Indogermanische Forschungen: Zeitschrift fuer Indogermanistik und allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Band 115

I Indogermanische Forschungen 115. Band II III Indogermanische Forschungen Zeitschrift für Indogermanistik und al...

Author: Wolfgang P. Schmid | Eckhard Eggers

171 downloads 1838 Views 914KB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

I

Indogermanische Forschungen 115. Band

II

III

Indogermanische Forschungen Zeitschrift für Indogermanistik und allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft Begründet von Karl Brugmann und Wilhelm Streitberg Herausgegeben von Wolfgang P. Schmid und Eckhard Eggers

115. Band 2010

De Gruyter

IV Alle für die Indogermanischen Forschungen bestimmten Aufsätze und kleineren Beiträge senden Sie bitte an Apl. Prof. Dr. Eckhard Eggers, Nikolausberger Weg 63, D-37073 Göttingen, bzw. als .pdf-File per E-Mail an: [email protected] Rezensionsexemplare senden Sie bitte an Apl. Prof. Dr. Eckhard Eggers, Redaktion Indogermanische Forschungen, Arbeitsstelle Niedersächsisches Wörterbuch, Kreuzbergring 50, D-37075 Göttingen.

Mit der Annahme zur Veröffentlichung überträgt der Autor dem Verlag das ausschließliche Verlagsrecht und das Recht zur Herstellung von Sonderdrucken im Rahmen des Urheberrechts. Dazu gehört insbesondere auch die Befugnis zur Einspeicherung in Datenbanken, der Verbreitung auf elektronischem Wege (Online und/oder Offline) sowie das Recht zur weiteren Vervielfältigung zu gewerblichen Zwecken im Wege eines fotomechanischen oder eines anderen Verfahrens. Der Autor hat das Recht, nach Ablauf eines Jahres eine einfache Abdruckgenehmigung zu erteilen.

Ü Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines of the ANSI

to ensure permanence and durability.

© Copyright 2011 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, D-10785 Berlin All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this journal may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Copying in the USA! Authorization to copy items for internal or personal use, or for the internal or personal use by specific clients is granted by Walter de Gruyter, for libraries and other users registered with the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) Transactional Reporting Service, provided that the base fee of US $ 3.00 per copy is paid to CCC, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. 0019-7262/11 © by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG Berlin New York Printed in Germany ISBN (Print) 978-3-11-022280-7 ISBN (Online) 978-3-11-022281-4 ISBN (Print + Online) 978-3-11-022282-1 ISSN (Print) 0019-7262 ISSN (Online) 1613-0405 Indexed in Current Contents

V

Inhalt I. Aufsätze: A g b a y a n i , Brian, G o l s t o n , Chris. Second-position is first-position: Wackernagel’s Law and the role of clausal conjunction . . . . . . B r o s m a n , Paul W. The nt- participles and the verbal adjectives in *-to- . . Ve r b e k e , Saartje. Postpositions and agreement in Rajasthani languages: A comparative analysis of alignment features in Marwari and Harauti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . P a t r i , Sylvain. Qu’est-ce qu’un pronom en anatolien? . . . . . . . . . . . . S h i e l d s, Kenneth. Hittite sˇia-‘1’ and its implications for the etymology of Indo-European numerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S c h ü r r , Diether. Lykische Genitive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wo o d h o u s e , Robert. Greek « Λ and further evidence for laryngeal as resonant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M a n c o , Alberto. Two unexplained terms in Iliad: and . M a d a r i a g a , Nerea. The development of Indo-European middle-passive verbs: a case study in Ancient Greek and Old Church Slavonic . . B l a s c o F e r r e r , Eduardo. Iberian *ortubeles´ and ordumeles, PalaeoSardinian Ortumele. New horizons in substrata research . . . . . P â r v u l e s c u , Adrian. Lat. servus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A n g h e l i n a , Catalin. A note on the phoneme schwa (a˘) in Romanian . . . V i l l a n u e v a S v e n s s o n , Miguel. Baltic sta-presents and the Indo-European desiderative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . W i l l i , Andreas. Hera, Eros, Iuno Sororia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 22

35 65 110 118 127 135 149 179 190 198 204 234

II. Besprechungsaufsatz: K n ü p p e l , Michael. Fragen zu den von V. M. Illicˇ-Svitycˇ nachgelassenen Materialien . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

268

Druckfehlerkorrektur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

275

Zur formalen Gestaltung von IF.-Manuskripten . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

277

VI

Inhalt

Second-position is first-position

1

Second-position is first-position: Wackernagel’s Law and the role of clausal conjunction* Abstract We show that the notion “second-position” (Delbrück 1878, Wackernagel 1892) involves a misunderstanding of coordinate structures and of the prosodic weight of sentence-initial words in early IE languages. Conjunctions begin and end life between their conjuncts; material from the right conjunct is moved only if postpositives (Dover 1960) require it. This puts “second-position clitics” either between clauses (conjunctions) or at the beginnings of clauses (pronouns and particles), leaving nothing in second-position.

1. Introduction Based on the comparative syntax of early Indo-European (IE) languages, Delbrück (1878) and Wackernagel (1892) proposed that PIE had a set of “second-position clitics” that followed the first stressed word of the sentence. Their thesis has been so influential that secondposition in a sentence is often referred to as Wackernagel’s position, even outside of IE. Within IE, their conjecture has attained the status of a law: “One of the few generally accepted syntactic statements about Indo-European is Wackernagel’s Law, that enclitics originally occupied the second position in the sentence” (Watkins 1964: 1036). Much contemporary work has sought to reevaluate the status of Wackernagel’s Law for early IE languages within current linguistic theory. This body of recent work offers a descriptive precision that was not available to the frameworks within which Delbrück and Wackernagel worked; and it has given rise to several analytic trends with respect to second-position phenomena in these languages (Garrett 1990, 1996, Luraghi 1990, 1998, 2001 for Hittite; Hale 1996 and Hock 1996 for Sanskrit; Janse 1992, Hock 1996, and Taylor 1990, 1996 * We would like to thank Craig Melchert for discussion on the Hittite data and the analysis presented here. We also thank Cheryl Chan, Sean Fulop, Andrew Garrett and E.F.K. Koerner for comments on earlier drafts of this paper. Any remaining errors are the sole responsibility of the authors.

2

Brian Agbayani and Chris Golston

for Greek; see also Anderson 1993 for more general discussion of the status of Wackernagel’s Law in current theory).1 We argue here that nothing regularly occurs in second position in any of these languages and offer an analysis under which these items lie outside of the clause (conjunctions) or in clausal first-position (pronouns and particles). In what follows we will use Dover’s (1960) term “postpositive” to refer to these items. In early IE languages, postpositive conjunctions (Greek ‘and’, Latin =ve ‘or’) are always the first in any string of such elements. We propose that such a conjunction lies external to the clause that forms its right conjunct, and that all subsequent postpositive elements are therefore clause-initial. These postpositive elements (pronouns and particles) always follow conjunctions when they are present. Again, conjunctions fall between the clauses they conjoin, so any elements that immediately follow them are clearly clause-initial rather than clause-second. We base our conclusions on the syntax of three early IE languages for which the ‘second position’ phenomenon is especially plain: Ancient Greek, Latin, and Hittite. We expect exactly similar results for Sanskrit, Avestan, and other early daughters of PIE, though we lack the language expertise to state this with any degree of confidence. The conjunctions we have in mind include normal (for lack of a better term) and postpositive conjunctions like the following: (1)

1

Conjunctions normal

postpositive

Greek

‘and’ $ ‘but’

= ‘and’

‘and’

Latin

et ‘and’ at ‘but’

=que ‘and’ =ve ‘or’

Hittite

nu ‘and’

=ya ‘and’ =ma ‘but’

We do not consider here analyses of the placement of second-position elements in modern languages, for which there is an enormous body of literature (see the seminal work of Klavans 1982, the collected articles in Halpern & Zwicky 1996, and important references such as the work of Franks & King 2000, among many others). It is an open question as to whether the analysis proposed here for early IE may extend to all modern cases.


3

Some postpositives are phonological clitics (‘=’) and others are not. Thus Greek = ‘and’ is a clitic and loses its tone to a preceding word, while ‘and’ is not enclitic and retains its tone. Latin too has postpositives that are clitics (=que ‘and’) and postpositives that are not (enim ‘for’). Hittite is unique among these languages insofar as all postpositives are enclitic (=ya ‘and’, =ma ‘but’, etc.). Regardless of their clitic status, all postpositive conjunctions show up in the same part of the sentence as normal conjunctions do, or so we will try to show. Traditional analyses place postpositive conjunctions inside the righthand conjunct, on a par with other elements in ‘second-position’. We argue here that postpositive conjunctions fall between their conjuncts syntactically, as all conjunctions do, never within one of their conjuncts. This puts postpositive elements that follow conjunctions in first position.

2. Conjunction below the clause Our analysis of postpositive elements rests upon a proper understanding of conjunctions, so we begin here with simple cases of conjunction below the clause, specifically, conjoined noun phrases. As we will see, normal conjunctions (, et) come between their conjuncts and postpositive conjunctions appear to follow the first word of their second conjunct. Most early IE languages have full form conjunctions that come between their conjuncts in the familiar fashion. Using square brackets to indicate syntactic constituency we represent conjoined phrases as follows: (2)

[ ]NP λ [ ]NP sceptre and fillet ‘sceptre and fillet’ (Homer, Iliad 1.28)

(3)

[montem Iuram]NP et [flumen Rhodanum]NP Mount Jura and river Rhone ‘Mount Jura and the Rhone river’ (Caesar, Bello Gallico I.6)

Following much recent work in the syntax of coordination, we assume that conjunctions appear between the elements they conjoin in a configurational structure that groups the conjunction with the righthand conjunct (Munn 1993, Johannessen 1998, Zoerner 1999):

4 (4)


configurational structure for coordination

NP [montem Iuram]

& et

NP [flumen Rhodanum]

But our argument does not depend on having this exact structure for conjunction: we require only that a conjunction is distinct from the elements it conjoins. Even if the conjunction forms a constituent with the following conjunct (as it does in 4), it is clearly not part of either conjunct: the first word of the second conjunct above is not et but flumen. This corresponds with the semantics of the construction, where the coordinated terms are [montem Iuram] and [flumen Rhodanum], and et functions as a Boolean operator that takes the individual terms and yields their semantic coordination (creating a single category of the same type as the individual terms). This much should be noncontroversial. As we have seen, a number of early IE languages also have postpositive conjunctions. We assume that the syntactic and semantic structure for these is still [conjunct & conjunct], as in the following case from Latin: (5)

syntactic constituency

NP [dies]

& =que

NP [noctes]

The actual spoken form is of course quite different, with the second conjunct fronted to the left of =que: (6)

dies noctes=que _____ days nights=and ‘days and nights’

(We underline here the word that has moved and indicate the position from which it has moved with underline as well.) Noctes has clearly been moved from the position in which it is interpreted semantically, but the movement has probably not taken place in the syn-


5

tax. For one thing, syntactic movement of a conjunct is banned across languages under the Coordinate Structure Constraint (Ross 1967). Second, syntactic movement from the complement of a head (=que) to a position within that head’s maximal projection is also banned across languages under constraints on Extreme Locality or Anti-locality (Grohmann 2001, Abels 2003, Kayne 2005). Finally, there is the problem of where noctes would move to if it did move to a syntactic position. Noctes is a phrase but the specifier position to the left of =que is already filled with dies, blocking movement of noctes into that position. The only other position available is the position of the head, already filled by =que; even if =que were to allow something else in its slot, it could only allow a head, not a phrase. For these reasons, a syntactic analysis of the movement is untenable. We attribute the movement to the phonology (Agbayani & Golston 2010): the second conjunct (or part of it, see below) moves to the beginning of its phonological phrase because phonological phrases in Greek must begin with real words rather than postpositives. We flesh out that proposal now for sub-clausal coordination and extend it to clausal coordination below. The term second-position is not generally used for sub-clausal coordination, but it has exactly the same properties as clausal coordination and therefore bears looking into. Following Selkirk (1986, 1995) we assume that each maximal projection in the syntax forms a phonological phrase () at its right edge, forcing the conjunction into the phonological phrase formed around the second conjunct. Using parentheses to indicate prosodic constituency the difference between syntactic and prosodic constituency looks like this: (7)

prosodic structure: right alignment of XP with

NP [dies]NP ⇓ (dies)

& que (=que

NP [noctes]NP ⇓ noctes)

The right edges of the NPs above give us the right edges of the phonological phrases (dies) and (=que noctes). So while =que is not part of either NP, it is part of the phonological phrase that contains the sec-

6


ond NP. Note that the semantics is read off of this representation, where the conjunction sits between its conjuncts. The syntax of (7) is fine, but the phonology has a rough patch: the phonological phrase that includes the second conjunct begins with what Dover (1960) calls a postpositive (=que), a word that cannot occur at the beginning of a phonological phrase. Given a constraint against phrase-initial postpositives, the syntactically bizarre but pronounceable order (noctes=que) is preferable to the syntactically faithful but unpronounceable order (=que noctes). In cases like this, where the second conjunct consists of a single word, the conjunction is phrase-final because the moved word (noctes) constitutes the entire final conjunct. This is shown for Greek below: (8)

( ) ( «= _____) scepter honors=and ‘scepter and honors’ (Aeschylus, Prometheus Vinctus 171) (κ ) (φ = _____) end head=and ‘end and head’ (Plato, Timaeus 69a)

Thus the left edge of the second phonological phrase begins with a conjunction (λ in (2) above), or with some word that follows ( « and φ in (8)) in case the conjunction is a postpositive. In either case, we assume that the conjunction stays in its base position. We stress this point to contrast our analysis of postpositive conjunctions with analyses where postpositive elements prosodically “flip” or “drop down” into the following phrase (Janse 1992, Halpern 1995, Anderson 1996, Garrett 1996, Hale 1996, Hock 1996, Taylor 1996, Embick & Noyer 2001). Such analyses take these postpositive elements to be prosodically light, stressless elements that need to be phonologically incorporated into a prosodically heavier “host”. In this sense they follow closely the original conception in Delbrück 1878 and Wackernagel 1892, who incorrectly stated that second position clitics had to be preceded by ein betontes Wort. But the apparent host for a postpositive is often prosodically as light or lighter than the postpositive itself and not all postpositives in these languages are phonologically enclitic, as we have seen. Thus the host may be the same prosodic weight as the postpositive, and both may bear pitch accent, as shown below (L = light syllable, H = heavy):


(9)

7

L L (μ ξ _____ ») the and making ‘and the making’ (Aristotle, Poetics 1454a)

Or the host may be the same prosodic weight as the postpositive element, but lack pitch accent: (10)

H H (¹ _____ ) the for same ‘for the same ones’ (Aristotle, Poetics 1455a)

Or the host may be lighter than the postpositive element and lack pitch accent: (11)

L H (² σ _____ P "«) the so Polymarchus ‘for Polymarchus …’ (Plato, Republic 327a)

Given data like this, it is clear that the phonological weight of both the postpositive word ( ξ, , σ ) and its so-called host (μ, ¹, ²) are completely irrelevant for their linear ordering. Cases like (9–11) simply cannot be construed as a postpositive following ein betontes Wort. Let us now turn to the corresponding facts in Latin and Hittite. The postpositive conjunction pattern for Latin is illustrated below, where =que is postpositive and cannot occur at the left edge of a phonological phase, forcing the movement of some other word from its righthand conjunct. (12)

(Labiemun) (Terbonium=que _____) Labienus Trebonius=and ‘Labienus and Trebonius’ (Plautus, Mostellaria 1.22) (oppida) (vicos=que _____) towns villages=and ‘towns and villages’ (Caesar, Bello Gallico 1.28)

Again, the first word of the second conjunct is fronted so that the phonological phrase won’t begin with =que, a postpositive. Similarly in Hittite, where the conjunction =ya (=a after a consonant, with gemination) forces a word from its right-hand conjunct to move:

8 (13)


(UD.KAM-ti) (GE6.KAMti=ya _____) by.day by.night=and ‘by day and by night’ (KUB 33.98 ii 11) (nepis) (tekann=a _____) heaven earth=and ‘heaven and earth’ (KBo 6.29 ii 12–13)

When the second conjunct is longer than a single word, only some of the words move, as seen in the following example from Greek, where Ν and « move but %λ and & « remain in place: (14)

(Z ) (Ν _____ %λ) Zeus other and gods ‘Zeus and other gods’ (Homer, Iliad 6.476) ) (ρ« $ «) (« %’ _____ & «) (( )9 goats flaying hogs and roasting in yard ‘flaying goats and roasting hogs in the yard’ (Homer, Odyssey 2.300)

(15)

phonological movement from the right conjunct

(Z ) Zeus

(Ν te other=and

_____ %λ) gods

Note that since the conjunction has not moved, Ν is no longer the first word of the second conjunct. It has left NP-initial position and is now outside of the right conjunct altogether. Thus = is in situ and Ν is outside of the NP it is interpreted with. Latin data show the same thing: (16)

(cunctis oppidis) (castellis=que desertis _____) defeated towns fortresses=and deserted ‘the towns defeated and fortresses deserted’ (Caesar, Bello Gallico 2.29) (vir magni ingeni) (summa=que _____ prudentia) man great talent superior=and wisdom ‘a man of great talent and superior wisdom’ (Cicero, Legibus 3.45)


9

A moment’s reflection on the semantics of coordination again requires that castellis and summa have moved from a position following the conjunction: (17)

[magni ingeni] =que [summa prudentia] prudentia) (magni ingeni) (summa =que _____

The same holds in Hittite, where postpositive conjunctions like =ya cannot be phrase-initial and require some word from the following conjunct to precede them, like patanna ‘of.feet’ or lú.mesˇis.gusˇ kin ‘golden grooms’ below: (18)

(ginuwas gad.hi.a) (patann=a _____ gisˇgìr.gub) for.knees veils of.feet=and stool ‘veils for the knees and a stool for the feet’ (StBoT 25.25 I 10) (ansˇu.kur.ra.mesˇ) (lú.mesˇis.gusˇ kin=ya _____ humandan) charioteers golden.grooms=and all ‘charioteers and all the golden-grooms’ (StBoT 24 ii 60–61)

Interestingly, Hittite has no non-postpositive counterpart to =ya for phrasal conjunction: all conjunctions below the clause are postpositive. The analysis that we have proposed moves words to an easily defined and independently motivated position, the beginning of a phonological phrase. The movement is driven by words that are postpositive and thus cannot occur phrase-initially. The fact that the moved element always comes from the following conjunct suggests that the conjunction is more closely connected to what follows than to what precedes, and this is what motivates the structure in (4).

3. Conjunction of clauses Our analysis of clausal conjunction parallels our analysis of subclausal conjunction. Our only assumptions are that conjunctions fall between their conjuncts and that postpositives cannot occur at the beginning of a phonological phrase. That said, there are three types of clausal conjunction to discuss here: cases where the conjunction is not postpostive, cases where it is postpositive, and cases where it is absent (asyndeton).

10


If the conjunction is not postpositive (Greek , Latin et, Hittite nu) it surfaces between the clausal conjuncts, as the syntax and semantics would lead us to expect (§ 3.1). However, if the conjunction is postpositive (Greek or =, Latin enim or =que, Hittite =ya or =ma), the first word of the second conjunct moves to the front of the phonological phrase that contains it (§ 3.2). Finally, if the conjunction is merely implied (asyndeton), nothing has to move because the phonological phrase that contains the rightmost conjunct already begins with a proper word; if there are other postpositives at the beginning of the clause, a word from that clause moves to keep the postpositives from occurring phrase-initially, just as it would if one of those postpositives were a conjunction (§ 3.3). 3.1 Normal conjunctions We begin with the simplest case, clauses conjoined by conjunctions that are not postpositive: (19)

[( % * π « ,«]CP λ [- M . ]CP there waited days three and came Menon ‘they waited there three days and Menon came’ (Xenophon, Anabasis 1.2.6)

Again, we take it as uncontroversial that falls between the clauses it conjoins and that noone will be tempted to claim that the verb - is in second-position just because it follows the conjunction orthographically. Simarly for regular conjunctions like et in Latin, which fall between their conjuncts as expected: (20)

[consulem interficerat]CP et [eius exercitum sub iugum consul had.killed and his army under yoke miserat]CP sent ‘he had killed the consul and sent his army under the yoke’ (Caesar, Bello Gallico 1.12.5)

11


Hittite clauses conjoined by ubiquitous nu receive the same treatment: (21)

nu [=kán and =prt

Mursilin Mursilis

kuennir]CP killed

nu and

[eshar blood

ieir]CP shed

nu [Hantilis nahsariyatati]CP and Hantilis was.afraid ‘And they killed Mursilis and they shed blood and Hantilis was afraid’ (2 Bo TU 23 1 33–35) The proposed syntax for a case like this is as follows: (22)

CP [eshar ieir] they shed blood

& nu and

CP [Hantilis nahsariyatati] Hantilis was afraid

As long as the conjunction isn’t postpositive, nothing more transpires and everything is pronounced where it is interpreted. Note that while there is good reason to think that the conjunction and the following conjunct form a syntactic constituent of some kind (as well as a prosodic constituent), we do not take the conjunction to be part of the clause that follows. Hantilis is the first word in its clause, not the second. Now consider the first clause in (21), repeated below, with its syntactic bracketing: (23)

nu[=kán Mursilin kuennir]CP and =prt Mursilis they.killed ‘and they killed Musilis’ (2 Bo TU 23 1 33)

Orthographically (i.e, in cuneiform, not show here), the particle kán appears as a suffix on nu and is thus said to be second in the sentence. However, given the structure for coordination adopted here, nu (by virtue of its semantics and syntax) falls outside of the clause that =kán belongs to; this is another case where a postpositive (=kán) is clearly at the beginning of the clause. The only way to treat it as clause-second is to treat the conjunction as clause-initial, which is untenable.

12


(24)

[…]

nu and

[=kán Mursilin kuennir] =prt Mursilis they.killed

The same holds for all other sentential postpositive pronouns and particles in Hittite: they are clause initial and can be placed there by syntactic means. No notion of second-postion is required. Similarly for Greek, where postpositive pronouns like min are actually clause-initial, not in second position as traditionally claimed: (25)

[ φ. « * 01 ]CP and him addressing words winged spoke ‘and addressing him, he spoke winged words’ (Homer, Odyssey 15.259)

Again, if the conjunction lies outside of the clause, min is straightforwardly clause-initial: (26)

[…]

[ φ. « * 01 ]

Postpositives in Latin like enim ‘surely’ show the same thing once we realize that a conjunction is never the first word of its right-hand conjunct: (27)

at [enim nimis hic longo sermone utimur] but surely too.much here long speech we.use ‘But surely we are making our discussion too long here’ (Plautus, Trinummus 3. 3. 79)

(28)

[…]

at

[enim nimis hic longo sermone utimur]

If at sits between its conjuncts, as it must, enim sits at the beginning of its clause, not in second position, a notion that is no longer required. Returning to Hittite, this language has many more postpositives than the simple case above would suggest. (21) above shows the com-


13

mon pattern, with the particle =kán immediately following the clausal conjunction nu. A short text illustrates how common this is and how clear it should be that Wackernagel clitics like =us ‘them’ and =as ‘he’ are clause-initial in the most mundane sense: (29)

nu [utnee arha tarranut] n[=us arunas and countries away strengthened and=them of.sea irhus ieit] boundaries made ‘And he weakened the countries and he made them boundaries of the sea,’ uru Halpa pait] nu n[=as [uruHalpan harnikta] and=he Aleppo went and Aleppo destroyed ‘and he went to Aleppo, and he destroyed Aleppo’ (2 Bo TU 23 1.27–28)

Each of these clauses is conjoined to the preceding clause with nu; the object =us ‘them’ (whose vowel forces elision of the vowel in nu) and the subject =as ‘he’ (whose vowel also elides the vowel in nu) are first in their respective clauses, clause-initial just like their cousins in Greek and Latin. These clause-initial postpositives are of course pronounced with the preceding conjunction, as the vowel elision clearly shows, but this doesn’t make them part of that conjunction any more than it makes the conjunction part of its right-hand conjunct. 3.2 Postpositive conjunctions Greek, Latin, and Hittite also have postpositive conjunctions, as we have seen, which provided much of the impetus for the traditional notion of second-position (except that Delbrück and Wackernagel didn’t know about Hittite, which had yet to be deciphered). Like their phrasal counterparts, postpositive clausal conjunctions like ‘and’ (often elided to ’ before vowels) cannot occur at the beginning of a phonological phrase and so require phonological movement of something else to phrase-initial position:

14 (30)


(* ’ _____ ( & ) (%0 _____ awoke and out sleep godly and

$ φ"’ 5 φ) him engulfed voice ‘he awoke from sleep and the godly voice engulfed him’ (Homer, Iliad 2.41) (γ« *φ’ #A «) (, ’ _____ so spoke Alcinous them and

(

pleased

%«) speech ‘so spoke Alcinous and his speech pleased them’ (Homer, Odyssey 13.16) 4 «) (γ« φ) (2 ’ _____ Ν ’ so spoke went and then Dream ‘so he spoke and Dream then left’ (Homer, Iliad 2.16) Again, we assume here that the conjunction always surfaces between its conjuncts, but cannot occur first in its phonological phrase. For this reason some word that follows (* , %0, , , 2) moves just past the postpositive to shield it from the left edge of the phonological phrase. As with the sub-clausal conjunctions discussed above, we merely assume that the base position for conjunctions is between conjuncts and that postpositives may not be phraseinitial. (31)

movement from the right conjunct

(γ« φ)

(2 ’

_____ Ν ’ 4 «)

Identical data occur in Latin, where the postpositive conjunction =que cannot occur phrase-initially and thus requires a word from what follows (duas and multos below) to move to phrase-initial position: (32)

(duas=que ibi _____ legiones) (conscribit) two=and there legions enrolls ‘and enrolls two legions there’ (Caesar, Bello Gallico 1.10.3)


15

(arcebat longe Latio) (multos=que per ____ annos) kept far Latium many=and for years (errabant) wandered ‘she kept them far from Latium, and for many years they wandered’ (Virgil, Aeneid 1.31–2) Similarly for Hittite, with the conjunctions =ya ‘and’ and =ma ‘but’:2 (33)

(apass=a _____ ARAD) (DINGIR-LIM eesdu) he=and servant of.deity become ‘and may he be a servant of the deity’ (StBot 24 iv 79) (kedani=ma ANA _____ BULUG) (GIMan hasatarset this=but to malt as offspring NU.GÁL) not.exist ‘but as with this malt there is no offspring’ (KBo VI 34 II 31)

The conjunctions (=ya and =ma) logically belong between their conjuncts, as the syntax requires, the semantics makes clear, and the phonology fails to allow. A word following the postpositive (apass, kedani) must therefore move to the front of the phonological phrase to keep =ya and =ma from being phrase-initial. Other postpositive elements line up at the front of their clause following the conjunction, in what is clearly clause-initial position: (34)

2

(apiya=ya=at _____ QATAMMA=pat taparta) that=and =it same.way=very ruled ‘and at that (time) he ruled it in the very same way’ (KUB 14.4 i 11–12) (sessar=ma=wa=si akuwanna udandu) _____ beer=but=quot=him drinking they.bring ‘but ‘they will bring him beer for drinking’ he said’ (KUB 33 102 C II 26)

Hittite is a head-final language (OV with postpositions), so heads like eesdu ‘become’ and NU.GÁL ‘not exist’ are phrased phonologically with the XPs to their left (i.e., with their complements).

16


Again, =ya and =ma are in situ and lie outside of the clause, where sentential conjunctions belong. This puts the postpositives (=at, =wa, =si) in clause-initial position. Because =ya and =ma are themselves postpositive, some word to the right of =ya and =ma (apiya and sessar in these cases) are forced to move to the beginning of the phonological phrase. In these languages the postpositive conjunctions (Greek , =; Latin enim, =que; Hittite =ya, =ma) are always the first in any string of postpositives, a fact that we must clearly attribute to the syntax, where the conjunctive head is always external to the clause that contains the other postpositives. The postpositive elements that immediately follow the conjunction are syntactically initial in their clause and merely lean on the conjunction phonetically. There is no reason to think that this phonetic cliticization moves them out of their clause; it is just that they are parsed with the preceding material in speech. A parallel case might make the argument clearer. In an English sentence like Kate’s nice [keits nais], the auxiliary verb (‘is’) is phonetically cliticized to the subject, as shown by the voicing assimilation between it and the preceding [t]. Nonetheless, we do not count [s] as part of the grammatical subject, or claim that it is no longer part of the predicate, or say that it has moved out of the predicate to cliticize to the subject. Similarly for =at, =wa, and =si above: they are phonetically cliticized to the preceding word but belong syntactically with the clause that follows. Not one of these postpositives is second in its clause. The conjunctions (=ya, =ma) are in situ between their conjuncts and are not part of any clause. The rest of the postpositives (=at, =wa, =si) are clauseinitial, just phonetically enclitic on what precedes them. So far this is all completely parallel to conjunction below the clause. If the conjunction is a proper word, its conjuncts surface on either side of it. If the conjunction is a postpositive, a word from the following clause must be fronted past it. That word is usually a single word syntactically. But a phonological word (.) can also consist of one or more function words (preposition, article, etc.) and a following content word (noun, verb, adjective, adverb), as has been shown by Selkirk and others. The following Latin examples show how this works: (35)

(sub occasum).=que _____ solis before setting=and of.sun ‘and before the setting of the sun’ (Caesar, Bello Gallico 2.11)


17

(ob eas).=que _____ res from those=and things ‘and from those things’(Caesar, Bello Gallico 2.35) (We assume that =que is subsequently incorporated into . but omit this for clarity). Note that such cases provide another strong piece of evidence that the movement here is not syntactic – sub occasum and ob eas do not form syntactic constituents here and so cannot have been moved syntactically: (36) =que [ppsub [np occasum [npsolis]]] and before setting of.sun =que [ppob and from

[np eas [npres]] those things

They do, however, form prosodic words, supporting the claim that the movement is phonological (Agbayani & Golston 2008, 2010). When function words are followed by words that are themselves XPs, they are incorporated into the phonological phrases those XPs form. We see this with (9 9 0), (( 7 * % ), and (λ 7 ’ 8) 7) in the examples that follow: (37)

0 ’) (_____ $

) ( (9 9 the tenth and to.assembly called μ ) (#A"1«) host Achilles ‘and on the tenth day Achilles called the host to assembly’ (Homer, Iliad 1.54) 7 * % ξ) (_____ $ ;) (( from the previous and consider ‘and consider this from the previous cases’ (Plato, Cratylus 389A) (λ 7 ’ 8) 7 ξ) (_____ 2 2 . ) also the near himself and barbarians (( ,) took.care.of ‘and he also took care of the barbarians near him’ (Xenophon, Anabasis i.i.5)

18


Note that these data argue against a morphological affixation account of conjunction placement, since the conjunction does not function as an affix that attaches to any kind of morphological or morphosyntactic word (Embick & Noyer 2001). As the final case above makes very clear, the apparent host (ob eas ‘from those’) is neither a morphological word nor a syntactic constituent. Thus, there is no straightforward morphological or syntactic source for postpositive conjunctions. The crucial observation here is that the postpositive conjunction is always preceded by something that is not itself postpositive, suggesting that what drives the surface position of the conjunction is neither morphological nor syntactic. 3.3 Asyndeton It often happens in these languages that things are conjoined asyndetically, without an overt conjunction. Consider the following from Greek, where the postpositive particle follows the adverb ‘then’: (38)

( _____ ¹ ) (% ) then prt him appeasing let.us.persuade ‘then let us persuade him by appeasing him’ (Homer, Iliad 1.100)

This clause is conjoined asyndetically to the preceding clause, i.e., without an overt conjunction like or . Since the elements

and are postpositives a proper word from what follows ( in this case) must be fronted. The same takes place in Latin, where the interrogative =ne is postpositive: (39)

(tantae=ne _____) (animis caelestibus) (irae) such=inter souls heavenly anger ‘is there such anger in the heavenly souls?’ (Virgil, Aeneid 1.11)

Since =ne is postpositive, a word from what follows (tantae) moves to the beginning of the phonological phrase. Hittite provides similar cases, including many with strings of postpositive elements like =mu=za=kan below: (40)

(istamassanzi=tta _____) listen=you ‘they listen to you’ (KUB 21.27 iv 31)


19

(dingir-lum=mu=za=kán ____) (gasˇan-y) goddess=me=refl=prt lady-my (humandaza=pat daskisi) always=prt rescue2s.iter ‘goddess, my lady, you always rescue me’ (StBoT 24 i 50) All of the postpositive elements here are clause-initial. The single word that precedes them is not in situ but has been moved to the beginning of its phonological phrase to keep the postpositives postpositive. We can therefore do away with analyses that place these elements in “second-position in the sentence”. Note that from a syntactic perspective this is a desirable result, since second-position is hard to define in a configurational syntax (Keenan & Stabler 2001).

4. Conclusion This paper argues that the notion second-position is superfluous for early IE languages. We began with the notion that conjunctions are syntactically external to their conjuncts. For phrasal coordination this means that the conjunction is part of neither XP syntactically; for clausal coordination it means that the conjunction is part of neither clause. Once this is granted, it turns out that “second-position clitics” are uniformly found in clause-initial position, except of course for the postpositive conjunctions ( , =; enim, =que; =ya, =ma), which surface in situ between their conjuncts. Thus a proper understanding of conjunctions eviscerates the notion second-position because the relevant elements are demonstrably clause-initial. Second-position (in the sentence) is actually first-postion (in the clause). This allows us to dispense with the syntactically difficult notion “second-position” for the very languages it was designed for over a century ago.

References Agbayani, Brian, and Chris Golston. 2008. PF movement in Latin. Tenth Annual Conference in Diachronic Generative Syntax. Agbayani, Brian, and Chris Golston. 2010. Phonological movement in Classical Greek. Language 86.1: 133–167.

20


Anderson, Stephen. 1993. “Wackernagel’s Revenge: Clitics, morphology, and the syntax of second position”. Language 69.1: 68–98. Anderson, Stephen. 1996. “How to put your clitics in their place”. The Linguistic Review 13: 165–191. Bosˇkovic´, Zeljko. 2000. “Second position cliticization: Syntax and/or phonology?” Clitic Phenomena in European Languages ed. by Frits Beukema & Marcel den Dikken, 71–119. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Delbrück, Berthold. [& Ernst Windisch]. 1878. Syntaktische Forschungen. Vol. III. Halle/S/ Max Niemeyer. Embick, David & Rolf Noyer. 2001. “Movement operations after Syntax”. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 555–595. Franks, Steven & Tracy Holloway King. 2000. A Handbook of Slavic Clitics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Garrett, Andrew. 1990. The Syntax of Anatolian Pronominal Clitics. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University. Cambridge, Mass. Garrett, Andrew. 1996. “Wackernagel’s Law and unaccusativity in Hittite”. Halpern & Zwicky, eds. 1996. 85–133. Hale, Mark. 1996. “Deriving Wackernagel’s Law: Prosodic and syntactic factors determining clitic placement in the language of the Rigveda”. Halpern & Zwicky, eds. 1996. 165–197. Halpern, Aaron. 1995. On the Morphology and Placement of Clitics. Stanford: CSLI. Halpern, Aaron & Arnold Zwicky, eds. 1996. Approaching Second: Second position clitics and related phenomena. Stanford: CSLI. Hock, Hans Henrich. 1996. “Who’s on First? Toward a prosodic account of P2 clitics”. Halpern & Zwicky, eds. 1996. 199–270. Janse, Mark. 1992. “The prosodic basis of Wackernagel’s Law”. 15th International Congress of Linguists, Quebec, August 9–14, 1992. Johannessen, Janne Bondi. 1998. Coordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Keenan, Edward L. & Edward P. Stabler. 2001. Bare Grammar: A study of language invariants. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Klavans, Judith L. 1982. Some Problems in a Theory of Clitics. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club. Luraghi, Silvia. 1990. Old Hittite Sentence Structure. London: Routledge. Luraghi, Silvia. 1998. “The grammaticalization of the left sentence boundary in Hittite”. The Limits of Grammaticalization ed. by Anna Giacalone Ramat & Paul J. Hopper, 189–210. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Luraghi, Silvia. 2001. “The development of local particles and adverbs in Anatolian as a grammaticalization process”. Diachronica 18:1. 31–58. Munn, Alan. 1993. Topics in the Syntax and Semantics of Coordinate Structures. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland. College Park, MD. Selkirk, Elizabeth. 1986. “On derived domains in sentence phonology”. Phonology Yearbook 3: 371–405. Selkirk, Elizabeth. 1995. “The prosodic structure of function words”. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 18: Papers in Optimality Theory ed. by Jill N. Beckman, L. Walsh Dickey, & S. Urbanczyk, 439–470. Amherst: University of Massachusetts.


21

Taylor, Ann. 1990. Clitics and Configurationality in Ancient Greek. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia, PA. Taylor, Ann. 1996. “A prosodic account of clitic positioning in Ancient Greek”. Halpern & Zwicky, eds. 1996. 477–503. Wackernagel, Jacob. 1892. “Über ein Gesetz der indo-germanischen Wortstellung”. Indogermanische Forschungen 1. 333–436. Watkins, Calvert. 1964. “Preliminaries to the reconstruction of Indo-European sentence structure”. Proceedings of the 9th International Congress of Linguists ed. by H. G. Lunt, 1035–1045. The Hague: Mouton. Zoerner, Ed. 1999. “One coordinator for all”. Linguistic Analysis 29: 322–341.

Department of Linguistics California State University, Fresno 5245 N. Backer Ave. M/S PB92 F r e s n o , CA 93740 USA [email protected] [email protected]

Brian Agbayani and C h r i s G o l s t o n

22

Paul W. Brosman, Jr.

The nt- participles and the verbal adjectives in *-toAbstract It is proposed that in Hittite the possession of passive meanings by the participles of verbs employed transitively was without exception and that it was the usage attested in Hittite which was inherited by both Anatolian and Indo-European. The change from passive to active which this view requires to have occurred in the meanings of the participles of transitive verbs in Indo-European is explained as having originated among verbs which could be used either transitively or intransitively. It is considered to have led in its turn to a compensatory change to almost uniformly passive of the originally variable meanings of the verbal adjectives associated with transitive verbs, which resulted in the incorporation of the verbal adjectives in the verbal system.

In both Indo-European and Hittite there occurred participles derived with the suffix -nt-. Although these forms are held to have been related, it is well known that they differed strikingly in function. Throughout Indo-European they were invariably active in meaning whether formed from intransitive or transitive verbs. In Hittite, on the other hand, although they could be formed from intransitive verbs with meanings which were necessarily active, when belonging to transitive verbs they were primarily, if not uniformly, passive in meaning. It is commonly held that two exceptions to the exclusively passive meaning of the Hittite participles of transitive verbs are known to have existed, the forms of eku- ‘drink’ and ed- ‘eat’, which could occur as either active or passive (Friedrich 1960: 144–5; Kronasser 1966: 257; Sihler 1995: 613–4). However, it seems likely that the apparent exceptions should be otherwise explained. In many languages there are verbs which can function as both transitive and intransitive. Among numerous examples showing that Hittite should be included among them one may cite arai-, ariya- ‘rise, raise’, arriya- ‘rouse, be awake’, asas-, ases- ‘seat, set, sit’, es-, as- ‘sit, inhabit, occupy’ and iya-, ie-, i- ‘do, make, act’ (Puhvel 1984–: 1.123, 138, 207; 2.291, 335). In a number of these languages, including contemporary English and German, two such verbs are those for ‘eat’ and ‘drink’. It thus is plausible that the same was true of Hittite. That the forms of eku- and ed- cited by Puhvel support the view that this was in

The nt-participles and the verbal adjectives in *-to-

23

fact the case is indicated by, among others, the following passages: kinun-za edmi ekumi ‘now I eat [and] drink’; parna-ssa paisi eszi euksi ‘you go to his house, eat [and] drink’; kuwat-za U¯L ez[atti] [kuwat] U¯L ekutti ammel isha-mi ‘why do you not eat, why do you not drink, my lord?’; nu U¯L ekutta ‘you did not drink’; SAL-za U¯L ezzazi ‘the woman does not eat’; namma-at-za adana esantari ‘then they sit down to eat’; nu-wa-za ezza ‘now eat!’ (Puhvel 1984–: 2.261–3; 316–7). It therefore seems significant that no object of the verbs is expressed in the examples cited by Puhvel (1984–: 2.264, 317) of the occurrence of the participles of eku- and ed- with active meanings. In view of this evidence it appears that in Hittite the participles of transitive verbs were consistently passive in meaning and that the occurrences of those of eku- and ed- with active meanings are to be explained as instances of the intransitive use of verbs which could be employed either transitively or intransitively. The nt- participle is attested also in Luwian, where it often, but not always, appears with the extension in -i- frequent in other Luwian nominal forms, and in Hieroglyphic Luwian. Since in each case it possessed a passive meaning when belonging to transitive verbs (Friedrich 1960: 193), it seems clear that the Hittite usage was inherited from Proto-Anatolian. That the contrasting Indo-European usage was also a common inheritance seems equally safe to say, for it or vestiges of it occurred in every traditional Indo-European dialect (Brugmann 1906: 454–61; Sihler 1995: 613–4). Presumably one should conclude that one usage or the other prevailed in Proto-Indo-Hittite and was inherited by both Indo-European and Anatolian, where it was retained unchanged on one side and fundamentally altered on the other. Such a conclusion seems clearly preferable to the only apparent alternative that the meanings of the participles of transitive verbs inherited from Proto-Indo-Hittite had somehow come to be active in some cases and passive in others and that they then evolved in different directions in Indo-European and Anatolian. Although a decision as to which of the two attested usages should be held to have originally been inherited cannot yet be made with a similar degree of confidence, it appears that the one found in Hittite should be regarded as distinctly the more likely choice. It is difficult to see how the absolute uniformity of meaning seen among the IndoEuropean participles could have begun to break down in the absence of confusion brought about by phonological change, a development

24


which clearly did not take place. On the other hand, a system such as that of Hittite, in which transitive and intransitive verbs were treated differently, would have contained a potential source of instability which would have permitted the possibility of its alteration analogically, especially since the same verb can often function both transitively and intransitively. Even without the support of the apparent examples of eku- and ed- it is plausible that in such a system the participles of a number of verbs would have occurred with meanings which could be either active or passive in accord with the way in which the verbs were employed. It is among such verbs that a spread of active participles from intransitive to transitive verbs is most likely to have begun. Among them it presumably would have taken place first in a few verbs which for various reasons occurred often as intransitive and only occasionally as transitive, since the usual occurrence of their participles as active would have encouraged the apparent regularization of the rarer instances in which they were passive. Once some of these verbs had acquired in this way participles which were consistently active in meaning, the process could have been extended to others capable of occurring with participles of either type. A continuation of its extension would have led eventually to a point at which the system had been altered to one in which verbs employed as intransitive, exclusively or not, typically possessed active participles and passive participles were virtually restricted to verbs occurring exclusively as transitive. In other words, the basis for determining whether a participle was active or passive had become the verb to which it belonged rather than its use in a particular construction. After this stage had been reached, little explanation would be required for the replacement of the remaining passive participles by active forms in the interest of uniformity. Although the proposal here of the manner in which a system identical to that of Hittite could have been converted into the one found in Indo-European appears plausible, it cannot be considered acceptable without corroborating evidence. In this connection it appears potentially significant that the usage which evolved among the Indo-European verbal adjectives in *-to- resembled that found among the ntparticiples in Hittite, since each form could be derived with active meanings from intransitive verbs but when belonging to transitive verbs was virtually or entirely passive in meaning. Because Hittite possessed no forms corresponding to the verbal adjectives of Indo-

The nt-participles and the verbal adjectives in *-to-

25

European, it appears possible that in Indo-European the participles underwent the proposed change of meaning when the verbal adjectives arose there and began to acquire an approximation of their original function. It thus is pertinent to examine the history of the verbal adjectives to see if it could be related to developments among the participles in Indo-European. That the verbal adjectives in *-to- were an Indo-European innovation seems clear. Not long ago I discussed briefly their origin and that of the verbal adjectives in *-t- which presumably served as their immediate source in an article supporting the view that Anatolian separated from the parent linguistic stock significantly earlier than the languages related to it (Brosman 2002). At that time it was noted that verbal abstracts derived with the suffix -t- are attested in both Hittite and Indo-European but that Indo-European also possessed a variety of related forms which included, in addition to the verbal adjectives in *-t- and *-to-, verbal abstracts in *-to- (m.), *-to¯(i)-, *-tiand *-tu-, and adjectival abstracts in *-to- (n.) and *-ta¯-, none of which is found in Hittite. It was proposed that the latter forms provide eight distinct examples of common Indo-European innovations, which in combination with two other groups of innovations of similar size appear adequate to demonstrate the early separation of Anatolian. In this connection it was necessary to discuss the origin of each of the proposed innovations. Because of the number of such discussions required, the evidence concerning the adjectives in *-t- and *-to- was restricted to a minimum which seemed sufficient to indicate that they were indeed Indo-European innovations. However, further material pertinent to their origin and to subsequent developments related to the manner in which they had arisen could have been cited and will be included here in a fuller history of the two verbal adjectives, a subject which is regarded as of interest in its own right in addition to its possible relevance to questions concerning the nt- participles. Prior to the discovery that in Hittite verbal abstracts in -t- are attested but that the identically formed adjectives are not, Brugmann (1906: 422) had already suggested that among the t- forms the nouns were the earlier and that the adjectives had arisen from them through use of the nouns as the second element in adjectival compounds. One can apparently be confident that he was correct. One reason is that, as he pointed out, among the attested adjectives, in contrast to the nouns, compounds predominated by a wide margin. Another is that

26


compound origin would permit an explanation for the remarkable variation in the meanings of the t- adjectives, which when derived from transitive verbs could be either active or passive (Brugmann 1906: 422), since the first element of the compound would provide a context making interpretation of the second in one way or the other appear appropriate. For example, ‘god-praise’ would clearly refer to praise for the gods and thus could be employed to mean ‘god-praising’, whereas ‘god-punishment’ would refer to punishment by the gods and could be used to mean ‘god-punished’. Since a single noun could often be used in more than one adjectival compound, the same form could sometimes be used either actively or passively in accord with the differing meanings of the elements with which it was combined, as is seen in Gk. $ --2« ‘shield-throwing, shieldthrower, deserter’ and -2« ‘thrown forward, prominent’. When simple adjectives were subsequently abstracted from the compounds, they would have been active or passive depending on their use in the compounds from which they had been taken. An adjective could therefore emerge with both meanings in cases in which the same form had been abstracted from two separate compounds in which it functioned differently. It is in this way that one can account for adjectives such as Gk. $ Hitt. VssV)”, est plus problématique, un élement *-énH- n’ayant pas de base comparative, ni même d’explication en hittite. Les autres langues anatoliennes ont une désinence {-an}: louvite a-apa-an (KUB 35.103 iii 3) = palaïte a-pa-an (KUB 35.165 Ro 15, 20); louv. za-am#pa (KUB 35.103 iii 4). – Dans l’hypothèse où hitt. -u¯n serait le résultat d’un processus phonologique régulier, l’élévation et l’allongement concomitant de *[o] devant nasale se justifie, selon Kloekhorst 2008, 99, 192, 426 (contre Benveniste 1962, 71sq.), par le caractère accentué de la syllabe (*k´-óm f k-u¯n, mais *péd-om f ped-an). La solution de Kloekhorst n’est pas contrôlable empiriquement, mais elle est phonétiquement vraisemblable (sur les variations de hauteur des voyelles selon l’accent en contexte __N, voir les études typologiques de Foley 1975, Hajek 1997, 100sq.).

86

Sylvain Patri

palatalisation de la plosive coronale étant régulière devant __i (voir ci-après). Le génitif en -el est indifférent au nombre, alors que l’ancien génitif -(e)nzan, supplanté par -el, ne se rencontre, avec les pronoms délocutifs, que dans les paradigmes de pluriel et, parmis les interlocutifs, dans le paradigme de “vous”. En louvite, le génitif a été éliminé au profit d’un adjectif dérivé apassa/i- ; ce cas n’est pas documenté dans les autres langues anatoliennes. Les désinences -el et -enzan sont l’une et l’autre spécifiquement pronominales en anatolien, ce qui est également le cas, en indo-européen, de la désinence *-so¯m sur laquelle -enzan repose d’une façon ou d’une autre (§ 5.1). A l’instrumental, des variantes comme uddanit: uddanta “parole”, wetenit: witanta: “eau” rendent plausible la lecture d’une désinence {-t}, suscitant une syllabation tantôt CV = [-ta] (écrite -t/da), tantôt VC = [-it] (ainsi Neu 1979: 190, Hoffner & Melchert 208: 77). Dans cette perspective, ket ne doit pas nécessairement être vu comme le produit de l’évolution phonologique, mais, possiblement, comme le résultat d’une reconduction secondaire de la désinence sur le thème (*k-éd-t aurait normalement conduit à †kezta, selon le modèle illustré par 3sg. prét. *h1éd-t f e-ez-ta [etsta] “il a mangé”). A l’ablatif, l’élément -ed- se retrouve à l’ablatif-instrumental de tous les pronoms interlocutifs, où la divergence *-ed-ati f *-ed-ats f hitt. -edaz, mais *-ati f louv. -ati, rhot. -ari (tabl. 4), apporte une preuve supplémentaire du caractère spécifiquement hittite, c’està-dire récent, de la diffusion de *-ed-. Ici encore, kez peut tout autant s’expliquer en fonction d’un prototype *kéd-ti f kez selon le processus reflété par *h1éd-ti f e-ez-za-(a-)i “il mange” (où -i est secondairement restauré) que par reconstitution analogique secondaire où la désinence -az(a) = {-ts} issu de *-ti est simplement affixée à une base ked-. La seule chose sûre est que le datif-locatif, l’instrumental et l’ablatif des pronoms, sont, à des titres divers, des formes restructurées. Le paradigme de kui- n’est pas différent de celui des délocutifs en ce qui concerne la distribution des désinences, mais face au thème {kwed-} des cas obliques, on rencontre au pluriel du nominatif et de l’accusatif une diversité thématique irréductible à d’autres modèles.

87

Qu’est-ce qu’un pronom en anatolien?

6.3. Les thèmes La présence d’un élément -ed-(an-) entre les thèmes de base et les désinences des cas autres que le nominatif et l’accusatif (14) représente une organisation flexionnelle en apparence originale, mais non dépourvue de parallèles dans les langues indo-européennes. La flexion du démonstratif védique reflète une organisation comparable à celle du hittite avec un élément -sm- (fém. -sy-) inséré entre la base et les désinences des cas périphériques: (24)

flexion du démonstratif védique masc. neutre nominatif ta tad accusatif tam génitif tásya ablatif tá-sm-a¯d datif tá-sm-ai locatif tá-sm-in instrumental téna

fém. sa¯ ta¯m tá-sy-a¯s tá-sy-ai tá-sy-a¯m táya¯

Une hypothèse souvent (re)formulée est que -sm- / -sy- serait un morphème, autrement dit, que cet élément serait doué d’une signification, en l’espèce celle de *sem- “un, même” ou celle d’une “particule” ad hoc dont on imagine la valeur d’autant plus librement qu’elle n’est nulle part attestée25. Une approche de ce type est toutefois peu vraisemblable: outre que les flexions indo-européennes sont invariablement fusionnelle, on ne voit guère comment les pronoms, par définition dépourvus de référent lexical, viendraient à entrer en composition avec d’autres lexèmes, qui plus est, à certains cas seulement; dans la variété des processus conduisant à former des pronoms (Diessel 1999), nulle langue n’atteste quoi que ce soit de semblable. Les organisations morphologiques des flexions pronominales du védique et du hittite, sans être fréquentes, ne présentent, en réalité, aucun caractère exceptionnel. Considérons la flexion du pronom 2sg. en vieux slave qui, elle aussi, présente à tous les cas, sauf au nominatif, 25

Lane 1961, Cohen 1976, Beekes 1988, 78sq., Szemerényi 1996, 205–206, Carruba 2000, 2002, dont les conceptions sont évoquées avec réserves par Sihler 1995, 386–387, et par Katz 1998, 92–93, 156 n. 9.

88

Sylvain Patri

un élément constant -b- là où le hittite présente -ed-(an-) et le védique -sm- (18). Les données comparatives indiquent que -b- provient de ce qui était originellement un morphème de datif *-bh-: (25)

flexion du pronom personnel 2 sg. en vieux slave v. slave latin védique avestique nominatif ty tu¯ tvám tuuwm ¯ accusatif teb-e te tvám a˛m génitif teb-e tui táva tauua¯ O ˇ datif teb-e ti-bi tú-b ya(m) tai-biia¯ instrumental tob-ojo˛ tvá a¯ locatif teb-eˇ tvé

A un moment de l’évolution, le datif *te-bhei (lat. tibi, pruss. tebbei) f sl. *te-beˇ a été réinterprété *teb-eˇ en conséquence de quoi s’est formé un nouveau radical teb-, lequel a été analogiquement diffusé dans le reste de la flexion, sauf au nominatif. On a pris l’exemple du pronom “tu” parce que c’est celui qui a le plus de formes apparentées dans d’autres langues, mais on pourrait aussi bien citer le réfléchi sebe, sebeˇ, sobojo, sebeˇ, dont la flexion est similaire, à ceci près qu’elle n’a pas de nominatif. Un tel schéma d’évolution n’est lui-même qu’une variante d’un processus de nivellement paradigmatique des radicaux par absorption des désinences dont les exemples ne sont pas rares dans les langues dont l’histoire est documentée. En polonais, par exemple, le thème de présent du verbe “être” est passé de jes- à jest- en incorporant une ancienne désinence: (26)

flexion du verbe “être” en polonais langue ancienne état moderne sg. 1 jes´-m jest-em 2 jes´-Ø jest-es´ 3 jes-t jest-Ø pl. 1 jes-my jest-es´my 2 jes´-cie jest-esćie 3 sa˛ sa˛

Dans les flexions verbales, la forme fléchie de 3ème personne semble être toujours celle qui sert de pivot à la restructuration analogique des radicaux (voir Hock 2003, pour d’autres exemples). Avec les pronoms, les choses sont plus complexes car il n’existe pas de cas oblique dont


89

on pourrait dire qu’il serait universellement plus ou moins marqué que les autres. En slave, l’élection du cas datif comme pivot (16) peut s’expliquer, entre autres hypothèses, en raison de son poids syllabique (la désinence en *-bh- est la seule du paradigme qui débute par une plosive), mais bien d’autres interprétations peuvent être imaginées. En hittite, la solution la plus directe, à défaut d’être contrôlable, serait de reconnaître les thèmes aped-, ked- comme reposant sur la réinterprétation de formes fléchies d’instrumental aped, ked (comp. les formes d’ablatif archaïque en latin med, ted, sed). Le fait que les seules formes interlocutives qui présentent -ed- sont des formes d’ablatif ammedaz, etc. (1)-(2) pourrait conforter cette hypothèse, mais celles-ci sont récentes et le témoignage du relatif kuez ne s’y conforme pas. On se limitera donc à tenir qu’à l’instar de -b- en slave, hitt. -ed-, -an-, ou véd. -sm- représentent, selon toute vraisemblance, d’anciennes désinences ou fragments de désinences amalgamées aux thèmes pronominaux, mais qu’en raison de la réinterprétation à laquelle ce matériel a donné lieu, il n’est plus possible d’en identifier le rôle précis par comparaison avec d’autres langues, en tout cas, pas de façon sûre. Un autre point commun à (14)–(16) est que, quelle que soit la désinence utilisée pour normaliser un thème pronominal, cette normalisation n’atteint jamais les cas nucléaires (jamais le nominatif, rarement l’accusatif), ce qui en définitive, revient à aligner l’organisation thématique des pronoms délocutifs sur celle des pronoms interlocutifs.

7. Catégorisation morphologique des pronoms 7.1. Paramètres Des données présentées ci-dessus, il ressort que l’identification d’une forme comme pronom repose sur la conjonction de trois critères morphologiques réguliers à toutes les époques pour toutes les catégories de pronoms, à l’exception des formes clitiques: (i) (ii)

présence de désinences -enzan et / ou -l au génitif; présence d’un radical en … ed(-an)- à au moins un des cas périphériques;

90 (iii)

Sylvain Patri

supplétion opposant le radical invariant des cas obliques aux autres cas (à l’exception de 2 pl. sum-: § 2.3)26;

auxquels ont peut ajouter deux autres propriétés caractéristiques des proformes seulement: (iv) (v)

présence d’une désinence (de pluriel) -e au nominatif animé et au nominatif-accusatif inanimé; présence d’une désinence -t au nominatif-accusatif singulier inanimé.

Certaines de ces propriétés peuvent isolément être reflétées dans certaines flexions: celle des numéraux *sia- “un” (gén. siel, dat.-loc. siedani) et “deux” (gén. 2-el)27; celle de quantifieurs comme tamai“autre” (gén. tamel, dat.-loc. tamedani, abl. tamedaz); dapi(ya)- “tout, entier” (abl. dapedaz, mais gén. dapiyas); la supplétion est régulière avec les noms inanimés “hétéroclitiques” du type nom.-acc. uttar-Ø: obl. uttan- “parole” et concerne aussi quelques formations isolées, noms (antuwahha- et antuhsa- “être humain”) ou verbes (tar- et te“dire” Oettinger 1979[2002]: 109sq.). Face à ces données, le point intéressant est que (i)-(iii) sont simultanément utilisées par les pronoms exclusivement et que seuls les mots dont le comportement syntaxique et référentiel est celui de pronoms cumulent ces propriétés. A l’exception de “vous” (§ 2.3), l’identification d’un pronom peut donc se conclure sur une base morphologique sans qu’il soit obligatoire de faire intervenir la syntaxe. Autrement dit, les pronoms, en anatolien, constituent une classe formelle. 7.2. Pronoms et autres formes co-variantes Une conséquence de cette observation est de révoquer certains usages traditionnels du terme de “pronom” pour identifier des mots ou classes de mots qui ne satisfont pas au cumul de propriétés caractéristique de cette classe:

26

27

On rejoint ici une observation déjà faite par Sihler 1995, 384 “suppletion can be used as a criterion for deciding what was and as not a pronoun in PIE”. Sur “1”, voir Goedegebuure 2006; sur la flexion des numéraux, voir Eichner 1992, 32 (“1”), 52 (“2”).


(a)

(b)

28

29

91

le déictique asi qu’on a proposé d’identifier comme un “pronom démonstratif” spécialisé dans la déixis distale (ainsi Goedegebuure 2003a/b, dont les conclusions sont adoptées par Hoffner & Melchert 2008: chap. 7), présente une flexion idiosyncrasique où on ne discerne ni radical unitaire aux cas obliques, ni désinence pronominale (génitif uniy-as, nom.-acc. inanimé in-i f en-i). A l’instar du numéral “un” et des quantifieurs, il ne se rapproche de la morphologie pronominale que par une seule propriété (dat.-loc. edi f ed-an-i). En vieux hittite, ce terme se limite à modifier des noms anaphoriques Ni …, asi Ni et n’est pas utilisable comme anaphorique. Son emploi répondant à la présomption que le N modifié par asi est le seul à satisfaire la propriété N au sein d’un domaine de référence, il est préférable de le catégoriser comme déterminant de définitude (Patri 2008), même si, comme c’est banalement le cas des déterminants (grec ancien, langues romanes), il dérive banalement d’un pronom (Patri 2008: 153–154)28; les possessifs clitiques souvent désignés comme “pronoms”29 utilisent une désinence pronominale -(e/i)t au nominatif-accusatif, mais des désinences nominales sg. -as: -pl. -an au génitif et ignorent la supplétion. En tant que formes co-variant avec le possédé (genre, cas et nombre amalgamés dans la désinence) et avec le possesseur (personne et nombre amalgamés dans le thème), les possessifs ne désignent pas un référent en particulier; ils ne peuvent pas non plus assumer un rôle de type adjectival (comp. catalan el meu cosí / amic “mon cousin / ami” [litt. ‘le mien cousin’], els seus cosins “ses cousins”, un meu llibre “un livre à moi”). Le comportement des possessifs en vieux hittite est exclusivement celui de modifieurs du nom, ce qui les assi-

Dans mon article de 2008, je n’ai pas tenu compte de certains passages grammaticalement fautifs où les emplois de asi ne se conforment pas à cette caractérisation: KUB 26.1 iii 37–40; KBo 17.17 (+?) KBo 30.30 Ro 6–7, dupl. KUB 43.53 i 16–18 (erreur de cas); KUB 48.119 Vo 11–13 (erreur de genre); le sens général de KBo 5.3 ii 32–38, est, pour moi, obscur. Ces exemples sont tous transmis par des textes ou copies tardives, ce qui tend à indiquer que l’emploi de asi n’était plus compris en hittite impérial. Ainsi, par exemple, Hoffner & Melchert 2008: chap. 6, mais Luraghi 1997, 22, parle d’“adjectifs”.

92

Sylvain Patri

mile à des déterminants possessifs (comme mon, ton, son en français, distincts des pronoms mien, tien, sien)30. Il paraît probable que si les déterminants possessifs comme le déterminant défini adoptent certaines caractéristiques pronominales, c’est en raison de leur proximité avec les démonstratifs avec lesquels ils forment une classe de “déterminants actualisateurs”. Le fait que le nominatif-accusatif “pronominal” -(e/i)t des possessifs co-varie avec le cas du nom possédé, et non avec celui du possesseur, est au demeurant significatif d’une captation analogique rigoureusement étrangère à la dénotation pronominale.

8. Intégration du nombre dans la morphologie 8.1. Supplétion et nombre Les pronoms anatoliens font de la catégorie du nombre un critère de structuration curieusement négligé dans la littérature spécialisée. On commencera par exposer les incidences des interactions entre le nombre et la morphologie pronominale avant d’en observer plus bas (§ 10.4) les conséquences dans l’organisation syntaxique de la référence. Les données résumées dans (30) semblent indiquer que l’orientation du supplétisme pronominal serait gouvernée par la situation d’énonciation: les pronoms interlocutifs opposent le radical de nominatif à tous les autres cas, alors que les pronoms référés à d’autres entités que “je” et “tu”, quel que soit leur type de spécialisation, ont en commun d’opposer les thèmes de nominatif et d’accusatif à tous les autres thèmes. Mais il est intéressant de constater que le rôle discriminant tenu par la situation d’énonciation est, de fait, équivalent à un paramètre d’accord. En effet, selon qu’un thème pronominal stipule une information relative au nombre, comme c’est le cas des interlocu30

Le recours au terme de “déterminant” est, par ailleurs, légitimé en observant que dans les constructions possessives, les noms dont le référent ressortit à la possession inaliénable sont obligatoirement hôtes d’un possessif clitique (Garrett 1998). Or la distinction entre défini et indéfini est normalement indifférente avec les noms relevant de la possession aliénable (mon livre = le livre à moi / un livre à moi), mais pas avec les entités relevant de la possession inaliénable (attas#mis “mon père” = le père à moi / *un père à moi).


93

tifs, ou qu’il est indifférent au nombre, ce qui est le cas des autres pronoms, on peut prédire si, à l’accusatif, ce thème sera assimilé soit au nominatif, soit aux autres cas. Une telle organisation est complètement différente de celle des noms et adjectifs qui différencient l’accusatif ou l’assimilent au nominatif selon le genre. En anatolien, le nombre est à la structuration flexionnelle des pronoms ce que le genre est aux noms. 8.2. Interlocutifs et nombre Un autre aspect du rôle tenu par le nombre dans l’organisation des pronoms concerne la délimitation entre les pronoms interlocutifs et les autres: les premiers utilisent des thèmes amalgamant la personne et le nombre tandis que les seconds utilisent des thèmes indifférents au nombre et au genre. En d’autres termes, selon qu’un radical pronominal dénote ou pas une information relative au nombre, on peut prédire si le pronom est interlocutif ou pas.

9. Pronoms et cas en vieux hittite 9.1. Supplétion et spécification casuelle En anatolien, l’organisation des pronoms interlocutifs comme délocutifs se caractérise par une opposition régulière entre les thèmes du nominatif et de l’accusatif (quand il n’est pas amalgamé à d’autres cas) et tous les autres. Avec les pronoms interlocutifs, ce supplétisme prend la forme d’un modèle où le nominatif présente une forme inanalysable par rapport aux autres cas; avec les autre pronoms, elle s’incarne dans un modèle où les formes fléchies utilisent un seul et même radical, sauf aux cas nucléaires. La situation de 2 pl. reste à part. (30)

la supplétion pronominale 1 sg. 1 pl. 2sg. nom.: u¯k wes zik nom.-acc.: autres cas: amm- anz- tu-

en hittite 2 pl. 3e dém. dém. rel.-int. sum#a- ka¯- apa¯- kuisum- #s- ked- aped- kued-

Cette situation est typologiquement banale, mais les données hittites font discerner que le pivot du supplétisme opère uniformément

94

Sylvain Patri

dans le sens d’une préservation ou d’un réaménagement du thème des cas périphériques en vue de le différencier du thème de nominatif, parfois d’accusatif. Tout se passe comme si, dans la référence pronominale, les paradigmes se trouvaient dans la nécessité, pour exister, d’introduire une sous-spécification formelle entre les cas nucléaires, les plus aptes à fonctionner en relation directe avec le verbe (sujet, objet), et les autres. 9.2. Spécificité casuelle des pronoms personnels Les proformes dans leur ensemble (démonstratifs, relatif-interrogatif) distinguent les cas datif(-locatif) et accusatif là où les pronoms personnels, qu’ils soient clitiques ou forts, les confondent: (31)

accusatif et datif dans les flexions pronominales en vieux hittite démonstratif relatif pronoms clitiques forts accus. datif

3sg. 2sg. 1sg. 2sg. 1sg. #an #tta / #du #mu tuk ammuk ku¯n, apu¯n kuin kedi, apedani kuedani #se

Les pronoms personnels opèrent un syncrétisme accusatif-datif là où les pronoms et les noms animés maintiennent la particularité de l’accusatif et où les pronoms et noms inanimés syncrétisent l’accusatif avec le nominatif. Il existe donc une corrélation dissociée entre l’animation et le marquage de l’accusatif. (32)

animation et marquage des cas grammaticaux en vieux hittite pronoms personnels noms animés noms inanimés N≠A

N≠A

N=A

A=D

A≠D

A≠D

La différenciation formelle du nominatif et de l’accusatif selon le caractère animé du référent est absolument régulière en anatolien (les participants du discours “je” et “tu” sont présumés animés). Or une telle propriété est typique des langues dont l’alignement prédominant est de type accusatif. En effet, Baerman, Brown & Corbett (2005: 47 sq.) ont récemment mis en évidence le fait – inattendu, a priori – que dans les langues à alignement ergatif, le syncrétisme équivalent (abso-


95

lutif-ergatif), quand il existe, n’est jamais corrélé à l’inanimation. Il s’ensuit que le marquage casuel peut, de façon générale, être corrélé par l’animation, par l’animation et l’inanimation, mais jamais par l’inanimation seule. Cette observation vient s’ajouter à la liste des données qui réfutent l’interprétation selon laquelle l’alignement prédominant des langues anatoliennes aurait été ergatif: dans une langue où seuls les noms ont un marquage ergatif, il est impossible que ces noms forment une classe fondée sur le genre inanimé31. Le syncrétisme accusatif-datif des pronoms personnels est en revanche sans équivalent dans les autres langues indo-européennes anciennes, même s’il peut se produire dans certains états de langue plus récents (arménien oriental, par exemple). 9.3. Spécificité casuelle des démonstratifs Les démonstratifs connaissent également une délimitation par rapport aux autres pronoms en l’espèce de l’architecure casuelle. Les démonstratifs distinguent un cas ablatif d’un cas instrumental là où les pronoms personnels et le pronom interrogatif-relatif utilisent l’ablatif pour l’instrumental. L’architecture des possessifs est similaire à celle des pronoms personnels, mais avec une expression opposée dans laquelle l’instrumental est, cette fois, utilisé pour l’ablatif. (33)

ablatif et instrumental dans les flexions hittites possessif relatif personnel démonstratif noms instrumental -e/it = abl. = abl. -e/it, -edanda -e/it, -anda ablatif = instr. -ez(z a) -edaz -ez -za(a)

Dans certaines locutions figées, il arrive qu’un démonstratif dépendant soit marqué à l’instrumental alors que le nom-tête est à l’ablatif: kit pantalaz “de ce moment”, apit pantalaz#pat “à partir de 31

Dans la version soutenue par Garrett à la suite de Laroche: “The Anatolian branch of Indo-European is characterized by a split-ergative case-marking system in which neuters [= inanimés] inflect ergatively and common-gender nouns [= animés] inflect accusatively” (Garrett 1990b, 261). Les arguments réfutant cette thèse sont développés dans Patri 2007, achevé avant que je prenne connaissance de Baerman, Brown & Corbett 2005. Les critiques que Melchert (s.p.) adresse à mon livre reposent, en grande partie, sur une confusion entre propriétés de comportement et propriétés de marquage des arguments nominaux.

96

Sylvain Patri

ce moment-là” (KUB 33.118 i/iv? 24, rédac. récente, Laroche 1969: 189), ce qui suggère que des formes comme kez, apez pourraient avoir été secondairement introduites dans la flexion des démonstratifs d’après celle des noms, c’est-à-dire par analogie (ce qui ne signifie pas obligatoirement que l’attribution d’une désinence spéciale au cas ablatif soit récente)32. Quoi qu’il en soit, le point à retenir est qu’il existe au moins un paramètre en fonction duquel l’organisation casuelle des démonstratifs peut être opposée à celle de tous les autres pronoms. 9.4. Neutralisation Les phénomènes de différenciation des pronoms entre eux selon le syncrétisme casuel que l’on vient d’observer sont limités au vieuxhittite. Dans les états de langue plus récents, la confusion du nominatif et de l’accusatif d’une part, la disparition du cas instrumental de l’autre, effacent les anciennes distinctions.

10. Anatolien et indo-européen 10.1. Désinences Les convergences entre l’anatolien et d’autres langues regardant les morphèmes flexionnels spécifiquement pronominaux se limitent, en définitive, à trois situations: (i)

(ii)

32 33

nominatif-accusatif singulier *-d (lat. i-d, véd. tá-t, got. i-ta, v. sl. *tod-je f tozˇde “le même”) f -t là où les noms et adjectifs de même genre utilisent -Ø ou -n, convergence limitée aux flexions de apa¯- (ka¯- utilise zéro) et de kui-33; nominatif animé et nominatif-accusatif pluriel inanimé *-oi (masc. véd. te, gr. dor. toí, lat. hi, got. pai) f -e, là où les noms

Jasanoff 1972, 126, Hoffner & Melchert 2008, 147. La désinence était voisée comme le montrent les témoignages du germanique et du slave; il n’est pas correct de postuler, avec Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1984, 275–276 n. 1, une homologie de ce morphème avec la finale de nominatif-accusatif des noms inanimés du type de *yékw0r-t “foie” (véd. yákflr-t) qui était non voisée (gr. hàpatos).


(iii)

97

et adjectifs de même genre utilisent -es (anim.) ou -Ø / -a / -i (inan.), convergence limitée aux pronoms soumis à la variation en genre; génitif pluriel *-so¯m (véd. tàflsa¯m, lat. eo¯rum, v. sl. sixu˘) f -(en)zan, supplanté par -el dans les textes récents, là où les noms et adjectifs utilisent -an (supplanté par -as), convergence impliquant les démonstratifs, ainsi que l’interlocutif 2pl.

Ces trois propriétés sont appuyées sur les cas grammaticaux (nominatif, accusatif, génitif), jamais sur les cas locaux. Elles ne concernent que les proformes (pronoms délocutifs et relatif), compte non tenu du statut spécial de hitt. 2 pl. summenzan (supra, § 2.3). Les autres morphèmes flexionnels trouvant des correspondances dans d’autres langues indo-européennes (notamment le nominatif, l’accusatif et le datif-locatif) ne sont pas spécifiquement pronominaux. 10.2. Radicaux Les convergences des radicaux sont, elles, évidentes en ce qui concerne les bases de presque tous les pronoms personnels (2 pl. excepté), le relatif-interrogatif kui-, et le démonstratif ka¯-. Il est bien connu que ka¯- correspond en grec, latin, celtique, arménien, germanique, balte et albanais avec divers témoignages de pronom démonstratif plus ou moins figé (univerbé)34, mais on ne semble pas encore avoir signalé que les emplois syntaxiques du démonstratif *k´ comme une des formes apte à tenir le rôle de pronom de 3e personne étaient attestée en anatolien exactement comme dans un autre dialecte, en slave. En vieux slave, les emplois de si sont, à tous égards, similaires à ceux de hitt. ka¯-: il désigne un référent proche par opposition à onu˘ et tu˘ (Vaillant 1964: 140–141); il assume des emplois d’ostenseur (34), de modifieur du nom (35) comme d’anaphorique (36); il est le plus souvent préposé à la tête, mais admet aussi d’être postposé, comme dans (35); comparer les données exposées, supra, § 3.1, avec les exemples ci-dessous:

34

Tischler HEG I, 456, Phuvel, HED IV, 1997, 12, Kloekhorst 2008, 425sq.

98 (34)

Sylvain Patri

se mati moeˇ i dém.-nom.-acc. mère-nom.sg. poss.1sg. coord. bratrieˇ moeˇ frère-nom.pl. poss.1sg. π 0 λ ¹ $ (Mt. 12.49) “voici ma mère et mes frères”

(35)

na sodu˘ azu˘ vu˘ miru˘ prép. jugement-acc. 1sg. prép. monde.-acc. dém.-acc. si pridu˘ venir-1sg.aor >« (Ω >« μ @B (J. 9.39) “c’est pour un jugement que je suis venu en ce monde”

(36)

sı˘ pristopi ˛ ku˘ pilatu dém.-nom. se diriger-3sg.aor. vers P.-dat. « BΩ ) 7 P) . (L. 23.52) [survint Joseph d’Arimathie …] “il alla trouver Pilate”

Pour d’autres témoignages, voir SJSS IV: 373sq., Vecˇerka 1993: 56sq. Morphologiquement, le génitif pluriel *koiso ´ ¯ m f hitt. kenzan correspond exactement avec v. sl. sixu˘ où la flexion sur thème palatalisé est secondaire; voir, de même, lit. sˇiu˛˜, pruss. schieison (69/20)35. De telles correspondances peuvent être interprétées de deux façons: soit comme un héritage commun, ce qui est possible, mais difficilement démontrable en présence d’organisations autrement structurées dans la plupart des autres dialectes; soit comme une conséquence de la sélection de *k´ comme substitut de constituant nominal, mécanisme au terme duquel ce pronom se voit attribuer les rôles dévolus aux démonstratifs aptes à servir la “troisième personne”. Dans cette dernière hypothèse, le point mis en lumière ne serait pas tant la spécialisation de *k´ dans la déixis proximale (déjà attestée par les formes figées pour “aujourd’hui”: v. sl. d ˘ n ˘ -si, lit. sˇiañ-dien, v. sax. hi-udiga), que sa propension à servir de substitut nominal, propriété limitée à certains démonstratifs indo-européens seulement. 35

Détails dans Vaillant 1958, 383, Stang 1966, 233. Il est possible que le slavon russe seˇxu˘, attesté dans les Pandectes de 1296, reflète la banale confusion de i et de eˇ (Sobolevskij 1907, 189), mais on ne peut pas complètement exclure que cette forme reflète l’état le plus ancien.


99

10.3. Rétentions et innovations Jusque dans les années 1950, les études portant sur les pronoms de l’anatolien estimaient qu’on était face à des organisations foncièrement “autres” par rapport aux autres langues indo-européennes36. Depuis lors, l’accroissement du matériel empirique, la clarification de sa chronologie interne, la meilleure compréhension des textes, de façon générale, rend une telle conception caduque. L’architecture des flexions pronominales de l’anatolien ne diffère de celle de tous les autres dialectes pris ensemble que sur peu de points: (i)

(ii)

(iii)

existence d’une forme pronominale clitique pour le rôle sémantique de sujet (nominatif), forme au demeurant soumise à des contraintes syntaxiques telles (§ 6.2) que son emploi n’est possible que dans les constructions intransitives; en vieux hittite, neutralisation du genre au nominatif pluriel des démonstratifs (le hittite a étendu à l’inanimé la désinence *-oi reflétée comme masculin [h *animé] en grec, védique, gotique et latin); en vieux hittite, syncrétisme de l’accusatif et du datif des pronoms personnels (§ 9.1).

Les points (ii) et (iii) représentent nettement des innovations; le point (i) est moins clair: Garrett considère qu’il s’agit d’une innovation, mais, comme souvent dans les situations où l’anatolien manifeste une propriété distincte de la situation commune à tous les autres dialectes indo-européens, le point de vue opposé peut aussi être soutenu. Quoi qu’il en soit, autant il est clair que la morphologie de pronoms anatoliens reflète certaines innovations, autant celles-ci doivent d’autant moins être surestimées que le même phénomène peut, à des degrés divers, être observé dans les morphologies pronominales de tous les autres dialectes.

36

Ainsi Petersen 1937, 306 “the declension of demonstratives in Hittite […] shows only a slight resemblance to the pronominal declension of the other I[ndo]E[uropean] languages”; Benveniste 1953, 255 = 1962, 66 “la flexion pronominale [hittite] n’a […] à peu près rien de commun avec le système admis comme indo-européen”.

100

Sylvain Patri

Comme pour plusieurs autres dialectes, la situation de l’anatolien peut être grossièrement résumée en observant que la morphologie héritée des pronoms se localise principalement dans les radicaux pour les interlocutifs, dans les désinences pour les proformes. 10.4. La catégorie du nombre On a vu que le nombre constituait un paramètre apte à rendre compte la distinction morphologique entre délocutifs et interlocutifs (§ 7.3). Or presque tous les morphèmes spécifiquement pronominaux qui, en anatolien, sont clairement hérités de l’indo-européen ont en commun, d’amalgamer une information relative au nombre quel que soit leur statut (radicaux interlocutifs, désinences nom.-acc. sg. *-d et gén. pl. *-so¯m). Les morphèmes apparentés dans les autres langues indo-européennes ont également un statut spécifiquement pronominal et reflètent une information similaire. Le nombre s’avère donc être un paramètre organisateur de la morphologie des pronoms. Cette propriété est unique et ne se retouve dans la morphologie d’aucune autre classe de mots. Il s’ensuit qu’aux cas directs, les pronoms hittites sont invariablement marqués comme singulier ou comme pluriel, alors que ce n’est pas nécessairement le cas des noms du genre animé: (37) a. KUB 7.1 iii 27 (CTH 390, rédac. récente, Kronasser 1962, 158, 160) kıª#ma uttar nakki dém.-n.-acc.sg.#conj. parole-n.-acc.sg. important-n.-acc.sg. “toutefois, cette affaire (‘parole’) (est) importante” b. KBo 4.2 ii 22–23 (CTH 398, rédac. récente, Bawanypeck 2005, 30, 42) nu#wa kªe kallar conn.#quot. dém.-n.-acc.pl. mauvais- n.-acc.pl. uttar apiya paiddu parole n.-acc.pl. là aller-3sg.opt. “que ces paroles mauvaises s’en aillent là!” Par règle, le verbe n’indexe pas le sujet inanimé (van den Hout 2001, Patri 2007: 61sq.), si bien que, dans toute la construction (37b), la seule information relative au nombre du sujet est manifestée par le


101

pronom37. Dans les contextes où un constituant nominal du genre inanimé est sujet ou objet, ses propriétés sémantiques sont maximalement spécifiées par les pronoms dépendants, non par les noms-têtes eux-mêmes. Cette organisation de la référence syntaxique vaut pour les inanimés, non pour les noms animés, ce qui indique manifestement une motivation fondée sur l’échelle d’animation (où les pronoms occupent l’échelon le plus élevé)38. Or l’utilisation de marques spécifiquement pronominales est plus fréquente dans la flexion des démonstratifs inanimés que dans celle des animés correspondants, alors même que la non différenciation du nominatif et de l’accusatif reste typique des inanimés (noms et pronoms). L’hypothèse que l’on peut alors former est que, puisque les contextes dans lesquels les pronoms utilisent typiquement des désinences spécifiques sont les mêmes que ceux dans lesquels la morphologie des noms inanimés présente une information réduite, les pronoms indoeuropéens font usage d’une morphologie spécifiquement différente de celle des noms, pour stipuler une information – le nombre – que certaines classes de noms sont morphologiquement inaptes à manifester. Aux cas nucléaires, nominatif et / ou accusatif, normalement distincts dans les flexions de noms animés, mais confondus dans les flexions inanimées, les pronoms dépendants, qu’ils soient modifieurs ou anaphoriques, utilisent obligatoirement la même marque que leur nom-tête animé (38a), alors qu’avec les noms inanimés, au bas de l’échelle d’animation, la discordance des marques est absolument systématique (38b): (38) a. [animés] apa¯-s (…) haluga-s “ce message” KUB 7.57 i 2 b. [inanimés] apa¯-t eshar-Ø “ce sang” KUB 14.3 iv 52 apa¯-t ped-an “cet endroit” KUB 36.87 iii 9 Une situation similaire ou approchante est reflétée dans d’autres langues indo-européennes: quand la marque casuelle d’un pronom su-

37

38

A la différence de Luraghi 1997, 17, je ne considère pas comme établi que le nominatif-accusatif des “hétéroclitiques” du type de uddar- présente régulièrement au pluriel un allongement de la voyelle présidésinencielle (udda¯r-Ø); comp. Hoffner & Melchert 2008, 124sq. Dans le cas présent, cette conception est en discordance avec la graphie ut-tar de 37b. Pour des faits similaires ou typologiquement proches dans d’autres langues, voir Corbett 2000, 70sq.

102

Sylvain Patri

jet ou objet a la possibilité de coïncider avec celle du nom auquel il est co-référé aussi bien comme modifieur que comme anaphorique, c’est que le nom est animé; quand les marques sont dans l’impossibilité stricte de coïncider, c’est que le nom est inanimé (neutre), par exemple en latin: (39) a. [masculin] seru-us … i-s [féminin] fili-a … e-a b. [neutre] mar-e … i-d frig-us … i-d

“l’esclave …, il” “sa fille …, elle” “la mer …, elle” “le froid … il”

On peut résumer les données (38)–(39) en observant qu’aux cas nucléaires, si la marque casuelle d’un pronom dépendant est la même que celle de son nom-tête, ce nom est du genre animé; si les marques sont distinctes, le nom est du genre inanimé. Sous cette considération, la confrontation de (38) et de (39) livre une des meilleures bases démonstratives qui soient à l’appui de la restitution d’une système à deux genres seulement (animé et inanimé) en indo-européen commun.

11. Conclusion En hittite, les pronoms forment, avec les noms et les verbes, une classe de mots identifiables comme tels indépendamment du contexte syntaxique. Or, un énoncé ne peut transmettre un contenu propositionnel (une signification logiquement décomposable) que s’il contient au moins un mot appartenant à l’une de ces catégories. Pour qu’une construction syntaxique puisse être validée comme telle, elle doit donc être bâtie au moyen d’au moins un mot dont l’identification catégorielle est indépendante de la syntaxe. Ce point établi, quand on aborde le problème linguistique des pronoms, c’est le plus souvent sous l’angle de la référence et des interactions complexes entre syntaxe, sémantique et énonciation qui fondent ces relations, plus rarement en posant la question du rôle organisateur que tiennent les pronoms dans l’appareil formel d’une langue. Les deux aspects sont différents: dans le premier, on prend en considération la façon dont un pronom dénomme un référent, dans le second, on observe comment les pronoms agencent ces référents par rapport aux autres signes linguistiques et comment ces autres signes – particu-


103

lièrement les noms – interagissent avec les pronoms. Il va de soi qu’ainsi posé, le problème ne regarde que les proformes, mais ce serait justement commettre une erreur de perspective d’estimer qu’au seul motif que les pronoms personnels ont, par leur référence, un statut radicalement distinct de celui des autre pronoms, tous les pronoms dans leur ensemble doivent être abordés sous considération de leurs seules propriétés référentielles. Selon une conception sous-jacente à de nombreux travaux linguistiques, la quantité d’information grammaticale spécifiée par le pronom serait, par principe, inférieure à la quantité d’information grammaticale spécifiée par le nom39; ce point de vue est fondé dans beaucoup de langues, mais comme le montrent les données hittites, il ne présente pas de caractère absolu et peut être relativisé. Les pronoms peuvent, comme on l’a vu (37b), être dépositaires d’informations sémantiques que le nom auxquel il est co-référé est inapte à transmettre, qu’il s’agisse de sa morphologie ou de sa syntaxe, via l’indexation au verbe. Une telle situation n’est pas exceptionnelle40, mais il est beaucoup plus rare que, comme en hittite, elle soit (i) syntaxiquement régulière, (ii) déterminée par le genre ± animé du nom-tête et (iii) exprimée par l’emploi de marque spécifiques, distinctes de celles de noms. Quel que soit le genre du nom, le fait capital explicitement révélé par la morpho-syntaxe des pronoms est que l’existence d’un matériel morphologique différencié pour les noms et les pronoms peut être justifée syntaxiquement en relation avec le fait qu’aux cas normalement attribués aux sujet et objets prototypiques, les dépendants sont dépositaires d’une quantité d’information égale ou supérieure à celle de la tête, jamais inférieure41.

39 40

41

Voir, par exemple, Dixon 1994, 94–97. Comparer cet oiseau vole /st wazo vɔl/, ces oiseaux volent /sz wazo vɔl/, où il suffit de remplacer voler par dormir (3sg. dort, 3 pl. dorment) pour retrouver une organisation de la référence conforme au schéma dominant en français. En hittite, ce sont les dépendants qui, par défaut, manifestent l’ensemble des propriétés des têtes nominales, y compris si leur flexion n’est pas différenciée de celle des noms, comme c’est le cas avec les adjectifs; voir les données exposées dans Patri 2007, 52sq.

104

Sylvain Patri

Références I. Sources Archi, Alfonso. 1978. Note sulle feste ittite. I. Rivista degli studi orientali 52(1–2), 19–26. Bawanypeck, Daliah. 2005. Die Rituale der Auguren (Texte der Hethiter, 25). Heidelberg: Winter. Götze, Albrecht. 1928. Madduwattas (Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatisch-Ägyptischen Geselleschaft, 32/1. Hethitische Texte in Umschrift, 3). Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs. Götze, Albrecht. 1933. Die Annalen des Mursilis (Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatisch-Ägyptischen Gesellschaft, 38. Hethitische Texte in Umschrift, 6). Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs. Güterbock, Hans Gustav. 1938. Die historische Tradition und ihre literarische Gestaltung bei Babyloniern und Hethitern bis 1200. II, Hethiter. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 44, 45–149. Güterbock, Hans Gustav. 1958. The Composition of the Hittite Prayer to the Sun. Journal of the American Oriental Society 78(4), 237–245. Haas, Volkert. 1970. Der Kult von Nerik. Ein Beitrag zur hethitischen Religionsgeschichte (Studia Pohl, 4). Roma: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum. Kronasser, Heinz. 1962. Das hethitische Rituale KBo IV 2. Die Sprache 8, 89–107. Laroche, Emmanuel. 1969. Textes mythologiques hittites en transcription. Paris: C. Klincksieck. Lebrun, René. 1980. Hymnes et prières hittites (Homo religiosus, 4). Louvain-laNeuve: Centre d’histoire des religions. Otten, Heinrich. 1953. Ein kanaanäischer Mythus aus Bogazköy. ˘ Mitteilungen des Instituts für Orientforschung 1, 125–150. Otten, Heinrich. 1960. Die Eidesleistung des Ashapala. Revue hittite et asianique 18 (fasc. 67), 121–127. Otten, Heinrich. 1973. Eine althethitische Erzählung um die Stadt Zalpa (Studien zu den Bogazköy-Texten, ˘ 17). Wiesbaden: O.Harrassowitz. Rizzi Mellini, Annamaria. 1979. Un istruzione etea di interesse storico, KBo XVI 24 + 25. Onofrio Carruba (éd.). Studia Mediterranea Piero Meriggi dicata (Studia mediterranea, 1). Pavia: Aurora, 509–553. Schuler, Einar von. 1957. Hethitische Dienstanweisungen für höhere Hof- und Staatsbeamte. Ein Beitrag zum antiken Recht Kleinasiens (Archiv für Orientforschung. Beiheft, 10). Graz: Im Selbstverlage der Herausgebers. Singer, Itamar. 1996. Muwatalli’s Prayer to the Assembly of Gods through the Storm-God of Lightning (CTH 381). Atlanta: Scholars Press. Westbrook, Raymond & Roger D. Woodard. 1990. The Edict of Tudhaliya IV. Journal of the American Oriental Society 110(4), 641–659. II. Études Bader, Françoise. 1990. Les pronoms dans les langues indo-européennes. Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique N.S. 1, 23–35.


105

Baerman, Matthew; Dunstan Brown & Greville G. Corbett. 2005. The SyntaxMorphology Interface. A Study of Syncretism (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 109). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Beekes, Robert S. P. 1988. The Origin of the Indo-European Pronominal Inflection. Mohammad Ali Jazayery & Werner Winter (éds.). Languages and Cultures. Studies in Honor of Edgar C. Polomé (Trends in Linguistics, 36). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 73–87. Benveniste, Émile. 1949. Sur l’emploi des cas en hittite. Archiv Orientální 17(1), 44–45. Benveniste, Émile. 1953/1962. La flexion pronominale en hittite. Language 29, 225–262 = “avec plusieurs additions”, É. B., Hittite et indo-européen. Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve, 1962: 66–77. Benveniste, Émile. 1960. “Être” et “avoir” dans leurs fonctions linguistiques. Bulletin de la Société de linguistique 54(1), 113–134. Bhat, D. N. S. 2005. 43. Third-Person Pronouns and Demonstratives. Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil & Bernard Comrie (éds.). The World Atlas of Language Structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 178–181. Brugmann, Karl. 1904. Die Demonstrativpronomina der indogermanischen Sprachen (Abhandlungen der Philologisch-Historischen Klasse der Königlich Sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, 22/6). Leipzig: Teubner. Carruba, Onofrio. 2000. Indo-European *sem / sm- in the Pronouns: ‘Singulative’ Plurals. Journal of Indo-European Studies 28, 341–357. Carruba, Onofrio. 2002. Plurali ‘singolativi’ nei pronomi personali indoeuropei. Atti del Sodalizio glottologico milanese 39–40, 195–206. Cohen, Gerald L. 1976. On the Origin of *-sm- in Indo-European Pronouns. Indogermanische Forschungen 81, 18–24. Corbett, Greville G. 2000. Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Corbett, Greville. 2005. Suppletion in Personal Pronouns: Theory versus Practice, and the Place of Reproducibility in Typology. Linguistic Typology 9(1), 1–23. Corblin, Francis. 1987. Indéfini, défini et démonstratif: constructions linguistiques de la référence (Langue & cultures, 17). Genève: Droz. Danièl’, Mixail Aleksandrovicˇ. 2005a. Tipologija associativnoj mnozˇestvennosti. Kandidatskaja dissertacija. Moskovskij gosudarstvennyj universitet, Filologicˇeskij fakultet. Danièl’, Mixail Aleksandrovicˇ. 2005b. Plurality in Independent Personal Pronouns. Bernard Comrie, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil & Martin Haspelmath (éds.). World Atlas of Language Structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 474–477. Diessel, Holger. 1999. Demonstratives. Form, Function, and Grammaticalization (Typological Studies in Language, 42). Amsterdam: J. Benjamins. Dixon, Robert M. W. 1994. Ergativity (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 70). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Eichner, Heiner. 1992. Anatolian. Jadranka Gvozdanovic´ (éd.). Indo-European Numerals (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs, 57). Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Foley, James. 1975. Some Rules Involving Nasals and their Implications. Charles A. Ferguson; Larry A. Hyman & John J. Ohala (éds.). Nasálfest: Papers from a

106

Sylvain Patri

Symposium on Nasals and Nasalization. Stanford: Stanford University, Department of Linguistics, 213–230. Francia, Rita. 1996. Il pronome possessivo enclitico in antico ittita: alcune riflessioni. Vicino Oriente 10, 209–259. Friedrich, Johannes; Annelies Kammenhuber & Inge Hoffmann (éds.). 1975 sq. Hethitisches Wörterbuch. Zweite, völlig neubearbeitete Auflage auf der Grundlage der edierten hethitischen Texte. Heidelberg: C. Winter Garrett, Andrew. 1990a. The Syntax of Anatolian Pronominal Clitics. Ph. D. Thesis, Harvard University. Garrett, Andrew. 1990b. The Origin of NP Split Ergativity. Language 66(2), 261–296. Garrett, Andrew. 1998. Remarks on the Old Hittite Split Genitive. Jay H. Jasanoff; H. Craig Melchert & Lisi Oliver (éds.). Mír curad. Studies in Honor of Calvert Watkins (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft, 92). Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck, 155–163. Goedegebuure, Petra. 2003a. Reference, Deixis and Focus in Hittite. The Demonstratives ka- “this”, apa- “that” and asi “yon”. Amesterdam: Academisch proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Universiteit. Goedegebuure, Petra. 2003b. The Hittite 3rd Person/Distal Demonstrative asi (uni, eni, etc.). Die Sprache 43(1), 1–32. Goedegebuure, Petra. 2006. A New Proposal for the Reading of the Hittite Numeral ‘1’: sia-’. Theo Ph. J. van den Hout (éd.). The Life and Times of Hattusili III and Tuthaliya IV. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 165–188. Goedegebuure, Petra. 2007. The Hieroglyphic-Luwian Demonstrative AblativeInstrumentals zin and apin. Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 49, 319–334. Hajek, John. 1997. Universals of Sound Change in Nasalization (Publications of the Philological Society, 31). Oxford: Blackwell. Hawkins, John A. 1978. Definiteness and Indefiniteness. A Study in Reference and Grammaticality Prediction. London: Croom Helm. HED = Puhvel 1984sq. Held, Warren H. Jr.; William R. Schmalstieg & Janet E. Gertz. 1988. Beginning Hittite. Columbus: Slavica. Hock, Hans Henrich. 2003. Analogical Change. Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (éds.). The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, 441–460. Hoffner, Harry A., Jr. 2006. The Hittite Degenitival Adjectives siela-, 2-ela und apella-. Theo Ph. J. van den Hout (éd.). The Life and Times of Hattusili III and Tuthaliya IV. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 189–197. Hoffner, Harry A., Jr. & H. Craig Melchert. 2008. A Grammar of the Hittite Language. I, Reference Grammar. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Hout, Theo Ph. J. van den. 2001. Neuter Plural Subjects and Nominal Predicates in Anatolian. Onofrio Carruba & Wolfgang Meid (éds.). Anatolisch und Indogermanisch (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft, 100). Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität Innsbruck, 167–192. HW2 = Friedrich & al. 1975sq.


107

Jasanoff, Jay H. 1972. The Hittite Ablative in -anz(a). Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 31, 123–128. Kammenhuber, Annelies. 1962. Buchbesprechung: J. Friedrich, Hethitisches Wörterbuch. Orientalia 31, 371–380. Kammenhuber, Annelies. 1969 [1963, erschienen 1969]. Hethitisch, Palaisch, Luwisch und Hieroglyphenluwisch. Johannes Friedrich (éd.). Altkleinasiatische Sprachen. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 119–357. Katz, Joshua T. 1998. Topics in Indo-European Personal Pronouns. Ph. D. Thesis, Harvard University, Department of Linguistics. Kloekhorst, Alwin. 2008. Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series, 5). Leiden: Brill. Kurz, Josef & Zoe Hauptová (éds.). 1958–1997. Slovník jazyka starosloveˇnského. Praha: Nakl. Cˇeskoslovenské akademie veˇd. [= SJSS] Lakoff, Robin 1974. Remarks on This and That. Michael W. La Galy, Robert A. Fox & Anthony Bruck (éds). Papers from the 10th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 345–356. Lane, George S. 1961. On the Formation of the Indo-European Demonstrative. Language 37(4), 469–475. Laroche, Emmanuel. 1960. Comparaison du louvite et du lycien (suite). Bulletin de la Société de linguistique 55(1), 155–185. Laroche, Emmanuel. 1970. Études de linguistique anatolienne. III. Revue hittite et asianique 28, 22–71. Luraghi, Silvia. 1997. Hittite (Languages of the World. Materials, 114). München: Lincom. Meillet, Antoine. 1936. Esquisse d’une grammaire comparée de l’arménien classique. Seconde édition, entièrement remaniée. Vienne: Impr. des PP. Mékhitharistes. Meillet, Antoine. 1937. Introduction à l’étude comparative des langues indo-européennes. Huitième édition corrigée [11903]. Paris: Hachette. Meillet, Antoine & Jules Vendryes. 1948. Traité de grammaire comparée des langues classiques. Deuxième édition revue et augmentée. Paris: Champion. Melchert, H. Craig. 1983. The Second Singular Personal Pronoun in Anatolian. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 42, 151–165. Melchert, H. Craig. 1984. Studies in Hittite Historical Phonology (Ergänzungshefte zur Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung, 32). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Melchert, H. Craig. 1994. Anatolian Historical Phonology (Leiden Studies in IndoEuropean, 3). Amsterdam: Rodopi. Melchert, H. Craig. 2003. Language. H. Craig Melchert (éd.). The Luwians (Handbuch der Orientalistik. Erste Abteilung, Nahe und der Mittlere Osten, 68). Leiden: Brill, 170–210. Melchert, H. Craig. 2008. Problems in Hittite Pronominal Inflection. Alexander Lubotsky; J. Schaeken & Jeroen Wiedenhof (éds.). Evidence and Counter-Evidence. Essays in Honour of Frederik Kortlandt. I, Balto-Slavic and Indo-European Linguistics (Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics, 32). Amsterdam: Rodopi, 367–375.

108

Sylvain Patri

Melchert, H. Craig. 2009. Deictic Pronouns in Anatolian. Kazuhiko Yoshida & Brent Vine (éds.). East and West. Papers in Indo-European Studies. Bremen: U. Hempen, 151–162. Melchert, H. Craig. s. p. The Problem of the Ergative Case in Hittite. Meriggi, Piero. 1980. Schizzo grammaticale dell’anatolico. Memorie dell’Accademia nazionale dei Lincei 377, Classe di scienze morali, storiche e filologiche, serie VIII, vol. 24(3), 244–411. Neu, Erich. 1979. Einige Überlegungen zu den hethitischen Kasusendungen. Erich Neu & Wolfgang Meid (éds.). Hethitisch und Indogermanisch (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft, 25). Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck, 177–196. Neu, Erich. 1997. Zu einigen Pronominalformen des Hethitischen. Dorothy Disterheft; Martin Huld & John A. C. Greppin (éds.). Studies in Honor of Jaan Puhvel (Journal of Indo-European Studies, Monograph Series, 20). Washington: Institute for the Study of Man, 133–169. Oettinger, Norbert. 1979. Die Stammbildung des hethitischen Verbums (Erlanger Beiträge zur Sprach- und Kunstwissenschaft, 64). Nürnberg: H. Carl = Nachdruck mit einer Kurzen Revision der Hethitischen Verbalklassen: Dresden: Verlag der TU Dresden, 2002 (Dresdner Beiträge zur Hethitologie, 7). Oettinger, Norbert. 1994. Etymologisch unerwarteter Nasal im Hethitischen. Jens Elmegård Rasmussen (éd.). In honorem Holger Pedersen. Kolloquium der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 25. bis 28. März 1993 in Kopenhagen. Wiesbaden: L. Reichert, 307–330. Oshiro, Terumasa. 2000. Hieroglyphic Luwian tuwati and unzati. Y. L. Arbeitman (éd.). The Asia Minor Connexion. Studies on the Pre-Greek Languages in Memory of Charles Carter (Orbis Supplementa, 13). Leuven: Peeters, 189–193. Patri, Sylvain. 2007. L’alignement syntaxique dans les langues indo-européennes d’Anatolie (Studien zu den Bogazköy-Texten, ˘ 49). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Patri, Sylvain. 2008. Le déterminant défini hittite asi : contraintes référentielles et syntaxiques. Indogermanische Forschungen 113, 149–175. Payne, Annick. 2004. Hieroglyphic Luwian (Elementa linguarum Orientis, 3). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Pedersen, Holger. 1938. Hittitisch und die anderen indoeuropäischen Sprachen (Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab. Historisk-Filosofiske Meddelelser, 25/2). København: Levin & Munksgaard. Petersen, Walter. 1937. Hittite Demonstrative Pronouns. The American Journal of Philology 58(3), 306–319. Puhvel, Jaan. 1984sq. Hittite Etymological Dictionary. (Trends in Linguistics. Documentation, 1). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter [= HED]. Rasmussen, Jens Elmegård. 1987. The Constituent Elements of the Indo-European Personal Pronouns. APILKU 6, 89–112 = J. E. R., Selected Papers on IndoEuropean Linguistics (Copenhagen Studies in Indo-European, 1). Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 1999, 256–275. Rizza, Alfredo. 2007. I pronomi enclitici nei testi etei di traduzione dal hattico (Studia Mediterranea, 20). Pavia: Italian University Press. Schmidt, Gernot. 1978. Stammbildung und Flexion der indogermanischen Personalpronomina. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.


109

Sihler, Andrew L. 1993. The Anatolian and Indo-European First Person Plural. Bela Brogyanyi & Reiner Lipp (éds.). Comparative-Historical Linguistics. IndoEuropean and Finno-Ugric Papers in Honor of Oswald Szemerényi. III (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 97). Amsterdam: J. Benjamins, 171–185. Sihler, Andrew L. 1995. New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin. Oxford: Oxford University Press. SJSS: Kurz & Hauptová (éds) 1958–1997. Sobolevskij, Aleksej Ivanovicˇ. 1907. Lekcii po istorii russkogo jazyka. Izd. cˇetvertoe. Moskva: Universitetskaja tipografija. Sommer, Ferdinand & Adam Falkenstein. 1938. Die hethitisch-akkadische Bilingue des Hattusˇili I. (Labarna II.) (Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Abteilung, N. F., 16). München: C. H. Beck. Soysal, Ögüz. 2005. On the Origin of the Royal Title tabarna / labarna. Anatolica 31, 189–209. Sturtevant, Edgar H. 1933. A Comparative Grammar of the Hittite Language. Philadelphia: Linguistic Society of America. Sturtevant, Edgar H. & E. Adelaide Hahn. 1951. A Comparative Grammar of the Hittite Language, I. Revised Edition. New Haven: Yale University Press. Szemerényi, Oswald. 1996. Introduction to Indo-European Linguistics. English Translation by D. M. Jones & I. Jones of 1990 German 4th edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Tischler, Johann. 1988. Labarna. Erich Neu & Christel Rüster (éds.). Documentum Asiae Minoris antiquae. Festschrift für Heinrich Otten zum 75. Geburtstag. Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz, 347–358. Vaillant, André. 1958. Grammaire comparée des langues slaves. II, Morphologie (Les langues du monde. Série grammaire, philologie, littérature, 11). Lyon / Paris: IAC. Vaillant, André. 1964. Manuel du vieux slave. I, Grammaire. Seconde édition revue et augmentée (Collection de manuels publiés par l’Institut d’études slaves, 6). Paris: Institut d’études slaves. Vecˇerka, Radoslav. 1993. Altkirchenslavische (altbulgarische) Syntax. II, Die Innere Satzstruktur (Monumenta linguæ slavicæ dialecti veteris, 34). Freiburg i. Br.: U.W. Weiher. Wackernagel, Jacob & Albert Debrunner. 1929–1930. Altindische Grammatik. III, Nominalflexion. Zahlwort. Pronomen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht. Watkins, Calvert. 1967. Remarks on the Genitive. To Honor Roman Jakobson (Janua linguarum. Series maior, 31). The Hague / Paris: Mouton, 2191–2198.

Université Lumière, Lyon-II & CNRS, UMR 5596 Faculté des Lettres 5, av. Pierre-Mendès-France F-69676 B r o n C e d e x – France [email protected]

Sylvain Patri

110

Kenneth Shields, Jr.

Hittite sˇia-‘1’ and its implications for the etymology of Indo-European numerals Abstract This brief paper explores the implications of Goedegebuure’s (2006) recent identification of sˇia- as the Hittite numeral ‘1.’ Specifically, it is proposed here that sˇialends additional support to the notion that the lower numerals of Indo-European can be derived from deictic/demonstrative elements – in this case a contamination of an original deictic/demonstrative in *(e/o)s with another in *io (*yo). Moreover, the etymon of the Hittite form, in conjunction with the alternative Indo-European Proper root for ‘1,’ *sem-, a contamination of deictics in *(e/o)s and *(e/o)m, confirms the existence of an alternation in deictic extensions of *(e/o)s (*yo ~ *em) which parallels a similar alternation in deictic extensions involving the alternative Indo-European Proper root *oi- ‘1’ (*oi-no- ~ *oi-kwo-, etc.). *oi- itself is commonly traced to a deictic source (cf. Shields 1994).

The contribution of Hittite to the study of the etymology of IndoEuropean numerals is limited because Hittite scribes generally used logograms to represent these lexemes. However, in some cases syllabic renderings of numerals are attested directly, or insights into the pronunciation of Hittite numerals can be ascertained indirectly through their appearance in related word-forms. In an important recent article, Goedegebuure (2006) has proposed that the Hittite cardinal ‘1’ is sˇia-. By analyzing contexts in which sˇia- appears, she demonstrates that – formally – it is neither a demonstrative nor an accented anaphoric pronoun in function, thereby implying logically that it is a numeral, and that – semantically – its use is consistent with the meaning ‘one.’ Hoffner & Melchert (2008: 154) endorse this finding, characterizing it as “promising” in comparison to previous attempts at identification which “have proven uncertain.” Of course, Indo-European Proper attests two roots for ‘1’ – *oi-, which is variously extended by *-no- (e.g., Latin *oi-no- [u¯nus]), *-kwo- (e.g., Vedic *oi-kwo- [éka-]), and *-wo- (e.g., Old Persian *oi-wo- [aiva-]), and *sem- (e.g., Mycen. e-me, Toch. A sas (masc.), sam (fem.), Lat. semel, Go. simle ‘once, formerly’) – the former of which is traditionally associated with “singleness or isolation” and the latter of which, “togetherness or unity” (Hoffner & Melchert 2008: 154, cf. Waanders 1992: 370). “It is

Hittite sˇia-‘1’

111

possible that in Hittite also there were two words,” but the scribal practice alluded to earlier makes it impossible, at present, to verify this fact (Hoffner & Melchert 2008: 154).1 The purpose of this brief paper is to explore the potential implications of Goedegebuure’s hypothesis (2006) for the etymological origin of the numeral ‘1’ in early Indo-European itself. I shall argue that it provides significant confirmation for the view expressed in Shields (1994), where I maintain that the lower numerals can be traced to deictic/demonstrative elements. In my opinion, the system of IndoEuropean numerals developed gradually into the historical period, with the original system consisting of only a few digits originating as deictics/demonstratives and a so-called “limit of counting,” i.e., one, two, three, many. I developed this latter notion in a series of articles beginning in 1984 (see, e.g., Shields 1984, 1991, 1994, 2000); the same view was more recently – and apparently independently – formulated by Carol Justus beginning in 1988 (see, e.g., Justus 1988, 1999, 2004). The idea that, following common typological developments, the lower numerals of many languages have a deictic/demonstrative source is not new; indeed, both Conant (1896: 75) and Menninger (1969: 17) subscribe to this position. In Shields (1994: 179) I point out that Brugmann (1911: 311) reconstructs, as one of “die n-Demonstrativa,” a form in *oino-, which itself represents a contamination of the demonstratives in *oi- and the deictic/demonstrative element *no- and that extensions of *oi- by *kwo- and *wo- also “are homophonous with deictic particles which can be independently reconstructed for Indo-European” (cf. Hirt 1927: 11–13, Brugmann 1911: 349–350). I conclude that these deictics which were attached to *oi- may have originally expressed differing degrees of remoteness/proximity to the speaker, i.e., one-here, one-there, one-yonder, but that “as the proto-language evolved, the importance of specifying the deixis of the numeral ‘one’ lessened until various dialects merely generalized (and/or specialized) the original deictic variants” (1994: 182). I likewise propose there that *sem- derives from the demonstrative stem *se/o- (cf., e.g., Skt. sá-s, Gk. hó-s, Go. sa), which has been extended by the deictic *e/om, reconstructed for Indo-European, for example, by Hirt (1927: 13). 1

On the basis of paradigmatic variation exhibited by the Hittite logogram ‘1,’ Goedegebuure (2006: 185) speculates that Hittite had two roots for this numeral. However, she admits that other interpretations of the data are possible.

112


The deictic/demonstrative origin of the numeral roots *oi- and *sem- is, of course, controversial. Szemerényi (1996: 221–222), for instance, explicitly rejects deictic/demonstrative sources for any cardinal numeral, and Fortson (2004: 131) similarly describes the IndoEuropean word-forms for ‘1’ as independent lexical entities. On the other hand, Sihler (1995: 404–406) sees in *oi- “an ablaut grade of the pronoun root *i-,” although he posits no such deictic/demonstrative source for *sem-. This same position is endorsed by Buck (1949: 937) and Mallory & Adams (1997: 398–399). Among the few proponents of a deictic/demonstrative source for *sem- are Brugmann (1916/17: 160–161) and Hahn (1942). In support of deictic/demonstrative etyma underlying the IndoEuropean forms for ‘1,’ I have attempted to demonstrate in a series of articles that other lower numerals of Indo-European can easily be derived from such elements, which “frequently show a secondary affixation of … [various non-singular markers like *-(e/o)s, *-i, *u, *-e, *-(e/o)r, and *-t/d] as a means of hypercharacterizing their inherent non-singularity” (Shields 1985: 189). (See Shields 1985 and 2004: 572 for details.) For example, in Shields (1991: 270), I note that “if Schmidt (1978: 172) is correct in reconstructing *de-/*di- (cf. Hitt. da-, Lat. dis-) as variant forms of the Indo-European root for ‘2,’ cf. Shields 1984, then ‘2’ corresponds formally to the demonstrative stem in di(cf. ‘Iran. balt. di-: z. B. Akk. Sg. av. di-m preuss. di-n, Neutr. Av. di- t ˜ ‘es’ …’ [Brugmann 1904: 402]) and the Greek deictic particle -de,”2 while in Shields (2000), I posit the demonstrative/deictic *te/o- plus the non-singular affix -r as the basis of *ter- ‘3’ (cf. Hitt. ter-, Skt. ordi2

In Shields (2004b: 24), I argue that *de/o- was the primary form of the IndoEuropean numeral ‘2’: “Although *duwo- (e.g., Gk. dúo, Lat. duo, Ved. duvá, OCS dчva) is its most common reconstruction, a variant in *dw- (e.g., Ved. dvá-, Go. twai, Armen. er-ku) is also generally ascribed to the proto-language (cf. Szemerényi 1996: 222). However, as Sihler (1995: 407) argues, since ‘all other numerals have e-grade in the simplex forms, so the truly original form for ‘two’ must have been something like **dewo.’ I, too, believe that the latter form should be ascribed to the proto-language and that it should be segmented as *de-wo, with the truly original form for ‘2’ – *de – directly attested, for example, in the numeral *de-km 0 t ‘10’ (see Shields 1984 for details, cf. also Szemerényi 1960: 69 and Markey 1984: 284: ‘two hands (full)’). An o-grade variant of *de may be found in the Hittite numeral da- ‘2’ (e.g., da-ma-a(-i) ‘(an)other’), cf. Sihler (1995: 408).” The lexeme *di, as both numeral and deictic, probably represents a contamination of the deitic particles/demonstratives *de and *i.


113

nal *tr0 - [zero grade, cf. Benveniste 1962: 87]). I have also argued that the Indo-European Proper root for ‘4’ (*kwetwor-: Skt. catváras, Gk. téttares, Lat. quattor, Go. fidwo¯r) contains the root *kwe-, which “is probably related to the Indo-European interrogative-indefinite stem in *kwe-, an element that “bears close semantic and inflectional affinities to demonstratives (cf. Brugmann 1904: 379 …)” and that “probably represents an etymological demonstrative which has lost much of its deictic force (cf. Lane 1961: 469–470)” (Shields 1991: 269–270). To this root *kwe- has been added two hypercharacterizing non-singular markers, specifically *-u and *-or. Similarly, I have derived the Hittite numeral mey-u- ‘4’ from an Indo-European demonstrative stem in *me/o- (cf. Vedic áma- ‘this one’ < *e-mo-, i.e., a contamination of the demonstratives *e/o and *mo-, cf. Misra 1968: 81), to which the non-singular suffixes *i and *u were attached (Shields 2004a). Moreover, it is my opinion that even the Indo-European numeral for ‘6’ (cf. OIr. se, Lat. sex, Go. saihs, Gk. (w)éks) lends itself to analysis as an original demonstrative in *s(w)e, augmented with the non-singular elements *-k and *-(e/o)s. This original demonstrative also developed eventually into a reflexive pronoun (see Shields 1996 for details). However, my primary point in this brief paper is that a Hittite numeral in sˇia- ‘1’ provides very substantial support for my analyses of the etymology of *oi-no, etc. and *sem-. I am now convinced that the Indo-European deictic/demonstrative in *se/o- actually reflects an original deictic/demonstrative in *(e/o)s which has been contaminated with another particle in *e/o (cf. Hirt 1927: 10–11) or has been thematicized (Shields 1992: 29). Strong evidence for a deictic/demonstrative in *(e/o)s comes once again from Hittite in the form of “a pronoun/adjective asˇi,” which “is not an anaphoric pronoun,” as has been assumed (cf. Laroche 1979: 148 and Puhvel 1984), “but the 3rd person demonstrative ‘yon’ instead, accompanying the 1st person demonstrative ka¯- ‘this, near me’ and the 2nd person demonstrative apa¯- ‘that, near you’” (Goedegebuure (2002/03: 1). Goedegebuure carefully documents her assertion with textual data and by showing that the form meets all the typological criteria for demonstratives. Although Goedegebuure (2002/03) does not consider the etymology of asˇi, I argue in Shields (2007: 132–133) that “it derives from a late contamination of the deictic/demonstrative *(e/o)s (specifically, its o-grade) and a comparable element *i (cf. Hirt 1927: 11). Such a con-

114


tamination of deictics/demonstratives is a common development because of the need to reinforce the deixis of these forms.” Moreover, “Hoffner (2002/03: 81–83) proposes that the Hittite adverbial form a¯sˇma contains an original deictic element which ‘was not proximal (close to or on the ‘deictic center’), but distal’” and that it is to be etymologically connected to asˇi. In my opinion, “the long-initial of a¯sˇ-ma could have resulted from the contamination of the deictic particle *(e/o)s with the non-proximal deictic *e/o (cf. Hirt 1927: 10–11), i.e., *e/o + (e/o)s > a¯sˇ” (Shields 2007: 132–133).3 Like Hoffner (2002/03: 83), I see -ma as an affixed particle in -a/-ma, widely attested in Hittite. I should point out that Patri (2008) has recently questioned Goedegebuure’s conclusion that asˇi is indeed a demonstrative and presents evidence that it “est simplement un déterminant défini” (165), i.e., a definiteness marker. However, since Patri (2008: 169) acknowledges the well-known typological generalization that the etymological source of definiteness markers is deictic particles (cf. also Hazelkorn 1983: 110), the implications of this critique for the conclusions reached in Shields (2007) are minimal. In short, Indo-European possessed a deictic particle in *(e/o)s which underlies the demonstrative *se/o- of Indo-European Proper and the demonstrative (Goedegebuure) or definiteness marker (Patri) asˇi of Hittite. Now on the basis of this view that Indo-European possessed a deictic/demonstrative in *(e/o)s, it is reasonable to assert that Indo-European Proper *sem- shows *(e/o)s plus the deictic/demonstrative element *(e/o)m. Likewise, Hittite sˇia- can represent a contamination of *(e/o)s and the deictic/demonstrative form *io- (*yo-),4 which is to be connected etymologically to the so-called indefinite-interrogative pronoun *yo-.5 As Szemerényi (1996: 210) points out, “The origin of [indefinite-interrogative] *yo-s from a demonstrative, namely the 3

4 5

Hoffner (2002/03: 82) says of the difference in the length of the initial vowels of asˇi and a¯sˇma: “Since in Hittite texts from Bogazköy ˘ word-initial writings like a-a-, e-e-, i-i-, and u-u- are confined to Hurrian, Luwian, and Hattian words,” asˇi may have had a long vowel not indicated as such by the script, or, less likely, “an alternate account could suppose compensatory vowel lengthening accompanying contraction” for a¯sˇma. I feel that the contamination of deictic elements provides a less ad hoc explanation for the initial vocalic segment. On the plausibility of reading sˇia- as /sya-/, see Hoffner (2006: 191). In some dialects (Indic, Greek, Phrygian, and Slavic), this form also assumed a relative pronoun function (Szemerényi 1996: 210).


115

anaphoric *i-, is certain.” Thus, the Hittite numeral sˇia-, like *oi- and sem-, can easily be derived from deictic/demonstrative sources; and it appears to confirm the existence of an alternation in deictic extensions of *(e/o)s (*s-yo- ~ *s-em-) which is much like the alternation in deictic extensions of *oi-.6 Controversy surrounding the etymologies of Indo-European numerals will most certainly continue. However, new data do sometimes become available, and when they do, they most certainly can prove useful in assessing the explanatory power of current theoretical statements.

References Benveniste, É. 1962. Hittite et indo-européen: Études comparatives. Paris: Maisonneuve. Brugmann, Karl. 1904. Kurze vergleichende Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen. Strassburg: Trübner. –. 1911. Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen. Vol. 2.2 Strassburg: Trübner. –. 1916/17. “Lat. aemulus, aequos, imita¯ri, ima¯go, griech. a¤ipsa, aipús, got. ibns.” Indogermanische Forschungen 37. 155–163. Buck, Carl. D. 1949. A Dictionary of Selected Synonyms in the Principal IndoEuropean Languages. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Conant, Levi. 1896. The Number Concept: Its Origin and Development. New York: Macmillan. Fortson, Benjamin. 2004. Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Goedegebuure, Petra. 2002/03. “The Hittite 3rd Person/Distal Demonstrative asˇi (uni, eni, etc.).” Die Sprache 43. 1–32. –. 2006. “A New Proposal for the Reading of the Hittite Numeral ‘1’: sˇia-.” In: The Life and Times of Hattusˇili III and Tuthaliya IV: Proceedings of a Symposium Held in Honour of J. de Roos, 12–13 December 2003, Leiden, 165–188. Ed. T.P.J. van den Hout & C.H. van Zoest. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten.

6

Goedegebuure (2006: 185) also briefly (in a footnote) speculates that sˇia- may be etymologically related to the demonstrative *se/o- and ultimately to IndoEuropean Proper *sem-; however, she does not explain in detail the developmental processes which underlie arguments for such a potential relationship. Moreover, she points out that Hittite itself may attest reflexes of *sem- in such forms as “1) sˇani- ‘the same’, 2) kisˇsˇan ‘in the same way’ (and not ‘in this one way’), and 3) sˇauitisˇt- ‘in the same year’” (2006: 185).

116


Hahn, E. Adelaide. 1942. “The Indefinite-Relative-Interrogative Stem sem-, sm-, smo.” Language 18. 83–116. Hazelkorn, Leena Tuulikki. 1983. “The Role of Deixis in the Development of Finno-Ugric Grammatical Morphemes.” Ohio State Working Papers in Linguistics 27. 89–139. Hirt, Hermann. 1927. Indogermanische Grammatik. Vol. 3. Heidelberg: Winter. Hoffner, Harry. 2002/03. “Hittite a-asˇ-ma.” Die Sprache 43. 80–87. –. 2006. “The Hittite Degenitival Adjectives sˇiela-, 2-ela, and apella-.” In: The Life and Times of Hattusˇili III and Tuthaliya IV: Proceedings of a Symposium Held in Honour of J. de Roos, 12–13 December 2003, Leiden, 189–197. Ed. T.P.J. van den Hout & C.H. van Zoest. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. – & H. Craig Melchert. 2008. A Grammar of the Hittite Language. Part 1. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Justus, Carol. 1988. “Indo-European Numerals and Number Systems.” In: A Linguistic Happening in Memory of Ben Schwartz: Studies in Anatolian, Italic, and Other Indo-European Languages, 542–541. Ed. Y. Arbeitman. Louvain-LaNeuve: Peeters. –. 1999. “Indo-European Numerals since Szemerényi.” In: The Emergence of the Modern Sciences: Studies on the Transition from Historical-Comparative to Structural Linguistics in Honour of E.F.K. Koerner, vol. 2, 131–152. Ed. S. Embleton, J. Joseph & H. Niederehe. Amsterdam: Benjamins. –. 2004. “On Language and the Rise of a Base for Counting.” General Linguistics 42. 17–43. Lane, George. 1961. “On the Formation of the Indo-European Demonstrative.” Language 37. 469–475. Laroche, E. 1979. “Anaphore et deixis en anatolien.” In: Hethitisch und Indogermanisch, 147–152. Ed. E. Neu & W. Meid. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck. Mallory, J.P. & D.Q. Adams, eds. 1997. Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture. London: Fitzroy Dearborn. Markey, T.L. 1984. “The Grammaticalization and Institutionalization of IndoEuropean Hand.” Journal of Indo-European Studies 12. 261–292. Menninger, Karl. 1969. Number Words and Number Symbols: A Cultural History of Numbers. Trans. P. Broneer. Cambridge, MA: The M.I.T. Press. Misra, Satya. 1968. Comparative Grammar of Sanskrit, Greek, and Hittite. Calcutta: World Press. Patri, Sylvain. 2008. “Le determinant défini Hittite asi: contraintes référentielles et syntaxiques.” Indogermanische Forschungen 113. 149–175. Puhvel, Jaan. 1984. “Review of J. Friedrich & A. Kammenhuber, Hethitisches Wörterbuch, Band I: A, Lieferung 6/7.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 103. 670–672. Schmidt, Gernot. 1978. Stammbildung und Flexion der indogermanischen Personalpronomina. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Shields, Kenneth. 1984. “IE *dekm 0 (t) ‘10’: A New Etymology.” Balkansko Ezikoznanie 27. 4. 75–80.


117

–. 1985. “Speculations about the Indo-European Cardinals, 5–10.” Diachronica 2. 189–200. –. 1991. “The Indo-European Numeral ‘4’: A New Etymology.” In: Studia Etymologica Indoeuropaea: Memoriae A.J. van Windekens (1915–1989) Dicata, 265–272. Ed. L. Isebaert. Leuven: Peeters. –. 1992. A History of Indo-European Verb Morphology. Amsterdam: Benjamins. –. 1994. “Comments about IE *oi- ‘1.’” Journal of Indo-European Studies 22. 177–186. –. 1996. “Speculations about the Etymology of the Indo-European Cardinal ‘6.’” Folia Linguistica Historica 17. 3–12. –. 2000. “Some Comments about the Hittite Numeral ‘3.’” In: The Asia Minor Connexion: Studies on the Pre-Greek Languages in Memory of Charles Carter, 213–219. Ed. Y. Arbeitman. Leuven: Peeters. –. 2004a. “Comments on the Etymology of the Hittite Numeral ‘4.’” In: Sˇarnikzel: Hethitologische Studien zum Gedenken am Emil Orgetorix Forrer, 571–576. Ed. D. Groddek & S. Rössle. Dresden: Technische Universität Dresden. –. 2004b. “The Emergence of the Dual Category in Indo-European: A ‘New Image’ and Typological Perspective.” Indogermanische Forschungen 109. 21–30. –. 2007. “Hittite asˇi, a¯sˇma and the Deictic Origin of Indo-European Sigmatic Verbal Formations.” Studia Etymologica Cracoviensia 12. 133–138. Sihler, Andrew. 1995. New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin. New York: Oxford University Press. Szemerényi, Oswald. 1960. Studies in the Indo-European System of Numerals. Heidelberg: Winter. –. 1996. An Introduction to Indo-European Linguistics. 4th ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Waanders, Frederik M. J. 1992. “Greek.” In: Indo-European Numerals, 369–388. Ed. J. Gvozdanovic´. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

3155 Grande Oak Place L a n c a s t e r , Pennsylvania 17601 U.S.A. [email protected]

K e n n e t h S h i e l d s, J r .

118

Diether Schürr

Lykische Genitive Abstract The six different forms of the genitive singular in Lycian (A) are probably all variants of the form -he, which itself is going back to ie. *-osyo like Carian -s´ and Hieroglyphic Luwian -si. But arñnaha may alternatively be a genitive with an enclitic pronoun -a, like the ‘accusativus genitivi‘ in -hñ. A special trait of toponyms in -i is the ending -ih(e) instead of -eh(e). Titles after personal names in the genitive show the same ending -h, yet this is not a true genitive, but the suffix -a/ehi with apocope.

I „Lycian (A) displays the greatest number of ways of expressing possession among the Anatolian languages“ (Melchert, Genitive: 4): Neben dem Genitiversatz durch Adjektive auf -a/ehe/i- gibt es im Singular1 Genitive auf -h, was die Normalform ist, und auf -he2, selten endungslose Formen und Genitive auf -h◊ und -◊ (die beiden letzten Formen berücksichtigt Melchert in seinem Aufsatz nicht). Beispiele: udali zuhrijah 3tideimi{h} TL 1 im westlykischen Tel˜ messos; uhak˜ee: murazahe: tideimi TL 2 ebenda; q3ñtb˜e ddfla[p]ssmma 4tideimi TL 5 ebenda3; ijamara: terssi leh◊: tideimi TL 149 im ostlyki-

1

2

3

Der Genitiv Plural mit den Ausgängen -ãi, -˜ei ( ? ) und -˜e wird hier nicht behandelt. Lykische Inschriften werden wie bei Melchert 2004 (= DLL) und Neumann 2007 (= GL) angeführt, deren Lesungen aber in den Originalpublikationen überprüft werden müssen, N 334 nach Tekoglu ˘ 2002–2003. Mit KPN wird Zgusta 1964 angeführt. Für den Text seines Buches danke ich I. Yakubovich (Chikago). Bemerkenswert ist, daß von zehn Belegen der Datierungsformel „unter der Herrschaft des NN“ neun den Genitiv auf -he haben: TL 43, 61, 64, 67, 77, 103, 132, N 310, N 314a, dazu vielleicht auf dem zu N 324 oder 325 gehörenden Fragment Bousquet 1992: 186 a in ]he: ñta[ Z.5, nur einer anscheinend auf -h (N 315, schlecht erhalten). Statt Kalinkas Lesung [qñ]tbeddi ˜ s<s>mm[a(h) ˜ (Autopsie im Sommer 2007). Nasalierung vor d wäre irregulär; zu vergleichen sind qñtbeh TL 51, qñtb˜e TL 44d, 47 und ddapssmma ˜ TL 11.

Lykische Genitive

119

2tideimi TL 69 im zentrallykischen Rhodiapolis; ipresida◊: armpa◊ ˜ 4 schen Kyaneai . Außerdem gibt es auf Münzen noch arñnaha M 240a neben arñnahe M 240b (usw.) für Xanthos in Westlykien, za abaha M 134a und b neben za abahe M 134c und zagabah M 134d und M 109a, zagah◊ M 136 (offenbar aus *zágabh) für einen Ort in Zentrallykien (eher nicht der Avs¸ar Tepesi, wie Kolb – Tietz 2001 annehmen). Diese Formen werden auch Genitivvarianten und nicht Adjektivformen sein (contra DLL: 5 und 87 und GL: 22, während GL: 428 und 429 „Variante“ angenommen ist). Ein Sonderfall ist ñturiga ã: ãi tideimi in der frühen Inschrift TL 77 (Çindam bei Isinda): Da wird die Abtrennung in ñturiga und ããi zu berichtigen sein (vgl. Schürr 2006a: 1579). Letzteres sieht wie ein Genitiv Plural aus. Bei dem merkwürdigen a[. .]uflimfl fl eu 2tideimi in N 315 (Seyret) wird man auf eine verläßlichere Lesung warten müssen. Nach dem Photo des Abklatsches (Abb.15) scheint -mlu[h? möglich.

II Melchert geht von zwei verschiedenen indogermanischen Genitivendungen aus: lykisch -he soll auf *-(o)so zurückgehen, -h eine Verkürzung davon sein, was freilich „a genuine problem“ sei, „since there is no regular apocope of unaccented short *-o in Lycian“ (Genitive: 6, Anm.9). Die endungslosen Formen sollen dagegen auf *-os zurückgehen. Neumann 1970: 61 führt folgende Belege an: TL 5 in Telmessos (s. o.); TL 61 in Sebeda5 sbikezij˜ei: mre isa: tideimi neben Genitiv auf -he in der Datierungsformel; TL 119 in Limyra hura: iuba 3[ti]deri: ñteriwa..: tid<e>imi; TL 127 in Limyra sfl fltafl maha (…): epñ u a tideimi; TL 145 in Limyra hla: ñterubila: 2[6; TL 117 in Limyra siderija: pflerfl m[.]ne: tideimi = C « P « D« nach dem Faksimile. Kalinka hat p[ar]m[enah], ˜ und nach Neumann 1985: 247 ist pa[r]mnah fl

4

5

6

Da auch der erste Name im Genitiv steht, sollte man eigentlich *tideimehi erwarten. Port Sevedo, dann Bayındır Limanı, heute Limanagzı, ˘ ursprünglich der Hafen von Isinda. Vgl. aber E 2« KPN § 314, so daß der Name theoretisch trotz des Doppelpunkts unvollständig sein könnte

120

Diether Schürr

zu lesen. Kurioserweise hat Tischler in GL: 257 die überholte Lesung pa[r]mne beigefügt. Dieser Beleg ist also zu streichen. Melchert führt auch noch fünf weitere Inschriften an: TL 3 in Telmessos te2winez˜ei: <s>ppñtazah: asawãzala 3 tideimi (so nach DLL: 92). Aber Fellows hat in seiner Abschrift der nicht erhaltenen Inschrift am Beginn der dritten Zeile ein z, Loew Freiraum. Es ist also sicher in asawãzala zu berichtigen. TL 16 in Pinara wazala: eppleme ti[ (DLL: 93). Aber da mag in dem Freiraum h zu ergänzen sein; [eh] schreibt Kalinka. TL 87 in Myra ahba: e[h]bi: wazzije: kbatra (DLL: 107) „seine Enkelin, des Wazzi Tochter“. TL 135 in Limyra [.]uwata: trbb˜enimeh: tideri: seb˜ela: ehet˜eme 2t[ (DLL: 93). Kalinka hat am Zeilenende [eh analog trbb˜enimeh. TL 104a in Limyra soll lusñ[tr]e auch Genitiv sein (DLL: 97 nach Neumann, der GL: 188 ein Fragezeichen setzt), aber das kann ohne weiteres ein Nominativ sein. Stattdessen dürfte TL 100 in Limyra in der singulären Formel ebe

upa me-tibeija ein Genitiv vorliegen (GL: 359 erwogen; anders Melchert DLL: 105 und Genitive: 4, Anm.6, aber ein mit tibe ‚oder‘ gleichlautender Name ist wenig wahrscheinlich, Genitiversatz durch ein Suffix -ija- nicht belegbar). Es fehlt also -h fünf- oder sechsmal nach -a (drei- oder viermal am Zeilenende), nur einmal sicher nach -e (wazzije). In Westlykien und Zentrallykien gibt es nur vereinzelte Belege, allein in Limyra mehrere. Von den Inschriften haben TL 5 und 87 ausgesprochen späte Zeichenformen. Daß diese endungslosen Genitive auf *-os zurückgehen, wäre zwar theoretisch möglich, ist aber m. E. unwahrscheinlich: Warum sollte denn eine ererbte unmarkierte Kasusform bewahrt worden sein, obwohl eine markierte zur Verfügung stand? Eine innerlykische Erklärung der hie und da auftretenden Formen ist a priori wahrscheinlicher, zumal das lykische h auch in anderen Fällen zum Verstummen neigt, siehe miñta in Kadyanda (TL 31) für miñtaha, eptte in Limyra (TL 121) für epttehe und auch die griechische Schreibung M « für mahanepi[ in Korydalla (N 302). Und die Normalform -h ist auch deswegen merkwürdig, weil lykische Wörter in der Regel auf Vokal enden. Selbst ein Nasal am Wortende wird nach -a- oder -e- durch die Zeichen ã und e˜ ausgedrückt, die schließlich durch -u und (manchmal) -i abgelöst werden, nach -i- und wohl auch -u- von vornherein nicht. Daher liegt nahe, daß in der Schreibung -Vh das [h] nur sehr schwach artikuliert wurde und diese Schreibung zu den endungslosen Formen überleitet: -Vhe > -Vh > -V. So hatte das

Lykische Genitive

121

auch Neumann gesehen: „Dieser vierte Typ des Genitivs, für den wir hier sechs Beispiele gesammelt haben, gehört sicher genetisch zu Typ a), von dem er sich nur durch den sekundären Abfall des (schwach artikulierten) -h unterscheidet“ (1970: 62). Bei arñnaha und za abaha könnte daher eine hyperkorrekte Schreibung für [-a] vorliegen. Bei -h◊ dagegen dient das seltene Sonderzeichen7 offenbar der Verstärkung des schwachen -h (ähnlich wie im Schriftdeutschen ch statt h), signalisiert also eine hyperkorrekte Aussprache. Diese Genitivvariante bildet demnach das Gegenstück zu den endungslosen Formen und stützt die Annahme, daß diese innerlykischen Ursprungs sind. Bei Zagaba dürften ein westlykisches, von arñnaha inspiriertes za abaha einerseits und zagah◊ andererseits einen Herrschaftswechsel signalisieren: Vergleiche zu letzterem z˜emuh◊ M 142ab8 und M 145b von z˜emure M 125 = Limyra (DLL: 89) in Ostlykien. Das in TL 69 in Kyaneai belegte -◊ wird eine Vereinfachung sein, während der frühe Beleg tumine◊ auf der MiBrapataMünze Zahle 1988: Fig.3 (420–400 datiert)9 m. E. anders zu verstehen ist: Es entspricht dem Genitiv [t]uminehih des Ortsnamens auf der etwas älteren Cheriga-Münze Zahle 1988: Fig.2, so daß es auf *tuminehh zurückgehen wird. Und ich denke, daß das Sonderzeichen auch zur Bezeichnung des aus *-hh resultierenden Lautes erfunden wurde, ähnlich wie für Dental + h.

III Alle lykischen Genitivformen gehen also m. E. auf -he zurück (nicht -h, wie in Schürr 2001a: 117 angenommen): Die Vielfalt ist ein inner7

8

9

In Westlykien nur auf der in die 2. Hälfte des 5. Jhs. datierten Scherbe N 313c mit zabr ah◊ in Xanthos. Diese Genitivform scheint also früher belegt als die endungslose. In Zentrallykien ist -h◊ auch noch in TL 54 (Phellos) belegt. Von diesen Münzen, die von dem Dynasten Trbbenimi stammen, ist M 142a wie Münzen mit za abaha, za abahe, zagabah im Podalia-Hort gefunden worden. Trbbenimi prägte außer in Limyra und Rhodiapolis (wedr˜ei) auch in Zagaba: M 135b hat zag t wie M 144b, wo sicher Trbbenimi gemeint ist, z˜em t (beide aus dem Podalia-Hort). Daher wird auch M 136 mit zagah◊ von ihm stammen. Der niederkniende Stier auf dieser Münze kehrt auf einem um 400 datierten Stater wieder, dessen Legende Neumann GL: 229 linksläufig mutuse liest. Das ist in tum und ein Monogramm zu korrigieren.

122

Diether Schürr

lykisches Phänomen; im nächstverwandten Karischen gibt es nur -s´. Und daß -he auf *-(o)so zurückgeht, ist zumindest nicht zwingend: Es kommt auch *-osyo in Frage, zumal das karische -s´ mit einiger Sicherheit nur darauf zurückführbar ist: siehe Schürr 2001a: 116 f., von Melchert nun auch für möglich (Genitive: 8) bzw. plausibel (Further Thoughts: 2, Anm.4) gehalten. Für den gleichen Ursprung dieser Endungen spricht, daß das Karische wie das Lykische über einen scheinbar vom Genitiv (und sicher nicht vom Adjectivum genitivale) gebildete Akkusativ Singular verfügt: karisch -s´ñ wie lykisch -hñ10, z. B. in N 320 (Trilingue vom Letoon): eseimiju: qñturahahñ: tideimi (a, 10 f.) = C K

« D (b, 8 f.) = SYMYN BR KDWRS (c, 9 f.). Ein starkes Indiz für die Zurückführung auf *-osyo liefert die lykische Dichtersprache (Lykisch B): Da geht der Genitiv auf -se aus wie bei kupr[l]lese TL 44d, 11 und m. E. auch auf -s bei arppa us: e˜ ti: tmpew˜ ˜ eti TL 44c, 57 f. (contra Melchert DLL: 92; wohl wegen des folgenden e˜ apokopiert), entsprechend arppa uh TL 44a, 1 f. und 30. Dagegen hat der ‚Accusativus genitivi‘ -zñ, z. B. in TL 44c, 48: timlu mawate: waxsadi: wizttasppazñ:) „den timlu … te er mit waxsa, den des Hystaspes“. Da in der Dichtersprache s vor ñ erhalten bleibt, dürfte diese Schreibung den palatalen Charakter der Genitivendung reflektieren11, während er sonst verlorenging (Schürr 2001a: 119). Damit gibt es keinen sicheren Beleg für einen Genitiv auf *-(o)so in den anatolischen Sprachen.

IV Allerdings hängt das von der Beurteilung der im Luwischen belegten Genitivformen ab. In den späteren hieroglyphenluwischen Inschriften sind zwei verschiedene Genitivendungen belegt, -a-sa und -a-si. Die 10

11

In DLL: xi ordnet Melchert diese Formen „h-stems“ zu und erklärt den klaren Genitiv hlah in TL 56 (= F!) und 129 zum Nominativ. Analog bucht Neumann GL: 295 sogar den Gen. puwejehe in TL 44a, 24 unter puwejehi-, weil in TL 44a, 39 und 40 auch puwejehñ belegt ist. Außer bei Personennamen ist der ‚Accusativus genitivi‘ auch bei Ortsnamen belegt, wie der Genitiv selbst: tlahñ in TL 44a, 47 zu Tlos. Das -ñ kann ursprünglich ein enklitisches Pronomen gewesen sein. So entspricht in der Dichtersprache die Endung -z des Nom. und Akk. Pl. c. der hieroglyphen-luwischen -nzi (aber karisch -sˇ).

Lykische Genitive

123

zweite Endung dürfte auch auf *-osyo zurückgehen (siehe schon Szemerényi 1990, 195), während die erste für *-as oder *-asa oder auch *-assa stehen kann. Denn letzteres ist möglicherweise im Keilschriftluwischen belegt (Yakubovich 2009, 38ff.), siehe vor allem in KUB 35.54: imrassa *Tarhuntassanza (ii 14 und iii 7), „das des Wettergotts des Feldes“, imrassa *Tarhunti (ii 35), „dem Wettergott des Feldes“, allerdings auch mit einer Adjektivendung imrassan *Tarhunti (ii 37). Im Hethitischen entspricht dem gimras *Tarhunni (KBo 22.137 iii 6’), so daß die Annahme plausibel ist, daß auch imrassa ein Genitiv ist.

V Im ‚Westgedicht‘ auf den Dynasten Cheriga ist in TL 44d, 8 erigasa belegt, eingeschoben zwischen je zwei weitere Wortformen auf -a: qñnãtba: uzrñta und tu[.]adrala: palaraima (offenbar Nom./Acc. Pl. n.). Das sieht so aus, als wäre hier ausnahmsweise ein Adjectivum genitivale von einem Personennamen gebildet. Man könnte aber auch annehmen, daß sich hier ein * erigase lediglich lautlich seiner Umgebung angepaßt hätte, also keine echte Kongruenz vorliegt. Konsequenter wäre aber, diese Form als eine dem ‚Accusativus genitivi‘ analoge Bildung zu verstehen, also erigas+a anzunehmen. Dann könnten auch die oben angeführten Formen arñnaha und za abaha so verstanden werden, mit Bezug auf die Währungseinheit ada.

VI Der lykische Genitiv ist auf Personen- und Ortsnamen beschränkt. Bei letzteren gibt es die Besonderheit, daß Ortsnamen auf -i diesen Vokal beibehalten: araihe, telebehihe, [t]uminehih, adawãtihe und

ãkbihe bzw. ãkbih (GL: 113), mit Ausname von adawãtihe in TL 35, 19 nur auf Münzen. Demnach wird auch bihñ in TL 44b, 5 Accusativus genitivi eines Ortsnamens sein, und da ãkbi in b, 7 folgt, werden zwei Zeichen übersprungen worden sein.12 12

Die Lesung ijãnihe: s<e>-trmmilihe ˜ in TL 29, 17 (Schürr 2001b: 136 und danach DLL: 28 und 70) ist nach Tekoglu ˘ 2006 durch ijãnazi: se-trmmili ˜ hrppi zu ersetzen.

124

Diether Schürr

Im Griechischen entsprechen diese Ortsnamen vermutlich Araxa und sicher Telmessos, anscheinend Tymnisos13, sicher Kadyanda und Kandyba. Nun sollte man bei telebehi, tuminehi und auch arai (vgl. tei ‚des Vaters, väterlich‘ gegenüber dichtersprachlichem tedesi) annehmen, daß sie mit dem Suffix -a/ehe/i- gebildet sind, wie beispielsweise der Personenname qñturahi = K

«, von dem der Acc. gen. qñturahahñ lautet. Die Genitive dieser ONN scheinen also regelwidrig zu sein. Außerdem kommt der Ausgang -ihe auch bei terihe (TL 58, N 309; N 324 dreimal) und kumalihe[ (TL 26, 19) vor, die beide bis auf N 324, 18 (wo ]j˜e: vorausgeht) nur nach tike belegt sind, wie [. .]edehe in TL 94. Klar sind alle drei Wortformen nicht, weder semantisch noch grammatisch. Götter haben im Lykischen eigentlich keine Namen14, denn bei ihren Bezeichnungen gibt es nur den Genitiversatz wie bei Appellativen, siehe beispielsweise in N 322: [ ? ]˜emudijah: tideimi: qelehi: kumaza „des [ ? ]emudija Sohn, des Qele- Priester“15. Im Karischen tritt der Genitiv dagegen auch an Appellative, z. B. in ùnemords´- múdons´ (Lesung nach Schürr 2002: 168 f.): „Des Ùnemord (Sohn), des múdon“. Genitiversatz scheint es im Karischen überhaupt nicht zu geben; das lykisch -a/ehe/i- entsprechende Suffix -s(i) ist nur in Personennamen belegt. In Bezug auf die Verwendung dieses Suffixes ist das Karische also konservativer als alle anderen südanatolischen Sprachen. Für die Fälle, wo auch im Lykischen ein Appellativ, das auf einen Personennamen folgt, wie dieser im Genitiv zu stehen scheint, ist nun die Felsgrabinschrift N 334 in Tlos aufschlußreich: Da folgen auf das Patronym aj˜eta[..]d[.]h16 der Titel armanazah17 und tideimi, schließt 13 14

15

16

17

Siehe das in Limyra belegte Ethnikon T (Wörrle 1995: 399 f.). Das refrainartig in TL 44a, 42–55 verwendete und in b, 56 nochmals belegte hãtahe wird nicht der Genitiv des luwischen Theonyms Sandas sein (DLL: 22), sondern eine rühmende, adverbiale Phrase: Dativ Plural von hãtahe/i- zu der Personenbezeichnung hãta- in TL 84, etwa ‚Inhaber‘ (Schürr 2006b: 119 f.). Also wohl so etwas wie ‚herrlich‘, worauf a, 50 „wie Herakles“ folgt. Das von Neumann, der nur ein Photo zur Verfügung hatte, am Beginn vermutete p ist sehr fraglich. Da der Sohn den Namen ipresida < #I 2 0« hat, könnte es sich um einen analog gebildeten griechischen Namen handeln. Aber welchen? Dazu Schürr 2006a: 1585: wohl lydisch arma- entsprechend, vgl. auch karisch armon ‚Dolmetscher‘ und lykisch (B) ermede in TL 44c, 62, wohl etwa ‚verkün-

Lykische Genitive

125

sich aber auch an ikuweh tedi in Z.6 se-pr[ñn]ezijeh an: „des Inguwe Vater und Hausgenosse“. Da ist der Endvokal von prñnezijehi apokopiert, wie das ja auch bei anderen Wörtern gelegentlich geschieht, und so wird das auch bei armanazah der Fall sein: ein Scheingenetiv. Das dürfte auch für <s>ppñtazah: asawãzala3 tideimi in TL 3 (Telmes2tideimi: sos), kudalah: ñtlah tideimi in TL 43 (Xanthos) und armpa◊ ˜ 18 tubure◊ in TL 69 (Kyaneai) gelten. Das Sonderzeichen ◊ tritt also in dieser Inschrift an die Stelle von -h und -hi. Tubure◊ kann nicht „von (aus der Stadt) Tuburi“ (GL: 385) bedeuten, weil eine solche Bildung singulär wäre. Und eine solche Stadt ist auch nicht belegbar, nur (1.) eine Personenbezeichnung, die in den Cheriga-Gedichten im Nom. Pl. tubuiz (TL 44d, 31 f.) und im Akk. Pl. tuburiz (c, 53 und 57) erscheint, (2.) in dem mythischen Personennamen T2 « bei Steph. Byz. s. v. 6Y wiederkehrt und in dem Personennamen E 2 « (KPN § 355–30 in Tlos und –31 leicht verschrieben in Xanthos) mit dem Namen des Mondgotts kombiniert ist, (3.) eine Stadt, deren Name davon abgeleitet ist: tuburehi TL 44b, 15, in dem schon Arkwright 1915: 103 T2 « südlich von Kyaneai erkannt hatte, (4.) der Personenname tebursseli in Limyra (TL 103 und 104), der auf das von diesem Stadtnamen in der lykischen Dichtersprache gebildete Ethnikon zurückgehen wird (Yakubovich apud Valério 2007: 5), vergleiche zum ersten Vokal urubli(je)- TL 44b, 34, 42 f., 55 und c, 9, aber später erublija TL 26, 1 und den Personennamen C

0« (KPN § 1396) zum Theonym C

« in Istlada (siehe Schürr 2008: 16). Literatur Arkwright, William, 1915, Notes on the Lycian alphabet. JHS. 35, 100–106. Bousquet, Jean,1992, Les inscriptions gréco-lyciennes. In: Fouilles de Xanthos 9.1. Paris, 147–203.

18

dete‘. Dazu könnte auch der Personenname E

/«/ (KPN § 355–18, mit zahlreichen Weiterbildungen bzw. Komposita) gehören: *armãta-, gebildet wie hãta-. In DLL sind asawãzala, xñtlah und tubure◊ unter den „Personal Names“ gebucht. In TL 28 auf einer Statuenbasis in Tlos ist sicher N1-hñ] 4ladu uwitahñ

ahb[u N2-hñ] 5apuwazahi p[r]ñnezijeh[i zu ergänzen: im Akkusativ „des N1] Gattin, des Uwinda Enkel[in, des N2], des apuwaza, Hausgenoss[in“. Da ist also apuwaza kein Name (so DLL: 91), sondern Titel und erscheint daher nicht im ‚Accusativus genitivi‘.

126

Diether Schürr

Kolb, Frank – Tietz, Werner, 2001, Zagaba: Münzprägung und politische Geographie in Zentrallykien. In: Chiron 31, 347–416. Melchert, H. Craig, 2004, A Dictionary of the Lycian Language. Ann Arbor / New York. Melchert, H. Craig, Genitive Case and Possessive Adjective in Anatolian. Online im Internet: URL http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/Melchert unter anatoliangenitive (Stand: 6. 6. 2009). Melchert, H. Craig, Further Thoughts on Carian Nominal Inflection. Online im Internet: URL http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/Melchert unter cariannoun (Stand: 6. 6. 2009). Neumann, Günter, 1970, Beiträge zum Lykischen IV. In: Die Sprache 16, 54–62. Neumann, Günter, 1985, Beiträge zum Lykischen VII. In: Die Sprache 31, 243–248. Neumann, Günter, 2007, Glossar des Lykischen. Überarbeitet und zum Druck gebracht von Johann Tischler (Dresdner Beitr. z. Hethitologie 21). Wiesbaden. Schürr, Diether, 2001a, Karische und lykische Sibilanten. In: IF. 106, 94–121. Schürr, Diether, 2001b, Bemerkungen zu Lesung und Verständnis einiger lykischer Inschriften. In: Kadmos 40, 127–154. Schürr, Diether, 2002, Karische Parallelen zu zwei Arzawa-Namen. In: Kadmos 41, 163–177. Schürr, Diether, 2006a, Elf lydische Etymologien. In: Festschr. Roberto Gusmani. Alessandria, 1569–1587. Schürr, Diether, 2006b, Karische Berg- und Ortsnamen mit lykischem Anschluß. In: HS. 119, 117–132. Schürr, Diether, 2008, Zur Rolle der lykischen Mindis. In: Kadmos 47,147–170. Szemerényi, Oswald 1990: Einführung in die vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft. 4., durchgesehene Auflage. Darmstadt. Tekoglu, ˘ Recai, 2002–2003, Three New Lycian Inscriptions from Tlos and Asartas¸. In: Die Sprache 43, 104–114. Tekoglu, ˘ Recai, 2006, TL 29: una nuova proposta di lettura. In: Festschr. Roberto Gusmani. Alessandria, 1703–1710. Valério, Miguel, 2007, ‚Diktaian Master‘: A Minoan Predecessor of Diktaian Zeus in Linear A? In: Kadmos 46, 3–14. Wörrle, Michael, 1995, Epigraphische Forschungen zur Geschichte Lykiens V. Die griechischen Inschriften der Nekropolen von Limyra. In: Chiron 25, 387–417. Zahle, Jan, 1988, Den lykiske by Tuminehi. In: Nordisk Numismatisk Unions Medlemsblad Nr.5, 98–104. Yakubovich, Ilya 2009: Sociolinguistics of the Luvian Language (Brill’s studies in Indo-European languages & linguistics; v. 2). Leiden – Boston Zgusta, Ladislav, 1964, Kleinasiatische Personennamen. Prag.

Mühlstraße 7 D-63584 G r ü n d a u [email protected]

Diether Schürr

Greek « Λ and further evidence for laryngeal as resonant

127

Greek Λ« and further evidence for laryngeal as resonant Abstract A long discarded etymology connecting the Greek word with Balto-Slavic and Germanic cognates is rehabilitated on the basis of one fresh semantic consideration together with the common lack of demonstrable e-grade forms, which is here explained by reconstructing h3 in the root onset. The resonant-like inhibiting effect of the laryngeal on assibilation of the assumed root-initial prevelar (~ palatovelar) in o- and zero- grade forms enables a wider range of Balto-Slavic cognates to be considered, thus providing a motivated answer to the ongoing question of whether the groups usually assigned to, e.g., OE géap ‘wide, spacious’ and OE géap ‘bent’ belong together, as well as drawing other suggested etymologies of « Λ (or their analogues) into the mix. A possible etymology for the previously essentially isolated group of Lith. ziaubti ˜ ziaubiù ‘eat with mouth full/open’ also emerges.

Greek « Λ ‘light, easy, nimble’ is without etymology according to J.N. O’Sullivan (LfgrE s.v.) and Beekes (2010 s.v.).1 The first judgement (published c. 1990) may or may not, the second certainly does, imply a tacit rejection of Van Windekens’ (1986 s.v.) ingenious proposal (viz. *k2os-2 ‘hair’ + *u(e)bh- ‘weave’),3 but both are most certainly in tune with the treatments of Chantraine (1968–1980 [1999] s.v.) and Frisk (1960–1972 s.v.), the latter also echoing Boisacq’s (1950 s.v.) unargued rejection of a number of suggestions. These suggestions may be reviewed briefly as follows.

1

2

3

Whether it is fair to cite here Liberman’s views, recently summarized by Urban (2008: 191 f.), on the generally excessive and arbitrary parsimony of anglophone etymological lexicographers, I leave to others to decide. In my bitectal notation for PIE, k1, g1, g1h represent prevelars which develop into palatovelars and pure velars in satem languages and plain velars in centum languages, while k2, g2, g2h are backvelars with positionally determined labialization developing into labiovelars and plain velars in centum PIE and plain velars in satem PIE (Woodhouse 1998; 2005); absence of subscripts indicates ‘precise nature uncertain’. For tritectal sources k1 etc. will simply indicate palatovelars, k2 etc. labiovelars; k(1) etc. indicates uncertainty in the source (pointing however to bitectal k1 etc.). I feel the proposed semantic development ‘made of hair’ > ‘light’ is not entirely satisfactory: a single hair would have been much lighter than a woven artifact – a single pigtail can after all be comparatively heavy.

128

Robert Woodhouse

Böhtlingk/Roth (1875: 259) connect « Λ with Skt. súbh- ‘dahinfahren’, a connection tentatively repeated by Uhlenbeck (1898–1899: 317a s.v. çóbhate) and thence Mansion (1904: 92). If the root is inherited it must have had s mobile; and although Mayrhofer (1956–1980, 3: 358; evidently unchanged in 1992–2001, 2: 657 f.) rejects the semantic analysis that ascribes the meaning ‘dahinfahren’ to the Skt. word, nevertheless the possibility of connecting « Λ with PIE *skeubh- ‘push, shove’ allegedly found only in Germanic and BaltoSlavic (Kümmel LIV2: 560) still remains to be considered. This is because the connection between ‘push’, ‘pull’ and ‘move’ – the latter being the basis of the chief alternative etymology for « Λ – is surely unimpeachable. The alternative etymology just referred to seems to have been first published by Bezzenberger (1878: 352), connecting « Λ with ChSl. gчnoti ˛ ‘movere’, gybati ‘movere, periclitari’, gybnoti ˛ ‘perire’, gybeˇlц ‘interitus’, gubiti ‘perdere’, gubitelц ‘perniciosus, tyrannus’, OPruss. gub-ans/-ons ‘gegangen’, per-gub-ans/-ons ‘kommend’ etc. as part of an argument against Johannes Schmidt’s proposal that u-diphthongs in Greek should be derived wholesale from nasal diphthongs. It is noteworthy that Bezzenberger (ibid. n. 1) specifically separated the above group from OCS preˇ-gybati ‘bend, bow’ etc. Fick (1883) appears to be the first to propose the fuller form of the same etymology by equally specifically ignoring Bezzenberger’s separation of the ‘bend’ group and connecting «, Λ « Λ and 1. with both ChSl. “gчne˛ti” (i.e. gчnoti), ˛ gybati ‘movere’ and gybчkч ‘flexibilis’, Lett. gubt ‘sich bücken’. Later Fick (1890: 414) came to agree with Bezzenberger’s separation (associating in the process 1; « ‘hangend’ with «) Λ and was followed in this, apparently, by Wharton (1890: 73) and Prellwitz (1905: 240). More recent scholarship, however, agrees with Fick’s earlier view of the common origin of all the above Balto-Slavic material, while totally ignoring the associated etymology of «, Λ no doubt in the wake of Berneker’s (1924 s.v. gчbezˇц) unargued turnaround (cf. Berneker 1896: 293) in dismissing it: see, e.g.,Vasmer (1953–1958 s.v. gubít’), Pokorny (1959: 450), Fraenkel (1962–1965 s.v. gaubti), ˜ Sˇanskij (1972 s.v. gnut’), Kümmel (LIV2: 188), Smoczyn´ski (2007 s.v. gaubti). ˜ A third possibility is due to Leo Meyer (1901: 285), who connects « Λ with NHG, MHG hüpfen, MHG hüpfen, hupfen, Eng. hop, evidently a Kluge’s law form so the precise quality of the root final


129

consonant is immaterial to the comparison – a fact that once again facilitates a connection with PIE *(s)keubh-. In other words this third suggestion can be regarded as equal to the first. Osthoff (1910: 17 f.) found the semantic relations implicit in all of the above etymologies of « Λ unimpeachable and refused to attempt to choose between them. One could of course beat the semantic drum once again, but perhaps just a little harder, by pointing out that the gloss ‘easy-going’ supplied by Liddell/Scott/Jones (s.v.) in order to facilitate translation of the superlative of « Λ in Xenophon’s Agesilaus (11:12) rounds out the notion of ‘flexibility’ already suggested by the gloss ‘agility’ for 0« by the same authorities, thus pointing us in the direction of Fick’s original, fuller set of Balto-Slavic cognates. But equally, or perhaps, more compelling is the possibility of arguing for a point of root structure that seems to be shared by « Λ and the same set of Balto-Slavic cognates yet appears not to have been brought into the argument hitherto, viz. an apparent lack of e-grade forms. This is readily seen in the case of «, Λ Beekes (2010 s.v.), Chantraine (1999 s.v.) and Frisk (1960–1972 s.v.) all taking issue with the apparent o-grade plus barytonesis in an adjective. It is less self-evident in the case of the Balto-Slavic forms since there is a widespread tendency to replace naturally developed forms reflecting *eu by their o-grade equivalents (Stang 1966: 73 f.; Shevelov 1964: 272–275); but I agree with Kortlandt (1979: 57) following Pedersen (1935) that a rationale for the replacement needs to be found in each case. This might include such things as Endzelin’s assimilation rule, which was actually foreshadowed by Pedersen (1935: 151) and is supported and expanded by Stang (1966: 74). In the case of Lith. gaubti ˜ gaubiù ‘bend outwards; cover’, Smoczyn´ski (2007 s.v.) finds such a rationale by pointing out that the o-grade seems to have spread to the whole paradigm from the present gaubiù which was originally proper to the no longer existing iterative, inf. *gauby´ti. Plausible as this explanation may be, the fact remains that there appears to be no evidence whatsoever anywhere of a manifestly e-grade form either in Balto-Slavic or among the Germanic cognates adduced by Pokorny (1959: 450). This contrasts with the position of the superficially similar group of ON gaupn ‘die hohle Hand; both hands held together’, OHG goufana ‘handful, empty hand, palm’ (English glosses due to Orel 2003 s.v. *gaupno), Old Danish gøben, gjøben ‘handful’ (de Vries 1977 s.v.

130

Robert Woodhouse

gaupn), Lith. ziùpsnis ‘a pinch (e.g. of salt); a handful; an armful’, OE geopan ‘swallow’, geap ‘wide, spacious’ etc., which is carefully separated from the ‘bend/move’ set by Pokorny (1959: 449 f.) following Persson (1912: 835 n. 2) (though not by some other scholars, see Woodhouse 2008: 23 n. 14), since OE geopan directly attests the e-grade, perhaps represented in Lith. by ziaubti ˜ ziaubiù ‘eat with mouth full or wide open’ (i.e. ‘eat uncouthly, with little regard for niceties of etiquette’?) which seems a semantically fitting partner to OE geopan ‘swallow’ etc. but for which neither Fraenkel (1962–1965 s.v. ziauberoti) ˜ nor Smoczyn´ski (2007 s.v.) can suggest any extra-BaltoSlavic etymology, even though it is from a form such as this that Lith. ziùpsnis (perhaps once *‘a mouthful’?) must have got its palatalized initial. If this is accepted then an explanation that covers the apparent lack of e-grade forms in both Gk. « Λ and Lith. gaubti ˜ gaubiù etc. can be the presence of h3 immediately preceding the root vowel. Thus, given also the lack of Balto-Slavic evidence of palatality in the initial consonant, the root of these words can be provisionally reconstructed as PIE *g2hh3eubh-, the only problem with which is the Balto-Slavic non-acute. This non-acute, however, can be due to loss of the labialized laryngeal in Balto-Slavic posterior to the change *h3e > *h3o by dissimilation against either the initial aspera or the combined labiality of the coda *-ubh- of the root or a combination of both factors, since the three PIE laryngeals were probably still distinguishable from each other, i.e. h3 was still labialized, as late as the time of Winter’s law near the end of the Balto-Slavic period (Kortlandt 2002: 6). If the laryngeal can have been lost by dissimilation dialectally at this relatively late stage, then presumably it could also have been lost selectively (perhaps in o-grade and/or zero grade forms) in PIE, leading to the presence of two distinct roots of ultimately shared origin. Acceptance of such a proposal would enable us to posit a connection between ON gaupn, Lith. ziùpsnis, OE geopan etc. and the Balto-Slavic/ Germanic ‘bend/move’ group with the proviso that the initial consonant would then have been a prevelar, the assibilative palatalization of which was inhibited in o-grade and zero grade forms in the ‘bend/ move’ group by the presence of the laryngeal. On this basis the original root would have been *g1hh3eubh- ‘bend ( ? )’, giving rise directly to Gk. « Λ and the ‘bend/move’ group *ghHoubh- > *ghoubh-, representing both e- and o-grades, the original Balto-Slavic e-grade


131

*g¤h(h3)e/oubh- having either disappeared or merged with the parallel root with lost laryngeal *g1heubh- ‘hollow/swallow’, the latter being then of course quite distinct from Gk. "« etc. (pace Pokorny 1959: 449), which must have had, if anything, h2. The above formulation of the inhibition of assibilation of the root initial prevelar by the laryngeal in o- and zero grade forms is based primarily on Kortlandt’s (1978) analysis of the many cases in which the same process occurs conditioned likewise by immediately following back vowel but where the trigger is a resonant rather than a laryngeal. It is, however, also to be added to other instances in which a laryngeal has been observed to have the same effect, such as PSl. *xoi-r/d- ‘grey’ with *k1h1 (Lubotsky 1989: 56 f.) and Russ. xápat’, soxá and (analogical) plesˇ’ with *k1h2 (Kortlandt’s “Postscript”, 2002: 20), in all of which the combination with voiceless laryngeal also results in aspiration > spirantization of the stop. Further examples are Russ. dial. kotorá ‘quarrel, strife’ (< *k1h3ot- beside Ved. s´átru- ‘enemy’ < *k1h3ét-, with normal lack of voicing by h3 in word initial clusters, Woodhouse in press § 5.5 [ii]) and Slavic gosц ˛ ‘goose’ in which Kortlandt (1985a: 119) attributes the lack of palatality of the initial to the presence of syllabic nasal in the gen. *g1hh2nsos, whereas it can with equal or better facility be attributed to the inhibiting effect of the immediately following h2 followed by non-palatal syllabic nasal. Finally, the claim of PIE *(s)k(1)(h3)eubh- to belong here as well can be briefly considered, it being remembered that when the s is present the tectal loses its palatal feature unless *i follows (Kortlandt 1979: 58 f.). The occurrence of the e-grade among the BSl. forms is somewhat uncertain, hence Russ. skubu ‘pluck, pull by the hair’ may well have original -k- owing to relatively late retention of the laryngeal (pace Kümmel LIV2 s.v. *skeubh- n. 4) while Pokorny’s (1959: 955) OCS “sˇcˇuti” (sc. sˇtuti?) ‘hetzen’ would, like the Germanic e-grade forms, reflect early loss of h3. Given the several possible factors involved in the two proposed dissimilations of h3 as well as my hypothesis of a preglottalized origin for the asperae (Woodhouse 1995; 2009: 110) and the evidence for a glottalic reflex of all three laryngeals in Balto-Slavic (Kortlandt 1985b: 186) it is possible that either or both of the dissimilations could have fallen either in the earlier period of preglottalized asperae or in the later period of aspirated asperae. The principal watershed between the two processes is the change *h3e > *h3o. The later Balto-Slavic dissimi-

132

Robert Woodhouse

lation can occur at any time posterior to this change or to the lapse of productivity of e: o ablaut, and prior to the onset of Winter’s law.

References Beekes, Robert Stephen Paul, 2010, Etymological dictionary of Greek. Leiden/ Boston: Brill. Berneker, Erich, 1896, Die preussische Sprache: Texte, Grammatik, etymologisches Wörterbuch. Strassburg: K.J. Trübner. –, 1924, Slavisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, 1. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Bezzenberger, Adalbert, 1878, Homerische Etymologien, Beiträge zur Kunde der indogermanischen Sprachen, BB 4: 313–359. Böhtlingk, O and Roth, R., 1875, Sanskrit-Wörterbuch, 7. St. Petersburg [1966, Osnabrück/Wiesbaden]. Boisacq, Émile, 1950, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque étudiée dans ses rapports avec les autres langues indo-européennes, 4th ed. with Index by Helmut Rix. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Chantraine, Pierre, 1968–1980, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque: histoire des mots, [1999, 2. ed. avec un Supplément sous la direction de Alain Blanc et al.] Paris: Klincksieck. de Vries, Jan, 1977, Altnordisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Leiden: E.J. Brill. Fick, August, 1883, Miscellen, 28, BB 7: 94 –, 1890, Wortschatz der Grundsprache, der arischen und der westeuropäischen Spracheinheit (= Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der indogermanischen Sprachen, 4th ed., ed. A. Bezzenberger, A. Fick and Wh. Stokes, 1). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Fraenkel, Ernst, 1962–1965, Litauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg / Göttingen: Carl Winter / Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Frisk, Hjalmar, 1960–1972, Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, 3 vols. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Kortlandt, Frederik, 1975, Slavic accentuation: a study in relative chronology. Lisse, Netherlands: Peter de Ridder. –, 1978, I.-E. palatovelars before resonants in Balto-Slavic, in: Recent developments in historical phonology, ed. Jacek Fisiak, (Trends in linguistics, Studies and monographs 4). The Hague/Paris/New York: Mouton. Pp. 237–243. –, 1979, Three problems of Balto-Slavic phonology, Zbornik za filologiju i lingvistiku 22/2: 57–63. –, 1985a, Long vowels in Balto-Slavic, Baltistica 21/2: 112–124. –, 1985b, Proto-Indo-European glottalic stops: the comparative evidence, FLH 6/2: 183–201. –, 2002, From Proto-Indo-European to Slavic, www.kortlandt.nl. Kümmel, see LIV2. Kurschat, Alexander, Litauisch-deutsches Wörterbuch, 4 vols. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.


133

LfgrE = 1955–, Lexikon des frühgriechischen Epos, in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Thesaurus Linguae Graecae und mit Unterstützung der UNESCO und der Joachim-Jungius-Gesellschaft, Hamburg vorbereitet und herausgegeben von Bruno Snell. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Liddell, Henry George and Scott, Robert, 1968, A Greek-English lexicon, revised and augmented throughout by Sir Henry Stuart Jones with the assistance of Roderick McKenzie and the co-operation of many scholars. Oxford: Clarendon Press. LIV2 = 2001, Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben, ed. Helmut Rix assisted by Martin Kümmel, Thomas Zehnder, Reiner Lipp, Brigitte Schirmer, 2nd rev. ed. by Martin Kümmel and Helmut Rix. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert. Lubotsky, Alexander, 1988, The system of nominal accentuation in Sanskrit and Proto-Indo-European, (Memoires of the Kern Institute 4). Leiden / New York / Copenhagen / Cologne: E.J. Brill. –, 1989, Against a Proto-Indo-European phoneme *a, in: The new sound of IndoEuropean: essays in phonological reconstruction, ed. Theo Vennemann, (Trends in linguistics, Studies and monographs 41). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Pp. 53–66. Mansion, Joseph, 1904, Les gutturales grecques. Paris: Gand. Mayrhofer, Manfred, 1956–1980, Kurzgefaßtes etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindischen. A concise etymological Sanskrit dictionary, 4 vols. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. –, 1992–2001, Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen, 3 vols. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Meyer, Leo, 1901, Handbuch der griechischen Etymologie, 2. Leipzig: S. Hirzel. Orel, Vladimir, 2003, A handbook of Germanic etymology. Leiden: E.J. Brill. Osthoff, Hermann, 1910, Die Sippe leicht, Morphologische Untersuchungen auf dem Gebiete der indogermanischen Sprachen 6: 1–69. O’Sullivan, see LfgrE. Pedersen, Holger, 1935, Lit. iau, Studi Baltici 4: 150–154. Persson, Per, 1912, Beiträge zur indogermanischen Wortforschung. Uppsala/Leipzig: A.-B. Akademiska Bokhandeln/Otto Harrassowitz. Pokorny, Julius, 1959, Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, 1. Bern/Munich: Francke. Prellwitz, Walther, 1905, Etymologisches Wörterbuch der griechischen Sprache, 2. verbesserte Aufl. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ˇ eskij slovar’ russkogo jazyka, 1/ 4 (G). MosSˇanskij, N.M. (ed.), 1972, Etimologic fi cow: Moscow University Press. Smoczyn´ski, Wojciech, 2007, Słownik etymologiczny je˛zyka litewskiego, 2 vols. Vilnius: Vilnius University. Uhlenbeck, Christianus Cornelius, 1898–1899, Kurzgefasstes etymologisches Wörterbuch der altindischen Sprache. Amsterdam [1973, Osnabrück: O. Zeller]. Urban, Mateusz, 2008, Secretary bird, or how an etymological dictionary should be written, SEC 13: 191–199. Van Windekens, A.J., 1986, Dictionnaire étymologique complémentaire de la

134

Robert Woodhouse

langue grecque: nouvelles comtributions à l’interpretation historique et comparée du vocabulaire. Leuven: Peeters. Vasmer, Max, 1953–1958, Russisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, 3 vols. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Wharton, Edward Ross, 1890, An etymological lexicon of Classical Greek. London [1974, Chicago: Ares]. Woodhouse, Robert, 1995, Proto-Indo-European injective asperes [sc. asperae], IF 100: 92–100. –, 1998, On PIE. tectals, IF 103: 40–60. –, 2005, Assibilative palatalization of tectals in Phrygian and the adequacy of bitectal frameworks for Proto-Indo-European, IF 110: 205–234. –, 2008, Some more etymologies not requiring PIE *b, in: Problemy zahal’noho, hermans’koho ta slov’jans’koho movoznavstva/Problems of general, Germanic and Slavic linguistics: do 70-ricˇcˇja profesora V.V. Levyc’koho/papers for the 70-th anniversary of Professor V. Levickij, ed. Gabriel Altmann, Iryna Zadorozhna and Yuliya Matskulyak. Cˇernivci, Ukraine: Knyhy-XXI. Pp. 18–26. –, 2009, The Sindhi implosives: archaism or innovation?, IF 114: 79–117. –, in press, Lubotsky’s and Beekes’ laws, PIE *(H)r-,*(H)i(V)-, *a and some other laryngeal matters, SEC 16.

School of Languages and Comparative Cultural Studies The University of Queensland B r i s b a n e QLD 4072, Australia [email protected]

R o b e r t Wo o d h o u s e

Two unexplained terms in Iliad: and

135


Abstract Homeric near-hapaxes and are unexplained terms that translators have interpreted as epithets for the eagle and transliterated or solved as chromonyms. This situation is paralleled by an absolute confusion concerning the identification of the raptor. As far as is concerned, it seems possible to assume that the original formal value contained in the chromonymic indication is not actually revealed, as it actually happens in the literature. On the other hand, , which is to be considered from a perspective (i.e. Iliad 24/316) where the apparition of the eagle is tantamount to a public, daytime, oniric vision, is a highly unusual name for the eagle suggesting a reference to . As it takes on the name of fate itself, that of the eagle can be thus interpreted as a very well-marked instance of omen-name that can be called “zooaptonym”.

The unusual forms (acc.) and (acc.), both found in Iliad 24/3161 as epithets for the eagle, are generally translated as chromonyms. The protagonist raptor is thus described according to a double chromatic specification, at least if one wishes to follow the traditional translations, here limited to the Italian cases: e [Zeus] subito mandò un’aquila, l’uccello sovrano, il cacciatore nero che chiamano anche “scuro”2 mandò subito un’aquila, il più perfetto tra gli uccelli, il cacciatore dal colore scuro che viene detto anche il Nero.3 mandò subito l’aquila, la più rapida fra i volanti, la cacciatrice nera, che dicono fosca4

1

2 3 4

) # >μ - 0 7 / %0 0 # χ λ μ

. Chantraine 1979, 194 includes « into a “groupe particulier et assez obscur […] constitué par les adjectifs de couleur, désignant surtout une couleur sombre”. Paduano 2007. Ciani 19902. Calzecchi Onesti 1950.

136

Alberto Manco

e mandò subito l’aquila, il più propizio fra tutti gli uccelli, il morphnos predatore, che chiamano anche “il nero”5. That double specification (an uneconomical repetition of the raptor’s color), albeit supported by the translation tradition, might be reconsidered here. We can begin with an argument concerning . The base * - in is regularly linked through a set of relationships with the notion of circularity, something to which the literature has hardly ever offered much attention. Among others, Benveniste himself belonged to the chromonymic tradition followed by the Iliad’s translators. In his argument on the French name of the pig, ‘porc’6 (its base pork- falling within the same lexical field as * -), the Scholar focused, although very carefully, on the animal’s color at an early age: “on pourrait rapprocher *porko- du radical *perk- qui fournit gr. perkos “mouchete; épervier”, perknos “moucheté de noir”, prox, prokos “faon”, skr. prsni- “tacheté, moucheté“”7. Even supposing it is appropriate to “rapprocher” the base *perk- and its cognate *pork-, it is also important to explain contextually the apophonic distance between the two forms8.

5

Cerri 2000. But the question is ancient and widespread, as evidenced by the few examples here related to old English translations: Jove sent his eagle, surest of all signs, The black-plum’d bird voracious, Morphnos nam’d, And Percnos (Cowper 1814) Forthwith he sent an eagle, surest of omen among winged birds, the dusky eagle, even the hunter, that men call also the black eagle (Murray 1957, p. 587)

6

7 8

And immediately sent the hunter eagle, the most sure augur of Birds, which they call Morphnos and Percnos (Anonymous 1833). Formally, Benveniste’s “porc” is found in English only as the culinary name for meat from the domestic pig (pork). As far as the linguist is concerned, however, English ‘pork’ and French ‘porc’ fall into the same class of things. In other words, the points at issue here are the general Indo-European conditions under which the designation of pig as pork, porc, porco etc. has arisen. Benveniste 1949, 74–91. For an investigation on the apophonic question, cf. Silvestri 2006.


137

In Ancient Greek, unlike other Indo-European languages, the base * - wasn’t normally employed to designate the young pig but, in the same way as * -, every object sharing the notion of circularity, even tridimensionally. Concerning * -, see «, “net”, and 0«, “ring, band”9; * -, on the contrary, would usually designate fish (fated to become perches10 par excellence to Philyllius, Hippocrates, Aristophanes, and Ephyppus11, among others) as well as

9

10

11

Homer, Iliad, 6/320 and, identical, 8/495: … % ξ μ« >" κ "0, λ ξ " 1« % 0«. Calzecchi Onesti cit.: “in cima splendeva la punta / in bronzo dell’asta, e intorno un cerchio d’oro correva”; Ciani cit., p. 120: “splendeva la punta di bronzo, splendeva l’anello d’oro che intorno correva”; Paduano cit.: “in cima alla [lancia] splendeva / la punta di bronzo, e intorno correva una fascia dorata”. Murray cit.: “blazed the spear-point of bronze, around which ran a ring of gold”. Extremely popular marine and freshwater fish (Genus Perca, Family Percidae, Order Perciformes). Despite the different local names, the group numbers, among others, the European Perch (Perca fluviatilis), the Comber (Serranus cabrilla), common in the Mediterranean and known in some Italian regions as “perchia”, and the “Clownfish” (Amphiprion percula). The translation of 0 as “dark fish” is prevailing in the literature and only in some dictionaries: freshwater fish with a dark back (“pesce d’acqua dolce, a dorso scuro”) in Rocci 1961, but only “a river-fish” in Liddell-Scott 1949. Chantraine 1979 translates the corradical « into “staked out” even when fish, not only snakes, are concerned: “le sens originel [emphasis added] semble être “avec de taches noires”, dit de raisins ou d’olives qui mûrissent (Poll. 1, 61; 5, 67), d’un serpent (Arist., Nic.), de poissons (Marc. Sid.), cf. encore Hp. VC 19; nom d’un aigle noir ou tacheté de noir, le même que le « (Il., 24,316)”. However, these hypotheses are somewhat puzzling. Although perches owe their name to a chromatic feature, they are neither “spotted” nor “dark”. Dark fish are countless, but many perches are not dark at all. Rather, they can display rings all around their bodies. Therefore, the perch is referred to as “the ringed one”. Philyllius Comic., fragment 13 line 3: 0, «, 1«, 0, , « Ephippus Comic., fragment 12 line 2: L 0«, , , 0« Hippocrates et Corpus Hippocraticum Med., De diaeta section 48 line 2: < «, , «, 0, % Aristophanes Comic., Fragmenta, fragment 18 line 1: LY, ξ 2« λ Ν0 λ «, (, ξ « λ «α X λ 6O 0 « 0 ( 9 P ( ) .. As a result, the raptor in Aristotle’s text is an eagle qualified in some particular way: a means that, while showing the difficulty of framing in the best possible way the animal under consideration, escapes any precise identification: … «. As regards Hesychios, it seems appropriate to add that he seems distant from the chromatic value:: “ · ρ « $ [λ %«”23. As a matter of fact, Hesychios develops an equation between the terms and ρ «, both apt to cover values such as shape, idea, appearance (“ · > , ρ «”24). Not least, he comments on λQ through 1 “to nod, promise, approve”. The relationship between and , however, has not met with success among scholars. Among those scholars who have rejected any explicit link between and , Brugmann suggests the association “*morkÜsnos: aisl. miorkue ˛ “Finsternis“”25; Hirt himself puts forward a few solutions including – depending on the languages in which the outcome is to be found – values such as “sombre”, “obscurité”, “bigarré” or “scintiller”, “cligner les yeux”, “mort”. While still excluding any possible cognation with , he mentions other hypotheses allowing for I.E. *mer-gÜ, *mer-qÜ and *mer-gÜh, all affected by a value extension in base *mer- “briller” (which, incidentally, is associated in Greek with the outcome .).

23 24 25

Hesychii Alexandrini 1965, s.v. Hesychii Alexandrini 1965, s.v. Cit. in Hirt 1901, 226.

144

Alberto Manco

According to Chantraine, falls into “un groupe particulier et assez obscur par les adjectifs de couleur, désignant surtout un coleur sombre”26; therefore his conclusion on the “étymologie incertaine” in is relatively unsurprising. Windekens has suggested, or rather confirmed, the meaning “sombre (déja chez Homère)” and assumed a blending between the extremely rare 5 « and * "« “sombre”: “autrement dit le - initial de « proviendrait de * "« qui a exactement le même sens”27. On the other hand, Belardi28 has pointed out that the ancients would already find the term obscure (“già per gli antichi di significato oscuro”) and that it denotes an eagle identified by Aristotle as “duck hunter” (“cacciatrice di anitre”, which is inescapably disappointing as to the role played by the raptor in Iliad 24/316). Also, he has shown that Pisani had reconstructed as mr0 gwo-gwhno, the first part corresponding to O.Aisl. mr0 ga- “wild beast, game, gazelle, bird”, and the second being an agentive name of root *gwen- (“la prima parte corrisponde a ai. mr0 ga- “bestia selvatica, selvaggina, gazzella uccello” e la seconda è un nome d’agente della radice *gwen-”), but won’t agree with such problematic reconstruction, for it would require an intermediate * stage. At any rate, Belardi has not provided any alternative hypothesis. The connection with has been supported by Solmsen who, instead, as Boisacq illustrates, “revendique pour « le sens de “bigarré” et l’apparente a , dont le sens prim. aurait été “exterieur bigarré“”29. Hitherto, two possible conclusions can be drawn. One is that the hypotheses here considered and share the same chromatic value. This position allows the individuation of more or less adaptable antecedents. None of such explanations, however, seems utterly convincing nor, perhaps, does it wish to. Solmsen’s solution, for example, albeit realistic, is still to be motivated. How could a chromatic meaning such as “dark” or similar be possibly associated with ? Before establishing what bird actually corresponds to Homeric , 26 27 28 29

Chantraine 1979, 194. Cf. Liddel Scott, s.v.: “epith. of an eagle, dub. sens”. Windekens 1986 s.v. «. Belardi 1950. Boisacq 1916 s.v., 646.


145

one should rather discern why he actually names it . This does not automatically mean to reject the proximity of with , but rather to reconsider its value and suggest its possible semantic relationships. That might be associated with is supported by the solution found in Iliad 24/316 for the contextual μ , a form in which the morphological proximity suggested by the element - seems to lay beyond mere coincidence. Besides, there is a second level of proximity between and , both associated with the idea of partition-separation (in the case of those plumages with color bands clearly distinct from the others, for instance, but also in that of a “separation” from life) which, moreover, supports the apophonic association mor- / mer-: cf. « “part, portion”, but also “fate, destiny” on the one hand, and « “part, portion”, on the other. See also Hesychios “ · «”. An acc. is recurrent in Iliad with the general sense of “fate” (frequently with a negative nuance), while definitely circumscribed seems the base -, restricted to « and usually translated as “mortals”. The second conclusion is that, unlike the case with semantic “certainties” (a color), the literature provides a great number of accounts referring to some sort of formal dimension, with fluctuations ranging from meanings referable to the exceptional size of the raptor (Boraston), to those of a definitely smaller bird (Aristotle). These observations need be integrated with a few others. The mysterious meaning of cannot be deciphered without taking into due consideration the word’s broad morphological solidarity with (just another coincidence, or maybe more than that?). Note, however, as many points of difference: one, markedly referable to apophony (the -- in vs. -- in ), the second to a plainly accentual nature (oxytonesis vs barytonesis)30. In particular, it is of the utmost importance to consider that Iliad 24/316 shows a shift to a very high diaphasic register never explicitly noticed. The passage does not describe a human fact, but a natural event. As Hamann puts it in recalling the primitive ages evoked by Vico, every manifestation of nature was one word (“ogni manifestazione della natura era una

30

I am grateful to D. Silvestri for quite a few reflections on these last two aspects.

146

Alberto Manco

parola”31): Iliad 24/316 uses words to represent what has been announced by signs. Nonetheless, the passage is not a place of “agreed signs” – as Vico would have termed it – one of the common, earthy language serving to communicate life’s everyday needs, but a totally analogical, self-evident, phenomenologically marked place that the philosopher would have labeled “divine language”, and which in the literature recurs as “language of gods”. From a perspective in which the apparition of the eagle is tantamount to a public, daytime, oniric vision, the name of the eagle, , suggests a reference to . As it takes on the name of fate itself, that of the eagle can be interpreted as a very well-marked instance of omen-name. Accordingly, would be to as what offers an omen is to what flies in circles (which, in turn, is a divine sign itself). In consideration of this, it seems no less than peculiar that Iliad 24/316 might have chosen to use the solemn register to repeat, at least twice, judgments on color not really significant (black … dark32; dark … Black33; black … sullen34), rather than use descriptions of a highly meaningful behavior: that offers omen … the circling one. Seemingly, this solution refers to a directly “Homeric” textual context eluding reconstructive excesses of any sort, as if – to Homer – had already been the relic of the most inaccessible IndoEuropean remoteness. Instead, its proximity with might enable us to focus on its directly visible base ( -) as well as on the affixation (- ), rather than on other hypotheses marked by many more asterisks than the one just suggested.

References AA.VV. 1818: Nouveau Dictionnaire d’histoire naturelle, vol. min-moz, Deterville, Paris. Anonymous 1833 = Homerus [1833]. Aristote [1969]: Aristote, Histoire des animaux, tome iii, livres viii–x, trasl. by Pierre Louis, Les Belles Lettres, Paris. 31 32 33 34

Hamann 1967 cit. in Wohlfart 1981, 62. Paduano 2007. Ciani 19902. Calzecchi Onesti 1950.


147

Bailly 1950: Bailly Charles, Dictionnaire grec-français, Hachette, Paris. Belardi 1950: Belardi Walter, “Etimologie greche”, Doxa III, 1950. Benfey 1842: Benfey Theodor, Griechisches wurzellexikon, Zweiter Band, Reimer, Berlin. Benveniste 1949: Benveniste Emile, “Noms d’animaux en indo-européen. I. – Le nom du porc”, BSL 45. Boisacq 1916: Boisacq Emile, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque, Winter, Heidelberg. Calzecchi Onesti 1950 = Omero [1950] Cerri 2000 = Omero 2000 Chantraine 1968: Chantraine Pierre, Dictionnaire etymologique de la langue grecque: histoire des mots, Klincksieck, Paris. Chantraine 1979: Chantraine Pierre, La formation des noms en grec ancien, Klincksieck, Paris. Ciaceri 1901: Emanuele Ciaceri (ed. and translation), La Alessandra di Licofrone, Giannotta, Catania. Ciani 19902 = Omero [19902] Ciani 2005 = Omero [2005] Cowper 1814 = Homer [1814] Cuvier 1836: Cuvier Georges, Le règne animal distribué d’après son organisation, iii ed., tomo i, Hauman e. C., Bruxelles. Galiani-Mazzarella Farao 1789: Galiani Ferdinando, Mazzarella Farao Francesco, Vocabolario delle parole del dialetto napoletano, che più si scostano dal dialetto toscano, Tomo I, Porcelli, Napoli. Hamann 1967: Hamann Johann Georg, “Des Ritters von Rosencreuz letzte Willensmeynung über den göttlichen und menschlichen Ursprung der Sprache”, in Schriften zur Sprache, Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt Hanson 1999: Hippocrates, On head wounds, in Maury Hanson (ed.), Akademic Verlag, Berlin. Hesychii Alexandrini 1965: Hesychii Alexandrini, Lexicon, post Ioannem Albertum recensuit Mauricius Schmidt, Hakkert, Amsterdam. Hett 1955: Aristotele, Minor works. On marvellous things heard, coll. LOEB, transl. by W. S. Hett, Heinemann (London) & Harvard University Press (Cambridge, Massachusetts). Hirt 1901: Hirt H., “Kleine grammatische Beiträge”, Indogermanische Forschungen 1901. Homer [1814]: Iliad, by William Cowper, Boston, Buckingham. Homerus [1833]: Homerus, The Iliad, by anonymous ed., London, Whittaker. Homer [1957]: The Iliad, by A. T. Murray, London, William Heinemann; Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. Liddell-Scott 1940: Liddell Henry George, Scott Robert, A Greek-English Lexicon, vol. ii, ix ed., Clarendon Press, Oxford. Louis 1969 = Aristote [1969] Mallory-Adams 1997: Mallory James P. and Adams Douglas Q., Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture, Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers, London and Chicago.

148

Alberto Manco

Mooney 1921: George W. Mooney (ed. and transl.), The Alexandra of Lycophron, Bell and sons, London. Murray 1957 = Homer [1957] Omero [1950]: Omero, Iliade, by Rosa Calzecchi Onesti, Einaudi, Torino. Omero [19902]: Omero, Iliade, by Maria Grazia Ciani, Marsilio, Venezia. Omero 2000: Omero, Iliade, by Giovanni Cerri, Milano: Rizzoli, 20002. Omero [2005]: Omero, Iliade, by Maria Grazia Ciani, 4th ed., Marsilio, Venezia. Paduano 2007 = Omero [2007] Omero, Iliade, by Guido Paduano, Mondadori, Milano. Hett 1936: Page T.E., et alii (eds.), On marvellous things heard, in Aristotle minor works, Loeb Cambridge. Risso 1826: Risso Antoine, Histoire naturelle, t. iii, Levrault, Paris. Rocci 1961: Rocci Lorenzo, Vocabolario greco-italiano, xiv ed., Lapi, Città di Castello. Russo 1950: Esiodo, Scutum, by Carlo Ferdinando Russo, La nuova Italia, Firenze. Silvestri 2006: Silvestri Domenico, “Apofonie indeuropee e altre apofonie”, in Studi linguistici in onore di Roberto Gusmani, volume III, R. Bombi, G. Cifoletti, F. Fusco, L. Innocente, V. Orioles (eds.), Edizioni Dell’Orso, Alessandria. Vegetti 1976: Opere di Ippocrate, in Mario Vegetti (ed.), UTET, Torino. Walde-Pokorny 1927: Walde Alois, Pokorny Julius, Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der Indogermanischen Sprachen, De Gruyter, Berlin-Leipzig. Windekens 1986: Windekens, Albert Joris van, Dictionnaire étymologique complémentaire de la langue grecque, Peeters, Leuven. Wohlfart 1981: Wohlfart Günter, “Vico e il carattere poetico del linguaggio”, Bollettino del Centro di Studi Vichiani 11.

Università di Napoli “L’Orientale” Piazza san Domenico Maggiore, 12 I-80134 N a p o l i Italien [email protected]

Alberto Manco

The development of Indo-European middle-passive verbs

149

The development of Indo-European middle-passive verbs: a case study in Ancient Greek and Old Church Slavonic* Abstract This work is a syntactic analysis of the change that affected the selectional properties of the Indo-European middle-passive verbs that take two arguments (namely, of the psych verbs denoting separation). Here, I will account for the differences in case marking of the objects of such “middle-passive” verbs, paying special attention to the contrast between the Ancient Greek pattern and the Old Church Slavonic pattern. I will show that the Greek and the Slavic middle-passive structures differ in a series of properties, and argue that they represent different points in the evolution from a PIE. intransitive / stative pattern to independently developed patterns: Greek developed into an active-middle pattern (similar to Latin deponents), while Slavic developed into a passive, namely, a reflexive passive pattern.

1. The puzzle Ancient Greek (Gk.) middle verbs denoting ‘separation’ and related notions, such as ‘fear’, ‘shame’ and ‘refusal’ (e.g. φ2,% ‘to be afraid’), like Indo-European (IE.) deponent verbs in general, seem not to undergo the so-called Burzio’s Generalization (Burzio 1986), according to which verbs that lack an external argument (here, a subject) do not license accusative case on the internal argument (here, an object). Consider, for example, the sentence in (1), where a Gk. middle verb of fear takes an accusative object:1 * I would like to thank Maia Duguine, Iván Igartua, and Aritz Irurtzun for their comments on this paper. My gratitude to the audience of the X DIGS conference for their valuable comments on my presentation. This work is part of the FFI2008–03816/FILO and the FFI2008–04786/FILO research projects, which are funded by the Spanish Ministry of Education and Science, and has been financed by Joseba Lakarra’s research group on historical linguistics and the HM-2009-1-1 and HM-2008-1-10 research projects (both funded by the Department of Education, Universities and Research of the Government of the Basque Country). 1 Most Greek examples have been extracted from the Perseus and the Titus internet pages (Perseus Digital Library: www.perseus.tufts.edu; Thesaurus IndoGermanischer Text und Sprachmaterialien: http://titus.uni-frankfurt.de), and

150

(1)

Nerea Madariaga

(Gk.: Thucydides, 2: 87) T« ’κ D 7 φ2, κ , )"λ

*". who part. because her of-you fears [the future]AC not truth has ‘Those of you who fear the future (battle) because of the last one are not right.’

On the other hand, Old Church Slavonic (OCS.) and other Slavic languages (i.e. Old Russian) conserved the PIE. ablative case (incidentally, we must note that its uses were conflated with the ones of the genitive case in Greek and Slavic) on the objects of the verbs of ‘separation’ and related notions (e.g. bojati se˛ ‘to be afraid’), observing the generalization that verbs that lack a subject do not license accusative case on the object, but mark it with another case (e.g. genitive case), as shown in (2): (2)

Ne uboite se˛ ubivajos ˛ ˇ cˇixч teˇlo. (OCS.: Mt. 10: 28)2 not fear refl. AC killing PART.GN body ‘Do not be afraid of those who kill your body.’

Finally, both languages have innovated with respect to PIE. in that they made occasional use of the mechanism of replacing the PIE. ablative case with a P(repositional) P(hrase) headed by an overtly (morphologically) realized preposition (Allan 2003, Luraghi 2003), as in (3): (Gk.: Sophocles, Trachiniae 671) (3) a. E , > , ( Ρ φ29 . explain if explainable from what GN fear ‘Explain, if you can, what you are afraid of.’ b. Nч ne boi se˛ otч mokч. ˛ (OCS.: Codex Suprasliensis 8b: 7) but not fear refl. AC from tortures GN ‘But do not be afraid of suffering.’ In this work, I will account for the contrast between the case marking patterns of middle-passive sentences in Gk. and OCS. (with more

2

some of the Old Church Slavonic ones, from the dictionary by Cejtlin, Vecˇerka, Blagova et alii (1999 [1994]). The OCS. New Testament references for which the source is not explicitly specified are all from the Codex Marianus.


151

general reference to IE. and PIE., too). I will show that this contrast is not superficial, but has deep roots in the structure of IE. middlepassives itself and their development during the history of the different IE. groups of languages. This work is organised as follows: in section 2, I will overview the types and general characteristics of IE. middle-passive constructions, based on previous accounts about these constructions in PIE. and early IE. In section 3, I will introduce the main hypothesis of this work, and in sections 4 and 5, I will provide different arguments in favour of my proposal. In section 4, I will present evidence in favour of the structures triggered by the verbs under analysis, according to my proposal; and in section 5, I will show how these structures account for the differentiated object case marking of these verbs. Finally, in section 6, a conclusion is offered.

2. Observations about IE. middle-passive patterns in the literature In this section, I will provide the classifications of the middle-passive patterns in IE. that have been proposed in the literature, according to different properties: semantic and morphological, as well as from the point of view of their historical development.

2.1. Semantic middle-passive patterns and their classifications The semantic properties of middle-passives in PIE. and early IE. have been usually given in the literature in the form of hierarchies of constructions with respect to some semantic or pragmatic property. Here, I will review some of these proposals, namely, the ones that are relevant for the account I am developing here. Croft, Shyldkrot & Kemmer (1987) consider the semantics of middle constructions close to reflexives and related to transitive verbs from the point of view of the causal chain of events: the subject of middles is both the initiator and the endpoint of the action (vs. passive constructions, where the subject is the endpoint, but not the initiator of the action). Middle voice, therefore, does not consist in valence decreasing (as in passives), but in valence increasing (cf. also Gerritsen 1992, among others). Consider example (4):

152 (4)

Nerea Madariaga

Ivan breetsja. (Russian) IvanNOM shaves3SG-PASS ‘Ivan shaves himself / Ivan gets himself shaved (by someone else).’

Sentence (4) has two readings: a middle reflexive reading (‘Ivan shaves himself’) and a causative reading, where someone else shaves Ivan. In both cases, the middle form adds a second argument to the one we have in overt syntax (Ivan), namely, an implicit agent (be it Ivan himself or someone else). We will come back later to this notion of implicit arguments.3 Allan (2003) provides a semantic classification of the Ancient Greek middle construction, in a hierarchy according to the property “subject affectedness”, which, as we will see later, correlates with the morphological markers of the Gk. middle. Thus, his hierarchy goes from verbs with “a subject that undergoes a change of state” to the ones where “the subject does not undergo a change of state”: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi)

Passive: ‘is made’. Spontaneous / mental processes: ‘I get burned’ / φ2 ‘I fear’. Body / collective motion: ‘I turn’ / $Q ‘to gather’. Perception / mental activity: 1 ‘I taste’ / Q ‘I consider’. Reciprocal: $. Q ‘I fight’. Direct / indirect reflexives: 1 ‘I get shaved’ / ‘I make for myself’.

The classification given by Savcˇenko (2003 [1974]) specifies the following meanings of the middle-passive forms in early IE. languages (I will concentrate on the early Gk. examples): (a) (b)

3

Intransitive meaning: he defines it as the most ancient one, as we will see later on. Stative meaning: also very frequent in Homer and early IE. languages; ex. , ‘I am lying’.

For implicit arguments in passive / middles in English, see also Bhatt & Pancheva (2005).


(c)

(d) (e)

153

Middle in the classical sense (indirect reflexive), that is, the active meaning of the verb adding ‘for oneself’, as in Classical Gk. ‘I do something for myself’. Reflexive meaning: as in 1 ‘covers oneself’. Passive meaning: probably a late development (cf. below).

Finally, to complete the picture, I will briefly mention Vaillant’s (1965 [1924], 2002 [1948]) classifications of middle-passive meanings in OCS. (examples with the middle-passive reflexive se˛):4 (1)

(2) (3)

4

Intransitive forms (he calls them “reflexive forms”, because of the pronoun se˛), which can be divided into two groups: (i) the ones that are only “reflexive”, e.g. blistati se˛ ‘to shine’. The middle-passive verbs of mental state and perception that are conserved in OCS. are included here, e.g. radovati se˛ ‘to be happy’, diviti se˛ ‘to be surprised’, bojati se˛ ‘to be afraid’; and (ii) the ones that can be either reflexive or active. The pairs of verbs in this last group can have different meanings, depending on the presence of the reflexive se˛ or not, e.g. drчzˇati (+ accusative case) ‘to hold (an object)’ vs. drчzˇati se˛ (+ genitive case) ‘to observe (laws or principles)’. Reciprocal: sчbirati se˛ ‘to gather’. Passive: dastч se˛ vamч ‘it will be given to you’.

Another way to form passive constructions in Slavic is by combining a passive participle with a copular verb (OCS.: byla sчpasenaPAST-PASS.PART. ‘(she) was saved’). I will disregard here these constructions because their middle-passive status is not clear. It could be argued that these constructions are copular sentences, and not what is usually understood under “passive” voice for the following reasons: (i) they do not show the whole range of meanings that the se˛ form has (they form only passives, not medial or reflexive-reciprocals); (ii) as a consequence, they do not combine with middle-passive verbs of mental state, the ones denoting fear, refusal, and taking complements (our object of study; i.e. verbs like OCS. bojati se˛ ‘to be afraid’ do not form passive participles); (iii) they show very distinct properties with respect to the se˛ forms: e.g. the Ukrainian -no/to- participial constructions (passive constructions with an accusative object) are exclusively found with past participles, but not with se˛).

154

Nerea Madariaga

2.2. Middle-passive patterns from the point of view of their morphology and history The previous literature about the IE. middle-passives proposes different possible paths of development of these constructions in the history of the IE. languages. Jasanoff (1978) argues that statives and middles were closely related in IE., as opposed to the active paradigm. He shows that the perfect (and stative) desinences and the middle ones are etymologically related in many early IE. languages, such as Hittite, Gk. or Indo-Iranian, and have similar distribution in them.5 For example, the Gk. deponent present verbs ‘to become’ and ‘to get mad’, with middle desinences, correspond to the active perfect forms and 0 , respectively.6 Savcˇenko (2003 [1974]) also identified intransitive and stative meanings as the most ancient of the IE. middle forms. In fact, Homer middle forms do not have the classical indirect reflexive sense found later (“for oneself”). Thus, according to Savcˇenko (2003 [1974]), the Homeric verb \ means ‘to stand’ and not ‘to put for oneself’, (" is ‘to hold, to keep oneself’ and not ‘to have for oneself’, etc. The stative meanings were very frequent in Homer (purely statives: - ‘to be sitting’, , ‘to be lying’, or mental / sensitive states: ‘to want’, ΝQ ‘to be afraid’, ‘to think’) and other early IE. languages, e.g. Hittite (ar- ‘to stand’, iya- ‘to go’), Sanskrit (a¯ste ‘is sitting’, ihate ‘wants’, bha¯yate ‘to be afraid’), etc. In addition, some active stative verbs have middle desinences, which is a proof of their semantic relation; for example, the stative verb nahsariya- ‘to be afraid’ in Hittite (cf. Gk. φ2 ‘to be afraid’) had middle desinences. Finally, some middle verbs of process (non-eventive) in Homer could be transitive and have a direct object (e.g. $ ‘to pray’, $Q ‘to be afraid’); the same observation holds for Sanskrit (arthate ‘wants’, lokate ‘sees’).

5

6

Rix (1988) – cf. also Clackson (2007: 149) – proposes two initial paradigms: stative vs. active. Clackson (2007: 149) points out that there have been reconstructed different series of desinences for PIE. middle voice, ranging from two (middle / stative and active) up to four (active, middle, stative and perfect). According to Jasanoff (1978), in early IE., the old perfect forms lost their connection with the middles and merged with other past forms, e.g. Hittite *akha originally meant ‘I have died’, but later became ‘I am dead’.


155

The passive meaning of these forms is found in the Indo-Iranian, Italic and Celtic languages, as well as in Greek and Gothic. However, Savcˇenko (2003 [1974]) also argues that the passive meaning of these forms is probably a late development of the stative meaning because: (i) it is semantically related to the corresponding stative, i.e. was always non-eventive (cf. Latin deponent verbs); and (ii) in the early texts, the passive constructions could not have an overt agent. In early Gk., Latin and Gothic texts, the passive constructions very rarely took an agent marked with an oblique case; later on, this agent appears more and more frequently. In conclusion, Savcˇenko (2003 [1974]) proposes the following path of evolution for IE. middle forms: stative constructions (nominative subject) > stative passive (nominative subject, without an agent) > passive with agents. In any case, in later IE. languages, the original IE. middle-passive desinences got lost and new middle-passive constructions arose by adding a reflexive pronoun to active verbs. This was the case of Romance and Slavic, where the 3rd person accusative (some times, also the dative) form of the reflexive pronoun (Latin se, OCS. se˛) was reanalyzed as the marker of the constructions analyzed here (cf. Haspelmath 1987 and Kemmer 1995 for Romance: reflexive > middle > passive).7 In this paper, I will concentrate on those middle-passive verbs that were able to take more than one argument. In Allan’s (2003) classification, these are mental processes (φ2 ‘I fear’), and perception and mental activities (1 ‘I taste’ / Q ‘I consider’). In Vaillant’s (1965 [1924]) classification, the crucial verbs are intransitives expressing mental processes and perception / mental activities (moliti se˛ ‘to pray’, drчzˇati se˛ ‘to observe (laws or principles)’, bojati se˛ ‘to be afraid’, stydeˇti se˛ ‘to be ashamed’, etc). We can characterize semantically all these verbs as processes or activities denoting perception. 7

Looking at the etymology of the verb bojati se˛ ‘to be afraid’, for example, we can track down its ancestor to an active reconstructed form *baie- (infinitive *bitei) > *bojati ‘to scare’ (Vasmer 2003 [1950–58]). The morphological formation of bojati se˛ is quite transparent: it should have been formed by adding the short accusative reflexive pronoun form se˛ to an active verb (the reconstructed form *bojati), although the corresponding active form is not attested in Slavic. In other Indo-European languages, however, active forms etymologically related to bojati se˛ are common, for example, the active form in Avestan bayente ‘to scare, to frighten’ (Vasmer 2003 [1950–58]).

156

Nerea Madariaga

From the point of view of their object case marking, I will concentrate on the perception / mental verbs denoting “separation” and related notions (e.g. “fear”, “shame”), that is, the ones that correspond to a PIE. verb with an ablative-case marked object; recall that the uses of the ablative case conflated with those of the genitive case in Greek and Slavic (hereby, I will call this case ablative-genitive case). The examples in (5a, 6a, 7a, 8a, 9a) illustrate some of these verbs in OCS.; compare their ablative-genitive objects with the accusative ones in the parallel New Testament Greek examples in (5b, 6b, 7b, 8b, 9b): (5) a. Ne strasˇo˛ se˛ protivnaago. (Codex Suprasliensis 490, 9) not fear ACT refl. enemy GN (St. John Chrysostom In sanctum pascha, 3) b. O) (λ φ . μ [] . not even fear ACT [the enemy]AC ‘I am not afraid of the enemies.’ (6) a. Posramleˇjotч ˛ se˛ s[y]na moego. are-ashamed ACT refl. [son mine]GN b. #E μ Dμ . Respect MID [the son my]AC ‘They will respect my son.’

(Mk. 12: 6)

(7) a. Postyditч se˛ mene i moixч slovesч. is-ashamed ACT refl. meGN and [my words]GN b. #E" %9 λ ]« ( ]« «. is-ashamed MID meAC and [the my words]AC ‘(The one who) is ashamed of me and my words.’

(Lk. 9: 26)

(8) a. Vцsego brasˇцna vчzgnos ˛ ˇ a se˛. [all food]GN loathed ACT refl. b. P» 2 7 (2 1. [all food]AC loathed MID ‘(He) loathed all kind of food.’ (9) a. Ne otцvrчgo˛ se˛ tebe. not will-deny ACT refl. you GN b. O) $ . not not you AC will-deny MID ‘I will not refuse you.’

(Psalm 106: 18)

(Mt. 26: 35)


157

The examples in (5b, 6b, 7b, 8b, 9b) have been taken not from Ancient Greek, but from New Testament Greek, in order to show the exact contraposition between the two patterns (OCS. and Greek). But of course, Ancient Greek, right from Homer’s times, had already replaced ablative-genitive objects by direct accusative objects, as shown in (10): (Homer Odyssey 16, 446) (10) a. O) ξ % % Ν .. not something him death AC fear MID bid ‘I bid him not be afraid of death.’ (Xenophon Anabasis 7, 3, 26) b. Kλ $". 7 ) κ 9 0« μ . and retreating not not fear MID [the enemy]AC ‘And retreating, you shall not fear the enemy.’

2.3. Syntactic properties of middle-passives in Gk. vs. OCS. In this section, I will check some well-known syntactic properties of the middle-passive verbs which can take objects in Ancient Greek (Gk.) and Old Church Slavonic (OCS.). Some of the differences between old and new IE. middle-passives have been previously detected in the literature (see e.g. Comrie 1998, Jasanoff 1978), as mentioned in section 2.1: (i) As we said before, the Gk. morphological middle pattern corresponds to a PIE. series of middle desinences, shared with the Indo-Iranian group (Jasanoff 1978, Savcˇenko 2003 [1974]), directly inherited from one of the possible – reconstructed – PIE. middle systems. OCS., however, has innovated with respect to the IE. ancestor in that it has lost the middle conjugation and created a new pattern of passive voice by adding the reflexive accusative pronoun se˛ to an active verb. This is the evolutional path followed by other new IE. creations, such as Romance middle-passives. By the moment, I will call these two patterns the “old” middle-passive (Gk.) and the “new” middle-passive (OCS.). (ii) The old middle morphology could denote the old PIE. semantic values, i.e. stative and indirect reflexive meanings (an active verbal action in benefit of oneself), while the new pattern did not have those meanings: on the one hand, stative verbs are not se˛-verbs in OCS., as

158

Nerea Madariaga

shown in (11b) vs. the Gk. stative middle verb in (11a). On the other hand, in OCS., indirect reflexives are not middles, but construed with an active verb and a dative complement or a complex P(repositional) P(hrase), as shown in (12b) – cf. with the middle form in Gk. with an indirect reflexive meaning (12a): (Gk.: Odyssey 24, 75) (11) a.#E ) 7 , 1’ 5, φ ’ #A" . in it part. are-lying MID white bones illustrious Achilles ‘There are lying your white bones, glorious Achilles.’ b. I vц lozˇixч svoixч lje˛gotч. ˛ (OCS.: Sinai Psalm 103, 22) and in beds theirs are-lying ACT ‘And they are lying in their beds.’ (Gk.: Thucydides 4: 9) (12) a. O) @ Ρ ( ". ) . ( ) . %. not part. was arms AC in country uninhabited to-procure MID ‘It was impossible to procure arms for themselves in an uninhabited country.’ (OCS.: Lk 12: 21) b. Tako sчbiraje˛i sebeˇ a ne vч b[og]ч bogateˇje˛. thus collect ACT himself DT and not towards god being-rich ‘This is how is the one who makes money for himself and is not rich in God.’ (iii) In this paper, I have introduced an additional difference between the two patterns: recall from examples (1–2), repeated below for convenience, the different subcategorization of the Greek and Slavic middle-passive verbs of mental / perception processes with respect to their possible objects: Gk. middles could take an accusative object (see example 1 above), while their OCS. counterparts could not take an accusative object, but only a genitive one (example 2 above). Thus, the Gk. pattern does not seem to observe the so-called Burzio’s (1986) Generalization, while the OCS. one does observe it. This follows from the fact that the objects of passive verbs should not be marked with accusative case according to this generalization: “All and only the verbs that can assign a %-role (i.e. a semantic role) to the subject can assign accusative case to an object.” (Burzio 1986: 178). In the “strong” version of Burzio’s Generalization a “subject” is taken to be an argument with a semantic role “agent”. However, if we


159

widen the notion of “subject” to other kinds of subjects, the Gk. pattern above can be accounted for without violating Burzio’s Generalization, as we will see later.

3. The hypothesis In this paper, I propose that the difference in the object marking of Greek vs. Slavic middle-passive verbs lies in their different nature and structures. I will argue that Burzio’s (1986) Generalization contradicts neither the Gk. nor the OCS. pattern because of the following reasons: the OCS. construction in (2) contains a pronoun, which is the one that receives accusative case and therefore blocks accusative case assigning to any other possible argument in the sentence. This pronoun does not have gender or number features, so that it cannot agree with the verbal tense and cannot be a nominative subject. The DP that surfaces as nominative is originally created in the object position, but it does have gender / number features and can therefore agree with the verbal tense and receive nominative case, i.e. surfaces as the subject, yielding a passive construction (the object becomes a nominative subject). As for the reflexive pronoun in (2), I will argue that, even if it has no gender / number features, being a pronominal element, it needs in Slavic to be marked with some morphological case. Its case materializes as the other case available in a regular ditransitive sentence: accusative case. This is represented in structure (13): (13)

T(ense)P NP NOM [gender/number] ····

····

····

····

···

(OCS.: Reflexive construction) T’

T [gender/number]

V(erb)P

Move

se˛ ACC [gender/number] ·· ·· ··

·· ·· ··

·· ·· ··

·· ·· ··

·

V

V’ NP

160

Nerea Madariaga

In this way, I simply support the association of gender / number features and case marking in the case of nominative arguments (i.e. a nominative subject generally agrees in gender / number with the tense of the sentence), but dissociate gender / number features and case marking in the case of accusative objects. This seems so at least in most IE. languages, where only the nominative argument “agrees” with the verb, but accusative case is no matter surfaced on the other argument (cf. Alboiu 2007 for a similar proposal in Romanian). (13) will be argued to be the OCS. pattern, where middle-passive verbs are new formations created by adding the reflexive accusative pronoun se˛ to the active voice (Schmalstieg 1983, Vasmer 2003 [1950–58]). I will call this pattern “reflexive construction”. As for the Gk. pattern, I will argue that we are not dealing here with a real passive construction, but with the old IE. middle-stative pattern, which could be either transitive or intransitive (cf. section 2.1). I will concentrate here on the transitive / active pattern (because it is the one that accept objects), which I will denominate “active middle”. Active middles are typical of Gk. and reconstructed also for PIE. (Jasanoff 1978, Meillet 1965 [1924], Meier-Brügger 2003). The verbs under analysis in this paper give rise to the regular transitive structure represented in (14). The presence of a regular nominative subject allows accusative marking on the object, as predicted by Burzio’s Generalization. T(ense)P NP NOM [gender/number] ····

····

····

····

···

(Gk.: active middle) T

T [gender/number] V

V(erb)P

··················································

(14)

NP ACC[gender/number]

Finally, I will argue that the development of the original PIE. constructions under analysis (perception / mental non-eventive verbs denoting “separation” and related notions) into Greek and Slavic was as follows: mental / perception processes were stative constructions in IE; the NP arguments that could be associated to them surfaced with the case required by the semantics of the relation between the verb and the NP, in our structures (verbs of “separation”), ablative-geni-


161

tive case (cf. Meillet 1964 [1906], Savcˇenko 2003 [1974]). Then, in Greek, many of the NPs marked with such “adverbial” cases became simple objects (marked with accusative case), and the structure became transitive, as in (14). In Slavic, the middle desinences disappeared, and the new reflexive-passives arose; the change from PIE. “adverbial” ablative-genitive case to accusative case on the internal arguments (which took place in Slavic in active verbs, cf. Borkovskij 1978) was not possible in reflexive-passive constructions, because of their structure, which was really passive (the internal argument – the object – surfaced as nominative, and accusative surfaced on the passivizing accusative reflexive pronoun, in absence of another possible morphological case suitable for it). Therefore, the objects of the reflexive verbs of “separation” and related notions were forced to preserve ablative-genitive case on their objects. I will arrange the argumentation to prove this hypothesis around two main axes: in section 4, I will argue for a differentiated structure of the middle-passive verbs with objects in OCS. vs. Gk. Then, in section 5, I will account for the differences in object case marking of these verbs, taking into account the corresponding structures and their evolution in IE.

4. The structure of the IE. middle-passive constructions 4.1. The position of the nominative NP in (13) and (14) Formal studies on modern languages have investigated the syntactic properties of the traditionally considered “passive” constructions. For instance, Raposo & Uriagereka (1996) show that the so-called “indefinite se” constructions in Romance (a new formation similar to the one of Slavic) are, in fact, active structures. Previous work on this topic had already established that another Romance se, “generic se”, triggers regular transitive structures (Cinque 1988).8

8

In this respect, Cinque (1988) and Raposo & Uriagereka (1996) find a contrast between French and Portuguese se-constructions. (i) a. Omtem compraram-se demasiadas salsichas. (Portuguese) yesterday bought-se too-many sausages ‘Yesterday, too many sausages were bought.’

162

Nerea Madariaga

In the OCS. constructions under analysis, the NP that surfaces as nominative in (13) seems an object, rather than the subject. As for the nominative NP in the Gk. construction in (14), it rather seems a subject than an object. Here are the arguments in favour of this. 4.1.1. Semantic relations According to Croft (1993), mental perceptions and activities involve two participants: a stimulus and an experiencer, which usually involve two causal relations: the experiencer can direct his attention to the stimulus, and the stimulus can cause a mental affectedness in the mind of the experiencer. In the first case, the experiencer is more “agentive”; in the second case, the stimulus is more “agentive”. I will then assume that the experiencer can be the external argument (subject or agent) of a verb denoting mental / perception processes and activities (in which case the stimulus is the internal argument or object), or the other way round: the stimulus can be the external argument, while the experiencer should be the object.9 As I proposed in the structures in (13, OCS.) vs. (14, Gk.), the participants in the event differ in the two languages depending on their position in the structure. The crucial test to show that these structures are correct is the contrast between internal vs. external arguments. If (13) is correct, i.e. the NP that will occupy the subject position is the internal argument, the resulting structure is a real passive and therefore, we expect to be able to add an additional agent to such a construction, as in common passives. On the contrary, in (14), if the NP

9

b. La poubelle se vide au sous-sol. (French) the trash empties in underground-floor ‘One empties the trash in the underground floor.’ These authors argue that the Portuguese NP demasiadas salsichas and the French la poubelle have different properties; various syntactic tests for subjecthood, such as control, topicalization, and semantic properties, suggest that the French NP behaves like a subject, while the tests show that the Portuguese NP has direct object properties. A similar semantic effect was described in other accounts of psych verbs, such as Dowty (1991). This author claims that psych verbs can vary with regard to its semantic role properties. For instance, the arguments in John fears dogs and in Dogs frighten John are ambivalent with respect to their semantic roles; in each of them, John or the dogs are the agent, the experiencer, or the patient.


163

that occupies the subject position is the external argument, while the other NP is the internal argument, the addition of an agent (a second external argument) is not expected. This prediction is borne out: in OCS., besides the original IE. ablative-genitive marking for the stimulus in the verbs of fear, we can have a stimulus that comes in the form of an agent, typically formed in OCS. with the preposition otч ‘from’ + genitive NP, as shown in (15). (15)

Nч ne boi se˛ otч mokч. (OCS.: Codex Suprasliensis 8b: 7) but not fear refl. AC from tortures GN ‘But do not be afraid of suffering.’

However, in Gk., agents (typically headed by D ‘under’, cf. Coulter 2005) are not compatible with the verbs under analysis (at least, until the New Testament Greek period); the prepositions that could marginally replace accusative case on the stimulus participant were various in Ancient Greek (( + genitive, « + genitive or accusative, >« + accusative), but never D (Allan 2003: 74). Examples of this are provided in (16a-b), taken from Allan (2003): (Sophocles, Trachiniae 671) (16) a. E , > , ( Ρ φ29 . explain if explainable from what GN fear ‘Explain, if you can, what you are afraid of.’ b. #A’> φ29 μ« … (Sophocles, Trachiniae 1211) but if fear towards that AC ‘But if you are afraid of that …’ ‘Feeling fear towards her husband and children.’ (Sophocles, Oedipus Tyrannus 980) c. C] ’>« 0 μ« κ φ2 φ1 . you towards the mother not fear marriage AC ‘Do not be afraid of marrying your mother.’ To appreciate the parallelism with (15) and (16), I give examples of regular agents headed by otч in a purely passive sentence in OCS. (17a) and by D in Gk. (17b): (17) a. Krчsti se˛ otч ioana vч iordaneˇ. (OCS.: Mk. 1: 9) baptized refl. from Johann in Jordan ‘He was baptized by Johann in the Jordan river.’

164

Nerea Madariaga

(Gk.: Aeschines, Speech on the Embassy 2, 172) b. T7 "7 Dμ 7 2 2 . .. . the walls under the barbarians destroyed PASS.PART. ‘Having being destroyed the walls by the barbarians …’ 4.1.2. Correferentiality of subjects in main and subordinate clauses Gk. verbs denoting fear could be followed by an argumental subordinate clause. This could not be an infinitive clause, but was always introduced by the conjunction κ and a subjunctive form, as in (18), being the subject of the main clause and that of the subordinate clause correferent (18a) or not (18b). (Xenophon Cyropaedia 3, 1, 22) (18) a. 2, κ (…) *" %9 0. is-afraid that the last-punishment will-suffer 3SG. ‘He is afraid that he will suffer the severest punishment.’ (Xenophon Anabasis 1, 10, 9) b. 5E ¹ 6E0 « κ μ« μ « λ (…) )]« ;

feared the Greeks that advance 3PL towards the flank and them cut-down 3PL ‘The Greeks were afraid that (the enemy) would advance against their flank and cut them down.’ The Gk. verbs of fear (middle or not) cannot take infinitive subordinate clauses for independent reasons. This restriction is derived from the fact that such constructions are direct inheritors of the PIE. system where two paratactic clauses were connected by a particle – here by , initially a prohibitive particle (Smyth 1956 [1920]: 500ff).10 However, other middle verbs of perception (e.g. the verbs of refusal) can take infinitive subordinate clauses. Compare (18) to (19), where the usual way how other perception verbs introduce argumental infinitive clauses is illustrated. Here, I provide an example 10

The origin of these constructions as independent sentences is the reason why (18a) does not mean ‘He is afraid that he will not suffer the punishment’, despite the fact that the conjunction ‘may not’ is negative in Gk.; (18a) rather means ‘He is afraid that he will suffer the punishment’ (this effect is usually explained as the parataxis of two original sentences, e.g. ‘He is afraid’ + ‘May he not suffer the punishment!’).


165

of another verb of perception with an infinitive clause, where the subject of the main clause and that of the subordinate clause are correferent (19):11 (19)

(Sophocles Philoctetes 118) M%Ω ) _ $ 0 μ » . knowing part not part refuse the AC to-accomplish INF ‘When I am informed, I will not refuse to act.’

Notice that the infinitive clause is in a case-marked position, being introduced by the accusative neuter form of the article ‘the’, as is characteristic of Greek (cf. the accusative subject of the non-finite clause in example (i) in fn. 11). OCS., on the other hand, also can add an argumental subordinate clause to a verb of fear. In case the subject of the main clause correfers with that of the subordinate clause, an infinitival clause is used, as in (20a). If the subjects of the two clauses are not correferent, the conjunction da and a finite verb are used (with an overt subject), as in (20b): (20) a. I boeˇaxo se˛ vчprositi i. (Mk. 9: 32) and fear refl to-interrogate INF him ‘And they were afraid of interrogating him.’ b. Bljudeˇte se˛ da ne kto preˇlцstitц vasч. (Mk. 13: 5) guard refl part. not someone NOM deceive 3SG. you ‘Take care in order for someone not to deceive you.’ The difference in the argumental subordinate clauses of control with the verbs of fear in OCS. vs. in Gk. follows from the structures proposed in (13) and (14): in Gk. the internal argument in middle-ac-

11

Non-correferentiality between the subject of a psych middle verb and that of its subordinate clause is not found in Gk. because it is pragmatically difficult to find a situation where the experiencer of shame or refusal is not the subject of the subordinated event (i.e. one can “refuse to do something” or “be ashamed of doing something”, but not “refuse someone to do something” or “be ashamed someone else of doing something”). Instead, non-correferentiality between the subject of a verb of declaration and that of its subordinate clause is illustrated in (i): (i) O¹ π « ) φ» ρ Ν0 ² . (Xenophon Anabasis 4, 1, 21) the guides not say to-be INF [another road] AC ‘The guides say that there is no other way.’

166

Nerea Madariaga

tive constructions is the object. This is a case position in the Gk. constructions represented in (14), so any NP located there surfaces as an accusative object. Because of that, we can have an accusative infinitive clause in that position, as shown in (19), or a finite subordinate clause, as shown in (18). In OCS., however, being the constructions represented in (13) really passive, the internal argument position is not a case position (the internal argument raises and ends up as a nominative subject), so that it remains free to be filled with an infinitive clause which in Slavic, as is usual cross-linguistically (with some exceptions like in Gk.), cannot be in a case position. The contrast between the OCS. and Gk. structures triggered by the verbs under analysis is the reason why the OCS. verbs of fear need always to use a finite subordinate clause in cases of non-correferentiality between the subjects (20b), contrasting with Gk. (19). 4.1.3. Passive participles If the Gk. structure in (14) is correct and it is active, we expect to be able to derive from them passive verbal forms (passive participles, for instance), with the “middle” semantic value they usually have. On the contrary, if the OCS. counterparts in (13) are already passive, no additional passivization is expected. This prediction is borne out:12 in Gk., passive participles can be formed from the middle verbs under analysis, e.g. $ ‘to refuse’ > $ « ‘refusing’, and examples in (21), while in OCS. such formations are impossible.13 (21) a. M0 κ λ ’> «. (Gk. Homer Odyssey 3, 96) not something me be-ashamed PASS.PART. ‘Not respecting me (lit. feeling ashamed because of me).’

12

13

The data on word formation have been taken from the Perseus internet page, from Liddell & Scott (1883 [1968]) and Cejtlin, Vecˇerka & Blagova (1999 [1994]). Notice that I provide examples referred to “middle-passive only” verbs, that is, to verbs that lack active counterparts, in order to avoid the possibility to find passive participles that are in fact formed from the correspondent active form: Gk. > ‘to be ashamed’ and $ ‘to refuse’; OCS. bojati se˛ ‘to be afraid’. The same observation applies to section 4.1.4.


167

b. #A 1 * . (Gk. Plutarch Parallel lives 2, 58a) deny PASS.PART praises ‘Negative (lit. denying) praises.’ In OCS., no passive participles can be formed from passive-reflexive verbs, e.g. (u)bojati se˛ ‘to be afraid’ does not form a passive participle like *(u)bojanч (past) or *(u)boimч (present). Only active forms of the participle + the reflexive se˛ are possible: (22)

Dalч esi boje˛sˇtiimч se˛ tebe znamenцe. (Psalm 59: 6) give aux. be-afraid ACT.PART.PRES. refl you GN standard ‘You gave the banner to those who were afraid of you.’ 4.1.4. Passivizing adjectival formations

The final argument I will present in this section involves facts dealing with word formation (inspired in Keyser & Roeper 1984). In order to distinguish external arguments (undergoers) from internal arguments, I will check “passivizing” word formation in the Gk. and OCS. verbs under analysis. If the Gk. structure (14) is correct, and the stimulus NPs of the psych verbs of separation in Gk. are internal arguments, then we expect to be able to form passivizing adjectives with the help of the suffixes -« or - « (comparable to English -able), as we do with . ‘to burn’ > 1 « ‘combustible’ (“burnable”). This prediction is borne out, and we can form the Gk. adjectives in (23): (23) a. A> ‘to be ashamed’ > > « / > « ‘respectable’ b. #A ‘to deny, to refuse’ > $ « ‘deniable’ In OCS., on the contrary, such formations are not possible, which is expected from the fact that the internal argument NP in these constructions is not the stimulus (but the experiencer), and that the construction cannot be passivized further, as it is already passive. In OCS., active verbs form passivized adjectives (equivalent to English -able) with the suffix -цnч or -tчjц, as in pecˇaliti ‘to sadden’ > pecˇalцnч ‘sad, pitiful’, and piti ‘to drink’ > pitii ‘drinking (water)’. But reflexive-passive verbs of separation do not: e.g. (u)bojati se˛ ‘to be afraid’ > *(u)boeˇnч / *(u)bojatii.

168

Nerea Madariaga

4.2. The position of se˛ in (13) Until now, I have given arguments for the position of the arguments in structures (13) and (14). Now let us analyze the se˛ element in the OCS. structure (13). I will argue that this element has case features, but not gender / number features, and that it is in a high position in the structure. 4.2.1. Se˛ has case features but not gender / number features First of all, let us show that se˛ has case features, but not gender / number features. The form se˛ is the accusative form of the reflexive enclitic (atonic) pronoun; it has overt non-default morphological case, therefore. In addition, it does not display gender / number features, as it remains invariant without regard to the person and number encoded in the verbal form, as shown in (24); (24a) illustrates 2nd person plural verbal agreement and (24b), 1st person singular. The reflexive pronoun se˛ remains invariable: (24) a. Azч esmц ne boite se˛. (Mt, 14: 27) I am not are-afraid 2PL refl. ‘It is me, do not be afraid.’ b. Uzˇe ne strasˇo˛ se˛ protivnaago. (Codex Suprasliensis 490: 9) already not fear 1SG. refl. enemy GN ‘I am nor afraid of the enemy any more.’ 4.2.2. Se˛ is higher than regular reflexive pronouns The se˛ in (13) is an enclitic pronoun, homophonous with the regular reflexive pronoun of 3rd person that can be placed in any argumental position. However, these two homophonous se˛ seem to occupy different positions in the structure; the two se˛ do not compete for the same position in the structure as they can co-occur (25). (25)

(Mt. 12: 25) Vчseˇkч gradч li domч razdeˇlч se˛ na se˛ ne stanetч. all city or house divided refl. against refl AC not stand ‘All city or house divided against itself will not stand.’


169

Observe the position of the two different reflexive elements in the previous example. The enclitic se˛ that forms passive-reflexive constructions is higher, following the main verb, while the other reflexive pronoun is placed in the case position that would occupy if it were a regular NP, instead of a pronoun; namely, the second se˛ is the complement position of the preposition na, which requires accusative case. 4.2.3. Se˛ can be a second-position element Besides the immediate position following the verb, another possible position for this se˛ in OCS. was second position in the sentence, as shown in (26). (26)

Asˇte se˛ bi ne rodilч cˇ[eloveˇ]kч tч. if refl was not born man that ‘If that man had not been born.’

(Mt. 26: 24)

This is, according to Vaillant (1965 [1924]), an old pattern and the one that will prevail in later (Old and New) Bulgarian (Pancheva 2005).14 This observation suggests that this element is really placed high in the structure, like Romance se (cf. Raposo & Uriagereka 1996), confirming structure (13).

4.2.4. Coordination Another piece of evidence for a high position of the se˛ in OCS. comes from coordination. Vaillant (2002 [1948]) observes that it was possible in OCS. to coordinate two passive-reflexive verbs and have a single se˛ for both verbs, as shown in (27): (27) a. Vчveseliti zˇe se˛ i vчzdradovati. cheer part. refl. and be-happy ‘To cheer up and be happy.’ 14

(Lk. 15: 32)

Pancheva (2005) analyses the variation in the position of the clitics in OCS. and later Bulgarian. In general, it must be said that in some Slavic languages (e.g. Russian), the post-verbal position of the reflexive prevailed (the reflexive became the verbal suffix -sja/-s’, as in bojat’sja ‘to be afraid’). In other Slavic languages (e.g. Czech), the second-position pattern has prevailed (the reflexive form became the enclitic se always in second position in the sentence).

170

Nerea Madariaga

b. Da ne sчmosˇtaetч se˛ srчdцce vasˇe ni ustrasˇaetч.(Jn. 14: 27) let not embarrass refl heart our not fear ‘Let your heart not become ashamed or afraid.’ All the verbs in examples (27a-b) require the presence of the reflexive se˛ in order to be correctly interpreted as reflexive-passives, but the required element appears only once in each example, i.e. following the first coordinated verb. This suggests structure (28) for example (27a), which follows from the basic structure proposed in (13): (28)

VP se˛ AC

(OCS.: Coordinated reflexive-passive verbs = 27a) V’

V1

V2

vчveseliti vчzdradovati

4.3. Verbal morphology in Gk. To conclude this section, I will mention a morphological fact, which shows that Gk. middle constructions, as the one represented in (14) are really active structures and as such, they differed from other intransitive middles. Allan (2003) detects a correlation between the meaning and the verbal desinences related to the middle-passive Gk. verbs. Recall Allan’s (2003) semantic classification of middle constructions in Gk. given in section 2.1: passives > spontaneous / mental processes > motion > mental activities > reciprocal > reflexives. In Classical Greek, these constructions were divided into two groups according to their aorist desinences: sigmatic vs. aorist in -%0-. The distribution in Homer’s time was the following: passives and spontaneous processes were exclusively marked with -%0- aorist; on the contrary, mental activities, reciprocals and reflexives had exclusively sigmatic aorists.15 15

The distribution in Classical Greek was slightly different: passives, spontaneous processes and motions were marked with -%0- aorist, while mental activities, reciprocals and reflexives had sigmatic aorists, i.e. the -%0- aorist extended sporadically even to mental activities and reciprocals in Classical Greek, but never to reflexives.


(29)

171

Homer’s Greek > -`H- AORIST SIGMATIC AORIST Reflexives, Mental activities, Reciprocals > Processes, Motion, Passive

This distribution shows that middle-passive constructions with two participants (reflexives, reciprocals and activities), at least originally, displayed a sigmatic morphological pattern in the aorist, while constructions with only one participant (processes, motion and passives) displayed a -%0- aorist pattern. In fact, the sigmatic aorist is often called “middle”, while the -%0- aorist is called “passive”. But this distribution is not exact: psych middle-active verbs of “separation” are not passive but rather transitives, as we are showing in this paper, but could form -%0- aorists in certain cases. More specifically, these verbs formed a sigmatic aorist when followed by a direct object (overt or elided), but could form a -%0- aorist in the absence of a direct object. This is shown in examples (30) vs. (31): the verbs > ‘to be ashamed’ and $ ‘to refuse’ must display a sigmatic aorist when they have an object, overt (30a) and elided (30b), but they can also surface in the -%0- aorist form in purely intransitive uses, without a direct object, as in the first part of (31): (Homer Odyssey 21, 28) (30) a. O) ξ %7 4 9 ’) ξ Q . not gods’ wrath AC is-ashamed not table AC “He had not regard for the wrath of the gods or for the table” (Herodotus Histories 3, 1, 2) b. LO ξ 5A « 9 1 7 P . $"% « (…) ) ρ" Κ Κ $ %. the prt. Amasis the power of-the Persians intimidated no could not to-give not to-refuse ‘Amasis, intimidated by the power of Persia, could neither give nor refuse (his daughter).’ (Homer Iliad 7, 92) (31) (P «) c % κ $ %, , ’D "%. (all) were-ashamed part. to-deny feared part. meet ‘They all were ashamed to deny him, and afraid to meet him.’

172

Nerea Madariaga

5. Case marking of objects of middle-passive verbs Once established that the structures under analysis are different constructions (active in Gk. / reflexive-passive in OCS.), let us account for the differential case marking of their objects: accusative in Gk. vs. ablative-genitive case in OCS. Recall examples (5a) and (10a), repeated below for convenience: (5a)

Ne strasˇo˛ se˛ protivnaago. not fear ACT refl. enemy GN

(Codex Suprasliensis 490, 9)

(Homer Odyssey 16, 446) (10a) O) ξ % % Ν .. not something him death AC fear MID bid ‘I bid him not be afraid of death.’ The verbs under analysis in this paper, verbs of “separation” or “departure” and related notions (e.g. fear, refusal, shame) were characterized in PIE. by having an ablative-genitive complement associated, as reconstructed by Lehmann (1974), Savcˇenko (2003 [1974]), Schmalstieg (1983). Some IE. languages (Latin, Sanskrit) conserved this ablative case as such, as shown in (32); in other languages (Greek, Baltic and Slavic), the ablative uses merged with the ones of the genitive case, giving rise to an ablative-genitive case, as shown in (33). The examples are from Savcˇenko (2003 [1974]: 347), and illustrate the ablative-genitive case of departure in a physical sense: (Latin: Caesar Commentaries on the Gallic War) (32) Suis finibus eos prohibent. [own borders]ABL them prevent ‘They restrain them from their border.’ (33) a. #A , ξ … 7 1 . (Gk.: Homer Iliad 179) Argons part. shipsGN were-prevented ‘And the Argons were expelled from the ships.’ b. Se otxozˇju sveˇta sego. (Old Russian: Laurentian Chronicle) prt. leave [world this]GN ‘Now I am leaving this world.’ The notion of separation could be also understood in a metaphoric sense; thus, the psych verbs denoting fear, refusal and shame also fall


173

under this classification (‘to be afraid’, ‘to avoid’, ‘to distrust’, etc) and therefore, took ablative-genitive case-marked objects in Sanskrit, Avestan, Baltic, and Slavic (Meillet 1965 [1924], Borkovskij 1978, Schmalstieg 1983, Luraghi 2003). The following examples are from Sanskrit (34a) and Baltic (34b), also from Savcˇenko (2003 [1974]): (Sanskrit, Rig-veda) (34) a. Vís´vam bibha¯ya bhúvanam maha¯vadha¯t. whole fears world of-the-mighty-weapon ABL ‘The whole world is afraid of that with the mighty weapon.’ b. Vaika dazˇna bìjo tamsõs. (Lithuanian) children often fear darkness GN ‘Children are often afraid of darkness.’ In some IE. languages, like Greek and Latin, the semantic notion of “departure” was lost in the psych verbs (the ones with the metaphoric sense of separation), and the original ablative-genitive objects were reanalyzed as regular direct objects (and marked with accusative case). As said before, this is the pattern we find in the Gk. verbs of fear, shame and refusal from the Homeric times. The change from the PIE. ablative-genitive pattern into an accusative pattern in the Gk. verbs of fear was made according to a process that took place at different stages in various IE. languages, and which consisted in replacing lexical bare cases (“adverbial” cases) with structural ones.16 Sporadically, instead of a structural accusative case, an overt PP could be inserted instead (Borkovskij 1978, Luraghi 2003); recall examples in (3), repeated below for convenience: (Gk.: Sophocles, Trachiniae 671) (3) a. E , > , ( Ρ φ29 . explain if explainable from what GN fear ‘Explain, if you can, what you are afraid of.’ 16

For the purpose of this paper, I will differentiate between two general types of grammatical case: (i) lexical (adverbial) case, which is licensed on a NP by an element in the structure (usually a verb or a preposition), which determines the semantic role of that NP, too; (ii) structural (configurational) case, which surfaces on a NP not because of another element that determines its semantic role, but because the NP occupies a certain position in a certain configuration. The cases usually assumed to be structure-dependent are nominative, accusative, and sometimes genitive case.

174

Nerea Madariaga

b. Nч ne boi se˛ otч mokч. ˛ (OCS.: Codex Suprasliensis 8b: 7) but not fear refl. AC from tortures GN ‘But do not be afraid of suffering.’ As we cannot track this change in documented Gk. (the earliest appearances of the psych verbs of separation are already associated to an accusative object), let us see what the change looked like in a welldocumented IE. language, in Old Russian. This change process is analyzed in detail in Madariaga (2009) for the OR. verbs denoting “taking care”, which changed from a genitive lexical pattern to a structural accusative one. (11th century OR.: Anthology of 1076, 15) (35) a. Pacˇe zˇe bljudi slovesч jego. moreover part. guard words GN his ‘And over all, observe his words.’ (17th c.: Life of the Archpriest Avvakum, 246) ˇ ˇ b. Cistotoju devstvo sobljula. with-cleanliness virginity AC guard ‘She took care of her virginity by remaining chaste.’ The change that took place between (35a) and (35b), described in Madariaga (2009), was the following: the Old Russian system of grammatical case was transformed as a result of previous independent changes; basically, the old system of IE. bare lexical cases (initially, “adverbial” postpositional morphemes, according to Meillet 1964 [1906], and Savcˇenko 2003 [1974]), which denoted the specific semantic relation between verbs and NPs in a sentence was lost (as in most late IE. languages, cf. Savcˇenko 2003 [1974]). The bare lexical “adverbial” cases of early IE. were reinterpreted in late Old Russian either as structural (usually surfaced as accusative case) or inserted in a PP headed by an overt P (Borkovskij 1978, Lomtev 1954). Consider example (36), taken from Cˇernyx (1952: 269–70); which illustrates the regular replacement of bare genitive complements in verbs denoting “separation” with PPs headed by the overt P ot / iz ‘from’. (Note that example 36b is the equivalent of 36a, but taken from a later copy of the 1st Novgorod Chronicle): (13–14th century OR: 1st Novgorod Chronicle, 36) (36) a. Otstupi voleju Kyeva. left by-will Kiev GN


175

(15th c.: 1st Novgorod Chronicle Com., 112b) b. Otstupi voleju is Kyeva. left by-will from Kiev GN ‘(Mstislav) moved away from Kiev of his own free will.’ In the case of the Old Russian verbs of ‘taking care’ in (35), the semantic relation (“separation”) existing between the verb and the related NP disappeared and the verbs started to take regular accusative objects. Something similar could happen with the psych verbs of fear in Greek analyzed in this paper. The crucial point is that, in Gk., this development from bare ablative-genitive into accusative case marking of the verbs of psychological ‘separation’ was possible thanks to the special structure of the active-middle verbs represented in (14), which did not violate Burzio’s (1986) Generalization, as it was active. On the contrary, in Slavic, the change from genitive to accusative in the reflexive-passive verbs of ‘separation’, represented in (13), did not take place because the NP denoting the one that experiences fear or shame is the internal argument, and only later it raises to become the nominative subject of the passive sentence. The reflexive pronoun, which is provided with case features, is marked with the following case available, accusative case, so that further accusative case valuing is blocked, and the stimulus of the fear or shame must continue surfacing as an adjunct with the lexical case that characterized it in PIE. (ablative-genitive), or as a PP (cf. ex 3b). Only much later, when the passive marker (the OCS. reflexive pronoun se˛) wore out phonetically and became a verbal suffix was accusative case valuing allowed on the stimulus. This happened as late as in Present-day Colloquial Russian, where the originally accusative reflexive pronoun form became the verbal passive morpheme -sja/ -s’ (< se˛). As a result, the new suffix could be reinterpreted as a middledeponent morpheme, similar to the middle desinences of the Gk. active constructions analyzed in this paper. Thus, besides a normative (conservative) paradigm where the NP associated to a -sja/ -s’ verb of fear is still the genitive inherited from IE. (37a), we have a colloquial pattern, where an accusative direct object is preferred (37b): (37) a. Ja bojus’ teti. I fear aunt GN ‘I am afraid of my aunt.’

(Normative Present-day Russian)

176

Nerea Madariaga

b. Ja bojus’ tetju. I fear aunt AC ‘I am afraid of my aunt.’

(Colloquial Present-day Russian)

Instead of the OCS. structure (13), the Colloquial Present-day Russian in (37b) can be represented as something similar to the Gk. structure (14) proposed here; as an active construction, with no accusative pronoun, it observes Burzio’s Generalization and licenses accusative case on the stimulus NP (Madariaga 2009).

6. Conclusion In this paper, I have shown that the different case marking on the objects of the Indo-European middle-passive verbs with two arguments (the psych verbs denoting separation) corresponds to two different structural and morphological patterns. The case studies presented in this paper illustrate the two patterns with the help of Ancient Greek and Old Church Slavonic, which represent different stages in the evolution of these verbs from the initial PIE. intransitive / stative pattern. Applying various mopho-syntactic tests (the position of the NP stimulus / experiencers, their semantic relations, correferentiality of subjects in main and subordinate clauses, passivizing participal and adjectival formations, the properties of se˛, and verbal morphology), I have shown that the Gk. psych verbs under study displayed an active-middle pattern (similar to Latin deponents), while their counterparts in OCS. displayed a reflexive passive pattern (similar to most modern Romance languages).

References Alboiu, Gabriela. 2007. Null Expletives and Case: the view from Romance. In: Pascual Masullo (ed). Romance Languages: Structure, interfaces, and microparametric variation. John Benjamins. Allan, R. 2003. The Middle Voice in Ancient Greek: a study of polysemy. Amsterdam: Gieben. Bhatt, Rajesh & Roumyana Pancheva. 2005. Implicit Arguments. The Blackwell Companion to Syntax v. II: Blackwell, 554–584. Borkovskij, V. I. 1978. Istoricˇeskaja grammatika russkogo jazyka: sintaksis, Nauka, Moskva.


177

Burzio, L. 1986. Italian Syntax: A government-binding approach, Reidel, Dordrecht. Cejtlin, R. M., R. Vecˇerka, E. Blagova et alii. 1999 [1994]. Staroslavjanskij slovar’ (po rukopisjam X–XI vekov). Moskva: Russkij Jazyk. Cˇernyx, P. Ja. 1952. Istoricˇeskaja grammatika russkogo jazyka. Moskva: Ucˇpedgiz. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1988. On Si Constructions and the Theory of Arb. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 521–582. Clackson, James. 2007. Indo-European Linguistics: an introduction. Cambridge University Press. Comrie, Bernard. 1998. The Indo-European Linguistic Family: Genetic and Typological Perspectives. In: P. Ramat & A. Giacalone, eds. The Indo-European languages. Routledge. Coulter, George. 2005. Expressions of Agency in Ancient Greek. Cambridge Un. Press. Croft, William. 1993. Case Marking and the Semantics of Mental Verbs. In Pustejovsky (ed.) Semantics and the Lexicon. Kluwer: 55–72. Croft, William, Hava Bat-Zeev Shyldkrot & Suzanne Kemmer. 1987. Diachronic Semantic Processes in Middle Voice. In Anna Giacolone Ramat, Onofrio Carruba & Giuliano Bernini (eds.) Papers from the VIIth International Conference on Historical Linguistics. John Benjamins: 179–92. Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67: 547–619. Gerritsen, Nelleke. 1992. The Invariant Meaning of the Russian Reflexive Affix -sja. Acta Linguistica Hafniensis 25: 29–37. Jasanoff, J. 1978. Stative and Middle in Indo-European. Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft. Haspelmath, Martin. 1987. Transitivity alternations of the anticausative type. Köln: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft. Keyser, Samuel Jay & Thomas Roeper. 1984. On the Middle and Ergative Constructions in English. Linguistic Inquiry 15/3: 381–416. Lehmann, Winfred P. 1974. Proto-Indo-European Syntax. Heidelberg: Winter. Liddell, Henry G. & Robert Scott. 1883 [1968]. A Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Lomtev, T. P. 1954. Iz istorii sintaksisa russkogo jazyka, Moskva. Luraghi, S. 2003. On the Meaning of Prepositions and Cases. John Benjamins. Madariaga, Nerea. 2009. The Triggering of Structural Case-marked Objects in Old and Present-day Russian. In: S. Birzer, M. Finkelstein & I. Mendoza Proceedings of the Second International Perspectives on Slavistics Conference (Die Welt der Slaven, series Sammelbände-Sborniki 36). Otto Sagner, Munich, 87–99. Meier-Brügger, Michael. 2003. Indo-European Linguistics. Walter de Gruyter. Berlin – New York. Meillet, Antoine. 1964 [1906]. Introduction à l’étude comparée des langues indoeuropéennes, University of Alabama Press. Meillet, Antoine. 1965 [1924]. Le Slave Commun, Paris: Librairie José Corti. [Translation to Russian 2001 Obsˇcˇeslavjanskij jazyk, URSS: Moskva]. Pancheva, Roumyana. 2005. The Rise and Fall of Second-Position Clitics. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23 / 1: 103–167.

178

Nerea Madariaga

Raposo, Eduardo & Juan Uriagereka. 1996. Indefinite se. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14/4: 749–810. Rix, Helmut. 1988. The Proto-Indo-European Middle: Content, Forms and Origin. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 49: 101–119. Savcˇenko, A. N. 2003 [1974]. Sravnitel’naja grammatika indoevropejskix jazykov. URSS: Moskva. Schmalstieg, W. R. 1983. An Etymology of the word ‘to fear’ in Indic, Baltic and Slavic. Lithuanus 29/3: 60–65. Smyth, Herbert Weir. 1956 [1920]. Greek Grammar. Harvard University Press. In Perseus web-site: www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3 Atext%3A1999.04.0007 Vaillant, André. 1965 [1924] Le Slave Commun. Paris: Librairie Honoré Champion. Vaillant, André. 2002 [1948]. Manuel du vieux slave. Paris. [Russian translation: 2002 Rukovodstvo po staroslovjanskomu jazyku. Moskva: URSS]. ˇ eskij slovar’ russkogo jazyka [Russian Vasmer, M. 2003 [1950–58]. Etimologic fi translation of Russisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch]. Moskva: Astrel’.

University of the Basque Country Facultad de Letras Paseo de la Universidad 5 V i t o r i a - G a s t e i z 01006 Spanien [email protected]

Nerea Madariaga

Iberian *ortubeles´ and ordumeles

179

Iberian *ortubeles´ and ordumeles, Palaeo-Sardinian Ortumele. New horizons in substrata research. Abstract Research on the primitive substratum of Sardinia, the Palaeo-Sardinian, had long come to an impasse, before structural and typological devices superseded the old historical-comparative method. The typological approach has shed light on the agglutinative organization of toponymic compounds, and at the same time highlighted striking ressemblances with Palaeo-Basque morphological and lexical material and with Iberian records. In this paper we contend that a careful examination of structural and semantic properties of some Palaeo-Sardinian microtoponyms related to the colour of mountain’s streams and grounds allow us to decipher one Iberian compound, and set up a new incisive line of cross-linguistic research between Old Iberia and Neolithic Sardinia.

1. Iberian International research on Iberian achieved a remarkable progress as Gómez Moreno deciphered the mysterious syllabic structure of that Pre-Indoeuropean language1, but the dramatic breakthrough took place when Jürgen Untermann, Javier de Hoz and other scholars began to apply structural devices to the corpus of inscriptions, thus managing to infer linguistic typology, morphosyntactic patterns and nearly a hundred lexical roots2. Still, further advances in semantic interpretations remained blocked by the lack of cross-linguistic correlations with other Mediterranean Indoeuropean languages. Particularly distressing, moreover, was the assessment that Basque could not help to decipher the almost 170 Iberian inscriptions, and that the scanty cognates displayed by the two ancient languages of the Iberian Peninsula were due to centuries of enduring contact (Sprachbund)3. Among the most persuasive correlations between Iberian and Palaeo-

1 2

3

Cf. Gómez Moreno (1949). Cf. Siles (1985), Untermann (1990, 2004), Velaza Frías (1991, 1996), Silgo Gauche (1994), de Hoz (2001 with foregoing bibliography). Cf. Tovar (1997:47–145), Gorrochategui (2002).

180

Eduardo Blasco Ferrer

Basque one must mention the adjectival morpheme for the colour ‘black’, attested as beles´ or beles4, and also in Latin transcriptions as meles5, as bele(x) in Aquitanian old anthroponyms6, and as bel(e) and beltz in Basque lexical terms and toponymic designations7. In the bronze inscription of Ascoli (Italy), dated 89 a.C., this morpheme occurs several times within the primary name, typically an epithet, used for Iberian soldiers in the Roman army. We select out of this inscription the sequence ordumeles, which neatly reflects the compound ortu(n) ‘?’ + beles´ ‘dark’, and will attempt an acceptable interpretation by means of external comparison with some Palaeo-Sardinian toponyms, which we presume to be formally and semantically tightly bound.

2. Palaeo-Sardinian Placed in umbilico maris Mediterranei – as the 16th century’s littérateur Giovanni Francesco Fara pregnantly put it – the island of Sardinia has long concealed the secret of its primitive Indoeuropean language. Italian scholars of the first half of the last century8 launched a thorough exploration of possible analogies within the whole Mediterranean, from Iberia to Palestine, and with their historical-comparative method managed to isolate a reduced set of lexical roots, still assumed to have been part of a primeval Mediterranean substratum9. Also the Swiss scholar Johannes Hubschmid and the Bavarian linguist Max Leopold Wagner, the “Meister” of Sardinian linguistics,10 remained wedded to the principles of a method which assigned total priority to the “casual homonimy” of forms, but that failed to unearth the very 4 5 6 7 8

9

10

Cf. Untermann (1990:216–217; 1998.:76). Cf. Velaza Frías (1996:34). Cf. Cf. Gorrochategui (1984:158–159). Cf. Michelena (1985:128,222). From Francesco Ribezzo, Alfredo Trombetti, Vittorio Bertoldi, Giovanni Alessio, Giandomenico Serra, Benvenuto Terracini to Carlo Battisti and Giacomo Devoto. For all them see the critical balance of Silvestri (1979–82) and Blasco Ferrer (2002: Introduction). Pellegrini (1994) has listed them (*carra ‘stone’, *mara ‘mare’, *sala ‘running water’, *tala ‘mountain’s stream’, among others). Cf. Hubschmid (1953, 1963), Wagner (1951, 1960–64).


181

functioning of structures11. The situation has rapidly changed since two of the most archaic areas of the island have been exhaustively investigated, particularly in their toponymic configuration12. In 1993 we showed that a modern structural analysis of microtoponyms, with a thorough distributional and frequential examination of their segmental morphs, offered a syntactic account of the subjacent organization of the Pre-Indoeuropean language of central and eastern Sardinia. Thus, observing the archaic lexeme orgosa and the toponym Orgosa (and Orgòsolo), ‘well, river’s mouth’, we easily recognize two compounding roots, each generating further derivative forms: orga and orge [γ] ‘well, wet ground’, Orga, Orge, Org-ai, Org-ei, Org-oi, Org-osa, Org-ose, Orgol-ai, Orgose-goro, Orgos-ol-ai, and Osa (and Bosa, with prosthetic consonant), Osu, Os-oe, Flumen-d-osa, Os-alla, Ós-ana, Os-ol-ai, Ósolo, all terms for ‘wells, rivers, rivers’ mouths, wet terrains’. Now, one can readily deduce that Pre-IE. orga has been “glossed” by the second root, *osa, this connected with *aus-a, o¯sa, a productive Peri-Indoeuropean (Giacomo Devoto) or – less persuasively in Sardinia – PalaeoIndoeuropean (Hans Krahe) root13. Our tautologic toponym shares its complex structure with a handful of similar compounds, scattered all over the European continent: Vall d’Aran, Chateau-dun, Linguaglossa, Mon-gibello. Basing our research on further structural and typological examination of the microtoponyms of the central and eastern counties of Sardinia we managed to gather in recent years a vast amount of evidence about the real organization and the origin of the Palaeo-Sardinian language. For its “agglutinative” typology we may adduce a short array of selected examples, all microtoponyms: (1)

(2)

11 12 13

ard-ai, ili-ai, iri-ai, istil-ai, gurri-ai, nur-ai, ol-ai, on-ai, org-ai, ort-ai, sun-ai, tal-ai, turr-ai, ur-ai; aran-ake, ili-ake, iri-ake, nurake, tal-ake, ur-ake, berr-age; ili-ana, tal-ana, ós-ana, óv-ana, ártz-ana; árd-ara; ol-eri, tal-eri; sun-ele, turr-ele. os-ol-ai, ort-ol-ai, ov-ol-ai, artz-ol-ai; bid-on-i, mand-on-i, olon-é, ós-on-o; tale-turre, tala-suni-ai, berri-tal-ai, berru-nur-ai; ort-aran-i; orgo-r-isti, bid-istil-i.

A substantial evaluation can be read in Craddock (1969). Cf. Blasco Ferrer (1988), Wolf (1998). For Devoto’s Peri-Indoeuropean/mediterranean *aus-a and Krahe’s PalaeoIndoeuropean *au-sa see the balanced summary of Silvestri (1985–86).

182 (3)


arau-nele (< aran), bidu-nele (< bide), istiu-nele (< istil), turrunele (< turri); org-ose-goro (< orga), turri-koro, talae-kore; talerthe (< tala).

Subset (1) shows a recursive use of suffixes (here -ai, -ake/-age, -ana, -ele, -eri, but all stressed/unstressed vowels and almost all kinds of diphthongs are documented) bound to a restricted set of roots: ard-, artz-, berri, bid-, ili, iri, isti(l), gurr-, mand-, nur, ol-, on, org-, ort-, os-, ov-, sun-. tal-, turr-, ur. Subset (2) shows the pertinent capacity of an agglutinative language to make compounds by simply adding roots and suffixes (with derivative and flexional marks): os- + ol-, ort- + ol-, ov- + ol-, artz- + ol-; bid- + on, ol- + on, os- + on, mand- + on; berr- + tal-, berr- + nur; tal- + turr-, tal- + sun-. Subset (3) is the most relevant for us, because it illustrates the faculty of deriving a suffix from a root, an outstanding feature of agglutinative languages: -gor/kor (+ paragogic vowel) is an offshot of Basque gorri ‘red’, a formal development well attested in Iberia and Aquitaine14, -erthe reflects neatly the bsq. root ertze ‘wedge, edge’, which neatly matches the denotata it specifies (tala + erthe = ‘edge of a mountain’s river’), and nele, at last, which is the adjectival unit for ‘dark’, on which we shall next focus our attention. The typical organization of Palaeo-Sardinian coincides entirely with that of Basque. The major part of the extracted lexical roots have an exact correspondence in present Basque, and in some cases in reconstructed Basque and Iberian: ardi ‘ow’ (and cf. ardiule, artule ‘wool’ and sd. Ardule, Ardauli in Sardinia), artz(ai) ‘shepherd’ (and cf. Artzu, cognomen, and Ártzana, a mountain’s town), aran ‘valley’, berri ‘new’, Iberian ili and Basque iri ‘settlement’, istil ‘marsh’, gorr(i) ‘red’ (and gurri: Gurriaran), mando ‘equus asinus’, ola ‘primitive hut’, obi (> sd. ov-) ‘cave’, (i)turri ‘spring, well’, ur ‘water’. Some other roots are still opaque, and we can not dwell on their structures and possible correlations in this paper, but only stress the fact that they can not be dismissed out of hand as potential Basque or Iberian units (so *tala ‘mountain’s river’, *nur, well represented in nurake ‘megalithic monument’, for us a plural form of ‘stone’).

14

Cf. Coromines (1981, I:111): “Que -corr soit le Basque gorri ‘rouge’, cela va sans difficulté’; Orpustan (1991:128,160).


183

From a morphophonemic point of view it seems important to point out that in Palaeo-Sardinian compounds the final vowel of the first unit is subject to many qualitative variations (raising of mid-vowels, dissimilations), as in berri + nur- > berru-. In derivatives (1) dropping of final vowel is the general rule (tala + -eri > taleri), but ending -i turns out to be more resistent (ili + -ai > iliai against tala + -ai > tal-ai). Before going on to interpret the Iberian compound *ortubeles´ with the support of Palaeosd. roots, let us remind briefly that recent archaeological, historical and even genetic contributions15 all point unequivocally to one or more migrations from the neolithic Iberia to the island of Sardinia. We have contended in a recent History of the Sardinian language16 that the primitive inhabitants of neolithic Sardinia, the Ilienses and the Bàlari (with bal-, that ties narrowly Sardinia with the Balears), represent the result of Iberian and Palaeo-Basque colonization in search of obsidian, a ‘dark vulcanic mineral’ which we find exclusively all along the eastern coast of the south of France and Catalonia.

3. Cognitive semantics and reconstruction of *ortubeles´ Along with structural and typological approaches to isolated languages of the Mediterranean (Etruscan, Iberian, Minoic)17, cognitive semantics has played a relevant role in recent topics for active debate about diachronic reconstruction18. A vast amount of toponymic material widespread over Europe and Asia has clearly revealed that ‘black’ and ‘red’ were (and are!) usual adjectival qualities used to encode a rich variation of cromatic nuances of ‘earth’ and ‘water’ qualities, and that colour’s denotations were commonly described drawing on metaphoric and metonymic transferring (‘blood’, ‘fire’ > ‘red colour’)19. We undertake now a thorough discussion of the sem-

15

16 17

18 19

Cf. Rowland (2001:13,31), Mastino (2005, chapter I and II), Francalacci (2003 with foregoing literature). Cf. Blasco Ferrer (2009); further detailed eaminations in Blasco Ferrer i.p. Cf. Agostiniani (1993, 2000) for Etruscan, Velaza Frías (1996) for Iberian, Facchetti (2002) for Minoic. Cf. Taylor (1995), Geeraerts (1997), Blank/Koch (1999). Cf. Bach (1953, 272–299), Rohlfs (1960), Tischler (1977, 155–161).

184


antic values of *ortu based on this assumption. The following list exhaustively records all place-names of central and eastern Sardinia which are allegedly derived or compounded with the root *ortu: ort-ai, ort-ana, ort-aran-i, ort-ei, ort-eni, ort-iai, ort-il-o, ort-il-á, ortil-ai, ort-ol-ai, ort-ol-o, ort-or-ai, orto-koro, (baxu < opa¯cus ‘cleft rocky ground, gorge where water runs’) ort-orgo, ort-os-ai, ort-ui, ortu-ene, ortu-eri, ortu-eria, ortu-mele. Particularly relevant for our digressions are the four compounds: Ort-aran-i20, Ort-orgo, and above all Orto-koro and Ortu-mele, non official toponyms (lieux-dits) of Nuorese (Bono) and High Ogliastra (Urzulei). We begin the discussion by examining the recorded compounds with -koro and -nele, and trying to ascertain their semantic fields. 3.1. -koro As we already mentioned, [’kɔre,-o] is an allomorph of the PalaeoBasque root *gor- (bsq. gorri ‘red’), used in nominal syntagmas to denote waters (Iturrigorri ‘red spring’) or qualities of ground (Mendigorri ‘red mountain’, Gurriaran ‘red valley’). Indeed gorri is also documented in Sardinia, once in an exactly equivalent hybrid compound, Funtana gorru (lat. fontana, from fons, fontis ‘spring’), as derivative in another oronymic designation, Nodu gurr-ai (lat. no¯dum ‘peak of rocky mountain’), and in further more complex toponyms: gurri-thókinu, gorro-ispa, gorr-osp-ai. Much more productive seems to be the suffix -gor,kor + Vowel: orgose-goro, orgose-kore (with orgose ‘well, spring’), ili-kore (Iberian ili ‘settlement’), iste-kor-í (bsq. istil ‘marsh, mare’), turri-kore (bsq. iturri ‘spring’), nur-koro and nurakoro (palsd. nur ‘stone’), talae-kore (palsd. tala ‘stream, mountain’s river’), enale-kore (lat. vena, -alis ‘spring’). There is little we can say about Funtana bar-kori, which displays a first common root bar- (as in barí, bar-úmini and baru-nele) of unknown meaning. A quick examination of our records confirms that except for Nodu gurriai, ilikore and nurkoro, all the remaining compounds adhere to a deep meaning of ‘water’ (‘springs, wells, running water in mountain’s rivers and val20

The correct original spelling of this microtoponym (a valley!) was confirmed by Dr. F. Cabras of Urzulei; as a result of assimilation it has been quoted as *ortorani in the newest administrative records.


185

leys’). If we now briefly go through the general Sardinian (i.e. romance) toponymic compounds which exhibit the term ‘red’(rubeum > rúviu, ruju, orrúbiu), we notice that except for Nuraghe rúviu, related to the reddish colour of the typical stones of the megalithic monuments, Monte (mons, montem ‘mountain’) ruju, and Perda (petram ‘stone, rock’) rúvia, the most frequent composition is with lexemes denoting ‘water’: Abba rúvia, ruja (aqua ‘spring, well’), Funtana rúvia, Ludu (lutum ‘mud’) ruju. Interesting enough is also the metaphoric use of ‘blood’ for ‘red’, which we have detected in derivatives with the Palaeo-Basque root *dol (do-dol > odol ‘blood’)21. Striking is the survival of the iterative reconstructed protobase in High Ogliastra, together with the subsequent result: Do-dol-iai and Dol-ai, for ‘red granitic, calcareous rocks and mountains’, besides the commoner Rivu (rivus, -um) dol-ia, Bruncu (‘summit, highest rocky point’) dol-au (and cf. Bruncu rúviu), the plural doli-ake, with reference to ‘springs’, and the compounds artz-ana-dolu ‘red shepherd’s settlement’ (bsq. artz- ‘shepherd’, sd. Arzu cognomen, artz-ai, ártz-ana) and isti-dul-é, iste-dol-í (bsq. istil). 3.2. -nele One astonishing link with Old Iberia is the maintenance of the root ib. beles´, meles, bsq. bele, bel-tz ‘dark’, applied to geomorphologic denotata all over Sardinia. Again we find two successive stages of the root: mele and nele. First is still maintained in a few toponyms, such as: mara-mele (anie. *mara ‘mare’), Macu-mele ‘Macomer’, a town of west Sardinia erected on basaltic, dark terrain, with semitic maqo¯m ‘settlement’ in its first segment, Arriu (rivus, -um) mele ‘river with slimy waters’, tavara-mele (sd. túvara ‘heather’), kili-melis and kerumele, keré-mule, towns and terrains, designations where we recognize the typical Iberian segments kelti- (kelti-beles´ is recorded 7 times; lt = [l]) and kertu- (rt = [r], as in ilti- = ili). This first root has evolved through dissimilation to the typical Palaeo-Sardinian root/suffix nele, and some doublettes confirm this evolution: keru-mele and keru-nele, bidu-mele and bidu-nele (bsq. bide ‘way’), mortu-mele and mortu-nele. The following compounds, scattered abundantly in the central and

21

Cf. Lakarra (1995, 2004).

186


eastern regions of the island, turn out to be most instructive to guide us to the deep denotation: turri-nele and turru-nele (bsq. iturri ‘spring’), istiu-nele (bsq. istil), orro-nele (bsq. orri ‘leaves’), aran-nulu, arau-nele and g-arau-nele (bsq. aran ‘valley’)22, risu-nele (rivus,-um), Funtana thiku-nele (ficus)23, mortu(ru)-nele (mortuus,-um ‘dead, dried’, as in Abba or Mitza morta, italian Pozzo morto ‘stagnating water in wells’), gutturu-nele (guttur > sd. gútturu ‘gorge, deep ravine’). A quick survey of lexical compounds based on solely latin roots lends further support to our equivalences: Badde (vallis,-em), Sa vena (venam), Littu (*elictum, ‘forest of oak trees’, as salictum), Rivu (rivus,-um), Ficu (ficus,-um), Funtana (fontanam) + nieddu, niedda, lat. nigellum,-am ‘dark’. We can also observe the perfect correspondences with present Basque toponyms, such as Aran-beltza < aran + bel(tz) and Beltza-baratz < bel + baratz ‘farmed land’. We can now turn our attention to Iberian *ortubeles´, completing our inspection with Sardinian compounds of *ortu. 3.4. *ortubeles´, ordumeles In the most archaic region of Sardinia we come across two compounds with *ortu, which may help to disentangle the real meaning of the Basque root orto-koro and ortu-mele, once with ‘red’ and once with ‘black’. But we have also mentioned ort-orgo, with *org (sd. orga,-e) ‘spring, wet ground’ and ort-aran-i, with bsq. aran ‘valley’, both combinations pointing at precise geomorphologic features with creeks, depressions, and flowing water. The last compound is, we believe, the solution of this rebus: as org-osa, ort-aran conceals a tautologic designation, ‘valley’ in Iberian and ‘valley’ in Palaeo-Basque, both roots encroaching in Sardinia, as ili and iri and the offshots of beles´ and bele. 22

23

Prothesis of non-etymological consonants seems to be a very productive rule in toponyms, triggered of course by romance parallels (ex¯i re > sd. bessire, vulpis, -em > urpe and then gurpe): iriai/biriai, oronai/moronai, orune/burune, ortei/gurtei, ósana/gúsana, urue/gurue, and also aran and garan + nele. In the Barbagia f - deletes, so that f¯i cum > [’iʔu] (with Knacklaut or glottal stop instead of [k]). Nonetheless, prothesis of interdental [θ] = th is not unusual, as orgosa, urgusa and thurgusa shows. So, we can safely argue, that [θiʔu’nele] reflects f¯i cus + nele, a compound which indeed is recurrent in romance composition: Ficu niedda.


187

4. Conclusions and desiderata In this short article we have tried to point out the emergence of an intedisciplinary examination of Iberian, Basque and Palaeo-Sardinian microtoponyms, supporting the comparative instances with typological and semantic tools. Recent anchaeological, historical and genetic evidence suggest that Sardinia received one or more migrations from Old Iberia during the Neolithic Age. Our discovery of the agglutinative typology of Sardinian toponymy, and the structural affinities we have gathered between toponymic data and Iberian and PalaeoBasque roots, allow us to contend the hypothesis that behind the mysterious compound *ortubeles´, ordumeles we may find the exact correspondence of Palaeo-Sardinian ortu-mele, with the root ortu sharing the common primary denotation of ‘valley’. A mainstream of research has been opened between Old Iberia and Sardinia, and further efforts must aim at collecting new material which permits a cohesive structural and semantic interpretation of common roots in Iberian and Palaeo-Sardinian. This long way has just begun. Bibliography Agostiniani, L., 1993. La considerazione tipologica nello studio dell’etrusco. Incontri Linguistici 16, 23–44. Agostiniani, L., 2000. La lingua. In M. Torelli (ed.), Gli Etruschi, 485–499. Milano, Bompiani. Bach, A., 1953. Die deutschen Ortsnamen, I. Heidelberg, Winter. Blank, A./Koch, P. (eds.), 1999. Historical Semantics and Cognition. Berlin/New York, Mouton/de Gruyter. Blasco Ferrer, E., 1988. Le parlate dell’Alta Ogliastra. Cagliari, Della Torre. Blasco Ferrer, E., 1993. Tracce indeuropee nella Sardegna nuragica? Indogermanische Forschungen 98, 177–185. Blasco Ferrer, E., 2002. Linguistica sarda. Storia, Metodi, Problemi. Cagliari, Condaghes. Blasco Ferrer, E., 2009. Storia della lingua sarda. Cagliari, Cuec. Blasco Ferrer, E., i.p. Paläosardisch und Paläobaskisch: bide berriak. In Th. Vennemann/R. Mailhammer (eds.), The Linguistic Roots of Europe. Kopenhagen, Munksgaard. Blasco Ferrer, E., i.p. Il sostrato paleosardo: fine d’un rebus. Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 127/1. Coromines, J., 1981. Estudis de toponímia catalana, 2 voll. Barcelona, Barcino. Craddock, J., 1969. Latin Legacy versus Substratum Residue. Berkeley, University Press.

188


de Hoz, J., 2001. Hacia una tipología del Ibérico. In F. Villar/M.P. Fernández Álvarez (eds.), Religión, Lengua y Cultura prerromanas de Hispania, 335–363. Francalacci, P. et alii, 2003. Peopling of three Mediterranean islands (Corsica, Sardinia, and Sicily) inferred by Y-chromosome biallelic variability. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 121, 270–279. Geeraerts, D., 1997. Diachronic Prototype Semantics. Oxford, Clarendon Press. Gómez Moreno, M., 1949. Misceláneas. Historia, arte, arqueología. Madrid, Aguirre. Gorrochategui, J., 1984. Onomástica indígena de Aquitania. Bilbao, Universidad del País Vasco. Gorrochategui, J. (2002). La lengua vasca = vascuence = euskara. In M.H. Mira Mateus (ed.), As línguas da Península Ibérica, 51–81. Lisboa, Colibri. Hualde, J./Lakarra, J./Trask, R., eds., 1995. Towards a history of the Basque language. Amsterdam, Benjamins. Hubschmid, J. 1963. Paläosardische Orstnamen. In Carlo Battisti (ed.), VII Congresso Internazionale di Scienze Onomastiche, II, 148–160. Firenze, Istituto di Glottologia. Hubschmid, J., 1953. Sardische Studien. Das mediterrane Substrat des Sardischen, seine Beziehungen zum Berberischen und Baskischen sowie zum eurafrikanischen und hispano-kaukasischen Substrat der romanischen Sprachen. Bern, Francke. Lakarra, J., 1995. Reconstructing the Pre-Proto-Basque Root. In Hualde et al., 187–207. Lakarra, J., 2004. Etimología y reconstrucción en el campo vasco. In Emilio Ridruejo (ed.), Las otras lenguas de España, 41–117. Valladolid, Universidad de Valladolid. Mastino, A., 2005. Storia della Sardegna antica. Nuoro, Il Maestrale. Michelena, L., 1985. Fonética histórica vasca. San Sebastián, Diputación Foral. Orpustan, J.B., 1991. Toponymie Basque. Bordeaux, Presses Universitaires. Orpustan, J.B., 2006. Nouvelle toponymie Basque. Bordeaux, Presses Universitaires. Pellegrini, G.B., 1994. Toponomastica italiana. Milano, Hoepli. Rohlfs, G., 1960. Europäische Flußnamen und ihre historischen Probleme. Proceedings of the 6th. International Congress of Onomastic Sciences, I, 23–50. München, Beck. Rowland, R.J., 2001. The Periphery in the Center. Sardinia in the ancient and medieval worlds. Oxford, Archaeopress. Siles, J., 1985. Léxico de inscripciones ibéricas. Madrid, Ministerio de Cultura. Silgo Gauche, L., 1994. Léxico ibérico. Estudios de Lenguas y epigrafías antiguas 1,1–271. Silvestri, D., 1977–82. La teoria del sostrato. Metodi e miraggi. Napoli, Macchiaroli. Silvestri, D., 1985–86. Ancora a proposito di elementi non indoeuropei nelle lingue germaniche. Filologia Germanica 28–29, 589–604. Taylor, J., 1995. Linguistic Categorization. Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Oxford, Clarendon Press.


189

Tischler, J., 1977. Kleinasiatische Hydronymie. Semantische und morphologische Analyse der griechischen Gewässernamen. Wiesbaden, Reichert. Tovar, A., 1997. Estudios de tipología lingüística. Madrid, Istmo. Untermann, J., 1990. Monumenta Linguarum Hispanicarum, vol. 3. Die iberischen Inschriften aus Spanien. Wiesbaden, Reichert. Untermann, J., 1998. La onomástica ibérica. Iberia 1, 73–85. Untermann, J., 1999, “Alteuropäisch” in Hispanien, in E. Eggers/J. Becker/ J. Udolph (Hgg.), Florilegium Linguisticum. Festschrift für Wolfgang P. Schmid zum 70. Geburtstag, Frankfurt a/M, 509–519. Velaza Frías, J., 1991. Léxico de inscripciones ibéricas (1976–1989). Barcelona, Universidad. Velaza Frías, J., 1996. Epigrafía y lenguas ibéricas. Madrid, Arco Libros. Wagner, M.L., 1951. La lingua sarda. Bern, Francke. Wagner, M.L., 1960–64. Dizionario Etimologico Sardo, 3 voll. Heidelberg, Winter. Wolf, H.J., 1998. Toponomastica barbaricina. Nuoro, Insula.

Sardische Sprachwissenschaft Facoltà Scienze della Formazione Unversità Cagliari /s Mirrionis 1 I-09123 C a g l i a r i Italia [email protected]

E d u a r d o B l a s c o Fe r r e r

190

Adrian Pârvulescu

Lat. servus Abstract Lat. servus does not date back to Indo-European, but is rather a Latin formation, a postverbal of serva¯re “to retain”, with the original meaning *“retainer”, “someone retained (for service)”.

The derivation of Lat. servus “slave” from serva¯re “to watch, observe, keep, retain, protect, preserve, save” or directly from the latter’s Indo-European ancestor *ser- “to guard, protect” + suff. *- u oˆ has a long history, servus being interpreted etymologically in antiquity as “(prisoner) saved (from slaughter)”1 and in modern times as “guard”, “shepherd”, or the like.2 The poor semantic support of this 1

2

Some late Roman sources interpreted servus as “saved” from serva¯re “to save” because the slaves were believed to be originally prisoners of war whose lives had been spared: see Institutiones Iustiniani 1.3.3 servi ex eo appellati sunt, quod imperatores captivos vendere iubent ac per hoc servare non occidere solent. For more examples see Lambertini 1984: 2386–7 and Maltby 1991: 564. A similar opinion at Pott 1867: 1278 who cites Vossius: “servi primum e captivis facti sunt, et dicti a servando, quia servati sunt, cum iure possent occidi”. This view was followed by Tovar 1971: 557–62 who considered the formation of servus vs. serva¯re as analogic to opi-parus vs. para¯re, arvus vs. ara¯re, conspicuus vs. conspica¯re, the original sense being “(vor dem Tode) bewahrt”. Tovar does not use the notion of postverbal and his list, which he defines as “Formen der ursprünglichen indogermanischen Typs”, mixes postverbals with *-u o- formations. ˆˇ ek 1881: 299–300, WP.: 2.498–9, For older references on this etymology see Vanic WH.: 2.525–7, EM.: 620, Tovar 1971: 556–560. To these ones add: Leumann 1977: 276 “substantiviert servus (s. homo Plt.) nach av. spa pasu- sˇ(h)aurva“vieh-hütender Hund”, vgl. die Bedeutung von serva¯re “hüten” (scil. das Haus) Plt.”; Rix 1994: 54–87 (esp. 81–7) “vorurital. *sor-u o-s “der Acht hat auf, Hirt” > (Transhumanz, Wanderhirtentum) > urital. *seruôs “Sklave” (cf. kelt. *seru om ˆ ˆ “Hirtentum” > (“über das Phänomen der Transhumanz”) “Wanderhirtentum” > “Vagabundentum” > kymr. herw “Vagabundentum, Plünderei”, mittelir. serbh “Plünderei”); Untermann 2000: 670 “Dazu [sc. *ser- “bewachen, behüten”] mit suffix -u o – idg. *ser-u o- “Wächter, Hirte” in av. Adj. haurvaˆ “behütend”, lat. servusˆ *“Hirte” > “Sklave”; De Vaan 2008: 559 “PIt. *serwo[m.] “shepherd”, *serwo- [n.]/serwa [f.] “observation” < PIE. *ser-u-o- “guardian”, *ser-u-o/h2- “protection”. Other explanations: related to Ir. serbh “pillage”, Welsh herw “vagrancy, robbery”, herwr “banished, outlaw” (Loth

Lat. servus

191

etymology was excellently pointed out by Benveniste: “It is impossible to consider servus as a derivative of the verb serva¯re and to imagine that it was the function of the servus “to guard”. The verb serva¯re has a clear Indo-European etymology: Avest. haurva “who watches”, Gk. horân (² » ) “to observe, consider”. But servus indicates the legal and social condition of a slave and not a specific function. Surely the servus was not obliged to serva¯re”.3 Benveniste was perfectly right and one must add that no linguistic analogy to the presupposed semantic development “guard, shepherd” > “slave” has been presented so far. The theory of servus as *“guard”, “shepherd”, or the like should be discarded, but that does not necessarily mean that we must also abandon any relationship between servus and serva¯re. On the contrary, the two words are related by a different semantic link which the following lines will try to explain. It has been shown above that serva¯re has among its meanings also those of “to retain, keep”. For example: Plaut. Capt. 441 serva tibi in perpetuom amicum me “keep me your friend forever” (tr. Nixon); Merc. 228–9 dicit capram, quam dederam servandam sibi, / suae uxoris dotem ambedisse oppido “he says that the female goat [sc. young woman] I had given him to keep for me had completely devoured his wife’s dowry” (tr. Nixon); Capt. 930, Curc. 138, etc.: servare fidem “to keep faith, be faithful”; Cist. 199 servate vostros socios, veteres et novos “hold fast your allies old and new” (tr. Nixon); Cato agr. 141.3 utique … pastores pecuaque salva servassis “in order to … keep in good health the shepherds and the sheep”; etc. This sense of serva¯re enables us to find the clue of its connection with servus through anal-

3

1905: 211, followed by Brugmann 1906: 382–3, Vendryes 1935: 124–30, LEIA.: S-90–91); related to IE. *seru o- “running”, together with Skt. sárati “to run, ˆ flow”, Latv. sirt “to swarm around”, Gk. ME. kepen (cepen, quep, kipen, etc.) “to care about, receive”, also “keep, retain, hold”21 > NE. keep “to preserve, maintain, retain”; Gmc. *wardôn (OHG. warten, OSax. wardo¯n, OE. weardian) “to watch, look out for, wait” > OFr. garder “to look, protect, watch” > NFr. “to take care of, retain, keep guard, maintain”.22 One can conclude that Lat. servus does not date back to Indo-European, but it is rather a Latin formation, to be more exact, a late postverbal of serva¯re “to retain” with the original meaning *“retainer, someone retained (for service), hired person”. If this interpretation is correct, then the origin of servus would not indicate “exodouly” as the main source of Roman slavery,23 but probably a process similar to the one which led in the Middle Ages to the institution of serfdom and which presumably assimilated the condition of “hireling” with that of “prisoner of war”. Indeed, F. de Martino showed that “con le guerre di supremazia in Italia del IV secolo si ebbe un mutamento nella concezione della schiavitu ed essa venne ri-

15 16 17 18 19

20

21 22 23

Bartholomae 1905: 1787–90, 1806, 1816. Bailey 1979: 447, Rastorgueva/Edel’man 2007: 367–9. IEW.: 910. Untermann 2000: 669. Also visˇ-haurva [hauruua] “guarding the village”, pasusˇ-haurva “guarding the flock”. Pedersen 1893: 299 (but with a questionable explanation), Fraenkel: 762–3, 776–7, Karulis 1992: 2.155. MED.: 5.464–76. Buck 1949: 752–3, FEW.: 17.510–25. WH.: 2.527 “die idg. Völkern haben nur die “Exodulie” gekannt”, followed by Benveniste 1969: 292.

Lat. servus

195

collegata alla prigionia di guerra”.24 But the presence of servus in the Lex XII tab. (ca. 450 B.C.), characterizing a low human condition, because the penalty for harming the body of a servus is half that of a liberus “free man”, which is reminiscent of similar cases mentioned in the laws of Moses (e.g., Ex. 21.12 vs. 20–21) or the Code of Hammurabi (e.g., no.196 vs.199), shows that this process of assimilation to the condition of prisoners of war must have been much older.

Bibliography Alföldy, G. 1985, The Social History of Rome. Tr. D. Braund and F. Pollock. London/Sydney. Bader, F. 1962, La formation des composés nominaux du latin. Paris. Bailey, H.W. 1979, Dictionary of Khotan Saka. Cambridge. Barrow, R.H. 1928, Slavery in the Roman Empire. London. Bartholomae, Chr. 1905, Altiranisches Wörterbuch. Strassburg. Bradley, K.R. 1987, On the Roman Slave Supply and Slave Breeding. In: Classical Slavery. Ed. M.I. Finley. London, 42–64. Bradley, K.R. 1994, Slavery and Society at Rome. Cambridge. Brugmann Grdr. = K.B., Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen. Strassburg 1930 (=1897–1916). 2 vols. In 4 parts. Brugmann, K. 1906, Zu den Benennungen der Personen des dienenden Standes in den indogermanischen Sprachen. In: Indogermanische Forschungen, 19.377–91. Benveniste, E. 1932, Le nom de l’esclave à Rome. In: Revue des Études Latines, 10.124–30. Benveniste, E. 1969, Indo-European Language and Society. Tr. E. Palmer. London. Buck, C.D. 1933, Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin. Chicago. Buck, C.D. 1949, A Dictionary of Selected Synonyms in the Principal Indo-European Languages. Chicago. Capogrossi, L. 1978, Il campo semantic della schiavitù nella cultura latina del terzo e del secondo secolo a.C. In: Studi storici 19.717–733. De Martino, F. 1979, Diritto e società nell’antica Roma. Rome. 2 vols. De Vaan, M. 2008, Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the Other Italic Languages. Leiden/Boston. DNP. = Der neue Pauly. Stuttgart/Weimar 2001, vol.11.

24

De Martino 1979: 1.161 (see the entire chapter, p.130–161); see also Capogrossi 1978: 724–5. For a brief survey of the prisoners of war captured by the Romans, see Bradley 1987: 42–7 and Bradley 1994: 32–46; a detailed survey at Welwel 2000: 1–160. On the cases of selling of self into slavery, see Barrow 1928: 11–12 and Veyne 1991: 247–280. On debtors as a source of slavery, see Alföldy 1985: 11–12.

196

Adrian Pârvulescu

EIEC. = Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture. Eds. J.P.Mallory, D.Q.Adams. London/Chicago 1997. EM. = A. Ernout, A. Meillet, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine. Paris 19854. FEW. = W. von Wartburg, Französisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Basel. Vol.10. Fraenkel = E.F., Litauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg 1963–5. 2 vols. Godefroy = F.G., Dictionnaire de l’ancienne langue française. Paris 1892, vol.7. Guenther, R. 1960, Etr. serve- lat. servus. Ein Deutungsversuch. In: Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 8. 45–50. IEW. = J.Pokorny, Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Tubingen/Basel 1994 (= 1959). Karulis, K. 1992, Latviesˇu etimologijas va¯rdnica. Riga, 2 vols. Kretschmer, P. 1951, Zu den lateinischen Postverbalien. In: Glotta 31. 152. Lambertini, R. 1984, L’etimologia di servus secondo I giuristi latini. In: Sodalitas. Scritti in onore di Antonio Guarino. Napoli, vol.5. LEIA. = J. Vendryes, Lexique étymologique de l’irlandais ancien. Lettres RS. Dublin/Paris 1974. Loth, J. 1905, Contribution a la lexicographie et l’etymologie celtiques. In: Mélanges H.D’Arbois de Jubainville. Eds. Collinet et al. Paris. Maltby, R. 1991, A Lexicon of Ancient Latin Etymology. Leeds. MED. = Middle English Dictionary. Ann Arbor 1956–1999, 13 vols. Meillet/Vendryes = A. Meillet, J. Vendryes, Traité de grammaire comparée des langues classiques. Paris 1963 (= 19482). OED. = Oxford English Dictionary. Second edition. Oxford 1989, 20 vols. Pedersen, H. 1893, Servus und serva¯re. In: Beiträge zur Kunde der indogermanischen Sprachen. 19.298–302. Pott, A.F. 1867, Etymologische Forschungen. Detmold, Bd.2, Abt.2. ˇ eskij slovar’ Rastorgueva/Edel’man = V.S. Rastorgueva, D.I. Edel’man, Etimologic fi iranskix jazykov. Moskow 2007, Vol.3. Rix, H. 1994, Die Termini der Unfreiheit in den Sprachen Alt-Italiens. Stuttgart. Saussure, F. de 1968, Cours de linguistique générale. Eds. Ch. Bally, A.Sèchehaye, A. Riedlinger. Paris. Suffixes 1982 = Suffixes and Other Word-Final Elements of English. Eds. L. Urdang, A. Humez, H.G. Zettler. Detroit. Thorndike, E.L. 1941, The Teaching of English Suffixes. New York. TLF. = Trésor de la langue française. Paris 1990, vol.14. Tobler-Lommatzsch 1971 = A. Tobler, E. Lommatzsch, Altfranzösisches Wörterbuch. Wiesbaden, vol. 8. Tovar, A. 1971, Lat. seruus. Ein Indogermanisches Wort. In: Sprache und Geschichte. Festschrift für Harri Meier. Ed. E. Coseriu, W.D. Stempel. München. Untermann, J. 2000, Wörterbuch des Oskisch-Umbrischen. Heidelberg. Vanicˇek, A. 1881, Etymologisches Wörterbuch der lateinischen Sprache. Leipzig. Vendryes, J. 1935, À propos de lat. servus. In: Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris, 36.124–30.

Lat. servus

197

Veyne, P. 1991, La société romaine. Editions du Seuil. Welwel, K.-W. 2000, Sub corona vendere. Quellenkritische Studien zu Kriegsgefangenschaft und Sklaverei in Rom bis zum Ende des Hannibalkrieges. Stuttgart. WH. = A.Walde, Lateinisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. 3., neubearbeitete Auflage von J.B. Hofmann. Heidelberg 1954, vol.2. WP. = A. Walde, Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der indogermanischen Sprachen. Hrsg. J. Pokorny. Berlin 1927–1932, 3vols.

983C Ponderosa Avenue S u n n y v a l e , CA 94086–8946 U.S.A. [email protected]

Adrian Pârvulescu

198

Catalin Anghelina

A note on the phoneme schwa (a˘) in Romanian Abstract The causes that led to the emergence of the phoneme a˘ = [w] in Romanian are obscure. While the general consensus is that this emergence is due to the appearance of the morphological contrast between the definite and indefinite forms of the feminine nouns ending in -a, this paper proposes that this phoneme emerged much earlier, when a˘ = [w] came to be analogically used in the paradigm of the perfect.

The present paper treats some aspects of Romanian verbal morphology, which have not been definitively solved yet. These aspects regard the morphological role of schwa in differentiating verbal categories and may shed some light on the emergence of this phoneme in Romanian. In Romanian, the present indicative of a verb belonging to the 1st conjugation class, e.g., a la˘udá ‘to praise’, runs as follows: eu laúd ‘I praise’, tu laúzi ‘you praises’, el laúda˘ ‘he praises’, noi la˘uda˘2m ‘we praise’, voi la˘udát¸i ‘you praise’, ei laúda˘ ‘they praise’.1 One can see that the 1st person plural has a non-etymological stressed [w] ´ as ending: Lat laudámus should have given Rom *la˘udám, not la˘uda˘2m.2 This a˘ is present in the majority of the Romanian dialects, the most notable exception being Istro-Romanian. The usual explanation given for this is an analogy between the present and imperfect: IMPF 3rd SG la˘udá is to PRES 3rd SG laúda˘ what IMPF 1st PL is to PRES 1st PL. Thus, the PRES 1st PL becomes la˘uda˘2m and differentiates itself from the imperfect la˘udám.3

1 2

3

The Latin paradigm runs: laudo, laudas, laudat, laudamus, laudatis, laudant. The first a˘ = [w] is the result of the synchronic rule which turns, as in English for example, any unaccented a into w. Dimitrescu et alii (1978:301) considers it as an independent innovation in all the dialects of Romanian; I would rather see it as a Common Romanian innovation that did not spread to the dialect that will eventually become Istro-Romanian. Along the same lines, Sala (1976:192) concludes that “il est très probable que c’est la morphologie qui est intervenue … à marquer la difference entre le présent, imparfait …”.

A note on the phoneme schwa (a˘) in Romanian

199

I do not consider this solution very compelling for two reasons: first, the accent is situated on a˘ in the 1st person plural, but not on a˘ in the 3rd person singular; second, it is not clear what the connection was between these persons so that the analogy could work. I propose here a new solution, which is also based on an analogical process between the present and imperfect. Let us compare the 1st person plural of the present and imperfect forms from the 1st and 2nd conjugation classes, focusing on what happened from Latin to Common Romanian. In this scheme, I will assume that the synchronic rule by which any unaccented a turns into a˘ was already present in Romanian at this stage: Latin: 1st CONJ 2nd CONJ

PRES laudamus PRES videmus

Common Romanian 1st CONJ PRES la˘udámu PRES vedému 2nd CONJ

IMPF laudabamus IMPF videbamus IMPF *[lwudw(b)ámu] IMPF *[vede(b)ámu]

In this situation, the alternation e/ea between the present and imperfect of the 2nd conjugation may have influenced the 1st conjugation class and its alternations. The imperfect of the 1st conjugation would have had initially the suffix -*a˘a- < -aba-, where a˘ is the result of the original unaccented a. The analogical process then can be described as follows: if ea alternated with e between the present and imperfect in the 2nd conjugation, then *a˘a could alternate only with a˘ in the 1st conjugation for the same tenses. This analogy assumes the existence of a diphthong *a˘a at this stage of Romanian, which later contracted to a. There is, however, a problem with this solution: if, indeed, a˘ in the 1st person plural is the result of this analogy, why did the 2nd person plural not participate in this? Why does Romanian not have la˘uda˘2t¸i? The reason for this is obscure, but it may simply have to do with the sporadic character of the analogical processes in general. As I said above, the case of Istro-Romanian is different since this process did not take place there.4 In addition, this dialect innovated in the imperfect paradigm, where the 4th conjugation formed the basis 4

See note 3.

200

Catalin Anghelina

for all the other conjugation types: IMPF audiiam ‘to hear’ (< Vulg. Lat. audibam) was the basis for scapaiam ‘to drop’ (Lat. excapere) from the 1st conjugation. Another crux of the Romanian verbal morphology is the form of the 3rd person singular perfect for verbs belonging to the 1st conju´ For gation class.5 These forms have as ending an accented a˘ = [w]. example, Rom. INF a la˘uda [alwwudá] < Lat. laudare ‘to praise’ has ´ < Lat. PERF laudáuit.6 The normal PERF 3rd SG la˘uda˘ = [lwwudw] evolution should have been [lwwudá], which would have been identical to the imperfect. Romanian, however, displays a different form. While most opinions share the view that this has been an analogical process in order to distinguish the perfect from the imperfect, there is little agreement on how the analogy worked.7 A possible answer can be found in the paradigm of the 4th conjugation. A verb like Lat. audire, for example, had the PERF 3rd SG audiuit. This perfect type was parallel to that of the 1st conjugation class, having the suffix u added to the verbal root. Thus, for the 3rd person singular, audíuit was parallel to laudáuit. In the transition from Latin to Common Romanian, these two forms became very early *audí and *laudá. On the other hand, the present tense of such verbs must have been *[aúdi] and [laúdw]. This, then, may have offered the premise for the following analogy: 4th CONJ 1st CONJ

PRES *aúdô8 PRES laúda˘

PERF *audâ9 PERF X

The solution is exactly what we find in Romanian: la˘uda˘ [lwwudw]. ´ The above facts show how old the phonemicization of [w] may be. Given the fact that ô > e (*audô > Rom. aude) precedes the emergence

5 6

7

8

9

This is the Romanian ‘perfectul simplu’. The [w] in [lwwuda] is due to the fact that, synchronically, Romanian syllables must have onsets. Densus¸ianu (1997: 221) correlates this ending with that of the 1st person plural of an old perfect la˘uda˘m. It is, again, not clear what the connections are between these personal forms; cf. Dimitrescu et alii (1978: 309); Rosetti (1978:154). The keystone of this demonstration is that the analogy took place before i in *aúdi became e (fle) (Rom. aúde). This form gave in Common Romanian, after fricativization, *audzí > Rom. auzí. Aromanian still has audzí.


201

of the diphthong ea,10 it means that the phoneme /w/ could appear even before it was used in the alternation between the definite and indefinite nominal forms, e.g, casa˘ – casa, which is parallel to parte – partea. The perfect forms analyzed above, then, could be at the origin of the phoneme a˘.11 In addition, if, indeed, the analogical process proposed above occurred, this could mean that the phoneme a˘ emerged when the Latin vocalic system in the front series (i ô efl e˛) was still in place. This may also lead to the conclusion that the emergence of this phoneme occurred at a stage of the language, which was closer to Latin than to what will subsequently become Common Romanian. Besides, although there is obviously a relation between Romanian, Bulgarian and Albanian regarding the postponing of the definite article (e.g. Rom. INDEF fata˘ – DEF fata ‘girl’ is parallel to Alb. vajzë – vajza), which also means that this areal Balkanic feature may be due to either one of these languages or the substratum, the phonemicization of schwa seems to have occurred in Common Romanian in an independent way.12 A final discussion regards the morphological role of schwa in marking the plural of some feminine nominal forms, which display the alternation a – a˘ between the singular and plural. One should note again that the original Latin tonic vowel on these nouns was a:13 INDEF SG parte ‘part’, falca˘ ‘cheek’, ‘jaw’ scara˘ ‘ladder’ – INDEF PL pa˘rt, i, fa˘lci, sca˘ri < Lat. partem, *falca (falx), scala, etc. In examples of this sort the presence of schwa (a˘) in the plural has no phonological explanation, despite some attempts to find such a solution14. This is clearly shown by the fact that masculine nouns with similar phonological form do not enter the system of alternations: MASC SG frate < Lat. frater ‘brother’ – MASC PL frat, i [fratsi], MASC SG tata ‘father’-MASC PL tat, i [tatsi]. Even an isolated word like mart, i [martsi] ‘Tuesday’ < Lat. Martis (‘Dies Martis’) shows that we are not dealing here with a phonological process. On the other hand, from a synchronic standpoint, Chitoran (2002:209) rightly views

10 11

12 13 14

Cf. Rom. neagra˘ < Lat. nigra. Sala (1976: 194) argues that the phoneme a˘ occurred with the contrastive pair casa˘ – casa. For this areal feature, see e. g. Tagliavini (1973: 496), Orel (2000: 246). It is attested in all dialects with the exception of Istro-Romanian. Cf. Sala (1976:193) for a historical synopsis.

202

Catalin Anghelina

this alternation as corresponding to the alternations ea-e and oa-o, which are also used to additionally mark the category of number for some feminine nouns, e.g. INDEF SG seara˘ – INDEF PL seri ‘evening’ < Lat. sera, INDEF SG floare – INDEF PL flori ‘flower’ < Lat flos, ris. Chitoran’s synchronic analysis can lead to a solution for the ‘diachronic’ problem. Thus, this unetymological a˘ can be explained through the existence of the systemic alternations ea-e and oa-o between the singular and plural of the feminine nouns. In other words, these already existing alternations created the premises for the morphophonemic equivalent alternation a-a˘. Therefore, the additional marking of the plural through a˘ is the result of the morphological pressure created by the system of morphophonemic alternations ea-e and oa-o. This solution had already been stated by Phillipide (1927:21), but it has been since forgotten until Brâncus¸ (2000:295–300) recently reaffirmed it, rightly considering that the alternation must belong to Common Romanian since it can be seen both in Romanian and Aromanian. We can see thus that schwa’s very important morphological role begins with Common Romanian. It is, however, very possible that its oldest use as a phoneme came with the perfect forms analyzed above.15

Bibliography Brâncus¸, Grigore (2000). Studii s¸i Cercetari Lingvistice 51:295–300. Chitoran, Ioana (2002). The Phonology of Romanian. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Densus¸ianu, Ovidiu (1997). Histoire de la langue roumaine. Bucures¸ti (original edition 1901, Paris). Dimitrescu, Florica, Barborica˘, Elena, Ca˘la˘ras¸u, Cristina, Cvasnîi, Maria, Marta, Mihai, Ruxa˘ndoiu, Liliana, Pamfil, Viorica, Theodorescu Mirela, Toma Elena (1978). Istoria Limbii Române. Bucures¸ti. Orel, Vladimir (2000). A Concise Historical Grammar of the Albanian Language. Brill: Leiden. Philippide, Alexandru (1927). Originea Românilor. Ias¸i. 15

I would not exclude the emergence of the phonemic schwa through the ‘peripheral’ lexical opposition ca˘ ‘that’ (conjunction, < Lat. quod) – ca ‘than’ (preposition, < Lat. quam). These ‘little’ words can be found both in Romanian and Aromanian and, therefore, belong to Common Romanian.


203

Rossetti, Alexandru (1978). Istoria limbii române. Bucures¸ti. Sala, Marius (1976). Contributions à la phonétique historique du roumain. Paris: Klincksieck. Tagliavini, Carlo (1973). Orígenes de las lenguas neolatinas. México (original edition 1949, in Italian).

3569 Chowning Ct C o l u m b u s, OH 43220 U.S.A. [email protected]

Catalin Anghelina

204

Miguel Villanueva Svensson

Baltic sta-presents and the Indo-European desiderative* Abstract Baltic sta-presents are a productive verbal formation for anticausative and inchoative verbs. They stay in complementary distribution with nasal presents, stapresents being originally restricted to TERT- and TER-roots (the later with regular métatonie rude). The only reasonable cognate of the sta-presents is Slavic *orste- “grow”, which suggests that we are dealing with a Balto-Slavic formation of still disputed origin. In this article it is proposed that Baltic sta-presents (BaltoSlavic *ste/o-presents) originated in the 3 sg. middle of an athematic desiderative (Lith. mìrsˇta “dies”, vi˜rsta “turns into, becomes” h *mér-h1s-toi “wishes to die”, *Üért-s-toi “wishes to turn”). Forms like *mér-h1s-toi, *Üért-s-toi would be the regular middle counterpart of the Indo-European Narten desiderative that gave rise to the Baltic future tense. In some verbs they became unmarked present stems, a development favored by the common northern Indo-European trend to develop a productive class of anticausative-inchoative verbs and by the fact that infixal nasal presents could not be freely derived from all root structures. The zero grade of the sta-presents was taken from the thematic aorists with which they originally correlated. The present stem suffix *-(h1)ste/o- must be the result of a complex analogical chain *-(h1)s-tói f *-(h1)s-tó+ti f *-(h1)stó-ti f *-(h1)sté-ti, which can be linked to the decay of the middle voice in Balto-Slavic.

1. Lithuanian and Latvian have a large class of anticausative and inchoative verbs characterized by a present stem suffix -sta, e.g. diñgsta (inf. diñgti, pret. diñgo “disappear”), témsta (témti, t˜emo “grow dark”), pa-mi˜rsˇta < *-mi˜rsˇ-sta (-mi˜rsˇti, -mi˜rsˇo “forget”). The origin of this suffix remains a crux. Before offering a new proposal, I will present an overview of sta-presents as found in Baltic, paying special attention to what may be relevant for a historical elucidation of the type.1

* This article was written within the framework of the Project BALTLINGVA: Research on Baltic Linguistic Heritage and its Dissemination through Information Technologies, sponsored by the Lithuanian State Science and Studies Foundation. 1 For fuller descriptive surveys of nasal and sta-presents I refer to the standard grammars. Rich collections of data can also be found in Johansson (1893:476 ff.), Arumaa (1957), Pakalnisˇkiene˙ (1993).

Baltic sta-presents and the Indo-European desiderative

205

2. The position of sta-presents in the (East) Baltic verbal system is entirely parallel to that of nasal presents like sˇviñta (sˇvìsti, sˇvìto “dawn”), limpa ˜ (lìpti, lìpo “stick to”). Both formations constitute a productive class of anticausative and inchoative verbs. The vast majority of them can be classified into one of two derivational patterns: 2.1. Anticausative nasal and sta-presents beside full grade transitive ia-presents. This is the most common type,2 including sta-presents like diñgti, diñgsta “disappear, vanish” (: deñgti, deñgia “cover”), liñkti, liñksta “bend (intr.)” (: leñkti, leñkia “bend (tr.)”), lãzˇti, lãzˇta “break (intr.)” (: láuzˇti, láuzˇia “break (tr.)”), v˜ykti, v˜yksta “happen, occur” (: ve˜ıkti, ve˜ıkia “do, act”), vi˜rsti, vi˜rsta “turn into, become” (: ve˜rsti, ve˜rcˇia “turn over”), and nasal presents like kìsti, kiñta “change (intr.)” (: ke˜ısti, ke˜ıcˇia “change (tr.)”), plìsti, pliñta “spread (intr.)” (: ple˙˜sti, pl˜ecˇia “widen”), rùkti, ruñka “wrinkle (intr.)” (: raukti, ˜ raukia ˜ “wrinkle (tr.)”), sklìsti, skliñda “spread (intr.)” (: skle˜ısti, skle˜ıdzˇia “spread (tr.)”), tìkti, tiñka “be fit for” (: te˜ıkti, te˜ıkia “give”). 2.2. Inchoative nasal and sta-presents, used almost exclusively with preverbs, beside stative or durative verbs of several morphological types (mostly, but not exclusively with a second stem *-e-, *-a¯-).3 sta-presents: pra-gy´sti, -gy´sta “begin to chant” (: giedóti, gíesti/gíeda “chant”), pa-mìlti, -mìlsta “fall in love” (: mylqti, my´li “love”), pravi˜rkti, -vi˜rksta “begin to cry” (: ve˜rkti, ve˜rkia “cry”), pra-zˇy´sti, -zˇy´sta “begin to bloom” (: zˇydqti, zˇy´di “bloom”), pa-zˇìnti, -zˇ˛ísta “get to know” (: zˇinóti, zˇìno “know”). Nasal presents: pra-bìlti, -b˜yla “begin to speak” (: bylóti, bylója “say, tell”), pa-bùsti, -buñda “wake up” (: budqti, bùdi “be awake”), uzˇ-mìgti, -miñga “fall asleep” (: miegóti, mi˜egti/mi˜ega “sleep”), sˇvìsti, sˇviñta “dawn” (: sˇvi˜esti, sˇvi˜ecˇia “shine”), nu-tìlti, -t˜yla “fall silent” (: tylqti, t˜yli “be silent”). 2.3. Beside these major types, we find a wealthy number of denominative sta-presents like brañgti, brañgsta “become expensive” (: brangùs “expensive”), sve˜ıkti, sve˜ıksta “get better, recover” (: sve˜ıkas “healthy”), ru¯˜ kti, ru¯˜ ksta “smoke” (: ru¯˜ kas “mist, fog”), sénti, sénsta “grow old” (: s˜enas “old”), and nasal presents like ap-àkti, -añka “become blind” (: akìs “eye”), at-pìgti, -piñga “fall in price” (: pigùs 2 3

Pakalnisˇkiene˙ (1993:17 ff.) lists 206 such pairs in Lithuanian, 68 in Latvian. Pakalnisˇkiene˙ (1993:137 ff.) lists 150 verbs in Lithuanian (118 beside verbs with a second stem, 32 beside ia-presents), only 17 in Latvian, most of them not in a clear opposition to a stative verb.

206


“cheap”), sˇlàpti, sˇlampa ˜ “become wet” (: sˇlãpias “wet”), sˇlùbti, ˇslumba ˇ ˜ “become lame” (: slùbas “lame”). 2.4. Finally, nasal and sta-presents are also found among primary verbs with the appropriate semantics. We have sta-presents like aus ˜ ˇ ti, aus ˜ ˇ ta “dawn”, brvsti, brvsta “ripen”, mi˜rti, mìrsˇta “die”, pa-mi˜rsˇti, -mi˜rsˇta “forget”, Latv. svîst, svîstu “sweat”, and nasal presents like lìpti, limpa ˜ “stick to”, su-pràsti, -prañta “understand”, mìsti, miñta “nourish oneself”, sèkti, señka “sink”, sˇìlti, sˇy˜ la (dial. sˇìlsta) “get warm”. In some cases nasal and sta-presents may have replaced earlier types of presents, as gìmsta beside OLith. g˜ema “is born” or sniñga beside OLith. and dial. sni˜egti, sni˜ega “snows”. In other the derivational basis may have been lost, but for many verbs there is no inner-Baltic evidence suggesting that the sta-present must be a recent coinage. 3. Nasal and sta-presents share the same paradigm: they are typically built to the zero grade of the root, the infinitive stem is attached directly to the root, and both have the a¯-preterit.4 The present stems -sta and -n- stay in a near to complementary distribution. Stang (1942:132 f., 1966:340 ff.) gives the following principles:

4

Exceptions with the e-preterit are very few. In the literary language only two are known: mi˜rti, mìrsˇta, mìre˙ “die” (OLatv. nomirre Elger), gìmti (dial. gimti), ˜ gìmsta, gìme˙ “be born”. The dialects furnish further examples like dil˜ti/dìlti, d˜yla/dìlsta/d˜ela, dìlo/dìle˙ “wear out”, svil˜ti/svìlti, sv˜yla/svìlsta/sv˜ela, svìlo/svìle˙ “scorch”, tàpti, tampa, ˜ tãpo/tãpe˙ “become”, skàsti, skañta, skãto/skãte˙ “spring, hop”. mìrsˇta is the only sta-present affected by the ruki-rule. This, however, only guaranties a certain antiquity within Baltic (inasmuch as they are not relatively recent creations, the effects of the ruki-rule may have been easily removed in less salient verbs). For this root we can safely reconstruct a Áe/o-present *mr-Áétor (Ved. mriyáte, Lat. morior), still preserved in Slavic (OCS. Zo., Mar. umцretч, Slvn. mrjèm, cf. Tedesco 1956:520 ff., Barton 1980:263 f.). The irregular e-preterit mìre˙ (< *mir-iÁa¯-) is thus probably dependent on an earlier Baltic present *mir-ia-, see below footnote 41. The sta-present of gìmti is a fairly recent replacement of old and dialectal g˜ema. The preservation of the original e-preterit must be attributed to the frequency of this verb, no doubt supported by the e-preterit of its antonym mi˜rti. A recent transfer into the class of nasal and sta-presents probably accounts for other unexpected e-preterits as well.


207

nasal presents are built to roots with a short vowel followed by a stop, a liquid, j or v, e.g. tìkti, tiñka “fit, be fitted”, bùsti, buñda “wake up”, lìpti, limpa ˜ “stick to”, bálti, bã˛la (< *banla) “become white”, svìrti, sv˜yra (< *svinra) “bend (intr.)”, gy´ti, g˜yja (< *ginja) “recover, get better”, pãti, pu¯˜ va (< *punva) “rot”. sta-presents are built to roots with a long vowel, to TERT/S-roots, and to roots ending in a nasal, e.g. dy´gti, dy´gsta “spring, sprout”, tõlti, tõlsta “move away”, diñgti, diñgsta “disappear”, ta˜rpti, ta˜rpsta “thrive”, rìmti, rìmsta “calm down”, sénti, sénsta “grow old”. 3.1. This distribution corresponds to the literary language. In the dialects there is considerable variation between nasal and sta-presents, which is usually interpreted as a tendency to spread sta-presents over the original domain of nasal presents.5 The spread of -sta is virtually complete for roots ending in a sibilant, which descriptively have both a nasal infix and the suffix -sta, e.g. gèsti, ge˜˛sta (< *gens-sta) “go out, die out”, mìsˇti, m˜ysˇta (< *minsˇ-sta) “mix (intr.)”. Forms like geñsa, miñsa are only occasionally found in the dialects. Among other root structures the spread of -sta has taken place only in some dialects, eventually leading to doublets in the literary language. So, from roots ending in -v, dzˇiãsta, zˇãsta belong in the literary language (beside dzˇiu¯˜ va, zˇu¯˜ va, inf. dzˇiãti “dry (intr.)”, zˇãti “perish”), but pãsta, griãsta (liter. pãti, pu¯˜ va “rot”, griãti, griu¯˜ va/griu¯˜ na “fall down”) are found only in some dialects, while sta-presents are very rare among roots ending in -j (e.g. Latv. dzît, dzîstu vs. Lith. gy´ti, g˜yja “recover”). Dialectal sta-variants are also rare among short vowel roots ending in a stop, e.g. gl˜ebsta, kniùbsta (liter. glèbti, glemba ˜ “become flabby”, kniùbti, kniumba ˜ “kneel down”). In two cases the redistribution of nasal and sta-presents seems to have taken place entirely in prehistoric times: 3.2. “Normal” zero grade is the general rule for nasal and sta-presents, but there is a large number of sta-presents with lengthened zero grade y, u¯ built to roots ending in a stop or a sibilant, e.g. rãgti, rãgsta “turn sour, ferment (intr.)” (: ráugti, ráugia “ferment (tr.)”), dy´gti, dy´gsta “sprout” (: díegti, díegia “plant”).6 The type with lengthened zero grade is particularly prominent among diphthongal roots with 5 6

See Kazlauskas (1968:324 ff.) for a detailed scenario. See Arumaa (1957:132 ff.) for a discussion of sta-presents with lengthened zero grade and an extensive list of examples.

208


acute intonation (due to Winter’s Law or to a laryngeal), to which in all probability it was originally restricted, later spreading to roots with circumflex intonation. For many verbs variants with normal zero grade and a nasal present are also attested, sometimes involving specialized semantics, e.g. sky´sti, sky´sta “liquify” beside skìsti, skiñda “become flimsy” (: skíesti, skíedzˇia “dilute, separate”), trãkti, trãksta “be lacking, burst” beside trùkti, truñka “last, continue” (: tráukti, tráukia “pull, draw”). As argued by Kazlauskas (1968:326 f.) and Young (2008:207 ff.), these variants are best interpreted as levellings from an earlier paradigm *sky´sti, skiñda, sky´do, *trãkti, truñka, trãko. Such a reconstruction is supported by OPr. sindats (I), syndens (II) : sidons, sidans (III) “sitzend”, see below § 5.7 3.3. sta-presents to roots ending in a liquid are well represented in the dialects, e.g. ìrti, ìrsta “disintegrate, fall to pieces”, kìlti, kìlsta “rise” (liter. y˜ ra, k˜yla). They seem to be the rule in northern Zemaitian and are the normal type of present in Latvian as well (e.g. Zem. bìrsta, Latv. bi˜rst corresponding to liter. Lith. b˜yra, inf. bìrti “pour out (intr.)”). In Auksˇtaitian nasal presents to roots in -r, -l regularly have acute intonation in the infinitive, irrespective of the original aniflt or seflt character of the root (as in bìrti, b˜yra, from *bher-). This fact is easily understood if they originally formed sta-presents, but would be difficult to explain otherwise. The assumption that roots ending in a liquid originally formed sta-presents finds firm support in the necessarily old mi˜rti, mìrsˇta “die”. We can thus set up the following rules for Proto-Baltic: T(R)ET/Sand T(R)EUT/S- roots made nasal presents, TERT/S- and TER-roots made sta-presents. 4. A formal feature not shared by nasal and sta-presents is that of metatony.8 There are cogent reasons to assume that the sta-suffix regularly triggered métatonie rude in the present stem of roots ending in a resonant. The assumption of an original restriction of the metatony to the present stem depends crucially on the contrast between pres. mìrsˇta and inf. mi˜rti “die”. Otherwise metatony has been leveled out. For the most part the acute intonation has spread to the infinitive. 7

8

The circumflex intonation of the present stem is obscure to me, but there is hardly any other way to handle the evidence. The facts on metatony in sta-presents are collected in Bu¯ga (1924:255 ff.) and Derksen (1996:285 ff.).


209

As noticed above, this is the general rule for roots ending in a resonant, e.g. Lith. bìrti, Latv. bi˜rt “pour out (intr.)” (pres. Lith. b˜yra, dial. bìrsta, Latv. bi˜rst) beside trans. Lith. be˜rti, b˜eria, Latv. bçrt, be¸ru “strew, scatter” (also Lith. bérti, Latv. b˜ert, with acute taken from the intransitive *bìrti), Lith. ìrti, Latv. i˜rt/iˆrt “disintegrate, fall to pieces” (pres. Lith. y˜ ra/ìrsta, Latv. i˜rstu/iˆrstu) beside causative Lith. ardy´ti, a˜rdo, Latv. årdît “pull down, dismantle”. In addition, we find a number of dialectal doublets with generalized acute or circumflex intonation, as in Latv. mi˜rt, mi˜rstu and mìrt, mìrstu vs. Lith. mi˜rti, mìrsˇta “die”, Lith. rìmti, rìmsta, Latv. rimt, ˜ rimstu ˜ vs. Latv. rìmt, rìmstu “calm down” (: remti, ˜ r˜emia “support”, also rémti with acute taken from the intransitive), or Latv. grimt, ˜ grimstu ˜ vs. grìmt, grìmstu, Lith. grimti, ˜ grimsta ˜ “sink (intr.)” (cf. Latv. grèmdêt “sink (tr.)”). Métatonie rude is also found among roots of a different structure, e.g. pra-vìrkti, -vìrksta “begin to weep” (: ve˜rkti, ve˜rkia “weep”), Latv. àiz-mi˜rst, -mi˜rst beside -mìrst, -mìrst “forget” (Lith. pa-mi˜rsˇti, -mi˜rsˇta), or pa-bãgti, -bãgsta “become afraid” (: baugùs 4 “fearful”). In spite of occasional claims to the contrary (e.g. Schmid 1962:13 f., Kuryłowicz 1965:180 f.), metatony cannot be seen as a recent phenomenon. Métatonie rude in roots ending in a resonant is systematic as far back as we can trace East Baltic. Among other root structures metatony is significantly less regular and usually in competition with the expected circumflex intonation (cf. Derksen 1996:292 f.). It thus seems safe to assume that the original pattern for roots ending in a resonant spread to roots of a different structure. 9 5. The picture that emerges from East Baltic is perfectly clear. In Old Prussian, on the other hand, both nasal and sta-presents are very sparsely represented: wirst “wird” = Lith. vi˜rsti, vi˜rsta, Latv. vìrst, vìrstu “turn into, become”.10

9

10

There are some occasional cases of métatonie douce, e.g. pra-, pa-gil˜bti, -gil˜bsta beside -gìlbti “recover” (: gélbe˙ti, gélbti “save”, pagálba “help”), juõsti, juõsta beside júosti, júosta “become black” (: júodas “black”), but these are definitely rare, cf. Derksen (1996:166 ff.). OPr. wirst < *wirsta shows irregular shortening in an auxiliary verb. 1 pl. wirstmai, 2 pl. wirstai have been rebuilt on the 3rd person wirst.

210


1 pl. po-prestemmai “wir fühlen” (inf. is-sprestun “verstehen”), with sta-present against the nasal present of Lith. su-pràsti, -prañta, Latv. sa-prast, -prùotu “understand”.11 polinka, polijnku (inf. pola¯ikt “bleiben”),12 certainly replacing an earlier (a)thematic present (cf. dial. Lith. liñka beside liter. li˜eka, OLith. liekmi). Pres. act. ptcp. sindats (I), syndens (II), pret. act. ptcp. sidons, sidans (III) “sitzend”, pointing to a paradigm pres. *sinda- : inf. *sistwei. The agreement with OCS. seˇsti, se˛do, ˛ aor. seˇdч “sit down” points to a Balto-Slavic paradigm pres. *sínde/o- or *sìnde/o- : inf., aor. *sed-. Such a paradigm was entirely isolated in East Baltic and the present was replaced in Lith. sqsti, sqda and Latv. sêst, sêzˇu/s¸e¤stu.13 It is curious than only wirst and polinka agree with the East Baltic distribution of nasal and sta-presents. The sta-present of OPr. -prestemmai vs. Lith. -prañta is unclear to me.14 sindats : sidons probably preserves a type *señda- or *siñda : *sàsti that has been systematically leveled out in East Baltic (see above § 3.2). Apart from that, Old Prussian does little more than certifying that sta-presents are at least Proto-Baltic in date. 6. Outside of Baltic the only reasonable cognate of sta-presents is Slavic *orst ¤ o, ˛ *orstetц' , inf. *orstı' : “grow” (OCS. rasti, rasto, ˛ Ru. rastí, 0 rastú, Ukr. rosty´, rostú, Pol. rósć´, rosna˛c´, Cz. rusti, rostu, SCr. rásti, ráste¯m, etc.), which has been frequently taken as an isolated ste-present to the root *h3er- “rise, start up” of Ved. rnóti fl “sets in motion”, Gk. 4 “raise”, - “rise”, Lat. orior, -iri “rise”, etc. The functional agreement with the Baltic sta-presents makes this etymology 11

12

13

14

The divergence in root vocalism between OPr. -sprestun and Lith. -pràsti is unclear to me. Smoczyn´ski (2005:83156) argues that this and other cases of apparent e-vocalism in Old Prussian are secondary for inherited a-vocalism. The apparent contrast in root vocalism between pres. polinka and inf. pola¯ikt has no correlate in East Baltic. Smoczyn´ski (2005:276 f.) argues for a diphthongization *palíkt > po-la¯ikt. An athematic present sqdmi also occurs, but its late attestation (Ruhig +) and the absence of the expected 1 sg. *sqmi < *sedmi indicate that it is a recent neologism. Endzelin (1923:561) suggests 3rd person *sest(i) f *sest(a) as the source of the dial. Latv. -sa¯st, but the sta-present needs not depend on an earlier athematic present. Go. frapjan “understand” may suggest that OPr. po-prestemmai and Lith. suprañta are (independent?) replacements of an earlier Áe/o-present *prat-Áa, cf. Villanueva (2006:300 f.).


211

especially attractive, but from a formal point of view it has to face the following problems: (1) -st- is not limited to the present stem, but is part of the root, (2) the circumflex intonation of *orstı' does not agree with the Baltic metatony in roots ending in a resonant, (3) the full grade (or o-grade) of *orstı' does not agree with the regular zero grade of Baltic. None of these problems, however, is prohibitive or even too strong. If *orste- was the only remnant of a class of Balto-Slavic ste/o-presents, a pre-Slavic paradigm *or-ti, *or-ste-, aor. *or-e/o- would certainly have called for some type of analogical repair: resegmentation of the present stem as *orst-e- and extension of °st- through all the paradigm was only to be expected. The circumflex intonation may be only apparent. That of the present is expected in an Accentual Paradigm c. The final ictus of the infinitive *orstı' is regular both from *Hor-tài as well as from a hypothetical secondary *HorHtài (with -H- taken from the present *HorHste/o- at an early date), as Hirt’s law would not have applied in either case. As for the vocalism of *orsti, I believe here lies an additional argument in favor of this etymology. It is strongly reminiscent of the unexpected vocalism of the Indo-Iranian middle root aorist *ar-ta < *h3ér-to (Ved. a¯rta, inj. arta, GAv. 2 sg. imper. uz-a¯rwsˇuua¯), with full grade probably confirmed by Hitt. ar-ta “stands”,15 and TB. subj. ertär “will evoke” (Gk. τ is ambiguous). The vocalism of the present *or-ste-, then, depends on that of the aorist *Hor-to (or thematized *Hor-e-t) to which it was originally formed (see below §10.3).16 15

16

Hitt. ar-ta fits better in *h3er- than in *h1er- (Hitt. a¯ri “arrives”, Ved. rccháti, Gk. * " “goes”, etc.) and implies loss of word-initial *h3- in Hittite, a matter that cannot be discussed in this article. The prehistory of ar-ta is probably more complex than suggested here, cf. Villanueva (forthcoming:§ 3, 13.2). Recent work on the ablaut of the Indo-European middle root aorist has made the presence of full or o-grade in *Hór-to less surprising than it might traditionally have been, cf. Jasanoff (2003:150 ff.). My own views have been presented in Villanueva (2006, forthcoming). It is nevertheless a fact that zero grade has been generalized with few exceptions. The full grade of Ved. arta is thus best seen as a particular idiosyncrasy of this verb. For our present purposes it is not necessary to take a strong position on the problems surrounding the “große Bewegungswurzel *er-” (cf. most recently Vine 2005:274 ff., with literature). Whatever the choice one makes, either setting up two roots *h1er- “move (forward)” and *h3er- “rise, start up” (e.g. LIV 238, 299 f.), or only one root *h1er- “start moving” that split into *h1er- and “*h1or-” (e.g. Jasanoff 2003:212), the agreement in root vocalism between Slavic *orsti and Ved. arta remains striking.

212


If this account is correct (otherwise *orstı' has to be left as a locus desperatus of Slavic etymology),17 sta-presents become a Balto-Slavic rather than an exclusively Baltic problem. 7. Reasonable comparanda of the sta-presents are otherwise unknown. It must be an innovation, but it is far from self-evident where the origin of this formation should be sought. The following explanations have been proposed: 1.

Schleicher (1856:246), Porzˇezinskij (1901:99 ff.), Vaillant (1966:172 f.): resegmented from te/o-presents to roots ending in a sibilant or a dental.

The principal alternative takes *orstı' as a te-present to a root found in Lat. ˛ “steep” (< *ardharduus “high”, OIr. ard “high” (< *ard(h)Ío-), OIc. ordugr uga-), more distantly Gk. 5 %« “straight”, Ved. u¯rdhvá-, Av. wrwa- “upright” ˙ SSJ XXXII 199). This etymology is beset (references in Vasmer REW II 494, E with too many problems to be acceptable: 1) A connection with *orstı' is possible only if one sets up a “western” root *h2erHdh- and an “eastern” root *ÍerHdh- (cf. Chantraine DELG 819 for initial digamma in Gk. 5 %«). The two families, however, can hardly be separated from each other. A general “western” dissimilatory loss of initial *Í- would be curious, but cannot in principle be excluded (cf. Av. wrwa- < *rHdÍá- < *ÍrHdhÍó-, Myc. o-tu-wo-we, o-to-wo-we, o-two-we #O %ζ st as proved or overtly assume a different development of *sk in Baltic, e.g. Klingenschmitt (1982:687), Gamkrelidze-Ivanov (1984:1211), Rasmussen (1987:151), Jasanoff (1988:236), Bammesberger (1991:275), Szemerényi (1996:2737), Forssman (2001:90, 180). Van Wijk (1933) and Kortlandt (1979:59) propose dissimilation *-ska > -sta after roots ending in -k or -g. So also Endzelin (1923:580, 1948:190), Fraenkel (1950:280 ff.), more recently Levet (1975).

214


7.1. Comparative evidence alone suffices to reject some proposals. te/o-presents are very rare and nowhere found with any degree of productivity. The Germanic Schallverba are evidently onomatopoeic and thus a poor comparandum for the Baltic sta-presents. The notion that *-ske/o- is to be analyzed as an etymologically composite suffix *-s- + *-ke/o- can be discussed in its own terms, but this doesn’t allow for the reconstruction of parallel suffixes like *-ste/o-.20 Leaving aside other problems, Toporov’ account is built on very doubtful premises concerning the Indo-European system of verbal endings. None of these theories, in any case, actually explains the formal and functional properties of the Baltic sta-presents. We are thus left with the “ske/o-theory”, Johansson’s “sigmatic aorist theory”, Schulze’s “desiderative theory”, and Kuryłowicz’ and Kazlauskas’ derivation from participles in *-to-, which at least start from unproblematic Indo-European formations. 7.2. Although both Johansson and Schulze offer some interesting prospects (see below), their theories are clearly unacceptable in the way they were presented. Johansson’s theory accounts for the functional value of sta-presents, but the development of an aorist formation into a present stem suffix remains entirely unclear. Schulze’s theory accounts directly for the metatony, but the characteristic anticausative value of sta-presents is left unexplained. Most importantly, Schulze was unable to explain the -t- of -sta. 7.3. Kuryłowicz’ scenario has the advantage of providing an innerBaltic account for a formation that is attested with certainty only in Baltic (if Slavic *orsti is not accepted as evidence for Balto-Slavic antiquity), but both the crucial reanalysis of *virsta- as *virt-sta- and the analogy required to obtain a new present suffix -sta- are hard to believe. A similar criticism applies to Kazlauskas’ proposal. 7.4. The “ske/o-theory” is the only one that derives the sta-presents 20

In addition to Slavic *orsti and the Germanic Schallverba in -st-, Levet (1975) presents the following evidence in support of Indo-European *-ste/o-: a) OHG. pret. konsta “knew, was able”, onsta “granted” (Otfrid, for normal konda, onda), which are almost certainly inner-German innovations (cf. Braune-Eggers 1987:300), b) some Greek verbs is -Q. like 2Q. “lift up, carry”,

Q. “doze”, c) some verbal roots ending in °st-, e.g. Ved. céflsfltati “stir”, Gk. 2 ., aor. *2 “sprout”, TB. kärst-, TA. kärflst- “cut off”, mostly of obscure etymology or analysis. It is evident that these facts do not allow the reconstruction of a new Indo-European suffix.


215

from a well-established Indo-European present stem formation. This is an important advantage over all other theories and no doubt the main reason for its relative popularity. Although relatively straightforward from a functional point,21 this theory has to face some almost prohibitive objections: 7.4.1. The most important problem concerns the putative sound change *-sk- > -st-, which is contradicted by strong evidence like Lith. iesˇkóti, íesˇko, OCS. iskati, isko˛ “search for” (: Ved. iccháti etc., LIV 260), or Lith. skíesti, skíedzˇia “separate, dilute” (*skeid-, LIV 547 f.). The development of Indo-European *sk in Balto-Slavic remains disputed and cannot be adequately discussed in this article. I refer to Villanueva (2009) for a full treatment, where I have tried to show that *sk regularly yielded *sk. 7.4.2. Word-equations between Baltic sta-presents and Indo-European ske/o-presents are almost non-existent.22 Lith. pa-zˇìnti, -zˇ˛ísta, Latv. pa-z˜ıt, -z˜ıstu “get to know” is the synchronically expected inchoative of the stative Lith. zˇinóti, Latv. zinât “know”. A direct equation with Gk. *-sinti, with -i- extended as a union vowel to the plural and dual endings. We would then reconstruct a (pre-)Baltic, probably Balto-Slavic paradigm *do¯smi, *do¯si, *do¯st(i),

31

32

do” probably does not belong here. See Cirilo de Melo (2007) for a convincing derivation from the subjunctive and optative of the sigmatic aorist. Whether Old Irish unreduplicated s-futures like seiss (saidid “sits”) or -ré (reithid “runs”) continue an athematic desiderative must at present be regarded as insecure. Original thematic inflexion cannot be excluded (discussion in Hill 2004:148 ff., with references). See McCone (1991:165 ff.) for an attractive connection with the Indo-Iranian type Ved. dípsa-, GAv. dizˇa- “desire to harm” (< IIr. *dhibzha- < *dhi-bh-se/o-, dissimilated from *dhi-dhbh-se/o-). I am also skeptic towards derivation of the Vedic “Prospektiv” stuflsé “I will now praise” from an athematic desiderative (Rasmussen 1985). Cf. Zinkevicˇius (1966:359 ff.), for the variants of the future in Lithuanian dialects. There are no secure traces of athematic plural forms in Latvian, cf. Endzelin (1923:659, 665).

220


*do¯sime, *do¯site, *do¯sint(i), with participle *do¯sÁont-. After reshaping of the 2 sg. *do¯si as *do¯sei (vel sim.), the replacement of 1 sg. *do¯smi by *do¯sÁo¯ would have been almost unavoidable.33 The athematic plural and dual variants dúosme, dúoste are easily explained as backformed to the 3rd person duõs.34 As observed by Jasanoff (1988:233, 2003:133), this explanation entails a desiderative with “Narten” ablaut for the prehistory of Baltic.35 Positive evidence confirming an athematic desiderative with “Narten” ablaut is (predictably) slim. Jasanoff (1988:233 f., 2003:133, 192) sees a direct relic in Hitt. gane˘ss˘ -mi “recognize” < *g¤ nàh3-s-/ *g¤ néh3-s-, and an indirect one in *h2íis-s- “seek”, inferred from the

33

34

35

A 1 sg. eismi “I will go” is actually attested in some hand-written additions to Sengstock’s 1612 edition of Vilentas’ writings, cf. Matusevicˇiu¯te˙ (1938:101). Given its isolation, it is unclear whether it should be taken as a strong archaism, as an occasional analogy on the present eimì, or as a mistake. So e.g. Stang (1942:204, 1966:399). This explanation has often been doubted (e.g. Endzelin 1923:664, Schmid 1963:58, Hill 2004:100 f.), but I still find it unproblematic. Baltic verbal paradigms are formed by adding personal endings to an endingless 3rd person (e.g. pres. v˜eda f 1 pl. v˜eda-me, 2 pl. v˜eda-te, pret. v˜ede˙ f v˜ede˙-me, v˜ede˙-te, etc.). There was thus enough systematic pressure to replace 1 pl. e˜ısime, 2 pl. e˜ısite with e˜ısme, e˜ıste on 3rd person e˜ıs. As observed by Kortlandt (1982:6) the East Auksˇtatian variants with accented endings 1 pl. eismà, 2 pl. eistà are found in dialects that generalize accentual mobility in the noun and are thus probably secondary. The i-inflexion can also be explained from the 3rd plural if the Baltic future is derived from the injunctive of the sigmatic aorist (e.g. Rasmussen 1985:384; similarly Kortlandt 1982:7, but taking -i- from 1 sg. *eisim < *-s-m), a possibility I find a priori unlikely. Notice, in any case, that the 3rd person duõs < *do¯st can not be taken as an argument for original secondary endings, as apocope of final *-i is well-known in Balto-Slavic. In the future apocopated *-t (< *-ti) was extended from trisyllabic (kalbe˙˜s “will speak”) to disyllabic stems (duõs for †dúosti), cf. Stang (1966:410), Jasanoff (2003:6064). If, on the other hand, athematic 1 pl. dúosme, 2 pl. dúoste are taken as original, the 1 sg. dúosiu could still be explained as analogical to 2 sg. *do¯sei, but it would be difficult to motivate the choice of i-inflexion for the renewed plural and dual endings rather than the more common ia-inflexion. I find a direct connection of 1 sg. dúosiu, 2 sg. dúosi with the Indo-Iranian sÁa-future, as recently advocated by Hill (2004:99), highly unlikely. The future participle dúosiant-, bãsiant(: RuCS. bysˇos ˛ ˇ t-, YAv. bu¯sˇiiant-) fl uncontroversially goes back to *-sÁont-, but the presence of a suppletive sia-future participle in Balto-Slavic, curious as it might be, does not by itself allow for an etymologically suppletive paradigm in the finite forms, which would be definitely aberrant.


221

unexpected vocalism of Lith. iesˇkóti, íesˇko, OCS. iskati, isko˛ “search for” (< *h2eiske/o-), OHG. eisco¯n, Arm. haycˇem “ask” (< *h2eiske/o-), cf. Alb. njoh, Arm. aor. caneay (< *g¤ neh3-ske/o-) for a similar cross with a regular zero grade ske/o-present (Ved. iccháti, YAv. isaiti). From this perspective, Ved. cáflsflte can be derived from *kwék-s-(t)o rather than from *kwek-s-(t)ó with secondary root accent.36 The Italic evidence is basically neutral. Building on Schrijver’s account of variants like Gk. ˘ “plant” vs. “growth” as depending on accent position (Schrijver 1991:512 ff.), Hill (2004:119, 153) adduces the short vowel of Os. fust, Um. fust, fust “erit”, 3 pl. furent “erunt” < *õ-s- as evidence for original final accent, implying a desiderative *déh3-s-ti/*dh3-s-énti. I am not certain that this is the only possible explanation of Sabellian *õ-s-. Finally, Rasmussen’s interpretation of Ved. stuflsé “I will now praise” as a desiderative *stu-s-h2ái (Rasmussen 1985) would also imply normal ablaut. The type stuflsé, however, remains unclear. If it is of desiderative origin, we would certainly expect †stu¯sfl é < *stu-h1s-h2ái (as later recognized by Rasmussen himself 1997:258 f.). 10. Balto-Slavic then inherited an athematic desiderative with Narten ablaut that sooner or later evolved into the Baltic (BaltoSlavic) future tense.37 We can thus confidently postulate middle desideratives like *mér-h1s-toi, *Üért-s-toi for an early stage of the dialectal area from which Balto-Slavic emerged (the zero grade of mìrsˇta, vi˜rsta will be discussed below § 11.1).38 36

37

38

Jasanoff further observes that some of the Old Irish unreduplicated s-futures are built to roots with clear Narten affinities (e.g. *sed- “sit down” in saidid, fut. seiss, cf. Ved. sa¯dád-yoni-, OIr. sáidid “implant”, Lat. sedes “seat”, etc.), but see above footnote 31 on this formation. Needless to say, at an early stage at least the (h1)sÁe/o-desiderative must also have been present, but it is impossible to determine what the distribution of both desiderative types may have been or when they were combined into a suppletive paradigm. I attribute the paradigm reconstructed above (§ 9.3) to common Balto-Slavic. In reconstructing *mér-h1s-toi, *Íért-s-toi I am assuming that the (pre-)BaltoSlavic system of middle endings was of a typologically “modern” type: *-i rather than *-r as the marker of primary endings, 2 sg. *-so rather than *-th2e, 3 sg. *-to, 3 pl. *-nto rather than 3 sg. *-o, 3 pl. *-ro as the productive (or exclusive?) 3rd person endings. Thus, Hitt. pa?˘s-a(ri) “protects” < *péh2s-or (< *péh2-h1s-or?) may indicate that the athematic desiderative originally selected 3 sg. middle *-o,

222


As the next step I assume that in some verbs the original middle desiderative came to function as the normal present stem. That desideratives can become unmarked primary verbs is of course unremarkable. What is perhaps not so trivial is that in (pre-)Balto-Slavic they became not independent verbs, but a new present stem, and that this happened only in the middle voice and only in verbs with anticausative-inchoative value. It is thus necessary to examine whether anything in the evolution of the verbal system could actually favor such a process. 10.1. The origins of the productive Baltic patterns Lith. ple˙˜sti, pl˜ecˇia “widen” : plìsti, pliñta “spread (intr.)”, budqti, bùdi “be awake” : pa-bùsti, -buñda “wake up” are certainly older than Proto-Baltic. Nasal presents are also productive with anticausative-inchoative value in Slavic and Germanic. They are well-known in East and North Germanic, both involving transitivity oppositions (Go. brikan “break (tr.)” : us-bruknan “break (intr.)”, ON svída “burn (tr.)” : svidna “be burnt”), and stative : inchoative oppositions (Go. bi-leiban “stay” : aflifnan “be left over”, ON sofa “sleep” : sofna “fall asleep”). Stative : inchoative pairs are well-attested in Slavic (OCS. seˇdeˇti, seˇdi- “sit” : seˇsti, se˛de- “sit down”, bчdeˇti, bчdi- “be awake” : vчz-bч(d)noti, ˛ vчzbч(d)ne- “wake up”). Pairs involving transitivity oppositions with thematic or je-presents are not typical of Slavic, but one can quote cases like OCS. ze˛ti, ze˛be- “tear, rend” : pro-ze˛bnoti, ˛ pro-ze˛bne- “germinate, cut through”, or ve˛zati, ve˛zˇe- “bind, tie” : u-ve˛znoti, ˛ u-ve˛zne“be caught”.

but a general replacement of *-o by *-to in (pre-)Balto-Slavic would be essentially unproblematic. To be sure, it is not even absolutely certain that the Indo-European athematic desiderative possessed a middle, as desiderative formations show a remarkable defectivity as far as verbal voice is concerned (cf. Hollifield 1981:181 f.). Thus, in Greek the future tends to be inflected in the middle, while in Vedic it is usually inflected in the active, irrespective of the diathesis of the verb (e.g. Gk. : ". “suffer”, : . “bite”, Ved. mariflsyáti : mriyáte “die”, patsyáti : pádyate “fall, move”, etc.). Whether such a defectivity was present in the athematic desiderative can hardly be determined, but Hitt. pa?˘s-a(ri) or Ved. cáfls-flte suggest that it was not. If it is nevertheless supposed to have been predominantly inflected in the active, new middles could have been easily created in the prehistory of Balto-Slavic by supplying oppositional middles to active desideratives and by replacing active with middle desideratives in typically or exclusively middle verbs.


223

The constitution of a class of anticausative-inchoative nasal presents is of course a major isogloss uniting these languages. The type has been recently studied in detail by Gorbachov (2007), where it is shown that all three branches presuppose a common, “northern Indo-European” prototype *li-n-kw-é-ti, *li-m-p-é-ti etc. The original present morphology, characterized by a nasal infix and thematic inflexion, has been faithfully preserved in Baltic. In Germanic and Slavic the nasal infix has been replaced by a nasal suffix *-ne/o-, the original infix being preserved only in relics.39 The original independence of the present stem is also most clearly preserved in Baltic (Lith. pres. li-m-p-a ˜ : inf. lìp-ti “stick to” vs. OCS. pri-lц(p)-ne-tч : pri-lц(p)-no-ti ˛ “cleave to”, Go. af-lif-ni-p : af-lif-na-n “remain”), but it is Slavic that surveys the original aorist. Slavic nasal presents of the type se˛de-, vчzbч(d)ne-, pri-lц(p)ne- are regularly associated with thematic aorists (OCS. seˇde-, vчz-bчde-, pri-lцpe-), thus pointing to an earlier paradigm pres. *bhundhéti : aor. *bhudhét “wake up”. As frequently assumed (e.g. Stang 1942:190, 1966:340, 378 ff.), this must have been the paradigm inherited by Baltic, where the thematic aorist was replaced with the a¯-preterit. There is no reason not to assume that it was the paradigm inherited by Germanic as well, where the aorist has been regularly lost. 10.2. A class *bhundhéti : *bhudhét is thus practically certain for Balto-Slavic, and at least very probable for “northern” Indo-European. Even more important than its formal expression is the fact that there must have been an early trend to create an independent class of anticausative-inchoative verbs. These were typically opposed to transitive or stative verbs, but primary verbs with inherent anticausative-inchoative value would have naturally tended to acquire their morphology as well. Although the type *bhundhéti : *bhudhét must have become productive quite early, this was surely not the only morphology allowed in this class. The thematic aorist was the regular aorist formation of this class, irrespective of the present stem, but other types can also be reconstructed (perhaps to the exclusion of the sigmatic aorist). Lith. stóti, 39

Infixal presents are still preserved in Go. standan, pret. stop “stand” and OCS. seˇsti, se˛do˛ “sit down”, lesˇti, le˛go˛ “lie down”, byti, bod ˛ o˛ “will be”, ob-reˇsti, -re˛sˇto˛ “find”. More relics of infixal nasal presents are discussed in Gorbachov (2007:21 ff., 109 ff.). Cf. also Vaillant (1966:185 f.).

224


stója, stójo, OCS. stati, stano, ˛ staxч “stand up” (: stative Lith. stovqti, stóvi, OCS. stojati, stoji- “stand”) evidently point to an inherited root aorist *sta¯-t < *stéh2-t. OCS. pres. Zo., Mar. u-mцretч (Slvn. mrjèm, otherwise replaced by u-mцre-) : aor. u-mreˇ(tч) “die” stems directly from Indo-European *mr-Áé-tor : *mér-t (Ved. mriyáte, Lat. morior : OHitt. merzi, medialized Arm. mer¯aw, Ved. ámrta), with preserved active root aorist. At the stage we are considering, OCS. rasti, rasto˛ “grow” may still have presented a middle root aorist *Hor-to (Ved. a¯rta, Gk. τ ), rather than a thematized *Hor-e/o-. As for the present stem, Tedesco (1948) established an older layer of Slavic intransitive je-presents like OCS. po-gyble- “perish”, i-sчsˇe“dry (intr.)”, RuCS. u-sчple- “fall asleep”, soon replaced by the nepresents po-gybne-, i-sчxne-, u-sч(p)ne-. Just like ne-presents, je-presents of this type are regularly pared with thematic aorists (po-gybe-, i-sчxe-, u-sчpe-). The pattern pres. po-gyble- : aor. po-gybe- is directly inherited from the parent language, the thematic aorist being for an earlier (middle) root aorist. It is best represented in Indo-Iranian, where intransitive ya-presents remained productive (Ved. mányate : ámata “think”, búdhyate : ábodhi “awake”, t´rsfl yati : trflsa¯náfl RV, trflsat AV “become thirsty” etc.). Intransitive Áe/o-presents are also attested in Germanic (ON liggja “lie”, sitja “sit”, Go. paursjan “be thirsty”, frapjan “understand”, etc.),40 and can probably be assumed for the prehistory of Baltic as well.41 It is evident that at an early date Áe/o-presents with anticausativeinchoative value must have enjoyed a certain productivity in the northern Indo-European area. Unlike in Indo-Iranian, however, Áe/ o-presents were not specialized in this usage alone. They were thus unfit to serve as the characteristic present stem of the emerging class of anticausative-inchoative verbs. Nasal presents of the type *bhundhéti eventually came to acquire such a status. The conversion of the nasal infix into a ne/o-suffix in Slavic and Germanic allowed for the 40

41

I regard the stative value of verbs like *ligjan “lie” or *sitjan “sit” as secondary, derived through decomposition from earlier inchoatives. The Baltic evidence is only inferential. If the Baltic e-preterit goes back to *-iÁa¯, an a¯-preterit built to *(i)Áa-presents (cf. Villanueva 2005 for a defense of this view), unexpected intransitive e-preterits like Lith. mìre˙ (mi˜rti, mìrsˇta “die”), gìme˙ (gimti, ˜ gìmsta “be born”), gùle˙ (gul˜ti, gùla “lie down”), or púole˙ (pùlti, púola “fall”) can be explained as built to an earlier Áe/o-present (cf. Villanueva 2005:248 ff., building on Barton 1980:257 ff.).


225

creation of nasal presents to roots like *terp- (OCS. u-trц(p)noti, ˛ Ru. terpnút’ “grow numb”) or *ters- (Go. ga-paursnan “dry up”), but as long as the nasal infix was still kept as an infix the possibility to form a nasal present must have been constrained by root-structure, as it is still the case in Lithuanian. Other formations like simple thematic presents may have occasionally been found among anticausative-inchoative verbs, but none of them was selected to serve as a companion of the nasal presents.42 10.3. There was thus a gap to be filled. This provided a sufficiently strong motivation for the middle desiderative to become the unmarked present stem of some verbs belonging to the emergent anticausative-inchoative class. A root like *mers- “forget”, for instance, formed a middle root aorist *mórs-e/*mrs-ré (Ved. mrflstha¯s, TB. subj. ma¯rsam, fl inf. marsatsi), which would have evolved into a thematic aorist *mrs-é/ó- (Lith. pa-mi˜rsˇo). Both the Vedic ya-present mrflsyate and the Tocharian “duhé-present” TB. märsetär (< *mrs-ór) could in principle be old, but “duhé-presents” were specialized with stative value in Germanic (Class III of weak verbs) and Balto-Slavic (ì-presents), where in addition they are regularly pared with a second stem *-e-. A possible present †mirsˇi- beside the aorist *mrs-é/ó- was thus unacceptable, whereas *mrs-Áé/ó-, if really Indo-European and not just Indo-Iranian, may well have been dismissed in favor of a more expressive desiderative *mers-s-toi “desires to forget” f “forgets”. Similar processes may be envisaged for other verbs. Thus, *terp-s-toi “desires to grow numb” (Lith. ti˜rpti, ti˜rpsta “melt, grow numb”) may have become the present of the aorist *trp-é/ó- (OCS. u-trцpe-), once the

42

The Indo-European origins of the formations involved in the northern IndoEuropean “anticausative-inchoative” system cannot be discussed in detail in this article. The thematic aorist has been plausibly derived from a 3 sg. middle *-e recharacterized with *-t (*dh3-é f *dh3-é-t > Ved. á-dat “took”), cf. Watkins (1969:100 ff.), Hollifield (1977:57 ff.), more recently Peters (2004:268 f.). In my view the zero grade of *dh3-é and other middle root aorists has replaced an earlier ablauting paradigm *dóh3-e/*dh3-ré, cf. Villanueva (2006 and forthcoming).The Indo-European pedigree of intransitive Áe/o-presents is perfectly clear. The productive present type *bhundhéti is notoriously problematic. The main proposals are referred in Meiser (1993:292 f.), to which Gorbachov’s “h2e-conjugation” nasal present type (3 sg.) *bhu-n-dh-é should now be added (Gorbachov 2007:212 ff.). I would favor a middle origin in combination with secondary association with thematic aorists.

226


old present *trp-ór (OCS. trчpeˇti, trчpi- “suffer, endure”, Lat. torpeo, -ere “be numb”) had become part of a new paradigm *tirp-i- : *tirp-e-. The desiderative *h1rem-h1s-toi “desires to calm down”, from *h1rem“calm down” (Lith. rìmti, rìmsta), may likewise have replaced an earlier type of present (cf. Ved. rámate, YAv. ra¯mo¯iwm, which may also continue a root aorist subjunctive). Similarly, *h3er-h1s-toi “desires to ˛ may have replaced some of the presrise (> grows)” (OCS. rasti, rasto) ents of this root (LIV 299f. lists *h3i-h3(é)r-, *h3r-n(é)u-, and *h3r-Áé-). There is no point in insisting on the correctness of these examples. The original core of verbs that transformed middle desideratives like *mér-h1s-toi, *Üért-s-toi into unmarked presents is simply unrecoverable. It is equally impossible to determine whether this was a northern Indo-European or just a Balto-Slavic innovation. No examples are known in Germanic, but here, as in Slavic (where *orste- is the only relic of a ste-present), the creation of a suffix *-ne/o- and the general restructuring of the verbal system may easily have led to their total elimination. In what follows I will assume that it was a specifically Balto-Slavic innovation. 11. It is thus perfectly reasonable, I believe, to postulate pre-BaltoSlavic paradigms like pres. *mérs-s-toi : aor. *mrs-é-t “forget”, *térps-toi : *trp-é-t “grow numb”, *h1rém-h1s-toi : *h1rm-é-t “grow calm”, *Hór-h1s-toi : *Hór-to “rise”. The next question is how the present stems *mrs-sté/ó-, *trp-sté/ó-, *h1rm-h1sté/ó-, *Hor-h1sté/ó- were created out of full-grade athematic middle desideratives. 11.1. The zero grade is essentially unproblematic. Once established in a paradigm with thematic aorists, and once they were felt to belong to the class of *bhu-n-dh-é-ti : *bhudh-é-t, *lip-Áé-toi (or *lip-Áé-ti) : *lip-é-t etc., presents like *térp-s-toi simply adopted the vocalism of the aorist *trp-é-t, which typically displayed zero grade of the root. The principle was also followed when, for whatever reason, the aorist had a different vocalism (*Hor-h1s-toi to *Hor-to or *Hor-e/oin Slavic *orste-, Lith. témti, témsta “grow dark” perhaps to an active aorist *tém-t, etc.). 11.2. Adoption of the zero grade (recte, of the vocalism of the aorist) may have taken place before or after *térp-s-toi / *trp-s-tói gave rise to a present stem *térp-ste/o- / *trp-sté/ó-. The resegmentation involved is the most serious difficulty that this account of the Baltic sta-presents has to face, and the solutions one may offer can only be regarded as tentative. Clearly the process must have been something


227

like *trpstói f *trpstóti f *trpstéti. The 3 sg. middle was recharacterized with the 3 sg. active *-ti. The resulting *trp-s-to-ti was reanalyzed as *trp-sto-ti, with suffix -st- and “thematic” o-vowel. The rest of the paradigm was then rebuilt on the 3rd singular (1 sg. *trp-sto¯ or *trpsto-mi, 2 sg. *trp-sto-si, etc.). Finally, the aberrant paradigm with persistent union vowel *-o- was adapted to the regular thematic inflexion, giving *trp-ste/o-, *Hor-h1ste/o- from which Lith. ti˜rpsta, OCS. rastetч regularly derive. 11.3. It is of course impossible to prove that this is what actually happened, but it is at least possible to give parallels for the different steps involved. That verbal paradigms are frequently remade from the third singular has been well-known since the principle was explicitly formulated by Watkins (1962:90 ff.). The redundant addition of active to middle endings has clear parallels like Ved. impf. ásáyat, áséran “lay”, áduhat, áduhran “gave milk”, Ved. 2 sg. -tha¯s (probably *-th2e + *-e-s), Lat. 2 sg. -ris, -rus (*-so + *-s), or Gk. 1 sg. - 0 (< *-ma¯ < *-m-h2 + *-m). In some cases the addition of redundant morphological material has led to the constitution of a new paradigm.43 Thus, the thematic aorist has often been assumed to be based on a 3 sg. middle *-e recharacterized with *-t.44 The paradigm of the Germanic 3rd class of weak verbs (Go. mun-a, -ais, -aip, -am, -aip, -and “intend”) has been explained as based on a middle 3 sg. *munai < *mn(n)-ói recharacterized with the active 3 sg. *-pi.45 Finally, “thematic” paradigms with persistent *-o-, found exclusively in the middle voice, are attested in Hittite (?arratta(ri) “persishes”, tarratta “be able, can”, Üe?atta “turns (intr.)”, par?attari “chases”, etc.), Tocharian (deponent presents of class III and IV, e.g. TB. triketär, TA. trikatär “goes astray”, TB. orotär, TA. aratär “ceases” < *-o-tor), and Gothic (passive 1/3 sg. bairada, 2 sg. bairaza, 1/2/3 pl. bairanda). At least the Hittite and Tocharian paradigms almost certainly arose through renewal of athematic middles with 3 sg. ending *-or as *-o-tor.46 43

44 45 46

To be sure, most of the parallels I give are somewhat controversial. This is not the place to argue at length why I consider the explanations adopted here for the thematic aorist or the Germanic 3rd class of weak verbs to be preferable to other proposals. See above footnote 42. Cf. Jasanoff (1978:74 f., 2002–03:156 f.). Cf. Watkins (1969:86f.), Yoshida (2007), for Hittite, and Jasanoff (2002–03:158f.), for Tocharian. Whether the persistent -a- of the Gothic passive is to be explained

228


11.4. These formations, however, do not provide an exact parallel for the sta-presents. They are all based on a 3 sg. middle *-e or *-o, obsolete endings that were prone to be recharacterized and reanalyzed in several ways (if they were not simply lost). *trp-s-tói, on the other hand, contained the 3 sg. middle *-to, a productive ending neither in need of morphological repair nor susceptible of reanalysis as part of the stem. Both its recharacterization as *trp-s-tó-ti and the resegmentation of *-st(o)- as a stem marker seem thus to lack a clear motivation – at least as long as the middle voice was a living category of the language. The last caueat, however, is important, as the whole process makes more sense if it is seen in connection with the decay of the middle voice in Balto-Slavic. The details of the loss of the middle voice in Balto-Slavic are of course unknown, but it is reasonable to suppose that it was a gradual process. Middle endings would be specialized in some particular usage (e.g. as a passive, as in Germanic, or with “internal”, self-benefactive values, as in Indo-Iranian), other functions of the Indo-European middle voice being taken over by new formations or syntactic constructions. Thus, the evolution of the ancient desiderative into a future tense was perhaps accompanied by generalized active inflexion. Middle desideratives like *térp-s-toi, *Hór-h1s-toi thus became free, so to speak, to be recategorized as a present stem. The anticausativeinchoative class to which they now belonged was sufficiently characterized by its distinctive present stem affixes and thematic aorist to have tended to be inflected in the active alone. The active inflexion of the thematic aorist was probably a consequence of its origin in middle root aorists with 3 sg. *-e f *-e-t. Similarly, in Vedic thematic aorists are almost exclusively inflected in the active, in spite of their frequent middle functional value. Whatever explanation one may favor for the “northern Indo-European” present type *bhu-n-dh-é-ti, it is very probable that it was typically or exclusively inflected in the active. Intransitive Áe/o-presents were probably both active and middle in IndoEuropean, but it is reasonable to suppose that middle Áe/o-presents tended to be inflected in the active quite early. A parallel is again provided by Vedic, where active ya-presents are typically pared with from a thematic 3 sg. middle *bher-oi, as per Watkins (1969:213) and Jasanoff (2003:49), is less clear to me. See Cowgill (1985) for a plausible explanation in terms of reduction of morphological complexity in moribund categories.


229

thematic aorists against middle ya-presents pared with “passive” aorists (cf. Kulikov 2001:558 ff.). Under these conditions, it was almost unavoidable for a paradigm like *trp-s-(m)ái, *trp-s-sói, *trp-s-tói to be activized in one way or another. If this took place at a time when the middle voice was already on the verge of disappearing, *trp-s-tói f *trp-stó-ti may well have been an activizing strategy with the additional advantage of obtaining a distinctive suffix to serve as the companion of nasal presents in the anticausative-inchoative class of verbs.47 12. Summing up, I believe a revised version of Schulze’s “desiderative theory” can account for all facts associated with the Baltic stapresents. The sta-suffix is not an exclusively Baltic formation, but goes back to a Balto-Slavic class of ste/o-presents presumably in a distribution with nasal presents broadly similar to that reconstructable for Proto-Baltic. *orsti, *orste- “grow” is the only remnant of this class of presents in Slavic, the general elimination of ste-presents being a consequence of the nasal infix having become a suffix *-ne/o- that could now be made from every verb regardless of its root structure. The desiderative origin of sta-presents explains directly the métatonie rude in roots ending in a resonant. The root athematic desiderative behind sta-presents is not only a reasonable construct from an Indo-European point of view, but is actually demanded by an internal analysis of the Baltic future. The assumption that it was the middle of the desiderative that gave rise to the sta-presents accounts for their anticausative and inchoative value. The conversion of some middle desideratives into a new present stem can be motivated within the general

47

Other scenarios can of course not be excluded. The rest of the paradigm, for instance, could have been thematized from the 3 sg. *-(h1)s-toi, with or without being immediately activized, yielding 1 sg. *trp-ste-(m)ai or *trp-sto¯, 2 sg. *trpste-soi or *trp-ste-si, 3 sg. *trpstoi, the 3rd sg. being later reshaped as *trpsteti. Another possibility would be assuming that the loss of the middle voice took place independently in Baltic and Slavic and that the paradigm *tirp-s-(m)ai, *tirp-s-sai, *tirp-s-tai was activized after *-a- (< *-o-) had been generalized as the thematic vowel in Baltic. Resegmentation of a suffix *-sta- would then be even easier. I am not certain, however, how the crucial 3rd person *tirpsta could be derived from *tirpstai, as a possible middle secondary ending *tirp-s-ta can hardly be supposed to have played any role at this stage. In addition, Slavic *orste- would have to be taken as a parallel but independent innovation, which I find a priori unattractive.

230


trends of the evolution of the verbal system in the northern IndoEuropean languages. Finally, the crucial recharacterization of the 3rd sg. *-(h1)s-toi as *-(h1)s-to-ti and its subsequent reanalysis as *-(h1)sto-ti (f *-(h1)ste-ti) can be seen as a particular offshoot of the general loss of the middle voice in Balto-Slavic.

References Arumaa, Peeter (1957), “Von der Eigenart des Ablauts und der Diathese im Baltischen”. ZslPh. 26: 118–149. Bammesberger, Alfred (1991), “Zur Vorgeschichte von lit. kláusia und mìrsˇta”. HS. 104: 269–278. Barton, Charles R. (1980), “Notes on the Baltic Preterite”. IF. 85: 246–278. Braune, Wilhelm, Hans Eggers (198714), Althochdeutsche Grammatik. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Brugmann, Karl (1916), Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen. II 3. 2. Bearbeitung. Strassburg: Trübner. Bu¯ga, Kazimieras (1924), “Die Metatonie im Litauischen und Lettischen”. KZ. 52: 250–302. Cantera, Alberto (2001), “Die Behandlung der idg. Lautfolge (C)RHC- im Iranischen”. MSS. 61: 7–27. Chantraine DELG = Pierre Chantraine, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque. Histoire des mots. I–IV. Paris: Klincksieck, 1968–1980. Cirilo de Melo, Wolfgang David (2007), “The sigmatic future and the genetic affiliation of Venetic: Latin faxo¯ “I shall make” and Venetic vha.g.s.to “he made””. TPhS. 105: 1–21. Cowgill, Warren (1985), “Loss of morphophonemic alternation in moribund categories, as exemplified in the Gothic verb”. In: U. Pieper, G. Stickel (eds.), Studia linguistica diachronica et synchronica. Werner Winter sexagenario anno MCMLXXXIII. Berlin: de Gruyter, 145–149. Derksen, Rick (1996), Metatony in Baltic. Amsterdam-Atlanta: Rodopi. Endzelin, Ja¯nis (1923), Lettische Grammatik. Heidelberg: Winter. –, (1948), Baltu valodu skan¸as un formas. Riga: Latvijas valsts izdevnieciba. ˙ SSJ = Oleg Nikolajevicˇ Trubacˇev (ed.), E ˙ timologicˇeskij slovar’ slavjanskix jazyE kov. Moscow: Nauka, 1974-. Forssman, Berthold (2001), Lettische Grammatik. Dettelbach: J. H. Röll. Fraenkel, Ernst (1950), “Zum baltischen und slavischen Verbum”. ZslPh. 20: 236–320. Gamkrelidze, Tamaz V., Vjacˇeslav Vsevolodovicˇ Ivanov (1984), Indojevropejskij jazyk i indojevropejcy. I. Tbilisi: Izdatel’stvo tbilisskogo universiteta. Gorbachov, Yaroslav (2007), Indo-European Origins of the Nasal Inchoative Class in Germanic, Baltic and Slavic. Ph.D. Dissertation, Harvard University. –, (forthcoming), “The origin of the Baltic inchoative in -sta- and a new Proto-Baltic sound law”.


231

Hamp, Eric P. (1973), “North European “1000””. In: Cl. Corum, T. C. Smith-Stark, A. Weiser (eds.), Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, April 13–15, 1973. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 172–178. Hill, Eugen (2004), “Die sigmatischen Modus-Bildungen der indogermanischen Sprachen. Erste Abhandlung: Das baltische Futur und seine Verwandten”. IJDL. 1: 69–171. Hollifield, Patrick Henry (1977), On the System of Conjugation in Indo-European. Ph.D. Dissertation, Harvard University. –, (1981), “Homeric . and the Greek Desideratives of the Type ”. IF. 86: 161–189. Jasanoff, Jay H. (1978), Stative and Middle in Indo-European. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck. –, (1988), “PIE *gˆne- “recognize, know””. In: A. Bammesberger (ed.), Die Laryngaltheorie und die Rekonstruktion des indogermanischen Laut- und Formensystems. Heidelberg: Winter, 227–239. –, (2002–03), ““Stative” *-e- revisited”. Sprache 43: 127–170. –, (2003), Hittite and the Indo-European Verb. Oxford-New York: Oxford University Press. Johansson, Karl Ferdinand (1893), “Eine analoge neubildung der verbalflexion im aind. und balt.-slavischen”. KZ. 32: 434–513. Kabasˇinskaite˙, Birute˙, Gert Klingenschmitt (2006), “Isˇ lietuviu˛ kalbos zˇodzˇiu˛ istorijos: 3. Lie. kùrmis”. Baltistica 41: 169–186. Kazlauskas, Jonas (1968), Lietuviu˛ kalbos istorine˙ gramatika. Vilnius: Mintis. Klingenschmitt, Gert (1982), Das altarmenische Verbum. Wiesbaden: Reichert. –, (2008), “Lit. úosˇvis”. Baltistica 43: 405–430. Kortlandt, Frederik (1979), “Three Problems of Balto-Slavic Phonology”. ZbFl. 22/2: 57–63. –, (1982), “Innovations which betray archaisms”. Baltistica 18: 4–9. Kulikov, Leonid (2001), The Vedic -ya-presents. Dissertation, Leiden University. Kuryłowicz, Jerzy (1964), The inflectional categories of Indo-European. Heidelberg: Winter. –, (1965), “Les présents lituaniens en -sta-”. BPTJ. 23: 175–182. Leumann, Manu (1942), “Idg. sk im Altindischen und im Litauischen”. IF. 58: 1–26, 113–130. Levet, Jean-Pierre (1975), “Les présents en *-st- de l’indo-européen: les données tokhariennes”. BSL. 70: 91–114. LIV = Lexicon der indogermanischen Verben. Die Wurzeln und ihre Primärstammbildungen. Unter Leitung von Helmut Rix und der Mitarbeit vieler anderer bearbeitet von Martin Kümmel, Thomas Zehnder, Reiner Lipp, Brigitte Schirmer. Zweite, erweiterte und verbesserte Auflage bearbeitet von Martin Kümmel und Helmut Rix. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 2001. Matusevicˇiu¯te˙, Izabele˙ (1938), “Prierasˇai Berlyno valstybine˙s bibliotekos Sengstacko originale”. Archivum Philologicum 7: 88–101. Mayrhofer EWAia = Manfred Mayrhofer, Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen. I–III. Heidelberg: Winter, 1986–2001.

232


McCone, Kim (1991), The Indo-European Origins of the Old Irish Nasal Presents, Subjunctives and Futures. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck. Meiser, Gerhard (1993), “Zur Funktion des Nasalpräsens im Urindogermanischen”. In: G. Meiser (ed.), Indogermanica et Italica. Festschrift für H. Rix. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck, 280–313. Neri, Sergio (2005), “Riflessioni sull’apofonia radicale di proto-germanico *namo¯n “nome””. HS. 118: 201–250. Pakalnisˇkiene˙, Dalia (1993), Lietuviu˛ kalbos intarpiniai ir sta kamieno veiksmazˇodzˇiai. Dissertation, Vilnius University. Pedersen, Holger (1943), “Et baltoslavisk problem”. In: R. Brøndal, V. Brøndal, Chr. Møller, H. Olsen (eds.), In memoriam Kr. Sanfeld. Udgivet paa 70-aarsdagen for hans fødsel. København, Gyldendalske Boghandel Nordisk Vorlag: 184–194. Persson, Per (1912), Beiträge zur indogermanischen Wortforschung. Uppsala: Akademiska bokhandeln. Peters, Martin (2004), “On Some Greek nt-Formations”. In: J. H. W. Penney (ed.), Indo-European Perspectives: Studies in Honour of Anna Morpurgo Davies. Oxford-New York: Oxford University Press, 266–276. Porzˇezinskij, Viktor-Jan Karlovicˇ (1901), K istorii form sprjazˇenija v baltijskix jazykax. Moskva: Universitetskaja tipografija. Rasmussen, Jens Elmegård (1985), “Der Prospektiv – eine verkannte indogermanische Verbalkategorie?”. In: B. Schlerath, V. Rittner (eds.), Grammatische Kategorien, Funktion und Geschichte. Akten der VII. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 384–399. –, (1987), “Miscellaneous Morphological Problems in Indo-European Languages IV”. APILKU. 6: 145–156. –, (1997), “Processes of grammaticalization in Indo-European verbal derivation”. In: A. Lubotsky (ed.), Sound Law and Analogy. Papers in honor of Robert S. P. Beekes on the occasion of his 60th birthday. Amsterdam-Atlanta: Rodopi, 249–262. Schleicher, August (1856), Litauische Grammatik. Prag: J. G. Calve’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung. Schmalstieg, William R. (1958), “The Vocalism of the Lithuanian Sigmatic Future”. SEEJ. 16: 120–129. Schmid, Wolfgang P. (1962), “Lit. kláusti “fragen” und das altind. Futurum”. IF. 67: 1–15. –, (1963), Studien zum baltischen und indogermanischen Verbum. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Schrijver, Peter (1991), The Reflexes of the Proto-Indo-European Laryngeals in Latin. Amsterdam-Atlanta: Rodopi. Schulze, Wilhelm (1904), “Lit. kláusiu und das indogermanische Futurum”. [quoted from: Kleine Schriften. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1933: 101–109]. Smoczyn´ski, Wojciech (2005), Lexicon der Altpreussischen Verben. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck. Snyder, William H. (1981), “Das st-Verbalsuffix im Baltischen und Germanischen”. Sprachwissenschaft 6: 275–281.


233

Stang, Christian S. (1942), Das slavische und baltische Verbum. Oslo: Dybwad. –, (1966), Vergleichende Grammatik der baltischen Sprachen. Oslo-BergenTromsö: Universitetsforlaget. Szemerényi, Oswald (1996), Introduction to Indo-European Linguistics. OxfordNew York: Oxford University Press. Tedesco, Paul (1948), “Slavic ne-Presents from older je-Presents”. Language 24: 346–387. –, (1956), review of L. Sadnik, R. Aitzetmüller, Handwörterbuch zu den altkirchenslavischen Texten. Language 32: 518–526. Toporov, Vladimir Nikolajevicˇ (1973), “Neskol’ko zamecˇanij o baltijskix glagolax na -sta v svjazi s proisxozˇdeniem e˙togo formanta (indojevropejskaja perspektiva)”. LKK. 14: 151–167. Vaillant, André (1961), “Les présents slaves en -te-”. BSL. 56: 15–20. –, (1966), Grammaire comparée des langues slaves. Tome III. Le verbe. Paris: Klincksieck. Van Wijk, Nicolas (1933), “Der Ursprung der litaulettischen Präsensklasse mit Formans -sta-”. Archivum Philologicum 4: 57–63. Vasmer REW = Max Vasmer, Russisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. I–III. Heidelberg: Winter, 1953–1958. Villanueva Svensson, Miguel (2005), “The Baltic e-Preterit revisited”. Baltistica, VI Priedas: 239–252. –, (2006), “Traces of *o-Grade Middle Root Aorists in Baltic and Slavic”. HS. 119: 295–317. –, (2008), “Lithuanian zˇinóti “to know””. Baltistica 43: 175–199. –, (2009), “Indo-European *sk in Balto-Slavic”. Baltistica 44: 5–24. –, (forthcoming), “Indo-European Middle Root Aorists in Anatolian”. Sprache. Vine, Brent (2005), “Remarks on Rix’s Law in Greek”. JIES. 33: 247–290. Watkins, Calvert (1962), Indo-European Origins of the Celtic Verb, I. The Sigmatic Aorist. Dublin: Institute for Advanced Studies. –, (1969), Indogermanische Grammatik. III/1. Geschichte der indogermanischen Verbalflexion. Heidelberg: Winter. Yoshida, Kazuhiko (2007), “The Morphological History of Hittite Mediopassive Verbs”. In: A. J. Nussbaum (ed.), Verba Docenti. Studies in historical and IndoEuropean linguistics presented to Jay H. Jasanoff by students, colleagues, and friends. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave Press, 379–395. Young, Steven (2008), “Winter’s law and etymologies, with special reference to Lithuanian”. Baltistica 43: 201–218. Zinkevicˇius, Zigmas (1966), Lietuviu˛ dialektologija. Vilnius: Mintis.

Vilnius University Perku¯nkiemio 13–84, LT-12114 V i l n i u s Lithuania [email protected]

M i g u e l Vi l l a n u e v a S v e n s s o n

234

Andreas Willi

Hera, Eros, Iuno Sororia Abstract This article aims to provide the name of Hera, the Greek goddess of brides, weddings, and marriage, with an etymology that is satisfactory both from a historical and from a linguistic point of view. Earlier suggestions are rejected because they either disregard the central features of Hera’s character or fail to do justice to the Mycenaean evidence favouring an etymon *Serah2. The latter is here explained as a well-formed vflrddhi derivative of an Indo-European root noun *sor(H)-/*ser(H)‘woman, female’, which has long been posited for independent reasons and which may belong with the verbal root *ser(H)- ‘to attach’ suggesting an original notion of ‘female partner’. Since other derivatives of this root *ser(H)- may irregularly show no initial aspiration in Greek, a further connection with the name of the love god Eros is possible via an s-stem derivative *ser(H)-(o)s. Outside Greece, apart from a possible link to the Indian Goddess Sarasvati, the same formation seems to underly the epithet of the Roman divinity Iu¯no¯ Soro¯ria, which – given the goddess’s function as a protector of adolescent young women – can have nothing to do with the Latin word for ‘sister’, but must also refer to the young women’s newly acquired ability and wish to enter a marital union.

1. Hera in archaeology, history of religion, and literature The goddess Hera is one of the major divinities of the Greek pantheon, but in some respects she is also a very elusive one. In the popular imagination she is primarily known as the wife of Zeus, but she also has a distinctive personality of her own; after all, Zeus himself is defined in a Homeric formula as the ‘loud-thundering husband of Hera’ (( « « 6H 0«). Archaeologically, Hera is among the first Greek divinities to be honoured by monumental temple buildings, as at Samos, Argos, and also Olympia, where the Heraion is even the oldest great sanctuary of the local cult district.1 Leaving aside the colonial area (Kroton, Paestum), the most famous Heraia were all located on the Greek islands

1

Cf. Kerényi (1972: 108), who detects here a ‘Vorliebe der Göttin für das Haus’, Burkert (1985: 131–132), Graf (1998: 358); Hera’s sanctuaries are one of the foci in de la Genière (1997).

Hera, Eros, Iuno Sororia

235

and on the Peloponnese, not for instance in Athens or in the North (Thessaly). This observation is in line with Hera’s own statement in the Iliad (4.51–52) e ( λ ,« ξ ] φ > 0«, 5A « C 0 λ ) M 0 ‘indeed, three cities are by far the dearest to me: Argos and Sparta and Mycene with its wide streets’. A divinity who is thus connected with the cultural centres of the Mycenaean world must be a highly archaic one – as we should expect anyway, given her marriage to the king of the gods. Together with Zeus, Hera often appears in sculpture and mythical iconography, as at Olympia (cf. Paus. 5.17.1) or on various vase paintings where she features as a young bride accompanying her husband on a wedding chariot.2 A similar picture emerges when we ask what the historians of religion have to tell about her.3 Here one important source of evidence is constituted by Hera’s epithets, above all 6H ‘Hera who brings the «, who fulfils’, but also Q ‘she of the yoke’, ,« ‘girl’, % « ‘virgin’, 1 φ0 ‘bride’. As 6H , and jointly with Z]« «, the goddess receives the main sacrifice at wedding ceremonies in Ancient Greece. In Nauplia, Hera takes an annual bath in the source Kanathos, which restores her virginity. In Olympia, the College of the Sixteen Women organises a girls’ race in her honour, the winning prize being a cow. In Corinth, seven young women and seven young men are appointed to serve Hera Akraia for one year, thereby undergoing some rite de passage. In Knossos, according to Diodorus (5.72), a ¹ μ« « or ‘holy wedding’ takes place, and a similar ritual can be imagined for the festival of Hera at Samos where, according to Varro (ap. Lact. Inst. div. 1.17.8), simulacrum (sc. Iunonis) in habitu nubentis figuratum et sacra eius anniversaria nuptiarum ritu celebrantur ‘the image of Hera is represented in the dress of a bride and her annual ceremony is celebrated according to the wedding rites’. In this context, one is further reminded of Hsch. 0 824, s.v. π "α % α ¹ ξ 8 , ¹ ξ ¹ ‘Herochia: the “% ” (“Banquet of the Gods”), or a festival, or a ceremony’. The compound recorded in this gloss may be derived from the name 2 3

Cf. Ley (1998: 360–361), Kossatz-Deissmann (1988: esp. 682–690, 718). See (with references) e.g. Nilsson (1906: 40–64) and (1967: 427–433), Eitrem (1912), Rose (1958: 102–107), Kerényi (1972: esp. 76–142), Burkert (1985: 131–135), Pötscher (1987), Graf (1998: 358–359), Bremmer (2005: 6.3914–3916).

236

Andreas Willi

of the goddess followed by the root *wegh- ‘to convey (in a chariot)’ of Gk. 5" ‘to drive in a chariot’, Lat. veho¯, Skt. váhati, OCS. vezo˛ ‘to convey’ etc. As the bridegroom would typically drive home the bride in a chariot, *wegh- could take on the additional meaning ‘to marry’, which is clearly attested for Skt. vah-4 and which may help to account for the Greek derivative ( ? ) 5"1. ‘to cover, copulate’ (with a further semantic specialisation) as well as, perhaps, the epithet of Poseidon f(ζ)"«: quite possibly this is not the god ‘who makes the earth tremble’ but the god ‘who marries the earth’ (as suggested by his main name if this is based on an ancient vocative P E»« ‘husband of Earth’).5 However that may be, Hera also appears as φ 0 ‘wedded bride’ at the Daidala of Plataiai in Boeotia, where her image is washed in the Asopos river, then seated on a chariot and pulled up the slopes of Mount Kithairon: at the mountain top a cow is sacrificed to Hera and a bull to Zeus. According to the aetiology of this rite, the goddess had gone into hiding after a quarrel with her husband, but a local hero had advised the latter to dress up like a bride a wooden doll and put it on a wedding chariot; full of jealousy Hera had reappeared and pulled off the veil of the presumed bride – only to find herself facing a doll and thus being appeased. Finally, in Argos too the young women had an important role to play in the cult of Hera: decked with flowers they danced for the goddess, and Hera’s priestess may have acted as a bridesmaid ( φ1 ) as she was driven on a chariot from the town to the sanctuary, presiding over a procession of the armed young men. The preceding list could be extended, but the essential point is clear: from the historian of religion’s viewpoint Hera is even more obviously a goddess of women and marriage than from that of the archaeologist – 9 « φ ‘she keeps the keys of marriage’, as Aristophanes puts it in the women’s hymn of Thesmophoriazusae (976). Other literary sources, notably epic poetry, concur with this. As a patroness of brides and newly-wed women, Hera arranges

4 5

Cf. Moussy (1980: 342–344), with references. Thus Borgeaud (1944: 222), while Kretschmer (1914: 303) had already compared 5"1.; for the alternative hypothesis see e.g. Chantraine (1968–80: 1.219, s.v. ) and for the above derivation of P »« etc. Fick (1875: 307) and Kretschmer (1909: 27–28), followed most recently by Willi (2007: 182–183 n. 34) on *E».


237

the marriage between Peleus and Thetis, the mother of Achilles (Il. 24.59–61), and when she sides with the Greeks against the Trojans, this is also because Paris has violated the legitimate marriage of Helen to Menelaus. Of course, the Homeric Hera is not always presented in a favourable light, but her unfaithful husband does not make her life particularly easy either; and yet, she does know how to use the art of marital seduction when it suits her. In Iliad XIV, in order to counter Zeus’ will and facilitate Poseidon’s intervention for the Greeks, Hera famously borrows Aphrodite’s belt of love and buys the help of Hypnos (Sleep) by promising him one of the Charites as a wife. After these preparations she goes to the top of Mount Ida, […] c ξ φ0 Z1«. ³« # c , —« * .« « φ « $ φ; , g Ρ 7 ( %0 φ0 ‘[…] and Zeus, the cloud-gatherer, saw her. As soon as he saw her, desire enwrapped his shrewd mind, just as when they had made love to each other for the first time.’ (Il. 14.293–295) The god does not lose time beating around the bush: “Hera,” he says, “come and sleep with me, ) < # h %»« * « ) ξ μ« % μ ( λ % "%λ« ( , ) # ²# 0 #I 0« $", […] ) #Ρ E 0 « $ 0«, ) # ² F0 « ( «, ) ξ )«, ³« * ]« \ « ¹ ,. ‘for never before has the love of a goddess or a woman so much overcome and enslaved the passions in my heart, not when I fell in love with the wife of Ixion, […] nor with Demeter, the lady with the beatiful locks, nor with famous Leto – nor with you yourself, as I love you now, and sweet desire seizes me.’” (Il. 14.315–328) Although this is a time of great tension between the divine spouses, the memory of the first night persists; and it is this partly carnal, partly

238

Andreas Willi

sentimental memory which becomes one of the defining features of Hera’s character even in Homeric epic where she is no longer the actual bride of Zeus. Hence, the literary perspective too encourages us to view Hera as a goddess of brides, weddings, and marriage in all its phases, a goddess who protects married women and the marital union both under its social and sexual aspect.

2. Etymologies of Hera I: Pre-Greek Mistress or Greek Goddess of the Year? In view of the unanimity with which Hera has thus been characterised by archaeologists, historians of religion, and literary scholars, it may come as something of a surprise how little this has helped historical linguists in their search for a satisfactory etymology of Hera’s name. At first sight this might look like a minor, and exclusively linguistic, issue. However, a potential failure to come up with an etymological explanation which ties in with the other disciplines’ data also has a more general impact. If the origin of Hera’s name did not match the functions she undeniably takes on in historical times, would we not then have to conclude that the original Hera was different in character and that Hera as we know her is only a ‘secondary’ Hera? Etymology, after all, has its main value in the elucidation of prehistory. In the major etymological dictionaries, uncertainty prevails. ‘Comme pour beaucoup de noms de divinités, pas d’étymologie établie’ notes P. Chantraine, while dismissing an old theory which had looked for a connection with Lat. serva¯re ‘to protect’; for there is no trace of an original *-w- (*-ζ-) after the - - of 6H ¯ in either Attic (where the theonym is not †6H 0, while e.g. * ζ0 yields 0) or Mycenaean (cf. section 3).6 Chantraine then goes on to assume ‘une origine préhellénique’. The obvious advantage of this position lies in the impossibility of ever proving it wrong, and one can even build upon it an entire house of cards: according to a hypothesis by U. von Wilamowitz, which has found prominent followers in M. Nilsson and C. J. Ruijgh, 6H ¯ should be translated as ‘mistress’ and be understood as the feminine counterpart of j .«, the latter allegedly being 6

Chantraine (1968–80: 1.415–416, s.v. 6H ¯ ); for the lack of *-ζ- cf. already Schröder (1956: 65–67) and Pötscher (1961: 304) and (1965).


239

the Pre-Greek word for ‘master’.7 Unfortunately this theory has no linguistic foundation whatsoever – and given the structure of the two words involved it is even a priori unlikely: with its distinctive suffix j .« looks more like a derivative of 6H ¯ than vice versa. More generally, to dispose of our etymological problem case in such a cavalier way seems problematic when Hera is sufficiently integrated into the Indo-European part of Greek mythology to be thought of as the wife of Zeus (*dyeus; cf. Skt. Dyauhfl, Lat. Iu¯-piter). Even so, neither Chantraine nor H. Frisk, whose basic assessment of the matter is virtually identical to that of his French colleague, feel inclined to follow the strongest Indo-European hypothesis which was available at their time and which, since then, has found its way into as influential a textbook as W. Burkert’s Greek Religion.8 In 1956, F. R. Schröder had proposed to explain Hera’s name on the basis of a stem *yer- (> Gk. π -) which is reflected by Goth. jer, OHG. ja¯r ‘year’ (cf. Engl. year) and, with a corresponding long o-grade (*yo¯r-), by Av. ya¯rw n. ‘year’, Russian Church Slav. jara ‘spring’, Lat. adj. ho¯rnus ‘of this year’ (< *gho-yo¯r-ino-), Gk. — ‘season’. Admitting a further analysis of *yer-/*yo¯r- as a derivative in *-r(o)- from the verbal root *(h1)yeh2- ‘to go’ (cf. Skt. yáti ‘to go’, Lat. ia¯nus ‘passage’),9 the ‘year’ would here be conceived of as the eternal passage or return of time. For Schröder, therefore, the Greek Hera turns into a primeval earth goddess and ‘Goddess of the Year’ (‘Jahresgöttin’), a ritual trace of whom might be preserved in the annual renewal of Hera’s virginity at Nauplia (cf. section 1) and in the tripartite cult of Hera ,« ‘girl’, ‘wife’, and " ‘widow’ at Stymphalos in Arcadia: these three hypostases would correspond to the three seasons spring, summer, and autumn. However, in the absence of any further relevant evi7

8

9

Nilsson (1941: 326, 401) and Ruijgh (1967a: 89 n. 75), (1967b: 51), and (1995: 75), after Wilamowitz (1889: 1.296); cf. also West (1978: 370–373). Moreschini Quattordio (1979: 195–198) thinks of a ‘resa fonetica greca del teonimo sumerico Eresˇ.ki.gal’. On j .« next to 6H ¯ see also fn. 22. Schröder (1956: esp. 64–69), cited by Burkert (1985: 131), though without full endorsement; cf. also Frisk (1960–72: 642, s.v. 6H ) and, critically against Hera as an ‘Earth Goddess’, Pötscher (1961: 306, 312–313, 320–322) and (1987: 9–19, 137–141). Cf. also R. Nedoma apud Peters (2002: 364 n. 37) (*Hyeh2-r-), but Peters prefers the more straightforward postulate of a heteroclitic neuter *Hyoh1-r, *Hyeh1-nfor the ‘year’ word.

240

Andreas Willi

dence in the substantial body of information we possess about the goddess it is much easier to interpret the Stymphalian cult, like all the other cults of Hera, as the cult of a goddess of women (in the various phases of life).10 So, we cannot accept Schröder’s theory unless we are prepared to believe (a) that Hera’s function as a divinity has completely changed – the former state of affairs not leaving any trace except in her name – and (b) that earlier on the traditional earth goddess Demeter, who does oversee the annual renewal of the crops, had something like a systemic rival. Despite these difficulties Schröder’s etymology seemed too attractive formally to be dismissed without further ado. As a consequence two other scholars, A. J. Van Windekens and W. Pötscher, tried to make it suit better the ‘historical’ Hera.11 According to the former the theonym did not initially designate a ‘Goddess of the Year’, but a ‘yearling animal’ or more precisely a ‘one-year-old calf’ (cf. Lat. vitulus, Skt. vatsá- ‘calf’ < ‘yearling (cow)’ next to *wetos, Gk. (ζ)« ‘year’). In support of this idea Van Windekens points to Hera’s Homeric epithet 27« ‘cow-eyed’, but again other evidence for a prehistoric ‘cow goddess’ Hera is missing12 and the Homeric epithet itself is no strong indicator as is it also, though less commonly, applied to other women.13 Hence, W. Pötscher favours a more narrowly philological approach: he underlines that the Greek adjective ³ ,«, a derivative of — (*yo¯r-), sometimes expresses the right moment for marriage since a young woman who has reached the relevant age may be called ³ . In this way, — would refer to the ‘good season’, the ‘maturity’ of the young woman, and Hera would be the goddess in charge of this maturity. Here too, though, not everything is as straightforward as it should be. Firstly, if the semantic specialisation described by Pötscher can be illustrated for the lexeme — , the same is not true for the base word *yer- from which Hera’s name is supposedly derived. Secondly, the expression ³ ‘ready for 10 11

12

13

Cf. e.g. Rose (1958: 105), Pötscher (1961: 311), Kerényi (1972: 104–105). Van Windekens (1958) and (1960: 213–214), Pötscher (1961: 303–309); cf. Pötscher (1987: 2–3). As rightly observed by Schröder (1956: 61): ‘Durch Kultordnungen und Mythen ist gesichert […], dass die Kuh der Hera besonders heilig war. Das beweist an sich gewiss noch nicht, dass sie selbst einmal kuhgestaltig war’; but Schröder then calls doubts about this ‘Hyperkritik’ (cf. already Pestalozza 1939). Cf. Pötscher (1961: 309, 317).


241

marriage’ proves little when the adjective ³ ,« (fem. ³ ) does not evoke the ‘time of marriage’ on its own, without ; according to Greek usage someone can also be (e.g.) ³ ,« % ‘ready for death’, and if there is a — 0 in Homer, there is also a — 0 / / 1%. , a ‘time for sleep, a meal, story-telling’ etc.

3. Mycenaean Hera Meanwhile, the most serious obstacle to the Schröder-Pötscher theory (and indeed to any other hypothesis which operates with an etymon such as *yera¯14) lies elsewhere.15 In perfect accordance with the Mycenaean pointers in the text of Homer (cf. section 1) we find Hera mentioned already in the Linear B documents, notably on the famous tablet PY Tn 316 which records a list of human and material offerings to various divinities. Lines 8–10 (verso) read as follows: v.8 v.9 v.10

i-je-to-qe, di-u-jo, do-ra-qe, pe-re, po-re-na-qe a-ke di-we aur *213vas 1 vir 1 e-ra aur *213vas 1 mul 1 ] vacat di-ri-mi-jo di-wo, i-je-we, aur *213vas 1 [

Although not all the details are clear, line 8 uncontroversially refers to the place of the ceremonial offering (dat.-loc. di-u-jo ‘at the *Eζ /sanctuary of Zeus’) followed by the usual introductory formula containing the words 7 φ ‘and brings gifts’ (the subject perhaps being pu-ro ‘[the community of] Pylos’ as indicated elsewhere on the tablet). Lines 9 and 10 then name three divinities, each of whom receives one golden vessel and one human servant (a male for the two gods, a female for the goddess). The first is Zeus (dat. di-we = *Eζ), the second Hera (dat. e-ra = 6H ¯ , NB. not †e-wa = †6H ζ¯ ), the third an otherwise unknown Drimios son of Zeus (dat. di-ri-mi-jo di-wo i-je-we = *E . Eζμ« ¹ζ). From a mythological perspective this sequence is interesting in two respects. Firstly it

14

15

See also Kazansky (1995: 158–163), with an equivalence Gk. LH -« ~ Slavic *Jaroslavu˘, and Adams (1987: 175–177) who postulates an action noun *yeh1-r ‘deed’ (cf. Hitt. iya- ‘to do, make’, Toch. A ya-) on which a derivative *yeh1-r-eh2 ‘Strength, Vitality’ would be based; both formally and semantically this is inferior to the Schröder-Pötscher hypothesis. Cf. already Peters (2002: 365), Janda (2005: 214).

242

Andreas Willi

suggests that Zeus and Hera were already a couple in Mycenaean times and secondly it invites speculations about the (later) identity of the obscure Drimios. Some scholars have tried to identify him with Apollo or Dionysus,16 but a different hypothesis seems at least as promising: since the name *E « most probably derives from the adjective 1« ‘sharp, piercing’ and since 1« is applied to the noun "0 ‘fight, combat’ in Homer (Il. 15.696) and Hesiod (Scut. 261), Pötscher plausibly considers an equation of Drimios with the war-god Ares who is, together with Eileithyia and Hebe, one of the few children of the supreme couple according to classical myth (cf. esp. Hes. Theog. 921–923).17 For our present purposes, however, an orthographic point is more relevant. As is well-known, the Linear B syllabary contained a series of signs representing a sequence of *y- + V: ja, je, jo and probably also ju if this is the value of sign no. *65. From graphic doublets such as jodo-so-si ‘(those) who will give’ ( ? ) (~ later Greek θ ‘rape’ > ‘booty’ (cf. Hitt. sˇa¯ru < *soru ‘booty’). This root noun would have served as the basis for an exocentric derivative *ser-o- ‘belonging/relating to the rape, of the rape’ whose feminine *ser-a¯ would have meant ‘she of the rape’: ‘ein Mädchen […], das “gewaltsam genommen/geraubt worden” oder “(gut) zu nehmen/rauben” ist – und ergo […] die ideale Braut für einen idg. (jungen) Krieger (j .«) verkörpert hat’.22 Formally this 20

21 22

Cf. Gérard-Rousseau (1968: 94–96), Moreschini Quattordio (1979: 176–180) and esp. Aura Jorro (1985–93: 1.201–202, 1.232–233, s.vv. e-[, e-ra, e-ra[), with bibliography: PY Tn 316.9, TH Of 28.2, PY Un 219.8 (e-[ra) ( ? ), PY Un 853.1 (e-ra[) ( ? ). Note also the frequent toponym e-ra (with corresponding ethnonym e-ra-jo) at Knossos, which Ruijgh (1967: 228) wants to identify with the theonym 6H . Cf. Vine (1998: 48–49), Janda (2005: 209). Peters (2002: 372); for the root-noun type of his *ser, *sr-os cf. Schindler (1972:

244

Andreas Willi

theory is unobjectionable (especially if the postulated root noun were, despite the divergent semantics, reflected in Homeric ((λ) @ φ

‘to gratify’ < ‘to pay tribute’ vel sim.), but it seems most uncertain whether in the eyes of a (Proto-)Greek a raped (booty) woman could have become one of the legitimate wives who are protected by Hera. Moreover, the derivation presupposes that Hera herself must have been imagined as a ‘raped girl’ at some point – for which there is no evidence at all in the iconographic, cultic, and literary sources reviewed above –, and it overlooks the fact that Hera is a goddess not only of brides, but of (married) women throughout their adult life. Even so, Peters’s theory may carry more conviction than an alternative sketched subsequently by M. Janda. The latter follows Peters for the crucial parts of the formal argument but operates with the more widely attested root *ser- ‘to attach, connect’ of Gk. c . (< *serye/o-), Lat. sero¯ (< *ser-e/o-), and OIr. sernaid ‘to put in order, arrange’ (homonym of sernaid ‘to stretch out’ < *sterh3-23). Such a connection is plausible enough – and we will in fact return to it later on (cf. section 7) –, but Janda’s further contextualisation is highly speculative. For him the root noun *ser is supposed to have meant not just ‘that which is serially attached’ (‘das in einer Reihe aneinander Befestigte’), but also ‘the tense and stretched out arms’ (‘die angespannten

23

36–38). The (traditional: cf. section 2) link between 6H ¯ and j .« need not detain us further, but if it is correct (despite Moreschini Quattordio 1979), Pötscher (1961: 329–335) may be right when he sees in the primeval ‘hero’ the ‘young man’ # (" (cf. Peters 2002: 357–362), a counterpart of the nubile young woman protected by Hera; pace Pötscher, however, this need not imply a mythical couple Heros ~ Hera predating the couple Zeus ~ Hera (nor is there any evidence for the original j .« having been their son, as Schröder 1956: 69–72 suggests). Because of Myc. ti-ri-se-ro-e (dat. ‘to the triple hero’?, PY Fr 1204, PY Tn 316.5) one hesitates today to explain the formation of j .« with the help of a suffix *-o¯u- (cf. .« ‘paternal uncle’, .« ‘maternal uncle’; Chantraine 1933: 124): see Ruijgh (1967: 89) and Risch (1974: 160–161). Still, if a new paradigm was based on the acc. sg. *-ou-m > *-o¯m (cf. Peters 2002: 362–363) or if the /-w-/ in a form such as */hero¯wei/ was interpreted as a glide and omitted in writing (cf. i-je-re-u, but also i-e-re-u = ¹ 1« ‘priest’), the theory could be revived: compare, perhaps, Myc. to-ro-o (PY An 519.1) if this is a genitive /Tro¯os/ next to a nominative T Gk. ,«, «, Lat. tres, quattuor, Skt. tráyas catváras), Sanskrit and Old Irish attest separate feminine forms going back to something like *tis(o)res ‘3’, *kwetes(o)res ‘4’ (> Skt. tisrás, cátasras, OIr. teoir, cethéoir). These may be further analysed as containing the numeral stems *tri- ‘3’ (with dissimilation *tris(o)res f *tis(o)res) and *kwet- ‘4’, as in the masculines, followed by a suffixal element *-s(o)r-.25 Since such a suffix 24

25

Janda (2005: 213–224), whose ‘kumulative Evidenz’ is meagre; on p. 318 Heracles also becomes ‘he who has the glory of the galaxy’ (‘den Ruhm der Milchstrasse habend’). Regarding the ablaut grade Oettinger (1986: 126) observes that ‘der einzige Beleg des Nom. Pl. tisrás und einer der Belege von Nom. Pl. cátasras sind metrisch überzählig (RV. V 35,2) und vielleicht *tisa¯ras, *catasa¯ras zu lesen’; he therefore considers an original distribution with *-sor- for the nominative, *-srfor the accusative, but the need to reconstruct *-sor- instead of *-srfor the Old Irish forms is questioned by Cowgill (1957).

246

Andreas Willi

*-s(o)r- was not known elsewhere to form feminine derivatives, K. Brugmann and, more explicitly, R. Meringer suggested already in 1876 and 1904 to recognise here an old Proto-Indo-European lexeme for ‘woman, female’: so *t(r)i-s(o)r-es, *kwete-s(o)r-es would originally have meant ‘3 women/females’, ‘4 women/females’. Obviously such a theory would have been gratuitous if it had been completely isolated, but Brugmann – in the footsteps of A. F. Pott – further connected the Indo-European word for ‘sister’, *sweso¯r (> Lat. soror, Skt. svasar-, etc.; cf. also the Greek glosses Hsch. 4048, s.v. * α %0 , $ ;« ‘daughter, cousin’, Hsch. 4049, s.v. * «α «, ,« ‘relatives, kinsfolk’, and Hsch. 7105, s.v. ) φ [read: ( φ?]α ‘women’, which may point to a semantic widening of a more restricted initial meaning). A. Meillet, who followed Brugmann and Meringer, thus translated *swe-sor- as ‘le membre femelle du groupe’, the element *swe- being identical to the stem of the reflexive pronoun *swe with the corresponding possessive adjective *s(e)wos (> Gk. Ρ«, Lat. suus).26 Moreover, by establishing a link with the root *h1euk- of Arm. owsanim ‘to learn’ Meillet traced back Lat. uxor ‘wife’ to yet another compound containing *-sor- ‘woman, female’: an *(h1)uk-sorwould have been a ‘personne féminine habituelle, compagne’. Alternatively, one might still consider a connection first outlined again by Pott which discovers in uxor the root *wegh- ‘to convey’ (> ‘to marry’; cf. Skt. vah- and section 1), so that the Latin ‘wife’ would have started off as the ‘woman who is conveyed/married’, or the ‘conveyance/marriage woman’ (*ugh(s)-sor-).27 The entire file was further extended by É. Benveniste’s derivation of Av. ha¯irisˇi ‘female’ from a suffixed *sor26

27

Meillet (1931: 8–9), building upon Pott (1833: 126–127) and (1836: 554), Brugmann (1876: 393–394) and Meringer (1904: 171–172); cf. subsequently e.g. Benveniste (1969: 214–215), Linke (1985: 362). General doubts about PIE. *sor- are expressed by Mayrhofer (1952) and Normier (1980). Moussy (1980: esp. 339–346), after (e.g.) Pott (1833: 9) and Ambrosini (1963) (revising the version in Ambrosini 1962: 25–31, where a link with *wek- ‘to wish’ is proposed, as already by Ascoli 1864); de Vaan (2008: 649, s.v. uxor) calls this etymology ‘impossible morphologically’ (cf. Normier 1980: 60), but if the first part consists of a zero-grade s-stem noun (as in e.g. Skt. medhá- ‘wisdom’ < *mns-dh- next to mánas < *menos ‘mind’; cf. Normier 1980: 65–67 with a different explanation of uxor, Meier-Brügger 1989) the objection may be unjustified. The much-cited connection of uxor with the word for ‘ox’ (Skt. uksflán- etc.; cf. Pisani 1951: 4 and Mayrhofer 1952: 35, variously modified by Mastrelli 1980 and Van Windekens 1984) seems implausible in any case (Normier 1980: 60–64).


247

Hs-ih2 or *ser-Hs-ih2 (cf. section 9),28 and the addition of Ved. strâ- f. – the categorical term for ‘woman, female’ as the opposite of púma¯ms˙ ‘man, male’29 – remains a possibility too, at least as long as no better explanation of the word is available; it is true that the zero-grade form of *sor- enlarged by the usual feminine-deriving suffix *-ih2- should presumably yield (*sr-ih2- >) *srâ- rather than strâ-, but an analogical remodelling of the former after the feminine agent noun formations in -tri < *-trih2 (cf. masc. -tar-) seems feasible.30 In Greek the same PIE. *sor- ‘woman, female’ may help to elucidate one, perhaps even two, of the Homeric words for ‘wife’. Homeric 4 may show the same copulative prefix 5- < *sm- (with Aeolic vocalisation and psilosis) as the adjective 4 « ‘of the same father’ and thus continue a compound *sm-sr- ~ ‘female companion’ (with generalised weak stem from the oblique cases; originally e.g. nom. *sm-so¯r);31 and Homeric , which has been variously but not definitively explained, could similarly derive from a tatpurusfla com28

29 30

31

Benveniste (1935), who, somewhat unnecessarily, posits *so¯r-Hs-ih2 (in a modernised notation); cf. Oettinger (1986: 126–127). Normier’s (1980: 46) alternative (compound *ha¯r- + isˇ- ‘Sättigung-Labung’) is implausible. See Kazzazi (2001: 212–220); cf. Eichner (1974: 26). Cf. Sturtevant (1949: 344–345) (with the intriguing additional suggestion that a ‘Proto-IE word *sri “woman”’ surfaces in Gk. Ll¯ h *V, the name of the mother of Zeus and Hera) and Benveniste (1969: 215); contrast Mayrhofer (1952: 35–37) (cf. *ster- ‘furrow’), Eichner (1974: 26–39) (cf. ster-ih2 ‘infertile’, but see Hamp 1981: 38), and Normier (1980: 44–47) (*sh2-trih2 from *seh2- ‘to nourish’). 4 (cf. B. Mader in LfgrE. 3.480–481, s.v. 4 , Gates 1971: 17–18) does not designate any ‘junge Frau’, as Janda (2005: 128) states in order to postulate an archaic base word *swosr next to which an old collective noun *sweso¯r ‘group of young women within a household, sisters’ > ‘sister’ would have existed (cf. already Janda 1999); note also that Janda’s ablaut pattern would probably imply a root *swes- or the like, thus rendering impossible any analysis of *swesor- as a compound. According to Gates (1971: 69 n. 55) and B. Mader in LfgrE. 3.480, s.v. 4 , metrical considerations might favour an initial *w-, but see Chantraine (1958: 90) on unshortened diphthongs (and long vowels) in arsi before vowel (as at the verse-end of Il. 5.486 $ n [5 ]) and Chantraine (1958: 104) on short syllables counting as long in arsi (as in Il. 9.327 $

«, 5 . o φ . ; cf. e.g. Il. 15.715 beginning with $

7

. ). Ruijgh’s (1967: 386–387) argument in support of *w- is bold, as he himself admits, and the same is true for Normier’s (1980: 70–72) etymological proposal (*wns-(h1)rh2 ‘love loving’; cf. Skt. vánas- ‘loveliness, desire’, Lat. Venus and Gk. * ‘to love’, on which see further below, section 8).

248

Andreas Willi

pound of *dom- ‘house’ + *s(o)r-, i.e. *dm-sr-, the shape of the first element being identical to that of Homeric ‘floor’ < *dm-pedom.32 Finally, the postulate of a PIE. lexeme *sor- ‘woman, female’ was substantially boosted in 1936 when J. Lohmann first wondered about its occurrence in a thematised motion suffix *-s(o)r-o- of the Anat¥ ¯ - ‘master’ (cf. Lat. erus < olian languages,33 as exemplified by Hitt. isˇha *h1esh2ó-) vs. isˇha-s ¥ ˇ sˇara- ‘mistress’, has ¥ ˇ sˇu- ‘king’ vs. (*)has ¥ ˇ sˇu-sˇsˇara‘queen’, as well as the female priest’s title sˇuppi-sˇsˇara- (cf. sˇuppi‘pure’), or Luv. nana/i- ‘brother’ vs. adjectival nana-sˇr-iya/i- ‘of the sister (lit. “female brother”)’. However, additional Anatolian material, from Luvian, has also cast doubt on the classical reconstruction. Luvian further shows an adjective asˇrul(i)- ‘female’ and a noun asˇrahit¥ ‘femininity’ whose initial a- may point back to an anlauting *(h1)e-. Hence, O. Szemerényi has argued that one should posit *esor(i.e. *h1esor- in laryngealist terms) rather than *sor- for PIE., and consequently analyse the ‘sister’ word as *su-(h1)esor- > *swesor- or the numeral ‘4’ as *kwet-(h1)esor-es rather than *kwete-sor-es.34 On balance, though, this revision does not seem advisable as it creates more problems than it solves. To start with Anatolian itself, the question arises whether we can simply operate with an ablaut variant *h1sor- in order to explain *-sˇsˇar(a)- (NB. not *-asˇsˇar(a)-, given sˇuppisˇsˇara- etc.); and, even supposing that Luv. asˇrul(i)- and asˇrahit¥ do be32

33

34

On see Risch (1974: 214). The stem in -- (gen. --« etc.) would then have to be secondary, as suggested already by Ruijgh (1967: 385 n. 166) in his explanation (after Schulze 1887, rejected by Szemerényi 1977a: 395–396 and 1977b: 78–79) of as ‘celle qui a soin de la maison’; cf. gen. (ζ) --« ‘lord’ next to the (certainly ancient) divine epithet (ζ) -« of the Dioscuri. Lohmann (1936: 291–292), followed e.g. by Sturtevant (1949: 343–344) but cautiously criticised by Kronasser (1966: 109–112); cf. the history of the question in Szemerényi (1967: 206–209). Melchert (1994: 151) posits *-sr-o-, Rieken (1999: 262) *-h1sor-o- (with assimilation *-h1s- > -sˇsˇ-; but see below on the problem of the initial laryngeal). Sihler (1977: 43–45) detects the same motion suffix *-s(o)r- within the Germanic suffix conglomerate *-stri(o¯)n for feminine nomina agentis. Szemerényi (1977a: 389–391) and (1977b: 32–47), improving on Szemerényi (1967: 215–221); similarly Carruba (1991: 159) posits *Hser-. Pace Oettinger (1986: 124), a proto-form *eso¯r without initial laryngeal (in an otherwise laryngealist framework) is hardly acceptable.


249

long here, how much do their initial vowels really tell us when the ‘[l]ack of /sR-/ is probably significant’ in this language,35 i.e. when Luvian phonology appears to have forbidden forms such as *sˇrul(i)- or *sˇrahit-? ¥ Turning to Greek, to derive 4 from *(h1)osr0 involving an o-grade, as Szemerényi would like, plays havoc with usual animate ablaut patterns, when Homeric 4 is clearly not a neuter (cf. Il. 9.327). As for the alleged *su-(h1)esor- ‘sister’, this is excluded by Vedic metre where such a proto-form should be reflected by a regular trisyllabic scansion *su(v)asar- of attested svasar- – a scansion which is not found once in the Rig Veda.36 Moreover, if Szemerényi’s argument may work for the numeral ‘4’, it fails with ‘3’ since PIE. *t(r)isor-es can hardly derive from either *tri-h1esor-es or *tri-h1sor-es.37 All things considered, the traditional reconstruction *sor- of Brugmann, Meillet, Benveniste etc. therefore remains preferable for this archaic PIE. lexeme for ‘woman, female’. And as we shall see (section 7), a welcome confirmation of this comes from the fact that *sor- need not remain an isolated item in the Indo-European vocabulary.

35 36

37

Melchert (1994: 267). Contrast e.g. svastí- ‘well-being’ (< *(h1)su-h1estí- or *(h1)su-nstí-: cf. Mayrhofer 1986–2001: 2.796–797, s.v. svastí-), which almost always appears as su(v)astí- (cf. Grassmann 1873: 1634–1635, s.vv. svás˙r, svastí). The same argument invalidates the divergent view of Pisani (1951: 7–8) and Normier (1980: 48–59) who analyse the word as *su-h1esh2o¯r ‘having the blood of the own family’ vel sim. (followed in different ways by Linke 1985: 354–356, with the unlikely idea that the words for ‘woman’ and ‘blood’ share the same origin, and Pârvulescu 1989: 67–72, who unacceptably regards the initial *h1e- of *h1esh2(o)r- as one of ‘various affixes’ added to ‘a base *ser, *sor or *sr’). Note further Hamp (1988) according to whom the ‘sister’ word must have been analysable as *swe-sor- in Proto-Albanian to trigger the formaiton of a new word for ‘brother’, vëlla¯ < *swe-loudh-a¯ ‘own people’. The second (unaccented) *-e- of *kwet-e-sor-es (next to masc. *kwet-wor-es), in turn, could have arisen from a (Pre-)PIE. epenthetic *-w- (vel sim.; cf. the origins of the thematic vowel?) to prevent a cluster *-ts- whose simplification might have obscured the morphological basis *kwet-.

250

Andreas Willi

6. Hera, Goddess of Women Given its formal appearance there can be no doubt that *sor‘woman, female’ is a root noun. Thanks to the systematisation by J. Schindler we know that one type of Proto-Indo-European root nouns had a full o-grade in the strong stem (nom./acc. sg.) alternating with a full e-grade in the weak stem (e.g. gen./dat. sg.). Thus, the nominative **dom-s > *do¯m of the word for ‘house’ (PIE. *dom-) survives in Arm. town (and, less directly, in Homeric 7 ‘house’), while the genitive *dem-s is reflected by the first member of the compound Gk.

0« < *dems-pot- ‘(house-)master’ (cf. Av. dw¯ ng fl paiti-).38 Hence, for PIE. *sor- we shall expect nom. *so¯r (< **sor-s), as in nom. *sweso¯r ‘sister’, but gen. *ser-s39 with regular weak stem *ser-. Looking at the semantics of these root nouns of the type *dom-/*dem-, Schindler finds among them (a) ‘substantifs féminins à valeur résultative ou passive’ (cf. *dom- ‘that which is built’) and (b) ‘noms d’agent (substantifs et adjectifs), souvent avec une nuance itérative, comme *bhor“celui qui emporte”’ (cf. Gk. φ< , Lat. fu¯r ‘thief’).40 Just like any other noun a root noun could serve as the basis for a vflrddhi derivative with the meaning ‘relating/belonging to X’. The Proto-Indo-European ancestry of this derivational process, which can be described as ‘-o-Ableitung mit zusätzlicher -e-Infigierung’41 and which becomes particularly productive in Indo-Iranian and Germanic, is firmly established by items such as *deiw-ó-s ‘divine’ (> Skt. devá- ‘god, divine’, Lith. di˜evas, Lat. deus, divus etc.) from the weakstem basis *diw- ‘Sky(-God)’ (cf. Gk. gen. E(ζ)-«, Skt. Div-áhfl vs. nom. Z1«, Dyauhfl < *dyeu-s) or *swekur-ó-s ‘(belonging to the father-in-law >) brother-in-law’ (> OHG. swa¯ger, Skt. s´va¯súrá-) from the basis *swékuros ‘husband’s father, father-in-law’ (> Skt. s´vásúra-, Gk. 8 «, Lat. socer, OHG. swehur).

38

39

40 41

Cf. Meier-Brügger (2002: 217–218), after Schindler (1972: 32) and R. Lipp in LIV. 115, s.v. 1. *demh2-. Obviously, *ser-s might have been remodelled into *sr-es or *sr-os at some point (cf. Schindler 1972: 32), but this is of little importance here. Schindler (1972: 36). Meier-Brügger (2002: 288); for the type see esp. Darms (1978), after the classic treatment by Schulze (1907).


251

Starting from the weak stem (as in *diw- f *deiwó-), for our lexeme *sor-/*ser- ‘woman, female’ we thus obtain an adjectival vflrddhi derivative *ser-ó-s ‘relating/belonging to women, of women’. The feminine form of this adjective would be *ser-áh2, i.e. precisely the form needed to account for the proto-form *Sera¯ of Hera’s name.42 Even the accentuation need not worry us unduly. In the paradigm of theonyms the vocative has a pivotal role because of its use in invocations, so that for example the Latin nominative Iu¯piter is in reality an original vocative (*Dyeu pater) replacing the ‘true’ nominative Dies piter. At the same time, the Indo-European vocative typically retracted the accent, as in Skt. dúhitar ‘daughter’ vs. nom. duhitá, Gk. ‘master’ vs. nom. 0«, Ν φ ‘brother’ vs. nom. $ φ«. Hence the vocative *Sàra will have caused the retraction of the accent also in the nominative *Será (just as it did, incidentally, in a word like θ0 , which is accentuated after the vocative θ1 43). According to this new etymology, then, Hera is quite literally the goddess ‘of women’. This is perfectly in line both with her function as a deity protecting adolescent girls when they are about to become ‘adult women’ by getting married and with her continued interest in the well-being of women within the institution of marriage. Moreover, it may help to elucidate one of the oldest Homeric formulae: the verse-end (27«) 6H 0 whose antiquity is suggested by the lack of elision in .44 In such an archaic phrase the name of the goddess may well retain some of its original force as a descriptive adjective. Homeric 6H 0, or Proto-Greek *potnih2 serah2, would thus translate word by word as ‘mistress of women’.

42

43 44

A link between this PIE. word for ‘woman, female’ and Hera’s name is first adumbrated in Carruba (1991: 159), but how 6H ¯ could derive from a protoform *Hsar-a¯ remains obscure: surely the initial 6H- cannot be contracted from *(h)–? Cf. Schwyzer (1939: 381). See Ruijgh (1995: 75–76); Schmitt (1967: 63 n. 396) regards 6H 0 as modelled upon 0 , but in view of its peculiar semantics the priority of the latter phrase is unlikely.

252

Andreas Willi

7. Women, love, and attachment To speak of ‘women’ tout court is, however, a little imprecise. As we have seen (section 1), Hera is primarily the goddess of women as nubile beings and/or in wedlock. With this specification in mind, let us now take another look at PIE. *sor-/*ser- ‘woman, female’. Just as the PIE. root noun *dom-/*dem- ‘house’ must be related to the verbal root *demh2- ‘to build’ (cf. Gk. « ‘form [< construction]’ ¯ « ‘newly-built’ < *-dmh2-to-), *sor-/*ser< *demh2-s, Dor. - may be related to some verbal root. As mentioned before (section 4), there is more than one PIE. verbal root *ser- to choose from. The Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben lists (1) *ser- ‘to protect, guard, oversee’ (cf. Myc. o-pi o-ro-me-no ‘he who oversees’), (2) *ser‘to catch’ (cf. Gk. ¹ .: section 4), and (3) *ser- ‘to attach, connect’ (cf. Gk. c ., Lat. sero¯: section 4).45 In his entry for the last of these three, J. Pokorny follows an old suggestion by Meringer when he notes that one might consider a further link with the Germanic verbs ON. serd¯a ‘to fornicate’, OHG. sertan ‘to make love’ as well as, perhaps, with the Old Irish noun serc ‘love’.46 It is easy to see how a verb based on a root which designates a connection, attachment, or union could eventually have come to refer to a sexual act. Similarly, the PIE. *sorcould well be originally either (a) ‘the female who is attached/ coupled’ or (b) ‘the female who attaches herself’ to a male, i.e. the man’s ‘partner’ both socially and physically or emotionally; and since she becomes a potential partner only once she has reached sexual maturity, the adult age, she is specifically the nubile/adult woman. To be sure, the latter restriction of the initial semantics would no longer have been felt in the case of e.g. *t(r)i-sor-es or *swe-sor-, where *-sorjust indicates the female being in general; but we may equally remember in this context a series of derivatives of Homeric 4 < *sm-sr in which the notion of emotional attachment, ‘intimacy’, is paramount. Both 4 « and 5 Q. refer to the intimate conversation between a man and a woman and 5 1« designates an amor-

45 46

LIV. 534–535, s.vv. 1./2./3. *ser-. Pokorny (1959: 1.911), after Meringer (1904: 171): ‘Es empfiehlt sich daher, ein stammabstufendes *sór-es, *sr-bhís usw. und zwar mit der Bedeutung “Weiber” anzunehmen, das zur selben Wurzel *ser- gehört wie lat. series, sero, c .’.


253

ous encounter.47 Not just by coincidence is Aphrodite’s belt of love (cf. section 1) therefore described with the words * %# * ξ φ0«, ( # \ «, ( # 5 1« ‘in which there is love, and longing, and intimacy’ (Il. 14.216). If we may thus conclude that the root *ser- ‘to attach, connect’ could refer not only to the act of physically attaching something, but also to an act of metaphorical attachment, be it social or sentimental, it follows that this act itself may have been expressed in Proto-Indo-European times with the help of a derived action noun. One of the oldest procedures to form such nomina actionis or nomina rei actae is the creation of neuter s-stem derivatives such as *genh1-os ‘generation’ (> Lat. genus, Gk. «, Skt. jánas-) from *genh1- ‘to generate, bring into being’ or *demh2-s ‘construction’ (> Gk. «) from *demh2- ‘to build’ (with an old apophonic variant found especially with roots in *-h2-, yielding Gk. -«, Skt. -ifls-).48 From *ser- we would thus expect a noun *ser-os n. ‘attachment, connection, union’. In Indo-Iranian, such a *seros n. should result in *sáras-, i.e. in a homonym of sáras- ‘pond’ (< *selos n.; cf. Gk. o« ‘pond, swamp’49). The latter sáras- unquestionably appears in the name of the Vedic river and river goddess Sáras-vati (< *Selos-wnt-ih2), which corresponds to the Old Persian toponym (= /harauvati-/, Av. haraxvaiti-). By and large, the Vedic Sarasvati is in fact endowed with the qualities one might expect of a river goddess.50 Yet, in comparison both with other river divinities (e.g. Sindhu, Ganga ˙ ¯ ) and with other Vedic goddesses more generally, Sarasvati has a special status as her personification is much stronger. For example, she has a son called Divoda¯sa (RV. 6.61.1), she is a friend of the Maruts (RV. 7.96.2), and she helps the As´vin (RV. 10.131.5); one of the Vedic hymns calls her quite simply ‘best’ not only of rivers but of mothers and goddesses (RV. 2.41.16). Very cautiously we might therefore wonder whether Sarasvati is not perhaps more than a mere river goddess in origin – all the more since she also has a male counter-

47

48 49

50

See Chantraine (1968–80: 2.771, s.v. 4 ), B. Mader in LfgrE. 3.481–482, s.vv. 5 Q., 5 1«, 4 «. Cf. Stüber (2002: 217–248). See Stüber (2000) and (2002: 147–149); differently Janda (2005: 217): ‘Sáras- […] geht auf *séros- zurück und bezeichnete ursprünglich die zusammenhängende “Ausdehnung” einer Wasserfläche’. Cf. Hillebrandt (1891–1902: 2.335–340), Macdonell (1897: 86–88).

254

Andreas Willi

part, Sárasvat. Together with him, and again rather exceptionally for a Vedic goddess, Sarasvati is invoked in two entire hymns (RV. 7.95, 7.96). In one of these, a verse relating to Sarasvat is particularly suggestive (RV. 7.96.4): janiyánto nú ágravahfl putriyántahfl sudánavahfl Sárasvantam fl hava¯mahe ‘longing for a wife and longing for sons, we, the unmarried men, invoke Sarasvat with rich offerings’ Apparently there is some connection between Sarasvat and marriage, just as there is a connection between Sarasvati ambitama¯ (‘best of mothers’) and the fact of having children. Is this due to nothing but the association of any river (or river goddess) with fertility? Or do we grasp here the trace of an older Sarasvati who is not ‘endowed with ponds’ (*selos) but ‘endowed with attachments/unions’ (*seros vel sim.: cf. section 8)? We cannot know, and the whole idea may be too speculative to be defended forcefully; but even if it were, it should not prevent us from looking for *seros or the like elsewhere. Let us therefore return to Greece once again.

8. Eros, personified ‘Love’ As pointed out above (section 4), the root *ser- ‘attach, connect’ is represented in Greek by the y-present c . < *ser-ye/o-. The absence of an initial aspiration in this form is remarkable. According to the etymological dictionaries it may be ascribed to the analogical influence of a synonymous compound - . in which the aspiration would have been lost word-internally.51 From parallel cases such as Ϊ. next to -. ‘to attach’ it is evident that such an explanation is entirely ad hoc. Moreover, borrowed words such as Lat. synhodus ‘indiquent encore, pour l’époque hellénistique, la prononciation 1 h «’,52 so that it cannot even be said that * h . should have lost the internal aspiration automatically. The problem is 51

52

Frisk (1960–72: 1.469, s.v. 1. c .), Chantraine (1968–80: 1.325, s.v. c .), who both note that a trace of an initial aspiration survives in EM. 304.30; more cautiously Schwyzer (1939: 304) observes that ‘[i]n einzelnen Fällen sind psilotische Formen über ihr eigentliches Gebiet hinaus gedrungen’. Lejeune (1972: 279).


255

therefore a very real one and it may be appropriate to consider an – albeit equally tentative – alternative explanation. The shape of the Old Irish nasal present sernaid ‘to put in order, arrange’, which is cognate with Gk. c . and Lat. sero¯ (section 4), is best accounted for if the underlying root was *serh2- rather than *ser-.53 For all the other forms which we have previously traced back to a root *ser-, *serh2- would also be a viable possibility. If a root noun *dom-/ *dem- ‘house’ appears next to a seflt root *demh2- ‘to build’, the same may be the case for *sor-/*ser- ‘woman’ next to *serh2-: in a nominative **domh2-s or **sorh2-s, the laryngeal would have fallen away according to Saussure’s Law, so as to yield *dom-s > *do¯m and *sor-s > *so ¯ r;54 from here, the root variant without final laryngeal could easily spread throughout the paradigm. Similarly, the aniflt root *ser- of Lat. sero¯ may be extracted from thematic forms such as 1sg. pres. *serh2-o¯ > ser-o¯. In Greek, too, the root-final laryngeal would have disappeared regularly in a y-present *serh2-ye/o- > *ser-ye/o- (cf. e.g. *terh1-ye/o- ‘to pierce’ > *ter-ye/o- > . next to Lat. tero¯, but Gk. ‘drill’ < *terh1-tro-55). At the same time, the second laryngeal is the laryngeal which triggers an aspiration of the preceding consonant in Indo-Iranian, as in Skt. pflrthú- ‘wide’ < *prth2ú-.56 Greek 1« does not show the same effect, but this may be due to analogical levelling; for the 2sg. perf. ending *-th2e yields both Skt. -tha and Gk. -θa (e.g. véttha ~ ρ% ‘you know’). If, therefore, the aspiratory effect of *-h2- seems to have operated, at least occasionally, in Proto-Greek as well, it might be postulated that, before the loss of *-h2-, the preceding *-r- in *serh2-ye/o- was also aspirated, resulting in a voiceless *-rh-. After the change of *s- into /h-/, *serh2-ye/o- > *serh-ye/o- > *herh-ye/o- would then have lost the initial aspiration due to Grassmann’s Law, the ultimate outcome being unaspirated c ..57 53

54 55 56 57

Cf. Rasmussen (1989: 198), who also points to Latv. s˜ert ‘Getreide zum Trocknen zurechtlegen’, Lith. pasártis ‘Hängevorrichtung, Kleiderrechen’ and suggests ‘dass o nach c . […] umgebildet worden ist’. See R. Lipp in LIV. 115, s.v. 1. *demh2-. Cf. Beekes (1969: 234), Peters (1980: 81 n. 38). Mayrhofer (1986: 139). By contrast, the initial aspiration would have survived in derivatives like Homeric o ‘ear-rings’ because the voiceless *-rh- would have been resonorized before the following voiced consonant (*herh-m- > *her-m-).

256

Andreas Willi

Whether this is correct or not, what must be retained in any case is the observation that (a) a reconstruction of the underlying root as *serh2- instead of simple *ser- is possible, even likely, and (b) the initial aspiration which is expected in Greek is unquestionably absent in some lexemes belonging to this root. From this it follows that we should postulate, instead of the neuter s-stem noun *ser-os hypothesized in section 7, a proto-form *serh2-os or, given *demh2-s etc., *serh2-s.58 By regular sound law the latter would develop into historical *o « or, taking into account the occasional psilotic nature of Greek derivatives of *ser-, ** «. As such ** « is not attested, but there are a number of derivatives, like (

« ‘lovely’ (< *( - «), ( - « ‘lovely’, ( -« ‘lover’. Obviously these belong to the wider lexical family of * and ( . ‘to love’, two verbs which often carry sexual connotations in Homer (as exemplified, for instance, by Il. 14.328 quoted in section 1). Despite its importance and frequency, this whole group of Greek ‘love’ words has so far been lacking an established etymology and obvious relatives in other languages.59 On the basis of the preceding remarks we are now able to explain * , ( . with the help of the same root *serh2- ‘to attach, connect’ as found in Greek c ., no matter if the athematic (and thus 58

59

It should be stressed that the hypothesis concerning Sáras-vati in section 7 does not depend on the existence of a neuter *serh2os > *sáras- instead of *serh2-s (> *sarifls-; cf. below on Av. ha¯irisˇ-i), for the base word could be an animate s-stem *sarás- (cf. Skt. jarás- f. < *gerh2-e/os- next to Gk. « < *gerh2-s; Stüber 2002: 83–84); on such an animate formation derived from *serh2- see below. Moreover, one may cite parallels such as távas- n. ‘strength’, tavás‘strong’ but taviflsá- ‘strong’, or támas- n. ‘darkness’ but támisra¯- f. ‘darkness’ (Debrunner 1954: 233–234). Cf. Chantraine (1968–80: 1.363–364, s.v. * ), Frisk (1960–72: 1.547, s.v. * ). There has, however, been a recent suggestion by Weiss (1998: 35–47) who seeks to reconstruct a root *h1erh2- ‘to divide’ (hence middle ‘to divide for oneself’ > ‘to enjoy’ > ‘to love’) which would be reflected also in Lat. o¯ra ‘seacoast’, OIr. or ‘border’, Hitt. arha ¥ ¯ s ‘border’, as well as Gk. * « ‘shared picnic’ (against Brugmann 1902/3: 153–155, who posits initial ζ-) and * « ‘strife’ (< ‘division’?). Although elegant, Weiss’s proposal may account less well for the prominent early sexual nuances of * etc. (cf. H. W. Nordheider in LfgrE. 2.669 and 2.714–715, s.vv. * and * «) than for * « and * «. Incidentally, the latter of these (which is explained in yet another way by Haudry 1993: 179–181) could also be linked with *serh2- ‘to connect’ via an original i-stem derivative *serh2-i(d)- referring to an ‘encounter’ of enemies (cf. the Homeric meaning ‘fight, battle-strife’).


257

presumably old60) * is a retrograde formation based upon ** « or an ancient root present *serh2-mai (with Narten ablaut and hence full-grade root in the middle). Semantically it will have meant ‘to attach oneself/be attached (to someone/something)’ in either case, alongside the noun ** « which referred to the emotional ‘attachment’ itself. The neuter ** « was at some point replaced by an animate counterpart, * .« ‘love’, which is also the name of personified ‘Love’ in Greek. The relationship between ** «, ( ., and * .« is exactly the same as that between *« ‘laughter’ < *gelh2-s n. (presupposed by derivatives such as -« ‘laughter’ and $--« ‘not laughing’), . ‘to laugh’, and .« ‘laughter’. Both .« and * .« show a t-stem inflection (gen. .«, * .«) in classical Greek, but t-stem forms are not yet found in Homer and Hesiod and must be as secondary as the thematized variant * « (attested already in Homer).61 Thus, despite its masculine gender and different accentuation62 * .« ultimately belongs to the same class of animate s-stem nouns as (e.g.) Gk. > serc, Mod. Ir. searc. Janda (2000: 121–122) therefore proposes a link with the root *serk- of Lat. sarcire ‘to repair’, positing an original meaning ‘to connect’; but one might also think of a derivative in *-ka¯ (cf. e.g. Gk. θ0 ‘box’ from *dheh1‘to put’, Lat. mica ‘grain, particle’ from *meiH- ‘to diminish’) from our root *ser(h2)- once this had become synchronically aniflt in formations like ser-naid. Cf. Skt. *dasás- in dasásyáti ‘to honour’; Stüber (2002: 77).


259

‘colour’ < *kel-o¯s (cf. cela¯re ‘to hide’, OIr. -ceil ‘to hide’), this may be due to the following velar -l-, but for honor < *ghen-o¯s and glom-us < *glem-os ‘ball-shaped mass’ vowel assimilation to the vowel-colour of the following syllable must be assumed (cf. similarly homo¯ ‘man’ < *hemo ¯ , as in nemo¯ < *ne-hemo¯).67 Both if such a (somewhat irregular68) assimilation could take place also over -r- and if cases like color and honor acted as analogical models, we might therefore consider the possibility of finding *soror (< *soro¯s) rather than *seror (< *sero¯s).69 In a post-rhotacistic period the former would of course have been a homonym of soror ‘sister’ (< *swe-so¯r; cf. section 5). The semantic oddity of some apparent derivatives of soror has long been noted. One is found in a fragment of Plautus, which is quoted by the lexicographer Festus (p. 380 L., restituted after Paul. Fest. p. 381 L., with Plaut. fr. 84): sororiare mammae dicuntur puellarum, cum primum tumescunt, ut fraterculare puerorum. Plautus in Frivolaria […]: papillae pri<mulum fraterculabant; illud> volui dicere, so soro¯ria¯re is said of the breasts of girls when they swell for the first time, just like fra¯tercula¯re of those of boys. Plautus says in the Frivolaria […]: “Then, for the very fist time, the nipples ‘brothered’ – oh, no, I wanted to say they ‘sistered’.” In order to understand this entry, we must first stress that fra¯tercula¯re is merely a Plautine pun, whereas soro¯ria¯re (or soro¯rire) is attested with the same meaning as in Festus also in Pliny the Elder (NH. 31.66).70 Thus, Plautus clearly saw a connection between an existing verb soro¯ria¯re and the noun soror ‘sister’; for otherwise he would not have created fra¯tercula¯re. What is less clear is whether this is not just a folk-etymology. First of all, the semantics of soro¯ria¯re raises doubts since the verb has nothing to do with a ‘sister’. Moreover, soro¯ria¯re is patently derived from a Latin adjective soro¯rius, which does some67

68 69

70

Cf. Leumann (1977: 101), who also lists color (but see Leumann 1977: 47), Meiser (1998: 83). Note e.g. tenor, tremor beside honor, homo¯. A further possibility is a folk-etymological replacement of *sero¯r- by soro¯r- in *sero¯rios f soro¯rius etc. (on which see below). Cf. Gaertner (2003).

260

Andreas Willi

times mean ‘belonging to the sister, of the sister’, but which also appears in the peculiar term tigillum soro¯rium (cf. CIL. 6.2295). The tigillum soro¯rium near the compitum Acili in Rome was a wooden beam (tigillum) forming a doorway across a road, with an altar for Ia¯nus Cu¯ria¯tius to one side and an altar for Iu¯no¯ Soro¯ria to the other (Schol. Bobb. Milon. p. 277 Orelli, Dion. Hal. AR 3.22.7). The Roman tradition, which we find in Livy (1.26.13) and again in Festus (p. 380 L.; cf. Paul. Fest. p. 399 L.), preserves the following aetiological account. At a time when Rome was at war with Alba Longa over the supremacy in the alliance between the two cities, their respective kings agreed that the dispute should be finally resolved by a duel between the three Curiatii brothers representing Alba and the three Horatii brothers representing Rome. During the fight five of the six men are killed, but one of the Roman Horatii survives. He triumphally returns to his city where he is met by a crowd including his sister Horatia, who is also the fiancée of one of the Curiatii. On seeing the cloak of her beloved over her brother’s shoulder she calls out in desperation. Infuriated by this, Horatius seizes her and kills her with his sword. Everybody is shocked and Horatius is duly taken into court; but because of his recent service to the country he is acquitted. In order for Horatia’s killing not to remain uncleansed, however, the siblings’ father has to perform a sacrifice in the name of the state, and he erects the tigillum soro¯rium underneath which his son passes as under a yoke. Again this story tries to establish an etymological connection between the adjective soro¯rius and the word for ‘sister’, but again the result seems a little forced. As H. J. Rose has pointed out in an ingenious clarification of the whole complex, the essential point is the link of the tigillum with Iu¯no¯ Soro¯ria. More obliquely this goddess’s adjectival epithet is also at stake in a ceremony taking place each year on the occasion of the Roman Ma¯tra¯lia, an old festival for married women centred around Ma¯ter Ma¯tu¯ta, the ‘Early/Mature ( ? ) Mother’. According to our sources the Ma¯tra¯lia rites included a prayer said by the women not for their own children, but for those of their sisters (Ov. Fast. 6.553–562, Plut. Mor. 267e). This peculiarity, Rose argued, must have arisen from a misunderstanding. The relevant prayer formula will have been something like pueris soro¯riis, but this did not originally mean ‘for the sister’s children’; instead, it meant ‘for the children at the age of puberty’, cum primum tumescunt mammae puellarum, as Festus says in his entry on soro¯ria¯re. Hence, the passage underneath


261

the tigillum soro¯rium is nowadays interpreted as originating from a rite de passage in the strict sense of the term, which took place when the young Romans became soro¯rii, i.e. when they reached puberty and turned into adults.71 So, to follow Rose in admitting (1) that soro¯rius must have meant ‘relating to puberty, adolescent’, having nothing to do with the word for ‘sister’, (2) that soro¯ria¯re referred to the physical changes happening to girls during puberty, and (3) that Iu¯no¯ Soro¯ria should therefore be understood as the goddess Juno as the patroness of adolescent young women (whereas Ia¯nus Curia¯tius will have taken on the same role for the young men as they became members in a cu¯ria72) means to account well for the usage of all these words in Roman culture and religion, but it does not yet explain their origin.73 Thanks to the above establishment of an early Latin *soro¯s as a formal correspondent of Gk. * .«, we may now fill the gap. That the Roman Iu¯no¯ is the equivalent of the Greek 6H ¯ both in her capacity as the wife of the supreme god Iuppiter ~ Z1« and as a divinity taking care of adult women is well known: every Roman man has a genius, every woman a iu¯no¯.74 It will not therefore surprise us if we also find Iu¯no¯ Soro¯ria protecting Roman young women like Horatia, adolescents who are about to become adults by getting married, when Hera does the same for the nubile young women of Greece who are ready for the * .« of marriage. In this role Juno is Soro¯ria because she accompanies the awakening of *soro¯s: the ability and wish to enter into an intimate marital union. 71

72 73

74

Rose (1925: 407–410) on the tigillum and (1934: 156–157) on the Ma¯tra¯lia; cf. Latte (1960: 97 and 133). Cf. Ogilvie (1965: 117). Rose (1934: 157) proposes a connection between soro¯rius and the root *swel(H)- ‘to swell’ (LIV. 609–610, s.v.? *sÍelH-), but no other Latin example of an assimilation *-l-r- > -r-r- is given and exactly the inverse is normally the case (cf. Leumann 1977: 231 on -r-r- and -l-l- > -l-r- or -r-l-). The speculations of Gaertner (2003: 247–248 n. 9) about a further link between *swel(H)- and *sweso¯r ‘sister’ are implausible, but he is right in rejecting as ‘naive’ the explanation of soro¯ria¯re as ‘être comme des soeurs’ in Mignot (1969: 281); as for Leumann (1977: 547), the comparison with Gk. π2. ‘to be in the bloom of youth’ regards only the formation in -ia¯re instead of -a¯re, but it is unnecessary when one recognises in soro¯ria¯re a derivative not of soror, but of soro¯rius ‘relating to puberty, adolescent’ (cf. Mignot 1969: 309–310). Cf. Latte (1960: 104), Graf (1999: 72–73 and 75).

262

Andreas Willi

References Adams, Douglas Q. (1987). ‘6H .« and 6H ¯ : Of men and heroes in Greek and Indo-European’. Glotta 65: 171–178. Ambrosini, Riccardo (1962). ‘Etimologia di lat. uxor’. Studi e Saggi Linguistici 2: 23–32. Ambrosini, Riccardo (1963). ‘Ancora a proposito di lat. uxor’. Studi e Saggi Linguistici 3: 86. Ascoli, Graziadio (1864). ‘uxor (vaça, vacca)’. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung 13: 157–160. Aura Jorro, Francisco (1985–93). Diccionario micénico (2 vols.). Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Beekes, Robert S. P. (1969). The Development of the Proto-Indo-European Laryngeals in Greek. The Hague and Paris: Mouton. Benveniste, Émile (1935). ‘Un nom indo-européen de la “femme”’. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique 35: 104–106. Benveniste, Émile (1969). Le vocabulaire des institutions indo-européennes. 1: Économie, parenté, société. Paris: Éditions de Minuit. Borgeaud, Willy (1944). ‘Homer. f"«’. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung 68: 221–222. Bremmer, Jan (2005). Art. ‘Hera’, in Lindsay Jones (ed.), Encyclopedia of Religion (15 vols., 2nd edn.). Detroit and London: Macmillan. Brugman(n), Karl (1876). ‘Zur Geschichte der stammabstufenden Declinationen. I: Die Nomina auf -ar- und -tar-’. Curtius’ Studien zur griechischen und lateinischen Grammatik 9: 361–406. Brugmann, Karl (1902/3). ‘Wortgeschichtliche Miszellen’. Indogermanische Forschungen 13: 144–163. Burkert, Walter (1985). Greek Religion (trad. John Raffan). Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Carruba, Onofrio (1991). ‘Searching for woman in Anatolian and Indo-European’, in Perspectives on Indo-European Language, Culture and Religion: Studies in Honor of Edgar C. Polomé, I. McLean, Va.: Institute for the Study of Man, 155–181. Chantraine, Pierre (1933). La formation des noms en grec ancien. Paris: Klincksieck. Chantraine, Pierre (1958). Grammaire homérique. I: Phonétique et morphologie (3rd edn.). Paris: Klincksieck. Chantraine, Pierre (1968–80). Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque: Histoire des mots (2 vols.). Paris: Klincksieck. Cowgill, Warren (1957). ‘Old Irish teoir and cetheoir’. Language 33: 341–345. Darms, Georges (1978). Schwäger und Schwager, Hahn und Huhn: Die VrddhiAbleitung im Germanischen. München: Kitzinger. de la Genière, Juliette (ed.) (1997). Héra: Images, espaces, cultes. Naples: Centre Jean Bérard. de Vaan, Michiel (2008). Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the Other Italic Languages. Leiden: Brill.


263

Debrunner, Albert (1954). Altindische Grammatik. II.2: Die Nominalsuffixe. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Eichner, Heiner (1974). ‘Zu Etymologie und Flexion von vedisch strâ und púma¯n’. Sprache 20: 26–42. Eitrem, Samson (1912). Art. ‘Hera’. RE 8/1: 369–403. Fick, August (1875). ‘Beispiele zur Veranschaulichung des Verhältnisses zwischen den Voll- und Kosenamen im Griechischen’, in Georg Curtius (ed.), Studien zur griechischen und lateinischen Grammatik, VIII. Leipzig: Hirzel, 303–313. Frisk, Hjalmar (1960–72). Griechisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch (3 vols.). Heidelberg: Winter. Gaertner, Jan Felix (2003). ‘Plautus’ Frivolaria und die Wortgeschichte von sororiare und frat(e)r(cul)are’. Philologus 147: 245–253. Gallavotti, Carlo (1956). ‘La triade lesbia in un testo miceneo’. Rivista di Filologia e di Istruzione Classica n.s. 34: 225–236. Gates, H. Phelps (1971). The Kinship Terminology of Homeric Greek. Baltimore: Waverly Press. Graf, Fritz (1998). Art. ‘Hera. I. Kult und Mythos’. Der Neue Pauly 5: 357–360. Graf, Fritz (1999). Art. ‘Iuno. I. Kult und Mythos’. Der Neue Pauly 6: 72–76. Grassmann, Hermann (1873). Wörterbuch zum Rig-Veda. Leipzig: Brockhaus. Hamp, Eric P. (1981). ‘Remarks on *ster-’. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 40: 35–38. Hamp, Eric P. (1988). ‘*sor- “woman” and “Indo-Hittite”’. Journal of Indo-European Studies 16: 121–122. Haudry, Jean (1993). ‘Altindisch arí-, griechisch * «, ( -, $ - und der Gott Aryaman’, in Gerhard Meiser (ed.), Indogermanica et Italica: Festschrift für Helmut Rix zum 65. Geburtstag. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft, 169–189. Heubeck, Alfred (1979). ‘Remarks on the sign-doublets ro2, ra2, ta2’, in Ernst Risch and Hugo Mühlestein (eds.), Colloquium Mycenaeum: Actes du sixième Colloque international sur les textes mycéniens et égéens. Genève: Droz, 239–257. Hillebrandt, Alfred (1891–1902). Vedische Mythologie (3 vols.). Breslau: Koebner. Hoffmann, Karl, and Forssman, Bernhard (1996). Avestische Laut- und Flexionslehre. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft. Janda, Michael (1999). ‘Zur Herkunft von homerisch 4 ’, in Sigrid DegerJalkotzy, Stefan Hiller, and Oswald Panagl (eds.), Floreant Studia Mycenaea, II. Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 315–324. Janda, Michael (2000). Eleusis: Das indogermanische Erbe der Mysterien. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft. Janda, Michael (2005). Elysion: Entstehung und Entwicklung der griechischen Religion. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft. Kazansky, Nikolai N. (1995). ‘Indo-European onomastics as a historical source’. Journal of Indo-European Studies 23: 157–177. Kazzazi, Kerstin (2001). “Mann” und “Frau” im Rgveda: Mit einem Exkurs über Wörter für “Frau” im Atharvaveda. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft. Kerényi, Karl (1972). Zeus und Hera. Urbild des Vaters, des Gatten und der Frau. Leiden: Brill.

264

Andreas Willi

Kossatz-Deissmann, Anneliese (1988). Art. ‘Hera’. Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae IV/1: 659–719. Kretschmer, Paul (1909). ‘Zur Geschichte der griechischen Dialekte’. Glotta 1: 9–59. Kretschmer, Paul (1914). ‘Literaturbericht für das Jahr 1911: Griechisch’. Glotta 5: 259–313. Kronasser, Heinz (1966). Etymologie der hethitischen Sprache. 1/I. Zur Schreibung und Lautung des Hethitischen, II. Wortbildung des Hethitischen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Latte, Kurt (1960). Römische Religionsgeschichte. München: Beck. Lejeune, Michel (1972). Phonétique historique du mycénien et du grec ancien. Paris: Klincksieck. Leumann, Manu (1977). Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre. München: Beck. Ley, Anne (1998). Art. ‘Hera. II. Ikonographie’. Der Neue Pauly 5: 360–361. LfgrE.: Lexikon des frühgriechischen Epos. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Linke, Uli (1985). ‘Blood as metaphor in Proto-Indo-European’. Journal of IndoEuropean Studies 13: 333–376. LIV.: Rix, Helmut (ed.) (2001). Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben: Die Wurzeln und ihre Primärstammbildungen. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Lohmann, Johannes (1936). Review of Edgar H. Sturtevant, A Comparative Grammar of the Hittite Language (Philadelphia: Linguistic Society of America). Indogermanische Forschungen 54: 285–294. Macdonell, Arthur Anthony (1897). Vedic Mythology. Strassburg: Trübner. Mastrelli, Carlo Alberto (1980). ‘Un falso arcaismo: lat.-fal. uxor. pel. usur’. Archivio Glottologico Italiano 65: 14–18. Mayrhofer, Manfred (1952). ‘Gibt es ein indogermanisches *sor- “Frau”?’, in Wilhelm Brandenstein (ed.), Studien zur indogermanischen Grundsprache. Wien: Gerold & Co., 32–39. Mayrhofer, Manfred (1986). Indogermanische Grammatik. I/2: Lautlehre [Segmentale Phonologie des Indogermanischen]. Heidelberg: Winter. Mayrhofer, Manfred (1986–2001). Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen (3 vols.). Heidelberg: Winter. Meier-Brügger, Michael (1989). ‘Verbaute schwundstufige -s-Neutra in der griechischen Wortbildung’. Historische Sprachforschung 102: 58–61. Meier-Brügger, Michael (2002). Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft (8th edn.). Berlin: de Gruyter. Meillet, Antoine (1931). ‘Essai de chronologie des langues indo-européennes. La théorie du féminin’. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique 32: 1–28. Meiser, Gerhard (1998). Historische Laut- und Formenlehre der lateinischen Sprache. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Meissner, Torsten (2006). S-Stem Nouns and Adjectives in Greek and Proto-IndoEuropean. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Melchert, H. Craig (1994). Anatolian Historical Phonology. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Meringer, Rudolf (1904). ‘Wörter und Sachen’. Indogermanische Forschungen 16: 101–196. Mignot, Xavier (1969). Les verbes dénominatifs latins. Paris: Klincksieck.


265

Moreschini Quattordio, Adriana (1979). ‘6H ed j .«: un tentativo di esegesi etimologica’. Studi e Saggi Linguistici 19: 167–198. Moussy, Claude (1980). ‘Une étymologie de lat. uxor’. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique 75: 325–346. Nilsson, Martin P. (1906). Griechische Feste von religiöser Bedeutung mit Ausschluss der attischen. Leipzig: Teubner. Nilsson, Martin P. (1967). Geschichte der griechischen Religion. I: Die Religion Griechenlands bis auf die griechische Weltherrschaft (3rd edn.). München: Beck. Normier, Rudolf (1980). ‘Nochmals zu *sor-’. Indogermanische Forschungen 85: 43–80. Oettinger, Norbert (1986). ‘Avestisch ha¯irisˇi- “Frau” syn- und diachron’. Indogermanische Forschungen 91: 116–128. Ogilvie, Robert M. (1965). A Commentary on Livy: Books 1–5. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Palmer, Leonard R. (1963). The Interpretation of Mycenaean Greek Texts. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pârvulescu, Adrian (1989). ‘Blood and IE. kinship terminology’. Indogermanische Forschungen 94: 67–88. Pestalozza, Uberto (1939). ‘B7« 6H 0’. Athenaeum 17: 105–137. Peters, Martin (1980). Untersuchungen zur Vertretung der indogermanischen Laryngale im Griechischen. Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Peters, Martin (2002). ‘Aus der Vergangenheit von Heroen und Ehegöttinnen’, in Matthias Fritz and Susanne Zeilfelder (eds.), Novalis Indogermanica: Festschrift für Günter Neumann zum 80. Geburtstag. Graz: Leykam, 357–380. Pisani, Vittore (1951). ‘Uxor. Ricerche di morfologia indo-europea’, in Miscellanea Giovanni Galbiati, III. Milano: Hoepli, 1–38. Pokorny, Julius (1959). Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Tübingen and Basel: Francke. Pötscher, Walter (1961). ‘Hera und Heros’. Rheinisches Museum 104: 302–355. Pötscher, Walter (1965). ‘Der Name der Göttin Hera’. Rheinisches Museum 108: 317–320. Pötscher, Walter (1987). Hera. Eine Strukturanalyse im Vergleich mit Athena. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Pott, August Friedrich (1833). Etymologische Forschungen auf dem Gebiete der Indo-Germanischen Sprachen, mit besonderem Bezug auf die Lautumwandlung. Lemgo: Meyersche Hofbuchhandlung. Pott, August Friedrich (1836). Etymologische Forschungen auf dem Gebiete der indo-germanischen Sprachen. II: Grammatischer Lautwechsel und Wortbildung. Lemgo: Meyersche Hofbuchhandlung. Probert, Philomen (2008). ‘Mycenaean o- is accusative; jo- is nominative’. Glotta 84: 126–168. Rasmussen, Jens Elmegård (1989). Studien zur Morphophonemik der indogermanischen Grundsprache. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft. Rieken, Elisabeth (1999). Untersuchungen zur nominalen Stammbildung des Hethitischen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

266

Andreas Willi

Risch, Ernst (1974). Wortbildung der homerischen Sprache (2nd edn.). Berlin and New York: de Gruyter. Rose, Herbert J. (1925). ‘De religionibus antiquis quaestiunculae tres’. Mnemosyne n.s. 53: 406–414. Rose, Herbert J. (1934). ‘Two Roman rites’. Classical Quarterly 28: 156–158. Rose, Herbert J. (1958). A Handbook of Greek Mythology including its Extension to Rome (6th edn.). London: Methuen & Co. Ruijgh, Cornelis J. (1967a). Études sur la grammaire et le vocabulaire du grec mycénien. Amsterdam: Hakkert. Ruijgh, Cornelis J. (1967b). ‘A propos de myc. po-ti-ni-ja-we-jo’. Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 4: 40–52. Ruijgh, Cornelis J. (1995). ‘D’Homère aux origines proto-mycéniennes de la tradition épique. Analyse dialectologique du langage homérique, avec un excursus sur la création de l’alphabet grec’, in Jan Paul Crielaard (ed.), Homeric Questions. Amsterdam: Gieben, 1–96. Schindler, Jochem (1972). ‘L’apophonie des noms-racines indo-européens’. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique 67/1: 31–38. Schmitt, Rüdiger (1967). Dichtung und Dichtersprache in indogermanischer Zeit. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Schröder, Franz Rolf (1956). ‘Hera’. Gymnasium 63: 57–78. Schulze, Wilhelm (1887). ‘ - [without title]’. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung 28: 281. Schulze, Wilhelm (1907). ‘Ahd. suagur’. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung 40: 400–418. Schwyzer, Eduard (1939). Griechische Grammatik. I: Allgemeiner Teil, Lautlehre, Wortbildung, Flexion. München: Beck. Sihler, Andrew L. (1977). ‘The PIE origins of the Germanic feminine nomina agentis in *-stri(o¯)n’. Sprache 23: 36–48. Stella, Luigia Achillea (1958). ‘La religione greca nei testi micenei’. Numen 5: 18–57. Stella, Luigia Achillea (1965). La civiltà micenea nei documenti contemporanei. Roma: Edizioni dell’Ateneo. Stüber, Karin (2000). ‘Zur Bedeutung und Etymologie von altind. sáras, iranisch *harah- und griechisch o«’. Historische Sprachforschung 113: 132–142. Stüber, Karin (2002). Die primären s-Stämme des Indogermanischen. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Sturtevant, Edgar H. (1949). ‘An Indo-European word for “woman”’. Language 25: 343–345. Szemerényi, Oswald (1967). ‘The alleged Indo-European *sor- “woman”’. Kratylos 11: 206–221. Szemerényi, Oswald (1977a). ‘Das griechische Verwandtschaftsnamensystem vor dem Hintergrund des indogermanischen Systems’. Hermes 105: 385–405. Szemerényi, Oswald (1977b). ‘Studies in the kinship terminology of the IndoEuropean languages with special reference to Indian, Iranian, Greek, and Latin’, in Acta Iranica 16: Varia 1977. Leiden, Teheran, and Liège: Brill and Bibliothèque Pahlavi.


267

Thurneysen, Rudolf (1946). A Grammar of Old Irish (2nd edn., trans. D. A. Binchy and Osborn Bergin). Dublin: Institute of Advanced Studies. Van Windekens, Albert J. (1958). ‘6H “(die) junge Kuh, (die) Färse”’. Glotta 36: 309–311. Van Windekens, Albert J. (1960). ‘Spuren einer mittelmeerischen Stierkultur im griechischen Wortschatz’. Sprache 6: 211–219. Van Windekens, Albert J. (1984). ‘Encore lat. uxor et i.-e. *ukson-’. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung 97: 96–98. Vine, Brent (1998). Aeolic 4 and Deverbative *-etó- in Greek and IndoEuropean. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft. Weiss, Michael (1998). ‘Erotica: On the prehistory of Greek desire’. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 98: 31–61. West, Martin L. (1978). Hesiod: Works and Days. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Ulrich von (1889). Euripides: Herakles (2 vols.). Berlin: Weidmann. Willi, Andreas (2007). ‘Demeter, Gê, and the Indo-European word(s) for “earth”’. Historische Sprachforschung 120: 169–194. Willi, Andreas (2008). ‘Genitive problems: Mycenaean -Ca-o, -Co-jo, -Co vs. later Greek -¯ , -, -’. Glotta 84: 239–272.

University of Oxford Worcester College GB-O x f o r d OX1 2HB [email protected]

A n d r e a s Wi l l i

268

Michael Knüppel

I I . B E S P R E C H U N G S AU F S AT Z

Fragen zu den von V. M. Illicˇ-Svitycˇ nachgelassenen Materialien Es mag Gelehrte geben, die in der Zeit eines nur vergleichsweise kurzen Wirkens ein sehr umfangreiches Opus hervorbringen und publizieren, aber auch solche, die in ebenso kurzer Zeit ein beeindruckendes Werk schaffen, dessen Herausgabe ihnen verwehrt bleibt und durch andere besorgt werden muß. Beides zugleich kommt eher seltener vor und einem jeden von uns fallen hier sofort Ausnahmeerscheinungen wie M. A. Castrén (1813–1852),1 der gemessen an seinen wenigen Lebens- und Schaffensjahren ein gewaltiges Œuvre zu Papier gebracht und einerseits publiziert, andererseits aber auch – wenngleich zu einem größeren Teil – nachgelassen hat,2 ein. Ganz ähnlich scheint es sich im Falle des „Begründers“ der Nostratik, wie sie uns in Gestalt der „Moskauer Nostratischen Schule“ begegnet, Vladislav Markovicˇ Illicˇ-Svitycˇ (1934–1966), zu verhalten. Dieser hat in den wenigen Jahren seines wissenschaftlichen Wirkens die Publikation von mehr als ein Dutzend „kleineren“ Beiträgen (Illicˇ-Svitycˇ 1963a, 1964a, 1964b, 1964c, 1965a, 1965b, 1966a u. 1966b) und einer Monographie (1963b) sowie das Erscheinen einer umfangreicheren Arbeit (dem „Makedonsko-russkij slovar’“ – Tolovski/ Illicˇ-Svitycˇ 1963), an der er mitbeteiligt war, erleben dürfen. Ein Teil seiner Schriften erschien unmittelbar nach seinem Verscheiden und scheint noch zu seinen Lebzeiten eingereicht worden zu sein – zu nennen sind hier die Publikationen aus den Jahren 1967–1971 (Illicˇ-Svitycˇ 1967a, 1967b, 1968a, 1968b, 1968c, 1971a – also noch vor dem Erscheinen des ersten Bandes seines „Opyt sravnenija nostraticˇeskich jazykov“). Hinzu tritt weiterhin der zweibändige „Karpatskij dialektologicˇeskij atlas“, an dessen Entstehung Illicˇ-Svitycˇ ebenfalls mitgewirkt hat (Bernsˇtejn/ Illicˇ-Svitycˇ 1967a u. 1967b).

1

2

Zu Leben und Werk M. A. Castréns vgl. hier nur stellvertretend für die kaum überschaubare Literatur Aalto 1971: 83–88 u. Korhonen 1986: 50–66. Die Herausgabe des größten Teils seines wissenschaftlichen Erbes besorgte dann in den Jahren nach seinem Tode der Sibirist Franz Anton Schiefner.

Fragen zu den von V. M. Illicˇ-Svitycˇ nachgelassenen Materialien

269

In den dann folgenden Jahren erschien schließlich auch noch das erwähnte dreibändige „Vergleichende Wörterbuch der nostratischen Sprachen“ („Opyt sravnenija nostraticˇeskich jazykov“, 1971, 1976 und 1984). Womit im Falle des Werkes von Illicˇ-Svitycˇ die Sache ganz ähnlich gelagert zu sein scheint, wie dies bei Castrén der Fall war – mit dem Unterschied, daß Illicˇ-Svitycˇ mit nur 32 Jahren verstarb, während der große finnische Gelehrte (- der zudem auch etwas früher seine Forschertätigkeit begann3 -) im 39. Lebensjahr verschied. Die Herausgabe von Aufzeichnungen Illicˇ-Svitycˇs hatte damit allerdings noch lange keinen Abschluß gefunden. Bis heute tauchen immer wieder Materialien auf, die aus seiner Feder zu stammen scheinen – und selbst aus den unscheinbarsten Angaben, die sich in seinen Publikationen finden, werden neue Beiträge produziert – so etwa aus einer Wortliste, die sich in einer (übrigens auch posthum erschienenen) Vorarbeit Illicˇ-Svitycˇs (1967a) zu seinem „Opyt sravnenija nostraticˇeskich jazykov“ findet (Parkinson 1990). Gelegentlich wurden diese Schriften aus seinem Nachlaß auf diversen Symposien zur Proto-Sprachen-Forschung oder speziell zur Nostratik einem interessierten Publikum bekannt gemacht. Es findet kaum eine nostratische Tagung oder Konferenz statt, auf der nicht die besonderen Verdienste des Begründers dieser Forschungsrichtung gewürdigt werden und bisweilen werden bei solchen Anlässen dann auch noch Übersetzungen von Auszügen aus seinen Werken oder nachgelassene Materialien vorgestellt.4 Dies auch noch nahezu fünf Jahrzehnte nach seinem Verscheiden. Es hat bisweilen geradezu den Anschein als sollen den Veranstaltungen hierbei Segnungen oder höhere Weihen durch den Ordensgründer erteilt werden. Nun lassen aber genau diese quasi-religiösen Züge im Verbund mit einer weit verbreiteten Stagnation im Bereich der nostratischen Forschungen, wie sie etwa in der Nicht-Berücksichtigung der methodischen Fortschritte in der Indogermanistik der vergangenen Jahrzehnte zum Ausdruck kommt (die Methoden der wenigsten Nostratiker sind von jenen der 1960er Jahre – also der Zeit, in der Illicˇ-Svitycˇ wirkte – verschieden),

3

4

Castrén hatte sein Studium mit 23 Jahren abgeschlossen (und zu dieser Zeit bereits eine Arbeit zur finnischen Mythologie geschrieben) und unternahm in jenem Jahr seine erste Forschungsreise (nach Lappland und Karelien). So etwa die Übersetzung des Vorworts zu seinem „Opyt sravnenija nostraticˇeskich jazykov“ (Illicˇ-Svitycˇ 1989a) oder die dreier Einträge aus selbigem (IllicˇSvitycˇ 1989b).

270

Michael Knüppel

sowie einer Reihe von Begleitumständen (vgl. hierzu unten) – auch ohne den „Nachlaßverwaltern“ die Anfertigung von Materialien, die dann dem Begründer der Nostratik zugeschrieben werden, unterstellen zu wollen – die beklemmende Frage aufkommen, inwieweit IllicˇSvitycˇ denn der Urheber all dieser Materialien ist oder sein kann. Jenseits des bereits angesprochenen Umstandes, daß dieser in nur wenigen Jahren (1961/2–1966) ein mehr als 400 Seiten umfassendes Opus, das in den Jahren 1963–1971 herauskam, produziert hat, das „Makedonisch-russische Wörterbuch“ einen Umfang von 576 Seiten aufweist und der zweibändige „Atlas der Karpatendialekte“ einen solchen von 489 Seiten (incl. Karten), war er der Urheber des insgesamt 695 Seiten umfassenden „Vergleichenden Wörterbuchs der nostratischen Sprachen“.5 Vor diesem Hintergrund ist es natürlich schon erstaunlich, daß das Werk eines so produktiven Gelehrten – das inzwischen eine so ungewöhnliche „Rezeptionsgeschichte“ aufzuweisen hat6 – noch immer unpublizierte Materialien umfassen soll. Merkwürdiger als dies ist allerdings, daß trotz der fortgesetzten Publikation von Werken Illicˇ-Svitycˇs bis heute eine systematisch angelegte Übersicht über die von ihm nachgelassenen Schriften ebenso fehlt, wie verläßliche Angaben hinsichtlich des Umfanges oder der Beschaffenheit seines Nachlasses. Es finden sich allenfalls einige verstreute Hinweise auf diesen. So läßt V. V. Sˇevorosˇkin uns in der Einleitung zu einem der Tagungsbände des ersten internationalen, interdisziplinären Symposiums für Sprache und Vorgeschichte in Ann Arbor (8.–12. 11. 1988) wissen: „…, Dybo and Bulatova, who have been carrying out the publication of Illich-Svitych’s heritage (it is not yet fully published)“ (Shevoroshkin 1989: 15), in einem anderen verweist er im Zusammenhang mit einer angestrebten engl. Übersetzung auf die Überarbeitung des Vergleichenden Wörterbuchs: „…, whereas in Russia a work on rewriting of the dictionary, with inclusion of new material, elimination of obsolete data (…), etc., has been undertaken by Vladimir Orël and his colleagues“ (Shevoroshkin 1990: 12),7 in einer Anmerkung zur Übersetzung des Vorworts zu Illicˇ-Svi5 6 7

Bd. 1 (1971): XXXVI+369 pp., Bd. 2 (1976): 155 pp., Bd. 3 (1984): 135 pp. Zu den Übersetzungen von Auszügen und Bezugnahmen aus das Werk vgl. unten. Ergebnisse – zumindest aus der Feder V. E. Orëls – hat es, abgesehen von Stellungnahmen oder „Vorberichte“ keine gegeben und sind nun, nach dem Verscheiden des russ. Indogermanisten im Jahre 2007 auch nicht mehr zu erwarten.


271

tycˇs „Opyt sravnenija nostraticˇeskich jazykov“ findet sich die kryptisch anmutende Notiz: „This article is the introduction to Opyt sravneniia nostraticheskikh jazykov (semitokhamitskii, kartvel’skii, indoevropeiskii, ural’skii, dravidiiskii, altaiskii), 2 vols. and vol. 3, part 1 to date (Moscow: Nauka, 1971-), vol. 1, 3–5“ (Illich-Svitych 1989: 111; also noch weitere Teile zu erwarten?) und J. Parkinson läßt uns in seinem Beitrag erahnen, was da noch so auf uns zukommen könnte: „There are 607 Nostratic words in Illich-Svitych’s foundation article „Materials for a Comparative Dictionary of the Nostratic Languages“ (1967), but only 378 words have yet been published in the Nostratic Dictionary volumes (1971-), and only eight beginning with r to z (or ). The Nostratic words from both sources are here combined and alphabetically sequenced; unreconstructed words from „Materials“ are included, with only three important words from other sources. In all, there are 977 entries, which comprise about 690 independent words“ (Parkinson 1989: 122). Weitere Angaben finden sich im Vorwort der Herausgeber des dritten Bandes des „Vergleichenden Wörterbuchs der nostratischen Sprachen“.8 Die Aufstellung solcher Hinweise ließe sich natürlich nahezu beliebig fortsetzen. Zu einem eklatanten Mangel an Bestandsangaben zu den von IllicˇSvitycˇ nachgelassenen Materialien tritt hinzu, daß wir von allen Bestandteilen, die ein wissenschaftlicher Nachlaß gemeinhin aufweist und die dann bisweilen auch an die interessierte Öffentlichkeit gelangen – wie Briefwechsel oder andere Materialien, die die Person Illicˇ-Svitycˇs an Konturen gewinnen ließen, mit Glossen des Verblichenen versehene Arbeiten Anderer u.dgl. – bislang keine Kenntnis erlangt haben. Darüber hinaus ist auffällig, daß in den einschlägigen Publikationen auch keine hand- oder auch bloß mit Anmerkungen versehenen maschinenschriftlichen Aufzeichnungen (etwa als Faksimiles9) gegeben worden sind, wie überhaupt den Begründer der Nostratik eine Aura des NichtGreifbaren – ja des Rätselhaften – zu umgeben scheint.10 8 9

10

Illicˇ-Svitycˇ 1984: 3–11. Von einem Abdruck des Faksimiles von Illicˇ-Svitycˇs bekanntem „nostratischen Gedicht“ (erstmals in Illicˇ-Svitycˇ 1971b: unpaginiert [5]) in dem von V. V. Sˇevorosˇkin herausgegebenen Tagungsband „Nostratic, Dene-Caucasian, Austric and Amerind“ (Shevoroshkin 1992: 82) einmal abgesehen. Rühmliche Ausnahmen – zumindest im Hinblick auf die Behandlung der Person Illicˇ-Svitycˇs – bilden einige der biograph. Skizzen, die gelegentlich vorgelegt wurden. Hervorzuheben ist hier besonders die Darstellung bei Bulatova (1989).

272

Michael Knüppel

Auffällig ist auch, daß der dritte Band des „Vergleichenden Wörterbuchs der nostratischen Sprachen“ augenfällige Abweichungen von den beiden vorangegangenen Bänden sowohl im Hinblick auf die Ordnung der Lemmata als auch in sprachlicher Hinsicht aufweist. Dies ist gerade auch insofern problematisch, als das Wörterbuch posthum erschienenen ist, der dritte Band – vom erwähnten Vorwort abgesehen – keine Einleitung enthält und ohnehin nicht erkennbar ist, welche Teile auf Illicˇ-Svitycˇ zurückgehen und welche möglicherweise vom Herausgeber (V. A. Dybo) und/ oder anderen Vertretern des Umfeldes von Illicˇ-Svitycˇ „ergänzt“ wurden – was dann ja wiederum die Abweichungen der benutzten Sprache erklären dürfte (wenngleich der Herausgeber derselbe, wie im Falle der vorangegangenen Bände war). Selbst dem unvoreingenommensten Betrachter muß sich hier der vage Verdacht aufdrängen, daß mit dem Nachlaß des sowjetischen Linguisten „irgendetwas nicht stimmt“. Den „Nachlaßverwaltern“ ist daher dringend anzuraten, nicht nur den Jüngern Illicˇ-Svitycˇs, sondern auch seinen (und ihren Kritikern!) – schon in ihrem eigenen Interesse – endlich Klarheit über Umfang und Beschaffenheit dieses Nachlasses zu verschaffen, anstatt sich an diesem, wie an einem für jedermann zugänglichen Steinbruch, zu bedienen und zusammenhangslos von Zeit zu Zeit irgendwelche Materialien in Gestalt von Arbeiten, aus denen kaum mehr ersichtlich ist, welchen Anteil Illicˇ-Svitycˇ an diesen hatte, und welchen sie selbst daran haben, zu publizieren. Vielleicht könnte ja auch dies – wie allgemein die Wirkung der Forschungen Illicˇ-Svitycˇs (- ganz gleich wie man diesen gegenübersteht [der Vf. des vorliegenden kleinen Beitrages nimmt diesen gegenüber bekanntlich eine äußerst distanzierte Haltung ein, was nicht mit einer prinzipiellen Ablehnung nostratischer Forschungen verwechselt werden sollte] -) – einmal das Thema für eine Konferenz abgeben!

Literatur Aalto, Pentti, 1971. Oriental studies in Finland 1828–1918. Helsinki. Bernsˇtejn, S. B./ Illicˇ-Svitycˇ, Vladislav Markovicˇ, 1963. Karpatskij dialektologicˇeskij atlas. 2 Bde. Moskva 1967. Bulatova, Rimma V., 1989. Illicˇ-Svitycˇ. A biographical sketch. In: Reconstructing languages and cultures: abstracts and materials from the first international interdisciplinary symposium on language and prehistory, Ann Arbor, 8–12 November 1988. (BPX, 20). Bochum, 14–28.


273

Illicˇ-Svitycˇ, Vladislav Markovicˇ, 1963a. Altajskie dental’nye: t, d, . In: VJa 1963 (6), 37–56. –, Vladislav Markovicˇ, 1963b. Imennaja akcentuacija v baltijskom i slavjanskom: sud’ ba akcentuacionnych paradigm. Moskva [engl. Übers. 6 1979]. –, Vladislav Markovicˇ, 1964a. Drevnejsˇie indoevropejsko-semitskie jazikovye kontakty. In: Problemy indoevropejskogo jazykoznanija. Study po sravnitel’no istoricˇeskoj grammatike indoevropejskich jazykov. Red. V. N. Toporov. Moskva, 3–11. –, Vladislav Markovicˇ, 1964b. Genezis indoevropejskich rjadov guttural’nych v svete dannych vnesˇnego sravnenija. In: PSG, 22–26. –, Vladislav Markovicˇ, 1964c. Sledy iscˇeznuvsˇich baltijskich akcentuacionnych sistem. In: KSISl 41, 18–26. ˙ timologija. –, Vladislav Markovicˇ, 1965a. Altajskie guttural’nye: *kc, *k, *g. In: E Principy rekonstrukcii i metodika issledovanija. Red. O. N. Trubacˇev et al. 1964. Moskva, 338–343. ˙ timologija. Principy rekonstrukcii i –, Vladislav Markovicˇ, 1965b. Caucasica. In: E metodika issledovanija. Red. O. N. Trubacˇev et al. 1964. Moskva, 334–337. –, Vladislav Markovicˇ, 1966a. Iz istorii chadskogo konsonantizma: labijal’nye smycˇnye. In: Jazyki Afriki 1966, 9–34. –, Vladislav Markovicˇ, 1966b. K istolkovamju akcentuacionnych sootvetstvija v kel’lo-itahjskom i balto-slavskom kralkie. In: Soobsˇcˇenija instituta slavjanovedenija 35, 63–72. –, Vladislav Markovicˇ, 1967a. Materiały po sravnitel’nomu słovarju nostraticˇeskich jazykov (indojevropejskij ałtajskij, ural’skij, dravidskij, kartvel’skij, semi˙ timologija 1965, Moskva, 321–373. tochamitskij). In: E –, Vladislav Markovicˇ, 1967b. Rekonstrukcija ural’skogo vokalizma v svete dannych vnesˇnego sravnenija. Tezisy doklada. ,Voprosy finno-ugorskogo jazykoznanija’, Vysˇ. IV. Izˇevsk, 95–100. –, Vladislav Markovicˇ, 1968a. Sootvetstvija smycˇnych v nostraticˇeskich jazykach. ˙ timologija 1966 [Problemy lingvogeografii i mecˇ’jazykovych kontaktov]. In: E Moskva, 304–355. –, Vladislav Markovicˇ, 1968b. Korrekturnye primecˇanija k stat’e V. M. Illicˇ-Svi˙ timologija 1966 [Problemy lingvogeografii i mezˇ’jazykovych kontaktycˇa. In: E tov], 401–404. –, Vladislav Markovicˇ, 1968c. Opyt sravnenija nostraticˇeskich jazykov (semitochamitskij, kartvel’skij, indoevropejskij, ural’skij, dravidijskij, altajskij). In: Slavjanskoe jazykoznanie. VI. mezˇdunarodnyj s’ezd slavistov. Doklady sovetskoj delegacii, 407–426. –, Vladislav Markovicˇ, 1971a. Licˇnyje mestoimenija mi ’ja’ i mä ’my’ v nostraticˇeskom. In: Issledovanija po slavjanskomu jazykoznaniju, 936–403. –, Vladislav Markovicˇ, 1971b. Opyt sravnenija nostraticˇeskich jazykov (semitochamitskij, kartvel’skij, indoevropeiskij, ural’skij, dravidijskij, altajskij). 1: V vedenie. Sravnitel’nyj slovar’ (b-k) fl po kartotekam avtora (otvectvennyj redaktor: V. A. Dybo. AN SSSR, Inst. Słavistiki i bałkanistiki). Moskva. –, Vladislav Markovicˇ, 1976. Opyt sravnenija nostraticˇeskich jazykov: (semitochamitskij, kartvel’skij indoevropejskij, ural’skij, dravidijskij, altajskij). [Otv. red. V. A. Dybo]. 2: Sravnitel’nyj slovar’: l-©´. Moskva.

274

Michael Knüppel

–, Vladislav Markovicˇ, 1979. Nominal accentuation in Baltic and Slavic (Imennaja akcentuacija v baltijskom i slavjanskom [1963]). V. M. Illich-Svitych. Transl. by Richard L. Leed and Ronald F. Feldstein. Cambridge Mass. –, Vladislav Markovicˇ, 1984. Opyt sravnenija nostraticˇeskich jazykov: (semitochamitskij, kartvel’skij, indoevropejskij, ural’skij, dravidijskij, altajskij). [Otv. red. V. A. Dybo]. 3: Sravnitel’nyj slovar’: (p-q). Moskva. –, Vladislav Markovicˇ, 1989a. The relationship of the nostratic family languages: a probabilistic evaluation of the similarities in question. In: Explorations in language macrofamilies. Materials from the first international interdisciplinary symposium on language and prehistory, Ann Arbor 1988. Bochum (BPX, 20), 111–113. –, Vladislav Markovicˇ, 1989b. Three entries from the Nostratic dictionary. In: Explorations in language macrofamilies. Materials from the first international interdisciplinary symposium on language and prehistory, Ann Arbor 1988. Bochum (BPX, 20), 122–127. Korhonen, Mikko, 1986. Finno-Ugrian Language Studies in Finland 1828–1918. Helsinki. Parkinson, Jim, 1990. A Nostratic word list: reconstructions by Illich-Svitych. In: Explorations in language macrofamilies. Materials from the first International Interdisciplinary Symposium on Language and Prehistory, Ann Arbor, 8–12 November, 1988. Bochum (BPX, 23), 128–162. Shevoroshkin, Vitaly, 1989. Introductory remarks. In: Explorations in language macrofamilies. Materials from the first International Interdisciplinary Symposium on Language and Prehistory, Ann Arbor, 8–12 November, 1988. Bochum (BPX, 23), 4–15. Shevoroshkin, Vitaly. 1990. Introduction. In: Proto-languages and proto-cultures. Materials from the first International Interdisciplinary Symposium on Language and Prehistory, Ann Arbor, 8–12 November, 1988. Bochum (BPX, 25), 8–12 Shevoroshkin, Vitaly (Hrsg.), 1992. Nostratic, Dene-Caucasian, Austric and Amerind. Materials from the first International Interdisciplinary Symposium on Language and Prehistory, Ann Arbor, 8–12 November, 1988. Bochum (BPX, 33). Tolovski, Dime/ Illicˇ-Svitycˇ, Vladislav Markovicˇ, 1963. Makedonsko-russkij slovar’: 30 000 slov. Sost. Dime Tolovski i V. M. Illicˇ-Svitycˇ. Pod red. Nikita I. Tolstogo. S pril. kratkogo grammaticˇeskogo spravocˇnika, sost. V. M. Illicˇ-Svitycˇem. Moskva.

Universität Göttingen Seminar für Turkologie und Zentralasienkunde Waldweg 26 37073 G ö t t i n g e n [email protected]

Michael Knüppel


275

Druckfehlerkorrektur aus IF. 114

S. 150, Beispiel (16) S. 156, Beispiel (28)

IF. 114 ( μ 7 $% .

Korrektur ( μ i 7i $% .

276

Indogermanische Forschungen, 113. Band, 339–340 © Walter de Gruyter 2008 ISSN 0019-7262

DOI 10.1515/IDGF.2008.017

277

Zur formalen Gestaltung von IF.-Manuskripten Die Schriftleitung der IF. bittet um die Berücksichtigung einiger Formalien bei der Gestaltung der Manuskripte: 1. Das Manuskript sollte auf beiden Seiten einen ausreichenden Rand (mindestens 3,5 cm) aufweisen. Es sollte ferner ein eineinhalbfacher (bei Schreibmaschinenmanuskripten besser: zweifacher) Zeilenabstand gewählt werden. 2. Auszeichnungen der Schriftarten (sofern sie nicht in der Textverarbeitung verfügbar sind) sollten folgendermaßen vorgenommen werden: doppelte Unterstreichung = fett; Wellenlinie = kursiv; unterbrochene einfache Unterstreichung = gesperrt. 3. Für die Verwendung der unter 2. genannten Schriftarten gelten folgende Richtlinien, die besonders beachtet werden sollten: Kursivdruck wird nur für Beispiele verwendet (z. B.: lat. fenestra ‚Fenster‘). Eine Ausnahme bilden griechisch geschriebene Beispiele, die stets nicht kursiv erscheinen. Andere Alphabete (z. B. kyrillisch, hebräisch usw.) müssen wissenschaftlich transliteriert werden und erscheinen wiederum kursiv. In der Bibliographie ist dagegen Kursivsetzung zu vermeiden. Titel von Aufsätzen, Büchern, Sammelbänden oder Zeitschriften erscheinen niemals kursiv. Ebenso ist es nicht zulässig, die Namen der Verfasser durch Kapitälchen hervorzuheben. Jegliche Sperrung ist ebenfalls nach Möglichkeit zu vermeiden. Fettdruck im Text ist nur dann zulässig, wenn die Konventionen der Einzeldisziplin dies erfordern: z. B. bei oskischen Beispielen. 4. Die Herausgeber der IF. folgen einer Tradition der Zeitschrift, indem sie auf die konsequente Setzung von Abkürzungspunkten bestehen. Dies gilt sowohl für die Abkürzung von Sprachen (z. B. mhd., ai., OE., OIr. usw.) als auch für abgekürzte Zeitschriftentitel (z. B. PBB., IF. usw.). Wir bitten, diese Konvention zu beachten – auch wenn die Setzung von Abkürzungspunkten v. a. im englischsprachigen Raum immer mehr zurückgeht. 5. Bibliographische Angaben: Es wird dringend empfohlen, eine gesonderte Bibliographie (die mindestens die im Aufsatz erwähnte Literatur enthalten sollte) am Ende des Aufsatzes anzufügen. Im Text wird dann in der Regel in der folgenden Kurzform zitiert: „Schon Boley (1993: 200 f.) weist hierauf hin.“ Nur in besonderen Fällen (z. B. bei sehr wenigen zitierten Titeln [max. ca. 5], die nur jeweils einmal auftauchen) können die bibliographischen Angaben statt dessen in den Fußnoten erscheinen. Bei der Gestaltung der Bibliographie ist v. a. zu beachten, daß keine Kursivauszeichnung für Aufsatz-, Buch-, Sammelband- oder Zeitschriftentitel verwendet wird und daß die Verfassernamen keinesfalls in Kapitälchen hervor-

278

Zur formalen Gestaltung von IF.-Manuskripten

gehoben sein dürfen. Auch sollten Abkürzungen jeder Art (also auch die Abkürzungen von Zeitschriften, wie z. B. B. IF., PBB., KZ., IBS. usw.) grundsätzlich einen Abkürzungspunkt aufweisen. Bei der Anordnung der Informationseinheiten werden dagegen den Autoren keine strengen Vorschriften gemacht, so daß hier nur einige mögliche Anordnungen beispielhaft vorgeschlagen werden: Boley, Jacqueline, 1993, The Hittite Particle -z/-za. (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft, 79). Innsbruck. Ebenso zulässig ist aber auch: Boley, Jacqueline. The Hittite Particle -z/-za. Innsbruck 1993. (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft, Bd. 79). Aufsätze könnten z. B. nach folgendem Muster zitiert werden: Fischer, O., 1991, The Rise of the Passive Infinitive in English. In: Kastovsky, D., 1991, Historical English Syntax. Proceedings of the Kellner-Festival, Held in 1988 at Schloß Liechtenstein. (Topics in English Linguistics, 2). Berlin, New York, 141–188. 6. Abbildungen: Beigefügte Abbildungen müssen eine so gute Qualität aufweisen, daß sie direkt für den Druck übernommen werden können. Insbesondere ist darauf zu achten, daß die verwendeten Schrifttypen denen der IF. in etwa entsprechen (v. a. sind Schreibmaschinenschriften zu vermeiden). Die Größe der Abbildungen sollte den Seitenspiegel der Zeitschrift berücksichtigen: es kann sinnvoll sein, eine Abbildung in größerem Format einzureichen – die Elemente müssen dann aber so gestaltet sein, daß bei einer Verkleinerung eine gute Erkennbarkeit gewährleistet ist. 7. Bitte geben Sie unter dem Beitrag Ihre vollständige Adresse an. An diese Adresse werden Ihnen u. a. die Korrekturfahnen übersandt, so daß eine Erreichbarkeit gewährleistet sein sollte. 8. Falls der Text Ihres Beitrages in computerlesbarer Form vorliegt, übersenden Sie bitte zusammen mit Ihrem Manuskript eine Diskette mit dem gespeicherten Text und vermerken Sie auf dem Diskettenaufkleber neben dem Titel des Beitrages und dem Verfassernamen auch, mit welchem Programm und unter welchem Betriebssystem der Text verfaßt wurde. Fügen Sie bitte, falls es Ihre Textverarbeitung zuläßt, zusätzlich auch eine Version im RTF-Format bei. 9. Alle für die Indogermanischen Forschungen bestimmten Aufsätze und kleineren Beiträge senden Sie bitte an Apl. Prof. Dr. Eckhard Eggers, Nikolausberger Weg 63, D-37073 Göttingen, bzw. als .pdf-File per E-Mail an: [email protected] Die Herausgeber

Wo l f g a n g P. S c h m i d Eckhard Eggers

Indogermanische Forschungen: Zeitschrift fuer Indogermanistik und allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Band 115

Indogermanische Forschungen

Rhetorik und Film Rhetorik-Forschungen, Band 26

Mathematik fuer Ingenieure und Naturwissenschaftler, Band 1

Allgemeine und molekulare Botanik

Lebendiges Verfassungsrecht (Forschungen aus Staat und Recht - Band 156)

Übungsbuch Allgemeine und Anorganische Chemie

Mathematik fuer Informatiker: Band 2: Analysis und Statistik

Mathematik fuer Informatiker: Band 1: Diskrete Mathematik und Lineare Algebra

D'Ans-Lax Taschenbuch fuer Chemiker und Physiker, Band 3

Allgemeine Relativitätstheorie und relativistische Astrophysik

Mathematik fuer Ingenieure und Naturwissenschaftler

Perlen und Diamanten fuer dich

Numerik fuer Ingenieure und Naturwissenschaftler

PC fuer Anfaenger und DAUґs

Ratgeber fuer Betroffene und Angehoerige

Mathematik fuer Ingenieure und Naturwissenschaftler

Mathematik fuer Ingenieure und Naturwissenschaftler

Indogermanische Grammatik-Formenlehre

2002 (115)

ROBE~115

Ausgliederung und öffentlicher Dienst (Forschungen aus Staat und Recht - Band 149)

Allgemeine Naturgeschichte

Allgemeine Psychologie für Bachelor: Wahrnehmung und Aufmerksamkeit

Kinderchirurgie: Viszerale und allgemeine Chirurgie des Kindesalters

Allgemeine Relativitaetstheorie

Der indogermanische Akzent

Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken: BD 87 (Quellen Und Forschungen aus Italienischen Archiven Und Bibli)

Feuer und Flamme fuer diesen Mann

Physik Formelsammlung fuer Ingenieure und Naturwissenschaftler

Allgemeine Erkenntnislehre: Abteilung I Band 1 (Moritz Schlick. Gesamtausgabe)

Indogermanische Forschungen: Zeitschrift fuer Indogermanistik und allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Band 115