The Noun in Biblical Armenian: Origin and Word-Formation - with special emphasis on the Indo-European heritage 9783110801989, 9783110164831

Citation preview

The Noun in Biblical Armenian

I

1999

Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs 119

Editor

Werner Winter

Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York

The Noun in Biblical Armenian Origin and Word-Formation — with special emphasis on the Indo-European heritage

by

Birgit Anette Olsen

W DE

G

Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York

1999

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

Printed with subsidies from the Danish Research Council for the

Humanities.

® 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

Olsen, Birgit Anette. The noun in Biblical Armenian : origin and word formation : with special emphasis on the Indo-European heritage / by Birgit Anette Olsen. p. cm. - (Trends in linguistics. Studies and monographs ; 119) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 3-11-016483-3 (cloth : alk. paper) 1. Armenian language, Classical - Noun. [1. Bible. Armenian - Language, style]. I. Title. II. Series. PK8049.047 1999 491'.9925-dc21 99-11550 CIP

Die Deutsche Bibliothek — Cataloging-in-Publication

Data

Olsen, Birgit Anette: The noun in Biblical Armenian : origin and word formation ; with special emphasis on the Indo-European heritage / by Birgit Anette Olsen. - Berlin ; New York : Mouton de Gruyter, 1999 (Trends in linguistics : Studies and monographs ; 119) ISBN 3-11-016483-3

© Copyright 1999 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, 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. Printing: Werner Hildebrand, Berlin. Binding: Lüderitz & Bauer, Berlin. Printed in Germany.

Preface In the general Indo-Europeanist picture of the world Armenian has a deep-rooted reputation as a Cinderella among a group of more liberally endowed sister languages. As succinctly stated by Szemerenyi (1965:134): "Armenian is one of those languages whose study is not of absolute necessity even for the advanced Indo-Europeanist: it is unable to shed independent light on the parent language. In fact, like Albanian, it very badly needs illumination from outside if its history is to be even partially understood. Moreover, its study does not hold the promise of exciting discoveries - concerning Indo-European that is". And indeed, although efforts are frequently made to vindicate the position of Armenian as a respectable member of the Indo-European family (one only has to mention Klingenschmitt's profound work on the Armenian verb), the attention is remarkably often focused on other aspects than the purely comparative: Adherents of the "glottalic theory" make use of Armenian data to support their views, typologically oriented linguists draw examples from the horror chamber of historical phonology, and to the Iranologist Armenian is a storehouse of North-West Middle Iranian in disguise, but when we want to increase our knowledge about the common proto-language we generally turn to other sources, whether Indo-Iranian and Greek, the traditional cornerstones of comparative Indo-European linguistics, Anatolian because of its ancient tradition, Balto-Slavic with its world of accentual subtleties, or the geographical fringes, Germanic, Italic and Celtic to the West, Tocharian to the East. It is one of the main conclusions to be drawn from the present work that the verdict of tradition was partly unjust, and that» a little scratching in the surface of Armenian morphology and phonology will reveal a number of interesting details going straight back to the protolanguage or even further, thus confirming Godel's impression (1970: 150) that "word derivation is probably that part of a language which best preserves traces of its whole background". To mention a few examples, a more precise and detailed understanding of the whole complex of suffixes sharing the nucleus of Karl Hoffmann's "possessive suffix" *-h3on- (cf. Hoffmann 1955 and Hamp 1972) would not be possible without the testimony of Armenian, the regularity in the selection of *-/- and *-r-variants {-r- following a root containing a liquid) of the instrument noun suffix *-Tlo/Tro- (Olsen 1988) is a better guideline to the original conditioning than Latin or Greek where later productivity is a disturbing factor, the survival of stems in *-k-, *-g- and *-d- apparently gives us a clue to an ancient conditioned

vi

Preface

variation of IE laryngeals, in particular with structures of the "eRu/Ru"-type where Armenian seems to be the principal witness, and the o-stem inflection of the old compound amowl 'barren' < *nputlos 'sonless' supports the view that "Adjektiva zweier Endungen" of the Greek type may in some cases reflect the situation of the protolanguage better than the full gender distinction exhibited by Sanskrit. The study of Armenian nominal morphology on a diachronic basis offers a fascinating scenario of a language on the whole maintaining its essential structural features despite the potentially disturbing influence of sound change and foreign elements. As the old sound pattern was thoroughly restructured by such processes as apocope, syncope, lenition, epenthesis, prothesis and metathesis the inherited case system as well as a considerable number of suffixal formations would seem to be doomed, but as a consequence of a continuous series of countermoves against this development the declensional and derivational system of Classical Armenian is still structurally fairly close to that of e.g. Sanskrit, and it is quite remarkable that even after the phonetically regular elimination of final syllables a continued distinction between seven separate cases is made possible by the secondary addition of postpositions or by replacing case endings by adjectival derivatives (cf. Part I, Ch.l). In the domain of word formation many important nominal suffixes are rendered opaque by regular sound change. Thus e.g. the old neuter ί-stems coalesce with the o-stems, the development of the passive participles in *-to- and the abstract nouns in *-ti- varies according to the root final segment (cf. the original *-/o-stem ji 'horse' < *$'itos vs. mard 'man' < *mrtos or the *-tt-stem bard 'pile' < *bhrtis vs. alöf(kf) 'prayer' < *slhjis or lir 'fulness' < *pleh,tis), and the active participle in *-ont- merges with the middle in *-omd,no-. All this means that some of the most stable and productive suffixes of other Indo-European languages, rendered unsuitable as markers of particular functions, typically only survive in precious lexicalized relics. Evidently two or three such examples are more valuable to the historical linguist than a series of hundreds belonging to a productive pattern, and it may thus be argued that superficially less archaic languages like Armenian have a good deal to offer when it comes to reconstruction of the derivatory inventory of the protolanguage. It only takes an open mind and a willingness to draw the necessary conclusions from the material. In order to maintain the semantic distinctions formerly expressed by simple suffixes whose characteristics are frequently blurred by regular sound change one of the following procedures may often be observed:

Preface

vii

1) formation of suffix conglomerates, 2) adaptation of Iranian loan suffixes and 3) grammaticalization of original compounds, including combinations of the three. As an example of the first category we may take the all-round abstract suffix -owfiwn, from a historical point of view probably consisting of the individual suffixes *-e- (thematic vowel), *-h,u-, *-ti- and *-h/)n-, or we may point to the general tendency of adding a supplementary -i (< *-i(i)olah2-) to a primary adjective suffix, hence e.g. the suffixes -ani, -eni, -alH-eli, -acfU-ecfi. The influence of Middle Iranian suffixal formations is quite overwhelming; some, like -owhi for the formation of substantives expressing the natural feminine as fagowhi 'queen', are still restricted to actual loanwords in the Biblical language, but others, e.g. the adjective suffixes -(a)kan and -(a)gin or the diminutive suffix -ak, soon become productive with borrowed as well as indigenous base words. A considerable part of the synchronic "suffixes" are historically explained as final members of compounds. This goes for basically indigenous types such as the adjectives in -(a)wor, lit. 'carrying' (lowsawor ~ Lat. lucifer etc.), but also a multitude of Iranian-based suffixes like -(a)stan (place names) or -(a)pes (adverbs of manner). In this connection it should be noticed that the scope of the Armenian loan suffix occasionally surpasses that of the Iranian source language, as when -(a)goyn ('colour, appearance') assumes the function of a comparative, or -(a)stan ('place') in Middle Armenian even becomes a semantically neutral collective/plural marker. As a combination of the procedures sketched above one may point to those cases where an Iranian and an indigenous suffix are combined, e.g. local adjectives in -(a)stan-eay (Iranian -(a)stan + indigenous -eay) or adjectives of material in -el-en (indigenous -el + Iranian -en). Further evidence for the symbiosis between the native Armenian language and Middle Iranian may be found in the more or less subtle cases of caiques, whether of entire words (MP duscasm 'evil-eyed', i.e. 'envious' -» Farakn, cf. (far 'bad, evil' and akn 'eye'), root elements (MP dänag 'knowing, wise' -» gitak, cf. gitem 'know') or even suffixes (MP dädwar, MParth. dädbar 'judge' -» datawor). However, despite the massive Iranian influence on lexicon and word formation the general typological character of the language is remarkably well preserved. It may thus be noticed that the typically Middle Iranian ezäfe construction which is foreign to Armenian syntax was apparently not imitated, but could be replaced by either suffixal formations or composition, while, on the other hand, the flood of nominal compounds characterizing the Greek version of the Bible was easily rendered by Armenian loan translations, because the corre-

viii

Preface

sponding patterns already existed, as indeed they did in the common proto-language. The general impression of Classical Armenian is that of a language defending its individual character against all odds, and even though most of the lexicon is either etymologically obscure or borrowed, indigenous parts still survive in a number of synchronically opaque suffixal formations, in characteristic syntactic features as e.g. reflected in the productive formation of a variety of compounds, and, last not least, in a nucleus of basic vocabulary, like the pronouns, the numerals, or e.g. the words for 'man' and 'woman', 'father' and 'mother', 'son' and 'daughter', 'brother' and 'sister', 'day' and 'night', 'live' and 'die', 'eat' and 'drink', 'sleep' and 'work'. Thus Classical Armenian is still very much an Indo-European language, not only preserving a number of concrete, more or less transparent indigenous elements, but also continuing an unbroken chain of living linguistic habits reaching far back into the mother-tongue. It may be anticipated that the present work will be criticized for lack of methodological innovation, a charge to which I can only plead guilty. Apart from the essential assumption that an extinct, but partly reconstructible Indo-European proto-language did actually exist, and that it is directly continued in a number of daughter languages (among these Armenian), my work is not founded on any specific theoretical dogmas, because I fear that such might lead to unnecessary limitations and psychological blockings when it comes to the observation and interpretation of concrete linguistic material. Readers allergic to trivialities may skip the following passages, but being well aware that my positivistic outlook may seem slightly provocative to some I do feel inclined to call attention to a few points that might still be of interest. The systematic sets of phonological correspondences between the individual Indo-European languages, the intricate morphological patterns reflected as synchronic irregularities, the apparent wilderness of accent and ablaut and the obvious existence of a common basic non-technical vocabulary all serves to cement the traditional view of Proto-Indo-European as a real, reasonably uniform language rather than, say, a Sprachbund, a pidgin or simply an artificial shorthand for observed correspondences devoid of any prehistoric reality. Thus the foundations laid in the early days of Indo-European studies were basically sound, and in the course of the twentieth century we have witnessed a continuous fruitful extension of the paradigm established by our scholarly predecessors. As long as we are concerned with

Preface

ix

Indo-European studies the neogrammarian principle of the "Ausnahmslosigkeit der Lautgesetze" is clearly no less of a practical guideline now than it was a hundred years ago, and there is no fundamental difference between the sound laws discovered by contemporary writers and those a century older. Neither has the socalled "comparative method", which is in reality nothing more mysterious than common sense, critical judgment and respect for plain logic, changed since the days of Brugmann and Osthoff. However, the perspective has gradually widened and the full picture of the Proto-Indo-European jigsaw-puzzle is growing clearer with every year. A deeper insight into the regularities of various morphological types now belongs to the basic knowledge of every Indo-Europeanist, and in particular we are increasingly aware of the fact that what we call "Indo-European", far from being a disordered jumble of root elements, suffixes and inflectional endings, was actually characterized by the existence of real words. The importance of "Wortgleichungen" as opposed to mere "Wurzelvergleichungen" is already stressed by Pokorny in his introduction to the "Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch" (1959), and the fruitfulness of this viewpoint is made crystal clear by the recent appearance of a monumental lexicon of Indo-European verbs1. At present the domain of nominal word formation and composition seems to attract considerable interest, and even though the investigation of comparative syntax and phraseology may still be at a less advanced stage an intensive effort will undoubtedly yield results in these sectors as well. In short, rather than dissociating him- or herself from the traditional concept of a real proto-language spoken by a real community with a specific set of cultural characteristics, the modern Indo-Europeanist is obliged to take this reality even more seriously, considering the increasing evidence for all the surprises and apparent capriciousness such as we find in any living, modern language. Even sporadic cases of variation, one of the notorious hallmarks of natural languages, and

' "Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben. Die Wurzeln und ihre Primärstammbildungen". Unter Leitung von Helmut Rix und der Mitarbeit vieler anderer bearbeitet von M. Kümmel, T. Zehnder, R. Lipp, B. Schirmer. Wiesbaden 1998. Unfortunately this important work appeared after the completion of the present manuscript.

χ

Preface

the occurrence of archaisms beside analogical creations may be asserted for Proto-Indo-European2. Nevertheless, in our steady attempt to uncover as many secrets as possible from our common linguistic past we should never be blind to the fact that there will always be areas we cannot reach, meaning that we may at best get an approximately correct picture of part of the language, and even when it comes to those phenomena which we think we understand we may have been misled by the usually sound principle of choosing the simplest possible solution. Such are the conditions and limitations of historical-comparative linguistics, and whether we like it or not we must live with the possibility that the real world may occasionally have been more complicated than we imagined. With these reservations in mind I have aimed at offering simple down-to-earth explanations whenever possible. When, on the other hand, the material turned out to be too scanty or opaque to allow me to draw a safe conclusion I have occasionally ventured one or more possible explanations anyway, in the hope that readers may be prompted to look for further evidence to prove or disprove my suggestions. In such cases it is only natural that some of the more farreaching conclusions may have to be adjusted in the course of time. Only the future will show how far a further probing into the prehistory of Indo-European in general and Indo-European word formation in particular may eventually lead us. A world of new and exciting discoveries is waiting, and if only the present work may be used as a humble source of inspiration it will have served its purpose.

2

An example of variation within the proto-language seems to be the parallel existence of *-idV-, *-udV- and *-i(i)V-, *-u(u)V-, while the development of sequences of the type may illustrate a stratification between phonetically regular archaisms and productive analogical formations (cf. Olsen 1994).

Acknowledgments The present study of Classical Armenian noun formation was initiated more than eleven years ago and concluded during the summer of 1997. Now, at the end of a task which at times never seemed to end, I have a welcome opportunity to offer my sincere thanks to family and friends, teachers, colleagues and students for help, advice and encouragement through the years. I owe a special gratitude to the late Maren Sleth, my admired Latin teacher who inspired me to undertake the study of comparative linguistics, and to professor F.O. Lindeman, the first to introduce me into the world of Indo-European in general and the mysteries of Armenian in particular. Likewise I would like to thank friends and fellow Indo-Europeanists from my sojourn in Erevan and subsequent stay at the University of Regensburg, especially professor Heiner Eichner, for invaluable encouragement and scholarly inspiration. The foundations of my work on the Armenian noun were laid during a three-year scholarship, generously funded by the Danish Reseach Council for the Humanities, at the Iranian Department of the University of Copenhagen, and I am deeply grateful for the excellent working conditions I was offered during those years, not least due to the general atmosphere of friendly helpfulness personified by professor Jes P. Asmussen. I am indebted to the Alexander-von-Humboldt-Stiftung for financing my stay at the University of Kiel 1991-93 under the guidance of professor Werner Winter to whom I owe a number of valuable suggestions and corrections and many a stimulating and thoughtprovoking discussion on Armenian matters, and whose involvement in this project has in many ways furthered its completion. For substantial financial support which helped to keep the price of the book down I would like to express my gratitude to the Danish Reseach Council for the Humanities. Thanks are also due to the publishing firm Mouton de Gruyter for kindly accepting to print the manuscript, and in particular to dr. Anke Beck and mrs. Christiane Graefe for their extreme good-will and patience. I am grateful to the University of Copenhagen for taking the trouble to find an evaluation committee that was not only competent but also willing to undertake the considerable burden of reading and evaluating

xii

Acknowledgments

the present work which was subsequently accepted by the Faculty of Arts for public defence for the doctorate, and I owe a deep debt of gratitude to the members of the committee, Eric P. Hamp, J0rgen Rischel and Werner Winter, all professors emeriti without whose selfless effort the publication of the manuscript would never have been possible. The steadily growing group of students of Indo-European at the University of Copenhagen are warmly thanked for their positive and unprejudiced willingness to discuss whatever half-digested thoughts I have presented to them through the years. In particular the many fruitful discussions I have had with Benedicte Nielsen and the lively debate that originated from a seminar on Armenian phonology and morphology and one on Indo-European noun formation remain fresh in my memory. Last, but certainly not least, I wish to express my very personal thanks to my mother, above all for her endless patience, and to my husband, Jens Elmegard Rasmussen, whose never-failing enthusiasm and help in every possible way, including the occasional well-meaning push to make me speed up the work, has kept me going ever since he first said: "Why don't you just take the Armenian Bible concordance and make a study of nominal word formation? That should be possible!".

Birgit Anette Olsen

Contents Preface

ν

Acknowledgments

xi

Introduction Part I

Chapter 1

xxxvii Armenian inflectional types and their background

1

Introductory remarks

1

O-stems

3

1.

IE o-stems

11

1.1.

IE type of primary o-stems

12

1.1.1.

Deverbatives

12

1.1.1.1. Type *bh0ros

12

1.1.1.2. Type *bhor p, t, k (*b in stipem Ί press' ~ Gk. στβίβω Ί step on'; *d in towr 'gift' ~ Gk. δώρον; *g in krownk 'crane' ~ Gk. 'γερανός, Lat. grüs, Lith. girve\ *gw in kov 'cow' ~ Gk. βονς, Skt. gauh).

4 *r and *l also seem to be subject to rounding by a preceding labial or labiovelar, cf. IV.I.Vn. Cf. also IV.I.I.8 and 9 on sonants in the position before laryngeals and IV.I.IV.2 on vocalic sonants in word-final position. 5 On the word-formation, cf. the loanword mehean 'temple' < *ηάθήαηα-.

Introduction

xli

*ct, *gh/*gwh > b, d, g in berem Ί carry' ~ Gk. φβρω, Lat. ferö, Skt. bharati; *dh in dowrkf 'door' ~ Gk. θύρα, Lat. fores; V in S e W 'glands' ~ Lith. gelezuones·, *gwh in goneay 'above all' ~ Gk. εΰθενης 'abundantly', Lith. gana 'enough', Skt. ghanä- 'tight, thick') 6 . In non-initial position original simple tenues and aspirated mediae were subject to various alterations, thus intervocalic lenition of *p, *t, *(?, the old palatal and the palatalized version of the labio-velar *gwh (cf. IV.I.II), and voicing of simple tenues after sonants, cf. e.g. bard 'pile' < *b^rti- or and 'doorpost' ~ Lat. antae1. After s the usual sound shift of at least *t did not take place: sterj 'barren' ~ Gk. στείρα, Skt. stari-*. Armenian is traditionally included among the satdm languages, and we find the following development of palatal stops: *k, *g, *g* > s, c, j (*k in sirt 'heart' ~ Lith. firdis, OChSl. srbdbce, Gk. icrjp; *g in cownr 'knee' — Skt. jam, Gk. yovv; in jmern 'winter' ~ OChSl. zima 'id.', Skt. heman 'in winter', Lat. adj. hibernus, Gk. χειμερινός)9. As is also the case with other satdm languages like Indo-Iranian or Slavic, original non-palatal stops are sometimes palatalized before front vowels or *i10. The details are still a matter of some controversy, but for the time being I find it most reasonable to follow Pisani's theory (1974 [1950]) that the labiovelars *kw and *gwh are palatalized before front vowels, yielding if and *gk > g are not subject to palatalization. On the other hand the unaspirated velar media *g is reflected as c, while the labio-velar *gw remains unpalatalized. The following examples may illustrate the situation: * r > kf in kferem Ί scratch' ~ Gk. κείρω.

6 A further series of aspirated tenues, V » apparently yielding Arm. pc, f , x, must have existed at the final stage of the proto-language, cf. also IV.1.1.7. 7 Possible restrictions to this rule may need further investigation. Cf. also IV.I.Vin on the conditioning of *nt > ndln. 8 See IV.I.X.2 on j/T-clusters. The development of *sp is not quite clear. 9 After u the velars regularly merge with the palatals, cf. e.g. boyc

'nourishment' < *b^ougos = Skt. bhoga-. 10

The development of *i-clusters is touched upon in IV.I.X.I.

xlii

Introduction

*gu* > ] in jerm 'warm' ~ Gk. θερμός, Skt. gharmd- vs. *gh > g in geljkf 'glands' ~ Lith. gelezuones. *g > c in cmem(< *öim-) Ί squeeze' ~ OChSl. ZhmQ vs. *gw > k in kin 'woman' ~ OChSl. zena, Gk. -γυνή, Olrish ben. A similar contrast between the treatment of labio-velars and plain velars when it comes to palatalization has been observed in Albanian which proves that the reconstruction of three series, a palatal, a velar and a labio-velar, is unavoidable. The spirant *s is reflected as h- or zero word-initially (hin 'old' < *sinos, αϊ 'salt' < *sal-), and as zero in internal position between vowels (bok 'barefoot' < *bhosogwo-, *-gwah2- or *-gwu-) and before nasals (mi 'one' < fem. *smih2), while only ί is preserved in the clusters *ms (ows 'shoulder' ~ Goth, ams) and *ns (acc.pl. eris 'three' < *trins). The situation in word-final position is more controversial (cf. the discussion under the introduction to the o-stems, Ch.l). The development of the semi-vowels *i and *u is briefly sketched in IV.I.III.1 and 2, and the nasals *n and *m in IV.I.IV. As for the liquids *r and *l the usual continuations are r (r before n) and I (i before consonants) respectively, but it should be noticed that in case of initial *r- a prothetic vowel emerges, e.g. erek 'evening' < *regwos (Skt. rdjah, Goth, riqis 'darkness' and Gk. epeßoq with a development similar to that of Armenian). The complex, partly unsolved problems arising in the field of consonant clusters cannot be treated in this connection11. However, a few particularly characteristic points deserve to be mentioned: 1) A series of metatheses is observed in original clusters consisting of voiced (plain or aspirated) stop + liquid, e.g. sowrb 'pure, holy' < *kub/lro- (Skt. subhra-), merj 'near' < *me§hri (Gk. μέχρι) or kfirtn 'sweat' < *suidr- (Latv. sviedri). This phenomenon is often found in connection with the emergence of a prothetic vowel, thus e.g. erkan 'grindstone' < *gwrahj^n- ~ Skt. grävan- or even elbayr 'brother' < Crater which is further complicated by the dissimlation r-r i-r. In initial clusters of simple tenuis + liquid the stop is lost, e.g. li 'full' < *pleh1tos (Lat. -pletus), erek" 'three' < *treies (Skt. trciyah). 2) The peculiar development of *y-clusters, in particular *du, remains one of the most hotly debates issues of Armenian historical phonology. In my opinion the material clearly favours

" A rich collection of material may be found in Dzaukjan 1982.

Introduction

xliii

Meillet's old interpretation, i.e. *su and *tu > kf (e.g. kfoyr 'sister' < *suesör, Skt. svdsar- etc.; kfo 'your' < *tuo- ~ Skt. tva-) and *du > (e)rk (e.g. erkownkf 'labour' < *h,eduon-, Gk. οδύνη; erkow 'two' ~ Skt. dva). While Part IV.I is thus concerned with phonological problems, a morphological synopsis is attempted in IV.II, drawing the lines of development from Proto-Indo-European on its way to Armenian. It has been my (hopefully not completely futile) aim to reach a clearer understanding of the original patterns underlying the Indo-European complex of nominal suffixes, in some cases involving soundlaws preceding the proto-language, so in the nature of the case this section contains thoughts and ideas of a more tentative and preliminary nature. A treatment of the noun in Biblical Armenian would clearly fail to give a truthful picture of the situation if the considerable amount of loanwords from known or unknown sources and possible reminiscences of a substratum or earlier dialectal diversity were left untouched. For this reason a series of appendices have been added: Appendix I on the extremely important Iranian element, II and III on Greek and Syriac loanwords respectively, and finally IV on nouns of a more or less obscure origin. In opposition to the main parts I-III a historical scrutiny of these sections of the language has not been attempted. With the exception of Part IV.I-II, including relevant material from other Classical Armenian texts than the Bible, each chapter or subsection is followed by an alphabetical list of attestations of the inflectional or derivational type in question; in the tables following the appendices I-IV the Biblical stem class is indicated by boldface. For practical reasons the designations "Part" and "App." in internal cross references are only added in connection with references to a different Part or Appendix while plain numbers are used within the same section, and as only Part I is subdivided into chapters "Ch.l" indicates "Part I, Ch.l" etc. In consideration of the above-mentioned word lists I have found it unnecessary to include productively created derivatives and compounds in the index verborum which also contains a section of selected reconstructions and transposits of Indo-European words and suffixes. Finally a brief index rerum comprises references to some of the more important phonological and morphological issues of the work.

Part I The Armenian stem classes and their historical background

Introductory remarks The following chapters will deal with those Armenian nominal formations which do not, from a synchronic point of view, contain a suffix, i.e. simple ο-, α-, ι-, u-, wo- and ea-, n-, r- and i-stems, heteroclitics and other anomalous paradigms, and lexemes whose inflectional type is either vacillating or unknown. Within each chapter the material is organized according to historical proto-types as far as such can be established. Concerning the general morphological development from the IE proto-language it will be noticed that: 1)

There is no grammatical gender, and consequently no fundamental difference between the declension of substantives on one hand, and adjectives and pronouns on the other. Only a historical analysis may reveal the old gender of a given noun on formal grounds.

2)

The numbers singular and plural are distinguished, while the old dual has been given up. A few older dual forms may have left formal traces in synchronic plurals.

3)

The case system includes all the cases of the proto-language with the exception of the vocative, i.e. nominative, accusative, genitive, dative, locative, ablative and instrumental. However, the genitive and dative are only distinguished in the pronouns, and there are numerous other case syncretisms as a consequence of the general loss of final syllables. A number of case distinctions have only survived by the secondary addition of postpositions.

According to Meillet (1913:45) there are two main types of declensions, those with an invariable stem = the nom.acc.sg. to which the case endings are added, and those with a variable stem, exhibiting apophonic variation. The invariable stem classes are the vocalic stems

2

Introductory remarks

in -ο-, -a-, -i- and -u-, the variable stems are the resonant stems in -n-, -r- and -1-. For further details, cf. Jensen 1959:47ff, Godel 1975: 26ff, Schmitt 1981:89ff, and the recent study by Matzinger 1995 with references. Some general considerations concerning the development of the case system as such and specific case endings and patterns of stem alternations will be found at the beginning of each chapter, in particular Chapter 1 on the o-stems.

1

wo- and ea-stems are variants of the o- and α-stems respectively.

Chapter 1 O-stems The o-stem declension is of considerable importance in Armenian nominal stem formation, including a good deal of the basic vocabulary and a few widespread suffixes such as -own (140) and -ayin (18), the participial -eal and the infinitive2, but, unlike the situation of other IE languages, it is not the productive pattern par exellence. When an inherited noun follows the o-stem paradigm there always seems to be a very good reason for it: Either the word goes directly back to a primary or secondary thematic formation or a clearly recessive type such as the root nouns or heteroclitics, or we are dealing with an old neuter s-stem where the nom.sg. is of course identical with that of a masculine o-stem. Thus the o-stem inflection of a noun belonging to the inherited vocabulary never seems to be random or historically inexplicable, but in a number of cases the phonetic development of the language permits several interpretations of a given lexeme; for instance the coalescence of *ln, *ls and probably some cases of *lh (cf. Part IV.I, 1.10) into Arm. I makes it impossible to decide on a purely phonological basis whether the proto-form of kel, -oy 'wound' is *gweh-no-, *gweld-so- or *gwelh-os. Besides the bulk of inherited formations and such productive patterns as the verbal nouns and other suffixal derivatives, the simple o-stems comprise a fairly limited number of Iranian loanwords (Ap. I), about a dozen words of Semitic origin (Αρ. Ill), a few loans from Greek (Αρ. II), and a quite impressive vocabulary belonging to the large rest group of loanwords from other, mostly unknown, sources, or substratum words (Αρ. IV). In oppostion to the tf-stems which are to a great extent dominated by Iranian loan suffixes, the productive suffixes following the o-declension all seem to have an IE background. Concerning the historical background of the o-stem paradigm, the main features are well known, though there has never been general agreement on such important issues as the regular reflex(es) of postvocalic final nasals and final *-s. The development of the paradigm, as exemplified by the word for

2

Cf. further -ac (8) and -in (98).

4

Chapter

1

'horse' -» 'donkey' would be approximately the following3: nom.sg. voc.sg. acc.sg. loc.sg. gen.sg.

*(h)ekuos *(h)ekue *(h)ikuom *0ι)έίαμοΐ *Qi)ehi0si0

> > > > >

es " " " isoy

>

isov

*(h)ekuobhi

acc.pl.

*(h)ikuös

>

eskc

*(h)ikuons

>

ess

(also used for locj)l.) gen.pl.

*(h)ikuosko-

V

ins.pl.

c

*(h)0kuotfis >

nom.acc.sg.neut.

•V

> 1SOC

(also used for dat.abl.pl. )

(also used for dat.abl.sg) ins.sg.

nom.pl.

*iugom

nom.acc.pl.neut. *iugah2

isovk c

> > lowc lowc + -kc

from masc.

A few supplementary remarks concerning particular case forms may be appropriate at this place: The ending -kf of the nom.pl. is preferably explained as a sandhi variant of final *-s yielding zero in the nom.sg., cf. the discussion in Klingenschmitt 1982:23f: "in einem ... Nebeneinander von Formen wie Nom.Sg. *skesür(a) ... : Nom.Pl. *skesür(a)/*skesur(a)k!'

musste

-ä* als charakteristisches Merkmal der Pluralform empfunden werden ... Da sich so das Gefühl einstellte, dass dem -1'd1 eine speziell pluralische Funktion zukam, konnte etwa im Paradigma der maskulinen o-Stämme, in welchem ursprünglich ein ererbtes Nebeneinander von Formen wie Nom.Sg. *märd(o)l*rmrd(o)k!t ... : Nom.Pl. *tmrd(u)/*fndrd(u)kh vorlag, eine Selektion der Formen Nom.Sg. *mdrd(o): Nom.Pl. *mdrd(u)kh stattfinden. Die Folge ist schliesslich die völlige Verdrängung von -k* als Reflex von uridg. -s aus singularischen und die Verallgemeinerung von -k!" in pluralischen Formen. "4

3

Cf. e.g. Meillet 1936:73f, Solta 1963:102ff, Godel 1975:99f, Schmitt 1981: l l l f , Matzinger 1995:16-49; see also the treatment of the Arm. case endings in Kortlandt 1984. On the ending of the acc.sg. further Pedersen 1905: 216ff, Meillet 1936:56 and Pisani 1951:47ff. 4 A highly original interpretation of the much-disputed plural marker -kf is offered by Dowsett (1989:34), who considers it a reflex of the enclitic particle *-kwe (lately also Stempel 1994", while accepting a "rukified" *-s > -r as a conditioned variant). However, even if the functional prerequisites are accepted (the plural use would have started in abstract singulars with *-k"e in an indefinite function, as in Lat. quisque), and even if the failing palatalization of *-kw- is accounted for as a result of an early apocope, it is hard to understand why -kf, which is secondarily considered an all-round plural marker used "indiscriminately on nominal, pronominal and verbal forms", was extended only to the first and second persons of the verb and only to the numerals 'three' and 'four', i.e. to

O-stems

5

Besides the potential influence exerted by the nom.sg. of the asigmatic a-, n-, r- and ί-stems, and the old root nouns where the final *-s occasionally merged with the root (thus *[h]aig-s > aye 'goat' and *lfrug-s or *bhrug-s > erbowc 'breast'), the generalization of the eventually endingless nom.sg. may have been prompted by the vocative. An equally much disputed matter is the outcome of final nasals, or, in other words: Is the zero ending in acc.sg.masc. and nom.-acc.sg. ntr. of the thematic stems regular or analogical? If it is analogical we are logically compelled to accept the development of nom.sg. *-os > zero; if, on the other hand, it is regular (in which case, of course, the acception of the nom. may still be correct), there remain a number of problems to be sorted out. Apart from the monosyllabic k°an = Lat. quam, a final nasal is apparently preserved whenever we are dealing with a sonant nasal, thus the numerals eöfn 'seven', inn 'nine' and tasn 'ten', the neuter *-men-stems of the type gelowmn < *-mn and probably also the nom.acc.sg. of non-neuter root nouns of the type otn 'foot' < *p0d-m5. Further we have such nouns as garn 'lamb' < *ur(h,)en and jiwn 'snow' < *ghiiöm. Though it may be attempted to find an alternative solution for the final -n of old root nouns, the numerals are still a strong indication for

exactly those forms which actually had a final *-s in the proto-language. According to Solta 1963:104f the ending -s in the acc.pl. ( < *-ons) is "ein Beweis dafür, daß die Endung -kf nicht auch auf auslautendes -s zurückgeführt werden kann". Of course this argumentation is only valid if it can be proved that the development *-ns > -s was completed before *-s > -kf began. Stempel's main reason (1990:60) to reject a development *-s > -kf is the functional restriction of -kf to plural formations, i.e. the possibility of sandhi variation is not even considered. If -kf is considered the o n l y regular outcome of *-s, as originally assumed by Pedersen 1905:71ff and later Kortlandt 1984, the nom.sg. would have to be analogically replaced by the acc.sg. which might be possible for the o-stems, but remains somewhat complicated for the neuter s-stems, as the latter demand a coalescence with the masculine o-stems on the basis of the nom.sg. *-os alone, i.e. the inflection of a noun such as jet 'tail' ~ Av. -zadah- would not continue any single form of the original paradigm. On the other hand Klingenschmitt's main argument (I.e.) in favour of the development *-s > namely the isolated numerals erekf < *treies and ccorkf < *kwetuores, must be decisive. 5 The preservation of *-m > -n in root nouns is not accepted by Godel 1970:144 ("Anyhow, Armenian has no traces at all of the Indo-European singular accusative ending"), who adduces the old neuter akn 'eye' as counter-evidence. Cf. also the "singulative" interpretation in Winter 1986. However, the nasal of akn may have been influenced by the original feminine root noun ownkn 'ear' or we may be dealing with a *-mn(t)-stem corresponding to Gk. όμμα.

6

Chapter 1

a regular development *-m and *-n > -n, and likewise it is difficult to explain the basically neutral type gelowmn ~ Lat. volümen as being derived from non-neutral accusatives. A very original stand is taken by Pisani (1951:47ff), who suggests a regular loss of *-Vm in polysyllables, hence *mrtom > mard 'man', as opposed to preservation of word-final *-n which would account for garn 'lamb' < *ur(h,)en, inn 'nine' < *enun and -mn < *-mn. Consequently eöfn 'seven' and tasn 'ten' are considered analogical, and otn 'foot' and similar formations are assumed to represent suffixal derivatives, on the whole a high price to pay for phonetic regularity6. Kortlandt 1984:97 advocates the remarkable alternative theory that "original postvocalic *-n had apparently become a feature of the preceding vowel and subsequently been lost", while the sonantic ending of the consonant stems was maintained. Thus the animate acc.sg. of the vocalic classes as well as the numerals and the suffix -mn are considered regular, while Kortlandt follows Pedersen 1905:216ff in explaining away garn and jiwn as analogical. If at least some sequences of vowel + nasal developed into nasalized vowels, as hinted by Kortlandt, the total elision in the acc.sg. of o-stems etc. is quite as expected; the preservation of final *-m and *-n, on the other hand, is neatly matched by the final *-r of heteroclitics such as albiwr 'well' (cf. Ch.7, 4). It may, however, be questioned whether a nasal vowel arose wherever a full vowel was followed by a consonantal nasal or, alternatively, it may be contemplated that this development was restricted to specific sequences such as e.g. *-om and *-am: after all nasalization is notoriously more widespread in the case of short open vowels, and if a distinction of this kind is made it is still possible to deal with such cases as gam < *-in < *-en, jiwn (Gk. χιών) and siwn (Gk. κίων) < *-un < *-öml -ön in relation to e.g. hayr < *-ir < *-er. The ending -oy, which is assumed to represent the continuation of the IE gen.sg. in *-osio, also covers the function of dat.sg. where the inherited ending of *(h1)ikuöi would probably be lost. A convenient analogical pattern may be found in other stem classes exhibiting a regular merger of these two case forms (Meillet 1936:72), e.g. -i < *-iios/*-iiei in the /-stems.

6

Pisani's theory is followed by Stempel 1990.

O-stems

1

The original genitive ending is apparently also used for the ablative case where the inherited o-stem ending *-öd is regularly lost, while the other declensions have a separate ending -e1. The traditional derivation of abl.sg. -e and -oy from *-etos and *-otos respectively, which would match such formations as Skt. mukhatdh 'from the mouth, in front', Lat. ftinditus 'from the bottom' (cf. Meillet 1936:73) is invalidated by contrasting evidence for a development of intervocalic *-t- > -u- (cf. Part IV.I, II), so it may be more adequate to resume Bugge's old equation of -e with Skt. dti 'over, beyond', Gk. adv. en 'also, further' etc. < *έΰ (1897:75; also accepted by Godel 1975:105). Thus the "case ending" -e may be considered an originally independent adverb or postposition used to underline an otherwise unclear ablative function8. It is a peculiar situation that the gen. and abl.sg. in Armenian merged in the o-stems, the only stem class characterized by an independent abl.sg. in IE, while, on the other hand, the language does have an individually characterized abl.sg. in all other inflections where the proto-language had only one form covering the gen. and abl.sg. Obviously this state of affairs only makes sense if the inflectional pattern is considered as a whole, starting with the simple, but essential question: How may a full case system be maintained in a language where the general sound laws lead to the total loss of almost all final syllables? As for the o-stems the original endings of the acc.sg. *-om, the loc.sg. *-oi, and the abl.sg. *-öd would all undergo apocope, i.e. we would end up with the naked root, and there would be no way of telling if a prepositional phrase of the type i mard should be interpreted as containing an accusative 'into the man', a locative 'in the man', or an ablative 'from the man'. The secondary use of the genitive form to cover the ablative function as well, in analogy with the old system of the remaining stem classes, may be seen as a simple

7 According to K.H.Schmidt (1987:411) the merger of gen., abl. and loc.sg. of the o-stems went through three stages: 1. transfer of the pronominal ending *-osio to the nouns, 2. extension to the abl.sg. and 3. further extension to the dat.sg.; the assumed chronological sequence of stages 2. and 3. seems arbitrary. 8 For the use of Skt. äti connected with a case form, see Delbrück 1888:440f. The_usual position is a f t e r the noun (in the acc.), e.g. SB 1,2,1,12: yad ίητάήί lokati äti caturthäm ästi "was über diese drei Welten hinaus als viertes vorhanden ist".

8

Chapter 1

way of re-establishing the essential distinction between the ablative on one hand, and the accusative and locative on the other9. In the other declensions, where the old genitive/ablative ending was subject to apocope, the necessity for a particular ablative marker led to the compulsory addition of the postposition *eti > e, generally following the loc.sg., thus e.g. i tane 'from the house' / i tan 'in the house', i höre 'from the father' /i hör 'in the father'. However, the a- and /-stems (and some of the «-stems) add the ablative "ending" to what may be described as the synchronic root, thus loc.sg. i ami 'in the year' vs. abl.sg. i ame 'from the year' (α-st.) and loc.sg. i srti 'in the heart' vs. abl.sg. i srte 'from the heart' (/-St.). The ending -/, used for the gen.dat.loc.sg. of the /- and a-stems, must be considered regular in the (generalized) hysterodynamic /-stems where it reflects gen. *-iios and dat. *-iiei. In the α-stems the most reasonable proto-form of the gen. and dat.sg. seems to be *-iiäs (< *-(i)iah2-s [< **-ieh2-s]) and *-iiäi (< *-(i)iah2-ai [< **-ieh2ei]) as a continuation of the devi-type, originally a conditioned variant of the plain α-stems, which makes an analogical levelling reasonably unproblematic10. However, the origin of the locative in -/ remains unexplained. A loc.sg. corresponding to Skt. -/"would lose its ending, so this scenario, which is not even functionally quite

9 Kortlandt's explanation (1984:103) seems too complicated and based on too many arbitrary intermediate steps: "In the o-stems, the expected pre-apocope ending *-u which developed from PIE -öd was apparently replaced with *-oyu on the basis of the gen. and dat.sg. endings. This analogical development was particularly well motivated if the other flexion classes had adopted the ending *-u at that time". 10 Gen.abl.sg. *-iios (< *-ihj>s) and dat.sg. *-iiai (< *-ihßi < **-ih2-eC) corresponding to the Skt. vrkih-type is an alternative possibility. A

morphologically weakly motivated analogical transfer from the short i-stems to the α-stems is assumed by Godel 1975:104 ("the new morpheme, abstracted from the GDL. of the i declension") and Schmitt 1981:113 ("Gen.-Dat.-Lok. Sing, (i-, α-Stämme) -i < idg. Gen. *-iios, Dat. *-üei (der *i-Stämme), mit Verallgemeinerung bei allen «-Stämmen und Übertragung auf die α-Stämme"). In neither case the loc. ending -ι, for which the I E *-t-stems would have *-ei > 0, is explained, though one might think of an analogical *-iy. Meillet 1936:72, while describing the ending -i as "enigmatique", ventures a comparison with either the Olrish α-stem gen.sg. of the type tüaithe from tüath 'people' ("egalement enigmatique") or Skt. senäyähfromsend 'army'. I find it difficult to understand how a direct equation between Skt. -äyäs and Arm. -i would satisfy our phonetic expectations, but the Olrish α-stems, exhibiting a rather peculiar paradigmatic connection between nom.acc.sg. *-d, *-am and gen. *-(i)ias (i.e. a contamination of the old ä-stems and the devi-type), apparently bear a quite striking resemblance to the Arm. system.

O-stems

9

satisfactory, is out of the question, and even though the expected proto-form of the devC-type, *-(i)iah2-i, might be reflected as -i it remains a disturbing fact that the ablative particle is added to the naked stem in such constructions as i ame, where the preposition *en must after all be expected to govern the locative (as in i hör < *en pdjri 'in the father' -»i hor-e 'from the father'). Godel (1975:106) tries to deal with this difficulty by assuming a rather complicated levelling between i- and α-stems: the original istem abl. *srtie was allegedly transformed to srte on the model of ame, while the gen.dat.loc. srti influenced *am -» ami, and after the fixing of the a- and i-stem ablative, «-stems such as abl. (i) cove 'from the sea' vs. loc. (t) covow 'in the sea' are assumed to have followed the new pattern. In view of the complexity of this explanation it may be worth-while to suggest a simpler alternative, and it seems an obvious possibility that a n e w locative ending -i was added at a time when the a- and the /-stems were losing their means to express this function, i.e. at the time of the apocope. If we keep in mind that it was essential to keep the accusative, the locative and the ablative sg. apart, the iz-stem paradigm in its original shape was doomed: the endings of nom.sg. *-ά, acc.sg. *-äm, gen.abl.sg. *-äs, dat.loc.sg. *-äi would all be regularly lost, and the only distinction in the sg. would be between the instrumental on one hand and a common form covering all the other case functions on the other. Since one way of avoiding semantic ambiguity is the addition of distinctive adverjbs/postpositions, as we have already seen with the ablative particle *eti, it is easy to imagine a similar procedure underlying the a- (and i-) stem locative in -i, where the supplementary particle would probably be *en. Thus acc.sg. *en samäm > i am 'into the year' would be clearly characterized against loc.sg. *en samäi + en > i am-i 'in the year, in it' and abl.sg. *en samäi + eti > i am-e 'in the year, from it' 'from the year'11. In the consonant stems such as acc. i town 'into the house', loc. i tan 'in the house', abl. i tane 'from the house' or acc. i hayr 'into the father', loc. i hör 'in the father', abl. i höre 'from the father'

11 On the connection between the locative and the ablative see Pedersen 1905:85, who points to Russian iz-za stola 'from the table', iz-pod zemli 'out of the earth', Danish fra inde i byen lit. 'from in the town' as parallels to Arm. i + loc. + -e.

10

Chapter 1

no particular characterization of the locative was needed because this case was distinguished from the accusative by its ablaut grade also12. I would assume the facultative locative ending -i used with some ostems to have the same origin. Characteristically this ending is only used in connection with the preposition i, i.e. where there is no redundancy. The theory that o-stem nouns with a locative in -i would be an indication of an original s-stem13 (presupposing a development *-esi > -ι) seems neither phonetically secured nor philologically motivated since this form is found indiscriminately with various inherited derivational types and even with loanwords. Inst.sg. -ov continues stem vowel + the ending *-bhi, also attested in the "epic" Gk. -φι which is used in the wider sense of inst./abl./ loc.sg. and pi. The corresponding plural - o v k o n the other hand, is clearly an analogical substitution for the inherited o-stem ending *-öis. The acc.pl. ending -s is also used for the loc.pl., which is traditionally explained as analogical influence from the consonant stems, since an intervocalic *-s- of the ending *-su would be lost in the vocalic inflections (cf. Meillet 1936:70f). However, the matter is not quite as simple as stated by Schmitt (1981:113): "bei den konsonantischen Stämmen regelrecht entwickelt und von dort analogisch ausgebreitet": In the r-stems one would expect a "ruki" development *-rsu > *-m/*-rsu > *-r/*-rs, in the numerous «-stems *-nsu would ultimately be reflected as *-su > *-s, i.e. we would have to assume restitution of the stem-final nasal (Meillet I.e.), and it is rather unlikely that the rare /-stems or isolated root nouns, such as ots 'feet' or sirts 'hearts', where the development may be taken as regular, would have exerted massive analogical influence on the other stem classes. A less problematic starting point would be the ί-stems, where a geminate *-ss- > -s- (cf. *h,es-si > es 'thou art') is regularly preserved. The procedure appears to be somewhat similar to the proliferation of the "dat.pl." ending -βσσι in Greek. The stem vowel -o- of gen.dat.abl.pl. -ocf must be analogical. As rightly remarked by Seldeslachts (1991:261) the basic IE suffix used

12 A suffixed particle *en in other IE languages primarily seems to be connected with the locative function, although the corresponding preposition may also govern the accusative. Thus Ose. hiirtin 'in the grove', Umbr. arven 'in the field', Lith. galvoje 'in the head' and possibly Skt. ksaman from ksah 'earth'. 13 Thus Witczak 1989:24 on apc 'palm of the hand': "o-stem, but with traces c of es-stem, cf. loc.sg. yap i < *äpsesi".

O-stems

11

for the formation of adjectives of appurtenance is not simply *-sko-, but *-isko- (Germ *-iska-, OChSl. -bsk-b, Gk. diminutives in -ισκος): "Daher ist, wenn die armenische Flexionsendung wirklich ein Adjektivsuffix fortsetzt14, die Annahme zwingend, dass die Endung ursprünglich in allen Deklinationsklassen -icf gelautet hat. Bei den «-Stämmen konnte das i dieser Endung leicht als Stammvokal empfunden werden"; hence the analogical creation of -0(f, -a e in the abl. (and *en > i in the loc.). In the plural the supplementary ablative marker was not called for, because the only essential distinction, i.e. the one between loc. and abl., was already evident from the endings.

1. IE o-stems Most inherited Armenian nouns inflected as o-stems faithfully continue the IE declensional type, whether we are dealing with simple thematic derivatives or with one of the numerous suffixal formations containing the thematic vowel. However, the advanced state of phonetic change (in particular lenition, metathesis and epenthesis) has blurred the morphological structure of many of these types so thoroughly that the original suffix is no longer recognizable, and from a synchronic point of view the continuations of IE stems in e.g. *-io-, *-ro- or *-to- are simply primary o-stems. The inherited type of adjectives like m. *senos, f. *sinah2, n. *senom 'old' -> Arm. hin, hnoy are generally continued as o-stems, leaving no traces of the feminine ä-declension.

14 This traditional solution is probably still preferable to Pisani's suggestion (1951:66) of a strengthened version of intervocalic *-s- in a gen.pl. ending *-(V)söm, cf. Lat. -drum, -ärum, and Sommer's assumption (1924) of a postposition corresponding to Skt. ächa. 15 For this reason I cannot agree with Solta (1963:105), "Schwierig ist die Frage zu beantworten, warum diese Bildung auf den pluralischen Genitiv (und zugleich Dativ, Ablativ) beschränkt ist".

12

Chapter 1

1.1. IE type of primary o-stems The IE o-stems consisting of root + thematic vowel may be classified into two principal groups, the deverbatives, derived from verbal roots, and the non-deverbatives, consisting of denominative nouns and adjectives and more opaque lexemes for which the underlying root is unknown.

1.1.1. Deverbatives Two main types of verbal nouns derived from the root by means of the thematic vowel are continued in Armenian: Action nouns/verbal abstracts of the type *y t oros 'burden', characterized by accented ograde of the root, are represented by a few, apparently inherited, derivatives with the original ablaut grade. Nouns of this type may have served as one of the patterns for a whole series of verbal nouns, productively derived from synchronic verbal roots. On the other hand, end-stressed agent nouns with radical o-grade, the type *b^ows 'carrying, carrier', are sparsely attested and unproductive in so far as old *6Aorai-derivatives are analogically transferred to the α-stems in the frequent use as second members of compounds. 1.1.1.1. Type *bh0ros Cf. Meillet 1913:30, Godel 1975:57. In the IE proto-language verbal abstracts/action nouns were freely derived from verbal roots exhibiting accented o-grade of the root and thematic suffix vowel, cf. e.g. Gk. φόρος (*'burden') 'payment, tribute', Skt. bhdrah 'burden' etc. < oros, or Gk. -γόνος 'birth, child', Skt. jdnah 'creature' < *g0nh,os. The following o-grade action nouns are connected with an apparently inherited root and inflected as o-stems, thus probably reflecting old *bhoros-formations (with the exception of gore 'work' which seems to have been created at a later point). In a few cases like hor 'pit' and ors 'venison, draught of fish', the derivative has assumed a concrete meaning.

O-stems

13

A. gore (-oy, -0(f, -ovkf)[6 'act, work, deed' (IEW 1168, Solta 144) belongs to the root *uerg- 'work'. As maintained by Hamp 1985, the only thematic action noun of secured IE status derived from this root is the strangely aberrant *uergom (Gk. epyov, Av. vardzdm, OHG were"), so the radical o-grade of gore must be considered secondary, preferably a formation of the once productive *t^0ros-type as suggested by Hamp I.e. B. hog (-oec, -ovkf) 'care, worry', possibly from *p0uh1/2osli derived from the root *peuhI/2- with the double meaning of 'cleanse' (Skt. pütä-, Lat. pürus etc.) and 'sort out, investigate, think' etc.19. C. hor(-oy) 'pit' < *poros (de Lamberterie 1982a:68), cf. e.g. Gk. •κόρος 'Durchgang, Furt' etc. and the verb πάρω 'duchbohren, durchstechen, durchdringen'. D. ors (-oy, -ov) 'hunting, fishing; venison, draught of fish' (Solta 428, Clackson 1994:164) is formally identical with Gk. πόρκος 'sort of fishing net' < *porkos, apparently a ^oroi-derivative, even though the underlying verbal root is otherwise unknown. The development of the concrete meaning of the Greek form is similar to that of e.g. δρόμος 'race' 'racecourse'20.

16

The isolated gorci in 1 .Sam. 13.20, erroneously listed in BC under the head word gore, is the secondary derivative meaning 'tool'. 17 Goth, waurk < *urg6m, quoted by Meillet 1903:258 and, with further elaboration, 1922:203, is a ghost form, cf. Hamp 1985:104. The simplest analysis of the verb gorcem is that of a denominative (cf. also Klingenschmitt 1982:142), and obviously Meillet's assumption (1922) of an iterative is simply motivated by the intention of explaining gore as a deverbative noun. 18 The assumed reconstruction implies a hardening of *-ouho- (> *-ouuo-) > *-ogo-, as *-u- is otherwise lost between homorganic vowels. Cf. also ogi and hogi, Part Π, 94.2. 19 In Latin it is possible to follow the semantic development from the concrete meaning ofpütus 'pure' (argentum purum pütum 'pure, unalloyed silver') and the factitive verbpütäre 'cleanse' (vellus laväre acpütäre) to the abstract 'calculate, estimate, consider, think' (Ernout-Meillet 548) which is also attested in Slavic (OChSl. iterativepytati 'investigate, interrogate' and in particular Czech ptdti se 'ask' < IE *putah2- = Lat. pütä-, cf. Vasmer 111:421 and Machek 1971:496). The derivation of these forms from the set-root of pürus etc. is not invalidated by the short -ü-, as a sequence *-Vhl/2t- would regularly develop into *-Vth- (-» -Vi-), cf. Olsen 1994. 20 1 do not share Clackson's semantic scruples, leading to a rejection of the etymological connection between ors and ττόρκος altogether.

14

Chapter 1

Ε. pcol (-oy, -ov, -ocf, -ovkf) 'trumpet, pipe' has no recognized etymology, but it seems rather natural to assume a connection with OHG spuola 'Röhre, Federkiel' etc. from the root *spkelh2- 'spalten' (cf. IEW 985ff)21, particularly in view of the alternative meaning 'reed'. A ^oros-derivative *sph0lh2os appears to be the simplest c solution. A cognate i-stem p olkf, -icc is attested with the meaning 'throat', cf. Ch.3, 4.O. F. pcoyf (p°owfoy, -ov) 'care, concern, diligence; haste' (IEW 998f, Solta 341f) is probably etymologically connected with Gk. σπεύδω 'set going, urge on, hasten, strive after, be anxious (that)', σπουδή 'haste, zeal, effort' etc., Lith. spdudziu 'press' despite the puzzling aspirates of both the initial and the final consonantism22. G. pcorj (-ov) 'trying, tempting; proof (IEW 818, Solta 342f; cf. also de Lamberterie 1982a) may reflect a simple *^0/uy-derivative *porh2i-o- > *porio- from a root *perh2i-, cf. Gk. πβίρω 'attempt, try', subst. πείρα 23 . The aspiration of pc- may be due to distant assimilation to *-h2-, and although *n would normally yield *rj we do not know how the neighbouring laryngeal would affect this development. H. A considerable number of other o-stem verbal nouns, occasionally exhibiting a secondary concrete meaning, have been created by analogical extension. Formally these nouns are simply identical with the synchronic verbal roots, whatever the root vocalism, and, as with other types of verbal abstracts, pluralia tantum are not infrequent (cf. Meillet ELP A I:134ff). Though it is not always quite evident whether we are dealing with a denominative verb or a deverbative noun, most verbal nouns following the o-declension are no doubt primary in

21

The root-final laryngeal may be deduced from Gk.

Skt. ptc. sphalita-.

σφοίΚάσσαντ'ίμναν and

22 For a detailed discussion of the history of Arm. pc-, cf. Klingenschmitt 1982:165ff. 23 Meillet (1935:110) assumed an expressive root variant in *ph-, while Normier (1980:201) advocates an alternative derivation from the root *sper$l(Ved. sprhaya- 'heftig verlangen') in view of the formal difficulties. For further details, cf. Rasmussen 1992 b :93f.

O-stems

15

relation to the verbs which generally belong to one of the typically denominative types24. The patterns for the proliferation of simple o-stem action nouns are quite variegated: Not only nouns of the IE *l/0ros-type seen in relation to the matching denominative verbs such as gore 'work' ~ gorcem, -ec°i, pcorj 'trying' etc. ~ pcorjem, -ec°i, hog 'care, worry' ~ hogam, -a