Studies in Germanic, Indo-European and Indo-Uralic

Frederik Kortlandt

Studies in Germani c, Indo-Eu ropean and Indo-U ralic

Studies in Germanic, Indo-European and Indo-Uralic

LE!DENSTUDIESININDO-EUROPEAN

Series edited by

R. S.P. Beekes A. Lubotsky J.J.S. Weitenberg

17

Studies in Germanic, Indo-European and Indo-Uralic

Frederik Kortlandt

Amsterdam- New York, NY 2010

The paper on which this book is printed meets the requirements of"ISO 9706: 1994, Information and documentation- Paper for documentsRequirements for permanence" ISBN: 978-90-420-3135-7 E-Book ISBN: 978-90-420-3136-4 ©Editions Rodopi B.V., Amsterdam- New York, NY 2010 Printed in The Netherlands

To the memoryofDirk Boutkan (1964-2002)

CONTENTS

PREFACE •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• xi INTRODUCTION

The spread of the Indo-Europeans ............................................................................. 1 General linguistics and Indo-European reconstruction ......................................... 7 On Russenorsk ............................................................................................................ 21 The origin of the Goths ............................................................................................. 27 C.C. Uhlenbeck on Indo-European, Uralic and Caucasian ................................... 31 An outline of Proto-Indo-European ........................................................................ 37 Schleicher's fable ........................................................................................................ 47 INDO-EUROPEAN PHONOLOGY

*H.o and *oH•.............................................................................................................. 51 Proto- Indo-European glottalic stops: The comparative evidence ........................ 53 Proto-Indo-European tones? .................................................................................... 67 An Indo-European substratum in Slavic? ................................................................ 73 INDO-EUROPEAN MORPHOSYNTAX

1st sg. middle *-H•....................................................................................................... 81 Proto-Indo-European verbal syntax ......................................................................... 91 GREEK

Greek numerals and Proto- Indo-European glottalic consonants ....................... 10 5 The Aeolic optative .................................................................................................... n1 The Greek 3rd pl endings ........................................................................................ 117 INDO- IRANIAN

Glottalic consonants in Sindhi and Proto- Indo-European ................................. 121 Archaic ablaut patterns in the Vedic verb .............................................................. 125 Accent and ablaut in the Vedic verb ........................................................................131 The origin of the Indo-Iranian desiderative .......................................................... 139

viii

Contents

TOCHARIAN

On the development of Proto-Indo-European fmal syllables in Tocharian ...... 143 The Tocharian word for 'woman' ............................................................................149 The fate of the sigmatic aorist in To char ian ........................................................... 151 A note on the Tocharian dual .................................................................................. 155 The To char ian imperfect ......................................................................................... 159 GERMANIC PHONOLOGY

Vestjysk st0d, Icelandic preaspiration, and PIE glottalic stops ........................... 165 Proto-Germanic obstruents ....................................................................................169 Kluge's law and the rise of Proto-Germanic geminates ........................................ 175 Labials, velars and labiovelars in Germanic .......................................................... 179 Preaspiration or preglottalization? ......................................................................... 185 Germanic *e, and *e•.................................................................................................189 Proto-Germanic obstruents and the comparative method ................................. 193 English bottom, German Boden, and the chronology of sound shifts ................ 197 GERMANIC VERB CLASSES

The Germanic first class of weak verbs .................................................................. 201 The Germanic third class of weak verbs ............................................................... 20 5 The Germanic seventh class of strong verbs ........................................................ 209 The Germanic fifth class of strong verbs ............................................................... 211 The Germanic sixth class of strong verbs .............................................................. 215 The Germanic fourth class of weak verbs .............................................................. 219 Old Norse taka, Gothic tekan, Greek rera:ywv...................................................... 221 GERMANIC VERBAL INFLEXION

The Germanic weak preterit ................................................................................... 227 The Proto-Germanic pluperfect ............................................................................. 235 GERMANIC NOMINAL INFLEXION

The inflexion of the Indo-European a- stems in Germanic ................................ 239 The inflexion of the Germanic n-stems ................................................................. 343 GERMAN

Old High German umlaut ...................................................................................... 2.47 The High German consonant shift. ....................................................................... 2.49 The origin of the Franconian tone accents ............................................................ 255

Contents

ix

ENGLISH

The origin of the 0 ld English dialects ...................................................................259 How old is the English glottal stop? ...................................................................... 265 The origin of the Old English dialects revisited................................................... 26 9 Anglo- Frisian ............................................................................................................ 275 SCANDINAVIAN

The Old Norse i-umlaut. .......................................................................................... 285 On breaking.............................................................................................................. 289 Glottalization, preaspiration and gemination in English and Scandinavian .... 293 Early Runic consonants and the origin of the younger fu thark ......................... 29 9 Bjorketorp and Stentoften ....................................................................................... 305 The origin of the vestjysk s1:0d ................................................................................ 313 Vestjysk st0d again ................................................................................................... 317 ALBANIAN

Proto-Indo-European *sin Albanian ..................................................................... 319 Proto-Indo-European *j in Albanian ..................................................................... 325 Reflexes oflndo-European consonants in Albanian ........................................... 329 ARMENIAN

Armenian ewl 'oif ..................................................................................................... 333 BALTO-SLAVIC

The Baltic word for 'in' ............................................................................................. 335 Alfs well that ends wel1 ............................................................................................ 337 Balto-Slavic accentuation revisited ......................................................................... 341 Lithuanian zinoti 'to know' ...................................................................................... 359 ITALO-CELTIC

More on the chronology of Celtic sound changes ................................................ 361 ANATOLIAN

Initiallaryngeals in Anatolian ................................................................................. 365 Hittite ammuk 'me' .................................................................................................. 369 Hittite hi-verbs and the Indo-European perfect ................................................... 373 Stative and middle in Hittite and Indo-European ................................................ 383

X

Contents

INDO- URALIC

Eight Indo- Uralic verbs? .......................................................................................... 387 The Indo- Uralic verb ............................................................................................... 391 Nivkh as a Uralo-Siberian language ...................................................................... 405 Indo- Uralic consonant gradation .......................................................................... 40 9 Indo-Uralic and Altaic ............................................................................................. 415 Indo- Uralic and Altaic revisited .............................................................................419 APPENDIX

A parasitological view of non-constructible sets ................................................. 429 The origin and nature of the linguistic parasite .................................................... 435 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 439 INDEX ......................................................................................................................... 493

PREFACE

This book contains most of what I have written about Germanic, IndoEuropean and Indo-Uralic. It is complementary to the earlier volumes on Armenian (K194), Celtic (K239) and Baltic (K263, see the references under Kortlandt). Together they represent the bulk of my scholarly output with the exception of studies on Slavic and general linguistics. The red thread which runs through my work is a quest for relative chronology of linguistic developments. A methodological advantage of this approach is that it offers the possibility of considering the compatibility of different solutions before assessing their correctness, which enhances the motivation to integrate different views. Moreover, the probability of a reconstruction can be judged against the background of the transitions which it implies for the linguistic system as a whole. This is of special importance when the gap between the results of internal reconstruction and the comparative evidence is huge, as it is in the case of Slavic accentuation or Indo- Uralic. Another point which I would like to emphasize here is that my reconstructions are always bottom-up, never top-down. Thus, my reconstruction of preglottalized stops in Proto-Germanic is based on preglottalization in English and Danish, preaspiration in Scandinavian, affrication in High German, and various types of gemination in all West and North Germanic languages. It is independent of any reconstruction of IndoEuropean. Similarly, my reconstruction of glottalic stops in Proto-IndoEuropean is based on glottalization in Indo-Iranian, Armenian, Balto-Slavic and Germanic and indirect evidence from Greek and Latin, not on typological or other general considerations. The same holds for my reconstruction of morphological systems in their chronological perspective. The method of "forward reconstruction" may be useful as a heuristic device but can easily put one on the wrong track and lead to circular reasoning. It follows that the chapters on Germanic can be read without reference to the Indo-European background and that the Indo- Uralic part of the book can be left out of consideration if one does not want to look beyond Proto-Indo-European. The initial chapters of the book may serve as an introduction to the background and methodology of my reconstructions. One point which deserves special attention is the necessity to limit the number of possibilities. It is easy to posit a distinction between palatovelars, plain velars and labiovelars for ProtoIndo-European. However, such a reconstruction does not explain why the plain velars are largely in complementary distribution with the other series (cf. Meillet 1894> Steensland 1973), nor why we fmd many dozens of examples of alternation

xii

Preface

between different series (e.g. Cekman 1974). These distributional properties of the system are explained by a reductionist approach. Similarly, it is easy to posit five short and five long vowels in the proto-language to cover any possible correspondence between the daughter languages. However, this way of reconstructing yields an enormous amount of complementary distribution in combination with the Indo-European laryngeals. If one takes the laryngeal theory seriously, it follows that *i and *u were resonants with vocalic and consonantal variants on a par with *r, *l, *n, *m, that the colored variants of *e before and after the laryngeals were distinct from later *a and earlier *o, and that the Proto-Indo-European long vowels originated as phonetic variants of short *e and *o (cf. Wackemagel 1896: 66-68). In a similar vein, it is pointless to reconstruct a large number of grammatical categories for the proto-language without considering the lack of evidence for the implied possibilities in the daughter languages. A fmal note on the transcription: following Oettinger (1979) I write h forb but s, not s in Hittite. For the Proto-Indo-European laryngeals I avoid the symbol *h, which suggests the wrong phonetics. In my earlier work I used to write *H, *H., *H3; I now prefer *l, "5, ?, which represent the most probable phonetic realization (at least for the non-Anatolian branch of Indo-European), or *q,, *q., *q3, which suggest any back articulation from post-velar to laryngeal In view of the different contexts, I have decided against a uniform transcription for all chapters. From a structural point of view, one might expect a larger number oflaryngeals on the basis of the number of velar obstruents, but there is no comparative evidence to support their reconstruction. For Old Norse I have most often followed Heusler's spelling (1967). In the course of the past decades I have profited much from scholarly discussions with Robert Beekes, Camelis Ruijgh, Alexander Lubotsky, Jorundur Hilmarsson, Dirk Boutkan, Rick Derksen, Leonid Kulikov, Michiel de Vaan, Martine Robbeets, Alwin Kloekhorst, Tijmen Prank. Guus Kroonen, Michael Peyrot, Lucien van Beek and other colleagues at various stages of my work. It goes without saying that they cannot be held responsible for any mistakes in the following pages. Leiden, April 1st, 2010

THE SPRJlAD OF THE INDO-EUROPEANS

The publication of Mallory's book (1989) has rendered much of what I had to say in the present contribution superfluous. The author presents a carefully argued and very well written account of a balanced view on almost every aspect of the problem. Against this background, I shall limit myself to a few points which have not received sufficient attention in the discussion. First of all, the relation between archaeology and linguistics is a precarious and asymmetrical one (cf. already Schmitt 1974). Mallory's lucid discussion of the problem (1989: 164-168) should be required reading for anybody who ventures into this realm of shadows. It is a methodologically legitimate activity to look for archaeological traces of a linguistic group, but the converse does not hold. Speculations about the linguistic affmity of a prehistoric culture are futile because it is reasonable to assume that the vast majority of prehistoric linguistic groups have vanished without leaving a trace. Thus, it is certainly attractive to assign the ancestors of the speakers of Proto-Tocharian to the Manasievo culture (cf. Mallory 1989: 62 and 225), but we must never forget that the very existence of the Tocharian texts which have survived is a purely accidental fact of history, due to a number of factors which happened to concur thousands of years after the eastward migrations of the Indo-Europeans. It is not merely possible, but very probable that many groups of Indo-Europeans migrated eastward before the ancestors of the Indo- Iranians, and that the distinguishing feature of the Tocharians is merely the preservation of their historical records. If the differences between East and West Tocharian lead us to date ProtoTocharian to the second half of the first millennium BC, this still leaves a gap of two or three millennia after the purported arrival of the Indo-Europeans in the area. Many things may have happened in the meantime. The real argument for an early eastward migration of the ancestors of the Tocharians is the remarkably archaic character of the attested languages (see Penney 1989 for a point of particular importance). It has often been argued that Tocharian has special connections with the western Indo-European languages. In my view, this is the result of a methodological bias in our way of reconstructing Proto-Indo-European. As Mayrhofer has noted (1983), the history of reconstruction can be described as a gradual shift away from the languages on which the reconstruction is primarily based. The similarities which link Tocharian to the western Indo-European languages reflect precious archaisms which were obscured by more recent developments affecting the dialectal area from which Greek and Indo- Iranian were to evolve. The bias is strengthened by the presence of later parallel innovations in the latter two

2.

Introduction

branches, e.g. in the development of the middle voice (cf. Ko44: 130 and K239: 151-157). Similarly, Mallory's inconclusiveness about the westward Indo-European migrations (1989: 257) appears to result from a search for archaeological evidence beyond what can be motivated from a linguistic point of view. If we follow the traditional opinion and assign the ancestors of the speakers of Celtic and Germanic to the La 'Thne and Jastorf cultures, respectively, this again leaves us with a gap of two millennia after the Corded Ware horizon to which the ancestors of the western Indo-Europeans may have belonged. Here again, we can be sure that a lot of things happened in the meantime, and it is most probable that many linguistic groups were irretrievably lost This leads me to the second point I want to make. There seems to be a general tendency to date proto-languages farther back in time than is warranted by the linguistic evidence. When we reconstruct Proto- Romance, we arrive at a linguistic stage which is approximately two centuries later than the language of Caesar and Cicero (cf. Agard 1984: 47-60 for the phonological differences). When we start from the extralinguistic evidence and identify the origins of Romance with the beginnings of Rome, we arrive at the eighth century BC, which is almost a millennium too early. The point is that we must identify the formation of Romance with the imperfect learning of Latin by a large number of people during the expansion of the Roman empire. Similarly, we may identify the formative period of Proto-Indo- European with the earliest expansions of the Indo-Europeans. The issue involved here is partly terminological. Elsewhere I have presented a relative chronology of 2.2. stages for the phonological developments which characterize the formation of Old Irish (K035; K239: 6-17 and 14of.). All of these developments are posterior to the Ogam inscriptions, which lack the characteristic features of the Old Irish language. If we use the term "Primitive Irish" for the period before the apocope (my stage 15) and the term "Archaic Irish" for the period between the apocope and the syncope (my stage 19), we may wonder about the applicability of the term "Irish" to the Ogam inscriptions; it may be more appropriate to speak of the variety of Insular Celtic spoken by the ancestors of the Irish. In any case, no reconstruction of Proto- Irish on the basis of Old Irish and later materials comes close to anything resembling the language of the Ogam inscriptions. Since the latter can hardly be older than the beginning of the Christian era and the syncope may be dated to the sixth century, it will be clear that I have little confidence in a theory which relegates Proto-Indo-European to the fifth or sixth millennium BC. The radical changes which embody the formation of Irish in the first half of the first millennium AD are probably due to imperfect learning by speakers of an unknown substrate language which was lost forever.

The spread of the Indo-Europeans

3

Perhaps the best example of a disintegrating proto-language is furnished by the Slavic materiaL Apart from the rise of x, all the major developments which differentiate Slavic from its Baltic prototype are usually dated to the first millennium AD (e.g. Shevelov 1964, Ko58). The earliest dialectal divergences within Slavic which have survived into historical times can hardly be older than the fourth century, and the last shared innovations of the entire group, such as the rise of the neo-acute tone, may be dated to the ninth century. The modem dialectal situation is essentially the same as it was in the twelfth century. When we reconstruct Proto-Slavic, the result can largely be identified with the language of the ninth century, apart from the dialectal differentiation which started half a millennium earlier, apparently in connection with the earliest expansion of the Slavic territory. It is reasonable to assume that many dialects arose and disappeared at earlier stages, but it is not obvious that the term "Slavic" is appropriate before the expansions of the frrst millennium AD. This brings me to the third point I want to make here. If a proto-language can be dated to the period of its expansion, the mechanism of this process must be examined in detaiL It comprises two phases, each of which has its own dynamics. First, a number of people have to move from their original homeland to a new territory. Second, a larger number of people must find it expedient to adopt the language of the intruders. Both developments are determined by specific social and economic circumstances. Population movements are determined by three factors. Firstly, there must be a reason to leave one's homeland. This factor has rightly been stressed by Anthony, who observes that people living along the boundary between the poorer lowland steppe and the richer upland forest "risked periodic exposure to severe stress, for small variations in precipitation, temperature, population density, or deforestation rate would dramatically alter the local distribution of critical resources in these fragile borderland communities" (1986: 292). This periodic exposure to severe stress prompted expansion when the opportunity presented itself. Secondly, there must be a place where life seems to be better in order to make the journey worth while. This is a reason to expect migrations toward rather than away from more developed areas such as Assyria in the third and second millennia BC. Thirdly, the cost of the journey must not be prohibitive. It is now generally recognized that the domestication of the horse played a crucial part in reducing the cost of physical mobility. The expansion of Indo-European presupposes not only the migrations of Indo-Europeans, but also the adoption of Indo-European languages by local populations. With respect to this issue Mallory refers to Barth's work (1981) in a discussion which is really too short The complexity of the problem is illustrated by the following passage, which I cannot refrain from quoting at some length (Mallory 1989: 26of.):

4

Introduction

"Barth examined the linguistic relations between the Pathans and Baluchi on the Afghan- Pakistan border. The Pathans were the more numerous, the wealthier, better armed, and even possessed a better military reputation. Nevertheless, it is the Baluchi who have been making the sustained linguistic assimilation of the Pathans. The Baluchi social structure is hierarchic and encourages vertical relationships between local leaders and clients. The various bands offer opportunities for social advancement within these hierarchies, and displaced Pathans in a frontier situation are attracted individually and in groups to join Baluchi communities. On the other hand, the more egalitarian society of the Pathans was ill-suited to absorb foreigners who could only enter it either in roles despised by the Pathans or by undertaking a more complicated process to being admitted as an equal in Pathan society. The nub of the issue here is not weapons, wealth or population size but the social permeability of the competing social organizations. As numerous historical instances testify, pastoral societies throughout the Eurasian steppe are typified by remarkable abilities to absorb disparate ethno-linguistic groups. Indo-European military institutions may have encouraged membership from local groups in the form of clientship which offered local populations greater advantages and social mobility." This must have been the decisive force in the spread of the Indo-European languages. Starting from the linguistic evidence and trying to fit the pieces into a coherent whole, we arrive at the following picture. The best candidate for the original Indo-European homeland is the territory of the Sredny Stog culture in the eastern Ukraine. The attested languages reflect a number of waves of migration to the east, north of the Caspian Sea (Tocharian, Indo-Iranian), to the south, west of the Black Sea (Anatolian, Greek, Armenian, Albanian), and to the west, south of the Baltic Sea (Italo-Celtic, Germanic). As Mallory notes, there may have been a fourth, abortive wave of migration to the southeast, west of the Caspian Sea, which is not reflected in the linguistic records, perhaps because the Indo-Europeans were assimilated to the local population at an early stage. The earlier migrations yielded the peripheral languages (Tocharian, Anatolian, ItaloCeltic), which did not take part in the late Indo-European innovations of the central dialects (Indo-Iranian, Greek, Germanic, Balta-Slavic, etc.). Some innovations affected only a part of the central dialects, such as the assibilation of the palatovelars (which did not reach Greek and Germanic). Other developments had a more local character. An interconsonantallaryngeal voiced the following stop in North Iranian (Avestan, Sogdian) dugdar- 'daughter, but not in its Persian and Indic cognates. This must have been a very early development It appears that Phrygian was rather closely related to Greek (cf. Lubotsky 1988b), Thracian to Armenian (cf. Ktm), and Venetie to Italic. The position of Illyrian remains unclear.

The spread of the Indo-Europeans

5

The Indo- Europeans who remained after the migrations became speakers of Balta-Slavic. If the speakers of the other satem languages can be assigned to the Yamnaya horizon and the western Indo-Europeans to the Corded Ware horizon, it is attractive to assign the ancestors of the Balts and the Slavs to the Middle Dnieper culture. If the origin of this culture "is to be sought in the Sredny Stog, Yamnaya and Late Tripolye cultures" and this phase is "followed by a middle period where the classic Corded Ware amphorae and beakers appear" (Mallory 1989: 2.48), the course of events corresponds nicely with the development of a satem language which was drawn into the western Indo-European sphere of influence. The disintegration of Balta-Slavic is closely parallel to that of IndoEuropean: the Slavs migrated to the west, the south, and the east, the Latvians to the north, and the Prussians were assimilated to the Germans. The deceptively archaic character of the Lithuanian language may be compared to the calm eye of a cyclone. The resulting picture can be summarized as follows. Eastward migrations: 1 Tocharian 2.a Indic 2.b South Iranian 2.C North Iranian (3 East Slavic) Southward migrations: 1 Anatolian 2.a Greek 2.b Phrygian 2.C Armenian 2.d Thracian 2.e Daco-Albanian (3 South Slavic) Westward migrations: 1a Italic 1b Venetie 1c Celtic 2. Germanic (3 West Slavic) Once again it must be emphasized that many linguistic groups may have vanished without leaving any historical record. We must now examine how the view developed here can be related to Gimbutas' theory of two homelands and three waves of migration into the Balkans. The main objection which can be raised against Gimbutas' scheme (e.g.

6

Introduction

1985: 198) is that it starts from the archaeological evidence and looks for a linguistic interpretation. As a consequence, the scheme does not fit the linguistic evidence very well. It seems to me that we arrive at a much better representation if we start from the linguistic side and try to fmd an archaeological corroboration. The natural solution then is to link Gimbutas' first wave (4400-4200 BC) to the ancestors of the Anatolians, her second wave (3400-3200 BC) to the ancestors of the Greeks and the Phrygians, and her third wave (3ooo-28oo BC) to the ancestors of the Armenians and the Thracians. If this identification is correct, the satemization process can be dated to the last centuries of the fourth millennium. It is possible that the speakers of Italo-Celtic must be assigned to the Globular Amphora culture, and that Germanic grew out of a later component of the Corded Ware horizon. Since the beginnings of the Yamnaya, Globular Amphora, Corded Ware, and Manasievo cultures can all be dated between 36oo and 3000 BC, I am inclined to date Proto- Indo-European to the middle of the fourth millennium, and to recognize Proto-Indo- Hittite as a language which may have been spoken a millennium earlier. If we can identify Indo-Hittite and Indo-European with the beginning and the end of the Sredny Stog culture, respectively, it will be clear that the linguistic evidence from our family does not lead us beyond Gimbutas' secondary homeland and that the Khvalynsk culture on the middle Volga and the Maykop culture in the northern Caucasus cannot be identified with the Indo-Europeans. Any proposal which goes beyond the Sredny Stog culture must start from the possible affmities of Indo-European with other language families. It is usually recognized that the best candidate in this respect is the Uralic language family, while further connections with the Altaic languages and perhaps even Dravidian are possible. The hypothesis that Indo-European is genetically related to a Caucasian language family or to Afro-Asiatic seems much less probable to me. What we do have to take into account is the typological similarity of ProtoIndo-European to the North-West Caucasian languages. If this similarity can be attributed to areal factors, we may think of Indo-European as a branch of UraloAltaic which was transformed under the influence of a Caucasian substratum. It now appears that this view is actually supported by the archaeological evidence. If it is correct, we may locate the earliest ancestors of the speakers of ProtoIndo-European north of the Caspian Sea in the seventh millennium (cf. Mallory 1989: 192f.). This is essentially in agreement with Gimbutas' theory (cf. also Kn2).

GENllRAL LINGUISTICS AND INDO-EUROPEAN RECONSTRUCTION

I Denmark has always been a superpower in linguistics. There is no need to list all famous scholars who worked in this country and left their imprint on the history oflinguistics, but there are two names which I want to mention here, viz. Otto Jespersen and Holger Pedersen. The point is that we have a lesson to learn from these two great scholars in connection with the relation between general linguistics and Indo-European reconstruction. Otto Jespersen was not only a great phonetician, but is regarded by some as the founder and by others as the forerunner of modern syntax. His Philosophy of Grammar is a classic for linguists of very different theoretical persuasions. The point I want to emphasize here is that Jespersen was very well informed about the comparative linguistics of his time, and was therefore in a very good position to hold strong views about what his colleagues were and were not doing. Holger Pedersen was perhaps the greatest comparative linguist of all time. But he also had a keen sense of scholarly atmosphere, as is evident from his history of 19th century linguistics. One of the characteristic features of his work is the insistence on comparison with what is actually observed in living languages, and on the role of naturalness in what is expected of linguistic development He simply was a very good general linguist. The fast-growing body of scholarly literature in the field of linguistics and the concomitant rise of specialization have led to a regrettable disintegration of the community of linguists. This is not to say that things were in all respects better in the past. Scholars were not always very nice to each other in former days, as can easily be gleaned from older issues of linguistic journals. There are many more jobs around nowadays. Yet I think that the discipline of linguistics has suffered from a fragmentation which could and should have been avoided. It is clear that nobody can read more than a very small percentage of the total scholarly output in linguistics nowadays. This raises a fundamental question: how to choose what to read? The answer is simple: there is no general way to choose, because you never can tell where to fmd the unexpected clue. One can only try and look. It is therefore most important to have a general idea of what colleagues are doing elsewhere in the field. A fair assessment of what general and comparative linguistics have to offer each other can only be reached if there is some consensus about the goals of the linguistic enterprise. The comparative linguist is in search of a picture which mirrors as closely as possible a historical reality, whereas the general linguist is primarily concerned with predicting the unknown. It is far from obvious that

8

Introduction

the former's reconstructions should conform to the latter's predictions. In the following I shall give a few examples of how these two lines of inquiry do not run parallel. Perhaps the most common objection against a proposed reconstruction which is raised time and again on general grounds, is that a linguistic form is impossible because it does not conform to typological expectations. The classic example is Brugmann's reconstruction of nasalis sonans in 1876, e.g. in the first syllable of *kmtom 'hundred~ Brugmann published his article in a journal of which Curtius had made him co-editor before going on a journey. When the latter read the article after his return, he became so enraged that he dissolved the journal and started a new one, without Brugmann (cf. Pedersen 1962: 293). The new reconstruction has now been part of the communis opinio for over a century. The case of the nasalis sonans is particularly instructive because the new theory soon gained general acceptance. The same cannot be said of the hypothesis that the Indo-European proto-language had no more than a single vowel. It is therefore important to compare the two cases in order to establish the reason for the different treatment. Note that I am not primarily concerned with the correctness of the reconstructions but with their reception by the scholarly community. If we can fmd out what motivates our colleagues to agree or to disagree, it may be possible to save a lot of time when trying to convince them. There are two types of objection against the reconstruction of a single vowel for Proto-Indo-European. On the one hand, it is claimed that not all of the material can be explained from such a reconstruction. On the other hand, it is argued that there can be no such thing as a language with no more than one vowel. Both arguments have their counterparts in the reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-European syllabic resonants. In the case of the nasalis sonans, there were two factors which rendered the new reconstruction more palatable. While the concept of syllabic nasal was an innovation, the syllabic liquids l and r were familiar from Czech and Sanskrit. The new theory did not therefore affect the idea of syllabicity as a vocalic property but only its distribution. Moreover, the class of possible reconstructed forms was not greatly affected because Brugmann recognized, beside the zero grade vocalism of the syllabic resonants, a reduced grade vocalism which could be invoked for those instances where others might see counter-evidence. It can be argued that the real victory of the Sonantentheorie was eventually achieved by the elimination of the reduced grade. That was a development which took much longer than the acceptance of the nasalis sonans. The reconstruction of a single Proto-Indo-European vowel is a natural consequence of the laryngeal theory. It differs from the Sonantentheorie in two respects. Firstly, it strongly reduces the class of possible reconstructed forms. As

General linguistics and Indo-European reconstruction

9

a result of this much higher predictive power, it much more easily generates a class of counter-examples. Secondly, the way out which the reduced grade offered in the case of the Sonantentheorie is blocked by the fact we are now dealing with the vowel system itself. What is remarkable here is not that the new reconstruction of the vowel system met with a lot of opposition, which is only natura~ but that it found any acceptance at all. The far-reaching consequences inherent in the new reconstruction of the vowel system render the impact of the typological argument all the more important. It has been claimed that languages with less than two vowels are unattested or even impossible. This objection has been countered by the observation that there is a consensus among specialists of North-West Caucasian languages about the existence of minimal vowel systems, matched by extremely large consonant inventories, in that area. This shows the weakness of the typological approach: it causes a bias toward what is regular, norma~ or frequent in the languages of the world and thereby renders the reconstruction of deviant patterns impossible (cf. Kuipers 1968: 78f.). The range of animal species living today would not allow us to reconstruct a dinosaur. The typological argument against the reconstruction of a minimal vowel system for Proto-Indo-European is particularly regrettable because typological evidence could actually be used to support such a reconstruction. According to what probably is the majority view, the original homeland of the IndoEuropeans must be situated in the South Russian steppe. The non-IndoEuropean language family which is closest to that area is precisely the NorthWest Caucasian. If we start from the assumption that the Proto-Indo-European sound system resembled that of its neighbours, with which it may have formed a Sprachbund, the North-West Caucasian system is as close as we can get from a typological point of view. Moreover, we know that the area around Majkop, which is Circassian territory, was a cultural center in the formative years of the Indo-European proto-language. It is therefore easily conceivable that the IndoEuropean sound system originated as a result of strong Caucasian influence. In fact, the typological argument is not only weak and ambiguous, but can even be harmfuL It has long been recognized that cognate languages tend to develop along similar lines after the dissolution of their ancestor. The Romance languages of today resemble each other much more closely than any of them resembles Latin. As a consequence, the history of Indo-European reconstruction shows a gradual shift away from the principal languages (cf. Mayrhofer 1983). If Bopp's Indo-European resembled Sanskrit, and Brugmann's Indo-European resembled Sanskrit no more than Greek, and Cowgill's Indo- European resembled Sanskrit and Greek no more than Hittite, it is to be expected that future reconstructions will diverge more widely from our traditional image of what an Indo-European language should look like, and thus move farther away from our typological expectations.

10

Introduction

What has just been said must not be taken as a plea against the use of typological evidence. On the contrary, I think that typological considerations are most useful as a heuristic device. They must never take the place of the evidence, however. In practice, the typological argument has too often served as a rationalization of traditional prejudice. Curtius' reaction to Brugmann's nasalis sonans is a case in point. I shall give two more examples of such unwarranted generalization about possible sound systems. In Bella Coola, a Salish language, there are words consisting entirely of voiceless consonants, e.g. t'xt 'stone'. When Boas reported about this hitherto unknown phenomenon, his article is said to have been rejected by the editor of a journal because everyone knows that it is impossible to have words without vowels (cf. Hockett 1955: 57). On the basis of my own fieldwork I can testify to the existence of the same word structure in Heiltsuk, an unrelated, Wakashan language, which is also spoken on the Canadian Pacific coast, e.g. qqs 'eye'. Here again, it appears that the typological argument can indeed be harmful According to Jakobson's Kindersprache, Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze, there can be no language without nasal consonants. The fundamental oppositions vowel- consonant and oral- nasal must be present everywhere: "sie sind die einzigen die nirgends fehlen diirfen" (Jakobson 1941: 34). Unfortunately, the existence of consonant systems without nasals has been reliably reported for Quileute and for Duwamish and Snoqualmie, languages which are spoken in the state of Washington and which belong to two different language families (cf. Hockett 1955: 119). This counter-evidence subsequently led Jakobson to replace his "universals" by "near-universals': without, incidentally, mentioning the languages which forced his theoretical retreat (Jakobson 1962: 526). Here again, typological reasoning had an adverse effect on the progress oflinguistics. Since the universal character of the opposition between oral and nasal consonants has been disproved, we may wonder if the same can be done for the opposition between consonants and vowels. This has actually been achieved by Pulleyblank in his analysis of Mandarin Chinese, which is not a minor language. Pulleyblank treats all vowels as syllabic variants of glides with which they alternate (1984: 57). Since the vowels are derived by rules of syllabification, all morpheme structures consist of consonants only. In comparison with this analysis, the reconstruction of a single vowel for Proto- Indo-European looks rather conservative. This raises the question whether our reluctance to admit certain possibilities may be a consequence of the tools we have been accustomed to use. In particular, is it possible that our conception of vowels and consonants is conditioned by our use of the Latin alphabet? Here it may be appropriate to have a look at the Japanese syllabary, which offers an instructive parallel Unlike the well-known Semitic and Indic scripts, the Japanese syllabary does not offer the possibility to denote a consonant without a following vowel

General linguistics and Indo- European reconstruction

11

Consequently, it is impossible to describe the language in terms of stems ending in a consonant followed by suffixes beginning with a vowel Thus, the paradigm of the verb 'to speal(, indicative hanasu, infmitive hanasi, imperative hanase, subjunctive hanasoo, negative hanasanai, cannot be described as a consonantal stem hanas- followed by a variety of suffixes, but only as an alternating stem hanasu, -si, -se, -so-, -sa-, which may be followed by other syllabic elements. This is indeed what is done in traditional Japanese grammar, where the verb belongs to the so-called godan-katuyoo, or five- step conjugation. The problem of notation as an obstacle to progress is not limited to linguistics, as any mathematician can testify. Consider the multiplication of 19 by 44. Accustomed as we are to the system of Arabic figures, we immediately see that 20 times 44 is 88o, and when you subtract 44 you get 836, which is the correct answer. But now suppose that you live in Rome, two thousand years ago, then you have to multiply XIX by XLII II in order to arrive at DCCC'VI. There can be little doubt that this is a more cumbersome procedure. Against this background, we may wonder if the difficulty of analyzing Japanese verbs with a consonantal stem in terms of the syllabary has a parallel in languages with an alphabetic script. In fact, it is not difficult to fmd examples. Take the English noun house and the verb to house. The latter is derived from the former by voicing the fmal consonant. It would therefore be appropriate to write the voicing feature as a suffix, if the writing system allowed us to do so. Conversely, the noun use is derived from the verb to use by devoicing the fmal consonant Note that the direction of the derivation is different here: we can have a house without housing someone, but we cannot do any housing without a house; however, the use of something presupposes somebody using it, whereas we may use something without invoking the abstract notion of 'use~ While a traditional analysis must treat these instances in terms of stem alternation, a generative analysis may postulate an underlying sufftx. Such a sufftx does not necessarily correspond to the sufftx which a comparative linguist would reconstruct. The example of house and use brings us to the problem of markedness. It is not always evident which of the two members of a pair must be considered the marked one. Since this may have consequences for linguistic reconstruction, it will be appropriate to look into the origin of the term. The concept of markedness as applied to the meaning of morphological categories can be traced back to Jakobson's essay Zur Struktur des russischen Verbums, which appeared in 1932. Jakobson's original example accompanying the introduction of the term is the Russian pair of words telenok 'calf' - telka 'heifer' (1932: 75). When he reprinted the article in his Selected Writings, Jakobson replaced these words by osel 'donkey' - oslica 'she-ass~ without, incidentally, drawing the reader's attention to the fact that he changed his prime example (1971: 4). There are two remarkable things about this. Firstly, it turns out that the example was not very

Introduction

12.

well chosen. It thus appears that the concept lacks the clarity which should render it applicable in an unambiguous way. Secondly, the ill-chosen example was evidently of no consequence to the theory because it was tacitly replaced by a different one. This does not inspire great confidence in the usefulness of the proposal. Since the Urheber apparently had a hard time making up his mind about the applicability of his theory to his own language, one can hardly blame others for avoiding the concept of markedness as a tool of analysis. To summarize our findings thus far, it appears that there is good reason to be ambivalent about the usefulness of general considerations in linguistic reconstruction. As a heuristic device, a theoretical framework can certainly be helpful but the negative potential of aprioristic considerations must not be underestimated. Since theory can easily embody the reflection of rationalized prejudice, it is important that comparative work be carried out inductively, as Holger Pedersen knew a long time ago. The accumulated experience of comparative linguistics offers a sound basis for a general theory of language change, which is part of a general theory oflanguage. II

We may now examine the hypothesis that the traditional voiced stops of the Indo-European proto-language were actually glottalic. Before the advent of the laryngeal theory, it was generally assumed that the proto-language had the same four series of stops as we fmd in Sanskrit, e.g. the dental series *t, *til, *d, *dh. When it turned out that the voiceless aspirate was rare and must in a number of cases be derived from an earlier sequence of *t plus a laryngeal consonant, the inductive generalization that no more than three series can be reconstructed for the proto-language left scholars with a typologically anomalous consonant system: *t, *d, *dh. There are two ways out of this intuitively unsatisfactory situation. On the one hand, one may return to the traditional reconstruction of four series of obstruents, in spite of the fact that there is insufficient evidence for the existence of original voiceless aspirates. This possibility does not offer an explanation for the peculiar asymmetry in the attested material. On the other hand, one can try to reinterpret the three series of *t, *d, *dh in such a way as to bring the reconstructed system into agreement with typological expectations. This research strategy invites scholars to look for additional evidence, which might change our views of the proto-language in a more radical way. The first to pursue the latter possibility in print was Holger Pedersen, at the age of 84. Pedersen argued that there are no reliable Indo-European etymologies which point to an initial voiced labial stop *b- (1951: 10-16). Since the voiceless labial stop p- is easily lost in a number of languages, he suggested that ProtoIndo-European *b was originally voiceless and weak, while the traditional voiced aspirate *bh may have developed from a voiceless aspirate. He compared

General linguistics and Indo- European reconstruction

13

the interchange of voiced and voiceless stops with the West Armenian consonant shift. The point to be noted here is the primacy of the empirical evidence. Typological considerations only served as a heuristic device for developing an explanatory hypothesis. Pedersen's article inspired Martinet to propose two years later in a footnote that the Proto- Indo-European voiced stops could be derived from an earlier glottalic series without a labial member (1953: 70). He compared the absence of the labial with the same phenomenon in Proto-Semitic, for which he reconstructed a glottalic series as the origin of the so-called emphatic stops. Here again, typological considerations served as a heuristic device. The problem was posed by the unexpected absence of empirical evidence for the reconstruction of a labial stop. A few years later, Andreev proposed an Indo-European proto-language without distinctive voicedness (1957: 7). He reconstructed voiceless fortes, voiceless lenes, and voiceless aspirates, corresponding to traditional t, d, dh, and suggested that this system is apparently preserved in Hittite. He introduced the incompatibility of fortes and aspirates in the root structure, which he (like Meillet) explained by an assimilation rule, into the discussion of the consonant system. His reinterpretation of the consonant shifts in the separate branches anticipates an argumentation which was put forward much later by the proponents of the glottalic theory. A proposal which looks like an integrated view of the hypotheses put forward by Pedersen, Martinet and Andreev is Swadesh's theory that ProtoIndo-European and its neighbours had simple, glottalic, and aspirated stops, and that the difference between voiced and voiceless articulation was a matter of local variation (1971: 127). Since this theory was published posthumously, its origin is difficult to determine. Swadesh remarks that the traditional IndoEuropean voiced stops are equivalent to the glottalic series of other language families with respect to sound symbolism (1971: 219). Twenty years after the publication of Martinet's suggestion that we may have to reconstruct glottalic stops for Proto- Indo-European, Gamkrelidze and Ivanov proposed the same (1972: 16), again on the basis of Pedersen's reasoning. Their proposal became much more widely known, probably because it was put forward time and again in different places. They explained the absence of roots with two glottalic stops by a dissimilation rule (1973: 153). They also reformulated Grassmann's Hauchdissimilationsgesetz as a Proto-Indo-European rule of allophonic variation (1980: 30-32). Here the primacy of the empirical evidence has been lost: the glottalic theory is not used to explain Grassmann's law, but Grassmann's law is adapted in order to serve as evidence for the glottalic theory. It seems to me that Latin fido 'I trust' < *bheidh- suffices to show that the argument cannot be used.

14

Introduction

Around the same time, a similar proposal was put forward by Hopper, who adduced not only the absence of *b and the root structure constraints, but also the absence of glottalic stops from inflectional afftxes (1973: 157). Here again, theoretical considerations evidently provided an obstacle to observation of the material, as is clear from the comparison of Latin quod with Old High German hwaz 'what; on the basis of which we have to reconstruct a Proto- IndoEuropean neuter ending *-d. On the basis of the proposals by Pedersen and Andreev, Rasmussen derived traditional *t, *d, *dh from earlier *T, *t, *d, where the first represents any emphatic stop, however phonetically realized: glottalized, pharyngealized, or just stronger (1974: n). The same reconstruction is implied in Illic-Svityc's Nostratic dictionary (1971: 147). The problem with this hypothesis is that there is no reason to assume an emphatic or otherwise strong character for a glottalic series. There are many varieties of glottalization, some of them weak, others strong. The relatively weak character of glottalization in Georgian and Armenian is evident from the fact that we often fmd glottalic rather than aspirated stops in loanwords from Russian. This suggests that we have aspirated fortes and glottalic lenes in these languages. In Avar, a North-East Caucasian language, there is an opposition between tense and lax voiceless consonants which is independent of the opposition between plain and glottalic stops and affricates, e.g. k, k:, k:, k:'. Moreover, there is also an opposition between geminate and single tense consonants, so that we have e.g. xcisel'winter' vs. tiis:a 'from above' vs. xcis:s:ab 'speciaf (cf. Ebeling 1966: 63). Thus, it appears that unwarranted generalization on the basis of theoretical considerations can easily interfere with observation of the facts and lead one astray in linguistic reconstruction. This can block scholarly progress for many years. Haudricourt reports (1975: 267) that as early as 1948 he arrived at the conclusion that the traditional voiced stops of the Indo-European protolanguage were in fact glottalic and that the original pronunciation has been preserved in East Armenian. His argumentation was based on the types of phonetic development attested in the Far East. The negative attitude of Bloch and Kurylowicz toward his view apparently kept him from publication. If Haudricourt, Pedersen, Martinet, Andreev and Swadesh had met at a conference in the late 'forties, the glottalic theory might have become popular a generation earlier than it actually did. I conclude that the typological argument has too often been invoked as a constraint on linguistic reconstruction rather than as a device to broaden the horizon of possibilities. As a result, our reconstructions tend to have a strong bias toward the average language type known to the investigator. The more deviant the structure of the proto-language actually was, the stronger the bias and the larger the difference between reality and reconstruction we should expect. We must therefore first and foremost pay attention to the comparative

General linguistics and Indo-European reconstruction

15

evidence, which remains the ultimate basis for choosing between alternative options in linguistic reconstruction. It is remarkable that the comparative evidence has largely been left out of consideration in the discussion of the glottalic theory.

III Glottalization is found in five out of the ten surviving branches of IndoEuropean, viz. Indic, Iranian, Armenian, Baltic, and Germanic. This is not the place to reconsider the comparative value of the evidence in the separate branches, which is very uneven (cf. Ko75). My point is methodological: can we establish the circumstances under which certain facts are admitted as evidence for a reconstruction? The answer to this question is far from obvious. There are two varieties of st0d in Danish. As a rule, standard Danish st0d appears in monosyllabic words which have pitch accent 1 in Swedish and Norwegian. Though the distribution of the st0d has partly been obscured by analogical developments, it seems clear that it developed from a falling tone movement. I shall leave the standard Danish st0d out of consideration in the following. The so-called vestjysk st0d is an entirely different phenomenon because it is characteristic of originally polysyllabic words, which have accent 2 in Swedish and Norwegian. It cannot possibly be connected with the Jylland apocope because it is also found in the northeastern part of vestfynsk dialects, where the apocope did not take place. While the vestjysk st0d is clearly linked to a following plosive which represents an earlier voiceless stop, it does not represent original gemination because it distinguishes e.g. the verbs dampe [dam'b] 'to steam', kante [kan'd] 'to border' from the nouns damp [damb] 'steam', kant [kand] 'edge, which never had a geminate (cf. Ejskjrer 1990: 64). As the glottalization in the infinitive vente [ven'd] 'to wait' is absent from the imperative vent [vend] 'wait!' (Ejskjrer 1990: 65), it looks like a feature of the following stop which was lost in word-fmal position. This leads us to consider the possibility that it may reflect some kind of Proto-Germanic glottalization. In his monograph on the vestjysk st0d, Ringgaard concludes that "the v-st0d is only found immediately before the plosives p, t, k, and that it is found wherever these stand in an original medial position, following a voiced sound in a stressed syllable. The exceptions to this are certain types ofloan-words from a later period" (1960: 195). He dates the rise of the vestjysk st0d to the 12th century because it is characteristic of "all then existing medial plosives" (1960: 199). The view that the vestjysk st0d is a spontaneous innovation of the westernmost dialects of Danish, which Jespersen had in fact proposed almost half a century earlier already (1913: 23), can hardly be called an explanation. Moreover, it does not account for the vestjysk st0d in the isolated pocket of dialects on the island

16

Introduction

of Fyn, which suggests that it is a retention rather than an innovation. The hypothesis of a local origin also neglects the parallel development of preaspiration in Icelandic. Preaspiration is not only found in Icelandic, but also in Faroese, Norwegian, and the Gaelic dialects of Scotland. Phonetically, the preceding vowel is cut short and continued as a whisper, while a preceding resonant is partly or wholly unvoiced. The distribution of preaspiration in Icelandic is the same as in the Norwegian dialect of Jreren (cf. Oftedal1947). We can therefore conclude that it is "an example of a feature taken to Iceland by the original settlers" (Chapman 1962: 85). Marstrander has argued that the preaspiration in Scottish Gaelic is due to a Norse substratum (1932: 298). He advances the hypothesis that the Norwegian preaspirated stops represent a retention of the clusters hp, ht, hk, which developed into geminates elsewhere (1932: 302). This theory implies three developments, viz. ht > tt in East Norse, tt > ht in West Norse, and t > ht in West Norse in those positions where the preaspirated stop does not reflect a cluster, e.g. Icelandic epli 'apple, vatn 'water: mikla 'to increase: hjalpa 'to helP, verk 'work'. Here the preaspirated plosives correspond to the traditional voiced stops of the Indo-European proto-language. Both the vestjysk st0d and the preaspiration receive a natural explanation if we assume that early Proto-Germanic possessed a series of preglottalized voiced stops 'b, ii, g (cf. Ko75: 196, K1o2: 8). Devoicing yielded a series of late ProtoGermanic sequences 'p, 't, 'k, the glottal element of which was lost under various conditions. Weakening of the glottal stop in West Norse yielded preaspiration while its assimilation to the following plosive gave rise to a series of geminates in East Norse, with the exception of Danish, where the sequences were subject to lenition and the glottal stop was preserved in the vestjysk dialects. It is difficult to escape the impression that the reluctance of earlier investigators to take the vestjysk st0d and the Icelandic preaspiration seriously as comparative evidence in the reconstruction of Proto-Germanic deprived them of an insight which could have changed our view of Proto-Indo-European. What was the cause of their restraint? What kept them from regarding preglottalization and preaspiration as evidence on a par with other features? Was it the Latin alphabet which constrained their thinking? Apart from the straightforward explanation of the vestjysk st0d and the Icelandic preaspiration, the reconstruction of Proto-Germanic preglottalized stops has the advantage of accounting in a principled way for the existence of several layers of gemination, which can now be viewed as retentions rather than innovations (cf. K1o2: 7). Firstly, it is possible that the unexplained gemination in Swedish, e.g. in vecka 'weel(, droppe 'drop: skepp 'shiP, reflects a dialect which escaped an early loss of the glottal stop, in contrast with Old Norse vika, dropi, skip, Old English wice, dropa, scip. Secondly, mp, nt, nk yielded pp, tt, kk in the

General linguistics and Indo- European reconstruction

17

larger part of Scandinavia. This development becomes understandable if we assume that the nasal consonant was devoiced by the preaspiration of the following plosive and subsequently lost its nasal feature. Thirdly, *k was geminated before *j and *w, e.g. in Old Norse bekkr 'brool(, rrakkr 'dark'. Similarly, *twas geminated before *j in a limited area, e.g. Swedish siitta 'to set'. (West Germanic geminated all consonants except r before *j and is therefore inconclusive.) Fourthly, the stops p, t, k were geminated before land r in West Germanic, e.g. English apple, bitter, cf. Gothic baitrs. The same development is found sporadically in Scandinavia, which suggests that we are dealing with the loss of an archaic feature rather than with an innovation. Here again, the geminate may have originated from the assimilation of a glottal stop to the following plosive. In fact, the evidence for Proto-Germanic preglottalized stops is not limited to Scandinavian, but can also be found in English and German. It is common knowledge that standard English inserts a glottal stop before a tautosyllabic voiceless plosive, e.g. sto'p, tha't, kno~k, wa'tch, also lea'p, soa'k, hel'p, pin'ch (cf. Brown 1977: 27). There is no reason to assume that this is a recent phenomenon. The High German sound shift yielded affricates and geminated fricatives, e.g. Old High German pfad 'path; werpfan 'to throW, affan 'oped, zunga 'tongue, salz 'sal~ wazzar 'watei, kind, chind 'child; trinkan, trinchan 'to drinl(, zeihhan 'token'. These reflexes suggest a complex articulation for the Proto-Germanic voiceless plosives from which they developed. The origin of the gemination is unexplained in the traditional doctrine. If we start from the assumption that the Proto-Germanic plosives were preceded by a glottal stop which is preserved in the vestjysk st0d and the English glottalization, the High German sound shift can be explained as a lenition of the plosives to fricatives with a concomitant klusilspring of the preceding glottal stop. Note that the High German sound shift has a perfect analogue in the English dialect of Liverpool, where we find e.g. [kx] in can't, back (Hughes and Trudgill 1987: 66), which again remains unexplained in the traditional doctrine. Thus, it appears that there is a whole range of phenomena which receive a natural explanation when we assume that glottalization is ancient in Germanic. The methodological question is: why have scholars been reluctant to identify the vestjysk st121d with the English glottalization, which according to Ringgaard gives the same auditory impression and apparently has the same articulation, as a historical reality which may have been inherited from the proto-language? Is there an implicit assumption that unwritten features must not be ancient? Is this the same factor which made Curtius reject Brugmann's nasalis sonans, in spite of the fact that we have a syllabic nasal in standard English words such as button and in the standard German infinitive ending of most verbs, e.g. lei ten 'to lead; where both examples end in [tn]? Is it all the result of our Latin upbringing,

Introduction

18

which Jespersen blamed for our lack of insight into the grammar of modem English?

IV It will be clear from what has been said that I am not particularly impressed by the contribution of theoretical reasoning to historical linguistics. Both Jespersen and Pedersen emphasized time and again that linguistics is an inductive enterprise, and I agree whole-heartedly. This does not mean that the comparative linguist can disregard what is going on in general linguistics, however. It rather means that we must look at those branches of linguistics which deal with language change in progress. Language is the interface between society and the individuaL and sociolinguistics is the area of research where we can expect results which may be of immediate relevance to linguistic reconstruction. Rapid linguistic change in bilingual communities of nomadic traders and ethnically mixed groups offers a test-case for historical linguistics. There is no reason to assume that the sociolinguistic conditions of prehistoric linguistic development were very different from what can be observed today among comparable groups. The remarkable spread of the Indo-European languages was determined by specific social and economic circumstances. It presupposes that a number of people moved from their original homeland to a new territory. As is now generally recognized, the domestication of the horse played a crucial role in the increase of physical mobility. However, the Indo-European expansions required not only the migration of Indo-Europeans, but also the adoption of IndoEuropean languages by local populations. This implies that a large number of people must have found it expedient to adopt the language of the intruders. As Mallory has pointed out, "pastoral societies throughout the Eurasian steppe are typified by remarkable abilities to absorb disparate ethno-linguistic groups. Indo-European military institutions may have encouraged membership from local groups in the form of clientship which offered local populations greater advantages and social mobility" (1989: 261). This must have been the decisive factor in the spread of the Indo-European languages. When we look at language interference in bilingual communities, it appears that there is a marked difference in the ease of linguistic borrowing between grammar and lexicon, between bound and free morphemes, and between verbs and nouns. As a result, the older strata of a language are better preserved in the grammatical system than in the lexical stock, better in morphology than in phonology or syntax, better in verb stems and pronouns than in nouns and numerals. The wide attestation of the Indo-European numerals must be attributed to the development of trade which accompanied the increased mobility of the Indo-Europeans at the time of their expansions. Numerals do

General linguistics and Indo- European reconstruction

19

not belong to the basic vocabulary of a neolithic culture, as is clear from their absence in Proto- Uralic and from the spread of Chinese numerals throughout East Asia. The inequality between different parts of the language in linguistic borrowing is of particular importance when we are dealing with distant affmity. In a beautiful and convincing article which appeared a number of years ago (1988), Michael Fortescue has demonstrated on the basis of case sufftxes, pronouns and verbal morphology that Eskimo and Aleut are genetically related to Yukagir, which is most probably related to the Uralic language family. His reconstructions support the possibility that Tungus and Japanese also belong to the same language stock. It is clear that such affmity could never be demonstrated by the mere comparison of words. In a study of the earliest contacts between the Indo-European and Uralic language families (1986), Redei lists 64 words which were supposedly borrowed from Indo-European into Uralic at an early date. The material is divided into three groups: 7 Indo-European words which are attested in both Finno- Ugric and Samoyedic, 18 Indo-European or Indo-Iranian words which are attested in Finno-Ugric but not in Samoyedic, and 39 Indo-Iranian words which are not found either in Ugric or in Samoyedic. Now it turns out that the number of verbs in the oldest material is too large to support the hypothesis that they were borrowed: verbs constitute 43% of the first group, 28% of the second group, and 5% of the third group. This is strong evidence for the thesis that the oldest layer was in fact inherited from an Indo- Uralic proto-language. Though the material is very small, the case for an original genetic relationship is particularly strong because we are dealing with basic verbs, meaning 'to give, 'to wash', 'to bring, 'to drive, 'to dO, 'to lead: 'to take' (cf. K112). Moreover, it is difficult to see how Proto-Indo-European words could have been borrowed into Proto-Uralic if the Indo-Europeans lived in the South Russian steppe when the ancestors of the Finno-Ugrians and the Samoyeds lived on the eastern side of the Ural mountains. The earliest contacts between Indo-European and Uralic languages must probably be identified with the eastward expansion of the Indo-Iranians and the simultaneous spread of the Finno-Ugrians to the southwest. Thus, it appears that we do not need a large number of obvious cognates, which cannot be expected in the case of distant linguistic affinity, in order to establish genetic relationship between languages. What we need to fmd are morphological correspondences and a few common items of basic vocabulary because these are the elements which are least likely to be borrowed. We can then try to match the linguistic evidence with what can be gathered from anthropological and archaeological sources. In my view, the last decade has brought decisive proof of genetic relationship between the whole range of languages from Indo-European to Eskimo. The next step should comprise an establishment of chronological layers in the material and a specification of the

Introduction

2.0

connections with the Altaic language family. The role of general linguistics in this enterprise is to provide an idea of what can be expected in linguistic development, not by theoretical reasoning but by inspection of what actually happens in situations of language contact. Language is a social phenomenon, and linguistic change must be examined in its social and historical context. NOTE

This is the revised text of a paper read at the Institute of general and applied linguistics, University of Copenhagen, on December 2., 1993.

ON RUSSENORSK

The concept of mixed language has recently gained some popularity, to my mind for no good reason. It is unclear how a mixed language can be distinguished from the product of extensive borrowing or relexification. I therefore think that the concept only serves to provoke muddled thinking about linguistic contact and language change. Note e.g. that Munske adduces German as an example "because the author is a professor of German linguistics and because the phenomenon oflanguage mixing can be explained better in relation to a language on which a large amount of research has been done than, for example, in relation to pidgin and creole languages" (1986: 81). Peter Bakker and Maarten Mous claim that "extreme borrowing never exceeds roughly 45% of the lexicon, whereas in some of the mixed languages discussed the proportion of 'foreign' lexical elements is closer to or over 90%, and this figure is the same whether one counts types or tokens. There do not seem to be languages with a proportion of borrowed items between 45% and 90%, so that there is no continuum between languages with heavy borrowing and mixed languages" and that "in the mixed languages most of the core vocabulary tends to be foreign" (1994: 5). When we look at the short text in Bakker's prime example of a mixed language, Michif (1994: 28-30), we fmd the following distribution of French and Cree items: - French elements: un vieux 'an old: un matin 'a morning, ses pieges 'his traps: une tem~te 'a storm: pas moyen 'no way' (2x), son shack 'his cabin' (2x), le vieux 'the old: d'un gros arbre 'at a big tree, une bonne place 'a good place, le loup de bois 'the timber wolf: le loup 'the wolf' (4x), sa bouche 'his mouth: son bras 'his arm: dans la queue 'by the tan: par la queue 'by the taif. - Cree stems: 'trap' (2x), 'wake uP, 'be sick' (2x), 'want-go-see; 'leave, 'be busY, 'bad-weather: 'find' (2x), 'be losf, 'walk' (2x), 'play ouf, 'sit uprighf, 'die' (2x), 'think of; 'see, 'ruti, 'wait for; 'look af, 'come-thus-run; 'sif, 'open' (2x), 'wanttake; 'push forward; 'take froni, 'pull inside ouf, 'run back go home'. -Cree words: 'and' (3x), 'stiiT, 'this' (4x), 'meantime, 'there' (2x), 'here; 'it is said: 'that' (2x), 'where, 'again'. -Cree affiXes: so instances (12 prefiXes and 38 suffiXes).

It is clear that Bakker's prime example does not fulfil his own criteria of mixed languages and that we are simply dealing with heavy borrowing of French nouns into Cree. French articles and possessives are treated as prefiXes which were borrowed together with the head noun.

2.2.

Introduction

In the following I shall discuss another example of a mixed language, viz. Russenorsk, a pidgin which was spoken by Norwegian and Russian fishermen along the Arctic coast of Norway in the 19th century. Our major source of information on this language is Brach & Jahr 1984; other important contributions are Lunden 1978 and Peterson 198o. Note that Russenorsk was a 'seasonaf language, not used continuously throughout the year but only during part of the summer fishing season (Lunden 1978: 2.13). It cannot therefore be compared with a natural language but illustrates the process of language mixing in a situation where creolization never had a chance. Following Olaf Brach, Lunden lists three salient features of Russenorsk which are frequently quoted in the literature: (1) the use of moja and tvoja as 1st and 2nd sg. personal pronouns, ( 2.) the use of the preposition polpa as a general marker of oblique relations, (3) the development of a verbal marker -om, e.g. kapitan paa kajuta slipom 'the captain is asleep in his cabin'. Since these features serve as a kind of shibboleth, they may reflect "a case of speaking "the way foreigners speak': rather than speaking "the other man's language"': as Lunden puts it (1978: 2.15). It follows that we must distinguish between a person speaking his own language, a person simplifying his own language in order to make himself understood, and a person trying to use his interlocutor's language. We should therefore expect to fmd six components of Russenorsk, depending on the nationality of the speaker and his three types of linguistic performance. The effort which goes into "speaking the way foreigners speak" beside "speaking the other man's language" accounts for the fact that both partners may believe that they are actually speaking each other's language. I shall now test this hypothesis by analyzing a dialogue recorded by A.WS. Brun, cited and translated by Peterson (1980: 253f.), and reproduced by Brach & Jahr (1984: 13of.). The speakers are abbreviated as Nor[wegian] and Rus[sian]; unambiguous Norwegian and Russian words are indexed by subscript N and R while German, Dutch, English and ambiguous words remain unmarked (in accordance with Peterson 1980); the orthography follows Brach & Jahr (1984) except for re and aa, which are replaced bye and o. Nor: Kjraf'N IN seika, treskaR> tiksa ON balduska? "Are you buying pollack, cod, haddock, and halibut?" The speaker uses his own language, except for the fact that the fish names are apparently language- independent Rus: DaR> daR - mojaR kopomR altsammaN, davaiR po skif'N komN. "Yes, yes - I'll buy all of it, come on board." The speaker adapts his own language moja kopom and switches to Norwegian altsamma, po skip kom.

On Russenorsk

23

Nor: SpasibaR! harN IN mokkaR, harN N groppaR? "Thank you! Do you have flour, do you have grain?" The speaker uses his own language, except for the word of thanks and for the names of the commodities he wants to purchase. Rus: DaR. daR! DavaiR po skiPN komN, bratR. po tjeiR drikiN. "Yes, yes! Come on board, brother, drink some tea." The speaker clearly tries to speak Norwegian, though the interjections da, davai, brat are Russian. Nor: BlagdaruR pokornaR! KokR tvojaR betalomN forN seika? "I humbly thank you! What are you paying for pollack?" The speaker now tries to adopt the simplified language of his interlocutor, tvoja betalom echoing moja kopom, but the main verb and focus of the message is still Norwegian betalom for seika. Rus: PetR pudofR seika flour:' This is Russian.

1

pudR mokiR- "Five poods of pollack for one pood of

Nor: KorN iN tykj~ ~ d~ lagaN? IN mON gjerN d~ billiarN! "How the hell is that figured out? You have to make it cheaper!" This is pure Norwegian. Rus: KakR sprek? Moj~ nietR forstON. "What did you say? I don't understand." Again, the speaker adapts his own language and uses verbs from the language of his interlocutor. Nor: DorgoR. dorgloR Rusmai~ - prosjaiR! "Expensive, expensive, Russian goodbye!" The speaker uses Russian words without any sentence structure. Rus: NietsjevoR! sjetiriR- gallN! "Okay! four- and a half!" This is Russian, except for the focus of the message, which is in Norwegian. Nor: DavaiR firN - nietsjevoR ve"igodN. "Make it four, okay, good." Apart from the interjections davai and nietsjevo, this is Norwegian. Rus: NjetR. bratR! KudaR mojaR selomN desjevliR? Grot djurN mokkaR po RusleienN deinN OtN. "No, brother! Where can I sell it cheaper? Flour is very expensive in Russia this year." The speaker adapts his own language and substitutes the Norwegian verb, then switches to Norwegian in the second sentence. Nor: TvojaR nietR sainferdiN sprek. "You're not telling the truth." The speaker imitates the simplified language of his interlocutor but the focus of the message is in Norwegian. Rus: Jes, grot sainferdiN, mojaR nietR lugomN, djurN mokkaR. "Yes, it's very true, I'm not lying, flour is expensive." The speaker tries to answer in Norwegian, adapts his own language and uses Norwegian words in the three foci of the message. Nor: KakR tvojaR kopomR - davaiR firN pudp,; kakR tvojaR nietR kopomR - soN prosjaiR! "If you want to buy - four poods; if you don't want to buy - then,

24

Introduction

goodbye!" The speaker imitates the simplified language of his interlocutor, but the focus of the message fir is still Norwegian. Rus: NON, nietsjevoR bratR> davaiR kladiR po dekN. "Wel~ okay brother, put the fish on the deck." This is essentially a Russian sentence. When we evaluate the evidence, it is clear that there is a substantial difference in linguistic behavior between the two parties of the dialogue. The Norwegian uses his own language; when he adopts simplified Russian expressions from his interlocutor, the focus of the message always remains Norwegian. The Russian on the other hand simplifies his own language for the sake of his interlocutor and switches to Norwegian all the time, the only exceptions being his first offer pet pudofseika 1 pud moki and his fmal consent nietsjevo brat, davai kladi po dek. There is no mixed language here but a dialogue between a Russian speaking foreigners' talk and limited Norwegian and a Norwegian speaking his own language and imitating the Russian's foreigners' talk. The focus of the messages is always in Norwegian, whether the speaker is Norwegian or Russian. It follows that Russenorsk is a variant of Norwegian with an admixture of Russian foreigners' talk. While the concept of mixed language seems to have originated from underanalysis of linguistic data, the putative grammar of Russenorsk appears to result from linguistic overanalysis. The alleged nominal suffiXes -a and -i (Brach & Jahr 1984: 43f., 63) are simply the Russian sg. and pl. endings which were borrowed as part of the names of the merchandise. When a Norwegian asks in Russian foreigners' talk:

Nogoli dag tvoja reisa po Archangel otsuda? "How many days did you travel from/to Archangel to/from here?" (nogoli dag < mnogo li dag, R. otsuda 'from here'), the Russian says in Norwegian:

/a po madam Klerck tri daga lige ne. "I lay three days at Mrs. Klerck's:: with the regular ending -a after the Russian numeral tri (Brach & Jahr 1984: 113, uS). The adjectival -a is the Russian feminine and unstressed neuter ending which was borrowed as part of the adjectives. The verbal ending -om represents the Scandinavian hortative ending -om, not only because the preceding verb stem is usually Germanic and because over so% of the instances are introduced by davai or vrersego (Brach & Jahr 1984: 47), but especially because it is pronounced [urn], as is clear from the manuscripts, and cannot therefore be of Slavic origin. There are only four Russian verbs in -om, viz. kopom 'buY, robotom 'worlc, smotrom 'see: kralom 'steal'; the isolated form podjom 'let's go' does not count because it is not attested in a sentence. Russian verb forms are usually imperatives or infmitives; the form vros '(you) lie' is not 2nd sg. but uninflected:

On Russenorsk

25

moja njet vros (lygom) 'I do not lie~ Thus, there is no trace of Russian grammar in the language. I conclude that Russenorsk is a variant of Norwegian with an admixture of Russian foreigners' talk and elements from the native language of the speaker. The concept of mixed language is misleading because there is a fundamental asymmetry between the two parties in the dialogue, both of whom essentially speak Norwegian. There is no Russian element in the grammar, which is Norwegian, though not limited by the standard language but full of pragmatic variation, especially topicalization. The attested material illustrates the regular mechanism of language change through imperfect learning.

THE ORIGIN OF THE GOTHS

Witold Manczak has argued that Gothic is closer to Upper German than to Middle German, closer to High German than to Low German, closer to German than to Scandinavian, closer to Danish than to Swedish, and that the original homeland of the Goths must therefore be located in the southernmost part of the Germanic territories, not in Scandinavia (1982, 1984. 19878-. 1987b, 1992). I think that his argument is correct and that it is time to abandon Iordanes' classic view that the Goths came from Scandinavia. We must therefore reconsider the grounds for adopting the latter position and the reasons why it always has remained popular. The reconstruction of Gothic history and the historical value of Iordanes' Getica have been analyzed in detail by Peter Heather (1991: 3-67). As he points out about this prime literary source (p. 5): "Two features have made it central to modern historical reconstructions. First, it covers the entire sweep of Gothic history. [...] Second, there is a Gothic origin to some of the Getica's material, which makes it unique among surviving sources." Iordanes' work draws heavily on the lost Gothic histories of Ablabius and Cassiodorus, who "would seem to have been in the employ of Gothic dynasts and had to produce Gothic histories of a kind that their employers wished to hear" (Heather 1991: 67). As to the origin of the Goths and their neighbours, the Gothic migrations and the great kings of the past, oral history is the most likely source of the stories. This material must therefore be handled with particular care: "Oral history is not unalterable, but reflects current social configurations; as these change, so must collective memory" (Heather 1991: 62). It appears that Iordanes knew of several alternative accounts of early Gothic history, and Heather concludes (1991: 66): "There was thus more than one version of Gothic origins current in the sixth century. Jordanes, as we have seen, made his choice because he found written confirmation of it, but this is hardly authoritative: the Scandinavian origin of the Goths would seem to have been one sixth-century guess among several. It is also striking that Jordanes' variants all contained islands: Scandinavia, Britain, 'or some other island'. In one strand of Graeco- Roman ethnographic and geographic tradition, Britain, Thule, and Scandinavia are all mysterious northern islands rather than geographical localities. 'Britain' and 'Scandinavia' may well represent interpretative deductions on the part of whoever it was that recorded the myths. The myths themselves perhaps referred only to an unnamed, mysterious island, which the recorder had then to identify. The Scandinavian origin-tale would thus be similar to much else in the Getica, depending upon a complex mixture of material from Gothic oral and GraecoRoman literary sources."

2.8

Introduction

If we are to maintain continuity between the Baltic Gutones of the tst and 2nd centuries and the Pontic Goths of the 3rd and 4th centuries, this only reflects the tradition of the ruling clans (cf. Wolfram 1979: 6-7). The historical evidence suggests that the Scandinavian Goths came from the south across the Baltic Sea rather than the other way round (cf. Hachmann 1970: 454-457 and 465). The Lithuanian name Gudai 'Byelorussians' < *-dh- has nothing to do with the Goths< *-t- but must be derived from Prussiangudde 'woods: like the Polish place names Gdansk and Gdynia (cf. Fraenkel 1950: 64). There is no archaeological evidence for a large-scale migration of Goths from the Baltic to the Black Sea (cf. Heather 1991: 6 and Hachmann 1970: 467). In fact, there are several reasons why such a migration is highly unlikely. First of all, there is a clear discontinuity between the Przeworsk culture in Poland and the Cernjahov culture in the Ukraine which are identified with the Goths before and after the migration, respectively (see the map of Green 1998: xiv). The only reason to assume that the Goths followed the rivers Bug or San and Dniestr is that "the terrain did not offer many alternatives between a common starting-point and a shared goal" (Green 1998: 166). Secondly, the territory between these two areas north of the Carpathian mountains is precisely the homeland of the Slavs, who do not appear to have stirred before the arrival of the Huns in the fourth century. This can hardly be reconciled with a major migration of Goths through their territory. Thirdly, the periodic exposure to severe stress in the fragile borderland communities of the steppe prompted westward population movements toward areas of more stable climatic conditions. An eastward migration of Goths from the richer upland forest into the poorer lowland steppe was both unmotivated and difficult to realize against the natural forces to be encountered. Fourthly, the expected direction of a migration is toward more developed areas where life seems to be better, which in the present context means toward the nearest border of the Roman Empire. We would therefore expect the Goths to move to the south through the Moravian Gate toward the Danube, as did the Slavs a few centuries later. Fifthly, there is little reason to assume that the Goths behaved differently from the Burgundians, the Vandals, the Marcomanns and the Langobards, all of whom crossed the upper Danube at some stage. It therefore seems probable to me that the historical Goths followed the course of the Danube downstream and entered the Ukraine from the southwest. The Gepids may have lagged behind on this journey, which accounts for Iordanes' etymology of their name (cf. Heather 1991: 5). Putting the pieces together, I think that the most likely chain of events is the following. The Gutones, like their East Germanic brethren, moved south toward Italy and the riches of the Roman Empire until they reached the river Danube. They may have adopted the speech of Alemannic tribes which had arrived there from the west, where these had been in close contact with the Romans for a longer period of time. It is possible that Gothic ethnogenesis actually took place

The origin of the Goths

29

in Lower Austria when East Germanic tribes from the north met with West Germanic tribes from the west and, having been prevented from entering the Roman Empire in large numbers, joined forces in their quest for a place to cross the lower Danube. This scenario is well-motivated in terms of pressures and attractions. It renders the southern origin of the Gothic language compatible with the northern origin of the name. The 'Gothicization' of large numbers of non-Goths was not brought about by "the predominance of 'true Goths"' (Heather 1991: 327) but by the absence of major linguistic differences between the Germanic tribes of the md century. It is only to be expected that the most prestigious Germanic dialect was spoken close to the border of the Roman Empire and largely taken over by the newcomers. The Gothic majority did not exist at the outset but came into being as a result of the process of assimilation as the groups adapted to one another. The scenario outlined here has the additional advantage of accounting for a number of peculiar characteristics of the Gothic language in comparison with its closest relatives. Gothic phonology resembles that of Latin and Romance more than that of the other Germanic languages ( cf. K1o2.: 8-9 and K138: 54). Though Gothic is more archaic than its sisters, its morphology appears to have been regularized to a large extent. The Latin sufftx -iirius was evidently productive in Gothic bokareis 'scribe, laisareis 'teacher: liupareis 'singer: motareis 'toll-taker: sokareis 'disputer'. The Gothic words siponeis 'disciple, kelikn 'tower, alew 'oif, lukarn 'lamp' were probably borrowed from the Celts in Moravia (cf. Green 1998: 156-158), which explains their limited distribution in Germanic. The word for 'vinegar' is of particular interest because it has seven different variants in Germanic (cf. Wollmann 1990: 52.6-542): Gothic aket, akeit; Swiss German (Wallis) achiss; Old High German ezzih; Middle Low German etik; 5· Middle Dutch edic; 6. Old English eced, Old Saxon ekid; 7. Icelandic edic, Swedish attika, which were apparently borrowed from Low German.

1.

2.. 3. 4.

It is clear that the Gothic word came from Alemannic in the 1st century before viticulture spread to the Palatinate and the middle Rhine in the 2nd century (cf. Wollmann 1990: 540). The words Kreks 'Greek' and datpl. marikreitum 'pearls' also betray the influence of an Upper German dialect without voiced obstruents (cf. K1o2.: 9). Furthermore, Greek words usually appear in their Latin form in Gothic (cf. especially Jellinek 192.6: 179-183 and 188-194), which points to a western origin of the Goths, e.g. aipistula 'letter' (but aipistaule 'Pauline epistle'), drakma

30

Introduction

'drachma: paurpura 'purple, gen.sg. sinapis 'mustard: dat.pl Rumonim 'Romans: Saurim 'Syrians: also aikklesjo 'congregation; aiwaggeijo 'gospet aiwaggelista 'evangelisf, diabulus 'devil' (but diabaulus in St. John), Marja 'Mary' (but Maria in St. Luke), and Jesus Xristus. It seems to me that gen.pl skaurpjono 'scorpions' almost suffices to show that the Goths entered the Balkans from the west, not from the north. Most important is that Greek o-stems are inflected as u-stems in Gothic, e.g. Iudaius 'Jew; gen.sg. -aus, datpl. -um, acc.pl. -uns, but as i-stems in nom.pl. Iudaieis, gen.pl. -e (Jellinek 1926: 108), which can only be explained by Latin transmission. Other pieces of evidence are cultural loans such as aurali 'napkin' and kubitus 'reclining (company) at a meal' and loan translations, e.g. armahairtei 'mercf, which were taken from Latin orarium, cubitus, misericordia, not from their Greek equivalents. A fmal point to be noted is that Baltic loanwords from Gothic were transmitted through Slavic (cf. Stender-Petersen 1927: 134 and Green 1998: 172-174), which suggests that the Balts never had direct contact with the Goths but were separated from them by the Slavs.

C.C. UHLENBECK ON INDO-EUROPEAN, URALIC AND CAUCASIAN

In his early years, C. C. Uhlenbeck was particularly interested in the problem of the Indo-European homeland (1895, 1897). He rejected Herman Hirt's theory (1892) that the words for 'birch; 'willoW, 'spruce, 'oal(, 'beech' and 'eef point to Lithuania and its immediate surroundings and returned to Otto Schrader's view (1883, 1890) that the original homeland must rather be sought in southern Russia and may have included some of the later Germanic and Iranian territories. It is clear that the Mediterranean region and the area around the North Sea can safely be excluded because the arrival of the Indo-Europeans was comparatively recent here, as it was in Iran and the Indian subcontinent. It is difficult to be more specific within the limits of central and eastern Europe and central Asia. Uhlenbeck was impressed by the lexical correspondences between Indo-European and Semitic which had been adduced in favor of an eastern homeland but pointed out that borrowings from Semitic may have reached the Indo-Europeans through an intermediary. He agrees that the Indo-European words for trees and animals point to a moderate climate but questions the possibility of a more specific localization as well as the concept of homeland itself. Uhlenbeck identifies the Slavic word for 'dog pt~Sb with the Indo-European word for 'livestock' *peR:u and its original meaning as 'domestic animaf. Unlike Hirt (1895), he recognizes that the Indo-Europeans were pastoralists before they became agriculturalists, as is clear from the absence of common words for 'plough: 'field; 'grain' and suchlike. While Armenian shares many agricultural terms with the languages of Europe, these are absent from Indo- Iranian. The common Indo-European vocabulary reflects a stage of development when weaponry was made of stone, wood, bones and hides (cf. Schrader 1890: 320-346). It includes words for 'cart' (oxoi;,), 'wheef (~ 13). (2) Devoicing of unaspirated voiced stops (12 > n). (3) Voicing of glottalic stops (u > 21, 12 > 22, 13 > 23). (4) Elinlination of unaspirated voiceless stops ( 21 > 22, 21 > 20). The absolute chronology can only be established on the basis of loan words. Since loans from Arabic are subject to shifting while loans from Turkic are not (Agajan 1960: 44), we have to date (3) between the 7th and the 10th centuries. It is possible that (1) was in progress during the classical period, as Djahukian suggests (1967: 76). Thus far I have linlited the discussion to word-initial plosives because it is the position of maxinlal contrast in the Armenian dialects. The same type of analysis can be applied to other positions. The generalization of voiced stops after nasals and voiceless aspirates after prefmal -r- are probably early developments because they have affected the large majority of dialects. Intervocalically, the following types are found: wa na 12a 2oa 21a 23a

t t

d

t= t

t d

d d d

f'=

r r r r r r

r= r

t dh

examples: Karabagh, Lori Van Agulis Malatia, Trabzon, Erevan, Tiflis Sasun Sivas

The areas 12a and 23a are small islands within 1oa and 2oa, respectively, while ua and 21a are considerably smaller than u and 21. A large part of the eastern dialects have the western (voiced) reflex of intervocalic t etc. Almost all northern dialects have been subject to the aspiration of intervocalic d etc. Following the principles which have been put forward above, one arrives at the same reconstruction and the same relative chronology as have been established for initial plosives, plus one additional development: (5) Devoicing of voiced aspirates (13a > 1oa, 23a > 2oa). The reconstructed Common Armenian obstruent system now appears as follows: aspirated voiced voiceless

plain d

glottalic

t

Proto-Indo-European glottalic stops

61

The frrst Armenian consonant shift is seen to consist in the loss of the aspiration of PIE *dh, the rephonemicization oflenis PIE *d as voiceless, and the weakening of the occlusion of PIE *t. 5· VEDIC AND AVESTAN

The Balta-Slavic evidence points to a series of preglottalized voiced obstruents as the earliest reconstructible reflex of the PIE glottalic stops. Alexander Lubotsky has adduced Indo-Iranian evidence in support of this interpretation (1981: 137). The root of Greek mjyvVfU 'fasten' is represented in the Rgveda as follows: 3rd sg. papaje 'stiffened: pajra- 'frrm: pak$a- 'wing, pak$fn- 'bird: pak$as- 'side; pajas- 'frame; pajasya- 'flank'. The distribution of short and long root vowel can be explained by the assumption that the laryngeal was lost before a glottalic obstruent when the latter was followed by another consonant. Lubotsky adduces fourteen roots in laryngeal plus glottalic stop with short root vocalism in Old Indic, five of which have Avestan correspondences with a short root vowel. Thus, Lubotsky's law must be dated to the Indo-Iranian period. The development is understandable if a sequence of laryngeal plus glottalic stop was realized as a glottal stop plus preglottalized voiced obstruent 6. SINDHI AND PANJABI

The hypothesis that the unaspirated voiced stops of Old Indic were preglottalized is confirmed by immediate comparative evidence from Sindhi, which has preserved the glottalic articulation. This language has a threefold opposition between voiced stops: the unconditioned reflexes of the d and dh series are glottalic and aspirated, respectively, while dissimilation of the dh series before aspirates of recent origin has given rise to a plain voiced series, e.g. gahu 'baif < grasa-, gahu 'fodder'< ghiisa-. It can be shown that the glottalic stops are at least older than the loss of the PIE laryngeals (Ko38: 17-18). There is no reason to disclaim their PIE origin. The glottalic articulation cannot be attributed to external influence because the neighbouring languages do not present anything comparable. The Panjabi material also requires the former existence of preglottalized voiced obstruents at a recent stage. In this language, the voiced aspirates have become voiceless and unaspirated, yielding a low tone on the following vowel, e.g. kora 'horse, Hindi ghora. Since the voiceless aspirates have been preserved as a separate category, the dh series was not phonemically aspirated at the time of the devoicing (Haudricourt 1975: 271). It follows that the glottalic stops were preserved at that stage. Moreover, the d series did not lower the tone of a following vowel. This also points to the preservation of the glottalic feature.

62.

Indo-European phonology 7.GREEK

The usual reconstruction of the PIE word for '10o' *R:rrtt6m does not account for the initial vowel of Greek bcar6v. The comparison of this vowel with the word for 'one' *sem- is at variance with the indeclinability and the syntactic behavior of e~ OE/OFris. -on, -om could hardly have taken place except by way of *-an, -am". Secondly, "the borrowing of Latin strata as strazza in OHG and strata in OS and as stret(e) in AngL!Kt!OFris. and strret in WS suggests that the forbears of OE/OFris. had an open vowel, which was subsequently fronted". And thirdly, "the expansion of e, to a was a direct consequence of the appearance of e. in the long/tense subsystem of late Gmc. (NG/WG)". I think that none of these three arguments holds water. First of all, it must be noted that the retraction of Proto-Germanic *-en to *-an is not only shared by Old Saxon and Old High German but also matched by a West Germanic delabialization of *-on and *-ons to *-an, *-ans (cf. K109: 103). This centralization before a tautosyllabic nasal is typologically similar to the development of nasal vowels in French, e.g. main, plein, bien, fin, un, brun, all with a nasalized central vowel in the modem language. It follows that no conclusions can be based on this new *a < *re, *o before nasals, which evidently was an early West Germanic development Secondly, the borrowing of Latin strata as West Germanic *strreta only shows that there was no *a in the receiving language at the time and that *re was closer than *o, which is unremarkable. Note that the fmal-a was identified with the delabialized acc.sg. ending *-on. And thirdly, the rise of new e was probably recent because it represents earlier *ea in Scandinavian and is preserved as ea in early Old High German (cf. K12.4). In fact, the diphthongization of o to uo in Old High German is best explained by the hypothesis that ea > ia > ie was never

The origin of the Old English dialects revisited

271

monophthongized in the southern dialects of West Germanic. The spelling ea is typical of Alemannic, as is the spelling ua for o, as opposed to ie, uo in Franconian and ie beside ea and oa in Bavarian (cf. Rauch 1967: 37f., 25, 90). Now we tum to the Anglo-Frisian palatalization. Fulk distinguishes between an early palatalization (stage 4) and a later phonemicization of palatals and assibilation (stage 10). This is an unfortunate split, not only because the late phonemicization of palatals effectively obliterates the explanatory value of the early palatalization, but also because it implies that the fronting of velar consonants was reversed by the restoration of a following re to a. When we look at other languages (Celtic, Slavic, Indic), we usually perceive a rising tide of palatalization, which first affects certain positions and then spreads to other environments (e.g. Greene 1974, Ko35). The similarities and differences between the conditions for palatalization in English and Frisian rather suggest that we have to distinguish between an early Anglo-Frisian development and a later 0 ld English innovation. Such a chronological split is strongly criticized by Hogg, who claims that "the various types of palatalization are prime candidates for simultaneous application" (1979: 108). On the contrary, it yields a much more natural chain of events than the alternating developments of fronting and backing listed above. Thus, I would start from a vowel system with long front *re and short back *a, a general tendency to retract re to ii, and a local tendency to front a to re. If we want to avoid the assumption that fronted re was again retracted to a, it follows that the Anglo- Frisian fronting of the short vowel was blocked by a following l, r, h plus consonant and in open syllables by a back vowel in the following syllable. (Dirk Boutkan has pointed out to me that the same view was already put forward by Heuser 1903: 1.) Since we do not fmd palatalization before *ai and *au in Frisian, it is natural to assume that *ai had been monophthongized to ii before the Anglo-Frisian fronting of a to re and that *au had remained unchanged. The Anglo- Frisian palatalization then affected k and g before front vowels. Mter the "Saxon" migration to Britain, the fronting of a to re affected the remaining instances of a in closed syllables, and also *au with a before tau tosy llabic u, in the dialect of the settlers. This "Saxon" second fronting was followed by breaking and second palatalization, e.g. in eald, ceapian, OFr. ald 'old: kiipia 'buf In fact, the frrst stage of breaking can be identified with the "Saxon" fronting because the conditions were largely identical: it appears that the process of breaking began as incomplete fronting of a before tautosyllabic l, r, h and u and subsequently affected e and i. After the "Anglian" migration, these developments spread to the north, leaving traces only of the earlier situation. In the meantime, Anglian shared the development of Frisian on the continent, in particular the raising of re to e, which had been preceded by the Anglo-Frisian retraction of re to ii before w (cf. Fulk 1998: 141). The Kentish raising of re to ewas probably a local development, perhaps under the influence

272

English

of a second invasion in Kent in the sixth century. Mter the "Anglian" migration, Frisian fronted a (from *ai) to re unless it was followed by a back vowel in the following syllable and monophthongized *au to a. The distinction between e < *re andre< *ai is still preserved in modem dialects (cf. Campbell1939: 101'). The Anglo- Frisian and second English palatalizations preceded umlaut (i-mutation) because the umlauted vowels did not palatalize k and g but phonemicized the opposition between palatals and velars, so that Old Frisian shows palatalization before e < *re and e < *re but not before e < *ii or re < *ai, e.g. tsetel < *katilaz 'kettle' and tziake < *krekon 'jaw' versus kenna< *kannjan 'make known' and kei, kai < *kaijo 'key' (cf. already van Haeringen 1920: 31f.). The main difference between the conventional wisdom that a was fronted to re and then retracted to a before a back vowel in the following syllable and my view that these developments never took place concerns the interpretation of the form slean 'strike: which serves as the hackneyed example to demonstrate fronting and breaking in *slahan (e.g. Hogg 1979: 92, Fulk 1998: 150). It seems to me that insufficient attention has been paid to the paradigm of this word. If slean were the phonetic reflex of *slahan as a result of fronting and breaking, it would be quite impossible to account for Northumbrian ea < *aha 'water: where restoration of a before the back vowel in the following syllable should have prevented breaking. In fact, Mercian eo- and North. (Be de) -eu and the preservation of the contrast between the reflexes eo < *ehO and ea < *eha in the Vespasian Psalter (cf. Campbell1959: 103) show that we are not dealing with breaking but with contraction here. It appears that the loss of intervocalic *-hbefore rounded vowels was sufficiently early for the resulting diphthong *au to undergo the "Saxon" fronting to *reu. The verb slean relates to faran as seon < *sehan to beran. It has long been recognized that strong verbs of the sixth class have a strong tendency to restore the root vowel a in West Saxon (e.g. Campbell 1959: 62). This is already an indication that the vocalism of slean cannot simply be attributed to generalization of breaking. We must rather assume that a was restored in the imperative far and the subjunctive (optative) fare because this limited the front vowel to the 2nd and 3rd sg. forms which had an umlauted vowel in other verbs and ask why the same development did not take place in the paradigm of *slahan. The parallelism between slean and seon suggests that their vocalism must be attributed to the early loss of *-h- before a rounded vowel and contraction in the 1st sg. and 3rd pl forms *seu, *slreu, *seop, *sla!op, which eventually developed into seo, slea, seop, sleap. When breaking yielded 2nd sg. *seohist, *slreohist, 3rd sg. *seohip, *slreohp, imp. seoh, *slreoh, subj. (opt) *seohe, *slreohe, the stage was set for generalization of the broken vowel in the infinitives *seohan, *slreohan. The original distribution of front re and back a in the root is actually preserved in Old Frisian, where we find 3rd sg. present ind. sleith
.

282

English

RF 6 = AF to. Anglian shared the development of Frisian on the continent, in particular the raising of re toe, which had been preceded by the Anglo- Frisian retraction of re to ii before w. Mter the "Anglian" migration, Frisian fronted ii (from *ai) to re unless it was followed by a back vowel in the following syllable and monophthongized *au to ii. The distinction between e < *re and re < *ai is still preserved in modem dialects. RF 9 = E 16 + F 13. After the analogical restoration of back vowels (AF 8) had introduced palatal consonants before back vowels and the second fronting (WS n, Au) had introduced new velar consonants before front vowels which were again palatalized (E 14), the umlaut (i-mutation) once again introduced new velar consonants before front vowels. H.F. Nielsen subscribes to Stiles's chronology of the rounding before a nasal (PS 3-6 = RF 1-2 = AF 1-3) but not to his early fronting (PS 1-2 = RF 3 = AF 6) and proposes the following chronology for Old Frisian (2001: 521): HN 1. HN 2. HN 3. HN 4. HN 5·

Monophthongization of *ai tore (AF 4 + F u) and of *au to ii (F 12). Fronting oflong *ii (< *e,) tore and of short *a tore (AF 6). Palatalization of *k and *g (AF 7). Umlaut= i-mutation (F 13). Breaking (F 14).

The problem with this chronology is threefold. First, short *re < *a and long *re < *e, must be older than *re < *ai because the former palatalize *k and *g and the latter does not, e.g. tsetel < *katilaz 'kettle' and tziake < *krekon 'jaw' versus kei 'key' (cf. van Haeringen 1920: 31f. and Campbell1939: 107). It follows that the fronting of *ai (HN t) must be more recent than the fronting of *e, and *a (HN 2) and the palatalization of *k and *g (HN 3). Second, the fronting oflong *ii (< *e,) tore (HN 2) must be older than the rise of *ii *bakkjaR > *bakkrR > *bekkrR > bekkr 'brook'.

ON BRJlAKING

As H.F. Nielsen points out, for Old English "it is fairly certain that breaking takes place prior to i-mutation,' which itself precedes back umlaut.• [... ] On the other hand, OE breaking must be later than OE fronting of a > re,3 which is most likely to be an independent development" (1984: 75, So). This chronology suffices to show that the Old English breaking cannot be identified with the Scandinavian breaking. Moreover, the conditions of the two were quite different. Since the Old Frisian breaking "took place only before ht and hs, and not before intervocalic h, such forms as siucht (sees') show that it must have taken place later than i-mutation, for the i of the 3rd pers. sg. pres. indic. was not syncopated till after it had caused mutation" (Campbel11939: 105). Thus, we fmd similar, yet quite different developments in the three languages. Nielsen quotes with approval Fourquet's view that in Old English "les produits de la fracture des voyelles breves sont venus occuper dans le systeme des breves la mfune place que les diphtongues dorigine ancienne occupaient dans le systeme des longues" (1959: 151), which is in accordance with Krupatkin's observation that "every time the initial shifts in the field of the long vowels raised similar transformations in the field of the short vowels" (1970: 63). This explains the fact that the "fractured reflexes of i and e have rounded second elements in OE, in early OE -u': and possibly "the second element of the broken reflex of re was also -u at first" (Nielsen 1984: 76). Thus, io, eo, ea were the short counterparts of lo, eo, ea from the time when these were still u-diphthongs. Nielsen can now explain the fact that the reflex of *a is not broken in Old Frisian: "Gmc. au was monophthongized to ii in OFris., and consequently there was no systematic pressure in terms of creating another short diphthong in the way that iu (io) was phonemicized as a short counterpart of Gmc. eu!iu" (1984: 77f.). This leads me to reconsider the Scandinavian breaking against the same background. As K.M. Nielsen has convincingly argued, "the diphthong arisen by breaking was ia both before a and before u"in Scandinavian, and this diphthong "is found on the stones of Sparlosa and Rok; by u-mutation it passes into i9 in WN, as appears from scaldic rhymes and vowel harmony; at the further development into o in Icelandic, lx;rn and bi9rn go together. In EN the development into i9 only takes place with lost u, a stage which perhaps is expressed in biaurn in the runic inscriptions; i9 is developed into io, which appears in the biurn of the runic inscriptions and in the biorn of the medieval MSS" (1961: 40f.). The further development of i9 in Old Icelandic jJiokkr 'thicl(, miolk 'mill(, Old Norwegian }1iukkr, neuter fiugur 'foui, Old Swedishfiughur is

290

Scandinavian

secondary. 4 Since *e was the short counterpart of *e, in North and West Germanic, we must look into the origin of the latter. The origin of *e. is the subject of an article by the regretted Tocharologist, Baltologist, Germanicist and Indo-Europeanist Jorundur Hilmarsson (1991). With his characteristic care and acute sense of etymology, the author divides the instances of *e. into seven groups: (1) *he.r, (2) *me.da-, (3) class VII preterits, (4) Latin loanwords, (5) "j'e.ro, (6) *ke.na- and *le,ba-, (7) Continental Germanic residue. For the present purpose, groups (4)-(7) can be regarded as a residue and will be left out of consideration. The same holds for *me,da-, which does not occur in Scandinavian. For *he.r we must start from a deictic particle *hi 'here' (cf. Ko63), which was extended by -ar from par 'there, jainar 'yondei, aljar 'elsewhere'.5 The regular lowering of *ito e before a yielded OHG hear (Isidor), later hiar, hier. As I have indicated elsewhere (Kn5), I think that *e, in the class VII preterits of strong verbs represents *ea, which was preserved in OHG geang 'wenf, feang 'seized~ feal 'fell'. The model for the development of this formation was provided by the preterits *eauk 'increased: *eaus 'poured~ *eaud 'granted: *ear 'ploughed~ *ealp, 'grew old~ *eaik 'claimed: and especially *eaj 'went'. The spread of *ea as a preterit marker yielded *hleaup 'leaped~ *heald, 'held: *heait 'called: also *beauw 'dwelf, 'teah 'seized: *leret 'lef, plural *hleup-, *held-, *heit-, *beuw-, 'teng-, *let-, ON hli6p, helt, hit, bi6, biogg-,fekk,flng-, let, lit- (cf. Noreen 1970: 338-340). The identification of *e, as *ea now explains the Scandinavian breaking of *e to *eii in accordance with the considerations cited above. It is remarkable that there is no evidence for breaking before a front vowel in the following syllable, where the model *ea was lacking, and that breaking is less frequent in light than in heavy syllables. Even more strikingly, breaking was blocked by a preceding *w, e.g. verpa 'to throW, huelpr 'whelP, while the preterit sueip, pl. suip- 'swept' shows absence of *ea after *w, which is a natural restriction because the form contains a triphthong already. The broken vowel *eii either developed into ja by "coinciding in its onset with the non-syllabic allophone of /if' (SteblinKamenskij 1957: 91) or lost its diphthongal character and merged with the reflex of umlauted *a. The latter development may have been conditioned by the monophthongization of *ea to e, which probably took place under the pressure of the rise of re from umlauted *a. It is probably no accident that *ea is best preserved in Old High German, where the umlaut of *a was late. Analogical developments have rendered the original conditions of breaking opaque. The Old Icelandic paradigm of hialpa 'to help' closely follows that of falla 'to fall', reflecting the conditions of umlaut, not of breaking, e.g. 2nd pl. hialpep like fallep < *-ed, *-aid. The purely phonological development is perhaps most faithfully preserved in the word for 'si'x, where the cardinal is not broken

On breaking

291

while the ordinal is in East Norse, cf. Swedish sex, sjatte, Danish seks, sjette, Latin sex, sextus. NOTES

' "Cf. forms like OE wierpp ( < *wiorpip < *wirpijJ) and nlehst (< *neahist < *nrehist), which would have come out *wiorpp, *weorpp and *neahst if the reverse relative chronology had been true~ Differently Collier (1987), who disregards the fact that the Old High German umlaut took place before preserved i but not before lost *i and cannot therefore be identified with the Old English umlaut. • "This is shown e.g. by eosol, whose diphthong is due to back mutation of e which again reflects an i-mutated a, cf. eosol (suffix substitution) < *esil
nieht) and healp presuppose the intermediate stage -re-, cf. Gmc. *sah, *nahtiz and *halp".

Cf. Benediktsson 1963: 428-31 and 1982: 38-41. On doublets such as biarg, berg 'rock' and fiall, fell 'mountai.ti, cf. Hoff 1949: 195-202. On Dyvik's theory (1978), see Benediktsson's review (1982: 41-55). 4

This was already suggested by Mahlow (1879: 163) and more recently by Meid (1971: 94). Ringe's objection that we should expect *hir instead of *hiar (1984: 140) is proved invalid by *hwar'where, ON huar, Lith. kur.

5

GLOTIAUZATION, PREASPIRATION AND GEMINATION IN ENGLISH AND SCANDINAVIAN

Docherty et alii have "noted that several sociolinguistic accounts have shown a sharp distinction between the social trajectories for glottal replacement as opposed to glottal reinforcement, which have normally been treated by phonologists as aspects of 'the same thing'. It may therefore not always be appropriate to treat the two phenomena as manifestations of a single process or as points on a single continuum (presumably along which speakers move through time). From the speaker's point of view (as manifested by different patterns of speaker behavior) they appear as independent phenomena" (1997: 307). In particular, "while the glottal stop is spreading rapidly in mainstream English, glottal reinforcement (especially of /pi and lkl in intervocalic positions) is possibly recessive. It is characteristic not only of Tyneside male speech but also of rather conservative rural varieties, such as those of south-west Scotland and much of Northern Ireland" (o.c.: 306). This supports my view that the "reinforcing" glottal closure of ['p], ['t], ['k] is ancient, in spite of the recent spread of the replacing glottal stop in mainstream English (cf. K142.). The two types of glottal variant are clearly distinct in Newcastle English, where they moreover exhibit quite different sociolinguistic patterns. The replacing glottal stop "is variably substituted for non-initial pre-vocalic It/ (e.g. in set off, water) by younger speakers, especially middle-class females, and as such appears to be a non-local form entering Newcastle English" whereas the preglottalized variants "by contrast, are largely the preserve of older males" (Docherty & Foulkes 1999: 54). It appears that the preglottalized stops "differ from the 'pure' glottal variants in terms of the presence of movement of the second formant in the previous vowel: formant transitions are caused by gestures involving the supralaryngeal vocal organs. 79% of our tokens contained F2. transitions, the exceptional cases sounding clearly like glottal stops" (o.c.: 57). It turns out that "older males appear to be producing glottalised tokens with a different articulatory co-ordination than other members of the speech community: they have a greater tendency to time the oral gesture such that it lags behind the accompanying glottal articulation" (o.c.: 61f.). Thus, preglottalization is disappearing from the language while the replacing glottal stop is spreading in the speech of the younger generation. While the "increasing space given by phoneticians from about 192.0 onwards to the treatment of the glottal stop" (Andresen 1968: 34) can be explained by the phonemic character of the glottal replacement, the earlier preglottalization of /p/, /t/, /kl went unnoticed because it was not distinctive. Glottalization is pervasive in pre-1930 audio recordings of people born in the second half of the

294

Scandinavian

19th century, even in formal delivery (cf. K142, with re£). It follows that glottalization was well-established in upper-class English speech in the 19th century and must have been widespread in the standard language of that time. The lack of attention to this phenomenon can be explained not only by the subphonemic character of preglottalization but also by its loss in pre-pausal position. While "glottal variants are widespread in various phonological contexts in Newcastle, they are almost categorically prohibited in pre-pausal position. Tokens before a pause are instead - from an auditory perspective - clearly 'released' voiceless alveolars" (Docherty & Foulkes 1999: 62). It appears that either the glottalization or the buccal features could be lost in pre-pausal position: "In Derby glottal stops in pre-pausal position are far more widespread, but in the self-conscious context of word-list readings most speakers produce what sound like 'released' [t] s, just as in Newcastle" Q.c.). This suggests that prepausal [t] is due to restoration and that the spread of the rep lacing glottal stop in mainstream English may have started from pre-pausal positions. This brings the original distribution of the English glottalization closer to its Danish counterpart, the so-called vestjysk sted, which is found immediately before the plosives p, t, k "wherever these stand in an original medial position, following a voiced sound in a stressed syllable" (Ringgaard 1960: 195). The vestjysk st0d cannot possibly be connected with the Jylland apocope because it is also found in the northeastern part of the vestfynsk dialects, where the apocope did not take place. The vestjysk st0d in these isolated dialects suggests that it is a retention rather than an innovation. Moreover, Hansson has drawn attention to the fact that vestjysk swd is found on original monosyllables and polysyllables alike in the most remote and isolated villages on the island of Als, where it coexists with true pitch accents representing the original accents 1 and 2 from which the Common Danish st0d opposition developed (2001: 166). We must conclude that outside these archaic dialects the vestjysk st0d was lost in monosyllables, as was the case with preglottalization in Newcastle English. The preglottalized stops of English and Danish cannot be separated from the preaspirated stops in the northern Scandinavian languages. The geographical distribution of preaspiration has recently been examined in detail by Hansson (2001: 158-164), who concludes that it is a peripheral archaism to be identified historically with the vestjysk swd. Hansson points out that we fmd preaspiration proper in Icelandic, Faroese, the Norwegian dialects of Jreren, North Gudbrandsdal, most of Harjedalen, and the island of Senja, the Swedish dialects of northeastern Uppland (GrasO, ValO, Hallnas, Forsmark), of the Aland island of Kokar and some nearby dialects, the Estonian Swedish dialect of Ormso, the Lapland dialects of Vilhelmina and Arjeplog (where it may be attributed to Saami influence), and in a spoken corpus from Central Standard Swedish. Most importantly, preaspiration is found not only in original geminates and in stops before sonorants, as in Icelandic, but also in single /p/,

Glottalization, preaspiration and gemination in English and Scandinavian

295

It/, !kl between vowels and word-finally after a vowel, especially in Faroese (cf. already K182: 61) and in the dialects of Uppland (Graso). We find extensive sonorant devoicing before I pi, It/, !kl in the same areas as preaspiration proper while devoicing of /11 and especially lrl is more widespread, covering most of the Norwegian and Swedish territory. The strong geographical correlation between preaspiration proper and extensive sonorant devoicing and the much wider distribution of the devoicing of lrl and Ill suggest that preaspiration was lost after a vowel in the larger part of Scandinavia. We now tum to the origin of the Scandinavian preaspiration. Hansson assumes that lpl, It/, !kl were "phonetically preaspirated in all non-initial positions in Late Proto-Scandinavian" (2001: 167) but takes an agnostic position on the ultimate origins of preaspiration, proposing that lpl, ltl, !kl "became either preaspirated or preglottalized through a simple sound change: viz. "a slight misalignment of articulatory gestures': and assuming that "preglottalization developed out of preaspiration" without adducing any arguments for this assumption (o.c.: 169). He thinks that preaspiration was phonemicized in Icelandic as a result of devoicing of voiced stops (o.c.: 168) but suggests in a footnote that it may have resulted from the shortening of long vowels in closed syllables if !bl, ldl, lgl were already voiceless at the time. The latter view comes close to my own. In fact, there is no evidence for voiced obstruents in Proto-Scandinavian because the voiceless stops of e.g. Icelandic henda 'throw~ vagga 'cradle, hera 'carry' (o.c.: 164) may go all the way back to Proto-Germanic. Indeed, the "hardening' of voiced fricatives to voiceless stops (l.c.) suggests that the fricatives were actually voiceless at that time. Elsewhere I have proposed that intervocalic *-d- became a fricative between the earlier and the later syncope (K1o2: 4) and that all obstruents were voiceless in North-West Germanic (K138: 54). I think that the rise of phonemic voicedness was a more recent development which took place under Romance and subsequently Low German influence and eventually led to the loss of preaspiration in South and Central Scandinavian. The close correspondence between preglottalization in English and Danish suggests that preaspiration developed out of it in the northern Scandinavian languages. I am inclined to identify the development with the fricativization of postvocalic *d [t] between the earlier and the later syncope, which can be dated to the 7th century. The loss of glottal constriction in the preglottalized stops yielded preaspiration in the same way as the loss of occlusion in postvocalic b [p], d [t], g [k] yielded fricatives. This account of the facts offers parallel explanations for the Scandinavian preaspiration and the High German consonant shift, where the new affricates [pf], [ts], [kx] can be derived from preglottalized stops ['p], ['t], ['k] by loss of the buccal occlusion with concomitant oralization (klusilspring) of the glottal constriction (cf. K138a). Thus, I think that OHG helpfan, English hel'p, Vestjysk hjrel'b and Icelandic

Scandinavian

hjalhpa all developed from Proto-Germanic *hel'p- and that conservative English dialects have best preserved the original sound structure. The reconstruction of preglottalized stops sheds new light on the quantity shift in Scandinavian because the phonetic difference between preglottalized and geminated stops is slight, the glottal constriction preceding the buccal closure in the former but not in the latter instance. As a result, preglottalization could easily be reanalyzed as gemination, entailing the rise of new closed syllables. This mechanism accounts in a principled way for the existence of several layers of gemination in North and West Germanic (cf. K1o2: 7). It also explains the fact "that in Harjedalen, only the more innovative dialects (as opposed to that of Vemdal) preaspirate these secondary geminates, and on Kokar, only younger speakers preaspirate them. Both are obvious cases of later generalization" (Hansson 2001: 1723), similar to the generalization of sonorant devoicing before Is/ in Faroese (o.c.: 162f.). While preaspiration was lost after lengthened short vowels before single stops in most of the West and North Norwegian, Faroese and Icelandic dialects, the lengthening was evidently anticipated by the rise of geminates from preglottalized stops in East Norwegian and Central and North Swedish dialects, except after the low vowels a and re, which were lengthened (cf. Perridon 2002: 73), e.g. Swedish vecka 'wee!(, droppe 'drop; skepp 'ship; but iita 'eaf, cf. ON vika, dropi, skip, OE wice, dropa, scip. As in the case of preaspiration in Harjedalen and Kokar and sonorant devoicing in Faroese, gemination could be generalized by lengthening I sf and /m/ after short vowels, and even other resonants in the Norwegian dialect of Bergen (o.c.: 76). Elsewhere I have argued that the preglottalization which I have reconstructed for Proto-Germanic can be identified with the preglottalization which must be reconstructed for other Indo-European languages on the basis of direct evidence from Baltic and Indic and indirect evidence from Indo-Iranian, Greek, Latin and Slavic (see especially Ko75). Hansson's view that this hypothesis "hinges on the validity of the Glottalic Theory as such" (2001: 169) is mistaken because my reconstruction of Proto-Germanic preglottalization is based on its actual attestation in English and western Danish and on the derivation of preaspiration in northern Scandinavian, of various layers of gemination in North and West Germanic, and of affrication in High German (and English dialects) from natural developments of the same, irrespective of its origins. Perridon asks rhetorically: "If for instance the geminated fricative in High German essen is the reflex of a preglottalized stop in Pgerm., why then is there in this case no preaspiration in Icelandic, no (vestjysk) st121d in the western dialects of Danish, no glottal stop in English, nor gemination in Central and North Swedish?" (2002: 743). The answer in simple: preaspiration was lost after a lengthened short vowel in Icelandic (but not in northern Faroese), preglottalization was usually lost in monosyllables in vestjysk and English (but preserved in polysyllabic forms of such words), and gemination did not arise

Glottalization, preaspiration and gemination in English and Scandinavian

297

after lengthened a, re in Central and North Swedish (as Perridon remarks himself, o.c.: 73). Note that preaspiration is actually attested in Faroese eta [e:hta] (K182: 61) and preglottalization in Old Northumbrian eatta (K142: 177), where the double consonant cannot denote either a preceding short vowel (because the attested form is earlier than the lengthening of short vowels in northern English) or a true geminate (because the short vowel is regularly lengthened at a later stage in these dialects). The hitherto unexplained double consonants in the Lindisfarne Gospels and Rushworth glosses are another phenomenon which is accounted for by the reconstruction of preglottalized stops for Proto-Germanic (l.c.).

EARLY RUNIC CONSONANTS AND THil ORIGIN OF THil YOUNGER FUTHARK

Elsewhere I have argued that all obstruents were voiceless in North-West Germanic (K1o2: 9, K138: 54, K192: Sf.). H.F. Nielsen's comprehensive study of Early Runic (2ooo) now provides a welcome opportunity to compare my reconstruction with more traditional views of the early Germanic consonant systems and to specify its implications for the interpretation of the Runic evidence. While I generally agree with the common interpretation of the Gothic consonant system (as modified by Roberge 1983), I think that it originated from an early ftxation of the stress on the initial syllable which forestalled the devoicing of voiced stops and rhotacism of *z found in the other Germanic languages. Unlike Gothic, North-West Germanic preserved the preglottalized stops which were inherited from the proto-language and later developed into preaspirated stops in northern Scandinavia and into affricates in High German (cf. K1o2, K138, K192). This leads to the following comparison of my reconstruction (in square brackets) with Nielsen's interpretation (between slashes, cf. woo: 122f.) of the Early Runic consonant system:

b d g p

fbi /d/ /gl /pi

t

It/

k f

If/

I-

h s R

lkl

tpl lhl Is/

/z/ /m/

m n

In/

I

111

r

/r/ /w/ /j/

w

j

[p] [t] [k] ['p] ['t] ['k] [f)

[p] [h] [s] [R] [m] [n] [1] [r] [w] [j]

Nielsen assumes that the voiced stops had fricative allophones in non-initial positions. I fmd no evidence for this hypothesis, which cannot be separated from the common view that Grimm's law preceded Verner's law in ProtoGermanic. Elsewhere I have argued that this view is mistaken (K1o2: 5f. and

300

Scandinavian

Kn9: 2f.). If Verner's law preceded Grimm's law, there is no reason to assume voiced fricatives for any stage of Proto-Germanic except for the allophone *z of Is/. In particular, West Germanic *d and High German *b and *g never had fricative allophones in prehistoric times. Moreover, I think that they remained voiceless lenes up to a comparatively recent stage. In Old Norse, Nielsen's /z/ merged with /r/, e.g. gestr 'guesf versus Early Runic -gastiR. Nielsen assumes that the non-initial allophones of If! and tp/ became voiced and that the alleged voiced fricative allophones of !b! and /d/ were rephonemicized as allophones of If! and tp/ (2ooo: 125). This assumption creates several problems. First of all, "a contrast depending on the presence and absence of voice is retained by /k/ -:1- /g!, the latter phoneme having stop as well as fricative allophones" (o.c.: 145 63), e.g. voiced stop in ganga 'to gd, voiced fricative in auga 'eye and acc.sg. dag 'daY, palatal glide [j] in datsg. degi, voiceless fricative [x] in gen.sg. dags and neuter heilagt 'holy' (o.c.: 125). It remains unclear why [j] and [x] are identified as allophones of /g!, not of /j/ and /k/, respectively. It also remains unclear why the voiced fricative allophones of !b! and /d/ should be rephonemicized as allophones of If! and tp/ if this did not hold for the voiced fricative allophone of /gl. Alternatively, one could assume that the voiced allophones of If! and tp/ were rephonemicized as fricative allophones of !b! and /d/, which would bring them into conformity with the corresponding allophone of /gl. Secondly, it remains unclear why the voiced allophone [v] of If/, e.g. in grafa 'to dig, preteritgr6f < *-b-, and in nefi 'nephew'< *-p- (ibidem) is not identified with /v/, e.g. in vapn 'weapon~ instead of If/. The separation of non-initial [j] and [v] from initial/j/ and tv/looks like an undesirable artefact of the method. Thirdly, Nielsen notes that "there are no voiced allophones of Is/, not even in medial voiced surroundings, cf. leysa. This is surprising in view of the voiced allophones of the other fricatives in medial and fmal position" (o.c.: 125). Surprising indeed! It is a strong indication that there were no voiced fricatives at all at the stage under consideration and that all obstruents were voiceless. Nielsen remarks that "even the earliest Icelandic manuscripts had alternative spellings in u or V' for word-medial/f/ (o.c.: 14564), but this reflects a more recent stage. "Originally pwas used in all positions. When lJ was borrowed from Norwegian, the two letters occurred in free variation until eventually lJ was reserved for non-initial position" (l.c. 65). This may offer an indication for the chronology and geographical origin of the rise of voiced fricatives in Scandinavian. Fourthly, the phonological status of long consonants remains to be specified, e.g. leggja 'to laY, lykkja 'loop~ pakka 'to thank' (o.c.: 126). What exactly is the difference between leggja and datsg. degi in terms of distinctive features? Fifthly, the rhotacism is an unsolved problem. Nielsen's identification of R as /z/ is hard to reconcile with the fact that apart from the By stone (Norway, 6th

Early Runic consonants and the origin of the younger futhark

301

century) it is almost or wholly limited to word-fmal position (o.c.: 214). ln my view, R stands for voiceless r < *z and originated from the general devoicing of obstruents in North-West Germanic as a result of Grimm's law (cf. K138: 54). Now we tum to the 7th century evidence of the Blekinge and Eggja stones, which appears to be crucial for an interpretation of the Runic consonant system. Nielsen notes that initial /j/ "must have disappeared in the language of the Blekinge inscriptions, seeing that the jara-rune has come to designate A" (2ooo: 126) and suggests on the basis oflstaby AfatR 'after; with -R for -r, that "by this time the reflex of Gmc. *-z had coalesced with -r in fmal position in North Germanic when following an alveolar obstruent" (o.c.: 96). He thinks that the obstruent system of Early Runic was otherwise retained, to judge from examples such as Gummarp hA}mwolAfA, Stentoften hA_I)uwolAfR (personal name), Bjorketorp u_I)ArAbA 'harmfuf, where f and p are clearly preserved, as opposed to Gummarp stAbA 'staves; Stentoften hAborwnR 'he-goats; hederA 'hither; Bjorketorp hAidR 'brightness: which exhibit allophones of !bl and /d/. I find it very difficult to assume that *-z was retained in Stentoften -wolAfR (2x), Istaby -wulafR, also Eggja fiskR 'fisli, as in Stentoften dat.pl. hAborwnR 'he-goats: hagestwnR 'stallions: Eggja nom.pl. manR 'meti, while it became -r in Bjorketorp -IAusR 'loose, perhaps hAidR 'brightness; also bArutR 'breaks: cf. Stentoften -IAsAR, hideR, bAriuti}l. This looks like paper phonetics. If -R was the voiceless counterpart of -r, all of these examples receive a natural explanation. The fmal-r of *aftr was devoiced in Istaby AfatR, ON aptr, perhaps similarly in Bjorketorp hAidR [tR], while the final -r of Bjorketorp bArutR ['tR], ON brftr 'breaks' developed phonetically from -ip, Stentoften bAriuti_l), with -ip from word-fmal *-id with voiceless *-d [t] < *-ti. Nielsen states that things may be less clear-cut in the case of Stentoften gAf 'gave, where he assumes devoiced /b/ in fmal position, cf. Sjrelland bracteate 2 gibu '(I) give' (o.c.: 126). Interestingly, the consistent spelling of Gothic gif, gaf (beside giban, gibis, gebum, gebun) as opposed to grob 'dug' and gadob 'was fitting' (cf. Roberge 1983: 129) suggests that we have a Verner alternation here. I have therefore proposed to derive the verb 'to give' from ga- plus *ep-, cf. Hittite epzi 'seizes: Latin aplscor 'reacli, coepl 'have begun' (K120: 104f.), like OHG gezzan beside ezzan 'to eat' and MHG gan, gunnen 'grant' beside OHG an, unnun. The contrast between l'p/ and /d/ [t] in medial position was clearly retained in Eggja mo_I)A 'tired' versus mAde 'rubbed off' (Nielsen 2ooo: 127), so that the spelling of nAkdan 'naked' < *nakudan represents the expected reflex of ['kt], not [k<J] (as assumed by Nielsen, l.c.), similarly in final position ni}l 'waning of the moon' beside ob [op] < *uba, ON of'over'. The use of k and t instead of g and d in Eggja fold 'bird' and lat 'land' suggests that preglottalization was lost in western Norway around 700 because it developed into preaspiration at that time. This development must evidently be connected with the rise of the younger fu thar k.

302

Scandinavian

Elsewhere I have argued that the simplest way to account for the difference between the allomorphs of the weak preterit suffix in Old Norse, e.g. in deilda 'divided' < *dailido and vallJa 'chose' < *walido, is the hypothesis that intervocalic *-d- became a fricative between the earlier and the later syncope (K102: 4). If all obstruents were voiceless at that time, it follows that intervocalically b [p], d [t], g [k] became [f], [p], [x] and merged with the earlier fricatives f, p, but not h (which disappeared in non-initial positions). In northern Scandinavia, the loss of glottal constriction in the preglottalized stops p, t, k yielded preaspiration in the same way as the loss of occlusion in the noninitial lenes stops yielded fricatives. The preaspiration was often realized as devoicing of a preceding resonant and was thereby dissociated from the following stop. Note that there were also devoiced resonants without a following stop, e.g. in Stentoften and Bjorketorp welA 'deceitfuf < *wihla-, ON Vt!la 'betraY, Finnish Qoanword) vihlata 'delude, also ON mrela 'to speak' < *-Pl-, rrena 'to rob' < *-hn-, where the weak preterit in -ta instead of -da points to a voiceless resonant, and in my view of course-R for voiceless -r, cf. also rh- for *hr- in Helmes rhuulfR and Vatn (Norway, 8th century) rhoAltR < *hropuwaldaz (Nielsen 2ooo: 257ff.). On the other hand, -h- was not written before -tin Glavendrup trutin 'husband, lord: ON dr6ttinn, OE dryhten. These developments immediately explain the rise of the younger futhark, which does not denote voicedness because there were no voiced obstruents at that time. The choice of b rather than p is a consequence of the low frequency of the latter. Thus, we fmd original p in R0nninge bru})Ur 'brother' beside p < *d [t] in rau.,um 'red' and Glavendrup fa.,ur 'father' (Fyn, around 900), corresponding to OE bropor, read, freder, OHG bruoder, rot, fater (cf. o.c.: 129). The new consonant system did not arise everywhere at the same time. While it is already attested in the Ribe skull fragment (southwestern Jutland, around 725) in the form u.,in, OE Woden, the language of the Rok stone (Ostergotland, around 825) has preserved the distinction between b [p] and fin ualraubaR 'spoils of war' versus -uJfaR 'wolves' (o.c.: 14571 ). However, note that the latter inscription has also preserved the form sitiR 'sits: with -iR < -ip (attested in Stentoften, 7th century) < *-id with fmal [t], later Swedish sitr (o.c.: 260). It thus appears that the lenition was earlier word-finally after unstressed vowels. In a similar vein, I assume that b represents a bilabial stop in Old Frisian habuku 'hawk' (Oostum comb, 8th century) and in early Old English heben 'heaven, gibaen 'given: -hebuc 'hawl(, halb- 'half: salb 'ointmenf, scribun 'they decreed: as opposed to gen.sg. wuifes 'wolf' (o.c.: 135, cf. Campbell1959: 179). In North-Sea Germanic the original fricatives developed voiced allophones in medial positions before the syncope. The same may have happened in Scandinavia in the 12th century. Nielsen writes: "It is interesting and puzzling (a) that the (Old) Norse reflex of Gmc. *s remained voiceless in all positions, and (b) that the reflex of Gmc. *z was not de voiced fmally in the Blekinge and Eggja

Early Runic consonants and the origin of the younger futhark

303

language, cf. the final fricative in Stentoften gM vs. hAborwnz" (o.c.: 137). I claim that all obstruents remained voiceless throughout the Viking Age, that -f in gM represents an original voiceless fricative from Indo-European *-p-, and that -R was voiceless -r, not -z.

BJORKETORP AND STENTOFI'EN

In his discussion of the Bjorketorp and Stentoften stones, Elmer Antonsen claims that "all the forms of these two inscriptions represent the same stage in the development of Old Norse, and that the few instances of syntactic and morphological variation present no real evidence for a difference in chronology" (2002: 313). This conclusion is far from obvious. In the following I shall review the evidence against the background of my reconstruction of the Early Runic consonant system (K212), where all obstruents are voiceless and R is a voiceless trill which I shall write [R]. For the sake of convenience, the two inscriptions are reproduced here in the usual transcription (cf. Krause 1966: 209-217, Antonsen 1975: 85-88, 2002: 304). BJORKETORP

A B:I II III IV V VI

u_I)ArAbAsbA hAid.Rrunoronu fAIAhAkhAiderAg inArunARArAgeu hAerAmAIAusR utiARwelAdAude sAR_I)AtbArutR

"Harm(ful) prophecy. To the sequence of clear runes I commit hither mighty runes; through baseness protectionless abroad, (condemned) to insidious death, (is) he who breaks this:' STENTOFTEN

II III IV V VI

niuhAborwnR niuhagestwnR hA_I)uwolAfRgAfj hAriwolAfRmAgiusnuhle hideRrunonofelAhekAhederAginoronoR herAmAIAsARArAgeuwelAdudsA_I)AtbAriuti_l)

"(With) nine he-goats, nine stallions, Hapuwolf gave good-year, Hariwolf.... To the (sequence) of clear runes I commit hither mighty runes; protectionless through baseness, (condemned) to insidious death, (is) he (who) breaks this."

306

Scandinavian

In his identification of Bj. BI-VI with St V-VI, Antonsen equates the following forms (2002: 305-312): (1) Bj. hAidR = St. hideR= /hredr-/ 'clear~ In my reconstruction, the sequence dR is voiceless [tR], with a voiceless trill. Antonsen assumes that Stentoften, unlike Bjorketorp, has an epenthetic e in this sequence and that *ai and *au had been monophthongized both in St. hideR, lAs, dud and in Bj. hAidR, IAusR, dAude. Alternatively, one may assume that unstressed *i was lost in Bj. hAidR but not (yet) in St hideR < *haidiz 'brightness' (cf. Krause 1966: 215, Schulte 1998: 113-118, Nielsen 2ooo: 96) and that St. i, A, u are deficient spellings representing diphthongs in these words. ( 2) Bj., St. runo = 1- nina/ 'of runes'. Here Antonsen's interpretation is at variance with the spelling, which points to *ri:tno. (3) Bj. ronu =St. no= /(ru)nii/ 'to the (sequence)~ Here again, the discrepancy between the vowels remains unexplained. (4) Bj. fAIAhAk = St felAhekA = /frelh-rek(a)/ 'I commif, where I reconstruct preglottalized k ['k]. It may be assumed that the fmal vowel was lost after a light syllable in Bj. Ak but not in St ekA •e The vowel of Bj. Ak is best explained as a reduction of *e, which also points to a chronological difference between the two forms (cf. Schulte 1998: 134). (5) Bj. hAiderA = St hederA = /hredra/ 'hither'. These forms have an epenthetic e in the sequence /dr/, in my view [tr] with voiced r. (6) Bj. ginA = St gino = /ginn-/ 'mighty'. Antonsen's assumption of an epenthetic vowel does not explain the timbre of St o, which must represent earlier *u and points to a chronological difference between the two forms (cf. Schulte 1998: 12.4-128). (7) Bj. rWlAR = St. ronoR = /-riinaR/ 'runes'. Here again, Antonsen's interpretation leaves the discrepancies between the vowels unexplained. The spellings rather point to a difference between an older form *runoR and a younger form *runaR (cf. Nielsen 2ooo: 96, 263). (8) Bj., St. ArAgeu = /rergiu/ 'through baseness~ (9) Bj. hAerAmA = St herAmA = /hjrerm-/ 'protection'. Here we fmd breaking in Bjorketorp but not in Stentoften, which again may reflect a chronological difference. I reconstruct Bj. [hiE!r-], also in Istaby hAem 'sword-: later [ia] in Ribe hiAlb 'help' and R121nninge skialta 'shield' (cf. Nielsen 2ooo: 109), with the short counterpart of *e. = [ea], as I have argued elsewhere (K12.4). (10) Bj.IAusR =St. lAs= [-10ss] = /-10sr/ '-less'. This peculiar analysis smacks of paper phonetics. We must rather identify Bj. IAusR with St IAsAR (cf. Krause

Bjorketorp and Stentoften

307

1966: 215, Schulte 1998: 136, Nielsen 2ooo: 96, 259), with loss of unstressed *a in Bjorketorp but not in Stentoften.

(n) Bj. uti= Iiitel 'outside, abroad' has no counterpart in Stentoften. (12) Bj. AR =StAR= /reR/ 'is; which Antonsen derives from 2nd sg. *iz < *ezi < *esi with leveling of *e from the plural forms and lowering of *e to Ire!. I find this derivation highly improbable. First of all, St. AR is not a copula but part of the preceding word lAsAR (see above). Since there is no copula in Stentoften, there is no reason why there should be one in Bjorketorp. Moreover, the substitution of a md sg. for a 3rd sg. form is not a natural development (see below) and does not yield the required output: "ikke blot R, men ogsa A er umotiveref' (Jacobsen 1935: 30). I can only conclude that the sequence utiAR remains to be explained (in spite of Schulte 2oo6a: 24-34, wo6b: 406-410). (13) Bj., St. welA = /wrel-/ 'insidious; for which I reconstruct [weL-], with a voiceless lateral in view of the preterit velta and the Finnish borrowing vihlata 'delude'. (14) Bj. clAude= St dud= /-d0d(e)/ 'to deatli, where Antonsen thinks that the original nonzero ending was replaced by a zero ending under the influence of the consonant stems. This is an arbitrary solution because such a development is entirely unmotivated. The discrepancy is best explained by the hypothesis that we are dealing with ann-stem where the nom.sg. ending was lost phonetically in Stentoften and replaced by the ending of the ian-stems in Bjorketorp (cf. Lid 1952, Syrett 1994: 151, Schulte 1998: 141, Gnmvik 1998: 129-132, K219). Nedoma's outdated view (2005) can safely be discarded. (15) Bj. sAR = St sA= /sa(R)/ 'he (who)~ (16) Bj., St _I)At = tpat/ 'this; in my view with preglottalized t ['t]. (17) Bj. bArutR = /brytr/, St. bAriuti_l) = /brytip/ 'breaks; where I reconstruct voiceless band preglottalized t. Here again, the proposed substitution of a 2nd sg. for a 3rd sg. form is unacceptable to me. It is much more probable that final *-p became [R] when the preceding vowel was devoiced before the syncope. There is a parallel in Nivkh, where *t yielded [R] after a devoiced vowel which was syncopated (cf. K205: 285). Thus, we have the following indications for a chronological difference between Stentoften and Bjorketorp: (1) Bj. hAidR = St. hideR. One may assume that unstressed *i was lost in Bj. hAidR but not in St hideR< *haidiz 'brightness' and that St. i, A, u are deficient spellings representing diphthongs.

Scandinavian

308

(4) Bj. fAIAhAk = St. felAhekA. It may be assumed that the fmal vowel was lost after a light syllable in Bj. Ak but not in St. ekA •e The vowel of Bj. Ak is best explained as a reduction of *e, which also points to a chronological difference between the two forms. ( 6) Bj. ginA = St gino. The timbre of St. o must represent earlier *u and points to a chronological difference between the two forms. (7) Bj. runAR = St. ronoR. Here the spellings point to a difference between an older form *rnnoR and a younger form *runaR.

(9) Bj. hAerAmA = St herAmA. Here we find breaking in Bjorketorp but not in Stentoften, which again may reflect a chronological difference.

(10) Bj.lAusR = St lAs. We must identify Bj.lAusR with St.lAsAR, with loss of unstressed *a in Bjorketorp but not in Stentoften. (14) Bj. d.Aude = St. dud. This discrepancy is best explained by the hypothesis that we are dealing with an n-stem where the nom.sg. ending was lost phonetically in Stentoften and replaced by the ending of the ian-stems in Bjorketorp. (17) Bj. bArutR, St bAriutii-. Here final *-p became [R] when the preceding vowel was devoiced before the syncope. I conclude that Antonsen's theory cannot be correct. In an earlier study I proposed the following relative chronology (K117: 30): (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

Umlaut oflong vowels. Reduction of unstressed vowels. Syncope after heavy syllables. Umlaut of short vowels. Syncope after light syllables.

Moreover, I have argued that the difference between deilda < *daildo < *dailido 'I divided' and valpa < *walpo < *walido 'I chose' is best explained by the assumption that intervocalic *d [t] became a fricative [p] between the earlier and the later syncope (K1o2.: 4) and can therefore be dated to stage D of this chronology. It now turns out that Stentoften hideR, lAsAR, bAriutii- can be dated before and Bjorketorp hAidR, lAusR, bArutR after the syncope at stage C. The vocalism of the second syllables in St hideR, felAhekA, gino, ronoR versus Bj. hAidR, fAIAhAk, ginA, runAR points to a date before and after the reduction of unstressed vowels at stage B, respectively. Syncope of original fmal vowels had evidently taken place already in St welAdud and bAriutii- and can therefore be dated before stage B. The lenition of fmal *-d [t] to [p] in the unstressed ending -il- can now also be dated before stage B while its further development to -R can be dated after the devoicing of the vowel which initiated

Bjorketorp and Stentoften

309

the syncope at stage C. There is no reason to assume that the umlaut of stage A had already taken place in Stentoften though it must have affected Bjorketorp hAidR. There is no evidence for an early monophongization in St. bAriuti., but the explicit spelling of the diphthongs in Bj. hAidR, IAusR, dAude suggests that it had taken place in bArutR. If the monophthongization can be identified chronologically with the umlaut at stage A, this offers a terminus ante quem for Stentoften. The rise of breaking in Bj. hAerAmA can perhaps be identified with the reduction of unstressed vowels at stage B. The preservation of the compositional vowels in both St. gino-ronoR, herAmA-IAsAR, welA-dud and Bj. ginA-runAR, hAerAmA-IAusR, welA-dAude suggests that the loss of these vowels, which may perhaps be identified chronologically with the syncope at stage E, had not yet taken place in the two inscriptions, especially because epenthetic vowels are not to be expected at morpheme boundaries (cf. Perridon 1991: 13). This puts Stentoften before stage A (or at least before stage B) and Bjorketorp between stages C and E. As I have argued elsewhere (K212: 74), the loss of glottal constriction in the preglottalized stops yielded preaspiration in the same way as the lenition of intervocalic *d [t] yielded a fricative [p] and can therefore be dated between the earlier and the later syncope, i.e. to stage D. Since the distinction between plain d [t], g [k] and preglottalized t ['t], k ['k] is well preserved in both inscriptions, not only Stentoften but also Bjorketorp must be dated before stage D. This is in conformity with the apparent absence of umlaut

inArAgeu. One of the most remarkable features of the two inscriptions is their agreement in the presence of epenthetic vowels (cf. Schulte 1998: 117). As the compositional vowels of St. gino-, herAmA-, welA- and Bj. ginA-, hAerAmA-, welA- were preserved, they are not epenthetic. This leaves us with the following instances: (4) St. felAh-ekA, Bj. fAIAh-Ak < "felh-, possibly Bj. "jalh-.

(5) St. hederA, Bj. hAiderA, Gothic hidre 'hither: where the epenthetic e in the sequence *dr was probably conditioned by the preceding *i and must therefore be older than the lowering of the root vowel (8) St., Bj. ArAgeu < *argiu.

(9) St. herAmA-, Bj. hAerAmA- < *herma-. (17) St. bAriuti.,, Bj. bArutR < *breutid.

310

Scandinavian

The epenthetic vowel was A [a] except in (5 ), where e represents [I] . There is no epenthetic vowel in voiceless clusters and at morpheme boundaries: (1) Bj. hAidR, where the sequence dR is voiceless [tR].

(10) Bj.IAusR, with voiceless [sR]. (17) Bj. bArutR, with voiceless ['tR]. (1-2) Bj. hAidR-rwto, St. hideR-rwto. (4-5) Bj. fAIAhAk-hAiderA. (12-13) Bj. utiAR-welA-. (14-15) St. -dud-sA. (15-16) Bj. sAR-.,At. (16-17) Bj . .,At-bArutR, St. .,At-bAriuti.,. The consistency of the presence versus absence of epenthetic vowels in these instances leaves no doubt about their phonetic reality. It follows that the rise of epenthetic vowels must have been early, at least before stage B. The reduction of St. ekA to Bj. Ak 'I' is now explained by the chronology of the univerbation, which can be dated between Stentoften and Bjorketorp (cf. Schulte 1998: 133). We can now test the relative chronology advocated here, first against the remaining parts of Bjorketorp and Stentoften and second against other inscriptions from the same period. Bj. ~ArAbA-sbA < *uparba-spahO 'harm prophecy' shows voiced rand voiceless b [p] with an epenthetic A [a] in rAb, preservation of the compositional vowel A [a], no preglottalization and no epenthetic vowel in the voiceless cluster sb [sp], loss of *h with lengthening and syncope of the fmal vowel with u-coloring in view of the later form sP9 < *spiiu < *spahu (cf. Nielsen 2ooo: 96). St. niu hAborumR niu hagestwnR hA.,uwolAfR gM j hAriwolAfR '(with) nine he-goats, nine stallions, Hapuwolf gave good-year, Hariwolf ..: shows voiceless b [p] and epenthetic o [u] before the ending umR in *habrumR, voiceless g [k] and preserved e [I] in *hangistumR, preservation of the first and syncope of the second vowel in the original ending *-umuR (cf. K219: 4), preservation of *u in hA.,u- and of *i in hAri- without umlaut of the preceding vowel, twice epenthetic A [a] and syncope in the following syllable in -wolAfR, voiceless g [k] and preservation of the original fricative in gM (cf. K212: 74). All of these features are in agreement with the chronology established above, with early epenthesis and syncope in polysyllables and late preservation of compositional vowels.

Bjorketorp and Stentoften

311

Now we turn to the evidence of the other Blekinge stones (cf. Krause 1966: 2.05-2.08, 2.18-2.2.0, Antonsen 1975: 83f.). Gummarp: hA}mwolAfA sAte stAbA .,ria fff 'Hapuwolf set three staves, fff'. Here we fmd syncope without umlaut in sAte < *satide, which puts the inscription after stage E. The compositional vowel was preserved in hA.,u- and the epenthetic vowel in -wolAfA, where the fmal A must evidently be corrected to R. The absence of an epenthetic vowel in .,ria also points to a recent date. Istaby: MatR hAriwulafa hA~wulafR hAeruwulaftR warAit rWlAR .,AiAR 'In memory of Hariwolf, Hapuwolf Heruwolfsson wrote these runes'. Here we fmd epenthetic a [a] in the frrst five words as well as compositional i and u in the three names, also breaking in hAeru- and reduction of the long ending in rWlAR, which point to the same stage as Bjorketorp. The fmal *r of Istaby AfatR 'after' may have been devoiced by the preceding consonant, which suggests a more recent date than both St hederA and Bj. hAiderA, with preservation of the epenthetic e [I] . Thus, I date Stentoften around stage A, Bjorketorp between stages C and D, Istaby around stage D, and Gummarp after stage E. It must be emphasized that this sequence reflects the language of the carvers, which may rather have been characteristic of their generations than of their dialectal background.

THil ORIGIN OF THE VESTJYSK ST0D In his recent discussion of the vestjysk st0d, Harry Perridon rejects my view that glottalization is ancient in Germanic (2006: 45). It may therefore be useful to specify the source of our disagreement. According to the view which I have put forward on a number of occasions (e.g. K2n, K212, K230), the absence of voicedness in Danish stops was inherited from Proto-Germanic, where fortes stops were preglottalized and lenes stops were plain voiceless. Proto-Germanic geminates had largely arisen from Kluge's law (cf. now K235). Other geminates arose from *-jH- and *-wH- (cf. Ko72: 356), e.g. tueggia 'of two~ h9ggua 'to heW, also from velar stops before *j and *w, e.g. leggia 'to laY, bekkr 'brool(, rokkr 'dar!(, further in sequences of nasal plus fortis stop, e.g. drekka 'to drinl(, and as a result of the syncope, e.g. leidda 'I led' with [tt] < *laidido [laitit6] and latta 'I hindered' with [7tt] < *latido [la7tit6]. Thus, we have an opposition betweenp [p], d [t], t [7t], dd [tt] and tt [7tt]. This system was simplified along different lines in the separate languages. The rise of voicedness in postvocalic simple obstruents can probably be dated to the 12th century, when the distinction between p and lJ was introduced (cf. Haugen 1976: 195, K212: 73). In Danish, the lenition affected not only fricatives and lenes stops, but also intervocalic and word-final p, t, k, which lost their glottalization and became simple voiceless stops. Word-initial p, t, k had become aspirates [ph], [th], [kh] at an earlier stage already, perhaps in the 7th century. As a result of the lenition, the corresponding geminates pp, tt, kk lost their distinctive length and became simple [7p], [7t], [7k]. The voiced fricatives were further lenited to semivowels [w], [j] and the voiced stops to fricatives v [~], th/dh [<J], gh [y] in the 13th century and later to semivowels [w], [j] in the central dialects (cf. Haugen 1976: 205). The remaining geminates bb [pp], dd [tt], gg [kk] were shortened intervocalically and became [7p], [7t], [7k] word-fmally, where original p, t, k had lost their glottalization. The original glottalization of intervocalic t [7t] in fat~kr 'poor' was preserved in Danish fattig because the word was still a com pound at the time of the lenition. Harry Perridon assumes that the vestjysk st0d arose from glottal reinforcement of unaspirated stops after the Jylland apocope in the 14th century (2006: 46-48). His argumentation is based on the Stockholm manuscript C37 of lyske Lov from around 1280, which has numerous examples of apocopated forms, e.g. fyllregh 'to folloW, sald 'sold~ but none of the weakening of postvocalic p, t, k, while we find vestjysk st0d e.g. in kjrav(d 'boughf, bruw(d 'used~ Danish krabte, brugte. The argumentation does not hold because these words evidently continue keypta [ltiiii7pta], *brftkta [brii7kta], cf. German kaufen, brauchen. Like the Proto-Germanic geminate *tt, the original clusters *pt and *kt preserved the

314

Scandinavian

glottal closure of the unreleased stop, e.g. in fremrd 'fifth', o(d 'eigh~ nre(da 'nights: Danish femte, otte, nretter. Moreover, the suffixed article, which dates perhaps from the nth century and was generalized in the 14th century, has no influence on the presence or absence ofvestjysk st121d, e.g. in Himmerland sdork 'stor:K sdorkan 'the stor:K ker(g 'church: ker(gan 'the church: Danish stork, kirke (cf. Ringgaard 1960: 49), which shows that the vestjysk st121d is older. Contrary to Perridon's statement (fn. 10), my theory does account for the difference beween sg. storkan and pl stor(gan, where t and k stand for non-glottalized stops, because fmal *k had lost its glottalization before the univerbation with the suffixed article and before the apocope in the plural form. It is clear that the vestjysk st121d must be older than the Jylland apocope because it is also found in the northeastern part of the vestfynsk dialects, where the apocope did not take place. Gunnar Hansson has drawn attention to the fact that vestjysk st121d is found in original monosyllables and polysyllables alike in the most remote and isolated villages on the island of Als (2001: 166). We must conclude that outside these archaic dialects the vestjysk st121d was lost in monosyllables, as was the case with preglottalization in Newcastle English. There is simply no evidence for glottal reinforcement of unaspirated stops. While I claim that preglottalization is ancient and that non-initial aspiration is recent, Perridon maintains the contrary. Since Jul Nielsen "found that in the dialects of the Bjerre district in SE Jutland all fmal stops are fully aspirated and all medial stops unaspirated" and Ejsing "writes that all medial and fmal stops, be they preglottalised or not, are unaspirated (pronounced as a stop after s) in the dialect of Salling (NW Jutland)" (thus Perridon 2006: 47), my view that the latter dialect directly reflects the original situation is more economical than Perridon's, which presupposes large-scale secondary loss of aspiration. Both the alleged reinforcement of unaspirated stops and the following suppression of aspiration in recent centuries are quite unmotivated and unnatural. In my view, the whole development of obstruents from Proto-Germanic times up to the modern dialects can be viewed as a continuous process of lenition. It has been pointed out that in Danish, phonetic studies "have found lenis stops to have a greater tension than the fortes, which sounds like a terminological paradox" and that "the lack offrrm closure associated with the aspirated stops was considered the decisive factor" (Goblirsch 1994: 9). This is in agreement with my view that the aspirated stops originated from a lenition process. According to Perridon's chronology (2006: 48f.), we have to start from an alternation between medial b, d, g, bb, dd, gg, {3{3, lJlJ, yy and final p, t, k, pp, tt, kk, bb, dd, gg, respectively. The position of the voiced geminates in this phonological system is peculiar (cf. K212: 73). The distinctively unaspirated geminate stops, which were later reduced and allegedly reinforced by vestjysk st121d, were only found in monosyllables, e.g. re(g 'egg, ne(b 'bea:K rorg 'bac:K Danish reg, nreb, ryg, Swedish agg, nabb, rygg (cf. Ringgaard 1960: 13). The lax

The origin of the vestjysk st0d

315

fricatives [3, lJ, y appear as glides in one of the oldest manuscripts of ]yske Lov (from around 1325), e.g. sauthre 'said; lauth 'laid; where other manuscripts have sagthe, lagth, laght. Mter the Jylland apocope, the allophonic variations became phonemic, e.g. drigg < drikke 'to drink' versus drikk 'drink!: later dre(g versus drek (Ringgaard 1960: 21). Then long obstruents were degeminated and postvocalic stops were weakened: aspirated p, t, k became lenes b, d, g and subsequently fricatives [3, lJ, y or glides w, j; word- fmal pp, tt, kk became p, t, k and bb, dd, gg became b, d, g, while the fricatives {3{3, lJlJ, yy changed to [3, lJ, y or w, j. At some stage, all unaspirated stops were allegedly strengthened by vestjysk swd if they followed a stressed vowel or vowel plus sonorant. These developments resulted in alternations such as va:(g 'walt vrey.:~ 'walls' and tra:(g.:~ 'pulls: trrek 'pull!; Danish vreg, vregge, tra:kker, trrek (Ringgaard 1960: 13, 2.4). In my chronology, g [k], k [?k], gg [kk], kk [?kk] became g [y], k [k], gg [kk], kk [?k] in the 12th century, then [y], [k], [kk], [?k], word-fmally [y], [k], [kk], [kh] in the 13th century, then [w], [y], [?k], word-fmally [w], [k], [?k], [kh] in the 14th century, with eventual generalization of [k] in the north and [kh] in the south. As a result, we fmd vestjysk swd immediately before the plosives p, t, k wherever these stand in an original medial position following a voiced sound in a stressed syllable (thus Ringgaard 1960: 10, 195) and in original monosyllables with finalgg [kk] and bb [pp] (cf. Ringgaard 1960: 13) since the 14th century.

VESTJYSK ST0D AGAIN

My recent article about the origin of the vestjysk st0d (K251) evoked an immediate reaction from Harry Perridon (2009), which may stimulate further discussion of the subject It is therefore important to specify the nature and origin of our disagreement. First of all I would like to emphasize that my analysis of the Germanic consonant system is in no way dependent on any theories about the IndoEuropean proto-language. My view that the vestjysk st0d is ancient is based on its correspondence with preglottalization, preaspiration, gemination and affrication in other Germanic languages (cf. K2u, K212, K230). The hypothesis that the vestjysk st0d is a spontaneous dialectal innovation (thus Kock 1891: 368 fn., Jespersen 1913: 23, Ringgaard 1960: 108) implies the equally spontaneous independent development of preglottalization in English, preaspiration in western Scandinavia, gemination in eastern Scandinavia (and elsewhere), and affrication in High German (and elsewhere), while nothing comparable is found in the surrounding Celtic, Romance, Slavic and Finnic languages except for the development of preaspiration in Scottish Gaelic under the influence of a Scandinavian substratum (cf. Marstrander 1932: 298) and independently in Saami (cf. Sammallahti 1998: 54f.). My theory that the vestjysk st0d and its English counterpart are of Proto-Germanic origin and developed into preaspiration, gemination and affrication elsewhere offers a principled explanation of these phenomena. Moreover, it accounts for the curious observation that Proto-Germanic *b, *d, *g allegedly became devoiced independently in High German, Danish (and neighbouring dialects of Swedish, Norwegian, Low German and Frisian) and Icelandic (and Faroese), and then word-initially in Swedish, Norwegian, English and Low German (thus Goblirsch 2005: 17). In a strict comparative analysis one would rather assume an archaism in High German, Danish and Icelandic and substratum influence from Celtic, Romance, Slavic and Finnish in northern English, Low and Central Franconian, northern Middle German and eastern Swedish, in spite of Goblirsch's statement to the contrary ( 2005: 79). In my reconstruction, the absence of voicedness in Icelandic, Danish and Upper German obstruents represents the original state of affairs (cf. K192), which also explains the rise of the younger futhark in Scandinavia (cf. K212). I have claimed that the vestjysk st0d in kjevfd 'bought' and bruwfd 'used' (Danish kebte, brugte) continues the glottal closure of the unreleased stops in the original clusters *pt [1pt] and *kt [?kt], cf. German kaufen < *-p- [?p], brauchen < *-k- [?k], just as the vestjysk st0d infremfd 'fiftll, ofd 'eight; nrefda 'nights' (Danish femte, otte, nretter) reflects the preserved glottal closure of the

318

Scandinavian

Proto-Germanic geminate *tt. Perridon objects that the verb bruge "is a loanword from Middle Low German (bnlken) which entered the language/dialects in the course of the 13th or 14th century, i.e. one or two centuries after an alleged change from non-geminated [7k] to [k] which Kortlandt [K251] suggests took place in the 12th century" (2009: 6). The objection is mistaken because the glottalization was preserved in the geminate and became a concomitant feature of the unlenited stop, yielding the vestjysk st0d (cf. K251: 3f.). As a result, kjevld < keiftre < keylpta with preservation of the glottal closure after the voiced segment is the expected development. When the glide v was devoiced to fin southern Jutland (cf. Perridon 2009: 6 fn.), the glottal stop was lost because it was no longer preceded by a voiced segment: kjeft < kjevlt. The vestjysk st0d in the preterit bleld 'bled' (Ringgaard 1960: 25) < *-dd- is evidently of morphological origin. Perridon argues that the loss of final shwa preceded the lenition of postvocalic p, t, k, e.g. in the preterit dept 'baptized'< deptre (2009: 8). It follows that the vestjysk st0d which distinguishes the preterit devlt < deptre from the participle devt < dept is not only older than the apocope (thus already Ringgaard) but also older than the lenition. Perridon's presupposition that this cannot be the case (2009: 5) forces him to assume an early rise and later loss of aspiration in fmal stops (stages 1 and 6 of Perridon 2009: 9) before and after the apocope (stage 3) and the spontaneous rise of the vestjysk st0d (stage 5) in order to keep the two forms apart. This scenario is quite unmotivated. Moreover, it is at variance with the fact that the vestjysk st0d is also found in the northeastern part of the vestfynsk dialects, where the Jutland apocope never took place (cf. also Ejskjrer 1990). Hansson has drawn attention to the fact that the vestjysk st0d is found on original monosyllables and polysyllables alike in the most remote and isolated villages on the island of Als, where it coexists with true pitch accents representing the original accents 1 and 2 from which the Common Danish st0d opposition developed (2001: 166). It follows that outside these archaic dialects the vestjysk st0d was lost in original monosyllables, as was the case with preglottalization in Newcastle English (cf. K2n: 6). Thus, I conclude that preglottalization was inherited from Proto-Germanic, generally lost wordfmally before the apocope, and preserved as vestjysk st0d elsewhere.

PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN *sIN ALBANIAN

Recent publications by Huld (1984) and Orel (1985) provide an incentive to reconsider the fate of PIE *s in Albanian. Though the problem was largely solved by Meyer (1892) and Pedersen (19oob), a number of unclear points have remained. In the following I intend to reconsider the evidence in order to arrive at an identification of what I see as the main difficulty. I shall not dwell upon the points which I regard as solved.

1.

2.

Initial *s- before a stressed vowel yielded gj-, e.g.:

gjarper 'snake; Latin serpens; gjashte 'sfx, Latin sex, Greek{{; gjalpe 'butter; Greek l"Anoc;, Toch. A ~alyp, B ~alype; gjume 'sleep; Greek iJJrVOc;, 0 CS S'bn'b; gjalle 'living, Greek Moe;, Skt sarva-; gjak 'blood; Greek o1t6c;, 0 CS soh. Orel rejects the accent as a conditioning factor on the basis of the last example (1985: 279). His argument is not valid because the accentuation of the Greek word is irregular, as Lubotsky has pointed out (1987: 167), and the Slavic evidence is ambiguous. 3. Initial *s- was dissimilated to th- before a following *s in thi 'pig, Latin sits, and in thanj 'I drf, Lith. saftsas (on the latter etymon cf. Lubotsky 1985). Initial *sw- before a stressed vowel yielded d-in the following words:

diell 'sun' < *swel-, Greek 1?..11, el'A.11; dergjem 'I am ilf < *sworgh-, Lith. sirgti; dirse 'sweat' < *swidr-, Greek 18pwc;, Skt. sveda-. Huld adds to this list dose 'brood sow' < *swiitjii and derr 'boar' < *swoinro(1984: 148), which are questionable examples. Before an unstressed vowel, *swyielded v- in the following instances:

vjeherr 'father/mother-in-laW, Greek bwp6c;, -& < *swe-; vete 'self'< *swe-; vjerr 'I hang, Lith. sveffi. The eli tic u- 'self' may be derived from *swe-.

Albanian

320 4.

PIE *s was lost before r, l, n, m, e.g.:

dore 'hand' < *K'esra; kolle 'cough' < *k"'aslii, Russian ktiSef; thanj 'I dry' < *sousnjo; notim 'swimming' < *sniit-, Skt. snati; mjeker 'beard' < *sme/Crii, Lith. smiikras; jam 'I am' < *esmi. Final *-s was also lost, e.g.:

mi 'mouse' < *mus; thi 'pig' < *sus. It is clear from the latter word that the loss of final *-s was posterior to the dissimilation of the initial *s- to th-. It was apparently anterior to the delabialization of final *-u, cf. ti 'you' < *tit. 5·

Initial *sp- yielded f-, e.g.:

fare 'seed: Greek arrop&.; jjale 'word: OE spell. Initial and medial *sk yielded h, e.g.:

hie 'shade, Greek ata&., Toch. B skiyo; hedh 'I throw' < *skeudo, OE sceotan; ah 'beech'< *osko-, OE resc; -h < *-sko. Medial *-sd0J- yielded the same reflex as *-dChJ_, viz. -dh-, which was sometimes devoiced to -th- (cf. ]ok11912.: 198-2.10), e.g.:

pidh 'vulva: Old Prussian peisda; ledh 'walf, 0 H G llsta; gjeth 'leaf, OHG questa; drithe 'grail\ OHG gersta. 6.

It seems that PIE *s yielded shin all other positions, e.g.:

shoh 'I see' < *sek"'sko (Pedersen 19oob: 2.83) or *sokwesko (Huld 1984: ns), OHGsehan; shtate 'seven' < *septm-; shterpinj 'vermin' < *serpen-; shi 'rail\ Old Pruss ian soye; shosh 'I sieve, Lith. sij6ti; vesh 'eaf. Lith. ausls; bresher 'haif < *bhreus-, Latin frustum;

Proto- Indo-European *s in Albanian

321

desha 'I loved' < *geus-, Greek ye6of«X1; mish 'meat; Skt miil'flSam; dhashi! 'I gave, pashi! 'I saW, rashi! 'I fell'; abl.pl. -sh < *-su; shteg 'patli, Greek arorxm;; asht 'bone, Greek oOTeov; eshte 'is' < *enesti; jashte 'outside'< *ej'stos, Greek exft6c;; gjashte 'sfx < *seks-t-; shkonj 'I go'< *st(o)i('-; shpend 'bird' < *su-petno-t- (Huld 1984: 154); shpreh 'I utter' < *(sm)-spreg-sko (Huld 1984: 64) or rather *efspregsko, 0 H G sprehhan; ashte 'beech grove; cf. ah 'beech' < *osko-; kashte 'straw'< *kolsta, cf. kall'ear (of cereals)'; vi~ 'calf' < *wetes-, Skt vatsa-. The absence of sh in djathte 'right' precludes its identification with Latin dexter. The word can be compared with OCS desn'b and derived from *deksn-, where *s was lost before *n, with later addition of the sufftx -te. Orefs derivation of -th in ankth 'anxiety' and zjarrth 'fever' from *-st- (1985: 2.82) is arbitrary. The suffiX denotes physical affections (cf. Camaj 1966: 122) and must probably be connected with Slavic -ota, Skt. -ata. 7. It follows from the position taken here that a number of etymologies where PIE *s is allegedly reflected as Alb. h or zero cannot be maintained. Thus, I withdraw the view that the intervocalic reflex of PIE *s is zero (Ko85: 42). The most important instances are the following: (h)yll'star: which Meyer connected with the PIE word for 'sun' and derived from *sulno- or *suli- (1891: 460). Though Pedersen remarked that "die bedeutungsentwicklung ist zwar recht auffallig" (19oob: 278), he stuck to the connection and derived the word from *sulo- or *suli-. The etymology was rejected by Huld, who pointed out the secondary character of the initial h-, denied the likelihood of an association with the word for 'su:d and proposed to equate Alb. yll with OE ysle 'spark' < *usli- (1976: 180 and 1984: 132). This etymology is certainly preferable. he(l)q 'I pull; which Meyer identified with Greek lAIGW and Latin sulcus (1891: 151). Pedersen derived the verb from *solkejo, assuming that it adopted the flexion of primary verbs at a later stage (19oob: 278). Rejecting the derivation of h- from *s-, Hamp posited a Proto-Albanian verb *Hwolkejo to be compared with Lith. vilkti (1965: 132). Finally, Huld connected the word with OE ealh 'temple' and reconstructed *Holkejo (1984: 73). I wonder if the word may rather

322

Albanian

be cognate with OE sceolh 'wrY. ln any case, it cannot be used as evidence for a development of h- from *s-. kohe 'time, which according to Meyer "ist vielleicht mit asl. Casb 'Zeit, Stunde' verwandt" (1891: 194), a comparison which he characterized as "zweifelhaft" (1892: 86). According to Pedersen, the comparison "J.asst sich kaum bezweifeln~ in spite of the fact that it is "das einzige beispiel fiir inlautendes h aus idg. s; sonst herrscht f' (19oob: 279). It is certainly not "eine evidente Wortgleichung' (Jokl1937: 159n.) because the two words have little in common. First, we should expect palatalization of the initial k-in view of zorre 'intestines' < *g"'ernii. Second, the derivation of the medial -h- from *s is not supported by other examples. Third, the fmal -e must be derived from *-ii, which points to a different flexion class from the Slavic word. The equation must therefore be abandoned. ai 'he; ajo 'she; plural ata, ato, also 'that, those'; ky, kjo, keta, keto 'this, these~ These words consist of a deictic element a-, ke- plus an anaphoric pronoun -i, -jo, -ta, -to. Pedersen derived the latter from PIE *so, *sa, *to- (1897: 2.88 and 19oob: 282), a view upheld even by Huld (1984: 148). The key argument is the observation that the distribution of -j- and -t- corresponds with PIE *so, *sii, *to-. This does not substantiate the derivation of -i, -jo from *so, *sii, however. Firstly, the derivation does not explain the vowel-i, for which Pedersen assumes a development of fmal *-o to *-u with subsequent delabialization, adducing dy 'two' < *dwo and ace. ty 'you' < *twe in support of his view (19oob: 282). But ty must be derived from the north-east Gheg form tye < *twem, cf. mue 'me' < *mem (Jok11963: 142), and Huld derives dy from *duwai, OCS d·bVe (1984: 57), which is preferable. Secondly, Pedersen assumes that -j- is a simple hiatus filler because *j is normally reflected as gj (19oob: 313). It is unclear how an epenthetic -j- could originate between a- and -o, however. Thirdly, I think that the expected reflex of PIE *so is actually attested in the interrogative pronoun kush 'who' < *ku-so, obl kujt, cf. OCS koto. It seems that Pedersen's view of the demonstrative pronoun prevented him from considering this interpretation of the interrogative: "der nominativ ist ku-s zu zerlegen; s muss rest eines nicht nab.er zu bestimmenden pronominalen elementes sein; durch analogische anfiigung der genitivendung -i an den stamm ku- entstand kuj, mit dem postpositiven artikel kujt" (19oob: 317). In view of these difficulties, it is necessary to reconsider the system of demonstrative pronouns which can be reconstructed for Proto-Albanian. 8. In an earlier study I pointed out that a reconstruction of the Balta-Slavic demonstrative pronouns leads to the establishment of a single demonstrative *so, *to-, an anaphoric pronoun *eli-, and three deictic particles, *ki 'hiC, *au 'istic; and *an 'illic: and that this system also accounts for the demonstrative pronouns of Armenian and Tocharian (Ko63). The attested paradigms resulted

Proto- Indo-European *s in Albanian

323

from various conflations of these elements. One may wonder if the Albanian forms can be derived from the same system. The deictic element a- may represent *au, but the element ke- cannot be derived from *ICi, which is perhaps found in sot 'todaY, sonte 'tonight' < */Cjii(Huld 1984: 112), cf. dite 'daf, nate 'nigh~ Greek aift-tepov 'todaY, though a comparison with sivjet 'this year' rather supports a derivation from *tjii(Pedersen 19oob: 311), cf. abl. masc. kesi, fern. keso 'this' < *-tj-. It seems evident to me that Ice- reflects Latin eccum, Italian ecco, which played a dominant role in the formation of the Romance demonstratives, e.g. Italian qui 'here' < *eccu-hic. This derivation explains the labialization in Alb. ky < *ku-i. It suggests that Alb. a- must perhaps be connected with Romance a- (cf. Meyer 1891: 1). The second component of the demonstrative pronouns -i, -jo, -ta, -to may represent a conflation of the PIE demonstrative *so, *to- with the anaphoric pronoun *eli-. Indeed, Alb. -i, -jo can be directly compared with Latin is, ea (Meyer 1892: 79), or rather with Skt. ayam, iyam < *ei-om, *iH-om (cf. Beekes 1983: 209), with added *-ii in the feminine. The unstressed variants are found in the article i, e. Similar conflations took place in Germanic, Baltic, Slavic, and Tocharian. The Germanic paradigm of *so, *to- has *te- in the genitive forms and in the feminine datsg. form. Since there is no motivation for the analogical introduction of eli- forms into the paradigm of *so, *to-, I think that it actually represents the paradigm of *eli- which took *t- and suppletive nominative and accusative forms from *so, *to-. The original nom. and ace. forms with added *sit- are found in the Viking age paradigm of ON sia 'this' (cf. Beekes 1983: 219). The origin of these forms can be dated to an earlier period in view of the Vedic evidence (ibidem: 216); they do not belong to the same paradigm. In Prussian, the paradigm of *eli- adopted *an- in order to create a form meaning 'he there, which subsequently gave rise to correlating forms with *tand *si- (cf. Ko63: 317). The further development of these forms yielded an anaphoric pronoun *tan(e/i)-, an article *st(e/i)-, and demonstrative pronouns *sta- and *si(a)- (ibidem: 312-314, cf. Koso: 9). The Slavic and Old Lithuanian paradigms of *eli- have suppletive nominative forms with *an- (cf. Van Wijk 1918: 116), which evidently have the same origin as the Prussian forms. Note in this connection the parallel in Greek, which has a suppletive nominative for avr6- as a 3rd person pronoun. The Slavic demonstrative Sb 'this' is inflected as a soft stem in spite of the fact that the s- was hard, as is clear from the West Slavic reflex s-, not s-. The paradigm must therefore be derived from the addition of sfrom *si 'hie' to the inflected forms of *eli-. This derivation also accounts for the deviant masc. nom.pl. form sii, which may represent */Ci plus *ei.

Albanian The paradigm of the West Tocharian word for 'this' is the following: nom.sg. obl.sg. nom. pl. obl.pl.

mas c.

fern.

neuter

se ce cey certt

sii tii toy toy

te te

Since e is the phonetic reflex of PIE *o, the masc. forms show the expected development of PIE *so, *tom, *toi, *tons, except for the fact that c- is the phonetic reflex of *t before a front vowel. It follows that there must have been a stem *te- with a suppletive nom.sg. form and that the initial consonant was adopted in the demonstrative pronoun. Elsewhere I have argued for the reconstruction of a Proto-Tocharian anaphoric pronoun *a- < *eli- which adopted *t- from the demonstrative (Ko63: 321). I think that we must assume the same conflation for Proto-Albanian. Thus, I propose to derive Alb. -i, -jo from *is, *ijii or *ei, *ejii, ace. -te < *tom, *tiim, pl. -ta, -to < *tons, *tiis, gen.dat -ti()), -saj < *tei(-), *t(e)jiii, abl. -si(sh), -so(sh) < *t(e)jei(su), *t(e)jii(su) (cf. Beekes 1983: 209, Pedersen 19oob: 314). The unstressed variants of these forms are found in the article i, e, te, se. In any case, the demonstrative pronoun cannot be used as evidence for the alleged loss of PIE *sin Albanian.

PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN *j IN ALBANIAN

According to Meyer (1892: 39f.), PIE initial "j- can be reflected as either gj- or jin Albanian:

gjesh 'knead: Skt. yasati, Greek {ew 'seethe, OHG jesan 'foam'. ngjesh 'gird; Avestan yasta-, Greek {waro sh, ( 2.) sh- > zh- before stressed vowels, (3) j- > gj-, (4) zh- > gj-, (5) rise of new j- and zh-.

Proto- Indo-European *j in Albanian

327

It is possible that the development of *j- to gj- at stage (3) was limited to the position before a stressed vowel. If the derivation of gjer 'tilf < *ajeri is correct, the rise of gj- must be dated after the reduction of pretonic vowels. However, I find it difficult to separate gjer from deri 'untif, which precludes a derivation from *j-. It seems possible to me that gjer took its initial consonant from gjere, gjere 'broad, wide, far~ for which no convincing etymology is available.

REFLEXES OF INDO-EUROPEAN CONSONANTS IN ALBANIAN

In his study of Albanian etymologies, Bardhyl Demiraj briefly summarizes his views on the development of the Indo-European phonemic system in this language (1997: 41-67). Here I shall review the reflexes of the IE consonants on which I have written myself (Ko22, Ko85, Ko94. K146). I have argued that the IE plain velars developed from neutralization between palatovelars and labiovelars after *s and *u in the proto-language, from delabialization of labiovelars before rounded vowels in western IE languages, and from depalatalization of palatovelars before resonants in eastern IE languages (Ko22). Demiraj lists the following instances of plain velars (1997: 64):

1.

(1) kap '(an)fassen, ergreifen' < *kH.p-, Greek ~e{urrw, where I reconstruct a palatovelar which was depalatalized before the following laryngeal. (2) thek '(er)wannen, rosten' < *keuk-, Skt. s6cati, with neutralization in *-uk-. (3) ag 'Dfunmerung, Strahlen' < *H.eug-, Greek a(Jy~, with neutralization in

*-ug-. (4) gardh 'Zaun, Gehege' < *('ordho-, Lith. gardas, Gothic garcls, Skt grlui- with depalatalization of the palatovelar in the zero grade form. For other examples I refer to my earlier treatment (Ko22). 2. I have suggested that IE *H.e- and *H3 e- developed into Albanian hawhereas IE *Ho- and syllabic *11R- and *H~- developed into a-, aR- (Ko85: 43-45). Demiraj lists the following examples (1997: 59, 51): (1) (h)~the 'Fieber'< *H.eidh-, Greek alOoc;, with (h)e- < *hai-. (2) Mrdhe 'Haden'< *&erj'i-, Greek 6pxesc;, with umlauted he-< *ha-, but Arm. orjik' < *H3rfi- with zero grade. (3) (i) hfdhet, (h)fdhte 'bitter' < *H.idh-, Greek l0ap6c;, aTOw, with zero grade *H,i- and h- from *H.ei-? (4) hut 'vergeblich, leer, eitef < *H.uto-, Greek aiJrwc;, with zero grade *H.u- and h- from *H.eu-? (5) ah 'Rotbuche' < *H3osk-, OHG asc, Greek 6{6rf, but Arm. hac'i < *H3esk- (cf. Schrijver 1991: 77). (6) (i) athet, athte 'herb, sauer, scharf' < *H.ok-, Latin acidus < *H.ek- (cf. Schrijver 1991: 132). (7) (i) ~per 'oberer'< *H,opi-ro-, Greek 6m0e(v), with umlauted e- z (Greek tv, ~ whereas the regular phonetic reflex of Balta-Slavic initial *e- is a- in Prussian, e.g. addle 'spruce: alne

336

Balto-Slavic

'hind: as 'I: asmai 'am: assaran 'lake, also an 'in' (7x) and assa 'from' (6x) in the First Catechism (cf. K190). It follows that the acute of the inessive ending *-¢ cannot have the same origin as the acute in the nominal preftxes f-, p6-, pr6-, prfe-, per-, nuo-, s4-. Elsewhere I have argued that the inessive was created by the addition of stressed *en to the East Baltic pronominal locative forms masc. *tami, fern. *tajai, pl. *taisu (Slavic tomb, toi, teX'b), yielding *tam~, *taj~, *tais~ with glottalization from the hiatus before *en (K22.1: 68). The absence of an acute tone in the stem of the pronoun (which is clear from the Serbo-Croatian evidence) explains the root stress in the forms rankoje 'hand: pl. rafikose, riituose 'wheels: turguose 'markets: where Saussure's law did not operate. Note that the sg. form rate reflects *rat~, not **rataj~ < *ratai'en, and must therefore have been built on the analogy of *tam~. The earlier view "dass bute aus *but~ + *en (*~) entstanden ist" (Stang 1966: 183, followed by Ko14: 49) must be rejected because the monophthongization of *oi to *~ was limited to stressed syllables ( cf. Ko 2.5: 32.3).

ALL's WllLL THAT ENDS WELL A few years ago, Jasanoff adopted the central tenet of my accentological theory, viz. that the Balta-Slavic acute was a st~d or glottal stop, not a rising tone (cf. K014. Ko25, K218, Jasanoff 20048-). Of course, nobody will believe Jasanoff's claim that he arrived at the same result independently thirty years after I published it and ten years after we discussed it when he came to Leiden to visit us. Though at the time he haughtily dismissed "the tangle of secondary hypotheses and "laws" that clutter the ground in the field of Balta-Slavic accentology" (Jasanoff 2004b: 171), he has now recognized the importance of Pedersen's law, Hirt's law, Winter's law, Meillet's law, Dolobko's law, Dybo's law and Stang's law and largely accepted my relative chronology of these accent laws, including the loss of the acute shortly before Stang's law (cf. Jasanoff 2008). He has also accepted my split of Pedersen's law into a Balta-Slavic and a Slavic phase (to which a Lithuanian phase must be added), my thesis that the tonal contours of Baltic and Slavic languages are post-Balta-Slavic innovations (cf. Jasanoff 2008: 344' 0), and the rise of a tonal distinction on non-acute initial syllables before Dybo's law which I discussed at some length in my review (Ko28) of Garde's monograph (1976). This is great progress. Though Jasanoff has come a long way in the last few years, he has not yet understood the origin of the Balta-Slavic glottalization, nor the origin of the Baltic and Slavic tonal contours, nor the origin of distinctive vowel length in Slavic. He has not yet understood the exact conditions of Hirt's law, nor of Stang's law, nor of the distribution of the o-stems over the accent classes. He evidently has not grasped the basic problem of Proto-Slavic quantity which is central to a correct understanding of the developments and their chronology. Perhaps it is only a matter of time before such insights get through to the IndoEuropeanist scholarly community. A major problem will be that much of the relevant literature is in Baltic and Slavic languages and therefore not easily accessible to scholars without at least a reading knowledge of these languages. Some news travels slowly. For the time being, Jasanoff's contribution to our knowledge of Baltic and Slavic accentuation is zero. He calls his recent article "programmatic" (Jasanoff 2008: 339 and 371), which appears to be newspeak for a shot in the dark without calculating the consequences. Following the example of Ebeling's work (1967: 580, cf. Jasanoff 2008: 360), he offers an effort to reformulate Pedersen's law and Dolobko's law as a basic principle generating lateral mobility from stress on medial syllables. He proposes that Pedersen's law "moved the accent one syllable to the left, producing a contrastive intonation on the newly accented syllable" whereas Dolobko's law (in his jargon "Proto-VDL") moved the accent to the

Balto-Slavic final syllable in sequences of four or more syllables when the initial syllable had such a contrastive accent (Jasanoff 2008: 349 and 367f.). There are three strategies to deal with counter-evidence in Jasanoff's methodology: (1) ignore it, (2) assume irregular analogical leveling, (3) propose additional specific rules for specific instances (cf. already K218). Thus, Jasanoff dismisses "late and productively formed [Lith.] stems in -umas, -In is, and the like" (p. 349), "a word like Lith. sunukas" and Slavic *Vbdova (p. 350), Slavic *v~d9 for **ved9 and *vedetr1 for **vedetb (here I substitute the usual accent marks for Jasanoff's idiosyncratic notation) but Lith. nevedame, nevedate for his expected fmal stress (p. 367), Slavic *pros9, *prositb for his **pr3s9, **pr()sitb (p. 369), similarly in the nasal presents (p. 371), and so on and so forth. He admits that it "is not clear, however, why non-mobile presents are as numerous as mobile presents" in the stative i-presents "or how the non-mobile forms came to be accented on the root syllable rather than the endings" (p. 372). He does not mention the word for 'mother: which escaped Meillet's law, and arbitrarily assumes restoration of accentual mobility in the words for 'son' and 'alive, which escaped Hirt's law (p. 353). He simply does not explain the data as we have them. Note that Jasanoff's adaptation of Pedersen's law and Dolobko's law is the exact opposite of Olander's (2oo6), known to him at least from my publications but not mentioned by him, where Pedersen's law is reformulated as loss of accent on a non-acute final syllable with rise of contrastive tone on the initial syllable and Dolobko's law is reformulated as a part of Dybo's law, which moved the accent one syllable to the right. The main problem with Jasanoff's reformulation of Pedersen's law as a leftward accent shift is that we would expect a rising tone on the newly accented syllable, as in SCr. vada 'water' < *voda (cf. Jasanoff 2008: 348), whereas we actually fmd a falling tone as its Slavic reflex, e.g. in acc.sg. v3du. Jasanoff's solution to this problem is that he simply disregards the data, stating that no inference should "be drawn about the nature of the phonetic difference between the left-marginal [retracted] and in situ [unretracted] accents, other than that such a difference existed" (p. 351). The more unspecified distinctions one assumes, the more different forms one can "explain". Jasanoff reconstructs a Proto-Balto-Slavic prosodic system with nine different possibilities (p. 350f.): short, long acute, and long non-acute syllabic nuclei combined with retracted, unretracted, and no accent. His use of the grave accent mark for the retracted accent is particularly unfortunate because the grave accent is the conventional symbol for a short rising tone in Slavic, where the retracted accent is reflected as a (short or long) falling tone. Jasanoff states that the acute became a rising tone in Slavic (p. 352) without explaining why it did not merge with the other (neoacute) rising tone. He states that in unstressed syllables "the glottal component of acuteness was lost without a trace" (p. 353) without explaining the rise of the Slovene neo-circumflex.

All's well that ends well

339

Jasanoff's treatment of the Balta-Slavic verb is so full of mistakes that it would be pointless to subject his account to a detailed critique. It is not true that extra-presential forms "tend (at least in Slavic) to derive their accentual properties from the present" (p. 354'7). Jasanoff ignores the athematic origin of the i-flexion (p. 356, cf. Ko33, Ko87, Ko99). It is not true that "the overwhelming majority of athematic presents in Balta-Slavic are conspicuously non-mobile" (p. 358). It is not true that the verb ei- 'go' had an immobile present in Baltic, as is clear from Latvian (Varaklani) 1st sg. eimu, 2nd sg. ei, 3rd tt (cf. Ko25: 327). The concept of "Narten" present is an outdated phantom (cf. de Vaan 2004). It is not true that the Slavic copula owes its oxytone forms to Dybo's law (p. 359), as is clear from the long rising vowel in Cakavian and Posavian je 'is' (e.g. Jurisic 1973: z4f.). Lith. nevedu does not continue the Balta-Slavic place of the accent (as suggested on p. 363) because the stressed vowel is not lengthened. It is not true that the "word-fmal accent in Proto-Slavic was non-contrastively falling" (p. 36447) because it is rising in the languages which have preserved distinctive tone. It is not true that the Baltic verb *ded- 'put' had an immobile present (p. 3726'). It is not true that aorists of Slavic verbs with mobile presents have "originally accented endings in the sigmatic forms" (p. 373). Jasanoff even goes so far as to invent his own "data" in order to support his ill-conceived proposal, positing a Slavic paradigm of the present participle with end-stressed masc. acc.sg. **ved9tjb and gen.sg. **ved9tja (p. 361) for which there is simply no evidence whatsoever. Contrary to Jasanoff's statement, Lithuanian does not have the accent "on the root syllable in the longer forms" but shows the regular accent patterns (1) and (3) with final stress in such forms as gen.pl. vedanciij, loc.sg. vedanciame, vedancioje, loc.pl vedanciuose, vedanciose, fern. nom.sg. vedanti, dat.pl. vedanti6ms, with recent transfer to accent class (1) in the standard language (e.g. Endzelynas 1957: 201ff., Zinkevicius 1981: 149). There is an older pattern in both East and West Baltic with nom.sg. *esints 'being, *eints 'going, other cases *sent-, "jent- (cf. K195: 71), corresponding to Latin iens, eunt- from Indo-European *eints, acc.sg. *ientm, gen.sg. *intos (cf. Beekes 1985: 70). It follows that Lith. edqs 'eating, duodijs 'giving' replace earlier *edints, *dedints, adopting tlte suffixal accentuation of the stem form *dent-, *dldont-. The original accentuation of the masc. and fern. nom.sg. forms has been preserved in the Slavic gerund, e.g. Old Russian st6ja and stojatf 'standing' (cf. Stang 1957: 140). It will take some more time before Jasanoff will be in a position to make a contribution to tlte study of Balta-Slavic accentuation. The good news is that he has now understood the importance of at least some of the previous work in tlte field, even if he is reluctant to acknowledge his debt to earlier scholarship.

BALTO-SLAVIC ACCENTUATION REVISITED

There is every reason to welcome the revised edition (2009) of Thomas Olander's dissertation (2006), which I have criticized elsewhere (K234). The book is very well written and the author has a broad command of the scholarly literature. I have not found any mistakes in Olander's rendering of other people's views. This makes the book especially useful as an introduction to the subject It must be hoped that the easy access to a complex set of problems which this book offers will have a stimulating effect on the study of Balto-Slavic accentology. The purpose of the following observations is twofold. On the one hand, I intend to show that what the author evidently regards as his main result, the "mobility law': cannot be accepted because it is incompatible with the data. On the other hand, my aim is to pinpoint the essential differences between Olander's theory and mine (e.g. Ko66, K222, K249) in order to clarify where progress can be made. In the following, bracketed numbers which do not denote the Lithuanian accent classes (1) through (4) will refer to the pages of the book under discussion (Olander 2009). The origin of the mistaken analysis which has resulted in Olander's "mobility law" must be sought in his reconstructions of Proto- Indo-European and Proto-Slavic. Following the German (Brugmannian, pre-structuralist) tradition, Olander reconstructs five short and five long vowel phonemes *i, *e, *a, *o, *u, *1, *e, *a, *o, *u, of which *i and *u had non-syllabic variants which were "probably in complementary distribution" but are nevertheless distinguished in the reconstructions, four resonants *r, *l, *m, *n with "syllabic realisation between consonants" distinguished by a ring underneath, "four fricatives" *s, *h, *h,, *~, the latter of which had "vocalic variants" *a, *a,, *a3 , three labial stops *p, *b, *bh, three dental stops *t, *d, *dh, three palatal stops *k, *g, *f, three velar stops *k, *g, *(,and three labiovelar stops *kw, *(", *t"h (83), i.e. a total of 10 vowels, two of which had consonantal realizations, and 23 consonants, seven of which had "vocalic variants". This large and complex phonological system, which allows an impressive number of 425 ev and 10625 eve sequences, is clearly at variance with Olander's professed "methodological choice to attach considerable weight to simplicity" of reconstructed synchronic systems (2009: 4). The larger the inventory of the input, the easier it is to "explain" almost any actually occurring word form. In my view, the great merit of the laryngeal theory is that it enables us to reduce the inventory of ProtoIndo-European phonemes in a substantial way. Olander recognizes that long vowels "had a very limited distribution in the proto-language; most long vowels in the Indo-European languages are the result of contraction of a short vowel with a following laryngeal" (83), which raises the question if they must be

342

Balto-Slavic

reconstructed at all. The same holds for the "consonantal and vocalic realisations" of *i, *u, *r, *l, *m, *n and the laryngeals. In my view, syllabification developed in the separate branches of Indo-European, e.g. Latin sine and Tocharian B snai 'without' from PIE *snHi, where the laryngeal was consonantal in Latin and became syllabic in Tocharian. Interestingly, Olander's definition of syllables is language-specific (13), and I agree: there is no such thing as a universal syllable. From a phonological point of view, the coloring of vowels by contiguous laryngeals also does not go back to the proto-language (cf. Lubotsky 1989, 1990). The velar stops developed in dialectal Indo-European times from depalatalization of the palatovelars and delabialization of the labiovelars of the proto-language (cf. Steensland 1973). Thus, I reconstruct two vowels *e and *o with lengthened variants *e and *o in monosyllables and before fmal resonants (cf. Wackemagel1896: 66-68), six resonants *i, *u, *r, *l, *m, *n, three laryngeals *l, *5, ?, one fricative *s, and twelve stops. As I have argued elsewhere (e.g. Ko75), the "voiceless" and "voiced aspirated" stops were fortes and lenes, respectively, and the "plain voiced" stops were glottalized. While Olander's reconstruction does not allow for a chronology of dialectal Indo-European developments, such a chronology is an essential part of my reconstructions. In contrast with the large inventory of Proto-Indo-European phonemes, Olander reconstructs a minimal system for Proto-Slavic: six stops *p, *b, *t, *d, *k, *g, three fricatives *s, *z, *x, four resonants *m, *n, *l, *r, four short vowels *a, *e, *i, *u and four long vowels *a, *e, "!, *u (127). The two semivowels *j and *w "were probably variants" of the vowels *i and *u and "did not have independent phonological status" (ibidem). Since Olander reconstructs neither *w nor *H for this stage, it remains unclear how he accounts for the difference between e.g. zverb 'beast' and Z'bvati 'to calf. The smaller the inventory of the output, the easier it is to "explain" almost any word form thus reconstructed. Olander dismisses all instances of shortened "long" vowels, as in Serbo-Croatian jllgoda and Czechjahoda 'strawberrY, and all instances oflengthened "short" vowels, as in SCr. bl!re 'gathers' and Czech viile 'will; as recent developments and does not take them into consideration in his analysis. This greatly simplifies his task because accounting for the new quantitative distinctions such as between *a and *a and between *o and *o is by far the trickiest part of Slavic accentology. It also puts him on the wrong track because his "mobility law" is irreconcilable with the quantitative reflexes of vowels and diphthongs in Slavic. The same holds for his early date of Dybo's law (ibidem), for which he offers no argumentation. Note that Olander's reconstruction of "Proto-Slavic" corresponds to stage 6.o of my chronology (e.g. Ko66: 47, K222: 119), which differs from his system in the presence of a glottal stop. The loss of the glottal stop gave rise to shortened "long" vowels (stages 7.13 and 9.2 of my chronology) and paved the way for the rise oflengthened "short" vowels (my stages 7.15, 8.1, 8.2 and 8.8). Thus, Olander omits a large and essential part of the evidence.

Balto-Slavic accentuation revisited

343

There is a lot of misunderstanding resulting from terminology and defmitions in Balto-Slavic accentology. It is therefore appropriate that Olander devotes an introductory section to these problems (7-14). Unfortunately, his choices are not always felicitous. His Is- and Us-stems are actually iH- and uH-stems with a sigmatic nominative. He regards stems in semivowels and laryngeals as vowel stems, not consonant stems. His "desinence" refers to the complex of stem-forming sufftx and case marker while his "ending" refers to the case marker only, which is the opposite of common practice. He defmes ProtoIndo-European as "the language spoken at the end of the period that precedes the oldest innovation not shared by all (known) Indo-European languages': which corresponds to stage 2.0 of my chronology, not to stage 3.0, which is the end of the dialectal Indo-European period preceding the earliest Balto-Slavic innovations. This is at variance with his reconstruction of the "Proto-IndoEuropean phonological system" (83), which represents a subphonemic diasystem between my stages 2.1 and 2.2 (see above). His Proto-Balto-Slavic and his Proto-Baltic correspond to my stage 5.0 (see also K253). His Proto-Slavic is defmed as the stage immediately before the monophthongization of oral diphthongs, which took place at my stage 6.5 (e.g. Ko66: 48, K222: 119). In fact, his reconstructed "Proto-Slavic" phonological system (127) corresponds to my stage 6.o, before the umlaut (6.1) and the first palatalization ofvelars (6.2). This is long before the earliest Slavic dialectal developments, which arose around stage 7.0 (cf. K2o8: 231), and many centuries before the last common Slavic innovations and the disintegration of the common language (stage 1o.o). Olander's discussion of the prosodic terminology (10-14) is also less than satisfactory. He states that Stokavian "in a superficial analysis has contrasting tones, e.g. gen. sg. sela with rising tone vs. nom.-acc. pl. sf!la with falling tone. In a somewhat deeper analysis, however, where rising tone is interpreted as accent on a following syllable, i.e. se'la vs. 'sela, Stokavian may be viewed as a non-tonal language~ In fact, the "somewhat deeper analysis" is simply wrong because noninitial falling tones are frequent in Stokavian and the normative system is artificial and probably never existed in any authentic dialect (cf. Vermeer 1985). Olander defmes the term "accented" as referring to "the prominent syllable of a word in prosodic systems where no more than one syllable of a word is prominent relative to its neighbouring syllables.[ ... ] Unaccented word-forms are found in languages like Vedic and Japanese[ ...]. Automatic, i.e. non-distinctive, prominence of a certain syllable in a phonological word" is referred to as "ictus': which "in the case of unaccented words" falls on the initial syllable (u). This again is contrary to common practice, where ictus (beat') refers to dynamic prominence and accent (=trpoa(fJ8la 'pitch') to tonal characteristics. It would be preferable to restate these defmitions in terms of High and Low tone (where I use capital letters with reference to tone levels), making clear that the "automatic" Low tone on the initial syllable of an "unaccented word-form" is in

344

Balto-Slavic

fact distinctively Low as opposed to a High tone on the initial syllable of an "accented" word form with initial stress. Olander's identification of the Vedic and (Tokyo) Japanese systems as having "unaccented word-forms" is a source of confusion. Vedic has a full-fledged tone system with any sequence of High and Low tones, e.g. RV 1.1.6 tavet tat satyam on one hand and 10.75.5 imai'Jl me gange yamune sarasvati sutudri on the other (cf. KoSo: 156). On the other hand, contrary to Olander's presentation (12), Japanese hasi 'edge' and hasi 'bridge' are homophonous (Low-High) in the Tokyo dialect, where a following enclitic particle is High after 'edge' but Low after 'bridge; just as Russian kod 'code' and kot 'tom-cat' are homophonous but differ accentually in the genitive koda versus kota. While Vedic has distinctive tone, Tokyo Japanese has only lexical pitch accent A fmal source of confusion is the term "circumflex" (14), which usually refers to a falling tone in Slavic and to the absence of an "acute" in Baltic. While I am happy to see that Olander has accepted my view that the Balto-Slavic acute can be identified as glottalization, I am sorry that he has not (yet) seen why glottalized vowels must have remained distinct from earlier long vowels in Slavic. As is clear from Olander's Table 2 (46), the two pillars of modem Slavic accentology are Stang's demonstration (1957) that Saussure's law did not operate in Slavic and Dybo's establishment of a progressive accent shift from non-acute non-falling vowels in flexion (1962) and derivation (1968). The views of authors who do not accept these two fundamental discoveries (including Klingenschmitt and Stankiewicz) are by now primarily of historical interest. The major question which remains, in Olander's framework, is whether original accentual mobility was inherited from the Indo-European proto-language or developed in Balto-Slavic times. While original accentual mobility in consonant stems such as Greek Ovyan1p, Ovyarepa, Ovyarpoc; 'daughter' and Vedic iitma, iitmanam, tmanii, tmane 'souf can hardly be doubted, the absence of accentual mobility in original o-stems is equally certain. Olander challenges the classic view that vowel stems adopted the accentual mobility of the consonant stems ("Pedersen's law") and claims that the earlier accentual mobility which is reflected in alternating ablaut grades had almost wholly been eliminated in the Indo-European proto-language already. Here I disagree: nobody would maintain on the basis of the Welsh and Armenian evidence that the accent was ftxed on the penultimate syllable in the proto-language, and the same holds true for the ftxation of the stress in Vedic and Greek, where many traces of accentual mobility have been preserved. Indeed, it seems to me that the alternating ablaut grades provide a much more faithful piece of evidence than the attested place of the ictus, which does not go back more than 2500 years at most. Olander's analysis in terms of syllables is less appropriate than an analysis in terms of tonebearing morphemes, where e.g. Greek Ovyarepa is stressed on the sufftx and Ovyarpoc; on the desinence. In my view, the alternation between stem-stressed

Balto-Slavic accentuation revisited

345

and end-stressed forms can easily have been generalized from consonantal to vocalic stems. The argument that "the consonant stems constitute an unproductive group of words that are gradually disappearing in Baltic and Slavic" and that they cannot therefore "have influenced the large and productive group of vowel stems in such a profound manner as an imitation of the accent curves would imply" (51) is not valid because we are dealing with the earliest Balto-Slavic developments here, taking place at a stage when consonantal stems may still have been in the majority. Note that the ii-, e-, 1-, u-, i- and u-stems were also consonant stems at the outset. While I agree with Olander that analogical change requires a motivation and that a "typical example of a motivation would be the simplification of a complicated system" (so), I think that a morphological generalization is no less probable than the automatic fixation of the stress on a non-initial syllable. Thus, I stick to Pedersen's law; for the oxytonesis see below. Olander states that the analogical changes which account for the lateral mobility in Slavic paradigms "constitute the backbone of Kortlandt's theory of Balto-Slavic accentuation" (49). This is not correct. Starting from the assumption that the lateral mobility was not directly inherited from the IndoEuropean proto-language but could have developed by analogy with the consonant stems, this was not my major concern. The backbone of my theory is the thesis that the Balto-Slavic acute was a glottal stop which developed from the Indo-European laryngeals and from Winter's law and is reflected as glottalization in Latvian and Lithuanian and that the gradual loss of this glottal stop accounts for the development of vocalic timbre and quantity distinctions in Slavic. The red thread which runs through these developments is a series of sound changes: Hirt's law (4.1), Winter's law (4.3), retraction of the stress from fmal open syllables (4.4), loss of the glottal stop in pretonic and post-posttonic syllables (5-3), loss of the glottal stop in the remaining posttonic syllables (7.13), Van Wijk's law (7.15), contractions in posttonic syllables (8.1), retraction of the stress from fmal jers (8.2), Dybo's law (8.7), lengthening of short falling vowels in monosyllables (8.8), loss of glottalization in stressed syllables (9.2), Stang's law (9.3), shortening of long falling vowels (9.4), lengthening of short vowels and retractions of the stress in the daughter languages (10.4-10.12). These phonetic laws were followed by analogical levelings which account for the distribution of accent, timbre and quantity in the attested Slavic material In this framework, the loss of Indo-European accentual mobility (3.1) was never intended to be more than a working hypothesis in order to simplify the analysis. As more traces of Indo-European accentual mobility in Balto-Slavic became clear to me (cf. Ko82, Ko87, Ko99, K173. K195, K2o1), I have fmally abandoned this hypothesis (K236), see below. Olander makes a distinction between long and hiatal fmal syllables, the latter "containing two contiguous vowels, possibly separated by a laryngeal" (8).

346

Balto-Slavic

In Greek, "sequences of two vowels behave alike whether separated by a laryngeal or not': e.g. dat.sg. Or.ypij) 'field' < *-oei and rpvyfi 'flight' < *-aHai (89). I agree that the Greek circumflex reflects a sequence of two vowels possibly separated by a laryngeal here and reconstruct *-o(ei and *-a(ai < *-e5ei, similarly datsg. oTIGcp 'house' < *-o(ei, loc.sg. oTIGOI < *-oli but nom.pl. oliGm < *-oi like Or.ypot < *-oi, gen. pl. Or.ypwv < *-o(om, datpl. Or.ypoic; < *-o(ois but acc.pl. Or.ypooc; < *-ons, f3ovc; 'o'x < *g"o(us < *g"e5"'us but ZeOc; without a laryngeal, optative 3rd sg. 1tou8eom 'educate' < *-ol < *-oift, 3rd pl. r18eiev 'put' < *-efiy- but aor. A.oaesav 'loosen' < *-eiy- (cf. Ko97). In Indo-Iranian, intervocalic laryngeals were lost at an early stage with contraction yielding long vowels but later restored at morpheme boundaries after the rise of new intervocalic laryngeals from the vocalization of the syllabic nasals, e.g. *ma(as 'moon' < *mei'ns, *va(atas 'wind' < *5uei'ntos, which was followed by the rise of the new gen.pl. ending *-a(am (cf. K240). The same introduction of the formative suffiX before the PIE ending *-om is found in Germanic, where the laryngeals were lost at an early stage, e.g. Gothic -o < *-iiom, later again in Old High German -ono, similarly in Sanskrit -anam, -lnam, -unam, also Greek -&wv < *-asom and Latin -arum, -arum. Olander's dismissal of this explanation as "quite unnatural" (78) is quite incomprehensible to me. The original PIE ending *-om is attested in Slavic -'b, Lith. -11, Prussian -on, and in Germanic, Celtic, Italic, Indo- Iranian and Anatolian (cf. Ko3o). I am happy to see that Olander has accepted (90) my derivation of the Lith. nom. pl. ending *-{e from *-ali < *-e5-i (without giving the argumentation for this reconstruction, cf. Kuo). I cannot accept Olander's derivation of Slavic -i from *-oi and *-ai (9o), which is at variance with loc.sg. *vt~lce 'wolf: for which he arbitrarily assumes replacement by the ending of the a-stems, and with the pronominal forms mt~ne, tebe, sebe and 1st sg. vede 'knoW, which he does not discuss (cf. Ko55: 178). In my view, oral and nasal diphthongs were raised before final *-s (stage 5·9 of my chronology), e.g. imperative nesi 'carry'< *-oi(s, instpl. raby 'slaves' < *-Ois, acc.pl. raby < *-ons, ieny 'women'< *-a(ns, as opposed to loc.sg. rabe < *-oi, datsg. rabu < *-oi, Old Russian nesa 'carrying' < *-onts, soft ending -ja < *-jonts, but raising in acc.pl. kone 'horses' < *-jons, OCS konj~, and also in nom. pl. *Vblci < *-oi-s. As for the circumflex tone in the Lith. optative tesukie 'turn' < *-oift, as opposed to the acute of Slavic *nesl < *-oi(s, I assume that final *-(t merged with preglottalized *-d < *-t (as in Latin quod and Old High German hwaz 'what') before the latter was lost in BaltaSlavic times (my stage 3.7). This development is comparable to the Indo-Iranian loss of a laryngeal before a preglottalized stop followed by another consonant which was established by Lubotsky (1981), e.g. in Vedic pajras 'firm' < *pe5gros beside pajas 'frame' < *pe5gos. It has long been recognized that the traditional PIE voiceless and voiced aspirated stops could not co-occur in the same root, so that roots of the type *te(r)dh- and *dhe(r)t- are excluded. It follows that the distinction between fortes

Balto-Slavic accentuation revisited

347

and "aspirates" was a prosodic feature of the root as a whole, which may be called "strong" (or "high") if it contained e.g. *t and "weak." (or "low") if it contained e.g. *dh. Dybo has shown (1968) that Baltic and Slavic morphemes can be divided into two prosodic classes, viz. "strong' ("high': "dominant") morphemes which attract the accent and "weak." ("low': "recessive") morphemes which repel the accent, and that the stress falls on the first strong morpheme of a word form (cf. Olander 2009: 33). This system can be explained in a straightforward way from an earlier system with distinctive High and Low tones. Lubotsky has shown that there is a highly peculiar correlation between IndoEuropean root structure and accentuation (1988a: 170), which again points to an earlier level tone system. I have proposed (K213) that we must rather start from "strong" and "weak" syllables which originated from an Indo- Uralic consonant gradation. In any case, the prosodic system reconstructed for Proto- IndoEuropean was very close to the system actually attested in Vedic Sanskrit. The question whether "each constituent morpheme of a Proto-Indo-European word had a surfacing distinctive high or low tone, which would render the accent redundant, or that the tones were distinctive only at a pre-stage of Proto-IndoEuropean, having become redundant in the proto-language because of the distinctive accent" (Olander 2009: 85) receives the same answer as in the case of Vedic, depending on one's theoretical predilections (see above). Holger Pedersen made a distinction between "proterodynamic" and "hysterodynamic" accentual mobility (1926: 25, 1933a: 21), the former between root and suffix and the latter between suffiX and desinence, and stated that these accent movements "n'ont joue aucun r6le pour le developpement lituanien" (1933a: 22). The idea that there were two types of PIE accentual mobility was elaborated by Kuiper (1942) and other scholars, most consistently by Beekes (1985), who demonstrated that the nom.sg. form of the hysterodynamic paradigm was originally stressed on the root, not on the suffiX, and that the proterodynamic and hysterodynamic paradigms have a common origin. 0 lander again follows the German (Hoffmannian) tradition, using "-kinetic" for "-dynamic" (92) and disregarding Beekes' findings. He dismisses "the presence of ablaut alternations in the root of a word in one or more languages as an indication of paradigmatic mobility in that word in the proto-language" (93), which puts an end to the discussion. He accepts Rasmussen's idiosyncratic view that the "distribution of *-e- and *-o- in the thematic suffiX was not dependent on the accent but on a following segment, *-e- and *-o- appearing before an unvoiced and voiced segment respectively" (94). Disregarding Beekes' argumentation (1995: 128f.), he ignores the evidence for paradigmatic mobility in the a-stems (95) and dismisses the evidence in the i- and u-stems (96). He rejects the accentuation of Greek 8vyar11p and fl~T'lP as secondary (72f.) without mentioning Lycian kbatra 'daughter' < *dhueg5tr (cf. Kloekhorst 2008: 904) and attaches no importance to the accentual mobility in Greek lJpyvux,

Balto-Slavic

opyvtiXc; 'fathom' and Vedic panthas, panthiim, pathcis, pathf$U 'path' (97). In my view, Vedic piitar- 'protector' and pitar- 'father' represent a single PIE paradigm with nom. *pe5tr, ace. *p5term, gen. *p5tros, cf. Maltese missier 'father' < French monsieur < mon seigneur 'my lord'. I shall not discuss the accentuation of verbal paradigms here. Since "the curves of the Proto-Baltic mobile paradigms are virtually reconstructed on the basis of Lithuanian material only" (tot), Olander does not discuss Proto-Baltic. I have argued that Proto-Baltic and Proto-Balto-Slavic are the same thing because there are no common innovations of West and East Baltic which were not shared by Slavic (e.g. Ko25, K253). Olander does not discuss metatonie douce in Lithuanian (102) and does not even mention metatonie rude, nor metatony in Latvian. In my view, the rise of metatony coincides with the rise of syllabic tones in East Baltic (e.g. Ko25: 324-328, cf. also Derksen 1996). Olander regards the accentuation of secondary case forms in -n(a) and -p(i) as evidence for "unaccented word-forms" in Lithuanian, e.g. illative galve)n, galv6sna 'head(s); allative darb6p 'work' (103). I agree with Seriants' view ( 2004) that the original accentuation of the illative was that of the accusative (cf. K221). The Latvian locative represents the illative, not the inessive (cf. Vanags 1994), and also has the accentuation of the accusative. The short vowel of Lith. neveda 'does not lead' shows that the accentuation of this form is more recent than the lengthening in veda, which is limited to Lithuanian (cf. Ko25: 326), and cannot therefore go back to Proto-Baltic times. Nieminen's law (105) represents two distinct developments: an East Baltic retraction from final *-a and a later retraction from final *-as in Lithuanian (cf. Derksen 1996: 96-128 and 229-232). The "analogical spread of accentual mobility at the expense of the immobile paradigms" in Lithuanian (107) is largely reversed in the modern language. The Old Lithuanian mobile accentuation in zin6ti 'to know' (to8) is supported by the Slavic evidence (cf. Ko82). Accentual mobility is also found in Lith. duodijs 'giving, Latvian du6mu 'I give; setu 'I sif, eimu 'I go' (Varaklani, cf. Ko25: 321, 323, 327), and Slavic athematic verbs. Olander has accepted (u4f.) my view that original PIE long vowels are non-acute in Balto-Slavic in the case of Lith. akmuo 'stone' and dukti 'daughter' but does not mention the evidence of Latvian tibuols 'apple, SCr. zt!riiv, Czech zerav 'crane' (e.g. K141: 26). He regards the Lith. tst and 2nd sg. circumflex endings -au, -ai, -ei as "exceptions to Leskien's Law" (115) without mentioning that they are acute in the .Zemaitian dialects and regularly became circumflex in Aukstaitian. He rightly concludes that Saussure's law was limited to Lithuanian (u6f.) but does not mention the chronological argument (cf. Ko25: 327). Olander rejects "Kortlandt's Law" (124f.) without explaining the accentuation of such forms as Old Prussian semme, wedde, Lith. zeme 'earth', vede 'led; also OPr. twaiii, twaiiismu, swaiiismu, tennii, tenneismu, tenneison, tenneimans, genniimans, widdewa, widdewamans. He adduces the absence of a macron in such words as OPr. deiws 'god; deinan 'day'

Balto-Slavic accentuation revisited

349

as evidence for "unaccented word-forms" (125f.) without explaining the presence of a macron in e.g. mergan 'maid: antran 'othei, ausins 'ears' (cf. K234: 363). Now we tum to Slavic. "If a word-form containing only syllables with low pitch, i.e. an unaccented word-form, was followed by an enclitic, the enclitic received an automatic ictus" (128). This is Dolobko's law (my stage 7.2). "If there was no enclitic, the phonological word, i.e. the morphological word-form preceded by zero or more proclitics, received an automatic ictus on the initial syllable': i.e. a distinctive Low tone (my stage 6.10). "The unaccented wordforms, which at later stages of Slavic often received initial accentuation, were realised differently from initially accented word-forms~ viz. by the distinction between Low and High tone. Apart from the unfortunate terminology ("unaccented" = Low tones only, "automatic ictus" = High tone on an enclitic but Low tone on an initial syllable, "initially accented"= High tone on an initial syllable), Olander and I seem to be in agreement here. The phrase "which at later stages of Slavic often received initial accentuation" is confusing because we already have "automatic ictus" and distinctive tone on the initial syllable at this stage, Low tone being regularly reflected as falling tone in Serbo-Croatian. Olander's biggest mistake (cf. K234: 364) is his assumption that the distinction between glottalized and non-glottalized vowels had disappeared at this stage, the former yielding "long" vowels. As a result, he is unable to account for such quantitative distinctions as *a versus *a in Slavic. Contrary to Olander's statement (12.8), the Proto-Slavic prosodic system was not typologically similar either to that of Vedic (which had High and Low particles and syntactic conditioning of tone alternations) or to that of Tokyo Japanese (where accented Low tones surface as High tones). Greatly adding to the confusion, Olander now changes his terminology: "syllables are acute if they are accented and contain a long vowel, circumflex if they are unaccented or contain a short vowel" (129). Disregarding the instances where a long vowel lost the stress to the following syllable as a result of Dybo's law, e.g. Czech b£lf 'white, poutnfk 'travelei, trava 'grass~ travn{ 'grassY, travn{k 'pasture~ narod 'people, zakon 'laW, trouba 'trumpef, zabava 'fun, party, utroba 'intestine, as opposed to jazyk 'tongue: malina 'raspberry, chladny 'cold: tezky 'heavf, suchy 'drY, ruka 'hand: ruln{ 'hand-: rulnfk 'towel~ sukno 'clotli, humno 'threshing-floor, where an original pretonic long vowel was shortened, Olander reconstructs long vowels in "Proto-Slavic" *darga 'road: *galwa 'head: ace. *galwan for the short vowels of SCr. drltga, glava but obl.pl glavama, adj. glavnl, Czech hlava, hlavu, hlavn{, Polish droga, glowa, glow~, Upper Sorbian droha, hlowa, also long *a in *gena 'woman' for SCr. zena, dial. zenlt, and in inst pl. *genaml, SCr. zenama, Slovene tenami < *zen ami (cf. K222: 124). Similarly, Olander does not account for the quantitative difference in the sufftx between Czech pekar 'baker' and rybar 'fisherman' or between SCr. dvoriste 'yard' and bllttiSte 'mud-pit' or Cakavian potegnilt 'to pull' and dvFgnut 'to lift' (cf. K222: 129).

350

Balto-Slavic

According to Saxmatov's law (1915: 84), medial syllables lost a falling tone to a preceding short vowel but not to a preceding long vowel, where the falling vowel was shortened instead, e.g. SCr. pr3diili 'sold'< *prodali, ntiuka 'science'< *niiuka. We now know that the latter formation received the medial stress as a result of Dybo's law (cf. K22.2.: 12.2.). I have subsumed the former type under Pedersen's law because it represents a retraction of the stress in mobile paradigms. Saxmatov's law must not be confused with Stang's law, according to which the stress was retracted from long falling vowels after Dybo's law (cf. K22.2.: 123). Olander redefmes Saxmatov's law as "an accent retraction from a word-initial syllable with falling tone to a proclitic or preftx" (130). He regards the retracted accent as "the result of the automatic ictus placement rule inherited from Proto-Balto-Slavic" (ibidem). The problem with this interpretation is that the retraction of the stress and the rise of distinctive tone (my stage 6.10) must have been more recent than the generalization of accentual mobility in the masculine o-stems which did not have an acute root vowel ("Illic-Svityc's law': stage 6.9), e.g. in SCr. zub 'tootli, Greek y6wpoc; (cf. K222.: 119), which was conditioned by the identity of the paradigms (b) and (c) except in the oblique plural case forms and by the absence of barytone forms with an acute root vowel in paradigms with mobile stress after Meillet's law (stage 5.4), while original barytone neuters are continued as masculine o-stems of paradigm (b). Olander evidently does not appreciate the problem when he states that "substantial coincidence of the accent curves of two paradigms is not a necessary prerequisite for the transfer oflexemes among the paradigms" (145, cf. also K234: 364). Note that in Olander's reconstruction only the gen.pl. and inst.pl. forms of the paradigms (b) and (c) have the same accentuation while the original (i.e. pre- Hirt) barytone masculines and barytone neuters only differed in the nom.pl. and acc.pl. forms. It appears that the alleged paradigm (d) reconstructed by some scholars (135) never existed (cf. Langston 2.007 and K22.6: 231f.). Olander objects to my view of Meillet's law as an analogical elimination of glottalization from the barytone forms of mobile paradigms (stage 5·4) after the phonetic loss of glottalization in pretonic syllables (stage 5.3), e.g. in SCr. acc.sg. glavu, Lith. galvq, that such a development is unexpected in o-stem singularia tantum (131). He does not mention SCr. m?lti 'mother, which combines an acute root vowel with accentual mobility (cf. Jurisic 1973: 116) and thereby shows that Meillet's law must have been an analogical development. As I pointed out earlier (K234: 363f.), the high frequency of pluralia tantum with derived singulars is characteristic of Balto-Slavic, e.g. Lith. mesa 'mea~ taukal 'fa~ Latvian mlesa, OPr. mensa, crauyo 'blood; Slavic m~so '(piece of) meat'. Olander redefines Stang's law (my stage 9.3) as a retraction of the accent "from short medial diphthongs, from reduced vowels in weak position, and from contracting syllables" (131). This is quite unsatisfactory, first of all because the retraction

Balto-Slavic accentuation revisited

351

from weak jers yielded a different reflex and therefore belongs to a different chronological layer (e.g. stage 8.2 of K222: 122), secondly because "short medial diphthongs" include *-Ina, *-lk-, *-In-, from which the accent was not retracted to (b) roots (cf. Dybo 1968), and do not include e.g.loc.sg. -u < *-eu and inst.pl. -y < *-Ois, from which the accent was retracted to (b) roots but not to (c) roots, thirdly because the accent was not retracted in such contracted forms as Cakavian kopa 'digs' < *kopaje, and fourthly because the accent was retracted from long vowels which originated from Van Wijk's law, which Olander does not mention, e.g. SCr. pise 'writes~ v3ija 'will' (stage 7.15 of K222: 121). I am glad to see that Olander has accepted (132) my derivation of+ from athematic *-ei- in the Slavic i- presents, e.g. SCr. nllsl 'he carries'. I shall not discuss Olander's reconstruction of "Proto-Slavic" paradigmatic accent in detail but limit myself to a few remarks. The derivation of Slavic -'b from PIE *-os (135) cannot be upheld (cf. Ko55: 181f. and Vermeer 1991). Contrary to Olander's statement (136f.), the OCS verbs jesmtJ 'am', damtJ 'give' and jamtJ 'eat' had final stress before Dybo's law, as is clear from the long rising vowel in Cakavian (Vrgada) je 'is~ jesu '(they) are, dadu '(they) give' (cf. Jurisic 1973: 2.4, 42), (Hvar) je, jesu, (Novi) je, su, da, Posavian dada, Slovene dci, dad9, j¢, jed9, also v¢, ved9 'know~ The verbs imamtJ 'have' and *ztJnamtJ 'know' also had mobile stress (cf. Ko82). The sigmatic aorist had fixed stress on a non-acute long vowel, e.g. SCr. donijeh 'I brought; inf. donijeti with the long vowel of the aorist beside nesti 'to carry, similarly (Dubrovnik) r~et beside reti 'to say' (cf. K234: 365). There is no evidence for any type of change in the aorist "by analogy with the infmitive" (138). Olander does not discuss the thematicization of athematic verbs which in my opinion gave rise to accentual mobility in the thematic presents (cf. K226: 229f.). As a result of Olander's erroneous assumption that "after Dybo's Law the glottalisation disappeared and long glottalised vowels merged with long non-glottalised vowels" (142), he is unable to explain the numerous formations where Dybo's law introduced new long vowels in pretonic syllables. He was evidently misled by Rasmussen's suggestion that the fmal accentuation of *notjtJ stl 'this night' and *nesete 'you carry' originated from Dybo's law (142). As is clear from the fmal stress of Slovene gen.sg. lahkegti, dat.sg. lahkemu 'light' and from the long vowel of Slovak nesie < *nesettl (cf. Stang 1952), the fmal accentuation is older than Dybo's law here. The long rising vowel in Slovene inst.pl. kostmf 'bones~ mozm{ 'men, stabrf 'pillars~ Posavian sa sinovf 'with sons~ and in Slovene loc. pl. moi¢h, 3rd pl. nes9 < *nes9ttl also shows that the fmal accentuation in these forms is older than Dybo's law, which in these endings yielded a long falling vowel from which the accent was retracted in accordance with Stang's law (cf. K222: 123, Stang 1957: 70f., 117). The quantitative difference between Slovene konj 'horse' < *konjtJ and gen.pl. gfjr 'mountains' < *gori, shows that Dybo's law did not shift the accent onto fmal jers (cf. K222: 122).

352

Balto-Slavic

I can also be brief about Olander's reconstruction of Proto-Balto-Slavic, which is an intermediate stage between his "Proto-Indo-European" and his "Proto-Slavi~ His Proto-Balto-Slavic phonological system (144) differs from mine (stage 5.0 of my chronology) in the absence of a flfth short vowel *o, phonemic *j, *w and glottal stop *l, and in the presence of "unaccented wordforms". My primary reason for rejecting the latter category (apart from the terminological confusion, see above) is the discrepancy between the Slavic accentual mobility between pre-phrasal and phrase-flnal syllables and the Lithuanian accentual mobility between pre-radical and word-final syllables, both of which originated after specific developments limited to the separate branches of Balto-Slavic (cf. already Ko28: 73-75). Olander ignores the fact that PIE lengthened grade vowels are never acute and (unlike the acute vowels) did not lose their length when the new timbre distinctions arose in Slavic (e.g. Ko64, Vermeer 1992). He does not discuss the dozens of instances which I have adduced but limits himself to two isolated examples "suggesting that plain long vowels merged prosodically with long vowels of laryngeal origin and long vowels from Winter's Law" (148). The flrst example is Lith. zverls (3), Slavic zven, (c) 'beasf, which must be reconstructed as *zwelr- (cf. Derksen 2008: 550). The second example is Lith. varna (1), SCr. vr?lna (a), Upper Sorbian wrona < *worlnal 'crow' (cf. Derksen 2008: 528), which Olander regards as a vrddhi formation of Lith. vai'nas (4), SCr. vriin (c) 'raven' (147) though the word pair clearly represents an alteration of the corresponding forms in Latin cornlx, corvus and Greek 1Gopww7, IGOpa~ with substitution of *wor- for *kor-, both meaning 'burn, cf. also Lith. sii'vas 'greY, mulvas 'reddish' beside Russian s~rna (a) 'roe deer, Latvian m{!lns 'blacl(, OPr. sirwis, Greek !dAiX'- (cf. Ko64: 121). Just for the record I mention one of the very few printing errors in the book under discussion: Lith. "ne54s" (154, 260) must be corrected to nesijs (183). Now we come to Olander's "Mobility Law" (156): a High tone on a wordfmal mora became Low in Balto-Slavic. This is an improvement in comparison with his earlier formulation (2006: 133) but presupposes an ad hoc oxytonesis in VHV sequences, where the accent shifted from the first to the second mora while it remained on the flrst mora of long vowels and diphthongs (156). As a result of the mobility law, end-stressed word forms became "unaccented" and received an automatic Low tone "ictus~ either on the final syllable before an enclitic particle or (if there was none) on the frrst proclitic element or initial syllable of the phonological word (157). This is a peculiar compromise satisfying neither the Slavic mobility between pre-phrasal and phrase-fmal syllables nor the Lithuanian mobility between pre-radical and word-flnal syllables. The rule does not explain the accentuation of case forms in *-s, e.g. Lith. sirdls 'hearf, lietw 'raid, saltasis 'the cold one, arklys 'horse, gen.sg. galvos, sirdies, zveries, defimties 'ted, lietaiis, dukters, nom.pl. slrdys, Uetiis, ditkterys, nor langai 'windows: instsg. sirdiml, lietuml, gen. pl. langij, galvij, loc.pl. akisit 'eyes: sakosit

Balto-Slavic accentuation revisited

353

'branches: (Old) Russian gen.sg. plot£ 'flesh: smertf 'death', desjatf (cf. Stang 1957: 87f.), inst.sg. krug6m 'round; vlera 'yesterdaY, dat.pl detjam 'children, ijUdjam 'people, loc.pl. detjax, ijudjax, Slovene gen. pl. 9vac 'sheep, datpl. mo~m, kost~m, inst.pl. mozm{, kostm{. Moreover, it does not account for the category of endstressed neuters established by Derksen (cf. K236: 77f.), e.g. Lith. auldtas (2) 'floor' with metatony, Czech vedro, SCr. vjedro (b) 'bucket' with a shortened root vowel (cf. Derksen 2008: 518f.). One cannot escape the impression that Olander's reconstruction of "Proto-Indo-European" endings is strongly influenced by the outcome of his mobility law: he accepts the Greek circumflex as evidence for a hiatal ending in dat.sg. -tiJ, -fi (173), inst.sg. -~ (175), where the accent was retracted in Balto-Slavic, but cannot use the hiatus in gen.sg. -~c; (17o), loc.sg. -of (177), gen.pl. -wv (186), inst.pl. -ofc; (190); conversely, the absence of a hiatus is welcome in nom.sg. -~ (167) but not in acc.sg. -~v (169), dual-w (179), nom.pl. -of (181), acc.pl. -ovc; (183), -&c; (184). I shall not discuss the separate case forms (166-194) because I have done that earlier (K234: 366-368). Let me only add that my reconstruction of datpl. *-mus is based on Old Lithuanian-mus, Slavic -m'b, u-infection in Old High German tagum and Old Norse dpgom 'days' (cf. van Helten 1891: 460-462), and the zero reflex in Armenian (cf. K194: 49). My retraction of the stress from this ending to the initial syllable in the i- and u-stems at a stage (8.2) when pretonic jers in medial syllables could no longer receive the stress, e.g. in Russian detjam < *dettJm'b, is supported by Slovene danas 'today' < *dtJntJstl and gen.pl. 9vac 'sheep' < *owtoctl. Note that the rise of final accentuation in the polysyllabic case forms of the i- and u-stems must have preceded Hirt's law because accentual mobility was preserved in Slavic klettJ 'store-room; kyjtJ 'sticl(, syn'b 'son, dar'b 'gift; stan'b 'stand: cf. Lith. kletis, kajis, sum:ts, all of which would have received root stress (1) if the accent had been fixed on the second syllable before Hirt's law (cf. K234: 366). This already suffices to show that Olander's mobility law cannot be maintained. Olander regrettably follows Andersen's unfortunate suggestion to compare his mobility law with the rise of initial accentuation in the Podravian dialects of Croatia (159f.). In these dialects, which did not share the neo-Stokavian retraction of the stress, there is a long rising vowel in kriiij je doso 'the king has come' and a short stressed vowel in riiklt me boli 'my hand aches' (cf. Klaic 1936: 182). When a phrase ends in a syllable with a long rising or short vowel, the last word receives initial stress with a falling tone on a long voweL e.g. doso je kraij, boli me rCtka, where the accent of rCtka stands for a falling tone followed by a trace of the original fmal stress: ruldl, similarly imperative ptsi = pm for pm 'write, kradi for kriidi 'steaf, pismo for plsm3 'letter; also milikiirltc for mu5kiirltc je d3so, ali cigiinka je kiizltla 'the man came but the gypsy woman said' and svlrltte tltmburiiS for tamburiiS te svlrltti 'the mandolinist will plaf, with the main stress on the initial syllable of the word. Klaic emphasizes the difference between gen.sg. st!ijaka for seljiiklt (b) 'peasant' and cigiinka (a) and between l1 Benilance

354

Balto-Slavic

for u Beniliinci! (b) 'to Benicanci' and u SijFvoJevce (a) 'to Sljivosevci'. It is clear that the initial accentuation did not arise from a phonetic retraction of the stress but developed as an autonomous word-initial boundary signal Contrary to Olander's statement (160), such forms with initial accentuation are not "phonologically unaccented" but doubly accented. Olander is evidently unaware of the existence of similar systems with double accentuation in Slovak and Polish dialects along the river Orava (cf. Topolmska 1961: 86-89). In the Karelian dialects of Russian, we fmd variation between original fmal stress and new initial accentuation (cf. Ter-Avanesova 1989: 218). In Polabian and in the Pannonian dialect of the Kiev Leaflets we find both retraction of the stress from final syllables and rise of initial accentuation, which are clearly independent developments (cf. Ko27, K1o7). None of these phenomena can be adduced as a typological parallel in support of Olander's rise of"unaccented word- forms~ In his reply to my earlier criticism (K234), Olander discards objections which "are only valid from the point of view of [Kortlandt's] own theory" because such criticism "is interesting insofar as it illustrates differences between our theories, but it does not bring to light weaknesses in my theory that need to be dealt with" (206). This will not do. Olander's interpretation of Meillet's law cannot be correct because the prosodic merger of acute and circumflex in Slavic was limited to pretonic and post-posttonic syllables while the distinction between acute and non-acute was preserved under the stress and in the first posttonic syllable, where it is reflected as short versus long in the historical languages. Similarly, Dybo's law did not shift the accent to fmal jers because we find a short vowel in Slovene konj 'horse' < *kOnjb but a long vowel in gen. pl. gfjr 'mountains'< *got'b, and similarly in other languages. The point is that Olander's theory simply does not account for the evidence. My chief objection is not the typological improbability of Olander's mobility law but the fact that it is contradicted by the evidence. I agree with Olander that the lack of typological evidence is not crucial As was pointed out above, contrary to Andersen's mistaken analysis, it is simply not true that a final High tone was lost in Podravian or Karelian dialects of Slavic which developed an initial High tone under the influence of neighbouring languages. There is no typological parallel for Olander's phonological (as opposed to a syntactic) rise of"unaccented wordforms". In my earlier criticism I drew attention to the following words (K234: 361): (a) SCr. kr?lva 'coW, Slovak krava, Polish krowa, Czech krava, Upper Sorbian kruwa < krowa; (b) SCr. brazda 'furroW, Slovak brazda, Polish bruzda < brozda, Czech brazda, Upper Sorbian br6zda; (c) SCr. brada 'beard: Slovak brada, Polish broda, Czech brada, Upper Sorbian broda.

Balto-Slavic accentuation revisited

355

It is clear that we have a distinction between acute (a), long (b) and short (c) vowels here, all of which are reflected as a in South Slavic and Czecho-Slovak and as o in Polish and Sorbian. The acute vowels were lengthened in Czech and Upper Sorbian (stage 10.6) after the rise of the new timbre distinctions (stage 7.13) while they remained short in Serbo-Croatian, Slovak and Polish. In SerboCroatian we fmd a long vowel in disyllabic forms of paradigm (c) but a short vowel in polysyllabic forms and in derivatives (cf. K222: 125-128). Olander obscures the evidence by removing the pretonic vowels from the discussion through substitution of the accusative for the nominative in my examples, asserting that I do not take "the role played by the position of the accent" into account ( 207f.). He reconstructs a long vowel for the short vowel in (a) and a short vowel for both the long vowel in (b) and the short vowel in (c). He relegates the discrepancy between the long vowel in (b) and the short vowel in (c) to a footnote, where he claims that "we do not avoid the assumption of some subsequent analogical levelling in the Slavic languages" and that in the reflexes of (c) "in most cases the short root vowel has been generalised throughout the paradigm" ( 208), ignoring the universal short vowel reflex in flexion and derivation except in disyllabic word forms in Serbo-Croatian paradigms, e.g. obl.pl. rukama 'hands: ritcnl 'hand-: rucnlk 'towef, grtUlskt 'urbati, hladnt 'cold: teskl 'heavf, suhl 'drf, Czech ruka, rucnf, rulnfk, chladny, tetky, suchy (c), as opposed to SCr. trtiva 'grass: triivnl 'grassY, triivnlk 'pasture, b~elt 'white, putnlk 'traveler: Czech trava, travn{, travnfk, bfly, poutnfk (b). Pretonic long vowels in paradigm (a) are always shortened, e.g. SCr. jezik 'tongue; malina 'raspberry, Czech jazyk, malina, Polish jFyk, similarly s~dzia 'judge' < *s9d t~ja (< pre-Dybo *s9dtlja, cf. Russian sud)a with fmal stress) as opposed to wqtroba 'liver; Czech utroba < *ptroba, where the initial vowel lost the stress as a result ofDybo's law. Following Holger Pedersen (1933a: 22), I started from the assumption that Proto- Indo-European accentual mobility had largely been eliminated at the beginning of the Balto-Slavic period (stage 3.1). This is not only because the loss of PIE accentual mobility also affected Vedic and Greek, but especially because Illic-Svityc (1963) did not distinguish between mobile and oxytone paradigms and because I wanted to avoid circular reasoning when directly comparing Balto-Slavic with Indo-European accentual mobility. Dropping the assumption that accentual mobility had been lost at an early stage, I reconsidered the BaltaSlavic accent laws against the background of an independent reconstruction of Proto- Indo-European accent patterns on the basis of the apophonic alternations in the most archaic attested paradigms (K236: 76f., cf. Beekes 1985: 150). This enabled me largely to remove the barytonesis (3.3) and the oxytonesis (3.4) from my chronology. It also opened the way to explain the origin of Dybo's "dominant" suff'J.Xes on the basis of Derksen's end-stressed paradigms (ibidem, 77-79) and thereby to reformulate Pedersen's law (3.2) as a phonetic development, eliminating Stang's counter-examples (1957: 12). This does not,

356

Balto-Slavic

however, prove that Pedersen's law was indeed a phonetic development, and I do no think that it was. When we look at accent retractions in South and West Slavic languages, we see that they are always part of a gradual process. In Bulgarian, the stress was retracted from a fmal short vowel to a preceding open syllable (cf. Ko52). In Serbo-Croatian, the stress was retracted earlier from a final than from a non-fmal syllable, earlier from an open than from a closed syllable, earlier from a short than from a long vowel, and earlier to a preceding long than to a preceding short vowel (cf. Ivic 1958: 105). In Slovene, the stress was retracted from a fmal short vowel to a preceding long vowe~ and later also to a preceding short vowel (cf. Ko17: 6f., Greenberg 2ooo: 120, 143). In the Pannonian dialect of the Kiev Leaflets, the stress was retracted from a fmal open syllable (cf. Ko27). In Polabian, the stress was retracted from a short vowel in a final syllable (cf. K1o7). In Slovincian, the stress was retracted frrst from a fmal syllable to a preceding long vowe~ then from a fmal syllable in polysyllabic word forms and analogically from medial syllables in paradigms with ftxed stress, and later from a fmal short vowel in disyllabic word forms (cf. Ko28: 77). The ftxation of the stress on the initial syllable in West Slavic languages frrst affected polysyllabic word forms in Polabian, Kashubian, Polish and Slovak dialects and the Pannonian dialect of the Kiev Leaflets, and end-stressed word forms in Podravian and in Karelian dialects of Russian. After the ftxation of the stress on the initial syllable, it may look like this was the result of a single phonetic process, but this conclusion is clearly wrong. In view of the attested retractions of the stress in West and South Slavic languages, it seems to me that a retraction of the stress from medial syllables can more easily have been an analogical than a phonetic development and I therefore stick to the term "Pedersen's law". While retractions of the stress can often be described as phonetic developments, the ftxation of the stress on the initial syllable requires the existence of a morphosyntactic unit with an initial syllable. This renders the distinction between sound law and analogy disputable (cf. Olander 2009: 210"'). Olander fmds it "difficult to see the motivation behind" (211) the Slavic extension of Pedersen's law (which he calls "Saxmatov's Law~ 130). In my view, generalization of the Low tone of pretonic syllables to barytone forms of mobile accent paradigms gave rise to Olander's "unaccented word-forms" with distinctive Low tone on the initial syllable (stage 6.10). This introduction of a distinctive Low tone is an essentially syntactic development with a perfect analogue in Vedic. It created the possibility of lexical clitics, e.g. Russian letfrnadcat' 'fourteen, (byliny) bely grudi 'white breasts: Slovincian jau robjq 'I wor:K Bulgarian Cerna more 'Black Sea' (cf. already Ko28: 74), also Slovene gen.sg. lahkega, datsg. lahkemu 'light' (Dolobko's law, stage 7.2), where the fmal stress marks the end of the "phonological word~ as Olander calls it. The Low tone had a falling contour after a preceding High tone, as a result of which the High tone received a rising contour after a preceding Low tone. At a later stage

Balto-Slavic accentuation revisited

357

(8.7), the rising contour shifted the High tone to the following syllable (Dybo's law). Suppression of the contour could probably be used for a contrastive interpretation, as in modern Serbo-Croatian od br?lta (Low-High-Low) 'from the br6ther' as opposed to regular od brata (rising-falling) 'from the brother' (cf. Ivic & Lehiste 1967: 75f.). In Slovene, the distinctive Low tone became High when the falling contour shifted to the right while the High tone became Low, e.g. in ki)st (High) 'bone' versus P9t (Low) 'way' (cf. Greenberg 2007: 77 and Pronk 2009: 20). The rise of a distinctive Low tone was not an automatic consequence of the retraction of the stress to a preposition or prefiX, as is clear e.g. from Russian ottUda 'from there~ donel'zja 'as can be, cf. tuda, nel'zjti, also SCr. na vriita beside vrata (b) 'dooi, all of which received non- initial stress as a result of Dybo's law, similarly in the verb nalomlm, sl3mlm beside lOmlm (c) 'I breal(. The latter accentuation recalls the Vedic loss of accent on fmite verb forms in main clauses, e.g. gamat 'may he come'. As to Olander's rhetorical "final remark" on my "methodological approach" ( 212), it must be regretted that he does not draw the reader's attention to the fact that his "Proto-Slavic" phonological system (127) differs from my Early Slavic system (6.o) in the absence of a glottal stop which accounts for the rise and development of the new timbre and quantity distinctions, which he does not discuss. He also does not discuss the rise and development of the nasal vowels, nor of *j, which have considerable impact on the reconstruction of the phonological system. I am sorry that he has not replaced his confusing analysis in terms of "accent" and "ictus" by a consistent treatment in terms of High and Low tone, which could have avoided a number of misunderstandings. Had he done these things, he would probably have found very few substantial differences between his analysis and mine. But it is difficult to see how his mobility law could have survived the evidence of Slavic vowel length. As it is, Olander's free choice between "Proto-Indo-European" alternatives as input and his limitation of the Slavic evidence by excluding the new timbre and quantity distinctions as output enable him to explain almost any reconstructed word form, either as a regular phonetic reflex or as the result of influence from alternating forms. This is in stark contrast with my aim to explain the actual distribution of accent, tone and quantity as they are attested in the Slavic languages.

a

LITHUANIAN zinati 'TO KNOW'

Elsewhere I have argued that an apophonic difference between singular and plural forms of present tense suffiXes such as *-ei/i-, *-ii/i-, *-nii/n(a)- was quite common in Balta-Slavic times (Ko87, Ko99, also K263: 151-179 and 275-296), e.g. Prussian 1st sg. posinna (4x) 'bekenne' < *-zinii, 1st pL posinnimai < *-zini(n)ma-, 3rd pl. posinna < *-zin(n)a. I have identified this flexion type with Lith. zlno and Vedic jiinati 'knows~ Latvian zinim beside ziniim 'we knoW, Tocharian A kniinat 'you knoW, and Slavic *zt~niimb (Ko82). The Slavic verb had mobile stress (c), as is clear from Serbo-Croatian (Dubrovnik) nl! zniim, ne znamo, p3zniim, poznamo, (Sarajevo) d?l zniiS, nl! zniiS, (Posavian) nl! zniim, p3zniim, Slovene pozniim, also OLith. (Dauksa) ttno, tinome, tinote. The Slavic verb znati and its derived noun znam~ 'sigd, which are based on the root aorist *gne~-, have fiXed stress (a), as is clear from SCr. zn?lti, zn?lmen (e.g. Derksen 2008: 546). The initial palatovelar was evidently restored on the basis of *zt~niimb in these words because the phonetic reflex of the root aorist would be *gna- (cf. K263: 47), which would have merged with gna- < *gMa-, SCr. gn?lti 'chase~ 0 Pr. guntwei. It follows from both the mobile accentuation and the preservation of the initial palatovelar that SCr. zniim represents *zt~niimb and cannot be derived from the root aorist or from the perfect *-gnou, Vedic jajfiau, which is found in SCr. poznavati with restored palatovelar and long -areflecting the lengthened grade voweL Miguel Villanueva Svensson has raised two objections to the derivation of Lith. zin6ti from a nasal present (2oo8: 176-181). He points out correctly that the vowel-6- points to *-eH.-, which is at variance with a reconstruction *gn-neHr. However, OLith. (Dauksa) ttno, tinome, tinote shows that the present tense had lateral stress and, consequently, that the -o- was unstressed and may therefore represent either *-ii- or *-o- (e.g. K263: 6, 46). Since the rise of lateral mobility in Balta-Slavic accent paradigms preceded the East Baltic merger of *-ii- and *-oin unstressed syllables, the Lithuanian present tense directly continues the nasal present *gn-neHr with analogical loss of the acute in the tense suffiX. The acute in the infmitive was evidently taken from the preterit suffiX *-eH, before the latter lost its acute on the analogy of the preterit in *-e (cf. K263: 187). The other objection put forward by Villanueva regards the Latvian forms 1st pl. zinim, 2nd pl. zinit beside ziniim, ziniit, which are difficult to explain on the basis of the reconstructions *zinme, *zinte, allegedly from *gn-nHr before consonant It follows that the reconstructed development is incorrect The solution to this problem is provided by the Prussian forms -sinnimai, -sinnati, which Villanueva does not explain (cf. K263: 287-296). While md pl. -sinnati can easily have replaced *zinte < *zinnte on the analogy of 3rd pl. -sinna < *zina

Balto-Slavic < *zinna, 1st pl. -sinnimai evidently reflects *zinima < *zininma (cf. K263: 280). We must conclude that the phonetic development of *-nnHm-, with three nasal resonants in succession, differed from that of *-nnHt-, where the nasal geminate was simplified. An imperfect parallel is offered by Greek t{eA.aovma 'I may drive out'< *-oyyrrt < *-oiH,m versus IGeA.eom 'he may order'< *-oi" < *-oiH,t (cf. Ko97: 237). Villanueva's suggestion that "-sinnat built a thematic present in Old Pruss ian" (2oo8: 175) is clearly mistaken in view of the regular 1st pl thematic endings -ammai, -emmai, as opposed to -imai in je-presents and athematic formations (cf. Ko87). Thus, the derivation of Lith. zinoti from a nasal present is straightforward if the Prussian evidence is taken seriously. Villanueva's own proposal is to derive zinoti from the weak perfect stem form *zini-, to which the preterit sufftx *-eH, was added (2oo8: 194). He disregards both the mobile stress of :itno, :iinom~, :iinot~ and the Slavic formations. The accentuation of SCr. paznati, poznavati, pllznam points to ftxed stress in the aorist (a) and the perfect (b) and mobile stress in the present tense (c). It follows that in this verb the apophonic alternation between singular and plural forms had already been eliminated in the aorist and the perfect, but not in the present tense, before the characteristic system of accent paradigms was established in early Balto-Slavic times (e.g. K263: 43). It is therefore highly unlikely that the stem form *zin- originated in the aorist or the perfect. Moreover, it is unclear how the addition of the preterit sufftx *-eH. could yield a present tense. Anyway, the addition of *-eH, instead of *-eH, as in deveti 'to wear' and stoveti 'to stand: is quite unexpected and unmotivated. I conclude that Villanueva's proposal does not solve the problems which he raised himself. I fmd no evidence for Babik's reconstruction of a thematic present *Zineti 'makes acquaintance of' (2004: 79) beside Lith. patfsta, Proto- Indo-European *gnH~ke/o- (with depalatalized *k, cf. Lubotsky 2001, Villanueva 2009).

MORE ON THE CHRONOLOGY OF CELTIC SOUND CHANGFS

Graham Isaac's recent monograph (2.007) deals with the chronology of Celtic sound changes. Remarkably, the author completely disregards the relative chronology which I published 2.8 years earlier (Ko35). In the following I shall discuss the main issues on which our views differ. Following Thumeysen (1946: 435), Isaac derives Old Irish -fr 'granted' from *peper- or *pepor- (p. 15). I have argued that *p developed into a bilabial fricative [ *('dhes > Greek xOec, 'yesterdaY, with loss of the dental stop in Sanskrit hya/:l, Latin herl and German gestern but loss of the palatal stop in Welsh doe and Albanian dje (p. 75). He assumes metathesis in Greek *dhf!'omios > *i'dhonyos > x06vtoc, 'of the earth' and its cognate Olr. duine, Welsh dyn 'mad, Gaulish gen.pl. -XTONION (p. 78), but not in Sanskrit lcyam- 'earth~ Gothic guma 'man~ Latin humus, homo, Albanian dhe (p. 81), to which Lith. zeme, Slavic zemija, Thracian uf4EJ..'1 and Phrygian {e~ev can be added. It seems to me that none of these examples supports the hypothesis of an early dialectal Indo-European development or later language contact All forms can be derived from *tk-, *dhf!'-, with metathesis in Proto-Greek and ProtoCeltic. I also reject the derivation of Latin sitis 'thirsf, situs 'mould' < *dhg""'iti/uand situs 'located, site' < *tkito/u- (p. 79). The former words may be related to Sanskrit jasate 'be exhausted~ Greek af3evviJfU 'extinguish' and the latter to Latin sileo 'be silent' ( cf. de Vaan wo8: 563f.). No conclusions can be based on the word ursus 'bear'. Following Melchert (1994: 251f.), Isaac assumes three series of velar stops in Anatolian and Proto-Indo-European (p. 83). I have argued that the plain velar series developed from depalatalization of the palatovelars and delabialization of the labiovelars (e.g. K263: 27-32, cf. already Meillet 1894 and Steensland 1973). Melchert lists three examples of plain velar *k in Luwian, viz. kar5- 'cut' < *krs(cf. Kloekhorst 2008: 455), kattawatnalli- 'plaintiff' < *kH.et- (cf. Kloekhorst 2008: 466), and kiS- 'comb' < *ks- (cf. Kloekhorst 2008: 481f.), all of them with depalatalization of an original palatovelar before the following consonant. Contrary to Isaac's "neutralisation of distinctive aspiration in the voiced occlusives" during a "period of contact between Celtic, Balto-Slavic and IndoIranian around 2,ooo BC" (p. 90), I assume loss of PIE glottalization in ProtoCeltic and its preservation in Indo-Iranian, Balto-Slavic, Germanic, Italic, Greek and Armenian (e.g. Ko75 and K239: 149-151). In my view, Italo-Celtic was the first branch of Indo-European which separated from the proto-language after Anatolian and Tocharian and did not therefore participate in the more recent innovations of the central dialects such as the extended development of the subjunctive, the optative and the middle voice (cf. K239: 151-157). Isaacs view that the sigmatic formations "are patent innovations of the late Proto- IndoEuropean period" (p. 93) is surely mistaken. Contrary to his statement, the

Italo-Celtic relative pronoun *yos was not a common innovation of Indo-Iranian, BaltaSlavic, Graeco-Phrygian and Celtic but was simply replaced by *kwo- in Germanic and Italic, just as it recently was in most Slavic languages. Celtic never was a central Indo-European language. 5· Isaac's fmal chapter deals with palatalization in Irish, which I have discussed earlier (Ko35: 41-48 = K239: 9-17 and K167 = K239: 117-120). He starts from McCone's treatment (1996) without taking my criticism into consideration. Under these circumstances it seems pointless to repeat what I have said earlier about the mistakes in McCone's account and I simply refer to my earlier work. Just for the record I only mention that McCone's first, second and third palatalizations correspond roughly to my stages 7, 12 and 18 and the labialization of *i to *u in cruth 'shape' and gen.sg. cruimthir < QRIMITIR 'priest' to my stages 9 and 16, respectively. Eventually Isaac arrives at a chronology which is very close to mine (p. 102): first palatalization (7), lowering (n), second palatalization (12), apocope (15), labialization in cruimthir (16), third palatalization (18), syncope (19). Isaac's effortto conflate "the various palatalisations of Proto-Irish" (p. 104), which is evidently meant to remedy the inconsistencies in McCone's account, does not contribute to a better understanding of the chronological processes. There can be little doubt that the first palatalization affected initial consonants but not *kwr- and *gw- (cf. K239: 119f.), just as the intervening *w blocked palatalization of the velar obstruent by the following front vowel in Czech kvet 'flower: hvezda 'stat, unlike Russian cvet, zvezda. The lowering of *e in Old Irish daig 'flame, datsg. taig 'house, laigid 'lies: but not in gen.sg. and nom.pl. tige, verbal noun lige, is a result of palatal dissimilation and must be dated after the general raising and lowering (cf. K239: 141). I conclude that Isaac's discussion has given me no reason to change my mind on any of the issues involved.

INITIAL LARYNGEAIS IN ANATOUAN

Elsewhere I have argued that initial "'H.- and "'Hr yielded h- before *-e- and zero before *-o- in Armenian and Albanian and suggested that the same development may be established for Hittite, e.g. harp- 'separate' < *H3erbh- versus ark- 'mount' < "'H3 orl'-ey-, Gr. 6pqJctv6t;, 6pXJt; (cf. Ko73: 42). The new monographs by Kimball (1999) and Rieken (1999) have strengthened my view that this is indeed correct. In his classic study of "'~ in Anatolian, Melchert lists seven examples of ha< "'H3e- (1987: 21):

haran- 'eagle'< "'H3eron-, Gr. 6pv1t;; harp- 'change one's group'< "'H3erll'-, Latin orbus; happar 'transaction; happinant- 'rich'< "'H3ep-, Latin opus; haStiii 'bone(s)' < "'H3e5t(H.)oi, Gr. 6areov; hark- 'perish'< "'H3erg-, Old Irish orgaid 'slays'; (6) hawi- 'sheep' < "'H3ewi-, Latin ovis; (7) haliya- 'boW, halhaltumar 'comer' < "'H3el-, Gr. wA.ev11 'elbow'. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

As Melchert points out, proponents of the view that "'Hr was lost in Anatolian assume ha- < "'H.o- in these words, which implies that the absence of nonAnatolian a- < "'H.e- in these roots must be ascribed to chance. This is clearly a circular argument. Moreover, initial "'Hr is reflected as h(a)- before a consonant in Hittite harg(a)niiu 'palm, sole'< "'H3rg-, Gr. optyw 'stretch out' (and allegedly hapus- 'shaft, penis' < "'H3pus-, Gr. orrvtw 'marry, which seems an improbable etymology to me), as Melchert points out, concluding that "'Hn like *11-, is generally preserved as h-. In his more recent monograph, Melchert silently abandons "'~- for "'H.- in 'bone' and 'sheep~ to my mind for no good reason, and stealthily adds hanna- 'litigate' < "'H3enH.o- (1994: 145, 235). In his article, Melchert lists three examples where initial "'~- may have been lost in Hittite (1987: 20): (1) arta 'stands'< "'H3erto, Gr. wpro; (2) arki- 'testicle'< "'H3erl'i-, Gr. 6px1t;; (3) aniya- 'carry out, execute'< "'H3 en-, Latin onus. As he points out, these instances might reflect *H,o- if the necessary o-grade could be justified. In his book, Melchert posits *H,e- with lowering of *e- to abefore the following resonant in these forms (1994: 85, 137). This is clearly unsatisfactory in view of the non-Anatolian evidence. Moreover, he follows Kimball's suggestion (1987) that initial "'Hn unlike "'H.-, was lost in Lycian (on which see below).

Anatolian In her monograph, Kimball adduces three alleged instances of Hittite ha-
~-~n or *Dh and therefore clearly secondary, n instances with o-grade, 10 instances with zero grade, and 3 oxytones with an a-diphthong in the root (cf. Lubotsky 1988a: 138). Thus, we clearly have to assume original zero grade in this formation, regardless of the root structure. The situation with the i- and u-stems was different because the oblique form of the suffiX *-ey, *-ew was evidently strong at the outset, so that the analogical introduction of unstressed *oat stage C yielded paradigms like the following:

Indo- Uralic consonant gradation

nom. ace. loc. abL inst.

413

'arm'

'thin'

*li'e5f!'u *11'5(eu(m) *11'5(ew(i) *11'5(eus *11'5(eut

*ten5u *ten5ou(m) *ten5ow(i) *ten5ous *ten5out

These paradigms may have replaced earlier *pe5ku, *bh5(ew- and "ten5u, *dhn5ew-, respectively. The differentiation between an ergative in *-s and an ablative in *-os in paradigms with ftxed stress after stage C now gave rise to a new ablative *ten5uos beside the ergative "ten5ous whereas paradigms with mobile stress created a new ergative in *-is, *-us beside the ablative in *-eis, *-eus, later also a new accusative in *-im, *-um. After stage D, accentual mobility with radical ablaut could be restored in paradigms with fortes in the root, yielding stressed *-oi-, *-ou- in the accusative and the ergative and zero grade *-i-, *-u- before the stressed ending of the ablative *-os (cf. Beekes 1995: 181). There was no differentiation between ergative and ablative (nor between nominative and accusative) in the neuter gender, where the instrumental was used instead of the ergative with transitive verbs. We have now arrived at the paradoxical stage where original paradigms with ftxed stress have developed full accentual mobility through the creation of a new ablative in *-os beside the ergative in *-s after a full grade sufftx while original paradigms with mobile stress tend to become barytones through the creation of a new ergative in *-sand an analogical accusative in *-m on the basis of the rootstressed nominative beside the original ablative in *-s after a stressed sufftx. This explains Lubotsk.y's remarkable discovery that i- and u-stems are oxytone if the root contains *T and barytone if the root contains >~-~nor *Dh. It is an indirect consequence of the Indo- Uralic consonant gradation. Lubotsk.y states that 12 of the 14 i- and u-stems with *T in the root have radical zero grade in Sanskrit (1988a: 174). In fact, all 26 certain exantples of i- and u-stem derivatives of triconsonantal roots with a single contiguous stop and no initial laryngeal in Sanskrit have radical zero grade except 2x haf'$- beside h11- 'rejoice' ( cf. Lubotsk.y 1988a: 55). The 16 instances with biconsonantal roots also have zero grade except 2X tan- 'spread' and Cart:t-, Juiri-, htfnu-, jasu-, sahyu-, madhu-, vahni-, and yajyu- beside f$ti- 'sacrifice~ All of these formations would be morphologically awkward if they had radical zero grade, so that we can safely assume analogical restoration of full grade in the root in these instances. There was no such reason to introduce an analogical full grade of the root in bhrtf-, dfti-, ghfvi-, jfti-, gati- or derivatives of triconsonantal roots. It follows that all of these i- and u-stem derivatives may have had original zero grade in the root, regardless of the root structure, as was the case with the o-stem derivatives. This supports the view expressed above that the case forms in *-is, *-us, *-im, *-um

414

Indo- Uralic

replaced earlier ergatives and accusatives with full grade sufftxes on the analogy of an earlier root-stressed nominative. Thus far I have left the rise of the glottalic consonants out of consideration because this problem requires a separate treatment. I suspect that the root-final glottalics reflect original consonant stems (cf. in this connection Helimski 1995: 31 = 2ooo: 178). This is in accordance with the word-final neutralization of the Indo-European stops into glottalics, e.g. Latin quod, Old High German hwaz 'whaf, and would explain the virtual absence of the glottalics in Indo-European word formation. For the root-initial glottalics I think of preftxes which may have left a trace in the glottalization (cf. in this connection Rousseau 1990). The matter cannot be pursued here. The theory of Indo-Uralic consonant gradation proposed here offers an explanation for several other sets of data which remain to be explored. An obvious exan1ple is the alternation between fortes and aspirates in IndoEuropean word formation, e.g. *-tro-, *-tlo- beside *-dhro-, *-dhlo-. A less obvious example is the alternation between the sufftxes -ok- and -k- in Russian vysokij 'high; sirokij 'broad; glub6kij 'deep; dalekij 'distant' and n{zkij 'loW, uzkij 'narrow; melkij 'shalloW, blfzkij 'neat, which are accentually strong and weak, respectively (cf. Dybo 1968: 155-158 on the latter). The difference between original *-o(k)- and *-u(k)- can be derived from an Indo-Uralic alternation between anteconsonantal (IE strong) *-w- which was syllabified to *-u- at stage A and lowered to *-o- at stage B and antevocalic (IE weak) *-w- which remained consonantal at stage A and was syllabified to *-u- at a later stage. The semantic differentiation is secondary, as is clear from Lithuanian platw 'broad; gilw 'deep' versus siauras 'narroW, zemas 'low~ The corresponding front vowel suffiX *-ik(Russian -c-) is strong in Slavic (cf. Dybo 1968: 174-181), evidently because *-iwas not lowered to *-e- at stage B and the strong variant was generalized. The sufftxes *-in- and *-isk- were weak in Baltic and Slavic (ibidem: 152-155 and 214-216).

INDO-URAUC AND ALTAIC

Elsewhere I have argued that the Indo-European verbal system can be understood in terms of its Indo- Uralic origins because the reconstructed IndoEuropean endings can be derived from combinations of Indo- Uralic morphemes by a series of well-motivated phonetic and analo gic developments (K2o3). Moreover, I have claimed (K213) that the Proto-Uralic consonant gradation accounts for the peculiar correlations between Indo-European root structure and accentuation discovered by Lubotsky (1988a). My reconstruction of the Indo-Uralic phonological system is essentially the same as Sammallahti's for Proto- Uralic (1988), except for the fact that I reconstruct palatalized resonants *r' and *l' for his dental spirants *lJ and *lJ'. In particular, I think that the large number of Indo-European plosives is the result of a secondary development Though it is quite possible that Indo- Uralic had a larger number of consonants than can be reconstructed for Proto-Uralic, I see no compelling evidence for this. The simplest assumption is that the Indo- Uralic protolanguage was identical with Proto- Uralic. Indeed, it seems possible to derive Nivkh (Gilyak) from the same proto-language, as I have indicated elsewhere (K2o5). As far as I can see, both Indo- Uralic and Nivkh (Gilyak) belong to the larger Uralo-Siberian language family which is now partly reconstructed by Fortescue (1998) and Seefloth (2ooo) on the basis of evidence from Uralo-Yukagir, Chukotko-Kamchatkan and Eskimo-Aleut All of these languages belong to Greenberg's Eurasiatic language family (2ooo), which in addition comprises Altaic (Turkic, Mongolian, Tungusic), Korean, Japanese and Ainu. There can nowadays be little doubt about the reality of an Altaic language family including Korean and Japanese (see especially Robbeets 2003), though the reconstruction of Proto-Altaic is extremely difficult because of its very large time depth. The position of Ainu remains unclear (at least to me). It is easy to criticize Greenberg's methodology, but this leaves the basic question about the correctness of his Eurasiatic hypothesis open (see now Georg & Vovin 2003). One should regard his list of grammatical elements, like Pokorny's Indo-European dictionary (1959) and Starostin's Altaic dictionary (2003), as a collection of possible rather than actual cognates which must be subjected to further analysis. My reconstruction of Indo- Uralic retains 27 of Greenberg's 68 grammatical elements, and I find 12 out of these 27 in Nivkh (Gilyak). We may wonder how many of these can now be reconstructed for Altaic. Here I shall take Starostin's list of Proto-Altaic grammatical elements (2003: 221-229) as my point of departure. I shall refer to Greenberg's numbering as G1-G6o.

416

Indo- Uralic

Starostin reconstructs personal pronouns 1sg. *bi, 1pl. *ba, *bu, obl. *min-, *man-, *mun-, 2sg. *si, 2pl. *su, obl. *sin-, *sun-, Mongolian 2sg.li < *tl'i and 2pl. ta < *tl'a. Besides, there are forms with a velar nasal in the frrst and a dental nasal in the second person, which "may have originally been restricted to some oblique cases" (Starostin 2003: 225). It seems to me that these forms are compatible with Indo-Uralic G1 *mi 'I: *me 'we: G4 *ti 'thou: *te 'you; G54 *-u 'self' and G25 *-n genitive (cf. K203: 221, 225). The Indo-Uralic *m- may have spread from the genitive if it was not the phonetic reflex of an original labial plosive. The Altaic forms with a velar and a dental nasal may reflect *mn- and *tn- with syncope before a following suffix. The alternation between *s- and *tl'in Altaic suggests that we must start from 2sg. *si < *tl'i and 2pl. *tl'a, with restoration of the plosive in Mongolian and generalization of the fricative in Tungusic; the form is limited to the singular in Turkic (where the plural is *sif) and Japanese and unattested in Korean. The assibilation of *ti to *si is also found in the Indo-European branch of Indo-Uralic (cf. K203: 221) and in modem Finnish. Starostin reconstructs demonstrative pronouns *sV, *ko, *la, *o 'this' and *cha, *e, *i, *tl'a, *tl'e 'that'; I reconstruct Indo-Uralic demonstratives G8 *i/e, Gn *t- and G12 *s-. If the reconstruction of Proto-Uralic *ti 'this' and *tu 'that' is correct, it is possible that Proto-Altaic *sV 'this' and *tl'a 'that' are the result of a secondary development However this may be, the identification of IndoEuropean *so with Finnish han 'he, she' < *s- seems to be perfect. Thus, Altaic *e, *i, *tl'a, *tl'e, *sV can be identified with Indo- Uralic *i/e, *t-, *s- while Altaic *o may be compared with G54 *u (cf. K203: 225). It is possible that the latter is also found as a suffiX in the stem *meno 'self, body' which functions as a reflexive pronoun. The Altaic interrogative pronoun *k!'a 'who' may be identical with the Indo- Uralic interrogative G6o *k-. The Altaic plural suffiX *-tl'- can be identified with the Indo- Uralic plural suffiX G15 *-t. The Altaic accusative suffiX *-be may be identical with the IndoUralic accusative G24 *-m if the latter is the phonetic reflex of an original labial plosive, as in the frrst person pronoun. The Altaic genitive has a velar, dental or palatal nasal, which points to *-n followed by other suffiXes. This is supported by the fact that *-n V is also found as a dative, locative and instrumental case suffiX. As in Indo-European (cf. K203: 222), it appears that the genitive G25 *-n developed into a general oblique singular ending in Altaic. Alternatively, it may have merged with the locative G3o *-n which may be compared with the Altaic dative, locative and instrumental suffiX *-nV. The locative G29 *-ru can be identified with the Altaic directive suffiX *-rV. Other case suffiXes may be compared with the dative G26 *-ka and the ablative G33 *-t. Starostin reconstructs partitive *-ga, dative or directive *-khV, and allative *-gV, all of which may be related to the Indo- Uralic dative suffiX *-ka. Since the Indo-European evidence points to a number of different vowels

Indo- Uralic and Altaic

417

after the velar consonant (cf. K203: 224), it is quite possible that several cognates of the Altaic suffixes merged in Indo-European. Similarly, the Altaic dative or locative *-du, *-da, comitative or equative *-cha, and instrumental or ablative *-JV (which function as an ablative in Turkic, Mongolian and Japanese, respectively) may all be related to the Indo-Uralic ablative suffiX *-t, which could be followed by other suffiXes (cf. K203: 222). Indeed, the distinction between Japanese genitive no and dative or locative ni and between Turkic dative *-ka and Tungusic directive *-ki suggests that the locative G31 *-i may have been added to other suffiXes so as to provide a (stronger) locative meaning, in the same way as Indo-European replaced the original ablative ending by *-ti in its local use in order to differentiate it from its instrumental use (cf. K203: 222). The Altaic deverbative nominal suffJ.Xes *-m- and *-1- (Starostin 2003: 177, 187) can be identified with the Indo- Uralic nominalizer G39 *-m- and participle G45 *-1-. The Altaic gerund *-jV and past tense *-rV (Starostin 2003: 227) may be identical with the Indo- Uralic nominalizer G38 *-i- and participle G43 *-t-. The combination of the Altaic desiderative or inchoative *-s- and factitive or intensive *-g- (Starostin 2003: 207, 209) may be found in the Indo-Uralic conative G53 *-sk-. The Altaic *-s- is also found by itself in Indo-European and may be identical with the IE root *es- 'to be' (cf. K161: 169). I am inclined to identify the Altaic negative verb *e-, Mongolian ese 'nof, with the Uralic negative verb *e- (cf. Collinder 1960: 247) and the IE root *es-, with loss of the original negative particle G56 *ne in Altaic (as in modern French). The Proto-Altaic verb *era 'to be' (Starostin 2003: 515) is evidently a derivative of the same root. Thus, I fmd evidence for 20 Indo-Uralic grammatical elements in Altaic: first person G1 *m, second person G4 *t, demonstratives G8 *i/e, Gn *t, G12 *s, plural G15 *t, accusative G24 *m, genitive G25 *n, dative G26 *ka, locatives G29 *ru, G3o *n, G31 *i, ablative G33 *t, nominalizers G38 *i and G39 *m, participles G43 *t and G45 *1, conative G53 *sk, reflexive G54 *u/w, and interrogative G6o *k. I conclude that the reality of an Eurasiatic language family is very probable. The historical relationship between the Altaic and Uralo-Siberian language families remains to be specified. We must reckon with the possibility that these are the two main branches of the Eurasiatic macro-family. Further research should therefore aim at separate reconstructions of Proto-Altaic and ProtoUralo-Siberian before other possible inner and outer connections are taken into consideration. Fortescue dates the dissolution of the Uralo-Siberian and Uralo-Yukagir language families to 8ooo and 6ooo BP or 6ooo and 4000 BC, respectively (1998: 182, 219, and maps 3 and 4). Sammallahti dates the dissolution of ProtoUralic and Proto-Finno-Ugric to the 5th and 4th millennia BC, respectively (1988: 480), and these are identical with my datings for the dissolution oflndoHittite and of nuclear Indo-European (K203: 217). While I date the dissolution

418

Indo- Uralic

of Indo-Uralic to the end of the 7th millennium (ibidem), Starostin dates the earliest split of Proto-Altaic to the 6th millennium (2003: 236). We may conclude that Proto-Indo-Uralic and Proto-Altaic may have been contemporaries (6ooo-5500), that Proto-Uralic and Proto-Uralo-Yukagir may have been the same thing and contemporaneous with Proto-Indo-Hittite (4500-4000), and that Proto-Finno- Ugric and nuclear Proto-Indo-European may again have been contemporary languages (3500-3000). This puts the dissolution of the Uralo-Siberian language family in the 7th millennium. It now becomes attractive to identify the latter with the abrupt climate change of 8200 BP or 62oo BC, when severe cold struck the northern hemisphere for more than a century. The catastrophic nature of this disastrous event agrees well with the sudden dispersal and large-scale lexical replacement which are characteristic of the Uralo-Siberian languages.

INDO- URAUC AND ALTAIC REVISITED

After Dybo & Starostin's comprehensive rebuttal (2oo8) of Vovin's critique (2005), one may wonder if it is useful to continue a debate which seems to lead nowhere and can only deter younger scholars from entering the field of Altaic studies. Yet I think that progress can be made by ending the controversy and developing a positive attitude to new perspectives. On the one hand, one cannot expect radical breakthroughs in a field where very few scholars are working on a number of extremely heterogeneous cultural traditions. On the other hand, the dramatic progress of Indo-Uralic studies in recent decades shows that there is room for unexpected results. Dybo & Starostin's civil tone and admirable restraint contrast starkly with Vovin's vicious rhetoric and personal insults. In my view, the Altaic controversy can be ended by abandoning emphasis on separate etymologies and shifting the attention to morphological correspondences and questions of chronology. The Vovin controversy can perhaps be ended by temporarily excluding this author from the debate and giving him a chance to reconsider the volatility of his position and the damage he has inflicted on the field by his offensive style of writing. In the meantime it is important to stimulate younger scholars to take part in a discussion which is traditionally dominated by an elderly generation. Dybo & Starostin claim (2oo8: 135) that "if genetic relationship between two or more languages can be demonstrated on morphological evidence, it will inevitably show up in the basic lexicon as well" whereas "if genetic relationship can be demonstrated on lexical evidence, it will not necessarily be detected within the compared languages' morphology as well". The problem is that critics of the Altaic hypothesis fmd most etymologies unattractive or suspicious and feel that the corpus of Altaic comparisons comprises not only possible cognates but also obvious loanwords, accidental lookalikes and even totally irrelevant non-lookalikes (as one colleague put it in an e-mail message to me). This assessment of the Altaic etymological dictionary is partly based on a misunderstanding. Like Pokorny's etymological dictionary of the IndoEuropean languages (1959), Starostin's dictionary is an essentially achronic collection of materials which can be used for analysis and reconstruction. Nobody today would subscribe to Pokorny's reconstructed forms, and the same may be the fate of Starostin's in the future. The quality of an etymology becomes more difficult to assess as we move deeper into the past because more unforeseen things may have happened. This is why there is reason to attach less value to separate etymologies at a larger time depth, unless there is independent evidence for the chronological layer to which they may belong, such as geographical distribution or relative chronology of specific changes. Note that

420

Indo- Uralic

Starostin et al. date the earliest split of Proto-Altaic to the sixth millennium BC (2003: 236), which means that Proto-Indo-Uralic and Proto-Altaic may have been spoken around the same time. When we look at language interference in bilingual communities, it appears that there is a marked difference in the ease of linguistic borrowing between grammar and lexicon, between bound and free morphemes, and between verbs and nouns. As a result, the older strata of a language are better preserved in the grammatical system than in the lexical stock, better in morphology than in phonology or syntax, better in verb stems and pronouns than in nouns and numerals. The wide attestation of the Indo-European numerals must be attributed to the development of trade which accompanied the increased mobility of the Indo-Europeans at the time of their expansions. Numerals do not belong to the basic vocabulary of a neolithic culture, as is clear from their absence in Proto- Uralic and from the spread of Chinese numerals throughout East Asia. The inequality between different parts of a language in linguistic borrowing is of particular importance when we are dealing with distant affmity. In a study of the earliest contacts between the Indo-European and Uralic language families (1986), Redei lists 64 words which were supposedly borrowed from Indo-European into Uralic at an early date. The material is divided into three groups: 7 Indo-European words which are attested in both Finno- Ugric and Samoyedic, 18 Indo-European or Indo-Iranian words which are attested in Finno-Ugric but not in Samoyedic, and 39 Indo-Iranian words which are found neither in Ugric nor in Samoyedic. Now it turns out that the number of verbs in the oldest material is too large to support the hypothesis that they were borrowed: verbs constitute 43% of the first group, 28% of the second group, and s% of the third group. This is strong evidence for the thesis that the oldest layer was in fact inherited from an Indo- Uralic proto-language. Though the material is very small, the case for an original genetic relationship is particularly strong because we are dealing with basic verbs meaning 'to give; 'to wasli, 'to bring, 'to drive, 'to dd, 'to lead: 'to take' (cf. K112). Moreover, it is difficult to see how Proto-Indo-European words could have been borrowed into Proto-Uralic if the Indo-Europeans lived in the South Russian steppe when the ancestors of the Finno-Ugrians and the Samoyeds lived on the eastern side of the Ural mountains. The earliest contacts between Indo-European and Uralic languages must probably be identified with the eastward expansion of the Indo-Iranians and the simultaneous spread of the Finno-Ugrians to the southwest. Thus, it appears that we do not need a large number of obvious cognates, which cannot be expected in the case of distant linguistic affinity, in order to establish a genetic relationship between languages. Dybo & Starostin argue (2oo8: 128) that "it is unreasonable to expect to be able to reconstruct paradigmatic morphology when dealing with macrofamilies" because a morphological system can undergo an overwhelming collapse over a

Indo- Uralic and Altaic revisited

421

relatively short period of time, as happened in the case of Classical Latin. However, this does not generally hold for the separate elements which make up the morphological system. The advantage of morphology over the lexicon is that it offers two types of chronological clue: in addition to sound changes which affect both lexical and morphological elements, the development of morphosyntactic categories poses obvious restrictions on the genesis and development of paradigmatic systems. In my reconstruction of the Indo-Uralic verb (K2o3) I have argued that the Indo-European verbal system can be derived from combinations of Indo-Uralic morphemes by a series of well-motivated phonetic and analogic developments. It is precisely the explanation of the IndoEuropean system of paradigms in terms of its Indo-Uralic origins that corroborates the reconstruction of the original morphemes. There is additional evidence for Indo- Uralic in the relation between ProtoIndo-European root structure and accentuation discovered by Lubotsky (1988a: 169-170). It appears that in the case of derivatives of roots with a stop which is contiguous to the syllabic nucleus but without an initiallaryngea~ o-stems are barytone if the root contains a voiceless obstruent and oxytone if the root contains a voiced obstruent whereas i- and u-stems are oxytone if the root contains a voiceless obstruent and barytone if the root contains a voiced obstruent, regardless of the ablaut grade of the root. This highly peculiar distribution can be explained by the assumption that Indo-European underwent the "rhythmic" and "syllabic" consonant gradations reconstructed for ProtoUralic (cf. Helimski 1995: 2.4-26 = 2ooo: 172-174) followed by a vowel gradation which shifted the stress toward the end of a word form and gave rise to the ablaut system (cf. K213: 165). Here again, Indo-Uralic offers an explanation for a state of affairs attested in Indo-European which remains unexplained if the Uralic data are not taken into account. Since the two Uralic consonant gradations were phonetic developments, one could suggest that their operation in Indo-European might be the result of substratum influence, or conversely. This suggestion meets with two difficulties. Firstly, the common chronology of the consonant gradations rather points to a shared innovation at a time of structural similarity. Secondly, the hypothesis of substratum influence before the Indo-Europeans arrived in Europe and acquired their highly characteristic linguistic features is arbitrary. It is defmitely more probable that we are dealing with a single language family which split up when the Indo-Europeans moved westwards while their relatives stayed behind. My reconstruction of the IndoUralic phonological system is essentially the same as Sammallahtfs for ProtoUralic (1988), except for the fact that I reconstruct palatalized resonants *r' and *l' for his dental spirants *lJ and *lJ'. In particular, I think that the large number of Indo-European plosives is the result of a secondary development. The simplest assumption is that the Indo-Uralic proto-language was identical with

Indo- Uralic

422.

Proto-Uralic. Indeed, it seems possible to derive Nivkh (Gilyak) from the same proto-language, as I have indicated elsewhere (K2.05). Uhlenbeck has argued (1935a) that Proto-Indo-European consisted of two unrelated components, which he calls A and B. The first component comprises pronouns, verbal roots, and derivational suffixes, whereas the second contains isolated words which are not related to verbal roots, such as numerals, some kinship terms, and many names of body parts, animals and trees. Uhlenbeck compares A with Uralic and Altaic and attributes irregular features such as heteroclitic inflection and grammatical gender to B. The Indo-European verbal system appears to combine Uralic flexional morphemes with Caucasian syntactic patterns. The rise of the ergative construction (which gave rise to the paradigm of the nominal o-stems, cf. Beekes 1985), grammatical gender and adjectival agreement can be attributed to North Caucasian influence and may have proceeded as indicated by Pedersen (1907). These views can be unified with Gimbutas' theory (e.g. 1985) that the Indo-Europeans moved from a primary homeland north of the Caspian Sea to a secondary homeland north of the Black Sea. What we have to take into account is the typological similarity of Proto- Indo-European to the North-West Caucasian languages. If this similarity can be attributed to areal factors (cf. K130: 94), we may think oflndo-European as a branch of Indo- Uralic which was transformed under the influence of a North Caucasian substratum. We may then locate the Indo- Uralic homeland south of the Ural Mountains in the seventh millennium BC (cf. Mallory 1989: 192f.). Having established the probability of an Indo-Uralic proto-language, we can now tum to the question if the reconstructed morphemes can be identified in other languages as well. This is indeed plausible for Eskimo (cf. Uhlenbeck 1935b, Fortescue 1998, Seefloth woo) and Nivkh. It may therefore be appropriate to look for the same elements in the Altaic languages. Here I shall first list those items adduced by Greenberg (woo) as grammatical evidence for Eurasiatic which I reconstruct for Proto-Indo- Uralic: first person *m, second person *t, demonstrative *i/e, demonstrative *t, demonstrative *s, dual *ki, plural *t, plural *i, accusative *m, genitive *n, dative *ka,

Indo- Uralic and Altaic revisited

423

locative *ru, locative *n, locative *i, ablative *t, diminutive *k, nominalizer *i, nominalizer *m, participle *n, participle *t, participle *nt, participle *l, verbal noun *s, conative *sk, reflexive *u/w, negative *n, interrogative *k. I have identified 12 of these 27 elements in Nivkh (K2o5), viz. first person *m, second person *t, demonstrative *i/e, demonstrative *t, demonstrative *s, dual *ki, plural *t, genitive *n, participle *nt, participle *l, verbal noun *s, reflexive *u!w. Moreover, I have suggested that we can add adessive *pi here on the basis of Indo-European *bhi 'neat, Nivkh fid' 'be in a place, p'ir.J 'inhabitanf. For the 1st and md person pronouns I reconstruct the following Indo- Uralic paradigms: nom. gen.

'I/me'

'myself'

'we/us'

'thou/thee'

'yourself' 'ye/you'

*mi *min

*mu *mun

*me *men

*ti *tin

*tu *tun

*te *ten

In Indo-European, the assibilation of *ti to *si and the rise of ablaut which reduced all non-fmal vowels to *e under the stress and zero grade elsewhere resulted in the following outcome: independent dependent independent dependent

'I/me'

'myself'

'we/us'

*mi, *me-, *m*men, *mn-

*mu, *me-, *m*men, *mn-

*me, *me-, *m*men, *mn-

'thou/thee'

'yourself'

'ye/you'

*si, *se-, *s*sen, *sn-

*tu, *te-, *t*ten, *tn-

*te, *te-, *t*ten, *tn-

It is clear that this system could not be maintained. Moreover, the stem form *s< *ti for the second person interfered with the Indo- Uralic demonstrative *s-, which is preserved in the Indo-European anaphoric pronoun *so. The largescale homophony was eliminated by the use of deictic *(e 'this' for the first

424

Indo- Uralic

person singular and *ue 'self' for a person who is contrasted with another (third) person and by the suffixation of *-f < *-ki for the dual and *-i, later *-s < *-ti for the plural. This resulted in such forms as *fme 'this-me; *tue 'thee-self; *sue 'him-self' (cf. K203: 2.2.5 and K223: 9), also *uef, *uei '(our) selves' in contrast with outsiders (inclusive meaning) versus *(m)nef, *(m)nes 'we in contrast with your people (exclusive meaning), *uef, *ues 'you' in contrast with other people, then *ufe 'you two' in contrast with 'them' and *nfue 'we two' in contrast with both 'you' and 'them'. These forms must have existed at an early stage already because the a-vocalism of *nof, *nos, *uof, *uos originated in their use as clitics and we fmd the corresponding zero grade in acc.pl *nsme, *usme, where *-me can hardly be anything else than the full grade Indo-Uralic case particle *me. On the other hand, the forms *teue and *seue show the continued existence of *te, *se, *ue as separate words at the stage when full grade *e in unstressed syllables became possible. It appears that gen. *men 'me was remodeled to *mene on the basis of *teue and *seue. I think that dat. *mi('i represents original *mibhi with dissimilation of the labial articulation because I cannot otherwise explain the differentiation from *tubhi and *subhi. These forms seem to preserve Indo-Uralic *mi 'I; *tu 'thou-self; and *pi 'at'. In Nivkh we fmd 1sg. *mi, 1du. *men-ki ('the two of us'), 1pl *me-t, 2.sg. *ti, 3sg. *i/e, *i-w, reflexive *pi-, reciprocal *u- (cf. K2o5). We now turn to the Altaic languages. Starostin et al. reconstruct personal pronouns 1sg. *bi, 1pl. *ba - *bu, obl *min-, *man- - *mun-, 2.sg. *si, 2pl *su, obl. *sin-, *sun-, adding Mongolian 2.sg. ci < *ri, 2pl ta < *tha, which are "no doubt archaic" (2.003: 2.2.5). These forms are strongly reminiscent of Indo-Uralic 1st person *mi, *me, *mu, gen. *min, *men, *mun, md person *ti, *tu, gen. *tin, *tun, and 2.sg. *ti, 2.pl. *te, respectively. The alternation between *s- and *r- in Altaic suggests that we must start from 2.sg. *si < *ri and 2pl *tha, with restoration of the plosive in Mongolian and generalization of the fricative in Tungusic; the form is limited to the singular in Turkic (where the plural is *sif) and Japanese and unattested in Korean. The assibilation of *ti to *si is also found in the Indo-European branch of Indo-Uralic (cf. K203: 2.2.1). In the 1st person form, Indo- Uralic *m- may have spread from the genitive if it was not the phonetic reflex of an original labial plosive, e.g. prenasalized -b or preglottalized *"b. Besides, Starostin et al. reconstruct 1st person *IJa and 2nd person *na, which "may have originally been restricted to some oblique cases" (2.003: 2.2.5), largely on the basis of the Korean and Japanese evidence. These forms may reflect *mn- and *tn- with syncope before a following sufftx, as in the Indo-European forms reconstructed above. If these considerations are correct, we arrive at the following reconstruction of the original personal pronouns in Indo- Uralic, Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, Koreanic and Japonic (cf. also Janhunen 2.003: 18, Gorelova 2.002.: 2.16, Benzing 1955: 107, Robbeets 2.005 s.v.):

Indo- Uralic and Altaic revisited

425

PIU

PTk

PMo

PTg

*mi *min *mu *mun *me *men

*bi-

*bi *min-, *n-

*ti

*si-

*bi *min *bu *mun *ba *man *si *sin *su *sun

*tin *tu *tun *te *ten

*ba *man*Ci *cin-

PK

PJ

*n*u-

*a *ba

*n-

*si *na

*ta *tan-

From this table it appears that the Altaic personal pronouns can largely be derived from the ones reconstructed for Indo-Uralic except for the initial *b- in the first person forms. Starostin et al. reconstruct demonstrative pronouns *s-, *ko, *la, *o 'this' and *cha, *e, *i, *fha (*~e) 'thaf. It appears that Altaic *e, *i, *fha (*fhe), *s-, *o may be identical with the Indo-Uralic demonstratives *i/e, *t-, *s-, and reflexive *u: PIU *i

PTk

*m*e *an*t-

*ti-

*s*u/w

*-st *o(l)

PMo

*i *in*e*en*te*ten*on-

PTg *i

PK *i

PJ *i

*in*e-

*a-

*a-

*ta-

*tj-

*to-

*u-

*so*o-

The Altaic interrogative pronoun *kha- 'whO, Pn *ka-, *ke-, PMo *ka-, *ke-, PTg *xa-, PK *ka, PJ *ka, may be identical with the Indo- Uralic interrogative

*k-.

The Altaic plural suffix *-r- can be identified with the Indo- Uralic plural suffix *-t. The Altaic accusative suffix *-be may be identical with the Indo-Uralic accusative *-m if the latter is the phonetic reflex of an original labial plosive, as in the first person pronoun. The Altaic genitive has a velar, dental or palatal nasal, which points to *-n followed by other suffiXes. This is supported by the fact that *-n- is also found as a dative, locative and instrumental case suffiX. As in Indo-European (cf. K203: 222), it appears that the genitive *-n developed into a general oblique singular ending in Altaic. Alternatively, it may have merged with the locative *-n which may be compared with the Altaic dative, locative and

Indo- Uralic

426

instrumental sufftx *-n-. The locative *-ru can be identified with the Altaic directive sufftx *-r-. Other case sufftxes may be compared with the dative *-ka and the ablative *-t. Starostin et al. reconstruct partitive *-ga, dative or directive *-kh-, and allative *-g-, all of which may be related to the Indo- Uralic dative sufftx *-ka. Since the Indo-European evidence points to a number of different vowels after the velar consonant (cf. K203: 224), it is quite possible that several cognates of the Altaic sufftxes merged in Indo-European. Similarly, the Altaic dative or locative *-du, *-da, comitative or equative *-Cha, and instrumental or ablative *-J- (which function as an ablative in Turkic, Mongolian and Japanese, respectively) may all be related to the Indo- Uralic ablative suffiX *-t, which could be followed by other sufftxes (cf. K203: 222). Indeed, the distinction between Japanese genitive no and dative or locative ni and between Turkic dative *-ka and Tungusic directive *-ki suggests that the locative *-i may have been added to other sufftxes so as to provide a (stronger) locative meaning, in the same way as Indo-European replaced the original ablative ending by *-ti in its local use in order to differentiate it from its instrumental use (cf. K203: 222). This results in the following comparisons (cf. Starostin et aL 2.003: 221, Erdal 2004: 168-179, Janhunen 2003: 14, Benzing 1955: 78-89, Robbeets 2005 s.v.): PIU pL *-t ace. *-m gen. *-n dat. *-ka

loc. *-ru loc. *-n loc. *-i abl. *-t

PTk

PMo

PTg

PK

PJ

*-t

*-d

*-tlr

*-IJ *-g *-ka *-ga *-ru *-n

*-n

*-ta, *-te *-ba, *-be *-ngi *-ga *-kt *-gi

*-tati *-bo *-n *-nka

*-da *-ca

*-ga *-ru *-dur *-ca

*-n

*-ro *-du -t *J"

Indo- U ralic and Altaic revisited

427

simpler than what we find in the Altaic languages, Indo-Uralic may have been either a sister or a daughter of an Altaic proto-language. In order to establish a possible chronology we now tum to the verb in the Altaic languages. As was indicated above, I reconstruct Proto-Indo- Uralic nominalizers *i and *m, participles *n, *t, *nt, *l, verbal noun *s, and conative *sk. The following deverbal nominals appear to have correspondences in the Altaic languages (cf. Starostin et al 2003: 177, 187, 227): PIU

Pn

PMo

*-m *-t *-l

*-ja *-m *-t*-l

*-ja *-m

*-la*-d*-n*-ki-

*-la*-d*-n*-ki-

*. -I

*-l

PTg

*-l

PK

PJ

*-ja *-m *-t-

*-t-

*. -I

42.8

Indo- Uralic

the sufftx *-la- can be compared with Uralic iterative *-1- (cf. Collinder 1960: 275f.), the other sufftxes appear to be limited to the Altaic languages. After this discussion of the morphological evidence, we may return to the problem of the lexicon. Arguing against a genetic relationship between the Mongolic and Tungusic languages, Doerfer has presented a detailed analysis of their common vocabulary (1985). Elsewhere I have shown that his material allows of a quite different conclusion (K156). Doerfer's classification of the Tungusic languages into dialectal areas from west to east differs sharply from the genetic classification of the Tungusic languages. As a result, his Central Tungusic is much more heterogeneous than the other groups. For Central Tungusic, Doerfer removes the words which are found in both North and South Tungusic from the material and lists those words which are found in either North or South Tungusic only. The high number of ancient words in this part of the material casts grave doubts on Doerfer's thesis that all of them were borrowed from Eastern Evenki, Solon or Manchu at a recent stage. It seems to me that the semantic distribution of the ancient Central Tungusic words with cognates in either North or South Tungusic points to genetic relationship rather than borrowing. In particular, the relatively large number of verbs is difficult to explain under the assumption ofborrowing. In her magnum opus (2.005), Robbeets eliminates the large majority of etymologies which have been proposed for Japanese words because they may be suspect for a variety of reasons, reducing a corpus of 2.055 lexical entries to 359 core etymologies representing 4 pronouns, 170 verbs, 46 adjectives or quality nouns, 83 basic nouns and 56 non-basic nouns. Here again, the large number of verbs requires an explanation if one does not accept her analysis as proof of a genetic relationship between Japanese and the other Altaic languages. It is quite possible, and even probable, that some of the remaining etymologies will have to be abandoned in the future, especially because their number seems to be at variance with the large time depth assumed for the Altaic proto-language. On the other hand, the huge number of etymologies which were rejected out of hand because they might be suspect for one reason or another may comprise many instances where judgment has been too rash. We can only hope that future research will bridge the gap between the historical data of the attested languages and their reconstructed origins. This can only be achieved by training a new generation of scholars with an interest in the chronological aspects of linguistic diversity.

A PARASITOLOGICAL VIEW OF NON-CONSTRUCTIBLE SETS "The genetic code, the primary manifestation oflife, and, on the other hand, language, the universal endowment of humanity and its momentous leap from genetics to civilization, are the two fundamental stores of information transmissible from the ancestry to the progeny, the molecular succession, which ensures the transfer of hereditary messages from the cells of one generation to the next generation, and the verbal legacy as a necessary prerequisite of cultural tradition." (Jakobson 1971: 681) "Divergent terminologies direct attention to different patternings; and fmding a logically convincing test, acceptable all around, that can determine whether one such system of terms is superior to its rivals, is often impossible. Yet the slow processes of evolution presumably apply to human societies and their symbolic systems as much as to human bodies, so that when logic cannot decide, survival eventually will:' (McNeill1976: 8) mivra psi As McNeill points out in his remarkable book on the role of infectious disease in the history of mankind, "one can properly think of most human lives as caught in a precarious equilibrium between the microparasitism of disease organisms and the macroparasitism of large-bodied predators, chief among which have been other human beings" (1976: 5). This view, which is abundantly illustrated in the book, leaves several questions open. Firstly, it is noteworthy that man has surpassed other large-bodied predators like lions and wolves in his ability to command the environment What was the device that enabled man to achieve higher efficiency in hunting? The obvious answer is: the use of language. Secondly, it must be noted that man is curiously insensitive as compared with other hunting species. The conjecture that the use of language diminishes the need for direct observation does not explain the rapid disappearance of the

430

Appendix

hunter's senses. More probably, the faculty of language has an adverse effect on the perceptual capacity of the brain. Thirdly, the macroparasitism among human beings differs in kind from the relation between predator and prey. Its function is to shorten the food chain. Even cannibalism generally serves a legal purpose and is not merely a way of feeding. Human beings are driven by ideas. In recent years there has been some debate whether language must be viewed primarily as a means of communication or as a form of self-expression of the human mind. Both of these views start from an anthropocentric conception of language. According to the view advanced in the present article, language is the means of communicating natural forms of self-expression through the human mind. The influence of concepts is particularly striking in man's economic behavior The following example is typical: "What had always seemed commonplace and respectable became, after Veblen, fraudulent, ridiculous and (a favorite word of his) barbaric. This is high art. The American rich never recovered from the sardonic disdain with which Veblen analyzed their behavior. The manners of an entire society were altered as a result. Mter he made the phrase "conspicuous consumption" a part of the language, the real estate market in Newport was never again the same. What had been the biggest and best was henceforth the most vulgar. "Conspicuous leisure" made it difficult even for the daughters of the rich to relax. Their entertainment had thereafter to be legitimatized by charitable, artistic or even intellectual purpose or, at minimum, sexual relief.' (Galbraith 1972: 35f.) It is hard to think of child labour, war, totalitarianism, or massive unemployment without the driving force of a system of beliefs in conjunction with a blunted sense of perception. The observation that in all Yuman languages the word for 'work' is a loan from Spanish (Werner Winter, personal communication) should be a major blow to any current economic theory. The force oflanguage is indeed comprehensive. "Even in the most primitive cultures the strategic word is likely to be more powerful than the direct blow" (Sapir 1949: 18). This has little to do with truth or logic because "the normal speaker does not actually feel the clash which the logician requires" (ibidem, 27). The view oflanguage as a tool of the human species is less well-founded than its converse. The question is, in Humpty Dumpty's words, which is to be master. The relation of a language to its carrier bears a strong resemblance to that of a parasite to its host. It invades the left hemisphere, diminishing the perceptual capacity of the brain. As a result, man's major capability to change his environment is matched by a minor capability to gain insight from direct observation. An excessive attack may lead to autistic phenomena. If the brain strikes back, it may yield a form of epilepsy. Cruelty is a human characteristic

A parasitological view of non-constructible sets

431

because it results from the substitution by the linguistic parasite of conception for perception. The formalist philosophy of language, of which generative grammar is but the latest variety, is futile because its subject matter is more easily accessible to the biochemist. The proper subject of the humanities is the behavior of the linguistic parasite. As in the natural sciences, advance in a humanist discipline springs from observation of what happens under changing circumstances, not from reflection on what is generally known. Language differs from viral diseases such as measles or smallpox in two respects. First, it is transmitted through sound waves, not through bodily contact. It can therefore be assumed that the fundamental structure of language is much simpler than that of a regular childhood disease. Second, the pattern of mutual adaptation between the individual and his language is much more stable than in the case of a more virulent infection. The process of adjustment alters not only the individuafs behavior and his language, but also the behavior of the group and the structure of the society at large. The relative ease with which the individuafs language responds to a change in the environment and the violent reactions which the use of language provokes among larger groups show that language is ancient in the individual and unfit for the large-sized communities of modern times. The fast rate of change which language exhibits can be compared with the instability of the influenza virus. It exemplifies a type of change which differs qualitatively from what we are accustomed to regard as the normal type of biological reproduction. In order to clarify the matter I define:

(1) Organic reproduction yields an image which resembles the model to a large extent. (2) Symbolic reproduction yields an image which resembles the model to a small extent Both types of reproduction must be distinguished from physical growth, which changes the size of an object without affecting its internal relationships. A crystal may grow, but does not reproduce itself. Werner Winter once compared the work of a translator with that of an artist who is asked to create an exact replica of a marble statue, but who cannot secure any marble. This is an apt characterization. Other linguistic activities differ from the translator's work in the absence of the intention to create a replica. They share the feature of symbolic reproduction and involve the creation of objects with unforeseen properties. Logical analysis requires the identifiability of distinguishable elements as belonging to the same set In the case of an extensional definition, it presupposes a sufficient degree of similarity between the indicated and the intended elements. In the case of an intensional defmition it presupposes the

432

Appendix

applicability of a criterion, which depends on the degree of similarity between the indicated property and the perceptible characteristics of the intended objects. The constructibility of a set is determined by the identifiability of its elements. Language does not generally satisfy the fundamental requirement of logic. Consider the following example:

(3) Man is numerous. (4) Socrates is a man. (5) Socrates is numerous. From a linguistic point of view, the inference is equivalent to the first syllogism of traditional logic. The point is that a linguistic meaning thrives by virtue of its applications, which cannot be deduced from its implications. The latter must be derived from its applicability, rather than the other way round. Thus, a linguistic meaning has the properties of a non-constructible set. Now I define:

(6) Existence is the capacity of an element being distinguished. (7) Truth is the capacity of an element belonging to a set (8) Meaning is the capacity of being a set. (9) The power of a capacity is the set of elements with that capacity. (10) Symbolization is the power of existence. (11) Generalization is the power of truth. (12) Abstraction is the power of meaning. (13) Mathematics is the study of symbolization. (14) Logic is the study of generalization. (15) Philosophy is the study of abstraction. Thus, a mathematician is typically concerned with the problem of existence, a logician with the problem of truth, and a philosopher with the problem of meaning.

(16) Physics is the phenomenology of existence. (17) Anthropology is the phenomenology of truth. (18) Linguistics is the phenomenology of meaning. The following statement can easily be verified:

(19) Symbolization is a fmite simple group of extremely large order. - If x can be distinguished and y can be distinguished, then x and y can be distinguished. - If x and y can be distinguished and z can be distinguished, then x can be distinguished andy and z can be distinguished.

A parasitological view of non-constructible sets

433

- There is an identity element, viz. nothing, which combines with any distinguishable element without affecting what is distinguished. - For every distinguishable element x there is an inverse element x-', which is the absence of x. - There is no proper subset of symbolization such that every distinguishable element can be distinguished as an element of the subset. - The number of distinguishable elements is limited by the finite ability of the senses. ( 20) Generalization is the Cartesian product of symbolization and abstraction. I further defme: ( 21) Sense is the applicability of meaning. (22) Formalization is the reduction of meaning to truth. (23) A contradiction is an element of generalization which is both true and false. (24) A confusion is an element of abstraction with a contradictory formalization. The existence of non-constructible sets offers a solution for the problem of the philosopher's stone. I think that the philosopher's stone is a 4-dimensional object and that it is crossing the 3-dimensional surface of a 4-dimensional pond called history. The universe is the slice of the stone which is at the level of the water. The universe originated with a big bang when the stone hit the surface. It is fmite and expands as the stone sinks into the water. Why did the stone hit the surface? We shall never know because it is beyond human observation. The parasitological view of non-constructible sets outlined here has important consequences for the daily practice of human affairs. Language has enabled humanity time and again to discover new techniques, allowing easy exploitation and rapid depletion of hitherto inaccessible resources and thereby renewing or intensifying damage to other forms oflife. Its fast rate of change has not permitted a stable, chronic relationship to establish itself. "A stable new disease pattern can arise only when both parties manage to survive their initial encounter and, by suitable biological and cultural adjustments, arrive at a mutually tolerable arrangement. [...] historical experience of later ages suggests that something like 120 to 150 years are needed for human populations to stabilize their response to drastic new infections" (McNeil11976: 51). Language may be lethal if time does not suffice for humans to adjust to changing conditions.

THE ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE LINGUISTIC PARASITE

"Whatever these difficulties may be, and whatever their biological origin, it is clear that, at the level of concepts, categorization is carried out neither by rigorous, nor by logical nor by universal criteria. Indeed, there may be no general means by which categories are formed at this level:' (Edelman 1987: 246) The philosophy of language comes in three varieties. The functionalist's view: linguistic forms are instruments used to convey meaningful elements. This is the basis of European structuralism. 2. The formalist's view: linguistic forms are abstract structures which can be filled with meaningful elements. This is the basis of generative grammar. 3. The parasitologist's view: linguistic forms are vehicles for the reproduction of meaningful elements. This is the view which I advocated twenty years ago in the Festschrift for Werner Winter's 6oth birthday (Ko67).

1.

Here I intend to discuss the evolutionary origin and the physiological nature of the linguistic parasite. My theory oflanguage is wholly consistent with Gerald Edelman's theory of neuronal group selection. This author makes three fundamental claims (Edelman 1987: 5): Diversification of anatomical connectivity occurs epigenetically during development, leading to the formation by selection of primary repertoires of structurally variant neuronal groups. The diversification is such that no two individual animals are likely to have identical connectivity in corresponding brain regions. [... ] 2. A second selective process occurs during postnatal behavior through epigenetic modifications in the strength of synaptic connections within and between neuronal groups. As a result, combinations of those particular groups whose activities are correlated with various signals arising from adaptive behavior are selected. [... ] 3. Coherent temporal correlations of the responses of sensory receptor sheets, motor ensembles, and interacting neuronal groups in different brain regions occur by means of reentrant signaling. Such signaling is based on the existence of reciprocally connected neural maps. [... ]" "1.

436

Appendix

Linguistic meanings are combinations of neuronal groups whose activities are correlated with the responses of sensory reception sheets connected with hearing and motor ensembles connected with speaking and their interactions. Language differs from bird song in allowing continuous and coherent correlation of various temporal and spatial aspects of a neural construct with at least some features of a real-world object which is not speech (cf. Edelman 1987: 108). Linguistic meanings are instances of categorical memory, combining relatively long-term changes at the cellular level with continuing creation of variants in certain synapses (cf. Edelman 1987: 205). They are subject to a Darwinian competition between various groups for cortical representation space as different stimuli are successively encountered; the most competitive groups are those that are associated with the most frequently stimulated peripheral locations (cf. Edelman 1987: 171). Local movement of map borders is accounted for by the trading of cells between adjacent groups; continuous alteration in map boundaries is the physiological correlate of the nonconstructibility of linguistic meanings which I discussed in my earlier contribution (Ko67). The sensorimotor channels of speaking and hearing can be regarded as the male and female sex organs of the linguistic parasite. The successful transmission of a message from a speaker to a hearer produces a mapping which correlates various aspects of a neural construct with identifiable features of realworld objects in the environment. A linguistic analysis must therefore start from a correlation of physical aspects of the speech flow with identifiable features of objects and events in the real world. The physical world is perceived as disjunctively partitioned in polymorphous sets, and neuronal groups are disjunctively partitioned by selection as a result of reentrant mapping of disjunctions of partitions in polymorphous sets of signals (cf. Edelman 1987: 262). As a result, there is no isomorphism with the signal domain in global mappings. The combinability of linguistic meanings presupposes the decomposability of neuronal groups and their interconnections as well as the possibility of creating new subcircuits by a variety of neurotransmitters. These allow the speech flow to convey a representation of identifiable features of objects and events in the real world from the speaker to the hearer, creating in the latter a neural construct which is isofunctional with an image constructed in the former. The isofunctional character of the representation, which correlates various aspects of a neural construct with identifiable features of real-world objects, detaches the image from its carrier and thereby gives rise to an independent organism which is parasitic upon the human brain, competing for cortical representation space. It must be realized that the concept of language as a system of neural constructs which are correlated with identifiable features of real-world objects and move from one brain to the next by means of a device which resembles bird

The origin and nature of the linguistic parasite

437

song is at variance with the functionalist view of language as an instrument used by a speaker to express his thoughts, which does not account for the adverse effects oflinguistic behavior (cf. Ko67), and is opposed to the formalist view of language as a set of abstract rules and representations, which does not explain categorization and is irreconcilable with biological reality (cf. Edelman 1987: 38). The functionalist paraphrase of the statement S that X is the case as "I want you to think that I think that X is the case" can now be reformulated as "my linguistic parasite tries to create in your brain a neural construct which is isofunctional with the neural image of S constructed in my brain" (cf. also Grace 1987). In accordance with the theory advocated here, the exploratory behavior of linguistic meanings in the human brain bears a strong resemblance to ant foraging (cf. Gerhart and Kirschner 1997: 146-151). The complex large-scale pattern of ant movements is a consequence of many simpler responses, viz. the individual responses of single ants to the distribution of food. Ants leaving the nest secrete a pheromone trail which they follow back to the nest. When an ant finds food, it secretes a stronger pheromone trail. Ants leaving the nest tend to follow existing trails; however, some wander off randomly because the volatile pheromone of unreinforced trails is weak and evaporates rapidly. "Exploration rather than hardwiring specific contingencies seems like the only practical means of responding to the variability or complexity of the environment. The ant cannot anticipate where food may be; the centrosome has no way of detecting the position of the chromosomes and directing the microtubules toward them; the nerve cell cannot maintain or express all the information necessary for the fme-grained pathfmding decisions required to fmd its many targets and to cope with physiological variability" (Gerhart and Kirschner 1997: 193). Environmental changes produce coordinated changes in neuronal groups, and neuronal exploration allows the development of new linkages among neuronal groups, extending the opportunities for generating new contingencies and thereby serving an ongoing physiological function where the environment remains forever changeable. This mechanism creates a wide variety of linguistic meanings upon which selection eventually acts at the social level.

REFERENCES

Adams, Douglas Q. 1988

Tocharian historical phonology and morphology (New Haven:

American Oriental Society). Adjarian, Hratch

Classification des dialectes armeniens (Paris: Honore Champion). Agajan, &iuard B. 1960 0 genezise armjanskogo konsonantizma. Voprosy Jazykoznanija 1909

1960/4:37-52. Agard, Frederick B. 1984

A course in Romance linguistics II: A diachronic view (Washington DC: Georgetown UP).

Alcock, Leslie 1971

Arthur's Britain: History and archaeology (New York: St Martin's

Press). Allen, W Sidney 1950 Notes on the phonetics of an Eastern Armenien speaker. Transactions of the Philological Society 1950, 180-206. 1951 Phonetics and comparative linguistics. Archivum Linguisticum 3: 126-136. 1953 Phonetics in Ancient India (London: Oxford UP). Andreev, Nikolaj D. 1957 Periodizacija istorii indoevropejskogo prajazyka. Voprosy Jazykoznanija 1957!2, 3-18. Andresen, Bj0m StAlhane 1968 Pre-glottalization in English standard pronunciation (Oslo: Norwegian Universities Press). Anthony, David W 1986 The 'Kurgan culture, Indo-European origins, and the domestication of the horse: A reconsideration. Current Anthropology 27, 291-304.

440

References

Antonsen, Elmer H. 1970 Old High German and the laws of final syllables. Studies in Linguistics 21, 55-76. 1975 A concise grammar of the older Runic inscriptions (Tiibingen: Niemeyer). Runes and Germanic linguistics (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter). 2002 Austerlitz, Robert 1959 Semantic components of pronoun systems: Gilyak. Word 15, 102-109. Austin, Willian! M. 1946 A corollary to the Germanic Verschlirfung. Language 22, 109-111. 1958 Germanic reflexes of Indo-European -Hy- and -Hw-. Language 34> 203-211. Babik, Zbigniew 2004 Morphonology of the Slavic present stem *jt~mamb. Rocznik Slawistyczny 54> 65-85. Bakker, Peter, & Maarten Mous (eds.) 1994 Mixed languages: 15 case studies in language intertwining (Amsterdam: IFOTl). Ball, C.J.E. 1968 The Germanic dental preterite. Transactions af the Philological Society, 162-188. Bally, Charles 1945 Manuel daccentuation grecque (Berne: Francke). Bammesberger, Alfred 1986a Der Aujbau des germanischen Verbalsystems (Heidelberg: Carl Winter). 1986b Gotisch (nf) ogs (]Jus) und althochdeutsch ni kuri. 0-0- PE-RO-SI: Festschrift fiir Ernst Risch zum 75. Geburtstag (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter), 673-677. 1987 Das Paradigma der e-Verben im Urgermanischen. Beitriige zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur (Tiibingen) 109, 341-349· Barth, Fredrik 1981 Selected essays, 2 vols. (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul).

References

441

Bech, Gunnar 1963

Die Entstehung des schwachen Prateritums (K121benhavn: Munksgaard).

1969 Das germanische reduplizierte Prateritum (K121benhavn). Beekes, Robert S.P. 1969 The development of the Proto-Indo-European laryngeals in Greek (The Hague: Mouton). 1972 H,O. Die Sprache 18, 117-131. 1981 The subjunctive endings of Indo- Iranian. Indo-Iranian Journal 23,21-27.

1983

GAv. rna, the PIE. word for 'moon, mon~ and the perfect participle. Journal of Indo-European Studies 10, 53-64. On laryngeals and pronouns. Zeitschrift fur vergleichende

1985

Sprachforschung 96, 200-232. The origins of the Indo-European nominal inflection (lnnsbruck:

1987

Institut fiir Sprachwissenschaft). On Indo-European 'wine~ Munchener Studien zur

1982

1995

Sprachwissenschaft 48, 21-26. A Grammar of Gatha-Avestan (Leiden: Brill). Comparative Indo-European linguistics: An introduction

2010

Etymological dictionary af Greek (Leiden: Brill).

1988

(Amsterdam: Benjamins). Behaghel, Otto 1924

Zur formenbildung vocalisch auslautender oder anlautender stiimme. Beitrage zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und

Literatur 48, 128-130. Benediktsson, Hreinn 1963 Some aspects of Nordic umlaut and breaking. Language 39, 409-31. 1982

Nordic umlaut and breaking: Thirty years of research (1951-1980). Nordic Journal ofLinguistics 5, 1-60.

Benveniste, Emile 1935 1959

Origines de la formation des noms en indo-europ~en (Paris: Maisonneuve). Sur la phonetique et la syntaxe de farmenien classique. Bulletin de la Soci~M de Linguistique de Paris 54: 46-68.

References

442

Benzing, Johannes 1955 Die tungusischen Sprachen: Versuch einer vergleichenden Grammatik (Wiesbaden: Steiner). Berg, Nils 1977 Der Ursprung des altgriechischen aktiven Plusquamperfekts und die Entwicklung der alphathematischen Flexion. Norsk 1idsskrift for Sprogvidenskap 31, 205-263. Bibire, Paul 1975 Some notes on the Old Icelandic front mutations. Arkiv for Nordisk Filologi 90, 183-212. Binchy, Daniel 1956 Some Celtic legal terms. Celtica 3, 221-231. Boeder, Winfred 1979 Ergative syntax and morphology in language change: the South Caucasian languages. Ergativity (London: Academic Press), 435-480. Bouda, Karl 1960 Die Verwandtschaftsverhaltnisse des Giljakischen. Anthropos 55, 355-415. Boutkan, Dirk F.H. 1995 The Germanic ~uslautgesetze' [Leiden Studies in Indo-European 4] (Amsterdam: Rodopi). 1996 A concise grammar of the Old Frisian dialect of the First Riustring manuscript (Odense). On labial mutation and breaking in Old Frisian. Approaches to 1998a

Old Frisian Philology =Amsterdamer Beitriige zur iilteren Germanistik 49, 77-88. 1998b

On the form of North European substratum words in Germanic.

Historische Sprachforschung 111, 102-133. Boutkan, Dirk, & Maarten Kossmann 2001 On the etymology of'silver'. North- Western European Language Evolution 38, 3-15. Boutkan, Dirk, & Sjoerd M. Siebinga 2.005 Old Frisian etymological dictionary (Leiden: Brill).

References

443

Bradley, David 1979 Proto-Loloish (Copenhagen Scandinavian Institute of Asian Studies). Bradshaw, Joel 1979 Obstruent harmony and tonogenesis in Jab~m. Lingua 49, 189-205. Braune, Wilhelm, & Hans Eggers 1975 Althochdeutsche Grammatik (13. Auflage, Tubingen: Niemeyer). Brach, Ingvild, & Jahr, Ernst H. 1984 Russenorsk: Et pidginsprak i Norge (2. utgave, Oslo: Novus). Brown, Gillian 1977 Listening to spoken English (London: Longman). Brozovic, Dalibor 1989 Review of Holzen989. Wiener Slavistisches ]ahrbuch 35, 223-225. Brugmann, Karl 1904 Kurze vergleichende Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen (Strassburg: Tri.ibner). Brunner, Karl 1965 Altenglische Grammatik (3. Auflage, Ti.ibingen: Niemeyer). Buga, Kazimieras 1959 Rinktiniai raJtai II (Vilnius: Valstybine politines ir mokslines literatures leidykla). Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca 1994 The evolution ofgrammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world (Chicago: University Press). 278, 281

bropor, 260, 302 brn, 18o brncan, 171 brycg, 180 button, 17 bythne, 198 bytme, 198 camb, 278 can, 251 can't, 17, 172, 186, 267 ceapian, 189, 271, 277, 280,281

cheese, 275 clif, 179 climban, 179 cneaw, 279

501

cneow, 210, 278 comb, 278 coren, 171 cost, 171 culJ, 171 culJe, 171, 220 cwic, 168 cyssan, 251 deed, 275 dreg, 275 ded, 275 dedon, 261, 262 dest, 236 doppettan, 177 dreamed, 102 dropa, 16, 172, 185, 193> 250, 266, 296

dryhten, 302 dugan,76 dyde, 134> 219, 220, 227, 228, 231, 232

dydon, 134, 261 ea, 272 eaden,209 eage, 69, 244 eald, 189, 271, 277, 280,281

ealh, 321 (e)arlJ, 213 earm, 279 (e)aron, 213, 261, 262 eart, 236, 261 (e)arp, 261 eatta, 223, 267, 297 eced, 29 ege, 212 elf, 367 eo-, 272 eode, 209, 210 eom, 261 eorm, 279 eosol, 291

eower, 260 -eu,272 exen, 197, 260 freder, 170, 260, 302 frett, 267 far, 73, 76, 272 faran, 211, 216, 272 fare, 272 father, 170 feccan, 205 fill, 278,279 female, 149 fong, 210, 278, 279 fooll, 190, 209, 210, 278 fif, 275 fot, 173> 249> 267 fyrs, 73 grest, 236 grep, 208 grett, 267 giin, 208 gangan,2o8 gap,2o8 gehtifd, 171 gehygd, 171 gellce, 69 geneah, 213, 214 genugon, 213, 214 geogulJ, 180 geong, 190, 210, 278 gesregd, 171 geseaw, 278 gibaen, 302 giefu, 69 git, 156 gold, 32 gas, 275, 278, 281 guma, 69, 244> 278 guman, 241 haccian, 168 hrefde, 227, 233

Index

502

haft, 171 haht, 166 halb-, 302 hiitte, 87 healp, 291 heawan, 168, 217 hebban, 251 heben,302 -hebuc, 302 heht, 209, 261 hel'p, 17, 172, 185, 193. 250, 253. 295

heng, 210 heold, 190, 210, 278 het, 209, 210, 212, 278, 279

hider, 69 hindan, 69 hladan, 215, 217 hleop, 209, 210, 278, 279

hliehhan, 251 hlodon, 217 hond, 241 house, 11 hreop, 210, 278, 279 hwone, 261 is, 102, 261, 323, 326 kno'ck, 17 lreresta, 260 lamb, 278 land, 278 lang, 278 lea'p, 17, 172, 185, 193, 250

lead, 32 leccan, 168, 251 lecgan, 251 leolc, 2.09, 210, 261 leort, 209, 210, 261 let, 210, 212, 223, 278, 279

lifgan, 2.05 lomb, 278 lond, 275, 278, 281 long, 278 mann, 278 mara, w8 meow, 210 modor, 260 mona, 275, 278, 281 monn, 278 naca, 168 nacod,173, 249,267 nam, 211, 213, 215 nama, 278 namon, 213 nlehst, 291 nieht, 291 nigon, 180 niman, 278 nom, 213 noma, 278 nomon, 213 oexen, 197, 260 oncnrew, 278 oncneaw, 278 ore, 32 OX,32

pin'ch,17 rarian, 237 read, 302 red, 32 reoht, 275 reon, 210 reord, 2.09, 210, 261 reowon, 210 revolution, 84 revolutionize, 84 rowan, 210 srewe, 278 saht, 166 salb, 302 sat, 379

sc(e)acan, 279 sc(e)afan, 279 sceolh, 322, 330 sceotan, 320 scieppan, 251 scip, 16, 172, 185, 193, 250, 266, 296

scipp, 267 scribun, 302 seah, 291 sealde, 286 seaw, 279 secan, 171 seo, 272 seoh, 272 seon, 272 sMp, 272 seow,210,278,279 set, 293 settan, 251 sind(on), 261 sinew, 388 skeppan, 251 slahter, 166 slea, 272 slean, 272 sleap, 272 soa'k, 17 sohte, 171, 215, 232 spell, 32.0 speoft, 210 speonn, 190, 210, 278 spic, 168 staca, 168 stan, 208 steer, 32 sto'p, 17 stod, 215 stodon, 215, 219, 228, 232 stow, 207 stowian, 207

Index

street, 270 su, 180 sugan, 180 sugu, 180 suna, 206 sunne, 275 tiicor, 168 taken, 221, 224 tha't, 17 top, 275. 278, 281 tunge, 69, 244 paccian, 221, 222, 224 pencan, 171 pene,26o peon,w6 pohte, 171, 215 pone, 260 puhte, 171 ulJe, 220 ure, 260 Us, 275 Usa, 260, 262, 269 use, n wer, 260 wa'tch, 17 walde, 261 warhte, 171, 215, 232, 238

water, 293 wice, 16, 172, 185, 193, 250, 266, 296

wierpp, 291 will, 111 wilt, 236 wit, 156 Woden,302 wolde, 233 worhte, 171, 215, 232, 238

wry, 403 wulfes, 302 wylf, 181

503

yellow, 32 ysle, 321

tsetel, 190, 272, 277,

Frisian ald, 189, 271, 277, 280,

ts(J)iis, 275 tziake, 190, 272, 277,

281

berath, 275 bim, 261 bodem, 197 ded(e), 275 deden, 261 dei, 275 habuku,302 hlr, 190 iuwe, 260 ixen, 197, 260 kiii, 190, 272, 277 kiipia, 189, 271, 277, 280,281 kei, 190, 272, 277, 282

kenna,169,190,272, 277

lang, 278 lerest, 26o long, 278 man, 278 mon, 278 nama, 278 nima, 278 noma, 278 riucht, 275 siucht, 273, 289 sla, 273 slande, 273 sle, 273 slein, 273 sleith, 272 stret(e), 270 tetsia, 221 thene, 260 toth, 275, 278, 281

282

282 we,26o

wetma, 197, 198 withume, 198 Dutch bem, 261 dien, 260 doorsteken, 216 edic, 29 gegeten, 213 oversteken, 216 taken, 221, 224 Low German berun, 261 bium, 261 blinde,207 bodme, 197 bothme, 197 bnlken, 318 diidun, 227, 261 dage, 207, 230 dat, 255 deda, 227, 228, 229 dedos, 227, 228 dedun, 228, 261 -des, 227 ekid, 29 ensti, 206, 230, 247 etik, 29 God, 169 good, 169 habda, 233 her, 190 hier, 190, 290 hwena, 261 ik, 255 Iosef, 169

Index

504

iuuwa, 260 iuwa, 260 lesun,261 odan,209 strata, 270 suno, 206 tacken, 221, 224 thakolon, 221, 224 thana, 260 thena, 260 unsa, 260 Usa, 260, 262, 269 walda, 261 wini, 206 HighGennan

abunst, 213 achiss, 29 ackus, 182 ahto, 230 albiz, 367 an, 213,301 anst, 247 ars, 52 asc, 329 ast, 52,180 az, 212 iiz, 212 berant, 275 beret, 247 berumes, 275 biben, 212 bim, 261 birit, 275 birum, 261 birut, 261 biruun, 209, 210 bist, 236, 261 blinte, 207 bodam, 197 bodem, 197 Boden, 197

Bonen, 182 bourn, 179 briihta, 171, 232, 275, 278

brauchen, 313, 317 bringan, 171 brucka, 180 bruoder, 302 bilcken, 176 -bunnen, 213 burg, 76 chind, 17, 172, 185, 250 churls, 235 curet, 235, 238 curi, 235, 238 curlt, 235 diihta, 206 das, 255 deismo, 74 den,26o de1Jkkxa, 187, 252 Diele, 76 dihan, 206 dolen,74 drangen, 75 dringen,75 duit, 208 eiscon, 225 ensteo, 247 ensti, 206, 230, 247 enstim, 247 enti, 170 er, 208 erien, 209 essen, 296 ezzan, 194, 213, 223, 301

ezzih, 29 jater,302 feal, 209, 290 feang, 209, 236, 238, 290

fel, 74 ferro, 219 fimf, 181, 182, 275 firni, 219 forahtun, 215, 232 forscon, 225 furuh, 73 giin,2o8 gan, 213, 301 gans, 275, 278 gart, 180 garwen,248 geang, 209,290 gegessen, 213 geit, 208 gen, 208 gersta, 320, 331 gestern, 363 geuues, 248 geuui, 248 gewi, 248 gezzan, 213, 301 gillhho, 69 gistreuui, 248 gistrouwi, 248 gomo, 69, 244 gouwi, 248 gunnen, 213, 301 gunst, 213 habaro, 180 habeta, 233 hahhul, 180 hanen,248 hano,248 hanun, 248 hapta, 233 hear, 190, 290 helpfan, 252, 295 henin, 248 heuui, 248 hiar, 290 hiaz, 212

Index

hier, 190, 290 hittiJ, 252 h9assiJ, 252 houwi, 248 huppfo, 252 hwaz, 14, 41, 346, 414 hwenan, 261 iar-, 237 ier, 209 ier-, 212 iuwer, 260 iuwerer, 260 jesan, 325 Kiise, 275 kaufen, 313, 317 kem, 186, 252 kind, 17, 172, 185, 250 kraw, 187, 252 kxouffo, 252 lant, 275, 278 lebara, 183 leiten, 17 lembir, 248 liaz, 212 llsta, 320 l9XXiJ, 187, 252 mahte, 248 mahti, 248 man, 247 mano, 275, 278 meri, 206 mero, 208 nackot, 182 ntlme, 135, 231 nami, 135, 231 namls, 203 neris, 203 offan, 17, 172, 185, 193, 194, 223, 250, 252, 267 ouga, 69, 244 pam, 186, 252

505 pjad,17,172,185,250 pleruzzun, 210 proiJd, 186, 252 prukka, 187, 252 questa, 320, 331 reht, 275 reren, 237 rim, 51 r9PPiJ, 252 rot, 302 saf, 75 sahha, 194 Salbe, 333 salz, 17, 172, 185, 250 scatwen, 248 Schiff, 177 screrot, 210 scrirun, 210 se, 208 Segimerus, 189 seichen, 333 Seife, 333 Seim, 333 Sieb, 333 sittsiJ, 252 speichaltra, 168 splwan, 168 sprehhan, 321 stan, 208 stantan, 208 stecko, 182 stehhan, 182 stehhen, 182 stehho, 182 stein, 208 steit, 208 sten, 208 sterno, 219 steroz, 209, 210, 236, 238

sterro, 219 sticken, 182

Stiege, 390 stilli, 74 stornen, 219 storren, 219 strazza, 270 Suebi, 189 sune, 230 suneo,247 suni, 247 suniu, 206, 230 sunna, 275 suohta, 215, 232 suohtt, 135, 231 suohtl, 135, 231 swimman, 219 tag, 275 tage, 207, 230 tagum, 44, 248, 353 taits, 186, 252 taju, 168 tat, 275 tatun, 227, 228, 232, 261

teta, 227, 228, 229 theismo, 74 tief, 177 to, 186,252 toenti, 232 tOis, 232 toit, 232 topf, 177 Topf, 177 tax, 186, 252 traume, 103, 373 traumt, 103, 373 traumte, 375 treffend, 216 treno, 75 trinchan, 17, 172, 185, 250

trinkan, 17, 172, 185, 250

Index

506

trowwen, 74 truht, 75 tum, 186, 252 tuoit, 232 tupfen, 177 unnun, 213, 301 uns, 275 unser, 260 unserer, 260 unst, 213 wahset, 248 wahsit, 248 wazzar, 17, 172, 185, 193. 250, 252, 267

we, 208 weban, 75 wedamo, 197 wen, 261 werpfan, 17, 172, 185, 250

wile, 135, 231 wili, 135, 231 wolta, 233 wulpa, 181 zalti, 248 zan(d), 275, 278 zascon, 221, 224 zeihhan, 17, 172, 185, 193. 251, 252, 267

Zelge, 76 zelit, 247, 251 zellet, 247, 251 zugi, 235 zugut, 235 zunga, 17, 69, 172, 185, 244,250

Irish -agathar, so, 212 ainm, 39, 388 -ba, 182 -be, 140, 141

-bia, 140 biri, 361 -bo, 182 -bo{, 182

caogad, 109 cern, 75 cethorcho, 63, 109 cofca, 109 coirce, 180 con-ic, 214 cruimthir, 364 cruth, 364 cuan,361 cucann, 362 daig, 364 do-moinethar, 380 do-seinn, 219 drong, 75 duine, 363 -ebla, 361 -ebra, 361 fedid, 389 fer, 362 fiche, 63, 107, 108, 109 flaith, 144 fo-cicherr, 140 foi'd, 213 fo-lil, 140 fo-16, 140 gaibid, 43, 213 gat, 180 -gena, 140 -genathar, 140 -gignethar, 140 gonaid, 109 guidid, 109 far, 361 ibid, 38, 65, 222, 249 inathar, 74 -fr, 361 laigid, 208, 364 lassar, 361

-legat, 208 lethar, 170 lige, 24. 364 midithir, 132 necht, 361 nf, 47 niad, 361 ni(a)e, 361 niath, 361 nocha, 109 om, 52 orgaid, 365 pherid, 361 QRIMffiR, 364 recht, 63, 109 r-ic, 214 ro-mfdair, 132 saer, 361 saidid, 43, 208 saigid, 216 secht, 361 sechtmogo, 63, 108 sedait, 208 seir, 361 selb, 75 sesca, 109 sieir, 361 sir, 362 sith-, 362 siur, 361

sl1an,361 -suidigedar, 84 taig, 364

te, 361 tene, 361 tige, 364 timme, 361 trlcho, 107, 109 tuilid, 74 Welsh asgwrn, 180

Index

bu, 182 byw, 115 cegin, 362 ceirch, t8o doe, 363 dyn, 363 !fer, 361 hir, 362 hyd,362 llachar, 361 nith, 361 saith, 361 uceint, 107 ucher, 107 Breton

tanao, 115 tregont, 107 ugent, 107 Gaulish -XfONION, 363

Celtiberian

silapur, 32 Venetie

donasto, 87 doto, 87 Latin

acidus, 329 actus, 62, 121 ad, 44.103 aes, 32 agere, 389 albus, 37, 367 amarus, 52 ambo, 156 an, 330 animus, 51 aplscor, 213, 301, 378 argentum, 32 arvum, 330

507

auris, 52 aurum, 32, 388 avena, t8o avis, 52 bibit, 222, 249 bibO, 38,65 bibulus, 408 caballus, 181 cabo, 181 calx, 74 capiO, 43, 216, 380 cieo, 38 citra, 69 coepl, 213, 301 calumba, 76 coquina, 362 cornlx, 352 corvus,352 costa, t8o cubitus, 30 cupio, 380 dexter, 321 ea, 323,326 eccum, 323 em-, 213, 427 emero, 141 era, 141 es-, 427 eunt-, 135, 339 faba, 179, 181 facere, 389 faci0,380 factus, 62 far, 73, 76, 272 femen, 74 femur, 74 ferus, 74 fi-, 140 fictus, 63, 108 ftdo, 13, 54, 75 filius, 74 jingo, 63, 74, to8

fodio, 216, 376 for, 76 forent, 140, 141 fares, 7 4. 76 foret, 140, 141 frustum, 320 fu-, 140 fugio, 380 fogit, 50 -ginta, 108 Graecus, 173 granum, 32 grits, 56 Gutones, 28 habeo, 213 haec, 41 hasta, t8o heres, 75 (h)erclsco, 377 hen, 363 homo, 146, 363 hordeum, 32 humus, 363 i-, 161, 427 iacio, 380 ictus, 343 iens, 120, 135, 339 ipse, 407 is, 323,326 ifts, 325 lassus, 63, 108 lectus, 62., 121 leg!, 162

lien, 146 linquo, 182 -llquit, 48 margarita, 173 mergere, 389 mictus, 63, 108 mingo, 63, to8 miseret, 33 misericordia, 30

Index

508

molere, 32 moveo, 376 nidus, 108 nomen, 388 nonaginta, 106 octoginta, 106 odor, 52 olor, 73,76 onus, 365, 366 opus,365,366,368 orarium, 30 orbus, 365 orior, 378 OS, 180 os,367 ovis, 52, 365, 366 pasco, 51, 378 pastor, 52 patior, 380 pavl, 378 pellis, 74 penna, 74 pes, 73,74 pictus, 63, 108 pingo, 63, 108 porca, 73 patens, 75 prae, 103 procul, 75 (pr6)fero, 214 pudet, 33 putare, 75 quadraginta, 63, 106 quae, 41 quies, 75 qulnquiiginta, 106 quinque, 181 quod, 14, 41, 346, 414 raudus, 32 rectus, 63, 109 sal, 68 sapa, 75

scio, 376 sedeo, 63, 108 semen, 32 septuagintii, 63, 106 serius, 74 sero,379 serpens, 319 -sessus, 63, 108 severus, 74 sex, 291, 319 sexaginta, 106 sextus, 291 sibl, 407 sileo,363 sine, 149, 342 sitis, 363 situs, 363 sol, 18o

sorbeo,377 spondeo, 377 spopondl, 210 stet!, 210 strata, 270 strictus, 63, 108 stringo, 63, 108 subsum, 213 Suebi, 270, 276 sui, 75 sulcus, 321 sus, 319 susurro, 217 tango, 224 taurus, 32 tetigl, 221, 224 tollo, 74 trtginta, 106 ursus, 363 vectus, 62 vehere,389 velint, 111, 127, 134 venit, 132, 136 venum, 378

vespa, 75 vesper, 107 vlcesimus, 108 vide-, 235 vlgintl, 63, 106, 108, 109

vir, 362 virus, 157 vocem, 49 vo"o, 378 vox, 56 Umbrian

dirsust, 141 fefure, 141 ferar, 87 ferest, 141 furent, 140, 141 Just, 140, 141 menes, 141 Oscan

fefacust, 141 fifikus, 141 fus{d, 140 Just, 140, 141 pertemest, 141 sakarater, 87 sife£, 369 Marrudnian

ferenter, 87 Italian

ecco, 323 qui, 323 Rumanian

pe, 103 Spanish

a, 35,103 arbol, 181 French allemand, 262, 283

Index

arbre, 21 basse, 245 bien, 270 blanc, 245 bois, 21 bon,245 bonne, 21, 245 bouche, 21, 35 bras, 21,35 brun,270 est, 236 fin, 270 gros, 21 loup, 21,35 main, 270 matin, 21 monsieur, 348 moyen, 21 pieges, 21 place, 21 plein, 270 queue, 21 seigneur, 348 shack, 21 tem~te, 21

un, 240, 245, 270 une, 240, 245 vieux, 21 vigne, 245 vin, 245 Prussian

addle, 335 alne, 335 an, 336 iintran, 349 as, 126,336 asmai,336 assa, 336 assaran, 336 iiusins, 349 babo, 179, 182

509

crauyo, 350 deinan, 348 deiws, 348 emmens, 388 en,335 esse, 335 etskl-, 38

genniimans, 348 giwtt, 115 gudde, 28 guntwei, 359 laydis, 331 mensa, 350 mergan, 349 na, 326,335 peisda, 320 posinna, 359 posinnimai, 359 postiisei, 141 quai, 41 siilin, 55 semme, 348 sen,335 seyr, 50 sindats, 214 -sinna, 359 -sinnat, 360 -sinnati, 359 -sinnimai, 359 sirwis, 352 soye,320 stai, 41 subs, 370 sups, 408 swaiiismu, 348 talus, 76 tiirin, 49, 56 tauris, 32 telks, 141 tennii, 348 tenneimans, 348 tenneismu, 348

tenneison, 348 turei, 207 turri, 207 twaiii, 348 twaiiismu, 348 wedde,348 widdewft, 348 widdewumans, 348 Lithuanian

akisu, 352 akmuo,55.56,68,348 algas, 55, 68 alude, 56, 69 arkllde, 56, 69 arklys, 352 a5va, 48 auksas, 388 aukStas, 353 ausls, 320 avide, 56, 69 avie, 50 avizti, 18o barti, 216 bire, 55,68 birginti, 77 bus, 140, 141 bute, 336 darb6p, 348 daug, 76 dedit, 335 de5imties, 352 deveti,36o dfeverj, 362 dirgti, 331 dratas, 74 dubits, 177 dukti, 55, 68, 348 dukterys, 352 dukters, 352 duodijs, 339, 348 duodu, 335

Index

510

duos, 55, 56, 68 duosiu, 56, 68 duoti, 335 edqs, 339 lme, 55,68 galvq, 350 galvon, 348 galvos, 352 galv6sna, 348 galvij, 352 gardas,74,329 gela, 55, 68 gere, 55,68 gilits, 414 gyvas,362 glinda, 149 Gudai, 28 gulbe, 76 j, j, 335 [lanka, 335 jlinkas, 335 ifidas, 335 indeve, 335 fpedinis, 335 jprastas, 335 jsuka, 335 fsunis, 335 is, 335 jaudinti, 325 jaudra, 325 jauti, 325 j6ti, 161 jitdu, 156 jitdvi, 156 jitdviese, 156 juosti, 325

·= 325 JUS,

ka-, 190 kalbls, 55, 68 kalti, 216 kasti, 216 kauti, 217

kli!tis, 353 kl6ti, 215 kajis, 353 kur, 291 langaf, 352 langij, 352 like, 55, 68 lietaas, 352 lietuml, 352 lietits, 3 52 Uetas, 352 malti, 216 mazg6ti, 389 mesa, 55· 68, 350 mitdu, 156 mitdvi, 156 mitdviese, 156 mulvas, 352 nesijs, 352 neSti, 335 neveda, 348 nevedame, 338 nevedate, 338 nevedu, 339 obells, 65 ozys, 180 paZ[sta, 360 pelitde, 56, 69 per, 335 p~rpykis, 335

pfemenj, 362 piemuo, 39 platits, 414 pl6nas, 362

po, 335 p6kalbis, 335 prie, 335 prfetemis, 335 pro, 335 pr6tevis, 335 puraf, 73 rafikoje, 336

rafikose, 336 rate, 336 riituose, 336 sala, 75 samdo, 335 safidas, 335 saasas, 319 sedeti, 208 sergit, 331 siauras, 414 sij6ti, 320 sirdies, 352 sirgti, 319 siati, 75 skllti, 331 skiepas, 177 smiikras,320 s6lymas, 55, 68 stoveti, 360 sunitkas, 338 sunuml, 45 sunits, 353 svarits, 74 sverti, 319 sakosit,352 saltasis, 352 siipas, 73 seima, 73 sia-, 190 sirdimi, 352 sirdls, 352 sirdys, 352 sirvas, 352 smitlas, 74 SU0,74 ta-, 190 taisyti, 74 tarti, 49 taukai, 350 tauras, 32, 362 teisits, 74 tesukie, 346

Index

tiesti, 74 tiesits, 74 tureti, 207 tui'guose, 336 tverti, 74 valdyti, 233 vapsa, 75 varna,352 vai'nas, 352 veda,348 vedanliame, 339 vedanlioje, 339 vedanli6ms, 339 vedanliose, 339 vedanliij, 339 vedanliuose, 339 vedantl, 339 vede,348 vesti, 389 vezti,389 vilkti, 321 vilku, 45 zemas, 414 zeme, 348, 363 zlno, 359 ilno, 359, 360 iinom~. 359, 360 iinot~, 359, 360

zin6ti, 237> 348, 359> 360

zoli, 55> 68 tvaigtdi, 56, 69 zveries, 352 zverls, 74. 352

511 ~t. 223

gitovs, 55, 68 lt,339

jemt, 213 mf!lns, 352 mlesa, 350 mtt, 388 ~;~emt,

213

nu6gs, 55, 68, 173, 249, 267 p~ds, 55, 68, 172, 249,

267

plans, 362 s~,348

sdls, 55, 68 zinam, 359 zinat, 359 zinim, 359 zinit, 359

(Church) Slavic bajati, 76 bedr-, 74 bedro,74 bediti,75 bodp,74 bolna, 74 bolt~, 84

borzda, 73 bosti, 216 bra5t~no, 73

brati, 216 byf~teje, 140

d~ls.74

b'bdeti, 43, 75 b'bdr'b, 74 b'br'b, 73 cena,75 cvet'b, 76

du6mu, 348 dzlvs, 115, 362 ei, 339 eimu, 339> 348

lare,322,332 damb, 351 dan, 353 desn-, 331

Latvian l1buols,56,65,68,348

desn'b, 321 doiti, 74 dolga,76 dovblflt'b, 111, 127, 134 do-'Vbije-, 111 dovt~ije-, 134 dovt~ijete, 127

drtv-,74 druzina, 75 dvt~ri, 7 4. 76

dwe, 322 edro,74,77 {ldrD,76,77 gojiti, 75 gojb, 75 golenb, 74 golpbb, 76 gol'b, 74 goreti, 43 gvezda,76 g?JYn'b,75,77 imamb, 351 imeti, 207 iz, 335 iz-gojb, 75 jamb, 351 jesmb, 351 j{ltro, 76 klad-, 215 klati, 216 kletb, 353 kobyla, 181 koleno, 74 kone, 346 konj{l, 346 kosa, 331 kostb, 180 koza, 180 kraina, 326 krot-, 7 4. 76 kyjb, 353 k'bto, 322

Index

512

loboda, 73. 76 mfSO, 350 mbne, 346 mbsta, 75 mt1zda,75 na, 326,335 naviti, 84 navb,84 ne-pbtja, 75 nesa, 346 nesi, 346 ne,47 ograda, 74 OVbS'b, 180 9troba, 335 9trb, 335 Pfti,74 p0,335

pojetb, 76 pokoi, 75 pork'b, 76 P9tO, 74 pri, 335 pro, 335 prok'b, 75, 76 proso, 73, 76 p'btati, 75 p'bvati, 75 pbS'b, 31 rabe, 346 rabu, 346 raby, 346 recb, 84 sebe, 346, 408 selo, 75 sedeti, 43 Sfbr'b, 73 sii, 323 sin, 75 sloboda,76 slobodb, 75, 76 slySa, 160, 163

slyfaa5e, 160 smbrd-, 73 smbrd'b, 73, 77 sok'b, 319 stan'b, 353 svepet'b, 75 sverep'b, 74

svero, 76

svobodb,75 svoj-, 330 SVbteti, 43 syn'b, 353 syn'bmb, 45 S'b,335 S'bn'b, 319 Sb, 323 sbl'b, 129 tebe, 346 telf, 74 testo, 74 tesiti, 74 texa, 74 tex'b, 336 toi, 336 toliti, 74

tomb,336 tr9t'b, 75 tvartJ, 84 tvoriti, 74, 76 tvbrd'b, 76, 77 t'bk'b, 76 tblo, 76 veleti, 233 velft'b, 111, 127 vede-, 235 vede,89,346 V'b,

335

VtJcera, 45 xoste-, 112, 134 xostete, 127 XOtft'b, 112, 127, 134 za-tvoriti, 74

zemlja, 73.363 znamf, 359 znati, 359 znobiti, 73 zob'b, 73 zobb,73 zona, 73 21Jbr'b, 74 21Jb'b, 74 zvertJ,74.342,352 zvon-, 74

zvon'b,74 Z'bVati,342 Zalb, 55 teny, 346 Ziti, 75 Russian bely, 356 beregll, 75, 76 blagdaru, 23 blfzkij, 414 bob, 182 brat, 23,24 celujut, 408 celujutsja, 408 cvet, 364 cetyrnadcat', 356 dalekij, 414 davai, 22, 23 desjatf, 353 desjevli, 23 detjam, 353 detjax, 353 deza,74 dno, 177 donel'zja, 357 dorglo, 23 dorgo, 23 glub6kij, 414 govoril, 160 groppa, 23

Index

513

grudi, 356 fmja, 388 jabloko, 65 kak, 23 ktHeT, 320 kladi, 24 kod,344 k6da, 344 kok,23 k6los, 331 koptf, 390 kopom, 22, 23 kot, 344 kota, 344 kralom, 24 krug6m, 353 kuda, 23 ijudjam, 353 ijudjax, 353

pel', 59 pet, 23 plot£, 353 po, 22,42 podjom, 24 pokorna, 23 poneslo, 34 po-vsjudu, 42 pradedy, 335 pridumat', 141 pridumyval, 141 pridumyvat', 141 prosjai, 23 pud, 23 pudof, 23 puro, 73 robotom, 24 sembja, 73

m~lkij, 414

sjetiri, 23 skazal, 16o slysal, 16o smertf, 353 smotrom, 24 sneg, 374 sneslo, 34. 36 s6rok, 390 spasiba, 23 spitsja, 101 st6ja, 339 stojatf, 339 sud)a, 355 sudoroga, 335 sumerki, 335 sir6kij, 414 teceniem, 34 telenok, 11 telka, 11 tjei, 23 treska, 22 tri, 24 tuda, 357

moja, 22,23 moje, 23 moki, 23 mokka, 23 moneta, 59 nab{to, 136 nel'zja, 357 neset, 141 niet, 23 nietsjevo, 23 nietsjevo, 23, 24 nfzkij, 414 njet, 23 nogoli,24 n6sit, 141 odnomu, 42 osel, 11 oslica, 11 otsuda, 24 ottUda, 357 paguba, 335 pasynok, 335

s~rna, 352

tvoja, 22, 23, 24 utr6ba, 335 uzkij,414 vcertf, 353 vedra, 170 vetrom, 34, 36 vnutrl, 335 vros, 24 vsem, 42 vys6kij, 414 xocetsja, 101 xox6cet, 217 x6xot, 217 zen, 406 zeni, 406 zol6vka, 390 zvezda,364 Polish

broda, 354 bruzda,354 chce, 101 droga,349 Gdansk, 28 Gdynia, 28 glowa, 349 glOWf, 349 jf2:yk, 355 krowa, 354 mnie, 369 my,97 nachyla, 374 obejmuje, 374, 376 rozchyla, 374, 376 SfdZia,355 sobie, 369 spat, 101 spalem, 101 spalo, 101 spif, 101 tobie, 369 wqtroba, 355

Index

514

wyciqga, 374. 376 zasnqt, 101 Kashubian/ Slovincian

jau, 356 robjq, 356 Upper Sorbian

broda, 354 brozda, 354 dr6ha, 349 hlowa,349 kruwa, 354 wr6na, 352 Czech

behat, 375 bezet, 374, 375, 377, 378,379

bfly, 349, 355 blyskat, 373 blysknout, 373 blyStet se, 373 bolet, 374. 375 brada, 354 brazda,354 chladny, 349, 355 car, 56 tara, 56 Ctvrty, 129 drtet, 373, 374, 375, 378

hlava, 349 hlavnf, 349 hlavu, 349 horet, 374, 375, 377 humno, 349 hvezda, 364 jahoda,342 jazyk, 349, 355 klecet, 373, 374, 375, 379

klekat, 373, 374, 379 kleknout, 373, 374 krtiva, 354 kficet, 374, 375, 377, 378

kvet, 364 lehat, 373 lehnout, 373 letat, 375 letet, 374, 375, 376, 379 letet, 373 malina, 349, 355 mest0,406 mllet, 373 narod, 349 obklopovali, 374 opfral se, 374 pekar, 349 pfskal, 374 pfskat, 374 pfskl, 374 pfsknout, 374 piStet, 374. 375, 378, 379

poutnfk, 349, 355 pulet, 374. 375, 376, 378

pukat, 374. 376 puknout, 374 rucnf, 349, 355 rucnfk, 349, 355 ruka, 349, 355 rybar, 349 sedat, 373 sedet, 373 sednout, 373 shoret, 374 skryval, 374, 375 sly5et, 374 stat, 373 suchy, 349, 355 sukno,349

sumet, 374. 375 tezky, 349, 355 trava, 349, 355 travnf, 349, 355 travnfk, 349, 355 trouba, 349 utroba, 349, 355 vedro, 353 videt, 373, 374, 375 vrtet, 374. 375, 376, 379

vstat, 373 vstavat, 373 vule, 342 zabava,349 zahofet, 374 zakon,349 zaujfmali, 374, 378 zmlkat, 373 zmlknout, 373 zerav, 56, 68, 348 Slovak

brada, 354 brazda, 354 krava, 354 nesie, 351 Slovene

da, 351 dadp, 351 danas, 353 gQr, 351, 354 j¢, 351

jedp, 351 konj, 351, 354 ki)st, 357 kost~m, 353

kostmf, 351, 353 lahkega, 351, 356 lahkemu, 351, 356 moZ¢h, 351 mo~m,353

Index

mozm{, 351, 353 nest), 351 QV3C, 353

pt)t,357 poznam, 359 stabri, 351 v¢, 351 vedt),351 zena, 149 zenami, 349 z¢nska, 149 z¢nski, 149 Serbian/Croatian

Benicance, 353 Beniciinct!, 354 bt!re, 342 bijell, 355 bleltlste, 349 brada, 354 brata, 357 brelta, 357 brazda, 354 car, 56, 68 dtf, 351 del, 359 da, s6, 68 diida, 351 dada, 351 delh,s6,68 donesoh, 56, 68 donijeh, 56, 68,351 donijeti, 3 51 drelga,349 dvFgnut, 349 dvoriste, 349 gar, 56 glava, 349 glavama, 349 glavn1,349 glavu, 350 gnelti, 359

515

gradskl, 355 hladnl, 355 jelbuka, 56 jelgnje, 56 jelgoda, 56,342 je, 339,351

pr3diili, 3 so piUnlk, 355 reci, 56, 351 rijec, 56, 68 rijet, 56, 351

j~. 351

ritcnlk, 355 rtlka, 353 rukel, 353 rukel, 353 ritkama, 355 sam, 56,68 sela, 343 st!la, 343 seijiikel, 3 53 st!ljaka, 353 sinovf, 351 sjt!dnem, 56 sl()mfm, 357 sU, 351 sithl, 355 telmburiis, 353 teskr, 355 trava, 349, 355 travnl, 355 travnlk, 355 ilgiir, 56 itmrijeh, 56, 68 vjedro, 353 voda,338 v()du, 338 v3ija, 351 vran, 352 vrelna, 352 vrata, 357 vriita, 357 zakleh, 56, 68 znam, 359 znelmen, 359 znamo, 359 znelti, 359 zub, 350

jt!dem, 56 jesu, 351 jesa, 351 jezik, 355 kleh, 56 kopa, 351 kradi, 353 kriilj, 353 kraij, 353 krelva, 354 lOmlm, 357 mtilina, 355 melti, 350 mrijeh, 56 milSkiirClc, 353 na, 357 nalomlm, 357 nauka, 350 nf!,359

nt!miir, 56 nesti, 351 n3sl, 351 ad, 357 peldnem, 56 ptsmo, 353 piSe, 351 ptsi, 353 piSF, 353 pobjegnem, 56 potegnilt, 349 p()zniim, 359, 360 poznamo, 359 paznati, 360 poznavati, 359, 360 p()ziir, 56

n'Unf,355

Index

516

zar, 56 zara, 56 zenlt, 349 zena,349 zenama,349 zt!riiv, 56, 68, 348 z{vjeti, 115 Bulgarian az, 103 Cerno, 356 mi, 399 more, 356 se, 399 spi, 101, 102, 398, 399, 401

spj-a, 101, 398 Albanian a-, 323,330 a, 330 afsh, 330 aft, 330 ag,329 ah, 320,321, 329 ai, 322, 326 ajo, 322, 326 a-jo, 325 ankth, 321 are, 330 ar{, 330 asht, 321 ashte, 321 ata, 322 athi!t, 329 athte, 329 ato, 322 bahe,326 bie, 326 bresher, 320 brie, 326 dergjem, 319 dergjem, 331

deri, 327 derr, 319 desha, 321 dhashe, 321 dhe,363 dhi, 326 di, 326 diell, 319 dfell, 331 dirse, 319 dfrse, 331 dite, 323 djathi!, 331 djathte, 321 djathte, 331 dje, 363 djerse, 331 dore, 320 dare, 331 dose, 319 drithe, 320 drfthe, 331 dy,322 e, 323,324

emer,330 emer, 388 eper, 329 eshte, 321 fare, 320 fare, 331 jjale, 320 jle,326 fli, 326 ftoh, 326 gardh, 329 gath, 331 gjaj, 325 gjak, 319, 330 gjalle, 319 gjalpe, 319, 333 gjalpe, 330 gjarper, 319

gjashte, 319, 321 gjem, 325 gjer, 23, 325, 327 gjer, 325 gjere, 327 gjere, 327 gjesh, 325 gjeth, 320 gjethe, 331 gji, 330 gjume, 319 gjymese, 325 gjymte,325 gjysme, 325 ha, 330,367

hale, 331 harr, 331 hedh, 320 he(l)q, 321, 330 hengra,330 herdhe, 329 (h)ethe, 329 hfdhet, 329 (h)fdhte, 329 hie, 320, 326 hfe, 331 hut, 329, 330 (h)yll, 321, 331 i, 323,324 jam, 320, 326 jashte, 321, 326 je, 325 josh, 325 ju, 325, 326, 332 juci, 325 juzi, 325 kall, 321 kallf, 331 kap, 329 kashte, 321 ke-, 323, 330 kejo, 325, 326

Index

kesi, 323 keso, 323 keta, 322 keto, 322 kjo, 322 kohe,322

k6he,332 kolle, 320 korr, 331 krah, 326 krahine, 326 kri, 326 kujt, 322 kush, 322 ky,322,323,326 ledh, 320, 331

llohe,326 lluce,325 mi, 320, 321, 331 mish, 321 mjeker, 320 mjet, 78 mue, 322 na, 326,335 nate, 323 ngjesh, 325, 332 ngroh,326 notim, 320 pah,326 pashe,321 pidh, 320, 331 pith, 331 preher, 326 qoj, 332 rashe, 321 se, 324 sh-, 331 shi, 320 shkonj, 321 shoh, 320 shosh, 320 shpend, 321

517

shpreh, 321 shqerr, 331 shtate, 320 shteg, 321 shterpinj, 320 shtrohe, 326 sivjet, 323 sonte, 323 sot, 323 te, 324,389 thaj, 330 thanj, 319, 320 thek, 329 then, 331 ther, 331 thi, 319, 320, 330, 331 thorn, 331 ti, 320 tre, 326 ty, 322 tye, 322 u-, 319 u, 330 ve,326

vehte, 326 vesh, 320 vete, 319, 326 vete, 326 vete, 330 vi~, 321

vjeherr, 319 vjeherr, 330 vjerr, 319 yll, 321 -zet, 108 zjarrth, 3 21 zorre, 322

Thracian I:eid).'1, 363 Annen ian

ankanim, 182

anun, 388 arj, 330 artawsr, 333 awcanem, 333 awj,333 awr, 333

ayg,329 beg, 58 boy, 58 eel, 333 cil, 333 ciwl, 333 clawt, 333 eli, 333 liwl, 333 el, 333 eloy, 333 erkiwl, 333 ewl,333

ampem, 38, 65 anciwl, 333 anjil, 333 anjiwl, 333 gel, 333 gelec'ik, 333 gel], 333 gelmn, 47 get, 388 giwl, 333 giwt, 333 hac'i, 329 holm, 51 hot, 52 hoviw, 52 hum, 52 il, 333 iwl, 333 iwlov, 333 iwloy, 333 kanay-, 149 keray, 330 kin, 149

Index

518

manet', 59 mawt, 333 neard, 388 orb, 52 orjik', 52, 329 ork', 52 oskr, 52 ost, 52,143 pelc, 333 pile, 333 piwlc, 333 plcoy, 333 pltor, 333 p'eC', 59 p'el, 333 p'il, 333 p'iwl, 333 p'li, 333 sin, 73, 351 sirt, so sel, 333 seli, 333 sil, 333 siwl, 333 siwli, 333 siwloy, 333 sli,333 Sloy, 333 t'rem, 74 utem, 330 zambil, 333 zambiwl, 333

Phrygian aoOaKef, 90 aoOaKe!op, 90 f3eov,388 {eftEAev, 363 Greek

di-do-si, 118, 119 e-e-si, 117 -i-je-si, 118, 119

ka-te-ti-ya-ne, 118 ki-ti-je-si, 117 re-wo-to-ro-ko-wo, 115

apdlft6~, 51 ltpiG!O~, 330

ltporpov, 32 ap6w, 32, 375, 378 tlrepo~, 105

ltyav, 49 ayl 135 naSimahi, 128, 134 nay-, 376 nl-, 427 nlyate, 124

Index

525

pad-, 74 padam, 55, 68 pajas-, 61 pajas, 61, 346 pajasya-, 61 pajra-, 61, 63, 108 pajras, 346 pak~a-, 61 pak~as-, 61

pak#n-, 61 panthaam, 67 pantham, 67, 348 panthas, 348 papaje, 61 papatan, 133 patar-, 348 patati, 379 pathas, 348 path[$u, 348 pati-, 75 patra-, 74 pfbati, 38, 6 5, 141, 222,

sarva-, 319 sas-, 132 sascati, 132, 134. 135. 140,222

-sat, 106 saye,384 sayya, 122, 123 si-, 378, 380 sidati, 98 sf/qam, 126 si~-. 132 s~akti, 101, 132, 134.

140,222

s~aya,378

sivyati, 122

tu~ya-,

snati, 32.0 snava,388 s6cati, 329 spha(ya)-, 378

udvartana-, 122 utpadyate, 123 uvaca,379.381 uyate, 12.4 vadhlm, 126

sram~ma, 127

ratz~tana, 127

sto~am,

sukha-, 143 sum1s, 39 s(u)van-, 74 suyate, 124 sva-pati-, 75 svayam, 330 sveda-, 319 §veta-, 76 syati, 43, 381

ravi~am,

126, 131

rcchati, 103, 375 rirthi, 133 ru-, 126 sa-, 378, 380 sacate, 101 sahyu-, 413 sama-, 74 santi, 117 sarasvati, 70, 344 sarpfs, 333

t~thati, 98

tmana, 344 tmane, 344 tritfl5at, 155 thya-, 380 tUbhyam, 369 tudati, 93, 97, 98,380 U,42

ranta, 115, 117, 127, 134 rarate, 133

prayi~tha-, 67

t~fi, 125, 132, 136, 221

tat, 70,344 tatane, 83 tatne, 83 tavet, 70, 344

snath~tana, 127

prqtha-, 67 proa-, 219 proanti, 219

pitar-, 348

tar~tam, 127

tasthe, 82

snath~tam, 127

srjanti, 99 srjanty, 98 sruyate, 124 stauti, 132, 136 stave, 384 sthUr, 134

249

tan-, 413

126, 131, 221

tak~ati, 111, 117, 125,

132, 135. 221 tak~ur, 111, 117, 125

tala-, 76

380

vadhi~ta(na), 127 vadhi~tam, 127

vahati, 389 vahni-, 413 vaidya-, 123 vak, 56,84 vap-,376 vapati, 32, 75 VaS-,379 vasudhiti/:1, 121 vasutti/:1, 121 vati, 378 vatsa-, 321 vavaca,379.381 vavaqi, 133 vidyat, 114 vitfl5atf, 155 vi~am, 157

visanti, 99

Index

526

vfvakti, 132, 136, 140, 379

vfviisati, 142 ViVfl$fi, 133 v6cati, 49, 132, 140 v6ciiti, 49, 132, 140 vran, 117, 134 vro-, 233 vroe, 82 vyaghra-, 122 yii, 151, 161,325 yii-, 161 yti, 122, 325 yiibha-, 122 yah, 122 yajnopavlta-, 122 yajyu-, 413 yamah, 325 yamah, 325 yamune, 70, 344 yant-, 129 yanti, 129, 135 yasati, 325 yata/:1, 122 yati, 325

yuyot, 133 yuy6ti, 133 Prakrit

dijjai', 122 sejjii, 122 Pall

bhiigineyya-, 122 diyyati, 122 matteyya-, 122 peyya-, 123 suyyati,12.4 Hindi

ghora, 61 Panjabi

kora, 61 Sindhi iit~t;lro, 122

a'ju,122 bakhu, 121 bath!, 122 bhiit~ejo, 122

bha'jatJU, 123 cat~t;lru, 122

kii'ju, 123 miifrejo, 122 nijatJU, 124 pe'ja, 123 pe'jl, 123 pe'jo, 123 pe'ju, 123 seja, 122, 123 sibat~u, 122

su'jat~u, 12.4

upa'jatJU, 123 u'bafatJU, 122 u'jatJU, 12.4 wiighu, 122 we'ju, 123 'ba, 122 'badhO, 123 'bakhu, 121 'bijo, 122 't;lahl, 123 't;liatJU, 122 't;lijatJU, 122 't;lifhO, 121 gacu, 121 giihu, 61, 122

yau~tam, 127

ca'bat~u, 123

ginhat~u, 123

ya~ur,

chi'jat~u, 122

'jangha, 123 'jail, 121 'jibha, 124

127

yauti, 325 yiivi~tam, 127

y6dhati, 325 yodh~tam, 127 y6/:l, 325 y6jii, 132 yojam, 132

t;l ifhO, 121, 122 t;l riikha, 122 gacu, 121 giihu, 61, 122 jii,122

jiihu, 122 jatJ)'0,122

yo~am, 126, 131

jail, 121

yo~fa, 127

jiat~u, 123

yo~tam, 127

jiaro, 123 jlro, 12.4 jlu, 123 jo, 122 katabu, 122, 123

yu-, 127 yudhya-, 380 yukta/:1, 121 yunajmi, 132 yuvam, 370

Avestan

aojl, 81 aSt, 171

asibyii, 155 asicii, 155 ayar-, 325 dade, 83 dugdar-, 4 aroniivl, 83 hizubiS, 155 jaini, 83 kainibya, 155

Index

mazdaam, 67 mitda-, 75 paOaam, 67 sae-, 75 sriivi, 83 saiti-, 75 syeitibyo, 155 tanusicii, 155 Oraosti-, 74 urlyeiti, 217 viicl, 83 varlaiti, 217 varane, 83 xviticii, 155 yiista-, 325 yus, 325 zamar, 73, 77 Persian

adar5iy, 81 TocharianA

iiknats, 145 iilak, 145 iilkont, 145 iilyiik, 145 alyakyartt, 145 iilyek, 145 iimpi, 156 iimpuk, 157 asartt, 156 cacal, 162, 163 cark, 160 ciirk-, 162 ciirkar, 160 ciirkat, 160 cas-, 132, 140, 152, 222 crank-, 162 crankar, 160 crankiis, 160 eyii, 159

eyiir, 159 i-, 161, 427

527

kiik, 159 kakal, 162 kaklyu$U, 162 kakmu, 162 kalpiit, 160 kartt, 146 kiimat, 160 kantwiifi, 145 kanwertt, 15 6 karsiit, 16o kars~, 161

karyii, 159 katak, 159 katansa, 159 kefiii, 159 klyo$. 144, 159. 160, 163

klyo$ii, 159. 160 kniinat, 359 kortt, 146 kos, 146 krasar, 160 kropat, 159 kropfiiit, 159 ku, 145.146 k';;le, 149 k';;lewiifi, 149 k';;lewiis, 149 k';;li, 149 kuryar, 146 liint, 144 lantsafi, 145 lyiik, 160, 162 lyiik-, 162 lyiikar, 160 lyalyam, 162 lyalymii-, 162 lyokant, 151 lyokat, 151, 152 mii, 143 nak-, 152 nakant, 151

nakat, 151, 152 nanmu, 162 fiom, 388 okat, 145 oktats, 145, 147 oktuk, 145 pak-, 152 pakant, 151 pakat, 151, 152 pakku, 162 palkiit, 160 pan, 143 piir-, 162 piirant, 160 piirat, 160, 162 por, 146, 147 pracar, 143 prakar, 151 prakas, 151 prakii$t, 151 prakwii, 151 p';;kal, 143 risiint, 151 risiit, 151 risiite, 151 rise, 151 $iik, 146, 151 sak-, 162 siikant, 160 salJr, 162 salpat, 160 $iilyp, 319, 333 sartt, 146 sartt, 149 $iiptuk, 145 sars, 160 siirs-, 162 siirsar, 160 sas, 146 sasars, 163 sa§mu, 162 siispartw$u, 162

Index

528

siispartwu, 162 sa§r(4t, 162 $em, 159 $emas, 159 $efic, 159 sep-, 162 separ, 160 $q, 159 $et, 159 $k~t, 146

ske-, 382, 427 sniis, 145. 149 sne, 149 snu, 149 somartt, 145 sparcwatar, 89, 143 spiirtwa$, 143 $pat, 145 stwar, 146 suk,143 tii-, 132, 140, 153. 222 tiiki$, 161 tamant, 151 tamat, 151, 152 tarkar, 160 tiis-, 132, 140, 153, 156, 222

tas-, 132, 140, 153, 222 tiisenc, 153 tim, 156 tirtt, 156 tsak-, 152 tsakant, 151 tsakar, 160 tsakat, 151, 152 tskiit, 160 wiik-, 377 wal, 144 want, 143 was, 151, 159. 388 was-, 152 w~t,

143

wawik, 162 wawu, 151 we, 156, 160 wenii-, 16o weniir, 160 wewnu, 162 wiki, 156, 157 wmiir, 146 wsii, 151 wsar, 151 W$e, 143 wu, 145.156 yii, 151, 161, 325 yiimte, 151 yiimtsiint, 151 yiimtsiit, 151 yiimtse, 151 yiimwe, 151 yar-, 375 yem, 159 yenc, 159 ye$,159 yet, 159 ysiir, 146 ytiir, 145 yuk, 157

TocharianB ai~i, 159

akniitsa, 145 allek, 145 allok, 145 allonk, 145 allonkna, 145 alyaik, 145 alyiik, 145 alyek, 145 alyok, 145 antapi, 156 iintpi, 156 ciila, 162, 163 ce, 324

certt, 324 ces-, 221, 222 cey, 324 ersamai, 151 d(a)ne, 156 ikartt, 107, 157 ikartt, 156 iyartt, 161 lyoy, 161 kalp(4$i, 159 kantwa, 145 kantwartttsa, 145 kantwo, 145 karsanoyertt, 159 karyor, 146 kiiswo, 145 katsiin, 145 kiitso, 145 kekamu, 162 keklyaU$U, 162 kene, 146 kenl(ne), 156 klai, 149 klairtt, 149 klain, 149 klaina, 149 kllye, 149, 150 klyau$a, 144, 160, 162 klyaU$im, 159 klyiye, 149, 150 klyomo, 144 klyomortt, 144 klyomont, 144 kraupiyentar, 159 kwertt, 146 liinte, 144 liintsa, 145 lantsona, 145 lkii$yel'fl, 159 lkoyentar, 159 lyiika, 162, 163 lyakii-, 163

Index

lyiimate, 162. lyawii-, 163 lyelyku, 162. miiskwo, 145 fiem, 388 fiefimu, 162. okt, 145 oktanka, 145 oktatse, 145 ost, 52, 143 papeku, 162. paspiirttau, 162. peypirttu, 162. pikul, 143 piS, 143 po, 145,147 pone, 145 ponta, 145 prekar, 151 prekasta, 151 preksa, 151 prekwa, 151 priyertt, 159 procer, 143 puwar, 146, 147 pwiiri(ne), 156 reki, 56 sii,32.4

$ai, 159 $aicer, 159 $aim, 159 $ait, 159 sakw, 143 $alype, 319, 333 sana, 145· 149 sana, 146 sano, 145. 149 siirla, 163 $arya, 145 saumortt, 145 scdcamu, 162. $e, 146

529

se, 32.4 sem, 132.,136 $ertt, 159 $ey, 159 $eycer, 159 $eyem, 159 $eyertt, 159 $eym, 159 skai-, 382., 42.7 $kas, 146, 151 $kaste, 146, 151 skiyo, 32.0 snai, 149, 342. snona, 145· 149 $fior, 388 snoy, 145 soy-, 376 $partt~$Cirtt, 143

sporttotar, 89, 143 stwer, 146 $Ukt, 145 $Uktanka, 145 tii-, 132., 140, 153· 2.2.2. tii,32.4

tai, 156 taniifi, 145 tiino, 145 tarkanoym, 159 taryiika, 107 tiis-, 132., 140, 153. 2.2.2. tasertt, 153 ta§i, 2.2.2. tatt-, 2.2.2. te, 32.4 tek-, 2.2.2. teks-, 2.2.2. tes-, 132, 140, 152, 2.2.2. toy, 32.4 tsiiro, 145 tsyiira, 162. walo, 144 warner, 146

was-, 152. wasa, 151 wasam, 151 wase, 157 wefia, 162. Wey$i, 159 wewefiu, 162. wi, 156 wsare, 151 WSa$$Cil'fl, 161 wsiista, 151 wsiiwa, 151 W$1ya, 161 W$iyau, 161 yai, 159 yaicer, 159 yaika, 162. yaim, 159 yait, 159 yakwe, 157 yam~$a,

160 160 yam~$ate, 160 yam~$i, 160 yam~$itar, 160 yam~$are,

yasa,388 yasar, 146 yertt, 159 yente, 143 yey, 159 yeycer, 159 yeyem, 159 yeyertt, 159 y$iye, 143 ytiirye, 146 Hittite

ii(i)-, 383 a-, 41 ais, 367 ais-, 368 iik-, 373. 375

Index

530

akk-, 373, 375 alpa-, 367 alpa-, 37 ammuk, 369, 372 aniya-, 365, 366, 368 ans-, 32, 378

apa-, 41

app-, 378 appa-, 378 appi-, 378 ar-, 366, 368, 375, 383 ar-, 366, 375 arai-, 368, 378 ari-, 378 ark-, 365, 375, 377, 383 ark-, 368, 375, 377, 383 arki-, 365, 366, 368 arnu-, 368 arr-, 373, 375 arr-, 373, 375 arra-, 366 arta, 365, 368 aru-, 368 au-, 373, 375 d-, 377

da-, 377, 389 dahhi,94 dai-, 373, 379, 380 dai, 385 dai-, 389 dakk-, 377 dakk-,377 dukk-ari, 383 dukkari, 384 ekku-, 48 epp-,378 epzi, 213, 301 eS-, 383 esa(n), 384 dhar, 146 dmi,94 ha-, 368

ha-ik-ta, 367 ha-in-kan-ta, 367 halai-, 378, 379 halhaltumar, 365 hali-, 378, 379 halihla-, 379 halihli-, 379 halije!a-, 379 haliya-, 365, 368 haliya-, 366 hallanna!i-, 368 halzai-, 378 halzai-, 383 halzi-, 378, 383 halzija, 383 halzija-, 383 hamank-, 373, 378 hame!ink-, 373, 378 han-, 375 han-, 375 hann-, 379 hanna-, 365, 368, 379 happ-, 383 happar, 365 happar, 366, 368 happar-, 368 hap(pa)rae-, 368 hap(pa)rie-, 368 happariye-, 368 happena-, 366 happeriya-, 366 happinahhahhi, 98, 382

happinant-, 365 hapus-, 365 hapusa-, 368 hapzi,366 haran-, 365 haran-, 366, 368 haraf, 366 harg(a)nau, 365 harg(a)nau-, 368

hari-, 366 hariya-, 366 hark-, 365, 368 harnau-, 368 harp-, 365, 368, 383 harr-, 375 harra-, 32, 375 harf-, 378 hartu-, 368 has-, 376 haSduer, 366 hasduer-, 368 hasS-, 376 haStai, 365, 366 hastai-, 368 hat-, 376 hat-, 376 hatk-, so, 376 hatt-, 383 hawi-, 365 hawi-, 366, 368 hekur, 367 henk-, 367 huett-, 383 huetti-, 383 hui-, 378 hulana-, 47 huliya-, 47 humant-, 42 hupp-, 376 hurt-, 376 huwai-, 378 huwapp-, 376 huwart-, 376 ishai-, 378, 380 ishamai-, 378 ishami-, 378 ishi-, 378, 380 ishui-, 378 ishuwai-, 378 iskall-, 376 iskalla-, 376

Index

iskar-, 377 iskar-, 377 ispai-, 378 ispant-, 377 ispiint-, 377 ispar-, 376 ispiir-, 376 isparr-, 376 isparra-, 376 ispi-, 378 iStap-, 373, 377 istapp-, 373, 377 istu-ari, 383 istuari, 384 kii-, 41 kalank-, 378 kank-, 377 kiink-, 377 kariip-, 377 kare!ip-, 377 karp-, 383 ki-, 383 kikkiS-, 383 kiS-, 38, 363, 383 kzs-, 383 kiSt-ari, 383 kitta(ri), 115, 384 kiyanta(ri), 115 l-, 376 lii-, 376 lag-iiri, 383 lahu-, 377, 379 liihu-, 377, 379 lak-, 377 liik-, 377 liiman, 368, 388 lilahu-, 379 lilhui-, 373, 379 lilhuwa-, 373, 379 lukezzi, 93 lukk-, 383 mai-, 378

531

mald-, 376 mald-, 376 malk-, 376 miilk-, 376 mall-, 376 malla-, 32, 376 mark-, 377 mark-, 377 mau-, 376 maz-, 378 merna-, 373, 379 memi-, 373, 379 mi-, 378 mi-ari, 383 mimm-, 379 mimma-, 379 mu-, 376 nah-,376 nahh-, 376 nai-, 376 ne-, 383 newahhi, 93 ni-, 376 padd-, 376 padda-, 376 pahS-, 378, 383 pai-, 373, 378 piii, 385 piiimi, 94 papra-, 379 papre-, 98 papri-, 379 par-, 376 para-, 376 parai-, 379 pari-, 379 parip(p)ara-, 379 parip(p)ari-, 379 park-, 383 pars-, 383 parlha(ri), 383 parsi-, 383

par5ija, 383 parlija-, 383 parlzi, 383 pa5-, 378, 379 pas-, 378, 379 pa5k-, 376 pask-, 376 pattai-, 379 patti-, 379 ped-, 377 peda-, 377 penna-, 377 penni-, 377 pi-, 373> 378 pihhi, 94 pipp-, 379 pippa-, 379 pukk-,383 sah-, 376 sai-, 32, 379 sakk-, 376 sakk-, 376 salik-, 383 sann-, 378 sanna-, 378 sar-, 383 sariip-, 377 sare!ip-, 377 sarr-, 377 sa"-· 377 sart-, 377 sarta-, 377 sehur, 367 si-, 379 siSh-, 380 siSha-, 380 siSzi, 98 suhh-,377 suhha-, 377 sunn-, 378 sunna-, 378 supp-,383

Index

532

ta, 44 tiiiSta-, 380 tiiiSti-, 380 tarai-, 379 tari-, 379 tarn-, 373, 378 tarna-, 373, 378 tarniii, 385 tarupp-, 383 ter-, 49 ti-, 373. 379. 380 tith-a, 383 titta-, 380 titti-, 380 tuhS-, 383 tuk, 372 u-, 373,375 ud-, 377 uda-, 377 uk, 372 unna-, 377 unni-, 377 ur-iiri, 383 wai-, 377, 380 wiik-, 377 wakk-, 377 wakk-iiri, 383 war5-, 378, 383 was-, 378 wa5sezzi, 9 3 waft-,377 wa5ta-, 377 weh-, 383 wekk-, 379 wds-, 383 weten-, 388 wewakk-, 379 wi-, 377, 380 wiwa-, 380 wiwi-, 380 ziih-, 377 zahh-, 377

zai-, 379 ze-, 383 zi-, 379 zik, 372 Pal.aic kltar, 384

Luwian karf-, 38, 363 kattawatnalli-, 38, 363 kiS-, 38, 363, 383 pappas-,38 Lycian epirije-, 368 kbatra, 347 Finnish aja-, 38, 389 han, 398, 416

hepo, 181 kakra, 180 kaly, 390 laulavat, 397 miekka, 189 mya-, 388 myy-, 388 niehla, 189 nimi, 388 nito-, 387 pala-n, 129 suoni, 388 talo, 129 taloi-, 41, 129 talot, 41,129 teke-, 179, 389 tuo-, 179, 377, 389 vaski, 388 vesi, 388 veta-, 38, 389 vie-, 38, 389 vihlata, 302, 307 viikko, 172, 185

Estonian moske-, 38, 389 Lappish/Saami duoke-, 179 puolam, 129 Mordvin Tern, 388 mije-, 388 muJke-, 389 muJko-, 389 san, 388 t'eje-, 389 tije-, 389 tuje-, 389 uJke,388 vaaa-, 389 vat'e-, 389 vee(, 388 ved'a-, 389 vet'a-, 389 vije-, 389 viSka, 388 vit'i-, 389 Votyak!Udmurt m_iSk-, 389 nim, 388 S§n, 388 vaj-, 389 ve§, 388 vu, 388 Ziryene/Komi kundj-, 389 voj-, 389 Hwtgarian hany-, 389 {n, 388 karja, 96 karod, 96 karom, 96

Index

mos-, 389 nev, 388 tesz-, 389 te(v)-, 389 toj-, 377 varni, 96 varod, 96 varok, 34> 96 varo-k, 97 varom, 34, 96, 97 vartal, 96 vas,388 vesz-, 389 ve(v)-, 389 vezet-, 389 visz-, 389 vi(v)-, 389 vfz, 388 Vogul/Mansi kon-, 389 ma(J)-, 388 maj-, 388 mi-, 378, 388 wojt-, 389 wujt-, 389 Ostyak/Hanty kjtJ-, 389 nem, 388 tu-, 389 Yurak/Nenets adm, 103 madii,97 madiida, 97 madiidm, 96, 97 mada-i-n, 12.9 madiin, 96 madiiu, 96,97 tii-, 389 Tavgi/Nganasan basa, 388

533

beda-, 388 be?, 388 nim, 388 tar.Ja, 388 Yenisei!Enets mife-, 388 mota, 97 motadd-o, 96 motara, 97 motaro', 97 musua-, 389 Selkup noa-k, 97 noal, 96 noand,96 noap,97 noed,97 noe-k, 97 Gilyak/Nivkh cfax, 407 ci, 406 tin, 406 csad; 407 CYIJ, 406 fid; 408, 423 h-, 407

i, 406,407 ibax, 407 iaad; 407 if, 406,407 im1J, 406 imy, 406 in, 406 ifn, 406 iv-, 407 iVIJ, 406 iyd; 405 j-, 407

jar.J, 406 k'u-, 405

me-, 406 mege, 406 megi, 406 memak,4o6 men, 407 me1J,406 mer, 406 mefn, 406 min, 406 mir, 406 mifn, 406 ni, 406 nin, 406 nivx,4os nvax,407 riytj,406,407 flytJbax, 407 flytJtfatf, 407 nzatf, 407 ozmud; 408 p'ezmutf, 408 p'i-, 407 p'i1J, 408, 423 p'sad; 407

pax,4o7 ra, 408 raxyla, 408 t-, 407 zad; 407 Turkish beg, 58 Mongolian ci, 416,424 ese, 417, 427 ta, 416, 424 Japanese hanasanai, n hanase, 11 hanasi, 11 hanasoo, 11

Index

534

hanasu, n hasi, 344 ni, 417,426 no, 417,426 Georgian c~al-i, 102 c~al-ma, 102

lam-s, 101 deda-s, 102 duy-s, 102 gaepara, 375 gaeparat, 375 iduy-a, 102 is, 102 it'ir-a, 102 man, 102 modi-s, 101 mosul-a, 101 movid-a, 101 selam-a, 101 seulami-a, 101 svil-i, 102 t'i ri-s, 10 2 txa-m, 101 txa-s, 101 uq'var-s, 102 vamzadeb, 103, 384 vemzadebi, 103, 384 venax-i, 101 venax-s, 101 vimzadeb, 103, 384 Kabardian siile-m, 94 siile-r, 94 txaA.~m, 94 txaA.~r, 94

Avar tiis:a, 14 xcis:ab, 14

xasel, 14

Akkadian ~arapu,

33

Hebrew ~arap,33

Arabic

farasu, 92 farasun, 92 Maltese missier, 348

Berber a:?arif, 32 a:?ref, 32 Basque

aihen, 32 ayen, 32 zillar,32 BellaCoola

txt, 10 Heiltsuk

qqs, 10