Linguistic Reconstruction and Typology 9783110816501, 9783110149050

Citation preview

Linguistic Reconstruction and Typology

W DE G

Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs 96

Editor Werner Winter

Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York

Linguistic Reconstruction and Typology

Edited by

Jacek Fisiak

Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York

1997

Mouton de Gruyter (formerly Mouton, The Hague) is a Division of Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin.

© Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines of the ANSI to ensure permanence and durability.

Library of Congress

Cataloging-in-Publication-Data

Linguistic reconstruction and typology / edited by Jacek Fisiak. p. cm. — (Trends in linguistics. Studies and monographs ; 96) "Most of the fifteen papers included in this volume were prepared for the International Conference on Linguistic Reconstruction and Typology held at Rydzyna (Poland) from April 14 to 17, 1993" - Pref. Includes bibliographical references and indexes. ISBN 3-11-014905-2 1. Reconstruction (Linguistics) - Congresses. 2. Typology (Linguistics) - Congresses. I. Fisiak, Jacek. II. International Conference on Linguistic Reconstruction and Typology (1993 : Rydzyna, Poland) III. Series. P143.2.L56 1996 417'.7-dc20 96-34597 CIP

Die Deutsche Bibliothek -

Cataloging-in-Publication-Data

Linguistic reconstruction and typology / ed. by Jacek Fisiak. Berlin ; New York : Mouton de Gruyter, 1997 (Trends in linguistics : Studies and monographs ; 96) ISBN 3-11-014905-2 NE: Fisiak, Jacek [Hrsg.]; Trends in linguistics / Studies and monographs

© Copyright 1996 by Walter de Gruyter & Co., D-10785 Berlin All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Typesetting and printing: Arthur Collignon GmbH, Berlin. Binding: Lüderitz & Bauer, Berlin. Printed in Germany.

Preface

Most of the fifteen papers included in this volume were prepared for the International Conference on Linguistic Reconstruction and Typology held at Rydzyna (Poland) from April 14 to 17, 1993. Two have come into being as a result of the conference discussions. All of them address a fairly wide range of topics in the field from broad theoretical issues to problems concerning particular languages or language families and parts thereof. Both the conference and the present volume have demonstrated the need for constant reviewing of issues which often seem to have been solved. Different views on the same topic cold be seen during proceedings and can be found in the contributions to this volume. There is, however, a general agreement as to the role and unquestionable value of typology for linguistic reconstruction. It should also be noted that the reconstruction of morphology and syntax have been discussed in a substantial number of papers. The aim of the conference (and mutatis mutandis of this volume) was not to look for definite solutions in the area of linguistic reconstruction with the application of typology but to look at some old and new problems and attempt new formulations which may lead to some improvements. If this has been accomplished in some way, the goal of both the conference and this publication has been reached. Wether it is the case we leave to our readers to judge. It is also my pleasure and duty to acknowledge the efficiency and dedication of the conference secretary, Mrs. Katarzyna Rogalmska, Μ. Α., which has undoubtedly contributed to the success of the meeting. Poznan, March 1995

Jacek Fisiak

List of participants

Participants at the International Conference on Linguistic Reconstruction and Typology held at Rydzyna, Poland, April 14—17, 1993: Director Professor Jacek Fisiak Conference

Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznah

Secretary

Mrs. Katarzyna Rogalmska

Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznah

Participants Dr. Arleta Adamska-Sataciak Professor Wieslaw Awedyk Professor Lyle Cambell Dr. Carol Chapman Dr. Judit Farkas Professor Thomas Gamkrelidze Dr. Piotr G^siorowski Mr. Camiel Hamans Professor John Hewson Professor Raymond Hickey Dr. Ludmila Kiedova Dr. Agnieszka Kietkiewicz-Janowiak Dr. Peter Kitson Docent Veronika Kniezsa Professor E. F. Konrad Koerner Ms. Hele Krohn-Järvinen Dr. Marcin Krygier Dr. Hans Ch. Luschützky Dr. Liliana Madelska Ms. Elzbieta Majocha Professor Witold Mahczak Dr. Hanna Mausch Dr. Gunnel Melchers Dr. Rafai Molencki Professor Stephen Nagle Professor Carl Odwarka

Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznah Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan Louisiana State University University of Manchster University of Budapest Georgian Academy of Sciences, Tiflis Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznah Breda University of Newfoundland University of Essen Kharkov University Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznah University of Birmingham University of Budapest University of Ottawa University of Helsinki Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznah University of Vienna Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznah Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznah Jagellonian University, Cracow Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznah Stockholm University University of Silesia, Katowice University of South Carolina at Conway University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls

viii

List of

participants

Ms. Patricia Poussa Professor J0rgen Rischel Dr. Elke Ronneberger-Sibold Dr. Andrzej Skrzypiec Dr. John Charles Smith Mr. Artur Stgplewski Professor Jürgen Strauss Professor Aleksander Szwedek Dr. Kamila Turewicz Professor Werner Winter Professor Margaret E. Winters Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr.

Adam Wojcicki William van der Wurff Anna Zbierska-Sawala Waldemar Zarski

University of Sheffield University of Copenhagen University of Munich University of Wroclaw University of Manchester Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznah University of Trier Nicolas Copernicus University, Toruh University of Lodz University of Kiel Southern Illinois University, Carbondale University of Warsaw University of Leiden Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznah University of Wroclaw

Contents

Preface List of participants

ν vii

Toward a history of linguistic typology E. F. Konrad Koerner

1

Language typology and linguistic reconstruction Thomas V. Gamkrelidze

25

Typological and areal issues in reconstruction Lyle Campbell

49

Diminutive plural infixation and the "West Franconian" problem Carol Chapman

73

Long syllabic consonants in Proto-Indo-European Piotr Gqsiorowski

89

Typology and evaluation of linguistic reconstruction Jadranka Gvozdanovic

103

The typological shift to configurational syntax in Indo-European languages John Hewson 123 Sound change and typological shift: Initial mutation in Celtic Raymond Hickey

133

Reconstruction, typology, and the "original homeland" of the IndoEuropeans Peter R. Kitson

183

Typological paradoxes in phonological reconstruction: The case of Polabian reduced vowels Hans Christian Luschützky

241

Linguistic reconstruction, typology, and criteria of truth Wit old Manczak

257

On typological plausibility and natural sound change Marc Picard

267

X

Contents

Typology and reconstruction of numeral systems: The case of Austroasiatic Jorgen Rischel

273

Typology and the diachronic evolution of German morphosyntax Elke Ronneberger-Sibold

313

Syntactic reconstruction and reconstructibility: Proto-Indo-European and the typology of null objects Wim van der Wurff

337

Index of names

357

Index of languages and dialects

364

Toward a history of linguistic typology1 E. F. Konrad Koerner 1. Introductory remarks In a recent paper on "linguistic typology" Bernard Comrie (1988) distinguished between three "traditions" in the field, namely, (1) a "Greenbergian" one concerned with word order, semantic and head/dependent typologies, (2) a "generative" one dealing with subjects such as "pro-drop" parameters and configurationality, and (3) a European one centered in Cologne (UNITYP) and in Leningrad, now St. Petersburg ("structural typology"). Although this list leaves out other "traditions" (such as the one associated with the work of Skalicka for instance), Comrie's characterization may be useful for the present-day student of language anxious to find his/her way through the various current uses of the term "typology"; however, it lacks completely a historical perspective which would give a certain unity to all these present-day endeavors. This paper is an attempt to supply at least a first historical guide to the researcher interested in obtaining a better understanding of the sources of these different approaches to the analysis of "type of language".

2. The prehistory of language classification and linguistic typology Of the two subjects, language classification and linguistic typology, the former has the much older tradition; it can be traced back to early thirteenth-century attempts concerned with establishing genetic relationships among languages (cf. Bonfante 1953). However, only after the biblical concept of an Adamic language giving rise to all other languages of the world had been disposed of, could empirical investigations about the similarity and dissimilarity of languages be pursued much more seriously (cf., e.g., Metcalf 1974). The short Diatriba de Europaeorum linguae, written in 1599 by the Leiden professor Joseph Justus Scaliger (1540-1609), is usually cited as an early example of genetic classification. Scaliger established - apart from Greek which was frequently seen as the source language of Latin - the Romance, Germanic, and Slavic language families, on the

2

Ε. F. Konrad

Koerner

basis of vocabulary items shared among the languages belonging to the particular group, e.g., the word for 'god' (deus, god, and bog, respectively). But there was no hint in his essay that these three families in turn were related. However, several generations before him, the Czech Sigismund Gelenius (1497-1554) had shown, in a comparative dictionary, that Greek, Latin, Germanic, and Slavic were indeed genetically related (Gelenius 1537; cf. Flajshans 1901: 317). Apart from frequent biases in favor of European languages, these taxonomies reached their erstwhile conclusion in Johann Christoph Adelung's (1732—1806) fourvolume Mithridates (1806—1817), in which the author distinguished between mono- and polysyllabic languages and catalogued all languages around the world on this basis, as well as according to their geographic location. This amounted to hardly more than word lists and sample texts, not unlike those which could be found already in Konrad Gesner's (1514—1565) Mithridates of 1555 for example. Progress in matters of scientific pronciples of language classification, by genetic affiliation or typological structure, was slow (cf. Qasim 1983: 9 - 1 6 7 , for details). The eighteenth-century collectors of languages, it would seem, emulated the Linnean model and were satisfied with classification pure and simple (cf. Picardi 1977); it was no accident that the chief editor of the enterprise undertaken at the behest of Catherine II of Russia, Peter Simon Pallas (1741-1811), was a naturalist, not least a botanist (cf. Koerner 1989: 270-271, 356). Like much other scientific work in the study of language, linguistic typology — though essentially developed during the nineteenth century - appears to have had forerunners. Coseriu (1968), for instance, referred to a 40-page essay on "original" and "compounded" languages of 1761 by the political economist Adam Smith (1723-1790) as a source for Friedrich Schlegel's typological classifications, as Schlegel's brother August Wilhelm (1767-1845) referred to Smith in his own effort at language typology in 1818. Coseriu did not realize, however, that the Smith mentioned by Friedrich Schlegel (1808: 81, note) was certainly not the economist (Plank 1987 b: 373; Koerner 1989: 272-273, n. 3). In fact, August Wilhelm Schlegel mentions Adam Smith only in a reference to a 1809 French translation of the linguistic portion of Friedrich's 1808 book (A. W. Schlegel 1818: 85 η. 6), which had been published together with a translation of Smith's essay. In his 1818 monograph, August Wilhelm gives full and exclusive credit to his brother's expose, at the same time introducing a further subgrouping on the basis of the introduction of an "analytic'V'synthetic" distinction.

Toward a history of linguistic typology

3

Others (e.g., Noordegraaf 1977; Kaitz 1980) have pointed to Gabriel Girard's (1677—1748) distinction of 1747 between "languages analogues" (i.e., those that have a fixed word order like French) and "languages transpositives" (i.e., those that have a relatively flexible word order like Latin) as the immediate source of Smith's "compounded'V'uncompounded" dichotomy, without proving that Girard had any influence on either Schlegel. (That the schemes of Girard, Smith, and the Schlegels are in one way or another similar may be gathered from Haggblade 1983: 14—15.) However, unless fresh evidence is provided, 2 it remains safe to say that the beginning of a "scientific" attempt at language classification on the basis of morphological structure has its origins in the work of the brothers Schlegel. That they were not the inventors of a language typology but synthesizers of the ideas of their predecessors or contemporaries (whoever they may have been) is evident from the following quotation taken from a book comparing Danish with German and French, and incidentally written by their uncle Johann Heinrich Schlegel (1726-1780) more than a generation earlier: Alle Sprachen in der Welt haben nicht mehr als zwey Mittel, wodurch sie den bey den Wörtern vorkommenden Nebenbegriffe andeuten können. Sie thun solches entweder durch Flexionen, das ist, durch gewisse Veränderungen an dem Hauptworte selbst, oder sie brauchen andere Worte dazu, welche dem Hauptworte beygefügt werden, und deswegen Hülfswörter (voces auxiliares) heissen. (J. H. Schlegel 1764: 46-47) 3 [All languages in the world do not possess more than two means to express secondary concepts that co-occur with words. They do so either through inflection, i.e., certain modifications within the main word itself, or they require other words which are added to the main words, and which are therefore called auxiliary words (voces auxiliares).]

Such a binary classification is very close to what Friedrich Schlegel was to propose in 1808, and it seems easier to believe that we have here before us a direct source of his inspiration rather than to assume that he was familiar with the ideas of Adam Smith and other eighteenth-century authors but failed to understand them properly.

3. "Classical" language typology and classificatory schemes The situation changed from "linguistic botanizing" and superficial taxonomy toward more sophisticated attempts at language typology only in the nineteenth century, when Friedrich Schlegel (1772-1829) — following up on Sir William Jones' celebrated observations of 1786 (Jones 1788)

4

E R Konrad

Koerner

concerning the relationship between Sanskrit and the major European languages - sketched a program of comparative-historical research in his Ueber die Sprache und Weisheit der Indier, in order, he said (F. Schlegel 1808: 84), to replace previous speculation about the origin of language through proper historical investigation. In the same work, Schlegel, one of the most influential early nineteenth-century linguistic thinkers, also developed a typological framework to establish genetic relationships generally (1808: 44—59), though his focus remained the establishment of the Indo-European language family. Given Schlegel's impact on subsequent developments in historical or genetic as well as comparative linguistics in the nineteenth century, these typological proposals had an influence on subsequent work as well, producing in effect a third line of research, the typological. At least in Schlegel's (1808) work, these three lines - the genetic or historical, the comparative, and the typological strain of linguistic analysis — did frequently overlap; they were merely different approaches to one and the same goal: the establishment of the Indo-European language family as a large group of genetically related languages and as distinct from all other languages of the world. Even Franz Bopp (1791-1867), the founder of comparative-historical IndoEuropean linguistics, appears to have resorted to typological arguments in his analysis (Lehmann 1991). For the typologists of the early nineteenth century, especially Friedrich Schlegel and his brother August Wilhelm, but also to a certain extent for Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767-1835), who is usually credited with having launched this typological research program, the division of language types into so-called "isolating", "agglutinating", and "inflecting" was linked to different stages of the development of the languages and language families in question. (At times, a fourth type was added, the "incorporating" one, to better characterize certain American Indian languages; cf. Rousseau 1984.) The high degree of fusion of morphological information into single markers, noticed especially in the classical Indo-European languages (Greek, Latin, and Sanskrit), was taken as a sign of linguistic sophistication that was reason enough to accord the so-called "flectional" or "inflective" languages the highest rung on the evolutionary ladder. Chinese, with its basically monosyllabic structure, in which each lexical or grammatical function is expressed by a separate morpheme, ended up at the bottom of the scheme, although is antiquity (and the highly advanced culture of its speakers) could not have escaped these early typologists. (Steinthal, in 1860, tried to escape this dilemma by ranking Chinese among the "form languages", alongside with Indo-European and Semitic,

Toward a history of linguistic typology

5

as a special case.) Thus, in terms of evolutionary probability there was an obvious built-in contradiction in these early taxonomies, which later typologists tried to resolve, with only limited success. August Wilhelm Schlegel's influential tripartite classification of morphological types of 1818 may be diagrammed as in Fig. 1. Inside the "inflectional" (IndoEuropean) languages a further subdivision is made into "synthetic" (e.g., the classical languages such as Greek and Sanskrit) and "analytic" (the majority of the modern European languages).


Mod. Pol. zolna ^owna/ 'bee-eater, Merops' b. Pre-Polish I': > Old Polish o:l > Mod. Polish uwzl'. vi > Mod. ι ι Pol. zolw /3uwf/ 'tortoise'

6. Expected versus actually attested developments of "long syllabic consonants" in Indo-European languages Whatever the complications, we know enough about vowel changes in Indo-European languages to be able to retrace our steps to the earlier stages of development, before the breaking of phonetic symmetry be7 7 tween the reflexes of RI and R:. There should have been a time, then, I when one of the possibilities in (5) was realized. (5)

a. R > VR, b. R > RV, c. Rι > Κ7

R: > V:r R: > RV: R: > V: ι

This is what we should expect given the (admittedly poor) real-language data about the behavior of long syllabic consonants. What we do find is shown in Table 2; I give only the reflexes generally regarded as regular, leaving out numerous secondary developments found in various phonetic contexts or attributed to the operation of morphologically motivated processes (like Gk. ro:, ara, ra from Proto-Indo-European rH). Ancient Greek is represented by the Doric and Aeolic dialects, in which there was no merger of a: and e:. A merger of "shorts" and "longs" can be seen in Germanic languages. Lithuanian shows a perfectly parallel development of Proto-Indo-European R and RH\ their modern reflexes derive from Balto-Slavic iR / uR

96

Piotr

Gqsiorowski

Table 2. Reflexes of the Proto-Indo-European syllabic liquids and nasals, "short" and "long" (i.e., followed by a tautosyllabic laryngeal) PIE Skt. Gk. Lat. Celt. Lith. Gmc.

m a a em am imlum urn

η a a en an inluii un

r r ralar orZur ri ir/ur ur

I r lalal ol/ul li illul ul

mH ami{l) ma: ma: ma: imlum um

nH a: na: na: na: in/un un

rH i.rlu.r ra: ra: ra: ir/ur ur

nH i.rlu.r la: la: la: illul ul

(corresponding to Lith. iR / uR) and i:R / u:R (Lith. iR / uR). The South European languages - Greek and the Italic and Celtic branches - show a strikingly uniform development of RH to Ra:. Sanskrit displays a partial parallel between R and RH, provided that we can relate i:r !u:r to r and explain the curious incident of Proto-Indo-European mH becoming Skt. ami (or perhaps a:m, as the evidence is not quite clear). The Balto-Slavic reflexes could very easily derive from short and long syllabic resonants. The only thing that casts doubt on such a reconstruction is the comparison with the development of Proto-Indo-European eRH and oRH, which show up in Balto-Slavic as e:R and a:R (Lith. eR, äR), whereas Proto-Indo-European eR and oR without a following laryngeal give Balto-Slavic eR and aR (Lith. eR, aR). Since this particular kind of lengthening is restricted to Balto-Slavic, it follows that in the eRHC and oRHC sequences the laryngeal was still present (in no matter which of its postulated avatars) in Balto-Slavic times. If we assume that Proto-Balto-Slavic had iRH/uRH and iRJuR (rather than R: and R) in its early history, the development of all its vowels before preconsonantal RH groups becomes beautifully uniform: (6)

VRH > V:R

The lengthening may be due to a previous metathesis VRH > VHR, or to a previous vocalization of interconsonantal Η with subsequent vowel syncope and compensatory lengthening of a type attested elsewhere: (7)

VRH > VRa> V:R

If, on the other hand, we accept the idea of an early series of R: sounds in Balto-Slavic, the symmetry expressed by (6) breaks up into two separate, but mysteriously convergent, patterns of development.

Long syllabic consonants

in Proto-Indo-European

97

It seems, then, that Proto-Indo-European (phonetic) R dissociated, in a group of daughter languages, into iR/uR at a time when Η was still a consonant. If so, then in the sequence RH > iRH > iRd > i:R there is no place for R:. What we gain by getting rid of it is not only the generalization in (6) but also the possibility of relating the developments in Balto-Slavic to those in other branches, e.g., Germanic, where a high vowel also appears before R, though the laryngeal is simply lost without compensatory lengthening. A similar pattern could be reconstructed for liquids in Sanskrit. The combinations i:r and u:r occur in virtually complementary distribution, and Proto-Indo-European r and I are realized as Skt. ir/ur at least when originally followed by H, j, or w plus a vowel. It is possible to suggest the historical derivation Proto-Indo-European r > Proto-Indic ir/ur > Skt. r, since in Sanskrit there is practically no synchronic contrast between ir/ur and r. Proto-Indo-Iranian i (of whatever origin) did not normally develop into u after labials or velars (where Sanskrit prefers u(:)r to i(:)r)\ we are therefore forced to assume that the distribution of the two high vowels before r was the direct result of the vocalization of r in various phonetic contexts. Since it is difficult to reconcile the Iranian developments with those in Indie, we may have to envisage the possibility that the vocalization of Η took place separately in the two subbranches. (8)

'

··

"

• Skt.r

Proto-I-Ir. r OPers. r(?) Pre-Skt. iri/uri — • Skt. i:rlu:r

Indie irH/urH Proto-I-Ir. rH

Pre-OPers. a:r — - OPers. ar (?)

The Indie development of syllabic nasals may become clearer if we date the vocalization of ηι well before that of H,7 and the vocalization of m as approximately concurrent with that of H: (9)

nH mil

• äH

+ aH

• a:

ämH

• ami

(jätä- < *gnHtö(samita-

'born')

< *kmlli0-

'tired')

98

Piotr

Gqsiorowski

7. The problem of Greek, Italic, and Celtic Greek, Italic, and Celtic show very ordinary developments of short syllabic nasals and liquids. What is really surprising about the three South European language groups is their identical treatment of all RH sequences (which develop into Ra:). If we derive Ra: from R:, how should we relate Celtic ri, an or Latin or, en to ra: and na:? In Greek the pairs ra, ra: and la, la: look very hopeful, but the reflexes of syllabic nasals spoil the pattern. Short syllabic m and η developed into Gk. a, presumably via nasalized vowels (rather than NV or VN sequences, which would have been preserved in the language). Therefore, we might reasonably expect long syllabic nasals to end up as long (nasalized or denasalized) vowels, or perhaps to decompose into vowel-plus-nasal sequences (cf. the development of Proto-Indo-European η into Gk. an before an original prevocalic laryngeal or semivowel). There seems to be no way of arriving at Na: as the final result. In view of the divergent development of short syllabic consonants in Greek, Italic, and Celtic, the striking uniformity of their treatment of Proto-Indo-European RH, and the difficulties we run into when trying to reconcile the contrast within each separate branch, it seems evident that the origin of Gk. ma:, Lat. ma:, and Olr. ma: is the same, to be sure, but has little to do with the development of Gk. a, Lat. em, and Olr. am from Proto-Indo-European m. The sequence CRHC must have been treated very differently from CRC in the group of Indo-European dialects that gave rise to these three branches. Their paths of development apparently began to diverge before the R of either cluster underwent vocalization or dissociation. Kurylowicz (1956: 197) attempted to explain the passage CRHC > CRa.C, and at the same time CRHV > CaRV, as a phonetic process (cf. also Rasmussen 1991c), postulating an intermediate phase CaRHaC (CaRHV \η the latter case). In spite of an alleged ProtoIndo-European parallel - CRu. C as the zero grade of CeRuC (but see Rasmussen 1991b for a critical discussion) - I cannot see how a plausible-looking sound change could have turned CaRHaC into CRa. C. Even if the process was phonetically rather than morphologically motivated (which seems doubtful enough), the epenthesis of " a " must have occurred before the laryngeal for a a long vowel to develop: (10)

CRHC

>

CRaHC

>

CRa.C

The epenthesized vowel seems to have been immune to laryngeal coloring (RHi, RH2, and RH3 all turned into Ra:, not Re: or Ro:); it was

Long syllabic consonants in Proto-Indo-European

99

in all likelihood the same a that was so often used in precisely those three branches for the purpose of transforming the inherited zero grade into a more transparent morphophonological category. */gnHtos/ was transformed into */gnaHtos/ (Lat. nälus 'born') in the same way as */bhrgtos/ was into */bhragtos/ (Lat. fräctus 'broken'). If the Southern phoneme /a/ derives primarily from Η vocalized between obstruents (as in */dHtos/ > */datos/ 'given'), the latter process must have preceded the general contamination of the zero grade with /a/. Between a syllabic sonorant and a consonant, however, Η may have retained its nonvocalic quality until a later date, when its weakening and los led to the compensatory lengthening of the preceding epenthetic /a/. (The origin of the zero-grade /a/ is discussed in Kurylowicz (1956: 174-187), and recently in Rasmussen 1991a.) The resultant CRa.C sequence was hardly recognizable as an ex-zero grade; the contrast between the zero and the full grades became blurred or even completely obliterated, as in the case of roots originally containing the α-coloring laryngeal (Proto-Indo-European CRH2C : CReH2C). There was a need for another restructuring: the rule deriving the "zero grade" CaRC (formerly CRC) from CeRC roots became generalized to apply to CeRaC (< CeRHC) roots as well, producing CaRaC instead of CRa. C. The innovation ousted CRa. C from so many derivatives that the latter's residual occurrences may now seem archaic and unmotivated. As a matter of fact, both sequences result from morphologically conditioned transformations, and in spite of their different age neither of them continues Proto-Indo-European CRHC. Archaic survivals of the regular phonetic development of that sequence (if anything so marginal can be called "regular") may perhaps be found in certain problematic isolated forms, compounds and reduplicated derivatives, e.g., Celtic *wläna: (cf. Lat. läna) 'wool' or Lat. cognitus (< *cognätos) 'acquainted with' (cf. gnärus 'knowing', nötus 'known').

8. Conclusions If we may risk a typological generalization on the basis of the Slavic data alone, it corroborates the expectation that short and long syllabic consonants should display a symmetrical pattern of development. If there is no such pattern, the case for long syllabic consonants is weak. There is, to conclude, no need to posit them either for late Proto-Indo-European or for the early history of the individual branches. The protoforms of words like those in (11) were stems such as /grHno-/ 'grain', containing

100

Piotr

Gqsiorowski

a (phonetically syllabic) consonant plus a laryngeal. In most branches of the Indo-European family the syllabic consonants were vocalized or developed a satellite epenthetic vowel before the loss of laryngeals. (11)

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

Gothic Lithuanian Serbo-Croatian Latin Old Irish Sanskrit

'grain' zirnis 'pea' zrno 'grain' um 'grain' ] gränum J grdn 'grain' jlrnäh 'fragile' kaiim

or < ur < urH ir < i:r < irH

<