanoff’s innovative proposal (for which see already Jasanoff 1988, and also his account in this handbook) has not won general acceptance (as witnessed by the critical remarks of Kim 2005: 194 and Oettinger 2006: 43−44, i.a.), and the issue remains unsettled at present. Further studies on the developments of the *s-aorist in the ancient Indo-European languages include Drinka (1995), Narten (1964) on Vedic, Schumacher (2004) on Celtic, and Ackermann (2014) on Slavic. Reduplicated thematic aorists: The reduplicated thematic aorist is not widely attested, but the examples look old; LIV 2 reconstructs it for only 18 roots (5 secure). Examples include the root *wek w- ‘say’, which makes a reduplicated aorist *we-uk w-e-t ‘said’ (> Ved. vóc-a-t, Av. -vaocaṯ, Gk. [w]eĩp-e), and *werh1 - ‘find’ > *we-wr(h1 )-e/o‘found’ (> Gk. heũr-e, OIr. fo-fuair). Willi (2007) argues that the reduplication seen in the reduplicated aorist was a marker of aspectual perfectivity in PIE. Besides IndoIranian examples like Ved. vócat ‘said’ (< *we-uk w-e-t), there is also attested in Vedic a reduplicated preterite regularly aligned with the -áya- transitives (discussed above under *-éye/o-presents), e.g., Ved. darś-áya-ti ‘shows, makes see’ beside the aorist a-dī-dr̥ś-ųa-t. The fact that the reduplicant in this class regularly contains the vowels -i-, -u- (not -a-) leads Jamison (1983: 216−219) to argue that it derives from a different historical source than the PIE reduplicated aorist, viz. imperfects to the reduplicated present. In a number of daughter languages, the reduplicated aorist is valency increasing; Ancient Greek is a case in point (Duhoux 2000: 79−80). Bendahman (1993: 61−100, 140−170) finds in Greek about 30 reduplicated aorist stems, which fall into two types: (i) roots referring to prototypically transitive events with an agentive subject form transitive reduplicated aorists, *gwhén-ti ‘strikes’ 0 *gwhe-gwhn-e/o- ‘struck’ (> Gk. pép hn-e ‘slew’ = YAv. -jaγnat̰ ); (ii) roots referring to prototypically intransitive events form transitive reduplicated aorists, e.g., *h2 er- ‘fit’ 0 *h2 e-h2 r-e/o- (>> Gk. arareĩn ‘to make fit [tr.], to adapt’). Similarly the reduplicated aorist underlies the productive “causative” formation in Tocharian A, viz. its class II preterite (e.g., ca-cäl ‘lifted’ to the root täl (ā) ‘lift’ < *telh2 -; cf. Malzahn 2010: 172−173 on the function of this preterite). Whether the TB preterite II can also be derived from the reduplicated aorist is not certain; see Malzahn (2010: 184−189) for an overview of the question and, in addition, the recent analysis of Jasanoff (2012b), who books the TB forms under “long-vowel preterites,” a class which he derives from the imperfects of “Narten presents” (see above under root presents). It is possible that the cross-linguistically common alignment of high transitivity and telicity (cf. Hopper and Thompson 1980: 270−276; Wagner 2006) feeds the development of transitivity in this class of aorists, though the fact that not all types of aorists become transitivizing implies a more complicated evolution. Thematic aorists: Aorists with zero-grade root and accented thematic vowel are known from at least two equations: PNIE *wid-é-t ‘saw, found out’ (> Ved. 3sg. á-vid-a-t, Gk. é-[w]id-e, Arm. e-git), and *h1lud h-é-t ‘went out’ (> Gk. ḗlut h-e ‘came’, OIr. luid ‘went’, TA läc, TB lac ‘went out’). The latter example in particular demon-

122. The morphology of Proto-Indo-European

2167

strates the PIE antiquity of the thematic aorist, since it is continued in languages where the category was by no means productive (Old Irish and Tocharian). Cardona (1960) analyzes most thematic aorists in Greek and Indo-Iranian as thematized root aorists, and considers only the two examples cited above to be of PIE antiquity, although the fact that we have these two examples suggests that more existed in the protolanguage. LIV 2 unaccountably fails to reckon with a thematic aorist; for one account of the type’s origins (ultimately a type of imperfect reanalyzed as an aorist) see Jasanoff (forthcoming b).

4.3.3 Perfect stem formation “Perfect” stems exhibit far less formal diversity than present and aorist stems; there is effectively one type of perfect, which is set off from the system of present and aorist stems in several formal and functional ways. The perfect is formed by partial copy reduplication (with fixed e-segmentism in the reduplicant) and *o/0̸-ablaut in the root. The inflectional endings of the perfect (active) are distinct from the present/aorist active endings (cf. 4.2). Examples include *men- ‘think’ 0 3sg. *me-món-e ‘has in mind’ (> 3sg. Gk. mémone ‘intends’, cf. Lat. meminit ‘remembers’), 3pl. *me-mn-ḗr; *gwhen‘strike’ 0 3sg. *gwhe-gwhón-e ‘has slain’ (> 3sg. Ved. ja-ghā́n-a), 3pl. *gwhe-gwhn-ḗr. Another formal peculiarity of the perfect is its distinctive active participle suffix *-wós(contrast the eventive’s *-nt-). There is one certain example of a PIE root that makes an unreduplicated perfect: *woíd-e ‘knows’ (Gk. [w]oĩd-e, 1pl. [w]íd-men, Ved. véd-a 1pl. vid-mā́, Goth. wait, witum, etc.). It has long been disputed whether this form represents an archaism (i.e. reflecting a pre-stage when perfect stems were formed without reduplication), an innovation, or is something else entirely (for one account see Jasanoff 2003a: 234−246 with references, but compare now Jasanoff forthcoming b). Beyond these formal differences, it is notable that the perfect’s semantic value is resultative-stative, again setting it apart from the eventive system. The three-way split between present, aorist, and perfect stems survives only in Greek and Indo-Iranian, and it is therefore only in these two branches that semantic distinctions between these categories can be investigated. Early Greek is thought to be most conservative in reflecting the value of the PNIE perfect: Wackernagel (1904) established that in Homeric Greek a perfect can have the meanings of a present state and/or a resulting state (cf. further Wackernagel 1926−1928 [2009]: 215−220 with the editor’s notes, and Chantraine 1926). The value of the perfect in Indo-Iranian is broadly harmonious with that of Greek; in a thorough investigation of the category, Kümmel (2000: 65−78) shows that the IndoIranian perfect divides into a stative-like perfect and a past perfect, which refers to a greater or lesser extent to the present value relevance of a past action. However, on the particulars of the perfect in Vedic a number of questions remain. Dahl (2010: 343−424), for instance, argues that the primary meaning is anteriority, a result critically reviewed by Jamison (2014), who disputes that any overarching function of the perfect can be established for the Rigveda due to the heterogeneous nature of the text. The diversity of functions in earliest Vedic would reflect ongoing diachronic change from the resultativestative value of PIE, found in earliest Vedic, to the anterior meaning found more consistently in its use as a preterital narrative perfect in later Vedic, regularly in Epic and Classical Sanskrit. The precise functional value of the perfect in Old Indic is thus a topic

2168

XX. Proto-Indo-European

still undergoing investigation (see now also Jamison 2017). For further analysis of the PIE perfect, see the three-volume study by Di Giovine (1990−1996). The status of the perfect in Anatolian is unsettled and inextricably bound up with one’s views on the foundational question of the prehistory of the ḫi-conjugation (a helpful introduction to this complex problem is given by Clackson 2007: 129−156). Deriving the ḫi-conjugation as a whole from the perfect is simply not viable in the wake of Jasanoff’s (2003a: 1−27) criticism (following esp. Cowgill 1974, 1979). Whether any Anatolian items reflect the perfect is disputed. Jasanoff (2003a: 11, 37, 117−18) claims that Hitt. wewakk- ‘demand’ and mēm(a)i- ‘speak’ descend from PIE perfects, and Forssman (1994) argues that Hitt. šipand- ‘libate’ continues a perfect *spe-spónd-; however, Jasanoff (forthcoming b) now derives wewakk- ‘demand’ and mēm(a)i- ‘speak’ (and other apparent non-resultative perfects like Gk. mémēke ‘bleats’) from reduplicated *h2 e-presents with a strong stem *Cé-CoC-ei, while deriving the PNIE resultative-stative perfect from reduplicated *h2 e-aorists with a strong stem *Ce-CóC-e (cf. 4.2.6 above). If Hitt. šipand- ‘libate’ reflects a reduplicated stem at all, its attested telic sense argues that it represents a reduplicated *h2 e-aorist *se-spónd- (Melchert 2016b).

4.4. Non-finite formations PNIE made participles to each tense-aspect stem and for the two voices of active and middle. Yet again, Anatolian does not conform to this model, and we address below the specific points at which Anatolian problematizes the deeper PIE reconstruction. No single marker for the category infinitive can be reconstructed for the protolanguage since the daughter languages disagree too greatly on how the category is marked, although the fact that numerous daughter branches build infinitives with case-forms of abstract nouns strongly suggests that the proto-language similarly employed such forms in nascent infinitival functions.

4.4.1. Participles Morphologically, participles attach to tense-aspect stems (present, aorist, perfect), making verbal formations with adjectival agreement features. No recent work devoted entirely to participles in PIE exists; Lowe (2015) is a thoroughgoing account of participles in the Rigveda, with diachronic material throughout. Lowe (2015: 5−6, 226−294) proposes to define participles along the cline of an adjective’s status as an inflectional part of the verb system. Thus participles are defined as non-finite, inflectional forms of verbs, which are morphologically adjectival. As inflectional forms, participles convey adjectival agreement of case, number, and gender with their head noun; morphologically, participles mark the verbal categories of voice (active and middle) and tense-aspect. The participle is defined in distinction to verbal adjectives, which are lexical adjectives that display some verbal properties. A deciding criterion between participle and verbal adjective is whether the adjective obligatorily inherits the argument structure of the base verb from which it is derived; participles in Vedic always inherit the argument structure of the base, but with deverbal adjectives this may, but need not, be the case.

122. The morphology of Proto-Indo-European

2169

Present/aorist active participle: In PNIE, the active participle to present and aorist stems is formed by an ablauting suffix *-ont/nt- (fem. *-nt-ih2 -). Thematic forms were *-o-nt-, while in athematic verbs the suffix was added to the weak stem − for instance, *h1 es- ‘be’ makes a prs.act.ptcp. *h1 s-ónt- ‘being’ (cf. Lat. sōns ‘guilty’ and in-sōns ‘innocent’, relics from *h1 s-ónt-s; Watkins 1967). In thematic verbs, the zero-grade suffix was added to the thematic vowel, as in *b hér-o-nt- ‘bearing’ (Gk. p hér-o-nt-). Similarly, *-nt- could be added to aorist stems. The Anatolian cognate of *-nt- presents several serious discrepancies. The Hittite cognate of the participial suffix *-nt-, viz. -ā˘nt-, regularly expresses a resultant state: Hitt. kunant- means ‘killed, having been killed’ (not ‘killing’), a meaning matched residually in Luwian and Lycian relics, as in CLuw. walant(i)-/ulant(i)- ‘dead’, Lyc. lãta‘dead’. In the case of transitive verbs, the Anatolian participles show usually a passive, but sometimes an active sense, e.g., Hitt. šekkant- ‘knowing/known’, appānt- ‘taken, seized’. This state of affairs contrasts with other IE languages, as illustrated by Hitt. kunant- ‘killed’ beside its cognate in Vedic ghnánt- ‘smashing, killing’ (though see Watkins 1969: 142−144 for possible relics of passive meaning of the *-nt-participle). In general, then, the Hitt. -nt-participle in functional terms most closely resembles PNIE *-to-/*-no- adjectives. Precisely how to derive the Anatolian or non-Anatolian attested function from the other remains an unsolved problem (Melchert forthcoming b and Fellner and Grestenberger forthcoming propose possible step-by-step diachronic scenarios). It may be noted that a formally identical suffix *-nt- is also used outside the verbal system to build adjectives to property concept roots (within the “Caland system”, Rau 2009a: 176−177 et passim). For instance, Ved. br̥hánt- ‘high’, Av. bərəzaṇt- ‘id.’, TA kom-pärkānt ‘sunrise’, etc. all derive from the root *b herg̑ h- ‘high’, whose meaning is typical of property concept roots, and which builds adjectival stems (this example was identified already by Caland 1892: 267). Verbal stems formed to this root are sporadically attested (see further Lowe 2014a: 283−294). Middle participle: The middle participle (present, aorist, perfect) is reconstructible as athematic *-mh1 no-, thematic *-o-mh1 no-. The comparative method requires the reconstruction of this peculiar suffix shape, as showed by Klingenschmitt (1975: 161−163); the suffix is certainly composite in diachronic terms, although its internal structure is opaque. The suffix is found as a productive participle marker in Indo-Iranian (Ved. [athem.] -āná-, [them.] -a-māná-), Greek ([pfc.] -ménos, [pres.] -menos), and Tocharian (TA -māṃ, TB -mane). In other languages, mere vestiges remain, such as Arm. anasown ‘animal’ < *n̥-h2 eg̑-omno- lit. ‘non-speaking’, and Latin relics include fēmina ‘woman’ and alumnus ‘nursling’ (cf. Weiss 2011: 437). There is no trace of this participle in Anatolian; for arguments against Luwian -Vmma- as a reflex of *-mh1 no-, see Melchert (2014a: 206−207). Perfect participle: The perfect participle active was formed with the ablauting suffix *-wos/us- (f.*-us-ih2 -) added to the perfect stem. The formation is clearly continued into a number of daughter languages, as in Myc. Gk. a-ra-ru-wo-a [arar(u)-woh-a] ‘fitted’ (n.nom.pl.), Ved. ca-kr̥-vā́ṃs-am (m.acc.sg.) / ca-kr-úṣ-ī (f.nom.sg.) to the root kr̥/kar‘make’. Forms of the perfect participle active are continued in languages where the perfect has been lost as a finite category; it is found in Tocharian’s preterite participle, e.g., TB kekamu/kekamoṣ (root käm- ‘come’ + -u < *-wos-), and remade in Balto-Slavic (details in Olander 2015: 94−95). A curious trace of the formation survives in Goth. berusjos ‘parents’ (reflecting the feminine *-us-yeh2 -). Possible vestiges remain in Italic

2170

XX. Proto-Indo-European

(see Vine, this handbook, 7.3.1.2.); no trace has been found in Armenian or Albanian. With greater consequences for PIE, the perfect participle active is absent from Anatolian; it is highly likely that this absence is due to the category’s nascence after Anatolian’s departure from the common ancestor of the NIE languages.

4.4.2. Infinitives The infinitives in the IE languages are usually frozen case-forms of deverbal nominalizers (cf. 2.4.1 above); it is very likely that a nascent infinitival function was formed in this way in PIE too. However, the significant formal diversity attested in the marking of infinitives in the daughter languages seriously problematizes efforts to reconstruct the PIE exponent(s) of this category − that is, precisely which case form or forms of which nominalizers marked the category of infinitive remains unclear (for one overview of the problem, see García Ramón 1997). Keydana (2013a) proposes criteria for segregating event nominalizations from true infinitives in Vedic. His strongest proposed criterion for nounhood is that event nominalizers do not inherit argument structure from the verb, and therefore cannot govern a transitive object (they instead take a genitive complement). True infinitives do inherit verbal argument structure, which includes transitivity (and potentially tense, aspect, and voice), and thus will govern accusative case (Keydana 2013a: 25−58). It is not yet clear whether the Vedic texts always conform to the proposed criteria (cf. Lowe 2014b); see also the extensive discussion of Old Irish verbal nouns and infinitives by Stüber (2015). The following infinitives are representative of the forms attested in the daughter languages. The suffix *-tu- (forming abstract nouns) makes infinitives in various cases, for instance (acc.sg.) Ved. dā́-tum ‘to give’, (dat.sg.) Ved. pā́-tave ‘for drinking’, also in Old Prussian da-twei ‘to give’. Likewise the suffix (forming abstract nouns of feminine gender) *-ti- in various cases: Ved. pī-táye (dat.sg.) ‘for drinking’, Lith. bū́-ti ‘to be’ (from loc.sg. *-tēi). The suffix *-men- furnishes infinitives in various cases, such as Ved. vid-mán-e (dat.sg.) ‘to know’, Hom. Gk. (w)íd-men-ai ‘to know’; comparable is *-wen-, which underlies the Anatolian infinitives, Hitt. -wanzi (< abl.-instr. *-wen-ti), Palaic and Luvian -una (< allative *-un-eh2 ). The suffix *-d hye/o- (cf. Fortson 2012, 2013) makes infinitives across a number of branches: Indo-Iranian *-d hyāy (e.g., Ved. píba-dhyai ‘to drink’) can be equated with Italic infinitives, viz. Osc. -fír, Umb.-f(e)i, Lat. prs.pass. -rier, as well as the Tocharian infinitive in -tsi (e.g., TB lkā-tsi ‘to see’).

5. Conclusions Our survey of PIE morphology, written in the first quarter of the 21st century, builds directly on the great foundations of the field laid in the 19 th and 20 th centuries. However, the picture of PIE morphology it presents differs radically in many respects from the one presented by our predecessors; as one adage has it, “no language changes so fast as Proto-Indo-European.” We have attempted here to survey where there is consensus in the field and to flag points of interest for future research. We have aimed to present a state-of-the-art view on PIE morphology, in full knowledge that this picture will change

122. The morphology of Proto-Indo-European

2171

in coming years. The continued integration of Hittite and Tocharian into our understanding of PIE will undoubtedly play a major role in the 21st century, much as it has done in the 20th; philological work on the daughter branches will continue apace, challenging and revising our understanding of the proto-language; and advances in theoretical linguistics and in synchronic and diachronic language typology will continue to shed new light on old problems.

Acknowledgments For invaluable comments, criticisms, and suggestions, we are deeply indebted to colleagues at our home institution, UCLA, especially David Goldstein, Stephanie Jamison, Craig Melchert, Teigo Onishi, Ryan Sandell, and Brent Vine. Our chapter also improved immeasurably from the help of Joe Eska, Ben Fortson, Mark Hale, and Jay Jasanoff. We also thank José Luis García Ramón and Andreas Willi, who made preprint versions of their forthcoming work available to us. Finally, it is our special pleasure to thank Jared Klein, without whose support this project could not have been completed.

6. References Ackermann, Katsiaryna 2014 Die Vorgeschichte des slavischen Aoristsystems: mit der kommentierten Belegsammlung der Aoristformen und Formen des präteritalen passiven Partizipiums im Altkirchenslavischen. Leiden: Brill. Adams, Douglas Q. 2014 The polyvalent present-formative -äsk- in Tocharian B. Tocharian and Indo-European Studies 15: 1−33. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2011 Word-Class Changing Derivations in Typological Perspective. In: Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald and Robert M. W. Dixon (eds.), Language at Large: Essays on Syntax and Semantics. Leiden: Brill, 221−289. Alderete, John D. 2001a Morphologically Governed Accent in Optimality Theory. New York: Routledge. Alderete, John D. 2001b Dominance Effects as Transderivational Anti-Faithfulness. Phonology 18: 201−253. Alderete, John D. 2001c Root-Controlled Accent in Cupeño. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 19: 455− 502. Alexiadou, Artemis 2014 Nominal Derivation. In: Lieber and Štekauer (eds.), 235−256. Balles, Irene 2004 Zur Rekonstruction des früh-urindogermanischen Nominalklassensystems. In: Adam Hyllested, Anders R. Jørgensen, Jenny H. Larsson, and Thomas Olander (eds.), Per aspera ad asteriscos: Studia Indogermanica in honorem Jens Elmegård Rasmussen. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität, 43−57. Balles, Irene 2006 Die altindische Cvi-Konstruktion: Form, Funktion, Ursprung. Bremen: Hempen.

2172

XX. Proto-Indo-European

Balles, Irene 2008 The Old Indic cvi-construction, the Caland system, and the PIE adjective. In: Rasmussen and Olander (eds.), 1−15. Bamyacı, Elif, Jana Häussler, and Barış Kabak 2014 The interaction of animacy and number agreement: An experimental investigation. Lingua 148: 254−277. Barber, Peter J. 2013 Sievers’ Law and the History of Semivowel Syllabicity in Indo-European and Ancient Greek. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Barnes, Timothy 2015 Old Irish cuire, its congeners, and the ending of the 2 nd sg. middle imperative. Ériu 65: 49−56. Bauer, Laurie, and Salvador Valera (eds.) 2005 Approaches to Conversion/Zero-Derivation. Münster: Waxmann. Beekes, Robert S. P. 1985 The Origins of the Indo-European Nominal Inflection. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität. Beekes, Robert S. P., and Michiel A. C. de Vaan 2011 Comparative Indo-European Linguistics: an Introduction. 2 nd edn. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Bendahman, Jadwiga 1993 Der reduplizierte Aorist in den indogermanischen Sprachen. Egelsbach: Hänsel-Hohenhausen. Bernardo Stempel, Patrizia de 1999 Nominale Wortbildung des älteren Irischen: Stammbildung und Derivation. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Booij, Geert 2012 The Grammar of Words: an Introduction to Morphology. 3 rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bopp, Franz 1854 Vergleichendes Accentuationssystem. Berlin: Dümmler. Bowern, Claire and Bethwyn Evans (eds.) 2014 Routledge Handbook of Historical Linguistics. New York: Routledge. Bozzone, Chiara 2012 The PIE Subjunctive: Function and Development. In: Melchert (ed.), 7−18. Bozzone, Chiara 2016 The Origin of the Caland System and the Typology of Adjectives. Indo-European Linguistics 4: 15− 52. Brosch, Cyril 2010 Nominalkomposita und komponierende Ableitungen im Hethitischen. Altorientalische Forschungen 37: 263−301. Brugmann, Karl 1891 Zur Frage der Entstehung des grammatischen Geschlechtes. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 15: 523−531. Brugmann, Karl and Berthold Delbrück 1906 Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen. Bd. 2. 2 nd edn. Strassburg: Trübner. Bybee, Joan L. and Östen Dahl 1989 The Creation of Tense and Aspect Systems in the Languages of the World. Studies in Language 13: 51−103. Byrd, Andrew M. 2015 The Indo-European Syllable. Leiden: Brill.

122. The morphology of Proto-Indo-European

2173

Caland, Willem 1892 Beiträge zur kenntniss des Avesta, no. 19. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung 31: 266−268. Caland, Willem 1893 Beiträge zur kenntniss des Avesta, no. 26. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung 32: 592. Cardona, George 1960 The Indo-European Thematic Aorists. Ph.D. diss., Yale University. Casaretto, Antje 2004 Nominale Wortbildung der gotischen Sprache: Die Derivation der Substantive. Heidelberg: Winter. Chantraine, Pierre 1926 Histoire du parfait grec. Paris: Champion. Chantraine, Pierre 1933 La formation des noms en grec ancien. Paris: Klincksieck. Chung, Sandra 1983 Transderivational Relationships in Chamorro. Language 59: 35−66. Clackson, James 2007 Indo-European Linguistics: an Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Clackson, James and Geoffrey Horrocks 2007 The Blackwell History of the Latin Language. Oxford: Blackwell. Comrie, Bernard 1976 Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Comrie, Bernard 1989 Language Universals and Linguistic Typology: Syntax and Morphology. 2 nd edn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Comrie, Bernard and Sarah Thompson 2007 Lexical Nominalization. In: Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description. 2 nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 334−381. Cooper, Adam I., Jeremy Rau, and Michael Weiss (eds.) 2013 Multi Nominis Grammaticus: Studies in Classical and Indo-European linguistics in honor of Alan J. Nussbaum on the occasion of his sixty-fifth birthday. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave. Corbett, Greville G. 2000 Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Corbett, Greville G. 1991 Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Corbett, Greville G. 2013 Number of Genders. In: Dryer and Haspelmath (eds.), chapter 30. URL http://wals.info/ chapter/30. Cowgill, Warren 1957 Old Irish teoir and cetheoir. Language 33: 341−345. Cowgill, Warren 1970 Italic and Celtic Superlatives and the dialects of Indo-European. In: George Cardona, Henry M. Hoenigswald, and Alfred Senn (eds.), Indo-European and Indo-Europeans. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 113−153. Cowgill, Warren 1974 More Evidence for Indo-Hittite: The Tense-Aspect Systems. In: Luigi Heilmann (ed.), Proceedings of the Eleventh International Congress of Linguists, Bologna-Florence, Aug. 28−Sept. 2, 1972, vol. 2. Bologna: Società Editrice il Mulino, 557−570.

2174

XX. Proto-Indo-European

Cowgill, Warren 1979 Anatolian ḫi-Conjugation and Indo-European Perfect: Instalment II. In: Erich Neu and Wolfgang Meid (eds.), Hethitisch und Indogermanisch: Vergleichende Studien zur historischen Grammatik und zur dialektgeographischen Stellung der indogermanischen Sprachgruppe Altkleinasiens. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität, 25−39. Cowgill, Warren 1985a The Personal Endings of Thematic Verbs in Indo-European. In: Schlerath (ed.), 99−108. Cowgill, Warren 1985b PIE *duu̯o ‘2’ in Germanic and Celtic, and the nom.-acc. dual of non-neuter o-stems. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 46: 13−28. Cowgill, Warren 2006a The z-Cases of Germanic Pronouns and Strong Adjectives. In: Klein (ed.), 519–534. Cowgill, Warren 2006b The Personal Endings of Thematic Verbs in Indo-European (longer version). In: Klein (ed.), 535–567. Cuzzolin, Pierluigi and Christian Lehmann 2004 Comparison and Gradation. In: Geert Booij, Christian Lehmann, and Joachim Mugdan (eds.), Morphologie. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung. 2. Halbband. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1212−1220. Dahl, Eystein 2010 Time, Tense and Aspect in Early Vedic Grammar. Leiden: Brill. Dahl, Eystein 2013 The Indo-European Subjunctive and its Origin as a Present. Journal of Indo-European Studies 41: 392−430. Debrunner, Albert 1917 Griechische Wortbildungslehre. Heidelberg: Winter. Debrunner, Albert 1954 Altindische Grammatik, Band II.2. Die Nominalsuffixe. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Delbrück, Berthold 1871 Der Gebrauch des Conjunctivs und Optativs im Sanskrit und Griechischen. Halle: Waisenhaus. Delbrück, Berthold 1888 Altindische Syntax. Halle: Waisenhaus. Dell’Oro, Francesca 2015 Leggi, sistemi e leghe suffissali “di Caland”: storia della questione “Caland” come problema teorico della linguistica indoeuropea. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität. Dempsey, Timothy R. 2015 Verbal Reduplication in Anatolian. Ph.D. diss., UCLA. Derksen, Rick 2014 Etymological Dictionary of the Baltic Inherited Lexicon. Leiden: Brill. Di Giovine, Paolo 1990−1996 Studio sul perfetto indoeuropeo. (3 vols.). Rome: Editrice ‘Il Calamo’. Dieu, Éric 2011 Le supplétisme dans les formes de gradation en grec ancien et dans les langues indoeuropéennes. Geneva: Droz. Dixon, Robert M. W. 2004 Adjective Classes in Typological Perspective. In: Robert M. W. Dixon and Alexandra I. Aikhenvald (eds.), Adjective Classes: A Cross-Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1−49.

122. The morphology of Proto-Indo-European

2175

Dresher, B. Elan and Harry van der Hulst 1998 Head-dependent asymmetries in phonology: Complexity and visibility. Phonology 15: 317−352. Dryer, Matthew S. and Martin Haspelmath (eds.) 2013 The World Atlas of Language Structures Online (WALS). Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. URL http://wals.info. Drinka, Bridget 1995 The Sigmatic Aorist in Indo-European: Evidence for the Space-Time-Hypothesis. Washington, D.C.: Institute for the Study of Man. Duhoux, Yves 2000 Le verbe grec ancien: éléments de morphologie et de syntaxe historiques. 2 nd edn. Louvain-La-Neuve: Peeters. Dunkel, George E. 2014 Lexikon der indogermanischen Partikeln und Pronominalstämme. Vol. I−II. Heidelberg: Winter. Eichner, Heiner 1969 Hethitisch wešš-/waššiya- “(Gewänder) tragen; anziehen; bekleiden”. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 27: 5−44. Eichner, Heiner 1985 Das Problem des Ansatzes eines urindogermanischen Numerus ‘Kollektiv’ (‘Komprehensiv’). In: Schlerath (ed.), 135−169. Fábregas, Antonio 2014 Adjectival and Adverbial Derivation. In: Lieber and Štekauer (eds.), 276−295. Fellner, Hannes 2014 PIE feminine *-eh2 - in Tocharian. In: Neri and Schuhmann (eds.), 7−22. Fellner, Hannes and Laura Grestenberger forthcoming Gemeinsame Unterschiede und unterschiedliche Gemeinsamkeiten der hethitischen und tocharischen Nominalmorphologie: Die Reflexe der *-nt- und *-mh1 noPartizipien. Forthcoming in the proceedings of the Indogermanische Gesellschaft, Marburg: “100 Jahre Entzifferung des Hethitischen” (21−23 September 2015). Forssman, Bernhard 1994 Zu hethitisch šipand- und išpant-. In: Rasmussen (ed.), 93−106. Fortson, Benjamin W. IV 2010 Indo-European Language and Culture: an Introduction. 2 nd edn. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Fortson, Benjamin W. IV 2012 Latin -rier and its Indo-Iranian Congeners. Indogermanische Forschungen 117: 75−118. Fortson, Benjamin W. IV 2013 Pre-Italic *-dhi̯ ē (*-dhi̯ eh1 ) versus Pre-Indo-Iranian *-dhi̯ ōy: Bridging the Gap. In: Cooper, Rau, and Weiss (eds.), 50−60. Frazier, Melissa 2006 Accent in Proto-Indo-European Athematic Nouns: Antifaithfulness in Inflectional Paradigms. Ph.D. diss., University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. García Ramón, José Luis 1985 Die Sekundärendung der 1. Sg. Medii im Indogermanischen. In: Schlerath (ed.), 202− 217. García Ramón, José Luis 1997 Infinitive im Indogermanischen? Zur Typologie der Infinitivbildungen und zu ihrer Entwicklung in den älteren indogermanischen Sprachen. Incontri Linguistici 20: 45−69. García Ramón, José Luis 1998 Indogermanisch *gwhen- ‘(wiederholt) schlagen’, ‘töten’. In: Jasanoff, Melchert, and Oliver (eds.), 139−154.

2176

XX. Proto-Indo-European

García Ramón, José Luis 2002 Zu Verbalcharakter, morphologischer Aktionsart und Aspekt in der indogermanischen Rekonstruktion. In: Heinrich Hettrich (ed.), Indogermanische Syntax: Fragen und Perspektiven. Akten der Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 105−136. García Ramón, José Luis 2009 Primär- und Sekundärendungen im Konjunktiv im Vedischen: Deixis und Sprechakt. In: Elisabeth Rieken and Paul Widmer (eds.), Pragmatische Kategorien: Form, Funktion und Diachronie. Akten der Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Marburg 2007. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 79−91. García Ramón, José Luis 2010 On Hittite Verbs of the Type mimma-hhi ‘refuse’: Aktionsart and Aspect in Indo-European Reconstruction. In: Kim et al. (eds.), 40−54. Garde, Paul 1976 Histoire de l’accentuation slave. Paris: Institut d’études slaves. Garrett, Andrew 1990 The Syntax of Anatolian Pronominal Clitics. Ph.D. diss., Harvard University. Garrett, Andrew 1996 Wackernagel’s Law and Unaccusativity in Hittite. In: Aaron Halpern and Arnold Zwicky (eds.), Approaching Second: Second-Position Clitics and Related Phenomena. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 85−133. Garrett, Andrew and Michael Weiss (eds.) forthcoming Handbook of Indo-European Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. George, Coulter 2014 Lexical Aspect (Aktionsart). In: Giannakis (ed.), Vol. 2: G-O, 332–339. George, Coulter, Matthew McCulloch, Benedicte Nielsen, Antonia Ruppel, and Olga Tribulato (eds.) 2007 Greek and Latin from an Indo-European Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society. Giannakis, Georgios K. (ed.) 2014 Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics. 3 vols. Leiden: Brill. Gil, David 1996 Maltese ‘collective’ nouns. Rivista di Linguistica 8: 53−87. Goedegebuure, Petra 2006 A new proposal for the reading of the Hittite numeral ‘1’, šia-. In: Theo van den Hout (ed.), The Life and Times of Hattušili III and Tudhaliya IV: Proceedings of a Symposium Held in Honor of J. de Roos. Leiden: NINO, 165−188 . Goedegebuure, Petra 2013 Split-ergativity in Hittite. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archäologie 102: 270−303. Gotō, Toshifumi 2013 Old Indo-Aryan Morphology and its Indo-Iranian Background. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963 Some Universals of Grammar with Particular Reference to the Order of Meaningful Elements. In: Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of language,. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 73−113. Grestenberger, Laura 2009 The Vedic i-Stems and Internal Derivation. Master’s thesis, University of Vienna. Grestenberger, Laura 2014a Feature Mismatch: Deponency in Indo-European Languages. Ph.D. diss., Harvard University.

122. The morphology of Proto-Indo-European

2177

Grestenberger, Laura 2014b Zur Funktion des Nominalsuffixes *-i- im Vedischen und Urindogermanischen. In: Oettinger and Steer (eds.), 88−102. Grestenberger, Laura 2016 Reconstructing Indo-European Deponents. Indo-European Linguistics 4: 98−149. Griepentrog, Wolfgang 1995 Die Wurzelnomina des Germanischen und ihre Vorgeschichte. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität. Gunkel, Dieter 2014 Accentuation. In: Giannakis (ed.), Vol. 1: A-F, 7−12. (longer version available online at http://www.indogermanistik.uni-muenchen.de). Gunkel, Dieter, Joshua T. Katz, Brent Vine, and Michael Weiss (eds.) 2016 Sahasram ati srajas: Indo-European and Indo-Iranian Studies in Honor of Stephanie W. Jamison. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave. Gvozdanović, Jadranka (ed.) 1992 Indo-European Numerals. Berlin: De Gruyter. Hackstein, Olav 2011 Collective and Feminine in Tocharian. In: Olav Hackstein and Ronald I. Kim (eds.), Linguistic Developments Along the Silkroad: Archaism and Innovation in Tocharian. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 143−177. Hajnal, Ivo 1994 Die lykischen a-Stämme: Zum Werdegang einer Nominalklasse. In: Rasmussen (ed.), 135−171. Hajnal, Ivo, Daniel Kölligan, and Katharina Zipser (eds.) 2017 Miscellanea Indogermanica. Festschrift für José Luis García Ramón zum 65. Geburtstag. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität. Hale, Mark 2007 Historical Linguistics: Theory and Method. Oxford: Blackwell. Hale, Mark 2010 Návyasā vácaḥ: To Praise with a Really Old Word. In: Kim et al. (eds.), 85−97. Harðarson, Jón Axel 1987 Zum urindogermanischen Kollektivum. Münchener Studien für Sprachwissenschaft 48: 71−113. Harðarson, Jón Axel 1998 Mit dem Suffix *-eh1 - bzw. *-(e)h1 -ie/o- gebildete Verbalstämme im Indogermanischen. In: Meid (ed.), 323−339. Harðarson, Jón Axel 2014 Das andere Wort für ‘Frau’ im Urindogermanischen. In: Neri and Schuhmann (eds.), 23−56. Harðarson, Jón Axel 2015 The Proto-Indo-European Collective and the Hittite Neuter Plural. Paper presented at the conference Hrozný and Hittite: The First 100 Years, Prague, 12 November 2015. Haspelmath, Martin 1993 More on the typology of inchoative/causative verb alternations. In: Bernard Comrie and Maria Polinsky (eds.), Causatives and Transitivity. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 87−120. Heidermanns, Frank 2005 Bibliographie zur indogermanischen Wortforschung: Wortbildung, Etymologie, Onomasiologie und Lehnwortschichten der alten und modernen indogermanischen Sprachen in systematischen Publikationen ab 1800. 3 vols. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Hettrich, Heinrich 1990 Der Agens in passivischen Sätzen altindogermanischer Sprachen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

2178

XX. Proto-Indo-European

Hill, Eugen 2007 Die Aorist-Präsentien des Indoiranischen: Untersuchungen zur Morphologie und Semantik einer Präsensklasse. Bremen: Hempen. Hill, Eugen and Michael Frotscher 2012 The Accentuation of Old Indic Reduplicated (3 rd Class) Presents. In: Melchert (ed.), 105−114. Hill, Jane H. 2005 A Grammar of Cupeño. Los Angeles: University of California Press. Hirt, Hermann 1900 Der indogermanische Ablaut: Vornehmlich in seinem Verhältnis zur Betonung. Strassburg: Trübner. Hoffmann, Karl 1955 Ein grundsprachliches Possessivsuffix. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 6: 35−40. Hoffmann, Karl 1967 Der Injunktiv im Veda. Heidelberg: Winter. Hoffmann, Karl 1970 Das Kategoriensystem des indogermanischen Verbums. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 28: 19−41. Hoffmann, Karl 1976 Aufsätze zur Indoiranistik. Vol. 2. Edited by Johanna Narten. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Hoffner, Harry A. and H. Craig Melchert 2008 A Grammar of the Hittite Language. Vol. I: Reference Grammar. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Hopper, Paul and Sandra Thompson 1980 Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse. Language 56: 251−299. van den Hout, Theo 2001 Neuter Plural Subjects and Nominal Predicates in Anatolian. In: Onofrio Carruba and Wolfgang Meid (eds.), Anatolisch und Indogermanisch: Akten des Kolloquiums der indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Pavia, 22−25 September 1998. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität, 167−192. Huggard, Mattyas 2015 Wh-words in Hittite: A Study in Syntax-Semantics and Syntax-Phonology Interfaces. Ph.D. diss., UCLA. van der Hulst, Harry 1999 Word Prosodic Systems in the Languages of Europe. Berlin: De Gruyter. van der Hulst, Harry 2014 The study of word accent and stress: Past, present, and future. In: Harry Van der Hulst (ed.), Word Stress: Theoretical and Typological Issues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3−55. Hyman, Larry 2006 Word prosodic typology. Phonology 2. 225−257. Jamison, Stephanie W. 1979a The Case of the Agent in Indo-European. Die Sprache 15: 129−143. Jamison, Stephanie W. 1979b Remarks on the expression of agency with the passive in Vedic and Indo-European. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 93: 196−219. Jamison, Stephanie W. 1983 Function and form in the -áya-formations of the Rig Veda and the Atharva Veda. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Jamison, Stephanie W. 1992 “Sá figé”: an inherited sentence connective? Historische Sprachforschung 105: 213−239

122. The morphology of Proto-Indo-European Jamison, 2014 Jamison, 2016

2179

Stephanie W. Review of Dahl 2010. Indo-Iranian Journal 57: 151−160. Stephanie W. The Vedic Perfect Subjunctive and the Value of Modal Forms to Tense/Aspect Stems. In: Hajnal, Kölligan, and Zipser (eds.), 323−334. Jamison, Stephanie W., H. Craig Melchert, and Brent Vine (eds.) 2010 Proceedings of the 21st Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference. Bremen: Hempen Jamison, Stephanie W., H. Craig Melchert, and Brent Vine (eds.) 2013 Proceedings of the 24 th Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference 2012. Bremen: Hempen. Jasanoff, Jay H. 1976 Gr. ámphō, lat. ambo et le mot indo-européen pour ‘l’un et l’autre’. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique 71: 125−131. Jasanoff, Jay H. 1978 Stative and Middle in Indo-European. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität. Jasanoff, Jay H. 1979 Notes on the Armenian Personal Endings. Historische Sprachforschung 93: 133−149. Jasanoff, Jay H. 1983 A rule of final syllables in Slavic. Journal of Indo-European Studies 11: 139−149. Jasanoff, Jay H. 1988 The s-aorist in Hittite and Tocharian. Tocharian and Indo-European Studies 2: 52−76. Jasanoff, Jay H. 1989 Language and Gender in the Tarim Basin: The Tocharian 1 sg. Pronoun. Tocharian and Indo-European Studies 3: 125−148. Jasanoff, Jay H. 1997 Gathic Avestan cikōitərəš. In: Alexander Lubotsky (ed.), Sound Law and Analogy: Papers in honor of Robert S. P. Beekes on the Occasion of his 60 th Birthday. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 119−130. Jasanoff, Jay H. 1998 The Thematic Conjugation Revisited. In: Jasanoff, Melchert, and Oliver (eds.), 301− 316. Jasanoff, Jay H. 2003a Hittite and the Indo-European Verb. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jasanoff, Jay H. 2003b “Stative” *-ē- Revisited. Die Sprache 43: 127−70. Jasanoff, Jay H. 2006 The Ending of the PIE 2 Sg. Middle Imperative. Die Sprache 46: 203−212. Jasanoff, Jay H. 2008 *-bhi, *-bhis, *-ōis: Following the trail of the PIE instrumental plural. In: Rasmussen and Olander (eds.), 137−150. Jasanoff, Jay H. 2009 Notes on the internal history of the PIE optative. In: Yoshida and Vine (eds.), 47−68. Jasanoff, Jay H. 2011 Balto-Slavic mobility as an Indo-European problem. In: Roman Sukač (ed.), From Present to Past and Back: Papers on Baltic and Slavic Accentology. Frankfurt: Lang, 52−74. Jasanoff, Jay H. 2012a Did Hittite have si-imperatives? In: Roman Sukač and Ondřej Šefčík (eds.), The Sound of Indo-European 2: Papers on Indo-European Phonetics, Phonemics and Morphophonemics. Munich: LINCOM, 116−132.

2180 Jasanoff, 2012b Jasanoff, 2012c

XX. Proto-Indo-European

Jay H. Long-vowel preterites in Indo-European. In: Melchert (ed.), 127‒135. Jay H. The Prehistory of the Thematic Aorist. Paper presented at the 31st Annual East Coast Indo-European Conference, Berkeley, CA, 18 May 2012. Jasanoff, Jay H. forthcoming a Verbal Stem Formation. In: Garrett and Weiss (eds.). Jasanoff, Jay H. forthcoming b The Prehistory of the IE perfect: A contribution to the theory of the h2 econjugation. In: 100 Jahre Entzifferung des Hethitischen: Morphosyntaktische Kategorien in Sprachgeschichte und Forschung. Proceedings of the Arbeitstagung of the Indogermanische Gesellschaft, Marburg, 21. bis 23. September 2015. Jasanoff, Jay H. and Joshua Katz 2016 A Revised History of the Greek Pluperfect. In: Hajnal, Kölligan, and Zipser (eds.), 347− 361. Jasanoff, Jay, Craig Melchert, and Lisi Oliver (eds.) 1998 Mír Curad: Studies in Honor of Calvert Watkins. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität. Katz, Joshua T. 1998 Topics in Indo-European Personal Pronouns. Ph.D. diss., Harvard University. Katz, Joshua T. 2008 On the Origin of the Greek Pluperfect. Die Sprache 46 [2006]: 1−37. Kawahara, Shigeto 2015 The Phonology of Japanese Accent. In: Haruo Kubozono (ed.), The Handbook of Japanese Phonetics and Phonology. Berlin: De Gruyter, 445−492. Kellens, Jean 1974 Les noms-racines de l’Avesta. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Kemmer, Suzanne 1993 The Middle Voice. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Keydana, Götz 2013a Infinitive im R̥gveda: Formen, Funktion, Diachronie. Leiden: Brill. Keydana, Götz 2013b Proterokinetische Stämme. In: Keydana, Olander, and Widmer (eds.), 31−62. Keydana, Götz, Thomas Olander, and Paul Widmer (eds.) 2013 Indo-European Accent and Ablaut, Copenhagen Studies in Indo-European, vol. 5. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum. Kim, Ronald 2002 Topics in the Reconstruction and Development of Indo-European Accent. Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania. Kim, Ronald (I.) 2005 Review of Jasanoff 2003a. Diachronica 22: 191−200. Kim, Ronald 2008 The Celtic Feminine Numerals ‘3’ and ‘4’ Revisited. Keltische Forschungen 3: 143− 167. Kim, Ronald (I.) 2009 The feminine gender in Tocharian and Indo-European. In: Yoshida and Vine (eds.), 69− 87. Kim, Ronald 2013a Metrical Grid Theory, Internal Derivation, and the Reconstruction of PIE Nominal Accent Paradigms. In: Keydana, Olander, and Widmer (eds.), 63−106.

122. The morphology of Proto-Indo-European

2181

Kim, Ronald (I.) 2013b The Indo-European, Anatolian, and Tocharian “Secondary” Cases in Typological Perspective. In: Cooper, Rau, and Weiss (eds.), 121−142. Kim, Ronald, Norbert Oettinger, Elisabeth Rieken, and Michael Wiess (eds.) 2010 Ex Anatolia Lux: Anatolian and Indo-European Studies in Honor of H. Craig Melchert on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Ann Arbor/New York: Beech Stave. Kiparsky, Paul 1967 A Phonological Rule of Greek. Glotta 44: 109−132. Kiparsky, Paul 1968 Tense and mood in Indo-European syntax. Foundations of language 4: 30−57. Kiparsky, Paul 2005 The Vedic Injunctive: Historical and Synchronic Implications. The Yearbook of South Asian Languages and Linguistics 35: 219−235. Kiparsky, Paul 2010a Compositional vs. Paradigmatic Approaches to Accent and Ablaut. In: Jamison, Melchert, and Vine (eds.), 137−181. Kiparsky, Paul 2010b Dvandvas, blocking, and the associative: The bumpy ride from phrase to word. Language 86: 302−331. Kiparsky, Paul 2011 Did Indo-European have Reflexive Pronouns? Paper presented at the 23 rd Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference, Los Angeles, 28−29 October 2011. Kiparsky, Paul 2015 New Perspectives in Historical Linguistics. In: Bowern and Evans (eds.), 64−102. Kiparsky, Paul 2016 The Agent Suffixes as a Window into Vedic Grammar. In: Gunkel et al. (eds.), 170− 192. Kiparsky, Paul forthcoming Accent and Ablaut. In: Garrett and Weiss (eds.). Kiparsky, Paul and Morris Halle 1977 Towards a Reconstruction of the Indo-European Accent. In: Larry Hyman (ed.), Studies in Stress and Accent. Los Angeles, CA: USC Press, 209−238. Klein, Jared S. 1996 “Sá-figé” and Indo-European Deixis. Historische Sprachforschung 109: 21−39. Klein, Jared S. 2003 Āmreḍitas and Related Constellations in the Rigveda. Journal of the American Oriental Society 123: 773−802. Klein, Jared S. (ed.) 2006 The Collected Writings of Warren Cowgill. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave. Klingenschmitt, Gert 1975 Tocharisch und Urindogermanisch. In: Rix (ed.), 148−163. Kloekhorst, Alwin 2008 Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon. Leiden: Brill. Kloekhorst, Alwin 2012 Hittite “ā/e”-ablauting Verbs. In: Melchert (ed.), 151−160. Kloekhorst, Alwin 2013 Indo-European nominal ablaut patterns: The Anatolian evidence. In: Keydana, Olander, and Widmer (eds.), 107−128. Kloekhorst, Alwin 2014 Once more on Hittite ā/e-ablauting hi-verbs. Indogermanische Forschungen 119: 55− 77.

2182

XX. Proto-Indo-European

Kloekhorst, Alwin 2016 The Anatolian Stop System and the Indo-Hittite Hypothesis. Indogermanische Forschungen 121: 213−247. Kölligan, Daniel 2004 Wenn zwei dasselbe tun: Iterativa und Kausativa. In: Maria Kozianka, Rosemarie Lühr, and Susanne Zeilfelder (eds.), Indogermanistik−Germanistik−Linguistik. Akten der Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Jena 2002. Hamburg: Kovač, 193−247. Kölligan, Daniel 2007 Iteratives and Causatives in Latin: A Unified Approach. In: George et al. (eds.), 49−64. Kölligan, Daniel 2007 Suppletion und Defektivität im griechischen Verbum. Bremen: Hempen. Koontz-Garboden, Andrew 2006 On the typology of state/change of state alternations. In: Geert Booij and Jaap van Maarle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 2005. Dordrecht: Springer, 83−117. Kortlandt, Frederik 1981 1st Sg. Middle *-H2 . Indogermanische Forschungen 88: 123−136. Krisch, Thomas and Thomas Lindner (eds.) 2011 Indogermanistik und Linguistik im Dialog: Akten der XIII. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 21. bis 27. September 2008 in Salzburg. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Kubozono, Haruo 2011 Japanese Pitch Accent. In: Marc Van Oostendorp, Colin J. Ewen, Elizabeth Hume, and Keren Rice (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Phonology. Oxford: Blackwell, 2879− 2907. Kuiper, Franciscus Bernardus Jacobus 1942 Notes on Vedic Noun-Inflexion. Amsterdam: Noord-hollandsche uitgevers maatschappij. Kulikov, Leonid 2000 The Vedic Type syáti Revisited. In: Bernhard Forssman and Robert Plath (eds.), Indoarisch, Iranisch und die Indogermanistik: Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 2. bis 5. Oktober 1997 in Erlangen. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 267−283. Kulikov, Leonoid 2009 Evolution of Case Systems. In: Andrej Malchukov and Andrew Spencer (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Case. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 439−457. Kulikov, Leonid 2012 The Vedic -ya-Presents: Passives and Intransitivity in Old Indo-Aryan. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Kümmel, Martin (Joachim) 1996 Stativ und Passivaorist im Indoiranischen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Kümmel, Martin Joachim 1998 Wurzelpräsens neben Wurzelaorist im Indogermanischen. Historische Sprachforschung 111: 191−208. Kümmel, Martin Joachim 2000 Das Perfekt im Indoiranischen. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Kümmel, Martin Joachim 2007 Konsonantenwandel: Bausteine zu einer Typologie des Lautwandels und ihre Konsequenzen für die vergleichende Rekonstruktion. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Kümmel, Martin Joachim 2012 Typology and Reconstruction: The Consonants and Vowels of Proto-Indo-European. In: Benedicte Nielsen Whitehead, Thomas Olander, Birgit A. Olsen, and Jens E. Rasmussen (eds.), The Sound of Indo-European. Phonetics, Phonemics, and Morphophonemics. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum, 291−329. Kümmel, Martin Joachim 2014 Zum “proterokinetischen” Ablaut. In: Oettinger and Steer (eds.), 164−179.

122. The morphology of Proto-Indo-European

2183

Kümmel, Martin Joachim 2016 *syá- im Indoiranischen: Zahlwort und Demonstrativum? In: Andrew Byrd, Jessica DeLisi, and Mark Wenthe (eds.), Tavet Tat Satyam: Studies in Honor of Jared S. Klein on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave, 179−190. de Lamberterie, Charles 1990 Les adjectifs grecs en -υς: sémantique et comparaison. Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters. de Lamberterie, Charles 2002 Review of M. Meier-Brügger, Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft (8 th edn.), 2002. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 97: 103−114. Ledo-Lemos, Francisco J. 2000 Femininum Genus: A Study on the Origins of the Indo-European Feminine Grammatical Gender. Munich: Lincom Europa. Lehrman, Alexander 1998 Indo-Hittite Redux. Moscow: Paleograph. Li, Fengxiang and Lindsay Whaley forthcoming A Cross-Linguistic Examination of Morphological Causatives, Intensives, and Reciprocals: A Grammaticization Perspective. MS Dartmouth College. Lieber, Rochelle and Pavol Štekauer (eds.) 2009 The Oxford Handbook of Compounding. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lieber, Rochelle and Pavol Štekauer (eds.) 2014 The Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lindner, Thomas 2011−2016 Komposition. Indogermanische Grammatik IV.1. 4 vols. Heidelberg: Winter. Litscher, Roland 2014 Voraussetzungen für ein feminines Genus und Implikationen für das Kategoriensystem des frühindogermanischen Nomens. In: Neri and Schuhmann (eds.), 137−166. Lohmann, Johannes 1932 Genus und Sexus. Eine morphologische Studie zum Ursprung der indogermanischen nominalen Genus-Unterscheidung. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Lowe, John J. 2014a Indo-European Caland Adjectives in *-nt- and Participles in Sanskrit. Historische Sprachforschung 127: 166−195. Lowe, John J. 2014b Review of Keydana 2013a. Indo-Iranian Journal 57: 261−270. Lowe, John (J.) 2015 Participles in Rigvedic Sanskrit. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lühr, Rosemarie and Irene Balles 2008 Nominale Wortbildung des Indogermanischen in Grundzügen: die Wortbildungsmuster ausgewählter indogermanischer Einzelsprachen. Band I: Latein, Altgriechisch. Hamburg: Kovač. Lühr, Rosemarie and Joachim Matzinger 2008 Nominale Wortbildung des Indogermanischen in Grundzügen: die Wortbildungsmuster ausgewählter indogermanischer Einzelsprachen. Band II: Hethitisch, Altindisch, Altarmenisch. Hamburg: Kovač. Lundquist, Jesse 2015 On the Accentuation of Vedic -ti-Abstracts. Indo-European Linguistics 3: 42−72. Lundquist, Jesse 2016 On the Accentuation of Compound s-Stem Adjectives in Greek and Vedic. In: David M. Goldstein, Stephanie W. Jamison, and Brent Vine (eds.), Proceedings of the 27 th Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference. Bremen: Hempen, 97−114.

2184

XX. Proto-Indo-European

Luraghi, Silvia 2009a Indo-European Nominal Classification: From Abstract to Feminine. In: Stephanie Jamison, H. Craig Melchert, and Brent Vine (eds.), Proceedings of the 20 th Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference. Bremen: Hempen, 115−131. Luraghi, Silvia 2009b The origin of the feminine gender in PIE. In: Vit Bubenik, John Hewson, and Sarah Rose (eds.), Grammatical Change in the Indo-European Languages: Papers presented at the Workshop on Indo-European Linguistics at the 18 th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Montreal, 2007. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 3−13. Luraghi, Silvia 2011 The origin of the Proto-Indo-European gender system: Typological considerations. Folia Linguistica 45: 435−464. Luraghi, Silvia 2012 Basic valency orientation and the middle voice in Hittite. Studies in Language 36: 1− 32. Luraghi, Silvia 2014 Gender and word formation: The PIE gender system in cross-linguistic perspective. In: Neri and Schuhmann (eds.), 199−231. Malzahn, Melanie 2010 The Tocharian Verbal System. Leiden: Brill. Malzahn, Melanie 2013 Cutting Around “temós”: Evidence from Tocharian. In: Cooper, Rau, and Weiss (eds.), 165−174. Malzahn, Melanie 2016 Tudati-presents and the tēzzi Principle. In: Gunkel et al. (eds.), 227−238. Malzahn, Melanie, Michaël Peyrot, Hannes Fellner, and Theresa-Susanna Illés (eds.) 2015 Tocharian Texts in Context. International Conference on Tocharian Manuscripts and Silk Road Culture, Vienna, June 25−29, 2013. Bremen: Hempen. Matasović, Ranko 2004 Gender in Indo-European. Heidelberg: Winter. Matasović, Ranko 2014 Slavic Nominal Word-Formation: Proto-Indo-European Origins and Historical Development. Heidelberg: Winter. Mayrhofer, Manfred 1986−2001 Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen. Vol. 1−3. Heidelberg: Winter. Meid, Wolfgang (ed.) 1998 Sprache und Kultur der Indogermanen: Akten der X. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft Innsbruck, 22.−28. September 1996. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität. Meier-Brügger, Michael 2010 Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft. 9 th edn. Berlin: De Gruyter. Meillet, Antoine 1922 La forme du génitif pluriel en ombrien. Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 22: 258−259. Meillet, Antoine 1925 La méthode comparative en linguistique historique. Paris: Champion. Meillet, Antoine 1931 Essai de chronologie des langues indo-européennes. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 32: 1−28. Meiser, Gerhard 1993 Zur Funktion des Nasalpräsens im Urindogermanischen. In: Gerhard Meiser (ed.), Indogermanica et Italica: Festschrift für Helmut Rix zum 65. Geburtstag. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität, 280−313.

122. The morphology of Proto-Indo-European

2185

Meissner, Torsten 1998 Das “Calandsche Gesetz” und das Griechische − nach 100 Jahren. In: Meid (ed.), 237− 254 . Meissner, Torsten 2005 S-stem Nouns and Adjectives in Greek and Proto-Indo-European. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Melchert, H. Craig 1984 Studies in Hittite Historical Phonology. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Melchert, H. Craig 1992a Relative Chronology and Anatolian: The Vowel System. In: Robert S. P. Beekes, Alexander Lubotsky, and Jos Weitenberg (eds.), Rekonstruction und relative Chronologie. Akten der VIII. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Leiden, 31 August−4 September 1987. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität, 41−53. Melchert, H. Craig 1992b The Middle Voice in Lycian. Historische Sprachforschung 105: 189−199. Melchert, H. Craig 1994a Anatolian Historical Phonology. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Melchert, H. Craig 1994b The Feminine Gender in Anatolian. In: George E. Dunkel, Gisela Meyer, Salvatore Scarlata, and Christian Seidl (eds.), Fruh-, Mittel-, Spatindogermanisch. Akten der IX. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 5. bis 9. Oktober 1992 im Zürich. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 231−244. Melchert, H. Craig 1997 Traces of a PIE Aspectual Contrast in Anatolian? Incontri linguistici 20: 83−92. Melchert, H. Craig 2000 Tocharian Plurals in -nt- and Related Phenomena. Tocharian and Indo-European Studies 9: 530−575. Melchert, H. Craig 2002 Sibilants in Carian. In: Matthias Fritz and Susanne Zeilfelder (eds.), Novalis Indogermanica: Festschrift für Günter Neumann zum 80. Geburtstag. Graz: Leykam, 305−313. Melchert, H. Craig 2003 Language. In: H. Craig Melchert (ed.), The Luwians. Leiden: Brill, 170−211. Melchert, H. Craig 2011a The PIE Collective Plural and the “τὰ ζῶα τρέχει rule”. In: Krisch and Lindner (eds.), 395−400. Melchert, H. Craig 2011b The Problem of the Ergative Case in Hittite. In: Michèle Fruyt, Michel Mazoyer, and Dennis Pardee (eds.), Acts of the International Colloqium Variations, Concurrence, et Evolution des Cas dans Divers Domains Linguistiques, Paris, 2−4 April 2007. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 161−167. Melchert, H. Craig 2012a Genitive Case and Possessive Adjective in Anatolian. In: Vincenzo Orioles (ed.), Per Roberto Gusmani: Linguistica Storica e Teorica. vol. 1. Udine: Forum, 273−286. Melchert, H. Craig (ed.) 2012b The Indo-European Verb: Proceedings of the Conference of the Society for Indo-European Studies, Los Angeles 13−15 September 2010. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Melchert, H. Craig 2013 Ablaut Patterns in the Hittite ḫi-Conjugation. In: Jamison, Melchert, and Vine (eds.), 137−150. Melchert, H. Craig 2014a Anatolian Nominal Stems in *-(C)o-. In: Oettinger and Steer (eds.), 205−214.

2186

XX. Proto-Indo-European

Melchert, H. Craig 2014b “Narten formations” versus “Narten roots”. Indogermanische Forschungen 119: 251− 258. Melchert, H. Craig 2014c PIE *-eh2 as an “Individualizing” Suffix and the Feminine Gender. In: Neri and Schuhmann (eds.), 257−271. Melchert, H. Craig 2015 The Tocharian s-Preterite. In: Malzahn et al. (eds.), 127−135. Melchert, H. Craig 2016a The Case of the Agent in Anatolian and Proto-Indo-European. In: Gunkel et al. (eds.), 239−249. Melchert, H. Craig 2016b Initial *sp- in Hittite and šip(p)and- ‘to libate’. Journal of Language Relationship 14: 187−195. Melchert, H. Craig 2016c Relative Clauses in Anatolian. In: Sergio Neri, Roland Schuhmann, and Susanne Zeilfelder (eds.), dat ih dir it nu bi huldi gibu: Linguistische, germanistische und indogermanistische Studien Rosemarie Lühr gewidmet. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 287−295. Melchert, H. Craig forthcoming a The Position of Anatolian. In: Garrett and Weiss (eds.), (ms. available at http:// www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/Melchert [Last accessed 1 March 2016]). Melchert, H. Craig forthcoming b The Source(s) of Indo-European Participles in *-e/ont-. In: Adjectifs verbaux et participes dans les langues indo-européennes. Proceedings of the Arbeitstagung of the Indo-European Society, Paris, 24−26 September 2014. Melchert, H. Craig forthcoming c An Allative Case in Proto-Indo-European? To appear in a Festschrift. Melchert, H. Craig and Norbert Oettinger 2009 Ablativ und Instrumental im Hethitischen und Indogermanischen. Incontri Linguistici 32: 53−73. Morpurgo Davies, Anna 1987 Folk Linguistics and the Greek Word. In: George Cardona and Norman H. Zide (eds.), Festschrift for Henry Hoenigswald on the occasion of his seventieth birthday. Tübingen: Narr, 263−280. Napoli, Maria 2006 Aspect and Actionality in Homeric Greek. A Contrastive Analysis. Milan: Angeli. Napoli, Maria 2015 Telicity as a parameter of aspect in Homeric Greek. Activity and accomplishment verbs. Indogermanische Forschungen 112: 124−169. Narten, Johanna 1964 Die sigmatischen Aoriste im Veda. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Neri, Sergio 2003 I sostantivi in -u del gotico: morfologia e preistoria. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität. Neri, Sergio and Roland Schuhmann (eds.) 2014 Studies on the Collective and Feminine in Indo-European from a Diachronic and Typological Perspective. Leiden: Brill. Nikolaev, Alexander 2009 The Germanic word for ‘sword’ and delocatival derivation in Proto-Indo-European. The Journal of Indo-European Studies 37: 462−488. NIL 2008 see Wodtko, Irslinger, and Schneider (eds.)

122. The morphology of Proto-Indo-European

2187

Nussbaum, Alan J. 1975 Studies in Latin noun formation and derivation: ī in Latin denominative derivation. In: Calvert Watkins (ed.), Indo-European Studies II. Cambridge, MA: Department of Linguistics, Harvard University, 116−161. Nussbaum, Alan J. 1976 Caland’s “Law” and the Caland System. Ph.D. diss., Harvard University. Nussbaum, Alan J. 1986 Head and Horn in Indo-European. Berlin: De Gruyter. Nussbaum, Alan J. 1999 *Jocidus: An account of the Latin adjectives in -idus. In: Heiner Eichner and Hans C. Luschütsky (eds.), Compositiones Indogermanicae in Memoriam Joachem Schindler. Prague: Enigma, 377−419. Nussbaum, Alan J. 2014a Greek τέκμαρ ‘sign’ and τέκμωρ ‘sign’: Why both? In: Oettinger and Steer (eds.), 215− 260. Nussbaum, Alan J. 2014b Feminine, Abstract, Collective, Neuter Plural: Some Remarks on Each (Expanded Handout). In: Neri and Schuhmann (eds.), 273−306. Nuyts, Jan and Johan Van der Auwera 2016 The Oxford Handbook of Modality and Mood. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Oettinger, Norbert 1976 Der indogermanische Stativ. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 34: 109−149. Oettinger, Norbert 1979 Die Stammbildung des hethitischen Verbums. Nürnberg: Carl. Oettinger, Norbert 1987 Bemerkungen zur anatolischen i-Motion und Genusfrage. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 92: 74−92. Oettinger, Norbert 2006 Review of Jasanoff 2003a. Kratylos 51: 34−45. Oettinger, Norbert and Thomas Steer (eds.) 2014 Das indogermanische Nomen: Akten der Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Erlangen, 2011. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Olander, Thomas 2015 Proto-Slavic Inflectional Morphology. Leiden: Brill. Olsen, Susan 2001 Copulative Compounds: A closer look at the interface between syntax and morphology. Yearbook of Morphology 2000, 279−320. Olsen, Susan 2014 Delineating Derivation and Compounding. In: Lieber and Štekauer (eds.), 26−48. Ostrowski, Manfred 1985 Zur Entstehung und Entwicklung des indogermanischen Nomens. In: Schlerath (ed.), 313−323. Patri, Sylvain 2007 L’alignement syntaxique dans les langues indo-européennes d’Anatolie. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Pedersen, Holger 1938 Hittitisch und die anderen indoeuropäischen Sprachen. Copenhagen: Levin and Munksgaard. Pedersen, Holger 1926 La cinquième déclinaison latine. Copenhagen: A.F. Høst. Pedersen, Holger 1933 Études lituaniennes. Copenhagen: Levin & Munksgaard.

2188

XX. Proto-Indo-European

Penney, John H. W. 1978 Problems of Greek and Indo-European Ablaut: The Origin and Development of the O-grade. Ph.D. diss., University of Oxford. Petit, Daniel 1999 *SUE- en grec ancien: la famille du pronom réfléchi. Linguistique grecque et comparaison indo-européenne. Louvain: Peeters. Petit, Daniel 2016 Force et dominance accentuelle en morphologie dérivationelle grecque. In: Alain Blanc and Daniel Petit (eds.), Nouveaux acquis sur la formation des noms en grec ancien: Actes du Colloque international, Université de Rouen, ERIAC, 17−18 octobre 2013. Louvain: Peeters, 5−35. Peyrot, Michaël 2013 The Tocharian Subjunctive: A Study in Syntax and Verbal Stem Formation. Leiden: Brill. Pike, Moss 2011 Latin -tās and Related Forms. Ph.D. diss., UCLA. Pinault, Georges-Jean 2006a Analyse étymologique d’un nom de parenté indo-européen. In: Günter Schweiger (ed.), Indogermanica: Festschrift Gert Klingenschmitt; indische, iranische und indogermanische Studien dem verehrten Jubilar dargebracht zu seinem fu¨nfundsechzigsten Geburtstag. Taimering: Schweiger VWT, 465−486. Pinault, Georges-Jean 2006b Retour sur le numéral “un” en tokharien. Indogermanische Forschungen 111: 71−97. Portner, Paul 2009 Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Poser, William John 1984 The Phonetics and Phonology of Tone and Intonation in Japanese. Ph.D. diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Probert, Philomen 2006a Accentuation in Ancient Greek Deverbative ā-stems. In: Daniel Kölligan and Ranjan Sen (eds.), Oxford University Working Papers in Linguistics, Philology & Phonetics, vol. 11. Oxford: Oxford University, 122−142. Probert, Philomen 2006b Ancient Greek Accentuation: Synchronic Patterns, Frequency Effects, and Prehistory. Oxford Classical Monographs. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Probert, Philomen 2006c Clause Boundaries in Old Hittite Relative Sentences. Transactions of the Philological Society 104: 17−83. Probert, Philomen 2014 Relative Clauses, Indo-Hittite, and Standard Average European. In: Stephanie Jamison, Craig Melchert, and Brent Vine (eds.), Proceedings of the 25 th Annual UCLA IndoEuropean Conference, 2013. Bremen: Hempen, 137−164. Probert, Philomen 2015 Early Greek Relative Clauses. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Prokosch, Eduard 1939 A Comparative Germanic Grammar. Baltimore: Linguistic Society of America. Puhvel, Jaan 1991 Homer and Hittite. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität. Rasmussen, Jens Elmegård (ed.) 1994 In honorem Holger Pedersen. Kolloquium der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 26. bis 28. März 1993 in Kopenhagen. Wiesbaden: Reichert.

122. The morphology of Proto-Indo-European

2189

Rasmussen, Jens E. and Thomas Olander (eds.) 2008 Internal Reconstruction in Indo-European: Results, Methods, and Problems. Section Papers from the XVI International Conference on Historical Linguistics, University of Copenhagen, 11th−15 th August 2003. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum. Rau, Jeremy 2009a Indo-European Nominal Morphology: The Decads and the Caland System. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität. Rau, Jeremy 2009b Myc. te-re-ja and the Athematic Inflection of the Greek Contract Verbs. In: Yoshida and Vine (eds.), 181−188. Rau, Jeremy 2013 Notes on Stative Verbal Roots, the Caland System, and Primary Verbal Morphology in Indo-Iranian and Indo-European. In: Cooper, Rau, and Weiss (eds.), 255−273. Rau, Jeremy 2014 The History of the Indo-European Primary Comparative. In: Oettinger and Steer (eds.), 327−341. Revithiadou, Anthoula 1999 Headmost Accent Wins: Head Dominance and Ideal Prosodic Form in Lexical Accent Systems. Ph.D. diss., Leiden. Rieken, Elizabeth 1999 Untersuchungen zur nominalen Stammbildung des Hethitischen. StBoT 44. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Rieken, Elisabeth 1994 Der Wechsel -a-/-i- in der Stammbildung des hethitischen Nomens. Historische Sprachforschung 107: 42−53. Rieken, Elisabeth 2005 Neues zum Ursprung der anatolischen i-Mutation. Historische Sprachforschung 118: 48−74. Ringe, Don 2000 Tocharian Class II Presents and Subjunctives and the Reconstruction of the Proto-IndoEuropean Verb. Tocharian and Indo-European Studies 9: 121−142. Ringe, Donald 2006 From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Risch, Ernst 1974 Wortbildung der homerischen Sprache. 2 nd edn. Berlin: De Gruyter. Helmut Rix (ed.) 1975 Flexion und Wortbildung: Akten der V. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Regensburg, 9. bis. 14. September 1975. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Rix, Helmut 1988 The Proto-Indo-European Middle: Content, Forms, and Origin. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 49: 101−119. Rix, Helmut 1992 Historische Grammatik des Griechischen: Laut- und Formenlehre. 2 nd edn. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Rix, Helmut and Martin Kümmel 2001 Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben: die Wurzeln und ihre Primärstammbildungen. 2 nd edn. Wiesbaden: Reichert. (addenda and corrigenda maintained at http://www. martinkuemmel.de/liv2add.html). Sandell, Ryan 2011 The Morphophonology of Reduplicated Presents in Vedic and Indo-European. In: Stephanie W. Jamison, H. Craig Melchert, and Brent Vine (eds.), Proceedings of the 22 nd Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference. Bremen: Hempen, 223−254.

2190

XX. Proto-Indo-European

Sandell, Ryan 2015 Productivity in Historical Linguistics: Computational Perspectives on Word-Formation in Ancient Greek and Sanskrit. Ph.D. diss., UCLA. Sandell, Ryan and Andrew M. Byrd 2014 In Defense of Szemerényi’s Law. Paper presented at the 33 rd Annual East Coast IndoEuropean Conference, Blacksburg, VA, 5−7 June 2014. Sasseville, David 2014/2015 Luwian and Lycian Agent Nouns in *-é-leh2 . Die Sprache 51: 105−124. de Saussure, Ferdinand 1879 Mémoire sur le système primitif des voyelles dans les langues indo-européennes. Leipzig: Teubner. Scalise, Sergio and Antonietta Bisetto 2009 The Classification of Compounds. In: Lieber and Štekauer (eds.), 34−53. Scalise, Sergio A., Antonio Fábregas, and Francesca S. S. A. F. F. Forza 2009 Exocentricity in compounding. Gengo Kenkyu 135: 49−84. Scarlata, Salvatore 1999 Die Wurzelkomposita im r̥g-Veda. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Schaffner, Stefan 2001 Das Vernersche Gesetz und der innerparadigmatische grammatische Wechsel des Urgermanischen im Nominalbereich. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität. Schindler, Jochem 1967 Zu hethitisch nekuz. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung 81: 290−303. Schindler, Jochem 1972a Das Wurzelnomen im Arischen und Griechischen. Ph.D. diss., Würzburg. Schindler, Jochem 1972b L’apophonie des noms-racines indo-européens. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique 67: 31−38. Schindler, Jochem 1975a L’apophonie des thèmes indo-européens en -r/n. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique 70: 1−10. Schindler, Jochem 1975b Zum Ablaut der neutralen s-Stämme des Indogermanischen. In: Rix (ed.), 259−267. Schindler, Jochem 1980 Zur Herkunft der altindischen cvi-Bildungen. In: Manfred Mayrhofer, Martin Peters, and Oskar E. Pfeiffer (eds.), Lautgeschichte und Etymologie. Akten der VI. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft Wien, 24.−29. September 1978. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 386−393. Schindler, Jochem 1986 Zu den homerischen ῥοδοδάκτυλος-Komposita. In: Annemarie Etter (ed.), o-o-pe-ro-si: Festschrift für Ernst Risch zum 75. Geburtstag. Berlin: De Gruyter, 394−401. Schindler, Jochem 1994 Alte und neue Fragen zum indogermanischen Nomen. In: Rasmussen (ed.), 397−400. Schlerath, Bernfried (ed.) 1985 Grammatische Kategorien: Funktion und Geschichte. Akten der VII. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Berlin, 20.−25. Februar 1983. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Schmidt, Johaness 1889 Die Pluralbildungen der indogermanischen Neutra. Weimar: Hermann Böhlau. Schumacher, Stefan 2004 Die keltischen Primärverben: Ein vergleichendes, etymologisches und morphologisches Lexikon. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität.

122. The morphology of Proto-Indo-European

2191

Sihler, Andrew 1993 The Anatolian and Indo-European First Person Plural. In: Bela Brogyanyi and Reiner Lipp (eds.), Comparative-Historical Linguistics, Indo-European and Finno-Ugric. Papers in Honor of Oswald Szemerényi. Vol. III. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 171−186. Sihler, Andrew 1995 New Comparative Grammar of Latin and Greek. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Smith-Stark, T. Cedric 1974 The Plurality Split. In: Michael W. La Galy, Robert A. Fox, and Anthony Bruck (eds.), Papers from the Tenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, April 19− 21, 1974. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 657−671. Starke, Frank 1990 Untersuchung zur Stammbildung des keilschrift-luwischen Nomens. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz. Stassen, Leon 2013 Comparative Constructions. In: Dryer and Haspelmath (eds.), chapter 121. URL http:// wals.info/chapter/121. Steriade, Donca 1988 Greek Accent: A Case for Preserving Structure. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 271−314. Stolz, Thomas, Cornelia Stroh, and Aina Urdze 2011 Total Reduplication: The Areal Linguistics of a Potential Universal. Bremen: Akademie. Strunk, Klaus 1967 Nasalpräsentien und Aoriste: Ein Beitrag zur Morphologie des Verbums in IndoIranischen und Griechischen. Heidelberg: Winter. Strunk, Klaus 1994 Relative Chronology and the Indo-European Verb-System: The Case of Present- and Aorist-Stems. Journal of Indo-European Studies 22: 417−434. Stüber, Karin 2002 Die primären s-Stämme des Indogermanischen. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Stüber, Karin 2015 Die Verbalabstrakta des Altirischen (2 vols.). Bremen: Hempen. Sturtevant, Edgar H. 1929 The relationship of Hittite to Indo-European. Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 60: 25−37. Sturtevant, Edgar H. 1933 Archaism in Hittite. Language 9: 1−11. Szemerényi, Oswald 1996 Introduction to Indo-European Linguistics. 4 th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tichy, Eva 1993 Kollektiva, Genus femininum und relative Chronologie im Indogermanischen. Historische Sprachforschung 106: 1−19. Tichy, Eva 1995 Die Nomina agentis auf -tar- im Vedischen. Heidelberg: Winter. Tichy, Eva 2004 Indogermanistiches Grundwissen. 2 nd edn. Bremen: Hempen. Tichy, Eva 2006 Der Konjunktiv und seine Nachbarkategorien: Studien zum indogermanischen Verbum, ausgehend von der älteren vedischen Prosa. Bremen: Hempen. Tremblay, Xavier 2003 La déclinaison des noms de parenté indo-européens en -ter-. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität.

2192

XX. Proto-Indo-European

Tribulato, Olga 2015 Ancient Greek Verb-Initial Compounds: Their Diachronic Development within the Greek Compound System. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tucker, Elizabeth 1988 Some innovations in the system of denominative verbs in early Indic. Transactions of the Philological Society 86: 93−114. Tucker, Elizabeth 1990 The Creation of Morphological Regularity: Early Greek Verbs in -éō, -áō, -óō, -úō and -íō. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Tucker, Elizabeth 2013 Old Persian asabāra- ‘horse-borne’, RV kṣīrapāká- ‘cooked in milk’, and the Restructuring of Vowel Quantities in Indo-Iranian Thematic Verbal Nouns. In: Jamison, Melchert, and Vine (eds.), 229−242. Uhlich, Jürgen 2002 Verbal Governing Compounds (Synthetics) in Early Irish and Other Celtic Languages. Transactions of the Philological Society 100: 403−433. de Vaan, Michiel 2003 The Avestan Vowels. Leiden: Brill. Vendler, Zeno 1967 Verbs and Times. In: Zeno Vendler (ed.), Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 97−121. [Revision of 1957, Verbs and Times. Philosophical Review 66: 143−160]. Veselinova, Ljuba N. 2003 Suppletion in Verb Paradigms: Bits and Pieces of a Puzzle. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Veselinova, Ljuba N. 2013 Suppletion According to Tense and Aspect. In: Dryer and Haspelmath (eds.), chapter 79. URL http://wals.info/chapter/79. Vijūnas, Aurelijus 2009 The Indo-Europan Primary T-Stems. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität. Villanueva Svensson, Miguel 2012 The ablaut of the middle root athematic presents in Indo-European. In: Melchert (ed.), 333−342. Vine, Brent 1998a Aeolic ὄρπετον and Deverbative -etó- in Greek and Indo-European. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität. Vine, Brent 1998b The Etymology of Greek κώμη and Related Problems. In: Jasanoff, Melchert, and Oliver (eds.), 685−702. Vine, Brent 2002 On Full-Grade *-ro- in Greek and Indo-European. In: Mark Southern (ed.), Indo-European Perspectives. Washington, D.C.: Institut for the Study of Man, 329−350. Vine, Brent 2004 On PIE Full Grades in Some Zero-Grade Contexts: *-tí-, *-tó-. In: James Clackson and Birgit A. Olsen (eds.), Indo-European Word Formation: Proceedings of the Conference held at the University of Copenhagen October 20th−22 nd 2000. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum, 357−380. Vine, Brent 2013 A Hoarse of a Different Color (Plautus, Poen. 778 rāviō). In: Cooper, Rau, and Weiss (eds.), 315−328. Wackernagel, Jacob 1877 Zum homerischen Dual. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 23: 302−310.

122. The morphology of Proto-Indo-European

2193

Wackernagel, Jacob 1897 Vermischte Beiträge zur griechischen Sprachkunde. Programm zur Rektoratsfeier der Universität Basel, 3−62. Wackernagel, Jacob 1904 Studien zum griechischen Perfectum. Programm zur akademischen Preisverteilung, 3− 24 (=Kl. Schr. II. 1000−1021). Wackernagel, Jakob 1905 Altindische Grammatik, Band II.1: Einleitung zur Wortlehre, Nominalkomposition. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Wackernagel, Jacob 1907 Indisches und Italisches. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung 41: 305−319. Wackernagel, Jacob 1926−1928 [2009] Lectures on Syntax: with Special Reference to Greek, Latin, and Germanic. Translated and edited with notes and bibliography by David Langslow. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wackernagel, Jacob 1953 Kleine Schriften. 2 vols. Ed. by Kurt Latte. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Wagner, Laura 2006 Aspectual bootstrapping in language acquisition: Telicity and transitivity. Language Learning and Development 2: 51−76. Watkins, Calvert 1963 Preliminaries to a historical and comparative analysis of the syntax of the Old Irish verb. Celtic 6: 1−49. Watkins, Calvert 1967 Latin sōns. In: Walter W. Arndt, Paul W. Brosman, Jr., Frederic E. Coenen, and Werner P. Friederich (ed.), Studies in Historical Linguistics in Honor of George Sherman Lane. Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press, 186−194 (= 1994.2: 405−413). Watkins, Calvert 1969 Geschichte der indogermanischen Verbalflexion (Indogermanische Grammatik: III/1, Formenlehre). Heidelberg: Winter. Watkins, Calvert 1971 Hittite and Indo-European Studies: The Denominative Statives in *-ē-. Transactions of the Philological Society 70: 51−93. Watkins, Calvert 1994 Selected Writings. 2 vols. Lisi Oliver (ed.). Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität. Watkins, Calvert 1995 How to Kill a Dragon: Aspects of Indo-European Poetics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Watkins, Calvert 1998 Proto-Indo-European: Comparison and Reconstruction. In: Anna Giacalone Ramat and Paolo Ramat (eds.), The Indo-European Languages. London: Routledge, 25−73. Watkins, Calvert 2001 An Indo-European Linguistic Area and its Characteristics: Ancient Anatolia. Areal Diffusion as a Challenge to the Comparative Method? In: Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald and R. M. W. Dixon (eds.), Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance: Problems in Comparative Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 44−63. Watkins, Calvert 2008 Selected Writings. Volume III: Publications 1992−2008. Lisi Oliver (ed.). Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität.

2194

XX. Proto-Indo-European

Watkins, Calvert 2011 American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European Roots. 3 rd edn. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Watkins, Calvert 2013 Aspects of the “expressive dimension” in Indo-European. Toward a comparative grammar of speech registers. In: Jamison, Melchert, and Vine (eds.), 243−253. Weiss, Michael 2011 Outline of the Historical and Comparative Grammar of Latin. 2 nd (corr. repr.) edn. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave. Weiss, Michael 2014 The Comparative Method. In: Bowern and Evans (eds.), 127−145. Whitney, William Dwight 1889 A Sanskrit Grammar. 2 nd edn. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Widmer, Paul 2004 Das Korn des weiten Feldes: Interne Derivation, Derivationskette und Flexionsklassenhierarchie. Aspekte der nominalen Wortbildung im Urindogermanischen. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität. Widmer, Paul 2005 Der altindische vr̥kī-Typus and hethitisch nakkī: Der indogermanische Instrumental zwischen Syntax und Morphologie. Die Sprache 45: 190−208. Willi, Andreas 2007 Of aspects, augments, aorists − or how to say to have killed a dragon. In: George et al. (eds.), 34−48. Willi, Andreas 2011 Morphosyntaktische Überlegungen zum Ursprung des griechischen Futurs. In: Krisch and Lindner (eds.), 605−615. Willi, Andreas 2012 Kiparsky’s Rule, thematic nasal presents, and athematic verba vocalia in Greek. In: Philomen Probert and Andreas Willi (eds.), Laws and Rules in Indo-European. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 260−278. Willmott, Jo 2007 The Moods of Homeric Greek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wodtko, Dagmar S., Britta Irslinger, and Carolin Schneider (eds.) 2008 Nomina im Indogermanischen Lexikon. Heidelberg: Winter. Yakubovich, Ilya 2010 Sociolinguistics of the Luvian Language. Leiden: Brill. Yakubovich, Ilya 2013 The degree of comparison in Luwian. Indogermanische Forschungen 118: 155−168. Yakubovich, Ilya 2014 Reflexes of Indo-European ‘ē-Statives’ in Old Indic. Transactions of the Philological Society 112: 386−408. Yates, Anthony D. 2015 Anatolian Default Accentuation and its Diachronic Consequences. Indo-European Linguistics 3: 145−187. Yates, Anthony D. 2016 Stress assignment in Hittite and Proto-Indo-European. Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America 1.25: 1−15. Yates, Anthony D. 2017 Against Root Faithfulness in Cupeño Stress. In: Supplemental Proceedings of the 2016 Annual Meeting on Phonology. Yoshida, Kazuhiko 1990 The Hittite Mediopassive Endings in -ri. Berlin: De Gruyter.

123. The syntax of Proto-Indo-European

2195

Yoshida, Kazuhiko 1993 Notes on the Prehistory of Preterite Verbal Endings in Anatolian. Historische Sprachforschung 106: 26−35. Yoshida, Kazuhiko 2010 1st Singular Iterated Mediopassive Endings in Anatolian. In: Jamison, Melchert, and Vine (eds.), 231−243. Yoshida, Kazuhiko 2013 The Mirage of Apparent Morphological Correspondence: A Case from Indo-European. In: Ritsuko Kikusawa and Lawrence A. Reid (eds.), Historical Linguistics 2011: Selected Papers from the 20 th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Osaka, 25− 30 July 2011. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 153−172. Yoshida, Kazuhiko and Brent Vine (eds.) 2009 East Meets West: Papers in Indo-European Studies. Bremen: Hempen. Zerdin, Jason 1999 Studies in the Ancient Greek Verbs in -SKŌ. Ph.D. diss., Oxford University. Zerdin, Jason 2002 The “Iterative-Intensives” in -σκον. Oxford University Working Papers in Linguistics, Philology & Phonetics 7: 103−130. Zwicky, Arnold M. 1985 Heads. Journal of Linguistics 21: 1−29.

Jesse Lundquist, Los Angeles (USA) Anthony D. Yates, Los Angeles (USA)

123. The syntax of Proto-Indo-European 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Grammatical reconstruction The limits of reconstruction Word order The structure of XPs Case

6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Latent arguments Binding Copula constructions Subordination and embedding References

1. Grammatical reconstruction The only sentence that can be reconstructed with some plausibility is Watkins’ famous *eg whent og whim (or rather *h3 eg whim) ‘[he] slew the dragon’ (Watkins 1995: 301) − hardly more than a VP (for the convincing Greek evidence see Watkins 1995: 359). No other formula can be reconstructed with the same probability (cf. Keydana 2001). Reconstructing PIE phrases or sentences, then, is a fruitless endeavor. Syntactic reconstruction therefore differs markedly from traditional segmental phonological or morphological reconstruction. But this does not mean that the whole project of a PIE syntax is doomed to failure, as Fritz in Meier-Brügger (2002: 244−245) seems to assume (cf. also Lightfoot 1980 and Jeffers 1976, and for a critique of these arguhttps://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-044

2196

XX. Proto-Indo-European

ments, Dressler 1971: 6 and Harris and Campbell 1995: 344−376). The goal of IE studies is not the reconstruction of utterances, but that of linguistic competence. The reconstructed roots, words, or affixes are entries in the mental lexicon of an ideal PIE speaker, the phonological or morphological rules for manipulating them part of his grammar. Likewise, PIE syntax is not concerned with actual strings, but with the structure of complex syntactic objects and constraints on the wellformedness of such objects. Contrary to my own skeptical assessment in Keydana (1997: 32), I now think that, grosso modo, syntactic reconstruction is possible (cf. Keydana 2004), as long as we respect the limits (of external reconstruction) and restrain ourselves from speculating without sound empirical evidence. For similar positions cf. Dressler (1971), Balles (2006), and Speyer (2009). Still, studies in IE syntax face fundamental problems that severely restrict any attempts at reconstruction. The most important one is the fact that the languages we compare never provide negative evidence and that we do not have access to acceptability judgments. Modern corpus linguistics does not help to improve this situation, as statistical marginality does not necessarily reflect unacceptability. Besides, the most ancient corpora are often too small to reveal statistical patterns. Working with actually attested texts only, historical linguists must by hypothesis assume that all the utterances they are confronted with are valid and well-formed. This also holds true for poetic texts: even if they stretch grammaticality to its limits, they never trespass the boundaries of grammar. “Poetic license” does not lead to agrammaticality (cf. Hock 2000). Translated texts present us with more serious problems. The Gothic corpus is a case in point: Some phenomena attested in Gothic texts seem to be syntactic calques that could not be generated on the basis of Gothic competence alone (see Keydana 1997 on absolute constructions). Nonetheless, crucial differences between the Greek original and its Gothic translation allow for interesting glimpses into the nature of Gothic syntax (cf. Ferraresi 2005). The topics of this survey are 1. word order, 2. the structure of XPs and agreement phenomena, 3. case and argument structure, 4. latent arguments, 5. binding, 6. copula constructions, and 7. subordination. Some of the issues − like word order or case − have been discussed extensively since the emergence of IE syntactic studies. Others − like the structure of XPs or binding − have hardly ever been tackled. This disequilibrium is reflected in the present survey, so that some of the following sections are no more than hints for further research. Information packaging plays a huge role in current work on Indo-European syntax (see e.g., Lühr 2011; Spevak 2010; Viti 2010; Luraghi 1995). Nonetheless, it will not be addressed in this overview as a topic of its own, although its relevance for the organization of the sentence periphery (and maybe other topics of IE sentence topology) will be acknowledged. However, caution seems to be called for: the linguistic encoding of information packaging in the ancient IE languages is not necessarily unambiguous (cf. below on the DF-slot), and the intonational part of it is not even transmitted (neither Hittite plene writings nor Vedic verb accentuation should be overestimated). Heuristics for analyzing text structure are not of much help either, as elements that can be identified with foci, topics, or other information structural entities based on textual analysis do not necessarily have to be encoded as such (see also Viti 2008: 91). One last preliminary remark: I am convinced that students of historical syntax cannot afford to ignore the developments in syntactic theory in the last 60 years and their repercussions for empirical studies in syntactic phenomena. I am also positive that mod-

123. The syntax of Proto-Indo-European

2197

est formalization furthers our insights into syntactic structures and that (contrary to e.g., Viti 2007) there is no need to play formal analyses off against functional approaches (cf. Speyer 2009). This paper is not written in any specific modern syntactic framework, and I will try to keep the theoretical humdrum to the minimum. The term “dislocation” when used here refers to linearizations different from those assumed to be canonical; it is not meant to imply movement in the sense of Government & Binding Theory or the Minimalist Program.

2. The limits of reconstruction PIE was a nominative-accusative language. As all attested old IE languages are of this type, hypothesizing any other syntactic type would be highly implausible. Still, certain asymmetries in the case morphology of PIE (*-s in nom. and gen., no formal differentiation between nom. and acc. in the neuter) and the assumed original two-valued gender system as well as some peculiarities of Lithuanian or Hittite syntax have led numerous authors beginning with Uhlenbeck (1901) and van Wijk (1902) to speculate on the syntax of a stratum preceding PIE as reached by external reconstruction. Van Wijk (1902) and his followers take PIE *-s as an original agency marker, thus collapsing the later nom. and gen. into a single category. Two possible scenarios for “Pre-Indo-European”, as Lehmann (1993) calls it, arise: In the first, Pre-IE is an ergative language, as was first proposed by Uhlenbeck (1901); authors like Kuryłowicz (1935), Martinet (1962), Shields (1978), and Schmalstieg (1987) follow suit. The other scenario is that of an active language, which was proposed by Schmidt (1977b), Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (1984), Lehmann (1993), Bauer (1996, 2000), and others. The phenomena addressed by these authors clearly exist and are probably remnants of an older system different from that of the attested languages. Yet established reconstruction techniques do not allow for any serious scientific assessment of the proposals given, especially as they are not backed by well-based typological work on active-inactive or ergative languages. Belonging to the realm of speculation, they will not be treated in this survey, which is devoted to PIE as the language reached by external reconstruction.

3. Word order 3.1. Basic word order It is advisable to follow the insight of Delbrück (1878) that investigations into word order should focus on early IE prose texts, since their text structure is typically much simpler than that of poetic texts. The study of prose texts is thus much more yielding for investigations into functional factors determining word order. The assessment of Viti (2008: 90), that due to their oral transmission poetic texts “represent […] the natural flow of conscious experience” and “may cast valuable insights into the pragmatic functions for which the various word orders were used” seems overly optimistic.

2198

XX. Proto-Indo-European

In recent functional studies into word order, the assumption of a basic word order is often dismissed altogether. Functionalists argue that word order is determined exclusively by factors like number (Viti 2010), animacy (Viti 2009a), or information packaging (Spevak 2010) (but see Keydana 2011b). However, even functionalists concede that a “neutral arrangement of syntactic constituents” (Viti 2009a: 308) or a “basic order” (Spevak 2010: 115) has to be reckoned with. Lehmann (1974) and Friedrich (1975) were the first to discuss Indo-European word order from a typological point of view. While Lehmann found evidence for SOV in the oldest IE languages and reconstructed this pattern for PIE (cf. also Lehmann 1993; Gamkrelidze and Ivanov 1984; Stepanov 1989), Friedrich argued for a basic SVO word order. The problem with both approaches was that, following Greenberg (1963), the authors took surface linearization as the basis of their investigation. Lehmann (1993: 35), for example, takes the first words of the Odyssey (1)

ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε man-ACC me-DAT tell-of Tell me about the man …

as evidence for OV, although it seems obvious that ἄνδρα, as the first word of the whole epos, is in a highly marked position: it probably occupies a discourse functional slot in the left periphery. Both authors rely heavily on Greenbergian implicational universals (like postpositions implied by OV or preceding conjunctions implied by VO). Since pure tokens of the types Greenberg proposed scarcely exist, results derived from implicational universals have to be treated with caution (cf. Hock 1992). With the advent of generative syntax, a different approach came into play: seemingly aberrant word-order patterns were analyzed as a product of the interplay between basic word order and highly restricted dislocations, so that the dispute between Lehmann and Friedrich could be settled: Krisch (1997: 302 ff.) showed that (most of) Friedrich’s SVOsentences are best understood as sentences with right dislocated constituents. Another truth that emerged with a systematic treatment of dislocations is the fact that none of the attested IE languages has free word order. They are all configurational, as is PIE (cf. Krisch 1998 and Devine and Stephens 2000, 2006, who argue for grades of configurationality). As the problem of basic PIE word order seems to be solved, the interest in current studies in IE word order has shifted to a phenomenology of dislocations and the factors that trigger them (cf. for example Kiparsky 1995 and Krisch 1997). The generative approach advances our understanding of word-order issues substantially. Still, a small caveat is in order: since dislocations are not marked as such in the linear sequence of syntactic objects in the sentence, they can only be hypothesized. This means that for any sentence with n constituents, we may assume at least n different dislocations. Cf. the following Vedic example taken from Krisch (1990: 77): (2)

sá hau vāca gā´rgyah ̣ said Gārgya Gārgya said … (ŚB.14.5.1.3) PCL PCL

123. The syntax of Proto-Indo-European

2199

If we follow Krisch (1990: 77) and take sá as a sentence-initial particle (it might as well be a pronoun as in [12] below), there are three possibilities for analyzing the linearization of this sentence: 1. It displays the canonical word order. This solution is not advocated by anyone, as the low frequency of verb-initial sentences in Vedic makes VS(O) as the basic pattern highly implausible. 2. The canonical word order is SV and the verb is dislocated. This analysis goes back to Wackernagel (1892: 434), who takes the verb as being enclitic. Alternatively it could be derived following assumptions made by Dressler (1969), who argues that the verb can be dislocated for information structural reasons. In this case, it is not enclitic. 3. The subject is dislocated to the right. This analysis is advocated by Krisch (1990: 77), who takes the subject in Vedic as an “Apposition zu diesem impliziten Subjekt [apposition to this implicit subject]” encoded in the verbal ending. Being an apposition the subject can be extraposed to form an amplified sentence in the sense of Gonda (1959) (the dislocation types mentioned will be discussed in due course). None of these analyses can be falsified, but as mentioned earlier the first is highly implausible, whereas the second and third are not. Coming back to basic word order, we may follow Krisch’s aforementioned reassessment of Friedrich’s data and conclude that PIE was of the SOV type (cf. Krisch 1997: 301−303, 2001). As Hock (2013) has shown, the attested subordination strategies of the early IE languages confirm this picture. It is further strengthened by the fact that main clause verbs bear no stress (Hock 2012, 2013). If we take dislocation patterns into account, we find evidence that SOV is the canonical word order in Old Latin and the Sabellic languages, the Old Indo-Aryan languages and Hittite; cf. Bauer (1995) for Latin, Luraghi (1990) for Hittite, and Delbrück (1888) for Vedic. Typical SOV phenomena like the preference for postpositions (cf. Lehmann 1993) confirm this picture. Despite the convincing evidence for SOV, however, it should be pointed out that one important IE language does not fit the picture: Ancient Greek. The canonical word order of alphabetic Greek is disputed (cf. Kieckers 1911; Frisk 1933; James 1960 and Cervin 1990; Dik 1995, 2007), and even the word order of Mycenean does not provide any conclusive evidence for canonical patterns (Panagl 1999; Babič 1997; Duhoux 1975). SVO prevails and can hardly be attributed to information packaging in an underlyingly configurational SOV language (against Krisch 2001: 165−166). It seems possible that Greek developed into a discourse-configurational language (cf. Dik 1995 and Matić 2003). SOV reflects a structure of the type [S[NP VP]] (for the core sentence). As both the subject NP and the VP can be identified by constituent tests (on which see 4), the configurational nature of early IE (and PIE) syntax is evident (construction-like “Satzbaupläne” à la Krisch 2001, 2002, however, are unnecessary). Deviations from the basic pattern are discussed below.

3.2. The left periphery The left periphery is that part of the sentence that precedes the subject in its canonical position in the linearization. Structurally speaking, it can be identified with a D[iscourse] F[unctional] node (Keydana 2011a) or an E[xpression] node (Lowe 2015) and an optional C-projection dominating the core sentence. The left periphery of the IE sentence is of special interest, as it is a preferred slot for dislocations.

2200

XX. Proto-Indo-European

3.2.1. Wh and Comp Wh-words in all ancient IE languages typically undergo left dislocation (cf. Hale 1987: 43 and Hettrich 1988 for Vedic; Garrett 1994: 43−49 and Lühr 2001 for Hittite). As Whwords co-occur with material left-dislocated for discourse functional reasons (Hale 1987: 43−44), they should not be confused with topics or foci (as is done in Krisch 1998: 361, 2002). Wh-words and complementizers follow syntactic objects in the DF-slot and precede the core sentence. Against Kiparsky (1995: 153), it therefore seems reasonable to follow Krisch (1998: 358) and assume a C-projection for PIE. Keydana (2011a) argues that, at least in Vedic, subject Wh-words also undergo dislocation. Complementizers can be found in all ancient IE languages. On subordinate sentences, cf. 9.2.

3.2.2. Discourse-prominent elements PIE had a slot in the left periphery that hosted a discourse prominent element. In most cases, this slot is occupied by one word only and the rest of the constituent remains in situ, but cases with full constituents in the left periphery exist (cf. Hale 1987: 44). The distribution of full constituents versus single words remains a field for further research. This slot is often called the topic-position, but as Keydana (2011a) and Spevak (2010) have shown for Vedic and Latin, it hosted topics and foci alike. Therefore, it may tentatively be called the DF slot. There is no evidence for separate topic and focus-slots in the left periphery as assumed by Kiparsky (1995: 153) (who was forced to reckon with two distinct slots, as he dismissed a C-projection for PIE and still wanted to account for sentences with both a discourse prominent constituent and a Wh-word in the left periphery). As was argued in Keydana (2011a) for Vedic, the left periphery is obligatory. It should be remembered that this observation does not imply that foci and/or topics have to be dislocated. They may just as well be realized in a neutral position (cf. for Latin Devine and Stephens 2006: 226 ff.). Speyer (2009) has shown that in Greek, Latin, and Germanic there is a strong preference to fill the DF-slot with frame-building elements.

3.2.3. The verb in the left periphery In his seminal work on verb-initial sentences in IE, Dressler (1969) argues convincingly that verbs in sentence-initial position are restricted to “textuell gebundene Sätze [textually bound sentences]”, where the fronting “is roughly associated with salience” (Klein 1991: 125; cf. also Luraghi 1994, 1995). Anaphoric or, to a lesser extent, cataphoric use is typical. For an extensive study of Vedic data, cf. Klein (1991), who refines and confirms Dressler’s conclusions. For Mycenean, cf. Panagl (1999: 489); for Hittite, Bauer (2011). Viti (2008) proposes that the initial position of the verb in Vedic and Homeric Greek marks thetic sentences. However, her notion of “thesis” − though promising − is ill-defined, which makes it impossible to decide if the data discussed in her paper are actually pertinent.

123. The syntax of Proto-Indo-European

2201

Krisch extends the notion of verb movement to subsume cases of verb second (but cf. Schäufele 1991a). According to him, verb movement to both initial and second position are a means of establishing cohesion (cf. Krisch 1997, 2001, 2002). Krisch’s argument is convincing, as cases like the following with a Wackernagel clitic of type 1 (cf. below) hosted by the verb show that the verb in second position can actually be part of the left periphery. (3)

asmā´m̐ avantu te śatám asmā´n sahásram ūtáyah ̣ us-ACC let help your hundred-NOM us-ACC thousand-NOM helps-NOM Let your hundred, your thousand helps help us. (RV 4.31.10)

Following Krisch (1997: 299, 2001), I assume that the verb in these cases is in the C0 position. This analysis predicts that verbs in this position cannot co-occur with complementizers.

3.3. The right periphery The right periphery is that part of a sentence following the base position of the verb in the linearization of the sentence. Gonda (1959) calls sentences with a filled right periphery “amplified”, as according to the author, syntactic objects in the right periphery are never obligatory (cf. also Schäufele 1991a). Gonda (1959) gave ample evidence for right dislocations in Vedic; for Hittite, cf. McCone (1979, 1997); for Greek, Krisch (1997: 304− 306). Krisch (1997: 305) shows that at least part of the data can be understood as heavy XP shift. Cf. (4)

Ἰδαῖος δ' ἀπόρουσε λιπὼν περικαλλέα δίφρον Idaios-NOM PCL jumped off leaving-NOM beautiful-ACC cart-ACC Idaios jumped off, leaving the beautiful cart. (Il.5,20)

Several questions remain open: first, a precise definition of amplification is needed, as the dislocated elements may be adjuncts, parts of bigger constituents, or even subjects (cf. the somewhat startling conclusion of Schäufele 1991a: 191 for Vedic that, “apart from sentential particles etc., any single ‘constituent’ can be extraposed”): (5)

Τυδεΐδεω δ' ὑπὲρ ὦμον ἀριστερὸν ἤλυθ' ἀκωκὴ ἔγχεος Tydeid-GEN PCL over shoulder-ACC left-ACC flew tip-NOM lance-GEN Over the shoulder of the Tydeid flew the tip of the lance. (Il.5,16−17)

Against Krisch (1997: 304), it seems unreasonable to claim that the subject is “grammatisch schon im Verb enthalten, also nicht obligatorisch [grammatically included in the verb already, and therefore not obligatory].” From a syntactic point of view, the subject is obligatory at least on some level of syntactic representation (and there is no point in

2202

XX. Proto-Indo-European

assuming that ἀκωκὴ ἔγχεος is an apposition to a latent subject), and from a semantic point of view, it is necessary as it introduces a discourse referent and a condition on this referent both of which are crucial for interpreting the sentence. In the given example (taken from Krisch), the dislocated subject cannot therefore count as an amplifier in the sense of Gonda (1959). Its dislocation may rather be due to the fact that it is a complex NP that counts as heavy. This obviously leads to the second question: How can heavy XP be defined for ancient IE languages and PIE? What kind of heaviness counts, mere size or syntactic complexity? If amplification and heaviness both lead to right dislocation, it might be worth investigating whether the two concepts could possibly be conflated. One last issue concerns the discourse structural state of right dislocations. Krisch (1997: 306) assumes that, at least in Greek, obligatory syntactic objects can only be dislocated to the right if they are “stark rhematisch [strongly rhematic]” (cf. his examples 30−34). This constraint is somewhat problematic, as in the absence of clear heuristics, it may be hard to decide what exactly a strong rheme is, but it certainly invites further research into the interaction of syntactic and discourse grammatical factors in right dislocation phenomena.

3.4. Wackernagel positions Wackernagel’s Law is “one of the few generally accepted syntactic statements about Indo-European” (Watkins 1964: 1036). Wackernagel (WL) clitics (cf. Wackernagel 1892) are non-accented syntactic objects that always occupy the second position in the sentence. Two types of WL clitics have to be distinguished; a third type does not belong to WL clitics proper.

3.4.1. Type 1 WL1 clitics always follow the first word in a sentence except for cases where a Whword or complementizer is preceded by a filled DF-slot. In this case they follow the Wh-word. Cf. (6)

índraḥ kím asya sak hyé cakāra Indra-NOM what-ACC its friendship-LOC did What did Indra do in its [sc. Soma’s] friendship? (RV 6.27.1)

Hale (1987) was the first to tackle this problem from a generative perspective. He concluded that “WL clitics take second position defined before the topicalization, but after WH-movement places ká- in COMP” (Hale 1987: 42). Examples with WL1 clitics following a constituent that clearly occupies the DF-slot (for example dyaúś cid asya in RV 1.52.10) constitute evidence against Hale’s derivational approach. Hale (1996) put forth another explanation. He assumed that WL1 clitics move to C0 and undergo prosodic

123. The syntax of Proto-Indo-European

2203

inversion if necessary. Similarly, Lowe (2011) assumes for Vedic a syntactic constituent C[litic]CL[uster] which undergoes prosodic inversion as a last resort and has a flat structure reminiscent of a template which comprises not only WL1 clitics but also preverbs and relative pronouns. Hock (1996) dismisses syntactic approaches to WL1 clitics and advocates a templatic account for the whole “initial string” including clitics and accented material alike. His template is descriptively adequate, but because of various provisos taken (omission and doubling of elements in the template), it is too powerful to achieve explanatory adequacy. Keydana (2011a) combines insights from Hale and Hock: He too argues that WL1 cliticization is a prosodic phenomenon, but in Keydana’s approach only clitic placement is driven by prosody, whereas the linearization of non-clitic elements in the left periphery is determined by syntactic structure. Following Keydana, WL1 clitics are hosted by the first prosodic phrase of a sentence, which corresponds to the (syntactically defined) left periphery.

3.4.2. Type 2 WL2 clitics follow an obvious pattern: they are always hosted by the first word of a sentence. (7)

uraú vā yé antárikṣe mádanti wide-LOC or who-NOM.PL atmosphere-LOC rejoice … or who rejoice in the wide atmosphere. (RV 3.6.8)

This behavior again can be modeled syntactically (Hale 1987) or prosodically (Hock 1996; Agbayani and Golston 2010; Lowe 2011; Keydana 2011a). The latter approach is less costly, as prosodic dependency is an obvious trait of WL clitics, whereas syntactical dependencies cannot be proven empirically. Krisch’s approach to WL clitics is based on the assumption of “Satzbaupläne” or “Schemata” (Krisch 1990, 1997, 2002). Blurring the distinction between WL1 and WL2 and operating with ill-defined construction-like entities, it runs into serious descriptive and theoretical difficulties and will not be discussed here (for an assessment, cf. Keydana 2011a).

3.4.3. Type 3 WL3 clitics (for example, Vedic cid) have to be excluded from the realm of WL clitics proper (cf. Krisch 1990: 65). A member of this class is “enclitic to the constituent which it modifies/ emphasizes” (Hale 1987: 45). The linearization is trivial, as the scope of the particle could not be reconstructed if it were moved out of its constituent: Clitics that are subject to some recoverability condition cannot be WL clitics. Their occurrence in second position in the sentence is due to the fact that they modify words in the DF-slot.

2204

XX. Proto-Indo-European

3.4.4. Identifying the core sentence Krisch (2002: 252) claims that WL clitics can help us identify the core sentence (“Kernsatz”): Even if Krisch is wrong in assuming that “[w]enn Wackernagelsche Partikeln da sind, handelt es sich bei dem Teil links davon auf jeden Fall um topikalisierte Elemente [if Wackernagel particles are present, topicalized elements are in the part to the left of them in each case],” his general premise is correct: placed after the first prosodic phrase of a sentence, WL1 clitics indirectly mark the left boundary of the core sentence S. They can also serve as a diagnostic tool for identifying the syntactic status of embedded nonfinite structures such as infinitive phrases, as every phrase containing a WL1 clitic must have a left periphery; in other words, it must be a CP or at least a full S licensing a DF-slot. The right periphery is less suitable for diagnosing sentence structure, as every sentence with a non-final verb allows for two competing analyses (cf. 2 above): either the verb has moved to the left periphery, or some other syntactic object has moved to the right periphery. As unambiguous markers denoting the boundary of the right periphery do not exist, a principled decision between the two alternatives is impossible.

3.5. Ditransitives Vedic double object constructions have been studied by Krisch (1994). He observes that the indirect object does not necessarily precede the direct object. He argues for the direct object following the indirect object as the unmarked linearization. Preceding direct objects are licensed only when the direct object is not rhematic. On double object constructions cf. 5.

3.6. Scrambling Scrambling may be defined as free word order phenomena inside the core sentence that remains after stripping away the left and right periphery. Speyer (2009) for Latin and Germanic, Schäufele (1991a and 1991b) for Vedic, and Haug (2008) for Greek suggest that scrambling may be due to information structuring (as is at least partially true for German, too). Further research is needed to back up this claim. On scrambling in Latin and ways of investigating scrambling phenomena in ancient languages, cf. Devine and Stephens (2006).

4. The structure of XPs As this topic has not yet been seriously investigated, we know almost nothing about the structure and possible complexity of IE XPs. Constituent tests (conjunction, dislocation) reveal the existence of NPs and VPs in the early IE languages (on the methodology see Lowe 2015). On the CP see above 3.2.1. Only the NP has been studied in greater detail.

123. The syntax of Proto-Indo-European

2205

There is no empirical evidence for constituents like IP, DP, vel sim. Consequently they are not addressed in the following sketch.

4.1. The structure of NPs Since determiners are not obligatory and no other empirical evidence for DPs has yet been given, we assume a simple NP structure for PIE. Hints at the internal structure of Vedic NPs can be found in Keydana (2013), who in an investigation into event nominals in the language of the Rigveda observed that no more than one argument of the event nominal can be realized in the NP (cf. below 5.2.2). Adjectives agree with nouns in the NP, the only exception being nouns in the dual, which are combined with adjectives in the plural (cf. Viti 2011 and Lühr 2000b with examples from Greek and Lithuanian), obviously due to a later development. The serialization of modifier and head noun is open to variation. Old juxtapositions like Vedic dámpati- (besides pátir dán), Avestan də̄ṇg paiti-, Greek δεσπότης < PIE *déms pótimay be taken as a hint that the modifier preceded the noun in PIE (on Greek, see Viti 2009b). Hyperbata are the result of dislocations out of NPs. Material may be dislocated to the left into the DF-slot or to the right. While the target slots of these dislocations are easily named, the process as such is not yet understood: Neither do we know what exactly triggers right dislocation, nor are we in a position to identify factors for and possible constraints on extracting material out of NPs (but cf. Krisch 1998: 374). For examples of hyperbata in ancient IE languages, cf. Krisch (1998); for an in-depth study of Greek hyperbata, cf. Devine and Stephens (2000). It remains to be seen if hyperbaton may be reduced to the more general phenomenon of left branch extraction (cf. Ross 1986).

4.2. The structure of VPs The structure of VPs depends mainly on the subcategorization frame of the verb. The various attested types are discussed below in 5.2.

4.3. Verbal agreement In all ancient IE languages, the finite verb agrees with the subject. In some ancient IE languages, like Greek, Hittite, and Avestan, we observe that number agreement fails with plural subjects of the neuter gender. This is either due to persistence in the grammaticalization process turning a collective affix into a plural marker or to the fact that inanimate nouns do not necessarily trigger verbal agreement (Melchert 2011). In most ancient IE languages, incongruencies can also be observed with the dual, but these phenomena seem to be based on developments within the attested languages (cf. Lühr 2000b). For an overview of various IE agreement patterns, see also Rieken and Widmer (2014).

2206

XX. Proto-Indo-European

4.4. Adverbs and preverbs The ancient IE languages have a closed set of (mostly monosyllabic) local adverbs that can with confidence be reconstructed for PIE and which − as dislocation tests show − were part of the VP. The exact status of these adverbs, however, is a matter of debate. They often occur in postposition-like configurations, where they follow an NP which they seem to govern. There are two reasons for addressing them as actual postpositions governing NPs in a PP: 1. They form a closed set, which is typical for adpositions, but not for adverbs. 2. At least in later strata of the IE languages, they definitely qualify as adpositions. However, other observations cast doubt on the PP-analysis: 1. In ancient IE languages with rich case systems, the NP they allegedly govern is always marked for a case, which, being inherent, is in itself associated with the intended local role in the argument structure (cf. below). Lexical case selected by the adposition is obviously a later development (cf. for Vedic Hettrich 1991). 2. The NP is not necessarily adjacent to its alleged governor, which typically immediately precedes the verb (cf. Watkins 1963). Further evidence against PIE postpositions comes from the fact that the same closed set of adverbs can be used to modify verbs. In the attested IE languages they developed into preverbs, but in the most ancient strata they were autonomous, since in a so-called tmesis configuration they did not form a morphological word with the verb they modified (cf. Hettrich 1991; Pinault 1995; and Haug 2011). Since in both contexts these local adverbs do not seem to be heads of complex projections (neither of PPs nor of morphologically complex verbs), it seems safe to take them as simple adverbs throughout (cf. Boley 1985 and Tjerkstra 1999 for Hittite; Horrocks 1981 and Haug 2009 for Greek; Lehmann 1983 for Latin; and for Vedic, a series of papers by Hettrich et al., e.g., Hettrich 1991 and Casaretto 2010).

5. Case 5.1. Traditional approaches to case Case has been studied extensively since the groundbreaking work of Delbrück (1869, 1888, 1897) and Gaedicke (1880). The central aim of traditional studies of case is to isolate the prime semantics of a given case, which is subsequently identified with its original meaning. Uses not covered by the prime semantics are taken to be marked functions of the case derived from its core function. The most prominent exponent of this line of research today is Hettrich, who in a series of papers on Vedic developed what he calls a semasiological approach to case (Hettrich 1990, 1994, 2002, 2007). Hettrich’s research is based on three assumptions: 1. Only a semasiological approach can lead to an adequate picture of the function of a given case. 2. The meaning of cases can best be covered by prototype semantics. Hettrich argues for a prototypical or core meaning, which becomes less prominent the more marked the use of a case is. In his paper on the instrumental (Hettrich 2002), he takes the various aspects of meaning to be features. 3. (Nearly) every occurrence of a given case must be based on its meaning. Even if he acknowledges syntactic factors for case selection, a case is hardly ever dese-

123. The syntax of Proto-Indo-European

2207

manticized completely. This approach faces various difficulties. One concerns semasiology: Since we can never go beyond philological interpretation, the proposed semantic features tend to be arbitrary. In Hettrich (2002), the author tries to capture the difference between vah ráthena and vah ráthe by assuming a semantic feature “manageability”. According to Hettrich, both the instrumental and the locative denote a means (of transport), the choice of the latter being due to the fact that because of its size a cart is no “handhabbare[s] Mittel [manageable means]” (Hettrich 2002: 55). As Vedic is a dead language, this analysis cannot be falsified; but immediately an alternative comes to mind: in the two constructions at hand, instrumental and locative might denote different, nonoverlapping, and discrete thematic roles. This phenomenon, known in the syntactic literature as alternative projection, goes back to the fact that the human mind has (at least) two possibilities to conceptualize one and the same event of cart-riding. The cart can be taken as a means of transport or as the place occupied while traveling. The first conceptual structure is expressed by the instrumental, the second by the locative. In this scenario, the optionality is not part of the language (or the case system); it simply manifests different ways of conceptualizing the world. The feature “manageability” is therefore dispensable (cf. below 5.3 on the strikingly similar problem with the “deux modèles” of Haudry 1977). Further difficulties for the traditional approach arise from the fact that certain data force us to separate argument structure from case (cf. the following section).

5.2. Argument structure and case Following major insights into the interplay of argument structure and case gained in recent studies in a generative framework, I will here pursue a different approach, which is similar though not identical to the one first introduced into the realm of IE studies by Krisch (1984) (cf. Krisch 2006 and, for an early attempt, Dressler 1971: 10−13). The fundamental hypothesis of modern approaches to case is that the levels of case and thematic roles (the traditional semantics of cases) have to be kept strictly distinct. They form discrete tiers linked by grammar. I will distinguish conceptual structure (not to be discussed in this overview), argument structure, and the syntactic level, where case is assigned.

5.2.1. Evidence for argument structure Empirical evidence for the necessity of discerning discrete tiers comes from different types of intransitives. In the ancient IE languages, unergatives like PIE *g wem and unaccusatives like PIE *b hu̯eh2 are attested side by side. Both types have nominative subjects, yet they differ in crucial ways that cannot be accounted for by a monostratal theory: Only unaccusatives allow for attributive deverbal -tó-adjectives, only unergatives on the other hand are attested with cognate object constructions (cf. Garrett 1996 on Hittite; Bruno 2011 on Greek; and Keydana (in press) on Vedic). This difference is easily captured (and even predicted) by recourse to argument structure: unergatives are subcategorized for an agent, unaccusatives (like passives) for a theme (on thematic roles cf. Dowty

2208

XX. Proto-Indo-European

1991). As both thematic roles surface in the same case, a monostratal theory could in no way account for these differences. This approach is strengthened further by observations on the distribution of case. A major problem for the traditional semantic approach comes from the difficulty of assigning a plausible core meaning to a given case. A striking example is the nominative, which may denote at least agents, themes, and experiencers. Subsuming this broad spectrum under the notion of “Sachverhaltsträger” (Hettrich 2007) is not necessarily convincing, especially as the notion of “Sachverhaltsträger” is not properly defined. Another example for the difficulties of the traditional approach is the accusative: Hettrich (2007) claims that it “bezeichnet eine gerichtete Strecke, die vom SV-Träger ausgeht und deren Endpunkt, Ausdehnung oder Verlauf von dem Begriff im A bestimmt wird [denotes a directed path that comes from the Sachverhaltsträger and of which the endpoint, extent, or course is determined by the term in A].” This is a possible characterization of the directive accusative, but severe semantic bleachings are necessary to turn it into the object accusative in an example like Vedic (8)

áhann áhim slew dragon-ACC He slew the dragon. (RV 1.32.1 and passim)

Looking at nominatives and accusatives, a striking empirical generalization arises: One case can be linked to various discrete thematic roles, and one thematic role can be assigned to various discrete cases. In dealing with the interaction of argument structure and case, three types of case have to be distinguished: structural case, inherent case, and lexical case. All of them are manifest in the early IE languages. They must therefore be assumed for PIE, too.

5.2.2. Structural case Structural case is assigned solely for syntactic reasons. Its association with a thematic role is arbitrary. The structural cases in the IE languages are the nominative, the accusative, and the genitive. The nominative is the case syntactically assigned to the first (or external) argument of a verb in the subject position, independent of the underlying thematic role (cf. the active/passive alternation). The object accusative is syntactically assigned to the second (or internal) argument of a verb. In most cases, this is the theme, but again the linking between role and case remains arbitrary (it serves “lediglich zur Ergänzung des Verbs [merely as the complement of the verb]” in the words of Delbrück 1879: 29). The dependence of the object accusative on syntactic configurations alone can be seen from the active/passive alternation (the passive is attested in the early IE languages, however, special morphological markers for passive voice cannot be reconstructed, cf. Kulikov and Lavidas 2013): Demoting the first argument always leads to a configuration in which the internal argument surfaces as a nominative subject. The same holds true for anticausatives (Kulikov 2012: 20−21). The (possessive) genitive is the structural (subject) case in the NP-domain. At least for Vedic, an investigation into event

123. The syntax of Proto-Indo-European

2209

nominals (Keydana 2013) showed that the genitive is always assigned to the sister of N. The data suggest that with event nominals only one argument can be expressed and that this argument always surfaces as a genitive, independently of its thematic role (cf. also Dressler 1971: 10).

5.2.3. Inherent case Inherent cases are inherently associated with some thematic role. The goal accusative (García Ramón 1995) is a case in point. Following a long tradition, Hettrich (2007) tries to unify goal accusative and object accusative. But observations on passivization advise caution: if the goal accusative were basically the same as the object accusative, both should behave alike syntactically. Yet they do not: object accusatives can be passivized, goal accusatives cannot. In the framework proposed here, the reason for this is simple: being inherently linked to the GOAL-role, the directional accusative does not surface as a nominative under passivization, as inherent linking cannot be ousted by syntactic case assignment. Whatever reasons lead to the homonymy of structural object case and inherent goal accusative, in the attested IE languages these two avatars of the accusative are discrete and have to be kept apart. We may conclude that this holds true for PIE, as well. According to Hettrich (1994: 112−113), a major challenge for any structural approach to case comes from double accusatives: “Wenn die Kasus in der Kernprädikation nur der Differenzierung von Aktanten dienen, dürfte ein bestimmter Kasus nicht zweimal vorkommen [If the cases in the core predicate serve only to differentiate the participants, a particular case would not be likely to occur twice].” But as his excellent survey of Greek and Vedic data shows, the opposite is the case: his examples clearly hint at the validity of an approach distinguishing structural and inherent case. Verbs of ‘taking away’ in Homeric Greek often take two accusatives, one denoting the object taken away and one the person or location from which the object is taken. As Hettrich (1994: 115) notes, the syntactic behaviors of both accusatives differ: reduced constructions with only one accusative always lack that of the person or location, and in passivization only the object taken away may surface in subject position. This is predicted in the approach defended here. Being the theme, the object taken away is associated with structural case depending on the syntactic configuration. The person or location takes inherent goal accusative; its inability to passivize then is expected. Besides, constructions lacking the GOAL show that it is not part of the subcategorization of the verb. In Vedic (and for the Greek verb συλάω ‘I strip off’), the picture is slightly more complicated, as complement alternation can be observed. This is either due to argument demotion or to the fact that one and the same event may be conceptualized differently. However, the data again confirm the distinction between structural and inherent case, which is further strengthened by the fact that passivization of double accusative constructions never leads to double nominatives. Another case with a structural and an inherent avatar is the genitive. Besides being the subject case in NPs (cf. above), it functions as a partitive. The partitive is of special interest as it can override structural case marking: partitive genitives are attested in subject and object position.

2210

XX. Proto-Indo-European

The dative is the default case for the third argument, the BENEFICIARY, in double object constructions. As it cannot undergo passivization in the old IE languages, however, it seems apt to assume that it is inherently linked to the BENEFICIARY-role. Pending further investigations, I conclude that it is an inherent case. As is true for many other languages, the dative of the old IE languages covers both BENEFICIARY and EXPERIENCER, two roles that might ultimately be linked. Other inherent cases are the instrumental, the locative, and the ablative. They all are associated with fixed thematic roles. For an excellent overview of the Vedic data, cf. Hettrich (1995, 2002, 2007).

5.2.4. Lexical case The third type of case that can be found in old IE languages and should hence be reconstructed for PIE, is lexical case. Lexical case is idiosyncratic. It is lexically selected and licensed by lexical heads. This is most obvious in non-predictable case-assignments in the subcategorization frames of verbs, for example in the genitive assigned to the theme of Greek κελεύω ‘I order’ or the case assigned to the theme of Vedic kari ‘commemorate, reflect upon with praise’ (data on verbal subcategorization in Vedic can be found in Hettrich 2007). In these instances, searching for an original motivation for the selection of a given case is futile: as lexical case exists in all attested languages, assuming a different situation for PIE would amount to glottogonic speculation.

5.3. Further topics in the study of IE case As most cases that can be reconstructed for PIE have various functions in the attested languages, it seems feasible to ask for the “Ursprungsbedeutung” or source meaning, as do Delbrück (1893) and various later scholars. However, this quest seems to be rather futile. A case in point is the instrumental, which is attested with instrumental and sociative meaning (for the instrumental of the agent with passives cf. Jamison 1979ab and Luraghi 1986b). While some authors are reluctant to assign one proto-meaning to the instrumental (Delbrück 1888: 122 opts for the rather general description of a “Begriff, welcher mit dem in Thätigkeit befindlichen Hauptbegriff zusammen ist [concept, which is in union with the main concept found in the activity]”, whereas Hettrich 2002: 46 restricts himself to a mere synchronic statement concerning Vedic, where according to him the instrumental proper is the prime function), others argue that in PIE the instrumental was associated with the role of the instrument only, the sociative being a later development. However, in a careful study Strunk (1993: 859) has shown that this question cannot be decided upon, as “zumindest in seiner Rolle als ‘Soziativ’ muß schon der vorgeschichtliche Instrumental auch auf belebte Wesen anwendbar gewesen sein [at least in its roll as ‘Sociative’, the prehistoric Instrumental also must already have been applicable to living beings]”. The claim of Haudry (1977) that the instrumental was originally the object case can be dismissed (cf. Cardona 1979). The complement alternation observed by the author is either a case of argument demotion (cf. the spray/load-alternation in English) or of alternative projection.

123. The syntax of Proto-Indo-European

2211

This matter is further illustrated by the genitive, which has the two functions described above, viz. the partitive and that of denoting the subject in NPs. Authors like Delbrück (1893) or Serbat (1992) argue for the precedence of the partitive function. Serbat (1992: 289−290) explains the development of the structural genitive as a reanalysis in which partitivity still persists even in NPs like Latin equus consulis. Stipulations like these are meaningless, though, since both functions, the partitive and the structural one, are attested in the earliest strata of the ancient IE languages: external reconstruction therefore cannot decide on the priority of one over the other. As for the accusative, most authors take the function associated with goal to be oldest (cf. Hettrich 1994; Hewson and Bubenik 2006), based on a tendency to take developments from concrete to abstract as more plausible than vice versa; de Boel (1988) argues against this and states that at least in Homeric Greek, the goal accusative is a later development. Many early IE languages show case syncretism. As in most of them remnants of more complex case systems can be found (cf. Delbrück 1907; Hettrich 1985; Luraghi 1986a; and the rather enigmatic Hewson and Bubenik 2006), it cannot be doubted that the PIE case system was as rich as that of Vedic, even if some of the inherent cases may have been heavily restricted as to gender and number (cf. Risch 1980). One last issue to be mentioned here is a peculiarity of the vocative: in invocations with more than one addressee in Vedic, Avestan, and Homeric Greek, only the first word occurs in the vocative, the one after it bears nominative case (cf. Vedic vā´yav índraś ca ‘Vāyu and Indra!’ and Homeric Ζεῦ πάτερ… Ἠέλιός θ’ ‘Father Zeus and sun!’). Cf. Zwolanek (1970). For a discussion of possible pre-IE case systems cf. 2 above.

6. Latent arguments Latent arguments exist in all ancient IE languages. They should therefore also be reconstructed for PIE. Evidence for latent subjects and objects as well as descriptions of their distribution can be found in Luraghi (1997, 2003), Keydana (2009), and Keydana and Luraghi (2013). Latent arguments can be used with generic reference as well as anaphorically. The special case of latent subjects of infinitive phrases has been examined by Keydana (2013) for Early Vedic. Control is discussed in 9.3 below.

7. Binding Binding has up to now not been studied from an IE perspective (in her study of anaphoric pronouns in Vedic, Kupfer 2002 is concerned with pronouns bound by a non-local antecedent only; in her extensive study of Gothic reflexives, Ferraresi 2005: 77−124 examines differences in word order between sik and sik silban, but not binding). Speyer (in press) discusses binding in early Attic. He concludes that only complex reflexives are bound by a local (i.e. sentence-internal) antecedent. Morphologically simple ones are predominantly used in local binding configurations, but they may occur with non-local

2212

XX. Proto-Indo-European

binding, too. Vedic seems to be similar, as the possessive reflexive again is not restricted to local binding contexts (only svayám is always reflexive). Cf. (9)

sākám pibatu vr̥trak hādáḥ sutáṃ sómaṃ téb hiḥ they-INSTR.PL together let drink devourer of Vrtra-NOM pressed-ACC soma-ACC dāśúṣaḥ své sad hást he worshipper-GEN own-LOC home-LOC Together with them let the devourer of Vr̥tra drink the pressed soma in the worshipper’s own home. (RV 3.51.9)

It seems reasonable to conclude that in the early IE languages − and probably PIE, too − local binding was not a grammatical constraint. Rather, the early IE languages seem to fit nicely into a picture developed by Levinson (2000: 347−348), who distinguishes three stages in the development of reflexives (cf. also Mattausch 2004). Stage one languages have only one sort of anaphora; non-local binding is preferred, but merely on pragmatic grounds. Stage two languages have emphatic pronouns, which gradually replace regular pronouns in locally bound contexts. Stage three finally has fully developed reflexives, which are historically derived from emphatics. Although it is impossible to show that PIE *su̯o- (and probably *se) was originally an emphatic pronoun, PIE and its daughters seem to be stage two languages: they have a pronoun that is predominantly used in reflexive contexts. Other pronouns typically occur as non-local anaphors, but may also be used in reflexive contexts. In other words, binding in PIE and the early IE languages was probably a pragmatic phenomenon and not fully grammaticalized. This picture is confirmed by the study of Viti (2009c) of the distribution of anaphors and reflexives in Latin and Ancient Greek. However, further investigations into binding in the ancient IE languages are necessary in order to evaluate this proposal. The role of logophoricity and the possibility of long distance anaphora in the oldest IE languages have not yet been studied (but cf. again Speyer in press for Attic).

8. Copula constructions In the ancient IE languages, predicates of finite sentences do not obligatorily have to be verbs. Other possible predicates are nouns, adjectives, and adverbial phrases. These may be accompanied by a copula, but the copula is not mandatory: it can be omitted, especially in the present tense. An overview of the semantic types of predicative copula constructions in Vedic can be found in Keydana (2000). Balles (2006) argues for telic copula sentences in PIE based on *-ih1 -instrumentals and the verb *d heh1 , which are reflected in the Vedic Cvi-forms and Latin verbs like calefaciō. Lühr (2007) extends the notion of copula to verbs like τυγχάνω construed with a present participle and shows that similar constructions can be found in Vedic, too. She takes them to be an inner-Vedic development marking progressivity. A special type of copula construction is the expression of alienable possession with the so called mihi est construction in ancient IE languages like Latin, and, to a lesser degree, Greek, Vedic, Tocharian, and others. Cf. Benveniste (1960) and the data given

123. The syntax of Proto-Indo-European

2213

by Bauer (2000: 197−221) (whose hypothesis that the mihi est construction dates back to a pre-IE layer is highly speculative). Barðdal and Smitherman (2013) reconstruct for PIE what they call the DAT-NOM-is-known-construction, consisting of the copula, a dative subject, and a verbal adjective from the root *g̑neh3 .

9. Subordination and embedding If a syntactic structure is hierarchically connected to another syntactic structure and does not by itself constitute a well-formed utterance, it is called subordinate. As Kiparsky (1995: 155) has shown, in the early IE languages two types of subordination were used. In the first type, the subordinate structure (typically a participial or infinitival phrase) is truly embedded: it fills an argument or modifier position in the embedding sentence. This type of subordination is clearly syntactical. GIŠ GIDRU ūl (10) kāša=šmaš=kan parkuin mišriwantan ḫarkin PCL-you-PCL pure-ACC gleaming-ACC white-ACC rod-ACC not walḫantan UDU-un šipantaḫḫun I sacrificed hit-PPL.ACC sheep Behold I have sacrificed for you a pure, gleaming white sheep never struck with a rod. (KBo 15.10 + KBo 20.42 ii 8−10)

(11)

tvám indra srávitavā´ apás kah ̣ you-NOM Indra flow-INF water-ACC.PL make You, Indra, make the waters flow. (RV 7.21.3)

In the second type, the subordinate predication is finite. Finite subordinate clauses are adjoined to the clause they depend on (cf. for Hittite Garrett 1994 and Probert 2006, the latter claiming that adjunction is at least partly due to reanalysis and therefore a later development). They are typically coindexed with a correlative pronoun or adverb in argument or modifier position. Evidence for adjunction comes from the already mentioned obligatory correlatives and the fact that the head of a relative sentence often is part of it. Cf. the following example, taken from Lühr (2000a: 74): (12) yó mártyah ̣ śíśīte áty aktúb hir mā´ nah ̣ which-NOM mortal-NOM makes himself sharp too much at night not us sá ripúr īśata that-NOM scoundrel-NOM shall have power The mortal who makes himself too sharp at night, that scoundrel shall not have power over us. (RV1.36.16) In this example, the argument position in the embedding sentence is filled by sá (with non-referential ripúh ̣), which is anaphoric to yó mártyah ̣ in the relative clause. Similar structures occur with other types of subordination, where they are less dominant. Cf.

2214

XX. Proto-Indo-European

(13) yadā´ śr̥táṃ kr̥ṇávo jātavedó ’them enam prá hiṇutāt when done-ACC you make Jātavedas then-PCL him-ACC forth send pitr´̥ bhyah ̣ father-DAT.PL When you shall make him done, Jātavedas, then send him forth to the fathers. (RV 10.16.1) These sentences are not syntactically dominated by the embedding main clause; rather their dependency is possibly a matter of discourse grammar. Constructions of this type are frequent in Vedic, Hittite, and Old Latin (cf. Haudry 1973; Calboli 1987; Luraghi 1990). Although they are not prominent in Greek (not even in Mycenean, cf. Ruipérez 1997: 528−529), it seems plausible to reconstruct them − at least in the realm of relative clauses − for PIE. In Vedic, subordinate sentences are marked by an accented finite verb in contrast to an unaccented one in main clauses. This pattern probably goes back to a rise in intonation indicating that the main clause is to follow (see Klein 1992; the claim of Lühr 2008 that Vedic verbal accent also marks, and even distinguishes, new information focus and contrastive focus, is untenable).

9.1. Relative clauses All ancient IE languages have relative clauses, both in restrictive and appositive use (Held 1957; Hettrich 1988). R[estrictive]R[elative]S[entence]s restrict the reference of their head, which is typically part of the RRS. RRSs normally precede their main clause. As described above, their argument or modifier position in the main clause is filled by a correlative anaphoric pronoun. The linearization of main and subordinate clause comes as no surprise. To put it into the parlance of Discourse Representation Theory, it is the RRS which introduces the discourse referent and the prime condition on it (via the head). The identity condition is introduced by the anaphor in the main clause (this situation differs fundamentally from that in modern languages like German or English, where the identity condition comes with the relative; the term “präsupponierende Relativsätze [presupposing relative clauses]” coined by Lühr 2000a: 78 is therefore misleading). This sentence type occurs in Hittite, the Indo-Iranian languages, Greek, Latin and a few others, and it can confidently be reconstructed for PIE. As Hajnal (1997) argues, restrictive relative sentences were a means for marking definite determination. A[ppositive]R[elative]S[entence]s add information about the referent of their head without restricting it further. As Hettrich (1988) shows for the language of the Rigveda, roughly 30 % of the ARSs precede the embedding sentence, while 60 % follow it. Referring to Lehmann (1980), Hettrich (1988) concludes that originally the ARS always followed, but evidence for this assumption is not available. On discourse structural grounds, one could argue that the serialization is of no importance for processing, so that it may always have been optional. The reconstruction of the relative pronoun itself is more difficult: Hittite and Latin continue the *k wi/k wo-relative, other languages like Greek and Indo-Iranian show *Hi̯ o-. No attested language uses both (although in Celtic, which continues *k wi-/k wo-, remnants

123. The syntax of Proto-Indo-European

2215

of *Hi̯ o- can be found, cf. Schmidt 1977a). The communis opinio follows Lehmann (1980) in assuming that *k wi-/k wo- was originally restricted to RRSs, while *Hi̯ o- was used in ARSs (cf. Hettrich 1988: 744−790). This neat distinction is certainly very attractive, but Klein (1990: 90) correctly alluded to the fact that this “hypothesis, as it stands, is virtually unfalsifiable.” Since Lehmann (1980), communis opinio has it that *k wi-/k wo- was originally an indefinite pronoun. As authors like Hettrich (1988: 505), Klein (1990: 90), and Hajnal (1997: 50) argue, the fact that it regularly occurs in second position betrays its origin as an enclitic indefinite. However, this interpretation of the linearization of Old Latin and Hittite relative sentences (where the relative pronoun always occupies second position in RRSs) is not compelling. Cf. the following examples: (14) agrum quem vir habet, tollitur. land which man owns is taken away The land that a man owns is taken away. (Cato or.frg.32,3) (15) pēdi=ma=kan kuē KUR.KURMEŠ daliyanun nu=šmaš ZAGḪI.A-uš I left PCL-those borders place-LOC-PCL-PCL which lands teḫḫun I fixed And for the lands that I left in place, for those I fixed the borders. (Kup § 3 D 16 f.) The word in initial position is obviously the most salient one in the sentence (cf. on Hittite Lühr 2001). We may conclude that it occupies the DF-slot identified above, while the relative pronoun is most probably in [Spec,CP]. Note that the same linearization is frequent in Vedic, which has a *Hi̯ o-relative. In the scenario discussed here, this pronoun must have superseded the original *k wi-/k wo-, which some time before grew out of an indefinite pronoun. To account for the word order, one has to assume that second position was transmitted all the way from the indefinite to yá- at least optionally. This scenario certainly is possible, as persistence often prevails in grammaticalization processes, but it seems less costly to assume that in Vedic, too, the placement of the relative is determined by synchronic grammar. I conclude, then, that there is no evidence for the development of relative *k wi-/k wo- out of an indefinite pronoun. We should also bear in mind that such a development is not attested; rather the indefinite builds on the interrogative, cf. Latin quisquis, Hittite kuiški, or Vedic káś cid. The origin of the *Hi̯ o-relative is obscure. Viti (2007: 59) opts for anaphoric origin. However, the pronoun seems to be isolated in the PIE lexicon (cf. Hettrich 1988).

9.2. Subordinate clauses A complementizer which might be of PIE origin is *k we. It is attested as a complementizer in subordinate sentences in Hittite -(k)ku, takku (cf. Eichner 1971), Vedic ca (cf. Klein 1985: 238 ff., 1990; Hettrich 1988: 250−260), Gothic -h, and maybe in Greek and Latin (cf. Wackernagel 1942; Wagner 1967). Szemerényi (1985), Hettrich (1988: 260),

2216

XX. Proto-Indo-European

and others take this use of *k we to be of PIE origin. Klein (1990: 93), probably overestimating the triviality of turning a conjunction into a complementizer, argues for independent developments in the early IE languages. With Klein (1990: 93, fn.14) and against Szemerényi (1985), derivation from an instrumental relative *k weh1 is not likely. Correlative adverbs with ca are very rare in the Vedic data. The Hittite material confirms this observation: subordinating -(k)ku and takku are never taken up by a correlative in the embedding sentence. Other complementizers developed out of relatives (Vedic yád, Greek ὅτι, Latin cum, quod, Hittite kuit, Old Church Slavonic iže, Gothic þatei, etc.). As they all show language-dependent idiosyncrasies, they must have developed in post-PIE times. Later developments like Russian čto, German dass, or English that are based on interrogatives or demonstratives in relative use.

9.3. Infinitives Infinitives are attested in all early IE languages. The infinitive in *-sen(i), which is based on a reanalysis of an event nominal, is clear evidence for the PIE age of the infinitive: For morphological and case-theoretical reasons, it cannot have developed independently in Greek and Vedic (Stüber 2000; Keydana 2013). Hence, the infinitive is old. As the case of the event nominalizations reanalyzed into infinitives in the early languages shows, they were originally used as adjuncts (see also Zehnder 2011). Keydana (2013) shows that their subject is always latent. Adjunct infinitives occur in two constructions in the old IE languages: purpose clauses (with free control of their subject) and rationale clauses (where the subject of the infinitive is always coreferent with the subject of the embedding sentence). Both types can be assumed for PIE, as well. The same holds true for the predicative infinitive (typically with a passive reading, see Holland 2011 for Hittite and Keydana 2013 for Vedic). Other uses of the infinitive such as the infinitive complement, the Accusativus cum Infinitivo (AcI), and the matrix infinitive are later developments (on the AcI cf. Lühr 1993 and Hettrich 1997). The evolution of the infinitive in the attested IE languages (especially that of the various formal means used and the relation to verb stems) cannot be discussed in this survey (for a rather simplistic view, cf. Disterheft 1997, for Vedic Keydana 2013).

9.4. Participles and absolute constructions The syntax of Vedic participles in adnominal and adverbial use has been studied extensively by Lowe (2015). Both types are also attested in other early IE languages and can be reconstructed for PIE. A rare type found both in Vedic and in Greek is the participle denoting purpose as investigated by Knobl (2005). As this use was probably originally restricted to participles from a desiderative stem, it may be of PIE origin. Absolute constructions can be found in most old IE languages with the exception of Hittite. Their lack of attestation in the oldest strata of some languages is probably due

123. The syntax of Proto-Indo-European

2217

simply to the literary genre (on the question of absolute constructions in the R̥gveda, cf. Keydana 1997: 97; Ziegler 2002; and Lowe 2015). For those languages whose tradition starts with or is restricted to bible translations, it is impossible to decide whether the absolute construction is a calque or not. As Keydana (1997) showed, at least in Gothic the absolute construction was probably not autochthonous. Absolute constructions denote an event contingent on the one expressed by the sentence to which they are adjoined. The most striking fact about them is that despite their event semantics, their internal syntax is that of an NP (not that of an S, as in the formalization of Lowe 2015) headed by a noun denoting a participant in the event, while the participle denoting the event itself is dependent and congruent with this noun. Absolute constructions are always marked for a case that is used with adverbials, preferably an inherent case denoting LOCATION. As the case systems of the old IE languages differ fundamentally, this case is always language-dependent. It comes as no surprise, then, that the cases used differ. Keydana (1997) showed that (against Bauer 2000) absolute nominatives are not attested in the early languages. Keydana (1997) explains the rise of absolute constructions in the context of various strategies of embedding in languages with a fully developed system of participles and a less developed system of embedded finite sentences. In his account, absolute constructions can be explained on the basis of the syntactic structures found in the early IE languages (similarly Ruppel 2013; Lowe 2015). Bauer (2000) takes the absolute construction as evidence for pre-IE as an active language (cf. above). In her analysis, the absolute construction is a remnant of a system where transitivity was not grammaticalized. As Bauer (2000) does not give evidence for absolute constructions in attested active languages and has to rely on rather bold hypotheses on the nature of pre-IE, the scenario developed by Keydana (1997), though much less ambitious, seems preferable. As the conditions for developing absolute constructions were possibly fulfilled in PIE, this type of adjunction can tentatively be reconstructed. The case used to mark absolute constructions was most probably the locative.

10. References Agbayani, Brian and Chris Golston 2010 Second-position is first-position: Wackernagel’s Law and the role of clausal conjunction. Indogermanische Forschungen 115: 1−21. Babič, Matjaž 1997 Besedni red in zgradba besedil na mikenskih tablicah. Wortstellung und Textgestaltung auf den mykenischen Linear-B-Tafeln. Academia Scientiarum et Artium Slovenica. Classis II: Philologia et Litterae. Opera 47. Ljubljana: Slovenska Akademija Znanosti i Umetnosti. Balles, Irene 2006 Die altindische Cvi-Konstruktion. (Münchner Forschungen zur historischen Sprachwissenschaft 4). Bremen: Hempen. Barðdal, Jóhanna and Thomas Smitherman 2013 The Quest for Cognates: A Reconstruction of Oblique Subject Constructions in ProtoIndo-European. Language Dynamics and Change 3: 28−67. Bauer, Anna 2011 Verberststellung im Hethitischen. In: Krisch and Lindner (eds.), 39−48.

2218

XX. Proto-Indo-European

Bauer, Brigitte L. 1995 The Emergence and Development of SVO Patterning in Latin and French. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bauer, Brigitte L. 1996 Residues of non-nominative syntax in Latin. Historische Sprachforschung 109: 241− 256. Bauer, Brigitte L. 2000 Archaic Syntax in Indo-European. (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 125). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Benveniste, Émile 1960 ‘Être’ et ‘avoir’ dans leurs fonctions linguistiques. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique 55: 113−134. de Boel, Gunnar 1988 Goal accusative and object accusative in Homer. A contribution to the theory of transitivity. Verhandelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België: Klasse der Letteren: 50, 125. Brussels: Paleis der Academien. Boley, Jacqueline 1985 Hittite and Indo-European place word syntax. Die Sprache 31: 229−241. Bruno, Carla 2011 When stylistics is a matter of syntax: cognate accusatives in Ancient Greek. In: Krisch and Lindner (eds.), 100−109. Calboli, Gualtiero 1987 Die Syntax der ältesten lateinischen Prosa. In: Anna Giacalone Ramat, (ed.), Papers from the 7 th International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 137−150. Cardona, George 1979 Review of Haudry 1977. Kratylos 23[1978]: 71−81. Casaretto, Antje 2010 Syntax und Wortarten der Lokalpartikeln des Ṛgveda. VI: práti. International Journal of Diachronic Linguistics and Linguistic Reconstruction 7: 1−53. Cervin, Richard S. 1990 Word order in ancient Greek: VSO, SVO, SOV, or all of the above? PhD thesis, University of Illinois. Crespo, Emilio and Jose Luis García Ramón (eds.) 1997 Berthold Delbrück y la sintaxis indoeuropea hoy. Actas del Coloquio de la Indogermanische Gesellschaft, Madrid, 21−24 de septiembre de 1994. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Delbrück, Berthold 1869 Ueber den indogermanischen, speciell den vedischen dativ. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 18: 81−106. Delbrück, Berthold 1878 Die Altindische Wortfolge aus dem Çatapathabrāhmaṇa dargestellt. (Syntaktische Forschungen 5). Halle an der Saale: Verlag der Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses. Delbrück, Berthold 1879 Die Grundlagen der griechischen Syntax. (Syntaktische Forschungen 4). Halle an der Saale: Verlag der Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses. Delbrück, Berthold 1888 Altindische Syntax. Halle an der Saale: Verlag der Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses. Delbrück, Berthold 1893 Vergleichende Syntax der Indogermanischen Sprachen. Volume 1. Strassburg: Trübner. Delbrück, Berthold 1897 Vergleichende Syntax der Indogermanischen Sprachen. Volume 2. Strassburg: Trübner.

123. The syntax of Proto-Indo-European

2219

Delbrück, Berthold 1907 Synkretismus. Ein Beitrag zur germanischen Kasuslehre. Strassburg: Trübner. Devine, Andrew M. and Laurence D. Stephens 2000 Discontinuous Syntax: Hyperbaton in Greek. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Devine, Andrew M. and Laurence D. Stephens 2006 Latin Word Order. Structured Meaning and Information. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dik, Helma 1995 Word Order in Ancient Greek. A Pragmatic Account of Word Order Variation in Herodotus. (Amsterdam Studies in Classical Philology 5). Amsterdam: Gieben. Dik, Helma 2007 Word Order in Greek Tragic Dialogue. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Disterheft, Dorothy 1997 The evolution of Indo-European infinitives. In: Dorothy Disterheft, Martin E. Huld, and John A. C. Greppin (eds.), Ancient Languages and Philology. Studies in Honor of Jaan Puhvel. Vol. 1. Washington, D.C.: Institute for the Study of Man, 101−122. Dover, Kenneth J. 1960 Greek Word Order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dowty, David R. 1991 Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67: 547−619. Dressler, Wolfgang 1969 Eine textsyntaktische Regel der indogermanischen Wortstellung (zur Anfangsstellung des Prädikatsverbums). Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung 83: 1−25. Dressler, Wolfgang 1971 Über die Rekonstruktion der indogermanischen Syntax. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung 85: 5−22. Duhoux, Yves 1975 L’ordre des mots en Mycénien. Minos 14: 123−163. Dunkel, George, Gisela E. Meyer, Salvatore Scarlata, and Christian Seidl (eds.) 1994 Früh-, Mittel-, Spätindogermanisch: Akten der IX. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 5. bis 9. Oktober 1992 in Zürich. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Eichner, Heiner 1971 Urindogermanisch *k we ‘wenn’ im Hethitischen. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 29: 27−46. Eichner, Heiner and Helmut Rix (eds.) 1990 Sprachwissenschaft und Philologie. Jacob Wackernagel und die Indogermanistik heute. Kolloquium der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft von 13. bis 15. Oktober 1988 in Basel. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Ferraresi, Gisella 2005 Word Order and Phrase Structure in Gothic. A Comparative Study. Leuven: Peeters. Friedrich, Paul 1975 Proto-Indo-European Syntax. The Order of Meaningful Elements. (Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph Series 1). Butte: Montana College of Mineral Sciences. Frisk, Hjalmar 1933 Studien zur griechischen Wortstellung. (Göteborgs Högskolas Årsskrift 36). Göteborg: Erlanders. Gaedicke, Carl 1880 Der Accusativ im Veda. Breslau: Koebner. Gamkrelidze, Tamaz and Vyacheslav V. Ivanov 1984 Indoevropejskij jazyk i Indoevropejcy. Rekonstrukcija i istoriko-tipologičeskij analiz prajazyka i protokul’tury [Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans. A reconstruction and

2220

XX. Proto-Indo-European

historical analysis of a proto-language and a proto-culture]. Tbilisi: Izdatel’stvo Tbilisskogo Universiteta. García Ramón, José Luis 1995 Zum Akkusativ der Richtung im Vedischen und im Indogermanischen. In: Hettrich et al. (eds.), 33−52. Garrett, Andrew 1994 Relative clause syntax in Lycian and Hittite. Die Sprache 36: 29−69. Garrett, Andrew 1996 Wackernagel’s law and unaccusativity in Hittite. In: Halpern and Zwicky (eds.), 85− 133. Gonda, Jan 1959 On amplified sentences and similar structures in the Veda. In: Jan Gonda, Four Studies in the Language of the Veda. (Disputationes Rheno-Trajectinae 3). The Hague: Mouton, 7−70. Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963 Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In: Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 73−113. Hajnal, Ivo 1997 Definite nominale Determination im Indogermanischen. Indogermanische Forschungen 102: 38−73. Hale, Mark 1987 Notes on Wackernagel’s law in the language of the Rigveda. In: Calvert Watkins (ed.), Studies in memory of Warren Cowgill (1929−1985). Papers from the Fourth East Coast Indo-European Conference Cornell University, June 6−9, 1985. Berlin: De Gruyter, 38− 50. Hale, Mark 1996 Deriving Wackernagel’s law: prosodic and syntactic factors determining clitic placement in the language of the Rigveda. In: Halpern and Zwicky (eds.), 165−197. Halpern, Aaron and Arnold Zwicky (eds.) 1996 Approaching second. Second position clitics and related phenomena. (CSLI lecture notes 61). Stanford, CA: CSLI. Harris, Alice C. and Lyle Campbell 1995 Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Haudry, Jean 1973 Parataxe, hypotaxe et corrélation dans la phrase latine. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique 68: 147−186. Haudry, Jean 1977 L’emploi des cas en védique. Introduction à l’étude des cas en indo-européen. Lyon: L’Hermès. Haug, Dag Trygve Truslew 2008 Detecting word order freezing in old Indo-European languages. Paper presented at the 4 th Conference on New Reflections on Grammaticalization. Leuven, 16 th July 2008. Haug, Dag Trygve Truslew 2009 Does Homeric Greek have prepositions? Or local adverbs? (And what’s the difference anyway?). In: Vit Bubenik and John Hewson (eds.), Grammatical Change in IndoEuropean Languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 103−120. Haug, Dag Trygve Truslew 2011 Tmesis in the epic tradition, In: Øivind Andersen and Dag Trygve Truslew Haug (eds.), Relative Chronology in Early Greek Epic Poetry. Cambridge: University Press, 96−105.

123. The syntax of Proto-Indo-European

2221

Held, Warren H. 1957 The Hittite Relative Sentence. (Language Dissertations 55). Baltimore: The Linguistic Society of America. Hettrich, Heinrich 1985 Zum Kasussynkretismus im Mykenischen. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 46: 111−122. Hettrich, Heinrich 1988 Untersuchungen zur Hypotaxe im Vedischen. Berlin: De Gruyter. Hettrich, Heinrich 1990 Rektionaler und autonomer Kasusgebrauch. In: Eichner and Rix (eds.), 82−99. Hettrich, Heinrich 1991 Syntax und Wortarten der Lokalpartikeln des Rgveda. I: ádhi. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 52: 27−76. Hettrich, Heinrich 1994 Semantische und syntaktische Betrachtungen zum doppelten Akkusativ. In: Dunkel et al. (eds.), 111−134. Hettrich, Heinrich 1995 Zur funktionalen Variationsbreite altindogermanischer Kasus: Der Ablativ im R̥gveda. In: Hettrich et al. (eds.), 53−72. Hettrich, Heinrich 1997 Syntaktische Rekonstruktion bei Delbrück und heute: Nochmals zum lateinischen und griechischen AcI. In: Crespo and García Ramón (eds.), 219−238. Hettrich, Heinrich 2002 Das Projekt einer Kasussyntax des R̥gveda: Der Instrumental. In: Hettrich and Kim (eds.), 43−63. Hettrich, Heinrich 2007 Materialien zu einer Kasussyntax des R̥gveda. Universität Würzburg, Institut für Altertumswissenschaften, Lehrstuhl für Vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft. Hettrich, Heinrich, Wolfgang Hock, Peter-Arnold Mumm, and Norbert Oettinger (eds.) 1995 Verba et Structurae. Festschrift für Klaus Strunk zum 65. Geburtstag. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität. Hettrich, Heinrich and Jeong-Soo Kim (eds.) 2002 Indogermanische Syntax. Fragen und Perspektiven. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Hewson, John and Vit Bubenik 2006 From Case to Adposition. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Hock, Hans Henrich (ed.) 1991 Studies in Sanskrit Syntax. A volume in honor of the Centennial of Speyer’s Sanskrit Syntax. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Hock, Hans Henrich 1992 Reconstruction and syntactic typology: A plea for a different approach. In: Garry W. Davis and Gregory K. Iverson (eds.), Explanation in Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 105−121. Hock, Hans Henrich 1996 Who’s on first? Toward a prosodic account of P2 clitics. In: Halpern and Zwicky (eds.), 199−270. Hock, Hans Henrich 2000 Genre, discourse, and syntax in Early Indo-European, with emphasis on Sanskrit. In: Susan C. Herring, Pieter van Reenen, and Lene Schøsler (eds.), Textual Parameters in Older Languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 163−195. Hock, Hans Henrich 2012 Phrasal Prosody and the Indo-European Verb. In: H. Craig Melchert (ed.), The IndoEuropean Verb. Proceedings of the Conference of the Society for Indo-European Studies, Los Angeles 13−15 September 2010. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 115−126.

2222

XX. Proto-Indo-European

Hock, Hans Henrich 2013 Proto-Indo-European verb-finality. Journal of Historical Linguistics 3: 49−76. Holland, Gary 2011 Active and Passive in Hittite Infinitival Constructions. In: Stephanie W. Jamison, H. Craig Melchert, and Brent Vine (eds.), Proceedings of the 22 nd Annual UCLA IndoEuropean Conference, Los Angeles, November 5 th and 6 th, 2010. Bremen: Hempen, 69− 81. Horrocks, Geoffrey C. 1981 Time and Space in Homer: Prepositional and adverbial particles in the Greek epic. New York: Arno. Jamison, Stephanie W. 1979a The case of agent in Indo-European. Die Sprache 25: 129−143. Jamison, Stephanie W. 1979b Remarks on the expression of agency with the passive in Vedic and Indo-European. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung 93: 196−219. Jeffers, Robert J. 1976 Syntactic change and syntactic reconstruction. In: William Christie (ed.), Current Progress in Historical Linguistics: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Tucson, Arizona, 12−16 January 1976. Amsterdam: NorthHolland, 1−16. Keydana, Götz 1997 Absolute Konstruktionen in altindogermanischen Sprachen. (Historische Sprachforschung, Ergänzungsheft 40). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Keydana, Götz 2000 Prädikativa im Altindischen. In: Christine Chojnacki, Jens-Uwe Hartmann, and Volker M. Tschannerl (eds.), Vividharatnakaran ̣d ̣aka. Festgabe für Adelheid Mette. (Indica et Tibetica 37). Swisttal-Odendorf: Indica et Tibetica, 369−378. Keydana, Götz 2001 Review of Watkins. 1995. Indogermanische Forschungen 106: 282−290. Keydana, Götz 2004 Review of Meier-Brügger. 2002. Indogermanische Forschungen 109: 373−376. Keydana, Götz 2009 Latente Objekte und altindische Diskursgrammatik. In: Rieken and Widmer (eds.), 125− 142. Keydana, Götz 2011a Wackernagel in the language of the Rigveda. A reassessment. Historische Sprachforschung 124: 106−133. Keydana, Götz 2011b Review of Spevak. 2010. Kratylos 56: 149−156. Keydana, Götz 2013 Infinitive im R̥gveda: Formen, Funktion, Diachronie. (Brill Studies in Indo-European Languages and Linguistics 9). Leiden: Brill. Keydana, Götz In press Unakkusative im Veda. In: Lühr and Zeilfelder (eds.). Keydana, Götz and Silvia Luraghi 2013 Definite referential null objects in Vedic Sanskrit and Ancient Greek. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 45: 1−13. Kieckers, Ernst 1911 Die Stellung des Verbs im Griechischen und in den verwandten Sprachen. Strassburg: Trübner.

123. The syntax of Proto-Indo-European

2223

Kiparsky, Paul 1995 Indo-European origins of Germanic syntax. In: Adrian Battye and Ian Roberts (eds.), Clause Structure and Language Change. New York: Oxford University Press, 140−169. Klein, Jared S. 1985 Toward a Discourse Grammar of the Rigveda. Vol I: Coordinate Conjunction. Part I. Introduction, ca, utá. Heidelberg: Winter. Klein, Jared S. 1990 Review of Hettrich. 1988. Kratylos 35: 86−95. Klein, Jared S. 1991 Syntactic and discourse correlates of verb-initial sentences in the Rigveda. In: Hock (ed.), 123−143. Klein, Jared S. 1992 On verbal accentuation in the Rigveda. New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society. Knobl, Werner Franz 2005 Studies on the Present Participle: 1. The Present Participle Expressive of Intentionality. Journal of Indological Studies 16−17: 65−108. Krisch, Thomas 1984 Konstruktionsmuster und Bedeutungswandel indogermanischer Verben. Anwendungsversuche von Valenztheorie und Kasusgrammatik auf Diachronie und Rekonstruktion. Frankfurt: Lang. Krisch, Thomas 1990 Das Wackernagelsche Gesetz aus heutiger Sicht. In: Eichner and Rix (eds.), 64−81. Krisch, Thomas 1994 Beobachtungen zur Wortstellung im Altindischen. In: Dunkel et al. (eds.), 169−138. Krisch, Thomas 1997 B. Delbrücks Arbeiten zur Wortstellung aus heutiger Sicht. In: Crespo and García Ramón (eds.), 283−309. Krisch, Thomas 1998 Zum Hyperbaton in altindogermanischen Sprachen. In: Wolfgang Meid (ed.), Sprache und Kultur der Indogermanen. Akten der X. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Innsbruck, 22.−28. September 1996. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität, 351−384. Krisch, Thomas 2001 Man kann sich ein Klavier ja auch um den Bauch binden. Können Theorien der allgemeinen Sprachwissenschaft für die Indogermanistik nützlich sein? In: Heiner Eichner, Peter-Arnold Mumm, Oswald Panagl, and Eberhard Winkler (eds.), Fremd und Eigen. In Memoriam Hartmut Katz. Vienna: Praesens, 155−174. Krisch, Thomas 2002 Indogermanische Wortstellung. In: Hettrich and Kim (eds.), 249−261. Krisch, Thomas 2006 RIVELEX. Rigveda-Lexikon. 1. Band. Graz: Leykam. Krisch, Thomas and Thomas Lindner (eds.) 2011 Indogermanistik und Linguistik im Dialog, Akten der XIII. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 21. bis 27. September 2008 in Salzburg. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Kulikov, Leonid 2012 The Vedic -ya-presents. Passive and Intransitive in Old Indo-Aryan. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Kulikov, Leonid and Nikolaos Lavidas 2013 Reconstructing passive and voice in Proto-Indo-European. Journal of Historical Linguistcs 3: 98−121.

2224

XX. Proto-Indo-European

Kupfer, Katharina 2002 Die Demonstrativpronomina im Rigveda. (Europäische Hochschulschriften. Reihe XXI. Linguistik 244). Frankfurt: Lang. Kuryłowicz, Jerzy 1935 Études indoeuropéennes. Prace Komisji językowej. Kraków: Polska Akademja umiejętności. Lehmann, Christian 1980 Der indogermanische *k wi-/k wo-Relativsatz im typologischen Vergleich. In: Ramat (ed.), 155−169. Lehmann, Christian 1983 Latin preverbs and cases in Latin linguistics and linguistic theory. In: Harm Pinkster (ed.), Proceedings of the 1st International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics 1981 in Amsterdam. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 145−161. Lehmann, Winfred P. 1974 Proto-Indo-European Syntax. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Lehmann, Winfred P. 1993 Theoretical bases of Indo-European Linguistics. London: Routledge. Levinson, Stephen C. 2000 Presumptive Meanings. The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicatures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Lightfoot, David 1980 On Reconstructing a Proto-Syntax. In: Ramat (ed.), 27−45. Lowe, John J. 2011 R̥gvedic clitics and ‘prosodic movement’. In: Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG11 Conference. Stanford: CSLI, 360−380. Lowe, John J. 2015 Participles in Rigvedic Sanskrit. (Oxford Studies in Diachronic and Historical Linguistics 17). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lühr, Rosemarie 1993 Zur Umstrukturierung von agenshaltigen Sachverhaltsbeschreibungen in Komplementfunktion. Dargestellt an altindogermanischen Sprachen. Historische Sprachforschung 106: 232−261. Lühr, Rosemarie 2000a Der Nebensatz und seine Konkurrenten in der Indogermania: Der altindische Relativsatz. Historische Sprachforschung 113: 71−87. Lühr, Rosemarie 2000b Zum Gebrauch des Duals in der Indogermania. In: Michaela Ofitsch and Christian Zinko (eds.), 125 Jahre Indogermanistik in Graz. Graz: Leykam, 263−274. Lühr, Rosemarie 2001 Relativsätze im Hethitischen. In: Gernot Wilhelm (ed.), Akten des IV. Kongresses für Hethitologie, Würzburg, 4.−8. Oktober 1999. (Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten 45). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 333−346. Lühr, Rosemarie 2007 Kopulasätze in altindogermanischen Sprachen. In: Ljudmila Geist and Björn Rothstein (eds.), Kopulaverben und Kopulasätze. Intersprachliche und intrasprachliche Aspekte. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 181−199. Lühr, Rosemarie 2008 Old Indic clauses between subordination and coordination. In: Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen and Wiebke Ramm (eds.), ‘Subordination’ versus ‘Coordination’ in Syntax and Text. A cross-linguistic perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 307−327.

123. The syntax of Proto-Indo-European

2225

Lühr, Rosemarie 2011 Zur Informationsstruktur in alten Korpussprachen. In: Michail L. Kotin and Elizaveta G. Kotorova (eds.), Geschichte und Typologie der Sprachsysteme. Heidelberg: Winter, 101−116. Lühr, Rosemarie and Susanne Zeilfelder (eds.) In press Struktur und Semantik der Verbalphrase. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Jena 2006. Luraghi, Silvia 1986a Der semantische und funktionelle Bau des althethitischen Kasussystems. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung 99: 23−42. Luraghi, Silvia 1986b On the distribution of instrumental and agentive markers for human and non-human agents of passive verbs in some Indo-European languages. Indogermanische Forschungen 91: 48−66. Luraghi, Silvia 1990 Old Hittite Sentence Structure. London: Routledge. Luraghi, Silvia 1994 Osservazioni sulla Legge di Wackernagel e la posizione del verbo nelle lingue indoeuropee. In: Maria-Elisabeth Conte, Anna Giacalone Ramat, and Paolo Ramat (eds.), Dimensioni della Linguistica. Milan: Francoangeli, 31−60. Luraghi, Silvia 1995 The pragmatics of verb initial sentences in some ancient Indo-European languages. In: Pamela Downing and Michael Noonan (eds.), Word Order in Discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 355−386. Luraghi, Silvia 1997 Omission of the direct object in Latin. Indogermanische Forschungen. 102: 239−257. Luraghi, Silvia 2003 Definite referential null objects in Ancient Greek. Indogermanische Forschungen 108: 167−195. Martinet, André 1962 A functional View of Language. Oxford: The Clarendon Press. Matić, Dejan 2003 Topic, focus, and discourse structure. Ancient Greek word order. Studies in Language 27: 573−633. Mattausch, Jason 2004 Optimality theoretical pragmatics and binding phenomena. In: Reinhard Blutner and Henk Zeevat (eds.), Optimality Theory and Pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 63−90. McCone, Kim 1979 The diachronic possibilities of the Indo-European ‘amplified’ sentence. A case study from Anatolian. In: Bela Brogyanyi (ed.), Studies in Diachronic, Synchronic, and Typological Linguistics. Festschrift Szemerényi. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 467−487. McCone, Kim 1997 Delbrück’s model of PIE word order and the Celtic evidence. In: Crespo and García Ramón (eds.), 363−396. Meier-Brügger, Michael 2002 Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft. 8., überarbeitete und ergänzte Auflage. Unter Mitarbeit von Matthias Fritz und Manfred Mayrhofer. Berlin: De Gruyter. Melchert, H. Craig 2011 The PIE Collective Plural and the “τὰ ζῷα τρέχει rule”. In: Krisch and Lindner (eds.), 395−400.

2226

XX. Proto-Indo-European

Panagl, Oswald 1999 Beobachtungen zur mykenischen Syntax. In: Sigrid Deger-Jalkotzy, Stefan Hiller, and Oswald Panagl (eds.), unter Mitarbeit von Georg Nightingale und Thomas Lindner, Floreant Studia Mycenaea II. Akten des X. Internationalen Mykenologischen Colloquiums in Salzburg vom 1.−5. Mai 1995. Vol. 2. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 487−494. Pinault, Georges-Jean 1995 Le problème du préverbe en indo-européen. In: André Rousseau (ed.), Les préverbes dans les langues d’Europe: Introduction à l’étude de la préverbation. Lille: Presses universitaires du Septentrion, 35−59. Probert, Philomen 2006 Clause boundaries in Old Hittite relative sentences. Transactions of the Philological Society 104: 17−83. Ramat, Paolo (ed.) 1980 Linguistic Reconstruction and Indo-European Syntax. Proceedings of the Colloquium of the ‘Indogermanische Gesellschaft’, University of Pavia, 6−7 September 1979. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Rieken, Elisabeth and Paul Widmer (eds.) 2009 Pragmatische Kategorien. Form, Funktion und Diachronie. Akten der Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 24. bis 26. September 2007 in Marburg. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Rieken, Elisabeth and Paul Widmer 2014 ‘Kongruiert alles?’ − Zu den Kongruenzmustern des Pronominaladjektivs der Bedeutung ‘all, jeder, ganz’ im Griechischen und Hethitischen. In: Norbert Oettinger and Thomas Steer (eds.), Akten der Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft − Das Nomen im Indogermanischen. Morphologie, Substantiv vs. Adjektiv, Kollektivum, Erlangen, 14.−16. September 2011. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 342−359. Risch, Ernst 1980 Betrachtungen zur indogermanischen Nominalflexion. In: Gunter Brettschneider, Christian Lehmann, and Paul Garvin (eds.), Wege zur Universalienforschung. Sprachwissenschaftliche Beiträge zum 60. Geburtstag von Hansjakob Seiler. Tübingen: Narr, 259− 267. Ross, John R. 1986 Infinite Syntax! Norwood, NJ: Ablex. (Published version of Ross’ 1967 MIT dissertation, Constraints on Variables in Syntax). Ruipérez, Martín S. 1997 Mycenaean Greek and its contribution to the reconstruction of IE syntax. In: Crespo and García Ramón (eds.), 527−536. Ruppel, Antonia 2013 Absolute Constructions in Early Indo-European. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schäufele, Steven 1991a Verb-medial clauses in Vedic: Some theoretical implications. In: Hock (ed.), 177−196. Schäufele, Steven 1991b Free Word-Order syntax: The Challenge from Vedic Sanskrit to Contemporary Formal Syntactic Theory. Ph.D. thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Schmalstieg, William R. 1987 A Lithuanian Historical Syntax. Columbus, OH: Slavica. Schmidt, Karl Horst 1977a Der Beitrag der keltiberischen Inschrift von Botorrita zur Rekonstruktion der protokeltischen Syntax. Word 28[1976−1977]: 51−62.

123. The syntax of Proto-Indo-European

2227

Schmidt, Karl Horst 1977b Probleme der Ergativkonstruktion. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 36: 97− 111. Serbat, Guy 1992 Zum Ursprung des indogermanischen Genitivs und seiner lateinischen Verwendung. In: Oswald Panagl and Thomas Krisch (eds.), Latein und Indogermanisch. Akten des Kolloquiums der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Salzburg, 23.−26. September 1986. (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 64). Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität, 285−291. Shields, Kenneth C. 1978 Some remarks concerning early Indo-European nominal inflection. Journal of IndoEuropean Studies 6: 185−210. Spevak, Olga 2010 Constituent Order in Classical Latin Prose. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Speyer, Augustin 2009 Versuch zur Syntax im Protoindoeuropäischen. In: Rieken and Widmer (eds.), 287−305. Speyer, Augustin In press Das Altgriechische − Sorgenkind der Bindungstheorie. In: Lühr and Zeilfelder (eds.). Stepanov, Jurij S. 1989 Indoevropejskoe predloženie [The Indoeuropean sentence]. Moscow: Nauka. Strunk, Klaus 1991 Syntaktische Bemerkungen zum hethitischen und indogermanischen Instrumental. In: Jurij S. Stepanov, Nikita I. Tolstoj, Vyacheslav V. Ivanov, Georgij A. Klimov, and Vladimir P. Neroznak (eds.), Istoričeskaja lingvistika i tipologija [Historical linguistics and typology]. Festschrift for Tamaz V. Gamkrelidze. Moscow: Nauka, 81−91. Stüber, Karin 2000 Zur Herkunft der altindischen Infinitive auf -sáni. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 60: 135−167. Szemerényi, Oswald J. L. 1985 Syntax, meaning, and origin of the Indo-European particle k we. In: Günter Heintz and Peter Schmitter (eds.), Collectanea Philologica. Festschrift für Helmut Gipper zum 65. Geburtstag. Bd. 2. Baden-Baden: Koerner, 747−775. Tjerkstra, Françoise A. 1999 Principles of the Relation between Local Adverb, Verb and Sentence Particle in Hittite. (Cuneiform Monographs 15). Groningen: STYX. Uhlenbeck, Christianus C. 1901 Agens und Patiens im Kasussystem der indogermanischen Sprachen. Indogermanische Forschungen 12: 170−171. Viti, Carlotta 2007 Strategies of Subordination in Vedic. Milan: Franco Angeli. Viti, Carlotta 2008 The Verb-Initial Word Order in the Early Poetry of Vedic and Ancient Greek. In: Karlene Jones-Bley, Martin E. Huld, Angela Della Volpe, and Miriam Robbins Dexter (eds.), Proceedings of the 19 th Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference, Los Angeles, November 3−4, 2007. Washington, D.C.: Institute for the Study of Man, 89−111. Viti, Carlotta 2009a A quantitative analysis of the OSV word order in Vedic. In: Rieken and Widmer (eds.), 307−322. Viti, Carlotta 2009b Genitive word order in Ancient Greek: A functional analysis of word order freedom in the noun phrase. Glotta 84: 203−238.

2228

XX. Proto-Indo-European

Viti, Carlotta 2009c Anaphorische und reflexive Strukturen im Altgriechischen und Lateinischen. Indogermanische Forschungen 114: 143−172. Viti, Carlotta 2010 The Information Structure of OVS in Vedic. In: Gisella Ferraresi and Rosemarie Lühr (eds.), Diachronic Studies on Information Structure: Language Acquisition and Change. Berlin: De Gruyter, 37−62. Viti, Carlotta 2011 The use of the dual number in Homeric Greek. In: Krisch and Lindner (eds.), 595−604. Wackernagel, Jakob 1892 Über ein Gesetz der indogermanischen Wortstellung. Indogermanische Forschungen 1: 333−436. Wackernagel, Jakob 1942 Indogermanisch qu̯e als alte nebensatzeinleitende Konjunktion (aus dem Nachlaß Jacob Wackernagels, hrsg. von Johannes Lohmann). Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung 67: 1−5. Wagner, Heinrich 1967 Indogermanisch -k we im Finnisch-Ugrischen? Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 20: 67−92. Watkins, Calvert 1963 Preliminaries to a historical and comparative analysis of the syntax of the Old Irish verb. Celtica 6: 1−49. Watkins, Calvert 1964 Preliminaries to the reconstruction of Indo-European sentence structure. In: Horace G. Lunt (ed.), Proceedings of the 9 th International Congress of Linguists. The Hague: Mouton, 1035−1045. Watkins, Calvert 1995 How to kill a dragon. Aspects of Indo-European poetics. New York: Oxford University Press. van Wijk, Nicolaas 1902 Der nominale Genitiv Singular im Indogermanischen in seinem Verhältnis zum Nominativ. Zwolle: Tijl. Zehnder, Thomas 2011 Zur Funktion der Infinitive im Veda. In: Krisch and Lindner (eds.), 622−631. Ziegler, Sabine 2002 Zur Entstehung des Locativus Absolutus im Altindischen. In: Hettrich and Kim (eds.), 79−86. Zwolanek, Renée 1970 “Vā´yav índráśca”. Studien zu Anrufungsformen im Vedischen, Avestischen und Griechischen. (Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft, Beiheft 5, N.F.). Munich: Kitzinger.

Götz Keydana, Göttingen (Germany)

124. The lexicon of Proto-Indo-European

2229

124. The lexicon of Proto-Indo-European 0. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Methodological questions Basic vocabulary items The human being Society Technology Nature

6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Abstract concepts Religion PIE poetic language (“Dichtersprache”) Vocabulary List References

0. Methodological questions The reconstruction of the lexicon of a proto-language is fraught with a number of problems and uncertainties. In the best case, the data in the individual languages correspond exactly and thus allow for the reconstruction of a common form ancestral to those of the daughter languages. But there are no hard and fast rules for sufficient criteria apart from the phonological correspondence. The probability of dealing with an inherited form increases with the number of languages independently attesting the form in question (cf. Meillet’s rule of thumb of three languages and Kretschmer’s “Randsprachenarchaismen”) and with the decreasing productivity of the word-formation process in question: if the latter is still productive in the daughter languages, the form might well have arisen independently. The ontological status of reconstructed forms is disputed − they are seen either as pure abstractions and shorthand notations for the attested forms or as more or less reliable approximations to actual language data. In addition to the question of whether a form is inherited from the proto-language, there is further uncertainty as regards the signifié: “identical” meanings in the daughter languages may be due to contact or be independent developments. Even if an etymology seems impeccable in form and content, it may be as fallacious as a Proto-Norse term for ‘stamp’ which one might reconstruct on the basis of Swed. frimärke, Norw. frimerke and Dan. frimærke (cf. Seebold 1981: 48 f.). The uncertainty increases in those cases where the lexical items are not the same in the daughter languages. There does not seem to be a definite answer to the question of whether it is possible to reconstruct an inherited content without an inherited form. A case in point is the syntagm ‘dark earth’ claimed for PIE on the basis of OIr. domun donn, Hitt. dankuiaz tagnaz (abl.), Serb. crna zemlja and Gk. gaĩa / Dēmḗtēr mélaina/k ht hṑn kelainḗ, which according to Campanile (1987: 22) has “a greater probability than any Aryo-Greek isogloss”, but which is most probably a calque from Hurrian in Hittite borrowed into Greek and which may have arisen independently in the western languages (cf. Oettinger 1989/90). While in a case like *h2 ek̑-me/on- meaning ‘stone’ in some daughter languages and ‘sky’ in others (or having both meanings in one and the same language, cf. Skt. aśman‘stone’, probably ‘sky’, Av. asman- ‘stone; sky’, Gk. ákmōn ‘anvil’, ‘sky’ in ákmōn … ouranós [Hsch.] [156]) one may assume that speakers of PIE conceptualized the sky as made of stone, the solution is less evident in cases like Lat. fāgus ‘beech’ vs. Gk. p hēgós ‘oak’ [287], where the divergence of attested meanings makes it difficult to assess the situation in the proto-language. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-045

2230

XX. Proto-Indo-European

In dealing with these problems, different solutions have been offered in the past, with one stream of researchers clinging to phonological and semantic equations as the only basis for reconstructing lexical items for the proto-language and being dismissive about the possibility of making any solid statements about the “culture” of the speakers of PIE. The opposite direction, which one could call “cultural reconstruction” (Campanile 1987: 23), uses the term “semantic reconstruction” (cf. also Wachter 1998) and aims at comparing different IE traditions and extracting the elements common to them, starting with cases where both form and meaning match, but then leaving the area of strict word equations and assuming that the same inherited content may be expressed differently in different IE traditions. Cf. for the latter tradition Benveniste (1969.2: 179): “Si en effet on se borne à considérer la portion du vocabulaire qui peut être définie complètement et immédiatement par des correspondances régulières, on est condamné à voir peu à peu l’objet de l’étude se dissoudre.” Benveniste took a rather cautious position by studying cultural terms first within each language, insofar as they can be subjected to etymology. The results of these individual studies may coincide, but this alone is still not proof of their common inheritance: if several IE languages express the content ‘servant/to serve’ by words meaning ‘run/go around s.b.‘ (*peri-, *h2 m̥b hi- + *k u̯elh1 -, *h2 eg̑-, *ret-), without there being a form common to all languages, is it possible to assume that PIE also had a word for ‘servant’ built from this or similar material or are these independent innovations in each language? It is with these caveats in mind that the following material has to be assessed. In many cases the exact meaning of the proto-lexeme seems beyond the reach of reconstruction, in others the form is attested only in some sub-branches making its very existence in the proto-language questionable. The first part of the material given in the appendix is arranged according to the extended Swadesh list (nos. 27−207).

1. Basic vocabulary items Basic verbs that can be reconstructed for the proto-language include a copula and verbum existentiae *h1 es- [208] that in many languages is in suppletion with *b huh2 - ‘grow, become, be’ [209], verbs denoting body posture such as *leg h-/k̑ei̯ - ‘lie (down)’ [123], *sed-/h1 ēs- ‘sit (down)’ [124], and *steh2 - ‘(take a) stand’ [125] and body movement such as *h1 ei̯ -, *g u̯em- ‘go/come’ [121], *b herg̑ h-, *h1 rei̯ - ‘rise’ [210], *sek u̯- ‘follow’ [212], *b heg u̯-, *drem- (and others) ‘run’ [215] *b heu̯g- ‘escape’, *nes- ‘escape, come home’ [216], *h1 er-, *h2 nek̑-, *sei̯ k- ‘reach’ [213], verbs of ingestion such as *h1 ed‘eat’ [93], *peh3 - ‘drink’ [92], *k u̯em- and *sreb h- ‘sip’ [219], *g u̯erh3 - ‘devour’ [222], *su̯el-, *sleu̯g-, etc. ‘swallow’ [218], and verbs for ‘sleeping’ and ‘waking’ like *su̯ep-, *ses- [107] and *b heu̯d h-, *h1 ger- [217] respectively. Apart from the problem of a seeming synonymy frequently beyond the reach of reconstruction, in some cases PIE seems to have had two verbs differing only in aspect/aktionsart, one expressing a state, the other the process leading up to that state (e.g., ‘sit’ vs. ‘sit down’ and ‘sleep’ vs. ‘fall asleep’), while in others various stem formations of the same verb expressed these differences (e.g., in the case of ‘stand/take a stand’ *steh2 - [125]). There is a larger number of verbs for ‘see’ [101] with different connotations (e.g., *u̯ei̯ d- with that of knowledge,

124. The lexicon of Proto-Indo-European

2231

cf. the pf. *u̯oi̯ dh2 e ‘I have seen, hence I know’, *derk̑- with that of the eyes emitting rays of light, cf. Gk. drákōn ‘snake, dragon’, originally ‘the one with flashing eyes’, Pi. N. 3.84 dédorken p háos ‘the light flashed’, *spek̑- that of ‘spying’, cf. Skt. spaś- [n.] ‘spy’, *ser- that of ‘watching over, guarding’) than for ‘hear’ and other verbs of perception. A safely reconstructible form for ‘hear’ is *k̑leu̯- [102] with a derivative *k̑leu̯s-, for ‘taste’ *g̑eu̯s- [221], for ‘smell’ *h3 ed- [105], while a convincing etymon for ‘feel/ touch’ is missing. Besides verbs for ‘bringing, carrying’ (*b her- [223]) and ‘putting’ such as *d heh1 - and *stel- [224], there is a large number of verbs for ‘giving’ and ‘taking’ [128], some of which have both meanings in different languages respectively or even in the same language, e.g., *nem- is ‘take’ in Germanic but ‘give, distribute’ in Greek, *deh3 - is ‘take’ in Hittite, ‘give’ in most other languages, and in Sanskrit ‘give’ in the active and ‘take’ in the middle inflection, *g heb h- is ‘take’ in Celtic, but ‘give’ in Germanic. The basic social activities of ‘sharing’ (*b hag-, *deh2 - [225]) and ‘exchanging’ (*mei̯ -, *mei̯ th2 - [226]) seem to have played an important role not only in relationships between humans, but between humans and gods as well (cf. Av. baγa- ‘god’ < ‘distributor’ or ‘who gets a share [in the sacrifice]’, Gk. Od. 8.325 t heoí, dōtêres heáōn ‘the gods, the givers of goods’, cf. 8). Many adjectives reconstructible for the proto-language can be analyzed as derivatives of other word classes, mostly verbs, e.g., *gu̯her-mo- ‘warm’ from *gu̯her- ‘be/become warm’ [180], *h1 es-u- ‘good’ [185] if from *h1 es- ‘be’ [208], *mei̯ H-u- [32] ‘small’ from *mei̯ H- ‘diminish’ [400], but also nouns, e.g., *ped(i)i̯ o- ‘on foot, foot-’ [274] from *ped/pod- ‘foot’ [80], and even adverbs, e.g., *neu̯o- ‘new’ [183] if from *nu ‘now’, while a smaller group seems to establish a class of primary adjectives, e.g., *sen- ‘old’ [184] and *meg̑- ‘big’ [27]. Adjectives for basic physical properties that can be reconstructed with varying degrees of certainty are, among others, *g u̯(e)rh2 -u- ‘heavy’ [31] and *h1 le(n)gu̯h-u- ‘light’ [265], *ten(H)-u- ‘thin’ [35], *teg-u- ‘thick’ and *b hn̥g̑ h-u‘dense, thick’ [30], *b hr̥g̑ h-u- ‘high’ [266], *d heu̯b- ‘deep’ [267], *pl̥ h1 -no- ‘full’ [182] and *h1 u̯(e)h2 -no- ‘empty’ [270], *Hōk̑-ú- ‘fast’ [272], probably *g u̯r̥d-u- ‘slow’ [273], *h2 ek̑-ro- ‘sharp’ [191] *h2 sou̯so- ‘dry’ [195], *pl̥ th2 -u- and *h1 u̯erH-u- ‘broad, wide’ [275] and *h2 emg̑ h-ú- ‘narrow’ [34], *med h-i̯ o- ‘middle’ [388], and various forms meaning ‘long’, *dl̥ h1 g h-o-, *mh2 k̑-ro-, *duh2 -ro- [28] and *mreg̑ h- ‘short’ [33]. Candidates for PIE color terms are *kr̥sno- ‘black’ [176] and *alb ho- ‘white’ [175] (while many other adjs. meaning ‘white’ also mean ‘shining’, cf. [175]), *h1 rou̯d ho-/h1 rud h-ro- ‘red’ [172], *g̑ hl̥ h3 - (with various suffixes) ‘green/yellow’ [173], *b hru(no)-, *b her-o- ‘brown’ [269], *k̑as- and *poli- ‘grey’ [268].

2. The human being The basic terms for ‘male adult person’ and ‘female adult person’ in PIE were probably *h2 nē´r ([37], possibly originating from the more abstract meaning of ‘strength, vital energy’ [cf. Hitt. innara- ‘having *h2 ner- inside’, Gk. nō´ropi k halkō´i ‘with bright bronze’]) and *g u̯en-(h2 ) [36], respectively. Other words for ‘man’ found in IE languages are *man-u- [291] and *u̯iH-ro- [37], originally an adj. ‘young, powerful, fresh’ (: Toch. A wir ‘young, fresh’, perhaps Alb. ri ‘young’, if with metathesis from *u̯riH-o-), frequently also ‘hero’. General terms for ‘male’ were *(h1 )r̥sen- [392] and *u̯ers- [396]. A

2232

XX. Proto-Indo-European

different word for ‘woman’, *(h1 e)sor-, probably older than *g u̯en-, has been suspected in forms like cLuv. ašrulāhit- ‘femininity’, Hitt. compounds like ḫaššu-ššara- ‘queen’ (derived from ḫaššu- ‘king’), the fem. forms of the numerals ‘three’ and ‘four’ in IndoIranian (: Skt. tisrás, cátasras, Av. tišrō, cataŋrō) and OIr. (: téoir, cethéoir), probably in the PIE word for ‘sister’, *su̯esor- [395], denoting the ‘female person of the same clan’ (if not from **su̯e-h1 esh2 r/n- ‘of the same blood’), and in Lat. uxor (if not orig. a fem. from *h2 uks-en- ‘bull, ox’ [313]) and even the name of the Greek goddess Hera (Willi 2010). Words for ‘old man/woman’ and ‘young man’ are derivatives of the respective adj., *g̑erh2 -ont- ‘old man’ [276], *g̑erh2 -u- ‘old woman’ [277] (all from the verbal root *g̑erh2 - ‘rub, grind, make old’ [252]), *h2 i̯ u-Hen- ‘young, youthful, young man’ [278] (probably originally ‘having youthful vigor / life-force’, *h2 i̯ u-h3 en-, cf. [108]) in addition to other less widely distributed forms like *mag hus ‘boy, young man’ [370] and *meri̯ o- [371]. Verbal roots for ‘live’, ‘engender, give birth’ and ‘die’ were *g u̯i̯ eh3 - [108], *tek̑- and *g̑enh1 - [249], and *mer- and *nek̑- [109], respectively. Speakers of IE languages viewed themselves as ‘mortal’ and ‘terrestrial’ as opposed to the immortal heavenly gods (cf. 7), hence we find terms for ‘human being’ like *mr̥to- ‘mortal’ (: Arm. mard ‘man’ < *mr̥to- [presupposing a negative form *n̥-mr̥to‘immortal’], Ved. márta-, all from *mer- ‘die’ [109]; Toch. B enkwe, A onk ‘man’ < *n̥k̑u̯os ‘mortal’, cf. Gk. nékus ‘corpse’, OIr. éc ‘death’ < *n̥k̑u-, Av. nasu- ‘corpse, carrion’) and *d hg̑ hom-i̯ o-/-on- ‘earthling’ (: OIr. duine; Lat. homō, Goth. guma) from *d heg̑ hom- ‘earth’ [159]. The same idea is expressed in the Homeric phrase Il. 5.442 at hanátōn te t heõn k hamaì erk homénōn t’ ant hrṓpōn ‘of the immortal gods and of men who walk on earth’. Correspondingly, the gods were the *n̥-mr̥tōs ‘immortal ones’ (: Gk. ámbrotoi, Lat. dī immortales, etc.). Terms for body parts and internal organs are attested in most IE languages and reconstructible for the proto-language. They include *k̑er- ‘head’ ([72], the same root used for ‘horn’ [68], cf. Nussbaum 1986), *g̑enu- ‘chin’ [285], *h1 d(o)nt- ‘tooth’ [77] (a derivative of *h1 ed- ‘eat, bite’ [93]), *h3 ek u̯- ‘eye’ [74] (an archaic dual form *h3 (e)k u̯ih1 ‘two eyes’ is attested in several languages, Gk. ósse, OCS oči, Lith. akì, Arm. ač‘k‘ [plurale tantum]), *h2 ou̯s- ‘ear’ [73], *nas- ‘nose’ [75], *h3 oh1 -(e)s- ‘mouth’ [76], *(h3 )b hruH- ‘eyebrow’ [279], *d(h)n̥g̑ huH- ‘tongue’ [78] (forms with l- [Arm., Lith., Lat.] may be influenced by *lei̯ g̑ h- ‘lick’ [220]), *mon-o- ‘neck, throat’ [87], *b heh2 g̑ hu- ‘arm’ [282] and *Hol-en- ‘elbow’ [283], *Homso- ‘shoulder’ [283], *g̑ hes-r- ‘hand’ [83], *h2 ek̑s- ‘armpit’ [324], *h3 neb h- ‘navel’ [290], *g̑e/onu- ‘knee’ [82], *ped/pod‘foot’ [80], *h3 est- ‘bone’ [65], *perk̑- ‘rib’ [379], *tu̯ek- ‘skin’ [62], *Horso- ‘buttocks’ [385]. A word for ‘beard’ was *smek̑ru-, while *b har(s)d ho- [381] is attested only in some western IE languages. ‘hair’ in general may have been designated by *peu̯mos- [71]. Internal organs include *k̑erd- ‘heart’ [90], *i̯ ek u̯r̥(t) ‘liver’ [91], *pleu̯-mon- ‘lung(s)’ [281] (from the root *pleu̯- ‘float’, as the lungs are lighter than other body parts and float on water), and the ‘womb’, *g u̯elb h-u- [372]. The word for ‘gall’, *g̑ holo-, probably denoted both the organ (gall bladder) and its secretion (bile) [280], which was named after its color (cf. [173]). The belief that gall causes anger led to the metaphorical use of *g̑ holo- as ‘wrath’ (: Gk. k hólos, Germ. gallig ‘malicious’, etc.). A term for ‘blood’ was the archaic heteroclitic noun *h1 esh2 -r/n- [64]. Designations for male sexual organs are *pes- ‘penis’ [326] and *h1 org̑ hi- ‘testicle’ [325], for female sexual organs maybe

124. The lexicon of Proto-Indo-European

2233

*gu̯hiHb h- [360]. Verbs for sexual intercourse were probably *(h3 )i̯ eb h- [263, orig. metaphorical] and *h1 erg̑ h- [211, cf. also 325].

3. Society The kinship terms reconstructible for the proto-language are usually interpreted as pointing towards a patriarchal, patrilineal, and patrilocal society, i.e. descent was reckoned by the male line and brides left their homes to live with the family of their husbands. The word for ‘father’ *ph2 ter- [43] probably designated the head of the household as in Lat. pater familias and in the designation of Zeus (Il. 1.544) as patḕr andrõn te t heõn te ‘father of men and gods’, although he is neither the genetic father of the other Olympian gods nor of mankind in general. For the genetic father other forms like *g̑enh1 -ter- may have been used (: Lat. genitor, Gk. genétōr, Skt. janitár-). Like *mātēr ‘mother’ [42], it may be derived from baby-talk syllables (*pa[pa], *ma[ma] ) that were integrated into the grammatical system by adding the suffix -ter- found in other kinship terms. Other etymological proposals connect *ph2 ter- with *peh2 - ‘protect’ [401] and *māter- with a root *meh2 - ‘make ripe’ (: Lat. māturus ‘ripe, timely’, Hitt. mēḫur- ‘time’), cf. Tremblay (2003: 85 f.). The suffix -ter- has usually been interpreted as being identical to the one forming agent nouns of the type *deh3 -ter/tor- ‘giver’. Pinault (2007) identifies *-ter- with the oppositive suffix found in forms like Gk. deksiterós ‘right’, Lat. dexter ‘id.’, etc. ‘Son’ and ‘daughter’ were *suH-nu- or *suH-i̯ u- [292] (probably from a root ‘to bear’, *seu̯H- [227]) and *d hugh2 ter- ([293], usually connected with *d heu̯g h- ‘make useful, prepare; give milk’ [240] whence either ‘female servant’ or ‘suckled one’ or ‘one who will suckle’, cf. Tremblay (2003: 86). There were words for ‘grandfather’ (*Heu̯o[373]), ‘grandmother’ (*h2 en- [398]), and, derived from the former, the ‘maternal uncle’ (*Heu̯on- [374]). Correspondingly, the term for ‘grandson’, *nepot- [295], came to be used for ‘nephew’ in some languages. The word for ‘brother’, *b hreh2 ter- [294], probably denoted not just those with the same father or mother, but anyone belonging to the same ‘clan’, cf. the Gk. p hrḗtēr ‘member of a clan-like group’, Lat. frāter ‘brother’, but also ‘member of a religious collegium’ (e.g., the fratres Arvales), while ‘sister’, *su̯esor- [395], may have meant ‘female person of the same clan’ (cf. 2). Terms for ‘in-laws’ are *deh2 iu̯er- ‘husband’s brother’ [296], *Hi̯ enh2 -ter- ‘husband’s brother’s wife’ [297], *snuso- ‘daughter-in-law’ [393], *su̯ek̑uro-/su̯ek̑ru- ‘father/motherin-law’ [394], *g̑l̥ H- ‘husband’s sister’ [399], and probably derivatives from a root *g̑emH- meaning ‘son-in-law’ [384]. The terms for ‘husband’, ‘wife’, ‘bride’, and ‘bridegroom’ found in the IE languages all seem to have acquired their meanings secondarily (e.g., Lat. marītus ‘husband’ beside Skt. márya- ‘young man’). A term coming close to ‘marry’, seen from the bridegroom’s perspective, is *u̯ed h- ‘lead (the bride)’ [242]. Similarly, *g̑emH- has been suspected to have meant ‘buy (i.e. the bride)’ [384]. The term for ‘household’ in general and ‘house’ in particular was *dom(h2 )-s, gen. *dem(h2 )-s [298], whose master was the *dem(h2 )s poti- ‘master of the house’ [300]. A word for ‘(wing of a) door’ can be reconstructed as *d hu̯or/d hur- [383], one for ‘doorpost’ as *h2 ent(H)- [386]. The next larger unit was probably the *u̯ei̯ k̑- ‘settlement’ [299].

2234

XX. Proto-Indo-European

A characteristic trait of PIE society was the idea of exchange and reciprocity: A gift entails a counter-gift, being a guest entails being a host both for a former host or any member of his clan (cf. the famous encounter of Glaukos and Diomedes in Il. 6.120− 236). In Indo-Iranian, this idea of mutual obligation was divinized as the Ved. Mitra-, Av. Miθra-, lit. ‘contract’, probably from the root *mei̯ - ‘give in exchange’ [226] (cf. the discussion in Mayrhofer 2006: s. v.). The same relation obtained between god and man (cf. 7). The stranger, *g hosti- [301], could be viewed both as one who had the right of hospitality, hence ‘guest’ in Germanic (: Goth. gasts) and Slavonic (: OCS gostь, most probably borrowed from Germanic), and as one who presents a danger to society, hence Latin hostis ‘enemy’, but also hospes ‘host’ from *g hosti-poti- ‘master of the guest’, cf. Benveniste (1969.1: 87−101).

4. Technology The PIE people were agricultors as can be seen in inherited terms for ‘grain’ such as *g̑r̥h2 -no- [302], orig. ‘ground’, a verbal adjective built to the root *g̑erh2 - ‘grind’ (that might be identical with *g̑erh2 - ‘make/get old, wear down’ [252]), *i̯ eu̯o- ‘corn, barley, spelt’ [303], *puHro- ‘wheat’ [304] (perhaps from *peu̯H- ‘purify’, Skt. punā´ti, pávate, i.e. that which is purified on the threshing floor), and *d hoh1 neh2 - ‘corn, seed’ [382] (perhaps from *d heh1 - ‘put’ [sc. into the ground]). Also attested, though with more limited distribution, are *u̯rug hi̯ o- ‘rye’ [306] and *b har-es- ‘barley’ [305]. Verbs for ‘grind, mill’ beside *g̑erh2 - are *melh2 - [264] and *h2 leh1 - [264]. ‘sow’ is *seh1 - [243], ‘cut, pluck, reap’ is *(s)kerp- [307] (a root from which words for ‘fruit’ [54], ‘harvest’ [308], and ‘sickle’ [309] are derived). ‘To plough’ is *h2 erh3 - [231], cf. the corresponding instrument noun *h2 erh3 -tro- ‘plough’ [310]. A team of oxen [313] was yoked together (*i̯ eu̯g- [238]) with the *i̯ ugom [239]). In addition to husbandry, the PIE people also domesticated animals and practiced stock breeding. Domesticated animals were the horse, *h1 ék̑u̯os [311] (perhaps related to *h1 ōk̑ú- ‘fast’ [272], therefore literally ‘the fast one’), the dog, *k̑u̯ō´n [47], the cow, *g u̯ō´u̯s [312] and ox, *h2 uks-en- [313] (probably a derivative from *h2 u̯eks- ‘grow [up]’ [209]), the sheep, *h2 ou̯i- [314], the lamb, *h2 égu̯(h)no- [315], the goat (for which a variety of roots are attested: *h2 eig̑-, *g hai̯ do-, *h2 eg̑o-, *h1 er-, *kapro- [316]), the pig (: *suH- [317]) and its farrow, *pórk̑o- [318] (customarily derived from a verbal root *perk̑- ‘to furrow’ [319], as ‘the furrowing animal’, but *perk̑- ‘speckled’ [320] is equally possible), and the goose, *g̑ hans- [375]. The general term for domesticating was *demh2 - [262] which might be connected with the root *dem(h2 )- ‘build’ [261] (and ‘house’ in nominal forms [298]), if *demh2 can be understood as ‘domestication’, i.e. ‘accustoming to the house’ (cf. the recent discussion of both roots in Nikolaev 2010). Stock was considered a measure of wealth, hence *pek̑u- [321] probably meant both ‘livestock, cattle’ and ‘riches, wealth’, cf. Lat. pecus ‘livestock’ beside Goth. faihu ‘possession, wealth’. For a development from the latter to the former meaning, one might think of NE cattle < Lat. capitāle ‘principal sum of money, possession’ (cf. Clackson 2007: 206 ff.). The connection of *pek̑u- with the verbal root *pek̑- ‘pluck, pick (esp.

124. The lexicon of Proto-Indo-European

2235

wool)’ [234], according to which *pek̑u- would have designated ‘the animal to pluck wool from’, is difficult to maintain by reconstruction alone, since *pek̑u- is not limited to ‘sheep’, but probably designated originally any ‘moving’ property (including slaves) and was later restricted to [+animate, -human] as seen in the frequent pairing *pek̑uu̯iHro- found in several languages (OAv. pasūš vīrə̄n ̣g [acc.pl.], Umbr. ueiro pequo ‘homines et pecudes’, cf. Watkins 1979). The IE language family attests a number of terms for operating with food, e.g., *pek u̯[235], which denotes both ‘ripen (intr.)’ and ‘cook, make edible’ (cf. Janda 2000: 48− 49), cf. also the adj. *(H)ōmo- ‘raw’ [271] and the noun *kreu̯h2 s- ‘blood, raw meat’ [63], *pei̯ s- ‘crush’ [236], *d hei̯ g̑ h- ‘mold, shape’ (e.g., bread or clay, cf. Gk. teĩk hos ‘wall’ beside NE dough) [244]. Elements of the PIE diet were *mēms(o)- ‘meat’ [63], some sort of broth or soup, *i̯ ūs [322], *med hu- ‘mead’ [389], a drink sweetened with honey (*melit- [359]), and probably ‘wine’ (*u̯oi̯ no- [390]), which is likely to be an early loanword in PIE. There was a word for ‘wear, clothe’ *u̯es- [259] (denoting the state) with numerous derivatives for ‘garment, clothing’ (: Lat. uestis, Skt. vasana-, vastra-, Gk. est hḗs, Goth. wasti, etc.) beside *h2 eu̯H- (denoting the process) [323]. Whether or not the latter meant ‘put on shoes’ already in PIE, as it does in some daughter languages, is questionable: no word for ‘shoe’ is reconstructible for the proto-language, but one for ‘gird/girdle’, *i̯ eh3 s- [260], is widely attested. Among the terms for producing clothes we find *sneh1 ‘spin’ [245], *u̯eb h- [251] and *tek- [250] ‘weave’, and *si̯ eu̯- ‘sew’ [138]. The use of the wheel and wheeled transport was probably adopted only shortly before the break-up of the PIE language community. This has been deduced from the fact that most terms in this semantic field seem to be metaphoric usages of words with different basic meanings: The nave or hub of the wheel originally designated the navel (: *h3 neb h[290]), the ‘axis’ *h2 ek̑s- the ‘axle, armpit’ [324], and the word for ‘wheel’ itself is a reduplicated form from the root meaning ‘turn’ (: *k u̯elh1 - [126]): *k u̯e-k u̯lh1 -o- [327], a frequently repeated metaphor, cf. Gk. trok hós ‘wheel’ from trék hō ‘run’, originally ‘turn’ (cf. Létoublon/de Lamberterie 1980; note also Lat. rota ‘wheel’ from *ret- ‘run’ [215]), S.-Cr. točak ‘wheel’ from *tek u̯- ‘run’ [215]. The widely attested verb for ‘drive, transport in a vehicle’ (: *u̯eg̑ h- [230]) probably meant ‘hover’ originally (cf. Schlerath 1996).

5. Nature The deified bright sky in PIE was called *di̯ ḗu̯s [162] (cf. 7). In some languages, the PIE word for ‘cloud’ *neb hos (probably originally from a verbal root *neb h- ‘be wet, cloudy’ [160]) changed its meaning to ‘sky’ (cf. OCS nebo, Hitt. nepiš, Skt. nabhas[post-RV]). The same idea of the ‘bright one’ is expressed in OIr. erc ‘sky’ from a verbal root *h1 erk u̯- ‘shine’ [141]. Candidates for PIE words for ‘day’ beside *di̯ eu̯- are *(H)āmer- [178] and *h2 eg̑ h[178], both with limited distribution, for ‘morning’ *h2 ei̯ -r/n- [328] and for ‘night’ *nok u̯ts [177], based on a verbal root that may be attested in Hitt. nekuzzi ‘becomes dark’. In various IE (and non-IE) traditions, the night is described as wearing a garment adorned with the shining stars (cf. Katz 2000). A term for ‘darkness’ was *(h1 )reg u̯os [329], in Greek denoting the ‘underworld’. The word for ‘dawn’ *h2 eu̯s-os- [330], also

2236

XX. Proto-Indo-European

deified in PIE culture, was derived from *h2 u̯es- ‘shine’ [246], as are words for ‘east’ in some IE languages (e.g., Germ. *austa-, OE ēast, OHG ōstan, Av. ušastara-, Latv. austrumi), while ‘evening’ and ‘west’ [368] derive from *u̯esp- ‘enshroud, clothe’ [369] (cf. Katz 2000). The fact that the word for ‘right’ also denotes ‘south’ (*dek̑s- [199]) indicates that the speakers of PIE oriented themselves facing east. Words for ‘left’ were frequently subject to replacement or distortion, as the left side was deemed unfortunate and defective (cf. Gk. lordós ‘bent backward [convex in front]’, Gael. lorcach ‘crooked’, MHG lërz, lurz ‘left’; Gk. euō´numos ‘left’, lit. ‘having a good name’ and aristerós ‘left’ from áristos ‘best’; a term for ‘left’ common to several languages is *lai̯ u̯os, Gk. laiós, Lat. laevus, OCS lěvъ, probably Toch. B laiwo ‘lassitude’). In addition to *u̯et-es- [179] other terms for ‘year’ seem to refer to the idea of time as cyclical movement, cf. *h2 et-no- [179] from *h2 et- ‘go’ (: Skt. átati ‘walks’ [121]), *i̯ ēr- [179] probably from *i̯ eh2 - ‘go, walk’ [121], hence *i̯ ēh2 -r-, cf. also the Homeric formula (Od. 1.16, 7.261, 14.287) all’ hóte dē étos ẽlt he periploménōn eniautõn (lit.) ‘but when (a) year of the revolving years had come’. The same idea may underlie toch. A pukäl, B pikul ‘year’, if these forms derive from *pi-k u̯l̥ - corresponding to the Gk. epithet epiplómenos ‘revolving’ (cf. periploménōn above) said of eniautós ‘year’ (cf. Katz 2004). Words for seasons are *g̑ hei̯ - ‘winter’ [331], *u̯es-r- ‘spring’ [334], *sem‘summer’ [332] and *Hes-en- ‘harvest time’ [333]. The lunar month was apparently used as a unit of time: the word for ‘month’ (PIE *meh1 n̥s [148]) is in some languages identical to that for ‘moon’, or a derivative of it (e.g., Germ. *mēnōþ- > NE month, NHG Monat). Both words go back to a root meaning ‘measure’ (PIE *meh1 - [248]). The word for ‘sun’ shows a highly archaic inflection combining a stem in -l- and in -n- in one paradigm, approximately *seh2 u̯el- vs. oblique *s(e)h2 u̯en- [147]. The common PIE word for ‘star’ was *h2 ster- [149], probably from the verbal root *h2 eh1 s- ‘burn, become dry’ [195] (cf. Pinault 2007). Among terms for meteorological phenomena we find words for ‘snow’, *snigu̯h-s and *snoi̯ gu̯hos [335], which originally may have meant ‘sticky’, cf. Skt. ásnihat ‘stuck (lay wounded/dead)’, snihyati ‘sticks, becomes moist’ (cf. Hoffmann 1975−1992: 442−454), ‘rain’, *h2 u̯ers- [151], *sh2 eu̯- [376] (probably related to *seu̯- ‘press’ [228]), *Hemb h[377] (either an independent root or a derivative of *neb h- ‘be wet; cloud’ [160]), *h2 u̯eh1 -nt-/-i̯ u-/-i̯ o- ‘wind’ [163], derived from the verbal root ‘blow’ (: *h2 u̯eh1 -: [98]), and the verbal root *(s)tenH- ‘thunder’ [336]. The PIE word for ‘earth’ can be reconstructed as *d heg̑ hom- [159]. ‘Hills’ and ‘mountains’ were probably designated by forms such as *g u̯erH- (probably the root ‘[be] heavy’) [31]) and *b herg̑ h- [171]. The absence of a common word for ‘sea’ (*mori- is attested only dialectally and may originally have meant ‘lake’ rather than ‘sea’ [154]) seems to indicate that the PIE people were inland settlers. Transportation on water was known to them, though, as evidenced by the widely attested *neh2 u- ‘ship’ [286] that was driven by oars (cf. *h1 erh1 - ‘row’ [229]). A word for ‘standing water, swamp’ is *sel-es-, found in Greek and Sanskrit [378]. The basic word for ‘tree’ and ‘wood’ was *dor-u- [51], from which the Germanic terms for ‘trust, loyalty’ are derived (cf. Goth. triggwa ‘alliance’, OHG triuwa ‘loyalty’, OE trēow ‘belief, loyalty, truth’, etc.). Various other words for specific trees are reconstructible, e.g., *b heh2 go- ‘beech tree’ [287], *b herHg̑- ‘birch’ [342], *perk u̯us ‘oak’

124. The lexicon of Proto-Indo-European

2237

[343] and *peu̯k̑- ‘spruce, pine’ [391]. They have frequently been discussed in connection with the question of the PIE homeland, since their geographical distribution is limited. But it cannot be ruled out that this distribution has changed over time or that the words designated different trees originally. The reconstruction of terms for fruit trees is less secure, perhaps *h2 ebel- ‘apple’ [288], though only attested in northwestern IE languages, and *kr̥no- ‘cherry’ [289]. A metal known to speakers of PIE was *h2 ei̯ es-, probably ‘bronze’ or ‘copper’ [337], which appears in archaeological finds from the early sixth millennium onwards, while the term for ‘iron’ varies across the languages, indicating its late appearance in most IE cultures (attested in archaeological finds from the fourth millennium onwards; *īsarno‘iron’ in Germanic and Celtic [397] probably originally denoted the ‘holy’ metal, if from *h1 isHro-, cf. Gk. hierós ‘powerful, holy’, Skt. iṣirá-). A similar variation is found in words for ‘gold’, *g̑ hl̥ to- [344] (perhaps originally ‘yellow, shiny thing’ [173], derived from the root also found in the word for ‘gall’ [280]) besides *h2 eu̯so- [345], derived from the verbal root *h2 u̯es- ‘shine’ [246] found in the word for ‘dawn’ [330] as well. Similarly, the word for ‘silver’ is derived from a root *h2 erg̑- ‘white, shining’ [175] (: *h2 r̥g̑[e]nto- [338]). PIE had two words for ‘fire’: animate *Vgni- [167], inanimate *peh2 u̯er/n- [167], and several for ‘water’, *h2 ek u̯- [150] and *h2 ep- [387], inanimate *u̯ed-r/n- [150], derived from a verbal root *u̯ed- ‘moisten, well’ [339], and *u̯eh1 - [150]. The generic term for ‘wild animal’ was *g̑ hu̯ēr [44], which may be derived from a verbal root *g̑ hu̯er- ‘bend, walk with a hunch’ (: Skt. hvárate, YAv. zbar-, cf. Schindler 1972: 37 f.). Individual words for non-domesticated animals were frequently prone to tabooistic distortion or euphemistic designations. Both phenomena may be present in the word for ‘wolf’, PIE *u̯l̥ k u̯os (: Skt. vr̥ ́ kaḥ, Goth. wulfs), which has a variant form *luk u̯os (: Gk. lúkos, Lat. lupus, a Sabellic loanword in Latin, cf. also *u̯l̥ pē- in Lat. vulpēs ‘fox’) and may have been a euphemistic term ‘the dangerous one’ (in order not to utter the animal’s ‘real’ name), cf. Skt. (adj.) a-vr̥ká- ‘safe’ (‘not dangerous’; prob. Hitt. walkuwa‘dangerous’, cf. Lehrman 1987). Similarly, the word for ‘bear’, which probably was *h2 r̥ ́ tk̑o- [340] in PIE, has been replaced in Germanic by ‘the brown one’ (OHG bēr, ON bjǫrn, OE bera, cf. Lith. bė́ ras ‘brown’; an alternative proposal relates the term to the word for ‘wild animal’ *g̑ hu̯er[44]), in Slavonic by ‘honey-eater’ (: Russ. medved’) and in Baltic simply by ‘licker’ (: Lith. loky˜s). Other animals known to PIE people were the hare, *k̑as-o- [341], probably named after its color (cf. Lat. cānus ‘grey’ from *k̑as-no-, OE hasu ‘grey-brown’), the beaver, *b hi/e-b hru- [347] (cf. Skt. babhrú- ‘brown’), the mouse, *mūs [346] (probably derived from the root *meu̯sH- ‘steal’, Skt. muṣṇā´ti; in Hitt. replaced by kapirt- which could be *kom-b her-t- ‘who collects, assembles’, cf. also from *b her- [223] *b hōr ‘thief’, Gk. φώρ, Lat. fūr, cf. Oettinger 1995), and the worm *u̯ermi/o- [50]. The generic term for ‘fish’ was *d hg̑ hu- [45], in the western area of IE we find *pei̯ sk[45]. Salmon (: *lak̑s- [354]) and eel (*h2 engu̯hi- [49]) were known, the latter also meant ‘snake’, a meaning also found in the form *He/ogu̯hi- which may be related [49]. The generic term for ‘bird’ was *h2 eu̯i- [46], the word for ‘egg’ [67] *(H)ōu̯i̯ o-, which Schindler (1969) analyzed as *Hō-Hu̯i̯ o-, i.e. ‘that which is at the bird’, but which might equally well be a ‘vr̥ddhi’-formation *h2 ōu̯i̯ -o- meaning ‘belonging to the bird’. Birds known to speakers of PIE were the crane, *gerH- [348], the eagle, *h2 er-en- [349],

2238

XX. Proto-Indo-European

the thrush, *trozdo- [351], the sparrow, *sper- [350], the starling, *storo- [352] and the finch, *(s)ping- [353]. Names of insects reconstructible for PIE are ‘wasp’, *u̯opseh2 - [355], ‘hornet’, *kr̥Hsro- [356] (derived from the word for ‘horn’, PIE *k̑erh2 s- [68], cf. Nussbaum 1986: 248−260), ‘fly’, *mus- [357], ‘louse, louse egg’, *knid- [48], ‘louse’, *lūs- [48], for the western languages ‘bee’, *b hei̯ - [358], while e.g., Greek and Armenian name the insect after its product *melit- ‘honey’ [359], cf. Gk. mélitta (mélissa)